Scholia Vetera in Sophoclis Electram (Walter de Gruyter: Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 12) (English, Greek and Latin Edition)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker (SGLG) Herausgegeben von Klau...

Author: Georgios A. Xenis

123 downloads 382 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker (SGLG) Herausgegeben von

Klaus Alpers · Ian C. Cunningham

Band 12

De Gruyter

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram edited by

Georgios A. Xenis

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-022700-0 e-ISBN 978-3-11-022701-7 ISSN 1862-2372 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram / edited by Georgios A. Xenis. p. cm. ⫺ (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, ISSN 1862-2372 ; v. 12) Text in Greek; introduction in English. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-022700-0 (acid-free paper) 1. Sophocles. Electra. 2. Sophocles ⫺ Scholia. I. Xenis, Georgios A. PA4413.E5S36 2010 8821.01⫺dc22 2010004422

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. 쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Satz: Katharina Fischer, Berlin Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

In grateful memory of my parents Andreas I. Xenis 1924–1999 Paraskevi Ch. Xeni 1937–1979

Acknowledgements This book had its origin in a Greek doctoral thesis which was submitted to the Department of Classics and Philosophy at the University of Cyprus in the summer of 2001. It had been my intention to publish an English translation of the work soon afterwards, but my appointment to a lectureship the following year brought along the necessity of giving priority to teaching and other research commitments. Nine years have elapsed since that time and, besides translating the thesis, it has now been essential to revise it prior to publication, for, in some instances, I have had second thoughts, and in others I should address a number of issues that have meanwhile come to light. Moreover, the book has needed to include references to recent work on Ancient Greek scholarship. I was really very fortunate in my supervisor, Professor Ioannis Taifacos. By constantly encouraging independent thinking and emphasising the importance of personal responsibility in the area of academic research, not only did he make my PhD project a challenging and delightful task, but more importantly he influenced my personality in much more far-reaching ways; I owe him a vast debt. I gratefully acknowledge the generous assistance of Professor Georgios Christodoulou who first pointed me in the direction of the Sophoclean scholia and gave me the benefit of his professional expertise in this field in the early stages of my research. He put me further in his debt by answering my e-mail queries on particular passages in a thought-provoking way, when the book was in the final stage. I gladly offer my profound thanks to the γραμματικώτατοι editors of the Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, Professor Klaus Alpers and Mr Ian Cunningham, for including my work in this respectable series and for helping me greatly with their invaluable comments and vast erudition. Moreover, Professor Alpers’ elegant Latinity saved me from occasional infelicities of style, while Mr Cunningham kindly offered improvements to my English. My former Professors at the University of Oxford, Mr Nigel Wilson, FBA, and Dr Dirk Obbink, read the final version of my manuscript with approving comment. For this, and especially for their supporting attitude over so many years, they have earned my sincere gratitude. I am deeply indebted to the Foundation of State Scholarships of Greece, which provided generous funding both for my undergraduate and

VIII

Acknowledgements

graduate studies, and to the University of Cyprus whose repeated research grants made possible the in situ investigation of manuscripts in numerous places: Oxford, Madrid, Paris, Leiden, Florence, and Venice. I also thank the A. G. Leventis Foundation for awarding me a grant for the purchase of microfilms of manuscripts and early printed editions. A word of gratitude should go to Dr Eirene Pougounia and Ms Stephanie Roussou for help with word-processing, preparation of the indices and proof-reading, and to the Director of the Hellenic Institute in Venice, Professor Chrysa Maltezou, for her kindness to offer me accommodation in the Institute during my research stay in Venice. Finally, I extend heartfelt thanks to the team at Walter de Gruyter, Ms Katharina Fischer for her careful engagement with my manuscript, and especially to Dr Sabine Vogt who oversaw the whole process of the production of the book with great efficiency; moreover, her support and kindness are greatly appreciated. University of Cyprus, Nicosia July 2010

Georgios A. Xenis

Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................... VII Abbreviations and Bibliography....................................................1 Abbreviations used in Introduction ......................................................... 1 Works cited in Introduction..................................................................... 1 Conspectus scriptorum veterum qui per compendium notantur .............. 4 Conspectus editionum et commentationum quae per compendium notantur ................................................................... 7 Conspectus siglorum ............................................................................. 11

Introduction .................................................................................13 1 Editing Scholia: Methodological considerations and the scope of the present edition .................................................. 15 2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition ................. 23 2.1 Description of the selected manuscripts and characteristics of their text ....................................................... 23 L ſ ........................................................................................ 26 N F O Wa Pa......................................................................... 29 Lp.......................................................................................... 33 K ........................................................................................... 34 H Ÿ ........................................................................................ 37 V ........................................................................................... 40 G M R ................................................................................... 41 2.2 Affiliations of the selected manuscripts ................................... 48 The Laurentian version ......................................................... 48 The Roman version............................................................... 62 Contaminated manuscripts.................................................... 69 Stemma of the direct tradition............................................... 75 3 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the indirect tradition............. 76 The Suda ............................................................................... 76 Hesychius.............................................................................. 80

X

Contents

4 Previous editions............................................................................... 82 4.1 Lascaris .................................................................................... 82 4.2 Juntine...................................................................................... 88 4.3 Estienne.................................................................................... 89 4.4 Brunck ..................................................................................... 90 4.5 Elmsley .................................................................................... 91 4.6 Jahn and Michaelis................................................................... 92 4.7 Papageorgiou ........................................................................... 95 4.8 More recent work..................................................................... 97 5 The present edition ........................................................................... 97

Textus criticus............................................................................101 Indices........................................................................................271 Scriptores in scholiis citati .................................................................. 273 Verba de quibus scholia agunt............................................................. 274 Grammatica ......................................................................................... 277 Rhetorica ............................................................................................. 278 Scaenica, ars tragica, histriones........................................................... 279

Abbreviations and Bibliography Abbreviations used in Introduction RgK 1

Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. 1. Teil: Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens, erstellt von E. Gamillscheg, D. Harlfinger, H. Hunger, Wien 1981.

RgK 2

Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. 2. Teil: Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Frankreichs und Nachträge zu den Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens, erstellt von E. Gamillscheg, D. Harlfinger, H. Hunger, Wien 1989.

RgK 3

Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. 3. Teil: Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Roms mit dem Vatikan, erstellt von E. Gamillscheg unter Mitarbeit von D. Halfinger und P. Eleuteri, Wien 1997.

Works cited in Introduction Aubreton R. 1949, Démétrius Triclinius et les recensions médiévales de Sophocle, Paris. Baldi D. 2007, ‘Sulla storia di alcuni codici italogreci della Biblioteca Laurenziana’, Νέα Ῥώμη 4, 357–81. Bandini A. M. 1768, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae, tom. II, Florentiae (reprinted by F. Kudlien, Leipzig 1961). Benedetti F. 1967, ‘Nuovi scolii all’Elettra Sofoclea’, Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’ Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini n.s. 15, 137–43. Bevilacqua F. 1973–4, ‘Il commento di Giovanni Tzetzes a Sofocle’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Perugia 11, 559–70. Christodoulou G. 1977, Τὰ ἀρχαῖα σχόλια εἰς Αἴαντα τοῦ Σοφοκλέους. Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις, ἐν Ἀθήναις. — 1986, ‘Ὁ Ἀδαμάντιος Κοραῆς ὡς διορθωτὴς τῶν κλασσικῶν κειμένων. Τὸ χειρόγραφο Χίου 490’, Σύμμικτα Κριτικά, Ἀθήνα, 237–55 Dain A. 1989, Sophocle, tom. I, texte établi par A. Dain et traduit par P. Mazon, Paris. Dawe R. 1973, Studies on the text of Sophocles, vol. I: The Manuscripts and the Text, Leiden. De Andrés G. 1987, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid. De Marco V. 1936, ‘Sulla tradizione manoscritta degli scolii sofoclei’ SIFC n.s. 13, 3– 44.

2

Abbreviations and Bibliography

— 1937, ‘De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias veteribus’, Atti della Reale Accademia

Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storichi, e filologiche, ser. VI, 6, 105–229.

— 1951, ‘Gli scolii all’ Edipo a Colono di Sofocle e la loro tradizione manoscritta’, Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti Napoli, n. s. 26, 1–43. — 1952, Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum Coloneum, Romae. De Meyier K. A. 1955, Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis. Codices manuscripti IV: Codices Vossiani graeci et Miscellanei, Lugduni Batavorum. — 1965, Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis. Codices manuscripti VIII: Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graeci. Descripsit K. A. De Meyier adiuvante E. Hulshoff Pol, Lugduni Batavorum. Diller A. 1974, ‘The age of some early Greek classical Manuscripts’, Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek literature and palaeography in honor of Alexander Turyn , ed. by L. Heller with the assistance of J. Newman, Urbana, 514–24. Dindorf G. 1852, Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem ex codicibus aucta et emendata, vol. II, Oxonii. Eleuteri P. 1993, I manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma, Milano. Finglass P. 2009, ‘Unpublished Conjectures at Leiden on the Greek Dramatists’, GRBS 49, 187–221. Franchi de’ Cavalieri P. 1927, Codices graeci Chisiani et Borgiani, Romae. Havekoss J. 1960, Untersuchungen zu den Sophokles-Scholien. Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Facultät der Universität Hamburg. Herington C. J. 1972, The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound, Lugduni Batavorum. Irigoin J. 1951, ‘Le palimpseste de Sophocle’, RÉG 64, 443–55. — 1977-8, ‘Philologie grecque’, AEHE (IVe sect.) 110e année, 311–27. Janz T. 2004, The Scholia to Sophocles’ Philoctetes. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, Faculty of Classics. Lloyd-Jones Η. – Wilson Ν. 1990, Sophoclis Fabulae, Oxonii. Martini Aem. – Bassi D. 1906, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, tom. I, Mediolani. Matthiessen K. 1969, ‘Manuscript Problems in Euripides’ Hecuba’, GRBS 10, 293– 305. McNamee K. 2007, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt (American Studies in Papyrology 45). Mioni. E. 1985, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum, Vol. II: Thesaurus antiquus. Codices 300 – 625, Roma. Olivier J.-M. 1995, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard, 3ème éd., Βrepols-Turnhout. Omont H. 1888, Inventaire sommaire des manuscripts grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 3e partie: Ancien fonds grec, Belles Lettres – Coislin – Supplément, Paris. Papageorgiou P. 1881, Kritische und Paläographische Beiträge zu den alten SophoklesScholien, Leipzig.

Works cited in Introduction

3

— 1883, ‘Codex Laurentianus von Sophokles und eine neue Kollation im Scholientexte’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplementband 13, Leipzig, 403–40. — 1888, Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera, Lipsiae. Pauli O. 1880, ‘Quaestiones criticae de scholiorum laurentianorum usu’, Jahresbericht über das Archigymnasium zu Soest. Peppink S. 1934a, ‘Ad Sophoclem eiusque Scholiastam’, Mnemosyne, ser. IIIa. 1, 67– 78. — 1934b, ‘De Sophoclis codice Vaticano 1332’, Mnemosyne, ser. IIIa. 1, 155–9. Rostagno Ε. – Festa N. 1893, ‘Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non compressi nel catalogo del Bandini’, SIFC 1. Samberger C. 1965, Catalogi codicum graecorum qui in minoribus bibliothecis italicis asseverantur in duo volumina collati et novissimis additamentis aucti, vol. primum accuravit C. Samberger indicem adiecit D. Raffin, Lipsiae. Scattolin P. 2003, ‘Su alcuni codici degli scoli all’Elettra di Sofocle’ in Il dramma sofocleo. Testo, lingua, interpretazione, Atti del Seminario Internazionale,Verona 24–26 gennaio 2002, a cura di G. Avezzù, Stuttgart, 307–19. Schneider P. 1988, Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 867–932, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Thompson E. – Jebb R. 1885, Facsimile of the Laurentian Manuscript of Sophocles, London. Turolla E. 1934, ‘Note agli scolî Laurenziani di Sofocle’, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, 93.2 (1933-4) 1325–74. Turyn A. 1944, ‘The manuscripts of Sophocles’, Traditio 2, 1–41. — 1949, ‘The Sophocles recension of Manuel Moschopulus’, TAPhA 80, 94–173. — 1952, Studies in the manuscript tradition of the tragedies of Sophocles, Urbana. — 1957, The Byzantine manuscript tradition of the tragedies of Euripides, Urbana. — 1972, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in the Libraries of Italy, vol. Ι–II, Urbana-Chicago-London. Vogel M. – Gardthausen V. 1909, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Leipzig. West M. 1973, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique, Stuttgart. Wilson N. 1977, ‘A note on two manuscripts of Sophocles’, JHS 97, 168–9. — 1980, ‘Τὰ ἀρχαῖα σχόλια εἰς Αἴαντα τοῦ Σοφοκλέους. Ἔκδ. Γ. Ἀ. Χριστοδούλου’ (review), JHS 100, 219. — 1983, ‘A mysterious Byzantine scriptorium. Ioannikios and his colleagues’, S & C 7, 161–76. — 1996, Scholars of Byzantium, rev. ed., Baltimore. — 2007, ‘Scholiasts and Commentators’, GRBS 47, 39–70. Wolff G. 1843, De Sophoclis scholiorum laurentianorum variis lectionibus, Lipsiae. Xenis G. 2010, Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Trachinias, SGLG 13, Berlin-New York.

4

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Conspectus scriptorum veterum qui per compendium notantur Ael. D. AG … Bk. Apollon. Dysc. Apollon. S. [Arcad.] Aristar. Ar. Byz.

EM Et. Gen.

Eust. Il. Eust. Od. Harp. Hdn. Hdn. καθ. προσ. Hdn. κλ. ὀν. Hdn. μον.

1

‘Αἰλίου ∆ιονυσίου Ἁλικαρνασσέως Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων λόγοι πέντε’, ed. H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexica, Berlin 1950, 95–151. I. Bekkeri, Anecdota Graeca, vol. I–III, Berolini 1814-21. Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt, recensuerunt R. Schneider et G. Uhlig, vol. I–III, Lipsiae 1878-1910 (Grammatici Graeci II). Apollonii Sophistae Lexicon Homericum, rec. I. Bekker, Berolini 1833. Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς καθολικῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ, ed. M. Schmidt, Ienae 1860. S. Matthaios, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre, Göttingen 1999. Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta, post A. Nauck collegit, testimoniis ornavit, brevi commentario instruxit W. Slater, SGLG 6, Berlin-New York 1986. Reliqua apud M.E. Miller, Mélanges de littérature grecque, Paris 1868, 427–34 (= 273–80 LGM). Etymologicum Magnum, ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxonii 1848. Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum, Symeonis Etymologicum una cum Magna Grammatica, Etymologicum Magnum Auctum, vol. I (α – ἁμωσγέπως), synoptice ediderunt F. Lasserre et N. Livadaras, Romae 1976; vol. II (ἀνά – βώτορες), Αthenis 1992. Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ad fidem codicis laurentiani ed. M. van der Valk, vol. I–IV, Lugduni Batavorum 1971-87. Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, ed. G. Stallbaum, vol. I–II, Lipsiae 1825-6. Harpocrationis, Lexicon in decem oratores Atticos, ex recensione G. Dindorfii, tom. I, Oxonii 1853.1 Herodiani Technici Reliquiae, ed. A. Lentz, vol. I–II, Lipsiae 1867-70 (Grammatici Graeci III). Ἐκ τῶν Ἡρωδιανοῦ Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας, ibid. I, p. 1– 547. Ἐκ τῶν Ἡρωδιανοῦ Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων, ibid. II, p. 634– 777. Ἐκ τῶν Ἡρωδιανοῦ Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως, ibid. II, p. 908– 52.

For the edition by J.J. Keaney, Amsterdam 1991, see R. Otranto, QS 19 (luglio– dicembre 1993), 225–31 and W. Slater, BMCRev 94.06.07.

Conspectus scriptorum veterum qui per compendium notantur

Hesych.

Lesb.

Moer. Or. Paus. att. Phot.

Phryn. Phryn. PS Σ

Σb

Sch. Aesch.

Sch. Aesch. Pers. Sch. Aesch. Pr. Sch. Aeschin. Sch. Ap. Rh. Sch. Arat. Sch. Aristid.

5

Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. I–II [Α–O], recensuit et emendavit K. Latte, Hauniae 1953-66; vol. III [Π–Σ], editionem post K. Latte continuans rec. et emend. P. Allan Hansen, SGLG 11/3, Berlin-New York 2005; vol. IV [Τ–Ω], rec. et emend. P. Allan Hansen et I.C. Cunningham, SGLG 11/4, Berlin-New York 2009. Lesbonax, Περὶ σχημάτων, edited with an Introduction by D. L. Blank, in I frammenti dei grammatici Agathokles, Hellanikos, Ptolemaios Epithetes, Lesbonax Περὶ Σχημάτων, The Fragments of Comanus of Naucratis, SGLG 7, Berlin-New York 1988, 129–216. Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris, Quellenkritische Untersuchung und Edition, hrsg. von D.U. Hansen, SGLG 9, Berlin-New York 1998. Orionis Thebani, Etymologicum, ed. F. Sturz, Lipsiae 1820. ‘Παυσανίου Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων συναγωγή’, ed. H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexica, Berlin 1950, 152– 221. Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, vol. I–II [Α–M], ed. Chr. Theodorides, Berlin-New York 1982-98; reliqua in Φωτίου τοῦ Πατριάρχου Λέξεων Συναγωγή, e codice Galeano descripsit R. Porsonus, Partes I–II, Londini 1822. Phrynichi Ecloga, ed. E. Fischer (Die Ekloge des Phrynichos), Berlin 1974. Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio Sophistica, ed. I. de Borries, Lipsiae 1911. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, Versio antiqua; in Synagoge, Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B, edited by I. C. Cunningham, SGLG 10, Berlin-New York 2003, pp. 71–523.

Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων ἐκ διαφόρων σοφῶν τε καὶ ῥητόρων πολλῶν, Versio codicis B; in Synagoge, Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων, Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B, edited by I. C. Cunningham, SGLG 10, Berlin-New York 2003, pp. 525–701. Scholia Graeca in Aeschylum quae exstant omnia, ed. Ole L. Smith, pars I (scholia in Agamemnonen, Choephoros, Eumenides, Supplices continens), editio correctior editionis primae (1976), Lipsiae 1993; pars II fasc. 2 (scholia in Septem adversus Thebas continens), ib. 1982. Scholia in Persas in W. Dindorf (ed.), Aeschyli tragoediae superstites et deperditarum fragmenta, vol. 3, Oxonii 1851, 70– 92. The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound, ed. C. J. Herington, Leiden 1972. Scholia in Aeschinem, ed. Μ. Dilts, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 1992. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera, recensuit C. Wendel, Berolini 1935. Scholia in Aratum vetera, ed. J. Martin, Stutgardiae 1974. Scholia in Aelium Aristidem, ed. W. Dindorf, Leipzig 1829.

6 Sch. Ar. Ach.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses, ed. N. G. Wilson, Groningen 1975.

Sch. Ar. Av.

Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves, ed. D.

Sch. Ar. Eq.

Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites, ed. D. Mervyn Jones, et scholia tricliniana in Aristophanis Equites, ed. N. G. Wilson,

Holwerda, Groningen 1991. Groningen 1969. Sch. Ar. Lys.

Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam, ed. J. Hangard, Groningen

Sch. Ar. Pac.

Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem, ed. D.

1996. Holwerda, Groningen 1982. Sch. Ar. Plut.

Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum, ed. M. Chantry, Groningen 1994.

Sch. Ar. Ra.

Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Ranas, ed. M. Chantry, Groningen 1999.

Sch. Dem. Sch. Eur.

Scholia Demosthenica, ed. M. Dilts, vol. I–II, Lipsiae 1983-6. Scholia in Euripidem, ed. E. Schwarz, vol. I–II, Berolini 1887-

Sch. Hes. Op.

Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies, rec. A. Pertusi, Milano

91. 1955. Sch. Hom. Il.

Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, rec. H. Erbse, vol. I–V,

Sch. Hom. Od.

Scholia graeca in Odysseam, ed. F. Pontani, vol. I: scholia ad libros α–β, Roma 2007; reliqua in Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam ex codicibus aucta et emendata, ed. G. Dindorf, vol.

Sch. D. Hom. Il.

Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scriptos, ed. H.

Berolini 1969-77.

I–II, Oxonii 1855.

Sch. Luc. Sch. Opp. Hal. Sch. Pi. Sch. Soph. Sch. Ai. Sch. Tr. Sch. OC Sch. Theocr. Sch. Thuc.

van Thiel (Proecdosis 2000): http://www.uni-koeln.de/philfak/ifa/vanthiel/scholiaD.pdf Scholia in Lucianum, ed. H. Rabe, Lipsiae 1906. Scholia in Oppiani Halieutica, ed. U.C. Bussemaker, in Scholia in Theocritum, ed. F. Dübner, Parisiis 1849, 260–364. Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, ed. A.B. Drachmann, vol. I– III, Lipsiae 1903-27. Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera, ed. P.N. Papageorgius, Lipsiae 1888. G.A. Christodoulou, Τὰ ἀρχαῖα σχόλια εἰς Αἴαντα τοῦ Σοφοκλέους, Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1977. Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Trachinias, ed. G.A. Xenis, SGLG 13, Berlin-New York 2010. Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum Coloneum, ed. V. de Marco, Romae 1952. Scholia in Theocritum vetera, rec. C. Wendel, Lipsiae 1914. Scholia in Thucydidem, ed. C. Hude, Leipzig 1927.

Conspectus editionum et commentationum quae per compendium notantur

Steph. Byz.

Strab. Su. Thom. Mag. Ecl. Zonar.

7

Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, vol. I (Α–Γ), rec. germanice vertit adnotationibus indicibusque instruxit M. Billerbeck, Berolini et Novi Eboraci 2006; reliqua in Stephan von Byzanz, Ethnika, ex recensione A. Meinekii, Berlin 1849. Strabons Geographika, hrsg. von S. Radt, Bde 1–7, Göttingen 2002-8. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, vol. I–V, Lipsiae 1928-38. Thomae Magistri sive Theoduli Monachi, Ecloga Vocum Atticarum, ex recensione et cum prolegomenis F. Ritschelii, Halis Saxonum 1832. Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon, ed. I. A. H. Tittmann, vol. I–II, Lipsiae 1908.

Conspectus editionum et commentationum quae per compendium notantur BDR Bergk Bernardakis Blaydes Bothe Brunck1

F. Blass – A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch; Bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf, 14. völlig neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Göttingen 1976. Sophoclis tragoediae, ed. Theodorus Bergk, Lipsiae 1858. Γ. Βερναρδάκη, ‘Περὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τοῦ Σοφοκλέους σχολίων’, Φιλολογικὸς Σύλλογος ΄Παρνασσός΄ Ἐπετηρίς, β΄ ἔτος, 1898, 19–70. The Electra of Sophocles, critically revised, with the aid of mss. newly collated, and explained, by F. H. M. Blaydes, LondonEdinburgh 1873. Sophoclis Electra, ed. F. H. Bothe in usum scholarum, Lipsiae 1826.

Sophoclis quae extant omnia cum veterum grammaticorum scholiis. Superstites tragoedias VII ad optimorum exemplarium fidem recensuit, versione et notis illustravit, deperditarum fragmenta collegit R. F. P. Brunck, vol. I (continens Oedipos duos, Antigonam et Trachinias) – vol. II (continens Ajacem, Philoctetam et Electram), Argentorati 1786.

Brunck2 de Marco Dindorf Dindorf2

Sophoclis tragoediae septem cum scholiis veteribus, versione Latina et notis. Accedunt deperditorum dramatum fragmenta. Ex editione R.F.Ph. Brunck, Argentorati 1788. V. de Marco, ‘De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias veteribus’, Memorie della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ser. VI, 6 (1937) 105–229.

Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem ex codicibus aucta et emendata, vol. II, ed. G. Dindorfius, Oxonii 1852. Ad Sophoclis tragoedias annotationes Gulielmi Dindorfii, Oxonii 1836.

8 Ellendt

Elmsley Erfurdt Heath Heimreich Hense Hermann

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Lexicon Sophocleum adhibitis veterum interpretum explicationibus, grammaticorum notationibus, recentiorum doctorum commentariis, composuit F. Ellendt, vol. I–II, Regimontii Prussorum 1835. P. Elmsley, Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem, Oxonii 1825. Sophoclis Electra. Emendavit, varietam lectionis, scholia notasque tum aliorum tum suas adiecit C. G. A. Erfurdt, Lipsiae 1803.

Notae sive lectiones ad tragicorum graecorum veterum Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis quae supersunt dramata deperditorumque reliquias, auctore B. Heath, Oxonii 1762. Chr. Heimreich, Kritische Beiträge zur Würdigung der alten Sophokles-Scholien, Ploen 1884. O. Hense, Studien zu Sophokles, Leipzig 1880. Sophoclis Electra, ad optimorum librorum fidem recensuit et brevibus notis instruxit G. Hermannus, editio tertia (editio altera denuo typis exscripta), Lipsiae 1864.

Iuntina

Jahn1 Jahn2 Jahn3 Jannaris Janz Jebb KG

Kruytbosch Lascaris

Σοφοκλέους τραγωδίαι (sic) ἑπτὰ μετὰ σχολίων παλαιῶν καὶ πάνυ ὀφελίμων (sic). Sophoclis tragoediae septem cum interpretationibus vetustis et valde utilibus, ed. Antonius Francinus Varchiensis, Florentiae, per haeredes Philippi Iuntae, 1522. Sophoclis Electra, in usum scholarum ed. O. Jahn, Bonnae 1861. Sophoclis Electra, in usum scholarum ed. O. Jahn, editio altera curata ab A. Michaelis, Bonnae 1872. Sophoclis Electra, in usum scholarum ed. O. Jahn, editio tertia curata ab A. Michaelis, Bonnae 1882. An Historical Greek Grammar, by A. N. Jannaris, London 1897. The Scholia to Sophocles’ Philoctetes. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford by T. Janz, 2004. E. Thompson – R. Jebb, Facsimile of the Laurentian Manuscript of Sophocles, London 1885, 12–23. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache von R. Kühner; Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Dritte Auflage in zwei Bänden in neuer bearbeitung besorgt von B. Gerth, Hannover und Leipzig 1898-1904. Annotationes ad scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem, scripsit B. Kruytbosch, Lugduni Batavorum 1882. Commentarii in septem tragedias (sic) Sophoclis quae ex aliis

eius compluribus iniuria temporum amissis, solae superfuerunt.

LSJ

Opus exactissimum rarissimumque in Gymnasio Mediceo Caballini montis a Leone Decimo Pont. Max. constituto recognitum repurgatumque atque ad communem studiosorum utilitatem in plurima exemplaria editum non sine privilegio ut in caeteris. Σχόλια τῶν πάνυ δοκίμων εἰς τὰς σωζομένας (sic) τῶν Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδιῶν, Romae 1518. A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir H. S. Jones with the assistance of R. McKenzie and with the co-operation of many

Conspectus editionum et commentationum quae per compendium notantur

9

scholars. 9th ed., Oxford 1940. With a Revised Supplement edited by P.G.W. Glare with the assistance of A.A. Thompson, Oxford 1996. Ludwich I Meiser

Ménage

Nauck Neue Nünlist Papageorgiou Papageorgiou2

Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten des Didymos, dargestellt und beurtheilt von A. Ludwich, erster Theil, Leipzig 1884. K. Meiser, ‘Kritische Beiträge’, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft, Wilhelm von Christ zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, dargebracht von seinen Schülern, München 1891, 5–14.

Ιn Diogenem Laertium Aegidii Menagii observationes & emendationes, hac editione plurimum auctae. Quibus subjungitur Historia Mulierum Philosopharum eodem Menagio scriptore. Accedunt a) Joachimi Kühnii in Diogenem Laertium observationes ut & b) Variantes Lectiones ex duobus codicibus mss, Cantabrigiensi & Arundeliano, cum editione Aldobrandiniana collatis, quas nobiscum communicavit Vir Celeberr. Th. Gale. c) Epistolae & Praefationes, variis Diogenis Laertii editionibus hactenus praefixae. d) Indices auctorum, rerum & verborum locupletissimi. Amstelaedami 1692. A. Nauck, ‘De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias a P. N. Papageorgio editis’, Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg n. s. 1 (1890), 411–41. Sophoclis tragoediae, recognovit ac brevi annotatione scholarum in usum instruxit F. Nevius, Lipsiae 1831. R. Nünlist, The ancient critic at work: Terms and concepts of literary criticism in Greek scholia, Cambridge 2009. Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera, e codice laurentiano denuo collato edidit commentario critico instruxit indices adiecit P. N. Papageorgius, Lipsiae 1888.

Σοφοκλέους δράματα τὰ σῳζόμενα καὶ τῶν ἀπολωλότων τὰ ἀποσπάσματα, ἐξ ἑρμηνείας καὶ διορθώσεως Π. Νικ. Παπαγεωργίου. Τόμος πρῶτος: Ἠλέκτρα, Ἀθήνησιν 1910.

Papageorgiou3

Kritische und paläographische Beiträge zu den alten SophoklesScholien, von P. N. Pappageorg, Leipzig 1881.

Pauli

O. Pauli, ‘Quaestiones criticae de scholiorum laurentianorum usu’, Jahresbericht über das Archigymnasium zu Soest (1880) 3– 25. J.J. Reiske, Animadversiones ad Sophoclem, Lipsiae 1753. ‘Die Notation der alexandrinischen Philologen bei den griechischen Dramatikern’, von A. Roemer, Abh. bayer. Ak. Phil.-hist. Kl. 19 (1892), 627-82. A. Roemer, ‘Zur Würdigung und Kritik der Tragikerscholien’, Philologus 65 (1906) 24–90. W.G. Rutherford, A Chapter in the History of Annotation, being Scholia Aristophanica, vol. III, London 1905. Unpublished autograph marginalia by J. Scaliger jotted in a copy of H. Stephanus’ edition of Sophocles (1568); the copy is held in the Library of Leiden University under the shelfmark 756 D 25.

Reiske Roemer Roemer2 Rutherford Scaliger

10 Schneider Schneider R. SD

Abbreviations and Bibliography

I.G. Schneider, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, vol. I–II, Leipzig 1819. ‘Tractatus de Apollonii consuetudine’, Grammatici Graeci II.3, Lipsiae 1910, 141–61. Griechische Grammatik, von E. Schwyzer, 2. Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, vervollständigt und herausgegeben von A. Debrunner, München 1950.

Trendelenburg

Σοφοκλέους αἱ ἑπτὰ τραγῳδίαι. Sophoclis tragoediae septem una cum omnibus Graecis scholiis & cum Latinis Ioach. Camerarii. Annotationes Henrici Stephani in Sophoclem & Euripidem seorsum excusae, simul prodeunt, 1568. Grammaticorum graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum reliquiae,

Valckenaer

Observationes in Sophoclem: unpublished autograph manuscript

Stephanus

composuit A. Trendelenburg, Bonnae 1867.

Valckenaer2

Wansink Wecklein Wolff Wunder Wunder2 Xenis CQ Zakas Zielinski

by L. Valckenaer held in the Library of Leiden University under the shelfmark BPL 384. Unpublished autograph marginalia by L. Valckenaer jotted in a copy of a printed edition of Sophocles (Cambridge 1669); the copy is preserved in the Library of Leiden University under the shelfmark 755 D 12.

De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias veteribus a P.N. Papageorgio editis, scripsit H. J. F. A. Wansink, Lugduni Batavorum 1895. Die Tragödien des Sophokles zum Schulgebrauche mit erklärenden Anmerkungen versehen von N. Wecklein, 3. Bändchen: Elektra, 4. Auflage, München 1905. De Sophoclis scholiorum laurentianorum variis lectionibus, scripsit Dr G. Wolff, Lipsiae 1843. De scholiorum in Sophoclis tragoedias auctoritate, scripsit E. Wunderus, Grimae 1838. Sophoclis tragoediae, recensuit et explanavit E. Wunderus, vol. II sect. I continens Electram, editio tertia, Gothae 1854. G. Xenis, ‘Problematical conflations in sch. vet. S. El. 87’, Classical Quarterly, forthcoming.

Κριτικαὶ καὶ Ἑρμηνευτικαὶ Παρατηρήσεις εἰς Αἰσχύλον, Σοφοκλέα, Λυσίαν, Πλάτωνα, Λυκοῦργον καὶ ∆ημοσθένη, ὑπὸ Ἀ. Ἰ. Ζάκα, Μέρος Β´: Σοφοκλῆς, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1891. Th. Zielinski, ‘Zametki k tragediam Sofokla I k scholiam na nikh’, Zhournal ministerstva narodnago prosvescheniya, (July – Aug. 1892) 1–62.

11

Conspectus siglorum

Conspectus siglorum Sophoclis codices L

Laurentianus 32.9

saec. X, p. 26

H ∆ q

Laurentianus 32.40 Laurentianus conv. soppr. 41 fons codicum H∆

ca. 1300, p. 37 saec. XIV, p. 39

V

Marcianus gr. 468

ca. 1290, p. 40

G M R r

Laurentianus conv. soppr. 152 Mutinensis α.Τ.9.4 Vaticanus gr. 2291 fons codicum GMR

ann. 1284, p. 41 saec. XV, p. 44 saec. XV, p. 42

raro in usum vocantur F K Lf Λ Lp N Ο W Wa Wc Zf

Laurentianus 28.25 Laurentianus 31.10 Laurentianus conv. soppr. 142 Lugdunensis Bibl. Publ. Gr. 60 A Parisinus gr. 2799 Matritensis 4677 Lugdunensis Voss. Gr. Q 6 Ambrosianus G 56 sup. (teste Benedetti 1967 et Scattolin 2003) Ambrosianus E 103 sup. Vindobonensis 281(teste Jahn2) Parisinus gr. 2884 (teste Jahn2)

ca. 1300, p. 30 saec. XII, p. 34 ca. 1500 saec. X, p. 28 saec. XV–XVI, p. 33 saec. XIV, p. 29 saec. XII, p. 31 saec. XIV ca. 1275, p. 32 saec. XV ann. 1301

Sudae codices A F G I M

Parisinus gr. 2625 et 2626 Laurentianus plut. 55.1 Parisinus gr. 2633 Angelicanus 75 Venetus Marcianus 448

saec. XIII vel XIV saec. XV saec. XV saec. XV saec. XIII

12

T V

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Vaticanus gr. 881 Vossianus fol. 2

Abis Ai, ii Aa.c. Ai.l. Ap.c. As.l. [Α] accuratiss. c. fin. gl. h.l. l.c. lm. (στρατηγήσαντος n.) R (ἰσόμοιρος s.) R pr. sch. y cum sch. x c. in A (ἄλλως)

haec a sch. pr. separavi :

( ) α–β α…β

saec XV saec. XII

cf. Ai, ii formae eiusdem scholii bis diversis in locis exarati A ante correctionem A in linea A post correctionem A supra lineam Α legi nequit accuratissimum (lemma) coniungitur vel coniunguntur finis glossa hoc loco loco citato lemma scholium ad verbum poetae στρατηγήσαντος numero adhibito scriba libri R rettulit scholium ad verbum poetae ἰσόμοιρος signo adhibito scriba libri R rettulit prior, prius etc scholium y cum scholio x coniungitur, i.e. scriba codicis A scholium x et scholium y (hoc ordine) continue scripsit adverbio ἄλλως pro voce coniunctiva utens haec, quae in codd. cum scholio priore coniuncta leguntur, separatim posui scholium novum esse iudicans lemma quod in codicibus invenitur lemma (vel pars lemmatis) ab editore additum ab α usque ad β α et β littera evanida littera erasa

Introduction

1 Editing Scholia: Methodological considerations and the scope of the present edition Scholia1 share with other forms of paraliterary material such as glossaries, lexica and grammatical treatises, the feature that they are not a stable type of text from the transmissional point of view. Scribes or scholars would frequently not copy faithfully the scholia which stood in their exemplars, but to respond to the differing needs of their readership or for other reasons, they would consciously modify them in many ways. They would also limit or expand the corpus of scholia of their exemplars, omitting some notes from their copies or creating some new ones to treat topics which they would think important themselves. The scholia vetera to Sophocles are no exception to this process of reproduction, and in what follows I shall take up some of those to the Electra to illustrate the different types of scribal intervention involved. The simplest form of conscious alteration is the replacement of a word with a synonym. In e.g. sch. El. 727 the manuscripts H∆2 have substituted λεγομένη for καλουμένη which is the reading of LVGMR: … Βάρκη γὰρ πόλις Λιβύης, ἡ νῦν Πτολεμαῒς καλουμένη. L V r(GΜR) … Βάρκη γὰρ πόλις Λιβύης, ἡ νῦν Πτολεμαῒς λεγομένη. q(Η∆) Another example is sch. El. 185–6 where GMR have replaced ἐκδικίας and πέπρακται: … ἐπεὶ μέχρι νῦν οὐδὲν ὑπὲρ ἐκδικίας Ἀγαμέμνονος πέπρακται. L q(H∆) … ἐπεὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐδὲν ὑπὲρ ἐκδικήσεως Ἀγαμέμνονος γέγονεν. r(GΜR) The alteration could be on a larger scale. The scholion on El. 199a μορφάν appears in the principal manuscripts (disregarding minor variants) as follows:

1

2

McNamee 2007, 79–92 revisits the question of the genesis of medieval scholia in the light of papyrus annotations and is able to confirm Wilson’s position that they assumed their form in the late fifth or sixth century (Wilson 1996, 33–6). Manuscript symbols are explained on p. 11.

16

Introduction

μορφάν: μορφήν, τύπον. τὴν δὲ μοιχείαν φησὶ τοῦ Αἰγίσθου ἢ τὴν ὄψιν, ἣν εἰργάσατο τοῦ φόνου. L V (μορφάν): μορφήν, τύπον. λέγει τὴν μοιχείαν τοῦ Αἰγίσθου ἢ τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ φόνου, ἣν εἰργάσατο. q(Ηs.l.∆) μορφὴν δὲ τύπον (scripsi: τύπων r) . τὴν μοιχείαν τοῦ Αἰγίσθου ἢ τὴν ὄψιν, ἣν εἰργάσατο τοῦ φόνου. r(GMR) In other cases it may take the form of an insertion of extra matter into the body of a scholion. Here the example of sch. El. 19 may serve for many others: μέλαινά τ' ἄστρων: ἐχρῆν οὕτως εἰπεῖν· μελαίνης νυκτὸς τὰ ἄστρα ἐκλέλοιπεν, ὡς τὸ ὃ δὲ χασσάμενος πελεμίχθη. ἢ οὕτως· ἐκλέλοιπε τῶν ἄστρων ἡ μέλαινα εὐφρόνη, ἵν' ᾖ τὸ ἄστρων πρὸς τὸ ἐκλέλοιπεν. L r(GΜR) μέλαινά τ' ἄστρων: ἐχρῆν οὕτως εἰπεῖν· μελαίνης νυκτὸς τὰ ἄστρα ἐκλέλοιπεν, ὡς τὸ ὃ δὲ χασσάμενος πελεμίχθη. ἢ οὕτως· ἐκλέλοιπε τῶν ἄστρων ἡ μέλαινα εὐφρόνη, ἵν' ᾖ τὸ ἄστρων πρὸς τὸ ἐκλέλοιπεν. ἐλλιπὴς ἐγένετο τῶν ἄστρων ἡ εὐφρόνη. q(Η∆) The presence of the sentence ἐλλιπὴς ἐγένετο τῶν ἄστρων ἡ εὐφρόνη in q can be explained by two hypotheses: either the scribes of L and r carelessly omitted these words, or the scribe of q deliberately created an enlarged version of the scholion. Now, there is much evidence to show that L’s style favours condensation and here Lrr’s text is quite satisfactory; moreover, q’s extra words look like the result of an attempt to offer further clarification to the phrase ἐκλέλοιπε τῶν ἄστρων ἡ μέλαινα εὐφρόνη. So considered from the point of view of Lrr’s text, q’s extra words should be taken as an interpolation and thus regarded as unoriginal. But considered from the point of view of q’s text, these words incorporate an element of authorial intention and should be taken as genuine material. Another type of intervention is the conflation of originally distinct scholia,3 but the most drastic one is, as has been mentioned, the creation of a whole new scholion which is not part of the corpus of scholia in a manuscript’s exemplar. Almost every manuscript that I have investigated includes a certain number of scholia and/or glosses which are either unique, or are shared with only a few other manuscripts. With regard to the ‘minority scholia’,4 their content, their diction, and/or some features of syntax set them apart from the corpus of scholia of the famous Laurentian 3 4

On compilatory practices in the reproduction of scholia see below, p. 19 with note 10. I borrow the term ‘minority scholia’ from Herington 1972, 22.

1 Editing Scholia: Methodological considerations

17

manuscript 32.9 (L), which is assigned to the mid-tenth century and is thus the oldest extant witness to the ancient scholia to Sophocles. L’s date offers a guarantee that there is nothing in its corpus which is later than the mid-tenth century, but on internal evidence it is universally accepted that the greater part of this corpus goes much further back in the past, reflecting Hellenistic scholarly work.5 In respect of content, it is learned and pays attention to plot construction, characterisation, rhetorical practice, methods of argumentation, anachronism, factual matters, staging, and other important aspects of the play.6 The minority notes have, by contrast, a very narrow scope and only an elementary level. They consist almost exclusively of grammatical rules, word meanings, word etymologies, and similar rudimentary forms of elucidation of a text. It is reasonable to suppose that these date from the Byzantine age and were intended for Byzantine readers or, more precisely, for readers to whom the ancient language had ceased to be readily accessible.7 A good example of the sort of thing typically involved in minority scholia is a note in the mss Η∆: 107 (μὴ οὐ): αἱ δύο ἀποφάσεις ἀντὶ μιᾶς· ἀναιρεῖ γὰρ ἡ μία τὴν ἑτέραν. ὥσπερ γὰρ πιών τις φάρμακον, ἔπειτα θηριακήν, ἀναιρεῖ ἡ θηριακὴ τὸ φάρμακον καὶ πάλιν ἔχει ὑγιῶς τὸ σῶμα, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡ μία ἀπόφασις ἀναιρεῖ τὴν ἑτέραν καὶ οὕτως ἔχει ὑγιῶς ὁ λόγος. Minority scholia may also differ in respect of syntax and diction. This can be illustrated by means of the following two notes: 289 (σοὶ μόνῃ): ἀντὶ τοῦ διὰ σέ. καὶ Ὅμηρος· σοὶ πάντες μαχόμεσθα (Il. 5. 875). V W 565 κείνης γὰρ οὐ θέμις μαθεῖν: λοιδοροῦσά φησι ταῦτα τῇ Κλυταιμήστρᾳ· ἤγουν, οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι, τῆς θεᾶς οὔσης παρθένου, σοὶ τῇ οὔσῃ πόρνῃ συνομιλεῖν. V In the first case the use of the preposition διά with the accusative to express respect is unparalleled in the Laurentian corpus where this 5

6

7

Wolff 1843, 12–29. De Marco 1937, 110–6. De Marco 1952, xvi–xxvii. Janz 2004, 28–9. It is necessary to use the qualification ‘scholarly’ here, since notes of an elementary level are by no means absent from the margins or the interlinear spaces of e.g. literary papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt: see McNamee 2007, passim. Plot construction: e.g. sch. El. 82; characterisation: e.g. sch. 1117, 1236b; rhetorical practice and methods of argumentation: e.g. sch. 558, 963–4, 975; anachronism: e.g. sch. 47a; factual matters: e.g. sch. 445a1, a2, a3; staging: e.g. sch. 1384a. Also comparable in their wide-ranging and scholarly character are the scholia on Aeschylus contained in the same manuscript. They also have been thought to date from the Hellenistic period; see Herington 1972, 36–8. Wilson 2007, 48.

18

Introduction

construction is invariably employed in a causal sense. In note 565 the word ἤγουν is also absent from the aforementioned corpus and is another indication of late age. Herington is here relevant: ‘In my experience the only mannerism that is an almost infallible index of date – late date – is the frequent occurrence of ἤγουν or ἤτοι’.8

We now pass to the case of ‘minority glosses’, which are normally found in the interlinear spaces of manuscripts and are sometimes very numerous. Christodoulou offers a very full picture of the kind of dictionary material involved with regard to the Ajax glosses,9 and as a typical sample of Electra glosses I reproduce here those on lines 1464–1508 from f. 128r of the important manuscript Marcianus gr. 468 (V): 1463 (κολαστοῦ): τιμωροῦ. 1466 (φάσμα): ἀντὶ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι. 1468 (χαλᾶτε πᾶν κάλυμμα ἀπ’ ὀφθαλμῶν): ἀποκαλύπτετε. 1470 (βάσταζ’): ἀποκάλυπτε. 1476 (ἀρκτυστάτοις): δικτύοις. 1488a (ταφεῦσιν): τοῖς σαρκοβόροις θηρίοις. 1488b (ὧν): οἷς. 1489 (ἄποπτον): ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως. 1491 (χωροῖς ἂν): ἀντὶ τοῦ χώρει. 1494 (δεῖ): καὶ χρεία ὑπάρχει. 1495 (μὴ τάσσε): μὴ πρόστασσε. 1499a (σὰ): κακὰ. 1499b (ἄκρος): καὶ ἄριστος. 1500 (ἀλλ’ οὐ πατρῴαν τὴν τέχνην ἐκόμπασας): ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦν ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων, ὁ σὸς πατήρ, μάντις. 1502 (ὑφηγοῦ): προηγοῦ. 1504 (δεῖ): καὶ ἐνδέχεται. 1506 (πράσσειν): καὶ ἐνεργεῖν. 1507 (πανοῦργον): κακόν. There can be no doubt that these glosses are mostly uninteresting, elementary, and sometimes inept; nobody can seriously suggest that they come from the same source as L’s scholia. The genesis of such material is to be explained by the same assumption as the one which was used before in connection with the ‘minority scholia’: as time went on, readers’ knowledge of ancient Greek became more and more limited and so scribes or scholars thought it necessary to provide them with as much dictionary material as they thought fit. Again considered from the standpoint of L’s corpus, these extra scholia and glosses can be designated as accretions or interpolations or unoriginal matter; but when examined on the basis of the corpora of scholia and glosses in which they are to be found, they have to be taken as genuine material.

8

9

Herington 1972, 33. n. 1. More examples of ‘minority scholia’ to Electra, contained in V, are given by Benedetti 1967, 142–3. These should be read in combination with Scattolin 2003, 314–9, who having re-examined V and W corrected some mistakes of Benedetti and added some more scholia of these manuscripts to his list. Christodoulou 1977, 263–353.

1 Editing Scholia: Methodological considerations

19

It is by now apparent that an editor of as varied a sort of entity as scholia has to be very clear about what specific corpus of scholia and what specific version of scholia he sets out to edit. It is the aim of the present book to produce a critical edition of the scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra in their oldest recoverable corpus and version. The terminus ante quem for scholia vetera as opposed to scholia recentiora is here fixed at the tenth century, the date of the earliest witnesses; there is no objective method to go any further back than this chronological limit. It should be stressed that the sought after corpus and version is not to be identified with the corpus and version contained in L, although L offers the oldest extant version and corpus of these scholia and the closest approximation to the oldest recoverable version and corpus. On the basis of the evidence offered by the other manuscripts and the indirect tradition, L’s version of scholia can be proved to contain conflations brought about by its scribe. I may illustrate this by means of sch. El. 766. L, which is here followed by ∆V, offers the text of this scholion as follows: ὡς μὲν γυνὴ κεκίνηται ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει. πρὸς δὲ τὸν κίνδυνον ἀποβλέπουσα ἥδεται, διὰ δὲ τὸν χορὸν ἀλγεῖν ὑποκρίνεται. The opening words ὡς μὲν γυνὴ κεκίνηται ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει show that Clytaemnestra’s sorrow is sincere and genuine; but this involves an apparent contradiction with the last element of this note διὰ δὲ τὸν χορὸν ἀλγεῖν ὑποκρίνεται, which presents her sorrow as the result of hypocrisy. On the other hand, the Suda (ω 35 = III 606, 20) and the manuscripts GR, which are independent from L, omit the last remark (2 διὰ – fin.); M gives it as a separate entity (without δέ) and thus solves the problem. All this points to the fact that in the common source of the manuscripts this remark stood independently and that its connection with διὰ (2) – fin. through δὲ was a deliberate, albeit misguided, conflation by the scribe of L.10 One reason why L’s corpus cannot be regarded as coextensive with the oldest recoverable corpus of scholia is that it can be proved to have lost some pristine material, consisting of notes or glosses which are comparable to L’s set in date (and quality). It is needless to say that the material which has been above thought to belong to the Byzantine era is in no case Laurentian-type and so should not appear in the edition.11 10 11

See De Marco 1936, 22–9 for more examples of conflation in L. Benedetti 1967, 137–42 assembled from V and W some scholia which, as he claims, ‘hanno tutto l’aspetto di appartenere al Corpus antico’ (138). However he does not substantiate his assertion and were one to apply the criteria of syntax and diction noted above, these notes would in fact appear to be Byzantine. (See also Scattolin 2003, 312–3 who improves on the text of these scholia and follows Benedetti in taking them as ancient material; however he equally does not give any reasons for this). The only note which might be thought to be ancient is V’s sch.

20

Introduction

An instance of the required type of material outside L can be furnished by the Suda. This tenth-century lexicon quotes the scholia vetera to Sophocles very frequently and is comparable to L in respect of age. In the entry ε 1999 = ΙΙ 334, 13–4 it includes the following scholion on ἐπαυχῶ, a verb derived from Electra 65: Ἐπαυχῶ: βεβαίως οἶδα. Σοφοκλῆς. ὡς κἄμ’ ἐπαυχῶ τῆσδε τῆς φήμης ἄπο δεδορκότ’, ἐχθροῖς ἄστρον ὣς λάμψειν ἔτι. The glossing of ἐπαυχῶ as βεβαίως οἶδα is not part of L’s corpus but it can neither be later than the tenth century nor be taken as elementary; ἐπαυχῶ is not here used in its common meaning of ‘exult’, and so an interpretation of it is needed even for the learned reader. The note is therefore Laurentian-type and should figure among the scholia of our edition. It is reasonable to suppose that the Suda had independent access to the source of L and thus preserved material which L itself failed to preserve. One is by now likely to form the impression that the oldest recoverable corpus and version of the scholia vetera is to be identified with the now lost source of the L’s corpus and version of these scholia, which is simultaneously the common source of all the manuscripts.12 That this is not the case either can be shown with the aid of sch. El. 1344: θαυμαστῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πλέον διατρίβειν, ὡς καὶ Ὀρέστης ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν τὰ μὲν περισσεύοντα τῶν λόγων ἄφες. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· καὶ τὰ μὴ καλῶς ἀλλὰ κακῶς αὐτοῖς ἔχοντα καὶ αὐτὰ νῦν καλῶς ἔχει, ἕως οὐδέπω τιμωρίας τυγχάνουσιν· ἅπερ λεγόμενα πρὸς ἄκρον ἐστὶ παροξυντικά. L r(GMR) The fact that the above version of the scholion has the support of all the manuscripts suggests that it was the version contained in their common source. However, once the content of this version is closely examined, it becomes apparent that the scribe of the common source conflated here two notes which were independent from each other in his model. Brunck

12

604–5 (καὶ τόδ', εἴπερ ἔσθενον, | ἔδρων ἄν, εὖ τοῦτ' ἴσθι): πρότερον μὲν πρὸς τὸν χορὸν εἶπε περὶ τῆς καθόδου Ὀρέστου νῦν πρὸς τὸ ἀνελεῖν τὴν ὑποψίαν φησὶ «ἔπρασσον ἄν» (the note is also found in Wa, H, G, M and R). But even here the phrase «ἀνελεῖν τὴν ὑποψίαν» excites suspicion and I adopt the note with scepticism. Generally, the appropriate context of these notes as well as all other ‘minority scholia’ and ‘minority glosses’ is not the scholia vetera, but an edition of the Byzantine scholia, i.e. the scholia by the Byzantine scholars, J. Tzetzes, M. Moschopoulos, T. Magistros, D. Triclinius. In the framework of such an edition they could appear in a chapter of their own under the heading ‘Scholia Byzantina Anonyma’. See the stemma on p. 76.

1 Editing Scholia: Methodological considerations

21

already saw this and divided the text accordingly making the necessary adjustments: 1344 τελουμένων εἴποιμ' ἄν: θαυμαστῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πλέον διατρίβειν, ὡς καὶ Ὀρέστης ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν τὰ μὲν περισσεύοντα τῶν λόγων ἄφες. L r(GMR) 1345 (καὶ τὰ μὴ καλῶς): ὁ [δὲ] νοῦς· καὶ τὰ μὴ καλῶς ἀλλὰ κακῶς αὐτοῖς ἔχοντα καὶ αὐτὰ νῦν καλῶς ἔχει, ἕως οὐδέπω τιμωρίας τυγχάνουσιν· ἅπερ λεγόμενα πρὸς ἄκρον ἐστὶ παροξυντικά. L r(GMR) It is thus clear that the editor can sometimes take a step still further back than the common source of the manuscripts and recover an even older state of scholiastic material. We need to raise one question at this point: why is it preferable to seek the earliest recoverable corpus and version of scholia and not to stop at the state of affairs offered by the common source of the manuscripts? The answer is suggested by Brunck’s treatment of the above scholion: the further back we get, the more intelligible the text becomes. This is natural, since we free the text from internal contradictions, intolerable repetitions, and similar flaws, which are the result of unwarranted, though deliberate, conflations by copyists.13 It should be stressed, however, that this approach is legitimate only so far as some sort of internal evidence is available, otherwise it degenerates into an arbitrary and subjective exercise. So far it has been made clear that the present book is devoted to an edition of the scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra in their earliest recoverable corpus and version. It has also become clear that this corpus and version are Laurentian-type. It should now be mentioned that there exists a systematic reworking of a copy of the common source of our manuscripts, namely the Roman version contained in G, M and R. In the endeavour to achieve the goal of the edition, the Roman version is useful and should not be excluded, since: 1. The Roman reviser obviously employed a now lost copy of the common source of our manuscripts as base text for his revision. 2. We can establish the conscious alterations contained in his version.14 and thus isolate all the elements which he adopted unchanged from his base text. 3. These elements demonstrate that his base text was stemmatically independent from surviving copies of the common source and can therefore provide us with good readings not to be found elsewhere.15 13 14 15

See e.g. sch. El. 48a1 and a2, 863a and b. See below pp. 44–8. See below pp. 68–9.

22

Introduction

In other words, the Roman version is useful for our purposes, so far as it allows us to reconstruct its base text.16 I should like to conclude this section by emphasising that in using the Roman version for our purposes we should use only elements which do not belong to the reviser but can be traced back to his base text. For otherwise, we should mix two different versions. We should end up creating a hybrid version and establishing a scholion which originated from nobody’s conscious decision but the editor’s; such an item never had any existence in the real world.17

16

17

It goes without saying that the Roman version of scholia can be edited in its own right, since it includes authorial intention. But since it can be proved to derive from a period much later that the Laurentian version (a terminus post quem is provided by the mention of John Tzetzes in some of the Byzantine notes in G, which is its oldest representative, (1282 AD; see below p. 41) and to represent a different type of scholarship, it does not seem advisable to edit it side by side with the ancient Laurentian version; it had better appear separately. This mistake was occasionally committed by previous editors; see below pp. 94 and 96 with note 189.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition 2.1 Description of the selected manuscripts and characteristics of their text Turyn’s fundamental work on the manuscript tradition of Sophocles18 has shown that there exist twenty two manuscripts which contain the scholia vetera to the Electra:19 1. Florence, plut. 28.25 (F20) 2. —, plut. 31.10 (K; former symbols: Lb or l) 3. —, plut. 32.9 (L) 4. —, plut. 32.40 (H) 5. —, Conventi Soppressi 41 (∆) 6. —, Conventi Soppressi 142 (Lf) 7. —, Conventi Soppressi 152 (G; former symbol Γ) 8. Leiden, Voss. gr. Q. 6 (Ο) 9. —, BPG 60A (Λ) 10. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 4677 (N) 11. Milan, Ambros. E. 103 sup. (Wa) 12. —, Ambros. G. 56 sup. (W) 13. Modena, α. Τ. 9.4 (Μ) 14. Paris, gr. 2799 (Lp) 15. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Fondo Parmense 3176 16. Vatican, Urb. gr. 141 (S) 17. —, gr. 904 (Pa) 18. —, gr. 1332 (Wb) 19. —, gr. 2291 (R) 20. Venice, Marc. gr. 468 (V) 21. Vienna, philos. philol. gr. 253 18 19

20

Turyn 1944; Turyn 1952. I identified the manuscript catalogues which have been published since 1952, the date of Turyn’s last study on Sophocles’ manuscripts, with the aid of Olivier 1995. However I have not found any new manuscripts to update the list compiled on the basis of Turyn’s works (n. 18). I denote the manuscripts of this enquiry by Turyn’s symbols (n. 18).

24

Introduction

22. —, philos. philol. gr. 281 (Wc; former symbol V) The fluidity with which scholia are typically reproduced has here created two principal versions. The manuscripts F K L H ∆ Lf O Λ N Wa W Lp S Pa Wb V Wc and those with nos. 15 and 21 contain the Laurentian version, readily so called because its chief representative is the Laurentian manuscript L. This version was then subjected to a systematic rewording which has yielded the Roman version appearing in G M and R. However, it is essential to emphasise that this distinction is only rough, since it pays attention only to a systematic attempt at rewording. If we examine the manuscripts representing the Laurentian version, they will also prove to 21 offer clear traces of purposive variation, albeit on a much lesser scale. The purpose of this book has been defined as the edition of the earliest recoverable corpus and version of the scholia vetera to the Electra. This corpus and version is, as has been explained, Laurentian-type. To recover this state of text we need first to establish the archetype of the Laurentian corpus and version. It is also a fact that the archetype of the Roman corpus 22 and version cannot be neglected in any such attempt. With this background in mind, it is now time to choose which manuscripts should be used for the reconstruction of the two archetypes. It has never been doubted since the time of the editor princeps that L is the most important witness to the Laurentian version. Λ has been thought 23 24 so significant as to be labelled L’s gemellus. Dindorf was the first to 25 propose F and H, and Peppink found that V is ‘codex egregius’ writing: ‘hunc excutiat, etiam atque consulat is cui editio scholiorum erit cordi!’ 26

Peppink examined Wa too. He assigned it to the thirteenth century 27 correcting Papageorgiou’s opinion, and on the basis of some of its 28 readings offered the following piece of advice: ‘Ambrosianum … in censum vocet futurus scholiorum Sophocli adscriptorum editor oportere e locis hic allatis patet’. 29

30

N should be taken into account according to Peppink and Turyn, 31 whereas Dawe called attention to O. Interest in Pa, which contains 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

See e.g. how the mss. H∆ change the inherited text of sch. 727 on p. 15. The reason for this has been explained above on pp. 21–2. Christodoulou 1977; Janz 2004. Dindorf 1852, vi. Peppink 1934a, 77. Peppink 1934a, 76. See also Wilson 1977, 169: ‘In my opinion the script is of a type that must almost certainly be placed before the year 1300, probably c. 1275’. Papageorgiou 1888, xii. Peppink 1934a, 77. Peppink 1934b, 158.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

25 32

scholia only to lines 1015–146 and 1232–368, was first aroused by Turyn 33 and in K by Wilson who redated it to the twelfth century. Finally Lp seems worthy of consideration, since it has been proposed as the basis of 34 the editio princeps and a significant source of corrections. My first step in investigating the manuscripts of the Laurentian version was to test the validity of these claims. I have come to the conclusion that the value which scholars had attached to Λ N F O Pa Wa K Lp is not warranted by the evidence when taken in its entirety and assessed correctly. These manuscripts have turned out to be apographs of L and so their testimony is generally to be eliminated, apart from a few cases in which they contain scribal emendations. On the contrary, the importance of L H V has been confirmed. The evidence for these positions is to be found in the subsequent sections of the book. The results of the above examination were then combined with the conclusions of Turyn’s investigations to enable further decisions. The reasserted value of H has rendered the selection of ∆ unavoidable; as ∆ has 35 been found to be a gemellus of H, it is only natural to expect that it would correct its twin in many places. On the other hand, the uselessness of Wa having been established, I see no reason to give Wb or Wc any serious consideration, since both of them had been proved to stem from the 36 same source as Wa. Moreover, I thought it was not unwise to disregard W, which has been found to be closely affiliated with the already selected 37 38 39 V. Lf and the Vienna ms. 253 (no. 21 in the above list), which contains scholia only to lines 1–52, were eliminated on the basis of their 40 41 descent from L. We are now left with S and ms. no. 15 (as late as the 42 sixteenth century), but Turyn invalidated the authority of both. 30 31 32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

Turyn 1952, 202. Dawe 1973, 114–5. Turyn 1952, 159 describes the value of the scholia in Pa in these words: ‘Their evidence should not be overlooked by a future editor of the ancient scholia’. He does not however give any reasons for that. Lloyd-Jones – Wilson 1990, viii. Irigoin 1977-8, 321. Turyn 1952, 160. Turyn 1952, 161. Peppink 1934b, 155–8 proposed Wb to future editors, presumably ignorant of the fact that Wb belongs to the same family as Wa, which he had already recommended (1934a, 77). The good readings he cited from Wb are all to be found in Wa: sch. 492a1.1 οὐ, 717b.1 τῷ, 722.2 τόν. On the connection between V and W see Turyn 1952, 133–4. Turyn 1952, 187. Turyn 1952, 68. To refine Turyn’s position I undertook a collation of the two manuscripts. The indication was that they are gemelli and their common ancestor descends from L.

26

Introduction

The Roman version, in contrast to the Laurentian, needs all its 43 representatives to reconstruct its archetype. Dindorf drew attention to G, 44 and de Marco’s investigations brought to light its two other witnesses, namely M and R, which he proved to be stemmatically independent from G. Both scholars however spoke of their discoveries as if they were copies of the Laurentian version; they are never clear about the fact that these three manuscripts represent a reworking of the version represented by the 45 other manuscripts. In the next chapter I shall offer a description of the manuscripts which I have chosen to examine, i.e. L Λ N F O Pa Wa K Lp H ∆ V G M R. Then I shall analyse their interrelationships, so that it will be demonstrated that the archetypes of the Laurentian and Roman versions can be reconstructed with the aid of only L H ∆ V and G M R respectively, i.e. that Λ N F O Pa Wa K Lp can be eliminated. LΛ L, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, plut. 32.9. Parchment, 309 x 212 mm, 264 ff. Mid-tenth century (Diller 1974, 522). Bandini 1768, 132– 4, Papageorgiou 1883, 403–40, Thompson – Jebb 1885, 3–23, Turolla 1934, Turyn 1944, 16, Turyn 1952, 101–2, Christodoulou 1977, 31*–2*, Janz 2004, 9–10. Investigated in the facsimile and verified by autopsy. The Sophoclean part of the book contains the seven plays and the scholia vetera to them. The Arguments, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 17r–33r, but there is no list of dramatis personae. The scholia are written by a different scribe from the one who copied the tragedy and in a different handwriting: not in the minuscule style but in what has come to be designated as ‘half-uncial’. However the scribe of the scholia, known as

41

42 43 44 45

The errors or alternative formulations they share against the rest of the tradition are: sch. 6.2 ἐστι om. Lf Vien., 6–9.4 ἀπὸ] ἐκ Lf Vien., 6–9.9 ἐγχαράττεσθαι] ἐπιχαράττεσθαι Lf Vien. I accepted in my text a scribal conjecture I found in Lf: sch. 47a.3 ἐπιορκῶν. Turyn 1952, 169. I was able to verify Turyn’s view of S’s worthlessness with the aid of some of its readings recorded by G. Wolff, ‘Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias. Vol. II. Ed. G. Dindorfius.’ (review), Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 13 No. 9 (1855) 65–68 passim. Turyn 1952, 196–7. For the date see Eleuteri 1993, 87. Dindorf 1852, iv–vi. De Marco 1936, 5–6. It is a curious fact that nearly all scholars are silent on the nature of these manuscripts’ text.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

27

διορθωτής since he also had the task of correcting the text of the tragedy, did his work at about the same time as the scribe of the tragedy (Thompson – Jebb 1885, 5, 10, 17–8, 20). The proper place of the scholia is the outer margin of each page, but some of them appear either as interlinear material or in the space between the text and scholia columns. Sometimes they are also found in the three other margins. They are assigned to the appropriate part of the tragedy by lemmata, reference signs or by position. Though not the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, L is the oldest and best witness to the tradition of both the tragedies of Sophocles and their scholia vetera. It preserves almost all of the ancient commentary surviving in the tenth century and in a very good state. It is the manuscript on which Lascaris, Elmsley and Papageorgiou founded their editions, and all recent editors of scholia (de Marco, Christodoulou and Janz) regard it as their principal manuscript. However this should not blind us to its defects. The text of L contains such weaknesses as contradictions and intolerable repetitions, which are the result of conflation of originally distinct scholia.46 Moreover, letters which sounded alike are frequently confused; thus: (i) omega is frequently corrupted to omicron: sch. 86c.1 ἔχων] ἔχον, 121.2 ἐξωλεστάτης] ἐξολεστάτης, 159.1 ἐπὶ τῷ] ἐπὶ τό, 195–6.2 πελέκεως] πελέκεος, 452a1.1 τῷ] τό, 561a.1 τῷ] τό, 717b.1 τῷ] τό. (ii) epsilon is corrupted to the diphthong αι: sch. 68a.1 δέξασθε (alt.)] δέξασθαι, 369– 71.1 συγκεράσητε] συγκεράσηται. (iii) double consonants are changed to single ones and vice versa: sch. 445–6a1.1 ἀπέμασσον] ἀπέμασον, 717a.2 ἐμβαλλόμενον] ἐμβαλόμενον. Errors resulting from the uncial style of writing include confusions of lunate epsilon/omicron, mu/nu and pi/tau: sch. 595.3 χαλεπαίνεις] χαλεπαίνοις, 176a.2 νέμουσα] μένουσα,47 446.3 Ὅμηρον] ὄνειρον, 1058–62.5 ὅτου] ὅπου. An ending is often assimilated to that of an adjacent word: e.g in sch. 47a.3 ἐπιορκῶν has been assimilated to the following δυσσεβεῖν (ἐπιορκεῖν δυσσεβεῖν) and 686a2.2 θαυμαστὸς to the preceding ὡς (ὡς θαυμαστῶς). The manuscript contains a series of scholia which were not written by the διορθωτής. The examination of the handwriting indicates that these items were entered by the scribe of the ms. Paris 2712 (A), who is already known to have introduced a number of corrections in the poetical text of L.48 There follows a selection:

46 47 48

See e.g. de Marco 1936, 22–9. Mr I. Cunningham points out that this might alternatively be due to transposition of letters. Turyn 1949, 140.

28

Introduction

201 226 228 320 323 363–4 375 381 384 721 758 984 1028 1304 1338 1384

ὦ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ἡ ἐλθοῦσά μοι ἐχθίστη, ἡ μάλιστα μεμισημένη πασῶν ἡμερῶν. τὸ δὲ πλέον περισσόν. προσφιλὴς ἐμοὶ γενεά. παρὰ τίνος φρονοῦντος καίρια ἢ συμφέροντα. ἐπιχειρῶν πράττειν. ἐπεί τοι ἄν. εἰ μὴ ἐθάρρουν τοῦτο μόνον ἐμὲ βοσκέτω, τὸ μὴ λυπεῖν ἐμὲ αὐτήν, εἰ τοῖς φονεῦσι τοῦ πατρὸς πείθεσθαι ἀναγκασθήσομαι. ἐφέξει, κωλύσει. σκοτεινῇ. ἔγκαιρον (L: ἐν καιρῷ dubitanter Koraes49). τὴν ὀπὴν τοῦ τροχοῦ. ἀντίπτωσις τοιαῦτα πᾶς τις ἐρεῖ: ἤτοι οὕτως ἐπαινέσεται ἡμᾶς, ὥστε μὴ λιπεῖν ἡμῖν τὸ κλέος καὶ ζώσαις καὶ θανούσαις. ἤτοι πεισθήσομαι καὶ ἐπαινέσω σε, ὅταν καλῶς λέγῃς. λεξαίμην βραχύ: γρ. βουλοίμην βραχύ. ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις: καιροῖς προνέμεται: ἀντὶ τοῦ προβιβάζει.

It should be pointed out that the notes mentioned in the preceding list are to be credited to the work of Manuel Moschopoulos. The fact that all of them recur in the ms. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 71, which carries his commentary on Sophocles,50 proves the point beyond any doubt. Λ, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibl. Publ. Graec. 60A. Palimpsest parchment, 220 x 160 mm, 147ff. De Meyier 1965, 83–6, Irigoin 1951, Turyn 1952, 102–3, Christodoulou 1977, 32*–4*, Janz 2004, 14–5. All seven plays of Sophocles together with their scholia vetera, written in midtenth century (Irigoin 1951, 448), were covered in the thirteenth century by a number of theological treatises. The hand of the underlying texts is so similar to that in L, that the two books may have been the work of one and the same scribe (Lloyd-Jones – Wilson 1990, vii). But contrary to previous investigators of the manuscript, I doubt that Λ is a gemellus of L; the evidence suggests that Λ is a copy of L. As the palimpsest writing material of the old codex was not used in its entirety for the making of the new 49 50

Koraes’ emendation is to be found in the manuscript Chios 490 (section 7, p. 69) (Chios Library): see Christodoulou 1986, 240. Turyn 1949, 128 and Aubreton 1949, 83. For M. Moschopoulos see Wilson 1996, 244–7.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

29

codex (Janz 2004, 24), some portions of the Sophocles’ tragedies and scholia are now lost to us. Moreover ‘the leaves were used for the scriptura superior without any regard for their original order so that Sophoclean remnants in the palimpsest volume, as it is bound now, do not appear in their natural sequence and are quite disarrayed’ (Turyn 1952, 102). From Electra the manuscript offers lines 1–20, 61–227, 270–309, 358–406, 451– 649, 746–841, 941–1034, 1129–1409 1450–1494, the Arguments to the tragedy as well as part of the ancient commentary on the aforementioned lines. The manuscript was examined under ultra-violet light and a substantial portion of the scholia text was recovered with reasonable certainty, but not everything was visible. N F O Wa Pa N, Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 4677. Paper, 250 x 155 mm, 205 ff. Fourteenth century. De Andrés 1987, 224–6, Turyn 1944, 22, Turyn 1952, 147–8, Christodoulou 1977, 36*. Studied on microfilm. The Sophoclean part of the manuscript contains the Byzantine triad (Aj., El., OT) together with its scholia vetera. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 95v–114r. The text of the tragedy, in two short columns, occupies the upper part of each page. The ancient commentary is written across the whole width of the lower part by the same scribe as the tragedy. It does not offer any interesting readings and betrays some degree of interpolation; cf. e.g. sch. 505.4 αἰανὴ δὲ θρηνητικὴ παρὰ τὸ αἲ αἴ λέγειν where λέγειν is an addition by the scribe of N for the sake of clarification. It is also interspersed with notes of recent origin, which include two poems. The first is a metrical argument in the Byzantine dodecasyllabic verse,51 which is found also in FO∆. Below is a critical text for it: ἐλθὼν Ὀρέστης εἰς πόλιν Μυκηνίδα σὺν τῷ τροφεῖ γέροντι καὶ τῷ Πυλάδῃ κτείνει τὸν αὐτόχειρα πατρῴου φόνου καὶ τὴν συνεργὸν τῆς σφαγῆς τοῦ συμβίου. 4 τὴν O∆: τὸν N: de F non constat

The second poem is shared with FOWaV, Neapolitanus II. F. 9 (D) and the Moschopulean manuscript Laur. Conv. Soppr. 71 (Χ):52 51 52

This argument is also edited by Dindorf 1852, 243. I take D’s readings from Dawe 1973, 118.

30

Introduction

Περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα ματαιότητος στίχοι ἡρῳελεγεῖοι

5

εἰπὲ ποῦ ἡ χθὲς ἔβη, ἡ δ' αὔριον εἰπὲ ποῦ ἔστιν, εἰπὲ δ' ὅθεν προέβης, καὶ ποῦ ὁδοιπορέεις. καὶ τί μέγα ζώειν τόν <γ'> αὐτίκα νεκρὸν ἐόντα ὁ χρόνος ἀπατέει; φύλλων ἔοικε φύσις, γαῖα βροτὸς καὶ ὕδωρ. τάδ' ἀπ' αὐτόφιν ἐς τάδε δύνει, ὥστε μάτην ὁ βίος καὶ ὅσα τις πονέει. tit. περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα ματαιότητος στίχοι ἡρωελεγεῖοι FO: περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα ματαιότητος ἡρωικοὶ στίχοι (στίχοι om. WaV) XWaV: deest in ND εἰπὲ (alt.) 2 προέβης XWaOV: προσέβης D: de N non constat ὁδοιπορέεις] om. N ὁδοιπορεύεις V 3 γ' add. Dawe 4 ἀπατέει] ἀπαιτέει V φύλλων FVWaD (i.e. φύλλων φύσει): φύλλῳ X: φύλων Ο: φίλων Ν φύσις] i.e. ἀνθρπίνη φύσις 5 τάδ’] τὰ δ’ V αὐτόφιν (-ιν compendiose) WaOV: αὐτόφι D: de Ν non constat δύνει proximo versui tribuit V 6 πονέει] ποιέει F

These three elegiac couplets contain hiatus in many places and treat the first α of ἀπατέει in 4 as long. This kind of metrical practice as well as their moralistic tone betray the hand of a Byzantine author. F, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, plut. 28.25. Paper, 169 x 126 mm, 217 ff. Around 1300 AD. Bandini 1768, 44–6, Dindorf 1852, vi, Turyn 1944, 14–5, Turyn 1952, 145–7, Christodoulou 1977, 34*–5*. Examined on microfilm. The scribe, known to be Νικόλαος Περδικάρης from the subscription to the Aeschylean portion on f. 122v (RgK 3, 512), copied the Byzantine triad of Sophocles together with its scholia vetera. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra are contained on ff. 162r – 190v. Two consecutive folia have been lost from the manuscript, carrying with them lines 493–600 and the corresponding scholia. One of these folia came at the end of a quaternion and the other at the beginning of the next one. Then the first folium of the first quaternion, which was the conjugate of the lost folium of this same quaternion and was thus left loose, was moved to occupy the position of the lost first folium of the second quaternion; thus the damaged second quaternion was again complete, since this displaced folium now corresponded to the folium which was loose at the end of the second quaternion. The result for the text is a perturbed order in which lines 138–84 and their respective scholia appear after line 492.53 The poetic text occupies the inner column of each 53

I am indebted to Dr D. Baldi who kindly inspected the manuscript at my request and made the codicological analysis provided here.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

31

page and the scholia are copied in another column, in the outer margin, by the same hand that wrote the poetic text. No variants worthy of note are to be found, but we can mention three small modifications to the scholia which, as they are shared by O, should be ascribed to the common ancestor of the two books:54 45.2 491b.1 717b.3

ἀπὸ τοῦ ὅλου εἰς τὸ μερικὸν] εἰς μερικὸν ἀφ' ὅλου FΟ ἡ ἐκείνῳ τῷ φόνῳ ἀκολουθήσασα] ἡ ἐξακολουθήσασα τῷ φόνῳ ἐκείνου FO post δασύ add. διὸ οὐδὲ βαρύνεται FO

Many recent scholia and a large quantity of interlinear glosses have been inserted into the ancient commentary. Most of them are notes analysing etymologies, specifying rules for breathing, and explaining meanings of individual words: 19a 19b 55

εὐφρόνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ εὖ φρονεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· ἡρεμοῦσιν αἱ πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ μένει τὸ λογικὸν καθαρὸν καὶ ἄνευ ὀχλήσεως. τῆς ἡμέρας δασυνομένης τὸ ἦμαρ ψιλοῦται διὰ τὸ τροχαϊκὴν εἶναι τὴν λέξιν. θάμνος κυρίως οἱ ἐκ μιᾶς ῥίζης πολλοὶ κλάδοι· ἀπὸ τοῦ θαμινὰ ἐκ μιᾶς ῥίζης φύειν κλάδους.

O, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. Gr. Q 6. Paper, 250 x 175 mm, 42ff. Probably before 1300 (Lloyd-Jones – Wilson 1990, xi). De Meyier 1955, 98–100, Turyn 1944, 21, Turyn 1952, 148, Christodoulou 1977, 35*. Studied on microfilm. The Sophoclean part contains the Byzantine triad. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 29v–36r. The poetic text is in two or three columns and the scholia are written in a wide column in the outer margin. Sometimes their area is expanded to include the upper and lower margins too. For both, the script is very small and crowded together. Some signs of rewriting in the text of scholia have already been noted above in the description of F. Scholia of a Byzantine origin have been inserted into the ancient commentary. They include the following two: 615

αἰσχύνης ἄτερ: ὁ φόβος ἐστὶ γένος καὶ διαιρεῖται εἰς ἓξ εἴδη· εἰς ὀρρωδίαν, εἰς ὄκνον, εἰς αἰδῶ, εἰς αἰσχύνην, εἰς ἔκπληξιν, εἰς κατάπληξιν· ...

54

That F and O are twins is shown on p. 50–2.

32

Introduction

1271

τὰ μὲν σ' ὀκνῶ: ὀκνῶ μὲν ἵνα σὲ κωλύσω χαίρεσθαι,55 πάλιν δὲ δέδοικα μὴ ἀπὸ χαρᾶς σου νικηθῶμεν.

Wa, Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 103 sup. Paper, 250 x 171 mm, II+72ff. Written probably around 1275 (Wilson 1977, 168–9). Martini – Bassi 1906, 354–5. Turyn 1944, 23, Turyn 1952, 160–1. Examined on photographs. The Sophoclean part contains the Byzantine triad together with its scholia vetera. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 19r – 33v. The tragedy is in double columns while the ancient commentary occupies the upper, outer and bottom margins. Wa offers some cases of textual innovation. It substitutes synonyms for a number of original words: sch. 62.1 ὑπογείῳ] γῇ, 78.2 ἀποστῆσαι] ἀποκρατῆσαι, 993.2 ῥιψοκίνδυνος] φιλοκίνδυνος, 1078.2 ἰδίας] οἰκείας. In sch. 47a.5 its reading εἰς τὰ Πύθια after καταβῆναι should be taken as a deliberate change of ἐν τῇ Πυθίᾳ, born of a desire to express ‘motion toward’ in the normal Attic way; Lascaris, the editor princeps, printed the same conjecture in his text. In sch. 312b.3 ‘ὑπέρθεσιν’ was altered to ‘ὑπόθεσιν’, an alteration which also appears in the Juntine edition by Antonius Francinus Varchiensis. The phrase ‘ἡ ὑπόθεσις’ in sch. 817.2 is emphasised by the addition of ‘ὅλη’: ‘ἡ ὅλη ὑπόθεσις’. Wa contains many scholia of late origin such as the following: 32

62 366 1235

55 56

Πυθικόν λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ πύθω τὸ μανθάνω· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀπήρχοντο μανθάνοντες ὧνπερ ἤθελον. ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ πήθω τὸ σήπω· δράκοντα γὰρ τοξεύσας ὁ Ἀπόλλων καὶ τούτου τὸ δέρμα ἐκεῖσε τεθὲν διεσήπετο. supra lineam: ἀναχρονισμός· ὁ γὰρ Πυθαγόρας μετὰ τὸν Ὀρέστην ἐγένετο. τὸ δὲ καλοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ὄνομα ἀλλὰ ῥῆμα προστακτικόν (cf. sch. vet. 366) (ad ἐφηύρετ’, ἤλθετ’, εἴδεθ’, supra lineam): τῶν πανηγυρικῶν ἴδιόν εἰσι ταῦτα τὰ πάρισα καὶ ἰσοκατάληκτα.56

Note the Datism χαίρεσθαι· cf. e.g. Hdn. Philet. 6 Dain. Peppink 1934b, 156 took this note as ancient, arguing that ‘talia non adnotant Byzantini e suis ipsorum scriniis’. Firstly, the view that the Byzantines were unable to produce such notes is refuted by sch. rec. Ar. Nub. 394 and sch. anon. rec. Ar. Nub. 394, both of Byzantine origin. These contain the phrase ‘πάρισα καὶ ἰσοκατάληκτα’ and cannot be assumed to have borrowed it from an ancient source, since the corresponding parts of the ancient commentary (sch. vet. Ar. Nub. 394a, b, c) do not have it. Moreover, in sch. rec. Tz. Ar. Nub. 556a the phrase ‘πανηγυρικῆς ἰδέας ἐστίν’ exists, which is likewise absent from the corresponding ancient scholion. Secondly, as regards Peppink’s position that the

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

33

After sch. 147b we read the myth of Procne and after sch. 149b that of Niobe. At the end of sch. 320 there is an expansion in which the meaning of φιλεῖ is clarified: ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ φιλεῖν (sic pro φιλεῖ) ἀντὶ τοῦ εἴωθε. The ancient sch. 324–5 explains the motive for the abruptness with which the Chorus interrupt their conversation with Electra. In Wa there is an addition to this note in which an anonymous interpretator expresses his disagreement and proceeds to establish what he thinks to be a more satisfactory motive: τὸ δ' ἀληθέστερον οἶμαι ὅτι οὐ βούλονται τὴν Χρυσόθεμιν κατακοῦσαι τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς τὴν Ἠλέκτραν (τὴν Ἠλέκτραν Wc: τῆς Ἠλέκτρας Wa) ὡς τῷ τοῦ Αἰγίσθου μέρει καὶ <οὐ> (addidi) τῆς Ἠλέκτρας προστεθειμένην (em. Jahn: προστεθειμένος WaWc).57 After sch. 686a2 we are given some factual commentary on line 670, about Phocian Phanoteus. Pa, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, gr. 904. Paper, 255 x 175 mm, 142 ff. Probably before 1300 (Lloyd-Jones – Wilson 1990, xi). Schneider 1988, 95–8, Turyn 1944, 37, Turyn 1952, 159. Studied on microfilm. The Sophoclean part comprises fragments of the Byzantine triad. From the poetic text of Electra we have lines 382–441 on f. 138 r+v and lines 1015–510 on ff. 105r–111v. From the ancient scholia to the play the manuscript preserves an even smaller quantity, i.e. only those to lines 1015–153 and 1219–372. All the rest are lost as the outer margins of the book, the proper place of the commentary, were cut off. Lp Lp, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, grec 2799. Paper, 229 x 166 mm, VI + 164 ff. Late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. Omont 1888, 42, Turyn 1944, 30–1, De Marco 1951, 9–11, Turyn 1952, 184–6, Janz 2004, 20–1. Studied on microfilm and in situ. The scribe, who is without doubt Marcus Musurus58 (RgK 1, 265; 2, 359; 3, 433), copied the scholia to the seven plays of Sophocles, but not the plays themselves. The scholia to Electra, on ff. 107r –24v, strangely precede the Argument on f. 125r. The

57 58

aforementioned note is ancient, we may note the following: though we have as yet no edition of the Byzantine scholia to the Electra and so we cannot be completely certain, it seems more probable that the note is of a recent date: besides what we have noted above, we may add that phrases such as ‘τῶν πανηγυρικῶν ἰδεῶν’ vel. sim. or ‘πάρισα καὶ ἰσοκατάληκτα’ nowhere appear in the ancient scholia on the tragic poets. This scholion is also found in the manuscripts H and ∆. See Janz 2004, 20.

34

Introduction

scholia are constantly furnished with lemmata, since there is no poetic text in the book to guide the reader. They mostly occupy the main writing area of each page, but a few of them appear in the margins where one can also find some notes which seem to have been composed by Musurus for his personal use. Thus unusual words such as αὐθέκαστος, ἀλύω, ἐναγίσματα, occurring in the text of some scholia (3 31, 135, 324–5), tend to reappear in the margins; or whenever a scholion deals with a grammatical rule, the word κανών exists in the margin. Finally the margin is the place of some corrections, and of a recent scholion which runs as follows: 220

(ἐριστά): ἐριστὴς ὁ φιλόνεικος. ἐριστικὸς ὁ ἐπιτήδειόν τι ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἐρίζειν, ὥσπερ φιλικῶς (sic pro φιλικὸς) ὁ ἐπιτήδειος εἰς φιλίαν. ἐριστὸν δὲ τὸ ἄξιον ἔχειν τὴν ἔριν, ὥσπερ παικτὸν παίγνιον τὸν (sic pro τὸ) ἄξιον παίζεσθαι καὶ παικτὴ παιδιὰ ἡ ἀξία παίζεσθαι.

This as well as the many good readings which the codex contains in the text of scholia are probably the critical work of Musurus. K K, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, plut. 31.10. Paper, 303 x 187 mm, 265 ff. Later half of the twelfth century.59 Bandini 1768, 85–6, Turyn 1944, 15, Turyn 1952, 166–8, Turyn 1957, 333, Baldi 2007, 362 n. 19. Examined in situ. The volume in its present state contains a Euripidean and a Sophoclean part, but the two different series of quire signatures running through each part may indicate that it was originally two books. The Sophoclean portion contains all seven plays and a few excerpts from the scholia vetera to Ajax, Electra, Antigone and Trachiniae. Turyn identified the scribe of the poetic text as Ioannikios60 (cf. also RgK 2, 283 and RgK 3, 341) whom Wilson dated to the last third or quarter of the twelfth century.61 As for the copying of the scholia, Wilson ascribed it to an anonymous partner whom he recognised to have collaborated with Ioannikios in the production of books on a regular basis.62 The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and the sparse notes on Electra appear in the 59 60 61 62

Lloyd-Jones – Wilson 1990, viii. Turyn 1957, 333. Wilson 1983, 168. Wilson 1983, 163. See also RgK 2, 283 and RgK 3, 341.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

35

section 160v–77v. The sequence of the lines is perturbed: 1–922 (ff. 160v– 70v), 1227–1329 (f. 171r+v), 1069–1226 (ff. 172r–3v), 1330–1416 (f. 174r+v), 923–1069 (ff. 175r–6v) and 1417–1510 (f. 177r+v). Also the fourth quire (167r–177v) is strange in that it contains 11 folia. This state of affairs can be explained in the following way: the fourth quire was originally a quaternion but was enlarged by the insertion of two extra bifolia (172r+v + 173r+v and 171r+v +174r+v) between 176v and 177r, so that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the remaining lines of Electra; then Oedipus Tyrannus could start on a fresh fifth quire, as it actually happened. However the extra bifolia provided too much space, and the last folium of the augmented quaternion remained blank. In the process of (re-)binding the two bifolia were misplaced in the position they currently occupy to create a normal senion and then the empty folium at the end of the senion was cut off. As regards the characteristics of its text, K preserves only a few and severely abridged notes. To offer a picture of what is involved I here reproduce the comments on the Paedagogus’ speech, which are to be found on f. 160v: 2 4 6a

6b1 6b2

8a1 8a2 9a 9b 10 13 21a

(νῦν ἐκεῖν’ ἔξεστί σοι): προσοχὴν ὁ λόγος ἀπεργάζεται. (παλαιὸν Ἄργος): ὅτι πῦρ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ πρῶτον ἐκεῖσε κατηνέχθη. (αὕτη δ’ Ὀρέστα): δείκνυσι τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὃ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ Ἄργει ἀγορὰν ἐν ᾧ καὶ πῦρ ἀπόκειται τὸ δοθὲν οὐρανόθεν. ἔστι δὲ καταντικρὺ τοῦ Νεμαίου ∆ιός. (λυκοκτόνου θεοῦ): Ἀπόλλωνος. (λυκοκτόνου θεοῦ): ὅτι ὁ Ἀπόλλων ἐστὶ νόμιος θεὸς καὶ τοὺς ἐπιβούλους αὐτῶν φονεύει, λύκον αὐτῷ ἔθυον ἐν Ἄργει, ὃν ὥρισεν αὐτῷ ὥσπερ τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι τὰς ἐλάφους. ὅθεν τοῖς νομίσμασι οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ἐνεχάραζον (sic pro ἐνεχάραττον) τὸν λύκον ὡς Ἀθήναζε τὰς γλαῦκας. (οἷ δ’ ἱκάνομεν): ὅπου. Κs.l. (οἷ δ’ ἱκάνομεν): Ὅμηρος χωρίζει τὸ Ἄργος καὶ τὴν Μυκήνην, οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι τὴν αὐτὴν Μυκήνην καὶ Ἄργος φασίν. (φάσκειν): λέγε. Κs.l. (τὰς πολυχρύσους): Ὅμηρος· πολυχρύσοιο Μυκήνης. (πολύφθορον): ἐν ᾧ πολλαὶ φθοραὶ καὶ φόνοι ἐγένοντο. (ἤνεγκα): ὡς μὴ βαδίσαι δυνάμενον. (ξυνάπτετον): ἔρχεσθε.

36

Introduction

21b 22

(ὡς ἐνταῦθ’): ὅτι. (ἵνα): ὅπου.

Other typical examples of abridgement are: 36 86c 320

μὴ μετὰ πολέμου ἐπεμβῆναι. πανταχοῦ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀήρ. ἢ ὅτι ἰσότιμα εἰσὶ τὰ τέσσερα στοιχεῖα ἀλλήλοις. ὀκνείω δ' ἵππων ἐπιβαινέμεν ὠκειάων.

The scribe also replaced words with synonyms or exercised other forms of alteration such as change of word order and addition of words easily inferred from the context. For example, 22.1 135–6.2 182b.5 381.1 54a1 556–7 657b.4

ἐγείρει] διεγείρει παρηγορούμενοι] παραμυθούμενοι Πλούτωνος] ᾍδου κατεσκεπασμένῳ] κατεστεγασμένῳ ὑδρίαν, ἐν ᾗ ἀπέκειτο τὰ δοκοῦντα δῆθεν εἶναι τοῦ Ὀρέστου ὀστέα. εἰ πρὸ τῶν λόγων ἐπυνθάνου, καὶ τὸ λέγειν σοι ἐφίημι, οὐκ ἂν ἦς λυπηρὰ εἰς τὸ ἀκούεσθαι. after «ζῶντα» he adds the idea which is left implicit by the scholiast: «ὑποστέλλεται περὶ αὐτοῦ».

It is noteworthy that he made occasional use of the existing scholarship of his time to elucidate the text of the play. Next to lines 147–9 in which the tragedy mentions the ever-mourning Procne, we find the note «τὴν ἱστορίαν εἰς τὸ λεξικὸν τῆς Ὀδυσσείας» (scil. ζήτει). What he refers to seems to be what was traditionally called D scholia (V scholia is the correct term for them) which consist mostly of explanations of words and are therefore aptly called a lexicon.63 If we turn to sch. D Hom. Od. 19. 518a and b Ernst, we do indeed find a version of the story of the Nightingale. Moreover, next to line 781 (ὁ προστατῶν χρόνος) we read: «βοηθῶν αὐτῷ ἀποξενώσεως καὶ ἡλικίας· εἴθιστο τοῖς μετοίκοις προστάτην ἕνα τῶν πολιτῶν ἔχειν». Here the scribe probably depends on the Suda π 2809 for the second part of his note. These two specimens of scholarly work are to be expected from someone who works under the supervision of 63

Van Thiel, ‘Die D-Scholien der Ilias in den Handschriften’, ZPE 132 (2000) 10 mentions that in the Vaticanus gr. 32, which is a manuscript of the Iliad’s D scholia, each book’s scholia bear the title ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΛΕΞΙΚΟΥ.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

37

Ioannikios, a γραμματικός (as he calls himself) and probably a schoolmaster.64 H∆ H, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, plut. 32.40. Paper, 254 x 185 mm, 71ff. Around 1300. Bandini 1768, 201–2, Dindorf 1852, vi, Turyn 1944, 16, Turyn 1952, 159–60, Christodoulou 1977, 36*–7*. Studied on microfilm. The scribe, recognised as Μανουὴλ Σφηνέας (Turyn 1952, 152; Vogel-Gardthausen 1909, 281), copied the Byzantine triad of Sophocles together with its scholia vetera. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra are contained on ff. 25r–48v. The poetic text is written in single columns until f. 29v from which point it is written in double columns.65 The commentary is found not only in the outer area of each page, but also in the upper and/or lower margins. The book offers signs of conscious alteration in the wording of scholia. Most of them are also found in ∆, the twin of H,66 and so can be ascribed to the common ancestor of the two books. Α change occurring frequently is the replacement of a word by a synonym: sch. 7.2 εἰσιοῦσιν] ἰοῦσιν H∆, 14.1 νέου] νεανίου Η∆, 36.1 ἀπαρασκεύαστον] ἀπαράσκευον Η∆, 727.2 καλουμένη] λεγομένη Η∆, 539a.1 λαμβάνονται] ἐπιλαμβάνονται Η∆. At the end of sch. 19 there is an interpolation ἐλλιπὴς ἐγένετο τῶν ἄστρων ἡ εὐφρόνη Η∆, which seems to be motivated by the attempt of the scribe to clarify ἐκλέλοιπε τῶν ἄστρων ἡ μέλαινα εὐφρόνη (=sch. 19.4). The same impulse can be seen to generate the interpolation at the end of sch. 94: πρὶν γὰρ ἠμφιβάλλετο εἴτε Ἠλέκτρα ἐστὶν εἴτε πρόσπολος Η∆. Sometimes the books are clear about ideas easily inferred from the context: sch. 324– 5.3 βουλόμεναι κωλύουσιν] βουλόμενος ὁ χορὸς κωλύει H∆, 1425.2 θεῷ] τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι Η (∆ is unavailable here). At the end of the Electra portion the two books have the following poem. Below is a critical text for it:67

64 65 66 67

Wilson 1983, 167. But the text is in double columns on f. 28v. The relationship between H and ∆ is analysed on p. 69–71. Cf. Dawe 1973, 117.

38

Introduction

Στίχοι τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ τῆς Ἠλέκτρας δράματος ἐμπεριέχοντες

5

λέαιναν ἢ δράκαιναν ἀλλ' οὐ μητέρα καὶ τὸν σύνευνον ἄνδρα τὸν πατροκτόνον ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς τιμωρὸς ἐκτελῶν ὄπα τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κράτιστον ἄσκευος μόνος κτανὼν ἔθαλλεν ὡς ὀνείροις τοῖς πάλαι εἶδ’ ἡ θανοῦσα πρὶν θαν<εῖν> τελεσφόροις. ἡ δ' αὐταδέλφη χαρμονῆς πεπλησμένη ἀφῆκε λυπρὸν πένθος, ἀστε<ρ>γὲς δάκρυ.

1 (titulus) post στίχοι add. εἰς Η (del. iam Dawe) ἐμπεριέχοντες ∆ (coni. iam Dawe): 5 ἄσκευος μόνος scripsi: ἄσκευον μόνων ∆: ἄσκευον μόνην Η ἐμπεριέχοντος H 7 εἶδ' ἡ haesitans Dawe: εἶδε H∆ θαν<εῖν> Dawe τελεσφόροις scripsi (cf. El. 644– 6): τελεσφόρα H∆ 8 πεπλησμένη ∆ (coni. iam Dawe): πεπλησμένης Η 9 ἀστε<ρ>γὲς Dawe

The invariable number of twelve syllables and the paroxytone ending of each of the above lines point to the Byzantine rules for iambic trimetres and so suggest a late date for the poem.68 Besides the poem, one finds several notes of Byzantine origin interspersed with the ancient scholia. Most of them occur in ∆ too: 107

214

270 284

68

(μὴ οὐ): αἱ δύο ἀποφάσεις ἀντὶ μιᾶς· ἀναιρεῖ γὰρ ἡ μία τὴν ἑτέραν. ὥσπερ γὰρ πιών τις φάρμακον, ἔπειτα θηριακήν, ἀναιρεῖ ἡ θηριακὴ τὸ φάρμακον καὶ πάλιν ἔχει ὑγιῶς τὸ σῶμα, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡ μία ἀπόφασις ἀναιρεῖ τὴν ἑτέραν καὶ οὕτως ἔχει ὑγιῶς ὁ λόγος. Η∆ post 2 ἐλήλυθας sequuntur ἢ οὐ νοεῖς ἐξ οἵων πραγμάτων ἐνέπεσες εἰς τὰς παρούσας βλάβας· ἤγουν, διὰ τὸ ὑβρίζειν σε τὸν Αἴγισθον καὶ τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν πάσχεις. Η∆ (λοιβάς): λοιβὰς λέγει τὰς ὑδρηλὰς θυσίας, οἷον τὸ γάλα τὸ μελίκρατον καὶ τὰ ἕτερα· κυρίως δὲ ἡ τῶν βοῶν. Η∆ (ἐπωνομασμένην): ὅτε πολυτελῆ τράπεζαν ἴδωμεν, λέγομεν ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν «ἀγαμεμνόνειος δαίς». Η∆

P. Maas, ‘Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber’, BZ 12 (1903) 278–323.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

312–3

318

320 390

722

39

μὴ δόκει μ’ ἄν, εἴπερ (– οἰχνεῖν): δαιμονίως δὲ τὸ ἀπεῖναι τὸν Αἴγισθον ᾠκονόμηται πρὸς τὴν χείρωσιν τῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας. ἀπορία γὰρ ἦν ἂν πῶς Αἰγίσθου ὄντος ἐντὸς τοιαῦτά φησιν ἡ Ἠλέκτρα. ἄλλως τε ἐπεὶ μέλλουσι καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ὀρέστην ἐλθόντες ἀνελεῖν τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν, πῶς ἔμελλον τοῦτο ποιῆσαι τοῦ Αἰγίσθου ἐκεῖσε παρόντος; διὰ τοῦτο ᾠκονόμηται ἀπεῖναι τὸν Αἴγισθον. Η∆ (ἥξοντος): τὸ ἥξοντος λέγεται ὅταν τις ἐξελθὼν τὴν ὁδὸν ἀνύει, τὸ δὲ μέλλοντος ὅτε οὐδ' ἐπεχείρησεν ἐλθεῖν, μέλλει δὲ ἐπιχειρῆσαι ἔρχεσθαι· ἡ γὰρ βουλὴ μέρος ἐστιν τῆς πράξεως. Η∆ οὕτω συντακτέον· πᾶς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πράσσων μέγα πρᾶγμα φιλεῖ καὶ εἴωθεν ὀκνεῖν. Η∆ φασὶ τὰς φρένας συνοικεῖν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. ὅταν οὖν εἴπῃ τις ἔξω τι τοῦ εἰκότος, φαμὲν ὅτι κατελείφθης τῶν φρενῶν. νῦν δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον φησί· ποῦ ποτ' εἶ φρενῶν ἀντὶ τοῦ κατέλειψας τὰς φρένας ὥσπερ ἐὰν ᾤκει αὕτη ἐν ταῖς φρεσὶ καὶ μὴ αἱ φρένες ἐν αὐτῇ. Η∆ τὸν ἔξω τοῦ ζυγοῦ πλησιάζων εἰς τὸν καμπτῆρα καὶ ἀφεὶς τὸν δεξιὸν καὶ κωλήσας τὸν ἀριστερὸν ἐξῆλθεν καλῶς. Η∆

∆, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 41. Paper, 260 x 170 mm, 87 ff., Fourteenth century, Rostagno–Festa 1893, 142, Turyn 1944, 17, Turyn 1952, 160. Examined on microfilm. It contains the Byzantine triad of Sophocles and the respective scholia vetera. The dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 13r – 30r, but the arguments to the tragedy have been replaced by the metrical poem ἐλθὼν Ὀρέστης etc69 and a Byzantine prose summary of the play published by Dindorf 1852, 243–4. The poetic text is written mostly in double columns, while the commentary is found almost everywhere: in the outer margin or at the tops or bottoms of the page. In some sections the poetic text and the commentary alternate; in this case the latter is written across the whole width of the page. We have noted above some cases of conscious alteration and some recent scholia which ∆ shares with its twin H. There follow some scholia given exclusively by ∆: 335

ὑφειμένῃ: ὅλον τὸ ἱστίον ἀναπετασάσῃ. ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν πλεόντων· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι σφοδρῶς

69

See above p. 29.

40

Introduction

335a2 645

ἀνέμου πνεύσαντος τὸ ἱστίον κατατιθέντες ὑφειμένον πνέουσιν (sic pro πλέουσιν ∆), οὕτω κἀγὼ ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς ἐξαγοράζουσα τὸν καιρὸν ὑφειμένως ζῶ. post χρῶμαι (2, app. crit.) sequuntur: ὁ νοῦς· εἰ δέοι με, φησί, τῶν κακῶν εἶναι ἐλευθέραν καὶ μὴ τιμωρεῖσθαι, χρεὼν καθυπείκειν τοῖς κρατοῦσιν. (δισσῶν ὀνείρων): δισσὰ ὀνείρατά φησιν ὁ Ὅμηρος. ἐκ δύο πυλῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξέρχονται οἱ ὄνειροι: ἐκ κερατίνης καὶ ἐλεφαντίνης. τῆς μὲν κερατίνης, ὡς οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐδόξαζον, εἰσὶν ἀληθῆ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ κραίνω τὸ τελειῶ, τῆς δὲ ἐλεφαντίνης ψευδῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ κεύθω τὸ κρύπτω. V

V, Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. 468. Paper, 340 x 248 mm, I+190 ff. Around 1290 A.D. (Matthiessen 1969, 299 n. 20). The Sophoclean part contains the seven plays, but Trachiniae and Oedipus Coloneus are fragmentary: lines 1–18 and 1338–1779 respectively. It also contains the scholia vetera to all, except those to Trachiniae and Oedipus Coloneus. Mioni 1985, 255–7, Turyn 1944, 38, Turyn 1952, 153, Christodoulou 1977, 37*–8*, Janz 2004, 25–6. Examined by autopsy and at greater length on photographs. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 115v–28r. The poetic text is written in double columns. The ancient commentary was added by a different scribe in a continuous column in the outer margin of the page, but occasionally occupies the upper or lower margins too. It should be noted that its amount diminishes drastically starting from line 1020 (f. 124r). A third scribe wrote the interlinear glosses in a very fine pen, which makes many of them almost illegible today, and a fourth made some additions in black ink.70 There are cases of conscious alteration in the text of scholia: arg.I.2 δεικνὺς] δεικνύων, sch. 9a.2 post Ἄργος add. εἶναι, sch. 45.2 καταβαίνων] μεταβαίνων, sch. 259.4 ὁσημέραι] ὡς καθ' ἑκάστην, sch. 263.1 post ἀνιαρὸν add. ἐστίν, sch. 271.1–2 κινητικὸν δὲ πρὸς οἶκτον τὸ αὐτοέντην ἐν κοίτῃ πατρός] κινητικὸν δὲ πρὸς οἶκτον τὸ αὐτὸν ὄντα (sic pro αὐτοέντην) ἐν τῇ κοίτῃ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁρᾶν τὴν κόρην. A number of Byzantine notes are found interspersed with the ancient commentary. Scattolin recognised one of them as ultimately deriving from 70

For a sample of V’s glosses see above on p. 18.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

41

Eustathius and some others as the work of John Tzetzes.71 Other recent material includes:72 6 28

345 350 362 642

αὕτη δ’ Ὀρέστα: ἀρσενικῶς ἔμελλεν εἰπεῖν «οὗτος ὁ τόπος». ἔστι δὲ ἀττικὸν τοῦτο. οἱ γὰρ ἀττικοὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐπαγομένην λέξιν καὶ τὴν προτέραν τιθέασιν. ἐν πρώτοις ἕπῃ: ὀτρύνων μὲν ἡμᾶς καὶ συμβουλεύων ἡμῖν τὰ εἰκότα κρείττων ἡμῶν ὑπάρχεις. γέρων δὲ ὢν καὶ ἀσθενὴς καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος ἔργοις βοηθῆσαι, ἀκολουθεῖς ἡμῖν τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ δυναμένοις μαχέσασθαι. (θάτερ'): θάτερος καὶ ἅτερος ἐπὶ ἑνός, ἑκάτερος ἐπὶ δύο, ἕκαστος δὲ ἐπὶ πλήθους. (ξυνέρδεις): ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥέζω τὸ πράττω καὶ καθ' ὑπερβιβασμὸν ἔρζω. ἐτράπη δὲ τὸ ζ εἰς δ ὡς φυσικὴν συγγένειαν ἔχων (sic pro ἔχον). τράπεζα: τετράπεζά τις οὖσα ἐξεβλήθη τὸ τε διὰ καλλιφωνίαν. σπείρῃ: ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν σπειρόντων καὶ ἐφαπλούντων τὸν σῖτον ὧδε κἀκεῖσε. GMR

G, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 152. Palimpsest parchment, 184 x 124 mm, 184ff. In 1282 A.D. the scribe Αὐγούστιος (Vogel – Gardthausen 1909, 47, Turyn 1952, 103 n. 105, Turyn 1972, II, pl. 225c) covered the scriptio inferior of the book by overwriting the Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus and Philoctetes as well as the scholia vetera to the four plays in a revised form. Rostagno–Festa 1893, 161, Turyn 1944, 17–8, Turyn 1952, 103, Turyn 1972, I, 42–7, II, pll. 26 (f. 58v – 59r), 27 (f. 159v – 160r), Christodoulou 1977, 38*–9*, Janz 2004, 11–2. Studied on microfilm and in situ. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 100v – 43v. G’s narrow margins were responsible for a peculiar arrangement of the material (Dain 1989, xxxix–xl). The poetic text is – quite conventionally – written in single columns, but G is unique among the manuscripts that I have seen 71 72

Scattolin 2003, 315–7. A list of Byzantine scholia in V can be found in Benedetti 1967 and Scattolin 2003. As already noted above (pp. 19–20 n. 11) these scholars claim that some of this material is ancient, but for the reasons I explained there this is hardly convincing with the possible exception of sch. 604–5.

42

Introduction

in that the scholia are not written in marginal columns, but are grouped in blocks running right across the width of the page, interrupting the poetic text every now and then. Each block of scholia is ‘strung together without any separation between individual comments and mostly without lemmata, so that it is difficult to imagine that a reader having no other witness to compare them to could ever have made much sense of them’ (Janz 2004, 12). The first block, which contains the scholia to lines 1–22, may serve as an illustration of the thing typically involved. The items are arranged in a succession as follows: sch. 1a with the lemma ὦ τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος; sch. 2–3 without lemma; sch. 4 without lemma; sch. 6 with the lemma αὕτη δ’ Ὀρέστα; sch. 7 with the lemma οὑξ ἀριστερᾶς; sch 9a without lemma; sch. 13 without lemma; sch. 19 without lemma; sch. 22 with the lemma ἀκμή; The manuscript R, which will be proved to descend from G’s gemellus, offers a revealing comparison and helps to explain this state of affairs in G. R groups its scholia in marginal columns beside the poetic text. It offers sch. 1a, 6, 7, 22 with exactly the same lemmata as G, but sch. 4, 9a, 13, 19 are referred to the correct place of the poetic text not with lemmata, but with the aid of reference signs. As regards sch. 2–3, this is strung together with sch. 1a without any separation. This evidence suggests that G’s model had exactly the same arrangement of material as R and referred its scholia to the relevant parts of the poetic text by exactly the same methods. When G changed the arrangement, it reproduced the scholia of its exemplar with their lemmata; however, it omitted all the reference signs of its exemplar, thus creating the confusion which we have described. Though the normal position for the scholia in G are the blocks between the columns of the poetic text, the scribe wrote some notes, brief in length, either between the lines or alongside the columns of the tragedy: However, as Janz showed, in these spaces he also entered material which he had taken from a second source. It should be added that the material of this other source sometimes appears in the blocks of scholia too, but this happens very rarely. As regards the more recent material appearing in G, we may give the following example. 252

τὸ ἐμὸν εἶπε διὰ τὸ φίλον εἶναι τὴν Ἠλέκτραν τῷ χορῷ· κοινὰ γὰρ τὰ τῶν φίλων.

R, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, gr. 2291. Paper, 312 x 215 mm, V+283ff. Fifteenth century. Franchi de’ Cavalieri 1927, 100–1, Turyn 1944, 38, Turyn 1952, 103–4, Christodoulou 1977, 39*, Janz 2004, 24. Studied on microfilm. The Sophoclean part contains the seven plays and their scholia vetera in the revised form offered by G. The Trachiniae,

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

43

the last tragedy in the book, breaks off at line 372, and the scholia to it extend as far as sch. 360. The Arguments, dramatis personae, poetic text and scholia to Electra appear in the section 124v–60r. The poetic text is written in single columns which use the inner side of each page, leaving a wide outer margin for the reception of scholia. The reference of scholia to the appropriate place of the tragedy is effected by means either of lemmata or signs. In some scholia, however, both methods are used (e.g. sch. 7, 22, 78), while in some others there is no connection at all (e.g. sch. 50a, 204b, 210). As regards the more recent additions to the revised ancient corpus, there is a possible connection with the Byzantine scholar John Tzetzes. Dindorf was the first to note the existence of Tzetzian scholia in G.73 De Marco subsequently found that some of these appear also in M and R and suggested that they were already present in the common ancestor of GMR.74 Now on f. 125r of R we read the following note with regard to Inachus’ daughter mentioned in line 5 of the tragedy: τοῖς (sic pro τῆς) τοῦ Ἰνάχου θυγατ(ρὸς) τοῦ Ἀργ(είων) βασιλ(έως) Ζεὺς ἐρασθείς: ζήτ(ει) τὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν τῷ Λυκόφρον(ι). However, there is only a quite obscure reference to Io in Lycophron’s Alexandra, and so this work is probably not what the scribe had in mind. It is more reasonable to suppose that he here refers to Tzetzes’ commentary on the Alexandra,75 for at sch. Lyc. 1291 the Byzantine scholar does offer some facts of Io’s story: p. 365, 26–9 Scheer: βοῶπιν δὲ αὐτὴν λέγει, ὅτι μυθικῶς ὁ Ζεύς, ὥς φασιν, ἐμίγνυτο αὐτῇ, ὃ γνοῦσα ἡ Ἥρα βοῦν ἐποίησεν αὐτήν…76 Moreover, there exists the following Triclinian note: 45 ἐπειδὴ ὁ Ὀρέστης παρὰ τῷ Τροφονίῳ (sic pro Στροφίῳ) ἐτρέφετο, ὁ μέν Πυλάδης καὶ ὁ Ὀρέστης μέλλουσιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι τὸ ἄγγος πρὸς Κλυταιμνήστραν ἄξουσιν οἷα παρὰ Τροφονίου πεμφίντες (sic pro 73 74 75

76

Dindorf 1852, v–vi. Bevilacqua 1973-4 assembled those scholia in GMR and codex Naples II.F.9 which explicitly mention the name of Tzetzes. De Marco 1936, 11–2. It seems that the family GMR had access also to the scholia vetera on the Alexandra: GMR explicate Soph. Philoctetes 800 as follows: ὁ γὰρ Φιλοκτήτης καύσας τὸν Ἡρακλέα δῶρον παρ' αὐτοῦ τὰ τόξα ἔλαβε, and Μ adds the words: ζήτει τὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν τῷ Λυκόφρονι (teste De Marco 1937, 165). One cannot agree with De Marco that here the reader is referred to Lycophron’s Alexandra 916 ff., for again the poem is too obsure to serve as an elucidation. The scholia vetera on the Alexandra is the obvious choice, since sch. Lyc. 916–8 Leone (p. 180, 12–3) attests GMR’s note in exactly the same words. Lycophron’s Alexandra was a popular poem in Byzantium; its obscure character was responsible for the poem being frequently accompanied by Tzetzes’ commentary: see N. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy, London 1992, 147.

44

Introduction

Στροφίου πεμφθέντες), τῷ δὲ παιδαγωγῷ ὑποτίθεται εἰπεῖν ὡς παρὰ Φανοτέως ἤει (sic pro ἥκει) μηνίσων (lege μηνύσων) τὸν τοῦ Ὀρέστου θάνατον.77 M, Modena, Biblioteca Estense, α. Τ.9.4. Paper, 223 x 160 mm, IV+199 ff. Fifteenth century. Samberger 1965, 323,78 Turyn 1944, 24–5, Turyn 1952, 104, Christodoulou 1977, 39*, Janz 2004, 16–7. Examined by autopsy and in photographs. The book contains the scholia vetera to the seven plays of Sophocles in the revised form offered by G and R, and Thoman scholia to the Byzantine triad only. No poetic text is found. The scholia to the Trachiniae, the last tragedy in the book, break off at line 112; there is a note on f. 143v which explains the absence of the rest of them: ἐνταῦθα λείπουσι τὰ σχόλια ὅτι παλαιὸν καὶ σχεδὸν σεσηπωμένον (-μένον Μp.c.: -μένων Ma.c.) ἦν τὸ βιβλίον ἤγουν τὸ προτότυπον (sic pro πρωτό-). The Arguments, dramatis personae and ancient commentary on the Electra appear in the section 70v – 93r. The lack of poetic text made the scribe furnish almost all scholia with lemmata, which he wrote in red ink. There are cases, however, in which a red lemma is immediately followed by exactly the same lemma written in black ink. This peculiar fact can be explained by the hypothesis that M’s model referred its scholia to the relevant parts of the poetic text by exactly the same methods as R. Then M’s red lemmata are those poetic words which are marked by a reference sign in its model (e.g. sch. 4, 9a etc; see above p. 42). In the instances in which its model provided a scholion both with a reference sign and a lemma, M offers a duplication of the lemma (e.g. sch. 1a, 6, 7). And when its model had neither lemma nor reference sign, M may or may not supply a lemma to the scholion (e.g. lemma sch. 2–3 etc; no lemma sch. 343a, 466).79 Very few scholia of more recent origin are found in M: 534 τὸ εἶεν ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος· τέλος τῶν προρηθέντων (sic pro προρρηθέντων), ἀρχὴ τῶν λεχθέντων (sic pro λεχθησομένων ut coni. de Marco 1937, 181). It has been mentioned above that all three manuscripts are witnesses not to the original (i.e. Laurentian-type), but to a revised form of the scholia vetera. This form is known as the Roman version. All manuscripts considered so far in the course of this study have been found to contain 77 78 79

Cf. Dindorf 1852, 360. = Puntoni V., ‘Indice dei codici greci della Biblioteca Estense di Modena’, SIFC 4 (1896), 407 (no. 41). De Marco’s (1936, 5–6) explanation of M’s duplications is not satisfactory: ‘i lemmi sono non di rado ripetuti … ripetuti a volte forse per distrazione dell’ amanuense’.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

45

signs of conscious alteration of the inherited text. GMR however differ in that this alteration is systematic. Here are three examples of this διασκευή, each preceded by the respective original text for the sake of comparison: 13

185–6

411b

ἤνεγκα: τὸ ἤνεγκα τὸ βραχὺ τῆς ἡλικίας δηλοῖ, ὡς περὶ παιδαρίου οὔ τι βαδίσαι δυναμένου. L q(Η∆) ἤνεγκα: τὸ ἤνεγκα τὸ βραχὺ τῆς ἡλικίας δηλοῖ, ὡς περὶ παιδὸς οὐδὲ βαδίσαι δυναμένου. r(GΜR) … ἐπεὶ μέχρι νῦν οὐδὲν ὑπὲρ ἐκδικίας Ἀγαμέμνονος πέπρακται. L q(Η∆) … ἐπεὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐδὲν ὑπὲρ ἐκδικήσεως Ἀγαμέμνονος γέγονεν. r(GΜR) ὦ θεοὶ πατρῷοι: ἀκούσασα ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ὀνείροις δείματά τινα τῇ Κλυταιμήστρᾳ γέγονε, θαρσεῖ καὶ ἐπικαλεῖται τοὺς θεούς, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, κἂν νῦν παρεστάναι. L q(Η∆) V Mi ὦ θεοὶ πατρῷοι: ἀκούσασα ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ὀνείροις ἐκδειματοῦται ἡ Κλυταιμνήστρα, γέγονε θρασεῖα καὶ ἐπικαλεῖται τοὺς θεούς, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, κἂν νῦν παρεστάναι. r(GΜiiR)

The composition of the διασκευή should be dated to the period between the twelfth century and the year 1282; the terminus post quem is provided by the aforementioned references to John Tzetzes in some of the Byzantine notes in G and the terminus ante quem is established by G’s date. It is necessary to study the distinctive features of the adaptation and, if possible, to reconstruct the principles of the adaptor’s work. This study is by no means redundant, for previous scholars have not touched upon this matter, which is so important in avoiding hybridisation between the Laurentian and the Roman versions. For example, Dindorf,80 the first to have used this type of text via his study of G, nowhere mentions that G-scholia represent another version of the scholiastic material exhibited by L. De Marco81 speaks of ‘vere e proprie varianti’ between L and the Roman version and by this expression he means ‘i passi, cioè, in cui così la lezione L come quella ρ (i.e. MR) dia senso accettabile’. Nevertheless he does not seem to be fully aware of the systematic tendency of the manuscripts under discussion to change the text and in any case does not offer a complete survey of the characteristics of the text. Christodoulou and Janz are

80 81

Dindorf 1852. De Marco 1951, 39.

46

Introduction

similarly silent on this. What then, in the two versions, are the differences in vocabulary and syntax? The author of the Roman version made a number of simple substitutions. For example, he changed the number of some nouns, adjectives and participles or the tense of some verbs and participles. He also substituted an adverb for its adjective and vice versa. In all of these cases the meaning is not affected. e.g. 1a.2 6–9.3 6–9.8 40.1 52.4 149a.1 188.2 345a.3 482.2 492–4.3 7.3 1291.2 4.1 126–7.1 126–7.5 126–7.5 307.3 451c.1 817.1

ἐν ἀρχαῖς] ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐξ ἀριστερᾶς] ἐξ ἀριστερῶν τῷ νομίσματι] τοῖς νομίσμασι τὰ πραττόμενα] τὸ πραττόμενον τῷ τάφῳ] τοῖς τάφοις τοῖς συμβεβηκόσι] τῷ συμβεβηκότι ἀτυχήμασιν] ἀτυχήματι θάτερα] θάτερον κατὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν] κατὰ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ γάμον] γάμους πεποίηνται] ἐποίουν λελεγμένων] λεγομένων ὁμωνύμως] ὁμώνυμον αἰδήμων] αἰδημόνως ἠθικὸν] ἠθικῶς ἁρμόζον] ἁρμοζόντως ἀσεβῆ] ἀσεβῶς περιπαθῶς] περιπαθὲς οἰκονομικῶς] οἰκονομικὸν

In the following cases, he substituted synonyms, more or less appropriate: 7.3 13.1 32.1 42b.6 45.1 62.5 89–90.1 95.1–2 169.2 185–6.3 185–6.3 432.2

ὁδόν] εἴσοδον παιδαρίου] παιδὸς διηγήσεως] ἱστορίας παντὸς] ὅλου ἐπήνεγκεν] ἐπήγαγε συντετυχηκέναι] ἐντετυχηκέναι μετῆκται] μετήνεκται ἐν τῇ Νεκυίᾳ] ἐν τῷ ᾍδῃ ἀγγέλους] ἀγγελίας ἐκδικίας] ἐκδικήσεως πέπρακται] γέγονεν ὀνείρων] ὀνειράτων

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

492a2.1 617–8.1 637.1 637.1 645.1 731.2 732b.3 841a2.3 997.2 1019a.1 1070.1 1087–8.2 1236a.1 1245.1

47

δύσλεκτρα] κακόλεκτρα ἐπονείδιστα] ἀναίσχυντα ὅτι] διότι ἵδρυται] ἵστατο Ὅμηρος] τὸ ὁμηρικὸν ἀκροωμένων] ἀκουσομένων μεταφορικῶς] κατὰ μεταφορὰν ὅ ἐστιν] τουτέστιν παραβάλοι] ἀντιβάλλοι κἀνθάδε] καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἄγγειλον] ἀπάγγειλον καταγωνισαμένη] κατατροπωσαμένη ἀποβῇ] χωρήσῃ ἐπείπερ ὑπέμνησεν] ἐπειδὴ ἀνέμνησεν.

In sch. 52.2 the synonym does not oust the original word, so the two words stand in juxtaposition: πλοκάμους] βοστρύχους ἤτοι τοὺς πλοκάμους. In some instances he replaced the synonym which the ancient annotator had used to clarify a poetic word with the poetic word itself: 831a2.1 1145–6.1, 4 1420–1b.2

ἀποκναίεις] ἀπολεῖς ἦς] ἦσθα οἱ φονευθέντες] οἱ πάλαι θανόντες

He used one-word forms to avoid periphrases and vice versa: 411b.1–2 871.3 411b.2

δείματά τινα τῇ Κλυταιμήστρᾳ γέγονε] ἐκδειματοῦται ἡ Κλυταιμνήστρα ἡ ὀλόφυρσις Ἠλέκτρας γένηται] ὀδύρηται ἡ Ἠλέκτρα θαρσεῖ] γέγονε θρασεῖα

The passive construction has passed into the active in sch. 88.1 ἀπήγγελται] ἀπήγγειλεν and the adjective has been changed from the comparative degree to the positive in 119.1 νεώτεροι] νέοι. Apart from substitutions we find a number of passages which are longer than those contained in the Laurentian version of the text. These can be viewed as expansions made by the Roman adaptor in his attempt to be explicit about ideas easily inferred from the context: 46.1 131.2

post φίλοι add. δορύξενοι λέγονται post εὐνοεῖτε add. τοῦτο δέ φησι

48

Introduction

271.2 300.1 637.1 657b.4 691.1 977a.1 1069b.2 1178.5 1281–4.2 1398–9.1 1462.1

post πατρὸς add. ὁρᾶν κείμενον post κατὰ εἰρωνείαν add. εἴρηται post ἵστατο add. τὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος εἴδωλον post ζῶντα add. οὐδὲν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀρᾶται scholio praefiguntur πένταθλά εἰσι ταῦτα post θηλυκῶν add. καὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν τάσδε Ὀρέστῇ] Ὀρέστου θανάτῳ post σῶμα add. αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τῆς θλίψεως post ἤλπιζον add. ἀκοῦσαι post ἐξερχομένη add. ἡ Ἠλέκτρα post τυχών add. παρ’ ἐμοῦ

Finally, we may note three trivialisations in his text: 80.1 552.1 584.1

φιλοπευστεῖν] πρὸς τὸ φιλοπευστεῖν ἀντακήκοας] ἀκήκοας ἐξ ἐμοῦ σαυτῆς] σῶν

In conclusion: the adaptor seems to have adhered to the dogma that he should attempt no major changes on the copy of the Laurentian version before his eyes.

2.2 Affiliations of the selected manuscripts The Laurentian version The copies of the Laurentian version which have been selected in the previous part of the book, namely L Λ N F O Wa Pa Lp and K, must now be investigated in respect of their interrelation. K will be examined separately at the end of this chapter: it gives only a small amount of the ancient commentary and is thus not extant for the greater number of the readings which are used to establish the affiliations of the other copies. NFOWaPa82 agree in error or alternative formulations against the rest of the tradition; therefore they all derive from a copy in which all these readings were found, unless one of the six is itself the source from which the other four descend; but this is not the case, because each of them will 82

It is to be remembered that Pa contains scholia only to lines 1015–146 and 1232– 368.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

49

be shown to have individual errors, which are not reproduced in the rest. The common source is therefore a lost copy which will be called p: 82.3 86c.1 86c.3 92.2–3

μηνυθέντος Ὀρέστου LΛLpG: om. NFOWa ἴσην μοῖραν ἔχων τῇ γῇ fere LΛ Lp H∆V: om. NFOWa ἐστὶν LΛ Lp H∆V: om. NFWa οὔτε νυκτὸς οὔτε ἡμέρας LLpH∆: νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας NFOWa 120.2 οὕτως LLpH∆Μ: ὅτι NFOWa 183.2 γὰρ LLpV: δὲ NFOWa et H: om. ∆G 221–2.2 δεινῶν LΛΗ∆GMR: κακῶν NFΟWa 240–1.3 φαίνοιτο LLpH∆GMR: γένοιτο NFOWa 312b.1 ᾠκονόμηται LLpVGΜR: ᾠκοδόμηται NFOWa 345a.2 προστιθεμένην LLpHVGΜR: προστεθειμένη (-θη- F) NFΟWa 445a1.5 τι … δεινὸν LH∆VGMR: τι … κακὸν Lp: κακὸν NFΟWa 614.3 ἔπρεπε τηλικαύτῃ LΛLpH∆VGiiGiR: om. NFOWa 645.3 καὶ δισσοποιῶν LΛLpH∆VGΜR: om. NFOWa 657b.4 ζῶντα LLpHVGΜR: om. NFOWa 675b.1 ταύτην LLpVGMR: ταύτης NFOWa 706a2.3–5 οἱ – fin. LLpH∆VGΜR: om. NFOWa 716–7.1 πρῶτοι LLpΗ∆VGR : πρῶτος NFOWa 732a.1 φησί LVGMR: ὁ Ὀρέστης NWa 732b.3 ἐπὶ LLpΗ∆VGMR: ἀπὸ NWa 871.3 μακρὸν LLpHVMGR: μακρὰν FOWa 975.9 ὑπεξεῖλεν LΛLpVGMR: ὑπεξῆλθεν NFOWa 977a.2 Ὅμηρος LΛLpVGR: ὁ ποιητὴς NOWa 990.1 τολμηρὸν LΛLpH∆VGMR: τέλος NFOWa 999.3 συλλαμβανομένης LΛVGMR: ξυλλαμβανομένης Lp: ἀντιλαμβανομένης NFOWa 1039a2.1–2 καλῶς λέγει, δοκεῖ δὲ ἁμαρτάνειν LLpVGΜ: ἁμαρτάνει ΝFOWaPa 1058–62.2–3 ἂν βλάστωσι scripsi: ἂν βλαστῶσι LLp∆GMR: ἀναβλαστῶσι ΝFOWaPa 1065.1 οἱ LLp∆VGR: om. ΝFOWaPa 1070.2 οὐκ LLpGMR: om. NFOWaPa 1095–7.2 ἐρίσειεν LLpGMR: εὑρήσειεν NFOWaPa 1098a2.2 τὰ λείψανα LLpGM: om. NFΟWaPa 1126.1 τoῦ τεύχους LLp∆GMR: om. NFΟWaPa 1137.5 ἢ LΛLpGMR: om. NFOWaPa 1137.6 ἀπολοφυρομένην LΛLpGMR: κλαίουσα NFΟWaPa

50

Introduction

1145–6.5 1145–6.6–7 1240.1 1245.2 1260.2 1277.4 1281–4.3–4 1344.1 1345.2 1345.2 1384a.8 1389.1–2

προσέκεισο LΛLpGMR: προσήκει σοι NFΟWaPa ἐφ' ᾗ – fin. LΛLpGMR: om. NFΟWaPa ἡ ἀπότασις LLpGMR: om. NFΟWaPa ἐνέβαλες LLp∆GΜR: ἐπέβαλες NFOWaPa ἀντὶ LΛLpGΜR: ἂν NFOWa σαυτοῦ LΛ∆GMR: αὐτοῦ NFΟWaPa οὕτως – fin. LΛLpG: om. NFΟWaPa ὑπὲρ LΛLpGMR: ἐπὶ NFΟWaPa αὐτοῖς ἔχοντα LΛLpGMR: ἔχοντα αὐτοῖς (hoc ordine) NFOWaPa ἔχει LΛLpGMR: ἔχειν NFOWaPa ἐπὶ LΛHG: ἐν Lp: om. NFOWa τῆς Κλυταιμήστρας φησί (τοῦτο γὰρ βίαιον) post 2 φησιν (alt.) habent NFOWa

As regards the internal structure of the group NFOWaPa, FO share a common ancestor, since they display a number of separative errors or alternative formulations against the other manuscripts: 1a.1–2 45.2 86a.7 86–90.2–3 185–6.2 193a.1–2 199a.1 199b.1 207.2 240–1.4 491b.1 491b.1 610.1 645.6 645.6 652b.3 717b.3 1277.1 1281–4.3 1307.1

τῶν ὑποθέσεων τὰ συνεκτικὰ (hoc ordine) FO ἀπὸ τοῦ ὅλου εἰς τὸ μερικὸν] εἰς μερικὸν ἀφ' ὅλου FΟ φησιν εἶναι] λέγει FO θρηνούσῃ – πληγὰς (pr.) om. FO ἀγαθῇ ἐλπίδι] ἐλπίσιν ἀγαθῇ FΟ περὶ τοῦ νόστου τοῦ πατρὸς] τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς νόστον FO: περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν νόστον ΝWa μορφὴν om. FO αἰδημόνως] ἀδημόνως FΟ ἀνελοῦσαι] ἀναιροῦσαι ΝWa: ἀναιρήσασαι FΟ ante ζηλοίην add. μηδὲ FΟ ἡ Ἐρινὺς οm. FO ἡ ἐκείνῳ τῷ φόνῳ ἀκολουθήσασα] ἡ ἐξακολουθήσασα τῷ φόνῳ ἐκείνου FO ὁ χορὸς post λόγοις transp. FO τὸ] καὶ τὸ FO δισσῶν] δισσὸν FO συνοῦσαν] ξυνοῦσαν FO post δασύ add. διὸ οὐδὲ βαρύνεται FO μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς με om. FO τινος] τινα FO ταῦτα πεπύσθαι] πυθέσθαι ταῦτα FO

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

1324.1–2 1332–3.1 1346.1

51

ἣν – fin.] ἣν οὐκ ἄν τις τῆς (sic pro τῶν) ἔσω ἀπώσαιτο ὥστε μὴ λαβεῖν· εἰ δὲ λάβῃ, οὐκ ἐπὶ καλῷ λάβῃ αὐτὴν FO πρὶν ἰδεῖν] πρὸ τοῦ ἰδεῖν FΟ πρότερον om. FO

F contains errors which are avoided by O, and O contains errors which are avoided by F; therefore F and O are twins, descending from a copy which will be designated p2. Errors peculiar to F: 42b.4 48a1.1–a2.1 54a1.1 62.9 70.3 86c.4 92.1 95.1 102.2 120.3 126–7.3 131.2 135.1 147a.1 149a.7 199a.2 1069b.2 1070.1 1126.1 1384a.9

ἐπιγνῶσι] ἐπιγνώσει F καὶ – συντυχίας om. F δῆθεν] δῆτα F πέπρακται] πέτρα κατα F ἀγύρτης] ἀργεάτης F οὖν] δὲ F ἴσασιν] εἰσὶν F Ἀγαμέμνονος] Ἀγαμέμνονα F διὰ om. F παρὼν] πρὸς ὢν F τὸ] τὸ μὲν F μοι] με F τὸ ἐν ἄλῃ] οὕτω F ἀττικῶς τὸ ἄραρε] τὸ ἄραρε ἀττικῶς (inverso ordine) F γινόμενον] τινόμενον F τοῦ φόνου] τὸν φόνον F ἐπιχαίρειν Ὀρέστῃ om. F ἡ ἀπότασις πρὸς τὴν Κλυταιμήστραν om. F λαβοῦσα bis F διατρίβειν] διατρίβων F

Errors peculiar to O: 6–9.4–9 86c.1–4 120.3 126–7.5 131.3–4 1071–4.1

λυκόκτονον – fin. om. O ἴσην – fin. om. O παρὼν φέρειν (hoc ordine) O γυναιξίν] γυναικός Ο ἥκετ’ – fin. om. O φρονοῦσιν] φρονεῖ Ο

52

Introduction

1071–4.2 1084.1 1095–6.1 1126.2 1137.1 1145–6.2–3 1178.2

ἀλλήλας] ἀλλήλους O θέλων] θέλω Ο ἃ om. O λαβοῦσαν] λαβοῦσα Ο σοῦ om. O ἵνα – μᾶλλον om. O ἑαυτῆς] ἑαυτοῦ Ο

Finally, each of NPaWa has errors of its own; therefore each of them and p2 are derived independently from p. Errors peculiar to Ν: 1–19.4 1a.1 1a.1 1a.2 31.2 42b.3 42b.4 82.1 86d.2–3 94.2 102.2 131.3 139a.3 1095–6.1 1095–7.3 1117.1 1384a.3

τῷ Ὀρέστῃ] ἐμοὶ τῷ Ὀρέστῃ Ν παρατηροῦμεν] παρατηροῦντες Ν ὅτι om. N τῶν ὑποθέσεων] τῆς ὑποθέσεως Ν ὅ ἐστιν] ὅτι Ν οὖν om. N ἐπιγνῶσι] γνώση Ν εἰς τὸ χρήσιμον] ὑπὲρ τὸ χρύσιμον Ν ἢ μέτρον] ἡμέτερον Ν τί] τοῦτο Ν πελέκει] παρέλκει Ν καμάτων] πραγμάτων Ν ἐρᾷ] ἐρεῖ Ν ἃ δὲ φυσικὰ καὶ μέγιστα νόμιμα] ἃ δὲ νόμιμα καὶ φυσικὰ μέγιστα N μετὰ] μετὰ τοῦ μετὰ Ν σκληρός] σκληρὴν Ν πρὸς ἀλλήλας] προσάλληλοι Ν

Errors peculiar to Pa: 1095–6.1–2 1137.6 1145–6.5 1346.3

καὶ μέγιστα νόμιμα] καὶ νόμιμα καὶ μέγιστα Pa ἀγνοῶν γὰρ] ἁγνὸς ὢν γὰρ Pa δὲ τὸ] τὸ δὲ Pa ἀναγνωρισμόν om. Pa

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

53

Errors peculiar to Wa: 42b.5 86a.1 89a2.2 95.1–2 95.4 102.2 126–7.3 131.3 1075–6a1.1 1078.2 1095–6.1–2 1137.3 1145–6.3 1178.4

ἠνθισμένον] εἰθισμένον Wa μονῳδίαις] κωμῳδίαις Wa περιωθῆται] περιενθεῖται Wa παρὰ τὸ ὑπὸ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἐν τῇ Νεκυίᾳ om. Wa εἰ καὶ πολεμίων om. Wa καὶ om. Wa καταλέγειν] συγκαταλέγειν Wa καμάτων] γονάτων Wa λείπει ἡ περὶ om. Wa ἰδίας] οἰκείας Wa καὶ μέγιστα νόμιμα] καὶ νόμιμα μέγιστα Wa παρόντα] παρόντος Wa σοι] οὐ Wa σχήματος] ἀγάλματος Wa

Wa is the most unfaithful to p; it presents traces of connection with the

gemelli Η∆:83 2–3.2 4.1 7.2 19.5 31.3 32.1 32.2 36.1 155a.3 354c.1

ἰδεῖν] εἰσιδεῖν Wa H Ἄργος ὁμωνύμως] πόλις ὁμώνυμος Wa q(H∆) εἰσιοῦσιν] ἰοῦσιν Wa q(Hii∆) post ἐκλέλοιπεν add. ἐλλιπὴς ἐγένετο τῶν ἄστρων ἡ εὐφρόνη Wa q(H∆) ὅτι μὴ πάνυ αὐθέκαστος φαίνεται] τοῖς παλαιοτέροις τῶν πρωτείων παραχωροῦντα καὶ μὴ αὐθέκαστον φαινόμενον Wa q(H∆) τὸ λεῖπον τῆς ἱστορίας] τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας λεῖπον (hoc ordine) Wa q(H∆) προσανεπλήρωσεν] ἀναπληροῖ Wa q(H∆) ἀπαρασκεύαστον] ἀπαράσκευον Wa q(H∆) αὐτῇ] αὐτῆς Wa q(H∆) post τρυφερώτερον add. τε καὶ τρυφηλότερον WaH

It should be noted that the connection between Wa and H∆ does not consist of agreement in error, but exists in cases of conscious alteration of the text. The eclectic text of Wa abandons an error of p in favour of a correct reading (i) which is to be found in other manuscripts too: 83

That H and ∆ are gemelli will be demonstrated below, pp. 69–71.

54

Introduction

19.4 50a.2 62.9 86a.9 324–5.2 1345.2 1345.3

τὸ ἄστρων Η Wa GMR: τῶν ἄστρων L NFO Lp Πύθια Wa LLpV: Πυθία NFO: om. GR οὐ Wa (et GMR): oὕτω NF LLpH: οὔπω ∆: de Λ non liquet τὴν ἀνάλυσιν Wa LΛLpH∆M: ἀναλογίαν ΝFO V ἐναγίσματα Wa H∆ Lp VG: ἐναγήματα NFO LM αὐτὰ Wa LΛLpGMR: τὰ ΝFOPa ἅπερ Wa LΛLpGMR: ὥσπερ NFOPa

or (ii) which is unattested elsewhere: 47a.6 312b.3 706a2.2

φησί Wa περιπαθὲς Wa ἀνεξέλεγκτον Wa

These three readings can be explained as products of conjecture. Things can now be simplified, if NFOWaPa are treated as a unit in our further cogitations; the reading of their hyparchetype p can be inferred from the agreement of at least any two of N p2 Wa Pa. The next stage of the investigation will be devoted to Lp and Λ. Like p, Lp also exhibits a long series of separative errors against the rest of the tradition. It is sufficient to list those I have found in the Prologue of the tragedy (lines 1–120): 6–9.5 6–9.6–7 6–9.7 6–9.9 19.5 22.2 23–8.2 42b.4 45.2 45.2–4 45.6 47a.1 47a.2 47a.3 52.2 52.3 62.3

τὸ νόμιον] τὸν νόμον Lp ἐν Ἄργει om. Lp οἱ δὲ] διὸ Lp τὸν om. in spatio vacuo Lp post ἐκλέλοιπεν add. εὐφρόνη Lp τελεσθῆναι] λεχθῆναι Lp ποιεῖν] ποιεῖν τε οὐ] εἰ Lp Φανοτέα] τὸ Φ. Lp ὁμοίως – Πάφον om. Lp τινὲς – fin. om. Lp σμικρολόγως] μικρολόγως Lp τοῦ ποιητοῦ] τῷ θεῷ Lp παρακελευομένῳ om. Lp οἵ] αἵ Lp ἀπετίθεντο] περετίθεντο Lp τινὰ om. Lp

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

62.4 62.6–7 62.8 62.9 62.12 70.5–6

70.5 75b.2 75b.4 78.2 82.2 86a.2 86a.2 86a.4 86b.1 86c.1 86c.1–2 86c.3 95.4 98.1 100–1.1 102.1 120.1

55

ἐν ᾍδου om. Lp εἶτα Ἑρμότιμος om. Lp ἀποτείνεσθαι] ἀποτίνεσθαι Lp Ὀδυσσεῖ] τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ Lp προσκρουστικὸν] προσκουστικὸν Lp καθαρτής … ἀμυντής … φαιδρυντής … ποικιλτής … πραϋντής] καθάρτης … ἀμύντης … φαιδρύντης … ποικίλτης … πραΰντης Lp τοῦ βοηθοῦ] βοηθοῦ Lp ὅπου] ὥστε Lp νοσήματος] σώματος Lp δὲ om. Lp διελύθη] διεβλήθη Lp κινητικὸν τοῦ πένθους] οἷς σκηνητικὸν τὸ πένθος Lp τὸ] τῷ Lp τοῖς θεοῖς] τοὺς θεοὺς Lp γῆς ἀέρα] τῆς γῆς φησὶ τὸν ἀέρα Lp ἴσην] ἴσον Lp πανταχοῦ γάρ ἐστιν ἀήρ. ἢ ὅτι γῆ καὶ ἀὴρ στοιχεῖα om. Lp ἡ γῆ om. Lp δὲ] γὰρ Lp περιπαθὲς] γὰρ περιπαθὴς Lp καὶ om. Lp ἔν τισιν om. in spatio vacuo Lp ὃ φέρειν οὐ] οὐ φέρειν Lp

Λ is also found to be alone in error against the rest of the tradition. This happens in five cases: arg. ΙΙ.9 62.6 476–7.1 643a.1 1277.1

καὶ om. Λ Εὔφορβος] Εὔφοβος Λ μέτεισι (alt.)] μέτισι Λ oὕτως] ὄντως Λ με om. Λ

Apart from the errors which are exclusive to each of p, Lp and Λ, the first two manuscripts share the great majority of L’s errors. Nevertheless, when L’s error is small, the one or the other of them (or one of the

56

Introduction

descendants of p)84 may avoid it, presumably by conjecture. On the contrary, Λ repeats the totality of L’s errors:85 τὸ ἄστρων Η Wa GMR: τῶν ἄστρων L p Lp τοῦτον GR: τοῦτο L p Lp Η∆: τοσοῦτον Μ: de Λ non liquet 62.9 οὐ WaGMR: οὕτω L p Lp H: οὔπω ∆: de Λ non liquet 86a.9 τῇ γῇ Η∆ V M Lp: τῆς γῆς L p 86c.1 ἔχων H∆V: ἔχον LΛ: ἔχοντ Lp 86d.2 ἐν Πέρσαις V: om. LΛ p Lp H∆ 89a2.2 περιωθῆται Lp: περιωθεῖται L N H∆: περιενθεῖται Wa: παρωθεῖται G 98.2 εἰπεῖν H∆: τὸ εἰπεῖν L p Lp VG 102.3 ἐτίσαντο GMR: ἐτίσατο L p Lp 121.2 τῆς ἐξωλεστάτης p H∆: τῆς ἐξολεστάτης LLp: καὶ ταῖς ἐξωλεστάταις GMR 126–7.1 (lm.) ὡς ὁ τάδε πορὼν – αὐδᾶν scripsi praeeunte Brunck1: ματρὸς ἁλόντ' ἀπάταις (v. 125) L p H∆ et Lp (ματρὸς ἁλόντα): κακᾷ τε (v. 126) Μ: deest in GR; (κακᾷ τε n.) R 135.1 τὸ (om. Η∆) ἐν ἄλῃ H∆Su.: τὸ ἀδημονεῖν καὶ G: ἐν ἄλγει Μ: ἐν ἄλλω L p et fere Lp (ἐν ἄλλοις): οὕτω F 159.1 τῷ V GMR N: τὸ L Lp Wa 176a.2 νέμουσα ∆ p Lpp.c.: μένουσα LHV Lpa.c. 240–1.4 εἰ V: om. L p Lp Η∆ GMR 241–2.3 διὰ τῶν γόων Jahn: τῶν γονέων L p Lp GMR 278a.2 θεωμένη H∆: θεωμένην L p Lp VGMR 278b.2 Γαμηλιῶνος Lascaris: τὰ μηλίων L p Lp: τὰ μηλιῶνος GMR et fere V 312b.2 ἐξόδου V: ἔξοδος L p Lp GMR 312b.3 περιπαθὲς Wa: περιπαθὴς L p Lp : περιπαθῶς VGMR 324–5.2 ἐναγίσματα H∆VGWa Lp: ἐναγήματα L p Μ 335a2.2 χρωμένην GM: χρῶμαι L p Lp ∆V 369–71.1 συγκεράσητε K: συγκεράσηται L Lp VM: συγκεράσετε p: συγκεράσειτε G 19.4 62.7

84 85

It is to be remembered that the consensus of FO represent the testimony of one single manuscript, i.e. p2 (pp. 50–2). The list includes cases where (i) Lp or p or Λ are unavailable or illegible, and (ii) the testimony of H∆V. Since the text of the three last mss is of a mixed character, it agrees in error now with LΛNFOWaPa, now with GMR (GMR which will be shown below to belong to another branch of the tradition).

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

411b.3 430.2 466–7.2 492a1.1 495a1.4 495a1.5 504.3 551.1 595.3 706a2.3 717a.2 717b.1 732a.2 745b 817.2 830.1 841a2.1 865.2 1026.3–4 1039a2 1058–62.5 1236a.1 1245.3 1260.1 1324.2 1346.1 1384a.10 1384–5.2 1391–2b.1 1404.4 1438a.2

57

παρεστάναι H∆ NWa GMiiR: παριστάναι LLpp.c. : παρίσταται Lpa.c.: παραστῆναι F V Mi αὐτὴ V H p Lp: αὐτῆ L: om. GMR δεῖ H: διὰ LΛ p οὐ p Lpp.c.: om. L Lpa.c. αὐτὸ Jahn1: αὐτὸν LΛLpH: αὐτῶν VG p σημαντικὸν VLp Wa: -ὸς LΛ p HG τοῦ Μυρτίλου H∆ GMR Wa Lp: τὸν Μυρτίλον LΛN: deperditum in rasura in V τότε Lascaris: τῷ τε LΛ p Lp V: τῶν τε Η: τῷ μὴ GMR χαλεπαίνεις H p Lp: χαλεπαίνοις L V GMR: χαλεπαίνουσα ∆ Αἰνειᾶνες (Αἰνι-R) VGMR: Αἰνειᾶν L Lp H∆ ἐμβαλλόμενον Η∆ VG NFO Lp: ἐμβαλό- LWa: ἐμβαφό- R: ἐκβαλλό- Μ τῷ V Wa Lp: τὸ L p GR παρασπᾷ VGMR: περισπᾷ L p Lp hoc sch. separatim legitur in GMR: cum sch. 745a coniungitur in L p Lp V (εἴρηται δὲ) ἀπέκλεισεν MR: ἀπέκλινεν LΛ p Lp ∆V: de O non constat βοῇ GMR Lpp.c. : βουλῇ LΛ p Lpa.c. αἳ GR: ἃ LΛ p Lp V λώβη GMR: om. L Lp V ἐπεὶ ῥέζοντα VGMR Lpp.c.: ἐπηρεάζοντα L p Lpa.c. (app. crit.) ἄλλως· ἐπεὶ V et fere G: ἐπεὶ δὲ L p Lp: ἐπειδὴ Μ ὅτου p ∆ GMR: ὅπου L: ἕως ἂν Lp σίγα ∆ GMR p Lp: σῖγα L ἔφη Lp: ἔφην L p MR σοῦ φανέντος Ηeath: νοῦς ἄφαντος LΛ Lp: νοῦς ἄφαντα p: γνοὺς ἄφαντος GMR ἀπώσαιτο H GMR et FO in scholio retractato: ἀπώσατο LΛ p πρότερον G: πρὸς ἕτερον LΛ Lp p: om. FΟ δὲ habet HG: om. L p Lp: de Λ non constat τὸ F Lp ΗGMR: τὸν LΛ p θεῶν FO: θος LΛ et fere NWa (θεὸς): om. GMR τῆς Κλυταιμήστρας FOG: τῆς Ἠλέκτρας Κλυταιμήστρας LΛ p Lp ἀνακαλύπτοντας ∆: -πτοντες LLp p Η: -πτοντος G

58

Introduction

As regards the connection between L and Λ, there exist some further disagreements between the two manuscripts, but all of them are related to lemmata. Λ supplies a shorter lemma in many scholia such as sch. 62 ἤδη γὰρ εἶδον; 86–90 ὥς μοι πολλὰς μὲν; 213 φράζου μὴ πόρσω; 219–20 τὰ δὲ τοῖς δυνατοῖς; 226a τίνι γὰρ ποτ'; 302 ὁ σὺν γυναιξί; 466 τὸ γὰρ δίκαιον; 558 πατέρα; 823 ποῦ ποτε κεραυνοί; 1384–5 τὸ δυσέριστον αἷμα. Sometimes Λ supplies lemmata where L has none, e.g. at sch. 214 and 979–80, but in these cases L has usually a reference symbol. Finally, a longer lemma is to be found at sch. 990 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐστὶν ἡ προθυμία (sic pro προμηθία). However, evidence based on lemmata is inconclusive as a means of ascertaining manuscript affiliations. The reason is that copyists did not generally consider the lemma to be an organic part of the text of a scholium; so they would frequently take the initiative to do one of four things: either modify it or leave it out altogether or replace it with a reference sign or supply one if their model had none. These discrepancies cannot therefore reveal anything about the relationship of L and Λ. So concerning the affiliations among L, Λ, p and Lp, the first conclusion is that Λ was copied from L. In this I part company with Christodoulou and Janz, who described Λ as a gemellus of L in the Ajax86 and Philoctetes87 scholia, although both were sceptical about this relation: «θὰ ἐκινδύνευέ τις νὰ ἐννοήσῃ ὅτι ὁ Λ ἀποτελεῖ ἀντίγραφον τοῦ L μετὰ τὴν διόρθωσιν τούτου ὑπὸ τῆς πρώτης χειρός»88

and ‘Λ’s main value is not in its readings – it offers almost nothing of value not already known from L’.89

It is now necessary to weigh the evidence which they presented, for it appears to me that Λ was copied from L in these cases too. The most telling instances of Λ’s being correct against L which Christodoulou can adduce are three in number.90 In fact Λ has a better reading only in sch. 455a.2 λήματι Λ: λήμματι L, but here we may have a lucky accident. In sch. 699b.4 Κορυβαντικαί Λ: Κορυβαντιακαί L, L’s reading is possible; in fact, it is a lectio difficilior, for it is less common than that of Λ, and should be preferred; cf. Su. ν 619 (ΙΙΙ 490, 3; 4). Finally in sch. 849a.5 the word ἀντιλαμβανόμενος is given in its complete form in L and so Λ might have ignored the dots above the three first letters. 86 87 88 89 90

Christodoulou 1977, 32*–4*. Janz 2004, 31–2. De Marco did not use Λ for his edition of the OC scholia. Christodoulou 1977, 33*. Janz 2004, 33. Christodoulou 1977, 34*.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

59

In the scholia to Philoctetes91 Λ is right and L is wrong solely in one passage, i.e. sch. 736.1a ὀδυνᾶται against L’s οὐ δύναται. But it cannot have much significance, as it may be a happy instance of miscopying or a scribal emendation rendered possible by the fact that the idea and words of ὀδύνη are dominant in this section of scholia. The improvement of sch. 758.2 is orthographical and sch.849.2a shows nothing at all. If then Christodoulou and Janz give us the true and complete picture, there is definitely no satisfactory evidence to show that L and Λ are gemelli either in the Ajax or the Philoctetes scholia. In such a case, it is clear that Λ falls from the place of honour to which it has been accustomed since Christodoulou. Turning now to the remaining two manuscripts we face a different situation, for, as we have seen, p and especially Lp avoid some of L’s errors by replacing them with either the true or at least with a good reading. I have already explained that I consider the corresponding mistakes of L as so small as to believe them to have been removed by scribal conjecture. I am therefore inclined to treat the good readings in p or Lp as scribal emendations or conjectures. I am not convinced by Turyn who explained the good readings of p (his collective symbol was φ) by assuming that p goes back to a manuscript which is independent from L:92 to know that ἵνα should normally govern a subjunctive and not an indicative, that ἴσος should be constructed with a dative or that ἐξώλης should be written with omega and the like lies in the powers of anybody with even a basic knowledge of Greek. Also if one tries to follow Turyn’s advice and report N, F, and the other members of this family systematically, he will find his apparatus overburdened with nugae. The wisest course to take is to eliminate the testimony of p save for some of its scribal conjectures. As far as Lp is concerned, our evidence confirms Turyn’s position that 93 it is an apograph of L; Lp is cited only sporadically in my apparatus, namely in cases where it contains conjectures. Nevertheless, the view about the derivative nature of Lp has recently been challenged by Janz on the basis of the Philoctetes scholia: ‘Lp’s behaviour is not at all that which we should expect of a descendant of L or of Λ, but, rather, precisely, that which we should expect of a descendant of a gemellus of their common ancestor l’.94

91 92 93

94

Janz 2004, 32. Turyn 1952, 134. Turyn 1952, 184–6. Turyn was not the first to analyse Lp as a copy of L; he was preceded by De Marco (1951, 11–9) who had reached the same conclusion but on the narrower basis of the OC scholia. Janz 2004, 40.

60

Introduction

Janz makes a list of errors in L corresponding to good readings in Lp,95 but none of these seems to demonstrate that Lp is independent from L. These readings in Lp are also of the kind one could easily attribute to the conjectural activity of its copyist. The addition of the article in sch. Phil. 625.1a/b and 26.1a is a very common practice. We have easy corrections in sch. Phil. 291.1a (in view of εἰλυόμην), 385.1a (in view of τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ), 465.1a lm and 758.2. Sch. Phil. 830 and 1275.1a/b are easy alterations, and 1093.3a is a trivialisation. However, Janz is right to point out that ‘there are … a number of cases where Lp’s readings deserve serious consideration, regardless of what one may think of Lp’s relationship with L’.96 Only I would not use the adjective ‘serious’ myself. I list the readings of Lp which he adduces, adding brief comment:97 sch. Phil. 109.1a and 286.1 are trivial substitutions of easier synonyms. sch. Phil. 625.1a Janz thinks that Lp’s οὐ ‘is surely right’, but in fact it is not. Admittedly οὐ is the normal negative for causal participles, but in later Greek μή is also attested at e.g. sch. Tr. 352–5.4–5 ... τοῦ δὲ μὴ δόντος Ἡρακλῆς εἷλε τὴν Οἰχαλίαν. One may also compare the μή in causal clauses such as sch. El. 31.3 and sch. Tr. 1a.10–1 ... ἠγανάκτησε Κροῖσος, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ τὰ δεύτερα τῆς εὐδαιμονίας αὐτῷ δέδωκεν. sch. Phil. 17.5 τοῦ ἡλίου is an addition in Lp based on the poetic text and not preservation of a genuine reading lost to the other manuscripts. Another instance of this kind of addition is found at sch. Tr. 48 where Lp adds τοῖς θεοῖς after εὔχομαι again on the basis of the poetic text. sch. Phil. 191.1 κατὰ βούλησιν θεῶν is in fact more idiomatic than Lp’s κατὰ βούλησιν τῶν θεῶν, which seems a trivialisation. sch. Phil. 677.1a and 687.1a πελάσαι and ἀμφικλήστων (i.e. ἀμφικλύστων) appear to be emendations motivated by πελάτης and κλύζονται respectively. sch. Phil. 938.1a ἀποδύρωμαι instead of ἀποδύρομαι is a correction requiring a rudimentary ability and one may compare sch. Tr. 160–3 where Lp changes L’s ποιήσομαι to the correct ποιήσωμαι. The clear conclusion of this examination is that Lp contains scribal conjectures, a fact which one expects provided that the scribe is Marcus Musurus. The most reasonable editorial policy is to record these readings only. As the manuscript has not preserved any separate line of inheritance 95 96 97

Janz 2004, 39–40. Janz 2004, 41. Janz 2004, 41–5.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

61

of genuine readings but is dependent on L, it should not appear systematically in the apparatus criticus. We may now be confident that Λ, p and Lp are all copies of L, and that the patterns of their errors show that each of them has descended from L independently of the other two.98 It now remains to examine K. It has been mentioned earlier that this book preserves only a few excerpts from the scholia vetera, severely abridged and occasionally altered. As far as its affiliations are concerned, it seems that it is a descendant of L. The passages in which L commits an error are mostly unavailable in K, but whenever they do appear they always contain the same error as L: 6–9.5–6 324–5.2 732a.2

τοὺς ἐπιβούλους αὐτῶν LK et codd. reliqui ἐναγίσματα LpH∆VGWa: ἐναγήματα L p KΜ παρασπᾷ VGMR: περισπᾷ L p Lp K

However in a couple of places the mistake of L is avoided by conjectural emendation: 369–71.1

συγκεράσητε Κ: συγκεράσηται L Lp VM

Therefore K should be ignored except for its one or two conjectures. The interrelation of L Λ Κ Ν F O Wa Pa Lp is shown in the following stemma: L

K

Λ

Lp

p

Pa

p²²

N F

98

Wa O

Actually, Λ and p share two errors: sch. 995.1 ἐμφατικῶς LLp: ἐμφαντικῶς Λ p HV R et fere GM, 1391–2b.2 ὑπηρέτις L: ὑπηρέτης Λ p GMR. We see that these two readings are shared by other manuscripts too. They are not suggestive of any interdependence, as they could have been produced by more than one scribe independently.

62

Introduction

The Roman version De Marco’s study of the interrelation between the revised manuscripts G M and R indicated that M and R are gemelli, and G is gemellus of the common ancestor of MR.99 De Marco’s analysis has been confirmed by Christodoulou and Janz on the basis of the Ajax and Philoctetes scholia respectively,100 and is proved to be valid by the evidence offered by the scholia to Electra. G, M and R agree in error against the rest of the tradition; moreover, it will be seen that each of them has some unique errors. Therefore no one can be taken as the exemplar of the other two. So they all descend from a now lost common ancestor which will be called r: Arg Ι.3 7.1 31.2 45.4 47a.3 75a.1 268–9.3 343b.1 345a.3 391.1 417–9.1 439.4 492–4.3 584.1 831a1.3 1095–7.2 1439–41.5–6

ἡ om. GMR ἔστι γὰρ om. GMR ὅ ἐστιν ἐπανόρθωσον om. GMR Πάφον] Τάφον GMR δυσσεβεῖν om. GMR χοροῦ] καιροῦ GMR μείρακα om. GMR νουθετοῦσα] ἠθέτησαν GiiMR κακῶς φρονεῖς] καταφρονεῖς GMR θυμικῶς] μυθικῶς GMR ἀναζήσαντος] ἀναζητήσαντος GMR λυσιτελοῦντι] λυτικὸν τελουντ GMR ἐχρῆν] ἐχθροὺς GMR παρακάλυμμα] περι- GMR εἷς] εἰ GMR ἐριστᾷ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ] ἐραστὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας GMR ὡς – ὠτὸς om. GMR

Such errors as at sch. 343b.1, 439.4 and 492–4.3 point to the hypothesis that r was based on an ancestor which was hardly legible in several places. There are further errors common to MR but avoided by G; therefore MR have their own ‘hyparchetype’: Arg II.7 1–19.3 99 100

ante Τρόφιον (sic) add. τὸν MR καὶ om. MR

De Marco 1936. Christodoulou 1977, 46*–51; Janz 2004, 49.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

62.8 131.2–4 139a.3 147a.1 195–6.1 219–20.3 240–1.3 451c.3 732b.4 1245.2

63

οὖν om. ΜR ἢ – fin. om. MR οὐ δώρων ἐρᾷ οm. MR ἀττικῶς] ἀττικὸν ΜR ἀνταίαν] ἀνταίων ΜR πράττεις] πράττω MR τοιοῦτος] τοιοῦτον ΜR λιπαρήσομεν] λιπαρήσομαι MR διημιλλήσατο] διημελλήσατο ΜR ἐνέβαλες] ἀνέβαλες fere MR

G is alone in error at: Arg Ι.3 Arg ΙΙ.8 1–19.7 1–19.9 1a.1 6–9.1 7.2 22.1 42b.4 219–20.5 240.2 253.1 417–9.2 492–4.2–3 558.3 823.8–9 878.2 1007–8b.3 1413–4.1

κλέψασα] κλέψαντα G μικρὸν] μὴ G πρὸς] παρὰ G φησὶ] ἔφη G παρατηροῦμεν] παρηγοροῦμεν G ὁ τροφεὺς om. G παραγενόμενοι] παραγενόμενος G δὲ om. G ἠσκημένον] ἠσκησμένον G ἀσύμφορον] ἀσύμφερον G συνοικοίην] σύνοικος ἦν G γένηται] στέρηται G προσομιλήσαντος] προμιλήσαντος G ἐπὶ – δὲ om. G ἀλλὰ] ἄλλη G θεῶν τι εἰπεῖν καὶ om. G ἐναργῶς] ἐναρεστῶς G κολάσεις om. G γενεὰ] γενεαὶ G

M and R descend from their hyparchetype independently from each other, since each one has some errors of its own. M is alone in error at: 19.4 62.7 182b.1–2 190–1.2 240.2 289–90b.1

ἵν'] ἣν Μ τοῦτον] τοσοῦτον Μ οὔτε Ὀρέστης ἀπερίτροπος om. M ἐμφαῖνον] ἐκφαίνων Μ πρόσκειμαι] πρόσκειται Μ φησίν] φασὶν M

64

Introduction

289–90b.2 363a.1 498.1–2 526.2 551.2 686b.2 732b.2 901.1 1087–8.1–2 1345.3 1345.3

παρανομίαν] παροιμίαν Μ φησίν] φασὶ Μ ὑμῖν ... ἡμῖν] ἡμῖν ... ἡμῖν Μ ἐπεισφέρειν] ἐπιφέρειν Μ πέλας (pr.)] πέλασας Μ φύσει] φησὶ Μ ἄρμενα] ἅρματα Μ ἠρτημένον] ἠρτημένων Μ τὸ αἰσχρὸν καὶ νικήσασα om. M ἄκρον] ἄλλον Μ παροξυντικά] παροξυνίται Μ etc

R is alone in error at: 1a.3 6–9.4 19.4 47a.6 52.3 86–90.2 149a.2–7 219–20.2 289–90b.2 424b.2 432.1 637.1 826.1 1281.2 1389.3

ὁ – fin. om. R Μυκηνῶν] Μυκήνης GM: Μυκήνοις R εὐφρόνη] εὐφροσύνη R πυθικὸν] θυθικὸν R τρυφὴ] τροφὴ R ὅσα] ὃς R Ὅμηρος – fin. om. R προσπελάζειν] προπελάζειν R παραλογιζομένη] -μένην R διηγεῖτο] διηγεῖται R ἀποτρέψῃ] ἀποστρέψει R ἵδρυται] ἵστατο GM: ἵατο R παρανομίαν] παροιμίαν R ἀπροσδόκητον] ἀπροδόκητον R μακρὰν] μακροῦ R etc

The evidence presented so far is entirely compatible with De Marco’s stemma: r

G

M

R

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

65

However this stemma does not convey the complete picture. Janz noted one reason, which is related to the marginal and interlinear scholia found in G.101 He demonstrated this material to be only partly derived from r, for some of it came into G from another source which was unavailable to RM.102 It should be added that this source was Laurentian-type, and that its material appears also in the blocks of scholia, not only in the interlinear or marginal spaces, though this happens very rarely. For example, the sch. 1251 appears in the relevant scholia block in its proper sequence and with the variation which is typical of the Roman version. However it reappears at the end of the same block, i.e. displaced after sch. 1291, and offers a text comparable to the Laurentian version. Another consideration which shows the inaccuracy of De Marco’s diagram is that G and R sometimes agree in error where M has the truth: 42b.1 62.8–9 86–90.1–2 139b.2 268–9.2 492–4.6

τὸ] τὸν GR ἔνιοι – ἀποτείνεσθαι om. GR (there is a clue that here M follows the Laurentian version; see below) ὦ φάος ἁγνόν om. GR πρῆξις] πρᾶξις GR τὴν] τὰ GR οὐκ ἔπρεπεν om. GR

Finally, M is sometimes seen to be following the Laurentian text instead of its Roman reworking: 62.9 88.1 89–90.1 135–6.1 139b.1 335a1.2–3 760.1–2

101 102

οὐ γὰρ πέπρακταί τι τοιοῦτον Ὀδυσσεῖ fere LH∆: οὐ τυχὸν πέπρακταί τι τοιοῦτον Ὀδυσσεὺς (sic) Μ: οὐ γὰρ τοιοῦτόν τι (τοι G) διεπράξατο ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς GR ἀπήγγειλται LΜ: ἀπήγγειλεν GR μετῆκται LΜ: μετήνεκται GR τοιοῦτοι γὰρ πολλάκις LH∆Μ: τοιαῦτα γὰρ πολλάκις ποιοῦσιν G Ὅμηρος L: καὶ Ὅμηρος M: καὶ τοῦτο παρὰ τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν fere GR ὑφιᾶσι τὸ ἱστίον fere LVM: συστέλλουσι τὰ ἱστία G καὶ ἵνα ἀξιόπιστος εἴη ὁ ἄγγελος <καὶ> ἵνα πάλιν τὸ περιπαθὲς εἴη τῇ Ἠλέκτρᾳ fere LHVM: τοῦτο δὲ λέγει ὁ ἄγγελος ἵνα ἀξιόπιστος εἴη, ἵνα περιπαθὲς τὸ πάθος γένηται τῇ Ἠλέκτρᾳ G

Janz 2004, 51–3. Examples from the scholia to the Electra: the supralinear version of sch. 343b.

66

Introduction

871.3 1040.1–2

ἡ ὀλόφυρσις Ἠλέκτρας γένηται LHVΜ: ὀδύρηται ἡ Ἠλέκτρα GR λέγουσα γὰρ δίκαια fere LVM: λέγουσα οὖν ἔχειν δίκαια fere G

The most economical way to explain both the truth appearing in M and its Laurentian material is to assume that they arose through collation of M with a copy of the Laurentian version. The hypothesis of contamination in M is confirmed by the fact that the manuscript offers sch. 411b in both versions. Having established r as the common ancestor of GMR and the archetype of the Roman version, we must now determine its relationships with the other manuscripts used in this study. There are cases which show that r and the contaminated manuscripts q(H∆) and V103 agree in alternative formulations or in the way they conflate distinct scholia: 552.1 831a1 831a2.1 837.6 838.5 896b.1 975.2–3

(app. crit.) post νῦν add. ὅτι H∆ V GMR: hoc non habet L hoc sch. separatim praebet L: cum sch. 831a2 coniungunt H∆ V GMR (δαιμονίως δέ) ἀποκναίεις L: ἀποκνεῖς V: ἀπολεῖς H∆ GMR ἐνεσχέθη L: ἐσχέθη H∆ V et fere GR (ἔσχεθεν) γυναικῶν L: γυναικὸς H∆ V GR λέγει L: om. Η V GMR αὐταῖς ... ἀνελούσαις L: αὐτῇ ... ἀνελούσῃ H∆ GMR: αὐτῇ … ἀνελούσαις V

To explain these common readings we have to postulate the existence of a lost manuscript which we may designate as lr. It is important to note that H∆ and V do not concur with r in a sufficient number of alternative formulations (a fact confirmed by the above list and the two which follow below), but are basically copies of the Laurentian version. On the basis of this state of affairs, it is reasonable to: (i) suppose that lr was also a copy of the Laurentian version (ii) explain the alternative formulations of rqV by assuming that lr contained a small degree of purposive variation (this is quite typical of any copy of the Laurentian version) (iii) think that lr was then subjected to further variation by the Roman adaptor, which resulted in the creation of r’s version. 103

For a complete study of all the sources which contributed to the creation of q’s and V’s composite texts see pp. 71–4.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

67

There are however stronger connections between r and V. These are the cases of their agreement in error or alternative formulations: 52.3 ἀπετίθεντο L H∆: ἀπετίθετο V GR 54a1.2 ἀπέκειτο L: ἀπέκειντο V GMR 157.1 post εἰρηκότι (post ἀκολουθεῖ V) habent ζῆν VG 278b.2 Γαμηλιῶνος Lascaris: τὰ μηλίων L: τὰ μηλιῶνος (μηλίωνος V) V GMR 312b.3 περιπαθὲς Wa: περιπαθὴς L: περιπαθῶς V GMR 430.2 γενομένου LΗ: γινομένου V GMR (sch. deest in ∆) 445a1.4 εἰς L H∆: om. VGMR 445–6a1.1 ἑαυτῶν L: ἑαυτοῦ V GMR 445–6a1.3 ἀποτρεπόμενοι L: ἀποκρυπτόμενοι V GMR 495a1.4 αὐτὸ Jahn: αὐτὸν LΛH: αὐτῶν V G (sch. deest in ∆MR) 508.1 post Μυρτίλος habent ἐκ τῶν παγχρύσων δίφρων πεσὼν VG (sch. deest in MR): haec non habent LH∆ 552.1 post εἴποις add. νῦν Vrr: haec non habent LΛH∆ 552.2 ἀντακήκοας LH∆: ἀκήκοας V GMR 614.1 ὑπὲρ ἐπιτάσεως] καὶ ταῦτα οὖν ἐπιτάσεως V GiR 675a.1 ἡδέος L: ἡδέως V GMR 841a1.1 καὶ L: om. V GR 841a1.3 αὐτόν L: κατ' ἐμοῦ αὐτόν V: κατ' ἐνιαυτόν GR 842a1.1 οὐ L: οὕτως V GR 844.1 ὁ χορὸς δὲ L: ὁ δὲ χορὸς V GR 849.1 εἶδος L: τὸ εἶδος V GMR 975.5 oὕτω om. VGMR 975.5 ὁποῖα LH∆: ὃ V GMR 1005a1 hoc sch. scholio 1005a2 continuant (ἄλλως) VGMR 1018a1.1 ἀντὶ ἃ ἠξίουν L: ἃ παρακέκληκα ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠξίουν V GR 1019a.1 παρατήρει L: παρατετηρήκει V GR 1019a.1 κἀνθάδε L: κἀνταῦθα V: καὶ ἐνταῦθα GR 1026.2 πάσχειν κακῶς L: πράσσειν κακῶς V: κακῶς πράσσειν G MR 1039a1.1 δοκεῖν L: om. V G There is some evidence that the copy which influenced both V and GMR was difficult to decipher in a number of places. Thus at sch. 75a.1 the correct reading χοροῦ was corrupted to καιροῦ by GMR and omitted by V. Comparable cases are:

68

Introduction

86a.3 195–6.1 488b.1 504.2

ἄηθες L: ἄνινου (sic) V: ἀπείθανον M104 ὅτε L: ὅ ἐστιν V: καὶ Ὅμηρος GMR ὑπομνήματι LH∆: ποὺς G [‘e compendiosa scriptura male soluta’ de Marco, 1937, 180]: om. V λαβὼν LH∆: λαθὼν V: om. G.

The following list contains points of contact between r and H, where ∆ and V are unavailable: 476–7.1 1384a.5 1384a.10 1388.2 1428.2 1434.1

μέτεισι (alt.) L: om. H G διάλειμμα L: διάλειμμα βραχὺ H G ἐνθάδε L: ἐνταῦθα Η G αἱ L: om. H GMR ἴσως L: ἂν ἴσως H GMR τὰ (alt.) μὲν πρὶν εὖ θέμενοι L: om. Η G

The common readings of the above lists can also be supposed to have been imported into the manuscripts in question from lr. We should now prove that lr was independent from L. So far we have listed passages in which L is right and lr is wrong, and we shall now make a table of the cases where lr is right and L is wrong. It should be noted that there are cases in which the reading of lr should be established solely on the strength of r and no other manuscripts. The method of doing this is quite simple: if we remove from the Roman text those elements which we can impute to the adaptor himself,105 what remains we can attribute with a reasonable degree of probability to lr. Of course, this may involve an element of subjectivity, but the reader is always allowed to judge for himself, since all the relevant evidence is presented in the critical apparatus. 9a.1–2 62.9 102.3 335a2.2 391.2 446.1 446.5 104 105

sch. cum v. 9 coniungitur in GMR et fortasse hoc voluit V: iuxta vv. 6–9 legitur in L: ad v. 4 adscribit q οὐ Wa GMR:: οὕτω LΗ: οὔπω ∆ ἐτίσαντο GMR Su.: ἐτίσατο L χρωμένην GM: χρῶμαι L∆V αἱρουμένην VGMR: αἱρουμένης L ἐξέμαξεν VG: ἐξήμαξεν Η∆: ἐξαίμαξεν L δειπνίσας VG: δειπνήσας LH∆

L’s ἄηθές ἐστιν is not easily decipherable either and so q’s ἔνεστι is probably a corruption of this, and not of the reading of the common ancestor of V and GMR. See above pp. 46–8.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

69

κατέκτανε VG: κατέκτεινε L: κατέπεφνε Η∆ haec separatim leguntur in VG: cum sch. 488a coniunguntur in LH∆ (ἐν δὲ) 491b.1–2 sch. h.l. legitur in VM: post sch. 484–5 legitur in L 561a.2 ἡ VGM: εἰ L: oὐ R (sch. deest in H) 580 lm. ὅρα τιθεῖσα Μ: εἰ δ' οὖν, ἐρῶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ σόν (v. 577) LH∆: deest in G; (ὅρα τιθεῖσα n.) R 608–9a2.1–2 haec separatim leguntur in GR: cum sch. 608–9a1 coniunguntur in LH∆: ante sch. 608–9a1 leguntur in V 627.1 τῶν ἀγρῶν VGMR: τὸν ἀγρὸν LH 652a.2 τοῦ φίλοις ΜR: τοῖς φίλοις G: τοῦ φίλους L: τοὺς φίλους HV 706a2.3 Αἰνειᾶνες (Αἰνι- R) VGMR: Αἰνειᾶν L H∆ 732a.2 παρασπᾷ VGΜR: περισπᾷ LSu. 745b.1–2 haec separatim leguntur in GMR: cum sch. 745a coniunguntur in LV 817.2 ἀπέκλεισεν MR (sch. deest in G): ἀπέκλινεν LΛ∆V (sch. deest in H) 830.1 βοῇ GMR: βουλῇ LΛ 841a2.1 αἳ GR: ἃ VLΛ (sch. deest HM) 861.1 ταῖς (pr.) HR: τοῖς LG et Su. IV 803, 19 863a.1 haec separatim leguntur in GR: cum sch. 861 coniunguntur in L, cum sch. 858–9 in V 865.2 λώβη GMR: om. LV 975.6 ἢν GMR: ἂν VLΛ 1006.3 μὲν G (compendiose): με L 1026.3–4 ἐπεὶ ῥέζοντα VGMR: ἐπηρεάζοντα L 1346.1 πρότερον G (coni. Lascaris): πρὸς ἕτερον LΛ 1384a.10 δὲ habet HG: om. L 1434.2 ὕστερον HG: ὑμέτερον L 446.5 488b.1–3

Moreover, at sch. 86b VM’s omission of δὲ is a sign that the note was originally distinct from sch. 86a, and at sch. 278b.2 VGMR offer τὰ μηλιῶνος which is closer to the true Γαμηλιῶνος than L’s τὰ μηλίων. Finally, at sch. 769 M helps to suspect where the note belongs. Contaminated manuscripts We should now turn our attention to the remaining three manuscripts H ∆ and V, which all fall under the rubric of codices mixti. It is clear that the

70

Introduction

first two descend from a common source which will be denoted by the symbol q. There follows a selection of cases in which they agree in error against the rest of the tradition: 1–19.3 τῷ Ὀρέστῃ δεῖξαι] δ. τ. Ὀρ. (inv. ord.) Η∆ 1–19.6 ὡς] δι' ὃν Η∆ 6–9.7 ἱερὸν εἶναι] εἶν. ἱερ. (inv. ord.) Η∆ 47a.1 ἐπιλάβηται] ἐπιβάληται Η∆ 52.1–2 καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ κρατὸς τετμημένοις βοστρύχοις om. Η∆ 62.3 περὶ] μετὰ Η∆ 86a.3 ἄηθές ἐστι] ἔνεστι Η∆ 94.1 ἐνδείκνυσι] ἐνδείκνυται Η∆ 103–4.2 ἂν om. Η∆ 120.3–4 μόνη γὰρ φέρειν om. Η∆ 131.4 ἄμεινον δὲ τὸ πρῶτον om. Η∆ 193b.2–3 οἰκτρὰ – αὐτοῦ om. Η∆ 210.3–6 καὶ – fin. om. Η∆ 229.3 παραμυθίας] προθυμίας Η∆ 232a1.1 ἔν – ἀνάνομος om. Η∆ 268–9.2–3 καὶ – fin. om. Η∆ 446.3 δοκεῖν om. Η∆ 488b.2 πᾶσαν om. Η∆ 595.2 ἐκμειλισσομένη] καὶ μειλισσομένην Η∆ 717a.2–3 μέρος – fin. om. Η∆ 731.2 ὡς Ἀθηναῖον] τὸν Ἀθ. Η∆ 837.2 τοῦ δοθέντος] τοῖς δοθεῖσι Η∆ 963–4.3 ἔνεστιν om. Η∆ 975.5 δυστυχούσῃ] ἀποδυστυχούσῃ Η∆ 975.6–10 ὡς – fin. om. Η∆ 1322.2 διὸ] διότι Η∆ H and ∆ are shown to be gemelli by the fact that they both have separative errors against each other; I shall first record some separative errors of ∆ and then of H: 1a.2 4.6 6–9.3 19.2–5 62.8 86c.3 121.2 131.2

δηλοῖ] δῆλον ∆ii ἐκεῖσε] ἐκεῖ ∆ ἀπόπτου] ὑπόπτου ∆ ὡς – fin. om. ∆ ἀποτείνεσθαι om. ∆ μέση] μέσον ∆ ἐξωλεστάτης] ἐξελεστάτης (sic) ∆ ἵνα] εἰς ἃ ∆

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

131.2 176a.2 182b.6 504.3 539a.7 580.1 595.3 645.9 990.3 993.1 997.1

τῷ om. ∆ πεπραγμένοις] πεπλανημένοις ∆ ἀνεπίστροφος] ἀπερίτροπος ἀπερίστροφος ∆ αὐτὸν om. ∆ περὶ – οὐ om. ∆ ἄλλον] ἄλλος ∆ γὰρ ὡς λοιδορουμένη om. ∆ κεκίνηκεν] νενίκηκεν καὶ ἀκούειν om. ∆ τὴν om. ∆ ἐστι] εἰσι ∆

1–19.1 4.1 4.4 86b.1 176a.2 179.1 561–2.2 610.2 614.2 645.1 653.1 944.1 1438a.2 1438a.2

τὰ om. Η Ἄργος (alt.) om. Η πρωτογενεῖς] πρωτογεννεῖς Η γῆς] τῆς γῆς Η λυπηροῖς καὶ δεινοῖς] δ. καὶ λ. (inv. ord.) H εὐμαρῶς] εὐμαρὴς H τὸν μοιχὸν] τὴν μοιχὸν H πνέουσαν] πνέουσα H ἀντιλέγειν] ἀντιλέγει H διπλῆν] διπλῶν H εὖ διάγουσαν] εὖ δισσοῦσαν H τοῦτο] τούτῳ Η διαλέγεσθαι] λέγεσθαι H εὐθέως] αὐτῷ H

71

Having established the existence of a lost manuscript q, we may now proceed to find out its affiliations with the other manuscripts, i.e. L, r and V. We have already noted that H∆ and V are mixed in character. A good example of how they contaminate their text by combining different sources is sch. 846a.5 τιμῆς τινος L: τιμῆς πολλῆς GMR: τιμῆς τινος πολλῆς V: τιμῆς τινος πολλῶν Η. Another example of H∆’s using more than one exemplar is sch. 31.3, which appears twice, once siding with L and once with GMR: ὅτι μὴ πάνυ αὐθέκαστος φαίνεται L Hi∆i: τοῖς παλαιοτέροις τῶν πρωτείων παραχωροῦντα καὶ μὴ αὐθέκαστον φαινόμενον Ηii∆ii: τοῖς παλαιοτέροις τῶν πρωτείων παραχωροῦντα καὶ μὴ αὐτοβουλίᾳ χρώμενον fere GMR. There follows a detailed examination of the various sources which contributed to the creation of H∆’s mixed text: (i) q is found to agree in error or alternative formulations with V against the rest of the tradition. On the basis of the agreement at sch. 575.1

72

Introduction

it is more precise to say that the connection exists between H and V than, more generally, between q and V: 558.3 575.1 652b.2–3 706a1.1 760.1 760.1 846a.1 858–9.2 919a1

δεύτερον, ὅτι οὐ δικαίως om. H∆V ἀντιπαραταττόμενος LΛ ∆: ἀντὶ τοῦ παραταττόμενος ΗV: παραταττόμενος Μ ἀπὸ – νῦν om. HV ὄνομα LGMR: ὁ νοῦς H∆V ἵνα (alt.) LMG: ἵνα μὴ HV ἀξιόπιστος LMG: ἀξιοπιστότερος HV οἶδα (tert.)] οἶδα γὰρ ΗV: οἶδ’ G τοῦ πατρὸς om. H∆V hoc sch. cum sch. 919a2 coniungitur in HV

(ii) The following list comprises errors or alternative formulations which q shares with copies of p against the manuscripts which I have collated; the pattern of agreements shows that q has strong affiliations with p2 (i.e. the common ancestor of F and Ο): 1–19.7 52.2 86a.6 86d.2 213.2 226a.2 424a.1 445a1.5 846a.7

παρὰ L ΝWa V G: ἀπὸ Η FO: πρὸς ∆: περὶ VMR λέγοι L GR: λέγει Η∆ FON: λέγ compendiose Wa V κατὰ τὸν πατέρα LΛ V M: πρὸς τὸν πατέρα H∆ FO NWa παρῴδηκεν LΛ NWa V : παρέδωκεν H∆ F κατὰ Κλυταιμήστρας καὶ Αἰγίσθου LΛ G: κατὰ Αἰγ. καὶ Κλ. (inverso ordine) H∆ FONWa ὑμῶν L F ∆ G: ἡμῶν H ONWa V ἀποτροπιαζομένους L V Ν GMR: ἀποτροπιαζομένοις H∆ F Wa: ἀποτροπιαζόμενος O δεινόν L V GMR: κακόν (-ὰ Η∆) H∆ FO NWa διὰ τοῦ ἐμοὶ δ' οὔ τις om. H FΟ: habent L NWa V GMR

(iii) We have already mustered the points of contact between Wa and q and have seen that they concern alternative formulations and not errors.106 (iv) H has some points of contact with r.107 (v) In some cases108 q is accompanied by V in following r.

106 107 108

See above p. 53. See above p. 68 See above p. 66.

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

73

(vi) In some instances q has the truth, or an approximation to it, where the rest of our tradition is at fault (though in one of them the truth is to be found in the indirect tradition too). 4.4 98.2 135.1 278a.2 466–7.2

ἔτι Η∆: ὅτι L ΝFWa ΜR: ὃ G εἰπεῖν Η∆: τὸ εἰπεῖν L FOWa V G τὸ (om. H∆) ἐν ἄλῃ H∆ Su.: τὸ ἀδημονεῖν καὶ G: ἐν ἄλγει Μ: ἐν ἄλλω LΝWa: οὕτω F θεωμένη H∆: θεωμένην L WaF V GMR δεῖ H: διὰ L

Let us now turn to V. We have already seen its affiliations with (i) H (ii) qr and (iii) r.109 V also displays agreement in alternative formulations with Wa: (iv) 1–19.1–2 1–19.5–6 721a1.1–2

κατὰ μέρος L Η∆ GMR: ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους VWa φιλοτέχνως ἐν βραχεῖ L Η∆ GMR: ἐν βρ. φιλ. VWa τὴν ὀπὴν τοῦ τροχοῦ L GMR: τοῦ τρ. τὴν ὀπ. VWa

There are passages in which V agrees in error or alternative formulations not only with Wa but generally with manuscripts descending from p; we can economically assume that V imported all these alterations from Wa: 307.2 335a1.2–3 958.1

τινα] πολλὰ V NFOWa τὸ ἱστίον] τὸν ἱστὸν V NFOWa post χρόνον add. τουτέστι ἕως πότε ῥαθυμεῖς (ῥαθυμήσεις V) VNWa

(v) I now list some of the places where V is alone in error: Αrg. ΙΙ.8 Αrg.ΙΙ.9 1–19.7 1–19.7 1a.1 48a1.1–2 75b.1

109

ἐκ τοῦ Ἄργους L H GΜR: om. V ἐτῶν L H GΜR: ἔτη V αὐτὸν L H∆ GΜR: ἀντὶ τοῦ V τῆς ἀδελφῆς L H∆ GΜR: τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ V παλαιοὶ L H∆ii GΜR: πολλοὶ ∆i: παλαὶ V ἐκ ταὐτομάτου L H∆: ἐκ αὐτομάτου sic V ἐφ’ ἑκάστου πράγματος L H∆: ἐφ' ἑκάστῳ γὰρ πράγματι GMR: ἀφ’ ἑκάστου δὲ δράματος V

See pp. 71–2, 66 and 67 respectively.

74

Introduction

482.2 488b.1 495a2.1 539a.10 551.2 657b.3 679.1

ἀλλ' L H GΜR: ἂν V ὑπομνήματι LH∆: ποὺς G: om. V ἄλλως LH: καὶ ἄλ. G: ὁ νοῦς V πῶς L H∆ GM: περὶ V τινὲς τοὺς πέλας L Hs.l.: τίνας δὲ λέγει πέλας V: πέλας δὲ GMR οὖν L H GΜR: om. V ἴδιον L H∆ GΜR: ἥδιον V

(vi) In some instances V has the truth, or an approximation to it, where the rest of the tradition is at fault. These cases suggest that V had access to a now lost good copy of the Laurentian version: 86d.2 86d.3 98.1–3 108–9.1 240–1.4 275.1 312b.2 445a1.1–6

643a.1 1039a2.1

ἐν Πέρσαις V: om. L H∆ haec separatim leguntur in V, praeposita scholio 86a: cum sch. 86c coniunguntur in L (καὶ ταῦτα δὲ) et H∆ (καὶ ταῦτα) haec separatim habet V: post sch. 95.5 ἀνδρί leguntur in cett. κωκυτῷ V: (τῶν praeposuit GMiiR) κωκυτῶν LMi GMiiR εἰ V: om. L Η∆ GMR οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ οἴκτου ὁ λόγος V: om. L ἐξόδου V (coni. Lascaris): ἔξοδος L GMR haec ut novum scholium leguntur in V (postposita scholio 446): cum sch. 445–6a1.3 ἀποτρεπόμενοι coniunguntur in MR (ἄλλως R: om. M): cum sch. 446.8 ὑποθέσεως (ὑπόθεσιν q) in Lq qG (ἄλλως Lq q: καὶ ἄλλως G): cum sch. 445a2 in Su. οὐκ ἄντικρυς V: om. L (app. crit.) ἄλλως· ἐπεὶ V: ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ G: ἐπεὶ δὲ L: ἐπειδὴ Μ

2 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the direct tradition

75

Stemma of the direct tradition We have so far examined the individual groups of manuscripts. That there is an archetype from which all of them descend is proved by the fact that there are errors common to all the witnesses, i.e. L H∆ V GMR. There follows a selection of them: 45.1 47a.3 48a2.1 75b.4 259.1 241–2.3 495a1.2 495a1.3 686a2.1 745b.2 745b.2 841a1.2 1145–6.4 1236b.2

προθεὶς Brunck: προσθεὶς L Η∆ V GMR ἐπιορκῶν Lf (ex coniectura): ἐπιορκεῖν L H∆ GMR hoc sch. separatim posui: cum sch. 48a1 coniungitur in L H∆ V (et Su.110) ἢ add. Kruytbosch: om. L H∆ V GMR (et Su. utroque loco) μὲν Lascaris: ἡμῖν L H∆ V G διὰ τῶν γόων Jahn: τῶν γονέων L GMR Aἴγισθον Wc (ex coniectura): Αἴγισθος L Η V G Κλυταιμήστραν Lascaris: -μ(ν)ήστρα L H V G (app. crit.) ἄλλως Kruytbosch: ἀλλ’ L H∆ V ἄξονος reponi ex ipso Apollonio iubet Heath: ἀζομένοις V: ἀζόμενος LG: ἐζόμενος ΜR ἀγνυμένοιο Apollonius: αἰνυμένοιο LGMR: ἐνυμένοις V ἕπεσθαι Scheer: ἔσεσθαι L V GR ὦ φίλε scripsi: ὄφελος L GMR (et Su.) παρὰ om. L ∆ GMR

There are two further indications pointing to a closed recension. The first is that manuscripts share errors in conflating distinct scholia: see the critical apparatus at e.g. sch. 48a2 (L H∆ V et Su.), 86b (L Η∆ V M), 149b (L Η∆ V GM et Su.), 185–6 (L Η∆ GMR et Su.), 424b (L V GMR), 863b (L H V GR et Su.) etc. The second indication is the fact that in poetic quotations the manuscripts concur in peculiar readings: 45.3 86a.11 975.6

110

ἐς Κύπρον scholiasta (L Η∆ V GMR): ἄρα Κύπρον Homerus ἑαυτῇ scholiasta (L H∆ V M): ἑωυτῇ Hesiodus ἢν θάνω scholiasta (L V GMR): ἢν κτάνῃ Sophocles

For the position of the Suda in the tradition see below pp. 77–80.

76

Introduction

To summarise and conclude: the stemma which emerges from the foregoing investigation of the direct tradition is this:

L lr Λ K Lp

Pa

N

r p

Wa

p²

F

O G q

M

R

∆ H

V

3 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the indirect tradition The Suda Turning now to the indirect tradition, it is necessary to study the Suda, which cites our material on several occasions. The lexicon was composed in the tenth century and is therefore as early as the manuscript L, the oldest extant witness to the direct tradition. The lexicographer reproduced most of the scholia faithfully in his text. In some cases however he conflated similar scholia which stand separately in the codices of the direct tradition such as sch. 54a1 and 54a2 or 139a and

3 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the indirect tradition

77

139b. At other times he made some conscious alterations in his attempt to indicate the context of a scholion or for other reasons: 62.7 89a2.4 95.7 119.1 139a.2 210.3 732a.2 863b.1 875.1 1026.4 1292.2

post Ἑρμότιμος add. Σάμιος Su. II 552, 15 post ἕκαστον add. Ἠλέκτρα Su. I 234, 17 post χαριζόμενοι (-ος Su.) habet ταῦτα θρηνεῖ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ Ὀρέστου Su. II 307, 3 post ἰσχύω add. δύναμαι Su. IV 405, 32 post τοὺς θεοὺς add. τοῦτον ἀναστήσεις Su. IV 1, 24 καὶ] καὶ αὖθις Su. IV 260, 2 post παρασπᾷ (περισπᾷ Su.) add. τουτέστι τοῖς ἡνιόχοις Su. IV 108, 20 post εἱλκύσθη habet Ὀρέστης πεσὼν ἐκ τοῦ ἅρματος Su. IV 566, 17 ante νοσημάτων add. ἴασις καὶ ἄρηξις διαφέρει Su. II 604, 27 ἔοικεν] κακὸν Su. II 525, 7 post ἀδολεσχία habet Ὀρέστης φησὶ πρὸς Ἠλέκτραν Su. IV 107, 30; sed hoc additamentum non invenitur apud Su. IV 828, 5

The Suda cannot be ignored in the establishment of the text, although its contribution is not impressive. The position which its source should occupy in the stemma of the tradition has been an issue of controversy among scholars. Dindorf111 thought it was related to G,112 arguing that these two witnesses occasionally preserve a fuller text for some scholia than L. De Marco113 expressed the view that the Suda offers a contaminated text that was drawn from copies of both the Laurentian and the Roman versions. Havekoss114 saw that the Suda preserves material which does not appear in LGMR and took this as meaning that it is a gemellus to the common ancestor of LGMR. His method of arguing is however unsound, since he tried to determine the affiliation on the basis of true readings instead of common errors. Finally, Christodoulou115 sided with Havekoss, but his long list of readings does not contain the three patterns which are necessary for the demonstration of his position: (i) conjunctive errors between the Suda and the direct tradition, (ii) errors of 111 112 113 114 115

Dindorf 1852, v. M and R were unknown to him. De Marco 1952, xii–xiii who is followed by Turyn 1952, 117. Havekoss 1960, 30. Christodoulou 1977, 107*–10*.

78

Introduction

the direct tradition avoided by the Suda, (iii) errors of the Suda avoided by the direct tradition. The subject thus needs further investigation, and the evidence, the raw material of any hypothesis, should be set out first: (i) I repeat below116 the conjunctive errors between the Suda and the witnesses of the direct tradition by means of which it is proved that the whole tradition whether direct or indirect can be traced back to a single archetype: 48a2 75b.4 149b 185–6 863b 1145–6.4

hoc sch. separatim posui: cum sch. 48a1 coniungitur in L H∆ V et Su. ἢ add. Kruytbosch: om. L H∆ V GMR et Su. utroque loco haec ut novum scholium seorsum scripsi: cum sch. 149a coniungitur in L H∆ V GM et Su. hoc sch. seorsum scripsi: cum sch. 185 coniungitur in L H∆ GMR et Su. hoc sch. seorsum scripsi: cum sch. 863a coniungitur in L H V GR et Su. ὦ φίλε scripsi: ὄφελος L GMR et Su.

(ii) The direct tradition has errors of which the Suda is free:117 230.2 419.1 445a2.5 686a2.2 781.1 861.2 895.2

ἔσται Su.: ἐστι L H∆ V GMR ἔποικον Su.: ἐπ' οἶκον L GMR περὶ habet Su. III 335, 28: om. L GMR θαυμαστὸς Su.: θαυμαστῶς LV ἐπιγινόμενος Su.: ἐπιγενόμενος L G ὁπλῶν Lp (ex coniectura scribae118) Su.: ὅπλων L H GR πηγὰς … δακρύων Su.: δακρύων … πηγάς L HV GMR

Moreover, the Suda contributes a number of items which have been lost from the direct tradition:119 e.g. ΙΙ 334, 13 (sch. 65) || ΙΙ 496, 25 (sch. 721a2)

116 117

118

See on p. 75. The Suda occasionally preserves good readings which are unknown to the largest part of the direct transmission but not to the whole of it: sch. 135.1 τὸ (om. H∆) ἐν ἄλῃ H∆ Su. I 128, 15: τὸ ἀδημονεῖν καὶ G: ἐν ἄλγει Μ: ἐν ἄλλω L. It also sides with GMR in giving the correct, i.e. unconflated and so unconfused, form of sch. 766. See above p. 60.

3 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the indirect tradition

79

|| ΙΙ 523, 11 (sch. 1014) || ΙΙΙ 59, 16 (sch. 72b) || ΙΙΙ 537, 17 (sch. 211b) || IV 156, 17 (sch. 415–6).120 It sometimes happens that the lexicographer has sought to clarify some lines of the play by using exegesis which can be clearly traced to sources other than the scholia vetera: e.g. Ι 62, 15 || ΙΙΙ 76, 18 || ΙΙΙ 300, 10 || ΙΙΙ 515, 8 || ΙV 216, 4 || ΙV 236, 6. So even if a scholion is appended to a quotation from the Electra, it cannot be automatically taken to belong to the corpus of the scholia vetera. The doubtful cases are to my mind the following: Ι 361, 1 || ΙΙΙ 403, 24 || III 506, 19 || ΙV 115, 10 || IV 614, 1. (iii) The passages where the Suda’s source has an error and the direct tradition has the truth are listed below: 42b.1 445a1.1 1026.1

τῆς κεφαλῆς L H∆ MR: τῇ κεφαλῇ Su. φόνον L H∆ V GΜR: πόλεμον Su. τὸν κακῶς ποιεῖν L V GMR: om. Su.

(iv) The Suda bears affinity to lr, i.e. the Laurentian source of the Roman version and one of the sources of V and H∆; their common errors are as follows: 147b 183.2 232a1.4 232a2.2 942b.2 1026.2

hoc sch. verbo ἄλλως coniungitur cum sch. 147a in L H∆: sine ἄλλως in V GMR Su. ἀπερίτροπος L H∆: ἀνεπίστροφος VGSu. post ἀριθμηθήσομαι (ἀναριθμηθήσομαι V) add. ἀεὶ θρηνοῦσα VSu. δαψιλέσι L: δαψιλῶς GMR Su. post ἀναδέξασθαι add. τὴν ἐγχείρησιν H∆ GMR Su. πάσχειν κακῶς L: πράσσειν κακῶς VSu.: κακῶς πράσσειν GMR

A less clear instance is sch. 888a1.1 παρακόπτεις L: προκόπτ V: σκπ G: κόπτῃ (-πῃ Μ) ΜRSu.

119

120

Havekoss 1960, 26–8 compiled a list of cases where the Suda’s text is fuller than that of the direct transmission. However many of them seem to be conscious expansions by the lexicographer rather than preservation of inherited material lost from the other witnesses. One may suppose that this material or part of it has been added by the compilers themselves, but even so it should figure in the edition, as it falls within the chronological limit of the tenth century set for inclusion (see above p. 19). After all, even L can be thought to contain material invented by its scribe: see e.g. sch. 896a.

80

Introduction

(v) In addition, the Suda shares two errors with L: 275.1 732a.2

οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ οἴκτου ὁ λόγος V: om. LSu. παρασπᾷ V GMR: περισπᾷ LSu.

Do these two errors suggest that the Suda used another copy of the Laurentian version in addition to the one established in (iv) above? True, both of the agreements are capable of being explained differently. At sch. 275 the Suda may have deliberately left the words out of its text. The other case becomes insignificant as soon as we see that the lexicon knew line 732 of the poetic text in the form ἔξω περισπᾷ κἀνακωχεύει Su. II 31, 10. However, as there is a probability of common errors between the Suda and L in the other plays,121 it is best to suspend judgement on this issue until we have the complete evidence from all seven plays. From the data in tables (i)–(iv) it emerges that the lexicographer used a contaminated source for his text of the Electra scholia. His source had points of contact with lr and, moreover, borrowed some material from a now lost copy of the Laurentian version which was independent from the surviving ones. This is the reason why it can furnish some scholia and a number of true readings which are not to be found elsewhere. The evidence of table (v) cannot be incorporated into the theory at the moment but in any case does not change the essence of the theory. The conclusion of this enquiry is thus in disagreement with all previous theories about the stemmatic position of the Suda. Apart from those of their weaknesses which we noted above, no one of them was constructed on the complete evidence. In the case of Dindorf and de Marco, there was also a failure to distinguish between the Roman version and the source thereof.

Hesychius Hesychius glosses five words which he expressly refers to Sophocles’ Electra (α 1936 || α 3652 || α 5363 || ε 4531 || λ 1390) and two which he clearly took from this tragedy, although he is silent on his source (α 3029 || α 4396). One of them (α 3652 ἀμήτωρ· κακομήτωρ. Σοφοκλῆς Ἠλέκτρᾳ)

121

E.g. de Marco 1952, xii–xiii noted sch. OC 900 βλαύτης MR et Su. I 475, 10 (β 324): βλάστης L et Su. IV 417, 17 (σ 927). Havekoss 1960, 30 n.1 objected that here the agreement between L and the Suda IV 417, 17 may be ascribed to accident, but his view is intrinsically improbable.

3 Scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra: the indirect tradition

81

is not part of the scholia vetera in the direct tradition, whereas another (λ 1390) is a fuller version of sch. 6–9. 122 L. Valckenaer was the first to recognise sch. 6–9 as lacunose and suggest a supplement on the basis of the Hesychian entry, but his 123 suggestion remained unpublished and thus passed unnoticed. G. Wolff subsequently adopted the same approach and was followed by Papageorgiou, who filled the scholion’s lacuna with the lexicon’s words ‘καὶ τὴν τῶν βοσκημάτων φυλακὴν ποιούμενον’. However, though the supplement gives exactly the required sense, one should be sceptical about putting it in the text. Along with the common ideas between λ 1390 and sch. 6–9, there is some material which is confined to each and also difference in elaboration and diction (i.e. ἀναιρεῖν: φονεύειν). The same picture emerges, if we compare all the Hesychian passages with their corresponding scholia: i.e α 1936 with sch. 1394, α 3029 with sch. 451c, α 4396 with sch.7 732b, α 5363 with sch. 89a2, and ε 4531 with sch. 1018a2. We can extend our comparison further to cover the scholia vetera on all seven Sophoclean tragedies, but the conclusion remains unaltered, i.e. that Hesychius cannot be a safe basis for assuming what exactly was in the 124 scholiast’s text. Havekoss was thus right not to include Hesychius among the witnesses to the Scholiast’s text. Here is a list of the pairs of 125 passages which have provided evidence for the above position: κ 1765: sch. Ai. 26a || φ 725: sch. Ai. 59a || ε 3546: sch. Ai. 656a || α 8754: sch. Ai. 910a || α 6745: sch. ΟΤ 1313 || ι 364: sch. ΟΤ 173 || α 4083: sch. ΟΤ 417 || κ 3260: sch. Ant. 1 || α 7375: sch. Tr. 69 || α 2025: sch. Tr. 94 || α 1307: sch. Tr. 216 || α 4073: sch. Tr. 527 || α 4999: sch. Tr. 783 || α 5466: sch. Tr. 223 || α 3819: sch. Phil. 678 || α 2178: sch. OC 312 || ο 188: sch. OC 1061 || α 3820: sch. OC 1069. Moreover, Hesychius gives explications of five glosses which are explicitly derived from Sophoclean plays, but none of these appears in our

122

123 124 125

I express my thanks to Patrick Finglass for drawing my attention to Valckenaer’s unpublished autograph manuscript, Observationes in Sophoclem, preserved in the University Library at Leiden under the shelfmark BPL 384 and dated to the period between 1743 and 1746; see Finglass 2009, 196 with n. 12. I examined the manuscript by autopsy, and the suggestion for the supplement for sch. 6–9 is found in f. 29r. Wolff 1843, 28. Havekoss 1960. There are only two cases in which Hesychius and the Scholiast are in complete harmony: α 1346: sch. ΟΤ 467 and α 2474: sch. OC 977.

82

Introduction

scholia collection. We have already noted α 3652: El. 1154; the others are α 7144: Ai. 129 || α 7712: Ai. 21 || β 87: ΟΤ 750 || α 3457: Phil. 231. A plausible hypothesis which would account both for the similarities and the discrepancies between Hesychius and the Scholiast as well as the extra material preserved individually by each of them is that neither of them used the other as his source, but both of them had access to the same 126 sources. In such a case the five explanations which are listed in the previous paragraph were probably excerpted from Diogenianus’ lexicon by 127 Hesychius but ignored by the Scholiast. On the strength of these conclusions, it is as well to proceed as follows: As regards the pair under discussion, λ 1390: sch. 6–9, it is only reasonable to indicate a lacuna in the text of the scholion but to refrain from filling it with the Hesychian words; Valckenaer’s suggestion should be relegated to the apparatus criticus. As for α 3652 it should be left out of the text of the Scholiast.

4 Previous editions 4.1 Lascaris Janus Lascaris brought out the editio princeps of the Scholia vetera to 128 Sophocles in 1518. Since the edition by Elmsley in 1825, it has generally been accepted that the manuscript basis of Lascaris’ work is L, 126

127

128

Havekoss 1960, 76 leaves open the possibility that the Scholiast used Hesychius, but this theory does not account for the differences between the two texts in a satisfactory and economical way: ‘Ob dieses Lexikon (i.e. Hesychius) erst von Kompilator (i.e. the compilator of the scholia text) exzerpiert wurde, oder ob ihm das Material durch eine seiner Quellen vermittelt vorlag, läßt sich nicht entscheiden’. There is no explicit evidence that the Scholiast had employed Diogenianus, but in sch. Tr. 1159 he is explicit about his use of Didymus’ Τραγικὴ Λέξις which is among Diogenianus’ sources. Commentarii in septem tragedias (sic) Sophoclis quae ex aliis eius compluribus

iniuria temporum amissis solae superfuerunt. Opus exactissimum rarissimumque in Gymnasio Mediceo Caballini montis a Leone Decimo Pont. Max. constituto recognitum repurgatumque atque ad communem studiosorum utilitatem in plurima exemplaria editum non sine privilegio ut in caeteris. Σχόλια τῶν πάνυ δοκίμων εἰς τὰς σωζομένας (sic pro σῳζ-) τῶν Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδιῶν, Romae 1518.

4 Previous editions

83

but Irigoin and Janz deviated from the consensus. Both of them felt uneasy about L’s being the source of Lascaris, arguing that there exist too many agreements between Lascaris and Lp ‘in true readings or in what seem to 129 be emendations’. Irigoin then claimed Lp as Lascaris’ source, and Janz, who appears not to be aware of Irigoin’s view, suggested the same idea only to show that it is mistaken at least in respect of the Philoctetes scholia. Two considerations of the same kind as those used by Janz will serve to demonstrate that Irigoin’s theory is mistaken in the Electra scholia too. 130 Lascaris shares with L many ancient scholia which are not found in Lp. Moreover, a notable feature of Lascaris’ corpus is that he includes the scholia of L which are not by the διορθωτής. It has been mentioned that this Byzantine material is the work of Manuel Moschopoulos and was 131 entered in L by the scribe of the ms. Paris 2712 (A). These notes are likewise absent from Lp’s corpus. Janz then raised the possibility that Lascaris’ edition was based upon ‘a now lost manuscript which was stemmatically related to Lp, and which had preserved a more complete corpus than Lp’. He added a reservation: ‘The fact that Lascaris includes items added in L by much later hands makes this otherwise attractive hypothesis rather unlikely, but does not, in my opinion, rule it out entirely’. Janz’s reservation looks to me more serious than he himself thinks and is valid for the Electra scholia too: Lascaris includes the Moschopoulean scholia, which were added to L by a later hand, but these additions do not appear in Lp. So how can we be justified in assuming that a relative of Lp should have them? We cannot, therefore, reasonably suppose that Lp or a relative of Lp is the source of Lascaris. On the other hand, if we accept the prevailing view that L is the source of the editio princeps, we need to explain the connection between Lp and Lascaris in good readings, but still we have to address another issue too, for the complete picture is that Lascaris shows points of contact in good readings not only with Lp but also with other manuscripts. The explanation that has been generally offered so far is that Lascaris used L as his basis but in addition to it some more manuscripts to correct 132 133 134 its text. It was advocated by Peppink, de Marco and Turyn. As 129

130 131 132 133

Janz 2004, 140. Irigoin 1977-8, 321: ‘Il [=Lp] présente des corrections et de nombreuses additions marginales, fruit d’une révision faite directement sur le Laurentianus [=L]; elles se retrouvent toutes dans l’imprimé’. For example, sch. 54a1, 54a2, 56, 72a, 150, 155a, 181, 842a2, 844, 872, 1338, 1369, 1400, 1450. See pp. 27–8. Peppink 1934b, 158. De Marco 1936, 39.

84

Introduction

sources of corrections, Peppink suggested N and de Marco postulated a relative of GMR; Turyn left the matter open: ‘Of course Lascaris corrected the scholia by using also other mss., and it would be an interesting task to investigate systematically the sources of the non-Laurentian readings in the Roman edition’. To test the validity of these suggestions with regard to the Electra scholia, I now list the number of places which show the agreement in good readings between Lascaris and any individual manuscript against the rest of the tradition. In addition to the conjectures which are unattested in the manuscripts and most probably belong to him, Lascaris shows good readings (not necessarily true ones) which are found only in (i) the subfamily FO, (ii) Wa, (iii) Lf, (iv) Lp, (v) V, (vi) the family GMR and (vii) the Suda: (i) 1391–2b.2 θεῶν FO Lascaris: θος LΛ et fere NWa (θεὸς): om. GMR (ii) 47a.5 ἐν τῇ Πυθίᾳ L H∆: ἐν Πυθίᾳ N: ἐν τῆ Πύθια Η Lp: ἐν τῆ Πυθια (Πυθια sine accentu) F: de O non liquet: εἰς τὰ Πύθια Wa, fere Lascaris: ἐν τῷ Πυθίῳ GMR 312b.3 περιπαθὲς Wa Lascaris: περιπαθὴς L Lp ΝFO: περιπαθῶς VGΜR 706a2.2 ἀνεξέλεγκτον Wa Lascaris: ἀνεξέλικτον L ΝF V GΜR Lp: ἀνέλεγκτον Η∆: ἀνεξέληκτον Ο (iii) 47a.3 ἐπιορκῶν Lf Lascaris: ἐπιορκεῖν L Lp NOWa Η∆ GMR: de F non liquet (iv) 13.2 οὔ τι L Wa H∆: οὐδὲ GMR: οὔπω Lp Lascaris 62.6 ὢν L NFOWa H∆ GMRLps.l.: ἦν Lpi.l. Lascaris 135.1 τὸ (om. H∆) ἐν ἄλῃ H∆ Su.: τὸ ἀδημονεῖν καὶ G: ἐν ἄλγει Μ: ἐν ἄλλω L NOWa: ἐν ἄλλοις Lp Lascaris: οὕτω F 381.1 κατεσκεπασμένῳ LLpi.l.G: κατεσκεπασμένῃ Lps.l. Lascaris 993.1 (lm.) ἐσῴζετ' ἂν τὴν εὐλάβειαν Lp Lascaris: ἐσῴζετ' ἄν φησι τὴν εὐλάβειαν L: ἐσῴζετ' ἄν NWa: ἐτύγχαν' αὕτη Μ: deest in H∆ V GR 1245.3 ἔφη Lp Lascaris: ἔφην L NFWa MR

134

Turyn 1949, 96 n. 11.

4 Previous editions

85

(v) 312b.2

ἐξόδου V Lascaris: ἔξοδος L Lp NFO GMR: πρὸς τὴν ἔξοδον Wa

(vi) 526.1 732a.2 844.1 846a.7 1058.4 1346.1 1384a.2 (vii) 686a2.2 696.1

τόλμης L N H∆: τέχνης OWa Lp: deest in GMR Lascaris παρασπᾷ V GMR Lascaris: περισπᾷ L Ν Lp Su. ἀποφατικὸς L: ἀποφαντικὸς V GR Lascaris διὰ τοῦ GMR Lascaris: διὰ τὸ L N V Lp παραλαβεῖν G Lascaris: περιλαβεῖν L NFOWa MR Lp πρότερον G Lascaris: πρὸς ἕτερον L NWa Lp: om. FO κἂν L NFOWa H Lp: καὶ G Lascaris θαυμαστὸς Su. Lascaris: θαυμαστῶς LV αὐτῷ L Lp V GMR: τούτῳ Su. Lascaris

The agreements in lists (ii), (iii), (v) and (vii) can reasonably be ascribed to accident and cannot therefore prove the dependence of Lascaris upon Wa, Lf, V or the Suda. Of the remaining two lists, I consider the agreements of (iv) less likely to be accidental than those of (vi). Our next task must be to turn to the twenty places where Lascaris’ good readings occur in more than one manuscript: 62.2 68a.1 86a.9 86c.1 176a.2 259.4 324–5.2 430.2 446.3 495a1.5 504.3 561a.1 595.3 642a1.2 717b.1

ἔοι L Lps.l.: ιοι H: εἴη ∆ GMR NFOWa Su. Lpi.l. Lascaris δέξασθε (alt.) NFΟWaLp Lascaris: δέξασθαι L τῇ γῇ Η∆ V M Lp Lascaris: τῆς γῆς L ΝFOWa ἔχων Η∆ V Lpp.c. Lascaris: ἔχον LLpa.c. νέμουσα ∆ ΝFOWa Lpp.c. Lascaris: μένουσα LLpa.c. V H ὁσημέραι NFOWaLp Lascaris: varie corrumpunt cett. ἐναγίσματα H∆ V G Wa Lp Lascaris: ἐναγήματα L ΝFO M αὐτὴ H V NWa Lp Lascaris: αὐτῆ L: om. GMR Ὅμηρον Η∆ V G FOWa Lpp.c. Lascaris: ὄνειρον L Ν Lpa.c. σημαντικὸν V Wa Lp Lascaris: σημαντικὸς LN HG τοῦ Μυρτίλου GMR Lp, fere Lascaris: τὸν Μυρτίλον L N: Μυρτίλου H∆Wa τῷ GMR Lp Lascaris: τὸ L NWa V χαλεπαίνεις H NOWa Lp Lascaris: χαλεπαίνοις L V GMR: χαλεπαίνουσα ∆ πράξοι L ΝF: πράξει Wa K Lp Lascaris: πράξῃ Η: om. V: de O non liquet τῷ V Wa Su. Lp Lascaris: τὸ L NFΟ GR

86

Introduction

830.1 861.2 995.1 1384–5.2 1404.4

βοῇ GMR Lps.l. Lascaris: βουλῇ L OWa Lpi.l. ὁπλῶν Su. Lp Lascaris: ὅπλων L NWa H∆ GR ἐμφατικῶς LLp: ἐμφαντικῶς Λ NOWa Η V R Lascaris: ἐφαντικῶς G: ἐνφαντικῶς Μ: de F non liquet τὸ H FWa GMR Lp Lascaris: τὸν L NO ἐνεργέστερον L NFWa Lp: ἐναργέστερον G O Lascaris

The above table strengthens the impression given by the previous ones, since of the twenty readings cited here, no fewer than nineteen appear in Lp. It seems that we might consider Lp and not the family GMR as the likelier source of Lascaris’ corrections, but it is premature to regard this conclusion as safe before the full evidence of the scholia on all Sophoclean tragedies is gathered.135 As regards his basic manuscript, L, Lascaris did not print its text either in its entirety or very accurately. Taking the scholia to Electra’s lines 1– 100 as a sample, we can see that he omitted the short, mainly interlinear, notes 1b, 35, 39, 42a, and the grammatical scholion 70 which he may have thought alien to the interpretation of the play.136 There is at least another principle which seems to have guided him in omitting items (on which see below), but some words belonging to sch. 40 (πάντα) and 86a.9 (τήν) were left out, probably by carelessness. Another factor which diminishes the accuracy of his work lies in a degree of palaeographical incompetence; for example, he misinterpreted the abbreviations in sch. 45.6 τινές as πόλεως and 78.2 τινὲς δέ as ἀλλά or completely left out some others, unable as he presumably was to decipher them (sch. 28.1 διχῶς, 62.2 ἄρα). Moreover, a number of misprints have been noted for the Philoctetes scholia,137 and are present in the Electra scholia too. 135

136

137

Janz 2004, 141 considers the possibility that Lascaris used sources ‘which did not depend upon conjecture for their improvement of the text’. However, the one piece of evidence he cites is not necessarily convincing. I personally think that at sch. Soph. Phil. 803 L’s κατατοξεῦσαι is not a mistake, but the genuine reading: the Scholiast was misled into writing κατατοξεῦσαι instead of κατακαῦσαι under the influence of lines 802–3 of the poetic text ἀντὶ τῶνδε τῶν ὅπλων, ἃ νῦν σὺ σῴζεις (i.e. the bow). Lascaris’ κατακοῦσαι is a misprint (there are many typographical slips in his edition) for κατακαῦσαι which I take to be a conjecture of his own. On the other hand I take a’s καῦσαι also as a conjecture, since I do not believe that a is independent from L (see Xenis 2010). The way in which Lascaris treated items irrelevant to the explication of the tragedy may also by illustrated by sch. Tr. 1a. Here he truncates L’s scholion by omitting the entire dialogue between Solon and Croesus: λόγος μὲν ἔστ’ ἀρχαῖος ἀνθρώπων φανείς: ὁ τρόπος ἀναχρονισμός. μεταγενέστερος γὰρ ὁ Σόλων ὁ μηδένα μακαρίζειν δεῖν πρὸ τελευτῆς πρὸς Κροῖσον ἀποφηνάμενος. Janz 2004, 142.

4 Previous editions

87

Lascaris’ edition contained no poetic text; he thus printed all scholia with lemmata, but no line-numbering. However as he would write any lemma in capital letters, he made no distinction between lemmata appearing in L and those which he supplied himself. That his lemmata contain misprints was already noted by Brunck in his 1786 edition. He was obviously unaware of the fact that the scholia in L represent a compilation derived from more than one source and thus removed some features which should not in fact have been removed. He was for example annoyed by repetitiveness and was led to leave out some items. Thinking that sch. 13 and 14 refer to the same lemma and are more or less tautologous, he printed only the first of them, or he left out sch. 95–6, since he had included sch. 95. Janz138 already noted Lascaris’ tendency to present scholia which are conflated in L as separate entities.139 Lascaris also did the opposite, conflating similar items standing separately in L. To effect a conflation he was ready to interpolate material in the form of connective words or, in some cases, more extensive formulas: καὶ μὴν θυρῶν: τὸ ἑξῆς ἔνδον θυρῶν. θαυμαστῶς δὲ ὁ γέρων οὐκ ἐπιβέβηκεν τῷ ἀληθεῖ ἀλλ’ ἀποστῆσαι βουλόμενος τὸν Ὀρέστην προσπόλων τινός φησίν. (sch. 78 and sch. 78–9) δέξασθέ μ’ εὐτυχοῦντα: ἐπ εὐτυχίᾳ με δέξασθε ὥστε ταύτας τὰς ὁδοὺς τελεσθῆναι. ἢ οὕτως· δέξασθέ με εὐτυχοῦντα καὶ εὐτυχῶς ἐπιχειροῦντα ταύταις ταῖς μηχαναῖς (sch. 68a and sch. 68b). The compact diction which is characteristic of scholarly Greek motivated interpolations designed to supply the items left unexpressed: 47b.1

οὐ γάρ σε μὴ γήρᾳ τε: τοῦ πιθανοῦ χάριν οὕτως εἶπε.

551.2–3

τινὲς τοὺς πέλας τοὺς περὶ Ἀγαμέμνονα ἔγνωσαν

Lascaris tried to improve the text of L in about seventy places. Most of the emendations –which he may have borrowed from Lp or conjectured himself– are easy corrections of obvious mistakes140 and can be accepted by modern editors, but others are unnecessary141 or palaeographically

138 139 140 141

Janz 2004, 142. See, for example, his treatment of sch. 424a, b. E.g. sch. 68a.1 δέξασθε (alt.), 47a.3 ἐπιορκῶν, 278b.2 Γαμηλιῶνος, 1395a.2 κατακρύψας. E.g. sch. 13.2 οὔπω.

88

Introduction

implausible.142 On the other hand, there are many corrupt passages which he left unemended.143

4.2 Juntine The Juntine edition came out in 1522 and was the work of Antonius Francinus Varchiensis. It was the first to include in a single volume both the poetic text and the scholia.144 Like all editors before Peter Elmsley, Antonius Francinus failed to discover L, and was thus bound to treat Lascaris’ text instar codicis. However, he augmented Lascaris’ corpus ‘additis insuper quam plurimis ex vetustissimis excerptis codicibus, quae magno adiumento futura sunt hunc poetam intelligere volentibus’.145 To be sure, these additions, which include an argument to the play, are Byzantine, more specifically Moschopulean,146 and their scope and rudimentary quality can be seen from the following sample: 3 Ὧν πρόθυμος: ἤγουν ἐπιθυμῶν, ὀρεγόμενος. Ἦσθα ὑπῆρχες, ἔστι δὲ ἀττικισμὸς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπεθύμεις. 4 τὸ παλαιὸν ἐνίοτε μὲν πρὸς ἕτερον λέγεται νέον, ὡς παλαιὰ Ῥώμη λέγεται πρὸς τὴν νέαν, ἐνίοτε δὲ οὐ τῶν πρός τί ἐστιν ἀλλὰ δηλοῖ μόνον τὸ πάλαι γεγονός, οἷον παλαιὰ πρᾶξις ἡ πάλαι γεγονυῖα, καὶ ἁπλῶς τὸ παρῳχηκός. ἢ τὸ πάλαι μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰληφός, οὐ μὴν δὲ παυσάμενον, καθ’ ὃ λέγεται παλαιὸν Ἄργος. Ἄργος δὲ τὰ περὶ τὰς Μυκήνας χωρία λέγει καὶ αὐταὶ αἱ Μυκῆναι λέγονται Ἄργος, Μυκῆναι δὲ ἡ προκαθεζομένη τοῦ Ἄργους πόλις ὥσπερ Σπάρτη, ἡ προκαθεζομένη πόλις τῆς Λακεδαιμονίας, Λακεδαιμονία δὲ τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν χωρία. εἰσὶ δὲ τὸ Ἄργος καὶ ἡ Λακεδαιμονία ἐντὸς τῆς Πελοποννήσου. 5 τῆς οἰστροπλῆγος: τῆς οἴστρῳ ἤγουν μανίᾳ πληγείσης. τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήττω, εἰ μὲν εἰς -ος λήγει, παθητικά εἰσιν ἀεί, οἷον 142 143

144

145 146

E.g. sch. 445a2.5 περὶ τοῦ Ἰάσονος] ὁ Ιάσων τοῦ Ἀψύρτου. E.g. sch. 6–9.5–6 διὰ τὸ νόμιον εἶναι τοὺς ἐπιβούλους αὐτῶν φονεύειν, 229.2–3 ἐπιτρέπετε ὀδύρεσθαι καὶ αὔξετέ μου διὰ τῆς παραμυθίας τὸν ὀδυρμόν, 975.9 δειλοτέρους.

Σοφοκλέους τραγωδίαι (sic) ἑπτὰ μετὰ σχολίων παλαιῶν καὶ πάνυ ὀφελίμων (sic). Sophoclis tragoediae septem cum interpretationibus vetustis et valde utilibus, Florentiae, per haeredes Philippi Iuntae, anno Domini 1522 sexto kal. Novembris. Quoted from the dedicatory letter to the Venetian humanist Giovanni Battista Egnazio, with which Antonius Francinus Varchiensis opens his edition. Turyn 1949, 96.

4 Previous editions

89

ἔμπληκτος, ἀπόπληκτος ἃ λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν πληγέντων τὴν γνώμην καὶ ἐκτραπέντων, εἰ δὲ εἰς –ηξ, ἐνίοτε μὲν ἐνεργητικά, οἷον βουπλήξ, τὸ κέντρον τὸ τὸν βοῦν πλῆττον, ἐνίοτε δὲ παθητικά, οἷον παραπλήξ, ὁ φθαρεὶς τὰς φρένας, καταπλήξ, ὁ συνεχῶς πεπληγμένος … 7 ἀγορά λύκειος: τόπος ἔνθα συνηθροίζοντο οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενος. ἦν δὲ ἀφιερωμένος τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, λέγεται δὲ ὁ Ἀπόλλων λύκειος. Λύκειον δὲ οὐδετέρως γυμνάσιον ἐν Ἀθήναις. 8 οἶ δ’ ἱκάνομεν: ὅποι κατελάβομεν. With regard to the text of scholia, the editor added a couple of small corrections.147 He offered very few conjectures, none of which has been adopted here.148

4.3 Estienne The edition of Sophocles by Henri Estienne149 (1568) was printed ‘una cum omnibus Graecis scholiis’. The corpus of scholia derived from the editio Iuntina was further expanded by the inclusion of the scholia by Demetrius Triclinius which had been edited by Andrianus Turnebus fifteen years earlier.150 With regard to the Lascaris’ component of the corpus, Estienne eliminated some errors which had escaped the attention of his predecessors; most of his corrections were subsequently confirmed by manuscript evidence.151

147 148 149

150

151

Sch. 335a1.1 <μὴ>, sch. 717a.2 ἐμβαλλόμενον, sch. 724 lm. ἄστομοι. Sch. 157.2 Κύπρια <ποιήσας>, 219–20.3 del. τοῖς, 312b.3 ὑπέρθεσιν] ὑπόθεσιν. Σοφοκλέους αἱ ἑπτὰ τραγῳδίαι. Sophoclis tragoediae septem una cum omnibus

Graecis scholiis & cum Latinis Ioach. Camerarii. Annotationes Henrici Stephani in Sophoclem & Euripidem seorsum excusae, simul prodeunt, 1568. ∆ημητρίου τοῦ Τρικλινίου Εἰς τὰ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους ἑπτὰ δράματα, Περὶ μέτρων οἷς ἐχρήσατο Σοφοκλῆς, περὶ σχημάτων, καὶ σχόλια, Parisiis: Apud Adrianum Turnebum typographum regium 1553. Sch. 229.3 add. μὴ Stephanus, 391.2 αἱρουμένην Vr (coni. Stephanus 99), 1058– 62.5 ὅτου NFWaO∆r (coni. Stephanus 127): ὅπου L, 1178.3 εἰπὲ L cf. KG II 388– 9: εἴπῃ rNFOWa (coni. Stephanus 132); 1384a.10 δὲ HG (add. Stephanus 139): om. L. Estienne’s contribution to the improvement of the text of scholia is entirely overlooked by Turyn and subsequent scholars.

90

Introduction

4.4 Brunck Brunck appears to be aware of the great value of Lascaris’ source from the fact that in his first edition152 (Strasbourg 1786) he copied Lascaris’ lemmata quite faithfully, even retaining their misprints, ‘ut de lectione constet, quam Janus Lascaris reperit in codicibus unde scholia illa depromsit’(vol. I p.v). 153 In contrast to the lemmata, the text of the explications themselves was not taken unaltered from Lascaris. Although in the Electra scholia he did not consult any new manuscripts,154 the text benefited from a complete scrutiny of the existing scholarship of his time. Modern scholars, ignorant as they seem to be of Brunck’s debt to other critics, attributed to him what he had in fact borrowed from them, and thus considered his contribution more important than it is in reality. He introduced a number of conjectures which he had found in the Juntine and Estienne’s editions155 and in the critical notes of Heath and Ménage.156 His own critical energy enabled him to correct a few further corruptions which had escaped the notice of his predecessors,157 but a weakness of his textual criticism lies in the fact that he tended to emend away the late linguistic features of the text, misled as he was by considerations of Attic usage.158

152

153 154 155

156

157

158

Sophoclis quae extant omnia cum veterum grammaticorum scholiis. Superstites tragoedias VII, ad optimorum exemplarium fidem recensuit, versione et notis illustravit, deperditarum fragmenta collegit Rich. Franc. Phil. Brunck, vol. I (continens Oedipos duos, Antigonam et Trachinias) – vol. II (continens Ajacem, Philoctetam et Electram), Argentorati 1786. He did however depart from Lascaris’ practice in introducing line-numbering to the scholia. For the scholia on other plays he did use new manuscripts. Cf. e.g. Janz 2004, 144 with n. 21. E.g. sch. 157.2 <ποιήσας> (Iuntina), 229.3 add. <μὴ> (Estienne), 312b.3 ὑπέρθεσιν] ὑπόθεσιν (Iuntina), 391.2 αἱρουμένην (Estienne), 1058–62.5 ὅτου (Estienne), 1178.3 εἶπε] εἴπῃ (Estienne), 1384a.10 <δὲ> (Estienne). Heath’s corrections appear at e.g. sch. 628–9.1, 745b.2, 1026.3–4, 1078.2, 1260.1; Ménage’s at sch. 62.7. E.g. sch. 6–9.5–6 διὰ τὸ νόμιον εἶναι <τὸν θεὸν καὶ> τοὺς ἐπιβούλους τῶν ποιμνίων φονεύειν, 45.1 προθείς, 193b.4 ὅτε, 841a2.1 αἵ. I have accepted the last three of his conjectures. E.g. sch. 86a.9 εἰ δὲ διαλυθῇ] εἰ δὲ διαλυθείη, 446.7 εἰ μὴ τὸ πᾶν βλάπτῃ] εἰ μὴ τὸ πᾶν βλάπτοι, 1214.1 ὥστε μήτε ὀνομάζειν αὐτόν] ὥστε μηδὲ ὀνομάζειν αὐτόν.

4 Previous editions

91

In his third edition (1788)159 Brunck adds some more conjectures160 and intervenes in Lascaris’ lemmata to make them coextensive with their corresponding explications.

4.5 Elmsley Almost three hundred years after Lascaris, Elmsley was the first editor161 to re-discover and re-read L. The new collation made possible the addition of the greater part of the items missed or consciously excluded by Lascaris,162 but not all of them;163 also, the editor’s superior palaeographical knowledge permitted the correction of some (but not all) of Lascaris’ mistakes.164 His method of constituting the text is well brought out in the following words of Gaisford: consilium Elmsley erat verba optimi vetustissimique, atque, ut videtur, unici codicis, summa cum religione repraesentare. (p. vi)

His conservative approach was responsible for correcting the unjustified liberties which his predecessors had taken with the text. For example, he purged the text of Lascaris’ unwarranted interpolations and conflations,165 and unlike Brunck he retained the late linguistic elements. He also made an improvement in the recording of lemmata as he was the first to make clear whether a lemma appeared in L or was the editor’s addition. On the other hand, his adherence to L tends to be slavish,166 and the impression one gets is more of a diplomatic transcript rather than a critical edition. Like Lascaris, he included the Moschopulean additions of L in his 159

160 161 162 163 164

165 166

Sophoclis tragoediae septem cum scholiis veteribus, versione Latina et notis. Accedunt deperditorum dramatum fragmenta. Ex editione R.F.Ph. Brunck, tomus III, Argentorati 1788. E.g. sch. 62.7 Ἑρμότιμος <ὁ Σάμιος>, 827.2 μέλος, sch. 1345 seorsum edidit. Elmsley P., Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem, Oxonii 1825. E.g. he printed both sch. 13 and sch. 14. Moreover, he printed sch. 70. See Papageorgiou 1883, 427–8. Of the four instances of palaeographical incompetence we noted in the description of Lascaris’ edition, he deciphered correctly the symbols in sch. 62.2 ἄρα and 45.6 (τινές), whereas in sch. 28.1 and 78.2 L’s compendia are reproduced faithfully in the apparatus criticus without any attempt at resolution. E.g. sch. 68a δέξασθέ μ’ εὐτυχοῦντα: ἐπ’ εὐτυχίᾳ με δέξασθε, ὥστε ταύτας τὰς ὁδοὺς τελεσθῆναι. [εἰς τὸ αὐτό.] Εὐτυχῶς ἐπιχειροῦντα ταῖς μηχαναῖς. This criticism has generally been directed against Papageorgiou, but Elmsley is in fact far more conservative.

92

Introduction

corpus of old scholia, though they are written in a hand easily recognisable as different from that of the διορθωτής. He printed conjectures of his predecessors or of his own very sparingly.167 What he mostly did was to defend impossible readings only because they appear in the ‘deified’ L, and his excessive conservatism emerges still more clearly when one notices that for many of these corruptions a good remedy was at hand from his predecessors. Some striking examples of passages which clearly require therapy but are left as they are in L include: 6–9.5–6 47a.3 86c.1 702.1 1438a.2

διὰ τὸ νόμιον εἶναι τοὺς ἐπιβούλους αὐτῶν φονεύειν ἐπιορκεῖν ἔχον ἀζύγων ἀνακαλύπτοντες

In the brief apparatus criticus of the edition, conjectures by Heath, Μénage, Antonius Francinus Varchiensis and Estienne are constantly misattributed to Brunck, and there is no distinction between the first and the third editions of Brunck.168 Moreover, although he is generally reliable in reporting the readings of L and Lascaris, there are some slips in this respect too.169

4.6 Jahn and Michaelis Jahn – Michaelis were the first editors170 to put the text on a far broader manuscript basis than their predecessors. Their decision had no doubt its roots in G. Dindorf, who had already collated three new Florentine 167 168 169

170

His own conjectures may be found at sch. 70.6 ψαλτής, 108–9.1 θρηνητικήν, 157.2 διαφόρους, 369–71.1 συγκεράσητε, 445a1.6 μασχαλίσαι. For example, sch. 62.7 Ἑρμοτιμος ὁ Σάμιος and sch. 827.2 μέλος belong to the third Brunckiana. He misreports L at e.g. sch. 51.1 ἐκέλευεν L: ἐκέλευσεν Elmsley, sch. 70.3 εὐφράντης L: Εὐφράτης Elmsley, sch. 355.1 διὰ τοῦ L: διὰ τὸ Elmsley, sch. 1384a.3 συνεισελθούσης L: συνελθούσης Elmsley; and contrary to his note, sch. 56.2 κλέπτε νόῳ does appear in Lascaris. Some imperfections of Elmsley’s edition were noted by Papageorgiou 1881, 2–5. Sophoclis Electra, in usum scholarum edidit O. Jahn, editio tertia curata ab A. Michaelis, Bonnae 1882. Jahn’s first edition was published in 1861; after the editor’s death, it was revised by A. Michaelis in 1872 and 1882. Although in my apparatus criticus I distinguish between the three editions, I here describe only the third one, which rests upon the widest manuscript base.

4 Previous editions

93

manuscripts G, F, H and the Suda to add to Elmsley’s L,171 but was also the result of Jahn’s scepticism about L’s ‘deified’ status.172 They consulted no less than seven witnesses, and found G, F, H, Wc,173 Parisinus gr. 1884174 and the Suda to contain the ancient scholia ‘hic illic pleniora et emendatiora’ than L, although ‘multo saepius decurtata et corrupta’.175 The new manuscript evidence brought along three categories of new material. First, it attested some scholia absent from the corpus of L. The editors rightly considered them to be ‘recentiorum scribarum addidamenta’ and printed a small selection, distinguishing them from L’s scholia ‘diverso typorum genere’ et ‘uncinis’.176 1 <διερεθίζει καὶ παροξύνει τὸν Ὀρέστην πρὸς θυμὸν ὁ

παιδαγωγὸς τῷ καλέσαι αὐτὸν υἱὸν Ἀγαμέμνονος, ὃς δὴ ἀδίκως ἐφονεύθη παρὰ Αἰγίσθου καὶ Κλυταιμνήστρας. add. H> 1462 <χαλινά, τουτέστι τὴν ἐμὴν ἐξουσίαν. add. G> In this context, it is important to note that here for the first time the corpus of L was purged of its Moschopulean additions; the editors realised the different handwriting of these notes and kept them distinct from the rest of the scholia. Secondly, with regard to the scholia already known from L, the new manuscripts contained a large number of cases in which their scribes deliberately changed L’s text.177 So the danger of hybridising L’s text with material belonging to different versions now emerged. The editors’ attitude was judicious in this respect too. They took L’s text as their basic version and then marked all deliberate deviations from it using italics and angular brackets. For example, this is how they edited sch. 1462: ἐὰν μὴ <δέχηται μηδὲ add. G> πείθηται, πρὸς βίαν κολάσεως τυχὼν <παρ’ ἐμοῦ add. G>, τότε φύσει φρένας καὶ εἴσεται ὅτι ἄμεινον ἦν πείθεσθαι τῷ κρατοῦντι. 171 172

173 174

175 176 177

Dindorf 1952, iv–vi and 115–33. Jahn’s reservations about L’s absolute value are summed up by Michaelis in the Praefatio editionis secundae (1872) in the following words: ‘cum enim magis magisque dubitare coepisset, essetne laurentianus L communis omnium quotquot hodie extant codicum fons…’. Wc is styled V in this edition. According to Turyn 1949, 166, this manuscript, which is designated as E by JahnMichaelis, contains Thoman scholia on El. 1–728 and 1240–end, and Moschopulean scholia on the intervening section of the tragedy. So it has not been employed in the course of this study. Jahn-Michaelis 1882, 34. Jahn-Michaelis 1882, 34. For the conscious scribal alterations involved in the copying of scholia see pp. 15– 6.

94

Introduction

However, they were not always successful in avoiding the creation of mixed entities, as some conscious expansions of L’s text found in other manuscripts and brought about by their scribes were taken to be genuine ancient material lost from L. In e.g. sch. 86–90178 ὥς μοι | πολλὰς μὲν θρήνων: ὦ φάος ἁγνόν, ὅσα μοι σύνοιδας θρηνούσῃ καὶ κοπτομένῃ. τὸ δὲ κατάλληλον οὕτως· ὡς πολλὰς μὲν ᾠδὰς τῶν θρήνων (τῶν θρ. G: om. LWc) ᾔσθου, πολλὰς δὲ πληγὰς αἱμασσομένων τῶν στέρνων. τῶν θρήνων is, as we see, given by G but is absent from L. It is reasonable to suppose that from the viewpoint of the L’s version the aforementioned reading is a scribal interpolation rather than genuine material. In cases such as this, where the ancient Scholiast sought to clarify a hyperbaton and restore the ‘normal’ word order,179 he would frequently leave out from his rephrasing any words whose position in the sequence was easy to grasp.180 Τῶν θρήνων no doubt belong to this category of words. On the other hand, the reviser who created the διασκευή contained in G did have a tendency to be explicit about ideas easily inferred from the context.181 Finally, the new manuscripts offered a number of genuine L-like readings which permitted the improvement of L’s text in several passages:182 e.g. sch. 4.4 ἔτι (H), 19.4 τὸ (Wc), 86a.9 τῇ γῇ (H), 627.1 τῶν ἀγρῶν (G), 865.2 λώβη (G), 1058.4 παραλαβεῖν (G); however some of their deviations from L are not justified: e.g. sch. 977a.2 τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς (G), 995.1 ἐμφαντικῶς (G). Besides its wide manuscript basis, the good philological standard of the edition is evident from its extensive use of conjectures proposed by 178 179 180

181

182

I print the text as it appears in their edition. Such scholia are normally introduced by «τὸ ἑξῆς» or, as here, «τὸ κατάλληλον». Nevertheless sometimes no indicator is employed: e.g. sch. 1253. E.g. in sch. Soph. Ai. 172a.5–6 the Scholiast omitted ∆ιὸς Ἄρτεμις, which is unambiguously linked to Ταυροπόλα, and the two vocatives which are syntactically independent. Also, in sch. 249 and 1253 he does not admit the ἄν of the potential optative in his text. (Some editors commit the error of changing this optative to indicative; see Pauli 1880, 14 who describes the method by which scholiasts clarified instances of hyperbaton in the following words: ‘[scholiastae] saepe ea tantum verba adscripserunt, quae arctissime inter se cohaerere putabant, omissis illis, quae in medio legebantur, aut ad structuram enuntiati nullius erant momenti’. See above pp. 47–8. Other cases in which they incorporated Roman elements in the Laurentian version include sch. 657b.3 οὐδὲν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀρᾶται (G) and sch. 1069b.2 Ὁρέστου θανάτῳ (G). To be sure, some of these readings had been anticipated by the conjectural activity of Lascaris.

4 Previous editions

95

previous scholars. The editors considered conjectures by Lascaris, Heath,183 Brunck,184 Schneider, Neue, Wolff, Trendelenburg, Blaydes, and Papageorgiou3 and proposed some new ones themselves. As they were not slavishly tied to L, they were able to take good advantage of the aforementioned conjectural activity. This noteworthy edition differs from previous ones also in that the editors adduced exegetical material found outside the scholiast’s corpus, in such sources as Pausanias, Hesychius, the Suda, Eustathius, and the Etymologicum Magnum. This material is of course clearly marked so as to be kept distinct from the scholia.

4.7 Papageorgiou The last to edit the scholia to all seven plays and the first to provide a proper apparatus criticus was P. Papageorgiou.185 Prior to his edition, Papageorgiou undertook a thorough new collation of L which enabled him to correct Elmsley’s misreports and omissions,186 and also to identify the notes written in a different handwriting and exclude them from his corpus. Moreover, he did some preliminary critical work on the text in which he offered for the first time a detailed examination of Dindorf’s claim that G is a manuscript of value.187 He concluded that G’s good readings are scribal conjectures and that it contains many interpolations by Byzantine scholars. This made him commendably cautious in accepting G’s material in his edition of the Laurentian version. For example, he rightly rejected Dindorf’s suggestion of putting G’s addition at sch. 335a1.1 ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς in his text. He also avoided the danger of hybridisation by a close study of some aspects of the Sprachgebrauch of L’s text.188 In e.g. sch. 1174.1 he correctly preferred L’s διεφθάρη to G’s seemingly

183 184

185 186 187 188

Τhey restored to Heath the conjectures which Elmsley had falsely credited to Brunck. They misattributed to Brunck conjectures which had been invented by Antonius Francinus Varchiensis (sch. 335a1.1 <μὴ>) and H. Estienne (sch. 391.2 αἱρουμένην). Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera, e codice laurentiano denuo collato edidit commentario critico instruxit indices adiecit Petrus N. Papageorgius, Lipsiae 1888. Papageorgiou 1883, 403–39. Papageorgiou 1881, 6–23. Papageorgiou 1881, 15–6, 31–9.

96

Introduction

attractive διεφθάρη ἄν by considerations of usage. However, there are – admittedly very few – cases in which he mixed the two versions.189 A major weakness in his treatment of G is his excessive distrust of its value. Thus he rejected authentic ancient material found in G and lost from L judging it to be the work of Tzetzes or some other Byzantine scholar.190 Moreover, some of L’s longer scholia must originally have been two separate entities, and there are internal contradictions or intolerable repetitions to confirm the fact. Now in some of these cases G offers the two notes distinct, and suggests that L’s conflated material is only the work of its scribe and not a representation of the archetype’s state of affairs.191 Papageorgiou, however, always printed the scholia as they appear in L, reproducing their confusion and missing this important lesson taught by G. Besides L and G, Papageorgiou made use of F, H and the Prague manuscript Lobkovická Roudnická Knihovna VI.Fe.43.192 However, he did not collate these manuscripts himself,193 and the last one was subsequently proved to be an apograph of a surviving book, Laurentianus Conventi Soppressi 142,194 which has also been proved worthless for the establishment of the text. In any case, their readings were used very sporadically both in the text and the apparatus criticus. In the constitution of the text he has been much criticised for being slavishly tied to L, but in reality he is much less conservative than Elmsley. He is far more willing than Elmsley to change the text of L and to introduce conjectures either by previous scholars195 or by himself. All in all, Papageorgiou’s edition is the best complete edition available today: it is based upon a solid theoretical foundation and offers the purest text of the Laurentian version, that is, a text without the Moschopulean notes, without the Attic elements, which are alien to the late linguistic character of the text and, to a large extent, without those elements in G which are due to the reviser. 189 190

191 192 193

194 195

Like Jahn-Michaelis, at sch. 86–90.3 he adopted G’s τῶν θρήνων in his text. See for example Papageorgiou 1881, 20 rejecting from sch. Ai. 581b.2–4 G’s addition to L’s text καὶ ἐν Ποιμέσι etc. See e.g. sch. 608–9a1 and a2. Papageorgiou denoted this manuscript by the symbol l and Turyn by Lr. It does not contain the Electra scholia. He used Dübner’s collations. In the case of G, he checked a few points in Dübner’s collation: see Papageorgiou 1883, 439–40. Turyn 1952, 188. Turyn’s symbol for this manuscript is Lf. He repeated some of Elmsley’s misattributions of conjectures but he corrected some others not because he had direct access to Heath’s critical notes but through the aid of Jahn – Michaelis’ edition. E.g. he reproduced Elmsley’s misattribution of Heath’s sch. 179.2 οὖν to Brunck; on the other hand, he corrected Elmsley by restoring sch. 1078.2 ψυχῆς to Heath.

5 The present edition

97

4.8 More recent work Since Papageorgiou’s edition, de Marco has made an important contribution to our understanding of the history of the text. With the aid of his study of the Roman version, he was the first scholar to realise that the many conflations, which characterise L’s text, were brought about by its scribe and thus have no title to antiquity. He applied his discoveries to his 1952 edition of the scholia vetera on the Oedipus Coloneus.196 In 1977 Christodoulou published the scholia vetera on the Ajax,197 and finally Janz in an Oxford DPhil thesis established a new critical text for the Philoctetes scholia.198 It is outside the scope of this book to provide a review of these editions, but I should perhaps mention that Janz differs from de Marco and Christodoulou in that he edits all scholia found in his manuscripts, i.e. the whole mass of annotations accumulated from the Hellenistic age down to the last centuries of Byzantium. This approach has the merit of providing us with much exegesis unpublished before, but I must confess to my serious disagreement with this kind of amalgamation. The ancient and Byzantine scholarships are very different in quality and are apart from each other by many hundred years; their products should not therefore be mixed together in a single text. Although one cannot be always sure whether a given anonymous scholion in a manuscript belongs to this or that period, the general picture of each period is clear and in most cases permits ascriptions with a reasonable degree of probability.

5 The present edition Corpus and version: My aim is to produce a critical edition of the scholia vetera to Sophocles’ Electra in their oldest recoverable corpus and version. I employ the best manuscript L, and H∆ V GMR systematically, whereas I cite F, K, Lf, Λ, Lp, Ν, Ο W, Wa, Wc, Zf only occasionally. With regard to the indirect tradition, I make constant use of the Suda as an important 196 197 198

Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum Coloneum, ed. V. de Marco, Romae 1952. Γ. Ἀ. Χριστοδούλου, Τὰ ἀρχαῖα σχόλια εἰς Αἴαντα τοῦ Σοφοκλέους, Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1977. The Scholia to Sophocles’ Philoctetes. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford by T. Janz, 2004.

98

Introduction

witness to the text. I do not print all scholia found in my principal manuscripts. Since this is an edition of only the scholia vetera, I do not include notes which I have judged to be of Byzantine or generally recent origin. The terminus ante quem for scholia vetera as opposed to scholia recentiora is here fixed at the tenth century. The main repository of this ancient material is the tenth-century L. Whatever investigations I made outside this manuscript seeking ancient exegetical material lost from L have met, I regret to say, with small success. Consequently the chief element of progress to be expected from my work is the improvement of the known scholia and their restoration to the oldest recoverable version, which is free of such corruptions as internal inconsistencies or intolerable repetitions. The glosses in the edition come either from L or the Suda, which belongs to the tenth century too.

Line-numbering: Scholia are numbered according to the line-number of the lemma to which they refer: 1, 2, 3. The line-numbers of Electra are those of the 1990 Oxford edition by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. Scholia referring to the same place of the poetic text are distinguished by a1, a2, a3 whereas those which explain different lemmata of the same line are distinguished by a, b, c. Lemmata: Each scholion is preceded by a lemma which, in compliance with the Scholiast’s practice, is not normally coextensive with the following interpretation, but covers only the beginning thereof. However the whole of the pertinent lemma is printed in the apparatus criticus as an aid to the reader.199 Lemmata or parts thereof supplied by the editor appear in round brackets.200 If the Scholiast can be assumed to have read a different text from what our manuscripts give, then this is what is given as the lemma.201 Finally, if a manuscript does not offer a lemma but connects the scholion with the poetic text by means of a reference sign or a reference number, there is an indication of the fact in the apparatus criticus.202

199

200

201 202

See e.g. sch. 1a where the lemma printed in the text is ὦ τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος but the exact (accuratissimum) lemma which appears in the apparatus is vv. 1–2 ὦ τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος ἐν Τροίᾳ ποτὲ | Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖ . Lemmata supplied by the editor, e.g. at sch. 1–19, are however coextensive with the explanation that follows. In this case it would be tedious to supply a lemma in the text and then to expand it in the apparatus criticus. For the use of round brackets to indicate supplements in lemmata, see West 1973, 97 with n. 24. See e.g. the lemma and the apparatus at sch. 45 where the Scholiast seems to have read Φωκέως instead of Φωκεύς. E.g. at sch. 10 L uses a reference sign.

5 The present edition

99

The critical text: As I have mentioned above, the critical text is based primarily on L and H∆ V GMR, whereas F, K, Lf, Λ, Lp, Ν, Ο W, Wa, Wc, Zf are used sporadically. The Suda is used systematically, being an important indirect witness. The edition takes account of a complete scrutiny of the conjectural activity which has appeared so far either in previous critical editions or in other publications. In a number of passages I print conjectures of my own. I have taken special care to present a text free of contradictions or intolerable repetitions. This means that I have frequently separated entities which are assumed, on the basis of external or internal evidence, to have been conflated by transcribers. Two further important considerations have guided me in the establishment of the text: (i) the caution to avoid any mixture of different versions. The version here presented is the oldest recoverable one, which has strong similarities with the Laurentian version (i.e. the version contained in L) but is not entirely coextensive with it. It can be designated as Laurentian-type, but not Laurentian. (ii) the caution to preserve late linguistic elements and to refrain from restoring Attic usage to the Scholiast. Literary quotations: In respect of literary quotations incorporated in the text of scholia I follow this methodological principle: I print what the Scholiast may be supposed to have written, whether correctly or not, and I do not therefore put the citation of e.g. Hom. Od. 8. 362 or Hes. Th. 126 at sch. 45 and 86a respectively in their proper shapes.203 In these cases, an indication of the original is given for convenience in the apparatus. On the other hand, I do remove what I take to be transcribers’ errors; e.g. Apollonius Rhodius 1.757 at sch. 745b is not left unemended. As regards the size of quotations, the Scholiast would generally give only the beginning of the relevant quotation. Therefore at sch. 4, 696, 1137 I do not put the fuller forms of the quotations in the text as some previous editors had done. I relegate them to the apparatus only for the assistance of the reader. Indication of sources of scholia: At the end of each scholion the symbols of the manuscripts that preserve it appear grouped in families. When a manuscript does not follow its family, its symbol is printed outside the collective symbol of its family,204 and when a manuscript contains a

203 204

Nor do I alter e.g. Πύθιος to Πύρρος at sch. 62.7. See e.g. sch. 401 where M does not follow the Roman version.

100

Introduction

scholion twice, there is an indication of the fact by means of i and ii superscripts.205 The indirect tradition has a register of its own.

Apparatuses: The critical text is followed by an apparatus recording the indirect tradition (if applicable) and an extensive, though not exhaustive, apparatus locorum similium. This last gives references to parallel passages mostly in scholiasts and lexicographers206 but occasionally in other authors whose relevance or propriety to the passage they purport to clarify should be obvious. It also includes identification of the literary quotations incorporated in the text. At the bottom of each unit, I print the apparatus criticus in which I record the readings of L H∆ V GMR and the Suda in a systematic manner. I use the symbols q and r to refer to the readings of the common ancestors of H∆ and GMR respectively. With regard to scholars’ conjectures, I tend to mention a large number of them often adding a comment. It is not so much that I believe in their plausibility – some of them are indeed highly improbable – as my attempt to show how our appreciation of the style of scholarly Greek has developed over time.

205

206

See e.g. sch. 411b where M gives the scholion twice. The second occurrence of the scholion follows the Roman version and for this reason is included in the Roman family. Another example is G’s behaviour at sch. 614. I have generally not cited the Etymologica, the scholia recentiora, and the Byzantine scholiasts such as Tzetzes, Magistros, Moschopoulos etc.

Textus criticus

ȗƢƮƛƘƥƜƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ

ȏƢƮƝƘƜƦƔƜ ȥƗƘ ƦƣơƨƘȸƤ ƗƘƜƝƟȸƤ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƦȮ ǎƟ ǊƣƖƘƜ. μƜƝƣȶƟ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȶƟ ȂƟƦƔ ƝƞƐƪƔƥƔ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ, ǟƟƒƝƔ ǿ ƢƔƦȲƣ ǎƥƨƏƙƘƦơ, ƗƐƗƫƝƘ Ʀʭ ƦƣơƨƘʎ ƨơƕơƧμƐƟƚ μȲ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƨơƟƘƯƥƫƥƜ ƥȸƟ Ʀʭ ƢƔƦƣƒ < * * * * * >. L 5 q(H) V r(GƀR)

ŽŽ

† ƦƣơƨƘȹƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǿ ƢƣơƞơƖƒƙƫƟ ƢƣƘƥƕƯƦƚƤ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ǿ ȏƢơƝƘƒμƘƟơƤ ƝƔȴ ȏƢƘƝƛƐμƘƟơƤ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȲƟ ƉƫƝƒƗƔ ƢƣȶƤ ƆƦƣơƨƒơƟ ƝƔȴ ȏƢơƗƘƜƝƟȸƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƦȮ ǎƟ ǊƣƖƘƜŭ μƜƝƣȶƟ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƝƞƐƪƔƤ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ǊƣƖơƧƤ ǿ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ǒƨƧƖƘƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƜȮ ƘǲƝơƥƜ ǎƦʬƟ ǎƢƔƟƘƞƛȺƟ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ǊƣƖơƤ μƘƦ' 10 ƔȎƦơʝ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƦȮ ǎƟ ǊƣƖƘƜ †. L q(H) V r(GƀR) ǟ ƥƝƚƟȲ Ʀơʝ ƗƣȯμƔƦơƤ ȏƢȷƝƘƜƦƔƜ ǎƟ ǊƣƖƘƜ. ǿ ƗȰ ƩơƣȶƤ ƥƧƟȱƥƦƚƝƘƟ ǎƠ ǎƢƜƩƫƣȵƫƟ ƢƔƣƛȱƟƫƟ. ƢƣơƞơƖȵƙƘƜ ƗȰ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ. q(H) V ƦȮ Ʀơʝ ƗƣȯμƔƦơƤ ƢƣȷƥƫƢƔŭ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖƮƤ, ȆƣȱƥƦƚƤ, ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔ, ƩơƣȶƤ ǎƠ ǎƢƜƩƫƣȵƫƟ ƢƔƣƛȱƟƫƟ, ƊƣƧƥȷƛƘμƜƤ, žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔ, ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ. q(HŸ) V 15 r(GMR) 1 ȗƢƮƛƘƥƜƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ] ȏƢ (compendiose) ǞƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ L: om. R 2 male post ȥƗƘ (quod sensu locativo accipe) interpungunt edd.; cf. e.g. argumenti vv. 33–4 Eur. Or. Diggle ƢƣȶƤ ƦȮ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ƕƔƥƒƞƘƜƔ ȏƢƮƝƘƜƦƔƜ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƝƏμƟƫƟ ȏƢȶ μƔƟƒƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƝƘƒμƘƟơƤ ǎƢȴ ƝƞƜƟƜƗƒơƧ ƦƣơƨƘȸƤ] ƆƦƣơƨƘȸƤ La.c. ƗƘƜƝƟȸƤ] ƗƘƜƝƟƯƫƟ V 3 ƔȎƦȶƟ ȂƟƦƔ] ȂƟ. ƔȎƦ. r ƝƞƐƪƔƥƔ] ƝƞƐƪƔƟƦƔ G ǟ om. r ƗƐƗƫƝƘ] perfectum pro aoristo, cf. sch. Tr. 1a.10–11 … ǞƖƔƟƏƝƦƚƥƘ žƣơʎƥơƤ, ǎƢƘȴ μƚƗȰ ƦȮ ƗƘƯƦƘƣƔ ƦʀƤ ƘȎƗƔƜμơƟƒƔƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƗƐƗƫƝƘƟ; BDR § 343 4 ƦƣơƨƘʎ] ƆƦƣơƨƘʎ La.c. post ƢƔƦƣƒ lacunam statui II argumenta fabulae distinxi; coniuncta leguntur in r (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ) et in LHV (sine vocibus coniunctivis) 6 ƦƣơƨƘȸƤ – 10 ǊƣƖƘƜ in crucibus inclusi 6 ƢƣƘƥƕƯƦƚƤ] ǿ Ƣ. G ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ – 8 ǊƣƖƘƜ del. Wecklein 11 (6–7 ȏƢơƝƘȵμƘƟơƤ ƝƔȴ del. iam Bergk xlv) 6 ǿ (alt.) om. r 7 ƘǮƤ ƦȲƟ ƉƫƝƒƗƔ] ƘǮƤ Ɖ. V: ƉƫƝʎƗƜ r ƢƣȶƤ] Ƣƣơ L ƆƦƣoƨȵơƟ (hoc accentu) L: ƆƦƣƮƨƜơƟ ŻV: (ƦȶƟ add. MR) ƇƣƮƨƜơƟ r 8 ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ǊƣƖơƧƤ om. V 8– 9 ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ǊƣƖơƧƤ ǿ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ǒƨƧƖƘƟ] ƥȸƟ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ǿ Ƣ. ǎƝ Ʀơʝ Ǌƣ. ǒƨ. r 9 ƗƜȮ

104

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƘǲƝơƥƜ ǎƦʬƟ] ƗƜ’ ƘǲƝơƥƜ ǒƦƚ V 11–2 ǎƠ ǎƢƜƩƫƣȵƫƟ ƢƔƣƛȱƟƫƟ] ǎƝ ƢƔƣƛȱƟƫƟ ǎƖƩƫƣȵƫƟ r 12 ƢƔƣƛƐƟƫƟ] vide 14 13-4 dramatis personas hoc ordine praebet r: alius alio ordine liber (1 ƦƣơƨƘƯƤ,3,5,4,6,7,2 V: 1,2,3,6,7, ƩơƣȶƤ ƢƔƣƛȱƟƫƟ ǎƖƩƫƣȵƫƟ, 5, ƢƣơƞơƖȵƙƘƜ ǿ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȷƤ q) 14 ƢƔƣƛƐƟƫƟ] ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ Scaliger 78 coll. e.g. v. 234 fabulae (recepit Valckenaer2 73) žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔ scripsi (vide infra ad sch. 95.5) žƞƧƦƔƜμƟȳƥƦƣƔ codd. post ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ add. ƄƧƞƏƗƚƤ ƝƫƨȶƟ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ Scaliger 78 (cf. sch. 1–19.8–10)

ƆƩƮƞƜƔ

1–19 (Ȥ – ƘȎƨƣȷƟƚ): ƾƢƘƜƣƮƝƔƞơƟ Ʀȶ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ȃƦƜ ȁƟ ƦƣƮƢơƟ ƦȮ ƝƔƦȮ μƐƣơƤ ƦʀƤ ǶƛƏƝƚƤ ǟ ǆƛƚƟɱ ǒƗƘƜƠƘ Ʀʭ ȆƗƧƥƥƘʎ, ơȓƦƫƤ ǒƗƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƟ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƗƘʎƠƔƜŭ Ʀʭ μȰƟ ƖȮƣ ƾƖƟơơʝƟƦƜ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜƟ ǿ 5 ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȷƤ, Ʀʭ ƗȰ ƾƢƜƥƦơʝƟƦƜ ǟ ǆƛƚƟɱ. ǃƢƔƟƦƔ ƗȰ ǟμʎƟ ƨƜƞơƦƐƩƟƫƤ ǎƟ ƕƣƔƩƘʎ ƗƘƗƑƞƫƝƘƟ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦƑƤŭ ƦȶƟ ƦƮƢơƟ ƦʀƤ ƥƝƚƟʀƤ, ƦȶƟ ƦƣƮƢơƟ ȟƤ ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƢƔƣȮ ƦʀƤ ƾƗƘƞƨʀƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ƆƦƣơƨȵơƟ ǎƠƐƛƘƦơ, ƦȶƟ ƝƔƜƣȶƟ ǎƟ ɣ ƢƏƣƘƜƥƜƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȮƤ ƀƧƝƑƟƔƤ, ƦȶƟ ƥƧƟƮƟƦƔ ȃƦƜ ƄƧƞƏƗƚƤŭ ƨƚƥȴ ƖȮƣ ȏƢơƝƔƦƜȺƟ 10 ƄƧƞƏƗƚ, Ʀƒ ƩƣȲ ƗƣɱƟ ǎƟ ƦƏƩƘƜ ƕơƧƞƘƧƦƐơƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 3 Ʀʭ ȆƗƧƥƥƘʎ: Hom. Od. 13. 344–51 6 ƦȶƟ ƦƮƢơƟ ƦʀƤ ƥƝƚƟʀƤ: vv. 4 – 10 6 ƦȶƟ ƦƣƮƢơƟ – 7 ǎƠƐƛƘƦơ: vv. 11– 4 8 ƦȶƟ ƝƔƜƣȶƟ – ƀƧƝƑƟƔƤ: vv. 17– 9 10 v. 16 1 ƆƩƮƞƜƔ] ƥƩơƞ (compendiose) L: om. cett. 2 lm. addidi 2–3 ƝƔƦȮ μƐƣơƤ] ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ μƐƣơƧƤ V 3 ƝƔȴ om. ƀR 4 Ʀʭ ȆƣȱƥƦɾ] ƝƔȴ Ʀ. Ȇƣ. ƀ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƗƘʎƠƔƜ] Ɨ. Ʀ. Ȇƣ. q: Ʀ. Ȇƣ. (omisso ƗƘʎƠƔƜ) r ƖȮƣ om. V 5–6 ƨƜƞơƦƐƩƟƫƤ ǎƟ ƕƣƔƩƘʎ] ǎƟ ƕ. ƨ. V 6 ȟƤ] ƗƜ' ȁƟ q 7 ƔȎƦȶƟ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ V ƢƔƣȮ (ƢƘƣȴ ƀR) ƦʀƤ ƾƗƘƞƨʀƤ ante ƢƔƣȱƞƔƕƘƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ transp. r ƢƔƣȮ] ƾƢȶ Ż: ƢƣȶƤ Ÿ: ƢƘƣȴ VMR ƦʀƤ ƾƗƘƞƨʀƤ] Ʀơʝ ƾƗƘƞƨơʝ V ƢƣȶƤ] ƢƔƣȮ G ƦȶƟ om. r ƆƦƣơƨȵơƟ scripsi (vide supra ad arg. ŽŽ.7): ƆƦƣơƨƜơƟ (sine acc.) L: ƆƦƣƮƨƜơƟ qV: ƇƣȷƨƜơƟ r 8 ȃƦƜ] ǳƟƔ inciso post ƄƧƞƏƗƚƤ sublato et ƖȮƣ (9) omisso, ut fiat ǳƟƔ ƄƧƞƏƗƚƤ ƨƚƥȴƟ ȏƢơƝƔƦƜȺƟ V 9 ƨƚƥȴ] ǒƨƚ G

1a Ȥ Ʀơʝ ƥƦƣƔƦƚƖƑƥƔƟƦơƤ: ƢơƞƞƏƝƜƤ ƢƔƣƔƦƚƣơʝμƘƟ ȃƦƜ ơǯ ƢƔƞƔƜơȴ ƦȮ ƥƧƟƘƝƦƜƝȮ ƦʬƟ ȏƢơƛƐƥƘƫƟ ǎƟ ƾƣƩƔʎƤ ǟμʎƟ ƗƚƞơʝƥƜƟ. ƝƔȴ ƟʝƟ Ɨƚƞơʎ ƢƣȶƤ ƦƒƟƔ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ, ȃƢƘƣ ǤƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƟ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ. L Ÿi q(HŸii) V r(GƀR)

105

ȗƢƮƛƘƥƜƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ – sch. 4

1 ơǯ ƢƔƞƔƜơȴ – 2 ƗƚƞơʝƥƜƟ: cf. sch. Ai. 1a.3–7 ƢȯƟƦƔ ƗȰ ƦȮ ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛȱƥƘƫƤ ƥƧƟƘƝƦƜƝȮ ǎƗȳƞƫƥƘƟ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƣơơƜμȵʪ … ƗƘʎ ƗȰ ƦȮ ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛȱƥƘƫƤ ƥƧƟƘƝƦƜƝȮ ƘǴƟƔƜ ǎƟ ƾƣƩʁ 1 lm. ex LŸiqVGR: Ʀơʝ ƥƦƣƔƦƚƖȳƥƔƟƦơƤ ƀ qui haec vocabula duplicans (addido Ȥ) explicationi praeposuit; (ƥƦƣƔƦƚƖȳƥƔƟƦơƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1–2 Ȥ Ʀơʝ ƥƦƣƔƦƚƖȳƥƔƟƦơƤ – ƢƔʎ ƢơƞƞƏƝƜƤ] Ƣ. ƖȮƣ q ƢƔƞƔƜơȴ] Ƣơƞƞơȴ Ÿi: ƢƔƞƔȴ V ii 2 ƾƣƩƔʎƤ] ƾƣƩʁ qVrr Ɨƚƞơʎ] ƗʀƞơƟ Ÿ 3 ǿ – fin. om. R

1b (ƥƦƣƔƦƚƖƑƥƔƟƦơƤ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƦƧƣƔƟƟƑƥƔƟƦơƤ. L q(Żs.l.) 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƖƣȯƨƘƦƔƜ] Ɩƣ. L: deest in H quippe qui ƦƧƣƔƟƟƑƥƔƟƦơƤ glossam esse putet (Ɩƣ. delendum esse censuit iam Wolff 207)

2–3 ƟʝƟ – ƾƘȵ: ƢƣơƥơƩȲƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ ƾƢƘƣƖƏƙƘƦƔƜ, ƥƝơƢơƯƟƦƫƟ ǟμʬƟ Ʀƒ ƗƑ ƢơƦƘ ƢƣơƛƧμƘʎƦƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƢƮƞƜƟ ǮƗƘʎƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. scripsi: ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟơƤ ƢƔʎ M: deest in cett. ƢȷƞƜƟ ǮƗƘʎƟ] Ʀȶ ƢȷƞƜƟ ƘǮƥƜƗƘʎƟ Ż

Ʀȵ – fin. om. Ÿ

ƗȲ] ƗȰ Ż

2 ƦȲƟ

4 Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ ƢƔƞƔƜȶƟ ǊƣƖơƤ: ǊƣƖơƤ ǿμƫƟƯμƫƤ Ʀʁ Ʃưƣɯ, ȟƤ ȋμƚƣơƤ

ǊƣƖơƤ ƦƘ ƆƢƏƣƦƚ ƦƘ. ƢƔƞƔƜȶƟ ƗȰ Ǡ ȃƦƜ ǊƣƖơƤ ǿ ƢƣơƢƏƦƫƣ ƔȎƦʬƟ ƖƚƖƘƟȲƤ ǤƟ Ǡ ȃƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦơȴ ƢƣƫƦơƖƘƟƘʎƤ ƾƟƦƜƢơƜơʝƟƦƔƜ ƘǴƟƔƜŭ ǒƦƜ ƗƐ ǎƥƦƜ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƧƣȶƤ 5 μƐƩƣƜ Ʀơʝ ƟʝƟ ƗƘƜƝƟƧμƐƟơƧ [ƝƔȴ] ƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ ȟƤ ƾƢ' ơȎƣƔƟơʝ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ǎƝƘʎƥƘ ƝƔƦƚƟƐƩƛƚ. L q(HŸ) r(GƀR) 1 ǊƣƖơƤ (alt.) – 2 ƆƢȯƣƦƚ ƦƘ: cf. sch. Ap. Rh. 244, 20–2 ǗƞƞȯƗƔ ƟʝƟ ƦȲƟ ƉƛƜƫƦƜƝȲƟ ȃƞƚƟ ƩȻƣƔƟ, ǿμƫƟȹμƫƤ Ʀʁ ƢȷƞƘƜ, ȁƟ ƦƣȷƢơƟ ǊƣƖơƤ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƢȷƞƜƤ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƩȻƣƔ; Apollon. S. 41, 16–7 ǊƣƖơƤ …. ǎƢȴ ƗȰ ƦʀƤ ƢƮƞƘƫƤ ƦʀƤ ǎƟ ƄƘƞơƢơƟƟƑƥʪ «ơȎƗ’ ǊƣƖơƤ Ʀ’ ƘǴƩơƟ ƇƒƣƧƟƛƏ ƦƘ ƦƘƜƩƜƮƘƥƥƔƟ»; Strab. VIII 6, 5 ƝƔȴ ƖȮƣ ǟ ƢȷƞƜƤ ǊƣƖơƤ ƞȱƖƘƦƔƜ – «ǊƣƖơƤ ƦƘ ƆƢȯƣƦƚ ƦƘ.»…; Steph. Byz. 112, 18 (Ɣ 400) ǊƣƖơƤŭ ƗƜƔƥƚμơƦƏƦƚ ƢƮƞƜƤ ƄƘƞơƢơƟƟƑƥơƧ… 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 4. 51–2 ǢƦơƜ ǎμơȴ ƦƣƘʎƤ μȰƟ Ƣơƞȸ ƨȵƞƦƔƦƔȵ ƘǮƥƜ ƢȷƞƚƘƤ | ǊƣƖȷƤ ƦƘ ƆƢȯƣƦƚ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƘȎƣƧȯƖƧƜƔ ƀƧƝȳƟƚ 3–4 ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦơȴ ƢƣƫƦơƖƘƟƘʎƤ ƾƟƦƜƢơƜơʝƟƦƔƜ ƘǴƟƔƜ: cf. Aristid. 1, 357 Lenz – Behr ǆƣƖƘʎơƜ ƢƔƞƔƜȷƦƔƦơƜ ƦʬƟ ǗƞƞȳƟƫƟ ƾƠƜơʝƥƜƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ; Paus. I 14,2 ǗƞƞƑƟƫƟ ơǯ μƏƞƜƥƦƔ ƾμƨƜƥƕƚƦơʝƟƦƘƤ

106

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ǆƛƚƟƔƒơƜƤ ǎƤ ƾƣƩƔƜƮƦƚƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƗʬƣƔ, <ǁ> ƢƔƣȮ ƛƘʬƟ ƨƔƥȴƟ ǒƩƘƜƟ, ƘǮƥȴƟ ǆƣƖƘʎơƜ 4 ǒƦƜ – fin.: vide infra sch.6 6.3–4 1 lm. deest in GR; (ƢƔƞƔƜȶƟ ǊƣƖơƤ n.) R ǿμƫƟƯμƫƤ] ƢȷƞƜƤ ǿμưƟƧμơƤ q: ǿμưƟƧμơƟ (–Ɵȹ–MR) r 2 res clarius explicaretur, si versus Il. 4. 51 <ǢƦơƜ ǎμơȴ ƦƣƘʎƤ μȰƟ Ƣơƞȸ ƨȵƞƦƔƦƔȵ ƘǮƥƜ ƢȷƞƚƘƤ,> loco homerico allato praefixus esset; at scholiastae interdum non totum locum qui ad rem attineat afferre videntur; cf. infra ad sch. 696.3 et 1137.4; etiam sch. Ai. 849a.4; sch. Ph. 94 (cod. L recte); etiam Erbse ad sch. Il. 15. 56a (p. 21, 20) ‘… grammatici sola prima verba singulorum versuum laudabant’, 15. 346 (p. 85, 1) 3 Ǡ (pr.) om. q 4 ƾƟƦƜƢơƜơʝƟƦƔƜ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢơƜơʝƟƦƔƜ G ǒƦƜ q (coni. iam Wolff 21): ȃƦƜ LƀR: ȁ G ƗȰ] Ɨ' G ƝƔȴ om. r 5 ƗƘƜƝƟƧμƐƟơƧ [ƝƔȴ] refinxi: ƗƘƜƝƟƯμƘƟơƟ ƝƔȴ codd.: an haec verba delenda? ȟƤ ƾƢ' om. G 6 ǎƝƘʎƥƘ] ǎƝƘʎ Ÿ

6 ƔȓƦƚ Ɨ', ȆƣƐƥƦƔ, Ʀơʝ ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƧ: ơȎƝ ƾƢ' ǂƞƞơƧ ƦƜƟȶƤ ƢơƜƘʎƦƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƗƘʎƠƜƟ Ǡ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ǯƘƣơʝ Ʀơʝ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟơƤ, ȃƢƘƣ ƾƣƩƔƜƮƦƔƦƮƟ ǎƥƦƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǊƣƖƘƜ ƾƖơƣȯƟ, ǎƟ ɣ ƝƔȴ Ƣʝƣ ƾƢƮƝƘƜƦƔƜ, ƢƘƣȴ ơȕ ƢƣƮƥƛƘƟ ƘǮƣƑƝƔμƘƟ. ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ ƝƔƦƔƟƦƜƝƣȸ Ʀơʝ ƁƘμƘƔƒơƧ ŸƜƮƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 2 ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ǯƘƣơʝ – 3 ƾƖơƣƏƟ: cf. Thuc. V 47, 11 ǆƣƖƘƒơƧƤ ƗȰ ǎƟ ƾƖơƣɲ ǎƟ Ʀơʝ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟơƤ Ʀʭ ǯƘƣʭ; Eust. Il. Ž 555, 18 ƞƯƝƘƜơƤ ƗȰ ƾƖơƣȮ ǟ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ƗƜȮ ƗƜƨƛƮƖƖơƧ, ǎƟ ɓ ƨƔƥƜ ſƯƝƜơƤ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟ ǳƗƣƧƦơ; ƾƖơƣȮ ƞƯƝƘƜơƤ per ǟ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǊƣƖƘƜ ƾƖơƣƏ (3) explanatur etiam in Hesych. Ɣ 706 ƾƖơƣȮ ƞƯƝƘƜơƤŭ ǎƟ ǊƣƖƘƜ; Hesych. ƞ 1379 ƞƯƝƘƜơƤ ƾƖơƣƏŭ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƦʬƟ ǆƣƖƘƒƫƟ 3 Ƣʝƣ ƾƢȷƝƘƜƦƔƜ: cf. Paus. II 19, 5 ǏƠʀƤ ƗȰ ƦʀƤ ƘǮƝȷƟơƤ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ (scil. ŶƒƦƫƟơƤ in templo Apollinis) Ƣʝƣ ƝƔȵơƧƥƜƟŭ ƢƣƮƥƛƘƟ ƘǮƣȳƝƔμƘƟ: vide supra sch. 4.4–6 4 ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ ƝƔƦƔƟƦƜƝƣȸ Ʀơʝ ƁƘμƘƔȵơƧ ŸƜȷƤ: cf. Paus. II 20, 3 ƦơȹƦƫƟ (scil. ŶƒƦƫƟơƤ ƝƔȴ žƞƘƮƕƜƗơƤ in templo Apollinis) ƗȰ ƾƢƔƟƦƜƝƣȸ ƁƘμƘȵơƧ ŸƜȷƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǯƘƣȷƟ 1 lm. ex Lq q: ƔȓƦƚ Ɨ', ȆƣȱƥƦƔ r (hoc lm. bis praebet M); (ƔȓƦƚ Ɨ' ȆƣȱƥƦƔ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 6–7 ƔȓƦƚ Ɨ', ȆƣƐƥƦƔ – ƞȹƝƘƜơƤ 3 ɣ] ɓ Jahn1 4 Ʀơʝ om. r 2 ƁƘμƘƔȵơƧ Wunder 4 (cf. sch. Tr. 1091.1): ƁƘμƔƒơƧ Lq qR: ƟƘμȵ ƀ: de G non constat

6–9 (ƔȓƦƚ – ǿƣɱƟ): ƢƔƣƔƖƘƟȷμƘƟơƜ [ơȔƟ] ƘǮƤ ǊƣƖơƤ ǿ ƦƣơƨƘȸƤ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƦȲƟ ƢƮƞƜƟ [ƞƐƖƫƟ], ǣ ǎƥƦƜƟ ơȎƝ ǂƢƫƛƘƟ ƦʬƟ ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƠ ƾƢƮƢƦơƧ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ, ƝƔȴ ƦȶƟ ƟƔȶƟ ƦʀƤ ǫƣƔƤ ǎƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ ȂƟƦƔ ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƢȶ žơƣƒƟƛơƧ ƘǮƥƜơʝƥƜŭ ƞƧƝơƝƦƮƟơƟ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƔ ơǯ 5 μȰƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƟƮμƜơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *> ƦơȸƤ ǎƢƜƕơƯƞơƧƤ ƔȎƦʬƟ ƨơƟƘƯƘƜƟ, ƗƜȶ ƝƔȴ ƞƯƝơƧƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƨƔƥƜ ƛƯƘƥƛƔƜ ǎƟ

sch. 4 – sch. 6–9

107

ǊƣƖƘƜ. ơǯ ƗȰ <ƞƯƝƘƜơƟ> ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ǯƘƣȶƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ Ʀȶ ƙʭơƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ƦʀƤ ǆƣƦƐμƜƗơƤ ƦȮƤ ǎƞƏƨơƧƤŭ ȃƛƘƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀʭ ƟơμƒƥμƔƦƜ ƦʬƟ ǆƣƖƘƒƫƟ ǎƖƩƔƣƏƦƦƘƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƞƯƝơƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȮƤ ƖƞƔʝƝƔƤ ǆƛƑƟƔƙƘ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 3 ƦȶƟ ƟƔȶƟ – ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ: cf. Paus. II 17, 1 ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ ƗȰ ǎƟ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɲ ƢȱƟƦƘ ƾƢȱƩƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƗȱƝƔ ƥƦȯƗƜƔ Ʀȶ ǧƣƔʎơƟ. 4 ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƟ ... ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟƔ: cf. Hesych. ƞ 1389 ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƤ· ǿ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟ 4 ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƟ – 7 ƙʭơƟ: cf. Hesych. ƞ 1390 ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƧ ƛƘơʝ· ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ (6). ǆƣȵƥƦƔƣƩơƤ, ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƦȶƟ ƛƘȶƟ ƟȷμƜơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ, ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƦʬƟ ƕơƥƝƚμȯƦƫƟ ƨƧƞƔƝȲƟ ƢơƜơȹμƘƟơƟ ƦȶƟ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟƔ ƾƟƔƜƣƘʎƟ ƦơȸƤ <ǎƢƜƕơȹƞơƧƤ ƔȎƦʬƟ>. ơȎ ƝƔƞʬƤ. ǒƥƦƜ ƖȮƣ ǿ ƞȹƝơƤ ǯƘƣȶƟ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟơƤ 4 ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƟ – 6 ƨơƟƘȹƘƜƟ: cf. sch. Dem. 24, 231 Ʀȶ ƗȰ ſȹƝƘƜơƟ ƞƧƝơƝƦȷƟơƧ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟơƤ, Ǡ ȃƦƜ ƟȷμƜơƤ ǿ ƛƘȶƤ ƟơμȵƙƘƦƔƜ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ƛƚƦƘʝƥƔƜ ǆƗμȳƦʪ ƝƔȴ ƾƟȯƖƝƚ ǤƟ ƾƟƘƞƘʎƟ ȟƤ ƟȷμƜơƟ ƦơȸƤ ƞȹƝơƧƤ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ ȂƟƦƔƤ ƦƔʎƤ ƢơȵμƟƔƜƤ; Corn. ND 69 Lang ƦȲƟ ƦʬƟ ƢơƜμƟƒƫƟ ǎƢƜμƐƞƘƜƔƟ ƾƟƐƛƚƝƔƟ ƔȎƦʭ (scil. Ʀʭ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƜ) ƟƮμƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƞƯƝƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƞƧƝơƝƦƮƟơƟ ƢƣơƥƔƖơƣƘƯơƟƦƘƤ. 7 ơǯ ƗȰ – 9 ƞƯƝơƟ: cf. Eust. Il. I 708, 8–10 ... ƗƜȶ ƝƔȴ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟƜ ƝƔƦȮ μʝƛơƟ ǿ ƞȹƝơƤ ƾƟƘʎƦơ ƝƔȴ ƟơμȵƥμƔƦƜ ǎƟƘƩƔƣȯƦƦƘƦơ· ƝƔȴ ſȹƝƘƜơƤ ƗȰ ƾƢɸ ƔȎƦơʝ ǎƝƔƞƘʎƦơ ƔȎƦȷƤ ƦƘ ǿ ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟ ƝƔȴ ƾƖơƣȮ Ɨȱ ƦƜƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǊƣƖƘƜ 7 ơǯ ƗȰ – ƙʭơƟ: cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 145a Ɲ Ɣ ȴ ƥ Ư , ſ Ư Ɲ Ɯ ’ ǂ Ɵ Ɣ Ơ ŭ ſƯƝƜƮƟ ƨƚƥƜ ƦȶƟ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƔ ... ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƾƟƔƦƜƛƐƟƔƜ ƦơƯƦʪ ƞƯƝơƟ ȟƤ ǯƘƣȶƟ ... 1–9 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. separatim scripsi et lemmate instruxi; nam diversis a grammaticis profecta esse patet quorum alter (sch. 6) scaenam in urbe Argo 1 ƢƔƣƔƖƘƟȷμƘƟơƜ] –ƟơμȱƟƫƟ G: – esse existimat, alter (sch. 6–9) Mycenis ƟȷμƘƟơƤ fere MR ơȔƟ delevi ǊƣƖơƤ h.l. Argolis est, non ipsa urbs (aliter in sch. 4) ǿ ƦƣơƨƘȸƤ om. G 2 ƦȲƟ ƢƮƞƜƟ, i.e. Argos urbem ‘quam Mycenas ingredientes e loco editiore conspiciunt’ Boissonadius apud Wunder2 3 ƞȱƖƫƟ seclusi ut glossema ex ƨȯƥƝƘƜƟ (v. 9) ortum ǡ r (cum spiritu incerto): om. Lqq ǎƥƦƜƟ om. r ǂƢƫƛƘƟ] ǂƢơƛƘƟ qr ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ] ƀƧƝƑƟƫƟ LG (hoc accentu): ƀƧƝƚƟƔȵƫƟ ƀR 3 ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ] ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣʬƟ r 4 MƧƝƚƟʬƟ] ƀƧƝƚƟƫƟ (sine accentu) L: ƀƧƝƑƟƚƤ GM: MƧƝƑƟơƜƤ R 5 post ƘǴƟƔƜ lacunam statuit et supplevit verbis ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƦʬƟ ƕơƥƝƚμȯƦƫƟ ƨƧƞƔƝȲƟ ƢơƜơȹμƘƟơƟ ex Hesych. ƞ 1390 haustis Wolff 28 praeeunte Valckenaer 29r, sed vide praef. pp. 82–3 6 ƔȎƦʬƟ] ƔȎƦơʝ q ƝƔȴ om. r ƨƔƥƜ r (coni. Brunck1): ƨƚƥƜ Lq q (ƨƚƥƜ post ƗƜȶ (6) transp. q) 7 ƞƯƝƘƜơƟ addidi; cf. supra locos similes; post ơǯ ƗȰ subaudit ƞƐƖơƧƥƜ ƞƯƝơƧƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƛƯƘƥƛƔƜ Wansink 43, nulla lacuna posita ǯƘƣȶƟ 8 Ʀʭ ƟơμƒƥμƔƦƜ] ƦơʎƤ ƟơμƒƥμƔƥƜ r ƘǴƟƔƜ] ƘǴƟ. ǯƘƣ. q: ǯƘƣ. ƘǴƟ. <ƔȎƦơʝ> Brunck1 9 ƦȶƟ – fin. fere evanida in L ȟƤ om. r ǆƛȳƟƔƙƘ] ǆƛȳƟƚƥƜƟ Lascaris prob. Wansink l.c., sed cf. sch. OT 480, sch. OC 900 (ǎƝƘʎƥƘ pro ǎƝƘʎ) et Wolff 22; cf. etiam sch. Aristid. vol. III p. 279, 20–1 Dindorf ad 1, 294 Lenz – Behr

108

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

7 ơȏƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ: ǒƥƦƜ ƖȮƣ ǎƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ ƦʬƟ ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƢȶ žơƣƒƟƛơƧ ƘǮƥƜơʝƥƜƟ ǫƣƔƤ ƟƔƮƤŭ ǎƝ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ ƗȰ ƢƔƣƔƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƜ ƗƜȮ žơƣƒƟƛơƧ ƢƘƢơƒƚƟƦƔƜ ƦȲƟ ǿƗƮƟ. L Hi q(HiiŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ǒƥƦƜ – 2 ƟƔȷƤ: cf. Paus. II 17, 1 ƀƧƝƚƟʬƟ ƗȰ ǎƟ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɲ ƢȱƟƦƘ ƾƢȱƩƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƗȱƝƔ ƥƦȯƗƜƔ Ʀȶ ǧƣƔʎơƟ. 1 lm.] ǎƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ q: ƾƖơƣȮ ſȹƝƘƜơƤ ƀ qui etiam verba ơȏƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ praebet tamquam initium scholii: deest in HiV; (ơȏƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 7–8 ơȏƠ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ – ƟƔȷƤ ǒƥƦƜ ƖȮƣ om. r ǒƥƦƜ] ȃƦƜ Żii: om. Ÿ ƖȮƣ post ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣɱƤ (alt.) transp. Ÿ 2 ƘǮƥƜơʝƥƜƟ] ǮơʝƥƜƟ HiqWa ƗȰ om. q 3 ƢƘƢơƒƚƟƦƔƜ ƦȲƟ ǿƗȶƟ] ǎƢơƒơƧƟ ƦȲƟ ƘǲƥơƗơƟ r

9a ƀƧƝȳƟƔƤ: ȋμƚƣơƤ ƩƫƣƒƙƘƜ Ʀȶ ǊƣƖơƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƟŭ ơǯ ƗȰ ƟƘưƦƘƣơƜ ƦȲƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƟ ƝƔȴ ǊƣƖơƤ ƨƔƥƒƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1–2 ơǯ ƗȰ ƟƘȻƦƘƣơƜ sqq.: cf. sch. Eur. Phoen. 125 ơȕƦơƤ ƀƧƝƚƟƔʎơƤ μȱƟ: ơǯ ƟƘȻƦƘƣơƜ ƦȲƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƀƧƝȳƟƚƟ ƝƔȴ ǊƣƖơƤ ƨƔƥȴƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ; Strab. VIII 6, 19 ƗƜȮ ƗȰ ƦȲƟ ǎƖƖȹƦƚƦƔ ƦȮƤ Ɨȹơ ƢȷƞƘƜƤ (scil. ǊƣƖơƤ et ƀƧƝƑƟƔƤ) ȟƤ μȵƔƟ ơǯ ƦƣƔƖƜƝơȴ ƥƧƟƫƟȹμƫƤ ƢƣơƥƔƖơƣƘȹơƧƥƜƟ 1–2 hoc sch. cum v. 9 coniungitur in GMR et fortasse hoc voluit V: iuxta vv. 6–9 legitur in L: ad v. 4 adscribit q 1 lm. scripsi: ƨȯƥƝƘƜƟ M: deest in cett.; (ƨȯƥƝƘƜƟ n.) R ƝƔȴ] ƘǮƤ q 2 ƦȲƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƟ ƝƔȴ ǊƣƖơƤ] ƦȲƟ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƟ ǊƣƖơƤ r ǊƣƖơƤ] Ǌƣ. ƘǴƟƔƜ V

9b (ƀƧƝƑƟƔƤ ƦȮƤ ƢơƞƧƩƣƯƥơƧƤ): ȋμƚƣơƤ

ƢơƞƧƩƣƯƥơƜơ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƤ. L 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 7. 180, 11. 46, Od. 3. 305 1 lm. addidi

109

sch. 7 – sch. 19

10 (ƢơƞƯƨƛơƣơƟ): ǎƟ ɣ ƢơƞƞƔȴ ƨƛơƣƔȴ ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƜ ǎƖƐƟơƟƦơ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿs.l.) cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 925b (cod. M) ƢơƞƧƨƛƮƣơƧƤ] μƘƦȮ ƨƛơƣɱƤ ǎƞƛơƯƥƔƤ. 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƢơƞȹƨƛơƣơƟ s.) L ǎƖȱƟơƟƦơ] ǎƖƒƟơƟƦơ Ÿ: om. H

13 ǢƟƘƖƝƔ: Ʀȶ ǢƟƘƖƝƔ Ʀȶ ƕƣƔƩȸ ƦʀƤ ǟƞƜƝƒƔƤ Ɨƚƞơʎ, ȟƤ ƢƘƣȴ ƢƔƜƗƔƣƒơƧ ơȒ ƦƜ ƕƔƗƒƥƔƜ ƗƧƟƔμƐƟơƧ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in LGR et in q quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 14 iungat (Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ ǢƟƘƖƝƔ); (ǢƟƘƖƝƔ n.) R ȟƤ] ƝƔȴ q ƢƔƜƗƔƣƒơƧ] ƢƔƜƗȶƤ r 2 ơȒ ƦƜ] ơȎƗȰ r: ơȒ Ƣƫ Lp (Lascaris) ƕƔƗȵƥƔƜ ƗƧƟƔμȱƟơƧ] Ɨ. ƕ. q

14 ƦơƥƮƟƗ’ ǎƤ ǣƕƚƤ: ǎƝ ƦơƯƦơƧ ƦȲƟ ǟƞƜƝƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ƟƐơƧ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜ. L q(ŻŸ) 1 lm. ex Lf (in hoc lm. ego quoque incideram): ǢƟƘƖƝƔ Ż: deest in LŸ q

ƟƐơƧ] ƟƘƔƟȵơƧ

19 μƐƞƔƜƟƏ Ʀ' ǂƥƦƣƫƟ: ǎƩƣʀƟ ơȓƦƫƤ ƘǮƢƘʎƟŭ μƘƞƔƒƟƚƤ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ ƦȮ ǂƥƦƣƔ ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ, ȟƤ Ʀȶ

ȁ ƗȰ ƩƔƥƥƏμƘƟơƤ ƢƘƞƘμƒƩƛƚ. Ǡ ơȓƦƫƤŭ ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘ ƦʬƟ ǂƥƦƣƫƟ ǟ μƐƞƔƜƟƔ ƘȎƨƣƮƟƚ, ǳƟ' ɒ Ʀȶ ǂƥƦƣƫƟ 5 ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 ǎƩƣʀƟ – 2 ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ: sch. Hom. Il. 10. 252–3a <ƢƔƣơƒƩƫƝƘƟ ƗȰ> ƢƞƐƫƟ ƟȸƠ | ƦʬƟ ƗƯơ μơƜƣƏƫƟ, <ƦƣƜƦƏƦƚ Ɨ’ ǒƦƜ μơʎƣƔ ƞƐƞƘƜƢƦƔƜ>: ƢƔƣʀƞƛơƟ ƦʀƤ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ Ɣǯ ƗƯơ ƢƞƑƣƘƜƤ μơʎƣƔƜ, ȟƤ Ʀȶ „μƐƞƔƜƟƏ Ʀ’ ǂƥƦƣƫƟ ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ ƘȎƨƣƮƟƚ“ (Soph. El. 19)… ; sch. Eur. Or. 225 Ȥ ƕơƥƦƣƯƩƫƟ ƢƜƟʬƗƘƤ ǂƛƞƜơƟ ƝƏƣƔŭ ƝƔƦȮ ƾƟƔƥƦƣơƨȲƟ ƘǴƢƘƟŭ ơȎ ƖƏƣ ǎƥƦƜ ƦʬƟ ƕơƥƦƣƯƩƫƟ Ʀȶ ƝƏƣƔ, ƾƞƞȮ Ʀơʝ ƝƏƣƔƦơƤ ơǯ ƕƮƥƦƣƧƩơƜ; sch. Eur. Alc. 245 (ad lm. ơȎƣƏƟƜƔƒ ƦƘ Ɨʎ–|ƟƔƜ ƟƘƨƐƞƔƤ ƗƣơμƔƒơƧ) ƾƟƦƜƥƦƣƮƨƫƤ ƘǲƣƚƝƘƟ, ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝŭ 2 ȟƤ Ʀȶ – 3 ƢƘƞƘμƒƩƛƚ: cf. sch. Hom. ơȎƣƏƟƜƔƒ ƦƘ ƟƘƨƐƞƔƜ [ƗƜȮ] ƗƒƟƚƤ ƗƣơμƔƒơƧ Od. 1. 58a ǯȱμƘƟơƤ <ƝƔȴ> ƝƔƢƟƮƟ: ƦƣȷƢơƟ ǏƣμƚƟƘȵƔƤ ƾƟƦȵƥƦƣơƨơƟ ǿ ƊƔʎƣȵƤ [fr. 8 Berndt] ƨƚƥƜƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ, ȃƦƔƟ ƾƟƦƜƥƦƣȱƨƫƥƜ ƦȶƟ ƥƩƚμƔƦƜƥμȶƟ Ɣǯ ƞȱƠƘƜƤ ȟƤ Ʀȶ "ƩƔƥƥȯμƘƟơƤ ƢƘƞƘμȵƩƛƚ" [Ÿ 535] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƩȯƥƥƔƦơ; sch. D Hom. Il. 5. 626; sch. Hom. Il. 2. 101 et test. ad hoc sch. collecta; Lesb. fig. 25b 3 Żơm. Il. 4. 535, 5. 626, 13. 148

110

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm.] μȱƞƔƜƟƔ ƀ: deest in GR; (μȱƞƔƜƟƔ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 19 μƐƞƔƜƟƏ Ʀ' ǂƥƦƣƫƟ – ƘȎƨƣȷƟƚ 2 ȟƤ – fin. om. Ÿ propter homoeoteleuton 3 ƩƔƥƥƏ–] ƩƔƥƏ– ƀR ƢƘƞ–] Ƣơƞ– Ż 4 ƘȎƨƣƮƟƚ] ƘȎƨƣơƥƯƟƚ R ǳƟ’] ǡƟ ƀ Ʀȶ H Wa r (coni. iam Lascaris): ƦʬƟ L 5 post ǎƝƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ sequuntur ǎƞƞƜƢȲƤ ǎƖƐƟƘƦơ ƦʬƟ ǂƥƦƣƫƟ ǟ ƘȎƨƣƮƟƚ in q

22 ƾƝμƑ: ƥƢơƧƗƑŭ ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ƗȰ ǎƖƘƒƣƘƜ ƦȶƟ ƾƝƣơƔƦȲƟ ƢƣơƥƐƩƘƜƟ ƦơʎƤ ǒƣƖơƜƤ ǁ ƦƔƩƐƫƤ ƥƧμƕơƧƞƘƯƘƜ ƦƘƞƘƥƛʀƟƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ǳƟ' ơȎƝȱƦ' ǾƝƟƘʎƟ ƀ qui verbum ƾƝμȳ tamquam partem scholii praebet; (ƾƝμȲ n.) R; pars 1 ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ – fin. ad lm. latius, vv. 21–2 ȟƤ ǎƟƦƔʝƛ' – ƾƝμƑ pertinet ƥƢơƧƗȲ] ƥ. ǾƠƯƦƘƣơƟ V ƗȰ om. G

23–8 (Ȥ ƨȵƞƦƔƦ'– ǓƢɾ): ƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƜ ǟμɱƤ μƘƛ' ơǳƫƟ ƾƟƗƣʬƟ ƗƘʎ ƦȮ ƾƢƮƣƣƚƦƔ ƢơƜƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ. L Hii q(HiŸ) r(M) 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. recentiore coniungitur in Żii (ƗƜƗȯƥƝƘƜ ƗȰ) 1 lm. addidi ƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƜ, facile subauditur ǿ ƢơƜƚƦƑƤ; hoc non intellecto ƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƜ ǟμɱƤ <ǿ ƞȷƖơƤ> Trendelenburg 130 2 ƾƢƮƣƛƚƦƔ Żii ƢơƜƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ om. q

24 (ǎƥƛƞȶƤ ƘǮƤ ǟμɱƤ ƖƘƖȻƤ): Ʀơʝ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƢƜƥƦȶƤ ƘǮƤ ǟμɱƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris prob. Bernardakis 40

26 (ǎƟ ƦơʎƥƜ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ): ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƢơƞƐμơƜƤ. L q(Hs.l.Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ om. q

28 (ǓƢɾ): ƗƜƩʬƤŭ ǒƥɾ. ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ƖƑƣƫƤ ƘȎƕơƧƞƒƔƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƗƜƩʬƤ Wansink 39–40 et 43 (cf. Ludwich I 31–8): ƗƜƩ, compendiose L (idem compendium praebet L in sch. Ai. 1225 et sch. Aesch. Pr. 3a) ǒƥɾ] <ǓƢɾ Ǡ> ǒƥɾ Bernardakis 40, at cf. sch. Ai. 1225a, sch. Hom. Il. 22.108a2,

sch. 19 – sch. 32

111

23.414a2 ƗƜȮ – fin.] his verbis scholiasta quomodo paedagogus ǎƟ ƢƣưƦơƜƤ ǓƢƘƥƛƔƜ vel ǒƥƘƥƛƔƜ possit illustrat

31 ƘǮ μƑ ƦƜ ƝƔƜƣơʝ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƫ: Ƙǲ Ʀƒ ƥơƜ ƗơƝʬ μȲ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƕƘƕơƧƞƘʝƥƛƔƜ, μƘƛƏƣμơƥơƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǎƢƔƟƮƣƛƫƥơƟ. ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ ƾƖƏƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƟƘƔƟƒƥƝơƟ, ȃƦƜ μȲ ƢƏƟƧ ƔȎƛƐƝƔƥƦơƤ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ. L qbis(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ǎƢƔƟȷƣƛƫƥơƟ: Su. III 347, 10 (μ 411) 1 lm.] ƘǮ μȳ ƦƜ ƝƔƜƣơʝ qM: deest in VGR; (ƘǮ μȳ ƦƜ ƝƔƜƣơʝ n.) R; (31 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 31 ƘǮ – μƘƛȯƣμơƥơƟ ƦƜ om. V ƕƘƕơƧƞƘʝƥƛƔƜ] ƕơƧƞƘȹƘƥƛƔƜ Wa 2ȃ– ǎƢƔƟȷƣƛƫƥơƟ ơm. r propter homoeoteleuton 3 ȃƦƜ – fin.] haec bis praebet q diversis in formis; qi formam genuinam habet quae tamen in finem scholii 32 demigravit; qii formam retractatam quae retractationi fontis r similis est: ƦơʎƤ ƢƔƞƔƜơƦƐƣơƜƤ ƦʬƟ ƢƣƫƦƘƒƫƟ ƢƔƣƔƩƫƣơʝƟƦƔ ƝƔȴ μȲ ƔȎƛƐƝƔƥƦơƟ ƨƔƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ qii: ƦơʎƤ ƢƔƞƔƜơƦȱƣơƜƤ (ƢƔƞƔƜƦȱƣơƜƤ G) ƦʬƟ ƢƣƫƦƘȵƫƟ ƢƔƣƔƩƫƣơʝƟƦƔ (ƢƘƣƜƩƫƣơʝƟƦƔƜ ƀ/ƢƔƣƔƩƫƣƘʎƦƔƜ G) ƝƔȴ μȲ ƔȎƦơƕơƧƞȵɯ ƩƣȻμƘƟơƟ r μȲ] μȲ pro ơȎ usu recentiore, cf. sch. Tr. 1a.11 ǎƢƘȴ μƚƗȰ ƦȮ ƗƘƯƦƘƣƔ ƦʀƤ ƘȎƗƔƜμơƟƒƔƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƗƐƗƫƝƘƟ; etiam sch. Tr. 352–5.4–5 Ʀơʝ ƗȰ μȲ ƗƮƟƦơƤ ǧƣƔƝƞʀƤ ƘǵƞƘ ƦȲƟ ƃǮƩƔƞƒƔƟ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ] ǎƨƔƒƟƘƦơ V

32 ǎƖȺ ƖȮƣ ǟƟȵƩ': ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƗƜƚƖƑƥƘƫƤ ƦƔƯƦƚƤ Ʀȶ ƞƘʎƢơƟ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣƒƔƤ ƢƣơƥƔƟƘƢƞƑƣƫƥƘƟ ǟμʎƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(MR) 1 lm. ex M: deest in LR et q quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƗƜƚƖȳƥƘƫƤ ƗȰ); (ǟƟȵƩ' n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 32–7 ǎƖȺ ƖȮƣ – ƥƨƔƖȯƤ 1–2 sch. ita rescripsit r: ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣȵƔƤ ƢƣơƥƔƟƘƢƞȳƣƫƥƘƟ ǟμʎƟ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ Ʀȶ ƞƘʎƢơƟ ƦʀƤ ƞơƜƢʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣȵƔƤ 1 Ʀȶ ƞƘʎƢơƟ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣƒƔƤ] Ʀȶ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣȵƔƤ ƞƘʎƢơƟ qWa 2 ƢƣơƥƔƟƘƢƞȳƣƫƥƘƟ ǟμʎƟ] ƾƟƔƢƞƚƣơʎ qWa

35 Ʃƣʁ: μƔƟƦƘƯƘƦƔƜ. Ls.l. Gs.l. Su. IV 824, 4 (Ʃ 492) cf. Eust. Il. I 140, 33–34 ... ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ μƔƟƦƘȵƔƤ, ơǵơƟ "Ʃƣʁ μơƜ ƦơƜƔʝƛɸ ǿ ƉơʎƕơƤ"; ŽŽ 714, 16 ... Ʃƣʁ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜ μƔƟƦƘȹƘƦƔƜ, ơǵơƟ "Ʃƣʁ μơƜ ƦơƜƔʝƛɸ ǿ ƉơʎƕơƤ"; IV

112

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

312, 18–9; Źƀ 814, 4, 7–9 Ʃƣʬ: ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜ ƢƐƟƦƘ ... Ʀȶ μƔƟƦƘȹơμƔƜ, ȟƤ ƦƮ, ƇơƜƔʝƛɸ ǿ ƉơʎƕơƤ Ʃƣʁ 1 lm. scripsit Elmsley: Ʃƣʁ μơƜ Su.: deest in LG

36 ǂƥƝƘƧơƟ ƔȎƦȷƟ: Ǡ ƔȎƦȷƟ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ƾƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƯƔƥƦơƟ ȂƟƦƔŭ Ǡ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ, ơǵơƟ, μȲ μƘƦȮ ƢơƞƐμơƧ ǎƢƘμƕʀƟƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GMR) 1 ƾƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƯƔƥƦơƟ: cf. Ɔb Ɣ 2230 Ǌ ƥ Ɲ Ƙ Ƨ ơ Ɵ : ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƢƔƣƏƥƝƘƧơƟ = Phot. Ɣ 2962 = Su. Ɣ 4166 (unde Zonar. 311, 2); Hesych. Ɣ 7698 ƾƥƝƘƯơƜƤŭ ƪƜƞơʎƤ, ƾƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƯơƜƤ… 1 lm.] ǂƥƝƘƧơƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ǂƥƝƘƧơƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ s.) L; (ǂƥƝƘƧơƟ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 36 ǂƥƝƘƧơƟ – ƥƦƣƔƦơʝ ƔȎƦȷƟ (alt.) pro lemmate accipe ƾƢƔƣƔƥƝƘȹƔƥƦơƟ] ƾƢƔƣƏƥƝƘƧơƟ qWa

39 ȃƦ’ ǂƟ ƥƘ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ ƘǮƥȯƖɾ: ȃƦƔƟ ƥƘ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ ƝƔƞʁ. Ls.l. Su. III 571, 18 (ơ 727) 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in L ƝƔƜƣȶƤ Su.: ǿ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ L

40 (ǲƥƛƜ ƢɱƟ Ʀȶ ƗƣȻμƘƟơƟ): ƢƘƣƜƐƣƖƔƥƔƜ ƦȮ ƢƣƔƦƦƮμƘƟƔ ƢƏƟƦƔ. L r(G) 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ǲƥƛƜ ƢɱƟ s.) L ƢƘƣƜƐƣƖƔƥƔƜ] ƢƘƣƜƐƣƖƔƥƦƔƜ G ƢƣƔƦƦƮμƘƟƔ] Ʀȶ ƢƣƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƟ G ƢƏƟƦƔ om. G

42a (ơȎ Ɩȯƣ ƥƘ μȳ): Ʀȶ μȳ ǆƦƦƜƝʬƤ ƢƞƘơƟƏƙƘƜ. Ls.l. cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 38g (ad lm. ơȒ ƦƜ μȲ ƞƚƨƛʬ ƗƮƞƫƜ) Ʀȶ μȳ ƢƔƣƐƞƝơƟ; 281f. 1 lm. addidi

ƦȮ

sch. 32 – sch. 45

113

42b ȥƗ’ ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ: ƦƜƟȰƤ Ʀȶ ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ ǎƢȴ ƦʀƤ ƝƘƨƔƞʀƤ ǢƝơƧƥƔƟ, ơǵơƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƢơƞƜƔʎƤ ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ. ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ ƾƢƒƛƔƟơƟŭ ǎƖƟưƥƛƚ ƖȮƣ ǂƟ, ƘǮ ƝƔȴ ƦơƥơʝƦơƟ ǢƞƞƔƠƘƟ ƦȲƟ ƝƘƨƔƞƑƟ. ƗơƝƘʎ ơȔƟ μơƜ Ʀȶ ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƟŭ ơȎ μȲ ơȔƟ ƥƘ ǎƢƜƖƟʬƥƜ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƢƞƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƟ. ƘǮ ƗȰ Ʀȶ 5 ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ ǎƢȴ ǟƞƜƝƒƔƤ ƗƘƠƔƒμƘƛƔ, ǒƥƦƜƟ ơȎƝ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƦƣƜƩʬƟ ƾƞƞ' ǎƢȴ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ Ʀơʝ ƥưμƔƦơƤ. L q(HŸ) r(GMR) Su. II 574, 13 (ƚ 395) 1 lm.] ơȎ ƖƏƣ ƥƘ μȲ ƖƑƣɯ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƮƟʪ (v. 41) Lq q: ơȎ Ɩȯƣ ƥƘ Ɩȳƣɯ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƩƣȷƟʪ G: deest in R Ʀȶ] ƦȶƟ GR 1 ǎƢȴ – 3 ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƟ om. G propter homoeoteleuton 1 ƦʀƤ ƝƘƨƔƞʀƤ] Ʀʁ ƝƘƨƔƞʁ Su. 3 ƗơƝƘʎ ơȔƟ μơƜ] ƗơƝƘʎ ƗȰ ƘǴƟƔƜ MR 4 ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƟ] ǞƥƝƚƥμƐƟơƟ G ƢƞƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƟ] ƢƣƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƟ G 5 ƗƘƠƔƒμƘƛƔ] ƗƘƠȷμƘƛƔ r ǒƥƦƜƟ ơȎƝ] ơȎƝ ǒƥ. q 6 ƢƔƟƦȶƤ] ȃƞơƧ r

45 ƉƫƝȱƫƤ ƢƔƣ' ƾƟƗƣȶƤ ƉƔƟơƦȱƫƤ: ƦȶƟ ƉƫƝƐƔ ƢƣơƛƘȴƤ ǎƢƑƟƘƖƝƘƟ ƉƔƟơƦƐƔ, ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȃƞơƧ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ μƘƣƜƝȶƟ ƝƔƦƔƕƔƒƟƫƟ, ǿμơƒƫƤ Ʀʭ

ǡ Ɨ' ǎƤ žƯƢƣơƟ ǳƝƔƟƘ ƨƜƞơμμƘƜƗȲƤ ǆƨƣơƗƒƦƚ ǎƤ ƄƏƨơƟŭ 5 ǎƞƐƖơƟƦơ ƖȮƣ ǿƞơƥƩƘƣƐƥƦƘƣơƟ μȰƟ ƉƫƝƘʎƤ, ǎƢȴ μƐƣơƤ ƗȰ žƣƜƥƔʎơƜ, ƉƔƟơƦƘʎƤ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ ȂƟơμƏ ƨƔƥƜ Ʀȶ ƉƔƟơƦƐƫƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 5 ǿƞơƥƩƘƣȱƥƦƘƣơƟ – 6 ƉƔƟơƦƘʎƤ: Su. IV 754, 8 (ƨ 639) ƉƫƝƐƫƤ: ƉƔƟơƦƐƫƤ. ǿƞơƥƩƘƣƐƥƦƘƣơƟ ƉƫƝƘʎƤ, ǎƢȴ μƐƣơƤ ƗȰ ƉƔƟơƦƘʎƤ. 2 ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȃƞơƧ – 4 ƄȯƨơƟ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 14. 230 ... "žȹƢƣơƟ ǳƝƔƟƘ ǎƤ ƄȯƨơƟ" (ƛ 362–3)· ǒƛơƤ Ɩȯƣ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƦơʎƤ ȃƞơƜƤ ƦȮ μƘƣƜƝȮ ǎƢȯƖƘƜƟ. 3–4 Żom. Od. 8. 362– 3; versum 362 leviter mutavit scholiasta (ǡ Ɨ' ǂƣƔ žȹƢƣơƟ Homerus: ǡ Ɨ' ǎƤ žȹƢƣơƟ scholiasta) 1 lm. scripsi coll. Su. (scholiastam ƉƫƝȱƫƤ pro ƉƫƝƘȸƤ legisse conieci): ƉƫƝƘȸƤ L: ƉƫƝƘȸƤ ƢƔƣ' ƾƟƗƣȶƤ q: ƢƔƣ' ƾƟƗƣȶƤ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƉƫƝƘȸƤ n.) R; (45 n.) V ƢƣơƛƘȴƤ Brunck1: ƢƣơƥƛƘȴƤ codd. ǎƢƑƟƘƖƝƘƟ] ǎƢƑƖƔƖƘ r 2 ƝƔƦƔƕƔƒƟƫƟ] μƘƦƔ– V Ʀʭ] Ʀȶ q 3 ǡ Ɨ' om. r ǎƤ] ƘǮƤ V ƨƜƞơμμƘƜƗȲƤ] –μƘƜƗȲƤ qVrr 4 ǎƤ] ƘǮƤ q ǎƤ ƄƏƨơƟ] ǎƤ TƏƨơƟ r 5 ƖȮƣ] μȰƟ G ǿƞơƥƩƘƣȱƥƦƘƣơƟ] ǾƞơƥƩƘƣưƦƦ (i.q.–ưƦƔƦƔ) G: ǿƞơƥƩƘƣȻƦƘƣơƟ ƀR μȰƟ] ƖȮƣ G ǎƢȴ μȱƣơƤ (cf. Isoc. fr. 10 Brémond – Mathieu Ɣǯ ǎƢȴ μƐƣơƤ ƗȰ ƗƜƏƟơƜƔƜ ...)] ǎƢȴ μȱƣơƧƤ WaWc žƣƜƥƥƔʎơƜ ŻVR 6 ƦƜƟȰƤ (compendiose L)] ƢƔƣȮ q ƗȰ om. V

114

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

46 ƗơƣƧƠƐƟƫƟ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƨƒƞƫƟŭ ƝƧƣƒƫƤ ƗȰ ơǯ ǎƟ ƢơƞƐμʪ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƜ ƨƒƞơƜ, ȟƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƤ ƝƔȴ ŸƜơμƑƗƚƤ. L r(G) 2 ȟƤ – fin.: Su. II 131, 20 (Ɨ 1399); cf. sch. OC 632 ƗơƣȹƠƘƟơƤ] ƨȵƞơƤ; sch. Eur. Med. 687 ƗơƣƧƠȱƟƫƟ: ơǯ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ƢȷƞƘμơƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƾƞƞȳƞơƧƤ ƨƜƞȵƔƟ ƢƘƢơƜƚƝȷƦƘƤ, ȟƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƤ ƝƔȴ ŸƜơμȳƗƚƤ; sch. Luc. 7, 23 – 8, 2 ƨƔƥȴ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƗơƣƧƠƐƟơƧƤ ơȕƦơƜ ƦơȸƤ ƝƔƦȮ ƢƮƞƘμơƟ ƾƞƞƑƞơƧƤ ƨƜƞơƢơƜƚƥƔμƐƟơƧƤ, ȟƤ ŸƜơμƑƗƚƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƟ; sch. Dem. 21, 665 ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƜ ƗȰ ơǯ ǎƟ ƢơƞƐμơƜƤ ƨƜƞƜƫƛƐƟƦƘƤ ƾƞƞƑƞơƜƤ; sch. Hom. Il. 4.377b … ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƤ, ȟƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƤ ƝƔȴ ŸƜơμƑƗƚƤ; Ar. Byz. fr. 302 ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƜ ƗȰ ơǯ ƝƔƦȮ ƢƮƞƘμơƟ ƾƞƞƑƞơƧƤ ƨƜƞơƢơƜƚƥƏμƘƟơƜ (codd. M L); Eust. Il. I 768, 15 ƗơƣȹƠƘƟơƤ ƗȰ ǿ ƢơƞȱμơƧ ƩȯƣƜƟ Ǡ ǎƝ ƢơƞȱμơƧ ƨƜƞƜƫƛƘȵƤ, ȟƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƤ ƝƔȴ ŸƜơμȳƗƚƤ; Paus. att. Ɨ 24 apud Eust. Il. I 638, 18 ŸơƣƯƠƘƟơƤ· ǿ ǎƝ ƦʬƟ ƢơƞƘμƒƫƟ ƨƒƞơƤ ƝƔȴ ǿ ƢƣƘƥƕƘƯƫƟ ƢƘƣȴ ƞƯƦƣƫƟ ƘǮ ƙƫƖƣƚƛƘʎƐƟ ƦƜƟƘƤ = Phot. Ɨ 724 = Su. Ɨ 1399 (+) (eadem verba habet addito tamen in fine exemplo ȟƤ ŷƞƔʝƝơƤ ƝƔȴ ŸƜơμƑƗƚƤ ex scholio nostro hausto); Thom. Mag. Ecl. 186, 2–5 ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƤ ƗȰ ǿ ƝƔƦȮ ƢƮƞƘμơƟ ƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƤ ƨƒƞơƤ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯŭ ȁ ƖȮƣ μƐƖƜƥƦơƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜ ƗơƣƧƠƐƟƫƟ. 2 ȟƤ – fin.: vide Hom. Il. 6. 119–236 1 lm. deest in G; (ƗơƣƧƠȱƟƫƟ s.) L; ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ G

ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ om. G

post ƨƒƞơƜ add. ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƜ

47a ǂƖƖƘƞƞƘ Ɨ' ȃƣƝʪ: μȲ ƥμƜƝƣơƞƮƖƫƤ ƦƜƤ ǎƢƜƞƏƕƚƦƔƜ ȟƤ ƝƘƞƘƯơƟƦơƤ ǎƢƜơƣƝƘʎƟ Ʀơʝ ƢơƜƚƦơʝŭ ƗƘʎ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƢƘƒƛƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀʭ ƛƘʭ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ ƗƮƞʪ ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜƟ ƢƔƣƔƝƘƞƘƧơμƐƟʪ, ȣƥƦƘ ǎƟ ơǵƤ ƗơƝƘʎ ǎƢƜơƣƝʬƟ ƗƧƥƥƘƕƘʎƟ, ƗƜȮ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƘȎƥƘƕƘʎ ƢƘƜƛƮμƘƟơƤ Ʀʭ ƛƘʭ. ǒƩƘƜ ƗȰ ƾƠƜơƢƜƥƦƒƔƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ, ȟƤ ǎƟ 5 ƉƫƝƒƗƜ ƦƣƘƨƮμƘƟơƟ ƝƔƦƔƕʀƟƔƜ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƄƧƛȵɯ. ƾƟʀƝƦƔƜ ƗȰ ƦơʎƤ ƩƣƮƟơƜƤŭ ǎƢȴ ƇƣƫƬƝơʝ ƢơƞƐμơƧ ƖƏƣ ƨƚƥƜ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ǏƠƔƝơƥƒơƜƤ ǒƦƘƥƜ ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm.] deest in GR; (ǂƖƖƘƞƞƘ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 47–9 ǂƖƖƘƞƞƘ – ƄƧƛƜƝơʎƥƜƟ ƥμƜƝƣơƞȷƖơƤ qrWa ǎƢƜƞƏƕƚƦƔƜ] –ƕƏƞƚƦƔƜ q 2 Ʀȶ] Ʀʭ r ƢɱƟ Ɨȷƞʪ] ƢȯƟƦƔ ƗȷƞơƟ rWa 3 ƢƔƣƔƝƘƞƘƧơμƐƟʪ ante ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜƟ transp. q ǎƢƜơƣƝʬƟ Lf (coni. Lascaris): ǎƢƜơƣƝƘʎƟ cett. ƗƧƥƥƘƕƘʎƟ om. r 4 ȟƤ codicum retinui coll. Palaeph. 34 ȇ ƢƘƣȴ Ƅ Ɣ Ɵ Ɨ ư ƣ Ɣ Ƥ ơȎƝ ƾƟƘƝƦȶƤ ƞƮƖơƤ, ȟƤ ǎƝ ƖʀƤ ƾƟƔƢƞƔƥƛƘʎƥƔƟ ƾƟƔƗơʝƟƔƜ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞơƜƤ Ʀȶ ƢƞƏƥμƔ 5 ƝƔƦƔƕʀƟƔƜ] ƝƔƦƔμƘʎƟƔƜ r ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƄƧƛȵɯ (cf. sch. Pi. O. 9 17a ǎƟ ƄƧƛƒɯ ǎƟƒƝƚƥƘ, O. 12.25a ƥƦƘƨƛƘȴƤ ǎƟ ȆƞƧμƢƒɯ ƝƔȴ ǎƟ ƄƧƛƒɯ ƝƔȴ ǎƟ Ƕƥƛμʭ)] ƘǮƤ ƦȮ ƄȹƛƜƔ Wa (coni. Lascaris, nisi quod ǎƤ pro ƘǮƤ): ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƄƧƛƒʪ r 6 ǎƢȴ] ǎƢ. ƗȰ r 6–7 ǎƢȴ ƇƣƫƬƝơʝ ƢơƞȱμơƧ ... ƨƚƥƜ ... ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ǏƠƔƝơƥȵơƜƤ ǒƦƘƥƜ ƢƣȷƦƘƣơƟ ita textum refinxit Wansink 45, Michaelis emendatione ǎƢȴ ƇƣƫƬƝơʝ

sch. 46 – sch. 48a²

115

ƢơƞƐμơƧ recepta (vide infra) ‘dicit (scil. Sophocles) … aetate belli Troiani factos esse ludos Pythicos, sexcentis annis prius quam revera facti sunt’: ǎƢȴ ƇƣƜƢƦơƞȱμơƧ ... ƨƔƥƜ (ƨƚƥƜ Wa) ... ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ǏƠƔƝơƥȵơƜƤ ǒƦƘƥƜ ƢƣȷƦƘƣơƟ codd.: ǎƢȴ ƇƣƫƬƝơʝ ƢơƞȱμơƧ ... ƨƔƥƜ ƖƘƟȱƥƛƔƜ (scil. ȇƣȱƥƦƚƟ) ... ƄƧƛƜƝơʝ ƾƖʬƟơƤ ǏƠƔƝơƥȵơƜƤ ǒƦƘƥƜ ƢƣȷƦƘƣơƟ Michaelis apud Jahn3: ǎƢȴ ŹȎƣƧƞȷƩơƧ ... ƨƔƥƜ ... ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ǏƠƔƝơƥȵơƜƤ ǒƦƘƥƜ ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ Neue 103; secundum Wolff 4 alius scholiastae sunt quae inde ab ǎƢȴ ƇƣƜƢƦơƞȱμơƧ exordiuntur ‘Hic igitur a Sophocle iustam temporum rationem servatam esse significavit’; probant Kruytbosch 73 et de Marco 171 6 ƇƣƫƬƝơʝ ƢơƞȱμơƧ Michaelis l.c.: ƇƣƜƢƦơƞƐμơƧ codd.: ŹȎƣƧƞȷƩơƧ Neue l.c. coll. sch. Pi. Arg. Pyth. b ƖȮƣ (ǎƢȴ ƇƣƜƢƦơƞƐμơƧ ƖȮƣ codd.)] ƗȰ (ǎƢȴ ƗȰ ƇƣƜƢƦơƞƐμơƧ) r ƨƚƥƜ Wa (coni. Wansink l.c.) scil. ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȳƤ: ƨƔƥƜ cett. ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ] ƄƧƛƜƝơʝ ƾƖʬƟơƤ 7 ƢƣȷƦƘƣơƟ] ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ Michaelis l.c. ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ] ƦȶƟ ƄƧƛƜƝȶƟ q: ƛƧƛƜƝȶƟ sic R Lascaris (recepit Neue l.c.)

47b (ȃƣƝʪ): Ʀơʝ ƢƜƛƔƟơʝ ƩƏƣƜƟ. L 1 sch. ad v. 42 adscriptum in L huc retraxi

48a1 ǎƠ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƔƤ ƦƯƩƚƤ: ƕƜƔƒƫƤ, ơǵơƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƥƦʭ μƮƣʪ ƝƔȴ ơȎƝ ǎƝ ƦƔȎƦơμƏƦơƧ. L q(HŸ) V 1 ơǵơƟ – fin. Su. II 300, 27 (Ƙ 1538) 1 ƕƜƔȵƫƤ: cf. sch. Ai. 485b ... ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ƟʝƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƔȵƔƤ ƦȹƩƚƤ, ƦʀƤ ƕȵƔƤ ƨƚƥȵƟ; 1 lm. deest in V V

ƕƜƔȵƫƤ om. q ơǵơƟ om. V

1–2 ǎƝ ƦƔȎƦơμƏƦơƧ] ǎƝ ƔȎƦơμƏƦơƧ sic

48a2 (ǎƠ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƔƤ ƦƯƩƚƤ): ǎƝ ƕƒƔƤ, ǎƝ ƥƧƟƦƧƩƒƔƤ, ơȎƝ ǮƗƒʪ ƛƔƟƏƦʪ. L q(HŸ) V 1 ǎƝ ƕȵƔƤ et ơȎƝ ǮƗȵʪ ƛƔƟȯƦʪ: Su. II 300, 27 (Ƙ 1538) 1 ǎƝ ƕƒƔƤ: cf. ad sch. pr. ǎƝ ƥƧƟƦƧƩƒƔƤ: cf. sch. Ai. 803a ƢƣȷƥƦƚƦɸ ƾƟƔƖƝƔȵƔƤ ƦȹƩƚƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƢȵƝơƧƣơƜ ƖȱƟƘƥƛƘ ƦʀƤ ƝƔƦƘƢƘƜƖơȹƥƚƤ ƥƧƟƦƧƩȵƔƤ.

116

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. et Su. separatim posui LWa (cf. Christodoulou ad sch. Ai. 803a): ƗƧƥƦƧƩƒƔƤ Ls.lqV

lm. addidi

ƥƧƟƦƧƩȵƔƤ

49 (ǂƛƞơƜƥƜ ƄƧƛƜƝơʎƥƜƟ): ƦơʎƤ ƩƣƮƟơƜƤ ƾƟʀƝƦƔƜŭ ƟƘưƦƘƣơƤ ƖȮƣ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǿ ƄƧƛƜƝȶƤ ƾƖưƟ. L V r(G) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ǎƝ ƦƣơƩƚƞȯƦƫƟ s.) L; (ƦƣơƩƚƞȯƦƫƟ n.) V 2 ǎƥƦȴƟ om. G

ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ] ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ V

50a ȥƗ' ǿ μʝƛơƤ ǏƥƦƏƦƫ: ǟ ǒƝƕƔƥƜƤ Ʀơʝ ƞƮƖơƧ Ǡ Ʀȶ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟŭ ƢƜƛƔƟȶƟ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ ǎƟ ƉƫƝƒƗƜ ƾƟƔƦƣƘƨȷμƘƟơƟ ƦȮ ƄƯƛƜƔ ƾƖƫƟƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ. L V r(GR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ȥƗ' ǿ n.) V; accuratiss. ǿ μʝƛơƤ 1 ǟ – ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ] Ʀȶ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ Ʀơʝ ƞƮƖơƧ ǟ ǒƝƕƔƥƜƤ r 2 ƦȶƟ NF (coni. iam Nauck 417): Ʀȶ LV: Ʀȶ ƦȶƟ ž: ȣƥƦƘ G: ȟƤ Ʀȶ R ƾƟƔƦƣƘƨȷμƘƟơƟ ƦȮ La.c. (cf. sch. 47a.4–5 ǎƟ ƉƫƝȵƗƜ ƦƣƘƨȷμƘƟơƟ; sch. 182b.2 ȁƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƉƫƝȵƗƜ ƦƣȱƨƘƦƔƜ): ƾƟƔƦƣƔƨȱƟƦƔ Lp.c.Vrr ƄƯƛƜƔ ƾƖƫƟƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ om. r

50b (ǏƥƦȯƦƫ): ƗƘƗƮƩƛƫ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

51 ȟƤ ǎƨƒƘƦơ: ǿ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟ ƗʀƞơƟ ȃƦƜŭ ȟƤ ǎƝƐƞƘƧƘƟ. L V cf. sch. Tr. 286a (ǎƨƘʎƦ’): ǎƟƘƦƘƒƞƔƦơ. 1 lm. deest in L; (ȟƤ ǎƨȵƘƦơ s.) L; (ƦȹμƕơƟ n.) V

52 ƝƔȴ ƝƔƣƔƦƮμơƜƤ ƩƞƜƗƔʎƤ: ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ƾƢȶ ƝƣƔƦȶƤ ƦƘƦμƚμƐƟơƜƤ ƕơƥƦƣƯƩơƜƤŭ ƞƐƖơƜ Ɨ' ǀƟ ƩƞƜƗȮƤ ǢƦơƜ ƝƔƛƮƞơƧ ƦơȸƤ ƢƞơƝƏμơƧƤ, ơǳ ƘǮƥƜ ƦƣƧƨȲ ƦʀƤ ƝƘƨƔƞʀƤ, Ǡ ƢƔƣ' ȃƥơƟ ƦƣƧƨȲ ƝƔȴ ƝƮƥμơƤ ƾƢƘƦƒƛƘƟƦơ ƦơʎƤ ƟƘƝƣơʎƤ ơǯ ƢƞƮƝƔμơƜ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƦƏƨʪ. L q(HŸ) V r(GR)

sch. 48a² – sch. 56

117

1 ƦơʎƤ – fin.: Su. IV 810, 11 (Ʃ 340) 1 lm. scripsi coll. Su. (ƝƔȴ ƩƞƜƗƔʎƤ ƝƔƣƔƦƮμơƜƤ): ƞơƜƕƔʎƥƜ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ƝƔȴ ƝƔƣƔƦȷμơƜƤ L: deest in qVrr; (ƞơƜƕƔʎƤ n.) R; (ƝƔȴ ƝƔƣƔƦȷμơƜƤ n.) V ƝƔȴ (alt.) – 2 ƕơƥƦƣƯƩơƜƤ om. q; haec sui iuris esse videntur 1 ƝƔȴ (alt.) om. VSu. ƝƣƔƦȶƤ] ƝƏƣƔƤ r: Ʀơʝ ƝƣƔƦȶƤ Su. 2 ƞȱƖơƜ] ƞƐƖƘƜ q: ƞƐƖ, compendiose, V ƢƞơƝƏμơƧƤ] ƕơƥƦƣƯƩơƧƤ ǢƦơƜ ƦơȸƤ (om. R) Ƣ. r 3 ƦƣƧƨȲ (pr.)] ƦƣơƨȲ R ƦʀƤ ƝƘƨƔƞʀƤ] Ʀʁ ƝƘƨƔƞʁ r ƾƢƘƦƒƛƘƟƦơ] –ƘƦơ Vrr ƦơʎƤ – 4 ǎƟ om. G 4 ƦơʎƤ ƦȯƨơƜƤ r

54a1 ƦƯƢƫμƔ: ƦȲƟ ȏƗƣƒƔƟ, ǎƟ ɓ ƗʀƛƘƟ ƦȮ ƗơƝơʝƟƦƔ ƘǴƟƔƜ ǾƥƦƐƔ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƾƢƐƝƘƜƦơ. L V r(GMR) Su. IV 607, 9 (Ʀ 1181) 1 lm. ex M: ƦƯƢƫμƔ ƩƔƞƝƮƢƞƘƧƣơƟ Su: deest in LVGR; (ƦȹƢƫμƔ n.) R; (ƩƔƞƝȷƢƘƧƣơƟ n.) V ƘǴƟƔƜ om. r 2 ƾƢƐƝƘƜƦơ] –ƟƦơ Vrr

54a2 (ƦȹƢƫμƔ): Ʀȶ ǂƖƖơƤ. Ls.l. Gs.l. Su. IV 607,9 (Ʀ 1181) 1 hoc sch. ante sch. 54a1.1 ƦȲȞ ȏįȡȓĮȞ inseruit Su.

lm. add. Elmsley

56 (ƝƞƐƢƦơƟƦƘƤ): ƾƢƔƦʬƟƦƘƤ, ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƜƙƮμƘƟơƜŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ ƝƞƐƢƦƘ ƟƮʪ. L V cf. sch. Eur. Phoen. 992 ƝƞƐƪƔƤ ƞƮƖơƜƥƜƟ: ƾƢƔƦƑƥƔƤ ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƜƥƏμƘƟơƤ; sch. Ant. 1218 Ǡ ƛƘơʎƥƜ ƝƞƐƢƦơμƔƜ] Ǡ ƾƢƔƦʬμƔƜ ȏƢȶ ƛƘʬƟ; sch. Hom. Il. 22. 281c (ad lm. ǎƢƒƝƞơƢơƤ) … Ǡ ƾƥƝʬƟ ƗƜȮ ƞƮƖƫƟ ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ ȟƤ Ʀȶ ‘ƝƞƐƢƦƘ ƟƮʪ’; sch. D Hom. Il. 1. 132 ƝƞƐƢƦƘ ƟƮʪ: ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƒƙơƧ Ʀʁ ƗƜƔƟơƒɯ; Apollon. S. 99, 33 Ɲ ƞ Ɛ ƪ Ɣ Ɯ ǒƥƦƜ ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƧƣƒƫƤ ƟơơƧμƐƟơƧ, ǒƥƦƜ ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ· “ƝƞƐƢƦƘ ƟƮʪ, ǎƢƘȴ ơȎ ƢƔƣƘƞƘƯƥƘƔƜ.”; sch. Aeschin. 3, 99 ƝƞƐƢƦƫƟ ƦȲƟ ƾƝƣƮƔƥƜƟ] ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƜƙƮμƘƟơƤ ƦȲƟ ƾƝơƑƟ; Hesych. Ƙ 1486; Ɲ 2931, 2932; Ɔ Ɲ 343 ƝƞƘƢƦƮμƘƟơƜŭ ƾƢƔƦưμƘƟơƜ = Phot. Ɲ 768 = Su. Ɲ 1739 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 1. 132 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƝƞȱƢƦơƟƦƘƤ s.) L ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ȋμ. V

118

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

62 ǢƗƚ ƖȮƣ ƘǴƗơƟ ƢơƞƞȯƝƜƤ: ƄƧƛƔƖƮƣƔƤ ƝƔƛƘƒƣƠƔƤ ǏƔƧƦȶƟ ǎƟ ȏƢơƖƘƒʪ ƞơƖơƢơƜƘʎƟ ǎƝƐƞƘƧƥƘ ƦȲƟ μƚƦƐƣƔ ȟƤ ǂƣƔ ƦƘƛƟƚƝȺƤ ǒơƜ. ƝƔȴ μƘƦȮ ƦƔʝƦƔ ǎƢƜƨƔƟƘȴƤ ƢƘƣȴ ƢƔƞƜƖƖƘƟƘƥƒƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƛ' ɉƗơƧ ƦƜƟȮ ǎƦƘƣƔƦƘƯƘƦơ, ƗƜƚƖơƯμƘƟơƤ ƢƣȶƤ ƦơȸƤ ƙʬƟƦƔƤ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʬƟ ơǮƝƘƒƫƟ, ơǵƤ ǎƟ ɉƗơƧ 5 ƥƧƟƦƘƦƧƩƚƝƐƟƔƜ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ. ǎƠ ȥƟ ƦơƜƔƯƦƚƟ ǏƔƧƦʭ ƗƮƠƔƟ ƢƘƣƜƐƛƚƝƘƟ ȟƤ Ƣƣȶ μȰƟ ƦʬƟ ƇƣƫƜƝʬƟ ŵǮƛƔƞƒƗƚƤ ȠƟ ǿ Ǘƣμơʝ, ƘǴƦƔ ŹȒƨơƣƕơƤ, ƘǴƦƔ ǗƣμƮƦƜμơƤ, ƘǴƦƔ ƄƯƛƜơƤ ǿ ŸƑƞƜơƤ, ƘǴƦƔ ǎƢȴ ƢɱƥƜ ƄƧƛƔƖƮƣƔƤ. ƘǮƤ ƦơʝƦơƟ ơȔƟ ǒơƜƝƘƟ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ ǿ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ. ǒƟƜơƜ ƗȰ ơǲơƟƦƔƜ, ƾƢƜƛƏƟƫƤ, ƘǮƤ ȆƗƧƥƥƐƔ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƥƛƔƜŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƢƐƢƣƔƝƦƔƒ ƦƜ ƦơƜơʝƦơƟ ȆƗƧƥƥƘʎ. 10 ǎƨƧƞƏƠƔƦơ ƗȰ ǾƟơμƏƥƔƜ ƦȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ. ƝƔȴ μȲ ƦʬƟ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƗƮƠɾ, ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ƝƔȴ μƯƛʪ ƢƔƞƔƜʭ ƦƘƦơƞμƚƝƐƟƔƜ ƦƜ ƝƔƝƮƚƛƘƤ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƣơƥƝƣơƧƥƦƜƝȶƟ ƘǮƤ ƦơȸƤ ƝƔƛ' ǏƔƧƦȷƟ, ȁ μɱƞƞơƟ ǣƣμơƙƘ ƝƫμʪƗƒɯ. L q(HŸ) r(GƀR) 1 ƄƧƛƔƖȷƣƔƤ – 7 ƄƧƛƔƖȷƣƔƤ: Su. II 552, 7 (ƚ 88) 5 ȟƤ – 7 ƄƧƛƔƖȷƣƔƤ: cf. Heracl. Pont. fr. 89 Wehri (= Diog. Laert. VIII 4); Porph. Vit. Pyth. 45, 4; sch. Ap. Rh. 56, 26 – 57, 4; Hippol. Haer. I 11 Marcovich 1 lm.] ƝƔȴ ƥơƨơȸƤ ƀ: ǢƗƚ ƖȮƣ ƘǴƗơƟ q: deest in GR; (ǢƗƚ ƖȮƣ n.) R; pars 1 – 10 ad 62– 4 ǢƗƚ – ƢƞƐơƟ spectat et pars 10 – fin. vv. 61–4 ƗơƝʬ – ƢƞƐơƟ respicit 2 ƞȷƖơƟ ƢơƜƘʎƟ ƀR ȟƤ ǂƣƔ LSu. (compendiose in L): ȟƤ ȃƦƜ qr ǒơƜ L Lps.l. (de forma cf. sch. Hom. Il. 9.642, 11.286 15.632–3): ƜơƜ Ż: Ƙǲƚ ŸrNFWaOSu. Lpi.l. (Lascaris) μƘƦȮ ƦƔʝƦƔ] ƢƏƞƜƟ r 3 ƢƘƣȴ] μƘƦȮ q 5 ƥƧƟƦƘƦƧƩƚƝƐƟƔƜ] ǎƟƦƘƦƧƩƚƝƐƟƔƜ (ǎƟƦƘƦƧƩƐƟƔƜ G) r ǏƔƧƦʭ] ǎƢ' ƔȎƦʭ q ȟƤ] ȣƥƦƘ G 6 ȠƟ LHŸGMRLps.l.: ǤƟ Lpi.l. (Lascaris) Ǘƣμơʝ] ǗƣμʀƤ q ŹȒƨơƣƕơƤ] ǿ ŹȒƨ. q 7 ǗƣμȷƦƜμơƤ] Ǘƣ. ƆȯμƜơƤ Su. et Zf (Ǘƣ. ǿ Ɔ.) ƄƯƛƜơƤ codd. et Su. (grammatici errorem esse suspicor; cf. sch. Tr. 633b1.1, ubi ǫƣƔ pro ǆƛƚƟɱ dixit scholiasta): ƄȹƣƣơƤ ƀénage 349 et 373 prob. Heath 24 (receperunt Brunck1 prob. Dindorf 116 et Papageorgiou) ǿ om. Su. ŸƑƞƜơƤ] ſƧƗȶƤ r ƦơʝƦơƟ GR (coni. Kruytbosch 74): ƦơʝƦơ Lq q: ƦơƥơʝƦơƟ ƀ 8 ơȔƟ om. ƀR ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ om. Ÿ ǿ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ om. r 8 ǒƟƜơƜ – 9 ƾƢơƦƘȵƟƘƥƛƔƜ om. GR 9 ơȎ Warr (coni. Lascaris): ơȓƦƫ LŻ: ơȒƢƫ Ÿ: ơȒ ƢƫƤ Jahn1 ƖȮƣ] ƗȰ Ÿ ơȎ – ȆƗƧƥƥƘʎ] ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƦơƜơʝƦȷƟ ƦƜ (ƦơƜ G) ƗƜƘƢƣȯƠƔƦơ ǿ ȆƗƧƥƥƘȸƤ GR: ơȎ ƦƧƩȶƟ ƢȱƢƣƔƝƦƔȵ ƦƜ ƦơƜơʝƦơƟ ȆƗƧƥƥƘȸƤ M qui codicem aliquem formae genuinae hic sequitur ȆƗƧƥƥƘȸƤ q 10 ǎƨƧƞȯƠƔƦơ ƗȰ] ơȒƦƘ ǎƨƧƞȯƠƔƦơ ǀƟ ƀ ǎƨƧƞȯƠƔƦơ – fin. ơm. R ƝƔȴ – fin.] retractata sunt in G: ȟƤ μȲ ƦƔȎƦȶƟ (scripsi: ƔȎƦȶƟ G) ơǮƚƛʬμƘƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƦƣƔƖʪƗȵƔƟ Ʀȱ ƨƚμƜ ƝƔȴ μƧƛơƞơƖȵƔƟ; haec verba bis leguntur in q diversis formis; qi formam retractatam exhibet quae retractationi libri G similis est: ȟƤ μȳ ƦƜ (ƦƜ scripsi: Ʀơ q) ƝƫμʪƗȵɯ μɱƞƞơƟ ƿƣμȷƙơƟ ǎƣƘʎ Ǡ ƦƔȎƦȶƟ ơǮƚƛʬμƘƟ μƧƛơƞơƖȵƔƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƦƣƔƖʪƗȵƔƟ; qii formam genuinam praebet 10 ƝƔȴ μȲ ƦʬƟ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƟ] ƝƔȴ μȳ Ʀʪ (Ʀʪ Ÿ, ut coni. Wolff 16: Ƣƫ H) ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƟ q: ƘǮ ƗȰ μȲƟ Ʀȶ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƟ ƀ: ƝƔȴ μȳƟ Ʀʪ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƟ sive ƝƔȴ μȳƢơƦƘ (i.e. fortasse) ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƟ Wolff l.c. ƗȷƠɾ] ƗơƠƘƜ Ÿ:

sch. 62 – sch. 70

119

ƗȷƠƔƜ dubitanter prop. Wolff l.c., sed cf. sch. OC 1725 ... ƝƔȴ μƑ ƦƜƟƜ ƾƢƒƛƔƟơƟ ƗƮƠɾ ... 11 ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ... ƦƘƦơƞμƚƝƐƟƔƜ ƦƜ Elmsley (cf. sch. OC 208 ... ơȎƗȰƟ ƗȰ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƟ ǎƢƒƥƦƔƥƛƔƜ ƦơȸƤ ǆƛƚƟƔƒơƧƤ...; sch. OC 1725 ƝƔȴ μƑ ƦƜƟƜ ƾƢƒƛƔƟơƟ ƗƮƠɾ ... [ƝƔȴ] Ʀȶ ǎƢƜƛƧμƘʎƟ ƦȲƟ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟƚƟ ...): ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ... ƦƘƦƮƞμƚƝȱ ƦƜ M: ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ... ƦƘƦơƞμƚxxxƜ L: ƘǮ (ƘǮ coni. iam Papageorgiou: ƘǮ om. H) ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ...ƦƘƦƮƞμƚƝƐ ƦƜ (ƦƘƦơƞμƚƝƮƦƜ H) q: ȟƤ ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ... ƦƘƦƮƞμƚƝƐ ƦƜ Wa: ȃƦƜ ǎƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒɯ ... ƦƘƦƮƞμƚƝƐ ƦƜ Wc ƝƔƝȷƚƛƘƤ] ƝƔƝơƚƛȰƤ (hoc accentu) M 12 ƾƢơƝƣơƧƥƦƜƝȶƟ Wa ƝƫμʪƗȵɯ] ƝƔȴ ƝƫμʪƗƜƝơʝ ƀ

65 ǎƢƔƧƩʬ: ƕƘƕƔȵƫƤ ơǴƗƔ. Su. II 334, 13 (Ƙ 1999, unde Zonar. 819, 15)

68a ƗƐƠƔƥƛƐ μ' ƘȎƦƧƩơʝƟƦƔ: ǎƢ' ƘȎƦƧƩƒɯ μƘ ƗƐƠƔƥƛƘ, ȣƥƦƘ ƦƔƯƦƔƤ ƦȮƤ ǿƗơȸƤ ƦƘƞƘƥƛʀƟƔƜ. L 1 lm. accuratiss. v. 68 ƗƐƠƔƥƛƐ μ' – ǿƗơʎƤ ƗȱƠƔƥƛƔƜ L

ƗȱƠƔƥƛƘ (alt.) NFƃWaLp (Lascaris):

68b (ƘȎƦƧƩơʝƟƦƔ ƦƔʎƥƗƘ ƦƔʎƤ ǿƗơʎƤ): ƘȎƦƧƩʬƤ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣơʝƟƦƔ ƦƔʎƤ μƚƩƔƟƔʎƤ. L r(G) 1 lm. addidi

1–2 ƦƔʎƤ μƚƩƔƟƔʎƤ] ƦƔʎƥ<ƗƘ ƦƔʎƤ> μƚƩƔƟƔʎƤ Bernardakis 40, inutiliter

70 [ƗƒƝɾ] ƝƔƛƔƣƦƑƤ: ƦȮ ƘǮƤ –ƦƚƤ ǒƩơƟƦƔ ƦȲƟ ƢƔƣƔƦƐƞƘƧƦơƟ ƘǮƤ ƾμƘƦƏƕơƞơƟ ƞƑƖơƧƥƔƟ, ƾƢƣƮƥƞƚƢƦƔ ȂƟƦƔ Ʀơʝ ƥ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ƖƘƟƜƝȳƟ, ƕƔƣƯƟơƟƦƔƜ, ƘǮ μȲ Ƙǲƚ μƘƦơƩƜƝƏ, ȏƨƏƟƦƚƤ, ƾƖƯƣƦƚƤ, ƘȎƨƣƏƟƦƚƤŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǏƝơƟƦȲƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƛƘƞơƟƦȲƤ μƘƦơƩƜƝƏ. ƢƔƣȮ ƗȰ ǆƦƦƜƝơʎƤ ǾƠƯƟƘƦƔƜ ƦƮ ƦƘ 5 ƝƔƛƔƣƦȲƤ ƝƔȴ ƾμƧƟƦȲƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƕơƚƛơʝ, ƨƔƜƗƣƧƟƦƑƤ, ƢơƜƝƜƞƦƑƤ, ƪƔƞƦȳƤ, ƢƣƔƭƟƦƑƤ. L q(Ż) 1–6 cf. Żdn. ƝƔƛ. Ƣƣơƥ. I 77, 23 et I 78, 3 ƇȮ ƘǮƤ ƦƚƤ ǒƩơƟƦƔ ƦȲƟ ƢƔƣƔƞƑƖơƧƥƔƟ ƘǮƤ ƾμƘƦƏƕơƞơƟ ƞƑƖơƧƥƔƟ, ƾƢƣƮƥƞƚƢƦƔ Ʀơʝ Ƥ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ƖƘƟƜƝƑƟ, ƕƔƣƯƟƘƦƔƜ, ƘǮ μȲ Ƙǲƚ μƘƦơƩƜƝƏ, ȏ ƨ Ə Ɵ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , ƾ Ɩ Ư ƣ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , Ƙ Ȏ ƨ ƣ Ə Ɵ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , Ǿ Ơ Ư Ɵ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , ǎ Ɩ Ɛ ƣ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , Ǿ ƣ ƒ Ɵ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ , Ɣ Ȏ ƛ Ɛ Ɵ Ʀ ƚ Ƥ … Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǏƝơƟƦƑƤ, ǎƛƘƞơƟƦƑƤ, μƘƦơƩƜƝƏ. ƄƔƣȮ ƗȰ

120

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ǆƦƦƜƝơʎƤ ǾƠƯƟƘƦƔƜ Ʀȶ ƝƔƛƔƣƦƑƤ· ƾμƧƟƦƑƤ, ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƕơƚƛơʝ· ƨƔƜƗƣƧƟƦƑƤ, ƢơƜƝƜƞƦƑƤ, ƝƔƞƞƧƟƦƑƤ, ƢƣƔƭƟƦƑƤ (plurima ex EM 435, 57 – 436, 8 sumpsit Lentz); Su. ƪ 16 1 lm. decurtavi ƦƚƤ] Ʀƚ Ż 2 ȂƟƦƔ om. Ż 3 ƾƖƯƣƦƚƤ] ƾƖƣƮƦƚƤ Ż 4 ǏƝơƟƦȲƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƛƘƞơƟƦȲƤ om. Ż μƘƦơƩƜƝȮ] –ȶƟ Ż 5 ƝƔȴ om. Ż 6 ƪƔƞƦȳƤ Elmsley (vide Hdn. ƝƔƛ. Ƣƣơƥ. I 62, 29; Ɲƞ. ǾƟ. II 682, 21; μơƟ. II 946, 5; [Arcad.] 25, 13; Ioh. Philop. de voc. ƪ2 (rec. a)): ƪȯƞƦƚƤ L: om. H ƢƣƔƭƟƦȳƤ om. H

72a ƾƣƩƐƢƞơƧƦơƟ: ǂƣƩơƟƦƔ ƢƞơƯƦơƧ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƾƣƩƔƒƔƟ ƦƯƩƚƟ ƾƢơƞƚƪƮμƘƟơƟ. L r(G) Su. I 372, 23 (Ɣ 4086, unde Zonar. 294, 5) 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in LG ǂƣƩơƟƦƔ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǂƣ. G: <ƾƣƩƔȵơƧ> ǂƣ. Bernardakis 40 ƝƔȴ – fin.] non ab eodem themate ducit scholiasta ƾƣƩƐƢƞơƧƦơƟ; quare fortasse aut delendum ƝƔƒ et a praecedentibus haec verba seiungenda aut pro ƝƔƒ scribendum est Ǣ (cf. sch. 901.1)

72b (ƝƔƦƔƥƦȯƦƚƟ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƘȎƦƣƘƢƜƥƦȳƟ. Su. III 59, 16 (Ɲ 789)

75a ƟȺ Ɨ' ǒƠƜμƘƟ: ǎƠƜƐƟƔƜ ƕơƯƞơƟƦƔƜ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ƘǲƥơƗơƟ Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex M (nisi quod ƟȺ scripsi: ƟʝƟ ƀ) qui verba ƟʝƟ ǒƠƜμƘƟ (sine Ɨ') repetens explicationi praeposuit: ƟʝƟ ǒƠƜμƘƟ GR: deest in LV; (ƟȺ Ɨ' ǒƠƜμƘƟ n.) R; (75 n.) V Ʃơƣơʝ] ƝƔƜƣơʝ r: om. V

75b ƝƔƜƣȶƤ Ɩȯƣ, ȃƥƢƘƣ ƾƟƗƣƏƥƜƟ: ǎƨ' ǏƝƏƥƦơƧ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦơƤ Ʀȶ ƝƔƒƣƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƚƥƜμưƦƔƦoƟ ǿ ƝƔƜƣȷƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ, ȃƢơƧ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ƥƢơƧƗƔʎƔ ƢƔƣȮ ƝƔƜƣȶƟ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ ơȎƝ ƾƢơƗƐƩơƟƦƔƜ, ȟƤ ǮƔƦƣȶƟ Ʀʭ ƝƏμƟơƟƦƜ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʀƤ ƨƯƥƘƫƤ Ʀơʝ ƟơƥƑμƔƦơƤ ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ <Ǡ> ȟƤ Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ ƦơʎƤ μƘƛƯơƧƥƜ ƢƘƣȴ ƥƫƨƣơƥƯƟƚƤ 5 ƗƜƔƞƐƖơƜƦơ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) Su. II 381, 23 (Ƙ 2615); III 84 23 (Ɲ 1189)

sch. 70 – sch. 81

121

1 lm.] ȃƥƢƘƣ ƾƟƗƣȯƥƜ M: deest in GR et in V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. iungat (ƾƨ' ǏƝȯƥƦơƧ ƗȰ; (ƝƔƜƣȶƤ ƖȮƣ ȃƥƢƘƣ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 75–6 ƝƔƜƣȶƤ – ǎƢƜƥƦȯƦƚƤ ǎƨ’ ǏƝƏƥƦơƧ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦơƤ] ǎƨ' ǏƝƏƥƦʪ ƖȮƣ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦƜ r: ƾƨ’ ǏƝƏƥƦơƧ ƗȰ ƗƣƏμƔƦơƤ V Ʀȶ ƝƔȵƣƜơƟ – 2 ǎƥƦƜƟ, locus sine causa vexatus (cf. sch. 1085.2 ƝơƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ – fin.) Ʀȶ ƝƔȵƣƜơƟ [ƝƔȴ] ƩƣƚƥƜμȻƦƔƦơƟ [ǿ ƝƔƜƣƮƤ] ǎƥƦƜƟ Kruytbosch 74: Ʀȶ [ƝƔƒƣƜơƟ ƝƔȴ] ƩƣƚƥƜμưƦƔƦơƟ ǿ ƝƔƜƣƮƤ ǎƥƦƜ Jahn1: Ʀȶ ƝƔȵƣƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƚƥƜμȻƦƔƦơƟ [ǿ ƝƔƜƣƮƤ] ǎƥƦƜƟ Hense 128 renuente Bernardakis 41: Ʀȶ ƝƯƣƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƚƥƜμưƦƔƦơƟ ǿ ƝƔƜƣƮƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ Meiser 10 1 Ʀȶ ƝƔȵƣƜơƟ sensu quo usurpatur in. sch. Aesch. Ch. 582 ƦȮ ƝƔȵƣƜƔ] ƦȮ ƩƣȳƥƜμƔ 2 ȃƢơƧ] de sensu vide LSJ s.v. II.2 ƢƔƣȮ ƝƔƜƣȶƟ] ƢƔƣƔƝƔƒƣƜƔ r ƖƘƟƮμƘƟƔ q 3 ƦʀƤ om. V 4 ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ] ƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ q <Ǡ> Kruytbosch l.c.: om. codd. et Su. utroque loco 4–5 ƢƘƣȴ ƥƫƨƣơƥȹƟƚƤ ƗƜƔƞƐƖơƜƦơ om. G

78 ƝƔȴ μȲƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ ǒƗơƠƔ: ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ ǿ ƖƐƣƫƟ ơȎƝ ǎƢƜƕƐƕƚƝƘƟ Ʀʭ ƾƞƚƛƘʎ. ƦƜƟȰƤ Ɨȱŭ ƾƢơƥƦʀƥƔƜ ƕơƧƞƮμƘƟơƤ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƢƣơƥƢƮƞƫƟ ƦƜƟȶƤ ƨƚƥȵƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƝƔȴ μȲƟ (μȰƟ G) ƛƧƣʬƟ qr; (ƝƔȴ μȲƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 78–9 ƝƔȴ μȲƟ – ƔǮƥƛȱƥƛƔƜ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ] -ƥƦȶƤ R: de G non constat 2 ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ (ƦƜƟȰƤ compendiose in L)] ƢƣȶƤ ƗȰ Ʀȶ q ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ om. r ƦƜƟȶƤ om. r

78–9 (ƛƧƣʬƟ … ǒƟƗơƟ): Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤŭ ǒƟƗơƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ. L 1 lm. addidi

80 Ǆƣ' ǎƥƦȴƟ ǟ ƗƯƥƦƚƟơƤ: ȏƢȶ ƟƘƮƦƚƦơƤ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƢƔƣƏƖƘƦƔƜ ƨƜƞơƢƘƧƥƦƘʎƟŭ ǿ ƗȰ ƢƣƘƥƕƯƦƚƤ Ʀȶ ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ ƥƝơƢƘʎƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƏƙƘƜ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. accuratiss. vv. 80–5 Ǆƣ' ǎƥƦȴƟ – ƗƣƫμȱƟƫƟ ƢƔƣƔƖȵƟƘƦƔƜ R Ʀȶ ƨ. r

81 (ƾƟƔƝơƯƥƫμƘƟ): ǎƢƔƝơƯƥƫμƘƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley (ƝƾƟƔƝơƯƥƫμƘƟ apud poetam L)

2 ƨƜƞơƢƘƧƥƦƘʎƟ] ƢƣȶƤ

122

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

82 μƚƗȰƟ ƢƣƮƥƛƘƟ: ǃμƔ μȰƟ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ ƥƧμƕơƧƞƘƯƘƜ ƢƘƒƛƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀʭ ƛƘʭ, ǃμƔ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƟŭ ƗƜƘƞƯƛƚ ƖȮƣ ǀƟ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ, ǎƠ ƾƣƩʀƤ μƚƟƧƛƐƟƦơƤ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ. L r(G) 1 lm. deest in G; accuratiss. vv. 82–3 μƚƗȰƟ – ǒƣƗƘƜƟ om. G

2 ƗȰ om. G

ƗƜƘƞƯƛƚ et ǀƟ

86a Ȥ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟƮƟ: ǾƞƮƨƧƣƥƒƤ ǎƥƦƜ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ǎƟ ƦƔʎƤ μơƟʪƗƒƔƜƤ, ȃƢƘƣ ƥƯƟƚƛƘƤ ƦơʎƤ ƦƣƔƖƜƝơʎƤ ƝƜƟƚƦƜƝȶƟ Ʀơʝ ƢȱƟƛơƧƤ. ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ ƘȒƟơƧƟ ǎƥƦȴ Ʀʭ ƾƢơƛƔƟƮƟƦƜ. ǎƢƘȴ ƗȰ ǂƚƛƐƤ ǎƥƦƜ ƢƣȶƤ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘƔƦȮƤ Ǡ ƢƣȶƤ ǏƔƧƦȲƟ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗƜƔƞƐƖƘƥƛƔƜ, ȟƤ ƾƢơμƘμƨơμƐƟƚ ƦơʎƤ ƛƘơʎƤ Ǡ μƏƣƦƧƣƔƤ 5 ƦʬƟ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ ƝƔƞơʝƥƔ, ƢƣȶƤ ƦȮ ƥƦơƜƩƘʎƔ ƢơƜƘʎƦƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟŭ ƝƔȴ ơȓƦƫƤ ǟμʎƟ ƗƚƞƫƛƑƥƘƦƔƜ, ȃƢƫƤ ƗƜƐƝƘƜƦơ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƥƧμƕƏƟƦƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔŭ ǮƥȷμơƜƣơƟ ƗƐ ƨƚƥƜƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƖʀƟ Ʀʭ ƾƐƣƜ, ƢƔƣ' ȃƥơƟ ƢƔƣƔƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƾƞƞƑƞơƜƤ ƦȮ ƥƦơƜƩƘʎƔ ƢƣƐƢƘƜŭ ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ƨƜƞơƥƮƨơƜƤ ǲƥơƤ ƗơƝƘʎ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ƾƟƏƞƧƥƜƟ ǿ ƾȲƣ Ʀʁ Ɩʁŭ ƥƧƟƐƥƦƣƔƢƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ ǟ Ɩʀŭ ƘǮ ƗȰ ƗƜƔƞƧƛʁ, 10 ǮƥƫƛƑƥƘƦƔƜ ƔȎƦʭ. ơȓƦƫƤ ǒƩƘƜ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ǟƥƜƮƗƘƜơƟ

ŷƔʎƔ ƗƐ ƦơƜ ƢƣʬƦơƟ μȰƟ ǎƖƘƒƟƔƦơ ǴƥơƟ ǏƔƧƦʁ ƃȎƣƔƟƮƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(M) 10 Ʀȶ ǟƥƜȷƗƘƜơƟ: Ƈh. 126–7; versum 126 leviter mutavit scholiasta (ǏƫƧƦʁ Hesiodus: ǏƔƧƦʁ scholiasta) 1 lm. deest in V, quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 86d copulet (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); accuratiss. vv. 86–7 Ȥ ƨƏơƤ – ƾȳƣ 2 Ʀơʝ ƢȱƟƛơƧƤ Lq q: Ʀơʝ (om. M) ƢȯƛơƧƤ VM Ʀȶ om. qV 3 ǂƚƛƐƤ ǎƥƦƜ] ǒƟƘƥƦƜƟ q: ǂƟƜƟơƧ (sic) ǎƥƦƜƟ V: ƾƢƘȵƛƔƟơƟ (sic) ǎƥƦȴƟ ƀ ƦơȸƤ om. q Ǡ] Ǡ ƝƔȴ V 4 ǎƔƧƦȶƟ V ƾƢơμƘμƨơμƐƟƚ] μƘμƨơμȱƟƚ V 6 ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ] ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ q 7 ƗȰ ơm. M ȃƥơƟ] ȃƥ. <ǲƥơƟ> Bernardakis 41 ƢƔƣƔƦƘȵƟƘƜ M 8 ƝƔȴ om. M 9 ƦȲƟ om. M ƾƟƏƞƧƥƜƟ] ƾƟƔƞơƖƒƔƟ V Ʀʁ Ɩʁ qVM Lp (Lascaris): ƦʀƤ ƖʀƤ L Ɩʀ] Ɩ. Ʀʭ ƾȱƣƜ ƀ ƘǮ ... ƗƜƔƞƧƛʁ] de hoc constructionis genere (ƘǮ cum coniunct.) cf. ŶDR § 372.4 cum adn. 11; sch. 339–40.2, sch. 369–71.1, sch. 446.7, sch. Tr. 458.1–2, sch. Tr. 587.1, sch. OT 900, sch. OT 901 etc ƗȰ om. M ƗƜƔƞƧƛƘȵƚ ƀ 11 μȰƟ om. V ǎƖƘƒƟƔƦơ] ǎƖƘȵƟƫƦơ ƀ 12 ƃȎƣƔƟȷƟ] ƦȶƟ OȎƣ. q

sch. 82 – sch. 86–90

123

86b ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƟ ƖʀƤ ƾƐƣƔ ƦȶƟ ƥƝƮƦơƟ ƨƚƥȵƟ, ǳƟƔ Ʀʭ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟȷƟ ƾƟƦƜƗƜƔƥƦƐƞƞƚƦƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(M) 1–2 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. (ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƟ ƗȰ Lq q: sine voce coniunctiva VM) separatim scripsi 1 ƾƐƣƔ om. q ƦȶƟ ƥƝȷƦơƟ] ƦȲƟ ƥ. ƀ ƨƚƥƒƟ om. V spatio vacuo relicto Ʀʭ scripsi: Ʀȶ codd. 1–2 ƿƖƟȷƟ ƾƟƦƜƗƜƔƥƦȱƞƞƚƦƔƜ] ƘǮƟȶƟ ƗƜƔƥƦȱƞƚƦƔƜ ƀ 2 post ƾƟƦƜƗƜƔƥƦƐƞƞƚƦƔƜ add. Ʀʭ ƖʀƤ V verba ex sch. 86c.1 ƝƔȴ ƖʀƤ hausta corrumpens

86c ƝƔȴ ƖʀƤ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƤ ƾȳƣ, ǲƥƚƟ μơʎƣƔƟ ǒƩƫƟ Ʀʁ Ɩʁŭ ƢƔƟƦƔƩơʝ ƖƏƣ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƾƑƣ. Ǡ ȃƦƜ Ɩʀ ƝƔȴ ƾȲƣ ƥƦơƜƩƘʎƔ, ǮƥƮƦƜμƔ ƖȮƣ ƦȮ ƦƐƥƥƔƣƔ ƥƦơƜƩƘʎƔ ƾƞƞƑƞơƜƤ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ μƐƥƚ ƾƐƣơƤ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǟ Ɩʀ ƗƜȮ ƦȮ ƾƢȶ ƝƐƟƦƣơƧ ƗƜƔƥƦƑμƔƦƔŭ ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƤ ơȔƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ǲƥơƟ ƾƢƐƩƘƜƟ ƢƔƟƦƔƩƮƛƘƟ ƦʀƤ ƖʀƤ. L q(HŸ) V 1–5 haec a sch. pr. separavi 1 ƝƔȴ ƖʀƤ] de V vide ad sch. 86b.2 ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƤ om. V ǒƩƫƟ qV Lpp.c. (Lascaris): ǒƩơƟ LLpa.c. 2 ƥƦơƜƩƘʎƔ] ƦȮ ƥ. V ƖȮƣ] ƗȰ V (coni. Papageorgiou, sed cf. infra ad sch. 446.6 ƖȮƣ (alt.)) 3 ƦƜƟȰƤ – fin. om. V 3 ƗȰ] Ǡ q μƐƥƚ] μƐƥơƟ Ÿ ǎƥƦȴƟ ante ƾƐƣơƤ transp. q 4 ƢƔƟƦƔƩȷƛƘƟ] ƢƔƟƦƔƩơʝ q

86d (ȥ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟƮƟ ƝƔȴ ƖʀƤ ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƤ ƾƑƣ): ƦƔʝƦƔ ƉƘƣƘƝƣƏƦƚƤ ƢƔƣʫƗƚƝƘƟ ǎƟ ƄȱƣƥƔƜƤ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƾȲƣ Ʀȶ Ɣ ƥƧƟƐƥƦƘƜƞƘƟ ƗƜȮ ʜƧƛμȶƟ Ǡ μƐƦƣơƟ. L q(HŸ) V 1 ƉƘƣƘƝƣȯƦƚƤ: fr. 141 K.–A. 1–3 haec seorsum leguntur in V praeposita scholio 86a: cum sch. 86c coniunguntur in L (ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗȰ) et q (ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ) 1 lm. addidi; (Ȥ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟȶƟ n.) V; Sophoclis verba ǮƥȷμơƜƣ' ƾȳƣ in ǮƥȷμơƜƣơƤ ƾȳƣ depravata legisse scholiastam viderunt Kassel – Austin 2 ƢƔƣʫƗƚƝƘƟ] ƢƔƣƐƗƫƝƘƟ q ǎƟ ƄȱƣƥƔƜƤ (compendiose) habet solus V (vide S. Peppink, ‘Ad Sophoclem eiusque Scholiastam’, Mnemosyne IIIa s. I (1934) 76): deest in cett. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƾȲƣ] Ʀơʝ ƗȰ ƾȲƣ V (et dubitanter coni. Rutherford 162 n.9) 2 Ʀȶ (pr.) – fin. om. q

86–90 (Ȥ ƨƏơƤ –) ȣƤ μơƜ | ƢơƞƞȮƤ μȰƟ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ (–ƔǯμƔƥƥơμƐƟƫƟ): Ȥ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟƮƟ, ȃƥƔ μơƜ ƥƯƟơƜƗƔƤ ƛƣƚƟơƯƥɾ ƝƔȴ ƝơƢƦơμƐƟɾ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƝƔƦƏƞƞƚƞơƟ

124

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ơȓƦƫƤŭ ȟƤ ƢơƞƞȮƤ μȰƟ ɜƗȮƤ ɐƥƛơƧ, ƢơƞƞȮƤ ƗȰ ƢƞƚƖȮƤ ƔǯμƔƥƥơμƐƟƫƟ ƦʬƟ ƥƦƐƣƟƫƟ, ƢƞƚƖȮƤ ƾƟƦƑƣƘƜƤ. L r(GMR) 1–4 de hoc sch. vide Xenis CQ 1 lm. L supplevi: deest in r; (ǮƥȷμơƜƣơƤ s.) R 1–2 Ȥ ƨƏơƤ ƿƖƟȶƟ om. GR 2 ȃƥƔ] ȁƤ R ƥƯƟơƜƗƔƤ, forma recentior pro ƥƯƟơƜƥƛƔ, BDR § 99.2] ƥƧƟơʎƗƔƤ r 3 μȰƟ] μ. μơƧ ƀ ɜƗȮƤ] ɜƗ. ƦʬƟ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ r 4 ƥƦȱƣƟƫƟ] ƥƢƞȯƖƩƟƫƟ ƀ ƢƞƚƖȮƤ ƾƟƦƑƣƘƜƤ om. GR

88 (ƛƣƑƟƫƟ ɜƗƏƤ): ƦƣƔƖƜƝưƦƘƣơƟ [ƗƐ] ƢƫƤ ƾƢƑƖƖƘƞƦƔƜ, ȣƥƦƘ ƦȲƟ ƗƜƏƞƧƥƜƟ ƔȎƦʬƟ μȲ ƢƏƟƧ ƢơƞƜƦƜƝȲƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ. L M r(GR) 1–2 haec a sch. pr. separavi; vide Xenis CQ 1 lm. addidi ƗȰ delevi ƾƢƑƖƖƘƞƦƔƜ] ƾƢƑƖƖƘƜƞƘƟ r 2 ƗƜƏƞƧƥƜƟ ƔȎƦʬƟ, i.e. ƛƣƑƟƫƟ ɜƗƏƤ pro ƛƣƚƟʪƗƒƔƤ; cf. sch. OT 316 … ƗƜƔƞƘƞƧμƐƟƫƤ ƗȰ ƘǴƢƘƟ ƦƐƞƚ ƞƯɾ ƾƟƦȴ ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎƟ

89–90 (ƾƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ … ƢƞƔƖƏƤ): μƘƦʀƝƦƔƜ [ƗȰ] ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ǎƣƘƥƥƮƟƦƫƟ, ơǵơƟ ƢƞƚƖȮƤ ƝƔƦȮ Ʀȶ ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ ƦʬƟ ƥƦƐƣƟƫƟ ǎƞƔƧƟơμƐƟƔƤ. L M r(GR) 1 ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ǎƣƘƥƥƮƟƦƫƟ: cf. EM 112, 28 ǆƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ· ǆƟƦƜƛȱƦơƧƤ, ƾƟƦƘƣȱƥƥơƟƦƔƤ. ŸƜơƖƘƟƜƔƟȷƤ; Hesych. Ɣ 5363 ƾƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ· ƾƟƦƜƛȱƦơƧƤ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ (89) ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ǎƣƘƥƥȷƟƦƫƟ, ȃƦƔƟ ƝƔƦɸ ǲƥơƟ ǎƞƔȹƟƫƥƜ, ƝƔȴ μȲ ǎƢȴ ƛȯƦƘƣƔ ƢƘƣƜƫƛʀƦƔƜ ǟ ƟƔʝƤ 1–2 haec a sch. pr. separavi; vide Xenis CQ 1 lm. addidi ƗȰ delevi ơǵơƟ – fin. ơm. R 2 ǎƞƔƧƟơμƐƟƔƤ om. G

μƘƦʀƝƦƔƜ] μƘƦƑƟƘƝƦƔƜ r

89a1 ƾƟƦƑƣƘƜƤ: ƾƟƦƜƛƐƦơƧƤ. L r(G) Hesych. Ɣ 5363 ƾƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ· ƾƟƦƜƛȱƦơƧƤ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ (89) … ; Su. I 234, 14 (Ɣ 2648) cf. EM 112, 28 ǆƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ· ǆƟƦƜƛȱƦơƧƤ, ƾƟƦƘƣȱƥƥơƟƦƔƤ. ŸƜơƖƘƟƜƔƟȷƤ 1 lm. deest in G ƾƟƦƜƛƐƦơƧƤ] ƾƟƦƜƛƐƦƚƟ G

sch. 86–90 – sch. 92

125

89a2 ƾƟƦƑƣƘƜƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǲƥƔƤ ƦơʎƤ ƛƣƑƟơƜƤŭ μƘƦʀƝƦƔƜ ƗȰ ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ǎƣƘƥƥƮƟƦƫƟ, ȃƦƔƟ ƝƔƦ' ǲƥơƟ ǎƣƐƥƥƫƥƜƟ ƝƔȴ μȲ ƘǮƤ ƛƏƦƘƣơƟ ƢƘƣƜƫƛʀƦƔƜ ǟ ƟƔʝƤŭ ƾƟƦƑƣƘƜƤ ơȔƟ ƾƟƦƜƝƦƧƢơƯƥƔƤ ƦơʎƤ ƛƣƑƟơƜƤŭ ƛƣƚƟơʝƥƔ ƖȮƣ ǒƦƧƢƦƘ Ʀȶ ƥƦʀƛơƤ ƢƣȶƤ ǓƝƔƥƦơƟ. L q(HŸ) r(G) Su. I 234, 14 (Ɣ 2648) 1 ƾƢȶ – 3 ƟƔʝƤ: Hesych. Ɣ 5363 ... ƾƢȶ (Latte ex scholio nostro: ǎƢȴ cod.) ƦʬƟ ǎƣƘƥƥȷƟƦƫƟ, ȃƦƔƟ ƝƔƦɸ ǲƥơƟ ǎƞƔȹƟƫƥƜ, ƝƔȴ μȲ ǎƢȴ ƛȯƦƘƣƔ ƢƘƣƜƫƛʀƦƔƜ ǟ ƟƔʝƤ. cf. EM 112, 28 ǆƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ· ǆƟƦƜƛȱƦơƧƤ, ƾƟƦƘƣȱƥƥơƟƦƔƤ. ŸƜơƖƘƟƜƔƟȷƤ. 1–4 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. Hesych. et Su. separatim scripsi 1 lm. scripsi: ƢơƞƞȮƤ Ɨ' ƾƟƦȳƣƘƜƤ q: deest in LG (vide 1–4) ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǲƥƔƤ om. G μƘƦʀƝƦƔƜ] ƢƔƣʀƝƦƔƜ q ƗȰ om. L 2 ȃƦƔƟ ... ǎƣȱƥƥƫƥƜƟ] ȃƦƜ ... ǎƣȱƥƥơƧƥƜ q ƝƔƦ' ǲƥơƟ] ƝƔƦƜʬƥƜ ƢƘƣƜƫƛʀƦƔƜ Su.Lp: ƢƘƣƜƫƛƘʎƦƔƜ Lq q: ƢƔƣƫƛƘʎƦƔƜ G 3 ƖȮƣ om. G

89b (ɐƥƛơƧ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǒμƔƛƘƤ. Ls.l. G 1 lm. add. Lascaris

90 (ƥƦȱƣƟƫƟ … ƔǯμƔƥƥơμȱƟƫƟ): ƗƜȮ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ǟ ǎƢƒƦƔƥƜƤ. Ls.l. Gs.l. 1 lm. addidi

91 (ȏƢơƞƘƜƨƛʁ): ƢƔƣƐƞƛɾ. Ls.l. q(Żs.l.) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

92 ƦȮ ƗȰ ƢƔƟƟƧƩƒƗƫƟ: ȃƥƔ μƐƟ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƗƜȮ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ ƝƞƔƒƫ Ɣǯ ƘȎƟƔȴ ǲƥƔƥƜƟŭ ȃƥƔ ƗȰ ƗƜ' ǟμƐƣƔƤ ǿ ƾȲƣ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƨʬƤ. ƞƐƖƘƜ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ ơȎ ƗƜƔƞƘƒƢƫ ơȒƦƘ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ ơȒƦƘ ǟμƐƣƔƤ ƝƞƔƒơƧƥƔ. L q(ŻŸ) 2 ƞȱƖƘƜ – fin.: Su. IV 698, 16 (ƨ 88)

126

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm. scripsi: ǿƢƮƦƔƟ ƗƟơƨƘƣƏ (v. 91) L: deest in q; pars ȃƥƔ ƗȰ (2) – fin. ad vv. 86–93 ǿƢƮƦƔƟ – ƘȎƟƔȵ spectat 1 post μȱƟ add. ƖȮƣ q 2 ƝƔȴ] ƘǮƤ q ơȒƦƘ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ – 3 ǟμƐƣƔƤ] ƟƧƝƦȶƤ ƝƔȴ ǟμƐƣƔƤ Su. 3 ƝƞƔȵơƧƥƔ] ƛƣƚƟơʝƥƔ q

94 ȃƥƔ ƦȶƟ ƗƯƥƦƚƟơƟ: ƝƔƦȮ ƕƣƔƩȸ ǎƟƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜ ƦȮ ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛƐƥƘƫƤŭ ǮƗơȸ ƖȮƣ ǒƖƟƫμƘƟ ȃƦƜ ƾƗƘƞƨȲ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƝƔȴ ƗƜȮ Ʀƒ ƛƣƚƟƘʎ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in r; (ƢƔƦȱƣ' s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 94–102 ȃƥƔ – ƛƔƟȷƟƦơƤ ǎƟƗƘȵƝƟƧƥƜ] ǎƟƗƘƒƝƟƧƦƔƜ q: ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜ r 2 ǒƖƟƫμƘƟ] ǒƖƟƫ R: ǎƖƟȻƝƔμƘƟ ƀ post ƛƣƚƟƘʎ ita pergit q: ƢƣȴƟ ƖȮƣ ǞμƨƜƕȯƞƞƘƦơ ƘǲƦƘ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ǎƥƦȴƟ ƘǲƦƘ ƢƣƮƥƢơƞơƤ (cf. vv. 78, 80)

95 ȁƟ ƝƔƦȮ μȰƟ ƕƏƣƕƔƣơƟ ƔǴƔƟ: ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ȏƢȶ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ

ƁƘƝƧƒɯ ơȒƦƘ μ’ ƾƟƏƣƥƜơƜ ǂƟƗƣƘƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ. ƢƏƟƧ ƗȰ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȲƤ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ, ƘǮ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞƘμƒƫƟ ƢƜƝƣơƦƐƣƔ 5 ǎƨƏƟƚ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔ Ʀʭ ǮƗƒʪ ƾƟƗƣƒŭ ơȎƝ ǎƠƐƟƜƥƘƟ ƗȰ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơȎƝ ƾƢƐƝƦƘƜƟƘƟŭ ƠƐƟƜƔ ƖȮƣ ǊƣƘƫƤ ƦƣƔƯμƔƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƜŭ ƝƔȴ ǆƣƩƒƞơƩơƤ ƠƐƟƜƔ ƗƧƥμƘƟƐƘƥƥƜ ƞƧƖƣȮ ƩƔƣƜƙƮμƘƟơƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(G) 5 ƾƟƦȴ – fin.: Su. II 306, 32 (Ƙ 1629); III 493, 2 (Ơ 26) 2 ƁƘƝƧȵɯ: Hom. Od. 11. 408 4 ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ: Hom. Od. 11.408–10 ơȒƦƘ μɸ ƾƟȯƣƥƜơƜ ǂƟƗƣƘƤ ǎƗƚƞȳƥƔƟƦɸ ǎƢȴ ƩȱƣƥơƧ, | ƾƞƞȯ μơƜ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ ƦƘȹƠƔƤ ƛȯƟƔƦȷƟ ƦƘ μȷƣơƟ ƦƘ | ǒƝƦƔ ƥȸƟ ơȎƞơμȱƟɾ ƾƞȷƩʪ ơǴƝȷƟƗƘ ƝƔƞȱƥƥƔƤ 6 ǆƣƩȵƞơƩơƤ: fr. 6 W. 1 lm.] ȁƟ ƝƔƦȮ μȰƟ ƕȯƣƕƔƣơƟ L: deest in G: de Ÿ non constat; accuratiss. vv. 95–8 ȁƟ – ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ 1–2 ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ȏƢȶ ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƁƘƝƧȵɯ] haec ita refecit G ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ɉƗƚ ƞƘƩƛȱƟƦƔ 1 ȏƢȶ] om. HG: de Ÿ non liquet 2 ƁƘƝƧƒɯ Lascaris: ƁƘƝƯƔ Lq q 3 ơȒƦƘ] ȃƥƦƘ G μ' codd. homerici: μƘ Lq q: om. G ƾƟƏƣƥƜơƜ] ƾƟƮƥƜơƜ q 5 ǎƨƏƟƚ žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔ] ž. ǎƨ. G žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔ L, ut semper: žƞƧƦƔƜμƟȳƥƦƣƔ constanter cett.; quae posthac non notabo ơȎƝ (alt.) om. q 5–6 ơȎƝ ƾƢƐƝƦƘƜƟƘƟ] ơȎ ƝƔƦƐƝƦƘƜƟƘ G 6 ƠȱƟƜƔ LŸSu. III 493, 2: ƠƘƟƒƔ ŻSu. II 307, 2 ǊƣƘƫƤ Lq qSu. II 307, 2: ǊƣƘơƤ Su. III 493, 2 ƝƔȴ (pr.) Su. utroque loco: om. codd. in verbis ƠƐƟƜƔ usque ad ƨƮƟơƜ v. tragicum agnovit et ita restituit West: ƠƐƟƜƔ ƖȮƣ ǊƣƘƫƤ ƦƣƔƯμƔƦ’ <ǎƥƦȴ> ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƜ 7 ƠƐƟƜƔ Lq qGSu. III 493, 2 et Sudae II 307, 2 cod. V: ƠƘȵƟƜƔ Sudae II 307, 2 codd. AGITFM ƗƧƥμƘƟƐƘƥƥƜ L et Sudae III 493, 3 cod. V: ƗƧƥμƘƟȱƥƜƟ coni. Sudae ed. pr. Chalcocondyles): ƗƧƥμƘƟȱƥƜ q et Sudae III 493, 3 cod.

sch. 92 – sch. 102

F: ƗƧƥμƘƟƐƘƥƜ GSu. II 307, 2–3 et Sudae III 493, 3 codd. AGM Su. utroque loco

127 ƩƔƣƜƙƮμƘƟơƜ] -μƘƟơƤ

95–6 (ȃƟ – ǎƠƐƟƜƥƘƟ): ƢƏƟƧ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ ƢƜƝƣơƦƐƣƔƟ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ Ʀʭ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƜ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞȱμơƧ ƝƔȴ ƾƞƞơƗƔƢʀƤ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ. L 1 lm. addidi 2 cum ƾƞƞơƗƔƢʀƤ subaudiendum esse ƖʀƤ vidit Zielinski 7, cf. sch. 865.3; quo non intellecto ita locum refecerunt: ƢơƞƘμƒơƧ ƝƔȴ ƾƞƞơƗƔƢʀƤ Trendelenburg 125 adn. 31, ƢơƞƐμơƧ ƝƔȴ ƾƞƞơƗƚμȵƔƤ Wansink 45

98 (ȃƢƫƤ ƗƣʝƟ ȏƞơƦƮμơƜ): ƢƏƟƧ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ Ʀȶ ǎƢȴ ƦƚƞƜƝơƯƦơƧ ƝƔȴ ƦơƥƔʝƦƔ ƗƜƔƢƣƔƠƔμƐƟơƧ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ȃƢƫƤ ƗƣʝƟ ȏƞơƦƮμơƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(G) 3 v. 98 1–3 annotatio nova in V: post sch. 95.5 ƾƟƗƣƒ leguntur in cett. (ƢƏƟƧ ƖȮƣ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ) 1 lm. addidi ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ] -ʬƤ V: ƢƜƝƣȶƟ G 2 ƦơƥƔʝƦƔ] ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ V ƗƜƔƢƣƔƠƔμƐƟơƧ] -ƠƏμƘƟơƤ G ƘǮƢƘʎƟ q: Ʀȶ ƘǮƢ. LVG 3 ȃƢƫƤ] ȟƤ V

100–1 (ƝơȎƗƘȴƤ –) Ǡ 'μơʝ ƨƐƣƘƦƔƜ: ƘǮ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ƦʀƤ ƊƣƧƥơƛƐμƜƗơƤ ƢƔƣƏƝƘƜƦƔƜ, ƔȓƦƚ ƖƘ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƢƏƟƧ ƾƞƖƘʎƟ ơȎƗƐƟƔ ƝƔƦ' ƾƠƒƔƟ ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƘƜƟ ƦʬƟ ƖƘƖơƟƮƦƫƟ ơǲƘƦƔƜ Ǡ μƮƟƚƟ ƔȎƦƑƟ. L r(G) 1 lm. L supplevi: deest in G ƘǮ] ƘǮ ƗȰ L 2 ƗƜȮ om. G Ʀȶ] Ʀơʝ G ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƘƜƟ – 3 ƖƘƖơƟƮƦƫƟ] Ʀ. Ɩ. ƨ. G 3 ơǲƘƦƔƜ] ƘǲƫƛƘ G ƔȎƦȲƟ] ƔȏƦȲƟ Neue 106 et Bernardakis 41

102 ƾƗƒƝƫƤ ơǮƝƦƣʬƤ: ǒƟ ƦƜƥƜƟ ȏƢȷƝƘƜƦƔƜ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƗƒƝƫƤ ƾƘƜƝʬƤŭ ƝƔȴ ơǮƝƦƣʬƤ μȰƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƕƒɯ ƝƔȴ ǎƢƜƕơƧƞƘƧƛƐƟƦƔ <ƛƔƟƘʎƟ>, ƾƘƜƝʬƤ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ ƢƘƞƐƝƘƜ ƔȎƦȶƟ μƘƛ' ȓƕƣƘƫƤ ǎƦƒƥƔƟƦơ. L r(GƀR) 2 ơǮƝƦƣʬƤ – fin.: Su. I 62, 16 (Ɣ 627)

128

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm.] ƾƗȵƝƫƤ ƀ: deest in GR; (ƾƗȵƝƫƤ s.) R ƦƜƥƜƟ, compendiose, L (cf. supra ad sch. 45.6): ƦƜ r ǒƟ ƦƜƥƜƟ ȏƢȷƝƘƜƦƔƜ] ǎƟ Ʀʭ ȏƢơμƟȳμƔƦƜ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ Jahn1 prob. Bernardakis 41: ǒƟ ƦƜƥƜ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ Dindorf 118 coll. sch. 232a1 et Bernardakis l.c. ƾƘƜƝʬƤ] ƾƘƜƝ. ơǮƝƦƣʬƤ r 2 μȰƟ] ƗȰ ƀ Ʀȶ om. M ƝƔȴ om. ƀ <ƛƔƟƘʎƟ> cunctanter Papageorgiou2 ƠƘŦ ȃƦƜ] ƗƜƮƦƜ Su. 3 ǎƦƒƥƔƟƦơ rSu.: ǎƦȵƥƔƦơ L

103–4 ƾƞƞ' ơȎ μȰƟ ƗȲ | ƞƑƠƫ: ǿ ƟơʝƤŭ ƾƞƞ' ơȎ ƞƑƠƫ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ ơȒƦƘ ǟμƐƣƔƤ ơȒƦƘ ƟƧƝƦȶƤ ǾƗƧƣơμƐƟƚ, ǓƫƤ ǀƟ ƟƯƝƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƨʬƤ ƕƞƐƢƫ, ȣƥƦƘ μȲ ƾƚƗƮƟơƤ ƦƣƮƢʪ ǞƩư ƦƜƟƔ ƢƣơƢƐμƢƘƜƟ ƦʬƟ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟ ƢƔƦƣʫƫƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ. L q(ŻŸ) Mii r(GƀiR) Su. IV 295, 17 (ƣ 178) 1 lm.] ơȎ ƞȳƠƫ ƛƣȳƟƫƟ q: Ǡ 'μơʝ ƨȱƣƘƦƔƜ ƀi: deest in RMii et in G quippe qui hoc sch. scholio 100–1 annectat; (Ǡ 'μơʝ ƨȱƣƘƦƔƜ s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 103–9 ƾƞƞ' ơȎ – ƢƣơƨƫƟƘʎƟ ǿ ƟơʝƤ] ǿ ƗȰ ƟơʝƤ r: om. qMii ƾƞƞ' om. qMii ơȎ ƞƑƠƫ om. Mii ii ƛƣƑƟƫƟ] ƛƣƚƟơʝƥƔ q: om. M 2 ǾƗƧƣơμƐƟƚ – ƟƯƝƦƔ om. r ǓƫƤ ǀƟ] ǎȮƟ ƀii ǀƟ om. q 2 ƝƔȴ – fin.] annotatio nova in r; ad lm. ƞƘƯƥƫ (sic, simplici ƥ) adscripsit MiR; lemmate caret G ƕƞƐƢƫ] ƕƞƐƢƘƜƟ G 3 ƦƣƮƢʪ] ƦƣƮƢơƟ ƀii ǞƩư] Ǥ ƩƫƣƒƤ R ƢƣơƢȱμƢƘƜƟ] ƢƣơƢȱμƢƘƜ r

108–9 ǎƢȴ ƝƫƝƧƦʭ … ǞƩȻ: ƦȲƟ ǎƢȴ ƝƫƝƧƦʭ ǞƩȻ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝƑƟ. L V Mi r(GMiiR) 1 ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝƑƟ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 22. 447 Ɲ ƫ Ɲ Ƨ Ʀ ơ ʝ Ɨ ’ Ǣ Ɲ ơ Ƨ ƥ Ƙ Ɵ : ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƛƣƑƟơƧ ǢƝơƧƥƘ; Hesych. Ɲ 4799, 4801; Ɔ Ɲ 532; vide test. ad Phot. Ɲ 1293 allata 1 lm. scripsi: ǎƢȴ ƝƫƝƧƦʭ Mii: deest in LVƀiGR in initio scholii subauditur Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ (vide infra ad sch. 1253) ƝƫƝƧƦʭ V: (ƦʬƟ praeposuit r) ƝƫƝƧƦʬƟ LMir ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝȳƟ r (coni. Elmsley): -ƦƜƝʬƟ L: -ƦƜƝȶƟ V: -ƦƜƝʬƤ ƀi

111 (ƢƮƦƟƜ' ƾƣȯ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƢơƜƟƒƔ ƾƣƏ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ. L; Ɩƣ. del. post Wunder 37 Wolff 226 ƢơƜƟƒƔ ƾƣƏ coniecturis scholiastae annumerans

sch. 102 – sch. 120

129

112 ƥƘμƟƔƒ ƦƘ ƛƘʬƟ: ƘȎƨƑμƫƤ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ŹȎμƘƟƒƗƘƤ. L r(G) cf. sch. Eur. Or. 37 Ǿ Ɵ ơ μ Ə ƙ Ƙ Ɯ Ɵ Ɩ Ȯ ƣ Ɣ Ǯ Ɨ ơ ʝ μ Ɣ Ɯ ƛ Ƙ Ə Ƥ : ƦȮƤ ǖƣƜƟʝƤ. ơȎƝ ǾƟơμƏƙơƧƥƜ ƗȰ, ƾƞƞ’ ƘȎƨƚμƜƙƮμƘƟơƜ ƥƘμƟȮƤ ƛƘȮƤ Ǡ ŹȎμƘƟƒƗƔƤ ƝƔƞơʝƥƜƟ; sch. vet. Ar. Nub. 265b …ȟƤ ƦȮƤ ǖƣƜƟʝƤ, ǁƤ ǎƝƦƣƘƢƮμƘƟơƜ ƢƏƟƦƘƤ ǾƟơμƔƥƦȴ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ŹȎμƘƟƒƗƔƤ ƔȎƦȮƤ ƝƔȴ ƥƘμƟȮƤ ƛƘȮƤ ƢƣơƥƚƖƮƣƘƧƥƔƟ; Hesych. ƥ 408 ƥ Ƙ μ Ɵ Ɣ ȴ ƛ Ƙ Ɣ ƒ · ƦȮƤ ŹȎμƘƟƒƗƔƤ ơȓƦƫƤ ǒƞƘƖơƟ, ƝƔȴ ǖƣƜƟƯƔƤ ǎƢȴ ƘȎƨƚμƜƥμʭ; Phot. 506, 11 ƆƘμƟƔȴ ƛƘƔƒ: ƝƔƦ’ ƘȎƨƚμƜƥμȶƟ Ɣǯ ǖƣƜƟƯƘƤŭ ȣƥƢƘƣ Ɣǯ ƔȎƦƔȴ ƝƔȴ ŹȎμƘƟƒƗƘƤ ǎƝƔƞơʝƟƦơ. ǤƥƔƟ ƗȰ ƦƣƘʎƤ; pauca ad rem confert Harp. 271, 11 ƆƘμƟƔȴ ƛƘƔƒŭ ơȓƦƫ ƝƔƞơʝƥƜƟ ǆƛƚƟƔʎơƜ ƦȮƤ ǖƣƜƟƟƯƔƤ = Phot. 506, 13 = Su. ƥ 222 1 lm. deest in G ȟƤ om. G

119 ƥƫƝʬ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǮƥƩƯƫ, ơǯ ƗȰ ƟƘưƦƘƣơƜ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƥʫƙƫ. L V r(GM) Su. IV 405, 32 qui post ǮƥƩȹƫ addidit ƗȹƟƔμƔƜ et omisit ƟƘȻƦƘƣơƜ 1 cf. Eust. Il. III 228, 22–3 ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ƥƫƝʬ, ȁ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀʭ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǮƥƩƯƫ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ, Ǡ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ƥƏƘƜƟ ơǴƝơƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜ ƥʫƙƘƜƟ; Zonar. 1706, 32 ƆƫƝʬ Ʀȶ ƕơƚƛʬ ƝƔȴ ǮƥƩƯƫ. ƝƔȴ ƥưƙƘƜƟ. ǮƥƩȹƫ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 16. 181 ȃƛƘƟ ƝƔȴ „ƥʬƝơƤ“ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƥƫƝƘʎƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǮƥƩƯƘƜƟ.; Apollon. S. 148, 20 ƥʬƝơƟ ơȔƟ ƥƧƟƫƟƯμƫƤ Ʀʭ ƝƣƔƦƯƤ. ƝƔȴ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ƘǮƥƏƖƘƜ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ “μơƯƟƚ ƖȮƣ ǂƖƘƜƟ ơȎƝƐƦƜ ƥƫƝʬ ƞƯƢƚƤ ƾƟƦƒƣƣơƛơƟ ǂƩƛơƤ” ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơȎƝƐƦƜ ǮƥƩƯƫ; Hesych. ƥ 3064 ƥ ƫ Ɲ Ƙ ʎ · ǮƥƩƯƘƜ. ƕơƚƛƘʎ; Phot. 563, 18 ƥƫƝƘʎƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǮƥƩƯƘƜƟ; EM 742, 10 ƆʬƝơƤ: ǖƢƒƛƘƦơƟ Ǘƣμơʝ· ǢƦơƜ ǿ ǮƥƩƧƣƮƤ· (ƥƫƝƘʎƟ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ǮƥƩƯƘƜƟ· ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ, ƃȎƝƐƦƜ ƥƫƝʬ) 1 lm. deest in LVM; (ƥƫƝʬ s./n.) L/V ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ om. M ǮƥƩƯƫ] ƗȹƟƔμƔƜ Ǡ Ǯƥ. ƀ; additamentum ƗȹƟƔμƔƜ omisso Ǡ in fin. scholii demigravit in G ƟƘưƦƘƣơƜ] ƟƐơƜ r

120 ƾƟƦȵƣƣơƢơƟ: Ǡ Ʀȶ ƝƔƦƔƕƔƣơʝƟ ƝƔȴ ƝƔƦƔƨƘƣƮμƘƟơƟ, ȁ ƨƐƣƘƜƟ ơȎ ƗƯƟƔμƔƜ. Ǡ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ ƗƘʎ ơȓƦƫƤ Ʀȶ ƾƟƦƒƣƣơƢơƟŭ ȃƢƘƣ ǀƟ ƘǴƩƘƟ ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ ƨƐƣƘƜƟ ƢƔƣȻƟ, ȣƥƦƘ ƝơƜƟʁ ǟμɱƤ ƔȎƦȶ ƨƐƣƘƜƟŭ μƮƟƚ ƖȮƣ ƨƐƣƘƜƟ ơȎƝƐƦƜ ǮƥƩƯƫ. L q(ŻŸ) r(ƀ) 1 ƝƔƦƔƕƔƣơʝƟ – ƝƔƦƔƨƘƣȷμƘƟơƟ: Su. IV 405, 33 (ƥ 832) q: ơȎƝȱƦƜ ƥƫƝʬ ƀ Ǡ Ʀȶ] ǢƦơƜ ƀ 1 lm. scripsi: μơȹƟƚ (μȷƟƚ q) ƖȮƣ ǂƖƘƜƟ (v. 119) Lq 3 ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ scripsi: ǎƝƘʎƟơƤ codd. post ƝƔƦƔƕƔƣơʝƟ add. μȰ MSu. ƝƔȴ om. q ƢƔƣưƟ] -ȷƟ q 3 μƮƟƚ – 4 ƨƐƣƘƜƟ om. q 4 ƔȎƦȶ (3) ante ƨȱƣƘƜƟ add. ƀ

130

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

121 ǮȺ ƢƔʎ, ƢƔʎ: ƢƏƣơƗƮƤ ǎƥƦƜ Ʃơƣơʝ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ƥƧƟƔƩƛơμƐƟƫƟ. ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦƏƦƔƤ ƗȰ ƦʀƤ ǎƠƫƞƘƥƦƏƦƚƤŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǎƢȴ ơǲƝƦơƧ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 2 ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦȯƦƔƤ – fin.: cf. Su. II 153, 18 (Ɨ 1696) Ÿ Ư ƥ Ʀ ƚ Ɵ ơ Ƥ : ƦƔƞƔƒƢƫƣơƤ, ƗƧƥƦƧƩƑƤ, ǂƛƞƜơƤ. ƦƏƦƦƘƦƔƜ ƗȰ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ƗƧƥƦƚƟơƦƏƦƚ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƠƫƞƘƥƦƏƦƚ, ơȎƝ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ơǲƝƦơƧ, ǎƟ ơǵƤ ƨƚƥƜƟ· ǮȺ ƢƔʎ ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦƏƦƔƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ μƚƦƣƮƤ. ơȎ ƖƏƣ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƟʝƟ ǎƢȴ ơǲƝƦơƧ. 1 lm.] ǮȺ ƗƧƥƦƚƟơƦƏƦƔƤ (-ƥƦƔ-Ÿ) q: ǮȺ ƢƔʎ ƀ: deest in GR; (ǮȺ ƢƔʎ n.) R Ʃơƣơʝ] Ʃơƣʭ Ÿ: om. r: de H non constat 2 ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦȯƦƔƤ] ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦƏƦƔƜƤ (ƗƧƥƛƔ- MR) r: ƗƧƥƦƚƟơƦȯƦƔƤ q post ƗƧƥƦƔƟơƦȯƦƔƤ ƗȰ add. ƟʝƟ Roemer 661, inutiliter ƦʀƤ ǎƠƫƞƘƥƦȯƦƚƤ NFOWaq qSu.: ƦʀƤ ǎƠơƞƘƥƦȯƦƚƤ L: ƝƔȴ ƦƔʎƤ ǎƠƫƞƘƥƦƏƦƔƜƤ r

122–3 (ƦƒƟ' – ơǮμƫƖƏƟ;): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƗƜȮ Ʀƒ ƦƑƝɾ Ʀʁ ƾƝơƣƐƥƦʪ ơǮμƫƖʁ; L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi; (ƦȯƝƘƜƤ n.) R; (ƦȵƟ' ƾƘȴ n.) V ƦƑƝƘƜ G

ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơm. r

ƗƜȮ Ʀȵ ƦȳƝɾ] ƗƜƔƦȳƝƚ ƀR:

124 (ƾƛƘƫƦƏƦƔƤ): ƾƥƘƕơʝƤ. Ls.l. Gs.l. 1 cf. Hesych. Ɣ 7636 ƾ ƥ Ƙ ƕ Ƒ Ƥ · ǂƛƘơƤ. ƿμƔƣƦƫƞƮƤ 1 lm. add. Lascaris

125 (μƔƦƣȶƤ ƿƞƮƟƦ' ƾƢƏƦƔƜƤ): μƚƦƣȶƤ ƿƞƮƟƦƔ ƢƞƚƖƔʎƤ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

sch. 121 – sch. 131

131

126–7 ȟƤ ǿ ƦƏƗƘ ƢơƣȻƟ – ƔȎƗɱƟ: ƞƒƔƟ ƔǮƗƑμƫƟ ǿ ƩơƣȷƤ, ȁƤ ǎƢȴ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ƦƣƐƢƘƜ ƦȲƟ ƔǮƦƒƔƟŭ ƝƔȴ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǲƗƜơƟ Ʀȶ μƚƗȰ ǎƢȴ ƦơʎƤ ƢƣơƨƔƟƐƥƜƟ ƿμƔƣƦƑμƔƥƜƟ ƝƔƦƔƞƐƖƘƜƟ ǂƞƞƚƤ ƖƧƟƔƜƝƮƤ. ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ

Ƙǲ μơƜ ƛƐμƜƤ ƦƏƗ' ƔȎƗɱƟ 5 ƞƒƔƟ ǞƛƜƝȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƿƣμƮƙơƟ ƖƧƟƔƜƠƒƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 4 v. 127 q: ƝƔƝɲ ƦƘ (v. 126) 1 lm. scripsi praeeunte Brunck1: μƔƦƣȶƤ ƿƞȷƟƦ' ƾƢȯƦƔƜƤ (=v. 125) Lq ƀ: deest in GR; (ƝƔƝɲ ƦƘ n.) R ƔǮƗƑμƫƟ] ƔǮƗƚμƮƟƫƤ r post ƔǮƗȳμƫƟ add. ǎƥƦȴƟ Wa ȁƤ] ȟƤ r: del. Lascaris 2 ƦƣƐƢƘƜ] ƢƣƐƢƘƜ G ƝƔȴ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ] Ɩ. ƗȰ q: Ɩ. ƖȮƣ Wa μƚƗȰ] μȲ ƀ 3 ǂƞƞƚƤ] ǂƞƞƫƤ r 5 ǞƛƜƝȶƟ] ǞƛƜƝʬƤ r ƿƣμȷƙơƟ] ƿƣμƮƙơƟƦƫƤ r

128 (Ƙǲ μơƜ – ƔȎƗɱƟ): ǎƢƘȴ ƝƔƦ' ƾƣƩƮƟƦƫƟ ǤƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ Ǡ ǎƢƘȴ ƗơƝƘʎ ƗƧƥƨƚμƘʎƟ ƨƚƥȵƟŭ ƘǮ ƗƒƝƔƜƮƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ, ơȓƦƫƤ ƘȒƩơμƔƜ. L V r(G) 1 lm. addidi; (129 n.) V ǎƢƘȴ (pr.)] ǎƢȴ G ǤƟ om. G ǎƢƘȴ (alt.)] ǎƢȴ V 2 ƘǮ ƗƒƝƔƜơƟ] ǎƢƜƗƒƝƔƜơƟ G ƗȵƝƔƜơƟ] ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ V ǎƥƦƜƟ, ơȓƦƫƤ ƘȒƩơμƔƜ] ǎƥƦƜƟ ơȓƦƫƤ ƘȒƩƘƥƛƔȵ μƘ Papageorgiou2 ơƔŪ, haud male ƘȒƩơμƔƜ] ǒƩơμƔƜ V

129 (Ȥ ƖƘƟƐƛƞƔ ƖƘƟƟƔƒƫƟ): Ȥ ƢƔʎƗƘƤ ƦʬƟ ƘȎƖƘƟʬƟ ƀƧƝƚƟƔƒƫƟ. L V 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

131 ơǴƗȯ ƦƘ: ơǴƗƔ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǁ ƢƣƏƦƦƫ ƝƔȴ ơȎ ƞƔƟƛƏƟƘƜ μƘ ȃƦƜ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀȶ ƗƐơƟ ƢơƜʬŭ Ǡ ơǴƗƔ ȃƦƜ μơƜ ƘȎƟơƘʎƦƘ, ǳƟƔ ƥƧƟƏƢƦɾ Ʀʭ ƢƣơƝƘƜμƐƟʪ ǣƝƘƦ' ǎμʬƟ ƝƔμƏƦƫƟ ƢƔƣƔμƯƛƜơƟŭ ǂμƘƜƟơƟ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƢƣʬƦơƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GMR) 1 ƞƔƟƛȯƟƘƜ: cf. Su. IV 772, 1 (ƨ 811)

3 v. 130

1 lm. ex M (coni. iam Brunck1; hoc esse verum lemma vidit etiam Kruytbosch 75): ǣƝƘƦ' ǎμʬƟ ƝƔμȯƦƫƟ (=v. 130) Lqq: deest in GR; accuratiss. 131–2 ơǴƗƏ ƦƘ – ƨƧƖƖƏƟƘƜ 2 ƢơƜʬ] Ɩơʬ Kruytbosch 74, inutiliter Ǡ – fin. om. MR 2 ƘȎƟơƘʎƦƘ] ƘȎƟơʎƦƘ. ƦơʝƦơ ƗƐ ƨƚƥƜ G ǳƟƔ] ƘǮƤ ǁ Ÿ ƥƧƟƏƢƦƫ q Ʀʭ om. Ÿ 4 ǂμƘƜƟơƟ – fin. om. q

132

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

135–6 ǎɱƦƘ – ǯƝƟơʝμƔƜ: ƦơƜơʝƦơƜ ƖȮƣ ƢơƞƞƏƝƜƤ ơǯ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƢƏƛƘƥƜ ƢƔƣƚƖơƣơƯμƘƟơƜ, ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƟƦƘƤ ƥƧƖƩƫƣƘʎƥƛƔƜ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ. L q(ŻŸ) M r(G) 1 lm. scripsi praeeunte Lascaris (ǎɱƦƘ μ’ ȥƗƘ): ƾƞƞ' Ȥ ƢƔƟƦơƒƔƤ q: ȥƗ' ƾƞȹƘƜƟ ƀ: deest in LG ƦơƜơʝƦơƜ ƖȮƣ ƢơƞƞȯƝƜƤ] ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƖȮƣ ƢơƞƞȯƝƜƤ ƢơƜơʝƥƜƟ G ǎƟ om. G 2 ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƟƦƘƤ] ƝƔȴ Ƣ. G

135 ƾƞƯƘƜƟ: Ʀȶ ǎƟ ǂƞɾ ƗƧƥƨơƣƘʎƟ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜ. ǎƟƒơƦƘ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƖƘƖƚƛƐƟƔƜ, ƾƢȶ ƦʀƤ ƾƞƐƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƔƩƯƥƘƫƤŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ Ǡ ƾƞƯƘƜƤ ȃƦƜ ǼƣơƟ ǎƟƒƝƚƥƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƞƑƦƚƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GM) Su. I 128, 15 (Ɣ 1428) 1 Ʀȶ ǎƟ ǂƞɾ ... ƥƚμƔȵƟƘƜ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 22.70 ƾ ƞ Ư ƥ ƥ ơ Ɵ Ʀ Ƙ Ƥ : ȏƢȶ ƢƞƚƥμơƟʀƤ ƾƞƯơƟƦƘƤ, ơǵơƟ ǎƟ ǂƞɾ ȂƟƦƘƤ, ƗƧƥƨơƣơʝƟƦƘƤ; sch. Eur. Hipp. 1182 Ʀƒ ƦƔʝƦ’ ƾƞƯƫ: ƗƧƥƨơƣʬ; Eust. Il. II 361, 1–2 ƾƞƯƘƜƟ … ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ μƘƦȮ ƞƯƢƚƤ ƢƘƣƜƢƏƦơƧ; Źƀ 72, 30–3 ǆƞƯƫ: ƆƚμƔƒƟƘƜ Ʀȶ ƗƧƥƨơƣƘʎƟ… Ǡ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ƾƞʬ Ʀȶ ƢƞƔƟʬμƔƜ 1–4 Ʀȶ ƖƘƖƚƛȱƟƔƜ sqq.: cf. sch. Aesch. Sept. Theb. 391e ƾƞƯƫ Ʀȶ ƩƔƒƣƫ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ ǎƟ ȆƗƧƥƥƘƒɯ· Ǥ ƾ ƞ Ư Ƙ Ɯ Ƥ ȃ Ʀ Ɯ Ǽ ƣ ơ Ɵ ǎ Ɵ ƒ Ɲ ƚ ƥ Ɣ Ƥ < Ʀ ȶ Ɵ > ƾ ƞ Ƒ Ʀ ƚ Ɵ …; Apollon. S. 23, 26 ǿƦȰ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƾƞƯƘƜƟ ƝƔƦ’ ƾƟƦƒƨƣƔƥƜƟ Ʀȶ ƩƔƒƣƘƜƟ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜŭ «Ǡ ƾƞƯƘƜƤ ȃƦƜ ǼƣơƟ ǎƟƒƝƚƥƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƿƞƒƦƚƟ»; Hesych. Ɣ 3286 ƾ ƞ Ư Ƙ Ɯ Ɵ · ... Ɨƚƞơʎ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƩƔƒƣƘƜƟ, ƝƔȴ ƗƜƔƩƘʎƥƛƔƜ; Eust. Il. II 361, 6–8 žƘʎƦƔƜ ƗƐ, ƨƔƥƒ, ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ ƩƔƣɱƤ … ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ƾƞƘƔƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ ƪƧƩȲƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƔƩƘʎƥƛƔƜ, ơǵơƟ «Ǡ ƾƞƯƘƜƤ ȃƦƜ ǼƣơƟ ǎƟƒƝƚƥƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƞƑƦƚƟ»; EM 72, 34–8 Ÿƚƞơʎ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƩƔƒƣƫ, ȟƤ Ʀȶ Ǩ ƾƞƯƘƜƤ ȃƦƜ ǼƣơƟ ǎƟƒƝƚƥƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƞƑƦƚƟũ … Ǩ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ǂƖƔƟ 3 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Od. 18. 333 ƞƘƞƯƥƛƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƔƝƘƩƯƥƛƔƜ ƝƔȴ ǎƢƔƒƣƘƥƛƔƜ. 1 lm.] ǎɱƦƐ μ' ȥƗ' ƾƞƯƘƜƟ q: ƾƞƯƘƜƟ ƗȰ r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 135–6 copulet ƾƞȹƘƜƟ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ ante Ʀȶ (om. q) ǎƟ ǂƞɾ habet q Ʀȶ (om. q) ǎƟ ǂƞɾ qSu. (hoc commendat Dindorf 118 et Kruytbosch 75): Ʀȶ ƾƗƚμơƟƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ G: ǎƟ ǂƞƖƘƜ ƀ: ǎƟ ǂƞƞƫ L: ǎƟ ǂƞƞơƜƤ Lp (Lascaris) ƗƧƥƨơƣƘʎƟ ƥƚμƔȵƟƘƜ. ǎƟȵơƦƘ ƗȰ] ƗƧƥƨơƣƘʎƟ. ƥƚμƔȵƟƘƜ (ƘǮ ƀ e compendiosa scriptura ƥƚ male soluta) ƗȰ ǎƟȵơƦƘ ƝƔȴ GƀSu.: ƗƧƥƨơƣƘʎƟ. ǎƟƒơƦƘ ƗȰ q Ʀȶ (alt.) om. q 3 ȋμƚƣơƤ – fin. om. M ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ȋμ. GSu.

sch. 135–36 – sch. 139b

133

138 (ƢƔƖƝơƒƟơƧ): ƘǮƤ ǡƟ ǃƢƔƟƦƔƤ ƾƨƜƝȱƥƛƔƜ ƗƘʎ. Ls.l. V Su. IV 1, 23 (Ƣ 14) 1 lm. add. Źlmsley; (ƢƔƖƝơȵƟơƧ n.) V

ƾƨƜƝȱƥƛƔƜ VWaSu.: ǎƨƜƝȱƥƛƔƜ L

139a ơȒƦƘ ƖƮơƜƤ ơȒƦƘ ƞƜƦƔʎƥƜƟ: ơȒƦƘ ǾƗƧƣơμƐƟƚ ơȒƦƘ ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƥƔ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơƯƤŭ ƝƔȴ ŵǮƥƩƯƞơƤ

μƮƟơƤ ƖȮƣ ƛƘʬƟ żƏƟƔƦơƤ ơȎ ƗưƣƫƟ ǎƣɲ, μƮƟơƤ ơȎ ƗƐƩƘƦƔƜ ƖƞƧƝƘƣɱƤ μƐƣơƤ ǎƞƢƒƗơƤ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) Su. IV 1, 23 (Ƣ 14) 2 ŵǮƥƩȹƞơƤ: fr. 161.1 R. μƮƟơƤ ƛƘʬƟ ƖȮƣ żƏƟƔƦơƤ ơȎ ƗưƣƫƟ ǎƣɲ 1 lm.] ƦʬƟ μƘƦƣȵƫƟ ƀ: deest in HVGR; (140 n.) R; (139 n.) V 1–2 ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƥƔ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơȸƤ] ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƥƔ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơȸƤ ƦơʝƦơƟ ƾƟƔƥƦƑƥƘƜƤ Su: ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞơʝƥƔ ƾƟƔƥƦƑƥƘƜƤ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ƝƔȴ ƞƜƦƔƟƘƯơƧƥƔ ƦơȸƤ ǎƟ ɉƗɾ ƛƘơȸƤ r 3 ƖȮƣ ƛƘʬƟ LHV: ƖȮƣ ƛƘȶƟ (ƛƟʳ compendiose ƀR) GƀR (cave de Marco 174 et Radt credas ƛƘʬƟ in GR exstare): ƛƘʬƟ ƖƘ Su. ơȎ ƗưƣƫƟ LHVSu.: ơȎƗ' ȟƣƫƟ G: om. ƀR ǎƣɲ LHVSu.: ǎƣƔƜơƟ G: om. ƀR 4 μƮƟơƤ om. Su.

139b ơȒƦƘ ƖƮơƜƤ: ȋμƚƣơƤ

ơȎ ƖƏƣ ƦƜƤ ƢƣʀƠƜƤ ƢƐƞƘƦƔƜ ƝƣƧƘƣơʎơ ƖƮơƜơ. L r(GƀR) Su. IV 1, 24 (Ƣ 14) 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Žl. 24. 524 1–2 hoc sch. separatim legitur in Lrr: ante sch. 139a.2 ƝƔȴ ŵǮƥƩƯƞơƤ inseruit Su. 1 lm. scripsi: ƥƦƏƥƘƜƤ (sic) M: deest in LG; (-ƥƦƏƥƘƜƤ n.) R ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ƦơʝƦơ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ȇμƚƣƜƝȶƟ (Ʀʭ ȇμƚƣƜƝʭ G) GR: ƝƔȴ ȋμ. ƀ: ǿμƚƣƜƝʬƤ Su. 2 ƢƣʀƠƜƤ LM: Ƣƣɱ- GR

134

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

144 ǎƨƒɾ: ǎƢƜƛƧμƘʎƤ. Ʀƒ μơƜ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƖƞƒƩɾ, ǃƢƘƣ ǒƥƦƜƟ ơȎƝ ƘȎƝȷƞƫƤ ƨƐƣƘƜƟ, ƛƣƑƟơƧ ƝƔȴ ƢƐƟƛơƧƤ; L q(HŸ) V Su. II 154, 23 (Ɨ 1711); II 487, 13 (Ƙ 3920, unde Zonar. 935, 6) 1 ǎƢƜƛƧμƘʎƤ: cf. sch. Ap. Rh. 153, 19–20 ǎƨƒƘμƔƜ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ǎƢƜƛƧμʬ; Hesych. Ƙ 7477 ǎ ƨ ƒ Ƙ μ Ɣ Ɯ · ǎƢƜƛƧμʬ; Zonar. 935, 12; Ɔ Ƙ 1054 ǎƨƒƘƦƔƜŭ ǎƢƜƛƧμƘʎ = Phot. Ƙ 2442 = Su. Ƙ 3914 1 lm. scripsit Lascaris: Ʀƒ μơƜ ƦʬƟƗƘ ƗƧƥƨƮƣƫƟ ǎƨƒɾ q: deest in LV; (ǎƨȵɾ s.) L; (144 n.) V; pars 1 Ʀƒ μơƜ – fin. ad lm. latius spectat Ʀƒ μơƜ ƦʬƟ ƗƧƥƨƮƣƫƟ ǎƨƒɾ ǎƥƦȴƟ ơȎƝ ƘȎƝƮƞƫƤ codd. et Su. utroque loco: ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜƟ ƘȎƝƮƞƫƤ źielinski 7 (cf. sch. 1388.2–3), at scholiasta etymon ƗƧƥ-ƨƮƣƫƟ sectatur et ƗƧƥ- per ơȎƝ ƘȎƝȷƞƫƤ reddit 2 ƛƣȳƟơƧ ƝƔȴ ƢȱƟƛơƧƤ L et Su. utroque loco (cum ƖƞƒƩɾ coniunge): ƛƣȳƟơƧƤ ƝƔȴ ƢȱƟƛƚ V (coni. Lascaris): ƛƣƑƟơƧƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƏƛƚ q

147a ƾƞƞ' ǎμȱ Ɩ' ƿ ƥƦơƟƮƘƥƥƔ: ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ Ʀȶ ǂƣƔƣƐ μƘ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǢƣƘƥƐ μơƧ ƦƔʎƤ ƨƣƘƥȵƟ. ƾƟƦȴ ƥƯμƨƫƟƔ ƢƣƏƥƥơμƘƟ ǎƖȺ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƾƚƗȺƟ ǓƟƘƝƔ Ʀơʝ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ Ʀȶ ǂƣƔƣȱ μƘ: Su. I 63, 29 (Ɣ 651) 1–2 ǢƣƘƥȱ μơƧ ƦƔʎƤ ƨƣƘƥȵƟ Su. I 336, 15 (Ɣ 3735, unde Zonar. 306,2); I 409, 3 (Ɣ 4397) 2 ƾƟƦȴ ƥȹμƨƫƟƔ – fin.: Su. I 63, 30 (Ɣ 651) qui ante ƾƟƦȴ (2) add. ƔȓƦƚ ǲƥƚ μơƜ ƦƔʎƤ ƨƣƘƥȵƟ; Ž 336, 15 (Ɣ 3735) 1 ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ – 2 ƨƣƘƥƒƟ: cf. sch. Eur. Or. 210 ơ Ȏ Ɩ Ə ƣ μ ’ ƾ ƣ Ɛ ƥ Ɲ Ƙ Ɯ : ǆƦƦƜƝȶƟ Ʀȶ ƥƩʀμƔ· ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ· ‘ƥȰ ƗȰ ƦƔʝƦ’ ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ’; sch. Ar. Ra. 103a ƥȰ ƗȰ ƦƔʝƦ’ ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ‘ƥơƒ’. ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ; sch. Ar. Plut. 353 ƝƔƒ μ’ ơȎƝ ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ: ƾƦƦƜƝȶƟ Ʀȶ ƥƩʀμƔŭ ‘ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ μƘ’ ƖƏƣ ƨƚƥƜ; sch. Ar. Lys. 509 ǞƣƐƥƝƘƦƐ Ɩ’ ǟμɱƤ] Ʀȶ ƥƩʀμƔ ƾƦƦƜƝƮƟ, ȟƤ Ʀȶ ‘ǎƟơƩƞʬ’; Moer. ƚ 6 ǢƣƘƥƐ μƘ ǆƦƦƜƝơƒŭ ǢƣƘƥƐ μơƜ ƝơƜƟƮƟ; Lesb. fig. 11; Su. Ɣ 3827 ƝƔȴ ǆ ƣ Ɛ ƥ Ɲ ƫ · ƢƣȶƤ ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝȲƟ ƥƯƟƦƔƠƜƟ ƝƔȴ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ƝƔȴ ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ· ƥȰ ƗȰ ƦƔʝƦ’ ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ 1 lm.] ǂƣƔƣƘƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƾƞƞ' ǎμȱ n.) R; (148 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 177 ƾƞƞ’ – ǂƣƔƣƘƟ ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ] ƾƦƦƜƝȶƟ ƀR Ʀȶ om. Su. μƘ] μơƜ ƀR post μƘ add. ƨƣƐƟƔƤ Lp ǢƣƘƥƐ μơƧ] Ǣƣ. μơƜ r 2 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ qVrr ƥƯμƨƫƟƔ] ƥȹμƨơƣƔ Gac: ƥƯμƨơƟƔ Gpc ƢƣȯƥƥơμƘƟ] ƢƣƏƥƥơμƔƜ V: ƢƣƏƦƦơμƘƟ r ǎƖȺ] ǎƖȻ ƦƜ G: ǎƖȻ ƦƘ Su. I 63, 30; 336, 16 ǟ q: om. LVrr

135

sch. 144 – sch. 149a

147b (ƾƞƞ' ǎμȱ Ɩ' ƿ ƥƦơƟƮƘƥƥƔ ǂƣƔƣƘƟ ƨƣȱƟƔƤ): ơǵơƟ ƥƧƟƑƣμơƥƦƔƒ μơƧ ƦƔʎƤ ƨƣƘƥȵ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƚƟ ƙƚƞʬ ƦȲƟ ƾƘȴ ƦȶƟ ǺƦƧƟ ƥƦƘƟƏƙơƧƥƔƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ơǵơƟ – 2 ƨƣƘƥȵ: Su. I 63, 31 (Ɣ 651); Ž 336, 16 (Ɣ 3735, unde Zonar. 306,2) ƦơƧƦȱƥƦƜƟ – fin.: Su. I 63, 31 (Ɣ 651); Ž 409, 3 (Ɣ 4397)

2

1–2 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. et Su. utroque loco (ǂƞƞƫƤ Lqq: deest in Vrr et Su. utroque loco) separatim scripsi 1 lm. addidi ơǵơƟ om. q ƥƧƟƑƣμơƥƦƔƒ μơƧ] ƥƧƟƑƣμơƥƐ μơƧ qr: ǣƣμơƥƦƔȵ μơƧ Su. utroque loco 2 ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ] ơǵơƟ r ƦȲƟ ƾƘȴ] ƦȲƟ ƾƠȵƫƤ Su. I 64, 1 ƥƦƐƟƔƙơƧƥƔƟ] -ƙơƧƥƔ G

147c (ǎμƐ ... ǂƣƔƣƘƟ): ƝƔȴ ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ ƥȰ ƗȰ ƦƔʝƦ’ ƾƣƐƥƝƘƜ. L 1 ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ: Ra. 103 vide locos similes ad sch. 147a 1–2 haec separatim leguntur in L: post sch. 147a.2 ƨƣƘƥƒƟ transp. Lascaris addidi 2 ƦƔʝƦ' F: ƦƔʝƦƔ L, elisione neglecta

1 lm.

149a ƾƦƧƙơμȱƟƔ: ǎƝƢƞƚƦƦơμƐƟƚ ƦơʎƤ ƥƧμƕƘƕƚƝƮƥƜ ƝƔȴ ǾƗƧƣơμƐƟƚ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ŸƜȶƤ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ, ȃƦƜ Ʀȶ ǒƔƣ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ

ȟƤ Ɨ' ȃƦƘ ƄƔƟƗƔƣȱơƧ ƝơƯƣƚ, ƩƞƫƣƚȴƤ ƾƚƗȻƟ, ƝƔƞȶƟ ƾƘƒƗɾƥƜƟ ǒƔƣơƤ ƟƐơƟ ǯƥƦƔμƐƟơƜơŭ 5 Ǡ ȃƦƜ ƦȲƟ ǟμƐƣƔƟ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜ Ǡ ȃƦƜ ƦȮ ǏƔƧƦʀƤ ƾƖƖƐƞƞƘƜ ƝƔƝȮ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƢƘƣƜƛƣƧƞơƧμƐƟƚƟ ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƢƏƛơƤŭ Ǡ ǂƖƖƘƞơƟ ƘǴƢƘƟ, ơǵơƟ ƦƐƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƢƔƣ' ƔȎƦơʝ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ ƘǮƤ ƦƘƣƏƥƦƘƜƔƟ ƦʀƤ ƨƯƥƘƫƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ǎƝƢƞƚƦƦơμȱƟƚ – ǾƗƧƣơμȱƟƚ: Su. Ž 408, 29 (Ɣ 4397) 1 (Ɣ 651)

1–2 Ʀȶ ƗȰ ŸƜȶƤ – fin.: Su. I 64,

1 ǎƝƢƞƚƦƦơμȱƟƚ: Hesych. Ɣ 8203 ƾ Ʀ Ƨ ƙ Ʈ μ Ƙ Ɵ ơ Ƥ · ƞƧƢơƯμƘƟơƤ, ǎƝƢƞƚƥƥƮμƘƟơƤ; Eust. Il. III 706, 14 ǚƥƦƜ ƗȰ ƾƦƯƙƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀȶ ǎƝƢƞƑƦƦƘƥƛƔƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦơȸƤ ƢƔƞƔƜơȸƤ; sch. Theocr. I 56m ubi ƾƦƯƠƔƜ per ǎƝƢƞʀƠƔƜ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƟ explicatur 2 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Od. 19. 518–9

136

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm. deest in qVGR; (ȂƣƟƜƤ n.) R; (ȂƣƟƜƤ n.) V ƦơʎƤ ƥƧμƕƘƕƚƝƮƥƜ] Ʀʭ ƥƧμƕƘƕƚƝƮƦƜ r 1–2 Ʀȶ ƗȰ] Ʀơʝ r 2 post ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ add. ǟ ƾƚƗưƟ Su. I 64, 1–2, sed facile mente suppletur ǟ ȂƣƟƜƤ e textu poetae ȋμƚƣơƤ – fin. om. R ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ȋμ. Vrr 3 ȃƦƘ] ȃƗƘ G ƄƔƟƗƔƣƐơƧ] ƄƔƟƗƏƣƚ V ƝơƯƣƚ] ƝƮƣƚ q: om. V 4 ƝƔƞȶƟ om. G ǒƔƣơƤ] ǒƔƣ G 5 ǏƔƧƦʀƤ] ǏƔƧƦơʝ G ƦȲƟ (alt.) om. V 6 ƢƘƣƜƛƣƧƞơƧμȱƟƚƟ] ƢƘƣƜƛƣƧƞƞơƧμƐƟƚƟ qVrr: ƛƣƧƞơƧμȱƟƚƟ Su. ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔƟ] ƾƗƜƝƒƔƟ ƁFWa 6–7 ƦȱƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ] ƦƐƣƔƤ (ƖƐƣƔƤ ƀ) Ʀȶ VrrSu.: Ʀȶ ƦƐƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ q: ƝƔȴ ƦȱƣƔƤ ƦƜ Wansink 46 7 ƢƔƣ' ƔȎƦơʝ] ƢƔƣȮ ŸƜȶƤ intelligendum monuit Papageorgiou prob. Wansink l.c. ƖƜƟȷμƘƟơƟ] ƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƟ q ƦƘƣȯƥƦƘƜƔƟ L (dubitanter recepi coll. Eus. DE 3.6.27 ƝƔȴ ƦơƜƔƯƦƔƤ ƢƔƣƔƗƮƠơƧƤ ƦƘƣƔƥƦƘƒƔƤ ƢƘƢơƜƚƝƮƦƔ, 7.11.22 ƦƘƣƔƥƦƘƒƔƤ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣƔƗơƠơƢơƜƒƔƤ: ƦƘƣƔƦƘȵƔƟ VrrSu. (coni. Brunck1): ƦƘƣƔƦƘƒƔƤ q

149b (ȂƣƟƜƤ … ŸƜȶƤ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ): ƝƔȴ ƆƔƢƨȺ

ǤƣơƤ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ, ǯμƘƣƮƨƫƟơƤ ƾƚƗưƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(Gƀ) Su. I 64, 5 (Ɣ 651) 1 ƆƔƢƨȻ: fr. 136 Voigt ǤƣơƤ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ ǮμƘƣƮƨƫƟơƤ ƾƑƗƫƟ 1–2 haec cum sch. 149a coniuncta in codd. et Su. separatim scripsi: post sch. 149a.4 ǯƥƦƔμƐƟơƜơ inserere nolui 1 lm. addidi ƝƔȴ] ƝƔȴ (compendiose) ƝƔȴ H ƆƔƢƨȺ] ƥƔƨʬƤ q: ƥƔμƨȺ G 2 Ǥƣ' ƀ ǯμƘƣȷƨƫƟơƤ Lƀ: ǟμƘƣȷƨƫƟơƤ NF (cave Voigt credas in F ǯμƘƣȷƨƫƟơƤ exstare) WaOq qVGW et Su.

150 (ƥȰ Ɨ' ǒƖƫƖƘ ƟƐμƫ ƛƘȷƟ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƟ ƦƜμʁ ƦʬƟ ƛƘʬƟ μƘƣƒƙƫ ƥƘ. L 1 μƘƣȵƙƫ: cf. sch. Pi. N 6 21a … ƦȶƟ ǏƔƧƦơʝ ƢƮƗƔ ƟƐμƘƜ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ μƘƣƒƙƘƜ…; Hesych. Ɵ 272 Ɵ Ɛ μ Ƙ Ɯ · μƘƣƒƙƘƜ…; Hesych. Ɵ 234; Su. Ɵ 173 ƟƐμƫ: Ʀȶ μƘƣƒƙƫ…; EM 599, 54; Zonar. 1404, 10 ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ƟƐμƫ, Ʀȶ μƘƣƒƙƫ. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

151a1 (ǎƟ ƦƏƨʪ ƢƘƦƣƔƒʪ): ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƾƢơƞƜƛƫƛƘʎƥƔ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris ƝƔȴ h.l. sensu LSJ s.v. B.1; hoc non intellecto ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ <ƛƔƟơʝƥƔ> ƝƔȴ ƾƢơƞƜƛƫƛƘʎƥƔ Roemer2 27, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ [ƝƔȴ] ƾƢơƞƜƛƫƛƘʎƥƔ Lascaris

sch. 149a – sch. 157

137

151a2 (ǎƟ Ʀȯƨʪ ƢƘƦƣƔȵʪ): ȋμƚƣơƤ

ǎƟ ƆƜƢƯƞʪ, ȃƛƜ ƨƔƥȴ ƇƧƨƫȱơƤ ǒμμƘƟƔƜ ƘȎƟƏƤ. L 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 24. 614–5 ƟʝƟ ƗƐ ƢơƧ ǎƟ ƢƐƦƣƚƜƥƜƟ, ǎƟ ơȒƣƘƥƜƟ ơǮơƢƮƞơƜƥƜƟ, | ǎƟ ƆƜƢƯƞƫƜ, ȃƛƜ ƨƔƥȴ ƛƘƏƫƟ ǒμμƘƟƔƜ ƘȎƟƏƤ; versum mutavit scholiasta (ƛƘȯƫƟ codd. homerici: ƇƧƨƫȱơƤ scholiasta) cum Il. 2. 783 confundens 1 lm. addidi ƇƧƨƫȱƫƤ L

155a ƢƘƣƜƥƥƏ: ƾƟƦȴ ǂμƘƦƣơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ. ƢƘƣƜƥƥʬƤ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǾƗƯƣɾ ƢƔƣȮ ƦơƯƦơƧƤ, ơǵƤ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ƔȎƦơʝ ƖƐƟơƧƤ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜƤ. ȣƥƦƘ ƝƔȴ ǓƦƘƣƮƟ ƦƜ ƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƜ ǟμɱƤ, ȃƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƾƗƘƞƨƔȴ ƔȎƦʁ ƘǮƥƜ ƗƯơ μƘƦƣƜưƦƘƣơƟ ƦȲƟ ƥƧμƨơƣȮƟ ƨƐƣơƧƥƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ƝƔȴ ǓƦƘƣȷƟ ƦƜ: cf. sch. 94 1 lm.] ƢƣȶƤ ȃ ƦƜ ƥȸ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƢƣȶƤ ȃ ƦƜ n.) V; pars 1 ƢƘƣƜƥƥʬƤ – fin. vv. 155– 7 ƢƣȶƤ ȃ ƦƜ ƥȸ – ǶƨƜƏƟƔƥƥƔ explicat ƾƟƦȴ – ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ om. r ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ qV ǂμƘƦƣơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ] ǂμƘƦƣơƤ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ Ÿ: ƾμƐƦƣƫƤ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƛƣƑƟơƜƤ V; haec sui iuris esse videntur ǾƗƧƣƫμƐƟƚ V 2 ƢƔƣȮ] ƢƘƣƜƔƣɱ (sic) V ƦơƯƦơƧƤ] ƦơƯƦơƜƤ G ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜƤ] ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜƟ V ȣƥƦƘ] ȟƤ ǒƥƦƜƟ V 3 ƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƜ] -ƘƜƟ ƀR ƝƔȴ ƾƗƘƞƨƔȴ ƔȎƦʁ] Ɣǯ ƾƗƘƞƨƔȴ ƔȎƦʀƤ q ƔȎƦʁ] ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦʁ V ƔȎƦʁ ƘǮƥƜ] ƘǮƥ. ƔȎƦ. r

155b (ƢƣȶƤ ȃ ƦƜ … ƢƘƣƜƥƥȯ): ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ǂƩơƤ ƢƘƣƜƥƥƑ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

157 ơǵƔ ƊƣƧƥȷƛƘμƜƤ: Ǡ ȇμƑƣʪ ƾƝơƞơƧƛƘʎ ƘǮƣƚƝƮƦƜ ƦȮƤ ƦƣƘʎƤ ƛƧƖƔƦƐƣƔƤ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ Ǣ, ȟƤ ǿ ƦȮ žƯƢƣƜƔ, ƦƐƥƥƔƣƏƤ ƨƚƥƜƟ ǶƨƜƖƐƟƘƜƔƟ ƝƔȴ ǶƨƜƏƟƔƥƥƔƟ. L V r(G) 1 ȇμȳƣʪ – 2 ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟơƤ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 1. 106b … Ʀ ȶ Ɩ Ȯ ƣ Ƕ ƨ Ɯ Ɩ Ƙ Ɵ Ƙ ƒ Ɣ Ƥ Ȃ Ɵ ơ μ Ɣ ơ Ȏ Ɨ Ȱ ơ Ǵ Ɨ Ƙ Ɵ ǿ Ƣ ơ Ɯ ƚ Ʀ Ƒ Ƥ . . . et 9. 145a Ɗ ƣ Ƨ ƥ Ʈ ƛ Ƙ μ Ɯ Ƥ Ɲ Ɣ ȴ ſ Ɣ ơ Ɨ ƒ Ɲ ƚ Ɲ Ɣ ȴ Ƕ ƨ Ɯ Ə Ɵ Ɣ ƥ ƥ Ɣ : ȃƦƜ ơȎƝ ơǴƗƘ ƦȲƟ ƢƔƣȮ ƦơʎƤ ƟƘƫƦƐƣơƜƤ ƥƨƔƖȲƟ ǶƨƜƖƘƟƘƒƔƤ; sch. Eur. Or. 22 ɣ Ƣ Ɣ ƣ ƛ Ɛ Ɵ ơ Ɯ μ Ȱ Ɵ Ʀ ƣ Ƙ ʎ Ƥ : ȋμƚƣơƤ ‘ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƝƔȴ ſƔơƗƒƝƚ ƝƔȴ ǶƨƜƏƟƔƥƥƔ’. ơȕƦơƤ ǶƨƜƖƐƟƘƜƔƟ ƦȲƟ ǶƨƜƏƟƔƥƥƔƟ ƝƔƞƘʎ, ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ

138

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƗȰ ƦȲƟ ſƔơƗƒƝƚƟ… 1 ȇμȳƣʪ: Il. 9.144–5, 286–7 ƦƣƘʎƤ ƗƐ μơƒ ƘǮƥƜ ƛƯƖƔƦƣƘƤ ǎƟȴ μƘƖƏƣʪ ƘȎƢƑƝƦʪ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƝƔȴ ſƔơƗƒƝƚ ƝƔȴ ǶƨƜƏƟƔƥƥƔ 2 ƦȮ žȹƢƣƜƔ: fr. 17 Davies= fr. 24 Bernabé 1 lm. ex F: deest in LVG; (ǶƨƜȯƟƔƥƥƔ n.) V; accuratiss. v. 157 ơǵƔ – ǶƨƜȯƟƔƥƥƔ 1 Ǡ – 2 ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟơƤ] ‘hoc qui posuit immemor fuit v. 530 et seqq.’ Dindorf2 146 1Ǡ om. G ȇμƑƣʪ] Ʀʭ ȇμ. G: ȟƤ ȋμƚƣơƤ V ƘǮƣƚƝȷƦƜ ơm. V post ƘǮƣƚƝȷƦƜ (post ƾƝơƞơƧƛƘʎ V) habent ƙʀƟ VG ƦȮƤ ƦƣƘʎƤ LV (cave Bernabé credas ƦȮƤ omisisse L): ƦȮƤ G: ƦƣƘʎƤ ƦȮƤ Lascaris prob. Wansink 46 2 Ʀơʝ om. G žȹƢƣƜƔ] ž. <ƢơƜȳƥƔƤ> Iuntina, at cf. sch. Eur. Hec. 910 …"Ǐȯƞƫ μȰƟ ǟ ƇƣơȵƔ żƔƣƖƚƞƜʬƟơƤ μƚƟȶƤ, ȟƤ μȱƟ ƦƜƟƘƤ ƦʬƟ ǯƥƦơƣƜƝʬƟ, ƜƕŪ ǯƥƦƔμȱƟơƧ, ȟƤ ƗȰ ǿ ƦȲƟ μƜƝƣȮƟ ǶƞƜȯƗƔ, ƚŪ ƨƛȵƟơƟƦơƤ...; Hdn. μơƟ. II 914, 15–6 ƝƔȴ ǟ ƟʀƥơƤ ǮƗȵƫƤ ǎƟ ȦƝƘƔƟʭ ŷơƣƖȷƟƫƟ ơǮƝƚƦȳƣƜơƟ ơȔƥƔ ȟƤ ǿ ƦȮ žȹƢƣƜƔ ƨƚƥȵ ƦƐƥƥƔƣƏƤ ƨƚƥƜƟ – fin.] locus sine causa vexatus Ÿ LV: ƗƜȮ (compendiose) G: ƗƜƔƨȷƣơƧƤ Elmsley prob. Wansink l.c. qui etiam ƗƯơ proposuit: Ɨȹƫ haesitans Blaydes 39 Ÿ ƨƚƥȴƟ codicis L in ƗƜƔƜƣƘʎ immutavit Michaelis apud Jahn3 ƨƚƥƜƟ om. G 2–3 ǶƨƜƖȱƟƘƜƔƟ ƝƔȴ ǶƨƜȯƟƔƥƥƔƟ del. Lascaris

159 ƝƣƧƢƦɲ Ʀ' ƾƩƐƫƟ: ǟ ƾƩƐƫƟ μƘƦơƩƑ ǎƥƦƜƟŭ ƾƟƦȴ ƗƧƥƨơƣʬƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƝƘƝƣƯƨƛƔƜ Ǡ ǿ ǎƟ ǣƕɾ ƝƣƧƢƦʁ ƞƧƢơƯμƘƟơƤ. L V r(GƀR) Su. I 438, 14 (Ɣ 4684, unde Zonar. 364, 10) 2 ǎƟ ǣƕɾ sqq.: cf. Eust. Il. I 695, 15 ƞƧƢơȹμƘƟơƤ: sch. D Hom. Il. 2. 694 ƾƩƐƫƟ: ƞƧƢơƯμƘƟơƤ; 2. 724; 18. 446; Źt. Gen. Ɣ 1510 ǆƩƐƫƟ· ƞƧƢơƯμƘƟơƤ· ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ǂƩơƤ; Źƀ 181, 8 1 lm.] ƝƣƧƢƦȮ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƝƣƧƢƦɲ n.) R; (ƝƣƧƢƦɲ n.) V; pars 2 Ǡ ǿ ǎƟ ǣƕɾ – fin. ad v. 159 ƝƣƧƢƦɲ – ǣƕɯ spectat ǟ VMR: ƚ cum accentu et spiritu incertis (fortasse Ǡ quod edd. recipiunt) L: deest in G quem sequitur Kruytbosch 76 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ VrrSu. ƗƧƥƨơƣʬƟ] ƗƧƥƩƘƣơʝƥƔ G: ƗƧƥƨơƣơʝƥƔ MR 1–2 ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƝƘƝƣƯƨƛƔƜ – ǎƟ ǣƕɾ ƝƣƧƢƦʁ] scholiasta žƅƈƄƇŵŽ substantivum esse posse putat; dubitat igitur utrum h.l. pro substantivo an pro adiectivo cum ǣƕɾ coniuncto accipiendum sit 1 Ʀʭ Lf V r: Ʀȶ L 2 Ǡ] ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ r ǿ] ȃƦƜ V 1–2 sch. ita refinxit de Marco 175 Ǡ ƾƩƐƫƟ μƘƦơƩƑ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƾƟƦȴ ƗƧƥƨơƣʬƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƝƘƝƣƯƨƛƔƜ Ǡ ƖƘƟƜƝȲ ƦʬƟ ƢƞƚƛƧƟƦƜƝʬƟ annotans 175–6 ‘hanc alteram explicationem (i.e. ƖƘƟƜƝȲ ƦʬƟ ƢƞƚƛƧƟƦƜƝʬƟ) intellectu fortasse

difficiliorem absque solita vi ƝƣƧƢƦɲ voci communiter tributa remotiorem, posterior grammaticus delevit et pro ea nugas quas nunc habemus scripsit’

139

sch. 157 – sch. 166b

163 (ƕƑμƔƦƜ): ƾƟƦȴ ǿƗʭ, ƢơμƢʁ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

164 ƾƝƏμƔƦƔ: ƾƝƔμƏƦƫƤ ƝƔȴ ƾƗƜƔƞƘƒƢƦƫƤŭ ƞƐƖơƜ Ɨ' ǀƟ ƦƔʝƦƔ ǎƟ ȏƢơƝƣƒƥƘƜŭ Ǡ ơȎ ƝƘƝμƚƝƮƦƫƤ. L V r(GƀR) 1 ƾƝƔμȯƦƫƤ – ƾƗƜƔƞƘȵƢƦƫƤ et 2 Ǡ – fin.: Su. I 75, 15 (Ɣ 792) = źonar. 115, 20–1 1 lm. deest in VGR; (ǒƖƫƖ' ƾƝȯμƔƦƔ n.) R; (ƾƝȯμƔƦƔ ƢƣơƥμȱƟơƧƥ' n.) V ƞȱƖơƜ Lascaris (cf. sch. 52.2 ƞƐƖơƜ Ɨ’ ǀƟ ƩƞƜƗȮƤ …): ƞƐƖƫ codd.

ƝƔȴ om. r

165 (ơǮƩƟʬ): ƢƘƣƜƐƣƩơμƔƜ. Ls.l. Su. IV 630, 11 (ơƜ 193) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

166a (ƗƏƝƣƧƥƜ μƧƗƔƞƐƔ): ƗƜƏƕƣơƩơƤ ƦơʎƤ ƗƏƝƣƧƥƜƟ. Ls.l. 1 ƗƜȯƕƣơƩơƤ: cf. sch. D. Hom. Il. 11. 54 μƧƗƔƞƐƔƤ: ƗƜƔƕƣƮƩơƧƤ, ƗƜʚƖƣơƧƤ; sch. Ap. Rh. 206, 10 μƧƗƔƞƐơƜ: ƗƜƏƕƣơƩơƜ; Żesych. μ 1776 μ Ƨ Ɨ Ɣ ƞ Ɛ ơ Ɵ · ƗƒƧƖƣơƟ. ƗƜƏƕƣơƩơƟ. Ʀȶ ǎƢƒƗƔƝƣƧ ƝƔȴ ƝƏƛƧƖƣơƟ ȂμμƔ…; Ɔ μ 282 μƧƗƔƞƐƔƤŭ ƗƜƔƕƣƮƩơƧƤ. = Phot. μ 569 = Su. μ 1373; EM 593, 30 μƧƗƔƞƐƔƤ … ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƗƜƔƕƣƮƩơƧƤ 1 lm. add. Elmsley

166b (ƾƟƑƟƧƦơƟ): ƾƦƘƞƘƒƫƦơƟ. Ls.l. Gs.l. cf. Su. I 216, 22 (Ɣ 2422); sch. Opp. Hal. 2. 515 ƾƟƑƟƧƦơƟ… ƾƦƘƞƘƒƫƦơƟ. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

140

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

169 ȥƟ Ʀ' ǒƢƔƛƘƟ ȥƟ Ʀ' ǎƗƏƚ: ȥƟ ǒƢƔƛƘƟ ƢƔƣ' ǎμơʝ ƘȎƘƣƖƘƥƜʬƟŭ ƗƜƐƥƫƥƘ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦƮƟ. ȥƟ ƗȰ ǎƗƏƚ, ȃƦƜ ƥƧƟƘƩƘʎƤ ǒƢƘμƢƘƟ ƾƖƖƐƞơƧƤ ƗƚƞơʝƥƔ ƦȮ ƝƔƦ' ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ. L V r(GƀR) 2 ƗƜȱƥƫƥƘ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȷƟ: cf. v. 321 1 lm.] ȥƟ Ʀ' ǒƢƔƛƘƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ȥƟ Ʀ' ǒƢƔƛƘƟ n.) R; (169 n.) V ƾƖƖƐƞơƧƤ] ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔƤ r

2 ǎƗȯƚƟ ƀR

176a ɣ ƦȶƟ ȏƢƘƣƔƞƖʀ ƩƮƞơƟ: ɣƦƜƟƜ, Ʀʭ ŸƜƒ, ƦȶƟ ȏƢƘƣƔƞƖơʝƟƦƔ ƩƮƞơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƢƘƢƣƔƖμƐƟơƜƤ ƟƐμơƧƥƔ μȲ ȏƢƘƣƕơƞʁ Ʃƣʬ ƦơʎƤ ƞƧƢƚƣơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ μƑƦƘ ǎƢƜƞƏƛơƧ ƔȎƦʬƟ, ƾƞƞȮ μƐμƟƚƥơ μȰƟ ƔȎƦʬƟ, ƖƘƟƟƔƒƫƤ ƗȰ ƨƐƣƘ. Ǡ μƑƦƘ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀȶ ƗƐơƟ ǒƩƛƔƜƣƘ μƑƦƘ ǎƢƜƞƔƟƛƏƟơƧ ƦʀƤ ǒƩƛƣƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V 4 μȳƦƘ (pr.) – fin.: Su. III 383, 22 (μ 897) 1 lm.] ɣ (om. Ÿ) ƦȶƟ ȏƢƘƣƔƞƖʀ q: deest in V; (176 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 176–7 ɣ ƦȶƟ – ǎƢƜƞȯƛơƧ Ʀʭ om. q 2 ƢƘƢƣƔƖμƐƟơƜƤ] ƢƘƢƞƔƟƚμƐƟơƜƤ Ÿ ƟȱμơƧƥƔ ŸNFOWa Lpp.c. (Lascaris): μƐƟơƧƥƔ LHV Lpa.c. μȲ] μȳƦƘ Papageorgiou ƦơʎƤ ƞƧƢƚƣơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ] ǎƢȴ ƦơʎƤ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ V 3 μƑƦƘ] μƑƢơƦƘ V

176b (ȏƢƘƣƔƞƖʀ): ǂƖƔƟ ǾƗƧƟƚƣƮƟ, ƞƧƢƚƣƮƟ. Ls.l. Gs.l. Su. IV 650, 8 (Ƨ 219) 1 lm. add. Elmsley ǾƗƧƟƚƣȷƟ om. G

179 ƩƣƮƟơƤ ƖȮƣ ƘȎμƔƣƑƤ: ǿ ƖȮƣ ƩƣƮƟơƤ ƘȎμƔƣʬƤ ƢƔƣƐƣƩƘƦƔƜ [ǎƟƒơƦƘ ƗȰ ơȒ]ŭ μƘƦ' ǾƞƒƖơƟ, ƾƟƧơμƐƟơƧ Ʀơʝ ƩƣƮƟơƧ, ǣƠƘƜ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ. Ǡ ƘȎƩƘƣƑƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǿ ƩƣƮƟơƤ, ȣƥƦƘ μƘƦƘƞƛƘʎƟ ƦơȸƤ ƾƗƒƝơƧƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(ƀ) 1 ǿ – ƢƔƣȱƣƩƘƦƔƜ: Su. III 383, 23 (μ 897) et IV 827, 31 (Ʃ 534) 32 (Ʃ 534)

2 Ǡ – fin.: Su. IV 827,

1 lm.] ƩƣȷƟơƤ ƖȮƣ ƘȎμƔƣȲƤ ƛƘȶƤ q: ƩƣȷƟơƤ ƖȮƣ M: deest in V; (ƘȎμƔƣȲƤ n.) V ƘȎμƔƣʬƤ] ƘȎƩƘƣʬƤ V 1–2 ǎƟȵơƦƘ ƗȰ ơȒ delevi praeeunte de Marco 118 adn. 42:

sch. 169 – sch. 182a

141

ǎƟȵơƦƘ ƗȰ ơȔƟ Heath 24: ƔǮƟȵƦƦƘƦƔƜ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ Jahn1: ƟơƘʎƦƔƜ (vel ǎƟƟơƘʎƦƔƜ) ƗȰ ơȓƦƫ Papageorgiou2 36 2 ơȒ] ơȕƦơƤ V: om. H: de Ÿ non constat 2 ƾƟƧơμȱƟơƧ] ƾƖơμƐƟơƧ Ż: de Ÿ non constat ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ] ǿ Ȇƣ. q Ǡ] ǂƞƞƫƤŭ Ǣ ƀ: Ǡ ơȓƦƫƤ Su.

180 (žƣȵƥƔƟ): ƉƫƝƜƝƑƟŭ žƣƒƥƔ ƖȮƣ ƢƮƞƜƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ. L cf. Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 115a žƣʎƥƔŭ ƢƮƞƜƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ. ǗƝƔƦƔʎơƤ ŹȎƣʬƢɾ (=Steph. Byz. 385, 4); Strab. IX 3, 1 ƔȓƦƚ ƖȮƣ ǟ žƣʎƥƔ ƦʀƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ ǎƥƦƒƟ…; sch. Pi. I 2 26a …ǟ ƖȮƣ žƣʎƥƔ ƦʀƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ ǎƥƦȴ ƩƫƣƒơƟ; Hesych. Ɲ 4145 ž ƣ ʎ ƥ Ɣ · ƢƮƞƜƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ; Źƀ 515, 18 žƒƣƣƔ, žƣƒƥƔ: ƄƮƞƜƤ ƦʀƤ ƉƫƝƒƗơƤ. 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (žƣȵƥƔƟ hoc accentu, s.) L žƣƒƥƔ hoc accentu L

181 ƕơƧƟƮμơƟ: ƕơʬƟ ƛƣƘƢƦƜƝƑƟ. Ls.l. Żs.l. Gs.l. Su. I 486, 28 (ƕ 449) 1 lm. ex Su. (ƕơƧƟƮμơƟ pro ƕơƯƟơμơƟ aperte legit scholiasta): deest in codd.

182a ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ: ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ, ƾƟƘƢƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤŭ ǒƟƛƘƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƜƦƣơƢƐƫƟ ǎƟƜƔƧƦƮƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(ƀ) 1 ƾƟƘƢȵƥƦƣơƨơƤ: Su. I 273, 16 (Ɣ 3046; cf. Ƣ 1331), unde Zonar. 234, 9 ƾƟƘƢƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤ – fin.: Su. I 273, 19 (Ɣ 3046; cf. Ƣ 1331) 1 ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ: alio sensu usurpatur ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ in sch. 182b.6, 183; ƾƟƘƢƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤ: sch. 182b.5 2 Hom. Il. 2. 295 1 ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ – Ʀȶ om. M ƾƟƘƢȵƥƦƣơƨơƤ] ƾƟƘƢƒƦƣơƨơƤ Ż: ƾƢƘƣȵƥƦƣơƨơƤ Ÿ (haec post ƾƟƘƢȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ leguntur in HŸ) ƾƟƘƢȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ Lp.c.qSu.: ƾƟƔƢȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ La.c.: ƾƟƘƢƔƟȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ Kruytbosch 76 ‘redire cum sit ǎƢƔƟƜƐƟƔƜ, is qui non redit recte mihi videtur dici ƾƟƘƢƔƟƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤ’ ǒƟƛƘƟ] ǒƟƛƔ q

142

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

182b (ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ): ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƞƚƢƦƐơƟ Ʀȶ ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤŭ ơȒƦƘ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ, ȁƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƉƫƝƒƗƜ ƦƣƐƨƘƦƔƜ, ơȒƦƘ ǿ ƝƏƦƫ ƛƘȷƤŭ ƾƞƞȮ ƝƔȴ ȏƢȶ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƦƜμƫƣƚƛƑƥơƟƦƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƩƛơƟƒƫƟ ƛƘʬƟ ǒƥƘƥƛƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƦƜμƫƣƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ƾƗƒƝƫƤ ƾƟɾƣƚμƐƟơƧ ƢƣơƥƗƮƝƔ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ Ʀȶ 5 ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ ǎƢȴ μȰƟ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƾƟƘƢƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤ, ǎƢȴ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ ƄƞơƯƦƫƟơƤ ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ Ʀơʝ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ μƘƦƘƞƛƘʎƟŭ ƢơƞƞƏƝƜƤ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƝƔƦȮ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƞƔμƕƔƟƮμƘƟơƟ ƗƜƔƨƮƣƫƤ ƟơƘʎƦƔƜŭ ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ

ǒƟƛ' ǏƞƐƦƚƟ ƗƒƨƣơƟ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƐƣƘ ƗƑμơƧ ƾƣƒƥƦƫ Ʀȶ ǏƞƐƦƚƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƝơƜƟơʝ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƾƞƞ' ǎƢȴ μȰƟ Ʀơʝ ƗƒƨƣơƧ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǒƞƔƕơƟ, 10 ǎƢȴ ƗȰ ƦʬƟ ƾƟƗƣʬƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƨƮƟƘƧƥƔƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 5 ƾƟƘƢƐƞƘƧƥƦơƤ: cf. sch. 182a.1 6 ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ: eodem sensu in sch. 183 6 ƢơƞƞƏƝƜƤ ƖȮƣ – fin.: cf. sch. Eur. Andr. 107 ƝƔȴ ƦȶƟ ǎμȶƟ μƘƞȱƔƤ ƢȷƥƜƟ: ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ Ʀȶ ƘǵƞƘ, ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜ Ʀȶ μȰƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƢȷƣƛƚƥƘƟ, Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƗƘȹƦƘƣơƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ. ƘǲƣƚƦƔƜ ƗȰ ȇμƚƣƜƝʭ ƙȳƞʪ ȟƤ Ʀȶ [ſ 328 ] "ǒƟƛɸ ǏƞȱƦƚƟ ƗȵƨƣơƟ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƾƟȱƣƘ ƗȳμơƧ ƾƣȵƥƦƫ". ƝƔȴ ƄȵƟƗƔƣơƤ ƗȰ ǎƩƣȳƥƔƦơ ǎƟ Ʀʭ [Ol. 1, 91] "ǓƞƘ Ɨɸ ƃǮƟơμȯơƧ ƕȵƔƟ ƢƔƣƛȱƟơƟ ƦƘ ƥȹƟƘƧƟơƟ"; sch. Hom. Il. 11. 328c 7 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 11. 328 1 lm. addidi: deest in Lq q quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungant (ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƗȰ) et in VMR; (ƢƔʎƤ ǆƖƔμƘμƟơƟȵƗƔƤ n.) R; (ƢƔʎƤ n.) V 1 oȒƦƘ – 2 ƾƢƘƣȵƦƣơƢơƤ om. M propter homoeoteleuton 2 ƝƏƦƫ] ƝȯƦƫƛƘƟ ƀ: ǏƝƔƦƚƕƮƞơƤ GR ƾƞƞȮ – fin. om. R 3 ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ om. G ƦƜμƫƣƚƛƑƥơƟƦƔƜ] ƦƜμƫƣƑƥơƟƦơƤ q: ƦƜμƫƣƚƛȳ G: ƦƜμƫƣƚƛȳƥƘƦƔƜ ƀ ƾƢȶ] ȏƢȶ V ƛƘʬƟ om. q 4 ƦȲƟ] ƦƜƟơƤ ƀ: om. VG Ʀơʝ ƾƗƒƝƫƤ om. G ƢƣơƥƗȷƝƔ om. q ƦƜƟȰƤ – fin. om. V ƢƣơƥƗƮƝƔ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ] ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ G ƗȰ] μȰƟ ƀ 5 ƾƢƘƣȵƦƣơƢơƤ] ƾƟƘƢȵƦƣơƢơƤ ƀ μȰƟ om. G ante ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ add. Ʀơʝ GM ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ om. G ƾƟƘƢȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ q (coni. Lascaris): ƾƟƘƢȯƞƘƧƥƦơƤ L: ǎƢƔƟȱƞƘƧƦoƤ ƀ: ǎƢƔƣȳƞƧƦơƤ G.: ƾƟƘƢƔƟȱƞƘƧƥƦơƤ Kruytbosch 76 Ʀơʝ] Ʀȶ G 6–7 Ʀȶ ƝƔƦȮ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƞƔμƕƔƟȷμƘƟơƟ] ƝƔƦȮ (ƾƢȶ ƀ) ƝơƜƟơʝ ƦƜ ƞƔμƕƔƟȷμƘƟơƟ GM 7 ƗƜƔƨƮƣƫƤ] ƾƗƜƔƨƮƣƫƤ q 9 ƝƔƦȮ] ƾƢȶ ƀ ƾƞƞ'] ƝƔȴ G

183 ơȒƛ' ǿ ƢƔƣȮ ƦȶƟ ǆƩƐƣơƟƦƔ: ơȒƦƘ ǿ ɉƗƚƤ ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ (ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ) Ʀơʝ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ μƘƦƘƞƛƘʎƟ, ƾƞƞ' ǒƩƘƜ ǎƢƜƥƦƣơƨȲƟ ƝƔȴ ǎƢƜμƐƞƘƜƔƟ ƢơƜƘʎƦƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) 1 ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ – fin.: Su. I 273, 17 (Ɣ 3046; cf. Su. Ƣ 1331) 1 lm. deest in V et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); (180 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 183 ơȒƛ' – ƾƟȯƥƥƫƟ ƝơƜƟơʝ om. V 2 ƖȮƣ] ƗȰ Ż: om. ŸGSu. 2 ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ] ƾƟƘƢƒƥƦƣơƨơƤ VGSu. Ʀơʝ] Ʀʭ V: Ʀȶ G

sch. 182b – sch. 188

143

185 ƾƞƞ' ǎμȰ μȰƟ ǿ ƢơƞƯƤ: ơǵơƟ Ʀȶ ƢƞƘʎƥƦơƟ Ʀơʝ ƕƒơƧ ǎƕƒƫƥƔ ǎƟ ƝƔƝơʎƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(ƀR) Su. IV 619, 5 (ơƜ 72); IV 656, 3 (Ƨ 300) 1 lm.] ƕȵơƦơƤ ƾƟȱƞƢƜƥƦơƤ ƀ: deest in R; (ƕȵơƦơƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 185–6 ƾƞƞ’ ǎμȰ ƾƟƐƞƢƜƥƦơƤ ƕȵơƧ] ƩƣȷƟơƧ Ÿ

185–6 (ƾƞƞ' ǎμȰ – ƾƟȱƞƢƜƥƦơƟ): [ƝƔȴ] ǿ ƢƞƘƒƫƟ μƘ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƕƒơƤ ƾƢơƞƐƞơƜƢƘƟ, μƚƗƐƢơƦƘ ǎƟ ƾƖƔƛʁ ǎƞƢƒƗƜ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚƟ, ǎƢƘȴ μƐƩƣƜ ƟʝƟ ơȎƗȰƟ ȏƢȰƣ ǎƝƗƜƝƒƔƤ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ƢƐƢƣƔƝƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) Su. IV 619, 5 (ơƜ 72); IV 656, 4 (Ƨ 300) 1–3 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. et Su. utroque loco separatim posui 1 lm. addidi; auctorem huius scholii ƾƟȱƞƢƜƥƦơƟ pro ƾƟȱƞƢƜƥƦơƤ legisse vidit Nauck (Electra, Berolini 1867) ƝƔȴ delevi 1 ƝƔȴ – 2 μƚƗƐƢơƦƘ om. G 2 ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚƟ] μƐƟƚ G ǎƢƘȴ] ǎƢȴ G μƐƩƣƜ] μƘ q: μ. Ʀơʝ r ơȎƗȰƟ] ơȎƗȰ G 3 ǎƝƗƜƝƒƔƤ] ǎƝƗƜƝƑƥƘƫƤ r ƢƐƢƣƔƝƦƔƜ] ƖƐƖơƟƘƟ r

188 ǅƤ ƨƒƞơƤ ơȒ ƦƜƤ ƾƟȲƣ: ǥƤ ƨƒƞơƤ ơȎƗƘȴƤ ƢƣơʍƥƦƔƦƔƜ, ƾƞƞȮ ƢƏƟƦƘƤ ƘǮƥȴƟ ǎƟ ƾƦƧƩƑμƔƥƜƟ ƘȎƞƔƕơƯμƘƟơƜŭ Ǡ ǎƝƘʎƟơ ƾƟƗƣȶƤ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƢƣƏƥƥơƟƦơƤ ǎƝƢơƗȺƟ ƨƒƞơƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) Su. IV 619, 7 (ơƜ 72); IV 656, 6 (Ƨ 300) 2 ǎƝƘʎƟơ: Eur. Phil. fr. 799a Kannicht 1 lm.] ǅƤ ƨƒƞơƤ M: deest in GR; (ǅƤ ƨȵƞơƤ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 188 ǅƤ ƨƒƞơƤ – ȏƢƘƣȵƥƦƔƦƔƜ ǥƤ ƨƒƞơƤ HŸ et Su. utroque loco: ǢƦơƜ ǥƤ ƨƒƞơƤ L ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǥƤ ƨƒƞơƤ r 2 ƾƦƧƩƑμƔƥƜƟ] ƾƦƧƩȳμƔƦƜ r Ǡ ǎƝƘʎƟơ] scil. ‘cum loco nostro compone’ Ǡ Lq q et Sudae IV 619, 8 codd. AVM et Su. IV 656, 7: ȟƤ r: ƝƔƦ’ Sudae IV 619, 8 cod. G ǎƝƘʎƟơ] ǎƝƘʎ r

144

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

189 ǒƢơƜƝơƤ: ƾƟƦȴ μƐƦơƜƝơƤ, ƾƟƔƠƒƔ ƗȰ ƾƠƒƔƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩơƧƥƔ ƾƞƞ' ǂƦƜμơƤŭ ơǮƝơƟơμʬ ƗȰ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƗƜƔƜƦʬμƔƜ ƦơȸƤ ƢƔƦƣʫơƧƤ ơǲƝơƧƤ. L V r(GƀR) 1 ǒƢơƜƝơƤ – 2 ƗƜƔƜƦʬμƔƜ: Su. I 178, 19 (Ɣ 1983) sed alio ordine partes scholii disposuit 1 μȱƦơƜƝơƤ: Su. II 401, 28 (Ƙ 2877) 2 ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ sqq.: cf. Su. IV 619, 10 (ơƜ 73) ƃ Ǯ Ɲ ơ Ɵ ơ μ ʬ Ɵ : ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƟƗƜƔƜƦưμƘƟơƤ ƦơȸƤ ƢƔƦƣʫơƧƤ ơǲƝơƧƤ. 1 lm. deest in GR; (ǃƢƘƣ Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ n.) R; (ǒƢơƜƝơƤ n.) V ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Vrr ƾƠƒƔƟ post ǒƩơƧƥƔ transp. G ǒƩơƧƥƔ] -ƥƔƟ ƀ 2 ƗƜƔƜƦʬμƔƜ LV et Su. I 178, 21: ƗƜƔƦƏƦƦƫ r: cf. ǎƟƗƜƔƜƦȻμƘƟơƤ Su. IV 619, 10

190–1 ȥƗƘ μȰƟ | ƾƘƜƝƘʎ ƥȸƟ ƥƦơƞɲ: ƗƘƜƝƦƜƝʬƤ Ʀȶ ȥƗƘŭ ǎƞƘƘƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƦơƜơʝƦơƟ ƝƔȴ ƞƘƞƚƛƮƦƫƤ ǎμƨƔʎƟơƟ Ʀȶ ƥƩʀμƔ ƦʬƟ ȏƢơƝƣƜƦʬƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ȥƗƘ μȰƟ qƀ: deest in GR; (ȥƗƘ n.) R ƀR

2 ƝƔȴ om. r ǎμƨƔʎƟơƟ] ǎμƨƔȵƟƫƟ (ǎƝ- ƀ)

193a ơǮƝƦƣȮ μȰƟ ƟƮƥƦơƜƤ ƔȎƗƏ: ǟ ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔ ǟ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƟƮƥƦơƧ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ơǮƝƦƣȮ ǎƖƐƟƘƦơ, ƘȎƛƐƫƤ ƾƟƔƜƣƘƛƐƟƦơƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ơǮƝƦƣȮ μȰƟ q: deest in GR; (ơǮƝƦƣȮ Ɨ' ǎƟ v. 194 n.) R ǟ (alt.) om. r

193b ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ [ƗȰ] Ʀȶ ƔȎƗƏŭ ơǮƝƦƣƏ ƥơƜ ơȔƟ ƖƐƖơƟƘƟ ǟ ƨƫƟȲ ǟ ƾƖƖƐƞƞơƧƥƔ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƟƮƥƦơƧ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ, ơǮƝƦƣȮ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ <ǟ> ƢƘƣȴ ƦʀƤ ƝơƒƦƚƤ ƔȎƦơʝŭ ơǵơƟ ơǮƝƦƣȮ ƢƐƢơƟƛƔƤ ƝƔȴ ȃƦƘ ǢƝơƧƥƔƤ ƢƔƣƘʎƟƔƜ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ƢƣơƥƗơƝʬƥƔ ȃƦƜ ǎƢƜƕơƧƞƘƧƛƑƥƘƦƔƜ, ơǮƝƦƣȮ ƗȰ ȃƦƘ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƢƣɱƠƜƤ ƖƐƖơƟƘ 5 ƝƔȴ ƾƟɾƣƐƛƚ. L q(ŻŸ) 1–5 haec a sch. pr. separavi praeeunte Wolff 34 qui alius interpretis esse viderat 1 ƗȰ delevi 1–2 ǟ ƾƖƖƐƞƞơƧƥƔ] ƾƢƔƖƖƐƞƞơƧƥƔ q 2 ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƟȷƥƦơƧ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ] ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ Ʀơʝ ƟƮƥƦơƧ Ż ơǮƝƦƣȮ – 3 ƔȎƦơʝ om. q ǟ add. Papageorgiou 4 ȃƦƘ Brunck1: ȃƦƜ codd. ƝƔȴ om. q

sch. 189 – sch. 197a²

145

195–6 ȃƦƘ ƥơƜ – ƢƞƔƖȯ: ȃƦƘ ƾƟƦƔƒƔƟ ǎƢƞƑƖƚƤ ƾƢȶ ƖƘƟƯƫƟ ƢƔƖƩƏƞƝƫƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜ ƢƘƞƐƝƘƫƟŭ ƖƐƟƧƤ ƖȮƣ ƘǴƗơƤ ƢƘƞƐƝƘƫƤ. L V r(GƀR) 2 ƘǴƗơƤ ƢƘƞȱƝƘƫƤ: Su. I 516, 25 (Ɩ 157, unde Zonar. 429, 5–6) 2 ƖƐƟƧƤ – fin.: cf. sch. 485; sch. Ph. 1205 Ǡ ƖƐƟƧƟ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƐƞƘƝƧƟ …; Hesych. Ɩ 370 ƖƐƟƧƤŭ … ƢƐƞƘƝƧƤ 1 lm. scripsi: ƾƟƦƔƒƔ ƖƘƟƯƫƟ L: ƾƟƦƔȵƔ r (ƾƟƦƔȵƔ iterat tamquam initium scholii ƀ): deest in V; (ƢƔƖƩȯƞƝƫƟ n.) V; (ƢƞƔƖƏ n.) R ȃƦƘ] ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ V: ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ r (1 ƾƟƦƔȵƔƟ – ƢƔƖƩȯƞƝƫƟ pro versu homerico accepit r) ƾƟƦƔȵƔƟ] ƾƟƦƔȵƫƟ ƀR: ƾƟƦƔƒƔ V ǎƢƞƑƖƘƜƤ R ƢƔƖƩƏƞƝƫƟ om. V 2 ǂƞƞƫƤ ante ȃ ǎƥƦƜ (1–2) add. V ƢƘƞȱƝƘƫƤ VrrSu.: ƢƘƞƐƝƘơƤ L

197a1 ƗƮƞơƤ ǤƟ ǿ ƨƣƏƥƔƤ: ƾƟƦȴ ǿ ƨƣƔƥƏμƘƟơƤ, ǿ ǎƢƜƟơƚƥƏμƘƟơƤ. ǿ ƗȰ ƾƟƘƞȺƟ ǒƣƫƤŭ ƗƜ' ǒƣƫƦƔ ƖȮƣ ǏƔƧƦʬƟ ƾƟƘʎƞơƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GMR) cf. Su. IV 759, 18 (ƨ 690) Ɖ ƣ Ə ƥ Ɣ Ƥ :ƨƣƔƥƏμƘƟơƤ, ǎƢƜƟơƑƥƔƤ .... ǒƣƫƤ ǿ ƝƦƘƒƟƔƤ. ǿ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ ƗƜ’ ǒƣƫƦƔ; sch. Opp. Hal. 2. 240 ǖƨƣƏƥƥƔƟƦơŭ … ǎƢƘƟƮƚƥƔƟ 1 lm. deest in r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 197a2 coniungat (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ G: ǂƞƞƫƤ MR); accuratiss. v. 197 ƗȷƞơƤ – ƝƦƘȵƟƔƤ ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ q: om. r ǿ ǎƢƜƟơƚƥƏμƘƟơƤ om. M 2 ƾƟƘƞȺƟ] ƾƟƔƜƣʬƟ R ƖȮƣ om. G ǏƔƧƦʬƟ om. r ƾƟƘʎƞơƟ] ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ G: ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ MR

197a2 ƗƮƞơƤ ǤƟ (ǿ ƨƣƏƥƔƤ): ƗƮƞơƤ ǿ ƨƣƔƥƏμƘƟơƤ ƦȲƟ ǏƥƦƒƔƥƜƟ, ǎƟ ɓ ƾƟɾƣƐƛƚ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GMR) cf. Su. IV 759, 18 (ƨ 690) Ɖ ƣ Ə ƥ Ɣ Ƥ :ƨƣƔƥƏμƘƟơƤ, ǎƢƜƟơƑƥƔƤ. ƗƮƞơƤ ǤƟ ǿ ƨƣƏƥƔƤ. ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƦȲƟ ǏƥƦƒƔƥƜƟ ǎƟ ɓ ƾƟɾƣƐƛƚ ǆƖƔμƐμƟƫƟ. 1–2 haec annotationem novam esse iudicavit Jahn1: cum sch. 197a1 coniunguntur in Lqq: ante sch. 197a1 leguntur in r 1 lm. M supplevi: deest in Lq q GR; (ƗȷƞơƤ n.) R ƗƮƞơƤ] Ɨ. ǤƟ r ǏƥƦƒƔƥƜƟ LSu.: ǏƥƛȵƔƥƜƟ (sic) Ÿ: ƔǲƥƛƚƥƜƟ Ż: ƾƟƔƒƣƘƥƜƟ r ǎƟ ɓ] ƗƜ’ ǡƟ r

146

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

198 (ƢƣơƨƧƦƘƯƥƔƟƦƘƤ): ƢƣơƥƝƘƪȯμƘƟơƜ. L 1 scholiastam ƢƣơƨƧƦƘȹƥƔƟƦƘƤ pro ƢƣơƨƚƦƘȹƥƔƟƦƘƤ legisse conicias (cf. Ellendt s.v. ƢƣơƨƧƦƘƯƫ ‘de sceleris forma excogitanda’); contra censet de Marco 176

199a μơƣƨƏƟ: μơƣƨƑƟ, ƦƯƢơƟ. ƦȲƟ ƗȰ μơƜƩƘƒƔƟ ƨƚƥȴ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ Ǡ ƦȲƟ ȂƪƜƟ, ǡƟ ƘǮƣƖƏƥƔƦơ Ʀơʝ ƨƮƟơƧ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿ) V r(GƀR) 1–2 scholium rescripsit q lemmate omisso ita: μơƣƨƑƟ, ƦƯƢơƟ (μ. Ʀ. om. H). ƞȱƖƘƜ ƦȲƟ μơƜƩƘȵƔƟ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖȵƥƛơƧ Ǡ ƦȲƟ ȂƪƜƟ Ʀơʝ ƨȷƟơƧ ǡƟ ƘǮƣƖȯƥƔƦơ 1 lm. ex L: deest in V et in r quia proxime sequentem μơƣƨƑƟ pro lemmate acceperunt μơƣƨȲƟ] μơƣƨȲƟ ƗȰ V et r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 199b coniungat; (203 n.) V μơƣƨƑƟ – ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ] μơƣƨȲƟ ƗȰ ƦƯƢƫƟ ƦȲƟ μơƜƩƘƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ r 2 ƘǮƣƖȯƥƔ<Ɵ>Ʀơ haesitans Papageorgiou2 42

199b ƘǲƦ' ơȔƟ ƛƘƮƤ: ƢƏƟƧ ƔǮƗƚμƮƟƫƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ Ʀȶ μȰƟ ƢƣɱƖμƔ ƞƐƖƘƜ, ƦơȸƤ ƗȰ ƢƣƏƠƔƟƦƔƤ ơȎƝ ǎƞƐƖƩƘƜ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. (ƘǲƦ' in lemmate L: ƘǴƦ' dedit Papageorgiou)] μơƣƨȮƟ ƀ: deest in qGR; accuratiss. vv. 199–200 ƘǲƦ' – ƕƣơƦʬƟ Ʀȶ μȰƟ ƢƣɱƖμƔ] ƦȮ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦƔ r

203 Ȥ ƗƘƒƢƟƫƟ ƾƣƣƑƦƫƟ: ƦʬƟ ȏƢȶ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ, ƨƚƥƒ, Ʀʭ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƜ ƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƧƔƥƛƐƟƦƫƟ ǎƢ' ǾƞƐƛƣʪ, ǁ ơȎƗȰ ǾƟơμƏƥƔƜ ƝƔƞƮƟ. L r(G) 2 ǁ – fin.: cf. sch. Ai. 214 <ǂƣƣƚƦơƟ:> ƝƔƝƮƨƚμơƟ μƚƗȰ ƞƐƖƘƥƛƔƜ ǾƨƘƒƞơƟƦƔ; fere eadem repetit Su. Ɣ 3860 1 lm. deest in G 1–2 ƦʬƟ ȏƢȶ … ƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƧƔƥƛȱƟƦƫƟ] ƦƯƢơƤ ... ƢƔƣƔƥƝƘƧƔƥƛƘȴƤ G

sch. 198 – sch. 210

147

204a (ǒƝƢƔƖƞ'): μƘƖƏƞƔ. L cf. sch. D Hom. Il. 2. 223 ǎƝƢƏƖƞƫƤ: ǎƝƢƞƚƝƦƜƝʬƤ, μƘƖƏƞƫƤ; sch. Hom. Od. 10. 448; Żesch. Ƙ 1570; Ƙ 1575 ǒ Ɲ Ƣ Ɣ Ɩ ƞ Ɣ · ... μƘƖƏƞƔ 1 lm. addidi (ǒƝƢƔƖƞ' ǂƩƛƚ s.) L

204b ǒƝƢƔƖƞ' ǂƩƛƚ: ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ǒƝƢƔƖƞƔ ƢƏƛƚ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in LGR ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ] Ɩƣ. L: ơm. r: Ɩƣ. del. post Wunder 37 Wolff 207 et Kruytbosch 76 qui ǒƝƢƔƖƞƔ ƢƏƛƚ glossam esse censuerunt

206 (ƗƜƗƯμƔƜƟ ƩƘƣơʎƟ): ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

207 ƔǱ ƦȶƟ ǎμȶƟ ƘǵƞơƟ ƕƒơƟ: ƢƏƟƧ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ. ƔǳƦƜƟƘƤ ƩƘʎƣƘƤ, Ɣǯ ƾƟƘƞơʝƥƔƜ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ, ƦȶƟ ǎμȶƟ ƕƒơƟ ƘǵƞơƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƣơƐƗƫƝƔƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎƩƛƣơʎƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ǒƝƢƔƖƞƔ Ƣȯƛƚ R: ƗȹμƔƜƟ (sic) ƩƘƣơʎƟ ƀ: deest in G; accuratiss. vv. 207–8 ƔǱ – ƢƣȷƗơƦơƟ verba ƢȯƟƧ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ in fin. scholii 204b demigraverunt in M Ɣǯ om. q 2 ƘǵƞơƟ scripsi: ƾƟƘʎƞơƟ codd.: ƥƧƟƔƟƘʎƞơƟ Kruytbosch 76 ƢƣơƐƗƫƝƔƟ] ƢƔƣ- Wa

210 ƢơƒƟƜμƔ: ƢơƜƟȲ ƞƐƖƘƦƔƜ ǎƢȴ μƮƟƚƤ ƝƔƦƔƕơƞʀƤ ƩƣƚμƏƦƫƟŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ

ƢơƜƟȲƟ ơȕ ƢƔƜƗȶƤ ǎƗƐƠƔƦơ ƦƘƛƟƘƜʬƦơƤ ƝƔȴ 5

ƾƞƞ' ȁ μȰƟ ǎƟ ƗƑμʪ μƐƟƘƜ ƔȎƦơʝ ƢƮƞƞ' ƾƢơƦƒƥƔƤ Ʀơʝ Ɨȱ Ʀ' ǎƣƚƦƯƘƦƔƜ ƝƣƔƗƒƚ ƝƔȴ ƛƧμȶƤ ƾƖƑƟƫƣ ƢơƜƟȲƟ ƗƘƠƔμƐƟʪ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) Su. IV 260, 1 (Ƣ 3092)

148

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ad sensum cf. e.g. sch. D Hom. Il. 18. 497; Apollon. S. 132, 29; Hesych. Ƣ 2732 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 9. 633 ƢơƜƟȲƟ Ǡ ơȕ ƢƔƜƗȶƤ ǎƗƐƠƔƦơ ƦƘƛƟƚʬƦơƤ 4–6 Hom. Il. 9. 634–6; versum 634 leviter mutavit scholiasta (ƝƔȴ ʜ’ Homerus: ƾƞƞ' scholiasta) 1 lm.] ƢơȵƟƜμƔ ƢȯƛƘƔ qƀ: deest in VGR; (ȆƞȹμƢƜơƤ n.) V ƞȱƖƘƦƔƜ] ƞȱƖƘƜƤ ƀR ǎƢȴ μȷƟƚƤ ƝƔƦƔƕơƞʀƤ] malim ǟ ǎƢȴ ƨȷƟơƜƤ (vel ƨơƟʁ) ƝƔƦƔƕơƞȲ: ǟ ǎƢȴ μơƟʁ ƝƔƦƔƕơƞȲ Roemer2 77 adn. 18 prob. de Marco 177 adn. 18 ǎƢȴ μƮƟƚƤ] ǎƢƜμơƟȳ r ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ȋμ. Vrr 2 post ƢơƜƟȲƟ deest Ǡ in codd. et Sudae codd. GM: add. Ǡ Sudae codd. AFV ex coniectura, ut puto ơȕ] ǁ Ż 3 ƝƔȴ] Ɲ. ȟƤ Ʀȶ r: ƝƔȴ ƔȔƛƜƤ Su. 3 ƝƔȴ – fin. om. q 4 ƾƞƞ' LrrSu.: om. V: ƝƔȵ ʜ' Homerus μƐƟƘƜ ƔȎƦơʝ] ƔȎƦ. μ. V 5 ǎƣƚƦƯƘƦƔƜ] ǎƣƜƦƯƘƦƔƜ V

211a (ƾƖƞƔʍƔƤ): ǟƗơƟʀƤ, ƗƮƠƚƤ. L Su. III 537, 18 (ơ 329) 1 ǟƗơƟʀƤ: cf. sch. Pi. O 13 17f ƟƜƝƔƨƮƣơƟ ƾƖƞƔʍƔƟ: ƦȲƟ ǎƝ ƦʀƤ ƟƒƝƚƤ ǟƗơƟƑƟ. 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƾƖƞƔʍƔƤ s.) L

211b ƾƢơƟƔȵƔƦơ: ƾƢơƞƔȹƥƘƜƔƟ. Su. III 537, 17 (ơ 329) cf. sch. D Hom. Il. 24. 556 ƾƢƮƟƔƜơ: ƾƢơƞƔƯƥƘƜƔƤ; sch. Hom. Il. 11. 763b ǆƢơƟƑƥƘƦƔƜ: ȊƟƚƥƜƟ ǓƠƘƜ, ǎƟ ƾƢơƞƔƯƥƘƜ ƖƘƟƑƥƘƦƔƜ; sch. D Hom. Il. 11. 763; Hesych. Ɣ 6494 ƾƢƮƟƔƥƛƔƜŭ ƾƢơƞƔʝƥƔƜ…; Ɣ 6910; Su. Ɣ 3674… ƾƢưƟƚƦơ … ƾƢƑƞƔƧƥƘƟ 1 lm. scripsi: ǾƟƔƒƔƦơ Su.

213 ƨƣƏƙơƧ μȲ ƢƮƣƥƫ ƨƫƟƘʎƟ: ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ǎƢƜƦƜμɲ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ μȲ ǂƟƦƜƝƣƧƤ ƦƔʎƤ ƕƞƔƥƨƚμƒƔƜƤ ƝƔƦȮ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ ƩƫƣƘʎƟ. ơǮƝƘƒƔƤ ƗȰ ǢƦơƜ ƦȮƤ ƥƧƖƖƘƟƜƝȮƤ Ǡ ƦȮƤ ƾƢȶ ƥơʝ ǎƥơμƐƟƔƤ ƝƔȴ ơȎƝ ƾƞƞƔƩƮƛƘƟ. L q(ŻŸ) r(G) 3 ƥƧƖƖƘƟƜƝƏƤ: cf. sch. Ant. 486; sch. Eur. Andr. 986 (ad lm. ơǮƝƘƒơƧ ƨƒƞơƧ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƥƧƖƖƘƟơʝƤ; sch. Eur. Phoen. 374, 692; sch. Thuc. IV 64, 5 ơǮƝƘƒơƧ: ƥƧƖƖƘƟƜƝơʝ.

sch. 210 – sch. 219–20

1 lm.] ƨƣȯƙơƧ μȲ Ƣȷƣƥƫ ſ: deest in qG ƩơƣȶƤ] žƞƧƦƔƜμƟƑƥƦƣƔƤ et ŵǮƖȵƥƛơƧ permutavit q antecedentibus seiunxit Lascaris ƗȰ deleto; probat necessaria non videtur 3 ơǮƝƘƒƔƤ] ơǮƝƘƒơƧƤ G ǎƥơμȱƟƔƤ] ǎƣƩơμȱƟƔƤ dubitanter Papageorgiou2 44

149

ƞƮƖơƤ G 2 ǂƟƦƜƝƣƧƤ] ƾƟƦȴ G 3 ơǮƝƘƒƔƤ – fin.] om. q; ab Kruytbosch 76–7, sed separatio ǢƦơƜ ƦȮƤ om. G ƥơʝ] Ʀơʝ G 4 ƾƞƞƔƩƮƛƘƟ] ǂƞƞơƛƘƟ G

214 ơȎ ƖƟȻμƔƟ: ơȎ ƖƜƟưƥƝƘƜƤ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǎƠ ơǳƫƟ ƾƖƔƛʬƟ ƘǮƤ ƦƜ ƾƟƜƔƣȶƟ ǎƞƑƞƧƛƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex ſ: deest in Lrr et in q quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 213 coniungat (ƝƔȵ ƨƚƥƜ); (ơȎ ƖƟȻμƔƟ ǲƥƩƘƜƤ s.) L; accuratiss. vv. 214–5 ơȎ ƖƟȻμƔƟ – ƢƔƣȷƟƦ' ƨƚƥȵƟ in initium sch. transp. q

218–9a1 (ƥɲ – ƢơƞȱμơƧƤ): ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ǎƟƟơơʝƥƔ, ǎƠ ȥƟ ƢơƞƘμƘʎƦƔƒ ƥơƧ ǟ ƪƧƩƑ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou: iuxta v. 216 legitur in L: iuxta vv. 213–5 in R ƖƘƟƟʬƥƔ coni. Papageorgiou 1–2 ƥơƧ ǟ ƪƧƩȲ] ǟ ƪ. ƥ. ƀ

ǎƟƟơơʝƥƔ]

218–9a2 (ƥɲ – ƢơƞȱμơƧƤ): ƥƔƧƦʁ ƖƘƟƟʬƥƔ ƦƔʝƦƔ, ǎƠ ȥƟ ƢơƞƘμƘʎƦƔƒ ƥơƧ ǟ ƪƧƩƑ. L

218–9b (ƥɲ ƗƧƥƛȹμʪ … ƪƧƩɲ): ȟƤ ǎƟ ƾƛƧμƒƔƜƤ ƔȎƦʀƤ ơȒƥƚƤ. L r(GƀR) 1 hoc sch. separatim edidit Jahn1: cum sch. 218–9a1 c. in r [(ƝƔȴ add. G) ǂƞƞƫƤ]: cum sch. 218–9a2 c. in L (sine verbo coniunctivo) lm. addidi ȟƤ om. r ơȒƥƚƤ] ơȒƥ. ƦƔʝƦƏ ƨƚƥƜ (ƨƔƥƜ ƀ) r

219–20 ƦȮ ƗȰ ƦơʎƤ ƗƧƟƔƦơʎƤ | ơȎƝ ǎƣƜƥƦƏ: ƦơʎƤ ƝƣƔƦơʝƥƜƟ ơȎ ƗƜ' ǒƣƜƗơƤ ƗƘʎ ƘǮƤ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟŭ ƾƟƦȴ ơȎƩ ơǵƮƟ ƦƐ ƥƘ ǎƣƒƙƘƜƟ ƦơʎƤ ƗƧƟƔƦơʎƤ. ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤŭ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗȰ ǁ ƢƣƏƦƦƘƜƤ ơȎƝ ǎƣƜƥƦȮ ƦơʎƤ ƝƣƔƦơʝƥƒƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ,

150

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ Ʀȶ ƥȰ ƢƘƣȴ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƨƜƞơƟƘƜƝƒƔƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƦơȸƤ ƝƣƔƦơʝƟƦƔƤ 5 ƢơƜƘʎƥƛƔƜ ƾƥƯμƨơƣơƟ. L r(GƀR) 2 ƢƣơƥƢƘƞȯƙƘƜƟ – ƗƧƟƔƦơʎƤ: Su. IV 138, 20 (Ƣ 1682) 2 ƢƣơƥƢƘƞȯƙƘƜƟ: cf. sch. 220; Hesych. Ƣ 2433 ƢƞƏƛƘƦƔƜ· ƢƔƣƔƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ, ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜ 1 lm. deest in r; (ƪƧƩɲ s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 219–20 ƦȮ ƗȰ – ƢƞȯƛƘƜƟ 2 ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟ] Ƣƣơ- R ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r ƥȰ om. r 3 ƝƔȴ om. ƀR ƢƣȯƦƦƘƜƤ] ƢƣȯƦƦƫ ƀR 4 Ʀȶ ƥȰ Wansink 48: ƦơʎƤ L: ƦʀƤ r: ƦȲƟ Lascaris: ƦơʎƤ del. Iuntina: <ƦơʎƤ ƗƧƟƔ>ƦơʎƤŭ scripsit et interpunxit Bernardakis 41 4 ƨƜƞơƟƘƜƝȵƔƟ] -ƝȵƔƤ r ƦơȸƤ om. r 5 ƾƥƯμƨơƣơƟ] ƾƥƯμƨƘƣơƟ G

220 (ƢƞƏƛƘƜƟ): ƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟ. Ls.l. vide locos similes ad sch. pr. allatos 1 lm. add. Lascaris

221–2 (ǎƟ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ – ǾƣƖƏƟ): ƦơʝƦơ Ʀȶ ǒƢơƤ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ơȎ ƞƔƟƛƏƟƘƜ μƘ, ƾƞƞ' ơǴƗƔ Ʀȶ ƾƥƨƔƞȰƤ ƝƔȴ ƥƧμƨƐƣơƟŭ ƗƜȮ ƗȰ ƦȲƟ ȏƢƐƣƕƔƥƜƟ ƦʬƟ ƗƘƜƟʬƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƏƙơμƔƜ ƝƔȴ ǎƢƜƝƜƟƗƧƟưƗƚ ƦƜƟȮ ƨƛƐƖƖƘƥƛƔƜ. L q(HŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi; ǾƣƖƏƟ pro ǾƣƖƏ invenit grammaticus in libro suo, quod sensu non irae sed animi accepit 1 ƦơʝƦơ – 2 ƥƧμƨȱƣơƟ] haec ita refecit q: ơȎ ƞƔƟƛȯƟƘƜ μƘ ȃƦƜ ƾƝƔȵƣƫƤ ƝƔȴ ơȎ ƢƣơƥƚƝȷƟƦƫƤ ƞƧƢơʝμƔƜŭ ǟ ƖȮƣ ǾƣƖȲ ǡƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƦʬƟ ǎƩƛƣʬƟ ǾƣƖȵƙơμƔƜ ơȎ ƢƣơƥȳƝơƧƥƔŭ 1 ƨƚƥȴƟ om. r 2 ƥƧμƨƐƣơƟ] ƥȹμƨơƣơƟ r ƗȰ om. r 3 ǎƢƜƝƜƟƗƧƟȻƗƚ] ǎƢȴ ƝƜƟƗȹƟʪ ƗȲ (vel ǢƗƚ) Papageorgiou2 45 inutiliter: ǎƢƜƝȵƟƗƧƟƔ vel ƝƜƟƗƧƟȻƗƚ Bernardakis 41, sine causa

226a ƦƒƟƜ ƖƏƣ ƢơƦ' ǂƟ: ƢƔƣȮ ƦƒƟơƤ ƖȮƣ ǀƟ ƾƝơƯƥơμƔƜ ƦȮ ƥƧμƨƐƣơƟƦƔ Ǡ ƢƔƣ' ȏμʬƟ ƦʬƟ ƥƧƟơƒƝƫƟ, ȣƥƦƘ μơƜ ƥƧƖƩƫƣʀƥƔƜ ǎƟ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ ơȒƥɾ ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƒƔƟ ƦƜƟȮ ǲƥƩƘƜƟ ǎƝ ƦʬƟ ǾƗƧƣμʬƟ ƝƔȴ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ; ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƢƣȶƤ ƠƐƟơƧƤ ǒƩƫ ƾƞƞȮ ƢƣȶƤ ȏμɱƤ ƘȎƟơơƯƥƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(G) 1 ƢƔƣȮ – ƥƧμƨȱƣơƟƦƔ: Su. ŽŽŽ 84, 14 (Ɲ 1186)

sch. 219–20 – sch. 230

151

1 lm. ex q: ƦȵƟƜ Ɩȯƣ ƢơƦ' Ȥ ƨƜƞȵƔ L (ubi ǂƟ omittitur, ut apud poetam): deest in VG; accuratiss. vv. 226–7 ƦƒƟƜ ƖƏƣ – ǒƢơƤ ǀƟ ƾƝơƯƥơμƔƜ LŻ, vide LSJ s.v. ǂƟ ŵ.I.2.b cuius exemplis (Philostr. VA 2.21, S.E. M. 9.225) adde D.Chr. 7, 106: ǀƟ ƾƝơƯƥƫμƔƜ V: ǀƟ ƾƝơƯƥƔƜμƜ FWa (coni. Kruytbosch 77): ƾƝơƯƥơμƔƜ ƁŸG (hoc commendat Kruytbosch l.c.): ƾƝơȹƥƔƜμƜ Su. ubi ǂƟ omittitur, sicut in versibus 226–7 allatis 2 ȏμʬƟ] ǟμʬƟ HV ƥƧƟơȵƝƫƟ] ƘȎƟơƬƝʬƟ Papageorgiou2 320 ƥƧƖƩƫƣƘʎƟ q ǎƟ – fin. om. Ÿ ơȔƥƜ Ż 3 ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƒƔ G ǲƥƩƘƜƟ] ǲƥƩƘƜ G 4 ǒƩƫ] scil. ƦȶƟ ǾƗƧƣμƮƟ, cf. Papageorgiou2 l.c. ǒƩƫ] ƞȱƖƫ Blaydes 51 et Bernardakis 41 ƾƞƞȮ] ƾƞ. ƛƣƚƟʬ G

226b (ƦƒƟƜ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣȮ ƦƒƟơƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley

229 ǂƟƘƦƘ μ' ǂƟƘƦƘ: ǎƏƥƔƦƘ. ơǵơƟ ƢƔƯƥƔƥƛƐ μƘ ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟƔƜ. Ǡ ơȓƦƫƤŭ ȏμƘʎƤ μƘ ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟƔƜ ǂƟƘƦƘŭ ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǎƢƜƦƣƐƢƘƦƘ ǾƗƯƣƘƥƛƔƜŭ ƝƔȴ <ƖȮƣ> ƔȒƠƘƦƐ μơƧ ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƢƔƣƔμƧƛƒƔƤ ƦȶƟ ǾƗƧƣμƮƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(G) 1 ǎȯƥƔƦƘ – fin. (praeter Ǡ (1) – ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơȹμƘƟƔƜ (2)): Su. Ž 209, 13 (Ɣ 2337) 1 lm. ex Ÿ: deest in LHVG; (ǂƟƘƦȱ s.) L; pars 1 ơǵơƟ – fin. ad lm. latius, v. 229 ǂƟƘƦƘ – ƢƔƣƏƖơƣơƜ pertinet ǎȯƥƔƦƘ om. q ơǵơƟ – 2 ǂƟƘƦƘ om. H 1 ƢƔƯƥƔƥƛƘ] ǎƥƢƏƥƔƥƛƘ G μȰ om. V ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟƔƜ] ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơʝμƔƜ G 1 Ǡ – 2 ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟƔƜ om. V propter homoeoteleuton 2 μȰ] μȰƟ G ǂƟƘƦƘ] ƢƔȹƥƔƥƛƘ Ÿ ǎƥƦȴƟ] ǎƥ. ǂƟƘƦƘ ƝƔȴ q ǾƗƯƣƘƥƛƔƜ] -ƘƥƛƘ Lq q 3 post ƝƔȴ addidi ƖȮƣ: add. μȲ Stephanus 92 ƔȒƠƘƦƘ] -ƘƦƔƜ V ƢƔƣƔμƧƛƒƔƤ] ƢƣơƛƧμȵƔƤ q

230 ƦƏƗƘ ƖȮƣ ǂƞƧƦƔ ƝƘƝƞƑƥƘƦƔƜ: Ʀȶ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ ǂƞƧƦƮƟ μơƜ ǒƥƦƔƜŭ ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ơȎƗƐƢơƦƘ ƢƔƯƥơμƔƜ, ƾƞƞ' ƾƘȴ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ ǒƥơμƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) Su. Ž 209, 14 (Ɣ 2337) 1 lm.] ƦȯƗƘ ƖȮƣ ǂƞƧƦƔ q: deest in Vr; (ǂƞƧƦƔ ƝƘƝƞȳƥƘƦƔƜ s.) V; accuratiss. vv. 230–1 ƦƏƗƘ – ƾƢơƢƔƯƥơμƔƜ Ʀȶ] Ʀʭ r 2 ǒƥƦƔƜ Su.: ǎƥƦƜ codd. ǎƟ om. q Ʀʭ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ] ƛƣƑƟ V

152

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

232a1 ƾƟƏƣƜƛμơƤ ȥƗƘ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ: ǒƟ ƦƜƥƜ oȓƦƫ ƝƘʎƦƔƜŭ ƾƟƏƟơμơƤŭ ơǵơƟ ƾƘȴ ƟƘμơμƐƟƚ ǎƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ơȒƢơƦƘ ƩƫƣȴƤ ơȔƥƔ ƦʀƤ ƦʬƟ ƗƔƝƣƯƫƟ ƟơμʀƤ. ƝƘʎƦƔƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƑƣƜƛμơƤ ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤŭ ơȎƝ ǒƥơμƔƜ ƾƟƑƣƜƛμơƤ ƛƣƑƟƫƟ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƟ ƛƣƑƟơƜƤ ƾƣƜƛμƚƛƑƥơμƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V Mii r(GƀiR) totum sch. praeter v. 4: Su. I 209, 17 (Ɣ 2337) 3 ơȎƝ ǒƥơμƔƜ – fin.: cf. sch. Ai. 603 1 lm.] ƦȯƗƘ ƖȮƣ ƀi: ƾƟȳƣƜƛμơƤ q: ƾƟȯƣƜƛμơƤ Mii: deest in VR et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 229 iungat (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); (ƦȯƗƘ ƖȮƣ n.) R; (232 s.) V post lm. habet ơǵơƟ ƀii ǒƟ – ƾƟȯƟơμơƤ om. q ƦƜƥƜ, compendiose in L, (cf. supra ad sch. 45.6); post compendium in L litterae fere evanidae ơȓ; quas ơȓƦƫ interpretatus reponendas esse monuit Wansink 48 ơǵơƟ om. Ż seriem litterarum quae in archetypo ex ǎƟ, compendio, verbis ơȓ et ƝƘʎƦƔƜ constat varie corruperunt cett. codd: ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƔƣȯƝƘƜƦƔƜ (ƢƘƣȵ- ƀbis) r; ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ V; in Su. h.l. verba ǎƟ ȏƢơƟơȵɯ ƗȰ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ leguntur ƾƟƏƟơμơƤ] ǂƟơμơƤ Mii : ƾƘȵƟơμơƤ Schneider s.v. ƾƟȯƣƜƛμơƤ prob. Hermann 45 et Nauck 419 ơǵơƟ ơm. Mii 2 ǎƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ] ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƀii ƩƫƣȴƤ ơȔƥƔ] ƩƫƣơʝƥƔ r ƦʀƤ om. Mii ƦʬƟ om. G ƝƘʎƦƔƜ – 3 ƞƮƖơƤ om. V 3 ƝƔȴ (pr.) – ǒƥơμƔƜ om. r propter homoeoteleuton ƝƔȴ (pr.) om. q ƾƟƑƣƜƛμơƤ] ƾƟȯƣƜƛμơƤ qSu.: ǎƟȯƣƜƛμơƤ ƀii ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜƟ – ƾƟƑƣƜƛμơƤ om. Mii propter homoeoteleuton ƾƟȳƣƜƛμơƤ (alt.)] ƾƟƏƣƜƛμơƤ V ƛƣȳƟƫƟ] ƛƣƚƟʬƟ ƀii 4 ƾƣƜƛμƚƛȳƥơμƔƜ] ƾƟƔƣƜƛμƚƛƑƥơμƔƜ V: ƾƟƔƣƜƛμƑƥơμƔƜ q: ƾƣƜƛμƑƥơμƔƜ ƾƘȴ r: ƾƣƜƛμơʝƥƔƟ ƾƘȴ ƛƣƚƟȳƥƫ Mii post ƾƣƜƛμƚƛȳƥơμƔƜ (ƾƟƔƣƜƛμƚƛƑƥơμƔƜ V) add. ƾƘȴ ƛƣƚƟơʝƥƔ VSu.

232a2 (ƾƟȯƣƜƛμơƤ ȥƗƘ ƛƣȳƟƫƟ): ơǵơƟ ơȎƝ ƾƣƜƛμơʝƥƔ ƔȎƦơȸƤ ƾƞƞȮ ƗƔƪƜƞƐƥƜ ƩƣƫμƐƟƚ. L r(GMR) Su. Ž 209, 16 (Ɣ 2337) 1 lm. addidi

ơǵơƟ om. r

ƔȎƦơȸƤ] ƔȎƦȮ r

2 ƗƔƪƜƞƐƥƜ] ƗƔƪƜƞʬƤ rSu

236 (ƝƔƝƮƦƚƦơƤ): ƦʀƤ ƥƧƟƘƩơƯƥƚƤ μƘ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

sch. 232a² – sch. 240–1

153

239 μȳƦ' ƘǲƚƟ ǒƟƦƜμơƤ (ƦơƯƦơƜƤ): μȲ Ƙǲƚ μơƜ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ ƦƜμʀƤ, Ʀơʝ ƦơȸƤ ƖơƟƐƔƤ μȲ μƐƩƣƜ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ ǾƗƯƣƘƥƛƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(G) 1 lm. q supplevi: deest in L et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 240–1 copulet (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ) μơƜ om. G ƦƔȹƦƚƤ (ƦʀƤ add. q) ƦƜμʀƤ Lqq (pro genetivo partitivo accipiendum, cf. sch. 62.10 μȲ ƦʬƟ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƗƮƠɾ): ƦƔʝƦƔ ƦƜμɱƟ G: ƦơƜƔȹƦƚƤ ƦƜμʀƤ vel ƦƔʝƦƔ ƦƜμʀƤ Papageorgiou3 82 Ʀơʝ scripsi: Ʀȶ codd. 2 μȲ om. G μȱƩƣƜ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ post 1 Ʀơʝ (Ʀȶ G) transp. G

240 μƑƦ', Ƙǲ Ʀʪ ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜμƔƜ ƩƣƚƥƦʭ: μƑƦƘ, Ƙǲ ƦƜƟƜ ƾƖƔƛʭ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƚƥƦʭ ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜμƔƜ ƨƒƞʪ, ƥƧƟơƜƝơƒƚƟ ƘȒƝƚƞơƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm.] μȳƦ' ƘǲƚƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (μȳƦ' ƘǲƚƟ n.) R; (239 s.) V; accuratiss. vv. 240–1 μƑƦ' – ƘȒƝƚƞơƤ Ƙǲ om. r ƦƜƟƜ (compendiose in L; cf. supra ad sch. 45.6)] Ʀʭ r 2 ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜμƔƜ] ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜƦƔƜ ƀ ƨȵƞʪ – fin. om. V ƥƧƟơƜƝơƒƚƟ] ƥƯƟơƜƝơƤ ǤƟ G: ƠƧƟƔƒơƜμƜ (sic) q

240–1 (μȳƦ', Ƙǲ Ʀʪ – ƘȒƙƚƞơƤ): ơǵơƟ, μƚƗȰ ƘǮ ƾƖƔƛƮƤ ƦƒƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ, ɣ ǎƖȺ ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜμƔƜ, μƚƗȰ ƦơƯƦʪ ƥƧƟơƜƝơƒƚƟ ƘȒƙƚƞơƤ ơȔƥƔ ƔȎƦơʝ ƝƔȴ ƾƢơƗƘƩơμƐƟƚ, ƘǮ ƦơƜơʝƦơƤ ƢƘƣȴ ƦơȸƤ ƖơƟƐƔƤ ƨƔƒƟơƜƦơ. μƑƦƘ ơȔƟ ƔȎƦȲ ƖƘƟơƒμƚƟ, μƑƦƘ, ǿ ƠƧƟơƜƝʬƟ μơƜ ƘǮ ƦơƜơʝƦơƤ Ƙǲƚ, ƙƚƞơƒƚƟ ƦȮ ǎƝƘƒƟơƧ, 5 ȣƥƦƘ ƝƔƦƔƨƣơƟƘʎƟ ƦʬƟ ƖơƟƐƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1–5 haec a sch. pr. seiunxit Jahn1; cf. de Marco 177 qui huius scholii auctorem ƘȒƙƚƞơƤ pro ƘȒƝƚƞơƤ legisse monuit 1 lm. addidi 1 ơǵơƟ – 3 ƨƔȵƟơƜƦơ om. V 1 μƚƗȰ ƘǮ] ƘǮ μ. Żr: ƘǮ ƗȰ μȲ Ÿ ǎƥƦƜƟ] ǎȺƟ r 2 ƘȒƙƚƞơƤ ơȔƥƔ ƔȎƦơʝ post de Marco l.c. scripsi: ƘȔ ƙƚƞơʝƥƔ ƔȎƦʭ (ƔȎƦȶƟ q) Lq qr: ƘȔ, ƙƚƞơʝƥƔ ƔȎƦʭ sic interpunxit Wansink 47: ƘȒ<ƝƚƞơƤ> ƙƚƞơʝƥƔ <ƦȮ> ƔȎƦơʝ Papageorgiou renuente Wansink l.c.: ƘȔ ƝƚƞơʝƥƔ ƔȎƦȶƟ Bernardakis 41 3 ƦơƜơʝƦơƤ] -ơƟ ƀR μƑƦƘ – fin.] haec ab praecedentibus separavit Jahn1 ƔȎƦȲ] ƔȎƦʭ q: ƔȎƦȲ <ƦơƜƔȹƦƚ> Kruytbosch 77 et Bernardakis l.c. 4 ƥƧƟơƜƝʬƟ V ƘǮ V (iam Lascaris qui tamen hoc vocabulum ante ǿ ƠƧƟơƜƝʬƟ (3) addiderat): om. Lqqr ƙƚƞơƒƚƟ] ȣƥƦƘ μȲ ƙ. q: ƙƚƞơȵƚ ƀR 5 ȣƥƦƘ om. q

154

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

241–2 ƖơƟƐƫƟ | ǎƝƦƒμơƧƤ: ƦʬƟ ǎƢȴ ƦơʎƤ ƖơƟƘʝƥƜƟ ǾƠƧƦƮƟƫƟ ƖƮƫƟ ƦȮƤ ƢƦƐƣƧƖƔƤ ǲƥƩơƧƥƔ ǎƝƦƒμơƧƤŭ ƾƟƦȴ ǎƝƦȶƤ ƦƜμʀƤ. ƾƞƞ' ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƦƜμɱƟ ƦơȸƤ ƢƔƦƐƣƔƤ ƘǲƚƟ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ƖƮƫƟ. L r(GƀR) 2 ǎƝƦȶƤ ƦƜμʀƤ: Su. ŽŽ 233, 14 (Ƙ 654) ǒƠƫ ƝƔȵ ǎƝƦȶƤ ƦʀƤ ƦƜμʀƤ = źonar. 653, 13 2 ǎƝƦȶƤ ƦƜμʀƤ: cf. Eust. Od. I 188, 20 ǒƝƦƜμơƟ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ, Ʀȶ ǒƠƫ ƦƜμʀƤ. 1 lm.] ǎƝƦȵμơƧƤ ƀ: deest in GR; (ǎƝƦȵμơƧƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 241–3 ƖơƟƐƫƟ – ƖȷƫƟ 1 ƦʬƟ – 2 ǎƝƦƒμơƧƤ] subaudi in initio huius partis Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ 1 ƦʬƟ] Ʀȶ r ǾƠƧƦƮƟƫƟ] ǾƠƧƖƮƟƫƟ G 2 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r 3 ƘǲƚƟ in fin. transp. r ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ƖȷƫƟ Jahn1: ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ƖơƟȱƫƟ codd.

249 ǒƣƣơƜ Ʀ' ǀƟ ƔǮƗȻƤ: ǣ ƦƘ ƔǮƗȺƤ ǒƣƣơƜ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƢƘƣȴ ƢƏƟƦƔƤ ƘȎƥƐƕƘƜƔ, ƘǮ ƦʬƟ ƾƗƒƝƫƤ ƾƟɾƣƚμƐƟƫƟ μȲ ƦƜμƫƣƒƔ ǒƥƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex q: ǒƣƣơƜ Ʀ' ǀƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ǒƣƣơƜ Ʀ' ǀƟ n.) R; accuratiss. 245–50 ƘǮ ƖȮƣ – ƛƟƔƦʬƟ ơǵơƟ scholio praeposuit q ǣ – ƝƔȴ om. q ǣ ƦƘ] Ƙǲ ƦƘ r ǒƣƣơƜ] ǒƣƣƘƜ Jahn1, sed vide ad sch. 1253 ƘǮ om. r 2 ƦƜμƫƣȵƔƟ r ǒƥƦƜƟ qMR

253 ƥȸ ƟƒƝƔ: Ʀȶ ƥȸ ƟƒƝƔ ƢƏƟƧ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƫƤ, ǳƟ' ƾƨơƣμȲ ƖƐƟƚƦƔƜ μƔƝƣȮƟ ǎƝƦƘʎƟƔƜ ʜʀƥƜƟ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ, ǎƟ ɓ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƦȮ ƝƔƛ' ǏƔƧƦȲƟ ƢƔƣƔƞƑƪƘƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ƞȱƖƫ, ƥȸ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ƥȸ ƟȵƝƔ n.) R; (ǏƪȷμƘƛ' s.) V ƥȸ ƟȵƝƔ] ƥƧƟʀƝƔ 2 vocem ʜʀƥƜƟ in ƩƣƧƥƜƟ V ƢȯƟƧ om. q ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƟ q ƖƐƟƚƦƔƜ] ƥƦƐƣƚƦƔƜ G (ƩƣȹƥƜƟ G: ƩƣʀƥƜƟ ƀR), i.q. ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƟ, depravisse scribam libri r conicias; hoc facto pro ƦȲƟ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƟ scripsit Ǡ ƦȲƟ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƟ 2–3 ƢƔƣƔƞȳƪƘƦƔƜ] ƢƘƣƜƞȳƪƘƦƔƜ de Marco 178, inutiliter; nam vide LSJ s.v. ƢƔƣƔƞƔμƕƏƟƫ I.5.a,b

254–5 (ƔǮƥƩȹƟơμƔƜ – ǂƖƔƟ): ƔǮƗơʝμƔƜ, ƘǮ ƗơƝʬ ȏμʎƟ ƕƔƣƐƫƤ ƢƘƟƛƘʎƟ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi; (ƔǮƥƩȹƟơμƔƜ n.) R; ƕƔƣƐƫƤ Lp.c.: ƕƣƔƗƐƫƤ La.c.r

ƢƘƟƛƘʎƟ] ƢƘƟƛʬƟ r

sch. 241–2 – sch. 264

155

256 ƾƞƞ' ǟ ƕƒƔ ƖȮƣ ƦƔʝƦ' ƾƟƔƖƝƏƙƘƜ: ǎƢƘƒƢƘƣ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƨƛƏƥƔƥƜƟ ǎƢƘƦƒμƚƥƔƟ ƔȎƦʁ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƾƟƘƟƗƮƦƫƤ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ, ƢƘƣȴ ƦơƯƦơƧ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ƾƢơƞơƖƘʎƥƛƔƜ ƕơƯƞƘƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ƨƛȯƥƔƥƜƟ: vv. 122–3 1 lm. deest in qVrr

2 ǎƢƘƦƒμƚƥƔƟ] -ƘƟ V

ƔȎƦʁ] ƔȎƦȲƟ Ÿr

259 ǁ 'ƖȺ ƝƔƦ' ǤμƔƣ: ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƫƤ ƝƐƩƣƚƦƔƜ Ʀʭ ƟơƑμƔƦƜŭ ǎƟ μȰƟ ƖȮƣ ƖƘƟơμƐƟʪ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣƘƞƛƮƟƦƜ ƘǮƝȶƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƯƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƾƗƚμơƟơʝƟƦƔ. ǿƢƮƦƘ ƗȰ ƔȎƦȲƟ ơȎ μƮƟơƟ ƦȮ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƞƧƢƘʎ ƾƞƞȮ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ƦʀƤ μƚƦƣȶƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ ǿƥƚμƐƣƔƜ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ, ƘǮƝƮƦƫƤ 5 ƢƔƣƔƦƘƒƟƘƜƘ Ʀȶ ƢƘƟƛƘʎƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) 1 lm. deest in VG; accuratiss. vv. 259–60 ǁ 'ƖȺ – ǿƣʬ ƝƐƩƣƚƦƔƜ] ƩƣʀƦƔƜ V μȰƟ Lascaris: ǟμʎƟ codd. 4 ŵǮƖȵƥƛơƧ] Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖ. qVG ǿƥƚμƐƣƔƜ NFOWaLp (Lascaris): varie corrumpunt cett. ƖƜƟȷμƘƟƔ] ƖƘƟȷμƘƟƔ Ÿ: ƖƘƟȷμƘƟơƟ Ż 5 ƢƔƣƔƦƘƒƟƘƜƘ L (optativus potentialis saepe ǂƟ particula caret; cf. sch. Tr. 322.2, 745.1; vide etiam Schneider R. 156): ƢƔƣƔƦƘȵƟƘƜ VG: -ƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ Ż: om. Ÿ Ʀȶ ƢƘƟƛƘʎƟ Lq q: ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƘƟƛƘʎƟ V: ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƐƟƛƘƜ G

263 ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ: ƾƟƜƔƣȶƟ ƞƒƔƟ Ʀȶ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ, ȃƦƜ ƾƗƜƝơʝμƔƜ ơȔƥƔ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex N: ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎμƔƧƦơʎƤ Ż: deest in LVrr; (ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ n.) R; (263 s.) V ƾƟƜƔƣȶƟ] ƾƟ. ǎƥƦȴƟ V ƞƒƔƟ om. r ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ] ǎμƔƧƦơʎƤ Ż 2 ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ] ǎμƔƧƦơʎƤ Ż: ǏƔƧƦơʎƤ G: ǏƔƧƦʀƤ ƀR

264 ƝƾƝ ƦʬƟƗ' ǂƣƩơμƔƜ: ƝƔȴ ƕƔƥƜƞƘƯơμƔƜ ȏƢ' ƔȎƦʬƟŭ ǒƦƜ ƗȰ ƦơʝƦơ ƩƔƞƘƢưƦƘƣơƟ, Ʀȶ ƝƔȴ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ ȏƢơƦƘƦƏƩƛƔƜ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ƠȹƟƘƜμƜ ƀ: ƝƾƝ ƦʬƟƗ' Ż: deest in VGR; (ƠȹƟƘƜμƜ n.) R; (ƠȹƟƘƜμƜ ƝƾƝ n.) V 2 Ʀȶ om. G ƔȎƦʬƟ] ƔȎƦơʝ r ǒƦƜ ƗȰ] ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ VWa: ǒƥƦƜ ƝƔȴ Ż ƦơʝƦơ] ƦơƯƦơƧ r ƝƔȴ] ǎƟ ƀ

156

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

267 ȃƦƔƟ ƛƣƮƟơƜƤ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ: ƝƔȴ ƖȮƣ μƘƦȮ Ʀȶ ƨơƟƘʝƥƔƜ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ ǎƕƔƥƒƞƘƧƥƘƟŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ ……………..ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ....…………………………………………… …………………………ǢƟƔƥƥƘ ƢơƞƧƩƣƯƥơƜơ ƀƧƝƑƟƚƤ 5 ƝƦƘƒƟƔƤ ǆƦƣƘʍƗƚƟ, ƗƐƗμƚƦơ ƗȰ ƞƔȶƤ ȏƢ' ƔȎƦơʝ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Od. 3. 303, 305, 304, hoc ordine scholiasta; hoc etiam modo versus ordinavit cod. Harleianus 6325 Homeri 1 lm.] ǒƢƘƜƦƔ ƢơȵƔƤ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ǒƢƘƜƦƔ ƢơȵƔƤ n.) R; (ȃƦƔƟ ƛƣȷƟơƜƤ n.) V ƖȮƣ om. q ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ] ƦȶƟ ǆƖ. r 2 ȋμƚƣơƤ] ȟƤ ȋμ. q: ƝƔȴ ȋμ. Vrr 4 ǢƟƔƥƥƘ] Ɨ' ǢƟ. V 5 ƔȎƦơʝ] ƔȎƦʭ Homerus

268–9 (ǎƥƛƑμƔƦƔ) | ƨơƣơʝƟƦ' ǎƝƘƒƟʪ ƦƔȎƦƏ: ơȎƩ ȃμơƜƔ ƕƔƥƜƞƜƝȮ ƾƞƞȮ ƦȮ ǎƝƘƒƟơƧŭ ƢƏƟƧ ƖȮƣ ƦơʝƦơ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ ƝƔȴ ƘǮƤ ȏƢƮμƟƚƥƜƟ ǂƖơƟ ƦȲƟ μƘƒƣƔƝƔ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm. L supplevi: ƦơʎƥƜƟ ƢƔƦƣȻơƜƤ ƀ: ƨơƣơʝƟƦ' ǎƝƘȵƟʪ q: deest in GR; (ƦơȵƥƜƟ 2 ƢƏƟƧ] Ʀȶ Ƣ. r ƖȮƣ ƦơʝƦơ om. r ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ] ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ qr ƝƔȴ – fin. om. q ƦȲƟ] ƦȮ GR 3 μƘȵƣƔƝƔ om. r

ƢƔƦƣȻơƜƤ n.) R

270 ƥƢƐƟƗơƟƦƔ ƞơƜƕƏƤ: Ʀȶ ƦʀƤ ƾƥƘƕƘƒƔƤ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ ƝƔƦƚƖƮƣƚμƔ, ƘǮ ƥƢƐƟƗƘƜ ƛƘơʎƤ, ȃƢơƧ ǂƗƜƝơƟ ƨƮƟơƟ ƘǲƣƖƔƥƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V 1 lm. deest in V; (270 n.) V Ʀȶ – ƝƔƦƚƖƮƣƚμƔ] refecta sunt in q ƝƔȴ ƦơʝƦơ ƝƔƦƚƖƮƣƚμƔ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ 2 ƛƘơʎƤ] ƦơʎƤ ƛ. V ǂƗƜƝơƟ ƨȷƟơƟ Zielinski 7 (cf. supra sch. 199a.2 et sch. Ai. 216): ǂƗƜƝơƤ ƨȷƟơƤ codd.

271 ǲƗƫ ƗȰ ƦơƯƦƫƟ: ƙƚƞơƦƧƢƒƔƤ μƘƥƦȶƟ Ʀȶ ƢƣɱƖμƔŭ ƝƜƟƚƦƜƝȶƟ ƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ ơǴƝƦơƟ Ʀȶ ƔȎƦơƐƟƦƚƟ ǎƟ ƝơƒƦɾ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ǲƗƫ n.) R; (ǲƗƫ ƗȰ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 271–3 ǲƗƫ – μƚƦƣȴ Ʀȶ om. G 2 Ʀȶ ƔȎƦơȱƟƦƚƟ ǎƟ ƝơȵƦɾ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ] om. q: ita refecerunt Vrr: Ʀȶ ƦȶƟ ƔȎƦơȱƟƦƔ ƢƣȶƤ ƝơȵƦƚƟ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ǿƣɱƟ ƝƘȵμƘƟơƟ r: Ʀȶ ƔȎƦȶƟ ȂƟƦƔ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƝơȵƦɾ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ǿƣɱƟ ƦȲƟ ƝȷƣƚƟ V ǎƟ Brunck1 (cf. retractationem libri V): ƢƣȶƤ LHrr

157

sch. 267 – sch. 278b

272 (ƔȎƦơƨƮƟƦƚƟ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƔȎƦơƐƟƦƚƟŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǟμʎƟ ƢƔƣƐƞƝƘƜ ǆƦƦƜƝʬƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ǟμȴƟ s.) L Ɩƣ. L

ʀμƜƟ L

275 (ƦƞƑμƫƟ): Ʀơƞμƚƣȯ, ƾƟƔƜƗƑƤŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǎƢȴ ơǲƝƦơƧ ǿ ƞȷƖơƤ. Ls.l. V 1 Ʀơƞμƚƣȯ, ƾƟƔƜƗȳƤ: Su. IV 565, 14 (Ʀ 706) cf. sch. 439.2 ubi ƦƞƚμơƟƘƥƦƏƦƚ per ƦơƞμƚƣơƦƏƦƚ explicatur; sch. Aesch. Eum. 506–7 (cod. M) ƦƞƏμƫƟ] … Ʀ ƞ Ƒ μ ƫ Ɵ Ɩ Ȯ ƣ ǿ ƾ Ɵ Ɣ Ɯ Ɨ Ƒ Ƥ · ǟ Ɨ ’ ȥ Ɨ Ƙ Ʀ ƞ Ƒ μ ƫ Ɵ . 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (275 n.) V ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǎƢȴ ơǲƝƦơƧ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ om. L

278a Ƙȏƣơʝƥ' ǎƝƘƒƟƚƟ ǟμƐƣƔƟ: Ʀȶ ƘȏƣơʝƥƔ ƦȶƟ ƢƮƛơƟ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ǎƢƜƛƧμƒƔƟ ƦʀƤ ƖƧƟƔƜƝȶƤ ƥƚμƔƒƟƘƜ, ơǵơƟ ǟƗƐƫƤ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƛƘƫμƐƟƚ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm. deest in r; (Ƙȏƣơʝƥ' n.) R; (Ƙȏƣơʝƥ' n.) V ƝƔȴ om. q LVrr: ƗƘƩơμȱƟƚ Nauck 420 renuente Bernardakis 42

2 ƛƘƫμȱƟƚ q: ƛƘƫμƐƟƚƟ

278b ǎƝƘƒƟƚƟ ǟμƐƣƔƟ: ơǯ ǆƣƖơƞƜƝơȴ ƥƧƖƖƣƔƨƘʎƤ ƜƖʳ ƘǴƟƔƒ ƨƔƥƜ μƚƟȶƤ ŷƔμƚƞƜʬƟơƤ, ȟƤ ŸƘƜƟƒƔƤ ǎƟ ƙʳ ǆƣƖơƞƜƝʬƟ. L V r(GMR) 2 ŸƘƜƟƒƔƤ: FGrHist 306 F 2 1 lm. scripsi: ƛƘơʎƥƜƟ ǒμμƚƟ’ ǯƘƣƏ L (v. 281): ǟ Ɨ' ȥƗƘ ƦƞȳμƫƟ (v. 275) R: ǟ Ɨ' ȥƗƘ ƦƞȳμƫƟ ƀ qui haec verba omisso Ɨ’ iterans explicationi praeposuit: deest in G et in V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 278a copulet (ǂƞƞƫƤ); (ǟ Ɨ' ȥƗƘ ƦƞȳμƫƟ n.) R ǆƣƖơƞƜƝơȴ] ǆƣƖơƞơƖƜƝơȴ V ƜƖʳ (ƦƣƜƥƝƔƜƗƘƝƏƦƚƟ V) ƘǴƟƔƒ ƨƔƥƜ μƚƟȶƤ LV: ƗƐƝƔ ƨƔƥȴ μʀƟƔƤ r 2 ŷƔμƚƞƜʬƟơƤ Lascaris: ƦȮ μƚƞƒƫƟ L: ƦȮ μƚƞƜʬƟơƤ (μƚƞȵƫƟơƤ V) Vrr ȟƤ] ƝƔȴ r ŸƘƜƟȵƔƤ] ŸƜƟȵƔƤ r ƙʳ] ǏƢƦȮ r ǆƣƖơƞƜƝʬƟ] ǆƣƖơƞơƖƜƝʬƟ V

158

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

281 (ǒμμƚƟ'): ƝƔƦȮ μʀƟƔ. Ls.l. r(Gƀ) Su. II 257, 1 (Ƙ 982), unde Zonar. 703, 8 cf. Hesych. Ƙ 2381 ǒμμƚƟơƜŭ Ɣǯ ƝƔƦȮ μʀƟƔ ƦƘƞơƯμƘƟƔƜ ƛƧƥƒƔƜ 1 lm. add. Elmsley

283a (ƦȱƝƟƔ): ƖƣȯƨƘƦƔƜ ƦȱƦƚƝƔ. R 1 Ɩƣ. R

283b (ƝƾƢƜƝƫƝƯƫ): ƗƔƝƣƯƫ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley

284 (ǎƢƫƟơμƔƥμƐƟƚƟ): ǎƨ' ɣ ȞƟơμƏƥƛƚ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ǎƨ' ɣ] ǎƨ' ơȕ vel ƾƨ' ơȕ Bernardakis 42, fortasse recte

286 ȃƥơƟ μơƜ ƛƧμȶƤ ǟƗơƟƑƟ: ǎƢƜƝơƧƨƒƙƘƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ ƦơʎƤ ƗƔƝƣƯơƜƤ ǟ ƥƧμƨơƣƏŭ ŵǮƥƩƯƞơƤ ơǳ ƦƘ ƥƦƘƟƔƖμơȴ ƦʬƟ ƢƮƟƫƟ ǎƣƘƒƥμƔƦƔ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ŵǮƥƩȹƞơƤ: fr. 385 R. 1 lm.] ƦơƥȷƟƗ' q: deest in Vrr; (ƔȎƦȲƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƔȎƦȲƟ n.) R; (ƝƞƔʝƥƔƜ ƢȯƣƔ n.) V; accuratiss. 285–6 ơȎƗȰ – ƨƐƣƘƜ ƖȮƣ om. r ƗƔƝƣƯơƜƤ] ƗƏƝƣƧƥƜƟ V 2 ŵǮƥƩƯƞơƤ] qVNFWa: ơǯ ƗȰ r ƝƔȴ ŵǮƥ. qVrr 3 ơǳ ƦƘ Lq

159

sch. 281 – sch. 299

287 (ƞȷƖơƜƥƜ ƖƘƟƟƔȵƔ): ƘȎƖƘƟȲƤ ƞƮƖơƜƤ ƝƔȴ ơȎ ƢƣƏƠƘƥƜƟ. L V 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ƞȷƖơƜƥƜ n.) V in L

ƘȎƖƘƟȲƤ] ǟ ƘȎƖ. V

ơȎ a manu recentiore additum

289–90a (Ȥ – ƦȱƛƟƚƝƘƟ;): ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ ƢƔƣʫƗƚƝƘƟ ǎƟ ŷƚƣƧƦƏƗɾ. L V 1 ǆƣƜƥƦơƨȯƟƚƤ: fr. 175 K.–A. 1 lm. addidi; (ƨƫƟơʝƥƔ ƦơƜƏƗŪ n.) V; de lemmate vide Kassel-Austin ad Ar. fr. 175 ƦƔʝƦƔ ƝƔȴ V

289–90b ƥơȴ μƮƟɾ ƢƔƦȲƣ | ƦƐƛƟƚƝƘƟ: ơȎƝ ƾƟɾƣƐƛƚ, ƨƚƥȵƟ, ƾƞƞȮ ƦƐƛƟƚƝƘƟ, Ʀʭ ƢƣơƥƩƑμƔƦƜ ƦʀƤ ƞƐƠƘƫƤ ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƜƙơμƐƟƚ ƦȲƟ ƢƔƣƔƟơμƒƔƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in qVrr; (Ȥ ƗȹƥƛƘơƟ n.) R ƨƚƥȵƟ] ƨƔƥȴƟ ƀ: om. q –μƐƟƚƟ R ƢƔƣƔƟơμȵƔƟ] ƢƔƟơƧƣƖƒƔƟ V: ƢƔƣơƜμȵƔƟ ƀ

2 ƢƔƣƔƞơƖƜƙơμƐƟƚ]

289 (ƗƯƥƛƘơƟ): ƾƥƘƕƐƤ. L cf. Su. II 150, 5 (Ɨ 1639) ŸƯƥƛƘơƤ: ƾƥƘƕƑƤ cf. sch. Aesch. Ch. 523 ƗƯƥƛƘơƤ] ƾƥƘƕƑƤ 1 lm. add. Elmsley

299 ȏƞƔƝƦƘʎ: ǎμμƔƟʬƤ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƔƜƗʬƤ ƕơɲ ȟƤ ƝƯƫƟ. L V r(GƀR) Su. IV 638, 11 (Ƨ 88) 1 lm. deest in LVGR; (ȏƞƔƝƦƘʎ n.) R; (291 n.) V

ƕơɲ] ƕơʬƟ G ȟƤ] ǟ V

160

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

300 ǿ ƝƞƘƜƟȷƤ ƔȎƦʁ: ƝƔƦȮ ƘǮƣƫƟƘƒƔƟ. Ls.l. r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in L; (ǿ ƝƞƘƜƟȶƤ n.) R ƝƔƦȮ] ƝƔƦ' r ƘǮƣƫƟƘƒƔƟ] ƘǮƣ. ƘǲƣƚƦƔƜ r

302 ǿ ƥȸƟ ƖƧƟƔƜƠȴ ƦȮƤ μƏƩƔƤ: ƥƧƟƘƣƖơƯƥƚƤ ƖȮƣ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ ȏƢȶ ƩƘƣƥȴ ƝƔȴ ơȎƞơμƐƟƚƤ ƾƞƮƩơƜơ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ƥƧƟƘƣƖơȹƥƚƤ – 2 ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟƔ: Su. Ž 174, 20 (Ɣ 1941) 3 Hom. Od. 24. 97 1 lm.] ǿ ƥȸƟ ƖƧƟƔƜƠȴ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ǿ ƥȸƟ ƖƧƟƔƜƠȴƟ n.) R; (302 s.) V ƖȮƣ om. q žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔƤ] ƦʀƤ (om. V) žƞƧƦƔƜμƟ- qVrrSu. 2 post ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟƔ add. ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ q 3 locum homericum om. r ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ] ơƤ V

303 (ǎƖȺ Ɨ' ȆƣȱƥƦƚƟ ƦʬƟƗƘ ƢƣơƥμȱƟơƧƥ' ƾƘȵ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ

ǎƖȺ Ɨ' ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƢƣơƥμƐƟơƧƥ' ƾƘƒ ƢơƦƘ. L 1 Ɩƣ. L

305 (ƦȮƤ ơȒƥƔƤ): ƦȮƤ ƢƔƣơƯƥƔƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

307 ǎƟ ơȔƟ ƦơƜơƯƦơƜƤ: ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƛƣƫƢƒƟƫƤ ƗƜƝƔƜơƞơƖƘʎƦƔƜ, ǎƢƘȴ ơǯ ǎƟ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ǒƠƫ ƞơƖƜƥμơʝ ƦƜƟƔ ƢƣƏƥƥơƧƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƘǮƤ ƛƘơȸƤ ƾƥƘƕʀ ƨƛƐƖƖơƟƦƔƜ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ǎƟ ơȔƟ ƦơƜơȹƦơƜƤ n.) R; (307 s.) V; accuratiss. vv. 307–9 ǎƟ ơȔƟ – 2 ƦƜƟƔ] ƢơƞƞȮ V: ƦƜ r 3 ƾƥƘƕʀ] ƾƥƘƕʬƤ r

ƝƔƝȯ

161

sch. 300 – sch. 318

310 ƨƐƣ' ƘǮƢƐ: ǎƢƘȴ ƛƣƔƥƧƦƐƣʪ ƞƮƖʪ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƝƐƩƣƚƦƔƜ, ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƕơƧƞƮμƘƟơƤ ƢƘƣȴ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƢƧƛƐƥƛƔƜ ǎƣƫƦɲ, ƘǮ ƢƏƣƘƥƦƜƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ. L q(Hs.l.) V r(GR) 1 lm. deest in HVrr; (ƨȱƣ' ƘǮƢȰ n.) R; (310 s.) V; accuratiss. vv. 310–1 ƨƐƣ' ƘǮƢƐ – ƗȷμƫƟ 2 ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ] ŵǲƖ. ǟƖƘμȺƟ r

312a (Ǥ ƝƏƣƦƔ): ǎƟ ǢƛƘƜŭ ơǵơƟ Ƣơƞƞơʝ ƖƘ ƗƘʎ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (Ǥ ƝȯƣƦƔ s./n.) L/R; (312 s.) V

ǎƟ ǢƛƘƜ om. r

Ƣơƞƞơʝ] ƢơƞƞȮ r

312b μȲ ƗƮƝƘƜ μ' ǂƟ, ƘǲƢƘƣ: ƗƔƜμơƟƒƫƤ ɜƝơƟƮμƚƦƔƜ ƦơʝƦơ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ƩƘƒƣƫƥƜƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƘǲƣƖƘƥƛƔƜ ǎƠƮƗơƧ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ μƘƒƣƔƝƔ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ μȱƟ, ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ ƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ȏƢȱƣƛƘƥƜƟ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; accuratiss. vv. 312–3 μȲ ƗƮƝƘƜ – ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜ 2 ƩȳƣƫƥƜƟ r ƘǲƣƖƘƥƛƔƜ] ƘǲƣƖƔƥƛƔƜ r ǎƠȷƗơƧ V (coni. Lascaris): ǒƠơƗơƤ Lrr ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ μƘƒƣƔƝƔ] ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ μƘʎƥƔƜ ƀR ƢƣȶƤ] deest in V (del. iam Neue 122 renuente Wansink 48): ƢƣȶƤ <ŵǮƖȵƥƛơƧ> Papageorgiou2 ƢƛŪ 3 ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ Wa (coni. Lascaris): ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȲƤ L: ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ Vrr ȏƢƐƣƛƘƥƜƟ (cf. sch. Hom. Il. 8. 475–6; LSJ s.v. III)] ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƟ WaWc (iam Iuntina)

317 (Ʀơʝ ƝƔƥƜƖƟƑƦơƧ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƢƘƣƒ. L 1 lm. add. Brunck2

318 (μƐƞƞơƟƦơƤ): ƕƣƔƗƯƟơƟƦơƤ. Ls.l. q(Żs.l.) Gs.l. cf. Su. μ 538 μƐƞƞƫ: ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƕƣƔƗƯƟƫ … ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤŭ μƐƞƞƫƟ ƖȮƣ ƾƘȴ ƗƣɱƟ ƦƜ…; sch. Eur. Hipp.1381 μƐƞƞƘƜ: ƕƣƔƗƯƟƘƜ; sch. Aesch. Th. 99c; Su. μ 482; μ 539; EM 578, 3; Hesych. μ 745 μ Ɛ ƞ ƞ Ƙ Ʀ Ƙ · ... ƕƣƔƗƯƟƘƦƘ … et 746 μ Ƙ ƞ ƞ Ƒ ƥ Ɣ Ƥ · … ƕƣƔƗƯƟƔƤ; Ɔ μ 102 = Phot. μ 248 = Su. μ 488 1 lm. add. Lascaris

162

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

320 ƨƜƞƘʎ ƖȮƣ ǾƝƟƘʎƟ: ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ Ʀȶ ǾƝƟƘʎƟ ȇμƚƣƜƝʬƤ ƘǮƣʀƥƛƔƜ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƨơƕƘʎƥƛƔƜ ǾƝƟƘƒƫ Ɨ' ǳƢƢƫƟ ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟƐμƘƟ. L q(Hs.l.) V r(Gƀ); cf. gl. in q(Hs.l.) cf. sch. Tr. 7b … ȂƝƟơƟ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ ƨƮƕơƟ· ȋμƚƣơƤ ǾƝƟƘƒƫ Ɨ’ ǳƢƢƫƟ ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟƐμƘƟ; 181 (ȂƝƟơƧ): ƨƮƕơƧ· ȋμƚƣơƤ ǾƝƟƘƒƫ Ɨ’ ǳƢƢƫƟ; sch. OT 749 ǾƝƟʬ] ƗƐƗơƜƝƔ· ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ ǾƝƟƘƒƫ Ɨ’ ǳƢƢƫƟ ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟƐμƘƟ; sch. Ai. 81c ǾƝƟƘʎƤ: ƢơƜƚƦƜƝȶƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƨơƕʁŭ ƢƧƝƟʬƤ ƖȮƣ ƦƒƛƚƥƜ Ʀȶ ǾƝƟƘʎƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƨơƕƘʎƥƛƔƜ; sch. OC 731; Su. ơ 116; sch. Dem. 1, 120; Phot. 325, 21; 3 Hom. Il. 5. 255 1 lm. deest in HVGM; (320 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 320 ǾƝƟƘʎƟ ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ – 2 ƨơƕƘʎƥƛƔƜ om. HG (ƨơƕƘʎƥƛƔƜ ut gl. ad ǾƝƟƘʎƟ praebet Hs.l.) 1 ȇμƚƣƜƝʬƤ] ȋμƚƣơƤ ƗȰ ƀ 2 post ƨơƕƘʎƥƛƔƜ add. ȟƤ Ʀȶ V 3 voces ƝƔȴ (om. H) ȋμƚƣơƤ loco homerico praeposuerunt HG ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟƐμƘƟ LV: ǎƢƜƕƑμƘƟƔƜ HG: om. M post ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟƐμƘƟ add. ȞƝƘƜȯƫƟ L versus Il. 5. 255 (– ǎƢƜƕƔƜƟȱμƘƟ) et 257 confundens post ǾƝƟƘƒƫ Ɨ’ ǳƢƢƫƟ add. ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƨơƕơʝμƔƜ ƀ

324–5 ȟƤ ƗƮμƫƟ ǿƣʬ | ƦȲƟ ƥȲƟ ȃμƔƜμơƟ: ơȎƩ ȟƤ ƦʀƤ ƊƣƧƥơƛƐμƜƗơƤ ƦƾƟƔƟƦƒƔ ƨƣơƟơƯƥƚƤ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƢƘƜƗȲ ǿƣʬƥƜƟ ǎƟƔƖƒƥμƔƦƔ ƕƔƥƦƏƙơƧƥƔƟ, ƦơʝƦơ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ƢƧƛƐƥƛƔƜ ƕơƧƞƮμƘƟƔƜ ƝƫƞƯơƧƥƜƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƦʬƟ ǏƠʀƤ ƞƮƖƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GM) 1 lm.] μȲ ƟʝƟ ǒƦ' ƀ: deest in qVG; (324 n.) V; accuratiss. 324–7 μȲ ƟʝƟ – ƟơμƒƙƘƦƔƜ 1 ơȎƩ – 2 ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ] haec ita rescripsit q ƨƔƥȵ ƦƜƟƘƤ ơȎƩ ȟƤ ... Ʀʁ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƨƚƥȴƟ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ 2 ƦƾƟƔƟƦƒƔ] ǎƟƔƟƦƒƔ G ƨƣơƟơʝƥƜ ƀ ǎƟƔƖȵƥμƔƦƔ qVGWaLp (Lascaris): ǎƟƔƖƑμƔƦƔ Lƀ 3 ƕƔƥƦȯƙơƧƥƔƟ om. M ƕơƧƞȷμƘƟƔƜ ƝƫƞȹơƧƥƜƟ] ƕơƧƞȷμƘƟơƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƝƫƞȹƘƜ q ƕơƧƞȷμƘƟƔƜ] ƕơƯƞơμƔƜ VG

328–9 (ƦȵƟ' … ƨƫƟƘʎƤ … ƨȯƦƜƟ): Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤŭ ƦƒƟƔ ƨƏƦƜƟ ƨƫƟƘʎƤ. L V 1 lm. addidi; (328 n.) V

328 ƦƒƟ' ƔȔ ƥȸ ƦƑƟƗƘ: ǎƢƒƦƚƗƘƤ ƦơʎƤ ƾƖƣƒơƜƤ ǢƛƘƥƜƟ ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦƏƦƦơƧƥƜ ƢƣɱƔ, ƝƔƛƏƢƘƣ ƟʝƟ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƟ ƥƧƟƐƙƘƧƠƘƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀʁ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟɾ ƦȲƟ ǶƥμƑƟƚƟ, ǓƟƘƝƔ Ʀơʝ ƗƜƔƢơƜƝƒƞƞƘƜƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƾƟƦƜƣƣƑƥƘƥƜ ƦȮ ƗƣƏμƔƦƔ. L V r(GM)

sch. 320 – sch. 339–40

163

1 lm. deest in r et V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ǎƢƒƦƚƗƘƤ ƗȰ) ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦȯƦƦơƧƥƜ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣƏƦƦơƧƥƜ M: ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƏƖơƧƥƜ G: ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦȯƦƦƘƜ Roemer2 82 2 ƢƣɱƔ om. M ƟʝƟ post ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ transp. V ƊƣƧƥȷƛƘμƜƤ ƀ ƥƧƟȱƙƘƧƠƘƟ] ƥƧƙƘƯƠƔƤ V: ƾƟƐƙƘƧƠƘƟ G 3 ƦȲƟ ǶƥμƑƟƚƟ] Ʀʁ ǶƥμƑƟƚƟ (sic) V

331 (ƛƧμʭ μƔƦƔƒʪ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƪƧƩʁ μƔƦƔƒɯ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ L; Ɩƣ. del. post Wunder 37 Wolff 207 quippe qui ƪƧƩʁ μƔƦƔƒɯ glossam esse putavisset coll. sch. Ai. 716a

335a1 ȏƨƘƜμƐƟɾ [ƗơƝƘʎ]: <μȲ> ȃƞơƟ Ʀȶ ǯƥƦƒơƟ ƾƟƔƢƘƦƔƥƏƥɾŭ ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƢƞƘƮƟƦƫƟ, ơǱ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ƕƒƔƟ ƦʬƟ ƾƟƐμƫƟ ơȎƝ ƾƟƦƒƥƩơƟƦƘƤ ȏƨƜɱƥƜ Ʀȶ ǯƥƦƒơƟ. L V M r(G) 1 lm. L decurtavi: deest in r et V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 335a2 coniungat (ǂƞƞƫƤ) <μȲ> Iuntina 47v: <ơȎƩ> Papageorgiou: ȃƞơƟ in ǾƞȵƖơƟ mutavit Papageorgiou2 67 ƾƟƔƢƘƦƔƥƏƥɾ] ƾƟƔƢƘƦƏƥɾ r ƾƢȶ] ƾƢȶ μƘƦƔƨơƣɱƤ VG (hoc commendat Dindorf ơȎƝ ƾƟƦȵƥƩơƟƦƘƤ om. G ƾƟƦȵƥƩơƟƦƘƤ] ƾƟƦƜƥƩƮƟƦƘƤ L 123) 2 ơǱ] ơǵơƟ M ȏƨƜɱƥƜ – 3 ǯƥƦƒơƟ] ƥƧƥƦƐƞƞơƧƥƜ ƦȮ ǯƥƦƒƔ G 2–3 Ʀȶ ǯƥƦȵơƟ ƀ (coni. Nauck 420): ƦʬƟ ǯƥƦȵƫƟ L, defend. Bernardakis 42: ƦȶƟ ǯƥƦȶƟ V

335a2 ȏƨƑƥƘƜƟ Ʀȶ ǯƥƦƒơƟ, ơǵơƟ ƥƧƥƦƐƞƞƘƜƟ Ʀȶ ƨƣƮƟƚμƔ ƝƔȴ μȲ ǂƟƦƜƝƣƧƤ μƏƩƘƥƛƔƜ ơǯơƟƘȴ Ʀʁ ƢƣơƔƜƣƐƥƘƜ ƩƣƫμȱƟƚƟ. L q(Ÿ) V r(Gƀ) 1 ante ȏƨƑƥƘƜƟ add. ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƔȎƦȶ L et ǂƞƞƫƤ Ÿ; (ȏƨƘƜμȱƟɾ ƗơƝƘʎ n.) V ȏƨƑƥƘƜƟ Ʀȶ ǯƥƦƒơƟ om. G Ʀȶ ǯƥƦȵơƟ] Ʀȶ ǯƥƦȮ ƀ ƝƔȴ om. Ÿ 2 ơǯơƟƘȴ om. r ƩƣƫμƐƟƚƟ r: ƩƣʬμƔƜ LŸV

339–40 (ƘǮ Ɨ’ – ƾƝơƧƥƦƐƔ): ǿ ƟơʝƤŭ Ʀƒ ȂƨƘƞơƤ ƦʀƤ ƗƜƝƔƜơƥƯƟƚƤ, Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ ƗƜȮ ƦƔƯƦƚƟ ƦơʎƤ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ ƢƘƣƜƢƐƥɾ; L r(GƀR) 1 lm. add. Kruytbosch 77 supra ad sch. 86a.9

Ʀƒ] ƦƒƤ r

ƦƜƤ om. r

2 ƢƘƣƜƢƐƥɾ] ǎμƢƐƥɾ r: de modo vide

164

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

342 (μƐƞƘƜƟ): ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƘƜƟ. L cf. sch. Hom. Od. 6. 65 μƐμƚƞƘƟ] … ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ μƐƞƫ Ʀȶ ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƫ; sch. Ar. Av. 1636; sch. Opp. Hal. 1. 155; Hesych. μ 674 μƐƞƘƜŭ ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƘƜ … ; Su. μ 482 ƀ Ɛ ƞ Ƙ Ɯ · ƨƣơƟƦƒƙƘƜ … 1 lm. add. Lascaris

343a ǃƢƔƟƦƔ ƖƏƣ ƥơƜ ƦƾμȮ ƟơƧƛƘƦƑμƔƦƔ: ƦƔʝƦƔ ǿƢơʎȯ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƦȮ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟɾ, ȃƢơƧ Ʀʁ ǶƥμƑƟɾ ƞơƜƗơƣƘʎ ƝƔƒ ƨƚƥƜƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƦȮ žƣƐơƟƦơƤ ƨƣơƟƘʎƟ. L V r(GƀR) 2 Soph. Ant. 548 1 lm. deest in r et in V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 343b coniungat (ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗȰ); (343 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 343–4 ǃƢƔƟƦƔ – ƞȱƖƘƜƤ ǿƢơʎƔ] ȃμơƜƔ W (coni. iam Michaelis haesitans apud Jahn2, confidenter apud Jahn3 (coll. sch. 997)) ƦƔʝƦƔ ǿƢơʎȯ ǎƥƦƜƟ] ƦƔʝƦȯ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǿƢơʎƔ Bernardakis 42 ƦȮ] ƦơʎƤ r (recepit Michaelis l.c.) ǎƢȴ] ǎƟ Michaelis l.c., at non de fabulae nomine agitur 2 ƝƔȴ om. r ƔȎƦȲƟ Wc: ƔȎƦʁ cett.

343b (ƦƾμȮ ƟơƧƛƘƦȳμƔƦƔ): ơǵơƟ ǁ ƘǴƢƘƤ ǎμȰ ƟơƧƛƘƦơʝƥƔ. L V Gi(s.l.) r(GiiƀR) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in M (ǂƞƞƫƤ) lm. add. Lascaris; (ƦƾμȮ ƟơƧƛƘƦȳμƔƦƔ s.) L ơǵơƟ om. Gi ƘǴƢƘƤ] -ƔƤ V ƟơƧƛƘƦơʝƥƔ LVGi: ǞƛȱƦƚƥƔƟ r

345a ǒƢƘƜƛ' Ǐƞơʝ ƖƘ ƛȯƦƘƣ': ǿμơƞƮƖƚƥơƟ ƥƔƧƦȲƟ Ǡ ƨƣơƟƘʎƟ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƢƣơƥƦƜƛƘμƐƟƚƟ ƦơʎƤ ǎƩƛƣơʎƤ Ǡ ƨƣơƟơʝƥƔƟ ƦʬƟ ƨƜƞƦƏƦƫƟ ƾμƟƚμơƟƘʎƟŭ ơǵơƟ ƛƏƦƘƣƏ ƥƘ ƗƘʎ ǿμơƞơƖʀƥƔƜ Ǡ ȃƦƜ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƨƣơƟƘʎƤ Ǡ ȃƦƜ ǏƝơʝƥƔ ƿμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣơƣɲƤ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ǒƢƘƜƛ' Ǐƞơʝ ƖƘ L: deest in Vrr; (ǒƢƘƜƛ' n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 345–6 ǒƢƘƜƛ' – ǒƩƘƜƟ ǿμơƞƮƖƚƥơƟ] ǿμ. ƨƚƥȴƟ Ż: ǿμơƞƮƖƚƥƜƟ G ƥƔƧƦȲƟ] ƔȎƦȲƟ V: ǎƟ ƥƔƧƦʁ r ƝƔƝʬƤ] ƝƔƞʬƤ Ż 2 ƨƣơƟơʝƥƔƟ] ƨ. ƝƔƞʬƤ ȂƟƦƫ (sic pro ȂƟƦƫƤ) Ż: ƨ. ơȓƦƫƤ rWa ƾμƟƚμơƟƘʎƟ] ƾμƟƚμơƟƘƯƘƜƟ G 3 ƛƏƦƘƣƔ] ƛƏƦƘƣơƟ r ǿμơƞơƖʀƥƔƜ] -ƖƘʎƟ V ƝƔƝʬƤ ƨƣơƟƘʎƤ] ƝƔƦƔƨƣơƟƘʎƤ r

165

sch. 342 – sch. 354c

345b (Ǐƞơʝ): ǿμơƞƮƖƚƥơƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

348 (Ʀȶ ƦơƯƦƫƟ μʎƥơƤ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƝƔƦƏ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

350 (ƦƑƟ ƦƘ ƗƣʬƥƔƟ ǎƝƦƣƐƢƘƜƤ): ƾƟƦȴ ǎμƐ. ǟ ƗȰ ǎƝ ƾƟƦȴ ƦʀƤ ƾƢƮŭ ƾƢơƦƣƐƢƘƜƤ. L V r(GƀR) 1 ǟ ƗȰ ǎƝ ƾƟƦȴ ƦʀƤ ƾƢƮ: sch. Arat. p. 38, 1–2 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (350 n.) V ƾƢ. ǢƦơƜ ƝƫƞȹƘƜƤ Wa: om. V

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Vrr

ƗȰ ǎƝ] ǎƝ ƗȰ r

1–2 ƾƢơƦƣƐƢƘƜƤ]

354a ơȎ ƙʬ; ƝƔƝʬƤ μȱƟ: ƝƔƝʬƤ μȰƟ ƙʬ, ƾƞƞ' ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƞƧƢƘʎƟ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ ƦơʝƦơ ƢƣƏƦƦƫ. L q(H) V r(Gƀ) 1–2 sch. 354a et sch. 354b ita composuit V: ƝƔƝʬƤ μȰƟ ƝƔȴ ǾƗƧƟƚƣʬƤ ƙʬ, ƾƞƞ’ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƞƧƢƘʎƟ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ ƦơʝƦơ ƢƣƏƦƦƫ 1 lm. ex Ɓ: deest in LHVrr; (354 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 354–5 ơȎ ƙʬ – ƦơƯƦơƧƤ 2 ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ] ǎƩ. ƝƔȴ ƾƟƜɱƟ Ż

354b (ƝƔƝʬƤ): ǾƗƧƟƚƣʬƤ. Ls.l. cf. V 1 lm. add. Elmsley

de V vide ad sch. 354a.1–2

354c (ǎƢƔƣƝơƯƟƦƫƤ): ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǎƨƒƘμƔƜ ƦƣƧƨƘƣưƦƘƣơƟ ƙʀƟ. L q(Ż) r(GƀR) 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƦƣƧƨƘƣưƦƘƣơƟ] Ʀ. ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƦƣƧƨƚƞƮƦƘƣơƟ ŻWa

ƙʀƟ om. Ż

166

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

355 (ƞƧƢʬ ƗȰ ƦơȹƦơƧƤ): ƞƧƢʬ ƦơƯƦơƧƤ ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ƦƜμɱƟ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƞƧƢʬ ƗȰ ƦơȹƦơƧƤ s.) L

361 ƥơȴ ƗȰ ƢƞơƧƥȵƔ: ƗƔƪƜƞȲƤ ǒƥƦƫ ƥơƧ ǟ ƦƣơƨƑ. L q(Ż) V 1 lm. deest in LV; (ƢƞơƧƥȵƔ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 361–2 ƥơȴ – ƝƘȵƥƛƫ ǟ ƦƣơƨȲ] ǿ ƕƒơƤ ƝƔȴ ǟ ƙƫȲ V: ǟ ƦƣƏƢƘƙƔ Ż

ƥơƧ] ƥơƜ Ż

363 ǎμơȴ ƖȮƣ ǒƥƦƫ: ǎμơƒ, ƨƚƥȵƟ, ǒƥƦƫ ƦƣơƨȲ ǟ Ʀʁ ƾƟƏƖƝɾ μƮƟơƟ ƿƣμƮƙơƧƥƔ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƢƘƒƟƚƟ ƾƢƘƞƔƯƟơƧƥƔŭ ơȎ ƗƐơμƔƜ ƖȮƣ ƦơƜƔƯƦƚƤ ƦƣơƨʀƤ, ƾƨ' ǥƤ ǟƗơƟȲƟ ƥƩƑƥƫ. L q(Ż) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in HVrr; (363 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 363–4 ǎμơȴ – ƕȷƥƝƚμƔ; scholiastam scripturam μȲ ƞƧƢơʝƟ pro μȲ ƞƧƢƘʎƟ in libro suo invenisse coni. Erfurdt 426 ǎμơȴ] ǎμ. ƗȰ Ż ƨƚƥƒƟ] ƨƔƥƒ ƀ ǟ om. r μȷƟơƟ om. H 2 ƦȲƟ ƢƘƒƟƚƟ] Ʀȶ ƢƘƜƟʀƟ r: ƦȲƟ ƢƘʎƟƔƟ V ơȎ om. r ƖȮƣ om. H

363–4 (ƦƮƟƗƘ μȲ ƞƧƢƘʎƟ μƮƟơƟ | ƕƮƥƝƚμƔ): Ʀơʝ μȲ ƞƧƢƘʎƟ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ. Ls.l. Wa 1 (lm.) scholiastam ƦƮƟƗƘ vel simile quid pro ƦơȎμȰ legisse suspicaveris

365 (ơȎƗ' ǀƟ ƥȹ, ƥȻƨƣƫƟ Ɩ' ơȔƥƔ): ơȎƗ' ǀƟ ƥȹ, ƘǮ ǎƥƫƨƣƮƟƘƜƤ, ƿƕƣʬƤ ǒƙƚƤ, ǞμƘƞƚƝƧʎƔ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi praeeunte Lascaris (ơȎƗ’ ǀƟ ƥƯ, ƥưƨƣƫƟ); (365 n.) V

2 ǒƙƚƤ] ǒƙƫƤ r

366 (ƝƔƞơʝ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƞƑƛƚƦƜ, ƞƐƖơƧ, ǾƟơμƏƙơƧ. L V r(ƀ) scholiasta verbum ƝƔƞơʝμƔƜ ab adiectivo ƝƔƞƮƤ distinguit (ƢƔʎƗƔ n.) V Ʀơʝ om. M

1 lm. add. Lascaris;

sch. 355 – sch. 379

167

369–71 (ȟƤ ƦơʎƤ – ƢȯƞƜƟ): ƘǮ ƥƧƖƝƘƣƏƥƚƦƘ ƦơȸƤ ƦƣƮƢơƧƤ, ƘȔ ǀƟ ǒƩơƜŭ ǟ μȰƟ ƖȮƣ ƥμƜƝƣȯ, ǟ ƗȰ ƾƟƘƜμƐƟƚ. L V r(GM) 1 lm. addidi: deest in LVrr; (ǾƣƖȲƟ n.) V ƥƧƖƝƘƣȯƥƚƦƘ ž (coni. iam Elmsley; de modo vide supra ad sch. 86a.9): ƥƧƖƝƘƣƏƥƚƦƔƜ LVM: ƥƧƖƝƘƣƏƥƘƦƘ FOWaWc (coni. Lascaris): ƥƧƖƝƘƣƏƥƘƜƦƘ G: ƥƧƖƝƘƣȯƥƔƜƦƘ quasi ex G Dindorf 124 et Kruytbosch 77 1 ǟ – fin. om. G 2 ƖȮƣ om. V ƥμƜƝƣȮ] ƥƝƞƚƣȮ FWaVƀ (coni. Zakas 77; vide infra) ƾƟƘƜμȱƟƚ] ‘Electra’ Papageorgiou, recte; vide v. 516 qui ƾƟƘƜμȱƟƚ de Chrysothemide acceperunt, ƥμƜƝƣȯ ad Electram rettulerunt; quam ob rem hoc vocabulum mutaverunt ita: in ƔȎƥƦƚƣȮ Lascaris, in ƥƜƗƚƣɱ olim Papageorgiou3 83, in ƥƝƞƚƣȯ Zakas 77

372 ǞƛȯƤ: ƾƟƦȴ ǎƟ ƥƧƟƚƛƘƒɯ ƘǮμƒ. L q(Ÿs.l.) V Gs.l. ƀ cf. sch. Eur. Andr. (ad lm. ǞƛƏƗƫƟ): ƾƣƩƔƒƫƟ, ƥƧƟƑƛƫƟ; sch. Opp. Hal. 4. 122 ǞƛƏƗƔŭ ƥƧƟƑƛƚ, ƥƧƟƚƛƘƥƦƏƦƚ; Hesych. ƚ 214 ǞƛƏƗƘƤ· ƥƧƟƑƛƘƜƤ et 215 Ǟ ƛ Ə Ƥ · … ƥƧƟƑƛƚƤ; Ɔ ƚ 43 ǞƛƏƗƫƟŭ ƥƧƟƑƛƫƟ. = Phot. ƚ 71 = Su. ƚ 148 = źonar. 980, 6 1 lm. ex M: deest in cett.; (ǞƛȯƤ n.) V

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ ŸVGM ƥƧƟƚƛƘƒɯ] ǒƛƘƜ G

373 ƦʬƟ Ʀʀƥ(ƗƘ μƯƛƫƟ): ƦʬƟ ƢƔƣ' ƔȎƦʀƤ ƞƘƖơμƐƟƫƟ μƯƛƫƟ. L V r(M) 1 lm. ƀ supplevi: deest in L et V quippe qui haec scholio pr. continuet; (ƦʬƟ s.) L

375 μƔƝƣʬƟ: μƘƖƏƞƫƟ Ǡ ƢơƞƧƩƣơƟƒƫƟ. L V G 1 lm.] μƔƝƣʬƟ ƗȰ V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 379 coniungat: deest in L; (μƔƝƣʬƟ s.) L μƘƖȯƞƫƟ] ƾƟƦȴ μ. V Ǡ om. G

379 (ƖƮƫƟ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƞƮƖƫƟ. Ls.l V 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ɩƣ. LV

ƝƔȴ om. V

168

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

381 (ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƘʎ): ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƢƔƥμƐƟʪ. L G cf. sch. D Hom. Il. 18. 589 ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƐƔƤ: ǎƥƝƘƢƔƥμƐƟƔƤ, ƝƔƦƔƥƦƐƖơƧƤ 1 scholiastam ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƘʎ ƥƦȱƖƘƜ pro ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƘʎ ƥƦȱƖɾ legisse conicias lm. add. Lascaris; (ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƘʎ s.) L ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƢƔƥμȱƟʪ LLpi.l.G: ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƢƔƥμƐƟɾ Lps.l. (Lascaris)

384 (ƟʝƟ – ƨƣơƟƘʎƟ): ƟʝƟ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ƘȒƝƔƜƣƮƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƨƣơƟʀƥƔƜ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƝƔƞʬƤ del. Jahn2

387 ƾƞƞ' ǎƠȵƝơƜƦơ: ƿƣμƮƙƘƜ ƞƒƔƟ Ʀȶ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ Ʀʁ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟɾ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex ƀ: deest in cett.; (ƾƞƞ' ǎƠȵƝơƜƦơ n.) VR; accuratiss. v. 387 ƾƞƞ' – ƦȯƩƘƜ om. G Ʀʁ om. r

ƞƒƔƟ

391 ȏμʬƟ: ƢƏƟƧ ƛƧμƜƝʬƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƾƗƘƞƨȲƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƥƧƖƝƔƦƔƞƐƖƘƜ ȟƤ ƦȮ ƔȎƦʬƟ ƔǯƣơƧμƐƟƚƟ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. scripsi: ƦȵƟ', Ȥ ƦȯƞƔƜƟƔ (v. 388) ƀ: deest in LVR; (ƦȵƟ' Ȥ ƦȯƞƔƜƟƔ n.) R; (391 n.) V ƛƧμƜƝʬƤ] μƧƛƜƝʬƤ r ƝƔȴ om. r 2 ƔǯƣơƧμȱƟƚƟ Vrr (coni. Stephanus 99): ƔǯƣơƧμȱƟƚƤ L

393 ƝƔƞȶƤ Ɩȯƣ: ƘǮƣƫƟƘƯƘƦƔƜ ǎƟ ǢƛƘƜ. L r(ƀRs.l.) 1 lm. ex ƀ: deest in LR; accuratiss. v. 393 ƝƔƞȶƤ – ƛƔƧμȯƥƔƜ

sch. 381 – sch. 411b

169

401 ƦƔʝƦ' – ǎƢƔƜƟȱƥƔƜ: ƝƔƝƮƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǎƢƔƜƟƐƥƔƜ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƦȮ ǒƢƚ. L V M r(G) 1 lm. scripsi: ǂƢƚ (sic) ƢƣȶƤ ƀ: deest in LVG ƝƔƝȶƟ LVM: ƢƣȶƤ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƝʬƟ ƝƔƝȶƟ G: ƝƔƝʬƟ Lascaris haud male, cf. sch. Ai. 581b ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜƟ ǮƔƦƣơʝ ƥơƨơʝ ǎƢʪƗƔʎƤ ƩƣʀƥƛƔƜ..., 318 ... ƝƔƝơʝ ƾƟƗƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ǾƞơƨƯƣƘƥƛƔƜ) ǎƢƔƜƟȱƥƔƜ] Ʀȶ ǎƢ. ƀ

403 (Ɵơʝ … ƝƘƟȳ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƥƧƟƐƥƘƫƤ ƝơƯƨƚ. L Gs.l. Su. ŽŽŽ 94, 8 (Ɲ 1316) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ om. G

411a ƥƧƖƖƐƟƘƥƛƘ: ƥƧμμƔƩƑƥƔƦƘ, ƥƧƟƘƣƖƑƥƔƦƘ, ƥƧμƢƣƏƠƔƦƘ ǟμʎƟ ƝǀƟ ƟʝƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(Gƀ) Su. IV 449, 13 (ƥ 1276) cf. sch. Aesch. Ch. 456 ƠƧƖƖƘƟơʝ] ƥƯμƢƣƔƠơƟ. 1 lm.] μȳ Ƣƫ Ɵơʝ (v. 403) ƀ: Ȥ ƛƘơȴ ƢƔƦƣʭơƜ, ƥƧƖƖƐƟƘƥƛƘ H: Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƥƧƖƖƐƟƘƥƛƘ V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 411b coniungat: deest in G ƥƧμμƔƩƑƥƔƦƘ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƥ. VG ǟμʎƟ om. M

411b Ȥ ƛƘơȴ ƢƔƦƣʭơƜ: ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ ȃƦƜ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǾƟƘƒƣơƜƤ ƗƘƒμƔƦƏ ƦƜƟƔ Ʀʁ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣɯ ƖƐƖơƟƘ, ƛƔƣƥƘʎ ƝƔȴ ǎƢƜƝƔƞƘʎƦƔƜ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơȹƤ, ƘǮ ƝƔȴ μȲ ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ, ƝǀƟ ƟʝƟ ƢƔƣƘƥƦƏƟƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V Mi r(GƀiiR) 1 lm. ex Mii: deest in qVGR et etiam in LMi quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. copulent (ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ ƗȰ L; ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤŭ ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ Mi); (Ȥ ƛƘơȴ n.) V; (Ȥ ƛƘơȴ s.) R; accuratiss. Ȥ ƛƘơȴ – ƟʝƟ post ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ add. ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ q ƦơʎƤ om. V ƗƘƒμƔƦƔ – 2 ƖȱƖơƟƘ] ǎƝƗƘƜμƔƦơʝƦƔƜ ǟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƟƑƥƦƣƔ r 1 ƦƜƟƔ om. q 2 ƛƔƣƥƘʎ] ƖȱƖơƟƘ ƛƣƔƥƘʎƔ 3 ƝǀƟ] ƝƔȴ r: ƾƞƞȮ Wansink 49, perperam; cf. LSJ s.v. ƝǀƟ I.3 (ƗƔƥƘȵƔ G) r ƢƔƣƘƥƦȯƟƔƜ q Wa r: ƢƔƣƜƥƦȯƟƔƜ L: ƢƔƣƔƥƦʀƟƔƜ FVMi

170

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

411c ƾƞƞȮ ƟʝƟ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƗƜȮ ƦȯƩơƧƤ [ǟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗȵƔ ƨƚƥȵ]. Su. I 98, 1 (Ɣ 1068) 1 inter lemma et eius explicationem versus 411 interiectus in Su. ƨƚƥȵ delevi ut a Sudae auctore addita

verba ǟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗȵƔ

414 (ƢƞȲƟ ǎƢȴ ƥμƜƝƣȷƟ): ƾƟƦȴ ƢƞȲƟ ǾƞƒƖƫƟ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƢƞȲƟ s.) L

415–6 Ƣơƞƞȯ – ƕƣơƦơȹƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƦƧƩȷƟƦƫƟ ƝƔȴ ƕƞȯƢƦơƟƦƔƜ ƝƔȴ ȞƨƘƞơʝƟƦƔƜ. Su. IV 156, 16 (Ƣ 1870)

417–9 (ƢƔƦƣȷƤ – ƨʬƤ): ȟƤ ƢƣơƥơμƜƞƑƥƔƟƦơƤ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi ƾƟƔƙƚƦƑƥƔƟƦơƤ r

ƔȔƛƜƤ

ƔȎƦơʝ

ƾƟƔƙƑƥƔƟƦơƤ

ƝƔȴ

2 ƢƣơμƜƞƑƥƔƟƦơƤ G

419 [Ɨ'] ǎƨƐƥƦƜơƟ: ǎƢȴ ƦȲƟ ơǮƝȵƔƟ ƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƟ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ ǒƢơƜƝơƟ. L r(GMR) Su. II 483, 29 (Ƙ 3869) cf. sch. Ap. Rh. 76, 22–3 ǎƨƐƥƦƜơƜ: ǒƢơƜƝơƜ. ſƔƝƘƗƔƜμƮƟƜơƜ ƖȮƣ ƦȲƟ ơǮƝƒƔƟ ǏƥƦƒƔƟ ƨƔƥƒƟ. 1 lm. ƀ decurtavi: deest in LGR; (ǎƨȱƥƦƜơƟ s.) L ǒƢơƜƝơƟ Su.: ǎƢ' ơǴƝơƟ codd.

ơǮƝȵƔƟ] ǏƥƦȵƔƟ Kruytbosch 78

sch. 411c – sch. 430

171

422 (ƕƣȹơƟƦƔ ƛƔƞƞȷƟ): ǎƥƑμƔƟƘƟ ƔȎƠƚƛƚƥƮμƘƟơƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ. L r(Gƀ) 1 lm. addidi ǎƥȳμƔƜƟƘƟ dubitanter prop. Papageorgiou2 ƣƕŪ post ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ add. ƦȶƟ ƛƔƞƞƮƟ L

ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ] ƦȶƟ Ȇƣ. r

424a ǟƟƒƩ' ǟƞƒʪ: ƦơʎƤ ƖȮƣ ƢƔƞƔƜơʎƤ ǒƛơƤ ǤƟ ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƙơμƐƟơƧƤ Ʀʭ ǟƞƒʪ ƗƜƚƖƘʎƥƛƔƜ ƦȮ ǾƟƘƒƣƔƦƔ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) cf. sch. OC 477 ƩơȮƤ ƩƐƔƥƛƔƜ ƥƦƏƟƦƔ ƢƣȶƤ ǳƫ: ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ƾƟƔƦơƞƑƟ· ƝƔȴ ƖȮƣ ƗȲ ƝƔȴ ƦȮƤ ǎƝƛƯƥƘƜƤ ƢƣȶƤ ǣƞƜơƟ ǎƢơƜơʝƟƦơ, ƝƔƛƏƢƘƣ ƝƔȴ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ “ƦơƜƔʝƦƏ ƦơƧ ƢƔƣƮƟƦơƤ, ǟƟƒƩ’ ǟƞƒʪ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƘ ƦơȒƟƔƣ, ǒƝƞƧơƟ ǎƠƚƖơƧμƐƟơƧ”. 1 lm.] ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ Ʀơʝ M qui haec verba ƢƔƣȷƟƦơƤ addito duplicat tamquam principium scholii: ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣȷƟƦơƤ R: deest in qVG; (ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ Ʀơʝ s./n.) R/V; accuratiss. vv. 424–5 ǟƟƒƩ' – ƦơȔƟƔƣ ƖȮƣ om. q ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƙơμȱƟơƧƤ] ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƙơμƐƟơƜƤ q 2 verbum ǾƟƘȵƣƔƦƔ uno tenore excipiunt voces ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ Ʀʁ ǟμȱƣɯ ex proximo scholio sumptae in q

424b ǟƞƒʪ ƾƟƦȴ ǟμƐƣɯŭ ǢƝơƧƥƔ, ƨƚƥƒ, Ʀơʝ ǾƟƘƒƣơƧ, ǟƟƒƝƔ ǟμƐƣƔƤ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚƤ ƗƜƚƖƘʎƦơ ƔȎƦƮ ƦƜƟƜ ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ ǎμơƒ. L V r(GƀR) 1–2 haec a sch. pr. separavit Lascaris (ǟƞȵʪ ƗȰ r); cf. de Marco 179 1 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Vrr ǢƝơƧƥƔ] ǢƝ. ơȔƟ V 2 ƖƜƟơμƐƟƚƤ VGƀ ƗƜƚƖƘʎƦơ] ƗƜƚƖƘʎƦƔƜ R ƔȎƦȶ] Ʀȶ ƔȎƦ. R ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ] ƝƾƝƘƒƟƚƟ r

430 ƘǮ ƖȮƣ μ' ƾƢưƥɾ: ƘǮ ƖȮƣ ƟʝƟ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƗƘơμƐƟƚƟ ƥơƧ ƾƢưƥɾ μƘ, ƝƔƝơʝ ƥơƒ ƦƜƟơƤ ƖƘƟơμƐƟơƧ μƘƦȮ ƦƔʝƦƔ, ƔȎƦȲ μƘƦƘƞƘƯƥɾ μƘ ƝƔȴ ƾƠƜưƥƘƜƤ μƘƦȮ ƥơʝ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ. L q(Żs.l.) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in HVGR; (ƘǮ ƖȮƣ μ' ƾƢȻƥɾ s./n.) R/V; accuratiss. v. 430 ƘǮ – ƢȯƞƜƟ ƨƚƥȵ 2 ƖƘƟơμƐƟơƧ] ƖƜƟ- Vrr ƔȎƦȲ VNWaŻ Lp (Lascaris): ƔȎƦʀ L: om. r om. H μƘƦƘƞƘƯƥƘƜ G μƘƦȮ (alt.)] ƝƔƦȮ VƀR 3 ƥơʝ] Ʀơʝ Ż

172

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

432 Ʀȹμƕʪ ƢƣơƥȯƪɾƤ μƚƗȱƟ: ƝƔȴ ǳƟƔ μȲ ƾƢơƦƣƐƪɾ, Ƙǲ ƦƜ ƝƔƝȶƟ μƐƞƞơƜ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ǾƟƘƒƣƫƟ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex ƁWa: deest in LVrr; (ơȎƗ' ȃƥƜơƟ s./n.) R/V 2 ǾƟƘƒƣƫƟ] ǾƟƘƜƣƏƦƫƟ r

μƐƞƞƘƜ žV (coni. Lascaris)

436 ƘȎƟȳƟ ƟʝƟ ƦȶƟ ƦƏƨơƟ. L cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 1007–10a (cod. M) ƘȎƨƑμƫƤ ƦȶƟ ƦƏƨơƟ ƘȎƟȳƟ ƘǴƢƘƟ….; sch. Hom. Il. 2. 783a… ƘȎƨƑμƫƤ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ ƦƏƨơƟ ƘȎƟȯƤ ǎƝƏƞƘƥƘƟ; Eust. Il. I 542, 5–6

439 ƾƣƩȲƟ Ɨ' ǂƟ, ƘǮ μȲ ƦƞƚμơƟƘƥƦƏƦƚ: ƝƔƛƮƞơƧ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ƘǮ μȲ ƦơƞμƚƣơƦƏƦƚ ƢƔƥʬƟ ǎƦƯƖƩƔƟƘƟ, ơȎƝ ǂƟ ƢơƦƘ ƦƔʝƦƔ ǒƢƣƔƦƦƘƟ ǎƢȴ ƦƜμʁ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ, ȁƟ ƔȎƦȲ ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ. ƘǮƝȶƤ ơȔƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƦơʝƦơ ǎƢƒ ƦƜƟƜ ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞơʝƟƦƜ ƢƣƏƦƦƘƜƟ, ɣ μȲ ȏƢơƧƣƖƑƥɾƤ ƥƯ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ƦơƞμƚƣơƦƏƦƚ: vide locos ad sch. 275 laudatos 1 lm.] ƘǮ μȲ ƦƞƚμơƟƘƥƦȯƦƚ ƀ: ƾƣƩȲƟ ƘǮ μȲ q: deest in VGR; (ƾƣƩȲƟ Ɨ' ǀƟ n.) R; (439 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 439–41 ƾƣƩȲƟ – ǎƢȱƥƦƣƘƨƘ 2 ǒƢƣƔƦƦơƟ MR 3 ƔȎƦȲƟ] ƔȎƦʁ qV 4 ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞơʝƟƦƜ] ƞƧƦƜƝȶƟ ƦƘƞơƧƟƦ r ȏƢơƧƣƖƑƥɾƤ] -ƥƘƜƤ ŸVrr ƥȸ om. r

445a1 (ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ): ƘǮưƛƘƥƔƟ ơǯ ƗƣʬƟƦƘƤ ǎμƨƯƞƜơƟ ƨƮƟơƟ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƙƘƜƟ ƦơȸƤ ƾƟƔƜƣƘƛƐƟƦƔƤ ǎƝ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ μƐƣơƧƤ Ʀơʝ ƥưμƔƦơƤ ƾƢơƦƘμƟƮμƘƟơƜ <ƝƔȴ> ƢƘƣƜƏƢƦƘƜƟ ǏƔƧƦơʎƤ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ ƥƧƟƘƒƣƔƟƦƘƤ, ƗƜȮ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ȣƥƢƘƣ ƦȲƟ ƗƯƟƔμƜƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ ƾƨƔƜƣơƯμƘƟơƜ, ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μȲ ƢƔƛƘʎƟ ƘǮƤ 5 ȓƥƦƘƣƮƟ ƦƜ ƢƔƣ' ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ ƗƘƜƟƮƟ. ǎƨƮƣơƧƟ ƗȰ ƘǮƤ ƦȮƤ μƔƥƩƏƞƔƤ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ, ȁ ƝƔȴ μƔƥƩƔƞȵƥƔƜ ǒƞƘƖơƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) Su. III 335, 28 (μ 274) … Ǡ ȃƦƜ ơǯ ƗƣʬƟƦƘƤ ǎμƨƯƞƜơƟ ƢƮƞƘμơƟ ǞƝƣƫƦƚƣƒƔƙơƟ ƦơȸƤ ƾƟƔƜƣƘƛƐƟƦƔƤ, ǎƝ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ μƐƣơƧƤ Ʀơʝ ƥưμƔƦơƤ ƾƢơƦƘμƟƮμƘƟơƜ, ƝƔȴ ƢƘƣƜʀƢƦơƟ ǏƔƧƦơʎƤ, ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ ƥƧƟƘƒƣơƟƦƘƤ, ƗƜȮ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ȣƥƢƘƣ ƦȲƟ ƗƯƟƔμƜƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ ƾƨƔƜƣơƯμƘƟơƜ, ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μȲ ƢƔƛƘʎƟ ƘǮƤ ȓƥƦƘƣƮƟ ƦƜ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ ƢƔƣ’ ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ. ǎƨƮƣơƧƟ ƗȰ ƘǮƤ ƦȮƤ μƔƥƩƏƞƔƤ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ· ȁ μƔƥƩƔƞƜƥƛʀƟƔƜ ǒƞƘƖơƟ; fere eadem leguntur in EM 574, 202–9

sch. 432 – sch. 445a²

173

cf. Ar. Byz. fr. 412 μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥμƔƦƔ. ǆƣƜƥƦơƨƏƟƚƤ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ (v. 445) ƝƘʎƥƛƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƞƐƠƜƟ ǒƛơƤ ƥƚμƔƒƟơƧƥƔƟ. ơǯ ƖȮƣ ƨơƟƘƯƥƔƟƦƘƤ ǎƠ ǎƢƜƕơƧƞʀƤ ƦƜƟƔƤ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƦȲƟ μʀƟƜƟ ǎƝƝƞƒƟƘƜƟ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƥƔƟƦƘƤ μƮƣƜƔ ƦơƯƦơƧ ƝƔȴ ǿƣμƔƛƒƥƔƟƦƘƤ ǎƠƘƝƣƐμƔƥƔƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƣƔƩƑƞơƧ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ μƔƥƩƔƞʬƟ ƗƜƘƒƣƔƟƦƘƤ ƝƔȴ μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥμƔƦƔ ƢƣơƥƚƖƮƣƘƧƥƔƟ…= Paus. att. μ 8 = Phot. μ 140 = Su. μ 275 ; Paus. att. Ƙ 34 apud Su. Ƙ 928 ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ (Aesch. Cho. 439)· ǒƛơƤ ǤƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƣƩƔƒơƜƤ, ǿƢƮƦƘ ƨơƟƘƯƥƘƜƔƟ ǎƠ ǎƢƜƕơƧƞʀƤ ƦƜƟƔ, Ʀȶ ǒƣƖơƟ ƾƨơƥƜơƧμƐƟơƜƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƙƘƜƟ ƦȶƟ ƟƘƝƣȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƦʬƟ μơƣƒƫƟ ǿƣμƔƛȶƟ ƢơƜƑƥƔƟƦƔƤ ƝƣƚμƟƏƟƔƜ [ƝƔƦȮ] Ʀơʝ ƦƣƔƩƑƞơƧ ƝƔƦȮ ƦʬƟ μƔƥƩƔƞʬƟ ƗƜƘƒƣơƟƦƔƤ. ƾƨ’ ơȕ ƗȲ ƝƔȴ μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥμƔƦƔ ƢƣơƥƚƖƮƣƘƧƥƔƟ ƔȎƦƏ. ƝƔȴ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ Ƈƣƫƒƞʪ; Hesych. μ 379 μ Ɣ ƥ Ʃ Ɣ ƞ ƒ ƥ μ Ɣ Ʀ Ɣ · <ơǯ> ƨơƟƘƯƥƔƟƦƘƤ ǎƠ ǎƢƜƕơƧƞʀƤ ƦƜƟƔƤ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƦȲƟ μʀƟƜƟ ǎƝƝƞʎƟƔƜ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƒƔƥƔƟ ƦȮ μƮƣƜƔ ƦơƯƦƫƟ, ơǵơƟ ȢƦƫƟ, ʜƜƟʬƟ, ƝƔȴ ƗƜƘƒƣƔƟƦƘƤ ǎƝƣƐμƟƫƟ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ƦƣƔƩƑƞơƧ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ μƔƥƩƔƞʬƟ…; Et. Gen. Ɣ 970 (ll. 8–15) ƾƢƏƣƖμƔƦƔ ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ ƦȮ ȏƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗʬƟ ƞƘƖƮμƘƟƔ μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥμƔƦƔ· ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗƐ ǎƥƦƜ ƦȮ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦơƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƥμƔƦƔ. ǤƟ ƖƏƣ ƦƜ ƟƮμƜμơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƗơƞơƨơƟƑƥƔƥƜƟ ƾƨơƥƜʬƥƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƨƮƟơƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ƗơƞơƨơƟƚƛƐƟƦơƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƔƥμơʝ. ƦȮ ƗȰ ƾƝƣƫƦƑƣƜƔ ƘǲƣơƟƦƘƤ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƣƣƏƢƦơƟƦƘƤ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ Ʀơʝ ƟƘƝƣơʝ μƔƥƩƔƞʬƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀơʝ ƦƣƔƩƑƞơƧ ƢƘƣƜƘƦƒƛƘƥƔƟ Ʀʭ ƟƘƝƣʭ, ƝƔƛƏ ƨƚƥƜ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ (El. 444–445)· ȏƨ’ ǥƤ ƛƔƟȺƟ ǂƦƜμơƤ ȣƥƦƘ ƗƧƥμƘƟȲƤ ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚƟ; EM 118, 23 ǆƢƏƣƖμƔƦƔ: ſƐƖƘƦƔƜ ƦȮ ȏƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƦƣƔƖʪƗʬƟ ƞƘƖƮμƘƟƔ μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥμƔƦƔ· ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗƐ ǎƥƦƜ ƦȮ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦơƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƥμƔƦƔ. ǬƟ ƖȮƣ Ʀȴ ƟƮμƜμơƟ, ƦơʎƤ ƗơƞơƨơƟƑƥƔƥƜƟ ƾƨơƥƜʬƥƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƨƮƟơƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ƗơƞơƨơƟƚƛƐƟƦơƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƔƥμơʝ. 1–6 haec ut novum scholium leguntur in V (postposita scholio 446): cum sch. 445–6a1 coniunguntur in MR (ǂƞƞƫƤ R: om. M): cum sch. 446 in LqqG (ǂƞƞƫƤ Lqq: ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ G): cum sch. 445a2 in Su. 1 ƘǮȻƛƘƥƔƟ] ƘǮưƛƘƜƥƔƟ ƁFWaR: ƘǮưƛƔƥƜƟ qVGƀ ƨȷƟơƟ] ƢȷƞƘμơƟ Su. 3 ƾƢơƦƘμƟƮμƘƟơƜ] ƾƢơƦƔμƟȷμƘƟơƜ L ƝƔȴ recipiendum ex Su.; quod ante ƝƔȴ ǎƝ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ μƐƣơƧƤ (2) transp. Wansink 49 ǏƔƧƦơʎƤ] ƔȎƦơʎƤ Wa quam scripturam commendat Bernardakis 43 ƥƧƟƘƒƣƔƟƦƘƤ] ƥƧƟƘȵƣơƟƦƘƤ q 4 ȣƥƢƘƣ] ante ƗƜȮ ƦơȹƦƫƟ transp. ƀR: om. G ƘǮƤ om. Vrr 5 ƦƜ … ƗƘƜƟȷƟ] ƝƔƝȯ q ƢƔƣ'] ƾƢ' q 6 μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƔƜ FWa (coni. Elmsley, prob. Nauck 420): ǎƨȷƣơƧƟ – fin. om. Ÿ μƔƥƩƔƞƜƥƛʀƟƔƜ Su.: μƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƔƜ LG: μƔƥƩƔƞƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ ŻV, medio voce, fortasse recte: μƔƥƩƔƞȵƛƣƔƜ ƀR ǒƞƘƖơƟ] ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ r

445a2 ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ: ǎƢȴ ƦƔʎƤ ƝƔƛƏƣƥƘƥƜ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦơƤ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ ǒƦƘμƟơƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƘƣȴ ƦȲƟ μƔƥƩƏƞƚƟ ƔȎƦơʝ ǎƝƣƐμƔƙơƟ ƔȎƦȯ, ǳƟƔ, ƨƔƥƒƟ, ƾƥƛƘƟȲƤ ƖƐƟơƜƦơ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ƾƟƦƜƦƒƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƨơƟƐƔŭ ƝƔȴ ǆƢơƞƞưƟƜơƤ

ǎƠƏƣƖμƔƦƔ ƦȱμƟƘƟ ƛƔƟƮƟƦơƤ 5 ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ǶƏƥơƟơƤ. L q(H) r(GƀR) Su. III 335, 25 (μ 274) … Ǡ ȃƦƜ ǎƢȴ ƦƔʎƤ ƝƔƛƏƣƥƘƥƜ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦơƤ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔ ǒƦƘμƟơƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƘƣȴ ƦȲƟ μƔƥƩƏƞƚƟ ƔȎƦơʝ ǎƝƣƐμƔƙơƟ ƔȎƦƏ, ǳƟƔ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ƾƥƛƘƟȲƤ

174

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƖƐƟơƜƦơ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ƾƟƦƜƦƒƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƨơƟƐƔ. ƝƔȴ ǆƢơƞƞưƟƜơƤ· ǎƠƏƣƖμƔƦƔ ƦƐμƟƘƤ ƛƔƟƮƟƦơƤ. ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ǶƏƥơƟơƤ; fere eadem in EM 574*, 212–7 1–4 cf. sch. Ap. Rh. 286, 13–5 Ʀ Ə μ Ɵ Ƙ ƛ Ɣ Ɵ Ʈ Ɵ Ʀ ơ Ƥ : ơǯ ƗơƞơƨơƟơʝƟƦƘƤ ƾƣƩƔƒƫƤ ƾƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƥμƔƦƏ ƦƜƟƔ ǎƢơƒơƧƟ Ʀơʝ ƾƟƔƜƣơƧμƐƟơƧ ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƞƔƕƮƟƦƘƤ ǎƠƑƣƦƫƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƣƔƩƑƞơƧ ƔȎƦơʝ… 3 ǆƢơƞƞȻƟƜơƤ: 4. 477 ... ǎƠƏƣƖμƔƦƔ ƦƏμƟƘ ƛƔƟƮƟƦơƤ 1–5 haec seorsum praebet r (nisi quod post sch. 439): cum sch. 445a1 c. in L (ǂƞƞƫƤ): cum materia recentiore c. in H (Ǡ): cum sch. 445–6a2 c. in Su. 1 lm. ex M: deest in cett. 2 ǎƝƣȱμƔƙơƟ] ǎƝƣƐμƟƫƟ ƁŻ: ǎƝƣƐμƫƟ FWa (coni. Nauck 420) ƨƔƥȵƟ Wolff 7: ƨƚƥȴƟ LŻrSu. 3 ƝƔȴ – fin. om. H 3 ǆƢơƞƞưƟƜơƤ Su.: ǆƢơƞƞƫ, compendiose L: ǆƢơƞƞƮƗƫƣơƤ r 4 ǎƠȯƣƖμƔƦƔ LR: ǎƠƏƣμƔƦƔ G: ǎƠƔƣμȱƟƫƟ ƀ ƦƐμƟƘƟ L: ƦƐƛƘƟƘƟ G: ƦƘƛ ƀR 5 ƢƘƣȴ Su.: om. codd.

445a3 (ǎμƔƥƩƔƞȵƥƛƚ): ơǵơƟ ȏƢȶ ƦȮƤ μƔƥƩƏƞƔƤ ǒƞƔƕƘƟ ƦȮ ǂƝƣƔŭ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǞƝƣƫƦƚƣƜƏƥƛƚ. L V 1 lm. add. Elmsley

1–2 ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ] ơǵơƟ V

445–6a1 (Ɲȯƣɯ) | ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ: Ǡ Ʀʁ ǏƔƧƦʬƟ ƝƘƨƔƞʁ ƾƢƐμƔƥƥơƟ Ʀơʝ ƠƒƨơƧƤ ƦȮƤ ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ Ǡ Ʀʁ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧơμƐƟơƧ, ȣƥƢƘƣ ƦȮƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ μƯƥƘƜ ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ ƾƢơƦƣƘƢƮμƘƟơƜ. L V r(GMR) 2 Ǡ Ʀʁ Ʀơʝ ƨơƟƘƧơμƐƟơƧ: cf. locos ad sch. 445–6a2 allatos 1 lm.] L (ǎƠƔȵμƔƠƘƟ L) supplevi (Ɲȯƣɯ pro ƝȯƣƔ legisse scholiastam coni. Wolff 7 et 34): om. Vrr ǏƔƧƦʬƟ] ǏƔƧƦơʝ Vrr ƾƢȱμƔƥƥơƟ] -μƔƥơƟ L 2 Ʀơʝ ƠƒƨơƧƤ] Ʀȶ ƠƒƨơƤ r ƨơƟƘƧơμƐƟơƧ] -ƥơμƐƟơƧ G 3 ƾƢơƦƣƘƢȷμƘƟơƜ] ƾƢơƝƣƧƢƦƮμƘƟơƜ Vrr

445–6a2 ƝƏƣɯ | ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ: ƘǮȻƛƘƜƥƔƟ ƦʬƟ ƾƟƔƜƣơƧμƐƟƫƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȮƤ ƝƘƨƔƞȮƤ ƾƢơμƏƥƥƘƜƟ ƦȮ Ơƒƨƚ, ȣƥƢƘƣ ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƙƮμƘƟơƜ Ʀȶ μƯƥơƤ Ʀȶ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƨƮƟʪ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) Su. Ž 326, 24 (Ɣ 3616); ŽŽŽ 335, 23 (μ 274)

sch. 445a² – sch. 446

175

cf. sch. 445–6a1.1–2; EM 574*, 209–12 ȇμơƒƫƤ ƗȰ ƘǮƫƛ (ƘǮưƛƔƥƜ)) ƝƔȴ ƘǮƤ ƦʬƟ ƾƟƔƜƣơƧμƐƟƫƟ ƝƘƨƔƞȮƤ ƾƢơμƏƥƥƘƜƟ ƦȮƤ ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ Ʀơʝ ƠƒƨơƧƤ, ȣƥƢƘƣ ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƙƮμƘƟơƜ Ʀȶ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƨƮƟʪ μƯƥơƤ…; Eust. Od. II 192, 21–3 ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜƟ ƘȏƣƘʎƟ ƦơƜƔƯƦƚƟ ǒƟƟơƜƔƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀʭ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ, ǒƟƛƔ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ ƦƔʎƤ ƢƘƨơƟƘƧμƐƟƫƟ ƝƘƨƔƞƔʎƤ ǎƟƔƢơμƏƦƦƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀȶ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƠƒƨƘƥƜƟ ƔǵμƔ, ȟƤ ƘǮƤ ƝƘƨƔƞȲƟ ƗʀƛƘƟ ǎƝƘƒƟơƜƤ ƦƣƘƢơμƐƟơƧ Ʀơʝ ƝƔƝơʝ. 1–3 haec scholium novum esse iudicavi: cum sch. pr. coniunguntur in G (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ): scholio 445a1 praeposuerunt Lqq: scholio 446 praeposuit V: sch. 445a2 praeposuit Su. III 335, 23 1 lm. scripsi: ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ ƝƾƢȴ ƞơƧƦƣơʎƥƜƟ ƝƏƣƔ L: ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ q: deest in V ƘǮȻƛƘƜƥƔƟ L: ƘǮưƛƔƥƜƟ qVGSu. utroque loco: ƘǮȻƛƘƥƔƟ Bernardakis 42, at cf. sch. ad Pi. O 3.61c, 6.78d, N 9.30a; BDR § 86.1 ƦʬƟ ƾƟƔƜƣơƧμȱƟƫƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȮƤ ƝƘƨƔƞȮƤ] ƘǮƤ Ʀ. ƝƘƨ. ƦʬƟ ƾƟ. G 2 ƾƢơμƏƥƥƘƜƟ] -ƦƦƘƜƟ V

446 Ʀȶ ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ, ȁƤ ǎμƔƥƩƔƞƒƥƛƚ ȏƢȶ ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀʭ ƝƏƣɯ ƔȎƦơʝ ƦȮƤ ƝƚƞʎƗƔƤ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƦȮƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƨƮƟʪ ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ. ơȎ ƗƘʎ ƗȰ ƗƜƔƨƫƟƒƔƟ ƗơƝƘʎƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ȋμƚƣơƟ, ǎƢƘƒ ƨƚƥƜƟ ǎƝƘʎƟơƤ 5 ƗƘƜƢƟƒƥƔƤ ȣƤ ƦƒƤ ƦƘ ƝƔƦƐƝƦƔƟƘ ƕơʝƟ ǎƢȴ ƨƏƦƟɾŭ ǢƣƝƘƜ ƖȮƣ ƦȮ ȃƞƔ ƥƧμƨƫƟƘʎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦƜŭ ƦȮ ƖȮƣ ƝƔƦȮ μƐƣơƤ ǎƠơƧƥƒƔƟ ǒƩƘƜ ǓƝƔƥƦơƤ ȟƤ ƕơƯƞƘƦƔƜ ƢƣƔƖμƔƦƘƯƥƔƥƛƔƜ, ƘǮ μȲ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ ƕƞƏƢƦɾ ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛƐƥƘƫƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) 5 Od. 4. 535, 11. 411 (ƗƘƜƢƟƒƥƔƤ ad Aegisthum pertinet) 1–8 hoc sch. a sch. pr. seiunxi; nam diversis a grammaticis profecta esse apparet; alter (sch. 445–6a2) ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ de Clytaemnestra accepit, alter (sch. 446) de Agamemnone 1 post Ʀȶ add. ƗȰ codd. praeter q ǎƠƐμƔƠƘƟ VG: ǎƠƑμƔƠƘƟ q: ǎƠƔƒμƔƠƘƟ L (ita et apud poetam ante correctionem, ut videtur) ƦʀƤ om. G 2 Ʀʭ Ɲȯƣɯ scripsi: Ʀȶ ƝȯƣƔ codd. 3 ǎƠȱμƔƠƘƟ V: ǎƠƑμƔƠƘƟ q: ǎƠƔƒμƔƠƘƟ LG ơȎ ƗƘʎ ƗȰ ƗƜƔƨƫƟƒƔƟ Ʀʭ (alt.) om. q ƗơƝƘʎƟ] ơȎƗƘȴƤ ƗȰ ƾƨƫƟƒƔƟ ƗơƝƘʎ G ƗơƝƘʎƟ om. q ƗơƝƘʎƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ] ƘǴƟ. Ɨ., inverso ordine V, ut videtur ȋμƚƣơƟ qVG Lpp.c. (Lascaris): ȂƟƘƜƣơƟ L Lpa.c. 4 ǎƝƘʎƟơƤ] ǒƝƦƘƜƟƘ G 5 ƗƘƜƢƟƒƥƔƤ VG: ƗƘƜƢƟƑƥƔƤ Lq q: ƗƘƜƢƟƒƥƥƔƤ Homerus ȣƤ ƦƜƤ] ȃƥƦƜƤ GWa ƦƘ om. G ƝƔƦȱƝƦƔƟƘ VG: ƝƔƦƐƝƦƘƜƟƘ L: ƝƔƦƐƢƘƨƟƘ q 6 ƖȮƣ (alt.)] ƗȰ Nauck 420 inutiliter, ut censet Bernardakis 42 (cf. supra ad sch. 86c.2 ƖȮƣ (alt.)) μƐƣơƤ om. G 7 ƘǮ μȲ – ƕƞȯƢƦɾ] de modo cf. supra ad sch. 86a.9 ƕƞȯƢƦɾ] ƕƞƏƢƦƘƜ q: ƕƞƏƢƦ V 7–8 ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛȱƥƘƫƤ] ƦȲƟ ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƟ q

176

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

451a ǃƩƫ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǁ ǒƩƫ. Su. I 441, 11 (Ɣ 4709)

451b ƗȶƤ ƔȎƦʭ: ƢƣơơƜƝơƟơμƜƝʬƤ ƾƢơƥƦƐƞƞƘƜ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ ƦƏƨơƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀȶ ƘȏƣƘʎƟ ƦȶƟ ƕƮƥƦƣƧƩơƟ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ. L q(H) V r(GR) 1 lm. scripsi: ƾƞƞȮ ƦƔʝƦƔ μȰƟ μƐƛƘƤ (v. 448) Ż: deest in LVrr ƢƣơơƜƝơƟơμƜƝʬƤ ƾƢơƥƦȱƞƞƘƜ] ƢƣơʪƝơƟȷμƚƥƘƟ vel ƢƣơʪƝơƟȷμƚƝƘƟ ƾƢơƥƦȱƞƞƘƜƟ r (-ƫƝơƟƮμƜƥƘƟ G: -ƫƝơƟȷμƚƝƘƟ R): ƢƣȶƤ ơǮƝơƟơμȵƔƟ ƾƢơƥƦȱƞƞƘƜ Bernardakis 43: ƢƣơʪƝơƟơμƚƝȺƤ ƾƢơƥƦȱƞƞƘƜ Papageorgiou2 ƣƘŪ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ] ǎƢȴ ƦȶƟ ŻV 1–2 ǎƢȴ Ʀȶ] ǎƢƘȴ Ʀʭ Ż 2 ƦȶƟ om. r ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ] Ʀơʝ Ȇƣ. Ż

451c ƾƞƜƢƔƣʀ ƦƣƒƩƔ: ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ μȰƟ Ʀȶ ƦʀƤ ƢƘƟƒƔƤŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƾƞƜƢƔƣʀ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƔȎƩμƚƣƏƟ. ǎƟ ƗȰ Ʀʭ ȏƢơμƟƑμƔƦƜ ƞƜƢƔƣʀ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ǎƠ ǥƤ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƞƜƢƔƣƑƥơμƘƟ, ȟƤ ƘǮ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ ǯƝƐƦƜƟ ƦƣƒƩƔ. L V r(GƀR) 2 ƔȎƩμƚƣȯƟ: Su. I 113, 12 (Ɣ 1239), unde Zonar. 126, 3; cf. Hesych. Ɣ 3029 ƾ ƞ Ɯ Ƣ Ɣ ƣ ʀ · ƔȎƩμƚƣƏ; EM 64, 42 Eust. Il. III 10, 10–1 Ʀȶ ƔȎƩμƚƣƮƟ, ɣ ǴƥơƟ Ʀȶ ƾƞƜƢƐƤ, ǒƦƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƾƞƜƢƔƣƐƤ, ƝƔƦȮ Ʀȶ «ƾƞƜƢƔƣʀ ƦƣƒƩƔ». ƞƜƢƔƣʀ et ǎƠ ... ƞƜƢƔƣȳƥơμƘƟ: Su. Ž 113, 12, unde Zonar. 126, 3 1–3 partes scholii ita disposuit V: a. 1 Ʀȶ (alt.) – fin. (haec pars cum sch. 451b c.; 1 Ʀȶ 1 lm. ƗȰ ƾƞƜƢƔƣʀ] ƾƞ. ƗȰ V) b. 1 ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ – ƢƘƟȵƔƤ (ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ μȰƟ] Ƣ. ƗȰ V) deest in GR; de V vide 1–3 ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ] ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ r ƾƞƜƢƔƣʀ] ƞƜƢƔƣʀ G 1 ƾƟƦȴ – 2 ƞƜƢƔƣʀ om. r propter homoeoteleuton 2 ȃ om. G 3 ƞƜƢƔƣȳƥơμƔƜ MR ƘǮ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ] ǿ ǛƞƘƟơƤ V ǯƝȱƦƜƟ] -ƦƚƟ V

452a1 ƝƔȴ ƙʬμƔ ƦơȎμƮƟ: ƥƯμƨƫƟơƟ ƦơʝƦơ Ʀʭ

ȥƗƘ μȰƟ ƾƘƜƝƘʎ ƥȸƟ ƥƦơƞɲŭ ƙʬμƔ ƗȰ ƟʝƟ ƦȲƟ ƙưƟƚƟ Ɨƚƞơʎ, ơȎ Ʀȶ ǒƟƗƧμƔ, ǳƟƔ ƦơƯƦʪ ƥƦƐƨɾ ƦȶƟ 5 ƦƏƨơƟ ƾƟƦȴ μƒƦƣƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 4 ƦȲƟ ƙȻƟƚƟ – ǒƟƗƧμƔ: Su. II 512, 21 (ƙ 131)… ƙʬμƔ ƦơȎμȶƟ ơȎ ƩƞƜƗƔʎƤ ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƟ. ƦȲƟ ƙưƟƚƟ ƞƐƖƫƟ, ơȎ Ʀȶ ǒƟƗƧμƔ.

sch. 451a – sch. 466

177

2–3 vv. 190–1 4 ƦȲƟ ƙȻƟƚƟ: cf. Eust. Od. II 165, 26–7 Ʀȶ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ƙʬμƔ ƗƒƩƔ Ʀơʝ ƥƒƖμƔŭ ơǵơƟ, ƝƔȴ ƙʬμƔ ƦơȎμȶƟ ơȎ ƩƞƜƗƔʎƤ ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƟ, ȁ ƦƔƧƦƮƟ ǎƥƦƜ Ʀʁ ƙưƟɾ; Thom. Mag. Ecl. 165, 13 1 lm. ex Lq q (nisi quod ƙʬƥμƔ Ÿ): deest in r et V quippe qui haec scholio 451c continuet (ƥȹμƨƫƟơƟ ƗȰ); accuratiss. v. 452 ƝƔȴ ƙʬμƔ – ǞƥƝƚμȱƟơƟ ƥƯμƨƫƟơƟ] Ʀȶ ƥ. q Ʀʭ HVrr (coni. Lascaris): Ʀȶ LŸ 2 ȥƗƘ] ƗƘ G 3 ƾƘƜƝƘʎ] ƾƘƜƝƐƔ G: ƾƘƜƝƘȵƔƟ MR ƥȸƟ om. r ƥƦơƞɲ] ƥƦơƞʁ r 4 ƙʬμƔ] ƙʬƥμƔ Ÿ ƟʝƟ om. V ƦȲƟ ƙȻƟƚƟ Ɨƚƞơʎ, ơȎ Ʀȶ ǒƟƗƧμƔ] ƦȲƟ ƙȻƟƚƟ, Ɨƚƞơʎ (ƗȰ add. Ÿ) ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ǒƟƗƧμƔ q ƥƦƐƨɾ] ƥƦƣƐƨɾ r

452a2 (ƝƔȴ ƙʬμƔ ƦơȎμƮƟ): ƗƒƗƫƥƜ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƙʬμƔ ƾƟƦȴ ƦƔƜƟƒƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V 1 haec a sch. pr. separavi et lemmate instruxi; secundum de Marco 189 duarum explanationum quae h.l. cohaerent altera in ƥƦơƞɲ (sch. 452a1.3), altera in ƦƔƜƟƒƔƤ (sch. 452a2.1) desinit ƙʬμƔ] ƙʬƥμƔ Ÿ: ƥʬμƔ HV

455 ǎƠ ȏƢƘƣƦƐƣƔƤ ƩƘƣƮƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǮƥƩƧƣơƦƐƣƔƤŭ ơǵơƟ μƘƦȮ ƗƧƟƏμƘƫƤ μƘƒƙơƟơƤ. L q(Ż) 1 lm. ex H (nisi quod ƩƘƜƣȷƤ habet): deest in L; (ǎƠ ȏƢƘƣƦȱƣƔƤ s.) L

463 (ƝơƜƟʭ ƢƔƦƣȵ): Ʀʭ ǎμʭ ƝƔȴ ƥʭ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

466 Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ ƗƒƝƔƜơƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƞƮƖơƟ: ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƞƮƖơƟ Ʀȶ ƨƜƞơƟƘƜƝƘʎƟ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƗƜƝƔƒơƧ, ȣƥƦƘ ƢƘƣȴ ƔȎƦơʝ ƗƯơ ȂƟƦƔƤ ǎƣƒƙƘƜƟŭ ƗƘʎ ƖȮƣ ƦȶƟ ǓƦƘƣơƟ Ʀʭ ǏƦƐƣʪ ƢƘƒƛƘƥƛƔƜ. Ǡ Ʀȶ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƞƮƖơƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơȎ ƢƔƣƐƩƘƜ ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƟ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 3 Ʀȶ – ƢƣȷƨƔƥƜƟ: cf. Su. III 280, 11 (ƞ 648) ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƟ Ʀȶ ƨƜƞơƟƘƜƝƘʎƟ.

178

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm.] ƗƣƏƥƫŭ ƖȮƣ ƗƒƝƔƜơƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƞƮƖơƟ sic, Ż: deest in VƀR; (Ɨƣȯƥƫ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 466–7 Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ – ǎƣƒƙƘƜƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƞƮƖơƟ (alt.) om. r Ʀȶ (alt.)] Ʀơʝ Ż: om. V 2 ƦȶƟ om. G 3 ơȎ om. Ż

466–7 (Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ – ƗƣɱƟ): ơȎ ƗƜƥƦƔƖμơʝ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƝƔȴ ƾμƨƜƕơƞƒƔƤ ƢƣơƥƗƘʎƦƔƜ ƦơʎƤ ƗƯơ ƢƮƦƘƣơƟ ƗƘʎ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƢơƜƘʎƟ Ǡ ƢƣơƥƘƣƒƙƘƜƟ. L q(H) 1–2 haec cum sch. pr. in codd. coniuncta (ǂƞƞƫƤ L: sine voce coniunctiva H) distinxi 1 ƝƔȴ ƾμƨƜƕơƞƒƔƤ post ƢƣơƥƗƘʎƦƔƜ transp. Ż 1–2 ƢƣơƥƗƘʎƦƔƜ] lemmate addito ƢƣơƥƗƘʎ Bernardakis 43, inutiliter; cf. e.g. sch. Eur. Or. 491 ... ơȎ ƥơƨƜƥμȯƦƫƟ ƖȮƣ ƢƣơƥƗƘʎƦƔƜ ǟ ƝƣȵƥƜƤ... 2 ƦơʎƤ ƗƯơ om. Ż ƗƘʎ H (coni. Lascaris): ƗƜȮ L

469 ƥƜƖȲ ƢƔƣ' ȏμʬƟ: ƘȎƞƔƕȲƤ ơȔƥƔ ǟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƝƣƯƢƦƘƜƟ ƾƠƜơʎ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣƮƟ. L q(Hs.l.) 1 lm. deest in H; accuratiss. v. 469 ƥƜƖȲ – ƨȵƞƔƜ

ǟ ƊƣƧƥȷƛƘμƜƤ om. H

471 (ƢƘʎƣƔƟ): ƦȲƟ ǎƢƜƩƘƒƣƚƥƜƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

472a ƘǮ μȲ ǎƖȺ ƢƔƣƏƨƣƫƟ: ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ǾƟƘƒƣơƧ ƢƣơμƔƟƦƘƧƮμƘƟơƤ ƛƔƣƣƘʎƟ ƢƔƣƔƜƟƘʎ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ. L q(Hs.l.) r(G) 1 lm. deest in G; accuratiss. vv. 472–501 ƘǮ μȲ – ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ om. G ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ] Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ HG

2 ƛƔƣƣƘʎ Ż

ƢƔƣƔƜƟƘʎ

472b (ƢƔƣȯƨƣƫƟ): ƾƟƮƚƦơƤ. Ls.l. cf. Hesych. Ƣ 732 Ƣ Ɣ ƣ Ə ƨ ƣ ƫ Ɵ · ƾƟƮƚƦơƤ; źonar. 1499, 9 ƄƔƣƏƨƣƫƟ. ƾƟƮƚƦơƤ ... 1 lm. add. Brunck2

sch. 466 – sch. 484–5

179

475 ƘǴƥƜƟ ƿ ƢƣƮμƔƟƦƜƤ: ǟ ƢƣơμƔƟƦƘƧơμƐƟƚ ƦȮ μƐƞƞơƟƦƔ Ǡ ƦơʎƤ ƥƧƟƘƦơʎƤ ƢƣơƖƜƟƫƥƝơμƐƟƚ. L r(Gƀ) 1 ǟ ƢƣơμƔƟƦƘƧơμƐƟƚ ƦȮ μƐƞƞơƟƦƔ: cf. sch. Thuc. V 16, 2 ƦȲƟ ƖȮƣ ƢƣƮμƔƟƦƜƟ: ǢƖơƧƟ ƦȲƟ ƢƣơƔƖơƣƘƯơƧƥƔƟ ǎƝ μƔƟƦƘƒƔƤ. 1 lm. deest in G; accuratiss. v. 475 ƿ ƢƣƮμƔƟƦƜƤ

post Ǡ add. ǟ Ɓ

476–7 (ƨƘƣơμƐƟƔ –) μƐƦƘƜƥƜƟ: μƐƦƘƜƥƜ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƢƔƣƐƩơƧƥƔ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ ƗƯƟƔμƜƟ ȟƤ ƩƘƜƣưƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơƯƤ. L q(H) r(G) 1 lm. L supplevi: deest in HG; scholiasta ita interpunxit ƘǴƥƜƟ ƿ ƢƣƮμƔƟƦƜƤ | ŸƒƝƔ. ƗƒƝƔƜƔ ƨƘƣơμƐƟƔ ƩƘƣơʎƟ ƝƣƏƦƚ | μƐƦƘƜƥƜƟ, Ȥ ƦƐƝƟơƟ, ơȎ μƔƝƣơʝ ƩƣƮƟơƧ. μƐƦƘƜƥƜ (alt.) om. HG ƨƚƥȵ ơm. G

2 ȟƤ] ȣƥƦƘ G

482 ơȎ Ɩȯƣ ƢơƦ' ƾμƟƚƥƦƘʎ: ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƾμƟƚμơƟƘʎ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦʬƟ ƦơƞμƚƛƐƟƦƫƟ ƝƔƛ' ǏƔƧƦơʝ ǿ ƕƔƥƜƞƘȹƤ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƢƘƠƘƞƘƯƥƘƦƔƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦʬƟ ǎƩƛƣʬƟ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 ƾμƟƚμơƟƘʎ: Su. Ž 143, 9 (Ɣ 1611) 1 lm.] ƾμƟƚƥƦƘʎ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƢơƦ' n.) RV; accuratiss. vv. 482–3 ơȎ Ɩȯƣ – ǂƟƔƠ 2 ƾƞƞ'] ǀƟ V ƦʬƟ ǎƩƛƣʬƟ] Ʀơʝ ǎƩƛƣơʝ r

484–5 (ơȎƗ –) ƩƔƞƝƮƢƞƚƝƦơƤ (– ƖƐƟƧƤ): ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ Ʀȶ ƾμƟƚƥƦƘʎ. ơȎƗ' ƾμƟƚμơƟƘʎ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǟ ƩƔƞƝƮƢƞƚƝƦơƤ ƖƐƟƧƤ ǟ ǏƞơʝƥƔ ƔȎƦȷƟ, ƾƞƞȮ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦȲ ƦƜμƫƣȶƤ ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦʬƟ ƗƣƔƥƏƟƦƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. LH supplevi: deest in ŸV et r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); (ƾμƨƑƝƚƤ n.) V 3 ƔȎƦȲ] ƔȎƦȮ G

180

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

485 (ƖƐƟƧƤ): ƘǴƗơƤ ƢƘƞƐƝƘƫƤ. L Gs.l. vide locos ad sch. 195–6 allatos 1 lm. add. Elmsley

488a ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞƯƢơƧƤ: Ʀȶ ƢơƞƯƢơƧƤ ǎƟ ȏƢƘƣƕơƞʁ ǒƛƚƝƘƟ. L q(HŸ)

488b (ƢơƞƯƢơƧƤ): ǎƟ Ʀʭ ȏƢơμƟƑμƔƦƜ ƝƘʎƦƔƜ ƢơƞƯƢƔƜƤŭ ǎƢƘȴ ƖƏƣ, ƨƚƥȵƟ, ǎƟ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƦȲƟ ƢɱƥƔƟ ǎƞƢƒƗƔ ǒƩơƧƥƜ, Ʀȶ ƢơƞƯƢƔƜƤ ǎƟ ȏƢƘƣƕơƞʁ ǒƛƚƝƘƟŭ Ǡ ǟ ƢơƞƞȮ ƝƔƝȮ ƦƒƝƦơƧƥƔ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) 1–3 haec separatim leguntur in VG: cum sch. pr. coniunguntur in Lq q (ǎƟ ƗȰ) 1 lm. addidi; (ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞƯƢơƧƤ n.) V ȏƢơμƟƑμƔƦƜ] ƢơȸƤ G [‘e compendiosa scriptura male soluta’ de Marco 180]: om. V ƢơƞƯƢƔƜƤ potius coniecturam hypomnematistae quam variam lectionem esse censuit Wolff 226 2 ǎƟ om. q ƢɱƥƔƟ om. q ȏƢƘƣƕơƞʁ] μƘƦƔƨơƣɲ Wansink 50, perperam 3 Ǡ ǟ G (hoc commendat de Marco l.c.; add. iam Kamerbeek 75): ǢƖơƧƟ ǟ Ÿ: ǟ cett.

491a ƩƔƞƝƮƢơƧƤ: ǟ ƥƦƘƣƘȮ ƝƔȴ ƾƝơƢƒƔƥƦơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǎƢƜƐƟƔƜ ƝƔƦȮ ƦʬƟ ƨơƟƐƫƟ. L q(Hs.l.) V r(ƀR) Su. IV 783, 25 (Ʃ 53) cf. sch. D Hom. Il. 8.41 ƩƔƞƝƮƢơƗƘ: ƥƦƘƣƘƮƢơƗƔƤ; Eust. Il. II 522, 17 … ƩƔƞƝƮƢơƗƘƤ μȰƟ ơǯ ƥƦƘƣƣƮƢơƗƘƤ; Eust. Il. II 759, 9–10 ŵǱ (scil. Furiae) ƝƔȴ ƩƔƞƝƮƢơƗƘƤ ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƾƝƏμƔƦơƟ, ǒƦƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƕƔƣȸ ƦʀƤ ǎƢƘμƕƏƥƘƫƤ 1 lm.] ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƀ: deest in HVR; (ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ n.) R; (ƩƔƞƝȷƢơƧƤ n.) V V ƾƝơƢƒƔƥƦơƤ] ƾƝơƢƒƔƦơƤ Su.

ƥƦƘƣƘȮ] ƥƦƘƣƣȮ

491b ǖƣƜƟƯƤ: ǟ ǖƣƜƟȸƤ ǟ ǎƝƘƒƟʪ Ʀʭ ƨƮƟʪ ƾƝơƞơƧƛƑƥƔƥƔŭ ơȓƦƫƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ȏƢơμƟƑμƔƦƜ. L V r(ƀ)

sch. 485 – sch. 492–4

181

1–2 sch. h.l. legitur in VM: post sch. 484–5 legitur in L 1 lm. ǖƣƜƟƯƤ post Wolff 13 scripsi: ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞƯƢơƧƤ (v. 488) Lp.c.: ƾμƨȳƝƚƤ ƖȱƟƧƤ La.c.: deest in M et V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 491a copulet (ǂƞƞƫƤ); (ǣƠƘƜ ƝƔȴ ƢơƞȹƢơƧƤ n.) V ǖƣƜƟȸƤ] ƟƟȸƤ V ƾƝơƞơƧƛơʝƥƔ ƀ oȓƦƫƤ – fin. om. M

492a1 ǂƞƘƝƦƣ' ǂƟƧμƨƔ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơȎ ƟƘƟơμƜƥμƐƟƔ ƾƞƞȮ ƢƔƣƏƟơμƔ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ μơƜƩƘƒƔƟ. L q(Hs.l.) Su. I 101, 1 (Ɣ 1116) ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣƏƟơμƔ ƝƔȴ ơȎ ƟƘƟơμƜƥμƐƟƔ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ μơƜƩƘƒƔƟ, unde Zonar. 130, 27 1 lm. deest in H ƾƟƦȴ – ƾƞƞȮ om. H ơȎ NWaLpp.c. Su.: om. L Lpa.c.

492a2 ǂƞƘƝƦƣ' ǂƟƧμƨƔ: ƗƯƥƞƘƝƦƣƔ ƝƔȴ ƝƔƝƮƟƧμƨƔ. L V r(GƀR) Su. I 101, 2 (Ɣ 1116), unde Zonar. 130, 28 1 lm. deest in LV; (ǂƞƘƝƦƣ' n.) R

ƗƯƥƞƘƝƦƣƔ] ƝƔƝƮƞƘƝƦƣƔ r

492–4 (ǂƞƘƝƦƣ’ – ) μƜƔƜƨƮƟƫƟ ƖƏμƫƟ (– ƛƐμƜƤ): ǢƦơƜ ǎƢȴ ƦʀƤ ǖƣƜƟƯơƤ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǿ ƞƮƖơƤŭ ǎƢƐƕƚ ƖȮƣ ǎƢȴ ƿμƜƞƞƑμƔƦƔ ƖƏμƫƟ ǂƞƘƝƦƣƔ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƯμƨƘƧƦƔŭ ǎƢƐƕƚ ƗȰ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ, ơǵƤ ơȎ ƛƐμƜƤŭ ơȑƤ ơȎƝ ǎƩƣʀƟ, ƘǮƤ ƖƏμơƟ ǢƖƔƖƘƟ ǟ ǖƣƜƟȹƤŭ ƗƜƮƢƘƣ ƝƔȴ ƟʝƟ ƔȎƦơȸƤ μƘƦƘƞƘƯƥƘƦƔƜ. Ǡ ǎƢȴ ƦʀƤ 5 žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ǎƥƦȴ Ʀȶ ƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ơǵƥƜƟ ơȎ ƛƐμƜƤ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƖƏμƫƟŭ ƨƚƥȴƟ ơȔƟ ȃƦƜ ǎƢƐƕƚ ƖƏμơƜƤ ǟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔ, ơǵƤ ơȎƝ ǒƢƣƘƢƘƟ. L q(Ż) r(GƀR) 1 lm. LH supplevi: ƩƔƞƝȷƢơƧƤ ƀ: deest in GR; (ƩƔƞƝȷƢơƧƤ n.) R 2 ǎƢȴ – 3 ƗȰ om. G propter homoeoteleuton 2 ƿμμƜƞƞȳμƔƦƔ duplici μ ƀR 3 ƗȰ ơm. ƀR ơȎƝ om. G ǎƩƣʀƟ] ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ r ƖƏμơƟ] ƖƏμơƧƤ r 4 ǤƖƘƟ G 5 ơǵƥƜƟ] ơȔƥƜƟ r 6 ơȔƟ om. r ơȎƝ ǒƢƣƘƢƘƟ om. GR

182

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

495a1 Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟƗƐ ƦơƜ μ' ǒƩƘƜ: ƞƘƒƢƘƜ Ʀȶ ǎƞƢȴƤ Ǡ <ƛƏƣƥơƤ>ŭ ƛȯƣƥơƤ μƘ ǒƩƘƜ μȲ Ƣƣȶ ƦơƯƦƫƟ, ƦʬƟ ƢƣơƘƜƣƚμƐƟƫƟ, ŵǲƖƜƥƛƮƟ ƨƚƥƜ ƝƔȴ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ, ƦơʝƦơ Ʀȶ ȂƟƔƣ ǂƪƘƝƦơƟ ǟμʎƟ ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟ, ƾƞƞ' ƾƝơƧƥƮμƘƛƔ ƪƘƖơμƐƟơƧ ƔȎƦơʝ ƢƔƣȮ ƦʬƟ ƛƘƔƥƔμƐƟƫƟ ƔȎƦȶ ƞƘƖƮƟƦƫƟ 5 ȃƦƜ ƝƔƝʬƟ ǤƟ ƥƚμƔƟƦƜƝƮƟ. L q(Ż) V r(G) 1 lm. deest in VG; (Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟƗƘ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 495–8 Ƣƣȶ – ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ; grammaticum ƾƪƘƖƐƤ cum ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ coniunxisse vidit Wolff 121, dativo ǟμʎƟ ad ƢƘƞɱƟ relato ƞƘƒƢƘƜ om. V ƛȯƣƥơƤ (pr.) addidi, cf. infra sch. 872, sch. 1075–6a1.1 ƛƏƣƥơƤ (alt.)] ƛƣƏƥơƤ G μȰ om. H 2 ƢƣơƘƜƣƚμƐƟƫƟ] ƘǮƣƚμƐƟƫƟ Ż AǲƖƜƥƛơƟ Wc (coni. Lascaris): ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ LŻVG 3 žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔƟ Lascaris: -μƟȳƥƦƣƔƟ Wc: -μƟƑƥƦƣƔ (-μȳƥƦƣƔ L) LHVG ǂƪƘƝƦơƟ] ǂƪ. <ɒ> Bernardakis 43, sed annotator per ƛƏƣƥơƤ μƘ ǒƩƘƜ μȲ ... ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟ constructioni poetae respondet ƛƏƣƥơƤ μƑƢơƦƘ ... ƢƘƞɱƟ ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƔƛ G 4 ƢƔƣȮ] ƢƘƣȴ V ƔȎƦȶ Jahn1: ƔȎƦȶƟ LH: ƔȎƦʬƟ VG 5 ƝƔƝʬƟ] ƝƔƝȶƤ Ż: ƝƔƝȶƟ V: om. G ƥƚμƔƟƦƜƝȶƟ VLp (Lascaris): -ȶƤ LHG

495a2 (Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟƗƐ ƦơƜ μ' ǒƩƘƜ): ƛƔƣƣʬ ȃƦƜ ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƦȮ ǂƗƜƝƔ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƔƜ ǂƪƘƝƦơƤ ǿ ȂƟƘƜƣơƤŭ ƢƔƛƮƟƦƘƤ ƖȮƣ ƪƐƠơƧƥƜ Ʀȶ ǾƨƛƐƟ. L q(Ż) V r(G) 1, 2 ƗƣʬƥƜ, ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ] aliter explanantur ƗƣʬƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ in sch. 498 1–3 haec separatim scripsi: cum sch. pr. coniunguntur in LH (ǂƞƞƫƤ), G (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ), V (ǿ ƟơʝƤ) 1 lm. addidi; accuratiss. vv. 495–8 Ƣƣȶ – ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ; grammaticum ƾƪƘƖƐƤ cum ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ coniunxisse vidit Wolff 121, dativo ǟμʎƟ ad ƢƘƞɱƟ relato ƛƔƣƣʬ] ƛƔƣƣʬƟ Ż ȃƦƜ] ơȔƟ Ż: om. G 2 ǂƪƘƧƝƦơƤ G 3 ƪȱƖơƧƥƜƟ V

495b Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟƗȱ ƦơƜ μ' ǒƩƘƜ: ǒƩƘƜ ƛƏƣƥơƤŭ Ʀȶ Ʀơƒ ƥƯƟƗƘƥμơƤ ƢƔƣƔƢƞƚƣƫμƔƦƜƝƮƤ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. scripsi: Ƣƣȷ ƦʬƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟƗȱ n.) R ǒƩƘƜ ƛȯƣƥơƤ om. ƀR

497 (ƦƐƣƔƤ): Ʀȶ Ʀơʝ ǾƟƘƒƣơƧ ƦƐƣƔƤ. L r(Gs.l.) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

sch. 495a1 – sch. 504

183

498 ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ: ȏμʎƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƗƣưƥƔƜƤ ȏƢȰƣ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ƝƔȴ ǟμʎƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƥƧƟƗƣưƥƔƜƤ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƔƩƛơμƐƟƔƜƤ. L q (Hs.l.) V r(ƀR) 1 ƗƣʬƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƗƣʬƥƜƟ h.l. cum ǟμʎƟ coniunguntur, non cum ƾƪƘƖƐƤ; aliter explicantur in sch. 495a2 1 lm.] ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ ƀ: deest in HVR; (ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜ n.) R; (498 n.) V 1–2 ȏμʎƟ ... ǟμʎƟ] ǟμʎƟ ... ȏμʎƟ Ż: ǟμʎƟ … ǟμʎƟ ƀ 1 ƦƔʎƤ ƗƣȻƥƔƜƤ] ƦơʎƤ ƗƣʬƥƜƟ Żr 2 ƦƔʎƤ ... ƥƧƟƔƩƛơμȱƟƔƜƤ] ƦơʎƤ ... ƥƧƟƔƩƛơμȱƟơƜƤ Ż ƥƧƟƗƣȻƥƔƜƤ ƝƔȴ om. Żr

500 (ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ): ƦơʎƤ ǎƝƨơƕơʝƥƜƟ ƦơȸƤ ǿƣʬƟƦƔƤ, ȃƦƔƟ ȤƥƜ ƗƘƜƟơƒ. L V 1 lm. add. Elmsley

501 (ƛƘƥƨƏƦơƜƤ): ƦơʎƤ ƦʬƟ ǾƟƘƒƣƫƟ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

503 ƘȔ ƝƔƦƔƥƩƑƥƘƜ: ơȎ ƦơʎƤ ǏƫƣƔƝƮƥƜƟ ƾƞƞȮ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ. L V Gs.l. 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 500 c. in V (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƘȔ ƝƔƦƔƥƩȳƥƘƜ) ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ] Ǧƞ. ƗƚƞơƟƮƦƜ V

lm. add. Lascaris

ơȎ] ơȎƩȴ V

504 Ȥ ƄƐƞơƢơƤ: ƉƘƣƘƝƯƗƚƤ ƨƚƥƒŭ ƄƐƞơƪ ƟƜƝƑƥƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ƝƔȴ ƞƔƕȺƟ ƦȲƟ ǷƢƢơƗƏμƘƜƔƟ ȏƢƐƥƦƣƘƨƘƟ ǎƢȴ ƦȲƟ ƄƘƞơƢƮƟƟƚƥơƟ μƘƦȮ ƦʬƟ ȏƢơƢƦƐƣƫƟ ǳƢƢƫƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀơʝ ƀƧƣƦƒƞơƧŭ ƝƔƛ' ǿƗȶƟ ƗȰ ƝƔƦƔƞƔƕȺƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƢƣơƬƮƟƦƔ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ƨƜƞʀƥƔƜ ƔȎƦȲƟ ǒƣƣƜƪƘƟ ƘǮƤ ƛƏƞƔƥƥƔƟ. L q(HŸ) V 5 r(GƀR) 1 ƉƘƣƘƝȹƗƚƤ: FGrHist 3 F 37b 1 lm.] ƘȔƦƘ ƖȮƣ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƘȔƦƘ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 504–12 Ȥ ƄƐƞơƢơƤ – ǎƝƣƜƨƛƘȵƤ ƨƚƥȴ] ƨ. ȃƦƜ ǿ q 2 ƞƔƕȺƟ] ƞƔƛȺƟ V: om. G ƦȲƟ (pr.) om. VG ȏƢȱƥƦƣƘƨƘƟ] ǎƢƐƥƦƣƘƨƘƟ V: ȏƢƐƥƦƣƘƪƘƟ q

3 ȏƢơƢƦƐƣƫƟ] ƢƦƘƣƯƖƫƟ G

Ʀơʝ (om.

184

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

qWa) ƀƧƣƦȵƞơƧ qWa r Lp (Ʀơʝ ƀƜƣƦƯƞơƧ, sic Lascaris): ƦȶƟ ƀƧƣƦȵƞơƟ L: deperditum in rasura in V ƗȰ om. V 4 ƨƜƞʀƥƔƜ] post ƨƜ quattuor litterae in rasura deperditae in V ƛƏƞƔƥƥƔƟ] ƦȲƟ ƛ. ŻV

504–6 (Ȥ – Ɩɲ): ơǵơƟ ǤƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƢƣʬƦơƟ

ƢơƞƯƨƛơƣƮƟ ƦƘ ƗʬμƔ ƄƘƞơƢƜƗʬƟ ƦƮƗƘ. L V 2 v. 10 1 haec cum sch. pr. coniunguntur in V (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƿ ƢƣƮƥƛƘƟ) lm. addidi

ƝƔȴ om. V

505 ƢơƞƯƢơƟơƤ ǯƢƢƘƒƔ: ƢơƞƯƢơƟơƤ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚ ƢɱƥƜƟ ǆƣƖƘƒơƜƤŭ ƝƔȴ ǏƣμƚƟƘƯƘƜ ƔȎƦȶ ƞƐƖƫƟ ȟƤ ǒμơƞƘƤ ƔǮƔƟȲ | ƦɲƗƘ Ɩɲ ƔǮƔƟȲ ƗȰ ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝȲ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ Ɣǰ Ɣǲ, ǎƠ ơȕ ƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ. L V r(GƀR) 3 vv. 506–7 4 ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝȳ: cf. sch. Aesch. Eum. 416 <ƔǮƔƟʀ>] … ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝȮ Ǡ ƔǮƏƙƘƜƟ ƢơƜơʝƟƦƔ.; sch. Pi. P 4 420 ǢƦơƜ ǾƗƧƟƚƣȶƟ ƢƔƣȮ ƦȶƟ ƔǮƔƖμƮƟ· ƔǮƏƙƘƜƟ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ …; Su. ƔƜ 7 … ŵ Ǯ Ɣ Ɵ ʀ Ƥ , ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝʀƤ. ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ƔǮƏƙƫ, Ʀȶ ƛƣƚƟʬ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ Ɣǰ Ɣǲ: cf. sch. Pi. I 1 69b ƔǮƔƟʀ ƗȰ ơǯ μȰƟ ƦȲƟ ƩƔƞƘƢȲƟ ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ Ɣǰ Ɣǲ 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ƢơƞƯƢơƟơƤ n.) V ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚ] ƖƜƟơμƐƟƚ V: μȰƟ r 2 ƔȎƦȶ] ƔȎƦȶƤ ƔǮƔƟȲ LpWa (de forma adiectivi ƔǮƔƟƮƤ pro Roemer 27 3 ǒμơƞƘƤ] ǒμơƞ' ƀR ƔǮƔƟƑƤ cf. ad Eust. Il. II 762, 5 ƔǮƔƟȲ van der Valk): ƔǮƔƟʀ L: ƔǮƔƟʀƤ Vrr ƦɲƗƘ] ƦʁƗƘ ƀR 4 ƔǮƔƟȲ VWaLp: ƔǮƔƟʀ L: ƔǮƔƟʀƤ r: ƗȰ om. G ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝȲ Wa Lp et fortasse V: ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝʀ L: ƛƣƚƟƚƦƜƝʀƤ r Ɣǰ Ɣǰ] ƔǮƏƙƫ r ǎƠ ơȕ ƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ om. r ƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ] ƝƔȴ ƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ V

508 ƘȔƦƘ ƖȮƣ ǿ ƢơƟƦƜƥƛƘƒƤ: ǿ ƟơʝƤ ƦơƜơʝƦƮƤ ǎƥƦƜƟŭ ƾƨ' ơȕ ǿ ƀƧƣƦƒƞơƤ ƾƢƐƛƔƟƘƟ, ơȎ ƗƜƐƞƜƢƘƟ ƔǮƝƒƔ ƦơȸƤ ƢơƞƧƝƦƑμơƟƔƤ ƗƮμơƧƤŭ ǿ ƖȮƣ ǗƣμʀƤ, ƢƔƦȲƣ ƀƧƣƦƒƞơƧ, ǎμƑƟƜƥƘ ƦơʎƤ ƄƘƞơƢƒƗƔƜƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(G) 1 lm.] ƘȔƦƘ ƖȮƣ q: deest in VG; (ƘȔƦƘ ƖȮƣ ǿ ƢơƟƦƜƥƛƘȴƤ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 508–15 ƘȔƦƘ – ƔǮƝȵƔ; scholiastam ǎƝ ƦơʝƗ’ ơǲƝơƧƤ ƢơƞƧƢƏμơƟƔƤ ƔǮƝƒƔ pro ǎƝ ƦơʝƗ’ ơǲƝơƧ ƢơƞƯƢơƟơƤ ƔǮƝƒƔ invenisse in libro suo conclusit (post Bothe 50) Bergk xlvi prob. Kruytbosch 78 1 ǿ] ǿ ƗȰ G ƦơƜơʝƦȷƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ om. q post ƀƧƣƦƒƞơƤ add. ǎƝ ƦʬƟ

sch. 504 – sch. 518

185

ƢƔƖƩƣƯƥƫƟ ƗƒƨƣƫƟ ƢƘƥȺƟ VG 2 ƢơƞƧƝƦƑμơƟƔƤ] ƢơƞƧƝƦƑμơƧƤ (-ƝƦƯ- G) qG: ƢơƞƧƝƦȳƦơƧƤ Wa: ƢơƞƧƢȳμơƟƔƤ Valckenaer 33r et Zielinski 8, quippe qui ǎƝ ƦơʝƗ’ ơǲƝơƧƤ ƢơƞƧƢȷƟơƧƤ ƔǮƝƒƔ pro ǎƝ ƦơʝƗ’ ơǲƝơƧ ƢơƞȹƢơƟơƤ ƔǮƝƒƔ legisse scholiastam putavisset 3 ƢƔƦȲƣ] Ƣ. ȠƟ q ǎμƑƟƜƥƘ] ǎμƑƟƧƥƘ G

511 (ƔǮƝƒƔƜƤ): ƔǮƝƜƥμơʎƤ, ȓƕƣƘƥƜƟ. L 1 ȓƕƣƘƥƜƟ: cf. Hesych. Ɣ 1917 Ɣ Ǯ Ɲ ƒ Ɣ · ƢƞƚƖƑ, ȓƕƣƜƤ; Ɔ Ɣ 183 ƔǮƝƒƔŭ ȓƕƣƜƤ ǒμƢƞƚƖơƤ. = Phot. Ɣ 585 = Su. ƔƜ 167 (+); Phot. Ɣ 586 ƔǮƝƒƙƘƜŭ … ƝƔƛƧƕƣƒƙƘƜ = Su. ƔƜ 170; Zonar. 80, 1 ŵǮƝƒƔ. ȓƕƣƜƤ … 1 lm. add. Lascaris

512 ƢƣƮƣƣƜƙơƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƟƦƏƢƔƥƜƟ.L Su. IV 219, 7 (Ƣ 2580) 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in L

516 ƾƟƘƜμƐƟƚ μȱƟ: ǂƟƘƥƜƟ ǒƩơƧƥƔŭ ƢƔƟƦƔƩƮƛƘƟ ƗȰ ƗƜƔƨȷƣơƜƤ ǎƠƔƞƞƔƖƔʎƤ ƦȶƟ ǒƞƘơƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ƗƜƔƖƣƏƨƘƜ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦƑƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ǂƟƘƥƜƟ ǒƩơƧƥƔ ƢƔƟƦƔƩȷƛƘƟ, sine interpunctione post ǒƩơƧƥƔ: Su. Ž 213, 14 (Ɣ 2379) 1 lm.] ƾƟƘƜμȱƟƚ μȰƟ ȟƤ ǒơƜƝƔƤ q: deest in Vrr ƗȰ om. r 2 ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ r add. ƝƔƦƏƥƦƚμƔ (sic r pro ƝƔƦȮ ƥƩʀμƔ sicut coni. Jahn1) ƢƣƐƢơƟ r

518 (ƔǮƥƩƯƟƘƜƟ ƨƒƞơƧƤ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƔƛ' ǟμʬƟ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

post ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ

186

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

526 ǎƠ ǎμơʝŭ ƝƔƞʬƤ: ǲƗƜơƟ ʜƚƦơƣƜƝʀƤ ƦƮƞμƚƤ Ʀȶ μȲ ƾƣƟƘʎƥƛƔƜ μȱƟ, ƢƜƛƔƟȲƟ ƗȰ ƦʬƟ ƗƘƗƣƔμƐƟƫƟ ǎƢƘƜƥƨƐƣƘƜƟ ƔǮƦƒƔƟ. ơȎƩ ȟƤ ƗƒƝƔƜƔ ƗȰ ƢƣƔƦƦơƯƥƚƤ ƥƧƟƚƖơƣƘʎ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȳƤ, ƾƞƞ' ǳƟƔ μȲ ƾƣƖȶƟ Ƙǲƚ Ʀȶ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ. L q(HŸ) r(GMR) 1 lm.] μȳ ƦơƜ ƛƧƣƔȵƔƟ (v. 518) M: deest in qGR; (ȟƤ ǎƠ ǎμơʝ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 526–7 ǎƠ ǎμơʝ – ǒƟƘƥƦƒ μơƜ ʜƚƦơƣƜƝʀƤ] ƦʀƤ ʜ. q ƦƮƞμƚƤ] ƦȱƩƟƚƤ WaLp: om. r 2 ƗƘƗƣƔμƐƟƫƟ] ƗƘƗƣƔƖμƐƟƫƟ G: ƗƣƫμƐƟƫƟ q ǎƢƘƜƥƨƐƣƘƜƟ] ǎƢƜƨȱƣƘƜƟ ƀ 3 ƥƧƟƚƖơƣƘʎ] ƥ. ƦƔʝƦƔ q Ƙǲƚ] exspectes ɒ, at cf. e.g. sch. 660.4, sch. 1434.2, sch. Ai. 34.2, sch. OC 462.4; vide etiam ad sch. Hom. Il. 7. 114b2/a2 Erbse; SD 338 ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ] Ƣ. ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣƘʎ q

539a ƢƮƦƘƣơƟ ǎƝƘƒƟʪ ƢƔʎƗƘƤ: ƞƔμƕƏƟơƟƦƔƒ ƦƜƟƘƤ Ʀơʝ ƢơƜƚƦơʝ ǎƝ ƦʬƟ ȇμƚƣƜƝʬƟ, ǎƢƘȴ ǎƝƘʎƟơƤ μƒƔƟ ƖƘƖơƟƐƟƔƜ Ʀʭ ƀƘƟƘƞƏʪ, ƦȲƟ ǗƣμƜƮƟƚƟ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ơȕƦơƤ ƗȰ ƗƜƢƞơʝƤ ǿμơμƚƦƣƒơƧƤ ƨƚƥȴƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƖƘƖơƟƐƟƔƜ. ȃμƫƤ ơȎ ƥƧμƨƫƟƘʎ ƔȎƦʭ ǧƥƒơƗơƤ 5 ǡ ƦƐƝƘƛ' ǗƣμƜƮƟƚƟ ƗơƧƣƜƝƞƧƦʭ ƀƘƟƘƞƏʪŭ ǿƢƞƮƦƔƦơƟ Ɨ' ǒƦƘƝƘƟ ƁƜƝƮƥƦƣƔƦơƟ ȂƙơƟ ǊƣƚơƤ. ơȎ ƢƘƣȴ μƘƖƏƞƫƟ ƗȰ Ɣǯ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔƜ ƗƜƔƨƫƟƒƔƜ ƦơʎƤ ƢơƜƚƦƔʎƤ, ȣƥƦƘ ơȎ ƢƏƟƧ ƗƘʎ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƦơƜơƯƦƫƟ ǎƟơƩƞƘʎƟ, ƾƨƘμƐƟơƧƤ ƦʬƟ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƜơƦƐƣƫƟ, ǃƢƘƣ ƢƔƣƔƦƚƣƘʎƟ ǎƩƣʀƟŭ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƗƐ ǎƥƦƜ ƦȮ ǞƛƜƝȮ ƝƔȴ ƩƣƑƥƜμƔ ǟμʎƟ ƦơʎƤ 10 ǎƟƦƧƖƩƏƟơƧƥƜƟ. ȃƣƔ ơȔƟ ƢʬƤ ǎƝƘƒƟʪ Ʀʭ μƐƣƘƜ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣƒƔƤ ƝƔƦƘƩƣƑƥƔƦơ, ȃƦƜ ƥƧƟƐƨƘƣƘƟ Ʀʭ ƞƮƖʪ ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GM) 2 ǎƝƘʎƟơƤ: Żom. Od. 4.13–4; Il. 3.175 4 ǧƥȵơƗơƤ: fr. 175 M.-W. μƐƣƘƜ ƦʀƤ ǯƥƦơƣƒƔƤ] haec de Hesiodi versione accipienda

10 ǎƝƘƒƟʪ Ʀʭ

1 lm.] ǎƝƘȵƟʪ ƢƔʎƗƘƤ ƀ: ƢȷƦƘƣơƟ ǎƝƘȵƟʪ q: deest in VG; accuratiss. v. 539 ƢƮƦƘƣơƟ – ƗƜƢƞơʎ ƞƔμƕȯƟơƟƦƔƜ (de sensu vide LSJ s.v. Ŷ.5)] ǎƢƜƞƔμƕƏƟơƟƦƔƜ q, coni. iam Heyne, Ad Apollodori Bibliothecam Observationes, Gottingae 1803, 289, prob. Nauck 420 ƦƜƟȰƤ] ƢƔʎƗƘƤ ƀ 3 ƨƚƥȴƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƖƘƖơƟȱƟƔƜ om. M ȃμƫƤ ơȎ] ȃμ. ƗȰ ơȎ ƀ, idque commendat de Marco 181 ȃμƫƤ] ǿμơȵƫƤ <Ɨ’> Wansink 51, inutiliter ơȎ] 4 ƔȎƦʭ om. V; ƔȎƦʭ ad Homerum ơȎƗȰ Meiser 11, ƔȎƦʭ (alt.) ad Homerum relato spectat ǧƥȵơƗơƤ] ǿ ǧƥ. ƀ 5 ƗơƧƣƜƝƞƧƦʭ Lq qVG: ƗơƣƜƝƞƚƦʭ ƀ: ƗơƧƣƜƝƞƘƜƦʭ Hesiodus 6 ǿƢƞȷƦƔμơƟ ƀ Ɨ' om. M 7 ơȎ ƢƘƣȴ μƘƖȯƞƫƟ … ȣƥƦƘ ơȎ ƢȯƟƧ] ƘǮƤ ƦȮ μƘƖȯƞƔ ... ȣƥƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƢȯƟƧ ƀ ƢƘƣȴ – ơȎ om. Ÿ propter homoeoteleuton ƗƜƔƨƫƟƒƔƜ] 8 ƔȎƦơʎƤ (i.e. ƦơʎƤ ƢơƜƚƦƔʎƤ)] ƗƜƔƨơƣȵƔƜ ƀ: om. Ż ƢơƜƚƦƔʎƤ Vrr: ƢơƜȳμƔƥƜ LH ƔȎƦơȸƤ Ɓƀa.c.: om. G ƾƨƘμȱƟơƧƤ] ƾƨƘμȱƟơƜƤ Ÿ: ƾƨƐμƘƟơƜ Ż: ƾƨƜƘμƐƟơƧƤ G

187

sch. 526 – sch. 546

ƾƟƔƖƝƔƜơƦƐƣƫƟ] ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƫƟ G 10 ȃƣƔ] ǿƣɱƟ V ơȔƟ] ƖȮƣ q μȱƣƘƜ] ƦȮ μȱƣƚ ƀ 11 ƥƧƟƐƨƘƣƘƟ post žƞ. transp. q

ƢʬƤ] ƢƘƣȴ V

Ʀʭ

539b (ƢȷƦƘƣơƟ – ƗƜƢƞơʎ): ǗƣμƜƮƟƚ ƝƔȴ ƁƜƝƮƥƦƣƔƦơƤ. L Gs.l. 1 lm. addidi

540 (ƦʀƥƗƘ): ƾƟƦȴ ƦʀƤ ǶƨƜƖƘƟƘȵƔƤ. L Gs.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ƘǮƝȶƤ s.) L ƾƟƦȴ om. G

542–3 Ǡ ƦʬƟ ǎμʬƟ ǋƜƗƚƤ: Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤŭ Ǡ ƦʬƟ ǎμʬƟ ƦƐƝƟƫƟ ƗƔƒƥƔƥƛƔƜ ƢƞƐơƟ ǳμƘƣƮƟ ƦƜƟƔ ɉƗƚƤ ǒƥƩƘƟ Ǡ ƦʬƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƚƤ. L V r(Gƀ) 1 lm.] Ǡ ƦʬƟ ǎμʬƟ ƀ: deest in VG; accuratiss. vv. 542–3 Ǡ ƦʬƟ ǎμʬƟ – ƢƞȱơƟ om. VM ǎμʬƟ] ǏƔƧƦơʝ G

Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ

545 (ƢƔƣƘʎƦơ): ǞμƘƞƘʎƦơ, ƢƔƣɾƣƘʎƦơ. L r(Gs. l.) Su. ŽV 54, 13 (Ƣ 609) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƢƔƣƘʎƦơ s.) L

ƢƔƣɾƣƘʎƦơ om. G

546 (ƾƕơȹƞơƧ): ƝƔƝơƕơȹƞơƧ. L q(HŸ) V r(Gs. l.) Su. II 150, 12 (Ɨ 1642) cf. sch. Tr. 140.1 (ƦƐƝƟơƜƥƜ) źʀƟ’ ǂƕơƧƞơƟ: … ƝƔƝƮƕơƧƞơƟ; sch. Thuc. I 120, 5 ƾƕơƧƞơƦƐƣƫƟ: ƝƔƝơƕơƧƞơƦƐƣƫƟ 1 sch. suo loco in G legitur (iam h.l. restituit Meiser 11): ad v. 550 ƗȹƥƛƧμơƤ adscribunt cett. et Su. lm. add. Meiser l.c. ƝƔƝơƕơȹƞơƧ G: ƝƔƝȷƕơƧƞơƤ cett. et Su.

188

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

551 ƖƟưμƚƟ ƗƜƝƔƒƔƟ: ơǵơƟ ƞơƖƜƥμʭ ƩƣƚƥƔμƐƟƚ ƗƜƝƔƒʪ, ƦƮƦƘ ƦơȸƤ ƢƐƞƔƤ ƪƐƖƘ, ǟμɱƤ, μȲ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ ǾƣƖʁ ƝƔƦƔƩƔƣƜƙơμƐƟƚ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ƦơȸƤ ƢƐƞƔƤ ƦơȸƤ ƢƘƣȴ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ. L q(Hs.l.) V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƖƟȻμƚƟ M: deest in HVGR; (ƖƟȻμƚƟ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 551 ƖƟưμƚƟ – ƪȱƖƘ ƩƣƚƥƔμƐƟƚ] –μƘƟơƤ G ƦƮƦƘ Lascaris: Ʀʭ ƦƘ LV: ƦʬƟ ƦƘ Ż: Ʀʭ μȲ r ƦơȸƤ om. ŻG 2 ƢƐƞƔƤ] ƢƐƞƔƥƔƤ ƀ ƪȱƖƘ Lascaris: ƪƐƖƘƜƟ LŻVGM: ƞȱƖƘƜƟ WaR ƪȱƖƘ, ǟμɱƤ] ƪȱƖƘ, <ǳƟ' ɒ> ǟμɱƤ Papageorgiou2 103 μȲ – fin. om. H ǾƣƖʁ] Ʀʁ Ǿƣ. r ƩƔƣƜƙơμȱƟƚ ƀR ƦƜƟȰƤ ƦơȸƤ ƢȱƞƔƤ] ƦƒƟƔƤ ƗȰ ƞƐƖƘƜ ƢƐƞƔƤ V: ƢȱƞƔƤ ƗȰ r 3 ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ] ǆƖ. ƗƚƞơƟƮƦƜ ƨƚƥȴƟ V

552 ǎƣƘʎƤ μȰƟ ơȎƩȴ ƟʝƟ: ơȎƝ ǀƟ ƘǲƢơƜƤ «ƞƧƢƑƥƔƥƏ μƘ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƾƟƦƔƝƑƝơƔƤ»ŭ ǎμơʝ ƖȮƣ ƘǮƢơƯƥƚƤ ơȎƗȰƟ ƥȸ ƢƣơƝƔƦƑƣƠƫ ƦʀƤ ƘǮƤ ǎμȰ ƞơƜƗơƣƒƔƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƞƧƢƚƣȶƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƞƧƢƚƣȶƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 552–3 ǎƣƘʎƤ – ȓƢơ ƘǲƢơƜƤ] ƘǲƢɾƤ V: ƘǴƢƘƟ G post ƘǲƢơƜƤ add. ƟʝƟ Vrr ante ƞƧƢƑƥƔƥƔ add. ȃƦƜ qVrr 2 ƾƟƦƔƝƑƝơƔƤ] ƾƝƑƝơƔƤ ǎƠ ǎμơʝ r: ƾƝȳƝơƔƤ V ƢƣơƝƔƦƑƣƠƫ] ƢƣơƝƔƦƏƣƠƫ V ƘǮƤ ǎμȰ] ǎμʀƤ G 3 ƞơƜƗơƣƒƔƤ] ƞơƜƗƫƣȵƔƤ R

556 ƘǮ ƗƐ μ' ȥƗ' ƾƘȴ ƞƮƖơƜƤ: ƘǮ Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟ ƞƮƖƫƟ ǎƢƧƟƛƏƟơƧ ƘǮ Ʀȶ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƥơƜ ǎƨƒƚμƜ, ơȎƝ ǀƟ ǤƤ ƞƧƢƚƣƏ. L qbis(ŻbisŸbis) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex Lq qi (ƞƮƖơƜƤ L: de qi non constat): ǎƨȵƚμ' ƀ: deest in qiiVGR; (ƝƔȴ μȲƟ n.) VR; accuratiss. vv. 556–7 ƘǮ ƗƐ – ƝƞȹƘƜƟ ƘǮ Ʀȶ] ƘǲƦƘ qi 2 ƥơƜ om. qii ǀƟ ǤƤ (ǤƤ forma recentior, cf. sch. 1145–6.1, 4; BDR § 98)] ǀƟ ƘǮƤ qi ƞƧƢƚƣȯ om. qi

558 ƢƔƦƐƣƔ ƨɽƤ ƝƦƘʎƟƔƜ: ȟƤ ʜƑƦƫƣ ƗƜƘʎƞƘƟ ƘǮƤ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜƔ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ. ƝƔȴ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ, ȃƦƜ ơȎƗȰƟ ƩƔƞƘƢưƦƘƣơƟ ƦơƯƦơƧ, Ƙǲ ƖƘ ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ. ƗƘƯƦƘƣơƟ, ȃƦƜ ơȎ ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ ƾƞƞȮ ƢƘƜƥƛƘʎƥƔ ŵǮƖƒƥƛʪ. ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƜ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ ƾƝơƧƥƒƫƤ ǿ ǆƖƔμƐμƟƫƟ ǒƛƧƥƘƟ ƦȲƟ ǶƨƜƖƐƟƘƜƔƟ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ŵȎƞƒƗƜ. L q(HŸ) V 5 r(GƀR) 2 ƢƣʬƦơƟ ƝƘƨȯƞƔƜơƟ: vv. 558–60

3 ƗƘȹƦƘƣơƟ: vv. 560–2 ƗƘȵƝƟƧƥƜ vv. 563–76

sch. 551 – sch. 563

189

1 lm.] ƗȲ ƞȱƖƫ ƥơƜ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ƝƔȴ ƗȲ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 558–76 ƢƔƦƐƣƔ – ƩȯƣƜƟ 1 ȟƤ – ƞƮƖơƟ om. q ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜƔ] -ơƟ V 2 ơȎƗȰƟ] ơȎƗȰ V Ƙǲ ƖƘ ƗƜƝƔȵƫƤ] ƘǲƦƘ ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ <ƘǲƦƘ μȲ ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ> Meiser 11: ƘǲƦƘ <ƗƜƝƔȵƫƤ ƨƚƥȴ ƝƦƘʎƟƔƜ ƘǲƦƘ μȲ> ƗƜƝƔȵƫƤ haesitans Papageorgiou2 ƣƜƗŪ 3 ƗƘƯƦƘƣơƟ – ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ om. qV propter homoeoteleuton ƾƞƞȮ] ǂƞƞƚ G 4 ǿ om. r ǿ ǆƖ. ǒƛ.] ǒƛ. ǿ ǆƖ. V ǒƛƧƥƘƟ ƦȲƟ Ƕƨ.] Ʀ. Ƕƨ. ǒƛ. r

561a ȟƤ ơȎ ƗƒƝɾ Ɩ' ǒƝƦƘƜƟƔƤ: ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ Ʀʭ

ǟ ƖȮƣ ƗƒƝƚ ƟƜƟ ƘǵƞƘƟ Ʀȶ ȟƤ ơȎ ƗƒƝɾ Ɩ' ǒƝƦƘƜƟƔƤ. L V r(GƀR) 2 v. 528 1 lm.] ȟƤ ơȎ ƗȵƝɾ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ȟƤ ơȎ ƗȵƝɾ n.) R Ʀʭ r Lp (Lascaris): Ʀȶ LV 2 ǟ VGM (coni. Lascaris): ƘǮ L: ơȎ R ƗƒƝƚ] ƗȵƝƚƜ L ƘǵƞƘƟ] ƘǴƩƘƟ G 2–3 ƘǵƞƘƟ Ʀȶ] ƘǳƞƘƦơ V 3 Ɩ' om. G ǒƝƦƘƜƟƔƤ] -ƟƘ G

561b ǒƥƢƔƥƘƟ [ƗȰ]: ƢƔƣƑƖƔƖƘƟ, ƢƔƣƐƢƘƜƥƘƟ. L V r(G) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in V (ǒƥƢƔƥƘƟ ƗȰ) lm. V decurtavi; deest in LG; (ǒƥƢƔƥƘƟ s.) L ƢƔƣȳƖƔƖƘƟ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ Ƣ. V post ƢƔƣƐƢƘƜƥƘƟ add. ƝƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƦȶƟ ƢƔƦƐƣƔ μơƧ G

561–2 ƾƞƞȮ ƥ' ǒƥƢƔƥƘƟ | ƢƘƜƛư: ƔȓƦƚ ƖȮƣ ƾƢƮƗƘƜƠƜƤ ơȎ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ƛƧƖƔƦƐƣƔ ƾƞƞȮ ƗƜȮ ƦȶƟ μơƜƩȶƟ ƢƘƨơƟƘʝƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ, Ʀȶ ƝƔȴ μƐƩƣƜ Ʀơʝ ƟʝƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƥƧƟƘʎƟƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟơƜƝƘʎƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex L (ubi ƢƜƛȻ legitur, ut apud Sophoclem): ƢƘƜƛȺ ƝƔƝơʝ Ż: ƢƘƜƛȺ Ÿ: deest in Vrr; accuratiss. vv. 561–2 ƾƞƞȮ – ƠȹƟƘƜ ơȎ] Ʀơʝ μȲ r 2 ƨơƟƘʝƥƔƜ q ƦȶƟ (alt.) evanuit in V ƝƔȴ om. qr 3 Ʀơʝ ƟʝƟ] ƝƔȴ ƟʝƟ V Ʀơʝ om. q

563 (ƦƒƟơƤ ƢơƜƟȯƤ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƗƜƏ. L 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

190

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

567 ǎƠƘƝƒƟƚƥƘƟ: ǎƠƘƗƒƫƠƘƟ. Ls.l. Żs.l. Su. II 305, 5 (Ƙ 1606), unde Zonar. 769, 15 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in codd.

575 ƢơƞƞȮ ƝƾƟƦƜƕƏƤ: ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƤ ƝƔȴ μȲ ƕơƧƞƮμƘƟơƤŭ ƗƜȮ ƗȰ ƦʀƤ ƞƐƠƘƫƤ Ɨƚƞơʎ Ʀȶ ƾƝơƯƥƜơƟ ƦʀƤ ƢƣơƔƜƣƐƥƘƫƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GM) 1 lm.] ƕƜƔƥƛƘȴƤ ƀ: deest in VG ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƤ – ƕơƧƞƮμƘƟơƤ om. G ƾƟƦƜƢƔƣƔƦƔƦƦȷμƘƟơƤ] ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣƔƦƔƦƦƮμƘƟơƤ ŻV: ƢƔƣƔƦƔƦƦȷμƘƟơƤ ƀ ƗȰ om. G 2 ƾƝơƯƥƜơƟ] ǏƝơƯƥƜơƟ q

580 ȃƣƔ ƦƜƛƘʎƥƔ: ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ƝƔƦƔƥƝƘƧƏƙƘƜ ȃƦƜ ƘǮ ƟơμơƛƘƦƘʎƤ ǂƞƞơƟ ƾƟƦ' ǂƞƞơƧ ƾƟƔƜƣƘʎƥƛƔƜ, ƝƔƦȮ ƥƔƧƦʀƤ ƟơμơƛƘƦƘʎƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ƘǮ Ɨ' ơȔƟ, ǎƣʬ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƥƮƟ (v. 577) Lq q: deest in GR; (ȃƣƔ ƦƜƛƘʎƥƔ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 580–3 ȃƣƔ – ƦƒƛƚƤ

583 (ƢƣưƦƚ ƛƏƟơƜƤ ǂƟ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ. L Ż 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ] ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ Ż

584 ƾƞƞ' ƘǮƥƮƣƔ: ȃƣƔ, ƨƚƥƒ, μȲ ƢƔƣƔƝƏƞƧμμƔ ƦʬƟ ƥƔƧƦʀƤ ƾƗƜƝƚμƏƦƫƟ ƦƔƯƦƚƟ Ɲơμƒƙɾ ƦȲƟ ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) cf. sch. Dem. 1, 50 ƥƝʀƪƜƤ ƗȰ ǟ ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ; Su. ƥ 589 Ɔ Ɲ ʀ ƪ Ɯ Ƥ : ƢƔƣƔƝƏƞƧμμƔ. ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ …; Hesych. ƥ 965 ƥ Ɲ ʀ ƪ Ɯ Ƥ · ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ; Ɔ ƥ 118 = Phot. 519, 12; EM 717, 5 1 lm. deest in HVGR; accuratiss. v. 584 ƾƞƞ' – ƦȵƛƚƤ ȃƣƔ ƨƚƥȵ om. r μȲ om. V ƢƔƣƔƝƏƞƧμμƔ] ƢƘƣƜ- r ƥƔƧƦʀƤ] ǏƔƧƦʀƤ V: ƥʬƟ r 1–2 ƾƗƜƝƚμƏƦƫƟ] ƗƜƝƚμƏƦƫƟ Gƀ 2 Ɲơμȵƙɾ] -ƙƘƜ q: -ƙƘƜƤ (-ƙƚƤ ƀR) r

sch. 567 – sch. 607

191

591 (ǎƢƔƜƟƐƥƔƜμ' ǂƟ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ǎƢƔƜƟƐƥƫμƘƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ. L

595 ƾƞƞ' ơȎƗȰ ƖȮƣ ơȎƗȱ: ǎƢƘȴ ƢƏƟƧ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƗƜƑƞƘƖƠƘƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ μơƜƩƘƒɯ, ȣƥƢƘƣ ǎƢƜƞƔμƕƔƟơμƐƟƚ ƔȏƦʀƤ ƝƾƝƘƒƟƚƟ ǎƝμƘƜƞƜƥƥơμƐƟƚ, ƨƚƥȴƟ ȃƦƜ ơȎƗȰ ƟơƧƛƘƦƘʎƟ ƥƘ ƗƘʎŭ ƩƔƞƘƢƔƒƟƘƜƤ ƖȮƣ ȟƤ ƞơƜƗơƣơƧμƐƟƚ. ƦȶƟ ǒƞƘƖƩơƟ ơȔƟ ƟơƧƛƘƥƒƔƟ ȞƟƮμƔƥƘƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex H (sic pro ƾƞƞ’ ơȎ etc): ƟơƧƛƘƦƘʎƟ ƀ: deest in LŸVGR; accuratiss. v. 595–7 ƾƞƞ' – ƝƔƝơƥƦơμơʝμƘƟ ǎƢȴ] ǎƟ q 2 ǎƢƜƞƔμƕƔƟơμȱƟƚ] -ƟƮμƘƟơƤ q. ƟơμƐƟơƧƤ G ƔȏƦʀƤ] ƔȎƦʀƤ qVrr: de L non constat ƝƾƝƘƒƟƚƟ] ƝƔȴ ƝƾƝƘƒƟƚƟ q ǎƝμƘƜƞƜƥƥơμȱƟƚ] ƝƔȴ μƘƜƞƜƥƥơμƐƟƚƟ q 3 ơȎƗȰ] ơȎƗȰƟ V: om. R ƟơƧƛƘƦƘʎƟ] ƟơμơƛƘƦƘʎƟ V ƗƘʎ] ƗȹƟƔμƔƜ Zielinski 8 (e vocabulo poetae ǒƠƘƥƦƜ) ƩƔƞƘƢƔȵƟƘƜƤ Ż NWaOLp (Lascaris): ƩƔƞƘƢƔƒƟơƜƤ LVrr: ƩƔƞƘƢƔȵƟơƧƥƔ Ÿ ƖȮƣ – ƞơƜƗơƣơƧμȱƟƚ om. Ÿ ƦȶƟ ǒƞƘƖƩơƟ] ƦȲƟ ǒƞƘƖƠƜƟ Ÿ: ƦȲƟ ǒƞƘƖƩơƟ Ż

604–5 ƝƔȴ ƦȷƗ'– ǲƥƛƜ: ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ μȰƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣȶƟ ƘǴƢƘ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʀƤ ƝƔƛƮƗơƧ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ƟʝƟ ƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ƾƟƘƞƘʎƟ ƦȲƟ ȏƢơƪƒƔƟ ƨƚƥȵƟŭ «ǒƢƣƔƥƥơƟ ǂƟ». Wa q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 ƢƣȷƦƘƣơƟ: v. 319 1–3 hoc sch. inter scholia vetera cunctanter recepi 1 lm. scripsi: ǎƢƚƦƜȯƥƫ ƀ: deest in cett.; (604 n.) V ƘǴƢƘ ante ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣȶƟ transp. WaH ƢƘƣȴ WaH: om. Vrr 2 ƝƔƛȷƗơƧ] ƝƔƛȷƞơƧ Wa 3 ǂƟ om. H ante ǒƢƣƔƥƥơƟ ǂƟ add. ǒƗƣƫƟ ǂƟ Wa

607 (ƥƦȷμƔƣƖơƟ): ƨƞƯƔƣơƟ. Ls.l. Su. IV 437, 8 (ƥ 1135) Ɔ Ʀ Ʈ μ Ɣ ƣ Ɩ ơ Ƥ : ƨƞƯƔƣơƤ sch. Aesch. Th. 447c ƥƦƮμƔƣƖơƤ] ƨƞƯƔƣơƤ … 1 lm. add. Elmsley

192

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

608–9a1 ƘǮ Ɩȯƣ – ƨȹƥƜƟ: ƘǮ ƖƐƖơƟƔ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ ƦơʎƤ ƝƔƝơʎƤ ǒƟơƩơƤ, ƥƦƮμƔƣƖơƤ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƔƜƗȳƤ, ȟƤ ƨɿƤ, ơȎ ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƧƟʬ ƥơƧ ƦȲƟ ƨƯƥƜƟ ǎƞƏƦƦƫƟ ƥơƧ ơȔƥƔ, ƾƞƞ' ǿμơƒƔ ƥơƧ ƨƔƟƑƥơμƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ơȎ ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƧƟʬ – ơȔƥƔ: cf. Eust. Od. II 332, 40–3 ǎƟƦƘʝƛƘƟ Ʀȶ ƦƣƔƖƜƝȶƟ ǎʛʜƐƛƚ ƾƟƦƜƥƦƣƮƨƫƤ ƝƔƦƏ ƦƜ ƥƝʬμμƔ Ʀȶ, ƘǮ ƖȮƣ ƢƐƨƧƝƔ ƦʬƟƗƘ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƝʬƟ ǲƗƣƜƤ, ƥƩƘƗƮƟ ƦƜ ƦȲƟ ƥȲƟ ơȎ ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƯƟƫ ƨƯƥƜƟ. ȟƤ ƖȮƣ ƢƔʎƤ ǎƝƕȮƤ ƾƖƔƛȶƤ ơȎ ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƯƟƘƜ ƾƖƔƛơȸƤ ƖơƟƘʎƤ, ơȓƦƫƤ ơȎƗȰ ƦơȸƤ ƨƔƯƞơƧƤ ƢƔʎƤ ƝƔƝʬƟ ǲƗƣƜƤ ƝƔƦ' ǎƝƘƒƟơƧƤ ƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƤ. 1 lm. scripsi: ƘǲƦƘ ƥƦȷμƔƣƖơƟ Lq qM: deest in GR et in V quippe qui haec scholio 608– 9a2 continuet (ǂƞƞƫƤ); scholiastam ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƧƟʬ pro ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƯƟƫ apud poetam legisse putes 2 ƥƦƮμƔƣƖơƤ] ƥ. ơȔƥƔ q ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƧƟʬ scripsi: ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƯƟƫ codd. ƥơƧ] ƥȰ r ǎƞƏƦƦƫƟ] ǒƞƔƦƦơƟ G 3 ƥơƧ (pr.) om. R ơȔƥƔ] ơȔƥƔƟ ŻG ƥơƧ (alt.)] ƥơƜ q

608–9a2 (ƘǮ Ɩȯƣ – ƨȹƥƜƟ): ƙƚƞʬ ƥƘ, ƨƚƥƒƟŭ ȣƥƢƘƣ ƖȮƣ ƥȸ ƝƔƦȮ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ǒƛƣƘƪƔƤ, ơȓƦƫƤ ƝƔƦȮ ƥơʝ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ǎƖư. L q(HŸ) V r(GR) 1 ƙƚƞʬ ƥƘ: Su. ŽŽ 611, 18 (Ɯ 131) 1–2 haec ut sui iuris scholium praebet r (scholium novum esse iam viderat de Marco q: ante sch. 608–9a1 leguntur in V 1 lm. 182): cum sch. 608–9a1 coniunguntur in Lq addidi; (ƥƩƘƗȶƟ n.) R; huius scholii auctor ƝƔƦƔƜƥƩƯƟƫ legit ƨƚƥƒƟ] ƨ. ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƢơƜơʝƥƔƟ q 2 ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ] ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖ. V ǎƖȺ om. G

610 ǿƣʬ μƐƟơƤ ƢƟƐơƧƥƔƟ: ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƦƘƛƔƧμƔƝȺƤ ǎƢȴ ƦơʎƤ ƞƮƖơƜƤ ƨƚƥƒƟŭ ǿƣʬ μƐƟơƤ ƢƟƐơƧƥƔƟ ƦȲƟ ƢƔʎƗƔŭ ƘǮ ƗȰ ƥȸƟ ƗƒƝɾ ƔȎƦʁ ƦơʝƦơ Ʀȶ μƐƟơƤ ƥƯƟƘƥƦƜƟ, ƦơƯƦơƧ [Ʀơʝ μƐƟơƧƤ] ƨƣơƟƦƒƗƔ ơȎƝƐƦƜ ǿƣʬ ƖƜƟơμƐƟƚƟ ȏƢƮ ƦƜƟơƤ. ƘȎƥƩƚμƮƟƫƤ ƗȰ ǎƤ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟơƧƥƜƟŭ 5 ƾƟƦƜƞƔμƕƔƟơμƐƟƚ ơȔƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƚ Ʀơʝ ƞƮƖơƧ ƨƚƥȵ ƢơƒƔƤ ƗƐ μơƜ ƗƘʎ ƢƣƮƤ ƖƘ ƦƑƟƗƘ ƨƣơƟƦƒƗơƤ; L q(HŸ) V r(GM) 6 v. 612 1 lm.] ǿƣʬ μȱƟơƤ ƀ: deest in VG; accuratiss. vv. 610–2 ǿƣʬ – ƨƣơƟƦȵƗơƤ ƞƮƖơƜƤ] ƞƘƖơμȱƟơƜƤ Ÿ: ƞƘƖơμƐƟơƜƤ ƞȷƖơƜƤ Ż 2 ƢƔʎƗƔ] ƝƮƣƚƟ G ƔȎƦȲ G Ʀȶ μȱƟơƤ] μȱƣơƤ Ʀơʝ μȱƟơƧƤ damn. Jahn1; probat Kruytbosch 79 ƀ 3 ƥȹƟƘƥƦƜƟ] ǒƟƘƥƦƜƟ V ‘referendum … est vocabulum ƦơƯƦơƧ (3) ad totam antecedentem sententiam, ita ut

sch. 608–9a1 – sch. 620

193

verba Ʀơʝ μƐƟơƧƤ eicienda sint’ μƐƟơƧƤ] μƐƣơƧƤ r 4 ǎƤ] ƘǮƤ qVG 5 ƾƟƦƜƞƔμƕƔƟơμȱƟƚ Lascaris: -μƐƟƚƤ Lq qV: -μƘƟơƤ r ǎƝƘȵƟƚ G: ǎƝƘƒƟƚƤ cett. 6 ƦƑƟƗƘ] ƦʀƤ VG

611 (ơȎƝƐƦ' ƘǮƥơƣʬ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ơȎƝ ǎƟƟơʬ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

614 ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƦƚƞƜƝơʝƦơƤ: ȏƢȰƣ ǎƢƜƦƏƥƘƫƤŭ ȃƦƜ ƘǮ ƝƔȴ Ɨơƒƚ ƦƜƤ ǎƠơƧƥƒƔƟ ƾƟƦƜƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƦơʎƤ ƖơƟƘʝƥƜƟ, ƾƞƞ' ơȎ ƦƔƯƦɾ ƢƔƣƛƐƟʪ ơȒƥɾ ǒƢƣƘƢƘ ƦƚƞƜƝƔƯƦɾ. L q(HŸ) V Gii r(GiR) 1 lm.] ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ Gii: deest in VGiR; (ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ n.) R ȏƢȰƣ ǎƢƜƦƏƥƘƫƤ ȃƦƜ] ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ơȔƟ ǎƢƜƦƏƥƘƫƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ r: ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ ơȔƟ ǎƢƜƦƏƥƘƫƤ ȃƦƜ V ǎƢƜƦƏƥƘƫƤ om. Gii ƘǮ] Ǥ R ƝƔȴ om. Gii 3 ƦƚƞƜƝƔȹƦɾ] ƦƚƞƜƝƔʝƦƔ V: ƦƔʝƦƔ q

615 (ƔǮƥƩƯƟƚƤ ǂƦƘƣ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƟƔƜƥƩƯƟƦƫƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

617–8 μƔƟƛȯƟƫ – ƢƣơƥƘƜƝȷƦƔ: ƝƾƖư, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ƔǮƥƛƏƟơμƔƜ ǎƢơƟƘƒƗƜƥƦƔ ƢƣƏƥƥơƧƥƔ ƝƔȴ ơȎ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ǎμȲƟ ȣƣƔƟ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. scripsi: ƝƘǮ μȲ ƗơƝʬ ƥơƜ ƀ: deest in LHVGR; (ƝƘǮ μȲ ƗơƝʬ n.) R ƾƟƔƒƥƩƧƟƦƔ r 2 ƝƔȴ om. r

ǎƢơƟƘƒƗƜƥƦƔ]

620 (ǎƠƔƟƔƖƝȯƙƘƜ μƘ): ǎμƨƔƟƦƜƝȻƦƘƣơƟ Ʀȶ ǎƠƔƟƔƖƝȯƙƘƜ μƘ ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƢƣơƛȱƥƘƫƤ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. addidi ǎμƨƔƦƜƝȻƦƘƣơƟ ƀ

194

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

621 (ǎƝƗƜƗȯƥƝƘƦƔƜ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƝƗƜƗȯƥƝƘƜ. L ǟ ƖȮƣ ǎƝ ƥơʝ ƗƧƥμƐƟƘƜƔ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ƥȮ ǒƣƖ’ (vv. 619–20) quasi subiectum verbi ǎƝƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƦƔƜ accepit scholiasta lm. addidi

622a (Ȥ ƛƣȱμμ' ƾƟƔƜƗƐƤ): ƦơʝƦơ ȃμơƜƮƟ ǎƥƦƜ Ʀʭ

ƘȔ ƟʝƟ ǎƢƒƥƦƫ ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ǏƠʀƤ. L V r(G) 3 ƦơʎƤ ǏƠʀƤ: vv. 616–7 ŹȔ ƟʝƟ ǎƢƒƥƦƫ ƦʬƟƗƐ μ' ƔǮƥƩƯƟƚƟ ǒƩƘƜƟ, | ƝƘǮ μȲ ƗơƝʬ ƥơƜ (praesertim ƝƘǮ μȲ ƗơƝʬ ƥơƜ)

2 v. 616

1–3 haec cum sch. 622b c. in V (ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ) totum sch. fere evanidum in L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ʀʭ V (coni. Dindơrf 127): Ʀȶ LG 3 ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ǏƠʀƤ G: ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ V: de L non constat

622b Ǥ ƥ' ǎƖȺ ƝƔȴ Ʀǂμ' ǒƢƚ: ȟƤ ƗȲ ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ǒƣƖơƜƤ ƝƔȴ ƦơʎƤ ƞƮƖơƜƤ μƘƦƣƜƏƙơƧƥƔ ƢƣȶƤ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƦƔʝƦƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ ǟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ƝƔȴ Ʀ' ǂƣƖƔ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 622–3 Ǥ ƥ' ǎƖȺ – ƢơƘʎ ǒƣƖơƜƤ et ƞȷƖơƜƤ permutavit V ƝƔȴ (alt.) om. G 2 μƘƦƣƜƏƙơƧƥƔ] μ. ƗȰ r

ƗȲ] ƗƘʎ G

627 ƘȔƦ' ǀƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ μȷƞɾ: ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƾƖƣʬƟ ǒƨƚ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƣƣƚƥƒƔƟ ƗơƛʀƟƔƜ Ʀʁ ƝƮƣɾ. L q(Hs.l.) V r(GƀR) 1 ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƾƖƣʬƟ ǒƨƚ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ: v. 313 ƟʝƟ Ɨ' ƾƖƣơʎƥƜ ƦƧƖƩȯƟƘƜ. 1 lm. scripsi: ƦơʝƗ' ơȎ (sic pro ơȎƝ) ƀ: deest in LŻVGR; (ƾƞƞ' ơȎ μȮ n.) R ƦʬƟ ƾƖƣʬƟ Vrr (coni. Lascaris): ƦȶƟ ƾƖƣȶƟ LŻ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ] ŵǲƖ. ƘǴƟƔƜ V 2 ƗơƛʀƟƔƜ] ƗơʝƟƔƜ Ż: ƗƜƗȷƟƔƜ Ǡ Ɨ. R

195

sch. 621 – sch. 635

628–9 μƘƛƘʎƥƏ μƘ – ƩƣɿƙơƜμ': ơȎƝ ǎμμƐƟƘƜƤ ơǵƤ ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ ƘǴƢƔƤŭ ǒƨƚ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ μȲƟ ǎƨƒƚμƜ. L q(H) V r(Gƀ) 3 v. 556 1 lm. scripsi praeeunte Kruytbosch 80: ơȒƝơƧƟ ǎȯƥƘƜƤ (v. 630) LHƀ: deest in VG ƘǴƢƔƤ Żeath 24: ƘǴƢƔ LŻr: ƘǴƢơƟ V 3 μȲƟ M: μƜƟ LV: μȲ Ż: ƟʝƟ G

629 (ơȎƗ' ǎƢƒƥƦƔƥƔƜ ƝƞȹƘƜƟ): ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ [Ɨȱ]ŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƩƣȲ ǎƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƾƟƦƜƞơƖƒƔƜƤ ƛƧμơʝƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ǟƦƦưμƘƟơƟ. L q(H) V r(Gƀ) 1–2 haec a sch. pr. separavi et ad hoc lemma rettuli ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ filia matrem suam reprehendit

1 Ɨȱ delevi

ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ] i.e.

632 ǎʬ, ƝƘƞƘƯƫ: ƗƘʎ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ ƢƣơƝƮƢƦƘƜƟ ƦȲƟ ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƟ. ƗƜȶ ơȎ ƢơƜƘʎƦƔƜ ƢƞƘƒơƟƔƤ ƾƟƦƜƣƣƑƥƘƜƤ. L q(H) V r(G) 1 lm. deest in VG; accuratiss. vv. 632–3 ǎʬ – ǒƦƜ

ƝƔȴ om. V

2 ƢƞƘƒơƟƔƤ] ƝƔȴ Ƣ. G

634 ǒƢƔƜƣƘ ƗȲ ƥƯ: ƢƣȶƤ ƛƘƣƏƢƔƜƟƏƟ ƨƚƥƜŭ ƛƯμƔƦƔ ƗȰ ƛƧμƜƏμƔƦƔ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 ƛȹμƔƦƔ sqq.: cf. Ɔ ƛ 126 ƛƯμƔƦƔŭ ƛƧμƜƏμƔƦƔ = Phot. ƛ 257 = Su. ƛ 550 1 lm.] ǒƢƔƜƣƘ ƗȲ Żƀ: deest in VG; (ǒƢƔƜƣƘ ƗȲ s.) R; accuratiss. v. 634 ǒƢƔƜƣƘ – μơƜ ƛƘƣȯƢƔƜƟƔƟ] ƦȲƟ ƛ. r

635 ƢƏƖƝƔƣƢƔ: ǎƢȵƢƔƟ ȂƥƢƣƜƔ ǒƛƧơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƛƘơʎƤ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 hoc sch. cum pr. c. in r (ȟƤ ǎƢȵƢƔƟ ƗȰ) et V (ƢȯƖƝƔƣƢƔ ƗȰ) lm. deest in LHrr ǎƢȵƢƔƟ ȂƥƢƣƜƔ (cf. Apollon. S. 72, 3–4 ƦȵƛƚƥƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ ƞȱƠƜƟ ǎƢȵƢƔƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƥƧƟƘƦơʝ)] ȟƤ ǎƢȵƢƔƟ ȂƥƢƣƜƔ Żr: ȃƦƜ ǎƢȴ ƢƔƟƦȴ ǾƥƢƣȵʪ V: ǎƢƘȴ ƢƔƟȷƥƢƣƜƔ Koraes 856

196

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

part. vii MS Chiensis 490: ǎƢƘȴ ƢƔƟơƥƢƣȵƔƟ post Koraes Nauck 420 habet ƦƔʝƦƔ ƖȮƣ r

post ȂƥƢƣƜƔ

637 (ƢƣơƥƦƔƦƑƣƜƘ): ȃƦƜ Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ ǳƗƣƧƦƔƜ. L r(GƀR) cf. Hesych. Ƣ 3892 Ƣ ƣ ơ ƥ Ʀ Ɣ Ʀ Ƒ ƣ Ɯ ơ Ƥ · ƦȶƟ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƔ ơȓƦƫ ƞƐƖơƧƥƜ, ƢƔƣƮƥơƟ Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƾƨƜƗƣƯơƟƦơ; Phot. 461, 20 ƄƣơƥƦƔƦƑƣƜơƤ: ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟ· ǎƢƘȴ Ƣƣȶ ƦʬƟ ƛƧƣʬƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ ǯƗƣƯơƟƦơ 1 lm. add. Lascaris ƘǲƗƫƞơƟ r

ȃƦƜ] ƗƜƮƦƜ r

ǳƗƣƧƦƔƜ] ǳƥƦƔƦơ (GM: ǳƔƦơ R) Ʀȶ Ʀơʝ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟơƤ

638a (ƕƏƠƜƟ): ƞƮƖơƟ. Ls.l. cf. Hesych. ƕ 200 ƕ Ə Ơ Ɯ Ƥ · ƞƮƖơƤ; Zonar. 373, 12 ŶƏƠƜƤ. ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ 1 lm. add. Lascaris

638b ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǎƟ ƨƒƞơƜƤ: ơȎƝ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣȶƟ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƦƔƜ, ƾƞƞ' ƘǮƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ. L q(H) r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in r; (ƢƣȶƤ ƨʬƤ s.) R

2 ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƟ] ƦȲƟ Ǧƞ. Hrr

642a1 [ƥƢƘƒƣɾ] μƔƦƔƒƔƟ: Ʀȶ μƔƦƔƒƔƟ ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜ ƪƘƧƗʀ ƾƞƞ' ƾƟƫƨƘƞʀŭ Ʀƒ ƖȮƣ ƢƣƏƠơƜ ƦơȸƤ ƝƣƔƦơʝƟƦƔƤ ƗƜƔƕƏƞƞơƧƥƔ; L q(Hs.l.) V cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 280a, 438a, 442a; 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. 642a2 c. in V (ǂƞƞƫƤ) 1 quae verba ante ƾƟƫƨƘƞʀ exstant legi nequeunt in H lm. L decurtavi: deest in V ƪƘƧƗʀ] ƪƘƧƗʀ ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ V 2 ƢƣƏƠơƜ L (cf. ad sch. 259.5 ƢƔƣƔƦƘƒƟƘƜƘ): ƢƣƏƠƘƜ WaKLp (Lascaris): ƢƣƏƠɾ Ż: om. V

197

sch. 635 – sch. 645

642a2 μƔƦƔȵƔƟ: ƝƘƟƑƟ, ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μƚƗȰƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƗƯƟƔƥƛƔƜ ƢƣɱƠƔƜ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in LVR; (μƔƦƔȵƔƟ s.) R μƚƗȰƟ r

μƚƗȰƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƗƯƟƔƥƛƔƜ] μȲ ƗƯƟƔƥƛƔƜ ƔȎƦȲƟ

643a ƾƞƞ’ ȥƗ' ǂƝơƧƘ: ơȓƦƫƤ ǎμơʝ ƞƘƖơƯƥƚƤ, ơȎƝ ǂƟƦƜƝƣƧƤ. L V 1 lm. deest in V ơȎƝ ǂƟƦƜƝƣƧƤ V (i.e. submissa voce): om. L

643b ƦʁƗƘ ƖȮƣ ƾƟƦȴ ƦơƯƦʪ Ʀʭ ƦƣƮƢƫ. L V 1 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƦʁƗƘ ƖȮƣ V) distinxi ƦơȹƦʪ] ƦʭƗƘ V

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ V

645 ƗƜƥƥʬƟ ǾƟƘƒƣƫƟ: Ǡ ƗƜƢƞʀƟ ǎƩƮƟƦƫƟ ƨƯƥƜƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ

ƗơƜƔȴ ƖƏƣ ƦƘ ƢƯƞƔƜ ƾμƘƟƚƟʬƟ ƘǮƥƜƟ ǾƟƘƒƣƫƟ. Ǡ ƗƜƥƥʬƟ ƦʬƟ ƾμƨƜƕƮƞƫƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƥƥơƢơƜʬƟŭ ǒƞƧƥƘƟ ƗȰ ƔȎƦȶ ƘǮƢơʝƥƔŭ ƘǮ μȰƟ ƢƐƨƧƝƘƟ ǎƥƛƞȯ, ƗȶƤ ƦƘƞƘƥƨƮƣƔŭ 5 ƘǮ Ɨ' ǎƩƛƣȯ, ƦơʎƤ ǎƩƛƣơʎƥƜƟ ǒμƢƔƞƜƟ μƐƛƘƤ. ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƗƜƥƥʬƟ ƝƔȴ ƾƣƜƛμȶƟ ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜƟ, ȟƤ ƗƯơ ƔȎƦʀƤ ǾƟƘƒƣơƧƤ ƛƘƔƥƔμƐƟƚƤŭ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ μȰƟ ǑƟ ƨƏƥμƔ ǟƖƚƥƔμƐƟƚƤ ƘǴƟƔƜ, ȏƢȰƣ ơȕ ƝƔȴ ƢƐƢơμƨƘƟ ƾƢơƦƣơƢƜƔƥƛƚƥơμƐƟƚƟ ƦȲƟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƟŭ ƦƏƩƔ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ǓƦƘƣơƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƝƘƝƒƟƚƝƘƟ, ȏƢȰƣ ơȕ ƝƔȴ ƘȒƩƘƦƔƜ Ʀʭ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƜ, ȃƢƘƣ ơȎƗȰ ǎƠƘʎƢƘ 10 ƢƣƮƤ ƦƜƟƔ ơȎƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƔ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Od. 19. 562 scholiasta

4–5 vv. 646–7, nisi quod ƢƐƨƧƝƘƟ pro ƢƐƨƚƟƘƟ affert

1 lm.] ƗƜƥƥʬƟ ƀ: deest in GR et in V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. recentiore iungat (ǂƞƞƫƤ); (ƗƜƥƥʬƟ s.) R Ǡ om. r ƨƯƥƜƟ] ƨƚƥȴƟ G ȋμƚƣơƤ] Ʀȶ ǿμƚƣƜƝȶƟ r 2 ƖƏƣ ƦƘ] ƗȰ ƦơƜ q ƦƘ om. r 3 Ǡ – 5 μȱƛƘƤ] haec post ǆƢȷƞƞƫƟƔ (10) scripta huc transp. de 3 ǒƞƧƥƘƟ – 5 ǎƩƛƣƏ Marco 183 (in hanc transpositionem ego quoque incideram) (ƦơʎƤ – μƐƛƘƤ om. r)] haec separatim leguntur in GMR; lm. ƗȶƤ ƦƘƞƘƥƨƮƣƔ ƀ: deest in GR; (ƘǮ μȰƟ ƢƐƨƚƟƘƟ s.) R 4 ƢȱƨƧƝƘƟ Lq qVrr 6 ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ – ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜƟ om. r ƗȰ]

198

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƖȮƣ V ƾƣƜƛμȶƟ] ƾƣƜƛμơȸƤ V 7 ƝƔȴ (pr.) – fin. om. r ƝƔȴ (alt.) om. q 8 ǓƦƘƣơƟ] ǓƦƘƣƔ q 9 ơȎƗȰ] ơȎƗ' q

7 Ʀȶ ... ǑƟ] ƦȶƟ ... ǓƟƔ q

652a ƨȵƞơƜƥȵ ƦƘ: Ʀȶ ȃƞơƟ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ ƘȒƩƘƦƔƜŭ ƗƜȮ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ ƢƞƚƛƧƟƦƜƝơʝ Ʀơʝ ƨƒƞơƜƤ Ʀȶ ƦơƞμƚƣȶƟ Ʀơʝ ƞƮƖơƧ ǎƢƘƝƏƞƧƪƘƟ. L q(H) V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex M (coni. iam Kruytbosch 80): ƾƞƞ' ȥƗȱ μ' ƔǮƘȴ ƙʬƥƔƟ (v. 650) LH: deest in VGR; (ƨȵƞơƜƥȵ ƦƘ n.) R ƗȰ om. G 2 Ʀơʝ ƨȵƞơƜƤ ƀR: ƦơʎƤ ƨȵƞơƜƤ G: Ʀơʝ ƨȵƞơƧƤ L: ƦơȸƤ ƨȵƞơƧƤ HV ǎƢƘƝƏƞƧƪƘƟ] ƾƢƘƝƏƞƧƪƘƟ V: de H non constat

652b ƨƒƞơƜƥƒ ƦƘ ƠƧƟơʝƥƔƟ: ƾƝƔƦƏƞƞƚƞơƟ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ Ʀȶ ȃƞơƟ, ǎȮƟ μȲ ɒ Ʀȶ <ƠƧƟơʝƥƔƟ> ơǵƤ ƠƯƟƘƜμƜ ƟʝƟ ƾƢȶ ƝơƜƟơʝ ƞƔμƕƔƟƮμƘƟơƟŭ ƨƒƞơƜƥƒ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƦƐƝƟƫƟ ƥƧƟơʝƥƔƟ ơǵƤ ƠƯƟƘƜμƜ ƟʝƟ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƗƯƥƟơƜƔ, ƾƢ' ƔȎƦʬƟ ƘǮƤ ǎμȰ Ǡ ƾƢ' ǎμơʝ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; accuratiss. vv. 652–3, ab ƨƒƞơƜƥƒ ƦƘ usque ad ƦƐƝƟƫƟ ƾƝƔƦƏƞƞƚƞơƟ] ƾƝƔƦȯƞƚƢƦơƟ r 2 ƠƧƟơʝƥƔƟ addidi ƾƢȶ – 3 ƟʝƟ om. HV propter homoeoteleuton 3 ƦƐƝƟƫƟ scripsi: ƦƐƝƟơƜƤ Lrr ƠƯƟƘƜμƜ] ƝƔȴ Ơ. G ƗȰ om. HG ƘǮƤ ǎμȰ om. r 4 post ƾƢ' ǎμơʝ add. ƘǮƤ ƔȎƦơȸƤ Lascaris, sed facile subauditur

653 ƘȎƚμƘƣơʝƥƔƟ: ǏƝƏƥƦɾ ǟμƐƣɯ ƘȔ ƗƜƏƖơƧƥƔƟ. L q(ŻŸs.l.) V r(GƀR) Su. II 448, 23 (Ƙ 3470) qV; (ƘȎƚμƘƣơʝƥƔƟ 1 lm. ex GR et M qui ƘȎƚμƘƣơʝƥƔƟ iterat in initio scholii: deest in Lq s./n.) L/R ǟμȱƣɯ habet L: ǟμȱƣɾ dedit Papageorgiou ƘȔ ƗƜƏƖơƧƥƔƟ] ƘȎƗƔƜμơƟơʝƥƔƟ Ǡ ƘȔ Ɨ. G

657a (ƦȮ Ɨ' ǂƞƞƔ ƢȯƟƦƔ): ƦȮ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʀƤ ƦƘƞƘƧƦʀƤ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ǒơƜƝƘƟ ƘȒƩƘƥƛƔƜ. L q(ŻŸs.l.) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 657b c. in H (ǂƞƞƫƤ) lm. add. Lascaris Ʀơʝ Ȇƣ. ƦƘƞ. Ż ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ post ǒơƜƝƘƟ transp. Ÿ

ƦʀƤ ƦƘƞƘƧƦʀƤ ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ]

sch. 645 – sch. 663–4

199

657b ƦȮ Ɨ' ǂƞƞƔ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƥƜƫƢȻƥƚƤ ǎμơʝ: ƙƚƦơʝƥƜ ƗƜȮ Ʀƒ ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ μȰƟ ơȎƝ ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ ƾƖƖƐƞơƧ ǎƞƛƮƟƦơƤ ƨƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ ǎƨƚƗơμƐƟƚ. ʜƚƦƐơƟ ơȔƟ ȃƦƜ ƟʝƟ μȰƟ ƢƣơƥƗơƝʬƥƔ ƔȎƦȶƟ ǣƠƘƜƟ ƙʬƟƦƔ, ƦƮƦƘ ƗȰ ȟƤ ƝƔƦȮ ƾƢơƛƔƟƮƟƦơƤ ƢƔƣƣƚƥƜƏƙƘƦƔƜ ǂƨơƕơƤ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚ. 5 L q(H) V r(GƀR) 2 ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ ƗȰ: vv. 660 sqq. 1 lm. ex NF: ƦȮ Ɨ' ǂƞƞƔ ƢȯƟƦƔ LH: deest in Vrr ƙƚƦơʝƥƜ] ƙ. ƦƜƟȰƤ Ż: ƙ. μȰƟ G: ƙ. ƗȰ ƀR ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ] ơȎƝ ǎƟƦ. V 2 μȰƟ om. Vƀ ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜ] ǎƝ- Ż: ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜ <ƦƜ> Bernardakis 43, inutiliter ƢƘƣȴ] ƢƔƣȮ Ż Ʀơʝ (pr.) om. Vrr 3 ƨƔȵƟƘƦƔƜ ǎƨƚƗơμȱƟƚ] ǎƨ. ƨ. Ż ơȔƟ om. V ƔȎƦȶƟ] ƔȎƦȲ ƀ ǣƠƘƜƟ K (coni. Nauck 420): ǣƠơƟƦƔ cett. 4 ƙʬƟƦƔ] ƙ. ơȎƗȰƟ ƢƘƣȴ ƔȎƦơʝ ƾƣɱƦƔƜ r: ƙ. <ƥƜƫƢɲ> Bernardakis l.c., sed facile subauditur ơȎƝ ǎμƨƔƒƟƘƜ ƦƮƦƘ – fin. om. Ż 4 ƦȷƦƘ] ƦȷƗƘ R ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚ] ƖƜƟơμƐƟƚ GR

660 ƠƐƟƔƜ ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘƤ: ǿ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ǣƝƘƜ ƢƞƔƥƏμƘƟơƤ ƦȮ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƏƦơƧ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǤƛơƤ ƔȎƦơʝ μƐƥơƟ ǎƥƦȵƟ, ơȒƦƘ ƾƢơƜƝƦƜƙơμƐƟơƧ ƢƔƟƦƏƢƔƥƜƟ ơȒƦƘ ǟƗơμƐƟơƧ ƾƞƞ' ȟƤ ƠƐƟơƧ. ƘȎƝƔƒƣƫƤ ƗȰ ǣƝƘƜ ǒƠƫ ơȎƥʬƟ ƾμƨơƦƐƣƫƟ, ƢƣʬƦơƟ ǳƟƔ μȲ ƗƜƥƥơƞơƖơƒƚ ƢƣȶƤ ƾμƨơƦƐƣƔƤ ƾƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƫƟ, 5 ƗƘƯƦƘƣơƟ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ƗƚƞƫƛʀƟƔƜ ƦȲƟ ƖƟưμƚƟ ƾμƨơƦƐƣƫƟ. ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ƗȰ ǎƣƫƦɲ ȟƤ ƾƖƟơʬƟ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in VGR; (ƠȱƟƔƜ s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 660–1 ƠƐƟƔƜ – ƦȯƗƘ ƦȮ] Ʀʬ G 2 ƾƢơƜƝƦƜƙơμȱƟơƧ] ȏƢơƝƣƜƟơμƐƟơƧ r 4 ƗƜƥƥơƞơƖơƒƚ] ƗƜƥƥơƞơƖƑƥɾ r: de modo vide ad sch. 526.3 ƢƣȶƤ] ƢƣȴƟ G

663–4 (Ǥ – ƘǮƥơƣɱƟ): ƥƦơƩƏƙƘƦƔƜ ǎƝ ƦʀƤ ƥƦơƞʀƤ ƝƔȴ ƦʬƟ ƕƔƥƜƞƘƒƫƟ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi ƥƦơƩƏƙƘƦƔƜ] ƥ. ƖȮƣ r

ƝƔȴ om. r ƕƔƥƜƞƘƜʬƟ r

200

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

668 (ǎƗƘƠƏμƚƟ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƾƢƮ, ƾƢƘƗƘƠƏμƚƟ. L q(Ÿs.l.) V Gs.l. 1 hoc sch. ita refecit V ǎƗƘƠȯμƚƟ Ʀȶ ʜƚƛȰƟ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƟȷƚƥƔ Ʀȶ ʜƚƛȰƟŭ Ǡ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƢƘƗƘƠȯμƚƟ ƝƔȴ ƞƘȵƢƘƜ ǟ ƾƢȷ lm. add. Lascaris ƾƢƘƗƘƠȯμƚƟ om. G post ƾƢȷ add. ǳƟ' ɒ Ÿ

675a Ʀƒ ƨɿƤ, Ʀƒ ƨɿƤ: ơǯ ǟƗƐơƤ ƾƝơƯơƟƦƘƤ ƞƮƖơƧ, ƝǀƟ ƢƏƟƧ ƥƔƨʬƤ ƾƝơƯƥƫƥƜ, ƗȴƤ ƝƔȴ ƦƣȴƤ ƦȮ ƔȎƦȮ ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ ƕơƯƞơƟƦƔƜ. L V r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 675b coniungant (ơǯ ƗȰ ǟƗȱƫƤ V; ơǯ ƖȮƣ ǟƗȱƫƤ r) ǟƗƐơƤ] ǟƗƐƫƤ Vrr 2 ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ] ƾƝơʝƥƔƜ r

675b μȲ ƦƔƯƦƚƤ ƝƞƯƘ: ơǵơƟ μȲ ƗƜȮ ƦƔƯƦƚƟ ƨƧƞƏƠɾ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƦƔȹƦƚƤ ƝƞȹƘ M: deest in VGR; (μȲ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ ƝƞȹƘ n.) R hoc sch. ita retractaverunt V et r: ơǵơƟ μȲ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƛƣƚƟơʝƥƔƟ ǿ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖȶƤ ƨƧƞȯƠɾ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ V; μȲ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ ǂƝơƧƘ. ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ ƨơƕƚƛƘʎƥƔ ƞȱƖƘƜ, ǳƟƔ μȲ ƗƜȮ ƦƔȹƦƚƟ ƨơƕƚƛʁ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ r

679 Ʀʭ ƦƣƮƢʪ ƗƜƮƞƞƧƦƔƜ: ǲƗƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƦơʝƦơ ƦʬƟ ǟƗơμƐƟƫƟŭ μƔƛƮƟƦƘƤ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƝƔƦȮ μƐƣơƤ ǟƗƮμƘƟơƜ ƢƧƟƛƏƟơƟƦƔƜ. ǒƢƘƜƦƔ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ ƕơƯƞƘƦƔƜ ƘȎƗơƝƜμƘʎƟ ƢƘƣȴ ƾƖʬƟơƤ ƞƐƖƫƟ ǗƞƞƚƟƜƝơʝ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ơȎƗȱƟ ƘǮμ' ǒƦƜ ƀ: Ʀʭ ƦƣȷƢʪ V: Ʀȶ ƾƞƚƛȰƤ ƘǮƢȰ q: deest in GR ƝƔȴ om. r 2 ƢƧƟƛƏƟơƟƦƔƜ] ƢƯƛơƟƦƔƜ r

ǲƗƜơƟ] ǣƗƜơƟ V

682 (ŸƘƞƨƜƝʬƟ ǂƛƞƫƟ ƩƏƣƜƟ): ơȒƢƫ ǤƟ ǎƢȴ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ǿ ƄƧƛƜƝȶƤ ƾƖưƟ. L V r(GƀR) cf. Su. ŽV 236, 11 (Ƣ 2853) ƄƣƮƥƩƚμƔ: ƢƔƣƔƝƏƞƧμμƔ. ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ· ƢƣƮƥƩƚμ’ ƾƖʬƟơƤ, ŸƘƞƨƜƝʬƟ ǂƛƞƫƟ ƩƏƣƜƟ. ȟƤ ơȒƢƫ ȂƟƦơƤ Ʀơʝ ƖƧμƟƜƝơʝ ƾƖʬƟơƤ. 1 lm. addidi Lascaris; (ƗƣȷμơƧ v. 686 n.) R

sch. 668 – sch. 686b

201

686a1 ƗƣƮμơƧ Ɨ' ǮƥưƥƔƤ: ơǵơƟ ơȎƝ ǎƞƞƘƒƢƫƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȮ ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ ƾƞƞ' ǲƥơƤ ƨƔƟƘȴƤ ƦơʎƤ ƦƐƣμƔƥƜ, ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ƔȎƦơʝ ƨƯƥƜƟ, ƦʀƤ ƟƒƝƚƤ ǒƦƧƩƘƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(Gƀ) 1 ơǵơƟ – 2 ƦȱƣμƔƥƜ: Su. ŽŽ 141, 26 (Ɨ 1535) 1 lm.] ƟȵƝƚƤ ǒƩƫƟ ƀ: deest in qVG; accuratiss. vv. 686–7 ƗƣƮμơƧ – ƖƐƣƔƤ 1 ơǵơƟ – fin.] haec post 720a demigraverunt in Ÿ 1 ǎƞƞƘȵƢƫƟ] ǎƞƞƒƢƫƟ Ż: ǎƞƞƜƢȲƤ Ÿ: ǎƞƞƜƢȺƟ haesitans Papageorgiou2 127 ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ] ǃƣμƔƦƔ G ƾƞƞ' – 2 ƦȱƣμƔƥƜ om. M propter homoeoteleuton 2 ƔȎƦơʝ] ƔȎƦȲƟ r

686a2 (ƗƣƮμơƧ Ɨ' ǮƥưƥƔƤ): ǿμơƒƫƤ ƝƔȴ ǲƥƫƤ ƦƘƛƔƧμƔƥμƐƟơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƾƖƫƟƒƥμƔƦƜ ȟƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ μơƣƨʁŭ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ȟƤ ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ μơƣƨʁ, ơȓƦƫƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ǒƣƖʪ ǎƨƏƟƚŭ ȟƤ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƘǲƗƘƜ, ơȓƦƫƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ǒƣƖʪ. L q(HŸ) V 1 ǲƥƫƤ – fin.: Su. II 141, 27 (Ɨ 1535) 1–3 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. (ƾƞƞ' sic codd. pro ǂƞƞƫƤ ut coni. Kruytbosch 81) separatim posui 1 lm. addidi; accuratiss. v. 686 ƗƣƮμơƧ – ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ ǿμơƒƫƤ] ȃμƫƤ V ǲƥƫƤ ƦƘƛƔƧμƔƥμȱƟơƤ] ǲƥơƤ ƝƔȴ ƦƘƛƔƧμƔƥμȱƟơƤ Su. ǎƟ Ʀʭ] ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ qV 2 ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȶƤ Su. (coni. Lascaris): ƾƟƦȴ – μơƣƨʁ om. q propter homoeoteleuton ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ LV 3 ƝƔȴ (pr.) om. q ǎƢȴ (pr.) q et Sudae codd. ATFVM: ǎƟ Sudae codd. GI: om. LV ǎƨƏƟƚ] ǎƨƏƟƚƤ Su. ȟƤ – fin. om. Ÿ ȟƤ] ƝƔȴ H ǎƢȴ (tert.) HSu. (add. iam Lascaris): om. LV

686b (ƗƣƮμơƧ – ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ): ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗƮƞƜƩƮƟ ƨƔƥƜƟ ƾƖƫƟƒƥƔƥƛƔƜ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ, ȃƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƝŪ ƥƦƏƗƜƔ, ƝŪ ǎƦʬƟ ȂƟƦƔŭ ȣƥƦƘ Ʀʁ ƨƯƥƘƜ ǲƥƔ ƦȮ ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ Ʀơʝ ƗƣƮμơƧ ǎƢơƜƑƥƔƦơ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 2 ǎƥƦƜƟ Ɲʳ ƥƦȯƗƜƔ: cf. Su. ŽŽ 125, 13 (Ɨ 1339) ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ ǿ ƗƮƞƜƩơƤ ƝŦ ƥƦƏƗƜƔ. 1–3 haec ut novum scholium h.l. praebet L: post sch. 682 leguntur in r (lm. praefixo ƗƣƮμơƟ v. 682 in M: deest in GR; ƦƜƟȰƤ Gƀ: ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ R): cum sch. 686a2 coniunguntur in HV (ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ): cum sch. 679 in Ÿ (ƦƜƟȰƤ ƗȰ) 1 lm. addidi ƗȷƞƜƩȷƟ ƨƔƥƜƟ] ƨ. Ɨ. q 2 ȃƤ] ȃ qVrr ƝŪ (pr.)] ƘǲƝơƥƜ qV: ƝƔƦȮ r ƝŪ (ƘǲƝơƥƜ q) ƥƦȯƗƜƔ post ȂƟƦƔ transp. q ƝŪ (alt.)] ƘǲƝơƥƜ qVrr ȂƟƦƔ] ȂƟƦơƤ G ƨƯƥƘƜ] ƨƚƥƒ ƀ ƦȮ om. G ƦƐƣμƔƦƔ] ƥƢƐƣμƔƦƔ V

202

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

686c (ƗƣȷμơƧ): Ʀơʝ ǎƝ ƢơƗȶƤ ƗƣƮμơƧ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

690 ƕƣƔƕƘʎƤ: ơǯ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƖʬƥƜ ƝȳƣƧƝƘƤ. Su. I 492, 10 (ƕ 511), unde Zonar. 403, 25

691 ƢȱƟƦƔƛƞ': ǃƞμƔ, ƗƒƥƝơƟ, ǂƝơƟƦƔ, ƗƣƮμơƟ, ƢƏƞƚƟ. ƦƔʝƦƔ ǎƟ μƜɲ ƦƜƤ ǞƖƫƟƒƙƘƦơ ǟμƐƣɯ. L q(H) V r(GMR) 1 ǃƞμƔ – ƢȯƞƚƟ: cf. sch. Pi. I 1. 35b ƢƐƟƦƘ ƗȰ ƾƖƫƟƒƥμƔƦƔ, ǁ ƔȔƛƜƤ ƘǮƤ ƢƐƟƦƔƛƞơƟ ƥƧƟƘμƒƩƛƚ, ǃƞμƔ, ƗƒƥƝơƤ, ƾƝƮƟƦƜơƟ, ƗƣƮμơƤ, ƢƏƞƚ. 1–2 in his verbis duos trimetros versus agnovit et emendavit post Dindorf 127 Nauck 420: ƢȯƞƚƟ ǂƝơƟƦƔ ƗȵƥƝơƟ ǃƞμƔ ƝƔȴ ƗƣȷμơƟ/ ƦƔʝƛ' ǟμȱƣɯ μƜɲ ƦƜƤ ǞƖƫƟȵƙƘƦơ 1 lm. scripsi: ƗƣȷμơƟ (v. 684) ƀ: deest in LHVGR; (ƟƒƝƚƤ v. 687 n.) R ǃƞμƔ] ƢƐƟƦƔƛƞƔ ƘǮƥȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ. ǃƞ. r ƢƏƞƚƟ] ƢƏƞƜƟ V

696 ȃƦƔƟ Ɨȱ ƦƜƤ ƛƘʬƟ: ȃμơƜơƟ ƔȎƦʭ Ʀȶ ƄƜƟƗƔƣƜƝȷƟ

ƛƘȷƤ, ȁ ƝƔȴ ƢƦƘƣƮƘƟƦ' ƔǮƘƦȶƟ ƝƒƩƘ, ƝƔȴ ƛƔƞƔƥƥƔʎơƟ ƢƔƣƔμƘƒƕƘƦƔƜ ƗƘƞƨʎƟƔ. L V r(GƀR) Su. ŽŽ 699, 12 (ƛ 180) 1 Ʀȶ ƄƜƟƗƔƣƜƝȷƟ: P. 2. 50–1 1 lm. ex NF: ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƛƔ (sic) M: deest in LVGR; (ƝƔȴ ƦƔʝƦƔ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 696– 7 ȃƦƔƟ – ƨƧƖƘʎƟ ƔȎƦʭ] ƦơƯƦʪ Su. (coni. Lascaris) 2 ƔǮƘƦȶƟ] ƾƘƦȶƟ Lrr ƝƒƩƘ om. r 3 ƗƘƞƨʎƟƔ] ƗƘƞƨȵƟơƜƤ ƀ versus allatos usque ad finem versus 51 <ƝƔȴ ȏƪƜƨƣȷƟƫƟ ƦƜƟ' ǒƝƔμƪƘ ƕƣơƦʬƟ> extendit Michaelis apud Jahn2, at vide supra ad sch. 4.2

sch. 686c – sch. 706a²

203

701–8 (ƘǵƤ – ȂƩơƟ): ƨƜƞơƦȵμƫƤ <ƝƔȴ> ƗƜȮ ƢƜƛƔƟƮƦƚƦƔ ƦƔʝƦƔ ǎƢƘƠƘƣƖƏƙƘƦƔƜ. L q(HŸs.l.) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. addidi; (ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƿƣμƔƦƚƞƔƦʬƟ n.) V ƨƜƞơƦȵμƫƤ] ƨƜƞơƦȱƩƟƫƤ Zielinski 8, coll. sch. Ai. 1221a ƨƜƞơƦƐƩƟƫƤ ƘȎƨƣƔƒƟƘƜ ƦơȸƤ ƾƝƣơƫμƐƟơƧƤ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ǎƢƔƒƟƫƟ ƦʀƤ ǆƦƦƜƝʀƤ; at cf. sch. 679.2–fin. ǒƢƘƜƦƔ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ ƕơƯƞƘƦƔƜ ƘȎƗơƝƜμƘʎƟ ƢƘƣȴ ƾƖʬƟơƤ ƞƐƖƫƟ ǗƞƞƚƟƜƝơʝ et sch. 731.1–2; cf. etiam Roemer 27 ƝƔȴ addidi 2 ǎƢƘƠƘƣƖȯƙƘƦƔƜ] ǎƢƘƣƖƏƙƘƦƔƜ V: ǎƠƘƣƖȯƙƘƦƔƜ Ÿ: ǎƣƖƏƙƘƦƔƜ r

702 (ƙƧƖƫƦʬƟ): ơǵơƟ ƘȎƙȹƖƫƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƘȎƙȹƖƫƟ Wolff 198: ƾƙȹƖƫƟ L: ƦƘƦƣƔƙȹƖƫƟ (ex ŸŵźƈŷƌƁ vel ŸźƈŷƌƁ) Papageorgiou2 130 et 536 coll. Hdt. IV 170 ƇƘƛƣƜƢƢơƕȯƦƔƜ ƗȰ ơȎƝ ǣƝƜƥƦƔ ƾƞƞȮ μȯƞƜƥƦƔ ſƜƕȹƫƟ ƘǮƥȵ (scil. žƧƣƚƟƔʎơƜ)

703 (ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ): ǿ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ. L 1 lm. add. Brunck2

706a1 ƞƘƯƝƜƢƢơƤ [ŵǮƟƘƜɱƟ]: ǎμơȴ ƗơƝƘʎ ȂƟơμƔ ƘǴƟƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. L (AǮƟƘƜɱƟ sic) decurtavit Brunck2: AǮƟƘƜɱƟ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ȂƖƗơơƤ n.) R; (706 n.) V ȂƟơμƔ] ǿ ƟơʝƤ qV ƘǴƟƔƜ] ƘǴƟ. ƢƞƏƥμƔ q

706a2 (ƞƘƯƝƜƢƢơƤ): ơȎƗȰƟ [ƖȮƣ] ǂƦơƢơƟ ǎƢƒƛƘƦơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜŭ ȂƟơμƔ ƖȮƣ ƝƯƣƜơƟ ơȎ ƢƣơƦȱƛƘƜƝƘƟ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀȶ Ʀơʝ ƢƣƏƖμƔƦơƤ ƾƟƘƠƐƞƘƖƝƦơƟŭ ȃƞƚ ƖȮƣ ǟ ƗƜƑƖƚƥƜƤ Ʀơʝ ƾƖʬƟơƤ ƢƐƢƞƔƥƦƔƜ. ơǯ ƗȰ ŵǮƟƘƜɱƟƘƤ ƦʬƟ żƘƥƢƣƫƦʬƟ Ǡ żƣɯƝʬƟŭ ȋμƚƣơƤ 5 Ʀʭ Ɨ' ǖƟƜʀƟƘƤ ǓƢơƟƦơ μƘƟƘƢƦƮƞƘμơƒ ƦƘ ƄƘƣƔƜƕơƒ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ǎƢȵƛƘƦơƟ: cf. Eust. Il. II 27, 31–3 ƊƣʀƥƜƤ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ ǎƢƜƛƘƦƜƝơʝ ƞƘƧƝƒƢƢơƧ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣȮ ƆơƨơƝƞƘʎ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ‘ƞƘƯƝƜƢƢơƤ ŵǮƟƜȮƟ ƖƐƟơƤ’ 4 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 2. 749

204

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1–5 haec a sch. pr. separavi auctoribus Jebb 23 et Papageorgiou 1 lm. addidi ơȎƗȰƟ] ơȎƗȰ qr ƖȮƣ delevi ǎƢȵƛƘƦơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ LHV: ǎƟƦƒƛƘƦƔƜ. ƦƜƟȰƤ ǎƢȵƛƘƦơƟ r 2 ƝƯƣƜơƟ] ƝƧƣƒƫƤ q ƢƣơƦƐƛƘƜƝƘƟ] ƢƣơƥƐƛƚƝƘƟ Wa (coni. ƢƣơƥƦȱƛƘƜƝƘƟ iam Wolff 244, sed perperam; nam ƢƣơƦƐƛƘƜƝƘƟ ad versus poetae praecedentes, i.e 701–5, refert ƾƟƘƠȱƞƘƖƝƦơƟ Wa (coni. Lascaris): ƾƟƘƠƐƞƜƝƦơƟ LVrr: ƾƟƐƞƘƖƝƦơƟ q 3 ƢƐƢƞƔƥƦƔƜ] ƢƘƢƞƑƣƫƦƔƜ r ŵǮƟƘƜɱƟƘƤ (ŵǮƟƜ-R) Vrr: ŵǮƟƘƜɱƟ Lq q (quo recepto ơǯ ƗȰ (3) in Ʀȶ ƗȰ 4 ȋμƚƣơƤ] ƝƔȴ ȋμ. r 5 ǖ Ɵ ƜʀƟƘƤ L, ut fiat mutavit Wolff 244, prorsus falsum) ǖƟƜʀƟƘƤ: ŵǮƟƘƜʀƟƘƤ V: ŵǮƟƘƜʀƟ q: ŵǮƟɱƟƘƤ G: ŵǮƟƜɱƟƘƤ (ǖƟ- ƀ) ƀR μƘƟƘƢƦƮƞƘμơƜ] -ƢƦƐƞƔƜμơƤ q ƄƘƣƔƜƕơȵ] ƄƘƣƘƕơȴ G: ƄƘƣƣƘƕơȴ ƀR

707 ǆƛƚƟʬƟ ƦʬƟ ƛƘơƗμȳƦƫƟ: ƢƣơƥƩƔƣƒƙƘƦƔƜ ǆƛƚƟƔƒơƜƤ ǎƟ ǆƛƚƟƔƒơƜƤ ƞƐƖƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(ƀ) 1 lm. scripsit Brunck2: ƝƾƝƘʎƟơƤ ǎƟ ƀ: deest in LHV; (ǆƛƚƟʬƟ n.) V ǆƛƚƟƔƒơƜƤ (alt.)] ǆƛƑƟƔƜƤ q

ƢƣơƩƔƣƒƙƘƦƔƜ q

716a1 ȏƢƘƣƕȯƞơƜ: ȏƢƘƝƗƣƏμơƜ. L Su. IV 651, 4 (Ƨ 236) cf. sch. Thuc. VIII 104, 5 ȏƢƘƣƘƕƘƕƞƑƝƘƜ: ȏƢƘƣƐƗƣƔμƘ 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in L

ȏƢƘƝƗƣȯμơƜ] ȏƢƘƣƗƣȯμơƜ Blaydes 127

716a2 (ȟƤ ȏƢƘƣƕƏƞơƜ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ [ƗȰ] Ʀȶ ǎƞƔƯƟƫƟ. L V 1 haec deleto ƗȰ a sch. 717a separavi et lemmate instruxi

716–7 ȟƤ ȏƢƘƣƕƏƞơƜ | ƩƟƮƔƤ ƦƜƤ ƔȎƦʬƟ: ơǵơƟ ƢƣʬƦơƜ Ʀơʝ ƗƣƮμơƧ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ. ƩƟƮƔƤ ƗȰ ƦȮƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ ƥƯƣƜƖƖƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GR) 2 ƩƟȷƔƤ ... ƥȹƣƜƖƖƔƤ: Su. IV 811, 19 (Ʃ 359)

sch. 706a² – sch. 717b

205

2 ƩƟȷƔƤ – fin.: cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 153n, o, r, q, u; Hesych. Ʃ 568 ƩƟȷƔƜ· Ɣǯ ƩơƜƟƜƝȵƗƘƤ, Ɣǯ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ ƥȹƣƜƖƖƘƤ 1 lm. ex L: deest in qVrr; (716 n.) V ƢƣʬƦơƜ] -ơƤ ƁFWa (coni. Lascaris) 2 post ƥƯƣƜƖƖƔƤ add. ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǯƢƢƜƝȮ ƨƣƧȯƖμƔƦƔ testes omnes praeter Sudam; an vitium (ƩƟƮƔƤ ƗȰ ƦȮƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ ƥƯƣƜƖƖƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǯƢƢƜƝȮ ƨƣƧƏƖμƔƦƔ) scholiastae tribuendum? cf. sch. recent. (Triclinii) El. 717 Dindorf 370.12–3 ǒƥƦƜ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƩƟȷƔƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƨƣƧȯƖμƔƦƔ ǯƢƢƜƝȮ ƦƔȎƦȷƟ.

717a ƩƟƮƔƤ ƦƜƤ: ƦȮƤ ƥƯƣƜƖƖƔƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ. ƾƢȶ ƗȰ μƐƣơƧƤ Ʀȶ ȃƞơƟ ǃƣμƔ. ƥʝƣƜƖƠ ƗƐ ǎƥƦƜ Ʀȶ ƘǮƤ ƦȲƟ ǾƢȲƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƣơƩơʝ ǎμƕƔƞƞƮμƘƟơƟ μƐƣơƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦȲ ƗȰ ǟ ǾƢȲ Ʀơʝ ƦƣơƩơʝ ơȓƦƫƤ ƝƔƞƘʎƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GMR) 2 ƥʝƣƜƖƠ – fin.: Su. IV 811, 19 (Ʃ 359) cf. locos similes ad sch. 716–7 allatos 1–3 haec seorsum leguntur in GMR: cum sch. 716–7 c. in Lq qV 1 lm. ex M: deest in cett. ƦȮƤ ƥƯƣƜƖƖƔƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ r: om. Lq q 2 Ʀơʝ (pr.) om. G ǎμƕƔƞƞȷμƘƟơƟ qVG (coni. Iuntina 55r): ǎμƕƔƞȷ- L: ǎμƕƔƨȷ- R: ǎƝƕƔƞƞȷ- ƀ μƐƣơƤ – fin. om. q μƐƣơƤ] μƐƣơƧƤ V 3 ƗȰ om. r

717b Ʀȶ [ƗȰ] ƩƟƮƔƤ ƕƔƣƐƫƤŭ ƦȮ ƖȮƣ ƘǮƤ ƚ ƝƔƛƔƣȶƟ ƗƜƥƯƞƞƔƕƔ Ʀʭ ơ ƢƔƣƔƞƚƖƮμƘƟƔ, ƾƢȶ ƗƯơ ƥƧμƨưƟƫƟ ƾƣƩƮμƘƟƔ ȥƟ ƢƣơƚƖƘʎƦƔƜ ƗƔƥȹ, ƕƔƣƯƟƘƦƔƜŭ ƩƟƮƚ, ƨƛƮƚ, ƩƞƮƚŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƢƟơȲ ơȎƝ ǒƩƘƜ ƗƔƥƯ. L V r(GR) 1–3: Su. IV 811, 21 (Ʃ 359) (nisi quod 2 ƾƢȶ Ɨȹơ ƥƧμƨȻƟƫƟ ƾƣƩȷμƘƟƔ om. Su.) 1–3 cf. [Arcad.] 118, 3–6 (Hdn. ƝƔƛ. Ƣƣơƥ. I 305, 22–4); Ep. Hom. ƕ 31 (ll. 84–5) Dyck; sch. Aesch. Th. 153p 1–3 haec separatim leguntur in GR: cum sch. 717a c. in LVSu. 1 Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƩƟƮƔƤ ƕƔƣƐƫƤ om. r ƗȰ delevi ƕƔƣƐƫƤ om. V ƖȮƣ om. r ƝƔƛƔƣȶƟ] ƝƔƛƔƣȮ r Ʀʭ VWaSu. Lp (Lascaris): Ʀȶ LGR o om. G 2 ƢƔƣƔƞƚƖƮμƘƟƔ] ƢƔƣƔƞƜƖƮμƘƟƔ R: ƢƔƣƔƞƚƖơμƐƟƚƟ G 3 ƩƞƮƚ om. r

206

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

717c (ƨƣƧƏƖμƔƛ'): ƨƧƥƑμƔƦƔ, ƢƟƘƯμƔƦƔ. L q(ŻŸ) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƨƣƧȯƖμƔƛ' s.) L

post ƨƧƥȳμƔƦƔ add. ǯƢƢƜƝȯ, ƗƚƞơƟȷƦƜ ƦȮ q

720 ƥƦƑƞƚƟ: ƦȶƟ ƞƒƛơƟ ƦȶƟ ƝƔμƢƦʀƣƔ. L q(ŻŸs.l.) V r(Gs.l.ƀRs.l.) Su. IV 432, 3 (ƥ 1083) … ƆƦƑƞƚ ƝƔȴ ǿ ƞƒƛơƤ, ǿ ƝƔμƢƦƑƣ. 1 lm.] ǎƥƩȯƦƚƟ ƀ: deest in qVR; (ǎƥƩȯƦƚƟ n.) R; (ƥƦȳƞƚƟ n.) V ƦȶƟ (pr.) om. GR

721a1 ǒƩƣƜμƢƦ' ƾƘƒ: ȃ ǎƥƦƜ ƢƣơƥƘƢƐƞƔƙƘ Ʀʭ ƝƔμƢƦʀƣƜ ƾƘȴ ƦȲƟ ǾƢȲƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƣơƩơʝ. L V r(GƀR) 1 ȃ – ƢƣơƥƘƢƐƞƔƙƘ: cf. EM 815, 28 ƊƣƒμƢƦƫ: ƆƚμƔƒƟƘƜ Ʀȶ … ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƫ; Zonar. 1863, 10 ƊƣƒμƢƦƘƦƔƜ. ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜ. ƢƣơƥƘƖƖƒƙƘƜ; Su. Ʃ 518 1 lm.] ǒƩƣƜƢƦƘƟ (sic) G: deest in RV; (ǒƩƣƜμƢƦ' n.) R; (721 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 721 ǒƩƣƜμƢƦ'– ƥȹƣƜƖƖƔ ȃ] ǒƖƩƣƜμƢƦƘƟ ȃ ƀ ƢƣơƥƘƢȱƞƔƙƘ] ƢƣơƥƢƐƞƔƙƘ V: ƢƣơƥƢƘƞƏƙƘƜƟ G Ʀʭ om. M 1–2 ƦȲƟ ǾƢȲƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƣơƩơʝ] Ʀơʝ Ʀƣ. ƦȲƟ ǾƢ. inverso ordine V

721a2 ǒƩƣƜμƢƦ' ƾƘȵ: ƾƘȴ ǎƢƞƚƥȵƔƙƘƟ. Su. II 496, 25 (Ƙ 4044) cf. źơnar. 942, 10

722 ƥƘƜƣƔʎơƟ ǳƢƢơƟ: ƦȶƟ ǒƠƫ Ʀơʝ ƙƧƖơʝ, ƦȶƟ ƗƘƠƜƮƟŭ ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ ƗȰ <ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ> Ʀʭ ƝƔμƢƦʀƣƜ, ƦȶƟ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣƮƟ. L V r(GMR) Su. ŽV 346, 6 (ƥ 277) ƆƘƜƣƔʎơƤ ǳƢƢơƤ: ǿ ǒƠƫ Ʀơʝ ƙƧƖơʝ, ǿ ƗƘƠƜƮƤ. ƗƘƠƜȶƟ ƾƟƘȴƤ ƥƘƜƣƔʎơƟ ǳƢƢơƟ ƘǴƣƖƘ ƦȶƟ ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ. ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ Ʀʭ ƝƔμƢƦʀƣƜ, ƦȶƟ ƾƣƜƥƦƘƣƮƟ. 1 lm.] ƗƘƠƜȷƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƗƘƠƜȶƟ n.) R; (ƥƘƜƣƔʎơƟ n.) V ƦȶƟ (pr.)] ƦȲƟ (ex ǾƢȲƟ scholii 721a1.1 pendens) G ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ] ƢƣơƝƘȵμƘƟơƟ G, ut apud poetam ƗȰ om. V 2 ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ addidi ƦȶƟ NWa: ơm. LVrr

sch. 717c – sch. 730

207

724 (ǂƥƦơμơƜ): ƥƝƞƚƣƮƥƦơμơƜ. L q(Ÿs.l.) Su. I 391, 26 (Ɣ 4244), unde Zonar. 313, 1 1 lm. add. Iuntina

725 ǎƝ Ɨ' ȏƢơƥƦƣơƨʀƤ: ǎƠ ȏƢƔƟƦƑƥƘƫƤ ǎƢƘƦƒƟƔƠƔƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ ȏƢơƥƦƣƘƨƮƟƦƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: ƢʬƞơƜ ƕȵɯ ƀ: deest in Lq qVGR; (ǎƝ Ɨ' ȏƢơƥƦƣơƨʀƤ s.) L; (ƢʬƞơƜ ƕȵɯ n.) R; (ȏƢơƥƦƣơƨʀƤ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 725–7 ǎƝ – ȂƩơƜƤ ȏƢƔƟƦƑƥƘƫƤ] ƾƢƔƟƦƑƥƘƫƤ r ǎƢƘƦƒƟƔƠƔƟ (-ƠƔƤ Ż) LŻŸV (i.e. μƐƦƫƢƔ; hoc non intellecto ǎƟƘƦƒƟƔƠƔƟ coni. Papageorgiou): ǎƠƘƦȵƟƔƠƘƟ r ǎƝƘƒƟƫƟ, i.e. ƦʬƟ ŶƔƣƝƔƒƫƟ ȂƩƫƟ

727 ŶƔƣƝƔƒơƜƤ ȂƩơƜƤ: ƦơʎƤ ſƜƕƧƝơʎƤŭ ŶƏƣƝƚ ƖȮƣ ƢƮƞƜƤ ſƜƕƯƚƤ, ǟ ƟʝƟ ƄƦơƞƘμƔʌƤ ƝƔƞơƧμƐƟƚ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GƀR) 1–2 Su. I 455, 1 (ƕ 117) 1 ſƜƕƧƝơʎƤ: Hesych. ƕ 237 (– ſƜƕƧƝơʎƤ) 1 ŶȯƣƝƚ – fin.: Strab. XVII 3, 20 … ǟ ŶƏƣƝƚ ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ, ƟʝƟ ƗȰ ƄƦơƞƘμƔŴƤ; Steph. Byz. 159, 11 (ƕ 45) Ŷ Ə ƣ Ɲ ƚ , ƢƮƞƜƤ ſƜƕƯƚƤ, ǣƦƜƤ ƝƔȴ ƄƦơƞƘμƔŴƤ… 1 BȯƣƝƚ – ſƜƕȹƚƤ: cf. Hesych. ƕ 235 Ŷ Ə ƣ Ɲ ƚ · ƢƮƞƜƤ ſƜƕƯƚƤ 1 lm.] μȱƦƫƢƔ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (μȱƦƫƢƔ n.) R; (ȂƩơƜƤ n.) V 2 ƄƦơƞƘμƔʌƤ] ƄơƞƘμƔʌƤ r ƝƔƞơƧμƐƟƚ] ƝƔƞơƯμƘƟơƤ G: ƞƘƖơμƐƟƚ q

730 ƟƔƧƔƖƒƫƟ: ƦʬƟ ƢƦƫμƏƦƫƟ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿs.l.) Su. III 438, 4 (Ɵ 46) 1 ƦʬƟ om. q

ſƜƕƧƝơʎƥƜƟ q

208

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

731 ƖƟơȸƤ Ɨ' ơȏƠ ǆƛƚƟʬƟ ƗƘƜƟƮƤ: ƗƘƜƟƮƤ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǒμƢƘƜƣơƤ. ƢƣȶƤ ƘȒƟơƜƔƟ ƗȰ ƦʬƟ ƾƝƣơƫμƐƟƫƟ ǎƢƔƜƟƘʎ ƔȎƦȶƟ ȟƤ ǆƛƚƟƔʎơƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GƀR) 1 ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǒμƢƘƜƣơƤ: Su. ŽŽ 31, 11 (Ɨ 331); cf. Zonar. 475, 13 1 lm.] ƖƟơȸƤ Ɨ' ơȏƠ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ƖƟơȸƤ n.) R; (ǟƟƜơƥƦƣȷƨơƤ n.) V om. Vrr 2 ƾƝơƧƥơμƐƟƫƟ r ȟƤ] ƦȶƟ q

ƗƘƜƟƮƤ (alt.)

732a ǒƠƫ ƢƔƣƔƥƢɲ: ƨƧƞƔƠƏμƘƟơƤ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦơƯƦơƜƤ ƥƧμƢƘƥơʝƥƜƟ ǎμƢƘƥƘʎƟ ǒƠƫ ƾƢ' ƔȎƦʬƟ ƢƔƣƔƥƢɲ. L V r(GMR) Su. ŽV 108, 19 (Ƣ 1290) qui post ƢƔƣƔƥƢɲ (ƢƘƣƜƥƢɲ Su.) habet ƦơƧƦȱƥƦƜ ƦơʎƤ ǟƟƜȷƩơƜƤ 1 lm. ex M: deest in LVGR; (ǒƠƫ ƢƔƣƔƥƢɱ n.) R; (ƢƔƣƔƥƢɲ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 732– 3 ǒƠƫ – ƝƧƝȻμƘƟơƟ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ] Ʀơʝ ƦơʎƤ R: ƔȎƦơʎƤ Su.: Ʀȶ ƦơʎƤ Nauck 421, at cf. e.g. sch. 62.10 ... ǎƨƧƞƏƠƔƦơ ƗȰ ǾƟơμƏƥƔƜ ƦȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ, sch. 675b.1 μȲ … ƨƧƞƏƠɾ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ 2 ǎμƢƘƥƘʎƟ] ƥƧμƢƘƥƘʎƟ NWaV ƢƔƣƔƥƢɲ Vrr (coni. Lascaris): ƢƘƣƜƥƢɲ LSu.

732b ƝƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜ: ƾƟƔƥƘƜƣƏƙƘƜ, ƝƔƦƐƩƘƜ. ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟ ƖȮƣ ƝƧƣƒƫƤ ƞƐƖƘƦƔƜ, ȃƦƔƟ ƩƘƜμʬƟơƤ ȂƟƦơƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƢƘƞƏƖƘƜ ƥƦƘƒƞƔƟƦƘƤ ƦȮ ǂƣμƘƟƔ ƥƔƞƘƯƫƥƜƟ ƔȎƦƮƛƜ, μȲ ƗƜƔμƔƩƮμƘƟơƜ Ʀʭ ƢƟƘƯμƔƦƜ. μƘƦƔƨơƣƜƝʬƤ ơȔƟ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ǃƣμƔƦơƤ ƘǲƣƚƝƘƟŭ ơȎ ƗƜƚμƜƞƞƑƥƔƦơ, ƾƞƞ' ƾƨʀƝƘ ƦȶƟ ƦʬƟ ǳƢƢƫƟ 5 ƝƞƯƗƫƟƔ ƝƔȴ ȓƥƦƘƣơƤ ǞƣƐμƔ ǢƞƔƧƟƘƟ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GMR) 1 ƾƟƔƥƘƜƣƏƙƘƜ et ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘȹƘƜƟ – fin.: Su. I 171, 12 et 14–8 (Ɣ 1912) unde Zonar. 201, 1–3 1 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟ – 4 ƘǲƣƚƝƘƟ: cf. Phot. Ɣ 1531 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟŭ Ʀȶ ǎƟ ƢƘƞƏƖƘƜ ƩƘƜμʬƟơƤ ȂƟƦơƤ ƥƦƑƥƔƟƦƔƤ ƦȮ ǾƛƮƟƜƔ ƥƔƞƘƯƘƜƟ. μƘƦƔƨơƣƜƝʬƤ ƗȰ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ǃƣμƔƦơƤ ƘǲƣƚƝƘ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ. 1 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟ – 3 ƥƔƞƘȹƫƥƜƟ: cf. Hesych. Ɣ 4396 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟŭ ȃƦƔƟ ƩƘƜμʬƟơƤ ȂƟƦơƤ ǎƟ ƢƘƞƏƖƘƜ ƥƦƘƒƞƔƟƦƘƤ ƦȮ ǂƣμƘƟƔ ǏƔƧƦơȸƤ ƥƔƞƘƯƫƥƜƟ; Ɔ Ɣ 486 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟŭ Ʀȶ ǎƟ ƢƘƞƏƖƘƜ ƩƘƜμʬƟơƤ ȂƟƦơƤ ƥƦƑƥƔƟƦƔƤ ƦȮ ǾƛƮƟƜƔ ƥƔƞƘƯƘƜƟ = Su. I 171, 13–4 (Ɣ 1912) 1 lm.] ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜ V: deest in qGR; (735 n.) V; pars 4 ơȎ ƗƜƚμƜƞƞƑƥƔƦơ – fin. ad vv. 732–5 ƝƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜ – ƢưƞơƧƤ spectat ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜ r 2 ǂƣμƘƟƔ] ǃƣμƔƦƔ ƀ 3 ƥƔƞƘȹƫƥƜƟ] ƥƔƞƘƯƥƫƥƜ Ż: ƥƔƞƘȹơƧƥƜƟ Ÿ ƔȎƦƮƛƜ] ƔȎƦơʝ q μƘƦƔƨơƣƜƝʬƤ] ƝƔƦȮ

sch. 731 – sch. 745a

209

μƘƦƔƨơƣȮƟ r 4–5 scholiasta vv. 734–5 cum praecedentibus coniunxit, i.e. confudit Atheniensem et Orestem 4 ƗƜƚμƜƞƞƑƥƔƦơ] ƗƜƚμƘƞƞȳƥƔƦơ, sic ƀR 5 de ƝƔȴ non constat in V ȓƥƦƘƣơƤ om. Su. ǞƣƐμƔ] post ǢƞƔƧƟƘƟ habet Ż: om. Ÿ

735 Ʀʭ ƦƐƞƘƜ ƢƒƥƦƜƟ ƨƐƣƫƟ: ơǵơƟ ƢƜƥƦƘƯƫƟ ȃƦƜ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƦƐƞƘƜ Ʀơʝ ƗƣƮμơƧ ƢƔƣƘƞƘƯƥƘƦƔƜ. Ǡ ƟơμƒƙƫƟ ǓƫƤ Ʀơʝ ƦƐƞơƧƤ ơȓƦƫƤ ǎƞƔƯƟƘƜƟ. L q(H) V r(GƀR) Su. IV 580, 1 (Ʀ 878)

1 ơǵơƟ – 2 ƢƔƣƘƞƘȹƥƘƦƔƜ: Su. ŽŽ 559, 26 (ƚ 196)

1 lm.] ƢȻƞơƧƤ ƀ: deest in HVGR; (ƢȻƞơƜƤ n.) R; (n.) V ǎƢȴ] ƢƘƣȴ ƀR: om. G 2 Ʀơʝ om. H ǎƞƔƯƟƘƜƟ post sch. 766.2 ǣƗƘƦƔƜ demigravit in G

738 (ƝƾƠƜƥưƥƔƟƦƘ): ǿ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƝƔȴ ǿ ǆƛƚƟƔʎơƤ. L 1 lm. add. Brunck2

743 (ƞƯƫƟ): ƩƔƧƟʬƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƥƧμƢƘƢƞƐƩƛƔƜ. L q(Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. add. Źlmsley; (ƞȹƫƟ s.) L

745a ƩƟƮƔƤ: Ʀȶ ƞƘƢƦȶƟ μƐƣơƤ Ʀơʝ ǂƠơƟơƤ Ʀȶ ƦƣƜƕƮμƘƟơƟ ȏƢȶ ƦʀƤ ƩơƜƟƜƝƒƗơƤ. L q(H) V Gi r(Gii (s.l.) ƀR) cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 153a (cod. M) … ƩƟƮƔƜ ƗȰ ƦȮ ƾƝƣƔƠƮƟƜƔ, ƢƘƣȴ ǁ Ɣǯ ƩơƜƟƜƝƒƗƘƤ, ơǯ ƢƔƣƔƠơƟʎƦƔƜ ƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƜ; 371g (cod. M) … Ʀơʝ μƐƟƦơƜ ǂƠơƟơƤ Ʀȶ ǂƝƣơƟ Ʀȶ ǎƟƦƜƛƐμƘƟơƟ Ʀʁ ƩơƜƟƜƝƒƗƜ ƩƟƮƚ ƝƔƞƘʎƦƔƜ; 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ƩƟȷƔƤ n.) V Ʀȶ (pr.) om. Gi

ƞƘƢƦȶƟ] ƞơƜƢȶƟ H

210

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

745b (ǒƛƣƔƧƥƘ – ƩƟƮƔƤ): ƘǲƣƚƦƔƜ ǿμơƒƫƤ Ʀȶ ƢƔƣ' ǆƢơƞƞƫƟƒʪ ǂƠơƟơƤ ǎƟ ƢƞƑμƟɾƥƜ ƢƔƣƔƝƞƜƗȶƟ ƾƖƟƧμƐƟơƜơ. L V r(GƀR) 1 ǆƢơƞƞƫƟȵʪ: 1. 757 1–2 haec separatim praebent GMR: cum sch. pr. coniungunt LV (ƘǲƣƚƦƔƜ ƗȰ) 1 lm. addidi ƘǲƣƚƦƔƜ in finem scholii 745a demigravit in G Ʀȶ L: Ʀʭ VGM: om. R 2 ǂƠơƟơƤ reponi ex ipso Apollonio iubet Heath 24: ǆƢơƞƞƫ compendiose codd. ƾƙơμƐƟơƜƤ V: ƾƙƮμƘƟơƤ LG: ǎƙȷμƘƟơƤ ƀR ǎƟ ƢƞȳμƟɾƥƜ] ǎμƢƞȳμƟơƜƥƜ ƀ ƢƔƣƔƝƞƜƗȶƟ] -ƝƞƚƗȶƟ r ƾƖƟƧμƐƟơƜơ Apollonius: ƔǮƟƧμƐƟơƜơ Lrr: ǎƟƧμƐƟơƜƤ V

751 (ƞƔƖƩƏƟƘƜ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris Ɩƣ. L; Ɩƣ. del. post Wunder 37 Wolff 207 quippe qui ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜ glossam esse putavisset

758 (ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔƤ ƥƢơƗơʝ): ƾƟƦȴ ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝʀƤ. L 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

760 ȃƢƫƤ – ƩƛơƟȷƤ: ƝƔȴ ǳƟƔ ƾƠƜƮƢƜƥƦơƤ Ƙǲƚ ǿ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ, ǳƟƔ ƢƏƞƜƟ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ Ƙǲƚ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ. L q(H) V M r(G) 1–2 sch. ita retractavit G: ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ ƞȱƖƘƜ ǿ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ ǳƟƔ ƾƠƜȷƢƜƥƦơƤ Ƙǲƚ, ǳƟƔ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛȰƤ Ʀȶ ƢȯƛơƤ ƖȱƟƚƦƔƜ Ʀʁ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ (verba ǳƟƔ – fin. post sch. 745a dimota in G) 1 lm. scripsi: ƗȵƨƣơƟ (sic pro ƗƒƨƣƫƟ v. 750) ƀ: deest in LHV; (755 n.) V ƝƔȴ om. ŻM ƾƠƜƮƢƜƥƦơƤ] ƾƠƜơƢƜƥƦƮƦƘƣơƤ ŻV post ƾƠƜơƢƜƥƦȷƦƘƣơƤ add. žƞƧƦƔƜμƟƑƥƦƣƔƤ H ǿ om. M post ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ add. ƝƔȴ Neue 149 ǳƟƔ (alt.)] ǳƟƔ μȲ HV 2 Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ] ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ Ż

sch. 745 – sch. 823

211

766 Ȥ źƘʝ, Ʀȵ ƦƔʝƦƔ;: ȟƤ μȰƟ ƖƧƟȲ ƝƘƝƒƟƚƦƔƜ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ƢƏƛƘƜ, ƢƣȶƤ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ ƝƒƟƗƧƟơƟ ƾƢơƕƞƐƢơƧƥƔ ǣƗƘƦƔƜ. L q(Ÿ) V r(GƀR) Su. ŽŽŽ 606, 20 (ƫ 35) 1 lm. ex FƁ: deest in LŸVrr; (766 n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 766–9 Ȥ źƘʝ – ƝƔƝơʎƤ; ƢƏƛƘƜ] Ʀȶ ƢȯƛơƤ Ÿ

Ʀʭ

769 (Ʀƒ – ƞƮƖʪ): ƗƜȮ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣȶƟ ƾƞƖƘʎƟ ȏƢơƝƣƒƟƘƦƔƜ. L q(Ÿ) V r(M) 1 haec verba hoc lemmate instructa ad v. 769 rettuli: ad lm. ƖȮƣ ƝƔƝʬƤ (v. 770) adscripsit M: cum sch. pr. coniunguntur in LŸV (ƗƜȮ ƗȰ) ƩơƣȶƟ] ƩƣƮƟơƟ M

781 (ǿ ƢƣơƥƦƔƦʬƟ): ǿ ǎƢƜƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƤ. L Gs.l. Su. ŽV 233, 19 (Ƣ 2810) 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou; (ƢƣơƥƦƔƦʬƟ s.) L ǎƢƜƖƜƟȷμƘƟơƤ Su.: ǎƢƜƖƘƟȷμƘƟơƤ LG

817 ƾƞƞ' ơȒ ƦƜ μȲƟ ǒƖƫƖƘ: ƦơʝƦơ ơǮƝơƟơμƜƝʬƤŭ ƘǮ ƖȮƣ ƾƢơƣƑƥƔƥƔ ǎƢȴ ƦơʎƤ ǞƖƖƘƞμƐƟơƜƤ ƾƢƐƝƞƘƜƥƘƟ ǏƔƧƦȳƟ, ƗƜƘƞƯƘƦơ ǀƟ ǟ ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƤ. L q(Ÿ) V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex Ÿ: ƠȹƟơƜƝơƤ ǒƥơμƔƜ L: ƢƔƣƘʎƥ' ǎμƔƧƦȲƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; accuratiss. vv. 817–9 ƾƞƞ' ơȒ – ǎμƔƧƦƑƟ ơǮƝơƟơμƜƝȶƟ r 2 ƾƢȱƝƞƘƜƥƘƟ r: ƾƢƐƝƞƜƟƘƟ LŸV: ƾƢȱƝƦƘƜƟƘƟ Michaelis apud Jahn2

823 Ƣơʝ ƢơƦƘ ƝƘƣƔƧƟơȴ ŸƜƮƤ: ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǒμƢƣơƥƛƘƟ ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟơƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ǒƞƘƖƘƟŭ

5

ƛƏƣƥƘƜ μơƜ, ƦƐƝƟơƟ, ƛƏƣƥƘƜŭ ǒƥƦƜ μƐƖƔƤ ǎƟ ơȎƣƔƟʭ źƘȸƤ

212

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ. ƟʝƟ ơȔƟ ƢƔƟƦƔƩƮƛƘƟ ƾƢƘƖƟƫƥμƐƟƚƤ ƦʀƤ ƥƫƦƚƣƒƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƣơƥƦƘƛƘƒƥƚƤ ƦʀƤ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƥƧμƨơƣɱƤ, ƘǮƝƮƦƫƤ ƢƔƣƔƝƘƝƜƟƗƧƟƘƧμƐƟʪ Ʀʭ ƞƮƖʪ ǎƩƣƑƥƔƦơ, ȣƥƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƢƘƣȴ ƛƘʬƟ ƦƜ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ ȃƞƫƤ ƾμƨƜƕƏƞƞƘƜƟ, ƘǮ ȃƞƫƤ ǎƟ ơȎƣƔƟʭ ƘǮƥƜƟ, Ƙǲ ƖƘ ƢƘƣƜơƣʬƥƜ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ 10 ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ. ƝƔȴ ƦȶƟ μȰƟ ǣƞƜơƟ ȟƤ ƢƏƟƦƔ ǎƨơƣʬƟƦƔ ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘƟ, ƦȶƟ ƗȰ ŸƒƔ ȟƤ ƢƏƟƦƫƟ ƗƘƥƢȷƦƚƟ ȂƟƦƔ. L q(H) V r(GMR) 3–5 vv. 173–5 cum varietate; nam ƛȯƣƥƘƜ, ƦȱƝƟơƟ praebet Sophocles, sed ƦȱƝƟơƟ,

ƛȯƣƥƘƜ scholiasta 1 lm.] Ƣơʝ ƢơƦƘ ƀ: deest in VGR; (Ƣơʝ ƢơƦƘ n.) R; (Ƣơʝ ƢơƦƘ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 823–6 Ƣơʝ ƢơƦƘ – ǓƝƚƞơƜ 1–2 ƢƔƣƔμƧƛơƯμƘƟơƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ] ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ r 3 μơƜ om. r ƛƏƣƥƘƜ (alt.) om. Hrr 4 ǒƥƦƜ] ǒƥ. ƖȮƣ Ż 4–5 ǎƟ ơȎƣƔƟʭ źƘȸƤ] ź. ǎƟ ơȎƣ. Ż 6 ƝƔȴ ƦȮ ǏƠʀƤ om. ŻƀR ơȔƟ] ƗȰ Ż ƾƢƘƖƟƫƥμȱƟƚƤ] -ƔƤ Ż: -ƚƟ V 8 Ʀʭ om. Ż ƞƮƖʪ ǎƩƣƑƥƔƦơ] ǎƩ. ƞ. Ż ƛƘʬƟ ƦƜ 9 ƾμƨƜƕƏƞƞƘƜƟ] -ƕȯƞƘƜƟ Ż: -ƕƔƞƘʎƟ r ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƝƔȴ om. G ƦƜ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ] ƘǮƢ. Ʀ. ƀR ȃƞƫƤ] ǂƣƔ Wansink 52 ȃƞƫƤ (8) retento: del. Papageorgiou ȃƞƫƤ (8) servato: retinet Nauck 421 ȃƞƫƤ (8) deleto; ambo ȃƞƫƤ toleranda esse puto ǎƟ ơȎƣƔƟʭ ƘǮƥȴƟ] ƘǮƥ. ǎƟ ơȎƣ. r ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ] ƦȮ Ʀ. r 10 ǎƨơƣʬƟƦƔ ƢƔƣȱƞƔƕƘƟ, ƦȶƟ ƗȰ] ǎƨơƣʬƟƦƔ, ƢƔƣȱƞƔƕƘƟ ƗȰ ƦȶƟ r

826 ƝƣƯƢƦơƧƥƜƟ: ơǵơƟ ơȎƝ ǂƖơƧƥƜƟ ƘǮƤ ƨʬƤ ƦȲƟ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƢƔƣƔƟơμƒƔƟ. L q(H) V r(GMR) Su. IV 691, 27 (ƨ 16) 1 lm. deest in LVGR; (ƝƣȹƢƦơƧƥƜƟ n.) R ơǵơƟ om. H ơȎƝ ǂƖơƧƥƜƟ ƘǮƤ ƨʬƤ] ƘǮƤ ƨʬƤ ƞȱƖơƧƥƜƟ r ǂƖơƧƥƜƟ] ƾƟ- Ż ƘǮƤ] ǎƤ VSu. ƦơƯƦƫƟ deest in Su. ƢƔƣƔƟơμƒƔƟ] ƢƔƣơƜμƒƔƟ R

827 (ǐ ǒ, ƔǴ ƔǴ): ƛƣƚƟƘʎ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƦȶƟ ƾƗƘƞƨƮƟŭ ǎƞƘƘƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ ƞƒƔƟ Ʀȶ ƦơƜơʝƦơ μƐƣơƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

2 μȱƣơƤ] μȱƞơƤ Brunck2

sch. 823 – sch. 837

213

830 ƨƘʝ: ƗƘʎ ƦȶƟ ȏƢơƝƣƜƦȲƟ ǃμƔ Ʀʁ ƕơʁ ƾƟƔƕƞƐƪƔƜ ƦƘ ƘǮƤ ơȎƣƔƟȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƦȮƤ ƩƘʎƣƔƤ ƾƟƔƦƘʎƟƔƜ < * * * * * * > ȁ ƗȲ ƝƫƞƯƘƜ ǿ ƩơƣȷƤŭ μƚƗȰƟ μƐƖ' ƾƯƥɾƤ. L r(GMR) 3 v. 930; cf. sch. Ai. 386 1–3 haec separatim leguntur in r (separavit iam Kruytbosch 81–2): cum sch. 823 c. in L (ƗƘʎ ƗȰ) 1 lm. scripsit Kruytbosch 82: Ɣǵ Ɣǵ ƀ: deest in LGR; (Ɣǵ Ɣǵ n.) R ƕơʁ r Lps.l. (Lascaris): ƕơƧƞʁ LLpi.l. ƦƘ om. G ơȎƣƔƟȶƟ] ƦȶƟ ơȎƣ. r 2 post ƾƟƔƦƘʎƟƔƜ lacunam statuit quam verbis <ƕƞƔƥƨƚμƘʎƟ ƦƜ ƘǮƤ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơȸƤ ƕơƧƞȷμƘƟơƟ> supplevit Roemer2 90 post ƩơƣȶƤ add. ƞȱƖƫƟ r

831a1 ƾƢơƞƘʎƤ: ƗƔƜμơƟƒƫƤ ƦơʝƦơ ǎƢƑƖƔƖƘƟŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ ƾμƘƞƑƥƔƥƔ ƦʬƟ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ ǎƢƜƦƜμƑƥƘƫƟ ǎƣƘʎ ƦƜ ƾƢƣƘƢȰƤ ƘǮƤ ƛƘơȹƤ, ǎƢƘȴ ƝƔȴ ƦƘƞƐƫƤ ƾμƚƩƔƟƘʎ ǿ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ƘǮƤ ƦơȸƤ ƛƘơȸƤ ƕƞƔƥƨƚμʬƟ (ƝƔȴ ƖȮƣ ƘǵƤ ǤƟ ƦʬƟ ƛƘơƥƘƕƘƥƦƏƦƫƟ), ƾƞƞ' ȣƥƢƘƣ ƗƧƥƩƘƣƔƒƟơƧƥƔ ƦƔʎƤ ǎƢƜƦƜμƑƥƘƥƜƟ ȟƤ 5 ƪƧƩƣƔʎƤ ƦơʝƦƮ ƨƚƥƜƟ. ǎƟ <ƖȮƣ> ƦơʎƤ ƢƣơƨƔƟƐƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƾƛƘƣƔƢƘƯƦơƜƤ ƢƏƛƘƥƜ μƘƦƣƜƏƙƘƜƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƾƠƜơʝƥƜƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm. deest in qVrr, quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 831a2 coniungant (ƗƔƜμơƟȵƫƤ ƗȰ) 2 ƦƘƞƐƫƤ] ƦƘƞƘƒƫƤ r 3 ƕƞƔƥƨƚμʬƟ] ƕƞƔƥƨȳμƫƟ vel ƕƞƔƥƨƚμƜʬƟ dubitanter Papageorgiou2 ƥμƤŪ: ƕƞƔƥƨƚμƘʎƟ cunctanter Wansink 53 ƘǵƤ] ƘǮ r 5 ƪƧƩƣƔʎƤ] ƪƧƩƔʎƤ G ƖȮƣ add. Wansink l.c.

831a2 ƾƢơƞƘʎƤ: ƾƢơƝƟƔƒƘƜƤ μƘ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƛƘƣƔƢƘƯƦơƜƤ ƢƔƣƚƖơƣơʝƥƔ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm. deest in Lq qVGR; (ƾƢơƞƘʎƤ n.) VR; accuratiss. vv. 831–6 ƾƢơƞƘʎƤ – ǎƢƘμƕȯƥɾ ƾƢơƝƟƔƒƘƜƤ] ƾƢơƝƟƘʎƤ V: ƾƢơƞƘʎƤ qr

837 ơǴƗƔ ƖȮƣ ǂƟƔƝƦ' ǆμƨƜƏƣƘƫƟ: ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ ƦƔʎƤ ƗƜȮ ƩƣƧƥơʝ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƔƜƤ ƦƐƩƟƔƜƤ, Ʀơʝ ƗơƛƐƟƦơƤ ǖƣƜƨƯƞɾ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ǆμƨƜƔƣƏơƧ ǒƠơƗơƟ, ƗƜȮ ƦȮƤ ƦʀƤ ƖƧƟƔƜƝȶƤ ƔȎƦơʝ ƾƢƏƦƔƤ. ǂƞƞƫƤŭ Ʀȶ ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ ǓƣƝƘƥƜƟ Ǡ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƿƣμƏƦƫƟ ƨƚƥȵƟ, ơǵơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƩƣƧƥʭ ƗƘƗƘμƐƟơƜƤ ƝƔȴ 5 ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟơƜƤŭ ǃƢƘƣ ǓƣƝƚ ƘǴƢƘƟ, ơǵơƟ ƢƘƣƜƨƣƏƖμƔƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƦƘƒƩƚ, ȥƟ

214

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

ơȎƝ ǎƠƐƨƧƖƘƟ ǿ ǆμƨƜƏƣƔơƤ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƟƘƥƩƐƛƚ ǎƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ. Ǡ ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ Ʀʭ ȃƣμʪ, ȁƤ ǤƟ ǎƝ ƩƣƧƥơʝ ƢƘƢơƜƚμƐƟơƤ. L q(HŸ) V r(GR) 1 lm. deest in qR et in VG quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 841a1 copulent (ǂƞƞƫƤ V; ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ G); accuratiss. vv. 837–8 ơǴƗƔ – ƾƢƏƦƔƜƤ ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ] ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦƔƜƤ V post ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ subauditur ǓƣƝƘƥƜ ante ƩƣƧƥơʝ add. Ʀơʝ Wa 2 ƖƘƟơμȱƟƔƜƤ] ƖƜƟơμƐƟƔƜƤ r Ʀơʝ ƗơƛƐƟƦơƤ] ƦơʎƤ ƗơƛƘʎƥƜ q ǖƣƜƨȹƞơƧ V 3 ǂƞƞƫƤ] ƝƔȴ ǂƞ. r 4 ƿƣμȯƦƫƟ] ǏƣμȯƦƫƟ Bernardakis 44 ơǵơƟ om. q 4–5 ƦơʎƤ ... Ʀȶ] ƦơʎƤ qV ƗƘƗƘμƐƟơƜƤ ... ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟơƜƤ] ƦʬƟ ... ƗƘƗƘμƐƟƫƟ ... ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟƫƟ q 4 ƩƣƧƥʭ ƗƘƗƘμƐƟơƜƤ] ƩƣƧƥơƗƘƗƘμƐƟơƜƤ G 5 ǃƢƘƣ] ǃƢƔƟ V 6 ǎƠƐƨƧƖƘƟ] ǒƨƧƖƘƟ r ǿ ǆμƨƜȯƣƔơƤ] ǟ ǆμƨƜƏƣƘƫƤ r ǎƟƘƥƩƐƛƚ] ǎƥƩƐƛƚ qV: ǒƥƩƘƛƘƟ r ǎƟ om. q ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ] ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦʪ V post ƩƣƧƥơƗƐƦơƜƤ subauditur ǓƣƝƘƥƜ Ʀʭ om. V 7 ƢƘƢơƜƚμƐƟơƤ] ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟơƤ G

838 (ǓƣƝƘƥƜ ... ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ ƾƢƏƦƔƜƤ): Ʀȶ [ƗȰ] ǓƣƝƘƥƜƟ, ơǵơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƗƘƥμơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ƨƣƏƖμƔƥƜƟ ƝƔȴ Ʀʁ ƾƟƏƖƝɾ Ʀʁ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȃƣμơƧ ƖƘƟơμƐƟɾ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ ƾƢƏƦƔƜƤ Ǡ Ʀʁ ƾƢȶ ƦʀƤ ƖƧƟƔƜƝȶƤ ƾƢƏƦɾ Ǡ ƝƔƛƮƞơƧ ƦȶƟ ƩƣƧƥȶƟ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ ƾƢƏƦƚƟ ƘǴƢƘƟ. ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ ƗȰ ƘǲƝƔƥƘƟ, ȃƦƜ ƝƔȴ ơȕƦơƤ ƗƜȮ 5 ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ ƾƢưƞƘƦơ. L q(HŸ) V r(GR) 1–5 hoc sch. deleto ƗȰ a sch. 837 separavi et lemmate instruxi 1–2 ƦơʎƤ ƗƘƥμơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ƨƣȯƖμƔƥƜƟ] ƦơʎƤ ƢƘƣƜƨƣƏƖμƔƥƜƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƘƥμơʎƤ V 2 ƨƣƏƖμƔƥƜƟ] ƦơʎƤ ƨ. q ƖƘƟơμƐƟɾ] ƖƜƟ- qG 4 ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ] ƦʬƟ Ɩ. r 5 ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ] ƖƧƟƔƜƝȶƤ qVrr

841a1 (ƢƏμƪƧƩơƤ ƾƟȯƥƥƘƜ): ǿ ƩơƣƮƤ ƨƚƥƜƟ ȃƦƜ ƝƔȴ ǎƟ ƔȎƦʭ Ʀʭ ƛƔƟƏƦʪ ǎƥƦƒ ƦƜƤ ƘȎƦƧƩƒƔŭ ƦƜμȲƟ ƗȰ ƔȎƦʭ ƨƔƥƜƟ ǓƢƘƥƛƔƜ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μƔƟƦƘƯƘƥƛƔƜ ƔȎƦƮƟ. L V r(GR) ad sensum cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 589e (cod. M) ơȎƝ ǂƦƜμơƟ] ơȎƝ ƾƖƘƟƟʀŭ ơȕƦơƤ ƖȮƣ ǎƝƘʎ ƝƔƦƔƢơƛƘȴƤ ȏƢȶ ƦʀƤ ƖʀƤ ƝƔȴ μƘƦȮ ƛƏƟƔƦơƟ ǎμƔƟƦƘƯƘƦơ. 1 lm. addidi; (ƩƣƧƥơƗȱƦơƜƤ v. 837 n.) R; (ơǴƗƔ ƖȮƣ v. 837 n.) V ƝƔȴ om. Vrr ƔȎƦʭ Ʀʭ ƛƔƟƏƦʪ] Ʀ. ƛ. ƔȎƦ. r 2 ǎƥƦȵ] ǎƥ. ƨƚƥƜ r ƔȎƦʭ post ƨ. transp. G ƨƔƥƜƟ Michaelis apud Jahn3: ƨƚƥƜƟ codd. ǓƢƘƥƛƔƜ Scheer (teste et prob. Heimreich 4): 3 ƔȎƦȷƟ] ƝƔƦ' ǎμơʝ ƔȎƦȷƟ V: ƝƔƦ' ǒƥƘƥƛƔƜ codd.: ƟȱμƘƥƛƔƜ Kruytbosch 82 ǎƟƜƔƧƦȷƟ r

sch. 837 – sch. 843–4

215

841a2 ƢƏμƪƧƩơƤ ƾƟƏƥƥƘƜ: ƾƟƦȴ ƢƔƥʬƟ ƪƧƩʬƟ ƾƟƏƥƥƘƜ, ƔǱ ƗȲ ǎƟ ƩƣƘƒɯ ƝƔƛƘƥƦɱƥƜ ƦʀƤ ǎƝƘƒƟơƧ μƔƟƦƜƝʀƤ. Ǡ ƢƏμƪƧƩơƤ ǿ ƗƜƔƥȻƥƔƤ ƢɱƥƔƟ ƦȲƟ ǏƔƧƦơʝ ƪƧƩȳƟŭ Ǡ ǿ ƗƜȮ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ ƦȲƟ ƪƧƩȲƟ ƥʫƙƫƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƾƛƏƟƔƦơƤ. L V r(GR) 1 ƢƔƥʬƟ ƪƧƩʬƟ ƾƟȯƥƥƘƜ et 2 ǿ ƗƜƔƥȻƥƔƤ – fin.: Su. IV 16, 22 (Ƣ 146) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ƢȯμƪƧƩơƤ n.) R; (ƢȯμƪƧƩơƤ n.) V ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Vrr ƔǱ r (coni. iam Brunck1): ǁ LV 2 ƢɱƥƔƟ] ǃƢƔƥƔƟ V: om. r 3 ƦȲƟ ƪƧƩȲƟ ƥʫƙƫƟ] ƥ. Ʀ. ƪ. V ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ] ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ r ƾƛƏƟƔƦơƤ] ǿ ƛƏƟƔƦơƤ V

842a1 (ƨƘʝ): ơȎ ƢƣơƥƜƘμƐƟƚ ơȎƗȰ ƦơȸƤ ƦơƜơƯƦơƧƤ ƞƮƖơƧƤ ƛƣƚƟƘʎ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ. L V r(GR) 1 ơȎƗȰ ƦơȸƤ ƦơƜơƯƦơƧƤ ƞƮƖơƧƤ i.e. ƝƔȴ ƟʝƟ ȏƢȶ ƖƔƒƔƤ ƢƏμƪƧƩơƤ ƾƟƏƥƥƘƜ; aliam ob causam exclamat Electra secundum sch. 842a2 1 sch. ad lm. ƨƘʝ adscripsi; (ǐ ǒ, ǮȺ v. 840 n.) R; (ǐ ǮȺ ǮȺ n.) V; iuxta ǒ ǒ, Ǯư legitur etiam in L ơȎ] ơȓƦƫƤ Vrr ƢƣơƥƜƘμƐƟƚ] ƢƣơƥƜƐμƘƟƔƜ G ƦơƜơƯƦơƧƤ] Ʀ. ƢƏƞƜƟ V

842a2 (ƨƘʝ): μƟƚƥƛƘʎƥƔ ƦʀƤ ǖƣƜƨƯƞƚƤ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƾƟƔƕơɲ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ǢƛƘƜ ƔȎƦʀƤ ƗƧƥƩƘƣƔƒƟơƧƥƔ. L V r(GR) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƨƘʝ n.) R; (ƨƘʝ n.) V ǟ om. r

843–4 ƨƘʝ ƗʀƦ'ŭ ǾƞơȮ ƖƏƣ: ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƥƧƖƝƔƦƔƦƜƛƐμƘƟƮƤ ƨƚƥƜƟ ȃƦƜ ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ ƾƟƘƕƮƚƥƔƤŭ ǾƞơȲ ƖȮƣ ǤƟ ǟ ǖƣƜƨƯƞƚ. ȃƣƔ ƗȲ ơȔƟ, ƘǮ ǒƢƣƔƠƐ ƦƜ ǿ ƩơƣƮƤŭ ƾƢƐƥƢƔƥƘ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȲƟ Ʀơʝ ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ ǎμƕƔƞȺƟ Ʀȶ ƝƔƦ’ ƔȎƦȲƟ μƯƛƘƧμƔ. L V r(GR) 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ƨƘʝ ƗʀƦ' n.) R; (ƨƘʝ ƗʀƦ' n.) V; pars 3 ƾƢƐƥƢƔƥƘ – fin. ad ǎƗƏμƚ spectat 2 ƾƟƘƕƮƚƥƔƤ] – Ƙ V ǤƟ om. G ȃƣƔ – fin. om. V propter homoeoteleuton (2 ǖƣƜƨƯƞƚ + sch. 844.1 ǖƣƜƨƯƞƚ) ƗȲ om. r 3 ƔȎƦȲƟ (pr.) om. G Ʀȶ ƝƔƦ' ƔȎƦȲƟ] Ʀȶ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ǖƣƜƨȹƞƚƟ r

216

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

844 (ǎƗƏμƚ): ǟ ǖƣƜƨƯƞƚ ƗƚƞơƟȷƦƜŭ ǿ ƗȰ ƞƮƖơƤ ƾƢơƨƔƦƜƝƮƤŭ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƗȰ ȟƤ ƢƧƟƛƔƟơμƐƟƚƤ ǎƢƏƖƘƜ Ʀȶ ƟƔƒ. L V r(GR) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ǎƗȯμƚ n.) R; (ǎƗȯμƚ n.) V 15.245c, 21.226): ƾƢơƨƔƟƦƜƝȶƤ Vrr (coni. Lascaris) 2 ƟƔȴ] ƘǴƟƔƜ G

ƾƢơƨƔƦƜƝȶƤ L (cf. sch. Hom. Il. ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƗȰ] ǿ ƗȰ Ʃ. Vrr, hoc ordine

846a ơǴƗ' ơǴƗ'ŭ ǎƨƏƟƚ: ơǴƗƔ ȃƦƜ ǎƗƏμƚŭ ǎƨƏƟƚ ƖȮƣ ǿ ǎƢƜμƘƞơƯμƘƟơƤ Ʀơʝ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƨƮƟʪ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ǿ ƦƜμƫƣȶƤ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣƮƤŭ ǎμơȴ ƗȰ ơȎƗƘȴƤ ƢƏƣƘƥƦƜƟ ƾƢơƛƔƟƮƟƦơƤ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ. ǿ μȰƟ ơȔƟ ƩơƣȶƤ ƢƔƣƐƕƔƞƘƟ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ Ʀʭ ǆμƨƜƔƣƏʪ, ǳƟƔ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƘȒƘƞƢƜƤ Ƙǲƚ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ȃƦƜ ƦƘƯƠƘƦƔƜ 5 ƦƜμʀƤ ƦƜƟơƤ. ǟ ƗƐ ƨƚƥƜƟ ȃƦƜ ǆμƨƜƏƣƔơƤ ȏƢȶ Ʀơʝ ǆƞƝμƔƒƫƟơƤ ǒƦƧƩƘƟ ƦƜμƫƣƒƔƤ. ƄƏƟƧ ƗȰ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ Ʀȶ ƢƏƛơƤ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ ƘǮƤ ǏƔƧƦȲƟ μƘƦƔƨƐƣƘƜ ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ǎμơȴ Ɨ' ơȒƦƜƤ. L q(H) V r(GMR) 1 ǿ ǎƢƜμƘƞơȹμƘƟơƤ et 2 ǿ ƦƜμƫƣȶƤ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ: Su. ŽŽŽ 352, 22 (μ 480) 1 lm.] ơǴƗ' ǎƨȯƟƚ ƀ: ơǴƗ' ǎƨƏƟƚ ƖȮƣ μƘƞƐƦƫƣ ƾμƨȴ Ʀȶ ǑƟ (sic Ʀȶ ǓƟ pro ƦȶƟ ǎƟ) G: deest in HVR; (μƘƞȱƦƫƣ n.) R; (ơǴƗ' ơǴƗ' n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 846–8 ơǴƗ' ơǴƗ' – ƾƟƔƣƢƔƥƛƘȵƤ ơǴƗƔ (tert.)] ơǴƗƔ ƖȮƣ HV: ơǴƗ' G ǿ] ȃƦƜ G Ʀơʝ] ƔȎƦơʝ r 2 ǿ r idque commendat Dindorf 129: om. LHV ƦƜμƫƣȶƤ post Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ transp. V 3 ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ] Ʀơʝ Ȇƣ. R ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘ Ż 4 ǆμƨƜƔƣȯʪ] -ȯƣƘʪ r ǳƟƔ] ǳƟ' ǟ r 5 ƦƜƟơƤ] ƢơƞƞʀƤ r: ƦƜƟơƤ ƢơƞƞʀƤ V: ƦƜƟơƤ ƢơƞƞʬƟ Ż ǆμƨƜȯƣƔơƤ] -ƣƘƫƤ r ǆƞƝμƔƒƫƟơƤ – 6 Ʀơʝ om. V propter homoeoteleuton 5 ǆƞƝμƔƒƫƟơƤ] ǆƝμƔƒƫƟơƤ G: ƢƔƦƣȶƤ Ż 6 ǏƔƧƦȶƟ ƀR 7 ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ǎμơȴ Ɨ' ơȒ ƦƜƤ om. H ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ r (coni. Lascaris): ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ LV ǎμơȴ] μơƜ ƀ

846b [ǎƨȯƟƚ ƖȮƣ] μƘƞƐƦƫƣ: ƨƣơƟƦƜƥƦƑƤ, ɣ ǎƢƜμƘƞȰƤ ƖƐƖơƟƘ μƘƦƘƞƛƘʎƟ ƦȶƟ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƛƏƟƔƦơƟ. L 1 lm. N decurtavi: deest in L; (μƘƞȱƦƫƣ s.) L

847 (ƦȶƟ ǎƟ ƢƐƟƛƘƜ): ƦȶƟ ǆμƨƜƏƣƔơƟ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley

sch. 844 – sch. 850a

217

849 ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƗƘƜƞƔƒƫƟ: ƝƔȴ ƦơʝƦơ ƘǴƗơƤ ƢƔƣƔμƧƛƒƔƤ, Ʀȶ ƘǲƤ ƦƜ ƢƔƣƔƩƫƣƘʎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƞƧƢơƧμƐƟơƜƤ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƖƩƫƣƘʎƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƝƞƔƒƘƜƟ ȟƤ ǎƢȴ ƾƢƔƣƚƖơƣƑƦơƜƤ ƝƔƝơʎƤ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex L: ƗƘƜƞƔȵƔ ƀ: ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƗƘƜƞƔƒơƜƤ (ut apud poetam) ƝƧƣƘʎƤ GR; quae M quoque habet tamquam partem scholii: deest in V; (ƗƘƜƞƔȵƔ n.) R; (ƗƘƜƞƔȵƔ ƗƘƜƞƔȵƫƟ n.) V ƝƔȴ om. r ƘǴƗơƤ] Ʀȶ ƘǴƗ. Vrr ƘǲƤ ƦƜ om. ƀR ƦƜ om. G 2 ƔȎƦơʎƤ] ƔȎƦ. ƝƔȴ G 3 ƾƢƔƣƚƖơƣƑƦơƜƤ] ƦơʎƤ ƾƢ. r

850a ƝƾƖȺ ƦơʝƗ' ǲƥƦƫƣ: ơǴƗƔ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ȃƦƜ ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƘǮμȴ ƔȎƦʭ ƦơƯƦʪ Ʀʭ ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ ƦʬƟ ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƾƩȱƫƟ. ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ ƗȰ Ʀʭ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƥƯƣơƟƦƜ ƦȮ ƝƔƝȯŭ Ǡ ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ Ʀʭ μƘƦȮ ƢƏƥƚƤ ǿƣμʀƤ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƝʬƟ ȟƣμƚμƐƟʪ. ƢƔμμƑƟʪ ƗȰ Ʀʭ ƢơƞƧƩƣơƟƒʪ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƚƟƘƝƘʎ. ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ơȔƟ ƘǮμƜ ơǵơƟ ƝƔƦ' ƔȎƦȶ ƦơʝƦơ, 5 ƝƔƛȶ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƦȮ ǂƩƚ ƘǮƤ ǟμɱƤ ƥƧƟƘƥƯƣƚ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ ƢƔƣƐμƘƜƟƘƟ. L q(H) V r(GMR) Su. ŽŽ 673, 22 (Ɯ 705) (nisi quod ȃƦƜ loco 4–5 ơǵơƟ – ƝƔƛȶ habet Su.) Scholia 850a, 850b et 851a in unum composuit r, hoc ordine: 850b 851a 850a (haec M liber e.g. ita profert: ƝƾƖȺ Ʀơʝ: ƝƾƖȺ ƦơʝƗ’ ǳƥƦƫƣ: ƝƾƖȺ ƦơƯƦơƧ ǎƢƜƥƦƑμƫƟ ƘǮμƒ, ȃƦƜ ƦƔƞƔƒƢƫƣƮƤ ƘǮμƜ. ƢƏƟƦƔ ƥƯƣơƟƦƜ ƦȮ ƝƔƝƏ. Ʀʭ ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ ƦʬƟ ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƾƩƘʬƟ (-ʬƟ, sic M) Ʀʭ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƥƯƣơƟƦƜ ƦȮ ƝƔƝȮ. Ǡ ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ Ʀʭ μƘƦȮ ƢƏƥƚƤ ǿƣμʀƤ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƝʬƟ ǿƣμƚμƐƟʪ. ƢƔμμƑƟʪ ƗȰ Ʀʭ ƢơƞƧƩƣơƟƒʪ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƚƟƘƝƘʎ. ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ơȔƟ ƘǮμƜ ƝƔƦ’ ƔȎƦȶ ƦơʝƦơ ƝƔƛȶ ƢƏƟƦƔ ǂƩƚ ƘǮƤ ǟμɱƤ ƥƧƟƘƣƣƯƚ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ ƢƔƣƐμƘƜƟƘƟ.) 1 lm. deest in HVrr; accuratiss. vv. 850–2 ƝƾƖȺ – ƾƩȱƫƟ; scholiasta ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ et ƢƔμμƑƟʪ neutra adiectivorum pro substantivis dicta interpretatus est (Ʀȶ ƢƏƟƥƧƣƦơƟ et Ʀȶ ƢƏμμƚƟơƟ) 1 ơǴƗƔ – 2 ƾƩƐƫƟ om. H 1 ơǴƗƔ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ȃƦƜ ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƘǮμȴ om. r, quia haec sententiam scholii 850b repetunt ƔȎƦʭ ƦơƯƦʪ om. r Ʀʭ om. V Ʀʭ – 2 ƝƔƝƏ om. R propter homoeoteleuton (sch. 851a ƝƔƝȮ + sch. 850a.2 ƝƔƝƏ; vide supra textum libri M) 2 ƾƩƐƫƟ – 3 ƝƔƝʬƟ om. G propter homoeoteleuton (2 ƢơƞƞʬƟ + 3 ƝƔƝʬƟ) 2 ƢƔƟƥȹƣƦʪ ƗȰ] om. ƀ: ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ Su. Ʀʭ ơm. LV ƢƏƟƦƔ] ƦȮ Ƣ. Ż ƦȮ om. Ż 3 ȟƣμƚμƐƟʪ] ǿƣμƚμȱƟʪ ƀ: ƝƜƟơƧμƐƟʪ Ż 4 ƗƘƜƞƔȵƔ – 5 ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ om. G propter 4 ơǵơƟ om. ŻƀR 5 ƦȮ ơm. ƀ homoeoteleuton (4 ƗƜƚƟƘƝƘʎ + 5 ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ) ƥƧƟƘƥȹƣƚ] ƥƧƟƘƣƣȹƚ ƀR ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ] ƗƜƚƟƘƝƘʎ V

218

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

850b ƝƾƖȺ ƦơʝƗ' ǲƥƦƫƣ: ƝƾƖȺ ƦơƯƦơƧ ǎƢƜƥƦƑμƫƟ ƘǮμƒ, ȃƦƜ ƦƔƞƔƒƢƫƣƮƤ ƘǮμƜ. L q(H) Vs.l. r(GMR) Su. ŽŽ 673, 21 (Ɯ 705) 1 ǎƢƜƥƦƑμƫƟ: cf. Su. Ɯ 700 ǻ ƥ Ʀ ơ ƣ ơ Ƥ : ǎƢƜƥƦƑμơƟơƤ; Zonar. 1124, 1 ǲƥƦƫƣ ƝƔȴ ǿ ǎƢƜƥƦƑμƫƟ 1 de r vide ad sch. pr. (init.) lm.] ƝƾƖȺ Ʀơʝ (sic pro ƦơʝƗ’ ) ƀ qui ƝƾƖȺ repetens ƦơʝƗ’ ǳƥƦƫƣ additis explicationi praeposuit: deest in V; (ƝƾƖȺ n.) R ƦơƯƦơƧ] ƦơʝƦơ Ż: ƦơƯƦʪ V

851a (ƢƔƟƥƯƣƦʪ): ƢƏƟƦƔ ƥƯƣơƟƦƜ ƦȮ ƝƔƝƏ. L r(GMR) 1 hoc sch. inter sch. 850b et 850a praebet r; vide ad sch. 850a (init.) lm. add. Papageorgiou; (ƢƔƟƥȹƣƦʪ s.) L ƥƯƣơƟƦƜ r (coni. iam Papageorgiou): ƥƯƣơƟ L ƦȮ r (add. iam Papageorgiou): om. L

851b (ƢƔμμƑƟʪ): ƢơƞƧƩƣơƟƒʪ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

854 μƑ μƘ ƟʝƟ μƚƝƐƦƜ: μƚƝƐƦƜ ơȔƟ μƘ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƑƥƚƦƘ, ȃƢơƧ ƖƘ ơȎ ƢƏƣƘƜƥƜƟ Ɣǯ ƦʬƟ ǎƞƢƒƗƫƟ ƾƣƫƖƔȴ Ɣǯ ƾƢȶ ƦʬƟ ƾƗƘƞƨʬƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GR) 1 lm. ex L (ƾƣƫƖƔȵ pro ƾƣƫƖơȵ legisse scholiastam vidit Wolff 35; praeterea Ʀ’ quod ante ƾƣƫƖƔƒ praebent testes fere omnes ei defuisse conicias): deest in qVrr; (ƢƔƣȯƖɾƤ n.) R; (μȳ μƘ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 854–9 μƑ μƘ – ƾƣƫƖƔȵ μƘ (alt.) om. G 2 ƾƗƘƞƨʬƟ. ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ (ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ ex sch. 858–9.1 (alt.))] ƾƗƘƞƨơƦƮƝƫƟ G

sch. 850b – sch. 858

219

855a (ƢƔƣƔƖȯƖɾƤ): ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƑƥɾƤ. L Su. ŽV 29, 11 (Ƣ 303) 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ƢƔƣƔƖȯƖɾƤ s.) L

855b (Ʀȵ ƨȳƜƤ): ƗƜȮ μȱƥơƧ Ʀȶ Ʀȵ ƨȳƜƤ. L 1 ƔȎƗɲƤ ƗȰ ƢơʎơƟ quae post Ʀƒ ƨƑƜƤ codd. fere omnes praebent grammatico defuisse vidit Wolff 35

858–9 (ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ | ƘȎƢƔƦƣƜƗɱƟ): ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ [ƗȰ] ƦʬƟ ƾƢ' ƾμƨơʎƟ ƦʬƟ ƖơƟƐƫƟ. ƗƜȮ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ ƘȎƢƔƦƣƜƗɱƟ ƚȒƠƚƥƘ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ Ʀȶ ǎƖƝưμƜơƟ, ơǵơƟ ƘȎƖƘƟʬƟ ƝƔȴ ƖƘƟƟƔƒƫƟ, ơǵơƤ ǤƟ ƝƔȴ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƖƘƖơƟȺƤ ǎƠ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ. Ǡ ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ ƦʬƟ ƾƗƘƞƨƜƝʬƟ, ƦʬƟ Ʀơʝ ƔȎƦơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƝƘƝơƜƟƫƟƚƝƮƦƫƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GR) 3 ƘȎƖƘƟʬƟ: cf. Ɔ Ƙ 974 ƘȎƢƔƦƣƒƗƔƜŭ ƘȎƖƘƟƘʎƤ = Phot. Ƙ 2283 = Su. Ƙ 3642 1–4 haec deleto ƗȰ a sch. 854 separavi et lemmate instruxi 1 ƝơƜƟơƦƮƝƫƟ] ƾƗƘƞƨơƦƮƝƫƟ G (vide ad sch. 854.2) ƦʬƟ (pr.) om. R ƾƢ'] ǎƢ' VG ƦʬƟ (alt.) om. r 2 Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ om. qV ơǵơƟ] ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ r 3 ǤƟ om. G ƝƔȴ (alt.) om. q Ȇƣ.] ǿ Ȇƣ. V 4 Ʀơʝ om. q ƔȎƦơʝ om. G

858 (ƝơƜƟơƦȷƝƫƟ): ƦƜƟȰƤ ƦʬƟ ƢɱƥƜ ƝơƜƟʬƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

220

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

861 Ǥ ƝƔȴ ƩƔƞƔƣƖơʎƤ: ƦƔʎƤ ƞƘƧƝƮƢơƥƜƟ Ǡ ƦƔʎƤ ƦƔƩƘƒƔƜƤ ǎƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƩƚƞƔʎƤŭ ƩƚƞȮƤ ƗȰ ƾƟƦȴ ƦʬƟ ǿƢƞʬƟ ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘƟ. ƘǮƢƮƟƦơƤ ƗȰ Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ

ƢɱƥƜ ƛƟƔƦơʎƤ ǒƨƧ μƮƣơƤ ƾƟƦƜƦƒƛƚƥƜƟ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔŭ ǄƣƔ ơȔƟ ơȓƦƫ ƢƐƢƣƫƦƔƜ ƦơʎƤ ƛƟƚƦơʎƤ ƦƘƞƘƧ5 ƦɱƟ, ǎƟ ƦƔʎƤ ƿμƒƞƞƔƜƤ ƦƔʎƤ ǯƢƢƜƝƔʎƤ; L q(ŻŸ) r(GR) 1 ƦƔʎƤ (pr.) – 2 ƢƔƣȱƞƔƕƘƟ: Su. ŽV 803, 19 (Ʃ 274) 1 ƦƔʎƤ ƞƘƧƝȷƢơƥƜƟ – ƩƚƞƔʎƤ: cf. Hesych. Ʃ 37 2 ƩƚƞȮƤ – ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘƟ: sch. Theocr. IV 34–6a ǿƢƞȲƟ ƗȰ ƞƐƖƘƜ ƦȲƟ ƩƚƞƑƟ; Hesych. Ʃ 387; Ɔ Ʃ 67 = Su. Ʃ 276 3 v. 860 1 lm. ex Lrr: deest in qV; (Ǥ ƝƔȴ ƩƔƞƔƣƖơʎƤ n.) R; (ƦμƚƦơʎƤ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 861–3 Ǥ ƝƔȴ – ǎƖƝʝƣƥƔƜ 1 ƦƔʎƤ (pr.) – 2 ƢƔƣȱƞƔƕƘƟ om. Ÿ 1 ƦƔʎƤ (pr.) LpHR: ƦơʎƤ LG et Su. ǎƟ om. Su. 2 ƦʬƟ] Ʀơʝ R ǿƢƞʬƟ LpSu. (Lascaris): ȃƢƞƫƟ cett. ƢƔƣƐƞƔƕƘƟ] ƘǴƢƘ Su. ƗȰ om. q 3 ƛƟƔƦơʎƤ Papageorgiou (quasi ex G): ƦơʎƤ ƛƟƔƦơʎƤ r: ƛƟƚƦơʎƤ qL de qua scriptura annotavit ‘sive ita legit pro ƛƟƔƦơʎƤ [scil. scholiasta], sive haud accurate scripsit’ Wolff 242 4 ǄƣƔ] Ǆƣ' r ơȓƦƫƤ r

863a ƦμƚƦơʎƤ ǿƞƝơʎƤ: ƦơʎƤ ǯμɱƥƜƟ. L q(Ż) V r(GR) cf. Su. IV 566, 16 (Ʀ 718) ƇμƚƦơʎƤ ǿƞƝơʎƤ ǎƖƝƯƣƥƔƜ: ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƦơʎƤ ƞưƣơƜƤ, ƦơʎƤ ǯμɱƥƜƟ… 1 haec separatim leguntur in r: cum sch. pr. c. in L, cum sch. 858–9 in V ƦμƚƦơʎƤ ƗȰ ǿƞƝơʎƤ LV: deest in H

lm. ex r:

863b ǿƞƝơȹƤ [ơȔƟ] ƾƟƦȴ ƦʬƟ ǯμƏƟƦƫƟ, ǎƟ ơǵƤ ƘǯƞƝƯƥƛƚ. L q(Ż) V r(GR) Su. IV 566, 17 (Ʀ 718) qui post ƘǯƞƝȹƥƛƚ habet ȆƣȱƥƦƚƤ ƢƘƥȺƟ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ǃƣμƔƦơƤ 1 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta in codd. et Su. deleto ơȔƟ separatim scripsi Ʀơʝ Ż

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ.

sch. 861 – sch. 868

221

863c (ƦμƚƦơʎƤ ǿƞƝơʎƤ): ƦμƚƦơʎƤ ƞưƣơƜƤ. L cf. Su. IV 566, 16 (Ʀ 718) ƇμƚƦơʎƤ ǿƞƝơʎƤ ǎƖƝƯƣƥƔƜ: ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƦơʎƤ ƞưƣơƜƤ, ƦơʎƤ ǯμɱƥƜƟ… 1 lm. add. Elmsley

864 (ǂƥƝơƢơƤ ƿ ƞưƕƔ): ƾƢƣơƮƣƔƦơƤ ǿ ƛƏƟƔƦơƤ. Ls.l. q(Żs.l.) Su. I 385, 27 (Ɣ 4179) 1 ƾƢƣơȷƣƔƦơƤ: cf. Hesych. Ɣ 7713 ǂ ƥ Ɲ ơ Ƣ ơ Ƥ · … ƾƢƣơƮƣƔƦơƤ 1 lm. add. Elmsley

post ƾƢƣơȷƣƔƦơƤ add. ƦơƧƦȱƥƦƜƟ Su.

865 ƢʬƤ ƖȮƣ ơȒƝ; ƘǮ ƠƐƟơƤ: Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ ƘǮƢƮƟƦơƤ «ƾƢƣơƬƗȲƤ ǟ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ƞưƕƚ» ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƢƣȶƤ ǓƦƘƣơƟ ǎƢƑƖƔƖƘƟ, ȃƦƜ ƗȲ ƢƐƢơƟƛƘƟ ƾƢƣơƥƗơƝƑƦƫƤ ǎƢ' ƾƞƞơƗƔƢʀƤ ƦƘƞƘƧƦʬƟ ƝƔȴ ǎμơʝ ƩƫƣƒƤ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƢʬƤ ƖȮƣ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƢʬƤ ƖȮƣ n.) R; (ƢʬƤ ƖȮƣ ơȒƝ; n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 865–6 ƢʬƤ – ƩƘƣʬƟ post ƘǮƢƮƟƦơƤ add ȃƦƜ r ƾƢƣơƬƗȲƤ Lascaris: ƾƢƣơƘƜƗȲƤ codd. (retinuit Elmsley) ǟ] ƘǴ V 1–2 ǟ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ƞȻƕƚ] ǟ ƞȻƕƚ <ǟ> Ɲ. Ʀ. ƾƖ. Bernardakis 45 2 ƞưƕƚ r (add. iam Brunck1): om. LV ƢƐƢơƟƛƘƟ] ƦƐƛƟƚƝƘƟ r

868 (ƝƐƝƘƧƛƘƟ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƣƯƢƦƘƦƔƜ. Ls.l. cf. sch. OC 1523 μƑƛ’ ơȕ ƝƐƝƘƧƛƘ] μƑƦƘ ȃƢơƧ ƝƣƯƢƦƘƦƔƜ ǿ ƩʬƣơƤ; sch. OT 968 ƝƘƯƛƘƜ: ƾƟƦȴ ƝƘƯƛƘƦƔƜ, ƝƣƯƢƦƘƦƔƜ; sch. D Hom. Il. 22. 118; Hesych. Ɲ 2047 Ɲ Ɛ Ɲ Ƙ Ƨ ƛ Ƙ · ƝƐƝƣƧƢƦƔƜ 1 lm. add. Lascaris

222

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

871 ȏƨ' ǟƗơƟʀƤ ƦơƜ: ǟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƢƔƣƔƖƐƖơƟƘƟ ƦȮ ȏƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ǎƖƝƘƒμƘƟƔ Ʀʭ ƦƏƨʪ ƘȏƣơʝƥƔ. ƦơʝƦơ Ʀȶ ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ ƘǮƥƑƖƔƖƘƟ, ǳƟƔ μȲ ƘǮƤ μƔƝƣȶƟ ǟ ǾƞƮƨƧƣƥƜƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ƖƐƟƚƦƔƜ. L q(H) V M r(GR) 1–2 ƦȮ ȏƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ ǎƖƝƘȵμƘƟƔ Ʀʭ Ʀȯƨʪ: vide vv. 51–3 ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƤ: vv. 804–70

3 ǟ ǾƞȷƨƧƣƥƜƤ

1 lm.] ƦơʝƦơ Ɨ' ƾƖƞȯƬƥμƔ (v. 908) M: deest in HVGR; (ȏƨ' ǟƗơƟʀƤ n.) R; (ȏƨ' ǟƗơƟʀƤ n.) V ƢƔƣƔƖƐƖơƟƘƟ] -Ɣ V ȏƢȶ] ȏƢȰƣ ƀ Ʀơʝ om. G 2 ƦơʝƦơ] Ʀ. ƗȰ r 3 ǟ om. V ǟ – fin.] ǾƗƯƣƚƦƔƜ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ r ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƤ] ƦʀƤ Ǧƞ. Ż

872 (ƥȸƟ ƦȯƩƘƜ μơƞƘʎƟ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ȏƢƐƣŭ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ ƥȸƟ ƦƏƩƘƜ μơƞƘʎƟ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

875 ƦʬƟ ǎμʬƟ ƥȸ ƢƚμƏƦƫƟ: ƦʬƟ ƟơƥƚμƏƦƫƟ ƦȮ μȰƟ ƛƘƣƔƢƘƯƘƦƔƜ ƢƣơƥƝƔƒƣơƜƤ ƛƘƣƔƢƘƒƔƜƤ, ȃƢƘƣ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǂƣƚƠƜƤ, ƦȮ ƗȰ ƛƘƣƔƢƘƯƘƦƔƜ ƢƔƟƦƘƞʬƤ, ȃƢƘƣ ǎƥƦȴƟ ǲƔƥƜƤŭ ƝƔƦ' ơȎƗƐƟƔ ơȔƟ ƦƣƮƢơƟ ƢƣơƝƮƢƦƘƜ ƦȮ ǟμƐƦƘƣƔ ǎƢȴ Ʀȶ ƕȱƞƦƜơƟ. L V r(GMR) Su. II 604, 27 (Ɯ 48) qui vocibus ƦʬƟ ƟơƥƚμȯƦƫƟ (1) praeposuit ǲƔƥƜƤ ƝƔȴ ǂƣƚƠƜƤ ƗƜƔƨȱƣƘƜ; ex Su. pendet Zonar. 307, 20 et 1080, 7 1 lm.] ǂƣƚƠƜƟ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ǂƣƚƠƜƟ n.) R; (ǂƣƚƠƜƟ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 875–6 ƦʬƟ – ǮƗƘʎƟ

876 (ǮƗƘʎƟ): <ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ> ǒƦƜ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Elmsley ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ (Ɩƣ.) addidi

878 ƝƞƯơƧƥ', ǎƟƔƣƖʬƤ: ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƞƯơƧƥƔ ƢƣȶƤ ƕƣƔƩȸ ƗƜƔƥƦƜƝƦƐơƟ, ǳƟ' ɒŭ ƢƏƣƘƥƦ' ǎƟƔƣƖʬƤ, ǲƥƛƜ ƦơʝƦơ ƝƞƯơƧƥƔ ǎμơʝ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. deest in VGR; (ƝƞȹơƧƥ' n.) R; (ƝƞȹơƧƥ' n.) V ƢƣȶƤ om. G

2 ƢƏƣƘƥƦƜƟ Vrr

223

sch. 871 – sch. 895

888a1 ƛƏƞƢɾ: ƾƟƦȴ ƢƔƣƔƝƮƢƦƘƜƤ ƦȮƤ ƨƣƐƟƔƤ ȟƤ ǎƟ ƢƧƣƘƦʭŭ ƾƟƚƝƐƥƦʪ ƗȰ ƢƧƣȵ, ȟƥƘȴ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ ƾƟƜƏƦʪ ǎƞƢƒƗƜŭ ƾƟȱƞƢƜƥƦơƟ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƢƔƣƔƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ǢƗƚ ƾƢơƞƫƞƮƦƔ. L V r(GMR) 1 ƾƟƦȴ – 2 ǎƞƢȵƗƜ: Su. Ž 215, 8 1 lm. scripsit Brunck2: ƝƞȱƪƔƥƔ ƛȯƞƢɾ L: ƕƞȱƪƔƥƔ ƀ: deest in VGR; (ƕƞȱƪƔƥƔ n.) R; (ƾƟƚƝȱƥƦʪ ƢƧƣȴ n.) V ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Vrr ƢƔƣƔƝƮƢƦƘƜƤ] ƢƣơƝȷƢƦ V: ƥƝƢ G: ƝȷƢƦɾ (-Ƣɾ ƀ) ƀRSu. ǎƟ om. G 2 ȟƥƘȴ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ om. Su. ƾƟƜƏƦʪ] ƾƟƜƏƦƫƤ G ǎƞƢȵƗƜ] ƢƣơƥƗơƝȵɯ Su. ƖȮƣ om. G ƢƘƣƜƖƘƟȱƥƛƔƜ ƀ

888a2 (ƛȯƞƢɾ): ƛƘƣμƔƒƟɾ Ʀʁ ƩƔƣɲ. L r(GMR) 1 ƛƘƣμƔƒƟɾ: cf. sch. Tr. 697 ȟƤ Ɨ' ǎƛƏƞƢƘƦơ: ȟƤ ƗȰ ǎƛƘƣμƏƟƛƚ…; Hesych. ƛ 59 ƛƏƞƢƫŭ ƛƘƣμƔƒƟƫ… 1 lm. addidi; (ƛȯƞƢɾ s.) L ƛƘƣμƔȵƟƘƜ Kruytbosch 82

ƛƘƣμƔȵƟɾ r (iam Papageorgiou2 437): ƛƘƣμƔȵƟƘƜƤ L:

893 (ƾƣƩƔʎơƟ): ƦȶƟ ǎƝ Ƣơƞƞơʝ ɜƝơƗơμƚμƐƟơƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 896b c. in r lm. add. Elmsley ɜƝơƗơμƚμȱƟƚƟ r (ad ƦȲƟ ƥơƣȷƟ scholii 896b spectant)

ƦȶƟ … ɜƝơƗơμƚμȱƟoƟ] ƦȲƟ ... ƦȶƟ om. Ÿ

895 ƢƚƖȮƤ ƖƏƞƔƝƦơƤ: Ƣơƞȸ ƖƏƞƔŭ ȟƤ Ʀȶ

ƢƚƖȮƤ ... ƗƔƝƣƯƫƟ ƾƟƦȴ ƢơƞƞȮ ƗƏƝƣƧƔ. L q(H) V r(GMR) Su. IV 123, 20 (Ƣ 1484) 2 Sơph. Ant. 803 2 ƢƚƖȮƤ … 1 lm. ex N: deest in LHVrr; (ƢƚƖȮƤ s.) L; (ƢƚƖȮƤ ƖȯƞƔƝƦơƤ n.) VR ƗƔƝƣƯƫƟ Su.: ƗƔƝƣƯƫƟ … ƢƚƖȮƤ codd. 3 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ HVrr: om. Su. ƢơƞƞȮ om. r ƗƏƝƣƧƔ] ƗƏƝƣƧƥƜ r

224

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

896a (ǎƥƦȵƟ): ƘǮƥƒƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

896b ƛƑƝƚƟ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ: ƦȲƟ ƥơƣȶƟ ƞƐƖƘƜ, ǒƟƛƔ Ʀȶ ƞƘƒƪƔƟơƟ ǎƦƐƛƚ. L q(H) V r(GMR) 1 ƦȲƟ ƥơƣȷƟ: cf. sch. Aesch. Pers. 405 ƛƑƝƔƤ] ƦƏƨơƧƤ; Hesych. ƥ 1346 ƥơƣƮƤŭ μƟʀμƔ, ƛƑƝƚ = Ɔ ƥ 160 = Phot. 528, 13; Su. ƥ 790, unde Zonar. 1042, 1 1 lm. ex N: deest in LHVrr; (ƛȳƝƚƟ n.) V ƞƐƖƘƜ om. HVrr

901 ƟƘƫƣʀ: ƦȶƟ ƟƘƫƥƦȴ ǞƣƦƚμƐƟơƟŭ Ǡ ǎƝ ƟƐơƧ ƦƜƟȶƤ ƝƔȴ ȣƣƔƟ ǒƩơƟƦơƤ ƟƐƔƟ. L q(H) V r(GMR) Su. III 453, 13 (Ɵ 233) 1 lm. ex Su.: ƢƧƣɱƤ ƟƘƫƣʀ ƀ: deest in LHVGR; (ƟƘƫƣʀ s./n.) L/VR ƦȶƟ] Ʀȶ V: om. Su. ǞƣƦƚμȱƟơƟ] ǞƣƦƚμƐƟƫƟ ƀ: ǞʪƣƚμȱƟơƟ Bernardakis 46 ƝƔȴ ȣƣƔƟ om. G ȣƣƔƟ] ȣƣ. ƝƔȴ ǟƞƜƝƒƔƟ Ż 2 ƟƐƔƟ] Ɵ. ƝƔȴ ȟƣƔƒƔƟ G

903 (ƪƧƩʁ) ƥƯƟƚƛƘƤ ȂμμƔ: ȃƣƔμƔ, ȁ ƾƘȴ ǎƨƔƟƦƔƙƮμƚƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƪƧƩƑƟ. L V r(GMR) 1 ȃƣƔμƔ: ȂμμƔ per ȃƣƔμƔ explicatur in sch. Eur. Phoen. 454 1 lm. Ɓ supplevi: deest in LVrr; (ƪƧƩʀƤ ƥȹƟƚƛƘƤ n.) R; (ȂμμƔ n.) V; scholiastam pro ȂμμƔ legisse ƨƏƥμƔ censet Nauck 421 ƾƘȴ] ǀƟ ƀ

909a (Ʀʭ – ƦȷƗƘ;): Ʀȶ μȷƟơƟ ƾƢȶ ƦʀƤ ȂƪƘƫƤ Ʀơʝ ƕơƥƦƣƯƩơƧ ƝƜƟƘʎƥƛƔƜ ǎƢȴ ƦȲƟ ƾƞƑƛƘƜƔƟ ƖƘƞơʎơƟŭ ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ơȔƟ ǎƢƏƖƘƜ ȃƦƜ ơȎƗƘƟȴ ǂƞƞʪ Ǡ Ʀʭ ƢƏƟƧ ƥƧƟƚμμƐƟʪ ƝƔƦȮ ƖƐƟơƤ ƦȮ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƢƣơƥƑƝƘƜ. L q(H) V r(G)

sch. 896a – sch. 919a1

225

1 lm. addidi; (μȳ ƦơƧ n.) V μȷƟơƟ Bernardakis 46 (cf. Papageorgiou ad sch. OT 264, p.178, 14): μȰƟ codd. ƦʀƤ ȂƪƘƫƤ post Ʀơʝ ƕơƥƦƣƯƩơƧ transp. Ż 3 ƝƔƦȮ ƖƐƟơƤ post ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ posuit G ƖȱƟơƤ] Ʀȶ Ɩ. V ƦȮ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ cf. sch. 909b

909b ƦƮƗƘ: Ʀȶ ƾƢơƝƘƒƣƔƥƛƔƜ ƦȮƤ ƝƮμƔƤ ƗʀƞơƟ ȃƦƜ. L V r(G) 1 lm. ex Wa: deest in LVG; (ƢƣơƥȳƝƘƜ n.) V ƗƚƞơƟƮƦƜ VG

915a1 (ƦƾƢƜƦƒμƜƔ): ƦȮ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ ƦƜμʁ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ. L q(H[Ÿ]) V r(GRs.l.) Su. II 388, 25 (Ƙ 2699) cf. Or. 177, 27 ǎƢƜƦƒμƜơƟŭ Ʀȶ ǎƢȴ ƦƜμʁ ȏƢƏƣƩơƟ; aliter sch. 1382 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ƦƾƢƜƦȵμƜƔ n.) V ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ, generalius Su.

Ʀʁ om. Żr

ƖƜƟƮμƘƟƔ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ] ƦƜƟơƤ

915a2 (ƦƾƢƜƦȵμƜƔ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƦƾƖƞƔʍƥμƔƦƔ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ɩƣ. L

919a1 (ƝʝƣơƤ): ǎƢƜƦƘƧƝƦƜƝȲ ƝƔȴ ƝƧƣƒƔ. L q(H) V Su. III 220, 11 (Ɲ 2774) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 919a2 c. in ŻV (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǟμȱƣƔ ƝƔƞʬƟ) n.) V ƝƔȴ om. H

lm. add. Elmsley; (ƝʝƣơƤ

226

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

919a2 (ƝʝƣơƤ): ǎƢƜƦƧƩƒƔ. L q(HŸ) V Su. III 220, 10 (Ɲ 2774) 1 lm. addidi ǎƢƜƦƧƩȵƔƟ V (ƝʝƣơƤ pro accusativo accipiens)

922 (ƨƐƣɾ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ǒƨƧƤ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ. L

929a ơȎƗȰ μƚƦƣȴ ƗƧƥƩƘƣȳƤ: ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟŭ ơȎ ƝƔƦȮ ƦơʝƦơ Ʀʁ μƚƦƣȴ ƗƧƥƩƘƣȲƤ ǾƨƛƘȴƤ ƝƔȴ ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔƤ ƞƧƢƑƥƔƤ ƔȎƦƑƟ. L q(H) V r(Gƀ) 1 lm. ex V: ƝƔƦ' ơǴƝơƟ ƀ: deest in LHG; (ƗƧƥƩƘƣȲƤ n.) V 2 ƔȎƦȲƟ ƞƧƢƑƥƔƤ inverso ordine G

ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ] ơǵơƟ G: om. Ż

929b (ƗƧƥƩƘƣȳƤ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƗƧƥμƘƟƑƤ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ. L; Ɩƣ. del. post Wunder 37 Wolff 208 quippe qui ƗƧƥμƘƟƑƤ glossam esse putavisset; probat Kruytbosch 82

933 (μƟƚμƘʎ' ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ): Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ μƟƚμƮƥƧƟƔ. Ls.l. q(Hs.l.) r(Rs.l.) 1 cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 49b μƟƚμƘʎƔ] μƟƚμƮƥƧƟƔ; Ael. D. μ 22 = Phot. μ 484; Hesych. μ 1498 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ʀơʝ ȆƣȱƥƦơƧ om. HR

942a ȥƟ ǎƖȺ ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ; ȥƟ ǎƖȺ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƢƣƏƦƦƘƜƟ ƾƥƨƔƞƑƤ ƘǮμƜ; L q(H) V Su. IV 712, 26 (ƨ 208)

sch. 919a² – sch. 945

227

1 ƾƥƨƔƞȳƤ: cf. Ɔ ƨ 70 ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤŭ ƾƥƨƔƞƑƤ, ƾƠƜƮƢƜƥƦơƤ, ǎƖƖƧƚƦƑƤ = Phot. 644, 15 = Su. ƨ 207 (+); sch. Aesch. Th. 396j ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ] ƾƥƨƔƞƑƤ 1 lm. deest in LŻ; (942 s.) L; (ȥƟ ǎƖư n.) V

942b ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ ƞƐƖƘƦƔƜ ǿ ǎƝƗƘƠƏμƘƟƮƤ ƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƤ ƾƢơƦʎƥƔƜŭ ơǵơƟ ƾƠƜƮƩƣƘƫƤ, ƗƧƟƔμƐƟƚ ƾƟƔƗƐƠƔƥƛƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) Su. IV 712, 24 (ƨ 208) cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 396n ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ] … ƾƠƜƮƩƣƘƫƤ 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in ŻV (ƨƘƣȱƖƖƧơƤ ƗȰ) 1 ǎƝƗƘƠȯμƘƟơƤ] ǎƝƞƘƠȯμƘƟơƤ V: ƾƟƔƗƘƠȯμƘƟơƤ Papageorgiou, sine causa idonea; nam de vi ǎƝƗƐƩƘƥƛƔƜ h.l. vide LSJ s.v. Ž.7 1 ƾƢơƦʎƥƔƜ – 2 ƗƧƟƔμƐƟƚ om. G propter homoeoteleuton 2 ƗƧƟƔμȱƟƚ] ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƤ, generalius, Su. ƾƟƔƗƐƠƔƥƛƔƜ de sensu vide LSJ s.v. II.5 post ƾƟƔƗƐƠƔƥƛƔƜ add. ƦȲƟ ǎƖƩƘȵƣƚƥƜƟ qrSu., idque recepit Papageorgiou renuente Wansink 54

944 (ƾƞƞ' Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ ȞƨȱƞƘƜƏ Ɩ’): ƦơʝƦơ Ʀʭ ƢƣơƦƐƣʪ ȃμơƜơƟ Ǥ ƦơȸƤ ƛƔƟƮƟƦƔƤ ǎƠƔƟƔƥƦƑƥƫ ƢơƦƐ; L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 2 v. 940 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. 942b c. in r (ƦoʝƦơ ƗȰ MR: ƦơʝƗƘ G) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƾƞƞ' Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ s.) L; (ƦƜ ƖȮƣ ƝƘƞƘƯƘƜƤ n.) V ȃμơƜơƟ] ȃμơƜơƟ, Ʀʭ ƀR: ȃμơƜơƟ, Ʀʭ ƗȰ G 2 ǎƠƔƟƔƥƦƑƥƫ] ƾƟƔƥƦƑƥƫ V

945 (ƘȎƦƧƩƘʎ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǎƢƜƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƦƔƜ. L q(Ÿs.l.) Su. II 476, 31 (Ƙ 3781) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ om. Ÿ

228

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

946a (ƠƧƟơƒƥƫ): ƥƧμƢơƟƑƥƫ. Ls.l. q(Hs.l.Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. add. Brunck2

946b (ȃƥơƟƢƘƣ ǀƟ ƥƛȱƟƫ): ƦơʝƦơ ƥƧƟʪƗȶƟ Ʀʭ

Ʀƒ ƖȮƣ ƝƘƞƘƯƘƜƤ ȥƟ ǎƖȺ ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ; L q(HŸ) V 2 v. 942 1 lm. addidi; (ƠƧƟơƒƥƫ s.) L; (946 n.) V Ʀȶ q

2 ƖȮƣ om. q

953 (ƢƣƏƝƦơƣ'): ǒƝƗƜƝơƟ. Ls.l. Su. ŽV 188, 28 (Ƣ 2205) cf. sch. Aesch. Ag. 111 ƢƣƏƝƦơƣƜ] ƦʬƜ ƗƒƝƚƟ ƘǮƥƢƣƔƠơμƐƟƫƜ 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

958 (Ƣơʎ): ƾƟƦȴ ƘǮƤ ƦƒƟƔ ƩƣƮƟơƟ; L V G Su. IV 258, 14 (Ƣ 3068) cf. sch. Ar. Lys. 526 Ƣơʎ ƖƏƣ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƮƦƘ ƖƏƣ. 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (Ƣơʎ s./n.) L/V ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ǓƫƤ ƢƮƦƘ ʜƔƛƧμƑƥƘƜƤ V

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ VGSu.

post ƩƣƮƟơƟ sequuntur

963–4 ƝƔȴ ƦʬƟƗƘ μƐƟƦơƜ μƚƝƐƦ’ ǎƞƢƒƥɾƤ ȃƢƫƤ | ƦƘƯƠɾ: ƢƣơƘƜƢơʝƥƔ ƦȮ ƗƘƜƟȮ Ʀȶ ƩƔƞƘƢưƦƘƣơƟ ǎƢƜƨƐƣƘƜ, ȟƤ ơȎƗȰ μƘƦƔƕơƞʀƤ ƦƧƩƘʎƟ ǎƞƢȴƤ ǒƟƘƥƦƜƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR)

sch. 946a – sch. 975

229

1 lm. scripsi: ơȎ ƖȮƣ ȥƗ’ ǂƕơƧƞƮƤ ǎƥƦ’ ƾƟƑƣ (v. 964) L: deest in qVrr; (ȥƗ' ǂƕơƧƞơƤ n.) V 2 Ʀȶ] Ʀȴ ƀ 2–3 ƦƧƩƘʎƟ ǎƞƢȴƤ ǒƟƘƥƦƜƟ] ǒƥƦƜ ƦƧƩƘʎƟ ǎƞƢȴƤ r 2 ƦƧƩƘʎƟ] ƦȹƩƚƤ q 3 ǒƟƘƥƦƜƟ om. q

972 (ƨƜƞƘʎ ƖȮƣ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȮ ƩƣƚƥƦȮ ƢɱƤ ǿƣɱƟ): ƖƟưμƚ. L G 1 lm. addidi

975 ƦƒƤ ƖȮƣ ƢơƦ' ƾƥƦʬƟ: ȃƣƔ ǎƟ ƦơƯƦʪ Ʀʭ ƞƮƖʪ ƦȮƤ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣƑƥƘƜƤ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ, ȃƦƜ ƢƏƟƦƔ ƦƐƛƘƜƝƘƟ ƦȮ ƾƖƔƛȯ, ǃƢƘƣ ƔȎƦƔʎƤ ƢƔƣƐƥƦƔƜ ƾƟƘƞơƯƥƔƜƤ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ, ƦȮ ƗȰ ǓƦƘƣƔ ȏƢƘƠɿƣƚƝƘƟ, ǿƢơʎƔ ƢƘƒƥơƟƦƔƜ ƿƞơʝƥƔƜŭ ƝƔƒƦơƜ ǤƟ ƝƔƦȮ Ʀȶ ƢƏƛơƤ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ƝƾƝƘʎƟƔ ƢƣơƥƛƘʎƟƔƜ, 5 ȃƦƜ ƝƔƞƮƟ μơƜ ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟ ơȓƦƫ ƗƧƥƦƧƩơƯƥɾ, ǿƢơʎƔ ƝƔȴ ƢƣƮƥƛƘƟ ǒƞƘƖƘƟ ȟƤ ƩƏƣƜƤ μȰƟ ǠƟ ƛƏƟƫ, ƞƯƢƚ Ɨ' ǀƟ ƙʬŭ ƾƞƞ' ɐƗƘƜ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƒƨơƕơƟ ƦʀƤ ƊƣƧƥơƛƐμƜƗơƤ, ȣƥƦƘ ǏƝơʝƥƔ ƦơȸƤ ƗƘƜƞơ<ƢơƜơ>ƦƐƣơƧƤ ƦʬƟ ƞƮƖƫƟ ȏƢƘƠƘʎƞƘƟ, ȣƥƦƘ μƚƗȰ ƘǮƤ ǒƟƟơƜƔƟ ƦʬƟ 10 ƝƜƟƗƯƟƫƟ ǎƝƘƒƟƚƟ ƝƔƦƔƥƦʀƥƔƜ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 6–7 vv. 821–2, nisi quod verba Sophoclis ǠƟ ƝƦƏƟɾ in ǠƟ ƛƏƟƫ mutavit annotator 1 lm. deest in qVrr; (ƦȵƤ Ɩȯƣ ƢơƦ' n.) R; (ƦȵƤ Ɩȯƣ ƢơƦ' n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 975–85 ƦƒƤ ƖȮƣ – ƝƞƐơƤ ƦȮƤ om. q 2 ƢȯƟƦƔ ƦȱƛƘƜƝƘƟ] ƢƔƣƔƦȱƛƘƜƝƘƟ Papageorgiou2 ƣƢŪ ƢƏƟƦƔ] ƢƐƣƔ r 2 ƔȎƦƔʎƤ … 3 ƾƟƘƞơȹƥƔƜƤ] ƔȎƦʁ … ƾƟƘƞơƯƥɾ qr: ƔȎƦʁ … ƾƟƘƞơƯƥƔƜƤ V 3 ȏƢƘƠɿƣƚƝƘƟ] ǎƢƘƠ- q 5 ơȓƦƫ] μɱƞƞơƟ q: om. Vrr ƗƧƥƦƧƩơƯƥɾ] ƾƢơƗƧƥƦƧƩơƯƥɾ q ǿƢơʎƔ] ȁ Vrr ƝƔȴ om. qVrr 6 ȟƤ – fin. om. q 6 μȰƟ ǠƟ] ǠƟ μȰƟ ƀ ǠƟ r: ǀƟ LV 7 ǀƟ] ǎȮƟ FNO, quod scribae correctionem esse conicias 8 ǏƝơʝƥƔ] ơǮƝơʝƥƔ ƀ 9 ƗƘƜƞơ<ƢơƜơ>ƦȱƣơƧƤ dubitanter Papageorgiou2 l.c., confidenter ego coll. sch. Tr. 1028b: ƗƘƜƞơƦȱƣơƧƤ codd.: ƗƘƜƟơƦȱƣơƧƤ Michaelis apud Jahn3 prob. Wansink 54 μƚƗȰ] μȲ r ǒƟƟơƜƔƟ] ƘȒƟơƜƔƟ G 10 ǎƝƘƒƟƚ G ƝƔƦƔƥƦʀƥƔƜ] ƝƔƦƔƥƦʀƟƔƜ r

230

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

977a ǲƗƘƥƛƘ ƦưƗƘ: ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƛƚƞƧƝʬƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƣƥƘƟƜƝơʎƤ ǂƣƛƣơƜƤ ƝƐƩƣƚƦƔƜ, ȃƢƘƣ ƥƯƟƚƛƘƤ ǆƦƦƜƝơʎƤŭ ƦȺ ƩƘʎƣƘ ƖƏƣ ƨƔƥƜ. ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ ƦȺ ƗȰ ƕƏƦƚƟ ƦƣƑƣƫƥƜ ƢƘƞƘƜƏƥƜƟ ǲƛμƔƛ' ǿμơʎƔƜ. L V r(GR) cf. sch. OC 1676; sch. OT 1472; Eust. Il. II 616, 12 – 617, 2 ƝƔȴ ǟ Ʀơʝ ƆơƨơƝƞƐơƧƤ ƗȰ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ǎƨ' ǏƔƧƦʁ ƝƔȴ Ʀʁ ƾƗƘƞƨʁ ƞƐƖƘƜ «ǲƗƘƥƛƘ ƦưƗƘ ƦȺ ƝƔƥƜƖƟƑƦƫ», ǢƖơƧƟ ƦƔƯƦƔƤ ƦȮƤ ƔȎƦƔƗƐƞƨƔƤ, «ƦơƯƦƫ ƩƣȲ ƦƜμɱƟ, ȡ ƪƧƩʀƤ ƾƨƘƜƗƑƥƔƟƦƘ», ȃ ǎƥƦƜ ƦƔƯƦƔƤ, ƔǱ ƪƧƩʀƤ ƾƨƘƜƗƑƥƔƥƔƜ. žƔȴ ơȎ ƦƔʝƦƔ μƮƟơƟ ƝƔƜƟơƦơμơʝƥƜƟ ǆƦƦƜƝơƒ … ƝƔȴ ǂƣƣƘƟƔ ƗȰ ǂƣƛƣƔ ƦơʎƤ ƛƑƞƘƥƜ ƢƣơƥƔƣμƮƙơƧƥƜ ƦȺ ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘ ƞƐƖơƟƦƘƤ ƝƔȴ ƦȺ ƩƘʎƣƘ ƝƔȴ ƦȺ ƛƘư, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜ ƦȮƤ ƛƘƏƤ, ƦȲƟ ŸƑμƚƦƣƔƟ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ žƮƣƚƟ; źonar. 1758, 4 2 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 5. 778 1 lm. deest in r et in V quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 977b copulet; (ǲƗƘƥƛƘ n.) R; (ƦȻƗƘ n.) V ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƛƚƞƧƝʬƟ om. V ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ] ƾƟƦȴ ƦʬƟ (Ʀơʝ G) r ƛƚƞƧƝʬƟ] ƛ. ƝƔȴ Ʀơʝ ƘǮƢƘʎƟ ƦƏƥƗƘ (ƦƚƗ R) r ƾƣƥƘƟƜƝơʎƤ iterat L 2 ǆƦƦƜƝơʎƤ] ƦơʎƤ ǆƦ. Vrr ƨƚƥƜ Vrr 3 ƦưƗƘ R ƢƘƞƘƜȯƥƜƟ – ǿμơʎƔƜ om. R ǲƛμƔƛ’] ǲƛμƔƦ' G

977b ƦưƗƘ ƾƟƦȴ ƦƏƥƗƘ. L V r(GR) 1 ƦưƗƘ om. V; (ƦưƗƘ n.) V

ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ V

978 ȡ ƾƟƦȴ ƔǳƦƜƟƘƤ. L Gs.l. ȡ ƾƟƦȴ om. G

979–80 (ƦơʎƥƜƟ ǎƩƛƣơʎƤ …) ƢƣơƧƥƦƑƦƚƟ ƨƮƟơƧ: ƢƣơƐƥƦƚƥƔƟ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƨƮƟơƧ ƦʬƟ ǎƩƛƣʬƟ. L q(Ż) V G 1 lm. N supplevi: ƢƣơƧƥƦȳƦƚƟ ſ: deest in LHVG; (ƢƣơƧƥƦȳƦƚƟ n.) V quae verbo ƢƣơƐƥƦƚƥƔƟ anteposuit G legi nequeunt ƢƣơƐƥƦƚƥƔƟ] ǒƥƦƚƥƔƟ G: ǒƥƦƚƥƘƟ Ż

981 (ƦơƯƦƫ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƦƔƯƦƔƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

sch. 977a – sch. 995

231

990 ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơƯƦơƜƤ ǎƥƦƒƟ: ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ȏƢƘƣƦƘƛƔƧμƔƝȺƤ Ʀȶ ƦơƞμƚƣȶƟ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ƨƚƥȴƟ ȃƦƜ μƘƦȮ ƢƣơƖƟưƥƘƫƤ ƝƔȴ ƾƥƨƔƞƘƒƔƤ ƦȮ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ƗƘʎ ƝƔȴ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƝƔȴ ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ. L q(HŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơȹƦơƜƤ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơȹƦơƜƤ n.) R; (ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơȹƦơƜƤ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 990–1 ǎƟ – ƥȹμμƔƩơƤ ȏƢƘƣƦƘƛƔƧμƔƝȺƤ] ƦƘƛƔƧμƔƝȺƤ q ƦơƞμƚƣȶƟ] post ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƤ transp. Ÿ: post ƨƚƥȴƟ transp. Ż 2 ƾƥƨƔƞƘƒƔƤ] de sensu vide LSJ s.v. 3 3 ƝƔȴ (pr.) om. qG ƝƔȴ ƾƝơȹƘƜƟ om. Ÿ

992–3 (ƘǮ ƨƣƘƟʬƟ | ǎƦƯƖƩƔƟ'): ƘǮ ǎƨƣƮƟƘƜ. L 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

993 ǎƥʫƙƘƦ' ǀƟ ƦȲƟ ƘȎƞƏƕƘƜƔƟ: ơȎ ƥʫƙƘƜ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦȲƟ ƘȎƞƏƕƘƜƔƟ, ƾƞƞ' ǒƥƦƜ ƛƣƔƥƘʎƔ ƝƔȴ ʜƜƪơƝƒƟƗƧƟơƤ. L q(ŻŸ) V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex Lp (Lascaris): ǎƥʫƙƘƦ' ǂƟ ƨƚƥƜ ƦȲƟ ƘȎƞƏƕƘƜƔƟ L: ǎƦȹƖƩƔƟ' ƔȓƦƚ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ǎƦȹƖƩƔƟ' n.) R; (ǎƥʫƙƘƦ' ǀƟ n.) V; accuratiss. vv. 993–4 ǎƥʫƙƘƦ' ǀƟ – ƥʫƙƘƦƔƜ ơȎ] ƝƔȴ ơȎ V

995 ƦơƜơʝƦơƟ ƛƣƏƥơƤ ƔȎƦȳ ƛ' ǿƢƞƒƙɾ: ƞƒƔƟ ǎμƨƔƦƜƝʬƤ Ʀʭ ƛƣƏƥƘƜ ƨƚƥȴƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ǿƢƞƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ, ȟƤ μƚƗȰƟ ƾμƧƟƦƑƣƜơƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ǒƩơƧƥƔƟ Ǡ μƮƟơƟ ƛƣƏƥơƤ. L q(Ż) V r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƖȮƣ ƢȷƦ' ǎƝƕƞȱƪƔƥƔ ƀ: deest in HVR; (Ƣơʎ Ɩȯƣ ƢơƦ' n.) R; (ƛƣȯƥơƤ n.) V ƞƒƔƟ] μȲ ƞƒƔƟ Ż ǎμƨƔƦƜƝʬƤ L (cf. sch. Aesch. Eum. 42a ǎμƨƔƦƜƝʬƤ (cod. M recte: ǎμƨƔƟƦƜƝʬƤ G. Thompson, male), sch. Ar. Ach. 78, sch. Hom. Il. 2.267b2 etc): ǎμƨƔƟƦƜƝʬƤ ŻVR (coni. Lascaris): ǎƨƔƟƦƜƝʬƤ G: ǎƟƨƔƟƦƜƝʬƤ ƀ ƛƣƏƥƘƜ] ƛƣƔƥƘʎ r 2 ƔȎƦȲƟ (pr.) om. G μƚƗȰƟ] μƚƗȰ Ż ƾμƧƟƦȳƣƜơƟ om. r 3 ƛƣȯƥơƤ] Ʀȶ ƛ. Żr

232

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

997 ƖƧƟȲ μȰƟ ơȎƗ' ƾƟȳƣ: ƦƔʝƦƔ ƢƏƟƦƔ ȃμơƜƏ ǎƥƦƜ ƦơʎƤ ǎƟ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟɾŭ Ƙǲ ƦƜƤ ƢƔƣƔƕƏƞơƜ, ƘǲƥƘƦƔƜ ƦơʎƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƗƜƔƟơƑμƔƥƜ ƩƣƚƥƏμƘƟơƟ ƆơƨơƝƞƐƔ. L q(HŸs.l.) V r(GMR) 1 ǎƟ ǆƟƦƜƖȷƟɾ: vv. 61 sqq. 1 lm.] ơȎƝ ƘǮƥơƣɲƤ ƀ: deest in qVGR; (ơȎƝ ƘǮƥơƣɲƤ n.) R; (ơȎƗ' ƾƟȲƣ n.) V ǎƟ] ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƀR: om. G Ƙǲ] ƝƔȴ Ƙǲ qr: ƘǮ <Ɨȱ> Papageorgiou: ƘǮ <Ɩȯƣ> Wansink 54 ‘si quid addendum sit’ 2 ƢƔƣƔƕƏƞơƜ] ƾƟƦƜƕƏƞƞơƜ r ƦơʎƤ] Ʀʭ q ƦơʎƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ] ƦơʎƤ ƔȎƦơʝ r ƩƣƚƥȯμƘƟơƟ] ƩƣưμƘƟơƟ r ƆơƨơƝƞƐơƧƤ r

998 ƥƛȱƟƘƜƤ: ƦơʝƦơ ƗƘƯƦƘƣơƟ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex M: deest in LVGR; (ƥƛȱƟƘƜƤ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 998 ƥƛȱƟƘƜƤ – ƩƘƣȵ

999 ƗƔƒμƫƟ Ɨȱ: ƦơʝƦơ ƦƣƒƦơƟ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ ƝƔȴ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƜƮƦƘƣơƟ, ȟƤ ơȎƗȰ ǎƝ ƢƔƣƔƗƮƠơƧ ƝƔƦơƣƛʬƥƔƜ ǟμɱƤ ƦȲƟ ǎƢƜƩƘƒƣƚƥƜƟ ƘǮƝȷƤ, ƦʀƤ ƦƯƩƚƤ μȲ ƥƧƞƞƔμƕƔƟơμƐƟƚƤ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. ex LM: ƗƔȵμƫƟ V: deest in GR; (ƗƔȵμƫƟ n.) VR; accuratiss. vv. 999–1000 ƗƔƒμƫƟ – ǒƣƩƘƦƔƜ ƦơʝƦơ ƦƣȵƦơƟ] Ʀƣ. Ʀ. V ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ om. r ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƟ r 3 ƥƧƞƞƔμƕƔƟơμƐƟƚƤ] ƥƧμƕƔƞƞơμƐƟƚƤ r

1000 (ƾƢơƣƣƘʎ): ǎƞƔƦƦơʝƦƔƜ, μƔƣƔƒƟƘƦƔƜ. L q(Ż) V r(GMR) 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƾƢơƣƣƘʎ s./n.) L/V; (ǟμʎƟ Ɨ' ƾƢơƣƣƘʎ n.) R Ʀơʝ ǎƞ. Ż

ǎƞƔƦƦơʝƦƔƜ] ƾƟƦȴ

1005a1 ƞƯƘƜ ƖȮƣ ǟμɱƤ ơȎƗƐƟ: ơȎ ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎ ƖȮƣ ǟμʎƟ, ƨƚƥƒƟŭ ơȎƝ ƾƢƔƞƞƏƥƥƘƜ ƦʬƟ ƝƔƝʬƟ. L V r(GMR) 1 ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎ: cf. sch. Eur. Alc. 628 (ad ƞƯƘƜƟ) ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎƟ; etiam sch. Eur. Med. 566, 1362 et Hipp. 441 ubi ƞƯƘƜ per ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎ explanatur; Hesych. ƞ 1358 ƞ Ư Ƙ Ɯ · ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎ …; Ɔ ƞ 160 ƞƯƘƜŭ ƞƧƥƜƦƘƞƘʎ = Su. ƞ 790

233

sch. 997 – sch. 1007–8b

1 lm. deest in Vrr quippe qui hoc sch. scholio 1005a2 continuent (ǂƞƞƫƤ) 2 ƾƢƔƞƞƏƦƦƘƜ r

ơȎƝ] ơȎƗȰ r

1005a2 (ƞƯƘƜ ƖȮƣ ǟμɱƤ ơȎƗƐƟ): ƾƟƦȴ ơȎƗȰƟ ǟμɱƤ ǎƝƞƯƥƘƦƔƜ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. addidi; (ƞȹƘƜ ƖȮƣ n.) R; (1005 n.) V ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ V: om. r ơȎƗȰƟ] ơȎƗȰ G

1006 ƗƧƥƝƞƘʬƤ ƛƔƟƘʎƟ: ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ Ɨƚƞơʎ Ʀȶ μƘƦ' ƔǮƥƩƣɱƤ ƦƜμƫƣƒƔƤ ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟŭ ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ μȲ μȰƟ ƗȲ ƝƔƛƔƣʭ ƛƔƟƏƦʪ ƾƢȶ ƛƧμȶƟ ǏƞơƒμƚƟ. L V r(GMR) 2 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Od. 22. 462 1 lm. deest in V et in r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 1007–8b coniungat (ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ ƗȰ μƘƦ' om. V 2 ƝƔȴ – fin. om. VƀR 3 μȰƟ G MR); (ȃƦƔƟ ƛƔƟƘʎƟ n.) V (compendiose): μƘ L ƗȲ Lp.c.G: ƗƘʎ La.c.

1007–8a ƾƞƞ' ȃƦƔƟ ƛƔƟƘʎƟ | ƩƣɿƙƫƟ: ȃƣƔ ȃƦƜ ƦơʝƦơ Ɨƚƞơʎ Ʀȶ ƗƧƥƝƞƘʬƤ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ƕƐƠƜƟ (sic) ƝƔƞȲƟ M: deest in GR; (ƕȯƠƜƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1007–8 ƾƞƞ' ȃƦƔƟ – ƞƔƕƘʎƟ ȃƦƜ ƦơʝƦơ Ɨƚƞơʎ om. r

1007–8b (ơȎ Ɩȯƣ –) ƘǴƦƔ μƚƗȰ ƦơʝƦ' ǒƩɾ: ơȎ Ʀȶ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƏƦơƧ ƗƘƜƟƮƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ, ƾƞƞ', ȃƦƔƟ ǎƢƜƛƧμʬƟ ƦƜƤ ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟ, ȣƥƦƘ ƦȮƤ ƢƔƣơƯƥƔƤ ƝơƞƏƥƘƜƤ ǎƝƨƧƖƘʎƟ, ƦƮƦƘ μƚƗȰ ƦơƯƦơƧ ƦƯƩɾ. ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ơȔƟ ƢƘƜƥƮμƘƛƔ, ȥƟ ǿ ƛƏƟƔƦơƤ ƔǯƣƘƦưƦƘƣơƤ. L V r(GMR) 1 lm. L supplevi: deest in Vrr; (ǒƩɾ ƞƔƕƘʎƟ n.) V 3 ƝơƞƏƥƘƜƤ om. G μƚƗȰ ƦơȹƦơƧ] ƗȰ μȲ ƦơʝƦơ V

2 ǎƥƦƜƟ post ƾƞƞ' transp. V

234

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1007 (ƛƔƟƘʎƟ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ Ʀȶ ƝƔƞʬƤ. Ls.l. r(GMR) 1 lm. addidi (ad ƛƔƟƘʎƟ alt. pertinet sch.) ƞƘȵƢƘƜ om. r

1013 (ƾƞƞȯ): ǎƟ ȏƢƘƣƕƔƦʭ. L 1 lm. addidi

1014 ƘǮƝȯƛƘƜƟ: ȏƢơƩƫƣƘʎƟ, ȏƢƘȵƝƘƜƟ. Su. II 523, 11 (ƘƜ 60) cf. sch. OC 1178 ƘǮƝƏƛƘƜƟ (Papageorgiou: ƘǮƝƔƛƘʎƟ de Marco)] ƢƔƣƔƖưƖƫƤ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƘǲƝƘƜƟ

1018a1 ǁ 'ƢƚƖƖƘƞƞƮμƚƟ: ƾƟƦȴ ǁ ǞƠƒơƧƟ. L V r(GR) cf. Thom. Mag. Ecl. 143, 3–8 …ǎƢƔƖƖƐƞƞơμƔƜ ƗȰ ȟƤ ǎƢƜƦơƢơƞȸ μȰƟ Ʀȶ ȏƢƜƥƩƟơʝμƔƜ, ƥƢƔƟƒƫƤ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ƔǮƦʬ. ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ‘ƝƔƞʬƤ ɐƗƚ ƥ’ ƾƢơƣƣƒƪơƧƥƔƟ, ǁ 'ƢƚƖƖƘƜƞƏμƚƟ’, ǢƖơƧƟ ǁ ɐƦơƧƟ; AG I 258, 26 Bk. ǖƢƑƖƖƘƞƞƘƟ: ƢƔƣƘƝƘƞƘƯƘƦơ, ƢƣơƥƐƦƦƔƦƘƟ. ƞƐƖƘƦƔƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƛƚƦƜƝʬƤ. 1 lm. deest in Vrr; (ƾƟƦƜȯƙƫ n.) R; (ƿƢƚƖƖƘƞƞȷμƚƟ n.) V ƢƔƣƔƝƐƝƞƚƝƔ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǞƠȵơƧƟ Vrr

ƾƟƦȴ ǁ ǞƠȵơƧƟ] ǁ

1018a2 (ǁ 'ƢƚƖƖƘƞƞƮμƚƟ): Ʀȶ [ƗȰ] ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞƘʎƟ ǎƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƘƥƛƔƒ ƨƚƥƜƟ. L V r(GR) 1 ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞƘʎƟ: cf. Hesych. Ƙ 4531 ǎƢƚƖƖƘƞƞƮμƚƟ: ƢƔƣƘƝƏƞơƧƟ. ǎƢƐƥƦƘƞƞơƟ. ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ (1018) 1 haec a sch. pr. separavi lm. addidi ƗȰ delevi ƢƔƣƔƝƔƞƘʎƟ] Ƣ. ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ Vrr ǎƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƘƥƛƔƜ haesitans scripsi: ǎƢƔƖƖȱƞƞƘƜƟ Brunck1, fortasse recte: ƾƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƘƜƟ Lrr: ƾƢƔƖƖƐƞƘƜƟ V ƨƚƥƜƟ] ƨƔƥƜƟ temptavit Papageorgiou

235

sch. 1007 – sch. 1028

1019a ƾƞƞ' ƔȎƦȷƩƘƜƣȵ μơƜ: ƢƔƣƔƦƑƣƘƜ ƝƾƟƛƏƗƘ ƦȲƟ ƘȎƦơƞμƒƔƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƟ ǆƟƦƜƖƮƟɾ. L V r(GR) 2 ǆƟƦƜƖȷƟɾ: vv. 45–6 1 lm. ex N: deest in LVrr; (ƾƞƞ' ƔȎƦȷƩƘƜƣȵ μơƜ n.) R; (1019 n.) V; ƢƔƣƔƦƘƦƚƣȳƝƘƜ Vrr ƝƾƟƛȯƗƘ] ƝƾƟƦƔʝƛƔ V: ƝƔȴ ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ r

ƢƔƣƔƦƑƣƘƜ]

1019b (ƾƞƞ' ƔȎƦȷƩƘƜƣȵ μơƜ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜŭ ƾƞƞ' ơȎƗȰƟ ǥƥƥƮƟ μơƜ. L 1 lm. addidi Ɩƣ. L

1026 ƘǮƝȶƤ ƖȮƣ ǎƖƩƘƜƣơʝƟƦƔ: ƘǮƝȶƤ ƖȮƣ ƦȶƟ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƢơƜƘʎƟ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣơʝƟƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƢƏƥƩƘƜƟ ƝƔƝʬƤŭ ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ ƄƜƟƗƔƣƜƝȶƟ

ǎƢƘȴ ʜƐƙơƟƦƏ ƦƜ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƛƘʎƟ ǒơƜƝƘƟ. L V r(GMR) Su. II 525, 7 (ƘƜ 83) 3–4 Pi. N 4. 31–2; cf. sch. Pi. N 4 50a 1 lm. ex NF: deest in LVrr; (ƘǮƝȶƤ ƖȮƣ n.) R; (1026 n.) V; accuratiss. v. 1026 ƘǮƝȶƤ – ƦȶƟ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƢơƜƘʎƟ om. Su. ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣơʝƟƦƔ] ǎƖƩƘƜƣơʝƟƦƔ Su. 2 ƢƏƥƩƘƜƟ ƝƔƝʬƤ] ƢƣȯƥƥƘƜƟ Ɲ. VSu.: Ɲ. ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜƟ r ƄƜƟƗƔƣƜƝȶƟ] ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ƄƜƟƗƔƣƜƝȶƟ VSu. 3–4 ǎƢƘȴ (om. Su.) ʜƐƙơƟƦƔ VrrSu.Lpp.c. (ex ipso Pindaro reposuit iam Heath 24): ǎƢƚƣƘƏƙơƟƦƔ LLpa.c. 4 ǒơƜƝƘƟ] ƝƔƝȶƟ Su.

ƝƔƝʬƤ

1028 ƩȢƦƔƟ ƘȔ ƞȱƖɾƤ: ơǵơƟ ǒƥƦƔƜ ƝƔƜƣȷƤ, ȃƦƘ μƘ ƘȎƨƚμƑƥƘƜƤ. L V r(G) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: deest in LVG; (ƾƟȱƠơμƔƜ n.) V

236

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1036 ƾƦƜμȵƔƤ μȰƟ ơȒ: ơȎƝ ƾƦƜμƏƙƫ ƥƘ, ƾƞƞȮ ƢƣơƟơơʝμƔƒ ƥơƧ. L r(Gƀ) 1 lm. ex ƁPa: deest in Lƀ et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); accuratiss. v. 1036 ƾƦƜμȵƔƤ – ƥơʝ ante ơȎƝ add. ơǵơƟ G ƥƘ] ƥơʝ r

1039a1 Ǥ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ ƘȔ ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ: ƗƘƜƟȶƟ ǎμȰ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ ƗơƝƘʎƟ ǎƠƔμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƟ. L V r(G) 1 lm.] Ǥ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ ƀ: deest in VG; (ƗƘƜƟȶƟ n.) V; accuratiss. v. 1039 Ǥ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ – ǎƠƔμƔƣƦȯƟƘƜƟ ƗơƝƘʎƟ om. VG

1039a2 (Ǥ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ ƘȔ ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ): ǎƢƘȴ ǟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƞƐƖƘƜ, ƗơƝƘʎ ƗȰ ƿμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƟ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μȲ ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜƟ ƦȮ ƗƒƝƔƜƔ ȏƢȰƣ ǎƝƗƜƝƒƔƤ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȷƤ, ƢƣȶƤ ƦơʝƦƮ ƨƚƥƜƟ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔŭ ƗƘƜƟƮƟ ǎƥƦƜ ƥƯμƨơƣƔ ƗơƝơʝƥƔƟ ƥƧμƕơƧƞƘƯƘƜƟ ǂƗƜƝƔ ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜƟ ƝƔȴ ƿμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƟ. ȃƢƘƣ ǟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƘǮƤ 5 ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ƦƣƐƢƘƜ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǏƠʀƤ ƥƦƒƩʪ. L V ƀ r(G) 5 ǏƠʀƤ ƥƦȵƩʪ: v. 1040 1–5 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta (ǂƞƞƫƤŭ ǎƢƘȴ V: ƾƞƞ' ǎƢƘȴ G: ǎƢƘȴ ƗȰ L: ǎƢƘƜƗȲ ƀ) separatim posui; nam ‘a duobus interpretibus haec profecta sunt; prior enim (sch. 1039a1) ƞƐƖơƧƥƔƟ Electrae tribuit, alter (sch. 1039a2), contra, Chrysothemi’ de Marco 186 1 lm. addidi; accuratiss. v. 1039 Ǥ ƗƘƜƟȶƟ – ǎƠƔμƔƣƦȯƟƘƜƟ 2 ǎƝƗƜƝƒƔƤ] ǎƝƗƜƝȳƥƘƫƤ ƀ 3 ǎƥƦƜ] ǎƥ. ơȔƟ G ƥƧμƨơƣȮ V ƗơƝơʝƥƔƟ] ƢƣơƥƗơƝơʝƥƔƟ V: ƗơƝơʝƥƔ G 4 verba ƿμƔƣƦȯƟƘƜƟ. ȃƢƘƣ ǟ ƊƣƧƥƮƛƘμƜƤ ƘǮƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ƦƣȱƢƘƜ ita disposuerunt VG: ƿμƔƣƦȯƟƘƜƟ. ȃƢƘƣ ǟ Ɗƣ. μƜƥƘʎ (de μƜƥƘʎ non constat in V), ǟ Ǧƞ. ƦƣȱƢƘƜ ȃƢƘƣ] ȃƢơƧ ƀ

1040 ƘǲƣƚƝƔƤ ǾƣƛʬƤ ɣ ƥȸ ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜƥƔƜ ƝƔƝʭ: Ʀȶ ƿμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƟ. ƞƐƖơƧƥƔ ƖȮƣ ƗƒƝƔƜƔ ƝƔȴ ƘȎƢƣƘƢʀ ǎƟ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƿμƔƣƦƏƟƘƜƤŭ ƾƞƧƥƜƦƘƞʀ ƖȮƣ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣƘʎƤ ƢơƜƘʎƟ. L V M r(G) 1 lm. deest in ƀ et in VG quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungant (ǂƞƞƫƤ) Ʀȶ] Ʀʭ 2 ƘȎƢƣƘƢʀ] ƾƢƣƘƢʀ G Lascaris 1–2 ƞƐƖơƧƥƔ ƖȮƣ] ƞȱƖƩơƧƥƔ (sic) ơȔƟ ǒƩƘƜƟ G 3 ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣƘʎƤ] ǎƢƜƩƔƣƘʎƤ ƀ ƢơƜƘʎƟ om. V

sch. 1036 – sch. 1056–7

237

1042 (ƕƞȯƕƚƟ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƝƔƦƔƗȵƝƚƟ. Su. II 98, 6 (Ɨ 1099) 1 lm. addidi

1044 ƾƞƞ' ƘǮ ƢơƜƑƥƘƜƤ ƦƔʝƦ': ơǵơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƗƘƜƟơʎƤ ƢƘƣƜƢƘƥơʝƥƔ ǎƢƔƜƟƐƥƘƜƤ μƘ ƥƯμƨơƣƏ ƥơƜ ƥƧμƕơƧƞƘƯƥƔƥƔƟ. L q(Ÿs.l.) r(Gƀ) 1 lm.] ƾƞƞ' ƘǮ ƢơƜȳƥƘƜƤ M: deest in Ÿ et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. copulet (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ); accuratiss. ƾƞƞ' ƘǮ – ǎƢƔƜƟȱƥƘƜƤ ǎμȱ 2 ƥơƜ om. M ƥƧμƕơƧƞƘƯơƧƥƔƟ r

1046 (ƢƏƞƜƟ): ƘǮƤ ƦơȎƢƒƥƫ, ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ. Ls.l. 1 ƘǮƤ ƦơȎƢƒƥƫ: cf. ŵristar. fr. 149 et locos ibi laudatos ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ: cf. sch. Tr. 358a.1 ubi ǒμƢƔƞƜƟ per ƦƾƟƔƟƦƒƔ explicatur; sch. Aesch. Th. 1040f ƢƏƞƜƟ] ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1047 ǒƩƛƜơƟ: ǎƩƛƣȷƦƔƦơƟ. Su. II 495, 8 (Ƙ 4020), unde Zonar. 940, 9

1052 (μƘƛƐƪơμƔƜ): ƾƟƦȴ ƝơƜƟƫƟƑƥƫ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1056–7 (ȃƦƔƟ – ǒƢƚ): ƢƔƣȮ Ʀȶ ȇμƚƣƜƝȶƟ ʜƘƩƛȰƟ ƗƐ ƦƘ ƟƑƢƜơƤ ǒƖƟƫ. L 1 Ʀȶ ȋμƚƣƜƝȷƟ: Il. 17. 32 1 lm. addidi

238

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1058 Ʀƒ ƦơȸƤ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ ƨƣơƟƜμƫƦƏƦơƧƤ: Ʀȶ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ Ǡ ƦƮƢơƧ Ǡ ƩƣƮƟơƧ ǎƥƦƒƟŭ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ ǎƝ ƨƯƥƘƫƤ Ǡ ƦơȸƤ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƾƐƣƜ. ơǮƝƘʎơƟ ƗȰ Ʀʭ Ʃơƣʭ ƾƖƔƟƔƝƦơʝƟƦƜ ǎƢȴ Ʀʁ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣɯ ƦȶƟ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʬƟ ƾƞƮƖƫƟ ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ ƢƔƣƔƞƔƕƘʎƟ ƞƮƖơƟ ȃƦƜ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƞƮƖơƜƤ ƙʫơƜƤ ƨƧƥƜƝƑ ƦƒƤ ǎƥƦƜ ƨƜƞơ5 ƥƦơƣƖƒƔ, ǟ ƗȰ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔ ǂƥƦơƣƖơƤ. L r(GMR) 1 Ʀȶ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ – 2 ǎƥƦȵƟ: cf. Su. I 230, 3 (Ɣ 2585) ǂƟƫƛƘƟ: ǎƝ ƦƮƢơƧ Ǡ ƩƣƮƟơƧ 2 ǂƟƫƛƘƟ – ƾȱƣƜ: Su. I 230, 6 (Ɣ 2585) 1 lm. deest in r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 1058–62 copulet (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ G: ǂƞƞƫƤ MR); accuratiss. vv. 1058–62 Ʀƒ – ƘȓƣƫƥƜ Ʀȶ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ – 2 ǎƥƦȴƟ] fortasse scholium sui iuris 2 Ʃơƣʭ om. M 4 ƢƔƣƔƞƔƕƘʎƟ G (coni. Lascaris): ƢƘƣƜƞƔƕƘʎƟ LMR

1058–62 (Ʀƒ – ƘȓƣƫƥƜ): Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤŭ Ʀƒ ƦơȸƤ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ ƨƣơƟƜμƫƦƏƦơƧƤ ơǮƫƟơȸƤ ǿƣʬƟƦƘƤ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƝƚƗơμƐƟơƧƤ ƦʀƤ ƦƣơƨʀƤ, ƾƨ' ȃƦƫƟ ƦƘ ǀƟ ƕƞƏƥƦƫƥƜ ƝƔȴ ƾƨ' ȥƟ ǀƟ ȂƟƚƥƜƟ ƘȓƣƫƥƜƟ. ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ƦƐƝƟƫƟ ƦȮ ƗƯơ, ƾƨ' ȥƟ Ʀ' ƔȎƦȮ ƕƞƏƥƦƫƥƜ, ƦȮ ƦƐƝƟƔ, ƾƨ' ȥƟ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ȂƟƚƥƜƟ ƘȓƣƫƥƜƟ. ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ ƗȰ 5 ơǯ ƢƘƞƔƣƖơȴ ƖƘƖƚƣƔƝƮƦƔƤ ƦơȸƤ ƖơƟƘʎƤ ƕƔƥƦƏƙƘƜƟ ƦơʎƤ ƢƦƘƣơʎƤ, ǎƠ ȃƦơƧ ƢƦƘƣơƨƧƑƥƫƥƜƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 4 ƞȱƖơƟƦƔƜ ƗȰ – fin.: cf. Arist. HA 615b.23 1–6 haec cum sch. pr. c. in L (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǏƠʀƤ), sed ab alio interprete profecta sunt; prior enim scholiasta (sch. 1058) ơǮƫƟơȹƤ de Clytaemnestra accepit, alter (sch. 1058–62) de liberis suis 1 lm. addidi Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ G: Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǏƠʀƤ L: om. ŸMR Ʀȵ] Ʀȶ ƀ 2 ȃƦƫƟ] ȥƟ Ÿr ƦƘ om. r 3 ƕƞƏƥƦƫƥƜ scripsi: ƕƞƔƥƦʬƥƜ codd. (librarii ŶſŵƆƇƌƆŽ pro coniunctivo praesentis verbi ƕƞƔƥƦƏƫ interpretati sunt (cf. sch. Pi. P. 4 113a) ǀƟ om. Ÿr ǎƢȴ – 4 ƘȓƣƫƥƜƟ om. r propter homoeoteleuton 3 Ɨȹơ] ƕŪ Ÿ 4 ƔȎƦȮ Neue 167: ƔȎƦơʎƤ codd.: ƔȎƦơȴ Papageorgiou ƕƞƏƥƦƫƥƜ scripsi: ƕƞƔƥƦʬƥƜ codd. (vide 3) ƞƐƖơƟƦƔƜ ƗȰ] ƾƞƞƫƤŭ ƞȱƖơƟƦƔƜ r 4–5 ƞȱƖơƟƦƔƜ ƗȰ ... ƕƔƥƦȯƙƘƜƟ] ǂƞƞƫƤ .... ƕƔƥƦȯƙơƧƥƜ Ÿ 5 ǎƠ Wolff: ǓƫƤ codd. ȃƦơƧ NFWaOŸr (coni. Stephanus 127): ȃƢơƧ L

1062 [ƦȯƗ' ơȎƝ ǎƢ' ǲƥƔƤ] ƦƘƞơʝμƘƟ: ƝƔƞʬƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƝƔȴ ǏƔƧƦȶƟ ƥƧƖƝƔƦƔƞƐƖƘƜ, ǳƟƔ μȲ ƗơƝʁ ƨơƣƦƜƝȶƤ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ, ƝƔƛ' ȥƟ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ ƢƘƢơƒƚƦƔƜ. L r(GR)

239

sch. 1058 – sch. 1069a

1 lm. L decurtavi: deest in r ƝƔȴ] ƦơȸƤ ǂƟƫƛƘƟ Ɲ. R 2 ƥƧƖƝƔƦƔƞƐƖƘƜ] ƝƔƦƔƞƐƖƘƜ G ƗơƝƘʎ r ƨơƣƦƜƝȶƤ] ƨơƣƦƜƝȶƟ R: ƨƣƜƝƦȶƟ G ƝƔƛ' ȥƟ] ƛƔƟȺƟ G

1065 (ƗƔƣȶƟ) ơȎƝ ƾƢƮƟƚƦơƜ: ƾƟƦȴ ơȎƝ ǎƢȴ Ƣơƞȸ ǒƥơƟƦƔƜ ƾƛʭơƜ ơǯ ƢƘƣȴ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ƝƔȴ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GR) 1 ǎƢȴ ƢơƞƯ: cf. Hesych. Ɨ 271 ƗƔƣƮƟŭ μƔƝƣȶƟ ƩƣƮƟơƟ, ƝƔȴ ǎƢƜƢơƞƯ (Eur. Or. 55) 1 lm. L supplevi: deest in Ÿr ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ Ÿr 2 ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ] ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖ. G post žƞƧƦ. add. ƩƫƣȴƤ ƢȷƟơƧ Ÿ

ƾƛʭơƜ] ƾƖƔƛơȴ r: om. Ÿ

1066 Ȥ ƩƛơƟƒƔ [ƕƣơƦơʎƥƜƟ]: ơȎ ƦȲƟ ǎƢƒƖƘƜƮƟ ƨƚƥƜƟ ƾƞƞȮ ƦȲƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƖʀƤ ƩƫƣʀƥƔƜ ƗƧƟƔμƐƟƚƟ. L r(G) 1 ǎƢȵƖƘƜơƟ: cf. Hesych. Ʃ 445 ƩƛơƟƒƫƟŭ ǎƢƜƖƘƒƫƟ; Ɔ Ʃ 76 ƩƛơƟƒƫƟŭ ǎƢƜƖƘƒƫƟ = Su. Ʃ 329; Zonar. 1852, 19 ƩƛơƟƒƔŭ ǟ ǎƢƒƖƘƜơƤ 1 lm. L decurtavi: deest in G

1068–9 (ƦơʎƤ ǒƟƘƣƛ') ǆƦƣƘƒƗƔƜƤ: Ǡ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ Ǡ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟŭ ƗơƝơʝƥƜ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƦƘƛƟƚƝƐƟƔƜ. L r(G) 1 lm. Wa supplevi: deest in LG

2 ƝƔȴ om. L

1069a ƾƩƮƣƘƧƦƔ: ǎƨ' ơǵƤ ơȎƝ ǂƟ ƦƜƤ ƩơƣƘƯƥƘƜƘ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. ex M: ƾƩȷƣƘƧƦƔ ƨƐƣơƧƥ’ ǾƟƘƒƗƚ L: deest in GR; (ƾƩȷƣƘƧƦƔ n.) R

240

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1069b (ƾƩȷƣƘƧƦƔ ƨƐƣơƧƥ’ ǾƟƘƒƗƚ): ƦȮ ƢƐƟƛƜμƔ ǾƟƘƒƗƚŭ <ǾƟƘƒƗƚ ƗƐ>, ǎƢƘƜƗȲ ȂƟƘƜƗơƤ ǤƟ Ʀʁ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣɯ ǎƢƜƩƔƒƣƘƜƟ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ. L r(GMR) 1–2 haec cum sch. pr. coniuncta (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ G: ǂƞƞƫƤ MR: ǾƟƘƒƗƚ ƗȰ ƦȮ ƢƐƟƛƜμƔ ǾƟƘƒƗƚ L) separatim posui 1 lm. addidi ǾƟƘƒƗƚ Ɨȱ addidi 2 ǎƢƘƜƗȲ] ǎƢƘȴ r ȆƣƐƥƦɾ] ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƛƔƟƏƦʪ r

1070 ȃƦƜ ƥƨƒƥƜƟ ǢƗƚ: ǟ ƾƢƮƦƔƥƜƤ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟŭ ǂƖƖƘƜƞơƟ ơȔƟ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ȃƦƜ ƦȮ ƝƔƦ' ơǴƝơƟ ƟƘƟƮƥƚƝƘƟ ƝƔȴ ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜƟ ȏƖƜʀ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] ȃƦƜ ƥƨȵƥƜƟ M: deest in GR; (ȃƦƜ ƥƨȵƥƜƟ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 1070 ȃƦƜ – ƟơƥƘʎ ǂƖƖƘƜƞơƟ] ƾƢƏƖƖƘƜƞơƟ r 2 ƝƔȴ ơȎƝ] ƝơȎƝ r

1071–4 (ƦȮ ƗȰ –) ơȎƝƐƦ' ǎƠƜƥơʝƦƔƜ (– ƗƜƔȵƦɯ): ơȎƝƐƦƜ ǲƥƔ ƨƣơƟơʝƥƜƟ ȟƤ ǎƟ ƨƜƞƒɯ ƗƜƔƜƦưμƘƟƔƜ, ƾƞƞȮ ƥƦƔƥƜƏƙơƧƥƜ ƢƣȶƤ ƾƞƞƑƞƔƤ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. L supplevi: ƗƜƢƞʀ ƨȹƞơƢƜƤ ƀ: deest in ŸGR; (ƗƜƢƞʀ n.) R

1074 [ƢƣƮƗơƦơƤ ƗȰ] μƮƟƔ ƥƔƞƘƯƘƜ: ƝƜƟƗƧƟƘƯƘƜ, ǎƝ μƘƦƔƨơƣɱƤ ƦʬƟ ƟƚʬƟ. μƮƟƚ ƗȰ ƔȎƦȲ ǎƨ' ǏƔƧƦʀƤ ƩƫƣȴƤ ƾƖƝƯƣƔƤ. L r(G) 1 ǎƝ – 2 ƟƚʬƟ: cf. sch. OT 23 1 lm. L decurtavi: deest in G 2 ƔȎƦȲ Brunck1 et Kruytbosch 83: ƔȓƦƚ L (hoc commendat Bernardakis 47 iniuria): ƔȎƦʀ G ƩƫƣȴƤ om. G ƾƖƝƯƣƔƤ] ǎƖƝƯƣƔƤ ƥƔƞƘȹƘƜ G

1075–6a1 ƦȶƟ ƾƘȴ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ (ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƥƦƘƟƏƩơƧƥ’): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƢƘƣƒŭ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƥƦƘƟƏƩơƧƥƔ, ȟƤ Ʀȶ ȇμƚƣƜƝȶƟ

ƦʬƟ ƢƏƟƦƫƟ ơȎ ƦƮƥƥơƟ ǾƗƯƣơμƔƜ ƾƩƟƯμƘƟƮƤ ƢƘƣ ȟƤ ǏƟƮƤ. L r(G)

sch. 1069b – sch. 1078

cf. sch. Hom. Il. 17. 459b

241

2 Ʀȶ ȇμƚƣƜƝȶƟ: Il. 22.424–5

1 lm. L supplevi: deest in G quippe qui hoc sch. scholio 1075–6a2 continuet (ǂƞƞƫƤ) ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƢƘƣȴ om. G 3 ƦƮƥƥơƟ] ƦƮƥơƟ G

1075–6a2 (ƦȶƟ ƾƘȴ ƢƔƦƣƮƤ ƗƘƜƞƔƒƔ ƥƦƘƟƏƩơƧƥ’): Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤŭ ƾƘȴ ƦȶƟ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ μƮƣơƟ ƥƦƘƟƏƩơƧƥƔŭ Ǡ ƦȶƟ ƾƘȴ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƘȴ ƩƣƮƟơƟ. L r(GR) 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in L (Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǏƠʀƤ) 1 lm. addidi; (ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔ n.) R; auctorem scholii quod usque ad ƥƦƘƟȯƩơƧƥƔ extenditur pro ƦȶƟ ƾƘȴ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ legisse ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƾƘȴ μȷƣơƟ coni. Pauli 17 ƦȶƟ om. R 2 μƮƣơƟ om. r Ǡ – fin.] haec verba alii interpreti tribuens deleto Ǡ ab praecedentibus seiunxit Pauli l.c. ƾƘȴ (pr.)] ƾƘȴ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ r

1075 (ƢƔƦƣȷƤ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ǟ ƢƘƣƒ. L r(GR) 1 lm. addidi

1078 (ơȒƦƘ ƦƜ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƘʎƟ) ƢƣơμƚƛȳƤ: ƢƣƮƟơƜƔƟ ơȎƝ ǒƩơƧƥƔ Ʀơʝ μȲ ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƾƨƘƜƗơʝƥƔ ƦʀƤ ǮƗƒƔƤ ƪƧƩʀƤ ƝƔȴ ʜƜƪơƝƜƟƗƧƟơʝƥƔ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 ƢƣƮƟơƜƔƟ: cf. sch. Eur. Alc. 1054; Hec. 795; Hesych. Ƣ 3575; Ɔ Ƣ 643; Phot. 455, 21; Su. Ƣ 2508 1 lm. ƀ supplevi: deest in LŸGR; (ơȒƦƘ ƦƜ Ʀơʝ n.) R 2 ƪƧƩʀƤ Heath 24 prob. Ŷernardakis 47; probat etiam Nauck 422 coll. El. 980: ƦȹƩƚƤ codd.

242

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1079 ƦƮ ƦƘ μȲ ƕƞƐƢƘƜƟ ǏƦơƒμƔ: ǏƦơƒμƚ ƝƔȴ ƦʀƤ ȂƪƘƫƤ ƥƦƐƣƘƥƛƔƜ, ƦơƧƦƐƥƦƜƟ ƾƢơƥƦƘƣƚƛʀƟƔƜ ƦʬƟ ǾμμƏƦƫƟ. ƾƟƦȴ ƝƔȴ ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟ ǏƦơƒμƚ ƝƔȴ ƙʬƥƔ ƝơƞƏƙƘƥƛƔƜŭ ƝƔȴ ƦơʝƦơ ƞƐƖƘƜ ƗƜƗƯμƚƟ ǖƣƜƟƯƟ. Ǡ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƏƦơƧ ƦȮ ƗƯơŭ ǏƦơƒμƚ μȲ ƕƞƐƢƘƜƟ ƔȎƦơȸƤ ƾƞƞ' ǎƟ ƥƝƮƦƘƜ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƏƦơƧ 5 ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƔȎƦʁ ǖƣƜƟƯƜ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƚ Ʀʭ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƜ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜ ƗƜƢƞʀ ǖƣƜƟƯƤ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƗƜƗȹμƔƟ ƀ: deest in ŸGR; (Ʀȷ ƦƘ μȲ n.) R; pars 3 ƾƟƦȴ ƝƔȴ – fin. ad vv. 1078–80 spectat ǏƦơȵμƚ – 3 ǖƣƜƟƯƟ om. M 2 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ GR ƝƔȴ (pr.)] Ʀơʝ Ÿ: om. GR ƾƢơƛƔƟƘʎƟ ǏƦơƒμƚ] ǏƦ. ƾƢ. GR ǏƦơȵμƚ – fin. om. Ÿ 3 ƝƔȴ om. GR ƗƜƗƯμƚƟ ǖƣƜƟȸƟ om. GR 4 ƦȮ om. M 5 ǖƣƜƟȹƘƜ L ƖƘƟơμȱƟƚ Ʀʭ ǆƖƔμȱμƟơƟƜ] ƖƘƟƮμƘƟơƤ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ r ȃ ǎƥƦƜ om. G ǖƣƜƟƟʝƤ R

1080 ƗƜƗƯμƔƟ … ǖƣƜƟȹƟ: ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ƝƔȴ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ. L V r(GM) 1 lm. scripsi: ƗƜƗƯμƚƟ V: deest in Lrr; (ƗƜƗȹμƔƟ s.) L verba ƞƐƖƘƜ ƗȰ initio scholii praeposuit V ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ] ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖ. V žƞƧƦƔƜμƟȳƥƦƣƔƟ] ƦȲƟ žƞ. V

1084 (ƟȻƟƧμƟơƤ): ƟưƟƧμƟơƤ ƦʀƤ ƘȎƝƞƘƒƔƤ ƛƐƞƫƟ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ. L r(GƀR) 1 ƟưƟƧμƟơƤ] ƟưƟƧμơƤ r

ƛȱƞƫƟ] ƛȱƞƘƜ vel ƛƐƞƘƜ <ƙʬƟ> Bernardakis 47

1085 ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ƥȹ: ơȓƦƫ ƝƔȴ ƥƯ, Ȥ ƢƔʎ, ƘǳƞơƧ ƦȶƟ ƔǮʬƟƔ ƢƏƖƝƞƔƧƦơƟ. ƝơƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ ƝƔȴ ƝơƜƟȶƟ ǎƢȴ ƢƔƟƦȶƤ ƔǮʬƟơƤ ǏƔƧƦʀƤ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] Ȥ ƢƔʎ ƢƔʎ L: deest in GR; accuratiss. vv. 1085–6 ȟƤ – ƘǳƞơƧ ơȓƦƫ om. r 2 ƝơƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ ƝƔȴ ƝơƜƟȶƟ] ƝơƜƟȶƟ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƚƟƘƝʀ r ƝƔȴ ƢƏƖƝƞƔƧƥƦơƟ r ƝơƜƟȶƟ post ƢȯƖƝƞƔƧƦơƟ (1) transp. Bernardakis ƝơƜƟȶƟ (alt.) – fin.] his verbis illustrare scholiastam quomodo adiectivum ƝơƜƟȷƤ sensum ƗƜƚƟƘƝȳƤ adsciscere possit vidit Wansink 58 “ǥcommunis’, inquit [scil. scholiasta], hic est ǥcontinuus’, quia est communis omnibus eius vitae diebus” ƔǮʬƟơƤ] ƔǮʬƟƔ G ǏƔƧƦʀƤ] ƔȎƦȲƟ r

1087–8 (Ʀȶ μȲ ƝƔƞȶƟ ƝƔƛơƢƞȵƥƔ-|ƥƔ): ƝƔƦƔƢơƞƘμƑƥƔƥƔ Ʀȶ ƔǮƥƩƣȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƟƜƝƑƥƔƥƔŭ ơǵơƟ ƦơȸƤ ǎƩƛƣơȸƤ ƝƔƦƔƖƫƟƜƥƔμƐƟƚ. L r(GMR)

sch. 1079 – sch. 1098a1

243

1 lm. addidi; (ƝƔƛơƢƞȵƥƔƥƔ s.) L; verbis ƝƔƛơƢƞƒƙƫ ƦƜ significationem armis subicio aliquid tribuit annotator ƝƔƦƔƢơƞƘμƑƥƔƥƔ] Ɲ. ƗȰ GR quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 1084 coniungant 1–2 Ʀȶ ƔǮƥƩƣȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƟƜƝȳƥƔƥƔ om. M propter homoeoteleuton 2 ƝƔƦƔƖƫƟƜƥƔμƐƟƚ] ƝƔƦƔƦƣơƢƫƥƔμƐƟƚ r

1095–6 ǁ ƗȰ μƐƖƜƥƦ' ǒƕƞƔ-| ƥƦƘ ƟƮμƜμƔ: ǁ ƗȰ ƨƧƥƜƝȮ ƝƔȴ μƐƖƜƥƦƔ ƟƮμƜμƔ ǒƕƞƔƥƦƘ, ƦơƯƦƫƟ ƾƢơƨƘƣơμƐƟƚƟ ƦȮ ǂƣƜƥƦƔ. L r(GMRbis) 1 lm. deest in r; (ƕƘƕʬƥƔƟ n.) Rii; accuratiss. vv. 1095–7 ǁ ƗȰ – ǂƣƜƥƦƔ 2 ǒƕƞƔƥƦƘ] ǒƕƞƔƢƦƘ Rbis: ǎƕƞȯƢƦƘƥƦƘ ƀ ƦơƯƦƫƟ] ƦơʝƦơ G: ƦơȹƦƫ ƀ: ƦơȹƦơƧ Rbis ƾƢơƨƘƣơμȱƟƚƟ Lascaris: ƾƢơƨƘƣơμƐƟƚ L: ƾƟƔƨƘƣơμƐƟƚ GMRbis ƦȮ ǂƣƜƥƦƔ om. Rii

1095–7 (ǁ Ɨȱ – ǎƣƜƥƦɲ Ʀɲ źƚƟȶƤ ƘȎƥƘƕƘȵɯ): Ǡ ǎƣƜƥƦɲ ƾμƨƚƣƒƥƦʪ Ʀʁ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒɯ Ʀʁ Ʀơʝ ŸƜȷƤŭ Ǡ ǎƣƜƥƦɲ Ʀʁ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒɯ, ɓ ǂƟ ƦƜƤ ǎƣƒƥƘƜƘƟ, ƾƟƦȴ ƢƘƣƜƥƢơƧƗƏƥƦʪ. ƢƣơƥƨƘƣơμƐƟƚƟ Ʀʁ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒɯ ƦȮ ƟƮμƜμƔ ƾƟƦȴ μƘƦȮ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒƔƤ ƢƣƏƦƦơƧƥƔƟ. L r(GMR) 1–4 haec a sch. pr. seiunxit de Marco 187; nam huius scholii auctor apud poetam ǎƣƜƥƦɲ pro ǂƣƜƥƦƔ legit 1 lm. addidi ǎƣƜƥƦɲ (alt.) Heath 24: ǎƣƜƥƦȮ LR: ƾƣƘƥƦȮ G: ǎƣƔƥƦɱ ƀ 2 ǎƣƜƥƦɲ Heath l.c.: ǎƣƜƥƦȮ L: ǎƣƔƥƦȮ r Ʀʁ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒɯ] ƦʀƤ ƘȎƥƘƕƘƒƔƤ r ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r 3 ƢƣơƥƨƘƣơμȱƟƚƟ] -μƐƟʪ G: -μȱƟƚ ƀ ƦȮ ƟȷμƜμƔ (ƦȮ μȲ ƟƮμƜμƔ G) post ƢƣƏƦƦơƧƥƔ (4) transp. r ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r μƘƦȮ om. r 4 ƢƣȯƦƦơƧƥƔƟ Lascaris: ƢƣƏƦƦơƧƥƔ codd.

1097 (ǂƣƜƥƦƔ Ʀɲ ŸƜȷƤ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ǂƣƜƥƦƔ Ʀɲ źƚƟƮƤ. L 1 lm. add. Elmsley Ɩƣ. L

ƾƣȵƥƦƔ ƦƔƙƚƟơ L

1098a1 Ǆƣ' Ȥ ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘƤ: ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƢƏƣƘƥƦƜƟ ƥȸƟ Ʀʭ ƄƧƞƏƗɾ ƝơμƒƙƫƟ ƦȮ ƞƘƒƪƔƟƔ ƦʬƟ ƞơƖơƢơƜơƧμƐƟƫƟ ǾƥƦʬƟ ǏƔƧƦơʝ. L q(Ÿ) r(GM) 1 lm. ex NF: deest in LŸGM ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ] ǿ Ȇƣ. ŸG ǿƥƦʬƟ] ȟƥƦʬƟ G: ƥƦʬƟ ƀ ǏƔƧƦơʝ] ƔȎƦơʝ ƀ

2 ƦʬƟ ƞơƖơƢơƜơƧμƐƟƫƟ om. G

244

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1098a2 Ǆƣ’, Ȥ ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘƤ: ƛƔƧμƔƥƦȲ ǟ ơǮƝơƟơμƒƔ Ʀơʝ ƢơƜƚƦơʝ μȲ ǃμƔ Ʀʁ ƾƢƔƖƖƘƞƒɯ Ʀơʝ ƛƔƟƏƦơƧ ƝơμƒƥƔƜ ƦȮ ƞƘƒƪƔƟƔ, ǳƟƔ ƘȒƞơƖơƤ ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ ƦʀƤ ƢƔƣƮƗơƧ ƖƐƟƚƦƔƜ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƝƔȴ ƢƔƣƔƧƦȮ ǿ ƾƟƔƖƟƫƣƜƥμȶƤ ƢƣȶƤ ƔȒƠƚƥƜƟ ƦơƧ ƢƏƛơƧƤ. L r(GM) 1 lm. ex M: deest in L et in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniungat (ǂƞƞƫƤ) ǟ om. r Ʀơʝ ƢơƜƚƦơʝ] ƦʀƤ ƢơƜȳƥƘƫƤ ƀ 1–2 Ʀʁ ƾƢƔƖƖƘƞȵɯ] Ʀʁ ǎƢƔƖƖƘƞƒɯ G: ƦʀƤ ƾƖƖƘƞȵƔƤ ƀ 3 Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ G ƢƔƣ' ƔȎƦȮ ƀ

1101 (ǯƥƦơƣʬ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ μƔƥƦƘƯƫ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ɩƣ. L

1102 (ƾƙƑμƜơƤ): ƾƞƚƛȲƤ ƝƔȴ ơȎƩ ȏƢƐƩƫƟ ƙƚμƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ƪƘƯƗơƧƤ. L q(Ÿ) Su. I 60, 14 (Ɣ 592) … Ǡ ǿ ƾƞƚƛȲƤ ƾƙƑμƜơƤ, ǿ μȲ ȏƢƐƩƫƟ ƙƚμƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ƢƏƛơƧƤ 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƾƙȳμƜơƤ s.) L

1117 ƘǲƢƘƣ ƦƜ ƝƞƔȵƘƜƤ: ƾƠƜơƢƒƥƦƫƤ ǂƖƔƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƥƝƞƚƣƮƤ ǎƥƦƜƟ, ơȎƩ ơǵơƟ ƗƘʎ ǂƖƖƘƞơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƝƔȴ ƥƧƟƔƩƛƮμƘƟơƟ ƦơʎƤ ƾƦƧƩƑμƔƥƜƟ ǒƥƛ' ȃƦƘ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex F: deest in LŸr; (ƘǲƢƘƣ ƦƜ ƝƞƔȵƘƜƤ s.) L; accuratiss. vv. 1117–8 ƘǲƢƘƣ – ƥƦȱƖơƟ ǂƖƔƟ om. Ÿ ȆƣȱƥƦƚƤ] ǿ Ȇƣ. ŸGƀ 2 ǒƥƛ' ȃƦƘ] ǒƛ' ȃƦƘ G: in initio sch. 1123 demigravit in M

1123 Ɨȷƛ', [ǣƦƜƤ ǎƥƦȵ]: ƘǮƝȶƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ǓƢƘƥƛƔƒ ƦƜƟƔƤŭ ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛʬƤ ƗȰ ƞƒƔƟ Ʀȶ ǣƦƜƤ ǎƥƦƒƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GM) 1 lm. F decurtavi: Ɨȷƛ' ǣƥƜƤ (sic) ƀ: deest in LŸG

sch. 1098a² – sch. 1137

245

1126 Ȥ ƨƜƞƦȯƦơƧ: ƞƔƕơʝƥƔ Ʀoʝ ƦƘƯƩơƧƤ ƨƚƥƒƟŭ ȏƢƘƣƨƧʬƤ ƗȰ ǒƩƘƜ Ʀʁ ƗƜƔƛƐƥƘƜ ƞƔƕơʝƥƔƟ ƝƔȴ ƕƔƥƦƏƙơƧƥƔƟ ƦȮ ǾƥƦɱ ǾƗƯƣƘƥƛƔƜ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1–2 ȏƢƘƣƨƧʬƤ ǒƩƘƜ Ʀʁ ƗƜƔƛȱƥƘƜ sqq.: cf. Aps. Rh. p. 321 Hammer 1 lm. deest in LŸGR; accuratiss. vv. 1126–7 Ȥ ƨƜƞƦȯƦơƧ – ƞơƜƢȷƟ Ʀơʝ ƦƘƯƩơƧƤ] Ʀȶ ƦƘʝƩơƤ r idque commendat Dindorf 131 ƨƚƥƒƟ post ƞƔƕơʝƥƔ transp. Ÿ ƗȰ ơm. M Ʀʁ] Ʀȶ r

1126–7 (μƟƚμƘʎơƟ … ƞơƜƢȷƟ): ƞơƜƢȶƟ μƟƚμƘʎơƟ. L 1 lm. addidi in initio scholii tacite adde Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ

1127–8 (ȣƤ – ƘǮƥƘƗƘƠȯμƚƟ): ȋμƚƣơƤ

ƙƫȶƟ μƐƟ ƥ' ǒƞƜƢơƟ ǎƖȺ ƝƞƜƥƒƚƛƘƟ ǮơʝƥƔ. L r(GMR) 1 ȋμƚƣơƤ: Il. 19. 288–9 ƙƫȶƟ μȱƟ ƥƘ ǒƞƘƜƢơƟ ǎƖȺ ƝƞƜƥȵƚƛƘƟ ǮơʝƥƔ, | ƟʝƟ Ɨȱ ƥƘ ƦƘƛƟƚʬƦƔ ƝƜƩȯƟơμƔƜ ȂƣƩƔμƘ ƞƔʬƟ 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. 1126 coniunctum (ƝƔȴ ȋμƚƣơƤ r: sine voce coniunctiva L) separatim posui Lascaris; lm. addidi 2 ƥ' ǒƞƜƢơƟ L: Ʀ' ǒƞƜƢơƟ r: ƥƘ ǒƞƘƜƢơƟ scholiastae restituit Heath 24

1137 ƥʀƤ ƝƔƥƜƖƟƑƦƚƤ: ơǵơƟ ƦʀƤ μƮƟƚƤ ƥơʝ ƝƚƗơμƐƟƚƤ. ȃƞƔ ƗȰ ǎƢƜƦƐƦƔƦƔƜ Ʀʭ ƢƏƛƘƜ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƢƔƣƘʎƟƔƜ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ƄƚƟƘƞƮƢƚ ƢƔƣƮƟƦƔ ȆƗƧƥƥƐƔ ƛƣƚƟƘʎ ƢƔƣ' ȇμƑƣʪ, ǎƟ ơǵƤ ƨƚƥƜ ǏȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ ƢƔƣƑμƘƟơƟŭ 5 ǎƟƛƏƗƘ ƗȰ ƗƒƝƔƜơƟ ƗƚƞơʝƥƛƔƜ ȃƦƜ ƾƗƘƞƨȲ ƔȎƦơʝ ǎƥƦƜƟ Ǡ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƞƮƖʪŭ ƾƖƟơʬƟ ƖȮƣ ƔȎƦȲƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƾƢơƞơƨƧƣơμƐƟƚƟ ƖƟưƥƘƦƔƜ. L r(GMR) 3 ƢƔƣ' ȇμȳƣʪ: Od. 19.209 ƝƞƔƜơȹƥƚƤ ǏȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ, ƢƔƣȳμƘƟơƟ. 1 lm. ex NF: deest in Lrr ȃƞƔ LMR: ȃƞơƧƤ G (quod in ȃƞƫƤ mutavit Papageorgiou3 83): ȃƞƚ (scil. Electra) Papageorgiou3 l.c. 2 ǎƢƜƦƐƦƔƦƔƜ] ǎƢƜƦƏƦƦƘƦƔƜ r ƦȶƟ] ƝƔȴ ƗƜȮ 4 locus Ʀ. MR: ƝƔȴ Ʀ. G ƄƚƟƘƞȷƢƚ … 3 ƛƣƚƟƘʎ] ƦȲƟ ƄƚƟƘƞȷƢƚƟ ... ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ r

246

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

homericus clarius ad scholium spectaret, si <ƝƞƔƜơȹƥƚƤ> ante ǏȶƟ addidisses, at vide supra ad sch. 4.2 ǏȶƟ codd. homerici: ƥȶƟ codd. nostri ƢƔƣƚμȱƟƫƟ ƀ 5 ƗȰ om. Vrr ƔȎƦơʝ] ƔȎƦȲ G Ǡ LG: Ǥ ƀR ƞƮƖʪ om. G, de sensu vide LSJ s.v. IX.2.b 6 ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ] ǿ Ȇƣ. Gƀ

1142 (ƝƯƦƘƜ): Ʀʁ ƛƑƝɾ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

1145–6 (ơȒƦƘ – ƨȵƞơƤ): ơȎ ƖȮƣ ǤƤ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦʀƤ μƚƦƣƮƤ ƢơƦƘ Ǡ ƝƔȴ ǎμơʝ μɱƞƞơƟ, ǳƟƔ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ǤƥƛƔ ƗƜƔƥƦƘƒƞƫμƘƟŭ ơȎƝ ǤƥƛƔ ƦʀƤ μƚƦƣȶƤ ƾƞƞȮ μɱƞƞơƟ ƝƔȴ ǎμơʝ, ơǵơƟ ǎƖư ƥơƜ μɱƞƞơƟ ǢμƚƟ μƑƦƚƣ ǢƢƘƣ ǟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔŭ Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƨƒƞơƤ ƾƟƦȴ Ȥ ƨƒƞƘ. ǂƞƞƫƤŭ ơȎƝ ǤƤ ƦʀƤ μƚƦƣȶƤ ƨƒƞơƤ 5 μɱƞƞơƟ Ǡ ƝƔȴ ǎμơʝ, ƾƟƦȴ ơȎ Ʀʁ μƚƦƣȴ ƢƣơƥƐƝƘƜƥơ μɱƞƞơƟ. ǂμƘƜƟơƟ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ǓƦƘƣơƟ ƗƜȮ ƦȲƟ ǟƞƜƝƒƔƟ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ǎƨ' ɓ Ʀȶ ƨƒƞơƟ ƘǴƟƔƜ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƜƔƝƣƒƟƘƜƟ ƦƜƟȮ ƦƮƦƘ ơȎƝ ǎƟƘƩưƣƘƜŭ μƜƝƣȶƤ ƖȮƣ ǤƟ. L r(GMR) 4 ƨȵƞơƤ – ƨȵƞƘ: Su. IV 732, 13 (ƨ 41) ƉƒƞơƤ: ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ȂƨƘƞơƤ 4 Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƨƒƞơƤ ƾƟƦȴ Ȥ ƨƒƞƘ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 3.277a1 ǦƐƞƜơƤ {ƛ’}: ȃƦƜ ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ǫƞƜƘ, ȟƤ ƝƾƝƘʎ «ƗƮƤ, ƨƒƞơƤ» (ƣ 415) ƝƔȴ «ƾƞƞƏ, ƨƒƞơƤ, ƛƏƟƘ ƝƔȴ ƥƯ» (Ɖ 106)…; a2 ǦƐƞƜơƤ {ƦƘ}: ǆƦƦƜƝʬƤŭ «ƾƞƞƏ, ƨƒƞơƤ, ƛƏƟƘ ƝƔȴ ƥƯ.» 1 lm. addidi ǤƤ L (cf. ad sch. 556.2) : ǤƥƛƔ r ƝƔȴ om. r 3 ƝƔȴ om. r ơǵơƟ] ơǵơƟ ƖȮƣ G μƑƦƚƣ] μƑƣƫƟ sic M ǢƢƘƣ – 4 ƨȵƞơƤ (pr.) om. M 3 ǢƢƘƣ] Ǡ GR 4 ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r Ȥ ƨƒƞƘ scripsi collatis locis supra laudatis: ȂƨƘƞơƤ codd. et Su.: Ȥ ƨƒƞơƤ Papageorgiou3 83 ǂƞƞƫƤ deest in R quippe qui partem 4 ơȎƝ – fin. separatim praebeat ǤƤ] ǤƥƛƔ r 5 Ǡ om. r ƝƔȴ ǎμơʝ] Ɲƾμơʝ r ơȎ] Ʀơʝ r Ʀʁ om. r ƗȰ] Ʀȶ ƗȰ G 7 μƜƝƣȶƤ] -ƝƣȮ R: -ƝƣȶƟ G

1148 (ƥơȵ): ƥȳ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

sch. 1137 – sch. 1178

247

1158 (ƨƜƞƦȯƦơƧ): ƨƜƞƦȯƦƚƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

1171 ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔ: ƢƜƛƔƟʬƤ ƢƣƮƥƝƘƜƦƔƜ Ʀȶ ȂƟơμƔ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ǳƟƔ μƏƛɾ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤŭ ơȎ ƖȮƣ μƮƟƚ ǤƟ ƔȎƦʭ ƾƗƘƞƨƑ. ƦơʎƤ ƗȰ ƝơƜƟơʎƤ ƕơƚƛƑμƔƥƜ ƩƣʀƦƔƜ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƒɯ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. scripsi: ƛƟƚƦơʝ ƢȱƨƧƝƔƤ ƀ: deest in LŸGR; pars 2 ƦơʎƤ ƗȰ ƝơƜƟơʎƤ – fin. ad vv. 1171–3 spectat ƦʀƤ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƤ] Ʀʁ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ Ÿ 2 ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ] ǿ Ȇƣ. Ÿr ƾƗƘƞƨȳ] ƾƗƘƞƨƮƤ G 3 ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƒɯ] ƢƣơƥƚƖơƣƒɯ Ÿr

1174 ƨƘʝ ƨƘʝ: ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƟ ǎμƨƔƟƜƥƛʀƟƔƜ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟŭ ƗƜƘƨƛƏƣƚ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ƥƧƟƘƝƦƜƝȶƟ ƦʀƤ ȏƢơƛƐƥƘƫƤ ƥƜƫƢʬƟƦơƤ ƔȎƦơʝ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. deest in LŸGR; accuratiss. vv. 1174–5 ƨƘʝ ƨƘʝ – ƥƛƐƟƫ ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƟ] ƾƟ. ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ Ÿ ƖȮƣ] μȰƟ Ÿ post ƖȮƣ habent ǀƟ Ÿr idque add. Dindorf 131 et Bernardakis 47; sed cf. sch. Ai. 342b.2–3 Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƾƢƘʎƟƔƜ ƦȶƟ ƇƘʝƝƣơƟ ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ Ʀʁ ơǮƝơƟơμƒɯŭ ƢƔƣȺƟ ƖȮƣ ǎƝưƞƧƘƟ (ǎƝưƞƧƘƟ codd., recte: ǎƝưƞƧƘƟ ǀƟ edd. quidam, male) ƔȎƦȶƟ ƢƣɱƠƔƜ ǁ ǎƕơƯƞƘƦơ; sch. OT 354; BDR § 360.1 2 ƥƜƫƢʬƟƦơƤ ƔȎƦơʝ] ƥƜƫƢʬƟ Ʀȶ ƔȎƦơʝ ƢƣȷƥƫƢơƟ Ÿ

1175 (ƖƞȻƥƥƚƤ): ƖƟȻμƚƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

1178 ƦȷƗ' – ǒƩơƟ: ƦơʝƦơ ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ μȰƟ ƝƔȴ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ. ƘȎƢƣƘƢƐƥƦƘƣơƟ ƗȰ Ʀʭ Ʃơƣʭ ƢƘƣȵƝƘƜƦƔƜ, ǳƟƔ μȲ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ǏƔƧƦʀƤ ƘǲƗơƧƤ ƘǴƢƐ ƦƜ. ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ ƗȰ ƦȲƟ μȰƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ƞƔμƢƣơʝ ƥƩƑμƔƦơƤ ǿ ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ ǎƖƟưƣƜƥƘƟ, ơȕƦơƤ ƗȰ ơȎ ƖƜƟưƥƝƘƜ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ƗƜȮ 5 Ʀȶ ƝƘƝƔƝʬƥƛƔƜ Ʀȶ ƥʬμƔ. L r(GMR) 4 ǎƖƟȻƣƜƥƘƟ: vv. 663–4

248

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1 lm. scripsi: ǒƞƛƫ (1175) ƀ: deest in LGR; (ǒƞƛƫ s.) R ƗƯƟƔƦƔƜ μȰƟ] μ. Ɨ.G 2 ƢƘƣƒƝƘƜƦƔƜ] ƢƔƣƏƝƘƜƦƔƜ Papageorgiou renuente Bernardakis 47 coll. sch. Ant. 696 … Ʀʁ ƢƮƞƘƜ ƢƘƣƜƛƘȴƤ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ... et sch. Phil. 1 ... ǿ μȰƟ ŹȎƣƜƢƒƗƚƤ ƢƏƟƦƔ Ʀʭ ȆƗƧƥƥƘʎ ƢƘƣƜƦƒƛƚƥƜƟ...; cf. etiam sch. Hom. Il. 11. 510 3 ƘǮƢȰ L cf. KG II 388–9: ƘǲƢɾ rNFOWa (coni. Stephanus 132) ƗȰ] μȰƟ ƀ ƦȲƟ] ƦȮ G μȰƟ om. M 5 ƝƔƝʬƥƛƔƜ G ƥʬμƔ] ƥ. ƔȎƦʀƤ ȏƢȶ (ƾƢȶ G) ƦʀƤ ƛƞƒƪƘƫƤ r

1180 (ơȎ – ƦȯƗƘ): ǄƣƔ ơȎ ƢƘƣȴ ǎμơʝ ƦƏƗƘ; L

1184a (μơƜ): ƗƑ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

fortasse addendum <Ɩƣ.> ante ƗƑ

1184b ǎƢƜƥƝơƢʬƟ: ƝƔƛơƣʬƟ. L Su. II 378, 28 (Ƙ 2583) 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in L

1186a (ǎƟ Ʀʭ): ǎƟ ƦƒƟƜ Ǡ ƗƜȮ Ʀƒ; L r(G) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 1178 c. in G (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ)

lm. add. Elmsley

Ǡ om. G

1186b ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƗƜȱƖƟƫƤ: Ƣơƒʪ ƞƮƖʪ ƘǮƣƚμƐƟʪ ƦơʝƦơƟ ƥƧƟʀƪƔƤ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ; L r(G) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in G (ƝƔȴ ǂƞƞƫƤ) ǎƟ Ʀʭ – ƘǮƣƚμȱƟƫƟ

lm. ex Ɓ: deest in LG; accuratiss. v.1186

sch. 1178 – sch. 1215a²

249

1193 (ƦʁƗƘ): ƘǮƤ ƦơʝƦơ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1194 (μƚƦƣȴ Ɨ' ơȎƗȰƟ ǎƠƜƥơʎ): ơȎƝ ǲƥƔ ƢƣƏƥƥƘƜ Ʀʭ ƦʀƤ μƚƦƣȶƤ ǾƟƮμƔƦƜ. L q(HŸs.l.) Su. II 316, 11 (Ƙ 1775) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

ƢƣȯƦƦƘƜ q

1211 (ƢƣȶƤ ƗƒƝƚƤ): ǟ ƢƣȶƤ ƾƟƦȴ ƦʀƤ μƘƦƏ. L q(Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. add. Brunck2

1214 ơȓƦƫƤ ǂƦƜμƮƤ ƘǮμƜ: ȣƥƦƘ μƑƦƘ ǾƟơμƏƙƘƜƟ ƔȎƦƮƟ; L q(Żs.l.) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: ǂƦƜμȷƤ ƘǮμƜ ƀ: deest in LHGR; (ǂƦƜμơƤ s.) R; accuratiss. v. 1214 ơȓƦƫƤ – Ʀơʝ ƦƘƛƟƚƝƮƦơƤ; μȳƦƘ LH: μȲ r: μƚƗȰ Ŷrunck1, at vide Jannaris § 1723b et § 1724 ǾƟơμƏƙƘƜƟ] ǾƟơμƏƙƫƟ G

1215a1 (ơȎƩȴ ƥȷƟ): ƾƞƞ' ǎμƮƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

1215a2 (ơȎƩȴ ƥȷƟ): ơȎ ƥơȴ ƢƣơƥʀƝơƟ. L Gs.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ơȎƩȴ ƥȶƟ s.) L

ƥơȴ ƢƣơƥʀƝơƟ] ƢƣơƥʀƝơƟ ƥơȴ ƦơʝƦơ G

250

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1217 ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƟ: ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟơƟŭ ƾƥƝƑμƔƦƔ ƖȮƣ ƦȮ ƝƔƦƔƥƝƘƧƏƥμƔƦƔ. L r(GMR) Su. II 593, 15 (ƚ 595), unde Zonar. 1009, 19 et 323, 12 1 lm. ex M: deest in LGR; (ǞƥƝƚμȱƟơƟ s.) R ƝƔƦƔƥƝƘƧƔƥμƐƟơƟ] –μƐƟƫƟ ƀ

1223 (ƥƨƣƔƖʎƗƔ): ƦȶƟ ƗƔƝƦƯƞƜơƟ. L cf. sch. vet. Ar. Eq. 947 ƦȶƟ ƗƔƝƦƯƞƜơƟ] ƦȲƟ ƥƨƣƔƖʎƗƔ…; Hesych. ƥ 2920; Su. Ɨ 27, unde Zonar. 464, 17 1 lm. add. Brunck2; (ƥƨƣƔƖʎƗƔ s.) L

1225 (Ȥ ƨƛƐƖμ'): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ƨƒƞƦƔƦơƟ. L 1 lm. add. Brunck2

1232–3 ǮȺ ƖơƟƔȴ (ƥƫμȯƦƫƟ): ƾƟƦȴ ǏƟƜƝơʝ, ƖơƟȲ ƥưμƔƦơƤ ǎμơȴ ƨƜƞƦƏƦơƧ, Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. ƀ supplevi: deest in LGR; (ǮȺ ƖơƟƔȴ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1232–3 ǮȺ – ƨƜƞƦȯƦƫƟ ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r ƖơƟȲ] ƖƫƟȲ L ƥƫμȯƦƫƟ ƀ ǎμơȴ om. G 2 Ʀơʝ om. r

1235 (ơȑƤ ǎƩƣɿƙƘƦƘ): ƾƟƦȴ ǎμƐ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi

sch. 1217 – sch. 1243

251

1236a (ƥʎƖ' – ƢƣȷƥμƘƟƘ): ƾƟƦȴ ƥƒƖƔ, ǓƫƤ ǀƟ ƝƔƦȮ ƟơʝƟ ƾƢơƕʁ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 hoc sch. cum sch. 1236b c. in r (ǂƞƞƫƤ) lm. add. Lascaris ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƞƞȮ Ÿ: Ʀȶ ƥƒƖƔ ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r ƥƒƖƔ] ƥʎƖƔ L ǀƟ om. Ÿr ƾƢơƕʁ] ƩƫƣƑƥɾ r Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ] Ʀȶ ƢƣɱƖμƔ r

1236b ƾƞƞȮ ƥʎƖ' ǒƩơƧƥƔ: ƢƔƣƏƝƘƜƦƔƜ ǏƝƏƥƦʪ Ʀȶ ơǮƝƘʎơƟŭ ǟ μȰƟ ƖȮƣ ƖƧƟƑ ƦƘ ơȔƥƔ ƝƔȴ <ƢƔƣȮ> ƢƣơƥƗơƝƒƔƟ ƘȎƦƧƩơʝƥƔ ƛƣƔƥƧƦƐƣƔ ǎƥƦȵƟŭ ǿ ƗȰ ƾƥƨƔƞȲƤ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ ƟʝƟ ƢƣʬƦơƟ ǎƢƜƩƘƜƣƘʎƟ ƦơƜơƯƦʪ ƝƜƟƗƯƟʪ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex NF: ƢȯƣƘƥμƘƟ ƀ: deest in LŸGR; (ƢȯƣƘƥμƘƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1236–44 ƾƞƞȮ – ƢơƧ ƢƘƣȵƝƘƜƦƔƜ ƀ 2 ƦƘ om. Ÿ ƢƔƣȮ add. Lascaris ƢƣơƥƗơƝƒƔƟ] ƢƣơƥƗơƝʬƥƜ GR: ƢƣơƥƗơƝʬƥƔ ƀ 3 ƾƥƨƔƞƑƤ] ƘȎƞƔƕȲƤ Roemer2 84, sed ƾƥƨƔƞƑƤ et ƘȎƞƔƕƑƤ fere idem valere possunt (cf. ƾƥƨƏƞƘƜƔ in sch. 990.2); hoc non intellecto ante ƾƥƨƔƞȲƤ add. ǥƦƦơƟ Lascaris ƢƣʬƦơƟ] ƢƣưƦƫƤ r

1240 ƦȷƗƘ μȱƟ: ǟ ƾƢƮƦƔƥƜƤ ƢƣȶƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟŭ ȃƣƔ Ɨȱ, ƘǮ ơǮƝƘʎƔ ƦƔʝƦƔ Ʀʁ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ƢƔƣƮƟƦơƤ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ǿƢƮƦƘ ƝƔȴ μƮƟƚ ơȔƥƔ ƦơƥơʝƦơƟ ǎƛƣƔƥƯƟƘƦơ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƾƞƞ' ơȎ ƦȮƟ ǊƣƦƘμƜƟ LG: deest in R; (ƦȷƗƘ μȰƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1240–2 ƦȷƗƘ – ȀƟ ƾƘƒ

1243 ȃƣƔ ƖƘ μȰƟ ƗƑ: ǎƢȴ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ ƦƘƒƟƫƟ ƨƚƥȵƟ, ȃƦƜ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ƾƟƘʎƞƘƟ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƢƘƣƜƥƥȶƟ ǂƩƛơƤ ƀ: deest in GR; accuratiss. vv. 1243–4 ȃƣƔ – ƢơƧ

ƦȶƟ om. r

252

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1245 ǾƦơƦƦơʎ: ǎƢƘƒƢƘƣ ȏƢƐμƟƚƥƘƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƦʀƤ Ʀơʝ ƢƔƦƣȶƤ ƾƟƔƜƣƐƥƘƫƤ ƗƜȮ ƦʬƟ ƢƣơƘƜƣƚμƐƟƫƟ ƗƯơ ƥƦƒƩƫƟ, ƨƚƥȴƟ ȃƦƜ ǎƟƐƕƔƞƐƤ μơƜ ƝƔƝȶƟ ƾƟƐƨƘƞơƟ, ƝƔƞƧƨƛʀƟƔƜ μȲ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƟ, ƾƥƝƒƔƥƦơƟ, ȟƤ <ƘǮ> ǒƨƚ ƗƜƏƗƚƞơƟ ƝƔƝƮƟ. L q(Ÿ) r(GƀR) 2 ƢƣơƘƜƣƚμȱƟƫƟ Ɨȹơ ƥƦȵƩƫƟ: vv. 1243–4 1 lm. ex L (grammaticum ǎƟȱƕƔƞƘƤ pro ǎƢȱƕƔƞƘƤ legisse e v. 2 vidit Dindorf2 177 renuente Wolff 187; Dindorfio adstipulatur Kruytbosch 83): ƾƟȱƨƘƞơƟ ƀ: deest in ŸGR; (ǾƦƦơƦơȴ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1245–50 ǾƦơƦƦơʎ – ƝƔƝȷƟ ǎƢƘƒƢƘƣ] ǎƢƘƜƗȲ r ȏƢƐμƟƚƥƘƟ] ƾƟƐμƟƚƥƘƟ Ÿr 2 ƗƯơ] ƕ´ Gƀ ǎƟȱƕƔƞƘƤ LŸG: ƾƟȱƕƔƞƘƤ ƀ: ƾƟȱƞƔƕƘƤ R: ǎƢƐƕƔƞƘƤ ƁFWa μơƜ] μƘ G 3 ƾƥƝƒƔƥƦơƟ – fin. om. G ȟƤ – fin. om. Ÿ ƘǮ add. Lascaris ǒƨƚ Lp (Lascaris): ǒƨƚƟ codd.

1246 ƾƟƐƨƘƞơƟ: ȏƢȶ μƚƗƘμƜɱƤ ƟƘƨƐƞƚƤ ƝƣƧƕʀƟƔƜ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƟ. L q(Ÿ) V r(ƀR) Su. I 210, 13 (Ɣ 2351) 1 lm. deest in LŸVM ƝƔƞƧƨƛʀƟƔƜ V

ƝƣƧƕʀƟƔƜ] ƝƣƧƨƛ- ƀR

ȏƢȶ – ƝƣƧƕʀƟƔƜ] ƝƔȴ μȲ

1247 ơȒƢơƦƘ ƝƔƦƔƞƯƥƜμơƟ: ơȎ ƝƔƦƔƞƧƮμƘƟơƟ. ǿ ƗȰ ƟơʝƤŭ ƞƑƛƚƤ ƦƧƩƘʎƟ μȲ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƟ. L r(G) Su. I 210, 15 (Ɣ 2351) apud quem deest ǿ ƗȰ ƟơʝƤ 1 lm. ex N: deest in LG; (ƝƔƦƔƞȹƥƜμơƟ s.) L ƟơʝƤ – fin. ita refecit G: ƟơʝƤŭ ƗʀƞơƟ ǎƥƦƜƟ μȲ ƝƔƦƔƞƧƮμƘƟơƟ μƚƗȰ ƞƑƛƚƤ ƦƧƩƘʎƟ ƗƧƟƏμƘƟơƟ G 1–2 ad hoc sch. annotat Kruytbosch 83 ‘haec in unum coniungi non debebant. Priora enim ad verba ơȒƢơƦƘ

ƝƔƦƔƞƯƥƜμơƟ spectant, quum posteriora verborum ơȎƗƐƢơƦƘ ƞƚƥƮμƘƟơƟ explicationem continent’; sed grammaticus per ǿ ƗȰ ƟơʝƤ – fin. translationem ơȒƢơƦƘ ƝƔƦƔƞƯƥƜμơƟ explicare conatur

1251 ƾƞƞ' ȃƦƔƟ ƢƔƣơƧƥƒƔ: ȃƦƔƟ ǎƢƜƦƣƐƢɾ ǿ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ ƝƔȴ ƝƔƞʁ Ǡ ǿƢƮƦƔƟ ǟ ƢƔƣơƧƥƒƔ ƦơƯƦƫƟ ɒ ƝƔȴ ǿ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ ǎƢƜƦƑƗƘƜơƤŭ Ʀȶ ƖȮƣ ƟʝƟ ƗƜƘƠƜƐƟƔƜ ƦȮ

sch. 1245 – sch. 1257

253

ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟƔ ƗƜ' ȂƩƞơƧ ǤƟ ƦơʎƤ ƛƘƔƦƔʎƤ ǎƢƜƥƦƔμƐƟơƜƤ Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ ƝƔȴ ƢƘƣƜμƐƟơƧƥƜƟ ǮƗƘʎƟ ƦȮ ǎƠ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƖƘƟƮμƘƟƔ. L q(Ÿ) Gii r(GiƀR) 1 lm.] ǒƠơƜƗƔ ƀ: deest in ŸGbisR; accuratiss. vv. 1251–2 ƾƞƞ' ȃƦƔƟ – ƨƣȯƙɾ ƝƔȴ ƝƔƞʁ om. r Ǡ om. Gii ǿƢƮƦƔƟ – 2 ǎƢƜƦƑƗƘƜơƤ] ȃƦƔƟ ǎƢƜƦƑƗƘƜơƤ ɒ (om. R) ǿ ƝƔƜƣȶƤ r 1 ǿƢƮƦƔƟ] ƢƮƦ' ǀƟ Gii: ȃƦƔƟ Ÿ 2 ɒ ƝƔȴ] Ǡ Ÿ post ǎƢƜƦȳƗƘƜơƤ add. ƘǴ (voluit ɒ) Ÿ ƟʝƟ om. LŸGii 3 ƦȶƟ om. r 4 ƢƘƣƜμƐƟơƧƥƜƟ] ƢƔƣƔμƐƟơƧƥƜƟ Gii ƦȮ … ƖƘƟȷμƘƟƔ L: ƦȮ … ƖƜƟȷμƘƟƔ Giir: Ʀȶ … ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ Ÿ: ƦȮ … ƖƘƟƚƥȷμƘƟƔ Bernardakis 48

1253 ǿ ƢɱƤ ǎμơȵ: ǿ ƢɱƤ ƩƣƮƟơƤ ƢƣƐƢơƜ Ʀʁ ƗƒƝɾ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ μƘ ƦƔʝƦƔ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in LGR; (ǿ ƢɱƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1253–5 ǿ ƢɱƤ – ƩƣȷƟơƤ; e Ʀʁ ƗƒƝɾ… ƦƔʝƦƔ annotatorem ƦƏƗƘ ƗƒƝɯ scriptum in exemplari suo invenisse vidit Wolff 36 in initio scholii subaudi Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ (vide ad sch. 108–9) ƢƣƐƢơƜ (ǂƟ saepe omittitur in annotationibus ubi necessarium non est ad rem explicandam, e.g. in paraphrasi, in scholiis quae ad verborum ordinem illustrandum pertinent (Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ) etc; cf. sch. 249.1, sch. 1439–41.5, sch. OT 175, sch. OT 203, sch. OT 498 ... ƖƐƟơƜƦơ μȰƟ ƖȮƣ..., sch. OT 503)] ƢƣƐƢƘƜ r ƞȱƖƘƜƟ] ƦȯƗƘ ƞ. ƀR μƘ] μƘƦȮ r

1255 (ƦƏƗƘ ƗƒƝƔƜƔ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƦƏƗƘ ƗƒƝƔ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ɩƣ. L

1257 ƦƮƗƘ: ƢơʎơƟ; Ʀȶ ǎƞƘƧƛƘƣơƥƦơμƘʎƟŭ ƦơƜƖƔƣơʝƟ ƾƟƦƐƩơƧ ƦʀƤ ǎƞƘƧƛƘƣơƥƦơμƒƔƤ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. scripsit Papageorgiou: ƦơƜƖƔƣơʝƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ƦȷƗƘ s.) L; (ƠȹμƨƚμƜ n.) R ƢơʎơƟ] om. r: ơǵơƟ Michaelis apud Jahn2 prob. Nauck 422, sed omnino inutiliter; obloquitur Bernardakis coll. sch. OC 156 … Ƣơƒʪ ƟƏƢƘƜ; et sch. OC 354 … ƢơʎƔ μƔƟƦƘʎƔ; 1–2 ǎƞƘƧƛƘƣơƥƦȷμơƧ ƀ

254

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1259 (μȲ μƔƝƣȯƟ): ƾƟƦȴ μȲ μƔƝƣʬƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1260 ƦȵƤ ơȔƟ ƾƠȵƔƟ ƖƘ ƥơʝ: ƦƒƤ ǂƟ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƥơʝ ƨƔƟƐƟƦơƤ, ƗƜƝƔƒƫƤ ǓƞơƜƦơ ƾƟƦȴ ƞƮƖƫƟ ƥƜƫƢƑƟ; L r(GƀR) 1 lm.] ƦȵƤ ơȔƟ ƀ: deest in LR; (ƦȵƤ ơȔƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1260–1 ƦȵƤ – ƞȷƖƫƟ ƥơʝ ƨƔƟƐƟƦơƤ Żeath 24: ƟơʝƤ ǂƨƔƟƦơƤ L: ƖƟơȸƤ ǂƨƔƟƦơƤ r 2 ƥƜƫƢȲƟ] ƦȲƟ ƥ. r post ƥƜƫƢƑƟ pergit r: Ǡ (scripsi: ǡ G: Ǥ MR) ƦȵƤ Ʀơʝ ƝƔƜƣơʝ ƝƔƞơʝƟƦơƤ ƝƔȴ ƢƣơƦƣƐƢơƟƦơƤ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƦȲƟ ƥƜƫƢȲƟ ƢƣơƝƣƒƟƔƤ ƦȮ ƘȒƞơƖƔ ƾƨƔƟƒƥɾ;

1265 (ȏƢƘƣƦƐƣƔƟ): ƞƘƒƢƘƜ Ʀȶ ƩƏƣƜƟ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1266 (ƦɱƤ ƢƏƣơƤ … ƩƏƣƜƦơƤ): ƦʀƤ ƥʀƤ ƢƔƣơƧƥƒƔƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1277 μȳ μ' ƾƢơƥƦƘƣȳƥɾƤ: μȲ ƾƢơƥƦƘƣƑƥɾƤ μƘ, ƨƚƥƒ, Ʀơʝ μƘƛƐƥƛƔƜ ƦʬƟ <ƥʬƟ> ƢƣơƥưƢƫƟ ƝƔȴ ƾƢƔƞƞƔƖʀƟƔƜ μƘƦȮ ǟƗơƟʀƤŭ ȃƢƘƣ μơƜ ƢƔƣƐƥƦƔƜ ǎƢȴ ƢƞƐơƟ μƘƦƘƩơƯƥɾ ƥơƧ ƝƔȴ ƾƢơƞƔƧơƯƥɾ. ơȓƦƫ ƖȮƣ ƾƢƔƞƞƔƖƑƥơμƔƜ μƘƦȮ ǟƗơƟʀƤ. ǎȮƟ ƗȰ ǢƗƚ ƾƢơƥƦƘƣƑƥɾƤ ƥƔƧƦơʝ, μƘƦȮ ƞƯƢƚƤ ƾƢƔƞƞƔ5 ƖƑƥơμƔƜ. L q(Ÿ) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex NF (scholiastam ǟƗơƟɲ pro ǟƗơƟȮƟ legisse collegit Dindorf2 178 et Kruytbosch 83): deest in LŸr; (μȲ μ' ƾƢơƥƦƘƣȳƥɾƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1277–8 μȳ – ǟƗơƟɲ μƘƛȱƥƛƔƜ μƘƛƐƥƛƔƜ] μ. ƥơƜ r 2 ƥʬƟ ante ƢƣơƥȻƢƫƟ add. Jahn1 μƘƦȮ ǟƗơƟʀƤ pertinet et ad μƘƛƐƥƛƔƜ ƦʬƟ <ƥʬƟ> ƢƣơƥưƢƫƟ et ad ƾƢƔƞƞƔƖʀƟƔƜ ǟƗơƟʀƤ] ƦʀƤ ǟƗ. Ÿ ȃƢƘƣ – 4 ǟƗơƟʀƤ om. r propter homoeoteleuton 3 ƥơƧ om. Ÿ 4 μƘƦȮ] ƦʀƤ Ÿ ǢƗƚ om. Ÿ ƥƔƧƦơʝ] ƥƘƔƧƦơʝ r: ƥ. <μƘ> Bernardakis 48, sed facile mente suppletur μƘƦȮ ƞȹƢƚƤ om. Ÿ

sch. 1259 – sch. 1291

255

1278 (ǂƞƞơƜƥƜ): ƦơʎƤ μȲ ƩƔƒƣơƧƥƜ Ʀʁ ǎμʁ ƢƔƣơƧƥƒɯ. L G 1 lm. add. Elmsley; (ǂƞƞơƜƥƜ s.) L; (ƛƧμơƒμƚƟ s.) G

1281 Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ, ǒƝƞƧơƟ ơǳƔƟ ǎƖư: Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ, ơǳƔƟ ǢƝơƧƥƔ ƨƑμƚƟ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ƾƗƘƞƨơʝ ƾƢƣơƥƗƮƝƚƦơƟ! ǎƨ' ɓ ơȒƦƘ ƥƜƫƢʀƥƔƜ ǀƟ ǞƗƧƟƏμƚƟ ơȒƦƘ ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ ƕơʀƥƔƜ. (ƝƔȴ ƖȮƣ ǟ ǟƗơƟȲ ƢƣơƘƦƣƐƢƘƦơ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƕơʀƥƔƜ ƝƔȴ ǿ ƨƮƕơƤ ǿ ƢƘƣȴ ƦȶƟ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ƝƔȴ ƦȲƟ μƚƦƐƣƔ ƥƜƫƢʀƥƔƜ). ȃμƫƤ ƗȰ ǒƩƫ ƥƘ 5 ƨƜƞƦƏƦƚƟ ǒƩơƟƦƔ ƢƣƮƥơƪƜƟ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. post Wolff 36 scripsi: Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ, ǒƝƞƧơƟ ǀƟ ǎƖư L: deest in r; (Ȥ ƨȵƞƔƜ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1281–4 Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ – ƦȯƞƔƜƟƔ; scholiastam legisse ơǳƔƟ pro ǂƟ vidit Wolff l.c. et ơȒƦ’ ǂƟƔƧƗơƟ ơȎƗȰ ƥȸƟ ƕơɲ ƝƞƧơʝƥƔ pro ǂƟƔƧƗơƟ ơȎƗȰ ƥȸƟ ƕơɲ ƝƞƯơƧƥƔ post Wolff l.c. vidi ego 2 ƾƢƣơƥƗƮƝƚƦơƟ] ƾƢƣơƗƮƝƚƦơƟ R post ƾƢƣơƥƗƮƝƚƦơƟ signum exclamandi posui post Wolff l.c. qui scholiastam Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ – ƔȎƗƏƟ pro exclamatione accepisse viderat ǞƗƧƟȯμƚƟ] ǎƗƧƟ- r 3 ƾƝơƯƥƔƥƔ] ƾƝơƯƥƔμƘƟ G 4 ȃμƫƤ] ǿμơƒƫƤ r ƗȰ om. r

1281–4 (Ȥ ƨƒƞƔƜ – ƦƏƞƔƜƟƔ): ǿ ƟơʝƤŭ ǒƝƞƧơƟ ƔȎƗȳƟ, ǡƟ ơȎƗƐƢơƦƘ ǢƞƢƜƥƔ, ƝƔȴ ǒƥƩơƟ ƦƣƮƢơƟ ǂƟƔƧƗơƟ Ʀʭ μȲ ƗƯƟƔƥƛƔƜ ƾƝơȹƘƜƟ ơȎƗȰ ƕơʬƟƦƮƤ ƦƜƟơƤ, ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ ƗƧƟƔμƐƟƚŭ ơȓƦƫƤ ǎƠƐƥƦƚƟ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ. ƞƐƖƘƜ ƗȰ ƢƘƣȴ ƦʀƤ ƾƢƫƞƘƒƔƤ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ȃƦƘ ǢƝơƧƥƘƟ. L r(G) 1–4 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. c. in G (ǂƞƞƫƤ) 1 lm. addidi 2 ǢƞƢƜƥƔ] ǢƞƢƜƙơƟ G post ǢƞƢƜƙơƟ add. ƾƝơʝƥƔƜ G 2 ƝƔȴ om. G ƾƝơƯƘƜƟ] ƾƝơʝƥƔƜ G 3 ǎƠƐƥƦƚƟ ǎμƔƧƦʀƤ] ǓƠƘƜ ƦȲƟ ǎμƔƧƦ G

1291 ƾƟƦƞƘʎ, ƦȮ Ɨ' ǎƝƩƘʎ: ǎμƨƔƟƦƜƝȶƟ Ʀȶ ƥƧƟƘƩȰƤ ƦʀƤ ƦƔƧƦơƞơƖƒƔƤŭ ǢƣƝƘƜ ƖȮƣ ƝǀƟ ǑƟ ƦʬƟ ƞƘƞƘƖμƐƟƫƟ. L r(GM) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: μȳƛ' ȟƟ (sic pro ȟƤ) ƀ: deest in LG; accuratiss. v.1291 ƾƟƦƞƘʎ – ƗƜƔƥƢƘƒƣƘƜ ǎμƨƔƟƦƜƝȻƦƘƣơƟ ƀ ƦƔƧƦơƞơƖȵƔƤ] ƦƔƧƣơƞơƖƒƔƤ G: ƾƢơƞơƖȵƔƤ ƀ 2 ƝǀƟ om. G ǑƟ] ǏƟȶƤ ƀ ƞƘƖơμƐƟƫƟ r

256

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1292 ǒƣƖơƧ ƖȮƣ ǂƟ ƥơƜ: ƾƨƔƜƣƘʎƦƔƜ ƖƏƣ, ƨƚƥƒ, ƦȲƟ ƘȎƝƔƜƣƒƔƟ ƦʬƟ μƘƞƞƮƟƦƫƟ ƢƣƔƩƛʀƟƔƜ ƦʬƟ ƞƮƖƫƟ ǟ ƾƗơƞƘƥƩƒƔ. L r(GMR) Su. IV 107, 28 (Ƣ 1278) qui post ƾƗơƞƘƥƩȵƔ (2) habet ȆƣȱƥƦƚƤ ƨƚƥȴ ƢƣȶƤ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔƟ; IV 828, 4 1 lm. ex Ɓ, nisi quod pro ǒƣƖơƧ habet ƩƣȷƟơƧ; ǒƣƖơƧ pro ƩƣȷƟơƧ apud poetam coni. Reiske 19, fortasse ex hoc scholio: ƩƣȷƟơƧ ƖȮƣ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ƩƣȷƟơƧ ƖȮƣ n.) R; accuratiss. v. 1292 ǒƣƖơƧ – ƞȷƖơƤ ƨƚƥƒ, ƦȲƟ ƘȎƝƔƜƣƒƔƟ] Ʀ. ƘȎƝ. ƨ. r

1307 ƾƞƞ' ơǴƥƛƔ: ƘǮƝȶƤ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ ǒƠƫƛƘƟ ƦƔʝƦƔ ƢƘƢƯƥƛƔƜ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ. L r(G) 1 lm. ex F: deest in LG; accuratiss. v. 1307–9 ƾƞƞ' ơǴƥƛƔ – ǎƟ ơǲƝơƜƤ; ƢƧƛƐƥƛƔƜ G

ƢƘƢƯƥƛƔƜ]

1311 (μʎƥơƤ): ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ μƚƦƐƣƔ ƗʀƞơƟ ȃƦƜ. L 1 lm. addidi

1322 ƥƜƖɱƟ ǎƢɿƟƘƥ': Ʀơʝ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖơʝ μƐƞƞơƟƦơƤ ǎƠƜƐƟƔƜ, ǿ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ƔǮƥƛƮμƘƟơƤ Ʀơʝ ƪƮƨơƧ, ƾƖƟơʬƟ, ƝƘƞƘƯƘƜ ƔȎƦȲƟ ƥƜƖɱƟŭ ƗƜȶ ƝƔȴ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ȟƤ ƠƐƟơƜƤ ƗƜƔƞƐƖƘƦƔƜ. L q(ŻŸ) r(ƀ) 1–3 hoc sch. cum sch. 1322–3 c. in H (Ʀơʝ ƢƔƜƗƔƖƫƖơʝ ƗȰ) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: deest in Lq qM; accuratiss. vv. 1322–5 ƥƜƖɱƟ – ƞƔƕȻƟ 2 ƔȎƦȲƟ] ƔȎƦʀ ƀ ƥƜƖɱƟ] ƥƜƫƢɱƟ q ƗƜȶ] ƗƜƮƦƜ q ƝƔȴ om. q ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔ] ǟ Ǧƞ. q 3 ƠƐƟơƜƤ] ƠȱƟơƤ ƀ

1322–3 (ƥƜƖɱƟ – ƩƫƣơʝƟƦơƤ): ƦƜƟȰƤ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣƮƟ ƨƔƥƜ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƦƔʝƦƔ. L q(H) r(M) 1 lm. addidi ƞƐƖƘƜƟ ƦƔʝƦƔ] Ʀ. ƞ. inverso ordine Ż

sch. 1292 – sch. 1338

257

1324 ǂƞƞƫƤ ƦƘ ƝƔȴ ƨȱƣơƟƦƘƤ: ƦơƜƔƯƦƚƟ ƾƖƖƘƞƒƔƟ ƨƐƣơƟƦƘƤ, ǡƟ ơȎƝ ǂƟ ƦƜƤ ƾƢưƥƔƜƦơ, ƞƔƕƘʎƟ ƦȮ ǾƥƦɱ, ơȎƗȰ ǟƗƐƫƤ ƞƏƕơƜ, ȃƦƜ ƝƔƝƑ ǎƥƦƜƟ. L q(H) r(GMbisR) 1 lm. ex N: deest in LHrr; (ƨȱƣơƟƦƘƤ s.) L; accuratiss. vv. 1324–5 ǂƞƞƫƤ – ƞƔƕȻƟ ƾƖƖƘƞȵƔƟ] ƦȲƟ ƾƖ. ƀii ǡƟ] ơǳƔƟ Ż 2 ƾƢȻƥƔƜƦơ Hrr: ƾƢȻƥƔƦơ L ƞƔƕƘʎƟ] ƞƔƕȺƟ r: <ȃƦƜ ơȎƩ ȃƥƜơƟ μȲ> ƞ. Zielinski 9 ƞƏƕơƜ] ƞƏƕɾ Ż

1326 Ȥ ƢƞƘʎƥƦƔ μʬƣơƜ: ǎƢƜƦƜμɲ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ȃƦƜ ƨƔƟƘƣơȴ ƦơʎƤ ǎƩƛƣơʎƤ ƖƒƟơƟƦƔƜ. L q(H) r(G) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: deest in LHG; accuratiss. vv. 1326–33 ƨƔƟƘƣơȴ] ƝƔƝơȴ Ż: ƨƔƟƘƣȶƟ G

1328 (ǎƖƖƘƟȳƤ): ǎƖƖƘƖƘƟƚμƐƟơƤ Ǡ ǂƠƜơƤ Ʀơʝ ƖƐƟơƧƤ. L q(HŸs.l.) G 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ǎƝƖƘƟȲƤ s.) L ǎƖƖƘƖƘƟƚμƐƟơƤ] ǎƖƖƘƟƟƚμƐƟơƤ Ż: ǎƝƖƘƖƘƟƟƚμƐƟơƤ Ÿ: ǎƖƖƘƖƘƟƟƚμƐƟơƤ G Ʀơʝ ƖƐƟơƧƤ] ƦʀƤ ƖƘƟƘɱƤ Ÿ: Ʀơʝ ƖƘƟƐƥƛƔƜ G: de H non constat

1332–3 ǤƟ ǀƟ – ƥȻμƔƦƔ: ơǵơƟ ƢƣȴƟ ǮƗƘʎƟ ƦȮ ƥưμƔƦƔ ȏμʬƟ ơǯ ǎƩƛƣơȴ ǒƖƟƫƥƔƟ ǀƟ ƦȮ ƕơƧƞƘƯμƔƦƔ ƦʀƤ ƪƧƩʀƤ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. scripsi: ƨƧƞȯƥƥƫƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ƢȯƞƔƜ ƨƧƞȯƥƥƫƟ s.) R

1338 (ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơƯƦơƜƤ): ƝƔƜƣơʎƤ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris; (ƦơʎƤ ƦơƜơȹƦơƜƤ s.) L

258

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1344 ƦƘƞơƧμȱƟƫƟ ƘǲƢơƜμ' ǂƟ: ƛƔƧμƔƥƦʬƤ ȏƢȰƣ Ʀơʝ μȲ ǎƢȴ ƢƞƐơƟ ƗƜƔƦƣƒƕƘƜƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǒμƢƣơƥƛƘƟ ƦȮ μȰƟ ƢƘƣƜƥƥƘƯơƟƦƔ ƦʬƟ ƞƮƖƫƟ ǂƨƘƤ. L r(GMR) 3 v. 1288 1 lm. ex N: ƩƔȵƣơƧƥƜƟ M: deest in LGR; (ƩƔȵƣơƧƥƜƟ n.) R

1345 (ƝƔȴ ƦȮ μȲ ƝƔƞʬƤ): ǿ [ƗȰ] ƟơʝƤŭ ƝƔȴ ƦȮ μȲ ƝƔƞʬƤ ƾƞƞȮ ƝƔƝʬƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ǒƩơƟƦƔ ƝƔȴ ƔȎƦȮ ƟʝƟ ƝƔƞʬƤ ǒƩƘƜ, ǓƫƤ ơȎƗƐƢƫ ƦƜμƫƣƒƔƤ ƦƧƖƩƏƟơƧƥƜƟŭ ǃƢƘƣ ƞƘƖƮμƘƟƔ ƢƣȶƤ ǂƝƣơƟ ǎƥƦȴ ƢƔƣơƠƧƟƦƜƝƏ. L r(GMR) 1–3 haec a sch. pr. deleto ƗȰ separavit Brunck2 ƀ ƢƔƣơƠƧƟƦƜƝƏ] ƢƔƣơƠƧƟƒƦƔƜ ƀ

1 lm. add. Brunck2

3 ǂƝƣơƟ] ǂƞƞơƟ

1346 ƦƒƤ ơȕƦƮƤ ǎƥƦ', ƾƗƘƞƨƐ;: ơȎƝ ǞƣưƦƚƥƘƟ ƦơʝƦơ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ȏƢȶ ƦʀƤ ƩƔƣɱƤ, ƾƞƞ' ǎƨƯƞƔƠƘƟ ƟʝƟ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ ƘǮƤ ǓƦƘƣơƟ ƾƟƔƖƟƫƣƜƥμƮƟ. L r(G) 1 lm. deest in G ƢƣƮƦƘƣơƟ G (coni. Lascaris): ƢƣȶƤ ǓƦƘƣơƟ L

1349 ơȕ Ʀȶ ƉƫƝȱƫƟ: ơȕ ƩƘƣơʎƟ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƉƫƝƐƫƟ ƢƐƗơƟ ȏƢƘƠƘƢƐμƨƛƚƟ ƥʁ Ƣƣơμƚƛƒɯ. L r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex Ɓ: ơȕ ƦȮ ƉƫƝȱƔ ƀ: deest in LGR; (Ʀȶ ƨƫƝȱƫƟ s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1349–50 ơȕ – ƩƘƣơʎƟ in initio scholii subaudi Ʀȶ ǏƠʀƤ 2 Ƣƣơμƚƛȵɯ] -Ƙƒɯ R

1366 (ƦƔʝƦƔ): ƦȮ ƝƔƦ' ǎμȱ, ƨƚƥƒƟ. L q(Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. add. Brunck2

ƨƚƥƒƟ om. Ÿ

259

sch. 1344 – sch. 1379

1368 ƟʝƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμȳƥƦƣƔ μȷƟƚ: ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ ƾƟƘƝƏƞƧƪƘ Ʀȶ ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ ƦʀƤ ƾƢơƗƚμƒƔƤ ŵǮƖƒƥƛơƧ. L r(G) 1 lm. ex ſ: deest in LG; accuratiss. vv. 1368–9 ƟʝƟ – ǒƟƗơƟ

1369 (ǎƨƐƠƘƦơƟ): μƘƞƞƑƥƘƦƘ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1372 Ʀȶ ơȎƗȰƟ ƢƔƣƐƞƝƘƜ. L q(Ÿs.l.)

1378 (ƞƜƢƔƣƘʎ … ƩƘƣȵ): ƾƟƦȴ ƞƜƢƔƣʬƤ, ƥƧƟƘƩʬƤ. L q(HŸs.l.) Su. ŽŽŽ 274, 11 (ƞ 582) cf. Phot. ƞ 335 ƞƜƢƔƣƐƤŭ ƥƧƟƘƩƐƤ 1 lm. ex Su. (nisi quod pro ƩƘƣƒ praebet ƩƘƜƣƒ): deest in codd. ǎƢƜƣƣƚμƔƦƜƝʬƤ Ż ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ q

ante ƾƟƦȴ add.

1379 ǎƠ ơǳƫƟ ǒƩƫ: ȟƤ ƗƧƟƏμƘƫƤ ǒƩƫ, ƞƮƖơƜƤ ƾƠƜơʝƟ, ơȎ ƛƯƘƜƟ. L q(HŸs.l.) 1 ȟƤ ƗƧƟȯμƘƫƤ ǒƩƫ: Su. ŽŽ 322, 19 (Ƙ 1862) qui ante ȟƤ habet ȟƤ ǒƥƦƜ μơƜ ƗƧƟƔƦȷƟ 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in codd.; (1379 s.) L ƞƮƖơƜƤ – fin. om. Ÿ

260

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1382 (ƦƾƢƜƦƒμƜƔ): ƦơȸƤ μƜƥƛơƯƤ. Ls.l. Su. ŽŽ 388, 29 (Ƙ 2700); ŽV 503, 12 (Ʀ 104) cf. Zonar. 816, 6; aliter sch. 915a1 1 lm. ex Su. IV 503, 12 nisi quod pro ƦƾƢƜƦƒμƜƔ praebet ƦƾƢơƦƒμƜƔ: deest in L

1384a ǲƗƘƛ' ȃƢơƧ ƢƣơƟƐμƘƦƔƜ: ƘǮƥƘƞƚƞƯƛƔƥƜ μȰƟ ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ ơǯ ƢƘƣȴ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƝƔȴ ƄƧƞƏƗƚƟ. ƦơʝƦơ ƗȰ ǢƦơƜ ǿ ƩơƣƮƤ ƨƚƥƜ ƝǀƟ ƦʀƤ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ ƥƧƟƘƜƥƘƞƛơƯƥƚƤ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ ǲƗƘƦƘ ƢƣȶƤ ƾƞƞƑƞƔƤ ƨƔƥȴƟ Ɣǯ ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ Ǡ ǒƦƜ ǒƠƫ ơȔƥƔ ǟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ ƞƐƖƘƜ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ƩơƣȶƟ ƦơȸƤ ƗƯơ ƥƦƒƩơƧƤ 5 ƝƔȴ ơȓƦƫƤ ƘǮƥƐƣƩƘƦƔƜ ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜ ƗƜȯƞƘƜμμƔ, ȣƥƦƘ ǎƠƘƞƛơʝƥƔƟ ƔȎƦȲƟ ǂƣƩƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀơʝ Ȥ ƨƒƞƦƔƦƔƜ ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘƤ. ƢƔƣƔƦƑƣƘƜ ƗȰ ȃƦƜ ǎƢȴ μȰƟ Ʀʁ Ʀơʝ ƾƖƖƐƞơƧ ƢƔƣơƧƥƒɯ ƢƣơơƜƝơƟơμƘʎ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ ǒƠƫ ƗƜƔƦƣƒƕƘƜƟ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ, ƗƜ' ǁƤ ƢƣơƘƒƢơμƘƟ ƔǮƦƒƔƤŭ 10 ǎƟƛƏƗƘ ƗȰ ƦʬƟ ƞƮƖƫƟ ƖƘƟơμƐƟƫƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ǎƝ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ, ơȎƗȰƟ ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƾƟƘƞƘʎƟ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟŭ ǃƢƘƣ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǎμƨƔƟƘʎ ǿ ƢơƜƚƦȲƤ ơȎƝ ƘǮƥƑƖƔƖƘƟ. L q(H) r(G) 4 ƦơȸƤ Ɨȹơ ƥƦȵƩơƧƤ: vv. 1384–5 7 v. 1398 8 Ʀʁ Ʀơʝ ƾƖƖȱƞơƧ ƢƔƣơƧƥȵɯ: vv. 660 sqq. 9 ƗƜ' ǁƤ ƢƣơƘȵƢơμƘƟ ƔǮƦȵƔƤ: vide sch. 660 1 lm. deest in Ż quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 1384b coniungat (ǂƞƞƫƤ); accuratiss. vv. 2 ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ] ƦȶƟ Ȇƣ. ŻG ǢƦơƜ om. G ƝǀƟ] ƝƔȴ G (coni. 1384–5 ǲƗƘƛ' – ǊƣƚƤ Lascaris idque commendat Wansink 60, omnino iniuria; vide LSJ s.v. ƝǂƟ Ž.3) 3 ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ – 4 Ʃơƣơʝ del. Nauck 422 3 ƨƔƥȴƟ HG: ƨƚƥƜ L ƾƢȶ G: deletum in L: om. H 4 ǒƦƜ Nauck l.c.: ȃƦƜ codd.: ȟƤ Wansink l.c.: ƦơƜ haesitans Wolff 262, ut fiat ǢƦơƜ ƞƐƖƘƜ] post ƩơƣȶƟ transp. Ż: om. G ƥƦƒƩơƧƤ] ƥ. ƨƚƥȴ G 5 ơȓƦƫƤ] ơȓƦ. ƨƔƥȴ G ƝƔȴ ǒƥƦƜ – 7 ƖƧƟƔʎƝƘƤ post Ʃơƣơʝ (4) transp. Zielinski 9 5 ǒƥƦƜ] ȃƦƜ Ż post 6 Ʀơʝ om. G 9 ƢƣơƘƒƢơμƘƟ] ƝƔȴ ƘǴƢơƟ Ż: ƘǲƢơμƘƟ G ƗƜƏƞƘƜμμƔ add. ƕƣƔƩȸ HG 10 ǎƟƛƏƗƘ] ǎƟƦƔʝƛƔ ŻG ƗȰ HG (add. Stephanus 139): om. L ƖƘƖƘƟƚμƐƟƫƟ G ƦȲƟ om. Ż 11 ơȎƗȰƟ] ơȎƗȰ G ǃƢƘƣ] ȃƢƘƣ temptavi ǎμƨƔƟƘʎ Trendelenburg 89 coll. sch. 1495–6: ǎμƨƔȵƟƘƜƟ codd.

261

sch. 1382 – sch. 1388

1384b ǲƗƘƛ' ȃƢơƧ: Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƘǮƥƘƞƛƮƟƦơƤ ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ ƦƔʝƦƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ. L q(HŸs.l.) r(GƀR) 1 lm. deest in LHGR; (ǲƗƘƛ' n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1384–97 ǲƗƘƛ' – ƾμμȱƟƘƜ ƦƔʝƦƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ] Ʀ. ƨ. ǿ Ʃ. ƀR

ǿ ƩơƣȶƤ

1384–5 (ƢƣơƟȱμƘƦƔƜ) | Ʀȶ ƗƧƥƐƣƜƥƦơƟ ƔǵμƔ ƨƧƥʬƟ (ǊƣƚƤ): ơǵơƟ ǿ ǊƣƚƤ ƥƧƟƔƖƘƞƏƙƘƦƔƜ ƔȎƦơʎƤ ƨƧƥʬƟ ƔǵμƔ ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƟ. ƗƧƥƐƣƜƥƦơƟ ƗȰ Ʀȶ ƗƜ' ǒƣƜƟ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ ƝƔƝȳƟ. L q(H) r(GƀR) 1 lm. L supplevi: ƔǵμƔ ƨƧƥʬƟ M: deest in HGR; (Ʀȶ ƗƧƥȱƣƜƥƦơƟ n.) R ơǵơƟ ơm. M ǿ om. ŻMR 2 ƔȎƦơʎƤ (i.e. Orestae et Pyladae)] ƔȎƦʀƤ Ż ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƟ om. r Ʀȶ F H r Lp (Lascaris): ƦȶƟ L 3 ƝƔƝȳƟ Wansink 61: ƝƔƝȶƟ LHMRLp: ƝƔƞȶƟ G

1387 (ƝƔƝʬƟ ƢƔƟơƧƣƖƚμƏƦƫƟ): Ʀȶ [ƗȰ] ƝƔƝʬƟ ơȎƩ ȟƤ ƝƔƦƚƖơƣơʝƥƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ (ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ ƖȮƣ Ʀʭ ǢƛƘƜ Ʀơʝ Ʃơƣơʝ), ƾƞƞ' ȃƦƜ ƦȮ ƦơƜƔʝƦƔ ǒƣƖƔ ơȎƩ ǟƗƐƔ ƦơʎƤ ƾƟƛƣưƢơƜƤ. L q(H) r(GƀR) 1–3 haec a sch. pr. seiunxit Brunck2 1 lm. add. Brunck2 delevi ƝƔƝʬƟ Brunck2: ƝƔƝȶƟ codd. ơȎƩ ȟƤ] ơȎ r compendio ƔƟơƜƤ male soluto) Ż

Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƝƔƝʬƟ om. HM ƗȰ 3 ƾƟƛƣưƢơƜƤ] ǂƞƞơƜƤ (ex

1388 ǂƨƧƝƦơƜ ƝƯƟƘƤ: ǢƦơƜ ǎƤ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƦƔƜ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǂƨƧƝƦơƜ ƝƯƟƘƤ Ǡ ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ǖƣƜƟƯƫƟŭ ƘǮƥʀƞƛơƟ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ ơǴƝơƟ Ɣǯ ǖƣƜƟƯƘƤ, ǁƤ ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜ ƨƧƖƘʎƟ. L q(H) r(GMR) 2 ǎƢȴ ƦʬƟ ǖƣƜƟȹƫƟ: cf. sch. Aesch. Choeph. 924 <ƝƯƟƔƤ>] ƦȮƤ ǖƣƜƟƯƔƤ ǁƤ – fin.: cf. sch. Opp. Hal. 3. 112 ǂƨƧƝƦơƜŭ ǁƤ ơȎ ƗƯƟƔƦƔƒ ƦƜƤ ƨƧƖƘʎƟ; Hesych. Ɣ 8786; Ɔ Ɣ 1176 ǂƨƧƝƦơƟŭ ȁ ơȎƝ ǒƥƦƜƟ ǎƝƨƧƖƘʎƟ = Phot. Ɣ 3410 = Su. Ɣ 4663 (unde Zonar. 356, 11) 1 lm.] ƝȹƟƘƤ ƀ: deest in ŻGR; (ǂƨƧƝƦơƜ n.) R ǎƟ Ʀʭ (ǎƟ instrum.)] Ʀȶ Ż 2 Ɣǯ om. Żr

ǢƦơƜ] Ǡ Ż

ǎƤ] ƘǮƤ Hrr (coni. Lascaris)

262

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1389 ȣƥƦ' ơȎ μƔƝƣȮƟ ǒƦ' ƾμμƘƟƘʎ: ơȎ ƢƘƣȴ Ʀơʝ ǾƟƘƒƣơƧ ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƨƚƥȵ (ƦơʝƦơ ƖȮƣ ƕƒƔƜơƟ) ƾƞƞȮ ƦơʝƦƮ ƨƚƥƜƟŭ ǁ ƝƔƦ' ǎμƔƧƦȲƟ ȞƟƘƜƣơƢƮƞơƧƟ, ơȎƝ ƘǮƤ μƔƝƣȮƟ ǒƥƦƔƜ μƘƦƐƫƣƔ, ƾƞƞ' ƘȎƛƐƫƤ ƦƘƞƘƥƛƑƥƘƦƔƜ. L q(H) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex L, nisi quod pro ƾμμƘƟƘʎ habet ƾμμȱƟƘƜ L (scholiastam ƾμμƘƟƘʎ pro ƾμμȱƟƘƜ legisse coni. Wunder2 123): ȂƟƘƜƣơƟ ƔǮƫƣơȹμƘƟơƟ ƀ: deest in HGR; (ƦơȎμʬƟ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1389–90 ȣƥƦ' ơȎ – ƔǮƫƣơȹμƘƟơƟ 2 ƨƚƥƒ (pr.) ante ƦʀƤ žƞ. transp. Ż ƦơʝƦơ ƖȮƣ ƕƒƔƜơƟ om. Ż ƝƔƦ'] ơȎ ƝƔƦ' ƀ 3 ƘȎƛƐƫƤ om. Ż

1391–2a ƢƔƣƏƖƘƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ ǎƟƐƣƫƟ | ƩƔƞƝƮƢơƧƤ ƾƣƫƖȷƤ: ǟ ǖƣƜƟȸƤ ƾƨƮƕƫƤ ƩƫƣơʝƥƔ. Ǡ ƗƔƒμƫƟ ƦƜƤ ƿƢƞʬƤ ƕơƚƛȶƤ ƟƘƝƣʬƟ. Ǡ ǎƢȴ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧŭ ƢƔƣƐƣƩƘƦƔƜ, ƨƚƥƒƟ, ǒƥƫ ƥƦƐƖƚƤ ǿ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ. L q(Hs.l.) r(GMR) 1 lm. scripsi (scholiastam ƩƔƞƝȷƢơƧƤ pro ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ invenisse in libro suo suspicor): ƢƔƣȯƖƘƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ ǎƟȱƣƫƟ ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ L: ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ ƀ: deest in HGR; (ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ n.) R ƾƨȷƕƫƤ] ƾƪȷƨƫƤ Wakefield 7 (sect. clxv) qui apud poetam ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ in ƥƝơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ immutaverat: ƾƨƔƟʬƤ haesitans Papageorgiou2 239 qui apud Sophoclem ƗơƞƜȷƢơƧƤ retinuit 2 Ǡ (pr.) – fin. om. H

1391–2b ǎƟƐƣƫƟ [ƗȰ] ƾƣƫƖƮƤ ǢƦơƜ Ʀơʝ ǆƖƔμƐμƟơƟơƤ Ǡ ƦʬƟ ƩƛơƟƒƫƟ ƛƘʬƟ ƕơƚƛƮƤ, ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ȏƢƚƣƐƦƜƤ. L r(GMR) 1–2 haec a sch. pr. separavi 1 ǎƟƐƣƫƟ ƗȰ ƾƣƫƖƮƤ ǠƦơƜ om. r ƗȰ delevi 2 ƛƘʬƟ FO (coni. Lascaris): ƛơƤ L: om. r ȏƢƚƣȱƦƜƤ L (ƾƣƫƖƮƤ de Furia accepit enarrator): ȏƢƚƣƐƦƚƤ r

1393a ǏƗưƞƜƔ: ǏƗƣƏƥμƔƦƔ. Ls.l. Vs.l. q(Hs.l.Ÿs.l.) Gs.l. Su. II 206, 11 (Ƙ 255) cf. sch. Aesch. Th. 455a ǏƗƫƞƒƫƟ] ƝƔƛƘƗƣʬƟ. 1 lm. ex Su.: deest in codd.

sch. 1389 – sch. 1398–9

263

1393b (ƾƣƩƔƜȷƢƞơƧƦƔ … ǏƗȻƞƜƔ): ƾƣƩƔʎƔ ơǮƝƑμƔƦƔ. L q(Hs.l.) Gs.l. Su. II 206, 12 (Ƙ 255) 1 lm. addidi; (ƾƣƩƔƜȷƢƞơƧƦƔ s.) L

1394 ƟƘƔƝƮƟƚƦơƟ (ƔǵμƔ): Ʀȶ ƠƒƨơƤ Ʀȶ ǞƝơƟƚμƐƟơƟ ƘǮƤ ƔǵμƔ ƝƔȴ ƨƮƟơƟ. L q(Ÿs.l.) r(GƀR) cf. Hesych. Ɣ 1936 ƔǵμƔŭ ... ǿ ƗȰ ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ǎƟ ǦƞȱƝƦƣɯ (1394) ƦȲƟ μȯƩƔƜƣƔƟ ǒƨƚ; Ɔb Ɣ 526 ƔǵμƔŭ … ƆơƨơƝƞʀƤ ƗȰ ǎƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣɯ ƦȲƟ μƏƩƔƜƣƔƟ ƔǵμƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ = Phot. Ɣ 597 = Su. ƔƜ 187 1 lm. M supplevi: deest in LŸGR; (ƟƘƔƝȷƟƚƦơƟ n.) R

1395a ǿ ƀƔƒƔƤ ƗȰ ƢƔʎƤ: ǿ ǗƣμʀƤ ƔȎƦȶƟ ǂƖƘƜ ƢƣȶƤ ƔȎƦȶ Ʀȶ ƦƐƣμƔ ƝƔƦƔƝƣƯƪƔƤ ƥƝƮƦʪ ƦȶƟ ȏƢ' ƔȎƦơʝ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ ƗƮƞơƟ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƢƣȶƤ ƔȎƦȶ ƀ: deest in GR; (ǿ ƀƔȵƔƤ ƗȰ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1395–7 ǿ ƀƔƒƔƤ – ƦȱƣμƔ sch. praesertim ad verborum ordinem illustradum pertinens ƢƣȶƤ] ƝƔƦȮ ƀR: μƘƦȮ G ƔȎƦȶ om. r 2 ƝƔƦƔƝƣȹƪƔƤ Lascaris: ƝƔƦƔƝƣƯƪƔƜ codd.: ƝƣƯƪƔƤ Lp ƥƝȷƦʪ] ƥ. ƗȰ ƀR ab ƥƝȷƦʪ novam partem scholii incipientes puncto post ƝƔƦƔƝƣȹƪƔƜ posito ƦȶƟ … ƖƜƟȷμƘƟơƟ ƗȷƞơƟ] Ʀʭ (ƦơȸƤ ƀR) ... ƖƜƟơμȱƟʪ Ɨȷƞʪ r ƖƜƟȷμƘƟơƟ] ȏƨƔƜƟȷμƘƟơƟ Nauck renuente Bernardakis 48

1395b (ǿ ƀƔȵƔƤ … ƢƔʎƤ): ǗƣμʀƤ. Ls.l. 1 lm. addidi; (ƢƔʎƤ s.) L

1398–9 (Ȥ ƨȵƞƦƔƦƔƜ – ƢƣȷƥμƘƟƘ): ǎƠƘƣƩơμƐƟƚ ƦƔʝƦƏ ƨƚƥƜƟ. L r(Gs.l.ƀR) 1 lm. addidi; (Ȥ ƨȵƞƦƔƦƔƜ n.) R ǎƠƘƣƩơμȱƟƚ] ǎƠ. ǟ ǦƞȱƝƦƣƔ r

264

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1400 (ǎƤ ƦƏƨơƟ): ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƒƗƘƜƢƟơƟ Ʀȶ ǎƢȴ Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ ƗơƝơʝƟƦƜ ƾƢơƞƫƞƐƟƔƜ. L Gs.l. 1 ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƒƗƘƜƢƟơƟ: cf. sch. Hom. Il. 24. 804b {ȡƤ ơǳ Ɩ’ ƾμƨƒƘƢơƟ} ƦƏƨơƟ: ǆƦƦƜƝơȴ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣƒƗƘƜƢƟơƟ ƦƏƨơƟ ƞƐƖơƧƥƜ…; 23. 29a ƔȎƦȮƣ ǿ ƦơʎƥƜ ƦƏƨơƟ μƘƟơƘƜƝƐƔ ƗƔƒƟƧ: ȃƦƜ ƦƏƨơƟ Ʀȶ ƗƘʎƢƟơƟ Ʀȶ ƢƘƣȴ ƦȲƟ ƦƔƨȲƟ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ; 24. 665a1; sch. D Hom. Il. 23. 29; sch. Hom. Od. 3. 309–10 ƦƏƨơƟ] ƝƔƦƘƥƝƘƯƔƥƘ ƗƘʎƢƟơƟ. ƦƏƨơƤ ƖȮƣ Ʀȶ ǎƢȴ ƟƘƝƣơʎƤ ƗƘʎƢƟơƟ; Apollon. S. 149, 29; Hesych. Ʀ 278; Su. Ʀ 192 1–2 haec ita rescripsit G: ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ ƗƘʎƢƟơƟ ƗƜȮ ƦȶƟ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƟ ƗơƝƘʎƟ ƾƢơƞƫƞƐƟƔƜ add. Lascaris Ʀȶ (alt.) F (coni. iam Lascaris): Ʀʭ L

1 lm.

1402 ƥȸ Ɨ' ǎƝƦȷƤ: ǎƟ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ ƗʀƞơƟ ȃƦƜ ƘǮƥʀƞƛƘƟ ǎƟ ƦơʎƤ ǒμƢƣơƥƛƘƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ. L G 1 lm. ex Ɓ: deest in LG; accuratiss. v. 1402 ƥȸ – ɒƠƔƤ 2 ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔ] ǟ Ǧƞ. G

ǎƟ ƦơƯƦơƜƤ] ǎƝ ƦơƯƦơƧ G

1404 Ɣǰ Ɣǲ, ǮȺ ƥƦƐƖƔƜ: ǒƛơƤ ǒƩơƧƥƜ ƦȮ ƖƘƖơƟƮƦƔ ǒƟƗơƟ ƾƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƘƜƟ ƦơʎƤ ǒƠƫ ơǯ ǂƖƖƘƞơƜ, ƟʝƟ ƗȰ ƗƜȮ Ʀȶ μȲ ƗƜƔƦƣƒƕƘƜƟ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƗƣƏμƔƦƜ ơȎƝ ǎƢơƒƚƥƘƟ. ƦơȹƦʪ ƖȮƣ ƢƣơƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ Ʀȶ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƟ ǎƥƦȴ ƢƏƛơƤ. ƟʝƟ ƦơƒƟƧƟ ƕơưƥƚƤ ǎƟ Ʀʁ ƾƟƔƜƣƐƥƘƜ ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ ƾƝơƯƘƜ ǿ 5 ƛƘƔƦȲƤ ƝƔȴ ǎƟƘƣƖƐƥƦƘƣơƟ Ʀȶ ƢƣɱƖμƔ ƖƒƟƘƦƔƜ Ǡ ƗƜ' ƾƖƖƐƞơƧ ƥƚμƔƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ. ƝƔȴ Ʀȶ μȰƟ ƨơƣƦƜƝȶƟ ƦʀƤ ȂƪƘƫƤ ƾƢƐƥƦƚ, Ʀȶ ƗȰ ǎƟƔƣƖȰƤ ơȎƗȰƟ ǥƥƥơƟ ƝƔȴ ƗƜȮ ƦʀƤ ƕơʀƤ ǎƢƣƔƖμƔƦƘƯƥƔƦơ. L r(G) 1 lm. deest in G 2 ơǯ ǂƖƖƘƞơƜ] ƗƜ' ƾƖƖȱƞơƧ Kruytbơsch 84, inutiliter ơǯ ǂƖƖƘƞơƜ post ǒƩơƧƥƜ (1) transp. G ƗƜȮ om. G Ʀȶ] Ʀơʝ G ƗƣƏμƔƦƜ] ƗưμƔƦƜ G 3 ƦơȹƦʪ Trendelenburg 46 (‘ƦơƯƦʪ scripsi, scil. Ʀʭ ƗƣƏμƔƦƜ’ Trendelenburg l.c., sed ƦơƯƦʪ potius ad Sophoclem pertinet; contuli et sch. Eur. Or. 610… ƢȯƣƘƣƖơƟ ƗȰ ƘǴƢƘƟ, ǎƢƘȴ ơȎ ƦơʝƦơ ǤƟ ƔȎƦʭ Ʀȶ ƢƣơƝƘȵμƘƟơƟ): ƦơʝƦơ codd. quo retento interpunxit ơȎƝ ǎƢơȵƚƥƘ ƦơʝƦơ. ƢƣơƝƘȵμƘƟơƟ sqq. Lascaris prob. Kruytbosch 85 4 ƦʀƤ FOG: Ʀ. ǦƞƐƝƦƣƔƤ L 5 ǎƟƘƣƖƐƥƦƘƣơƟ (cf. Nünlist 197)] ǎƟƔƣƖƐƥƦƘƣơƟ GO, coni. Lascaris idque commendat Nauck 422 6 ƨơƣƦƜƝȶƟ] ƨơƣƦƒơƟ G ƾƢȱƥƦƚ] ǂƢƘƥƦƜ Neue 188: ƾƢȱƥƦƚƥƘ Bernardakis 48 7 ƕơʀƤ] ƾƝơʀƤ G

sch. 1400 – sch. 1420–1b

265

1405 (ƨƒƞƫƟ): ǿ ƞƮƖơƤ ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƦƔƜ ƢƣȶƤ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ. L 1 lm. addidi

1407–8 ǢƝơƧƥ' – ƨƣʎƠƔƜ: ơǮƝƘʎơƟ Ʀȶ ƗƜƔƟƮƚμƔ ƖƧƟƔƜƝʬƟ. Ʀȶ ƗȰ ƾƟƑƝơƧƥƦƔ ơȎƩ ȟƤ ƝƔƦƔƖƜƟưƥƝơƧƥƔƜ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƨƔƥȴƟ ƾƞƞȮ ƢɱƟ Ʀȶ ƢƣɱƖμƔ ǎƝƦƣƘƢƮμƘƟƔƜ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. scripsit Kruytbosch 85: ƕơɲ ƦƜƤ ǒƟƗơƟ (v. 1406) L: deest in r; (ǢƝơƧƥ' n.) R ƾƟȳƝơƧƥƔ ƀ 2 ơȎƩ om. G ƝƔƦƔƖƜƟȻƥƝơƧƥƔƜ] ƖƜƟưƥƝơƧƥƔ G: ƖƜƟȻƥƝơƧƥ ƀR Ʀơʝ om. r ȆƣƐƥƦơƧ ƨƔƥȴƟ] ƨƚƥȴ ȆƣȱƥƦƚƟ (ȆƣƐƥƦɾ G/ǿ ȆƣȱƥƦƚƤ ƀ) GMR ƢɱƟ Ʀȶ] Ʀȶ ƢɱƟ r

1413–4 Ȥ ƢƮƞƜƤ, Ȥ ƖƘƟƘƏ: Ȥ ƖƘƟƘȮ Ʀơʝ ơǲƝơƧ ƦơƯƦơƧ, ƝƔƦȮ ƦƔƯƦƚƟ ƥƘ ƦȲƟ ǟμƐƣƔƟ ǟ μơʎƣƔ ƘǮƤ ƨƛơƣȮƟ ƝƔȴ ǎƞƏƦƦƫƥƜƟ Ʀơʝ ƖȱƟơƧƤ ǂƖƘƜ. L r(GMR) 1 lm.] Ȥ ƢȷƞƜƤ ƀ: deest in GR; (Ȥ ƢȷƞƜƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1413–4 Ȥ ƢƮƞƜƤ ƥƘ – ƨƛȵƟƘƜ (alt.); grammaticus ƨƛƒƟƘƜ vim activam habere opinatur Ȥ ƖƘƟƘȮ (alt.)]: Ȥ ƖƘƟƘƔȴ G ƝƔƦȮ ƦƔƯƦƚƟ] ƝƔƦ' ƔȎƦȲƟ r

1420–1a ƢơƞƯƣƣƧƦơƟ – ƛƔƟƮƟƦƘƤ: ƾƟƦȴ ǎƢƘƠƐƣƩơƟƦƔƜ ƔȎƦoȹƤ. L r(GMR) 1 lm. scripsit Zielinski 10: ƾƣƔȴ ƙʬƥƜƟ ƀ: deest in LGR; (ƦƘƞơʝƥƜƟ ƾƣƔȴ n.) R; ƾƟƦȴ] ƾƟ. Ʀơʝ r ǎƢƘƠƐƣƩơƟƦƔƜ] ȏƢƘƣƐƣƩơƟƦƔƜ r ƔȎƦơȹƤ (i.e. ƦơȸƤ ƝƦƔƟƮƟƦƔƤ) Lascaris prob. Zielinski l.c.: ǏƔƧƦơȹƤ codd.: ƔȎƦơʎƤ Ɓauck 422

1420–1b (Ɣǵμ') ȏƢƘƠƔƜƣơʝƥƜ (– ƛƔƟȷƟƦƘƤ): ǎƝƩƐơƧƥƜ Ʀȶ ƔǵμƔ ƦʬƟ ƨơƟƘƧƥƏƟƦƫƟ ơǯ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦƘƤ. L q(Ÿs.l.) r(GMR) 1 lm. Ɓ supplevi: deest in LŸ et in r quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. pr. copulet (ƝƔȴ) 1– 2 ƦʬƟ ƨơƟƘƧƥȯƟƦƫƟ ante Ʀȶ ƔǵμƔ (1) transp. r 2 ơǯ ƨơƟƘƧƛƐƟƦƘƤ] ơǯ ƾƢơƛƔƟƮƟƦƘƤ Ÿ: ơǯ ƢƏƞƔƜ ƛƔƟƮƟƦƘƤ r

266

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1425 ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟ ƘǮ ƝƔƞʬƤ ǎƛƐƥƢƜƥƘƟ: ơǵơƟ ơȎƝ ƾƢ' ǎμƔƧƦơʝ ǎƢƜƕƔƞƞƮμƘƟơƤ ǒƢƣƔƠƔ ƾƞƞȮ ƢƘƜƛƮμƘƟơƤ ƛƘʭ. L q(H) r(GMR) 1 lm.] ƗȷμơƜƥƜ μȰƟ ƀ: deest in HGR; (ƦƾƟƗȷμơƜƥƜ n.) R; (μȰƟ s.) H Ʀʭ ǆƢƮƞƞƫƟƜ Ż

2 ƛƘʭ] Ʀʭ ƛ. r:

1428 ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ ǎƝ ƢƣơƗȳƞơƧ: ơǵơƟ ȏƢơƥƦƣƐƪƔƟƦƔŭ μƘƦƘƝƐƝƞƚƦơ ƖȮƣ ǲƥƫƤ ȏƢȶ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ. L q(H) r(GMR) 1 lm. ex H: deest in Lrr r 2 ǲƥƫƤ] ǀƟ ǲƥ. Żr

ȏƢơƥƦƣƐƪƔƟƦƔ] ǎƢȴ ȏƢ. (ȏƢơƥƦƣȱƪƔƟƦơƤ G) r

μƘƦƘƝȱƝƞƘƦơ

1434 ƟʝƟ, ƦȮ ƢƣȴƟ ƘȔ ƛƐμƘƟơƜ: ƦȮ μȰƟ ƢƣȴƟ ƘȔ ƛƐμƘƟơƜ, ƦȮ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȲƟ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƟ, ȟƤ ƝƔȴ <ƦȮ> ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ ƘȔ Ƙǲƚ, ƦȮ ƝƔƦȮ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƟ. L q(H) r(G) 1 lm. deest in HG; accuratiss. v. 1434 ƟʝƟ – ƢȯƞƜƟ ƦȮ μȰƟ ƢƣȴƟ ƘȔ ƛȱμƘƟơƜ om. ŻG 2 post žƞƧƦ. add. ƨƚƥȴƟ ŻG ȟƤ] ȣƤ ƖƘ (ȣƥƦƘ voluit) Ż ƦȮ add. Papageorgiou ȓƥƦƘƣơƟ HG: ȏμȱƦƘƣơƟ L Ƙǲƚ pro ɒ usu recentiore, vide ad sch. 526.3 ƝƔƦȮ] ƝƔƦ' Ż

1437 ƗƜ' ȞƦȶƤ ǀƟ ƢƔʝƣƏ Ɩ': μȲ ƾƟƔƦƘƦƔμƐƟƫƤ ƨƛƐƖƖƘƥƛƔƜ ƾƞƞ' ǎƞƔƨƣʬƤ ǎƟ ȞƦȴ ƞƔƞƘʎƟ ƗƘʎ μƚƗȰ μƚƝƯƟƘƜƟ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ. L r(G) 1 lm. deest in G quippe qui hoc sch. cum sch. 1438a copulet (ǂƞƞƫƤ); accuratiss. v. 1437–40 ƗƜ' ȞƦȶƤ – ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ; ȟƤ ǞƢƒƫƤ invenisse scholiastam in libro suo e μȲ ƾƟƔƦƘƦƔμƐƟƫƤ et ǎƞƔƨƣʬƤ apparet 2 ǎƟ om. G ȞƦȴ Papageorgiou: Ʀʭ L: ƔȎƦʭ G ƞƔƞƘʎƟ] ƞƔƕƘʎƟ G μƚƗȰ] ƗȰ G μƚƝƯƟƘƜƟ] ƝƜƟƘʎƟ G in verbis ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƞƔƞƘʎƟ ƗƘʎ μƚƗȰ μƚƝȹƟƘƜƟ ƦȶƟ ƞȷƖơƟ libri L, cum ea ad ipsam explicationem non pertinere putaret, versum poeticum agnovit et ita restituit Wolff 24: ǎƟ Ʀʭ ƞƔƞƘʎƟ ƗƘʎ μȳ ƦƜ μƚƝȹƟƘƜƟ ƞȷƖơƟ

1438a ǞƢƒƫƤ: ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƟƚƢƒƫƟŭ ȟƤ ǀƟ μƜƝƣʬƟ ƢƔƒƗƫƟ ʜƑμƔƦƔ ơȓƦƫƤ ƔȎƦʭ ƾƨƘƞʬƤ ƗƜƔƞƐƖƘƥƛƔƜ ƗƘʎ μȲ ƾƟƔƝƔƞƯƢƦơƟƦƔƤ ƘȎƛƐƫƤ Ʀȶ ƖƘƖơƟȶƤ ƝƔƦȮ ƦȶƟ ơǴƝơƟ. L q(HŸ) r(G)

sch. 1425 – sch. 1450

267

1–3 hoc sch. cum sch. 1439–41 c. in ŻG (ǂƞƞƫƤ) 1 lm. ex F: ȟƤ ǞƢȵƫƤ ǎƟƟȱƢƘƜƟ L: deest in HŸG Ɩƣ L: ơm. HG ƟƚƢȵƫƟ Papageorgiou: ƟƚƢȵƫ L: ƟƚƢƒƫƤ NF: om. HŸG 2 ƾƨƘƞʬƤ] ƾƟƫƨƘƞʬƤ G ƾƟƔƝƔƞȹƢƦơƟƦƔƤ Ÿ (coni. iam Lascaris): –ƢƦơƟƦƘƤ LŻ: -ƢƦơƟƦơƤ G

1438b (ǞƢȵƫƤ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ ƟƚƢƒʪ. L 1 lm. addidi ƟƚƢȵƫƜŭơƟŭ L

Ɩƣ. L; Ɩƣ. del. Wunder 37 quippe qui ƟƚƢȵʪ glossam esse putavisset

1439–41 (ƗƜ' ȞƦȶƤ ǀƟ ƢƔʝƣȯ Ɩ' ȟƤ ƟƚƢȵʪ ǎƟƟȱƢƘƜƟ) ƢƣȶƤ ǂƟƗƣƔ ƦƮƟƗƘ ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ (– ƾƖʬƟƔ): ƝƔƛ' ȏƢƘƣƕƔƦƮƟŭ ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ ǀƟ ƢƣȶƤ ƦơʝƦơƟ ƦȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ ǾƞƒƖƔ ƗƜ' ȞƦȶƤ ƔȎƦơʝ ǎƟƟƐƢƘƜƟ ȟƤ ǀƟ ƾƟơƑƦʪ ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟŭ ƞƘƒƢƘƜ ƗȰ ƝƔȴ Ʀʭ ƞƮƖʪ ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ, <ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ> Ʀʭ ƟƚƢƒʪ. Ǡ ƢƣȶƤ 5 ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝȲƟ μƘƦƔƝƦƐơƟŭ ƢƣȶƤ ƦȶƟ ǂƟƗƣƔ ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ ƦơʝƦơƟ ȟƤ ƢƣȶƤ ƟƑƢƜơƟ ǎƟƟƐƢƘƜƟ ǾƞƒƖƔ ƗƜȮ Ʀơʝ ȞƦȷƤ, ȃƢƫƤ ǀƟ ƾƢƔƦƚƛƘȴƤ ǎμƢƐƥơƜ ƘǮƤ ƦȶƟ ƾƖʬƟƔ ƦʀƤ ƗƒƝƚƤ ƦȶƟ ƞƏƛƣɯ ƝƔƦ' ƔȎƦơʝ ƖƜƟƮμƘƟơƟ. L q(HŸ) r(GMR) 1–2 lm. L supplevi (scholii auctorem ƟƚƢȵʪ pro ǞƢȵƫƤ legisse conicias): deest in Hrr; (ƗƜ' ȞƦȶƤ n.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1439–41 ƗƜ’ ȞƦȶƤ – ƾƖʬƟƔ 3 ƔȎƦơʝ] ƔȎƦʭ Ż: de Ÿ non constat ǀƟ del. Papageorgiou prob. Wansink 61, sed omnino immerito; cf. e.g. sch. OT 795, sch. OC 245 ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ] ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƤ G 4 ƞƘƒƢƘƜ – ƟƚƢƒʪ om. q ƞƘƒƢƘƜ – ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ om. r propter homoeoteleuton ƗƜƔƞƘƖƮμƘƟơƟ addidi 4– 5 ƢƣȶƤ ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝȲƟ μƘƦƔƝƦƐơƟ] i.e. ȟƤ ƟƚƢƒʪ in ȟƤ ƟƑƢƜơƟ mutandum et cum ƢƣȶƤ ǂƟƗƣƔ ƦƮƟƗƘ coniungendum 5 ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝȲƟ] ƾƦƦƜƝȶƟ ƀR μƘƦƔƝƦƐơƟ] ƥƧƟƦƔƝƦƐơƟ Ż: de Ÿ non constat ƢƣȶƤ (pr.) om. r ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ L (de omittendo ǂƟ cf. ad sch. 1253): 5 ȟƤ – 6 ȞƦȶƤ om. r ƥƧμƨƐƣơƜ ǀƟ q: ƥƧμƨƐƣƘƜ FWa (coni. Lascaris): ƥƧμƨƐƣơƟ G 6 ȃƢƫƤ ǀƟ ... ǎμƢƐƥơƜ] cf. e.g. sch. Eur. Or. 671bis … ƗȱơμƔȵ ƥơƧ ƢƣȶƤ ƦƔȹƦƚƤ ȃƢƫƤ ǂƟ μơƜ ƕơƚƛȳƥƘƜƔƤ; Plu. 159.C ƾƢȷƞƞƧƦƔƜ ƖȮƣ ǎƠ ơȕ ƢȱƨƧƝƘ Ʀȶ μƘƦƔƕȯƞƞơƟ ƘǮƤ ǂƞƞơ, ƝƔȴ ƢɱƥƔƟ ƨƛƘȵƣƘƦƔƜ ƨƛơƣȯƟ, ȃƢƫƤ ǀƟ ƛƔƦȱƣơƧ ƦƣơƨȲ ƖȱƟơƜƦơ ȃƢƫƤ] ȃƢƘƣ ƀR ǀƟ om. H: de Ÿ non constat ǎμƢƐƥơƜ LH: ǎμƢƐƥɾ r (coni. Lascaris; vide 6 ȃƢƫƤ ǀƟ … ǎμƢƐƥơƜ): de Ÿ non constat 7 ƦȶƟ ƞƏƛƣɯ om. r ƝƔƦ' ƔȎƦơʝ ƖƜƟȷμƘƟơƟ om. ƀR

1450 (ƗƒƗƔƥƝƐ μƘ): ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ μƑƟƧƐ μơƜ. L 1 lm. add. Lascaris

Ɩƣ. L

268

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1457 (ƩƔȵƣơƜƤ) ǂƟ, Ƙǲ ƥơƜ (ƩƔƣƦȮ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜ ƦȯƗƘ): ǎƢƜƥƔƣƝƏƙơƧƥƔ ƦƏƗƘ ƨƚƥƒƟ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿs.l.) r(ƀR) 1 lm. ƀ supplevi: deest in cett.; (ƩƔȵƣơƜƤ ǀƟ s.) R ƦȯƗƘ] ƦƔʝƦƔ Ż: om. ƀR

1458 ƥƜƖɱƟ ǂƟƫƖƔ: ƝƘƞƘƯƘƜ ǿ ŵǲƖƜƥƛơƤ ǎμƨƔƟʬƤ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƛƔƜ Ʀȶ ƥʬμƔ Ʀơʝ ȆƣƐƥƦơƧŭ ơǯ ƗȰ ǎƢƜƗƘƜƝƟƯơƧƥƜ Ʀȶ ƦʀƤ žƞƧƦƔƜμƑƥƦƣƔƤ. L q(ŻŸ) r(G) 1 lm. ex NF: deest in LHŸG; (ƥƜƖɱƟ s.) H; accuratiss. v. 1458 ƥƜƖɱƟ – ƢȹƞƔƤ ƗƘƒƝƟƧƥƛƔƜ] ƗƘʎƠƔƜ G 2 ǎƢƜƗƘƜƝƟƯơƧƥƜ Ʀȶ] ƗƘƜƝƟƯơƧƥƜ G

1462 μƚƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ ƕȵƔƟ: ǎȮƟ μȲ ƢƘƒƛƚƦƔƜ, ƢƣȶƤ ƕƒƔƟ, ƝơƞƏƥƘƫƤ ƦƧƩưƟ, ƦƮƦƘ ƨƯƥƘƜ ƨƣƐƟƔƤ ƝƔȴ ƘǲƥƘƦƔƜ ȃƦƜ ǂμƘƜƟơƟ ǤƟ ƢƘƒƛƘƥƛƔƜ Ʀʭ ƝƣƔƦơʝƟƦƜ. L q(Ż) V Mii r(GƀR) 1 lm. ex NF: μƚƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ Mii: deest in Lq qVrr; (μƚƗȰ ƢƣȶƤ s.) R; accuratiss. vv. 1462–3 μƚƗȰ – ƨƣȱƟƔƤ ǎȮƟ] Ʀʭ V ƢƘƒƛƚƦƔƜ] ƗƐƩƚƦƔƜ μƚƗȰ ƢƘƜƥƛƘƒƚ r ƕƒƔƟ] ƕƒƔƤ r post ƦƧƩưƟ add. ƢƔƣ' ǎμơʝ r 2 ƨƯƥƘƜ ƨƣƐƟƔƤ] ƨƚƥȴƟ ƨƣƐƟƔƤ ƝƦƑƥƘƦƔƜ V post ƨƯƥƘƜ add. ȃ ǎƥƦƜƟ ƞƏƕɾ q ǤƟ] ǀƟ V

1466–7 (ǂƟƘƧ – ƞȱƖƫ): ơǵơƟ ǎƨƛơƟƑƛƚ ƝƔȴ ǒƢƘƥƘƟ ǿ ȆƣƐƥƦƚƤ. ƘǮ ƗȰ μƐμƪƜƤ ƦƜƤ ǒƢƘƥƦƜƟ ơȎ ƞƐƖƫŭ ƘǮ ƗȰ μƘμƨƮμƘƛƔ ƦơʎƤ ƢƘƣȴ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƥƧμƕɱƥƜƟ ơȎ ƞƐƖƫ. L 2 ƟƐμƘƥƜƤ per μƐμƪƜƤ explanatur in sch. D Hom. Il. 3. 156 ơȎ ƟƐμƘƥƜƤ: ơȎ μƐμƪƜƤ; sch. Hom. Il. 13. 122a; Hesych. Ɵ. 282; ơ 1788; Ɔ Ɵ 45 ƟƐμƘƥƜƤŭ μƐμƪƜƤ… = Ph. 293, 22 = Su. Ɵ 163 (+) 1 lm. addidi 2 ƘǮ ƗȰ – fin.] fortasse a prioribus seiungenda 2 ƔȎƦȶƟ Bernardakis 49 (cf. sch. Ai. 32a.3 ƦơƜơʝƦơƟ ƖȮƣ ƥƧμƕƔƒƟƘƜ ƢƘƣȴ ƦơȸƤ ǮƩƟƘƧƦȮƤ): ƔȎƦʭ L

1478 (ƦơʎƤ ƛƔƟơʝƥƜƟ): Ʀʭ ȆƣƐƥƦɾ. L 1 lm. add. Żeath 24

269

sch. 1457 – sch. 1495–6

1483a (ƝǀƟ ǎƢȴ μƜƝƣȷƟ): ƝǀƟ ƥμƜƝƣƮƟ. Ls.l. 1 lm. add. Papageorgiou

1483b μȲ ƢƐƣƔ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ: ƢƘƣƜƥƥȲ ƖȮƣ ƝƔȴ ƾƢƒƛƔƟơƤ ƗƜƔƦƣƜƕȲ ƢƣȶƤ Ʀʭ ƦƐƞƘƜ ǎƝƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƞƮƖơƧƤ. L r(Gƀ) 1 lm. ex F: deest in Lrr; (μȲ s.) L ǎƝ. r

Ʀʭ om. r

2 ƦȱƞƘƜ] Ʀȱƞƚ r

ǎƝƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƞƮƖơƧƤ] ƞ.

1487–8 (ƢƣȷƛƘƤ | ƦƔƨƘʝƥƜƟ): ơǮƫƟơʎƤ ƝƔȴ ƝƧƥȴ ƢƣƮƛƘƤ ƔȎƦƮƟ. L q(Żs.l.) G 1 lm. addidi in initio scholii ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƾƟƘƞȺƟ posuit G transp. G (vide notam secundam)

ơǮƫƟơʎƥƜ Ż

ƔȎƦȶƟ

1489 (ƦƮƗ'): Ʀȶ ǂƦƔƨơƟ ƔȎƦȶƟ ƔǮƝƜƥƛʀƟƔƜ. L q(Żs.l.) 1 hoc sch. ad v. 1493 adscriptum suo loco restituit Lascaris; probant Kruytbosch 85 et Meiser 11 ƔǮƝƜƥƛʀƟƔƜ] ǎƔƛʀƟƔƜ Ż

1495 (μȲ ƦƏƥƥƘ): μȲ ǎƢƒƦƔƥƥƘ. L q(ŻŸ) 1 lm. add. Lascaris

1495–6 (ƩȻƣƘƜ – ƛȯƟɾƤ): ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƟ ƢƜƛƔƟȲƟ ƘȕƣƘ Ʀơʝ μȲ ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǎμƨƔƟƘʎ ƨơƟƘʝƥƔƜ ƔȎƦƮƟ. L q(ŻŸ) 1–2 hoc sch. cum sch. pr. coniunctum (ƢƣȷƨƔƥƜƟ ƗȰ q) separatim posuit Lascaris 1 lm. addidi ǎμƨƔƟƘʎ] ƾƨƔƟƘʎ q

270

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Electram

1508–10 (ȟƤ – ǎƠʀƞƛƘƤ): ƾƟƦȴ Ʀơʝ μƘƦȮ ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƝƔμƏƦƫƟ μƮƞƜƤ ǞƞƘƧƛƘƣưƛƚƤ. L q(Żs.l.Ÿs.l.) 1 lm. addidi μƘƦȮ ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƝƔμȯƦƫƟ LŸ (de sensu μƘƦƏ cum genetivo h.l. vide KG I 506–7): ƢơƞƞʬƟ ƝƔμƏƦƫƟ Ż: μƘƦȮ ƢơƞƞơȸƤ ƝƔμȯƦơƧƤ Bernardakis 49 μƮƞƜƤ om. q 1–2 ǞƞƘƧƛƘƣưƛƚƤ om. Ÿ

Indices

Scriptores in scholiis citati1 Aeschylus Apollonius Rhodius Archilochus Aristophanes

Cypria Deinias Euripides Hesiodus Homerus

Pherecrates Pherecydes Atheniensis Pindarus Sappho Sophocles

1

fr. 161.1 R.: 139a; fr. 385 R.: 286; 1.757: 745b; 4.477: 445a2; fr. 6 W.: 95; Ra. 103: 147c; fr. 175 K.-A.: 289–90a; fr. 17 D. = fr. 24 Bernabé: 157; FGrH 306 fr. 2: 278b; fr. 799a Kannicht: 188; Th. 126–7: 86a; fr. 175 M.-W.: 539a; Il. 1.132: 56; 2.295: 182a; 2.749: 706a2; 4.52: 4; 5.255: 320; 4. 535 = 5. 626 = 13. 148: 19; 5.778: 977a; 7.180 = 11.46 = Od. 3.305: 9b; 9.633: 210; 9.634–6: 210; 11.328: 182b; 17.32: 1056–7; 19.288: 1127–8; 22.424–5: 1075–6a1; 24.524: 139b; 24.615: 151a2; Od. 3.303, 305, 304 hoc ordine: 267; 3.305 = Il. 7.180 = 11.46: 9b; 4.535 = 11.411: 446; 8.362–3: 45; 11.408: 95; 18.333: 135; 19.209: 1137; 19.518–9: 149a; 19.562: 645; 22.462: 1006; 24.97: 302; fr. 141 K.-A.: 86d; FGrH 3 fr. 37b: 504; P. 2.50–1: 696; N. 4.31–2: 1026; fr. 136 Voigt: 149b; El. 10: 504–6; 16: 1–19; 98: 98; 127: 126–7; 130: 131; 173–5: 823; 190–1: 452a1; 506–7: 505; 528: 561a; 556: 628–9; 612: 610; 616: 622a; 646–7: 645; 821–2: 975; 940: 944; 942: 946b; 1288: 1344; 1398: 1384a; Ant. 803: 895;

The Indices are not meant to be exhaustive; they contain only the most important items. In the case of the last three of them entries denote either exact words or subjects or both.

Verba de quibus scholia agunt ǂƕơƧƞơƤ 546 ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ ŸƜƮƤ 149a ƾƖƞƔʍƔ 211a ƾƘƒ ƦȶƟ ƾƘƒ 1075–6a2 ƾƙƑμƜơƤ 1102 ǂƛƘơƤ 124 ƔǮƔƟƮƤ 505 ƔǮƝƒƔ 511 ƔǮƥƛƏƟƘƥƛƔƜ 89b ƔǮƥƩƯƟƘƥƛƔƜ 254–5 ƾƝƏμƔƦƔ (adv.) 164 ƾƝμƑ 22 ǂƞƘƝƦƣơƤ 492a1, a2 ƾƞƜƢƔƣƑƤ 451c ƾƞƯƘƜƟ 135 ƾμƟƚƥƦƘʎƟ 482 ƾƟƔƝơƯƘƜƟ 81 ƾƟƔƝƫƩƘƯƘƜƟ 732b ƾƟƏƟơμơƤ 232a1 ƾƟƏƠƜơƤ 189 ƾƟƏƣƜƛμơƤ 232a2 ƾƟƘƜμƐƟƚ 516 ƾƟƐƨƘƞơƤ 1246 ƾƟƑƝƘƥƦơƟ Ƣʝƣ 888a1 ƾƟƑƟƧƦơƤ 166b ƾƟƜƐƟƔƜ 229 ƾƟƦƑƣƚƤ 89–90, 89a1, a2 ƾƟƦƜƕƔƒƟƘƜƟ 575 ƾƟƦƒƣƣơƢơƤ 120 ǂƟƧμƨơƤ 492a1, a2 ǂƟƫƛƘƟ 1058 ƾƢƏƦƚ 125 ƾƢƘƣƒƦƣơƢơƤ 182a, b, 183 ƾƢơƞƞƯƟƔƜ 831a2 ƾƢƮƟƚƦơƤ 1065 ƾƢơƟƒƟƔƥƛƔƜ 211b ƾƢơƣƣƘʎƟ 1000

ǂƣƚƠƜƤ 875 ǂƣƣƚƦơƤ 203 ƾƣƩƔƜƮƢƞơƧƦơƤ 1393b ƾƣƩƔʎơƤ 893 ƾƣƩƐƢƞơƧƦơƤ 72a ǂƣƩƘƥƛƔƜ 264 ƾƣƫƖƮƤ 1391–2b ǂƥƝƘƧơƤ 36 ǂƥƝơƢơƤ 864 ǂƥƦơμơƤ 724 ƾƦƯƙƘƥƛƔƜ 149a ƾƩƐƘƜƟ 159 ƾƩƮƣƘƧƦơƤ 1069a, b ƕƏƠƜƤ 638a ŶƔƣƝƔʎơƤ 727 ƕƞƏƕƚ 1042 ƕƣƔƕƘƯƤ 690 ƕƣƯƘƜƟ 422 ƕʀμƔ 163 ƕơƧƟƮμơƤ 181 ƖƘƟƐƛƞƔ 129 ƖƘƟƟƔʎơƤ 129, 287 ƖƐƟƧƤ 195–6, 485 ƖƟưμƚ 551 ƗƔƣƮƟ 1065 ƗƘƜƟƏ (pro subst.) 26 ƗƘƜƟƮƤ 500, 731 ƗƜƥƥȮ ȂƟƘƜƣƔ 645 ƗơƣƯƠƘƟơƤ 46 ƗƧƥƐƣƜƥƦơƤ 1384–5 ƗƯƥƛƘơƤ 289 ƗƧƥƝƞƘʬƤ ƛƔƟƘʎƟ 1006, 1007–8a, b ǎƖƖƘƟƑƤ 1328 ǎƖƩƘƜƣƘʎƟ 1026 ǏƗưƞƜƔ 1393a, b ƘǮƝƏƛƘƜƟ 1014 ƘǮƥƏƖƘƜƟ 39 ƘǮƥơƣɱƟ 584, 611

Verba de quibus scholia agunt

ǎƝƗƜƗƏƥƝƘƥƛƔƜ 621 ǎƝƝƜƟƘʎƟ 567 ǎƝμƏƥƥƘƜƟ 445–6a1, a2, 446 ǒƝƢƔƖƞơƤ 204a ǒƝƦƜμơƤ 241–2 ǒμμƚƟơƤ 281 ǒƟƘƣơƜ 1391–2b ǒƟƦƜμơƤ 239 ǎƟ Ʀʭ; 1186a ǎƠƜƥơʝƟ, ǎƠƜƥơʝƥƛƔƜ 1194, 1071–4 ǎƠ ơǳƫƟ ǒƩƫ 1379 ǎƢƔƖƖƐƞƞƘƥƛƔƜ 1018a1, a2 ǎƢƔƧƩƘʎƟ 65 ǎƢƜƝƫƝƯƘƜƟ 283b ǎƢƜƥƝơƢƘʎƟ 1184b ǎƢƜƦƒμƜơƟ 915a1, 1382 ǒƢơƜƝơƤ 189 ǎƢƫƟơμƔƥμƐƟƚ 284 ǎƣƜƥƦƮƤ 1095–7 ǓƣƝơƤ 837, 838 ǎƥƛƞƮƤ 24 ǏƥƦƏƟƔƜ 50b ƘȔ ƞƐƖƘƜƟ 1028, 1039a1, a2 ƘȎƚμƘƣƘʎƟ 653 ƘȎƞƏƕƘƜƔ 993 ƘȎμƔƣƑƤ 179 ƘȎƢƔƦƣƒƗƚƤ 858–9 ƘȎƦƧƩƘʎƟ 945 ǎƢƐƩƘƜƟ 1369 ǎƨƐƥƦƜơƤ 419 ǎƨƒƘƥƛƔƜ 51, 144 ǒƩƛƜơƟ 1047 ƙƧƖƫƦƮƤ 702 ƙʬμƔ 452a1, a2 ǞƛƏƤ 372 ǞƟƛƜƥμƐƟơƤ 42b ǞƥƝƚμƐƟơƤ 1217 ƛƏƞƢƘƥƛƔƜ 888a1, a2 ƛƑƝƚ 896b ƛƯμƔƦƔ 634 ǲƔƥƜƤ 875 ǮƥƮμơƜƣơƤ ƾƑƣ 86a, b, c ǲƥƦƫƣ 850b ƝƔƛơƢƞƒƙƘƜƟ 1087–8

ƝƔƜƣơʝ ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜƟ 31 ƝƔƝʬƤ 354b ƝƔƞƘʎƥƛƔƜ 366 ƝƔƦƔƞƯƥƜμơƤ 1247 ƝƔƦƔƥƦƏƦƚƤ 72b ƝƔƦƚƣƘƨƑƤ 381 ƝƘƟƮƤ 403 ƝƘƯƛƘƜƟ 868 ƝƞƐƢƦƘƜƟ 56 ƝơƜƟƮƤ 1085 ƝơƜƟƮƦơƝơƤ 858, 858–9 ƝƣƯƢƦƘƜƟ 826 ƝʝƣơƤ 919a1, a2 ƝƯƦơƤ 1142 ƞƜƢƔƣƘʎ ƩƘƣƒ 1378 ƞƯƘƜƟ 743, 1005a1, a2 ƞƯƝƘƜơƤ (coni.) 6–9 ƞƧƝơƝƦƮƟơƤ 6–9 ƞưƕƔ 864 ƀƔƒƔƤ ƢƔʎƤ 1395a, b μƔƝƣƏƟ (adv.) 1259 μƔƝƣƮƤ 375 μƔƟƛƏƟƘƜƟ 617–8 μƔƥƩƔƞƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ 445a1, a2, a3 μƏƦƔƜơƤ 642a1, a2 μƘƛƔƣμƮƙƘƜƟ 31 μƘƛƐƢƘƥƛƔƜ 1052 μƐƞƘƜƟ 342 μƘƞƐƦƫƣ 846b μƐƞƞƘƜƟ 318 μƟƚμƘʎơƟ 933 μơƣƨƏ 199a μƧƗƔƞƐơƤ 166a μʝƛơƤ 50a ƟƔƧƏƖƜơƟ 730 ƟƘƔƝƮƟƚƦơƟ ƔǵμƔ 1394 ƟƘưƣƚƤ 901 ƟơƧƛƐƦƚμƔ 343b ƟơʝƤ 403 ƠƘƟƒƙƘƜƟ 95 ǿƗƮƤ 68b ơǮƝƘʎơƤ 213 ơǮƝơƟơμƘʎƟ 189 ơǮƩƟƘʎƟ 165

275

276 ǿƞƝƮƤ 863a, b, c ȂμμƔ 903 ơȎƩȴ ƥȶƟ 1215a1, a1 ƢƏƖƝƔƣƢƔ ƛƯμƔƦƔ 635 ƢƏƖƝơƜƟơƤ 138 ƢƏƞƜƟ 1046 ƢƏμμƚƟơƤ 850a, 851b ƢƏμƪƧƩơƤ 841a2 ƢƔƟƟƧƩƒƤ 92 ƢƏƟƥƧƣƦơƟ (pro subst.) 850a, 851a ƢƔƣƏƖƘƜƟ 854, 855a ƢƔƣƏƨƣƫƟ 472b ƢƔƣƒƘƥƛƔƜ 545 ƢƔʝƣơƤ 1437 ƢƘʎƣƔ 471 ƢƐƟƦƔƛƞơƟ 691 ƢƘƣƜƥƥƮƤ 155a ƢƚƖƑ ƖƏƞƔƝƦơƤ 895 ƢƒƥƦƜƟ ƨƐƣƘƜƟ 735 ƢƞƏƛƘƜƟ 220 ƢƞơƯƥƜơƤ 361 ƢơƞƯƨƛơƣơƤ 10 Ƣơʎ 958 ƢơƒƟƜμơƤ 210 ƢƣƏƝƦƫƣ 953 ƢƣƮμƔƟƦƜƤ 475 ƢƣơμƚƛƑƤ 1078 ƢƣơμƚƛƒƔ 990 ƢƣơƟƐμƘƥƛƔƜ 1384–5 ƢƣƮƣƣƜƙơƤ 512 ƢƣơƥƝƘƒμƘƟơƤ ǳƢƢơƤ 722 ƢƣơƥƦƔƦƑƣƜơƤ 637 ƢƣơƥƦƔƦʬƟ 781 ƢƣơƨƧƦƘƯƘƜƟ 198 ƥƔƞƘƯƘƜƟ 1074 ƥƘƜƣƔʎơƤ ǳƢƢơƤ 722 ƥƝʀƪƜƤ 584 ƥƢɱƟ 561b ƥƦƑƞƚ 720 ƥƦƮμƔƣƖơƤ 607 ƥƧƖƖƒƖƟƘƥƛƔƜ 411a ƥƧμƨƐƣƘƜƟ 946a ƥƨƣƔƖƒƤ 1223 ƥʫƙƘƥƛƔƜ 993

Indices

ƥƫƝƘʎƟ 119 ƦƏƨơƤ 1400 ƦƏƥƥƘƜƟ 1495 ƦʁƗƘ (adv.) 643b, 1193 ƦƞƑμƫƟ 275, 439 ƦƧƖƩƏƟƘƜƟ ƨƣƘƟʬƟ 992–3 ƦƯƩƚ ƾƟƔƖƝƔƒƔ ƦƯƩƚ 48a1, a2 ƦƯƢƫμƔ 54a1, a2 ȏƞƔƝƦƘʎƟ 299 ȏƢƘƠƔƜƣƘʎƟ 1420–1b ȏƢƘƣƔƞƖƑƤ 176a, b ȏƢƘƣƕƏƞƞƘƜƟ 716a1, 716–7 ȏƢƘƣƒƥƦƔƥƛƔƜ 188 ȏƢƐƣƦƘƣơƤ ǎƠ ȏƢƘƣƦƐƣƔƤ ƩƘƣƮƤ 455 ȏƢơƞƘƒƢƘƥƛƔƜ 91 ȏƢơƥƦƣơƨƑ ǎƝ Ɨ’ ȏƢơƥƦƣơƨʀƤ 725 ȏƨƒƘƥƛƔƜ 335a1, a2 ƨƘƣƐƖƖƧơƤ 942a, b ƨƣƏƙƘƜƟ 197a1, a2 ƨƣƯƔƖμƔ 717c ƩƔƞƔƣƖƮƤ 861 ƩƛƮƟƜơƤ 1066 ƩƞƜƗƑ 52 ƩƟƮƚ 716–7, 717a, 745a Ʃƣʁ 35 ƩƣƒμƢƦƘƜƟ 721a1, a2 ƩƣƧƥƮƗƘƦơƤ 837 ȢƟ 305

Grammatica ƔǮƦƜƔƦƜƝƑ 758, 1439–41 ƾƝƔƦƏƞƞƚƞơƟ 652b ƾμƘƦƏƕơƞơƟ 70 ƾƢơƨƔƦƜƝƮƤ 844 ǂƣƛƣƔ 977a ƾƦƦƜƝʬƤ, ǆƦƦƜƝơʎƤ 42a, 70, 147a, 977a ƕƔƣƯƟƘƥƛƔƜ 70, 717b ƖƘƟƜƝƑ 70 ƖƣƏƨƘƦƔƜ 1b, 111, 204b, 272, 283a, 303, 331, 379, 591, 751, 876, 915a2, 922, 929b, 1019b, 1097, 1101, 1255, 1438a, 1438b, 1450 ƗƔƥƯ 717b ƗƜȮ μƐƥơƧ 855b ƗƜƏƞƧƥƜƤ 88 ƗƜƔƥƦƐƞƞƘƜƟ 1145–6 ƗƜƔƥƦƒƙƘƜƟ 878 ƗƜƥƯƞƞƔƕơƤ 717b ƗƜƩʬƤ 28 ǏƠʀƤ, ƦƮ, 78–9, 108–9 (subaud.), 241–2 (subaud.), 328–9, 542–3, 1058–62, 1075–6a2, 1126–7 (subaud.), 1253 (subaud.), 1349 (subaud.). ǎƢƒƛƘƦơƟ 706a² ƝƔƛƔƣȶƟ ƚ 717b ƝƔƦƏƞƞƚƞơƟ 86–90 ƝơƜƟơʝ ƾƢȶ/ƝƔƦȮ ƝơƜƟơʝ 182b, 183, 193b, 484–5, 652b ƞƘƒƢƘƜ 495a1, 716a2, 1007, 1225, 1265, 1439–41 ǟ ƾƢƮ 668 ǟ ƗƜƏ 563 ǟ ƝƔƦƏ 348 ǟ ƢƘƣƒ 317, 1075–6a1, 1075 ǟ ȏƢƐƣ 872 μƘƦơƩƑ 159 μƘƦơƩƜƝƮƤ 70 μƐƦƣơƟ 86d

ƟơʝƤ 103–4, 339–40, 508, 1247, 1281–4, 1345 ǿμƫƟƯμƫƤ 4 ȂƟơμƔ 706a1, a² ȂƟơμƔ ƝƯƣƜơƟ 706a² ǾƠƯƟƘƥƛƔƜ 70 ƢƔƣƔƞƚƖƮμƘƟơƤ 717b ƢƔƣƔƦƐƞƘƧƦơƤ, ǟ (pro subst.) 70 ƢƔƣƐƞƝƘƜ Ʀȶ ơȎƗƐƟ 1372 ƢƞƘơƟƏƙƘƜ Ʀȶ μƑ 42a ƢƣƮƛƘƥƜƤ 620 ƢƣƮƤ ƾƟƦȴ ƦʀƤ μƘƦƏ 1211 ƣƧƛμƮƤ 86d ƥƯμƨƫƟơƟ 717b ƥƯƟƗƘƥμơƤ ƢƔƣƔƢƞƚƣƫμƔƦƜƝƮƤ 495b -ƦƑƤ, ƦȮ ƘǮƤ –ƦƚƤ (accentus) 70 ƦơƯƦƫ 981 ƥƧƥƦƐƞƞƘƜƟ 86d ƦưƗƘ 977b ƨƒƞơƤ ƾƟƦȴ Ȥ ƨƒƞƘ 1145–6 ƩƟƮƚ (accentus) 717b ȣ 978 etymologia 505, 901

Rhetorica ƾƟƔƥƦƣơƨƑ 19 ƾƟƦƜƞơƖƒƔ 629 ƾƟƦƜƣƣƑƥƘƜƤ 328, 632 ƾƢƘƜƣƮƝƔƞơƟ 1–19 ƾƢƮƗƘƜƠƜƤ 561–2 ƾƢơƞơƖƘʎƥƛƔƜ 256 ƾƢȶ μƐƣơƧƤ Ʀȶ ȃƞơƟ 717a ƾƢȶ Ʀơʝ ȃƞơƧ ƘǮƤ Ʀȶ μƘƣƜƝȶƟ 45 ƿƣμƮƙƘƜƟ 126–7, 387 ƖƟưμƚ 972 ƗƘƜƝƟƯƟƔƜ 558 ƗƜƔƟơƑμƔƦƔ 997, 1407–8 ƗƜƘʎƞƘƟ ƘǮƤ ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜƔ ƦȶƟ ƞƮƖơƟ 558 ƗƜƝƔƜơƞơƖƘʎƥƛƔƜ 307 ǎƖƝưμƜơƟ 858–9 ƘǮƝƏƙƘƜƟ 838 ƘǮƣƫƟƘƒƔ 300 ƘǮƣƫƟƘƯƘƥƛƔƜ 393 ǎƝƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƞƮƖơƧƤ 1483b ǎμƨƔ(Ɵ)ƦƜƝƮƟ 620, 995, 1291 ǎƟƔƣƖƑƤ 1404 ǎƟƘƣƖƑƤ 1404 ǎƟƔƟƦƒơƟ 561a, 1387 ǏƟƜƝƮƤ ƾƟƦȴ ǏƟƜƝơʝ 1232–3 ǎƠƔƞƞƔƖƔƒ 516 ǎƢƔƜƟƘʎƟ 731 ǎƢƜƝƔƞƯƢƦƘƜƟ 652a ǎƢƜƥƔƣƝƏƙƘƜƟ 1457 ǎƢƒƦƔƥƜƤ, ǎƢƜƦƘƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ 90, 614, 1137 ǎƢƜƨƐƣƘƜƟ 963–4 ǎƢƜƩƘƒƣƚƥƜƤ 975 ƘȎƨƑμƫƤ 112 ǟƦƦɱƥƛƔƜ 629 ƝƔƦƔƥƝƘƧƏƙƘƜƟ 580 ƝƘƨƏƞƔƜơƟ 50a, 558, 998, 999 μƘƦƔƨơƣƏ 89–90, 89a2, 732b, 1074 ƟƮƚμƔ 259

ȃμơƜơƟ 45, 622a, 696, 745b, 944, 997 ƢƔƣƔƕƏƞƞƘƜƟ 846a, 997 ƢƔƣƔμƧƛƘʎƥƛƔƜ, ƢƔƣƔμƧƛƒƔ 823, 849 ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƘʎƟ, ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƘʎƥƛƔƜ, ƢƔƣƚƖơƣƒƔ 135–6, 226a, 831a2, 854, 855a, 1171 ƢƔƣƣƚƥƒƔ 627 ƢƔƣʪƗƘʎƟ 86d, 289–90a ƢƜƛƔƟƮƤ 47b, 526, 580, 627, 629, 660, 701–8, 909a, 1171, 1495–6 ƢơƞƜƦƜƝƮƤ 88 ƢƣơƥơƩƑ 2–3, 22 ƢƣƮƥƩƚμƔ ƞƐƠƘƫƤ 289–90b ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ 1495–6 ƥƯμƨƫƟơƟ 147a, 446, 452a1, 539a ƥƧƟƚƖơƣƘʎƟ 526 ƦƔƧƦơƞơƖƒƔ 1291 ƦƮƞμƚ (ʜƚƦơƣƜƝƑ) 526 ȏƢƘƣƕƔƦƮƟ 1013, 1439–41 ȏƢƘƣƕơƞƑ 488a, b

Scaenica, ars tragica, histriones ǂƖƖƘƞơƤ 1117, 1384a, 1404 ƾƝƣơưμƘƟơƜ 731 ƾƟƔƕƞƐƢƘƜƟ 830 ƾƟƔƕơɱƟ 842a2, 843–4 ƾƟƔƖƝƔʎơƤ 253, 259, 1174 ƾƟƔƖƟƫƣƜƥμƮƤ 1098a1, 1346 ƾƟƔƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ ƩƘʎƣƔƤ 830 ƾƟƔƩƣơƟƜƥμƮƤ 47a, 49, 682 ƾƟƘƠƐƞƘƖƝƦơƟ 706a² ƾƟƦƜƞƔμƕƏƟƘƥƛƔƜ (Ʀơʝ ƞƮƖơƧ) 610 ƾƠƜơƢƜƥƦƒƔ 47a, 760, 1117 ƾƢƒƛƔƟơƤ 1483b ƾƢơƞơƨƯƣƘƥƛƔƜ 1137 ƾƢƮƦƔƥƜƤ, ƾƢơƦƘƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ 610, 1240, 1405 ƕơɱƟ, ƕơƑ 830, 1404 ƖƘƖơƟƮƦƔ ƦȮ ƖƘƖơƟƮƦƔ ǒƟƗơƟ 1404 ƖƘƞơʎơƟ 909a ƖƜƟưƥƝƘƜƟ 1137, 1178 ƖƟƫƣƒƙƘƜƟ 1178 ƗƘƜƝƦƜƝʬƤ 190–1 ƗƜƔƖƣƏƨƘƜƟ 516 ƗƜƏƛƘƥƜƤ 1126 ƗƜƔƞƯƘƜƟ 82 ƗƜƔƢơƜƝƒƞƞƘƜƟ 328 ƗƜƔƦƣƒƕƘƜƟ, ƗƜƔƦƣƜƕƑ 1344, 1384a, 1404, 1483b ƗƜƘƞƐƖƩƘƜƟ 595 ƗƜƘƠƜƐƟƔƜ 1251 ƗƜƑƖƚƥƜƤ 706a² ƗƜƥƥơƞơƖƘʎƟ 660 ƘǮƥƜƐƟƔƜ 1384a, b, 1402 ƘǮƝƮƤ 1123, 1307 ƘǮƝƮƦƫƤ 259, 823 ƘǲƥơƗơƤ 75a ǎƞƘƘƜƟƮƤ 827 ǒƞƘơƤ 516 ǎμƨƔƟƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ 1174

ǎƟ Ʀʭ ǎμƨƔƟƘʎ 1384a, 1495–6 ǎƠƜƐƟƔƜ 75a, 1322, 1398–9 ǒƠƫ 660, 1384a, 1404 ǒƠƫƛƘƟ (e.g. ƢƧƛƐƥƛƔƜ) 1307 ǎƢƘƠƘƣƖƏƙƘƥƛƔƜ 701–8 ǎƢƜƥƔƣƝƏƙƘƜƟ 1457 ǎƢƜƦƜμɱƟ 213, 256, 1326 ƘȎƗơƝƜμƘʎƟ 679 ƘȎƝƔƒƣƫƤ 660 ǞƛƜƝƏ 539a ǤƛơƤ 80, 126–7, 271, 328, 335a2, 369–71, 469, 629, 660, 675a, 679, 990, 1019a, 1062, 842a2, 1117, 1387 ǎƟ ǢƛƘƜ 312a, 393 ƛƣƚƟƘʎƟ 827 ƛƧμƜƝʬƤ 391 ǯƥƦơƣƒƔ 32 ƝƜƟƘʎƥƛƔƜ 766 ƝƫμʪƗƒƔ 62 ƞƮƖơƤ 1137 μƐƣơƤ ƦȮ ƝƔƦȮ μƐƣơƤ 446 μơƟʪƗƒƔ 86a μʝƛơƤ 62, 871 ǾƞƮƨƧƣƥƜƤ 86a, 871 ơǮƝƘʎơƤ 1058, 1236b, 1240, 1407–8 ơǮƝơƟơμƘʎƥƛƔƜ, ơǮƝơƟơμƒƔ, ơǮƝơƟơμƜƝʬƤ 312b, 817, 1098a2 ȃƞƔ, ƦƏ 446, 1137 ȃμơƜơƤ 944 ȂƩƞơƤ ƗƜ’ ȂƩƞơƧ ƦơʎƤ ƛƘƔƦƔʎƤ 1251 ȂƪƜƤ 1404 ƢƏƛơƤ 1137 ƢɱƟ, ƦƮ 82, 446, 679 ƢƔƣƔƖƘƖơƟƐƟƔƜ 871 ƢƔƣƔƝƘʎƥƛƔƜ 1236b ƢƔƣƘʎƟƔƜ 1098a1, 1137

280

Indices

ƢƏƣơƗơƤ 121, 1098a2 ƢƞƏƥƥƘƥƛƔƜ 660, 706a² ƢƘƣƜƝƘʎƥƛƔƜ 1178 ƢƘƣƜƢƔƛƑƤ/-ʬƤ 95, 95–6, 98, 268–9, 312b, 451c, 760, 846a, 1123 ƢƜƛƔƟƮƤ/ʬƤ 50a, 627, 660, 909a, 1171, 1495–6 ƢƣƔƖμƔƦƘƯƘƥƛƔƜ 1404 ƢƣơƝƘƒμƘƟơƟ 1404 ƢƣơƝƮƢƦƘƜƟ 632 ƢƣơƞơƖƒƙƘƜƟ arg. II ƢƣơơƜƝơƟơμƘʎƟ, ƢƣơơƜƝơƟơμƜƝʬƤ 451b, 1384a ƢƣơƥƝƣơƧƥƦƜƝƮƤ 62 ƢƣơƥƩƔƣƒƙƘƥƛƔƜ 707 ƢƣƮƥƫƢơƟ/Ɣ arg. II, 1a, 86a ƾƣƖȶƟ Ƣ. 526 ƢƣƮƨƔƥƜƤ 1098a2 ƥƝƚƟƑ arg. II, 1–19, 6, 6–9 ƥƧƟƘƝƦƜƝƏ 1–19, 1a, 1174 ƥƧƟʪƗƮƟ 946b ƥƩʀμƔ 1178 ƦƘƒƟƘƜƟ 1243 ƦƐƞơƤ 1483b ƦƣƔƖƜƝơƒ 86a ƦƣƔƖƜƝưƦƘƣơƟ 88 ƦƣƔƖʪƗƒƔ 62 ȏƢƐƣƛƘƥƜƤ 312b ȏƢƮƛƘƥƜƤ arg. I, 1a, 82, 94, 446, 632, 817, 1174 ȏƢơƝƣƒƟƘƥƛƔƜ 769 ȏƢƮƝƣƜƥƜƤ 164 ȏƢơƝƣƜƦƑƤ 830 ȏƢơƝƘʎƥƛƔƜ arg. I, ŽŽ ƨƜƞơƦƐƩƟƫƤ 1–19 ƨƜƞơƦƒμƫƤ 701–8 ƩơƣƮƤ arg. II ƩƣƑƥƜμơƟ 1368 personarum distributio 1178, 1322–3, 1384a

Scholia Vetera in Sophoclis Electram (Walter de Gruyter: Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 12) (English, Greek and Latin Edition)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis "Electram" (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker - Band 12)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis "Trachinias" (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker - Band 13)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Trachinias

Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics) (Greek Edition)

Realia Byzantina (German, English and Greek Edition)

Greek and Latin in Scientific Terminology

Mitbestimmungsgesetz Und Drittelbeteiligungsgesetz: Kommentar (De Gruyter Kommentar) (German Edition)

Approximative Algorithmen und Nichtapproximierbarkeit (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Sammlung

Europaisches Nuklearrecht (de Gruyter Handbuch) (German Edition)

Sammlung

Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Commentarii De Bello Gallico: Latin-English Vocabulary

Tensoranalysis (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Quantentheorie (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Greek Edition)

Found in Translation: Greek Drama in English

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Aeneis: Latin-English Vocabulary

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Found in Translation: Greek Drama in English

Ergodic Theorems (De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics)

Transformation Groups (De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics)

A Greek-English lexicon

A Greek-English Lexicon

Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian and Latin

Aeschylus: Eumenides (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics)

Collins English-Greek Dictionary

Collins English-Greek Dictionary

Scholia Vetera in Sophoclis Electram (Walter de Gruyter: Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 12) (English, Greek and Latin Edition)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis "Electram" (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker - Band 12)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis "Trachinias" (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker - Band 13)

Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Trachinias

Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics) (Greek Edition)

Realia Byzantina (German, English and Greek Edition)

Greek and Latin in Scientific Terminology

Mitbestimmungsgesetz Und Drittelbeteiligungsgesetz: Kommentar (De Gruyter Kommentar) (German Edition)

Approximative Algorithmen und Nichtapproximierbarkeit (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Sammlung

Europaisches Nuklearrecht (de Gruyter Handbuch) (German Edition)

Sammlung

Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Commentarii De Bello Gallico: Latin-English Vocabulary

Tensoranalysis (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Quantentheorie (De Gruyter Lehrbuch)

Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Greek Edition)

Found in Translation: Greek Drama in English

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Aeneis: Latin-English Vocabulary

Reading Greek: Text (Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course) (Pt. 1) (English and Greek Edition)

Found in Translation: Greek Drama in English

Ergodic Theorems (De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics)

Transformation Groups (De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics)

A Greek-English lexicon

A Greek-English Lexicon

Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine and Biology: in English, Greek, German, Italian and Latin

Aeschylus: Eumenides (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics)

Collins English-Greek Dictionary

Collins English-Greek Dictionary

Recommend Documents