Abstract: It would be misleading to treat the scholiastic corpora as fixed and unchangeable commentaries. A few examples are produced, drawn from the scholia to Aristophanes’ comedies and constituting a source of information on the plots of now lost Euripidean plays. In the scholiastic tradition concerning the plot of Euripides’ Stheneboea, the context of the commented passage may have insinuated an element of ambiguity. However, this cannot be considered as a general rule: another scholium, mentioning the plot of Euripides’ Palamedes, has suffered a corruption that causes ambiguity, but whose origin is independent of the connection between the commented and the quoted passage.
© De Gruyter 2014
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Foreword
- Introduction: From types to texts
- The history of corpora scholiastica: a series of unfortunate events
- Anything but a marginal question
- Through the warping glass
- Some thoughts on the interlinear scholia in the h family of the Iliad
- Aeschylus’ scholia and the hypomnematic tradition: an investigation
- Types, function, and organization of the collections of scholia
- John of Scythopolis’ marginal commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum
- A very long engagement
- The birth of scholiography: some conclusions and perspectives
- Bibliography
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Foreword
- Introduction: From types to texts
- The history of corpora scholiastica: a series of unfortunate events
- Anything but a marginal question
- Through the warping glass
- Some thoughts on the interlinear scholia in the h family of the Iliad
- Aeschylus’ scholia and the hypomnematic tradition: an investigation
- Types, function, and organization of the collections of scholia
- John of Scythopolis’ marginal commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum
- A very long engagement
- The birth of scholiography: some conclusions and perspectives
- Bibliography