GalanVioque ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Marcus Musurus and Pindar Guillermo Galán Vioque OME DECADES AGO Jean Irigoin and Brigitte Mondrain1 concluded that ca. 1509, four years before the appearance of Aldus Manutius’ editio princeps in neighboring Venice,2 Marcus Musurus (ca. 1475–1517)3 used a manuscript with the second edition of Pindar by Demetrius Triclinius (ca. 1280– 1335) while teaching the epinicia at the University of Padua. Their study was based on notes by the German humanist Johannes Cuno (ca. 1462–1513), one of Musurus’ students in Padua, transcribed by his friend and disciple Beatus Rhenanus (1485–1547) and preserved in the manuscript Sélestat, Bibliothèque Humaniste 102, ff. 167–174. Among other entries, this codex contains a Latin translation of the first five Olympian Odes with 1 “Marc Mousouros et Pindar,” in D. Harlfinger (ed.), ΦΙΛΟΦΡΟΝΗΜΑ. Festschrift für Martin Sicherl (Paderborn 1990) 253–262 (repr. J. Irigoin, La tradition des textes grecs [Paris 2003] 627–638). 2 ΠIΝΔΑΡΟΥ ᾿Ολύµπια. Πύθια. Νέµεα. ῎Iσθµια. Καλλιµάχoυ ὕµνοι, oἱ εὑρισκόµενοι· Διονυσίου Περιήγησις· Λυκόφρονος ᾿Αλεξάνδρα, τὸ σκοτεινὸν ποίηµα, Venetiis: in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Asulani soceri, 1513. On Pindar’s editio princeps see Jean Irigoin, Histoire du texte de Pindare (Paris 1952) 399–408; Konstantinos Sp. Staikos, Charta of Greek Printing. The Contribution of Greek Editors, Printers and Publishers to the Renaissance in Italy and the West (Cologne 1998) I 343; Luigi Ferreri, L’Italia degli Umanisti: Marco Musuro (Turnhout 2014) 55, 261–266, 439; and Douglas F. Bauer, “Problems in the Aldine Pin- dar,” Princeton University Library Chronicle 76 (2015) 419–446. For Musurus’ lessons in Padua see Deno J. Geanokoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice (Cambridge [Mass.] 1962) 133; Martin Sicherl, Johannes Cuno. Ein Wegbereiter des Griechischen in Deutschland. Eine biographisch-kodikologische Studie (Heidelberg 1978) 87–106; Ferreri 47–52 and 430–447. 3 On his birthdate see S. Pagliaroli, “Giano Lascari e il Ginnasio Greco,” Studi medievali e umanistica 2 (2004) 224 n.2; Ferreri, L’Italia 33, esp. n.1. S 240 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 explanatory notes in the margin and a transcription of the end of Olympian 6 (lines 96–106). Irigoin and Mondrain proved beyond doubt that Musurus was familiar with Triclinius’ second recension.4 This finding is relevant because it removes the main obstacle to confirming Musurus’ involvement in the preparation of the editio princeps, which contains undeniable traces of Tri- clinius’ recensions.5 In this study I review additional evidence that both confirms Musurus’ knowledge of Triclinius’ second recension and suggests that he also had at his disposal the first recension that comprised all the epinicians. I also tentatively identify the manuscript source that made the second recension available to Musurus. Finally, I show that Musurus also depended on the ancient Pindaric scholia, specifically, on the version that survives in Vat.gr. 1312 (B). Before Irigoin and Mondrain’s article, it was known that Musurus had only two Pindar manuscripts at his disposal, one with the so-called Vatican recension (Vat.gr. 41 [H], dated to the first quarter of the 14th century), and another with the edition of the prolific Byzantine monk and scholar Maximus Planudes 4 In addition to Irigoin and Mondrain’s article, see Sicherl, Johannes Cuno 100–101 and 152. On Triclinius’ editions see Irigoin, Histoire 331–364. 5 See Tycho Mommsen, Pindari carmina (Berlin 1864) XLIII n.*; Irigoin, Histoire 399–408, and in ΦΙΛΟΦΡΟΝΗΜΑ 262; Ferreri, L’Italia 439; and Bauer, Princeton University Library Chronicle 76 (2015) 434. Musurus’ involvement in the editing of the editio princeps has been discussed at length without reaching any definitive conclusion (see Julius Schück, “Aldus Manutius und seine Zeit- genossen in Italien und Deutschland,” in Anhange: die Familie des Aldus bis zu ihrem Ende [Berlin 1862] 79; Elpidio Mioni, “La biblioteca greca di Marco Musuro,” Archivio Veneto 93 [1972] 7; Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars 146 n.133; Sicherl, Johannes Cuno 101 n.73; Irigoin, Histoire 401 n.1; Ferreri 265–266; and Staffan Fogelmark, The Kallierges Pindar: A Study in Renaissance Greek Scholarship and Printing [Cologne 2015] I 10–11 n.16, and 367–370). For arguments against Musurus’ involvement see Rudolf Menge, “De Marci Musuri Cretensis uita, studiis, ingenio narratio,” in Mauricius Schmidt, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (Jena 1868) V 33; Martin Sicherl in Dieter Harlfinger et al., Griechische Hand- schriften und Aldinen (Brunschweig 1978) 144–145; and Bauer 431–432. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 241 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 (Venice, Marc.gr. IX.8 [1039] [W], transcribed by Kaisar Stra- tegos at the beginning of the 16th century). Both bear Musurus’ ex libris and contain the Olympian and Pythian Odes with ancient scholia. However, it seems that Musurus acquired these manu- scripts after Aldus Manutius’ edition of Pindar.6 In 2004, Annaclara Cataldi Palau brought to light that some- time between 1509 and 1516 Musurus owned one of Pindar’s now lost manuscripts that later, in the 18th century, belonged to the Royal Library of Madrid (today’s Spanish National Library), as noted by Juan de Iriarte (1701–1771), the first cataloguer of its Greek manuscripts and one of the most prominent Spanish intellectuals of the eighteenth century.7 The first volume of his catalogue was published in 1769 (Regiae bibliothecae Matritensis codices Graeci manuscripti, Matriti: Ant. Pérez de Soto, 1769), while the second remained unpublished (Madrid, BNE 4655-4656).8 From this unpublished volume (4656, ff. 343–345), one can infer that the missing manuscript belonged to Georgius Corinthius (ca. 1485–1555) and probably contained Triclinius’ second edition of Pindar’s Olympian Odes with scholia recentiora,9 a descrip- 6 See Alexander Turyn, De codicibus pindaricis (Cracow 1932) 36–37 and 49; Mioni, Archivio Veneto 93 (1972) 17 (nº 15) and 25; Codices Graeci manuscripti bibliothecae diui Marci uenetiarum (Venice 1972) III 11–12; Irigoin, Histoire 176– 180, 370, and 378–379; Martin Sicherl, “Musuros-Handschriften,” in Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek literature and paleography in honor of Alexander Turyn (Urbana 1974) 566 and 591; Speranzi, Marco Musuro 236 n.24 and 254–255 n.56; Ferreri, L’Italia 569–570; and Bauer, Princeton University Library Chronicle 76 (2015) 431–432 n.25. On the Vatican family of Pindar manuscripts see Turyn 14–15; Irigoin 108–115, and on Planudes’ edition, 247–286. 7 Annaclara Cataldi Palau, “La vita di Marco Musuro alla luce di docu- menti e manoscritti,” Italia medioevale e umanistica 45 (2004) 330–331; cf. Speranzi, Marco Musuro 131 and 244 n.39¸ and Ferreri, L’Italia 576. 8 See José María Fernández Pomar, “La catalogación del fondo griego de la Biblioteca Nacional,” Helmantica 14 (1963) 348–355; Gregorio de Andrés, “El bibliotecario Juan de Iriarte,” in Hipólito Escolar Sobrino (ed.), Homenaje a Luis Morales Oliver (Madrid 1986) 598–601. 9 According to Iriarte (4656, f. 343), this manuscript contained the shorter 242 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 tion that matches Irigoin’s reconstruction of the manuscript used by Musurus: “un exemplaire de la seconde édition de Triclinios, limitée aux Olympiques.”10 version of the Life of Pindar (Drachmann, Scholia uetera I 4–8 [probably 4, 8–6, 9, as in the appendix of Florence, Laur. 32.35 [Qb]), and the list of the nine lyric poets in a form found only in the appendix of Qb (f. 89v) and in the Aldine (ff. *iiiiv–v) and Kallierges’ editions (Ὀλύµπια, Πύθια, Νέµεα, Ἴσθµια, µετὰ ἐξηγήσεως παλαιᾶς πάνυ ὠφελίµου, καὶ σχόλιων ὁµοίων, Romae: per Zachariam Calergi Cretensem, 1515, f. α iiv) (see Drachmann, Scholia, I 11, 12–13; Irigoin, Histoire 234–235 and 401). Q was used by Angelo Poliziano (1454–1494) (see Lucia Cesarini Martinelli, “Un ritrovamento polizianesco: il fascicolo perduto del commento alle Selve di Stazio,” Rinascimento 22 [1982] 192–193); and may be no. 1032 in the 1495 inventory and no. 302 in Fabio Vigili’s list (see Edmund B. Fryde, Greek Manuscripts in the Private Library of the Medici 1469–1510 [Aberystwyth 1996] I 341, 577–578). It is not known to have been used by Kallierges for his edition (see Folgelmark, The Kallierges Pindar I, 178 n.61). The scholia to Pind. Ol. 1 began thus: φησὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων. ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ συγκρίσει ταύτῃ ἑτέραν ποιεῖ λέγων· ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς διαπρέπει καὶ διαλάµπει ἔξοχα καὶ ἐξόχως καὶ ὑπερτάτως τοῦ µεγάνορος (= schol. rec. on Ol. 1.1.10–13 [Th.]); and ended thus: πανταχοῦ εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ· δέ[ον] οὕτως εἰπεῖν πρὸς µετοχὴν τὸν λόγον ἔτρεψε καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν εἶναι, ὄντα εἶπεν (schol. rec. on Ol. 1.1.187.5–7 [Th.]). Undoubtedly Triclinian is the beginning of the scholia to Ol. 14.1.1–2, also reproduced by Iriarte (f. 343): Ἀσωπίχῳ τῷ ἀπὸ Ὀρχοµενοῦ νικήσαντι τὴν οϛʹ Ὀλυµπιάδα. ὁ λόγος πρὸς τὰς Χάριτας (see Eugenius Abel, Scholia recentia in Pindari Epinicia [Budapest 1891] 423). 10 Irigoin, in ΦΙΛΟΦΡΟΝΗΜΑ 259. This manuscript, which is absent from the catalogue of the library of George of Corinth published by David E. Pingree, “The Library of George, Count of Corinth,” Studia Codicologica (Berlin 1977) 351–362, could be the same one that Erasmus borrowed from Musurus during his nine-month stay in Venice from January to September 1508, hosted by the so-called New Academy of Aldus, as he stated in an excursus to his adage “Festina lente” (Adagia II.1.1) in the 1526 Basel edition of his Adagiorum opus (pp.338–340); there he described this manuscript as a Pindarus cum accuratis commentariis (Adagiorum opus, Basileae: apud Ioannem Frobenium, 1526, 340 [Adagia II.1.1; LB II 405; ASD II 3.24; CWE 33.14]). Cataldi Palau has suggested instead that the manuscript was Paris.gr. 2709, which belonged to Gian Francesco d’Asola and was used by Kallierges for his edition (A. Cataldi Palau, Gian Francesco d’Asola e la tipografia aldina [Genoa GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 243 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 We also know now that the young Musurus had access to another Pindar manuscript. Recent handwriting analysis and a monogram11 on the upper margin of f. 9 have revealed that, while he was still in Candia (Crete), his birthplace, shortly before his arrival in Italy in 1492,12 he was one of the copyists of the manuscript El Escorial, BMon. Χ-IV-18 (413), which contains Pindar’s Olympians Odes with Moschopulean scholia (ff. 62– 123).13 Studies of Musurus’ scholia to the Planudean Anthology cor- roborate that he may indeed have had in Padua at the beginning of the 16th century one or more copies of Triclinius’ recensions. These scholia come from his lessons at the University of Padua during 1505–1506. They have remained largely unpublished in the margins of various incunables of Janus Lascaris’ edition14 1998] 420; cf. Irigoin, Histoire 381–382). See Edward H. R. Tatham, “Erasmus in Italy,” English Historical Review 10 (1895) 649–655; Deno J. Geanakoplos, “Erasmus and the Aldine Academy of Venice. A Neglected Chapter in the Transmission of Graeco-Byzantine Learning to the West,” GRBS 3 (1960) 122–123 n.68, and Greek Scholars 264–265 (esp. n.44); and John N. Grant, “Erasmus’ Adages,” in William Barker (ed.), Prolegomena to the Adages (Toronto 2017) 56–57. Bauer (Princeton University Library Chronicle 432–433) erroneously suggested that Erasmus borrowed from Musurus a copy of the Aldine edition at a later date. 11 This monogram consists of two capital M’s with a cross above them. This page has been reproduced in Speranzi, Marco Musuro 420, pl. 17. There is a similar monogram of Musurus in Vienna, phil. 185 f. 1 (see Speranzi 235). 12 See Pagliaroli, Studio Medievali e Umanisti 2 (2004) 221–222; Ferreri, L’Italia 35–36 and 42. 13 Speranzi, Marco Musuro 27–42, 197–198. See also D. Speranzi, “Vicende umanistiche di un antico codice. Marco Musuro e il Florilegio di Stobeo,” Segno e testo 8 (2010) 345 n.110; and “La soluzione di un ‘enigma cretese’. Marco Musuro e il Par. gr. 2964,” Studi medievali e umanistici 13 (2015) 278–294. Cf. Ferreri, L’Italia 514–515. 14 Ἀνθολογία διαφόρων ἐπιγραµµάτων, Florentiae: apud Laurentium Fran- cisci de Alopa, 1494. Thirteen copies have been identified to date: Bern (MUE Inc. III 87) (Be); Cambridge (Trinity College Grylls 11.313 [Aldus Manutius’ personal copy]) (Ca) (see David Speranzi, “La scrittura di Aldo e 244 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 and in manuscripts unaccompanied by the text of the epi- grams.15 As I will show, in the making of these scholia Musurus not only evinces a considerable debt to Pindar’s scholia uetera but also demonstrates knowledge of the first Triclinian recensio. il suo ultimo carattere Greco (con uno sconosciuto esemplare di tipografia),” in N. Vacalebre [ed.], Five Centuries Later. Aldus Manutius. Culture, Typography and Philology [Florence 2015] 30–31 and 41–42; and Guillermo Galán Vioque, “On Two Missing Witnesses of the Scholia on the Anthologia Planudea,” MusHelv 77 [2020] 221–228); Città del Vaticano (Inc. III 78 [Xe], 79 [Vu], 80 [Ve], and 81 [Musurus’ autograph copy] [Va]); Leipzig (BU Rep. I.56-a [with scarce notes that end at f. Γiv]) (Le); Naples (BN S. Q. IX. C.8) (Na); Naples (BN S. Q. IX.C.7 [with scholia only at ff. Aiv–Aiii; see Luigi Ferreri, “Scoli umanistici all’ Antologia planudea. Un nuovo testimone posseduto dalla Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli e la formazione del corpus di scoli confluiti nell’edizione wecheliana (1600),” Medioevo e rinascimento 19 (2005) 97 n.72]) (Na2); Oxford (Auct. K 4.2) (Ox) (Guillermo Galán Vioque, “On a New Witness of the Scholia on the Planudean Anthology,” Mnemosyne 72 [2019] 1041– 1045); Paris (Rés. Yb 484) (Pa); Troyes (Inc. 277) (Tr); and Venice (Marc.gr. IX 38) [Mr]. These scholia were partially edited in Florilegium diuersorum epi- grammatum (Frankfurt: apud Andreae Wecheli heredes, 1600) (We); Hugo Stadtmüller, Anthologia graeca epigrammatum Palatina cum Planudea I–III (Berlin 1894–1906); and Anastasios C. Lolos, “Antike Scholien zu Anthologia Graeca- Palatina,” Ἑλληνικά 33 (1981) 374–381. We use λ when Be, Na, Ox, Pa, Tr, We, and Xe agree, which are the witnesses of the so-called recensio lascariana; µ for Va and its apographs Ve, Vu, and Ca; and Ω for the consensus of all witnesses. Ferreri, Medioevo e rinascimento 103, already used λ for the common ancestor of Na and Xe. On the nature of these scholia see Carlo Gallavotti, “Planudea III,” Bolletino dei Classici N.S. 2 (1981) 3–27; Elpidio Mioni, “L’Antologia Greca da Massimo Planude e Marco Musuro,” in Scritti in onore di Carlo Diano (Bologna 1985) 263–307; Anna Pontani, “L’Antologia Greca fra codici e incunaboli,” JÖB 23 (1982) 165–172, and “Per l’esegesi umanistica greca dell’Antologia Planudea: i marginalia dell’edizione del 1494,” in V. Fera et al. (eds.), Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print (Messina 2002) II 557–613; and Ferreri, Medioevo e rinascimento 81–114. 15 Milan, Ambros.gr. F 30 sup., ff. 1–102v (ca. 1511–1520) (= A), and D 137 suss. 12–13, ff. 1–10 (16th cent.); El Escorial, BMon. deperditus 286 (E I 17) (16th c.); Città del Vaticano, Vat.gr. 1408, ff. 162–213v (16th cent.), and 1464, ff. 119–213 (16th cent.) (V); Madrid, BNE gr. 4715, ff. 1–59v (Rome, 1552), and its apographs (on them see Guillermo Galán Vioque, “Notas sobre las copias manuscritas de Andrés Darmario de los escolios de la Antología Planudea,” Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 76 [2014] 281–300). GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 245 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 These scholia expressly mention Pindar twenty times in all.16 We exclude the scholium to AP 16.305.4, where a portrait of Pindar is described and Musurus adds Paus. 9.23.2–5 as a parallel,17 and two indirect quotations. The first of these involves the scholia to AP 7.45.3.18 Here, Musurus cites almost verbatim a paragraph from Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae (187.D3–E1), which quotes from Pindar (fr.76.2 M.), AP 7.45, and a fictitious Delphic oracle (Q198 Fontenrose [P.-W. 171]). The second, in the scholium to AP 11.137.4,19 quotes Eustathius on Dion. Perieg. 467.6–13 and 47–5020 and mentions an otherwise unknown fragment by Pindar (fr.322 M.).21 Irrelevant for tracing the man- uscripts used by Musurus are also four scholia which mention Pindar but no text;22 and the eight times which quote his epinicia without scholia,23 although these attest to Musurus’ deep 16 Counted only once when mentioned twice in the same scholium. Additionally, Ol. 2.7–8 is quoted in an unidentified scholium that Musurus copied at f. 2v in Va (cf. Pontani in Talking to the Text 576 n.3 and 583–585). 17 Va, f. ΓΓ iv; We, p.506 (in addition to the folium in Musurus’ copy of Lascaris’ edition, or in its apographs when the folium is missing in Va, I add the page in Epigrammatum Graecorum annotationibus Joannis Brodaei nec non Vincentii Obsopoei et Graecis scholiis illustratorum libri VII, Francofurti: apud Andreae Wecheli heredes, 1600 [We], which is the most complete edition of these scholia to date). 18 Va, f. Υiiiiv; We, p.395 19 Ve and Vu, f. Μ viii; We, p.240. This scholium is absent from Va, since ff. Λviii–Νviiiv are missing. 20 See also Steph. Byz. 19.190 s.v. Τρινακία. 21 Although here Πίνδαρος may stand in error for Καλλίµαχος. See Theodor Bergk, Anthologia Lyrica2 (Leipzig 1868) 145 (ad Callim. Aet. 1.36); Rudolf Pfeiffer, Callimachus I (Oxford 1949) 8; Heruicus Maehler, Pindarus II (Berlin 1989) 167; and Annette Harder, Callimachus Aetia (Oxford 2012) 120. 22 Scholia to AP 5.179.7 (Ve and Vu, f. IIviiiv; We p.612; absent from Va, which ends at f. ΘΘviii), 6.71.1–2 (Va, f. ZZvi; We, p.557), 9.151.8 (Va, f. Θiiii; We, p.147), and 11.404.5 (Va, f. Λiiiv; We, p.206). 23 AP 6.101.1 (Va, f. ΗΗviv; We, p.571; in Va Musurus added καὶ Πίνδαρος … εἴρηκε at a later date); 7.702.5 (Xe, f. Oi; We, p.286; absent from µ; Tr 246 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 knowledge of Pindar as early as 1505–1506.24 More useful to us are the notes in which Musurus used without acknowledgment both ancient and Byzantine scholia on Pin- dar.25 On one occasion, in the scholium on AP 9.287.2,26 he follows the scholia uetera on Pi. O. 7.71-74, 131c, agreeing with the text of manuscripts H, Q and Firenze, BLM Plut. 32.37. This suggests that Musurus owned H around 1506, before the publication of the Aldine (see above). Musurus largely follows the scholia uetera also in his scholia to AP 9.266.327 and AP 16.13.4.28 But it is the scholia to the epigram that begins Maximus Pla- and We omit the quotation); 9.189.4 (Va, f. Hviiv, We, p.135); 9.266.4 (Va, f. Aviiiv; We, p.23; text defective in Va; folium missing in Ve and Vu); 9.322.9 (Va, f. Aiii; We, p.6); 9.557.1 (Va, f. Aii; We, p.3; except for Xe, λ abbreviates and suppresses the quotation); 11.364.1 (Va, f. Θviii; We, p.157); and 16.110.2 (Va, f. Ψiiiiv; We, p.452; absent from Tr; We reads Περὶ τούτου µέτιθι τὸν Πίνδαρον). 24 Musurus had already quoted Pindar twice as early as 1499 in the preface to Kallierges’ edition of the Etymologicum Magnum (Venetiis: impens. Nicolai Blasti et Annae Notaras, 1499, f. Aαv, lines 17 [Pind. Ol. 6.1–3] and 34 [Ol. 1.114]), and also in his correspondence (see Fogelmark, The Kallierges Pindar I 10 n.16). On Pindar in the Renaissance before Musurus see Ralph Hexter, “Aldus, Greek, and the Shape of the Classical Corpus,” in David S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renaissance Culture. Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy (Florence 1998) 148–150; Paul Botley, Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1396–1529 (Philadelphia 2010) 108–109; Francesco Tissoni, Le Olimpiche di Pindaro nella scuola di Gaza a Ferrara (Messina 2009), and his “Pindarus,” in Greti Dinkova-Bruun et al. (eds.), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum X (Toronto 2014) 13–14. 25 For the scholia to Pindar we follow Drachmann, Scholia, and Tycho Mommsen, Scholia recentiora Thomano-Tricliniana in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia (Leipzig 1865); Eugenius Abel, Scholia uetera in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia (Berlin 1884), and his Scholia recentia. 26 Va, f. Ηiiv; We, p.123. 27 Va, f. Aviiiv; We, p.23 (folium lost in Ve and Vu). Here he follows the ancient scholia to Pind. Pyth. 12.9, 15b before quoting Pyth. 12.23–24. 28 Va, f. Bviiiv; We, p.41. Here he tracks the scholia uetera ad Pyth. 4.230, 410b–c. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 247 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 nudes’ Anthology, AP 9.357, that prove most helpful in identifying the manuscripts used by Musurus. Once again without acknowl- edgement, these scholia feature almost verbatim quotations from Pindar’s ancient scholia. Reference to Pindar is unsurprising, for the epigram deals with the gods and men in whose honor the most famous athletic games in ancient Greece were held, and with the nature of the prizes awarded. Unfortunately, the marginal scholia to AP 9.357 start with line 4. Scholia to 1–3 have been preserved only on a guard folium (f. Ai) of Xe,29 and with minor discrepancies in Madrid, BNE gr. 4715 (164) (M) (ff. 1r-v and 45–46v), which Camillo Zanetti copied in Rome in 1552, and in its apographs by Andreas Darmarios (1540–1596). This Madrid manuscript contains Mu- surus’ annotations without the text of the epigrams. Its copyist must have started with the scholia to line 4 present in his source30 and, after finding the beginning in another incunable,31 later added this material in the margins of f. 1r-v (M1) (starting with a note to AP 9.357.1: Τέσσαρές εἰσιν ἀγῶνες…); then it was copied again from f. 45 onwards (M2).32 Presumably, the copyist realized that the scholia in the margin differed from those in the main body of the manuscript and a decision was made to copy them again at the end. 29 This witness is missing the first line of these scholia (Τέσσαρές εἰσιν· ἀγὼν παρὰ τὸ ἄγω … ὄχλησιν, ἢ). It begins with ὁ κυκλοτερὴς καὶ γωνίαν and ends on the same folium with ὁ δὲ πῆχυς πόδας ἕνα καὶ ἥµισυ. The scholia continue in the margins of f. Aii (Σέλινα πρὸς τὸν Παλαίµονα…). 30 Given their shared characteristic features, this incunable could be Pa or one with similar notes. In the scholium to AP 9.357.4, for example, both Pa and M read ἐκ Κρήτης ἀνεκοµίζετο ἐν Δήλῳ µνήµην, omitting in error between the last two words ἀγῶνα ποιησαµένου τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας τῷ φοίνικι στεφανώσαντος. τοῦ δὲ φοίνικος τοῦ ἐν Δήλῳ (so also in A, copied from Pa, and V). 31 This incunable has not been identified but its notes are similar to those in Xe. 32 M1 ends with a note on AP 6.3 (f. 1v) and a transcription of AP 6.49 copied from Eust. ad Hom. Il. 23.512 (IV 774) (see also M2 and Xe). 248 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 Since therefore the scholia to the first lines of AP 9.357 are absent from Musurus’ autograph version (Va) and its apographs (Ve, Vu, and Ca) one cannot be sure that they preserve Musurus’ exact wording. However, because they come from Musurus’ milieu, in all likelihood, like the scholia he himself wrote in his copy of Lascaris’ edition (Va), they can be traced back to his lessons at the University of Padua. As noted above, the author of the scholia to the Planudean Anthology added without acknowledgment numerous ancient scholia to Pindar to the scholia to AP 9.357. These closely follow the wording of the ancient Pindaric scholia. Thus, for example:33 Arg. schol. uet. Isthm. a1–5 schol. AP 9.357.1–3: 9–1234 Ἐτελοῦντο µὲν οἱ παλαιοὶ πάντες Σηµείωσαι δὲ ὅτι ἐτελοῦντο οἱ ἀγῶνες ἐπί τισι τετελευτηκόσιν. παλαιοὶ πάντες ἐπί τισι τετελευ- ἐτελεῖτο γὰρ ὁ µὲν Ὀλυµπικὸς τῷ τηκόσι35 ἐτελεῖτο γὰρ ὁ µὲν Ὀλυµ- Διῒ διὰ τὸν Πέλοπα, ὁ δὲ Πυθικὸς πιακὸς τῷ Διὶ διὰ τὸν Πέλοπα· τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι διὰ τὸν δράκοντα, ὃν ὁ δὲ Πυθικὸς τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι διὰ ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν Πυθοῖ, ὁ δὲ Νεµεακὸς τὸν δράκοντα, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν κατά τινας τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ Πυθοῖ· ὁ δὲ Νεµεακὸς κατά τινας λέοντος ἀναιρέσει ὁ δὲ Ἰσθµικὸς τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λέοντος 33 I have omitted instances where the influence is less clear. The manner of borrowing without acknowledgement recalls Musurus’ use of Kallierges’ dedication to Musurus in his own dedication to Janus Lascaris printed on the second page of his Descriptio Graeciae, ex recensione M. Musuri, Venetiis: in aedibus Aldi, et Andreae soceri, 1516. Kallierges’ dedication survives in the sole copy of his edition of Pindar (1515) in Jesus College Library, Cambridge (Call number E.4.27) (see Fogelmark, The Kallierges Pindar I 374–391). A copy of this edition not listed by Fogelmark can be found in the Library of the Seminario Mayor de San Julián (Cuenca, Spain) with callmark CU-BSC 3- N-20. It does not contain Kallierges’ dedicatory letter to Musurus (the author thanks the librarian Vicente Malabia for providing a picture of the relevant page). 34 Line numbers follow A. Lolos’ edition, but the texts are quoted directly from Xe (f. Ai) and from M (in margine at f. 1r-v and in the main text from f. 45 onwards). For the scholia to AP 9.357.4 the text is taken from the other incunables. 35 τετελευτηκόσιν M1 M2. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 249 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 τῷ Ποσειδῶνι. ἀναιρέσει·36 ὁ δὲ Ἰσθµιακὸς Arg. schol. uet. Isthm. c 4–19 schol. AP 9.357.1–3: 26–37 ἄλλως. τὸν τῶν Ἰσθµιονικῶν ἀγῶνα Ἴσθµια· τὸν Ἰσθµικὸν ἀγῶνα τεθῆναί φασι δι’ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην. τεθῆναί φασι δι’ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην· Ἰνὼ ὑπὸ Ἀθάµαντος ἀναιρεθῆναι Ἰνὼ ἀπὸ Ἀθάµαντος ἀναιρεθῆναι µέλλουσα, κατὰ µανίαν προανῃρη- µέλλουσα κατὰ µανίαν προανῃρη- µένου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς Λεάρχου καὶ µένου καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς Κλεάρ- αὐτὴ µανεῖσα τὸν λοιπὸν παῖδα Με- χου, καὶ αὐτὴ µανεῖσα, τὸν λοιπὸν λικέρτην ἁρπάσασα διὰ Γερανείας παῖδα Μελικέρτην ἁρπάσασα διὰ τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Μεγαρικοῦ φυγοῦσα Γερανείας τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Μεγαρι- καὶ στᾶσα ἐπὶ τῆς καλουµένης Μο- κοῦ φυγοῦσα καὶ στᾶσα ὑπὲρ τῆς λουρίδος πέτρας ἥλατο σὺν τῷ βρέ- καλουµένης Μολουρίδος πέτρας φει εἰς τὴν ὑποκειµένην θάλασσαν. ἥλλετο σὺν τῷ βρέφει εἰς τὴν ὑπο- αὐτοὺς µὲν οὖν λόγος ἔχει ἀποθε- κειµένην37 θάλασσαν. αὐτοὺς µὲν ῶσθαι καὶ τὴν µὲν µετωνοµάσθαι οὖν λόγος ἔχει ἀπο θεῶσθαι, καὶ ἀντὶ Ἰνοῦς Λευκοθέαν, τὸν δὲ ἀντὶ τὴν µὲν µετονοµάσθαι ἀντὶ Ἰνοῦς Μελικέρτου Παλαίµονα. τὸ δὲ τοῦ Λευκοθέαν, τὸν δὲ ἀντὶ Μελικέρ- παιδὸς σῶµα ἐκκοµισθὲν ὑπὸ δελ- του Παλαίµονα· τὸ δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς φῖνος εἰς τὸν Ἰσθµὸν εὗρε Σίσυφος σῶµα ἐκκοµισθὲν ὑπὸ δελφῖνος εἰς ὁ τότε Κορίνθου βασιλεύων καὶ τὸν Ἰσθµὸν εὗρε Σίσυφος ὁ τότε ἔθαψε διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν ἦν γὰρ Κορίνθου βασιλεύων καὶ ἔθαψε Ἀθάµαντος παῖς· ἕτεροι δὲ Σίσυφός διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν· ἦν γὰρ Ἀθά- τε καὶ Ἀθάµας Αἰόλου παῖδες τοῦ µαντος παῖς. ἕτεροι δὲ Σίσυφός Διός, ἐκάλεσαν δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα τε καὶ Ἀθάµας Αἰόλου παῖδες τοῦ Ἴσθµια ἀπὸ τοῦ διείργεσθαι τὰς Διός. ἐκάλεσαν δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα δύο θαλάσσας ἰσθµοῦ. στέφος Ἴσθµια ἀπὸ τοῦ διείργεσθαι τὰς 36 This sentence (ὁ δὲ Νεµεακὸς … ἀναιρέσει) is missing from the manuscripts of the scholia to Pindar. It seems that Kallierges added it in his edition and it was later reproduced by most of the editors (for instance, Henricus Stephanus, Pindari Olympia. Pythia. Nemea. Isthmia, [Geneuae], Oliva Pauli Stephani, 1599, 433. Abel prints a lacuna here [in Scholia vetera 349; see the same suggestion in an anonymous note in Munich, BSB gr. 492, f. 44]; and Drachmann relegates it to his apparatus criticus [in Scholia II 192]). This sentence is present in Xe (f. Ai), M1 (f. 1) and M2 (f. 45v), and both Musurus and Kallierges probably took it over from the same unknown source. Furthermore, Bravo, in reference only to the scholia to AP 9.357, states that this passage is “confused because it occurs in the context of demonstrating the statement that all the old games were founded for the dead”: Jorge J. Bravo III, Excavations at Nemea IV [California 2018] 133–134 n.170). 37 κειµένην M1 M2. 250 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀγῶνος πίτυς, τὸ δὲ δύο θαλάσσας δι’38 Ἰσθµοῦ. στέ- ἀνέκαθεν σέλινα, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν φος δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀγῶνος πίτυς· τὸ στέφανος· δὲ ἀνέκαθεν σέλινα καὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν ὁ στέφανος. Arg. schol. uet. Nem. b 1–8 schol. AP 9.357.1–3: 90–9639 ἄλλως. οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας παρα- Οἱ Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβαις παραβαλόν- βαλόντες τῇ Νεµέᾳ διψήσαντες τες τῇ Νεµέᾳ διψήσαντες συνέτυ- συνέτυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ τῇ Ληµνίᾳ χονὙψιπύλῃ τῇ Ληµνίᾳ φερούσῃ φερούσῃ τὸν Λυκούργου τοῦ τοῦ τὸν Λυκούργον τοῦ Διὸς ἱερέως καὶ Διὸς ἱερέως καὶ Εὐρυδίκης παῖδα Εὐρυδίκης παῖδα Ὀφέλτην, καὶ Ὀφέλτην ἡ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀφηγήσατο Ἀρχέµορον λεγόµενον. ἡ δὲ ἀφηγή- εἴς τινα πηγήν, καταλιποῦσα τὸν σατο αὐτοῖς εἴς τινα πηγὴν κατα- παῖδα ἔν τινι λειµῶνι ὃν δράκων λιποῦσα τὸν παῖδα ἔν τινι λειµῶνι, περιειληθεὶς ἢ ἰὸν ἀφεὶς ἀνεῖλεν. ὃν δράκων περιειληθεὶς ἰὸν ἀφεὶς οἱ δὲ ὑποστρέψαντες καὶ τὸ πάθος ἀνεῖλεν. οἱ δὲ ὑποστρέψαντες καὶ θεασάµενοι τόν τε δράκοντα τὸ πάθος θεασάµενοι τόν τε δρά- ἀνεῖλον καὶ ἀγῶνα ἦγον ἐπιτάφιον κοντα κτείνουσι καὶ ἀγῶνα ἐπι- τριετηρικόν τάφιον ἱστῶσι τριετηρικὸν πίτυϊ τὸν νικῶντα στεφανοῦντες. Arg. schol. uet. Isthm. a 5–13 schol. AP 9.357.1–3:97–103 ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἱστορία αὕτη. Ἰνοῦς καὶ Ὁ Ἰσθµικὸς ἀγὼν γέγονεν οὕτω·40 Ἀθάµαντος παῖδες Λέαρχος καὶ Ἰνοῦς καὶ Ἀθάµαντος παῖδες Μελικέρτης· τὸν µὲν δὴ Λέαρχον Λέαρχος καὶ Μελικέρτης. τὸν µὲν µανεὶς ὁ Ἀθάµας ἀπέκτεινεν, εἶτα δὴ Λέαρχον µανεὶς ὁ Ἀθάµας ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν εἰς ἀπέκτεινεν εἶτα ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέβητα ὕδατος ζεστοῦ, µανεῖσα καθῆκεν αὐτὸν εἰς λέβητα ὕδατος δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ τελευταῖον ἥλατο ζεστοῦ, µανεῖσα δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ µετὰ τοῦ Μελικέρτου εἰς θάλασ- τελευταῖον ἥλλετο µετὰ τοῦ Μελι- σαν, καὶ ἐγένετο µὲν ἡ Ἰνὼ µία κέρτου εἰς θάλασσαν. καὶ ἐγένετο τῶν Νηρεΐδων, ἧς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς ἡ Ἰνὼ µία τῶν Νηρεΐδων, ἧς καὶ ὁ µέµνηται (Od. 5.461) ἔστι δὲ αὕτη ποιητὴς µέµνηται. ἔστιν αὕτη Λευ- Λευκοθέα· ὁ δὲ Μελικέρτης κοθέα· ὁ δὲ Μελικέρτης µετεβλήθη µετεβλήθη εἰς δαίµονα· ἔστι δὲ εἰς δαίµονα· ἔστι δὲ οὗτος ὁ Πα- οὗτος Παλαίµων. λαίµων, σελίνῳ τὸν νικοῦντα στεφανοῦντες. 38 δι’ ἰσθµοῦ B schol. Pind. Xe : τοῦ ἰσθµοῦ διὰ supra τοῦ M1: τοῦ ἰσθµοῦ M2. 39 Lines 90–103 of these scholia are present only at M1, f. 1v (in margine), and M2, ff. 47r-v. 40 οὕτω M1 M2 : οὕτως Lolos. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 251 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 Several parallels with the peculiar readings of Vat.gr. 1312 (B) lead to the conclusion that this was also the manuscript used in the making of these scholia.41 This copy was once owned by Petrus Bembus (1470–1547) and was in Venice around 1500, where it was copied at least three times42 and later used ex- tensively by his friend Zacharias Kallierges (1499–1523) for his edition of Pindar (1515).43 It is in these very scholia on AP 9.357 that we find the first traces of the scholia recentiora to Pindar. Since these include allusions to the scholia to Pindar’s Pythians and Nemeans, we can infer that Musurus had access to the first Triclinian recensio that comprised all the epinicians. Consider lines 62–65:44 Σηµείωσαιa δὲ ὅτι Πίνδαρος τὰ ἐν Σικυῶνι Πύθια ποιητικῇ τινιb ἀδείᾳ τὸν Ἄδραστον θῆναί φησι,c καὶ ὁ µὲν Κλεισθένης διέθηκεν. Ἄδραστος δὲ ἐνδοξότερα ἐποίησεd καὶ ὅτι ἐν Πελλήνῃ τοῖς νική- σασιν ἀθληταῖς χλαῖνα ἐδίδοτο· ἐτελεῖτο δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς θεοξένια. a Λέγεται We | b τινι om. Tr We | c φασι We | d Ἄδραστος … ἐποίησε om. Tr We At the beginning of this scholium there are several telling co- incidences with the Triclinian scholia recentiora to Nem. 9.20, Ἅτε 41 Of particular relevance are: the parallels between B and Xe, M1, and M2 at line 26 τὸν Ἰσθµικὸν (τῶν Ἰσθµιονικῶν D); the presence at 92 of καὶ Εὐρυ- δίκης, attested only in manuscript B; the position of αὐτοῖς after ἀφηγήσατο (93), present also only in B; the omission of ἢ at 94; the wording of 95–96 κτείνουσι καὶ ἀγῶνα ἐπιτάφιον ἱστῶσι τριετηρικὸν, also exclusive of B; the use of ἥλλετο (B) instead of ἥλατο (D) at 30 and 100; and the reading Νηρεΐδων (B) instead of κρειδὼν (D) at 101. 42 Its apographs are Munich, BSB gr. 492 and 565, and Heidelberg, UB Pal.gr. 353 (see Irigoin, Histoire 367). 43 See Mommsen, Pindari carmina XLIII n.*; Irigoin, Histoire 157–165, 412– 420; in Les scholies métriques de Pindare (Paris 1958) 109–114; Francesco Tissoni, “Zaccaria Calliergi e la Vulgata di Pindaro,” Sileno 18 (1992) 173–175; Staikos, Charta of Greek Printing 413; and Fogelmark, The Kallierges Pindar I 54 and 265–294. For the academic and personal relationship between Musurus and Kallierges see Fogelmark I 7, 10 n.16; and Giambattista D’Alessio’s review, BMCR 2017/07/27. 44 Xe, f. Aii, We, p.1; only present in λ Na2, M1, M2, and V. 252 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 Φοίβῳ: ποιητικῇ ἀδείᾳ τὰ ἐν Σικυῶνι πύθια τὸν Ἄδραστον τεθεικέναι φησίν.45 Its last sentence, on the other hand, is doubtless tran- scribed from the scholia recentiora to Nem. 10.82: Ἐκ δὲ Πελλάνας. ὅτι ἐν Πελλήνῃ τοῖς νικήσασιν ἀθληταῖς χλαῖνα ἐδίδοτο. ἐτελεῖτο δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ θεοξένια.46 The same occurs with lines 84–90, in which the scholia recentiora to Olymp. 3.53, lines 9–17, are reproduced word for word: schol. rec. Olymp. 3.53, 9–1747 84–9048 Ταϋγέτα δὲ ἡ Ἄτλαντος θυγάτηρ Ταϋγέτη ἡ Ἄτλαντος θυγάτηρ ὑπὸ ὑπὸ Διὸς ἐρασθεῖσα µετεβλήθη εἰς Διὸς ἐρασθεῖσα µετεβλήθη εἰς ἔλα- ἔλαφον ὑπ’ Ἀρτέµιδος καὶ οὕτω τὸν φον ὑπ’ Ἀρτέµιδος, καὶ οὕτω τὸν γάµον ἐξέφυγεν, ὕστερον δὲ ὑπ’ γάµον ἐξέφυγεν· ὕστερον δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς πάλιν ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς ἄνθρω- αὐτῆς πάλιν ἐπανῆλθεν ἀµειβοµένη πον. τούτων οὖν ἀµειβοµένη τῇ Ἀρ- εἰς ἀνθρώπους. τούτων οὖν τῇ τέµιδι ἔλαφον ἀνατίθησιν αὐτῇ Ἀρτέµιδι ἔλαφον ἀνατίθησιν αὐτῇ χρυσῷ κεκοσµηµένην τὰ κέρατα, χρυσῷ κεκοσµηµένην τὰ κέρατα, ἐν οἷς ἐπέγραψε· Ταϋγέτα ταύτην ἐν οἷς ἐπέγραψε· ‘Ταϋγέτη ταύτην ἀφιεροῖ Ἀρτέµιδι· ἣν ἀγαγεῖν ὑπ’ ἀφιεροῖ Ἀρτέµιδι’, ἣν ἀγαγεῖν ὑπ’ Εὐρυσθέως Ἡρακλῆς ἐπετάχθη· Εὐρυσθέως Ἡρακλῆς ἐπετάχθη, ὅθεν διώκων αὐτὴν µέχρις ῾Υπερ- ὅθεν διώκων αὐτὴν ἀφίκετο, ἀφ’ οὗ βορέων ἀφίκετο, ἀφ’ οὗ τὴν ἐλαίαν µέχρις ῾Υπερβορέων ἀφίκετο, ἀφ’ εἰς Ὀλυµπίαν ἤγαγε. οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐλαίαν εἰς Ὀλυµπίαν ἤγαγεν. 45 Mommsen, Scholia recentiora 24. Cf. schol. uet. to Nem. 9.20 a and b and to Nem. 7.156a; schol. Soph. OC 712. 46 Mommsen, Scholia recentiora 26. 47 Abel, Scholia recentia I 162–163. This scholium was edited by Kallierges in a selection of the scholia recentiora (f. λ IIII) that, according to Irigoin (Histoire 411–420), belonged to Triclinius’ second edition. Following Abel, in some Pindar manuscripts and editions it is preceded by Ἱστορία or similar expressions like Ἱστορία ὡς ἀνετέθη (in codex z = Copenhagen, DKB GkS 1979,4º [olim Rostgaardiensis]): ἱστορία, ὅπως ἀνετέθη ἡ χρυσόκερως ἔλαφος τῇ Ἀρτέµιδι… (in µʹ = Vienna, ONB gr. 219, a. 1337; and in φʹ = Paris.gr. 2787). According to K. Lehrs, Die Pindarscholien. Eine kritische Untersuchung zur philo- logischen Quellenkunde (Leipzig 1873) 88–91, scholia with such beginnings come from Triclinius’ edition. 48 This scholium survives only in M1, f. 1v (in margine) and M2, f. 47. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 253 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 Finally, the scholium to AP 9.230.349 confirms Musurus’ use of the scholia recentiora: ὄρθιος] ὑψηλὸς, οὑκ ἀνέµβατος. µετενήνεκται δὲ παρὰ τὸ Ἡσιόδου· ‘µακρὸς γὰρ καὶ ὄρθιος οἶµος ἐπ’ αὐτήν’. Πίνδαρος δὲ ‘ὄρθια κνώδαλα’ τοὺς ὄνους εἴρηκεν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἄκακα, ὥς τισιν ἤρεσε διὰ τὸ ἁφελὲς καὶ ὑποµονητικὸν τοῦ ζώου καὶ ἄκακον, ἢ µᾶλλον διὰ τὸ σπερµογόνον τῶν ζώων µορίον, διὰ τὸ συνεχῶς ὀρθιάζειν. Λάγνον γὰρ τὸ ζῶον µάλιστα καὶ ἀκόλαστον. Musurus begins by quoting almost verbatim from Hes. Op. 290– 291; he then adds a reference to Pind. Pyth. 10.36, which he later quotes in his scholium to AP 6.101.1 (mentioned in n.22 above); and he ends by reworking the following Triclinian scholium to Pyth. 10.56:50 Ἐγὼ ὀρθίων κνωδάλων φηµὶ τῶν ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀκάκων ὄνων. ἀφελῆ γὰρ τὰ ζῶα ταῦτα καὶ ἄκακα, µαστιγούµενά τε καὶ ἀχθοφορεῖν ἀναγκαζόµενα. εἰ δὲ µὴ ἀνάξιον εἴη τοῦ ποιητοῦ τὸ ῥηθησόµενον ἢ µᾶλλον εἰ ἀστειευόµενος τοῦτο εἴρηκεν, ὀρθίαν ὕβριν φηµὶ τὸ σπερµατογόνον τῶν ζώων µόριον, διὰ τὸ συνεχῶς ὀρθιάζειν· λάγνον γὰρ τὸ ζῶον µάλιστα. From the evidence reviewed we can conclude that, while com- posing the scholia to the Planudean Anthology in Padua around 1506, Musurus had a copy of Pindar with the scholia uetera at his disposal. This was most likely B, since they share with it numer- ous unique readings. Furthermore, it is clear that he also had access to one or more copies with the Triclinian recensions, a fact that clarifies Musurus’ involvement in the production of Pin- dar’s editio princeps, as Irigoin and Mondrain had suggested. Finally, it is very likely that his manuscript with the Triclinian scholia on the Olympian Odes is the now lost one from the 49 Va, f. Aviiv; We, p.21. 50 Mommsen, Scholia recentiora 24. 254 MARCUS MUSURUS AND PINDAR ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 239–254 National Library of Spain mentioned above. The other manu- script sources remain unidentified.51 June, 2022 Universidad de Huelva vioque@uhu.es orcid.org/ 0-0001-7251-8798 51 This research has been funded by the Centro de Investigación en Patrimonio Histórico, Cultural y Natural (CIPHCN); and by the Junta de Andalucía through the projects “Los escolios a la Antología Planudea. Manuscritos e incunables, fuentes literarias y edición crítica (P20_01022)” and “Estudio y edición de textos griegos inéditos: los escolios de la Antología Planudea (UHU-202004)” (FEDER 2020). The author wishes to thank Murray Edwards Language Solutions for proofreading and editing the English text of this article.