The Vienna Dioscorides and the History of Scholia Wilson, Nigel G Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1971; 12, 4; ProQuest pg. 557 Two Notes on Byzantine Scholarship Nigel G. Wilson I The Vienna Dioscorides and the History of Scholia AFEW YEARS AGO I tried to demonstrate that scholia may have assumed their present form in late antiquity.1 This was the traditional view, but had been generally abandoned after the powerful criticisms made by Zuntz.2 Recently I came across evidence which seems not to have been used in discussion of the problem. One of the crucial points at issue is whether books written in late antiquity were ever designed to accommodate in the margins com­ mentary drawn from more than one ancient scholarly monograph. Although it is not possible to find among andent books an indisput­ able example with the kind of composite scholia known from manu­ scripts of the ninth century or later, at least one ancient book (POxy. 2258 of Callimachus) exhibits enough marginal commentary to sug­ gest that such books may have existed before the middle Byzantine period. In this context it would have been appropriate to cite also the Vienna Dioscorides (MS. med.gr. 1), which can be dated to the year A.D. 512 or thereabouts. This famous herbal has a feature of great signifi­ cance for the present purpose. The large format of the page (360j370x 300 mm.) often leaves a good deal of empty space beneath the text, which consists of a description of one plant. The scribe has sometimes used this space to insert in a smaller script notes drawn from two other authorities on pharmacology, Galen and Crateuas. Whether the format was planned in advance for this purpose or to allow for large­ scale illustrations must remain uncertain. By an oversight these mar­ ginal additions are not recorded in the most accessible recent descrip- 1 "A Chapter in the History of Scholia," CQ N.S. 17 (1967) 244-56. 2 G. Zuntz, "Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri," Byzantion 13 (1938) 631-90, 14 (1939) 545-614. 557 558 TWO NOTES ON BYZANTINE SCHOLARSHIP tion of the manuscript,S but those interest~d should consult either of the two facsimiles that now exist.4 The quotations of Galen occur on folios 16r , 20r , 22r , 23r , 24r , 25r , 2Srv , 30v, 32r , 34r , 3Y, 3Sr , 39r , 42r , 73r , 74r , 75r , 76r , S2v, 94V. Excerpts from Crateuas are found on ISr , 19v, 25r , 26r, 29r , 31r. On 71r and 72r there are excerpts without an author's name. What is more important is that on a few folios, 27r , 30r , 33r , 40r , there are two such excerpts, one from each author. The use of ma­ terial from more than one source in this way is a most important step in the formation of marginal scholia. In the Vienna Dioscorides we see the process in embryo. The possibility that the same process was occurring in other books of large format produced at the time must be seriously entertained. The significance of the marginal notes for the history of scholia needs no further comment. LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD August, 1971 3 H. Hunger/O. Kreseen, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Oesterreichischen Na­ tionalbibliothek II (Vienna 1969) 37-41. 4 Ed. J. von Karabacek (Leiden 1906), and (in colour) H. Gerstinger (Graz 1966-70). Photius' "Bibliotheca": a Supplementary Note Wilson, Nigel G Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1971; 12, 4; ProQuest pg. 559 II Photius' Bibliotheca: a Supplementary Note RECENTLY I suggested that Photius' statements about the cir­ cumstances in which he compiled the Bibliotheca may deserve to be taken at their face value.! The chief difficulty lies in his assertion that he composed from memory. I cited a modern example to show that such prodigious powers of memory are not necessarily to be regarded as fictitious. Even if we do not take Photius literally at his word, his claim may be largely true. The purpose of this note is to insist on the value of the modern analogy, which has not been fully understood in some quarters, and to mention some other cases which have since come to my notice and may be relevant. The reason for citing Lord Macaulay as an analogy to photius is the statement by his biographer that as a young man he could retain in his memory anything that sufficiently interested or amused him. This should not be taken to refer only to verse, where metre un­ doubtedly assists memory; S. Impellizzeri in a reply to my note2 forgets that The Pilgrim's Progress is a work of prose and does not notice the other prose example that I gave. I have no doubt that Macaulay could repeat, with little or no variation from the correct text, substantial portions of many other books. And he is not the only person in modern times of whom similar feats are recorded. Scaliger knew the Iliad by heart, and Casaubon said of him "nihillegerat, quod non statim meminisset."3 Porson evidently knew by heart enor­ mous quantities of English, Greek and Latin verse and prose.4 It is just possible that other Byzantine scholars should be regarded as possessing powers of memory of approximately the same order as Photius. In his new edition of Eustathius' commentary on the Iliad M. van der Valk comes to the conclusion that a high proportion of his quotations from classical literature were made from memory.5 Van 1 "The Composition ofPhotius' Bibliotheca," GRBS 9 (1968) 451-55. 2 RivStBizNeoelll6-17 (1969-70) 64 n.2. a Sir J. E. Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge 1903-08) II.204. 'D. L. Page, ProcBrA 45 (1959) 233. 5 Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes I (Leiden 1971) lvi n.6, lvii. 559 560 TWO NOTES ON BYZANTINE SCHOLARSI-llP der Valk has accumulated other instances, one of which I have ex­ ploited above. His other Byzantine example is John Tzetzes,6 but here the claim is less easy to evaluate, since Tzetzes was not given to under­ estimating his own ability and does not make many verbatim quota­ tions. On the other hand his examples from antiquity, Isocrates and Theophrasms, seem to rest on a dubious interpretation of Tzetzes, Histories 9.928-35; here I should be inclined to take the word p.VYJ­ p.oVlC'TEPOL as meaning 'memorable'. LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD August, 1971 6 Histories 1.278-81 (ed. Leone); in Ar. Ran. 1318 (ed. Koster).