2 Dickey, E., Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford 2007)Google Scholar. I use the term ‘scholia’ in the generic sense of any variety of manuscript marginalia that provides some type of reading aid or exegesis for a central text. See Dickey, Scholarship, 11 n. 25 for a discussion of the different uses of this term. For the broader context of the Byzantine scholia, see now especially Montanari, F. et al. (eds.), Brill's Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2 vols. (Leiden 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and also the works of Nigel Wilson, notably Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (with Reynolds, D.) (3rd edn. Oxford 1993)Google Scholar and Scholars of Byzantium (2nd edn, London 1996)Google Scholar. Other recent publications include Montanari, F. and Pagani, L. (eds.), From Scholars to Scholia: Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship, Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volume 9 (Berlin 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the entire issue of Trends in Classics, 6.1 (Oct 2014), which includes a useful recent bibliography.

3 For the works of the classicists, this is self-evident. In a more explicitly Byzantine-studies context, I would point especially to the oeuvre of Nigel Wilson as exemplifying this approach (above n. 2). A recent example in the legal literature would be Martín, José-Domingo Rodríguez, ‘Lost and found: on recovery of forgotten classical institutions in early Byzantine legal texts’, in Codoñer, J. and Martín, I. Pérez (eds.), Textual Transmission in Byzantium: between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung (Turnhout 2014) 513–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For example, Budelmann, F., ‘Classical commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on ancient Greek literature’, in Gibson, R. and Kraus, C. (eds.), The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory (Leiden 2002) 141–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaldellis, A., Byzantine Readings of Ancient Historians (New York 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pontani, F., ‘The first Byzantine commentary on the Iliad’, in Byzantinische Zeitchrift 99/2 (2006) 551–96Google Scholar; Russo, G., Contestazione e conservazione: Luciano nell'esegesi di Areta (Berlin 2012)Google Scholar; Stolte, B., ‘A note on the un-Photian revision of the Nomocanon XIV Titulorum’, in Analecta Atheniensia ad ius Byzantiunum spectantia (Athens 1997) 115–30Google Scholar; Webb, R., ‘Greek grammatical glosses and scholia: the form and function of a late Byzantine commentary’, in Mann, N. and Olsen, B. (eds.), Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship (Leiden 1997) 1–17Google Scholar. See also the brief but important comments of Martín, I. Pérez, ‘Byzantine books’, in Kaldellis, A. and Siniossoglou, N. (eds.), The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium (Cambridge 2017) 37–46 at 44–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kenens, U., ‘Perhaps the scholiast was also a drudge: Authorial practices in three middle Byzantine sub-literary writings’, in Pizzone, A. (ed.), The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: Modes, Functions, and Identities (Berlin 2014) 155–70Google Scholar, moves mostly in the older direction. Lamb, W., The Catena in Marcum (Leiden 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is an interesting example of the potentials of the new attention being paid to marginal commentaries in Biblical studies circles. The older literature did not entirely ignore the Byzantine implications of the scholia; for example, the person and social context of the indomitable John Tzetzes was always too interesting to ignore. See for references Wilson, Scholars, 190–6; F. Pontani, ‘Scholarship in the Byzantine empire (529–1453)’, in Montanari et. al., Ancient Greek Scholarship, 379–393. See also the suggestive comments of Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme byzantine (Paris 1970) 237–9Google Scholar.

5 On the sixth-century canonical collections, see Troianos, S., ‘Byzantine canon law to 1100’, in Hartmann, W. and Pennington, K. (eds.), The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500 (Washington, DC 2012) 115–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wagschal, D., Law and Legality in the Greek East (Oxford 2015)Google Scholar.

6 Examples can be easily accessed online from http://library.princeton.edu/byzantine/manuscript-title-list. See (respectively) Florence Laur. Plut. 32.03, 32.09, and 6.18, and Paris BN gr. 1350.

7 The most recent and extensive editions are V. Beneshevich, Приложения к изследованию: Канонический сборник XIV титулов со второй четверти VII века до 883 г. (St. Petersburg 1905) 3–80 (published as part of the 1974 Leipzig reprint of Канонический сборник; henceforth = ‘Sbor.'), and Beneshevich, V., Ioannis Scholastici Synagoga L titulorum ceteraque eiusdem opera iuridica (Munich 1937) 157–90Google Scholar (henceforth = ‘Syn.'). Some scholia to the nomocanonical section of the Coll14 are also found in Sbor. 145–8. Beneshevich provided numbers for each scholion which I have followed. Beneshevich did not, however, include all of the scholia previously published by Pitra, J.B., Iuris Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta, vol. 2 (Rome 1868) 641–62Google Scholar and throughout the footnotes of 445–640; or by Hergenröther, J., Photius: Patriarch von Constantinopel, vol. 3 (Regensburg 1869) 113–27Google Scholar; or even by Beveridge, W. in the Annotationes to Synodikon Sive Pandectae Canonum, vol 2 (Oxford 1672)Google Scholar. These works must still be consulted. The second volume of the Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts series, Schminck, A. and Getov, D. (eds.), Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts: Teil II: Die Handschriften des kirchlichen Rechts I (Frankfurt 2010, henceforth = RHBR 2)Google Scholar has scrupulously catalogued the scholia for all canonical manuscripts described; volume three has recently become available.

8 The author is currently working on such an edition.

9 Although not extensive, RHBR 2 has noted scholia attached to Zonaras (Milan Ambr. A.53 inf., Paris BN Cois. 39, Paris BN gr. 1321, Rome Casan. 1400, Rome Coll. gr. 12, Sofia NCID gr. 158, Vat. Palat. gr.21). For Balsamon, see Venice Marc. gr. 168. These scholia are unpublished. An edition of scholia to Harmenopoulos may be found in Leunclavius, J. (ed.), Iuris Graeco-Romani, vol. 1 (Frankfurt 1596) 1–71Google Scholar (J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 150, 45A-168C).

10 For an example, see Paris BN sup.gr. 1085, 144v.

11 For some early examples, see the scholia on Gorgias in Oxford Bod. Clark 39, 371r, or Vienna sup. gr. 7, 370r.

12 In the case of one manuscript, St. Petersburg RNB gr. 66, the extensive reference scholia turn out to be the Coll14 references broken up across the margins. Could something like the lost Collection in Sixty Titles be lurking in fragmented form in other marginal cross-references?

13 Used with caution, Gluck, M., Priscians Partitiones und ihre Stellung in der spätantiken Schule (Hildesheim 1967) 17–23Google Scholar and Marrou, H., Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité (4th edn., Paris 1958) 229–34Google Scholar et passim still present the best overview. See S. Matthaios, ‘Greek scholarship in the imperial era and late antiquity’, in Montanari et al., Scholarship, 184–296 for recent bibliography.

14 For other examples see Sbor. 224, 247, 350.

15 These may be found especially in Trullo, Second Nicaea and Basil. For other biblical examples, see Sbor. 307–11, 365, 366, 396, Syn. 218; for patristic, Sbor. 394, 474; for canonical, Sbor. 388, 406.

16 See also Sbor. 5, 11, 189, 500, 668; Syn. 318 – among many others. Glosses are sometimes interlinear: see Florence Laur. 10.10 passim.

17 For example, Sbor. 519 on the Introduction to Basil's first canonical letter, to ‘ἡ περὶ τὸ ἀκριβὲς μέριμνα': ‘It is written also this way “ἡ περὶ τὸ ἀποκρίνασθαι μέριμνα”'. See also Sbor. 325, 613.

18 For an overview of the Basilica scholia, see Troianos, S., Le fonti del diritto bizantino, trans. Buongiorno, P. (Torino 2015) 185–8Google Scholar (translation with updated bibliography of Οὶ Πηγές τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ Δικαίου, 3rd edn. Athens 2011)Google Scholar and recent comments and bibliography in T. van Bochove, ‘The Basilica: between Quellenforschung and textual criticism’, in Codoñer and Pérez Martín, Textual Transmission, 539–75 at 543–5. On the antecessores and their teaching methods, see especially Scheltema, H., L'enseignement de droit des antécesseurs (Leiden 1970)Google Scholar.

19 On this question more broadly, see Wagschal, Law and Legality, 276–9 et passim.

20 On the lack of professionalization in Byzantine canon law, see Wagschal, Law and Legality, 80–3.

21 Although see the important comments of McNamee, K., ‘Another chapter in the history of scholia’, Classical Quarterly 48.1 (1998) 269–88 at 286–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also, Russo, Contestazione, 9.

22 Good examples, available online, can be found in Paris BN sup. gr. 614 (e.g. 167v) or Paris BN sup. gr. 1085 (e.g. 126v-127r).

23 For example, Paris BN sup.gr. 1085, 127r.

24 Patmos 172 (early 9^th c.?), in Dionysius, Peter and Basil.

25 For examples see Paris BN sup. gr. 1085 11v-12r, 87v-88r; Paris BN sup.gr.614, 144r, 146r.

26 For discussion and further references, see S. Troianos, ‘Byzantine canon law from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries’, in Hartmann and Pennington, Canon Law, 170–214, at 198–9.

27 But see now T. Kampianaki, John Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories (12^th cent.): a Compendium of Jewish-Roman History and its Readers (DPhil University of Oxford 2017) 17–19, who argues for a terminus post quem of 1166.

28 For the most recent survey on the twelfth-century commentators in English, see S. Troianos, ‘Canon law from the twelfth’, 176–185.

29 For the general literature, see n. 5 above.

30 On which, Troianos, ‘Canon law to 1100’, 141–3.

31 Troianos, ‘Canon law to 1100’, 168–9.

32 Scholia can be highly abbreviated and solecistic; in microfilms, they are frequently out of focus or cut off; and in editions their mise en page can be difficult to determine. Generally their textual variability requires repeated consultation of multiple manuscripts.

33 The 9^th and 10^th c. manuscripts are Athens EBE 1370; Jerusalem Patr. Bibl. Tim. Stav. 2; Moscow GIM Sin. gr. 398; Paris BN gr. 1334; Paris BN sup. gr. 614, 1085; Patmos 172, 173; Rome Vallic. F.10; Sinai 1112; St. Petersburg RNB gr. 66; Vatican BAV gr. 843; Vatican Pal. gr. 376. The 11^th c. manuscripts: Oxford Bod. Auct. T.2.6, Barroc. 185; Sinai 1111; Venice Marc. ap gr. III.17; Vienna ÖNB hist. gr. 56.

34 For a full bibliography of this manuscript, see RHBR 2, 139. On Arethas and Arethas' scholarly work generally, see PMBZ 20554; Pontani, ‘Scholarship’, 342–55; Jenkins, R., Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries AD 610–1071 (London 1966) 212–26Google Scholar; Karlyn-Hayter, P., Vita Euthymii Patriarchae (Brussels 1970) 200–7Google Scholar; Lemerle, Humanisme, 205–41; Perria, L., ‘Impaginazione e scrittura nei codici di Areta’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici NS 27 (1990) 55–87Google Scholar; Wilson, Scholars, 120–35.

35 Pitra, Iuris Ecclesiastici, 656.

36 Kougeas, S., ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ τοῦ Ἀρέθα’, Φιλολογικὸς Σύλλογος Παρνασσός. Ἐπετηρὶς X (1914) 106–16Google Scholar, following the appearance of his monograph on Arethas, Ὁ Καισαρείας Ἀρέθας καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (Athens 1913).

37 Karlin-Hayter, Vita, 205–6; Lemerle, Humanisme, 235.

38 Meschini, A., Il Codice vallicelliano di Areta (Padua 1972)Google Scholar.

39 Perria, ‘Impaginazione’, 65, 82.

40 Stolte, ‘Note’, 122.

41 So far only two other manuscripts, Florence Laur. X.1 and Venice Marc. gr. 169, both from the 12^th-13^th c., have been identified that contain some of the Vall. F.10 canonical scholia. The number is limited to 14 for the former, and 4 (!) for the latter, and encompasses texts that mostly lack the distinctive flavour of the other Arethan scholia. Perhaps some of these were copied from elsewhere? These are noted by Beneshevich in Приложения. Full resolution of this question awaits a complete edition of the scholia.

42 See, for example, the comments of Pontani, ‘Scholarship’, 345; Russo, Contestazione, 13; Lemerle, Humanisme, 240–1; Wilson, Scholars, 133–4.

43 Kougeas, ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ’, 108–22.

44 Sbor. 99. So Kougeas, ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ’, 112.

45 Sbor. 103, 547, 548, 550, 552, 554, 555, 647. The author is also generally concerned about the whole issue of penitential binding and loosing; see for example Sbor. 612, 641. See Kougeas, ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ’, 113.

46 See Karlin-Hayter's nuanced discussion of some of these scholia, Vita Euthymii, 205–7.

47 Rome Vallic. F.10 is the only manuscript of Arethas' library without a subscription or note of date of acquisition; the end of the manuscript is mutilated which may account for this absence. Perria, ‘Impaginazione’, 67.

48 Perria, ‘Impaginazione’, 82.

49 Sbornik 170; Kougeas, ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ’, 113–114 also noted this, and several of the following examples.

50 Sbor. 230, 371, 430, 464, 465.

51 Sbor. 268. See also Sbor. 124, 428, 463, 715.

52 Sbor. 164, 206,

53 See for example Sbor. 283a, 372, 475, 555, 588.

54 Kraznozhen, M., Толкователи канонического кодекса Восточной Церкви: Аристин, Зонара и Вальсамон (Yurev 1911) 62–86Google Scholar.

55 Kraznozhen, Толкователи, 64–5.

56 See for example his treatment of Apostolic 29, 41, 50, 80, Nicaea 2, Second Nicaea 2, Serdica 7, 10, 14, Carthage 4, Dionysius 4, Basil 3.

57 See his analysis of Apostolic 31, Constantinople 6, Trullo 90.

58 Sbor. 15, 51, 70, 81, 123, 124, 129, 138, 189, 201 Cf. also 9, 52, 122, 125, 142, 174, 190.

59 For example, see Sbor. 189 and Chalcedon 17, Rhalles, G. and Potles, M. (eds.), Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols. (Athens 1852–1859Google Scholar, henceforth = RP) II, 259–63; or Sbor. 201 and Chalcedon 28 (RP II, 282–6). Other resonances are too general, and the point being made too obvious, to permit firm conclusions about direct influence. See above n. 55 for examples.

60 Sbor. 201.

61 RP II, 281–6; for discussion, see L'Huiller, P., The Church of the Ancient Councils (Crestwood, NY 1996) 277Google Scholar, who was aware of the scholion.

62 RP II, 73–4.

63 Ἐξ αὐθαδείας δηλονότι καὶ ἀλαζονείας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄξια ὕβρεως δράσαντα. Sbor. 37.

64 Munich BS gr. 122, Venice Marc. gr. III.2, Florence Laur. V.22, Paris BN gr.1370. See Beneshevich, V., ‘Zur slavischen Scholie angeblich aus der Zeit der Slavenapostel’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36.1 (1936) 101–5Google Scholar. The instances in the last three manuscripts are found as part of a small appendix collection of texts on Constantinople's primatial rights. Edition (from the Florentine MS): Pavlov, A., ‘Анонимная греческая статья о преимуществах Константинопольского патриаршего престола и древнеславянский перевод ее с двумя важными дополнениями’, Vizantiiskii Vremmenik 4 (1897) 143–154Google Scholar. See also Troitsky, S., ‘Кто включил папистическую схолию в православную Кормчую’, Богословское Труды 2 (1961) 7–47Google Scholar. Peter L'Huillier knew of this scholion through the Slavonic tradition, and offers several comments on the broader currency of its content: L'Huiller, Councils, 283–4. Hergenröther, r, 3.115 speculated that this scholion should be traced to the hand of Photios. Troitsky's arguments ('Папистическую схолию’, 16–23) for an even earlier date are unconvincing.

65 Pitra, Iuris Ecclesiastici, 646–7.

66 The twelfth-century Order of the Patriarchal Thrones of Neilos Doxapatres. See Morton, J., ‘A Byzantine canon law scholar in Norman Sicily: Revisiting Neilos Doxapatres's Order of the Patriarchal Thrones’, Speculum 92/3 (2017) 724–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which brought this fascinating text to my attention.

67 RP II, 282–6.

68 For the concept of ‘cores’ in the Byzantine canonical tradition, see Wagschal, Legality, 68–73.

69 Sbor. 67.

70 Sbor. 665.

71 Sbor. 17, 34, 40, 75; Syn. 40.

72 Sbor. 87, 270.

73 Sbor. 213, 222, 269, 271, 273, 293.

74 Sbor. 441.

75 Sbor. 430.

76 Sbor. 465: ‘θαυμάζω ὑμῶν, ἅγιοι· καὶ τίνος ἄλλου χάριν ἡ συνάθροισις νῦν; οὐ φορολογίας; πάνυ γε'.

77 Kougeas, ‘Νέος Κῶδιξ’, 109 also drew attention to this.

78 Sbor. 39.

79 Sbor. 371.

80 Sbor. 290.

81 Sbor. 15, 41, 52, 81, 85b, 102, 103, 234, 264, 170, 225, 364, 434, 463, 488, 575, 625.

82 Sbor. 300

83 Sbor. 234.

84 Sbor. 85b.

85 See I. Pérez Martín, ‘Byzantine books’, 44–5.

86 The dialogical elements of Arethas have frequently been remarked; see Lemerle, Humanism, 239; Pontani, ‘Scholarship’, 344; Wilson, Scholars, 123. Examples from the scholia on Lucian can be found in Russo, Contestazione, passim. On the pedagogical and controversial contexts of Balsamon's dialogical language, see Macrides, R., ‘Nomos and kanon on paper and in court’, in Morris, R. (ed.), Church and People in Byzantium (Birmingham 1999) 61–85Google Scholar, repr. in Macrides, Kinship and Justice in Byzantium, 11^th-15^th Centuries (Aldershot 1999), study no. VIGoogle Scholar.

87 Balsamon will frequently address his reader ('ἀνάγνωθι…'; ‘μὴ εἴπῃς…’, ‘σὺ δὲ…’, ‘σημείωσαι…’) and both he and Zonaras will report questions raised or will use questions in developing their arguments (e.g. RP II:208–15; 420–3; III:127–8, 327–8; others can be found easily). However, the editorialising tone and the direct addressing of the canons are on the whole absent.

88 Paris BN sup. gr. 614.

89 Paris BN sup. gr. 1085.

90 For further discussion, see Wagschal, Legality, 275–88, et passim.