No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Metrical scholia to the Agamemnon appear in the manuscripts commonly called F (Laurentianus XXXI. 8) and Tr (Farnesianus Neapolitanus II F 31)— also in G (Venetus Marcianus 663), but these are the same as some of those in F and are of interest only at one point (see below, C). In the lyrical passages these scholia are of two types, which I shall call ‘long’ and ‘short’; Professor Eduard Fraenkel, who prints illustrative examples, has pointed out the distinction (Aeschylus: Agamemnon, 1950, i, pp. 16–21). ‘Long’ scholia give a comparatively full description of the metre of the passage to which they refer: they state adequately the number and order of the cola, classified according to the metrical system which Demetrius Triclinius learnt from Hephaestion's work.
page 119 note1 Photostats of those leaves of F and Tr which give the Agamemnon will be found in the Bodleian Library; I am grateful to the staff of the library for allowing me to use them. These photostats were previously in the possession of Fraenkel, who kindly transthe ferred them to the library.
page 121 note1 1 There are differences of terminology between the F-scholia and the Trscholia. In particular, the term 
is used in F both before and after line 1072 (e.g. at lines 258, 489, 810, 1035, 1072, 1178, 1331, 1343, 1448, 1577, 1649) but not in Tr (it is used in the Tr-scholion on line 1 but in a different sense, that of ‘the beginning of the play’); the terms 
occur in Tr both before and after line 1072 (e.g. at lines 1, 258, 355, 489, 681, 782, 810, 1035, 1072, 1078, 1098, 1119, 1162, 1448, 1513, 1537, 1567) but not in F. It might be inferred, first, that all the F-scholia were composed by the same scholar, and secondly, that they were either not composed by the Tr-scholiast or composed by him at a different period from the Tr-scholia. But neither inference would be secure, for the manuscript F is a copy of an earlier recension and the terminological peculiarities may have been introduced by an intermediate copyist.