Scholiastic Apparatus and Glosses in Ambr. C 222 inf.: A Comparison of Two Scribes
Page Structure and Layout
The manuscript, written in brown ink, shows two distinct layout schemes. The first, more frequent in the sections copied by the main scribe, Konstantinos, is characterized by sections of text arranged in two or three columns of varying sizes and shapes, often irregular and not always proportionally balanced, separated by intercolumnar spaces of differing widths, and adapted to the specific requirements of each work. These columns are followed by large blocks of commentary that occupy the entire page. According to Maria Luisa Agati, this layout does not reflect a standardized tradition but rather represents an individual expedient employed by the scribe, who had to balance the poetic text with the substantial amount of notes and exegesis. When preparing a page, Konstantinos calculated the space to allocate for the commentary, seeking to ensure legibility, order, and functional coherence throughout the manuscript (Agati 2024, 68).
Nunzio Bianchi, on the other hand, interprets the Ambrosianus as offering insight into Tzetzes’ working method – potentially providing evidence of how his autographs were “stratigraphically” structured and of how page dimensions were sometimes adjusted to accommodate the amount of text to be copied, through additions applied on slips of paper. Indeed, Konstantinos, the principal scribe and owner of the codex, a student of Tzetzes himself, «attingeva ad autografi di Giovanni Tzetzes o a una loro copia fedelissima» (Mazzucchi 2004, 419).
A marginal note on f. 93v, ll. 6-13, written in a smaller, finer hand, shows Tzetzes criticizing those who exploit his works without acknowledging his authorship, while another reads: τοῦτο προσφυὲς ἦν τῶ πρωτοτύπω τετραδίω· ἐν τούτω δὲ πυκνώσαντες τὴν γραφὴν καὶ τὸ γράμμα λεπτύναντες, περιελάβομεν πᾶν:- («Questo era attaccato al quaternio originario; invece in questo, infittendo la scrittura e assottigliando il carattere, l’abbiamo incluso tutto»). This scholium, probably by Tzetzes, must have been present in Konstantinos’ model, who evidently had a leaf with some lines with smaller size, which he faithfully reproduced. The decision to adopt such measures and this particular modus operandi, which would be difficult to transmit through subsequent copies, remains enigmatic. Perhaps Tzetzes intended to maintain the commentary within the same number of leaves, thereby ensuring precise alignment between text and notes.
The second layout scheme is typical of the professional scribe: the text is arranged in a single column, usually offset toward the outer or inner margin, and surrounded by marginal scholia forming a frame, further enhanced by interlinear glosses. This arrangement gives this section of the manuscript a generally more orderly and readable layout.
The comparison with the work of Kostantinos, the principal scribe, clearly highlights the differences between them. Kostantinos appears to show particular attention to the exemplar, probably an authoritative copy closely associated with Tzetzes’ work. His fidelity to the model led him to devise personal solutions for page organization, alternating text and commentary so that the reader could follow the poetic text without losing sight of its exegesis. In this way, the page achieves a carefully calibrated balance between the main text and the substantial exegetical annotation, with meticulous attention to spatial distribution.
The professional scribe, by contrast, adopts a different approach: he simplifies the arrangement of the material and opts for a more “classic” and regular structure, likely less constrained by strict adherence to the model. The result is a compact page, with the text at the centre and the commentary forming a frame, complemented by interlinear glosses.
This distinction between the two approaches was noted by Massa Positano (1960, LXVII), who, commenting on the scribes’ practices, writes: «Ex scholiis utraque manu scriptis etiam apparet m1 [i.e. the “mercenary” scribe], ut antea, complura de consulto omisisse, sed m2 [i.e. Kostantinos] tales locos plene descripsisse» («From the scholia, written by both hands, it also appears here, as previously, that m1 deliberately omitted several passages in the page layout, whereas m2 [i.e. Kostantinos] fully transcribed these sections»).
In conclusion, the different practices of the scribes reflect their relationship with the model: on the one hand, Kostantinos, attentive and faithful, seems inclined to develop more complex and functional page-design strategies; on the other, the professional scribe, adopting a freer approach, favours established, “traditional” schemes.
Textual Stratification and Phases of Intervention in the Idylls’ Section: the “Mercenary” Scribe
Particularly noteworthy is the section of the Idylls (ff. 339v-360v), entirely written by the second scribe, vividly described by Mazzucchi as «il copista ‘mercenario’ di Teocrito» (2004, 437). Here, the text is framed by marginal scholia along the upper, outer, and lower margins, and further enriched with numerous interlinear glosses, which accompany all the poems. The interlinear glosses sometimes exceed the available space between the lines and are executed in purple ink on ff. 340v-349r, 350v-352r, 353v-354r, 355r-357r, 358rv, in red on f. 340v, or in brown ink on ff. 340r-349r, 350v-351r, 352r-353r, 355r, 358v. Regardless of ink colour, all appear to be attributable to the second scribe, who transcribed the text, scholia, and glosses; even the ochre glosses, closely matching the colour of the main text, seem assignable to the “mercenary” scribe, although their small size makes palaeographic analysis difficult. Capital letters in the text and reference marks exhibit the same chromatic variety: red on the upper half of f. 340r and purple on its lower half.
The scribe employs two distinct inks for the main text and the scholiastic apparatus. The principal text is written in a uniform ochre ink, while the marginal scholia display a chromatic variation: from ff. 340r-348r, the scholia are also in ochre, whereas from f. 348v to f. 360r they appear in a darker brown than the text. This difference may reflect two separate stages of work: it is plausible that the scribe first copied the entire text and added the scholia only afterwards, using ink of a different shade. The exegetical apparatus thus seems to have been added after the text itself, following a standard practice. Some interlinear glosses, however, are written in an ochre ink very similar to that of the main text, suggesting that at least part of them may have been composed contemporaneously with the copying of the Idylls. In a subsequent stage, the scribe added titles, reference marks, and further interlinear glosses in purple ink.
The page layout reflects a remarkable graphic density: the main text occupies on average 25-43 lines per page (except for the hypotheseis, which extend to almost twice the number of lines as the poems), while the scholia reach up to 67-71 lines, written with narrow line spacing and compact script. In cases where the marginal space exceeds the amount of commentary, the lower margin remains blank, with writing concentrated instead in the upper and outer margins (e.g., ff. 341v-343r, 344r, 346v-347v, 348v, 359r-360r).