The Scholiastic Apparatus and Glosses in Ambr. G 32 sup.
Page Structure and Layout
The manuscript Ambr. G 32 sup. is notable for the elaborate exegetical apparatus accompanying the poetic text, particularly for its extensive and well-organized marginal scholia and interlinear glosses. The graphical arrangement of the page, the relationship between text and commentary, and the precise organization of space all testify to the reading and study practices of poetic texts within the cultural milieu of the Palaiologan period (see below).
Attributed to the so-called Vaticana family, the codex primarily transmits scholia vetera in the margins. The interlinear glosses, by contrast, display a more complex stratification: alongside concise reformulations of the same scholia vetera, there are original interventions found exclusively in this manuscript. This combination of fidelity to tradition and unique contributions gives the codex a distinctive exegetical profile, making it a privileged vantage point for understanding how commentary practices within the scholiastic tradition were layered, adapted, and transformed over time.
An analysis of the layout of Ambr. G 32 sup. reveals a careful design aimed at establishing a clear visual hierarchy between the poetic text and the scholiastic apparatus. The scribe maintains a consistent ductus and meticulous execution across all sections of the page, but noticeably reduces the script size for the scholia, following a common practice in manuscripts with commentary.
The number of lines allocated to the poetic text varies widely from folio to folio (ranging from a minimum of six to a maximum of twenty-two per page), depending on the density and arrangement of the marginal commentary. This variation follows a functional logic: the layout of the page is governed by the need to keep each lemma as close as possible to its corresponding note. Most notably, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of poetic text and the scholia in the lower margin: the more lines of text there are, the fewer notes appear at the bottom of the page. The scholia in the upper margin, by contrast, are less directly affected. The result is a flexible balancing act between the two margins: when one is crowded, the other tends to thin out, though never according to a fixed rule.
This strategy serves the general aim of maximizing the readability of the commentary by placing it as close as possible to the poetic passage to which it refers, sometimes using reference marks (see below). Nonetheless, spatial adjustment is not always perfect: in some cases, scholia spill over onto the following folio due to lack of space in the margins. For example, f. 14v, which contains verses 9-18 of Idyll 3, also includes in its upper margin two scholia referring to verses 7 (ad ἐρωτΰλλον) and 8 (ad ἐκέλευσθε) that were transcribed on the preceding folio (f. 14r), illustrating the practical difficulties of maintaining precise alignment between text and commentary.
Since no archetype is known for the Vaticana family, it remains uncertain how much of the page layout in Ambr. G 32 sup. reflects the scribe’s own design and how much simply reproduces a preexisting model. A fuller understanding of the manuscript’s originality – or its dependence on earlier exemplars – would require a systematic comparison with other exemplars of the group (particularly E and I) and a careful study of the scholia apparatus in terms of its transmission and layering over time.
Textual Stratification and Stages of Intervention
Palaeographic analysis and the study of inks allow us to distinguish multiple phases in the composition of the text, marginal scholia, and interlinear glosses in Ambr. G 32 sup.
In a first phase, the principal scribe copied the poetic text and added the marginal scholia, using the same brown ink. This phase was likely followed by the addition of interlinear glosses, largely drawn from the scholia vetera and penned in carmine ink – the same used for the manuscript’s modest decoration. The carmine ink was also employed for the reference marks, mostly Greek numerals, intended to link lemmas in the poetic text with their corresponding marginal commentary. In the initial folios, the scribe relied primarily on carmine for these cross-references; however, the practice was not applied systematically throughout the unit. In the final folios containing Theocritus’ Idyls, the reference marks are absent, as are the interlinear glosses by the hand of the principal scribe – evidence suggesting that the final phase of the work remained incomplete.
A second phase is represented by the intervention of a distinct hand, likely a contemporary or slightly later occasional reader, using a fine-point stylus and ochre ink, now heavily faded. This hand is responsible for largely original glosses, not directly derivable from the scholia vetera, which may be interpreted as autonomous reworkings of the exegetical material, probably developed in a specific scholarly context. Although the absence of a known archetype for the Vaticana family prevents us from determining precisely how freely the scribe exercised control over the layout and selection of content, the contribution of this second hand provides valuable evidence of active engagement with the text, possibly linked to practices of study, commentary, or teaching during the Palaiologan period.