The “Vaticana” Family in the Tradition of Theocritus’ Idylls

The manuscript Ambr. G 32 sup., identified by the siglum A, belongs to the so-called “Vaticana family” (siglum Va), one of the three main lines of transmission of Theocritus’ textual tradition, alongside the Ambrosiana and Laurenziana families. This classification primarily concerns the poetic text of the Idylls, according to Gallavotti’s reconstruction (1993³, 299-300), but it is also reflected, independently, in the transmission of the scholia apparatus, as illustrated by Wendel (1914, X, XII, XX).

Also known as the series Vaticana, this family includes manuscripts transmitting the first eighteen Idylls of Theocritus; the archetype from which they descend may date back to the 11th century. The manuscripts belonging to this family are as follows:

• A = Ambr. G 32 sup. [diktyon 42807]
• E = Vat. gr. 42 [diktyon 66673]
• G = Laur. 32.52 [diktyon 16316]
• I = Vat. gr. 44 [diktyon 66675]
• L = Par. gr. 2831 [diktyon 52469]

• N = Ath. Iber. 161 [diktyon 23758]
• S = Laur. 32.16 [diktyon 16280]
• T = Vat. gr. 38 [diktyon 66669]
• U = Vat. gr. 1825 [diktyon 68454]

Within the Vaticana family, the Ambrosianus stands out as a particularly significant witness for the transmission of the Idylls, showing a close textual affinity with manuscripts E (Vat. gr. 42) and I (Vat. gr. 44) of the tradition. Characterized by a high degree of internal consistency and minimal contamination, the codex serves as a key reference point for the reconstruction of the Theocritean tradition and was selected as the principal witness of the AEI group in the critical apparatus of Gallavotti’s edition (1993³).

Regarding the scholia apparatus, studies by Wendel show that the Ambrosianus stands out for the richness and completeness of the material it transmits, showing particular affinity with manuscripts E (Vat. gr. 42) and T (Vat. gr. 38). According to the stemma codicum proposed by Wendel, these three witnesses form a distinct subgroup within the Vaticana family. They are linked by the transmission of a substantial and coherent portion of the scholia vetera, which appears to have been arranged according to a model traceable to a shared proto-archetype. Significant differences emerge in the treatment of interlinear glosses, which in the Ambrosianus appear less uniform than the marginal scholia and bear clear traces of independent reworking. A portion of these glosses, copied by the principal scribe in vermilion ink, are generally paraphrastic in nature and intended to facilitate the understanding of the poetic text; they thus represent a partial reformulation of the scholia vetera. Other glosses, mainly written in ochre ink by an “occasional reader”, contemporary with the principal scribe or slightly later, have no equivalents in the other manuscripts of the subgroup and appear to be unique to A, functioning as original annotations, perhaps reflecting a specific scholarly context or reading practice during the Palaiologan period.

Thus, while all the manuscripts of the group – including Ambr. G 32 sup. – share a common textual core traceable to the Vaticana family proto-archetype, they each contain glosses not directly derived from the model, which differentiate their transmission and document various levels of exegetical intervention. In this context, the Ambrosianus stands out for the richness and variety of its glosses, making it a particularly valuable witness for reconstructing the processes of reception, adaptation, and updating of the scholia apparatus in the late Byzantine period.

Scholia Vetera and Recentiora in the Theocritean Idylls Tradition

The scholia vetera on Theocritus represent a rich and multilayered witness to the ancient exegetical tradition. They originated through a complex process of accumulation and reworking, resulting in a composite commentary that combines at least two principal lines of tradition. The first, dating to the Augustan age, is generally attributed to the grammarian Theon (1st century BCE) and includes material developed by Asclepiades of Myrlea (1st century BCE). Much of the preserved glosses, along with the prolegomena and hypotheseis introducing the individual Idylls, derive from this tradition.

The second exegetical tradition, associated with Munatius of Tralles (2nd century CE), is more descriptive and paraphrastic in nature, focusing primarily on character identification and basic explanations of the content. Later, the core strands were supplemented by the observations of other 2nd-century commentators, such as Theaetetus and Amarantus. It is plausible that Theaetetus himself carried out an early systematization of the entire scholia apparatus. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, the material underwent further modifications, though no substantially new content was added. The absence of references to scholars later than the 2nd century suggests that the fundamental structure of the scholia had already been established during the Imperial period.

The version that has reached us is a considerably abbreviated form of these ancient commentaries. Nevertheless, it continued to circulate and exert an indirect influence on later authors. Traces of this transmission can be found in the writings of Hesychius of Alexandria (5th century?) and Eustathius of Thessalonica (12th century), in certain etymological compendia, and, above all, in the Virgilian scholia, which demonstrate a detailed engagement with Theocritean poetry through the lens of ancient exegesis.

By contrast, the scholia recentiora were produced in Byzantine contexts and are distinguishable by their style and content. Although they do not add new philological information, they offer a valuable insight into reception and exegetical practices in the late Byzantine period. Key figures include Manuel Moschopoulos (c. 1262-1316) and Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), alongside fragments of an earlier commentary by John Tzetzes (12th century) and annotations attributed to Demetrius Triclinius (c. 1283-c. 1340).