Laur. pl. 31.8 is a composite manuscript, which can be divided into 5 parts (Smith 1975, 10f.): (I) Life of Saint George Martyr from Cappadocia; (II) Aeschylus [cod. F], Life of Aeschylus, Prometheus (with hypothesis), Seven against Thebes, Persians, Agamemnon (with hypothesis), Eumenides (with hypothesis); (III) Sophocles [cod. Za], Ajax, Electra; (IV) Dionysius Periegetes [cod. λ²], Description of the World; (V) Lycophron, Alexandra. Two blank unnumbered leaves are between Aeschylus (II) and Sophocles (III), Sophocles (III) and Dionysius Periegetes (IV), Dionysius Periegetes (IV) and Lycophron (V); yet, no blanck leaves are between the Life of Saint Goerge (I) and Aeschylus (II), because the Life (I) was later added in the place of two blanck leaves (Bandini 1768, 83).

Each of these parts were written by a different hand (Smith 1975, 11), if only the scribes of (III) and (IV) were not the same person: in fact, “Sophocles and Dionysius Periegetes seem to have formed a separate whole, distinguished by a common watermark” (Smith 1975, 12) and, in my opinion, the two hands appear to be very similar. A subscription on f. 208^r mentions a scribe whose name is Constantinos, but he only copied the text of Lycophron (V), not the whole manuscript. As for Aeschylus (II), the ‘scribe of F’ is still unidentified, but it is almost certain that he was one who worked “in a scriptorium where Triclinian scholarship was cultivated” (Smith 1975, 21; see also Smith 1982b, 328; Smith 1992, 198).

In a note on f. 244^v at the end of Lycophron’s poem (V), that corresponds to the very end of the manuscript, “a former owner, as it seems, has recorded the death of his wife”, which occurred in 1374. Smith (1975, 13) concludes that “apparently the Lycophron part must be dated earlier than 1374; nothing more can be gained from this, since we have no evidence that this section was already part of our MS”: he particularly criticizes Turyn (1943, 70; 1957, 227-228 n. 208), who suggested 1374 as a terminus ante quem for the date of the whole manuscript. However, in my opinion, the hand which wrote the note on f. 244^v is the same which copied the Life of Saint George (I) using the same ink, and, if this is true (despite Bianconi 2005, 157), 1374 must be considered as a terminus ante quem for the binding of the manuscript. The Aeschylean part (II) is certainly earlier, 1348 is plausible as a terminus ante quem (Smith 1975, 13), but the date is still a debate among the scholars around two main hypotheses: 1. “a date around 1320” (Smith 1992, 199); 2. “1335-1348” (West 1990b, 349). The former implies that cod. F dates earlier than the final edition of Aeschylus by Triclinius (T = Neap. II.F.31, dated to ca. 1330) and only contains proto-triclinian scholia derived from a lost antigraph (τ). West (1990b, 350) supports the latter hypothesis claiming that “F uses the lost copy τ which Triclinius had corrected”, so it would come later than T.

This sample page (69^v) contains notae personarum written in abbreviated form, using the same black ink as in the text. They indicate every change of speaking character at the beginning of the lines. Moreover, there are several metrical and lexical notes, located both in the (I) external and (III) internal margins, as well as in the (II) interlinear spaces. The scholia written in the margins are generally longer than the interlinear ones. All of them appear to have been written by the same hand who wrote the text.

Taken together, the metrical scholia – whether written in the margins or in the interlinear spaces – offer an analysis of nearly every line on this page, with the exception of 1025–1029 and 1033.

I. External margin

In the external margin, the copyist of F wrote (A) metrical scholia – either (1) without or (2) with a preceding cross – and (B) a single lexical scholion. All of them begin in alignment with the upper interlinear space of the line to which they refer.

A.1. Metrical scholia (without a preceding cross)

These very short scholia, written in an abbreviated form, are placed close to the beginning of the line and occupy only a small part of the blank space in the external margin. To regard F as “an early working copy of Demetrius Triclinius” (Dawe 1959, 47; cf. Smith 1975, 106) does not exclude the possibility that these scholia derive from an earlier edition of Aeschylus by Thomas Magistros (cf. Massa Positano 1948, 14), which has been lost as for the Persians, rather than being preliminary notations by Triclinius for a work in progress. However, they were not included in the Triclinian edition of Aeschylus (T).

schol. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1008 (Smith)

The metrical analysis of Aesch. Pers. 1008 as an iambic trimeter corresponds to the text in F (πεπλήγμεθ’ οἷαι δὴ δι’ αἰῶνος τύχαι = U – U –   – – U –   – – U –), which is the same as in G and T but in no other manuscript of this play (West 1990b, 94). The Greek particle δή, generally neglected in the critical apparatus of modern editions, could be emphatic after οἷαι (cf. Denniston 1954, 210-212), but it should be deleted to restore the strophic responsion between 1002 and 1008, if 1002 is a trimeter of the form ia cr ia (U – U –   – U –   – – U –). For textual matters concerning 1002 and 1008, cf. West 1990b, 93-95. However, Triclinius did not recognise a strophic pair in 1002-1007 ~ 1008-1013, not even in his final edition (T): cf. Massa Positano1948, 71f.

scholl. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1017 and 1030 (Smith)

The description as ἴαμβος τρίμετρος of both 1017 and 1030 in Aeschylus’ Persians implies that they rhythmically scan as iambic sequences, consisting of three meters. Indeed, the text of 1017 scans as the trimeter U – U –   – U U –   U – U – with a choriamb as second meter, while the text of 1030 scans as the trimeter U – U –   – U U U –   U – U – with resolution of the first longum in the second iambic meter. However, ἐπέρρηξά γ’ ἐπὶ in 1030 appears to be a lectio singularis for ἐπέρρηξ’ ἐπὶ that produce the same sequence as 1017; on the other hand, T (cf. Massa Positano 1948, 149) as well as a group of mss. (κ = Q K) have τᾶδε τᾶς ἐμᾶς instead of τόδε τᾶς ἐμᾶς in 1017, that produce the same sequence as 1030 in F. The Triclinian metrical scholia in T (schol. T Aesch. Pers. 1014, 1015 and 1026 [Massa Positano]) go further into the question and suggest that these lines correspond to each other within a strophic pair, although they realise an iambic acatalectic trimeter with the solution of the first longum in the second meter instead of the trimeter ia cho ia, as they generally appear in the modern editions.

A.2. Metrical scholia (with a preceding cross)

These two scholia offer the metrical analysis of groups of cola, corresponding respectively to ll. 1009-1013 and 1014-1016. The beginning of both is marked by a cross, indicating Triclinian authorship (cf. Smith 1975, 23), and the end by a dicolon (:), followed by an obelos or long dash (–) only between the first and second scholia. The extent of the first scholion corresponds to the lines commented by it, while the second is shorter; nevertheless, they occupy almost all the blank space in the external margin. These metrical notations do not always reflect the text in F, which at times differs from that in T. Nor do they correspond exactly to the Triclianian scholia in T (cf. scholl. T Aesch. Pers. 1009 and 1014 [Massa Positano]), since Triclinius was not yet fully aware of the strophic responsion when he wrote the notations copied in F (Smith 1975, 114, 144). These scholia provide further evidence that “Triclinius as far as possible strove to isolate blocks of similar cola” (Smith 1975, 162).

schol. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1009-1013 (Smith)

This scholion identifies three cola (1009, 1011, 1012) of the same form and analises them as an iambic hephthemimeres, so-called ‘periodic’, resulting from the combination of an iambic and a trochaic (catalectic) metre. Although 1012 scan the sequence U – U –   – U –, 1009 scans the prosodic sequence U – U –   – – –, with the word εὔδηλον instead of εὔδηλα, the latter being generally attested in the rest of the manuscript tradition as well as in T, whereas 1011 scans as a first iambic metre only with the form Ἰαόνων (B W D) instead of Ἰάνων (F). Four of the five cola at 1009-1012 are iambo-trochaic, whereas the last one (1013) is anapaestic. The metrical analysis of 1013 as an anapaestic acatalectic dimeter implies a text (τὸ γένος Περσῶν, like in T: cf. Massa Positano 1948, 148) different from those in F (γένος Περσῶν) and in the most important manuscripts of this play (γένος τὸ Περσῶν). However, Triclinius did not recognise the strophic responsion between 1009-1013 and 1003-1007, either in F or in T.

schol. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1014-1016 (Smith)

This scholion singles out another group of four iambic cola, notable for their rhythmic consistency. The metrical analysis of 1014 as an iambic hephthemimeres reflects the text in F, which lacks the particle μὲν after στρατὸν. In T it is attested, as in the main manuscripts of this play; consequently, Triclinius offers a different analysis of 1014 as an iambo-trochaic acatalectic dimeter in his final edition of Aeschylus. In 1016 μεγάλα τὰ is likely a lectio facilior, attested in a large part of the manuscript tradition of this play, for μεγάλατε, found in the most ancient manuscripts (Mβ) and presumably implying a different metrical analysis.

B. Lexical scholion

schol. Aesch. Pers. 1026 (cf. Massa Positano 1948, 162): ἀγανόριος] ἀνδρῶν ποιμανόριον : (aganórios] flock of soldiers).

This lexical scholion refers to a problematic passage. In F, the word ἀγανόριος (a variant of ἀγανόρειος) appears to be the result of an emendation: the letters -νό- are more widely spaced than the others, and the line connecting -α- to -ν- is broken, with an unnatural change of direction. The reading ἀγανόρ(ε)ιος is found throughout the manuscript tradition, whereas most modern editors prefer the correction ἄγαν ἄρειος (Wellauer). The space between the second α and ρ is larger than would normally be expected for two letters separated by a single blank space. It is likely that the original text of F read as in the Triclinian scholion to Aesch. Pers. 1026 (Massa Positano): ἄγαν ἀνδρ(ε)ῖος. This was, in fact, a fairly common interpretation among ancient grammarians and lexicographers for the Homeric adjective ἀγήνωρ (cf. e.g. Aristonich. Od. 2.103, 18.43; Apollon. Soph. Lex. Hom. P. 7.17 [Bekker]; Synag.^α α 56; Suda α 233; Phot. α 166), which had the same meaning as the Aeschylean ἀγανόρ(ε)ιος. Alternatively, the position of the accent also suggests a possible reading such as ἄγαν θούριος.

In the scholion, the abbreviated form of ἀνδρῶν, which Massa Positano misread as ὡς (“like [a flock]”), could recall the adjective ἀνδρεῖος, if that word was indeed present in the original text of F. In any case, ποιμανόριον is the same metaphorical term used by Aeschylus in Pers. 75 (ποιμανόριον θεῖον) in reference to the Persian army. Cf. schol. Aesch. Pers. 75 (Dindorf ~ schol. T Aesch. Pers. 75 [Massa Positano]) ποιμανόριον θεῖον] ποίμνιον ἀνδρῶν B. Like the metrical scholia in the external margin without a preceding cross (I.A.1), it seems probable that this lexical scholion derives from an earlier tradition than the critical work of Triclinius, possibly from the lost edition of Thomas Magistros (cf. Massa Positano 1948, 13).

II. Interlinear spaces

scholl. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1019, 1020, 1021, 1021-1022, 1031, 1032 (Smith)

These metrical notations consist of a single abbreviated word, located at the very beginning of the meter or colon they describe, written directly above it in the interlinear space. Only the length of the metrical unit is indicated, without any reference to rhythm; however, we must regard all these sequences as iambic. This metrical analysis tends to reflect the colometry of F, even when it distinguishes single iambic metres (1019, 1031) followed by iambic dimeters (1020, 1032), which Triclinius combines in T, producing iambic acatalectic trimeters (schol. T Aesch. Pers. 1014: cf. Massa Positano 1948, 149). 1020 scans as an iambic dimeter only if τανδί is maintained, the deictic -ι counting as a long vowel. The text of T τὰν δίτ’ ὀιστοδέγμονα, reproduced by Massa Positano (1948, 149), is uncomprehensible unless δίτ’ is taken as a variant for δῆτ(α). The rest of the manuscript tradition presents different readings (cf. the critical apparatus to 1020 in West 1990a, 55). In F this textual issue is made evident by the deletion of an acute accent originally written over the α in τανδί. The metrical analysis of 1021 and 1021-1022 depends on the fact that F lacks the word βελέεσσιν after θησαυρὸν, later restored by Triclinius in T (cf. βέλεσσιν M : βέλεσι fere cett.) with different colometry and metrical analysis (trochaic ithyphallics as in 1023-1024: cf. below, III). Unlike the metrical scholia without a preceding cross in the external margin (I.A.1), these notations seem to reflect Triclinius’ ongoing work for his edition of Aeschylus’ tragedies, based on the text in F.

III. Internal margin

The scholia located in the internal margin are preceded by a cross and contain the metrical analysis of groups of cola. They closely resemble the Triclinian scholia written in the external margin (I.A.2), and we can only speculate about the reason for their placement in the internal margin. In fact, on other pages of F with the text of Aeschylus’ Persians, only the external margin generally provides sufficient blank space for such notations. On this page, the external margin is mostly reserved for iambic sequences, whereas the metrical analysis of sequences scanned primarily by different metres (either trochaic or anapaestic) is written in the internal margin.

schol. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1023-1024 (Smith)

Triclinius describes both these cola as trochaic ithyphallics, which indeed correspond to two pherecrateans. At this stage of his critical work on Aeschylus’ text, he was probably not yet familiar with antispastic catalectic dimeters. Even later, when writing the scholia for T, he felt the need to describe each single meter within the pherecrateans (cf. scholl. T Aesch. Pers. 584, 657 [Massa Positano] and scholl. Aesch. Sept. 78-150b, 287-303b, 734-741b, 750-757b [Smith]), and he singled out only one beginning with a trochaic meter, i.e. with a short second vowel, in Aesch. Sept. 755. In T, 1023-1024 are still described as trochaic ithyphallics with a dactylic second metre.

schol. Tr. in Aesch. Pers. 1034-1037 (Smith)

This scholion offers the metrical analysis of the last three lines on f. 69^v as well as the first line on f. 70^r. It is noteworthy that T lacks 1037: for the text of T, cf. Massa Positano 1948, 139.