The ms. Laur. plut. 32.9 provides the text of Aeschylus’ tragedies (ff. 119r-126v; ca. 44 lines per page) with scholia vetera. The scholia are placed to the left and right of the poetic text, mostly aligned with the point they are commenting upon, without any symbol connecting the text with the pertaining exegesis (an instance of “implicit connection”, according to the terminology proposed by Maniaci 2016, 218). The alignment is made possible by the conciseness of the scholia, which often do not include the lemma, as it is not strictly necessary. This is the case with fol. 123r, containing Aesch. Pers. 341-384 (see Transcription), where the lemma appears in only one instance (sch. Pers. 355).

The sections in which the alignment is less respected are, as might be expected, the initial parts of the tragedies, with the highest exegetical density (see e.g. f. 159v: Eum. 1-48): here the scholia are written in a special column parallel to the poetic text and are connected to the relevant verse through marks of cross-reference. When the column is not large enough to accommodate the whole exegesis, some annotations (short scholia or glosses) are written directly next to the verse (see e.g. f. 120r: Pers. 76-121) or, if they are extensive, are copied into the lower or upper margins (see e.g. f. 159v, quoted above: the long scholium concerning the plot and the changes of scene in the Eumenides [sch. Eum. 1a Smith] is written in the lower margin).

Finally, it is worth noting that the copyist has graphically differentiated the paratext from the text by using a different script, a practice well attested between the 9th and 11th centuries (the so-called manus duplex: cf. Cavallo 2000, 59): while Aeschylus’ verses are in a regular and elegant minuscule, without abbreviations, the scholia have been written in small capital letters, with some minuscule elements and various abbreviations (Cavallo 2019, 10).

The copyist who was responsible for the Aeschylus’ section is the second of the three main hands (A, B and C) that can be recognised in the manuscript. All of them have been recently dated to the beginning of the 10th century AD by Cavallo (2019), who argues that «dopo le più recenti ricerche sulle minuscole librarie dei secoli IX e X, la tradizionale datazione del Laur. 32.9 al tardo X o all’XI secolo, finora accolta, non è più proponibile, giacché sia la minuscola in cui il codice è vergato sia la minuta maiuscola degli scolî convergono nell’indicare una data forse anteriore ma non certo posteriore ai primi decenni circa del secolo X» (p. 25). The same position is taken by Bianconi (2019, 88), who does not rule out a date in the later 9th century. For previous datings to the second half of the 10th century or the earlier 11th century, see West 1990, 321 with n. 4 and Medda 2017, I, 200 with n. 531.

As for the scholia, Cavallo (2019, 10-13) holds that the second main hand of the manuscript wrote both the text of Aeschylus’ tragedies and the related scholia, and was also responsible for the supervision of the various stages of the manuscript’s preparation (selecting and transcribing the scholia, correcting the poetic text, adding the characters’ initials, integrating additional texts and completing spaces left blank by other copyists). However, there is not a consensus on this aspect: previous scholars proposed to identify the copyist who wrote the scholia and supervised the whole preparation of the manuscript with the third main hand (cf. Merkel 1854, CLXXXVIII and Orsini 2005, 308) or with a fourth hand, different from all those who wrote the poetic texts (cf. Rostagno 1896, 11f. and Turyn 1943, 18).

External margin

• Sch. Pers. 343a Zabrowski (346 Dähnhardt)

The scholion is placed to the right of v. 343 and explains the expression αἱ δ’ ὑπέρκοποι τάχει / ἑκατὸν δὶς ἦσαν ἑπτά θ’ (vv. 342f. “The ships outstanding in speed were twice hundred and seven”), by which the Herald describes Xerxes’ naval forces. In particular, the explanation shows that there are two ways of interpreting the phrase, depending on whether the adverb δίς was linked only with ἑκατόν (207) or also with ἑπτά (214). The first figure squares with Herodotus’ account (VII 89), where the comprehensive number of triremes is said to have been 1207 (τῶν δὲ τριηρέων ἀριθμὸς μὲν ἐγένετο ἑπτὰ καὶ διηκόσιαι καὶ χίλιαι).

The same exegesis is also present in sch. A Pers. 337a Zabrowski, a paraphrastic note probably going back to Tzetzes (for the attribution of the scholia A to Tzetzes see esp. Smith 1981) and commenting upon vv. 337-343 (… ἀπὸ τούτων δὲ αἱ ἔκκριτοι [scil. νῆες] καὶ ἄρισται καὶ ὑπέρκομποι καὶ ἐπαιρόμεναι διὰ τὸ εἶναι ταχεῖαι διακόσιαι ἦσαν ἑπτά, ἢ δεκατέσσαρες, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ δὶς ἀπὸ κοινοῦ λαμβανόμενον ἐν τῷ ἑπτά).

• Sch. Pers. 346b Zabrowski (349 Dähnhardt)

This scholion is placed to the right of v. 346 and explains the expression τάλαντα βρίσας (“weighing down the scales”), by which the Herald describes the fate that befell the Persians, namely their defeat at the hands of the Greeks. After a brief paraphrasis, the scholion introduces a quotation from Il. VIII 72, where the same metaphor from weighing in the scales is used: the passage is clearly quoted as a literary parallel, and is probably the remnant of an originally longer note that explored this poetic image in greater depth and provided further examples.

A similar note forms the sch. A Pers. 346a Zabrowski.

• Sch. Pers. 349a Zabrowski (352 Dähnhardt)

This scholion is placed to the right of v. 349 and clarifies the poetic line (ἀνδρῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἕρκος ἐστὶν ἀσφαλές) through a poetic parallel: Alcaeus’ fr. 112,10 V., where the warriors are qualified as the sure defence of a city against its enemies (the quotation seems to preserve quite faithfully the poets’ ipsissima verba, and has been only partially Atticized: see πόλεως instead of πόλιος). The scholiast seems therefore to imply the following translation of the line: “so long as a city has its men, there is a secure wall for defence (for the city)”.

The scholion, or a similar one, was present in the ms. Ath. Iber. 209 (I), where, however, many words are nowadays very difficult to read. It is nonetheless clear that the note was preceded by the lemma ἀνδρῶν γάρ, which is absent in the Medicean ms.

• Sch. Pers. 355b Zabrowski (358 Dähnhardt)

This scholion begins to the right of v. 352 and is related to v. 355 through the lemma. The note clarifies the identity of the “Greek man” (ἀνήρ … Ἕλλην) mentioned by the Messenger ‒ Sikinnos, the paedagogus of Themistocles’ children ‒ and provides a brief account of the episode involving him. The full story is recounted by Herodotus (VIII 75), according to whom Themistocles concealed his plan from his fellow-commanders to prevent them from withdrawing to the Isthmus. Aeschylus, however, says nothing of this.

The scholion is also present in the mss Ath. Iber. 209 (I), Vat. Pal. gr. 287 (Ga) and Par. gr. 2787 (P). The same explanation is provided by the sch. A Pers. 355a Zabrowski, which offers a more detailed account of the episode, likely based on a fuller redaction of the scholia vetera.

• Sch. Pers. 365a Zabrowski (368 Dähnhardt)

This marginal gloss explains the poetic periphrasis τέμενος αἰθέρος, lit. “the precinct of the aether/sky”. It occurs also in the mss Ambr. C 222 inf. (A), Laur. Conv. Soppr. 11 (K) and Par. gr. 2787 (P) in the line spacing, above v. 365.

The gloss was included by Tzetzes in his paraphrastic comment on vv. 355-368 (sch. A 355a Zabr.): ὁ δὲ Ξέρξης οὐ ξυνεὶς καὶ νοήσας τὸν δόλον τοῦ Ἕλληνος ἀνδρὸς ὃν ἄνω εἴπομεν, εὐθὺς πᾶσι τοῖς ἄρχουσι τῶν νεῶν καὶ τοῖς κόμησι προσφωνεῖ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον· ὁπηνίκα ὁ ἥλιος δύνει, ὁ ἥλιος ὁ τὴν γῆν καίων ἐν ταῖς οἰκείαις ἀκτῖσι, τὸ κνέφας δέ, τὸ σκότος λάβῃ τὸ τέμενος τοῦ αἰθέρος (περιφραστικῶς αὐτὸν τὸν αἰθέρα), τότε τάξαι τὰς νῆας ἐν τρισὶ τάξεσι, φυλάσσειν τοὺς ἔκπλους ἢ τὰς ἐξόδους καὶ τὰς ἐξελεύσεις τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τοὺς τόπους τοὺς θαλασσίους, ἄλλας δὲ νῆας (ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τάξαι) κύκλωθεν περὶ τὴν τοῦ Αἴαντος νῆσον, τουτέστι τὴν Σαλαμῖνα. Demetrius Triclinius too repeated the gloss in his final edition of Aeschylus preserved in the (autograph) ms. Neap. II F 31 (gl. 365b Massa Positano): τέμενος αἰθέρος] τὸν τόπον ἤτοι τὸν αἰθέρα περιφραστικῶς.

• Sch. Pers. 368a Zabrowski (371 Dähnhardt)

This brief scholion is placed to the right of v. 368 (a line that in some modern editions, such as Murray’s and Page’s, is inverted with v. 367; contra see A.F. Garvie, Aeschylus, Persae, Oxford-New York, 2009, 187). The scholiast is concerned with the syntactical construction of the infinitive τάξαι (v. 366), which is to be considered “common” both to νεῶν στῖφος (“the close-packed ranks of ships”, v. 366) and to ἄλλας (scil. ναῦς, v. 368).

The same syntactical observation is included in the paraphrastic sch. A 355a Zabrowski (transcribed above) and is reported by Demetrius Triclinius in the Farnesianus ms. above v. 368: ἄλλας δὲ] ναῦς τάξαι (= gl. 368a Massa Positano).

• Sch. Pers. 369b Zabrowski (372 Dähnhardt)

This scholion is placed to the right of v. 369 and refers to Xerxes’ threat to his soldiers, reported by the Messenger in his speech (vv. 369-372). In other words, this is an instance of indirect speech within a direct speech. However, it must be pointed out that Xerxes’ reported speech already begins at v. 364: this makes quite striking the remark that at v. 369 there is a transition “from the narrative to the mimetic mode”. Yet, this usage is not unparalleled: among the scholia to Homeric poems and to tragedy the phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ διηγηματικοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ μιμητικόν is sometimes used to signal an «‘unmarked transition to speech’ independent of the narrative level at which it occurs» (R. Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work, Cambridge 2009, 106). As Nünlist pointed out, «it is only the unmarked transition which is commented on and not all the speeches in question. The use of the known phrase is particularly striking here, because, strictly speaking, the incorporating speech is a μιμητικόν itself and not a διηγηματικόν». Our scholion perfectly fits into this category, since Xerxes’ threat is not introduced in any way, differently from the first part of Xerxes’ speech, which is prefaced by an introductory phrase at v. 363 (πᾶσιν προφωνεῖ τόνδε ναυάρχοις λόγον).

The remark is absent in the sch. A Pers. 369a Zabr., where the paraphrasis of vv. 369-372 is followed by the suggestion, also present in the Medicean scholium, to read κράτος (‘power’) instead of κρατός (‘head’), since “it is absurd to threaten such a multitude [scil. the Persian army] with death”.

• Sch. Pers. 376a Zabrowski (379 Dähnhardt)

This scholion is placed to the right of v. 376 and provides, in the first part, a paraphrasis of the poetic line, while in the second it offers an explanation of the technical term τροπωτήρ (a ‘twisted leathern thong’ with which the oar was fastened to the thole), which is implied by the verb τροποῦτο. The second part of the scholium is affected by a textual error (†τροπωτῆροδω†), but the word τροπωτήρ can be easily singled out and taken for granted. The following sequence οδω can be restored as ὁ λῶ<ρος> on the basis of the last sentence of sch. A 372 Zabrowski (πᾶς τε ἀνὴρ ναυτικὸς τὴν εὐήρετμον κώπην ἐδέσμευεν ἀμφὶ τὸν σκαλμὸν καὶ τὸ ξύλον ἐν τῷ τροπωτῆρι καὶ τῷ λώρῳ). In other words, the scholiast explained that the τροπωτήρ was a “thong securing the oar to the oarlock”.

• Sch. Pers. 378a Zabrowski (381 Dähnhardt)

This brief scholion is linked to v. 378 by the symbol  ͒, which has been schematically reproduced in the transcription. This symbol is used only in this case, on f. 123r, since the note is not perfectly aligned with the corresponding line, but has been written slightly lower down.

As Dähnhardt (1894, 127) pointed out, the comment actually refers to vv. 384f. (καὶ νὺξ ἐχώρει, κοὐ μάλ’ Ἑλλήνων στρατὸς / κρυφαῖον ἔκπλουν οὐδαμῆι καθίστατο), since in v. 378 and the lines immediately following there is no reference to the Greeks, but only to the Persians and their night-time navigation (vv. 378-383 καὶ νὺξ ἐπήιει, πᾶς ἀνὴρ κώπης ἄναξ / ἐς ναῦν ἐχώρει, πᾶς θ’ ὅπλων ἐπιστάτης· / τάξις δὲ τάξιν παρεκάλει νεὼς μακρᾶς, / πλέουσι δ’ ὡς ἕκαστος ἦν τεταγμένος· / καὶ πάννυχοι δὴ διάπλοον καθίστασαν / ναῶν ἄνακτες πάντα ναυτικὸν λεών). The reason of the mistake is easy to find: both v. 378 and v. 384 begin with the same phrase καὶ νύξ, followed by a verb of motion (ἐπήιει in the first instance, ἐχώρει in the second, but note that ἐχώρει is also at v. 379, in the same metrical position).

Internal margin

• Note to Pers. 353

This is the only nota personarum in f. 123r. All previous changes of persona loquens on this page are indicated only by paragraphoi, which are considered sufficient given the presence of the names Ἄτοσσα and ἄγγελος on the previous page (f. 122v). Since the last name appearing in f. 122v is ἄγγελος (v. 337), the number of paragraphoi does not square with the presence of the note ἄγγελος before v. 353. The majority of modern editors, since A. Wellauer (Aeschyli dramata, II, Lipsiae 1824), saw that the first paragraphos (before v. 347) is mistaken and needs to be deleted. For a discussion see A.F. Garvie, Aeschylus, Persae, Oxford-New York, 2009, 180.

• Sch. Pers. 364a Zabrowski (367 Dähnhardt)

This brief scholion is placed immediately before v. 364 and signals the beginning of Xerxes’ speech reported by the Messenger within his rhesis. The comment points out the mimetic character of the reported speech. See also the sch. Pers. 369b Zabr., with the pertaining commentary (above).

• Sch. Pers. 367a Zabrowski (370 Dähnhardt)

This gloss is placed before v. 367 and refers to its first word, ἔκπλους (‘exits’). The same gloss occurs above the poetic text in mss I Nc² Pd V X Xc.