The ms. London, British Museum Burney 86 (T) provides the Iliad text (27 or 28 lines per page: in f. 113, there are 27), with an exegetical apparatus, that mainly pertains to the class of the scholia exegetica, but also includes VMK scholia. In this ms. the scholia are normally organized both as a main frame and as notes scattered in the interlinear space, above the word or expression they comment upon. In the most crowded pages, the frame of scholia spans from the upper to the lower margin, occupying not only the external one in its entirety, but also the inner one, and sometimes even the gap between the Homeric text and the scholia in the external margin. In f. 113r, we observe a relatively limited number of scholia in the main frame, positioned in the upper and the external margin, the latter only partially occupied, as well as several interlinear scholia. All along the ms., the frame scholia are connected to the relevant passage of the poetic text thanks to red symbols, which have been schematically reproduced in the transcription. The scholia in f. 113r are arranged according to a sequence that matches the order of the Homeric lines to which they refer, although this is not always the case elsewhere in the ms., especially when the scholia occupy also the inner margin and the gap between the literary text and the main frame. A lemma generally introduces each of the frame scholia, which systematically end with the sign commonly used to mark the conclusion of a scholiastic annotation, i.e. a dicolon followed by a dash.

As usual in this ms., the scholia mostly belong to the exegetical class (written in blue in the transcription), but some of them are traced back to the VMK-scholia (in red in the transcription); a later hand added one of the interlinear explanations (in violet in the transcription).

Upper margin

Sch. ex. Il. 11.317a-b Erbse

The first scholion argues that Diomedes understands Zeus’s will to support the Trojan advance because he is wise, but his words do not constitute a prophecy – in fact Diomedes is neither a seer nor endowed with divinatory abilities.

After this remark, which is preserved also in the mss of the b-family, T goes on by repeating a part of the lemma and introducing a remark on the fact that, in the verbal pair μενέω and στήσομαι, there is a change due to a metrical necessity. Given its brevity, the exact meaning of this annotation remains unclear: it could either refer to a shift in the verbal diathesis (Erbse ad loc.: “an genus verbi στήσομαι?”), or to a reversal in the logical and syntactic order of the sentence (cf. ἤλλακται ἡ τάξις: Sch. ex. Il. 4.270 (Τ), 10.576 (T); ἤλλαξε τὴν τάξιν: Sch. ex. Il. 4.308b (T), etc.), resulting in a hysteron proteron (see van Thiel 2014, 2, 249).

Sch. ex. Il. 11.318a¹ Erbse

T connects this scholion, through both its symbol and lemma, to l. 320 (“and he [sc. Diomedes] caused Thymbraios to fall from the horses to the ground”), but Erbse, accepting Maass’ correction of the lemma, connects the scholion to the expression “our delight will last” of l. 318, in keeping with the set-up of the b-family (318a² Erbse), which is more consistent with the content of the remark. Moreover, two textual problems affect the version of this scholion displayed in T: 1) the imperative νόει at the beginning is untenable, and should be replaced by νοεῖ of b (with Diomedes implied as subject); 2) ἑαυτοῖς ἐπιδιδοῦσιν towards the end is corrupt: Erbse, editing the version of T separately from that of b, put the cruces (see Pagani 2024 on this praxis), whereas Maass conjectured αὐτοὺς ἐπιδίδωσι (cf. 318a² (b): ἐπιρρίπτει αὐτούς).

The first observation of this scholion is that Diomedes and Odysseus, following the sudden shift in the battle’s momentum in favor of the Trojans, test the situation by attacking the enemy. Thereafter the scholion provides a broader reflection on the organization of the subject matter and the plot design. Homer assigns further military exploits to Diomedes and Odysseus, causing them to suffer injuries and ultimately to be unable to fight – a fate shared by several Achaean champions – so that the risk of the ships being set on fire by the Trojans turns out to be a direct result of the absence of commanders in the Greek army. This annotation highlights and establishes a connection between different sections of the poem: the retreat of some of the main Achaean heroes is thus presented as a deliberate condition and a necessary premise for the progression of subsequent events (εἰς τὰ ἑξῆς πιθανῶς οἰκονομεῖ ὁ ποιητής: cf. Meijering 1987, 185). This linkage both demonstrates and ensures the narrative coherence of the plot (cf. Nünlist 2009, 28). Additionally, this poetic strategy is described in an appreciative tone as ʽplausibleʼ: the concept of credibility or verisimilitude in poetry – which is extensively discussed in the scholia and rooted in Aristotle’s Poetics – typically serves as a criterion for assessing the literary quality of a passage or as a philological tool for determining its authenticity (on this topic see Nünlist 2015, 741, s.v. Persuasiveness (pithanotês), 742-743, s.v. Plausibility (or Probability)). The scholion eventually identifies a didactic aspect (διδάσκει [sc. ὁ ποιητής]) in the resistance of Diomedes and Odysseus, suggesting that one must carry out their duties regardless of the potential risk of an adverse fate. The belief that Homeric poetry conveys a universal educational function is a commonly held view in the exegetical scholia (on this topic see van der Valk 1963-1964, 1, 465-466; Schmidt 2011, 157-158).

Sch. ex. Il. 11.324-5 Erbse

This scholion observes that the simile comparing Diomedes and Odysseus to two boars is motivated by the fact that Homer has previously used the image of dogs agitated by the hunter against a boar to describe the Trojans incited by Hector against the Achaeans (ll. 292 ff.). The relevant passage is cited in a concise and partial manner, which is typical of the scholastic source (on this point see van Thiel 2014, 2, 250).

Sch. ex. | ex. (Hrd.) Il. 11.326c Erbse

The first component of this scholion deals with the problem of the specific meaning of παλινορμένω in this passage: since the Achaeans had been put to flight (cf. Il. 11.311, quoted by the scholion itself) and were rushing to their ships, the “turning back” of Diomedes and Odysseus actually describes a counterattack against the Trojans. Cf. sch. D Il. 1.326/Z^s+Y^s van Thiel: παλινορμένω: ἐκ τῆς φυγῆς ἐπιστραφέντες. (Z πάλιν ὁρμένω^λ) QXA^tiG | εἰς τοὐπίσω ὁρμήσαντες. ZYQXG ἐκ τῆς φυγῆς καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες. Y (“Rushing back: turning around from the flight. | Rushing backwards. Back from the flight and turning about”), and sch. Ariston. Il. 11.326a Erbse: {ὡς ὄλεκον τρῶας} παλινορμένω: ὅτι ἀντὶ τοῦ ὄπισθεν ὁρμῶντες, ὡς “παλιμπλαγχθέντας” (Il. 1.59). A (“{Thus they were killing the Trojans} rushing back: (sc. there is a diple) because it (sc. παλινορμένω) is in the sense of ʽrushing backwards’, as ʽturning backʼ”).

The second component of the scholion is deemed to have been shaped within the scholia exegetica starting from Herodian’s material. It informs that Aristarchus of Samothrace – whose activity marked the culmination of the season of scholarly studies developed in Alexandria in the Hellenistic period (II c. BCE, see Montana 2020, 204-217, with bibl.) – read παλινορμένω as a single word. Three adjectives compounded with an adverb (πάλιν, εὖ) are cited as parallels. The corresponding Herodian scholion in the ms. Venetus A reports that Tyrannion (on whom see Montana 2020, 240) separated the adverb πάλιν from the participle of the verb ὀρμένω (this is the reading in Allen’s and West’s editions of the Iliad), whereas Aristarchus and Hermap(p)ias (on whom see L. Pagani in Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity (LGGA), 2007) accepted the compound form: sch. Hrd. Il. 11.326b Erbse: παλινορμένω: Τυραννίων (fr. 21 Planer = 24 Haas) δύο ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ Ἑρμαπίας σύνθετον ἐκδέχεται καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος κτλ. (on this topic, see Ribbach 1883, 10-11; van Thiel 2014, 2, 250; Schironi, 2018, 359 and n. 86, 666 and n. 59; cf. Lehrs 1882³, 91-92; Matthaios 1999, 152).

Sch. Nic. | ex. Il. 11.327b Erbse

The first component of this scholion, ascribed to the part of VMK that drew on the Alexandrian grammarian Nicanor (2nd c. CE: see Matthaios 2020, 311-312, 332-333, with bibl.), rearranges the elements of the Iliadic sentence into a regular syntactic structure by distinguishing the phrases φεύγοντες Ἕκτορα δῖον (“while fleeing the divine Hector”) and ἀσπασίως ἀνέπνεον (“they caught their breath with joy”). Therefore, it becomes clear that the verb φεύγοντες has Ἕκτορα δῖον as its object. The scholion also highlights the use of hyperbaton as a notable stylistic feature with respect to common linguistic usage. The corresponding scholion from Nicanor in ms. Venetus A conveys a similar explanation, but with different phrasing, underlining the importance to avoid improper division of elements of speech that could lead to absurd meaning: sch. Nic. Il. 11.327a Erbse: ἀσπασίως φεύγοντες ἀνέπνεον <Ἕκτορα δῖον>: οὐ χρὴ ὑπιδομένους τὸ ἀπεμφαῖνον – πῶς γὰρ ἀνέπνεον Ἕκτορα; – διαστέλλειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνέπνεον, ἐπεὶ καὶ συναπτόντων ἡμῶν νοεῖται τὸ ὑπερβατὸν φεύγοντες Ἕκτορα. A (“With joy while fleeing they caught their breath <the divine Hector>: having suspicion of the absurdity – how, in fact, ʽthey caught breath Hectorʼ? – one should not divide (sc. the sentence) at ʽthey caught breathʼ, because, if we connect it, one recognizes the hyperbaton ʽwhile fleeing Hectorʼ”).

The second component of the scholion, of the exegetical class, emphasizes the usefulness of Odysseus’ speeches. In this case, the hero, by encouraging Diomedes to resist, succeeds in slowing down the advance of the Trojans, thus becoming a source of salvation for the routed Achaeans. The annotation then identifies a conceptual parallel in Il. 13.734, where it is stated that a man endowed by the deity with the intellect can be salvation for many persons.

External margin

Sch. ex. Il. 11.328b-c Erbse

The first scholion acknowledges the use of the syllepsis: this figure describes an expression or predicate which is semantically associated with one individual but grammatically referred to two or more subjects. In the following, it becomes clear that Diomedes alone defeats Adrastus and Amphios (333-334), while Odysseus kills two other enemies, Hippodamus and Hypeirochus (335) (the proposed translation accepts Maass’ proposal of deleting πρός before ἕνα δίφρον, which is here unacceptable; a further option is Erbse’s suggestion of προσβαλόντες, i.e. “both of them took one chariot attacking it”; here again Erbse put the cruces in the text: see above, at Sch. ex. Il. 11.318a¹). A scholion from Aristonicus in ms. Venetus A likewise accounts for the syllepsis stating that Diomedes is the only slayer of Adrastus and Amphios, even if the poet attributes the military success to both heroes, but it omits to point out that Odysseus also defeats two enemies: sch. Ariston. Il. 11.328a Erbse: ἔνθ’ ἑλέτην δίφρον τε <καὶ ἀνέρε δήμου ἀρίστω>: ὅτι συλληπτικῶς εἴρηκεν ἑλέτην καὶ κοινὸν ποιεῖ τοῦ ἑτέρου τὸ κατόρθωμα. ἔστι δὲ Διομήδης μόνος ὁ ἀνελών· ἐπιφέρει γοῦν “τοὺς μὲν Τυδείδης” (Il. 11.333). A.

The second scholion cites a line from Pindar’s first Olympian Ode without any introduction or explanatory comment. This citation provides a parallel for an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction with the verb αἱρέω, which governs two accusatives and, through an expressive zeugma, takes on distinct meanings in relation to each of its objects (see van Thiel 2014, 2, 250-251; Schironi 2018, 161; Comunetti 2023, 113 ff.). The Homeric ἑλέτην (328) designates the actions of Diomedes (and Odysseus) of “taking” a chariot and “killing” two enemies. The Pindaric ἕλε indicates the acts of Pelops of “defeating”/“killing” Oinomaos and “marrying” Hippodamia. The myth referenced in this Pindaric ode, as is well known, recounts how Oinomaos challenged the suitors of his daughter to a chariot race, killing them if they lost – since either he was in love with her or an oracle had warned him that he would die at the hands of his son-in-law.

Sch. ex. Il. 11.329 Erbse

This scholion informs that some unidentified ancient scholars deemed Περκωσίου a patronymic (“Merops [the son of] Perkote”) rather than an ethnic designation (“Merops [from the city of] Perkote”). This interpretation is related to an alleged contradiction with the content of the Catalogue of the ships in book two (on which cf. Kirk 1985, 254-256; Hainsworth 1993, 262-263; Brügger – Stoevesandt – Visser 2010, 271-275). There the poet states that Adrastus and Amphios, the two sons of Merops Περκωσίου, commanded the warriors from Adrasteia, Apaisos, Pitya and Tereia (2.828-834; to be noted the correspondence between 2.831-834 and 11.329-332), while Asius led the troops from Perkote (Περκώτην), Praktios, Sestos, Abydos and Arisbe (835 ff.). A different explanation aiming at solving this discrepancy is finally mentioned in the scholion, i.e. the possibility that Merops, the father of Adrastus and Amphios, originated from the city of Perkote and then migrated (cf. van Thiel 2014, 2, 250-251). In the D scholia no trace of the interpretation of Περκωσίου as a patronymic survives: sch. D Il. 11.329/Z^s van Thiel: Περκωσίου: ἀπὸ Περκώτης πόλεως Ἑλλησπόντου. (Z περκασίου^λ). YQXIⁱG (“Of Perkote: from the city of Perkote in the Hellespont”).

Sch. ex. Il. 11.331-2 Erbse

This scholion argues, in a moralizing tone (on this point see Nünlist 2009, 13), that the poet deems it appropriate to punish with death those who, like Adrastus and Amphios, disobey their fathers and despise the prophetic art.

Sch. ex. 11.336 Erbse

This scholion argues that Zeus balances the fortunes of the battle, within the epic narrative, due to reasons of plausibility (πρὸς τὸ ἀξιόπιστον: on this concept in ancient scholarship see the bibliography in the commentary to Sch. ex. Il. 11.318a¹ Erbse), and clarifies that military victory ultimately depends on the will of the god. The annotation subsequently states that Zeus grants a brief moment of success to the Achaeans – contrasting his own plan to drive them back to their ships – because he is a friend of the Greeks (φιλέλλην) and holds respect for their martial spirit. This perspective is emblematic of the pro-Greek attitude that characterizes the exegetical scholia (on this point see van der Valk 1963-1964, 1, 474-479; Nünlist 2009, 13; Schmidt 2011, 123-137). The scholion then presents another explanation, whereby the expression κατὰ ἶσα μάχην ἐτάνυσσε means that the battle had alternating and balanced outcomes during that day: at first the battle is evenly matched, as is demonstrated through the citation of Il. 11.72, then follow the deeds of Agamemnon (11.91 ff.) and Hector (11.284 ff.), and finally Diomedes and Odysseus on one side (11.369 ff.; 434 ff.) and Hector on the other (11.349 ff.; cf. 14.409 ff.) are wounded. The scholion eventually remarks that the adverb ἔνθα has a temporal acceptation in this context (“then”), rather than a locative one (“here”), as it does in other passages.

Interlinear space

Sch. Did. (?) 11.317c Erbse

This scholion, tentatively assigned to the Alexandrian grammarian Didymus (sc. Chalcenterus, 1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE; see Coward – Prodi 2020; Montana 2020, 246-253, with bibl.), attests to the existence of the varia lectio τλήσομαι (“I will resist”) instead of στήσομαι (“I will stand up”) that the manuscript bears as main text (cf. Ludwich 1884-1885, 1, 329; van Thiel 2014, 2, 249). However, τλήσομαι is the standard form in the manuscript tradition of the Iliad, while στήσομαι is only in T and h-family.

Sch. Hrd. (?) | ex. Il. 11.320 Erbse

This interlinear scholion is made up from two different components (that the two are connected together, rather than conceived as separate scholia, is suggested by δέ at the beginning of the second one). The first component of the scholion, tentatively attributed to the grammarian Herodian (2nd c. CE: see Matthaios 2020, 337-340 with bibl.), refers to Θυμβραῖος, mentioning Ἰδαῖος as a parallel of a derivative in -αιος (cf. Mühmelt 1965, 108-109).

The second component of the scholion, belonging to the exegetical class, states that the Achaeans, when performing a successful military action, are capable of defeating two enemies at once (cf. Agamemnon’s deeds in 11.92-147), but in this case Diomedes strikes down only Thymbraios, and Odysseus his attendant Molion.

Sch. ex. | ex. 11.321-322 Erbse; Sch. ex. Il. 11.322 Erbse

Above l. 322 there are three annotations, which Erbse publishes as two scholia: he assembles the first two components, logically referred to both ll. 321 and 322 (or to ll. 320 and 321: see infra), and publishes separately the last one, which specifically explains τοῖο ἄνακτος of l. 322. It is not clear whether the first two parts were actually intended by the copyist as one and the same scholion: while no particle connects them, an ano stigme is written between them, possibly suggesting an internal articulation rather than a separation (other cases of interlinear notes which form separate scholia in this page are left without any sign in between: cf. Sch. Hrd. (?) | ex. 11.320, Sch. ex. 11.340a-b, as well as Sch. ex. 11.322 itself). The first segment has an uncertain meaning and is open to dual interpretation. In the case that ἀντὶ τοῦ παρεπομένου comments on ἀντίθεον, as its placement directly above this adjective seems to suggest, the annotation would mean: “[sc. the attendant is said ‘godlike’] equal to the one who accompanies him”, i.e. by transitive property with respect to his lord Agastrophos: this is how interprets Erbse, who supplements ἀντίθεον at the beginning of the explanation. Alternatively, if ἀντὶ τοῦ παρεπομένου is interpreted as a (unique) equivalent of the technical expression ἀπὸ / ἐκ τοῦ παρεπομένου, this annotation would mean: “from the consequence”, with reference to the expression ὦσε χαμᾶζε of l. 320, “he (sc. Diomedes) made fall to the ground (sc. Thymbraios)” (van Thiel 2014, 2, 249) (i.e. the passage means that Diomedes strikes Thymbraios, but makes explicit mention only of the consequence of this action).

The second component of the first scholion, again introduced by means of ἀντί, explains the phrase without a verb of ll. 321-322, clarifying that it means that Odysseus too (as Diomedes did just before) kills an enemy (van Thiel 2014, 2, 249 to the contrary claims that it still refers to ὦσε χαμᾶζε of l. 320).

The last annotation points out that τοῖο ἄνακτος refers to Thymbraios (cf. van Thiel 2014, 2, 249).

Sch. D 11.324 van Thiel

This interlinear scholion, added by a later hand (13th c. CE; see Erbse 1969-1988, 1, XXVII), glosses κυδοίμεον with ἐθορύβουν, which is one of the explanations proposed for this word in the D-scholia (κυδοίμεον: ἐθορύβουν (= T^r), ἐτάρασσον. ZYQXA^ti).

Sch. ex. (?) 11.325a Erbse

This scholion, tentatively assigned to the exegetical class, clarifies that the phrase ἐν κυσὶ (θηρευτῇσι) – which conveys a sense of motion governed by πέσητον – should be understood as an equivalent to εἰς κύνας (a list of scholia that deal with this Homeric usage is to be found in van Thiel 2014, 4, 270).

Sch. ex. 11.334 Erbse

This scholion explains κεκαδών, a reduplicated second aorist, with the much more common verbal form χωρίσας, which has an equivalent meaning (cf. sch. D 11.334/Z^s van Thiel), and points out that it is an inflected form of χάζω.

Sch. ex. 11.337 Erbse

This scholion explains that the Achaeans and Trojans are engaged here in a mutual killing (οἱ δ᾿ ἀλλήλους ἐξενάριξεν) because the Achaeans, having ceased their retreat due to Zeus’ intervention in balancing the fortunes of the battle, had turned to face their enemies.

Sch. Ariston. 11.339a Erbse

This scholion of the VMK class, attributed to the grammarian Aristonicus (1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE; see. Montana 2020, 245-246, with bibl.; Erbse 1969-1988, 3, 187, app. ad loc.: “sch. Aristonico attr. Nickau”; cf. sch. Ariston. Il. 2.110a and Erbse 1969-1988, 1, 202, app. ad loc.), comments on the epithet ἥρωα referred to Agastrophus and states that all the warriors in the Homeric poems were called “heroes”. Homer indeed, according to Aristarchus, used the word ἥρωες to designate the Achaeans collectively, without distinction of class or rank (on this point see Lehrs 1882³, 46, 101; van Thiel 2014, 2, 251-252; Schironi 2018, 274-275).

Sch. ex. 11.340a Erbse

This scholion claims that the infinitive προφυγεῖν must be read as if it were πρὸς τό προφυγεῖν, πρὸς τὸ being left implicit (λείπει), so that it assumes a consecutive-final meaning (cf. van Thiel 2014, 2, 251-252).

Sch. ex. 11.340b Erbse

This scholion suggests that the poet, in describing Agastrophus’ tactically unwise decision to keep the horses and the squire away from the battle with the grand expression “he was greatly blinded at heart”, mocks the character’s audacity. This annotation may also reflect the pro-Greek attitude typical of the exegetical scholia (on this notion see the bibliography quoted in the commentary to Sch. ex. 11.336 Erbse).