Editing anonymous voices: the scholia vetera to the Iliad

The important edition of the Iliadic scholia maiora by Hartmut Erbse (7 vols., 1969-1988) proves to be a magnificent tool from two points of view: the quality of the text constitution (including the richness of the critical and exegetic apparatuses) and the methodological pattern assumed for the textual arrangement and layout of the different families of scholia. Certainly, neither of these aspects can be basically called into question. Rather, this paper will focus on: 1) the soundness and effectiveness of Erbse’s pattern, considering in particular the most representative features of the scholiastic literature (with regard to their purpose, economy, authoriality, textual compactness) and the related consequences for text criticism; and 2) the need for availability, within the edition, of other families and textual witnesses of scholia that were, on the contrary, intentionally neglected by Erbse—mainly, the so-called D-scholia (ed. J. Lascaris 1518; proecdosis on line by H. van Thiel 2000, 20142), consisting of glosses, paraphrases, mytographical explanations; and the annotations preserved in the branch of manuscripts known as h-family (allegedly to be treated as a family of manuscripts, rather than of scholia), where some scholia maiora, D-scholia, and other explanatory material apparently nowhere attested to, are merged together in a peculiar and often problematic amalgam. Consequently, the opportunity to improve the critical text of the scholia maiora and to enlarge and up-date the relevant exegetic apparatus should also be considered, after three decades of extraordinarily intense spread of studies on ancient scholarship. This is why a new edition is currently desirable.