¹ Some of the scholia are included in the critical apparatus on Strabo by Kramer, G., Strabonis Geographica (3 vols., 1844-52).Google Scholar

² Kramer, preface; Roellig, E., ‘De codd. Strabonianis qui libros I-IX continent,’ Diss. Philol. Halenses 7 (1886) 275–396; Allen, T. W., ‘MSS of Strabo at Paris and Eton,’ Class. Quart. 9 (1915) 15-26, 86-96; Diller, A., ‘Codex B of Strabo,’ Am. Journ. of Philol, 56 (1935) 97-102; Sbordone, F., ‘Eliminatio codicum e recensio dei libri VIII e IX della Geografia di Strabone,’ Rendiconti dell’ Accad. di Napoli 24-25 (1951) 289-331. I have changed two of Kramer's sigla in order to provide sigla for primary MSS he did not use. Kramer's B is Laur. 28-5, a late and worthless MS. Kramer's z is Laur. 28-15, my n2.Google Scholar

³ Diller, A., ‘Notes on Greek Codices of the Tenth Century,’ Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 78 (1947) 184–8.Google Scholar

⁴ Ullmann, R., ‘Lectiones Strabonianae,’ Symb. Oslo. 5 (1927) 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Diller, A., ‘Codices Planudei,’ Byz. Zeitschr. 37 (1937) 295–301; ‘The Oldest MSS of Ptolemaic Maps,’ Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 71 (1940) 62-7 with plate III.Google Scholar

⁶ Diller, A., ‘The Vatopedi MS of Ptolemy and Strabo,’ Am. Journ. of Philol. 58 (1937) 174–84; The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers (1952) 10-4 with plate B.Google Scholar

⁷ Capovilla, G., ‘Studi sul Noricum,’ Misc. Galbiati I (1951) 213–411 with plates V and VI.Google Scholar

⁸ Mercati, G., Scritti d'Isidoro Ruteno (Studi e Testi 46, 1926) 67.Google Scholar

⁹ Foerster, R., ‘Cyriacus von Ancona zu Strabon,’ Rhein. Mus. 51 (1896) 481–91; Sabbadini, R., ‘Ciriaco d'Ancona e il Peloponneso,’ Classici e Umanisti (Fontes Ambrosiani 2, 1933) 1-48, esp. 24, 43.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bk VII alone has a brief argument in CBv, which is repeated in the margin beside the longer argument in A 152^r. Sch. 198B in textu also occurs in CBv, suggesting that ß may have been a denuded derivative of Σ. Cf. also sch. 694C in textu. I discussed these two glosses in ‘A Note on Strabo XV 694,’ Class. Philol. 41 (1946) 47f. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Kramer (supra, note 1) I pp. lxxvii-ix.Google Scholar

¹² Kramer III 453-582; C. Müller, Geographi graeci minores II (1861) 529–636. On the MSS of Chr. see Diller, Tradition (supra, note 6) 3, 11, 30.Google Scholar

¹³ Omont, H., Platonis codex Parisinus Fac-similé en phototypie, A. (1908); Alline, H., Histoire du texte de Platon (1915); Post, L. A., The Vatican Plato and its Relations (1934); Greene, W. C., Scholia Platonica (1938).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The basic codices of the Studite group are Leningrad 219 (Gospels, an. 835), Moscow 117 (Basil. Caes., 880), Vatic. 1660 (Menologium, 916) and Vatic. 1671 (Menologium, undated). See the reproductions in Lake and Lake, Dated Greek Minuscule MSS (10 vols. and indices, 1934-45); also Lefort and Cochez, Album palaeographicum codicum graecorum (1932).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bodleian MS 17179 (D'Orville 301), Lake and Lake II pl. 94, 104, et al. See Waddell, W. W., The Parmenides of Plato (1894) xcix. The majuscule script in the margins of the Paris Plato group is very similar to that in cod. Vatic. 1594 of Ptolemy's Almagest. See the reproductions in Heiberg, J. L., Claudii Ptolemaei opera II (Teubner 1907), and Knobel, E. B., Ptolemy's Catalogue of Stars (Washington 1915) pl. IV. This codex bears the name of the astronomer Leo (Heiberg p. xxxii), who was a slightly older contemporary of Photius, but the minuscule script looks more recent to me than the Paris Plato minuscule. On Leo see Theoph. cont. 185-92, 197, 232, and Lipshits, E. E., ‘The Byzantine Savant Leo Mathematicus’ (in Russian), Viz. Vrem. 27 (n.s. 2, 1949) 106-49.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Allen, T. W., ‘A Group of Ninth-Century Greek MSS,’ Journ. of Philol. 21 (1893) 48–55, in spite of his title, says (p. 50) the age of these codices ‘may be set down as the end of the IXth or the beginning of the Xth century.’ In Class. Quart. 22 (1928) 75 he is still more positive and says the Paris Plato may be no older than the Bodleian (an. 895) or the Vatican Plato. Actually the Vatican Plato was copied in part from the Paris Plato (Post [supra, note 13] 12f.).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Also in T of Plato; see the plate in Waddell (supra, note 15) cxxii. Also in Laur. 70-3 of Herodotus, which also has the 33 lines characteristic of the Paris Plato group; see Wattenbach and von Velsen, Exempla codicum graecorum (1878) pl. 31.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gardthausen, V., Griech. Palaeographie (² 1913) II 410-5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Alline (supra note 13) 187f.Google Scholar

²⁰ Diller, Tradition (supra note 6) 6 n. 25.Google Scholar

²¹ Hobein, H., Maximi Tyrii philosophumena (1910) xxviiif.Google Scholar

²² Dain, A., Les manuscrits (1949) 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ There are two current methods of citing Strabo — by the pages of Casaubon's second edition of 1620 and by the chapters and sections introduced progressively by Bréquigny (1763), Tzschucke (1798), and Kramer (1852). The latter method is cumbersome and not precise (the sections are often too long). The former may be improved by using the letters ABCD provided in the edition of 1620 to divide the pages into four parts. Muller has used these letters in his edition of Chr. (supra, note 12), and a similar method is of course well known for Plato and other texts.Google Scholar

²⁴ Dr. Ernest Honigmann, of Brussels, suggested this identification to me by letter in 1939. ‘Le γ, comme le ǧ turc, n'est pas prononcé; cf. Anna Comnène, Alexiade, éd. Reifferscheid, t. II p. 287.32, Tvϱάγɩov = Tvϱάɩov, aujourd'hui Turaǧon.’Google Scholar

²⁵ Sch. Str. 124A, 259C, 277C, 306B, 578C, etc. Aly, W. in La Parola del Passato 5 (1950) 229f. describes our scholia as ‘Reste eines Kommentars … im 6. Jh. entstanden.’ There is nothing to indicate a more elaborate commentary than we have now, and the scholia just cited and many others cannot be as early as the sixth century.Google Scholar

²⁶ Kugeas, S., ‘O Καισαϱείας Ἀϱέθας (Athens 1913).Google Scholar

²⁷ Sch. Plat. Soph. 216A, Greene (supra note 13) 446.Google Scholar

²⁸ Greene xix-xxv.Google Scholar

²⁹ Severyns, A., Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos. Première Partie : Le Codex 239 de Photius. Tome I: Étude paléographique et critique (1938) 279–95, 339-57.Google Scholar

³⁰ Lexicographical scholia belonging to the Hesychius-Photius complex are found, though sometimes very sparse, in Palat. 398 (see sch. Str. 198D, 224B), in Marc. 196 (given in Norvin's editions of Olympiodorus), in Marc. 246 (in Ruelle's edition of Damascius), in Paris. 1962 (in Hobein's Maximus Tyrius p. xxix), in Laur. 80-9 + Vatic. 2197 (in Kroll's Proclus In Plat. Rempubl. II 369-83).Google Scholar

³¹ Ziegler, K. in RE 39 (1941) 667–737.Google Scholar

³² Alline 258-80, Greene xxvii-ix.Google Scholar

³³ Gr, H.égoire and Lascaris, M. in Byzantion 21 (1951) 260.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Ζαχαϱίον μητϱοπολίτου Χαλϰηδόνος πεϱì χϱόνον in cod. Marc. 258 fol. 324^v. This Zacharias was one of the addressees of Photius’ letters (PG 102) and probably a former disciple.Google Scholar

³⁵ Wendel, C. in RE 40 (1950) 2202–53.Google Scholar

³⁶ Severyns (supra, note 29) 261-77.Google Scholar

³⁷ Diller, A., ‘The Text-History of the Bibliotheca of Pseudo-Apollodorus,’ TAPA 66 (1935) 296–313.Google Scholar

³⁸ Klinkenberg (supra, on sch. Str. 818D) 40-2. Klinkenberg's theory that a notice of Agathias has fallen out of the Bibliotheca, rejected by Maas, P. in Byz. Zeitschr. 23 (1914) 265, is excluded by the fact that Photius’ statement of the total number of his codices (279) tallies with the present Bibliotheca (Ziegler [supra note 31] 691-3).Google Scholar

³⁹ Phlegon's Olympiades in Bibl. 97 and Palat. 398 fol. 234^v-236^r (FGrHist 257 T 3 + F 12 and F 1), a significant case, as the work was rare by the ninth century. It is noteworthy that Euagrius, the last author to cite Phlegon before Photius, cites Strabo, Phlegon, Diodorus, Arrian all together (Euagr. Hist. Eccles. I 20, FGrHist 156 F 174, 257 F 24, supra on sch. Str. 270C). It looks as if the library to which Photius had access was already taking shape in the sixth century. Stephanus Byzantius cites Strabo, Phlegon, Arrian, but not Diodorus.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ziegler (supra note 31) 677.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See sch. Str. 14D, 159B, 161C, 198B, 270C, 272C, 308C, 537D, 651D, 689A, 780A, 812A.Google Scholar

⁴² See on sch. Str. 270C, 746A.Google Scholar

⁴³ See on sch. Str. 818D. Arrian is cited by name in Chr. 11.22 (Anab. IV 15.4, VII 13.2), and there are other traces in Chr. 11.28 (III 29.2), 12.49 (VII 18.5, V 24.5), 13.24 (I 29.3), 14.32 (I 23.8). Arrian (Anab. III 16.8) is quoted in a scholium on Proclus Comm. in Plat. Tim. I p. 468 Diehl, which surely came from cod. Paris. Suppl. 921, a member of the Paris Plato group.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bidez, J., Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte (1913) 4–150.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Compare Suda Στϱάτων (sic) Άμασεὺς φɩλόσοφος· γέγονεν έπὶ Τιβεϱίου Καίσαϱος, ϰαὶ ἒγϱαψε γεωγϱαφίαν ἐν βιβλίοις ﻍ (sic). This notice may well come from the Photian Paris Plato milieu; for Hesychius’ Onomatologus was reworked in the middle of the ninth century and was known to Photius and in the Paris Plato. Cf. Chr. 1.20 (above) and see Ziegler (supra note 31) 715 and Schultz, H. in RE 16 (1913) 1323f. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The discussion of the problem of the Slavs in Greece has been voluminous and still continues vigorously. I shall cite only one recent treatment, where the sources are given at length: Bon, A., Le Péloponnèse byzantin (1951) 27–70. As a curiosity I may mention the treatment by Dodwell, H., ‘Dissertatio de Strabonis epitomatore et aetate qua vixerit,’ in John Hudson, Geographiae veteris scriptores graeci minores II (1703) 168-91.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Müller (supra note 12) II 494-509; Diller, Tradition (supra note 6) 3, 11, 15. The anonymous Hypotyposis was long edited erroneously as a second book of Agathemerus’ Hypotyposis. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lucas Holsten in 1628 (Diller, Tradition, 54 z43).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hoffmann, S. F. W., Arriani periplus etc . (1842) p. ix; Müller 507; Berger in RE 1 (1894) 743.Google Scholar