As scholars of antiquity, we are used to considering the indirect tradition as a treasure trove from which to extract precious, albeit fragmentary or reworked, information that would otherwise have been lost. Although the title of the collected volume under review, ‘Treasuries of Literature’, seemingly hints at this dimension, the editors’ aim – undoubtedly achieved – is precisely to go beyond the view that sees such texts as mere repositories and to advocate for their investigation in their own right. In adopting a broad definition of indirect tradition, the editors, Favi and Mastellari, allow for a fruitful dialogue between texts of different kinds, such as anthologies (and rewritings), lexica, scholia and digital libraries, yet sharing common features. The book engages with studies on fragmentology (cf. e.g. V. Mastellari [ed.], Fragments in Context / Frammenti e dintorni [2021]; F. Neuerburg et al. [edd.], Fragmente einer fragmentierten Welt: Zur Problematik des Umgangs mit Fragmenten in der gegenwärtigen klassisch-philologischen Forschung [2024]) and ancient Greek scholarship, two research areas currently thriving.
R. Hunter’s paper opens the volume from a more literary perspective. It takes Hippolytus’ dedication of a garland to Artemis in Euripides’ homonymous tragedy (Eur. Hipp. 73–87) as a case study to investigate not only the ancient reception of these lines in antiquity and Byzantine times, but also ancient reading practices more broadly. The selection of texts spans from Sciras, a writer of comedies, and Plutarch to John Mauropates and the Christus Patiens. Hunter interestingly shows how texts from different times, genres and scopes repurposed and appropriated this passage from Euripides, how pagan and Christian authors responded to this text and how literary and exegetical strands of reception interacted among them. In doing so, Hunter highlights the cultural relevance of such an approach, which is by no means limited to the literary investigation of intertextuality.
C. Orth investigates comic quotations in Stobaeus, focusing on the authors quoted, the length of the quotations and the lemmata, that is, on the ways in which authors and titles are introduced. As is to be expected, New Comedy, and especially Menander, takes the lion’s share. But there is more. Orth notices differences in the ways in which quotations are introduced. Aware of possible textual corruptions in such material, Orth tentatively suggests that differences in lemmata might point to the use of different sources, be they single- or multi-authored collections of quotes. The presence of variant readings in lines quoted more than once in the Anthologion could back up this hypothesis. Rich in data and figures while presenting tentative general conclusions, the paper opens up paths of research undoubtedly worth pursuing further.
E. Esposito’s paper explores the contributions of papyri to the study of Greek lexica. Besides attesting otherwise unknown fragments of literature (in this way contributing to knowledge as repositories of literature), papyri elucidate the earlier phases of the transmission of lexica, their usage by education practitioners and the cultural milieux in which they were employed. Building on her previous research and publication of lexical papyri, Esposito adopts a much needed cultural purview, which sheds further light on the multifaceted and multilingual culture of Imperial and late antique Egypt. On a minor note, a slightly different text than the proekdosis of P. Rain. Unterricht. 142 in this chapter can be found in E. Esposito, Eikasmos 35 (2024).
O. Tribulato scrutinises the occurrence of comic quotations in Phrynichus’ Praeparatio Sophistica and Ecloge. In the latter Aristophanes, Cratinus and Eupolis play the role of authorities, while minor comic poets are generally not taken as models, unless their testimony is supported by other authors. With its different scope, the Praeparatio widens the range of authors quoted, still privileging the Old Comic triad in more prescriptive entries, but resorting also to minor comic authors in more descriptive ones. Rightly warning against taking results too dogmatically (the extant Praeparatio is an epitome of the original work), Tribulato not only investigates Phrynichus’ attitude towards comic models, but, in stressing the role literary models played, highlights the close links between Atticism, Purism and Classicism, once again tying indirect tradition and cultural movements together.
As is well known, quotations or the indication of their author may easily get lost, corrupted or merged with the lemma. G. Ucciardello approaches such cases of hidden quotations within lexica and school-texts through three case studies from Cyril’s lexicon, Ps.-Eudemus’ lexicon and Konstantinos Arabites’ Parekbolaion (a collection of classical quotations and grammatical rules dating back to the thirteenth century or the beginning of the fourteenth century). Similarly to Esposito’s material analysis of papyri, Ucciardello’s attention to material data, in this case the mise en page, is not simply a matter of details: in the second case study, for instance, the position of the entry on the same line as the previous one might indicate – at least theoretically – that it comes from collation with another source.
Scholia not only preserve fragments and constitute a source text for the commented text (especially through lemmata), but they are also an example of indirect tradition since they result from several phases of reworking of previous scholarly work. L. Pagani exemplifies this threefold distinction with examples from scholia on the Iliad, most of which have already been discussed by modern scholars due to the complex issues they raise. In her most interesting example, schol. Ariston. Hom. Il. 1.29a, Pagani questions the traditional assumption that the Aristarchean exegesis this scholium contains is mediated through Aristonicus. Conflated with an exegetical scholium, it obliterates any feature of Aristonicus’ scholia while assimilating to those of the exegetical class. Pagani suggests that the material might have entered the scholiastic corpus through the mediation of the exegetical scholia. By analysing scholiastic corpora as an example of indirect tradition, Pagani shows once more that the transmission of material from ancient scholars to the margins of manuscripts is hardly a straightforward one.
F. Pontani selects five examples from the corpus of scholia on the Odyssey in order to showcase methodological issues that scholars working with indirect tradition and learned sources may face. The investigation of the manuscripts, knowledge and understanding for scholarly and school practices of antiquity and Byzantine times as well as the analysis of the entangled relationship between the source text and the quoted text are essential. They contribute to detecting whether or not one is dealing with a quotation and to spotting mistakes that Byzantine copyists and scholars might have made. Also, they help with investigating possible authorial practices, in cases of ascription of the same quotation to two different works by the same author and in detecting potential ancient mythical accounts.
Intertextuality in scholia has been the object of some studies, but no study on Aristophanes’ scholia so far has been as systematic as A. Willi’s investigation. Out of c. 1,300 scholia quoting other texts, some 260 scholia contain quotations clarifying intertextual relationships. Homer, for his role in education, and tragedy, in light of paratragedy, are among the most quoted texts. Willi’s results highlight how ancient scholars looked more at verbal similarities than at contextual ones and focused more on detecting the correct intertext, rather than on making sense of the intertextual relationship (with the exception of schol. Ar. Ran. 661 and to some extent schol. Ar. Ran. 1082aα + 1082b). The picture that emerges is one of ‘an intertextual scholarship … practiced as a mechanical art’ (p. 184).
Text-reuse and intertextuality, translation alignment techniques and fragmentary literature in a digital environment are the topics M. Berti discusses. With a look at the latter, Berti points out the potential of digital technology in annotating and analysing not only what is traditionally called ‘fragments’, but also, and especially, the surrounding context in terms of introductory formulas, authors and biographical data – what could be called metadata – not to mention accounting for variants, conjectures and marginalia. Berti offers an overview of the strands of research in the Digital Humanities, highlighting not only the work done so far, but especially the potentialities for future research. Berti makes it clear that Digital Humanities is not about advocating for a change of medium, but for new epistemological insights, prompting scholars to ask new questions, suggest new answers to older problems and rethink some of the basic concepts of the discipline.
This brief overview has highlighted the main features that tie the chapters together and make the book both successful in reaching its aim and useful in opening up further paths of research: the attention to the materiality of writing supports, be it the mise en page, the provenance of an item or the thorough scrutiny of the manuscript transmission; the embrace of cultural purview and the link between literary and cultural investigations; the advocacy for digital technologies; new light brought to long neglected texts, such as Cyril’s lexicon; and the emphasis on methodological issues through the discussion of concrete examples. The main idea behind the book, namely that texts preserving quotations, excerpts, fragments, parodies and the like are worth investigating in their own right, is perhaps not new as such (cf. e.g. F. Montanari, ‘Le tortuose strade del frammento. Citazioni d’autore nell’erudizione antica’: in: V. Mastellari [ed.], Fragments in Context – Frammenti e dintorni [2021]), but the aspects just mentioned, among others, are novel and make the volume an insightful counterpart to ongoing editorial efforts (cf. e.g. the re-editions of scholia to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, of scholia to Euripides, of exegetical material on papyrus in the series CLGP, of Cyril’s lexicon, of the Etymologicum Gudianum). Some contributions focus systematically on Homer (Pagani, Pontani) or comedy (Orth, Tribulato, Willi). With the notable exception of Hunter’s opening chapter on Euripides’ Hippolytus, other authors and genres are explored with interesting results (e.g. Bacchylides in Ucciardello’s paper), but only tangentially.
Undoubtedly, the volume will stir the interest of scholars working on indirect tradition and ancient scholarship, by providing an overview of the current situation whilst also offering new approaches and highlighting areas that require further work. Some topics and authors are quite niche, but the papers are easily accessible and provide all necessary pieces of information and translations. In sum, the volume successfully shows how such texts deserve to be objects of wide-reaching research, which brings together textual-critical, literary, cultural and material approaches.
