COMPLEMENTARY NOTES
COMPLEMENTARY NOTE 1 (top. 10)
A useful brief overview of the ancient commentary literature in general and of the modern scholarly literature on the subject in particular is found at Barnes & al. (1991) 4 ff. For what follows in the text see the invaluable study of Plezia (1949) 11 ff., 59 ff. and passim (also for earlier literature). See further Diiring (1957) 444 ff. (again for earlier literature too), Westerink (1990a) 341 ff. (updated version ofpts. II and III of the "Introduction" of Westerink 1962; cf. also the French version in Westerink (1990b) xliii ff.}, and the very detailed discussion of I. Harlot (1990) 23 ff. and passim, 138 ff. (cf. also I. Harlot (1991)). A wonderfully complete list of passages dealing with introductory issues in the late commentaries on Aristotle, the so-called scholia (i.e. remains of late commentaries) on the grammar attributed to Dionysius Thrax, the late rhetorical commentaries on and prolegomena to Hermogenes and others, and in the late commentaries on writings by Hippocrates and Galen is found in the apparatus superior of Westerink (1985) 28. Tables of the issues contained in the Neoplatonist introductions to philosophy in general and to the philosophy and the particular works of Aristotle (and Porphyry's /sag.) are to be found in Plezia (1949) 11 ff., Westerink (1990a) 342 ff., Moraux (1973) 67 (the general questions only), and I. Harlot (1990) 44ff. Plezia (1949) 83 ff., Westerink (1992) xxxii ff. (and in the updated version at Westerink (1990b) lxi ff.) and I. Harlot (1990) 30 ff., 46, include the issues listed in the general and particular introduct ions to Plato, but the distinction between general and particular is less relevant here than in the case of the introductions to Aristotle. A hurried overview is given by Goulet-Caze (1982) 277 ff., and a selective one by Erler (1991) 83 ff. The Latin equivalents of the Greek technical terms given in chapter one, section 1 above, are those of Boethius, In lsagogen Porphyrii commenta ed. pr., pp. 4.14-5.10. Excellent overview, including tables with the late lists for Aristotle and Plato and a useful comparison with the Prologos of Albinus, in Donini (1982) 50 ff. A competent short survey is given by M. Baltes in Dorrie-Baltes (1993) 167 ff. For the reception of this method in the Middle Ages see Quain (1945) 215 ff., who furthermore, ibid., 243 ff., traces back what is in Boethius to the Aristotelian commentators, and ibid., 256 ff., discusses the late rhetorical introductions and commentaries. Neuschafer (1987) I, 57 ff., II, 355 ff., "Die Topik des Kommentarprologs", has to be used with caution. Though the book contains much material one is grateful for, esp. on Origen, and though the author is concerned with the interesting question whether the origin of individual issues has to be sought in literary or philosophical commentaries or in both, the treatment of the pagan commentary literature remains insufficient. The distinction between general and particular isagogic questions unfortunately plays no part whatever, and the issue of Proclus' contribution remains outside COMPLEMENTARY NOTES 193 the picture. The Neoplatonist commentaries on Plato, the Anonymous prolegomena, the earlier Aristotelian commentators, the so-called scholia on Dionysius Thrax and the late commentaries on Hippocrates and Galen, to mention only sources for the use of schemata which have already been dealt with in the secondary literature, are not discussed.
COMPLEMENTARY NOTE 3 (top. 10)
For &vayt'yvoocrKEtV' &vayvrocrtc; and cruvavayvrocrtc; in the sense of 'reading of a text in class' or 'study of a text under the direction of a master' see Bruns (1897) and Goulet-Caze (1982) 264 f.; cf. also supra, text to and after n. 39. 'Reading for oneself is called 'lftA~ &vayvrocrtc; by Marinus, Vita Procli ch. 9. Further examples in Festugiere (1971a) 541 n. 28. Cicero, De or. I 39 (Crassus speaking), gives the Latin equivalent of cruvvaytyvoocrKEtV: ... Platoni, cuius tum Athenis cum Charmada diligentius kJrj Gorgiam. In an interesting passage in one of Galen's earlier Hippocratic commentaries (on these see above, chapter four, sections 3 and following), In Hipp. De fract., XVIII.2, 321.7 ff. K., crwavaytyvoocrKEtV means 'reading a text together with a pupil' (my emphasis; eyoo yap O'taV IJ.EV napoov napov'tt cruvavaytVoocrKro n ~t~A.iov, aKpt~&c; cr'toxasm8at ouva!J.m 'tou IJ.E'tpou 'tftc; £~rrr1crEroc;, &no~A.enrov 1xacr'to'tE npoc; 't~v 'tou 1J.av8avov'toc; e~tV). But cf. Galen, In Hipp. De art., XVIII.l, 748.1 ff. K., rnt IJ.EV oilv 1:oov &vaytyvrocrKOV'trov nap' E!J.Ot 'tO ~t~A.iov K'tA., on the reading of a text under the direction of the master. It is of course true that &vayt(y)voocrKEtV often means to 'read' or 'study' on one's own, though 'reading' or 'studying on one's own' is called iOi~ Kat Ka8' £au'tOV &vaytVOOOKEtV at Galen, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac Jacultatibus, XI, 793.11 K. The reading of a text under the direction of Proclus is described as follows by Marinus, Vita Procli ch. 27: &vaytVOO