Within the witnesses of the Commentary on Psalms by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the Codex Parisinus Coisl. 80 (Ra 9052)[1] presents peculiar characteristics. These have already been noted by Devreesse[2], further outlined by Dorival[3] and have also been discussed by Tivelli in a forthcoming study on the tradition of Theodoret’s Commentary[4]. As pointed out by these scholars, the Coisl. 80 presents in fact in the margins – and sometimes even in the main text[5] – fragmentary catenae, i.e. “compilations qui, comme les chaînes, sont faites de fragments attribués à des auteurs divers; mais deux traits les opposent aux chaînes: 1. Elles ne commentent pas tous les psaumes; 2. Elles ne commentent pas tous les versets des psaumes qu’elles ont retenus”[6]. Besides recognized fragmentary catenae, the margins of the Coisl. 80 transmit also texts not yet identified, as well as lexicographic glosses. These materials, whose origin remains unclear[7], were registered for some Psalms[8]; here, as part of my preliminary work on the critical edition of the Theodoret’s Commentary on Psalms 51-60, I want to focus on the following lexical glosses, which can be identified in the margins on the Psalms 51-60 (Ra 9052, ff. 153r, 158v, 169v) and until now not (or not in detail) pointed out.

f. 153r:

The gloss βολίδες[9]· ἀκόντια. λογχάρια is also transmitted in the lexicon attributed to Cyril but “perhaps rather originally a vocabulary of his works, later much expanded”[10], specifically in the manuscript Laurentianus Pl. 57.39 (f. 53r), as well as in Hesychius’ lexicon (β 781)[11].

f. 158v:

The gloss βυούσης· καλυπτούσης· φραττούσης is partially transmitted by Hesychius’ lexicon β 1355 (βυούσης· πληρούσης. καλυπτούσης. κωφωθείσης), whose source is the lexicon attributed to Cyril[12].

 f. 169v:

The last gloss πλήν· ὅμως[13] is also partially transmitted by Hesychius’ lexicon π 2571 (πλήν· ἐκτός, ὅμως), whose source is again the lexicon attributed to Cyril[14]; as well as by Zonaras’ lexicon (πλήν. ἐκτὸς, ἢ ὅμως)[15]. The gloss can also be compared to the entries of Hesychius’ lexicon α 8011 (ἀτὰρ δέ· πλήν, ὅμως δέ) and of the Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων α 1036 (ἀτὰρ δέ· πλήν, ὅμως), both derived from lexicon attributed to Cyril[16]. The Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων is also the source of Photius’ lexicon α 3055 (ἀτάρ· καὶ δὴ ἢ πλήν, ἅτε δή. ἢ ὅμως. ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ δέ.) and α 3057 (ἀτὰρ δέ· πλὴν ὅμως.)[17], as well as of Suda α 4319 (Ἀτάρ: καὶ δή· ἢ πλὴν, ἅτε δή· ἢ ὅμως· ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ δέ.) and α 4321 (Ἀτὰρ δέ· πλὴν ὅμως.)[18]. In turn Suda α 4319 is probably source of the entry Ἀτὰρ δή. δηλαδή. ὁμοίως. πλὴν ὅμως καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ δὴ ἢ διὰ τοῦτο in Zonaras’ lexicon[19].

According to Dorival, the lexical glosses from the margins of Coisl. 80 and other catenae manuscripts are taken from what the scholar calls “Lexeis des psaumes”[20]. Recent studies point out that these lexical glosses must be handled with care and need more in-depth studies about the biblical glossaries[21].

The fragmentary catenae in the margin of Coisl. 80, as well as the lexical glosses and other fragments whose authorship – as pointed out in the manuscript – seems to be doubtful, and/or whose content needs detailed examination must be studied accurately. All this material will constitute the starting point for a detailed investigation into the exegesis of Psalms 51-60 within the patristic literature.