Reference edition:

Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae. Asconius, Scholia Bobiensia, Scholia Pseudasconii Sangallensia, Scholia Cluniacensia et Recentiora Ambrosiana ac Vaticana, Scholia Lugdunensia sive Gronoviana et Eorum Excerpta Lugdunensia, recensuit Th. Stangl, Hildesheim 1964, pp. 281-351 (Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Wien 1912).

The Scholia Gronoviana, which contain a series of glosses and marginal notes on a rich group of Ciceronian speeches (Catiliniarians 2-4, Pro Ligario, Pro Marcello, Pro rege Deiotaro, Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino, Pro lege Manilia / De imperio Cn. Pompei, Pro Milone, Pro Caelio, Divinatio in Caecilium, 1 In Verrem and 2 In Verrem 1), are contained in the 10^th c. codex Leiden, Bibliothek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. Lat. Q 138 (on which see Mommsen 1861: 140-45).  After their initial publication in 1692 by Jakob Gronov (Gronovius, whence their name), they were reprinted in the following editions:

-Graeve (Graevius), J. G.  1699. M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationes ex rec. J. G. Graevii, Tomi II, Pars I.  Amsterdam.

-Schütz, C. G.  1814-1823. M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera Omnia ac deperditorum fragmenta, 8.1.  Leipzig.

-Orelli, J. C.  1833. M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera quae supersunt omnia ac deperditorum fragmenta, 5.2.  Zurich.  Pp. 382 ff.  (Note: Orelli’s notes on the Pro Roscio are also included as an appendix in Landgraf, G. 1882.  M. Tullii Ciceronis Pro Roscio Amerino.  Erlangen).

- Stangl, T.  1912.  Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae.  Asconius, Schola Bobiensia, Scholia Pseudasconii Sangallensia, Scholia Cluniacensia et Recentiora Ambrosiana ac Vaticana, Schola Lugdunensia sive Gronoviana et Eorum Excerpta Lugdunensia.  Vienna.  Pg. 281-351.  (Repr. Hildesheim 1964).

The scholia derive from a late period and seem to have been written by different authors.  In undertaking a collation of the Leiden codex (with corrected division of the quaternions) in 1861, Mommsen identified three hands in the commentary on the Div. and Verrines: to “Scholiast B” were attributed the notes on the Div. and 1 Ver.; to “Scholiast A” were attributed those on 2 Ver. 1.1-62; to “Scholiast C” were attributed those on 1 Ver. 16-30 (= fol. 17-18); and again to “Scholiast B” the commentary on I Ver. 30-45 (=fol. 19-20).  A fourth hand, identified as “Scholiast D” (from fol. 21) comments on passages from the Catilinarians, Marc., Lig., Deiot., S. Rosc., Man., Mil., and excerpts of the Cael.  Stangl, in his Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae (1912), adopted this succession of scholia-groups from Mommsen with only slight changes.  The notes attributed to Scholiast D are placed at the front of the collection (pp. 281-323 St., including scholia on Cat. 1.9; Cat. 2.2-29; Cat. 3.argumentum and 1-26; Cat. 4.argumentum and 1-21; Lig. argumentum and 1-24; Marc. 1-2, 20-34; Deiot. argumentum and 1-10, 31-41; S. Rosc. argumentum and 1-21, 34-154; Man. 3-71; Mil. argumentum and 1, 15, 60, 65, 67; and Cael. 17, 26); these are followed by the notes attributed to Scholiast B (pp. 324-344.7 St.; containing scholia on Div. 3-73; 1 Ver. 1-45; and 2 Ver. 1.argumentum and 1-5); the notes attributed to Scholiast A (pp. 344.9-348.8 St., containing scholia on 2 Ver. 1.45-62); and the notes attributed to Scholiast C (pp. 349-351 St., containing scholia on 1 Ver. 16-30).

The marginal notes making up the Scholia Gronoviana are of varying quality, and were attached to the Leiden manuscript in a confused and disorganized manner, as is shown by the frequent inversion of scholium and lemma.  They present many points of contact with the surviving scholiastic tradition on Cicero, in particular with Bobbio commentary; similarities in form and in the use of citations between this and Scholiast A were so striking, in fact, that Stangl hypothesized that the author of Bobbio commentary had commented on the Verrines (cf. Gaumitz 1884: 14-16).  Likewise, one can find vestiges of Servian exegesis in Scholiast D, who furnishes a large number of Vergilian citations whose interpretation appears to echo Servius’ comments on Vergil’s corpus, probably mediated through Ps.-Asconius (cf. Deiot 1: p. 299, 1-7 St.; S. Rosc. 1: p. 302, 11-14 St.; cf. also Scholiast B: p. 330, 12-14 St; 343, 9-13 St.).  Also of considerable interest is a Ciceronian glossary (added from a different source) that is included on fol. 11^r – 13^r of the Leiden manuscript and is itself drawn from a fuller glossary transmitted by another codex preserved at Leiden, Voss. Lat. O. 88 (on which see Goetz 1891; cf. CGL vol. V, p. XXXV).  This includes 56 glosses, mostly in the form of a simple explication of a name or word, sometimes with further details on the nature of the term. They are transposed in the Gronovian corpus in a regular way: these glosses offer a considerable amplification of the original commentary, especially for Cat. 2, Man., and most of the Div.  [G. La Bua; tr. C. L. Caterine].