At Soph. Phil. 11 the manuscript tradition is divided between the variants στενάζων (more widely attested) and ἰύζων (found in the socalled ‘Roman family’). Editors often prefer στενάζων because they believe that the difficilior ἰύζων derived from the locus similis of Soph. Tr. 787. A thorough examination of the main variant readings offered by the ‘Roman family’ shows that this eventuality is very unlikely: ἰύζων is almost certainly to be preferred to στενάζων. The textual problem leads us to reflect on certain aspects of Sophocles’ formulaic style, and more particularly on the possibility that identical or very similar expressions can occur in works very distant from a chronological point of view.
Condello, F. (2024). Come grida Filottete? Soph. Ph. 11 e altro Sofocle in Sofocle (con un excursus sulle varianti della ‘famiglia romana’). GIORNALE ITALIANO DI FILOLOGIA, 76, 31-67 [10.1484/J.GIF.5.142405].
Come grida Filottete? Soph. Ph. 11 e altro Sofocle in Sofocle (con un excursus sulle varianti della ‘famiglia romana’)
Condello Federico
2024
Abstract
At Soph. Phil. 11 the manuscript tradition is divided between the variants στενάζων (more widely attested) and ἰύζων (found in the socalled ‘Roman family’). Editors often prefer στενάζων because they believe that the difficilior ἰύζων derived from the locus similis of Soph. Tr. 787. A thorough examination of the main variant readings offered by the ‘Roman family’ shows that this eventuality is very unlikely: ἰύζων is almost certainly to be preferred to στενάζων. The textual problem leads us to reflect on certain aspects of Sophocles’ formulaic style, and more particularly on the possibility that identical or very similar expressions can occur in works very distant from a chronological point of view.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


