Skip to content
1882
Volume 76, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0017-0461
  • E-ISSN: 2507-0401

Abstract

Abstract

In Soph. . 11 la tradizione manoscritta è divisa tra le varianti στενάζων (quella meglio attestata) e ἰύζων (la variante della cosiddetta ‘famiglia romana’). Gli editori spesso preferiscono στενάζων perché ritengono che il ἰύζων dipenda dal di Soph. . 787. Un esame approfondito delle principali varianti offerte dalla ‘famiglia romana’ mostra che questa eventualità è molto improbabile: ἰύζων è quasi certamente da preferire a στενάζων. Il problema testuale ci porta a riflettere su alcuni aspetti dello stile formulare di Sofocle, e più in particolare sulla possibilità che espressioni identiche o molto simili possano ricorrere in opere molto distanti dal punto di vista cronologico.

Abstract

At Soph. . 11 the manuscript tradition is divided between the variants στενάζων (more widely attested) and ἰύζων (found in the so-called ‘Roman family’). Editors often prefer στενάζων because they believe that the ἰύζων derived from the of Soph. . 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.GIF.5.142405
2024-01-01
2025-12-05

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.GIF.5.142405
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field.
Please enter a valid email address.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred.
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error:
Please enter a valid_number test
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnJlcG9sc29ubGluZS5uZXQv