This article argues against Haslam’s suggestion that Soph. El. 1 “stands or falls” with Eur. Phoen. 1–2. Whereas Phoen. 1–2 is in all likelihood interpolated, the athetesis of El. 1 entirely depends on our reading of schol. Phoen. 1–2. The two μή's in the text of the scholium are athetized by Valckenaer and defended by Haslam. Nevertheless, in both cases the text does not make satisfactory sense. This article will argue for a third possibility, which is to athetize only the second μή: the obscure anecdote reported in the scholium may thus become an amusing story in which the styles of Sophocles and Euripides are contrasted with each other. This interpretation of the scholium presupposes that the originator of the anecdote regarded El. 1 as a genuine Sophoclean line.
Lo scolio a Eur. Phoen. 1–2 e l’autenticità di Soph. El. 1. Una proposta di intervento testuale
Ruggiero Lionetti
2019
Abstract
This article argues against Haslam’s suggestion that Soph. El. 1 “stands or falls” with Eur. Phoen. 1–2. Whereas Phoen. 1–2 is in all likelihood interpolated, the athetesis of El. 1 entirely depends on our reading of schol. Phoen. 1–2. The two μή's in the text of the scholium are athetized by Valckenaer and defended by Haslam. Nevertheless, in both cases the text does not make satisfactory sense. This article will argue for a third possibility, which is to athetize only the second μή: the obscure anecdote reported in the scholium may thus become an amusing story in which the styles of Sophocles and Euripides are contrasted with each other. This interpretation of the scholium presupposes that the originator of the anecdote regarded El. 1 as a genuine Sophoclean line.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
