This paper discusses schol. Gen. Il. XXI 257-262 (V 183 E.), with a criticism of Homer by Duris (FGrHist 76 F 89). Once Nicole's integration "to" has been deleted or inserted in another point in the sentence, Duris' criticism is not only clearer, but also consistent with Dion. Hal. Comp. verb. 16. Furthermore, the concept of mimesis in the scholion helps to elucidate the original meaning of Duris' criticism of both Ephorus and Theopompus in Phot. Bibl. 176, 121a 41-121b 9 (FGrHist 76 F 1).
Sulle critiche di Duride di Samo ad Omero (FGrHist 76 F 89) e ad Eforo e Teopompo (FGrHist 76 F 1)
Giovanni Parmeggiani
2016-01-01
Abstract
This paper discusses schol. Gen. Il. XXI 257-262 (V 183 E.), with a criticism of Homer by Duris (FGrHist 76 F 89). Once Nicole's integration "to" has been deleted or inserted in another point in the sentence, Duris' criticism is not only clearer, but also consistent with Dion. Hal. Comp. verb. 16. Furthermore, the concept of mimesis in the scholion helps to elucidate the original meaning of Duris' criticism of both Ephorus and Theopompus in Phot. Bibl. 176, 121a 41-121b 9 (FGrHist 76 F 1).File in questo prodotto:
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Parmeggiani_Eikasmos_27_2016.pdf
Accesso chiuso
Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia:
Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza:
Copyright Editore
Dimensione
324.85 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
324.85 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
