This article examines the main testimonia that feature sections of the νόμος πυθικός (Strab. 9.3.10; Poll. 4.84; Schol. vet. Pind. P. inscr. a) and another, often neglected, but equally important attestation of this νόμος (Demetr.Lac. De poem. 2.52 Romeo). The paper explores the differences between these sources and their impact on the performative modality of the νόμος πυθικός. In the concluding part, the article links the section ἴαμβοι καὶ δάκτυλοι present in Strabo (ἐπιπαιωνισμός) and the assertions attributed to Heraclides Ponticus by Athenaeus (fr. 158 Wehrli ap. Ath. 15.701e–f), proposing a new re-construction of Athenaeus’ text.
Il νόμος πυθικός e la sua esecuzione: una rilettura delle fonti antiche
Serena Napoleone
2025-01-01
Abstract
This article examines the main testimonia that feature sections of the νόμος πυθικός (Strab. 9.3.10; Poll. 4.84; Schol. vet. Pind. P. inscr. a) and another, often neglected, but equally important attestation of this νόμος (Demetr.Lac. De poem. 2.52 Romeo). The paper explores the differences between these sources and their impact on the performative modality of the νόμος πυθικός. In the concluding part, the article links the section ἴαμβοι καὶ δάκτυλοι present in Strabo (ἐπιπαιωνισμός) and the assertions attributed to Heraclides Ponticus by Athenaeus (fr. 158 Wehrli ap. Ath. 15.701e–f), proposing a new re-construction of Athenaeus’ text.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
grms-article-10.1163-22129758-bja10096.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
PDF editoriale
Dimensione
446.03 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
446.03 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.