This article aims to collect and discuss a series of Atticist entries, contained in 2nd- and 3rd-century-BCE Atticist lexica and in Byzantine lexica, which attribute to Xenophon the use of linguistic features which are uncommon in Attic texts. However, these forms are not to be found, or are very marginally attested, in the direct tradition of Xenophon’s writings. To explain such a disagreement between the direct and the indirect tradition, it has been suggested in earlier scholarship that the absence of these linguistic features in the direct tradition results from the removal of the contested forms. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of these problematic cases, investigating, among other aspects, the interaction of the direct and the indirect tradition and the bearing of those cases on the study of Xenophon’s language.
Il testo di Senofonte e la lessicografia atticista
Federico Favi
2024-01-01
Abstract
This article aims to collect and discuss a series of Atticist entries, contained in 2nd- and 3rd-century-BCE Atticist lexica and in Byzantine lexica, which attribute to Xenophon the use of linguistic features which are uncommon in Attic texts. However, these forms are not to be found, or are very marginally attested, in the direct tradition of Xenophon’s writings. To explain such a disagreement between the direct and the indirect tradition, it has been suggested in earlier scholarship that the absence of these linguistic features in the direct tradition results from the removal of the contested forms. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of these problematic cases, investigating, among other aspects, the interaction of the direct and the indirect tradition and the bearing of those cases on the study of Xenophon’s language.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
