\u1f18\u3bd \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ae\u3bb\u1ff3 (\u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ac\u3bb\u1ff3?)\u3a3\u3b9\u3ba\u3b5\u3bb\u3af\u1fb3 : nota su una controversa lezione pindarica (Ol. 1.12)

This paper deals with a philological problem in Pindar\u2019s first Olympic. At verse 12 most manuscripts read \u1f10\u3bd \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ac\u3bb\u1ff3 \u3a3\u3b9\u3ba\u3b5\u3bb\u3af\u1fb3 \u201cin Sicily rich in fruits\u201d, while the variant \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ae\u3bb\u1ff3 \u201crich in sheep\u201d appears only in three manuscripts. Though philological at first glance, the problem is dealt with from a linguistic perspective. After a brief survey of the most important views on this topic, an analysis of the main linguistic features is proposed, focusing on phonological, morphological, semantic and lexical aspects. As a result, it is shown that some of the arguments which are traditionally used to support the reading \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ac\u3bb\u1ff3 are in fact insubstantial. In conclusion, even though a final solution to this philological problem will perhaps never be found, it is argued that the reading \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ae\u3bb\u1ff3 is at least as probable as the reading \u3c0\u3bf\u3bb\u3c5\u3bc\u3ac\u3bb\u1ff3