Filologia vs ermeneutica. Paradigmi epistemici a confronto

Philologists and literary critics show an alarming tendency to regard each other’s discourse as, respectively, dull paraphrasis and abstruse mumbo-jumbo. This paper aims to explore some basic theoretical assumptions of each of the two approaches to classical texts in order to highlight some of their specific traits. the purpose of this analysis is to show that both philology and literary criticism give their best when working synergically. this is demonstrated by means of a case study: a conjecture by martin l. West on aristoph. nub. 880 is analysed in order to show how textual criticism, even if based on the rigorous application of philological methods, can fail to achieve its own goals because of an insufficient consideration of literary meaning.