Abstract
In Apoll. Rhod. Arg. 1.103, there are three textual variants for the adjective that accompanies the noun ὁδόν: κοινήν, κϵινήν and κϵίνην. Recently, the emendation σκοτίην has been suggested; a suggestion that is seemingly supported by a parallel in Arg. Orph. 41. It is argued here that this emendation is unwarranted and that probably either κϵινήν or κϵίνην is authentic, whereby the two variants constitute wordplay that reinforces the ironic underlayer of the context. Further, it is demonstrated that Arg. Orph. 41 does not provide a convincing parallel and that it thus does not support the suggested emendation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
