Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation
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 emendati...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Symbolae Osloenses 2021-01, Vol.95 (1), p.95-103 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 103 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 95 |
| container_title | Symbolae Osloenses |
| container_volume | 95 |
| creator | Bär, Silvio |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/00397679.2021.1979326 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref_3HK</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_cristin_nora_10852_90665</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1080_00397679_2021_1979326</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-c56dabbe04209cf4daa18e27acfd7362e9cc04ec3003b15ef81816f2dda4c4723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kN1KAzEUhIMoWKuPIO4LbD1JNtlNryy1_kBREL0OaX4wsk1KsqX07btL21uvBoZvhnMGoXsMEwwNPAJQUfNaTAgQPMGiFpTwCzTCDEhZN8Au0WhgygG6Rjc5_wFA1VRshKazTWzbGPw2F1-_0QzadwCdFrPi2We9zdnHUERXqOLD7orF2gajut67RVdOtdnenXSMfl4W3_O3cvn5-j6fLUtNiehKzbhRq5WFioDQrjJK4caSWmlnasqJFVpDZTXtT1xhZl2DG8wdMUZVuqoJHaOHY69OPnc-yBCTkv3njEgBnLOeYGci5pysk5vk1yrte2oAQZ4nksNE8jRRn3s65nxwMa3VLqbWyE7t25hcUkH7LOn_FQevm2rO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation</title><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><creator>Bär, Silvio</creator><creatorcontrib>Bär, Silvio</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7679</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1502-7805</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/00397679.2021.1979326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Routledge</publisher><subject>Apollonius Rhodius ; Argonautica Orphica ; catabasis ; emendation ; Peirithous ; Theseus ; Underworld</subject><ispartof>Symbolae Osloenses, 2021-01, Vol.95 (1), p.95-103</ispartof><rights>2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2021</rights><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-c56dabbe04209cf4daa18e27acfd7362e9cc04ec3003b15ef81816f2dda4c4723</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,776,881,26544</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/90665$$EView_record_in_NORA$$FView_record_in_$$GNORA$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bär, Silvio</creatorcontrib><title>Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation</title><title>Symbolae Osloenses</title><description>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.</description><subject>Apollonius Rhodius</subject><subject>Argonautica Orphica</subject><subject>catabasis</subject><subject>emendation</subject><subject>Peirithous</subject><subject>Theseus</subject><subject>Underworld</subject><issn>0039-7679</issn><issn>1502-7805</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kN1KAzEUhIMoWKuPIO4LbD1JNtlNryy1_kBREL0OaX4wsk1KsqX07btL21uvBoZvhnMGoXsMEwwNPAJQUfNaTAgQPMGiFpTwCzTCDEhZN8Au0WhgygG6Rjc5_wFA1VRshKazTWzbGPw2F1-_0QzadwCdFrPi2We9zdnHUERXqOLD7orF2gajut67RVdOtdnenXSMfl4W3_O3cvn5-j6fLUtNiehKzbhRq5WFioDQrjJK4caSWmlnasqJFVpDZTXtT1xhZl2DG8wdMUZVuqoJHaOHY69OPnc-yBCTkv3njEgBnLOeYGci5pysk5vk1yrte2oAQZ4nksNE8jRRn3s65nxwMa3VLqbWyE7t25hcUkH7LOn_FQevm2rO</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Bär, Silvio</creator><general>Routledge</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3HK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation</title><author>Bär, Silvio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-c56dabbe04209cf4daa18e27acfd7362e9cc04ec3003b15ef81816f2dda4c4723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Apollonius Rhodius</topic><topic>Argonautica Orphica</topic><topic>catabasis</topic><topic>emendation</topic><topic>Peirithous</topic><topic>Theseus</topic><topic>Underworld</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bär, Silvio</creatorcontrib><collection>Taylor & Francis Open Access Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection><jtitle>Symbolae Osloenses</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bär, Silvio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation</atitle><jtitle>Symbolae Osloenses</jtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>95</spage><epage>103</epage><pages>95-103</pages><issn>0039-7679</issn><eissn>1502-7805</eissn><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.</abstract><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/00397679.2021.1979326</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| identifier | ISSN: 0039-7679 |
| ispartof | Symbolae Osloenses, 2021-01, Vol.95 (1), p.95-103 |
| issn | 0039-7679 1502-7805 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_cristin_nora_10852_90665 |
| source | NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives |
| subjects | Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica Orphica catabasis emendation Peirithous Theseus Underworld |
| title | Apollonius Rhodius 1.103: A Discussion of a New Emendation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T17%3A14%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref_3HK&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Apollonius%20Rhodius%201.103:%20A%20Discussion%20of%20a%20New%20Emendation&rft.jtitle=Symbolae%20Osloenses&rft.au=B%C3%A4r,%20Silvio&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=95&rft.epage=103&rft.pages=95-103&rft.issn=0039-7679&rft.eissn=1502-7805&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00397679.2021.1979326&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref_3HK%3E10_1080_00397679_2021_1979326%3C/crossref_3HK%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |