ὁδός θ᾽ ὁδῶν πασῶν. The fact that “πασῶν” has been corrected in L from “ἁπασῶν”, the reading of some other MSS., has been regarded as confirming Brunck's conjecture, ὁδῶν θ᾽ ἁπασῶν ὁδὸς ἀνιάσασα δή. That reading is specious. In support of πασῶν, however, these points should be considered. (1) “ἁπασῶν” could easily arise through the scribe's eye wandering to “ἁπάντων” in 992: and no MS. which has “ἁπασῶν” alters the order of the words “ὁδός θ᾽ ὁδῶν”. (2) After “τῶν ἁπάντων..θεαμάτων ἄλγιστον”, there is a rhetorical advantage in having “ὁδός θ᾽ ὁδῶν πασῶν” rather than “ὁδῶν θ᾽ ἁπασῶν ὁδός”. It is a ‘chiasmus.’ (3) The absence of caesura in “ὁδός θ᾽ ὁδῶν πασῶν” may have been intentional: see on 855. ἀνιάσασα δή. Here “δή” emphasises the whole phrase “πασῶν ἀνιάσασα μάλιστα” (rather than “πασῶν” only). Cp. Creon's words in Ant. 1212“ἆρα δυστυχεστάτην ι κέλευθον ἕρπω τῶν παρελθουσῶν ὁδῶν;” “ἣν δὴ: δὴ” emphasises the pron., as in 1029, 1043, 1045, and often.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.