The duplication ο τι…οποιν has caused much trouble. However, schol. on explains ο τι by αντι τον οποιον. The οποιον may well have begun life as an intramarginal gloss written against the beginning of 2–3, which the next scribe mistook for the first word of 3 in the text, and dropped the original first word, which on this hypothesis would not necessarily bear any literal resemblance to οποιον. As for what this word was, there are obviously many possibilities; if for (...) instance it was οανοντος, that would make explicit the contrast between the dead Oedipus and νωνπωοαιν, in a manner helpful to the context. (shrink)

The duplication ο τι…οποιν has caused much trouble. However, schol. on explains ο τι by αντι τον οποιον. The οποιον may well have begun life as an intramarginal gloss written against the beginning of 2–3, which the next scribe mistook for the first word of 3 in the text, and dropped the original first word, which on this hypothesis would not necessarily bear any literal resemblance to οποιον. As for what this word was, there are obviously many possibilities; if for (...) instance it was οανοντος, that would make explicit the contrast between the dead Oedipus and νωνπωοαιν, in a manner helpful to the context. (shrink)