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)

IN the first part of this paper we discussed R and the y family, which divides into the two groups v and Φ. Before leaving the y family, however, we may consider some of the recentiores, nearly all of which belong within it. They seem to contain no genuine tradition unknown to their elders and betters; so it is not proposed to inflict on the reader a detailed account of them all, but rather to study a representative selection. These manuscripts (...) consist of an uninterpolated and an interpolated group: the latter group includes also the Aldine edition. (shrink)