No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
page 241 note 1 E.g. in the two passages, I. 57, III. 78, where I noted in my February article an important difference between ω and β, there is none, but Conington had failed to note ω's reading.
page 247 note 1 Or perhaps ω and β may be (so to speak) brothers; I was inclined to think this impossible, for where ω has been corrected β has almost invariably used the correction. But Mr. W. M. Lindsay suggests to me that this may be so explained: a reviser corrected ω where the scribe had departed from the archetype; β was itself copied from that archetype, and so does not reproduce ω's errors. If so ω is a very exact but unintelligent β an intelligent copy of the same MS.
page 247 note 1 It is possible that this Τοεξιϲ was originally a corruption of 
.