The question between L's λαβεῖν, and the Κρέον of later MSS., is not an easy one to decide. If “λαβεῖν” is an error, then it must be explained by the scribe's eye having wandered to v. 1094. But it has not been noticed (I think) that the argument from v. 1094 is two-edged. There, the scribe of L wrote “λαβεῖν”, which was afterwards corrected to “λακεῖν”, either by his own hand or by another. It might be held, then, that he wrote “λαβεῖν”, by an error of the eye, in 1094, because his archetype had “λαβεῖν” in 1098. The epexegetic construction of the inf. (= “ὥστε λαβεῖν αὐτήν”, see examples on 489 f.) may have been a stumblingblock, leading transcribers to think it a redundant gloss; when “Κρέον” would have been the obvious resource. Everything considered, I prefer to retain “λαβεῖν”.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.