[349] εἴ τε … εἴ τε: cf. note on 300. There is no authority here for “ἤ τε” in the first clause; and we have no right nor need to desert the tradition and write “ἤ τε .. ἤ τε” (or “ἠέ”) with Bekker, though there is no other clear case of “εἴτε .. εἴτε” in an indirect question. “εἴτε .. οὐκ” is found even in Attic in similar cases, e.g.
where see Jebb's note. In the purely hypothetical statement of a fact (“εἰ” with indic., here “ἐστί” to be supplied) “εἰ οὐ” seems to be the original and more natural construction, though it was afterwards superseded by “εἰ μή” by force of analogy. See note on 4.160, and H. G. §§ 316, 341. For the predicative use of ψεῦδος cf. 9.115.
