Kamerbeek's defence of L's ὦν ἐπιμεμϕομένας against the ὦνἐπιμεμϕομένα σʾ of Laur. xxxii 20 and other later manuscripts is rightly approved by Page, Gnomon 32 (1960), 318. More questionable is his retention of the manuscript reading ἁδεῖα against Musgrave's αἰδοῖα, which has been accepted by Jebb, Pearson, Masqueray and Dain–Mazon. Hermann pointed out long ago that ἁδεῖα as neuter plural was not Attic, and Kamerbeek's parallels are not relevant.

But Musgrave's αἰδοῖα is hardly more satisfactory. The expression ἀντία οἴσω is equivalent to a single verb (cf. ἀντιϕερίзω, etc.), so that ἀντία could hardly be so far disjoined from οἴσω as to be made antithetic to a second neuter plural adjective governed by that verb. Further, one may say ἀντία οἴσω, but it is far less easy to say αἰδοῖα οἴσω. For the antithesis yielded by Musgrave's conjecture I see no real parallel.

Hermann and Campbell both took ἁδεῖα as nominative singular and supplied εἰμί. Ellipse of the first person is rarer than ellipse of the third, but Denniston on Euripides, Electra 37 and Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 806 give instances; Aeschylus, Choephori 412, Sophocles, OC 207 and Euripides, Cyclops 503 are all good ones. Ellipse is particularly common with adjectives like ἕτοιμος or πρόθυμος, and ἁδεῖα would resemble these in signifying readiness to accept the other's point of view. But can the word bear this sense?