If δ̓ is omitted (with Wecklein) after κομπεῖν, we must either make κομπεῖν οὐχὶ βούλομαι a parenthesis (as he does), or else point thus: “κλύειν:
ὦ πρέσβυ,
” etc. The abruptness would add a certain spirit to the words. But the δ᾽ after κομπεῖν may well be genuine, if we conceive him as checking the impulse to remind Oed. of the prowess already shown: — "however, I do not wish to boast." “σὺ δὲ
σῶς ἴσθι
” could not mean, "know that you are safe": ὤν is indispensable: and the choice lies between (1) “σὺ δ᾽ ὢν
σῶς ἴσθ᾽
”, and (2) “σὺ σῶς
ὢν ἴσθ᾽
”. For (2) it may be said that the MS. σῶν is more easily explained by it, and that δὲ might have been added to complete v. 1209: for (1), that it is nearer to the actual text (in which σῶν may have sprung from ὤν superscript), and that σῶς is more effective if it begins the verse in which σώζῃ follows.
