ὅτῳ, not “ὅτου”, is right. Con strue: “ὅτῳ ἡ δορύξενος ἑστία αἰὲν κοινή ἐστι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν”, lit., “"to whom the hearth of an ally is always common among us"”: κοινή, “"common,"” = “"giving reciprocal hospitality,"” which Theseus could claim at Thebes, as Oedipus at Athens. αἰέν, i.e. “"even if he had not this special claim."” This seems better than to take “κοινή” as (1) “"common to him with other Thebans,"” (2) “"provided by our State,"” (3) “"common to him with us,"” or (4) “"accessible,"” as Andoc. or. 2 § 147 “οἰκία κοινοτάτη τῷ δεομένῳ”. With ὅτου the above version could not stand (since “"belongs to him"” could not replace “"exists for him"”), and so we should have to understand, “ὅτου ἡ δορύξενος ἑστία αἰὲν κοινή ἐστι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν”, whose allied hearth (at Thebes) is always regarded among us as open to us (“"as a common possession,"” Campb.): but this seems very forced. δορύξενος, “"spear-friend,"” is one with whom one has the tie of “ξενία” in respect of war: i.e., who will make common cause with one in war. It is applied by Aesch., Soph., and Eur. only to princes or chiefs, with an armed force at their command. Cp. Aesch. Cho. 562 “ξένος τε καὶ δορύξενος δόμων”, said by Orestes when he presents himself “παντελῆ σαγὴν ἔχων”: i.e. he comes not merely as the personal “ξένος” of the royal house, but as a chief in armed alliance with it. Plut. (Mor. 295 B, Quaest. Gr. 17) asks, “τίς ὁ δορύξενος”; He conjectures that it meant, a ransomed prisoner of war, in his subsequent friendly relation to the ransomer (“ἐκ δοριαλώτου δορύξενος προσαγορευόμενος”). This is against the usage of the poets, our only witnesses. And the source of the guess is clear. Plutarch was thinking of the verbal compounds, “δοριάλωτος, δορίκτητος, δορίληπτος”, etc. From these he inferred that “δορύξενος” would mean primarily, “"a friend gained through the spear."” Wecklein brackets the whole passage from 632 “ὅτῳ” down to 637 “τὴν τοῦδε” as “"a later addition,"” because (1) there could be no “ξενία” when Oedipus did not even know the name of Theseus (68), and (2) “σεβισθεὶς” in 636 is suspicious. On this, see ad loc. As to (1), the “ξενία” to which Theseus refers is not a personal friendship, but a hereditary alliance between the royal houses, as in Eur. Suppl. 930 Polyneices (whom he had not seen before) is his “ξένος”. Cp. on 619. After Wecklein's excision, we have “τίς δῆτ᾽ ἂν ἀνδρὸς εὐμένειαν ἐκβάλοι
τοιοῦδε; χώρᾳ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν κατοικιῶ
”. This is incoherent.
