τόν γε Λαΐου φόνον Iocasta argues: “Even if he should admit that the deed was done by one man （a circumstance which would confirm our fears that the deed was yours）, at any rate the death of Laius cannot be shown to have happened as the oracle foretold; for Laius was to have been killed by my son, who died in infancy. The oracular art having failed in this instance, I refuse to heed Teiresias when he says that you will yet be found guilty of slaying your father Polybus.” Iocasta, bent on cheering Oedipus, merely alludes to the possibility of his being indeed the slayer of Laius （851）, and turns to the comforting aspect of the case—viz., the undoubted failure of the oracle, on any supposition. This fine and subtle passage is （to my apprehension） utterly defaced by the conjecture σόν γε Λαΐου φόνον （Bothe）, “it cannot be shown that your slaying of Laius fulfils the oracle.” Herm. reads τόνδε, “this slaying” （of which you think yourself guilty）: but the γε is needed.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.