—984 He has just said, “"why force me to speak of Iocasta's marriage, when it was such as I will tell?"” (980). In these three vv. he tells of what sort it was,—viz., incestuous, but unconsciously so;—a double reason why Creon should have spared the taunt. ἔτικτεν=“"she was my mother"”—she, who was becoming my bride—though neither of us knew it at the time of the marriage. Cp. Eur. Ion 1560 “ἥδε τίκτει ς）”, “"she is thy mother"”; and O. T. 437, 870. αὑτῆς ὄνειδος, because, although she was morally guiltless in the marriage, yet such a union was, in fact, shameful: cp. O. T. 1494, 1500. Yet Nauck condemns these vv. because (1) they do not explain the “μητρὸς γάμους” of 978, and (2) “ὄνειδος” is illogical after “οὐκ εἰδυῖα”. Kaibel, who also condemns them, compares (Deutsche Litteraturz., 1886, p. 733)
: where the only points of likeness are “οἴμοι κακῶν” and the iteration. Rhetoric of a similar cast, and prompted by the same thought, occurs in O. T. 1403 ff., 1496 ff.“ἱκέτας ἀλήτας συγγενεῖς, οἴμοι κακῶν,
βλέψον πρὸς αὐτοὺς βλέψον, ἕλκεσθαι βίᾳ
”
