[1110-1116] The οἰκεύς, who alone escaped from the slaughter of Laius and his following, had at his own request been sent away from Thebes to do the work of a herdsman （761）. Oedipus had summoned him in order to see whether he would speak of λῃσταί, or of one λῃστής （842）. But meanwhile a further question has arisen. Is he identical with that herdsman of Laius （1040） who had given up the infant Oedipus to the Corinthian shepherd? He is now seen approaching. With his coming, the two threads of discovery are brought together.
 κἀμὲ as well as you, who perhaps know better （1115）.μὴ συναλλάξαντά πω though I have never come into intercourse with him, have never met him: see on 34, and cp. 1130.
 ἄλλως τε and moreover: cp. Hdt. 8.142 “ἄλλως τε τούτων ἁπάντων αἰτίους γενέσθαι δουλοσύνης τοῖσι Ἕλλησι Ἀθηναίους οὐδαμῶς ἀνασχετόν” （ “and besides,” introducing an additional argument）. Soph. has ἄλλως τε καί = “especially,” Soph. El. 1324. “I know them as servants” would be ἔγνωκα ὄντας οἰκέτας. The ὥσπερ can be explained only by an ellipse: ὥσπερ ἂν γνοίην οἰκέτας ἐμαυτοῦ （cp. 923）. Here it merely serves to mark his first impression as they come in sight: “I know those who bring him as （methinks） servants of mine own. ”
 γάρ in assent （ “you are right, for,” etc.）, 731: Soph. Phil. 756: Soph. Ant. 639, etc. —Λαΐου γὰρ ἦν ... νομεὺς: a comma at ἦν is admissible （cp. 1122）, but would not strictly represent the construction here, in which the idea —Λαΐου ἦν πιστὸς νομεύς, εἴπερ τις ἄλλος —has been modified by the restrictive ὡς before νομεύς.ὡς only means that the sense in which a νομεύς can show πίστις is narrowly limited by the sphere of his work. See on 763: cp. 1078.
 τὸν Κορίνθ. ξένον with σὲ, instead of a vocative, gives a peremptory tone: Soph. Ant. 441 “σὲ δή, σὲ τὴν νεύουσαν εἰς πέδον κάρα, ι φὴς ἢ καταρνεῖ κ.τ.λ.,” where the equivalent of ἐρωτῶ here is understood. Cp. Soph. Aj. 71 “οὗτος, σὲ τὸν τὰς κ.τ.λ.” So in the nomin. Xen. Cyrop. 4.5.22 “σὺ δ᾽, ἔφη, ὁ τῶν Ὑρκανίων ἄρχων, ὑπόμεινον.” Blaydes thinks that τῷ Κορινθίῳ ξένῳ in Aristoph. Thes. 404 comes hence. Surely rather from the Sthenoboea of Eur. ap. Athen. 427e “πεσὸν δὲ νιν λέληθεν οὐδὲν ἐκ χερός, ι ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς αὐδᾷ, τῷ Κορινθίῳ ξένῳ.”
 ἦ the old Attic form of the 1st pers., from ἔα （Hom. Il. 4.321, Hdt. 2.19）: so the best MSS. in Plat. Phaedo 61b, etc. That Soph. used ἦ here and in the Niobe （fr. 409） ἦ γὰρ φίλη γὼ τῶνδε τοῦ προφερτέρου, is stated by the schol. on Hom. Il. 5.533 and on Hom. Od. 8.186. L has ἦν here and always, except in Soph. OC 973, 1366, where it gives ἦ. In Eur. Tro. 474 “ἦ μὲν τύραννος κεἰς τύρανν᾽ ἐγημάμην” is Elmsley's corr. of ἦμεν τύραννοι κ.τ.λ. On the other hand Eur., at least, has ἦν in several places where ἦ is impossible: Eur. Hipp. 1012 “μάταιος ἆρ᾽ ἦν, οὐδαμοῦ μὲν οὖν φρενῶν”: Eur. Her. 1416 “ὡς ἐς τὸ λῆμα παντὸς ἦν ἥσσων ἀνήρ”: Eur. Alc. 655 “παῖς δ᾽ ἦν ἐγώ σοι τῶνδε διάδοχος δόμων”: Eur. Ion 280 “βρέφος νεογνὸν μητρὸς ἦν ἐν ἀγκάλαις. —” οἴκοι τραφείς, and so more in the confidence of the master: cp. schol. Aristoph. Kn. 2 （on Παφλάγονα τὸν νεώνητον）, πεφύκαμεν γὰρ καὶ τῶν οἰκετῶν μᾶλλον πιστεύειν τοῖς οἴκοι γεννηθεῖσι καὶ τραφεῖσιν ἢ οις ἃν κτησώμεθα πριάμενοι. Such vernae were called οἰκογενεῖς （Plat. Meno 82b: Dio Chrys. 15.25 “τοὺς παρὰ σφίσι γεννηθέντας οὓς οἰκογενεῖς καλοῦσι）, οἰκοτραφεῖς” （Pollux 3.78）, ἐνδογενεῖς （oft. in inscriptions, as C. I. G. 1.828）, or “οἰκότριβες” Dem. 13.24, Hesych. 2.766.
 μεριμνῶν In classical Greek μεριμνᾶν is usu. “to give one's thought to a question ” （as of philosophy, Xen. Mem. 4.7.6 “τὸν ταῦτα μεριμνῶντα）;” here merely = “to be occupied with ”: cp. Xen. Cyrop. 8.7.12 “τὸ πολλὰ μεριμνᾶν”: and so in the 1 Cor. 7.33 μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου.
 ξύναυλος prop. “dwelling with ” （“μανίᾳ ξύναυλος” Soph. Aj. 611）: here, after πρὸς, merely: “having thy haunts ”: an instance of that redundant government which Soph. often admits: below 1205 ἐν πόνοις ι ξύνοικος: Soph. Aj. 464 “γυμνὸν ... τῶν ἀριστείων ἄτερ”: Soph. Phil. 31 “κενὴν οἴκησιν ἀνθρώπων δίχα”: Soph. Ant. 919 “ἔρημος πρὸς φίλων”: 445 ἔξω βαρείας αἰτίας ἐλεύθερον.
 οἶσθα with μαθών, are you aware of having observed this man here? Cp. 1142 οἶσθα ... δούς; We could not render, “do you know this man, through having observed him?” εἰδέναι, implying intuitive apprehension, is said of knowing facts and propositions: in regard to persons, it is not used in the mere sense of “being acquainted with one” （γνωρίζω）, but only in that of “knowing one's character, ” as Eur. Med. 39 “ἐγᾦδα τήνδε.” So scire, wissen, savoir, Ital. sapere. On the other hand, γιγνώσκω, implying a process of examination, applies to all mediate knowledge, through the senses, of external objects: so noscere, kennen, connaître, Ital. conoscere. Cp. Cope in Fourn. of Philology 1.79.
 The constr. is οἶσθα μαθών ... ἢ ξυναλλάξας; Oed. takes no more notice of the herdsman's nervous interruption than is necessary for the purpose of sternly keeping him to the point. ἦ συνήλλαξας ... ; “have you ever met him? ” mars the force of the passage. The testimony of L to συναλλάξας has the more weight since this is the less obvious reading. Cp. verse 1037, which continues after an interruption the construction of verse 1035.μνήμης ὕπο, at the prompting of memory, —ὑπό having a like force as in compound verbs meaning to “suggest, ” etc.: Plut. Mor. 813e “λογισμοὺς οὓς ὁ Περικλῆς αὑτὸν ὑπεμίμνησκεν,” recalled to his mind: so ὑποβολεύς （ib.）, “a prompter. ” The phrase is more poetical and elegant than μνήμης ἄπο, the conjecture of Reiske. Blaydes, reading ἄπο, compares ἀπὸ τῆς γλώσσης （Soph. OC 936）.
 Soph. has the epic ἦμος in two other places of dialogue, Soph. Trach. 531 （answered by τῆμος） and 155; also once in lyrics Soph. Aj. 935; Eur. once in lyrics （Eur. Hec. 915）; Aesch. and Comedy, never.τὸν Κιθαιρῶνος τόπον The sentence begins as if it were meant to proceed thus: τὸν Κ. τόπον ὁ μὲν διπλοῖς ποιμνίοις ἔνεμεν, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἑνὶ （ἔνεμον）, πλησιάζων αὐτῷ: but, the verb ἔνεμε having been postponed, the participle πλησιάζων is irregularly combined with the notion of ἔνεμον and turned into a finite verb, ἐπλησίαζον: thus leaving τὸν Κ. τόπον without any proper government. （In the above explanation, the act. voice of νέμω has been used, since this was specially said of shepherds: cp. Xen. Cyrop. 3.2.20 “ἐπεὶ ὄρη ἀγαθὰ ἔχετε, ἐθέλοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐᾶν νέμειν ταῦτα τοὺς Ἀρμενίους;” The midd. would also be correct, as = “to range over. ”） For the irregular but very common change of participle into finite verb cp. Soph. El. 190 “οἰκονομῶ ... ὧδε μὲν ἀεικεῖ σὺν στολᾷ ι κεναῖς δ᾽ ἀμφίσταμαι τραπέζαις” （instead of ἀμφισταμένη）: so Soph. Ant. 810 “（ὔμνος ὔμνησεν” instead of ὕμνῳ ὑμνηθεῖσαν）: Soph. Trach. 676 “ἠφάνισται, διάβορον πρὸς οὐδενὸς ι τῶν ἔνδον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδεστὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ φθίνει.” Thuc. 4.100 “προσέβαλον τῷ τειχίσματι, ἄλλῳ τε τρόπῳ πειράσαντες καὶ μηχανὴν προσήγαγον.” Though we can have δῶμα πελάζει （Eur. Andr. 1167）, “is carried towards the house,” the dat.τῷδε τἀνδρὶ after ἐπλησίαζον here is proof in itself that the verb does not govern τόπον: further the sense required is not “approached,” but “occupied.” Brunck, taking τῷδε τἀνδρὶ as = ἐμοί, was for changing ἐπλησίαζον to ἑπλησίαζε: which only adds the new complication of an irregular μέν and δέ. The text is probably sound. Heimsoeth's conjecture, νέμων for ὁ μέν, with ἐπλησίαζε, is attractive, but the parenthetic ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἑνί is then very awkward. Nauck proposes ἐν Κιθαιρῶνος νάπαις ι （this with Blaydes） νομεὺς διπλοῖσι ποιμνίοις ἐπιστατῶν ι ἐπλησίαζε: but this is to re-write, not to correct.
 ἐξ ἦρος εἰς ἀρκτοῦρον from March to September. In March the herd of Polybus drove his flock up to Cithaeron from Corinth, and met the herd of Laius, who had brought up his flock from the plain of Thebes. For six months they used to consort in the upland glens of Cithaeron; then, in September, when Arcturus began to be visible a little before dawn, they parted, taking their flocks for the winter into homesteads near Corinth and Thebes.ἀρκτοῦρον （the star α of the constellation Bootes,） first so called in Hes. WD 566 where （610） his appearance as a morning star is the signal for the vintage. Hippoc. Epidem. 1.2.4, has περὶ ἀρκτοῦρον as = “a little before the autumnal equinox ”: and Thuc. 2.78 uses περὶ ἀρκτούρου ἐπιτολάς to denote the same season. See Appendix. ἑκμήνους. Plato （Plat. Laws 916b） ἐντὸς ἑκμήνου, sc. χρόνου: the statement in Lidd. and Scott's Lexicon （t\h ed.） that it is feminine was due to a misunderstanding of the words πλὴν τῆς ἱερᾶς （sc. νόσου） just afterwards. Aristotle also has this form. Cp. ἕκπλεθρος （Eur.）, ἕκπους, ἕκπλευρος. The form ἑξμέδιμνον in Aristoph. Peace 631 is an Atticism: cp. ἕξπουν Plat. Comicus fr. 36, where Meineke quotes Philemon （a grammarian who wrote on the Attic dialect）: Ἀττικῶς μὲν ἕξπουν καὶ ἕξκλινον λέγεται, ὥσπερ καὶ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἑξπηχυστί: adding Steph. Byz. 345 Ἕξγυιος, πόλις Σικελίας, γραφὴν Ἀττικὴν ἔχουσα. Besides ἔκμηνος, Aristotle uses the form ἑξάμηνος （which occurs in a perhaps interpolated place of Xen. Hell. 2.3.9）; as he has also ἑξάπους. The Attic dialect similarly preferred πεντέπους to πεντάπους, ὀκτώπους to ὀκτάπους, but always said πενταπλοῦς, ἑξαπλοῦς, ὀκταπλοῦς.
 The fact that L has χειμῶνα without notice of a variant, while some other MSS. notice it as a variant on their χειμῶνι, is in favour of the accus., the harder reading. It may be rendered “for the winter,” since it involves the notion of the time during which the flock was to remain in the ἔπαυλα. It is, however, one of those temporal accusatives which are almost adverbial, the idea of duration being merged in that of season, so that they can even be used concurrently with a temporal genitive: Hdt. 3.117 “τὸν μὲν γὰρ χειμῶνα ὕει σφι ὁ θεός ... τοῦ δὲ θέρεος σπείροντες ... χρηΐσκοντο τῷ ὕδατι.” 2.95 τῆς μὲν ἡμέρης ἰχθῦς ἀγρεύει, τὴν δὲ νύκτα τάδε αὐτῷ χρᾶται. 2.2 τὴν ὥρην ἐπαγινέειν σφι αἶγας, “at the due season.” 7.151 τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον χρόνον πέμψαντας ... ἀγγέλους. Cp. above, 1090 τὰν αὔριον πανσέληνον. The tendency to such a use of the accus. may have been an old trait of the popular language （cp. “ἀωρίαν ἥκοντες” Aristoph. Ach. 23, “καιρὸν ἐφήκεις” Soph. Aj. 34）. Modern Greek regularly uses the accus. for the old temporal dat.: e. g. τὴν τρίτην ἡμέραν for τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. Classical prose would here use the genit.: Thuc. 1.30 “χειμῶνος ἤδη ἀνεχώρησαν.” The division of the year implied is into ἔαρ, θέρος （including ὀπώρα）, and χειμών （including φθινόπωρον）.
 πεπραγμένον predicate: = re/rpaktai/ ti tou/twn a(\ le/gw;πρὸς τί cannot be connected as a relative clause with τί δ᾽ ἔστι, since τίς in classical Greek can replace ὅστις only where there is an indirect question; e.g. εἰπὲ τί σοι φίλον. Cp. Soph. El. 316: Soph. Trach. 339. Hellenistic Greek did not always observe this rule: Mark xiv. 36 οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλὰ τί σύ.
 ὦ τᾶν triumphantly, “my good friend. ” It is not meant to be a trait of rustic speech: in Soph. Phil. 1387 Neoptolemus uses it to Philoctetes; in Eur. Her. 321 Iolaus to Demophon, and Eur. Her. 688 the θεράπων to Iolaus; in Eur. Ba. 802 Dionysus to Pentheus.οὐ σιωπήσας ἔσει; = a fut. perfect,—at once, or once for all; Dem. 4.50 “τὰ δέοντα ἐσόμεθα ἐγνωκότες καὶ λόγων ματαίων ἀπηλλαγμένοι.” So Soph. Ant. 1067 “ἀντιδοὺς ἔσει,” Soph. OC 816 “λυπηθεὶς ἔσει.” The situation shows that this is not an “aside. ” The θεράπων, while really terrified, could affect to resent the assertion that his master had been a foundling. κλαίων see on 401.
 Cp. Soph. Aj. 72 “τὸν τὰς αἰχμαλωτίδας χέρας ι δεσμοῖς ἀπευθύνοντα” （preparatory to flogging）: Hom. Od. 22.189 “σὺν δὲ πόδας χεῖράς τε δέον θυμαλγέϊ δεσμῷ ι εὖ μάλ᾽ ἀποστρέψαντε” （of Melanthius the goat-herd）; then κίον ἀν᾽ ὑψηλὴν ἔρυσαν πέλασάν τε δοκοῖσιν: and so left him hanging.
 ἐς τριβὰς ἐλᾷ, will push （the matter） to delays （ Soph. Ant. 577 “μὴ τριβὰς ἔτι）,” —is bent on protracting his delay: ἐλαύνειν as in Hdt. 2.124 “ἐς πᾶσαν κακότητα ἐλάσαι,” they said that he went all lengths in wickedness: Tyrt. 11.10 “ἀμφοτέρων δ᾽ εἰς κόρον ἠλάσατε,” ye had taken your fill of both. For the fut., expressing resolve, cp. Aristoph. Birds 759 “αἶρε πλῆκτρον, εἰ μαχεῖ.”
 The words could mean either: （1） “he was one of the children of Laius ”; or （2） “he was one of the children of the household of Laius, ” τῶν Λαΐου being gen. of οἱ Λαΐου. The ambiguity is brought out by 1168. See on 814.
 I am close on the horror, —close on uttering it: （ὥστε） λέγειν being added to explain the particular sense in which he isπρὸς τῷ δεινῷ, as ἀκούειν defines that in which Oedipus is so. Cp. Soph. El. 542 “τῶν ἐμῶν ... ἵμερον τέκνων ... ἔσχε δαίσασθαι:” Plat. Crito 52b “οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθυμία σε ἄλλης πόλεως οὐδ᾽ ἄλλων νόμων ἔλαβεν εἰδέναι.”
 ὡς = “in her intention ”: see on 848. —πρὸς τί χρείας nearly = πρὸς ποίαν χρείαν, with a view to what kind of need or desire, i.e. with what aim: cp. 1443: Soph. Phil. 174 “ἐπὶ παντί τῳ χρείας ἱσταμένῳ”: Soph. Ant. 1229 “ἐν τῷ （” = τίνι） ξυμφορᾶς, in what manner of plight.
 “I gave up the child through pity,” ὡς ... δοκῶν, “as thinking” etc.: i.e., as one might fitly give it up, who so thought. This virtually elliptic use of ὡς is distinct from that at 848, which would here be represented by ὡς ἀποίσοντι.ἄλλην χθόνα ἀποίσειν （αὐτόν）: cp. Soph. OC 1769 “θήβας δ᾽ ἡμᾶς ι τὰς ὠγυγίους πέμψον.”
 κάκ᾽ a disyllabic subst. or adj. with short penult. is rarely elided unless, as here, it is （a） first in the verse, and also （b） emphatic: so Soph. OC 48, 796: see A. W. Verrall in Fourn. Phil. xii. 140.
 ἂν ἐξήκοι must have come true （cp. 1011）, the opt. as Plat. Gorg. 502d “οὐκοῦν ἡ ῥητορικὴ δημηγορία ἂν εἴη”: Hdt. 1.2 “εἴησαν δ᾽ ἂν οὗτοι Κρῆτες”: Hdt. 8.136 “τάχα δ᾽ ἂν καὶ τὰ χρηστήρια ταῦτά οἱ προλέγοι.”