αἰτεῖς Oedipus had entered in time to hear the closing strains of that prayer for aid against the pestilence which the Chorus had been addressing to the gods. ἃ δ᾽ αἰτεῖς. The place of λάβοις is against taking ἀλκὴν κἀνακούφισιν κακῶν as in apposition with ἂ: rather the construction changes, and ἃ is left as an accus. of general reference. τἄμ᾽ emphatic by place: “you pray （to the gods）: hear me and （with their help） you shall have your wish.”
 κλύων not strictly = πειθαρχῶν, “obediently” （in which sense κλύειν takes gen., “τῶν ἐν τέλει,” Soph. Aj. 1352）, but simply, “on hearing them”: δέχεσθαι, as Soph. Phil. 1321 “κοὔτε σύμβουλον δέχει.” τῇ νόσῳ ὑπηρετεῖν, = θεραπεύειν τὴν νόσον, to do that which the disease requires （for its cure）, like “ὑπηρετοίην τῷ παρόντι δαίμονι” Soph. El. 1306. In Eur. fr. 84, 7 οὐδ᾽ αὖ πένεσθαι κἀξυπηρετεῖν τύχαις ι οἷοί τε, Nauck now gives with Athenaeus 413 C καὶ ξυνηρετμεῖν. Acc. to the commoner use of the word, the phrase would mean to humour the disease, i.e. obey morbid impulses: cp. Lys. 12.23 “τῇ ἑαυτοῦ παρανομίᾳ προθύμως ἐξυπηρετῶν,” eagerly indulging the excess of his own lawlessness.
[219-223] ἁγὼ ξένος μὲν. Oedipus has just learned from Creon that Laius was believed to have been murdered by robbers on his way to Delphi, but that, owing to the troubles caused by the Sphinx, no effective search had been made at the time （114-131）. He has at once resolved to take up the matter—both because Apollo enjoins it, and as a duty to the Theban throne （255）. But the murder occurred before he had come to Thebes. He must therefore appeal for some clue — su/mbolon — to those who were at Thebes when the rumour was fresh.
 τοῦ πραχθέντος the murder. Not, “what was done at the time by way of search”: for (a) τὸ πραχθέν, as opp. to ὁ λόγος, must mean the ἔργον to which the λόγος is related: (b) Oed. has lately expressed his surprise that nothing effective was done （128）, and could not, therefore, refer with such emphasis to τὸ πραχθέν in this sense.
οὐ γὰρ ἂν μακρὰν ...
ἴχνευον In his Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb （1889）, sect. 511, Prof. Goodwin deals with this passage. His view agrees with that given in my second ed., so far as concerns two points, viz.: （1） that the chief protasis is not contained in μὴ οὐκ ἔχων: and （2） that μὴ οὐκ ἔχων is still necessarily conditional. But his analysis of the whole is simpler; it is as follows. The chief protasis is contained in the word αὐτός, “unaided,” which is equivalent to, εἰ μόνος ἴχνευον, if I were attempting to trace it alone. [I had said that αὐτός “implies the protasis”; but had taken the protasis itself to be, εἰ μὴ ἐξεῖπον, supplied from ἐξερῶ: if I had not thus spoken, —appealing to you for help.] Then, μὴ οὐκ ἔχων is equivalent to εἰ μὴ εἶχον. Now, the difficulty here seemed to be that εἰ μὴ εἶχον would imply, “but I have a clue”: whereas, in fact, he has none. [I met this by suggesting that μὴ οὐκ ἔχων expresses the fact （of his having no clue）, not simply as a fact, but as a condition, —“in a case where I had no clue”; being equivalent, not to εἰ μὴ εἶχον, but rather to ὅτε μὴ εἶχον.] Goodwin's answer is that the conditional sentence, written in full, would stand thus, —（1） and （2） denoting respectively the chief protasis, and the subordinate protasis: （1） εἰ μόνος ἴχνευον, οὐκ ἂν μακρὰν ἴχνευον, （2） εἰ μὴ εἶχόν τι σύμβολον. Now （1） is an unreal supposition （he is not tracking alone）; and that makes the whole supposition unreal. εἰ μὴ εἶχον is here a part of that unreal supposition; and therefore it can have that form, although, as a fact, he has no clue. （Suppose it to be said of a man too old for work: “If he were young, he would not be doing well, if he did not work”: εἰ νέος ἦν, οὐκ ἂν εὖ ἐποίει, εἰ μὴ ἐπόνει. The chief protasis, εἰ νέος ἦν, being unreal, makes all the rest unreal. The fact is, οὐ πονεῖ: and εἰ μὴ ἐπόνει does not imply, πονεῖ. Compressed, this would be, οὐκ ἂν εὖ ἐποίει νέος ὤν, μὴ οὐ πονῶν.） αὐτός, unaided: cp. Hom. Il. 13.729 “ἀλλ᾽ οὔπως ἅμα πάντα δυνήσεαι αὐτὸς ἑλέσθαι.”
 νῦν δ᾽ “but as it is”: i.e., “since it would be vain to attempt the search alone— since I came to Thebes only after the event.” ὕστερος, sc. τοῦ πραχθέντος: for the adj. instead of an adv., cp. Soph. Aj. 217 “νύκτερος ... ἀπελωβήθη”: Hom. Il. 1.424 “χθιζὸς ἔβη”: Xen. Anab. 1.4.12 “τοῖς προτέροις （”= πρότερον） μετὰ Κύρου ἀναβᾶσι. εἰς ἀστοὺς τελῶ, inter cives censeor: a metaphor from being rated （for taxation） in a certain class: Hdt. 6.108 “εἰς Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν”: Eur. Ba. 822 “ἐς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρὸς τελῶ.” ἀστὸς εἰς ἀστοὺς, like Soph. Aj. 267 “κοινὸς ἐν κοινοῖσι”: Eur. Ba. 467 “ξυμπεσὼν μόνος μόνοις”: Soph. Phil. 135 “ἐν ξένᾳ ξένον”: Eur. Ba. 633 “ἴσος ὢν ἴσοις ἀνήρ.”
 κεἰ μὲν φοβεῖται τοὐπίκλημ᾽ ὑπεξελεῖν κ.τ.λ. is the reading of all the MSS.: for the ὑπεξελθὼν of the first hand in one Milan MS. of the early 1t/h cent. （Ambros. L 39 sup., Campbell's M(2)） is a mere slip. I read ὑπεξελεῖν ι αὐτὸν καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ, the change of αὐτὸν and αὐτὸς having necessarily followed that of ὑπεξελεῖν into ὑπεξελὼν due to an interpretation which took the latter with φοβεῖται. Cp. Thuc. 4.83 （Arrhibaeus, the enemy of Perdiccas, makes overtures to Brasidas, and the Chalcidians exhort Brasidas to listen）: ἐδίδασκον αὐτὸν μὴ ὑπεξελεῖν τῷ Περδίκκᾳ τὰ δεινά, “they impressed upon him that he must not remove the dangers from the path of Perdiccas”— by repulsing the rival power of Arrhibaeus. ὑπεξελεῖν τὰ δεινά= to take them away (ἐκ) from under （ὑπό） the feet, —from the path immediately before him: τῷ Περδίκκᾳ being a dat. commodi. Similarly Hdt. 7.8 “τούτων ... ὑπεξαραιρημένων,” “when these have been taken out of the way.” So here: κεἰ μὲν φοβεῖται, and if he is afraid （as knowing himself to be the culprit）, then I bid him （κελεύω continued from 226） ὑπεξελεῖν τὸ ἐπίκλημα to take the peril of the charge out of his path, αὐτὸν καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ （σημαίνοντα） by speaking against himself. If the culprit is denounced by another person, he will be liable to the extreme penalty. If he denounces himself, he will merely be banished. By denouncing himself, he forestalls the danger of being denounced by another. For other explanations, see Appendix.
 ἀβλαβής the reading of A and most MSS., “without damage,” ἀζήμιος, is far more suitable than ἀσφαλής to this context: and Soph. has the word as a cretic in Soph. El. 650 “ζῶσαν ἀβλαβεῖ βίῳ.” Although in L ἀσφαλής appears as the older reading, so common a word was very likely to be intruded; while it would be difficult to explain how the comparatively rare ἀβλαβής could have supplanted it. A metrical doubt may have first brought ἀσφαλής in. Dindorf, reading ἀσφαλής, recognises the superior fitness of ἀβλαβής here, and thinks that it may be the true reading, even though its appearance in the margin of L was due to conjecture.
 ἄλλον ... ἐξ ἄλλης χθονὸς “another [i.e. other than one of yourselves, the Thebans] from a strange land”: an alien, whether resident at Thebes, or not: cp. 451 οὗτός ἐστιν ἐνθάδε, ι ξένος λόγῳ μέτοικος. The cases contemplated in the proclamation （223-235） are （1） a Theban denouncing another Theban, （2） a Theban denouncing himself, （3） a Theban denouncing an alien.
 προσκείσεται will be stored up besides (cp. Eur. Alc. 1039 “ἄλγος ἄλγει ... προσκείμενον,” added). χάρις κεῖται is perf. pass. of χάριν τίθεμαι or κατατίθεμαι （τινί or παρὰ τινί）, —a metaphor from deposits of money: τὰ χρήματα ... κείσθω παρ᾽ οἷς τισιν ἃν ὑμῖν δοκῇ Plat. Letter 346c.φίλου
δείσας as = δείσας ὑπὲρ φίλου （like κήδομαι, φροντίζειν） would be too harsh, and rhythm is against it. τοὔπος ... τόδε, this command to give up the guilty.
ἀπαυδῶ（ἀπ-, because the first clauses are negative）, I command,（μή） τινα γῆς τῆσδε that no one belonging to this land, μήτ᾽ ἐσδέχεσθαι μήτε προσφωνεῖν shall either entertain or accost, τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον, ὅστις ἐστί. For the gen. γῆς, cp. Plat. Prot. 316b “Ἱπποκράτης ὅδε ἐστὶ μὲν τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, Ἀπολλοδώρου υἱός, οἰκίας μεγάλης καὶ εὐδαίμονος.” Since μήτε ... μήτε in 238 connect ἐσδέχεσθαι and προσφωνεῖν, we require either (a) separate verbs for εὐχαῖσι and θύμασιν, or (b) as Elms. proposed, μηδὲ instead of μήτε before θύμασιν. Cp. Soph. OC 1297, where in a similar, though simpler, sentence I receive Hermann's οὐδ᾽ for οὔτ᾽. Here, however, I hesitate to alter, because the very fact that μήτε has already been thrice used might so easily have prompted its use （instead of μηδέ） before θύμασιν. As the MS. text stands, we must suppose a μήτε suppressed before εὐχαῖσι, the constr. being μήτε κοινὸν ποιεῖσθαι[μήτε] ἐν ... εὐχαῖσι μήτε θύμασιν. Cp. Aesch. Ag. 532 “Πάρις γὰρ οὔτε συντελὴς πόλις”: Aesch. Lib. 294 “δέχεσθαι δ᾽ οὔτε συλλύειν τινά.”
 κοινὸν here = κοινωνόν, cp. Soph. Aj. 267 “ἦ κοινὸς ἐν κοινοῖσι λυπεῖσθαι ξυνών.” Plat. Laws 868e （the slayer） ξυνέστιος αὐτοῖς μηδέποτε γιγνέσθω μηδὲ κοινωνὸς ἱερῶν. χέρνιβος （partitive gen.） is more suitable than χέρνιβας to the idea of exclusion from all fellowship in ordinary worship: χέρνιβας νέμειν would rather suggest a special κάθαρσις of the homicide. When sacrifice was offered by the members of a household（κοινωνὸν εἷναι χερνίβων ... κτησίου βωμοῦ πέλας Aesch. Ag. 1037） or of a clan（“χέρνιψ φρατέρων” Aesch. Eum. 656）, a brand taken from the altar was dipped in water, and with the water thus consecrated（χέρνιψ） the company and the altar were sprinkled: then holy silence was enjoined（εὐφημία ἔστω）: and the rite began by the strewing of barley meal（οὐλοχύται） on altar and victim. （Athen. 409: Eur. Her. 922 ff.） Acc. to Dem. 20.158 a law of Draco prescribed χέρνιβος [so the best MSS.: v. l. χερνίβων] εἴργεσθαι τὸν ἀνδροφόνον, σπονδῶν, κρατήρων, ἱερῶν, ἀγορᾶς. This was a sentence of excommunication （1） from the life of the family and the clan, （2） from the worship common to all Hellenes, who, as opposed to βάρβαροι, are （Aristoph. Lys. 1129） οἳ μιᾶς ἐκ χέρνιβος ι βωμοὺς περιρραίνοντες, ὥσπερ ξυγγενεῖς, ι Ὀλυμπίασιν, ἐν Πύλαις, Πυθοῖ. The mere presence of the guilty could render sacrifice inauspicious: Antiph. 5.82 “ἱεροῖς παραστάντες πολλοὶ δὴ καταφανεῖς ἐγένοντο οὐχ ὅσιοι ὄντες καὶ διακωλύοντες τὰ ἱερὰ μὴ γίγνεσθαι” （bene succedere） τὰ νομιζόμενα.
[246-251] These six verses are placed by some editors between 272 and 273. See Appendix.
 κατεύχομαι Suidas κατεύχεσθαι: τὸ καταρᾶσθαι. οὕτω Πλάτων. καὶ Σοφοκλῆς, κατεύχομαι δὲ τὸν δεδρακότα τάδε. Phot. Lex. p. 148. 7 κατεύχεσθαι τῶν Ἀχαιῶν: ἀντὶ τοῦ κατὰ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεσθαι. οὕτως Σοφοκλῆς. Here the ref. is to Plato Plat. Rep. 393e “τὸν δὲ” （the Homeric Chryses, priest of Apollo） ... κατεύχεσθαι τῶν Ἀχαιῶν πρὸς θεόν. But Photius prefixes the words, κατεύχεσθαι: τὸ καταρᾶσθαι. οὕτως Πλάτων. It is clear, then, that in Photius οὕτως Σοφοκλῆς and οὕτως Πλάτων have changed places. The “Soph. fr. 894,” quoted by Lidd. and Scott under κατεύχομαι as= imprecari, thus vanishes (Nauck Fragm. Trag. (2) p. 357). Cp. Aesch. Seven 632 “πόλει ι οἵας ἀρᾶται καὶ κατεύχεται τύχας.” But where, as here κατεύχομαι is used without gen. （or dat.）, it is rather to pray solemnly: often, however, in a context which implies imprecation: e.g. Plat. Laws 935a “κατεύχεσθαι ἀλλήλοις ἐπαρωμένους”: Plat. Rep. 394a “κατεύχετο τῖσαι τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς τὰ ἂ δάκρυα.” εἴτε τις: whether the unknown man （τις） who has escaped discovery is εἷς, alone in the crime, or one of several. τις, because the person is indefinite: cp. 107.
 νιν ἄμορον Porson （praef. Hec. p. ix.） defends the redundant νιν by Soph. Trach. 287 “αὐτὸν δ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, εὖτ᾽ ἂν ἁγνὰ θύματα ι ῥέξῃ πατρῴῳ Ζηνὶ τῆς ἁλώσεως, ι φρόνει νιν ὡς ἥξοντα.” The form ἄμορος occurs in Eur. Med. 1395 （where ἄμοιρος is a v. l.）; ἄμμορος in Eur. Hec. 421, Soph. Phil. 182. κακὸν κακῶς: Soph. Phil. 1369 “ἔα κακῶς αὐτοὺς ἀπόλλυσθαι κακούς.” Aristoph. Pl. 65 “ἀπό σ᾽ ὀλῶ κακὸν κακῶς.”
 ἐπεύχομαι imprecate on myself: Plat. Criti. 120b “ταῦτα ἐπευξάμενος ἕκαστος αὐτῶν αὑτῷ καὶ τῷ ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ γένει.” οἴκοισιν ... ξυνέστιος: not tautological, since ξυνέστιος is more than ἔνοικος, implying admission to the family worship at the ἑστία and to the σπονδαί at meals. Plat. Laws 868e “ἱερῶν μὴ κοινωνείτω μηδὲ ... ξυνέστιος αὐτοῖς μηδέποτε γιγνέσθω μηδὲ κοινωνὸς ἱερῶν.” Plat. Euthyph. 4b “καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν δίκῃ [ἔκτεινεν], ἐᾶν,” if he slew the man justly, forbear; εἰ δὲ μή, ἐπεξιέναι （prosecute the slayer）, ἐάνπερ ὁ κτείνας συνέστιός σοι καὶ ὁμοτράπεζος ᾖ. ἴσον γὰρ τὸ μίασμα γίγνεται, ἐὰν ξυνῇς τῷ τοιούτῳ ξυνειδὼς καὶ μὴ ἀφοσιοῖς σεαυτόν τε καὶ ἐκεῖνον τῇ δίκῃ ἐπεξιών.
 τοῖσδ᾽ the slayer or slayers （247）: see on 246.
 εἰκὸς ἦν The imperfect indic. of a verb denoting obligation（ἔδει, χρῆν, προσῆκεν, εἰκὸς ἦν）, when joined without ἄν to an infinitive, often implies a conditional sentence with imperfect indic. in protasis and apodosis: e.g. οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν ἐᾶν = οὐκ ἂν εἰᾶτε （εἰ τὰ δέοντα ἐποιεῖτε）, you would not （now） be neglecting it （if you did your duty）: Xen. Mem. 2.7.10 “εἰ μὲν τοίνυν αἰσχρόν τι ἔμελλον ἐργάσεσθαι” [if I were now intending—as I am not], θάνατον ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ προαιρετέον ἦν, = προῃρούμην ἂν （εἰ τὰ δέοντα ἐποίουν）. Thuc. 6.78 “καὶ μάλιστα εἰκὸς ἦν ὑμᾶς ... προορᾶσθαι,” = προεωρᾶτε ἂν εἰ τὰ εἰκότα ἐποιεῖτε. So ἐβουλόμην, ἠξίουν, without ἄν, of that which one wishes were true, but which is not so.οὕτως in this （careless） manner: cp. Soph. OC 1278 “ὡς μή μ᾽ ἄτιμον ... ι οὕτως ἀφῇ με”: Soph. Ant. 315, Soph. Phil. 1067.
 βασιλέως τ᾽ τε is to be retained after βασιλέως, because （1） there is a climax, which is destroyed if βασιλέως stands merely in apposition with ἀνδρὸς ἀρίστου: （2） ἀνδρὸς ἀρίστου represents the claim of birth and personal merit, as βασιλέως represents the special claim of a king on his people. Cp. Soph. Phil. 1302 “ἄνδρα πολέμιον ι ἐχθρόν τε.”
 κοινῶν παίδων κοινὰ ἦν ἂν ἐκπεφυκότα common things of （ = ties consisting in） kindred children would have been generated: = κοινῶν παίδων κοινὴ φύσις ἐγένετο ἄν, a brood, common to Laius and Oedipus, of children akin to each other （as having the same mother, Iocasta） would have issued: “children born of one mother would have made ties between him and me.” For ἄν doubled cp. 139, 339. κοινῶν = ἀδελφῶν, ὁμαίμων（ Soph. Ant. 1 “ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ἰσμήνης κάρα”）. The language of this passage is carefully framed so as to bear a second meaning, of which the speaker is unconscious, but which the spectators can feel: Iocasta has actually borne children to her own son Oedipus: thus in κοινῶν παίδων κοινὰ ... ἐκπεφυκότα, the obvious sense of κοινά, “common to Laius and Oedipus,” has behind it a second sense, in which it hints at a brood who are brothers and sisters of their own sire: see below 1403 f. This subtle emphasis—so ghastly, ξυνετοῖσιν— of the iteration in κοινῶν κοινά must not be obliterated by amending κοίν᾽ ἄν into κύματ᾽ （Nauck） or σπέρματ᾽ （Blaydes）. Similarly, εἰ κείνῳ γένος ι μὴ δυστύχησεν, is susceptible of the sense—“if his son （Oed. himself） had not been ill-fated.” κείνῳ γένος ἐδυστύχησε （his hope of issue was disappointed） is here a bold phrase for κεῖνος ἐδυστύχησε τὰ περὶ γένος: for Oed. is not now supposed to know the story of the exposed babe （see 717 f.）. Cp. Eur. Andr. 418 “πᾶσι δ᾽ ἀνθρώποις ἄρ᾽ ἦν ι ψυχὴ τέκν᾽: ὅστις δ᾽ αὔτ᾽ ἄπειρος ὢν ψέγει, ι ἦσσον μὲν ἀλγεῖ, δυστυχῶν δ᾽ εὐδαιμονεῖ”: Eur. Andr. 711 “ἣ στεῖρος οὖσα μόσχος οὐκ ἀνέξεται ι τίκτοντας ἄλλους, οὐκ ἔχουσ᾽ αὐτὴ τέκνα: ι ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τὸ κείνης δυστυχεῖ παίδων πέρι, κ.τ.λ.”: Eur. Supp. 66 “εὐτεκνία” opp. to δυστυχία.
 νῦν δ᾽ “but as it is,” with aor. equivalent to a perf., as Soph. OC 84, 371. Cp. below 948 καὶ νῦν ὅδε ι πρὸς τῆς τύχης ὄλωλε. So with historic pres., Lys. 12.36 “εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ ἐκρίνοντο, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐσώζοντο: ... νῦν δ᾽ εἰς τὴν βουλὴν εἰσάγουσιν.”ἐνήλατο i.e. he was cut off by a timeless fate, leaving no issue, cp. 1300: Soph. Ant. 1345 “ἐπὶ κρατί μοι ι πότμος ... εἰσήλατο”: so the Erinyes say, “μάλα γὰρ οὖν ἁλομένα ι ἀνέκαθεν βαπυρεσῆ ι καταφέπω ροδὸς ἀκμάν” Aesch. Eum. 369, Aesch. Ag. 1175 “δαίμων ὑπερβαρὴς ἐμπίτνων”: Aesch. Pers. 515 “ὦ δυσπόνητε δαῖμον, ὡς ἄγαν βαρὺς ι ποδοῖν ἐνήλλου παντὶ Περσικῷ γένει.” The classical constr. with ἐνάλλομαι, as with ἐνθρώσκω and ἐμπηδάω, is usually the dat., though εἰς with accus. occurs in later Greek; a point urged by Deventer in his objections to this verse, which is, however, clearly sound.
 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν properly wherefore （Soph. OC 1295）: here, therefore. The protasis ἐπεὶ κυρῶ （258） required an apodosis introduced by ἀντὶ τούτων: but the parenthesis νῦν δ᾽ ἐς τὸ κείνου κ.τ.λ. （263） has led to ὦν being irregularly substituted for τοὐτων. Cp. 1466: Antiphon 5.11 “δέον σε διομόσασθαι κ.τ.λ. ... ἃ σὺ παρελθών,” where the length of the protasis has similarly caused ἅ to be substituted for ταῦτα. Distinguish from this the use of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, by ordinary attraction, for ἀντὶ τούτων ἅ or ὅτι,= because, Soph. Ant. 1068.τάδ᾽ cogn. acc. to ὑπερμαχοῦμαι as Soph. Aj. 1346 “σὺ ταῦτ᾽ Ὀδυσσεῦ τοῦδ᾽ ὑπερμαχεῖς ἐμοί;” Cp. Hom. Il. 5.185 “οὐχ ὅ γ᾽ ἄνευθε θεοῦ τάδε μαίνεται.” Brunck, Nauck and Blaydes adopt Mudge's conj. τοῦδ᾽. But the MSS. agree in the harder and more elegant reading.
 ὑπερμαχοῦμαι only here: in Soph. Ant. 194, Soph. Aj. 1346 Soph. uses ὑπερμαχεῖν. But we need not therefore, with Elms. and Blaydes, read ὑπὲρ μαχοῦμαι. The derivative form ὑπερμαχέω, to be a champion, implies ὑπέρμαχος, as συμμαχέω is from σύμμαχος, προμαχέω from πρόμαχος: ὑπερμάχομαι is a simple compound, like συμμάχομαι （Plat., Xen.）, προμάχομαι （Iliad, Dio. Sic., Plut.）.κἀπὶ πάντ᾽ ἀφίξομαι with ζητῶν, will leave nothing untried in seeking: a poetical variation of ἐπὶ πᾶν ἐλθεῖν （ Xen. Anab. 3.1.18 “ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔλθοι ... ὡς φόβον παράσχοι”）, as in Eur. Hipp. 284 “εἰς πάντ᾽ ἀφῖγμαι,” “I have tried all means.” In prose ἀφικνεῖσθαι εἴς τι usu. = to be brought to a situation, as Hdt. 8.110 “ἐς πᾶσαν βάσανον ἀπικνεομένοισι,” though put to any torment; Plat. Euthyd. 292e “εἰς πολλήν γε ἀπορίαν ἀφίκεσθε.”
 τῷ Λαβδακείῳ παιδὶ a dat. following ζητῶν κ.τ.λ. as = τιμωρούμενος. For Λαβδακείῳ—Πολυδώρου τε cp. Eur. Med. 404 “τοῖς Σισυφείοις τοῖς τ᾽ Ἰάσονος γάμοις”: for the adj., Hom. Od. 3.190 “Φιλοκτήτην Ποιάντιον [”= Ποίαντος] ἀγλαὸν υἱόν: Hdt. 7.105 “τοῖς Μασκαμείοισι ἐκγόνοισι”: Soph. Phil. 1131: Soph. Trach. 1219. Herodotus （Hdt. 5.59） saw in the temple of the Ismenian Apollo at Thebes an inscription which he assigns to the age of Laius: ταῦτα ἡλικίην ἂν εἴη κατὰ Λάϊον τὸν Λαβδάκου τοῦ Πολυδώρου τοῦ Κάδμου. Cadmus, in the myth, is the son of Agenor king of Phoenicia, whence Carthage is “Agenor's city” （Verg. Aen. 1.338）: Polydorus, son of Cadmus and Harmonia, was king of Thebes.
[269-280] construe: καὶ εὔχομαι τοῖς ταῦτα μὴ δρῶσιν [for them, Soph. Phil. 1019 “καί σοι πολλάκις τόδ᾽ ηὐξαμην”] θεοὺς ἀνιέναι αὐτοῖς μήτ᾽ ἄροτόν τινα γῆς, μήτ᾽ οὖν γυναικῶν παῖδας. The acc. θεοὺς as subject to ἀνιέναι is better than a dat. θεοῖς with εὔχομαι would be: Xen. Anab. 6.1.26 “εὔχομαι δοῦναί μοι τοὺς θεοὺς αἴτιόν τινος ὑμῖν ἀγαθοῦ γενέσθαι”: Aristoph. Thes. 350 “ταῖς δ᾽ ἄλλαισιν ὑμῖν τοὺς θεοὺς ι εὔχεσθε πάσαις πολλὰ δοῦναι κἀγαθά.”
 μήτ᾽ οὖν “no, nor.” Aesch. Ag. 474 “μήτ᾽ εἴην πτολιπόρθης, ι μήτ᾽ οὖν αὐτὸς ἁλούς, κ.τ.λ.” Soph. Phil. 345 “εἴτ᾽ ἀληθὲς εἴτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οὖν μάτην”: cp. above v. 90. But οὖν with the first clause, below, 1049: Soph. El. 199, 560: see on 25.
 φθερεῖσθαι a fut. found also in Eur. Andr. 708（φθερεῖ 2 sing.）: Thuc. 7.48 “φθερεῖσθαι”: Ionic φθαρέομαι: Hdt. 9.42, 8. 108（φθαρήσομαι in Hippocr., Arist., Plut.）. The schol. says, φθαρῆναι δεῖ γράφειν, οὐ φθερεῖσθαι, distinguishing εὔχομαι with fut. infin., “I vow” （to do）, from εὔχομαι with pres. or aor. infin., “I pray.” But verbs of wishing or praying sometimes take a fut. infin. instead of pres. or aor.: Thuc. 6.57 “ἐβούλοντο ... προτιμωρήσεσθαι”: 6. 6 ἐφιέμενοι μὲν ... τῆς πάσης ἄρξειν: 1. 27 ἐδεήθησαν ... ξυμπροπέμψειν: 7. 56 διενοοῦντο κλῄσειν. See Goodwin, Moods and Tenses sect. 113 （new ed.）.ἔστ᾽ ἀρέσκοντ᾽ cp. 126. ἥ τε σύμμαχος Δίκη, Justice who ever helps the righteous cause; Blaydes needlessly writes ἡ Δίκη τε σύμμαχος. Soph. OC 1012 “ἐλθεῖν ἀρωγοὺς συμμάχους τε （τὰς θεάς）.” ὥσπερ μ᾽ ἀραῖον κ.τ.λ. As you have brought me into your power under a curse [if I speak not the truth], so （ὧδε, i.e. ἔνορκος） I will speak. Aeschin. 3.90 “μίαν ἐλπίδα λοιπὴν κατεῖδε σωτηρίας, ἔνορκον λαβεῖν τὸν Ἀθηναίων δῆμον ... βοηθήσειν,” to bind them by an oath that they would help. λαβεῖν here has nearly the same force as in λαβεῖν αἰχμάλωτον etc.: Lys. 4.5 “ὑποχείριον λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα,” having got his person into my power. ἀραῖον = τῇ ἀρᾷ ἔνοχον, cp. ὅρκιος ... λέγω Soph. Ant. 305. The paraphrase of Eustath. 1809. 14 ὥσπερ με εἶλες διὰ τῆς ἀρᾶς is substantially right. The use of καταλαβεῖν is not really similar （ Hdt. 9.106 “πίστι τε καταλαβόντες καὶ ὁρκίοισι,” Thuc. 4.85 “ὅρκοις ... καταλαβὼν τὰ τέλη”）, since the κατά in comp. gives the sense of overtaking, and so of binding. Nor can we compare Soph. OC 284 “ὥσπερ ἔλαβες τὸν ἱκέτην ἐχέγγυον,” where the sense is, “As thou hast received the （self-surrendered） suppliant under thy pledge.”
 δεῖξαι “point to.” Note the emphatic place of the word: the speaker knows not that he is face to face with the slayer. τὸ ζήτημα, acc. of general reference. The simpler form would have been, ἦν τοῦ πέμψαντος τὸ ζήτημα καὶ λῦσαι: but, instead of a verb which could govern ζήτημα, τόδ᾽ εἰπεῖν is substituted, because it conveniently introduces the clause ὅστις εἴργασται, explaining what the ζήτημα itself was. τὸ ζήτημα is then left much as ἃ αἰτεῖς is left in 216 when the insertion of ἀλκὴν κ.τ.λ. has modified the construction.
 ἃν μὴ θέλωσιν κ.τ.λ. Cp. Soph. Phil. 1368 “κἄμ᾽ ἀναγκάζεις τόδε.” ἃν as 580, 749: Soph. OC 13, Soph. Ant. 1057, Soph. Phil. 1276, Soph. Aj. 1085. οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς: Soph. Ant. 884 “οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς παύσαιτ᾽ ἄν”: Soph. OC 1656 “οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς ι θνητῶν φράσειε.” In this emphatic form even a prep. could be inserted （ Xen. Hell. 5.4.1 “οὐδ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑνός,” Xen. Cyrop. 4.1.14 “μηδὲ πρὸς μίαν”）, and in prose οὐδὲ εἷς stood without elision: in Aristoph. Frogs 927 etc., where the MSS. have οὐδὲ ἕν （Dind. writes οὐδεὲν）, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἕν is a possible v. l.
 ἐκ τῶνδε = μετὰ τάδε: Dem. 18.313 “λόγον ἐκ λόγου λέγων.” —For δεύτερα, second-best, cp. the proverb δεύτερος πλοῦς: Plat. Laws 943c “τὴν τῶν ἀριστείων κρίσιν ... καὶ τὴν τῶν δευτέρων καὶ τρίτων.”ἂν λέγοιμι see on 95.
 τὸ μὴ οὐ not τὸ μή, because the sentence is negative: below, 1232: Soph. Ant. 544 “μή μ᾽ ἀτιμάσῃς τὸ μὴ οὐ ι θανεῖν.” But even in such a negative sentence the simple τὸ μή occurs: below, 1388: Soph. Ant. 443.ταὐτὰ ὁρῶντα not = ταὐτὰ φρονοῦντα or γιγνώσκοντα, “taking the same views,” but seeing in the same manner, i.e. with equal clearness: ὁρῶντα absol., as Soph. OC 74 “ὅσ᾽ ἂν λέγοιμι, πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶντα λέξομαι”: ταὐτὰ adverbial = κατὰ ταὐτά: the dat. ἄνακτ᾽ as Soph. OC 1358 “ἐν πόνῳ ι ταὐτῷ βεβηκὼς ... ἐμοί.” Hdt. 4.119 “τωὐτὸ ἂν ὑμῖν ἐπρήσσομεν.”
 οὐκ ἐν ἀργοῖς τοῦτο κατέλιπον would have meant, “I did not leave this among things neglected.” Soph. fuses the negative form with the positive, and instead of κατέλιπον writes ἐπραξάμην: “I saw to this （midd.） in such a manner that it also should not be among things neglected.” πράσσεσθαι （midd.） elsewhere usu. = “to exact” （Thuc. 4.65 etc.）: here = διαπράσσεσθαι, effect for oneself. Cp. Soph. Aj. 45 “ἐξεπράξατο” （effected his purpose）. G. Wolff, sharing Kviecpala's objections to the phrase ἐν ἀργοῖς πράσσεσθαι, places a point after τοῦτ᾽ （“but neither is this among things neglected: —I did it”）. The extreme harshness of the asyndeton condemns this; and the suggested ἔπραξα μήν is no remedy. For ἐν cp. οὐκ ἐν ἐλαφρῷ ἐποιεύμην （Hdt. 1.118）, ἐν εὐχερεῖ ι ἔθου （ταῦτα） Soph. Phil. 875, “ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἐν αἰσχρῷ θέμενος” Eur. Hec. 806. ἀργοῖς, not things undone, but things at which the work is sluggish or tardy; Soph. OC 1605 “κοὐκ ἦν ἔτ᾽ οὐδὲν ἀργὸν ὧν ἐφίετο”: Eur. Phoen. 776 “ἓν δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡμῖν ἀργόν, εἴ τι θέσφατον ι οἰωνόμαντις Τειρεσίας ἔχει φράσαι,” i.e. “in one thing our zeal has lagged, —the quest whether” etc.: Theognis however （583 Bergk 3rd ed.） has τὰ μὲν προβέβηκεν ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι ι ἀργά, = ἀποίητα, infecta.
 διπλοῦς ι πομπούς he had sent two successive messages—one messenger with each. πομπός = one who is sent to escort（πέμπειν） or fetch a person （Soph. OC 70）. The words could mean （as Ellendt takes them） “two sets of messengers”: but the other view is simpler, and consists equally well with οἵδε in 297.
 μὴ παρὼν θαυμάζεται = θαυμάζω εἰ μὴ πάρεστι; but with οὐ, = θαυμάζω ὅτι οὐ πάρεστι: differing nearly as “I wonder why”and “I wonder that.”Xen. Anab. 4.4.15 （he spoke of） τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς οὐκ ὄντα: i.e. εἴ τι μὴ ἦν, ἔλεγεν ὅτι οὐκ ἦν.
 τά γ᾽ ἄλλα ... ἔπη the rumours which were current —apart from the knowledge which the seer may have to give us. Not “the other rumours.” Cp. Plat. Phaedo 110e “καὶ λίθοις καὶ γῇ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις τε καὶ φυτοῖς.” κωφὰ: the rumour has died down; it no longer gives a clear sound. Cp. fr. 604 λήθην τε τὴν ἅπαντ᾽ ἀπεστερημένην, ι κωφήν, ἄναυδον. Soph. Aj. 911 “ὁ πάντα κωφός, ὁ πάντ᾽ ἄϊδρις,” reft of all sense and wit.
 ὁδοιπόρων the survivor had spoken of λῃσταί, 122. The word now used comes nearer to the truth （cp. 801 ὁδοιπορῶν）; but, as the next v. shows, Oed. does not regard this rumour as a different one from that which Creon had mentioned.
 τὸν δ᾽ ἰδόντ᾽ the surviving eyewitness: cp. 119 ὦν εἶδε, πλὴν ἕν κ.τ.λ. Oed. has not yet learned that this witness could be produced: cp. vv. 754 ff. ἰδόντα is better than the conj. δρῶντα （1） as expressing, not merely that the culprit is unknown, but that no eyewitness of the deed is now at hand: （2） because, with ὁρᾷ, it has a certain ironical point, —expressing the king's incredulity as to anything being made of this clue. Cp. 105, 108.
 The subject to ἔχει is the murderer, who is foremost in the thoughts of the Chorus, —not the eye-witness（ὁ ἰδών, 293）. The reversion from plural（ὁδοιπόρων, 292） to singular is unconscious, just as in 124 we have ὁ λῃστής, after λῃστάς in 122.δείματός γ᾽ δεῖμα, prop. “an object of fear,” is used by Herodotus and the poets as = δέος: Hdt. 6.74 “Κλεομένεα ... δεῖμα ἔλαβε Σπαρτιητέων”: Aesch. Supp. 566 “χλωρῷ δείματι θυμὸν ι πάλλοντ᾽”: Eur. Supp. 599 “ὥς μοι ὑφ᾽ ἥπατι δεῖμα χλοερὸν ταράσσει”: id. Soph. El. 767 “ἐκ δείματος,” from fear. Cp. above, 153. The γε gives emphasis: the ἀραί of Oed. were enough to scare the boldest. Hartung conjectures δειμάτων ἔχει μέρος. The plur. δείματα means either (a) objects of fear, or (b) much more rarely, fears, with reference to some particular objects already specified: as in Soph. El. 636 “δειμάτων ἃ νῦν ἔχω,” “the terrors which I now suffer,” alluding to the dreams. Here we seem to need the sing., “fear.” οὑξελέγξων The present οὑξελέγχων would mean, “there is one who convicts him”: i.e. the supposed criminal, whom threats scare not, is already detected; for the prophet has come. Cp. Isoc. 8.139 “ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἀπορήσομεν μεθ᾽ ὧν κωλύσομεν τοὺς ἐξαμαρτάνοντας, ἀλλὰ πολλοὺς ἕξομεν τοὺς ἑτοίμως καὶ προθύμως συναγωνιζομένους ἡμῖν”: where, however, the present part. συναγωνιζομένους is relative to the future ἕξομεν. To this it may be objected: （1） the present participle with ἔστιν would not be suitable unless the conviction were in act of taking place: （2） the fut. partic. not only suits the context better—“one to convict him” [supposing he is here]—but also agrees with the regular idiom: e.g. Soph. Phil. 1242 “τίς ἕσται μ᾽ οὑπικωλύσων τάδε;” Soph. El. 1197 “οὐδ᾽ οὑπαρήξων οὐδ᾽ ὁ κωλύσων πάρα;” （cp. Soph. Ant. 261:） Aesch. PB 27 “ὁ λωφήσων γὰρ οὐ πέφυκέ πω”: Xen. Anab. 2.4.5 “ὁ ἡγησόμενος οὐδεὶς ἔσται.” ἀνθρώπων μόνῳ above all other men: cp. Soph. OC 261 “μόνας ... ι σώζειν οἵας τε κ.τ.λ.,” Athens, above all other cities, can save: Isoc. 14.57 “ὀφείλετε δὲ μόνοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων τοῦτον τὸν ἔρανον,” unice （though others owe it also）.
 ὦ πάντα νωμῶν νωμάω （νεμ） means （1） to distribute, （2） to dispose, and so to wield, ply, （3） figuratively, to ponder, animo versare: “ἐνὶ φρεσὶ κέρδε᾽ ἐνώμας” Hom. Od. 18.216: “ἐν ὠσὶ νωμῶν καὶ φρεσὶν πυρὸς δίχα ι χρηστηρίους ὄρνιθας ἀψευδεῖ τέχνῃ” Aesch. Seven 25 （of Teiresias）: （4） then, absolutely, to observe: Hdt. 4.128 “νωμῶντες ... σῖτα ἀναιρεομένους,” observing the moment when they were cutting forage. Similarly here, —with the idea of mental grasp unaided by eyesight. Plato （Plat. Crat. 411d） fancifully connects γνώμη with νώμησις, —τὸ γὰρ νωμᾶν καὶ τὸ σκοπεῖν ταὐτόν.διδακτά τε—ἄρρητά τε cp. the colloquial ῥητὸν ἄρρητόν τ᾽ ἔπος（Soph. OC 1001 dicenda tacenda）: ἄρρητα = ἀπόρρητα: Hdt. 6.135 “ἄρρητα ἱρὰ ἐκφήνασαν.”
 οὐράνιά τε καὶ χθονοστιβῆ not in apposition with ἄρρητα and διδακτά respectively, but both referring to each, lore that may or that may not be told, whether of the sky or of the earth. Dindorf cp. Nicephorus Gregoras Hist. Byz. 695d ἄκτιστα γενέσθαι πάντα τά τ᾽ οὐράνια τά τε χθονοστιβῆ καὶ ὑδραῖα γένη: where, however, χθονοστιβῆ has its literal sense, —“walking the earth”: here it is poet. for ἐπίγεια, “the lowly things of earth.” Cp. HH 29.2 “ἀθανάτων τε θεῶν χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων.”
 μέν is not balanced by φρονεῖς δ᾽ （as if we had οὐ βλέπεις μέν）, but by the thought of the expected healer （310）. The δὲ after φρονεῖς introduces the apodosis after a concessive protasis, as Hdt. 8.22 “εἰ δὲ ὑμῖν ἐστι τοῦτο μὴ δυνατὸν ποιῆσαι, ὑμέες δὲ”（then） ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου ἡμῖν ἕζεσθε. Xen. Cyrop. 5.5.21 “ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μηδὲ τοῦτο ... βούλει ἀποκρίνασθαι, σὺ δὲ τοὐτεῦνθεν λέγε.”
 ἧς sc. νόσου. προστάτην νόσου, a protector from a plague: strictly, one who stands in front of, shields, the city's distempered state. Cp. Soph. Aj. 803 “πρόστητ᾽ ἀναγκαίας τύχης,” shelter my hard fate. In Eur. Andr. 220 “χείρον᾽ ἀρσένων νόσον ι ταύτην νοσοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ προὔστημεν καλῶς,” “we suffer this distemper more cruelly than men, but ever rule it well,” the idea is that of administering （not protecting）, as in προΐστασθαι τῆς ἡλικίας, to regulate one's own early years, Isoc. 15.290. Cp. 882.
 μοῦνον this Ionic form （like κοῦρος, δουρί, ξεῖνος, γούνατα） is used in dialogue by Soph.: Aesch. has not μοῦνος, though in Aesch. PB 804 “τόν τε μουνῶπα στρατόν.” In Eur. Rh. 31 “μόναρχοι” is now restored for μούναρχοι.
 εἰ καὶ μὴ κλύεις “if indeed ... ,”implying that he probably has heard it. Soph. Aj. 1127 “δεινόν γ᾽ εἶπας, εἰ καὶ ζῇς θανών.” On εἰ καί and καὶ εἰ see Appendix. Others would render, “if you have not heard from the messengers also,”supposing it to be a hyperbaton for εἰ μὴ κλύεις καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων. This is impossible. Prof. Campbell compares Thuc. 5.45 “καὶ ἢν ἐς τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα λέγωσιν,” as if put for ἢν καὶ ἐς τὸν δῆμον: but there the passage runs thus; （Spartan envoys had been pleading with effect before the Athenian Βουλή:） —τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην ἐφόβουν μὴ καί, ἢν ἐς τὸν δῆμον ταὐτὰ λέγωσιν, ἐπαγάγωνται τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἀπωσθῇ ἡ Ἀργείων συμμαχία: where the καί before ἤν goes with ἐπαγάγωνται. Some adopt the conj. εἴ τι μή, “unless perchance”: for τι so used, see below 969, Soph. OC 1450, Soph. Trach. 586, 712: but no change is required. —For the pres. κλύεις, cp. Soph. Phil. 261.ἄλλην ὁδόν as divination by fire （see on 21）, to which Teiresias resorts （Soph. Ant. 1005） when the voice of birds fails him.
 ῥῦσαι σεαυτὸν κ.τ.λ. ῥύεσθαί τι is to draw a thing to oneself, and so to protect it. ῥῦσαι μίασμα here = literally, “take the defilement under thy care”; i.e. “make it thy care to remove the defilement.” Cp. πρόστητ᾽ ἀναγκαίας τύχης （Soph. Aj. 803）, shelter my hard fate, （instead of, “shelter me from it.”）πᾶν μίασμα the whole defilement, as affecting not only human life but also the herds and flocks and the fruits of the earth: cp. 253. τοῦ τεθνηκότος gen. of the source from which the μίασμα springs, —more pathetic than τοῦ φόνου, as reminding the hearer that vengeance is due for innocent blood. Both πᾶν and the usual sense of μίασμα forbid us to understand, “avenge the uncleanness [i.e. the unpunished murder] of the dead man.” For ῥῦσαι δὲ Blaydes conj. λῦσον δὲ, comparing Eur. Orest. 598 “μίασμα λῦσαι.” But the triple ῥῦσαι is essential to the force. ἄνδρα accus. before, not after, ὠφελεῖν, as in Soph. Ant. 710 “ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρα, κεἴ τις ᾖ σοφός, τὸ μανθάνειν ι πόλλ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὐδέν.” In both places ἄνδρα has a certain stress—“for mortal man.” But in Soph. Aj. 1344 “ἄνδρα δ᾽ οὐ δίκαιον, εἰ θάνοι, ι βλάπτειν τὸν ἐσθλόν, ἄνδρα” is the object, agreeing with τὸν ἐσθλόν. ἀφ᾽ ὦν ἔχοι τε καὶ δύναιτο, by means of all his resources and faculties. The optat. is thus used in universal statements, and therefore especially in γνῶμαι: cp. 979: Soph. Ant. 666 “ἀλλ᾽ ὃν πόλις στήσειε, τοῦδε χρὴ κλύειν”: Xen. Cyrop. 1.6.19 “ἀλλὰ τοῦ μὲν αὐτὸν λέγειν, ἃ μὴ σαφῶς εἰδείη, φείδεσθαι δεῖ.” So here we supply ἐστί （not ἂν εἴη） with κάλλιστος. The difference between ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ἔχῃ （“may have”）, and ἔχοι （“might have”）, is that the latter form treats the “having” as an abstract hypothesis（εἴ τι ἔχοι）.
 λύῃ for subjunct. without ἄν, cf. Soph. OC 395 “ὃς νέος πέσῃ”: Soph. Aj. 1074 “ἔνθα μὴ καθεστήκῃ δέος”: Soph. Trach. 1008 “ὅ τι καὶ μύσῃ.” The subjunct., ἔνθα μὴ λύῃ,= “in a case where it may not profit”: the indic., ἔνθα μὴ λύει, = “in a case where it does not profit.” The use of μή, whether with subjunct. or with indic., generalises the statement. Cp. Soph. OC 839 “μὴ πίτασσ᾽ ἃ μὴ κρατεῖς”: Soph. OC 1442 “μὴ πεῖθ᾽ ἃ μὴ δεῖ.” But L has λύηι, and some other MSS. have λύη: and it is much more likely that this should have become λύει than vice versa. τέλη λύῃ = λυσιτελῇ, only here: cp. Eur. Alc. 627 “φημὶ τοιούτους γάμους ι λύειν βροτοῖς.”ταῦτα γὰρ （I have to bewail this now）, for, though I once knew it, I had forgotten it. Teiresias, twice summoned （288）, had come reluctantly. Only now, in the presence of Oedipus, does he realise the full horror of the secret which he holds.
 διώλεσ᾽ = let slip out of my memory; cp. σῴζεσθαι to remember, Soph. El. 993, 1257, Soph. Trach. 682: Plat. Theaet. 153b “κτᾶταί τε μαθήματα καὶ σῴζεται”: Plat. Rep. 455b “ἃ ἔμαθε, σῴζεται.” So Teren. Phorm. 2.3.39 perii hercle: nomen perdidi, “have forgotten.” —Some explain, “suppressed the thought.”
 τί δ᾽ ἔστιν; Soph. El. 920 “φεῦ τῆς ἀνοίας ... ΧΡΥΣ. τί δ᾽ ἔστιν;” and so often in Soph. （as 1144, Soph. Trach. 339, Soph. El. 921）: δέ marking that the attention is turned to a new point, as in τί δ᾽; quid vero? （941）, or to a new person: Isaeus 8.24 “σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ;”
 διοίσω bear to the end: Eur. Hipp. 1143 “δάκρυσι διοίσω ι πότμον ἄποτμον,” live out joyless days: Thuc. 1.11 “εἰ ξυνεχῶς τὸν πόλεμον διέφερον. διαφέρειν” could not mean “to bear apart”（from each other）, though that is implied.πίθῃ, i.e. obey me by letting me go home. φάτιν of a divine message, 151. ὡς οὖν κ.τ.λ.: “（I do not speak）, then, in order that neither （μηδέ） may I share your mishap （of speaking amiss）.” If he speaks not, neither will he speak wrongly. Cp. Thuc. 2.63 “εἰκὸς ... μὴ φεύγειν τοὺς πόνους, ἢ μηδὲ τὰς τιμὰς διώκειν.” I now prefer this view to taking μηδ᾽ ἐγώ as irregular for μὴ καὶ ἐγώ （“lest I too ... ”）, —revolving μηδέ into μή not, δέ on the other hand; though the place of ἐγώ suggests this. Kviecpala's μὴ λέγων is ingenious and attractive; it may, indeed, be right; but seems hardly necessary. φρονῶν γ᾽ if thou hast understanding （of this matter）: cp. 569 ἐφ᾽ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ σιγᾶν φιλῶ: not, “if thou art sane.” But in 328 οὐ φρονεῖτε= “are without understanding,” “are senseless.”
 ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐ μή ποτε ἐκφήνω τὰ ἐμὰ （ὡς ἂν μὴ εἴπω τὰ σὰ） κακά I will never reveal my （not to call them thy） griefs. τὰ ἐμὰ κακά,= those secrets touching Oedipus which lie heavy on the prophet's soul: τὰ σὰ κακά, those same secrets in their import for Oedipus. We might render ὡς ἂν εἴπω μὴ τὰ σ᾽ either （i） as above, or （ii） “in order that I may not utter thy griefs.” But （i） is preferable for these reasons: —（1） The subjunct. εἴπω with μή was familiar in such phrases. Plat. Rep. 487d “τοὺς μὲν πλείστους καὶ πάνυ ἀλλοκότους γιγνομένους, ἵνα μὴ παμπονήρως εἴπωμεν,” “becoming very strange persons, —not to use a more unqualified epithet”: Plat. Rep. 507d “οὐδ᾽ ἄλλαις πολλαῖς, ἵνα μὴ εἴπω ὅτι οὐδεμιᾷ, τοιούτου προσδεῖ οὐδενός,” i.e. few, —not to say none: Plat. Hippias Min. 372d “τοιοῦτός εἰμι οἷός πέρ εἰμι, ἵνα μηδὲν ἐμαυτὸν μεῖζον εἵπω,”—to say nothing more of myself. The substitution of ὡς ἂν for the commoner ἵνα in no way alters the meaning. For ὡς ἂν μή, cp. Aristoph. Birds 1508 “τουτὶ ... τὸ σκιάδειον ὑπέρεχε ι ἄνωθεν, ὡς ἂν μή μ᾽ ἴδωσιν οἱ θεοί.” For ὡς ἂν εἴπω μὴ instead of ὡς ἂν μὴ εἴπω, cp. 255, Soph. Phil. 66 “εἰ δ᾽ ἐργάσει ι μὴ ταῦτα.” Soph. OC 1365 “εἰ δ᾽ ἐξέφυσα τάσδε μὴ 'μαυτῷ τροφούς.” Hdt. 7.214 “εἰδείη γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἐὼν μὴ Μηλιεὺς ... τὴν ἀτραπόν.” （2） The emphatic position of τἄμ᾽ suits this version. （3） ἐκφήνω is more forcible than εἴπω. If the meaning were, “I will not reveal my griefs, in order that I may not mention (εἴπω) thy griefs,” the clauses would be ill-balanced. See Appendix, n. on vv. 328 f.
 ξυνειδὼς because ἐκφήνω implied that he knew. Cp. 704 αὐτὸς ξυνειδώς, ἢ μαθὼν ἄλλου πάρα; i.e. of his own knowledge, or on hearsay? Not, “being an accomplice” （as Soph. Ant. 266 “ξυνειδέναι ι τὸ πρᾶγμα βουλεύσαντι”）: Oed. can still control his rising anger.
 ἐγὼ οὔτ᾽ synizesis. The rugged verse is perh. designed to express agitation. Cp. 1002 ἐγὼ οὐχί: Soph. OC 939 “ἐγὼ οὔτ᾽ ἄνανδρον,” 998 ἐγὼ οὐδέ, 1436 τελεῖτ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὔ μοι: Soph. Ant. 458 “ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔμελλον”: Soph. Phil. 1390 “ἐγὼ οὐκ Ἀτρείδας”.ταῦτ᾽, 29 n.
 πέτρου ι φύσιν Eur. Med. 1279 “ὦ τάλαιν᾽, ὡς ἄρ᾽ ἦσθα πέτρος ἢ σίδᾳρος.” For the periphrasis cp. Plat. Phaedrus 251b “ἡ τοῦ πτεροῦ φύσις,” = τὸ πτερόν, πεφυκὸς ὥσπερ πέφυκε, being constituted as it is: Plat. Tim. 45b “τὴν τῶν βλεφάρων φύσιν”: Plat. Tim. 74d “τὴν τῶν νεύρων φύσιν”: Plat. Tim. 84c “ἡ τοῦ μυελοῦ φύσις”: Plat. Laws 145d “τὴν ὕδατος φύσιν.” And so often in Arist., e.g. “ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος φύσις” Aristot. Meteor. 2.8: “ἡ τῶν νεύρων φύσις” Aristot. Hist. An. 3.5.
 ἀτελεύτητος not brought to an end: Hom. Il. 4.175 “ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ.” Plut. Mor. 114f “τὸ γὰρ δὴ ἀτελεύτητον νομίζειν τὸ πένθος ἀνοίας ἐστὶν ἐσχάτης.” Here, a man “with whom one cannot make an end,” —who cannot be brought to the desired issue. In freely rendering, “Wilt thou never make an end?” we remember, of course, that the adj. could not literally mean “not finishing.” Possibly it is borrowed from the colloquial vocabulary of the day: the tone is like that of the Latin odiosus.
 ἐμέμψω aor. referring to the moment just past: so oft. ἐπῄνεσα, ξυνῆκα, ησθην: ἒπτηξα（Soph. OC 1466）: ἔφριξα（Soph. Aj. 693）: ἐδεξάμην （Soph. El. 668）: ἀπέπτυσα （Eur. Hec. 1276）. ὁμοῦ ι ναίουσαν, while （or though） it dwells close to thee, —possesses and sways thee. So Soph. OC 1134 “κηλὶς κακῶν ξύνοικος”: Soph. El. 784 “βλάβη ι ξύνοικος”: Soph. Aj. 639 “συντρόφοις ι ὀργαῖς.” But （as Eustathius saw, 755. 14） the words have a second meaning: “thou seest not that thine own [τὴν σήν, thy kinswoman, thy mother] is dwelling with thee [as thy wife].” The ambiguity of τὴν σὴν, the choice of the phrase ὁμοῦ ναίουσαν, and the choice of κατεῖδες, leave no doubt of this. Cp. 261.
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὲ ψέγεις the thought of ὀργὴν ἐμέμψω τὴν ἐμήν returns upon itself, as if from a sense that the contrast between ἐμέμψω and κατεῖδες would be imperfectly felt without such an iteration. This is peculiarly Sophoclean; cp. above 166（ἔλθετε καὶ νῦν）: Schneidewin cp. also Soph. Aj. 1111 “οὐ ... τῆς σῆς οὕνεκ᾽ ... ι ἀλλ᾽ οὕνεχ᾽ ὅρκων ... ι σοῦ δ᾽ οὐδέν”: and similarly Soph. Ant. 465 ff., Soph. Trach. 431 ff., Soph. El. 361 ff.
 ἃ ... ἀτιμάζεις πόλιν ἅ cogn. accus.: Soph. Aj. 1107 “τὰ σέμν᾽ ἔπη ι κόλαζ᾽ ἐκείνους”: Soph. Ant. 550 “τί ταῦτ᾽ ἀνιᾶς μ᾽;” ἀτιμάζεις, by rejecting the request that he would speak: Soph. Ant. 544.
 ἥξει γὰρ αὐτά The subject to ἥξει is designedly left indeterminate: “（the things of which I wot） will come of themselves.” The seer is communing with his own thought, which dwells darkly on the κακά of v. 329. αὐτά = αὐτόματα: Hom. Il. 17.252 “ἀργαλέον δέ μοί ἐστι διασκοπιᾶσθαι ἕκαστον ... ι ἀλλά τις αὐτὸς ἴτω.” Cp. the phrase αὐτὸ δείξει, res ipsa arguet, the result will show: Soph. fr. 355 ταχὺ δ᾽ αὐτὸ δείξει τοὔργον.
 οὐκοῦν ἅ γ᾽ ἥξει Elmsley, Nauck and Hartung read οὐκ οὖν ... ἐμοί; but the positive χρὴ is stronger without the query. “Then, seeing that they will come, thou on thy part （καὶ σὲ） shouldest tell them to me.” The stress of καὶ falls primarily on σὲ, but serves at the same time to contrast λέγειν with ἥξει. In ἅ γ᾽ ἥξει the causal force of the relative is brought out by γε: quippe quae ventura sint.ἥτις ἀγριωτάτη: Hom. Il. 17.61 “ὅτε τίς τε λέων ... βοῦν ἁρπάσῃ ἥτις ἀρίστη”: Plat. Apol. 23a “πολλαὶ ἀπέχθειαι ... καὶ οἶαι χαλεπώταται”: Dem. 2.18 “εἰ μὲν γάρ τις ἀνήρ ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς οἷος ἔμπειρος πολέμου καὶ ἀγώνων” [sc. ἐστί], τούτους, κ.τ.λ. ὡς ὀργῆς ἔχω = ἔχων ὀργῆς ὡς ἔχω, being so wroth as I am. Thuc. 1.22 “ὡς ἑκατέρων τις εὐνοίας ἢ μνήμης ἔχοι”: Eur. Hel. 313 “πῶς δ᾽ εὐμενείας τοισίδ᾽ ἐν δόμοις ἔχεις;” παρήσω ... οὐδὲν（τούτων） ἅπερ ξυνίημ᾽, I will leave unsaid nothing （of those things） which I comprehend, i.e. I will reveal my whole insight into the plot. ξυνίημι suits the intellectual pride of Oedipus: he does not say “think” or “suspect”: cp. 628. For γὰρ after ἴσθι cp. 277.
 καὶ ξυμφυτεῦσαι ... εἰργάσθαι θ᾽. καί ... τε could no more stand for ‘and’ ... ‘both’ than et ... que could. καί here （adeo） implies, “no mere sympathiser, but actually the plotter.”Cp. Soph. OC 1394 “καὶ” （e'en） πᾶσι Καδμείοισι τοῖς σαυτοῦ θ᾽ ἅμα. ξυμφυτεῦσαι: Pind. I. 5.12 “σύν τέ οἱ δαίμων φυτεύει δόξαν”: Soph. Aj. 953 “Παλλὰς φυτεύει πῆμα”: Soph. El. 198 “δεινὰν δεινῶς προφυτεύσαντες ι μορφάν” （of crime）. Hermann preferred δ᾽ to τ᾽ after εἰργάσθαι, as meaning, “but hast done it （only） by another's hands” （i.e. “though thou hast not executed it thyself”）: this, however, besides being forced, destroys the climax.ὅσον（εἶχες εἰργάσθαι） μὴ καίνων, so far as you could be the author of the deed without slaying: Thuc. 4.16 “φυλάσσειν δὲ καὶ τὴν νῆσον Ἀθηναίους μηδὲν ἧσσον, ὄσα μὴ ἀποβαίνοντας”: 1. 111 τῆς γῆς ἐκράτουν ὄσα μὴ προϊόντες πολὺ ἐκ τῶν ὅπλων: Soph. Trach. 1214 “ι ὅσον γ᾽ ἂν” （sc. δρῴην τοῦτο） αὐτὸς μὴ ποτιψαύων χεροῖν.
 ἄληθες; κ.τ.λ. The same word marks the climax of Creon's anger in Soph. Ant. 758: cp. Aristoph. Birds 393 “ἐτεόν;” etc. ἐννέπω σὲ ... ἐμμένειν, I command that thou abide: so Soph. Phil. 101 “λέγω σε ... λαβεῖν.”
 ᾦπερ προεῖπας （sc. ἐμμένειν）, by which thou didst proclaim that （all） should abide: this is better than taking ᾦπερ as by attraction for ὅπερ, since προεῖπον could take an acc. of the thing proclaimed （e.g. ξενίαν, πόλεμον, θάνατον）, but not of the edict itself （as κήρυγμα）.
 ὡς ὄντι ... μιάστορι an anacolouthon for ὡς ὄντα ... μιάστορα, as if ἐννέπω σοί had preceded. ἐμέ just before made this necessary. In Eur. Med. 57 most MSS. give ὥσθ᾽ ἵμερός μ᾽ ὑπῆλθε γῇ τε κοὐρανῷ ι λέξαι μολούσῃ δεῦρο δεσποίνης τύχας, where Porson, reading μολοῦσαν, admits that the dat. stands in Philemon's parody （Athenaeus 288 D）, ὡς ἵμερός μ᾽ ὑπῆλθε γῇ τε κοὐρανῷ ι λέξαι μολόντι τοὖψον ὡς ἐσκεύασα. Elms. cp. Eur. IA 491 “ἄλλως τέ μ᾽ ἔλεος τῆς ταλαιπώρου κόρης ι εἰσῆλθε συγγένειαν ἐννοουμένῳ.” Conversely Thuc. 6.85 sect. 2（τοῖς ἐκεῖ ξυμμάχοις followed by Χίους, etc., in appos.）.
 ἐξεκίνησας ἐκκινεῖν is used of starting game, Soph. El. 567 “ἐξεκίνησεν ποδοῖν ι ... ἔλαφον”: of rousing one from rest, Soph. Trach. 1242, and fig. of exciting pain which had been lulled, Soph. Trach. 979. Here the notion is that of a startling utterance. Cp. the use of κινεῖν in the sense of mooting subjects which should not have been touched: Eur. El. 302 “ἐπεὶ δὲ κινεῖς μῦθον,” i.e. since thou hast broached this theme: cp. Soph. OC 1526 “ἃ δ᾽ ἐξάγιστα μηδὲ κινεῖται λόγῳ.” In Eur. Med. 1317 “τί τάσδε κινεῖς κἀναμοχλεύεις πύλας;” Porson, with the author of the Christus Patiens, reads λόγους, thinking that Aristoph. Cl. 1399 “ὦ καινῶν ἐπῶν ι κινητὰ καὶ μοχλευτά” alluded to that place. So ἀκίνητα （ἔπη） = “ἀπόρρητα” Soph. OC 624, Soph. Ant. 1060 “ὄρσεις με τἀκίνητα διὰ φρενῶν φράσαι. ι κίνει, κ.τ.λ.”
 καὶ ποῦ κ.τ.λ. And on what ground dost thou think to escape （punishment for） this thing? For ποῦ cp. 390: Soph. Aj. 1100 “ποῦ σὺ στρατηγεῖς τοῦδε;” Distinguish καί （1） prefixed to interrogative particles, when it expresses an objection: Aesch. Ag. 280 “καὶ τίς τόδ᾽ ἐξίκοιτ᾽ ἂν ἀγγέλων τάχος;” Dem. 19.257 （with Shilleto's note）, and καὶ πῶς; passim: （2） suffixed, where, granting a fact, it asks for further information: Aesch. Ag. 278 “ποίου χρόνου δὲ καὶ πεπόρθηται πόλις;” （assuming it to be taken, when was it taken?） Eur. Alc. 834 “ποῦ καί σφε θάπτει;” τοῦτο φεύγειν here = τούτου τὴν δίκην ἐκφεύγειν: Eur. Med. 795 “παίδων φόνον ι φεύγουσα,” fleeing from （the penalties of） the murder: Cic. Pro Cluent. 59.163 calumniam （ = crimen calumniae） non effugiet. But in Lys. 12.34 “τοῦτο ... οὐ φεύγω” = “I do not avoid this point.”τρέφω see on ἐμπέφυκεν 299. τέχνης slightly contemptuous; cp. 388, 562, 709.
 ἢ κπειρᾷ λέγων; or （while you do understand my meaning already） are you merely trying by your talk （λέγων） to provoke a still fuller statement of it? Hdt. 3.135 “δείσας μή εὑ ἐκπειρῷτο Δαρεῖος,” was making trial of him: Aristoph. Kn. 1234 “καί σου τοσοῦτο πρῶτον ἐκπειράσομαι,” “thus far make trial of thee” （test thee by one question）. The notion of ἐκ in the compound is that of drawing forth something from the person tested. λέγων here implies idle talk, cp. 1151 λέγει γὰρ εἰδὼς οὐδέν: Soph. Phil. 55 “τὴν Φιλοκτήτου σε δεῖ ι ψυχὴν ὅπως λόγοισιν ἐκκλέψεις λέγων”: where, as here, the partic. denotes the process. If we read λέγειν, we must supply ὥστε: “tempting me so that I should speak”: a weak sense. λόγῳ could only mean, “by thy talk”: whereas it would naturally mean “in word” （only, and not ἔργῳ）. Musgrave conj. λοχῶν （laying a snare for me）; Arndt μ᾽ ἑλεῖν; （to catch me）: Madvig ἐκ πείρας λέγεις; But, with λέγων, all is, I think, sound.
 οὐχ ὥστε γ᾽ κ.τ.λ. οὐ （ξυνῆκα） οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκριβῶς ὥστε εἰπεῖν: cp. 1131. γνωστόν: “known.” So the MSS.: but γνωτὰ 58, γνωτὸν 396. In fr. 262 ἐκ κάρτα βαιῶν γνωτὸς ἂν γένοιτ᾽ ἀνήρ, γνωτός= “well-known,” γνώριμος: but Soph. used γνωστός in the same sense in the Hermione （Antiatticista 87.25）. It has been held that, where a sigmatic form of the verbal （as γνωστός） existed along with the non-sigmatic （as γνωτός）, Attic usage distinguished γνωστός as = “what can be known” from γνωτός as = “what is known.” But there is no ground for assuming that such a distinction was observed. See Appendix, n. on v. 361.
 ἀλλ᾽ οὔ τι χαίρων cp. Soph. Phil. 1299 （n.）. πημονὰς: i.e. such charges are downright calamities, infamies. There is something of a colloquial tone in the phrase: cp. Soph. Aj. 68 “μηδὲ συμφορὰν δέχου ι τὸν ἄνδρα”: Soph. El. 301 “ὁ πάντ᾽ ἄναλκις οὗτος, ἡ πᾶσα βλάβη.” Cp. 336 ἀτελεύτητος.
 σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις κ.τ.λ. = σὺν τῇ φιλτάτῃ （Iocasta）: since ὁμιλοῦντ᾽ implies wedlock, and not merely the companionship denoted by ξυνών in 457: for the allusive plural, cp. Soph. Trach. 335 “οὕστινας” （meaning Iole）: Soph. El. 652 “φίλοισι” （Aegisthus）.
 πλὴν σοί: σοὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ. Note in these two vv. （1） the rhetorical iteration（ἐπαναφορά） of the pers. pron., as in Soph. OC 250 “πρός σ᾽ ὅ τι σοι φίλον ἐκ σέθεν”: Soph. OC 787 “οὐκ ἔστι σοι ταῦτ᾽, ἀλλά σοι ταῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽”: Soph. Phil. 1054 “πλὴν εἰς σέ: σοὶ δέ”: Isoc. 15.41 “κινδυνεύων τὰ μὲν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν τὰ δὲ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν τὰ δὲ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν.” （2） the ninefold τ （παρήχησις） in 371; cp. 425: Soph. OC 1547: Soph. Aj. 528 “ἐὰν τὸ ταχθὲν εὖ τολμᾷ τελεῖν.” Similarly π, Soph. El. 210, Soph. Aj. 1112: ς, Eur. Med. 476 “ἔσωσά σ᾽: ὡς ἴσασιν Ἑλλήνων ὄσοι, κ.τ.λ.:” Ennius Ann. 1.151 O Tite tute Tati tibi tanta tyranne tulisti: Cic. Pro Cluent. 35.96 non fuit igitur illud iudicium iudicii simile, iudices.
 οὐδεὶς （ἔστιν） ὃς οὐχὶ = πᾶς τις: [Plat.] Eur. Alc. 1. 103 B οὐδεὶς ὃς οὐχ ὑπερβληθεὶς ... πέφευγε. Soph. Aj. 725 “ἤρασσον ... οὔτις ἔσθ᾽ ὃς οὐ.” More properly οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ, declined （by attraction） in both parts, as Plat. Phaedo 117d “οὐδένα ὅντινα οὐ κατέκλασε τῶν παρόντων.”
 μιᾶς τρέφει πρὸς νυκτός thou art cherished by （thy life is passed in） one unbroken night: the pass. form of μία νύξ σε τρέφει. Cp. fr. 524 （N.(2)）, τερπνῶς γὰρ ἀεὶ πάντας ἁνοία τρέφει, folly ever gives a joyous life: fr. 532. 4 βόσκει δὲ τοὺς μὲν μοῖρα δυσαμερίας, ι τοὺς δ᾽ ὄλβος ἡμῶν: Eur. Hipp. 367 “ὦ πόνοι τρέφοντες βροτούς,” cares that make up the life of men. μιᾶς might be simply μόνης, but, in its emphatic place here, rather = “unbroken,” unvaried by day: cp. Aristot. Rh. 3.9.1 “（λέξιν） εἰρομένην καὶ τῷ συνδεσμῷ μίαν,” forming one continuous chain. The ingenious conj. μαίας （nurse） seems to me far less forcible.
 τῷ πολυζήλῳ βίῳ locative dative, defining the sphere of ὑπερφέρουσα, like “ἔτι μέγας οὐρανῷ ι Ζεύς” Soph. El. 174. πολυζήλῳ= full of emulation（ζῆλος）. Others understand, “in the much admired life” （of princes）. This is the sense of πολύζηλον （πόσιν） in Soph. Trach. 185. But （1） βίῳ seems to denote life generally, rather than a particular station: （2） the phrase, following πλοῦτε καὶ τυραννί, would be a weak addition. τέχνη τέχνης ι ὑπερφέρουσα refers to the view that the art of ruling is the highest of arts: cp. Soph. Phil. 138 “τέχνα γὰρ τέχνας ἑτέρας προὔχει ι καὶ γνώμα, παρ᾽ ὅτῳ τὸ θεῖον ι Διὸς σκῆπτρον ἀνάσσεται”: for skill and wit（γνώμη）, surpassing those of other men, belong to him by whom is swayed the godlike sceptre which Zeus gives. Xen. Mem. 4.2.11 “μεγίστης ἐφίεσαι τέχνης: ἔστι γὰρ τῶν βασιλέων αὕτη, καὶ καλεῖται βασιλική.” But there is also an allusion to the skill shown in solving the riddle, by which Oed. surpassed the μαντικὴ τέχνη of Teiresias （cp. 357）.
 παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ... φυλάσσεται is guarded, stored, in your keeping: i.e. how much envy do ye tend to excite against those who receive your gifts. φυλάσσεται, stronger than τρέφεται, represents envy as the inseparable attendant on success: cp. Soph. OC 1213 “σκαιοσύναν φυλάσσων,” stubborn in folly: Eur. Ion 735 “ἄξι᾽ ἀξίων γεννητόρων ι ἤθη φυλάσσεις.”
 δωρητόν, οὐκ αἰτητόν feminine. The adjectives might be neuter: “a thing given, not asked.” But this use of the neuter adj., when the subject is regarded in its most general aspect, is far most common in simple predications, as Hom. Il. 2.204 “οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη”: Eur. Hipp. 109 “τερπνὸν ἐκ κυναγίας ι τράπεζα πλήρης.” And γνωτόν in 396—which must agree with ἥν— favours the view that here also the adjectives are fem. Cp. Hom. Il. 2.742 “κλυτὸς Ἱπποδάμεια”: Thuc. 2.41 “γῆν ἐσβατόν”: Thuc. 7.87 “ὀσμαὶ οὐκ ἀνεκτοί”: Plat. Rep. 573b “μανίας ... ἐπακτοῦ”: Plat. Eryx. 398d “ἀρετὴ διδακτός”: Soph. OC 1460 “πτερωτὸς βροντή”: Soph. Trach. 446 “εἰ ... μεμπτός εἰμι” （Deianeira）.
 ὑφεὶς having secretly sent as his agent, “having suborned.” Plat. Axioch. 368e “προέδρους ἐγκαθέτους ὑφέντες,” “having privily brought in suborned presidents.” The word μάγος expresses contempt for the rights of divination practised by Teiresias: ἀγύρτης taunts him as a mercenary impostor. So Plut. Mor. 165f joins ἀγύρτας καὶ γόητας, Zosimus 1.11 μάγοις τε καὶ ἀγύρταις. The passage shows how Asiatic superstitions had already spread among the vulgar, and were scorned by the educated, in Greece. The Persian μάγος （as conceived by the Greeks） was one who claimed to command the aid of beneficent deities（δαίμονες ἀγαθοεργοί）, while the γόης was properly one who could call up the dead （Suid. 1. 490: cp. Plut. De Defect. Orac. 10）. So Eur. Orest. 1496 （Helen has been spirited away）, ἢ φαρμάκοισιν （by charms）, ἢ μάγων ι τέχναισιν, ἢ θεῶν κλοπαῖς.
 ἀγύρτην （ἀγείρω）, a priest, esp. of Cybele（μητραγύρτης, or, when she had the lunar attributes, μηναγύρτης）, who sought money from house to house（“ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες,” Plat. Rep. 364b）, or in public places, for predictions or expiatory rites: Maximus Tyrius 19. 3 τῶν ἐν τοῖς κύκλοις ἀγειρόντων ... , οἳ δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν τῷ προστυχόντι ἀποθεσπίζουσιν.ἐν τοῖς κέρδεσιν in the case of gains: cp. Soph. Aj. 1315 “ἐν ἐμοὶ θρασύς;” rather than, “on opportunities for gain”（= ὅταν ᾖ κερδαίνειν） as Ellendt takes it. Cicero's videbat in litteris （Cic. Tusc. 5.38.112, quoted by Schneid.） seems not strictly similar, meaning rather “in the region of letters” （like in tenebris）. ποῦ; where? i.e. in what sense? Eur. Ion 528 “ποῦ δέ μοι πατὴρ σύ;” εἶ σαφής = πέφηνας ὤν: cp. 355.
 κύων esp. because the Sphinx was the watchful agent of Hera's wrath: cp. 36. Aristoph. Frogs 1287 has a line from the Σφίγξ of Aesch., Σφίγγα δυσαμεριᾶν [vulg. δυσαμεριαν] πρύτανιν κύνα πέμπει, “the watcher who presides over evil days” （for Thebes）.ῥαψῳδὸς chanting her riddle （in hexameter verse）, as the public reciters chanted epic poems. The word is used with irony: the baneful lay of the Sphinx was not such as the servant of Apollo chants. Cp. 130.
 τό γ᾽ αἴνιγμ᾽ is nominative: the riddle did not belong to （was not for） the first comer, that he should solve it. Soph. OC 751 “οὐ γάμων ι ἔμπειρος, ἀλλὰ τοὐπιόντος ἁρπάσαι.” Thuc. 6.22 “πολλὴ γὰρ οὖσα ἡ στρατιὰ οὐ πάσης ἔσται πόλεως ὑποδέξασθαι.” ὁ ἐπιών, any one who comes up; cp. Plat. Rep. 372d “ὡς νῦν ὁ τυχὼν καὶ οὐδὲν προσήκων ἔρχεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτό.”διειπεῖν “to declare,” “to solve”: cp. 854. διά implies the drawing of clear distinctions; cp. Soph. OC 295 “διειδέναι,” diiudicare, n.
 ἣν οἴτ᾽ ἀπ᾽ οἰωνῶν ἔχων οὔτ᾽ ἐκ θεῶν του γνωτὸν （ἔχων） προὐφάνης: and thou wast not publicly seen to have this art, either from （ἀπ᾽） birds, or as known through the agency of （ἐκ） any god. προὐφάνης. when brought to a public test. For ἀπό cp. 43: ἐκ with θεῶν του, of the primary or remoter agent （ Xen. Hell. 3.1.6 “ἐκ βασιλέως ἐδόθη”）, meaning by a φήμη （43） or other sign. γνωτόν: cp. on 384.μολών he was a mere stranger who chanced to arrive then.
 ὁ μηδὲν εἰδὼς = ὅστις μηδὲν ᾔδη, “I, a man who knew nothing,” the generic μή, here with concessive force, —“though I knew nothing, I silenced her” （qui nihil scirem, vici tamen）. So in Dem. 19.31 the generic μή has a causal force: ἡ βουλὴ δέ, ἡ μὴ κωλυθεῖσα ἀκοῦσαι τἀληθῆ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ, οὔτ᾽ ἐπῄνεσε τούτους, κ.τ.λ. （“the senate, a body which had not been prevented.” etc.）. See Whitelaw in Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1886, p. 17. Cp. 638, 875, 1019.ὁ συνθεὶς Creon, as whose agent （387） Teir. is regarded: so in Thuc. 8.68 “ὁ τὴν γνώμην εἰπών” is contrasted with ὁ τὸ πρᾶγμα ξυνθείς.
 ἀγηλατεῖν = τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν（see on 98）, in this case ἀνδρηλατεῖν （100）, to expel the μιάστωρ. Hdt. 5.72 “Κλεομένης ... ἀγηλατέει ἑπτακόσια ἐπίστια” （households） Ἀθηναίων. The smooth breathing is supported by Hesychius, by the grammarians in Bekker's Anecd. 1.328.32, and by most MSS. of Soph.; while the aspirate is given by L here, by Eustathius （1704, 5）, and by Suidas, who quotes this verse. Curtius distinguishes （1） ἀγ-, ἄγ-ος, guilt, object of awe, whence ἐναγής: Skt. ag-as, vexation, offence: Etym. sect. 116: （2） root ἅγ, ἅζ-ο-μαι reverence, ἅγ-ιο-ς holy, ἁγ-νό-ς pure: Skt. jage（jaegea_-mi）, reverence, consecrate: Etym. sect. 118. In Aesch. Lib. 154 and Soph. Ant. 775 he would with Herm. write ἅγος as = “consecrated offering.” In both places, however, ἄγος（= piaculum） satisfies the sense （see n. on Soph. Ant. 775）; and for ἅγος there is no other evidence. But this, at least, seems clear: the compound synonym for τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν（Thuc. 1.126） should be written ἀγηλατεῖν. δόκεις is the scornful phrase of an angry man; I know little concerning thee, but from thine aspect I should judge thee to be old: cp. 562 where Oed. asks, τότ᾽ οὖν ὁ μάντις οὗτος ἦν ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ; Not （1） “seemed,” as opposed to really being; nor （2） “wast felt by me” to be old: a sense which the word surely could not yield.οἶά περ φρονεῖς: see on 624 οἶόν ἐστι τὸ φθονεῖν. καὶ τὰ σ᾽ κ.τ.λ., the elision as in 329: see on 64. ἐξισωτέον κ.τ.λ. = δεῖ ἐξισοῦν τὸ γοῦν ἴσα ἀντιλέξαι, one must equalize the right at least of like reply; i.e. you must make me so far your equal as to grant me the right of replying at the same length. The phrase is a pleonastic fusion of （1） ἐξισωτέον τὸ ἀντιλέξαι with （2） συγχωρητέον τὸ ἴσα ἀντιλέξαι.
 Λοξίᾳ see note to 853.ὥστ᾽ οὐ κρέοντος κ.τ.λ. “You charge me with being the tool of Creon's treason. I have a right to plead my own cause when I am thus accused. I am not like a resident alien, who can plead before a civic tribunal only by the mouth of that patron under whom he has been registered.” Every μέτοικος at Athens was required ἐπιγράφεσθαι προστάτην, i.e. to have the name of a citizen, as patron, inscribed over his own. In default, he was liable to an ἀπροστασίου γραφή. Aristoph. Peace 684 “αὑτῷ πονηρὸν προστάτην ἐπεγράψατο”: Aristoph. Ach. 1095 “ἐπεγράφου τὴν Γοργόνα,” you took the Gorgon for your patron: Lys. 31.9 “ἐν Ὠρωπῷ μετοίκιον κατατιθεὶς” （paying the alien's tax） ἐπὶ προστάτου ᾤκει. γεγράψομαι will stand enrolled: cp. Aristoph. Kn. 1370 “οὐδεὶς κατὰ σπουδὰς μετεγγραφήσεται, ι ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἦν τὸ πρῶτον ἐγγεγράψεται”: Theocr. 18. 47 γράμματα δ᾽ ἐν φλοιῷ γεγράψεται, remain written. —For the gen. Κρέοντος cp. Aristoph. Kn. 714 “τὸν δῆμον σεαυτοῦ νενόμικας.” τυφλόν μ᾽ ὠνείδισας As ὠνείδισας could not stand for ἀπεκάλεσας, “called me reproachfully,” τυφλόν must stand for ὡς τυφλὸν ὄντα. For the ellipse of ὄντα, cp. Soph. El. 899 “ὡς δ᾽ ἐν γαλήνῃ πάντ᾽ ἐδερκόμην τόπον”: for that of ὡς, Soph. OC 142 “μή μ᾽, ἱκετεύω, προσίδητ᾽ ἄνομον.”
 σὺ καὶ δέδορκας “Thou both has sight and dost not see,” i.e. thou hast sight, and at the same time dost not see. The conject. of Reiske and Brunck, σύ, καὶ δεδορκώς（though having sight）, οὐ βλέπεις, spoils the direct contrast with τυφλόν.
 ἔνθα ναίεις might mean, “in what a situation thou art”: but, as distinguished from the preceding and following clauses, is best taken literally: “where thou dwellest,”—viz., in thy murdered father's house.
 ἀμφιπλὴξ as in Soph. Trach. 930 “ἀμφιπλῆγι φασγάνῳ”= a sword which smites with both edges, so here ἀμφιπλὴξ ἀρά is properly a curse which smites on both sides, — on the mother's and on the father's part. The pursuing Ἀρά must be conceived as bearing a whip with double lash（“διπλῆ μάστιξ,” Soph. Aj. 242）. Cp. ἀμφίπυρος, carrying two torches （Soph. Trach. 214）. The genitives μητρός, πατρός might be causal, with ἀμφιπλήξ, “smiting twice— for mother and for sire,” but are better taken with ἀρά, which here = Ἐρινύς: cp. Aesch. Seven 70 “Ἀρά τ᾽, Ἐρινὺς πατρὸς ἡ μεγασθενής.”
 δεινόπους with dread, untiring chase: so the Fury, who chases guilt “as a hound tracks a wounded fawn” （Aesch. Eum. 246）, is χαλκόπους（Soph. El. 491）, τανύπους（Soph. Aj. 837）, καμψίπους （“fleet,” Aesch. Seven 791）.
 Βλέποντα κ.τ.λ., i.e. τότε σκότον βλέποντα, εἰ καὶ νῦν ὀρθὰ βλέπεις. The Greek love of direct anthithesis often coordinates clauses where we must subordinate one to the other: cp. below, 673: Isoc. 6.54 “πῶς οὐκ αἰσχρόν, ... τὴν μὲν Εὐρώπην καὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν μεστὴν πεποιηκέναι τροπαίων, ... ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς πατρίδος ... μηδὲ μίαν μάχην φαίνεσθαι μεμαχημένους;” βλέπειν σκότον, like ἐν σκότῳ ... ι ὀψοἰατο （1273）, Eur. Ba. 510 “σκότιον εἰσορᾷ κνέφας.”
 βοῆς δὲ κ.τ.λ. Of thy cry what haven shall there not be （i.e. to what place shall it not be borne）, —what part of Cithaeron shall not be resonant with it（σύμφωνος ἔσται sc. αὐτῇ）, re-echo it? If we took σύμφωνος ἔσται （and not ἔσται alone） with λιμήν as well as with Κιθαιρών, the figurative force of λιμήν would be weakened. We must not understand: What haven of the sea or what mountain （as if Cithaeron stood for ὄρος） shall not resound? λιμήν, poet. in the sense of ὑποδοχή, for that in which anything is received: Aesch. Pers. 250 “ὦ Περσὶς αἶα καὶ μέγας πλούτου λιμήν” （imitated by Eur. Orest. 1077）: the augural seat of Teiresias is “παντὸς οἰωνοῦ λιμήν,” Soph. Ant. 1000: the place of the dead is Ἅιδου λιμήν, Soph. Ant. 1284: cp. below, 1208.τὸν ὑμέναιον ὃν εἰσέπλευσας the marriage into which thou didst sail: δόμοις, in the house, local dat. （381）: the marriage（ὑμέναιος, here = γάμος） was the haven into which he sailed, —a haven which seemed secure, but which, in reality, was for him a ὅρμος ἄνορμος. εὐπλοίας τυχών because Oed. seemed to have found ὄλβος, and also because the gale of fortune had borne him swiftly on: cp. οὔθ᾽ ὁρῶν οὔθ᾽ ἱστορῶν, 1484. —The ὑμέναιος was the song sung while the bride and bridegroom were escorted to their home, Hom. Il. 18.492 “νύμφας δ᾽ ἐκ θαλάμων δαΐδων ὑπὸ λαμπομενάων ι ἠγίνεον ἀνὰ ἄστυ, πολὺς δ᾽ ὑμέναιος ὀρώρει,” as distinguished from the ἐπιθαλάμιον afterwards sung before the bridal chamber: Soph. Ant. 813 “οὔθ᾽ ὑμεναίων ι ἔγκληρον, οὔτ᾽ ἐπινύμφειός ι πώ μέ τις ὕμνος ὕμνησεν.”
 ἄλλων δὲ κ.τ.λ. Verses 422-425 correspond with the actual process of the drama. The words καταίσθῃ τὸν ὑμέναιον refer to the first discovery made by Oed., —that his wife was the widow of one whom he had himself slain: cp. 821. The ἄλλων πλῆθος κακῶν denotes the further discovery that this wife was his mother, with all the horrors involved （1405）.
 ἅ σ᾽ ἐξισώσει which shall make thee level with thy （true） self, —by showing thee to be the son of Laius, not of Polybus; —and level with thine own children, i.e. like them, the child of Iocasta, and thus at once ἀδελφὸς καὶ πατήρ （458）. For ἅ σ᾽ Markland conject. ὅσ᾽, which shall be made equal for thee and for thy children: and so Porson interpreted, conjecturing ἅσσ᾽ from Agathon fr. 5 ἀγένητα ποιεῖν ἅσσ᾽ ἂν ᾖ πεπραγμένα. Nauck ingeniously conj. ἅ σ᾽ ἐξισώσει σῷ τοκεῖ καὶ σοῖς τέκνοις. But the vulgate is sound: for the παρήχησις cp. 371.προπηλάκιζε acc. to Aristot. Top. 6.6 “προπηλακισμός” was defined as ὕβρις μετὰ χλευασίας, insult expressed by scoffing: so in Aristot. Nic. Eth. 5.2.13 “κακηγορία, προπηλακισμός”= libellous language, gross abuse: and in Aristoph. Thes. 386 “προπηλακιζομένας” is explained by πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖ᾽ ἀκουούσας κακά. Dem. 21.72 has ἀήθεις ... τοῦ προπηλακίζεσθαι as = “unused to gross contumely” （generally, but with immediate ref. to a blow）. ἐκτριβήσεται rooted out. Eur. Hipp. 683 “Ζεύς σε γεννήτωρ ἐμὸς ι πρόρριζον ἐκτρίψειεν.”
 οὐκ εἰς ὄλεθρον; cp. 1146: Aristoph. Pl. 394 “οὐκ ἐς κόρακας;” Soph. Trach. 1183 “οὐ θᾶσσον οἴσεις;” Cratinus Νόμοι fr. 6 （Meineke p. 27） οὐκ ἀπερρήσεις σὺ θᾶττον; Aesch. Seven 252 “οὐκ ἐς φθόρον σιγῶσ᾽ ἀνασχήσει τάδε”;πάλιν ἄψορρος like Soph. El. 53 “ἄψορρον ἤξομεν πάλιν”: the gen. οἴκων τῶνδ᾽ with ἀποστραφείς.
 σχολῇ σ᾽ ἄν The simple σχολῇ is stronger than σχολῇ γε would be: Soph. Ant. 390 “σχολῇ ποθ᾽ ἥξειν” （where σχολῇ γ᾽ ἄν is an inferior v. l.）, Plat. Soph. 233b “σχολῇ ποτ᾽ ... ἤθελεν ἄν,” Plat. Prot. 330e “σχολῇ μέντ᾽ ἂν ἄλλο τι ὅσιον εἴη” and oftenοἴκους: Soph. OC 643 “δόμους στείχειν ἐμούς.” ἐστειλάμην = μετεστειλάμην, μετεπεμψάμην. Distinguish στέλλεσθαι, to summon to oneself, from στέλλειν said （1） of the messenger, below 860 πέμψον τινὰ στελοῦντα: （2） of him who sends word by a messenger, Soph. Phil. 60 “οἵ σ᾽ ἐν λιταῖς στείλαντες ἐξ οἴκου μολεῖν”: having urged thee with prayers to come: Soph. Ant. 164 “ὑμᾶς ... πομποῖσιν ... ι ἔστειλ᾽ ἱκέσθαι,” sent you word to come.
 τοιοίδ᾽ refers back to the taunt implied in μῶρα φωνήσοντ᾽, and is then made explicit by μῶροι ... ἔμφρονες: cp. Soph. Phil. 1271 “τοιοῦτος ἦσθα” （referring to what precedes—thou wast such as thou now art） τοῖς λόγοισι χὥτε μου ι τὰ τόξ᾽ ἔκλεπτες, πιστός, ἀτηρὸς λάθρα. In fr. 700 （quoted by Nauck）, καὶ τὸν θεὸν τοιοῦτον ἐξεπίσταμαι, ι σοφοῖς μὲν αἰνικτῆρα, ... ι σκαιοῖς δὲ φαῦλον, we have not the preceding words, but doubtless τοιοῦτον referred to them.ὡς μὲν σοὶ δοκεῖ. σοὶ must be accented; else the contrast would be, not partly between σοὶ and γονεῦσι, but solely between δοκεῖ and some other verbal notion. σοὶ does not, however, cohere so closely with δοκεῖ as to form a virtual cretic. It is need. less, then, to read （as Elms. proposed） ὡς μέν σοι or ὡς σοὶ μὲν. Cp. Soph. OC 1543 “ὥσπερ σφὼ πατρί”: Eur. Heraclid. 641 “σωτὴρ νῷν βλάβης.” As neither σφὼ nor νῷν adheres to the following rather than to the preceding word, it seems unnecessary to read with Porson ὡς πρὶν σφὼ or νῷν σωτήρ. Here we have ὡς μὲν σοὶ instead of ὡς σοὶ μὲν, because, besides the contrast of persons, there is also a contrast between semblance （ὡς δοκεῖ） and fact. γονεῦσι “ for” them, i.e. in their judgment: Soph. Ant. 904 “καίτοι σ᾽ ἐγὼ τίμησα, τοῖς φρονοῦσιν, εὖ.” Aristoph. Birds 445 “πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς κριταῖς.”
 ἐκφύει （υ^）. The pres. is not historic （for ἐξέφυσε）, but denotes a permanent character: “is my sire.” Eur. Ion 1560 “ἥδε τίκτει σ᾽,” is thy mother: so perh. Eur. Heraclid. 208 “πατὴρ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆσδε γεννᾶται σέθεν.” Xen. Cyrop. 8.2.27 “ὁ δὲ μὴ νικῶν” （he who was not victorious） τοῖς μὲν νικῶσιν ἐφθόνει: and so φεύγειν = φυγὰς εἶναι passim. Shilleto thus takes οἱ ἐπαγόμενοι in Thuc. 2.2, “οἱ προδιδόντες” Thuc. 2.5, “οἱ διαβάλλοντες” Thuc. 3.4; which, however, I should rather take simply as imperfect participles, = οἳ ἐπήγοντο, προὐδίδοσαν, διέβαλλον. He well compares Verg. Aen. 9.266 quem dat Sidonia Dido （is the giver）: in Persius 4.2 sorbitio tollit quem dira cicutae, I find rather a harsh historic pres.τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνείδιζέ （μοι ）, make those things my reproach, in which [οἷς, dat. of circumstance] thou wilt find me great: i.e. mock my skill in reading riddles if thou wilt; but thou wilt find （on looking deeper） that it has brought me true honour. τοιαῦτα ... οἷς as Soph. OC 1353 （n.）, Soph. Ant. 691, etc.
 αὕτη γε μέντοι It was just （γε）that fortune, however （μέντοι）,that ruined thee. γε emphasises the preceding word: so 778, 1292: Soph. Phil. 93 “πεμφθείς γε μέντοι” （since I have been sent）, 1052 νικᾶν γε μέντοι: Soph. Ant. 233 “τέλος γε μέντοι,” Soph. Ant. 495 “μισῶ γε μέντοι.”τύχη implies some abatement of the king's boast, γνώμῃ κυρήσας, 398. ἐξέσωσ᾽ 1st pers., not 3rd. ἐμποδὼν with παρὼν, —present where thy presence irks: cp. 128. σύ γε here gives a scornful force: the use of σύ γε in 1101 （n.） is different. The reading τά γ᾽ ἐμποδὼν （found in B） is explained by Brunck and Erfurdt （with Thomas Magister） “thou hinderest the business before us,” comparing Eur. Phoen. 706 “ἃ δ᾽ ἐμποδὼν μάλιστα” （“most urgent”） ταῦθ᾽ ἥκω φράσων.
 ἀλγύνοις suits the continuing action better than ἀλγύναις. The aor. occurs Soph. Trach. 458（ἀλγύνειεν） and Eur. IA 326（ἀλγῦναι）: but αις and αι, as optative endings, are not elsewhere found in Soph.
 πρόσωπον “thy face,”—thy angry presence: the blind man speaks as though he saw the “vultus instantis tyranni.” Not, “thy person” （i.e. thy royal quality）: πρόσωπον is not classical in this sense, for which cp. the Hellenistic προσωποληπτεῖν,“ to be a respecter of persons,” and the spurious Phocylidea 10 （Bergk Poet. Lyr. p. 361） μὴ ῥίψῃς πενίην ἀδίκως: μὴ κρῖνε πρόσωπον.οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅπου there is no case in which ... : cp. 355, 390. τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ... οὗτός ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. The antecedent, attracted into the case of the relative, is often thus prefixed to the relative clause, to mark with greater emphasis the subject of a coming statement: Soph. Trach. 283 “τάσδε δ᾽ ἅσπερ εἰσορᾷς ι ... χωροῦσι”: Hom. Il. 10.416 “φυλακὰς δ᾽ ἃς εἴρεαι, ἥρως, ι οὔτις κεκριμένη ῥύεται στρατόν”: HH Dem. 66 “κούρην τὴν ἔτεκον ... ι τῆς ἀδινὴν ὄπ᾽ ἄκουσα”: Aristoph. Pl. 200 “τὴν δύναμιν ἣν ὑμεῖς φατὲ ι ἔχειν με, ταύτης δεσπότης γενήσομαι.” Plaut. Trinum. 985 “Illum quem ementitu's, is ego sum ipse Charmides”. ξένος μέτοικος a foreign sojourner: ξένος, because Oed. was reputed a Corinthian. In poetry μέτοικος is simply one who comes to dwell with others: it has not the full technical sense which belonged to it at Athens, a resident alien: hence the addition of ξένος was necessary. Cp. Soph. OC 934 “μέτοικος τῆσδε γῆς”: Soph. Ant. 868 “πρὸς οὓς” （to the dead） ἅδ᾽ ἐγὼ μέτοικος ἔρχομαι. εἶτα δὲ opp. to νῦν μέν, implied in ἐνθάδε. —ἐγγενὴς, “native,” as γεννητός is opp. to ποιητός (adoptivus). ἐκ δεδορκότος Xen. Cyrop. 3.1.17 “ἐξ ἄφρονος σώφρων γεγένηται.” γαῖαν with προδεικνὺς only: pointing to, i.e. feeling, ψηλαφῶν, the ground before him: so of a boxer, χερσὶ προδεικνύς, sparring, Theocr. 22.102. Cp. Lucian Hercules 1 τὸ τόξον ἐντεταμένον ἡ ἀριστερὰ προδείκνυσι, i.e. holds in front of him: id. Hermotimus 68 θαλλῷ προδειχθέντι ἀκολουθεῖν, ὥσπερ τὰ πρόβατα. Seneca Oed. 656 repet incertus viae, | Baculo senili triste praetentans iter. The order of words is against taking ξένην with γαῖαν （when we should write ἐπὶ）, and supplying τὴν ὁδόν with προδεικνύς. ἀδελφὸς αὑτὸς If ἀδελφὸς stood alone, then αὐτὸς would be right: himself the brother of his own children: but with ἀδελφὸς καὶ πατὴρ we should read αὑτός at once sire and brother of his own children. Cp. Soph. Phil. 119 “σοφός τ᾽ ἂν αὑτὸς κἀγαθὸς κεκλῇ᾽ ἅμα”: Eur. Alc. 143 “καὶ πῶς ἂν αὑτὸς κατθάνοι τε καὶ βλέποι;”
 ὁμόσπορος here act., = τὴν αὐτὴν σπείρων: but passive above, 260. Acc. to the general rule, verbal derivatives with a short penult. are paroxytone when active in meaning （see on βουνόμοις, v. 26）. But those compounded with a preposition （or with α privative） are excepted: hence διάβολος, not διαβόλος. So ὁμόσπορος here, no less than in 260. On the other hand πρωτοσπόρος= “sowing first,” πρωτόσπορος = “φιπστ σοων.”μαντικῇ: in respect to seer-craft: for dat., cp. Eur. IA 338 “τῷ δοκεῖν μὲν οὐχὶ χρῄζων, τῷ δὲ βούλεσθαι θέλων.”