ἀτλητῶν The verb ἀτλητέω, found only here, implies an active sense of ἄτλητος, impatiens: as μεμπτός, pass. in Soph. OC 1036, is active in Soph. Trach. 446. So from the act. sense of the verbal adj. come ἀλαστέω, ἀναισθητέω, ἀναισχυντέω, ἀνελπιστέω, ἀπρακτέω.
 πρός γ᾽ ἐμοῦ Soph. Trach. 738 “τί δ᾽ ἐστίν, ὦ παῖ, πρός γ᾽ ἑμοῦ στυγούμενον;” The conj. πρός τί μου was prompted by the absence of τι with φέρον: but cp. Aesch. Ag. 261 “σὺ δ᾽ εἴτε” （v. l. εἴ τι） κεδνὸν εἴτε μὴ πεπυσμένη: Plat. Soph. 237c “χαλεπὸν ἤρου”: Plat. Meno 97e “τῶν ἐκείνου ποιημάτων λελυμένον μὲν ἐκτῆσθαι οὐ πολλῆς τινος ἄξιόν ἐστι τιμῆς.”φέρον 519 φέροντι: 520 φέρει: such repetitions are not rare in the best Greek and Latin writers. Cp. 158, 159 （ἄμβροτ᾽）, 1276, 1278 （ὁμοῦ）, Lucr. 2.54-59 tenebris—tenebris—tenebris—tenebras. See on Soph. OC 554, Soph. Ant. 76.
 βίου τοῦ μακρ Soph. Aj. 473 “τοῦ μακροῦ χρῄζειν βίου”: Soph. OC 1214 “αἱ μακραὶ ι ἁμέραι,” where the art. refers to the normal span of human life. For βίος μακραίων cp. Soph. Trach. 791 “δυσπάρευνον λέκτρον.”
 εἰς ἁπλοῦν The charge does not hurt him in a single aspect only,—i.e. merely in his relation to his family and friends （ἰδίᾳ）. It touches him also in relation to the State （κοινῇ）, since treachery to his kinsman would be treason to his king. Hence it “tends to the largest result” （φέρει ἐς μέγιστον）, bearing on the sum of his relations as man and citizen. The thought is, ἡ ζημία οὐχ ἁπλῆ ἐστιν ἀλλὰ πολυειδής （cp. Plat. Phaedrus 270d “ἁπλοῦν ἢ πολυειδές ἐστιν”）: but the proper antithesis to ἁπλῆ is merged in the comprehensive μέγιστον.ἦλθε ... τάχ᾽ ἂν, “might perhaps have come.” ἧλθεν ἂν is a potential indicative, denoting for past time what ἔλθοι ἂν denotes for future time. That is, as ἔλθοι ἂν can mean, “it might come,” so ἦλθεν ἂν can mean, “it might have come.” ἦλθεν ἂν does not necessarily imply that the suggested possibility is contrary to fact; i.e., it does not necessarily imply, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦλθεν. Cp. Dem. 37.57 “πῶς ἂν ὁ μὴ παρὼν ... ἐγώ τί σε ἠδίκησα;” “how was I likely to do you any wrong?” [This was the view taken in my first edition. Goodwin, in the new ed. of his Moods and Tenses （1889）, has illustrated the “potential” indicative with ἄν （sect. 244）, and has also shown at length that ἦλθεν ἂν does not necessarily imply the unreality of the supposition （sect. 412）. This answers the objection which led me, in a second edition, to suggest that ταχ᾽ ἂν was here no more than τάχα, and that the usage arose from an ellipse （ἦλθε, τάχα δ᾽ ἂν ἔλθοι）. In Soph. OC 964 ff. also I should now take ἦν ... τάχ᾽ ἂν as = “perchance it may have been.”]
 I formerly kept τοῦ πρὸς δ᾽, with L. But the anastrophe of πρός seems to be confined to instances in which it is immediately followed by an attributive genitive, equiv. to an epithet: see on 178. For πρὸς τοῦ δ᾽ we could indeed cite Aesch. Eum. 593 “πρὸς τοῦ δ᾽ ἐπείσθης καὶ τίνος βουλεύμασιν;” But I now prefer τοὔπος δ᾽, because （1） Creon seems to ask the Chorus for a confirmation of the almost incredible report that Oed. had brought such a charge: he would naturally be less concerned to know whether any one had uttered it before Oed. （2） Verse 527 favours τοὔπος. —Cp. 848 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς φανέν γε τοὔπος.
 ηὐδᾶτο these things were said （by Oedipus）; but I do not know how much the words meant; i.e. whether he spoke at random, or from information which had convinced his judgment.
 The reading ἐξ ὀμμάτων δ᾽ ὀρθῶν τε gives a fuller emphasis than ἐξ ὀμμάτων ὀρθῶν δὲ: when δ᾽ had been omitted, τε was naturally changed to δέ. The place of τε （as to which both verse and prose allowed some latitude） is warranted, since ὀμμάτων-ὀρθῶν opposed to ὀπθῆς φρενός forms a single notion. ἐξ= “with”: Soph. El. 455 “ἐξ ὑπερτέρας χερός”: Soph. Trach. 875 “ἐξ ἀκινήτου ποδός.” ὀμμάτων ὀρθῶν: cp. 1385: Soph. Aj. 477 “κεἰ μὴ τόδ᾽ ὄμμα καὶ φρένες διάστροφοι ι γνώμης ἀπῇξαν τῆς ἐμῆς”: Eur. Her. 931 （when the frenzy comes on Heracles） ὁ δ᾽ οὐκέθ᾽ αὑτὸς ἦν, ι ἀλλ᾽ ἐν στροφαῖσιν ὀμμάτων ἐφθαρμένος, κ.τ.λ. In Hor. Carm. 1.3.18 Bentley gave rectis oculis for siccis.
 οὐκ οἶδ᾽ Creon has asked: “Did any trace of madness show itself in the bearing or in the speech of Oedipus?” The Chorus reply: “Our part is only to hear, not to criticise.” These nobles of Thebes （1223） have no eyes for indiscretion in their sovereign master.τόλμης gen. of quality （or material）; cp. Soph. Ant. 114 “χιόνος πτέρυγι”: Soph. El. 19 “ἄστρων εὐφρόνη.” τοσόνδε τόλμησ-πρόσωπον like τοὐμὸν φρενῶν-ὄνειρον （Soph. El. 1390）, νεῖκοσ-ἀνδρῶν ξύναιμον （Soph. Ant. 793）.
 τῆς ἐμῆς closely follows τοῦδε τἀνδρός, as Soph. OC 1329: so Soph. Aj. 865 “μυθήσομαι” immediately follows Αἴας θροεῖ. If a Greek speaker rhetorically refers to himself in the third person, he usu. reverts as soon as possible to the first.
 ἔν μοι The MSS. have ἐν ἐμοί, making a verse like Soph. Trach. 4, ἐγὼ ι δὲ τὸν ἐμͅόν, καὶ πρὶν εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν. But such a verse is rare, and unpleasing. When a tribrach holds the second place in a tragic senarius, we usually find that (a) the tribrach is a single word, as Soph. Phil. 1314 “ἥσθην ι πατέρα ι τὸν ἀμὸν εὐλογοῦντά σε”: or (b) there is a caesura between the first and the second foot, as Soph. OC 26 “ἀλλ᾽ ὅσιτις ὁ τόπͅος”: Soph. Phil. 1232 “παρ᾽ οὖπερ ἔλαβον”: Eur. Tro. 496 “τρυχηρͅὰ περὶ ι τρυχηρὸν εἱμένην χρόα”: Eur. Phoen. 511 “ἐλθόντͅα σὺν ὅπλͅοις τόνδε καὶ πορθοῦντα γῆν,” —if there we should not read ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐν ὅπλοις. On such a point as ἐμοὶ versus μοι the authority of our MSS. is not weighty. And the enclitic μοι suffices: for in this verse the stress is on the verbal notion （ἰδών）, — Creon's supposed insight: the reference to Oedipus is drawn out in the next two verses by the verbs in the 1st person, γνωριοῖμι—ἀλεξοίμην.ἰδών ... ἐν prose would say ἐνιδών, either with or without ἐν （Thuc. 1.95: ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ Παυσανίᾳ ἐνεῖδον: 3. 30 ὃ ... τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐνορῶν）: cp. Hdt. 1.37 “οὔτε τινὰ δειλίην παριδών μοι” （remarked in me） οὔτε ἀθυμίην. ποεῖν; Attic inscrr. of c. 450-300 B.C. omit the ι before ε or η （not before ο or ω）, as L usu. does, when the 1st syll. is short: Soph. Phil. 120 n.
 ἢ τοὔργον κ.τ.λ. Supply νομίσας or the like from ἰδών: “thinking that either I would not see, ... or would not ward it off”: an example of what Greek rhetoric called χιασμός （from the form of X）, since the first clause corresponds with μωρία, and the second with δειλία.γνωριοῖμι “Futures in -ἰσω are not common in the good Attic period: but we have no trustworthy collections on this point”: Curtius, Verb 11.312, Eng. tr. 481. On the other hand, as he says, more than 20 futures in -ιῶ can be quoted from Attic literature. And though some ancient grammarians call the form “Attic,” it is not exclusively so: instances occur both in Homer （as Hom. Il. 10.331 “ἀγλαϊεῖσθαι,” cp. Monro, Hom. Gram. §63） and in Herodotus （as Hdt. 8.68 “ἀτρεμιεῖν,” besides about ten other examples in Hdt.）. Thus the evidence for γνωριοῖμι outweighs the preference of our MSS. for γνωρίσοιμι.
 ἢ οὐκ The κοὐκ of the MSS. cannot be defended here—where stress is laid on the dilemma of δειλία or μωρία— by instances of ἤ ... τε carelessly put for ἤ—ἤ in cases where there is no such sharp distinction of alternatives: as Hom. Il. 2.289 “ἢ παῖδες νεαροὶ χῆραί τε γυναῖκες”: Aesch. Eum. 524 “ἢ πόλις βροτός θ᾽ ὁμοίως.”ἀλεξοίμην see on 171.
 πλήθους refers to the rank and file of the aspirant's following, —his popular partisans or the troops in his pay; Φίλων, to his powerful connections, —the men whose wealth and influence support him. Thus （542） χρήμασιν is substituted for φίλων. Soph. is thinking of the historical Greek τύραννος, who commonly began his career as a demagogue, or else “arose out of the bosom of the oligarchies” （Grote, vol. 3 p. 25）.
 ὃ a thing which, marking the general category in which the τυραννίς is to be placed: cp. Xen. Mem. 3.9.8 “φθόνον δὲ σκοπῶν ὅ τι εἴη.” So the neut. adj. is used, Eur. Hipp. 109 “τερπνὸν ... ι τράπεζα πλήρης”: Eur. Hel. 1687 “γνώμης, ὃ πολλαῖς ἐν γυναιξὶν οὐκ ἔνι.”
 οἶσθ᾽ ὡς πόησον; In more than twelve places of the tragic or comic poets we have this or a like form where a person is eagerly bespeaking attention to a command or request. Instead of οἶσθ᾽ ὡς δεῖ σε ποιῆσαι; or οἶσθ᾽ ὥς σε κελεύω ποιῆσαι; the anxious haste of the speaker substitutes an abrupt imperative: οἶσθ᾽ ὡς ποίησον; That the imperative was here felt as equivalent to “you are to do,” appears clearly from the substitutes which sometimes replace it. Thus we find （1） fut. indic.; Eur. Cycl. 131 “οἶσθ᾽ οὖν ὃ δράσεις;” Eur. Med. 600 “οἶσθ᾽ ὡς μετεύξει καὶ σοφωτέρα φανεῖ;” where the conjectures δρᾶσον （Canter） and μέτευξαι （Elmsley） are arbitrary: so with the 1st pers., Eur. IT 759 “ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὃ δράσω;” （2） a periphrasis: Eur. Supp. 932 “ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὃ δρᾶν σε βούλομαι τούτων πέρι;” Only a sense that the imperat. had this force could explain the still bolder form of the phrase with 3rd pers.: Eur. IT 1203 “οἶσθά νυν ἅ μοι γενέσθω” = ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μοι: Aristoph. Ach. 1064 “οἶσθ᾽ ὡς ποιείτω” = ὡς δεῖ ποιεῖν αὐτήν, where ποιεῖτε is a conjecture. There is no reason, in logic or in grammar, against this “subordinate imperative,” which the flexible Greek idiom allowed. Few would now be satisfied with the old theory that οἶσθ᾽ ὡς ποίησον stood, by transposition, for ποίησον, οἶσθ᾽ ὡς;
 For κακὸς with inf., cp. Thuc. 6.38 sect. 2 ἡμεῖς δὲ κακοὶ ... προφυλάξασθαι. σοῦ, emphatic by place and pause: cp. Soph. El. 1505 “χρῆν δ᾽ εὐθὺς εἶναι τήνδε τοῖς πᾶσιν δίκην ι ὅστις πέρα πράσσειν γε τῶν νόμων θέλει, ι κτείνειν: τὸ γὰρ πανοῦργον οὐκ ἂν ἦν πολύ.”ηὕρηκ᾽ as to the augment, cp. 68 n.
 τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ κ.τ.λ. Oedipus flings back Creon's phrases, as the Antigone of Aeschylus bitterly echoes those of the κῆρυξ （“αὐδῶ—αὐδῶ—τραχύς—τράχυν᾽,” Aesch. Seven 1042 ff.）. An accent of rising passion is similarly given to the dialogue between Menelaus and Teucer （ Soph. Aj. 1142 “ἤδη ποτ᾽ εἶδον ἄνδρ᾽ ἐγώ”— 1150 ἐγὼ δέ γ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ὄπωπα）. Aristophanes parodies this style, Aristoph. Ach. 1097 “ΛΑΜΑΧΟΣ. παῖ, παῖ, φέρ᾽ ἔξω δεῦρο τὸν γύλιον ἐμοί. ΔΙΚΑΙΟΠΟΛΙΣ. παῖ, παῖ, φέρ᾽ ἔξω δεῦρο τὴν κίστην ἐμοί.”ὡς ἐρῶ how I will state this very matter （my supposed hostility to you）: i.e. in what a light I will place it, by showing that I had no motive for it. αὐθαδίαν poet. for αὐθάδειαν （Aesch. PB 79, etc.）. τοῦ νοῦ χωρίς for αὐθάδεια is not necessarily devoid of intelligence: as Heracles says （Eur. Her. 1243） αὔθαδες ὁ θεός: πρὸς δὲ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐγώ.
 ἢ οὐκ Aesch. Seven 100 “ἀκούετ᾽ ἢ οὐκ ἀκούετ᾽ ἀσπίδων κτύπον;” Hom. Od. 4.682 “ἢ εἰπέμεναι δμωῇσιν Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο.” Such “synizesis” points to the rapidity and ease of ancient Greek pronunciation: see J. H. H. Schmidt, Rhythmik und Metrik §3 （p. 9 of Eng. tr. by Prof. J. W. White）.
 While such words as ἀριστόμαντις, ὀρθόμαντις are seriously used in a good sense, σεμνόμαντις refers ironically to a solemn manner: cp. σεμνολογεῖν, σεμνοπροσωπεῖν, σεμνοπανοῦργος, σεμνοπαράσιτος, etc.
 αὑτός “I am the same man in regard to my opinion” （dat. of respect）: not, “am identical with my former opinion” （when the dat. would be like Φοίβῳ in 285）. Thuc. can dispense with a dative, 2. 61 καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ αὐτός εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἐξίσταμαι: though he adds it in 3. 38 ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ὁ αὐτός εἰμι τῇ γνώμῃ.
 δέδρακε Creon has heard only what Oedipus said of him: he does not yet know what Teiresias said of Oedipus （cp. 574）. Hence he is startled at the mention of Laius.οὐ γὰρ ἐννοῶ i.e. “I do not understand what Laius has to do with this matter.”
 χειρώματι deed of a （violent） hand: Aesch. Seven 1022 “τυμβόχοα χειρώματα”= service of the hands in raising a mound. In the one other place where Aesch. has the word, it means “prey” （ Aesch. Ag. 1326 “δούλης θανσύσης εὐμαροῦς χειρώματος”）: Soph. uses it only here （though he has “δυσχείρωμα” Soph. Ant. 126）: Eur. never.
 μακροὶ κ.τ.λ.: long and ancient times would be measured; i.e. the reckoning of years from the present time would go far back into the past; μακροὶ denoting the course, and παλαιοί the point to which it is retraced. Some sixteen years may be supposed to have elapsed since the death of Laius.
 ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ slightly contemptuous. ἐν of a pursuit or calling: Hdt. 2.82 “τῶν Ἑλλήνων οἱ ἐν ποιήσει γενόμενοι”: Thuc. 3.28 “οἱ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι”: Isoc. 2.18 “οἱ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις” （meaning, the administrators thereof）: Plat. Phaedo 59a “ὡς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ἡμῶν ὄντων”: Plat. Laws 762a “τῶν ἐν ταῖς γεωργίαις”: Plat. Prot. 317c （Protagoras of himself as a σοφιστής） πολλά γε ἔτη ἤδη εἰμὶ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ.
 παρέσχομεν we held it, as in duty bound: παρέχειν, as distinct from ἔχειν, expressing that it was something to be expected on their part. Cp. Soph. OC 1498 “δικαίαν χάριν παρασχεῖν παθών.” For παρέσχομεν after ἔσχομεν cp. 133 ἐπαξίως ... ἀξίως: 575 μαθεῖν ... : 576 ἐκμάνθαν.
 τοσόνδε γ᾽ If we read τὸ σὸν δέ γ᾽, the coarse and blunt τὸ σὸν would destroy the edge of the sarcasm. Nor would τὸ σὸν consist so well with the calm tone of Creon's inquiry in 571. τοσόνδε does not need δέ after it, since οἶσθα is a mocking echo of οἶδα. Cp. Eur. IT 554 OP. παῦσαί νυν ἤδη, μηδ᾽ ἐρωτήσῃς πέρα. ΙΦ. τοσόνδε γ᾽, εἰ ζῇ τοῦ ταλαιπώρου δάμαρ. Against the conject. τόσον δέ γ᾽ it is to be noted that Soph. has τόσος only in Soph. Aj. 185 （lyric, τόσσον）, 277 （δὶς τόσ᾽）, and Soph. Trach. 53 “φράσαι τὸ σόν.”
 The simple answer would have been: —“that you prompted him to make his present charge”: but this becomes: —“that, if you had not prompted him, he would never have made it.” ξυνῆλθε: Aristoph. Kn. 1300 “φασὶν ἀλλήαις συνελθεῖν τὰς τριήρεις ἐς λόγον,” “the triremes laid their heads together”: Aristoph. Kn. 467 “ἰδίᾳ δ᾽ ἐκεῖ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ξυγγίγνεται”.τὰς ἐμὰς the conject. τάσδ᾽ ἐμὰς mars the passage: “he would never have described this slaying of L. as mine.” οὐκ ἂν εἶπε τὰς ἐμὰς Λαΐου διαφθοράς = οὐκ ἂν εἶπεν ὄτι ἐγὼ Λάϊον διέφθειρα, but with a certain bitter force added;—“we should never have heard a word of this slaying of Laius by me.” Soph. has purposely chosen a turn of phrase which the audience can recognise as suiting the fact that Oed. had slain Laius. For διαφθοράς instead of a clause with διαφθείρειν, cp. Thuc. 1.137 “γράψας τὴν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρῶν ... οὐ διάλυσιν.”
 To write σοῦ instead of σου is not indeed necessary; but we thus obtain a better balance to κἀμοῦ. —μαθεῖν ταὔθ᾽, to question in like manner and measure. ταῦθ᾽ （MSS.） might refer to the events since the death of Laius, but has less point.
 γῆς with ἄρχεις: ἴσον νέμων explains ταὐτά,— “with equal sway” （cp. 201 κράτη νέμων, and 237）: γῆς ἴσον νέμων would mean, “assigning an equal share of land.” The special sense of νέμων is sufficiently indicated by the context; cp. Pind. P. 3.70 “ὃς Συρακόσσαισι νέμει βασιλεύς” （rules at S.）.τρίτος marking the completion of the lucky number, as Soph. OC 8, Soph. Aj. 1174, Aesch. Eum. 759 “（τρίτου ι Σωτῆρος）”: Menand. Sent. 231 “θάλασσα καὶ πῦρ καὶ γυνὴ τρίτον κακόν.” For the gen. ἐμοῦ, cp. 1163 （του）.
 διδοίης λόγον Hdt. 3.25 “λόγον ἑωυτῷ δοὺς ὅτι ... ἔμελλε κ.τ.λ.” “on reflecting that,” etc.: Dem. 45.7 （the speech prob. belongs to the time of Dem.） λόγον δ᾽ ἐμαυτῷ διδοὺς εὑρίσκω κ.τ.λ. Distinguish the plur. in Plato's ποικίλῃ ποικίλους ψυχῇ ... διδοὺς λόγους, applying speeches （Plat. Phaedrus 277c）.φέρω = φέρομαι, as 1190, Soph. OC 6 etc.
 οὔπω ironical: see on 105.τὰ σὺν κέρδει καλά: honours which bring substantial advantage （real power and personal comfort）, as opp. to honours in which outward splendour is joined to heavier care. Soph. El. 61 “δοκῶ μέν, οὐδὲν ῥῆμα σὺν κέρδει κακόν”: i.e. the sound matters not, if there is κέρδος, solid good.
 πᾶσι χαίρω “all men wish me joy”: lit. “I rejoice with the consent of all men”: all are content that I should rejoice. Cp. Soph. OC 1446 “ἀνάξιαι γὰρ πᾶσίν ἐστε δυστυχεῖν,” all deem you undeserving of misfortune: Aristoph. Birds 445 “πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς κριταῖς ι καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς πᾶσι.” The phrase has been suggested by χαῖρέ μοι, but refers to the meaning rather than to the form of the greeting: i.e. πᾶσι χαίρω is not to be regarded as if it meant literally, “I have the word χαῖρε said to me by all.” This is one of the boldly subtle phrases in which the art of Soph. recalls that of Vergil. Others understand: （1） “I rejoice in all,” —instead of suspecting some, as the τύραννος does, who φθονέει ... τοῖσι ἀρίστοισι ... χαίρει δὲ τοῖσι κακίστοισι τῶν ἀστῶν Hdt. 3.80: （2） “I rejoice in relation to all”— i.e. am on good terms with all: （3） “I rejoice in the sight of all”: i.e. enjoy a happiness which is the greater because men see it: （4） “I rejoice in all things.” This last is impossible. Of the others, （1） is best, but not in accord with the supposed position of Oedipus ὁ πᾶσι κλεινός.
 ἐκκαλοῦσι Those who have a boon to ask of Oed. come to the palace （or to Creon's own house, see on 637） and send in a message, praying Creon to speak with them. Seneca's Creon says （Oed. 687） Solutus onere regio, regni bonis Fruor, domusque civium coetu viget. In Greek tragedy the king or some great person is often thus called forth. Cp. Aesch. Lib. 663: Orestes summons an οἰκέτης by knocking at the ἑρκεία πύλη, and, describing himself as a messenger, says —ἐξελθέτω τις δωμάτων τελεσφόρος ι γυνὴ τόπαρχος, —when Clytaemnestra herself appears. So in Eur. Ba. 170 Teiresias says —τίς ἐν πύλαισι Κάδμον ἐκκαλεῖ δόμων; “where is there a servant at the doors to call forth Cadmus from the house?” —ἴτω τις, εἰσάγγελλε Τειρεσίας ὅτι ι ζητεῖ νιν: then Cadmus comes forth. The active ἐκκαλεῖν is properly said （as there） of him who takes in the message, the middle ἐκκαλεῖσθαι of him who sends it in （Hdt. 8.19）: but in Soph. Phil. 1264 “ἐκκαλεῖσθε” （n.） is an exception. Musgrave's αἰκάλλουσι is not a word which a man could complacently use to describe the treatment of himself by others. αἴκαλος. κόλαξ Hesych. （for ἀκ-ίαλος, from the same rt., with the notion of soothing or stilling, as ἀκεῖσθαι, ἦκα, ἀκέων, ἄκασκα, ἀκασκαῖος）: Aristoph. Kn. 47 “ὑποπεσὼν τὸν δεσπότην ι ᾔκαλλ᾽, ἐθώπευ᾽, ἐκολάκευ᾽,” “fawned, wheedled, flattered”: in tragedy only once, Eur. Andr. 630 “φίλημ᾽ ἐδέξω, προδότιν αἰκάλλων κύνα.”
 τὸ ... τυχεῖν sc. ὧν χρῄζουσιν. The reading ἅπαντ᾽, whether taken as accus. after τυχεῖν （“to gain all things”）, or as accus. of respect （“to succeed in all”） not only mars the rhythm but enfeebles the sense. When αὐτοῖσι was corrupted into αὐτοῖς, πᾶν was changed into ἅπαν, as it is in L. ἐνταῦθα = ἐν τῷ ἐκκαλεῖν με, in gaining my ear: cp. Soph. OC 585 “ἐνταῦθα γάρ μοι κεῖνα συγκομίζεται,” in this boon I find those comprised.
 πῶς δῆτ᾽ Cp. Hdt. 5.106 （Histiaeus to Dareius） βασιλεῦ, κοῖον ἐφθέγξαο ἔπος; ἐμὲ βουλεῦσαι πρῆγμα ἐκ τοῦ σοί τι ἢ μέγα ἢ σμικρὸν ἔμελλε λυπηρὸν ἀνασχήσειν; τί δ᾽ ἂν ἐπιδιζήμενος ποιέοιμι ταῦτα; τεῦ δὲ ἐνδεὴς ἐών, τῷ πάρα μὲν πάντα ὅσαπερ σοί, πάντων δὲ πρὸς σέο βουλευμάτων ἐπακούειν ἀξιεῦμαι:
 οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο κ.τ.λ. Creon has been arguing that he has no motive for treason. He now states a general maxim, “No mind would ever turn to treason, while it was sound.” As a logical inference, this holds good only of those who are in Creon's fortunate case. If, on the other hand, καλῶς φρονῶν means “alive to its own highest good,” and not merely to such self-interest as that of which Creon has spoken, then the statement has no strict connection with what precedes: it becomes a new argument of a different order, which might be illustrated from Plato's κακὸς ἑκὼν οὐδείς. It would be forcing the words to render: “A base mind could not approve itself wise,” i.e. “such treason as you ascribe to me would be silly.”τῷ τερασκόπῳ This title （given to Apollo, Aesch. Eum. 62） has sometimes a shade of scorn, as when it is applied by the mocking Pentheus to Teiresias （Eur. Ba. 248）, and by Clytaemnestra to Cassandra （Aesch. Ag. 1440）.
 τὸν παρ᾽ αὑτῷ βίοτον κ.τ.λ.: the life is hospes comesque corporis, dearest guest and closest companion: cp. Plat. Gorg. 479b “μὴ ὑγιεῖ ψυχῇ συνοικεῖν”: and the address of Archilochus to his own θυμός as his trusty ally （Bergk fr. 66）, —θυμέ, θύμ᾽ ἀμηχάνοισι κήδεσιν κυκώμενε, ι ἐνάδευ, δυσμενῶν δ᾽ ἀλέξευ προσβαλὼν ἐναντίον ι στέρνον.φιλεῖ sc. τις, supplied from αὑτῷ: Hes. WD 12 “τὴν μέν κεν ἐπαινήσειε νοήσας ι ἡ δ᾽ ἐπιμωμητή.” κακὸν δὲ the sterling worth of the upright man is not fully appreciated until it has been long tried: but a knave is likely （by some slip） to afford an early glimpse of his real character. The Greek love of antithesis has prompted this addition, which is relevant to Creon's point only as implying, “if I had been a traitor, you would probably have seen some symptom of it ere now.” Cp. Pind. P. 2.90 （speaking of the φθονεροί）: στάθμας δέ τινος ἑλκόμενοι ι περισσᾶς ἐνέπαξαν ἕλκος ὀδυναρὸν ἑᾷ πρόσθε καρδίᾳ, ι πρὶν ὅσα φροντίδι μητίονται τυχεῖν. Soph. Ant. 493 “φιλεῖ δ᾽ ὁ θυμὸς πρόσθεν ᾑρῆσθαι κλοπεὺς ι τῶν μηδὲν ὀρθῶς ἐν σκότῳ τεχνωμένων.”
[622-626] τί δῆτα χρῄζεις; ... τὸ γοῦν ἐμόν. （1） Verse 624, ὅταν προδείξῃς κ.τ.λ., which the MSS. give to Creon, belongs to Oedipus: and for ὅταν we should （I think） read ὡς ἂν. The argument that the stichomuthia should not be broken shows inattention to the practice of Soph. He not seldom breaks a stichomuthia, when a weighty utterance （as here, the king's threat） claims the emphasis of two verses. See （e.g.） 356-369, broken by 366 f. （the seer's denunciation）: Soph. Ant. 40-48, broken by 45 f. （Antigone's resolve）: Soph. OC 579-606, broken by 583 f. （where Theseus marks the singularity in the proposal of Oed.）. （2） Verse 625 ὡς οὐχ ὑπείξων κ.τ.λ., which the MSS. give to Oedipus, belongs to Creon. （3） Between 625 and 626 a verse spoken by Oedipus has dropped out, to such effect as οὐ γάρ με πείθεις οὕνεκ᾽ οὐκ ἄπιστος εἶ. The fact of the next verse, our 626, also beginning with οὐ γὰρ may have led to the loss by causing the copyist's eye to wander. The echoed οὐ γὰρ would suit angry dialogue: cp. 547, 548 KP. τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ νῦν μου πρῶτ᾽ ἄκουσον ὡς ἐρῶ. ΟΙ. τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ μή μοι φράζ᾽. （See also on Soph. Phil. 1252.） The traditional interpretations fail to justify （1） οἷόν ἐστι τὸ φθονεῖν, as said by Creon: （2） πιστεύσων, as said by Oed. See Appendix.
 ἀρκτέον = δεῖ ἄρχειν, one must rule: cp. Soph. Ant. 677 “ἀμυντέ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῖς κοσμουμένοις.” Isoc. 14.10 “οὐ τῶν ἄλλων αὐτοῖς ἀρκτέον” （they ought not to rule over others） ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον Ὀρχομενίοις φόρον οἰστέον. In Plat. Tim. 48b “ἀρκτέον” = δεῖ ἄρχεσθαι, one must begin; in Soph. Aj. 853 “ἀρκτέον τὸ πρᾶγμα” = must be begun. Some understand— “one must be ruled,” and οὔτοι κακῶς γ᾽ ἄρχοντος,“ No, not by one who rules ill”: but (a) though ἀρκτέα πόλις might mean, “the city is to be ruled,” an absolute passive use of ἀρκτέον is certainly not warranted by such an isolated example as οὐ καταπληκτέον ἐστίν （“we must not be unnerved”） in Din. 1.108: (b) ἄρχομαί τινος, “I am ruled by one” （instead of ἐκ or ὑπό）, could only plead the analogy of ἀκούω τινός, and lacks evidence.
 ἄρχοντος when one rules. ἀρκτέον being abstract, “it is right to rule,” there is no harshness in the gen. absol. with τινός understood （cp. 612）, which is equivalent to ἐάν τις ἄρχῃ: cp. Dem. 6.20 “λέγοντος ἄν τινος πιστεῦσαι οἴεσθε;” “think you that, if any one had said it, they would have believed?” = οἴεσθε, εἴ τις ἔλεγε, πιστεῦσαι ἂν （αὐτούς）;ὧ πόλις πόλις here, an appeal: in Attic comedy, an exclamation like o tempora, o mores: Blaydes cp. Eupolis ap. Athen. 424b “ᾦ πόλις, πόλις ι ὡς εὐτυχὴς εἶ μᾶλλον ἢ καλῶς φρονεῖς”: and so Aristoph. Ach. 27.
 πόλεως Most of the MSS. have μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ οὐχί. Had they μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ οὐ （which appears only in a few inferior MSS.） we should hardly be warranted in ejecting τῆσδ᾽: but, having the choice, we may safely prefer μέτεστιν οὐχὶ to μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ οὐ. “I have some right in Thebes, as well as you.” Creon speaks not as a brother of Iocasta, but as a Theban citizen who denies that “the city belongs to one man” （Soph. Ant. 737）. Plat. Laws 768b “δεῖ δὲ δὴ καὶ τῶν ἰδίων δικῶν κοινωνεῖν κατὰ δύναμιν ἅπαντασ᾽ ὁ γὰρ ἀκοινώνητος ὢν ἐξουσίας τοῦ συνδικάζειν ἡγεῖται τὸ παράπαν τῆς πόλεως οὐ μέτοχος εἶναι.”
 τὸ μηδὲν ἄλγος the generic use of μή （“a grief such as to be naught,” —quod nihili sit）, here giving a causal force （“seeing that it is naught”）: cp. 397, 1019; Soph. El. 1166 “δέξαι ... ι τὴν μηδὲν ἐς τὸ μηδέν”: εἰς μέγα φέρειν, make into a great matter: cp. （Soph. Phil. 259） νόσος ι ἀεὶ τέθηλε κἀπὶ μεῖζον ἔρχεται.
 δυοῖν ... ἀποκρίνας κακοῖν The traditional reading, δρᾶσαι ... δυοῖν, is the only extant example of δυοῖν scanned as one syllable, though in the tragic poets alone the word occurs more than 50 times. Synizesis of υ is rare in extant Greek poetry: Pind. P. 4.225 “γενύ¯ων”: Anthol. 11.413 （epigram by Ammianus, 1st century A.D.） ὤκιμον, ἡδύ¯οσμον, πήγανον, ἀσπάραγος. Eur. IT 970 “ὅσαι δ᾽ Ἐρινύ¯ων οὐκ ἐπείσθησαν νόμῳ,” and Eur. IT 1456 “οἴστροις Ἐρινύ¯ων,” where most editors write Ἐρινῦν, as Eur. IT 299 “Ἐρινῦς” （acc. plur.）. Hes. Sh. 3 “Ἠλεκτρύ¯ωνος.” It might be rash to say that Soph. could not have used δυοῖν as a monosyllable; for he has used the ordinary synizesis in a peculiarly bold way, Soph. Aj. 1129 “μή νυν ἀτίμα θεοὺς θεοῖς σεσωμένος”: but at least it moves the strongest suspicion. ἀποκρίνας, on the other hand, seems genuine. ἀποκρίνειν is properly secernere to set apart: e.g. γῆν （Plat. Rep. 303d）: or to select: Plat. Laws 946a “πλήθει τῶν ψήφων ἀποκρίναντας,” having selected （the men） according to the number of votes for each. Here, “having set apart （for me） one of two ills” is a phrase suitable to the arbitrary rigour of doom which left a choice only between death and exile. For δυοῖν Elms. proposed τοῖνδ᾽ or τοῖνδέ γ᾽: Herm., τοῖνδ᾽ ἕν: A. Spengel, δείν᾽. I should rather believe that δρᾶν was altered into δρᾶσαι by a grammarian who looked to ἀπῶσαι, κτεῖναι, and perh. also sought a simpler order. But for pres. infin. combined with aor. infin. cp. 623 θνῄσκειν ... φυγεῖν: Soph. Ant. 204 “μήτε κτερίζειν μήτε κωκῦσαι.” See also Soph. OC 732 “ἥκω γὰρ οὐχ ὡς δρᾶν τι βουληθείς,” where in prose we should have expected δρᾶσαι. The quantity of ἀπο-κρίνας is supported by Aesch. PB 24 “ἀπο-κρύψει: ἀπο-τροπή” and its cognates in Aesch. and Eur.: “ἐπι-κρύπτειν” Eur. Supp. 296: “ἐπι-κράνων” Eur. IT 51. Blaydes conj. δοὺς δυοῖν κρῖναι κακοῖν （i.e. “giving me my choice of two ills”; cp. Soph. OC 640 “τούτων ... δίδωμί σοι ι κρίναντι χρῆσθαι”）: Dindorf, θάτερον δυοῖν κακοῖν （where I should at least prefer κακόν）: “but since, with either of these supposed readings, the construction would have been perfectly clear, it is hard to see how ἀποκρίνας— a far-sought word—could have crept in as an explanatory gloss. That, however, is Whitelaw's view, who suggests that the original may have been something like φαῦλον αἵρεσίν γ᾽ ἐμοί. Wolff would compress vv. 640 f. into one, thus: δρᾶσαι δικαιοῖ, δείν᾽, ἀποκτεῖναι λαβών.
 δρῶντα κακῶς τοὐμὸν σῶμα would properly describe bodily outrage: here it is a heated way of saying that Creon's supposed plot touched the person of the king （who was to be dethroned）, and not merely the νόμοι πόλεως.
 ὅρκον θεῶν （object. gen.）, an oath by the gods （since one said ὀμνύναι θεούς）: Hom. Od. 2.377 “θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον ἀπώμνυ”: 10. 299 μακάρων μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμόσσαι: Eur. Hipp. 657 “ὅρκοις θεῶν.” But in Soph. OC 1767 “Διὸς Ὅρκος” is personified.
[649-697] The κομμός （see p. 9） has a composite strophic arrangement: （1） 1st strophe, 649-659, （2） 2nd strophe, 660-668; answering respectively to （3） 1st antistr., 678-688, （4） 2nd antistr., 689-697.φρονήσας having come to a sound mind. Isoc. 8.141 “καλόν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων ἀδικίαις καὶ μανίαις πρώτους εὖ φρονήσαντας προστῆναι τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.”
 εἰκάθω the aor. subj. is certainly most suitable here: Soph. Phil. 761 “βούλει λάβωμαι;” Soph. El. 80 “θέλεις ι μείνωμεν;” In such phrases the pres. subj. （implying a continued or repeated act） is naturally much rarer: “βούλει ἐπισκοπῶμεν” Xen. Mem. 3.5.1. As regards the form of εἰκάθω, Curtius （Verb 11. 345, Eng. tr. 505）, discussing presents in -θω and past tenses in -θον from vowel stems, warns us against “looking for anything particularly aoristic in the θ” of these verbs. In Greek usage, he holds, “a decidedly aoristic force” for such forms as σχεθεῖν and εἰκαθεῖν“ never established itself”: and he justly cites Soph. El. 1014 as a place where εἰκαθεῖν is in no way aoristic. He would therefore keep the traditional accent, and write σχέθειν, εἰκάθειν, with Buttmann. Now, while believing with Curtius that these forms were prob. in origin presents, I also think that in the usage of the classical age they were often aorists: as e.g. σχεθεῖν in Aesch. Seven 429 distinctly is.μέγαν “great,” i.e. strong, worthy of reverence, ἐν ὅρκῳ, by means of, in virtue of, his oath: Eur. Tro. 669 “ξυνέσει γένει πλούτῳ τε κἀνδρείᾳ μέγαν”: for ἐν, cp. Soph. Phil. 185 “ἔν τ᾽ ὀδύναις ὁμοῦ ι λιμῷ τ᾽ οἰκτρός.”
 “That thou shouldest never lay under an accusation （ἐν αἰτίᾳ βαλεῖν）, so as to dishonour him （ἄτιμον）, with the help of an unproved story （σὺν ἀφανεῖ λόγῳ）, the friend who is liable to a curse （ἐναγῆ）”: i.e. who has just said （644） ἀραῖος ὀλοίμαν κ.τ.λ. Aeschin. 3.110 “γέγραπται γὰρ οὕτως ἐν τῇ ἀρᾷ: εἵ τις τάδε, φησί, παραβαίνοι, ... ἐναγής, φησιν, ἔστω τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος,” “let him rest under the ban of Apollo”: as Creon would rest under the ban of the gods by whom he had sworn. Hdt. 6.56 “ἐν τῷ ἄγεϊ ἐνέχεσθαι,” to be liable to the curse. ἐν αἰτίᾳ βαλεῖν: Plat. Letter 7.341a “ὡς μηδέποτε βαλεῖν ἐν αἰτίᾳ τὸν δεικνύντα ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν αὑτόν,” “so that he may never blame his teacher, but only himself,” equiv. to ἐμβαλεῖν αἰτίᾳ: cp. the prose phrases ἐμβάλλειν εἰς συμφοράς, γραφάς, ἔχθραν, κ.τ.λ. Eur. Tro. 305 “εἰς ἔμ᾽ αἰτίαν βάλῃ.” Seidler's σύ γ᾽ ἀφανεῖ λόγων, which Wolff adopts, is specious.πρόμον standing foremost in the heavenly ranks, most conspicuous to the eyes of men: the god “who sees all things and hears all things” （ Hom. Il. 3.277 “ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούεις”）: invoked Soph. Trach. 102 as ὦ κρατιστεύων κατ᾽ ὄμμα.
 τὰ δ᾽—σφῷν and, on the other hand, if the ills arising from you two are to be added to the former ills. Prof. Kennedy gives τὰ δ᾽, rightly, I think: for γᾶ φθίνουσα refers to the blight and plague （25）: τάδ᾽ would obscure the contrast between those troubles and the new trouble of the quarrel.προσάψει intrans., as perh. only here and in fr. 348 καί μοι τρίτον ῥίπτοντι ... ι ἀγχοῦ προσῆψεν, “he came near to me.” Eur. Hipp. 188 “τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἁπλοῦν: τῷ δὲ συνάπτει ι λύπη τε φρενῶν χερσίν τε πόνος,” “is joined.” It is possible, but harsh, to make προσαψει act. with γῆ as subject. Since in 695 ἀλύουσαν κατ᾽ ὀρθὸν οὐρίσας is clearly sound, Herm. rightly struck out καὶ before τὰ δ᾽ here. See on 696.
 ἐλεινόν tertiary predicate: “I compassionate thy words, piteous as they are.” Where a possessive pron. with art. has preceded the subst., Soph. sometimes thus subjoins and adj., which really has the predicative force to which its position entitles it, though for us it would be more natural to translate it as a mere attributive: Soph. Ant. 881 “τὸν δ᾽ ἐμὸν πότμον ἀδάκρυτον ι οὐδεὶς ... στενάζει”: Soph. Phil. 1456 “τοὐμὸν ἐτέγχθη ι κρᾶτ᾽ ἐνδόμυχον”: Soph. El. 1143 “τῆς ἐμῆς πάλαι τροφῆς ι ἀνωφελήτου.” In 1199 （where see note） τὰν γαμψ. παρθ. χρησμῳδόν is not a similar case. Prof. Kennedy, placing a comma after ἐποίκτείρω, but none after τοῦδ᾽, construes: τὸ σὸν στόμα ἐλεινόν （ἐστι）, οὐκ ἐποικτείρω τὸ τοῦδε.στυγήσεται pass. Other examples in Soph. are 1500 ὀνειδιεῖσθε: Soph. OC 581 “δηλώσεται,” 1186 λέξεται: Soph. Ant. 210 “τιμήσεται,” 637 ἀξιώσεται: Soph. El. 971 “καλεῖ”: Soph. Phil. 48 “φυλάξεται”: among many found in prose as well as in verse are ἀδικήσομαι, ἁλώσομαι, ἐάσομαι, ζημιώσομαι, τιμήσομαι, ὠφελήσομαι. The middle forms of the aorist were alone peculiar to that voice; the so-called “future middle,” like the rest, was either middle or passive.
 στυγνὸς ... περάσῃς “thou art seen to be sullen when thou yieldest, but fierce when thou hast gone far in wrath”: i.e., as thou art fierce in passion, so art thou sullen in yielding. Greek idiom co-ordinates the clauses, though the emphasis is on στυγνὸς μὲν εἴκων, which the other merely enforces by contrast: see on 419.βαρὺς bearing heavily on the object of anger, and so, “vehement,” “fierce”: Soph. Aj. 1017 “δύσοργος, ἐν γήρᾳ βαρύς,” Soph. Aj. 656 “μῆνιν βαρεῖαν”: Soph. Phil. 1045 “βαρύς τε καὶ βαρεῖαν ὁ ξένος φάτιν τήνδ᾽ εἶπε”: Soph. Ant. 767 “νοῦς δ᾽ ἐστὶ τηλικοῦτος ἀλγήσας βαρύς.” περάσῃς absol., = πρόσω ἔλθῃς: Soph. OC 154 “περᾷας,” （you go too far）, Soph. OC 885 “πέραν ι περῶσ᾽ οἵδε δή.” θυμοῦ, partitive gen.: cp. Hom. Il. 2.785 “διέπρησσον πεδίοιο”: Hdt. 3.105 “προλαμβάνειν ... τῆς ὁδοῦ”: sometimes helped by a prep. or adverbial phrase, as Xen. Apol. 30 “προβήσεσθαι πόρρω μοχθηρίας”: 2 Epist. Tim. 2.16 ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας. —Others render: “resentful [or “remorseful”] even when thou hast passed out of wrath”: but (a) περάσῃς with a simple gen. could not bear this sense: (b) the antithesis pointed by μὲν and δὲ is thus destroyed.
 ἀγνῶτος active, as in 681, 1133: but passive, “unknown,” Soph. Phil. 1008, Soph. Ant. 1001. Ellendt is not quite accurate in saying that Soph. was the first who used ἀγνώς in an active sense, for it is clearly active in Pind. P. 9.58 （478 B.C.） οὔτε παγκάρπων φυτῶν νήποινον οὔτ᾽ ἀγνῶτα θηρῶν （χθονὸς αἶσαν）, “a portion of land not failing in tribute of plants bearing all manner of fruit, nor a stranger to beasts of chase.” The passive use was, however, probably older than the active: compare Hom. Od. 5.79 “ἀγνῶτες ... ἀλλήλοισι” （pass.） with Thuc. 3.53 “ἀγνῶτες ἀλληλων” （act.）.ἐν δὲ τοῖσδ᾽ ἴσος: ἐν of the tribunal or company by whom one is judged: Soph. Ant. 459 “ἐν θεοῖσι τὴν δίκην ι δώσειν:” Eur. Hipp. 988 “οἱ γὰρ ἐν σοφοῖς ι φαῦλοι παρ᾽ ὄχλῳ μουσικώτεροι λέγειν”: and so, more boldly, Soph. OC 1213 “σκαιοσύναν φυλάσσων ἐν ἐμοὶ” （me iudice） κατάδηλος ἔσται. ἴσος aequus, just: Plat. Laws 975c “τὸν μέλλοντα δικαστὴν ἴσον ἔσεσθαι.” Dem. 7.35 （by a contemporary of Dem.） ἴσῳ καὶ κοινῷ δικαστηρίῳ. So Soph. Phil. 685 “ἴσος ὢν ἴσοις ἀνήρ.” The Scholiast explains, παρὰ δὲ τούτοις τῆς ὁμοίας δόξης ἣν καὶ πρώην εἶχον περὶ ἐμέ, i.e. “of the same repute as before.” To me such a version of ἵσος appears most strange.
 Creon leaves the scene. The Chorus wish Iocasta to withdraw Oedipus also, that he may be soothed in the house: but she wishes first to learn how the dispute began.
 δόκησις ... λόγων a suspicion resting on mere assertions （those made by Oedipus）, and not supported by facts （ἔργα）: hence ἀγνὼς, unknowing, guided by no real knowledge. Thuc. 1.4 “οὐ λόγων ... κόμπος τάδε μᾶλλον ἢ ἔργων ἐστὶν ἀλήθεια”: 3. 43 τῆς οὐ βεβαίου δοκήσεως.δάπτει δὲ: Oedipus was incensed against Creon, without proof; on the other hand （δὲ） Creon also （καὶ） was incensed by the unjust accusation. δάπτει might be historic pres., but need not be so taken: Creon is still pained. Aesch. PB 437 “συννοίᾳ δὲ δάπτομαι κέαρ.” The version, “and even injustice wounds,” would make the words a reflection;—“An accusation galls, even when unfounded”: but this is unsuitable.
 ἀμφοῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῖν sc. ἦλθε τὸ νεῖκος; Thus far, Iocasta only knew that Oedipus charged Creon with treason. The words of the Chorus now hint that Oedipus himself was partly to blame. “So then,” Iocasta asks, “provocation had been given on both sides?”λόγος the story （of the alleged treason）: for the words of Oed. （642 δρῶντα κακῶς, τέχνη κακή） had been vague.
 προπονουμένας “already troubled,” not, “troubled exceedingly.” προπονεῖν always = to suffer before, or for: Luc. Iupp. Trag. 40 “Ἀθηνᾶ Ἄρην καταγωνίζεται, ἄτε καὶ προπεπονηκότα οἶμαι ἐκ τοῦ τραύματος,” already disabled.
 The evasive answer of the Chorus has nettled Oedipus by implying that the blame was divided, and that both parties ought to be glad to forget it. He could never forget it （672）.ὁρᾷς ἵν᾽ ἥκεις conveys indignant reproach: a grave charge has been laid against your king; instead of meeting it with denial, you are led, by your sympathy with Creon, to imply that it cannot be directly met, and must be hushed up. Soph. Ant. 735 “ὁρᾷς τάδ᾽ ὡς εἴρηκας ὡς ἄγαν νέος”: Soph. El. 628 “ὁρᾷς; πρὸς ὁργὴν ἐκφέρει”.
 παριεὶς with τοὐμὸν κέαρ, seeking to relax, enervate, my resentment: a sense which the close connection with καταμβλύνων interprets, though the more ordinary meaning for παριεὶς, had it stood alone here, would be “neglecting,” “slighting” （“πόθος παρεῖ,” Soph. El. 545）: cp. Aristoph. Kn. 436 “τοῦ ποδὸς παρίει,” slack away （some of） the sheet: Eur. Cycl. 591 “ὕπνῳ παρειμένος”: Eur. Orest. 210 “τῷ λίαν παρειμένῳ,” （neut.） by too great languor. Schneidewin understands, “neglecting my interest, and blunting （your） feeling”: but τοὐμὸν must surely agree with κέαρ.
 πεφάνθαι ἂν oblique of πεφασμένος ἂν ἦν: for the tense cp. Isoc. 5.56 “λοιπὸν ἂν ἦν ... εἰ μὴ ἐπεποίητο.” Whitelaw, taking πεφάνθαι μ᾽ ἄν as oblique of πεφασμένος ἂν εἴην, defends the εἴ σε νοσφίζομαι of the MSS. by Plat. Phaedrus 228a “εἰ ἐγὼ Φαῖδρον ἀγνοῶ, καὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπιλέλησμαι,” and Plat. Apol. 25b “πολλὴ ἄν τις εὐδαιμονία εἴη περὶ τοὺς νέους, εἰ εἷς μὲν μόνος αὐτοὺς διαφθείρει, κ.τ.λ.” But the playful or ironical tone which εἰ with the pres. indic. gives to those passages seems hardly in place here. The change of one letter restores the required ἐνοσφιζόμαν.
 ἂν γένοιο The MSS. have εἰ δύναιο γενοῦ: for δύναιο, the 1st hand of L had written δύναι, i.e. δύνᾳ. Now εἰ δύνᾳ γενοῦ is satisfactory in itself, since δύνᾳ for δύνασαι has good authority in Attic, as Eur. Hec. 253 “δρᾷς δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς εὖ, κακῶς δ᾽ ὅσον δύνᾳ.” But then we must correct the strophe, 667, —as by writing there τὰ πρὸς σφῷν τοῖς πάλαι προσάψετον, which I should prefer to Nauck's ingenious προσάψει τοῖς πάλαι τὰ πρόσφατα. Verse 667, however, seems right as it stands: it gives a better rhythm for the closing cadence than we should obtain by adding a syllable. And if so, εἰ δύναιο （or δύνᾳ） γενοῦ here must be reduced to ˘¯˘. （i） If with Hermann we simply omit γενοῦ, the elliptical εἰ δύναιο— understanding ἴσθι or γενοῦ— is intolerably harsh; to me it does not seem even Greek. （2） εἰ γένοιο, “mayest thou become!” is read by Bergk and Dindorf; cp. 863 εἴ μοι ξυνείη. （3） To this I much prefer ἂν γένοιο, which Blaydes adopts; but I do so for a reason which he does not give. I suspect that εἰ δύναιο was a marginal gloss intended to define the sense of ἂν γένοιο, and that ἂν γένοιο was corrupted to γενοῦ when εἰ δύναιο had crept into the text. （4） Prof. Kennedy conjectures εἶ τό γ᾽ ἔν σοι: “now also | with thy best skill thou ably waftest.” Since the metre of 667 is not certainly sound, no treatment of our verse can be confident.
 κἄμ᾽ these men know it: allow me also to know it.ὅτου ... πράγματος causal gen.; Soph. Ant. 1177 “πατρὶ μηνίσας φόνου.” στήσας ἔχεις hast set up, i.e. conceived as an abiding sentiment, referring to 672 and 689. Cp. Eur. IA 785 “ἐλπὶς ... ι οἵαν ... ι στήσασαι τάδ᾽ ἐς ἀλλήλας ι μυθεύσουσι” （Fritzsch）.
 τῶνδ᾽ ἐς πλέον = πλέον ἢ τούσδε, not πλέον ἢ οἵδε. The Chorus having hinted that Oedipus was partly to blame, he deigned no reply to their protests of loyalty （689 f.）. But he respects Iocasta's judgment more, and will answer herΚρέοντος, sc. στήσας ἔχω τὴν μῆνιν: causal gen. answering to ὅτου πράγματος. βεβουλευκὼς in this periphrasis, the perf. part. is rarer than the aor. part.: Soph. Phil. 600 n. ἐγκαλεῖν νεῖκός （τινι）= to charge one with （beginning） a quarrel: as Soph. Phil. 328 “χόλον （τινὸς） κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐγκαλῶν,” charging them with having provoked your anger at a deed. μὲν οὖν “nay.” Soph. El. 1503. Aristoph. Kn. 13 “ΝΙ. λέγε σύ. ΔΗ. σὺ μὲν οὖν λέγε.” Distinguish μὲν οὖν in 483, where each word has a separate force.
 τό γ᾽ εἰς ἑαυτὸν in what concerns himself: Eur. IT 691 “τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἔμ᾽ οὐ κακῶς ἔχει.” —πᾶν ἐλευθεροῖ, sets wholly free （from the discredit of having brought such a charge）: Soph. Ant. 445 “ἔξω βαρείας αἰτίας ἐλεύθερον”: Plat. Laws 756d “ἐλεύθερον ἀφεῖσθαι τῆς ζημίας.”
 ἀφεὶς σεαυτόν an appropriate phrase, since ἀφιέναι was the regular term when the natural avenger of a slain man voluntarily released the slayer from the penalties: Dem. 38.59 “ἂν ὁ παθὼν αὐτὸς ἀφῇ τοῦ φόνου τὸν δράσαντα”: Antiph. 2.2 “οὐ τὸν αἴτιον ἀφέντες τὸν ἀναίτιον διώκομεν.”σοι ethic dat.: ἐστὶν ἔχον = ἔχει （ Eur. Supp. 427 “τί τούτων ἐστὶν οὐ καλῶς ἔχον;）”: τέχνης. partitive gen. The gods have prescience （498）; but they impart it to no man, —not even to such ministers as the Delphian priests. Iocasta reveres the gods （647）: it is to them, and first to Apollo, that she turns in trouble （911）. But the shock which had befallen her own life, —when at the bidding of Delphi her first-born was sacrificed without saving her husband Laius—has left a deep and bitter conviction that no mortal, be he priest or seer, shares the divine foreknowledge. In the Greek view the μάντις might be （1） first, the god himself, speaking through a divinely frenzied being in whom the human reason was temporarily superseded （hence the popular derivation of μαντική from μανία）: Plat. Tim. 71e “μαντικὴν ἀφροσύνῃ θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ δέδωκεν: οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς”: this was much the same as the Egyptian belief, Hdt. 2.83 “μαντικὴ δὲ αὐτοῖσι ὦδε διακέεται. ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδενὶ προσκέεται ἡ τέχνη, τῶν δὲ θεῶν μετεξετέροισι.” （2） Secondly, the μάντις might be a man who reads signs from birds, fire, etc., by rule of mystic science: it was against this τέχνη that scepticism most readily turned: Eur. El. 399 “Λοξίου γὰρ ἔμπεδοι ι χρησμοί, βροτῶν δὲ μαντικὴν χαίρειν λέγω.” Iocasta means: “I will not say that the message came through the lips of a truly god-possessed interpreter; but at any rate it came from the priests; it was an effort of human μαντική.” So in 946, 953 θεῶν μαντεύματα are oracles which professed to come from the gods. Others render: — “Nothing in mortal affairs is connected with the mantic art”: i.e. is affected by it, comes within its ken. Then ἐστὶν ἔχον will not stand for ἔχεται （which it could not do）, but for ἔχει, as meaning “is of,” “belongs to.” Hdt. has ἔχειν as = εἶναι with expressions equivalent to an adverb, as Hdt. 2.91 “ἀγῶνα γυμνικὸν διὰ πάσης ἀγωνίης ἔχοντα,” “consisting in every sort of contest,” as he might have said πολυτρόπως ἔχοντα: so Hdt. 3.128 “περὶ πολλῶν ἔχοντα πρηγμάτων （”= πολλαχῶς）: Hdt. 6.42 “κατὰ χώρην （”= ἐμπέδως） ἔχοντες: Hdt. 7.220 “ἐν ἔπεσιἑξαμέτροισι ἔχοντα.” But such instances are wholly different from the supposed use of ἔχειν alone as = εἶναι with a partitive genitive.
 οὐκ ἐρῶ κ.τ.λ. The exculpation of Apollo himself here is obviously not inconsistent with 720, which does not ascribe the prediction to him. And in 853 （ὅν γε Λοξίας ι διεῖπε） the name of the god merely stands for that of his Delphian priesthood.
 ἥξοι is better than the conject. ἕξοι （ “constrain”）, as expressing the suddenness with which the doom should overtake him. Soph. El. 489 “ἥξει ... Ἐρινύς.” The simple acc. αὐτὸν, since ἥξοι = καταλήψοιτο: cp. Hdt. 9.26 “φαμὲν ἡμέας ἱκνέεσθαι ἡγεμονεύειν,” instead of ἐς ἡμέας （2. 29）.
 ξένοι not Thebans, much less of his own blood.
 See on 733.
 διέσχον “Three days had not separated the child's birth from us”: three days had not passed since its birth. Plut. Tib. Gracch. 18 “κελεύσαντος ἐκείνου διασχεῖν τὸ πλῆθος,” to keep the crowd off.βλάστας cannot be acc. of respect （“as to the birth”）, because διέσχον could not mean “had elapsed”: when διέχειν is intrans. it means (a) to be distant, Thuc. 8.79 “διέχει δὲ ὀλίγον ταύτῃ ἡ Σάμος τῆς ἠπείρου”: or (b) to extend, Hdt. 4.42 “διώρυχα ... διέχουσαν ἐς τὸν Ἀράβιον κόλπον.” ἄρθρα ποδοῖν = τὰ σφυρά: ἐνζεύξας, fastened together by driving a pin through them, so as to maim the child and thus lessen the chance of its being reared if it survived exposure: Eur. Phoen. 22 （Iocasta speaks） ἔσπειρεν ἡμῖν παῖδα, καὶ σπείρας βρέφος, ι γνοὺς τἀμπλάκημα τοῦ θεοῦ τε τὴν φάτιν, ι λειμῶν᾽ ἐς Ἥρας καὶ Κιθαιρῶνος λέπας ι δίδωσι βουκόλοισιν ἐκθεῖναι βρέφος, ι σφυρῶν σιδηρᾶ κέντρα διαπείρας μέσον （better μέσων）, ι ὅθεν νιν Ἑλλὰς ὠνόμαζεν Οἰδίπουν. Seneca Oed. 812 Forata ferro gesseras vestigia, Tumore nactus nomen ac vitio pedum.
 εἰς ἄβατον ὄρος the tribrach contained in one word gives a ruggedness which is certainly intentional here, as in 1496 τὸν πατέρα πατήρ, Soph. Aj. 459 “πεδία τάδε.” A tribrach in the 5th place, always rare, usually occurs either when the penultimate word of the verse is a paeon primus （¯˘˘˘）, as Soph. El. 326 “ἐντάφια χεροῖν”, or when the last word is a paeon quartus （˘˘˘¯）, as Soph. Phil. 1302 “ἄνδρα πολέμιον.” Verse 967 below is exceptional.
 κἀνταῦθ᾽ cp. 582.
 It is more likely that, as our MSS. suggest, παθεῖν should have been a commentator's conjecture than that θανεῖν should have been a copyist's error （from v. 713）. No objection can be drawn from the occurrence of πρὸς παιδὸς θανεῖν so soon after 713: see on 519.
 τοιαῦτα ... διώρισαν i.e. made predictions at once so definite and so false: φῆμαι, a solemn word used scornfully: cp. 86. The sense of διώρισαν in 1083 is slightly different: here we might compare Dem. 20.158 “ὁ Δράκων ... καθαρὸν διώρισεν εἶναι,” “has laid down that the man is pure.”
 ὧν χρείαν ἐρευνᾷ: a bold phrase blended, as it were, from ὧν ἂν χρείαν ἔχῃ ανδ ἂ ἂν χρήσιμα （ὄντα） ἐρευνᾷ: cp. Soph. Phil. 327 “τίνος ... ι χόλον ... ἐγκαλῶν,” instead of τίνος χόλον ἔχων or τί ἐγκαλῶν.
[726-754] The mention of “three roads” （716） has startled Oedipus. He now asks concerning （1） the place, （2） the time, （3） the person. The agreement of （1） with （2） dismays him; that of both with （3） flashes conviction to his mind.
 ποίας μερ. ὑποστρ. having turned round on account of （= startled by） what care, —like a man whom a sound at his back causes to turn in alarm: —far more expressive than ἐπιστραφείς, which would merely denote attention. For the gen., cp. Soph. Aj. 1116 “τοῦ δὲ σοῦ ψόφου ι οὐκ ἂν στραφείην.”
 σχιστὴ δ᾽ ὁδός In going from Thebes to Delphi, the traveller passes by these “Branching Roads,” —still known as the τρίοδοι, but better as the στενό: from Daulia it is a leisurely ride of about an hour and a half along the side of Parnassus. The following is from my notes taken on the spot: — “A bare isolated hillock of grey stone stands at the point where our path from Daulia meets the road to Delphi, and a third road that stretches to the south. There, in front, we are looking up the road down which Oedipus came [from Delphi]; we are moving in the steps of the man whom he met and slew; the road runs up a wild and frowning pass between Parnassus on the right hand and on the left the spurs of the Helicon range, which here approach it. Away to the south a wild and lonely valley opens, running up among the waste places of Helicon, a vista of naked cliffs or slopes clothed with scanty herbage, a scene of inexpressible grandeur and desolation” （Modern Greece p. 79）. At this σχιστὴ ὁδός Pausanias saw τὰ τοῦ Λαΐου μνήματα καὶ οἰκέτου τοῦ ἑπομένου: the legend was that Damasistratus king of Thebes had found the bodies and buried them （10. 5 sect. 4）. The spot has a modern monument which appeals with scarcely less force to the imagination of a visitor, —the tomb of a redoubtable brigand who was killed in the neighbourhood many years ago.
 τοῖσδ᾽ For the dat. cp. Hdt. 2.145 “Διονύσῳ μέν νυν ... κατὰ ἑξακόσια ἔτεα καὶ χίλια μάλιστά ἐστι ἐς ἐμέ: Ηρακλέϊ δὲ ... κατὰ εἰνακόσια ἔτεα: Πανὶ δὲ κατὰ τὰ ὀκτακόσια μάλιστα ἐς ἐμέ.” Then from persons the idiom is transferred to things: Thuc. 3.29 “ἡμέραι μάλιστα ἦσαν τῇ Μυτιλήνᾳ ἑαλωκυίᾳ ἑπτά.”
 σχεδόν τι πρόσθεν The interval supposed between the death of Laius and the accession of Oedipus must be long enough to contain the process by which the Sphinx had gradually brought Thebes to despair: but Soph. probably had no very definite conception of it: see on 758.
 I do not believe that Soph., or any Greek, could have written φύσιν ι τίν᾽ εἶχε, φράζε, τίνα δ᾽ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων, which Herm. was inclined to defend as if τίνα φύσιν εἶχε = τίς ἦν φύσιν. Now τίνος would easily pass into τίνα δ᾽ with a scribe who did not follow the construction; and to restore τίνος seems by far the most probable as well as the simplest remedy. No exception can be taken to the phrase τίνος ἀκμὴν ἥβης as = “the ripeness of what period of vigorous life.”
 χνοάζων λευκανθὲς κάρα = ἔχων χνοάζον λευκαῖς κάρα: Aristoph. Cl. 978 “χνοῦς ὥσπερ μήλοισιν ἐπήνθει” （the down on his chin was as the bloom on apples）: here the verb marks the light strewing of silver in dark hair. Cp. Soph. El. 43 “ἠνθισμένον.” As Aesch. has μελανθὲς γένος, “swarthy” （Aesch. Supp. 154）, so in Anthol. 12.165 （Jacobs 2.502） λευκανθής = “of fair complexion” as opp. to μελίχρους.
 τάλāς as being for τάλανς: Aristoph. Birds 1494 “οἴμοι τάλας, ὁ Ζεὺς ὅπως μή μ᾽ ὄψεται.” In Anthol. 9.378 （Jac. 2.132） καὶ κοιμῶ μεταβάς, ὦ τάλας, ἀλλαχόθι, τάλαν is an easy remedy: but not so in Theocr. 2.4 “ἀφ᾽ ὦ τάλας οὐδέποθ᾽ ἥκει,” where πέλας has been conjectured.ἔοικα ... οὐκ εἰδέναι = ἔοικεν ὅτι οὐκ ᾔδη: cp. 236 f. ἃνδ᾽ is certainly preferable to ἃ δ᾽ ἂν in a poet whose versification is not characterised by any love of unnecessary διάλυσις. Even in prose we find ὃς ἂν δέ instead of “ὃς δὲ ἄν,” Hdt. 7.8.
 βαιός identifies the chief with his retinue, —the adjective, when so used, suggesting a collective force like that of a stream, full or thin: so πολὺς ρ̀εῖ, πολὺς πνεῖ of vehement speech, etc.; Eur. Orest. 1200 “ἢν πολὺς παρῇ,” if he come in his might: συχνὸν πολίχνιον, a populous town （Plat. Rep. 370d）.
 κῆρυξ as the meet attendant of a king on the peaceful and sacred mission of a θεωρός （114）. The herald's presence would add solemnity to the sacrifice and libation at Delphi: Athen. 660 A ἔδρων （= ἔθυον） δὲ οἱ κήρυκες ἄχρι πολλοῦ, βουθυτοῦντες ... καὶ σκευάζοντες καὶ μιστύλλοντες, ἔτι δὲ οἰνοχοοῦντες. ἀπήνη ἦγε μία = μία ἦν ἀπήνη, ἢ ἦγε: Pind. N. 9.41 “ἔνθ᾽ Ἀρέας πόρον ἄνθρωποι καλέοισι” = ἔνθα πόρος ἐστὶν ὂν Ἀ. καλοῦσιν. The ἀπήνη, properly a mule-car （Pind. P. 4.94） but here drawn by colts （802）, and in the Odyssey synonymous with ἄμαξα （Hom. Od. 6.37, 57）, was a four-wheeled carriage used for travelling, as dist. from the two-wheeled war-chariot （ἄρμα）: its Homeric epithet ὑψηλή indicates that it stood higher on its wheels than the ἅρμα: it could be fitted with a frame or basket for luggage （“ὑπερτερίη” Hom. Od. 6.70, “πείρινς” Hom. Il. 24.190）.
 Cp. 118. οἰκεύς=οἰκέτης, as in the Odyssey and in a νόμος Σόλωνος in Lys. 10.19, who explains it by θεράπων. The Iliad has the word only twice, both times in plur., of “inmates” （slave or free: Hom. Il. 5.413: Hom. Il. 6.366）.
 The poet has neglected clearness on a minor point. The οἰκεύς— sole survivor of the four attendants—had fled back to Thebes with the news that Laius had been slain by robbers （118-123）. This news came before the trouble with the Sphinx began: 126-131. And the play supposes an interval of at least several days between the death of Laius and the election of Oedipus: see on 736. Hence κεῖθεν ἦλθε καὶ ... εἶδε cannot mean that the οἰκεύς, on reaching Thebes, found Oedipus already reigning. Nor can we suggest that he may have fled from the scene of the slaughter before he was sure that Laius had been killed: that is excluded by 123 and 737. Therefore we must understand:— “when he had come thence, and [afterwards] found that not only was Laius dead, but you were his successor.” （For the parataxis σέ τε ... Λάϊόν τε see on 673.） I incline to suspect, however, that Sophocles was here thinking of the man as coming back to find Oedipus already on the throne, and had overlooked the inconsistency. The conjecture Λαΐου τε δώματα for Λάϊόν τ᾽ ὀλωλότα （Wolff） would remove the difficulty, but seems very improbable.
 ἀγρούς might be acc. of motion to （ Soph. OC 1769 “θήβας δ᾽ ἡμᾶς ι ... πέμψον）;” but it is better here governed by ἐπὶ: for the position of the prep. cp. 734, 1205, Soph. El. 780 “οὔτε νυκτὸς οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἡμέρας.”νομάς on Cithaeron, or near it, 1127. The man had formerly served as a shepherd （1039）, and had then been taken into personal attendance on Laius （οἰκεύς）.
 τοῦδ᾽ ἄποπτος ἄστεως “far from the sight of this town”: that is, far from the power of seeing it: whereas in Soph. El. 1487 “κτανὼν πρόθες ι ... ἄποπτον ἡμῶν”= “far from our eyes”: the gen. as after words of “distance from.” See Appendix.
 οἶ᾽ the ὅ γ᾽ of L （clumsily amended to ὁ δέ γ᾽ in other MSS.） prob. came from οἷ᾽, rather than from ὡς or ὥς γ᾽. Soph. Phil. 583 “οἷ᾽ ἀνὴρ πένης,” “for a poor man”: Eur. Orest. 32 “κἀγὼ μετέσχον, οἷα δὴ γυνή, φόνου,” “so far as a woman might.” ὡς, however, is commoner in this limiting sense （1118）; οἷα more often = “like” （751）. Here οἷα qualifies ἄξιος, implying that in strictness the faithful service of a slave could not be said to create merit.
 φέρειν cp. 590.
 πάρεστιν “it is easily done.” Eur. Ba. 843 “ΠΕ. ἐλθών γ᾽ ἐς οἴκους ἂν δοκῇ βουλεύσομαι. ι ΔΙ. ἔξεστι: πάντῃ τό γ᾽ ἐμὸν εὐτρεπὲς πάρα.” Not, “he is here” （nor, “he is as good as here,” as the schol. explains）: in 769 ἵξεται = “he will come from the pastures.”
 δι᾽ ἅ The sense is: “I fear that I have spoken too many words; and on account of those words I wish to see him”: cp. 744, 324. Not: “I fear that my words have given me only too much cause to desire his presence.” A comma after μοι is here conducive to clearness.ἐν σοὶ =within thee, in thy mind （not “in thy case”）: cp. ἐν with the reflexive pronouns, Plat. Theaet. 192d “ἐν ἐμαυτῷ μεμνημένος”: Plat. Crat. 384a “προσποιούμενός τι αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ διανοεῖσθαι.”
 ἐς τοσοῦτον ἐλπίδων Isoc. 8.31 “εἰς τοῦτο γάρ τινες ἀνοίας ἐληλύθασιν”: Aristoph. Cl. 832 “σὺ δ᾽ ἐς τοσοῦτον τῶν μανιῶν ἐλήλυθας.” The plural of ἐλπίς is rare as = anxious forebodings: but cp. 487.
 μείζονι strictly, “more important”: cp. Dem. 19.248 “ἀντὶ ... τῆς πΟͅλεως τὴν Φιλίππου ξενίαν καὶ φιλίαν πολλῷ μείζονα ἡγήσατο αὐτῷ καὶ λυσιτελεστέραν” （alluding to Soph. Ant. 182 “καὶ μείζον᾽ ὅστις ἀντὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ πάτρας ι φίλον νομίζει）”: Soph. Ant. 637 “οὐδεὶς ... γάμος ι μείζον᾽ ὅστις θαι σοῦ καλῶς ἡγουμένου,” no marriage can be a greater prize than your good guidance. The καὶ with λέξαιμ᾽ ἂν: — could I speak? Lys. 12.29 “παρὰ τοῦ ποτε καὶ λήψεσθε δίκην;” from whom will you ever exact satisfaction?
 The epithet “Dorian” carries honour: Meropee was of the ancient stock, claiming descent from Dorus son of Hellen, who settled in the region between Oeta and Parnassus. The Scholiast's comment, Πελοποννησιακή, forgets that the Theban story is laid in times before the Dorian conquest.
 πρίν μοι ... ἐπέστη （1） πρίν with infin. = our “before,” whether the sentence is affirmative or negative: ἦλθε πρὶν κληθῆναι, οὐκ ἦλθε πρὶν κληθῆναι. （2） πρίν with a finite mood （indic., subj., or opt.） = our “until” in negative sentences. Thus οὐκ ἦλθε πρὶν ἐκλήθη differs from οὐκ ἦλθε πρὶν κληθῆναι by implying that at last he was called, and then came. Here, the form of the sentence is affirmative （ἠγόμην）, and ἕως would therefore be more strictly correct. But the thought is negative （ “nothing happened to disturb me”）; hence πρίν. So Thuc. 3.29 “τοὺς ... Ἀθηναίους λανθάνουσι （”= οὐχ ὁρῶνται ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀ.） πρὶν δὴ τῇ Δήλῳ ἔσχον. Cp. Whitelaw in Trans. Cam. Phil. Soc. 1886, p. 26.ἐπέστη a verb often used of enemies suddenly coming upon one: Isoc. 9.58 “μικροῦ δεῖν ἔλαθεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ βασίλειον ἐπιστάς”: Hdt. 4.203 “ἐπὶ τῇ Κυρηναίων πόλι ἐπέστησαν.”
 ὑπερπλησθεὶς μέθῃ, lit., intoxicated by drinking （caus. dat.）: μέθη always = “drinking” （not “strong wine”）: cp. Hdt. 5.20 “καλῶς ἔχοντας ... μέθης” （“having had enough of drinking”）. For the dat. cp. Aesch. Pers. 132 “λέκτρα ... πίμπλαται δακρύμασιν.”πλαστὸς ὡς εἴην instead of πλαστόν, as if preceded by ὀνειδίζει μοι instead of καλεῖ με. Somewhat similarly ὀνομάζω = λέγω, as Plat. Prot. 311e “σοφιστὴν ... ὀνομάζουσι ... τὸν ἄνδρα εἶναι.” πλαστὸς, “feigned （in speech）,” “falsely called a son,” πατρί, “for my father,” i.e. to deceive him. Eur. Alc. 639 “μαστῷ γυναικὸς σῆς ὑπεβλήθην λάθρα,” whence ὑποβολιμαῖος = νόθος.
 κατέσχον sc. ἐμαυτόν. In classical Attic this use occurs only here: in later Greek it recurs, as Plut. Artax. 15 “εἶπεν οὖν μὴ κατασχών. ὑμεῖς μέν κ.τ.λ.” Cp. ἔχε, σχές, ἐπίσχες （“stop”）, in Plat., Dem., etc.
 τῷ μεθέντι: the reproach was like a random missile: Menander fr. 88 οὔτ᾽ ἐκ χερὸς μεθέντα καρτερὸν λίθον ι ῥᾷον κατασχεῖν, οὔτ᾽ ἀπὸ γλώσσης λόγον. The dat., because δυσφόρως τοὔνειδος ἦγον = ὠργίζοντο ἕνεκα τοῦ ὀνείδους.
 ὑφεῖρπε γὰρ πολύ so ὑφέρπειν of malicious rumour, Aesch. Ag. 450 “φθονερὸν δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἄλγος ἕρπει ι προδίκοις Ἀτρείδαις.” Libanius 784 A （quoted by Musgrave） πολὺς τοιοῦτος ὑφεῖρπε λόγος （perhaps suggested by this passage）. Pind. I. 3.58 “τοῦτο γὰρ ἀθάνατον φωνᾶεν ἕρπει, ι εἴ τις εὖ εἴπῃ τι.” Cp. Soph. Ant. 700 “τοιάδ᾽ ἐρεμνὴ σῖγ᾽ ἐπέρχεται φάτις.” For πολύ cp. Soph. OC 517 “τὸ πολύ τοι καὶ μηδαμὰ λῆγον,” that strong rumour which is in no wise failing: Soph. OC 305 “πολὺ ... τὸ σὸν ὄνομα ι διήκει πάντας.” This version also agrees best with 775, which implies that the incident had altered his popular repute. We might render: “it was ever recurring to my mind with force”: but this (a) is a repetition: (b) is less suited to πολύ, which implies diffusion.
 ὦν ἱκόμην ἄτιμον = ἄτιμον τούτων ἃ ἱκόμην, not graced in respect of those things （responses） for which I had come: Eur. Andr. 1014 “ἄτιμον ὀργάναν χέρα τεκτοσύνας,” not rewarded for its skill. For ἃ ἱκόμην （cogn. accus. denoting the errand, like ἔρχομαι ἀγγελίαν） cp. 1005 τοῦτ᾽ ἀφικόμην: Soph. OC 1291 “ἃ δ᾽ ἦλθον ... θέλω λέξαι”: Aristoph. Pl. 966 “ὅ τι μάλιστ᾽ ἐλήλυθας”: Plat. Prot. 310e “ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ νῦν ἥκω παρὰ σέ” （where the acc. is cogn. to ἥκω, not object to the following διαλεχθῇς）.
 προὔφηνεν suggested by Herm., has been adopted by several recent editors. Cp. Hdt. 1.210 “τῷ δὲ ὁ δαίμων προέφαινε,” and so Hdt. 3.65, Hdt. 7.37: Plut. Dem. 19 “ἐν οἷς ἥ τε Πυθία δεινὰ προὔφαινε μαντεύματα καὶ ὁ χρησμὸς ᾔδετο”: Plut. Camill. 4 （a man who pretended to μαντική） λόγια προὔφαινεν ἀπόρρητα: Dem. 21.54 “τοῖς ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης μαντείας προφαινομένοις θεοῖς,” the gods announced （as claiming sacrifice） on each reference to the oracle. Yet the fact that προφαίνειν was thus a vox sollennis for oracular utterance would not suffice to warrant the adoption of προὔφηνεν, if the προὐφάνη of the MSS. seemed defensible. προὐφάνη λέγων would mean, “came into view, telling”: cp. above, 395, and Soph. El. 1285 “νῦν δ᾽ ἔχω σεπροὐφάνης δὲ ι φιλτάταν ἔχων πρόσοψιν.” It might apply to the sudden appearance of a beacon （cp. “ὁ φρυκτὸς ἀγγέλλων πρέπει,” Aesch. Ag. 30）: but, in reference to the god speaking through the oracle, it could only mean, by a strained metaphor, “flashed on me with the message,” i.e. announced it with startling suddenness and clearness. The difficulty of conceiving Sophocles to have written thus is to me so great that the special appropriateness of προὔφηνεν turns the scale.ὁρᾶν with ἄτλητον, which, thus defined, is in contrast with δηλώσοιμ᾽: he was to show men what they could not bear to look upon.
 ἐπακούσας （708）, “having given ear”—with the attention of silent horror.τὴν κορινθίαν “Henceforth measuring from afar （ἐκμετρούμενος）by the stars the region of Corinth, I went my way into exile, to some place where I should not see fulfilled the dishonours of [= foretold by] my evil oracles.” ἄστροις ἐκμετρούμενος: i.e. visiting it no more, but only thinking of it as a distant land that lies beneath the stars in this or that quarter of the heavens. Schneidewin cp. Aelian Hist. Anim. 7.48 （περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος） ἧκε δ᾽ οὖν （Ἀνδροκλῆς） ἐς τὴν Λιβύην καὶ τὰς μὲν πόλεις ἀπελίμπανε καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον ἄστροις αὐτὰς ἐσημαίνετο, προῄει δὲ ἐς τὴν ἐρήμην: “proceeded to leave the cities, and, as the saying is, knew their places only by the stars, and went on into the desert.” Wunder quotes Medea's words in Valer. Flacc. 7.478 quando hic aberis, dic, quaeso, profundi Quod caeli spectabo latus? ἔφευγον might share with ἐκμετρ. the government of τὴν Κορ. χθόνα, but is best taken absolutely. Sense, not grammar, forbids the version: - “I went into exile from the Corinthian land （τὴν Κορινθίαν）,thenceforth measuring my way on earth （χθόνα） by the stars.” Phrases like ὕπαστρον ... μῆχαρ ὁρίζομαι γάμου δύσφρονος ι φυγᾷ （Aesch. Supp. 395）, ἄστροις τεκμαίρεσθαι ὁδόν （Luc. Icaromen. 1）, are borrowed from voyages in which the sailor has no guides but the stars. Such phrases could be used figuratively only of a journey through deserts: as Hesych. explains the proverb ἄστροις σημειοῦσθαι: μακρὰν καὶ ἐρήμην ὁδὸν βαδίζειν: ἡ δὲ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν πλεόντων.
 ἔνθα = ἐκεῖσε ἔνθα, as in Soph. Phil. 1466. φεύγω ἔνθα μὴ ὄψομαι = “I fly to such a place that I shall not see”; the relative clause expresses purpose, and μή gives a generic force: cp. 1412: Soph. Aj. 659: Soph. El. 380, 436: Soph. Trach. 800. Here, the secondary tense ἔφευγον permits ὀψοίμην. Remark, however, that in such relative clauses （of purpose or result） the fut. indic. is usually retained, even where the optat. is admissible. A rare exception is Plat. Rep. 416c. φαίη ἄν τις ... δεῖν ... οὐσίαν τοιαύτην αὐτοῖς παρεσκευάσθαι, ἥτις μήτε ... παύσοι κ.τ.λ.: where παύσοι （if sound） is probably due to φαίη ἄν （see on Soph. OC 778） rather than to δεῖν as = ὅτι ἔδει.
 καί σοι ... τριπλῆς The hand which added this verse in the margin of L seems to be “as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century” （Mr E. M. Thompson, Introd. to Facsimile of Laur. MS.）. The verse is in A （1t(h cent.） and all our other MSS. To eject the verse, as Dindorf and Nauck have done, is utterly unwarrantable. It has a fine dramatic force. Oedipus is now at the critical point: he will hide nothing of the truth from her who is nearest to him. It is part of his character that his earnest desire to know the truth never flinches: cp. 1170.
 ἀπήνης see on 753.οἶον adverbial neut. = ὡς, referring to Iocasta's whole description; not acc. masc., referring to the person of Laius as described by her.
[804-812] The κῆρυξ is, I think, identical with the ἡγεμών, and distinct from the τροχηλάτης. I understand the scene thus. Oedipus was coming down the steep narrow road when he met the herald （to be known for such by his stave, κηρύκειον） walking in front of the carriage （ἡγεμών）.The herald rudely bade him stand aside; and Laius, from the carriage, gave a like command. （With the imperfect ἠλαυνέτην, “were for driving,” πρὸς βίαν need not mean more than a threat or gesture.） The driver （τροχηλάτης）,who was walking at his horses “ heads up the hill, then did his lord's bidding by actually jostling the wayfarer （ἐκτρέποντα）. Oedipus, who had forborne to strike the sacred herald, now struck the driver; in another moment, while passing the carriage, he was himself struck on the head by Laius. He dashed Laius from the carriage; the herald, turning back, came to the rescue; and Oedipus slew Laius, herald, driver, and one of two servants who had been walking by or behind the carriage; the other servant （unperceived by Oedipus） escaped to Thebes with the news.
 ὄχου “from the chariot— having watched for the moment when I was passing— he came down on me, full on my head （μέσον κάρα acc. of part affected）, with the double goad.” The gen. ὄχου marks the point from which the action sets out, and is essentially like τᾶς πολυχρύσου ι Πυθῶνος ... ἔβας v. 151: cp. Hom. Od. 21.142 “ὄρνυσθε ... ι ἀρξάμενοι τοῦ χώρου ὅθεν τέ περ οἰνοχοεύει,” from the place. In prose we should have had ἀπ᾽ ὄχου. As the verb here involves motion, we cannot compare such a gen. as ἷζεν ... τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου （Hom. Il. 9.219）, where, if any prep. were supplied, it would be πρός.τηρήσας Dem. 53.17 （contemporary with Dem.） τηρήσας με ἀνιόντα ἐκ Πειραιῶς ὀψὲ ... ἁρπάζει.
 καθίκετο governs μου, which μέσον κάρα defines: Plut. Anton. 12 sku/tesi lasi/ois ... kaqiknou/menoi tw=n e)ntugxano/ntwn: Lucian Sym. 16 “τάχα δ᾽ ἄν τινος καθίκετο τῇ βακτηρίᾳ”: Lucian Icaromenippus 24 “σφόδρα ἡμῶν ὁ πέρυσι χειμὼν καθίκετο.” This verb takes accus. only as = to reach, lit. or fig. （as Hom. Il. 14.104 “μάλα πώς με καθίκεο θυμόν）.”διπλοῖς κέντροισι a stick armed at the end with two points, used in driving. Cp. Hom. Il. 23.387 （horses） ... ἄνευ κέντροιο θέοντες. The τροχηλάτης had left it in the carriage when he got out to walk up the hill. ἔτεισεν τείσω, ἔτεισα, ἐτείσθην （not τίσω, etc.） were the Attic spellings of the poet's age: see the epigraphic evidence in Meisterhans, Gramm. p. 88. συντόμως in a way which made short work: cp. Thuc. 7.42 “ἠπείγετο ἐπιθέσθαι τῇ πείρᾳ καί οἱ ξυντομωτάτην ἡγεῖτο διαπολέμησιν,” the quickest way of deciding the war: Hdt. 5.17 “ἔστι δὲ σύντομος κάρτα” （sc. ὁδός）, there is a short cut. The conject. συντόνως （ Soph. Trach. 923 “συντόνῳ χερί”） would efface the grim irony.
 μέσης implies that a moment before he had seemed firmly seated: “right out of the carriage.” Eur. Cycl. 7 “ἰτέαν μέσην θενών,” striking full on the shield: Eur. IT 1385 “νηὸς δ᾽ ἐκ μέσης ἐφθέγξατο ι βοή τις,” from within the ship itself: Soph. El. 965 “ἄρκυν εἰς μέσην,” right into the net.
 εἰ συγγενές τι τῷ Λαΐῳ if any tie with Laius προσήκει τούτῳ τῷ ξένῳ belongs to this stranger. συγγενής can take either dat. （akin to） or gen. （kin of）: and here several editors give Λαΐου. But the dat.Λαΐῳ, making it verbally possible to identify the ξένος with Laius, suits the complex suggestiveness with which the language of this drama is often contrived: cp. τῶν in 1167. Again,τῷ ξένῳ τούτῳ might apply to Oedipus himself （452）. Had we τι without συγγενές, Λαΐου （part. gen.） would then be necessary. The constructions of προσήκειν are （1） προσήκω τινί, I am related to: （2） προσήκει μοί τινος, I have a right in, or tie with: （3） προσήκει μοί τι, it belongs to me. Here it is （3）.
 δν ... τινι The MS.ᾧ ... τινα must be rendered, with Hermann: “to whom it is not allowed that any one should receive （him）”: but the words would naturally mean: “to whom it is not allowed to receive any one.” In 376, where σε ... γ᾽ ἐμοῦ is certain, all our MSS. have με ... γε σοῦ: much more might the cases have been shifted here.ὠθεῖν δ᾽ the positive δεῖ must be evolved from the negative οὐκ ἔξεστι: cp. Soph. El. 71 “καὶ μή μ᾽ ἄτιμον τῆσδ᾽ ἀποστείλητε γῆς ι ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχέπλουτον” （sc. καταστήσατε）. See above, 241. καὶ τάδ᾽ And these things—these curses— none but I laid on myself. And as the thought proceeds, the speaker repeats τάδε in a more precise and emphatic form: cp. Plat. Rep. 606b “ἐκεῖνο κερδαίνειν ἡγεῖται, τὴν ἡδονήν.”
 ἆρ᾽—ἆρ᾽ οὐχὶ Where ἆρα is equivalent in sense to ἆρ᾽ οὐ, this is because it means, “are you satisfied that it is so?” i.e. “is it not abudantly clear?” （Soph. El. 614）. Here, the transition from ἆρα to ἆρ᾽ οὐχὶ is from bitter irony to despairing earnest.
 Πόλυβον Wunder and others think this verse spurious. But it is, in fact, of essential moment to the development of the plot. Oedipus fears that he has slain Laius, but does not yet dream that Laius was his father. This verse accentuates the point at which his belief now stands, and so prepares us for the next stage of discovery. A few MSS. give ἐξέθρεψε κἀξέφυσε: but the Homeric πρότερον ὔστερον （ Hom. Od. 12.134 “θρέψασα τεκοῦσά τε）” seems out of place here just because it throws a less natural emphasis on ἐξέφυσε.
 ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ τῷδε with ὀρθοίη λόγον, speak truly in my case. Isaeus 8.1 “ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀνάγκη ἐστὶ χαλεπῶς φέρειν,” in such cases. Hom. Il. 19.181 “σὺ δ᾽ ἔπειτα δικαιότερος καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλῳ ι ἔσσεαι,” in another's case.κηλῖδα cp. ἄγος 1426: Soph. OC 1133 “κηλὶς κακῶν.” For συμφορᾶς, see on 99.
 τῆς ἐλπίδος The art. is due to the mention of ἐλπίδα just before, but its force is not precisely, “the hope of which you speak.” Rather ἐλπίδα is “some hope,” τῆς ἐλπίδος is “hope” in the abstract: cp. Dem. 19.88 “ἡλίκα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθὰ ἐκ τῆς εἰρήνης γίγνεται,” i.e. “from peace,” not “the peace.”
 πάθος a calamity, —viz. that of being proved blood-guilty. The conjecture ἄγος is specious. But πάθος shows a finer touch; it is the euphemism of a shrinking mind （like the phrase ἤν τι πάθω for θάνω）. For perf. with ἄν cp. 693.
 περισσόν more than ordinary, worthy of special note: Hdt. 2.32 “τοὺς ἄλλα τε μηχανᾶσθαι ... περισσά,” i.e. among other remarkable enterprises: Eur. Supp. 790 “τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἤλπιζον ἂν πεπονθέναι ι πάθος περισσόν, εἰ γάμων ἀπεζύγην,” I had not deemed it a more than common woe. Iocasta is unconscious of any point peculiar to her version, on which a hope could depend: she had reported the story of the slaughter in the fewest words, 715 -716.ἴσος “one cannot be made to tally with （cannot be identified with） those many”: τοῖς πολλοῖς, referring to the plur. λῃστάς （842）.
 οἰόζωνον journeying alone. The peculiarity of the idiom is that the second part of the compound is equivalent to a separate epithet for the noun: i. e. οἰόζωνος, “with solitary girdle,” signifies, “alone, and girt up.” Soph. OC 717 “τῶν ἑκατομπόδων Νηρῄδων,” not, “with a hundred feet each,” but, countless, and dancing: Soph. OC 17 “πυκνόπτεροι αἠδόνες,” not, thickly-feathered, but, many and winged: Soph. OC 1055 “διστόλους ἀδελφάς,” not, separately-journeying sisters, but, two sisters, journeying: Soph. Aj. 390 “δισσάρχας βασιλῆς,” not, diversely-reigning kings, but, two reigning kings: Eur. Alc. 905 “κόρος μονόπαις,” not, a youth with one child, but, a youth, his only child: Eur. Phoen. 683 “διώνυμοι θεαί,” not, goddesses with contrasted names, but, several goddesses, each of whom is invoked. So I understand Eur. Orest. 1004 “μονόπωλον Ἀῶ,” “Eos who drives her steeds alone” （when moon and stars have disappeared from the sky）.
 ἐπίστασο φανὲν τοὔπος ὦδε know that the tale was thus set forth: ἐπίστασο ὡς φανὲν τοὔπος ὧδε, know that you may take the story to have been thus set forth: where ὡς merely points to the mental attitude which the subject of ἐπίστασο is to assume. Soph. Phil. 567 “ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμεν᾽, οὐ μέλλοντ᾽ ἔτι,” know that you may assume these things to be a-doing, not delayed: and Soph. Phil. 253, Soph. Phil. 415: below 956. So with the gen. abs.: Soph. Aj. 281 “ὡς ὧδ᾽ ἐχόντων τῶνδ᾽ ἐπίστασθαί σε χρή,” these things being so, you must view them in that belief.
 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.λοξίας a surname of the oracular Apollo, popularly connected with λοξός, “oblique” （akin to λέχ‐ριος, obliquus, luxus, ‘sprained ’）, as = the giver of indirect, ambiguous responses （“λοξὰ καὶ ἐπαμφοτερίζοντα,” Lucian Dial. Deor. 16）: Cornutus 32 λοξῶν δὲ καὶ περισκελῶν ὄντων τῶν χρησμῶν οὓς δίδωσι Λοξίας ὠνόμασται, and so Lycophron 14.1467: to this Pacuvius alludes, Flexa non falsa autumare dictio Delphis solet. The association of Apollo with Helios suggested to the Stoics that the idea connecting λοξός with Λοξίας might be that of the ecliptic: to which it might be replied that the name Λοξίας was older than the knowledge of the fact. It is not etymologically possible to refer Λοξίας to λυκ, lux. But phonetic correspondence would justify the connection, suggested by Dr Fennell, with ἀ-λεξ （Skt. rak-sh）. Λοξίας and his sister Λοξώ （Callim. Del. 292） would then be other forms of Phoebus and Artemis ἀλεξητήριοι, ἀλεξίμοροι （above, 164）, ‘defenders.’ Iocasta's utterance here is not really inconsistent with her reservation in 712: see note there.
 οὔτε τῇδε—οὔτε τῇδε = οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ τάδε οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ θάτερα, neither to this side nor to that: Soph. Phil. 204 “ἤ που τῇδ᾽ ἢ τῇδε τόπων”: Hom. Il. 12.237 （Hector to Polydamas）: τύνη δ᾽ οἰωνοῖσι τανυπτερύγεσσι κελεύεις ι πείθεσθαι: τῶν οὔτι μετατρέπομ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀλεγίζω, ι εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε, ι εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.μαντείας γ᾽ ... οὕνεκα so far as it is concerned: Soph. OC 22 “χρόνου μὲν οὕνεκ᾽,” n. στελοῦντα, “to summon”: στέλλειν = “to cause to set out” （by a mandate）, hence “to summon”: Soph. OC 297 σκοπὸς δέ νιν ι ὃς κἀμὲ δεῦρ᾽ ἔπεμπεν οἴχεται στελῶν.—μηδὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἀφῇς, “ανδ δο νοτ νεγλεξτ τηις.” ωιτη α ποιντ αφτερ στελοῦντα ωε ξουλδ ρενδερ: “νεγλεξτ νοτ εϝεν τηις”: βυτ οεδ. δοες νοτ φεελ, νορ φειγν, ινδιφφερενξε. ὧν οὐ σοὶ φίλον = τούτων ἃ πρᾶξαι οὐ σοὶ φίλον ἐστί. Soph. Phil. 1227 “ἔπραξας ἔργον ποῖον ὧν οὔ σοι πρέπον;”