Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus

[435] 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.”