This passage has caused much discussion and much variety of opinion, and it still remains doubtful whether the later commentators in their efforts at exact interpretation have been more successful than the earlier ones. The general sense is sufficiently clear. Medea is making an apology to the Chorus of sympathizing Corinthian ladies for her delay in appearing before them. So far all are agreed. The difficulties, real or unreal, arise when we begin to inquire what form the apology actually takes. First of all there are doubts as to the meaning of το ὺς μ⋯⋯ μ⋯⋯ᾂπο. in the Scholia. we have a gloss μῂ όρώμνοɩ είναɩ. and the explanation το⋯ Xωρίςεσθαɩ καì ᾂτ⋯ν ποθεν ⋯μμάτων είναɩ. Many scholars have taken exception to this view on two grounds, as stated by Verrall ad loc, because (I) ‘the sense of motion is not there, and (2) there is no reference to any eyes in particular.’ He requires either authority or analogy for this. As far as the absence of motion is concerned, it is sufficient to refer to Thuc. 1, 7 αί δ⋯ παλαɩαί(πόλεɩς) ᾀπ⋯θαλ⋯σσης μ⋯λλον ῲκίσθησαν id I, 99ἳναμῄ ᾀπ οἲκου ⋯σɩ,γ. Il. B 292 μένεν ᾀπ⋯ ᾑς ᾀλòΧοɩο. Then there is the analogous expression αί γàρ δῂ μοɩᾀπ οὒατος ώδε γένοɩτο (II.Σ 272, cf. X 454). As to the second objection, why is it necessary that the eyes of anyone in particular should be referred to ? There is no more ambiguity here than there is in Il Ψ 53 θâσσον ᾀπ ⋯ϕθαλμ⋯ν, where the meaning is ‘so as to be out of sight, not of me or you, but of everybody.’ In fact, it could not be maintained with any show of reason that ᾀπ⋯ϕθαλμ⋯νand ᾀποὒατς could not mean ‘out of sight’ and ‘out of hearing’.