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.