τάχ᾽ ἄν που ἐν μέθαις ἤ τινι ἄλλῃ ἀμελείᾳ τὼ ἀκολάστω αὐτοῖν ὑποζυγίω λαβόντε τὰς ψυχὰς ἀφρούρους, συναγαγόντε εἰς ταὐτόν, τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν μακαριστὴν αἵρεσιν εἱλέσθην τε καὶ διεπραξάσθην:
The modern edition uses here εἱλέτην, διεπράξαντο, instead of εἱλέσθην τε καὶ διεπραξάσθην. But the problem is in the following: why indicative aorist with ἄν? It indicates repeated actions only in the past, not in the present, therefore, I think, Yunis from the Cambridge series is wrong interpreting it as indicating repeated actions akin to present general conditional clauses.
The old commentary, however, says that here τάχ᾽ ἄν must be taken as one particle in which ἄν exercises no influence on the main verb. It adduces a similar example from Vesp, 281:
τάχα δ᾽ ἂν διὰ τὸν χθιζινὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὃς ἡμᾶς διεδύετ᾽
ἐξαπατῶν καὶ λέγων
ὡς φιλαθήναιος ἦν καὶ
τἀν Σάμῳ πρῶτος κατείποι,
διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ὀδυνηθεὶς
εἶτ᾽ ἴσως κεῖται πυρέττων.
Here, ἄν cannot be related to κεῖται because it is in the present ind. Another example is from Soph., Oed., C., 965.
Thus, I conclude, that here the aorist is gnomic.
Goodwin in 221 says that an must belong to the verb in its ordinary sense, so now I don’t understand, it goes with the participle then, ὀδυνηθεὶς.