Oidipous’s demand that the messenger answer his question insists of the audience that it give consideration to the question, at whose hands events, such as the infant’s conception, exposure, and salvation occur. It also raises a new question; whether it is his impulse to retaliate against those responsible for his exposure and maiming? We cannot know precisely how the Athenian audience felt about infanticide. The practice was certainly not unknown in the Greek world. Even assuming that it would not have met with quite the reaction we would give it, it is clear that Oidipous would not have accepted his parents’ act, if for no other reason than that he was the intended victim. The audience knows how he has reacted to lesser offenses in the past—at the crossroads he responded to disregard for his rights as a pedestrian by striking out with his staff, and to the counter-blow he reacted by killing everyone in sight. In short, had he known that Laios intended to have him killed, he might unreservedly have taken the very life that he has all his life been at such pains not to take. Indeed, had he known when he was at Delphi what his father had done, rather than shrinking from the task laid out by the god, he may well readily have accepted it. Thus, it now appears that he misjudged the Oracle, the god, and himself. His assumption that his own needs were of primary importance to his interview at Delphi led him to miss the fact that the Oracle was informing him that he was required to kill Laios, he missed the fact that his response was predicated upon his ignorance of the facts, and he missed the fact that the god was prepared to satisfy his wish to know about his paternity. [Mpea] These errors can be generalized: Athens’ emotional response to the prophecy given Sparta is causing it to miss the fact that its own needs are not primary, that its ignorance of the facts is causing it to misinterpret what it has heard, and that the god may even be prepared to satisfy its wish to understand. [Gt-a] [Ad] [Mipd]