Kreon’s narrative elides the fact of Laios’ murder as if it were not an important aspect of the story. So striking is this that the audience may even note the strangeness of Kreon’s impression of events, which is that they stand on their own independently, as if each constituted a narrative complete and whole unto itself. Yet even Kreon does not view Laios’ life story in the same isolation in which his narrative portrays it, for he locates it in relation to Oidipous’s advent in Thebes, thus pointing towards what the audience knows to be a very significant relationship, for it was Oidipous who terminated Laios’ rule. Thus, the “coincidence” between these two events is only apparent. The actual causality is underscored by Kreon’s presenting them as if there had been no interval between them: Laios ruled not until he died, but until Oidipous appeared. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is in this case no logical fallacy, for Laios’s death was a precondition for Oidipous’s installation as τύραννος. [Mpea] Rather than noting this conjunction, however, Kreon tells a tale that leaves the murder out. This misleading omission suggests that no event, mythical or historical, should be torn from context and viewed as isolated fact. Context is required for accurate interpretation and proper understanding. Kreon should not only describe the murder, but, if he knows it, include the story that, according to prophecy, Laios was to be killed by his son, for if this information is withheld, how is Oidipous to cleanse away Thebes’ pollution? [Mpei] [Mip]