When Kreon describes Oidipous’s arrival in terms of setting the city “back to rights” he prompts the audience to recall that it was out of sorts from two causes: the Sphinx and Laios’ murder. Thus, in one regard Oidipous set the city back to rights only after himself knocking it down. This suggests that the other cause of the city’s problems can also be interrogated: is there some sense in which the Sphinx is also Oidipous’s doing? Just as the death of Laios should not be viewed as a random event, for it had been foretold and must therefore be viewed as a prophetic necessity, perhaps the Sphinx also accorded with a prophetic necessity. [Dn] If its presence at Thebes was also in keeping with prophetic necessity, it would have been to prepare the way for Oidipous’s accession to Thebes’ throne and marriage to his own mother. The fairytale that begins with Laios’ rule and ends with installation in power is in fact a nightmare that makes father and son equal in relation to prophecy, necessity, and wrongdoing. Thus, Kreon’s terminological manipulation giving Oidipous the same claim to power as Laios begins to suggest ways in which son and father were alike in other ways as well: their abilities, predilections, and attitudes. From this perspective, the son’s accession to power does not set the city back upright; it pollutes the city (again), setting it up for a future fall. Change and progress are in this sense illusory. [Mpei] [Mw]