Kreon proceeds to elaborate on Apollo’s message by advertising its clarity, but is it as clear as he seems to think? The audience may interpret either 1) the god sets forth that perpetrators (or murderers: αὐτοέντας) exact vengeance by hand on some unknown persons for the king’s death, or 2) some unknown persons exact vengeance on the king’s murderers by hand. The word order suggests the first interpretation, but this only makes sense if the god orders the murderers to exact vengeance on themselves. Strangely, precisely this seems to be about to happen: Oidipous is the murderer and the authority (Might this be another way of interpreting αὐτοέντα?) who at the god’s direction is taking steps to remove the city’s pollution. Not knowing that he himself is the murderer, however, Oidipous would choose the other interpretation; the god did not specify who was to exact vengeance on the murderers, and this leaves it open for Oidipous to assume that responsibility. There is a further problem: the god speaks of both murderers and agents of vengeance in the plural. If Apollo knows that Oidipous, Laios’ killer, must act to avenge the killing, both killer and agent should be in the singular. The audience should rather understand, then, that the god is stating the general truth that one mortal’s murder of another can be a means by which the god exacts justice. Oidipous’s killing of Laios would be one instance of this, and Oidipous’s hunt for Laios’ killer would be another. When Oidipous killed Laios, he was both a murderer and an agent of retribution, for Laios had disobeyed the god and for that the god required his death. Oidipous, then, exacts two retributions on two perpetrators: Laios and himself. The doubling of roles makes the plurals accurate representations; they demonstrate the extreme precision of divine speech. The god’s message is also doubled; it is at once statement of fact and instruction. [Apcma] Realizing this, the audience might also appreciate how carefully the god’s word deserves to be thought about. [Mipd]