Oidipous is of course both who the Corinthian has said he is and who the Theban herdsman has always known him to be, and thus the condition is fulfilled: he should know that he has “proved to be ill-fated.” But is it right to blame Oidipous’s predicament on fate? This answer is supplied by the audience’s reasoning from its insight that the god must have been intent upon saving Oidipous. It does not make sense to argue that it was fate for both Oidipous and the herdsman to make the same error, especially when their errors were to resist prophecy. What happened to Oidipous was not altogether beyond his control. Granted, he could not control his conception, birth, exposure, salvation, or adoption by the Corinthian royal couple. Nor could he control the necessity that he must kill his father. He had the choice, however, of acting in concert with or in opposition to the god. Having mistakenly chosen to take matters into his own hands, he brought upon himself a new wave of suffering. It is this that the herdsman calls “fate,” but his comment is based on ignorance, which is itself a product of impiety. To the extent that he is ignorant in this matter, it is due to his own failure to give due consideration to the prophecies about which he was told. His skepticism might have been influenced by Iokaste’s confidence that prophecy could be dodged. This is perhaps how the city was polluted; not only by living with impious rulers, but by adopting, accepting, or simply even tolerating their beliefs. The Athenian audience may consider its own attitude towards engagement in a war that prophecy has declared it cannot win. Its own calculated decision to fight this war indicates a lack of respect both for prophecy and the god in whose name it is issued. Athens’ defeat would then be read as a demonstration of Apollo’s capacity to mete out justice to an entire citizenry for its impiety. Apollo will have made of Athens just such an example as he is presently making of Oidipous. That is why the god must see to it, as the prophecy declares, that Sparta wins, and this explains why the god must give his aid to the Spartans even if they do not request it. It is primarily in the god’s interest, not the Spartans’, that he should do so. Athens will have shown herself to be just as blind as Oidipous, perhaps with this difference: where Oidipous has the advantage only of consultation with Delphi, Athens not only has the opportunity to consult Delphi but also to receive this play’s encouragement to reflect upon its assumptions and to recognize that they are an affront to the god. [Mpei] [P] [Aj] [Gt-a]