The reference to rule in the past tense (ἐκράτησε) seems not to pertain to the archer god whose arrows carry plague, for his rule has not ended, but to Oidipous, who may not be associated with archery, but has through his rule over Thebes acquired and controlled wealth, here described as πάντ᾽εὐδαίμονος: “the most blessed.” The Chorus’s view of matters seems utterly out of keeping with the actual state of affairs; Oidipous seems to be the object of the most thorough divine disapprobation. Neither rule nor wealth have been lucky for him; in them he will not find have found happiness. His rise to power eventually brought with it arrows of plague; in this sense he is an archer whose shots may be characterized as over-reaching (καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὰν). If double entendre is heard in the Chorus’s speech, it seems to attribute the city’s troubles to a fault in its ruler’s character. [Gd] [Md] Plague, wealth, and over-reaching also all pertain well to Athens, which began to amass riches following that city’s signal role in the victories at Marathon and Salamis. These events are in several respects comparable to Oidipous’s impressive defeat of the Sphinx: intelligence, bravery, improbable success, and huge impact. [Gt-a] The hegemony bestowed on Athens for its successes against the Persians also compares well to Oidipous’s installation on the throne of Thebes. If this comparison is extended further to the incestuous relations into which Oidipous entered as an aspect of his kingship, plague in Athens can be taken as a judgment on its relations with the cities (family members) which it once protected from Persia, but against which it now threatens violence for unwillingness to continue with the arrangement. These parallels suggest that, as with the god’s provision for Oidipous’s apparent success, Athens might try interpreting its own signal successes as manifestations of a divine plan. It will find that its own circumstances present the same paradox as that found in Oidipous’s, for if Apollo’s design is to humble Athens in punishment for impiously attributing its victories solely to its own merits, with those events he appears at once to have saved and destroyed Athens. And yet Athens is not yet lost, which suggests that Apollo has set events to go either of two ways: wealth and power or plague and destruction. The outcome, blessing or curse, depends upon mortal motives and attitudes. As Oidipous must kill Laios, but is free to do so either in harmony with or despite resistance to the god, so Athens must make concessions to its erstwhile client cities, but is free to do so either in harmony with or despite resistance to Apollo. Oidipous would in any case solve the Sphinx’s riddle and succeed to preeminent power in Thebes, but whether = this plays out well or ill depends upon his disposition and the way this expresses itself in piety. Just so, Marathon and Salamis may herald an age either of Athenian greatness or destruction; how these events play out depends upon Athenian piety. Should Athens take them as signs of its capacity to secure its own happiness irrespective of the support of gods or other Greek cities, those victories will eventually be understood to have marked the beginning of the end of Athens’ greatness. [P] [Mw]