By ἄταις the Chorus seems to be trying to characterize Oidipous’s actions as “baneful” or “ruinous,” while the audience’s perspective might understand this word as a characterization of his state of mind: “bewilderment, infatuation caused by blindness or delusion sent by the gods, mostly as the punishment for guilty rashness” (LSJ; emphasis reversed). The guilty rashness occurred when Oidipous recoiled from Apollo’s instruction, which he foolishly and ignorantly mistook for a simple prediction. But was Oidipous’s blindness and delusion sent by the gods, or was it the blindness and delusion that caused Apollo that he must be ruined? The audience’s understanding may be informed by the parallel between Oidipous and his parents. All three go to great lengths to prevent realization of prophecy. All three pit themselves against Apollo, who manages to defeat them all. Resisting prophecy in all instances results in consequences corresponding to the most extreme interpretation of the prophetic message, where compliance could be expected to result in less awful consequences. Just as abstinence from marital coitus could have averted Laios’ killing by the son born to him and Iokaste, marital coitus between mother and son could have been avoided by the son’s willingness to serve the god by taking his father’s life as Apollo required. Oidipous and his parents are equals in unhappiness, in opprobrium, and in wild foolishness. From the fact that Oidipous’s good intentions and selflessness neither diminish his pain nor mitigate his blame, the audience can infer that attitudes toward the god and respect for his mode of communication outweigh other clear moral values, up to and including the killing of a spouse or child. Failure properly to interpret and respond to prophecy requires the god to levy the severest of corrections. [P] [Mpea] [Mipd] [Aj]