“Unmarried marriage” (ἄγαμον γάμον) sounds like another riddle. The Chorus is almost certainly thinking of the incestuous marriage between mother and son—a marriage that could never be sanctified, yet it was—or seemed to be—prophesied by Delphi, and the way in which it occurred suggests that Apollo arranged it. To bring Oidipous to justice for his part in this abominable marriage only makes an abomination of justice and Apollo. True justice would demand Apollo’s punishment. The absurdity of this conclusion makes it clear that the thinking on which it is based must be erroneous; it is itself an abomination, an error deserving a harsh penalty. To free oneself of similar error and to distance oneself from similar penalty, the Athenian audience must find another way to view the marriage between mother and son. The Delphic prophecy must be reinterpreted and Apollo’s involvement reevaluated. This the audience is now better equipped to do, having already begun to reinterpret Apollo’s reported speech as his promise of help in reuniting Oidipous with his mother on condition that he draw his father’s blood in just retribution for his disobedience to the god. Had Laios obeyed, the marriage would not have been a marriage because it precluded intercourse. This reading correctly lays blame first at Laios’ feet, then at Oidipous’s, for where Laios disobeyed, Oidipous misinterpreted what he was told. He, not the god, is responsible for the abominable marriage. Apollo has judged and punished not the marriages, but the husbands’ impious affronts to his divinity. [Mpea] [Aj] [P]