The speaker is of the opinion that what is seen is more terrible than what is merely heard via a report. To test this, the audience must contrast what can be seen with what can be heard, and what has been heard was that the child born to Iokaste and Laios would kill Laios. In fact, events have shown that Laios’ and Iokaste’s willingness to affront the god based on what they heard caused both their deaths. Despite having been told what the consequences of their actions would be, they were blind to them. The word ὄψις seems to confirm this, because it can be taken to refer to eyesight itself and so to suggest that lack of in-sight stands in the way of perceiving the most grievous matters. To the extent that this may refer to Oidipous’s self-blinding, the speaker’s words suggest that it is but a manifestation of a self-mutilation that was less visible and caused it: his blindness to Apollo’s powers and the ineluctability of Apollo’s prophecies. The unseen truth of Iokaste’s suicide and Oidipous’s self-blinding is thus more powerful than the pathos of their lifeless and wounded bodies. In making these comparisons and coming to these realizations, however, the audience demonstrates a capacity for insight. In this respect it distances itself from Iokaste and Oidipous. To avoid the catastrophe to which it is witness in the theater, Athens has only to embrace the idea that the gods cannot be resisted and that their prophetic word cannot be invalidated. [Mpea] [Mw] [Apa] [Apc] [Dnc] [Dnp]