As the audience sits in judgment of Oidipous it assumes the place of a jury as if at his trial, and so the theater of Dionysus acquires the aspect of an Athenian court of law, which would similarly have been held in open air and comprised elements of the same audience. As it begins to judge Oidipous it confronts a dilemma: to find him innocent it will have to fault the gods’ judgment of him. But to the extent that the audience weighs the justification for Oidipous’s willingness to act in lieu of the gods, it tentatively embraces his attitudes and so makes itself subject to the same divine judgment as he. Indeed, since Oidipous explicitly “looks down” upon the supplication from a perspective that aligns him with the gods, the audience will be aware that the supplication beckons an actual god to look down upon the scene, and so the audience may put itself in the god’s place to see what it would make of Oidipous. At the same time, if the audience imagines the god looking down, it must see that it has also formally invoked Dionysos to look down upon the theatrical proceedings in Athens, and so to judge not only Oidipous and the suppliants, but the audience and its judgment of them. Thus, it finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having invoked a god to observe its temptation to find Oidipous innocent of wrongdoing despite his arrogant impiety. The audience is caught in a contradiction very similar to that in which Oidipous is caught; wherevhe responds to a divine summons in order to serve his people, the play summons a god to witness its audience’s consideration that it may be best to ignore divine prerogatives. The juxtaposition of the two venues, theater and courts, makes of the play’s audience a jury to Oidipous’ prosecution by the gods, but it also puts the city itself on trial. It may be judged by the gods–but also by itself–for the way in which it judges. The gods will presumably judge in terms of piety. The citizenry will judge in terms of outcome. However, if the city is punished by the gods, this also figures as outcome. Only if the gods do nothing and human ingenuity wins the day will the city have done well to proceed on its own. The city is putting its faith, then, in the belief that the gods either can do nothing or will do nothing. In this its views would be like those of Oidipous. Since his punishment is certain, joining him seems to be the height of folly. The audience will approach the remainder of the play, then, with the aim of resolving the dilemma, either to find that the myth is a useful guide for its actions or to overthrow the myth itself. The dilemma points to a powerful paradox, for the existence of the Thebes ruled by Oidipous derives entirely from myth. To overthrow myth as a result of attending to myth would be a paradox. For Athens to consider deciding to bypass the direction of its gods as a result of its attendance at a performance on the city’s holy mount in celebration of one of its gods is no less a paradox. [P] [Mpea]