At the moment when Oidipous names Apollo his speech breaks into the rhythm of “excited dochmiac verse” (Dawe; 188). He seems to have lost his grip on the rhythms of ordinary speech which he has maintained throughout until now and which he was using even when serving as an unconscious vehicle for the god’s double entendres. The change in rhythm seems to associate recognition of the god’s intervention with more stylized or poetic language. Twice naming the god, Oidipous seems emphatically to acknowledge that he stands behind what has happened or is manifest in all that has occurred. It is unclear, however, whether Oidipous now regards the god in a positive or negative light. Indeed, the god’s name means both “destroyer” and “healer,” so in repeating it Oidipous may be characterizing the god in any of three ways: “Destroyer! Destroyer!” “Healer! Healer!” or “Destroyer! Healer!” The combination of opposites is most apt, for in his response first to Laios and then to Oidipous, Apollo has employed his destructive capacities as a correction for impiety. Just as when he rained arrows of plague upon the Achaean camp in support of his priest Chryses and then lifted the plague once corrective action had been taken, so he may now be seen to wreak havoc with either an individual or a community (Thebes or Athens) in order to rein it in and induce it to change its attitudes and actions, whereupon he will release it to prosper again on its own, so long as it cultivates proper relations with him by engaging in regular consultation at Delphi to seek his instruction regarding important civic decisions. The question remains, however, whether this is how Oidipous understands the god’s intervention in his life: as destructive or productive. The audience should be less ambivalent, for it can judge it to be inappropriate for Oidipous to blame the god for his suffering. Such blame expresses an impious attitude meriting the god’s correction in the form of more suffering. If he means only to give Apollo responsibility for having made his errors clear to him, then Oidipous has now achieved an accurate perception of the god’s efforts as a necessary and entirely appropriate response to the resistance mounted first by Laios and Iokaste and then by Oidipous himself. The audience will find it difficult to know where Oidipous stands at this moment, but it can presume that the god will have no such trouble. This makes it clear that it would be best for Oidipous if he had a proper appreciation for the god’s relationship with him, his family, and his town. Only a full understanding of how the god’s actions are an appropriate and health-bringing response to mortals’ actions and attitudes will put the relationship on a positive footing. [P] [Aj] [Ad]