The pronominal object νιν is a surprise: one would have expected “me.” The audience has misconstrued what it thought Oidipous to be saying. Not only does the pronoun surprise, it introduces an ambiguity, for it can be masculine or feminine, singular or plural. To whom or what does it refer? What, other than Oidipous, has Apollo smitten? It might refer to his eyes about which the Chorus has just inquired (although it was Oidipous who smote them with Iokaste’s brooch), to Laios (although it was Oidipous who smote him with his staff), to Iokaste (although she took her own life consequent upon her failure to reduce to nothing the god’s powers), and so it might seem rather that it was she or Laios or Oidipous or even Thebes that smote Apollo. Indeed, given that Apollo did not directly smite Oidipous’s eyes, Laios, or Iokaste (but perhaps Thebes), for Oidipous to assign Apollo primary responsibility for any of these actions seems entirely unacceptable. And if not for these actions, then perhaps also not for the parricide and incest. If the god is in any way responsible, it is only indirectly. Direct responsibility for all the untoward actions currently under the audience’s purview seems to have to be assigned to the mortal actors. True, none of Oidipous’s terrible deeds would have occurred without Apollo’s extensive and deliberate orchestration, but none of the god’s cunning and deception would have been necessary, had he consistently received the full cooperation of the mortals with whom he engaged. The god, then, is not to be held responsible for the misfortunes he works; rather, he is to be appreciated and respected for working to communicate to mortals the necessity for their cooperation, regardless how repugnant or distasteful or unacceptable to them the actions in which they are required to engage. [Dnc] [Md] [Ad] [Aj]