It seems strange that Oidipous would think first of being cursed by men, then consider how the gods feel about him, for even if it is mortalize who will now verbalize curses, the word “accursed” implies divine response and thus suggests the gods’ cooperative response to mortal verbalization. From Oidipous’s wording, however, the audience might infer that he sees mortals and immortals as independently directing strong feelings towards him. He seems to grant complementarity without cooperation. [Dnc] As it assesses Oidipous’s self-characterization as “accursed most and moreover to the gods most hated” for itself, the audience will find that he is in fact the object of one god’s attention, whose curse he called down upon himself not, as he may think, when he himself cursed Laios’ killer, or when, as he mistakenly believes, he was told that he must murder father and have intercourse with mother, but when he refused to accept the necessity that he kill his father. [Mipd] Just as it was the impulse to ignore prophecy that established Laios’ and Iokaste’s antagonistic relationship with Apollo, it was the impulse to flee Delphi and invalidate its prophecies that established Oidipous’s antagonism towards the god. It is this impulse that renders one “hugely destructive,” (μὲγ᾽ ὀλέθριον: “that which causes destruction, pest, plague,” LSJ). The connection between flight from Delphi and the onset of plague will have prompted the Athenian audience to consider its own circumstances and the way in which they may have been engendered. [Gt-a] By analogy, Athens has made itself the object of Apollo’s attentions by eschewing Delphi and setting out to prove its prophecy wrong, thereby mounting an attack on the god for whom the Pythia at Delphi speaks. [P] [Md] [Aj] [Mw]