Explaining that he will not express himself on matters beyond his ken (ἃ μὴ φρονῶ γὰρ) Kreon presents modesty as a principle by which he governs his own speech. And this is the key—if the gods do in fact take an active interest in the affairs of men, as Oidipous’s treatment goes to show, ordinary men cannot expect either to fathom their intentions or to recognize the means by which they realize them. It is important that ordinary mortals not delude themselves into thinking that they can. This fundamental insight separates Kreon and Oidipous, for Kreon is fully cognizant of his own limitations in this regard. [Mpei] Oidipous, by contrast, has always tried to second-guess the god. Six times already since he emerged blind from the palace he has demanded to be sent forth from Thebes, and the audience may wonder, “whether in urging this Oidipous has any more legitimate a right to assume the power to do good and avoid evil now than he did when he mistakenly assumed that power in taking the throne at Thebes or when he exiled himself from Corinth to protect his parents” (Zak 179). Where Kreon continually seeks the god’s direction, Oidipous regards such guidance to be unnecessary, and where Kreon is bent upon compliance, Oidipous insists upon taking matters into his own hands. [Md] Zak comments that “one has to wonder whether Oidipous has truly learned the most elementary of the lessons his past experience might have taught him: even with the best of intentions men who act may still make mistakes, find themselves not far on the track, traveling it alone” (ibid). If the audience has learned even the most elementary of lessons, it would seem to be not to go it alone, but to seek an ally for the road (συμπράκτωρ, l. 116, or σύμμαχος, ll. 135 and 245), someone to guide the blind man’s steps, one such as the god who makes himself available to men through his Oracle at Delphi. [Mp] [Apcma] [Mip]