In denying that Oidipous is an equal of the gods, the priest tacitly acknowledges that he and the townspeople have tried this very comparison. It is now clear that if Oidipous has neglected proprieties imposed by the pious tableau taking place before his palace door, he has not offended against the people or their holy officer. So, where the Athenian audience may earlier have taken Oidipous’s apparent affront to piety as an affront to the sensibilities of the Theban suppliants, the Theban priest’s indication that he and the suppliants have already compared Oidipous with the gods now challenges the audience either to dismiss its earlier finding of impropriety or else to make a distinction between itself and the suppliants. From this point on, it is not only Oidipous’s fate that draws the audience’s interest, but Thebes’, and thus, through the audience’s inclination to reject some expressions of piety as a waste of time, to Athens’ fate. [Gt-a]This double focus linking the individual ruler’s fate with that of his city conforms to Aeschylus’ version of the myth, which links the city’s prservation to Laios’ forebearance of intercourse with his wife (cf. m8.1). The parallel suggests that, if Athens’ leadership displays impiety, the citizenry can save itself by distancing itself from that impiety. The problem of piety is given a political caste. [P] [Mw]