The priest’s language can be heard on two levels: he acknowledges Oidipous’s supreme power and supplicates him directly but allows that Oidipous may not solve the problem directly but rather turn to a god to find a “defense” (ἀλκή). This word occurs frequently in the Iliad, where it means the strength to repel an enemy onslaught. The priest’s use of this word here thus carries the ring of battle; it confers upon Oidipous’s confrontation with the plague an air of epic heroism and this in turn draws a three-way parallel among Thebes, the Achaean camp before Troy, and Athens. Since the audience will also identify Thebes with Athens due to the plague in both, the double equation of war and plague suggests that there is a further parallel to be drawn between Athens and the Achaean camp. The priest’s identification of Oidipous as a heroic provider of defense thus suggests to the Athenian audience that it think of its own leadership in similar terms. [Gt-a] When the Achaean camp is beset by plague, Achilles suggests that a consultation with the prophet Chalkas would be in order. Drawing this parallel, the Athenian audience might understand the cause for the plague in Athens as the god’s response to disrespect for his priest, which raises the question: has Athens’ leadership behaved towards a priest of Apollo (e.g. Delphi) in a manner reminiscent of Agamemnon’s dismissal of Chryses? Thus, if the audience supposes that the priest regards Oidipous as a mere mortal, if he is compared as such to Agamemnon, there is ample reason to suspect the ruler’s impiety. If, on the other hand, the priest’s use of the word “supplicate” suggests that he is in fact addressing his ruler as if he were more than mortal and in fact a power more to be relied upon even than the gods, there is ample reason to hold the priest and the people for whom he speaks to be impious. The citizenry seems indeed to be polluting itself even as it seeks a remedy for the blights that have brought it to this altar. [P] [Aj] [Mw]