Reasoning that Oidipous’s past success with the Sphinx suggests his potential for present success and admonishing him that failure now would tarnish the reputation won then, the priest again joins the present crisis to the past victory. If Oidipous wishes to retain support for his rule, he is required to perform again now, for his right to lead the city is established on the basis of success ad hoc. Oidipous is, after all, not a king, but a tyrannos. His rule is based entirely upon his fitness, which is tested afresh by every new crisis. The same holds in Athens, where political leaders are elected to office and can as easily be removed from it. The Athenian citizenry held Pericles, Athens’ senior statesman and the man in whom they placed their greatest trust for leadership when the Peloponnesian war broke out in 431, responsible, if not for the plague itself, then certainly for the city’s misfortunes in general until his death of the plague in 429. Thus the priest’s admonitions to Oidipous mirror Athenian attitudes towards Pericles. Calling Oidipous “savior,” which is an epithet for Zeus, only underscores how improper these attitudes are. To make matters worse, the priest serves Zeus (l. 18). It seems that despite his titular commitment to this most powerful of gods, he puts his faith in Oidipous. [Mw] [Mp] [P]