Pushed by Kreon’s question, whether Oidipous supposed that he had persuaded the prophet to lie, the choral leader now claims not to know “for what reason” (γνώμῃ for the third time in as many speeches) Oidipous spoke. Yet how can he claim not to know on what basis Oidipous spoke when he has just said that Oidipous spoke in anger? If he now backs away from the assertion that he was willing to venture just a moment ago, this must be because he has realized what Kreon’s question demands; that he acknowledge that Oidipous was angered by the seer’s naming him as the source of the town’s pollution—that he killed Laios. The choral leader sees that this acknowledgement would put him in the position of having to give serious consideration to the seer’s charge. Rather than considering the proposition that Oidipous’s behavior has attracted the god’s ire, this spokesperson for the citizenry prefers simply to profess ignorance. The problem is that this agnosticism is disingenuous, the intent of which is to permit the citizenry to disengage from the utterances of both its ruler and its seer. Knowing the seer to be speaking the truth, the audience can see that the town’s feigned agnosticism permits its ruler to act out of anger growing from his own false assumptions. The town thus allows itself to be complicit in the actions he may take and thus to expose itself to their consequences. Just as Oidipous’s error allows him to disregard the holiness conferred upon the prophet by his service to Apollo, the town’s unwillingness to distance itself from its leader’s error implicates it in his impiety and justifies the god’s visitation of suffering upon it. If the god’s corrective action takes the form of plague, then the plague in Thebes–and by implication: Athens–may be traceable to the citizens’ siding with their ruler against their prophet or oracle. [Md] [P] [Aj] [Mw]