This line, like the preceding one, has been assigned sometimes to Kreon and sometimes to Oidipous. Which of the two men is more likely to ask the other whether he means to back off or take a chance on trust? Kreon could well ask it, because it is Oidipous who seems the more headstrong and unwilling to credit his interlocutor’s words. Because Oidipous, on the other hand, has been so firm in his belief that Kreon has hatched a plot to replace him in power, it seems more in character for him to demand a sign of his admission to it. Trust, on the other hand, has no relevance to the accused. The accuser cannot expect the accused to give way because he places his trust in the man accusing him. The problem here is that both men stand accused; Oidipous by Teiresias, whom he takes to be working on orders from Kreon, and Kreon by Oidipous. Either way, the question confronts the audience with a problem, which is to decide, who should back down? Knowing Kreon to be innocent, the audience cannot expect him to change his position. Knowing Oidipous to be guilty, not only of regicide, parricide, and incest, but also of rushing to judgment based on false assumptions of his own innocence, the audience cannot but see the necessity for a change in his position, for his obstinance is a threat not only to Kreon and Teiresias, but to Thebes. Another aspect of this conflict is the way in which each man regards the seer and his relationship to Apollo. Oidipous wrongly believes Teiresias to be in service of Kreon, while Kreon rightly supposes Teiresias to be a servant of Apollo. In case of conflict between secular and religious institutions, as now, the voice of proven civic management should in Oidipous’s view be given far more weight than any voice claiming the authority of divine insight. [P] [Md] [Mg] [Mi]