Swearing that it in no way intends Oidipous’s “ruin or expulsion,” the Chorus displays the stark limitations of its previous assurance (l. 655) that it understood the implications of its admonition that Oidipous respect Kreon’s oath. Was the Chorus in fact blind to the implications of its own request or can it meaningfully reject the conspiracy theory without taking a position on Teiresias’s pronouncements? There is an innocence and naiveté in the Chorus’s echoing and even intensifying Kreon’s oath, for this is not what persuaded Oidipous to give way. That the Chorus’s sincerity is not to be doubted only points up, however, the problem of its naiveté, and perhaps of naiveté in general: it means that important connections and relationships are neither being anticipated nor taken into account. Sincerity is no excuse; it cannot mitigate the seriousness of the overlooked consequences. Calling the gods to witness one’s own naiveté is thus an unacceptable use of oaths. This might seem to apply also to Kreon’s oath, but a comparison reveals that, while the Chorus swears to the sincerity of its failure to think through the implications of its statements, Kreon swears to the sincerity of his recommendation to consult Teiresias, who speaks for a god. Where the Chorus of Thebans makes of mortal limitations an excuse, Kreon makes mortal limitations the basis for dialogue with the gods. The Chorus’s naiveté extends, then, to its failure to see the difference between its own oath to have meant no harm to Oidipous and its intercession with Oidipous to respect Kreon’s oath. [P] [Md] [Mpea] [Mpei]