Oidipous has initiated a remedy; he has sent to the Delphic Oracle to ask “by doing what, saying what” he might save his town. [Mip] His mind seems undisturbed by any doubts about the Delphic Oracle’s legitimacy—an attitude that would have seemed notably pious in plague-ridden Athens, where “people . . . paid no further attention” to oracles. [Mi] Plague aside, the fifth century was an era of enlightenment in Athens, “an age of intellectual revolution” in which, as Bernard Knox characterizes it, “belief in prophecy and with it belief in the religious tradition as a whole was under attack.” Thus, while Oidipous’s decision to consult Delphi suits the values of the mythic past, from a contemporary perspective it might have seemed old-fashioned. There would, then, be a marked divergence between Oidipous, who views the Oracle’s instruction as the sole possible remedy for Thebes, and the Athenian audience, which was inclined rather to eschew such assistance. Nevertheless, even in enlightened Athens there was no known remedy for plague, and recognizing that Oidipous inhabits a mythic domain in which the word of oracles and prophets is to be feared and respected, the audience may, despite its own skepticism towards oracles, approve his decision to consult Delphi and even commend his display of piety. [Mpd] As it does so, however, it must sense that its own election not to consult Delphi on the war puts it on record, as it were, for taking a less pious approach. But even in an enlightened Athens the situation was more complex than this, for Thucydides recalls how “with men dying inside the city and the land outside being laid waste . . . people naturally recalled old oracles,” one of which said: “[w]ar with the Dorians comes, and a death will come at the same time.” The same prophecy, Thucydides points out, could be interpreted to refer to a famine (λιμός) rather than a plague (λοιμός). Indeed, he predicts that if some day in the future a great famine should befall the city, the other reading of the oracle would be preferred. Thus, he makes the point that people twist oracles to fit the circumstances. [Mipi] On the other hand, a link can in fact be made between the war with Dorians (Peloponnesians) and the plague in Athens. [Gt-a] Taking the form of a blight on crops and herds as well as human reproduction, the plague in Thebes manifests the prophecy’s alternate reading. The prophecy’s two-fold reading of death and dearth links Athens and Thebes, but this connection is not diachronic, with an enlightened present superseding a pious past; it is synchronic, because as Thucydides’ comment shows, the prophecy is held to be valid for all time. Thus, Oidipous’s pious response to Thebes’ crisis cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to contemporary Athens. Oidipous’s actions and his fate seem rather to portend significantly for Athens. It cannot be a matter of indifference to the Athenian audience, then, whether Oidipous acts wisely or unwisely when he decides upon a consultation with Delphi. [Mi] Thucydides himself grants that “[w]hat was actually happening seemed to fit in well with the words of this oracle; certainly, the plague broke out directly after the Peloponnesian invasion, and never affected the Peloponnese at all, or not seriously; its full force was felt at Athens.” The play’s Athenian audience was already wrestling with the suggestion that its suffering was a fulfillment of Apollo’s commitment to Sparta. Apollo would then stand directly behind the Athenian plague as its agent. [Apaon] So, while at the moment the play was presented the prestige of the Delphic Oracle was at ebb in Athens, Oidipous’s decision to consult Delphi will have spurred the Athenian spectators in the Theater of Dionysos to revisit their attitudes towards the institution of prophecy and the content of prophecies bearing upon plague and war. One of these was a very recent prophecy made to a Spartan embassy to Delphi. Thucydides reports “that when they inquired from the god [Apollo] whether they should go to war [with Athens], they received the reply that, if they fought with all their might, victory would be theirs and that the god himself would be on their side.” Report of this prophecy would have led in Athens to the conclusion that the Delphic Oracle leaned towards Sparta. It would not be surprising, then, if Athens subsequently turned away from use of the Oracle not only regarding the plague (as Thucydides mentions), but also in matters pertaining to the conflict with Sparta and its allies. Thus, when Oidipous reveals his determination to seek Delphi’s instruction, the audience might sense the pertinence of his action in the Athenian context where consultation was being eschewed. An Athenian audience would perhaps have been particularly sympathetic to Oidipous, because like him its life was blighted by a Delphic prophecy. The god is clearly no better disposed towards Oidipous than he is towards Athens; both have received predictions of doom, and the audience already knows that in Oidipous’s case, the prediction will prove accurate. Oidipous seems doomed whether he consults or not. Indeed, consultation with the Oracle, whether by Oidipous or Athens, seems certain to result in misfortune. This parallel might thus rather confirm the Athenian audience in its skepticism towards the institution of the Oracle. The audience finds itself on the horns of a dilemma: to approve or disapprove of a Delphic consultation. [P]