Oidipous is not thinking of the implication that, if he killed Laios, and if Laios was prophesied to be killed by his son, then Laios is his father and Iokaste his mother. Instead, he is seeking to establish that the man he killed was not Laios, and so the man that killed Laios was not he, for he only met with one party at the crossroads. His rests his entire hope on the extremely–even absurdly–remote possibility of a complex coincidence; two murders at the same crossroads at nearly the same time, both victims of the same age, having the same build, and looking enough like Oidipous to be his father. There is one distinct difference: Laios was attacked by a band of highway robbers while Oidipous was alone and did not kill to rob. Knowing that there was but one killing and that Oidipous killed Laios, the audience also knows that the discordant details must be corrected. So, while judging Oidipous’s persistence, thoroughness, and discipline to be almost irrational, the audience might appreciate the fact that these qualities should lead to the discrepancy’s removal. If, on the other hand, this play should confound the myth upon which it is based to allow the coincidence of two murders with similar victims to be established, Oidipous might yet prove that he did not kill Laios. If the audience hopes this to be the case, as it might, because this would defeat the expectations engendered by myth, and if this myth can be challenged, then so can its insistent support for the validity of prophecy. That hope, like Oidipous’s, might be irrational, but it provides the only grounds for Athens to expect to preserve the way of life that is being challenged by the formerly tribute-paying members of her own alliance. If Oidipous can prove prophecy invalid, so might Athens. If not, then Athens must accept the fact that it is doomed to suffer defeat. [Mi] [Md] [Gt-a] [Mw]