Acknowledging that he has laid his curses on himself, Oidipous entirely ignores the fact that it was Apollo who stipulated penalties of banishment or death. The audience is also aware that Oidipous will face more severe curses than those of which he is presently aware, for the discovery of his involvement in parricide and incest will be even more difficult to bear. Nor does he realize that the crime for which he is being punished is not the killing of Laios but his conflicted beliefs about prophecy and thus for about the god. Indeed, like him Laios brought punishment upon himself—not for attempting to kill his infant son, but for disobeying the god’s instructions. It was not, then, Oidipous’s killing of Laios that was offensive to the god; it was the fact that Oidipous refused to participate in that killing as a divine agent serving a just and pious cause. Yet it would hardly seem just to hold Oidipous responsible for refusing to engage in parricide and incest, even if he was enjoined to do so by Apollo’s holy representative. The audience can see that, what looks from Apollo’s perspective to be a just action would seem from Oidipous’s perspective to be not only unjust but abhorrent. The problem, then, is one of adequate communication and trust. [Mpei] [Dnp] [Dnt]