Oidipous declares that he would prefer to “go from men unseen” rather than “see a mark of such mischance (συμφορᾶς)” come upon him. But if such a mark manifests itself, must it be the product of chance? Rather, it his becoming apparent to the audience that the mark about which he is concerned is being inscribed upon him by Apollo. Good and bad luck do not enter into the picture, and to ascribe good and bad events to chance when they are in fact the work of a god is to be dismissive of that god. If such events are ascribed to a god, then it is impertinent to label him “savage.” In either event, Oidipous is in the wrong, and in either case his wrong reveals him to be without appropriate reverence towards the god. The fact that these two views are incompatible reveals an additional problem; Oidipous is inconsistent. He is willing to ascribe his misfortunes either to chance or a malignant deity. He never presumes that the fault might lie within himself (ἐμαυτῷ) and he does not give any thought to the possibility that a beneficent god may be at work. Once the audience supposes Oidipous’s misfortunes to be the work of the god, his errors and limitations suggest that the god must be beneficent; Apollo is working to correct attitudes that are intolerable to him because they are destructive of the relationship between himself and mortals, and thus to mortals themselves. [Mpe] [Dnc] [Ad] [Mw]