The two clauses of the sentence express different degrees of conditionality in grammatical terms: more and less vivid. The protasis sets the expectation for a strong declaration of the implications, should its condition be met. The apodosis then backs away from that declaration, downgrading the expectation to a mere possibility. This suggests either that Oidipous may not really expect the witness to stand by his testimony, or to indicate that he understand that, even if the witness does stand by his earlier statement, this need not prove Oidipous’s innocence. Indeed, in addition to Teiresias’s indictment, there remains a pile of circumstantial evidence: coincidence of time and place, Laios’ age and appearance, and the party’s size and composition. Despite all these corroborating details, if the witness holds to his story that the attackers were numerous, Oidipous will find himself guiltless and the seer corrupt. Surely, the standards he requires for his own vindication–and with it the seer’s condemnation–are unreasonably low. This matter is not one of formal forensic debate but of ridding the city of pollution. According to Oidipous’s own declarations, what counts is to alleviate the city’s suffering, even if he must suffer more to obtain it (ll. 60-77). Those claims now appear either to have been disingenuous or valid only under certain restricted conditions, for if the price for the city’s redemption is public acknowledgement of Oidipous’s responsibility for bringing the pollution, he is unwilling to pay it. [Mg] [Mw] [Md]