In uttering a prayer to Phoibos the Chorus gets on a better footing; Phoibos is the right and proper addressee for such a prayer, but given the town’s misjudgment of prophecy and Phoibos’s powers to realize it, the appeal to Phoibos may still be problematic. Unlike so much of the speech to this point in the play, which has been loaded with double entendre, unintended insight, and wisdom, the Chorus’s present speech seems noteworthy for the distance by which it falls short of any truth, intended or not. [Mpei] Interestingly, its present speech makes use of accusative and infinitve constructions that obscure even the clear and simple message that the Chorus can be presumed to intend. Its predictions nevertheless ring false in the ears of an audience that will not be confused even by such potentially ambiguous language. The Chorus is thus clearly no prophet at all; it is more like those oracles said by Thucydides to have proven “futile” in combating the Athenian plague (2.47.4). [Gt-a] The Chorus’s apparent belief that it can wax prophetic simply by employing ambiguous constructions and making mytho-poetic predictions throws its assumptions into a critical light for the audience to examine and conclude that genuine prophecy is not intentionally obscure or ambiguous; its ambiguity stems from the unavoidable process by the god’s speech is mediated. The proper response to apparently ambiguous prophecy, then, is not to suspect the prophetic institution of fraud, but rather to interrogate the ambiguities and seek clarification. [Mipd] Delivery of the god’s assistance requires both the message’s disambiguation and action in accordance with the instruction that is received. [P]