Denying that he can recall having had dealings with the Corinthian, the Theban herdsman appears to be lying in an attempt to forestall Oidipous’s understanding of the connections about which he is asking. If the Theban’s ignorance is feigned, as suggested by his agitation, he in fact knows precisely who both the Corinthian stranger and Laios’ son are and what passed between him and each of them in the past. His reticence, reminiscent of Teiresias’s, suggests further that he is becoming aware of the way in which his own actions and speech accord with a larger plan over which he has little or no control, because it is directed by the god’s will. The lie, then, represents not only an attempt to forestall Oidipous, but to offer feeble resistance to Apollo’s employment of him without his knowledge or consent. This is a response with which the audience can be expected to sympathize, yet given the choice between Oidipous, who is proceeding on the premise that he can and must assert his own will, and the herdsman, who wishes to preserve his autonomy but has to recognize that this is futile, the latter is the better choice. Oidipous, despite his adept use of refined forensic techniques, will in fact be the last to learn the truth. Those, on the other hand, who are able to interpret their own speech and actions in light of divine projects about which prophecy has directly or indirectly informed them, obtain a much fuller and more complete understanding of the circumstances in which they find themselves. [Mi] [Mpea]