The clause introduced by ὡς with its verb in the optative mood (θρεψαίμην) indicates that the Corinthian is now reporting back to the Theban herdsman what the latter said at the time: that he was giving him the child so that he could raise it. This raises some questions: What was his motivation? Was he acting on his own or on behalf of the god? Indeed, the statement he made accurately represents what the god required of both men. What the audience hears, then, is a statement in indirect discourse that can be understood to stem from the god and to communicate to a mortal a necessity of which the god is aware and for which he requires mortal cooperation. It is ironic that Oidipous has drawn the audience’s attention back to Apollo’s project through his unnecessary questioning of this witness, a mere herdsman, in relation to a matter about which he consulted the Delphic Oracle years ago and to which he then reacted not by seeking fully to understand what he was told but rather by seeking to negate it through his own actions. The god is making it clear, however, that he has a countermove for every act of mortal resistance. Attuned as it presently is to Apollo’s project of delivering to Laios the consequences of his disobedience and Apollo’s wont to communicate through double entendre, the audience can be sure that he did indeed intend more from the baby’s bestowal upon the Corinthian than its simple survival. Yet while the audience has become accustomed to the communicative opening afforded the god through double entendre, the present instance takes the same grammatical form as would the report of divine speech mediated by the Oracle. As Oidipous’s first exchange with Kreon indicates, Apollo’s word is always mediated not only by the Pythia but, when the consultation is conducted by an embassy, it must pass through another intermediary. Indirect discourse serves the needs of transmission through any number of intermediaries, but it has a drawback, because it opens the transmission to particular forms of ambiguity, such as obscuring the difference between a prediction and a wish (cf. m793). That divine discourse is always mediated makes ambiguity unavoidable. As was shown directly by Oidipous’s debriefing of Kreon’s embassy to Delphi and indirectly by his interrogation of the uncooperative witness now before him, it behooves the recipient of a divine message to formulate follow-up questions of sufficient precision to eliminate any ambiguity. Skill in forensic debate does not obviate the need for consulation at Delphi; rather, it should be put in service of that consultation to ensure its success. [Mp] [Mipd]