Something in the herdsman’s expression seems even to point the audience’s attention in the direction just explored (cf. m1177), for having related the contents of the prophecies, he observes, “that was the λόγος [speech],” by which he might mean “that was the prophecy,” “that was the wording,” or “that was what they said.” The word λόγος, then, if the herdsman means it to advertise the accuracy of his statement, may actually prompt the audience to realize that it should not place any confidence in the way a prophecy has been interpreted without considering the possibility of alternative readings. By referring to prophecy with the general term “speech,” the herdsman underscores the linguistic problems with which prophetic transmission is infused and calls attention to the fact that all such accounts are interpretations; they cannot purport to do more than convey the gist of the god’s communication. This is underscored by the accounts of prophecies already given in this play. Oidipous words the prophecy he received at Delphi differently every time he mentions it (ll. 788-793, 825-27, 966-7, 994-6 and 1001). Similarly, the prophecy given Laios (or Laios and Iokaste) has been recounted within the play twice now (ll. 711-14 and 1176) each time worded differently. Yet where a single prophecy can be retold using different language, different prophecies can also be expressed in the same terms: the Theban herdsman uses the verb κτενεῖν (l. 1176) where Oidipous says κτανεῖν (l. 967). The audience understands that this is not altogetheer coincidental, for the two seemingly different prophecies (or sets of prophecy) bear upon the same killing. This makes it apparent that prophecy is not to be regarded as a series of unique expressions but rather as a continuing discourse to which the god contributes in different ways on different occasions and to different recipients. The same can be said for the mortal component of this discourse. The questions put to the god by mortals or their agents in the course of a consultation may be reworded or reformulated, as modeled early in this play, when Oidipous interrogates Kreon and so recreates Kreon’s interview with the Pythia. If Laios and Iokaste overwrote the god’s word in their endeavor to stymie him, the negative consequences should encourage the Athenian audience not to over-write a prophetic message that it finds similarly distasteful; it should rather open itself to the possibility of interpretive alternatives. This might best be furthered by engaging in its own discourse with the Oracle. [Mipd] [Da]