Having just heard an echo of his own accounts of the prophecy concerning him and being confronted with the reversiblility of killers and victims, Oidipous could be expected to seek clarification and so discover the identity of the two apparently unrelated prophecies. Instead, however, he questions the herdsman about his direct involvement as a go-between in passing the baby from Iokaste to the Corinthian. In the audience’s view, this concern may seem relatively trivial, for the information it might produce has to a large extent already been disseminated. The question he poses will yield information bearing neither on the identity of Laios’ killer nor of his own parents. For a second time omitting the pronoun that would indicate whether he regards the infant as “him” or “me,” Oidipous’s inquiry seems to have lost any bearing at all beyond the insignificant corroboration of the Corinthian’s earlier statements. Recognition that the various prophecies are really only one, on the other hand, would entail an appreciation for the scope and complexity of the god’s project. That Oidipous ignores the signs of prophetic identity and the consequent need for careful and inclusive interpretation suggests an assumption that such matters are of no importance. He clearly has a lower regard for prophetic discourse than for personal investigation. So while wanting to learn everything possible about the herdsman’s involvement, he shows no interest in discovering the god’s. [Md] The audience, on the other hand, can see that it is precisely this error that the god is at pains to correct—if not in Oidipous, then in those to whom his story might be told. [Mpea] [Apc] [Ad]