Kreon does not take issue with Oidipous’s misstatement of the god’s message but rather repeats that, in view of where “of need” they both stand, it is better to check with the god precisely what must be done (τί δραστέον, a restatement of the question τί πρακτέον, l. 1339). The audience will infer that the necessity Kreon has in mind is the city’s dire need to be cleansed of impurity. If this is what constrains him to seek the god’s further instruction, the audience may find his caution all the more acceptable, for the removal of pollution is by definition a religious matter, the kind for which the Oracle is the only appropriate source to consult. [Mip] Indeed, when confronted by plague, Oidipous himself saw no alternative but to consult Delphi. The difference between them is that Kreon insists upon continuing to obtain the god’s instruction until the matter has been laid to rest. Repeated reference to necessity (ἔχρηιζον/χρείας) suggests that Kreon recognizes that he has arrived at a cul-de-sac, a place from which no exit is without its difficulties. It is that necessitates further consultation with the god. The emphasis on necessity amplifies the fact that, while Oidipous reported that aspect of Apollo’s response to him, he did not give it any weight. Aware now that the god should be expected to communicate from his awareness of a necessity to which mortals and immortals are alike subject, the audience may understand Kreon’s decision to go to Delphi from a broader perspective, namely: to discover what necessity is pressing upon Apollo and to inquire, what to do to relieve that pressure. How this pressure was generated does not matter as much as the fact that its release calls for cooperation between mortals and immortals. [Dnc] The nature of the problem makes divine guidance essential to a successful solution. [Dnp] Aware of the constraints hemming in even the god, the audience will appreciate the wisdom of Kreon’s decision. If he makes a mistake now, he compels the god to subject Thebes to a new round of punishing interventions. There is, moreover, no advantage to be derived from a quick decision, no sense that any decision will deliver immediate relief. What is wanted, rather, is a lasting way out. Given the succession of hasty, careless, and disrespectful responses to prophecy, the safest and wisest course is to consult again, and to do it with care and mindfulness that the god’s prior involvement has already complicated the situation. As it begins to recognize the wisdom in Kreon’s insistence upon consulting for a second time on a question already put to the Oracle, the audience may reconsider other consultations to see whether it might not in fact be a good idea to check for a second time with the god. Thinking back to Oidipous’s initial consultation with the Pythia on the matter of his parentage, it will see that Oidipous neither sought confirmation for his interpretation of what he had been told nor asked what he was to do. It would seem, then, that he broke off the consultation before it was properly concluded. [Mipd] Had he pursued either avenue of questioning, it seems likely that he would still have taken the path leading to Thebes, but with an entirely different purpose; not to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother, but purposefully to draw his father’s blood and then to be reunited with his mother. [Md] This thinking now gives the audience reason to suppose that a second consultation might significantly alter the way in which Athens conceives of its options in its conflict with Sparta and the way in which it understands the god’s participation in the conflict’s resolution. [Gt-a] [Mg]