Oidipous calling Teiresias “savior” repeats what the priest earlier called him (l. 48). Now assuming the attitude of a suppliant that the priest assumed then, Oidipous implicitly acknowledges that he cannot save the city without divine guidance. There is a notable difference between the two situations, for when the priest ascribed to Oidipous the qualities of a seer, there seemed to be reason to find impropriety on his part, while in ascribing these same qualities to Teiresias, his expression of pious respect seems appropriate. The basis for this distinction is that Oidipous, who is neither a god nor acting on a god’s instructions, has stepped into a space reserved for a god and appears thereby to signal his willingness to usurp the god’s function, while Teiresias serves as an acknowledged medium for the god’s communication with mortals. Serving both Apollo and mortals, Teiresias has priestly status. If he may be judged on the example of Apollo’s priest Chryses (cf. Iliad, Book I), he can be presumed to have the god’s backing and should therefore be accorded special consideration even by the most powerful of rulers. Thus, where it is improper for a priest to address Oidipous as a savior, it is proper for Oidipous so to address the seer. [Apcma] [P]