Having once more acknowledged his anger (again ὀργή, also: passion), which the audience has begun to understand to be an all-encompassing commitment to self-directed action to the exclusion of god and prophets, Oidipous now charges one of those very prophets with sharing in the murder’s “conception,” where ξυμφυτεῦσαι literally means to join in an act of sexual reproduction, thus calling to mind Oidipous’s incestuous conception of children mentioned in the Odyssey. But with whom does the profit share in the act of this conception? He speaks for the god. Therefore, to charge the prophet with conceiving the deed is to trace it to Apollo. It is he who conceived both the incest and the murder that Oidipous carried out. In revealing a significant truth about which he himself remains unaware Oidipous again speaks like a prophet. Teiresias’s refusal to communicate thus itself serves as a means by which the god can communicate an important distinction, which can be summed up as follows: authorized prophets serve as media by which the god delivers instruction to those mortals who are willing to carry them out. When the mortal selected by the god refuses to recognize the prophet, refuses to receive the instructions delivered by that prophet, or, having received them, refuses to carry them out, the god has recourse to other means both for conveying his messages and for obtaining compliance with his instructions. The god communicates with willing servants through recognized message bearers; to skeptical recipients he communicates through unconscious message bearers, and to unwilling servants through the unrecognized influence of media of last resort. [Gd] [Apcma] [Apcmu] [Apama] [Apamu]