One might expect Teiresias to defend himself by answering straightforwardly that he was instructed by the god. It is curious, then, that he does not. When he chooses to answer σοῦ (“you”) instead of θέου (“a god”), Teiresias juxtaposes Oidipous with the god, apparently to point up the fact that while Oidipous cannot instruct him in the truth as can Apollo, he can induce the prophet to divulge the truth. This marks a shift in the notion of instruction from cooperation and collaboration to provocation and opposition. Cooperation draws upon respect for the god and his mediums, while provocation represents competition with the god and usurpation of his prerogatives. The former can result in civic wellbeing; the latter must result in civic ills. So, there is truth in the seer’s answer, for if in allowing himself to be provoked into charging Oidipous with Thebes’ contamination, Teiresias has exceeded the boundaries he was determined to observe. By granting that he allowed himself to be improperly instructed by a man instead of the god he serves, he mocks his ruler for overstepping his bounds and usurping the god’s prerogative. The priest’s admission of failure points up the fact that Oidipous is further contributing to Thebes’ pollution even as he endeavor to cure it. [Mi] [Dncc] [P] [Mw]