In accusing Teiresias of having “no knowledge, whether from birds or gods,” Oidipous reverses what he earlier said of the seer (ll. 301-2) and at the same time echoes what was said of himself by the priest, namely: that he might have “obtained a message from some god” (l. 42). Oidipous thus endorses the view already held by the townspeople that his success against the Sphinx was gained not by dint of foreknowledge in any form, but independently derived solely on the basis of his own thought’s accuracy (κυρήσας). Clearly, this is the source of knowledge in which he has the greatest confidence. The audience having begun to entertain the idea, however, that the Sphinx’s riddle was designed to be solved uniquely by Oidipous, the audience now begins to understand that everything that happened at that time, including Teiresias’s silence, may well have occurred according to Apollo’s design. Thus, when Oidipous boasts of having had no assistance from any quarter, the audience recognizes that in fact he took no step without the god’s foresight and direction. His proud proclamation of independent capability can therefore now be radically reinterpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of his sarcastic self-characterization as “nothing-knowing,” for he neither knows nor understands anything of the god’s intervention in his life. Mortals’ perception of their own independence of action is an illusion based on ignorance about the subtlety of divine influence. [Apa] [Mpei] [Md]