Oidipous expresses frustration at what he finds to be an excessively enigmatic and unclear reply. The audience having already made the same observation has further surmised, however, that the seer’s obfuscation serves to convey an important insight into the relationship between gods and mortals. If Oidipous misses the point it can only be because he is preoccupied with other matters. [Mpea] This preoccupation seems to render him unreceptive to what the god is endeavoring to communicate. [Mi] [Apcma] The charge of riddling recalls both earlier characterizations of the Sphinx and common attitudes towards the Oracle at Delphi, but while it is clear how the seer might be like the Oracle (both prophesy in the name of Apollo), it is not clear how he can be compared with the sphinx. To Oidipous both seer and sphinx seem to be aggressive and predatory. From the audience’s perspective, however, the harshness of the seer’s statements appears to be rather the product of Oidipous’s obtuse refusal to attend carefully to the seer’s words or credit the god for whom he speaks. Thus, if there is some truth to the suggested parallel, it may that sphinx, seer, and Delphi all stand at the interface between divine and human realms. [D] Where oracle and seer present the god’s willing assistance to those who seek it, the sphinx expresses the god’s more aggressive initiative. Here, however, it is Oidipous who grows impatient. His anger is like that of the god; both respond to perceived truculence, but the audience can easily see the difference: Oidipous is no god. It is inappropriate for a mortal to express criticism of a god, and the word “riddling,” used here to express impatience, represents just such criticism—if not of the god, then of his intermediaries. [P] When dealing with communication from a god through one of his mediums, humility, not arrogance, would serve. [Md]