The sarcasm in Teiresias’ss question implies that Oidipous is not best suited to interpret riddles–which, when they come from a seer or oracle, are messages from the god. Who, then, is? And why must the god make communication so difficult? Teiresias’ss sarcasm suggests a criticism of Oidipous, namely, that he requires simplicity: a single meaning. He rejects double entendre, which seems, however, to be the kind of communication at which Apollo excels. Prophetic utterance, as Zak puts it, has “a much broader range of reference.” This applies not only to “Teiresias’s mysterious warning and prophecies” but also to “the Delphic oracle’s pronouncements that hurried him from Corinth.” As the audience has realized, the broader range of reference allows Apollo to make use even of Oidipous’s own words. So, while Oidipous considers himself qualified to take the process of discovery into his own hands, the audience can clearly see that Oidipous is far from “best” at understanding words or actions designed by the god. Teiresias’s sarcasm implies that for such understanding, one must open oneself to the full breadth of meanings made available by prophetic speech. Access to divine speech is not in itself sufficient; successful communication requires an appropriately sensitive and cooperative verbal exchange. [Mip] [Dnc]