As soon as Oidipous begins to complete the question that Kreon interrupted, the audience discovers that he has indeed been thinking about the connection between Teiresias’ss skills and Laios’ death. Describing Laios as “unseen” (ἄφαντος), he seems likely to mean that his violent death was not witnessed by Teiresias. Yet it was not only foreseen and foretold, but Teiresias has even now been able to see and name the killer. Teiresias can be presumed, then, to have known, when Oidipous arrived in Thebes, that he was Laios’ killer. If he did not say so at the time, it would not be because he did not know, but because he was not asked or because the god did not wish for him to make the revelation. Oidipous the killer, by contrast, remains ignorant of his own violent deed; he does not “see” what he saw with his own eyes; he is both unseen and unseeing. By this measure the seer’s vision is significantly better than his own. Rather than proving the worthlessness of Teiresias’s prophecies, Oidipous’s own argument brings their validity to light, such that they are being made visible to Kreon, who was not present when the killing took place, but whose eyes now seem to have been opened. Not so Oidipous; he speaks uncomprehendingly and yet with prophetic vision about his own blindness to what he saw with his own eyes and did with his own hands. [Apcmu] [Mpei]