An art is a skill that is developed and practiced. An “art of prophecy” might therefore appropriately refer to the imperfect human capacity to make predictions based upon probability, but Iokaste is referring to Teiresias, who claims to speak for the god. She must mean, then, that mortals have no genuine access to divine knowledge and insight and that prophecy can therefore be nothing more than a skillful con game practiced upon those foolish enough to take it seriously. This view of prophecy is contradicted, however, by her insistence that prophecy is of purely divine origin. While she fails to say clearly what she means, her words can easily be interpreted to mean something that Apollo might very well wish to express: because prophecy is of divine origin no mortal craftiness has any bearing on it; its delivery demands neither skill nor training. Rather than disparaging prophecy, Iokaste’s formulation affirms its legitimacy. Given the audience’s hyper-sensitivity to double entendre and to the god’s need to communicate with mortals, her speech seems demonstrate the god’s present capacity to speak to anyone able to attend properly to what is being said even when the medium is skeptical of this possibility or even antagonistic to the service it renders. It is impressive that the god (presumably Apollo) demonstrates his capacity through the very words Iokaste uses to deny that capacity. In speaking through an antagonistic vehicle such as Iokaste, the god demonstrates not only that the medium requires no training, but also the insignificance of either her intentions or her personal characteristics. Age, sex, moral purity, and beliefs do not affect suitability for service as a vehicle for the god’s speech. Prophets in fact laid no claim to skill or training; the Pythia is thought to have been a common woman selected from the general population of Delphic women. Delphic communication can, on the other hand, is associated with ambiguity. In this play, and indeed in the present speech, Apollo can be observed to utilize double entendre to make the mortal of his choosing into a vehicle for his communication. It is highly ironic, then, to hear Iokaste imply that all prophets are charlatans, for she herself is not one. Rather than supposing all prophets such as the Pythian priestess at Delphi to be false, Athens would do better to work to discern the authentic message in any statement, including statements about prophecy, such as its own thesis, identical to Iokaste’s, that prophecy can safely be ignored. Just as the action of this play is bound to disprove Iokaste’s thesis, evidence that the Pythia may not be practicing a deception would be provided by a Spartan victory over Athens. This is why Apollo should be expected to aid Sparta’s war effort, even if not bidden by Sparta to do so; he must disprove the thesis that Athens (or any city) can ignore the words of the Oracle at Delphi. [Gd] [Apcmu] [Mpe] [Mip]