The story he tells is of a drunkard’s taunt that he was not his father’s son. According to his own account, this so disturbs him that he can hardly wait to obtain his parents’ reassurance. If the charge is true, he would presumably not be of royal blood and so undeserving of his status as heir to the throne. To reestablish his identity and his right to the privileges of his station, Oidipous goes straight to the best authorities—his putative parents, Polybos and Merope. Their answer satisfies him, but it fails to lay the gossip to rest, and so he seeks a higher and, presumably, more trustworthy authority; namely, the god Apollo. For if Oidipous doubts his parents, if indeed they should for any reason be deceiving him (as they are), then it must be because of some interest they have in hiding the truth (as is the case). The Oracle ought in his view not to have any such interest and should, if in possession of the truth, give Oidipous a straight answer to his question. What the Pythia actually says is thus of great interest to the audience, for the Oracle’s veracity and impartiality depend upon the precise wording of its pronouncement. Given the skepticism towards prophets that the audience has just heard from Oidipous and given Iokaste’s premise that the failure of one prophecy undermines the credibility of all prophecy, the credibility of prophecy as a practice and institution is presently at stake, and the addition of a new prophecy to consider expands the basis from which the conclusion will be drawn. As in the previous instances of prophecy, the facts are already known. The play presents it with the opportunity to examine the relationship between the prophecy’s wording and the facts, between the prophecy and its recipients, and between god and recipients. [Mip]