Oidipous now recounts for the Corinthian the same prophecy about which he just minutes before (ll. 789-93) informed Iokaste in an account that gave the audience reason to reexamine the traditional interpretation. Oidipous again ascribes his prophecy directly to Loxias (Apollo), thus expressing none of Iokaste’s skepticism towards the god’s “underlings” (as at l. 712), but he now recounts the prophecy in terms that differ from his first account slightly but, in two respects strikingly. Any difference is striking, first because Homer’s narratives make any variation at all noteworthy and significant, and second because so much of the audience’s judgment of prophecy, the god, and Oidipous’s character depends upon the prophecy’s precise wording. When speaking to Iokaste Oidipous presented μειχθῆναι (l. 791) as the Pythia’s word for the relationship Oidipous was to have with his mother, whereas to the Corinthian stranger he uses a different aspect of the same verb: μιγῆναι. While these forms have much the same meaning in this context, even a slight variation indicates that Oidipous is approximating, not quoting. And their meaning is not in fact identical. In the version he gave Iokaste, the infinitive is from the present system, which is suggestive of continuous or repeated action, while in the version he now gives, the infinitive is from the aorist system, which is suggestive of a single event. Living together in marriage occurs over time allowing for repeated intercourse. A unique event is better suited to another of the verb’s meanings: to be brought together with. If the god meant that Oidipous had to be brought together with his mother, this would have happened at the moment of their next encounter and would then its meaning would have been complete. Oidipous now also modifies μητρὶ (“mother”) with the possessive pronoun τἠμαυτοῦ (“my very own”), raising the question: Is this a more accurate representation of what he heard from the Pythia (in direct speech: μητρὶ τῂ σεαυτοῦ) or is it his own interpretive addition? The addition strengthens the interpretation of μειχθῆναι/μιγῆναι to mean intercourse, for it is meaningful to emphasize “you will have intercourse with your very own mother” but it makes little sense to say, “you will be brought into contact with your very own [as opposed to someone else’s?] mother.” The fact that τἠμαυτοῦ is missing from the first telling suggests that Oidipous is, even if subconsciously, reworking the prophecy to suit his needs. Might he be retelling the verb more accurately and at the same time realize that this causes a problem for his interpretation, for which he offers a correction? These discrepancies immediately raise questions: what did the god really say and how might this affect our understanding of the entire situation, including the attitudes, expectations, and reactions of both Oidipous and Apollo? [Mipd] [Ad] [Md]