Speaking now in a manner reminiscent of Teiresias when he sought to avoid giving straight answers and advised Oidipous for his own happiness to desist from asking further questions (ll. 316-33), Iokaste appears to see in Oidipous’s approach to questioning an opportunity to deflect him from the terrible conclusion he is about to reach. She speaks now as Teiresias did earlier because she knows now what he appears always to have known. That her immediate response to her own realization of the monstrous truth is to repress the expression of her feelings suggests that her first impulse is to shield Oidipous, husband and son, from coming to the same realization. [Md] She can think of no better strategy than to plead with him (as did Teiresias) to desist from further questioning. Capable of predicting how Oidipous will respond to her cautions, however, the audience can anticipate that they will only strengthen his resolve and so the sooner serve the god’s purpose. Obstinacy such as his, then, appears to facilitate the god’s demonstration of power. Athenian obstinacy in the matter of “rational” self-governance in opposition to the god can be seen in the same light; it only aids the god in making the demonstration of his power clearer. [Gt-a] [Ap] The audience can infer, then, that its most efficacious approach is to persist in posing questions even, or perhaps especially, when they seem likely to reveal an unpleasant truth. [Mg] The best avenue for ameliorating the Oracle’s distressing prediction of a Spartan victory is for Athens to explore its options by expediting an embassy to Delphi to pose a new set of questions. [Mip]