The staffperson’s narrative picks up Oidipous’s movements as he enters the hall immediately outside his wife’s bedroom, probably only moments after he was seen leaving the stage to reenter the palace. Shouting, reeling about in constant motion from person to person, he begs each individually to provide him with a sword and show him where his wife is to be found. Apparently, nobody is willing to comply; perhaps they think he means to do her harm. Perhaps they are simply taken aback by the radical change in his demeanor. His wish never again to see the light of day has suggested to the audience that he may mean to kill himself, although that is not anticipated by the myth. Self-blinding is anticipated, but for such work a sword is not the right instrument. Can he mean to murder Iokaste? Would he now be willing to murder a parent when this was so abhorrent to him previously that he fled Delphi in terror? What is clear is that, like Iokaste, he has lost his self-control, and like her, once this happens, he gives way to violent action. The similarity in their raving and its common trigger suggest that reasonableness, calm, and self-control are available to them only when they believe that they are the masters of their fate. When told or shown that this is not the case, that the gods must be respected and served even when it conflicts with their own judgment or will, they lose their moorings and give way to raving, despair, and violent action. [Mi] [Md] In retrospect, Oidipous’s loss of self-control at the crossroads can be attributed more to his reaction to the prophecy from which he was just then recoiling than to any slight done him by the carriage driver. The audience may recall that Oidipous’s report of that consultation focused on his perception that the god had dismissed him without honor. That perceived slight seems to have played a role in his instantaneous decision to negate the prophecy he received, and from the audience’s present perspective it seems that that slight might have ratcheted up his inclination to violence towards the traveling party from which he received a much lesser slight. This leaves the audience to judge first that rationality such as that of Iokaste and Oidipous, also identified with Athens through the philosophical discourse in which Athens takes particular pride, is flimsy; its powers bring only temporary benefits; they are only apparently reliable and effective. [Mpea] Second, such rationality depends upon the assumption that man is, with the exception of chance, in every respect the master of his circumstances. If he or she finds this assumption to be false, the rational man or woman plunges into irrational thought and behavior and loses selfcontrol. Third, the commitment to rationality puts mortals at odds with their gods, whom it compels to make a demonstration of their capacity to exert influence over human beings. [Dnc] Fourth, mortal resistance to cooperation with more powerful divinities can be expected to express itself in mortals’ heightened propensity for violence towards one another. Athenians might find a perfect example of this in their own impulse to go to war with Sparta when they heard of Delphi’s promise of Apollo’s support for Sparta. [Gt-a] As the destruction being visited upon Iokaste and Oidipous indicates, Athens’ valuing rationality and independence of action above submission to divine instruction insures the city’s moral, psychological, and physical destruction. [Mw]