Oidipous having laid the groundwork of his case for a conspiracy now asks the central question: How could it be that the seer, if he was wise to what was happening, said nothing at the time? This is a perfectly reasonable question to which the audience will already have arrived at a perfectly reasonable answer: It did not suit the god’s purposes to do so until now. Oidipous had to live in marriage with his mother and have children with her. This leaves the audience free to investigate the false assumption that leads to Oidipous’s error. Oidipous believes that the seer’s silence proves that he in fact knew nothing because he assumes that Teiresias would have revealed what he knew about the murder. That the seer did not long since speak up about Laios’ killing indicates to Oidipous that the charge is of recent origin and thus plainly trumped up. The assumption was false; a seer, prophet, or priestess of the Oracle may withhold information precisely because he or she communicates in accordance with the god’s needs. And yet the god did to speak to Oidipous as he had earlier spoken to Laios. So where Oidipous complains that the seer failed to offer instructive information in a timely fashion, the fact is that the god spoke directly to Oidipous about Laios’ killing. It will be becoming apparent to the audience that the god may speak quite to the point without being properly heard or understood. As Kreon has just quite literally said, “we did not hear,” and once this occurs, the basis for direct communication between god and mortals is shattered. To avoid this, one must understand how it is possible not to hear the god. Clearly the problem is not auditory but cognitive; the blockage must occur in the way in which human minds interpret and respond to divine speech. [Mpe] [Dnp] [Mipi]