Iokaste insists on learning ἡ τύχη: “what has occurred,” or more literally: “what chanced.” Is it by chance, then, that Oidipous and Kreon are at odds with one another? It seems not, for the audience has become aware that the misunderstanding stems from some sort of an imbalance in Oidipous’s mind, such that he cannot consider Teiresias’s charges pertaining to Laios’ death. What, then, of other events prophesied by Teiresias? Did Laios’ death occur by chance? Was it by chance that Oidipous happened upon Thebes just when the city was besieged by the Sphinx? Was it by chance that Oidipous, whose name points to the foot, was able to answer the Sphinx’s riddle about feet? Was it by chance that his success against the Sphinx was rewarded for with marriage to Iokaste? Iokaste’s use of the word τύχη suggests that she sees events in this way, and while the audience might incline to agree with this view with respect to events in its own life, events in Oidipous’s life suggest rather the execution of a complex plan. As an explanation, as a way of regarding events, chance falls short. If Iokaste’s expression is common parlance in Athens, then its obvious inadequacy in this circumstance might begin to erode the audience’s confidence in the wisdom of its own diction; it might begin to wonder whether disputes, such as the one between itself and Sparta, are a matter of chance, or might they stem, like the dispute between Kreon and Oidipous, from different feelings about prophecy? [Dc] [Gt-a] [Md] [Mi]