Oidipous has just transferred the recipient of his speech from Iokaste to Zeus, to whom he speaks as if he were present. Iokaste’s question interprets this shift, however, in terms only of his mood or state of mind; she ignores the implication that Zeus is present, has laid plans for Oidipous, and that these plans revolve around prosecuting Laios’ killer. If he speaks to Zeus, this is a sign to her, not that he has begun to see things as they are, but rather that he has become unbalanced. In her view, to believe that a god may be close at hand, is actually listening, and has been intervening in mortal affairs are signs of derangement. The audience, while it may generally hold similar views, will in the context of this play have been puzzled at Oidipous’s obtuseness in regard to these same matters; here it should be obvious that, if not Zeus, then some god is present and active. Now that he at last recognizes the god’s intervention, the audience is watching to see how he responds to the knowledge and the process by which he will become aware of the full extent and implications of that intervention. Meanwhile it will find that Iokaste’s assumptions, commonly held as they may be, miss the mark utterly. [Gm] [Apa] [Mpea]