Gently claiming a wife’s prerogative to be told what her husband knows and even what he thinks he needs to know, Iokaste will be heard by the audience to insist upon being informed that she has married her son and borne his children. Indeed, while expressly claiming the right to share with her husband in the knowledge of whatever might bring him misfortune, her words can be construed to mean that she claims to be properly acquainted with those aspects of his character that bring about ill consequences (τά γ᾽ ἐν σοὶ δυσφόρως), which the audience can interpret to mean that she is “worthy” of such knowledge because she shares with him not only in physical, material, and other circumstantial relations pertinent to marriage, but essentially through the traits passed from mother to son. She should “by rights” have learned which of his propensities bring misfortune because these are the same as hers. These problematic predilections revolve primarily around the partial commitment to reason and the predilection to challenge communication (τὰ εἰρημέν᾽) that does not suit her, especially that which comes via prophecy. [Gd] [Md [Mi]