“This very man” is not in fact the man in question, because as Iokaste heard from Oidipous, Apollo told him he must kill his birth father. The error is only acceptable, if it is permissible not to subject prophecy to a close reading, and if there are questions about its meaning, to obtain clarification. Rather than respectfully interrogating prophecy, Iokaste exults at its failure, even when Oidipous’s faithfully following instructions from Delphi has led to the discovery that he must be Laios’ killer. Iokaste prefers to follow the principle behind her earlier advice: if one prophecy can be confuted, one should ignore all prophecy, which her exultation suggests that she believes she can extend event to the results of an investigation urged by prophecy. Since Oidipous discovered himself to be Laios’ killer in obedience to prophecy, and since prophecy is susceptible of error, he may discount the discovery that the investigation turned up. In her view, her prayer has been answered; she has information that will set her husband’s mind at ease. The audience knows, however, that her reasoning is based on false assumptions and an uncritical reading of prophetic speech. It knows that Oidipous’s state of mind will become even worse than it is now when he discovers that Laios was also his father, and when Iokaste discovers that Oidipous is her son, her own state of mind can be expected instantly to plunge from exultation to darkest despair. The audience will respond to her exultation, then, by noting the importance both of believing that prophecy will prove valid even when it appears to be in error and of subjecting prophetic language to the most scrupulous and critical possible reading. [Md] [Apcma] [Mipd]