With the words “who you are” the Corinthian claims to know who Oidipous is. But how much does he really know? Does he think that Oidipous got his identity by fate, by chance, or by a combination of actions performed by his parents, himself, other mortals, and Apollo or another god? Surely the piercing of the infant’s ankles signaled that he was being intentionally exposed and should be left to die. One who accepts into his care a baby marked for death must be conscious of confounding someone else’s project. The Corinthian must have been aware that his action ran counter to the will of the infant’s parents, one of whom “happens” (though he does not know it) to be standing before him and listening to these words. To save that infant means, at the very least, that one rejects the premise that he must die. This is not a happenstance. Given how improbable the encounter with that infant before it has died, one might well feel that it was not the child’s “fate” to die. In that case, the savior might well suppose himself to be a god’s agent. The word “savior” is in fact an attribute of Zeus; the Corinthian might well suppose him to be the unseen god behind the babe’s “accidental” discovery. This might prompt the audience to note the capacity of language to communicate truths of which the speaker is only vaguely aware. The man who has claimed to be both father and savior to Oidipous continues to mistake his action on the god’s behalf for a combination of independent action (free will) and chance. His limitations in this regard are perfectly understandable. From the audience’s perspective, however, they fit into a far longer chain of actions about which the Corinthian has no knowledge, but in which the Corinthian’s participation was required. [Dn] The complexity of this relationship is adequately conveyed by τύχη. The Corinthian’s incomplete awareness of the workings and implications of τύχη as both idea and word has not in any way rendered him less useful to the god. It does, however, render him less admirable in the eyes of the audience, which sees that he has yielded some of his humanity’s potential by allowing himself to become nothing more than an inert tool in the god’s hands, deaf and blind to his own relationship to the world in which he lives. In order to avoid committing the Corinthian stranger’s error of inaccurate characterization on an important philosophical and practical matter, the audience must seek to understand the full complexity of the relationships among human agency, divine influence, and chance. [Mp] [P] [Ap]