When Oidipous rejects Iokaste’s appeal his language makes it clear that he is giving no thought to the god; he professes to be driven by a profound commitment to the investigative process itself. He gives weight to the quality of the evidence (σημεῖα τοιαῦτ᾽) that he has developed. σημεῖα are literally “signs,” and for Oidipous these are signs of his identity, signs of what happened, signs that will lead him to a clear understanding of where he belongs and where he does not belong, but above all, signs that he can read and interpret and investigate for himself. What for him is utterly compelling and decisive is the quality of evidence as evidence. It might be fair to say that this faculty, this one capacity to which he so tightly clings, compensates him for all the sufferings he expects to endure. What alone is impossible for him is to set aside this investigative drive, this evidentiary quest. For the audience, however, the very signs to which Oidipous points are indicative of his impending downfall due to the god’s complex contriving, for the word σημεῖα frequently refers to divine signs. Thus again, the speech originating within Oidipous’s own mind serves as a sign of the god’s power, for when he says that it is “impossible” that he “not bring to light [his] own family,” the audience will realize that this is indeed impossible, due, however, not as he thinks, solely or primarily to his own determination. [Gd] Going back to Homer, it is to “the bitter designing of the gods” to which Oidipous’s downfall must be attributed. The gods’ design can be seen to be working through Oidipous in the very speech through which he casts himself as an objective and independent investigator. His language is producing in the minds of the audience a perception of mortal vanity and an understanding of how mortals stand in relation to the world of divine powers. Oidipous’s belief that he is striking out on his own is characteristic of him and expresses a persistent error, for he has always been committed to avoid any necessity imposed upon him from without. When the Oracle revealed to him what he had to do, it required of him that he submit to necessity. He, however, countered by acting according to his own best judgment, which refused to admit of any such necessity. [Md] [Mpea] His present statement reaffirms that the only necessity by which he will be compelled is predicated on his own will. Because of this Oidipous can no longer be saved from himself, and the audience may begin to wonder whether it may still be possible to avert its own catastrophe by being saved from itself, for the Athenian audience is still in search of a clear understanding of what it must and must not do–how it should proceed in dealing with its plague, its war, and its relations with other city states. In this it can sense itself to be both like and unlike Oidipous; it is like him insofar as it is eager to seize upon signs that will lead it forth from the darkness of its present woes, but unlike him, because it is aware to an extent that he is not that the god may be involved in the production of circumstances. It can consider that it may be essential to submit to the Oracle for instruction, to seek clarification when these instructions are not clear, and then to comply with the instructions that it receives. [Mipd]