Repeating the word for necessity from the previous clause and touching upon another of the features of the prophecy given Oidipous at Delphi, this clause recreates all of the exploration and insight prompted by the previous clause. Here, however, while the word ὁμιλῶν, by which Oidipous must mean having sexual intercourse, differs from what he earlier reported hearing from the god: μισγῆναι/μειχθεῖναι (ll. 791 and 995), but it does echo the word ὁμιλοῦντ᾽ used by Teiresias when he revealed to Oidipous that he “had escaped notice consorting most shamefully with [his] dearest kin” (366-7). Like μισγῆναι/μειχθεῖναι, ὁμιλοῦντ᾽ allows for the possibility that Oidipous mistook Apollo’s meaning, for it can simply mean to associate with. [Mipd] Thus, where Apollo may have meant to explain to Oidipous that he must be reunited with his mother to be able to associate with her, taking the god to mean have intercourse with your mother, Oidipous instantly determined to judge necessity for himself. His misinterpretation of information that he cannot otherwise obtain leads to his even greater mistake of choosing to act as his own arbiter of necessity, something about which he does not have sufficient knowledge. [Mpei] The audience has to lay responsibility for the calamitous failure to which Oidipous’s errors lead at his feet. It will find that the interpretive error that set into motion his program of resistance to the god is itself indicative of a problematic attitude towards divinity, for he clearly found it plausible that Apollo would demand his performance of unspeakable acts without due regard for propriety. [Md] In fact, the opposite appears to have been the case; Apollo was laying out for Oidipous the least onerous path back to well being. [Ad] [Mw]