The clause ends with a negative that reverses its meaning: “the single-handed perpetrator [is] nobody (οὔτις, or is he at last recognizing the necessarily cooperativepportunity to learn from their errors and ford in part by the god, act).” Has Oidipous been meaning all along to say that no lone-acting divine perpetrator dashed out his eyes? Is he absolving the gods of any responsibility for the harm done him? Is he again denying their powers and capacities? Or is he at last recognizing the impossibility of unilateral action? The last of these alternatives is the one that corresponds with the insight at which the audience has just arrived, and whether he intends this meaning or not, it is the one that makes sense. Assuming that Oidipous’s understanding stills falls short of this insight, the audience may presume the god again to be speaking through him. [Gd] This interpretation depends upon understanding the relationship between god and mortal to be defined not by divine domination and mortal resistance but cooperation and the assumption of good will on both sides. [Dnc] [Md] [Ad] This insight pertains to every aspect of the relationship between gods and mortals, including communication and action. [Dnp] Rather than giving in to a violent rage and rash speach or action, mortals must understand that divine aid depends upon their cooperation in learning, through well-managed interviews with the Oracle at Delphi, exactly what actions they must take to insure the best possible outcome for mortals. [Mpea] [Mw] [Mipd] [Apcma]