It is ironic that Oidipous insists upon (or in Iokaste’s view, “desires,” “orders” ) the interrogation of yet another witness immediately upon complaining that too much has already been said. Indeed, since the audience is still anticipating Oidipous’s discovery of the terrible matters at this myth’s center, and since the sole survivor now seems most likely to deliver this revelation, Oidipous’s wish to question him presages the public airing of speech far more damaging to him than heretofore. In the face of this paradox, the word Oidipous uses to indicate the orientation of his own will towards the revelation might give the audience pause, for ἐθέλω might mean “I am willing (no matter the cost to me personally)” or “I intend (for thus will I assert my own will in the continuing endeavor to discredit prophecy and so to avert its curses). There is yet another way to look at this verb, for while the god’s project is at odds with the projects of various mortals, he seems to contrive his success not via the application of force but by working through mortal actors in such a way that their speech and actions remain very much their own, motivated by their own genuine predilections, desires, and perceptions. Thus, when Oidipous claims to be “willing” to question the survivor, the audience may understand that, while he is acting according to his own impulse and judgment, his wants, desires, and characteristic habits presently suit the god’s needs. Apollo’s thorough knowledge of Oidipous has long since allowed him to to anticipate and prepare for Oidipous’s response. The brilliance of the god’s approach seems to be a capacity to create the circumstances in which mortals, left to their own devices and behaving in accordance with their own character, will perform tasks conceived and prepared for them by the god. [Gd] [Apao] [Apamu]