No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
What Happens in Sophocles' ‘Philoctetes’?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Extract
Great disagreement over the plot of Sophocles' Philoctetes makes the terrain of critical discussion very slippery. Some critics argue that Odysseus knows from the beginning that both Philoctetes and his bow are the object of the voyage to Lemnos, while Neoptolemus realizes this fact only later; others, however, believe that Odysseus never realizes the need for Philoctetes himself but that Neoptolemus eventually does. A few argue that the audience understands clearly, from the beginning and throughout the play, that Odysseus and Neoptolemus are both aware of the need for Philoctetes as well as his bow. Different perceptions of the plot may lead to very different interpretations of the play. For instance, the critics who believe that Neoptolemus at first thinks he must bring only the bow to Troy often concentrate on Neoptolemus' alleged realization that Philoctetes is necessary, too, while those who believe that Neoptolemus is aware all along of the need for Philoctetes obviously center their analyses elsewhere. Some critics even try to make a virtue out of the confusion over the plot, though in different ways: believing that we cannot determine until late in the play what Neoptolemus and Odysseus perceive their mission to be, a few argue that the question must be irrelevant to understanding Sophocles' purposes; another finds the moral lesson of the play in the fact that a muddle exists.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Fordham University Press
References
1 E.g., Kitto, H. D. F., Greek Tragedy 3 (London 1961) 300–6, hereafter Kitto GT ; Kitto, , Form and Meaning in Drama (London 1956) 95-96, 98, hereafter Kitto FM ; Kirkwood, G. M., A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958) 80-82; Harsh, P. W., A Handbook of Classical Drama (Stanford 1944) 146.Google Scholar
2 E.g., Letters, F. H. J., The Life and Work of Sophocles (London 1953) 277, 279, 281-82, Whitman, C. H., Sophocles: A Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge, Mass. 1951) 182-83, Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley 1964) 126-27, 134, 187-90 (n. 20 and 21), Adams, S. M., Sophocles the Playwright (Toronto 1957) 137, 140, 147, 150, 154, Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie (Leipzig 1930) 349, Lesky, A., Die griechische Tragödie (Stuttgart 1938) 116-20, Kieffer, J. S., ‘Philoctetes and “Arete”,’ CP 37 (1942) 47-48.Google Scholar
3 See especially Hinds, A. E., ‘The Prophecy of Helenus in Sophocles' Philoctetes,’ CQ 17 (1967) 169–80, Linforth, I. M., ‘Philoctetes: The Play and the Man,’ UCPCP 15 (1956) 98-104, 112-13, 115-16, 126-30, 133-37, and Ronnet, G., Sophocle, poète tragique (Paris 1969) 238-46. Hinds explicitly refutes other interpretations. See also Erbse, H., ‘Neoptolemus und Philoktet bei Sophokles,’ Hermes 94 (1966) 177-85, and Calder, W., ‘Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes,’ GRBS 12 (1971) 153-74, hereafter Calder 1. Calder offers a novel and important interpretation of Neoptolemus' role, and axiomatic to his interpretation is Neoptolemus' and Odysseus' complete understanding of the need for Philoctetes as well as the bow. He does not, however, specifically explore the questions raised here about the plot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. B. takes a position that is difficult to categorize (‘Topics in Sophocles' Philoctetes,’ CQ 19 [1969] 34–56). He believes (44-51) that Neoptolemus and Odysseus at first plan to get Philoctetes but later give up on him and are content with the bow, since the oracle need not be fulfilled by bringing the man himself. In general the categories which I propose here oversimplify the various critical stances, which will become clearer in the course of this article. See also Hinds and Robinson, whose useful references clarify significant positions.Google Scholar
4 See Kitto, (n. 1) GT 304 and FM 119-20, Whitman (n. 2) 183, Knox (n. 2) 131-32, and Lesky (n. 2) 119-20.Google Scholar
5 E.g., Waldock, A. J. A., Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1951) 198–203, 212-13, and Gellie, G. H., Sophocles: A Reading (Melbourne 1972) 145-46. von Wilamowitz, T., in Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles, Phil. Untersuch. 22 (Berlin 1917) 273-77, 302ff., essentially argues that Sophocles leaves Odysseus‘ and Neoptolemus’ plan of action in the prologue vague enough that he can construct the ensuing scenes for a variety of dramatic effects in spite of logical contradictions. J. P. Poe (‘Heroism and Divine Justice in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,‘ Mnemosyne Supplement 34 [1974]) argues that the play is not primarily one of intrigue, since the purpose of the intrigue is never, even by the end of the play, made clear (10-12). Starting from this conception of the plot, Poe devotes nearly forty pages to argument that the play's major point is to show the injustice of the gods, and that Sophocles’ use of the deus is a non-sequitur calculated to show the meaninglessness of life. Poe's extreme position provides a good example of the importance of establishing exactly what the plot of the Philoctetes is.Google Scholar
6 Bowra, M., Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford 1944) passim in his chapter on the Philoctetes, especially 264-69. Bowra's main point is that the plot depends largely on the misinterpretation of the oracle by men whose human failings make them miss its true meaning. Cf. Spira, A., Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Sophokles und Euripides (Kallmünz/Opf. 1960) 13-16, 18-19, 31-32.Google Scholar
7 For instance, Ronnet, (1969) does not list Hinds's article (1967) or Erbse's (1966) in her bibliography but does list Linforth's (1956); Hinds and Erbse do not cite one another, but Erbse does cite Linforth (see n. 3). Most of their work seems, of course, to have been going on contemporaneously. Gellie (see n. 5) 292 n. 12, is among those not convinced; Robinson (see n. 3) attempts explicitly to refute Hinds's article (48ff.) but, although familiar with Linforth's, he does not respond specifically to the arguments which Linforth presents.Google Scholar
8 For Proclus' summary of the contents of these epics see Homeri Opera, Vol. 5, ed. Allen, T. W. (Oxford 1912) 102–7. See also Jebb's introduction to his edition of the Philoctetes (Cambridge 1890) xi-xiv, and Huxley, G. L., Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis (Cambridge, Mass. 1969). On Neoptolemus' role in epic see Calder 1 (n. 3) 168, and especially Fuqua, C., ‘Studies in the Use of Myth in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and the Orestes of Euripides,' Traditio 32 (1976) 32-38.Google Scholar
9 Wilamowitz (n. 5) 270-71, however, argues for the possibility that even in an epic source Odysseus accompanied Diomedes to Lemnos and that together they stole Philoctetes' bow.Google Scholar
10 The citations of Dio are from the Loeb edition, Dio Chrysostom, vol. 4, trans. Lamar Crosby, H. (London 1946). Crosby's pagination is the same as J. de Arnim's in Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae extant omnia, vol. 1 (Berlin 1893). Fragments are cited from Nauck, A., Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, supp. B. Snell (Hildesheim 1964). For more thorough attempts to reconstruct Euripides' play, see especially Webster, T. B. L., The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 57-61, Kieffer (n. 2), Wilamowitz (n. 5) 269-73, and Calder, W., ‘Die Technik der Sophokleischen Komposition im “Philoktet”,’ Hellenische Poleis 3 (Berlin 1973/Leiden 1974) 1382-88, hereafter Calder 2. In that article and in another, ‘Aeschylus’ Philoctetes,‘ GRBS 11 (1970) 171-79, hereafter Calder 3, Calder has offered a plausible reconstruction of Aeschylus’ play and provides references to previous scholarship. I find Calder's arguments about both plays particularly persuasive but have not based my thesis on them lest readers skeptical of such reconstructions become unnecessarily skeptical of my thesis.Google Scholar
11 The paroxysm scene was probably pivotal; on this and other plausible speculations see especially Calder (n. 10) 2, and 3, 177.Google Scholar
12 Fragments from the prologue include 787-790N.Google Scholar
13 For instance, Calder 2 (n. 10) 1383, and Kieffer (n. 2) 41 n. 14, suggest that Athena enters at the end. More generally, see especially Calder's convincing and detailed reconstruction of Euripides' play.Google Scholar
14
Wilamowitz (n. 5) 271, claims that Dio 52.2 applies not at all to Euripides‘ play, only very roughly to Sophocles', and fully to Aeschylus’ alone. Kieffer (n. 2) argues similarly; referring to Dio's phrase <image> he claims that ‘the rhetorical winning of Philoctetes in the play of Euripides precludes “the persuasion of compulsion”’ (39 n. 4). Kieffer says further that the phrase cannot apply to Sophocles' play since Philoctetes returned willingly and that it must therefore refer to Aeschylus' alone. Kieffer and Wilamowitz are mistaken. The relevance of Dio's remarks to Sophocles' play is indeed somewhat rough, since Odysseus is not literally the one to take the bow from Philoctetes and since Philoctetes has the bow in his possession when he decides to go to Troy. Nevertheless, as I shall argue later, Odysseus' scheme in the Sophoclean play would have led to ‘the persuasion by compulsion’ if Neoptolemus had not returned the bow; therefore, Dio's phrase <image>: does apply adequately to Sophocles' play. Why the phrase should not apply fully to Euripides' play I fail to see: presumably his Philoctetes was persuaded both by rhetorical devices and by the fact that his bow was being held hostage, that is, by the persuasion of compulsion; see Calder 3 (n. 10) 177, n. 42. I do not see why modern critics should not trust Dio, who had all three plays before him and who certainly seems to refer in 52.2 to all three at once. Dio's conflation of the roles of the theft and seizure in the three plays may be due to his perception that at least one purpose lay behind getting the bow in all three, namely, to lure Philoctetes to Troy by means of the persuasion by compulsion. he claims that ‘the rhetorical winning of Philoctetes in the play of Euripides precludes “the persuasion of compulsion”’ (39 n. 4). Kieffer says further that the phrase cannot apply to Sophocles' play since Philoctetes returned willingly and that it must therefore refer to Aeschylus' alone. Kieffer and Wilamowitz are mistaken. The relevance of Dio's remarks to Sophocles' play is indeed somewhat rough, since Odysseus is not literally the one to take the bow from Philoctetes and since Philoctetes has the bow in his possession when he decides to go to Troy. Nevertheless, as I shall argue later, Odysseus' scheme in the Sophoclean play would have led to ‘the persuasion by compulsion’ if Neoptolemus had not returned the bow; therefore, Dio's phrase
15 For instance, the trader falsely reports that Diomedes is on his way with Odysseus to fetch Philoctetes — a scenario that would accord with Euripides' Philoctetes. Google Scholar
16 Knox (n. 2) 126, warns against our reading the play with preconceived notions and the two-edged benefit of a scholarly introduction. Kitto FM (n. 1) 95, wryly encourages us to be stupid as we read if we are not to get interested in the play and lose sight of the problem over the plot. Both critics are right to warn us against the pitfalls of armchair-readings of Sophocles' Philoctetes (or of any play), but, in order to capture the essential assumptions of the world of the original performance, we must not be too stupid or have too few preconceived notions.Google Scholar
17
After using the phrase quoted from Or. 59.2, Odysseus cites Helenus' oracle, which said that, <image>, the city could never be taken. The word <image> may grammatically refer either to Philoctetes and his bow or to the bow only, since the plural form means simply ‘bow.’ Even if <image> refers to the bow only, the fact that Odysseus can in one breath speak of Philoctetes and the bow and then of the bow alone shows how much a reference to the bow implies Philoctetes as well. The iconological association of a god or hero with a physical object was strongly felt by the Greeks, who identified a figure on a vase, a frieze, or the stage itself by the objects he wore or carried. Aristophanes, at the beginning of the Frogs, bases much of the humor on the audience's as well as the characters' association of the lion skin with Heracles: when Xanthus wears the skin, he is Heracles, as Dionysus is when he wears it. See Ronnet's comments (n. 3) 239., the city could never be taken. The word may grammatically refer either to Philoctetes and his bow or to the bow only, since the plural form means simply ‘bow.’ Even if
18 Critics rarely make any significant reference to Aeschylus' and Euripides' plays when discussing the plot of Sophocles' Philoctetes. Hinds (n. 3) 171, is tempted to argue on the grounds of the dramatic tradition that Sophocles' audience will have taken for granted that Philoctetes must come, but he feels that Sophocles' ‘innovative’ treatment of the story would make such grounds treacherous. Even when he has presented sound arguments based only on Sophocles' play itself, Hinds lacks confidence in the audience's ability to understand what is going on in the prologue (171-73). Ronnet (n. 2) 238-39, 242, makes occasional but illuminating use of the audience's expectations based on previous tradition. Harsh (n. 1) 146, at least hints at the usefulness of Dio 52.2. He says that the whole intrigue is not explained by Odysseus in the prologue but that the real interest of Odysseus is first to gain the bow and then to use persuasion or force on Philoctetes. In a footnote to this statement (456 n. 93), Harsh says, 'In certain versions of the story, this procedure is followed and succeeds; cf. Dio Chrysostomus 52.2; Apollodorus, , Epitome 21 (5.8).' But Harsh does not develop his argument, and even his suggestion of it is almost lost in the footnotes; furthermore, he fails to see that the evidence from Dio helps to refute the notion that Odysseus deceives Neoptolemus in the prologue.Google Scholar
Calder 2 (n. 10) is a precious exception, and his episode-by-episode comparison of Sophocles' play with its precursors provides gratifying support of many of my arguments. Calder emphasizes Sophocles' dependence on his predecessors and properly acknowledges the similarities among the three plays. He does not, however, address directly the questions concerning the plot of Sophocles' play which have so vexed critics, but seems to take for granted the answers to many of them. See also two studies which show how suggestive the comparison of Sophocles with his predecessors can be, although they do not address directly the problems of the plot discussed here: Calder 1 (n. 3) and Fuqua (n. 8). Both articles make important use of previous tradition to explore Neoptolemus' characterization and his role in Sophocles, though with different results,Google Scholar
19 See Hinds, (n. 3) 171, 173, Ronnet (n. 3) 239, and Linforth (n. 3) 99, 102-4. Critics who make a point of the omission include Bowra (n. 6) 268, Kitto FM (n. 1) 96, Knox (n. 2) 187 n. 20, and Adams (n. 2) 137, 154.Google Scholar
20
Kirkwood, however, states (n. 1) 80: ‘In the prologue Odysseus speaks only of the need for the weapons in Philoctetes’ possession — they and Neoptolemus are destined to take Troy (113) — not a word about Philoctetes.' Cf. Adams (n. 2) 37: ‘Yet Odysseus makes no mention of the man.’ Knox (n. 2) 187-88 nn. 20-21, argues that when Odysseus speaks of Philoctetes he uses ambiguous words, <image> and <image>, which do not necessarily imply taking Philoctetes to Troy as Neoptolemus‘ use of <image> does; he says that <image> and <image> may signify only that it will be necessary to capture Philoctetes in order to get the bow. But this distinction is over-subtle for any audience aware of the epic and dramatic tradition established by Sophocles’ predecessors, and it is unlikely simply within the context of the play. For instance, when Neoptolemus asks, ‘Why should I take him (<image>) by trickery rather than persuasion ?’ Odysseus answers, ‘He is not to be persuaded. And you could not take him (<image>) by force’ (102-3). Since <image> in 102 definitely refers to taking Philoctetes to Troy, how can an audience be expected to infer that, in the very next line, <image> with the phrase <image> refers to something else ? (Cf. Linforth [n. 3] 102.) Note also that when Neoptolemus speaks of ‘taking the man by force and not by tricks' in 90-91, anticipating Odysseus’ use of <image> in 103, he uses <image> thus seems to be used interchangeably with <image> in reference to ‘taking’ Philoctetes. and , which do not necessarily imply taking Philoctetes to Troy as Neoptolemus‘ use of
21 Harsh (n. 1) 146, Adams (n. 2) 137-39, and Kitto FM (n. 1) 96, are among those critics who believe that Odysseus intentionally misleads Neoptolemus about the need for Philoctetes. Some critics do not even try to explain Neoptolemus‘ references to taking Philoctetes to Troy; others simply fall back on the explanation that all is muddle here or dismiss these references by appealing to Sophocles’ larger dramatic purposes (e.g. Kirkwood [n. 1] page 81).Google Scholar
22 See Hinds, (n. 3) 173–74.Google Scholar
23 Compare the use of <image> in 61, where it clearly indicates that Neoptolemus' presence at Troy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the city's capture. If his presence were sufficient, then the Greeks would need neither Philoctetes nor the bow.+in+61,+where+it+clearly+indicates+that+Neoptolemus'+presence+at+Troy+is+a+necessary+but+not+sufficient+condition+for+the+city's+capture.+If+his+presence+were+sufficient,+then+the+Greeks+would+need+neither+Philoctetes+nor+the+bow.>Google Scholar
24 So Hinds (n. 3) 172, Linforth, (n. 3) 101–4 and Ronnet, (n. 3) 239; cf. Kirkwood, (n. 1) 80, Spira, (n. 6) 14-16, Erbse, (n. 3) 181-84, and the scholium ad v. 68.Google Scholar
25 Robinson, (n. 3) 47–50; cf. Bowra, (n. 6) 268. Kitto FM (n. 1) 96, 98, suggests that the audience will mistakenly believe at this point that Odysseus views Philoctetes only as a means to the bow; actually, Odysseus knows better but deceives Neoptolemus.Google Scholar
26 Neoptolemus does not, I believe, blaze forth as an outstandingly noble young man, for his heroic dispositions are easily manipulated by Odysseus into willing participation in an unheroic venture. Given Neoptolemus' reputation for blood-thirstiness in most epic and drama (see Calder 1 [n. 3] and Fuqua [n. 8]), Sophocles' audience probably did not find his easy capitulation to Odysseus surprising. Nevertheless, in presenting Neoptolemus' initial resistance to Odysseus' plans, Sophocles raises a new question over the morality of deceiving Philoctetes, and this question provides the framework for dramatic tension through most of the play. I believe that Neoptolemus is almost ruthlessly committed to the scheme until the paroxysm scene and that he does not fully abandon it until he actually returns the bow.Google Scholar
27
In Odysseus‘ mouth, the vocabulary of stealing the bow overlaps with that of deceiving Philoctetes, and stealing Philoctetes’ bow and telling him lies thereby seem to be two sides of the same moral coin (see 54-55, 57, and 77-78). Philoctetes becomes the ‘object’ of deception in the same way that something inanimate is the ‘object’ of a theft. Knox's observation (see n. 20), that Odysseus tends to use <image> and <image> (as opposed to Neoptolemus' use of <image>), may now seem to have some relevance to Sophocles' purpose. For instance, when Odysseus, the architect of the deception, says, ‘I order you to take (<image>) Philoctetes by means of a deception’ (101), he makes the vocabulary of taking Philoctetes overlap with that of verbal deception and theft (cf. <image> in 68). When Neoptolemus eventually abandons the theft, he also abandons Odysseus' scheme for taking Philoctetes to Troy. and
28 The first critic is Adams (n. 2) 140; cf. Pohlenz, (n. 2) 348-49. The second is Knox(n. 2) 188; cf. Robinson (n. 3) 44-51.Google Scholar
29 See Knox, (n. 2) 188, and Linforth (n. 3) 106-7. Calder 1 (n. 3) 155-60, argues, and I agree, that Neoptolemus lies when he tells Philoctetes that he has been to Troy. Neoptolemus must have learned what he knows about Philoctetes' past and about Helenus' oracle from reports brought to Scyros, from Odysseus, and from his sailors; he could not have gotten this information directly at Troy (contra, e.g., Knox). Kitto (n. 1) GT 303 and FM 100, seems ignorant of the problem which Neoptolemus' reference to Philoctetes, and not just to Chryse, presents for his claim that Neoptolemus is unaware that Philoctetes is essential. In FM (111) he skirts the problem by referring to Sophocles' larger dramatic purposes, saying that he allows illogicalities for ease and subtlety of explication and for creating dramatic tension; cf. Kirkwood (n. 1) 81.Google Scholar
30 Robinson, (n. 3) 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Ibid. 46–51.Google Scholar
32 E.g., Adams, (n. 2) 147, Kieffer, (n. 2) 47, Kirkwood, (n. 1) 81, and Lesky (n. 2) 119.Google Scholar
33 Those who do so explicitly include Whitman (n. 2) 174-75, 183, Knox (n. 2) 134, Bowra (n. 6), 264-68, Spira (n. 6) 18, 31, and Kitto FM (n. 1) 117-20. Calder 2 (n. 10) recognizes that Neoptolemus' false story may constitute persuasion (1385) but then speaks of the oracle as containing a ‘Klausel des bereitwilligen Einverständnisses’ (1386); cf. Erbse (n. 3) 183-85, 193. On Neoptolemus' alleged realization of the need for persuasion more generally see also Kitto, GT (n. 1) 304, Adams, (n. 2) 147, and Kirkwood (n. 1) 81.Google Scholar
34
Cf. Hinds,
(n. 3) 178–80 and Linforth,
(n. 3) 115. Ronnet (n. 3) 242-43, recognizing that Odysseus' scheme might very well be consistent with the terms of the oracle as presented by the trader, suggests that the trader uses the phrase <image> specifically to remind Neoptolemus that, since Philoctetes must be persuaded by means of a <image>, Neoptolemus must get the bow before taking Philoctetes to the ship; Philoctetes cannot have the bow when Odysseus tries to persuade him to come. specifically to remind Neoptolemus that, since Philoctetes must be persuaded by means of a , Neoptolemus must get the bow before taking Philoctetes to the ship; Philoctetes cannot have the bow when Odysseus tries to persuade him to come.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cf.+Hinds,+(n.+3)+178–80+and+Linforth,+(n.+3)+115.+Ronnet+(n.+3)+242-43,+recognizing+that+Odysseus'+scheme+might+very+well+be+consistent+with+the+terms+of+the+oracle+as+presented+by+the+trader,+suggests+that+the+trader+uses+the+phrase+
35 See, for example, Herodotus 8.4, 8.134, and 9.33. In English ‘to persuade with gifts’ would be ironical. See Liddell–Scott s.v. <image> (AII) for other examples of the word used in a negative sense.+(AII)+for+other+examples+of+the+word+used+in+a+negative+sense.>Google Scholar
36 Cf. Apollodorus Ep. 5.8: ‘… <image> ….’ +….’>Google Scholar
37 Taking a man forcibly could not, however, be persuasion in any sense (see 594 and 618). But we would not assume, until we actually saw Odysseus using force, that he really intended to. The threat of using force is certainly only part of the trader's false story, designed to frighten Philoctetes. See Hinds' comments (n. 3) 179.Google Scholar
38 On the significance of <image> in this play I am very much indebted to Hamilton, R., ‘Neoptolemus’ Story in the Philoctetes,' AJP 96 (1975) 131–37. See also Podlecki, A. J., ‘The power of the word in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,' GRBS 7 (1966) 233-50.Google Scholar
39
The fact that the trader's story is a false <image> which itself falls into the category implied by the phrase <image> is a further indication that the trader quotes accurately the gist of the oracle: in the very act of lying, the trader fulfills the terms of the oracle. Cf. Linforth,
(n. 3)
115. which itself falls into the category implied by the phrase
40 On these correspondences see Hamilton, (n. 38) 132–33.Google Scholar
41 Knox, (n. 2) 131, however, translates: ‘I see that we have hunted this bow to no purpose,’ and cites this statement as evidence of Neoptolemus' intention up to now of getting only the bow. But, as Hinds observes (n. 3) 173, this is not what the Greek says.Google Scholar
42 E.g., Bowra, (n. 6) 281, Lesky (n. 2) 119, and Kitto GT (n. 1) 304; in FM (n. 1) 119, Kitto continues to insist on the play's illogicality and says that Neoptolemus ‘has no business to know’ what he says in 839-42. See also Robinson (n. 3) 48, 51, Whitman (n. 2) 183, and Knox (n. 2) 131-32, who believe that these lines mark a turning point in Neoptolemus' perceptions but who, in various ways, correctly stress that shame and pity for Philoctetes rather than obedience to the oracle now motivate Neoptolemus.Google Scholar
43
The insertion of a comma by editors is probably due to the scholium: <image>. However, the use of <image> with verbs of motion is rare (see Liddell–Scott and Ellendt). Even when so construed, it is an adverb in the examples which I have found, e.g., <image> (Euripides, , Hec.
117), where it means ‘in two directions.’ Cf. <image>, Herodotus 6.109. Usually the preposition <image> is found with such verbs as <image>, where it means ‘apart from.’ Aside from Phil. 840, the only passage in Sophocles where <image> appears in the vicinity of a verb of motion is Ant 164-65: <image>. In this example <image> governs the prepositional phrase which modifies the verb, and <image> is used strictly as an adverb, emphasizing the state of separation resulting from the motion away; see Ellendt's gloss, vos a ceteris segregates, i.e., potissimum.
.+However,+the+use+of++with+verbs+of+motion+is+rare+(see+Liddell–Scott+and+Ellendt).+Even+when+so+construed,+it+is+an+adverb+in+the+examples+which+I+have+found,+e.g.,+
It is therefore unlikely that, in Philoctetes 840, <image> is to be construed with <image>. <image> stands by itself, with no adverbs or adverbial phrases to modify it, in three other places in the Philoctetes itself, 526, 569, 593. (See Liddell–Scott for examples in other authors.) In any case, prepositional phrases used with <image> and indicating ‘whence’ are generally formed by the prepositions <image> and <image> (e.g. Philoctetes 528-29, 547-48; see Liddell–Scott under <image>, and <image>). The large number of occurrences of <image> in this play (see Ellendt) is significant, in light of the sense of delayed departure which permeates the play: see Taplin, O., ‘Significant Action in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,' GRBS 12 (1971) 25–44. The repetition of the word in 840 is no doubt part of the verbal pattern which helps to create that sense.Google Scholar
44 Even if we do infer that the chorus implicitly urge Neoptolemus to leave Philoctetes, we need not therefore conclude that they want Neoptolemus to sail for Troy without him. Kieffer (above, n. 2) 41, posits that in Euripides ‘play Odysseus stole Philoctetes’ bow during the paroxysm and then left, affording Diomedes the opportunity to approach Philoctetes and persuade him to come to Troy; Odysseus returned later (cf. Webster — n. 10 — 61). So here, if the chorus are urging Neoptolemus to leave, they may only expect him to withdraw and to allow Odysseus to approach Philoctetes so that he can persuade Philoctetes by honest arguments and by ‘the persuasion by compulsion.’ After all, Odysseus nowhere told Neoptolemus to confront Philoctetes with the truth, and the chorus may only assume that it is Odysseus ‘task to do so. Their reference to Odysseus in the antistrophe would then be explicable in terms of their fear that Neoptolemus is about to deviate from Odysseus’ implicit instructions. The audience might also feel anxious that Neoptolemus ‘refusal to leave with the bow portended a radical deviation by Sophocles from Euripides’ version.Google Scholar
45 On this translation of the first half of 841, see Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Tragica,’ BICS 16 (1969) 48–50.Google Scholar
46 Sophocles may have been playing with his audience's expectations here if, in previous versions of the story, a deus ex machina (Athena) finally convinced Philoctetes to follow his bow to Troy. This may indeed have happened in Aeschylus and Euripides, and perhaps even in epic: see Keiffer (n. 2) 41, note 14, and Calder (n. 10) 2, 1383-85 and 3, 177 n. 42. In any case, the chorus do speak with more accuracy than they can realize, for in the end the god Heracles will see to it that Philoctetes agrees to go to Troy.Google Scholar
47 See Jebb, (n. 8) xxviii, Kitto, FM (n. 1) 124, Linforth, (n. 3) 135-36, Waldock, (above, n. 5) 212-14, Hinds (n. 3) 177-79, and Erbse (n. 3) 184; cf. Calder 1 (n. 3) 160-62.Google Scholar
48 Robinson (n. 3) 44-51, following Wilamowitz (n. 5) 302-7; cf. Knox (n. 2) 134, 192 n. 38. However, Hamilton (n. 38) 132-33, observes that Neoptolemus' false <image> continues to parallel Philoctetes' situation in the play: both men are deprived of their weapons by Odysseus, have encounters with him, and are reviled by him. Given the parallelism between Odysseus' claim that he will wield Philoctetes' arms and the false story, the audience has further reason to believe that Odysseus is bluffing. (Contra Adams [n. 2] 142-43, Neoptolemus lies when he tells Philoctetes that Odysseus refused to give him his father's arms, and the audience would know that he is lying even if it thought that he had been to Troy: even in the Little Iliad Odysseus returned the arms to Neoptolemus — see n. 8.) For further refutation of Robinson's position, see n. 53. continues to parallel Philoctetes' situation in the play: both men are deprived of their weapons by Odysseus, have encounters with him, and are reviled by him. Given the parallelism between Odysseus' claim that he will wield Philoctetes' arms and the false story, the audience has further reason to believe that Odysseus is bluffing. (Contra Adams [n. 2] 142-43, Neoptolemus lies when he tells Philoctetes that Odysseus refused to give him his father's arms, and the audience would know that he is lying even if it thought that he had been to Troy: even in the Little Iliad Odysseus returned the arms to Neoptolemus — see n. 8.) For further refutation of Robinson's position, see n. 53.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Robinson+(n.+3)+44-51,+following+Wilamowitz+(n.+5)+302-7;+cf.+Knox+(n.+2)+134,+192+n.+38.+However,+Hamilton+(n.+38)+132-33,+observes+that+Neoptolemus'+false++continues+to+parallel+Philoctetes'+situation+in+the+play:+both+men+are+deprived+of+their+weapons+by+Odysseus,+have+encounters+with+him,+and+are+reviled+by+him.+Given+the+parallelism+between+Odysseus'+claim+that+he+will+wield+Philoctetes'+arms+and+the+false+story,+the+audience+has+further+reason+to+believe+that+Odysseus+is+bluffing.+(Contra+Adams+[n.+2]+142-43,+Neoptolemus+lies+when+he+tells+Philoctetes+that+Odysseus+refused+to+give+him+his+father's+arms,+and+the+audience+would+know+that+he+is+lying+even+if+it+thought+that+he+had+been+to+Troy:+even+in+the+Little+Iliad+Odysseus+returned+the+arms+to+Neoptolemus+—+see+n.+8.)+For+further+refutation+of+Robinson's+position,+see+n.+53.>Google Scholar
49 E.g. Robinson, (n. 3) 45, following Wilamowitz (n. 5).Google Scholar
50 Knox (n. 2) 124-27, takes the extreme position that Odysseus actively opposes bringing Philoctetes because he wants all the glory of capturing Troy for himself. This view is proved wrong by the timing of Odysseus‘ arrival in this scene. Odysseus has been hiding on stage — though probably out of the audience's view — for some time before he intervenes at 974 (see Taplin [n. 43] 27-28). If he actively opposed bringing Philoctetes to Troy, as Knox suggests, Odysseus would probably have entered the action earlier in order to stop Neoptolemus from bringing Philoctetes to the ship. He has presumably been watching Neoptolemus’ attempts at persuading Philoctetes with high hopes of their success. Even if Odysseus only comes on stage at or shortly before 974, his willingness to allow Neoptolemus to leave the chorus behind at the end of the episode still provides refutation of Knox's position. Neoptolemus hopes that the chorus will persuade Philoctetes to relent; if Knox's view were correct, Odysseus would not allow them to stay, out of fear that they might succeed.Google Scholar
51 Evidence may also be provided by the audience's expectations based on previous versions of the story. Odysseus' entrance, which would come as no surprise to Philoctetes because of the trader's story, probably would have come as no surprise to Sophocles' audience, either, if in Euripides' play, after Philoctetes' bow had been stolen, Diomedes appeared openly before Philoctetes and tried to convince him to come to Troy (see n. 44). In Sophocles' play the seizure of the bow would then have led the original audience to expect the hidden agent of the deception, in this case Odysseus, now to appear and to begin the process of frank, verbal persuasion. But since a god probably appeared in both of the previous plays, Sophocles' audience may not have expected Philoctetes to relent immediately.Google Scholar
52 E.g., Bowra, (n. 6) 267; see n. 37.Google Scholar
53 The presence of dramatic tension in this form fully answers Robinson's concern (n. 48), that, if Odysseus is bluffing, then the effect of that scene and of the exchange between Philoctetes and the chorus in the following stasimon is lost. The effect is not lost but simply lies elsewhere than Robinson assumes.Google Scholar
54 Kitto FM (n. 1) 127-28, calls it technically illogical for Neoptolemus to have this knowledge and to reveal it only now, but he explains the illogicality by appealing to Sophocles‘ larger dramatic purposes (cf. FM 121-22 on Neoptolemus’ knowledge in 915ff.); Kirkwood, (n. 1) 81–82, follows Kitto. Adams (n. 2) 157 n. 15, appeals to Neoptolemus' inspired realization that Philoctetes is essential to account for his full understanding of the oracle now. Knox (n. 2) 188-90 n. 21, refutes both Kitto and Adams.Google Scholar
55 Cf. 1271-72, where <image> and <image> are closely associated, with Odysseus' similar use of these words in the prologue, 54-57, 75-78.+and++are+closely+associated,+with+Odysseus'+similar+use+of+these+words+in+the+prologue,+54-57,+75-78.>Google Scholar
56 Robinson (n. 3) 52-53, argues that Sophocles might have ended the play without sending Philoctetes to Troy, pointing out that by 409 b.c. the Athenian audience might well have been prepared for a playwright's rewriting the tradition. I doubt that the audience would have expected Sophocles to go so far as to remove Philoctetes from Troy altogether: see Lattimore, R., Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (Ann Arbor 1964) on the compulsory elements of the legend of Philoctetes (43) and of legend and story-telling more generally (2-6). In any case, Sophocles' audience would have expected throughout most of the play that Philoctetes would go to Troy, especially since Sophocles follows in the relevant respects Aeschylus' and Euripides' versions. The ‘false ending’ is most effective if the audience has been so expectant but now wonders if Sophocles not only is deviating from previous versions, by introducing Neoptolemus and having him return the bow, but even is radically departing from tradition by altering a major event. I suggest that this radical move would discomfit the audience and would increase considerably the dramatic tension of the moments just before Heracles' arrival.Google Scholar
Calder 1 (n. 3) 167, argues that Neoptolemus still deceives Philoctetes and intends even now to take Philoctetes to Troy. Even if Calder is correct that there can be only one ship (164-65), this fact does not prove his contention that Odysseus is happily waiting there for Neoptolemus to appear with Philoctetes so that they can sail to Troy. In fact, Odysseus is now presumably a cowering stowaway: Philoctetes again has possession of the bow, and it was precisely his fear of Philoctetes' using the bow against him which prompted Odysseus to involve Neoptolemus in the scheme in the first place. Neoptolemus intends to take Philoctetes home; arrangements can be made for Odysseus' return to Troy.Google Scholar
57 ‘… Philoctetes’ demand to return home is itself predicated on the false story of Neoptolemus. Since the story is a lie and since it does not really fit the circumstances, the audience should readily assent in the deus ex machina which reverses Philoctetes‘ decision’ (Hamilton [n. 38] 134-35).Google Scholar
58 Sophocles could have created a dramatically effective ending merely by prolonging Philoctetes' resistance and having him finally give in to Neoptolemus. Instead, Sophocles provides a false ending and introduces a god to arrange the proper one, a dramatically effective procedure which is also a statement about the relationship between men and the gods. See Letters (n. 2) 274-79, 283, Spira (n. 6) 26-32, and T. V. Buttrey's review of Spira's book in AJP 83 (1962) 321-24, in which he criticizes Spira (324) for not stressing the fact that the deus restores order not only for the characters in the play but also for the audience; nor does Spira emphasize as fully as he might the positive religious statement which Sophocles makes through his use of the deus. Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by