HALLERAN, MICHAEL R., Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.239 Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation Michael R. Halleran WHEN IN SOPHOCLES' Trachiniae Lichas arrives to explain to Deianeira Heracles' delayed homecoming, he does not speak the whole truth. He confirms the earlier messenger's report (I80ft): Heracles is alive, victorious, and now busy sacrificing to Zeus. Then, in response to Deianeira's question about the delay (246f), he describes the events that led to Heracles' sack of Oechalia (248-90): Eurytus' abusive treatment and expulsion of Heracles from his house provoked Heracles' stealthy murder of Eurytus' son Iphi­ tus; after Zeus punished Heracles for this murder by having him sold as a slave to the Lydian queen Omphale, Heracles fulfilled his vow of vengeance and sacked Oechalia, taking from it the band of women who accompany Lichas. One young woman among these attracts Deianeira's attention, but Lichas claims to know not even her name. No sooner does he exit into the house with his captives than the first messenger contradicts Lichas' account of Heracles' motive in sacking Oechalia: he did so on account of his passion for this very girl; love alone was his motive for the murder of Iphitus (351ft). In the next scene, interrogation by both the messenger and Deianeira forces Li­ chas to confess his lie: it was indeed Heracles' passion for Iole that led to the destruction of Oechalia (476-78). Why does Sophocles present this lying tale only to reveal it almost at once as false? On the general function of this 'false tale discovered' scholars are agreed:1 the audience is allowed to see Deianeira's reac­ tion both to the news of Heracles' apparent success and to Iole before she learns this woman's identity and her relation to Heracles. Deia­ neira reacts at first with an immediate sympathy towards the young captive (307ft) -a sympathy soon lost when she realizes that this young woman actually threatens her married life with Heracles. The contrast between the initial impulse of pity and the harsh impact of truth is possible only through a deception. Still another function of the lie is thematic: nuances of truth and seeming, knowledge and igno- 1 cr. T. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Bertin 1917) 142-45; K. Reinhardt, Sophocles3 , trans. H. Harvey and D. Harvey (Oxford 1979) 43f; A. Beck, "Der Empfang loles," Hermes 81 (1953) 10-21; G. Gellie, Sopho­ cles: a Reading (Melbourne 1972) 61. 239 HALLERAN, MICHAEL R., Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.239 240 LICHAS' LIES rance are explored throughout the play; 2 the deception of Deianeira plays a role in the larger structure of the drama and is balanced later when she herself dissembles in sending the poisoned robe to Heracles. But while the general function of the initial deception-scene has found scholarly agreement, insufficient attention has been paid to the specific details of the lie and their dramatic purpose. Recently M. Davies3 has argued quite plausibly that Lichas' tale does not derive from a different version of the story in earlier epic,4 but is rather the poet's invention, elaborated with various motifs, to create for his particular dramatic purpose an account from which Iole is absent. But this argument still neglects a prominent element in Lichas' tale: Her­ acles' crafty murder of Iphitus and Zeus' resulting anger.6 It is my in­ tention here to examine Sophocles' adaptation of his sources for this portion of the speech, the rhetorical emphasis given to and within it, and its function in the drama as a whole. At Odyssey 21.13ff we are told that Odysseus' bow was a gift from Iphitus, who, when looking for his horses, met his death at the hands of Heracles (27-29): .. [H I] l: ,... • , , '" • , >I o~ erac es "uv ~E'VOV EOVTa KaTEKTaVEV ~ EV' O'K~, , \.. ~ • ~, 8"" >I !~ 1 '-~ ~ , , ,. CTXETAC.U~, OVuE EWV om'll awt:CTaT OIJOE Tpa11'E<:,av, , ... '4... >I ~1'"I,. ,., 'TTl'll TJV 0(, 11'apE.",KEV· E11'E('Ta ue 11'E."VE Ka(. aVTOV . ... Homer presents Iphitus' murder as a crime against ~Evia: Heracles killed Iphitus while the latter was a guest in his house, and did so without regard for the vengeance of the gods. The one other ex­ tant source prior to Sophocles' treatment is Pherecydes of Athens (FGrHist 3F82b), who seems to confirm this version of Iphitus' murder.6 Pherecydes mentions that Heracles employed trickery in killing Iphitus ~TJxavii TW(. Kat CTTpa'TTl'Y~)' but no particular oppro­ brium is attached to the element of stealth. In fact the scholium that attributes the story to Pherecydes states: AE'YETa(. BE ~ a'YaVaK'T'7}CTa~ 2 On these themes see especially Reinhardt (:.upra n.l) 41-44; S. E. Lawrence, "The Dramatic Epistemology of Sophocles' Trachiniae," Phoenix 32 (1978) 288-304. 3 "Lichas' Lying Tale: Sophocles, Trachiniae 26Off.," CQ N.S. 34 (1984) 480-83. 4 As held, most notably, by Wilamowitz (supra n.l) 108-16. 5 Davies (supra n.3) 482 n.20 simply asserts that Iphitus' murder was traditional; he does not comment on the unusual details of the murder and Zeus' anger. Wilamowitz (supra n.l: esp. 101-08) maintains that Sophocles was the first to bring Iphitus' murder and the year spent with Omphale into the story of the sack of Oechalia, but does not comment on the reasons for Zeus' anger. Lawrence (supra n.2) briefly considers their purpose, without discussing Sophocles' use of his sources or explaining what dramatic effect is served by the prominence of these elements within the tale. 6 On the connection between 82b and 82a and the problems therein, see Jacoby's commentary ad loc. HALLERAN, MICHAEL R., Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.239 MICHAEL R. HALLERAN 241 , z' " "I: ' , I:- 'E " a ' "lip , o EV~ E1T(. rn ~EVOKTOV~ 1TpOUETa.,.o::.V PIJ-"[I AatJoVTa TOV mCAEa 1TwA:ijua(. 8Ucr,v TOV (1050). HALLERAN, MICHAEL R., Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.239 246 LICHAS' LIES , , .". '(J" , 1-£011011 'Trap VIUJJII EV U'l'E'YOLILE • ~ UKOTC!J '" • , , 31"'" " Kall aurxpa 'TrpauUTI~, 0V7TO'T ac.uxvvn 'TrEUTI. The parallel between the past and present use of stealth rouses anxi­ ety about the consequences of Deianeira's actions that is compounded by her own moral reservations, expressed both here and at the con­ clusion of her preceding rhesis (582-87).32 For Deianeira'S reserva­ tions, as the audience may now suspect and as subsequent action reveals, are well-founded. Heracles deliberately employed stealth in killing Iphitus; Deianeira's deception, however deliberate, has conse­ quences she does not foresee: she becomes the unwitting murderer of her husband. In Hesiod (fr.25.l7-25 M.-W.), the single unques­ tionably earlier account that treats this part of the Heracles saga, the anointed robe caused Heracles' death.33 The audience is thus familiar with the potentially fatal effect of the' robe, while Deianeira is igno­ rant of it. But in creating this irony Sophocles does more than rely on the audience's knowledge of the myth and on Deianeira's ominous misgivings about the philtre. Lichas' false tale serves in part to inform one's view of Deianeira's action. Stealth in that tale incurs the anger of Zeus, who figures so prominently throughout the drama. The depiction of Deianeira's actions in similar terms of secrecy leads to the expectation that her actions, too, will meet with disastrous results. The exemplum against stealth applies also to Lichas: it is he who stealthily leads Iole into Deianeira's house, and after he delivers the robe, the product of Deianeira's stealth, he is murdered by a pain-stricken Heracles.34 But it applies most forcefully, of course, to 31 In agreement with virtually all editors and critics, I construe 'lrpaUUEUI transitively. The dissenting view is argued by C. Whitman, Sophocles: A Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge [Mass.] 1951) 266 n.37; Kamerbeek (supra n.18) ad loc.; G. Ronnet, Sophocle. poi!te tragique (Paris 1969) 102; see the rebuttals by Kirkwood (supra n.28) 114 n.16 and Winnington-Ingram (supra n.23) 79 n.23. 32 I am not suggesting that Deianeira is criminally guilty (on this issue see M. Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy [Oxford 1944] 127f, 147f; Whitman [supra n.311 114), only that her uneasiness creates a special emphasis upon her deeds for the spectators, who have already heard Lichas' tale. Her action also causes alarm, as it ironically goes against the advice she solicits from the chorus in the brief stichomythy of 588-93; on this last point see F. Solmsen, "aM' EWEllat ~ 8pixrall: The Meaning of Sophocles, Tra­ chiniae 588-93," AJP 106 (1985) 490-96. 33 This detail of the story is also assumed by Bacchyl. 16.23-35, but the date of this poem relative to that of Trachiniae is uncertain. 34 This is noted also by C. P. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation qf Soph­ ocles (Cambridge [Mass.] 1980 72. There is a further irony, noted by Segal and oth­ ers, that Lichas' lie, as elsewhere in Sophocles, contains certain elements of the truth. It is also noteworthy that the lying Lichas tells a tale in which deception plays a role. But, considering the main function of this lying tale, we cannot view this primarily as a reflection of Lichas' own mendacity. HALLERAN, MICHAEL R., Lichas' Lies and Sophoclean Innovation , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.239 MICHAEL R. HALLERAN 247 Deianeira. Although she has heard Lichas' tale, she does not see the significance of Zeus' anger. The audience, on the other hand, has, as we have seen, good reason to recognize its import. Deianeira learns only when it is too late. The irony of late learning is central to this drama,36 and by emphasizing the new reason for Zeus' anger in Li­ chas' tale, Sophocles creates an environment in which the audience can the more acutely perceive this tragic irony.36 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON July, 1986 36 On this theme in the play, see Whitman (supra n.30 103-21; Lawrence (supra n.2). 36 For helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article I am grateful to the anony­ mous referees and to my colleagues James J. Oauss and Mary Whitlock Blundell.