Sophoclean Apologia: "Philoctetes" Calder, William M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1971; 12, 2; ProQuest pg. 153

FOR GILBERT HIGHET 

Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes 
William M. Calder III 

H Denn wenn auch ein Kunstwerk losgelost von seinem Schopfer ein eigenes 
Leben fuhrt, kann es doch ganz richtig nur aus der Seele des sen verstanden 
werden, der es schuf" WILAMOWITZ-MoELLENDORFF 

I. Introduction 

THE UNDERSTANDING of Philoctetes has been obscured by romanti­
cism and deflected by scholarly emphasis on what scarcely 
matters, the nature of the oracle and its piecemeal revelation, 

who possesses Achilles' arms, the history and diagnosis of Philoctetes' 
malady, the putative collusion of the chorus, the purpose of the deus 
ex machina. Interpretations of the whole that exist often are repeti­
tious. One detects the dejd lu. A radical cure may be in order. Then, 
too, there has been little effort to see Philoctetes as a document of its 
time. Over fifty years ago Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff pro­
nounced a dogma that has never ceased to affect subsequent criticism 
of the play:1 "Kein V ers weist aus dem Drama heraus auf irgend etwas 
in der Gegenwart des Dichters. Keine Spur des Alters, nichts verrat 
etwas tiber seine Person. Ein gelungenes zeitloses Kunstwerk." 

The sentences were unfortunate. The criticism of Sophocles' Philoc­
tetes must begin from what is known. Philoctetes is the only extant 
Sophoclean tragedy, if we exclude the posthumous Oedipus Coloneus, 
precisely dated. Therefore, it is the only extant tragedy by one of the 

1 See Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, apud Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellen 
dorff, "Die Dramatische Technik des Sophokles," Phil%gische Untersuchungen 22 (Berlin 
1917) 316-17 (henceforth cited: DramTech). The judgement is repeated by Albrecht von 
Blumenthal, Sophokles: Entstehung und Vollendung der griechischen Tragodie (Stuttgart 1936) 
215, who remarks that among other things nothing is said of the fall of Selinus, an event 
which in fact had not yet taken place; and by F. J. H. Letters, The Life and Work of Sophocles 
(London and New York 1953) 274, who writes: "What is the lesson? It is certainly not even 
broadly political; still less one closely bound to the specific fortunes of Sophocles' Athens." 
See earlier H. Patin, Etudes sur les tragiques grecs: Sophocle (Paris 1913) 126. 

153 



154 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

three which we know to be the third treatment of the same theme. 
The priority of either Electra can never be proven. Hence it has unique 
importance for the historian of literature. The thesis that I shall pro­
pound here is radical and therefore unpleasant. Briefly, I believe that 
the play has been fundamentally misunderstood because the charac­
ter of Neoptolemus has been fundamentally misunderstood. He, I 
shall argue, rather than Odysseus, is the archdeceiver. The play fur­
ther, and contrary to Wilamowitz, is intimately concerned with the 
events that preceded March 409 B.C. 

II. N eopto/emos DoUos 

I base my thesis that Neoptolemos is the archdeceiver on six points 
which I shall present in the order that an audience, seeing the play for 
the first time, would absorb them. I beg only that my reader will mo­
mentarily put away preconceptions and confess that the modern 
opinio communis of an ancient play can be quite the opposite of its his­
torical reception by an original audience.2 This has been the case with 
Alcestis3 and Antigone.4 The Merchant of Venice likewise is often staged 
today as the tragedy of Shylock. 

1. On a morning in March 409 the audience knew only the title of 
Sophocles' play.5 The action began with the entrance of two actors 
and at least one sailor (line 45) up the left parodos into the orches­
tra. They are a youth and a middle-aged man. They have not yet said 
a word. Who does the audience think that they are? Euripides' Philoc­
tetes was produced with Medea in 431 B.C. Aristophanic parodies attest 
its popularity.6 A prose paraphrase of the Euripidean prologue has 
survived (Dio Chrys. 59). That play began with the entrance of a youth 
down the left parodos into the orchestra. He may even have been ac­
companied by a middle-aged man. The youth was Odysseus, dis­
guised by Athene as a young Nauplian to escape detection by the 

a See H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama: A Study of Six Greek Plays and of Hamlet 
(London 1956) 91: "Perhaps there are two separate questions: What does the play mean to 
this generation? and, What did it mean to the dramatist and his generation 1" 

3 See C. R. Beye, "Alcestis and her Critics," GRBS 2 (1959) 109-27. 
4 See GRBS 9 (1968) 389-407, and D. L. Page, apud J. M. Bremer, Hamartia: Tragic Error in 

the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy (Amsterdam 1969) 139 n.l. 
6 At the proagon each poet "announced the subjects of the plays which he was about to 

produce": see Sir Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, ed.2 rev. by 
John Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford 1968) 67. 

6 See Ar. Ach. 424 and Ran. 282. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 155 

armed enemy, Philocreres. Diomedes, Wilamowirz implied,7 who 

in the third episode stole the bow of Philoctetes,8 entered with Odys­
seus, a persona muta. The alert and informed in the audience of 409, 
seeing again a youth beginning a drama called Philoctetes, would recall 
the Euripidean Odysseus.9 From the very start, before a word has 
been said, the poet has devised a visual reminiscence. Already Neop­
tolemos is the deutero-Odysseus. 

2. The prologue is of crucial importance. Here only-while the 
plotters are alone-can we hope that they speak candidly.10 Not quite 
always. Neoptolemos briefly (86-95; cf 108, 110) alleges a reluctance 
to lie. He is clever. This raises his price (112), and he is soon satisfied 
(120). Odysseus requires only one truth (57): "You are Achilles' son. 
This must not be misrepresented." 

The couplet 72-73 reads: 

\ , '\ " , " ,~ \ 
CU {-LEV TTETTI\EVKaC OUT EVOPKOC OVOEVL 

'f , 'c. ' I " ...... I 1\ 
OUT E!; avaYK'T/C OUTE TOU TTPWTOU CTOI\OV. 

Jebb renders:l1 "Thou hast come to Troy under no oath to any man, 
and by no constraint; nor hadst thou part in the earlier voyage." 
There is no Troy in the Greek. Jebb has added words. Yet it has be­
come an unspoken assumption of criticism12 that Neoptolemos 
earlier had sailed from Skyros to Troy and later sailed from Troy to 
Lemnos with Odysseus and would now be returning to Troy for the 

7 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische Tragoedien IV (Berlin 1923) 11 (hence­
forth cited: GrTr IV): "Diomedes war nur als stumme Figur dabei." 

8 See Paus. 1.22.6; L. Preller and C. Robert, Griechische Mythologie II.3.2.15 (Dublin/Zurich 
1967) 1211 n.5; and Clelia Laviosa, "Scultura Tardo-Etrusca di Volterra," Raccolta Pisana di 
Saggi e Studi 14 (Milan 1965) 62~7. 

9 c. H. Whitman, Sophocles: a Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge 1951) 179-80, quite 
wrongly argues that Sophocles' Odysseus is modelled after the Odysseus of Euripides' 
Philoctetes; rather Neoptolemos is. The Sophoclean Odysseus is Aeschylean: see GRBS 11 
(1970) 17Iff. 

10 J. Geffcken, Griechische Literaturgeschichte 1.2 (Heidelberg 1926) 185 n.42, best appraises 
the situation: "nur praktische Schurkerei, keine Sophistik." 

11 Sir Richard C. Jebb, Sophocles: the Plays and Fragments, Part IV. Philoctetes 2 (Cambridge 
1898; repr. 1932) 19 (henceforth cited: JEBB, Phi!.). Wilamowitz, GrTr IV.37, is more careful: 
"Dich hat kein Eid, kein Zwang nach Ilion / gefiihrt, du kamst nieht mit dem ersten Zuge." 
Lewis Campbell, Sophocles II (Oxford 1881) ad Ph. 72 (p.373), alleges: "1TAEIV is used here and 
elsewhere without further definition to denote the voyage to Troy." 

12 Christ-Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 1.2 (Munich 1934) 400, may be the 
exception: "eben erst aus Skyros herbeigeholten Neoptolemos." The view oddly is never 
argued. 



156 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

second time.13 Need this be the case? Is it not also possible that Odys­
seus sailed on a Skyrian ship with the former sailors of Achilles to 
Skyros to fetch Neoptolemos and take him to Troy? On the return 
voyage to Troy the two have stopped for a few hours at Lemnos to 
secure Philoctetes, without whom victory is denied the Greeks. 

In the Ilias Parva,14 after the oracle has been extracted from Hele­
nus, Diomedes fetches Philoctetes from Lemnos to Troy. There he is 
healed by Machaon and slays Paris in single combat. The body is de­
filed by Menelaos but recovered and buried by the Trojans. Deipho­
bos marries the widow. Only then does Odysseus bring Neoptolemos 
from Skyros, at best months after the arrival of Philoctetes. Apollo­
doros (Epit. 5.8-11), although differing in several details from Lesches, 
agrees that Neoptolemos was fetched long after philoctetes. The con­
clusion is obvious. An audience, familiar with the epic version, would 
not have expected Neoptolemos to have anticipated Philoctetes in 
Troy.IS 

Has Jebb translated the couplet (72-73) correctly? The crux is 
7TE-TTA€VKac. Why has Sophocles preferred the rare perfect of 7TAEw to 
the ubiquitous aorist? I suggest that whereas E7TA€vca means <I arrived 
by ship and my voyage is done' (e.g., Eur. El. 3 and often), 7T€7TA€VKa 

means <I have arrived at a place in the course of my voyage, sc. my 
voyage is still underway.'16 Let us examine the examples of the per­
fect in tragedy. There are none in epic, lyric, or Aeschylus. It is first 
and thrice found in Eur. Helena (412 B.C.). All examples concern Mene­
laos, whose destination was Sparta, but whom the gods or adverse 
winds repeatedly drive off his course. He has visited every harbor in 
Libya (404-05): 

A Q' •• , 'e:' •• <:' \ 
t/-,VTjC T €PTjJLovc as €VOVC T €7TWpoJLac 

7T€7TA€VKa 7TCxcaC ••• 

The logic of the perfect tense entails that the voyage is incomplete. 
And now he has arrived at Egypt, where he does not intend to stay 
(461) : 

13 B. M. W. Knox, The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley/Los Angeles! 
London 1964) 187ff (henceforth cited: KNOX, Temper), accepts an earlier visit to Troy with­
out argument. 

14 See G. Kinkel, EGF I (Leipzig 1877) 36-37, transl. G. L. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry from 
Eume/os to Panyassis (Cambridge 1969) 145. 

16 On the whole matter see K. Ziegler, RE 16 (1935) 2444.62ff. 
16 See P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec (Coil. Linguistique 21, (Paris 1927) 71fT. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 157 

Helen accurately reports of her husband (532-33): 

e \ ~, , \ ~ e I \ I 
7TOp fLoVC 0 aNX:C at fLVptOVC 7TE7TI\WKO'Ta 
,..... , -, 

EKEtCE KaKEtC ••• 

A. M. Dale!7 well translates: "he wanders hither and thither sailing 
countless straits." The perfect was a novelty, and it is no coincidence 
that Aristophanes a year later parodied Euripides at Thesm. 878 
(7TE7TAwKafLEv).18 Iphigenia in Tauris 1040 reads: 

, , , ~ I R I '-I-.' l' \ I 
E'T EV OOfLOtCt t'perac, E-r ctJ 7TE7TI\EVKafLEv. 

Russia is only a temporary stop for Orestes and Pylades, who intend 
ultimately to return with the statue to Greece. Then and not before 
will their voyage be completed. The Euripidean perfect is once again 
in Sophocles at Phil. 404, where Philoctetes, addressing the sailors, uses 
7TE7TAEVKa'TE of their incompleted voyage. They have temporarily 
beached at Lemnos and not yet reached what the speaker believes to 
be their ultimate goal, Skyros. Finally in a satyr-play, Eur. Cyclops 18, 
the perfect is used of the satyrs, whose destination was to find Bacchus. 
They had been shipwrecked in Sicily and must move on. 

I should, therefore, translate Soph. Phil. 72-73: "You have arrived 
here by ship under oath to no man. You were not forced, nor were 
you a member of the first expedition."19 The perfect cannot refer, as 
Jebb would have it, to an earlier completed voyage to Troy, and may 
not be adduced as evidence that Neoptolemos had earlier visited 
Troy. The verb must refer to a journey just completed, either (1) 
Troy to Lemnos or (2) Skyros to Lemnos. EVOPKOC (72) rules out the 
first alternative. No oath would be required for a sail from Troy to 
Lemnos. For a first voyage to Troy (with a stop on the way at Lemnos) 
the denial of the oath makes perfect sense. While the other heroes 
shared in the oath of Tyndareus when they journeyed from home to 

17 See A. M. Dale, Euripides, Helen (Oxford 1967) 101. 
18 P. Rau, Paratragodia (Zetemata 45, Munich 1967) 59--60, and Richard Kannicht, Euripides, 

Helena II (Heidelberg 1969) 136-37, detect only the parody of an Ionism. The perfect 
sounded equally exotic. 

19 See P. Masqueray, Sophocle lIZ (Paris 1942) 81: "Tu as fait voile ici ... "; A. Dain and P. 
Mazon, Sophocle III (Paris 1960) 12: "Tu as pris la mer ... " T. B. L. Webster, Sophocles, 
Philoctetes (Cambridge 1970) 74, has the considerable merit among English critics of seeking 
perfect force, but mistranslates: "You are now a member of the expedition ... " (hence­
forth WEBSTER, Phil.). 



158 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

Troy, Neoptolemos in his journey from home to Troy has not and, 
therefore, can better persuade Philoctetes. 

One must establish that Neoptolemos has not yet been to Troy in 
order to understand the 'Messenger Speech' at verses 343-90. The criti­
cal problem of these lines has always been, how much are we to be­
lieve? A blatant lie begins the speech. Odysseus, accompanied not by 
Diomedes but by Phoenix (344), earlier fetched Neoptolemos to Troy. 
The detail signals a bogus embassy. Neoptolemos has devised a pa­
thetic touch to win the sympathy and trust of the credulous Philoc­
tetes. In the Odyssey (11.508) and Ilias Parva, Odysseus alone fetched 
Neoptolemos. In Quintus Smyrnaeus (6.64ff) Diomedes accompanies 
him. Here first we have Phoenix.20 OV yap ElSop:Yjv (351), in spite of 
vigorous whitewashing,21 is a second lie. Neoptolemos is not ten years 
old. His assertion that he is now sailing home (382-84), in spite of the 
sophistries of Adams,22 is denied by the action of the prologue. This is 
the third certain lie. The more astute critics have regularly impugned 
Neoptolemos' report (363-81) that the Atreidai defrauded him of his 
arms at Troy.23 Only one detail survives that no critic has dared deny. 
Neoptolemos saw his father's corpse at Troy and wept for him (359-
360). He must, therefore, already have been at Troy. 

The orthodox nineteenth century view, bequeathed by Wilamo­
witz and ]ebb,24 considered part of the speech "true" (namely that 
Odysseus and Phoenix had earlier fetched Neoptolemos to Troy, 

20 See J. G. Frazer, Apollodorus, The Library II (Cambridge/London 1946) 224 n.3 ad Apol­
lod. 5.11, who follows Soph. Phil. 344, and R. Pfeiffer, Ausgewahlte Schriften, ed. W. Buhler 
(Munich 1960) 89ff. I am not convinced by A. C. Pearson, The Fragments of Sophocles II (Cam­
bridge 1917) 192, K. Ziegler, RE 16 (1935) 2443.14ff, S. L. Radt, Pindars zweiter und sechster 
Paian (Amsterdam 1958) 154 n.1, and Pfeiffer, loc.dt., that Phoenix had already shared in the 
embassy of Soph. Skyrioi. The decisive fr.557 P. might easily have been spoken by Neop­
tolemos to Lykomedes. The alternative need not be, as Pearson ad loco would have it, that 
Diomedes addresses Lykomedes. 

21 The most influential have been Jebb ad Soph. Phil. 351 and Campbell ad Soph. Phil. 
351: see however Campbell p.363. 

22 See S. M. Adams, Sophocles the Playwright (Phoenix Suppl. III, Toronto 1957) 143. 
23 See lately Knox, Temper 128, 19l. 
24 See Jebb, Phil. p. xx: "Phoenix and Odysseus had gone to Scyros, and had brought the 

young Neoptolemus thence to Troy; where his father's armour was duly given to him. (In 
his false story to Philoctetes, he represents the Atreidae as having defrauded him of it.)"; 
and Wilamowitz, GrTr IV.19: "Dann kommt Pyrrhos mit der Luge heraus, die ihm Odys­
seus angegeben hatte, wobei aber zu bemerken ist, wie er seine Abholung aus Skyros und 
sein erstes Auftreten im Griechenlager ganz wahrheitsgemass erzahlt, darunter auch 
manches hier Entbehrliche, das ihm unsere Sympathie gewinnt." 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 159 

where he rrlOurned his father) and part "a lie" (namely that the Atrei­
dai had defrauded him of his father's arms and that he had retired 
from Troy). S. M. Adams, dissatisfied with such a compromise (indeed 
in production it is impractical to hope that an audience could discern 
"the truths" from "the lies"), boldly argued in 1957 that throughout 
the whole speech Neoptolemos "is stating what we know to be fact 
... he is telling nothing but the truth."25 B. M. W. Knox26 has easily 
refuted Adams. We have returned to an enlightened Jebbism. 

The solution rather is that the entire speech from start to finish is 
one lie. Neoptolemos has not yet been to Troy. Odysseus instructed 
him (60) to tell Philoctetes that the Atreidai had earlier summoned 
him there. Phoenix never visited Skyros. As a child he had seen his 
father. He had not retired from Troy. The Atreidai had not deprived 
him of his father's arms. He had not seen his father's corpse nor shared 
in his father's funeral. The choral oath therefore (391-402) is no per­
jury. The sailors refer to "the original award of the arms to Odys­
seus,"27 when presumably the Atreidai had slandered Neoptolemos 
(T6v8' 396). Neoptolemos still does not possess the arms. He will re­
ceive them upon his arrival in Troy. Thus we have a second "bogus 
Messenger Speech" in Philoctetes to match the famous tale of Orestes' 
death in a chariot-race at Soph. El. 681-763. 

3. Philoctetes 445 is a monument to the persistence of critics who 
swallow camels. Neoptolemos-idolatry has reached the point that 
when the boy declares Thersites still to be alive in opposition to the 
otherwise unanimous tradition that Achilles slew him, the most 
learned critics believe him or even postulate an otherwise unknown 
source.28 Not until 1967 did an acute student of the epic cycle, G. L. 
Huxley, state the simple truth, that in fact Neoptolemos here lies. His 
brief note29 is one of the most important contributions to modern 

25 See S. M. Adams, op.cit. (supra n.22) 142. 
26 See Knox, Temper p.191 nn. 29 and 30. 
27 Thus rightly Knox, Temper p.192 n.33. Knox's further point that "The chorus, who are 

Scyrian subjects of Neoptolemos (139ft') cannot have been present as they claim, for this 
happened long before Neoptolemos was called from Scyros," is unnecessary. The chorus 
were earlier at Troy as subjects of Achilles. After his death they witnessed the award of 
their late king's arms and heard the arguments to keep them from his son. They have 
sailed to Skyros with Odysseus and are now on the return voyage under the command of 
their new king, Neoptolemos. 

28 See e.g., Jebb on Soph. Phil. 442; Joh. Schmidt, LexMyth 5 (Leipzig 1916-24; repro 
Hildesheim 1965) 667.58ff; von Blumenthal, op.cit. (supra n.l) 227 (Sophocles changed the 
saga to placate the Athenian mobs!). 

29 See G. Huxley, "Thersites in Sophokles, Philoktetes 445," GRBS 8 (1967) 33-34. 



160 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

criticism of the play. Difficile est longum subito deponere errorem. In 1968 
Ed. Fraenkel still called Neoptolemos' fib "una volgarizzazione pos­
teriore."3o In 1970 T. B. L. Webster held that Sophocles was denying 
the Aethiopis "to vindicate Achilles' character."31 This will not do. 
Huxley proved that Neoptolemos is willing to lie gratuitously when 
he thinks that the lie will profit his cause. 

4. A. J. A. Waldock,32 with his acute sense for the dramatic and 
healthy independence from philological presuppositions, vigorously 
drew modern English critical attention to Phil. 1054-80. The problem 
briefly is, in Waldock's words,33 that "The bow is now in the posses­
sion of the conspirators, and Philoctetes himself has been bound.34 

Then suddenly Odysseus gives orders to release him." The crucial 
verses are 1054-55. Jebb 35 in despair suggested: "Odysseus is resigned 
to ph. carrying his point by staying in Lemnos." Whitman's solution 
was temporary amnesia.36 But Odysseus (981-83) knows the oracle. 
Helenus stipulated that bow and Philoctetes are required. Waldock, 
in fact independently reviving an earlier view,37 argued :38 "what 

30 See D. Alecu, A. C. Cassio, et aI., Seminario di Eduard Fraenkel sui Filottete di Sofocle (Rome 
1969) 20 ad 445ff (henceforth: FRAENKEL, Phil.). 

31 See Webster, Phil. p.99 ad 442. 
33 A. J. A. Waldock, Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1951) 211-14 (henceforth cited: 

WALDOCK). 33 See Waldock 211-12. 
at In this detail Waldock is mistaken; cf ibid. 213, "the binding ofPhiloctetes"; Whitman, 

op.cit. (supra n.9) 176, "Philoctetes is left alone in chains"; ibid. 184, "Manacled"; id. The 
Religious Humanism of Sophocles (Diss. Harvard 1947) 286, "He is seized and manacled." The 
protagonist does not perform the remainder of the action in chains he never mentions. He 
is simply seized and later (1054) released: see Jebb on Phil. 1004f; I. M. Linforth, "Philoc­
tetes, the Play and the Man," UCPCP 15 (1956) 134 (henceforth cited: LINFORTH, UCPCP); 
Knox, Temper 192 n.40; and Peter Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. 
(Oxford 1962) 26-27. For the action Anna Spitzbarth, Untersuchungen zur Spieltechnik der 
griechischen Tragodie (Ziirich 1946) 36, compares OT 1154 and for the hindering of a possible 
suicide Eur. Tro. 1285. Karl Reinhardt, Sophokles3 (Frankfurt am Main 1947) 195, well ob­
serves, "Denn mehr noch als durch korperliche Fesseln steht jetzt der Befreite durch den 
eignen Groll und Widerstreit gefesselt." 

35 See Jebb on Soph. Phil. 1052f: contrast p. xxvii, " ... in 1055 ff., Odysseus must be con­
ceived as merely using a last threat, which, he hopes, may cause Philoctetes to yield." The 
contradiction points Jebb's confusion. 

38 See Whitman, op.cit. (supra n.9) 182: "Far from remembering that Philoctetes must 
come of his own free will, he even thinks the man himself is unnecessary if only the bow 
be secured." 

37 The hint is in Jebb (supra n.35), who probably drew on F. W. Schneidewin/A. Nauck/ 
L. Radermacher, Sophokles Philoktetesll (Berlin 1911) on Soph. Phil. 1059: "Od. sucht den 
Philoktetes zu schrecken, obwohl er weiss, class es auf clessen Person ebensosehr wle auf clen 
Bogen ankommt." See further Kitto, op.cit. (supra n.2) 98: "Odysseus must be bluffing at 
1055." 38 See Waldock 213. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 161 

Odysseus is supposed to be doing is enticing Philoctetes by a bait." 
The suggestions (1056-59) that Teucer or Odysseus himself can as well 
do the job,39 once they have the magic bow, contradict Helenus. 
Odysseus knows this. They are intended provocations. Odysseus 
knows too that Philoctetes' 'tragic flaw' is his loneliness, the vococ­

vfjcoc motif.40 This 'bait' provides the explanation for the lame excuse 
that Neoptolemos gives his men to remain in the theater.41 I should 
translate 1074-80 as follows. Neoptolemos: "I shall be told by this 
fellow [with a gesture to Odysseus] that I am too soft-hearted.42 But even 
so, stay here, if he [with a gesture to Philoctetes] wants it, until the sailors 
have everything shipshape and our prayers are done. Perhaps even 
he'll grow a bit smarter towards us. So let us two be off. And you [to 
the chorus]-when we send orders-come right away." 

The fifteen choreuts are the sailors. We know as well the sailor who 
played 'the false merchant', his companion, and two others who are 
guarding the ships (542-43). This already yields a crew of nineteen plus 
the two officers. All would naturally prepare the ship and share in 
parting prayers (Thuc. 6.32). Further, if Odysseus' suggestion that he 
or Teucer might draw the bow were an honest one, there would be no 
need to coax the intractable and unpleasant philoctetes or to linger 
until he might change his mind. Either there is a contradiction within 
twenty lines and Sophocles is a slipshod writer; or, as Waldock sug­
gested with Reinhardt and Kitto,43 "It is almost as if Neoptolemos has 
'caught on'-has detected Odysseus' manoeuvre." Waldock is hesi-

39 See Schneidewin-Nauck-Radermacher on Soph. Phil. 1061f: "Zuletzt gibt Od. dem 
Phil. zu bedenken, dass er durch seine Weigerung dem verhasstesten Feinde die Ehre 
gonne, die ihm selbst bestimmt gewesen." 

40 See Andreas Spira, Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Sophokles und Euripides 
(KallmunzJOpf. 1960) 17: "v6coc-vfjcoc bleibt das beherrschende Motiv: Qual der Krank­
heit-Qual der Einsamkeit und Heimatferne." 

41 Error abounds among the critics. Linforth, UCPCP 136, misses the whole point: "Neop­
tolemos, out of kindness to Philoctetes, even though Odysseus may not approve, tells his 
men to remain until the ship is ready to sail." Whitman, op.cit. (supra n.9) 176, embraces 
the opposite extreme: "Odysseus ... drags Neoptolemos away, saying the bow is all they 
need." He has missed Odysseus' bluff and Neoptolemos' collusion. R. C. Flickinger, The 
Greek Theater and its Drama' (Chicago 1936; repro 1960) 158, appeals to the convention that 
forbade the chorus to leave the orchestra until the play was done in spite of whatever em­
barrassment this might involve. 

42 "weichherzig und weibisch" gloss Schneidewin-Nauck-Radermacher on Soph. Phil. 
1074 and compare Aj. 580. 

43 See Waldock 213; Reinhardt, op.cit. (supra n.34) 196: "Die beiden rechnen wohl mit 
einer schnellen Umkehr des jetzt ganz Verlassnen, Preisgegebenen"; and Kitto, op.cit. 
(supra n.2) 124: "Neoptolemos knows, and we know, that it is bluff." 



162 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

tant 44 largely because of preconceived notions about the sterling 
character of Neoptolemos. If we discard any idea that Neoptolemos' 
alleged Achillean heritage is already asserting itself, his complicity be­
comes quite natural. He is continuing his earlier behaviour, and at the 
time of his exit at verse 1080 is already accomplice in an elaborate 
ruse. The subsequent panic of Philoctetes45 is proof of Odysseus' suc­
cess. This interpretation, which I believe to be the correct one, leads 
to a crucial argument, the staging of Phil. 1222-60. 

5. First a brief capitulation of the action that precedes the scene. At 
1080 exeunt Odysseus and Neoptolemos, the latter with the bow, down 
the left parodos toward the ship. Philoctetes is left unarmed, osten­
sibly to perish of slow starvation. In a lengthy kommos (1081-1215), 
encouraged by the chorus, he laments his plight andswallowsOdys­
seus' bait. The chorus remind Philoctetes that he has only himself to 
blame,46 and skilfully as before play into the hands of their officers.47 
Philoctetes blames the treacherous Odysseus (1111ff) but the chorus 
counter, rather futilely, that all this was his fate.48 Philoctetes' further 
vilification of Odysseus (1121ff) is countered by the argument, familiar 
from Euripides (Hec. 220; cf Sen. Tro. 524ff), that Odysseus was simply 
following orders (Ere &7T0 1ToAAwv 1143). They urge Philoctetes again to 
reconsider (1162ff). To go on to Troy is still abhorrent, and he orders 
them away (1177). They sense a cue and, adopting the trick of their 
master, appear glad to withdraw (ZWJLEV, ZWJLEV 1180). philoctetes is 
torn and begs them repeatedly to stay (1181ff), although he cannot 
bring himself to join them (1197). He decides finally on suicide 
(1207f)49 and exits into his cave in despair at 1217 with the line ET' 
ovSlv ElJLt. This we know, for at 1263 he is within the cave. The chorus 
at the close of the kommos in suspected lines (1218-21)50 announce the 
entrance of Odysseus and Neoptolemos. This begins the crucial scene. 

44 See Waldock 214: " ... it is hard to feel confidence in the reading:' 
45 See Waldock, ibid.: "the panic of philoctetes is no fancy." 
46 KaTTJ,{wcac (1095) means 'you thought it right' and not 'decreed' as Jebb and LS] after 

Ellende's decrevisti: see Fraenkel, Agamemnon, II.2SS. For the choral sentiment in an earlier 
kommos see Ant. 853, 875. 

47 See Kitto, op.cit. (supra n.2) 124: "the chorus, left behind for the purpose of persuading 
him, if they can." 

481TO'TfWC (1116) is quasi-predicative: see Jebb on Phil. 11 16ff, and Groeneboom on Aesch. 
Pers. 750, followed by Rose and Broadhead. 

49 See von Blumenthal, op.cit. (supra n.1) 232: "die Todbereitschaft wird zur Todessehn­
sucht." 

50 O. Taplin, GRBS 12 (1971) 39-43, provides good reasons to excise them and suggests 
that they may have replaced a choral ode. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 163 

Demosthenes learned that the meaning of speeches in Greek 
dramas depends on their delivery (Plut. Dem. 7.2). The meaning of 
scenes, too, depends on their staging. Our texts are only scripts, and 
scripts are not a constant. I wish to argue that what we may call (1270 
fLerayvwvaL) <Neoptolemos' Repentance Scene' (Phil. 1222-60) is a ruse, 
the continuation of the provocations and staged exits of 1054-80. 

There has been no change of heart off-stage. Neoptolemos has exited 
an accomplice. He re-enters still an accomplice. He restores the bow to 
Philoctetes because he knows-like Odysseus-that the bow alone is 
not enough and that he must win the allegiance of Philoctetes before 
he can convince him to cooperate. The audience must be made aware 
that all is pretense; but philoctetes must be deceived. The scene, 
therefore, must be overplayed in the manner of comic acting,51 whose 
aim is Verfremdungseffekt rather than involvement. Can we detect 
comic devices in the <Repentance Scene' or devices from the drama of 
intrigue? And are there any other clues that might convince us not to 
take everything seriously? 

At the very beginning (1222) a comic note is struck with the dual en­
trance of two quarreling actors. Neoptolemos strides down the left 
parodos into the orchestra, bow in hand, pursued by a protesting, 
gesticulating Odysseus. The conversation is meant to have begun off­
stage. The device is rare indeed in tragedy52 but common in 
comedy.53 The audience would be alerted from the start. The quarrel 
is couched in <run-on' lines typical of the spirited dialogue of 
comedy.54 And the quarrel concerns the possession of a prop, the 
bow.55 It could almost be about a cook's ladle. Like a servus intricans, 

51 For this distinction between tragic and comic playing see R. Morrell, "The Psychology 
of Tragic Pleasure," Essays in Criticism 6 (1956) 22-37, and for the comic in tragedy see A. 
Rearden, "A Study of Humor in Greek Tragedy," University of California Chronicle 16 (1914) 
3(H)0, and B. M. W. Knox, The Rarer Action (New Brunswick lY71) 68-96. 

52 For the entrance of quarreling actors cf Eur. IA 303ff and Sen. Tro. 203. At Eur. Hipp. 
601ft' actors enter continuing a conversation begun indoors. See W. Steidle, Philologus 94 
(1941) 279 n.4l. 

53 See Taplin, op.cit. (supra n.50), 40 with n.33, 
54 See Jebb on Phil. 1226. Christ·Schmid, GGL 1.2.405, notice: "Da kommt Neoptolemos 

vom Hafen zurtick in heftigem stichomythischem Wortwechsel mit Odysseus." For 
stichomythic re·entry in tragedy Taplin (supra n.50) 40 n.31, compares Soph. Phil. 730, 
Eur. IT 67, Rh. 565, Alexandros fr.23 Snell. 

55 J. Dingel, Das Requisit in der griechischen Tragodie (Diss. Ttibingen 1967) 225, rightly 
notes that the fact that Neoptolemos re-enters with the bow and not Odysseus informs the 
audience "dass Philoktets Sache noch nieht endgtiltig entschieden ist ... " 



164 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

Odysseus anticipates his worst fear (1233), "You don't intend to give it 
back ?," which is immediately confirmed. Notice the large number of 
questions that Odysseus rapidly asks. There are eleven of them.56 The 
effect is that Neoptolemos has been rehearsed and is being prompted. 

The whole scene is a play within a play, intended to deceive a third 
character. An exact parallel is the deceiving of Theoklymenos by 
Helen and Menelaos (Eur. HeI. 1186ff), a scene produced three years 
earlier, or the false funeral at Aspis 343ff. At 1252 the pair are about to 
come to blows. Odysseus' hand is on his swordhilt (1254-55). Neop­
tolemos, however, is prepared to fight (1255-56); and Odysseus con­
cludes that it is more prudent to withdraw. He exits with a threat 
(1257-58) : 

I "~ _~, I _ 

KaLTOL c €acw' Tep O€ cVfL7Tavn cTparep 
\ 'e ,~, '\(j' ., , I\€s w Tao E/\ WV. OC CE TLfLwpT)CETaL. 

Two questions reward attention: would an audience believe this 
threat? and does Odysseus in fact exit at 1258? The answer to the first 
involves the problem of the number of ships. ]ebb, who interprets the 
'Repentance Scene' at face value, makes the necessary deduction:57 

"Odysseus comes in one ship, and Neoptolemos in another. Each chief 
has his own men. Hence Odysseus can threaten to sail at once, leaving 
Neoptolemus behind, and denounce him to the Greek army (1257f.)." 
Not only must he postulate a second ship and crew; he is involved in 
a philological anomaly:58 "Where the singular vavc is used, with or 
without the definite article, it refers to the ship of Neoptolemus." 
Campbell would agree.59 This will not do. Wilamowitz60 was more 
honest. He saw, as Dio Chrysostom had before him,61 that the text 
allows only one ship, and had the courage, at whatever the cost, to be 

66 See Soph. Phil. 1221-22, 1225, 1227, 1229 (two), 1231, 1233 (two), 1235, 1237 (two). lowe 
this observation to J. S. Mautner. 

67 See Jebb Phil. p. xx n.l. 
68 See Jebb, ibid., who dtes Soph. Phil. 125,461,527,881, 1076,1180. He is saying that there 

are two ships, although a plural is never used to refer to them. 
69 See Lewis Campbell, Paralipomena Sophoclea: Supplementary Notes on the Text and Inter­

pretation of Sophocles (London 1907; repro Hildesheim 1969) 195: "It is clearly assumed, un­
less the point is ignored as too external, that Odysseus and Neoptolemus are in command 
of separate ships." 

60 See Wilamowitz, GrTr IV.29, n.l. 
61 See Dio Chrys. 52.15: €V 7fi vii, sc. one ship only for Odysseus and Neoptolemos. The 

address to Odysseus in the Aeschylean parodos of Acdus, Philoctetes (523 Ribbeck), Achiuis 
classibus ductor, does not mean that a fleet has beached at Lemnos. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 165 

consistent. When Neoptolemos decides at 1402ff to sail with philoc­
tetes to Malis, he intends, declared Wilamowitz, to abandon Odysseus 
on the shore. Only the fortunate intervention of Herakles avoids this. 
The way to cut this Gordian knot is to see that Odysseus' threat is not 
meant seriously. There is only one ship with only one crew, but Odys­
seus has no idea of sailing off in it. His threat is only intended to con­
vince Philoctetes that he is enraged with Neoptolemos. 

At 1258 Jebb writes "Exit Odysseus." If Odysseus' threat is meant 
seriously, Odysseus must exit "to his ship." This would mean that 
Odysseus leaves the orchestra and stalks down the left parodos, sc. 
not an exit into the scaenae frons. But at the very moment that Neop­
tolemos returns the bow to Philoctetes (1291-92), Odysseus re-enters 
exactly on cue. A moment's consideration of the theater building will 
convince one that "a legitimate exit" makes "the re-entry on cue" 
impossible. Odysseus cannot dash the length of the parodos and across 
the orchestra-over thirty meters-in time to make the re-entrance 
effective. Patin,62 Linforth,63 and most recently Webster64 have seen 
the answer. The latter observes of Odysseus' "exit" at 1257: "he stays 
below the cave to see what will happen." Webster's familiarity with 
the ancient theater was behind his improvement of Jebb. His weak­
ness is that, because he still takes Neoptolemos' repentance seriously, 
he can provide no convincing motivation for Odysseus' lingering in 
the orchestra. A good one exists. The whole <Repentance Scene' is a 
fraud, staged to deceive philoctetes. The audience watch the in­
triguing Odysseus eavesdropping,65 a tried comic device,66 already 
used long ago by Sophocles in Ajax.67 From this the audience will de­
duce that Neoptolemos has not repented. Kirkwood 68 noted that 
Neoptolemos does not answer the impassioned words of Odysseus at 
1293-94 and argued that the breach between them was complete. 
Quite the contrary. They are working closely together and must be 

62 See Patin, op.cit. (supra n.1) 122: "Mais il n'est pas evident qu'il quitte maintenant la 
scene pour y reparaitre quelques moments apres ... " 

63 See Linforrh, UCPCP 140. 
64 See Webster on Soph. Phil. 1257. 
66 See Linforrh, UCPCP 140: "He does not, however, disappear from the sight of the 

audience." 
66 For the device in tragedy and comedy see Ed. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes 

(Rome 1962) 22-26. 
67 See Soph. Aj. 91ff, and for the staging my note at CP 60 (1965) 114-16. 
68 See G. M. Kirkwood, A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Cornell Stud. 31, Ithaca 1958) 145-46. 



166 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

quiet in order to learn Philoctetes' crucial reaction to their trick. They 
have not to wait long. Philoctetes draws his bow and tries to murder 
Odysseus,69 who-the last comic device-turns his back and runs for 
his life,70 like the Phrygian eunuch at Eur. Or. 1526. 

An elaborate trick, a play within a play, intended to deceive a char­
acter who never hears a word. Does this rule out the ruse? Surely not. 
When the two actors enter quarreling they cannot know that the pro­
tagonist has withdrawn. When they do not see him, they cannot know 
that he does not hear them. Sophocles makes this particularly clear 
by having the chorus address Philoctetes at 121S-2071 after he has 
exited and in fact does not hear them.72 Odysseus earlier (11, 14, 22, 
29) feared that while in the orchestra he might be heard by Philoc­
tetes in the cave. Sophocles chose to remove the victim from the dia­
logue. The artificiality of a contrived three actor scene would detract 
from the concentrated development of the intrigue. How many 
spirited three actor trialogues do we have? Rather agones. Compare 
the silence of Menelaos while Helen deceives the king (Eur. Rei. 1186-
1251). 

6. After the hurried final exit of Odysseus at 129973 (the actor must 
return as Herakles after a full costume and mask change at 1409), 
Neoptolemos assures himself (130Sff) that he has acquired the good will 
ofPhiloctetes. He then tries again (1314-47) to persuade the hero, re­
minding him of the hopelessness of his plight and the glory that 
awaits them both this very summer, if Philoctetes will but come 
willingly (JK6JV 1332) to Troy. Neoptolemos can argue convincingly 
for expediency. Philoctetes in his reply, although uneasy (134S-72), is 
still resolved. Pohlenz74 well drew attention to the point that Neop-

69 The situation derives from Euripides (Dio Chrys. 59.7): see Schneidewin/Nauck/Rader­
macher on Soph. Phil. 1300. 

70 For the device in comedy see, e.g., Ar. Aves 859-1057, where Peisthetairos drives a series 
of small part characters off the stage. Taplin, op.cit. (supra n.50) 37, observes that the device 
of a brief appearance, as Odysseus' here, is a rarity in tragedy and would compare Antigone's 
twelve verses at Eur. Phoen. 1270-82 and Agamemnon's five at IA 1621-26, if the latter 
passage be authentic. 

71 If the verses are indeed Sophoclean: see n.50 supra. 
72 See Linforth, UCPCP 139: "These words are addressed to Philoctetes, but there is no 

indication that he hears them." 
73 I should not hesitate to have Odysseus begin his exit at 1299. There is no need to delay 

until 1302 with Wilamowitz (GrTr IV.102), 1304 with ]ebb (p.201), or 1307 with Dain­
Mazon (Sophocle III.59A). 

H See Max Pohlenz, Die griechische Tragodie J2 (Gottingen 1954) 331, and similarly Lin­
forth, UCPCP 142. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 167 

tolemos has won: UDa war das Nein leicht. Aber jetzt bestlirmt der 
noch einmal sein Herz. Achills Sohn stehen keine zarten Worte an." 
Philoctetes could not bear to consult with those who had wronged 
him.76 He detects also an embarrassing inconsistency in Neoptolemos' 
behaviour. After-by his own admission-being cheated of his father's 
arms by Odysseus and the Atreidai, can he now agree to help their 
cause (1362ff) ? The question is difficult to resolve in terms that philoc­
tetes could approve.76 Again in a final stichomythy Neoptolemos 
avoids ethics to concentrate on healing the injured foot, a friend who 
speaks in friendship (1385). Again refusal (1392). Neoptolemos pre­
tends to conclude that the easiest course is to depart and leave Philoc­
tetes to live on as he has been for almost ten years avEV cWTTJplac 

(1396). He makes no suggestion of conveyance to Malis. Philoctetes 
then reminds the boy of an earlier pledge at 813 and requests to be 
brought home. Neoptolemos at 1402 immediately agrees, Et OOKEL, 

CTElxw/LEV, and the change to trochaic tetrameters marks the begin­
ning of their movement from the stage. The change of heart is as un­
expected as Odysseus' had been at 1054-55 and as convincing.77 The 
ancient scholiast 78 on the lemma CT€lxw!-'€v reads: J7Tt T~V 7TCf.TploCf.· 

&:1TaT~ OE Kat OEA.E£ &ga£ EtC T7]V Tpolav. The conclusion is unavoidable. 
Indisputable evidence exists to prove that the notion of Neoptolemos 
Dolios is ancient.79 Neoptolemos' last, desperate trick is to pretend to 
agree. 

This is the case for Neoptolemos Dolios in Sophocles' Philoctetes, so 
far as can be argued from the text itself.80 A more general point ought 

75 KVKAot at 1354 are certainly 'eyes'. To the parallels adduced by the commentators I 
should add PI. Rep. 4.440A. 

76 Again an Euripidean situation. Neoptolemos' proposed dilemma reflects the predica­
ment of Odysseus in the second epeisodion of Eur. Philoctetes, where, although alleging 
himself a victim of the Greeks at Troy, Odysseus must before Philoctetes urge their cause 
against Paris: see Laviosa, op.cit. (supra n.8) 58 pI. xxv. Paris in the Florentine urn there 
illustrated is deprived of his crucial cap, but an undamaged duplicate of Volterra (no.332) 
makes the identification certain. 

77 See Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, op.cit. (supra n.1) 311: "Als Neoptolemos 
... plotzlich fiigt mit den Worten d /)OKE"t CTe-{XWp-EV, da muss der antike Zuschauer vollig 
iiberrascht gewesen sein, denn was er hier vor Augen sieht, ist eine Unmoglichkeit." 

78 On Soph. Phil. 1402 (393.3-4 Papageorgius). A. E. Raubitschek first drew my attention 
to this remarkable and neglected scholium. 

79 Contrarily Dio Chrys. (52.17) believed Neoptolemos; but he read the play (52.1) and 
did not see it performed. 

80 One passage remains that deserves elucidation. After his dreadful fit (730ft"), Philoc­
tetes (821ff) falls into a deep slumber. A kommos (827-64), replacing the second stasimon, 



168 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

to be made. The Sophoclean Neoptolemos, as regularly interpreted, 
has become a glaring anomaly in the orthodox tradition of the hero 
and Troy. Elsewhere Neoptolemos was CCan especially pitiless, blood­
thirsty fighter,"81 a blasphemer and brutal murderer. G. Huxley calls 
Neoptolemos in the Ilias Parva CCa merciless butcher."82 Polygnotos in 
his Iliupersis at the Treasury of the Knidians in Delphi painted Neop­
tolemos alone of the Greeks still slaughtering the foe (Paus. 10.27.1). 
His three most famous deeds were the murder of the aged Priam at 
the altar of Zeus Herkeios,83 the execution of Polyxena,84 and the 
savage killing of the child, Astyanax.85 In Euripides' Hecuba, Troades 
and Andromache, not to speak of Pindar, Paian 6,86 he is a thorough 
villain who commits atrocities without a twinge of conscience. At 
Eur. Andr. 1127ff he is lynched by a crowd of enraged DeIphians. In 
Sophocles alone we have: ccdas Bild des vornehmen, lauteren jungen 
Heiden, der keiner Falschheit fahig ist, ... das Idealbild des korper­
lich und seelisch gleich wohlgeratenen, reinen, edlen und tiichtigen 
jungen Mannes, in dem diese Zeit, wie wir ja nicht nur aus Platon 
wissen, das Hochste, Schonste und Begeisterndste sah, das es auf der 
Welt gibt. "87 There is no need but preconceived opinion for this anom­
aly. In Sophocles too Neoptolemos is the young opportunist, attrac-

indicates the passage of time, and at 865 Philoctetes begins to stir. Soon, while still reclining, 
he expresses his grateful thanks (867-81) to Neoptolemos and the sailors. Neoptolemos 
helps him to his feet (893-94). After several steps, he stops (so Dain-Mazon, Sophocle III. 
42A); and at 895 cries out, 1Ta1Ta'i' Tl iJijT' ~<v> op{(!p,' ~yw Tovv8€vo€ y€; a cri de coeur and no 
simulation. Does this herald the alleged change of heart? Thus most recently W. Steidle, 
"Studien zum Antiken Drama," Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 4 (Munich 1968) 174ff. Neop­
tolemos falters certainly. He is callow. He has not been to Troy. He has never witnessed 
intense physical pain. The conspicuous torment of Philoctetes unnerves the boy. His 
response is emotional, a shock that precludes a change of attitude. But "a gut reaction" is 
not a reasoned change of mind. N eoptolemos soon recovers himself. He will not return the 
bow (925-6), although pity (965) still makes him hesitant. The entrance of Odysseus (974) 
restores his confidence. When he next speaks (1074), he is the accomplice who will never 
falter again. 

81 Thus K. Ziegler, RE 16 (1935) 2460.37-38. 
82 See Huxley, op.cit. (supra n.14) 156. 
83 Ziegler, RE 16 (1935) 2445.52ff. 
84 Ibid. 2446.53ff. 
86 Ibid. 2446.39ff. 
86 See Radt, op.cit. (supra n.20) 170. 
87 Thus Ziegler, RE 16 (1935) 2460.63ff. Modern imitations of Sophocles' play have con­

spired with misdirected criticism to turn Neoptolemos into Parzifal: see K. Heinemann, 
Die tragischen Gestalten der Griechen in der Weltliteratur II (Leipzig 1920; repro Darmstadt 
1968) 104ff. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 169 

tive, clever, a realist through and through, like Alcibiades, unencum­
bered by conscience.88 

A word is due Herakles, who has been more discussed than he 
deserves.89 Clearly my interpretation requires that Herakles appear 
to instruct Philoctetes, who thinks that he is going home when he is 
not, rather than Neoptolemos, who has no intention of delivering 
Philoctetes to his father in Malis. The deceits must all be untangled 
and details made clear for characters and for audience.9o A divinity 
may have ended Aeschylus' Philoctetes.91 Athene is needed for the end 
of Euripides' Philoctetes.92 The audience of a Philoctetes-tragedy 
would expect a god. Sophocles had used one before.93 The surprise is 
only that Herakles has replaced Athene.94 

88 Refined critics have alleged an erotic theme. Von Blumenthal, op.cit. (supra n.l) 216-18, 
reads Platonic dialogues into the play. J. T. Sheppard, Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1911) 119, 
describes "his love for the youth whom he regards as his deliverer." What evidence exists? 
One can assert Greek proclivities: see G. Devereux, "Greek Pseudo-Homosexuality," 
SyrnbOsl 42 (1967) 69-92. At 434 Philoctetes calls Patroklos Achilles' 'T'eX .p{A'T'(x'T'(x, a word 
from the serrno amatorius: see Fraenkel ad lac., who compares Ar. Ach. 1093, and id., op.cit. 
(supra n.66) 29ff. We know that elsewhere Sophocles treated homosexual themes, e.g., 
Troilus, Achilles' Lovers. For Euripidean examples see A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der 
Hellenen (Gottingen 1956) 169. A famous myth about desertion on an island contained a 
clearly erotic motif. Euripides had dramatised Theseus' desertion of Ariadne: see T. B. L. 
Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 107. In any case, Sophocles is not showing 
Neoptolemos falling in love with Philoctetes, as von Blumenthal, the George pupil, would 
imply. Neoptolemos is the deceiving beloved, a type known to philologists from Plato and 
the epigrams. 

89 See lately Spira, op.cit. (supra n.40) 12-32, and David B. Robinson, CQ 63 (1969) 53ff. I 
endorse Kitto, op.cit. (supra n.2) 105: "Nowhere in the whole of Sophocles is there a speech 
less impressive than this one which he wrote for Heracles." 

90 Kap'T'€p1]'T'VCWV 8' aMv ~v C'rE>'>'€L (1416) does not mean that Herakles will prevent 
Philoctetes from going to Troy but simply "wait a moment." allov is noncommittal and 
may even refer only to the actors' stage-movement; cf Phil. 993. 

91 See GRBS 11 (1970) In. 
92 Odysseus begins the action disguised by Athene as a Nauplian youth. He must be re­

vealed for Philoctetes to learn the truth: cf Ar. Ach. 120 for stripping off a mask to reveal a 
disguised man. Athene would effect the metamorphosis by her p&.fJlloc in person and not 
by remote control: see ad. 13.429ff, 16.1nff, 16.454ff. 

93 See Spira, op.cit. (supra n.40) 32 n.5!, who lists Syndeipnoi (Thetis), Epigonoi (Apollo), 
Tereus, Tyro 1 and 2 (Poseidon); and E. Muller, "De Graecorum deorum partibus tragicis," 
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 8.3 (Giessen 1910) 52ff. 

94 The patron saint was not to be contaminated by collaboration with oligarchs. Soph. 
Phil. 134 is a fourth century (?) interpolation, a doublet to 133, inserted by an ignorant 
chauvinist, possibly to accord with Euripides' version. Against its authenticity Fraenkel ad 
lac. argues (1) the anomaly of invoking Athene Nike and Polias at once (he compares a 
simultaneous invocation of the virgins of Loreto and Pompei); (2) that Athene after Hermes 



170 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

III. Phi/oetetes and 409 

Thucydides VIll chronicles events of the immediate past. Modern 
historians have refined details: treason, revolution, murder and civil 
war. Euripides revived a classic document of the Klassenkampf, 
Aeschylus' Septem contra Thebas.95 His Phoenissae appeared on the same 
program at the Dionysia of March 409, the first program after the 
successful counter-revolution.96 Its themes are indisputably con­
temporary.97 They influenced Sophocles and suggested to him Oedipus 
Coloneus.98 Yet the play received only second prize; Philoctetes won 
first. Did Sophocles' play succeed because it ignored its time ?99 Or did 
Wilamowitz fail to detect the truth? One to one equations I find con­
fining and unconvincing. Philoctetes is not Alcibiades100 nor Odysseus 
Kleophon or Peisander101 nor Neoptolemos the younger Pericles.102 

Rather one must seek for themes, issues, political commentary. 
The use of YEvvaioc, a class term (e.g., Ps.-Xen. Ath Pol. 1.2), is re­

markable.1Oa The word is rare in the early plays: never in Antigone; 
once in Trachiniae (308); twice each in Ajax (938, 1355), Oedipus Tyran­
nus (1469, 1510), and Electra (127, 287). All the more surprising to find 

is an anticlimax; (3) the incongruity of invoking Athene of the City on a desert island; and 
(4) the padded ending (from 297). 

95 The Berliner Ensemble revived the play on 28 May 1969. It is no longer performed. 
Western critics would do well to ponder the matter. 

96 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, apud Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 
DramTech 317 n.1. 

97 For an exemplary discussion of the matter see J. de Rornilly, "Phoenician Women of 
Euripides: Topicality in Greek Tragedy," Bucknell Review 15.3 (1967) 108-32. 

98 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, apud Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 
DramTech 318. The view is endorsed by J. Geffcken, op.cit. (supra n.lO) 1.1.200. 

99 Kitto, op.cit. (supra n.2) 102, once called Philoctetes "an elegant study in character and 
dramatic intrigue." For Whitman, op.cit. (supra n.9) 172. "the Philoctetes seems a romantic 
holiday." These are the naive judgements of Western scholars, for whom drama was never 
more than sophisticated amusement. See N. Pratt Jr, AJP 70 (1949) 275ff, for a depressing 
history of unhistorical interpretations. 

100 The view was first advanced by M. LeBeau in 1770: see Patin, op.cit. (supra n.1) 125-26; 
Jebb pp. xl-xli, who is skeptical; and M. H. Jameson, CP 51 (1956) 219. 

101 For Odysseus and Kleophon see Whitman, op.cit. (supra n.9) 179; for Odysseus and 
Peisander see Jameson, op.cit. (supra n.l00) 225 n.20, who in fact argues against any specific 
identification. 

loa For Neoptolemos as the younger Pericles see Jameson (supra n.l00) 222ff. 
103 Recently H. C. Avery, Hermes 93 (1965) 289, drew attention to the epithet but missed 

what Sophocles was doing: "At last he has progressed from being a y£vvaLoc in Odysseus' 
perverted sense to becoming a y£vvaLoc in the true sense. Now Neoptolemos has found him­
self and his true nature." I think not. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 171 

six examples in Philoctetes. Is a pattern discernible? When Odysseus 
and Neoptolemos use the word privately, it means <dependable'lo4 
for a class or cause. The passage is verse 51: HNo matter what you may 
be asked to do, you must be YEWCXLOV for that for which you have 
come."105 Y€WCXLOC in Philoctetes' mouth implies an absolute and 
archaic scale of aristocratic, even Kimonian, values and means 
<noble'.106 See verses 475-76, which Jebb ad loco translates: "To noble 
natures, what is (morally) shameful is hateful, and what is worthy 
appears glorious." Before his paroxysm, Philoctetes calls upon the 
<noble' Neoptolemos to destroy him as he himself had Herakles (ef 
Phil. 799, 801). At verse 1068 Odysseus exhorts Neoptolemos in the 
presence of Philoctetes: HCome on you; don't keep looking at him, 
YEWCXLOC as you are, lest you wreck our good luck." The word is almost 
a watchword, a cvv87Jl-'cx, a secret exchange between the two conspira­
tors. Finally at 1402, just after Neoptolemos has appeared to agree to 
take him to Malis, philoctetes naively replies: c1J Y€WCXLOV €lp7JKWC 

€7Toc.107 If sincere, Neoptolemos' utterance would have been <noble' 
in philoctetes' sense. Because a hoax, it is <dependable' in Odysseus' 
sense. The word illustrates a larger theme. The coup of 411 proved the 
rottenness of the Athenian upper class. The clubs were loyal to their 
class and self-interest. Old words gained new meanings.los Philoctetes 
is an anachronism, ten years on a deserted island. He is a <noble' of a 
sort that has ceased to exist and, in a changed society, ineffectual and 
infected. He can never understand Odysseus and Neoptolemos. Nor 
can they evaluate the dimension of his morality. 

Deceit is the Leitmotiv of Philoetetes. Sophocles' success in depicting 
its intricacies has blinded his most astute critics and confirmed the 
predispositions of his more naive ones. Odysseus and Neoptolemos 
pursue success through deceit: Staatsraison of a sort that Thrasy­
machos would rightly approve. Philoctetes, a decent, unfortunate 
man, who believes in honor, loyalty, self-respect, again and again, 

104 For the word in this sense see Fraenkel, Agamemnon III.552. 
106 See Jebb ad loco Knox, Temper lS7 n.1S, tries unsuccessfully to refute him. 
106 For this traditional meaning see Wilamowitz on Bur. Her. 872. 
107 At Ellendt-Genthe, Lexicon Sophocleumz (Berlin IS72) 142A59, for Phil. 1462 read Phil. 

1402. 
108 For the deceitful language of the play see A. J. Podlecki, "The Power of the Word in 

Sophocles' Philoctetes," GRBS 7 (1966) 233-50, and for the deceit of the oligarchs see Jameson, 
op.cit. (supra n.lOO) 224 n.16. 



172 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

until the moment Herakles appears, is the dupe of people whose 
duplicity he cannot even estimate, much less repel. 

What had been Sophocles' share in the recent politics of the 
right ?109 Had he collaborated? Was he a 7TP&f30V>..oc or not? The crucial 
text is Aristotle, Rhetoric 1419a25ff. I should render: "Sophocles, when 
he was asked by Peisander if he, like the rest of the Probouloi, had ap­
proved the establishment of the 400, said 'Yes'. 'Well then', said 
Peisander, 'didn't this matter seem repellent to you?' Sophocles 
agreed. 'Therefore, you did what was repellent to you'. 'Yes', said he, 
'there was nothing better to be done'." Paul Foucart in the funda­
mental study of the problem,no states that this text reveals: (1) An 
Athenian called Sophocles was a member of the Board of the Pro­
bouloi, which voted the establishment of the Government of the 400. 
(2) He voted affirmatively not because he approved but faute de 
mieux. (3) Later he criticized or attacked the Revolutionary Govern­
ment; and Peisander, leader of the oligarchs, tried to silence him by 
contrasting his words with his earlier vote. 

Foucart demonstrates that in Aristotle, Sophocles tout court can only 
mean the poet. Indeed Aristotle can (Pol. 1.1260a29) even refer to 
Sophocles simply as 0 7TOL7'}'T1JC. If Aristotle were referring to some 
different Sophocles, he would have added a distinguishing patronymic 
or demotic. Foucart further argues that we have nothing inconsistent 
with what we otherwise know of the poet's life and politics.ll1 The 
critics112 who allege that Aristotle refers to an almost unknown con-

109 Almost alone of critics, M. H. Jameson has posed the question: see op.cit. (supra n.lOO) 
217-18 with notes. 

110 See P. Foucart, "Le poete Sophocle et l'oligarchie des Quatre Cents," RevPhil17 (1893) 
1-10. I summarize p.l. 

111 Ibid. p.3. 
112 A distinction was first proposed by Henri de Valois, or Valesius (1603-1676), in his 

posthumous notes to Harpokration (Leiden 1682) and revived without argument by G. 
Dindorf, another Harpocration editor, at Sophoclis Tragoediae Superstites et Perditarum Frag­
menta, vol. VllP: Commentatio de Vita Sophoclis, Perditarum Fabularum Fragmenta (Oxford 
1890) xx: "Verum probabilior Valesii (ad Harpocrat. p. 181.) et Ruhnkenii (Hist. orat. p. 
128. ed. Reisk.) opinio est diversum hunc ab tragico Sophoclem esse, eundem qui inter 
triginta tyrannos nominatur a Xenophonte Hist. Gr. 2, 3, 2. et cujus orationem pro Eucte­
mone memorat Aristoteles Rhet. I, 14." E. M. Cope, The Rhetoric of Aristotle with a Com­
mentary, ed. J. E. Sandys, I (Cambridge 1877) 263, presumably after an earlier edition of 
Dindorf, simply denies that Sophocles of Rhet. 1.1374b36 and 3.1419a26 is the tragic poet 
but rather the tyrant ofXen. Hell. 2.3.2, where no patronymic was needed for the tragedian 
was already dead. J. E. Sandys, ap. R. C. Jebb, The Rhetoric of Aristotle: a Translation (Cam­
bridge 1909) 60 n.l, 197 n.2, repeats the conclusion of Cope. H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus2 

(Graz 1955) 689B provides a spedallemma, Eofx>KAfjc orator, for these two loci. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 173 

temporary of the same name offer little more than an a priori repug­
nance to include Sophocles in a rightist putsch.lI3 This is scarcely co­
gent philologically, and one may recall that Aristotle presents 
Sophocles as a distressed moderate criticizing the excesses of the right. 
Foucart's conclusion was independently and forcibly advanced in the 
same year by Wilamowitz114 and has been accepted by the over­
whelming majority of scholars entitled to an opinion on the matter.u5 

I should add myself to their number. 
In short Sophocles naively voted for a dictatorial regime whose 

crimes and excesses he could not foresee. He realized his error to the 

Only one reasoned defense of Vales ius' suggestion is known to me. Hans Schaefer, RE 23 
(1957) 1225.58ff, denies that the proboulos was the poet because (1) the only other known 
proboulos, Hagnon the Oikist, was "eine sehr bekannte und profilierte politische Person­
lichkeit von grosser praktischer Erfahrung"; (2) the poet held mere "Ehrenamter" and 
never shared "im innerpolitischen Kampf"; (3) the tyrant, therefore, is the more likely 
candidate. Against Schaefer one may urge (1) his first reason is of unprovable pertinence; 
(2) Hellenotamias and Strategos were by no means "honorary posts" but elected offices of 
highest responsibility; (3) we know nothing of the tyrant's share in internal politics before 
his tyranny (the son of So strati des need not be he: see RE 3A [1927] 1095); (4) he neglects the 
lack of a patronymic or demotic in Aristotle; (5) the whole point of Aristotle's anecdote, to 
present the view of a disillusioned moderate, is quite unsuitable for a man who would 
later be one of the Thirty. 

113 See P. Foucart, op.cit. (supra n.IlO) 2: "C'est plutot une repugnance instinctive a se 
figurer Ie grand poete tragique meIe aux querelles des partis et s' occupant a rediger une 
constitution anti-democratique." Nothing makes an author more difficult to understand 
than his apotheosis. 

114 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen I (Berlin 1893; repro 1966) 
102 n.6, and his later statement at GrTr IV.lOO. On the polities of Sophocles see his good 
general remarks at "Die Griechische Literatur des Altertums," Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 
1.82 (Berlin/Leipzig 1907) 48. 

115 For the tragedian as proboulos see: Julius Beloch, Die attische Politik seit Perikles (Leipzig 
1884; repro Darmstadt 1967) 65-66; G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei 
Chaeroneia III. 2 (Gotha 1904) 1410 with n.2 (retracting the doubt ofIII.1.577 n.1); A. Dain and 
P. Mazon, Sophocle I (Paris 1955) xii; Victor Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles (Oxford 1954) 
138 nA; W. S. Ferguson, CAH 5 (Cambridge 1927; repro 1953) 321; W. G. Forrest. The Emer­
gence of Greek Democracy (London 1966) 34; Geffcken, op.cit. (supra n.10) 1.1.167; C. Gilbert, 
Beitrltge zur innern Geschichte Athens (Leipzig 1877) 289ff; G. Glotz/R. Cohen, Histoire grecque 
II: La Greee au Ve siecle (Paris 1949) 465 n.61, 708; C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Consti­
tution to the End of the Fifth Century B.c. (Oxford 1952) 269; J. Kirchner, Prosopographia 
Attica 112 (Berlin 1966) 264 (no.12834); A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur2 (Bern/ 
Munich 1963) 302; M. Pohlenz, Die griechische Tragodie 12 (Gottingen 1954) 161; R. Y. Tyrrell, 
Essays on Greek Literature (London 1909) 41 n.1; and T. B. L. Webster, An Introduction to 
Sophocles (Oxford 1936; repro London 1969) 13: "the onus of proof is on those who deny the 
identification." Three scholars hesitate but do not deny the identification: von Blumenthal, 
RE 3A (1927) 1044.26: "fraglich"; Christ-Schmid, 1.2.319; and Jameson, op.cit. (supra n.100) 
217. 



174 SOPHOCLEAN APOLOGIA: PHILOCTETES 

degree that at the risk of his life he publicly criticized the tyranny. In 
409, directly after the successful counter-revolution, he produced a 
tetralogy, only a fourth of which we know. Are we to believe that this 
play had nothing whatever to do with the catastrophic political events 
in which the author had played a pivotal part? His tragedy portrayed 
the helplessness of a decent man, albeit naive and sick,11a before im­
penetrable and overwhelming duplicity. With the best of intentions 
the clearest head could not resist Neoptolemos or Odysseus, Peisander 
or Antiphon. Sophocles, like Philoctetes, had been taken in. He 
thought that he was going to Malis and not to Troy; and there was no 
Herakles to set him straight. The play is about defeat, disillusionment 
and honesty in a society of immorality and deceit. It is an old man's 
apologia pro vita sua.117 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

December, 1970 

ll6 For the metaphOrical use of the disease theme in Sophocles see P. Biggs, CP 61 (1966) 

223-35. For vodw of states see Hdr. 5.28; Soph. Ant. 1015; PI. Rep. 5.470c; etc. 
117 Earlier versions of this paper were delivered at the Center for Hellenic Studies, 

Washington, on 8 October 1970; to the University Seminar in Classical Civilization at 
Columbia University on 15 October 1970; at Duke University on 3 December 1970; at the 
University of Aarhus on 21 May 1971; and at the University of Copenhagen on 27 May 1971. 
I benefited from subsequent and vigorous reaction on all these occasions. I am especially 
grateful for detailed improvements to J. A. Coulter, B. M. W. Knox, J. S. Mautner, S. 
0sterud, W. Schindler, O. P. Taplin and J. Vaio, four of whom believe me. The proverbial 
hospitality of the Fondation Hardt, Vandoeuvres, prOVided me in July 1970 with the leisure 
required to complete my first draft.