1. See Knox, B.M.W., The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1964), 121–22Google Scholar, for discussion of conflict between the older, ‘aristocratic’ viewpoint and a more modern, ‘democratic’ one.

2. Lines 799–801, where Philoctetes calls upon Neoptolemus to release him from his agony by throwing him into Lemnos’ fire, associate the theme of Philoctetes’ illness with that of volcanic activity—as well as linking Philoctetes with his spiritual father, Heracles, who put a fiery end to his earthly existence on Mt. Oeta. (For the theme of fire on Lemnos—volcanic or otherwise, see Burkert, W., ‘Jason, Hypsipyle and New Fire at Lemnos. A Study in Myth and Ritual’, CQ n.s. 20 [1970], 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Segal, C., Tragedy and Civilization. An Interpretation of Sophocles [Cambridge MA 1981], 305ffGoogle Scholar).

3. The Nekuia is not the only episode which comments on Odysseus as narrator. The Philoctetes very obviously echoes—or anticipates—Odysseus’ visit to the island of the Cyclops, also narrated by Odysseus himself. There is the arrival on a mysterious and largely uninhabited island; the search for signs of life; the encounter in a cave with a dangerous creature who lacks many of the amenities of civilized life, such as wine (715) and music; and finally, recourse to trickery based on the cave-dweller’s inexperience. In Odysseus’ story the Cyclops is an inarticulate ogre, tricked into telling the wrong tale about his deceiver, who is a man of great verbal skills—both within the story, and as the teller of it. This verbal ‘conquest’ of the (ironically named) Polyphemus is emphasized and completed as he becomes an episode in Odysseus’ narrative.

4. Odysseus is an exceptionally free and powerful bard in many respects in comparison with the Odyssey’s other poets. He is mobile, and so not subject to his audience’s pleasure to quite the extent that a resident court professional is. Phemius almost loses his life merely because he sang—under constraint from an earlier audience—songs that displease Odysseus. Furthermore the Phaeacians seem apolitical, remote from the passions and conflicting allegiances that affect most Greek audiences and their poets in the aftermath of the socially disruptive Trojan war.

5. Although, to an extent, both audiences are vulnerable to deceit, Philoctetes, who has lacked access to bardic tradition, is especially so; Sophocles was the first of the tragedians to make Lemnos deserted. This isolation makes of Philoctetes a particularly uncritical audience, since any speech is delightful to him after ten silent years (234). See Podlecki, A.J., ‘The Power of the Word in Sophocles’ Philoctetes’, GRBS 7 (1966), 233–50Google Scholar, where he comments on the irony of the fact that the verbal communication so welcome to Philoctetes after ten years of isolation is flawed and deceptive. In contrast, the Phaeacians already know the history of the men about whom Alcinous asks for a final eye-witness account; they have a context in which to place—and perhaps assess—Odysseus’ comments (see Walsh, G.B., The Varieties of Enchantment: Early Greek Views of the Nature and Functions of Poetry [Chapel Hill 1984], 3–21Google Scholar, for discussion of Alcinous’ ‘criteria’ for assessing the truth of Odysseus’ speech).

6. For the effect of a third character on the play’s dramatic structure, see Kirkwood, G.M., A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca NY 1958), 55–60Google Scholar. For the question of Sophocles’ originality vis-à-vis Aeschylus and Euripides, see Kamerbeek, J.C., The Plays of Sophocles VI: Philoctetes (Leiden 1980), 1–6Google Scholar. Information regarding the missing plays of Aeschylus and Euripides derives from fragments of the tragedies themselves and of their hypotheses, and from the work of the first century A.D. writer, Dio Chrysostom. His fifty-second Oration compares the three tragedies, and the fifty-ninth paraphrases the prologue to the Euripidean tragedy.

7. For Odysseus’ disguises and their implications, see P. Pucci, Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and Iliad (Ithaca NY 1987), and (the very different view of) Murnaghan, S., Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey (Princeton 1987)Google Scholar. Sophocles’ Odysseus largely transfers the process of self-misrepresentation, with its problems and powers, to Neoptolemus. Looking at the question from the other point of view, although Sophocles, unlike Aeschylus, allows us to believe that Philoctetes could easily recognize Odysseus after ten years, the question remains: why does Philoctetes not recognize Neoptolemus if the latter resembles his father as closely as he claims? As Murnaghan points out, 16–17, the power to recognize is one of the things that typically distinguishes the living from the dead. For example, in Odyssey 11 the ghosts need the blood of the sacrificed animals to recognize and speak with the living man among them. Perhaps Philoctetes’ failure to recognize this ‘living Achilles’ is a sign (one of several) that he drifts somewhere between the worlds of the living and the dead.

8. It may be argued that the merchant may be Odysseus himself in disguise—certainly the same actor would have played both roles, together with that of Heracles later on. Yet Odysseus’ marked anxiety that Philoctetes may recognize him makes it somewhat unlikely (but not impossible) that he would so speedily risk disguising himself to persuade Philoctetes to return. Certainly when Odysseus (undisguised) first approaches Philoctetes, the latter apparently recognizes him before seeing him—from the sound of his voice (976). For the theory that Heracles is Odysseus in disguise, see Errandonea, I., ‘Filoctetes’, Emerita 23 (1955), 122–64Google Scholar, and ‘Filoctetes’, Emerita 24 (1956), 72–107Google Scholar. This brilliant suggestion, which is not incompatible with the play’s action and dialogue, has no textual support either.

9. At the play’s beginning Odysseus repudiates Neoptolemus’ suggestion that they take Philoctetes by force: ‘I see that it is the tongue [tēn glōssan], not deeds, that controls all things’ (98f.).

10. In Aeschylus and Euripides falsehoods somehow induced Philoctetes to hand over the bow voluntarily. The bow then was used to ‘persuade’ Philoctetes to return to Troy. In Sophocles, however, the precise purpose of the deceptions within the intrigue as a whole never becomes clear. Presumably Neoptolemus wins Philoctetes’ sympathy so that he will be able to obtain possession of the bow more easily, but we cannot be sure of his—or Odysseus’—original intention, since there is no explanation at this point, and the intrigue ultimately seems to break down. See n.30 below.

11. Achilles, 331, 334f.; Ajax, 412f., 415; Antilochus, 424f.; Patroclus, 435.

12. See Proclus’ summary in Allen, T.W. (ed.), Homeri Opera V (Oxford 1946), 106Google Scholar, lines 4–6.

13. Huxley, G., ‘Thersites in Sophocles’ Philoctetes 445’, GRBS 8 (1967), 33–34Google Scholar.

14. Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hew in Archaic Creek Poetry (Baltimore and London 1979), 184Google Scholar. ‘By getting kleos he [Achilles] is incorporated into epic, which is presented by epic itself as an eternal extension of the lamentations sung by the Muses over the hero’s death (xxiv 60–61, 93–94). Thus the specific institution of lamentation, which is an aspect of hero-cult and which is implicit in the very name of Achilles, leads to the kleos of epic.’

15. Even Achilles, as he broods on the possibility of losing his immortal kleos can console himself with singing the deeds of others, the klea andrōn. Not so Philoctetes, who lacks all access to song.

16. In this regard there appears to be a difference between the narrator-Odysseus of Sophocles’ play and the narrator-Odysseus of the Odyssey. Throughout the play Odysseus displays considerable detachment from the Trojan war—all the more conspicuous because Odysseus, alone of the play’s three characters, experienced it at first hand. Of course, the Odysseus of the Philoctetes mostly concerns himself with false stories about the war, whereas it was (presumably) true, graphic accounts of the siege and sack of Troy which brought tears to the eyes of Odysseus in Odyssey 8.

17. Odysseus appears to lose control of Neoptolemus, who restores Philoctetes’ bow to him, apparently repenting of his initial deceptions. Similarly, Odysseus seems to have no part in Philoctetes’ decision to return to Troy with the bow. But it has been argued that Odysseus plans every twist in the plot together with a more or less comprehending and willing Neoptolemus. Rather than choose between alternatives, I hold that there is an ambiguity, which is important and deliberate. Most scholars believe that Neoptolemus’ change of heart was genuine. Some even see it as the play’s main theme—eg Kitto, H.D.F., Greek Tragedy ³ (London 1961), 297Google Scholar; Weinstock, H., Sophokles ³ (Wuppertal 1948), 102Google Scholar; Reinhardt, K., Sophokles ³ tr. H. and Harvey, D. (Oxford 1979), 166ffGoogle Scholar; Gill, C., ‘Bow, Oracle, and Epiphany in Sophocles’ Philoctetes’, G&R 27 (1980), 137–46Google Scholar. Vidal-Naquet, P., ‘Le Philoctéte de Sophocle et l’èphèbie’, in Mythe et tragèdie en Gréce ancienne ed. Vernant, J.P. & Vidal-Naquet, P. (Paris 1977)Google Scholar, sees Neoptolemus almost as an Athenian ephebe before initiation into the ranks of the hoplites. On the other hand Calder, W., ‘Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes’, GRBS 12 (1971), 153–74Google Scholar, regards Neoptolemus rather than Odysseus as the play’s arch deceiver. While Calder goes too far, his recognition that Neoptolemus cannot be dismissed as a callow and impressionable youth is important.

18. Other references to Neoptolemus’ inherited character include: 79f. (Odysseus); 88f. (Neoptolemus); 96 (Odysseus); 719 (the chorus); 874f. (Philoctetes); 904f. (Philoctetes); 1284 (Philoctetes); 1310–13 (Philoctetes).

19. Almost certainly this story is false—since if it were true, the camaraderie between himself and Odysseus would be inexplicable. According to the Little Iliad as recorded by Proclus (Allen (n. 12 above], 106, lines 29–30), Odysseus, having won the armor, gave it to Neoptolemus upon the latter’s arrival at Troy.

20. Schlesinger, E., ‘Die Intrige im Aufbau von Sophokles’ Philoktef, RhM 111 (1968), 97–156Google Scholar at 133, remarks that the details of Neoptolemus’ story recall both Agamemnon’s theft of Achilles’ geras and Odysseus’ defeat of Ajax over Achilles’ armor. Thus, although false, the story reflects Neoptolemus’ true relationship to the Atreidae and to Odysseus. Schlesinger is correct in seeing traces of the tragedies of both Achilles and Ajax in Neoptolemus’ story—his comparison of the play with the embassy scene in Iliad 9 is especially insightful—but one cannot draw conclusions about Neoptolemus’ ‘true’ relationship with Odysseus and the Atreidae without making unwarrantable assumptions about his nature and his relationship with his father, Achilles.

21. Pindar’s Nemean 7.2If. criticizes a poetic sophia that is indiscriminately linked with both Homer and Odysseus—a sophia which brought about Ajax’ defeat, typical of many such injustices.

22. The Ajax of Sophocles shows how Ajax clings to his defeat, his bitterness, and particularly his enemies (Hector—and more recently Odysseus and the Atreidae) as his only inalienable possessions.

23. G. Nagy (n. 14 above, 259–64) shows how Thersites is characterized as a ‘blame’ figure within the epic tradition. Significantly, Neoptolemus confuses (or affects to confuse) Thersites with Odysseus at Philoctetes 438–42. This Odysseus is almost the antithesis of the aristocrat who loftily rebukes Thersites at Iliad 2.244–64.

24. See Calder (n.17 above). Even if we do not go so far as to believe that he has never been to Troy, and has come directly to Lemnos from Scyros, it is obvious that Neoptolemus knows little of the Trojan war at first hand.

25. See Nussbaum, M., ‘Consequences and Character in Sophocles’ Philoctetes’, Philosophy and Literature 1.25–53(1976-77), 43Google Scholar, where she suggests that Neoptolemus’ character represents a combination of the merits of both Philoctetes and Odysseus, and that Neoptolemus will avoid their respective failings because he understands his own physis. In fact, Neoptolemus probably does not know his own inherited physis because he must largely rely on an oral tradition whose weaknesses the play makes all too obvious.

26. Edwards, A.T., Achilles in the Odyssey (Königstein 1985)Google Scholar, demonstrates that Achilles and Odysseus represent contrasting modes of warfare: Odysseus the lokhos or ambush, Achilles, the more conventional hand-to-hand combat. He shows (63–64) how Odysseus in Odyssey 11, in his speech with Achilles, attributes the fall of Troy to a lokhos in which Neoptolemus played a notable part. Achilles’ own style of fighting appears to have been outmoded.

27. See Knox (n.l above), 129: ‘The island, like that home he begs Neoptolemus to take him to, is a form of death, from which he is to be invited to return to life. Isolation and inactivity, first enforced and then preferred, are a kind of death for the man whose possession of the bow of Heracles marks him out for heroic labors and victory.’

28. As Chantraine shows, the verbs enairō and enarizō derive from the noun enara meaning ‘arms removed from a slain enemy’. See Kamerbeek (n.6 above) on the line. Philoctetes subsequently reminds Neoptolemus of the latter’s story of how the armor of his father, Achilles, was stolen by the Greek leaders. The word Philoctetes uses to describe the theft (1365) echoes Neoptolemus’ own use at 413 (esutēthēn); it is sulaō which in the Iliad typically describes the action of stripping an enemy corpse. For Philoctetes, there is little to choose between the Trojan enemy and the Greek High Command. Instead, Troy seems uncomfortably like the savage island of Lemnos, with a distinction only between predators and prey, carrion and scavengers.

29. At Iliad 17.21 Off. Hector dons the armor of Achilles, which he has taken from Patroclus’ body. Suddenly it fits him like a skin, and he is filled with divine fighting strength. With the armor Hector has almost become a second Achilles, just as Patroclus did before him. But cf. Iliad 7.8Iff., where Hector promises to hang in front of Apollo’s temple the armor of his (putative) victim in the ensuing duel.

30. One of the play’s controversies concerns the oracle of Helenus and the conspirators’ response to it. Were both men convinced from the outset that both Philoctetes and the bow would be required? Or was this something that Odysseus attempted to deny, but that Neoptolemus slowly recognized? On this thorny question, see (amongst recent studies) Thummer, E., ‘Der Bogen und das Leid zu Sophokles’ Philoktetes’.Archaiologia 11 (1981), 1–9Google Scholar; Machin, A., Cohérence et continuité dans le théâtre de Sophocle (Haute-Ville 1981), 61–74Google Scholar; Hoppin, M.C., ‘What happens in Sophocles’ Philoctetes?’, Traditio 37 (1981), 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In fact Servius (Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentarium 3.402) reports that the Greeks took the arrows [and bow?] and left Philoctetes behind on Lemnos, but his is the only source for this particular version. Mandel, O., Philoctetes and the Fall of Troy (Lincoln and London 1981), 18–19Google Scholar, argues that the tradition which emphasizes the removal of the bow belongs with the Heracles tradition, and perhaps may be attributed to a desire to link Heracles with the second conquest of Troy. On the other hand, there was a tradition in which Philoctetes was unconnected with Heracles—he was the mightiest archer in the land, and so necessary for the conquest of Troy.

31. Iliad 22.395–404; Iliad 24.15–21.

32. It is Hector’s head that Achilles wants to drag in the dust, and he achieves this by tying him to the chariot feet first (Iliad 22.398). At Iliad 23.24f. he lays Hector face downwards in the dust. The abuse is intended to degrade, but, in concentrating injury on the face, it also results in erasure of the victim’s identity. It is only the intervention of Apollo that prevents Hector from being completely dis-figured (Iliad 24.18–20).

33. Cf. Nemean 7, where Pindar denies having ‘dragged’ (the verb is helkusai in line 103) Neoptolemus with his atropoisi … epesi. Controversy over the possible reference to the sixth Paean notwithstanding, the strong word suggests a type of literary violence to which a dead hero may be subject. Naturally Pindar abjures any such treatment of the Aeacids.

34. The body of a dead hero, of course, could be a potent and valuable asset for a community—that of Oedipus in the Oedipus at Colonus is an obvious example.

35. Neoptolemus seems to consider Philoctetes a portable prize, like the armor. At lines 839ff., after the chorus has exhorted Neoptolemus to steal the bow, Neoptolemus refuses, for, as he says (839–41): ‘I see that in vain do we have the bow as prey if we sail without this man. The victory wreath [Stephanos] consists of Philoctetes—it is this man that the god told us to bring.’ The word Stephanos illustrates Neoptolemus’ misconception. For him, Philoctetes is neither friend nor adversary but a possession, an epinician prize. Neoptolemus’ unusual use of hexameters is therefore perhaps ironic, mocking this most unheroic enterprise—the capture of a helpless cripple. See Winnington-Ingram, R.P., ‘Tragica’, BICS 16 (1969), 48–50Google Scholar, for an interpretation of these lines. At line 81 Odysseus speaks to Neoptolemus of the sweetness of the ‘possession of victory’ (kfēma tēs nikēs). To an extent, it seems that by line 841 Neoptolemus has identified this possession of victory with the ‘possession’ of Philoctetes, the ‘friend’ to the Greek forces at Troy required by the oracle. See Daly, J., ‘The Name of Philoctetes: Philoctetes 670–73’, AJP 103 (1982), 440–42Google Scholar for the etymology of the name Philoctetes—the ‘possession of a friend’. Perhaps the name may pose an ethical question—in what sense can a friend be regarded as a possession?

36. It is therefore ironically appropriate that one of the guiding deities for the expedition should be Hermes. At the outset Odysseus invokes him as the god of trickery—in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes this god has to be sworn (513ff.) not to pilfer Apollo’s bow. But Hermes is also a mediator between the living and the dead, a guide between two worlds.

37. For the suggestion that Philoctetes’ experience anticipates that of Odysseus himself in the Odyssey cf. Segal (n.2 above), 359.

38. At Odyssey 11.119–37 occurs the famous prophecy of Teiresias concerning a further, mysterious journey to be made by Odysseus, and also Odysseus’ eventual death; Odysseus’ journeyings seem to spiral away into a distant future. See Pucci (n.7 above), 14. For all its chronological complexities, the Odyssey makes certain sharp distinctions. Its opening lines, for example, emphatically present the fall of Troy as a past event—and (incidentally) as exclusively constitutive of Odysseus’ kleos.

39. For nostos as a return from death, and the notion that a sēma (tomb) is a ‘sign’ (interpretable by noos) not merely of death, but of life after death, see Nagy, G., ‘Sēma and Noēsis: Some Illustrations’, Arethusa 16 (1983), 35–55Google Scholar.