Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English
from c.1970 to the Present  

Project Publications
(including Archived Conference papers)

2009 Democratic Turn Eseminar

1998-2008 Archived topics

January Conference 1999
THEATRE : ANCIENT & MODERN

Return to contents

Enter Odysseus: Greek Theatrical Conventions and Sophocles' Philoctetes

Eleanor O'Kell, University of Exeter, U.K.

In this paper I aim to discuss the Greek theatrical conventions of

i) having three actors
ii) describing the scenery and immediate locale and announcing entrances and exits
iii) the deus ex machina

and their contribution to the audience's understanding of dramatic characters. Through a consideration of theatrical conventions, the play as a performance and references within the play itself I hope to show that it is not only possible for Odysseus to be both the Merchant and Heracles in Philoctetes, as Errandonea has already suggested, but that the audience could recognise this in performance.[1]

i) Three actors

Some months ago I persuaded a non-classicist to attend a performance of Sophocles' Ajax, by the Actors of Dionysus, and he took great delight in consulting the programme, noting that the number of dramatic characters exceeded the number of actors and proceeding to 'spot' the double-ups. This reached the point where an actor would leave the stage and my companion would elbow me and ask 'Who's he going to come back as?'. I dutifully pointed out that this wasn't relevant to ancient theatre because it was the practice for three actors to share the roles and that the masks and costumes would have been sufficient to disguise the actor's identity.[2]

It then occurred to me that this might not be strictly true: size and vocal timbre would have been unaffected (indeed this could have been used as an advantage by the author: in both Sophocles' and Euripides' Electras Clytemnestra could be doubled with Orestes, in the Antigone Haimon with Eurydice, in the Ajax judicious use of the ekkyklema would enable Ajax to double with his brother Teucer) and the existence of a 'best actor' prize would surely have recognised versatility as well as virtuosity. The argument that 'best actor' went to the protagonist, who played the title, or largest role, while plausible is unsubstantiated and so may not always have been true: especially in those tragedies where there is no 'lead role' as such: in Trachiniae is the 'lead' Heracles or Deianeira, or the pair as it is possible for one actor to double the two?

In Philoctetes 'The protagonist played Philoctetes, and the deuteragonist, Neoptolemos; while the tritagonist took the parts of Odysseus, the pretended merchant, and Heracles.'[3] i.e. one actor played Odysseus, one of Neoptolemos' crew pretending to be a merchant and Heracles as separate dramatic entities. Likewise Falkner holds that 'we cannot accept [Errandonea's] view that the audience is to recognise Heracles as literally Odysseus in disguise' because there is no explicit reference to this possibility.[4] Falkner argues that disguised characters are always explicitly identified for the audience, as the merchant is at 123ff: e.g. in the Bacchaeof 405BC the audience watches Pentheus disguise himself as a woman, as they do Mnesilochus in the Thesmophoriazusae of 411BC, and Dionysus in the Frogs of 405BC is identified as being Dionysus, dressed as Heracles, lest he be mistaken as Heracles, dressed as Dionysus.

The ancient audience would, due to familiarity with the convention of three actors, have realised that the three characters who were played by the same actor were separate dramatic entities. However it has long been admitted (Errandonea, 1956, Falkner, 1998) that there are sufficient 'sign-posts' in the text, both explicit (123-31) and implicit to justify the identification of the merchant with Odysseus.[5] The implicit indications include Neoptolemos' question as to why Odysseus was not being his own messenger (aÙt£ggeloj, 568); that both are explicitly characterised as being profit driven; that the merchant has no name. Both the ancient and modern audience would give credence to such 'sign-posts' and, having accepted that Odysseus can appear in disguise once will wonder if he will do so again. The audience may have expected Odysseus to appear in disguise because in Euripides' Philoctetes (431BC) Athena had disguised Odysseus as Actor, a friend of Palamedes, so that he could win Philoctetes over.[6]

The difference between the ancient and modern audience, however, is that once a modern audience appreciates that the Merchant is Odysseus in disguise they will naturally identify Heracles, if played by the same actor, as Odysseus in disguise and the only way a director will be able to convince them otherwise is by having a fourth actor play Heracles and even, in a masked production, having Odysseus visible to the audience. The audience's interpretation of 'Heracles' as a disguised Odysseus yields a different reading of the play than one in which Heracles is Heracles himself. However, the fact remains that if there are sufficient pointers in the play to indicate an identification between Odysseus and Heracles then the ancient audience, although familiar with a convention which implies character separation, would also regard the character of Heracles in this way.

Such pointers would include similarity of characterisation, indication that Odysseus is the type of character who could and would pretend to be a god and theatrical similarity between the two roles: similar use of language (vocabulary and subject matter), physical appearance, mode of effecting an entrance and characteristic actions. Of all of these it is physical appearance and characteristic actions which cannot be reconstructed from the text; in any case the latter had little relevance in the ancient theatre where any subtle movement was lost and unsubtle movement would appear comic.

With regard to appearance an ancient actor would be identifiable by stature, gait and possibly costume. In some cases there is very little time between an actor exiting as one character and returning as another and it is possible that complete changes of costume were not made. Indeed, in view of Odysseus' careful statement regarding the complete costume change from Odysseus to 'Merchant' this may have been unusual and does indicate that costume need not truly identify a character. This warns the audience that Odysseus' disguises are too good to be seen through unless forewarned and that they should not discount the possibility that other, completely re-costumed, characters played by this actor should not be disassociated from 'Odysseus'. Costume, it seems, need not be a definite indication of a character's true identity. Hence the need to show Pentheus and Mnesilochus changing, although they would have retained the same mask (albeit without the beard in the latter case) and to identify whether it is Dionysus dressed as Heracles or Heracles as Dionysus in Frogs.

Unlike these details of performance, methods of effecting entrances and exits can be reconstructed from the text, when this is taken in conjunction with internal scenic description and the structure of the ancient theatre itself.

ii) Describing the scenery and immediate locale and announcing entrances and exits

The series of entrances effected by Odysseus will be examined to discover their method and whether there is any pattern which makes them distinctive of Odysseus. If so this would indicate that another character utilising similar methods would be associated with, or legitimately suspected of being, Odysseus.

Odysseus and Philoctetes give a detailed description of the island so that the audience know that Philoctetes' cave is situated part way up a cliff face on a promontory. The level of the orchestra becomes the beach at the cliff's base, the steps to the stage rocks (onto which Philoctetes threatens to hurl himself) and the roof of the skene building, complete with theologion, the top of the cliff.

The most detailed description however is of the cave itself, given by Odysseus at the beginning of the play (16-20):

And look for where there is, hereabouts, a rock with two mouths,
Of the sort where on the one hand in the hard cold weather there is a double
Sun-seat, on the other in hot weather the breeze
Sends sleep through the pierced chamber.

A two mouthed cave suggests two possible stage sets:

1) two doors from the skene building with rocky surrounds, such that Neoptolemos can investigate the cave and declare it empty by exiting through one door and appearing through the other - which seems unlikely given that a Philoctetes who cannot wander far afield would then have to enter along the other parodos; or

2) one door into the skene building surrounded by rocks (as used in satyr drama, e.g. Cyclops and possibly Ichneutai and such tragedies as Prometheus Bound and Andromeda) so that the stated second entrance is on the other side of the headland, i.e. backstage. This would equate with Odysseus' description of the cave acting like a wind tunnel and providing morning and afternoon aspects toward the sun, the mšn/dš opposition then being particularly apt, especially if Odysseus is side on to the skene building when he delivers these lines and illustrates the opposition with his hands. This particular set would mean that Philoctetes could enter the cave, after Neoptolemos has declared it empty, from the rear entrance and that Odysseus' 'surprise', that is unannounced, mid-line entrances of 974 and 1293 could be made from the cave itself.[7]

It is accepted as a convention that entrances in Greek theatre are announced and recent scholarship has suggested that rather than this serving the function of identifying the character for the audience it indicates the method of entry: entries along the parodoi being announced and entrances from the skene not announced.[8]

From the layout of the ancient Greek theatre we can see that some of the audience (those seated opposite the parodoi) would have been aware of approaching characters several seconds before other audience members and the characters on the stage. The difficulty with lines of sight between the parodoi and some seats made it necessary to announce an entrance for those members of the audience who could not see characters approaching. We also need to bear in mind that the acoustics were at their best in the centre of the orchestra and that from the parodoi a single voice speaking, as opposed to a chorus singing, may have been indistinct. This would account for the interpolated choral utterance of 1218-21 before Odysseus and Neoptolemos appear already in conversation, which has been accounted for by the suggestion that it is a replacement for a lost announcement of an entry along a parodos[9] However, it is not necessary for an announcement to have been lost for a scribe to add in a 'conventional' announcement and, more importantly, the first three lines of the interchange between Odysseus and Neoptolemos contain no information and both tone and content are repeated in the following lines. This indicates that these lines can be unclear, spoken from the parodos without detriment to the scene: serving the purpose of effecting an entrance in mid-debate and covering the thirty, or thirty-five, metre distance between parodos and the centre of the stage, or orchestra. If this is the case then Odysseus only makes one announced entrance, as the 'Merchant', whom everyone on the stage except Philoctetes knows not to be the stranger they claim he is. Even if it is not the case it is apparent from the text that Odysseus' entrances are only announced when he is in company, rather than alone. In this way Sophocles characterises Odysseus as arriving unannounced, arriving by surprise, opportunely and when least expected.

The element of surprise in Odysseus' appearances is evident from the text as he is not only unannounced but also cuts in the middle of a line for both his solo entrances as Odysseus. He enters and speaks simultaneously at 974 and 1293, not having been seen or heard by Neoptolemos, Philoctetes or the chorus, before those lines, but with a full awareness of the dramatic situation. This has been explained as being due to the fact that Odysseus is either i) hiding behind the scenery, rather than exiting at his previous exit, or ii) entering along a parodos and then hiding behind the scenery.

However, I would attribute this to him approaching unobserved on the other side of the headland (i.e. backstage), entering the cave from which he can overhear the events on stage and then stepping out, onto the stage and into view, through the cave entrance. There are those who question Odysseus' motivation in doing this but this is consistent with his characterisation and Neoptolemos' statement at 466-7:

For prudence calls
us to watch for sailing not from unseen places but rather from close by.

Odysseus returns as the 'Merchant' because he considers that Neoptolemos is taking overlong (as he stated at 127) and may require assistance, 'overlong' being 408 lines. 347 lines then elapse before Odysseus erupts from concealment to prevent Neoptolemos giving back the bow. The comparable length of elapsed time would indicate to Odysseus that Neoptolemos may be in difficulties again, and, as there would be no logical reason for the Merchant to return, Odysseus' curiosity and desire for victory would naturally lead to him listening unobserved.

Odysseus' familiarity with the geography of the promontory was revealed during the opening scene of the play and Odysseus repeatedly expressed concern about being overheard from the cave at 11, 14, 22 and 29; in addition Philoctetes enters from the cave in response to noises that he hears in the orchestra at 1263-4.

Philoctetes' words following Odysseus' entrance at 974 support my view that Odysseus has entered through the cave. At 1081 Philoctetes addresses the cave as ð ko…laj pštraj gÚalon, 'o hollow within a cavernous rock'. This follows 1013-4 where Philoctetes accuses Odysseus of having an evil/cowardly soul ¹ kak¾ ... di¦ mucîn blšpous' ¢eˆ yuc» 'always peering forth through (the obscurity of) the secret places from which it watches' which Jebb takes as 'your base soul peering from some ambush' and Webster as 'always peering into innermost corners [of Neoptolemos' soul]'.[10] When this is compared to Euripides' Helen 189, where pštrina mÚcata gÚala are the 'innermost recesses of the rocks', the implication that Odysseus has been hiding in the cave becomes even more apparent. Philoctetes' description applies to an Odysseus who always skulks, eavesdropping, in the shadows and this fosters the audience's expectation that he may appear in this way again: unannounced from the other side of the headland.

Odysseus and Neoptolemos exit at 1080 and re-enter at 1218. Odysseus then announces his intention to report Neoptolemos' insubordination to the Achaean leaders and exits at 1258. Jebb suggested that he actually 'remains near to watch unseen' which is implausible given that Odysseus' threat to tell the army implies a departure to the ship along the parodos (a visible departure is necessary even if it is a bluff, as convincingly maintained by Calder).[11] This is the only exit which makes sense of Neoptolemos' following line that Odysseus has come to his senses. Odysseus cannot double back as he would be seen and cannot enter the cave because Philoctetes is inside. Yet it would not be unreasonable for the audience to wonder if, when and whence he might reappear; and given the obvious advantage of the cave as a listening post, whether he will re-utilise it.

Odysseus reappears at line 1293 and his voice is heard by Philoctetes before he is seen. Therefore he approaches from behind Philoctetes, but not from such a point where Neoptolemos or the chorus have time to give warning. Taplin's argument about deliberate mirroring between these two scenes makes a second entrance through the cave dramatically logical, as well as feasible, especially as a stealthy, and observable, entrance is an impossibility.[12] Similarly his suggestion that Odysseus' exit be timed to coincide with Philoctetes' feà 'alas' (1302) which gives a total appearance of nine and a half lines would suggest that his exit is the same way, an exit which gives safety from bow shot, and Neoptolemos' following statement about honour prevents pursuit of a man no longer clearly in view. The alternative suggestion that Neoptolemos grapples with Philoctetes for long enough to cover Odysseus' exit via the parodos seems to be dramatically strained to the point of appearing comic.

Similarly the audience may not expect any more surprise appearances from the cave by Odysseus. To do so would be to overuse a dramatic device and make it risible, especially as it would result in him being shot at by Philoctetes. However, the audience may well wonder whether Odysseus has given up, when he had admitted that by nature he is 'desirous of victory everywhere' (1153) and whether and whence he might reappear. The cliff top, being approachable from the other side of the headland, presents itself as a distinct possibility, particularly because the greater angle of elevation (and maybe the sun) would decrease the chance of Odysseus being shot at by Philoctetes.

However, before we turn to details of Odysseus' characterisation, there is a third unannounced entrance to be considered: that of Heracles as deus ex machina at 1409.

iii) Deus ex machina

By theatrical convention divinities with this function (or that of a prologue) appear on the theologion (or are suspended from a crane) and are usually announced. It has been suggested that those divinities who appeared on a crane were announced and that those who stood on the theologion were not: for unannounced divine entrances see Iphigenia in Tauris 1435 (before 412BC), Euripides' Suppliant Women 1183 (?423BC), Helen 1624 (412BC). All these characters appear on a palace/temple roof. Heracles is not announced and the text can be taken to indicate that he is standing on the theologion/cliff top above the cave, on the 'rock-roof' of Philoctetes' dwelling, rather than airborne on a crane. That Heracles is unannounced, like Odysseus, and appears on a 'roof-top' is not inconsistent with divinity but logically if Odysseus can enter the cave from the other side of the headland he can also gain access to the cliff top. Hawkins has recently draw attention to the fact that: 'Odysseus suddenly appears [978], almost in a parody of the formal deus ex machina.' - and this similarity would not have been lost on an ancient audience. As Sophocles had had Odysseus repeat the surprise, deus ex machina, method of entry the audience would associate a third iteration with Odysseus, until receiving information to the contrary. Any indication that this deus ex machina does not fulfil that role will indicate that this is Odysseus, not Heracles.

The deus ex machina should fulfil a specific function, as delineated in Aristotle's Poetics 15:

The deus ex machina should be used only for matters outside the play proper, either for things that happened before it and that cannot be known by the human characters, or for things that are yet to come and that require to be foretold prophetically.

and Sophocles' Heracles does not fulfil either of these functions. His only note of prophecy is that Philoctetes will shoot at Paris, and the odds are that having been told this he will shoot at Paris and, because his arrows are always sure, will kill him: therefore if Odysseus was uttering this speech all that it foretells will come true.[13] This is because all other details accord with the oracle of Helenus as revealed by Odysseus and Neoptolemos (Odysseus told Neoptolemos that both the men were required before he told Philoctetes that the bow alone would suffice) and Neoptolemos' own promise to return Philoctetes to his home (as overheard by Odysseus). The significant outcome is that the result, Philoctetes going to Troy willingly, is what was required by the oracle and what Odysseus initially set out to achieve.[14]

Jebb (xv) considers that:

'Odysseus is baffled; but the decree of Zeus, whose servant he called himself, is performed. The supernatural agency of Heracles is employed in a strictly artistic manner, because the deadlock of motives has come about by a natural process: the problem now is how to reconcile human piety, as represented by the decision of Neoptolemos, with the purpose of the gods, as revealed in the oracle of Helenus. Only a divine message could bend the will of Philoctetes, or absolve the conscience of the man who had promised to bring him home.'

At Odysseus' last exit it was obvious that Philoctetes would not go to Troy in response to human force, deception or entreaty. Odysseus had already tried to use the gods to motivate Philoctetes:

It is Zeus, that you [Philoctetes] see, Zeus, the ruler of the land,
Zeus this is pleasing to: I am under him. (989-90).

and Heracles also states (1415) that he has come to convey the will of Zeus. Interestingly the above phrasing would indicate that Odysseus presents himself to Philoctetes as an embodiment of Zeus, it is only one step from that to making the outside match the inside, with or without divine assistance.

Philoctetes' response is one of incredulity, he considers this claim to be Zeus' messenger to be one of Odysseus' deceptions:

Hated one, what things you discover [eØr…skeij] to say:
Putting forward gods you make the gods false. (991-2)
To which Odysseus replies:
No, but true. The road/journey starts. (993).

Philoctetes considers this 'journey' to be his journey to Troy, but for the man of many turnings is this a different road, the one towards impersonation?

The only character in Greek myth who discovers gods (using the same verb, eØr…skw, which has a sense of fabrication) is Sisyphus who, according to Critias' Sisyphus, invented them as a tool to manipulate men and Sophocles characterises Odysseus as his son in all the plays in which he appears as a character.[15] In Philoctetes Odysseus is 'the son of Sisyphus bought by Laertes' (417) and Philoctetes alludes to the cycle of myth surrounding Sisyphus when he says (624-5) that he would not be persuaded by Odysseus even to return to the light from Hades, a thing which Odysseus' father, i.e. Sisyphus, did. At the time of making this statement Philoctetes considers himself to be dead: to be 'a ghost, a shadow of smoke' (946) and is under the spell of an Odysseus-coached Neoptolemos, to whom he says:

You who alone have given to me to see the light of the sun
You have resurrected me from beneath my enemies. (664-5).

Significantly before Heracles' entrance Philoctetes implicitly refers to Odysseus as the true son of Sisyphus, inventor of gods and flouter of divine rules as well as 'the all-destructive son of Laertes' (1356). He says:

You have shown me the nature, child,
From which you are sprung, not fathered by Sisyphus,
But by Achilles. (1310-12).

If Odysseus is 'the son of Sisyphus' and 'only a divine message' would achieve Odysseus' aim the question we need to ask is would Odysseus concoct one? And the answer given by the Sophoclean characterisation is that he would.[16] Non-Sophoclean characterisations of Odysseus also indicate that he would be capable of doing this: in the Odyssey of Homer Athene disguises Odysseus and makes him appear god-like to mortals (in Sophocles' Philoctetes Odysseus prays to Hermes and Athene to help him succeed and Athene had disguised Odysseus in Euripides' Philoctetes, although not as a god); in Euripidean portrayals he is referred to as the 'son of Sisyphus' - without need for any other name in Iphigenia at Aulis - and Sophocles' characterisation and 'sign-posting' is consistent with both of these.[17] In general therefore, Odysseus is ever ready to spin tales in order to deceive others into doing what he wants them to do and unscrupulous in the pursuit of goals and he is no different in Sophocles' Philoctetes:

When it is an advantage to do so [tell lies], it is not distinguished to hesitate (111)

and

Because where it is necessary for there to be such people, I am such a person
And where there is a choice,
You could not find anyone more pious than me [mou m¦llon oÙden' eÙsšbh].
But I am by nature desirous of victory everywhere. (1049ff).

Odysseus is the only character, other than Heracles, to mention eusebeia and Heracles, uncharacteristically, states:

Have this in mind when you destroy the land, to well respect [eÙsebein] the gods: Because all other things are regarded as second
By father Zeus. For good reverence [eusebeia] does not die with mortals:
And whether they live or die, it is not destroyed. (1440ff).

If this was prophecy a warning about a resultant disastrous journey home for the Greek fleet would be expected, but it is not mentioned. However if Odysseus is playing Heracles and is as pious as he has stated it would not be out of character for him to interject this as it is only when Troy has fallen that anyone can go home and Troy cannot fall without Philoctetes.

Odysseus also shows his eusebeia by praying to Hermes and Athene (133-5) and the assistance of Hermes is implicitly evident throughout the play. He prays to Hermes Ð pšmpwn dÒlioj - 'the trickster escort' and the resulting trick is for Neoptolemos (Odysseus' mask/screen - prÒblhma1008) to 'spin a tale for the soul of Philoctetes' (54-5) so that he shall do what is required by both the oracle and those who have sent Odysseus and Neoptolemos. Odysseus, in convincing Philoctetes (who considers himself 'dead' while on the island and resurrected by the promise of returning home), is a psychopomos, a leader of souls, like Hermes. Hermes is also an individual who watches from the shadows, in Ion he goes into the bushes by the temple in order to watch the events of the play, and he is particularly the god of merchants and sophistic logic.

As far as the sophists were concerned success in moulding another individual to your will consisted of finding the right motivation for them: hence Odysseus uses the motivations of fame, of being called good and just, on Neoptolemos and he succumbs. Odysseus and Neoptolemos both believe that the twin motivations of fame and health will work on Philoctetes, but they are wrong. Heracles' speech includes the same motivating factors, so why does he succeed; what is the difference? There are two: firstly Philoctetes has longed to hear Heracles' voice (1445), secondly he uses muthoi, not logoi, which Philoctetes has come to distrust. Muthos and logos can be used interchangeably but they are not used in this way in this play: Heracles is the only character who speaks in/of muthoi rather than logoi. This is not unconnected with his divinity and role as a spokesman for Zeus, who speaks in muthoi but muthoi are also stories which are wholly, or partly, false.

Neoptolemos had expressed the desire that Philoctetes should trust in the gods and in his logoi (1374-5), that his presence at Troy is necessary and that healing and fame await him there. The oracle of Helenus, as reported by the 'Merchant', Heracles, and Odysseus himself, all confirm this and all except Heracles do this through reasoned argument, logoi. However, Philoctetes has no trust in logoi after being duped by Neoptolemos and tells Neoptolemos so at 1268-76. As Odysseus could have overheard this exchange while exiting (he stated his intention to exit at 1258 and left along a parodos) this could be the reason why 'Heracles' uses muthoi.[18]

Would it not offend Heracles that Odysseus was making free with his persona and laying claim to immortality in so doing? Maybe, and he may not be appeased by the offering that Philoctetes will make, but does this Heracles lay claim to immortality? He comes 'abandoning the seat of the heavens out of gratitude' (1413); if he is, as I have already suggested, standing on the cliff top, not suspended in mid-air this line is accurate for Heracles/Odysseus, as well as a true Heracles who has come down from Olympus. Also Heracles appears having won ¢q£naton ¢ret¾n- 'deathless reputation' (1240). In Plato's Symposium 208d ¢q£natoj ¢ret»is the reputation which survives on earth, not immortality in the sense of divinity. Therefore, it would be amiss to interpret this as being a claim to, or an admission of, immortality. Even if it is interpreted in this way, the statement is followed by the disclaimer 'as it is present in your [Philoctetes'] eyes' (1420). If this is Odysseus in disguise then he will appear to be immortal Heracles, as far as Philoctetes is concerned, but not to the god, as he has carefully, as befits a master of words, told a story and not claimed anything which is not part of the mortal lot for himself - except in someone else's view. This is an extension of the opening lines of Heracles' speech where he invites Philoctetes:

F£skein ('to deem/think' rather than 'to know' by comparison with Oidipous
Tyrannos 462) that you are hearing Heracles' utterance
And both to pay attention and to gaze upon the apparition. (1411-2).

Even the metre suggests that 'Heracles' is not truly a god because anapests give way to iambics at 1418, impressive utterance for the cadence of normal, mortal, speech. This may, as Hoppin suggests, be to reinforce the human, rather than the divine, character of Heracles and his bond with Philoctetes, but equally it may identify him as Odysseus.[19]

The characterisation of Heracles and Odysseus would indicate that Heracles could be Odysseus in disguise and account for the fact that the character of Heracles, taken as Heracles, is unsatisfactory in not yielding any information beyond that already known and seeming to exist only to resolve a dramatic impasse, it has even been suggested that Sophocles wrote the part of Heracles to resolve a situation which had arisen in the drama and was irreconcilable by the characters within the play.[20] In Odysseus, son of Sisyphus, acting Heracles we find the answer to Philoctetes' question of 451-2 (Falkner's translation):

How should I make this all add up? How can I approve of it, when
in approving the ways of the gods I find that the gods are evil?

Or rather not evil, because Odysseus will not have himself defined as acting well or evilly but merely as acting to accomplish a necessary end: the will of Zeus, the end of the Trojan War and all that will follow it, including a homecoming.

In conclusion the text supports the possibility that 'Heracles' is Odysseus and if this premise is accepted certain similar aspects of characterisation and use of language become apparent. There are sufficient textual 'sign-posts' in the play for some, if not all, of the audience to recognise 'Heracles' as Odysseus in disguise. However, in performance this proportion would increase in number depending upon details of direction such as method of exit and entrance and costuming. In the case of Sophocles' Philoctetes the mechanics of theatrical staging can clarify what expectations could be built up in the audience and hence what that audience was supposed to see in the play, and especially in the characters within the play.

Return to contents page

Endnotes

In addition to thanking the anonymous referees I would like to thank Lorna Hardwick for her encouragement and all the scholars who attended the Open University Conference for their vigorous reaction to this paper, from which I have benefited and fashioned improvements. I would also like to acknowledge a fruitful discussion with Joe Wilson (Scranton, USA) following his paper 'Replacement heroes: Sophocles' Philoctetes' at the Classical Association Conference, Liverpool, 1999, in which he held that Heracles is not, and is not meant to be considered as, Odysseus in disguise.

[1] I. Errandonea in 'Filoctetes', Emerita 24, 1956: 72-107, holds the view that Odysseus in Philoctetes is both the Merchant and Heracles but does not consider performance issues in establishing his thesis.

[2] James Svendsen pointed out that the University of Utah production of the Philoctetes, in which he was involved, successfully used one actor for the roles of Odysseus, the Merchant and Heracles, without the audience noticing. While I take my hat off to the actor concerned I would point out that he was listed in the program under three different names, one for each character: this means that there was no numeric discrepancy between characters and cast - giving the audience no reason to suspect a double-up.

[3] R. C. Jebb, Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Part V, Cambridge University Press, 1898, 5.

[4] T. Falkner, 'Containing Tragedy: Rhetoric and Self Representation in Sophocles' Philoctetes', Classical Antiquity 17, 1998: 25-58: p.47. Henceforth, Falkner, Self-Representation.

[5] For identification of 'Merchant' and Odysseus see Falkner, Self-Representation: p.35-6.

You, staying here now, lie in wait for him,
Meanwhile I will go away, so that I shall not be seen advising you,
And I will send the watchman back to the ship.
If I think you are lingering
Too long a time, I will send back here again
That self-same man, reshaped by trickery into
The character of a captain of a merchant-man, so that he may be at hand unseen:
Certainly, my son, take whatever you hear to be helpful
From his many intricate words. Philoctetes 123-31

All translations, unless otherwise attributed, are my own and their intention is to convey the structure of the Greek, rather than its poetry.

[6] Athena may have appeared as a deus ex machina at the end of Euripides' play to reveal that Actor was Odysseus and a divinity may have ended Aeschylus' Philoctetes: see W. M. Calder, 'Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes', GRBS 12, 1971: 153-74, p.169, henceforth, Calder, Apologia

[7] Falkner, Self-Representation, p.34, identifies a front and rear entrance but then suggests that, rather than springing out from behind the scenery as O. Taplin ('Significant Actions in Sophocles' Philoctetes' GRBS, 12, 1971: 25-44: p.27-9: henceforth, Taplin, Actions) and Jebb's commentary have Odysseus do, Odysseus enters by 'circling the orchestra' - which, happening in full view of two characters and the chorus, would lose the element of surprise and gain one of pantomime.

[8] The issue of announced and surprise entrances is discussed by R. Hamilton 'Announced Entrances in Greek Tragedy' HSCPh, vol. 82, 1978: 63-82 and he identifies Odysseus' entrances at 974 and 1293 as probable skene entrances by virtue of their being unannounced, p.75-6.

[9] Taplin, Actions, p.39-43, provides reasons for their excision but suggests that they may have replaced a choral ode.

[10] T. B. L. Webster, Philoctetes, Cambridge University Press, 1970.

[11] See Calder, Apologia, p.169.

[12] Taplin, Actions, p28-32.

[13] A. H. Hawkins, 'Ethical Tragedy and Sophocles' Philoctetes', Classical World 92, 1999: 337-57 p.353: however, she goes on to treat Heracles as the genuine article, p.356-7, and takes 1440-45 and the mention of eusebeia to refer to Neoptolemos' future slaying of Priam at an altar. However, Heracles' use of the second person plural imperative indicates that both Neoptolemos and Philoctetes are cautioned, not Neoptolemos alone.

[14] P.E. Easterling, 'Philoctetes and Modern Criticism', ICS 3:27-39, p.33-4 states that the function of Heracles is not to cancel the will of Philoctetes but rather to win his willing and eager consent.

[15] cf. Critias' Sisyphus

And thereupon men seem to me to have set up punishing laws, in order that justice should be ruler… Thereafter although the laws used to prevent them from openly doing deeds by force, they still did these secretly, under these circumstances it seems to me first that a man who was logical and wise in his mind knew how to invent gods for mortals [puknÒj tij kaˆ sofÕj gnwmhn ¢nhr / qeîn dšoj qnhto‹sin ™xeure‹n] so that… even should you desire evil in secret, this will not escape the notice of the gods… Saying these logoi he explained the sweetest of lessons, having blinded truth with false logoi… And he established with the beauty of logoi that godhead dwells in the shining-out place [the sky], he extinguished lawlessness through fear.

[16] It is notable that the oracle of Helenus is passed on to Neoptolemos by Odysseus, in one version, expounded by the 'Merchant' in another and also taken up by Heracles. The exact details of the oracle remain unknown for much of the play, as they are apportioned by Odysseus when he deems the time is right. The view is held that Heracles verifies the oracle but if Heracles is a manifestation of Odysseus then Odysseus uses oracles to manipulate men.

[17] Iphigenia at Aulis 524, 1363 also Cyclops 104 and Ajax 190. I have discussed the identification of Odysseus with Sisyphus and both of them with Sophists in an unpublished paper delivered to the Bristol International Myth Colloquium, July 1998: 'Odysseus, son of Sisyphus: The Role of Education and Politics in Redefining Mythological Identity', also included in my MA dissertation, Manchester 1998.

[18] Joe Wilson (see acknowledgements) conceded the point that in Homer as well as being the utterance of a god a muthos can also be a story which is partly, or wholly, false (e.g. Helen's muthos, Odyssey IV 250-64, 270-89, of her loyalty to the Greeks in Troy which, in the absence of Odysseus has no witness) and that the audience would appreciate this ambiguity and might suspect that Odysseus was Heracles as a result: despite continuing to deny this possibility. In addition, if Odysseus/Heracles claims only to tell stories, to act, then Odysseus is not being impious.

[19] M. C. Hoppin, 'Metrical Effects, Dramatic Illusion, and the Two Endings of Sophocles' Philoctetes', Arethusa 23, 1990: 141-82, p.154.

[20] H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama: A study of 6 Greek plays and Hamlet, London, Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1956, on the deus ex machina p.103-6.

Return to contents