1. Reference to the following editions and commentaries will be made by citing only the editor's name: Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, ed. Jebb, R. C. VII: The Ajax (Cambridge 1896Google Scholar); Sophocles, ed. Schneidewin, F. W. and Nauck, A., rev. Radermacher, L., Aias (Berlin 1913Google Scholar); The Plays of Sophocles, ed. Kamerbeek, J. C. I: The Ajax (Leiden 1953Google Scholar); Sophocles: Ajax, ed. Stanford, W. B. (London 1963Google Scholar); Sophocle: Ajax, ed. de Romilly, J. (Paris 1976Google Scholar).

2. Greek Tragedy ³ (London 1961Google ScholarPubMed), Form and Meaning in Drama (London 1956Google Scholar); ‘The Rhesus and related matters’, YCS 25 (1977), 317–50Google Scholar.

3. ‘The Debate-Scenes in the Ajax’, AJP 102 (1981), 275–88Google Scholar.

4. Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1951), 49–57Google Scholar.

5. See Platt, A., ‘The Burial of Ajax’, CR 25 (1911), 101–104Google Scholar.

6. ‘Sophocles' Ajax and Sophoclean Plot Construction’, AJP 95 (1974), 24–42Google Scholar.

7. Sophocles: A Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), 63Google Scholar. Against this view it might well be argued that if Sophocles had actually wanted to cut three parts down to one, then he would have done just that. In any case, the two parts of the Ajax do not represent a compression of material in the Aeschylean trilogy The Judgement of the Arms, The Thracian Women and The Women of Salamis.

8. Greek Tragedy, tr. Frankfort, H. A. (London and New York 1965), 103Google Scholar, where use is also made of the formula ‘the disturbed world-order regains its equilibrium’. In Greek Tragic Poetry tr. Dillon, Matthew (New Haven and London 1983), 130Google Scholar, Lesky talks in terms of the ‘descent’ of the hero, followed by his ‘ascent’ and restoration of honour, these lines then being joined in a ‘balanced harmony’. He is, however, at pains to point out that this structure is different from that used in O. T. and Electra.

9. Bates, W. N., Sophocles (Pennsylvania 1940), 113Google Scholar.

10. See e.g. Patin, H., Sophocle ¹⁰ (Paris 1913), 29Google Scholar. Evidence that burial was an important issue, if such evidence is in fact required, can be found in literature in general from Homer onwards. The interest of fifth century Athenians is clear from a number of historical incidents, not to mention Sophocles' Antigone. With regard to Ajax himself, the epic tradition suggests unusual circumstances concerning the disposal of the corpse (see e.g. Kamerbeek [n.1 above], Introduction 3). This may well later have become something of a talking point.

11. See Letters, F. J. H., The Life and Work of Sophocles (London and New York 1953), 133Google Scholar.

12. See Méautis, G., Sophocle (Paris 1957), 45Google Scholar.

13. See e.g. Kamerbeek (n.1 above), Introduction 14, and de Romilly (n.1 above), Introduction 21. Pearson, A. C., ‘Sophocles, Ajax, 961-973’, CQ 16 (1922), 124–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that the second part is specifically designed to show that Ajax wasn't the traitor which the first part apparently revealed him as.

14. See his Introduction (n.1 above) xxviii-xxxii. The relevance ot Ajax's hero cult to the play has often been denied, but has always found some measure of support. See e.g. G. Norwood, , Greek Tragedy (London 1920), 136Google Scholar; Sicherl, M., ‘The Tragic Issue in Sophocles' Ajax’ YCS 25 (1977), 67–98 (especially 97Google Scholar); and Segal, Charles, Tragedy and Civilization (Cambridge [Mass.] and London 1981), 142 and 439 n.119Google Scholar. Adams, S. M., Sophocles the Playwright (Toronto 1957), 23Google Scholar, argues that the inclusion of material with hero cult implications was seen by Sophocles as a means of making his play relevant to the religious functions of the Athenian theatre. Burian, P., ‘Supplication and Hero Cult in Sophocles' Ajax’ GRBS 13 (1972), 151–56Google Scholar, links the hero cult idea specifically with the role of Eurysaces as suppliant without, however, accepting Jebb's view of it as the source of the play's unity.

15. Sophocles, tr. Harvey, H. and Harvey, D. (Oxford 1979), 30–32Google Scholar. Cf. also Knox, B. M. W., ‘The Ajax of Sophocles’, HSCP 65 (1961), 1–37Google Scholar. As Knox puts it (op. cit., 2), ‘The heroic self-assertion of an Achilles, an Ajax, will never be seen again; the best this new world has to offer is the humane and compromising temper of Odysseus, the worst the ruthless and cynical cruelty of the Atridae. But nothing like the greatness of the man who lies there dead.’ Cf. also Taplin, O., Greek Tragedy in Action (London 1978), 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kott, J., The Eating of the Gods (New York 1970), 72Google Scholar, who notes that the post-heroic world of the second part is contemporary with Sophocles' original audience as indeed with all subsequent audiences.

16. The Masks of Tragedy (Austin 1963), 189Google ScholarPubMed. Cf. Segal (n. 14 above), 111, for whom ‘The structure of the Ajax. effectively expresses this interplay between time as the absolute measure of existence and time as mediated by the human constructs of society.’

17. A Study of Sophoclean Drama (New York 1958), 49Google ScholarPubMed.

18. The Poetry of Greek Tragedy (Baltimore 1958), 80Google Scholar.

19. An Introduction to Sophocles ² (London 1969), 102Google Scholar. Wigodsky, M. M., ‘The “Salvation” of Ajax’, Hermes 90 (1962), 149–58Google Scholar, finds in the prophecy of Calchas (as reported by the messenger) a significant link between Ajax's death and burial. Difficulties that arise from Wigodsky's interpretation are noted by Stanford (n.1 above), 237.

20. Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles (London and Canberra 1982), 165Google ScholarPubMed. Cf. Taplin (n.15 above), 148. Grutter, R., Untersuchungen zur Struktur des Sophokleischen Aias (Kiel 1971), 108Google Scholar, nominates search and discovery as one of three aspects which taken together produce a unified structure. Underlying this structure is a human/superhuman polarity which can also be expressed in terms of the Heraclitan conception of the unity of opposites (op.cit., 150).

21. Kamerbeek (n.1 above), Introduction 15, conveniently itemizes the continual presence of Ajax (living, then dead), the overlapping scene 719-815, Teucer's role and the preparation for this, the motif of Hector's sword, the climax effect involving Menelaus and Agamemnon, the role of Eurysaces, and the role of Odysseus. Stanford (n.1 above), Introduction xliii ff. and lxi ff., provides a useful discussion of the whole question.

22. Burton, R. W. B., The Chorus in Sophocles' Tragedies (Oxford 1980), 38Google Scholar, sees the echoing of the first stasimon by the third stasimon as partly a device to impose some degree of unity across the diptych structure. But it seems unlikely that Sophocles would have made this sort of token gesture.

23. Kitto (n.2 above, 1961), 118-23; id. (n.2 above, 1956), 179-98; id. (n.2 above, 1977), esp. 323f.

24. Knox (n.15 above), 2. Leinieks, V., ‘Aias and the Day of Wrath’, CJ 69 (1974), 193–201Google Scholar, claims that the unifying factor is the day of Athena's wrath, the second part of the play specifically identifying the forces operating against the hero.

25. Sophocle: Poète Tragique (Paris 1969), 35–37Google Scholar.

26. Kitto (n.2 above, 1977). Kitto argues strongly that if we want to get close to the dramatist's intention, then we should take as our starting point Aristotle's hē tōn pragmatōn sustasis, which he translates as ‘the organizing, or structuring, of the dramatic material’, taking the term ‘material’ to mean ‘everything that the dramatist laid before the attention of his audience’. However, Kitto's sustasis pragmatōn is the text as we have it, which is not necessarily exactly the sustasis pragmatōn of the original conception, if such a conception existed. And in any case, in creating a play, Sophocles did not go through the same mental process that Aristotle or anyone else does in analysing the finished product.

27. Kitto (n.2 above, 1961), 118.

28. The precise meaning of the Greek at this point is open to debate. Cf. e.g. Lucas, D. W. (ed.), Aristotle Poetics (Oxford 1968), ad loc.Google Scholar

29. To look at it from another viewpoint, once Sophocles had composed the Trugrede and the suicide speech was he likely to start again and write a new play to satisfy academic criteria in anticipation of Aristotle?

30. Similarly, the contrast between heroic and post-heroic worlds may have emerged as an increasingly significant factor during the composition of the second part.

31. As usual, Kitto (n.2 above, 1956), 180, finds an apt comment: ‘If a medieval diptych should portray, in one half, the felicity of Heaven, and in the other half the terrors of Hell, we should hardly say that the painter had failed to achieve a unity because he ran short of ideas about Heaven.’

32. Introduction (n.1 above), xliv. However, he notes (1) the probable existence of similar bitterness of tone in debating in Aeschylus' The Judgement of the Arms (Fr. 175N² = Fr. 286 Mette [Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin 1959Google Scholar] from the scholiast on Ajax 189) and (2) practices in Greek oratory, as evidenced ‘even’ by Demosthenes.

33. Introduction (n.1 above), 15. Cf. his grudging acceptance (ad 1123) that the scholiast at least has a point.

34. Due Seminari Romani di Eduard Fraenkel (Rome 1977), 37Google Scholar.

35. Sophocles: An Interpretation (Cambridge 1980), 61 ffGoogle Scholar. For another analysis of the issues, see Torrance, R. M., ‘Sophocles: Some Bearings’, HSCP 69 (1965), 269–327Google Scholar. Torrance suggests that one function of the scenes is to serve as a commentary (in the form of a serious parody) on Ajax's relations with the gods, there being a parallel between Teucer's attitude to the Atreidae and Ajax's to Athene.

36. We may note in passing other explanations based on practical considerations. These range from the unlikely idea that Sophocles was accommodating the desire of a particular actor to play the parts of the two Atreidae, to the more reasonable supposition that a double debate structure in some earlier play influenced Sophocles' thinking. In this context, it is worth noting the debate situation as such involving Ajax and Odysseus in Aeschylus' The Judgement of the Arms (see n.32 above).

37. Die Dramatische Technik des Sophocles (Berlin 1917), 67fGoogle Scholar. For an endorsement of this view, see Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff on the Dramatic Technique of Sophocles’, CQ 22 (1972), 214–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Sophocles: A Reading (Melbourne 1972), 23–6Google ScholarPubMed. Gellie cites (282 n.22), as a useful example of this viewpoint, Dalmeyda, G., ‘Sophocle, Ajax’, REG 46 (1933), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Gellie (n.38 above), 26, takes the position that some loss of dramatic energy is, in fact, the price which Sophocles pays in order to complete his exploration of the play's themes.

40. Rosenmeyer (n.16 above), 191. Leinieks (n.24 above), 200f, argues rather that Menelaus represents the Greek army as a whole, whereas Agamemnon brings the more personal viewpoint of the Atreidae.

41. Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford 1944), 50fGoogle ScholarPubMed.

42. Introduction (n.1 above), xlii ff. Cf. Kamerbeek (n.1 above), Introduction 15, and Kitto (n.2 above, 1961), 123. It might also be argued that the introduction of the suppliants enables Sophocles to use the same kind of dramatic doubling that he uses in the Antigone, where Creon is shown reacting first to an absent, unknown criminal, and then to the captured heroine.

43. See n.3 above.

44. This is in preference to five others which embrace points already noted. Holt does not, in fact, quite place in context the explanation given by Jebb. As we have seen, Jebb's basic standpoint (n.1 above, Introduction xxxii) is that the true climax of the play is not Ajax's death but the decision that he shall be buried, which is the key to the play's unity. Arising from this standpoint is the thesis (xlii-xliv) that one of Sophocle' aims has been to prolong the burial controversy (which has variety and dramatic life in itself) sufficiently for a gradual tension of interest.

45. For the tragic agōn in general, see Duchemin, J., L ‘Agōn‘ dans la tragédie grecque (Paris 1945Google Scholar). Duchemin notes the Ajax double debate structure with surprise (57 and 115) without offering an explanation. As Holt (n.3 above), 282 n.15, rightly points out, her actual discussion of pairs of related debate scenes (142-44) excludes the Ajax.

46. Reinhardt (n.15 above), 32, sees the Ajax debates in terms of a traditional, stereotyped agōn form which perhaps cramped Sophocles' style, as it were. Duchemin (n.45 above), 108ff., however, sees the tragic agon as a comparatively late development, with Sophocles being the first to exploit its potential. Holt (n.3 above), 275f., credits Aeschylus with more extensive use of the agōn than Duchemin recognizes.

47. Holt (n.3 above), 285, seems correct in playing down attempts to find significant differences between the Atreidae themselves and the respective tones of the two debates. Some differences do exist, but they are comparatively minor and certainly not of sufficient importance in themselves to motivate two separate debates.

48. Compare, on a smaller scale, the final section of Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes, most of which at least is probably spurious. We are, of course, assuming craft on Sophocles' part. It is always possible that he wasn't sensitive to balance at all, and threw in an extra debate because he needed a particular line length in terms of the three plays scheduled for this particular day of the Great Dionysia.

49. It might be objected that in itself the Teucer/Agamemnon scene is only 89 lines long and the Teucer/Menelaus only 115. However, the ‘addition’ of approximately 100 lines makes all the difference for the shape of the play as a whole.

50. From the point of view of a working dramatist, it is economical too to use a structured form such as agōn which to some extent does the thinking for you.

51. E.g. 97f., 445, 469, 667, 838. Cf. also references by the chorus in particular.

52. Apart from the beginning of plays, this is unusual for Sophocles. But cf. Philoctetes 1222, where Odysseus and Neoptolemus come on stage together. For Ajax it would also technically have been possible for Odysseus to arrive to support Teucer, accompanied by a reluctant Agamemnon who had previously already debated with Teucer and left.

53. As it is, though Teucer, Agamemnon and Odysseus are present on stage together, Odysseus converses only with Agamemnon. He speaks with Teucer upon Agamemnon's departure.

54. There would also be problems with bringing on the suppliants, Tecmessa being mute in this role after previously lamenting over Ajax's corpse.

55. See e.g. Kitto (n.2 above, 1977), 322. Cf. Grutter (n.20 above), 150.

56. This is similar to, but not identical with, the T. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff position (n.37 above).