¹ For the purposes of this study three valuable works in the latter category are: Strohm, H., Euripides (Zetemata 15; Munich 1957 ); Lattimore, R., Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (London 1964); Burnett, A. P., Catastrophe Survived (Oxford 1971). On the last see B. M. W. Knox's review article ‘New Perspectives in Euripidean Criticism,’ CP 67 (1972) 270-79.Google Scholar

In addition to the standard sigla, the following will be used:

A&A Antike und Abendland

AJP American Journal of Philology

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London

BIEH Boletin del Inst. de estudios helénicos

CP Classical Philology

CQ Classical Quarterly

CR Classical Review

CSCA California Studies in Classical Antiquity

GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

IF Indogermanische Forschungen

NJAB Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und deutsche Bildung

PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

PMG D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962)

REG Révue des études grecques

RFIC Revista di filologia e di instruzione classica

RhM Rheinisches Museum

SIFC Studi italiana di filologia classica

SO Symbolae Osloenses

TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association

WS Wiener Studien

YCS Yale Classical Studies

² This was inevitable because of not only the variety inherent in the myths themselves but also the uses to which they were put. Greek myths ranged from narrow specific accounts to broad general expressions of the culture and its aspirations as a whole. They served as ‘history,’ modes of religious expression, and most importantly vehicles of expression about man himself. Sometimes they offer accounts on an exclusively divine or essentially superhuman plane, sometimes they deal with patterns of behavior in purely concrete, objective terms, at other times they illustrate intense personal examinations of internal factors and psychological motivation, and at others they suggest a profound interpenetration of the human and divine spheres. There is also a tremendous variation in the level of their narrative sophistication; while most of the surviving accounts preserve at best only vestigial signs of their original forms, some accounts are quite crude while others have complex literary structures. Arguments about the ultimate origin and nature of myth are as varied as the tales themselves. About the only agreement investigators have reached is that these narratives present in one form or another paradigms of human conduct which are of value either to the individual or the society. There is, however, little agreement about how these patterns of conduct are to be construed. Myth constituted a very loose body of material which could be employed in any number of ways and combinations by the Greeks, and one of the fascinating aspects of this culture, which perhaps more than any other in the Western tradition was moulded by myth, was the comparative absence of speculation about this conspicuous quality of their civilization. Google Scholar

³ Although there were a number of strong local traditions and sometimes striking, if not contradictory, variations in contents as well as emphasis, it is important to bear in mind that there was a tendency to syncretism operative in Greek attitudes to myth from Homer on. The use of formulaic verse in oral poetry had an obvious impact in this direction since within certain parameters the same formulae were applied to a wide variety of situations suggesting analogies that otherwise might not have been apparent. Google Scholar

⁴ For an excellent discussion of ‘reality’ on the Greek stage see Snell, B. (tr. T. G. Rosenmeyer) The Discovery of the Mind (Cambridge [Mass.] 1953) Chap. 5, ‘Myth and Reality in Greek Tragedy.’ On the manner in which myths are both narratives and commentaries on these narratives see Whitman, C. H., Euripides and the Full Circle of Myth (Cambridge [Mass.] 1974) 105-06.Google Scholar

⁵ On the Greek dramatists' use of conventions see P. D. Arnott's An Introduction to the Greek Theatre (New York 1962) Chap. I, and his Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century (Oxford 1962).Google Scholar

⁶ Kirk, G. S., ‘Aetiology, Ritual, Charter: Three Equivocal Terms in the Study of Myths,’ YCS 22 (1972) 83–102. This study supplements in a number of significant respects the author's Sather Lectures, Myth, Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and other Cultures (Berkeley 1970).Google Scholar

⁷ Among the most frequently discussed topics are such questions as whether or not Neoptolemus or Philoctetes is the central figure, the role and nature of Helenus' prophecy and Neoptolemus' knowledge of it, whether Philoctetes or his miraculous bow or both are required for the capture of Troy, the validity of the rationale behind Philoctetes' refusal to aid the Greek forces at Troy, and whether or not the appearance of Heracles ex machina is integrated into the structure of the play as a whole. Google Scholar

⁸ Calder, W. M., III, ‘Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes,’ GRBS 12 (1971) 153–174. Calder quite properly objects to the view once succinctly formulated by Wilamowitz that the work is ‘ein gelungenes zeitloses Kunstwerke’ (cf. 153). Calder, who stresses Sophocles’ role as πϱóβoυλoς during the preceding political turmoil, concludes as follows: ‘In short Sophocles naively voted for a dictatorial regime whose crimes and excesses he could not foresee. He realized his error to the degree that at the risk of his life he publicly criticized the tyranny. In 409, directly after the successful counterrevolution, 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 play portrayed the helplessness of a decent man, albeit naïve and sick, before impenetrable and overwhelming duplicity. With the best of intentions the clearest head could not resist Neoptolemus and Odysseus, Peisander and Antiphon. Sophocles, like Philoctetes, had been taken in. He thought that he was going to Malis and not to Troy; and there was no Heracles 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' (173-74). An even more harsh opinion of Neoptolemus is offered by J. Kott in his Eating of the Gods (New York 1973) 177–78. Calder is not alone in his emphasis on deception continuing throughout the play; Lattimore (above, n. 1, 45) has suggested that the deus ex machina is a contrivance by Odysseus (see also I. Errandonea, ‘Filoctetes,’ Emerita 23 [1955] 122-64; 24 [1956] 72-107). An extensive bibliography has also developed over the nature and extent of Sophocles' political career. Jameson, M. H., ‘Politics and the Philoctetes,’ CP 51 (1956) 217–27, has argued for a full career with the dramatist serving as general at least once, hellenotamias in 443/2, and proboulos during the rule of the Four Hundred. Woodbury, L., ‘Sophocles among the Generals,’ Phoenix 24 (1970) 209–24, believes that the case for Sophocles' first generalship is secure but is not certain the poet served another term or was proboulos. In 1971 Jameson, ‘Sophocles and the Four Hundred,’ Historia 20 (1971) 541–68, argued once more Sophocles' service as proboulos and paralleled Calder's sentiment that Sophocles came fo feel he had been duped by his association with the Four Hundred. The case against Sophocles' extended involvement in these tumultuous events has recently been extended by Avery, H. C., ‘Sophocles' Political Career,’ Historia 22 (1973) 509–14. Although, as Avery has shown, the evidence for Sophocles' identification with the proboulos is problematic in certain regards, I share Calder's opinion (173, n. 115) about the propriety of T. B. L. Webster's assessment of the problem: ‘The onus of proof is on those who deny the identification’ (An Introduction to Sophocles ² [London 1969] 13). The critical issue is not so much Sophocles' official services but whether or not the Philoctetes reflects the inherent political tensions of the period. An excellent case that it does is made in Calder's ‘Die Technik der Sophokleischen Komposition im “Philoktet,” Hellenische Poleis, ed. Welskopf, E. C., 4 vols. (Berlin 1973) 3 .1382-88. This study compares the three Philoctetes plays and discusses in detail how Sophocles changed elements from the Aeschylean and Euripidean versions to give his drama a closer focus on the internal problems of the period. See also Kieffer, J. S., ‘Philoctetes and Arete,’ CP 37 (1942) 38–50 for another discussion and comparison of the three plays and Calder's ‘Aeschylus' Philoctetes,’ GRBS 11 (1970) 171–79, and T. B. L. Webster's The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 57-61 for discussions of the Aeschylean and Euripidean predecessors to Sophocles' play.Google Scholar

⁹ The only hint may be in Heracles' insistence on εὐσέβεια at the close of his speech, Phil. 1440-44. Although the text of the final gnome is uncertain (see the cogent discussion of Linforth, I. M., ‘Philoctetes, The Play and the Man,’ Univ. of Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. 15.3 [ 1956] 95-156, 149 n. 30, who argues for the traditional emendations of Gataker and Dawes, and also Trencsényi-Waldapfel, I., ‘Sophokles, Philoktet V. 1443,’ Miscellanea critica I, edd. J. Irmscher et alii [Leipzig 1964] 281-94, who advances excellent reasons for the retention of the MS text), Sophocles may mean that proper εὐσέβεια to the gods is a rare quality which all heroes do not necessarily possess. These lines may be intended as an elaborate compliment to Philoctetes for his moral fortitude and an appropriate warning to Neoptolemus who so often in art and literature was depicted as an impious slayer of Priam and came himself to a violent end at Delphi (cf. scholia to Phil. 1441, Jebb's comments on this passage, and the proverbial Nεoπτoλέµειoς τíσις explained by Pausanias 4.17 as τò παθεῖν ὁπoῖóν τις ϰαì ἔδϱασε).Google Scholar

¹⁰ This survey is based on literary sources. The evidence from art, as, for example, in depictions of Priam's death, is corroborative but does not open up new avenues of approach. Google Scholar

¹¹ The interview between Odysseus and Achilles has prompted considerable comment, and, since the most significant description of Neoptolemus in Homer is introduced by this interchange, more than rhetoric is involved in this qualification. H. W. Clarke, The Art of the Odyssey (Englewood Cliffs 1967), states: ‘the two voices of Homeric epic are those of Achilles and Odysseus, and their meetings, whenever we find them in the poems, yield dialogues expressing radically opposed visions of life’ (62). I believe that the differences between Achilles and Odysseus have all too frequently been expressed in this polar manner and the distance between these two heroes can be better expressed by recognizing that in the interview in the Nekyia they understand each other all too well (and not that they ‘cannot really understand one another,’ Clarke 63), and, at the same time they recognize each other's greatness, they still wish to insist on the propriety of their own approach to life. Neoptolemus confronts a similar problem in the Philoctetes when he has to select between extensions of these two modes of heroic existence which differ in their methods but aim at the same goal of heroic accomplishment, and what amounts in Homer to a difference in emphasis becomes in Sophocles the critical issue on which the young hero's future depends.Google Scholar

¹² See also Il. 19.321-37 where Achilles calls upon the fallen Patroclus and states that not even the death of his father or son would have distressed him so much. In this passage Achilles expresses the vain hope that Patroclus would have taken Neoptolemus from Scyros to Phthia to show him all the possessions he had amassed. This expression of the characteristically Homeric regard for timē is combined with a strong sense of dynastic continuity on Achilles' part; the prominence of the latter theme is quite obvious in the Philoctetes. Google Scholar

¹³ In both Menelaus' (Od. 4.265-89) and Demodocus' (Od. 8.499-520) accounts of the strategem, the emphasis is almost entirely on the skill and resourcefulness of Odysseus and Neoptolemus is not mentioned by name. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Among the many studies dealing with Sophocles' concept of φύσις and its realization in the course of the dramas, see especially Diller, H., ‘Der griechische Naturbegriff,’ NJAB 2 (1939) 241–57, ‘Ueber das Selbstbewusstsein der sophokleischen Personen,’ WS 69 (1956) 70–85, ‘Menschendarstellung und Handlungsführung bei Sophokles,’ A&A 6 (1957) 157–69, and Lesky, Lesky, ‘Erbe und Erziehung im griechischen Denken des fünften Jahrhunderts,' NJAB 2 (1939) 361–81, ‘Zwei Sophokles-Interpretationen,’ Hermes 80 (1952) 91–105. Muth, R., ‘Gottheit und Mensch im Philoktet des Sophokles,’ Studi in onore di Luigi Castiglione (Florence 1960) 641-58, examines in detail the role of the theme of φύσις in the Philoctetes. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Among the many studies and comments on the play's structure Schlesinger, E., ‘Die Intrigue im Aufbau von Sophokles' Philoktet,’ RhM 111 (1968) 97–156, offers one of the most detailed analyses of Neoptolemus' role in the deception. See also Parlavantza-Friedrich, U., Täuschungsszenen in den Tragödien des Sophokles, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 2 (Berlin 1969) 48–65, and F. Solmsen's ‘Zur Gestaltung des Intriguenmotivs in den Tragödien des Sophokles und Euripides,’ Philologus 87 (1932) 1–17. After the publication of P. Oxy. 2256 fr. 5 in 1952 both Bruno Snell, Gnomon 25 (1953) 439, and Lesky, Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen (Göttingen 1956) 127, suggested that Neoptolemus may have appeared in Aeschylus' Philoctetes; this view, however, has not won wide acceptance, and I have followed the traditional view that Neoptolemus' presence is Sophoclean innovation.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For information on the cyclic epics I am much in debt to G. L. Huxley's Greek Epic Poetry (London 1969). The most convenient collection of the fragments and testimonia is T. W. Allen's corrected edition in the OCT series, Homeri opera, Tomus V. Hymnos, Cyclum fragmenta, Margiten, Batrachomyomachiam, vitas continens (Oxford 1946, 1959); see also the revised edition of H. G. Evelyn-White's Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Cambridge [Mass.] 1936, 1959).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Proclus' synopsis of Lesches' Little Iliad intimates that a considerable portion of this work might well have dealt with the activities of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus. According to the Chrestomathia Diomedes was sent after Philoctetes in accordance with a prophecy of Helenus after his capture by Odysseus. Following his cure by Machaon, Philoctetes killed Paris, and Odysseus retrieved Neoptolemus from Scyros and gave him his father's armor. An appearance of the ghost of Achilles to his son preceded the account of the death of Eurypylus at the hands of Neoptolemus. Proclus then moves to a very compressed chronicle of the Trojan horse and the final victory of the Greeks, and there is no way to determine how prominently Philoctetes and Neoptolemus figured in this part of the epic. Supplements from other sources, however, do develop this information in a significant manner. Pausanias (10.27.1-2 [Allen XVI]) makes the point that Lesches had Neoptolemus kill Priam not at the altar of Zeus Herceius but at the doorway of his house after he had dragged him from the altar. Plutarch uses the phrase ἀπoσπασθέντa ἀπò τoṽ βωµoṽ to describe this action, and this suggests that as early as the cyclic epics the violence of Priam's death at the hands of Neoptolemus was stressed. This is corroborated by the longest fragment of the work (Schol. Lychophr. Alex. 1268 [Allen XIX]) which describes how Neoptolemus led Andromache away to the ships, killed Astyanax by throwing him from a tower, and then was awarded both Aeneas and Andromache as prizes. Pausanias (10.25.9 [Allen ibid.]) adds that the death of Astyanax came not as the result of a general decision of the Greeks but rather was Neoptolemus' own idea. Even if allowance is made for the point of view that the child's continued existence posed the threat of renewed hostilities, Neoptolemus' zeal in crushing the house of Priam in the Little Iliad apparently took a violent and not particularly attractive course. This view of Neoptolemus is the earliest witness of the tradition which was to culminate in Vergil's portrayal of him as the epitome of the most brutal aspects of the traditional heroic code in Aeneid 2.Google Scholar

Information about the roles of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus in the other cyclic epics proves even more difficult to assess. Proclus' summary of the Cypria indicates that it contained an account of Philoctetes' snake-bite and desertion on Lemnos because of the resulting stench of the wound, but this information seems little more than an amplification of the data already familiar to the author of the Catalogue of the Ships. Neoptolemus appears to have figured more prominently in these works. In the Cypria, according to Pausanias (10.26.4 [Allen XIV]), Lycomedes gave him the name Pyrrhus, but this was changed to the more familiar Neoptolemus by Phoenix because ‘Achilles was young when he first went to war.’ This anecdote seems to indicate that in the Cypria Phoenix was one of the ambassadors sent to fetch Neoptolemus after the death of Achilles (cf. Phil. 343-44, 561-62). It is clear, however, that in the accounts of the final battles about Troy Neoptolemus was portrayed as one of the most important warriors. There is the impressive list of his deceased opponents in the Little Iliad (cf. Allen XVI), and Jebb (ad Phil. 562) contended that he was the hero of Arctinus' Sack of Troy. In this last work, according to the Chrestomathia, his services were rewarded with Andromache as they had been in the Little Iliad. The same source, however, attributes the murder of Astyanax to Odysseus in the Sack of Troy, and this suggests that Arctinus' portrayal of Neoptolemus may have been less brutal than that of the Little Iliad. A similar argument ex silentio might also be made about the Cypria since, according to the scholiast to Euripides' Hecuba 41 (Allen XXVI), Euripides and Ibycus (= PMG 307) both had Neoptolemus kill Polyxena while Stasinus had represented him as responsible for her burial after she had been wounded by Diomedes and Odysseus. The scholion, however, gives no indication whatsoever of the nature, extent, or emphasis of Ibycus' recounting of this event. If we follow Bowra's thesis about the development of Ibycus' poetic style, Greek Lyric Poetry ² (Oxford 1961) 252–53, the account could belong to either the poet's early ‘Stesichorean’ period of extended mythological narratives or. if it comes from his later period, it may have been but an incidental reference similar to those in the catalogue of events and personalities which form the bulk of the extant remains of his encomium to Polycrates (PMG 282a). A link to Neoptolemus' later adventures is found in the Chrestomathia's account of the Nostoi. While in the Odyssey Neoptolemus' return was noted in a single line (Od. 3.189), the Nostoi covered a number of episodes: a warning by Thetis against a return by sea, his overland journey, an encounter with Odysseus at Maronea, the buriai of Phoenix, and his recognition by Peleus on reaching the Molossi.

¹⁸ The fragments of Greek lyric poetry prove even less informative than the reports and scattered quotations from the cyclic poets. Perhaps no more serious loss exists than that of Stesichorus who drew on and combined many different traditions to produce mythological narratives on an extended scale which profoundly influenced contemporary and subsequent art as well as literature. The available secondary evidence indicates that he treated in his Iliou Persis much the same events as Arctinus. An important, but controversial witness for the content of the Iliou Persis is the Tabula Iliaca of the first century A.D., the central portion of which is labeled ’Iλίoυ πέϱσις ϰατὰ Στησίχoϱoν. Among the many scenes on this monument there is one of Neoptolemus killing Priam despite the futile attempts of Hecuba to protect him. Because so many of the vignettes on the Tabula Iliaca, especially those surrounding Aeneas' departure for the West, correlate with incidents known not only from such early works as Arctinus' Sack of Troy but also those described in detail in Aeneid 2, critics (cf. Bowra [above n. 17] 105-06) have entertained justifiable suspicions about how much of the Tabula Iliaca represents Stesichorus alone and how much is a conflation of his work with other sources. Complete novelty in treating what was already a familiar theme was an impossibility (nor would Stesichorus have sought after it), but the evidence that does remain indicates that Stesichorus had a positive genius for providing those slight variations of emphasis and detail which so appealed to the ancient sense of originality. The best known example of this ability is found in the influence of Stesichorus' treatment of Orestes on Aeschylus in the Oresteia, and his characterization of Neoptolemus in the Iliou Persis may well have been as influential.Google Scholar

¹⁹ An invaluable guide to Pindaric scholarship is offered by D. E. Gerber's A Bibliography of Pindar, 1513-1966, American Philological Association Monograph, No. 28 (Cleveland 1969 ). My own approach to Pindar and the problems of Paean 6 and Nemean 7 has been most directly influenced by the works of Bowra, C. M., Pindar (Oxford 1964), Burton, R. W. B., Pindar's Pythian Odes (Oxford 1962), Gildersleeve, B. L., Pindar, The Olympian and Pythian Odss ² (New York 1890), and Norwood, G., Pindar (Berkeley 1945, 1956). All quotations from Pindar are from B. Snell's text, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, ³ pars prior: Epinica (Leipzig 1959), pars altera: Fragmenta (Leipzig 1964).Google Scholar

²⁰ The scholion on this passage reveals that Bacchylides also wrote about Philoctetes (schol. P. 1.100 = Bacch. fr. 7 Snell). The scholiast states that Pindar's account agrees with Bacchylides ἐν τoĩς διθνϱάµβoις where the Greeks brought Philoctetes to Troy because of a prophecy of Helenus to the effect that Troy could not be taken without the bow of Heracles. Jebb, Bacchylides (Cambridge 1905) 426, made two valuable observations on this fragment: first, the scholiast does not say whether he had referred to the story in another context, and, secondly, it is possible that Bacchylides may have known (and been influenced by) Aeschylus' Philoctetes. The comparison with Pindar made by the scholiast implies that Bacchylides also used Philoctetes as the paradigm of the hero who fulfills his allotted role despite his suffering. Bacchylides, however, appears to have stressed Philoctetes' possession of Heracles' bow whereas Pindar simply describes Philoctetes as τoξóταν (P. 1.53); this variation in emphasis is reminiscent of the commentators' debates about the relative importance of Philoctetes and Heracles' bow in Sophocles' play and suggests that prior tradition offered no clear, unequivocal guidelines on this point to Sophocles.Google Scholar

²¹ Bowra (above n. 19) offers a very balanced and lucid appraisal of both Paean 6 and Nemean 7 (cf. Norwood's somewhat one-sided position [above n. 16] 83-86); because Bowra's study is organized by topics rather than by individual poems, his observations are dispersed throughout his work. See also S. Foglmark's detailed study of these two works: Studies in Pindar with Particular Reference to Paean VI and Nemean VII (Lund 1972). I have not been able to consult A. Köhnken's discussion of these works in his Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 12 (Berlin 1971).Google Scholar

²² My comments on N. 7 are deeply indebted to C. Segal's thorough and exhaustive study, ‘Pindar's Seventh Nemean,’ TAPA 98 (1967) 431–480. This ode has long been classified among Pindar's most difficult because of the complexity and diffuseness of both its logical and thematic structure. Composed in honor of Sogenes of Aegina's victory in the boys' pentathlon, the work rarely deals with its ostensible subject. The difficulties Nemean 7 poses arise not only from questions about the relationship of the broad mythological spectrum Pindar draws upon to the immediate occasion of the poem (and the manner in which these elements are unified) but also from the poet's attitude to his own work. Pindar was never reticent on the subject of his own poetry, and it seems quite clear that he felt both personally and professionally challenged by the Aeginetans' response to his treatment of Neoptolemus in Paean 6. Nemean 7 concludes with a passage which indicates the variations in the treatment of Neoptolemus are not to be taken as a palinode (cf. N. 7.102-05), and the other references to Neoptolemus should be understood in light of this closing note and the manner in which Pindar moves toward the recasting of his account of Neoptolemus' death at Delphi.Google Scholar

²³ Segal (above n. 22) 436-40, starting from a consideration of the gnomic utterance of the πóνος theme in N. 7.74, stresses the importance of this motif for understanding the poem as a whole. This motif also refers to the πó νος of poetic creation and consequently is related to Pindar's concept of poetic σοφία, the poet's superior ‘wisdom’ which involves him in exceptionally difficult ‘toil,’ and of both aspects of his poetry Pindar feels the Aeginetans have not been properly conscious. Google Scholar

²⁴ In a clear example of ring composition the passage ends with a recognition of Neoptolemus' ritual significance at Delphi which amplifies the very note on which he was introduced. On Neoptolemus at Delphi see J. Fontenrose's detailed studies ‘The Cult and Myth of Pyrros at Delphi,’ Univ. of Cal. Publ. in Class. Arch. IV.3 ( 1960) 191–266, and ‘Daulis at Delphi,’ CSCA 2 (1969) 107-144. One of the most intriguing descriptions of Neoptolemus as a cult figure at Delphi in late antiquity is to be found in Heliodorus' Aethiopica where Charicleia and Theagenes are paralleled to Artemis and Neoptolemus (2.24.1-3.5.5).Google Scholar

²⁵ Euripides' paradigmatic use of Neoptolemus clearly goes back to epic sources and so is excellent, albeit indirect, evidence about his characterization in the cyclic epics; Jouan, F., Euripide et les légendes des chants cypriens (Paris 1966), offers invaluable assistance in understanding Euripides' use of these early epic materials.Google Scholar

²⁶ There is good reason to believe that this appearance of Polydorus parallels and was modeled on the epiphany of Achilles at the start of Sophocles' Polyxena; cf. Hec. 1-3 and Soph. fr. 523P. Google Scholar

²⁷ These parallel responses also help underline the extent and violence of Hecuba's own shift in attitude; cf. Kirkwood, G. M., ‘Hecuba and Nomos,’ TAPA 78 (1947) 61–68.Google Scholar

²⁸ This is brought out by Hecuba's angry lament in the funeral scene which follows, Tr. 1155-1206. Although the parallels between the circumstances of the burials in the Tr. and Sophocles' Ant. are loose, many of B. M. W. Knox's comments in The Heroic Temper (Berkeley 1964) 85–87, 91-7, on this theme in the latter play are appropriate for the Tr. as well.Google Scholar

²⁹ For a very balanced appraisal of the play and characters see the introduction of P. T. Stevens' recent edition of the play, Euripides: Andromache (Oxford 1971). See also Burnett (above n. 1) 130-56.Google Scholar

³⁰ Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama (Toronto 1967) 169.Google Scholar

³¹ The manipulation of Neoptolemus in the Andromache is an excellent example of the way in which Euripides in his dramas places every action and character in the perspective created by the others. Recent studies of Euripides such as Conacher's (above n. 30) and W. A. Arrowsmith's ‘A Greek Theater of Ideas,’ Arion 2.3 ( 1963) 32–56, and his comments on Verrall's approach to Euripides in ‘The Comedy of T. S. Eliot,’ English Stage Comedy, ed. Wimsatt, W. K., Jr. (New York 1955) 148–72, 148-151, have emphasized the dramatist's habit of setting up a counterpoint between the traditional account of the myth and the actual human situation in which these mythological figures are involved. Euripidean drama frequently explores the discontinuity which results when these two frames of reference confront one another (see also the closing pages of K. von Fritz's ‘Euripides’ Alkestis und ihre modernen Nachahmer und Kritiker,’ A&A 5 [1956] 27-70). It is in the context of this characteristic of Euripidean dramaturgy that the change in attitude to Neoptolemus in the Andr. should be viewed (cf. the similar shift in sentiment to Hippolytus and Pentheus described by Bellinger, A. R., ‘The Bacchae and Hippolytus,’ YCS 6 [1939] 15-27). It would not, however, be appropriate to consider the more positive view of Neoptolemus which emerges in the closing scenes of the Andr. a vindication of him since it is only by comparison with Orestes that Neoptolemus appears in a better light.Google Scholar

³² All references to Sophocles' frr. are to A. C. Pearson's edition, The Fragments of Sophocles (repr. in one vol. Amsterdam 1963), and, unless otherwise cited, reference to his comments will be to the introduction to the particular play or the specific fragment discussed.Google Scholar

³³ Sophocles' frequent use of Neoptolemus contrasts with the fact that he apparently wrote one other play about Philoctetes, the Philoctetes at Troy. I concur with Pearson's view that there can be little doubt that the principal events of the Philoctetes at Troy were the hero's cure and the slaying of Paris and that Heracles' speech, Phil. 1423-28, gives a summary of the contents of this earlier play. Lesches had covered the same ground in the Little Iliad, and, in all probability, this account formed the basis from which Sophocles worked. Unfortunately, neither the fragments themselves nor the contexts in which they are quoted yield any direct evidence about the nature or structure of the dramatic action. As might be assumed, the violence of Philoctetes' affliction was an important theme, and three frr. (697P-99P), each but a line in length, deal with the diseased snakebite and its effect on its victim in a vivid manner. Although an interesting parallel to one fr., an invocation to death as λoĩσθoς ἰατϱòς vóσων (698P; cf. Phil. 797-98), can be found in fr. 255 N ² from Aeschylus' Phil., it is impossible to trace the possible influences in either direction because nothing is known about the respective chronological position of the plays to one another and the frequency with which this motif itself appears.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jouan (above n. 25), 216-17, discusses the Sophoclean play in connection with the Scyrians of Euripides which dealt with Achilles' stay and departure from the court of Lycomedes; see also Webster, T.B.L., The Tragedies of Euripides (above n. 8) 95-97, for another résumé of the Euripidean play.Google Scholar

³⁵ Although the title is well attested, nothing is known about the subject which may have been either the embassy of Priam to Achilles' tent to retrieve the body of Hector or the death of the Trojan king. Google Scholar

³⁶ Calder, W. M., III, ‘A Reconstruction of Sophocles' Polyxena,’ GRBS 7 (1966) 31–56.Google Scholar

³⁷ Calder (above n. 36) 44, 49. This comparison is significant because commentators on the Philoctetes have, in my opinion, over-stressed the apparent anomaly of Heracles' appearance ex machina; the evidence of the fragments suggests that such divine and heroic epiphanies may have been more common in the Sophoclean corpus than is usually recognized. Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Calder (above n. 36) who continues his statement quoted above that Sophocles may not have introduced Neoptolemus as the proponent of Polyxena's death with the following: ‘The conclusion is welcome for another reason. We need not assume that the blameless youth of the Philoctetes appeared elsewhere as the savage killer of a captive princess' (36). Calder does qualify this observation in the attendant note: ‘Contrarily Neoptolemus might have been brutalized by the war's end and consistency in such matters need not be expected of Sophocles. …’ Google Scholar

³⁹ See Pearson on fr. 487P. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Conacher (above n. 30) offers an excellent discussion of this problem and the probable contents of Sophocles' play, 167-70. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. Eur. Andr. 966-70, Servius ad Aeneid 3.328, and Ovid, Heroides 8. One lurid possibility of this triangle was exploited on the Attic stage by Philocles and Theognis who, according to the scholiast to Eur. Andr. 32, depicted Hermione as pregnant by Orestes when betrothed to Neoptolemus. Google Scholar

⁴² Although Fontenrose in both works cited (above n. 24) does not believe this to be the case, Machaereus, the candidate of Eustathius and others for the honors, sounds suspiciously like a personification of the word for knife which might have come about as a rationalization at an early date in light of Neoptolemus' cult significance at Delphi (cf. Pindar's ἀνἠϱ µαχαíϱᾳ in N. 7.42 and Leopardi's emendation of Pherekydes' account of Neoptolemus' death [schol. Eur. Or. 1655 = Jacoby FGrH 1.3.64a] from ἑαυτòν δὲ ϰτεíνει µαχαíϱᾳ to αὐτòν δὲ ϰτεíνει Mαχαιϱεύς. By turning the anonymous ‘man with a knife’ into ‘Machaereus,’ and then, as a number of the sources do, identifying him as a priest of Apollo, some of the unfortunate or embarrassing aspects of Neoptolemus’ demise could be mitigated. The scholiast who preserves the quotation of Pherekydes follows it with the cryptic pronouncement ταṽτα γενεαλoγεĩ ϰαì Σoφoϰλῆς, but to what extent or in what particulars Sophocles followed Pherekydes' version is not known. Pearson's account of the sources largely discounted, and perhaps too quickly, the indirect evidence of Pherekydes in favor of Eustathius. Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes ,’ (above n. 8) 168.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Speaking of the portrayal of Neoptolemus in Nemean 7 Bowra, Pindar (above n. 19) 73, observes how ‘Pindar is aware of the paradox implicit in the careers of heroes who through their excess of vitality may even be punished by the gods but still keep their power after death and play a special part in the supernatural world.’ The ambiguous attitude the Greeks entertained towards many of their figures of myth is related to their wavering response to the question whether men should attempt to emulate the gods or not; on the variety of their response to this issue see Guthrie, W. K. C., ‘A Central Question,’ The Greeks and Their Gods (Boston 1950) 113–116.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. Beye, C. R., ‘Sophocles’Philoctetes and the Homeric Embassy,’ TAPA 101 (1970) 64: ‘The similarity between the two scenes extends beyond the obvious, to the spiritual and social dilemmas of the two heroes, or to the motives of the participants and their personal qualities.’Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Poe, J. P., however, Heroism and Divine Justice in Sophocles' Philoctetes, Mnemosyne, Suppl. 34 (Leiden 1974) argues that ‘Philoctetes differs from Achilles fundamentally and generically’ (13). This position may be too rigid. I believe that the dramatist is employing the same technique as he did in the Ajax where, as Kirkwood, G. M., ‘Homer and Sophocles’Ajax,’ Classical Drama and Its Influence, ed. Anderson, M. J. (London 1965) 51-70, has shown, Sophocles creates a situation and portraits which have close analogies to the epic but are then developed in such a manner as to accentuate the differences between the dramatist's and the epic perspective. It should also be noted that Sophocles' concentration upon the protagonist's personal moral predicament is an element that sets his drama apart from earlier versions. As Calder, ‘Die Technik der sophokleischen Komposition im “Philoktet,” (above n. 8) has shown, neither Aeschylus nor Euripides appears to have focused so closely on this issue. Instead their dramas were centered on the broader political issues such as the relative merits and justice of the Greek and Trojan causes. On this point see also Kieffer (above n. 8) passim, Jouan (above n. 25) 308-17, Schlesinger (above n. 15) 95-102, and Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (above n. 8) 57-61.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The two Homeric strands of the Philoctetes not only interact with one another in a complex manner to delineate the moral issues but also help give the play its distinctive structure. Kirkwood, G. M., A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958) describes the play as ‘triangular’ and notes how: ‘This play uses three interrelated characters to embody the action as no other Sophoclean, indeed no other Greek, tragedy does. The triangularity is the result of the introduction of Neoptolemus into a naturally dual pattern, the story of how Odysseus brought Philoctetes to Troy. In this story Neoptolemus ought properly to be a minor figure, the helper of Odysseus. Instead, he towers over Odysseus in dramatic importance, though Odysseus is felt as a presence all through the play, even in the character of Neoptolemus’ (57-58).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Podlecki, A. J., ‘The Power of the Word in Sophocles' Philoctetes,’ GRBS 7 (1966) 233–50, brings out an important element of the characters' relationships with one another when he observes how ‘the Philoctetes is a case study in the failure of communication, involving three individuals who fail to come to terms with one another because they are, in effect, speaking with different voices' (233). The pervasiveness of the motif of speech and communication is demonstrated by Podlecki's addendum (246-50) which lists all the words stating or implying speech throughout the play. See also Happe, K., ‘Sophocles’ Philoctetes: A Study in Structure' (diss. Yale University 1964) 28-43.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Kitto, H. D. F., Form and Meaning in Drama (London 1956) 106.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The witness of Aristophanes' Clouds is obviously important in this regard; see also E. A. Havelock's thesis on the motivation behind the prosecution of Socrates, ‘Why Was Socrates Tried?’ Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood, ed. White, M. E., Phoenix, Supplementary Vol. I (Toronto 1952) 95–109.Google Scholar

⁵¹ E. g., Woodhouse, W. J., The Composition of Homers Odyssey (reprinted Oxford 1969) 212: ‘At the outset he is only a lad, just awakened to the perplexities in which he is involved. He is merely a big boy, who has grown up among women; he has no experience of the world, and therefore cannot see in what direction he must move in order to extricate himself from the false position in which, along with his mother, he stands. He is timorous, undeveloped, resourceless, more than a little irritated by the, to him inexplicable, shillyshally of Penelopeia, yet hampered in self assertion by that very affection and sense of filial duty to which he remains true throughout. A thoroughly “nice” boy, one would call him; but perhaps hasten to add, that there did not seem to be very much in him.’ Rose, G. P., ‘The Quest of Telemachus,’ TAPA 98 (1967) 391-98, offers in his initial pages a brief but convenient bibliography and survey of the most common interpretations of Telemachus' journey to the mainland and the related question of the relationship of the Telemacheia to the rest of the epic. Rose stresses the importance and frequency of the revenge motif in the Odyssey and connects this theme with Telemachus' maturation when he states in conclusion that ‘Telemachus’ voyage helps to establish him as something of an Odysseus, that is, as a returning avenger in his own right and a secondary hero of the epic. Just as Odysseus becomes worthy of being Penelope's husband and Ithaca's king through action — not just any action but a series of positive steps toward the fulfillment of both personal revenge and divine justice — in precisely the same way Telemachus in the “Telemachy” gradually becomes worthy of being the son of Odysseus' (398).Google Scholar

⁵² Beye, C. R., The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition (Garden City 1966) 180.Google Scholar

⁵³ On the importance of Odysseus as a model for Telemachus see Reinhardt, K., ‘Homer und die Telemachie,’ Von Werken und Formen (Godesberg 1948) 36–51, and especially 46-48.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Adkins, , ‘ “Honour” and “Punishment” in the Homeric Poems,’ B1CS 7 (1960) 23–32 and in particular 30-32.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ This difference points toward the most important distinction between the Homeric and Sophoclean concepts of heroism, for, as Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (Oxford 1960), observes ‘the Homeric hero cannot fall back upon his own opinion of himself, for his self only has the value other people put upon it’ (49). This attitude contrasts sharply with what Knox (above n. 28) 28, describes as the Sophoclean heroes' rejection of the opinion of others in their loyalty to their own conception of themselves. For a valuable discussion of this aspect of Sophoclean heroism from a different perspective see Helen North, Sophrosyne (Ithaca 1966) 50-68.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Neoptolemus' increased understanding has frequently been cited as an indication of his growing maturity. With the appearance of Heracles the drama moves beyond the level of human uncertainty to the simple, absolute, unconditional knowledge of the divine. An excellent general discussion of this topic has been given by H. Diller in Göttliches und menschliches Wissen bei Sophokles (Kiel 1950), and, as Diller comments, ‘die Gottheit redet in der Sprache ihres Wissens, der Mensch versteht nach der Fähigheit seiner Aufnahmeorgan und versteht notwendig falsch, aber nicht, weil die Gottheit ihm irrführen will, sondern aus der strukturellen Verschiedenheit göttlicher und menschlicher Einsicht heraus’ (30-31).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Rose (above n. 56) 392-94, discusses the thematic connections among Telemachus' winning of ϰλέoς, his voyage, and the revenge to be taken upon the Suitors. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Stanford, W. B., The Ulysses Theme ² (Oxford 1963) Chaps. II and III. The proximity of the two motifs of ‘profit’ and ‘guile’ in Homer can be illustrated by the use of ϰεϱδoσϱύῃ in the description of Athena luring Hector to his death in Il. 22.247 (cf. the descriptions of Odysseus' cunning in Od. 4.251, 14.31) and how Antilochus' horses pass Menelaus' ϰέϱδεσιν, oὒ τι τάχει γε (Il. 23.515; cf. Menelaus' objection to Antilochus' δóλoς Il. 23.585, and Antilochus' subsequent apology pleading the excuse of his youth and λεπτὴ δέ τε µῆτις Il. 23.590). This scene (Phil. 100-23, cf. frr. 28P, 352P, 833-34P) is the best illustration of how Sophocles developed the distinction between these two motifs; see Solmsen's excellent comments (above n. 15) 14-16.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ As Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis (Basel 1945) 128 n. 10, observes, συµφέϱoν first appears in the sense of ‘expedient’ as opposed to the earlier meaning of ‘fitting’ in the Philoctetes. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Zucker, F., ‘Formen gesteigert affektischer Rede in Sprechversen der griechischen Tragödie,’ IF 62 (1955) 62–77, gives a detailed structural analysis of this speech, and, as Long, A. A., Language and Thought in Sophocles (London 1968) comments, Philoctetes considers ‘Neoptolemus has not merely acted by means of ϰαϰὴ τέχνη; he is the embodiment of such action, an ἔχθιστoν τέχνηµα' (116-17).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Clarke (above n. 11) 39: ‘But for Telemachus the decision to accept Theoclymenus demonstrates his newly won authority: he has the right to give asylum, even hospitality, if he wants, to a murderer. Through Theoclymenus Homer can underscore the identity of Telemachus, show that he is now coming into his own and can afford his father the assistance Odysseus might have received from another Achaean hero on the fields before Troy.’ Google Scholar

⁶² Calder, , ‘Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes ' (above n. 8) 162-64, however, believes that Neoptolemus' sentiments in this scene are not to be taken seriously and are designed to deceive Philoctetes and that the scene ‘must be overplayed in the manner of comic acting’ (163).Google Scholar

⁶³ Telemachus has a sense of his own increasing maturity which he describes to Penelope in terms of intelligence in Od. 18.227-30, lines which illustrate the Homeric equation of a child-like state and an absence of knowledge as indicated by the use of νήπoς throughout both epics. Telemachus' maturity in this respect contrasts sharply with the increasingly unintelligent and violent behavior of the Suitors in the second half of the epic and is pointedly recognized by Penelope (Od. 19.530), Odysseus (Od. 19.84-87), and Eurycleia (Od. 23.29-31). Google Scholar

⁶⁴ These two lines are an excellent example of Sophocles' perfect accommodation of style, content, and grammar; the force of the duals in the initial line is echoed by the chiastic interlocking of the pronouns in the second line. The duals indicate the closeness of union Heracles proposes (cf. Knox's comments on the use of the duals in the Antigone, [above n. 28] 79-80), and, as Schlesinger (above n. 15) 126 has suggested, there might have been an especial charm for the poet to combine in this way the ‘progeny’ of the two greatest Greek heroes, Achilles and Heracles. See also H. C. Avery's ‘Heracles, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus,’ Hermes 93 (1965) 279–97, for a very thorough examination of the father-son relationship that develops between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus. Avery examines as well the similar tie between Heracles and Philoctetes, but believes Philoctetes ultimately proves deficient. The linking of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes is one of the most Homeric elements in the play and, in its use of the concept of heroic friendship that takes the pair beyond the normal bonds of society, is reminiscent of the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus in the Iliad (cf. Il. 16.97-100).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Kirkwood's comments on this scene (above n. 46) 56-59. The introduction of W. B. Stanford's edition of the Ajax (London 1963) offers many valuable observations and citations of verbal parallels between Sophocles and Homer which supplement Kirkwood's study. On the general question of Sophocles' relationship with his Homeric models see Ft. Bernard-Moulin, , L'Élément homérique chez les personnages de Sophocle (Aix-en-Provence 1966). Although this work makes a number of significant comments on the Philoctetes, Bernard-Moulin concentrates on the Homeric antecedents to the presentation of Odysseus and views Neoptolemus as ‘une création originale’ (85).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Commenting on Sophocles' Ajax Kirkwood (above n. 46) states: ‘Sophocles has drawn his Ajax straight from the Iliad, merely emphasizing and developing those characteristics of the Homeric Ajax that contribute to the tragic picture he wishes to create. Thus the Homeric Ajax's comparative separation from deity is transformed into a refusal to accept the aid and guidance of deity; the stubbornness of behaviour in battle becomes a refusal to accept the authority of the leaders; isolation becomes a refusal to accept life on the terms that most men must abide by' (62). So also the roots of Odysseus' portrayal in the Ajax and Philoctetes are Homeric, but the total effect conveyed by this character is quite different. Kirkwood 64: ‘Here again [in the portrait of Odysseus] there is nothing in the Homeric picture that is altogether missing in Sophocles (though of course the portrait is much slighter) and nothing in Sophocles that does not have its roots in Homer.’ I concur with Kirkwood's position (66) that the characterizations of Odysseus in the Ajax and Philoctetes represent two different developments of Homeric material. W. B. Stanford (above n. 58) has shown how such conflicting approaches to this figure are both possible and natural. J. C. Stephens, ‘Odysseus in Sophocles’ (diss. Yale University 1966), argues for a more unitarian approach to Odysseus in Sophocles and believes that both portraits are essentially the same and that in both plays we are meant to view Odysseus in a positive light.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Such studies as Kirkwood's also provide support for E. R. Dodd's frequently cited description of Sophocles in The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1956) as ‘the last great exponent of the archaic world view’ (49). Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (‘Tragedy and Archaic Greek Thought,’ Classical Drama and its Influence, ed. Anderson, M. J. [London 1965] 29-50; ‘The Electra of Sophocles, Prolegomena to an Interpretation,’ PCPS N.S. 3 [1954–55] 20–26), Schadewaldt, W., ‘Sophokles und das Leid,’ Hellas und Hesperien (Zürich 1960) 231–47, Opstelten, J. C. (Sophocles and Greek Pessimism, trans. Ross, J. A. [Amsterdam 1952]), Balasch, M. (‘Sóphocles y Simónides,’ BIEH 1 [1967] 45-63), and others in recent years have shown many links between the dramatist and the ethos of the archaic era. M^me de Romilly, Time in Greek Tragedy (Ithaca 1968), and Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (above n. 28), have done much to illuminate the Sophoclean heroes' most unrelenting opponent, time. It is time, and the reactions of the characters to time, which are both responsible for and symptomatic of the pervasive sense of ἀµηχavíα in the plays. In the Philoctetes Odysseus, Neoptolemus and Philoctetes move through a complex series of relationships in which the element of time is never absent. Each character views time in his own light, and the dramatist portrays attitudes to time ranging from the simple opportunism of the chorus in the first kommos to the unconditional, absolute statements of Heracles in the exodos. For a study of Sophocles' use of the time motif in the Ajax see Knox, B. M. W., ‘The Ajax of Sophocles,’ HSCP 65 (1961) 1-37.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Philoctetes summarizes his own quandary in Phil. 1350-56; he wants to follow the advice of Neoptolemus and go to Troy, but he does not wish to aid his enemies, the Atreidae and Odysseus. As in the Ajax (see Knox's study of the Ajax, above n. 67) and the Antigone (see Kells, J. F., ‘Problems in Interpretation in the Antigone,’ BICS 10 [ 1963] 47-64), Sophocles is once more exploring the difficulties posed by strict allegiance to the Homeric ethic of helping one's friends and harming your enemies. Knox (Heroic Temper, above n. 28, Chaps. I-II) has examined in detail how Sophocles' heroes are all confronted with a demand to yield, to accommodate themselves to time and change which they view as total compromise and destruction of self. The situation of the Philoctetes differs from the other plays in that the audience knows that Philoctetes must yield in order to realize his heroic potential. The resulting irony of Philoctetes' position has frequently been seen as little more than perversity on the hero's part (cf. Avery [above n. 64] 294, and Harsh, P. W., ‘The Role of the Bow in the Philoctetes of Sophocles,’ AJP 81 [1960] 408-14); instead I believe that Philoctetes' predicament in the final episode represents a very acute analysis by the dramatist of the difficulties posed by the traditional code.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Redling, J. 's ‘ The Dramatic Function of Philia in the Later Plays of Sophocles' (diss. University of Michigan 1971) for a very thorough examination of the interplay of characters in the Philoctetes. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ This contrast comes out quite clearly in Phil. 403-52. Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Il. 24.538-40 and Od. 16.117-21. Google Scholar

⁷² Although the Orestes enjoyed remarkable popularity throughout antiquity and the Byzantine era, since the nineteenth century it has often been subject to strong and sometimes vituperative criticsm. There is virtually no aspect of the play about which the literature does not record considerable divergence of opinion. Commentators and critics have, at one time or another, objected to every element of the play. Orestes has been viewed on a spectrum which ranges from homocidal maniac through helpless victim of circumstances to noble but misunderstood hero. Opinions about the action and structure have traveled a similar gamut. The question of unity has especially troubled the critics, and an organizing principle that will bind the play together has been sought in terms of the action as a whole, the individual characters, the nature of their characterization, various themes either singly or in combination, the relationship of parallel scenes and substructures, and in terms of various combinations of all these factors. Debate about Euripides' purpose has been no less varied, and the classification of the Orestes as a tragedy has frequently been denied. The play has been termed a melodrama, tragic comedy, a ‘fourth-play’ parallel to the Alcestis, and even a brief against the viability of tragedy itself. The usual forms of analysis by means of close examination of plot and character have tended to produce results which, while valuable about any number of particular issues, seem in sum as homogeneous as the play itself. Not only is there no common consensus about the play, but there is little agreement on what grounds it should be sought. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ In recent years critics have become much more receptive to the notion that a fundamental principle of Euripidean dramaturgy is the deliberate creation of different forms of internal contradiction and conflict of ideas. See the works of Arrowsmith (above n. 31), Burnett (above n. 1), Conacher (above n. 30), and Strohm (above n. 1). Other general studies of this temper which are useful to consult when considering the Orestes are: Chapouthier, F., ‘Euripide et l'accueil du divin,’ La Notion du divin, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique I (Vandceuvres-Geneva 1954) 205–226; Kamerbeek, J. C., ‘Mythe et réalité dans l'œuvre d'Euripide,’ Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique VI (Vandœuvres-Geneva 1960) 1–41; Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Euripides: Poiētēs Sophos,’ Arethusa 2 (1969) 127–142. While at first sight Euripides' analytical approach to drama seems unusual when compared to Aeschylus or Sophocles, it should also be recognized that it amounts to an extensive dramatic use of the two most common forms of argumentation in the period, polarities and analogies (cf. Lloyd, G. E. R., Polarity and Analogy [Cambridge 1966]). In general, approaches to the Orestes which stress the bold conflict of ideas within the play have tended to produce more positive views of the drama; see Parry, H., ‘Euripides' Orestes: The Quest for Salvation,’ TAPA 100 (1969) 337–53, and Wolff, C., ‘Orestes,’ Euripides, ed. Segal, E. (Englewood Cliffs 1968) 132–49. (An important parallel study of the Electra is M. J. O'Brien's ‘Orestes and the Gorgon: Euripides’ Electra,’ AJP 85 [1964] 13-39).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Although a number of suggestive parallels between the Philoctetes and Orestes have been noted by critics, discussion of these points has been restricted for the most part to matters of detail. In the preface to his edition, Euripide VI ¹: Oreste (Paris 1959) 15, F. Chapouthier observed that the entrance of the chorus during Orestes' sleep and the theme of their invocation to Night as the giver of dreams and rest was modelled on the Philoctetes (Or. 173-76; cf. Phil. 827-31). See also A. Dietrich, ‘Schlafscenen auf der attischen Bühne,’ RhM 46 (1891) 25–46. The parallel between the descriptions of Orestes and Pylades as twin lions and Heracles' description of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus (Or. 1401-02, 1554-55; cf. Phil. 1436-37) has frequently been noted, but its significance has not been fully explored. The same is true of the conclusions of both plays although Boulter, P. N., ‘The Theme of ’AΓPIA in Euripides' Orestes,’ Phoenix 16 (1962) 102–06, has noted a number of significant correspondences and contrasts between the two situations and A. Spira, Untersuchungen zum Deus ex machina bei Sophokles und Euripides (Kallmünz 1960) has observed that in both dramas the god appears to solve a human ‘Grenzsituation’ in the absence of complete human understanding. Both Boulter and E. Schlesinger in his review of Biehl's commentary on the Orestes, Gnomon 40 (1968) 613, have noted the informative parallelism of the descriptions of sickness in the plays. Parry (above n. 73) is one of the few writers who has seen a fundamental relationship existing between the two dramas in his brief discussion of the effect of isolation on both protagonists (347).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ von Fritz, K., ‘Die Orestessage bei den drei grossen griechischen Tragikern,' Antike und moderne Tragödie (Berlin 1962) 113–59.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Steidle, W., Studien zum antiken Drama, Studia et Testimonia Antiqua IV (Munich 1968) 96.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Although absolute assurance is not possible, it seems most likely that Euripides' Electra followed Sophocles'; see Vögler, A., Vergleichende Studien zur sophokleischen und euripideischen Elektra, Bibl. der kl. Altertumswiss. 19 (Heidelberg 1967) and H. Lloyd-Jones' acute review of this work, CR 19 (1969) 36–38. The debate, however, is far from resolved, and recently Ronnet, G., ‘Réflexions sur la date des deux Electre,’ REG 83 (1970) 309–32, has argued for the priority of Euripides' play (cf. Winnington-Ingram [above n. 73] 141, n. 43). The Homeric elements of Sophocles' Electra have long been recognized, and, if the priority of Sophocles' play is assumed, then a parallel can be drawn between Euripides' response to that drama with his Electra and my thesis that the Orestes replies to the Philoctetes. In both instances it is to the ‘Homeric’ elements of both Sophoclean plays that Euripides responds with greatest rigor. This section, however, is restricted to establishing the interconnections between the Philoctetes and Orestes. O'Brien (above n. 73) discusses how Euripides' conception of the Electra myth differs from Sophocles' and Solmsen, F., ‘Electra and Orestes: Three Recognitions in Greek Tragedy,’ Med. Nederl. Akad. van Wet. Afd. Letterk. 32.2 (1967) 31-62, examines in detail the dramatists' handling of certain traditional elements of the recognition scene.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Burnett's excellent discussion of this topic (above n. 1) 205-12. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Constant variety and novelty are obvious qualities of Euripidean drama and never more apparent than in his presentations of accounts of the Pelopidae. These innovations are not solely the product of the poet's different moral stance but also reflect what Winnington-Ingram (above n. 73) has described as the poet's wit and sophistication, his willingness to experiment with myth and the conventions of Attic drama to set his treatments apart from those of his predecessors. On 130, 133-35 Winnington-Ingram discusses the most conspicuous examples of Euripides' manipulations of dramatic conventions in the Orestes. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ It is also possible that, if the Orestes is considered as a response to the Philoctetes, then Euripides' highly imaginative version of the events after the death of Clytemnaestra signals the dramatist's desire to echo Sophocles' innovative treatment in the Philoctetes and to carry this technique to an extreme. Google Scholar

⁸¹ See F. D'Arms, E. and Hulley, K. K., ‘The Oresteia-Story in the Odyssey,’ TAPA 77 (1946) 207–13, for a convenient résumé of all the major references to this theme in the epic. G. P. Rose (above n. 51) stresses the allied motif of revenge in the epic; and it is this theme which becomes the guiding motivation for Orestes' actions in the second part of the play.Google Scholar

⁸² It should be observed, however, that the authenticity of these lines has often been questioned; see V. di Benedetto's discussion of the problems involved in his edition, Euripidis Orestes (Florence 1965), a work to which I am greatly in debt. I have also been aided by F. A. Paley's edition, Euripides, Vol. III (London 1860) and W. Biehl's extensive commentary, Euripides' Orestes (Berlin 1965).Google Scholar

⁸³ Reinhardt, K., Sophokles ³ (Frankfurt am Main 1947) 186–89, has an excellent discussion and comparison of this scene in the Philoctetes with the Trachiniae. J. Ferguson, A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Austin 1972), stresses the exceptional boldness and visual effect of the scene in the Philoctetes and believes that the unrestrained madness scene in the Orestes is indebted to it (204). Ferguson is very receptive to the notion of cross-influences among the Attic dramatists and describes Sophocles as having learned from Euripides in his old age as he had from Aeschylus in his youth (130). When discussing the Philoctetes he notes a number of Euripidean features such as the hero in rags, the characterization of Odysseus, and the use of the deus ex machina and describes the play as a ‘romantic melodrama of the type Euripides popularized’ (209).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Commenting on Euripides' use of small farmers and reports of their attitudes in the Electra, Orestes, and Bacchae Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy, trans. Frankfort, H. A. (New York 1965) observes: ‘Here we see the dissolution of the polis in yet another form: the city as the educator of the right type of man has become questionable; it is contrasted with the country, where goodness still prevails' (172). As the end of the Orestes illustrates, however, this doubt must be balanced against the poet's apprehension of the traditional heroic temper with its disregard for the body politic.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ This does not mean, however, that the social context does not figure in the drama since it does manifest itself throughout the drama in a variety of different forms. In the prologue, for example, Odysseus stresses the need for Neoptolemus' compliance to his orders and his own subordination to the Atreidae in turn (Phil. 4-6, 52-53). After the discovery of his part in the plot Odysseus reiterates this position and adds the important qualification that he was performing the will of Zeus as well (Phil. 989-90). He later threatens both Philoctetes and Neoptolemus with the Greek army if they do not comply with his demands (cf. Phil. 1250-58), and, in the final scene before the epiphany, the debate between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus is over the benefits Philoctetes will gain if he does go to Troy and the reasons for his refusal to compromise himself by aiding the Atreidae. These issues, however, do not provide the central issue of the drama so much as determine the context in which Philoctetes' resolve is tested. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ On Euripides' concept of law in the Orestes see the comments of N. Wedd in the preface to his edition, The Orestes of Euripides (Cambridge 1895) xxx–xxxiii, Steiger, H., Euripides (Leipzig 1912) 32–33, and Lanza, D., “Nóµoς et ἴσoν in Euripide,’' RFIC 41 (1963) 416-39. For the purpose of this study the precise nature of his concept is not as important as its presence.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Jones, J., On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London 1962) 83.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ This is especially true of Sophocles' Electra who, as Woodard, T. M., ‘Electra by Sophocles: The Dialectical Design,’ I and II, HSCP 68 (1964) 163–205; 70 (1965) 195–233, has shown, gradually moves from being the passive, albeit highly emotional, focus of the action to taking an active role in the plot against Clytemnaestra. In Euripides' Orestes, the protagonist undergoes a similar transformation; see Burnett (above n. 1) 213 and Lanza, D., ‘Unità e significato dell’ Oreste euripideo,’ Dionisio 35 (1961) 58-72.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Mullens, H. G., ‘The Meaning of Euripides' Orestes,’ CQ 34 (1940) 153.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Wedd (above n. 86) xxxi, Chapouthier (above n. 74) 8, Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy (London 1948) 270, Graves, R., The Greek Myths, 2 vols, (Baltimore 1955) 2.70. My view of Tyndareus is most in debt to F. Will's ‘Tyndareus in the Orestes,’ SO 37 (1961) 96-99.Google Scholar

⁹¹ As Conacher (above n. 30) observes, Tyndareus ‘regards any murder, retributive or otherwise, as an affront to human law (nomos) and punishable by it' (218). Google Scholar

⁹² Poetics 1454a 28-30. Lesky (above n. 84) 190-91, and Schlesinger, A. C., Boundaries of Dionysus (Cambridge [Mass.] 1963) 16–17, do not concur. Lesky stresses the importance of Menelaus and thinks he ‘alone makes the play's psychology intelligible’ (191). In his Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen (above n. 15) Lesky describes Menelaus' role as follows: ‘Die sehr biotisch geschilderte Verächtlichkeit des Menelaos charakterisiert die Welt, gegen die Orestes um sein Leben und das Schwester kämpft’ (194). The precise meaning of Aristotle's text has also caused concern; Else, G. F., Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge [Mass.] 1957) 463-67, discusses the text in considerable detail and believes that Aristotle's objection is not to Menelaus' character but his cowardice and craven decision not to help Orestes. For Else: ‘The significant thing is that the poet has chosen to decide Orestes' fate through an entirely different mechanism, the vote in the assembly, and has thereby nullified or neutralized the importance of Menelaus. The latter's poltroonery is “unnecessary” in view of the premise Euripides himself has laid down for his plot. It decides nothing, and a different characterization of him need not have altered matters essentially' (466-67). While this view may well reflect the nature of Aristotle's objection, it underestimates the importance of Menelaus for the drama.Google Scholar

⁹³ Cf. Blaiklock, E. M., The Male Characters of Euripides: A Study in Realism (Wellington 1952), Chap. Five, ‘Helen's Husband'; the particular fault Blaiklock singles out in Menelaus’ characterization in the five plays in which he appears is uxoriousness (75). Like Lesky (above n. 92) Blaiklock also stresses the close connection between the characterization of Orestes and Menelaus: ‘In the Orestes Menelaus' lack of moral depth, his weakness and sophistry are used as a background for his nephew's paranoia, and one characterisation cannot be separated from the other' (93). The particular trait Grube, G. M. A., The Drama of Euripides (London 1961), singles out is his ability to accept a fait accompli, for, as Grube observes, ‘although he wept for his brother's death, he had evidently no intention of doing anything about it’ (381).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ This attitude is made quite specific by the dramatist's choice of εύλαβέoµaι to epitomize his actions in this and the following passages. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Grube (above n. 93) 382, n. 1, quite properly stresses the importance of σαφές and Menelaus' equation of it with τò σoφóν for understanding his character. Greenberg, N. A., ‘Euripides’Orestes: An Interpretation,’ HSCP 66 (1962) 157–92, sees sophia as Menelaus' chief characteristic. Greenberg also stresses the divine element in the play and aptly describes Menelaus' ‘wisdom’ in the following terms: ‘It is a wisdom which is confined completely to this world of seeming, which pays little or no notice to the signs which betray another underlying world of reality. Not that it denies the existence of this other world: Menelaus can see Glaucus; but this other world can have no effect upon his activities. The sophia of Menelaus is a type of human reasoning that operates according to externals and the apparent. It manipulates these externals where it can, and its only criterion is success' (168).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Verrall, A. W., Essays on Four Plays of Euripides (Cambridge 1905) 199–264. Despite the limitations of Verrall's approach and his concept of Euripides as a rationalist (cf. Dodds, E. R., ‘Euripides the Irrationalist,’ CR 43 [1929] 97-104), this study with its concentration on what I have termed the play's social perspective remains of great value.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ The major burden for the continuity of the mythological context of the play is carried not by the individual characters but the chorus. Critics, however, have tended to minimize both the importance of the chorus and the relevance of the odes to the action of the drama. Verrall (above n. 96) believed that ‘neither the Medea nor the Orestes was originally planned for a chorus' (263) and dismissed the chorus of the Orestes in unequivocal terms: ‘Of the chorus, we need say little and would gladly say nothing’ (216). Kitto, Greek Tragedy ³ (London 1961 ), believes that the chorus was not intended to illuminate the action ‘but in an appropriate manner to fill the gaps in the action with lyrical ornament that will be acceptable for its own sake’ (343). Barlow, S. A., The Imagery of Euripides (London 1971) terms the chorus' descriptions as ‘decorative with elements of fantasy’ (124). I do not concur with these views and in a future study I will examine in detail the references to the realm of myth in the Orestes. The topic is too involved for inclusion in this study, and what matters for the purpose of this essay is not so much the nature of the relationship of the realm of myth to action of the dramas as its presence. The references to myth serve to create a ‘landscape’ which forms a constant counterpoint to the immediate political realities of the situation. O'Brien (above n. 73) defends the ‘Achilles ode’ in the Electra (El. 432-86) in similar terms (15-19).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ In this passage Odysseus stresses his compliance with the wishes of the divine in language which is reminiscent of his demands for Neoptolemus' compliance with his wishes in the prologue (cf. ὑπηϱετῶ δ’ ἐγώ, Phil. 990 and Phil. 50-53). Philoctetes does not question the existence of this continuity from the divine to human levels so much as its justice when viewed from his personal perspective, and it is a similar resentment which provokes his outburst at Phil. 446-52. As Poe (above n. 46) 26 observes, the irony of the situation goes beyond the fact that it is the unscrupulous Odysseus who is the agent of divine will but also entails the fact that Odysseus has prospered while Philoctetes has been subject to constant suffering for the past ten years. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Rodgers, V. A., ‘Σύνεσις and the Expression of Conscience,’ GRBS 10 (1969) 241–54. Rodgers has shown how difficult it is to equate σύνεσις with any of the English meanings of ‘conscience.’ Rodgers parallels the word with the verbal expression συνειδέναι τι ἑαυτῷ and believes that it refers primarily to Orestes' consciousness or understanding of what he has done: ‘What he [Orestes] is conscious of is the full horror of the deed, a feeling which need have nothing to do with awareness of culpability or moral guilt’ (250). Smith, W. D., ‘Disease in Euripides’ Orestes,’ Hermes 95 (1967) 291-307, believes oxymoron is involved and σύνεσις here is equivalent to νóσoς (297). In this study of the medical terminology of the play Smith has argued that the disease motif is not restricted to the physical level but extends through the mental and moral spheres of the play as well, and, while the equation of σύνεσις and νóσoς at this juncture is not as direct as Smith implies, the association is made and, to a certain extent, epitomized in the conspirators' plan and its execution.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Greenberg (above n. 95) 164-67, describes the scene with the bow as one of the three major intrusions of the non-rational or divine into the play, the other two being Glaucus' prophecy and the mysterious disappearance of Helen. The horn-tipped bow, whether actually present on the stage or not, is the emblem of Orestes' divine mission and so corresponds with Philoctetes' bow. Both are divine in origin and axioms of their owners' existence. Philoctetes is what he is because of his possession of Heracles' bow, and Orestes' quandary came about because of the mission he fulfilled for Apollo. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Boulter (above n. 74) and Smith (above n. 99). Boulter parallels the treatment of the theme of wildness in this play to that of the Hecuba and observes how ‘in both cases, we can see why they have become what they have, we can understand their moral failure, yet we cannot sympathize with their actions’ (106). For a similar but somewhat more sympathetic view of Hecuba see Kirkwood, G. M., ‘Hecuba and Nomos’(above n. 27). On the significance of the disease theme in the Philoctetes see P. Biggs, ‘The Disease Theme in Sophocles’ Ajax, Philoctetes, and Trachiniae,’ CP 61 (1966) 223–35, who stresses the close association between Philoctetes' wildness and disease.Google Scholar

¹⁰² The analogies with Philoctetes' appearance and attitude are obvious (e.g. Phil. 180-90, 1095-1101, 1321). Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Although there are distinct problems of interpretation of this and the immediately subsequent lines, the notion of capture is clearly involved in Menelaus' ἔχεις µε; cf. di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad. Or. 1617. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Parry (above n. 73) 340: ‘More and more alienated from the world outside their small circle, they are pushed closer together to the point where their interdependence becomes the all-inclusive and, when danger threatens, potentially violent self-protection of a jungle family. The subcivilized state to which they are reduced is underlined by the specific animal symbolism, which particularly toward the close of the play heightens the crescendo of the final, chaotic scenes.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Boulter (above n. 74) 103. Both Boulter (ibid.) and Parry (above n. 73) 340 trace Orestes' illness back to Tantalus' αἰσχíστη νóσoς (Or. 10). Cf. di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 831-32: ‘Per νóσoς, infatti, si intende non tanto una malattia fisica quanto una malattia mentale, la follia, secondo un'accezione ben attestata in tragedia. (È evidente però che l'impiego della parola vóσoς presuppone in ultima analisi una concezione logico secondo la quale la follia è vista essenzialmente come uno stato patologico dell'individuo e questo si adatta particolarmente al modo come Euripide presenta Oreste in questa tragedia).’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Smith, (above n. 99) 291.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. 301, 306.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ I do not share the opinion that this soliloquy offers little more than a genealogical account. With this speech Euripides establishes the basic framework for the action of the drama. First he sets the events and characters within the context of the traditional myth, he then establishes a continuity extending from the remote mythological past and the reign of Tantalus to the immediate present, and finally, starting with the description of the Argives' shocked reaction to Clytemnaestra's murder, (Or. 46 et seq.) begins to construct the social perspective which so marks the action of the play. (The opening of Or. 46 [ἔδoξε δ’ ἌAϱγει] coupled with the infinitive constructions of the following line appear to be a deliberate echo of the common Athenian legislative formula so familiar from inscriptions.) The novelty of this innovation should not obscure the significance of the first part of this speech where Euripides makes it clear that the young couple view themselves and their acts within the context of their family and its past experience. This linking of past and present is made visually explicit by the dramatic setting with the sick Orestes on a litter before his ancestral home. See N. C. Hourmouziades' Production and Imagination in Euripides (Athens 1965) for a number of suggestive comments on both the staging of this play and the manner in which the dramatist links stage effects with the thematic structure.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Muth (above n. 14) and Alt, K., ‘Schicksal und ΦYΣIΣ in Philoktet des Sophokles,’ Hermes 89 (1961) 141–74.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Diller, , ‘Der griechische Naturbegriff’ (above n. 14) 246.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cf. di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 3: ‘L'espressione ἀνθϱώπoυ φύσις — con φύσις riferita non a un singolo individuo, ma a tutta l'umanità — non è attestata prima di Hec. 296. Euripide assimilava e introduceva nel linguaggio tragico una delle conquiste più notevoli della scienza ionica.’ The precise meaning of Greek terms dealing with personality and individual traits are difficult to determine, and especially so in Euripides where traditional language and terminology are frequently extended to contexts alien to the original concepts. See also F. Will, ‘The concept of χαϱαϰτήϱ in Euripides,’ Glotta 39 (1960) 233–38, and Biehl, W., ‘Zur Darstellung des Menschen in Euripides' Orestes,’ Helikon 8 (1968) 197–221. In this study Biehl sees the unity of the drama stemming from its ‘Darstellung des Menschen’ and concludes: ‘Die Untersuchung hat gezeigt, dass die Einheit dieses Stückes, das den geläufigen Vorstellungen vom Wesen der Tragödie z.T. nur sehr wenig entspricht, weder von der formalen noch von der ethischen Seite her gesucht werden darf, sondern dass sie sich auf eine Grundkonzeption zurückführen lässt, die in der “Darstellung des Menschen'’ ihren massgeblichen Ausdruck gefunden hat' (219). See also the opening chapters of A. W. H. Adkins' From the Many to the One (Ithaca 1970) which outline the slow development and problems entailed in the Greek concept of the individual personality.Google Scholar

¹¹² This motif is prominent in the Electra as well; see O'Brien (above n. 73) 32-34. Google Scholar

¹¹³ See Odysseus' angry response to Laodamas' taunts, Od. 8.166-98. Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Ajax 936, 1163, 1240; Track. 20, 159, 506; El. 682, 699, 1441, 1491-92; O.C. 587, 1080, 1083, 1148-49; frr. 378P, 938P. In some of these passages (e.g. Ajax 936, 1163) a legal overtone to the physical sense of the term seems to be present; only rarely, however, does the legal connotation appear to be the more significant (cf. El. 1441, fr. 938P). In Aeschylus, however, there are a number of instances where the legal sense is quite clear (e.g. Eum. 677, 744). Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Since the courts in turn exercised considerable influence on drama, the agōn scene became a regular feature of Attic drama. Both J. Duchemin, L'ʼAΓΩN dans la tragédie grecque (Paris 1945), and Strohm (above n. 1) Pt. 1, describe the many variations of the basic pattern found in both Sophocles and Euripides. Strohm, in particular, stresses the important role this type of scene plays in the Orestes and how it is used to delineate the characters and their fundamental differences.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Tragica,’ BICS 16 (1969) 53–54, discusses the line in considerable detail and argues convincingly for Bothe's ἀσoφíας and the legal sense of ἀγών. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 846-48, however, argues in considerable detail that 848 should be excluded from the text. Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ On the meaning of βϱαβεύς see Fraenkel on Aga. 230 and Jebb on El. 690. The context of the passage makes it clear that Euripides intends the term to be understood in the sense of a judge at an athletic contest rather than the broader meaning employed at Medea 274 (cf. D. Page's note on this passage, Euripides: Medea [Oxford 1955] ad Medea 274).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 1291: ‘ʼAγων è qui usato in un senso improprio. C'è probabilimente una reminiscenza di Pho. 588 oὐ λóγων ἔθ’ ἁγών — non è più questione di discorsi — ma li si trattava del contrasto tra i due frattelli. Qui invece il termine “scade” fino a diventare l'equivalente di ϰαιϱóς o ἀϰµή: cfr. Soph. Ai. 811 oὐχ ἕδϱας ἀϰµή.' Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Benedetto, Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 1342.Google Scholar

¹²¹ See Burnett's excellent discussion (above n. 1) 210-12. As Burnett observes, Orestes in this play bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Clytemnaestra in the Agamemnon. The strong emphasis on heroic πóνoς in Or. 1223 may be intended to echo this theme in the Philoctetes (cf. Phil. 1418-22). Google Scholar

¹⁸² As with Or. 848 (above n. 117), di Benedetto (above n. 82) ad Or. 1245 argues for the exclusion of this line implying life and death alternatives. Google Scholar

¹²³ This aspect of Orestes' attitude sharply differs from Neoptolemus' insistence on δíϰη in his return of the bow to Philoctetes (Phil. 1234, 1244-51), and in this respect Euripides more closely approximates the traditional heroic mentality as represented in the epics. See A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (above n. 55), Chap. III, and ‘Honour’ and ‘Punishment’ in the Homeric Poems,’ (above n. 54). On Euripides' parallel use of the άγὼν ἀϱετῆς motif in the Iphigeneia among the Taurians see Whitman (above n. 4) 19. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Burnett (above n. 1) 213-16, stresses the negative aspects of Pylades' character and influence on Orestes and the contrast this portrayal offers with the traditional view of Pylades as the just and pious counselor of Orestes. Greenberg (above n. 95) who analyzes the play in terms of the interplay and contrast of the themes of sophia and philia describes Pylades as the extreme exponent of philia (183) which he subsequently characterizes as ‘an explosive force with a characteristic logic of action; it is a hungry emotion which demands continual sustenance in an active goal’ (184). For Greenberg the conspirators' heroic enterprise is a manifestation of their aristocratic philia which is the diametric opposite of Menelaus' sophia (cf. 186-87). Google Scholar

¹²⁵ With the result that, as Verrall observes (above n. 96), ‘by mutual deceptions the conspirators seem gradually to lose, without becoming incredible, all touch with the world of reality’ (246-47). Google Scholar

¹²⁶ This motif is the primary subject of Parry's study (above n. 73); see also Strohm, (above n. 1) 87, Spira, (above n. 74) 141-45, and Krieg, W., De Euripidis Oreste (Halle 1934) 43–44.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Redling (above n. 69) 76. ‘… if we interpret Neoptolemus’ role from the point of view of Philoctetes' deliverance, then the inner change of Neoptolemus becomes an essential part of the play, for he turns from a false friend into a true friend of Philoctetes and fulfills the latter's main desire' (76; cf. 79). Poe (above n. 46) stresses the importance of the same factors from a slightly different perspective. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ In the execution of this similar pattern it should be noted that Orestes and Pylades are a composite of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes epitomizing the predicament of both Sophoclean characters, sometimes underscoring characteristics of behavior Sophocles had associated with one figure, and sometimes with the other. For example, in his isolation from society Orestes is more akin to Philoctetes than to Neoptolemus, and at the same time it is Pylades who like Philoctetes provides the impetus to the action by his proposal of a heroic course of action. This ‘splitting’ of Sophoclean characters by Euripides is also found in the Iphigeneia in Aulis where, as Bellinger, A. R., ‘Achilles' Son and Achilles,’ YCS 6 (1939) 1–13, has shown, even though Achilles is modeled on Sophocles' Neoptolemus, it is Iphigeneia who in certain significant respects most closely resembles Achilles' son.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Greenberg (above n. 95), developing a suggestion by G. Perrotta, ‘Studi Euripidei, II & III,’ SIFC 6 (1928) 102 ff., believes that the Orestes should be seen as ‘a retelling of the Orestes story in which the murder of Clytemnaestra is repeated in the attempted murder of Helen’ (160). For Greenberg ‘the central irony of the play, drawn with telling artistry, is that the same killers who claim that the fault is solely Apollo's can bring themselves to commit a most similar murder without that excuse’ (162). A similar thesis was advanced by Steiger, H., Wie entstand der Orestes des Euripides? (Augsburg 1898) 20–24, who stressed the analogies between the last part of the Orestes with Sophocles' Electra and the deaths of Clytemnaestra and Aegisthus. Krieg (above n. 126) 22-23, however, considered the attack on Helen a noble effort. Lesky, Lesky, ‘Zum Orestes des Euripides,' WS 53 (1935) 37-47, does not share Krieg's warm opinion of the conspirators, he considers their attempts heroic because of the dreadful situation in which they are placed.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ The unreality of the sentiment is accented by Electra's proposal of the abduction of Hermione shortly following the conclusion of Orestes' speech (cf. Or. 1181-1203). Google Scholar

¹³¹ Bacon, H., Barbarians in Greek Tragedy (New Haven 1961) 118; as Bacon observes, the Phrygian eunuch, although an incidental character, is the most carefully depicted foreigner in Euripidean tragedy (cf. 146-47, 153).Google Scholar

¹³² It is also quite likely that the ludicrous portrayal of the Phrygian reflects contemporary Athenian resentment of Persian support for the Spartans. Google Scholar

¹³³ This description, together with the Phrygian's later emphasis on the servants' apprehension of a δóλoς (Or. 1419), suggests another parallel to the Philoctetes, that Pylades is portrayed as behind Orestes' acts in the same way as Odysseus was behind Neoptolemus' deception of Philoctetes. This analogy provides additional support for Burnett's appraisal of Pylades' role (above n. 1) 213-216 (above n. 124). Google Scholar

¹³⁴ I do not concur with G. A. Seeck's thesis, ‘Rauch im Orestes des Euripides,’ Hermes 97 (1969) 9–22, that all references to the firing of the palace should be excised.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Boulter, (above n. 74) 105.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ As Winnington-Ingram (above n. 73) 130, observes, the way in which Euripides manipulates the dialogue of Or. 1591-92 makes it clear that Pylades is a mute and so hints at the forthcoming deus ex machina. Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Parry, (above n. 73) 347.Google Scholar