Sophocles' Trachiniae has provoked among the critics a broad variety of responses ranging from strong censure and denial of Sophoclean authorship at one extreme to expressions of approval and great praise at the other. In recent years the literature on the play has tended to approach the drama in a more sympathetic vein and critics have displayed a much more positive stance to both the contents and dramaturgy of the play. Although the debates about such questions as those of date, structure, purpose, theme, characterization, and unity continue, elements of the drama which earlier writers had tended to pass over, treat in an apologetic view, or even ascribe to the presence of textual flaws have been examined in a frank and open manner with positive results. The fact remains, however, that despite these advances there still persists a considerable reluctance to accept the figure of Heracles as he is presented in the drama. There can be no doubt that the characterization of Heracles is the fundamental reason why the Trachiniae has long been regarded as the great problem play of the Sophoclean corpus, and while for the most part we have moved from the blanket condemnation of this character that marked many earlier studies, the tendency to regard Heracles and consequently the Trachiniae as anomalies persists.