University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

(USC Thesis Other)

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SOPHOCLES' ELEKTRA AND PHILOKTETES: KNOWLEDGE, PLOT, AND SELF-REFERENCE by Alexandra Papoutsaki A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Classics) August 1999 Copyright 1999 Alexandra Papoutsaki UMI Number: DP22305 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, th ese will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP22305 Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 Ph.J), S* * I * * * P 3 l ? f This dissertation, w ritten by .......Alexandra Pagoutsaki......... under the direction o f h&r D issertation Committee, and approved b y all its members, has been presented to and accepted b y The Graduate School, in partial fu lfillm en t of re quirements fo r the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O SO P H Y in of Graduate Studies D ate . . . . A?.?.?. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson To my mother, and to the memory of my father. i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to my dissertation chair, Professor Richard Caldwell, for his valuable guidance, constructive criticism, and suggestions, that helped me develop and complete this dissertation. Without his assistance, support, and encouragement this work would not have been possible. Also, I would like to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to Professor Anthony Boyle for being in my dissertation committee, for his critique of my work, his support and advice. I am indebted to Professor Moshe Lazar of Comparative Literature for being a member of my committee, for his support, detailed suggestions, and thoughtful comments. I would like to thank Professor William Thalmann for his readings and guidance during the first stage of this work.. I greatly appreciate his comments which were very valuable in the development of the dissertation. My thanks to Professor Thomas Habinek for reading an earlier draft of the dissertation, and for his helpful comments. My deepest appreciation and thanks also go to my mother, Maria Papoutsaki, for her loving support; to my sister, Dr. Vana Papoutsaki; to George Denvias for the time he spent discussing the plays with me. Some ideas in the dissertation have found their origins in our conversations. I would like to thank my dear friends, Dr. Zafirios Gourgouliatos, Prof. Therese DeVet, Harold Haugen and Betty Haugen, Helen Bremmer, Natasha Mentavlos, and Dr. Constance Tasoulis for their advice, encouragement, support, and understanding, that made completing this project possible. I also thank the members of the Department of Classics at the University of Southern California for their long standing support, and for providing me with financial assistance during the years of my training. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Elektra and Illusion of Control 24 III. Philoktetes and Breakdown of Control 112 IV. The Sophoclean Intrigue Play 201 V. Bibliography 212 v INTRODUCTION In Sophocles' intrigue plays, the Elektra and the Philoktetes, various characters attempt to establish control over the world of the play through the manipulation of knowledge. The success and failure of these efforts raise questions about the characters' ability to establish a degree of control over their world that is more than temporary or illusory. In the Elektra, despite the success of the intrigue, the control Orestes establishes is questionable. And Philoktetes cannot control his own future, despite the collapse of the plot that was formed in order to deceive him. The future of Orestes and the eventual conclusion of Philoktetes' struggle are dictated by the framework of the mythic tradition, including previous dramatic presentations. In both plays Sophocles evokes questions about the extent of human control over the world through the means of knowledge and invokes the audience's own knowledge of the mythic tradition and dramatic convention. Audiences expected that the general outcome of the plays would conform to the tradition and both plays, eventually, do so. But throughout these plays the characters' manipulation of knowledge and struggle for control are intrinsically connected with Sophocles' varied 1 and extensive use of self-referentiality--instances in which the audience is, without being forced to deviate from its participation in the ongoing narrative, reminded of the play as a play and of its own knowledge of the events enacted. This self-referentiality not only focuses audience attention on questions about knowledge and control, it also brings the audience's own knowledge into play. Ultimately, as I shall show, the dramatization of the themes of knowledge and control, in association with the playwright's use of self- ref erentiality , produces a commentary on the limitations of tragic drama and the playwright's response to them. The self-referential aspect of drama is often called "metatheater." The term was introduced by the playwright and critic Lionel Abel in 1963 in his book Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form. Abel believes that metatheater is "a comparably philosophic form of drama" that employs devices which produce the "sense that the world is a projection of human consciousness."1 Abel, for example, discusses characters who act as playwrights-within-the-play in Shakespeare's Hamlet.2 He says that in Hamlet it is difficult to encounter a scene in which "some character is 1 Abel 1963: 113. 2 As Abel notes, the concept of internal playwrights relies on a metaphor, but "no other metaphor could throw an equal light on the play's movement." See ibid: 49. 2 not trying to dramatize another. Almost every important character acts at some moment like a playwright, employing a playwright's consciousness of drama to impose a certain posture or attitude on another."3 Abel distinguishes all characters in the play as fundamentally dramatists or would- be dramatists, who impose or plan to impose a certain posture or attitude on other characters, and fundamentally actors, who adopt the postures or attitudes the dramatists impose on them. He says that Gertrude and Ophelia are actors, while Hamlet, Claudius, Polonius, and the Ghost are dramatists. According to Abel, Hamlet is "the first stage figure with an acute awareness of what it means to be staged."4 Hamlet was the first theatrical figure who fully expressed the fact that "none of us, no matter what our situation, really knows the form of the plot he is in."5 And Abel continues, "certainly Hamlet is one of the first characters to be free of his author's contrivances. Some three hundred years later six characters would visit a playwright, who had not invented them, and according to his own testimony, ask him to be their author."6 Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author is another example of 3 Ibid: 45-6. 4 Ibid: 57-8. 5 Ibid: 58. 6 Ibid: 58. 3 theater that draws attention to its own theatricality. By the term "metatheatre" Abel designates not only plays which employ the play-within-a-play, but also "theatre pieces about life seen as already theatricalized."7 Jean Genet's play, The Balcony, for example, is a metaplay, which dramatizes characters who are equipped "each with his own senario," and "having full self-consciousness, cannot but participate in their own dramatization."8 Also, Brecht's most characteristic theatrical device, his insistence that the actors play feelings as if they were acted and not directly felt, produces plays that portray the reality of theater and not that of life.9 Bruno Gentili uses the term "metatheater" in a different sense, by applying it to "plays constructed from previously existing plays."10 Niall Slater in his Plautus in Performance notes that "the Plautine process of composition is the very paradigm of metatheatre: he imitates not life but a previous text. Plautine theatre, then, is not mimetic in nature but metatheatric."1 1 Hornby defines metadrama as "drama about drama." He says that "it occurs whenever the subject of a 7 Ibid: 60. 8 Ibid: 78ff. 9 Ibid: 105. 1 0 Gentili 1979: 15. 1 1 Slater 1985: 169. 4 play turns out to be, in some sense, drama itself,"12 and lists five types of the metadramatic: the play within the play, the ceremony within the play, role playing within the role, literary and real-life reference within the play, and self-ref erence .13 The degree to which Classical Greek drama attracts the audience's attention to its theatricality was addressed by Oliver Tapiin in 1986 in his Fifth-Century Tragedy and Comedy: A Synkrisis. Taplin compares tragedy and Old Comedy with respect to the different modes of interplay that they create between stage and auditorium, and concludes that while tragedy may be self-reflexive in various subtle ways, it does not explicitly acknowledge its own theatricality.14 Taplin establishes that Greek tragedy does not break the theatrical illusion by making explicit references to its theatricality. Also, the avoidance of anachronistic intrusions in tragedy's mythic world coincides with general avoidance of explicit acknowledgment of the play's audience or its specific concerns. Thus the notion of metatheater in tragedy is often rejected on the assumption that it refers only to the type of open reference to the play's theatricality that is found in Old Comedy, such as direct address of the audience, discussions of the play's 1 2 Hornby 1986: 31. 1 3 Ibid: 32f f . 5 authorship, or other internal references to the play itself. But the avoidance of any such explicit self-attention does not mean that implicit self-reference is also absent. The metatheatrical aspect of Euripidean plays has already become the subject of scholarship. Froma Zeitlin, in "The Closet of Masks: Role-playing and Myth making in the Orestes of Euripides," examines the self-consciousness in the play as it is viewed through allusions to previous texts. She remarks that in the Orestes we find "a truly self-reflective work of art, that is, like Hamlet's play within a play, art in the process of reflecting on art."15 Helene Foley, in "The Masque of Dionysus," argues that with the Bacchae "Euripides closed a career of increasingly manipulative and illusion-breaking treatment of dramatic conventions."16 Charles Segal's "Metatragedy: Art, Illusion, Imitation"17 discusses the metatragic dimension of the Bacchae, that is the "self-conscious reflection by the dramatist on the theatricality and illusion-inducing power of his own work, on the range and the limits of the truth 10 that the dramatic fiction can convey." 1 4 Taplin 1986. 1 5 Zeitlin 1980: 69. 1 6 Foley 1980: 107. 1 7 In Segal 1982: 215-17. 1 8 Ibid: 216. 6 Only recently studies of Sophoclean drama have concentrated on the self-referentiality or metatheater in the Elektra and the Philoktetes and critics have drawn various conclusions about the meanings Sophocles developed through these instances of self-reference. Batchelder investigated parallels in the Elektra between the struggles among the playwrights-directors of the inner plays and the struggle to establish political authority.19 Batchelder sees Orestes as part of a larger poetic tradition of the artist as authority figure who restores justice through art.20 "Just as Odysseus used stories and the disguise of a beggar to reestablish his authority in Ithaca, so Sophocles' Orestes uses the art of poetry and the illusions of the theater to restore the true voice of authority in Mycenae."21 Falkner, in his study of self-representation in Sophocles' Philoktetes, sees Philoktetes as a model of the properly receptive audience, and argues that through the internal playwright, Odysseus, the play calls into question the intentions and the integrity of the tragic author, but ultimately Sophocles' metatheater is a defense of theater's ability to elevate its audience morally.22 And Ringer's study of metatheater in Sophocles concludes that Sophocles' 1 9 Batchelder 1995. 2 0 Ibid: 6. 2 1 Ibid: 3. 7 critique of theater in the two plays raises troubling moral issues, presents theater as a dangerous form of deception, and questions the survival of tragic drama and the culture that had fostered it.23 In the present study I shall discuss the sources of self-referentiality in the Elektra and the Philoktetes, that is, intertextual reference, the play-within-a-play structure, and manipulation of tragic conventions, and I shall examine the relation of these devices to certain issues that the playwright addresses. While Ringer and Falkner believe that the plays' self-referentiality directs attention to ethical concerns, and Batchelder associates it with the pursuit of political authority in the Elektra, I shall argue that the two plays' self-reference, studied against already existing texts, points to issues of knowledge, control, and human limitations. I shall show that the two extant Sophoclean intrigue plays are truly self-referential in the sense that they provide a commentary on the challenging limitations of the mythic tradition and the strategies that playwrights employ in order to face this challenge. 2 2 Falkner 1998. 2 3 Ringer 1998. Ringer discusses metatheater in all seven extant Sophoclean plays; but with the exception of the two intrigue plays, metatheater constitutes a more subtle or limited phenomenon in Sophoclean drama. 8 Just as the control established by his characters turns out to be temporary and illusory, the dramatist is limited by the conventions of theater and the demands of the mythic tradition from which he derives his subject matter. Innovation allows the playwright to control the actions of his characters but he is ultimately limited by the demands of the tradition. Therefore, he is limited in an important sense by what the audience knows. Only the playwright's ability to innovate and manipulate the legends, within the framework allowed by the tradition, provides him with the dramatic space in which to explore fresh ideas. Unlike the already existing studies of Sophoclean metatheater, my work is intertextual, viewing both the Elektra and the Philoktetes against the already existing literary tradition. I study the Elektra in comparison with Aeschylus' Choephoroi, and the Philoktetes in comparison with Aeschylus' and Euripides' plays with the same title and to a lesser extent with the Little Iliad. Parts of my approach are the same as that of the above mentioned critics, that is, the study of the play-within-a-play aspect of the plays, and discussion of some tragic conventions. But Ringer, Falkner, and Batchelder discuss these aspects as they occur in the plays as self-contained entities, and associate them either with poetic authority or with the ethical status of tragedy. I study the play-within-a-play 9 in the context of intertextual comparison, and discuss both, play-within-a-play and tragic conventions, with regard to management and distribution of knowledge, as well as the cognitive levels created on the stage, and how these levels affect the direction of the plays' plots. And I show that Sophocles' self-referentiality ultimately addresses the question of drama as the means of knowledge. The methodology of my work focuses on audience reception. The self-referential approach helps explain why and how the audience notices certain aspects of the plays, how the levels of audience reception occur and where they originate as the plays unfold during the performance. I discuss the themes of knowledge, control, and human limitations in the context of the self-referential devices that the playwright uses, because, as I show, the instances of self-reference draw audience attention to the significance of these themes, and contribute to the audience's perception of the unity of technique and meaning in the playwrights' artistry. I adopt Falkner's definition of self-referentiality "as a heightening of a dimension of literary experience that is to some degree always present: explicitly of implicitly, boldly or subtly, intentionally or unintentionally."24 This dimension is a level of audience response. The levels of audience response occur 24 Falkner 1998: 30. 10 simultaneously, since, as N.S. Rabinowitz notes, "we simultaneously realize that we are attending a performance, a reenactment of an old story, and believe that what we see is happening for the first time."25 Although P. J. Rabinowitz's theory of audiences, was first designed with narrative fiction in mind, it provides a good description of the audience's experience of tragedy. Rabinowitz distinguishes two dimensions of the experience, which he calls the narrative audience and the authorial audience. Since the terms refer to simultaneous processes, it is easier to refer to them as levels of response. The narrative level of response is the level at which the audience willingly accepts the action on stage as real and responds with the appropriate emotions. The authorial audience, on the other hand, is defined by Rabinowitz as "the audience the author had in mind when constructing the text," the audience whose "values, knowledge and understanding of conventions" the author saw as the optimal basis for appreciating his text.26 Of course, it is difficult to tell what percentage of the ancient audience thought in analytical terms, when it watched the plays. The range of sophistication and educational levels among the members of the audience, as well as our difficulties in 25 N. S. Rabinowitz 1986: 173. 26 P. J. Rabinowitz 1986: 117. 11 constructing the ancient audience, limit our ability for successful study of audience reception. Therefore, when I discuss audience response, I refer to the optimal level of understanding what the author had in mind. As Seale states, the more educated Athenian may have come to the play with some knowledge of the epic versions of the myth about Philoctetes and of the destined course of events at Troy, in which he plays so significant a part. Many Athenians would also have had the opportunity to see the dramas by Aeschylus and Euripides on the same topic.27 The same is true about the audience of the Elektra. In spite of the play's chronological distance of at least forty years from the Choephoroi, the more educated members of the audience would be familiar with that version of the story. A response at the authorial level is one in which the audience is conscious that it is viewing a play. Such responses happen in the most ordinary way, when, for example, a spectator in the modern theater understands the convention of acts and recognizes that scene and time have shifted as a new act begins. This does not disrupt the spectator's participation at the narrative level, though it does require a very slight stepping back from that level. But there are more complex types of authorial response that can be evoked by explicit or implicit instances of self- ref erence. Very explicit self-referentiality such as an actor's direct address of the audience creates an 12 interruption in the ongoing narrative response by breaking whatever level of illusion was operating in the play. But implicit self-reference can, without actually breaking the audience's narrative response, produce authorial responses in which the audience may become "more conscious of the 'constructedness' of the text and the medium of its presentation" or may focus "on some more abstract issue to which the text seems to point."28 And just as the narrative and authorial levels of response happen simultaneously, both these types of authorial response can occur at the same time. Thus, any change in a convention or any pointed emphasis on a more abstract issue can lead to a heightening of the authorial level of response. These are exactly the types of response that Sophocles1 intrigue plays produce as the playwright manipulates conventions, creates plays within plays, and challenges what the audience knows about the mythic tradition and previous versions of the stories he is presenting. The challenging of audience knowledge is a very important aspect of Greek tragedy, since the conditions under which it was produced made a high level of intertextuality unavoidable. The writing of tragedy required the manipulation of both the material from the 2 7 Seale 1972 : 95 . 2 8 Falkner, 1998: 31. 13 mythic tradition and the conventions of tragic theater. Within this framework, the individual playwright tried to achieve a balance between repetition and innovation, conforming to the general outline of the tradition and convention, and at the same time arranging the characters and events within the play in a way that allowed him to express particular ideas. As Burian says, the "particular shape and emphases of a tragic plot . . . can forcefully direct or dislocate spectators' attention, confirm, modify, or even overturn their expectations."29 Intertextuality evokes the authorial level of response and is one of the principal means by which Greek tragedy becomes self- referential without disrupting the audience's narrative level of response. The approach of my work focuses on the meaning that Sophocles conveys through references to previously existing texts and through the directions his innovations take. Self-reference is not unique to these two Sophoclean plays; as Ringer's study shows, we witness instances of it in all seven extant plays of Sophocles. But the unique phenomenon about the two intrigue plays is that the dramatized contrivance produces extensive plays-within- plays, which create metatheater exactly as Abel describes it, as giving the audience the sense "that the world is a 29 Burian, 1997: 179. 14 projection of human consciousness."30 Contrivance constitutes a substantial part of the Elektra and the Philoktetes, and plays a decisive role in the distribution of knowledge levels among the plays1 characters. When I discuss knowledge in the analysis of the plays, I refer to factual knowledge--names, identities, past events, the contents of prophecies, motivations, and present circumstances. This is knowledge in the general sense of what the characters know and do not know, what is kept from them, what lies are told to them and what they believe they know. I do not propose to investigate every aspect of what these plays may have to say about knowing in a more general sense. Factual knowledge often plays an important role in Sophoclean drama. But the manipulation of knowledge in the two intrigue plays is very different from, for example, Oedipus' relentless pursuit of knowledge in Oedipus Tyrannus. In the Elektra and the Philoktetes knowledge is denied to others in order to enable the plotters to gain control over people and circumstances. Orestes' identity is concealed from other characters and the true purpose of Neoptolemos is concealed from Philoktetes. In both cases the deceivers arrive in a group, attempt to impose false knowledge on their audiences, and, by doing so, they direct 3 0 Abel 1963: 113. 15 the events of the plays. These intrigues function like plays within the plays. Unlike theatrical drama, however, these inner plays are undertaken with urgent, immediate goals in view. In both plays the terms of the prophecies are eventually fulfilled--whether by means of the successful manipulation of knowledge or in spite of the failure of such manipulation. They have been accomplished through more or less innovative routes, but these are part of the playwright's prerogative. Yet the endings of the two plays are unusual in different ways. They are both' highly self- referential and raise questions about what has taken place and about the degree of control that can be established through human contrivance. Both the Elektra and the Philoktetes were produced at a time of political turbulence for Athens. Deception was widely practiced in the city at times of ruthless exercise of imperial power, especially by the oligarchs and demagogues, whose manipulation of the demos became a source of problems for Athenian political life after the death of Perikles and especially during the last years of the Peloponnesian War.31 The manipulation in the plays reflects social practices and the intellectual movement of the 3 1 The Oligarchy of the Four Hundred was established in 411 B.C. On the Four Hundred in that light see Aristotle, Pol. 5.3.8 16 Sophists, who attempted to educate the youth through their theories of knowledge and relativism of perception and understanding.32 By focusing on the use of knowledge in association with the control humans achieve through it, the playwright addresses the limits the citizen faces in the context of current social practices, and at the same time asserts his own role as a teacher of his audience. Aristophanes1 Frogs presents the Athenian tragic poet as a teacher of adults,33 a person who can improve the citizen.34 With the Elektra, and more obviously with the Philoktetes, through self-referential theater, Sophocles comments on the role of the tragic poet as teacher, and his ability to convey knowledge to his audience. I will use the terms "playwright/director," "actor," "inner plot," "inner play," "play-within-a-play," and "inner audience." Playwright/director is the character who outlines the details of the intrigue plot, and directs other characters, the actors, who play characters other than themselves, or assume a new persona, as in the case of Neoptolemos. Inner plot is the intrigue plot that creates 1304b, and Plutarch, Alkibiades 26.1-2. On Cleon's influence on the masses see Thycydides 4.21.3. 3 2 On the Sophistic movement see Kerferd 1981, Rankin 1983. For scholarly work on the Sophists' influence on Sophocles see Long 1968: 8, n. 17. 3 3 Frogs 1054-55. 3 4 Frogs 1009-10. 17 the play-within-the-play or inner play, and the inner audience consists of those characters on stage who surrender to the illusion the inner plot creates, just as the play's audience surrenders to the illusion tragedy creates. Illusion in Greek tragedy has been the subject of controversy. For example, Styan argues that Sophocles' theater is non-illusory,35 and Sifakis says that Greek theater makes no effort to appear true to everyday life, is unrealistic, and anti-illusionistic.36 There is, however, a distinction between stylized theater and non-illusory theater. It is true that the style of acting and costumes, as well as the presence of the chorus, and the simply suggestive scenery in Greek tragedy make no effort to appear true to everyday life. Although Greek tragedy is stylized theater, it is not necessarily non-illusory theater. Dover gives a good definition of illusion as "the uninterrupted concentration of the fictitious personages of the play on the fictitious situation."37 Although this definition does not account for the function of the audience, it is precisely the uninterrupted concentration of the fictitious personages of the play on the fictitious situation that charms the audience into the reality of that situation, and so it can forget that the situation is fictitious 3 5 See Styan 1975: 180-81. 3 6 Sifakis 1971: 11. 18 temporarily. The uninterrupted concentration on the portrayed actions creates the illusion of real situations, even in stylized theater, such as Greek tragedy. Gorgias' statement that "by its myths and passions tragedy creates that deception [ariam] , in respect to which he who deceives is more just than he who does not deceive, and he who is deceived is wiser than he who is not deceived"38 refers to the surrender of the audience to the illusion created by tragedy. The playwright who manages to involve the audience in illusion by "deceiving" it is SiKaioTepoq, because he gives it the opportunity to learn through surrender, which can have a profound effect not only intellectually, but also aesthetically and emotionally. The person who allows himself to be deceived is oocpcoiepoq, because through the surrender he allows the play to perform its educational function fully. This person is open to the profound experience of learning through tragedy, as the Philoktetes explicitly shows. Aeschylus and Euripides employ intrigue, as well. We have the examples of Euripides' Medea (431 B.C.), Hekuba (430-420 B.C.), Iphigeneia in Tauris (approximately 415 B.C.), Elektra (approximately 413 B.C.), Helen (412 B.C.), 3 7 Dover 1972 : 56 . 19 and the Bacchae (406 B.C.), and Aeschylus' Agamemnon and the Choephoroi (458 B.C.). The Elektra (410's B.C.) and the Philoktetes (409 B.C.) are the only extant Sophoclean intrigue tragedies. In both plays Sophocles treats the intrigue as a significant source of a pervasive self- reference that points to ideas the playwright wants to convey to his audience. Euripides' earlier plays employ theatrical self-consciousness in smaller scale, while his later plays, the Helen and the Bacchae, are overcharged with it. 39 The boldest example of self-reference in tragedy is the Bacchae, where change of costumes takes place, and the god of theater is one of the play's characters. Perhaps it is not accidental that the two Sophoclean and two Euripidean plays were all produced toward the end of the fifth century. These four instances lead to the reasonable inference that Greek tragedy exhibits an awareness of its theatricality as it moves toward the end of the fifth century.40 Of course, this inference is based only on study of the extant tragedies. With chronology problems and the small number of 3 8 Gorgias, Helen, 11. 3 9 For discussions of this aspect in the Helen, see Segal 1971; in the Bacchae, see Segal 1982 and Foley 1980. 4 0 "The nearest that tragedy approaches to this [play within a play] is in certain uses of contrived disguise such as the 'merchant' in Philoctetes and the escape scene in Helen. Such scenes seem to occur in the 'outer' periods of fifth-century tragedy," says Taplin 1986: 171. 20 extant plays it is difficult to tell which playwright influences the other. Perhaps Sophocles and Euripides influenced each other. Certainly they both created under the influence of political and intellectual events of their time. Both witnessed the activities of the demagogues, the Oligarchy of the Four Hundred, and the teachings of the Sophistic movement. Study of Sophocles' fragments can shed light on the relationship of the two playwrights regarding employment of self-reference. Perhaps under the influence of Euripides, or out of need to refine theatrical technique, as both playwright and audience become increasingly more aware of ways of expression, these later Sophoclean plays demonstrate a self-consciousness about the medium of theater that corresponds with the same characteristic in later Euripidean plays. As theatrical techniques become more and more sophisticated, tragedy is enriched with metatheatrical dimensions, a phenomenon that finds its peak in comedy, a clearly self-reflexive form of drama. I shall begin with the Elektra, proceed with the Philoktetes, and conclude with some remarks about the Sophoclean intrigue play, to which this work leads. In the chapter on the Elektra I discuss three instances of self- ref erentiality, that is, intertextual reference, the play- within-a-play structure, and manipulation of dramatic convention, to the extent that they direct audience 21 attention to other issues that the playwright addresses in the play. I view the instances of self-reference in association with the themes of the manipulation of knowledge and the control for which Orestes struggles through that manipulation, and I show that self-reference invites the audience to think about the implications of these themes, by evoking authorial level of audience response. My study of the play is mainly intertextual, focusing on the Sophoclean change of emphasis, and the nature of Sophocles' innovations. The play-like quality of the intrigue points to the parallel between the playwright's control of the play's events, and Orestes' control of events of his own plot. I show that in comparison with the Choephoroi, Sophocles' innovations are cast in the framework of a treatment that comments on the limits on the control achieved through manipulation and questions the knowledge at the foundation of Orestes' play. The next chapter is an examination of the three instances of self-referentiality in the Philoktetes in the context of comparison of the play with previous literary treatments of the same myth, that is, Aeschylus' and Euripides' Philoktetes, and the Little Iliad. In this play the repeated occurrence of self-reference constantly evokes authorial audience response through the manipulation of the audience's knowledge of the myth. I show that the extensive 22 employment of self-reference points to an organic treatment of knowledge that goes through stages as the play progresses. The Philoktetes dramatizes different paradigms of learning and a process of knowledge acquisition that characters undergo through their interaction with other characters. These levels of knowledge are immediately related to direction and control of the play's plot, and show that the play's self-referentiality validates the ability of theater to transmit knowledge and teach its audience.41 In the final chapter I conclude that in these intrigue plays Sophocles brings together technique and meaning into an organic unit. The two plays reflect political events in Athens at the time of their production, as well as the intellectual movement of the Sophists who taught in the city at the time. The pervasive self-reference draws attention to the play as a play, but also points to issues of human limitations that the playwright wants to address. And I show that through his self-referential theater Sophocles addresses the issues of knowledge and control in his characters' lives as well as in real life and theater itself. 4 1 I have used the Lloyd-Jones and Wilson text of Sophocles in the discussion of passages. In the translation of passages I was assisted by the commentaries of Kells on the Elektra and Webster on the Philoktetes, as well as Lattimore's translation of the plays. 23 ELEKTRA AND ILLUSION OF CONTROL The Elektra of Sophocles has been the subject of numerous discussions. Several aspects of the play have attracted the critics' attention, such as Apollo's administration of justice,1 the characters' intentions,2 morality and tragic meaning,3 Elektra as the uncompromising heroine,4 the ending of the play,5 and other questions. Also, Charles Segal and David Seale have discussed issues such as the opposition between appearance and reality, and have drawn attention to theatrical aspects of the play.6 More recently Ann Batchelder's work on self-reference in the Elektra draws a parallel between the struggle among characters who operate as playwrights/directors inside the play and the struggle to gain or maintain political authority.7 And according to Mark Ringer's study of metatheater in Sophocles the occurrence of plays-within- plays and other instances of self-conscious theatricality in 1 Bowra 1944, Adams 1957. 2 Kitto 1961, Kirkwood 1958, Reinhardt 1979, Winnington-Ingram 1980 . 3 Whitman 1951. 4 Knox 1964, Winnington-Ingram 1983. 5 Winnington-Ingram 1983. 6 Segal discusses the urn as a metatheatrical symbol, and Seale studies the theme of vision in Sophocles. See Segal 1981, Seale 1982. 24 the Elektra. present theater as a dangerous form of deception.8 I shall discuss the play's self-referentiality only to the extent that it directs audience attention to issues, which the playwright addresses. I shall show that in the Elektra self-referentiality is intrinsically connected to the theme of the manipulation of knowledge and the ultimate limits on the control that Orestes achieves through this manipulation. The play evokes an authorial level of audience response in three different, and interconnected, ways: through intertextual reference, through the presentation of a deception-based intrigue that resembles the workings of a stage play, and through the manipulation of various dramatic conventions in a way that draws the audience's attention to them as elements of theater and invites it to think about their broader implications. In certain scenes the types of self-referentiality are mutually supportive and their effect is to raise questions about the extent of the control that can be achieved through the manipulation of knowledge. Self-referentiality in the Elektra is, first of all, intertextual and is created by the audience's comparisons with Aeschylus' Choephoroi. The Sophoclean Elektra treats 7 Batchelder 1995. 8 Ringer 19 98. 25 the same myth as do Aeschylus1 Choephoroi and Euripides' Elektra. Although there is no certainty about the production date of Sophocles' and Euripides1 plays, and so there is no agreement as to which one of them was produced first9, it is certain, that both Sophocles and Euripides were familiar with Aeschylus1 treatment of the myth, when they produced their plays. Sophocles "wrote with the Oresteia constantly in mind and expected the better educated among his audience to be reminded of it".10 Also, as Ringer says, "Sophocles appears to rewrite self-consciously Aeschylus ' Choephoroi" .11 Sophocles drew directly on that version of the legend of Orestes' and Elektra's vengeance and the audience is repeatedly reminded of it by the appearance of various elements from Aeschylus' play, as well as differences. But the nature of Sophocles' innovations makes it clear from the beginning that there has been a change of emphasis in the Elektra. For example, in the Choephoroi Orestes mentions 9 On the chronological relation between the two plays with bibliography see Kells 1973: 1-2. Post believes that Euripides' Elektra precedes that of Sophocles and places Sophocles' play in 410 B.C. For argument and bibliography see Post 1953: 151. Also, Webster places Sophocles' Elektra between 418 and 408 B.C. Owen places it in 410 B.C. See Webster 1969: 5ff., and Owen 1967: 157. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime after the departure of the Athenian fleet for Sicily (415 B.C.). 10 Winnington-Ingram 1983: 210. 11 Ringer 1998: 13 0. 26 his plan of action, which involves concealment and deception, but this occurs in lines 554-558, after the siblings' recognition has taken place. In the Elektra Orestes states his plan explicitly, directs the Paidagogos to deliver the messenger speech, explains how the urn will be used, and says that he, the Paidagogos, and Pylades will engage in role-playing at the play's beginning. By having Orestes explain his strategy in the Prologue, Sophocles gives his audience the message that his own treatment will stress the way in which the intrigue is planned and executed. The audience is introduced to the innovation early on, and so it is prepared to anticipate its dramatization. Thus the play opens with a strong appeal to the authorial audience by drawing attention on this variation. I shall discuss Sophocles' innovations in relation to the Choephoroi with regard to the treatment of knowledge and Orestes' acquisition of control over other characters' behavior and over the world of the play.12 The second source of self-referentiality in the Elektra, its play-within-a-play structure, has been discussed by Ringer and Batchelder, as it occurs in the play 12 On Euripides' alterations to the myth see Lloyd 1986: lOff. On Euripidean allusions to the Choephoroi see Halporn 1983: 101-18. On the interrelations between the two texts see Lloyd 1992, Goldhill 1986: 247-59, and Denniston 1954. 27 as a self-contained entity.13 The play-like quality of the intrigue's design and execution is immediately apparent. I shall view this aspect of the play in a comparison with the Choephoroi, and I shall show that it forms the first contrast with Aeschylus' version of the play. In Aeschylus' version the intrigue is subordinate to other concerns, as we shall see. By placing the intrigue at the opening of the play Sophocles focuses attention on its operations, which are a pervasive manipulation of information in a struggle for control.14 As we shall see, the play-like quality of the execution of the intrigue draws audience attention to the parallel between the playwright's control of events of his plot, and Orestes' control over events of his own plot through manipulation of other characters and direction of the play's events. While Ringer views the play-within-a-play structure as a device that points to ethical concerns, and Batchelder associates it with the pursuit of authority in the play, I shall show that the change of emphasis in the Sophoclean Elektra, as is made clear in the Prologue, directs attention to the playwright's focus on issues of knowledge, control and human limitations. The third type of self-referentiality in the play is created by Sophocles' use of theatrical conventions. In the 13 Ringer 1998, Batchelder 1995. 1 4 On intrigue and strategy in Sophocles' Elektra see Post 1953. 28 Paidagogos' speech, for example, the audience experiences the self-conscious reversal of the tragic convention of the "messenger speech". A messenger's report is supposed to convey true information, but in this play the speech conveys false information. This speech is a development of merely a few Aeschylean lines, and the reversal of the convention is a part of the treatment of knowledge and control in the play, as well. I shall show that any elements of Aeschylus' play that reappear in Sophocles' version are re-shaped within the scope of the play's emphasis on the question of establishing control through the manipulation of knowledge, in the context of a pervasive self-referentiality. The first speech in the play's Prologue is about transferring information. The Paidagogos shows Orestes the plain of Argos, the agora dedicated to Lykean Apollo, the temple of Hera, and Mykenai. The play opens with the Paidagogos introducing features of the locale, which, as Ringer comments, may lie in part or in whole outside of the actual performance area and within the audiences' space. Like the theater of Dionysus, the action of the Electra is set in the very heart of civic life. The spectators were surrounded by 'groves'(5) and 'temples' (8) like the ones enumerated by the Paidagogos .15 It is common for a tragedy to open with an expository speech which acquaints the audience with the situational background 29 of the story it is about to watch. In this opening, however, the main purpose of the expository speech is to acquaint Orestes with the geographical surroundings of the place that will become the stage of his action. The significance of calculated knowledge is also introduced in the Prologue, which abounds in words signifying counseling, knowing, perceiving, making inferences. This abundance stands out especially viewed in the context of the earlier play with the same story, since in the Choephoroi we do not encounter vocabulary signifying the handling of knowledge in the section where Orestes explains his plan. Further, in the Elektra the audience has a first hand opportunity to watch a character act in ways similar to those of a playwright. As a playwright puts together the story and sets the goal of the action he dramatizes, and through the dialogue he writes he creates dramatic situations and dynamics by exchange and distribution of knowledge, Orestes sets the goal of the action he will dramatize by focusing intensely on the appropriate handling and distribution of information that will be given to other characters, in order to achieve the desired dramatic results. At this point it becomes evident to the audience that manipulation of information will be the 15 Ringer 1998: 133. 30 tool for accomplishing Orestes' goal as the play will unfold. In his opening speech the Paidagogos, acting as Orestes' instructor, urges Orestes and Pylades to take counsel:16 Nuv ouv, 'O p eo ra Kal ou cpi'Aiaie £evcov riuAdSn, t i' xpn S p a v ev Taxsi BouAeuteov [Elektra 1 5 -1 6 ) N o w , O restes, and you, d earest o f friends, P ylades, must quickly take counsel a s to w hat is to b e d on e The choice of B ouX euieov (must take counsel) introduces the audience to the significance of the decision making for the characters1 action ( t i'xpn S p a v ), and the ev Tdxei (quickly) in the exhortation emphasizes the importance of timing in taking counsel. By this exhortation at the play's beginning the Paidagogos points to Orestes' role as a planner, as well as the significance of these characters' plan of action. Orestes approves of the Paidagogos' advice for urgency of decision:17 < x > cpi'XaTOT' avSpcov npoanoXoov, cog poi aacpn onpela cpai'veiq eoB A dg ei<; hpag yeycoq. [Elektra 2 3 - 2 4 ) O d earest o f m en-servants, w hat clear directives you issue (lit. "show") to me, splendid fello w that you are to me. 1 6 For an association of the Paidagogos as a teacher with the role of the tragic poet as a teacher see Ringer 1998: 132. 1 7 "The Paidagogos' role now is to urge the younger men on (oipuveiq), he is not to lead, but to inspire," says Batchelder 1995: 25. 31 The choice of onpeTa (directives), which is a military term in this context,18 adds to the scene a quality of determination, and Orestes moves on to the exposition of his already planned course of action: T oiyap tcj p ev S o ^ a v ia SnAcooco {Elektra 29) I will make plain my thoughts The word So^avia complementing BouAeuteov {El.16) reinforces Orestes' role as a preplanner and calculator. He explains how he has arrived at the So^ovto: eyco yap hvfx' kopnv to F " I u0ik6v pavTelov, cbq pa0oip' otcp Tponcp naTpl 6ma^ apoipnv tcov cpoveuaavTcov napa, xpp poi Toiau0' o (DolBoq gov neuap Taxa- aoKsuov auTov aarifScov te Kai OTpaTou SoAoiai KAsiJ/ai xsipoq evSikou ocpaya^ 19 [Elektra 32-37) 18 Kells 1973: 81. Kells also gives other occurrences of the word with the same meaning. On the tendency for military terminology in the Prologue see ibid: 81, 82, 85. 1 9 On the phrasing of Orestes' question and Apollo's answer see Kells 1973: 4ff. "Orestes' reference to the oracle is fleeting (too fleeting). But the fleeting words are a clear enough indication that Orestes did ask the wrong question of the oracle." Ibid: 6. For an argument that Sophocles is giving voice to criticism of Apollo see Horsley 1980: 19. "Apollo is very far from being of small account in this tragedy; he is of considerably more significance than those critics believe who see the action presented almost entirely in humanizing terms," he says. On the function of Apollo as a god of oracles, of purification (in Klytaimnestra's prayer), and as the destroyer of one's enemies (1379ff.) see Segal 1981. 32 W hen I arrived at the Delphic oracle in order to learn h ow I should e x a c t v e n g e a n c e for my father from those w h o murdered him, A p o llo issued an o racle to me, the gist o f which you will quickly learn: that m yself alon e, without p an op ly of arms or army, I should stealthily accom plish by stratagem this slaughter b y my just hand The d>g paB oip' (in order to learn) places Apollo's oracle in the context of the knowledge necessary as the foundation of Orestes' counsel and development of plan.20 A oX og means any trick or crafty attempt, craft, cunning, treachery. Orestes has learnt through Apollo's oracle that the way to exact vengeance is through stratagem, and shares this knowledge with his future accomplices, Pylades and the Paidagogos, in front of the audience. The audience is already acquainted with the story of the Choephoroi, and it knows that Orestes kills his mother and Aigisthos by using guile. In Aeschylus' play Orestes reveals his plan to Elektra and directs her to go inside and keep their agreement secret, so that those who slew Agamemnon by guile will be caught and die in the same snare, according to Apollo's oracle. Orestes' plan of action 2 0 For a discussion of the ambiguity of Apollo in Sophocles' Elektra see Roberts 1984: 78. She says, "the portrayal of Apollo in Sophocles' Electra as elsewhere in tragedy is at least ambiguous. The nature of Apollo's command is unclear." Roberts discusses the use of the word evSikou^ (different reading) , referring to the slaughter, and says that we cannot tell whether this evaluation is Orestes' own or part of the words of the oracle. 33 involves concealment (Kpurrreiv, Cho. 555) and deception (SoXcp, Cho. 556-557) here, as well. The audience remembers the ' background of the story presented in these lines as it watches Sophocles' Elektra. Orestes puts together a story line, which he will dramatize. 21 "He will be, like the fifth-century tragedian, the writer, director, and actor in his own creation."22 But the Sophoclean Orestes will use the knowledge he was given by the oracle in a plot involving extensive manipulation of information as he proceeds to explain. Like a director preparing his cast, he mentions the general outline of the deception plot and instructs the Paidagogos in the details of his improvisation. Orestes knows the importance of the right circumstances, the essential conditions that will enable his 2 1 The word Gorgias uses for the deception that tragedy creates is anam. See Gorgias, Helen, 11. Sophocles uses this word in the context of intrigue in Elektra 125, where the chorus sings about Agamemnon's murder. AoXog and andtn oranara occur together in the same context in Philoktetes 1228 (dncuaioiv aioxpaTq avSpa Kai SoXoig eXcdv, I conquered a man by base deception and guile) , and in Philoktetes 948-49 (enel ou5' av a>5' exovt', ei pn 56Xc*>. vOv 5' nnampai, for [he would not have conquered me] even in this condition, save by guile. But now I have been deceived) . Also, the verb KXemco occurs in the context of stratagem and deception in Elektra 56 (oncoq Xoyrp K X enTO V TEq, so that w e deceive them by word) , as well as in Philoktetes 1025 (ou pev xXonp te KdvdyKp Cuyeic;, y ° u joined [the army] by stratagem and necessity). 22 Batchelder 1995: 6. For a parallel between Orestes as a playwright and Odysseus as a poet in epic, "both figures who use the power and authority of their craft to restore the traditional values of their community," see Batchelder 1995: 6ff. 34 play. The Paidagogos has acquainted him with the geographical surroundings, but the circumstances inside the palace are unknown to him for the time being. Orestes directs the Paidagogos to take action through vocabulary that stresses the significance of the handling of knowledge: ou pev poAcov, otov oe Kaipdg eioayp Sopcov eaco tcovS', 1a0i nav to Spcopevov oncog av el6a>g np'iv dyYei^P9 aacpn. ou Yap ae ph yhpP Te ko' i xpovcp pcwpcp yvcoo', ou5' unomeuaouaiv, d>6' nvBiopsvov. [Elektra 3 9 - 4 3 ) g o you into this house, w hen the right point o f time calls you, know all that is d on e there in order that you m ay from sure k n o w led g e let m e h ave true information. For, b y reason o f your y ears and the length o f time (since you left Argos) they will certainly not r e c o g n iz e you, nor suspect you, matured a s you are. Orestes directs the Paidagogos to know (ToGi) all that is done in the house [El. 40) at the right point of time, and after he has acquired sure knowledge to give him true (or clear) information. In this sentence for the first time Orestes reveals his thinking, his plan for action, setting prerequisites for the plan's success by the use of language signifying knowledge and information transmission: ToGi, efScog, dYYei^P? °a<ph, yvooo', unonTeuoouaiv . According to his instructions, Orestes and his accomplices will possess knowledge, which is clearly associated with circumstantial information in 35 Orestes's words. The Paidagogos is to learn what is being done in the house (t o 5pc6|jevov), that is, the present state of affairs, and then transmit this information to Orestes. Possession of this information will naturally place the plotters in a position of control over those inside the house, especially in view of lines 42-43. Those inside will not recognize the Paidagogos, nor suspect him, because he has aged. The first verb used here, yvcooi, a form of yiyvcooicco, meaning primarily I know, I perceive, I gain knowledge of, immediately introduces the significance of factual knowledge for the characters in the house as well. The negative ou yvcoo', as opposed to the io0i and ei5<bq of the previous sentence draws attention to the contrast of knowledge versus the ignorance that Orestes prepares for the two groups of characters in his plot. Furthermore, the ensuing ou5' unonTeuoouoiv places those in the house in a position of having to speculate and guess, activities signifying mistrustfulness and uncertainty. Orestes1 choice of words describes the dynamics he plans to create between the two sides, the plotters and those inside the house, with regard to perception. For the exchange that Orestes prepares, the adversaries will have to suspect and guess, in order for the two sides to have an equal footing in awareness of reality. 36 But they will not even suspect, because time has turned the Paidagogos' hair grey. Thus Orestes makes preparations for the creation of two unequal cognition levels for the two sides. The one will be in control of information, and the other in ignorance, through exploitation of the Paidagogos1 appearance. Language, another significant part of theater, comes to complement the visual aspect, the Paidagogos1 appearance, in the following lines: Xoycj) 5 e xpco Toicj>5', oti £evo<; p ev el (DcoKecog nap' a v 5 p o g O a v o ieco g rfacov [Elektra 4 4 - 4 5 ) And use this story, that you h a v e com e a s a friend from the household o f the Phokian man, Phanoteus; Here Orestes instructs the Paidagogos to transmit false information with regard to his identity. He should present himself as a Phokian coming from Phanoteus1 household. In the Choephoroi Orestes states that he will appear as a Phokian stranger, and that both he and Pylades will affect a Phokian accent (Choephoroi 560-64) . Naturally the Elektra. creates reminiscences of the Choephoroi in the audience members. But in the Elektra, in one sentence there is double manipulation of information. Not only will the Paidagogos lie about his identity, but also he will present himself as one coming from the household of Phanoteus, 37 plausible to be presented as Aigisthos■ and Klytaimnesta's friend:23 o yap peYl0T09 auToIg TUYxavei Sopu^evcov. {Elektra 4 5 - 4 6 ) For he happens to be the greatest ally o f theirs. Orestes' directions reveal careful planning of several aspects of the plot. He has thought of the way his ally will present himself visually as well as verbally. He has also given consideration to the proper time that will allow all this to take place (otov oe Kaipog eioaYP, El. 39). In both plays the plan is that word will conceal the truth, that the men will appear as other than themselves, and that the murders will be accomplished by guile. Also, in both plays those involved in the plan play the parts of Phokian strangers, as the actors of a play portray characters other than themselves. By hinting at parts of his predecessor's version early in his play, Sophocles emphasizes the significance of these elements in his own version. But he goes further, and develops a coherent play- within-a-play which he formulates with precision and calculation in the Prologue. The lengthy dramatization of this play-within-a-play is Sophocles' innovation, and it is 23 Phanoteus, the eponymus hero of a town in Phokis, was at hereditary feud with Strophios, the father of Pylades, who gave hospitality to Orestes in exile. 38 clear to the audience that it constitutes an extensive elaboration on simply a few Aeschylean lines. This way, through the Prologue the audience notices the difference of emphasis, and it is prepared for a different version of the story. Within the framework of Apollo's oracle Orestes creates a plan, the plot which will enable him to achieve his purpose, that is to avenge his father's murder. Orestes acts like the playwright and director of the inner plot. He himself, the Paidagogos and Pylades are the only characters knowing this plot and assuming the role-playing. The three characters assume new personae, and the audience is watching three actors build the characters whom they impersonate. These characters operate on two levels, that of the play, as characters of it, and that of the inner plot, as the new characters whom they impersonate. This grading of plots and impersonations creates several levels of knowledge. Orestes' instructions reveal calculation of the dynamics that the discrepancy of knowledge will create as a necessary condition for the deception stage he prepares. And he presents this calculation in front of the audience members, who thus get acquainted with the means through which Orestes will attempt to gain control over his opponents. Orestes proceeds to more specific instructions: 39 dyYe^e 5' opKov npooTiBefq, oBouvexa TeSvnK' ’ Opeamg dvayKafag Tuxng, aBAoioi riuGiKoToiv ex TpoxnAaTcov Sicppcov KuAioBeiq. £>5' o puBog eaTaTco. (Elektra 4 7 - 5 0 ) Tell them, adding an oath, that O restes died a s a result o f a fatal accident, rolled out of his chariot in the Pythian gam es. Let the story b e estab lish ed to this effect. Words become very important. Seale argues for the superiority of words over action. "In Orestes' practical conception of the enterprise Apollo's advice is duly translated into the superiority of words over action. The tutor is to enter the house when he has the chance and fabricate a story."24 But as we shall see, in Orestes' play words will become dramatic action that will create further action. Orestes has constructed the story in detail. In addition, he instructs the Paidagogos to add an oath, in order to reinforce the believability of the news.25 Orestes directs the Paidagogos to convey the false information that he has died and adds the details of his presumed death. He is being specific about the occasion (aBAoioi nuBucoToiv), as well as the way of Orestes' death ( ek TpoxnAaTcov Sfcppcov kuAioBei' q) , and completes his instruction with a phrase that indicates that 2 4 Seale 1982 : 57 . 2 5 If the reading opxov is accurate, the contrast the word creates with the lies it accompanies emphasizes Orestes' determination 40 he has a definite plan with regard to the precise story to be told (a>S o pu0og eoTdico). This closure reveals certainty of purpose, which can only be the result of careful planning. Once Orestes has completed his directions to the Paidagogos, he proceeds to explain the plan for himself and Pylades. In the course of giving direction Orestes also brings out an important difference between Sophocles' and Aeschylus' versions. The urn is only mentioned in the Choephoroi (686-87). But in the Elektra Orestes clearly describes it as a prop that will be hidden in the bushes and will be visible when Orestes and Pylades shall return carrying it in their hands: Tuncopa xaXKonXeupov nppevoi xepolv, o Kal ou 0 ap v o ig oTo0a nou Kexpuppevov oncog Xoycp KXenTovieg ftSeTav cpcmv cpepoopev auToIg, Toupov ox; eppei S ep ag cpXoyioTov nSn xai Kamv0paKoopevov. ( .Elektra 5 4 -5 8 ) taking up in our hands a b ra z e n -w a lle d urn which you also know is hidden in the bushes som ew here, in order that, cheating them in w ords, w e m ay bring them a story that will b e sw e et to their ears, that my b o d y is perished a lre a d y burnt and turned into ashes. No line is wasted without referral to a concrete description of action. Each phrase, fitting into the whole plan, is designed to complement Orestes' calculated plot. The two and lack of hesitation. On Musgrave's emendation to oyKov see 41 men are to hold an urn, a theatrical prop Orestes creates for his play, which is specifically brazen-walled, which the Paidagogos knows will be hidden in the bushes, somewhere. Only the place is indefinite (nou, som ew here), simply because Orestes has not had the chance to see the area surrounding Agamemnon's tomb yet. The locale specifics are still outside his control sphere, while he goes on with the carefully thought out plot, over which he has control, and imparts the information about the content of the urn. He even comes to the logical inference that the news of his death will be pleasant to those inside (he means Aigisthos and Klytaimnestra). This inference is a result of Orestes' knowledge of the background and history of the House, which assists him to make assumptions about the psychological effect of his actions on others. He has not thought out only storyline, actions, appearances, time, circumstances to be presented, but also how all this will be perceived by his audience on stage. Orestes is the playwright and director who prepares his cast with precision and has an understanding of his audience. In the ensuing part of Orestes' speech the audience becomes acquainted with the goal for which he is striving. The vocabulary he uses indicates an ultimate state of success which he aspires to reach: Kells 1973: 84 on line 47. 42 ti' y a p pe XuneT to O0 ', o t o v Xoycp 0a v a > v 0 A ep y o ia i oco0co Ka£eveYK 0 :> Par KXeog; (Elektra 5 9 - 6 0 ) For w hat harm d o e s it d o me, when, through dying m erely in w ord, I a c h iev e salvation in d e e d s and win fam e? He expects his actions to lead him to his salvation, and to win fame. Further, in lines 65 and 66 he expresses certainty about the glory that his plan will bring him: cog icap' enauxco Tna5s Thg cpnpng ano SeSopKOT' ex0poTg a a ip o v cog Xapipeiv cm. (Elektra 6 5 - 6 6 ) A s I trust that I to o from this mighty w ord will y e t flash forth, a s a living person like a star upon my enem ies. With a a ip o v cog Xapi|jeiv Orestes is using imagery of glory, that he associates with the success he hopes to bring about for himself, and he places this imagery in the context of extreme certainty that the verb ouxgo (literally: I boast) 26 For a study of Elektra as an agent of logos and Orestes of ergon, see Woodard 1964: 174ff. Woodard sees an opposition between logos and ergon, which is eventually breached. "Orestes and Electra serve as emblems for the worlds of ergon and logos, respectively, and we may understand the play only by appreciating these principles. In each scene, a 'dialectic' manifests itself as a continuous, precise, implicit debate within the duality of logos/ergon. And the play as a whole shows a progressive development of the duality, from initial opposition to final coordination." See Woodard 1964: 174. On the logos-ergon contrast see also Torrance 1965, Segal 1966, and Kitzinger 1991. Kitzinger sees the incompatibility of logos/ergon as central to the understanding of the play. 43 carries, especially here in the compound form with enf-, which intensifies the verb's meaning. And he concludes: Kal pn p' anpov ?no5' anooiefXnTe yn?, aAA' apxenXouTov Kal KaTaaidinv Sopcov. (Elekfra 71-72) And d o not send me a w a y dishonored from this land, but a s a com m ander o f the w ealth o f this hom e and its restorer. In his invocation to his fatherland and the gods of his country Orestes prays for honor, command of the wealth, and restoration of the home. With these lines he informs his accomplices about the ultimate objectives of his action. Finally Orestes frames the exposition of his plan by mentioning the significance of timing of the action: vo> 5 ' e^ipev. x aipog yap, o a n e p a v S p a a iv pevioToc epvou navToc ear' emoTdmc. [Elektra 7 5 -7 6 ) W e tw o shall w ithdraw . For it is e x a c t se a so n which is to men the g reatest presiding officer ov er ev e ry d e e d they do. Kaipoq means the right measure, proper time, the season (of action). "Everything is to be 'timed', as in a carefully planned military operation."27 Everything is to be timed in theater as well, so that dramatic conflict may be created. Orestes, the playwright and director, knows this, as he uses 27 Kells 1973: 86. On Orestes' military terminology and military thinking see ibid: 81. 44 the word Kaipoq twice in his speech.28 In line 39 also he directs the Paidagogos to enter the house when the right point of time (Kaipoq) calls him. Timing will contribute to the creation of the dramatic circumstances when Orestes' play begins, as in line 75 timing directs the three men to exit the stage.29 Now it is time to put the dramatic direction into action. By having stated what will follow, Orestes elevates the audience to these characters’ level of knowledge. The Prologue predicts one level of action, that controlled and carried out by Orestes and the Paidagogos and this prediction will allow the audience to recognize the continuity of the plot when the Paidagogos delivers the false speech. The audience knows that Orestes will attempt to control the play's action through the manipulation of information that other characters do not have. Words of knowledge have been given emphasis in connection with the planning of his plot. Orestes is the kind of playwright who is obsessed with manipulation of information, because his play is one of well-planned contrivance. Like a director and actor building a part in his play, Orestes identifies 28 In El. 31 Kaipog is used with the meaning right point, target. "Kaipoq =right point, not merely of time, but of anything," says Kells 1973: 82. 29 On the dramatic contrast between insisting on time and precision of time in the iambics and the following lyrics of 45 his objectives as his creative forces (El.60, 65-66, 71-72), and sets specific tactics through which he will pursue accomplishment of his objectives. Orestes' objectives are both reasoned and emotional. They are reasoned, since they are presented in the framework of Apollo's oracle, and are aligned with his sense of nobility (El.71). A conscious objective can be carried out on the stage with almost no feeling or will; but it will be dry, unattractive, lacking in scenic quality and therefore unadaptable to creative purposes. An objective which is not warmed or infused with life by emotions or will cannot put any living quality into the inert concepts of words. A conscious objective can be good and scenically effective only when it is attractive to the living feeling and will of the actor and sets them to working, says Stanislavski.30 Orestes' objectives contain certainly strong will, as his determination (enauxo, El. 65, I trust, I boast) and the exaggerated imagery he uses indicate (aoTpov <Sq, El. 6 6 , like a star). Although his acting later in the play is not characterized by emotion, as opposed to that of Elektra, young Orestes must be driven to restore his own home, from which he has been exiled since childhood, and all that entails, by powerful emotions. In the Prologue Orestes identifies the overall plan and character objectives for his actors. Later in the play he Elektra, who "conspicuously lacks a sense of time" see Kells 1973: 86-87. 46 and his fellow-actors will come up with specific character objectives for the individual scenes of the play and the moment-to-moment objectives within the scenes. Objectives cannot be materialized but by setting specific tactics to pursue them. Orestes' choice of tactics reveals a preoccupation with controlling other character's behavior through the handling of knowledge, which stands out throughout the entire play, especially viewed in the context of the previous treatment of the same story. Orestes and his accomplices do not know the circumstances in the house, but the audience becomes acquainted with them by the following lyrical interlude of Elektra and the Chorus. Elektra has been in continuous mourning ever since her father was treacherously killed, wasting away in sorrow (El. 121ff.). Klytaimnestra, Elektra says, has been living with Aigisthos without fear for the murder they committed (El. 271ff.). Klytaimnestra abuses Elektra for her endless mourning (El. 287-93), while Elektra has been waiting for her brother's return, who keeps sending messages that he will come back to take vengeance but never does (El. 319). The chorus sympathizes with Elektra and advises her to endure and not overdo it with her lamentations (El. 233-35). This exchange between Elektra 30 Stanislavski 1978: 51-2. 47 and the Chorus heightens the narrative function of the audience by offering factual information about these characters' lives and by introducing it to Elektra's emotional state. Now the audience simply accepts the action on stage as real, and responds with compassion for Elektra. The audience also learns that Chrysothemis submits to the powerful out of fear, not out of her free will (El. 332ff.), and that the two sisters disagree with each other's attitude. Chrysothemis has been sent by Klytaimnestra with propitiatory offerings to Agamemnon's grave in consequence of an evil dream she had. The dream is an element of the Choephoroi that is used by Sophocles, but it is an example of how Sophocles used Aeschylus' devices in a very different way. The dramatization of the difference draws audience attention to Sophocles' variation and its implications. In the Choephoroi the dream is about Klytaimnestra giving birth to a serpent which drew milk and blood from her breast (Cho. 527-33). Not only does the dream serve as a warning to Klytaimnestra, as does Sophocles' less violent version in the Elektra, but it also focuses attention on the terrible crime of matricide as Orestes is represented by the terrible serpent in the dream. In the Elektra, however, the horror of matricide is presented with less emphasis. In the Prologue Sophocles' Orestes expresses confidence that he is 48 doing what is just in following Apollo's wishes in avenging Agamemnon's death. In Sophocles' version of the dream the scepter is planted at the house's hearth by Agamemnon. There it grows into a tree that overshadows Mykenai: X oyog Tig auTriv e o t i v eioi8eTv ncupog t o O o o O T£ Kapou SeuTepav opiXfav eXOovTog eg cpGog- e lia t o v 5 ecpeonov nn^ai X aB ovia OKnmpov oucpopei noTe auTog, Tavuv 5 ' ATyio0og- e k t e t o u S ' avco BXaoieTv BpuovTa SaXXov, cp KaTaoKiov n a a a v y ev eo S ai Tnv MuKnvafoov x 0 o v a. 31 [Elektra 4 1 7 - 2 3 ) There is som e w ord that she ex p erien ced a seco n d communion with m y father and yours, he having visited the light; and that then he took and planted at the hearth the scep ter which o n ce he bore and n o w A igisthos bears; and from its top fo lia g e sprang bloom ing forth b y which all the land o f M ykenai w a s shaded. This version of Klytaimnestra's dream clearly refers to the passing of control back to the legitimate heir of it and to the control that Orestes establishes over the world of the play. It avoids, however, any reference to his culpability in the crime of matricide. The dream serves as a source of knowledge in the play.32 Frightened by the dream, Klytaimnestra sends Chrysothemis with propitiatory offerings to Agamemnon's 3 1 For possible meanings of opiXfa (El. 418) see Kells 1973: 112-13. 3 2 For a discussion of the attitude of the Greeks towards their dream experience through the eyes of the dreamers themselves see Dodds 1973: 103 ff. 49 grave (El. 426-27), because the dream offers her insight into the true state of affairs, and comes as an affirmation of her knowledge of the potential danger of Orestes' revenge. Elektra also believes that it was Agamemnon that cared to send Klytaimnestra this evil-boding dream: oTpai |jev ouv, oTpaf t i KaKefvcp peXeiv n e p 9 ai xa5' auTji S u o n p o o o m ' dveipciTcr [Elektra 4 5 9 - 6 0 ) N a y I b e lie v e that it w a s som ew h at a care to him to o to send this ill-boding dream to her; The repetition of oTpai (I think) emphasizes Elektra1 s statement, but the Chorus proceeds further and expresses stronger certainty about the dream's ominous meaning: ei pn 'yco napacppcov p a v n g ecpuv Kal yvcopag X einopeva 00909 (Elektra 4 7 2 - 7 3 ) If I w a s not born a dem ented prophetess lacking in w ise perception uneon' poi S a p a o g aSunvocov kXuouoov apiioog oveipaicov. (Elektra 4 7 9 - 8 1 ) C onfidence supports my spirit since I heard a moment a g o of the sw eet-b reath in g dream. npo tcovSe toi 9 a p o o q pnnoTe pnno0' ftpTv aipeyeg neX av Tepag T0T 9 Spooaiv Kal auvSpcooiv. (Elektra 4 9 5 - 9 8 ) 50 In virtue o f th ese things I h ave certainly con fid en ce that w e shall never, never have such a nightmare approaching the killers and their a ccom p lices a s an innocent vision. The audience knows that Orestes has returned. Also, Klytaimnestra, Elektra and the Chorus believe the dream foretells his return from a different system of knowledge. Klytaimnestra's dream starts as the object of her visual attention, and as the play progresses it turns into the carrier of meaning that will potentially alter her life. Klytaimnestra is the only character who "sees" the dream, but other characters discuss it and try to understand it, and as they do so, the audience can have a mental image of it. The dream, as the object of visual and mental attention, resembles the play as a spectacle with meaning, which the audience tries to understand. As the dream is only a vision, the play's material is only a part of the myth. As the dream operates in the realm of appearance, but carries messages which reflect "reality," the reality of the characters' lives, so the play operates within the boundaries of theatrical illusion, but it carries messages which reflect aspects of the life of the audience members, from which they can learn. Thus the dream creates self- referential overtones, and prepares the dramatic ground for 51 the acceptance of the information presented in the following scenes, as we shall see. The timing of the Paidagogos' entrance could not have been arranged more skillfully. His report follows directly Klytaimnestra's prayer and hope that her evil dream may be averted. In fact the report seems to come as an answer to her prayer, which ends by asking the god that he grant her that she, living always as she is now, in an unharmed way of life, shall rule the house of the Atreidai and wield the scepter, in close association both with the friends she associates with now and with all those children from whose side there is no hostility attaching to her (El. 650-54) . And she continues, "all the rest {of my prayers) I expect you, being a god, to know full well, even though I keep silent about them" (El. 657-58). "In this truly silent part of her prayer Clytemnestra plainly prays for the death of her son Orestes. That, she thinks, would end her troubles and her fears (cf. 774ff.)."33 Seale discusses the various levels of knowledge that are brought into play by the prayer. "Electra is aware of the reason for Clytemnestra's prayer; Clytemnestra does not know of her awareness; both are ignorant of Orestes' arrival." 34 But the heaviest irony of the scene lies in the fact that Klytaimnestra is 33 Kells 1973: 135. 52 praying to the god who has already directed Orestes against her requests. As Klytaimnestra expresses confidence that Apollo knows well (e^eiSevai) the request of her prayer, the audience knows that she is not aware that Apollo's oracle has been the incentive for the creation of the stratagem that will eventually confound her hopes. Klytaimnestra is preoccupied with her fear caused by the dream, which prepares her for the forthcoming news to the degree that, when the Paidagogos delivers the lie, she does not ever question the credibility of the news he brings. In fact, the dream, her need to propitiate Agamemnon's spirit by offerings, and her prayer to Apollo, create a favorable ground for the upcoming deception. Sophocles has created a contrast between the military character of Orestes' and the Paidagogos' preparations in the Prologue (El. 24),35 and Klytaimnestra's feelings of fear and concern as a result of the dream. Orestes' determination for action places fearful Klytaimnestra in a vulnerable position even before the Paidagogos' entrance. The audience is prepared for the Paidagogos1 entrance from the Prologue, and now his presence signifies the beginning of the dramatization of Orestes' strategy. The plotters do not know the dynamics in the house, as Elektra, 3 4 Seale 1982 : 63 . 3 5 See note 18 of this chapter. 53 Klytaimnestra and Chrysothemis do not know about Orestes1 arrival. Therefore, when the Paidagogos enters after Klytaimnestra's prayer to Apollo, he does not know how he will be received, and he has to improvise. He enters ready to play the part of the Phokian messenger, with the confidence of Orestes' directions. First he tries to acquire knowledge necessary for his improvisation: £evai yuvcuKeq, ncoq av eiSernv 0 0 9 0 0 ^ ei toO Tupavvou ScopaT' AiyfaSou Ta5e; [Elektra 6 6 0 - 6 1 ) D ear lad ies, h o w can I learn surely if this is the house o f sovereign A igisthos? The House of Aigisthos that the Paidagogos wants to know surely (elSernv 0 0 9 0 0 ^) will become the stage of his performance, and after he identifies that, he proceeds to identify the person who will become the audience of his acting: n Kal Sajjapia Thv 6 ' eneiKa^cov Kupco keivou; (Elektra 6 6 3 - 6 4 ) Can it b e that if I a lso g u ess this lad y to b e his w ife, I am not w id e off the mark? This is all the Paidagogos needs to know before he delivers the news. Trying to predispose Klytaimnestra favorably, first he tells her that he brings news that will be pleasant (X oyoug nSelg) for her and Aigisthos (El. 666-67) . But she wants first to know (eiSevai, El. 668) who sent him there. 54 Klytaimnestra, as well, requires knowledge of circumstances, and tests the stranger by requesting information that betrays her apprehension for the possibility of negative news. Here we have an intertextual hint at the Choephoroi, where Orestes appears as a Phokian stranger (Cho. 653ff.) and tells Klytaimnestra that Strophios told him to announce to Orestes' parents that Orestes is dead (Cho. 677 ff.). Sophocles makes Klytaimnestra ask who has sent the stranger and replaces Strophios by Phanoteus. This replacement is an example of the manipulation of information given to Klytaimnestra. Only when she hears that the Paidagogos comes from Phanoteus, is she ready to hear the news, because she knows well (crdcp' oi5a) that coming from a friend, he brings good news (El. 671-72). The audience witnesses Orestes' direction for transmission of false information bring about the desired results. Now the Paidagogos delivers the news: T60vnK' O p s o in g . ev BpaxeT £uv0eig keyed. (Elektra 673) O restes is dead! I tell you (the matter), condensing it in short. The spontaneous response of the two women to the news draws audience attention to the power of the false information.36 3 6 On the double nature of logoi in the speech see Woodard 1964. 55 Elektra is utterly shattered, while Klytaimnestra asks for details:37 T aX n 0eg e in e , T cj> Tponcp 5 i6X A utcii; {Elektra 6 7 9 ) tell me the truth, in w hat w a y did he perish? Thus Klytaimnestra gives the Paidagogos the Kaipog (appropriate tim e), the significant opportunity that Orestes stressed in the Prologue, for delivery of the speech. Klytaimnestra's question about the way in which Orestes perished is Sophocles' addition, while in the Aeschylean version Orestes simply announces the news to Klytaimnestra: "enefnep aXXcoq, a > £ev', ejg A pyoq K i'eiq, npog touq TEKovTaq navSikcoq pepvnpevoq TeBvecoT' ’ O peam v eine, pn5apa>g Aa0ni" (C hoephoroi 6 8 0 - 8 2 ) "in an y c a se , since, my friend" (Strophius says), "you are goin g to A rgos, remember to tell the parents O restes is d ea d , it is only right, it will not slip your mind" The Sophoclean addition of Klytaimnestra1s question calls for further manipulation of information and prepares the stage for the Paidagogos1 play-within-a-play. Also, the Sophoclean focus on the way Orestes perished reflects Apollo's oracle about the way Orestes should achieve vengeance. The strategy Apollo suggested generates the 3 7 On Klytaimnestra in the role of the director and composer trying to control the speech of the Paidagogos and Elektra see 56 Paidagogos1 strategy, which draws audience attention to the continuity of Orestes' plan. The Paidagogos' speech provides a good example of how the three types of self-reference function at once. First, this speech on the fictional death of Orestes derives from the earlier text of Aeschylus' Choephoroi, and therefore constitutes an example of intertextuality. Sophocles expands on the mere suggestion given by Aeschylus' simile in Choephoroi 1021-25, which in the Elektra becomes a fully realized narrative that is designed by Orestes, the director of the play-within-a-play, and performed by the Paidagogos. The speech is an impressive description of a chariot race.38 The idea of the charioteer comes from the end of the Choephoroi, when Orestes' madness is introduced: aXA' av eiSnT,' ou yap oT5 onm TeXel, ooanep ?uv mnoig nviooTpocpd) Spopou e^coTepco1 cpepouoi yap vuccopevov cppeveq Suoapiaoi, npog 5e KapSfai <poBog aiSeiv eToTpoq h5' unopxeloGai kotcoi. (C h oeph oroi 1 0 2 1 - 2 5 ) But so that you m ay know, for I d o not know w here it will end, it is a s if I am a charioteer guiding the horses outside the course; for m y mind, hard to govern, carries me conquered, and at my heart fear is rea d y to sing and d an ce with anger. Batchelder 91ff. 3 8 On imitation of the chariot race in the funeral games of Iliad 23, from which both the general course of events and a number of phrases have been borrowed, see Garner 1990: 119. 57 Orestes feels he resembles a charioteer guiding the horses outside the course, after he has performed the murders, right before his first sight of the Erinyes. He says his mind is hard to govern. Coming from that context the intertextual reference carries self-referential overtones. The allusion to Orestes out of control at the end of the Choephoroi in the Sophoclean speech that constitutes the core of Orestes' play points to the fictional nature of the speech. Aeschylus' simile is developed into a full narrative about Orestes losing control, that is designed to convince its audiences on stage about Orestes' supposed death. Furthermore, Sophocles uses the imagery of Orestes out of control not in a sinister context, as a result of the matricide, but in a heroic context, with Orestes as a noble competitor. At this point of the play Sophocles' handling of the imagery seems to defy the "real" fall of Orestes in the Choephoroi, by placing Orestes' fall in a self consciously fictitious speech, where Orestes loses control not after an atrocious but a noble deed. A simile draws a parallel or suggests a likeness or analogy between two things. A deceptive narrative suggests an identity between the false information it transmits and the truth. Both simile and lying narrative refer to an imaginary situation. But while the simile explicitly expresses a similarity and suggests only a comparison, the 58 lying narrative presents false information as truth. Here Sophocles capitalizes on Aeschylus' simile and further adds explicit details about how Orestes, the charioteer at the Pythian games, lost control and fell. The audience notices the innovation of the character of the Paidagogos in the Prologue, but now it will find that this character plays a part with dramatic significance. Sophocles is the playwright who added the third actor to the cast of Greek Tragedy,39 and in the Elektra this addition is self-referential, since the third actor plays the Paidagogos, a character who enacts another person, the Phokian man. In the Choephoroi it is Orestes who appears as a Phokian stranger and announces Orestes' death. In the Elektra it is the Paidagogos who misleads Klytaimnestra and Elektra into believing that they have acquired factual knowledge about Orestes. But the Paidagogos is not only an actor. He is the storyteller who utilizes the tools of his art in order to manipulate his audience on stage on the cognitive level, so that it makes the inferences he wants it to make. And the self-referential aspect of his speech points to the playwright's ability to manipulate an audience the same way. The speech itself is Sophocles' addition developed for the purpose of imparting information with factual details 59 that reinforce the validity of the false knowledge the Paidagogos has already given to Klytaimnestra and Elektra. It is delivered by a disguised character who presents events which have never taken place, as if they had happened. In this respect the messenger speech functions as a play- within-a-play. It presents imaginary events, and it manages to make its audience believe that the events have taken place, just as a play, which presents fictitious events, can create the illusion that these events are happening. The play-like quality of the performance evokes an authorial level of audience response by drawing the audience's attention to drama and to the parallels between the character's ability to establish control over the world of the play through such manipulation of knowledge and the dramatist's ability to control the actions and fates of his characters. There is surely a big difference between the play and the Paidagogos1 speech. One is mimetic and the other non-mimetic. The speech is third person narrative that only describes events. But "the language of epic has now become part of a medium that is not only verbal, but visual. Language now has the medium of the actor, the power of his presence and narration, the illusion of his disguise."40 What is more effective, the Paidagogos proves to have the dramatic ability to control his audiences' 3 9 Aristotle, Poetics, 1449a. 60 reactions, and he does this by making such dramatic choices that make his audience on stage believe it has acquired factual knowledge of the details of Orestes' death. The speech is so compelling in involving the audience on stage in the process of understanding, that the play's audience could forget the Paidagogos is lying for a moment. The audience members can take the illusion that the speech creates for reality. On the other hand, later on the realization that they have taken a fictitious speech for reality evokes authorial audience response by drawing attention to the power that dramatic presentation has to create theatrical illusion. Like a playwright who writes the specifics in a story, the Paidagogos takes into consideration place, time, dramatic situation and conflict, characterization and factual details, and develops the visual as well as the aural aspects of his presentation. The more specific the details, the better he involves his audience in the process of understanding and accepting Orestes' death. The place is Delphi and the occasion the Delphic Games (El. 682). The specific occasion is added for establishment of believability, in spite of the anachronism. The anachronism, rare in Greek tragedy, is another source of self-referentiality, since it points to an institution 40 Batchelder 1995: 107. 61 established long after the creation of the myth of the House of Atreus, and moves audience attention to a time outside the time frame of the myth. The more specific the factual information the Paidagogos imparts, the more believable the situation it describes. Further, he endows Orestes with qualities appropriate to his lineage: eionXGe Xapnpoc;, naoi Tolg eiceT o e B a g {Elektra 6 8 5 ) he entered glorious, an ob ject o f w ondering adm iration to all th ose present; His running was as good as his appearance, he was noble and competent, descriptions appropriate for Orestes' lineage, that could be expected and immediately accepted (El. 680f f.). The Paidagogos speaks with the certainty of an impressed witness by enriching his narrative with his own personal comments: "I do not know a man of such achievement or prowess" (El. 689). This certainty he imparts to his audience on stage, Klytaimnestra and Elektra: e v 6 ' io0'- oooov y a p eiaeKhpu^av BpaBfig, t o u t c d v eveyK w v n a v ia Tamvikia coXBi^eT', ApyeToq p ev avaK aXoupevoc;, o v o p a 6 ' ’ O p ea m q , t o G t o k X e i v o v ‘EXXaSog A y a p e p v o v o g oTpdreup' ayefp avT og noTe. {Elektra 6 9 0 - 9 5 ) know this on e thing; in all the con tests the marshals announced he receiv ed the felicitations (of the a ssem b led p e o p le ) for winning all the prizes, being proclaim ed a s a man o f A rgos, 62 o n e O restes by nam e, son o f A gam em non, him w h o assem b led the glorious G reek army in d a y s g o n e by. By the imperative To0i (know) the storyteller imposes knowledge on his audience and appears to have the authority of one who knows the facts, while the specifics about Orestes' identity and parentage add a feeling of familiarity. The enumeration of prizes is designed to stimulate emotions of pride in his family members, certainly in Elektra. Attributing the described events to the gods adds to the report a significant element of a dramatic plot: o t o v S e t i^ 0ecov BXamp, S u vau ' a v ouS a v iaxucov cpuyeTv. (Elektra 6 9 6 - 9 7 ) But w hen som e g o d or other undertakes to undo a man, then not ev en a strong man can p o ssib ly e sc a p e . In this statement several levels of knowledge come into play. Klytaimnestra agrees with it as the audience knows from her prayer to Apollo. The false information will seem to her like Apollo's response to her prayer, but the Paidagogos does not know it. This reference to the gods draws audience attention to Apollo's oracle to Orestes. To the audience and the Paidagogos the reference applies to Klytaimnestra, but she does not know it. She thinks it applies to Orestes, while in fact it has been formulated as a result of his own directions to the Paidagogos. 63 The chariot race is presented as having taken place at a specific time (nXfou TeXXovroq, El. 6 99, at sunrise),41 and lists the ten competitors by their nationalities, as well as some of the participating horses. It is enriched with action and the spirit of competitiveness {El. 711ff.), as well as aural and visual imagery, which contributes to its vivid quality: ev 5e nag epeoTcoOn Spopoq KTunou KpomTcdv appaioov (Elektra 713-14) all the course w a s filled with the n oise o f rattling chariots; The aliteration of - k - recreates the sounds of the race for the play's audience, as it does for its audience on stage. Aliteration of - a - is repeated later, when Orestes sends a shrill cry through his horses' ears and sets to catch the competitor from Athens: o 2 ; u v Si' ootcov K eXaSov e v o e fo a ^ 0oaTq ncoXoig S ig o k e i (E lektra73 7 - 3 8 ) having m ade a shrill cry to vibrate through the ears o f his sw ift mares, he g a v e ch ase Orestes' death, presented as a representation of a true story, becomes self-referential through the recreation of aural and visual images that turn the play's audience and 41 "Like the dramatic festival, like Orestes' return to Mycenae, the fictitious and fatal chariot race begins with the coming of 64 the audience on stage into spectators through the imagination of a tragic situation that supposedly has taken place in front of spectators (El. 685, 693), one of whom is the Paidagogos. Orestes1 struggle to reach the Athenian man and the moments when he lets go of the rein, hits the pillar and falls are presented with the details of a dramatic situation, that of Orestes struggling for victory, but losing control altogether (El. 742ff.). The imaginary spectators' response of compassion and admiration at the moment of Orestes' fall (El. 749ff.), as well as the visual image of his body filled with blood are designed to have the effect of horror and pity on the audience. The Paidagogos skillfully recreates these responses in his audience, as he creates those of the imaginary audience, which are the effects a tragic play has on its audience.42 The presentation has built intensity, which now comes to a dramatic climax. The compelling dramatization of the story has undoubtedly involved the play's audience into the theatrical illusion. Although only a narrative, the report has the effect of a true play-within-a-play on both inner and outer audience. When the Paidagogos continues that Orestes' body was burned, and men from Phokis are bringing his ashes in an urn dawn." See Batchelder 1995: 102. 4 2 Aristotle Poetics 1449b. 65 (El. 757-59), the play's audience is slowly coming back to the realization that the speech is a part of Orestes' play, as it can refer to Orestes' direction in the Prologue, and place the speech in its context. The audience knows that the urn will be presented later, not as a consequence of the Paidagogos' story, but as a part of Orestes' manipulation of other characters. Recognition of knowledge manipulation provokes authorial audience response, while the audience on stage, Klytaimnestra and Elektra, has believed the reported information. As Kells notes, Orestes' corpse is in such a state that there is nothing to do with it but burn it immediately, and convey the ashes in an urn to his relatives for burial. The detail is cunning, since it makes it immediately convincing that Orestes' body should have been burnt upon the spot, not conveyed to his home in Argos as it was.43 The Paidagogos' artistry in a report filled with explicit details is employed successfully as supporting evidence of the information he has imparted about Orestes' death, while his last lines intensify audience awareness of the different levels of knowledge the speech has created: ToTg 5 ' iSouoiv, om ep eTSopev, jjeyictTa ndvicov g o v oncon' eyGb kokcov. [Elektra 7 6 2 - 6 3 ) to those w ho sa w it, us w ho sa w it with our ow n eyes, the greatest ill luck of all I have seen. 4 3 Kells 1973 : 149 . 66 The presence of an eyewitness to the tragic events serves as a confirmation of their validity for the audience on stage, while the play's audience, aware of the manipulation, is ready to watch the control the report has exercised over Klytaimnestra and Elektra. The power of the narrative the Paidagogos creates asserts such control over Klytaimnestra and Elektra that it leaves no doubt in their minds that Orestes is dead. From now on they act as characters in Orestes' inner play. But Sophocles did not have to develop a narrative of such dramatic power in order to have the Paidagogos simply deceive the two women. The announcement of Orestes' death could have been sufficient, as it was in his predecessor's version. Sophocles' innovation points to associations between the Paidagogos' dramatic technique and the effect it has on its audience on stage. The self-referential effects it creates draw audience attention to the significance of the speech's dramatic nature in the creation of different levels of knowledge in the play. Just as a playwright directs his characters' actions by creating relationships and conflicts among them through the distribution of knowledge as it fits his plot, while he is the only one in control of his plot, Orestes, through this report, gains control of the world of the play and so creates his own inner play by directing other characters' behavior through 67 information given to them, that creates false impressions and perceptions of their own knowledge. The audience watches a character on stage acting as a playwright in a play, in which the real playwright has real control. In the Sophoclean Elektra the audience does not watch Orestes strive for control through mere deception. It experiences a play-within-a-play through which Orestes gives factual information in the context of manipulation of knowledge levels, and thus Sophocles points to the effects of drama on the audience. Klytaimnestra and Elektra are manipulated by Orestes, and the play's audience knows. Furthermore, the audience's involvement for a while in the illusion the speech creates draws attention to its dramatic power by making the audience identify with Elektra and Klytaimnestra as audience. The play's audience watches characters on stage experience the effects of a dramatic illusion that it has itself undergone, and so comes to know the playwright's power over his audience. But while Orestes displays dramatic skills with an immediate goal in mind, Sophocles dramatizes a struggle for control through the manipulation of factual information in order to teach his audience ultimately. At the third level of self-referential theater the Paidagogos' speech is a reversal of the theatrical convention of the messenger's speech. An authorial level of 68 response is evoked by the contrast between the common use of the convention in Greek tragedy as a means of conveying a true account of events that have happened off-stage, and the Paidagogos1 lies. In the Oedipus Tyrannus, for example, the messenger (aYYe^°s) comes from Corinth with the news that Polybos has died (O.T. 924ff.). The messenger also imparts the true information that Oedipus is not the child of the Corinthian royalty, for he himself, then a shepherd, received him as an infant from a servant of Laius (O.T. 1016ff.). Once the messenger delivers this news, Iocasta knows the truth, that Oedipus is her son. The true account of events conveyed by the messenger clarifies things and assists in the progression of the dramatic action through a movement from ignorance to knowledge that the characters undergo. In the Elektra the Paidagogos1 speech functions as a messenger's report. When Orestes in the Prologue directs the Paidagogos to deliver the news, he uses the imperative aYYe^e (El. 47) , a form of the verb ayyeXXtz, to bear a message, to report. Orestes assigns the Paidagogos to act as an ayyeXoq indeed, but his report assists the progression of the dramatic action through a reverse movement from knowledge to illusion and ignorance for the characters who receive the information. That happens because this ayyeXoq is a character in the play of Orestes, and this report is 69 convincing to the degree that it overpowers the dream as a potential source of knowledge that interferes with the Paidagogos' manipulation of the inner audience. In messenger speeches usually the messenger has the advantage over his listeners that he has seen things that they have not. This seems to be the case with this speech. A distinction is made between eyewitnesses (toT^ 5 ' iS ou oiv, om ep eTSopev, El. 762), and those who only hear the report (d>g p ev s v Xoyoi<; aXYeiv<^ / -El. 761-62). The messenger says that he himself was an eyewitness, while his audience, Elektra and Klytaimnestra have only heard the report. Here, however, the verbal distinction between viewers and listeners stands out, because the audience knows the speech is fictitious. The self-conscious reversal of the convention draws audience attention to the hierarchy of knowledge created by the operation of dramatic roles in the play. The play's audience watches aware that the audience on stage is deceived by a character who acts as a playwright in a self- conscious play with the inner audience's cognitive level, who is made do so by the play's author, the only one in control of where this manipulation will lead. When Klytaimnestra and the Paidagogos go into the palace, Chrysothemis enters to inform Elektra that she saw Orestes' offerings on Agamemnon's grave. The position of Chrysothemis' report in the play makes the audience 70 experience it as an unsuccessful confrontation of the Paidagogos' report on the cognitive level. First Chrysothemis says that she brings good news (cpepco yap nSovcig, El. 873, for I bring you happiness), as the Paidagogos had told Klytaimnestra earlier in the play (El. 666-67). Then she announces the news that Orestes is alive, with language asserting certainty of knowledge (T oG i t o u t ' , El. 877, know this). The Paidagogos has also used the same form, the imperative ToQi (El. 690), when he described Orestes1 success at the Pythian Games. But Chrysothemis1 news meets strong resistance from Elektra, who thinks Chrysothemis is out of her mind (aXX' r t pepnvag; El. 879, are you crazy?). Elektra asks for specific proof, for a reason to believe (moTiv, El. 887), just as Klytaimnestra asked the Paidagogos for the way Orestes died. Chrysothemis explains the specifics of her accidental discovery of Orestes1 offerings at Agamemnon's tomb, which is what she takes it to be, proof of Orestes' return. 44 She speaks like a person possessing true knowledge: Gog paSouoa pou (El. 889, when you have learnt from m e),e ^ e n f o T a p a i (El. 907, I know thoroughly w ell), KdToi5'(El. 923, I know w e ll). Furthermore, the certainty of her 44 On Chrysothemis' recognition of Orestes' presence see Segal 1981: 279. 71 report comes from the knowledge of the eyewitness of the tokens: eycb p e v epou t e k o u k aXXou aacpfi anpef' iS o u a a TcpSe nioTeuco Xoycp. (Elektra 8 8 5 - 8 6 } M yself, and not a n y o n e e lse , having seen clear e v id en ce, b e lie v e in this tale. But the information Chrysothemis brings as an eyewitness is being confronted by Elektra, who has drawn her inference from the Paidagogos1 report, in which he has presented himself as an eyewitness as well. Elektra draws further wrong inferences about the source of the offerings, and believes that someone placed the offerings on Agamemnon's grave as a remembrance of Orestes, whom they knew to be dead: o l/ja i paX icr' eycoys t o u TeBvnKOTog pvnpeT' ’ O peoT ou t o Ot o n p o o S elv a f n va. (Elektra 9 3 2 - 3 3 ) If you ask m e (eycoye), I am m o st inclined to think that so m eo n e p la c ed them there a s a rem em brance o f d e a d O restes. Sophocles1 timing of the reports could not have been more successful. Elektra’s misunderstanding comes as a result of the stage-management of Orestes1 deception, that is, his instructions to the Paidagogos about K a i p o q (the a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e ) in the play's Prologue. At the time the first report was delivered, Elektra was anxious to see Orestes, 72 and she believed she saw the person who "saw" him die. The knowledge Chrysothemis brings is rejected by Elektra, who is not receptive at all to true factual information. Furthermore, Elektra convinces Chrysothemis that Orestes is dead. Chrysothemis undergoes what Elektra and Klytaimnestra underwent when they heard the false report. As Elektra and Klytaimnestra followed a movement from potential knowledge coming from the dream, to illusion and ignorance, so Chrysothemis follows a movement from understanding and knowledge to illusion and ignorance. The offerings are an element of the Choephoroi that is used by Sophocles in a very different way. The scene with the two sisters is Sophocles' addition. Sophocles' reshaping of the role of the tokens left at the grave also turns them into a reference to the control established by Orestes. In the Choephoroi the tokens are discovered by Elektra, who gradually confirms Orestes' identity from them. First Elektra discovers and recognizes Orestes' lock (Cho. 168ff.), then his footprints (Cho. 205), and then the woven piece of clothing (Cho. 231-32). In the Elektra Chrysothemis brings the news that Orestes must be in town because the offerings she saw on Agamemnon's grave must have come from him, but Elektra refuses to believe her, and tells Chrysothemis the news about Orestes' death. In the Elektra 73 the offerings won't trigger the recognition. "The Aeschylean tokens are brushed aside not because they are ridiculous, but simply because by the time they are reported, Electra has good reason to believe that Orestes is dead."45 This Sophoclean variation creates theatrical self- consciousness as it draws audience attention to the new dramatic choice and the meaning it carries. The rejection of the tokens points to the power of the false knowledge created by Orestes and his accomplices, which is strong enough to contradict evidence that opposes it and control its reception. Chrysothemis is repeatedly described by Elektra as one out of her mind: Tnq a v o fa g &g a' enoiKTipco naAai [El. 92 0, h o w I h ave b een pitying you for your folly!), o u k o 7o 0 ' onoi yng o u 5 ' onoi yvcopng cpepp [El. 922, you don't know w here in the w orld nor w here in your mind you are letting yourself b e carried ). Tvcopn is a means of knowing; also, judgment, opinion. Chrysothemis is the only one in the position to have an accurate Yvc^Mn 5 but Elektra rejects its validity, in spite of the oacpn on p ela [El. 885-86, clear signs) she has seen. Chrysothemis even says that she saw a TeKpnpiov [El. 904, proof from sure signs or tokens). Ironically Klytaimnestra has used the same word after the Paidagogos reported Orestes' death and 4 5 Garner 1990: 119. 74 promised that the urn will be brought in. Here we have the confrontation of two contrasting TEKphpia, the urn and the grave offerings. Both are funereal, but their interpretation depends on context. The context of false information and misunderstanding proves to be more powerful than Chrysothemis' real evidence and understanding, partly because it is formed prior to Chrysothemis' report, partly due to the dramatic power of the Paidagogos' speech. In the Elektra the inferences Chrysothemis draws from this evidence remind the audience of the same conclusions drawn by Elektra in the Choephoroi. But these inferences have no power in the world of the later play where Orestes has established control by imposing the false knowledge generated by his inner play. In line 1098 Orestes and Pylades enter in the roles of Phokian messengers, accompanied by attendants carrying the urn, which is supposed to contain the ashes of dead Orestes. The audience remembers the urn as a mere word from Aeschylus' play. In the Choephoroi Orestes only mentions the urn after he tells Klytaimnestra that Orestes is dead: vuv y a p X eB m og x o X k e o u nXeupcopaia o n o S o v k e k e u 9 e v a v 5 p o q eu k s k X c iu |J e v o u . [C h oeph oroi 6 8 6 - 8 7 ) N o w a b ron ze urn c o n c e a ls the ash es of a man that has b een mourned so w ell. 75 In the Elektra. the development of a theatrical prop out of a word evokes authorial audience response by drawing attention to the difference of the new version and to the meaning that this prop carries. The audience remembers that in the Prologue Orestes, as director of his plot, made it clear that the urn would be used in the course of his deception. The urn therefore is not simply a prop in the play. It is a prop in Orestes' play, and it is being used as the evidence of the false knowledge he has imposed on other characters. Orestes enters as an actor, ready to improvise in his own play. He knows that this is the House of the Pelopidai from the Paidagogos' exposition in the Prologue, but does not know the identity of those he sees outside the House. "The audience's knowledge of Orestes' deceit makes his highly conventional exchanges of information with the chorus very pointed."46 In order to predispose his listeners positively, Orestes says that those inside the house will be glad to see the visitors (El. 1104). He presents himself and his followers as men from Phokis who seek Aigisthos. Elektra, expecting the arrival of the urn, right away asks if the men are bringing the certain proofs ( e | J 9 a v n T £ K ( j n p i a , El. 1109)of rumors they already had. Elektra's reaction shows 76 that she knows the news the Paidagogos has brought. By this Orestes knows that the ground has been well prepared for him by the Paidagogos, but he denies knowledge of the rumor and continues to act as one sent by Phanoteus to bring Orestes' ashes. Orestes, like the Paidagogos, acts like a messenger, who has been sent to bring news about Orestes (Opecrrou ayyeTXai n ep i, E 1 . l l l l ) : cpepovieq auTou apiKpa Aeiipav' ev BpaxeT reuxei G avovroq, <bq op aq , Kopi^opev. [Elektra 1113-14) as you se e , w e are bringing the small remains o f him in this little urn. Orestes' words echo the Paidagogos' words earlier in the play: e v BpaxeT xaAxcp peyioTov ocopa SeiAafaq anoSou cpepouoiv avSpeq OcoKecov TeTaypevoi [Elektra 7 5 7 - 5 9 ) men o f the Phokians d e ta iled for this duty are bringing him, a m ighty b od y, yielding m iserable ash es, confined in a tiny brazen urn. 46 Ringer 1998: 185. On the conventional and metatheatrical character of the first exchanges of Orestes with the chorus see ibid: 185. 77 The small brazen urn appears as containing a mighty body in the form of pitiable ashes.47 It is a significant dramatic element, because it is not what it appears to be.48 But as the play progresses Orestes, exploits the tension between appearance and reality created by his manipulation, in a way that results in his acquisition of control over other characters. The adjectives opiKpci, BpaxeT, yeyioT ov set up the ironies of the urn scene. The contrast between smallness and greatness intensifies the illusion for the characters who watch, by making the story appear as final. For the play's audience this smallness is ironic. When the urn makes its appearance,it may be small and empty inside, but it carries a significant weight as it comes to symbolize Orestes' control of the world of the play. At first it is seized by Elektra as confirmation of her belief of the death of Orestes and the symbol of the end of her hopes. When Orestes decides to reveal his identity to his sister, first he asks her to surrender the urn. Later it is carried inside where the false knowledge created by Orestes has prevailed, and is given to Klytaimnestra. She is preparing the empty urn for burial, believing that she is safe from vengeance, when she is attacked by her son. The urn assumes 47 The Aeschylean phrase A e B r r r c x ; x o X k e o u n X e u p o o p a T a (Cho. 686) probably suggested to Sophocles his T u n c o p a x a X K o n X e u p o v (El. 54) and B p a x e T x o X k q (El. 757-58). See Garvie 1986: 232. 78 immense importance in conveying the notion of Orestes' control, serving as a physical embodiment of the false knowledge he has created, and symbolizing the difference between those who are under the spell of his deceptions and those who have been freed from them. As soon as Elektra sees the urn, she begins to express grief: oT 'ycb TdXaiva, t o u t ' eiceTv', n5n o a cp eg n p o x e ip o v axG og, cbq so m e, S ep xop ai. (Elektra 1115-16) Alas! This is that indeed, n o w it is d ear; It seem s I s e e the burden rea d y to hand. So, it is the urn's presence that makes it all clear for Elektra. "'This is that': 'that' was the death of Orestes, only intellectually apprehended and therefore remote; 'this' is the concrete evidence she sees before her and must now accept as instant reality," says Kells.49 Although the death of Orestes is neither only intellectually apprehended nor remote, since Elektra already mourned for it earlier in the play, after the Paidagogos’ report (El. 804ff.), it is true that the concrete evidence of the visual presence of the urn has the power to finally establish for Elektra the 4 8 For a discussion of the urn as a mediator between appearance and reality see Segal 1981: 278ff. 49 Kells 1973 : 186 . 79 loss of her brother.50 But although Orestes is specific about the news he brings, Elektra speaks with language that does not identify the reason of her grief. She speaks about "clear proof of the rumor," without identifying the rumor, and about 'this' and 'that' without specifying what exactly she refers to. Fear does not allow her to mention Orestes' death (cog p ' u n e p x e T a i cpoBog, El. 1112, h o w f e a r s t e a l s o v e r m e), and Orestes, being uncertain about the reason of her grief, and not knowing who she is yet, repeats the information: "if you are grieving over Orestes' troubles, know this urn contains his body" (El. 1117-18). Elektra now has accepted that what is left of Orestes and her hopes is in this urn, and asks to hold it in order to lament for herself and all her race: < 5 ) £eTve, 609 vuv npdq 9ecov, em ep to5e K EK EU 0E V outov teOxoq, £9 xsTpaq XaBeTv, 011009 epauTnv Kal yew09 t o nav opoO 2juv TpSs kXouoco KanoSupcopai anoSep. [Elektra 11 19-22) Stranger, by the g o d s, g iv e it to me, if this urn k eep s him hidden, to r eceiv e it into my hands, that I m ay cry and lam ent for m yself together with my entire race with th ese ash es here. The fact that Elektra does not intend to mourn only over Orestes, but at the same time over herself and her entire 5 0 For a discussion of the urn as a visual symbol and the significance of visual symbols in four Sophoclean plays (the urn in the Elektra, the bow in the Philoktetes, the robe in the Trachiniai, and the sword in the Ajax), see Segal 1980-81. 80 race, reveals to Orestes the power that his prop has over that woman. The different levels of awareness create a scene which is heavily charged theatrically. Elektra's intense involvement with the urn, at the narrative level of response, touches the audience, as in Elektra's emotional speech love and guilt, desperation and strength, life and death merge. She is the only character affected deeply by Orestes' alleged death, and the scene with her intense mourning, while he is in fact standing right in front of her, is pathetic. She is indeed the wrong character to be tricked. According to Ringer, the actor Polus' reliance on real ashes to stimulate his performance suggests a sensitivity to the paradox of the scene. Polus seems to have realized that the more genuine his grief appeared to his audience, the greater would be the metatheatrical effect of the scene. 51 The speech has mixed effects on the audience, because it is constantly reminded of the levels of knowledge on the stage. Authorial audience response is evoked when Elektra utters that now all she holds is nothingness (vuv [jev \ap ouSev ovia BacndCco xepoTv, El. 1129). By ouSev Elektra refers to dead Orestes, but the audience knows that ou5evliterally applies to the emptiness of the urn. The audience also knows that 81 Orestes is acting through his silence, by allowing this woman to continue her mourning. And the outpouring of her pain reveals to the play's audience and to Orestes himself that his play had the power to create a true dramatic situation. "Every action meets with a reaction which in turn intensifies the first. In every play, beside the main action we find its counteraction. This is fortunate, because its inevitable result is more action. " 52 Elektra's reaction to Orestes' action will create the action of the recognition scene, as we shall see soon. Elektra's genuine mourning and feeling of loss rouses pity in the play's audience, as well as in Orestes, who is turned into an audience for once, watching the effects of the play he himself has put in motion. The play's audience is aware of the irony and the levels of knowledge on the stage. At the moment of Elektra's ultimate vulnerability, Orestes, in absolute control of the scene, listens and accumulates information as she mourns and gradually reveals her identity. Orestes learns that he is the dearest of living souls to this woman (El. 1126). Also, that she feels guilt for having sent him away, since if he had died at home, he would have shared his father's tomb (El. 1131-3 5). 51 Ringer 19 98, 18 9. The story of Polos, the 5th century actor who held his own dead son's ashes in an urn as he performed this scene is given by Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 6 . 5. 82 She regrets having made the "wrong" decision, while, in fact the audience knows her decision has worked. Orestes is back and alive. She imagines Orestes' lonely burial rites (El. 1138-43), having died away from his sister (ong Kaoiyvrimg 5fxa, El. 1137). Now Orestes has the information that this woman is his sister, and a sister who cares for her brother not only in life but also in death. She is the sister who has nurtured him (Tng epng naXai Tpocpng, El. 1143f f . , my nurture o f you long a g o ). Elektra gives away circumstantial knowledge about Orestes' relationship with her and their mother: pafveTai 5 ' ucp' nSovng primp aprncop, ng ep ol au noXXckig tpnpag X a0pp npounepneg cbg 9 a v o u p e v o g Tipcopog aiiTog. (Elektra 1 1 5 3 -5 6 ) frantic with joy, the mother w h o is no mother with regard to w hom you used to send m e in a d v a n ce, secretly, w arning w ord s that you w ou ld a p p ea r to take v e n g e a n c e upon her in person. Mention of the siblings1 secret communication reveals to Orestes that this sister of his cannot be but Elektra. And Elektra continues to the last part of her lamentation, where she shows the power Orestes had over her life and death: Toiydp ou 6e?ai p' eg t o oov toSe oieyog, mv pnSev eg to pnSev, dbg ouv aol kotoo 52 Stanislavski 1979: 263. 83 vafco to Xomov. Kal yap nvik' n o0' avco, £uv o o l neieT xov tcov ia c o v Kal vOv no0da tou a o u 0 a v o u a a jjn an oX em eo0ai Tacpou. {Elektra 1 1 6 5 -7 0 ) Therefore receive me to this habitation of yours, nothing to nothing, that with you b elo w I may dw ell from now on. For when you w ere on earth, I shared (things) with you on an equal footing. And now I desire, by my death, not to be left behind your burial. Elektra, in a way, identifies with Orestes now that he is dead, as when they "shared (things) when he was alive." The words she uses, Tnv pinSev eq to (jnSev (nothing into nothing), draw a parallel between Orestes' "lack of existence" inside the urn and her lack of life after she lost him. The extremity of her desire to inhabit the urn with him, share his burial, and disappear reflects a desire to be reduced into an object. The purpose of her life is removed, and she wants to become a part of the very object that has brought her to the state of wanting to give up life. To that degree she has become an object of Orestes' manipulations. In the Choephoroi the recognition takes place quite early as Orestes recognizes Elektra almost immediately, and her realization comes a short time later (Cho. 16-18, 215ff. ) . But in the Elektra the recognition is postponed and only comes about when Orestes is moved by his sister's suffering over his alleged death, and decides to reveal his 84 identity to her. Thus, the important recognition scene is recast by Sophocles as an event that is, like everything else in the play, a result of the control Orestes establishes. Before Elektra's speech the disguised Orestes does not suspect that this woman could be his sister. Of course his role-playing does not allow him to take any chances by revealing his identity in an unsafe environment. During the speech, and after the chorus addresses Elektra by her name (El. 1171), Orestes recognizes her, in a state of perplexity: cpeO cpeO, ii Xe^co; noT Xoycov apnxavcov eX9co; KpaTeTv y a p oukcti yXcooang oBevco. (Elektra 1 1 7 4 - 7 5 ) A las, w h at shall I sa y ? To w h at w ord s am I to h a v e recourse, I w h o am bankrupt o f w ords? For I am no longer m aster o f my tongue. The power the urn had over Elektra has backfired. Now Orestes for the first time admits he is at a loss for words, moved by Elektra1s emotional outpouring. Elektra's speech has caused the levels of knowledge and control of the two characters to undergo a change. Still Elektra does not know who this man is, nor does Orestes know Elektra's ills. In the exchange that follows Elektra first provides Orestes with information about herself and her miserable life. Gradually he tries to come to terms with the fact that 85 Elektra's noble form (kXeivov eTSoqUXeKTpaq, El. 1 1 7 7 ) has been reduced to a body wasted so despitefully and so godlessly (w a<£>[/ airipcog Ka0eco^ ecp0ap|jE vov, El. 1 1 8 1 ) . Only now Orestes acquires factual knowledge coming from inside the place he left as a little boy, and now has returned to take over. He recognizes his own ignorance: oo' ouk ap' fiSn tcov epcov kokcov. (Elektra 1 1 8 5 ) H ow I knew nothing, it seem s, o f my o w n ills! Elektra1s physical condition and her own description of the sufferings to which Klytaimnestra has subjected her makes Orestes express pity for her: co 5 u o n o T | j ' , d>q o p c o v o ' e n o iK T i'p c o naXai. (Elektra 1 1 9 9 ) M iserable on e, I pity you w hen I look at you. Now Orestes has come face to face with Elektra1s tragedy. The presentation of her condition after the years of suffering, as well as the display of her pain over Orestes1 death as a result of Orestes1 own play, have turned Orestes into a true audience of her, experiencing pity for the tragic circumstances of her existence. For the first time the director and master of role-playing, the one whose language echoed military discipline in the Prologue, breaks down and reveals emotion. 86 Throughout the Elektra. Orestes and his fellow conspirators are completely successful in the stage- management of the deception, but Elektra is the only person who learns the truth before the proper time. Once Orestes has decided to reveal his identity to Elektra, he first asks her to surrender the urn: [je0eq to6' a y y 0 ? vuv» oncoq to nav |ja0pq. [Elektra 1 2 0 5 ) Let g o o f this urn, then, so that you m ay know everything. The surrender of the urn is symbolic of Elektra's liberation from the control Orestes has exercised over her through the manipulation of knowledge. In the same breath he promises her that she will know all. Knowledge and control are associated, as Orestes has connected the two in his inner play from the beginning. But it takes an exchange of a few lines before the recognition, because Elektra does not want to give up to cpfXiaia (El. 1208), what she loves most. The urn is what is left of Orestes and the embodiment of her hopes. But Orestes insists she should let go of the urn, and gradually reveals the truth to her, in a scene where knowledge is transferred line by line, word by word, as Elektra is not in the position to grasp the reason she should be deprived of her brother's burial. The delay of the revelation of Orestes' identity is puzzling. Orestes has the chance to tell Elektra who he is, 87 but he almost plays with words, disqualifying each one of her arguments and speaking in half-riddles, before he truly reveals himself (El. 1207-23). In the Choephoroi Orestes recognizes Elektra at the play's beginning, and after she discovers the offerings on the grave, he appears, and reveals his identity with his fourth line (Cho. 219). But in the Elektra the audience experiences the manifestation of Orestes, the playwright and actor, in control of the lines he chooses for himself and the way he delivers them, and so in full control of the dramatic conflict in the scene. First he tells Elektra to speak cheerful words, that is, not those which accompany death and burial (El. 1211). The absurdity of this comment in the context of the preceding lamentation must be accompanied by the appropriate tone of voice, one that tries to inspire trust in her. They are both struggling over the urn when Orestes gives away that the urn does not contain Orestes1 body, except in so far as it has been contrived by a tale only. Responding to Elektra's questions he reveals that Orestes is not dead, and then that he himself is Orestes, and presents Agamemnon's signet ring as the proof (El. 1122-23). Elektra's attention switches from the embodiment of dead Orestes, the prop of Orestes' plot, to Orestes before her, the playwright and actor. And as she removes herself 88 from the object that had so much power over her, she joins the real Orestes in his thinking, by perceiving right away what he has done. Elektra is raised to Orestes' level of knowledge, and understands not only who he is, but also the role he has played: opai' ’ OpeoTnv TovSe, pnxavaTai pev GavovTa, vuv 5e pnxavaTg aeacopevov. {Elektra 1 2 2 8 -2 9 ) you s e e , in this man, O restes, d e a d b y devising but n o w a liv e a g a in -b y d evising. 53 M nxavn is contrivance, or the ability to manipulate and shape reality. 54 In two lines Elektra gives a synopsis of Orestes' plot. As Kells notes, pnxavaTg o e o c o p e v o v means that Orestes has got back to Argos safely by stratagem. 55 Her 53 For a study of the visual significance which is attached to Orestes' return in the language of the play, see Seale 1982: 56- 83. "All characters, and especially Electra, are made to come to terms with his 'presence' through a variety of visual indications." Ibid: 58. 54 On the word's association with theater see Ringer 1998: 193. He writes, "The 6eoq and pnxavhq, or deus ex machina, was already proverbial from its employment in the later plays of Euripides and others. Electra's word choice uses the common meaning of pnxavn as a 'stratagem', but in the metatheatrical environment Sophocles has created, it reminds the listener of a prominent part of the ancient theater, the device for creating staged epiphanies. Orestes' stratagems have been theatrical devices, and Electra's language appropriates language of the theater to describe them." 55 Kells 1973: 197. Kells sees a sinister note in the repetition of pnxavaloi . . . pnxavaTai, because the word pnxavn has dubious moral significance. 89 lines recall Orestes' words at the beginning of the play (El. 59-60): T f y a p |-ie XuneT tou©', o to v Xoycp 0avobv e p y o ia i ocoBco Ka^eveyKcopai icXeoq; (Elektra 5 9 - 6 0 ) For w hat harm d o e s it d o me, w hen through dying m erely in w ord, I a c h iev e salvation in d e e d s and win fam e? But while Orestes sees contrast between words and deeds, Elektra sees contrivance in both, the report of his death, and the method of his safety. "For the 'deeds' by which Orestes will be saved are the 'deeds' that constitute the performance of the play, the verbal and the visual deception created to deceive Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. The 'actions' include the act of speaking. " 56 M n xavaf underlie Orestes1 words and actions; and this realization liberates Elektra from the power of his play. The signet ring, the proof of Orestes’ identity and symbol of the male authority in the play, recalls the dream that points to authority over Mykenai, and is associated with Agamemnon. The audience remembers that the other tokens have been brushed aside by Elektra. But the ring, the only token Elektra accepts, is the only token saved for the recognition scene, and points to the authority over Mykenai that once Agamemnon had, and Orestes has come for. 90 "The sphragis marks the connection, not between Orestes and 57 hxs sister, but between Orestes and his father," Both dream and token draw audience attention to Orestes' ultimate objective, which he set up in the play's Prologue, and has been trying to attain throughout the play. Elektra joins Orestes in the execution of his plot. Her transition from the deceived to the deceiver is based on her own initiative. Elektra's action will enrich Orestes' play through the objective that is warmed and infused by a life of misery and emotions so powerful, that she could not hold back from manifesting in the face of opposition throughout her life. Orestes' acting, with the conscious objective emphasized, is now complemented by Elektra's acting, with the emotional objective emphasized. The two will create a forceful team in carrying out their plan. The scene that follows the siblings' recognition echoes the play's Prologue, as Orestes directs Elektra this time how to be an actor in his plot. Orestes knows the importance of the right opportunity for action, the right timing, therefore he tries to prohibit Elektra from continuing with 56 Batchelder 1995: 37. 57 Batchelder 1995: 118. Further, Batchelder associates the sphragis with the play. "With the sphragis , Sophocles puts a seal on his own work. Many have told the story of Orestes' return, but with the sphragis, Sophocles identifies this version, this play, as uniquely his own. The sphragis is not simply the recognition token of the character Orestes. It is the recognition token of the play itself." Ibid: 122. 91 her outpouring of joy at this time, lest someone hear her from inside {El. 1238). This is not the right time to remember her misfortunes either: aXX' otov n a p o u o fa cppa^p, tot' epycov Tcovde p ep vn oS ai xpecov. (Elektra 1 2 5 1 - 5 2 ) but w hen o p p o rtu n ity prom pts us, then will b e the time (xpecov) to remem ber th ese d e e d s. Kells interprets n ap ou ofa as K aipog in this context. 58 Elektra's inability to restrain herself is met by Orestes' direction: ou uri oti K a ip o e un u a x p d v BouXou X eveiv. (Elektra 1 2 5 9 ) W h ere it is not opportu n e, d o not desire to sp eak at length. And for a third time he warns her: x p o v o u y a p a v o oi K a ip o v e^efpyoi X oyoq. (Elektra 1 2 9 2 ) w ord s could hinder o p p o rtu n ity o f time. 58 Jebb takes napouofa as referring to the presence of Aigisthos and Klytaimnestra, and the sentence as meaning "when their presence gives the signal for action, then will be the time to recall their crimes". But as Kells says, this interpretation of napouofa is difficult to accept in this context. Klytaimnestra is already in the house. Aigisthos is abroad, but Orestes does not know it. And Orestes proceeds immediately to enter the palace and kill Klytaimnestra-he does not wait for either one of them to appear. Although napouofa is not found elsewhere with this meaning in classical Greek, this interpretation of it is feasible here. Kells 1973: 201-2. 92 The touching moments of the siblings' recognition as well as Elektra's desire to express her feelings involve the audience at the narrative level of response. But Orestes' interruptions evoke authorial audience response, as the audience is reminded that the director is resuming his contrived plan. Now he directs Elektra to control her expression of joy lest Klytaimnestra discover the truth: toutcp 6 ' oncog prim p o e pn 'niyvGooeTai cpai5pcj> npooconcp v<pv eneXGovToiv S o p o u g - aXX' cbg e rf chp Tp p a m v XeXeypevp OTevaC' [Elektra 1 2 9 6 - 9 9 ) (Take care) that our mother m ay not d isco v er you b y your jo y o u s face, w hen w e tw o g o inside; groan a s for m y destruction, em ptily d escrib ed in w ords; Orestes uses the verb eniyvGooeTai, a form of the verb eniyiyvcooKco (to r e co g n iz e , find out, discover, d etect). The verb points to the continuation of Orestes' manipulation of other characters' perception. He directs Elektra to avoid a certain facial expression that can betray her emotional state, and further asks her to groan in the context of his play. His questions to Elektra draw audience attention to the contrast of knowledge he pursues for himself versus the ignorance he prepares for Klytaimnestra, as he did in the Prologue: a 6' appoaei poi t c | > napovn vuv xpovcp ahpaiv', onou cpavevieg h KEKpuppevoi (Elektra 1 2 9 3 - 9 4 ) 93 But tell m e w hat is suitable for the present moment, w h ere w e must sh o w ou rselves or hide ou rselves Now Orestes asks Elektra to help him with stage action. Her assistance will be based on knowledge of the house interior, which he lacks, which is necessary in order for him to be in control of the action. Elektra informs him that Klytaimnestra is indoors, while Aigisthos is absent (El. 1307-08). When the Paidagogos enters from inside the palace, Orestes also asks him for information about how he will find everything inside. (El. 1339) . And as Orestes had directed him in the Prologue (El. 39-41), the Paidagogos now comes with knowledge of circumstances inside the palace: O p. ncoq ouv exei TavTeuBev eiaiovn pot; [la. KaXccx;. unapxei yap o e ph yvcovaf Tiva. O p . nyyeiA aq, g o q eoitcev, d>g TeSvnKOTa. (la. eTq t c o v ev A iS o u p a v B a v ' ev B a S ' cov avnp. Op. xaipouoiv ouv toutoioiv; n Tfveg Aoyoi; ria. TeXoupevoov emoip' av. cbq 5 e vuv exei xaXcog to kei'vcov navia, ko'i to ph xaXcoq. (Elektra 1 3 3 9 -4 5 ) Or. H ow then d o I find things on their sid e w hen I g o in? Pa. W ell! For the foundation is laid that you will not b e r e co g n ized . Or. O f course, you h a v e announced my death. Pa. K now that you are o n e o f th ose in H ades, although you are here. Or. Are they g la d for it? W hat did they sa y ? Pa. I'd better tell you w hen things are brought to a conclusion. A s things are, everything on their sid e is w ell, e v e n w h at is not so. 94 Orestes knows the importance of the right circumstances, the essential conditions that will enable his goal. And while the circumstances inside the palace were beyond his control before, the man who acquainted him with the locale in Argos now gives him information about circumstances he himself had to prepare or find out from his encounter with Klytaimnestra. Only with this knowledge can Orestes determine potential dramatic conflicts and obstacles and further specify the details of his actions. The Paidagogos brings the news that he has already set the scene inside the palace, where Orestes is being considered dead and no one will recognize him. Having prepared the desired levels of knowledge, Orestes now asks the crucial question of how the news of his death was received. He needs to know Klytaimnestra's reaction to it, but the Paidagogos withholds that information. I agree with Kells that Klytaimnestra must be upset about Orestes' death. 59 The Paidagogos is the one who has just urged Elektra and Orestes for immediate action: eibco napeXGeG', cog to pev peAAeiv kokov ev Tolg toiouToig e a t, annXXaxGai 5' aicph. {Elektra 1 3 3 7 -3 8 ) m o v e forw ard to within the p a la c e , sin ce in such m atters d e la y is reprehensible, and it is the suprem e m om ent to m ake an end (of the business). 59 Kells 1973 : 213 . 95 Klytaimnestra's reaction, if it is pain, can create an obstacle to Orestes' resolution. It can only hinder Orestes' momentum in performing the murder. As the play approaches the critical moments right before the matricide, Orestes' question about Klytaimnestra's reception of the news of his death evokes memories of the Aeschylean play, in which Klytaimnestra pleads with her son not to kill her, asking him to respect the mother's breast that nurtured him (Cho. 896-98) , and Orestes has a moment of hesitation: riuAdSn, j\ Spdoco; p m ep ' ai5eo0o> laaveTv; [C h oeph oroi 8 9 9 ) P ylad es, w hat should I d o? Should I feel sham e to kill m y mother? It is this moment of dramatic conflict that the Paidagogos is trying to prevent Orestes from creating. Orestes has already lost control and revealed the truth to Elektra before the proper time, when he became her audience and got to know and empathize with her pain. The Paidagogos has been with Orestes for years, and he must know him well; therefore he is concerned about a possible moment of hesitation that could create an obstacle for his dramatic action. But by having Orestes ask about his mother's reaction, and the Paidagogos evading the issue, Sophocles directs attention away from the emotional weight of the act of the matricide, and to the emphasis of his own version of Orestes' dramatic confrontation with the mother. 96 The Paidagogos' concern is how to facilitate the action by maintaining the circumstances he has already created. He warns Orestes and Elektra against poorly timed expression of emotion, because he does not want Orestes to lose control, not for a moment. And the word Kdipog (opportunity, right time) is repeated once again: flci. vuv Kdipdg ep S eiv . vuv KAuioipncrrpo povrv vuv ou n g dv5pcov e v S o v (Elektra 1 3 6 8 - 6 9 ) Pd. N o w is the proper time to oct. N o w K lytoim nestro is olon e; n o w there is no mon indoors; The Paidagogos has calculated the timing of the plotters' action, according to Orestes' directions in the Prologue (El. 75). The dialogue points to the fact that the Sophoclean version evades the issue of the moral weight of the act of matricide in favor of the calculated plan of action, that does not slip out of control, with Orestes having clear knowledge of facts regarding the external state of affairs. Orestes has perfectly prepared his stage through preparation of circumstances, perfect timing of events, manipulation of information, and by setting up a perfect discrepancy of knowledge versus ignorance between himself and the usurpers. But the master of knowledge manipulation cannot have knowledge of his mother's feelings about his alleged death before the crucial moment of matricide. 97 When Orestes and Pylades are inside the house, during a kommos with the chorus, Elektra, standing outside as a guard, relates the action indoors to the chorus. Elektra is audience and participant at the same time, while the chorus becomes an audience of the horrible deed. The play's audience gets the picture of the action indoors from the dialogue between Elektra and the Chorus, as well as from what is heard from inside. Klytaimnestra is preparing the urn for burial and the men are standing beside her, as Elektra says (El. 1400-01). This is a scene of enormous intensity and suspense, which cannot be presented on stage, since, according to convention, murder is not portrayed on stage in Greek tragedy. But the synchronization of Elektra's description with the action as it happens gives the related information a vivid quality, which is reinforced by Klytaimnestra's cries for pity that soon are heard from the palace. But Orestes strikes and Elektra urges him to strike twice, if he has the strength (El. 1398-1414) . Segal comments: when we hear Clytemnestra' s off-stage cry, 'My child, my child, pity the mother who bore you' (o teknon teknon/oiktire ten tekousan, 1410 f.), it is Electra, on the stage, who responds: 'But he got no pity from you, nor did the father who sired him.' Instead of the Aeschylean details of the breast or the milk, Sophocles emphasizes the complex relationship between this mother and daughter, here condensed brilliantly into a 98 few vivid lines. 60 Orestes has caught Klytaimnestra off guard while she has been involved with the urn. As Kells says, the horror and ignominy of Orestes' murder of his mother is enhanced by the detail that, at the moment that he stands over her, waiting for his chance to kill her, she is actually tending the urn which she supposes to contain his ashes. 61 As a theatrical prop, the urn has been used to keep Klytaimnestra preoccupied when Orestes prepares the attack. As a symbol of Orestes' plot, the urn becomes the embodiment of the false knowledge Orestes has imposed on his mother. Because Klytaimnestra has believed her son died, she has gotten the urn into the house, and further has allowed herself to be involved with it, if not emotionally, by preparing it for the ritual of burial at the time of the attack. 62 So, she does not get the chance to argue with her son before her death, as she does in the Choephoroi (885- 930). In the Aeschylean play Klytaimnestra's plea to Orestes not to kill her is intimate and powerful: enfoxeq , < £ > naT, tovSe 5 ' aT5ea9cn, tekvov, paoT ov, npdq obi ou rioXXa 5h Bpf^cov a p a ouX oiaiv e^npeX^ag euTpacpeg yaX a. (C h o ep h o ro i 8 9 6 - 9 8 ) 60 Segal 1985 : 19 . 61 Kells 1873 : 219 . 62 In lines 1400-01 Elektra mentions that Klytaimnestra is adorning the urn for funeral, but there is no mention of its emotional impact on Klytaimnestra. 99 W ait, m y son, sh o w respect, my child, for this breast, at which you often d o z e d , w h ile you milked out the nourishing milk with you gums. In the Elektra, by keeping Klytaimnestra involved right before the attack, the urn facilitates the continuity of Orestes' momentum and precludes the moments of vulnerability that could put Orestes' resolve in jeopardy. At the moment dead and living Orestes meet in the house, and she cannot escape him, she realizes the control he has exercised over her through this empty prop. The pointed lack of concern in the scene for the implications of matricide is associated with the order of the murders in the Elektra.63 While in the Choephoroi the matricide serves as the dramatic climax of the murders, in the Elektra dramatic climax of the murders is associated with another issue, that of control of the House, which will be accomplished through the murder of the male, Aigisthos, because it is his place that Orestes will take once the usurper of his father's place is out of the way. In the play's Prologue, Orestes set up the material goals he wished to achieve through his action: Kai ph p' a n p o v ThoS' anodei'A m e yn?/ aAA' apxenX ouTov Kai KaTaaTdmv Sopcov. (Elektra 7 1 - 7 2 ) 63 On theories regarding the order of the murders see Kells 1973: 2ff. On the issue of administration of justice see Segal 1981: 251ff. 100 and d o not send m e a w a y dishonored from this land, but a s a com m ander o f the w ealth o f this hom e and its restorer. Restoration of the House is associated with possession of wealth. The wealth of the House is mentioned by Orestes before the matricide, when he asks Elektra not to bring up how Aigisthos drains Agamemnon's wealth by luxury or waste: |jh0' obq naipcpav K T n a iv ATyiaBoq Sopcov aviX el, T a 5 ' e k x e T, t o 5 e Siaonefp ei p a m v (Elektra 1 2 9 0 - 9 1 ) nor h o w A igisthos drains the w ea lth o f m y father's house b y luxury or w a s te in vain; Aigisthos is associated with abuse of the wealth, and deliverance from the usurper will give Orestes control of the House. Batchelder discusses the struggle for control of the stage between the two dramatists, Orestes and Aigisthos in the final scene, and shows how Orestes defeats Aigisthos in all the elements of the drama. 64 But what also happens in the scene, in the struggle of the two men for control, is that Aigisthos becomes the only character of the play who challenges Orestes' plan on the cognitive level. First, as Aigisthos enters, and asks for the news from one who knows (ng oTSev upcov, El . 1 4 4 2 , which one of you knows? av KaieiSuIav cppaoai, El. 6 4 See Batchelder 1995: 125ff. 101 1447, could sp eak from certain k n o w led g e), he asks if the news about Orestes' death is actually true: h K a i 0 a v o v T ' nYYei^av irnrufjcog; [Elektra 1 4 5 2 ) Did they a c tu a lly report that he is truly d ea d ? Aigisthos is the only character-audience in Orestes' play who questions the truth of the knowledge his play has imparted. And when Elektra responds that the news is not merely true, but that they actually displayed the evidence and did not just tell the story in words alone, he requests the visual proof of it: 65 napeoT' a p ' ftplv coots Kapcpavn paOeTv; (Elektra 1 4 5 4 ) Is it p o ssib le then for m e to m ake acquaintance with (this e v id en ce) actu ally m anifested? "The deception that follows is composed as a scenic corollary to the urn scene. " 66 The urn has been replaced by Klytaimnestra's body as a prop in Orestes plot. The prop that served as visual evidence of Orestes' death in order to gain control over Klytaimnestra has been replaced by the 65 On the language of sight in the speech see Seale 1982: 76ff. On 5 o A o gin Elektra's words see Woodard 1964: 198: "Her stance shifts; gradually she aligns logos with ergon. With her use of verbal dolos, Electra reaches, in the last scene, the farthest remove from her attempt in the Prologue to make logoi replace erga. Her final attitude toward logos and ergon is equivalent in fact, to that of Orestes in the Prologue." 102 prop that becomes the visual evidence through which Aigisthos will know that Orestes has gained control over his fate. As Klytaimnestra became the vehicle for knowledge through the dream for Elektra, Chrysothemis and the Chorus early in the play, her body will become the vehicle for knowledge of the future for Aigisthos. Batchelder notes that Aigisthos acts as a director, ordering the ekkyklema with Orestes' body to be rolled out and the display of the body for the Mykeneans to see (El. 14 61). But she says, it is Orestes who forces Aegisthus to remove the veil and make the corpse visible. Orestes the director determines the actions of Aegisthus the player, and the effect of the sight produced will be the one that f t 7 Orestes, not Aegisthus, intends. Orestes wins control of the stage over Aigisthos. As soon as Aigisthos sees Klytaimnestra's body, however, another competition begins between the two rivals, who challenge each other's perception abilities: O p. n'va cpoBp; ti' v ' ayvoeTg; [Elektra 1 4 7 5 ) Or. W hom d o you fear? W h o is the o n e y o u d o n o t k n o w ? Orestes has noticed the fear in Aigisthos1 reaction, and challenges him to recognize who he is, and who is behind the deed. To Aigisthos' question about who the men are into the 66 Seale 1982: 75. 67 Batchelder 1995: 130. 103 midst of whose nets he has fallen {El. 1476), Orestes replies: ou y a p aioB avp naXai Z j.ov T oT q BavoO aiv ouvek' av ja u S g q Toa; {Elektra 1 4 7 7 - 7 8 ) W h y (yap), d o you not p e r c eiv e that you, the living, h a v e for som e time n o w b een m atching w ord s with the d e a d ? Orestes 1 ou y a p aioB avp confronts the perception ability of Aigisthos. And as Aigisthos arrives at the moment of recognition of Orestes, Orestes continues to question him, this time with regard to his prophetic ability: Ai. oTpoi, ^uvhKa Tounog ou y a p eoB ' oncoq 6 5 ' ouk O p eoT n g eoB ' o npoocpcovcov epe. O p. <al pavTig gov apiOTO^ e o9 dXou naXai; 68 {Elektra 1 4 7 9 - 8 1 ) Ai. Ah! I understand: and this o n e w h o sp eak s to m e can o n ly b e O restes. Or. Being so g o o d a prophet, w e r e you so long m isled? Orestes’ tactics of knowledge manipulation have been so well used, that they have succeeded in overcoming the prophetic powers of Aigisthos so far, and in controlling his fate. 68 The line implies that Aigisthos had some special abilities of pavnKn(cf. El. 1499). "This is part of the background story which appears to have been lost. Perhaps the same detail induced Euripides to depict Aegisthus as conducting a sacrifice, and inspecting the entrails for signs of the future, when he was treacherously murdered by Orestes (Eur. El. 826 f.)." See Kells 1973: 228. 104 The theatricality in Elektra's, Chrysothemis1 and Klytaimnestra's actions has been shown by Ringer. He notes that in line 109 Electra has self-consciously placed herself 'before the doors' (the actor's actual position in the theater), and promised to utter voice publicly to all (npd 0upcov nxco naoi npocpcovefv, 109). The audience is self consciously made the witness of Electra's 'performance' in language. 69 Orestes's performance is designed to put an end to Elektra's need for such performances. Electra's rhetorical/dramatic self-representation in her confrontations with her sister, her mother, and the Chorus was turned into cries of joy after the siblings' recognition. In lines 287-300 Elektra accuses Klytaimnestra of a kind of theatricality, where she portrays her mother as a person of noble words but different actions. 70 Klytaimnestra's manipulation of language has met with Orestes' manipulation of knowledge, just as her impressive but spiritually empty offerings in a way were encountered by the empty urn. In Klytaimnestra's death at the hands of Orestes pretence met disguise just as bokoq was encountered by S o X o q. Also, "she [Electra] accuses Chrysothemis of being a theatrical character. Electra asserts that Chrysothemis has no will of her own, but is controlled by her mother, 69 Ringer 1998: 145. 70 Ringer 1998: 157. 105 much as a dramatic character is controlled by a playwright. " 71 The three women's theatricality of actions has been overpowered by Orestes1 and the Paidagogos' dramatic technique. Through his well-calculated plot for control over Mykenai, Orestes also put an end to these theatrical modes of expression by extinguishing the very foundation of the system that has generated them. The control he asserts will change the theatrical dynamics in the House he has come to liberate. Aigisthos has tried to control the dramatic action on the stage before his death. "Aegisthus1 one last effort as dramatist is to try to force Orestes to kill him, not off stage, but on stage, before the audience. " 72 But Orestes leads him into the palace, in order to kill him there. "Orestes has defeated Aegisthus in all the elements of the drama. " 73 All but one. Where is his own future going? For the question is immediately related to the play. Orestes conceived and developed his drama with limited knowledge, and the rival dramatist now challenges this weakness: Ai. n nacf avdyKn Tnv5e Thv OTeynv FSeTv to f ovTa Kai peAAovta fleAoniScov kqkq; 71 Ringer 1998: 153. 72 Batchelder 1995: 136. 73 Batchelder 1995: 140. Batchelder continues: "He has determined entrances and exits. He has created a recognition scene so powerful that even his rival has been forced to look at his and no other play, |jnKET' aAAooe oKonei (1474)." 106 [Elektra 1497-98) Ai. M ust this house b y ab solu te n ecessity , s e e the present and future ev ils o f the Pelopidai? Aigisthos' sinister hint at the future evils of the House of Pelops reminds the audience of the end of the Choephoroi, where the Furies pursue Orestes after the performance of the murders. 74 Aeschylus has dramatized a powerful scene with Orestes' madness and his sight of the Erinyes (Cho. 104 8 ff.) : r r a a Spoiai yuvalKeq aT5e ropyovcov 5iknv cpaioxiTcoveg koi nenXeKTavnpevai nuKvolg SpaKouaiv. oukct' av pefvaip' eyco. (C h oeph oroi 1048-1050) Ah, ah, attendants, th ese on es, like G orgons, in black cloth es, with their hair w reathed, 74 Batchelder believes that Sophocles defies the Aeschylean ending, and reasserts the Homeric view of vengeance. See Batchelder 1995: 122. Winnington-Ingram suggests that "Sophocles neither asserts nor denies that Orestes was pursued by Furies, but deliberately indicates it as a possibility inherent in the system of justice which he has successfully applied (1505 f.)." See Winnington-Ingram 1983: 215. Further, "Sophocles here opens a window upon sinister possibilities." Ibid: 432. For an argument against pursuit of the Furies in the Elektra see Stinton 1990: 466-79. For bibliography on the issue of the Erinyes in Sophocles' Elektra see Segal 1981: 461, n. 3. He writes, "The matricide-pursuing Furies, it is true, do not have the weight that they do in Aeschylus and even in Euripides. Yet they are sufficiently present in the text . . . After the Oresteia no tragedian had to lay much emphasis on the details, and even small touches are enough to convey both moral and psychological abhorrence." See ibid: 249. 107 with swarm ing serpents! I cannot sta y an y more. The imagery is powerful, and so is the effect it has on Orestes and the audience. This scene is not easy for Elektra's audience to forget, and Aigisthos' comment on the future evils of the House of Pelops evokes authorial audience response. The audience's attention is drawn to the fact that although Orestes is in control of the stage and of Aigisthos' fate, the question of the future remains unanswered. For the play's ending points to a sphere beyond Orestes' knowledge. As Orestes leads Aigisthos into the palace in order to kill him there, the chorus chants about Orestes: co onepp' Aipecog, noXAa naGov 6 1' eAeuGepfag poAig e^nAGeg Tp vuv oppp TeXeooBev. (Elektra 1 5 0 8 - 1510) O s e e d o f Atreus, h ow , having suffered much, you h a v e at long last m ad e your w a y to liberty, having b een m ad e perfect through this present onset. Everything seems to be complete and the last word of the play is TeXecoGev. The word refers to the seed of Atreus, Orestes. It is a form of the verb teAeocd, which means "to make perfect." It can also mean "to bring to accomplishment, to complete" (Hdt. 1, 120) . But the audience might ask itself, is everything completed? In several senses, the answer is no. Aigisthos is still alive at the play's end. 108 There is, of course, no doubt in the audience's mind that he will die. Orestes set out his play in the Prologue with an ambitious plan for wealth and restoration of the House (El. 72), as well as fame (El. 60) and honor (El. 64, 71). He framed all this with the glamorous imagery of the star he planned to resemble after the accomplishment of his goal (aoTpov co<^ Xapipeiv). But there is nothing explicit in the play's end that promises Orestes the glory he has dreamed of. The chorus sings about liberation (El. 1509), but there is no mention of honor or fame as results of the attainment of Orestes' objective. There is no feeling of joy as a conclusion of his success. Furthermore, the play ends with a short "perfunctory address (in anapaests) by the chorus. After the brutal realism of the final scene, this taglike ending cannot tell us anything about the play's meaning. " 75 The abruptness of the ending, the use of the word TeXecoGev and Aigisthos' last remarks draw attention to the unfinished action, to the future, and to the audience's own knowledge of what must occur from that point on. Everything in the ending of the play focuses the audience's attention on what lies outside this particular version of the story. "Tragedy is the art form, above all, that makes the most of what is called discrepant awareness-what one 75 Kells 1998: 231. 109 character knows and the other doesn't, or what none of the characters knows but the audience does. " 76 Aigisthos' defeat at the play's end means reinstatement of control of the House to its legitimate heir. But there may be another reason why Sophocles left Aigisthos' murder for the play's dramatic climax. Sophocles makes Aigisthos the character who hints at the future in the mythic tradition, and through his prophetic power points to Orestes' limited knowledge. The play's end confronts Orestes' play on the cognitive level by drawing audience attention to the limited knowledge at its foundation, and to the irony of Orestes' handling of other characters' knowledge throughout the play. The control that Orestes achieves through the manipulation of knowledge seems to be complete. The play's self- referentiality points in several ways to the extent of this control and to the means by which it is accomplished. At the play's end, however, as Orestes appears to be about to gain total control through the death of Aigisthos, the construction of the play's ending sharply reminds the audience that this is only a temporary success. By leaving out the Furies, or any mention of them, and only hinting at the future Sophocles' sudden ending creates an abrupt 76 Zeitlin 1990: 79-80. 110 silence at the plays' end. And the audience is left with its knowledge of the very short time this perfectly achieved control can endure. Ill PHILOKTETES AND BREAKDOWN OF CONTROL The Philoktetes is another Sophoclean play with extensive employment of self-referentiality, which has only recently been given attention. Traditional scholarship on the play has viewed several aspects of it, such as the role of Neoptolemos and the social context, 1 characters' motivation and values, 2 the significance of the gods, 3 the meaning of the bow, 4 and inconsistencies of the oracle throughout the play. 5 Few works discuss illusion and truth in the play, and the blending of true and false in Neoptolemos' speeches. 6 In his recent study of metatheater in Sophocles' plays Ringer remarks that the Philoktetes raises nagging ethical questions, 7 and Falkner, in his study of the self-referential dimensions of the play, discusses the intrigue as a play-within-a-play, with Philoktetes as Neoptolemos' perfectly receptive audience. 8 Falkner shows 1 Rose 1992, Greengard 1987. 2 Easterling 1983, Winnington-Ingram 1980, Reinhardt 1979, Torrance 1965, Kirkwood 1958. 3 Winnington-Ingram 1980, Reinhardt 1979, Torrance 1965, Bowra 1944 . 4 Gill 1980, Taplin 1978, Harsh 1960. 5 Hinds 1967. 6 Segal 1981, Taplin 1987. 7 Ringer 1998: 103. 8 Falkner 1998. 112 that the Philoktetes "presents a model of the theater which raises ethical concerns about tragedy but which, by attributing these to the moral deficiences of its creator [Odysseus], distances itself from it. " 9 All sources of self-referentiality--intertextual references, the inner-play structure, and manipulation of conventions of the genre--occur in the Philoktetes, as they do in the Elektra. Furthermore, Sophocles' dramatic strategy in the Philoktetes is to gradually increase the audience's feeling of being thrown off-balance by the directions his innovations take. Throughout the play, just as Neoptolemos combines truths, half-truths, and lies in his attempts to deceive and then persuade Philoktetes, Sophocles combines familiar aspects of the story with unexpected shifts of direction of the plot, that seem to lead to a totally unexpected conclusion. These surprises become a source of self-reference, by reminding the audience that it is watching a play's plot being manipulated. In this chapter I shall discuss instances of self-reference in the Philoktetes, that draw attention to issues that the playwright addresses through his dramatic technique. I shall show that the extensive employment of self-reference points to an organic treatment of the theme of knowledge and 9 Falkner 1998: 27. 113 its association with the ongoing effort of Neoptolemos to control the intrigue plot, and the shifts of the play's plot later in the play. For as the play progresses, it becomes apparent that the Philoktetes presents a process of learning and different levels of knowledge that characters acquire through their interaction with other characters. These levels of knowledge are directly related to the direction of the play's plot. The playwright's innovations, by toying with audience expectation, point to the unexpected shifts and finally the breakdown of the control of humans over their objectives and future. Sophocles' dramatic choices distinguish the Philoktetes from the Elektra. While in the Elektra the audience watches Orestes' play unfold without interruptions from the beginning to the end, in the Philoktetes the repeated occurrence of self-reference acquires even greater strength through the manipulation of the audience's knowledge of the myth. Here the audience has the feeling it watches a play that keeps breaking down. By constantly evoking authorial audience response, the Philoktetes makes a statement about knowledge and human limitations, and by presenting paradigms of learning through extensive use of self-reference, it affirms tragedy's ability to transmit knowledge and teach its audience. 114 Intertextual reference is a significant source of self- ref erentiality, as it leads the audience to think about the meaning of Sophocles' particular choices and changes of the story line. The myth of Philoktetes is an important part of the myths related to the Trojan war. The events preceding the action of the Iliad, that is how Philoktetes was bitten by the snake at Tenedos and was left in Lemnos by the Greeks, were contained in the Cypria, an epic whose authorship "is variously given to Stasinus, Hegesias or Hegesinus. " 10 Philoktetes' later fortunes are described in the lost works Little Iliad, ascribed to Lesches, and Iliou Persis by Arctinus of Miletos. 11 In the Little Iliad Diomedes persuaded Philoktetes without difficulty to accompany him to Troy. Jebb writes: for the purposes of epic narrative, it would evidently suffice that Diomedes should announce an oracle which promised health to the sufferer and honor to the exile. Philoctetes would accept these overtures in a speech of dignified magnanimity; and all would be happily settled. 12 But as Jebb comments, this was changed when the story of Philoktetes became the subject of tragic drama: The very essence of the situation, as a 10 Lesky 1966: 81. 1 1 The prose summaries of Proclus (second century A.D.) include summaries of the contents of these two lost works. Jebb gives an outline of the story in its epic form. See Jebb 18982: Xff. 115 theme for tragedy, was the terrible disadvantage at which the irony of fate had placed the Greeks . . . For ten years he had been pining on Lemnos; and now they learned that their miserable victim was the arbiter of their destinies. 13 Sophocles' Philoktetes was produced in 409 B.C., after Aeschylus and Euripides had both dramatized plays with the same title. Euripides produced his Philoktetes in 431 BC, and "that both the later poets had seen Aeschylus' play is a safe inference from the fact that the younger poet (Euripides) remodeled a line of Aeschylus (253 N ) , " 14 Our knowledge of the Aeschylean and Euripidean plays comes from the account of Dio of Prusa in his Orations 52 and 59.15 Aeschylus' and Euripides' Philoktetes are the only plays before Sophocles' play dealing with the same story, the fetching of Philoktetes from Lemnos to Troy. Dio writes that Aeschylus introduces Odysseus as shrewd and deceitful (Or. 52,5). Odysseus tells Philoktetes a false story, that Agamemnon has died, that Odysseus has been 1 2 Jebb 18982: XII. For the literary tradition of the story of Philoktetes see Webster 1970: 2ff. 1 3 Jebb 18982: XIII. Also, for a comparison of the methods by which Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides solved the conflict, see ibid: Xlllff. 1 4 Webster 1970 : 3 . 1 5 For a comparison of the plots of the three plays see Dio Chrysostomus, Oration 52, written in the latter part of the first century A.D. For brief outlines of Aeschylus' and Euripides' Philoktetes see Webster 1970: 3-5; for an outline of Euripides' Philoktetes see Webster 1967: 57-61. 116 held guilty of the most shameful charge, and that the army was utterly destroyed (Or. 52,10). Odysseus uses deception by creating a fictitious story about the Greeks in Aeschylus' play, as Neoptolemos does in Sophocles' Philoktetes. But, as we shall see in the course of the play, Neoptolemos stays much closer to the truth. Euripides' fragments also reveal that Odysseus tells Philoktetes a fictitious story. Since the fragments of the Euripidean Philoktetes are lengthier than those of the Aeschylean play, it is possible to compare Sophocles' and Euripides' plays and to come to some valuable conclusions regarding Sophocles' innovations and the effect they had on the audience. Euripides' play opens with Odysseus' expository speech, in which he states that while he was afraid to sail to Lemnos to get Philoktetes' bow, Athena appeared to him in a dream and encouraged him to go; she would change Odysseus' shape and voice, so that Philoktetes would not recognize him (Or. 52,13). A significant part of the information the audience receives in the Prologue of Sophocles' play agrees with its expectations regarding the story. The presence of Odysseus and his plan to trick Philoktetes are familiar from the earlier dramatizations by Aeschylus and Euripides. And Odysseus states, in conformity with the mythic tradition, that without the bow the Greeks cannot prevail at Troy (Or. 117 52,2). But in the first few lines of the play the audience also notes the two Sophoclean innovations, the presence of Neoptolemos and the depiction of Lemnos as a completely deserted island. Unlike Aeschylus, both Euripides and Sophocles thought that it was impossible for Odysseus to appear to Philoktetes without disguise and accomplish his goal. Euripides handles the difficulty by having Athena disguise Odysseus, so that he will appear as someone else. Sophocles needs to resolve the same problem of the encounter of Odysseus and Philoktetes, and he handles it in a different way. Rather than having Odysseus play the part of another person, he introduces the part of Neoptolemos, whom Odysseus teaches how to win over Philoktetes. In the opening scene the audience is introduced to the relationship between the two men, Odysseus and Neoptolemos. At first, the older man, in his expository speech, introduces the younger man to Philoktetes' historical background and geographical surroundings, both significant factors in the play's action. Neoptolemos learns that Philoktetes was abandoned by Odysseus on this untrodden island, Lemnos, long ago, due to his wound, according to orders Odysseus had from the leaders of the Greek expedition (Phil. 1-7). Odysseus reveals that he does not want Philoktetes to know about his presence on the island: aKpn yap ou paKpcov npTv Xoycov, ph Kai pa9p p' nKovta kqkxeco to nav 118 oocpio|ja T C p viv auTfx' alpriaeiv 5okco. [Philoktetes 1 2 -1 4 ) For it is not time for long sp eech es, lest he learn o f m y arrival and I w a s te the w h o le schem e, b y which I plan to catch him right a w a y . And right away Odysseus gives Neoptolemos the assignment that reveals to the audience the necessity of Neoptolemos' part: aXX' e p y o v n5n o o v Ta Xofcp' unnpeieTv (Philoktetes 15) But it is your job to perform the remaining Neoptolemos1 job is first to mediate Philoktetes' environment to Odysseus. He has to look around and see where there is a rock with two mouths, which has been Philoktetes' habitation, as well as whether Philoktetes occupies the cave or not, and report the information to Odysseus (Phil. 15-23) . But the imperative olya {Phil. 22, k eep silent, q u ie tly ), indicates that once again Odysseus is concerned that Philoktetes might learn about his arrival. Through Odysseus' expository speech it becomes clear to the audience that the new character, Neoptolemos, is to play the part of the intermediary between Odysseus and Philoktetes' environment. Indeed, Neoptolemos follows Odysseus' advice, and mediates information from Philoktetes' side. Neoptolemos informs Odysseus that he already sees the cave (Phil. 26-7), and that there are signs of habitation in 119 it, but that Philoktetes is absent (Phil. 29-31) . Philoktetes1 cave becomes the object of attention, as Neoptolemos mediates the environment of Lemnos and the cave for Odysseus and thus for the audience. 16 This mediation has self-referential overtones, because the play's audience acquires information through the information that Neoptolemos, the internal spectator of Philoktetes' surroundings, gives to Odysseus, Neoptolemos1 audience at this point. At several points in the Prologue the extent of the visitors' knowledge of Philoktetes is displayed. Odysseus tells the story of his abandonment and describes what can be seen of the spot where Philoktetes lives. Neoptolemos goes closer and describes the contents of the cave. Odysseus speculates, accurately, about the conditions of Philoktetes' life, about the distance he could travel, and about the possible search for helpful herbs (Phil. 40-4) . He further expresses a fear that Philoktetes might gain an advantage over his group by seeing them first and coming upon him without warning (Phil. 45-6, 75-6). Thus Odysseus is fearful from the play's opening of the possibility that 1 6 For bibliography on the number of openings into the cave visible to the audience see Kamerbeek 1980: 29. On the double mouthed cave as a metaphor for the ensuing action see Ringer 1998: 104-05. "The play's concern with the duality of language and role-playing-within-the role finds a fitting resonance in the 'double mouthed' skene as well." See Ringer 1998: 105. 120 Philoktetes might gain any knowledge that is not strictly controlled by Odysseus and his group. The control of knowledge is clearly a major aspect of Odysseus' plan to gain control over Philoktetes. One of the strongest instances of implicit self- reference in the Prologue is the manner in which Odysseus takes on the role of the playwright and director, devising the scenes of deception and directing Neoptolemos in his role as an actor. Odysseus tells Neoptolemos that he should deceive Philoktetes by using verbal deceit: Tnv OiXoKTnTou o e 5eT ipuxnv oncog S oXoioiv eKKXsipeiq Xeycov (Philoktetes 5 4 - 5 ) You must d e c e iv e Philoktetes' soul with d e c e p tiv e w ord s Odysseus uses the words eKKXeipeiq (Phil. 55, deceive), KXemeov (Phil. 57, must c o n c e a l), xXoneug (Phil. 77, thief), as does Apollo in the Elektra, when he tells Orestes to accomplish the slaughter steal thily (KXeipai x e ip o q evSikou 0 9 aYag, El. 37). Odysseus tries to direct Neoptolemos into a temporary change of character, by convincing him to adopt deceptive behavior, and he hopes to create a plot by which Neoptolemos will take Philoktetes and the bow to Troy. 17 As we shall see, the 1 7 Some critics believe that Odysseus knows from the beginning that both Philoktetes and the bow are necessary for the sack of 121 theatrical roles of playwright and actor serve a significant function in the distribution and acquisition of knowledge, which result in shifts of the characters' control over the situation in the course of the play. Odysseus gives Neoptolemos specific directions regarding the way he should manipulate the information he gives to Philoktetes. Neoptolemos is not to hide his identity (Phil. 56-7), but he is to present himself as mistreated by the Acheans, who fetched him from Skyros, and swore that only with his help Troy would be taken; yet when Neoptolemos arrived and asked to have his father's arms, they did not consider him worthy but gave them to Odysseus instead (Phil. 58ff.). The events Odysseus asks Neoptolemos to present evoke authorial audience response by pointing outside the story of the play. They recall the Sophoclean Ajax, in which the Greeks had awarded Achilles' arms after his death to Odysseus, instead of Ajax. Also, in Sophocles' Skyrioi Odysseus and Phoenix went to fetch Neoptolemos from Troy, while Neoptolemos realizes that later. See Kitto 1961 and Kirkwood 1958. Others argue that Odysseus never realizes the need for Philoktetes, but that Neoptolemos does. See Whitman 1951, Knox 1964, and Adams 1957. Other critics believe that both Odysseus and Neoptolemos know the need for both Philoktetes and the bow from the play's beginning. See Hinds 1967, Linforth 1956, and Hoppin 1981. 122 Skyros. 18 But these events are not based completely on fact. According to Webster, a red-figure cup (Beazley, ARV 429, 26) of about 490 B.C. has on the outside (a) the quarrel of Odysseus and Ajax for the arms of Achilles, (b) the voting which awarded the arms to Odysseus, and on the inside Odysseus handing over the arms to Neoptolemus. 19 The blending of true and half-true information from the mythic tradition creates a self-referential moment, and introduces the audience to the manipulative techniques Odysseus directs Neoptolemos to use. Like the playwright, Odysseus creates a story that Neoptolemos will present to Philoktetes by blending events from the mythic tradition. In this play, as in the Elektra, a character plans a plot, and sets the foundation for deception. As the audience is watching the play unfold, it is also watching a character direct the intrigue, which will control a big part of the plot of the play. Odysseus directs Neoptolemos to create an inner-play, the audience of which will be Philoktetes. But while the tragedian blends events from the mythic tradition in his unique way with the goal to teach his audience, Odysseus directs Neoptolemos to blend those events with an immediate goal in mind, to benefit the 1 8 "The Skyrians has been dated early in Sophocles' career because of vase-representations of Neoptolemus leaving Skyros (cf. Webster, TE 86), but they may equally well have been based on epic." See Webster 1970: 6. 1 9 Ibid: 73. 123 Greek cause by deceiving Philoktetes. And while the play's audience has made an implicit agreement to hear and watch the mythic stories in the context of make-believe that theater creates, Philoktetes will be unaware of the fact that he provides an audience to a staged play-within-a-play. Neoptolemos will have to improvise as he presents his story to Philoktetes, and he responds to it. He is to assume a false identity--that is, to act'as an "honest Neoptolemos," while in fact he will be dishonest. Neoptolemos will not play a completely different character, as does Orestes in the Elektra. Still, he will assume a false persona, and in that respect we have role-playing within a role. Odysseus' instructions in the Prologue are Neoptolemos' first contact with the play in which he will perform. At this point Neoptolemos is like an actor who first reads the play on which he is about to work. He is still on the other side of the footlight; he is not yet on stage. The execution of the scenes is dependent on the director's technique before the actor develops his own. The director's concept must be followed, and the actor must have a willingness to understand and deal with his concepts of the play, and acknowledge his final authority. It is exactly here that the first conflict comes into play. Odysseus knows that Neoptolemos' nature is not inclined toward 124 mischief, but he tries to teach him by presenting an attractive objective for the action he proposes: e£o i5 a, naT, cpuaei oe pn necpuKOTa ToiauTa 9 coveTv pnSe T exvaoSai Kaiccr aXX' n5u yap ti KTfipa Tng vikng XaBeTv, ToXpa. SiKaioi 5 ' auBiq SKcpavoupeBa. {Philoktetes 7 9 - 8 2 ) I know , young man, by nature you a re not fitted to sa y such things, nor to contrive stratag em s; but the p rize of victory is p le a sa n t to win. D are. A nd after that our justice will b e ap p aren t. Odysseus1 attitude regarding use of language reflects the Sophistic views on logos, which are closely associated with the physis-nomos controversy, a central concern in Athenian society toward the last quarter of the fifth century. 20 This controversy, dramatized on the stage, brings out another conflict, that between playwright/teacher and actor/ student, and as the play unfolds, it makes a statement about the theatrical relationship between playwright and actor, 20 Some Sophists in fifth century Athens teach how to use language in order to turn a weak argument into a strong argument, and so win a case. This is the subject of Aristophanes' Clouds. The Sophistic views of logos are closely associated with the physis- nomos controversy, which Rose places toward the last quarter of the fifth century. Rose discusses how the conflict between the aristocratic conception of inherited excellence and the impositions of the community was seen by the Sophists. He says, "this conflict, often loosely associated with all the Sophists under the tag phusis/nomos {nature vs. law or custom), probably became a central concern only toward the last quarter of the fifth century when its most radical implications were explored by the Sophist Antiphon." See Rose 1992: 306-07. 125 about learning and about the acquisition of knowledge through drama. Neoptolemos does not want to play the part that Odysseus assigns to him: eyco p e v ouq a v tcov Xoycov aXyco kXugov, A aepn'ou naT, to u o S e xal n p a o o siv OTuyoy ecpuv y a p o u S e v ek Tsxvnq n p a o o e iv KaKfig, out' ciut6<; ou0 ', co<; 9001 V, ouK9 u o a g ep e. [Philoktetes 8 6 -9 ) Son o f Laertes, w ord s that I am d istressed to hear, I a lso h ate to carry out; for it is not m y nature to a ct b y evil contrivance, A 1 neither m yself, nor my father, a s they sa y . BouXopai 6 ', ava£, KaXcog Spcov E^apapisTv paX X ov n vikov kokcoq. [Philoktetes 9 4 -5 ) but I prefer to fail b y honorable behavior, rather than win b y cheating. The words TEXvao0ai (Phil. 80), and Tsxvnq (Phil. 8 8 ) used by Odysseus and Neoptolemos respectively, carry the meaning of contrivance. They refer to Odysseus' contrivance, preparation by art, skillful execution, or performance. They also refer to the skillful performance that Odysseus asks Neoptolemos to compose. As Neoptolemos states, he would rather capture Philoktetes by force than by treachery 21 'Mphis is the classic statement of the obligations of breed. Neoptolemus was born on the day that Achilles left Skyros for the Trojan war, so that he only knows of his father at second hand, o3g 9 aoiv." Webster 1970: 75. 126 (Phil. 90-1). In line 88 Neoptolemos judges this kind of contrivance as Kaicn(evil), and consequently he judges the dramatic character that Odysseus asks him to create.22 Neoptolemos does not have the appropriate feelings for this part. Odysseus knows that, and tries to subject Neoptolemos' feelings to the reason and logic of the teacher: eo0X ou riaip o g naT, K a u T o q g o v v eo g n o ie yA coaoav p ev a p y o v , xeTpa 5 ' eTxov e p y d n v vuv 5 ' elg eA eyxov e^ioov opco BpoTofg Tnv yA doaaav, oux) Tapya, n a v 0 ' nyoupevnv {Philoktetes 9 6 -9 ) Son of a g o o d father, w hen I w a s young m yself once, I h ad an inactive tongue, and an industrious hand; now , a s I g o out into the testing ground (of adult life), I s e e that am ong men it is the tongue, not the d eed s, that guides everything. The issue is the conflict between Odysseus' words and Neoptolemos1 nature, but as Blundell comments, Odysseus "rephrases the conflict between deception and force as one of word and deed, allying force with youthful rashness and deception with wise maturity, and thus translating the moral 22 In his discussion of speech in the context of the fifth century Sophistic movement Rose says: "Certainly the commitment to speech as opposed to the violence of weapons was a cardinal element in the more benign, pro-democratic sociology of the older Sophists. But Sophocles' characterization of Odysseus' commitment to speech clearly implies not progress but degeneracy; it is constantly associated with trickery (dolos, 91, 101, 102, 107, 608, 948, 1112, 1117, 1228, 1282), deceit {apate, 1136, 1128), and lying (pseudos, 100, 108, 109, 842, 1342), not only in the view of others but often in Odysseus' own language." See Rose 1992: 307- OS. 127 issue into terms favorable to himself. " 23 As Odysseus makes a contrast between words and deeds, he is trying to direct Neoptolemos with words. He transmits information about himself and his experience regarding the importance of language. He tries to change Neoptolemos1 views about the use of logos, and to convince him to assume a role and execute a plan through a certain use of language as the means of gaining control over Philoktetes. The play's Prologue is a manifestation of the powers of Xoyoq, as Odysseus' verbal manipulation has the power to lead Neoptolemos to use hypocritical and manipulative language in his communication with Philoktetes. The factor that makes Neoptolemos accept the assignment is the presentation of the rewards he will achieve, if he brings Philoktetes to Troy. These rewards will become the main character objective in the role Neoptolemos will play. Also, each one of the rewards Odysseus presents appeals to a noble youth's aspirations. Odysseus has calculated their psychological significance, and identifies them gradually as he argues with the younger man. They are victory (vikn<;,Phil. 81), reputation of justice and piety (Sikaioi £K9 avou|je0 a, Phil. 82; KeKXnoo euoEueoTdTO^, Phil. 85), rescue ( t o ocoBnvai, Phil. 109), 2 3 Blundell 1989: 190. 128 and profit (KepSoq, Phi 1. 111). The most appealing objective for Neoptolemos, however, is the sack of Troy: 0 5 . o to v ti 5 p g q eig K epSoq, ouk okveTv npenei. Ne. KepSog 5' epol ti' to u to v eg Tpofav poXeTv; 0 5 . aipeT to to ^ o to u to rnv Tpofav pova. Ne. o u k ap' o nepooav, Gbq e c p a a K E T ', eTp' eyoo; 0 5 . o u t' av ou kei'voov xcoplq o u t' eK efva oou. Ne. 0 n p aT e' [av] yfYVOIT/ ^v/ emep d>5' exei. 0 5 . cbg toO to y / £ p ? a q 5 u o tpepp ScopnpaTa. Ne. riofco; pa0ov yap o u k av apvofpnv to 5pav. 0 5 . oocpoQ t' a v outo^ K ayaO oq kekXp ' a p a . Ne. T tco. nonoco, naoav aiaxuvnv a9 efq. [Philoktetes 1 1 1 -2 0 ) O d. W hen you d o som ething for profit, you n e e d not hesitate. N e . W h at gain for m e that he should co m e to Troy? O d . These arrow s a lo n e will take Troy. N e. Then I shall not be, a s it w a s said, the conqueror? O d. N either you w ithout them, nor they without you. N e. If this is so, they w o u ld b e things which must b e hunted. O d. Surely, you win a d ou b le rew ard if you d o this. N e. W hat? For if I knew , I w ou ld not refuse the d e e d . O d . You w ou ld b e c a lle d both w ise and valorous. N e. Let it run its course. I will d o it, putting a sid e all sham e. The sack of Troy (Phil. 115) is an objective that naturally appeals to the noble youth and makes him begin to consider. But "what ultimately wins Neoptolemus over is an appeal to KXeoq, which is really a variation of the Xoyoq-theme: the young man is naturally anxious about what others will say about him, his reputation in the eyes of the world. " 24 Like Orestes, who decides to die merely in word, but achieve 2 4 Podlecki 1966: 238. 129 salvation in deeds and win fame (El. 60), Neoptolemos is motivated to apply Odysseus' teachings by the promise of fame. He will be called 0 0 9 0 9 (Phil. 119) because he had wisdom, cleverness, and skill to gain the bows, and ayaSog (valorous, Phil. 119), because by then he will have sacked Troy. I0 9 0 9 , the attribute that traditionally belongs to Odysseus, now is being transferred to his "pupil," Neoptolemos, by Odysseus himself, who urges Neoptolemos to assume his own attribute. 25 In the Prologue the role of Neoptolemos as intermediary is clearly established: 09 5 ' eoT7 ep o l p ev ouxf, o o l 5 7 opiAia npdq t o v 5 e m om Kal BeBaioc;, EKpaBe. {Philoktetes 7 0 - 1) Learn that not I, but you h a v e the possib ility o f a firm and trusted a sso cia tio n with him. Odysseus imparts to Neoptolemos the very useful knowledge, that he, and not Odysseus, will be in the position to create a relationship of trust with Philoktetes. Odysseus thus prepares Neoptolemos for the degree of intimacy he will be able to achieve with the older man, and Neoptolemos will use this knowledge in his exchanges with Philoktetes later in 25 As Blundell says, "sophos" may refer to prudence but also to sophistic cleverness of a morally suspect kind. "This ambivalence makes it especially appropriate to the ambiguous 130 the play. At this stage Odysseus completes his teaching, and in the next stage Neoptolemos, in direct contact with Philoktetes will apply what he has learnt from Odysseus. Odysseus has given Neoptolemos the rough guide for improvisation. He has shown him the place of the action, has let him explore Philoktetes' surroundings himself, has established the existence of certain facts, the given circumstances in the life of Philoktetes, has defined the imminent relationship between Neoptolemos and Philoktetes in the plot he is about to put in motion, and has explained the existing dramatic obstacles. Philoktetes has the deadly bow, so one cannot use force on him (Phil. 103-05), and he will not be persuaded to go to Troy on his own free will (Phil. 103). Neoptolemos is provided with plenty of information about Philoktetes and his condition, but how he will utilize it successfully in his encounter with Philoktetes is totally his own work. As Stanislavski says, an actor can subject himself to the wishes and indications of a playwright or a director and execute them mechanically, but to experience his role he must use his own living desires, engendered and worked over by himself, and he must exercise his own will, not that of another. The director and the playwright can suggest their wishes to the actor, but these wishes must then be reincarnated in the actor's own nature . . . For these desires to become living, creative desires on the stage, embodied in the actions cunning of Odysseus' traditional persona." See Blundell 1989: 191. 131 of the actor, they must have become a part of his very self. " 26 Odysseus knows the significance of Neoptolemos1 part in the enterprise. Therefore, in order to motivate Neoptolemos, he has defined his objectives, which are personal and clearly woven into Neoptolemos' overall part in the war. Now Neoptolemos has the personal motivation to take Philoktetes to Troy, because only this way he himself will be a part of the sack of Troy. These objectives are in harmony with the intentions of the playwright, Odysseus, and at the same time they arouse a response in the actor, Neoptolemos, who agrees to play along. The play's Prologue prepares the audience for a play- within-a-play, in which control of information is very significant. Also, the Prologue introduces the audience to the contrast between the role of Odysseus as the director operating behind the scenes, and that of the actor and intermediary, Neoptolemos, who will have the advantage of being in immediate contact with Philoktetes. The contrast of distance versus intimacy will play an important role in the way knowledge and control operate in the play later on. Although the addition of Neoptolemos' part would attract the audience's attention, it would not seem to be a radical departure at this point. Still, the objections that Neoptolemos raises to deception and the extreme isolation of 132 Philoktetes are clearly established, and the audience can expect them to play a role in distinguishing Sophocles' version of Philoktetes from previous ones. The chorus of sailors becomes an active participant in the plan.27 It is the first to hear Philoktetes as he approaches (Phil. 201-18). "The chorus leader, standing perhaps in the center of the orchestra looking towards the skene can hear better than Neoptolemus, who is at the side of the entrance."28 Now the chorus mediates Philoktetes for Neoptolemos and thus for the audience. The audience watches the chorus trying to see the crippled man as he approaches his abode, and hears the chorus' description of his sounds, as does Neoptolemos.29 The interventions of Neoptolemos in lines 201 and 210 reflect his urgent need for information 26 Stanislavski 1978: 50. 27 On the debate about the timing of the chorus' entrance see Gardiner 1987: 14ff. 28 Webster 1970: 84-5. 29 Dale believes that Philoktetes enters from the cave. See Dale 1969: 127-28. Taplin believes that he enters from one eisodos. "If, as I prefer, Philoctetes was to make his entry along the eisodos, it would be a long painful stage-movement. I imagine that he would first come into sight at about line 210; and I do not see why the chorus should not be supposed to have seen him. It is admittedly strange dramatic technique for them to comment so exclusively on the sound he makes." On the argument see Taplin 1982: 177. But according to Winnington-Ingram, "It is precisely the language of 2 0 1 ff. on which the argument falls down; an accumulation of words of sound, not a word of sight. How often does a chorus see a character approaching and not say so?" See Winnington-Ingram 1980: 285, n.16. 133 and render the chorus a significant agent of knowledge. As there are multiple tiers of hearing, there are multiple tiers of knowledge. Neoptolemos and the audience acquire information from the chorus members, who hear Philoktetes, and so have first-hand knowledge of his presence. Philoktetes' entrance in line 219 marks the beginning of the inner play. Neoptolemos is prepared by Odysseus, but now, meeting Philoktetes for the first time, as he improvises, he has to use his own creativity in his choice of tactics, that is the action of words, how he will send them, for what purpose, under what circumstances. In spite of Odysseus' theories and teachings, Neoptolemos is the one who meets Philoktetes. Only he is in the position to find a connection between his role and Philoktetes, in order to gain control over circumstances at any given moment. The director has set up intentions and the overall character objectives for Neoptolemos, but Neoptolemos sets up the character objectives for the individual scenes, as well as the character's moment-to-moment objectives in the scenes. Guided by the game of make-believe, Neoptolemos proves to be a skillful, flexible, creative and imaginative performer, who adopts his character's thinking and concentrates fully on his character's situation. And he will be in charge of the situation on stage for a large part of the play. The discrepancy of knowledge between Neoptolemos and Philoktetes is created not only by Neoptolemos' acquisition 134 of information concerning Philoktetes' history and present circumstances in the Prologue, but also by Philoktetes' complete isolation for ten years {Phil. 312). In Aeschylus' Philoktetes the chorus were Lemnians, who came to visit Philoktetes and were told the story of his life (Or. 52: 6 - 8 ). In Euripides' play the chorus also consists of Lemnians who apologize for not having visited Philoktetes before (Or. 52: 7). Euripides also introduced Actor, a Lemnian who often visited and assisted Philoktetes. But in the Sophoclean play Philoktetes has lived in complete isolation for ten years. As he tells Neoptolemos, no sailor comes near Lemnos by choice. There is no anchorage, no place where one can land, trade or be entertained. Once in a great while, people come unintentionally {Phil. 300-05) . Intertextual reference points not only to the cruelty of the Greeks in abandoning the ailing man in a desolate island, but also to the degree of lack of communication of Philoktetes with the civilized world, and thus the discrepancy in knowledge between him and Neoptolemos. It is not until Philoktetes and Neoptolemos meet that the dramatic significance of Philoktetes' isolation becomes apparent, if not striking, to the audience. Sophocles departed from previous versions of the play by making Lemnos a completely deserted island, and ensures that Philoktetes has no 135 knowledge at all of any of the events that have taken place since he was abandoned. He does not know who is dead or living, or how the war is going. Nor does he know about the prophecy that has declared that his presence at Troy is essential for the Greek victory. He is, for Odysseus' purposes, the perfect audience--one with no knowledge that can contradict anything Odysseus wishes him to hear. So, when Philoktetes becomes an audience of the visitors to Lemnos, Neoptolemos is able to tell Philoktetes whatever he pleases--sharing knowledge with him, withholding it, or inventing complete fabrications. Philoktetes is at the mercy of Neoptolemos' manipulations, because, unlike the audience in the theater, he has no knowledge of outside events. The extreme discrepancy of knowledge in the encounter of Neoptolemos and Philoktetes, and Neoptolemos1 skillful manipulations, which result in evoking emotional responses in Philoktetes, draw audience attention to two distinctly separate levels of communication being at play in the two men's encounter. Neoptolemos is in charge of the cognitive level of communication, controlling all information that he gives to Philoktetes, who believes it as he hears it. Philoktetes, on the other hand, touched by the news he gets, responds on the emotional level in which he is the only participant, while Neoptolemos displays no emotion whatsoever for the most part of their exchange. Improvising 136 Neoptolemos proves to be Odysseus' apt student. He gives his energies to the ongoing creative interplay on the stage keeping his awareness open, triggering and directing Philoktetes' reactions and gradually he gains control over Philoktetes, by capitalizing on his knowledge of the older man's needs. But as we shall see later in the play, this dramatic game that Neoptolemos plays so effectively due to his superior knowledge over Philoktetes is eventually confronted by the knowledge he acquires at a different level, that points to the inefficiency of Odysseus' play. 30 Another Sophoclean innovation contributes to the development of two separate levels of communication between Neoptolemos and Philoktetes. Aeschylus was the first to make Philoktetes an angry hero, to whom Odysseus lied in order to please him and communicate with him (Or. 52: 10). Also, Euripides' Philoktetes is ready to shoot Odysseus when they meet, because he is Greek (Or. 59). In fact, the Euripidean Odysseus embarks on a number of arguments in order to pacify Philoktetes and avert his attack. But Sophocles' Philoktetes is friendly and trusting, therefore an easy target of Neoptolemos' manipulations from the beginning. As soon as Philoktetes enters, he notices that 3 0 For the most extreme interpretations of Neoptolemos' behavior see Adams 1957 and Calder 1971. Adams believes that Neoptolemos is honest throughout the play, and Calder argues that Neoptolemos lies all the way to the end. 137 the strangers wear Greek clothes; he wants to hear their speech, hoping that they are Greek, and is overjoyed at the sound of Greek language (Phil. 219ff.). The Sophoclean hero welcomes his own people, and even begs them to talk to him (Phil. 230). Philoktetes1 openness and well-intentioned questions to Neoptolemos at the time they first meet create a picture of a man eager to communicate with the visitors. The repetition of words of knowledge as Philoktetes asks questions and Neoptolemos answers, set the context of Neoptolemos' role for the audience (Ne.: To0i toO to npcoTov, Phil. 232 , know this first; N e.: touto y a p BouAp pa0eTv, Phil. 23 3 , for you w an t to know this; Phil.: oricog eiSco nq e i, Phil. 23 8 , so that I m ay know w h o you are; N e.: o lo 0 ' n5n to nav, Phil. 241, n o w you know e v ery th in g ). Immediately, Neoptolemos, in spite of his first reservations, throws himself into the deception of Philoktetes through manipulation of any piece of information he has. At 253 he pretends to be as ignorant of Philoktetes1 identity and situation as Philoktetes is of the history of the last ten years, as the audience knows: C D i. cb tekvov, ou yap o fa d a p' ovtiv' eiooppq; N e. ncoq y a p k6 toi5 ' o v y' eTSov ouSencbnoie; (Di. ou 6' o v o p ' [ap'] o u 5 e t c o v epa>v kokcdv icAeoq p o d o u noT' ou S ev, olq eycb SicoAAupnv; N e. cbg p n S ev £ i5 6 t'To 6 i p' obv aviaiopeT q. [Philoktetes 2 4 9 - 5 3 ) Ph. Boy, don't you know me, w hom you s e e here? 138 N e. H ow cou ld I know o n e I h a v e n ever seen ? Ph. You h a v e not heard my nam e, then, nor a rumor o f m y sufferings, b y which I w a s ruined? N e. K now that I know nothing o f w hat you ask me. The high concentration of vocabulary of knowledge in a few lines (oTo0a, kotoiS/po8ou, eiSoT, Ta0i) stresses the significance of control of knowledge to the play's audience. Claiming ignorance of Philoktetes' identity is the beginning of one sided transmission of information. In a culture that places significance in reputation, this man, abandoned by his own people, now believes he is also forgotten by them. Philoktetes proceeds, therefore, to provide a full account of his abandonment and his miserable life on the island, and "Neoptolemus has further time to collect himself."31 Philoktetes' speech begins as an emotional response to Neoptolemos' statement that he does not know who he is, and evolves into a pitiful description of how the Achaeans treated him, and of his own miserable existence: 0 0 noAA' eycb p o x 0 n p o g , go niKpoQ 0eoTg, ou p n 5e xAnboov <x>5' exovto^ otk aS e p n 5 'c EAAd5oq ynq pnSapoG 5inX 0e nou. aAA' of p e v eicBaAdvTeg dvoafcoq sp e yeAooai aTy' exovT eg {Philoktetes 2 5 4 - 5 8 ) Oh, I am very w retch ed , h o w the g o d s hate me, w h o se not e v e n a rumor, being in such condition, reach ed hom e or an y part o f G reece. Y et they that ca st m e a w a y im piously 3 1 Webster 1970 : 88 . 139 laugh hushing it up Philoktetes' expression of self-pity, disappointment, and mistrustfulness as a result of his pain and abandonment produce the picture of a pitiful human being, and create a strong narrative response in the audience: tot' d o p e v o f p' o q eTSov etc noXXoO oaX ou euS ovt' en' aiahq e v KaTnpscpel nsTpg, XinovTe<^ <pxov0' [Philoktetes 2 7 1 - 7 3 ) Then with great pleasu re, w hen they s a w that after a long tossin g m otion (of the se a ) I w a s a sle e p , th ey left m e on the shore in a rocky c a v e and w e r e g o n e ou 5h, tekvov, n ofav p' a v a o T a o iv 5oiceIg auTcov BeBcotcov e£ unvou OThvai tote; no!' EKSaKpuoai, noT' anoipco^ai koko; [Philoktetes 2 7 6 - 7 8 ) Think, b o y , w hat a rising, w hen I a w o k e and they w ere go n e? W h at tears I shed, w h at w o e s I lam ented? nupiOKOV ouS ev nXnv a v ia o S a i n ap ov, toutou 6 e noXXnv EupapEiav, do tekvov [Philoktetes 2 8 2 - 8 4 ) I found nothing before m e but pain, and o f that great abundance, b oy. Philoktetes' painful memories are translated into language that creates powerful images. The narration of his abandonment is enriched with details of facts and emotion memory that can touch the most difficult audience. The alliteration of -p - in lines 2 6 5 and 2 6 7 , and of - o -in lines 140 2 64 and 2 65 reproduces the harshness in the act of the abandonment: o v oi 61000] oTpaTnYo'i xcb KetpaXXnvcov ava^ eppiijjav a io x p w q <5>5' ep n p ov, a y p f<3 voocp KaiacpSfvovTo, Trig a v 5 p ocp 0op ou nXnyevT' exfS vng aypico xap d Y p air [Philoktetes, 2 6 3 - 6 7 ) the tw o gen era ls and the king o f the K ephaleneans sham efully left m e here d eserted , w astin g w ith a s a v a g e d ise a se , w o u n d ed by the s a v a g e mark o f the murderous serpent; By this narration Sophocles provides information about Philoktetes1 past and present from Philoktetes1 point of view this time, which displays the man’s vulnerability in the most intimate presentation of his misery. The account serves as justification of Philoktetes’ choices later in the play. Neoptolemos already knew the facts about Philoktetes’ life from Odysseus. What he did not know is the degree of his pain and bitterness, as well as his frustrated efforts to return home. Whenever he dared mention it, as he says, none of the visitors wanted to bring him home (Phil. 310- 11). Philoktetes’ openness in offering information about his life and sufferings puts the opposite side in power. Now Neoptolemos possesses knowledge about Philoktetes1 response to his own ills and about his intense desire to return home, and he is in a position to use this knowledge to advance his 141 plan, especially since the transmission of information is one-sided, from Philoktetes to Neoptolemos. Philoktetes' account inspires the spontaneous pity of the chorus, but Neoptolemos, rather than expressing pity, capitalizes on the part of Philoktetes1 account that will be of use to him in the deception. He becomes very sophisticated in the manipulation of information as he offers to corroborate the evil of the Atreidai and Odysseus in a calculated effort to appeal directly to Philoktetes1 feelings. eyco 5 e KauTog toT oS e p d p iu g ev X oyoig, <bg eTo' aX nSelg oT6 a, au v tuxcdv kokoov avSpcov A ipeiScov Trig T /= 0 5 u o o e c o g Bfag. {Philoktetes 3 1 9 -2 1 ) Being m yself a w itn ess to your sp eech , I know it is true, like you, having found (that they are) evil men, the A treidai and O d y sse u s' might. Neoptolemos' assumption of the guise of one persecuted by the Greek leadership reminds the audience of the disguised Odysseus in Euripides' Philoktetes, and evokes authorial audience response, by bringing the audience back to the context of the contrived plot designed in order to deceive Philoktetes. As Neoptolemos improvises following Odysseus' directions, he tries to create a relationship of trust with Philoktetes, and pursues his objective by telling Philoktetes what Neoptolemos knows he wants to hear in their moment to moment interaction. Once again, the audience 142 hears Neoptolemos' response filtered through words signifying knowledge in the context of deception. What Neoptolemos means is that "he can testify to the truth of Philoktetes' story from his own knowledge."32 But Neoptolemos does not have such firsthand knowledge, and one can be a pdpruq (Phil. 319) only if one possesses certain knowledge. Word choice draws audience attention to Neoptolemos' conscious focus on role-playing. When Philoktetes begins to mourn the death of Achilles,33 Neoptolemos quickly switches the focus back to the supposed similarity between their grievances against the Greek leaders {Phil. 339ff.). Control over Philoktetes will be established by making an emotional appeal based on the manipulation of information that Neoptolemos already has but Philoktetes lacks. Like the Paidagogos' false "messenger speech" in the Elektra, Neoptolemos' story of the theft of his father's arms is an improvised performance whose main outlines were laid out in the Prologue.34 But the information Neoptolemos conveys is only partly false. According to Neoptolemos' story, after Achilles' death, Odysseus and Phoenix fetched 3 2 Webster 1970: 92. 3 3 On Philoktetes as Neoptolemos' attentive and responsive audience, see Falkner 1998: 50ff. 143 him from Skyros to Troy, but they gave Achilles' arms to Odysseus and not to him. Neoptolemos’ tale activates the authorial level of response in the audience, because it tests what they know to be true and false in it. In the Little Iliad of Lesches only Odysseus brought Neoptolemos from Skyros, while in Sophocles' Skyrioi both Odysseus and Phoenix did. It is true that Achilles is dead. It is also true that his arms were given to Odysseus, as the audience would recall from Sophocles' own version of that conflict in the Ajax.35 The audience knows, however, that the conflict between Odysseus and Neoptolemos is false. Thus the audience, thrown somewhat off-balance, would wonder what the precise parameters of truth and fiction are in this tale. By the time Neoptolemos reaches the conclusion that he sailed alone for Skyros, consumed with anger toward Odysseus (Phil.382-90), the audience has a good idea of the extent of the lies Neoptolemos has told.36 34 On the multiplicity and unity of characters' stories within and beyond the drama, see Roberts 1989. 3 5 The contest of the Arms was treated before Sophocles in the Odyssey XI: 543-60, the Aithiopis by Arctinus of Miletos, the Little Iliad (commonly ascribed to Lesches), and the trilogy of Aeschylus' XDnXcov Kpfoig, Opnicrai, ZaAajjfviai. For details see Kamerbeek 1980: Introduction, and Webster 1970: Introduction. 36 Adams believes that Neoptolemos may not be lying. "There is no doubt about what follows: he is telling nothing but the truth when he describes his reception by the host at Troy, the Atreidae's assertion that Odysseus already held Achilles' arms, and Odysseus' own assertions that he had earned the arms by 144 While Neoptolemos is acting with the specific objective to create a fellow feeling with Philoktetes, the speech is also a short demonstration of play writing. Neoptolemos does not simply describe the narrated events, but he dramatizes them with creative imagination, that produces vivid images for his audience. The story takes place at a specific time and place, under specific circumstances, dramatic situation and emotions, and employs factual details that make the account more believable. Neoptolemos' storytelling is also enriched with dialogue which makes it realistic. The quotation of the words of the Atreidai and Neoptolemos' own words in direct speech, as the two sides argue back and forth for Achilles' arms, is a technique that adds dramatic movement to the presentation: " g o o n ep p ' AxiAAecoq, TdAAa p e v napecm 001 naTpcp' eAeaQ ai, tcdv 5 ' onAcov kei'vcov avnp aAAo^ K paiuvei vOv, o A a sp io u yovog." [Philoktetes 3 6 4 - 6 6 ) "son o f A chilles, all e ls e that your father had is yours to take, but another man n o w o w n s his arms, Laertes' son." "co oxetAi', n 'ToApnoaT' 6 vt' epou tivi SoOvai to Teuxn Tapa, nplv pa0e7v epoG;" saving both them and Achilles. If Neoptolemus is merely furthering intrigue by telling an imaginary tale, he is indeed a most apt pupil--too apt for the character that has been given him." See Adams 1957: 142. Neoptolemos is indeed a great pupil, and the speech is a proof of his learning from Odysseus. Later in the play we shall see that to a great extent this play is about the youth's stages of learning. 145 (Philoktetes 3 6 9 - 7 0 ) "m erciless on e, did you dare to g iv e th ose arms, that w e r e mine, to so m e o n e e ls e instead o f me, before I knew it?" "vaf, nal, 5e5coK aa' evS i 'kcoq outoi TaSe. eyed y a p out' eocoaa KaKelvov napcov." (Philoktetes 3 7 2 - 3 7 ) "yes, b o y , they g a v e them rightly. For it w a s 1 , being present, w h o sa v e d them and him." Neoptolemos plays the part of the wronged person very well. He proceeds to describe explicitly the feelings of desire to see his dead father, as well as his pain, anger and indignation at the insulting behavior of the Atreidai: paXioTa pev 5n toO GavovTog Ipepco, on o g T5oip' aG am ov (Philoktetes 3 5 0 - 5 1 ) a b o v e all, indeed, prom pted by d esire to s e e m y d e a d (father) unhurried; Kaycb 'icSaKpuaag euGug e^avfaTapai o p y p B apeig, ical KaTaXynaag Xeyco (Philoktetes 3 6 7 - 6 8 ) And bursting into tears, I rise right a w a y with h e a v y rage, and in m y pain, I sa y Kayoo xoXooGelg euGug n p a o a o v KaKoTg Tolg n aoiv (Philoktetes 3 7 4 - 7 5 ) And an gered I cursed him right a w a y with all the insults 146 The enactment of Neoptolemos1 emotion memory, bringing back feelings he has allegedly experienced with creative instinct, make his speech a superb acting presentation with dramatic power that has immediate appeal to his audience on stage, vulnerable Philoktetes. Specifics of time and factual details supply the conditions which surround the main event: nv 5' ft|jap n5n S e u ie p o v nXeovn' poi, Kayco niKpov I fy e io v oOpi'cp nXaTp Kainydijnv. icaf p' eu9ug e v kukX <*> a ip a io q eKBavTa n ag nana^eT' [Philoktetes 3 5 4 - 5 7 ) It w a s a lrea d y m y se co n d d ay's sailing, and I w a s b ein g brought d o w n to bitter S ig eio n b y row ing h elp ed b y the w ind. And right a w a y in a circle the entire army g r e ete d m e a s I disem barked The speech resembles the Paidagogos1 speech in the Elektra. in some respects. Both speeches aim at deception and prepare the ground for important enterprises. In a way Neoptolemos1 speech comes as an answer to Philoktetes1 affliction, just as the Paidagogos1 speech comes as an answer to Klytaimnestra1s prayer to Apollo. Both accounts are easy to believe, since they are desirable. Neoptolemos does not play another character, as the Paidagogos plays the character of a Phokian messenger. Still, he plays the part of Neoptolemos of a different character, a different nature, and his dramatic presentation has an effect on Philoktetes on the cognitive level: 147 exovT eg, cbg eoike, oupB oX ov oacpeg Xunng npdq npag, < 2 > £evoi, nenXeikaTe, Kaf poi n p o o g 6 e 9 ' coote YiYvc^OKe,v ° T I tout' e^ A ipsiScov e p y a Ka^ ’ O SuooEcog. e £ o i5 a y a p viv navTdg a v X oyou kokoO yXcooop S iyovto Kal n avo u p y fa g (Philoktetes 4 0 3 - 0 8 ) H aving, a s it seem s, a clear token o f sorrow , you h a v e sa iled here, guests, and you (and your song) m ake m e know that th ese are d oin gs o f the A treidai and O d y sse u s. For I know that he w ou ld s a y and d o anything evil Philoktetes1 response to Neoptolemos' account with words signifying knowledge indicates that he has drawn clear inferences from the story he heard, which verify his already existing perceptions from personal experience. ZupBoX ov (Phil. 403) is a sign by which one knows or infers something, and Philoktetes infers from Neoptolemos' account that Neoptolemos' oupB oX ov in his alleged sorrow is 00981; (clear, distinct, certain). Neoptolemos has succeeded in his intention; his presentation has an effect on what Philoktetes believes he knows . Kaf poi n p oogS eG ' goote y iy vc^ok eiv ( P h U • 4 05 , and you chim e in w ith m e, s o that I k n o w ), explicitly states that Philoktetes perceives Neoptolemos1 account and the chorus' song, commenting on the account, as sources of knowledge for him. Neoptolemos' dramatic presentation of his alleged insult by the Atreidai points to its similarities with a 148 play. As the tragedian creates his plots by manipulating the material from the mythic tradition, through repetition and innovation, so Neoptolemos creates a plot, which is partly faithful to the mythic tradition, and partly innovative. Neoptolemos1 manipulations of the myth, by challenging the audiences' preexisting familiarization with the myths, draw audience attention to the way knowledge is being handled in human relations on the stage. Neoptolemos' skillful use of his knowledge of Philoktetes' needs in a plot that has the power to convince his audience on stage and affect him on the cognitive level, points to the power of the playwright to create perceptions in his audience. And the successful application of Odysseus' directions in Neoptolemos' dramatic presentation, shows that the playwright's/director's teachings have worked well so far. Neoptolemos seems to have learnt from Odysseus at this point; he applies this knowledge, and proves to be a skillful, focused and effective performer. The audience has noticed the Sophoclean innovation of the character of Neoptolemos in the Prologue, but as the play progresses, Neoptolemos' part acquires more and more dramatic significance. This part, like the Paidagogos' part in the Elektra, is played by the third actor, introduced by Sophocles.37 Through Neoptolemos' dramatic presentation, 37 Aristotle, Poetics: 1449a. 149 Sophocles' innovation begins to display self-referential significance, which will develop further later in the play. Neoptolemos follows Odysseus' directions, but through his improvisation he develops his own initiative. Like an actor, Neoptolemos becomes the intermediary between the playwright/director, Odysseus, and Philoktetes, his audience on stage. Neoptolemos is the one who comes into direct contact with the audience, and the successful application of the playwright's idea on the stage points to the immediacy with which a dramatic performance reaches its audience. Odysseus may be the initiator of the action, but he is behind the scenes. It is the actor's ability to create intimacy with the audience that creates dramatic results. In the following dialogue Neoptolemos' mixture of truth and fiction becomes even more difficult for the audience to distinguish. In this scene Philoktetes' lack of knowledge is emphasized by the series of questions he asks Neoptolemos about the lives and deaths of the Greek heroes. Since this set of questions is focused entirely on the world of the Homeric tradition, which is well known to the audience, it has the effect of reminding the audience of the extent of its own knowledge of these events. The audience knows, for example, that Ajax is dead, while Philoktetes does not. But it also knows that if Ajax had been alive, he would not have been Neoptolemos' defender, while Neoptolemos claims the opposite: 150 ouk nv e ti £cov, cb £e v '. ou y a p av n o ie ^covToq y' eKefvou tout' eauXnSnv eycb. [Philoktetes 4 1 2 - 1 3 ) He w a s no longer living, m y friend. For, if he w ere alive, I w ou ld h a v e n ever b een robbed o f them. The audience knows that Ajax killed himself, exactly because Achilles' arms were not given to him, but to Odysseus. Not only does the audience have expectations of the direction this play will take, but it possesses, and is reminded that it possesses, knowledge of what has taken place before. It knows the past, since Philoktetes' arrival at Lemnos, and the future, both of which are completely mysterious to Philoktetes. Yet, the story given by Neoptolemos is an unusual combination of fact and fiction that must bring the audience's security about its own knowledge into question. The uncertainty that the scene creates in the audience leads it to wander why this is happening, and points to Neoptolemos' choices in the handling of information at his disposal, at this stage of his encounter with Philoktetes. Thus an authorial level of response is evoked repeatedly throughout this section, as Neoptolemos' manipulations draw audience attention to his control of information, with the purpose to dominate his relationship with Philoktetes. Next, Philoktetes asks about Diomedes and Odysseus (Phil. 416-17). The mention of the former recalls the epic version of the story in the Little Iliad, in which Diomedes 151 rather than Neoptolemos sought Philoktetes. Also, in Euripides' Philoktetes, Diomedes joined Odysseus in fetching Philoktetes. Neoptolemos uses his opportunistic skill again and develops his story along lines suggested by Philoktetes' concerns: C D i. aXX' ou x o TuSecoq y o v o q , ou 5' oupnoXnTOQ Zioucpou Aaepn'cp, ou ph Bavcooi. TouoSe y a p pn [Philoktetes 4 1 6 - 1 8 ) Ph. But not the son o f Tydeus, nor O d y sse u s, whom Sisyphus sold to Laertes, They will not die. For they should not b e living. Neoptolemos capitalizes on Philoktetes1 statement that the good ones should be living, and not the evil ones in a way that gradually shutters any trust that may have been left in Philoktetes, even trust in the gods (Phil. 451-52). Neoptolemos continues to supply information, true or false, that incites Philoktetes1 disappointment. When he simply supplies the truth by replying that Patroklos is, indeed, dead, he adds the statement that "war never willingly takes a base man, but always good men"(Phil. 436-37). In the same context, when Philoktetes asks about the despised Thersites, Neoptolemos simply lies, that Thersites is alive (Phil. 438- 45), although Thersites has been killed by Achilles. The audience is, by this time, fully aware of the game Neoptolemos is playing and becomes alert to every example. 152 This is a part of the play-within-a-play in which the mythic tradition is subject to manipulations. In Neoptolemos' improvisation factual truth is distorted by his creative imagination. Odysseus, in his rough guide in the Prologue, did not give detailed instructions to Neoptolemos with regard to the information he should impart. Neoptolemos does this on his own initiative, and while he seems to follow by simply answering Philoktetes1 questions, in fact he is the one leading Philoktetes' perceptions and beliefs. Neoptolemos' success in dominating the relationship and controlling the plot, masked under the relationship of trust he creates, is manifested to the audience by the ensuing shift in the action. Neoptolemos immediately pursues the advantage his manipulation of the information has given him over Philoktetes, and announces that he will sail at the first possible moment (Phil. 461). Although Neoptolemos' plan is to take Philoktetes aboard the ship, and Neoptolemos knows that Philoktetes desires to go home, Neoptolemos does not suggest that Philoktetes may accompany him, in order to bring Philoktetes to the position to ask for it first, and make him think that he is leading the action. Philoktetes embarks on his persuasive speech in order to secure his traveling with Neoptolemos (Phil. 468-506). The speech is a touching appeal to Neoptolemos' feelings. The afflicted man tries to address Neoptolemos' sense of 153 honor and nobility (Phil. 475-79), and recapitulates his powerlessness in a moment of disarming entreatment: npoonfrvGo o e y o v a o i, Kafnep gov aKpdTcop o TXnpcov, xgoXoc; {Philoktetes 4 8 5 - 8 6 ) I fall on my knees to you, although I can't m an age it, poor wretch, b e c a u se I am lam e Philoktetes speculates over the possible death of his father, invoking his lack of knowledge as an appeal to Neoptolemos (Phil. 492-99). Philoktetes' imploring evokes emotions of pity in the members of the audience, who operate on the narrative level when Philoktetes genuinely tries to reach out to Neoptolemos. But the responses on the orchestra and on the stage are not clear. The chorus advises Neoptolemos to have pity on Philoktetes and to take him home (Phil. 507-18). At this point it is difficult to distinguish whether the chorus is in character, trying to seize the opportunity to take Philoktetes on board ship, or it truly pities Philoktetes. Ringer comments on the unusually extensive ambiguity of the role of the chorus in the Philoktetes.38 Kamerbeek suggests 3 8 "This 'perjured chorus' is unique in Greek tragedy for its use of role-playing-within-the-role for nearly half of the play's duration. In other tragedies the chorus may be called on by the dramatist to take a fairly active part in the play's action. A chorus may withhold the truth or even tell a lie on occasion. But no other tragic chorus practices such a long, sustained 154 that the chorus' feelings are irrelevant.39 But the chorus participates actively in the plan. In the Parodos it carefully watches out for Neoptolemos' interests, displays willingness to assist him in his task (Phil. 201), and informs him about Philoktetes1 approach (Phil. 201). After Neoptolemos delivers his speech about Achilles' arms, the chorus lies in order to enhance the credibility of Neoptolemos' story (Phil. 391-402). Later in the play, it gives Neoptolemos advice trying to assist him in gaining control over the situation (Phil. 836-38, 849ff.). In this Antistrophe, since the chorus' lines are consistent with its previous support of Neoptolemos, it is possible that it uses the opportunity of Philoktetes' entreaty in order to further the success of the plan. On the other hand, the chorus' expression of compassion for Philoktetes ( o T k t i p ' , ava£, Phil. 507, h a v e pity, king) seems to be genuine, and so can secure Philoktetes1 illusion that the sailors care for his interests. Therefore, by trying to appeal to the needs of both, Neoptolemos and Philoktetes, the chorus confuses the audience about its intentions. This uncertainty that the chorus' words create for the audience draws attention to the way knowledge is being treated in the play. The ambiguity deception. In no other play is the chorus's attitude so ambiguous and disconcerting." See Ringer 1998: 111. 155 in the choral ode is in agreement with Neoptolemos' manipulation of information all along; on the one hand, acting as Philoktetes friend, on the other, trying to advance his own plan at the expense of the deluded Philoktetes. In spite of the chorus' advice, Neoptolemos does not express pity for Philoktetes. His strategy, from the play's beginning, has been to trigger Philoktetes' emotional responses, while he himself stays untouched emotionally by the older man's predicament. Neoptolemos seems reluctant to seize the opportunity. He even expresses concern that the chorus might have difficulty coping with Philoktetes' disease (Phil. 519-21). Neoptolemos, in character, does not want to look too eager to take Philoktetes along, and gives the chorus a natural answer, just like the one previous visitors gave Philoktetes, when he asked them to take him home (Phil. 310-11). Finally, Neoptolemos appears to give in because, as he says, it is shameful that he should appear to the stranger less forthcoming than the sailors to render service (Phil. 524-26). In this scene, Neoptolemos, faithful to his strategy, does not want to be perceived by Philoktetes as the one leading him to action, while in fact his plot is progressing perfectly, and he is in control of the situation, when the "Merchant" enters. 3 9 Kamerbeerk 1980: 87. 156 Scholars have found Neoptolemos' acting ambiguous. "When Neoptolemus is carrying out the plan to trick Philoctetes, almost everything he says can be interpreted in two ways, either as direct deceit or as an indication of his growing reluctance to take part in the trickery at all," says Easterling. 40 I believe it is clear from Neoptolemos' conduct that till this point his objective has been to advance his plan in conformity with Odysseus' instructions. His last lines after he consents to take Philoktetes home indicate he has been acting with the plan in mind all along: |j6vov 0 e o i oco^oiev ek te TnoSfi yng h|ja<; onoi t' e v 0 e v 5 e B ou A of|jea0a nXElv. [Philoktetes 5 2 8 - 2 9 ) O n ly m ay the g o d s rescue us from this land w h ere w e might w an t to sail from here. Philoktetes believes they will sail to Skyros, but onoi points to the other possibility, sailing to Troy, according to the plan. 40 Easterling 1977: 126. Also Seale, "Once the deception is under way, although it is true that we know that there is an intrigue in progress and we have a general expectation that things will not be what they purport to be, Sophocles only half lets us in on the plot. The audience is caught up in the complexity; not only do they not view the action from their traditional vantage of superior knowledge, but there is actually a reversal of standpoint: remarkably, two characters on-stage, Odysseus and Neoptolemus, know more than the audience and they appear reluctant to tell what they know, for example, about the oracle, or, especially in the case of Neoptolemus, what they feel." See Seale 1982: 48. For a similar interpretation see also Falkner 1998: 37-8. 157 The "Merchant" enters with one of Neoptolemos' men (Phil. 542) sent by Odysseus, with the news that an expedition has left Troy to bring Neoptolemos back, while Odysseus and Diomedes are after Philoktetes. The entry of the "Merchant" is unexpected at this point, although the audience and Neoptolemos were prepared for it in the Prologue. In lines 126-31, after Odysseus has finished giving directions to Neoptolemos, he adds that he plans to send this man, the sailor, disguised as merchant, if he thinks that Neoptolemos is taking too long to accomplish the plan. Now the appearance of the merchant reminds the audience of the director, Odysseus, operating behind the scenes.41 Either Odysseus has grown impatient or has seen that Neoptolemos does not yet have possession of the bow, and wishes to help.42 As Hopin notes, if Neotpolemus should get Philoctetes to the ship without first getting possession of the bow, he would have no guarantee that Philoctetes would not wield the bow against 4 1 "Now the actor who had played Odysseus has changed into the role of the fake Merchant and, as is most fitting, the Merchant speaks literally with the same voice as Odysseus, the man who has scripted his lie." See Ringer 1998: 112. 4 2 Webster says that Odysseus sent the merchant because he grew impatient. See Webster 1970: 104. Kamerbeek on the other hand believes that it would be cheap to argue that Odysseus has lost patience. He says that the bow is an important factor in the merchant's intervention, and that Odysseus' intervention is "to promote the capture of the bow by means of enhancing Philoktetes' trust in Neoptolemos. It is a fact that Neoptolemos' first step in this direction comes after the scene with the merchant." See Kamerbeek 198 0: 97. 158 him and Odysseus. Therefore, when Philoctetes and Neoptolemus begin to enter the cave in preparation for leaving (Phil. 533-35), a major part of the scheme of deception seems on the verge of success, but not all of it. The bow must yet be stolen or seized.43 The merchant's role is designed to increase the urgency Philoktetes feels about departing from the island, and to strengthen Odysseus' and Neoptolemos' control over the situation. The entry of the "Merchant," another actor in Odysseus' play, keeps the authorial audience response active, as his presence on the stage points to the continuity of Odysseus' plot, and keeps the audience focused on his contrived plan. Several aspects of the "Merchant" scene draw attention to the manner in which the playwright/director, Odysseus, constructs his play. First, the "Merchant" comes as a messenger: an o u o a q 5' aYYe ^ ° 9 napeipf a oi. (Philoktetes 5 6 4 ) H aving heard I am here a s a m essen ger to you. The messenger's exchange with improvising Neoptolemos is phrased in ways that indicate he has come to impart knowledge useful to Neoptolemos: E(J. o u S e v ou nou kotoioQo to v ooutoO nepi [Philoktetes 553) 4 3 Hoppin 1981: 16-7. 159 Em. You seem to know nothing about your o w n affairs N e. cppaaov 5 e Tapy' aXe^aq, cbg fjadco T f poi vecoTepov BouXeup' an' Apyei'cov e x e ig [Philoktetes 5 5 9 - 6 0 ) N e. ex p la in w h at d e e d s you talked about, so that I m ay learn w hat n e w plan o f the G reeks you know Ep. G og tout' infoTco Spcopev,' ou peX X ovi' eti. [Philoktetes 5 6 7 ) Em. K now that th ese are being d on e, and not about to b e d on e. Ep. eyco o e toGt/ Tocot; y a p ouk OKhKoag, n av £K5i5a^co [Philoktetes 6 0 3 - 0 4 ) Em. I will ex p la in all that, for perhaps you haven't heard The employment of vocabulary signifying knowledge is conventional in messenger speeches. Here, however, the Messenger's language stresses the lack of knowledge on Neoptolemos' part, and it stands out ironically for the audience, because the merchant has started his speech with lies. He sets the background of his entrance by pretending that he arrived at the harbor of the island by chance (Phil. 542-46) . The "Merchant" continues to lie about the circumstances that led to his arrival on Lemnos. He says that he was sailing home from Ilion, when he heard that the sailors had sailed with Neoptolemos, and he decided to tell 160 Neoptolemos the news about the plans of the Argives, which are unknown to Neoptolemos (Phil. 547-56). And he begins delivering the news by lying, that Phoenix and the sons of Theseus have left Troy in pursuit of Neoptolemos (Phil. 561- 62) .44 The fictitious circumstances of the "Merchant's" arrival and the false information he brings are naturally expected as a part of Odysseus' play. But the audience is surprised, when next it hears the messenger report that Odysseus and Diomedes are after Philoktetes (Phil. 570ff.). The "Merchant" delivers partially true information in the context of deception. The manipulation of the convention of the messenger's speech becomes a source of self-reference. In Greek tragedy the messenger conventionally conveys true information which assists the acquisition of knowledge, and progression of the play's plot. This messenger speech contributes to the progression of Odysseus' plot by imparting partially true information. Furthermore, there is a difference in the way Orestes' and Odysseus' intrigue plots in the Elektra and the Philoktetes respectively treat the convention of the messenger speech. The Paidagogos' report constitutes a 4 4 "Akamas and Demophon are not in the Iliad but are best known in the poems about the Sack of Troy and the art depending on them for their rescue of their grandmother Aithra, who had come to Troy with Helen." See Webster 1970: 105-06. 161 reversal of the convention, since it conveys only false information. The "Merchant", however, a character in Odysseus' play, by using a variation on the basic story pattern of the pursuit, and by blending true and false information, draws audience attention to the manipulation of knowledge as the foundation of Odysseus' play. Why does Odysseus want Philoktetes to know that he is being pursued? Bain says that "if we were intended to see the scene as a consistently worked-out deception, surely the truth or anything like the truth should have been kept from Philoctetes."45 But there is a reason why the "Merchant's" report comes so close to the truth as a part of a consistently worked-out deception. The explanation is in the paradox of the scheme, which at the same time gives Philoktetes knowledge of what is happening, and the illusion that he can escape it. Odysseus knows that Philoktetes detests him, and he uses that knowledge. Through the "Merchant's" account Odysseus is trying to make Philoktetes want to avoid Odysseus, and by trapping him into leaving with Neoptolemos, in fact to bring him into Odysseus' control. Furthermore, Odysseus and Diomedes, son of Tydeus, had fetched Philoktetes in Euripides' play (Dio Or. 52: 14). Odysseus' play-within-a-play reminds the audience of another text, while at the same time it masks the intentions of 162 Odysseus' own "text" for the audience on stage. Through the mixture of true and false information, as well as intertextual reference, Odysseus' play proves to be a paradigm of knowledge manipulation. The accidental character of the "Merchant's" arrival enables Neoptolemos, still in character, to continue his improvisation, this time staged for both Neoptolemos and the "Merchant." This interaction of the two improvising actors is centered around knowledge manipulation. The "Merchant" claims to possess important knowledge, and there seems to be a discrepancy of knowledge. Neoptolemos claims ignorance, and Philoktetes believes he is acquiring useful information about an imminent situation, while in fact there is nothing he can do to escape it. Although Neoptolemos knew that Odysseus might send the man, he did not know what he has to say. Odysseus' direction to Neoptolemos was to pick from whatever the "Merchant" says anything that is helpful (Phil. 131). And so Neoptolemos does. He plays along with the "Merchant's" offer of information and the two create a convincing situation for Philoktetes' entrapment. Neoptolemos reinforces the merchant's lying by thanking him for the news he brings, and by expressing interest in it (Phil. 557-60). Neoptolemos makes the "Merchant" appear as 4 5 Bain 1977 : 84-5 . 163 if he is doing Neoptolemos a favor, a fact which furthers Philoktetes' delusion, since Neoptolemos has won Philoktetes' trust by now. When the messenger announces that Neoptolemos is being pursued, Neoptolemos asks "in order to bring me back by force or by words?" The two improvising characters play off of each other's lines in a way that comes across as natural, and has a strong effect on their audience on stage, Philoktetes. When the "Merchant" asks about Philoktetes' identity, he and Neoptolemos engage in an exchange that is an example of an "aside."46 Neoptolemos' response to suspicious Philoktetes' question in lines 580-81 makes Philoktetes believe that Neoptolemos wants the truth to come out: ouk o i5 d nco iT cpnoi. 5e7 5' auTov X eyeiv e g cpcog o Xe^ei, n p og o e Kape TouoSe te [Philoktetes 5 8 0 - 8 1) I d o not know y e t w hat he sa y s; but he must s a y o p e n ly w h a tev er he will sa y , to you and m e and these. The "Merchant" pretends that he is afraid to give away the information, although he intervenes in order to report that Odysseus is after Philoktetes. Neoptolemos assures him that Philoktetes is a friend, and skillfully plays along with the Merchant's alleged hesitation to convey the news. 4 6 On the "aside" in fifth-century tragedy see Bain 1977: 84. 164 Neoptolemos, pretending to be as ignorant of the chase as Philoktetes, asks why this pursuit is happening. The reply contains true information about Helenos1 prophecy, but only as it applies to Philoktetes.47 The story is that the Acheans will not take Troy till they persuade and fetch Philoktetes (Phil. 610-13). Bain says that the dramatic function of the scene is to let Philoktetes know that the presence of his bow at Troy is essential if the Greeks are to sack Troy.48 But there is no mention of the bow. This is an interesting omission, since in the scene that follows the "Merchant's" exit, Philoktetes hands the bow to Neoptolemos. If Odysseus' intention in sending the messenger to intervene at this point was to accelerate things, so that Neoptolemos may get possession of the bow, then the omission of the bow from the terms of the oracle, as it is announced by the "Merchant," is a tactful one. The "Merchant" avoids alarming Philoktetes about losing the bow, because he knows that Neoptolemos still has to get possession of it. Thus, it is only partial truth that is 47 The terms of the prophecy vary with each account of it. "Perhaps the apotheosis of Heracles serves as a divine clarification of that prophecy; nevertheless Sophocles has deliberately created much confusion about this issue through this use of role-playing-within-the-role. We learn of the prophecy from a trickster under Odysseus' employ, a scout or spy pretending to be a merchant, couched in artful ( n o i K i ' X c o < ; , 13o) speech." See Ringer 1998: 114. 4 8 See Bain 1977: 84. 165 given to Philoktetes about the prophecy, whose terms the audience assumes, dictate the eventual outcome of the play's plot.49 The brief exchange that follows, as the result of the "Merchant's" account, shows that Odysseus' plot could not be evolving more successfully. Philoktetes urges Neoptolemos to take him along and leave the island as soon as possible, and Neoptolemos moves to accomplish the next step in the deception. Philoktetes' promise to grant Neoptolemos the favor to hold the bow {Phil. 658-59) displays the extent to which he has been deceived. Philoktetes addresses Neoptolemos as his benefactor, and draws a parallel between Neoptolemos and himself, alluding to his own assistance of Herakles by firing his funeral pyre, when he was in physical agony: euepyeTCov y a p KauTog out' EKTnoapnv. [Philoktetes 6 7 0 ) for I m yself g o t p o sse ssio n o f them by d oin g g o o d . 49 With regard to dramaturgical technique, although the "Merchant's" report seems to slow down the action by interrupting the advancement of Neoptolemos' already successful role-playing, it adds urgency to the scene. Further, in the next episode Philoktetes suffers an attack of the disease, and falls asleep, a fact which slows down the action and creates suspense over the outcome of the inner play. From now on the pace of the action of the inner play fluctuates between fast and slow, depending on Neoptolemos' pangs of guilt, and affects the levels of Philoktetes' agony. 166 Philoktetes1 outpouring of gratitude to Neoptolemos for being the only one to take him to his fatherland and to save him from his enemies (Phil. 662-66), and Neoptolemos' affirmation of his friendship with Philoktetes lead to the next choral ode, which presents a problem. The stasimon is primarily on Philoktetes1 sufferings (Phil. 679-85), but in the second antistrophe the chorus sings that now Philoktetes, having met the son of a hero, will achieve happiness and greatness (Phil. 719-20). It continues that Neoptolemos is taking Philoktetes to his fatherland (Phil. 721-23) . The antistrophe is controversial, because it is difficult to establish why the chorus appears to be consistent with its participation in Neoptolemos1 plan and speaks in words that support the fraud, since Philoktetes is not present on the stage. So far the purpose of its lying has been Philoktetes1 deception. The chorus knows that Philoktetes will be taken to Troy, not to his fatherland. Its lines do not make sense, unless it has already seen Philoktetes reenter, and it continues to speak in accordance with the deception plan. Some critics think that the re-emergence of Neoptolemos and Philoktetes from the cave makes the chorus use language of deception.50 Webster rejects this possibility, saying that 50 Gardiner says that the two men exit and return before the final antistrophe. Gardiner examines three possible movements which 167 in that case the chorus would have addressed Philoktetes in the second person.51 Also, Taplin notes that in Greek tragedy we do not have examples of entries happening during an act-dividing lyric.52 Is it possible that the chorus members are entrapped by the delusion that Neoptolemos and they themselves have created for Philoktetes? But in the following stasimon (Phil. 828ff.), after Philoktetes has undergone the attack of his illness, the chorus urges Neoptolemos to seize the opportunity and act in accordance with Odysseus1 instructions (Phil. 836-38, 849ff.). Therefore the interpretation of a deluded chorus in this stasimon seems inconsistent with the chorus' role in the following stasimon (Phil. 828ff.). The audience members, however, who have not heard the following stasimon yet, can interpret this ode as a sign of the chorus' delusion, a fact which can enhance their sense of the power of dramatic presentation in the the actors could execute, each of which could lead the audience to a different interpretation of the chorus' words. 1. Neoptolemos and Philoktetes remain on the scene. 2. Philoktetes and Neoptolemos leave the scene at line 675 and do not return until the end of the stasimon. 3. Philoktetes and Neoptolemos exit, and then return before the final antistrophe. See Gardiner 1987: 30ff. For critics commenting on this choral ode and the two points of view, deception or sincere pity, see Seale 1972: 98 . 51 Webster believes that the chorus simply accepts the situation as Neoptolemos has put it. See Webster 1970: 114. 5 2 Taplin 1977: 173. For a discussion of entry announcements within an act dividing song, see ibid: 174. 168 creation of illusion. And later on, when the chorus deliver the following stasimon, the audience realizes that the chorus has been fluctuating between its own illusion and focus on Neoptolemos1 plan. Thus this ode plays with the audience's sense of illusion and points to the power of dramatic presentation upon the play's audience. For the chorus does not operate only as an accomplice of Odysseus. The interaction between the main participants in the action, Neoptolemos and Philoktetes, turns the chorus into their audience, as well. The believability of the "Merchant" scene, as well as the strong affirmation of the two men's bond of trust and friendship at the end of the previous episode (Phil. 628ff.), although cast in the context of deception, can convince any audience. The chorus' inconsistency is a reflection of the inconsistency in the perceptions created in the audience by a plot of this nature. By using the chorus as a paradigm of. an audience of Odysseus' play, Sophocles makes a statement about the uncertainty that it creates, an uncertainty that does not resolve itself. The believability of the dramatic presentation on stage and the audience's knowledge that it is only a scheme intermingle, to create moments of confusion, as the audience surrenders to the illusion created by Neoptolemos' performance at times. With this mixture Sophocles dramatizes the epistemological uncertainty 169 stemming from Odysseus' play. The mixture of true and false is a part of Odysseus' strategy all along. Neoptolemos' story is only partly true, the merchant gives a story that is partially plausible to the audience, and the mythic tradition has been manipulated repeatedly. The uncertainty this manipulation creates points to the lack of ability of Odysseus' play to teach by giving clear meaning to its audience. This point becomes clearer as the play progresses and new dynamics for knowledge acquisition are created on stage, that are contrasted with the unresolved lack of clarity Odysseus' play creates for the audience. When the two men reenter, Neoptolemos is struck by Philoktetes' hesitation and his sudden cries. Philoktetes tries to hide from Neoptolemos the knowledge that an attack of the disease is upon him, out of fear that he will be left behind again. It cannot be concealed, however, and the two men engage in a curious exchange in which Neoptolemos repeatedly asks for direct information and Philoktetes insists that he already "knows" what the matter is : N e. Tf 5 ' e o n v outco v e o x p o v e ^ a f c p v n q , o to u T o a r i v S ' i u y n v K a i o t o v o v oou tou n o p ; 0 i. o lo 0 ,' a> TeKVov; N e. Tf eonv; 0 i. oTo0,' ob naT; N e. T f oof; ouk oT5a. Oi. ncoc; ouk oTo0a; nannanannanaT. (Philoktetes 7 5 1 -5 4 ) N e. W h at is this thing that co m es upon you suddenly, 170 That m akes yo u cry and groan so? Ph. D o you know , b o y ? N e. W h at is it? Ph. Do you know , b o y ? N e. W hat d o you m ean? i d o not know . Ph. H ow can you not know ? Oh! Oh! Neoptolemos finally comes to the realization of what this expression of pain is about, and expresses his amazement at the grievousness of the illness, reacting genuinely for the first time to Philoktetes' condition: A e iv o v y e Toum'oay|ja toO voonpaT oq. [Philoktetes 7 5 5 ) The burden o f the d is e a s e is dreadful. It has, indeed, been dreadful, for it is only by being in direct contact with Philoktetes' suffering that Neoptolemos reacts with genuine pity for the first time: T f cpnq, nal; ti' cphq; T f aiyO?; noO hot' gov, tek vov, Kupelg; N e. dAy<5> naAai 5n Tanl a o l otevcov koko. (Philoktetes 8 0 4 - 0 6 ) W h at d o you sa y , b o y ? W h at d o you sa y ? W h y are y o u silent? W h ere are you, b oy? N e. I h a v e long b een in sorrow for your pains. Neoptolemos had heard the descriptions and failed to react, as the Chorus had, with emotion. Now, for the first time, Neoptolemos has become the audience and spectator and Philoktetes unwittingly presents something to him that he had not known before. 171 The shift in Neoptolemos' appreciation of the circumstances is accompanied by an increase in the audience's pity for Philoktetes. The play in which Neoptolemos has been engaged was a matter of words. He offered no demonstrations that could indicate clear, unfeigned evidence of compassion for Philoktetes' suffering. The audience, like the chorus, had been moved by Philoktetes' words and would have been impressed by the contrast between its own pity and the cold resolve of Neoptolemos. Now, as the horrible spectacle increases its own emotional response, it sees Neoptolemos begin to waver and realizes that he has acquired knowledge through direct contact with Philoktetes' pain that he did not believe would have an effect on his resolve. Thus, as the ailing man hands the bow to his presumed friend, begging him not to give it to Odysseus and Diomedes if they arrive (Phil. 769- 73), the audience is sharply aware of the shamefulness of Neoptolemos' deceit: F iv 5 e T c p S e T cjj> x p o v < * > p o A c o o ' e K e l v o i , n p d g G e c o v , e c p f e p a i e K O V T a p m ' a K O V T a p m e tc « d T e x v p K e f v o i g p s G s T v a i touto, p n o o u to v 9 ' a p a K a p , ' d v T a o a u T o u n p o o i p o n o v , K T E i'v a g y ^ v D- (Philoktetes 7 6 9 - 7 3 ) And if in that time (when I sleep ) th ey should com e, by the g o d s, I b e g you not to g iv e this (the b o w ) to them, w illingly nor again st your w ill nor b e c a u se o f so m e trick, 172 lest you b e the m urderer of yourself an d a t the sam e time of me, your suppliant. There is irony in these lines, because Philoktetes1 words reflect what is already happening to him. He believes that Neoptolemos will protect him from a trick, while Neoptolemos himself has been using a trick on him. Philoktetes expects the trick to take place; he just does not know that it is already happening not on Neoptolemos but on himself. Neoptolemos' prayer on receiving the bow is misleading to Philoktetes: cb 0eof, y ev o ito toOto vcpv y iv o n o 5 e nXoGg o upiog Te KeuoTaXng onoi noTe 0 e o g 5iKaioT xd> oroX oq nopauveTai. [Philoktetes 7 7 9 - 8 1 ) G o d s, m ay th ese h ap p en for the tw o of us; an d m ay w e g e t a pro sp ero u s an d s p e e d y journey w h erev er g o d thinks right an d our v o y a g e provides. To Philoktetes Neoptolemos' prayer means "may we both go home successfully." But the prayer could also mean "may we both sail to Troy." The choice of language in these lines may indicate the beginning of Neoptolemos' conflict, which is not explicitly expressed yet. As the audience receives two-sided messages, it is now focused on the effect the new knowledge will have on Philoktetes. For at the precise moment that Neotpolemos achieves complete control, according to the terms of the deception, the accidental acquistion of immediate knowledge of Philoktetes' predicament puts that 173 contol in jeopardy. And after Philoktetes goes to sleep {Phil. 820), although Neoptolemos has possession of the most desired thing, the bow, yet the first thing on his mind is Philoktetes' condition and rest {Phil. 821-26). The chorus, having recognized in Neoptolemos care and compassion for Philoktetes, seems to be playing a double role in the following stasimon. On one hand, it prays for healing sleep to come conferring happiness and to hold over Philoktetes' eyes the gleam of serenity that is spread over his eyes now {Phil. 827-32) . The chorus expresses compassion for Philoktetes and wishes that he finds relief from the pangs of pain. On the other hand, it advises Neoptolemos not to delay, to seize the opportunity and take action {Phil. 836-38, 849ff.). The invocation to Hypnos itself is two-sided. On one hand Hypnos is Philoktetes' healer (riaicov, Phil. 832); on the other hand it deprives him of knowledge: oupog toi, tekvov, ou p og a- vnp 5 ' avoppaToq, ou 5' excov apcoyaV/ EKTETCITai v u x io g - a5en<; unvo£ eoG A og- ( ,Philoktetes 8 5 5 - 5 9 ) There is favorab le wind, b o y , favorab le wind; the man is e y e le s s , and h elp less outstreched a s le e p - fearless s le e p is g o o d - 174 Hypnos and lack of knowledge are associated since lack of vision through sleep becomes the means for further delusion for Philoktetes; in fact it becomes the means for total loss of control over the situation. This choral ode has been considered ambiguous. "They reflect with what, from the private context, can only be genuine pity on his loneliness and suffering, but they are there to help Neoptolemus and his deceptive designs. Their role, too, is thus potentially ambiguous."53 In fact, the chorus' role is not simply "potentially" ambiguous. It is clearly two-sided. What the chorus' words reflect is conflict between feeling for Philoktetes and their concern for Neoptolemos. For in the previous episode the chorus saw signs of Neoptolemos' change, as did the audience. The chorus even discretely remind Neoptolemos of Odysseus (Phil. 852), and expresses its concern that trouble comes for Neoptolemos (Phil. 854), if he sides with Philoktetes (Phil. 853-54). The stasimon is two-sided, because the chorus foresees the turbulence ahead. When Philoktetes revives and Neoptolemos raises him to his feet, the two men are paired for the first time in genuinely shared knowledge; the knowledge of the horror of Philoktetes1 condition. They are presented as a physical 5 3 Seale 1982 : 31. 175 unit as Philoktetes leans on the younger man (Phil. 893) dependent on him in ways he is not even aware. At this point the audience is in suspense, knowing that Neoptolemos must get Philoktetes to Troy but aware that Philoktetes' condition has triggered his compassion. At 8 95 Neoptolemos, for the first time, expresses genuine ignorance: nanaT. T f Shi' [av] Spdhp' eyco T o u v 0 e v 5 e ye; [Philoktetes 8 9 5 ) Oh! W hat shall I d o from n o w on? This moment of Neoptolemos’ crisis resembles the one Orestes undergoes when he reveals himself to Elektra. Like Orestes, Neoptolemos, the master manipulator of words, now is at a loss for words: o uk o F 5 ' onp xpn Tanopov Tpeneiv enog. (Philoktetes 8 9 7 ) I d o not know w h ere I should turn m y p o w e r le ss w ords. In Neoptolemos' conflict words and action are intertwined, because now he cannot carry through with the action for which he has prepared Philoktetes through his performance of words.54 Neoptolemos is fluctuating between his role as an actor of the inner play, and the kind of person he wants to be : 5 4 On the relation between logos and ergon in the play see Segal 1981: 337. 176 cb ZeO, T f Spdoco; SeuTepov Ancp0oo Kaxog, Kpumoov 0 ' a ph 5eT Kal A eygov aT axiai' enoov; [Philoktetes 9 0 8 - 0 9 ) Zeus, w hat shall I do? W ill I b e p roved b ad for the se co n d time, hiding w h at I should not, and sayin g m ost sham eful w ords? Neoptolemos' wavering dramatizes the uncertainty about who is in control with regard to Philoktetes' destiny, and so the audience's uncertainty about who is in control of the scene and the plot of the inner play, Odysseus or Neoptolemos. Who is really in control of human events? Odysseus' play is about to fail because Neoptolemos cannot carry through with his role-playing. Gradually, Neoptolemos reveals to Philoktetes that he must sail to Troy where he will be healed and will sack the city (Phil. 8 9 9 - 9 2 2 ). With these lines Neoptolemos dissolves the inner play altogether. Through the attack of Philoktetes' illness, Sophocles creates a dramatic obstacle to Neoptolemos' acting that Odysseus had not anticipated, a powerful stimulus for Neoptolemos ' emotions (aAyco ndAai 5n Tanl obi otevoov kokci, Phil. 806,1 have long been in pain grieving for your ills; alo xpoq cpavoupar tout' avicopai ndAai, Phil. 9 06,1 shall be shown to be base. That is w hat I have been worried about; Aunnpcog 5 e ph nepnco o e paAAov, tout' avioopai ndA ai, Phil. 9 1 2 - 1 3 , that my co n v e y in g you m ay c a u se you grief, that is w hat I h a v e b een w orried about). Real feelings are born in Neoptolemos, who changes from an actor who acts merely outwardly to a character who acts also 177 inwardly, and adopts to Philoktetes1 needs. Neoptolemos consented to engage in role-playing in the Prologue with ultimate objectives that Odysseus set up for him, that is victory {Phil. 81), justice {Phil. 82), reputation of piety {Phil. 85), rescue {Phil. 109), and profit {Phil. Ill). The most appealing objective to Neoptolemos was the profit of sacking Troy {Phil. 113), as well as the promise to be called wise and valorous {Phil. 119). When Neoptolemos abandons the role-playing, the change is not dependent on outward success: an a v T d 5 u c x e p e i a , rnv auToO cpuoiv o to v Amcov Tig 5 p g to ph npooeiK O T a. (Philoktetes 9 0 2 - 0 3 ) All is trouble, w hen o n e leavin g his o w n nature d o e s things that d o not suit it. Neoptolemos' change is dependent upon how he perceives his own nature, and so upon his own sense of identity. "The more an actor develops a full sense of his own identity, the more his scope and capacity for identification with other characters than his own will be made possible."55 Sophocles picked a youth for this part. Neoptolemos and Odysseus know, as is clear in the play's prologue, that Neoptolemos1 nature is not suitable for this part. But Neoptolemos is young, and he seems to learn through Odysseus' teachings. 5 5 Hagen 1979 : 24 . 178 It is not until Neoptolemos comes to direct contact with Philoktetes' illness, that he truly learns who he is. The moment of self-realization happens when Neoptolemos knows that he had lost himself on the stage; that the objectives he has set and the situation he has created have not been ingrained into who he truly is. Neoptolemos suffers a cognitive dissonance, a discrepancy between what he found himself doing, and the kind of person he thought he was. Only then he establishes his sense of self, and can use that knowledge in the dramatic situation he has created. Neoptolemos' own identity and self-knowledge are the foundation of the character he chooses to play from this point on. This character has inner truth that was lacking from his acting, and as he breaks free from Odysseus' play, Neoptolemos regains connection with himself and creates his own path in Sophocles' play. Through Neoptolemos' change Sophocles' theater becomes a prototype of a process of learning. For as Neoptolemos abandons Odysseus' play, the manipulation of information in which he has been engaged is transformed into true knowledge acquired on the stage and before the eyes of the audience. Indeed, the audience sees the workings of this process of learning as the drama unfolds. Odysseus' theoretical teachings, telling Neoptolemos what to do, worked to a limited extent. Neoptolemos proved to be Odysseus' receptive student, but through direct contact with 179 Philoktetes Neoptolemos discovers the truth in human interaction. This is the knowledge acquired when a human is in contact with another human, and in Neoptolemos1 case, in contact with human suffering. Only then does one learn about the true nature of humanity and about one's own self. Through the other Neoptolemos learns about himself and about who he wants to be. This knowledge is not only theory, like the one Odysseus offers. It operates at a deeper level, and comes from within. It is this intimate form of learning that Sophocles dramatizes in the interaction between Neoptolemos and Philoktetes, and shows that perceptions can be modified through interaction with people, situations, and life in general. There is something true, deep and real happening in human relationships, and the human bond makes manipulation look ludicrous. The Philoktetes is about learning a universal truth about human nature; one does not acquire that knowledge simply by hearing someone else, but through interaction with life. The knowledge Neoptolemos acquires through experience is real, as opposed to mere technique, and deeper, as opposed to Odysseus' superficial schemes. Through these oppositions and through Neoptolemos' change Sophoclean theater presents paradigms of knowledge acquisition. But as Neoptolemos learns, the dynamics of knowledge and control on the stage undergo a change, as well. The 180 discrepancy of levels of awareness between the two men are eliminated, and by giving knowledge of the situation to Philoktetes (ou 6ev o e Kpuijjco, Phil. 915, I will not hide anything from y o u ), Neoptolemos also gives control over to him for the first time. Now Philoktetes knows that necessity compels that he go to Troy (avayKn, Phil. 922), and he is in the position to refuse to go (Phil. 921-22). But Neoptolemos holds the bow over possession of which an intense struggle begins (Phil. 924f f . ) ,56 By holding the bow Neoptolemos holds the means of Philoktetes life: aneoTepnKag tov Biov Ta to£' eAcov. (Philoktetes 9 3 1) You d ep rived me o f life b y taking the b o w . But Neoptolemos has given Philoktetes more power than he knows. For in his desperation Philoktetes uses as a weapon the knowledge he has acquired about Neoptolemos from Neoptolemos himself. Philoktetes1 long emotional speech of 56 On the significance of the bow as a visual symbol see Seale 1982: 49, and Segal 1980-81: 131ff. Harsh discusses the significance of the bow as Apollo's gift to Herakles, and as a symbol of "man's intelligence brought into action to guarantee man's dominion of the earth." See Harsh I960: 412. It is true that the origin of the bow must have made it special to Philoktetes. In the course of the play, however, what makes the bow so special is the fact that both sides absolutely need it. Philoktetes' survival depends on it, and so does the sack of Troy. On the heroic meaning of the bow see Segal 1980-81: 133. 181 entreatment (Phil. 932-33), displaying anger (Phil. 927-30), isolation (Phil. 936-38), vulnerability (Phil. 945-48), and despair about his life without the bow(Phil. 951-59), closes with a curse and a disarming conclusion about Neoptolemos and the perceptions he has created: n p d ? tou Sokouvtoc; ouS ev eiSevai kokov. (Philoktetes 9 6 0 ) the c a u se is o n e w h o seem ed to know no evil. Philoktetes has come to the full realization of what Neoptolemos has done to him. This powerful speech then is about the consequences of Neoptolemos' acting in Philoktetes1 life, and since in Neoptolemos' acting we have theater reflecting on itself, through Philoktetes' emotional appeal Sophocles comments on Odysseus' play, and the dangerous consequences it has on its audience, by creating distorted perceptions. Philoktetes closes his appeal by rationally pointing to the heart of the conflict, who Neoptolemos is and what he knows: ouk el KOKdq o il n p o q k o k o v 6 ' avSpcdv paBcbv eoiKag rfaeiv a ia x p a . (Philoktetes 9 7 1 - 7 2 ) You are not b ase; but you seem to h a v e com e to shameful conduct having learnt from b a s e men Philoktetes has not learnt only that he must go to Troy Neoptolemos, he has also come to know the true nature of Neoptolemos, and the influences of learning in his life. In 182 fact, Philoktetes is not only a witness but also the direct recipient of Neoptolemos1 actions. He has immediate experience of Neoptolemos' responses to his plight: ep o 'i (je v oT kto£ S e iv d q e|jnenTCDKe Tig toOS' a v S p o g o u v u v n p c o io v , aXXa Kal naXai. (Philoktetes 9 6 5 -6 6 ) S om e terrible com p assion has com e upon m e for this man, not n o w for the first time, but a lso before. Now Philoktetes is in the position to employ this knowledge in counter-persuasion, in order to convince Neoptolemos to return the bow, through an overpowering appeal to Neoptolemos1 sense of self. Neoptolemos, torn with uncertainty, turns to the chorus for advice (Phil. 974). But at this moment Odysseus enters. The sudden appearance of Odysseus at the point when his plot breaks down is startling because he has assumed a position almost equivalent to that of the invisible playwright/director of the theater. When the play falls apart, the director enters to correct things. Odysseus intervenes for two reasons; to prohibit Neoptolemos from giving the bow back to Philoktetes (Phil. 974-75), and to persuade Philoktetes to sail with them to Troy (Phil. 982ff.), since both Philoktetes and the bow are needed for the sack of the city, according to Odysseus' instructions to Neoptolemos in the Prologue (Phil. 68-9, 101). But the 183 ensuing exchange between Philoktetes and Odysseus comes as a surprise for the audience, because Philoktetes will neither comply through persuasion, nor be taken by force. The audience, already acquainted with the story, knows that Philoktetes finally does go to Troy. In the Little Iliad Diomedes persuades Philoktetes to join him to Troy.57 And in Euripides' Philoktetes, as Webster comments, it is highly probable that Diomede seized the bow, and then presumably Odysseus revealed himself and together the Greeks compelled Philoctetes to go on the ship . . . the significant word 'compels' at the end of the papyrus summary suggests that Philoktetes went unwillingly at the end.58 In the Sophoclean Philoktetes, however, the victim of Odysseus' tricks, now does not believe the truth he hears from him, that it was Zeus that decreed that he go to Troy. Philoktetes thinks this is another one of Odysseus' inventions [Phil. 991-92). Nor does he believe Odysseus' honorable offer, that Philoktetes will be equal to the best, with whom he is destined to take Troy [Phil. 997-98) . Philoktetes' last resort to freedom (eX eu 0ep ou g, Phil. 996) is to threaten to throw himself off the cliff [Phil. 1000-02) . And he wards off force very effectively, for when Odysseus asks the two sailors who have come with him to seize 5 7 Jebb 18 98 : Xff . 5 8 Webster 1970 : 4-5 . 184 Philoktetes (Phil. 1003), he responds with a forceful denouncement of the conduct of Odysseus and the Greeks (Phil. 1004-44). Philoktetes has delivered powerful speeches before in the play, and now, as the chorus comments, his speech is unyielding (cpcrriv oux uneikouoav KaKoTq, Phil. 1045-46). He gains what he wants through powerful control mechanisms, a furious, disarming speech, and a suicide threat. Authorial audience response is evoked, as Odysseus declares that he is giving up on Philoktetes. Odysseus' exit at this point is certainly unexpected. Where is the play's plot going? Odysseus' departure threatens the dramatic convention of conformity of a tragedy's ending with the story of the myth. It is not clear whether Odysseus is truly leaving without Philoktetes, because he has come to the realizaiton that his efforts to take Philoktetes along will be futile, or if this is a trick that Odysseus plays on Philoktetes, in order to make him consent to go, out of necessity.59 Eitherway, this looks like an ending of the play, especially since Neoptolemos follows Odysseus at 1080. 59 As Seale says, in this play "once the deception is set in motion, it is the audience who are as much deceived as Philoktetes. We look in vain for the expected ironies. On the contrary what we "see" at varying points in the drama appears as the confirmation of a possible conclusion carefully suggested in the prologue, but which in reality turns out to be no more than a false turn." See Seale 1972: 100. 185 Odysseus claims that he himself and Teukros will sack Troy with the help of the bow (Phil. 1055-60). This makes him still appear in control. As the audience hears Odysseus, now fully aware of the change that has taken place in Neoptolemos, continue to direct Neoptolemos by instructing him not to look at Philoktetes lest he destroy their good fortune (Phil. 1068-69), it reflects on the impossibility of winning at Troy without Philoktetes. The audience 1s knowledge of the myth makes it doubt Odysseus' actual control here. In the exodos, as this increasingly unfamiliar story plays with audience expectation, it also draws its attention to the clear association of knowledge and control of the play's plot. When Neoptolemos and Odysseus return to the stage, they have an exchange, during which Odysseus asks questions. He asks ten in a row and receives no satisfactory answer from Neoptolemos. The scene introduces a new dramatic movement created by Neoptolemos' decisiveness and Odysseus' fearfulness, when he realizes that Neoptolemos will return the bow to Philoktetes. The bow becomes the symbol of control for both sides. But while keeping the bow is the concern of Odysseus, Neoptolemos' words suggest that he is concerned with his own behavior in his interaction with Philoktetes. The two men's argument, narrowed down to 186 the opposition of o o tp o v versus B ikaiov, exemplifies their different views on human values and communication: 0 6 . ou 6 ' oute cpcovEfg oute SpaoEfEig oocpa. Ne. aXX' ei 6ikaia, tcov oocpcov Kpsfooco Td5s. 0 6 . K a'i ricog 5ikaiov, a y ' sX aB sg BouXaTg spaTg, naXiv p£0ETvai touto; N e. ttiv a p a p n 'a v a io x p a v apapToov avaX aBElv nE ipaoopai. {Philoktetes 1 2 4 5 - 4 9 ) O d . But you neither sp eak nor p ro p o se to d o clev er things. N e. But if they are just, th ey are better than clever. O d. And h o w is it just, to g iv e him again w hat you w o n b y m y plans? N e. H aving com m itted a shameful sin, I will try to retrieve. While Odysseus1 power throughout the play depended on a scheme, Neoptolemos1 power comes from a deeper understanding through compassion for another human being. Further, Odysseus1 reasoning about what is just in the given situation lacks any understanding of truer motives in human behavior, which Neoptolemos suggests by trying to undo the shameful wrong he has done to Philoktetes.60 While Odysseus1 oocpa points to human intelligence, Neoptolemos1 6ikaia points to a deeper aspect of human conduct. Odysseus achieves a certain level of intellectual comprehension, but his abstract understanding of Neoptolemos' conviction that the deceit was wrong {Phil. 122 8) does not satisfy him. He 60 "Odysseus' interpretation of Sikaiov presupposes that Neoptolemus should carry out his orders, which comes very near to 187 pesters Neoptolemos in the attempt not only to dissuade him, but to understand him as well (Phil. 1238), and when he fails, he finally withdraws. At this point, Odysseus is overpowered by Neoptolemos, because what happens next is the choice of the younger man, whose motives Odysseus cannot comprehend. The gap in perception and the different levels of understanding are linked with direction of the play's events. Neoptolemos' conscience has moved him deeply, and this means that ultimately Philoktetes has control over him. In vain Odysseus repeats his threat to take Philoktetes to Troy by force (Phil. 1297-98). Repossession of the bow (Phil. 12 92) gives Philoktetes power over Odysseus, whom he brings to the final realization that he has lost the game. When Philoktetes turns his arrows against him, Odysseus quickly leaves the scene. And as Philoktetes praises Neoptolemos' cpuoiq (Phil. 1310), the manipulation of the mythic tradition draws audience attention to the significance of the bond of trust and friendship between the two men on the stage, Philoktetes and Neoptolemos. This unexpected twist in the plot points to the validity of Philoktetes' needs for respect of his integrity, and the significance of the addition of Neoptolemos' part in Sophocles' play. The Thrasymachus’ definition of justice as the advantage of the ruler." See Webster 1970: 146. 188 play's audience has watched Odysseus direct Neoptolemos to do what he is told. But Odysseus has limited understanding of the human experience. Although he knows Neoptolemos' nature from the beginning (Phil. 79-80), and although he knows that Neoptolemos and Philoktetes will have the opportunity to create a bond of trust (Phil. 70-71), he does not judge the circumstances prudently, nor does he anticipate this outcome. Odysseus, as a playwright and teacher, imparts limited knowledge. The type of knowledge he offers to Neoptolemos is how to manipulate reality, in order to attain his goal. What Odysseus offers is a man-made scheme, based on profit, that disregards Philoktetes1 feelings and need for freedom of choice. What is worse, he never understands why Neoptolemos has a change of heart, nor does he ever learn about the power of the direct contact with another human being, for he is not open to it. By discarding Odysseus and what he stands for, Sophocles points to the limits on human understanding, and the gap of communication between Odysseus and Philoktetes. It is this gap of understanding in human communication that young Neoptolemos is introduced to identify, and try to breach through a deeper understanding of his own compassion for Philoktetes and the ailing man's need for respect of his integrity. That is why Sophocles introduces an intermediary between Odysseus and Philoktetes. 189 Neoptolemos has been acting like a mediator from the play's beginning. At first, he mediates factual information about Philoktetes' surroundings to Odysseus in the Prologue. Then he mediates information about the Greeks to Philoktetes. And finally, he becomes the embodiment of the immediate understanding of Philoktetes' situation, that distant Odysseus never attains. The intermediary becomes the model of a character who acquires knowledge through interaction with life, and Philoktetes, unwittingly, an agent of knowledge. Sophocles does not have Odysseus simply win over Philoktetes through deception, argument or force. He adds the intermediary, who complicates things. Nor does Sophocles' self-referentiality make a statement only about deception and morality. Falkner says that through Odysseus' play the Philoktetes "offers a model of the tragic poet whose character is unscrupulous."61 This is true. But it is also true that by adding the part of Neoptolemos, who undergoes a process of learning in the course of the play, Sophocles' self-referentiality makes a statement about the kind of understanding, perceptions, inferences and knowledge humans acquire when they experience deep human conflicts in their contact with one another. The introduction of the part of the intermediary comments on the nature of theater as an immediate form of 6 1 Falkner 1998: 26. 190 art. The part of Neoptolemos, first an actor in Odysseus' play, points to the immediacy with which the actor conveys the playwright's ideas before the audience. When the strong emotional experience Neoptolemos undergoes interrupts his concentration on the playwright's interpretation, the moment-to-moment subjective experience turns him into Philoktetes' inner audience and spectator, this time in Sophocles' play. Neoptolemos1 part now exemplifies the immediacy with which the tragic audience experiences pity and learns from the presentation of human behavior before its very eyes. Neoptolemos, as Philoktetes' spectator and audience, establishes knowledge about his own nature, and this knowledge is proven by his subsequent choice of conduct. Neoptolemos, now alone with Philoktetes, makes his last attempt to persuade him of the importance of joining the Greeks at Troy {Phil. 1314ff.). He reveals the full dimensions of Helenos' prophecy, according to which if Philoktetes goes to Troy of his own will, he will be relieved of the disease by the Asklepiadai, and will conquer Troy with the bow, along with Neoptolemos {Phil. 1329-41) .62 This appears reasonable to the audience, as well, since it expects exactly this type of conclusion. But Sophocles' 6 2 On Helenos' oracle see Easterling 1983: 217ff. On the inconsistency of the prophecy throughout the play see Hinds 1967. 191 greatest surprise takes place in this scene, which is Sophocles' ultimate affirmation of the two men's bond of friendship, expressed by Philoktetes verbally (oq euvoug gov epol nappveoev, Phil. 1 3 5 1 , w ho advised me being disp osed favorably) and by Neoptolemos, through his final consent to fulfill Philoktetes' wish. At 1402 Neoptolemos gives in to Philoktetes' request, and the two men begin their preparations to exit the stage, in order to sail to their respective homes. By deciding to take Philoktetes home, Neoptolemos also transfers control of the plot completely to Philoktetes. The audience is startled by this development. From 1402 on, the lines are rendered in catalectic trochaic tetrameters, signifying departure, and the audience's knowledge of the mythic tradition is directly challenged by the conflict with its knowledge of dramatic convention. An ending is being enacted, but not the one dictated by the tradition. This bold Sophoclean variation throws the audience off balance, until the sudden arrival of Herakles, which satisfies expectations regarding the play's necessary conclusion.63 6 3 The endings of the Philoktetes have been the subject of controversy. For an account of opinions see Linforth 1956: ISO- 52, Easterling 1983: 224ff., and Blundell 1989: 220-21. On the false departures see Taplin 1978: 67ff.; on the illusory quality of the false endings see Seale 1982: 48. Linforth 1956: 150-52 and Kott 1973: 162ff. argue that the ending of line 1408, when Neoptolemos is ready to take Philoktetes home, is the real ending of the play, while Sophocles uses the final ending with Herakles 192 "Herakles appears probably on the roof of the skene/'64 and the two men, Philoktetes and Neoptolemos become his spectators and audience: cpaoKeiv 5' au5nv TnvUpaKXeoug aKop T£ kXueiv Xeuaoeiv t' oipiv. {Philoktetes 1411-12) s a y that you hear the v o ic e of H erakles and you s e e his form. With this dramatic spectacle of the demigod's epiphany Sophocles gives control of the play's plot to a divine figure, who comes as a mediator between Philoktetes and Zeus (to Aioc; te cppaocov BouXeupaTa a oi, P h i l . 1415, to tell you the plans o f Z eus for you). The strong contrast between this conclusion and the one that seemed to be taking place raises questions about the ability of these characters to be in control of their lives and future in an effective manner. Nothing either man has done has managed to affect the story's outcome that has, as they could have known from the prophecy, been preordained. The limits on human efforts to control the world have been highlighted throughout the play and this juxtaposition of in order to satisfy the requirements of the myth. According to Harsh Sophocles did not approve of Philoktetes' decision not to help the Greek cause. See Harsh 1960: 410. And Knox notes: "Here, one might say, Sophocles superimposes an ideal ending on the real one, in such a way that the one does not annul or even obscure the other, but each retains its own validity." See Knox 1964: 137. 6 4 Webster 1970: 156. 193 the human resolution and the enforcement of divine requirements makes this point clear. Some critics find the sudden appearance of the deus disappointing. "The conventional resolution it offers for Philoctetes' story is manifestly inappropriate for all that has been seen earlier in the tragedy," says Ringer.65 Also, Linforth sees Herakles as an extraneous agent that interrupts the tight dramatic structure of the play.66 I believe there is continuity between what has taken place earlier in the tragedy and this final ending. Herakles becomes the stand-in for the unsuccessful "playwright," Odysseus, and accomplishes what Odysseus could not accomplish. He also represents Sophocles in directing the play's plot to conform to the requirements of the myth. Herakles does not tell Philoktetes what to do; he gives Philoktetes the opportunity to learn through Herakles' own experience: Ka) npooTd pev 001 Tag epag Xe^co Tuxag, ooou g novnoag koi 5ie^ eX 0ov novoug aGavaTov apem v e a x o v , 69 napeoG' opav. koi oof, 009 ' ibGi, toOt' 09 efXeTai naGeTv, ex tcov novcov tcovS' euxXea 0 ea 0 a i Bfov. [Philoktetes 1418-22) And first I shall tell you w hat h ap p en ed to me, after h o w m any labors pursued to the end I g a in ed immortal glory, so that you can se e . 65 Ringer 1998 : 124 . 66 Linforth 1956: 150-51. 194 K now assuredly, that this is a d eb t you must p a y , too, after this m isery to m ake your life glorious. By first offering himself as a role-model, Herakles shows Philoktetes that his sufferings are the path to a glorious life. Thus Herakles becomes the archetype of behavior for Philoktetes, and offers him true knowledge (odcp'ToGi, Phil. 1421) of his life ahead. Odysseus1 manipulation of knowledge is juxtaposed by immediate learning through a role model that Philoktetes accepts without reservations {Phil. 1445-47). The abandoned, deceived, fearful hero learns through identification. Although Neoptolemos has won his trust {Phil. 1350-51), before Herakles1 appearance Philoktetes is still fearful of experiencing more pain if he interacts with the Greeks: ou y a p p s tdX yoq tcov napeXGovTcov 5aKvei, aXX' o la xpn naGeTv p e n p o q toutoov eti 5ok<2> npoX euooeiv. (Philoktetes 1 3 5 8 - 6 0 ) For it is not the pain o f p ast w ron gs that stings me, but I think I look at w hat I must still suffer at their hands. Herakles1 example provides healing hope for Philoktetes, who forgets his concern, and consents to obey out of his own free w i l l (ouk dniGnoco Tolg ooTq puGoig, Phil. 1447, I shall not d iso b e y your w o r d s ). Herakles achieves what Odysseus and Neoptolemos could not achieve. 195 Before the epiphany Neoptolemos complains about Philoktetes' inability to understand: N e. go t5v, 5i56okou pn 0 p a o u v e o 0 a i kokoTq. Oi. oXeTg pe, yiyvcooKco oe, ToIoSe T oT g Xoyoig. Ne. oukouv eyco ye. cpnpl 5' ou oe j u a vO a vsiv. [Philoktetes 1 3 8 7 - 8 9 ) N e . Friend, learn not to b e driven to e x c e s s b y m isery. Ph. You will ruin me, I know , by th ese w ords. N e. N o t I. I think you d o not understand. The repetition of verbs signifying knowledge, learning, and understanding, emphasizes the inability of these two people, now friends, to come to an agreement about their perception of Philoktetes' future at Troy.67 It is the presence of another friend from the past (Phil. 1467), Herakles, that resolves this unsuccessful struggle. The knowledge that Herakles imparts through his own example of immortal glory (Phil. 1420) contains the understanding that in order for Philoktetes to assist in an act of patriotism at Troy, his inner wound must heal first. Philoktetes1 wound is not only physical; it is also spiritual. As Linforth notes, Sophocles, "pondering on the legend of Philoctetes, could not persuade himself that such a man in such a plight could ever allow himself to be won over by men who had treated him with unforgivable cruelty."68 Odysseus never understands this in his encounter with Philoktetes. Nor is Neoptolemos 67 On the failure of logos in the play see Segal 1981: 333ff. 196 able to breach the gap of perception and communication between Odysseus and Philoktetes. The final breaching of this gap by Herakles, a mediator between Philoktetes and the divine sphere, points to the limits on human knowledge, and the human limitations as portrayed in the efforts for control, first of Odysseus, then Neoptolemos, and last Philoktetes. The ease with which Herakles gets Philoktetes out of his isolation from the community comments on the degree of alienation that the lack of understanding entails. The role of language in the direction of the play's plot is pointed by the word chosen to describe Herakles' language. While Odysseus directs Neoptolemos to deceive Philoktetes X oyoioi [Phil. 55, through w o r d s), Herakles refers to his own words as puGoi (Phil. 1410, 1417) . MuGog is anything delivered by word of mouth. In its widest sense it means word, speech. It also has the meaning of a tale, a story. In Attic prose puGog is usually a legend or tradition of the early Greek times, before the beginning of history. In the Philoktetes the word puGog creates a highly self-referential ending, by explicitly pointing to the return to the mythic tradition at the play's end. It also points to the contrast between Odysseus' deceptive X o y o i, and Herakles' truthful puG oi, which reveal the divine knowledge of the will of Zeus 68 Linforth 1956: 151. 197 {Phil. 1415) to the humans. This is the knowledge of revelation, that comes from a higher level and one simply accepts. At this level of knowledge, it is divine law that prevails, as opposed to human, and points to self-less duty. As Herakles says, t o u t ' 0 9 e f X e T a i n a 0 e 7 v [Phi 1. 1421, t h i s i s a d e b t you must p a y ). Herakles leads Philoktetes to his duty at Troy, for this mission is above feelings of individual interest.69 Through divine knowledge Philoktetes learns how to rise above the self and embrace the community.70 As Herakles engages in divine persuasion and warns the men to behave piously at the sack of Troy, the authorial response is evoked once again. And, one final time, the audience's knowledge is contrasted with that of the characters. Even here, when all has been decided, the audience is reminded of Neoptolemos' eventual impiety at Troy.71 "For Neoptolemus, the ending disconcertingly hints that the coherent pattern a 69 "For Philoctetes, the ending shows that the coherence mortals seek in their own lives is not necessarily the coherence they will find in them," marks Roberts 1989: 175. 7 0 As Harsh remarks, "Sophocles obviously, then, views the individual as the prime and determinant element of the state. Indeed no one has ever championed the inalienable rights and dignity of the individual more eloquently. Still, the individual is viewed as an element of a larger whole and not as an independent creation: he cannot renounce his obligations to his fellow men however grossly mistreated he may have been." See Harsh 1960: 410. 7 1 During the sack of Troy Neoptolemos killed Priam at the altar of Zeus. 198 person has attained at one stage of his life is not necessarily one that will persist," remarks Roberts.72 The Philoktetes is a play that displays pervasive self- referentiality, especially through the continuous surprises that undermine the audience1s security about its own knowledge. Neoptolemos' storytelling manipulates mythic events, and Sophocles' shifts of control of the plot after the intrigue fails, manipulate audience expectation with regard to the story's outcome. Neoptolemos' manipulations, however, are a part of Odysseus' directions, and are only employed in order to mislead Philoktetes, and result in audience uncertainty and confusion. Sophocles' manipulation of the myth on the other hand is constructive, employed in order to show that control of the play's plot is immediately related to the levels of knowledge that operate in the play. In his study of self-reference in the Philoktetes, Falkner sees the contrast between the "bad playwright," Odysseus, and the "good playwright," Sophocles, as one pointing to the ethical status of the poet.73 The contrast between the two playwrights also addresses another significant aspect of the play, that is, the way knowledge is constructed, perceived and interpreted in theater. 7 2 See Roberts 1989: 175. 7 3 Falkner 1998 : 48 . 199 Self-reference in the Philoktetes points to paradigms of learning, in an organic treatment of knowledge that goes through stages throughout the play. First, Neoptolemos learns as an actor in the play of the distant playwright, Odysseus. At another level, Neoptolemos learns as the spectator and audience of Philoktetes' pain, and denounces what Odysseus has to teach. And finally, Philoktetes acquires higher knowledge through Herakles' revelation of a divine plan. The play's characters undergo a movement from the alienation that Odysseus' play entails, through the humanity and touch with the self that Neoptolemos' change presents, to the healthy integration into the community that Herakles' solution offers. By introducing Neoptolemos, who proves that Odysseus' play is unable to teach, by giving Philoktetes' suffering the power to teach Neoptolemos, and by introducing Herakles as an effective agent of divine knowledge, Sophocles' Philoktetes becomes a prototype of a process of knowledge acquisition, and proposes better models of behavior than what Odysseus' play has to offer. And by pointing to the association of the levels of knowledge acquisition with the shifts of control of the play's plot, the play's self-reference validates tragedy's ability to convey knowledge to its audience. 200 THE SOPHOCLEAN INTRIGUE PLAY The characters' plotting in the Elektra. and the Philoktetes relies on the manipulation of knowledge. But whatever degree of control the characters achieve through their manipulations turns out to be temporary. Orestes' successful plan displaces true knowledge with false knowledge that is strong enough to undermine any other potential source of knowledge. He accomplishes his immediate goal but the control he achieves is questioned in the end. In the Philoktetes Odysseus plots to fill the gap in Philoktetes' knowledge with a misleading mixture of true and false information, in order to gain control over him and take him to Troy. But no amount of manipulation will gain Philoktetes' consent once the deception has broken down. Philoktetes' control does not last long either, and a higher knowledge makes him change his mind and take his place in the war. In both plays Sophocles directs the audience's attention to the issues of control and manipulation with self-referential touches that heighten the authorial level of response--that level at which the audience is always aware that it is viewing a dramatic performance, no matter how involved it becomes at the narrative level. 201 The presence of a playwright/director who manages the action, designs speeches, and chooses props induces the audience to think about drama while watching a drama. The audience may note, for example, that Odysseus is functioning like a playwright/director when he lays out the deception plot for Neoptolemos. Like the director of a drama, Odysseus clearly wants to achieve certain results, and so the audience's attention is drawn to the means he uses. If Odysseus1 concerns in the Prologue are viewed as the concerns of a playwright laying out a plot, it is clear that they are about what Philoktetes can be allowed to know, what lies he must be told, and what advantage he may be able to get over the plotters if they do not first establish control over the knowledge he gains. The intertextuality of the Elektra directs the audience's thoughts toward other versions of the story and this leads to comparisons. The audience may notice, for example, that Orestes directs that the urn that was only mentioned in Aeschylus' version of the story, will be a physical prop of some importance. Thus when the prop appears, it is prepared to wonder what role it will play in Orestes' overall plan. It will, therefore, be prepared to view possession of the urn as symbolic of being under the control of the false knowledge Orestes has imposed. The audience is alerted by Neoptolemos' lie about Thersites 202 because the lie challenges its memory of the story of Thersites1 death at the hand of Achilles. Thus the question of why Neoptolemos bothers with this lie is raised, and the audience can focus on its importance as a tool in Neoptolemos1 attempt to achieve control over Philoktetes by appealing to his distress over the fact that war seems to kill only the good, an idea that is the basis of the fellow- feeling Neoptolemos wishes to establish with Philoktetes. Sophocles also employs various theatrical conventions in a manner that calls attention to them as conventions. For example, he challenges the audience's knowledge and expectations of dramatic conventions, when he presents a false ending in the Philoktetes and the audience becomes aware of being deliberately misled by its understanding and acceptance of the theatrical convention of the use of a specific verse meter at the end of the play. The understanding of control and the manipulation of knowledge that is brought to light through the self- referential aspects of the plays reaches a climax when the carefully constructed, highly self-referential endings of the two plays point to the futility of such human efforts. The control people can establish can only be temporary or illusory, because however they act, their future is ultimately not under their control. 203 The Philoktetes was produced in 409 B.C., and the Elektra sometime in the 410's B.C. In spite of existing questions about the exact year of production of the Elektra, the two plays most likely were not over ten years apart from each other. Sophocles' elaboration on the intrigue in the Elektra in comparison with the Choephoroi, as well as his extensive treatment of the theme of knowledge in association with intrigue and characters' control of the play's plot in the Philoktetes, reveal the playwright's preoccupation with these issues at this stage of his career. Tragedy, from its very inception, must have reflected the political and intellectual events that surrounded it. In his last plays, however, Sophocles appears to mold his mythic stories to fit the pressures of Athenian life more overtly than his earlier work, says Ringer.1 The use of ko\o<; in service of distortion of truth echoes the demagogues' use of language in Athens after the death of Perikles.2 The demagogues, leaders known as widely practicing deception for their own advantage, often led the state into problems.3 Sophocles' dramatization of the ruthless pursuit of advantage through the intrigue 1 Ringer 1998: 102. 2 On meanings of the term SniJaycoYO? see Ostwald 1986: 201-02; also Yunis 1991: 184. 3 Yunis says that the meaning of the word 5n(jaYcoy6q does not always have negative connotations. Thucydides portrays Kleon to some extent in this light: he describes him as "a demagogue . . .and most persuasive with the masses"(4.21.3). Thucydides does not use these terms in his description of Perikles. See Yunis 1991: 184. 204 reflects the Melian dialogue, as it is documented by Thucydides.4 The conflict of what is just (to Si ' kchov) as opposed to the public interest ( to ^upcpepov) is brought up in the dialogue, as is the nomos-physis polarity.5 "He [Diodotos] envisaged the physis of the allies as making their attempts at revolt inevitable, but the Athenians at Melos think only of the physis of the imperial power: nothing can inhibit it."6 The significance of the use of speech in the Athenian democracy has been emphasized, and so has the importance of the Sophists, who taught young Athenian citizens how to use Xoyoq to their advantage in the pursuit of their political careers.7 The Sophistic movement started in Athens toward the middle of the fifth century and in Kerferd's words, 4"Thucydides bears witness to a change in the role of logos as the war goes on. In the restrained, intelligent demeanor of Pericles, logos does express an ideal (the Funeral Speech), is kept always within the limits of reason, and is strongly opposed to the demagogic npdg ndovriv ti Aey&v of his successors (Thuc. 2.65.8-9). At his death Athens passes, via Cleon and the Myt.ilenean debate, to the Melian Dialogue, where the rational force of logos is incidental to the brute fact of power." See Segal 1966: 533. 5 See Thucydides 5.86, 90, 104; 5.89, 105.4, 107; 5.90, 92, 98,106; 5.91.2, 105.4, 107. "The sophistic cast of the arguments which has long been recognized, suggests that the Athenian representatives belonged to the social milieu that had been schooled by the sophists." See Ostwald 1986: 307. 6 Ostwald 1986: 308-09. 7 As Goldhill notes, "in a society dominated institutionally by the assembly and the law courts, the discussion of the best way to use language (persuasion, argumentation, rhetoric) is an issue of considerable social and political importance, an issue brought 205 the modernity of the range of problems formulated and discussed by the sophists in their teachings is indeed startling, and the following list should speak for itself. First, philosophic problems in the theory of knowledge and perception--the degree to which sense-perceptions are to be regarded as infallible and incorrigible, and the problems that result if such is the case. The nature of truth and above all the relation between what appears and what is real or true. The relation between language, thought and reality . . . Throughout all, two dominant themes-the need to accept relativism, and the belief that there is no area of human life or of the world as a whole which should be immune from understanding achieved through reasoned argument.8 Sokrates applies the Protagorean promise "to make the weaker argument stronger" in Aristophanes' Clouds (ca. 420-419 B.C.). For Protagoras a part of reality can be seen from two different aspects, both valid. And as Goldhill notes, in the public arenas, there develops a sense of possible reversibility or doubleness of arguments which realigns the criteria of truth, probability and proof . . . this sense of doubleness, however, does not result in confusion. The further claim to make the weaker argument the stronger points to the (scandalous) sense of the power of rhetoric to reverse the normal order of things, to use language to get an upper hand. This famous claim of Protagoras . . . stresses that the doubled, opposed logoi also result in the search for control through logos."9 into sharp focus under the pressure of the sophists' new methods of manipulative argumentation." See Goldhill 1986: 1. For studies on the Sophistic movement see Rose 1992, Rankin 1983, Kerferd 1981. For factors contributing to the growth of the movement see Lesky 1966: 341. 8 See Kerferd 1981: 1-2. 206 The control through \oyoqis dramatized in the Elektra and the Philoktetes, where both Orestes and Odysseus plan the intrigue and pursue their goals without regard for the opposite side. Sophocles elaborates on this struggle for control and makes a statement about it in these two intrigue plays. To an extent the self-referentiality of these plays is characteristic of the intrigue play, since intrigue requires plot, and by definition involves deception. But in these two surviving intrigue tragedies Sophocles' extensive treatment of the intrigue and its self-referential effects, enriched with other types of self-reference, points to social issues through the power relationships that the theatrical relationships embody. Sophocles creates a hierarchy involving himself, the audience, and the plays' characters regarding possession of knowledge and the idea of control. The playwright knows more than the plays' audience at any given time, while the play's audience knows more than the internal audience, which knows more than the manipulated characters. The characters who control illusion in a scene are in superior position regarding knowledge. This cognitive discrepancy gives them power and the ability to control others' behavior. Thus, the plays touch issues of cognitive mastery, and raise questions--sometimes disturbing ones-about the world. These plays are about the ability to 9 See Goldhill 1986: 231-32. 207 manipulate the world, and about acquiring power and control through that ability. In the Elektra, by pointedly expanding on the intrigue in comparison with the Choephoroi, by developing it to a successful scheme that occupies the entire play, but by questioning Orestes' control in the end, Sophocles produces a commentary on human limitations. Orestes' control of his plot and accomplishment of his plan may reflect the glory of the city with focus on individual pursuits, but Sophocles' play questions the ultimate outcome of the use of such means. In the Philoktetes, by adding Neoptolemos who denounces the intrigue, and by playing with unexpected shifts of control of the plot till the play's end, Sophocles comments on the limits of human efforts to control the world. The failure of ultimate control of the characters in these plays is similar to the limits on the control that the Greek playwright had over his tragedies. He could, like his characters, send the plot in various directions and even achieve conclusions that seemed to defy the endings dictated by the mythic tradition. In these two intrigue plays Sophocles departed from the myth to great extent. By defying the mythic tradition the playwright shows the extent of his characters' freedom, as well as his own. In both plays he appears to break away from the tradition, but in 208 the very end he brings the audience back to it and draws the limits of the humans' control and freedom, but also of his own control of the plays' plots. The playwright was ultimately limited by the tradition and could only develop ideas and meaning within its boundaries. The issue of control and the manipulation of knowledge in these plays reflects the dilemma that the Greek playwright faced each time he set out to develop his ideas through the balance of innovation and repetition that was his artistic domain. To what extent could he depart from the myth in order to convey meaning? How far could he manipulate the myth? This dilemma is clear, especially in the Philoktetes, where a false ending is enacted before Herakles' appearance. The constraints that the mythic tradition placed on the playwright were, in fact, liberating as well. The playwrights of the inner plays had limited knowledge all along. Sophocles knew what would happen to them in the future and was able to place their actions in a broader context and produce meaning. Ironically, considering the plotters' manipulation of knowledge, both Orestes and Neoptolemos choose to ignore some of the things they know. Orestes ignores the gravity of the crime he must commit in order to fulfill the task of vengeance and, thereby, ignores the possibility of retribution that may follow. Neoptolemos decides to ignore the requirements laid out in the prophecy 209 of Helenos and proceeds to honor Philoktetes' demands to return home on the basis of his individual interest, thereby- ignoring the values of patriotism and duty to the community. In both plays Sophocles, following the myth so well known to the audiences, not only constructed endings that conformed with the myth, but also emphasized that these characters, so skilled in manipulating knowledge, were themselves deceived about the limitations of their own knowledge. The manipulation within the plays finally addresses the question of drama as the means of knowledge. By having his characters use role-playing in the context of intrigue successfully, the playwright displays the power of these means to the audience. To that extent the plays raise the question of the credibility of the knowledge transmitted through a genre in which resolution seeks its way through such questionable means. But in the end resolution does not come about through these means. In the Elektra the success of the intrigue does not lead to a joyous ending, and the audience knows what awaits Orestes. In the Philoktetes nothing is resolved through the play-like intrigue. Resolution is achieved through the higher knowledge that is brought by Herakles. With these highly self-referential endings Sophocles questions the knowledge at the foundation of Orestes' play in the Elektra, and replaces Odysseus' theater with a model of theater that can teach effectively 210 in the Philoktetes. Thus, subtly in the Elektra but explicitly in the Philoktetes, Sophocles makes a statement about his own art by affirming tragedy's validity as an epistemological genre. 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, L. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form. New York: Hill and Wang, 1963. Abrams, M. H. "How to do things with Texts." In Critical Theory since 1965, edited by Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle, 436-449. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida, 1986. Adams, S. M. Sophocles the Playwright. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957. Arnold, P. E. "The Persuasive Style of Debates in Direct Speech in Thucydides." Hermes 12 0 (1992): 44-57. Arnott, W. G. "Double the Vision: A Reading of Euripides' Electra." Greece and Rome 27 (1981): 179-92. Arrowsmith, W., Lattimore, R., Parker, D. Four Plays by Aristophanes. New York: New American Library, 1984. Arthur, M. B. "Early Greece: The Origins of the Western Attitude toward Women." Arethusa 6 (1973): 7-58. Atchity, K. Critical Essays on Homer. Boston, Mass: G. K. Hall, 1987. Avery, H. C. "Heracles, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus." Hermes 93 (1965): 279-97. Bain, D. Actors and Audience: A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. _____. "Some Reflections on the Illusion in Greek Tragedy." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 34 (1987) : 1-14. Batchelder, A. G. The Seal of Orestes: Self-Reference and Authority in Sophocles' Electra. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1995. Biers, W. R. The Archaeology of Greece. Ithaca: Cornell 212 University Press, 1980. Blundell, M. W. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Bond, G. W. "Euripides' Parody of Aeschylus." Hermathena 118 (1974): 1-14. Bowman, L. "Klytaimnestra1s Dream: Prophecy in Sophokles' Elektra." Phoenix 51 (1997): 131-51. Bowra, C. M. Sophoclean Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944 . _____ . Periclean Athens. New York: Dial Press, 1971. Bristol, B. "The Gods in Sophocles." International Meeting of Ancient Greek Drama XIII (1987) : 9-14. Burian, P. "Myth into Muthos: The Shaping of Tragic Plot." In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, edited by P. E.. Easterling, 178-2 08. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Burton, R. W. B. The Chorus in Sophocles' Tragedies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Buxton, R. G. A. Persuasion in Greek Tragedy. A Study of Peitho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Calder III, W. M. "Aeschylus' Philoctetes." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2 (1970): 171-79. _____ . "Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971): 153-74. Cohen, D. "The Theodicy of Aeschylus: Justice and Tyranny in the Oresteia." Greece and Rome 33 (1986): 129-41. Craik, E. M. "Philoctetes: Sophoclean Melodrama." Antiquite Classique 48 (1979): 15-29. Dale, A. M. Collected Papers. Edited by T. B. L. Webster and E. G. Turner. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969 . 213 Davidson, J. F. "Homer and Sophocles' Electra." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 35 (1989) : 45-72. Davies, M. I. "A cup by the Brygos Painter in the Bareiss Collection." Antike Kunst 16 (1973): 60-70. De Bude, G. Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes. Vol. II. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1919. Denniston, J. D. Euripides. Electra. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1954. Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Doherty, L. E. Siren Songs. Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995. Dover, K. Aristophanic Comedy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. _____ . Aristophanes, Frogs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Easterling, P. E. "Character in Sophocles." Greece and Rome 24 (1977): 121-29. _____ . "Philoctetes and Modern Criticism." In Greek Tragedy: Modern Essays in Criticism, edited by Erich Segal, 217-28. New York: Harper and Row, 1983. _____ . "Anachronism in Greek Tragedy." Journal of Hellenic Studies 105 (1985): 1-10. _____ . "Form and Performance." In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, edited by P. E. Easterling, 151-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Falkner, T. M. "Containing Tragedy: Rhetoric and Self- Representation in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Classical Antiquity 17, No.l (1998): 25-58. Farnell, L. R. A Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1961. 214 Fitton Brown, A. D. "The Recognition Scene in the Choephoroi." Revue des Etudes Grecques 74 (1961) : 363- 70 . Foley, H. P. "The Masque of Dionysus." Transactions of the American Philological Association 110 (1980) : 107- 33 . Gardiner, C. P., The Sophoclean Chorus. A Study of Character and Function. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987. Garner, R. From Homer to Tragedy: The Art of Allusion in Greek Poetry. London: Routledge, 1990. Garvie, A. F. "Deceit, Violence, and Persuasion in the Philoctetes." Studi Classici in Onore di Quintino Cataudella 1 (1972): 213-26. _____. Aeschylus. Choephori. With Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Gellie, G. H. Sophocles. A Reading. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1972. Gentili, B. Theatrical Performances in the Ancient World. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1979. Gill, C. "Bow, Oracle, and Epiphany in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Greece and Rome 21 (1980): 137-46. Goff, B. E. "The Sign of the Fall: The Scars of Orestes and Odysseus." Classical Antiquity 10 (1991): 259-67. Goldhill, S. Reading Greek Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. _____. The Poet's Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Gomme, A. W. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1956. Gould, J. P. "Hiketeia." Journal of Hellenic Studies XCIII (1973) : 74-103. 215 _____ . "Homeric Epic and Tragic Moment." In Aspects of the Epic, edited by T. Winnifrith, P. Murray, K. W. Gransden, 32-45. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983. Graeser, A. "On Language, Thought, and Reality in Ancient Greek Philosophy." Dialectics 31 (1977): 359-88. Grene D., Lattimore R. The Complete Greek Tragedies. Sophocles II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957 . Greengard, C. Theater in Crisis: Sophocles' Reconstruction of Genre and Politics in Philoctetes. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1987. Grote, D. A. "Electra or Chrysothemis: the Assignment of Sophocles' Electra 428-30." Classical Journal 86 (1991): 139-43. Grote, G. History of Greece. Vol VIII. London: J. Murray, 1883 . Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press, 1969. Hagen, U. Respect for Acting. 10th print. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979. Halporn, J. W. "The Sceptical Electra." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 87 (1983): 101-18. Hamilton, R. "Neoptolemos1 Story in the Philoctetes." American Journal of Philology 96 (1975): 131-37. Han, P. "Recognition in the Odyssey." Revue Beige de Philologie et d' Histoire 59 (1981) 50-55. Harsh, P. W. "The Role of the Bow in the Philoctetes of Sophocles." American Journal of Philology 81 (1960) : 408-14. Henrichs, A. "Why should I Dance?: Choral Self- Ref erentiality in Greek Tragedy." Arion 3 (1994-95): 56-111. 216 Hester, D. A. "Some Deceptive Oracles." Antichthon 15 (1981) : 15-25. Hinds, A. E. "The prophecy of Helenus in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Classical Quarterly 17 (1967) : 169-80. Hoppin, M.C. "What Happens in Sophocles' Philoctetes?" Traditio 37 (1981): 1-30. Hornby, R. Drama, Metadrama, and Perception. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1986. Horsley, G. H. R. "Apollo in Sophocles' Electra." Antichthon 14 (1980): 18-29. Hude, C. Thucydidis Historiae. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1903. Hunter, V. "Thucydides, Gorgias, and Mass Psychology." Hermes 114 (1986): 412-29. Irigoin, J. "Structure et Composition des Tragedies de Sophocle." In Sophocle, edited by Bernard Knox and Jacqueline de Romilly, 39-76. Entretiens sur 1' Antiquite Classique 29. Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1982. Iser, W. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1978. Jebb, R. C. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part IV. The Philoctetes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898. _____ . Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments. Part VI. The Electra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907. Kamerbeek, J. C. The Plays of Sophocles. Part V. The Electra. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. _____ . The Plays of Sophocles. Part VI. The Philoctetes. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. Kells, J. H. Sophocles. Electra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. 217 Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. London: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Kirkwood, G. M. A Study of Sophoclean Drama. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958. Kitto, H. D. F. Greek Tragedy. A Literary Study. 3rd ed. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1961. Kott, J. The Eating of the Gods: An Interpretation of Greek Tragedy. New York: Random House, 1973. Kitzinger, R. "Why Mourning Becomes Elektra?" Classical Antiquity 10, No.2 (1991): 298-327. Knox, B. W. The Heroic Temper. Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964 . _____. "Sophocles and the Polis." In Sophocle, edited by Bernard Knox and Jacqueline de Romilly, 1-37. Entretiens sur 1' Antiquite Classique 29. Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1982. Lattimore, R. Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1964. Lefkowitz, M. R. "'Impiety' and 'Atheism' in Euripides1 Dramas." Classical Quarterly 39 (1989): 70-82. Lesky, A. A History of Greek Literature. Translated by James Willis and Cornells de Heer. New York: Crowell, 1966. _____. Greek Tragedy. Translated by H. A. Frankfort. 3rd ed. London: E. Benn, 1978. Linforth, I. M. "Philoctetes: The Play and the Man." University of California Publications in Classical Philology 15, No. 3, (1956): 95-155. Lloyd, G. E. R. Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Lloyd-Jones, H., Wilson, N. G. Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxford: 218 Clarendon Press, 1990. Lloyd, M. "Realism and Character in Euripides' Electra." Phoenix 40 (1986): 1-19. _____ . The Agon in Euripides. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 . Long, A. A. Language and Thought in Sophocles. London: Athlone Press, 1968. MacCary, W. T. Childlike Achilles. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. MacDowell, D. M. Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. Bristol: Bristol Classical, 1982. Markantonatos, G. "Dramatic Irony in the Electra of Sophocles." Platon 28 (1976): 147-50. Marshall, P. K. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. McDevitt, A. S. "Shame, Honour and the Hero in Sophocles' Electra." Antichthon 17 (1983): 1-12. McGregor, M. F. The Athenians and their Empire. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Macleod, C. Collected Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983 . Marchant, E. C. Thucydides. Book II. London: Macmillan, 1961. Martin, R. P. The Language of Heroes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Meiggs, R. The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972 . Mittelstadt, M. C. "The Thucydidean Tragic View: The Moral Implications." Ramus 14 (1985): 59-73. Nauck, A. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragments. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1889. 219 Nelson, R, J. Play within a Play. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. Olson, S. D. "Politics and the lost Euripidean Philoctetes." Hesperia 60, No.2 (1991): 269-83. Ostwald, M. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Owen, M. A. "The Date of the Electra of Sophocles." In Greek Poetry and Life. Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Cyril Bailey, E. A. Barber, C. M. Bowra, J. D. Denniston, and D. L. Page, 145-57. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967 . Podlecki, A. J. "The Power of the Word in Sophocles' PhiloctetesGreek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 7 (1966) : 233-50. Poe, J. P. "Heroism and Divine Justice in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Mnemosyne Supplement 34 (1974): 1-51. Post, L. A. "Sophocles, Strategy, and the Electra." Classical Weekly 46 (1953): 150-53. Rabinowitz, N. S. "Aphrodite and the Audience: Engendering the Reader." Arethusa 19 (1986): 171-85. Rabinowitz, P. J. "Shifting Stands, Shifting Standards: Reading, Interpretation, and Literary Judgment." Arethusa 19 (1986): 115-33. Rankin, H. D. Sophists, Socratics and Cynics. London: Croom Helm, 1983. Reinhardt, K. Sophokles. Translated by Basil Blackwell. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1979. Ringer, M. Electra and the Empty Urn: Metatheater and Role Playing in Sophocles. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998. 220 Roberts, D. H. "Apollo and his Oracle in the Oresteia." Hypomnemata 78 (1984): 1-136. _____. "Parting Words: Final Lines in Sophocles and Euripides." Classical Quarterly 37 (1987): 51-64. _____. "Different Stories: Sophoclean Narrative(s) in the Philoctetes." Transactions of the American Philological Association 119 (1989): 161-76. Rose, P. W. "Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Teachings of the Sophists." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976): 49-105. _____. Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth. Ithaca: Cornell Universtiy Press, 1992. Rousseau, G. S. "Dream and Vision in Aeschylus' Oresteia." Arion 2 (1963): 101-36. Rusten, J. S. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Book II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Schein, S. L. "Electra. A Sophoclean Problem Play." Antike und Abendland 28 (1982): 69-80. Schmeling, M. Metatheatre et Intertexte. Aspects du Theatre dans le Theatre. Paris: Lettres Modernes, 1982. Seale, D. "The Element of Surprise in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Bulletin of Institute of Classical Studies 19 (1972): 94-102. _____. Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Segal, C. P. "Gorgias and the Psychology of Logos." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 66 (1962) : 99- 155 . _____. "The Electra of Sophocles." Transactions of the American Philological Association 97 (1966) : 473-545. _____. "The two Worlds of Euripides' Helen." Transactions of the American Philological Association 102 (1971): 221 553-614. . "Philoctetes and the Imperishable Piety." Hermes 105 (1977): 133-58. _____ . "Visual Symbolism and Visual Effects in Sophocles." Classical World 74 (1980-81): 125-42. _____ . Tragedy and Civilization. An Interpretation of Sophocles. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981. _____ . Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides' Bacchae. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. _____ . "Tragedy, Corporeality, and the Texture of Language: Matricide in the Three Electra Plays." Classical World 79, No.1 (1985): 7-23. _____ . Interpreting Greek Tragedy. Myth, Poetry, Text. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. Segal, E. Euripides. A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968. . Greek Tragedy. Modern Essays in Criticism. New York: Harper and Row, 1983. Sifakis, G. M. Parabasis and Animal Choruses. London: Athlone Press, 1971. Slater, N. Plautus in Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. _____ . "The Idea of the Actor." In Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, edited by John J. Winkler and Froma Zeitlin, 385-96. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Snell, B. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1959. Solmsen, F. Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975 . 222 Stanford, W. B. The Ulysses Theme. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968. Stanislavski, C. Creating a Role. Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. 7th print. New York: Theatre Art Books, 1978. _____ . An Actor Prepares. Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. 32nd print. New York: Theatre Art Books, 1979 . Stevens, J. C. "The Wound of Philoctetes." Mnemosyne 48, fasc.2 (1995): 153-168. Stinton, T. C. W. Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Styan, J. L. Drama, Stage and Audience. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Taplin, O. "Significant Actions in Sophocles' Philoctetes." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971): 25-44. _____ . "Did Greek Dramatists Write Stage Directions?" Proceedings of Cambridge Philological Society 2 3 (1977) : 121-32. _____ . Greek Tragedy in Action. London: Methuen, 1978. _____ . "Sophocles in his Theatre." In Sophocle, edited by Bernard Knox and Jacqueline de Romilly, 155-83. Entretiens sur I1 Antiquite Classique 29. Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1982. _____ . "Fifth-Century Tragedy and Comedy: A Synkrisis." Journal of Hellenic Studies 106 (1986): 163-74. _____ . "The Mapping of Sophocles' Philoctetes." Bulletin of Institute of Classical Studies 34 (1987) : 69-77. Tarkow, T. A. "The scar of Orestes: Observations on a Euripidean Innovation." Rheinisches Museum fuer Philologie 124 (1981): 143-53. Thucydides. Thucydides. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919-23. 223 Thury, E. M. "Euripides' Electra: An Analysis through Character Development." Rheinisches Museum fuer Philologie 128 (1985): 5-22. Torrance R. M. "Sophocles: Some Bearings." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 69 (1965) : 269-327. Tracy, S. V. The Story of the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Verdenius, W. J. "Gorgias' Doctrine of Deception." The Sophists and their Legacy, edited by G. B. Kerferd. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1981. Vernant, J. P., Vidal-Naquet P. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece. New York: Zone Books, 1988. Waldock, A. J. A. Sophocles the Dramatist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Walsh, G. B. The Varieties of Enchantment. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Webster, T. B. L. The Tragedies of Euripides. London: Methuen, 1967. _. An Introduction to Sophocles. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1969. _. Sophocles. Philoctetes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Whitby, M. "Telemachus Transformed? The Origins of Neoptolemus in Sophocles' PhiloctetesGreece and Rome 43, No. 1 (1996): 31-42. Whitehorne, J. E. G. "The Ending of Euripides' Electra." Revue Beige de Philologie et d' Histoire 56 (1978) : 5- 14 . Whitman, C. H. Sophocles. A Study of Heroic Humanism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951. Williams, D. "Ajax, Odysseus and the Arms of Achilles." Antike Kunst 23, No.l (1980): 137-45. 224 Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin F. I. eds. Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Winnifrith, T., Murray, P., Gransden, K. W. Aspects of the Epic. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983. Winnington-Ingram, R. P. Sophocles. An Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. _. "The Electra of Sophocles: Prolegomena to an Interpretation." In Greek Tragedy: Modern Essays in Criticism, edited by Erich Segal, 210-16. New York: Harper and Row, 1983. Woodard, T. M. "Electra by Sophocles: The Dialectical Design." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 68 (1964): 163-205. _. "Electra by Sophocles: The Dialectical Design (Part II)." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 70 (1965) : 195-233. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. "The Influence of Rhetoric on Fourth-Century Tragedy." Classical Quarterly 2 9 (1979): 66-76. Yunis, H. "How do the People Decide? Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction." American Journal of Philology 112 (1991): 179-200. Zeitlin, F. I. "The Closet of Masks: Role-Playing and Myth- Making in the Orestes of Euripides." Ramus 9 (1980): 51-77. _____ . "Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality, and the Feminine in Greek Drama." In Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, edited by John J. Winkler and Froma Zeitlin, 63-96. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. 225

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

PDF

Thebais rescriptrix: Rewriting and closure in Statius' "Thebaid" 12

PDF

Antigone: A study in critical method

PDF

Religion and politics in Aristophanes' "Clouds"

PDF

Forma orbis: Geography, ethnography and shaping the Roman Empire

PDF

Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

PDF

Reflexive politics: Cicero's relationship with the Roman voters

PDF

The centrality of the peripheral: Illuminating borders and the topography of space in medieval narrative and art, 1066-1400

PDF

Pasternak's Verlaine: The translations as transcripts of influence

PDF

The art of 'la fuga': Mythic and musical modes in relation to the theme of identity in Alejo Carpentier's "Los pasos perdidos"

PDF

The Mercury-Augustus identification.

PDF

Queer pasts now: Historical fiction in lesbian, bisexual, and gay film

PDF

The technoscape in the modern novel: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The First Circle" and Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man"

PDF

The Nine Songs: A reexamination of shamanism in ancient China

PDF

She's nothing: Gender and representation in Catullus and elegy

PDF

Beyond clowns and kings: Aesthetic and ideological subversion in baroque tragicomedy

PDF

The 'Diegeseis' of Konon: a commentary with an English translation

PDF

"A broken bundle of mirrors": Identity in the work of John Barth

PDF

The legislation of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and Gaius Servilius Glaucia

PDF

Ovid's musomachy

Asset Metadata

Creator Papoutsaki, Alexandra (author)

Core Title Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag literature, classical,OAI-PMH Harvest,theater history

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-687124

Unique identifier UC11343536

Identifier DP22305.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-687124 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22305.pdf

Dmrecord 687124

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Papoutsaki, Alexandra

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA