THE PROLOGUE: ODYSSEUS’ DECEPTION ON THE AXIS OF MÊTIS VERSUS BIÊ

The character of Odysseus draws heavily on its Homeric depiction in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Footnote ¹ From the opening lines, he is presented as an advocate of dolos, who disregards heroic values in order to achieve his aim. Odysseus’ main premise is that everything is acceptable if Troy is to fall—an approach which resonates with the πολύτροπος Odysseus familiar from Homer, whose renown and trickery reach the heavens.Footnote ²

Yet the celebrated practitioner of μήτις, despite his well-thought approach laid out in the prologue, is foiled by external forces, namely Philoctetes’ stubbornness and Neoptolemus’ inability to keep up with the agreed δόλος, thus leading him to leave the stage defeated before the resolution brought about by the epiphany of Heracles. Such a depiction is not only uncharacteristic of Odysseus, but also unique within the whole set of narratives concerned with the hero.Footnote ³ This novel aspect of Odysseus’ characterization might be due to Sophocles’ will to innovate the archetypical trickster of Greek tradition by having him defeated in his own plan. This interpretation, however, would cast doubt to the value of the plan itself: one would expect the wily Odysseus to be able to predict Neoptolemus’ choice to follow his nature as Odysseus himself also asserts (φύσει, 79). We are faced, however, with a different approach by the dramatist, one in which Odysseus’ plan succeeds in its entirety and his μήτις proves to have been on the mark all along.

Neoptolemus’ insistence on force instead of cunning, already from his first reaction, evokes and revives the old prominent debate in the epic tradition as to which one is to be preferred,Footnote ⁴ a contrast exemplified in Homer precisely through the juxtaposition of Odysseus and Achilles. The famous passages from Iliad 19 and Odyssey 8, both concerned with the direct comparison of the two heroes, spell it out most clearly,Footnote ⁵ but its existence and importance can be found in many other places in the two epics as well as the Cyclic tradition.Footnote ⁶ By bringing it to the forefront already from the opening lines of his play, Sophocles must have made the audience aware of this main dichotomy around which the plot revolves. If we follow the thread of the juxtaposition between μήτις and βίη we notice an interesting pattern: the play opens with Odysseus as the unambiguous advocate of cunning; Philoctetes, he says, cannot be brought by force or persuasion, so the only valid option is deception. Neoptolemus struggles with the idea and proposes force as the only honourable solution, but is soon convinced by Odysseus to abandon his heroic ideals for a higher cause. Odysseus himself, however, achieves the desired result by alluding to the fulfilment of these same ideals,Footnote ⁷ thus persuading the young man to temporarily abandon his heroic aspirations only to reclaim them tenfold later: μήτις has just scored the first point over βίη. As the plot develops, however, we seem to witness a shift in Odysseus’ position, who is portrayed as gradually moving from advocating δόλος to embodying violence;Footnote ⁸ to begin with, the False Merchant describes the hero as ‘the might of Odysseus’ (ἡ … Ὀδυσσέως βία, 592) when he informs Neoptolemus that Odysseus is on his way to get Philoctetes, hinting at the method that the hero is going to adopt: he will drag Philoctetes to Troy by force; a course of action far removed from the opening rhetoric of the prologue. When Odysseus finally rejoins the action after Neoptolemus’ apparent change of heart and the subsequent failure of the original plan it causes, his violent inclinations materialize unexpectedly on the scene in his final exchange with the young hero (Philoctetes 1250–6):

The plot has come full circle: Odysseus threatens Neoptolemus, subtly first, openly in the end, with violence if he does not follow through with the initial plan. What is the audience to make of this change? One explanation would be that Odysseus, faced with the utter and unexpected failure of his plan, turns to intimidation tactics as a final resort. As Roisman has noticed, that would be reasonable, yet deeply uncharacteristic of the hero’s reputation as the master planner, and most importantly of Sophocles’ treatment of the character in Ajax,Footnote ¹⁰ where the hero’s plan reaches its fruition, as in every other instance in Greek literature, even at the expense of ethical concerns. We have, therefore, to come up with a better solution that does not upset the reputation surrounding the hero so radically and at the same time allows us to read the text as a consistent whole.

Such a solution can be found if we take a step back and look at the play as a monumental testament to Odysseus’ cunning, an exemplification of his ability to deceive not only all the other characters, but also the audience. If we consider every scene of the action as directed not by Sophocles, but by Odysseus himself, a surprisingly intricate but consistent picture emerges. In this reading we have to begin from the assumption that Odysseus is always in control of the action, whether he is actually on stage or not—something that we should expect if his opening statement is valid. The way to achieve this is twofold: first Odysseus must be eavesdropping when not on stage, and second, the hero must take every opportunity to be physically present in the action by making use of his most identifiable traits, μήτις and deception. The first proposition can only be a plausible hypothesis as there is no way to know whether Sophocles intends for his audience to suppose that the hero is lying somewhere behind the stage following the action. For instance, the fact that Odysseus claims that he will send one of his men if too much time passes without a result in view (ἐάν μοι τοῦ χρόνου δοκῆτέ τι | κατασχολάζειν, 126–7) could indicate that he follows, hidden, the conversation between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes, and decides to intervene at the appropriate moment; but it could also simply mean that Odysseus will act solely on account of how much time has passed. The second proposition, however, can be proven, through the text and the way the action develops, if we suppose that Odysseus does not miss the opportunity to be on stage in disguise, that is, as the False Merchant and as Heracles, at what I argue, following Errandonea,Footnote ¹¹ is a false deus ex machina scene. As Roisman and others have argued,Footnote ¹² such an attitude would be in accordance with Odysseus’ cunning nature and would also remove the problems caused by the ultimate failure of the hero’s, otherwise always infallible, plans. In what follows, I focus on the False Merchant and epiphany scenes, to show their integral role in the action of the play and, more importantly, in the fulfilment of Odysseus’ original plan in the prologue.

THE FALSE MERCHANT SCENE: HELENUS’ PROPHECY

The merchant scene has posed a serious interpretational challenge, particularly in terms of its function within the plot.Footnote ¹³ Although the scene is already anticipated in the prologue, it has been argued that it does not appear to fulfil the aims that are laid out there, or indeed to further the plot in any significant way.Footnote ¹⁴ In the beginning of the play, while instructing Neoptolemus, Odysseus informed the young hero that in case the task of acquiring Philoctetes’ bow is not accomplished within a reasonable time, he will send one of the sailors disguised as a merchant to assist Neoptolemus and speed up the process (126–31). Once Neoptolemus meets Philoctetes it takes him only 222 lines to convince the old hero of his good intentions by relaying his hatred for the Achaean leaders and Odysseus in particular, and offer to take him back on board, to which Philoctetes agrees gratefully and enthusiastically. With this Neoptolemus’ mission appears to have been accomplished, at least in terms of the goals that Odysseus had set in the prologue, and yet it is precisely at this point that the merchant appears. How are we to understand this intervention? The suggestion that the scene could be just a filler evidently would not do justice to Sophocles’ masterpiece, and more importantly it would damage the integrity of the plot. Therefore, we should consider the scene as an integral part of the Sophoclean plot, that is, as indeed promoting the action towards a resolution that would not have been possible without it.

Such an approach is justified by the fact that Sophocles has Odysseus announce the likely arrival of the merchant in the beginning of the play, thus hinting towards the fact that the meeting is a part of the hero’s masterplan regardless of how the action develops. To begin with, the only pieces of information that the merchant brings to the table are, first, that the Achaeans are sending two missions to fetch by force Neoptolemus and Philoctetes; and second, that this is due to the fact that Odysseus has captured the seer Helenus who informed the Achaeans that for Troy to fall Philoctetes has to come with his bow voluntarily. The mention of the missions could be understood as putting extra pressure on Philoctetes to speed up the departure from Lemnos even more. Yet this alone cannot justify the scene, since as we have seen, the pair had already agreed on leaving the island as soon as possible. It is the second piece of information, concerning Helenus’ prophecy that adds something significant to the action: Philoctetes has to come voluntarily and therefore not to simply be deceived, for Troy to finally fall.Footnote ¹⁵ The explanation of the merchant that the Achaeans would not be able to capture Troy unless they convince Philoctetes ‘with words’ to rejoin the expedition (ὡς οὐ μή ποτε | πέρσοιεν, εἰ μὴ τόνδε πείσαντες λόγῳ, 611–12) highlights the necessity for a stratagem that excludes not only violence, but also outright deception.Footnote ¹⁶ In this sense, it appears to contradict Odysseus’ initial plan of deceiving the hero and simply acquiring his bow on two levels: first, Philoctetes is also needed, hence the statement that the bow would be enough is either erroneous or an intentional lie; and second, Philoctetes has to be persuaded for the plan to work, which makes any schemes containing deception (as in the prologue) or violence (as in the merchant’s warning or the exodos) obsolete.

If we are to understand the merchant scene as indispensable for Sophocles’ plot, then the next question we need to answer is in what precise way it alters the action and promotes the plot towards its final resolution. Our focus should be on the new information the False Merchant provides Neoptolemus and Philoctetes with, since therein should logically lie the key to answering the above questions. Let us first imagine how the plot would have continued without that information: Philoctetes and Neoptolemus would go back to the latter’s ship, and at some point, the twofold deception of Odysseus would be revealed. First, Philoctetes would realize that he is in fact sailing towards Troy and not home, and second, Neoptolemus would find out that the old hero is equally needed for the capture of the city, and to make things worse that he has to be persuaded to join in before arriving there, according to the prophecy. These are realistically difficult problems to solve even for one as resourceful as Odysseus, who would find himself having to manage the serious grievances of both heroes, and what is more with pressure of time piling up during the already problematic sail to Troy.Footnote ¹⁷ The text gives us a glimpse of how quickly things can get out of hand with Philoctetes, once the hero realizes he is being deceived: his threat of onstage suicide in 999–1002 is quite substantial and leads to swift action on behalf of Odysseus in order to be prevented (ξυλλάβετον αὐτόν· μὴ ᾽πὶ τῷδ᾽ ἔστω τάδε, 1003). One can only imagine how much more difficult it would be to manage a completely disillusioned Philoctetes on board towards Troy, with the added issue of managing a tricked Neoptolemus on top—a problematic situation indeed. But even if we were to imagine that Odysseus’, or Sophocles’, resourcefulness would be enough to find a way out of this labyrinth of issues, the point will still be moot, since the action will inevitably have to transgress the constraints of the Sophoclean stage. Sophocles therefore has to find a solution to those issues before they get out of hand and within the dramatic action of his play, and this is precisely what the False Merchant scene begins to set in motion.

By having the merchant reveal the truth at this stage, Sophocles achieves two goals at once: first he moves the action away from the original plan/deception of Odysseus, thus subtly informing Neoptolemus of the real plan. And second, he creates the necessary tension between Philoctetes and the young hero which will lead to the eventual change of heart of the latter. We could therefore see an extraordinary level of foresight displayed by Odysseus, who realizes that the difficult part is not to convince Neoptolemus to act out of character, or even to deceive Philoctetes and separate him from his bow, but rather to succeed in bringing them both voluntarily in the Achaean camp. Seen from this angle, Odysseus’ plan could be sketched out as containing the following stages:

1. 1. Odysseus convinces Neoptolemus to trick Philoctetes and acquire his bow. The aim of this part is to anticipate the crisis in the young hero’s psyche, caused by the theft and from acting out of heroic character.

2. 2. Odysseus interferes with the merchant scene and adds new information regarding the objectives of the mission. The new knowledge regarding the necessity of Philoctetes’ voluntary participation nullifies Neoptolemus’ success so far, yet the hero sticks to the plan as instructed in the prologue and proceeds to steal, temporarily, the bow. It would be, after all, beyond Neoptolemus’ capabilities to convince Philoctetes through logos, this being the field of Odysseus.

3. 3. Odysseus interferes again, this time as himself, and introduces the threat of violence. We have already seen that such a threat carries no weight; therefore, its use mainly serves to strengthen the ties of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes, and most importantly give the impression that Odysseus is defeated and permanently removed from the action.

4. 4. Heracles interferes with his epiphany and convinces Philoctetes and Neoptolemus to sail together to Troy. The objectives of the mission are thus achieved, and no irreconcilable conflict arises. In light of the discussion above, the final scene must be considered part of the Odyssean plan, and thus facilitated by the hero himself.

If the above conception is correct, then the False Merchant scene is indispensable for the Odyssean plan, and the Sophoclean plot, since without it the whole stratagem cannot work. That is, since we have to assume that Odysseus cannot realistically expect Neoptolemus to either succeed in convincing Philoctetes, or even agree to undertake such a task in the first place. And yet, his participation in the plan is imperative, as it is through him that Philoctetes, the hero who resembles more a wild animal than a man,Footnote ¹⁸ becomes accessible, and through the pathos of their conflict and reconciliation, that the two can in the end be overwhelmed by the staged epiphany of Heracles. Such a plan would require Odysseus to act in secret all relevant roles, and Sophocles gives us enough to suppose that this is indeed the case.

THE FALSE MERCHANT SCENE: ODYSSEAN HIDE AND SEEK?

The Prologue concludes with Odysseus informing Neoptolemus that he will be leaving the stage in order not to be seen by Philoctetes, and he will also be sending the sailor, who has been on stage as a silent character, back to the ship, only to direct him back to the stage in disguise, if he judges that more than enough time has passed (Philoctetes 123–34):

The scene described by Odysseus will include all three actors: Neoptolemus, Philoctetes and the merchant who will inevitably be played by the same actor who plays Odysseus.Footnote ¹⁹ On this point, Roisman argues that it would be natural for Sophocles to present the merchant as a disguised Odysseus,Footnote ²⁰ thus allowing the character to be in control of the action by following it silently behind or next to the scene, and interfering when he feels necessary by donning the mask of the merchant, either while being seen or not by the audience.Footnote ²¹ Such a development is not only natural, but also anticipated through the words of Odysseus and the initial discussion of Neoptolemus with Philoctetes, both of which recall the epic archetype of the hero.

To begin with, Odysseus tells Neoptolemus that the sailor who will intervene will be speaking in an elaborate manner (130: ποικίλως αὐδωμένου).Footnote ²² How are we to understand this? Is ‘elaborate’ supposed to be taken as ‘lying’, ‘cunning’, or simply as a reference to rhetorical ability? Looking at the merchant’s speech we can see that it does all of the above: he lies about the two missions directed towards the reacquisition of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes; he employs devices that create suspense before revealing relevant information; and finally he pretends to hide his words from Philoctetes, thus increasing the hero’s anticipation and anxiety and leading Neoptolemus to request that he speaks openly for all to hear (580–1). To strengthen this point, in Homer Odysseus is closely associated with the adjective ποικίλος, in effect conveying the hero’s most well-known characteristic: his cunning. Odysseus is called ποικιλομήτης seven times in the Odyssey, and the epithet appears to be used stably in the epic tradition for the hero, referring only to him and occupying almost always the last metrical position of the line.Footnote ²³ The mention therefore of the merchant who will be speaking ποικίλως could not but recall in the audience’s mind the Homeric image of Odysseus, the only hero of Greek literature who was known to think, speak and act in a ποικίλως manner.Footnote ²⁴ Consequently, we can assume with a good degree of safety that what is at best a subtle reference for us would have been an evident hint by Sophocles to his audience regarding the true identity of the False Merchant: a man who speaks ποικίλα and whose exchange with Neoptolemus recalls the exchange of Odysseus with Achilles in the embassy of Iliad 9.

What is more, the arrival of Odysseus appears to be hinted upon in the early dialogue between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes, which circles naturally around the unjust appropriation of the arms of Achilles by Odysseus, an event firmly based within the epic tradition and with many repercussions, some of which are even echoed in Homer.Footnote ²⁵ The young hero informs Philoctetes as to how disappointed he was to find out by the Atreides that he will not be inheriting the arms of his father since Odysseus has already claimed them—Neoptolemus of course objected; however, Odysseus, who ‘happened to be nearby’ (πλησίον γὰρ ὢν κυρεῖ, 371) and had remained inconspicuous and anonymous until this very moment, interrupts the exchange of the hero with the Atreides and reasserts his right to the arms of Achilles. Whether or not Neoptolemus’ story has any base in reality, and there is no reason to believe that it does not reflect the hero’s genuine resentment for events past,Footnote ²⁶ its function is to anticipate Odysseus’ behaviour in the action to come by recalling his past modus operandi: the hero lies still, practically unseen, until it is necessary to reveal himself, disrupt the course of events around him and turn it to his advantage. And of course, both examples refer to Odysseus’ claim to someone else’s famous arms, Achilles’ in the past, Philoctetes’ in the present. That the hero has a talent in claiming and winning other peoples’ arms is also hinted upon in Neoptolemus’ comment to Philoctetes’ amazement that, despite his malignant nature, Odysseus is still alive unlike so many other brave Achaeans: ‘he is a wise wrestler’ (σοφὸς παλαιστὴς κεῖνος, 431). The image of Odysseus as a wrestler is indeed a traditionally loaded one, as it recalls not only the notorious contest with Ajax for the arms of Achilles, in which suspicions regarding Odysseus’ conduct abounded in antiquity,Footnote ²⁷ but also directly references his wrestling match, again with Ajax, at the funeral games of Patroclus where Achilles intervenes before Odysseus prevails due to his δόλος (δόλου δ᾽ οὐ λήθετ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς, Il. 23.725) despite Ajax’s obvious superiority.Footnote ²⁸ It should come therefore as no surprise that the ‘wise wrestler’ is lurking nearby according to his custom, ready to interfere when the action requires it, mirroring point by point his behaviour in Neoptolemus’ story about the arms of his father.

Turning now to the merchant’s speech we can detect in the general language and expressions used some elements that seem to further hint to Odysseus hiding behind the mask. First thing to note is the merchant’s insistence on Odysseus’ absolute confidence in the success of the mission and in particular in his own ability to bring it to fulfilment (Philoctetes 615–19):

The key phrase here is the one highlighted above: Odysseus believed that it was within his power to take Philoctetes back to Troy willingly, the enjambed afterthought on the possible use of violence remaining just that, an afterthought. Odysseus’ confidence is such, the merchant tells us, that the hero even promised to have his head cut off if he failed. Such bragging would not only be fitting in the mouth of a disguised Odysseus, re-enforcing his belief in his ability to carry through the difficult task at hand, but it would also strengthen the link with the notorious embassy scene of Book 9 of the Iliad where the same confidence in the hero’s abilities to sway Achilles is expressed (Ὀδυσσῆϊ δὲ μάλιστα, | πειρᾶν ὡς πεπίθοιεν ἀμύμονα Πηλεΐωνα, 9.180–1).Footnote ²⁹ The hero therefore reminds himself and his audience of the inevitable success of his endeavour, something confirmed also by the outcome of the play when Philoctetes does indeed come along willingly, while Sophocles continuously maintains the Homeric parallel in his audience’s minds. Odysseus proves in fact capable of getting his prey at the end, just as he did with Helenus whom he presented as a θήραν καλήν (609) to the Achaeans, foreshadowing in a sense the presentation of Philoctetes to the very same Achaeans upon the completion of his mission.Footnote ³⁰

THE ‘EPIPHANY’ OF HERACLES

The deus ex machina employed at the end of the play, the only one in fact in the extant plays of Sophocles that we have, includes a certain amount of awkwardness.Footnote ³¹ Differently from the definition of the deus ex machina as we know it from Euripides, in Sophocles’ Philoctetes there are certain issues that can make an attentive member of the audience raise an eyebrow. One such issue is the abrupt arrival of the god, which as Thévenet, following Jebb, has observed,Footnote ³² would create several staging issues relating to the possible speed with which the god could be raised above the scene—not an unsurpassable obstacle in its own right, but certainly a departure from the deus ex machina standard as we know it from Euripides.Footnote ³³ And yet the main problem appears to move away from the practicalities of staging and towards the perceived clumsiness of the scene in terms of plot and character development—we are faced again, it seems, with the same question that confronted us during the False Merchant scene: how could all this make sense to the members of the audience or the modern critic? Philoctetes and Neoptolemus have after all made a pact and are about to depart for mainland Greece, motivated by their shared hatred of Odysseus and the Achaean practices at Troy. How can we expect them, particularly Philoctetes, to change their minds completely after a mere thirty-six lines by Heracles?Footnote ³⁴ And yet they do, without questions or even amazement, besides Philoctetes’ emotive reception of the god in lines 1445–7, who remarks for how long he has missed the sight of his once good friend—but does not question ‘why now’? Where has Heracles been all these years? No sudden or resentful reaction, but instead the infinite gratitude that relief brings to any long-suffering human being. And this is the point: the psychological state of both heroes has reached a breaking point throughout the play with the result that it completely collapses at the hint of a divine solution to what has been a mortal problem of heroic interrelations. Unlike in the Euripidean examples we know of, no significant action has taken place on stage, such as the murder of Helen, the mangling of Hippolytus, etc., to justify a swift resolution from an objective dead end. Rather, the only thing that has happened is an unprecedent and masterful psychological warfare directed first at Neoptolemus and ultimately at Philoctetes. Hence when Heracles appears, immediately after Philoctetes has mentioned his famous arrows as his and Neoptolemus’ only defence (βέλεσι τοῖς Ἡρακλέους, 1406), both heroes simply surrender with gratitude to what they perceive as the divine will of Zeus, having finally found a way out of their self-imposed heroic conundrum of defending their honour or upholding their grudge.

Again, the fact that dramatic convention requires Heracles to be played by the same actor that plays Odysseus, in combination with the above difficulties, has led some, including Roisman and Errandonea,Footnote ³⁵ to suggest that it is indeed the hero hiding behind the divine mask. In light of the discussion above, that is the only option that can tie the plot together and lead it to an Odyssean resolution, effectively weaving a long and elaborate encomium, as it were, for the hero’s dolos. The absence of Odysseus from the scene, but most importantly the total absence of a mention of his name in Heracles’ speech seems to suggest as much—Heracles’ epiphany brings indeed a resolution to the Achaean problem of taking Troy, but does not address in any way the internal issues arising from the play: are the intense hatred of Philoctetes and the increasing resentment of Neoptolemus suddenly completely irrelevant? Perhaps they are in view of the greater goal of capturing Troy. However, this mentality seems to align perfectly with that of Odysseus at the beginning of the play, that is, nothing matters unless Troy falls: honour and justice can be restored later. And perhaps the greatest testament of the Odyssean triumph in the play comes directly from Philoctetes who upon seeing Heracles is quick to state that he ‘will not disobey his words’. The attentive audience member might recall the wounded hero’s first reaction upon being informed that Odysseus has claimed that he will bring him back voluntarily: he would be more easily persuaded to come back from Hades than obey Odysseus’ words (πεισθήσομαι γὰρ ὧδε κἀξ Ἅιδου θανὼν | πρὸς φῶς ἀνελθεῖν, 624–5). And yet, this is exactly what happens—everything Odysseus promised to his fellow Achaeans has come to fruition, Philoctetes has been persuaded to come voluntarily, Neoptolemus as well, having also formed a strong bond with his fellow conqueror of Troy, while Odysseus remains inconspicuous, hiding somewhere in the shadows as he has always done and will do again famously when he finally returns back home to Ithaca. As in Odyssey, so in Sophocles’ Philoctetes Odysseus causes mixed emotions of admiration and joy for his feats, and sympathy for his victims: we rejoice for his manipulation of Nausicaa and his eventual return home, but also sympathize with the young girl who sees him depart forever, as Calypso and Circe did before her, as well as with the Phaeacians’ grim fate of being permanently removed from the world by Zeus. In this sense Philoctetes is, it appears, as much a play about the abandoned Philoctetes and his suffering as it is a hymn to the archetypical resourceful hero, Odysseus and his dolos whose fame reaches the high heavens.