Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:24:44.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice, Politics, and Piety in Sophocles′ Philoctetes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Aristide Tessitore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The easy conflation of god(s) and country—what might be called the dual foundations of justice—is challenged and explored in Sophocles′ Philoctetes. Odysseus's consistent appeal to the common good and Philoctetes′ troubled attachment to a divinely sanctioned principle of justice are set at odds in a play where the fate of the entire Greek expedition at Troy hangs in the balance. While most read the play as a celebration of young Neoptolemus as he frees himself from the corrupt influence of Odysseus and, through his encounter with Philoctetes, grows in personal integrity, this essay maintains that Neoptolemus comes under the influence of both antagonists because each has something important to teach him. Rather than offering a simple morality tale, Sophocles′ investigation of justice in this play both reveals the depth of the conflict between the requirements of politics and those of piety, and criticizes the extreme embodiments of these perspectives in the figures of Odysseus and Philoctetes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 61 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank Christopher Blackwell, Timothy Hurley, David Morgan, Steve Richardson, and Catherine Zuckert, all of whom offered helpful comments on early drafts of this article.

1. With respect to those emphasizing the theological dimension of the play, consider Bowra, C. M., Sophockan Tragedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944), p. 261Google Scholar and Segal, Charles, Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), chaps. 9–10Google Scholar and Sophocles′ Tragic World: Divinity, Nature, Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), chap. 4, esp. p. 95.Google Scholar Cf. Falkner, Thomas M., “Containing Tragedy: Rhetoric and Self-Representation in Sophocles′ Philoctetes,” Classical Antiquity 17 (04 1998): 25–58, esp. 47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoppin, Meredith Clarke, “What Happens in Sophocles′ Philoctetes?” Traditio 37 (1981): 9–30, esp. p. 29 and n. 58Google Scholar. With respect to those who de-emphasize or completely dismiss the theological in favor of the human or political dimension of play, consider Kitto, H. D. F., Form and Meaning in Drama (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1956), pp. 101–102Google Scholar and Greek Tragedy (London and New York: Methuen, [1939] reprint 1986), p. 303Google Scholar; Knox, Bernard M. W., The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley: University of California Press, [1964] reprint 1983), esp. pp. 121–125Google Scholar; Rose, Peter M., Sons of the Gods, Children of the Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 271Google Scholar; and Nussbaum, Martha, “Consequences and Character in Sophocles′ Philoctetes,” Philosophy and Literature 1 (1976–1977): 25–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. References are to the Oxford edition of Sophocles′ plays. The translations are my own.

3. I do not agree with those scholars who maintain that Odysseus's initial emphasis on the bow is a misunderstanding of Helenus′ prophecy. Rather, he appears to reveal the full purpose of the expedition only gradually and on a “need to know” basis. Something of the range of scholarly interpretation of this point can be gleaned by comparing Segal, Sophocles′Tragic World, pp. 101–102, 105Google Scholar; Knox, , Heroic Temper, pp. 126–27Google Scholar; and Hoppin, “What Happens?”.

4. In addition to advancing Odysseus's web of deceit, the merchant seems especially useful as a way of keeping an eye on the reluctant Neoptolemus. The impression that Odysseus is hovering behind the scenes and keeping close watch over his youthful charge is reinforced by his sudden and unexpected appearance at the very moment of Neoptolemus's, aporia (974–75)Google Scholar, his subsequent argument with Neoptolemus as he hurries back to Philoctetes (beginning at 1222), and his final brief appearance when Neoptolemus is about to hand over the bow to Philoctetes (1293–94).

5. For Odysseus as a contemporary politician imbued with sophistic doctrines, see Rose, P. W., “Sophocles′ and the Teachings of the Sophists,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976): 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth, chap. 5; Knox, , Heroic Temper, pp. 124–25;Google ScholarBowra, , Sophoclean Tragedy, p. 287;Google ScholarKitto, , Form and Meaning, p. 109Google Scholar. Mary Whitlock Blundell maintains that Odysseus is not a sophist but a political opportunist who finds some of the sophistic theories useful for his purposes. “The Moral Character of Odysseus in Philoctetes,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 28 (1987): 307–329, esp. pp. 321, 329Google Scholar.

6. As Roisman, Hanna M. observes, rather than fight the heroic values he wishes to undermine, Odysseus in fact appeals to them, “The Appropriation of a Son: Sophocles′ Philoctetes,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 38 (1997): 121–171, esp. pp. 139–141Google Scholar.

7. Nussbaum, , “Consequences and Character,” p. 29Google Scholar. For Nussbaum's, insightful discussion of the character of Odysseus, see pp. 29–39Google Scholar.

8. “City” must be loosely construed since the play is set in the Homeric age, a period that antedates the full development of the polis. As the context makes clear, Odysseus is referring to the collective Greek enterprise as a whole and perhaps specifically to the walled Greek camp outside of Troy.

9. Nussbaum, , “Consequences and Character,” p. 31Google Scholar.

10. Nussbaum writes, “The interests of the whole army are more vivid to him than his own self-interest” and points to Odysseus's willingness to let Neoptolemus defame him before Philoctetes as evidence of his lack of concern for personal glory (ibid., see esp. p. 31).

11. Although I agree with much in Blundell's incisive assessment of Odysseus as an opportunist (“The Moral Character of Odysseus”), we differ in two important respects, each of which is developed in the body of the text. I argue for a more essential connection between Odysseus's concern for himself and his attachment to the political good (for Odysseus's, Blundell own goals “just happen to coincide with the public good,” p. 313)Google Scholar. Secondly, I believe that Odysseus's apparent inconsistencies (described by Blundell at 318–19) derive from a deeper consistency that includes the use of religion to advance political purposes.

12. Nussbaum pushes the play's closing visitation from the realm of the gods to the periphery, restricting her consideration of the deus ex machina to a single footnote.

13. Philoctetes claims that Odysseus is taking shelter in the gods. T. B. L. Webster observes that the Greek word proteinō is commonly used with skepsis to mean “putting forward an excuse” (Ed., Sophocles′ Philoctetes [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1970) reprint 1997], p. 130)Google Scholar.

14 Blundell cites this passage (and context) as evidence of the fact that Odysseus knows full well that his present conduct is not just, good, or pious (“The Moral Character of Odysseus,” p. 314)Google Scholar.

15. Odysseus is consistently presented as one who says less than he knows. We have already noted in this regard the way in which he reveals the nature and purpose of the mission to Neoptolemus. See note 2 above.

16. Bowra, speaking of Helenus's initial prophecy, maintains that Odysseus “perverts the sacred text and adds to it” (Sophodean Tragedy, pp. 267–68)Google Scholar. Segal also notes Odysseus's consistent disregard for both the spirit and the letter of prophecy (Sophocles′ Tragic World, pp. 101–102, nn. 22, 23)Google Scholar.

17. Odysseus speaks of the gods at 133–34, 989–90, and 1293–94. However, invocation of the gods is not, by itself, conclusive since it begs the question as to whether such invocations are for the benefit of Odysseus or those who hear them. Segal detects a “certain cynicism” in Odysseus's “rhetorical use” of piety (Sophocles′ Tragic World, p. 100)Google Scholar.

18. The Chorus expresses the view that Philoctetes′ lonely exile is especially cruel because it is undeserved (979–690). The apparent injustice of Philoctetes′ suffering is exacerbated by the legend, made familiar to Athenian audiences twenty years earlier (in Euripides′ Philoctetes), that the Greeks had to sacrifice at this shrine to insure the success of the war, and that only Philoctetes, who had been there in his youth with Heracles, knew its location. See Segal, , Sophocles′ Tragic World, p. 112Google Scholar.

19. For Segal, Neoptolemus's immediate appreciation for the divine aura surrounding the bow marks the turning point in his appreciation for the heroic stature of Philoctetes and the true meaning of Helenus′ prophecy (ibid., pp. 104–106).

20. The story is told in Sophocles′ Women of Trachis.

21. Gellie, G. H. claims that Heracles′ speech is flat, pedestrian, and unappealing (Sophocles: A Reading [Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1972], pp. 157–58Google Scholar); Segal believes it contains the key to the entire drama (Sophocles′ Tragic World, pp. 95–97Google Scholar); Whitman, Cedric considers it to be “completely symbolic” (Sophocles: A Study of Heroic Humanism [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951], p. 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Nussbaum, essentially ignores it (“Consequences and Character,” pp. 25–53).Google Scholar

22. If the use of a deus ex machina in some sense weakens the tragic effect of the play (cf. Poetics 14.1453bl–3; 15.1454a33–54b8), I assume that Sophocles constructed his denouement with other positive aims in mind. At the very least, the appearance of a deus invites readers (and theatergoers) to view the play as an investigation of the relationship between the human and the divine.

23. About this passage Gellie writes, “It is the most outspoken attack on the gods in Sophocles; only in the last scene of The Women of Trachis is there anything to compare with it, but this attack is the harder one to talk away” (A Reading, p. 140Google Scholar).

24. Segal perceptively comments: “The passionate blasphemer is often the believer's hidden side; the man of cynical and superficial observance may be the more truly irreligious spirit” (Tragedy and Civilization, p. 315Google Scholar).

25. Seth Bernadete observes that the action of the entire play is reflected in the opposition of two Greek words for “must,” chirē and dei. He explains that chrē, characteristically associated with Philoctetes, expresses involvement of the subject whereas dei, typically used by Odysseus, refers to the objective requirement of a situation or state of affairs (“Chrē and Dei in Plato and Others,” Glotta: Zeitschrift fiir Griechische und Latinische Sprache 43 [1965]: 297Google Scholar). To this I add, that the collision between these two different understandings of necessity grounds the theologicalpolitical problem at the center of the play.

26. This theme is developed by Roisman in “The Appropriation of a Son.”

27. Aporia is a Greek word that literally means “no passage.” It is variously translated as puzzle, perplexity, problem, dilemma, or difficulty. It is typically used to describe several early Platonic dialogues that appear to end in a perplexing or inconclusive way. Socrates maintained that such perplexity was a prelude to genuine learning (Meno, cf. 80a–d and 84a–d).

28. This line of interpretation claims no less an authority than Aristotle, consider Nicomachean Ethics 1149a18–21; 1151b17–22. For a good recent account of this position, see Blundell, Mary Whitlock, “The Phusis of Neoptolemus in Sophocles′ Philoctetes,” Greece and Rome 35 (10 1988): 137–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. The word used most consistently to describe Neoptolemus by both Philoctetes and Odysseus is gennaios (51, 79, 801, 1068, 1402). The word is used by Sophocles as a term of commendation to describe someone for whom the shameful is hateful and the good or useful (chrēston) is highly regarded. Cf. Nussbaum, , “Consequences and Character,” pp. 44–45Google Scholar and Blundell, , “Phusis of Neoptolemus,” pp. 137–39Google Scholar.

30. Roisman maintains that Neoptolemus's desire for fame and overweening sense of self-importance is central to his personality (“Appropriation of a Son,” p. 151Google Scholar).

31. As Roisman points out, Neoptolemus proves an apt learner under Odysseus's tutelage and even shows an affinity for Odyssean deceptiveness (ibid., esp. pp. 150–57).

32. It may well be that his initial enthusiasm for going to Troy—the prospect of seeing his father's corpse before it was buried and winning glory for himself and the Greeks—was dampened by Odysseus's refusal to hand over his father's armor. Scholars are divided on this point. At one end of the spectrum, Gellie believes that the tale told by Neoptolemus contains “so little invention … and so much truth” that there is “a circumstantial truth in the story of his rage” (A Reading, p. 134Google Scholar). At the other, Bowra maintains that Neoptolemus acts “with remarkable callousness” and that “his deceit is almost treachery” (Sophoclean Tragedy, p. 174Google Scholar). Between these extremes, Roisman believes it to be a fabricated account revealing Neoptolemus's genuine longing for a father and reflecting the conflicting influences of both Odysseus and Achilles (“Appropriation of a Son,” pp. 152–57)Google Scholar.

33. Odysseus's return to the ship may be part of a bluff to get the now completely helpless Philoctetes to come of his own accord. For different interpretations of this scene, see Rose, , Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth, p. 317, n. 93Google Scholar.

34. One might argue that Neoptolemus's decision points to a desire for a kind of friendship that transcends politics. True though this may be, pursuit of such an alternative is likely to prove destructive for Neoptolemus who seems less suited to the contemplative pleasures of philosophy than to an active life of politics.

35. For a particularly balanced example, see Thomas M. Falkner who argues that Sophocles′ “second ending” (Heracles′ ex machina) repairs the failure of the “first” and in so doing emphasizes “how ill-conceived and inefficacious” Odysseus's efforts have been. Sophocles′ use of the deus constitutes a rejection of the “theater of duplicity” in favor of a heroic and mythic “theater of integrity” (“Containing Tragedy,” esp. pp. 47, 55Google Scholar).

36. Classic expressions of this line of interpretation, albeit from different points of view, can be found in Kitto, Greek Tragedy; Knox, Heroic Temper; and Whitman, Heroic Humanism.

37. This reverses the ostensible argument of Plato's Euthyphro, where Socrates makes the suggestion that piety is best understood as a part of justice (llc–12d). However, if the play is meant to suggest that preoccupation with justice provides the natural basis for piety, Sophocles′ own view may in fact be close to that of Plato's Socrates.

38. This view is much closer to Plato's Euthyphro. In sharp contrast to Euthyphro's belief that he understands the gods and can invoke them to support his own extreme actions, Socrates emphasizes the distance between the human and the divine. If heeded, Socrates′ view would lead Euthyphro to moderate his action by calling into question the kind of religious certitude that has led him to bring charges against his father.

39. Errandonea, Ignacio, “Filoctetes,” Emerita 24 (1956): 72–107.Google ScholarLattimore, Richmond offers three reasons in support of Errandonea's thesis: (1) The actor who played the part was in a real sense Odysseus in disguise. (2) The selfintroduction of Heracles is tentative [“Say that it is the voice of Heracles you hear with your ears and that you look upon his form” (1411–12)]. (3) If this is actually Heracles, it is the only case of intrigue where Odysseus is left without another trick up his sleeve. Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964), p. 92, n. 35Google Scholar.

40. In her only reference to Sophocles′ deus ex machina, Nussbaum writes, “the gods … are guided by a standard of behavior more nearly like that of Odysseus than that of Neoptolemus—i.e. they do not (pace Philoctetes) care about justice, but rather about the realization of a successful outcome” (“Character and Consequences,” p. 52, n. 42)Google Scholar. Roisman maintains that Heracles essentially reinforces Odysseus's ethos of guile and end-justifies-the-means morality, although in a “subtly different” and “more balanced” manner (“Appropriation of a Son,” pp. 163–66Google Scholar).

41. Machiavelli, writes that an effective leader “needs to have a spirit disposed to change as the winds of fortune and variation of things command him” (The Prince, trans. Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., [Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1985], chap. 18, p. 70Google Scholar).

42. “Hence it is necessary to a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity” (ibid., chap. 15, p. 61).

43. “[T]he vulgar are taken in by the appearance and outcome of a thing, and in the world there is no one but the vulgar…” (ibid., chap. 18, p. 71).

44. Roisman notes that both Greek and Roman literary tradition portray Neoptolemus as a man without conscience or remorse, something that reinforces her harsh assessment of Neoptolemus in Sophocles′ play as “a young man bereft of principles … entirely given to ephemeral impressions … formed and molded on the spur of the moment without any solid underpinning” (“Appropriation of a Son,” p. 169).Google Scholar Even Blundell's favorable Aristotelian assessment of Neoptolemus's character acknowledges Sophocles′ veiled allusion to “the notorious impiety of Neoptolemus at Troy, in particular his murder of Priam at the altar of Zeus” (“Phusis of Neoptolemus,” p. 146Google Scholar).

45. I leave open the possibility that his final ploy succeeded.

46. This conclusion is not changed in any fundamental way if Odysseus is in fact impersonating Heracles in the final scene. In this case, Odysseus's final ploy corrects the deficiencies of his first scheme by employing a more effective invocation of thegods to achieve a successful political outcome.