Here is an example of a Sixth form Oxbridge essay by one of our Old Fettesians George Macpherson:
Compare the narrative techniques of Iliad IX and Sophodes’ Philoctetes
To begin, the difference of genre must be distinguished and their perceptions as a consequence of that context:
Sophocles as a poet and a dramaturge of tragedy has more freedom in his use of actors and various metres: the customary iambic trimeter reflects the pattern of Greek speech and with the darting anapaests of the Chorus and other metres, often with regional variation, a contrast is provided; whereas Homer’s dactylic hexameters may restrict, at times, word order, as the primordial epic, it sets the grandiloquent tone, the timeless and serious nature of the conflict in the Iliad, a contribution also being made by the Homeric dialect – a commanding composition of a shifting language, ‘noble” as Arnold encouraged the translator. Although we study only one book, the metre has been described as hypnotic, which in a way suggests the powerful draw the whole poem has on the listener – as it was intended, but also is the metre of epic capturing and reinforcing and preserving the magically divine ideas of a mythological past, which the story glorifies in its descriptions.
Of the poetical devices each author has at hand, neither is lacking, but perhaps one may lack the uses to which the other may be disposed: in the tragedy we can see the development, owing mainly to the Athenian penchant for dialectic, of the dialogues in Homer’s Iliad where speeches are paired (Bk IX: Odysseus/Achilles, Phoenix/Achilles, Ajax/Achilles, even at either end of the book – in the style of ring composition - Agamemnon/Diomedes), to the fast-paced stichomythia of Odysseus persuading Neoptolemus to trick Philoctetes, in Philoctetes. Here the disparity between the two is evident: certainly, reverting to the age when the epics were composed aloud orally, the ability to switch trains of thought, sides of argument, peculiar styles of speaker, and perhaps grammatical continuity, would not only be technically quite impossible, but also difficult for the bard to convey two sometimes unintroduced speakers through the one medium of his voice, and moreover complicated for the comprehension of the audience; in contrast the presentation of two actors suddenly visualises the two contrasting opinions for the audience like the opening scene of Philoctetes, and of course the playwright has had time to compose the lines and craft them.
Another aspect of genre is the way the poet can influence the poetry. In the 5th century B.C the epics were the basis of an Athenian’s education and the Iliad would have been studied by rote for moral lessons to be learnt from the text. Would Homer have had this in mind? This will be discussed later, however. What Homer can do is comment directly to the listener; Sophocles can do this only indirectly. For example, although there is no immediate quotation from the Bk IX, in Bk XVIII there is the particularly memorable crossline enjambment of ‘νηπιοι’ following Hector’s speech with a heavy, early caesura after it. It is an address of proleptic irony to the audience, who, indeed, would know the story anyway. Sophocles has a more difficult, more intriguing role to play: he can pursue the concourse of an argument whose direction takes his influence and potentially the characters can come to a conclusion, but it is up to the audience to decide whether the characters’ decision is best; unlike old comedy there is no key note from the chorus. Interestingly enough, when finally Neoptolemus and Philoctetes decide to abandon the return to Troy, Heracles intervenes. What was Sophocles’ intention here? This too will be discussed later. Needless to say though, in the forthcoming analysis of characters their morals are important:
Philoctetes is suffering alone not by his own choice; he is indignant about the fact that he was cast ashore on Lemnos. In comparison and contrast Achilles chooses to segregate himself and the Myrmidons from the rest – a sort of political alienation; he suffers because he cannot fight because of his anger for his τιμη has been denigrated. Philoctetes possesses his festering foot as a physical realisation about the worries concerning his situation and general affliction; its effects are both physical – his fits - and mental – self loathing, hatred for the unhelping gods, memories of why he was deserted by the Greeks and his original moment of treading on the snake in Chryse’s temple; perhaps, upon the arrival of Neoptolemus all this pent–up wrath is channelled into spite for his deserters – particularly the brothers Atrides and Odysseus – and, in a perverse way, infatuation for, and trust in, Neoptolemus himself. Achilles has an almost inflexible arrogance and pride and condition which is rather difficult to understand in a Christian-influenced age – where forgiveness and the ability to forget and the sense of the individual’s personal honour (τιμη) is called a disdainful pride. As the audience in Bk IX we are treated in a similar way to Achilles by the rhapsode, by seeing his point of view from his speeches, yet when contrasted by the other speeches of near-supplication, Achilles is so stubborn. Unlike Philoctetes there is no trickery involved in the persuasion, simply three different reasons, in three different voices, but we feel at the end of the episode which is an extremely important battle interlude, despite Achilles’ determination to ‘stick to his guns’, that, in Diomedes’ words, ‘He’s a proud man at the best of times and now /you’ve plunged him deeper in his pride." Diomedes is a warrior himself with his own αρετη to prove, but it is the feeling that we should let Achilles sulk alone, so that he can learn his lesson; on the other hand, we are swayed somewhat to endearment – in consideration of the grand structure overseeing the whole Iliad, because we are in two minds: we know that Achilles must come back and save the Achaeans, and so we really want him to agree to Odysseus’ negotiations, Phoenix’s heartfelt compulsion, Ajax’s simple military plea, but when he does not, we feel twisted and torn between two ideas and two opinions of the man. All this is superb technique of the poet – it is a form of infuriating dramatic irony, because we want to spare Achilles of the grief he will cause himself through sending out Patroclus.
How we sympathise with Philoctetes is different. Let us assume that the audience knew roughly that Philoctetes had to come back to Troy, for in the text this is by no means clear; this fact then, I believe, signifies that we are far more on the side of Philoctetes – the position he is in and predicament. The combination of his long soliloquies describing his lonely life and his hatred for the Atrides, encouraged by Neoptolemus, and his fits, and the chorus, who, although aware of the plan, seem quite inartificially to lament his sorry state, and the swiftness of the agreement between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus to sail home carries us all along convinced, until the latter’s nerve fails.
At this point our compassion for Philoctetes is reinforced, but also we can sense the pathos of Neoptolemus’ situation and volte-face of opinion, because of the following reasons: Sophocles returns us to and reminds us of, the tête-à-tête of Odysseus where he persuades Neoptolemus to deceive Philoctetes at the beginning of the tragedy. ‘Deceit is not my nature,’ says Neoptolemus, yet he accepts Odysseus’ orders, partly because he knows he cannot stand up to Odysseus – his reply to do it is not the most confident: ‘ιτω· ποησω, πασαν αισχυνην αφεις.’ – a throwaway line without his conscience, giving up and in – and also partly because he does not have the vague sense of fate and the grand prize waiting – the destruction of Troy, but also the general Greek idea of having to win by whatever means. Two arguments are raised from the initial conversation: firstly whether φυσις is truly what it is (that is, if Neoptolemus was really born noble and honest) or if νομος – an unstable component of a human – is greater than its apparently inherent, unmalleable counterpart; secondly the nature of persuasion is examined and its meaning.
In reply to the first question Odysseus seems to hint that a man can live better, succeed more, if he is deceitful, or perhaps ‘flexible’ as he would put it: ‘I’ve learnt by much and bitter experience/words count for more than deeds in the world of men.’ But this also suggests that, in a way, no one is born deceitful by nature: Odysseus has learnt to trick, and society has induced it. In this way we can sympathise with Neoptolemus when his mask of deceit cracks: he is returning to his nature. Likewise with Philoctetes he shows no pretence in claiming to like the Achaeans: the action taken against him was unjust and justly he reciprocates their impudence with his stubbornness and hatred. These the audience can comprehend. In the end Odysseus does not get his way and he decides to leave without completing his mission. It is only the intervention of Heracles, deus ex machina, who resolves the minds of Neoptolemus and Philoctetes. Sophocles seems to be making his point thus: nature (φυσις) is unchanging and derives from the gods - it cannot be sidestepped; nurture and custom and laws and all that νομος entails is sometimes the easiest option and best in this situation (persuasion by trickery) but it will not win.
Neoptolemus’ character illustrates this best. Also in relation to the Iliad, drawing on his adhesion to his father’s scorn for lying and trenchant views, we see the change sociologically of shame-culture to guilt-culture, which E.R Dodds in The Greeks and the Irrational has described, from Achilles to Neoptolemus. His quick dismissive acquiescence to Odysseus’ commands betrays his subliminal nature of honesty. Consequently his conscience gradually comes into play and prey on his innermost values. The difference between Achilles and Neoptolemus in the two pieces is thus: Achilles refuses to be persuaded from the start for personal honour and reverence to the gods – he does not want to be ashamed; Neoptolemus, however, does not consider the opinions of the gods but the value of his family and his own personal esteem not to others, but for himself: - he feels guilty when he tricks Philoctetes so convincingly. If Achilles were to accept the gifts of Agamemnon, he would not feel guilty – having let himself down; in fact he would feel he had let down the gods, imagining τιμη as a separate part from his own judgement to be like a god. This is the crux which differentiates the morals of persuasion between the two works, in my argument.
To respond to the question of the nature of persuasion (some time ago now), let us consider this is in light not only of the tragedy but also of the epic:
Odysseus features in both and in both he is renowned for his cunning but in different perceptions: Sophocles’ Odysseus is the man preceded by his reputation, a political animal, an agent provocateur with his real politik. No doubt Achilles’ words in the Bk IX would have influenced this age–old opinion of the classical age:
‘I hate that man like the very Gates of Death,
Who says one thing but hides another in his heart.’
No longer is he an upstanding friend of the Achaeans in Philoctetes; in fact he seems quite unheroic and unprincipled and would blend well into a πολις. He represents the sophistic movement. The inclusion of the Sisyphus myth is testimony to the change in opinion Odysseus received, unfounded in Homer.
The way in which Odysseus persuades Neoptolemus to trick Philoctetes, and to the act of deception itself is likely to be a cultural comment of Greek society by Sophocles as he reaches old age: the reputation sophists had picked up for their educating wealthy young aristocrats in the pursuit almost solely in winning an argument by fancy rhetoric, rather than arguing to find the best answer, taking both sides of the argument into consideration, is certainly prevalent in the play, as Plato’s Protagoras expatiates chronologically a little later. Moreover in Athens, where Sophocles had witnessed the political power struggles, as a general, earlier in the century, he would have viewed the demagogy of the debates during the Peloponnesian wars in the assembly with a certain disdain.
Once Neoptolemus realises his mistake there is the result of an impasse between Odysseus and Neoptolemus, and it seems that the prophecy will not come true. Heracles’ intervention seems to suggest that, considering Sophocles was born at the end of the Archaic age, men should not try to meddle with other men, all of whom are in the gods’ hands. Therefore he condemns trickery.
But does he support trickery in preference over force? Neoptolemus says that ‘I’d rather beat this man / By force than by deception,’ indicating that it is more honourable to win in this way – with a fight rather than a lie. In this situation trickery seems to be the only option because of the lethal bow and arrows; in all fairness also, is Neoptolemus' reputation, that of one man, worth the deaths and continuation of the struggle to capture Troy for hundreds of men? Perhaps in the age of heroes, but in tragedy the characters, although taken from legend, are far more real-life than the glorious alter egos. In fact what I feel is that Sophocles is showing here is the general deconstruction of the heroic influence by saying firstly that bravery, or rather, bravado, is not always the most successful stratagem in battle and secondly that as Greek society developed into an intellectual powerhouse, that, although disliking the connivance of Odysseus, they we re closer to him in their personal lives and in personal relations with others than with the initially ‘one–dimensional’ Neoptolemus. Likewise along these exact lines do I think that Thucydides writes his history in art: antithetical terms to the Iliad: he does not glorify war; there are no heroes; war is in fact disorganised and wasteful. I find this is an extremely interesting idea about a trend in the Athenian psyche.
In Bk IX we have three speeches of persuasion: Odysseus’ one relies on a little white lying; Phoenix gives a heart-felt plea and presents the most interesting form of persuasion by trying to play on personal sympathy and also a psychological warning from history; Ajax beseeches robustly, simply, unequivocally, and practically, on behalf of the troops.
What Homer is doing by giving three different appeals from three ambassadors is putting into the mouths of the characters the obvious arguments the audience itself would like to address to Achilles. Indeed the appeal of Phoenix has been inserted anyway as the dual forms of the text indicate as Bernard Knox explains, ‘It looks as if an original version had only two ambassadors and that Phoenix was added later – to make the longest, most affecting, and most effective of the three appeals to Achilles.’ In none of the appeals is there any mention of the use of force.
Odysseus offers verbatim the words of Agamemnon describing the numerous gifts he will bestow on him showing the material reasons why he should join the Achaeans again; Achilles, however, refutes the offer and rebukes him: even without the lines Odysseus neglects to say (“Let him submit to me”), to Achilles himself the whole of this attempted bribery is merely an exhibition by Agamemnon of his superior wealth and prowess. If he were to accept it, it would be a denigration of his honour and undermining of his position in the camp of the Greek army and ignominious for a hero, any hero. It is the competition of two alpha males. Odysseus refers also to Achilles’ father Peleus, claiming he has disobeyed his advice ‘to hold in check that proud, fiery spirit of yours inside your chest!’ This is less effective than Neoptolemus’ persuasion of Philoctetes, after his lying has failed, and when he tries a last ditch attempt using honesty. Philoctetes passionately hates the Atrides; Achilles shows little respect even for his father: his response is distinctly negative and nihilistic in its attitude:
‘The same honour waits
For the coward and the brave. They both go down to Death,
The fighter who shirks, the one who works to exhaustion.’
He talks of giving up and sailing home, but it seems he says this in a fit of anger, having worked himself up into a tantrum.
Phoenix casts aside the values and opinions of the army and the idea of the pursuit of glory, although he begins by bursting into tears and displaying his incredulity at Achilles’ or anyone’s thought of abandoning battle – a highly cowardly and consequently ignoble concept in Greek eyes, and scales down his appeal to the basis of the individual: his relationship with Achilles; its history and story personal sentiment; how he is family and is what he has lived for. This replaces the feeling Odysseus was trying to express by his reference to Peleus; evidently Phoenix is much closer.
His descriptions are an attempt to humble Achilles – he talks of him as a mewling and puking baby. The tale he tells of Nestorian length and style shows his passion and instruction – warning Achilles – reflects the generic old man admonishing the younger. Despite a strong dismissal, Achilles is humbled and now rather than definitely setting off at tomorrow’s dawn, he says:
‘Then, tomorrow at first light, we will decide
whether we sail home or hold out here.’
By use of his tale about Meleager, Phoenix tries to reason with Achilles why he should fight. He is saying that we should learn from, and not make the same, mistakes men have made before. Homer is putting forward a valid moral point here: by showing that mankind must co-operate and learn if it is to proceed towards its goal.
Ajax’s speech reflects the most sensible request – that of a fellow-warrior – and most simple. He brings across the soldiers’ viewpoint. He speaks of “comrades’ love” and “we long to be your closest, dearest friends.” In the same way, Phoenix’s speech endears itself to us for its length, personal content, and descriptive beauty, so does Ajax’s for its down-to-earth manner and direct simplicity.
Initially it seems that the embassy has had no effect. However, in his final reply Achilles asks them to tell Agamemnon that he will fight, only when Hector reaches his ships. This means that he is less inclined to sail away as he was in his first response.
What can sum up the characters and define them? Philoctetes is really a character straight out of Homer, but he also embodies the concept of the Sophoclean hero: resolute, importunate, unmoving, righteous; Achilles is almost his paradigm; for he too will receive self improvement if he returns to Troy, as Achilles will if he returns to battle, but it is a lesson learned by suffering, of which in the rest of the Iliad Achilles’ pain will be worse.
Odysseus in Philoctetes is really an anti-hero. In both pieces of literature he does no succeed, but in Philoctetes he does not complete his mission and decides to leave empty handed. He gives up his cause; in the Iliad he does not abandon the fight for the cause of the Greeks. Sophocles Odysseus is a direct contrast in morality to Philoctetes.
Neoptolemus learns a lesson from Philoctetes’ pain. As a young man, his character still lacking definition, he possesses inquisitiveness to question the plan of action he has been ordered to take. He feels guilty because of the suffering of Philoctetes firstly, and secondly that the subsequent unadulterated trust and gratitude which Philoctetes expresses reminds him of who he is. In a way Neoptolemus reflects the struggle of Odysseus’ and Philoctetes’ values in one person. As an audience we respect him because he acknowledges his individuality and Sophocles persuades us to favour the point of view of the two left on Lemnos unlike Odysseus who is almost a slave to other men’s prerogatives concerning the war. Neoptolemus’ character is in the end an uplifting one, even though he does not win, perhaps because he does not win.
All in all, to round off, I return to the different aspects of the genres: Philoctetes is a whole, a compact piece, written to entertain with a view to winning the tragedy competition. It is fast paced and spits out ideas; each scene can concentrate on a separate topic or alternative perception; it is an exciting play: firstly, the dramatic entrances and exits towards the end, each promote or prolong a conclusion to the drama; also, the prophecy is used in such a way that its message is only revealed in snippets in order that, rather than to confuse the audience as it comes across when reading the play in close detail, it excites the audiences interest and makes it want to find out more. In conclusion, Homer sings not to contend issues but to glorify the past; Sophocles, as a playwright, takes the past to contend the issues of the present.