What do you think?
Rate this book
Philoctetes
Philoctetes is a play written by Sophocles, an ancient Greek playwright, that tells the story of Philoctetes, a Greek warrior who was abandoned on a deserted island for ten years after being bitten by a snake. The play begins when Odysseus and Neoptolemus, two Greek soldiers, are sent to retrieve Philoctetes and his magical bow, which is needed to win the Trojan War. However, Philoctetes is filled with anger and resentment towards the Greeks who abandoned him, and initially refuses to help them. As the play progresses, the characters grapple with issues of loyalty, betrayal, and the morality of using trickery to achieve a desired outcome. Philoctetes is torn between his desire for revenge and his duty to his fellow Greeks, while Odysseus and Neoptolemus struggle with their own consciences as they try to convince Philoctetes to join their cause. The play is known for its exploration of complex moral and ethical issues, as well as its portrayal of the human condition. It is considered one of Sophocles' greatest works, and has been studied and performed for And yet I wonder not; for if aright I judge, from angry heaven the sentence came, And Chrysa was the cruel source of all; Nor doth this sad disease inflict him still Incurable, without assenting gods?This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.
72 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 410
About the author
Sophocles
2,236 books2,437 followersSophocles (497/496 BC-406/405 BC), (Greek:
Σοφοκλής
; German:
Sophokles
, Russian:
Софокл
, French:
Sophocle
) was an ancient Greek tragedian, known as one of three from whom at least one play has survived in full. His first plays were written later than, or contemporary with, those of Aeschylus; and earlier than, or contemporary with, those of Euripides. Sophocles wrote over 120 plays, but only seven have survived in a complete form: Ajax, Antigone, Women of Trachis, Oedipus Rex, Electra, Philoctetes, and Oedipus at Colonus. For almost fifty years, Sophocles was the most celebrated playwright in the dramatic competitions of the city-state of Athens which took place during the religious festivals of the Lenaea and the Dionysia. He competed in thirty competitions, won twenty-four, and was never judged lower than second place. Aeschylus won thirteen competitions, and was sometimes defeated by Sophocles; Euripides won four.
The most famous tragedies of Sophocles feature Oedipus and Antigone: they are generally known as the Theban plays, though each was part of a different tetralogy (the other members of which are now lost). Sophocles influenced the development of drama, most importantly by adding a third actor (attributed to Sophocles by Aristotle; to Aeschylus by Themistius), thereby reducing the importance of the chorus in the presentation of the plot. He also developed his characters to a greater extent than earlier playwrights.
The most famous tragedies of Sophocles feature Oedipus and Antigone: they are generally known as the Theban plays, though each was part of a different tetralogy (the other members of which are now lost). Sophocles influenced the development of drama, most importantly by adding a third actor (attributed to Sophocles by Aristotle; to Aeschylus by Themistius), thereby reducing the importance of the chorus in the presentation of the plot. He also developed his characters to a greater extent than earlier playwrights.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 305 reviews
November 6, 2018
This dude's foot is fucking gross. He wounded it on the way to the Trojan War - he's like a low-rent Achilles, right? That guy's one vulnerability was his heel, and he got hit in it and died; Philoktetes gets the same wound but in his case it just gets infected. So here he is all screaming in agony, plus it smells awful and it's oozing pus and the whole thing is just really unpleasant, so here's what ol' wily Odysseus does with him: he just fuckin' dumps him on a deserted island and sails off. Seriously. He leaves him a bow. I mean, it's a magic bow from Herakles, so that's nice, but...not as nice as, like, not abandoning his wounded comrade on an island because his pain was bumming everyone out. Odysseus is a dick.
As the play opens, it's ten years later and suddenly Odysseus needs his magic bow, it turns out it's the only thing that can finally win the Trojan War, so he's back. He has a big lie planned. Odysseus always has a big lie planned. "We can be honest some other time," he tells Neoptelemos, the son of Achilles, who he assigns to steal Phil's bow. Because Phil is pissed, right? His wound was magical; it's never healed. So he's been dragging his tortured, reeking foot around this island for a decade, a suppurating Crusoe. "All I saw was pain," he says: "Plenty of it. Time passed me by."
So Odysseus tells Neo (let's just call him Neo) to pretend he's going to bring Phil home. Neo whines about it - oh I'm a terrible liar, plus this is like the shittiest thing ever - but it turns out he's actually a pretty good liar, he does a bang up job and he gets the bow away from Phil.
If you don't read a shitload of Greek drama, you might think of Odysseus as a hero. Your wandering genius, right? I don't know, he seemed nice when Joyce did him? The Greeks saw him as a genius too, but also as a liar, and he's often portrayed - particularly by Sophocles - as a nasty person, willing always to tell any lie for the greater good. Same thing happens in Aias, or Ajax, in which Odysseus basically steals the dude's armor.
Phil begs to be taken home - and he knows it's a tough ask, because his foot still stinks and he's always shrieking because it hurts so bad, and that's how it's been for ten years on this deserted island. But he won't go back to Troy and the war. Why would he? Odysseus and the Greeks betrayed him in the worst way! So when he finds out what's really going on here, he's miffed. He points out that Odysseus has now made Neo as corrupt as he is: "Your corrosive
Soul, squinting out from under some secret hole,
Taught that boy what he didn't want to learn
- it wasn't in him - to be good at evil."
Odysseus is like, fine: we'll leave you here, now that we have your bow. He actually says this: "Take a stroll around Lemnos. [the island he's been abandoned on.] Enjoy yourself." This bow was the only thing keeping Phil in this torturous world; he was able to use it to kill birds to eat. Now Odysseus is threatening to leave him a second time, to starve to death.
Phil begs the crew, anyone, to leave him a sword at least to commit suicide with - and Neo has second thoughts. He decides it's not worth it. He returns the bow, which Phil instantly cocks at wily Odysseus. Neo intervenes; we have a standoff.
What we're talking about here, in Sophocles' last surviving play, published when he was 87 in the midst of the fall of Athenian democracy - one anti-democratic coup had already happened; democracy was restored, but only five years after this, in 404 BCE, Athens would fall and the Greek democratic revolution would be over - what we're talking about here is the ends justifying the means. The magic bow is required to defeat Troy. What's been done to Phil is appalling, and what's to be done now is worse. Sophocles basically always wrote about authority; Antigone goes along similar lines.
This is a tremendously powerful play, and (unfortunately) I can't imagine a world in which it doesn't feel relevant and urgent. Whose side would you fall on? Injustice has been done to Philoktetes. He's right to say this is no longer his war. The war has betrayed him. But if it has to be won...would you leave this reeking guy to starve?
Sophocles does answer the question, if you're into spoilers. He answers it through fuckin' Herakles, who also shows up as a lazy deus ex machina in Euripides' Alcestis so I don't know who keeps inviting him. Anyway:
As the play opens, it's ten years later and suddenly Odysseus needs his magic bow, it turns out it's the only thing that can finally win the Trojan War, so he's back. He has a big lie planned. Odysseus always has a big lie planned. "We can be honest some other time," he tells Neoptelemos, the son of Achilles, who he assigns to steal Phil's bow. Because Phil is pissed, right? His wound was magical; it's never healed. So he's been dragging his tortured, reeking foot around this island for a decade, a suppurating Crusoe. "All I saw was pain," he says: "Plenty of it. Time passed me by."
So Odysseus tells Neo (let's just call him Neo) to pretend he's going to bring Phil home. Neo whines about it - oh I'm a terrible liar, plus this is like the shittiest thing ever - but it turns out he's actually a pretty good liar, he does a bang up job and he gets the bow away from Phil.
If you don't read a shitload of Greek drama, you might think of Odysseus as a hero. Your wandering genius, right? I don't know, he seemed nice when Joyce did him? The Greeks saw him as a genius too, but also as a liar, and he's often portrayed - particularly by Sophocles - as a nasty person, willing always to tell any lie for the greater good. Same thing happens in Aias, or Ajax, in which Odysseus basically steals the dude's armor.
Phil begs to be taken home - and he knows it's a tough ask, because his foot still stinks and he's always shrieking because it hurts so bad, and that's how it's been for ten years on this deserted island. But he won't go back to Troy and the war. Why would he? Odysseus and the Greeks betrayed him in the worst way! So when he finds out what's really going on here, he's miffed. He points out that Odysseus has now made Neo as corrupt as he is: "Your corrosive
Soul, squinting out from under some secret hole,
Taught that boy what he didn't want to learn
- it wasn't in him - to be good at evil."
Odysseus is like, fine: we'll leave you here, now that we have your bow. He actually says this: "Take a stroll around Lemnos. [the island he's been abandoned on.] Enjoy yourself." This bow was the only thing keeping Phil in this torturous world; he was able to use it to kill birds to eat. Now Odysseus is threatening to leave him a second time, to starve to death.
Phil begs the crew, anyone, to leave him a sword at least to commit suicide with - and Neo has second thoughts. He decides it's not worth it. He returns the bow, which Phil instantly cocks at wily Odysseus. Neo intervenes; we have a standoff.
What we're talking about here, in Sophocles' last surviving play, published when he was 87 in the midst of the fall of Athenian democracy - one anti-democratic coup had already happened; democracy was restored, but only five years after this, in 404 BCE, Athens would fall and the Greek democratic revolution would be over - what we're talking about here is the ends justifying the means. The magic bow is required to defeat Troy. What's been done to Phil is appalling, and what's to be done now is worse. Sophocles basically always wrote about authority; Antigone goes along similar lines.
This is a tremendously powerful play, and (unfortunately) I can't imagine a world in which it doesn't feel relevant and urgent. Whose side would you fall on? Injustice has been done to Philoktetes. He's right to say this is no longer his war. The war has betrayed him. But if it has to be won...would you leave this reeking guy to starve?
Sophocles does answer the question, if you're into spoilers. He answers it through fuckin' Herakles, who also shows up as a lazy deus ex machina in Euripides' Alcestis so I don't know who keeps inviting him. Anyway:
October 15, 2024
Existence plays tricks on all of us. We think, we weigh, we try to understand. Sometimes, we look at those around us and then understand certain things. Sometimes, we construct reasoning that reassures us and explains—but linking the two? It is a work worthy of the Titans.
In Philoctetes, Sophocles links honor, friendship, trust, and the opposing characters to each other. However, no judgment is found in the actions that Sophocles attributes to the different protagonists. This judgment is already the sign of a great work: each character is animated by an existence that seems natural.
Sophocles delves into the philosophical discourse on collective interest versus individual good in a few pages. He does so without favoring one, a testament to his work's impartiality and depth.
The interweaving of the two allows us to perceive the human in all its brilliance and the emptiness of a judgment that would like to be universal and definitive.
Philoctetes is a timeless masterpiece waiting to be discovered and rediscovered by readers of all ages. Its profound themes and complex characters make it a work worth revisiting and reflecting on.
In Philoctetes, Sophocles links honor, friendship, trust, and the opposing characters to each other. However, no judgment is found in the actions that Sophocles attributes to the different protagonists. This judgment is already the sign of a great work: each character is animated by an existence that seems natural.
Sophocles delves into the philosophical discourse on collective interest versus individual good in a few pages. He does so without favoring one, a testament to his work's impartiality and depth.
The interweaving of the two allows us to perceive the human in all its brilliance and the emptiness of a judgment that would like to be universal and definitive.
Philoctetes is a timeless masterpiece waiting to be discovered and rediscovered by readers of all ages. Its profound themes and complex characters make it a work worth revisiting and reflecting on.
May 3, 2018
One of the flagship texts to demonstrate Hegelian theory of tragedy.
The Greeks had marooned Philoktetes early on because “his foot / diseased and eaten away with running ulcers” offended them with its malodorous decay, which is of course the dumbest reason ever to shipwreck a guy who was injured in the Trojan War. As it turned out, both P and his heraclean bow were required at Troy (prophecy of Helenus, yo), so Odysseus’ object is to re-kidnap P for the war effort.
When O and son of Achilles, Neoptolemus, arrive, P is still as yet injured, however many years later, as evident in the “oozing matter from a sore” that they find. Chorus notes that P has a “maggot-ridden foot,” which is suggestive of gangrene; how is P not dead? Surely some sort of miracle.
O wants N to become a tool of deception, whereas N prefers “even to fail with honor / than win by cheating.” O’s position (for which Dante placed him in the Malebolge) is that “everywhere among the race of men / it is the tongue that wins and not the deed.” But, P “will not be persuaded; force will fail” (because heraclean bow). Hence, deception.
P “would rather listen to my worst enemy, / the snake that bit me” than O. But he listens to N’s deceptions regarding returning home, and gives up his arms; N immediately repents: “shame shall be ours if we boast and our lies still leave victory unwon,” which is a return to the Homeric moral theory that forefronts honor/shame over odyssean pragmatics (i.e., lying—my pet theory about the Odyssey is that it’s just Odysseus lying the entire time, or, to be charitable, rehearsing fictive narratives as recompense to his benefactors). N’s thesis is more Aristotelian physis, laden with the gustatory: “All is disgust when one leaves his own nature / and does things that misfit it.”
N is overcome, triggering the anagnorisis: “I will not hide anything. You must sail to Troy / to the Achaeans, join the army of the Atridae.” This revelation is not meant as an altruistic act: “First save you from this torture, then with you / go and lay waste the land of Troy.” (On the long dead issue of the Trojan War, I remain a committed Trojan--so this kind of talk is genuinely heartbreaking to me.) N justifies it as “a great necessity compels it,” which we should recognize as emblematic of an agambenian SoE: Philoktetes is subject to several proscriptions, both of which appear to be outside of law: arbitrary deportation and capricious repatriation.
When N had first met P in this text, P states
N accordingly confronts O, seeking to “undo the wrong.” O replies, significantly, “A strange thing to say!” and notes that the deception of P is a matter of democratic consensus: “The whole assembly / of the Greeks.” There follows the peripeteia:
Basic classical literacy requires this one, kids.
The Greeks had marooned Philoktetes early on because “his foot / diseased and eaten away with running ulcers” offended them with its malodorous decay, which is of course the dumbest reason ever to shipwreck a guy who was injured in the Trojan War. As it turned out, both P and his heraclean bow were required at Troy (prophecy of Helenus, yo), so Odysseus’ object is to re-kidnap P for the war effort.
When O and son of Achilles, Neoptolemus, arrive, P is still as yet injured, however many years later, as evident in the “oozing matter from a sore” that they find. Chorus notes that P has a “maggot-ridden foot,” which is suggestive of gangrene; how is P not dead? Surely some sort of miracle.
O wants N to become a tool of deception, whereas N prefers “even to fail with honor / than win by cheating.” O’s position (for which Dante placed him in the Malebolge) is that “everywhere among the race of men / it is the tongue that wins and not the deed.” But, P “will not be persuaded; force will fail” (because heraclean bow). Hence, deception.
P “would rather listen to my worst enemy, / the snake that bit me” than O. But he listens to N’s deceptions regarding returning home, and gives up his arms; N immediately repents: “shame shall be ours if we boast and our lies still leave victory unwon,” which is a return to the Homeric moral theory that forefronts honor/shame over odyssean pragmatics (i.e., lying—my pet theory about the Odyssey is that it’s just Odysseus lying the entire time, or, to be charitable, rehearsing fictive narratives as recompense to his benefactors). N’s thesis is more Aristotelian physis, laden with the gustatory: “All is disgust when one leaves his own nature / and does things that misfit it.”
N is overcome, triggering the anagnorisis: “I will not hide anything. You must sail to Troy / to the Achaeans, join the army of the Atridae.” This revelation is not meant as an altruistic act: “First save you from this torture, then with you / go and lay waste the land of Troy.” (On the long dead issue of the Trojan War, I remain a committed Trojan--so this kind of talk is genuinely heartbreaking to me.) N justifies it as “a great necessity compels it,” which we should recognize as emblematic of an agambenian SoE: Philoktetes is subject to several proscriptions, both of which appear to be outside of law: arbitrary deportation and capricious repatriation.
When N had first met P in this text, P states
Friendliest of tongues, / That I should hear it spoken once again / by such a man in such a place! My boy, / who are you? Who has sent you here? What brought you? / What impulse? What friendliest of winds?Right before they had met, the chorus told N that “we are strangers, and this land is strange.” After the anagnorisis, P reverts to the standard Greek opinion as to xenos: “Then I am lost. I am betrayed. Why, stranger, / have you done this to me? Give me back my bow.” N is not unmindful, recognizing the dilemma: “What shall I do? I would I had never left / Scyrus, so hateful is what I face now.”
N accordingly confronts O, seeking to “undo the wrong.” O replies, significantly, “A strange thing to say!” and notes that the deception of P is a matter of democratic consensus: “The whole assembly / of the Greeks.” There follows the peripeteia:
N: You are a clever man, Odysseus, but this is not a clever saying.O then runs off to take it up with the “whole assembly,” which sets the stage for a catastrophe wherein everyone dies. Except, of course, we all know that P must get to Troy, N must kill Priam, and O must return home to savagely slaughter his wife’s suitors. Resolution therefore comes through one of the classic moments of deus ex machina, wherein Heracles himself is wheeled down to the stage and enjoins P to go to Troy. It’s deeply unsatisfying aesthetically, perhaps, but it is pure Hegelianism, the confrontation of right against right, between which equal rights only force decides. It is the impasse that makes tragedy.
O: In your own case / neither the words nor the acts are clever.
N: Still if they are just, they are better than clever.
Basic classical literacy requires this one, kids.
August 28, 2019
Personagens principais:
— Ulisses, o homem sem escrúpulos, oportunista que não olha a meios para atingir os fins.
Quando se age para nosso interesse, não se deve hesitar.
— Neoptólemo, o filho de Aquiles, um jovem generoso e ingénuo, inicialmente manipulado por Ulisses, mas que termina por seguir a sua consciência.
— Filoctetes, um homem bom que, mesmo traído pelos seus amigos, continua a acreditar nas pessoas.
Acção:
Quando Filoctetes é ferido por uma mordedura de serpente, Ulisses, incomodado com os seus lamentos de dor, abandona-o, doente, sem alimentos e quaisquer recursos, na ilha deserta de Lemnos. Filoctetes consegue sobreviver caçando com o arco e as flechas de Héracles. E é por essa arma que Ulisses, acompanhado de Neoptólemo, regressa dez anos depois a Lemnos, porque, segundo o oráculo, a guerra de Tróia só poderia ser vencida com essas flechas.
(François-Xavier Fabre, Ulysses and Neoptolemus take Heracles’ bow and arrows from Philoctetes)
— Ulisses, o homem sem escrúpulos, oportunista que não olha a meios para atingir os fins.
Quando se age para nosso interesse, não se deve hesitar.
— Neoptólemo, o filho de Aquiles, um jovem generoso e ingénuo, inicialmente manipulado por Ulisses, mas que termina por seguir a sua consciência.
— Filoctetes, um homem bom que, mesmo traído pelos seus amigos, continua a acreditar nas pessoas.
Acção:
Quando Filoctetes é ferido por uma mordedura de serpente, Ulisses, incomodado com os seus lamentos de dor, abandona-o, doente, sem alimentos e quaisquer recursos, na ilha deserta de Lemnos. Filoctetes consegue sobreviver caçando com o arco e as flechas de Héracles. E é por essa arma que Ulisses, acompanhado de Neoptólemo, regressa dez anos depois a Lemnos, porque, segundo o oráculo, a guerra de Tróia só poderia ser vencida com essas flechas.
(François-Xavier Fabre, Ulysses and Neoptolemus take Heracles’ bow and arrows from Philoctetes)
October 1, 2016
A tale of the forgotten wounded soldier
23 October 2012
Okay, we only have seven plays by Sophocles, so dividing them up into categories probably does not do much, however I will do that anyway. The three categories that I propose are the Theban plays (namely the ones that deal with Oedipus and the fallout from that rather sticky episode), the war plays (which I will get to shortly) and Electra. Yes, I know, Electra is only one play, but as far as I am concerned, it simply does not fall into either of the other two categories, so I have put it into a category of its own.
Anyway, the Philoctetes is one of the war plays (simply because it is not Electra, and does not involve Oedipus or any of the mess that arose from it). Each of the war plays (and remember that Sophocles wrote much more than what we currently have) seem to deal with a different impact of war. As I have indicated previously, if you were Greek, male, and young, it was highly likely that you were either at war, or if you were still alive, have been at war, so in many cases these plays are much more relevant to them, than they are to us who sit on our couches watching The Hurt Locker and going, 'Wow! That was an awesome movie!'.
Hey, I'm not knocking The Hurt Locker, it is an awesome movie, but let's just say that Sophocles' war plays are pretty much an ancient version of The Hurt Locker. In fact, each of the plays seems to deal with a different aspect of war and its effect upon the soldier (or his family). Ajax deals with the betrayal of command as well post-traumatic stress disorder; The Woman of Trachis deals with the family that is left behind while the male is off to war; and Philoctetes deals with those who are disabled, left behind, and forgotten. The thing about these three plays is that they are just as relevant today as they were back then when we are dealing with people that have been personally affected by war, whether it is the soldier that has been screwed over by Donald Rumsfeld, the war wife who has to put up with the fact that the two years that her husband was supposed to spend in Iraq has been stretched out to eight, and the solder whose legs have been blown off by a road-side bomb and then thrown into some veteran's hospital and pretty much forgotten.
As I have previously mentioned, this play is about the plight of those who have been disabled in war and have been forgotten. Okay, Philoctetes was not actually disabled in a war, he was bitten by a snake on the way over to Troy, but he was forgotten. As we are told, the Greeks were so putrefied by the ulcer that developed on his ankle that they dumped him on an island and snuck off in the middle of the night. This is something that many disabled people, especially those who have become disabled during there life, have to face day in and day out. People love people who are perfect and shy away from those who are not. Hey, even I find it difficult to relate to disabled, and my favourite person in the world is mentally disabled.
This is more so when we consider people going into political positions. Take Franklin Delano Roosevelt for instance. He suffered from polio and could not walk, however he had to hide this fact from the American people because of the prejudice he would have faced when running for president. In fact I am told that he would be wheeled onto the stage out of sight of the audience, and would hold himself up on the podium for the entire time he was speaking so that people would not think he was disabled. Seriously, that takes a lot of strength, particularly since his legs were not able to support his weight.
Now, ancient warfare was very up close and personal, and as I mentioned, pretty much every male would have to go to war. The big difference is medical science. If you suffered a nasty, disabling wound back then you were more than likely to be left to die because there was pretty much nothing anybody could do. It is different these days as we are able to stabilise these fatal wounds so that those who suffer them are able to live, however it is unlikely they will live a fruitful life. Vietnam was notorious for attacks that disabled, as opposed to killed, soldiers, and then they would return home to have to eek out a meagre existence.
One thing about Philoctetes is that we are given a glimpse into the mind of the man who has been disabled and forgotten, and the anguish and the pain that he goes through being rejected. What is worse is that when they realise that he is the only one who can save them, they come running back to him as if all were forgiven. Have you ever felt like you have been used, and the pain that you feel when people who mock and ridicule you suddenly come running back asking you for your help? Well, that is the position that Philoctetes is in.
Many have criticised the play for the Deus Ex Machina that appears at the end, but one can almost see the Christian allegory that is within it. Remember, Jesus says that we should love our enemies and bless those who curse us. Well, this seems to be what Heracles is saying. In this play the forgotten and despised one becomes the saviour of the Greeks, in the same way that it was foretold that the despised and rejected suffering servant would be the harbinger of salvation.
Look, in the end this play is not going to make the disabled soldier's life any easier, nor is it going to magically cure him. However what it is going to do is to help him, and us, understand the pain that one feels when one is rejected because of their disability. This is not something new, and we can be assured that in the audience when the play was first performed there were many people in the same situation as Philoctetes. This play does not offer a solution, but it does offer comfort.
23 October 2012
Okay, we only have seven plays by Sophocles, so dividing them up into categories probably does not do much, however I will do that anyway. The three categories that I propose are the Theban plays (namely the ones that deal with Oedipus and the fallout from that rather sticky episode), the war plays (which I will get to shortly) and Electra. Yes, I know, Electra is only one play, but as far as I am concerned, it simply does not fall into either of the other two categories, so I have put it into a category of its own.
Anyway, the Philoctetes is one of the war plays (simply because it is not Electra, and does not involve Oedipus or any of the mess that arose from it). Each of the war plays (and remember that Sophocles wrote much more than what we currently have) seem to deal with a different impact of war. As I have indicated previously, if you were Greek, male, and young, it was highly likely that you were either at war, or if you were still alive, have been at war, so in many cases these plays are much more relevant to them, than they are to us who sit on our couches watching The Hurt Locker and going, 'Wow! That was an awesome movie!'.
Hey, I'm not knocking The Hurt Locker, it is an awesome movie, but let's just say that Sophocles' war plays are pretty much an ancient version of The Hurt Locker. In fact, each of the plays seems to deal with a different aspect of war and its effect upon the soldier (or his family). Ajax deals with the betrayal of command as well post-traumatic stress disorder; The Woman of Trachis deals with the family that is left behind while the male is off to war; and Philoctetes deals with those who are disabled, left behind, and forgotten. The thing about these three plays is that they are just as relevant today as they were back then when we are dealing with people that have been personally affected by war, whether it is the soldier that has been screwed over by Donald Rumsfeld, the war wife who has to put up with the fact that the two years that her husband was supposed to spend in Iraq has been stretched out to eight, and the solder whose legs have been blown off by a road-side bomb and then thrown into some veteran's hospital and pretty much forgotten.
As I have previously mentioned, this play is about the plight of those who have been disabled in war and have been forgotten. Okay, Philoctetes was not actually disabled in a war, he was bitten by a snake on the way over to Troy, but he was forgotten. As we are told, the Greeks were so putrefied by the ulcer that developed on his ankle that they dumped him on an island and snuck off in the middle of the night. This is something that many disabled people, especially those who have become disabled during there life, have to face day in and day out. People love people who are perfect and shy away from those who are not. Hey, even I find it difficult to relate to disabled, and my favourite person in the world is mentally disabled.
This is more so when we consider people going into political positions. Take Franklin Delano Roosevelt for instance. He suffered from polio and could not walk, however he had to hide this fact from the American people because of the prejudice he would have faced when running for president. In fact I am told that he would be wheeled onto the stage out of sight of the audience, and would hold himself up on the podium for the entire time he was speaking so that people would not think he was disabled. Seriously, that takes a lot of strength, particularly since his legs were not able to support his weight.
Now, ancient warfare was very up close and personal, and as I mentioned, pretty much every male would have to go to war. The big difference is medical science. If you suffered a nasty, disabling wound back then you were more than likely to be left to die because there was pretty much nothing anybody could do. It is different these days as we are able to stabilise these fatal wounds so that those who suffer them are able to live, however it is unlikely they will live a fruitful life. Vietnam was notorious for attacks that disabled, as opposed to killed, soldiers, and then they would return home to have to eek out a meagre existence.
One thing about Philoctetes is that we are given a glimpse into the mind of the man who has been disabled and forgotten, and the anguish and the pain that he goes through being rejected. What is worse is that when they realise that he is the only one who can save them, they come running back to him as if all were forgiven. Have you ever felt like you have been used, and the pain that you feel when people who mock and ridicule you suddenly come running back asking you for your help? Well, that is the position that Philoctetes is in.
Many have criticised the play for the Deus Ex Machina that appears at the end, but one can almost see the Christian allegory that is within it. Remember, Jesus says that we should love our enemies and bless those who curse us. Well, this seems to be what Heracles is saying. In this play the forgotten and despised one becomes the saviour of the Greeks, in the same way that it was foretold that the despised and rejected suffering servant would be the harbinger of salvation.
Look, in the end this play is not going to make the disabled soldier's life any easier, nor is it going to magically cure him. However what it is going to do is to help him, and us, understand the pain that one feels when one is rejected because of their disability. This is not something new, and we can be assured that in the audience when the play was first performed there were many people in the same situation as Philoctetes. This play does not offer a solution, but it does offer comfort.
January 7, 2017
Sofokles bu oyununda, inkar edilen ahlakı sonda inadına yeniden doğrultarak - daha prologda Odysseus'un akıllıca örülmüş hilesi için sophisma sözcüğünü kullanır - sofistlerle hesaplaşır..
Bu hesaplaşma Aristophanes'in 'Bulutlar'ında daha da yıkıcıdır..
~Antik Yunan Tragedyaları ( Joachim Latacz ) notlarımdan..
Bu hesaplaşma Aristophanes'in 'Bulutlar'ında daha da yıkıcıdır..
~Antik Yunan Tragedyaları ( Joachim Latacz ) notlarımdan..
December 28, 2020
La morte accettabile di Filottéte
L’ho (ri)letto spinta dalla suggestione della sofferenza fisica in estrema solitudine di Filottéte (e anche della citazione da parte di qualcuno in qualche talk show) che, è inutile dirlo, ti passa sotto gli occhi ogni sera nei numeri dei morti per Covid 19 di tutto il mondo.
Uomini a perdere: ottuagenari con malattie croniche con cui hanno trascinato una vita senza qualità, suggendo le risorse sempre più esigue della sanità. Solo qualche giovane, e meno male, si ammala gravemente ma nelle statistiche figura tra quelli non baciati dalla fortuna per handicap alla nascita o perché se la sono voluta: obesi, tossici, spostati: purtroppo la solita zavorra delle società evolute. Non è detto che ci arrivino in rianimazione, e mi chiedo cosa siano costretti a fare i medici quando gli si chiede di liberare un respiratore per un giovane manager bianco, ricco e risorsa irrinunciabile per la società che conta.
Non sto scherzando: il 16 marzo 2020 la società dei medici francesi coinvolti nel contrasto all’epidemia rendevano pubbliche le proprie raccomandazioni riguardanti le priorità di accesso alla rianimazione, le limitazioni nei trattamenti e l’accompagnamento verso il fine vita in base a ”age, comorbilités, ètat cognitif, fragilité, autonomie, état de nutrition e environnemet social”. E per non farsi mancare niente i medici venivano invitati a dare priorità "ai pazienti la cui morte è inaccettabile" limitando o cessando le terapie attive ai pazienti la cui morte era accettabile a causa di vecchiaia, gravi patologie, demenza e estrema dipendenza (Marco Revelli, Umano, Inumano, Postumano, Einaudi, 2020).
Filottete, con la gamba in gangrena che puzzava come una carogna e si lamentava disturbando i naviganti diretti a Ilio a vendicare l’onore di Menelao e degli Achei, era giusto giusto “un paziente la cui morte è accettabile”: viene abbandonato a Lemno deserta.
La malattia lo trasforma, lo fa regredire a uno stato quasi animale ma non lo uccide. E le similitudini, se ce ne sono, finiscono qua almeno per ciò che riguarda la malattia e la morte in solitudine comminata gratuitamente da un altro umano/inumano fratello, che sia nelle rianimazioni dei nostri civilissimi tempi o nel mondo remotamente mitico.
L’interpretazione del mito da parte di Sofocle può fare a meno dei nostri strumenti raffinati e asettici che la tecnologia ci ha messo a disposizione per decidere chi è il sommerso o il salvato. Allora bastava un cinico, amorale, senza scrupoli come Odisseo e ci si trova in res, tanto il tipo lo conoscono tutti.
Sofocle ha ottantotto anni quando rappresenta il Filottéte. Qualcosa, però, è cambiato nella sua visione quasi calviniana di Dio e dell’uomo. C’è sempre la sua con-passione per l’uomo lasciato solo con i suoi dolori in questa terra, spesso landa deserta di cui Lemno è il simbolo. Solo e eroico nel suo essere antieroe.
Sofocle non sembra più l’uomo del dubbio della ragione, colui che sa che bene e male si intrecciano, che nulla è bianco e nero ma che molto è grigio e che in quel grigio scorre la vita e che forse quel grigio inconoscibile è la mente di un dio di cui non puoi capire i suoi disegni su di te.
In un frammento Sofocle scrive: E questo io conosco bene della natura del dio/ per i saggi egli fa sempre enigmi con le sue profezie/ ma per gli sciocchi egli è un insegnante semplice e spiccio”. E mentre noi spettatori veniamo presi dalla fregola di dividere il bene e il male, sicuri di conoscere la giustizia vera umana e sovrumana, lui lascia il suo antieroe a combattere su questa terra con i misteri del male e spesso a soccombere. Di solito. Non in questo caso.
Contrariamente alle altre tragedie ora non abbandona Filottete a sbrigarsela da solo ad accettare la morte o la menomazione o, piuttosto, l’ostracismo. No. Stavolta il finale è quasi euripideo con la comparsa del deus ex machina Eracle ( Il vaccino? I primi a essere stati vaccinati sono centenari. Excusatio non petita?). Il finale è a lieto fine, almeno dal punto di vista politico e della ragion di stato: distruggere Troia e finirla con la sporca guerra.
Ma la cosa avviene proprio all’ultimo minuto. Benché vecchio il dubbio sul destino dell’uomo lo divora ancora. Non ha certezze. Per Filottete, infatti ha scritto ben tre finali, tutti messi in scena a dimostrazione che nulla nell’uomo è fermo e certo. Solo Odisseo è un uomo a una dimensione, preda del pensiero utilitaristico senza se e senza ma.
Il primo finale è sicuramente il più triste: Neottolemo plagiato da Odisseo, tra Filottéte di cui si è guadagnato l’amicizia con l’inganno al punto da farsi dare l’arco magico e Odisseo, sceglie questi che gli promette la gloria futura e lo abbandona sull’isola.
Poi ci ripensa: è proprio un bravo ragazzo e, non potendo riuscire a convincere Filottete a seguirlo a Ilo e a rivestirsi di gloria assieme a lui gli propone di portarlo con lui lontano da Odisseo e dai suoi Achei, sapendo che solo la fortuna li avrebbe potuti salvare entrambi. Filottéte accetta perchè la voglia di ritornare tra gli uomini e vivere una vita normale non l'aveva mai abbandonato.
Potrebbe, la tragedia, concludersi qua, con un interrogativo sul destino dei due (catturati in mare da quel pezzo di m… di Odisseo e portati sotto le mura di Troia o perire in mare, o…?) ma consegnandoli all’imperitura memoria di campioni della lealtà e dell’amicizia.
Sofocle è un pio senza dio, probabilmente. Ma ha un grande senso dello stato. È un politico nel senso letterale del termine. E allora conclude con un colpo di scena, alla maniera di Euripide, che Luciano Canfora interpreta come mossa politica. Secondo lui l'analogia tra Alcibiade e Filottete è evidente. E Sofocle, scegliendo il mito di Filottéte manda un messaggio allo stratega riluttante durante le Dionisie in cui si celebrava la restaurazione della democrazia. Alcibiade sarebbe stato non solo una garanzia di vittoria militare sugli spartani ma anche l'ultima incarnazione della linea politica Periclea. E Euripide e i suoi escamotage vengono a pennello per fargli fare la sua parte di grande vecchio tra le righe della sua ultima tragedia.
Ma questo finale ha un’aria posticcia, almeno per me, anche se mette d’accordo il mito come ci è tramandato (Neottolemo e Filottéte uccideranno con l’arco di Eracle Paride, mettendo fine a guerra di cui anche gli aedi e i poeti erano forse stufi) e le preoccupazioni “civiche” del vecchio tragico.
L’ho (ri)letto spinta dalla suggestione della sofferenza fisica in estrema solitudine di Filottéte (e anche della citazione da parte di qualcuno in qualche talk show) che, è inutile dirlo, ti passa sotto gli occhi ogni sera nei numeri dei morti per Covid 19 di tutto il mondo.
Uomini a perdere: ottuagenari con malattie croniche con cui hanno trascinato una vita senza qualità, suggendo le risorse sempre più esigue della sanità. Solo qualche giovane, e meno male, si ammala gravemente ma nelle statistiche figura tra quelli non baciati dalla fortuna per handicap alla nascita o perché se la sono voluta: obesi, tossici, spostati: purtroppo la solita zavorra delle società evolute. Non è detto che ci arrivino in rianimazione, e mi chiedo cosa siano costretti a fare i medici quando gli si chiede di liberare un respiratore per un giovane manager bianco, ricco e risorsa irrinunciabile per la società che conta.
Non sto scherzando: il 16 marzo 2020 la società dei medici francesi coinvolti nel contrasto all’epidemia rendevano pubbliche le proprie raccomandazioni riguardanti le priorità di accesso alla rianimazione, le limitazioni nei trattamenti e l’accompagnamento verso il fine vita in base a ”age, comorbilités, ètat cognitif, fragilité, autonomie, état de nutrition e environnemet social”. E per non farsi mancare niente i medici venivano invitati a dare priorità "ai pazienti la cui morte è inaccettabile" limitando o cessando le terapie attive ai pazienti la cui morte era accettabile a causa di vecchiaia, gravi patologie, demenza e estrema dipendenza (Marco Revelli, Umano, Inumano, Postumano, Einaudi, 2020).
Filottete, con la gamba in gangrena che puzzava come una carogna e si lamentava disturbando i naviganti diretti a Ilio a vendicare l’onore di Menelao e degli Achei, era giusto giusto “un paziente la cui morte è accettabile”: viene abbandonato a Lemno deserta.
La malattia lo trasforma, lo fa regredire a uno stato quasi animale ma non lo uccide. E le similitudini, se ce ne sono, finiscono qua almeno per ciò che riguarda la malattia e la morte in solitudine comminata gratuitamente da un altro umano/inumano fratello, che sia nelle rianimazioni dei nostri civilissimi tempi o nel mondo remotamente mitico.
L’interpretazione del mito da parte di Sofocle può fare a meno dei nostri strumenti raffinati e asettici che la tecnologia ci ha messo a disposizione per decidere chi è il sommerso o il salvato. Allora bastava un cinico, amorale, senza scrupoli come Odisseo e ci si trova in res, tanto il tipo lo conoscono tutti.
Sofocle ha ottantotto anni quando rappresenta il Filottéte. Qualcosa, però, è cambiato nella sua visione quasi calviniana di Dio e dell’uomo. C’è sempre la sua con-passione per l’uomo lasciato solo con i suoi dolori in questa terra, spesso landa deserta di cui Lemno è il simbolo. Solo e eroico nel suo essere antieroe.
Sofocle non sembra più l’uomo del dubbio della ragione, colui che sa che bene e male si intrecciano, che nulla è bianco e nero ma che molto è grigio e che in quel grigio scorre la vita e che forse quel grigio inconoscibile è la mente di un dio di cui non puoi capire i suoi disegni su di te.
In un frammento Sofocle scrive: E questo io conosco bene della natura del dio/ per i saggi egli fa sempre enigmi con le sue profezie/ ma per gli sciocchi egli è un insegnante semplice e spiccio”. E mentre noi spettatori veniamo presi dalla fregola di dividere il bene e il male, sicuri di conoscere la giustizia vera umana e sovrumana, lui lascia il suo antieroe a combattere su questa terra con i misteri del male e spesso a soccombere. Di solito. Non in questo caso.
Contrariamente alle altre tragedie ora non abbandona Filottete a sbrigarsela da solo ad accettare la morte o la menomazione o, piuttosto, l’ostracismo. No. Stavolta il finale è quasi euripideo con la comparsa del deus ex machina Eracle ( Il vaccino? I primi a essere stati vaccinati sono centenari. Excusatio non petita?). Il finale è a lieto fine, almeno dal punto di vista politico e della ragion di stato: distruggere Troia e finirla con la sporca guerra.
Ma la cosa avviene proprio all’ultimo minuto. Benché vecchio il dubbio sul destino dell’uomo lo divora ancora. Non ha certezze. Per Filottete, infatti ha scritto ben tre finali, tutti messi in scena a dimostrazione che nulla nell’uomo è fermo e certo. Solo Odisseo è un uomo a una dimensione, preda del pensiero utilitaristico senza se e senza ma.
Il primo finale è sicuramente il più triste: Neottolemo plagiato da Odisseo, tra Filottéte di cui si è guadagnato l’amicizia con l’inganno al punto da farsi dare l’arco magico e Odisseo, sceglie questi che gli promette la gloria futura e lo abbandona sull’isola.
Poi ci ripensa: è proprio un bravo ragazzo e, non potendo riuscire a convincere Filottete a seguirlo a Ilo e a rivestirsi di gloria assieme a lui gli propone di portarlo con lui lontano da Odisseo e dai suoi Achei, sapendo che solo la fortuna li avrebbe potuti salvare entrambi. Filottéte accetta perchè la voglia di ritornare tra gli uomini e vivere una vita normale non l'aveva mai abbandonato.
Potrebbe, la tragedia, concludersi qua, con un interrogativo sul destino dei due (catturati in mare da quel pezzo di m… di Odisseo e portati sotto le mura di Troia o perire in mare, o…?) ma consegnandoli all’imperitura memoria di campioni della lealtà e dell’amicizia.
Sofocle è un pio senza dio, probabilmente. Ma ha un grande senso dello stato. È un politico nel senso letterale del termine. E allora conclude con un colpo di scena, alla maniera di Euripide, che Luciano Canfora interpreta come mossa politica. Secondo lui l'analogia tra Alcibiade e Filottete è evidente. E Sofocle, scegliendo il mito di Filottéte manda un messaggio allo stratega riluttante durante le Dionisie in cui si celebrava la restaurazione della democrazia. Alcibiade sarebbe stato non solo una garanzia di vittoria militare sugli spartani ma anche l'ultima incarnazione della linea politica Periclea. E Euripide e i suoi escamotage vengono a pennello per fargli fare la sua parte di grande vecchio tra le righe della sua ultima tragedia.
Ma questo finale ha un’aria posticcia, almeno per me, anche se mette d’accordo il mito come ci è tramandato (Neottolemo e Filottéte uccideranno con l’arco di Eracle Paride, mettendo fine a guerra di cui anche gli aedi e i poeti erano forse stufi) e le preoccupazioni “civiche” del vecchio tragico.
February 29, 2024
Tre uomini e una gamba
Filottete è stato abbandonato da dieci anni sull'isola di Lemno- selvaggia e disabitata- per via di una ferita purulenta ad una gamba, che lo strazia e lo infetta, senza ucciderlo.
L'oracolo ha predetto che solo il suo arco porrà fine alla guerra; il solito Odisseo dal multiforme ingegno vuole sottrarglielo con l'inganno servendosi dell'aiuto di Neottolemo, degno figlio di Achille, che si oppone alla viltà ordita in nome della ragion di stato.
Eracle, deus ex machina, risolverà l'intricata vicenda, calando l'asso della volontà di Zeus, assai più rilevante delle piccolezze umane.
Ancora una volta il classico funge per me da potente deviazione dai tormenti quotidiani: qui si affrontano temi universali, quali l'amicizia, il tradimento, l'utilitarismo che annienta qualsivoglia ideale. Argomenti, dunque, che "sanno di uomo" e che all'uomo (e, ovviamente, alla donna) di ogni tempo parlano.
Su tutto troneggia la solitudine esistenziale dell'essere umano, uno dei macrotemi del teatro di Sofocle, che me lo hanno sempre fatto prediligere: siamo soli, sussurra quest'ultimo in ogni pagina, neppure troppo al centro del mondo.
Ma, certo, è subito sera.
Filottete è stato abbandonato da dieci anni sull'isola di Lemno- selvaggia e disabitata- per via di una ferita purulenta ad una gamba, che lo strazia e lo infetta, senza ucciderlo.
L'oracolo ha predetto che solo il suo arco porrà fine alla guerra; il solito Odisseo dal multiforme ingegno vuole sottrarglielo con l'inganno servendosi dell'aiuto di Neottolemo, degno figlio di Achille, che si oppone alla viltà ordita in nome della ragion di stato.
Eracle, deus ex machina, risolverà l'intricata vicenda, calando l'asso della volontà di Zeus, assai più rilevante delle piccolezze umane.
Ancora una volta il classico funge per me da potente deviazione dai tormenti quotidiani: qui si affrontano temi universali, quali l'amicizia, il tradimento, l'utilitarismo che annienta qualsivoglia ideale. Argomenti, dunque, che "sanno di uomo" e che all'uomo (e, ovviamente, alla donna) di ogni tempo parlano.
Su tutto troneggia la solitudine esistenziale dell'essere umano, uno dei macrotemi del teatro di Sofocle, che me lo hanno sempre fatto prediligere: siamo soli, sussurra quest'ultimo in ogni pagina, neppure troppo al centro del mondo.
Ma, certo, è subito sera.
May 18, 2018
Homeros'un "İlyada"sı ile Sophokles'in "Elektra"sı arasındaki bir zaman dilimini konu alan "Philoctetes / Philoktetes", Truva Savaşı'yla ilgili önemli bir detayı hem de Sophocles'in harika diliyle okuyucuya buluşturması sebebiyle Antik Yunan Edebiyatı açısından oldukça önemli bir yere sahip. Odysseus ve Akhilleus'un oğlu Neoptolemos'un sol ayağından yaralı olduğu için ıssız bir adaya terk edilmiş Heracles'in silahlarının mirasçısı Philoktetes'i Truva Savaşı'na dahil etme çabalarının anlatıldığı oyunda Sophocles, bu üç karakterle MÖ 5. yüzyıl Atina'sının üç önemli problemi olan sosyal, siyasal ve eğitim konularına değiniyor. Ari Çokona'nın akıcı çevirisiyle rahatlıkla okunabilen bu tarihi eser, Sophocles'in diğer oyunları gibi sürüklemesini biliyor.
12.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
12.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
December 10, 2022
آدمهای خوب در مورد تصمیمات خود شک م��کنند. نئوپتولموس پس از انجام وظيفه، به خودش میآید و تصميم میگیرد دیگر مامور نباشد و معذور. او البته از هزینهی سنگین تصمیمش آگاه است. فیلوکتتس نیز تردید دارد که آیا جزیرهی رنجآور خود را ترک کند به این بها که زان پس همچون بردهی اودیسئوس شود یا نه. هر دو نفر تصمیم میگیرند رنج بکشند ولی آقای خودشان باشند.
در مقابل، تنها مستبدان (اودیسئوس) و خدایان (هراکلس) هستند که بر فرمان خود استوارند و هرگز نظرشان را تغییر نمیدهند. خدایانْ ثابت قدم هستند چون از آینده خبر دارند، پس تصمیم درست را میدانند. مستبدان نیز عقاید صلبی دارند، چون خیال میکنند که چنان قدرتمندند که بر حوادث آینده کنترل دارند.
در مقابل، تنها مستبدان (اودیسئوس) و خدایان (هراکلس) هستند که بر فرمان خود استوارند و هرگز نظرشان را تغییر نمیدهند. خدایانْ ثابت قدم هستند چون از آینده خبر دارند، پس تصمیم درست را میدانند. مستبدان نیز عقاید صلبی دارند، چون خیال میکنند که چنان قدرتمندند که بر حوادث آینده کنترل دارند.
December 24, 2020
This is perhaps my favorite Sophocles piece because it deals directly with bullying. Odysseus and Neoptolemus show up on this island and Ode tells Neo that Neo's gotta trick Philoctetes into a false story while Ode hides. Neo's a good boy and it takes some coaxing. But finally Neo goes to Phil and says, "I too hate Ode."
And Phil's like, "Kay."
And Neo's like, "No really, Ode took my dad Achilles's armor. This armor belongs to me and Ode won't give it up. Oh by the way, I'm heading to our mutual homeland, you wanna come home? I'll take care of that bow for you as we go."
And Phil's like, "This magical bow that Heracles gave me?"
And Neo's like, "If it please ya."
And Phil's like, "Nah — AAAAAAA MY FOOT HOLD MY BOW."
And Neo leaves. He starts feeling pretty bad about it, but Ode shows up and they start bickering on whether or not to give the bow back. They threaten each other and Odysseus peaces out and goes... I don't really remember where he went, but Neo's like, "Hey Phil, you should really come back to Troy, yeah?"
"Nah."
"I mean, I'll take you back to Greece, if you want, but really you should—"
"Take me back to Greece."
"Greece, okay. There's gonna be a lot of army men pissed."
Enter Heracles, the ghost of Troymas past. "IF YOU GO TO TROY YOU WILL BE CURED OF YOUR FOOT FUNGUS THINGY AND THE GREEKS WILLW IN."
Phil's like, "Sure, whatever."
When Philoctetes later fights in Troy, his foot is healed, and he wins glory, killing many Trojans (including Paris). Huzzah.
The end.
Doesn't seem like it's about bullying at first, but it really and truly is. Here's this guy who's tucked into the mountains and really upset about all the folks he lost — hating the guys who did it — and really convinced that none of them love him. They persuaded him up there and he's in this cave with his own grief and he's so, so bitter about being exiled this way that he's just raining down arrows all day long on anyone that comes near him so that the only way to get to him is to trick him into releasing the bow.
That's some serious trauma.
And it seems to me to be my own experience of being mocked, being made fun of often. You tend to retreat and just lob things and people and hope no one comes near enough to hurt you. But they convinced this guy that his people — his entire family and whatnot — was ashamed of him and that the best thing to do was to just hole up and hide away. The chorus of sailors say, "Verily I marvel how, as he listened in his solitude to the surges that beat around him, he kept his hold upon a life so full of woe; where he was neighbour to himself alone — powerless to walk — with no one in the land to be near him while he suffered, in whose ear he could pour forth the lament, awaking response, for the plague that gnawed his flesh and drained his blood...
It seems to me that's exactly what exile feels like — especially when people have lied to you and told you that those you love don't want to be around you anymore. It's really an awful thing, what they did to this man, and though many of the other plays worked on me, I felt the metaphor in the cave most personally.
I like that metaphor. I like the idea of the arrows hurting friends as well as foes, convinced that your homeland loathes you.
Good lines in this include things like when Neoptolemus asks Odysseus, "Thou thinkest it no shame, then, to speak falsehoods?"
"No, if the falsehood brings deliverance."
"And how shall one have the face to speak those words?"
It's this back and forth on the nature of justifying such a great lie. There's another line I love: War takes no evil man by choice, but good men always.
The other thing I'd point out is that this is just glorified Homer fan fiction: HOW DID THEY RECRUIT PHILOCTETES?! As the entire Marvel universe is now Stan Lee and Jack Kirby fan fiction and so forth. The history of fiction is really just the history of fan fiction and some of it's just better than others.
July 8, 2020
After a foot injury on the way to Troy, Philoctetes is unceremoniously stranded on a deserted island, just so his fellow Greeks don't have to deal with the fetid smell or his pained whining. After consulting a seer, Odysseus admits he did a whoopsie by abandoning his comrade, as they need Philoctetes' bow (gifted by Hercules) to win the Trojan war, so he and Neoptolemus (son of Achilles) sail to the island to steal the bow by any means necessary.
For all I bang on about the Greco-Roman God's being unfeeling bastards, the Ancient Greeks apparently pay homage by trying to surpass them in that sheer bastardry. Odysseus is an utter monster and coward in this.
Having reached the island, and well aware Philoctetes wants to turn his bollocks into a necklace, Odysseus has Neoptolemus speak to the archer instead, and convince him through lies to relinquish the bow. This is apparently an example of Odysseus' cunning and not because he's completely spineless.
Neoptolemus manages to ingraitiate himself to the injured Philoctetes', between all the the stranded man's many, many lamentations (I'm on your side, dude, don't put me off by whining), by pointing out all the ways that, he too, considers Odysseus a complete arse, and seems to end up convincing himself, and the audience, that he's doing something truly awful for a man he genuinely doesn't like. Queue Odyssues showing his valour by waiting till Neoptolemus has the bow maguffin in his hand before daring to step forward and nick it, thus leaving the wronged Philoctetes to have no option but starve to death, as he can no longer hunt for food. Eventually Neoptolemus recognises he's turning into Agamemnon in terms of human decency, so returns the bow and Philoctetes immediately tries to kill Odysseus with it, and the epic hero concludes his part in the story by couragously running away.
Then the play becomes an argument about why Philoctetes should go to Troy and help win the war, with even the chorus berating him for refusing, and are you bloody kidding me? He's supposed to be in the moral wrong for not wanting to help the arseholes who stranded him get someone else's wife back? He owes them sodding nothing. Nevertheless, he eventually agrees, with the promise he'll be healed and his magic bow will save the world, all thanks to Hercules descending from Heaven to tell Philocetes to get thy arse to Troy, a silly deus ex machina that mercifully ends the plot.
Alas, dear Sophocles, I have now completed the entirity of your surviving oeuvre and while I don't consider this a damp squib of a finale, its not your best. I managed to froth up quite a bit of rage, certainly, but the play was an incredibly one sided clash of ethics. Could Odysseus be in the right? Is it just to steal the only means of survival for a man he stranded, if it means the end of the war and the saving of many lives? No. If Odysseus was really that bothered about helping his fellow Greeks and not simply saving his own neck, he could have resolved everything far more quickly with an apology and letting Philoctetes shoot him in the dick as penance. Instead he went for the sneaky and craven option, and after this and Euripides' Cyclops, I doubt I'll be able to read the Odyssey without cheering every time the heartless git's boat gets destroyed.
For all I bang on about the Greco-Roman God's being unfeeling bastards, the Ancient Greeks apparently pay homage by trying to surpass them in that sheer bastardry. Odysseus is an utter monster and coward in this.
Having reached the island, and well aware Philoctetes wants to turn his bollocks into a necklace, Odysseus has Neoptolemus speak to the archer instead, and convince him through lies to relinquish the bow. This is apparently an example of Odysseus' cunning and not because he's completely spineless.
Neoptolemus manages to ingraitiate himself to the injured Philoctetes', between all the the stranded man's many, many lamentations (I'm on your side, dude, don't put me off by whining), by pointing out all the ways that, he too, considers Odysseus a complete arse, and seems to end up convincing himself, and the audience, that he's doing something truly awful for a man he genuinely doesn't like. Queue Odyssues showing his valour by waiting till Neoptolemus has the bow maguffin in his hand before daring to step forward and nick it, thus leaving the wronged Philoctetes to have no option but starve to death, as he can no longer hunt for food. Eventually Neoptolemus recognises he's turning into Agamemnon in terms of human decency, so returns the bow and Philoctetes immediately tries to kill Odysseus with it, and the epic hero concludes his part in the story by couragously running away.
Then the play becomes an argument about why Philoctetes should go to Troy and help win the war, with even the chorus berating him for refusing, and are you bloody kidding me? He's supposed to be in the moral wrong for not wanting to help the arseholes who stranded him get someone else's wife back? He owes them sodding nothing. Nevertheless, he eventually agrees, with the promise he'll be healed and his magic bow will save the world, all thanks to Hercules descending from Heaven to tell Philocetes to get thy arse to Troy, a silly deus ex machina that mercifully ends the plot.
Alas, dear Sophocles, I have now completed the entirity of your surviving oeuvre and while I don't consider this a damp squib of a finale, its not your best. I managed to froth up quite a bit of rage, certainly, but the play was an incredibly one sided clash of ethics. Could Odysseus be in the right? Is it just to steal the only means of survival for a man he stranded, if it means the end of the war and the saving of many lives? No. If Odysseus was really that bothered about helping his fellow Greeks and not simply saving his own neck, he could have resolved everything far more quickly with an apology and letting Philoctetes shoot him in the dick as penance. Instead he went for the sneaky and craven option, and after this and Euripides' Cyclops, I doubt I'll be able to read the Odyssey without cheering every time the heartless git's boat gets destroyed.
July 30, 2017
I read E.F. Watling's translation.
Beautiful play by the greatest ancient greek writer Sophocles.
Smart and beautiful dialogues, Well written characters, Interesting "told" events, powerful drama, What else one can wish from a play.
The only defeat is Heracles' appearance at the end, it spoils what could be a unique end for a greek play.
Beautiful play by the greatest ancient greek writer Sophocles.
Smart and beautiful dialogues, Well written characters, Interesting "told" events, powerful drama, What else one can wish from a play.
The only defeat is Heracles' appearance at the end, it spoils what could be a unique end for a greek play.
October 28, 2021
Não sei muito que dizer sobre um clássico que está para lá dos clássicos. Perfeito. Faz aquilo que se propõe fazer de forma tão simples e depurada que ecoa ainda hoje. As anotações foram, para mim, fundamentais.
February 14, 2017
"The sacred doesn't diePhiloktetes (/Philoctetes) has been dumped on an island with a festering wound on his foot—he was abandoned there by the Greeks because his sickness made his presence insufferable. It turns out, however, that they need his bow—the one given to him by Herakles for helping the hero die—in order to finally attain victory in the Trojan War. Odysseus sends the neophyte Neoptolemos, son of Achilles, to trick Philoktetes into giving him his bow. Initially thinking it shameful and beneath him to deceive a man in such a base way, he is finally persuaded by Odysseus take part in the ploy. He wins poor wretched Philoktetes' confidence, who then hands him his bow, after which the scheme is quickly disclosed. Feeling pity for Philoktetes, and deeming the act wrong once more, Neoptolemos returns the bow to Philoktetes in defiance of Odysseus. Still, the Greeks—as revealed through prophecy—need Herakles' bow to settle the war at least. It takes the spirit of Herakles to persuade the agonized and agonizing Philoktetes to leave his desolate island and pitiful cave of suffering and return, cum bow, to Troy—to have his rotting foot finally be healed, and to help the Greeks gain their victory. It also took ten years of near-constant torment to get to this point.
when men do. Whether they live or die,
holiness endures."
November 7, 2014
Despite most critics' bewilderment at the fact that this play has a happy conclusion, I found it more moving than any other Greek tragedy I've read. The poignancy of the man who's not just rejected and isolated by everyone because of an illness, but who is humbly aware himself of the repugnance of this illness, is hard to put into words. The moment when the men who had betrayed his trust turn around to leave Philoctetes, and his reaction is a simple, penetrating "Friends!", is absolutely heartrending. Dramatically tight and balanced, it reads like a more robust, Greek "The Tempest", and its culmination in a promised healing of this terrible wound is only fitting, I think.
July 30, 2013
Philoctetes is a fantastic play by Sophocles that explores themes of trauma/suffering, and making the morally correct decisions. Philoctetes's situation is immensely pitiable, and Odysseus is certainly in his "pre-trials and tribulations humbling experience" stage. Sophocles is my favorite Greek tragedian, and he is in top form in Philoctetes.
March 20, 2024
Beetje verpest door deus ex machina :((
November 24, 2014
Mais uma tragédia magnífica de Sófocles. É impossível não sentir como privilégio, o facto de esta obra ter chegado até aos dias de hoje. Segundo o que pesquisei, foram apenas sete os textos que "sobreviveram" de entre as mais de 125 obras do autor. Esta foi a quarta que li, e foi a quarta que adorei.
No entanto, momentos após terminá-la, senti que esta tragédia não era bem como as anteriores, mas não consegui identificar de imediato por que motivo isso tinha acontecido. Na altura, lembro-me de pensar que a história parecia incompleta. Apesar de ter um princípio e um fim bem definidos, era como se se tratasse de uma sub-história, dentro de uma narrativa maior, como se fosse um capítulo de um livro, ou um dos livros de uma trilogia, tão frequentes na época. A minha pesquisa levou-me a concluir que não há nada que indicie que esta obra seja parte de qualquer outra, pelo que foi necessário reflectir melhor sobre o que tinha lido, e sobre o porquê desta sensação de "diferença" em relação ao que já tinha lido do autor.
Foi só após alguma reflexão que chego às seguintes hipóteses explicativas sobre esta "diferença" por mim sentida:
Esta tragédia não contém os "ingredientes" usuais das tragédias de Sófocles anteriormente lidas. É uma narrativa de natureza mais subtil, sem os acontecimentos "fortes" e "trágicos", que "abalam" o leitor.
O texto termina, pelo uso do artifício Deus Ex Machina, ou seja, pela intervenção de um Deus, neste caso o semideus Héracles, que irá ditar a conclusão da história. Apesar de ser de enorme interesse literário a utilização deste artifício nos dramas, não posso dizer que me agrade muito quando as histórias terminam desta forma. E neste caso específico, não me parece que fosse forçosamente necessária esta intervenção divina no final.
Não sei se estas minhas duas constatações são suficientes para identificar a "diferença" nesta tragédia, mas devo dizer que ser diferente não foi neste caso algo mau. Esta história é realmente diferente, mais subtil, menos completa, com um final não surpreendente, mas não deixa de ser formidável, e belíssimamente bem contada. Acho sempre extraordinário quando este autores promovem a reflexão sobre temas tão complexos com uma aparente parcimónia de escrita e de enredos.
Basicamente, está um homem abandonado numa ilha, doente (Filoctetes), que é possuidor de uma arma dos deuses (um arco, de Héracles), que Ulisses necessita para conseguir tomar Tróia. Para tal faz-se acompanhar de Neoptólemo, filho de Aquiles, para conseguir ganhar a sua simpatia e confiança. Mas para melhor falar deste enredo, gostaria de o fazer a partir dos seus três personagens principais.
Ulisses é um deles. Um personagem meu "conhecido" da Odisseia, apresenta-se aqui de uma forma um pouco diferente da sua típica imagem de "herói". Ele que foi um dos responsáveis pelo abandono de Filoctetes naquela ilha, por já não poderem suportar os lamentos de dor do doente, nem o cheiro nauseabundo da sua ferida, volta agora para tentar convencê-lo a entregar-lhe o arco de Héracles. Para tal, tenta convencer Neoptólemo a ajudá-lo, uma vez que este é filho de um amigo de Filoctetes (Aquiles). Mas este "serviço" que Ulisses pede a Neoptólemo, não é de natureza nobre, antes pelo contrário. Ulisses deseja que ele engane Filoctetes, por forma a que este entregue o seu arco invencível. É pois, um Ulisses ardiloso que nos surge neste tragédia, convencido (e não há quem o demova desta convicção) de que os meios justificam os fins. Este é o primeiro motivo para reflexão que Sófocles nos concede no seu texto.
Filoctetes, o homem abandonado naquela ilha, vive em grande dor e agonia. Sofre um mal no seu pé, por antigo perjúrio cometido ao revelar o local onde repousavam as cinzas de Héracles. A dor do abandono pelos companheiros concorre com a dor física do mal incurável e quase insuportável. Jurou-se inimigo mortal daqueles que o haviam enganado, e por nada entregaria o seu arco àqueles que o traíram. O relato do sofrimento deste homem é um dos pontos altos desta tragédia, e mais um motivo para reflexão.
Neoptólemo encarna a questão central deste enredo. Dividido entre duas posições irredutíveis, a de Ulisses e a de Filoctetes, não tem uma tarefa fácil. Entre enganar alguém que mereceu a amizade de seu pai, e retirar a esse homem já em grande sofrimento o seu único bem ( o arco ) , a fim de que Tróia seja finalmente tomada, ou recusar-se a prestar esse "serviço" a Ulisses, e tornar-se ele próprio um traidor. Com pouca margem de manobra, este jovem vê-se assim perante este grave dilema, e seja qual for a sua decisão, acarretará para si próprio graves consequências, as quais terá que enfrentar. Se os outros pontos de reflexão não tivessem tocado o leitor, aqui sem dúvida quem lê é obrigado a reflectir sobre este dilema que aflige um dos seus principais personagens.
Resumindo, apesar de um pouco diferente do que já havia lido do autor, é uma tragédia excelente, e mais uma vez recomendo este livro, à imagem do que aconteceu com as suas outras obras.
Para o post completo, ver:
http://linkedbooks.blogspot.pt/2014/1...
No entanto, momentos após terminá-la, senti que esta tragédia não era bem como as anteriores, mas não consegui identificar de imediato por que motivo isso tinha acontecido. Na altura, lembro-me de pensar que a história parecia incompleta. Apesar de ter um princípio e um fim bem definidos, era como se se tratasse de uma sub-história, dentro de uma narrativa maior, como se fosse um capítulo de um livro, ou um dos livros de uma trilogia, tão frequentes na época. A minha pesquisa levou-me a concluir que não há nada que indicie que esta obra seja parte de qualquer outra, pelo que foi necessário reflectir melhor sobre o que tinha lido, e sobre o porquê desta sensação de "diferença" em relação ao que já tinha lido do autor.
Foi só após alguma reflexão que chego às seguintes hipóteses explicativas sobre esta "diferença" por mim sentida:
Esta tragédia não contém os "ingredientes" usuais das tragédias de Sófocles anteriormente lidas. É uma narrativa de natureza mais subtil, sem os acontecimentos "fortes" e "trágicos", que "abalam" o leitor.
O texto termina, pelo uso do artifício Deus Ex Machina, ou seja, pela intervenção de um Deus, neste caso o semideus Héracles, que irá ditar a conclusão da história. Apesar de ser de enorme interesse literário a utilização deste artifício nos dramas, não posso dizer que me agrade muito quando as histórias terminam desta forma. E neste caso específico, não me parece que fosse forçosamente necessária esta intervenção divina no final.
Não sei se estas minhas duas constatações são suficientes para identificar a "diferença" nesta tragédia, mas devo dizer que ser diferente não foi neste caso algo mau. Esta história é realmente diferente, mais subtil, menos completa, com um final não surpreendente, mas não deixa de ser formidável, e belíssimamente bem contada. Acho sempre extraordinário quando este autores promovem a reflexão sobre temas tão complexos com uma aparente parcimónia de escrita e de enredos.
Basicamente, está um homem abandonado numa ilha, doente (Filoctetes), que é possuidor de uma arma dos deuses (um arco, de Héracles), que Ulisses necessita para conseguir tomar Tróia. Para tal faz-se acompanhar de Neoptólemo, filho de Aquiles, para conseguir ganhar a sua simpatia e confiança. Mas para melhor falar deste enredo, gostaria de o fazer a partir dos seus três personagens principais.
Ulisses é um deles. Um personagem meu "conhecido" da Odisseia, apresenta-se aqui de uma forma um pouco diferente da sua típica imagem de "herói". Ele que foi um dos responsáveis pelo abandono de Filoctetes naquela ilha, por já não poderem suportar os lamentos de dor do doente, nem o cheiro nauseabundo da sua ferida, volta agora para tentar convencê-lo a entregar-lhe o arco de Héracles. Para tal, tenta convencer Neoptólemo a ajudá-lo, uma vez que este é filho de um amigo de Filoctetes (Aquiles). Mas este "serviço" que Ulisses pede a Neoptólemo, não é de natureza nobre, antes pelo contrário. Ulisses deseja que ele engane Filoctetes, por forma a que este entregue o seu arco invencível. É pois, um Ulisses ardiloso que nos surge neste tragédia, convencido (e não há quem o demova desta convicção) de que os meios justificam os fins. Este é o primeiro motivo para reflexão que Sófocles nos concede no seu texto.
Filoctetes, o homem abandonado naquela ilha, vive em grande dor e agonia. Sofre um mal no seu pé, por antigo perjúrio cometido ao revelar o local onde repousavam as cinzas de Héracles. A dor do abandono pelos companheiros concorre com a dor física do mal incurável e quase insuportável. Jurou-se inimigo mortal daqueles que o haviam enganado, e por nada entregaria o seu arco àqueles que o traíram. O relato do sofrimento deste homem é um dos pontos altos desta tragédia, e mais um motivo para reflexão.
Neoptólemo encarna a questão central deste enredo. Dividido entre duas posições irredutíveis, a de Ulisses e a de Filoctetes, não tem uma tarefa fácil. Entre enganar alguém que mereceu a amizade de seu pai, e retirar a esse homem já em grande sofrimento o seu único bem ( o arco ) , a fim de que Tróia seja finalmente tomada, ou recusar-se a prestar esse "serviço" a Ulisses, e tornar-se ele próprio um traidor. Com pouca margem de manobra, este jovem vê-se assim perante este grave dilema, e seja qual for a sua decisão, acarretará para si próprio graves consequências, as quais terá que enfrentar. Se os outros pontos de reflexão não tivessem tocado o leitor, aqui sem dúvida quem lê é obrigado a reflectir sobre este dilema que aflige um dos seus principais personagens.
Resumindo, apesar de um pouco diferente do que já havia lido do autor, é uma tragédia excelente, e mais uma vez recomendo este livro, à imagem do que aconteceu com as suas outras obras.
Para o post completo, ver:
http://linkedbooks.blogspot.pt/2014/1...
September 25, 2020
Puanım 4/5 (%79/100)
Kitapla ilgili düşüncelerimi ve neler olduğunu anlatmadan önce biraz bilgi vermem gerekiyor. Kitap Sophokles'in Trakhisli Kadınlar kitabının devamı denilebilir. Ölüm döşeğindeki Herakles'in acısını dindiren tek kişi genç Philoktetes oluyor. Bu yaptığı şey karşısında da Herakles ona sihirli yayını ve oklarını veriyor. (Hedefini şaşırmayan ve kesinlikle öldüren türden bir silah.) Yunanlılar ile birlikte Troya'ya giden Philoktetes'in ayağını zehirli bir yılan ısırır. Zehirden dolayı Philoktetes sürekli bağırır çağırır ve çok pis bir koku yayar. Bu yüzden Yunanlılar (Daha çok Odysseus sayesinde) onu Lemnos adasında bırakıp Troya'ya devam ederler. 10 yıl geçer fakar Yunanlılar bir türlü Troya'yı alamazlar. Bir kahin tarafından öğrenirler ki savaşı Philoktetes ve onun sihirli yayı olmadan kazanmaları imkansız. Bu yüzden Odysseus ve Akhilleus'un oğlu Neoptolemos Lemnos'a yayı almaya yola çıkarlar.
Kitap tam olarak bu sıralarda başlıyor. Odysseus ve Neoptolemos Lemnos'a varırlar. Philoktetes Odysseus'a kızgın olduğu için Odysseus Neoptolemos'un gidip Philoktetes'i kandırmasını ister. Başta gönülsüz olsa da adam bunu kabul eder. Odysseus'tan nefret ettiği ile ilgili bir hikaye anlatan Neoptolemos kısa sürede Philoktetes ile arkadaş olur. Fakat Neoptolemos'un kafası da karışmaya başlar. Önünde iki seçenek vardır; Philoktetes'ten yayı ve okları çalmak veya adama gerçeği açıklamak. Neoptolemos hangisini seçti ve Philoktetes'in sonu ne oldu okuyarak öğrenebilirsiniz.
Tragedya Philoktetes'in hayatı üzerine kurulmuş. Yılan tarafından ısırılması, dost dediği kişiler tarafından terk edilmesi ve 10 yıl boyunca tek başına hayatta kalmaya çalışması tragedya elementlerini oluşturuyor. Hikaye sonunda ortaya çıkan Herakles de Sophokles'in başka oyunlarında olduğu gibi Tanrılara ve kehanetlere inanmanın önemini vurguluyor. Olay örgüsü oldukça güzel ve sürükleyici. Hakkında detaylı şeyler öğrendiğimiz Philoktetes ve gerçek bir kahraman özellikleri taşıyan Neoptolemos çok iyi karakterler. Odysseus hilekar ve üçkağıtçı bir karakter olarak karşımıza çıkıyor fakat yine de onun en önemli özelliği olan zekası da ön planda. Kısa bir şekilde olsa da Herakles'i de görmek güzeldi. Genel olarak oldukça eğlenceli ve okuması kolay bir kitap. Böylelikle Sophokles'in bütün kitaplarını tekrar okumuş ve incelemiş bulunuyorum.
"Bugün bana yardım etmek üzere kuralların dışına çık, sonra da istersen ölümlülerin en dürüstü ol hemen ardından."
Kitapla ilgili düşüncelerimi ve neler olduğunu anlatmadan önce biraz bilgi vermem gerekiyor. Kitap Sophokles'in Trakhisli Kadınlar kitabının devamı denilebilir. Ölüm döşeğindeki Herakles'in acısını dindiren tek kişi genç Philoktetes oluyor. Bu yaptığı şey karşısında da Herakles ona sihirli yayını ve oklarını veriyor. (Hedefini şaşırmayan ve kesinlikle öldüren türden bir silah.) Yunanlılar ile birlikte Troya'ya giden Philoktetes'in ayağını zehirli bir yılan ısırır. Zehirden dolayı Philoktetes sürekli bağırır çağırır ve çok pis bir koku yayar. Bu yüzden Yunanlılar (Daha çok Odysseus sayesinde) onu Lemnos adasında bırakıp Troya'ya devam ederler. 10 yıl geçer fakar Yunanlılar bir türlü Troya'yı alamazlar. Bir kahin tarafından öğrenirler ki savaşı Philoktetes ve onun sihirli yayı olmadan kazanmaları imkansız. Bu yüzden Odysseus ve Akhilleus'un oğlu Neoptolemos Lemnos'a yayı almaya yola çıkarlar.
"Nereye dönsem, nereye baksam, tek gördüğüm hüzündü, sadece hüzündü bana yarenlik etmeye kalkan."
Kitap tam olarak bu sıralarda başlıyor. Odysseus ve Neoptolemos Lemnos'a varırlar. Philoktetes Odysseus'a kızgın olduğu için Odysseus Neoptolemos'un gidip Philoktetes'i kandırmasını ister. Başta gönülsüz olsa da adam bunu kabul eder. Odysseus'tan nefret ettiği ile ilgili bir hikaye anlatan Neoptolemos kısa sürede Philoktetes ile arkadaş olur. Fakat Neoptolemos'un kafası da karışmaya başlar. Önünde iki seçenek vardır; Philoktetes'ten yayı ve okları çalmak veya adama gerçeği açıklamak. Neoptolemos hangisini seçti ve Philoktetes'in sonu ne oldu okuyarak öğrenebilirsiniz.
Tragedya Philoktetes'in hayatı üzerine kurulmuş. Yılan tarafından ısırılması, dost dediği kişiler tarafından terk edilmesi ve 10 yıl boyunca tek başına hayatta kalmaya çalışması tragedya elementlerini oluşturuyor. Hikaye sonunda ortaya çıkan Herakles de Sophokles'in başka oyunlarında olduğu gibi Tanrılara ve kehanetlere inanmanın önemini vurguluyor. Olay örgüsü oldukça güzel ve sürükleyici. Hakkında detaylı şeyler öğrendiğimiz Philoktetes ve gerçek bir kahraman özellikleri taşıyan Neoptolemos çok iyi karakterler. Odysseus hilekar ve üçkağıtçı bir karakter olarak karşımıza çıkıyor fakat yine de onun en önemli özelliği olan zekası da ön planda. Kısa bir şekilde olsa da Herakles'i de görmek güzeldi. Genel olarak oldukça eğlenceli ve okuması kolay bir kitap. Böylelikle Sophokles'in bütün kitaplarını tekrar okumuş ve incelemiş bulunuyorum.
December 27, 2022
Filottete, tradito e abbandonato sull'isola di Lemno per la sua piaga purulenta, viene ora nuovamente ingannato dall'abile Odisseo che si serve nel giovane Neottolemo al fine di ottenere le armi di Eracle con cui espugnare la rocca di Troia.
La tragedia affronta il tema della malattia, della morte, dell'inganno e della lealtà e, nonostante l'intervento ex machina di Eracle, lascia la situazione tutt'altro che risolta.
Il testo - sebbene non fra i più noti al pubblico - è di fondamentale importanza per le sue riprese letterarie nella letteratura e nella produzione teatrale contemporanea ed è spesso stato letto come un manifesto contro la guerra e le sue menzogne.
La tragedia affronta il tema della malattia, della morte, dell'inganno e della lealtà e, nonostante l'intervento ex machina di Eracle, lascia la situazione tutt'altro che risolta.
Il testo - sebbene non fra i più noti al pubblico - è di fondamentale importanza per le sue riprese letterarie nella letteratura e nella produzione teatrale contemporanea ed è spesso stato letto come un manifesto contro la guerra e le sue menzogne.
March 5, 2019
It features a surprisingly different type of conflict (perhaps because I am most familiar with the Oresteia and the Theban plays, less so with the war plays), which is played out pretty well. There’s pain, deceit, friendship and piety - all in a fitting environment and an artful translation. The introduction fulfills its purpose of reminding the reader of how Philoctectes fits into the Epic Cycle - once again, the Greek Tragedy in New Translation series doesn’t disappoint.
December 5, 2018
Soooo compelling. I can see why this inspired Mark Merlis to write a gay modern version. There was definitely something there to work with. Philoctese's character in this play was incredibly human and sympathetic. I felt for him and will review this if I can later...
March 30, 2016
My review will be brief, as I am more than ready to move on after reading this for the thousandth time (I wanted to finish the collection I was re-reading and wouldn’t have felt complete without doing so) and have studied the text in the past and taken an exam on it, so I would like to feel I can move on from it. I will say that it is not a great play to study – there are a few themes and moral dilemmas to discuss, but the characters are not particularly complex and the threads of the play (beyond a few foreshadowing mentions of Heracles and references to the Trojan War itself) do not run particularly deep. Having re-read most of Sophocles’ other surviving plays now (and read them all at least once), I would consider this the worst of his work. The play is not terrible, but not at his usual standard in my view.
It is interesting to see Neoptolemus and Odysseus portrayed so differently from the norm – Neoptolemus is a naïve but morally upstanding newcomer to the war (the meaning of his name, ‘New to the War’; usually he is portrayed as a vicious brute with his father’s worst qualities, and the one who slits King Priam’s throat as he prays for mercy at the Trojan altars) and Odysseus is a sly and corrupt manipulator (rather than a cunning but yet conscientious man respected by Athena and the other gods, though the portrayal here is in keeping with 5th century suspiciousness concerning sophistry in oratory and Alcibiades-esque manipulation tactics).
Philoctetes is a sympathetic character (perhaps ‘tragic’ with a small ‘t’) but remains rather annoying and stubborn despite the fact that his situation could not be much worse, and we see him reject reconciliation with the army and a cure for his diseased foot for the most part out of spite, though if he would cooperate he would eventually be able to gain recognition as well as returning home as he wished. Being generous we might call him sympathetic but unreasonable, like Ajax, but we should remember that there was no easy way out for Ajax, no way to gain recognition and respect when he had been denied it so damningly, while Philoctetes rejects the solution when it is right in front of him. He could have also used the opportunity to prove himself and challenge his enemies in the army after his wound was healed. However, aside from a few bit parts (the merchant and Heracles at the end) and the chorus who are not much involved and flit from side to side in the conflict, this is essentially what we get – it is the only tragedy with no female characters, and the characters we get are fine, but not particularly impressive in comparison with Antigone, Oedipus, or Ajax, for instance.
We do get a source of excitement not usually found in tragedy by including some action on stage: the cries of Philoctetes from the pain of his infection providing one part of this, and the fight over the bow as it passes from character to character (and is used to threaten certain characters with aim at them) being the other part. Since most tragedies centre around death (which could not be shown on stage, as the stage was sacred to Dionysus), it is unusual to see action delivered visually rather than through the regular messenger's speech, so this is an aspect that provides interest for this particular play and makes it unique. However, the strength of Sophocles is of course usually in the language, and these aspects seem to take the focus away from this, especially while the play lacks any really stand-out speeches from a poetic point of view (though I enjoyed Philoctetes’ ‘no one wicked ever dies’ lament, as it seems true to me): perhaps we should regard the play as ‘intriguingly experimental’, if we are being generous when comparing it with Sophocles’ previous works.
The deus ex machina is certainly strange and, for one studying the text, creates a lot of consistency problems with discussions regarding the play as a whole – the tone, mood, and underlying significances are completely different from the rest of the play. Although not unheard of in tragedy in general, ending a play like this is unusual for Sophocles – the issues dealt with here are decidedly less complex and difficult than those in the Electra, and in the end they are mostly the result of Philoctetes’ own stubbornness in the face of his possible salvation, and yet for whatever reason this is the play in which Sophocles has a god solve everyone’s problems, when in Electra we are left at a loose end of sorts and must make up our own minds (or fail to make a judgement at all). The play is not awful, but it is decidedly less compelling than any of Sophocles’ other work, and so is only really worth reading if you intend to make your way through all his surviving tragedies: the characters and story are entertaining enough, and there is some excitement in the form of actual action (fighting over the bow) happening on stage, but it lacks the potent language and emotional heights that are the usual trademarks and strengths of Sophocles.
It is interesting to see Neoptolemus and Odysseus portrayed so differently from the norm – Neoptolemus is a naïve but morally upstanding newcomer to the war (the meaning of his name, ‘New to the War’; usually he is portrayed as a vicious brute with his father’s worst qualities, and the one who slits King Priam’s throat as he prays for mercy at the Trojan altars) and Odysseus is a sly and corrupt manipulator (rather than a cunning but yet conscientious man respected by Athena and the other gods, though the portrayal here is in keeping with 5th century suspiciousness concerning sophistry in oratory and Alcibiades-esque manipulation tactics).
Philoctetes is a sympathetic character (perhaps ‘tragic’ with a small ‘t’) but remains rather annoying and stubborn despite the fact that his situation could not be much worse, and we see him reject reconciliation with the army and a cure for his diseased foot for the most part out of spite, though if he would cooperate he would eventually be able to gain recognition as well as returning home as he wished. Being generous we might call him sympathetic but unreasonable, like Ajax, but we should remember that there was no easy way out for Ajax, no way to gain recognition and respect when he had been denied it so damningly, while Philoctetes rejects the solution when it is right in front of him. He could have also used the opportunity to prove himself and challenge his enemies in the army after his wound was healed. However, aside from a few bit parts (the merchant and Heracles at the end) and the chorus who are not much involved and flit from side to side in the conflict, this is essentially what we get – it is the only tragedy with no female characters, and the characters we get are fine, but not particularly impressive in comparison with Antigone, Oedipus, or Ajax, for instance.
We do get a source of excitement not usually found in tragedy by including some action on stage: the cries of Philoctetes from the pain of his infection providing one part of this, and the fight over the bow as it passes from character to character (and is used to threaten certain characters with aim at them) being the other part. Since most tragedies centre around death (which could not be shown on stage, as the stage was sacred to Dionysus), it is unusual to see action delivered visually rather than through the regular messenger's speech, so this is an aspect that provides interest for this particular play and makes it unique. However, the strength of Sophocles is of course usually in the language, and these aspects seem to take the focus away from this, especially while the play lacks any really stand-out speeches from a poetic point of view (though I enjoyed Philoctetes’ ‘no one wicked ever dies’ lament, as it seems true to me): perhaps we should regard the play as ‘intriguingly experimental’, if we are being generous when comparing it with Sophocles’ previous works.
The deus ex machina is certainly strange and, for one studying the text, creates a lot of consistency problems with discussions regarding the play as a whole – the tone, mood, and underlying significances are completely different from the rest of the play. Although not unheard of in tragedy in general, ending a play like this is unusual for Sophocles – the issues dealt with here are decidedly less complex and difficult than those in the Electra, and in the end they are mostly the result of Philoctetes’ own stubbornness in the face of his possible salvation, and yet for whatever reason this is the play in which Sophocles has a god solve everyone’s problems, when in Electra we are left at a loose end of sorts and must make up our own minds (or fail to make a judgement at all). The play is not awful, but it is decidedly less compelling than any of Sophocles’ other work, and so is only really worth reading if you intend to make your way through all his surviving tragedies: the characters and story are entertaining enough, and there is some excitement in the form of actual action (fighting over the bow) happening on stage, but it lacks the potent language and emotional heights that are the usual trademarks and strengths of Sophocles.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 5, 2024
Really enjoyed! Solid lessons on honor for the individual vs justice for the whole. And a Heracles cameo?? The Marvel blueprint fr
June 15, 2016
spoilers
Philoctetes is the last extant play of Sophocles that I have read and for some reason that I cannot put my finger on my least favorite. The play concerns Odysseus and Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, travel to Lemnos to recover the bow of Heracles from Philoctetes without which they cannot win the Trojan war. Philoctetes has been marooned on Lemnos because he was bitten by a snake and his cries of pain and the smell of the festering wound were intolerable to his fellow Greeks. In particular, it was Odysseus who tricked Philoctetes into being marooned and he has led a ten year long miserable existence as a result. Quite reasonably Philoctetes hates the Greeks and Odysseus in particular. Odysseus at the beginning of the play talks Neoptolemus into tricking Philoctetes into giving him the bow. After an attack of conscience, Neoptolemus gives back the bow and agrees to save Philoctetes, even though it will mean war with his fellow Greeks. At the very end of the play, the divine and dead Heracles intercedes to convince Philoctetes to return to Troy with the bow.
A few things stand out about the play. First and foremost, it is not a Greek Tragedy in the conventional sense, for one because it has a happy ending. It is also entirely unusual in that the action centres around Neoptolemus, who does something wrong, but then redeems himself and everything turns out all right. That is not a very Greek storyline, although in our Christian world it is a familiar one. Stories of redemption are just not very Greek and what we have here is something strikingly modern. In addition, Philoctetes is a remarkably well drawn character. In absolute agony, he is often torn between his desire to escape his exile and his hatred of Odysseus and this makes him prone to sudden and very realistic shifts of purpose. The language is also remarkable as is the scene setting which is exceptional. One can smell the sea salt, feel the wind and hear the cries of the sea birds on every page.
Given all of this I'm not sure why Philoctetes did not grab me more. Partially, it is that the intervention of the divine Heracles is a full fledged Deus Ex Machina moment and an entirely unnecessary one at that, because the action is on the edge of resolving itself and could have been done psychologically. But there is just something about the play which is not as compelling as Sophocles' other works, even though I cannot identify what it is. Having said all that, it is still an excellent play and one that stands out from regular Greek drama.
Philoctetes is the last extant play of Sophocles that I have read and for some reason that I cannot put my finger on my least favorite. The play concerns Odysseus and Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, travel to Lemnos to recover the bow of Heracles from Philoctetes without which they cannot win the Trojan war. Philoctetes has been marooned on Lemnos because he was bitten by a snake and his cries of pain and the smell of the festering wound were intolerable to his fellow Greeks. In particular, it was Odysseus who tricked Philoctetes into being marooned and he has led a ten year long miserable existence as a result. Quite reasonably Philoctetes hates the Greeks and Odysseus in particular. Odysseus at the beginning of the play talks Neoptolemus into tricking Philoctetes into giving him the bow. After an attack of conscience, Neoptolemus gives back the bow and agrees to save Philoctetes, even though it will mean war with his fellow Greeks. At the very end of the play, the divine and dead Heracles intercedes to convince Philoctetes to return to Troy with the bow.
A few things stand out about the play. First and foremost, it is not a Greek Tragedy in the conventional sense, for one because it has a happy ending. It is also entirely unusual in that the action centres around Neoptolemus, who does something wrong, but then redeems himself and everything turns out all right. That is not a very Greek storyline, although in our Christian world it is a familiar one. Stories of redemption are just not very Greek and what we have here is something strikingly modern. In addition, Philoctetes is a remarkably well drawn character. In absolute agony, he is often torn between his desire to escape his exile and his hatred of Odysseus and this makes him prone to sudden and very realistic shifts of purpose. The language is also remarkable as is the scene setting which is exceptional. One can smell the sea salt, feel the wind and hear the cries of the sea birds on every page.
Given all of this I'm not sure why Philoctetes did not grab me more. Partially, it is that the intervention of the divine Heracles is a full fledged Deus Ex Machina moment and an entirely unnecessary one at that, because the action is on the edge of resolving itself and could have been done psychologically. But there is just something about the play which is not as compelling as Sophocles' other works, even though I cannot identify what it is. Having said all that, it is still an excellent play and one that stands out from regular Greek drama.
January 8, 2017
Filoctetes (409 a.c) es una tragedia sobre la amistad (philia) y su relación con los intereses colectivos de la polis. El siglo V a.c. se conoce como el "Siglo de oro de Pericles" por el gran desarrollo que Atenas, como polis organizada democráticamente, consiguió. El teatro tuvo un rol fundamental para lograr esta evolución de oikos a polis, ya que la democracia ateniense utilizaba como una herramienta para conseguir la paideia, los diálogos, las situaciones, los mensajes y los valores que se transmitían al público a través de la representación teatral. Los espectadores conocían las historias míticas porque formaban parte de su cultura, de sus costumbres, por lo que lo importante de estas representaciones trágicas no era la historia en sí, sino el matiz que cada trágico brindaba al mito, para adecuarlo a las necesidades históricas concretas de una ciudad que basaba su existencia y subsistencia en las decisiones que se tomaban en la deliberación de los ciudadanos que componían el gobierno democrático. Hay que recordar que no existía la educación masiva, por lo que la única forma para educarse que tenían los ciudadanos atenienses (los que si o si en algún momento de su vida deberían participar del gobierno) era el teatro.
Filoctetes se circunscribe en este escenario. En esta tragedia se da la lucha entre lo que es mejor para la polis (representado por la posición de Odiseo que buscaba hacer retornar a Troya a Filoctetes porque se había profetizado que sin él y las armas de Heracles no se podría obtener la victoria) y la las posiciones individualistas que solo buscan la conveniencia personal (representado por la posición de Neoptolomeo quien se compadece de Filoctetes y comienza a sentir un verdadero sentimiento de amistad que lo lleva a desistir de su engaño, aunque eso significaba la caída del colectivo aqueo).
Tragedia interesante para adentrarse en los problemas de valores que se daban en la Antigua Atenas.
Filoctetes se circunscribe en este escenario. En esta tragedia se da la lucha entre lo que es mejor para la polis (representado por la posición de Odiseo que buscaba hacer retornar a Troya a Filoctetes porque se había profetizado que sin él y las armas de Heracles no se podría obtener la victoria) y la las posiciones individualistas que solo buscan la conveniencia personal (representado por la posición de Neoptolomeo quien se compadece de Filoctetes y comienza a sentir un verdadero sentimiento de amistad que lo lleva a desistir de su engaño, aunque eso significaba la caída del colectivo aqueo).
Tragedia interesante para adentrarse en los problemas de valores que se daban en la Antigua Atenas.
September 25, 2022
“Once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.”
One way or another Sophocles plays revolve around war and it's consequences. The massive impact war has on the society is still the same.
The soldiers suffer being forced in the wars they never wanted, families suffer when they lose their loved ones as a result of the war and those who didn't lose anyone but yet consequences of war are such that nobody is left unburnt.
The wounded warriors are the ones who suffer the most and I feel that's the worst outcome of a war.
Once you were deemed a hero and mere seconds later when you become wounded, you become a burden.
# Spoiler alert #
Same thing happens with Philoctetes.
“I have seen or heard of no other man whom destiny treated with such enmity as it did Philoktetes”
Well he isn't exactly wounded in a war but has an ulcer as a snake has bitten him. But it leads to a festering wound and his fellow soldiers leave him alone on an island called Lemnos for 10 years.
When the trojan war seems to be a possibility, they need the weapon Philoctetes had from Heracles so Odysseus makes son of Achilles Neoptolemus to convince Philoctetes to give up his bow. But Neoptolemus can't do it as he feels is not a right thing to do.
To save the day Heracles comes and convinces Philoctetes to give up the bow and also to come back home so he would be taken care by his people.
Although most Greek plays end up into tragic ending, this one was an exception but nevertheless one of the most important and beautiful Greek drama.
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.”
One way or another Sophocles plays revolve around war and it's consequences. The massive impact war has on the society is still the same.
The soldiers suffer being forced in the wars they never wanted, families suffer when they lose their loved ones as a result of the war and those who didn't lose anyone but yet consequences of war are such that nobody is left unburnt.
The wounded warriors are the ones who suffer the most and I feel that's the worst outcome of a war.
Once you were deemed a hero and mere seconds later when you become wounded, you become a burden.
# Spoiler alert #
Same thing happens with Philoctetes.
“I have seen or heard of no other man whom destiny treated with such enmity as it did Philoktetes”
Well he isn't exactly wounded in a war but has an ulcer as a snake has bitten him. But it leads to a festering wound and his fellow soldiers leave him alone on an island called Lemnos for 10 years.
When the trojan war seems to be a possibility, they need the weapon Philoctetes had from Heracles so Odysseus makes son of Achilles Neoptolemus to convince Philoctetes to give up his bow. But Neoptolemus can't do it as he feels is not a right thing to do.
To save the day Heracles comes and convinces Philoctetes to give up the bow and also to come back home so he would be taken care by his people.
Although most Greek plays end up into tragic ending, this one was an exception but nevertheless one of the most important and beautiful Greek drama.
August 6, 2016
The version I read was translated by David Greene. "Philoctetes" was set during the Trojan war and before the fall of Troy. Philoctetes was a famed war hero who was exiled after suffering from a putrefied wound that rendered him outcast among his brothers at arm and he kept his grudge especially at Odysseus who betrayed him by leaving him behind. Upon which he begrudged Odysseus so much that he refused to help him when Odysseus was sent back to retrieve Philoctetes's magical bow and arrow which was prophesied to be instrumental in winning the Trojan war.
Its not my favourite piece from Sophocles. Odysseus was portrayed negatively which was understandable considering his actions against Philoctetes (which was rather common Spartan tradition to leave the wounded behind and they're brutal warriors themselves). But Philoctetes was a common war figure for tragedy and you don't really expect happily ever afters from these lots. There was a lot of monologues and self-deprecation and self-conflicts faced by the characters. The story unravelled itself around the tragic figure and the brutal moralities the drama raise surrounding the bitter and still enraged warrior. Unfortunately I'm not emotionally-invested myself with Philoctetes's angst on whose fault it was that made him who he was and the subsequent arguments that question everything rather philosophically which common from a piece by Sophocles. But considering a lot of stories about Philoctetes didn't survive, it was understandable that it felt fragmented and incomplete as a whole.
Its not my favourite piece from Sophocles. Odysseus was portrayed negatively which was understandable considering his actions against Philoctetes (which was rather common Spartan tradition to leave the wounded behind and they're brutal warriors themselves). But Philoctetes was a common war figure for tragedy and you don't really expect happily ever afters from these lots. There was a lot of monologues and self-deprecation and self-conflicts faced by the characters. The story unravelled itself around the tragic figure and the brutal moralities the drama raise surrounding the bitter and still enraged warrior. Unfortunately I'm not emotionally-invested myself with Philoctetes's angst on whose fault it was that made him who he was and the subsequent arguments that question everything rather philosophically which common from a piece by Sophocles. But considering a lot of stories about Philoctetes didn't survive, it was understandable that it felt fragmented and incomplete as a whole.
July 14, 2020
Herakles'in yenilmez yayına ve oklarına sahip olan Philoktetes, Troya Savaşı sırasında bir yılan tarafından sokulduktan sonra Yunan ordusu (Odysseus eliyle) ayağı irinli bir yarayla ve acıdan kopardığı feryat figanlarıyla ıssız bir adaya terk ediliyor. Uğradığı bu ihanet sonucunda derin bir sukutuhayale, kedere ve kine gark oluyor. Her ne kadar Odysseus, burada yine maharetini konuşturarak Akhileus'un toy oğlu Neoptolemos'u, Philoktetes'i Troya'ya geri dönmeye ikna etmeye ikna etse de Odysseus'un hesaba katmadığı bir durum meydana geliyor. Yoğun bir şekilde içsele dönen ve çok az aksiyon içeren oyunda Neoptolemos'un kendi özüyle, kendi benliğiyle mücadelesini, karşısındakine (Philoktetes'e) empati kurmasını ve içten gelen bir patlamayla/feryatla/isyanla kendi özüne geç de olsa geri dönmesini adım adım, tüm yoğunluğuyla hissederek okuyoruz. Yine burada Odysseus'un nasıl bir bukalemun maharetiyle ortamlara/koşullara adaptasyonunu ve şartlara uygun politik ve diplomat tavır ve davranışlarını izliyoruz aslında. Philoktetes ile de empati kuruyor, ona müşfik bir merhamet duyuyor ve onunla adeta hemdem oluyoruz. Sophokles, oyunu okurken okuru buhranlara sürüklese de sonunda yine hakkaniyetinden taviz vermeyerek Neoptolemos'a ve dolayısıyla kahraman Akhileus'a da iade-i itibarda bulunmayı ihmal etmiyor.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 305 reviews