Soldiers and Sailors: 
    Power and Class in the Philoctetes
  Jonathan Chicken
  Indiana University
  Late
    5th century Athens saw the displacement from power of the "hoplite
    class" of moderately wealthy landowners by the new, post-Periclean citizen-sailors
    who had gained so much influence by the time of the Peloponnesian War's close.  It
    is my contention that the Philoctetes is
    at its heart about this shift in power from the landed, hoplite ruling class
    and its characteristics—as represented by Philoctetes and his generation—to
    the "sailor" underclass and unscrupulous sophistic politicians—as
    represented by Odysseus—who sought to profit from this new order.  Though
    W.B. Stanford in The Ulysses Theme discusses
    the foul character of Odysseus in the play, this theme has not been dealt
    with before from the perspective of military power, which is ultimately linked to the class schism
    between aristocratic hoplites and democratic sailors.  The discourse
    of military power is made manifest in the concrete symbol of the Bow of Herakles—he
    who holds it holds power in the state—while Neoptolemus himself serves
    as the symbol of the state's direction; it is in the hands of his generation
    that the future lies.
  Throughout
    the play, Sophocles discusses the triangle of Philoctetes, Odysseus, and
    Sophocles in terms which can leave no doubt as to his real intent.  Odysseus,
    the seaman par excellence of antiquity, has with him a chorus of  sailors.  Oscar
    Mandel, in Philoctetes and the Fall of Troy, points out that these are not a part of the fabric
    of earlier productions of the play, but a new introduction to the tale by
    Sophocles himself.  When Odysseus remarks that "it is the tongue,
    not the actions, that rules in all things for mortals" (Phil. 98-99),
    he has clearly been cast out of the heroic age and into the sophistic one.  Philoctetes
    for his part recognizes the nature of the enemy, who "hopes by his cajoling
    words to bring me and display me" (630) "as though he were bringing
    a strong man he had taken by force" (945).  Philoctetes of course
    laments the failure of the aristocratic, martial values of the heroic age—the
    Gods, he says, delight in preserving from death cunning and villainy while
    righteousness and valor (chrēsta, 451) perish. And Neoptolemus, as a representative
    of the old aristocratic order (esthlou patros pai, 96) and noble himself (gennaion, 50), echoes the old man: "where the worse man
    has more power than the better, where good (chrēsta, 457) perishes, and the coward is in power, the men
    in that place I will never tolerate."  Here chrēstos denotes
    functional, moral, and aristocratic
    values.  The good man is useful
    for hoplites, in concrete terms on the battlefield rather than in the law-courts
    or assembly.   Neoptolemus is the undecided future—it is
    his choice that will determine the future course of the state, and it is
    clear within the play which of the two alternatives Sophocles prefers.
  Much
    ink has been spilled regarding the sudden deus ex machina that closes the play, but this is irrelevant to the
    themes outlined above.  It is not the "real" ending in the
    sense of the intended subtext of the play, because the subtext is hortatory
    in nature.  Sophocles does not know how the "real" play will
    end in the outside world, but Philoctetes exists
    within a mythic framework and must answer to narrative demands.  As
    Simon Goldhill has shown, the close connection between civic ideology and
    the City Dionysia makes this sort of message ideal for Sophocles to present
    as warning and advice for the empowered youths in his audience: make the
    right decision.