[52,0] The Fifty-second Discourse:  On Aeschylus and Sophocles and Euripides  
or The Bow of Philoctetes. 
1 Having risen about the first hour of the day, both on account of the feeble state of my 
health and also on account of the air, which was rather chilly because of the early 
hour and very much like autumn, though it was mid-summer, I made my toilet and 
performed my devotions. I next got into my carriage and made the round of the race-
course several times, my team moving along as gently and comfortably as possible. 
After that I took a stroll and then rested a bit. Next, after a rub-down and bath and a 
light breakfast,  I fell to reading certain tragedies. 
2 These tragedies were the work of topmost artists, I may say, Aeschylus and 
Sophocles and Euripides, all dealing with the same theme, which was the theft — or 
should I say the seizure? — of the bow of Philoctetes. However that may be, 
Philoctetes was portrayed as being deprived of his weapons by Odysseus and as being 
carried off to Troy along with them, for the most part willingly, though in some 
measure also yielding to the persuasion of necessity, since he had been deprived of 
the weapons which furnished him with not only a living on his island, but courage in 
his sore affliction, and at the same time fame. 
(p341) 3 So I was feasting my eyes on the spectacle portrayed by these dramas and 
figuring to myself that, even if I had been in Athens in those days, I could not have 
witnessed such a contest as this of those distinguished poets.  On the contrary, while 
there were some who did witness contests between the youthful Sophocles and the 
aged Aeschylus and some who saw the older Sophocles compete with Euripides, his 
junior, yet the career of Euripides fell quite outside the period of Aeschylus;  and 
besides, probably the tragic poets seldom or never competed against one another with 
plays on the same theme. And so I was evidently having a rare treat and a novel 
solace for my illness. 4 Accordingly, I played choregus for myself in very brilliant 
style and tried to pay close attention, as if I were a judge passing judgement on the 
premier tragic choruses.  
Yet I could not on oath have produced a single reason why any one of those great 
poets could have been defeated. For both the nobility of character and the antique 
flavour of Aeschylus, as well as the ruggedness of his thought and diction, seemed 
suited to tragedy and to the old-time manners of the heroes,  nor was there aught of 
premeditation or prating or humility in their bearing. 5 For example, even his 
Odysseus he brought upon the scene as a shrewd and crafty person,  as men were in 
those days, yet far removed from the rascality of to-day, in consequence (p343) of which 
he might seem truly ancient as compared with those who to-day lay claim to 
simplicity and nobility of character. And again, Aeschylus had no need to add Athena 
for the purpose of transforming Odysseus so as not to be recognized by Philoctetes for 
the man he was, as Homer has handled the problem,  and also Euripides in imitation 
of Homer. So possibly one of those who do not like Aeschylus might complain that he 
was not at all concerned to make his Odysseus convincing in the scene where he is not 
recognized by Philoctetes. 6 But in my opinion the poet would have a defence against 
such a criticism; for while the lapse of time was perhaps not sufficient to explain his 
not recalling the lineaments of Odysseus since only ten years had passed, yet the 
affliction and distress of Philoctetes and the lonely life he had led in the interval made 
this lapse of memory not impossible. For many in the past, either from illness or from 
misfortune, have had that experience. 
Furthermore, the chorus of Aeschylus had no need for special pleading, as did that of 
Euripides. 7 For both poets made their choruses to consist of Lemnians; yet, while 
Euripides has represented them as immediately apologizing for their former neglect, 
admitting that during so many years they had neither come near Philoctetes nor 
rendered him any aid, Aeschylus simply brought his chorus on the scene, a course 
which is altogether more in keeping with a tragedy and more natural, whereas the 
other course is more courteous and more strictly correct. Of course, if poets, were 
able to avoid all violations of logic in their tragedies, perhaps there might be reason 
for (p345) refusing to gloss over even this instance; but as the truth is, the poets often 
cause their heralds to complete in a single day a journey which calls for several days.  
8 Again, it was quite impossible to conceive that not a single Lemnian had come near 
Philoctetes or given him any attention at all, for in my opinion he could not even have 
survived those ten years without receiving some aid; no, it is reasonable to suppose 
that he did get some aid, though but rarely and of no great importance, and, 
furthermore, that no one chose to take him into his house and give him medical 
attention because of the disgusting nature of his ailment.  At any rate Euripides 
himself does bring upon the scene one Lemnian, Actor, who approaches Philoctetes 
as being already known to him and as having often met him. 
9 Furthermore, I do not feel that one could justly find fault with Aeschylus for this 
either — that his hero narrates to the chorus, as if they were in ignorance, the details 
concerning his desertion by the Achaeans and his experiences in general. The reason 
is that the victims of misfortune are wont to recall their trials repeatedly, and by their 
constant rehearsing of details they bore those who know every detail already and have 
no need to be told. Then again, the deception which Odysseus practised upon 
Philoctetes and the arguments by which he won him over are not merely more 
becoming and suited to a hero — though not the words of a Eurybates or a Pataecion  
— but in my opinion they are even more plausible. 

[52,10] For what need was there for 
subtle craft and scheming in dealing with a sick man and, what is more, an 
(p347) archer, whose means of defence had lost its power the moment you merely got 
close to him? Besides, the device of having Odysseus report that the Achaeans had 
met with disaster, that Agamemnon had died, that Odysseus had been charged with 
an act that was utterly disgraceful,  and that in general the expedition had gone to 
rack and ruin, was not merely serviceable toward cheering Philoctetes and making 
the discourse of Odysseus more acceptable; no, in a way it was not without 
plausibility even, because of the length of the campaign and because of what had 
happened not so long before in consequence of the wrath of Achilles, at the time 
when Hector barely missed burning the naval station. 
11 Again, the sagacity of Euripides and his careful attention to every detail, as a result 
of which not only does he not tolerate anything which lacks plausibility or is marred 
by carelessness, but also he handles the action, not in artless style, but with entire 
mastery in the telling — all this forms, as it were, an antithesis to the nature of 
Aeschylus, being to a high degree characteristic of the citizen and the orator and 
capable of proving most useful to those who read him. At the very outset of Euripides' 
play, for instance, Odysseus is introduced as speaker of the prologue and as not only 
inwardly debating questions of civic nature in general, but first and foremost 
expressing embarrassment on his own account, lest, while generally reputed to be 
wise and distinguished for sagacity, he may really be the opposite. 12 For, though he 
might live free from care and trouble, he is ever being (p349) involved in troubles and 
perils of his own volition. But the cause of this, he claims, is the ambition which 
actuates gifted men of noble birth. For, in aiming at a fine reputation and general 
acclaim, they voluntarily undertake very great and difficult labours. 
For nothing quite so proud as man exists. 
Odysseus then reveals clearly and precisely the plot of the drama and why he has 
come to Lemnos. 13 And he says he has been disguised by Athena, so that when he 
meets Philoctetes he may not be recognized by him, Euripides having imitated Homer 
in this detail.  For Homer has represented Odysseus, in his sundry encounters with 
Eumaeus and Penelope and the others, as having been disguised by Athena. Odysseus 
goes on to say that an embassy from the Trojans will soon visit Philoctetes for the 
purpose of entreating him to place at their disposal both himself and their weapons, 
offering the throne of Troy as his reward; thus he complicates the plot and invents 
occasions for debate, in the course of which he shows himself most resourceful and 
most proficient in combating the opposing arguments, no matter with whom he is 
compared.  14 Again, Euripides causes Odysseus to arrive not unattended but in 
company with Diomedes, another Homeric touch.  Thus all in all, as I was saying, 
throughout the whole play he displays the greatest dexterity and plausibility in the 
action; an irresistible, yes, amazing, power of language; a (p351) dialogue that is clear 
and natural and urbane; and lyrics that not only are delightful but also contain a 
strong incentive toward virtue. 
15 As for Sophocles, he seems to stand midway between the two others, since he has 
neither the ruggedness and simplicity of Aeschylus nor the precision and shrewdness 
and urbanity of Euripides, yet he produces a poetry that is august and majestic, 
highly tragic and euphonious in its phrasing, so that there is the fullest pleasure 
coupled with sublimity and stateliness. In his management of the action he is most 
excellent and convincing; for instance, he causes Odysseus to arrive in company with 
Neoptolemus — since it was ordained that Troy should be taken by Neoptolemus and 
Philoctetes together, Philoctetes wielding the bow of Heracles — and he makes 
Odysseus conceal himself but send Neoptolemus to Philoctetes, suggesting to him 
what he must do. Furthermore, he has composed his chorus not of the natives of 
Lemnos, as Aeschylus and Euripides do, but of those who sailed in the ship along 
with Odysseus and Neoptolemus. 
16 Again, as Sophocles portrays them, the characters in the drama are wonderfully 
dignified and noble, his Odysseus being much more gentle and frank than Euripides 
has depicted him, and his Neoptolemus surpassing all in artlessness and good 
breeding — at first he aims to get the better of Philoctetes, not by craft and deception, 
but by strength and without disguise; then, after he has been prevailed upon by 
Odysseus and has tricked Philoctetes and gained possession of the bow, when 
Philoctetes becomes aware of what had happened, is indignant at the deception 
which has been practised upon him, and (p353) demands the return of his weapons, 
Neoptolemus does not try to retain possession of them but is prepared to return them 
— though Odysseus appears on the scene and tries to prevent this — and he finally 
does return them; yet after he has handed them over he tries by argument to 
persuade Philoctetes to accompany him voluntarily to Troy. 17 But when Philoctetes 
will by no means yield or be persuaded, but entreats Neoptolemus to take him back to 
Greece, as he had promised to do, Neoptolemus once more gives his promise, and he 
is prepared to keep his word, until Heracles comes upon the scene and persuades 
Philoctetes to sail to Troy of his own free will.  
The lyrics of Sophocles do not contain the didactic element to any great extent, nor 
any incentive to virtue such as we find in the lyrics of Euripides, but a marvellous 
sweetness and magnificence, such that Aristophanes could say of him not without 
reason words like these: 
"But he in turn the lips of Sophocles, 
With honey smeared, did lick as if as a jar".