Deianeira's 'Deception Speech'

In the Ajax of Sophocles Ajax, deprived of his intended revenge over the
Greek leaders who deprived him of the arms of Achilles, has resolved on
suicide. Tecmessa has sought to dissuade him, appealing to the need to
care for their baby son; Ajax has rejected her, saying that he is too old to
be taught lessons. But suddenly all is apparently changed. He re-enters
and talks of the changes brought by time and seasons; he himself has
learnt his lesson, and will purify himself, bury his sword, and seek
reconciliation with his enemies. The speech is a very vexed problem in
the interpretation of the Ajax, especially since, when he next appears,
Ajax seems to have forgotton all about it, and proceeds with his suicide
without any reference to his previous change of mind, if such it was. But
this is a complex problem, requiring full discussion elsewhere.' For the
moment, what is of interest is the scholiast's comment2 on line 646:
ajtavB' 6 uaxooc;: i^ioxexai ° Aiac; ax; 6f| %axawc\ky\Qz\c, imo
Texur|aor|c; \n\ ocpdxxeiv eauxov xai jroocpdoa tot) 5eiv etc,
Eonuiav eMtetv xai XQuaJjea TO £i.cpo<; em XOIJTOIC; avaxcooei xai
5iaxQfixai, iavxov jtaoiaxTioi be 6 Xoyoc, OIL xai oi Euxpoovec; xai
naQanoXovdovvxec, tfj cpuoei xcov itQayiiatcov 6\uoc, vnb xo&v
xoiovxoov jiaOcov em TO %EIQO\ d:rcoXia0dvouoiv cbc; ev Tgaxivian;
f) Anidveiga JIEQI tot) egcoxog Sia^eyopievri xai xov avbgoc, o n
aiixcp otix avxioxrioexai ovbe XvaixtXel aiixfj avtutgaxxeiv xrj
en:i9D[iLa xoij avbgoc, JtQdxxei ixexd xaCta ditEQ aiixr|v dv£JX£io£v
f| ^nX.oxujxia'
The scholiast notes the obvious discrepancy between what Ajax is
saying he will do and what he subsequently does, and compares his
weakening under the influence of emotion with that of Deianeira in the
Women of Trachis, who at first maintains that she will not obstruct
Heracles' latest love affair with Iole, but then realizes that she cannot
tolerate the introduction of his mistress into her own home and takes
desperate measures to recover his affection; the supposed love-potion
she sends him turns out to be a deadly poison, and her suicide follows.
The speech of Deianeira to which he refers is lines 436-69 of the Women
of Trachis:
'By Zeus, whose lightning strikes on Oeta's glen,
I beg you, do not hide your tale from me!
'Tis not an evil woman you address
Nor one who does not know the ways of men,

See my 'Heroic Distemper', Prometheus 5 (1979), 241-55.

Text of scholia edited by P.N. Papageorgius (Leipzig 1888).
1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 2 DA. Hester
440 How their desires do change from day to day.
Whoever challenges the might of Love
Like some bold boxer, shows but little sense;
For, if Love wishes, he can rule the gods,
And me; and other women like me, too.
445 So if I blame my husband, when he falls
Victim to this disease, I am insane,
Or if I blame this woman, who has brought
No base disgrace or evil upon me.
I will not do it. But, if you have learnt
450 From him to lie, your lesson is not good,
You wish to help, but will be seen to harm.
No; tell me all the truth! It bring disgrace
Upon a free man to be caught in lies.
455 And be assured your lies will find you out;
Many have heard your tale, and will tell me.
But if you fear me, groundless are your fears;
For not to learn would be my sole distress.
What pain is there in knowing? Did not he
460 Share many others' beds, in time gone by?
Not one of them has won reproach from me
Or any insult. Nor will she, although
Her heart dissolves with love. I pitied her
With all my heart, when first I saw her plight,
465 Saw how her beauty had destroyed her life,
And brought upon her land, against her will
Ruin and serfdom. No: let what is past
Be past. I do command you, keep your lies
For others; always tell the truth to me.'
The analogy which the scholiast draws is a surprising one; there seems
to be little in common between the speeches, characters, and situations of
Ajax and Deianeira apart from the subsequent change of mind, and even
that is treated differently, since Deianeira gives full reasons for her
recourse to magic, while Ajax's reversion to suicide is totally un-
explained. Deianeira has not made a previous decision to act, as did
Ajax; rather, she has contemplated Heracles' habitual absence with
mournful resignation. She needed prompting from a nurse before sending
her son tofindout what has happened to him; later, confronting Lichas,
who reported to her Heracles' latest victory, the sack of Oechalia, while
concealing its motive (Heracles' infatuation with the king's daughter,
lole), she accepted his account, and the presence of a nameless young
girl of apparently noble birth in the train of captives, without any
apparent qualms. Even when another messenger gave the correct version
and identified the girl as lole, she has up to now left the interrogation of
Lichas to this messenger. This speech, like her sending of Hyllus, has
been suggested to her (in this case, by the chorus) and represents a
reaction to events rather than any initiative of her own.
What she has to say is both consistent with her previous remarks and,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 Deianeira's 'Deception Speech' 3
on the face of it, truthful. Her pessimistic remarks, with which she opens,
echo those of the prologue and the beginning of the first episode (of which
this is the end). Her expressed concern for the truth is in accordance with
her long anxiety over the fate of Heracles; her pity for Iole has been
already expressed. She does not seem to have yet realized that there is a
difference between a number of mistresses who are out of sight and one
present in her own house (Jebb and Bowra never do). 3 When she does,
she will change her mind. For the moment, we may well find her devotion
extreme; but that is no reason to believe it false; she has so far been
presented as a wife whose devotion is extreme.
It is hardly surprising that the analogy drawn by the scholiast has not
been found generally convincing. Most scholars 4 reject altogether the
notion that Deianeira is being deceptive here. Of those who are prepared
to allow that she is not being altogether candid, most5 consider this
unimportant and natural in the circumstances (Waldock's 'obviously
acting a little' and Collins' 'shows a woman's duolicity' are typical

1
R.C. Jebb edition (Cambridge 1892), p. 71: C M . Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford
1965), 124-34. The passages which they cite (Lysias 1. 31, Isaeus 3. 39, Eur.
Andromache 222-7) to prove the social acceptability of keeping mistresses in the home
imply the reverse; Lysias and Isaeus are both arguing a fortiori that if one has some
regard for mistresses, one must have more for wives; Andromache's willingness to
accept Hector's mistress into her house is clearly intended as the extreme example of
tolerance to which the most devoted wife could go.
l
E.g. S.M. Adams, Sophocles the Playwright (Toronto 1957), 118; A. Beck.i/ermes 81
(1953), 20-1; E. Bignone, Poeti Apollinei (1931), 26-31; Bowra, op. cit. 133-4; J.M.
Bremer, Hamartia (Amsterdam 1968), 458-9; J.W. Dickerson, The structure and
interpretation... (diss. Princeton 1972), 250-65, 523-4; P. Easterling, BICS 15
(1968), 62-3; E.Eicken-lsehn&Interpretationen. . . (diss. Basel 1942), 154-6; M.M.
Gardiner,Physisandnomos . . . (diss. Harvard 1973), 143-4; G.H. Gellie,Sophocles
(Melbourne 1972), 61-2; Jebb, op. cit. xxxii-iii and 71; R.L. Kane, Hoia an genoito
(diss. Berkeley 1965), 53-4; G.M. Kirkwood, A study... (Ithaca 1958), 113-4;
H.D.F. Kitto, .POZ'MW ( = SCL 36 [ 1966]), 167; F.J.H. Letters, TheLifeand Work...
(London 1953), 199; H.A. Mason,Arion 2. 2. (1963), 113-15; G. Meautis, Sophocles
(Paris 1957), 267-9; H. Musurillo, The Light. .. (Leiden 1967), 63;U. Parlavantza-
Friedrich, Tauschungszenen . . . (Berlin 1969), 22-4; G. Perrotta, Sofocle (Messina
1935), 497-502; H.J. Rose, Aberystwyth Studies 8 (1926), 3-5; G. Schiassi, edition
(Firenze 1953), on 436; C.E. Sorum, Monsters . . . (diss. Brown University 1975), 32,
46-8; M. Untersteiner, Sofocle (Firenze 1935), 1. 238-40; T.B.L. Webster,Essays G.
Murray (Oxford 1936), 169; C.H. Whitman, Sophocles (Cambridge, Mass. 1966),
117-18; T. von Wilamowitz, Die dramatische Technik ... (Zurich 1917), 150-4.
E.g. L. Campbell, edition (Oxford 1881), 285; C.W. Collins, Sophocles (Edinburgh
1897), 129; V. Ehrenberg, DUJ 4 (1942/3), 51-62; P.W. Harsh, A handbook.. .
(Stanford 1944), 130-1; E. Howald,Diegriechische Tragbdie (Miinchen 1930), 127;
J.C. Kamerbeek, Mnemosyne ser. 4. 1 (1948), 275-6 (an even milder view in his
commentary [Leiden 1959], 15-16 and 109-10); A. Lesky, Greek Tragedy, trans. H.A.
Frankfort3 (London 1967), 109 and Die tragische Dichtung3 (Gottingen 1972), 211;
M. Macgregor, Studies and Diversions .. . (London 1937), 164-5; A. Maddalena,
Sofocle (Torino 1956), 142-3; S. Radermacher, edition (Berlin 1914), 19-20; K.
Reinhardt, Sophocles, trans. H. and D. Harvey (Oxford 1979), 42-7; G. Ronnet,
Sophocle (Paris 1969), 102-3; W. Schmid/O.Stahlin, Geschichte der griechischen
Literatur (Miinchen 1934), 1. ii. 378; F. Solmsen, Philologus 87 (1932), 10-12;
A.J.A. Waldock, Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1966), 97-8. Agnostic is M.
Pohlenz, Die griechische Tragodie (Gottingen 1930), 205.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 4 D.A. Hester
masculine comments). It is generally conceded that even if she is
understating her reaction to Heracles' betrayal of her she is at least
sincere in wishing no harm to him or to Iole; this being so, does it really
matter much whether she is, to any degree, consciously deceiving
Lichas, or whether she is simply unconsciously deceiving herself? The
chorus and Lichas believe6 what she has to say; does not Sophocles
intend us to believe it? In the absence of any previous warning or
subsequent accusation of insincerity, how is a Greek dramatist to convey
it under the conditions of the Greek stage?
There is, however, a small group of scholars7 who, while differing from
each other in many respects, agree that in this speech we are intended for
the first time to perceive that something is — or may be — seriously
wrong with Deianeira's personal character. Their disquiet is not new; it
induced Schmelzer,8 in the heroic age of the last century, to delete the
speech altogether (which is still more moderate than Schlegel's rejection
of the whole play). If we are not prepared to settle literary problems by
counting heads, there is one consideration, which is not generally
appreciated, that should persuade us to give them a hearing. It is this.
Considered from the viewpoint of the development of the plot,9 the
speech seems disproportionate to the needs of its context. It serves
merely to persuade Lichas to let out of the bag a cat which has been —
apart from the tip of its tail — already released by the messenger. Its
function in the evolution of the plot is virtually non-existent. Let us
suppose, instead, that its real function is to tell us something important
about Deianeira. But what is that 'something'? That she is no Clytemn-
estra? 10 We knew that already. That 'Apparent deception brings them
(Ajax and Deianeira) to the point where they actually touch their own
fate . . . and yet they cannot allow either their insight into the world and
themselves, nor the attitude which gives rise to it, to emerge from their
own being and become something which is true and effective for them-
selves'?11 Not even Reinhardt can persuade us that we are interpreting
Sophocles' thought rather than Reinhardt's here. Should we not rather
believe that Sophocles (as is his way) is giving us a hint of something that
will be made more cigar subsequently, and that Deianeira is not so
innocent and naive as most interpreters would have us believe?

6
Lines 470-4.
7
U. Albini, Parola delPassato 27 (1968), 212-70; F. Errandonea, Sofocles (Madrid
1958), 165-232; see also Mnemosyne 55 (1927), 145-64 andActas 1. Congr. Esp. de
Estud. Clas. (Madrid 1958), 472-8; H.P. Houghton, Pallas 11 (1962), 69-102; J.A.
La Rue, Sophocles' Deianeira (diss. Berkeley 1965), esp. 216-33; L.T. Wellein, Time
past and the hero (diss. Washington/Seattle 1959), esp. 54-9; T. Zielinski, Iresione
(Lwow 1931), 260-391, esp. 293-320; compare also Philologus 55 (1896), 491-540
and 577-633.
C. Schmelzer, edition (Berlin 1888); A.W. Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art...,
trans. Black (Leiden" 1815), 1. 135.
On the relationship of plot and character in Sophocles see especially P.E. Easterling, G
&R 24 (1977), 121-9 and G.H. Gellie, ,4 £/ML4 20 (1963), 241-55.
For the comparison in detail see G. Kapsomenos, Sophokles' Trachinierinnen...
(Athens 1963), 39-107.
Reinhardt, op. cit. 46-7; I owe this reference to K. Rigsby.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 Deianeira's 'Deception Speech' 5
The fullest, clearest, and most extreme statement of this view is that of
Errandonea. He starts on reasonably firm ground by reminding us that
Deianeira's name means 'man-destroyer' (i.e. an Amazon?) or 'husband-
destroyer'. It is surely reasonable to suppose that in the original version
of the saga12 she killed him deliberately, and that the innocent Deianeira
found in Bacchylides 16 is an innovation. There are late traces of a guilty
Deianeira in Plutarch, 13 who asserts that she deliberately tricked her
husband in sending him the poison, and in Seneca, 14 who gives a
curiously inconsistent picture of a Deianeira who is mad with jealousy
and resolved on vengeance but still apparently believes that the poison
she is sending is a love-charm and who commits suicide through remorse.
Sophocles thus had a choice; most believe that he chose to follow
Bacchylides,15 but Errandonea does not.
He constructs his case with all the determination and ingenuity of a
prosecuting counsel. He is entitled to point out that Deianeira's final
remark in this episode:
Ar|. oXk' d)5e xod cpoovoiJu.ev coote ToOxa 5oav,
xotJtoi vooov y' eiraxtov ei;aQoiJu.£0a,
Geoloi 6uauaxoi)vT£c;. alX ELOCO oTEyni;
XIOOOO^IEV, <hc, ^.oyarv t ' tnioxoXac, cp£QT]c;,
a T' a r t ! 6d)Qcov bwga xp'H HQOoaouoacu,
xal ram ayrjc;. XEVOV yb.Q ov 5txaid OE
XOJOEIV KQOOEX06V6' O)6E OVV nokkib axotap.
has a rather odd ring about it;16 only someone who is singularly naive or
indulging in conscious irony could regard the robe as an appropriate
recompense for the 'gift' of the captive girls; but which is Deianeira?
Perhaps the next episode clarifies the matter; 'Deianeira's recountal of
how she obtained the charm challenges credulity'.17 Surely she should
have guessed that she is dealing with a poison, not a love-charm? It is her
suspicions of this matter which make her obtain the endorsement of the
chorus before proceeding18 and then swear them to silence in words
which appear to be a confession of guilt:'9
(xovov Jiag' i)u,u)v cv axtyoi[icQ'- (be; oxoxcp
xav aloxQa KQaoor\c„ oimot' aloxuvn jrEofi.
If her reference to her intended action as 'shameful' does not give the

12
See especially F. Stoessl, Der Tod des Herakles (Zurich 1945), who ascribes this
version to the epic Capture of Oechalia; see also Kapsomenos op. cit.. [Hesiod],
Catalogue of Women frag. 25 (ed. R. Merkelbach & M.L. West [Oxford 1967]) is too
fragmentary to enable us to be sure which version is intended.
'- ] De placitis philosophorum, Moralia 881 D (but the authorship is uncertain).
u
Hercules Oetaeus 256-582, 706-1024.
' That Bacchylides followed Sophocles is (pace Stoessl) unlikely, even if the Women of
Trachis is (as I believe) among Sophocles' earliest extant plays.
16
490-6; so also La Rue and Wellein (n. 7 above).
17
553-77; see Wellein 67; of course, after the event it is easy to judge (707-18).
18
586-93.
19
596-7.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 6 D.A. Hester
entire show away, surely her detailed instructions to Lichas, 20 which
prevent the poison from working prematurely on the robe (as it does on
the wool she uses to apply it) 21 show that she knows what she is dealing
with?
The rest of the play, it is true, provides more difficulties for the
prosecuting counsel. Deianeira's suicide has to be explained away; but
he rises to the occasion; it is not her reaction to the news that Heracles is
dying, but to the news that he is not yet dead; 22 she fears the terrible
vengeance which he will indeed threaten, not knowing of her death. 23 But
what of Hyllus' final acquittal of her? 24 It is not a true verdict; he has
allowed his initial (correct) judgment of her to be warped by his
emotional reaction to her death.
Nobody else is prepared to go quite as far as Errandonea, although
Wellein seems to go most of the way; Albini ascribes her suicide to a
guilty conscience; Houghton and La Rue think that Sophocles leaves the
issue deliberately ambiguous. La Rue indeed discovers ambiguities
throughout che play (for example, in this passage: 438 could mean 'you
are not talking to a cowardly woman'; 440 could be a threat that Heracles
will not have long enjoyment of Iole; 45 3-4 could be applied to the deceit
practised by Heracles; 465 could be construed 'her beauty has ruined my
life'; 468-9 invite Lichas to join her in deceiving Heracles). Zielinski has
nothing worse to charge her with than having already taken the decision
to use the charm but concealing the fact from Lichas.
All this is ingeniously argued, and gives a point to the speech which it
otherwise seems to lack. But it really will not do. The evidence against
Deianeira disappears on closer inspection; what she has to say is totally
consistent with the view that she has been driven by despair to the use of a
love-charm. It is entirely characteristic of her that she should believe the
centaur, as she had previously believed Lichas. To speculate on the
credibility of moribund centaurs and the likely effect of a mixture of
hydra's poison and centaur's blood is to indulge in a pastime in which
adequate statistics are lacking, and to come dangerously close to
Waldock's documentary fallacy. Sophocles has presented us with a
world of monsters in a way which requires us to accept it for the purposes
of the play. If he wanted to stress the point that Deianeira is insincere or
criminally negligent, he has the chorus at hand to ask awkward questions.
But they do not; they support her action. It is quite characteristic of her to
seek advice even from those younger and less experienced than herself.
Her 'admission of guilt' is nothing of the kind; Deianeira is not talking
about guilt or innocence at all. She is very sensitive (as are Sophoclean
protagonists in general) to her public reputation;25 what she thinks she is

20
2
604-9.
22
\680-704.
23
803-6; note that Hyllus is not sure of this.
2
1107-11.
f 1123, 1136-42 (contrast 734-40, 806-20).
"Compare e.g. 65-6, 550-1, 720-2.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 Deianeira's 'Deception Speech' 1
saying is 'if you do/suffer (the verb is ambiguous) what brings shame in
secret, you will not fall victim to shame'. She finds it embarrassing and
humiliating that she cannot hold her husband without recourse to
magic.26 No doubt, by dramatic irony, the words could be understood as
'if you are committing a shameful deed (murdering your husband) in
secret, you will not be caught out', but that is not her intended meaning.
This applies also to the' ambiguities' alleged by La Rue, to the extent that
they are really in the text at all; it is more reasonable to suppose dramatic
irony of the kind so familiar from the Oedipus Rex than direct irony of
which the speaker is conscious. The instructions she gives to Lichas are,
as we shall soon be told,27 simply a conscientious observance of the
instructions of the centaur; it is his motives, not hers, which are relevant.
The whole case against her depends on reading into the text what is not
there, but could easily have been put there had Sophocles wanted it.
True, she scorns the defence of ignorance,28 but so did Oedipus; 29 that is
a sign of greatness, not of guilt.
If the evidence against Deianeira does not stand up, that in her favour
is conclusive. Her suicide is not otherwise explicable, and Errandonea's
account of it is nonsense. We hear (in sequence) Deianeira's pledge that
if she has destroyed Heracles she will not survive him; the news that she
has destroyed him; her affectionate farewell to the marriage-bed; her
suicide.30 We are invited to believe that after (hypocritically) announcing
that she will commit suicide for one reason she does so for a completely
different one, and that we are expected to work this out without one word
in the text to help us and with many to lead us astray. To talk of a 'guilty
conscience' is reasonable, but a guilty conscience is not in itself evidence
of guilt; Deianeira, like Oedipus, is more severe on herself than we would
be. The true verdict is that which Hyllus pronounces; she went wrong
with good intentions. It is the last word spoken about her in the play, and
in its dramatic context it is clearly intended to be decisive.
Our rejection of the theory of Errandonea, however, reintroduces the
problem I have already noted. If the 'deception-speech' is nothing of the
kind, it seems to tell us virtually nothing about Deianeira that we did not
know already. The devotion to an unworthy husband and noble but
rather helpless femininity which commentators have found so attractive
(•especially in the Victorian era) are amply attested elsewhere. Nor does
the speech advance the plot. What, then, is it doing in the play at all?
I think we can find a solution starting from the same point as
Errandonea but moving in an entirely different direction. Deianeira's
name means 'man-destroyer' or (since 'man' is also 'husband') 'husband-
destroyer'. Perhaps she was in some version of the story an Amazon,
tamed by Heracles as Theseus (who disputes with him credit for many of
the 'labours') tamed Hippolyta. Perhaps she was given her name simply

26
27
See Gellie (n. 4 above) 65-6, Kamerbeek 138, Whitman 115, 266.
2
680-4.
29
° 727-30.
30
In the Oedipus Rex; he has second thoughts in the Oedipus at Colonus.
719-22, 739-40, 899-931.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732
 8 D.A. Hester
because of her role as the destroyer of Heracles. In either case 'husband-
destroyer' is the role she is required to play in this drama; and how poorly
qualified for it she appears to be! She is physically weak and her nature
timorous and indecisive; the husband she has to deal with is by contrast
an absolute paragon of superhuman strength, courage, and decisiveness
(and, one may add, sub-human ruthlessness). But perhaps there is still a
possibility of her attempting something if she is directly attacked at her
most vulnerable point — her marriage? Sophocles seems concerned by
this speech to exclude even this possibility. In spite of the revelation of
Iole's identity, Deianeira's pity for her persists. She will not play
Clytemnestra in Clytemnestra's situation; rather she will take upon
herself in fact the role that Andromache was willing to accept in theory,
and receive her husband's mistress as an honoured member of her own
house. The 'husband-destroyer' has emerged as the only wife that we
cannot imagine as ever destroying her husband; she lacks the strength,
the decisiveness, and above all the will.
This kind of paradox is the very stuff of Sophocles. Is it not Antigone,
devoted above all to her family, who achieves its virtual extinction? Is it
not Oedipus, the saviour of Thebes, who is its polluter? Is it not the same
Oedipus, the solver of riddles, who, presented with the plain truth by
Teiresias, manages to find such ingenious reasons for not believing it that
he deceives himself and (for the moment) everyone else? Is it not
Odysseus, deviser of stratagems, who, attempting to convey a sick and
helpless man from one place to another with the aid of divine pre-
destination and of a capable and obliging confederate, manages to
embroil the situation so thoroughly that without a last moment divine
intervention Philoctetes would have gone home and Troy would never
have fallen? Deianeira will fulfil her role and emerge in spite of
everything as the one 'monster' 31 too strong for Heracles; he will, in a
final section of the play found totally irrelevant by some, 32 comment on
her usurpation of his role (like Creon in the Antigone, he hates losing to a
women) and takes upon himself her role — that of the weak and
lamenting woman. 33 It is this neglected or misinterpreted speech that sets
the seal upon the paradox of Deianeira before Sophocles proceeds to its
solution.
University of Adelaide D. A. HESTER

See Albini (n. 7 above).

E.g. A.M. Linforth, University ofCalifornia publications in Classical Philology 14. 7
(1952), 255-67; von Wilamowitz (n. 4 above) 155-64.
1058-63 (compare Antigone 678-80) and 1070-5 (compare Prometheus Bound 1002-
6)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Auckland University of Technology, on 23 Oct 2018 at 13:15:14, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066477400002732