Laura Russell muses,

Sophocles’ play Philoctetes is a gripping piece: but exactly whose story does it tell? Identifying the protagonist in this complicated drama has proven a challenging task. In order to do so, I would like to first define the term “protagonist” in two subcatagories – abstract, and dramatic. These definitions clarify the roles of Philoctetes and Neoptolemus and supply a framework for the analysis of these roles.

Philoctetes is the abstract protagonist in this play. More simply put, the plot revolves around him and his fate, even down to the title. When the play is summarized, this becomes obvious. Philoctetes deals with the abandonment, suffering, and ultimate fate of the title character, as illustrated by his interaction with other characters. Any reader who only read a blurb of the play and passed on would probably assume Philoctetes himself was the protagonist, and this would not be entirely unfair. It merely overlooks the layered structure of the play. He functions in a heroic role throughout the play, characterized by suffering, although relatively detached from the audience.

I submit that Neoptolemus constitutes the second, although not necessarily secondary, protagonist. However, in contrast to Philoctetes, he functions as a dramatic protagonist. On the most basic level, his perpetual presence onstage lends him primacy in the eyes of his viewers. He is also the character with whom we interact the most on a dramatic level; his psychological transformation throughout the play is pivotal to the plot. We watch as he is shaped and molded by the individuals surrounding him. His malleability is unparalleled by the other characters. He is the character that draws the audience into the drama itself. A person who read the complete play or watched a performance would be likely to identify Neoptolemus as the protagonist for these reasons.

What ramifications do these distinctions have for our perception of the play? The answer lies in examining the interactions between Philoctetes and Neoptolemus. In their first meeting, it is the latter who waits onstage for Philoctetes to appear: our dramatic protagonist narrates to the audience as he waits, drawing us into the plot. There is a definite tension between the one who we see onstage, and the one who approaches. Philoctetes’ presence is naturally more detached at this point, but his mystery and suffering also exalt him to a certain degree in our perception. When Philoctetes finally arrives, the stage directions indicate that “only Neoptolemus stands his ground.” For the rest of this scene, Philoctetes and Neoptolemus trade the spotlight as they share their stories.

The intriguing thing to note here is the method of delivery for these personal accounts, which I would argue support the distinctions I have drawn. Philoctetes delivers a very eloquent and sophisticated speech – one of his primary tools is repetition. A phrase or idea he introduces once is likely to be restated at least once again. For example, he says “and they sailed away, yes, the whole fleet,” and then a few lines later repeats “and there they left me, yes, they went away.” Later, he also says “no captain ever comes here willingly. There is no port, no place where he can trade, no lodging. It is a place which no sane man would choose as a destination.” This is the kind of speech one expects from an abstract protagonist – impassioned, the sort of man you see on a platform.

Neoptolemus, on the other hand, delivers a much less sophisticated speech. He merely recounts his mostly fictional misfortunes with little rumination. He is even a bit awkward at times, as when he says “there he lay, my father. First I mourned him a little while. Then I went straight to ask the generals…” If Philoctetes had delivered this speech, he doubtless would have dwelled much longer on the death of Achilles, with appropriate lamentation. However, by virtue of his less polished speech, Neoptolemus becomes the man in the crowd beside you, not the man on the platform. He serves to connect the audience to the play, while Philoctetes serves to inspire the audience in his more formal role. Again, both function in their respective roles as dramatic and abstract protagonists. Even in the final lines of the play, when both respond to Heracles’ orders, the difference is obvious: Philoctetes responds with “Ah, voice I longed to hear! Ah, vision long delayed! Thy words shall be obeyed!” Neoptolemus, however, merely adds that “I too shall not fail.”

In the end, Sophocles’ play defies the identification of an ultimate protagonist. Philoctetes serves a more traditional role as the heroic and eloquent sufferer. Neoptolemus, in his malleable state, captures our sympathy on a more down-to-earth level. If Philoctetes is a beef fillet, Neoptolemus is a hamburger. As culinary tastes differ, so do literary tastes: hence I submit that the play is best understood when readers consider it to have both an abstract and dramatic protagonist, as the contrast they provide throughout the drama is pivotal to its intensity.