You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
A little hard to read thru the archaic wording but the pay off is in Odysseus' scene at the end. Some great quotes like " ...yet hated him, when I could honourably hate" and "His worth weighs with me far more than his enmity." In this age of polarizing views sometimes we need a reminder of how to retain our nobility while living thru conflicts.
Edit: Originally I gave this a 5, then on re-rereading a 4.5, but I'm putting it back up to a 5 because (although I still have qualms about Ajax's characterisation) I think that 5 stars best reflects how I regard it in relation to Sophocles' other tragedies (I'd say it's almost as good as Antigone, though not quite, but I consider it (even) better than Electra, which I gave 4 stars).
I really love this play, and my only real critique that holds me off from giving five stars is that I’m not entirely comfortable with the way Ajax himself is characterised (in short, he treats his supporters horribly, although they are essentially all he has). There is a great deal to say on the positive side, however, and this is a very ‘deep’ play both psychologically and dramatically, so I cannot possibly cover everything but I will try and deal with the major points.
We are obviously meant to sympathise with him, and although I feel for his situation a great deal I cannot connect with his response to it. In the end it is Odysseus, who we would expect to pose as the antagonist, who gives us the most sympathetically portrayed heroic figure, and the Atreidae (Agaememnon and Menelaus, the sons of Atreus) who provide antagonists in a sense, and although Odysseus is portrayed very differently in Sophocles’ Philoctetes both characterisations are in keeping with the Iliad. Again in connection with epic, the rivalry between Odysseus and Ajax is one of brains versus brawn, and one that never comes close to any resolution – in Book 23 of the Iliad the two have a wrestling match and Achilles essentially has to pull them off one another, telling them that they’ve both demonstrated their prowess, and similarly here, although Odysseus obviously gets both the armour and the better ending, the competition, and the animosity it brings, is never properly resolved. By extension, Odysseus’ popularity and favour over Ajax (both by the gods and the army) provide a key source of sympathy for Ajax, rejected by the gods, humiliated by Athena, and sabotaged by Odysseus and the rest of the troops alike: he is not one who can be forgiven for his actions, (like Oedipus or Antigone), but one who is pitied for his desperate circumstances, (like Medea or even Clytemnestra and her children in the Oresteia).
I haven’t read this in Greek, unfortunately (though I have read many of Sophocles’ other plays in Greek), and I am sure it is even better in Greek, but unless I eventually come to read it in the original I don’t think I can presume this judgement entirely. This is a reread for me, however, returning to the text after a few years, and this time around the conflicts of loyalties particularly stood out and drew me in: it came to light that in the argument over Ajax’s funerary rites (the debate over the right to a proper burial mirroring another Sophoclean favourite, Antigone) Agamemnon only agrees to it because he needs Odysseus’ loyalty in the long term, and still disagrees with it fundamentally, and similarly Teucer makes his peace with Odysseus and his request to participate but still will not let him touch the body – indeed, many people today still fear leaving someone on bad terms and never getting the chance to reconcile. Sophocles is generally considered the best tragedian, and this is without a doubt one of his best works: people who only have the time or patience to cover one or two should feel compelled to seek it out.
I really love this play, and my only real critique that holds me off from giving five stars is that I’m not entirely comfortable with the way Ajax himself is characterised (in short, he treats his supporters horribly, although they are essentially all he has). There is a great deal to say on the positive side, however, and this is a very ‘deep’ play both psychologically and dramatically, so I cannot possibly cover everything but I will try and deal with the major points.
We are obviously meant to sympathise with him, and although I feel for his situation a great deal I cannot connect with his response to it. In the end it is Odysseus, who we would expect to pose as the antagonist, who gives us the most sympathetically portrayed heroic figure, and the Atreidae (Agaememnon and Menelaus, the sons of Atreus) who provide antagonists in a sense, and although Odysseus is portrayed very differently in Sophocles’ Philoctetes both characterisations are in keeping with the Iliad. Again in connection with epic, the rivalry between Odysseus and Ajax is one of brains versus brawn, and one that never comes close to any resolution – in Book 23 of the Iliad the two have a wrestling match and Achilles essentially has to pull them off one another, telling them that they’ve both demonstrated their prowess, and similarly here, although Odysseus obviously gets both the armour and the better ending, the competition, and the animosity it brings, is never properly resolved. By extension, Odysseus’ popularity and favour over Ajax (both by the gods and the army) provide a key source of sympathy for Ajax, rejected by the gods, humiliated by Athena, and sabotaged by Odysseus and the rest of the troops alike: he is not one who can be forgiven for his actions, (like Oedipus or Antigone), but one who is pitied for his desperate circumstances, (like Medea or even Clytemnestra and her children in the Oresteia).
I haven’t read this in Greek, unfortunately (though I have read many of Sophocles’ other plays in Greek), and I am sure it is even better in Greek, but unless I eventually come to read it in the original I don’t think I can presume this judgement entirely. This is a reread for me, however, returning to the text after a few years, and this time around the conflicts of loyalties particularly stood out and drew me in: it came to light that in the argument over Ajax’s funerary rites (the debate over the right to a proper burial mirroring another Sophoclean favourite, Antigone) Agamemnon only agrees to it because he needs Odysseus’ loyalty in the long term, and still disagrees with it fundamentally, and similarly Teucer makes his peace with Odysseus and his request to participate but still will not let him touch the body – indeed, many people today still fear leaving someone on bad terms and never getting the chance to reconcile. Sophocles is generally considered the best tragedian, and this is without a doubt one of his best works: people who only have the time or patience to cover one or two should feel compelled to seek it out.
I considered a 2.5, but I think the emotional weight it holds, and a few other positives, bring it up to a 3.
I really like Sophocles, but this is one of his weaker surviving plays – I read it in English this time, but I read it in Greek a few years ago and found the same. It’s not terrible by any means, but it pales in comparison to Oedipus Tyrannus, Antigone or Ajax. It is, however, intriguing in its female-centredness (unusual outside of Euripides) and in that the play features two messengers and yet the inevitable ‘messenger speeches’ are given by other characters. The content is very emotionally driven and effective, but the underlying meaning of it all is not clear: as others have noted, the play remains somewhat perplexing – the usual tragic tropes appear, but it neither provides a clear message nor lends itself easily to interpretation.
The most compelling parts, of course, are provided by Deianeira’s sorrow that she has lost favour with her husband, and her increasing despair as she ages, loses her looks and fertility, and becomes less of an asset in a hyper-patriarchal society while a newcomer captive is hailed as the favourite trophy of Heracles over her. The speeches that reflect on this are especially moving, but aside from this the play as a whole seems somewhat hollow – there is not much to play on aside from her despair, and it is difficult to tell (at least for me) what the underlying message is.
The moral ambiguities, however, may work in its favour, as is typical of Sophocles, and are part of what brings this up to three stars for me – it is difficult to condemn Heracles too harshly for following protocol after battle and taking captives (though taking a new wife seems cruel to us now, it would mean more legitimate offspring), and Deianeira is obviously sympathetic and does not mean to cause her husband’s demise. However, the language is not up to the usual (high!) Sophoclean standard (although, as usual, there remain some poignant one-liners), but proves a little repetitive on its themes, and overall it is not as complex or as ripe for discussion the way his tragedies usually offer it. On the positive side it has compelling and interesting characters to back it up, and, more typically for Sophocles than its other elements, there remain some striking individual moments and I think the chorus’ involvement works particularly well (they have more agency, and seem more relevant and involved than in some other plays). Overall, this is well worth reading, but should not be approached with high expectations after one has read Sophocles’ more famous and celebrated works.
I really like Sophocles, but this is one of his weaker surviving plays – I read it in English this time, but I read it in Greek a few years ago and found the same. It’s not terrible by any means, but it pales in comparison to Oedipus Tyrannus, Antigone or Ajax. It is, however, intriguing in its female-centredness (unusual outside of Euripides) and in that the play features two messengers and yet the inevitable ‘messenger speeches’ are given by other characters. The content is very emotionally driven and effective, but the underlying meaning of it all is not clear: as others have noted, the play remains somewhat perplexing – the usual tragic tropes appear, but it neither provides a clear message nor lends itself easily to interpretation.
The most compelling parts, of course, are provided by Deianeira’s sorrow that she has lost favour with her husband, and her increasing despair as she ages, loses her looks and fertility, and becomes less of an asset in a hyper-patriarchal society while a newcomer captive is hailed as the favourite trophy of Heracles over her. The speeches that reflect on this are especially moving, but aside from this the play as a whole seems somewhat hollow – there is not much to play on aside from her despair, and it is difficult to tell (at least for me) what the underlying message is.
The moral ambiguities, however, may work in its favour, as is typical of Sophocles, and are part of what brings this up to three stars for me – it is difficult to condemn Heracles too harshly for following protocol after battle and taking captives (though taking a new wife seems cruel to us now, it would mean more legitimate offspring), and Deianeira is obviously sympathetic and does not mean to cause her husband’s demise. However, the language is not up to the usual (high!) Sophoclean standard (although, as usual, there remain some poignant one-liners), but proves a little repetitive on its themes, and overall it is not as complex or as ripe for discussion the way his tragedies usually offer it. On the positive side it has compelling and interesting characters to back it up, and, more typically for Sophocles than its other elements, there remain some striking individual moments and I think the chorus’ involvement works particularly well (they have more agency, and seem more relevant and involved than in some other plays). Overall, this is well worth reading, but should not be approached with high expectations after one has read Sophocles’ more famous and celebrated works.
Es imposible que califique con menos de cuatro estrellas a algo que involucre mitología griega. Tengo debilidades, como todo el mundo.
Esta obra se lee rápido y tiene un argumento muy claro (incluso algunos personajes ayudan a reponer detalles que quedan por fuera, ya que empieza in medias res ). La historia de Áyax me pareció interesante por uno de sus tantos mensajes. Si en aquel entonces existía algo peor que no creer en los dioses, eso debía ser desdeñar su ayuda.
Ahora tengo muchas más ganas de terminar la La Ilíada que antes.
Esta obra se lee rápido y tiene un argumento muy claro (incluso algunos personajes ayudan a reponer detalles que quedan por fuera, ya que empieza in medias res ). La historia de Áyax me pareció interesante por uno de sus tantos mensajes. Si en aquel entonces existía algo peor que no creer en los dioses, eso debía ser desdeñar su ayuda.
Ahora tengo muchas más ganas de terminar la La Ilíada que antes.
funny
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Sophocles is a much better writer than Aeschylus (as far as I can tell from the version we have that has probably been through many hands and many translators). This story is not as dark. Greek theater is an experience in itself.
Seriously good play. Greek tragedies, although massively depressing, are never a let down, and carry really interesting messages that have lasted the test of time. I adore Tecmessa, she has great monologues and is generally a really good Greek heroine; considering Sophocles was a man and probably as alpha-male as most Greek men, I mentally nod in his direction for her spunky yet sensitive character.
What seemed like a simple tragedy of one soldier's suicide and the ensuing discussion of his burial soon became a more nuanced examination of selfishness vs. communal compromise. Ajax chooses to go it alone at every turn, rejecting any help from gods or man. He believes he can win battles or right wrongs on his own. It's a selfishness that isolates him, leading him to the ultimate act of selfishness--taking his own life.
Ironically (and this is where the play became fascinating for me), the community rallies around Ajax in death to ensure the corpse gets the respect that the man didn't receive while alive. They are as selfless as Ajax was selfish. Tecmessa risks her life to ensure their son is safe. Teucer stands up to both political and military leaders to demand Ajax receive a proper burial. The chorus of sailors (representing the entire community) prepare his body for burial. Even Odysseus, the staunchest enemy of Ajax, requests to help in the burial. What comes of Ajax's selfish desire for bloody vengeance? Not violence or strife among the Greeks, but a discussion of what it means to be respectful to noble enemies and, ultimately, how to put aside personal, individual vendettas (like the ones that lead to Ajax's downfall) in order for the community as a whole to function together. Like previous dramas I've read by Sophocles, this one has a subtle lesson that doesn't feel didactic but is very memorable.
Ironically (and this is where the play became fascinating for me), the community rallies around Ajax in death to ensure the corpse gets the respect that the man didn't receive while alive. They are as selfless as Ajax was selfish. Tecmessa risks her life to ensure their son is safe. Teucer stands up to both political and military leaders to demand Ajax receive a proper burial. The chorus of sailors (representing the entire community) prepare his body for burial. Even Odysseus, the staunchest enemy of Ajax, requests to help in the burial. What comes of Ajax's selfish desire for bloody vengeance? Not violence or strife among the Greeks, but a discussion of what it means to be respectful to noble enemies and, ultimately, how to put aside personal, individual vendettas (like the ones that lead to Ajax's downfall) in order for the community as a whole to function together. Like previous dramas I've read by Sophocles, this one has a subtle lesson that doesn't feel didactic but is very memorable.
Ajax has committed an offense towards the Gods and is now being punished for it by Athena.
Out of the tree Sophocles plays I read, this was my least favourite one because on the other two plays (Antigone and Oedipus Rex), I finished the reading with a lot of food for thought, whereas in this one not so much. However, I was familiar quite a few of the characters, Odysseus, Athens and Achilles, and I enjoyed the mythological part of this play.
It was also interesting to read about the relationship between humans and Gods, because I obviously knew that Gods had a superior position relatively to mere mortals, but I wasn’t aware that they had the power to kill citizens in the name of a small disrespectful attitude.
Out of the tree Sophocles plays I read, this was my least favourite one because on the other two plays (Antigone and Oedipus Rex), I finished the reading with a lot of food for thought, whereas in this one not so much. However, I was familiar quite a few of the characters, Odysseus, Athens and Achilles, and I enjoyed the mythological part of this play.
It was also interesting to read about the relationship between humans and Gods, because I obviously knew that Gods had a superior position relatively to mere mortals, but I wasn’t aware that they had the power to kill citizens in the name of a small disrespectful attitude.
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death
Moderate: Suicide