Aias Mastigophoros: 
Divine Ostentation 
within a Play
Andreja Inkret*
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS
In a prominent tragic scene, Odysseus watches Aias coming 
out of his tent in reply to Athena’s call. Aias, who cannot see 
Odysseus, is holding a whip covered with blood, and he greets 
the goddess with the self-assurance of being her protégé. Yes, 
he boasts in response to Athena’s questions, he has killed the 
Atreidai (so, let them rob him of Achilles’ weapon now); as for 
Odysseus, his worst enemy, he is keeping him chained in his tent 
and will f log him to death. Athena objects to such cruelty, but 
just before returning to his tent, Aias sounds determined:1
χαίρειν, Ἀθάνα, τἄλλ̓  ἐγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι,  
κεῖνος δὲ τείσει τήνδε κοὐκ ἄλλην δίκην. 
   (112–3)
In all other matters, Athena, I salute you; 
but that man shall pay this penalty and no other.
This short scene forms part of the opening of Sophocles’ Aias, a 
tragedy concentrating on the suicide and the funeral of one of the 
bravest heroes of the Trojan War. Structurally, it seems a somewhat 
independent inset, embedded within two dialogues between Athe-
na and Odysseus, which contextualize it. At the beginning of the 
tragedy, Odysseus, sneaking around Aias’ tent, hears the voice of 
1 The text of Sophocles’ Aias follows the edition and translation by Hugh Lloyd-Jo-
nes.
* Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
andreja.inkret@ff.uni-lj.si. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.1.2.17–33
ANDREJA INKRET18
Athena.2 The goddess confirms Odysseus’ assumptions that it was 
Aias who killed the cattle the night before and that it was she who 
played a part in this mad deed by preventing Aias’ initial intention 
to kill Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Odysseus. Aias was overcome 
with rage because Achilles’ weapon had been presented to Odys-
seus, so she inflicted madness upon the hero. She made him confuse 
the animals for Greek soldiers, which led to the sheep’s massacre. 
Athena then proclaims her intention to show the maddened hero to 
Odysseus:
δείξω δὲ καὶ σοὶ τήνδε περιφανῆ νόσον,
ὡς πᾶσιν Ἀργείοισιν εἰσιδὼν θροῇς. (66–7)
And I will show this madness openly to you also, 
so that you may tell all the Argives what you have seen.
Odysseus objects in fear. The goddess nevertheless summons the 
hero, arranges that the latter cannot see Odysseus, and starts to 
converse with Aias, pretending to be his ally. When Aias leaves the 
stage to torture what he believes is Odysseus, the goddess turns to 
Odysseus again:
 
ὁρᾷς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση;  
τούτου τίς ἄν σοι τἀνδρὸς ἢ προνούστερος  
ἢ δρᾶν ἀμείνων ηὑρέθη τὰ καίρια; (118–20)
Do you see, Odysseus, how great is the power of the gods? What 
man was found to be more farsighted than this one, or better at 
doing what the occasion required?
Aias coming onstage with a whip amid a bloody act of revenge must 
have been a memorable scene: it has given the play a later subtitle, 
Μαστιγοφόρος, as noted by an Alexandrian scholar.3 Furthermore, 
it is no exaggeration to say that the scene is unique in the corpus 
of extant ancient drama. Though there are, of course, comparable 
elements and dramaturgical strategies to be found in other anci-
2 Athena seems to be invisible to Odysseus and later probably also to Aias (see, 
however, Taplin, Greek Tragedy in Action, 185). How Athena’s epiphany was staged, 
though, is impossible to work out. It seems likely that she was visible to theatre 
spectators, most probably on the theologeion (see Jebb and Garvie, ad 15). There is, 
however, no scholarly consensus.
3 See Hypothesis.
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 19
ent plays, this scene seems unparalleled as regards its dramaturgical 
structure. It achieves powerful effects through a specific composition 
that doubles the structural elements of theatre.
Scholars have often noted the performative dimensions of this 
inset.4 Although they seem to refer to the inset using “a play- within-
a-play” and related expressions rather instinctively, one can begin by 
rationalizing specifically the structural similarities that this extra-
ordinary scene shares with theatre. In order to be as exact as possi-
ble, this paper shall bring into discussion some concepts and ob-
servations made by theatre theoreticians, but will deliberately avoid 
expressions such as “play-within-a-play,” “internal actor,” “internal 
director,” and alike. These expressions tend to be somewhat vague if 
one tries to describe the scene with precision.
WATCHING “FICTION”
One can begin with the following observation: at the mom-
ent when Athena is speaking to Aias, two separate fictitious 
worlds coexist onstage (that is, within a theatre performance of 
Sophocles’ Aias). The first, being a creation of Athena, is con-
textualized as non-real – it is a distorted reality as seen by poor 
Aias. In it, Aias is a brave hero avenging an injury who has just 
taken a break from torturing Odysseus and other soldiers in his 
tent. Athena is his ally, talking to him in a friendly way. How-
ever, the audience knows that this world is a product of Aias’ 
hallucinations and Athena’s pretense. It is the other world that 
is – all the while juxtaposed with the former – contextualized as 
the real, actual one. In this realm, Aias is a sufferer of madness 
inf licted on him by Athena. The objects subjected to the tortu-
re in his tent are not actually Greek soldiers but merely sheep. 
4 For example, J. P. Poe, Genre and Meaning in Sophocles’ Ajax, 29–30, referring to 
the scene as a play-within-a-play, comments that Aias is Athena’s “play thing,” 
being “brought on stage by Athena specifically to perform … and … put through 
an act directed by her.” Patricia E. Easterling, “Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy,” 
82, writes that Athena “presents for Odysseus as a spectator a play-within-a-
play.” M. Ringer, Electra and the Empty Urn, 31–32, recognises in the prologue 
“a performative scheme which is periodically reenacted throughout the play” 
and K. Valakas, “The use of the body by actors in tragedy and satyr-play,” 73, 
describes Athena as “a theatrical director.” Aias is “transformed by her, like an 
actor into a madman,” while Odysseus “watches and listens as terrified, pitying 
and silent as the spectators.”
ANDREJA INKRET20
Athena only pretends to be Aias’ ally. Besides, Aias is observed 
by his worst enemy, Odysseus, who is not helpless in Aias’ tent 
but is Athena’s true protégé.
Even though the dialogue between Athena and Odysseus 
that preceded the inset (1–70) contextualized the first world as a 
non-actual, parallel world, that world is nevertheless concretely 
presented onstage. Friendly words between Aias and Athena are 
spoken for real, and Aias behaves like a hero. The logic of the ac-
tion which happens for real but is contextualized as non-actual 
is close to a fundamental characteristic of theatre performance. 
Theatrologist Anne Ubersfeld5 points out that in a tale, written 
or spoken, “the story is expressly denoted as being imaginary,” 
whereas fiction presented in theatre is built on a paradox. Ob-
jects, people, and actions onstage “indisputably exist,” but this 
“concrete reality” is “at the same time denied, marked with a 
minus sign.” This paradox is, of course, taken for granted by 
theatre participants – by performers and spectators. In this in-
set, the underlying logic appears to be similar: Aias and Athena 
“indisputably” converse as allies, but this “concrete reality” is 
only a construct: it is “marked with a minus sign.” Furthermore, 
the “minus sign” is acknowledged by Athena as well as Odysseus.
One may now take a closer look at the position of Odysseus. 
This is how his participation, as arranged by Athena, is descri-
bed:
ΑΘΗΝΑ
δείξω δὲ καὶ σοὶ τήνδε περιφανῆ νόσον,
ὡς πᾶσιν Ἀργείοισιν εἰσιδὼν θροῇς.
θαρσῶν δὲ μίμνε μηδὲ συμφορὰν δέχου
τὸν ἄνδρ ·̓ ἐγὼ γὰρ ὀμμάτων ἀποστρόφους
αὐγὰς ἀπείρξω σὴν πρόσοψιν εἰσιδεῖν.
(…)
ἀλλ̓  οὐδὲ νῦν σε μὴ παρόντ᾽ ἴδῃ πέλας.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ
πῶς, εἴπερ ὀφθαλμοῖς γε τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁρᾷ;
ΑΘΗΝΑ 
ἐγὼ σκοτώσω βλέφαρα καὶ δεδορκότα. (…)
σίγα νυν ἑστὼς καὶ μέν᾽ ὡς κυρεῖς ἔχων.
  (66–70; 83–5; 87)
5 Anne Ubersfeld, Reading Theatre, 24.
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 21
ATHENA
And I will show this madness openly to you also, so that you may 
tell all the Argives what you have seen. Stay to meet the man with 
confidence, do not expect disaster; I shall divert the rays of his eyes 
so that he cannot see you. (…)
But now he will not even see you near him.
ODYSSEUS
How so, if he is seeing with the same eyes?
ATHENA
I shall place his eyes in the darkness, even though they see. (…)
Then stand in silence and remain as you are.
It follows that Odysseus is a self-conscious spectator of the inset, as 
well as a privileged recipient of the action. Firstly, Odysseus watches 
self-consciously, knowing all the necessary codes. He knows that 
Aias is mad and that Athena is only pretending; he is aware that this 
is only a show. Furthermore, the conversation is first and foremost 
created for him (and through him for all the Argives),6 and special 
arrangements are made which provide him the safety of a spectator. 
This implies one of the fundamental characteristics of theatre per-
formance, namely that there exist double recipients for everything 
spoken onstage. As T. Kowzan describes this “vraie spécificité de 
l’art théâtral”:
The moment at least two characters are implied, we are dealing with 
the phenomenon of double reception, internal and external, typical 
of every dramatic action, with words and even without words. Every 
sign, every message is, in the context of theatrical fiction, supposed 
to be intended primarily for a stage partner or partners, co-chara-
cters in the play being performed … Nevertheless, from the point 
of view of the theatre as a public and social activity, from the point 
of view of the communication process, it is the spectator who is the 
real receiver of everything performed …7
Similarly, all the words spoken by Athena and Aias are intended to 
be heard not only by the collocutor – that is, either Athena or Aias 
– but, from Athena’s point of view, primarily by Odysseus. In other 
words, and to borrow the insights of stage performances and the the-
atre frame by E. Goffman,8 Aias and Athena are “fellow performers 
6 Cf. 67, quoted above.
7 T. Kowzan, Sémiologie du théâtre, 59.
8 E. Goffman, Frame Analysis, 127.
ANDREJA INKRET22
who respond to each other in the direct way as inhabitants of the same 
realm,” whereas Odysseus watches from another “realm,” responding 
“indirectly, glancingly, following alongside.”
THE OSTENTATION ACT
A useful theoretical concept to capture the performative es sence 
of the scene might be so-called “ostentation,” a phenomenon 
analyzed by Umberto Eco in one of the first articles on theatre 
semiotics published in English. Eco talks about “the specific object 
and the starting level of a semiotics of theatre,” namely “the basic 
mystery of (theatrical) performance.”9 He analyses an intriguing 
example (first given by Charles Peirce): the Salvation Army expo-
ses a drunkard in public space to promote the advantages of a 
moderate life. The drunkard displayed to the audience, Eco writes, 
has ceased to be only a body and has become “a semiotic device,” 
a sign, “a physical presence referring back to something absent.” 
The drunkard is subjected to a communication process in which 
different interpretations of the meaning of him as a sign (that is, 
different answers to the question “What is our drunken man re-
ferring back to?”) can be created. In this case, Eco continues,10 
the interpretation is marked by a given context that surrounds 
the drunkard: the principles of the Salvation Army thus denote 
the understanding of a drunkard as “an ideological statement.”11
What is the relation between the displayed drunkard and a thea-
tre performance? As already noted, Eco is after the essence of a the-
atre experience, trying to avoid “one of its main temptations,” that is, 
“to start straight away from the most complex phenomena, instead 
of rediscovering the most basic features” of a phenomenon under 
scrutiny. 12 He finds “the most basic instance of performance” in the 
phenomenon of ostentation, namely in “one of the various ways of 
signifying, consisting in de-realizing a given object in order to make 
it stand for an entire class.”13 From the very moment when a human 
9 Umberto Eco, “Semiotics of Theatrical Performance,” 108–110.
10 Ibid., 117.
11 As Eco, ibid., explains: “What would have happened if the drunk had been 
exposed under the standard of a revolutionary movement? Would he still have 
signified ‘vice’ or rather ‘the responsibilities of the system,’ ‘the results of a bad 
administration,’ ‘the whole starving world’?”
12 Ibid., 109.
13 Ibid., 110.
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 23
body becomes “framed within a sort of performative situation that 
establishes that it has to be taken as a sign,” Eco concludes, “the cur-
tain is raised.”14
A conscious and emphasized act of displaying a body that 
becomes “a semiotic device” and overgrows into a general message 
seems to lie at the core of Aias Mastigophoros. The act of ostentation 
appears to be close to Athena’s displaying of Aias’ condition. The 
goddess articulates her aim as follows:
δείξω δὲ καὶ σοὶ τήνδε περιφανῆ νόσον,
ὡς πᾶσιν Ἀργείοισιν εἰσιδὼν θροῇς. (66–67)
And I will show this madness openly to you also, 
so that you may tell all the Argives what you have seen.
All three verbs included in the two lines seem to be relevant: Athena 
displays – ostends (δεικνύναι) Aias to Odysseus, who by watching 
(εἰσορᾶν) would gain the experience significant enough to be con­
veyed (θροεῖν) to all the Argives.
When one thinks about the interpretation, the message of Aias 
on display, it is the reaction of Odysseus as an internal recipient that 
seems to be the most important. In this context, it is worth noting 
that Odysseus, being a secret observer and a privileged recipient of 
the ostentation, acts as an intermediate between theatre spectators 
and the action onstage. It could be even argued that in the focus 
of spectators’ attention is not only an internal show but also Odys-
seus’ reaction and interpretation of what he sees.15 Indeed, Odysseus’ 
comprehension of Aias Mastigophoros turns out to be quite a specific 
14 Ibid., 117.
15 Several scholars single out the presence of internal spectators as a crucial element of 
the play-within-a-play and related devices. It is on an internal spectator, as Victor 
Bourgy, “About the Inset Spectacle in Shakespeare,” 6, persuasively argues, “that 
the inset spectacle operates immediately and it is its effect on him that matters.” The 
effect on internal audiences is normally more powerful when internal spectators are 
also internal recipients. No example is better and more complex than the Murder 
of Gonzago within Shakespeare’s Hamlet, a Claudius-trap; the recipient status of 
Claudius and Gertrude is emphasized by the play being especially tailored for them 
and their reaction being vigilantly observed. Cf. Bourgy, ibid.: “All the court of 
Elsinore have gathered to watch the inset performance, just as all the paying audi-
ence have come to watch Hamlet, but the real game is played between a few great 
ones among the stage spectators, in their effort to catch on one another’s faces signs 
of their secret thought or designs. Claudius, seconded by Polonius, watches Hamlet 
on the sly as much as the latter, with the help of Horatio, watches him.”
ANDREJA INKRET24
experience. When the spectacle is over, his impressions are different 
from those anticipated. When Athena first summoned Aias out of 
his tent, Odysseus objected to her intentions (74ff.). The reasons for 
his objection, explicitly mentioned, are fear and the fact that Aias is 
hostile to him. Athena followed the thread, suggesting that Odysseus 
could mock his enemy, who was so unheroically overwhelmed by 
rage, gloating over his insanity. However, when the spectacle is over, 
both Athena and Odysseus discuss the subject in different terms. For 
Odysseus, Aias is no longer only his enemy, but primarily a mise-
rable human being:
                                     … ἐποικτίρω δέ νιν
δύστηνον ἔμπας, καίπερ ὄντα δυσμενῆ,
ὁθούνεκ᾿ ἄτῃ συγκατέζευκται κακῇ,
οὐδὲν τὸ τούτου μᾶλλον ἢ τοὐμὸν σκοπῶν. 
   (121–4)
… I pity him in his misery, though he is my enemy, because he is 
bound fast by a cruel affliction, not thinking of his fate, but my own.
The experience has made Odysseus think about his destiny. 
Aias has become a specimen, provoking in Odysseus not only a 
feel ing of pity but also a cognition about humankind in general 
(125–6). Athena only confirms this, making clear to Odysseus 
that to experience Aias Mastigophoros was to learn a moral les-
son:
τοιαῦτα τοίνυν εἰσορῶν ὑπέρκοπον
μηδέν ποτ᾿ εἴπῃς αὐτὸς ἐς θεοὺς ἔπος,
μηδ᾿ ὄγκον ἄρῃ μηδέν ,̓ εἴ τινος πλέον
ἢ χειρὶ βρίθεις ἢ μακροῦ πλούτου βάθει.
ὡς ἡμέρα κλίνει τε κἀνάγει πάλιν
ἅπαντα τἀνθρώπεια· τοὺς δὲ σώφρονας
θεοὶ φιλοῦσι καὶ στυγοῦσι τοὺς κακούς. 
   (127–34)
Look, then, at such things, and never yourself utter an arrogant 
word against the gods, nor assume conceit because you outweigh 
another in strength or in the profusion of great wealth. Know that 
a single day brings down or raises again all mortal things, and the 
gods love those who think sensibly and detest offenders!
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 25
To borrow Eco’s words once more, Aias, being “framed within a sort 
of performative situation,” is turned into “a semiotic device.” With 
it, Athena shows to Odysseus (and through him to other Greeks) the 
ephemerality of humans, warning him against arrogance towards 
the gods and emphasizing the importance of σωφροσύνη.
DIVINE POWER
One can, therefore, argue that an act of ostentation, an essential 
performative situation, is included within a theatre performance 
of Sophocles’ Aias. Since theatre performance is the most complex 
performative situation and a fundamental paradigm of performance 
as a concept itself, there is no doubt that Athena’s display of Aias is 
far more sophisticated and complex than the drunkard displayed 
by the Salvation Army as described by Umberto Eco. The subject 
on display, and consequently the context which surrounds it in this 
scene, is more ambiguous, the relations between participants more 
telling, meaningful, binding, even fatal. After all, everything that oc-
curs in theatre has a special meaning. Everything is highly relevant 
and portentous since the audience watching a theatre action – by 
contrast to events in everyday life – does not need, as Langer emp-
hasizes, “to find what is significant; the selection has been made – 
whatever is there is significant, and it is not too much to be surveyed 
in toto.”16 Some elements that contribute to the complexity of the os-
tentation act within Aias have been already singled out above: the act 
consists not only of Aias being displayed but of a parallel, non-actual 
world which Athena helps to sustain by pretending to be Aias’ ally. 
Besides, Odysseus is a privileged recipient and an attentive spectator 
of Aias Mastigophoros.  
However, one of the most significant characteristics, which ma-
kes the scene particularly convoluted, is the fact that this is a divine 
ostentation act. It is no exaggeration to say that Athena is a sine qua 
non of Aias Mastigophoros. By inflicting madness on Aias’ mind, she 
creates a parallel world. By pretending that Aias’ world perception is 
accurate, she makes the parallel world concrete. By summoning Aias 
out of his tent and arranging that Odysseus can watch him safely, 
she creates a sophisticated performative situation. By explaining to 
Odysseus how Aias is to be understood, she gives a deeper meaning 
to the show as a whole. Aias Mastigophoros, with all its characte-
ristics that seem related to theatre, is, therefore, Athena’s creation.
16 Langer, Feeling and Form, 310.
ANDREJA INKRET26
As regards Greek dramaturgy of the fifth century bc, Athena’s 
omnipotence seems to be nothing extraordinary. Gods, in one 
way or another, always crucially mark tragic stories presented 
on the Athenian stage. They are the origins, forces which frame 
crucial events, strengths which turn the action in unexpected di-
rections, entities to which characters address their complaints 
or requests, they are called as witnesses to injuries … There is 
no doubt that Athena’s ability to put Aias on display is grounded 
in this divine omnipotence, always present in the tragic theatre.
One of the challenges for a playwright dealing with mythi-
cal subjects, among others,17 was undoubtedly to find a speci-
fic way to translate divine figures and their characteristics into 
stage language. This implies the very building and exploration 
of the language of theatre. Tragedy, “crumbs from Homer’s ta-
ble,” as Aeschylus allegedly described his works, has to look for 
its way to show the presence of mythical gods. Sophocles seems 
to have created some of the most compelling representations of 
gods onstage. The haunting importance of Apollo’s oracles in 
Oedipus Tyrannus, for example, could prompt one to conclude 
that Sophocles elaborates with unsurpassed mastery the method 
through which divine presence and inf luence are only suggested 
and not concretely represented.18 The thunder in Oedipus at Co­
lonus (1456ff.), a magnificent sign of divine presence, seems an 
equally powerful device that conjures up the meeting of Oedipus 
with the gods. Athena’s appearance in Aias can be understood 
similarly, as a result of Sophocles’ search for a specific dramatur-
gical manner to show divine presence onstage. However, what is 
the significance of Athena’s act of ostentation within Aias? How 
does it affect the audiences in the theatre?
Whereas the ultimate will and intention of the goddess (and 
the same applies to other Sophoclean gods) remain elusive and 
remote,19 the main reason for her exhibition of Aias seems clear. 
Her primary purpose is implied in the question she addresses to 
Odysseus immediately after the terrifying spectacle is over:
17 See Burian’s inspiring discussion “Myth into muthos.”
18 Cf. Easterling, “Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy,” 78: “One could … argue that 
the most imaginative, compelling and effective way to create a sense of divine 
presence and power was… by suggestion rather than visible representation, 
just as violence narrated is often more powerful than violence shown to the 
audience.”
19 See Parker, “Through a Glass Darkly: Sophocles and the Divine.”
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 27
ὁρᾷς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση; (118)
Do you see, Odysseus, how great is the power of the gods?
“Aias on display,” therefore, signifies the greatness of “ἡ θεῶν 
ἰσχύς.” Furthermore, the latter – so it seems – is not only exhi-
bited by the manifestation of Aias’ madness. Athena emphasizes 
the shameful condition of a hero (which later becomes the cause 
of his suicide) by making a spectacle of him in front of his worst 
enemy. This seems to be an even heightened demonstration of di-
vine power. Besides, the power of Athena is also foregrounded by 
the fact that Aias becomes a specimen signifying a general message 
for the particular recipient. It is in this segment that Sophocles’ 
dramatic mastery is most evident. Such manifestation of divine 
authority seems to be indigenous to the theatre. Mirroring theatre 
characteristics, it is effective and powerful particularly in theatre.
If one tries to grasp the function of the inset in the tragedy 
as a whole, it seems crucial to note that, in essence, Athena’s os-
tentation of Aias is not required as regards the plot. All the facts 
are already known from the opening conversation between Athena 
and Odysseus. Odysseus’ impressions are also not crucial for the 
immediate development of the story; instead, they are essential in 
different ways and in a longer run. Aias Mastigophoros seems to 
mark both momentous events in the tragedy of Aias: the hero’s 
suicide and his funeral which ends the play. It is because of this 
scene that later events seem credible.
In retrospect, Aias’ ostentation functions as a powerful and 
pithy visual demonstration of the reasons for his subsequent sui-
cide. That Aias’ misfortune is shown by way of a horrifying specta-
cle, which is, in addition, watched by the hero’s worst enemy (cf. 
1383), has a more profound effect on the spectator than mere listen-
ing about Aias’ condition would. Because Aias’ victorious feelings 
are witnessed by Odysseus, who knows that the latter are unjus-
tified and will not last long, Aias’ condition is not only terrifying 
and pitiful but also profoundly humiliating. This seems to fore-
ground Aias’ later feelings of shame and disgrace, making them 
more credible. 
First and foremost, however, the sophisticated ostentation act 
justifies Odysseus’ behavior when he reappears at the end of the 
play (1316ff.). By contrast to Menelaus and Agamemnon, the other 
two imaginary victims of the hero’s rage objecting to the funeral 
of the warrior that wanted to harm them, Odysseus sees things in 
a different light. He surprises Agamemnon by challenging his ver-
ANDREJA INKRET28
dict and insisting that Aias should be buried as befits a hero. The 
reasons for his behavior are to be traced to the beginning of the 
play when he received Athena’s lesson. Again, it seems crucial that 
Odysseus’ learning of the divine lesson did not consist of learning 
facts (he knows everything before Aias comes onstage), but of ex-
perience, of “seeing a madman in full view,” as Jebb’s translation 
reads.20 In short, it was the experience of a spectator that has made 
him a better human.
FLEETING SHADOWS
The fact that Athena, by way of a performative situation, makes 
Odysseus a better human, might remind one of Aristophanes’ 
Frogs. Aristophanic Euripides, discussing the qualities of a good 
playwright with Aeschylus, expresses a similar idea:21
ΑΙΣΧΥΛΟΣ
ἀπόκριναί μοι, τίνος οὕνεκα χρὴ θαυμάζειν ἄνδρα ποιητήν;
ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΗΣ
δεξιότητος καὶ νουθεσίας, ὅτι βελτίους τε ποιοῦμεν
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν. 
   (1008–10)
AESCHYLUS
For what qualities should a poet be admired?
EURIPIDES
Skill and good counsel, and because we make 
people better members of their communities.
This parallel seems to underpin an assumption made by P.E. 
Easterling, namely that Odysseus’ experience of Aias Mastigopho­
ros “can be seen as a guide to the audience as spectators … of tra-
gedy in general,” whereas the internal scene “illustrates the func-
tion of theatre to create models for us to try out.”22 That observed, 
there is no need to insist on describing either Athena or the inset 
as a whole in explicitly metatheatrical terms, for instance, inter-
preting Athena as “an internal playwright/director” and the like. 
Whereas it is in any case difficult to capture the audiences’ experi-
20 The Ajax, translated by Richard Jebb, 81.
21 Edition and translation by Jeffrey Henderson.
22 Patricia E. Easterling, “Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy,” 82.
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 29
ence in all its complexity, it does not seem likely that Athena’s Aias 
Mastigophoros was meant to become a mirror of theatre during the 
performance of Aias.23 Rather than making audiences rationalize 
by drawing their attention to the theatre as an artistic medium, the 
principal and more immediate purpose of the inset appears to be 
to affect spectators somehow irrationally. This happens by way of 
a frightful spectacle well-grounded in tragedy as a whole, on the 
basis of which, as noted in the preceding section, later events in the 
play seem more credible.
It has, however, been argued throughout this paper that Athena’s 
ostentation of Aias is structurally created in the image of theatre. 
Thus it cannot be denied, either, that a particular kind of implicit 
theatrical self-awareness permeates the scene. This is perhaps most 
evident in Odysseus’ experience as a spectator. To illustrate it once 
more, one has to return to the dialogue between Athena and Odys-
seus after they witness the terrifying spectacle:
ΑΘΗΝΑ
ὁρᾷς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση; 
τούτου τίς ἄν σοι τἀνδρὸς ἢ προνούστερος
ἢ δρᾶν ἀμείνων ηὑρέθη τὰ καίρια;
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ 
ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδέν᾿ οἶδ ·̓ ἐποικτίρω δέ νιν
δύστηνον ἔμπας, καίπερ ὄντα δυσμενῆ,
ὁθούνεκ᾿ ἄτῃ συγκατέζευκται κακῇ,
οὐδὲν τὸ τούτου μᾶλλον ἢ τοὐμὸν σκοπῶν.
ὁρῶ γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐδὲν ὄντας ἄλλο πλὴν
εἴδωλ̓  ὅσοιπερ ζῶμεν ἢ κούφην σκιάν. 
   (118–126)
23 The question of “metatheatre” requires a paper on its own. In this context, 
let me only emphasize that I agree to a large extent with T. Rosenmeyer, 
“‘Metatheater’: An Essay on Overload,” who argued that classical studies, 
especially on the west side of the Atlantic, are especially prone to exagge-
ration as regards the use of the term metatheatre, as well as the concept 
itself and its implications. One could argue that one of the questionable 
ideas which have been taken for granted is the assumption that the effect 
of dramatic devices sharing structural resemblances with theatre perfor-
mance (such as the ostentation act in Aias) usually, perhaps always, draws 
spectators’ attention to the play as a play and consequently makes the audi-
ence contemplate theatre and play. This seems to be to a large extent an 
oversimplification: effects brought about by such devices must have been 
(and remain) complex and varied.
ANDREJA INKRET30
athena
Do you see, Odysseus, how great is the power of the gods? What 
man was found to be more farsighted than this one, or better at 
doing what the occasion required?
odysseus
I know of none, and I pity him in his misery, though he is my 
enemy, because he is bound fast by a cruel affliction, not thinking 
of his fate, but my own; because I see that all of us who live are 
nothing but ghosts, or a fleeting shadow.
It seems striking that the concluding thoughts expressed by Athe-
na and Aias after they witness Aias Mastigophoros appear to be 
extraordinarily close to what B. Senegačnik persuasively singles 
out as the most probable “common landmark” of all extant plays 
by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, namely the “cognition 
that man’s position in the cosmos is uncertain and his own iden-
tity unstable.” The latter is usually shown as a consequence of 
the actions of heroes brought in conflict with divine order. This 
conflict “always signifies radical relativization of their power and 
freedom.”24 Furthermore, if “this tragic message,” as Senegačnik 
continues, “is most distinct in plays that show great heroes falling 
off the top of glory into nothingness,”25 one may add that Aias 
Mastigophoros can be seen as a compact specimen of such a fall. It 
shows a man, once a hero, one of the greatest heroes ever, utterly 
humiliated, disgraced, at the very bottom.
 Perhaps the implicit theatrical self-awareness of this scene is to 
be attributed to the playwright’s inherent reflection on his artistic 
medium, its power, and responsibility. This short but memorable 
scene, as this paper tries to show, exhibits characteristics intrinsic 
to theatre art. Perhaps it is through it that we may glimpse So-
phocles’ perception of tragedy. 
24 Brane Senegačnik, “Klasična atiška tragedija,” 76.
25 Ibid.
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Bourgy, Victor. “About the Inset Spectacle in Shakespeare (Stance, Distan-
ce, Substance).” In The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets; Engli­
sh Renaissance Drama (1550–1642), Astraea 4, ed. by François Laroque, 
1–20. Montpellier: Publications de l’Université Paul Valéry, 1992.
Burian, Peter. “Myth into muthos: The Shaping of Tragic Plot.” In The 
Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, ed. by Patricia E. Easterling, 
178–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Easterling, Patricia Elizabeth. “Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy.” In Reli­
gio Graeco­Romana: Festschrift für Walter Pötscher, gb, ed. by J. Dalfen 
et al., suppl. 5 (1993): 77–86.
Eco, Umberto. “Semiotics of Theatrical Performance.” The Drama Review 
21 (1977): 107–17.
Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Expe­
rience. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986 (first published 
in 1974).
Henderson, Jeffrey, ed. and transl. Aristophanes: Frogs; Assemblywomen; 
Wealth. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Garvie, Alexander F., ed. Sophocles: Ajax. Warminster: Liverpool Uni-
versity Press, 1998.
Jebb, Richard C., ed. and transl. Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments – Part 
vii; The Ajax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896.
Kowzan, Tadeusz. Sémiologie du théâtre. Paris: Nathan Université, 1992.
Langer, Susanne K. Feeling and Form. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 
1953.
Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, ed. and transl. Sophocles: Ajax; Electra; Oedipus 
Tyrannus. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Parker, Robert. “Through a Glass Darkly: Sophocles and the Divine.” In 
Sophocles Revisited: Essays presented to Sir Hugh Lloyd­Jones, ed. by J. 
Griffin, 11–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Poe, Joe Park. Genre and Meaning in Sophocles’ Ajax. Frankfurt am Main: 
Athenäum, 1987.
Ringer, Mark. Electra and the Empty Urn: Metatheater and Role Playing in 
Sophocles. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Rosenmeyer, T. G. “‘Metatheater’: An Essay on Overload.” Arion 10.2 
(2002): 87–119.
Senegačnik, Brane. “Klasična atiška tragedija.” In Ajshil: Pribežnice, 73–
134. Celje: Mohorjeva, 2008.
ANDREJA INKRET32
Taplin, Oliver. Greek Tragedy in Action. London: Methuen, 1978.
Ubersfeld, Anne. Reading Theatre. Translated by F. H. Collins. Toronto: 
University of Toronto Press, 1999 (French original first published in 
1977).
Valakas, Kostas. “The use of the body by actors in tragedy and satyr-play.” 
In Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. by 
Patricia Elizabeth Easterling and Edith Hall, 69–92. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2002.
ABSTRACT
The paper analyses a short scene that forms part of the opening 
of Sophocles’ Aias (66–133): Aias, suffering from the madness that 
was inflicted upon him by Athena, is displayed by the goddess to 
Odys seus. In the corpus of extant ancient drama, this inset appears 
to be unique. Its expressive power is derived from the scene’s spe-
cific structure that doubles the integral elements of theatre. The 
paper suggests the reasons why the scene has often been labelled 
“a play-within-a-play,” describing and illustrating the elements 
that can be paralleled with the structural components of theatre. 
Taking as basis concepts and ideas proposed by modern theatre 
theoreticians (Anne Ubersfeld, Tadeusz Kowzan, Umberto Eco), 
the paper argues that the essence of the performative dimension 
of the scene is to be found in the phenomenon of the “ostentation 
act” first described by Umberto Eco. Tracing the meaning of the 
inset within the tragedy as a whole, the paper emphasizes the fact 
that the “ostentation” in Aias is a divine creation, and examines 
how Odysseus, a privileged recipient of the spectacle, reacts to the 
display of Aias’ shameful condition.
KEYWORDS: Greek drama, Sophocles’ Aias, theatre theory, play-
-within-a-play, theatricality, “ostentation act”
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS 33
AIAS MASTIGOPHOROS:  
BOŽANSKO RAZKAZOVANJE V IGRI
IZVLEČEK
Članek analizira krajši prizor v začetnem delu Sofoklejevega Ajan­
ta (66–133): Ajanta, zmrcvarjenjega od norosti, ki mu jo je sama 
povzročila, Atena pokaže Odiseju. V celotnem korpusu ohranjene 
antične dramatike se zdi tak scenografski prijem edinstven. Nje-
gova izrazna moč izhaja iz specifične strukture tega prizora, kjer 
se podvajajo ključni elementi gledališča kot takega. Članek navaja 
razloge, zakaj je bil ta prizor večkrat označen kot »igra v igri«, ki 
opisuje in prikazuje elemente, vzporedne strukturnim kompo-
nentam gledališča. Temeljne koncepte in ideje najde pri modernih 
teoretikih gledališča (Anne Ubersfeld, Tadeusz Kowzan, Umber-
to Eco) in predlaga, da je bistvo performativne razsežnosti tega 
prizora v pojavu »razkazovanja« ki ga je prvi opisal Umberto Eco. 
Ko raziskuje pomen tega dramskega vložka za celotno tragedijo, 
članek pokaže, da gre pravzaprav za stvaritev bogov, in ugotavlja, 
kako se Odisej, privilegirani gledalec te drame, odzove na prikaz 
Ajantovega sramotnega stanja. 
KLJUČNE BESEDE: grška dramatika, Sofoklejev Ajant, teorija 
gledališča, »igra v igri«, teatralika, razkazovanje