Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:20:08.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Phusis of Neoptolemus in Sophocles' Philoctetes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Mary Whitlock Blundel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the opening lines of Philoctetes, Odysseus addresses his companion Neoptolemus as his famous father's son (3f.). This is the first indication of an important theme: phusis, in the sense of inherited human qualities or capacities. Although Achilles has died before the dramatic action begins, he hovers in the background of the play, and no one challenges his claim to the highest admiration. Neoptolemus is closely associated with his father, and is repeatedly addressed or referred to as his father's son. In one particularly striking passage of his deception speech he describes to Philoctetes his own reception at Troy, where the welcoming army swore that they saw the dead Achilles alive once more (356–8). These lines conjure up a vivid physical likeness between father and son, but it remains to be seen how deep the resemblance really lies. Neoptolemus has the potential, in virtue of his inherited phusis, to be as admirable as Achilles.3 But two questions remain to be answered in the course of the play: Will he prove to be his father's son in character as well as birth? If so, how will this excellence be manifested?

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 137 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. On phusis see Beardslee, J. W., The Use of ϕύσις in Fifth-Century Greek Literature (Chicago, 1918), especially pp. 22–24Google Scholar on Sophocles; Diller, H., NJAB 2 (1939), 241–57Google Scholar; Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1965), pp. 89–109Google Scholar; Thimme, O., ϕύσις Τρόπος Ἦθος (diss. Göttingen, 1935)Google Scholar. The following will be cited by author's name alone: Alt, K., Hermes 89 (1961), 141–74Google Scholar; Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley, 1964)Google ScholarRose, P. W., HSCP. 80 (1976), 49–105Google Scholar. Citations from Sophocles are from Pearson's OCT unless otherwise indicated.

2. Many of the numerous references to him are listed by Rose, 97 n. 97 and Kitto, H. D. F., Form and Meaning in Drama (London, 1956), p. 114Google Scholar.

3. That Neoptolemus' phusis is only a potential is rightly stressed by Erbse, H., Hermes 94 (1966), 182, 187Google Scholar.

4. For further examples, mostly from Pindar, see Beardslee, p. 7, Heinimann, pp. 99f., Thimme, pp. 18–21 (all above, n. 1). Cf. also Theogn. 535–8, Soph. fr. 808 (Radt), Eur. fr. 232, 298, 520 (Nauck2).

5. Cf. also Hist. An.488b 19f. Knox declares Aristotle's distinction irrelevant to Sophocles (p. 187 n. 18). But while the poet suggests no such verbal contrast (using both adjectives with equal approval), he does exploit the conceptual distinction (cf. Aj. 1093–6, Ant. 37f.).

6. On ϕύω in Sophocles see Lesky, A., Hermes 80 (1952), 97fGoogle Scholar. It can mean little more than ‘be’ (so perhaps at 326, 910), but the emphatic usage in the prologue gives added resonance to later instances which might otherwise seem casual (e.g. 558, 1074, 1244, 1372). ϕυ-words in the play are listed by Rose, loc. cit. above, n. 2.

7. Cf. Knox, pp. 122f.

8. The veracity of this is confirmed by the Iliad (see Jebb and Kamerbeek, ad loc).

9. Cf. Knox, pp. 122, 126. In Neoptolemus' deception speech Odysseus usurps the role of father by calling him ‘child’ (372) and taking Achilles' arms. Note that in the Odyssey Odysseus instructs his real son to lie (Stanford, W. B., The Ulysses Theme [Oxford, 1954], p. 262 n. 14)Google Scholar.

10. See Avery, H. C., Hermes 93 (1965), 285–90Google Scholar. He is called ‘man’ only twice (910, 1423). See Vidal-Naquet, P., Mythe et tragedie en Grece ancienne (Paris, 1972), p. 172Google Scholar.

11. Cf. Nussbaum, M., Phil. & Lit. 1 (1976–1977), 33Google Scholar.

12. For his mental pain cf. also 913, 970, 101 If. and the irony of 671 (on which see Winnington-Ingram, R. P., Sophocles: An Interpretation [Cambridge, 1980], p. 286)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. The text is controversial, but this is the general sense. The passage is also linked with the phusis theme by Alt, 170. Cf. gnomê in 139, 1467.

14. Note especially βουλεύῃ (1229) and cf. Alt, 166. Νοεĩς (1233) was used of Neoptolemus' earler intentions (889, 918, 921), only this time intention issues in action.

15. Note that children do not have prohairesis (E.N. 111b 8f.). For a similar sign of adulthood compare Telemachus' rebuke to Penelope (Od 1.345–61). C. P. Gardiner suggests that the hexameters at 839–42 are not simply oracular (the most usual explanation), but indicare Neoptolemus' first assertion of Homeric kingly authority over his men (The Sophoclean Chorus [Iowa City, 1987], p. 38)Google Scholar.

16. Cf. E.N. 151b 34–52a 3; 111b 14f. Prohairesis involves elements of both desire and reason, while its goals are determined by wish (ib. 112a 15f., 113a 9–12, 139a 31–39b 5).

17. Cf. Rose, 68.

18. Cf. also Odysseus' threats in the name of the army (1241–3, 1250, 1253, 1257f., 1293f.).

19. For Socrates see PI. Crit. 48c–d with Vlastos, G., Topoi 4 (1985), 6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. See Knox, p. 123.

21. This parallel is drawn by Knox, p. 136 and others (but see below).

22. Except at 23.534, where out of pity he awards a prize to the aristos who has come in last.

23. He responds to Ajax's argument from friendship only to a very limited degree, by dropping his threat to leave Troy altogether. He lets Patroclus join the flight, but this is to safeguard his own honour (16.83–90).

24. For Achilles' responsibility see Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus2 (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 21f.Google Scholar; Rutherford, R. B., JHS 102 (1982), 145f., 155–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. See Lloyd-Jones (previous note), pp. 17f.

26. For Achilles as the prototype of the Sophoclean hero see Knox, pp. 51f.

27. For Philoctetes and renown cf. 249–56 with Alt, 149f.

28. The superlative is used in the play only of Achilles and Philoctetes (997, 1284; cf. 1313, 1429, also 3). On Achilles as aristos see Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaians (Baltimore, 1979), pp. 26–35Google Scholar.

29. This interpretation rests on Buttmann's conjecture ὠϕελν ϕίλους in 1383. If the mss. ὠϕελούμενος is retained, Neoptolemus implies that ceteris paribus personal profit is no disgrace. The pursuit of enmity remains subordinate to other priorities.

30. Odysseus' phusis is characterized by ‘cleverness’ (1244) and a craving for ‘victory’ (1052). Yet he is neither truly wise nor even successful. On his ignobility see my ‘The Moral Character of Odysseus in Philoctetes’ (GRBS 1988).

31. See Rose, 88f. This possibility is essential to the dramatic tension as well as the ethical implications of the play. This tension is sustained by the fact that Neoptolemus outside this play is best known for his impious violence (see below).

32. The role of these various factors in moral education was a popular topic of discourse in the fifth century, but few would have denied that some element of each is necessary. See Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy III (Cambridge, 1969), ch. 10Google Scholar.

33. Alternatively, we may imagine that Odysseus really did keep the arms. This is less plausible, but has the interesting consequence that Neoptolemus must radically depart from Achillean standards and sacrifice his ‘prize’ in order to win renown at Troy.

34. Cf. the scholiast on 59 and Alt, 170f.

35. See Rose, 102f.

36. Cf. 998 where Odysseus speaks of sacking Troy as an act of violence.

37. I have presented versions of this paper at Harvard University, the University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champagne, and the annual meeting of the Classical Association of the Pacific Northwest (Seattle 1987). I am grateful to those present for their comments, especially Michael Halleran.