No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2023
The mutability of Philokleon's generational identity in Aristophanes’ Wasps is well established. Critics routinely write of his ‘rejuvenation’ in the second half of the play, and it is in the scene with the αὐλητρίϲ (‘aulos-girl’), Dardanis, that the old man most explicitly plays the part of an irresponsible youth waiting for his son (in the role of father) to die. However, inversions and perversions of generational identity pervade the whole play. Even before Philokleon has undergone his liberating transformation at the symposion, the educational roles of father and son are reversed as Bdelykleon schools him in the proper way to behave in polite society. More subtly and extensively, Bowie has shown how the three agones in which Philokleon unsuccessfully engages during the first half of the play correspond to the three stages of an Athenian male citizen's life: ephebeia, maturity in the hoplite phalanx, and old age in the jury. However, critics have not observed that Philokleon goes through another, parallel journey from youth through maturity to old age in the three ‘iambic scenes’ where he is confronted by the victims of his outrageous behaviour on his way home from the symposion. This article will show how Aristophanes constructs this third lifecycle (counting Bowie's agones and his literal maturation before the play's action begins) before considering its implications for the wider characterization of Philokleon and in particular the final scene.
This article grew out of teaching a Greek Comedy unit on Wasps at the University of Sydney in 2019 and I am deeply indebted to all the students (John Bordon, Janek Drevikovsky, Phillip Dupesovski, Emily Kerrison, Patricia Lemaire, Theo Millar, Connie Skibinski, and Ikuko Sorensen) who made it such a stimulating experience. The Zoom audience of the Department of Classics and Ancient History's lockdown seminar in May 2020 (especially Harold Tarrant and Tom Hillard) gave helpful feedback on an oral version. I am particularly grateful to my students (Emily Kerrison and Phillip Dupesovski, again) and colleagues (Sonia Pertsinidis, Frances Muecke, and Peter Wilson), who commented on a written draft, as well as Ramus’ anonymous readers and editor, Helen Morales.