Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy 9783666252082, 3525252080, 9783525252086

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 108

V&R

HYPOMNEMATA UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR ANTIKE UND ZU IHREM NACHLEBEN

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle/Siegmar Döpp/Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones/Günther Patzig

HEFT 108

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

JOHN GIBERT

Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

Verantwortlicher Herausgeber: Albrecht Dihle

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Gibert, John: Change of mind in Greek tragedy / John Gibert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1995 (Hypomnemata; Η. 108) ISBN 3-525-25208-0 NE: G T

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1995 Printed in Germany. - Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

FOR MY PARENTS AND FOR LYNN

PREFACE

The scenes in which characters change their minds have been collected only once before, by Bernard Knox in his 1966 article "Second Thoughts in Greek Tragedy." That work envisions change as failure to remain a "hero," in the sense classically expounded in the same author's 1964 book The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy. Besides broadening this vision, the present study places change of mind at the intersection of contemporary work on the representation of the self in literature and detailed analysis of scenes which, by any standard, deserve serious attention. In other words, it isolates what I have found to be a fascinating sample of tragic characterization and explores it at every level. How the playwrights treat the boundary between inner and outer motivation, what if anything they tell us about psychology and human nature, how they were constrained by literary and social convention, or by the knowledge and beliefs of their audience— these questions will be addressed directly in the first chapter and more or less implicitly throughout. This book is a revised version of a 1991 Harvard Ph.D. thesis. I am grateful to the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, which generously supported me during three of my graduate years with one of its Mellon Fellowships in the Humanities, and to the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which enabled me to spend a pleasurable and productive year at the University of Munich in 1987-8. Support from the University of Colorado has helped me revise the book and see it through to publication. I would especially like to acknowledge the many financial and other benefits I enjoyed as a graduate student in the Department of the Classics at Harvard University. My personal and scholarly debts are many. My good friends and former colleagues in the Classics Department at St. Olaf College were characteristically supportive. I am grateful to Professors Hayden Pelliccia, Richard Tarrant, and especially Gregory Nagy, who

8

Preface

kindly agreed to be readers of my dissertation and contributed valuable criticism and encouragement. I also thank Professor Hellmut Flashar for the many ways in which he improved my stay in Munich. Finally, I have been helped by the advice and support of friends and colleagues near and far, among whom I am pleased to single out David Sansone, Scott Scullion, and Harvey Yunis for special thanks. Professor Albrecht Dihle accepted the work for Hypomnemata; I am grateful to him and to Dr. Gudrun Loos of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. To my teacher Albert Henrichs I owe my deepest thanks. He has improved this work in countless ways, not only by the immense learning and attention to detail for which all who work with him must be grateful, but also by subjecting all of its arguments to a wideranging and subtle critique. Most of all, his devotion to the Greeks has inspired me.

CONTENTS

Preface

7

Part I. Characters, Scenes, Plays 1. Introduction 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

13

Dionysus, Ajax, Neoptolemus The Tragic Self Definition and Second Thoughts Exclusions and Evidence The Discovery of Change of Mind Principles of Interpretation Moving Character

2. Survey 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8.

55 Typical Scenes Action Intrigue Happy Endings Secrets Divine Intervention Supplication Accepted Punishment Revoked

3. Four Plays 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5.

13 21 24 28 31 34 47

55 56 66 84 87 97 99 104

*

Ill

Introduction Eumenid.es Ajax Heracles Philoctetes

Ill 113 120 135 143

10

Contents

Part II. Two Plays of Euripides 4. Ion

161 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Creusa 4.2.1. Creusa's Secret 4.2.2. Creusa's Monody in Metaphorical Context 4.2.3. Literal Opening 4.3. Ion

202

5.1. Introduction 5.2. Agamemnon and Menelaus Sacrifice of a Daughter Agamemnon's Dilemma Formal Debate on Change of Mind Tears for a Brother The Yoke of Necessity?

5.3. Motivating Iphigenia 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.3.3. 5.3.4.

Motive, Motivation, Motif An Example of Inconsistency Psychological Models Iphigenia in Love

5.4. Iphigenia and Motif 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. 5.4.4. 5.4.5.

164 173 185 189

5. Iphigenia in Aulis

5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.2.4. 5.2.5.

161 164

Moving Beyond Aristotle Marriage and Sacrifice Making a Virtue of Necessity A Series of Changes of Mind Epilogue

202 206 206 210 213 217 219 222 222 226 234 237 239 239 240 244 250 252

Appendix

255

Bibliography

263

Index locorum antiquorum

275

PARTI

CHARACTERS, SCENES, PLAYS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Dionysus, Ajax, Neoptolemus During the first half of Aristophanes' Frogs, the patron god of Athenian tragedy has some difficulty sustaining his theatrical role. Dionysus is in disguise, but the club and lion-skin with which he hopes to impersonate his half-brother Heracles only sometimes keep the feminine yellow gown and boots he wears underneath from being recognized. When he is actually taken for Heracles, Dionysus faces consequences beyond his courage to endure, so he quickly induces his slave Xanthias to exchange roles with him. Now "Heracleoxanthias" (499) receives a warm welcome and the promise of entertainment by dancing-girls. Dionysus just as quickly forces him to become a slave again, while he takes up the emblems of the hero. At this point, the chorus sing this song of praise: 'Tis the mark of one sagacious, Practical and perspicacious, Who hath sailed the seven seas, That he roll across to larboard If i f s stormy on the starboard— Not immobile, if you please, As a graven image, never Shifting in a smart endeavor To secure a softer breeze. Such a man is jolly clever— Aye, a born Theramenes! 1

1 534-41, tr. Webb, ταΰτα μεν npoc άνδρc). Only those "to whom nothing is taught (ocoic διδακτόν μηδέν), but moderation (τό οωφρονεΐν) has its place perpetually in their nature," are permitted to go there; to them Hippolytus opposes the bad, οί κακοί (78-81). For himself, he prays to reach the end of life just as he has begun it (87), as a devotee of Artemis. Phaedra, who finds his arrogance the very opposite of moderation, hopes to teach him this virtue (730-1); Theseus, while he is angry, says to him (1064): "Your holier-than-thou attitude (τό οεμνον ... τό cov) will kill me." But Hippolytus dies with a curse on his lips for his immortal enemy (1415). Whatever psychologists may say about his personality (and who can blame them?), Artemis vows revenge on his behalf (1416-22). Like his refusal to divulge his secret, Hippolytus' refusal to learn after suffering is unique. 87 Phaedra, in contrast, has tried to reform her nature. In her famous speech (373-430), she explains why she is now resolved to commit suicide, but she emphasizes that she reached her general conclusions independently of the present crisis. 88 Her principles 8 6 Some other secrets are kept in tragedy, but only by a chorus or when the advantage lies with concealment (as in intrigues and the like). It is sometimes said that because of the number of secrets revealed in Ion, nobody will believe that Xuthus can be kept in the dark about Ion's true identity. This is to confuse secrets within plays, which are almost never kept, with secrets outside of them, which a plot can presume kept indefinitely even under the most unlikely circumstances. 87

Unless we should compare Xerxes in Persians (cf. Winnington-Ingram 1983,

13). 8 8 ήδη ποτ' αλλοκ νυκτός έν μακρώι χρόνιοι . . . έφρόντιο' (375-6). Once struck by m i s f o r t u n e , s h e c o n s i d e r e d (ecKonovv, 392), planned (or m a d e provision,

96

2. Survey

require her to act; there is no φάρμακον that could make her go back on her opinions (389-90).89 Phaedra tries to exemplify progress in human nature itself, and she fails. Her direct confrontation is not with Hippolytus, but with the Nurse, who represents yet another rival theory. For a time, indeed, the Nurse philosophizes more than she instigates. 90 But the end of her speech introduces a flurry of intrigue elements, and as attention turns to the nature of her φάρμακον, it fades from Phaedra's rational struggle. By the time she acquiesces, Phaedra's exact level of understanding is indeterminate and unimportant; a different kind of movement has set in. Hippolytus' line about his oath invited scandal; modern audiences, however, are little inclined to blame him either for it (since he acts otherwise) or for changing his mind rapidly, if that is what he does. The Nurse is surely blameworthy; she is an effective agent of Aphrodite, but too black-and-white to arouse much ethical interest for her own sake. Theseus merely falls in with other late learners. The scene of Phaedra's temptation is, as we have seen, an elaborate struggle of the will; at the same time it is an acknowledged divine intervention. Some problems associated with such a combination are taken up in the next section.

προυνοηεάμην, 399; cf. 685), and resolved (εδοξέ μοι, 401). Other elements of her rationality: a concern with definition (385-7, much-discussed lines on αίδώε) and recognition that "fine phrases" (οί κάλοι λίαν λόγοι, 487) are destructive. Of course I do not mean to deny the influence of emotions (especially shame and fear) on Phaedra's decisions. On the word φάρμακον, see 31 n. 27 above. Phaedra relies on a metaphor of progress, the road of her thought (xfjc έμήί γνώμηο οδόν, 391). She made a good beginning (ήρξάμην, 393), but was unable to forge ahead and conquer love (τοκίδ' ούκ έξήνυτον I Κύπριν κρατηοαι, 400-1), and she refuses to turn back (τοΰμπαλιν πεοεΐν φρενών, 390). She does not foresee what amounts to a fork in the road, a cure of her disease. As the Nurse presses this solution, the metaphors change: like a field already ploughed and ready to receive seed, Phaedra is "thoroughly worked up" by love in her soul (άκ ύπείργαεμαι μεν ευ I ψυχήν ερωτι, 504-5), and she is about to be "spent" resisting it (άναλωθήοομαι, 506). On the possibility of seeing a response to Socrates in these lines, see Irwin 1983. 90 Elements of philosophical interest in the Nurse: gnomic wisdom (436, the second thoughts); love of life because "darkness holds concealed in clouds whatever might be dearer than living" (191-2, a challenge to Phaedra's notions of glory and perhaps to her nocturnal reasoning as well); experience of life, which has taught her that rigid principles do more harm than good (252, 261-6); examples of immoral divine behavior (453-8); and support of her argument with evidence from γραφαϊ των παλαιτέρων and "the muses" generally (451-2).

2.6. Divine Intervention

97

2.6. Divine Intervention Because a single word is enough to mobilize the divine machinery in the heroic world of tragedy, some possible cases of divine intervention are hard to pin down. Implication of the divine sphere may fall, say, in a choral ode far from the scene where motivation is an issue, or it may be known from an earlier play in a trilogy. Thus some curses have been claimed as causes in plays of Aeschylus, but they remain controversial. 91 We have been considering the case of Phaedra, in which explicit acknowledgment of intervention is confined to Aphrodite in the prologue and Artemis ex machina, while Phaedra's actions make sense on their own. The goddesses may mitigate her guilt, but the ethical and dramaturgical issues are not identical. A glance at other divine interventions that produce a change of mind shows that they span a continuum from lesser to greater intelligibility on the human plane. Consider two examples from divine punishment plots: Madness personified ("Lyssa") enters Heracles and causes him to kill his family (Heracles 822-73); Dionysus persuades Pentheus to spy on the bacchants before attacking them (Bacchae 810-1). Put these beside Phaedra, and no clear correlation between the level of dramaturgical intervention and the blameworthiness of the character emerges. Indications of the latter may be added or withheld according to the author's other plans. These reflections bear on the case of an unusual "revenge heroine" in Sophocles. Deianeira sympathizes with Iole and is reluctant to take the initiative in a plan to win back her husband, but still she sends a fatal gift, a robe anointed with the blood of Nessus, to Heracles (Trachiniae 436-632). The sequence is "understandable" in every sense: Deianeira remains a sympathetic character, and her action is intelligibly motivated. But she is also a victim of divine intervention, more covert to be sure than the one Euripides The view that in Agamemnon both of the king's disastrous decisions (to sacrifice Iphigenie, to tread the tapestries) are to be attributed to Ate and ultimately to the curse on the House of Atreus belongs, in various degrees and with various qualifications, to Lloyd-Jones 1962 and Gundert 1960, among others. Easterling (1973, 5) criticizes this "supernaturalist" view; the debate continues in Nussbaum 1986, 32-8). There is clearer textual support for the view that Eteocles is in the grip of an Erinys when he decides to face his brother in Seven Against Thebes, but there too the indications of divine intervention do not cancel human freedom (see Hutchinson's note on 653-719).

98

2. Survey

arranged for Phaedra, but just as important in moving her on the level of motif. The textual indications that Eros and Aphrodite intervene literally intervene between Deianeira's scenes of contrasting intentions. After her initial sympathetic reaction to Iole (307-13), Deianeira goes on to assure the liar Lichas that she will feel no jealousy or anger towards the beautiful captive (441-9, 459-69). When she re-enters at 531, there has been a slight modulation of the issue facing her. The scheme with the magic potion is explicitly envisioned as a solution to her problem (λυτήριον, 554), just as Phaedra took the Nurse's φάρμακον to be. But we may still speak of a change of mind here because the jealousy Deianeira earlier disavowed is now very much in evidence; she says that she cannot bear to live together with the "girl no longer a girl, but broken in" (536). 92 Nearly everything about the off-stage change remains implicit. Using suggestive imagery, Deianeira says that she received Iole into the house "as a sailor receives cargo, merchandise destructive of my sanity" (536-8). No one doubts that jealousy can accomplish such a change, but we should note that it rarely happens in Greek drama that a character simply takes some time to think a situation over and then returns with a new point of view. Rather, such developments are almost always thematically overdetermined. The choral ode that separates Deianeira's two positions is about the power of love: "Cypris, a great power, always carries off victory" (497). The chorus sing of Heracles' victory in the wrestling match with the river Achelous, the occasion on which he won Deianeira as his bride. Since Heracles' passion for Iole is now known, the "power of Cypris" has at least this implicit reference as well. The ode creates an atmosphere in which Deianeira's change of 92 Deianeira continues to disavow jealousy (543-4,552-3), but we cannot miss it in lines like 540-2 ("Such is the repayment Heracles, whom I believed to be true and good, has sent to me for my long faithfulness"), 539-40 ("we two await an embrace under a single cloak"), and 550-1 ("I'm afraid Heracles will be called my rrocic but the younger woman's άνήρ"). Lloyd-Jones (1972, 222) believes that T. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1917,150-4) makes too much of the contrast between the two scenes, but he imports naturalistic features into the situation: the interpretation "After all, Iole is the first among his mistresses whom Heracles has actually brought to live in the matrimonial home" goes beyond what is said or implied in 536-7. I believe Heath is right to insist on calling the scene a change of mind (1987,159 with n. 81), as also to reject Reinhardfs unnecessary suggestion that Deianeira deliberately deceived Lichas when she gave him assurances of her moderation (Reinhardt 1976, 31-2; 54-6 = 1979, 23; 45-7).

2.7. Supplication Accepted

99

mind can be seen not merely as the random effect of passing time, but as another victory for the same heavenly power. 9 3 Aphrodite has no stake in these particular human events; for present purposes she is interchangeable with Eros, whose appearance at 441-4 (during Deianeira's persuasion of Lichas) shows clearly enough what is going on. Deianeira explains why she would be crazy to be angry at either Heracles or Iole: "Whoever opposes Eros, like a boxer, is making a mistake. For he rules even whatever god he will, and he rules me." The arbitrary addition "like a boxer" provides a link with the ode and suggests Deianeira's "inner" struggle off-stage; her change of mind confirms that Eros does indeed rule her, that Cypris has carried off victory once again. Aphrodite and Eros do not punish Deianeira, but Nessus, a sexual offender, harnesses their power to achieve revenge, and all of this conspires with certain oracles delivered at Dodona (154-77), whose time is known to have come. As Sophocles has chosen to present the story, then, Deianeira is part innocent victim and part intriguer, just like Phaedra. Her mechanema includes the familiar elements of secrecy, magic potion, and gifts sent off in a sealed chest. But since she is a deluded intriguer who means her victim no harm, she has no need of the revenge motive frequent elsewhere. Sophocles provides her with the only slightly less self-evident motive of jealousy, but in a unique way: she comes to be jealous by a change of mind—arbitrary, but meaningful in the terms of a choral ode.

2.7. Supplication Accepted In what follows, I shall be speaking only of supplication which is the cause of conflict between cities. 9 4 In all situations of this type in Greek tragedy, the appeal is eventually granted. 9 5 In two cases

9 3 I do not understand why Heath is so concerned to maintain that the ode is only relevant as entertainment, elaborated "for the autonomous aesthetic value of the short but vivid description" of the battle between Achelous and Heracles (1987, 139).

For supplication in general, see Gould 1973. Cf. Burian 1985, 133: "It is entirely consonant with the story pattern of a suppliant drama such as [Euripides' Suppliants] that the ruler have great doubts 94

95

100

2. Survey

(Theseus in Oedipus at Colonus 631-7, Demophon in Heraclidae 23652), this happens with scarcely any reluctance on the part of the host and protector; 96 in another (Pelasgus in Aeschylus' Suppliants), even though commitment to the suppliants is the major issue of the play, drawn out over hundreds of lines, the king never takes a strong initial stand against it. 97 Only Theseus (Euripides' Suppliants 87-364) gives a clear and reasoned refusal and then changes his mind. Adrastus, leader of the Seven against Thebes, has arrived at the precinct of Demeter and Kore in Eleusis with the mothers of the slain Argives. They have all fallen at the knees of Aethra, mother of the Athenian king Theseus, as she was sacrificing to the two goddesses on behalf of the harvest. The rulers of Thebes will not allow them to retrieve their dead for burial. Aethra has sent for her son so that he may "do something holy to the gods" (39-40) and resolve the crisis. After examining Adrastus on the failed expedition, Theseus meets his request for help with a stern lecture and an absolute refusal. Adrastus tells the old women they will have to move on, but they raise the stakes instead by supplicating Theseus himself by beard and knee. The king weakens somewhat ("something went through me too," 288) as he turns to his mother and asks her why she is crying. She now offers persuasive arguments in favor of the suppliants (297-331). In his change of mind speech, Theseus says that his earlier arguments hold, but that he sees the point of his mother's admonitions (ίχπερ με νουθετεκ) as well (334-7). He decides to champion the suppliants' cause, which, incidentally, is unlike any other in tragedy in that it requires an offensive military manoeuvre, even though it is in defence of the "law of all the Greeks" (526). Let us consider first some aspects of technique in Theseus' reversal. His rejection is unequivocal, and when Adrastus acquiesces in it and tells the women to leave the holy ground (25662), it seems that Theseus will avoid the religious compulsion of the

about accepting the suit of his supplicants . . ., but it is out of the question that he finally reject it." 9 6 Earlier in OC, however, the chorus renege on their promise of protection once they learn Oedipus' identity (226-36); thus Oedipus remains in danger half-way through the play. 9 7 This is the closest thing we have to a pure "suppliant play." The chorus must not like the tenor of 438ff., since this speech brings forth their threat to hang themselves.

2.7. Supplication Accepted

101

suppliant gesture. But the chorus intensify the pressure; at this moment Aethra attracts attention by her tears and veiled posture. The prologue contained hints of her disposition (e.g. 19, 34), and in the parodos the chorus begged her to use her influence to persuade her son (60-2). When the w o m e n are involved (before Theseus arrives and after Adrastus gives up), our impression is that the success of the suppliant plot is assured. The men, on the other hand, remain at loggerheads. 9 8 It is suggestive to recall in this light Aethra's words while she waited for her son (40-1): "Wise women do everything through men (δι' άροένων)." She might mean either that since men have the real authority it is unwise for women to oppose them, or that women use men for their own purposes. The failure of Theseus and Adrastus to come together is unsurprising insofar as their exchange resembles an agon—these never bring contestants closer together (Strohm 1957, 11; Lloyd 1992, 9, 15-8). It is also interesting in light of the play's thematic concern with persuasion. Theseus invites Adrastus to speak (112), "for there is no reaching your goal (πέραο) without speech (γλώ KOCKOC γνώμην εφυν, I προδοιχ μ' εοικε κάκλιπών τον πλουν οτελεϊν. For a denial that this suddenly makes a man of Neoptolemus, see n. 104 below. 90 Until 1261 (cf. Taplin, 1971, 34-5; 1978, 113-4). Of course, what makes the silence significant is the attention deliberately called to it (951, 1066-9). 91 Taplin drew attention to the technique (1971, 36), but one would like to be able to improve on his interpretation ("all that matters is the fact of the decision"). If in earlier scenes growing sympathy and moral pressure led to (onstage) decision, perhaps Sophocles means to suggest here that something about Neoptolemus' choice remains finally mysterious and/or unpredictable. Perhaps also the location of the decision offstage hints at, precisely by refusing to represent, its inwardness. 89

150

3. Four Plays

Agamemnon is recalled by Neoptolemus' confrontation with Odysseus, who wisely backs down. 92 If Neoptolemus' rejection of authority could, if only by the implicit comparison just mentioned, be grounded in his Achillean nature, we are still a long way from resolution of the play's conflicts, and from here on there will be no help from Achilles as a role model. At this new beginning, Neoptolemus is not even resolved to hand the bow over to Philoctetes immediately. He first tries persuasion while he is still in possession of the all-important token. This procedure soon draws a resounding curse from Philoctetes, and it is only this which prompts the return of the bow (1285-7). As the transfer is actually in progress, Odysseus makes a last surprising entrance (1293); when Philoctetes quickly gets hold of the bow and prepares to shoot him, Neoptolemus has enough of his wits about him to prevent it because, he says, it is not καλόν (1300-4). Helpless against the bow of Heracles, Odysseus withdraws without a plan, 93 and Neoptolemus continues his efforts to persuade Philoctetes to come to Troy. These, however, meet with the hero's stubborn refusal. The issue finally becomes whether Neoptolemus will honor the oath he gave while he was still engaged in deceiving Philoctetes: to take him home. When the younger man reluctantly agrees to do so, he is instantly praised for having spoken a noble word (ώ γενναΐον είρηκοκ enoc, 1402); the praise recalls that recently given after the return of the bow. 94 That is, the moral force of Achillean paternity is held responsible for the present "false" conclusion of the plot. At this stage, Philoctetes appears to have won what has been a kind of competition between him and Odysseus for the role of father-figure to Neoptolemus. 95 92 This comparison was made by Knox 1964, 123, and it has frequently been echoed since. 93 This is an unusual predicament for him, but the idea championed by I. Errandonea in several publications (most fully 1956, 84-91, reprinted in 1958, 278-84) that Odysseus somehow impersonates Heracles ex machina and thus vindicates his reputation for resourcefulness has not found many followers, though it was independently suggested by Lattimore 1964,45 with n. 35. 94 1310-3, quoted in part below. That these instances of nobility belong together is clear from the insistent use of such terms to put moral pressure on Neoptolemus throughout the play; cf. n. 83 above. 95 Cf. Knox 1964, 122, 126; Avery 1965, 285-90; Vidal-Naquet 1972, 176-7; Blundell 1988,138 with n. 9. See also Cairns 1993, 231 n. 49 and 250-64 (above, 133 n. 52). Blundell also shows that Philoctetes is the figure in the play who most fully and consistently recapitulates the presumed image of Achilles (1988, 144).

3.5.

Philoctetes

151

Elaboration of this last point will p u t it into the context of the f a t h e r - s o n relationships w h i c h , as w e h a v e seen, i n t r o d u c e an important dynamic to Ajax and Heracles. In light of these examples and m a n y others, it seems fair to say that doubts about the father of a hero are a traditional theme used to propel a search for identity (legitimacy) a n d right action. Neoptolemus, unlike Ajax, strives to be worthy of a father he has never even seen (cf. 351), 96 but he has a clear enough idea of the values associated with Achilles (cf. 89 a n d o f t e n t h e r e a f t e r ) . 9 7 A n d though his factual identity as child of Achilles is established early (3-4) a n d repeated often (contrast the d o u b t s about Zeus as father of Heracles in Heracles), Sophocles exploits his orphaned state in several interesting ways. First, he calls to our attention a series of other father-son relationships, each of which reflects on Neoptolemus' choices. For instance, reference is m a d e to the scandalous story that Sisyphus w a s the real father of Odysseus (417). 98 Of course his real father is no more in doubt than is N e o p t o l e m u s ' , b u t Philoctetes uses the insult a second time to suggest that Neoptolemus' paternity too is not so m u c h a fact as a challenge. W h e n N e o p t o l e m u s h a s finally r e t u r n e d the b o w , Philoctetes praises him in these words (1310-2): την φύο,ν δ' εδειξοκ, ώ τέκνον, έξ f|c εβλοχτεο, ούχι Σι