Reclaiming a Father: A Psycho-Analytical Interpretation of Neoptolemus’ Fictitious Tale (Ph. 343-90)

Reclaiming a Father: A Psycho-Analytical Interpretation of Neoptolemus’ Fictitious Tale (Ph. 343-90)

In Sophocles’ Philoctetes, Neoptolemus shares a detailed narrative of personal grievances with the Greeks (Ph. 343-90). The larger function of this speech and the authenticity of its contents have inspired much scholarly debate (Hamilton 1975, Greengard 1987, Adams 1957, Knox 1964, Calder 1971, Roisman 1997), especially given the broader significance of communication and deception throughout the play (Podlecki 1966, Taplin 1987, O'Higgins 1991, Hesk 2000, Herzog 2006). My new analysis of this passage applies a psycho-analytical approach to untangle the speaker’s complex relationship to his father, Achilles. The logos, I argue, reduces the concept of “inheritance” to an unquestioning imitation of paternal models, which entails the rejection of filial agency (cf. Recalcati 2013) in favor of the passive reenactment of fatherly values and behaviors.

First, I demonstrate that Neoptolemus’ neurotic vision of inheritance leads him to erase any visible differences with his father. He claims so close a likeness to his father that upon his arrival the Greeks believed Achilles himself was returning (Ph. 358: τὸν οὐκέτ᾿ ὄντα ζῶντ᾿ Ἀχιλλέα πάλιν.). Neoptolemus’ decision to invent this detail (Roisman 1997, Roberts 1989) reveals his desperation to be perceived as a living incarnation of his father, through both physical resemblance and the affective response his appearance inspires. For the identification to happen, Neoptolemus also believes that he requires tangible tokens (Ph. 362: τά θ᾿ ὅπλ᾿ ἀπῄτουν τοῦ πατρὸς τά τ᾿ ἄλλ᾿ ὅσ᾿ ἦν.). He demands Achilles’ arms from the Greeks because he understands the custody of martial equipment (Mueller 2016) to be an essential step in the process of becoming an heir. The transfer of these weapons, as Neoptolemus frames it, will establish him as a legitimate successor to his father on the battlefield.

Next, I argue that Neoptolemus’ vehement reaction to the Greeks’ refusal shows the excesses of his bond to Achilles. He is furious (Ph. 368: ὀργῇ βαρείᾳ) that Odysseus was awarded his father’s weapons and attacks the trickster for this slight (Ph. 374: κἀγὼ χολωθεὶς εὐθὺς ἤρασσον κακοῖς), before being reproached for his recklessness (Ph. 380: λέγεις θρασυστομῶν). This emulation of Achilles’ epic wrath (Beye 1970, Easterling 1984, Blundell 1988) stresses Neoptolemus’ view that an heir must inherit his father’s temperament alongside his possessions. Stripped of his father’s weapons, Neoptolemus exploits his behavior to confirm his filial status, leading Philoctetes to believe that he has followed through on Achilles’ most powerful threat (Il. 1.169-71): abandoning the Greeks because his property has been stolen (Ph. 383: πλέω πρὸς οἴκους, τῶν ἐμῶν τητώμενος).

I conclude by showing how instrumental Neoptolemus’ distorted conception of inheritance is to his persuasive goals. Neoptolemus’ studied attachment to the physicality, temperament, and manners of his father becomes his most effective tool for convincing Philoctetes that he can trust Achilles’ offspring. In presenting himself as an extension of his deceased father rather than as an autonomous agent, Neoptolemus not only shares with Philoctetes his own neurotic dependence on Achilles, but also confirms a general expectation: for the Greeks, any heir is bound to replace his father.