S4, Episode 6: Reversal and Recognition in Sophocles’ Philoctetes

[00:00:00] Zach: Welcome to Season 4, Episode 6 of the Musings in Greek Literature Podcast. I am Zachary Springer, your host for this episode, and I’m joined today by Caroline Young, co host for the episode. Uh, today we will Discuss recognition and reversal in Aristotle’s Poetics, and how these parts of tragedy feature in Sophocles Philoctetes.

We’ll then look at the moment of reversal and recognition as it plays out in lines 1241 to 51, and in lines 1252 to 62 of the Philoctetes, discussing Odysseus and Neoptolemus competing views of justice and wisdom as crucial themes. of that exchange. To start our discussion, I would like to turn to Aristotle’s description of the reversal, or the peripateia, as he calls it in the Greek, and recognition, or enagnoresis, the two crucial constituents or parts of tragedy that give rise to catharsis, which is the purpose of tragedy that aims at the cleansing of the passions.

The Reversal, Aristotle says, is a change of the actions to their opposites in accordance with their probability or necessity. There is then a visible overturning of the state of affairs or the intentions of the characters to their opposites in a Reversal. A recognition is defined as a change from ignorance to knowledge.

And so to either friendship or enmity among people defined in relation to good fortune or misfortune, uh, reversals and recognition represent emotions of pity and terror. Uh, and this is how tragedies can induce catharsis of these emotions. Um, just kind of as an aside, the last major part of tragedy is, uh, suffering.

So together, the three major parts of tragedy are Uh, the reversal or curvature of the recognition or agnoresis and then just depiction of suffering and these parts make up tragedy. Do you, uh, you have any thoughts on this before we continue Caroline or anything in particular?

[00:02:21] Caroline: I think this is going to really relate to T.

D. ‘s.

[00:02:25] Zach: Yes, most definitely. All right. Um, uh, having reviewed the, uh, major parts of tragedy from Aristotle’s poetics, I’d now like to turn to a section of the philosophies that represents the reversal of recognition of Neotolomus. Uh, followed by a discussion of the themes of justice and wisdom explored here.

Um, we’ll read the Greek, and then the translation from, uh, David Green. Okay, I will be Odysseus, and, uh, Erlang will be, uh, Neotolmus. Alright, so we’ll read the Greek first, and then we’ll do Erlang. So, starting at lines 12 and 1. This is a translation of a poem. What are you

[00:03:14] Caroline: doing? This is so ridiculous. I am not doing

[00:03:21] Zach: what you want me to do.

Sophos petruchos ruden exceldas

[00:03:29] Caroline: sophon.

[00:03:56] Zach: S.

[00:04:07] Caroline: My name is Rasson. My name

[00:04:11] Zach: is Rasson. I am the teacher of the students

[00:04:19] Caroline: of the Dragon. Hello! Hello, my name is Kerri.

[00:04:41] Zach: Then there is someone who will prevent its execution.

[00:04:45] Caroline: Who will that be? Who will stop me?

[00:04:48] Zach: The whole assembly of the Greeks, and among them I myself.

[00:04:52] Caroline: You are a clever man, Odysseus, but this is not a clever thing to say.

[00:04:56] Zach: In your own case, neither the words nor the acts are clever.

[00:05:01] Caroline: Still, if they are just, that’s better than being clever.

[00:05:04] Zach: How can it be just to give up and surrender what you won by my plans?

[00:05:10] Caroline: It was wrong, a shameful wrong, which I shall try to redeem.

[00:05:15] Zach: Have you no fear of the Greeks if you do this?

[00:05:18] Caroline: I have no fear of anything you can do. When I act with justice, nor shall I yield to force.

[00:05:26] Zach: Right. Very good. Uh, so having read the Greek, we’ll now, uh, discuss some crucial themes from this.

So, we see here the exchange between Neotolobus and Odysseus after Neotolobus has resolved to give back the bell. His return of the bow is his re reversal or parapet of the action and signifies his recognition ag in agnosis that he has aired, uh, in following Odysseus’ orders to deceive laces. Uh, the question that under grids the passage, at least to my mind, is this.

Uh, in what does Odysseus’s, uh, Sophia or Kaneglevernes in this passage, uh, consist? Like, what is it? Uh, this, this is the thing that Neotolinus rejects by his reversal in recognition. Uh, so we are led to ask what Odysseus’s Sophia is. We can say clearly what it is not. Neoptolemus is motivated by concerns of justice, which he thinks defeats the considerations of Odysseus of Scythia.

So he regards the, quote, wisdom of Odysseus as a false wisdom, and that it is opposed to Neoptolemus commitment to justice and also nobility, as we see in other passages. So, at least, we can say that Odysseus Sophia is amoral in character, uh, in that it disregards justice, uh, explicitly in this exchange.

Um, the further Odysseus appears to state that Neoptolemus words and deeds are unwise, uh, which could be taken as counterproductive or not expedient for the ends that Odysseus seeks to achieve. Um, existing, but I wanted enough for you. Briefly, to tie this passage to the poetics, uh, reversals occur in accordance with probability or necessity.

And it occurs to me that the necessity of Neotolomus nature, or his foeses, compels him to repent of his past action and amend it. Moreover, Neotolomus recognition of his nature moves him to pity and feelings of friendship or philoctetes. I say this because a feature of the recognition is that it moves one to friendship or enmity with another character once one transitions from ignorance to it.

Uh, to knowledge. Um, Caroline, do you have, uh, any, uh, kind of further thoughts on this exchange?

[00:07:58] Caroline: Um, I would definitely agree that with the idea that Neotolomus is compelled by his vices. I mean, it’s his compassion for another man and a really strong sense of justice that motivates him. Um, but I would hesitate to say that Odysseus is completely amoral because I think he’s looking at this through a utilitarian lens where the ends justify the means, like, as you previously mentioned.

Um, and I don’t know if that’s a completely amoral philosophy, but it’s possibly one that just considers the collective good to always outweigh the means it takes to get there. So I think the real question that’s posed here is, Is which one takes precedence individual justice or the collective good, and I think that’s what we see philip tds and odysseus or not philip tds um neoptolemus and odysseus both struggling with

[00:08:45] Zach: that’s a great point um and it seems like there’s a lot of debate over this right so is is so just use the kind of amoral uh sophistic opportunists right um whose interests just happen to coincide We’ll see, uh, the public good or the public interest, um, the, the common aid, as it’s called previously, the poem by the chorus, uh, or is it the case that Odysseus is actually, as you say, moral character is motivated by, uh, the public good really like actually moved by it.

It isn’t just that his interests coincide with the public good, but that they truly are his, his interests, in which case he just, That. Yeah, the unjustified. Um, so yeah, there’s definitely a great kind of debate that can be had there, only the character of EU and in this exchange about that. Next we will turn to the completion, uh, of this exchange.

Again, reading first the Greek and then, uh, greens translation. Alright, uh,

[00:09:53] Caroline: I’m

[00:09:54] Zach: going to read you a poem. I’m going to read

[00:10:03] Caroline: you a poem. I’m going to read you a poem.

[00:10:13] Zach: the Elthon was a Timorese sitar. Esa frano ses.

[00:10:31] Caroline: Transcripts provided by Transcription Outsourcing, LLC.

[00:10:43] Zach: Then we shall be fighting, not with the children, but with you.

[00:10:47] Caroline: Let that be as it will.

[00:10:49] Zach: Do you see my hand reaching for the sword?

[00:10:52] Caroline: You shall see me do the same, and with no hesitation.

[00:10:56] Zach: I will let you alone. I shall go and tell this to the assembled Greeks. They will punish you.

[00:11:02] Caroline: That is very prudent. If you were always as prudent as this, perhaps you will keep out of trouble.

[00:11:09] Zach: Very good. Um, here we, uh, in this passage, or at the completion of this exchange, get more of a glimpse into the Sophia of Odysseus. Um, Odysseus throughout this exchange uses tactics of manipulation, um, especially, of course, tactics and manipulation of the word, right? Uh, trying to tell Neoptolemus that, um, he’s, that what he says is very unwise.

Um, and that it’s not really just trying to get him to kind of doubt his moral presuppositions that have led him to want to return the bow, uh, and these, uh, sort of, you know, Tactics, right, of language and manipulation culminate in the threat of violence that we see here. Um, moreover, Neoptolemus appears to mock Odysseus Sophia.

Uh, right, when he says, es oprenesas, right, be wise. Um, again, indicating that Neoptolemus regards Odysseus Sophia as a false Sophia. Yeah. Um, right. The Greek word is, uh, sa and, um, there’s a term, a noun, an Aristotle, which is very important, right, for nais, right? Prudence is how G Green translates it. Uh, and so there’s again, this dispute between kind of what Neo told Ms.

Perceives to be a false. Uh, either a consequentialist, meaning the ends justify the means, or possibly utilitarian, uh, as Caroline said earlier, uh, moral ethic, and that is kind of this, this sort of false prudence, and, uh, Neotolibus is opposing that. here in favor of right considerations of nobility and justice.

And so Caroline, do you have any other thoughts?

[00:13:06] Caroline: I think you’re right on. Yeah. Um, Neoptolemus definitely thinks that Odysseus and Sophia is wrong, but I think we also need to consider, well, what if Neoptolemus is wrong? Because yes, Odysseus is using this manipulation and violence, but again, I could already establish it’s with the aim of the greater good.

And he’s using his own practical wisdom, which is like using words with skill and persuading people, which we know he’s so good at to help the greater good. And we’ve already talked about this in class, but maybe Odysseus sees something that Neoptolemus doesn’t, which is that only manipulation and deception will work in the end of the day.

Um, and that’s why he’s willing to do these morally questionable things to help the Greeks win this war. Um, but yeah, I guess the real question is like, is his, is the Sophia of Odysseus right? To do these things to win the war, or as Newt Thomas and Sophia write to do right in those for one person to like for individual justice to be right.

So yeah, I think you’re right on. That’s if you got the question here.

[00:14:13] Zach: Yes, you’re right, we did discuss this in class, that Neotopimus is kind of naive, right, or that in the end, Odysseus turns out to be vindicated, in that Odysseus gets what he wants, albeit it takes the deus ex machina, right, it takes Yeah, to get it, but, um, it, yeah, it may be that neotolibus turns out to just be like morally diluted or something like this.

Um, I, I don’t think that’s, uh, that’s the chase, but that’s, that’s kind of possibility where you can take a read here where Odysseus turns out to be right. It seems at least in which he gets the results he wants in the end, even after this exchange. So then we’re led to ask like, yes, what’s, what does that mean?

All right, before we close out the discussion today, I just want to summarize what we’ve discussed. Uh, we’ve reviewed Aristotle’s accounts of the recognition and reversal as crucial parts of tragedy and discussed how those parts feature in the Philoctetes. Uh, we then went over Odysseus and Neoptolemus’s exchange, uh, concerning Neoptolemus’s recognition and reversal.

Exploring their, uh, competing visions of justice and, uh, Sophia. Alright, now we’re going to transition to the section of the podcast where I discuss my teaching experience. The major things to note, I really enjoyed running the discussion section for my teaching day. Uh, I found that the students had really excellent insights into the passage that we discussed today in the podcast that provided further food for thought.

So when Caroline and I were talking about the, uh, possibility that Odysseus may be vindicated or something like this in the end, that came from one of the students in our class. In our discussion, he considered this possibility, and I hadn’t considered that reading before. I found it actually rather helpful.

So also the comments on Odysseus’s manipulation that culminates in violence, that thought also similarly came from a student. And the, uh, the discussion section of my teaching day. So, uh, I found that it was a great learning experience. Like, I knew things, um, or possibilities of, uh, interpretation for the passage that I hadn’t, uh, considered before, or I learned them, um, after having taught.

So, the adage, you learn by teaching, is, uh, Uh, proven true here, I think, in my case. Um, so yeah, so I really enjoyed writing the discussion. Overall, I thought that the, uh, the structure was well prepared, uh, where two ends of the class translate between Neotolomus and Odysseus, and then we talk about Uh, the themes of the, uh, the passage much like Caroline, uh, today did I, I thought that that went quite well.

Thank you for joining us for season four, episode six of musings in Greek literature. My name is Zachary Springer and my co host Caroline Young will be hosting the podcast next week. Uh, please leave a comment or like if you enjoyed this podcast and have a good day.