2.
An able critic in the
Athenœum (
Aug. 13, 1892 )
further suggests that the episode of the merchant may serve to explain an obscure point. When Philoctetes discovers that he is to be taken to Troy, he denounces the deceit of Neoptolemus (vv. 927—962). And yet in v. 1365 he speaks as if he still believed the false story told by Neoptolemus in vv. 343—390, that he had been defrauded of his father's arms. The apparent inconsistency can be explained (the critic remarks) if Philoctetes supposed that, while he was asleep, Odysseus reached Lemnos, and then for the first time won Neoptolemus to his plans. On this view, in vv. 971 f. (
οὐκ εἶ κακὸς σύ, πρὸς κακῶν δ’ ἀνδρῶν μαθὼν
|
ἔοικας ἥκειν αἰσχρά
),
ἥκειν
must mean, ‘to have come
back’ (from a colloquy with Odysseus, held near the spot where Philoctetes was sleeping. But the natural sense of
ἥκειν
is clearly, ‘to have come
to Lemnos.’ And if (notwithstanding his alleged wrong) Neoptolemus could listen to Odysseus in Lemnos, why should he not have become his accomplice before leaving Troy? Another point, however, which the critic notes is independent of this question. Neoptolemus would naturally feel some fresh remorse and shame when he perceived (from v. 1365) that the whole extent of his duplicity was not even then surmised by Philoctetes. And these feelings may have been conceived by the dramatist as motives which helped to determine his final resolve.