Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:09:44.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creative rhetoric in Euripides’ Troades: some notes on Hecuba's speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ra’anana Meridor
Ra’anana Meridor
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Euripides' Troades was a work not much studied until the end of World War II. Since then the play, and in particular the part played by Helen and the debate concerning her accountability for her elopement and its consequences, have not ceased to attract scholarly attention. The recent interest in the rhetoric of this agon has thrown additional light on the entire scene, the third and last episode of the play. The debate is occasioned by Menelaus’ announcement (873–5) that the men who captured his runaway wife handed her over to him for execution—or, should he so choose, to take her back home. In the first speech (914–65) Helen tries to persuade Menelaus that she cannot justly be punished with death for having served as the tool of a most powerful goddess. Hecuba, in her answering speech (969–1032), strives to discredit Helen in order to prevent her reinstatement and oblige Menelaus to carry out the death sentence. In this paper I would like to draw further attention to some of Hecuba's arguments. Assuming general acquaintance with current readings of the agon, I shall start with a section-by-section discussion of the old queen's speech and its immediate effect, with an emphasis on significant motifs. Certain further implications will be pointed out at the end of the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , May 2000 , pp. 16 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the relevant sections in the (growing number of) commentaries on the play, Schiassi, G., Le Troiane (Firenze, 1953)Google Scholar; Lee, K. H., Euripides Troades (Basingstoke, 1976)Google Scholar; Barlow, Shirley A., Euripides Trojan Women (Warminster, 1986)Google Scholar; Biehl, W., Euripides Troades (Heidelberg, 1989)Google Scholar; special papers since Ebener's, D. ‘Die Helenaszene der Troerinnen', WZHalle 3 (1954), 691–722Google Scholar, and numerous studies on related subjects such as Lesky, A., ‘Psychologie bei Euripides’, in Entretiens sur I’Antiquite Classique, VI: Euripide (Vandoeuvres and Genève, 1960), 125–68Google Scholar; Stinton, T. C. W., Euripides and the Judgement of Paris (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Duchemin, J., L'ATQNdans la tragedie grecque (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar, to mention only a few of a long list.

2 See especially Lloyd, M., ‘The Helen scene in Euripides’Troade’, CQ 34 (1984), 303–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lloyd, M., The Agon in Euripides (Oxford, 1992), 99–112Google Scholar; and the relevant sections in Croally, N. T., Euripidean Polemic (Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar

3 For recent readings see, besides those mentioned in the previous note, the commentaries of Lee and Biehl, and the notes and translation of Barlow (all n. 1). The scene has been treated so often that it is not possible to name the author of every interpretation accepted or challenged here. I am indebted to all.

4 Reading (with Hartung)où for the MSS's αἳ in 975, e.g. Lloyd (n. 2, 1992), 106.

5 So e.g. Stinton (n. 1), 38.

6 see King, D. B., ‘The appeal to religion in Greek rhetoric’, CJ 50 (1955), 363–71Google Scholar, at 363, 366, 367, 371, for the extensive use made by Greek rhetoricians of appeals to religion as means of persuasion, and Arist. Rh. 1356al–13 (= 1.2.3–4) for the importance of the pleader's moral character in winning his hearers’ trust.

7 With 970 λέγoεoαε ᾤεδικα cf. S. O.T. 1158 μή λέγωε γε τoϋεδικοε paraphrased by Σ as μή λέγωε τò ἀληθές.

8 See [Arist.] Rh. Al. 1440a5–7, 1436a33–8, 1442a7–14.

9 [Arist.]Rh. Al. 1440a8–10: ‘After the introduction the best plan is to put forward one at a time each of the statements made in the previous speech, and prove that they are not just’ (Rackham's LCL translation is used for [Arist.]Rh. AL). However, Hecuba does not really ‘put forward’ even the statements she does refute: she chooses a significant detail and introduces it by ‘you said’ or the like so as to impress the hearers that what she is refuting is what Helen said. In fact she restates or interprets Helen's statement or its context rather freely, or otherwise evades answering it or a significant part of it, to serve her own purpose; compare 971–82 with 924–37, 983–97 with 938–50,998–1009 with 962, 1010–22a with 951–8 (960).

10 See P. Fr. 52i(A) (=Pae. 8a), 16–23, E. Andr. 293–303 (both earlier than Troades).

11 In Alexandros, the first of the group of four plays of which Troades constituted the third. The lost play dealt with the royal parents’ failure to do away with the ill-fated infant. The hypothesis of the play indicates that Hecuba's dream, the reason for their efforts, was told in the prologue (Coles, R. A., Hypothesis of Alexandros, BICS Supp. 32 [1974], 11. 4–5 on p. 12).Google Scholar

12 See A. Pe. 181–99 and 518–19, Cho. 527–33 and 928–9, S. El. 417–23, E. Hec. 69–72 (76) and 703–8, /. T. 44–55a.

13 see Guthrie, W. K. C., The Sophists (Cambridge, 1971), 228–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar (there was, however, no necessary connection between such criticism and the belief in divination by dreams: the Platonic Socrates unreservedly accepted the latter [Cri. 44a6–b4] but would not take immoral legends about the gods at face value [Euthyph. 5e6–6c4]).

14 <Castor and his twin brother> ‘were not yet among the stars’ (Barlow's translation).

15 Murray's attribution of the passage to Andromache is widely accepted; Biehl (Teubner) follows P's attribution to the chorus. Either way, this is a Trojan voice.

16 Lloyd ‘became’, Lattimore ‘went’, Lee ‘was turned into’, Barlow ‘transformed itself into’, Lesky ‘ward zu’ Parmentier ‘est devenu’.

17 E.g. Hdt 1.10.2 τò oοηθ⋯κ ⋯κ τoû ἀεδρóς, 3.115.2 τò oεoμα … ἔσrι ‘Ελληνικòε … ύπòπoιητέω … πoιηθέε, Lys. 13.76 φησε Άθηεαîoς πoιηθεαι preceded by Άθηεαîoε αύτòε ó δμoς πoιήσατo.

18 E.g. Thuc. 2.56.2 , Hdt. 2.125 (a pyramid), 2.138.2 (a sanctuary), 2.159 (triremes), 7.37.1 (dykes).

19 ‘Do not try to make (imp. praes.) the goddesses (out to be [Barlow]) irrational while glossing over your own wrong’ (for ‘glossing over’ see Stevens's note on Andr. 956).

20 Both quotations are from Barlow's translation.

21 This seems to be the earliest reference to Helen's love of riches (see Ghali-Kahil, L. B., Les enlèvements et le retour d’ Hélène [Paris, 1955], n. 5 on p. 30Google Scholar; Jouan, Fr., Euripide et les légendes des chants cypriens [Paris, 1966], 173)Google Scholar which was to become her special trademark.

22 Arist. Rh. 1416b9–11 = 3.15.10: ‘Since the same thing may have been done from several motives, the accuser must disparage it by taking it in the worst sense’ (Freese's LCL translation is used for Arist. Rh.).

23 see De Romilly, J., ‘L'excuse de l'invincible amour dans la tragédie grecque’, Miscellanea Tragica in honorem J. C. Kamerbeek (Amsterdam, 1976), 309–21.Google Scholar

24 D- K 23 B 12 . Cf. Hel. 122 (‘These eyes saw her. When the eyes see, the brain sees too’, Lattimore's translation).

25 Note the absence of εoûς from the usual Euripidean expressions for overwhelming desire: Med. 8 (and similarly ibid. 639 and Hi. 38), IA 585–6 (and similarly Cycl. 185), Hi. 27–8a δεινι Hi. 765–6 (with which compare Tro. 992 where the overwhelming factor is Paris’ golden splendour).

26 Cf. An. 1221, the only other use of this middle in extant Euripides, where it describes old Peleus, now bereft of his grandson as well, wandering in his empty palace.

27 [Arist.] Rh. Al. 1445a13–18 ‘we shall discredit our adversaries … by showing that our hearers themselves … have been or are being or are going to be wrongfully ill-treated by them’.

28 Hes. Fr. 198.5b–6, 200, 204.41–2a, 204.85b-7a. Od. 4 should not be quoted to prove Menelaus’ wealth at the relevant time; the riches described there are explicitly stated to have been acquired after the Trojan war (Od. 4.81–90).

29 Il 7.389–90, 13.620–7, 22.114–16.

30 (and the like) Il. 3 passim, 7.350–64, 389–93, 400–1, 22.114, Cypria (Homeri Opera V, Allen, p. 105). The ‘possessions’ seem to be especially connected with the Greeks’ demand and the Trojans’ refusal to return what was unlawfully taken as, for example, in Herodotus’ report of the Egyptian version of the story of Helen's abduction (2.113–19), Ov. Met. 13.200 (praedamque Helenamque reposco), Lib. Decl. 3.12, and Dictys Cretensis, Ephemeridos Belli Troiani Libri (ed. W Eisenhut [Teubner, 1973]), which purport to be the report of a Greek eye-witness to the war. The possessions tend to be absent from pro-Trojan reports of Helen's abduction, e.g. Herodotus’ account of the Persian version thereof (1.1–4) and the relevant part of Dictys’ Trojan counterpart, Phrygius, Dares, De Excidio Troiae Historia (ed. Meister, F. [Teubner, 1873]).Google Scholar

31 Il 3 passim and 4.1–157.

32 See e.g. Lloyd (n. 2, 1992), 304; Croally (n. 2), 137–8. Biehl (n. 1) in notes on 895–918 and 906 compares Attic court procedure in cases of δíκη àεáδικoς due to condemnation in absentia: Helen is now given the opportunity ‘ihren Rechtsanspruch nachtraeglich geltend zu machen’. However, such cases were retried in the normal order (Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens [Oxford, 1971], vol. II, 191–2 and 197–9)Google Scholar as were cases decided by an umpire (Lipsius, J. H., Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren [Leipzig, 1915], vol. Ill, 229, n. 39).Google Scholar

33 For the Greek attitude to the oriental fashion of prostrating oneself before mortal superiors see Hdt. 7.136, Xen. An. 3.2.13, Isoc. Paneg. 151.

34 For these functions of the peroration see Arist. Rh. 1419b24–6 = 3.19.3 in combination with 1377b30–78a3 = 2.1.4; see also 1408a16–24 = 3.7.3–4 for the persuasiveness of style expressing emotion. For a captive ruler's prima facie disinterested advice to the conqueror, see Hdt. 1.88.2–89.

35 When the Trojan War and its effects are at issue, ‘Menelaus’ country’ is not his specific kingdom but ‘Greece’, cf. 926,933,935, 1030, 1034 as against 944, 994 (999).

36 134–7 ‘The slaughterer of Priam’; cf. 498–9, 1213b–15. Note that Helen was of old considered the guilty cause of the war waged for and because of her (Od. 438b, Ale. 42.2–3, 42.15–16, 283.12–14, Semon. 7.117–18) and the instrument or the perpetrator of the havoc wrought in its course. In Od. 14.68–77 it is Helen who ‘loosened the knees of many warriors’ although the Greek heroes went to Troy ‘to win recompense for Agamemnon’ (Murray's Loeb translation), for which she was also cursed (Od. 14.68–9) but does not seem to have been deemed indictable.

37 Similarly after the agon-scene at 1240–2a and 1280–1.

38 Deleting 959–60 with Wilamowitz (and others, including the editor of OCT 1981); for the generalizing plural ‘children’ referring to a single person see Barrett's note on Hi. 49. With 959–60, Deiphobus, too, is included in ‘children’, and Hecuba also denies that the latter married Helen against her will.

39 see Meridor, R., ‘Hecuba's revenge’, AJP 99 (1978), 28–9Google Scholar for the absence of τιμωρóς and its derivatives from Troades, and note that in the Iliad (3.39–51, 7.374) the Trojan authorities expressly acknowledge Paris’ exclusive responsibility and guilt.

40 An adulterous wife had to be divorced by her husband, was debarred from religious ceremonies, and was not allowed to appear in public adorned (Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens [Oxford, 1968], vol. I, 35–6)Google Scholar; she was not otherwise punished.

41 Mastronarde, D. J., Contact and Discontinuity (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1979), 25Google Scholar ‘Menelaus … has no need to address the captives; his speech … is overheard by Hekabe, so that it is not an isolated parodos-rhesis', i.e. Euripides, in order to let Hecuba overhear Menelaus’ speech without his taking notice of her presence, created a situation in which the king had no need to address the captives. (It is noteworthy that those on stage do not remark on the entrance of [i.e. do not introduce to the audience] the newcomer, who is well known to them; contrast e.g. Or. 356ff., preceded by the chorus’ 348–55, and Ba. 215ff., preceded by Tiresias’ 210–14. The silence in Troades may be intended to allow Menelaus to introduce himself boastfully at the beginning of his speech—a consideration to be added to the debate on 862–3).

42 The proposed punishment by bereaved relatives an d friends ma y be derived from Stesichorus, who has those about to stone Helen drop the stones at the sight of her beauty (PMG 201). If the same text also underlies Or. 56b-60a (where Menelaus brings Helen back to Greece under the cover of night in order to save her from such an act of vengeance), Euripides may, in Troades, have changed a spontaneous (failed) lynching into an official (never to be carried out) punishment, the very concept of which seems incompatible with the basic assumptions of the Trojan war: the Greeks set out to recover Menelaus’ queen, not to return without her. It does, however, suit the rhetoric of the agon, seeing that ‘It was common for the prosecutor in any serious indictment to demand the death penalty for his adversary’ (Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle [Oxford, 1974], 289–90).Google Scholar

43 Note the active forms of äΥω ( = lead [a captive] away) in 871 and 877 as against the middle (= lead [one's bride/wife] to one's home) in 875 in their respective contexts.

44 ‘It is no t permitted that any law be passed with reference to an individual, if the same law does not apply to all Athenians’, Andoc. 1.87(M. Edwards’ translation in Greek Orators, vol. IV [Aris and Phillips, 1995]); similarly Dem. 23.86, 24.59, 46.12. For Euripides using stage action compatible with fifth-century Athenian concepts of justice and legal procedure, see R. Meridor (n. 39), 30–1 with n. 12.

45 Paton, W. R., REG 27 (1914), 37Google Scholar ‘en te montrant généreux pour nous, les femmes Troyennes, tes ennemies’; Lee (n. 1) ‘noble even in the eyes of your enemies’; Biehl (n. 1) ‘indem du dich gleichzeitig deinen Gegnern als ein Mann von untadliger Wesensart zeigst’.

46 For this translation of φλoς see Dale on Hel. 92.

47 A. Se. 675, Ag. 1637; S. Aj. 1377; E. Med. 507, 875, Hr. 944, Andr. 707, 724, Hec. 849 (where χθρ expresses Hecuba's new attitude toward Polymestor), Pho. 1593.

48 Ammonius (ibid.) differentiates between χθρóς πoλμιoς, and δυσμεεής the last is irrelevant to this discussion.

49 Cf. also A. Pe. 243, Ag. 608; S. Phil. 1323; E. Hec. 848 (where πoλεμ refers to the Hecuba-Agamemnon relationship), HF 1263.

50 For the generalizing masculine plural referring to a single female person as the representative of a type see Barrett's nn. on E. Hi. 49 and 287.

51 For εύγεεής = ‘behaving in the way which becomes one of noble blood’ see Barrett's note on Hi. 26. For φαíεής with personal subject and predicate adjective, giving the reason for the subject's taking, or not taking, a certain line of conduct by stressing its effect on his reputation, see e. g. Cy. 532 ἔχωε … τιμιώτερoς φαει, Hec. 1233 εἱ τŵιδ’ ảρκέσε↓ς κακὀς φαεῆι and cf. Med. 600, Hi. 90, 332, Hec. 348, Hel. 1001, Pho. 1005,1623. For the same construction amplified by a dative modifying the whole sentence-nucleus (K-G I, 405, 414–15) cf. Tro. 66(1—)3 κακή φαεoûμαι τι θαεóετι ’If I … ) I shall prove base toward my dead husband’. In all these examples the unspecified object of φαíεoμαι (to whom?) are those whose opinion determines the reputation of the subject. For the Greek king these are the Greeks; they are also to be inferred from ‘Greece’ in 1034.

52 ‘Womanishness’ here does double service for ‘being “a woman” in relation to his wife’ (Or. 742 with Willink's note) and ‘not taking vengeance when wronged’ (E. Fr. 1092 χθρóε κακŵς δρāε ἀεδρὂς ήγoûμαι μρoς).

53 see Todd, Stephen, ‘The use and abuse of the Attic orators', G&R 37 (1990), 159–78, esp. 172.Google Scholar

54 This is in accord with Attic law: offences committed intentionally or voluntarily (κoεσíως, κoúσια) and unintentionally or involuntarily (ἀκoυσíως, ἀκoσια) were treated differently, and only the latter were excusable (e.g. Dem. 21.43, 24.49, Ant. 5.92). It is also consistent with Attic forensic rhetoric: responsibility for an action could not be evaded on the ground that it had been prompted by a supernatural force (Vielberg, M., ‘Die religioesen Vorstellungen des Redners Lykurg', RhM 134 [1991], 49–68Google Scholar, esp. 54–5). See n. 44 above, end.

55 Attributing 1052 (with Diggle's 1981 OCT text and others) to Menelaus; see the app. crit. and cf. 1051–2 with Med. 330–1.

56 Barlow's translation of 1051. Note that this is Aristotle's example for maxims that ‘no sooner are they uttered than they are clear to those who consider them’ (Rh. 1394b14–16 = 2.21.5).

57 1114–15 δúσγαμoε αἶσχoς λώε ’Eλλáδι τâι μεγáλαι. Note that λώε is the last and resounding action-word in the stasimon. The combination αἶσχoς λώε is heavily charged: a man of honour is expected to thrust shame away from himself (Sol. 3.2 αἶσχoς ἀπωσóμεεo↓) and to spare no effort until he wins (λεîε) glory (Il;. 17.321) or the noble object of his prayer (Tyrt. 12.36, cf. Pi. P. 5.21), or victory (Pi. O. 8.66) or the like. With δúσγαμoε αἶσχoς cf. Hes. Fr. 176.7 ‘Eλεη ήισχυεε λχoς … Mεεελáoυ. For ‘great Greece’ at 1115 as against Menelaus’ Sparta of 1110–13, seen. 35.

58 Contrast δύσγαμoε αἶσχoς ‘ Eλλáδι (1114–15) with both oτεφáεωσoε ‘Eλλáδ’ … τήεδε κταεώε 1030 and τεîσαι δάμαρτα κάφελoû πρóς ‘Eλλáδoς ψóγoε(1034—5).

59 A producer who cannot trust his audience to grasp the connection between the concluding strophe of the choral ode (1100–17) and Hecuba's last two lines (1049 and 1051) in the preceding scene could arrange for Helen and the men ordered to lead her to the ships (1047–8) to be still in sight at 1059 (the text includes no hint at when they leave), and have Menelaus join her before 1060 for the exit, staging as it were the λώε of 1114 in advance. The production by La Mama Theatre Company of New York in which Helen was actually stoned (Barlow, note on 1039) was not true to Euripides.

60 See Arist. Rh. 1358a36-b13 = 1.3.1–3 on the different kinds of rhetoric appropriate for the different kinds of listeners addressed. The audience watching the play may be compared with Aristotle's ‘mere spectator’ who is ‘a judge of the ability’ of the rhetorician at a public declamation. The traditional subject of such (= epideictic) speeches was either praise or blame, and the unusual amount of defamation in Hecuba's quasi-forensic speech addressed to Menelaus (practically the whole, except for the claim at 969–88 that Aphrodite had no share in Helen's following Paris, is character-assassination)—for her ‘a judge of things past’ like an Aristotelian dicast—may be due to the fact that for the spectators the same speech also serves as a kind of ‘blame of Helen’. See below with n. 62.

61 Easterling, P. E., ‘Euripides outside Athens. A speculative note', ICS 19 (1994), 73–80.Google Scholar The City Dionysia may have provided a convenient meeting place for foreign dignitaries and entrepreneurs on the one side, and the plays and their authors and producers on the other.

62 Gorg. Hel. 20: ‘Whether she did what she did because she was enamoured <by sight> or persuaded by speech or seized by force or compelled by divine necessity, in every case she escapes the accusation’ (MacDowell's translation). The above suggestion seems to be supported by the fact that no passion for riches is found in the list of female traits commonly criticized in the writings of fifth- and fourth-century Athens (Just, R., Women in Athenian Law and Life [London and New York, 1989], 166Google Scholar; cf. Dover [n. 42], 98–101). The problem whether Euripides’ Troades or Gorgias’ Helen is the earlier is usually—unlike here—treated by comparing the arguments of the Euripidean Helen with those of Gorgias.

63 For the main trends of interpretation see now Roisman, J., ‘Contemporary allusions in Euripides’Troades’, SIFC 15 (1997), 38–17 at 38–9.Google Scholar

64 For the cruel lot of the defeated in historical Greece see Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, vol. 5 (Berkeley, 1991), 203ff.Google Scholar The dread of slavery is very much present in Troades.

65 As Neoptolemus has already sailed away, it is clear that the wind of departure, awaited since the beginning of the play (19b–22; so still in the agon-scene, 882b–3), has finally risen.

66 The fate of the womenfolk of the defeated would have been as lamentable also if their side was to blame. Euripides seems to have preferred a simple picture with stark outlines; note the omission of all Trojan male survivors (such as Helenus, Aeneas, the Antenoridae) from Troades.

67 This follows from what Cassandra says about the Greeks who, unlike the Trojans, died in this war ‘though they were not being robbed of their own boundaries, nor of their high-towered fatherland’ (Barlow's translation).

68 Harris, W. V., CQ 47 (1997), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 I wish to thank the editor and the reader of CQ for their very helpful comments and suggestions, and my friends and colleagues Dr D. Gera and Professor M. Finkelberg for their encouragement and advice.