Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:36:21.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Helen Scene in Euripides' Troades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Michael Lloyd
Michael Lloyd
Affiliation:
Wadham College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Troades has often been thought to lack any coherent structure, and this has been variously attributed to its being the last play of the trilogy and to Euripides' overriding concern to impress the horrors of war upon his fellow Athenians. More recently, however, attention has been drawn to how the constant presence of Hecuba gives unity to the play and to how it is articulated by the striking entries of Cassandra, Andromache, and Helen. Cassandra and Andromache enter in mock triumph, Cassandra waving torches in her ironical wedding song and Andromache on a waggon, while Helen is dragged out by force and her scene marked off by Menelaus' second prologue. All three women emerge from the tent, argue with Hecuba but fail to convince her, and depart for marriage in Greece. Andromache's ideal marriage to Hector (645–56) contrasts with Cassandra's perverted ‘marriage’ to Agamemnon and with Helen's destructive marriage to Paris. The departure of the Trojan women for marriage in Greece balances Helen's earlier departure from Greece for marriage in Troy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 303 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1984

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 Thus e.g. Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie 2 (Gōttingen, 1954), i. 366Google Scholar.

2 Thus e.g. von Wilamowitz, U. in von Wilamowitz, T., Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Berlin, 1917), 373Google Scholar.

3 Thus e.g. Steiger, H., ‘Warum schrieb Euripides seine Troerinnen?’, Philologus 59 (1900), 362–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 E.g. Friedrich, W.-H., Euripides und Diphilos (Munich, 1953), 73–5Google Scholar; Strohm, H., Euripides (Munich, 1957), 116 ff.Google Scholar; Steidle, W., Studien zum antiken Drama (Munich, 1968), 52–4Google Scholar.

5 Schadewaldt, Cf. W., Monolog und Selbstgespräch (Berlin, 1926), 241Google Scholar.

6 Pohlenz, , op. cit. i. 369 fGoogle Scholar.

7 Buttrey, T. V., LCM 3 (1978), 285–7Google Scholar argues well that there is nothing in Menelaus' tone to suggest that he does not really intend to kill Helen.

8 Cf. Duchemin, J., L'ATQN dans la tragédie grecque 2 (Paris, 1968), 124–34Google Scholar.

9 Lee, K. H., Euripides Troades (London, 1976), on 912–13Google Scholar. Page on Med. 465 ff. says that the rule is that the sympathetic character speaks second; Dale, on Alc. 697 ffGoogle Scholar. that the stronger speech comes second. The agon in Alc. is in fact the only possible case in which the sympathetic character does not also have the best of the argument.

10 For the rhetorical technique of προδι⋯ρθρωϲιϲ cf. [Aristotle, ], Rh. ad Alex. 1437a 1–7Google Scholar.

11 Thus e.g. Lee, , op. cit. p. 220Google Scholar; Scodel, R., The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides (Göttingen, 1980), 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Now that we known that the old shepherd was a character in Alexandros (cf. Coles, R. A., A New Oxyrhynchus Papyrus: the Hypothesis of Euripides' Alexandros [BICS Supp. 32, 1974])Google Scholar it seems more probable that ⋯ πρ⋯ϲβυϲ (921) refers to him than to Priam. Euripides would be inviting confusion by referring to Priam in this way: he had a name, while the shepherd presumably did not. Priam may be referred to as πρ⋯ϲβυϲ at Hec. 160, but that is in a passage of lyric, where a more allusive style is appropriate, and where it is in any case obvious who is meant. In the dramatis personae of Electra the old paedagogus of Agamemnon is called πρ⋯ϲυϲ, in that of Ion the paedagogus of Erechtheus πρεϲβ⋯τηϲ Although strictly speaking Priam did fail to kill Paris, the important break in the chain was the shepherd's failure to do so: no one would expect a king to kill his child with his own hands, but a servant delegated to perform the task was expected to make sure that it was done properly, as Astyages’ treatment of Harpagus, Herodotus 1. 117–19, makes clear. Diggle thinks that ‘to blame the herdsman would be a gross irrelevancy’ (CR n.s. 31 [1981], 106), but Helen is trying to spread the blame as widely as possible, and need not confine her attack to the House of Priam.

13 Adkins, A. W. H., Merit and Responsibility (Oxford, 1960), 127Google Scholar, describes this argument as ‘intellectual litter’; but cf. , Ar.Rh. 1397b 23–5Google Scholar, and the advice on ⋯ντικατηγορ⋯α at Rh. ad Alex. 1442b 7–8: τàϲ πρ⋯ξειϲ μ⋯λιϲτα μ⋯ν είϲ τοῢϲ ⋯ντιδίκουϲ ⋯ποτρ⋯φειϲ, εί δ⋯ μ⋯ είϲ ἅλλλουϲ τιν⋯ϲ.

14 Per. 36. 3. Similar questions are discussed by Antiphon, e.g. Ib 13; cf.Adkins, , op. cit. pp. 102–8, 124–7Google Scholar.

15 E.g. by Friedrich, , op. cit. p. 63Google Scholar.

16 Cf. Stinton, T. C. W., Euripides and the Judgement of Paris (London, 1965), 14Google Scholar.

17 For wishes that the ⋯ρχή had not happened cf. Med. 1 ff., An. 293 ff., l.A. 1291 ff.

18 Cf. Allen, T. W., Homeri Opera v (Oxford1, 1912), 108Google Scholar; Wϋst, in RE xviii (1949), 1503, s.v. ParisGoogle Scholar; Jouan, F., Euripide et les L⋯gendes des chants cypriens (Paris, 1966), 180Google Scholar. It is not clear which version is being used at An. 590–5.

19 Rh. ad Alex. 1444b 36–40 recommends the technique of showing the good one has done the judges. The author also says that if one cannot deny the charge one should say that what one did was ϲυμϕ⋯ρον τ⋯ πóλει (1427a 7), a method adopted at Or. 564 ff., Lysias 1. 47.

20 Op. cit. pp. 95 ff.

21 Hel. 41; cf. Colluthus 141 ff.

22 E.g. Tϋrk, in Roscher iii. 1587 s.v. ParisGoogle Scholar; Stephanopoulos, T. K., Umgestaltung des Mythos durch Euripides (Athens, 1980), 96–8Google Scholar.

23 ps. -Ap., Epit. 3. 2; cf. Hyginus, , Fab. 92Google Scholar, Robert, C., Heldensage, p. 1072Google Scholar.

24 Austin, C., CGFP No. 70Google Scholar.

25 E.g. Lesky, A., ‘Psychologie bei Euripides’, Entretiens Hardt vi (Geneva, 1960), 129 f.Google Scholar; Scodel, , op. cit. p. 95Google Scholar.

26 This is a version of the common argument ‘I could have had no rational motive, so I did not do it’, which appears e.g. at Hi. 1008–20, An. 192–204, S. O.T. 584 ff.

27 Cf. h. Aph. 33–44; Barrett, on Hi. 1277–80Google Scholar.

28 E.g. Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971), 150 fGoogle Scholar.

29 E.g. Scodel, , op. cit. p. 119Google Scholar.

30 Austin, C., Nova Fragmenta Euripidea (Berlin, 1968), No. 82Google Scholar.

31 E.g. Duchemin, , op. cit. p. 207Google Scholar.

32 Croesus has a natural tendency to attribute responsibility to the god for events that he had merely predicted. Cf. , S.O.T. 1329 fGoogle Scholar.

33 For Paris as an ill-omened name see Stinton, , op. cit. p. 36 n. 2Google Scholar.

34 For Helen's προκατ⋯ληφιϲ cf. the examples given by Stevens, on An. 929Google Scholar, and for her appeal to witnesses cf. Page, on Med. 476Google Scholar, Duchemin, , op. cit., pp. 198 fGoogle Scholar., , Ar.Rh. 1355b3 5–9Google Scholar.

35 Diggle rightly accepts Dobree's ⋯δούλωϲ(ε) and Paley's translation, ‘that natural gift, in lieu of having the prize of beauty assigned to it, enslaved me to my cost’ (CR n.s. 31 [1981], 107).

36 Scodel, , op. cit. p. 144Google Scholar wants to delete 998–1001, but without sufficient reason: she objects to ⋯νωλóλυξαϲ (1000) being used of a cry for help, but óλολυλ⋯ is used in just this sense at Thuc. 2. 4. 1. On the βοή cf. Schulze, W., Kl. Schr. pp. 160 ffGoogle Scholar.

37 Pohlenz, , op. cit. ii. 151Google Scholar, observes that in Gorgias divine influence as much as physical abduction counts as βία.

38 Robert, , Heldensage, p. 1078Google Scholar cites Lycophron 106 ff. and Servius on Aen. 1. 651 as evidence for a story that Helen was abducted, and abduction was considered as a possibility by Gorgias. Helen was indeed abducted by Theseus; cf. Ghali-Kahil, L. B., Les Enl⋯vements et le Retour d'Helene (Paris, 1955), 305–13Google Scholar. That Paris is often said to have removed a quantity of Menelaus’ property along with Helen does not mean that he abducted her: Proclus’ summary of Cypria (Allen, , op. cit. p. 103) suggests that she was actually party to the theft. On these problems generally seeGoogle ScholarKakridis, J. T., Homer Revisited (Lund, 1971), ch. 1Google Scholar.

39 Op. cit. p. 223; cf. Greenwood, L. H. G., Aspects of Euripidean Tragedy (Cambridge, 1953), 21Google Scholar. Such views are criticised by Lloyd-Jones, , op. cit. p. 207 n. 85Google Scholar, and a more subtle interpretation offered by Schadewaldt, W., op. cit. pp. 113–18Google Scholar.

40 Cf. Barrett, on Hi. 612Google Scholar, Stanford, W. B., Greek Tragedy and the Emotions (London 1983), 7fGoogle Scholar.

41 Cf. Fraenkel, on A. Ag. 160Google Scholar.

42 With 884 cf. ps.-Hippocrates, , De Flat. 3Google Scholar (D K 64c2), where πνεῢμα is called γ⋯ϲ ôχημα (thus Diels, H., Rh.M. 30 [1887], 12)Google Scholar. πνεῢμα embraces ⋯ήρ and αίθήρ, but that Hecuba is referring to αίθήρ is suggested by fr. 919, κορυϕ⋯ δ⋯ θε⋯ν ò π⋯ριξ χθóν' Ĕχων | ϕαεννཁϲ αίθήρ and by fr. 941. 1–3, òρȃϲ τ⋯ν ῢφοű τóνδ' ăπειρον αίθ⋯ρα | καί γ⋯ν π⋯ριξ ἒχονθ' ῢγραίϲ ⋯ν ⋯γκ⋯λαιϲ | τοủτον νóμιςε Ζ⋯να, τóνδ' ⋯γοὖ θεóν Cf. Matthiessen, K., Hermes 96 (1968), 699–701Google Scholar. Euripides prays to αίθ⋯ρ ⋯μóν βóϲκημα at Aristophanes, , Frogs 892Google Scholar, and Socrates to λαμπρòϲ αίθήρ at Clouds 265 (cf. , E.Hel. 866)Google Scholar, which suggests that belief in the divinity of αίθήρ was a readily recognisable sign of advanced ideas. Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1957), 200n.Google Scholar, Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy ii. 310n., 379 fGoogle Scholar. give references to beliefs that αίθήρ was divine.

43 The scholion suggests Anaxagorean influence here, and Euripides was said in antiquity to be a μαθητήϲ of Anaxagoras, e.g. D.L. 2. 10 (DK 59A 1); cf. Sch.-St. I. iii. 316 n. 2. Scodel, , op. cit. p. 94Google Scholar denies the relevance of Anaxagoras because ‘he did not place his divine νοűϲ within men’; cf. Lloyd-Jones, , op. cit. p. 150Google Scholar. But in Anaxagoras there is no such distinction between divine and human νο⋯ϲ: νο⋯ϲ ‘dgr;⋯ πȃϲ ⋯μοιóϲ ⋯ϲτί καί ò μείςων καί ò ⋯λ⋯ττων (DK 59b12); cf. Hussey, E., The Presocratics (London, 1972), 138–41Google Scholar, Schofield, M., An Essay on Anaxagoras (Cambridge, 1980), ch. 1Google Scholar.

44 Solon 4. 15 f.; cf. Dodds, on Ba. 888–90Google Scholar.

45 Hussey, , op. cit. p. 139Google Scholar.

46 , Pl. Phd. 97d–99aGoogle Scholar, , Ar.Met. 985a 18–21Google Scholar.

47 E.g. by Lesky, , op. cit. p. 132Google Scholar, Scodel, , op. cit. p. 95Google Scholar.

48 Thus Stinton, , op. cit. p. 38 no. 1Google Scholar.

49 Cf. Stinton, T. C. W., PCPS n.s. 22 (1976), 87 n. 36Google Scholar.

50 Thus Stevens, P. T., CR n.s. 16 (1966), 291Google Scholar. LA. 72 does not, as Jouan, , op. cit. p. 109Google Scholar, believes, cast doubt on the Judgement: Euripides is merely, as he often does (cf. Bond, on H.F. 1021 f., 1315)Google Scholar, giving the source of his mythological information.

51 Hera and Athena were patrons of Hecuba's enemies, but that is not a reason for her to slight them: there was a shrine of Athena at Troy, (Tro. 536 ff., 599Google Scholar, Hec. 1008, H. Il. 6. 279) and a famous temple of Athena at Sparta, (Hel. 228Google Scholar, Thuc. 1. 128, Aristophanes, , Lys. 1300, Pausanias 3. 17. 3)Google Scholar.

52 That this is true even in Homer was pointed out by Reinhardt, K., Das Parisurteil (Frankfurt, 1938)Google Scholar; cf. Davies, M., JHS 101 (1981), 56–62Google Scholar.

53 What is probable is not always what happens: see , Ar.Rh. 1402a 3–28Google Scholar; cf. Macleod, C. W., JHS 98 (1978), 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Hecuba's play on words is commended at , Ar., Rh. 1400b 23Google Scholar. On the problem of óρθóτηϲ óνομ⋯των (signalled here by óρθ⋯ϲ) see Kerferd, G. B., The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge, 1981), ch. 7Google Scholar.