GRK 520 4/3/15Pr.: A. Tzanetou Theofilos Kyriakidis The Problem of Hecubas Unity in light of Hecubas Transformation The present study undertakes an examination of Hecubas metamorphosis with the ultimate view of providing a solution to the problem of the eponymous plays unity. The procedure will accordingly proceed along the following steps: at the outset, a brief exposition will be given of the problems surrounding the dramas integrity. An account will follow of the light shed by the heroines transformation into a dog on the question of her personality, which, as shall be argued, forms the focus of the plots development. This will be accompanied by an excursus on the origins of Hecuba as a mythological character, and a survey of the dogs symbolic associations in Greek culture. Habent sua fata libelli: the truth of this often repeated maxim is particularly brought out by the history of Hecubas reception[footnoteRef:1]. Starting in late antiquity, this tragedy achieved a place of exceptional eminence among the Euripidean corpus, which it retained throughout the middle-ages. Ranking first in the manuscript tradition of the plays that comprised the Byzantine triad, Hecuba was naturally one of the earliest Greek dramas to become known to Renaissance scholars. As such, it met with widespread diffusion, and attained a high popularity, to which numerous translations and adaptations bear ample testimony. This success, though, is not to be accounted for solely on the basis of the vagaries of historical transmission. The case was rather that Hecubas depiction of gory violence and intellectually challenging debates satisfied early modern criticisms predilection for sensationalism (atrocitas) and didacticism (utilitas) in tragic poetry, features which were considered hallmarks of the genre. These aesthetic inclinations were perhaps to be expected from a public whose theatrical tastes had been informed almost exclusively by Senecan drama. What is more remarkable, from the viewpoint of the plays later reception, was the valorization of its structure as exhibitive of the literary virtue of varietas on precisely the same grounds that led to its condemnation by later critics for lack of unity. [1: On this subject, consult M. HEATH, Jure Principem Locum Tenet: Euripides' Hecuba, Bull. Inst. Class. St. 34, 1987, to which I am heavily indebted throughout this introductory section.]

Euripides play falls into a couple of readily distinguishable parts. The first one deals with Achilles demand for a sacrificial meed of honour, and Hecubas desperate, and ultimately failed, efforts to avert its fulfilment in the person of her daughter Polyxena. The second portion is dedicated to the treatment of the heroines successful venture to exact vengeance on the deceitful murderer of Polydorus, her last child and only male survivor of Priams line. The drama is not singular in its bipolarity, which resembles Sophocles diptych plays. Nevertheless, it poses even greater problems than these last with respect to its coherence[footnoteRef:2], at least on a particular reading of ancient literary theory, as that became crystallized in Aristotles Poetics. The Stagirite accords to plot () a place of paramount importance among the six formal parts of tragedy[footnoteRef:3], singling it out as the end to which the rest are ordained[footnoteRef:4]. A well-constructed plot is before all else a unified plot[footnoteRef:5], one that tops a double set of hurdles: causal continuity and completeness[footnoteRef:6]. In other words, the arrangement of the actions and events which make up the muthos should proceed through an organically connected series of initial, middle, and final stages[footnoteRef:7]. Aristotle explicitly rejects the sufficiency of either temporal or personal focus as means whereby to meet these criteria. A simple assortment of events that happened to befall a particular character on a specific period of time would therefore not qualify as plot[footnoteRef:8]. It follows from these stipulations that the economy of plays like, for instance, the Troades, is vitiated due to their dramatization of events which are only held together by chronological or personal focalization. On first sight, Hecuba appears to be equally open to this kind of censure, since its two constituent parts, although not unrelated, are not linked to each other by bonds of causal connection. [2: For a fanciful explanation that wants an original tragedy of Polyxena intended for private performance to have been amplified by the addition of Polymestors episode in order to satisfy the length requirements of major dramatic festivals, cf. Spranger, J. A. "The Problem of the Hecuba." Classical Quarterly (1927): 155-158. ] [3: ' (r. Poet. 1450a10).] [4: Cf. Ar. Poet. 1450a: , .] [5: The concept of dramatic unity receives a thorough treatment in M. HEATH, Unity in Greek Poetics, 1989. The reader is referred to this work for corroboration of this papers statements regarding literary theoretical matters.] [6: Cf . Ar. Poet. 1451a: ' , .] [7: Cf. Ar. Poet. 1450b26: . This statement of an analytical truth might as well have been excerpted from the philosophical dictionary of Metaphysics . Apparently, Aristotle thought that the number of plays with pell-mell action was large enough to necessitate an effort to hammer home this commonality.] [8: For the first requirement, cf. Ar. Poet. 1451a: , , ' . For the second, cf. the definition of tragedy as (1449b).]

Nevertheless, the above account does not exhaust what the Poetics have to say on the subject of unity. In his demand for organic relation of parts, Aristotle is reminiscent of Platos relevant remarks in the Phaedrus. The quasi-verbatim quotation of the latters biological analogy testifies to a relation of influence between the two works[footnoteRef:9]. However, a crucial difference catches the eye. The objects of organic arrangement are, in the case of Phaedrus, the parts of a text as a whole, whereas in the Poetics the elements of action only. This formulation allows implicitly for the possibility that a dramatic text may also aspire to the attainment of other objectives than the realization of the plot. Aristotle gives unambiguous expression to this point in connection with epic, approving of the digressory episodes epic poets have the liberty to incorporate along the main line of action. The fact that tragedians work in a genre of comparatively limited dimensions moderates, but does not preclude their ability to do likewise[footnoteRef:10]. It appears then that the Poetics statements concerning unity are amenable to the permissive construal Renaissance critics opted for in considering the episode of Polyxena as a generically legitimate digression[footnoteRef:11], which endows the play with welcome variety through its peculiar demands and effects. Neoclassicisms aversion to such diversions, on the other hand, may be said to arise from forcing an unduly narrow interpretation upon Aristotles account. [9: Compare r. Poet. 1450b35: to Pl. Phaedr. 264c1-5: , , , .] [10: Cf. Ar. Poet. 1456a: . , .] [11: Added ornandi et amplificandi causa. Cf. HEATH (1987), p. 42.]

However, it is difficult to avoid the impression that this solution smacks of artificiality, and stumbles upon the fact that it is counter-intuitive to identify an episode such as Polyxenas as a mere digression. Not only does this episode amount to roughly half of the play, it is also granted priority of place in the actual unfolding of events. Furthermore, the programmatic prologue spoken by Polydorus specter does not differentiate between the two episodes in terms of importance. The sacrifice of his sister and the discovery of his own corpse are treated on a par, as calamities of equal magnitude, destined to crown the heap of their mothers misfortunes. Spotlighting Hecuba as the real focus whereon the centrifugal elements of the plot verge may appear to violate Aristotelian strictures, but still remains the most probable conclusion to be reached on the basis of intratextual evidence. Art, according to Hermanns celebrated dictum, precedes aesthetics, and, according to their own testimony, the Poetics do not provide an uncommitted description, but a set of prescriptive rules geared towards the correct composition of successful tragedies[footnoteRef:12]. Aristotle does not shrink from holding up to criticism established authors for failing to stand up to his exacting demands. Euripides is a frequent target of negative of such negative assessment, since, despite being the most tragic of poets, his economy is often defective[footnoteRef:13]. It is, therefore, more prudent to pursue a policy that, while making room for shortcomings, will still try to argue the most charitable case for Hecuba, which implies that the thesis of personal focus will be adopted, but in a manner so qualified as to entail minimum infringements on classical literary theory. [12: This practical purpose, a characteristic that the Poetics hold in common with other exoteric works, like the Nicomachean Ethics, is very clearly implied in 1454a: ' . . heoretical analysis is seen as summarizing and clarifying in a systematic fashion the chance discoveries of artistic inspiration.] [13: Cf. Ar. Poet. 1453a: , , , a cavalier mixture between the spectators spontaneous approbation and the critics rather petty fault-finding.]

This raises the issue of whether Hecubas character undergoes any significant development in the course of the play. If any such evolution does indeed take place, the two parts may be said to achieve the desired unitary fusion on a higher level, as joint efficient causes of the change in question. Although general consensus remains a desideratum, the tendency of modern scholarship has consistently veered towards taking such a development for granted. Scholars locate its onset in different parts of the text: but regardless of whether it is considered to occur as early as when, her pleas to deliver Polyxena from imminent doom having foundered on Agamemnons intransigence, Hecuba abandons the argument from justice to curb the victorious warlords inexorable obstinacy by appealing to his amorous liaison with Cassandra, whereby he is tied with bonds of gratitude not only to his paramour, but also, by extension, to her kith and kin as well, or when, later on in the development of the plot, she receives the shattering news that her youngest sons corpse has been washed out on the sea-shore, the majority of readers are agreed upon the deteriorating direction this development is headed in. Not only has the brittle dame, who relied on her enslaved entourage for directing her frail gait, been by the time of the dramas denouement transmogrified into a vigorous orchestrator of a commonly exacted requital, brimming with self-confident initiative: this radical transmutation on the surface level of explicit action is deemed to reflect an undercurrent process of moral degeneration. The unrelenting accretion of calamities has evidently succeeded, so the argument goes, in bending the formerly upright ethical spine of the hunchback protagonist to the point of fracture, distorting her from her erstwhile nobility to a monstrous paradigm of vengeful wickedness. This downhill path towards the effacement of the heroines formerly superior traits is supposed to proceed gradually, through a series of intermediate stages. Whether these last do actually fit the proposed schema of demoralization is an issue whose discussion will be reserved for a subsequent section of this paper. For the time being, let us restrict ourselves to the observation that a surprisingly large number of commentators appears unable to resist the temptation of regarding Hecubas eventual transformation as furnishing conclusive proof of her dehumanization[footnoteRef:14]. On this reading, the mere assumption of a bestial form on the part of a human being would be sufficiently indicative of moral decline. The heroines exposure to a series of fatal blows has evoked in her a desire to outstrip her oppressors in violence. As a consequence, lower instincts have taken the better of her praiseworthy qualities. The surmise of ethical catastrophe is turned into certainty by the fact that the protagonist, who used once to occupy the pinnacle of social hierarchy, is portrayed as donning the appearance of such a lowly creature as the common dog. I intend here to shed some doubt on the validity of these claims, which are advanced with an air of confidence that bespeaks a readiness to substitute a contextual approach of the theme of revenge with the importation of anachronistic schemata, or, still worse, the expression of visceral responses of sentimentalistic malaise[footnoteRef:15]. As first part of my iconoclastic project, I propose to demolish the thesis regarding the allegedly negative connotations of Hecubas metamorphosis, by first exposing the shaky foundations its major premise is built upon. [14: Cf. Reckford, K. J. (1985) Concepts of Demoralization in the Hecuba, Directions in Euripidean Criticism, 118 for Hecubas final transformation into a howling bitch as an outward realization of the inward reeling back into the beast that she has already suffered.] [15: A characteristic selection of sample material: savagely inappropriate, invulnerable bestiality fiend incarnate, etc. Cf. Burnett, A. P. "Hekabe the Dog and Euripides Hekabe." Arethusa 27.2 (1994). 151, for further examples. Meridor, R., "Hecuba's Revenge Some Observations on Euripides' Hecuba." American Journal of Philology (1978), 28, also takes issue with the popular view in which Hecubas vengeance is mostly regarded as an odious act of fury performed by a devilish creature.]

Let us therefore embark upon our dissenting initiative by examining the symbolic function of animal transformation in classical drama. The Attic tragedians seem to have parted ways with the rigid compartmentalization of the mythical worlds denizens into the isolated fields of divine, human, and animal existence that informs Homers fabulous outlook. The poet who was later credited with laying the foundations of Greek religion seems to have come up with these water-tight distinction as a serviceable tool for locating the specific nature of the human predicament. The unbridgeable gap that yawns between the first two classes represents the unattainability of the bliss proper to the divine mode of existence by an ephemeral creature like man, a sorry condition that is counterbalanced by his privileged position over the members of the animal kingdom, which are harnessed in the service of his purposes and needs. Traffic between these stratified regions is strictly regulated: gods and men can certainly mingle in intercourse and even beget common progeny, but one will look in vain for deified humans or incarnated deities. When the dwellers of Olympus wish to veil their genuine identity they may exceptionally put on a screen of a subordinate species, but the alacrity and ease wherewith they discard their alias leaves little room for doubting the illusory nature of the whole venture. The ability to inflict or undergo a systematic exchange of appearances is reserved for peculiar exotic entities, which inhabit the fringe of this neatly divided universe, like the enchantress Circe and her male counterpart Proteus. Whereas tragedy adopted the tripartite Homeric framework, it departed significantly from epic in allowing for permanent and genuine trade of forms, as it was evidently all too eager to exploit the mechanisms metaphorical suggestiveness. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, contrary to the principle operative in the assumption we set out to dissolve, there is very scant evidence of animal transformations being meant to convey any sort of moral degeneration. What appears to rank foremost in the intentions of the poets, when they depict bestially transfigured characters, is the desire to communicate alterations of a different nature. A closer look at some relevant instances will suffice to bear out the truth of this point[footnoteRef:16]. Ios conversion to a bellowing cow is an apposite illustration of the unendurable suffering she has incurred as a result of attracting the lustful gaze of Zeus and earning herself the slighted Heras jealous odium. Still, her lapse from a happy state of care-free adolescence into the distressed status of a wandering rover, while having certainly smashed her mental serenity into a disorderly heap of anguished emotions, is not in any discernible way attended by a corresponding moral debasement. Hints of ethical degradation are similarly absent from the narrative surrounding Proknes and Philomelas later fortunes. Both sisters took literal wings in their effort to escape the pursuit of the Thracian king Tereus, who, after forcing himself upon his sister-in-law and mutilating her so as to avoid detection, had his own children butchered and served to his table by his spouse. The whole story abounds in criminal depravity, but, for yet another time, the transformation of the principal characters into birds seems to have been intended to carry across a vain attempt to flee away from the emotional agony that plagued perpetrators and victims alike: whereas the royal villains acts are downright despicable, and his wives mode of retaliation at best problematic, one can only harbor feelings of pitiful compassion for the violated Philomela, who, muted and incarcerated, finds the only way out of her plighted state by soaring on the feathers of a swallow. The fact that her eventual avifaction is a fate shared in common with her rapist and her perhaps too solicitous sister invites a reading of their nightingale and hoopoe avatars as similarly bereft of moralistic overtones. In light of these parallels, it is plain to see that Hecubas animalization does not, as is often rashly assumed, necessarily entail a preceding process of ethical deterioration. [16: For the examples that follow, I am indebted to Gall, D. (1997). Menschen, die zu Tieren werden: Die Metamorphose in der Hekabe des Euripides, Hermes, 396-412. ]

Yet surely, the proponents of the thesis under attack would retort, granted that a theriomorphic mutation is not an unfailing indicator of depravity, the specifically canine nature of the Trojan queens metamorphosis cannot but have been designed as a transparent metaphor for wicked perversion. At this point, we are obliged to concede that this suggestion is not entirely void of value, especially in view of the widespread use of the word dog as a term of abuse in antiquity. It is a well attested fact that, from the Homeric era onwards, likening a certain persons comportment to that of mans best friend was a particularly poignant form of insult. Nevertheless, this statement has to be qualified in two significant ways: first, the range of the doggish metaphor extends over a broad area that includes, but is not confined to, the subcategory of pejorative nuances. Often, the trope is meant to capture laudable traits such as maternal protectiveness and courageous perseverance. As an instance of the former semantic function, we may refer to one entry in the Simonidean catalogue of women, where the archaic lyricist draws a meticulous classification of female vice by assigning corresponding naturalistic labels to the objects of his misogynistic lampooning: in the course of the inventory we become introduced to the sea-like woman, whose tempestuous temper is compared to the ferocity of a bitch standing guard over her litter of little puppies. An example of the latter symbolic signification is furnished by the numerous episodes in the Odyssey where the eponymous hero exhorts himself to endurance of his present misfortunes by recalling the even harder ordeals he had successfully coped with in the past: confronted with the disgraceful spectacle of his disloyal servant maids consorting with the host of suitors that occupy his premises, Ulysses strikes his chest and bids his heart to be patient, for she has suffered even doggier () things in the past, harkening back to the cannibalistic consumption of his shipmates by Polyphemus. Even when the focus is restricted to the domain of offensive overtones, the canine insult is still found to be semantically manifold. The prismatic load of the affront radiates into a multiplicity of abusive shades, which target various, and perhaps discontinuous, defective traits. To begin with, attaching the libel dog to someone may pick out that persons reckless audacity: thus, when Athena shows herself recalcitrant in disobeying Zeus demand for neutrality and persists in bringing aid to her favorite Achaeans, the slighted father dispatches to her the winged herald Iris, who berates the rebellious goddess for behaving like a heedless bitch ( ). The slander may also be hurled against individuals who are insensitive to decorum, most often by exhibiting shameless greed. A case in point is found in the opening scenes of the Iliad, where Agamemnon and Achilles are embroiled in a hot altercation over their concubines. The foremost warrior of the Achaean army scolds the head chieftain for having the cowardly heart of a deer and the rapacious eyes of a dog, alluding to Agamemnons menace to have his hardly-won Chryseis forcibly extorted from him. In indulging this kind of behavior, the high commander evinces not only covetousness, but also disregard for the established social norms, which demanded that members of the nobility not infringe on each others rights. Being (dog-faced), is in fact one of the commonest slurs in Homer, which is not surprising in a culture whose ethical code is still shame- rather than guilt-oriented. Another canine feature which could be used as a metonymy for human misconduct was violent vindictiveness. Dogs are animals proverbially faithful to their masters, ever ready to fend off attacks against them and track down the wrongdoers. However, since this behavior is not grounded in a detached sense of justice, but, on the contrary, springs from ultimately serf-servings motives, dogs being dependently related to their owners, their inclination to exact vengeance for harm done to the latter can be metaphorically used to denote blind blood-thirstiness. In all probability, it was this metaphoric potential which dictated the attribution of canine form to the Erinyes, the ancient patrons of revenge. Their pursuit of Orestes under the guise of canine hallucinations showcases the ambiguous character of bitchy retaliation. As chthonic deities, these furious demons are bound to execute the command of the resentful Clytemnestra with the swiftness of unreflecting automata, sparing no time to consider the relative merits of Orestes matricide, itself perpetrated in retribution of his fathers treacherous murder. As incarnations of a guilt-ridden rumination which saps the strength of the oppressed sufferer, the Erinyes are naturally invested with the appearance of dogs that drain the blood of a pursued culprit. The enumeration of the vicious attitudes associated with the canine species may be concluded with a mention of a disease which, although particularly associated with them in its literal sense, was tropically used to censure a typically human misdemeanor. The term (rabid), was in antiquity used to pass judgement upon individuals who, growing oblivious to their privileged status as rational agents, fell prey to the urge of maniacal aggressiveness. The ravishing force of abandonment to the primordial instinctual apparatus is operative, for instance, in the concerted laceration of Pentheus by a band of frenzied Bacchantes in Euripides homonymous piece. Ignorant that the calf she is after is in reality her own son, Agave, leader of the frenetic mob of Dionysian worshippers, spurs her companions on to their dreary task by addressing them as swift hounds of Lyssa. In a world that placed so great a stock by the virtue of (temperance), letting slip the reins of self-control and handing oneself over to the grip of wild emotions was a fault to be severely branded, except when, as in the case of Dionysian worship, it formed part of a socially regulated mechanism which, by periodically letting off the steam of accumulated tension, ensured the long-term sovereignty of reason. When, therefore, a warrior like Hector is opprobriously styled a by his foes, the audience is invited to draw the conclusion that, at his opponents eyes, the reprimanded person exhibits an ignominiously intemperate violence, whose generic distinction from accepted forms of warlike prowess accounts for the existence of two martial deities in the Greek pantheon, Ares and Athena, correspondingly presiding over laudable and reprehensible forms of boldness in the battle-field. What results are there to be drawn from the concatenation of these disjoint semantic potentialities? Instead of accounting for the incongruous coexistence of positive and negative connotations by explaining away the latter as a cultural remnant of a bygone era, in which the dog was not yet a fully domesticated animal, inviting thereby reprehensive comparisons that, as ossified terms of abuse, survived into later periods by entering the formulaic arsenal of heroic epic, we had better explain the multivalence of the dog as a metaphor by reference to the liminal place it occupies as the animal most intimate to man: standing nearest than all members of the animal realm to the threshold that separates the categories of the savage and the civilized, the dog forms a familiar part of the human world without having completely divested its wild characteristics. The ensuing clash between the inclinations proper to its natural heredity and the expectations of its human environment accounts for the use of the dog-related metaphors for purposes of praise or stricture, according as to whether the animal is viewed as conforming or diverging from human-imposed norms. It is therefore plain to see that the metonymic value of the dog cannot be cashed out unequivocally[footnoteRef:17]. Any reading of Hecubas metamorphosis as a climactic end of a process of ethical collapse, far from illuminating the moral quality of her preceding acts, would itself stand in need of justification. I will therefore try, first, to pinpoint where exactly along the aforedescribed semantic spectrum Hecubas canifaction falls not in evaluative, but factual terms; in other words, being alert to the fact that the moral weight of any deed is ultimately determined by its contextual environment, I will temporarily refrain from assigning either a positive or a negative meaning to Hecubas transformation, and try to discover whether, by any good chance, there is any available external vantage point wherefrom a neutral look might be taken into it, and postpone the elucidation of its evaluative implications until after an independent scrutiny of the heroines actions earlier on in the play has been carried through. Fortunately, it turns out that such a disengaged point of view is indeed available, provided by Hecubas association with the goddess Hecate, in whose cult dogs played a major role. The two mythological figures are manifoldly related to each other: a salient connection is the common etymological root out of which their names sprouted. The traditional opinion that relates it to the adverb (afar, far off), and which gave occasion to imaginative misinterpretations like the one found in the entry dedicated to Hecuba by Suidas, according to which her name is shorthand for , has to be dismissed in favor of the linguistically sounder position, which discerns a kinship with the adjective (willing), which is also the genuine source of the Apollonian cultic epithets and . Etymological affinities aside, Hecuba and Hecate are associated by virtue of the common religious and mythical bonds that tie them with Apollo: Hecate was worshipped in Asia Minor as the female equivalent of the quiver-bearing god, occupying in this capacity the place reserved for his sibling Artemis in mainland Greece. On the other hand, it was Apollo, not Priam, who, on the authority of some ancient sources, had fathered Hector on the Trojan queen. In his Sack of Troy, Stesichorus also relates that Hecuba was safely transported by Hectors divine parent back to her indigenous place out of the midst of Ilions smoldering ruins. The accumulative effect of these resemblances invites the hypothesis that Hecuba emerged as an independent mythological character in her own right out of the autonomization of one of Hecates alternative names or cultic titles. If this suggestion is not off the mark, it would constitute a further instantiation of a quite common process, in which former divinities are gradually deprived of their privileged status, and end up by fading into heroes or heroines. One is also tempted to discern in Hecuba the elderly homologue of Hecate, following the schema followed by Robert Graves throughout his acclaimed study of Greek mythology, where the female constituents of the Greek pantheon are classified in triadic groups, whose components correspond to adolescent, mature, and aged manifestations of a common underlying archetypal nature. Now, Hecate was closely related to the canine species. In some depictions, she is theriomorphically represented as bearing a dogs head[footnoteRef:18], while she ordinarily received sacrificial oblations of puppies at crossroads. The intimate connection of this goddess of magic to the animals and locations in question is evident in cultic epithets like , , and [footnoteRef:19] the most celebrated description of her canine entourage in Greek literature occurring in Theocritus second idyll, where the patroness of spells comes to relieve the distress of the abandoned Simaetha, who invokes her aid against the infidel Delphis, her epiphany announced by a pack of baying dogs, who disrupt the stillness of the surrounding night with their howling. [17: For the similarly multiple symbolic value of Hecubas metamorphosis, cf. Keyser, P. T. (1997). "Agonizing Hekabe." Colby Quarterly 33, no. 2, 134.] [18: Cf. Hesych. s.v. : .] [19: For a purview of Hecates relevant cultic epithets, cf. Burnett, A. P. (1994). Hekabe the Dog and Euripides Hekabe, Arethusa, 27(2), 155.]

Having established the relation that binds Hecuba to Hecate, let us proceed to find out whether the canine-like Asiatic goddess bore certain peculiar characteristics which might elucidate the meaning of her heroic analogues eventual transformation into a dog. Initially, we may refer to the function of Hecate as divine avengeress, which dovetails neatly with her nature as a chthonic goddess. After the fashion of the Erinyes[footnoteRef:20], Hecates artistic depictions often present her as bearing torches, with which to scorch the guilty conscience of criminals, while literary sources help to narrow down the scope of her responsibilitys domain to the vindication of the and , i.e. those who had suffered a premature or violent death. This specific association also flows naturally from Hecates role as patron of magic: the spirits of the unjustly departed were considered to harbor an accumulated feeling of resentment, which, channeled to the service of the conjurer who succeeded in harnessing the restless dead to his will, made them ideal agents in the execution of malevolent magical errands. An additional attribute of this divinity that should be mentioned in this connection is her paradigmatic fertility. Presiding over crossroads, spots that denote transition, Hecate stands guard over rites of passage[footnoteRef:21] like, in her capacity as , the one from childhood to adolescence, including the crossing of the notional boundary that separates life inside and outside the maternal womb. The plethora of breasts that covered from top to bottom the cultic statue of the Ephesian Artemis, a deity which, as we have already had occasion to note, may be regarded as the Hellenized counterpart of this Asiatic goddess, brought out this characteristic in a strongly picturesque and vivid mode[footnoteRef:22]. A juxtaposition of these dominant features of Hecate with the figure of Hecuba as portrayed in Euripides play demonstrates a marked resemblance. Now and again throughout the play, particular attention is drawn to the noble captives exceptional fecundity: as the emissary of the Greek army remarks, in an apostrophe of poignant sympathy, the extraordinary number of Hecubas offspring, coupled with their outstanding virtuous qualities, as demonstrated lately by Polyxenas demeanor at the prospect of death, has ironically served only to render the suffering of the now orphaned mother even more heart-rending. As for her avenging role, it not only constitutes the backbone of the plays second half, but is also directed to set right the wrong inflicted upon Polydorus, a prepubescent victim who met his demise under especially dismal circumstances, details that justify his full inclusion in the class of and . These parallels enable us to draw the conclusion that, on a purely factual level, Hecubas canifaction represents the reduction of her personality to the conflated combination of two shades of the connotative spectrum thaw was outlined above, namely, those of the protective mother and the wrathful agent of requital. Nevertheless, unless this identification be further specified, it will entail a perplexing blurring of the limit that distinguishes the positively colored denotative field from its negative complement. Since, however, the moral charge of any action can only be determined by an examination of the context it is set in, the task of assigning an ethical value to Hecubas actions in as archetypal incarnation of maternal retaliation, can only pass through their consideration against the background provided by the plot, as well as contemporary attitudes that governed the appraisal of retributive punishment. [20: For which Hecate is a good associate according to Burnett, A. P. (1994), Hekabe the Dog and Euripides Hekabe. Arethusa, 27(2), 156, where an examination is also contained of her cultic epithets and .] [21: Which accounts for cultic epithets like and . Compare the Dinners of Hekate, offered at the goddess at each new moon (Burnett, A. P. (1994), Hekabe the Dog and Euripides Hekabe. Arethusa, 27(2), 115).] [22: For an etymology of from the verb , (one who is swelling in generation), cf. Burnett, A. P. (1994), Hekabe the Dog and Euripides Hekabe. Arethusa, 27(2), 151-164.]

In the view of some interpreters, Hecubas overarching concern to insulate her children against exterior harm has carried her away to actions that betray contempt for established forms of decorum: this is a first step in a process of alleged moral deterioration that will culminate in her eventual transformation into a paradigmatically brazen animal. These worries are centered on the invocation of Cassandras status as Agamemnons concubine in order to secure the active assistance, or at least discreet connivance of the Greek field-marshal in the concoction of a scheme against Polymestors life. The suggestion about the morally suspicious[footnoteRef:23] character of this plea is supposedly corroborated by Hecubas own aside remark, to the effect that, in advancing this argument, she parts ways with reasoning based on the claims of justice (), to avail herself of the all-efficacious appeal of persuasion (). n resorting to this expedient, so the degenerative reading goes, Hecuba adopts, under the strain of her circumstances, the defective attitude she had earlier decried in the person of Odysseus, who in her eyes stood as a typical representative of the detested class of sycophantic demagogues, ever ready to disregard morality in their effort to accomplish their self-serving objectives by catering to the desires of the complacent public. This attempt to denigrate Hecubas persuasive policy argument fails to carry conviction on many grounds: to begin with, it turns a blind eye to the fact that the protagonists strategy, in contrast to the self-seeking concerns of the censured politicians it purportedly conforms to, is designed to promote the welfare of a person that, albeit kindred to the entreating person, in nevertheless distinct from it. Were it the case that Hecubas argument violated ethical norms, this dose of altruistic motivation would on its own suffice to palliate its immorality. Upon closer examination, however, the invocation of Agamemnons indebtedness to his princely mistress, far from constituting a veiled pandering transaction, that would reduce Hecuba to the status of a go-between that prostitutes her own daughter, emerges as being completely in accord with contemporary beliefs surrounding sexual relationships. In particular, the fundamentally asymmetrical bond of erotic gratification was regarded to imply a legitimate demand of recompense to the satisfying party. The ancients contractarian approach towards sexual relationships stands out more clearly in the case of pederasty, possibly on account of the fact that the passive party was considered to derive no pleasure from the activity: the spontaneity with which Pelops reprimands Poseidon for neglecting to pay back the (favor) owed to him as his erstwhile minion can only be paralleled as a counterpart to Hecubas line of thought by the humorous severity with which Aristophanes consigns to hellish torments those who stole boys of their promised reward after the performance of the act. An even more potent consideration in the proposed effort to absolve Hecubas argumentation from hints of moral degradations has to do with the fact that it forms yet another instance of the motif of sexual acquiescence, whose frequent recurrence in Greek war-plays has failed to elicit similar prudish outbursts of censorious superciliousness. The pattern in question revolves around captured women who come to terms with the loss of their liberty, expecting that a tacit submission to their overlords rule, combined with the production of male progeny, will contribute to the elevation of their servile status. Tecmessa, a daughter of the vanquished king Teuthras, who fell to the lot of Ajax after the pillaging of her native city, may be cited as an example: her mild endurance of servitudes yoke, combined with the birth of Eurysaces, have raised the spear-earned () concubine, in the eyes both of her master Ajax and the audience, to a position hardly distinguishable from that of a lawful wife, an impression she apparently shares in herself, as her anxious solicitation over the welfare of her bedfellow evinces. From a sociological point of view, this behavior may be seen as affording a structural counterpart to the ravishing of the non-combatant population by the victorious troops: the unfailing regularity with which the phenomenon of post-combat rape appears in ancient recording of battle aftermaths betrays a studied intention on the part of the winners to bring their victory to full measure by sullying the blood-line of the defeated, implicitly adding the future generation to the list of their war-trophies: the oppressed are thus granted the opportunity to retaliate by infecting the genealogical succession of their masters. Implementing this strategy of infiltration, Hecuba manages, by interspersing her argument with carefully worded statements, to extort from Agamemnon a tacit promotion of her daughter to a legitimate spouses rank: it is not a foreigner whose unjust murder he is entreated to avenge, but a , a relative by marriage. The process whereby Hecuba effects this goal may be styled as indirect, or even sly, but the final outcome, by conferring a quasi-legal status to the relationship between Agamemnon and Cassandra, could not be further removed from treating her as a sexual commodity to be sold out for the sake of ulterior purposes, as the proponents of the degenerative approach would have it. By the same token, Hecubas comments on the irresistible constraint of persuasion do not necessarily denote a dismissal of the merits of justice: all they need to mark is a rhetorical transition to an argument ad hominem, aimed to balance the universal reasoning of the foregoing part with arguments that resonate on a more personal level. [23: According to Reckford, K. J. (1985), Concepts of Demoralization in the Hecuba, Directions in Euripidean Criticism, 119, the mention of Cassandra is terribly indecent. Kirkwood, Gordon M. (1947) "Hecuba and Nomos" Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, pp. 61-68. American Philological Association, 66, states that by the sordid appeal to Cassandra Hecuba flings Nomos aside.]

The popular stance that regards the actual exaction of revenge as indicative of moral decadence is similarly flawed. The paramount argument in the interpretative arsenal of those who subscribe to this view reasons to the effect that, blinded by her vindictive fury, Hecuba allows the current of her vindictive rage to sweep Polymestors innocent children along with their culpable parent[footnoteRef:24]. No more conclusive proof could be found of the formerly meek and gentle queens moral deterioration than this descent to the level of her knavish wrong-doers, illustrated by her final transformation into an iconically bloodthirsty animal[footnoteRef:25]. Once again, the neglect of the plays immediate historical context seems to have obstructed the critical gaze from penetrating into the genuine meaning of Hecubas canifaction, a failure whose reverberations would disturb the unity of the protagonists character, compromising the plays conformance to the requirements of classical literary theory. This unwelcome effect disappears if Hecubas revenge is properly situated in its contemporary ideological context. At the outset, it is to be noted that the unease which a number of interpreters display in the face of the sight of Hecuba paying Polydorus with the same coin, although understandable in the case of critics nurtured in a culture whose attitude against revenge has been informed by the influence of Christianitys preaching of forgiveness, is utterly out of place if taken to capture the reaction of the plays original audience. The archaic mentality evident Solons boastful pride on being able to benefit his friends an harm his enemies, had survived deep into the fifth century, and had not yet given way under the radical revision of traditional ethics by Socrates, whose advocacy of refraining from retribution of injustice was for long afterwards regarded as one of the most impressive paradoxes associated with his name. Even in the fourth century, Aristotle was to brand, in the course of formulating his mean-based ethics, a nonchalant acceptance of harm as a vice by defect. In the light of this intellectual background, the act of Hecuba emerges as imposed by current ethical norms[footnoteRef:26]. The swelling of list of the proscribed by the inclusion of Polymestors children is similarly not a gratuitous extension of vengeful fury. On the contrary, it is necessary if the revenge is to accomplish its set goal, since, unless Polydorus is orphaned of his children, he will not experience the same degree of anguish as the one he has doled out. The murder of children may be jarring to modern sensitivities, but might have appeared quite natural to the ancient audience, whose mentality was familiar with the idea of inherited guilt: a person was not considered as a self-included individual, but as an organic extension of his forebears, liable to be visited with punishment in requital of their transgressions, and obliged to exact vengeance on their behalf: this tight connection is eloquently described in the Choephori by a metaphor that compares Orestes and Electra, the surviving descendants of the Atreidai, as floating corks that prevent the net of their clan from sinking into oblivion. After all, were Euripides interested in evoking pity by the description of the childrens murder at the hands of Hecubas avenging hand, he would have assigned more space to their characterization: as things stand, they are mute persons, instrumental characters who merit no particular attention for their own sake. In this case too, we may safely conclude that the degenerative reading collapses under the weight of a historically informed interpretation. [24: The arguments of the critics who subscribe to the view that Hecubas revenge is terrible and subhuman for involving the killing of Polymestors innocent sons are refuted by Keyser, Paul T., "Agonizing Hekabe." Colby Quarterly 33, no. 2 (1997), 128. ] [25: On the contrary, Meridor, R. "Hecuba's Revenge Some Observations on Euripides' Hecuba." American Journal of Philology (1978), 29, contends that Hecubas action is compatible with 5th cent. concepts of justice. The punishments legal character is underlined by the use of expressions like . Cf. o.c. 31.] [26: Meridor, R., "Hecuba's Revenge Some Observations on Euripides' Hecuba." American Journal of Philology (1978), 29 believes that Hecuba was doing her duty, since Polydorus family was obliged to obtain satisfaction for his foul murder. In this case, revenge is not only permissible, but required. Cf. o.c. 35.]

At this point, let us gather the threads of the preceding argument into a conclusive knot. The plays division into two parts has created the impression of a gap that compromises the plays unity, thereby diminishing its aesthetic value. This defect has been supposed to find its remedy in the personal focus provided by the protagonists moral deterioration, an effect that comes as the combined result of Polyxenas sacrifice and the discovery of Polydorus murder. As the foregoing discussion set out to prove, this reading is based on unwarranted premises, and is not corroborated by Hecubas transformation, which is open to an innocuous interpretation that chimes in with contemporary ideological setting. However, this conclusion is not meant to negate the truth of our initial supposition, according to which the plays two halves are in fact united by a personal focus on Hecubas character, but only purports to dispel the interpretation that argues in favor of a deteriorating process, a supposition that would run contrary to the Aristotelian injunctions that prescribe unity and nobility of character for a successful dramas protagonists. In our hypothesis, the events that transpire during the two scenes combine to produce not a change, but a crystallization of the heroines character, by reducing her personality to its dominant features of maternal love and adherence to the traditional concept of retaliatory justice. Under a general description, these traits are both laudable, and therefore satisfy the Aristotelian requirement of moral uprightness. However, even as in the case of Antigones family loyalty[footnoteRef:27], Creons unflinching patriotism, and Oedipus stubborn pursuit of truth, Hecubas defining characteristics can potentially lead to the its bearers ruin if carried to their extremes. Attic tragedy is particularly prone to the celebration of such heroic extremity, which is the condition that enables the production of the two cathartic effects: fear and pity at the sight of the reversal experienced by the lofty-minded sufferer. At the same time, the features that define Hecubas character are not unsullied by the peculiarly tragic error: absent this element of fault, the tragic protagonist would be an unblemished individual, the spectacle of whose downfall, instead of evoking compassionate apprehension, would elicit feelings of repugnance. In the case of Hecuba, the Aristotelian may be said to reside in the fact that her ethical outlook is informed by an attachment to relational goods, in particular interpersonal relationships. The conceptual framework of her morality consists in a group of concentric spheres, which expand from the center of kinship by blood, through relationships established by marriage, to bonds formed by social gestures such as supplication[footnoteRef:28]. In the course of the play, the buttresses of the ideological schema through which Hecuba orders her environment collapse one after the other, leaving her in a state of marginalization. Her entreaties are repeatedly rebuffed, first by Odysseus, and then by Agamemnon. The invocation of the quasi-marital obligations of the Achaean chief towards her family is only partially successful, failing as it does to secure his active support. As a result of these successive blows, the social space in which Hecuba can lead a recognizably human life progressively narrows, until it shrinks to the primitive domain of her nuclear family. When her last resort is also laid under siege, the entrenched queen springs to its defense with ferocious resolution. In this connection, it is worthy to note that Hecuba finds the treachery of Polymestor much more painful than the intransigence of Odysseus and Agamemnon, a fact that contributes significantly to the elucidation of her worldview. Hecuba tries to enmesh the Greek chieftains in the thongs of reciprocal obligation ()[footnoteRef:29] that forms the cement of relationships between friends (), by appealing to sacrosanctity of suppliants and family relations. However, the eventual failure of these attempts falls short of bringing about her downfall: the fact that her masters are committed to the interest of their own group, whose interest outweighs any obligation they may owe her, does not seem to evade her[footnoteRef:30]. This recognition accounts for the fact that she can bear their rejection with relative equanimity. But as soon as she finds out that she has been betrayed by a member of her own group, Hecubas moral world is shaken to its foundations. Unlike Agamemnon and Odysseus, Polymestor is a barbarian, who is further tied to Hecuba by the ties of hospitality ()[footnoteRef:31]. is desertion therefore deals a strong blow to Hecubas unflinching commitment to the heroic shame-morality, reducing to shambles her world. When the royal captive tries to bring back together these shattered pieces, the only pattern she disposes in her restorative effort is the one afforded by the relational ethical paradigm she adhered to throughout her life. But the execution of its directives gives rise to an ominous spectacle. In proper Nietzschean fashion, Hecuba has, by staring into the abyss of Polymestors betrayal, assumed some of its characteristics. The blood-besplattered look of the murderer, whose shameless eyes have been gouged out, in retribution of his contempt for , the notion that lies at the kernel of heroic morality, seem to be sinisterly reflected on the fiery gaze of the hound that is soon going to leap from a ships mast and plunge into the sea. This resemblance is not intended, according to the reading here promoted, to imply that Hecuba has, in her effort to avenge her dead son, infected by the same kind of immorality as that of her wrong-doers[footnoteRef:32]. But it does denote, as must have become already clear by the preceding discussion, that, without becoming wicked in any sense, Hecuba has been reduced, by the failure of her fellow men to keep up their side of the moral contract she steadfastly remains faithful to, to the subhuman existence of a marginalized avenging mother. In conformity to the demands of classical literary theory, the only change that takes place in the play is the tragic , the lapse from prosperity to suffering. This lapse, in the case of Hecuba, lies in her moral disillusionment, which leaves her in the solitary state of a bereaved, vindictive mother[footnoteRef:33], so pointedly captured by her metamorphosis into a flame-eyed hound. [27: Points of correspondence between Hecuba and Antigone are listed by Kovacs, D. (1987) The heroic muse: studies in the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides (Vol. 2), 72.] [28: Supplication is, according to Keyser, P. T. "Agonizing Hekabe." Colby Quarterly 33, no. 2 (1997) 137, the only means that saves imperiled female characters like Medea, Andromache and Hermione from complete disempowerment. ] [29: One of the plays frequent motifs according to Adkins, A. W. (1966). Basic Greek Values in Euripides' Hecuba and Hercules Furens, The Classical Quarterly (New series), 16(02), 193.] [30: Adkins, A. W. (1966). Basic Greek Values in Euripides' Hecuba and Hercules Furens, The Classical Quarterly (New series), 16, 196, supports not only that it would be not to honour ones deads, but that Hecuba is convinced by the standards of competitive , according to which those beyond a group have no rights at all. Compare Kovacs, D. (Ed.). (1987). The heroic muse: studies in the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides, 81-83: the anachronistic portrayal of the Greek dignitaries as democrats stresses the distance that separates them from Hecuba as representative of an obsolete despotic order of aristocratic values, on account of which Hecuba cannot be Odysseus genuine .] [31: Which makes his crime all the more revolting. Cf. Stanton, G. R. (1995). Aristocratic Obligation in Euripides'" Hekabe". Mnemosyne, 28.] [32: Cf. Reckford, K. J. (1985), Concepts of Demoralization in the Hecuba, Directions in Euripidean Criticism, 124, for the suggestion the Hecuba has been brought down to the level of her oppressors.] [33: Cf. Keyser, P. T. "Agonizing Hekabe." Colby Quarterly 33, no. 2 (1997), 134, 139: Hecuba has lost all that makes life human by the loss of city, man, and children.]