In Euripides’ Hecuba, violence attempts to justify itself by rewriting or ignoring reason. In the violent world of Hecuba, all fail to heed her version of logic. Hecuba’s rhetoric fails to persuade Odysseus to release her daughter from execution. Furthermore, she convinces Agamemnon to summon Polymestor not with her pleas but by bribing him with her daughter Cassandra, his concubine. Lastly, violence shows itself to trump reason as it corrupts Hecuba as she takes vengeance on Polymestor. Hecuba makes a logical heart-felt argument to free her daughter from being Achilles sacrifice, but Odysseus, a man of war, ignores it. First, she rationally points out Polyxena’s innocence as “she never injured [Achilles] -not once (285).” She states that
…show more content…
She kneels before him and makes an elaborate speech begging for justice that Agamemnon must “keep the law” and punish Polymestor for murdering her son, Polydorus (844). She also begs for pity pointing out “I am a slave without strength” and that Agamemnon should give her compassion (839). Yet none of this impacts Agamemnon who tries to pull away. He, a conqueror, stays unmoved by Hecuba’s pleas, which would have convinced a rational emotional person. Thus violence changes reason as the pitiful are now to be ignored. What ultimately sways him to “plot the murder of Thrace’s King” is Cassandra, his concubine and Hecuba’s daughter (905-906). Despite Agamemnon saying “I do have pity” and “I want for the gods’ sake to help somehow,” he agrees with Hecuba only because of his war prize (899, 900). Because Agamemnon gains Cassandra through war, he must convince himself that she is worth all that pain and suffering to live with himself. Therefore, further terrible deeds such as betraying his friend, Polymestor, are worth the price of Cassandra. Here, violences alters reason to justify selling out a friend. Additionally, Agamemnon points out “the army must not take the notion” that he is helping the murder of Polymestor (903-904). This turns the table on master and slave as Agamemnon, the king, is subjugated to the opinion of his men while Hecuba, a slave, freely pursues her revenge. This role reversal could …show more content…
She makes a compelling case against Polymestor pointing out flaws in his argument about whether the murder of Polydorus is justified. Polymestor argues that he killed Polydorus as a favor to the greeks because Polydorus “would regroup the trojans and rebuild their home” (1216). Hecuba logically disproves that. Since Polymestor kills Polydorus only after troy falls, he is not on the Greek’s side but rather on the winning side. Furthermore, if he is a true friend to the Greeks, he should have given the gold to them instead of keeping it for himself. Therefore, Hecuba logically proves that Polymestor kills Polydorus for the money without justification and “that a righteous cause is always fertile soil for righteous words (1330-1331).” Essentially, Hecuba’s reason for vengeance is just, so she has ample reason to prove it. However, the justification of Polymestor’s punishment, the murder of his two sons, is questionable. When talking about his grief, “my children gone, my eyes made blind,” Hecuba merely brushes it off saying “Why not be pleased. I have my revenge (1351-1352).” All other times when Hecuba is right such as her talks with Odysseus and Agamemnon, she creates a long moving case with evidence and emotion that should sway any normal person, but this time her justification for the murder of two boys is merely one line. This indicates by the lack
She kneels before him and makes an elaborate speech begging for justice that Agamemnon must “keep the law” and punish Polymestor for murdering her son, Polydorus (844). She also begs for pity pointing out “I am a slave without strength” and that Agamemnon should give her compassion (839). Yet none of this impacts Agamemnon who tries to pull away. He, a conqueror, stays unmoved by Hecuba’s pleas, which would have convinced a rational emotional person. Thus violence changes reason as the pitiful are now to be ignored. What ultimately sways him to “plot the murder of Thrace’s King” is Cassandra, his concubine and Hecuba’s daughter (905-906). Despite Agamemnon saying “I do have pity” and “I want for the gods’ sake to help somehow,” he agrees with Hecuba only because of his war prize (899, 900). Because Agamemnon gains Cassandra through war, he must convince himself that she is worth all that pain and suffering to live with himself. Therefore, further terrible deeds such as betraying his friend, Polymestor, are worth the price of Cassandra. Here, violences alters reason to justify selling out a friend. Additionally, Agamemnon points out “the army must not take the notion” that he is helping the murder of Polymestor (903-904). This turns the table on master and slave as Agamemnon, the king, is subjugated to the opinion of his men while Hecuba, a slave, freely pursues her revenge. This role reversal could …show more content…
She makes a compelling case against Polymestor pointing out flaws in his argument about whether the murder of Polydorus is justified. Polymestor argues that he killed Polydorus as a favor to the greeks because Polydorus “would regroup the trojans and rebuild their home” (1216). Hecuba logically disproves that. Since Polymestor kills Polydorus only after troy falls, he is not on the Greek’s side but rather on the winning side. Furthermore, if he is a true friend to the Greeks, he should have given the gold to them instead of keeping it for himself. Therefore, Hecuba logically proves that Polymestor kills Polydorus for the money without justification and “that a righteous cause is always fertile soil for righteous words (1330-1331).” Essentially, Hecuba’s reason for vengeance is just, so she has ample reason to prove it. However, the justification of Polymestor’s punishment, the murder of his two sons, is questionable. When talking about his grief, “my children gone, my eyes made blind,” Hecuba merely brushes it off saying “Why not be pleased. I have my revenge (1351-1352).” All other times when Hecuba is right such as her talks with Odysseus and Agamemnon, she creates a long moving case with evidence and emotion that should sway any normal person, but this time her justification for the murder of two boys is merely one line. This indicates by the lack