262 Efi Papadodima
of Greek lawfulness or superior morality is massively weakened by Hermione’s overall
conduct, notably her intention to deceive and harm a suppliant (160–2; cf. 246–8 and
427–9 with 567–71), and her luxurious lifestyle, which she associates with freedom of
speech and authority (147–53, 166–8). In fact, she and other Greek characters such
as Helen and Clytemnestra are presented as having adopted Troy’s (often idealized
or exaggerated) wealthy lifestyle (on which see Eurip.Electra315–18, 998–1003,
Orestes 1110–14, 1426–36,Trojan Women 993–7, 1021–5, 1107–9, and Miller
1997: 153–87, 193–8). As with her father, Hermione too is reluctant to settle the
issue through trial, as Andromache requests (e.g., 567–8). At the same time, the play’s
anti-Spartan rhetoric and the conflict between Menelaus and Peleus about the very
question of who Greece’s enemy is significantly complicate a rigid dichotomy between
Greece and Asia, as well as the notion of an inevitable mutual hostility between these
two worlds (see also, Allan 2000: 270–1).
Even in subtler cases, anti-barbarian aphorisms frequently come across as ineffective
and arbitrary. Odysseus inHecubaresponds to the queen’s skilful arguments against the
sacrifice of Polyxena by accusing barbarians of ingratitude and failure to honor their own
ancestors and heroes (328–31) (see Buxton 1982: 175–6). Agamemnon in the same
play treats the killing of guests as a barbarian trademark (1247–9) in connection to the
Thracian Polymestor, who has violated fundamental values, such as respecting guests and
honoring friends, common to both Achaeans and Trojans (Segal 1990: 109–31 and Kon-
stan 2006: 61–5). In both cases, however, the Achaean leaders’ sweeping denunciations
are largely unsustainable. Hecuba’s course of action is motivated precisely by her desire
to protect and honor her daughter and dead son, respectively, while the Trojan female
community frequently commemorates their dead heroes (cf. 383–7). Polymestor him-
self, though not expressing remorse and being on the whole very poorly depicted, appears
fully aware of his misconduct (which is motivated by greed rather than an ethnic habit),
and attempts to manipulate the enmity between Achaeans and Trojans as a means for jus-
tifying his crime (1175–7). Agamemnon, on the other hand, though seemingly shocked
by the barbarian world’s transgressions (see Mossman 1995: 132), has participated in
an act of supreme cruelty, the sacrifice of a suppliant–captive of war (260–1), an act of
human sacrifice for which no sufficient moral justification is offered and which is char-
acterized by Hecuba as unheard of, and foreign to Trojan standards (cf.Trojan Women
39–40, 265–7, 628). Thus, there is an underlying correspondence between these two,
otherwise significantly different, deeds (stealthy guest-killing and public human sacri-
fice), as suggested by the very way in which they are perceived and described (notice 260
with 1247).
Barbarians are also spoken of as subjects rather than free citizens on account of their
despotic regimes (e.g.,Helen273–6,Children of Heracles423–4; cf. Eurip.Suppliants
399–456). Less frequently, they are described as destined to being the Greeks’ slaves (IA
1400–1; cf. Aristotle’sPolitics1252b5–9, 1255a28–1255b4). The latter claim, how-
ever, is problematic. Agamemnon, who is the chief spokesperson of such views and who,
moreover, presents himself as the liberator of Greece (IA1273–5; cf. 1383–4), is repeat-
edly spoken of as, or compared to, a slave (450, 511–14, 1012, 1269–72; cf. 16–20 and
Hecuba864–9), while also being accused of immoderate love for authority, lack of sound
judgment, and questionable motives with respect to the Trojan War (337–75, 1194–5).
The polarity between slave and free is frequently not clear-cut (Ebbott 2005: 368).