20 James T. Lees, 



defendant's life is at stake, extend through nearly the whole 

 of the prjaa. First, Helen endeavors to shift the responsi- 

 bility for the evils consequent upon her marriage to Paris 

 back to the parents of her Trojan husband. Then she main- 

 tains that Kypris is responsible for her actions, and intro- 

 duces a sophistic argument in her defence. By her elopement 

 with Paris she maintains that Greece was rescued from fall- 

 ing into the hands of the barbarians. In the last division of 

 the TTtcTTet? she introduces and answers a plausible argument 

 which may be advanced by her opponent. Her p/^o-t? pre- 

 sents several distinct cases of irpoKaTaXrj^Irt,^;. In the e7rL\oyo<i 

 she turns directly to Menelaos, whom she addresses as hus- 

 band, and makes an appeal for justice. 



The f)rjai<; of Hekabe in reply is in harmony with the pas- 

 sionate nature of the aged ex-queen of Troy. She plunges 

 at once " in medias res." Passing over the first argument 

 of Helen, which is in fact so ridiculous as to be no argument 

 at all, she first answers the weakest argument, which her 

 opponent had shrewdly placed in the middle of her pr]cri<i. 

 Of this reply Aristotle (Rhet. HI, 17, 15) says, rj-^aro irpoy- 

 Tov Tov evrjOeardrov. She then takes up and answers each 

 of Helen's arguments, and in the i7rL\oyo<i addressing Mene- 

 laos, as Helen had done, urges him to act in a manner worthy 

 of himself. 



By comparing the arguments of Helen with Gorgias' Enco- 

 mion, we find some very interesting coincidences. In v. 

 924 fg. Helen says : 



eKpive rpiaaov ^evyo'i oSe rpcMV Oeoiv . 

 Kot riaWaSo? jxev rjv WXe^dvhpw 86ai(; 

 ^l^pv^l crrpaTi]yovpd^ 'EXXaS' e^aviardvai, 

 ' Hpa 6 virkcryjcT' ^ h.aiaS l^vpcoTrrjii &" 6pov<; 

 [rvpavvlS' e^etv, et a<f>€ Kpiveiev Hapi?]. 

 KuTrpt? Se TovfMov etSo? eKTrayXov/jLevrj 

 Scoaecv virea-x^er, el ^ea? vTrepSpd/xoi 

 KaWet. TOV evdevS' (09 e^^c aKe'yfrac \oyov . 

 viKa i\.v7rpi<; Bed. 



386 



