The Three Faces of Helen
Helen the Adulteress: The Defense makes its case
For over 2,500 years, Helen has shouldered the blame for the Trojan War. But is that really the case? Priam, the aged king of Troy, denied it. Why then, despite some defenders, has the belief in her culpability been so persistent and so vehement? This second installment reviews and prosecution’s main argument and examines the case for Helen’s innocence. The question of the Unity (which I describe in my previous essay) is again raised: is it influencing how we view Helen — even how the Iliad is translated? Did Helen and Paris actually elope? The topic of dynastic marriage in the late Bronze age is touched upon to cast light on this issue. Lastly, I briefly consider that if Helen is not at fault, who could be?
Helen’s controversial character and explores her nature as a goddess of ancient origin, the significance of her twin brothers, Kastōr and Poludeukēs (themselves ancient deities), what is behind her propensity for martial strife and being abducted, and her (perhaps unexpected) connection with Cassandra, the beautiful, cursed Trojan seer.
References are indicated by brackets [1] but not linked (due to the current limitations of Substack when importing from MS Word files). Explanatory footnotes are linked. All works cited are listed at the end of the final installment.
Keywords: Helen of Troy, Helen of Sparta, Helen’s eidōlon, Helen in the Iliad, Helen in the Cyclic poems, the Sun Maiden, Bronze Age Anatolian Conflicts, Alaksandu of Wilusa.
Acknowledgements: I am deeply indebted to Cynthia Gralla of Royal Roads University for her kind assistance and support in the creation of this work, including help with research, excellent editorial suggestions and many insightful comments. I also received much-needed help and encouragement from Eric Luttrell of Texas A&M, which was indispensable to formulating my arguments and correcting my unfounded suppositions. They have saved me from many embarrassing errors. Those that remain are solely my own.
Helen the Adulteress: The Defense makes its case
To consider why the Sun Maiden appears in the story, we should first confront the question of Helen eloping with Paris. Did it happen or could she have married him, formally and legally? The consensus since ancient times has been that she and Paris eloped and any marriage after the fact lacked legitimacy. Dio Chrysostom is a rare ancient voice contesting this belief, and how serious he was is questionable. His views have not made much impact on Homeric scholarship. There was, however, also an account in Herodotus of Paris rightfully marrying Helen, and some historians have taken the possibility seriously.1
Dynastic marriages were a crucial component of diplomacy in the Bronze Age, and there is precedent for them being a cause for war if they failed. Around 1230 BC, Ammistamru II, king of Ugarit, married the daughter of Benteshina, king of Amurru. The marriage was a diplomatic arrangement to strengthen the alliance between the two Hittite vassal states. However, something went badly wrong and the princess was sent back to Amurru. The text of the divorce said only she sought to “harm” her husband. Since we can assume the “harm” was reputational, not physical, she must have broken some important behavioral code, perhaps an affair? Whatever it was, Ammistamru then decided – after he’d exiled her – that he wanted the princess returned to face punishment and probable execution. The king of Ugarit’s demand brought the two kingdoms to the brink of war. Hittite negotiators were called in and, after extended talks, were able to negotiate a peace, resolving the situation.2
In regard to Helen, either situation, an elopement or a failed marriage, could be seen as a legitimate casus belli. Is the near universal consensus therefore correct or, like the issue of Helen’s divine nature, do different traditions exist?
Examining the Iliad, the answer is not clear cut. There are several factors to consider. First, Helen is not referred to as anything but Paris’s legitimate wife and equal partner in the Iliad; it is never suggested she is subservient (nor does she act like it). If Helen and Paris eloped, absconding with Menelaus’ wealth in the process, such terminology would be unusual.
Next is the notable sympathy with which the Iliad portrays her. Martin West considered the Homer to be her first and greatest champion.[1] This may be a consequence of Helen’s penitent attitude, but that attitude has cut no ice with her many critics through the ages. Was Homer unusually understanding? Or is it possible he knew of and adhered to a tradition where Helen and Paris did not elope and the question of adultery never arose?3
Helen’s attitude is one of the prosecution’s main arguments against her. That Helen is upset with the way things are going is not in dispute. There is, after all, a war on, and it is being fought in her name. She is not quite pleased with Paris, but this is also understandable, regardless of how they came to be together. If Helen was married to him, presumably for state reasons, this is no bar to her being unhappy with the match years down the road.
The issue is her self-blame, and here some caution should be exercised. Homeric Greek was never spoken in daily life. It is highly idiomatic. The ancient Greek audiences understood the idioms, but inevitably we read these passages under the influence of what we think the poet is trying to convey, based on our understanding of the story as a whole, as we have it today; this is magnified if the passage contains ambiguities. I will present a simple example: Iliad 3.46–51, which occurs during the speech where Hector is castigating Paris before his duel with Menelaus, describes Paris and Helen leaving Sparta. The Greek text is:
ἦ τοιόσδε ἐὼν ἐν ποντοπόροισι νέεσσι 46
πόντον ἐπιπλώσας, ἑτάρους ἐρίηρας ἀγείρας,
μιχθεὶς ἀλλοδαποῖσι γυναῖκ᾽ εὐειδέ᾽ ἀνῆγες
ἐξ ἀπίης γαίης νυὸν ἀνδρῶν αἰχμητάων
πατρί τε σῷ μέγα πῆμα πόληΐ τε παντί τε δήμῳ,
δυσμενέσιν μὲν χάρμα, κατηφείην δὲ σοὶ αὐτῷ 51[2]
Was it in such strength as this that thou didst sail over the main in thy seafaring ships, when thou hadst gathered thy trusty comrades, and, coming to an alien folk, didst bring back a comely woman from a distant land, even a daughter of warriors who wield the spear, [50] but to thy father and city and all the people a grievous bane – to thy foes a joy, but to thine own self a hanging down of the head?[3]
In three other translations, the key active phrases are “carried off a woman… a great beauty,” “led away a beautiful woman,” and “brought a pretty woman back.” Although the interpretation must be subjective to a degree, the phrases all have a somewhat different sense: “carried off” connotes reluctance on Helen’s part or some compulsion by Paris; “led away” is softer, as in seduced or convinced; and “brought back” or “bring back” sounds neutral.4 While these differences are minor, each translation says something about the translator’s view of the relationship between Helen and Paris.
I use this minor example to introduce a more crucial one. Much has been made of Helen referring to herself in the Iliad as a “bitch,” a “chilling, evil-devising bitch,” or a “whore” or “slut”; these are presumed to show her guilt for stealing away with Paris. But Emily Wilson has argued that the term rendered as “bitch” may be better translated as “hounded,” and when Helen uses “dog imagery” in regard to herself, it is not clear what is meant: Helen’s view of herself or her view of how others see her. Wilson further points out that translators who use these derogatory terms for Helen (“slut” and “whore”) often choose different language when the same Greek word is applied to Agamemnon.5 The translators chose these words to convey their interpretation of the passage in light of their belief in Helen’s adultery. If they believed she had formally married Paris, I doubt they would have used derogatory words to describe her in their translations. Thus, Helen reproaching herself may not be dispositive when it comes to the question of her being portrayed in the Iliad as an adulteress who stole her rightful husband’s treasure.
The evidence most problematic to the position that the Iliad believes Paris and Helen ran off together is Helen’s statement in Book 24 (24.765) that this is her twentieth year in Troy. “Twenty” is used seventeen other times in the Iliad to mean “a lot,” certainly more than ten. Thus, the poet’s statement about the length of time Helen has been in Troy cannot be dismissed as mere inconsistency, nor did the ancients think so. In one tradition it took some considerable time to reach Troy, but nothing like “ten years” in legendary time. Nor would this explain why the Greeks would wait so long for them to arrive or how the Greeks would know they arrived after so long a voyage.
To account for this gap, the post-Iliadic Greek poets inserted the Teuthranian expedition into the narrative. By this scheme, the Greeks did set out immediately after the fleeing couple, got lost, attacked the wrong place, returned home, and after a span of years, set out again with a guide who showed them the way to Troy. The delay does serve another purpose by allowing an opportunity for Achilles to father a son, although this conflicts with another tradition in which he fathered his son before being recruited for the Trojan War. So it is something of a mess, and even as a legend, it seems a bit much to swallow.
Martin West termed the Teuthranian story “silly,” and I completely agree. He considered it to be part of an old version of Achilles’s legend that was pulled in late to account for the apparent discrepancy. His explanation is quite plausible; however, I see a possible alternative that the expedition was part of the run-up to the war and that the delay between it and the first attack on Troy was a matter of weeks, not years, which some traditions do indicate.6 Regardless, the Teuthranian expedition does not hold water compared to the simpler and more reasonable explanation that the Iliad considered Helen and Paris to be formally married with no elopement or adultery.
If, therefore, the Iliad holds Helen innocent of adultery and grand larceny, to what or who does it attribute the cause of the war? Hector rebukes Paris a good deal, but he never blames Helen for the war and defends her when others do. Priam also never blames Helen; he specifically absolves her and blames the gods.
He may well have a point: Artemis blames Hera for the conflict and in the Iliad, Book 4, even Zeus questions Hera’s unreasoning hatred of the Trojans.7 In an exchange that lasts from lines 30 to 70, he and Hera dispute over Troy’s fate. Hera declares that she would not object if Zeus were to destroy the three cities she loves best, Argos, Sparta and Mycenae (being the goddess of all three) for an implied quid pro quo: the sack of Troy.
As it is, she convinces Zeus to order Athena to descend to the Trojan plain and there arrange for the Trojans to break the sacred oath guaranteeing the truce that was called on account of the duel between Paris and Menelaus, which was intended to settle Helen’s fate and end the war. Athena succeeds in this and thereafter, the war becomes relentlessly pitiless and cruel, so it might be argued Hera achieved her aim. Nonetheless, she continues to interfere against the Trojans, famously seducing Zeus and coercing Sleep to put him into an enchanted slumber so she and Poseidon can make more mischief.
Of course, there is nothing new about Zeus and Hera being at daggers drawn, and not without reason; neither of them tend to behave honorably. The bad blood is shown early on in the Iliad when Hephaestus counsels Hera (his mother) against picking a quarrel with Zeus over the fate of Troy (Book 1, lines 571-600). He recounts how once before he tried to protect her from Zeus’ anger and Zeus threw him out of heaven. He was badly injured by the fall, having “but little life left in him.” Hephaestus is quite concerned to not repeat the event.
Further, Andrew Porter writes of an Olympiomachia (war on Olympus), in which three gods rebelled and tried to bind Zeus, who was rescued by Thetis.8 In the Iliad, the three rebellious gods are portrayed as being Poseidon, Hera and Athena. Porter, however, argues for a tradition, known to Homer, that it may have originally been Hera, Poseidon and Apollo who attempted this coup and were duly punished for it.9 Apollo and Poseidon were sentenced to build Troy’s walls in the guise of mortal men, but Hera suffers the most severe punishment: being hung from heaven with anvils attached to her feet. (Zeus reminds her of this later.) The severity of her sentence might suggest Hera was the ringleader.
These are credible witnesses. Euripides follows on, portraying Hera as having created Helen’s eidōlon and sending it to Troy to be fought over in order to punish the hated Trojans and exalt her favorites: the men of Argos. This evidence may not be enough to convict Hera, but she does have motive, method, and opportunity, so it seems like there is a decent case to be made.
But stepping back from divine causes, what might the war have been about and what could have been Helen’s role in it? To address this, we must turn from legend to history.
This concludes Part 2.
References
[1] West, “Immortal Helen.” 1975.
[2] Homer. Homeri Opera in five volumes. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1920. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0012.tlg001.perseus-grc1:3.38-3.75..
[3] Homer. The Iliad with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0012.tlg001.perseus-eng1:3.38-3.75.
Footnotes
Richard Janko in his review of Latacz (2004), Times Literary Supplement, Apr. 15, 2005, 6-7 (Alexander 2009). See also Hughes (2005), who observes that a Mycenaean princess would be the recipient of diplomatic gifts and marriage offers like Helen was.
Resolved unhappily for the bride, who was returned and no doubt killed in exchange for a large amount of gold. (Bryce 2019, 155-6). Malcom Wiener, in his article “Homer and History: Old Questions, New Evidence” (EPOS 2006, 32), quotes an article by J. Sasson (1966) alluding to “a veritable epidemic of run-away wives” that “plagued” various civilizations in the late Bronze Age, suggesting this was not an isolated event.
Strauss suggests “Helen would likely have formally divorced Menelaus” (Strauss 2006, 25), as Hittite law allowed women to initiate divorce and an ongoing adulterous affair would have been frowned on. (Hittite laws on adultery called for the death penalty; Strauss 2006, 26.) In his scenario though, Paris and Helen ran off together and the incident was papered over (from the Trojan perspective) by having Helen divorce a foreign national and marry Paris. While this may not be impossible per se, it feels too elaborate and does not reconcile other issues with the elopement story.
The first translation is from the Loeb Classical Library and used by Bettany Hughes to head Chapter 22 of her 2005 book; the second is from Caroline Alexander’s 2015 translation, and the third is from Emily Wilson’s 2023 translation.
See Wilson’s translations of the Odyssey (86) and the Iliad (n.6.462) for a discussion of translators using these terms.
See Strauss (2006) for more in this topic.
The nominal reason for Hera’s rancor is that the Trojans are the product of one of Zeus’ many affairs and Hera’s jealousy is legendary. However, Zeus well knows this and his question suggests that her feelings go beyond what is usual for her. Might this be another veiled Homeric allusion to a myth his audience knew which he is pulling in as part of his backstory? It seems possible, but the matter is opaque to us.
This is why Thetis can convince Zeus to intervene on her son’s behalf. She has protected other gods as well. For more discussion, see his paper, “Reconstructing Laomedon’s Reign in Homer: Olympiomachia, Poseidon’s Wall, and the Earlier Trojan War.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 54, 2014: 507–526. (https://www.academia.edu/10647549/_Laomedon_s_Reign_Olympiomachia_Poseidon_s_Wall_and_the_Earlier_Trojan_War_in_Homer_s_Iliad_)
For more on Thetis and her role as a protector of the gods, see Laura Slatkin’s “The Wrath of Thetis.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), vol. 116, 1986, pp. 1–24. (http://doi.org/10.2307/283907.)
Athena opposing her father would be uncharacteristic and unlike Hera, Apollo and Poseidon, she is not said to be punished. It may be that the swap was made because in the Iliad, she supports the Greeks along with Poseidon and Hera, while Apollo supports the Trojans. Apollo has been identified historically as the chief god of Troy; the Alaksandu treaty of 1280 BC was guaranteed by a Trojan God who has been identified with Apollo. Perhaps this change reflects an incomplete synthesis of myth and legend?