Defending the indefensible : the case(s) for Helen of Troy

Abstract

Helen of Troy, arguably the most famous adulteress in literature, has captivated audiences for millennia. She stands at the crux of many intellectual debates which were occurring in Classical Athens, such as the unresolvable debate about mortal self-determination in the face of divine influence, the troubling question of appropriate female behavior, and the weighing of the relative dangers and benefits of deceptive but persuasive speech. Helen’s very nature is paradoxical, as she is both beautiful and sinful, divinely driven and morally responsible. She is depicted in a variety of different ways throughout the extant sources, but one element that appears repeatedly and consistently is her responsibility for the Trojan War. Even this character trait, however, was not untouchable, as a trend developed in which skillful craftsmen decided to engage with this paradoxical figure by defending her, a choice which removes her one distinguishing characteristic. Sansone identifies this trend as part of a larger movement. “We see, then, some of the most proficient verbal technicians of the late fifth and early fourth centuries using their declamatory virtuosity in the service of causes that are doomed to failure.” Helen, for all of her embodiment of profound and complicated dichotomies, is at her most valuable as the quintessential lost cause. This essay is an exploration of the similarities and differences between four texts which, in some way, represent a defense of Helen. One note of warning, this study does not intend to imply that a defense of Helen of Troy was the authentic intention of each author, rather that a presentation of the case for Helen’s innocence serves as the basis, rather than the intent, of the work. The first text examined is Gorgias’ Encomium, which presents a defense of Helen based on the irresistibility of the forces of love, persuasion, strength and the gods, forces which dictate Helen’s every action. Gorgias constructs the innocent Helen by placing her at the mercy of everything. Next, we will turn to Euripides’ Trojan Women, which presents a defense of Helen which adopts similar arguments to the ones presented by Gorgias, but, as they are voiced by Helen amidst the destruction of the Trojan War to an audience of victims of the war, the response to her suit is predictably cold. This defense takes place primarily within an agōn (or contest) between Hecuba and Helen with Menelaus taking on the role of judge. The Helen, another play by Euripides, represents a different kind of defense which functions by entirely rewriting Helen’s past. In this play, Helen was never in Troy. Instead, Hera sent an eidōlon (or phantom) in her place while Helen is kept in Egypt by a lustful king until she, by means of deception, is ultimately reconciled with her husband Menelaus. Isocrates’ Encomium of Helen builds a defense by situating Helen wholly above mortal concerns. Isocrates’ defense consists of his refusal to defend Helen, instead insisting that Helen’s glory and divine inheritance make criticisms of her character akin to impiety.