from the many passages, which show us how the general sentiment of Troy detested him. Had Helen been of the character which is commonly imputed to her, such an absolution as this would probably not have been ascribed to Priam; while most certainly it would not have been recorded to the honour of Hector that he always restrained those, who were disposed to taunt her on account of the woes she had brought upon Troy m She describes herself indeed as the object of general horror in Troy (πάντες δέ με πεφρίκασιμη). But these words do no more than state the impression, at a moment of agony, on her own humbled and self-mistrusting mind: while, even had they given a faithful picture of the manner in which she was regarded by the Trojans, still they might well be explained with reference to the woes of which she had been at least the occasion, and the sentiment they describe might as naturally have been felt, even had she been the lawfully obtained wife of Paris. There are two other passages, which may seem at first sight to betoken a state of mind adverse to her among the Greeks. But the explanation of them is simply this, that the cause of woe is naturally enough denounced on account of the misfortunes it has entailed, irrespective of the question whether or in what degree it may be a guilty cause. be a guilty cause. Thus Achilles calls Helen piyedávn, that horrible Helen ;' but it is only when her abduction has produced to him the bitter and harrowing affliction of the death of Patroclus. When he mentions her in the magnificent speech of the Ninth Book to the envoys, she is 'Eλérn núkoμos, the fair-haired Helen.' Now, if she had been vile, the course of his argument must have constrained him then to state it. For he was reasoning thus: May I not resent the loss of Briseis, who was dear to me (OvμapńsP), when the sons of Atreus have made their loss of Helen the cause of the war? Had Helen been worthless, it would have added greatly to the stringency of his argument to have drawn the contrast in that particular, between the woman whom Agamemnon had taken away, and the woman that he was seeking, by means of the convulsive struggle of a nation, to recover. m Il. xxiv. 768–72. n Ibid. 775. 。 Il. xvi. p Il. ix. 336. Homer's Epithets for Helen. 575 The other passage is in Od. xxiii., where Penelope, after the recognition of her husband, speaks of Helen in these words :τὴν δ ̓ ἤτοι ῥέξαι θεὸς ὤρορεν ἔργον ἀεικές 9. But even in this only passage where the act of Helen is so described, several points are to be observed. First, it is referred to a preternatural influence, which is not the manner of this Poet in cases at least of deep and deliberate crime; secondly, no epithet of infamy is applied to her; thirdly, we must observe the drift of the speaker. Penelope is excusing herself to Ulysses, for her own extreme caution and reserve in admitting his identity. Therefore she is naturally led to enhance the dreadful nature of the occurrence where a wife gives herself over into the power of any man, other than one known to be her husband; and this, whether the act be voluntary or involuntary. Accordingly she refers to the act of Helen rather than to the agent, and treats it as horrible; but avoids charging it as wilful. On the other hand, we may observe that the general tenour of the epithets bestowed upon Helen leans on the whole towards. the laudatory sense. She is EUTаrépeia, the high-born; Il. vi. 292; Od. xxii. 227; most probably agreeing in sense with the next phrase. Aiòs ekyeyavia, the child of Jupiter; Il. iii. 199; et alibi. Koupŋ Aiòs, the daughter of Jupiter; Il. iii. 426. dia yvvaikov, the excellent, or flower of women; Il. iii. 171, 228; and Od. iv. 305; XV. 106. Kaλλáрnos, of the beautiful cheeks; Od. xv. 123. Kaλλíkoμos; Od. xv. 58; úkoμos; Il. iii. 329, et alibi, the fair- Aeukáλevos, the white-armed; Il. iii. 121; Od. xxii. 227. And lastly, 'Apyein, the Argive; Il. ii. 161; and in no less than censure. No one of these appellations carries the smallest taint or The epithet dîa in all probability applies to her personal beauty and majesty, as we find it used of Paris and of Clytemnestra. It would appear, however, that the use of the q Od. xxiii. 222. term Argive or Argeian, in many passages where it is not required for mere description, has a special force. For Homer never exhibits that which is simply Greek in any other than an honourable light; and in calling Helen Argeian, he certainly expresses something of general sympathy towards her. No other person, except only Juno, is called Argeian. Plainly the effect of his epithets for her as a whole is quite out of harmony with the ideas, which the later tradition has attached to her name. A yet more marked indication in her favour, than any of them taken singly will supply, may be derived from his likening her, in the palace of Menelaus, to Diana; ἤλυθεν, ̓Αρτέμιδι χρυσηλακάτῳ εἰκνία. He certainly would not have associated by this comparison one, of whom he meant us to think ill, with the chaste and even severe majesty of his ever-pure Diana ("Apreμis ȧyvý). So much with regard to the designations applied to Helen in the Iliad and Odyssey. Next, with regard to her demeanour. It is admitted to be, so far as the matter of chastity is concerned, without any fault other than the inevitable one of her position. Besides other qualities that will be noticed presently, she appears in the light of a refined and feeling, a blameless and even matronly person; a character, which, as we shall see, her abduction by Paris from Menelaus did not disentitle her to bear. We must beware of applying unconditionally, to women placed under conditions widely different, ideas so specifically Christian as those that belong to the absolute sanctity of the marriage tie. We must rather look for the moral aspect of the case in the opinions of the period, and in the particular circumstances which attended the rupture of the bond in the given instance, than assume it from the naked fact that there was a rupture. It may seem not unfair to compare the case of Helen with the somewhat similar case of Bathsheba among the Jews. If on the one hand we are bound to bear in mind the inferior station of the latter personage, on the other it is to be remembered that the Greeks were further removed from the light of Divine Revelation. Now we are not accustomed to r Od. iv. 122. The case of Bathsheba. 577 look upon the character of Bathsheba as infamous, though she lived with King David as one among his wives, while Uriah, her former husband, who had been robbed of her, was sent to certain death on her account; and this, so far as we are informed, without awakening in her any peculiar emotions of sympathy, sorrow, reluctance, or remorse. And this, as I take it, mainly for the two reasons-first, that we have no signs of any passion, and in particular of any antecedent passion, for the offending king on her part; secondly, that she does not appear to have been otherwise than passively a party to the abduction. It is in the capacity of wife, and only wife, to Paris that Helen appears to us in the Iliad: where she herself speaks of Menelaus as her πρότερος πόσις 5. Now the presumed reasons for not regarding the character of Bathsheba as infamous apply with nearly equal force to Helen. Indeed the character of Helen in one point stands higher in Homer than that of Bathsheba in the Old Testament, because she lived with Paris as a recognised and only wife, and because of her gentleness, and especially of her repentance. Of these as to Bathsheba, we know nothing; but such pleas as tell for her tell in the main also for Helen. We have no indication, either in the Iliad or in the Odyssey, of her having at any time felt either passion or affection towards the worthless Paris. Above all, as it will be attempted to prove, the language of the poems not only does not sustain the idea that she willingly left the house of her husband Menelaus, but it shows something which closely approaches to the direct contrary. But there is no method of measuring so accurately the view and intention of Homer as to the impression we were meant to receive of Helen, as by comparing the language he applies to her with the widely different terms in which he describes the conduct of Clytemnestra, in conjunction with Ægisthus, during the absence of Agamemnon : τὴν δ ̓ ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν ἀνήγαγεν ονδε δόμον ε. In speaking of her own abduction, Helen indeed uses the word yaye". And again in her sharp expostulation with Aphros Il. iii. 429. cf. 163. See Ilios, pp. 200, 203. t Od. iii. 272. u Od. iv. 262; Il. xxiv. 764. PP 6 dite, she says, What, will you take me (aέeis) to some other Phrygian or Mæonian city, where you may have a favourite?" Now this by no means implies her having acted freely; the word ayew is that commonly applied to the carrying off captives from a conquered city, as pépew is to the removal of inanimate objects. Undoubtedly in one of her passages of self-reproach she says y: υἱέῖ σῷ ἑπόμην, θάλαμον γνωτούς τε λιποῦσα. But, in the first place, it is neither here nor anywhere else said that her flight was voluntary; and on the other hand, without doubt, it is not to be pretended that she had resisted with the spirit of a martyr. The real question is as to the first and fatal act of quitting her husband, whether it was premeditated, and whether it was of her free choice. Now both branches of this question appear to be conclusively decided by the word άρáέas in the following passage,, spoken by Paris : οὐ γὰρ πώποτέ μ ̓ ὧδέ γ' Ἔρως φρένας ἀμφεκάλυψεν, ἔπλεον ἁρπάξας ἐν ποντοπόροισι νέεσσιν. And the rest of the passage corroborates the evidence, by showing that she was free from any act of guilt at the time when the voyage was commenced. The representation of Menelaus himself, in the Thirteenth Iliad, accords with the speech of Paris. He charges that Prince and his abettors not with having corrupted his wife, but with having carried her off, οἵ μευ κουριδίην ἄλοχον καὶ κτήματα πολλὰ μὰψ οἴχεσθ ̓ ἀνάγοντες, ἐπεὶ φιλέεσθε παρ' αὐτῇ. Again, in the only place where Helen refers jointly to her own share and to that of Paris in the matterb, she distinguishes their respective parts, saying to Hector, 'You have had to toil on account of me, shameless that I am, and 'Aλe§ávòpov évek’ ǎτns, on account of the sin of Paris.' Let us now follow the character of Helen, as it is exhibited in life and motion before us by the Poet. In the Third Book, when Paris is about to encounter Menelaus, Iris, in the form of 2 Ibid. 442-4. x Il. iii. 400-2. y Ibid. 174. b Il. vi. 355. |