The Fantasy of Helen of Troy

Helen of Troy, formerly of Sparta, the most beautiful woman in the world, daughter of Zeus, wife of Menelaus, lover of Paris, victim, whore, innocent, guilty. The romanticizing of Helen’s kidnapping has been around since ancient times and has endured to this day.

It would be easy to play Devil’s advocate and say that since women’s feelings and agency were ignored in the olden days, Helen abandoning her duties as Queen of Sparta for the love of a handsome prince was seen as a kidnapping because the men couldn’t handle the idea of a woman having her own desires. However, the Odyssey describes women as being extremely fickle and giving their loyalty to whichever man they’re sleeping with, which is why Penelope’s refusal in accepting a new husband makes her stand out. So, Helen being a willing participant wouldn’t be that shocking in ancient times. It would probably be more difficult to convince people that she actually was a victim. The Odyssey also has the gods talk about how they don’t interfere in mortals’ lives as much as they think and that mortals use them as excuses for their bad choices. At the same time, it shows the gods being able to plant thoughts in mortals’ minds and improve people’s appearance to the point where others can’t resist helping them. Despite that, the Helen of the Odyssey is still the repentant bad wife who did leave with Paris of her own free will.

There’s a great deal of irony in Helen’s kidnapping being presented as Helen exercising her free will when we consider how everything began. Aphrodite promised Paris the love of the most beautiful woman in the world if he declared her the most beautiful among the goddesses. The only thing Paris knows about Helen is that she’s beautiful. He doesn’t care about her personality, that she has a life of her own, that she’s married, that she has a daughter, or whether she wants to be given to him. Aphrodite doesn’t care either. Helen had already exercised her free will by choosing her husband. She had all of the most eligible bachelors of Greece vying for her hand and yet, when she was told she could choose her own husband, she chose Menelaus. Unlike Helen and Paris, they knew each other, as he and Agamemnon had sought sanctuary in Sparta after their father’s death years ago. The Devil’s advocates will no doubt say that it was all political, except Sparta and Mycenae were already bound by the marriage of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, so there was no need for another match. When we look at the myth of Helen and her “husbands”, this is the one time she was asked what she wanted and was able to make her own choice:

• Theseus believes he deserves the best wife, so he kidnaps her
• Aphrodite gives her to Paris
• Achilles wants to meet her, so Aphrodite and his mother take her to him
• after Paris’s death, Priam gives her to one of his other sons

The above isn’t romantic, it’s the extreme objectification of a woman whose beauty is a curse rather than a gift.

Since I make a habit of avoiding retellings of Greek myths, I have no idea how many of these novels, and there are many, work around the trial and Helen’s choice. I did read some reviews and synopsis on Amazon, and came across the typical abusive husband scenario, the bored wife scenario, the victim is forced to marry her rapist scenario (the rapist being Menelaus), and the Helen as a teen adventuress who wants to do things scenario. I even found at least one novel that romanticizes her kidnapping by Theseus by simply aging her up from preteen to teen.

Unfortunately, I did read Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Firebrand, in which she tried to present everything all at once. So, this Helen is promised to Paris, but she also got to choose her husband and was in love with him until she met the Trojan prince. She immediately fell for Paris and willingly abandoned her home. Oddly, in a book that has the gods actively possess mortals, no one questions Helen’s free will. When we finally meet Menelaus, it’s impossible to find any reason for why Helen would have chosen him over the others apart from the fact that it’s what happens in the myth. Firebrand shows Helen actively helping Paris and protecting him from her husband.

I’ve also seen the movie Troy, which is supposed to be an adaptation of the Iliad. Troy’s Helen is much younger than Menelaus and was sent to Sparta to marry him, has no daughter, and loves Paris in part because he doesn’t like wars. When you have to change something so much to make it work, why even bother?

Euripides gives us both the guilty Helen and the innocent Helen. In Trojan Women, she presents a stark contrast with the captives, and even has the audacity to say that the Greeks should thank her for being taken because if Paris had chosen either Hera or Athena instead of Aphrodite, he could’ve been given parts of Greece as a reward. Hecuba ridicules Helen’s excuses and claims the gods had nothing to do with her behaviour. On the other hand, in the play Helen, she never even went to Troy and instead remained in Egypt while a fake Helen went with Paris. She is reunited with Menelaus when he stops there on his way home after the war. When another man wants to marry her, she actively helps her husband to deceive him so they can escape together. Helen, the play, must be the only example of a Helen/Menelaus romance in existence.

So, there’s the Helen of the Odyssey, the Helen of later myth, and the Helen of contemporary fiction. But what about the Helen of the Iliad? 

Written before the Odyssey, it refers to older versions of the myth. For instance, there’s no mention of Helen choosing her husband, or of Iphigenia’s sacrifice. There is mention of the trial and of a detail that is often forgotten – that Paris took not only Helen, but also part of Menelaus’s treasure. That doesn’t sound very romantic, does it? Even less romantic is Helen’s behaviour towards Paris and Aphrodite’s direct involvement in forcing her to stand by his side. Contrary to the Helen of Firebrand, the Helen of the Iliad doesn’t help Paris escape the fight with Menelaus. It’s Aphrodite who whisks him away to their bedchamber and then goes to get Helen, who at first refuses to go with her. The first thing she says is that she’s afraid the goddess is going to give her to some other man who pleased her, and then she outright refuses to go to Paris. Aphrodite threatens her and an unenthusiastic Helen joins him. Later she tries to use reverse psychology to get him to fight Menelaus again, unsuccessfully. And after Hector dies, she laments the loss of her only friend. The most positive feelings she has in the whole poem is when she hears people mentioning Menelaus and remembers her Greek home.

Helen, who by the time the events of the Iliad take place has been in Troy for years, does blame herself for leaving Sparta. However, given the control Aphrodite has over her, it’s unclear whether she really did leave voluntarily or if it’s just a case of a victim blaming herself. Helen is also aware of the bigger picture and how she’s only a pawn in the gods’ games. Unlike the Odyssey, the Iliad remains largely neutral when it comes to her. Here, the gods are very real, as is their influence over humans. Helen may not be the type who chooses death over dishonour, but even though she and Paris have been together for a long time, she never fully transfers her loyalty to him. She feels conflicted, like you would expect from someone who’s lived among the Trojans for years, but that’s it. If we go by what the Odyssey tells us about the nature of women, this Helen appears to be as much of an outlier as the faithful Penelope.

I find the little we see of Helen in the Iliad more interesting than many of her contemporary versions. I wanted to see more of this character. Unfortunately, no one seems to be interested in writing for her.

By Wilcox