Helen of Troy and Her ShAustin, Norman, editor. Helen of Troy and her shameless phantom. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca (N. Y.): Cornell University Pr., 1994.ameless Phantom

This book investigates the traditional Helen, and the revised Helen by analyzing different literal sources. Homer portraits Helen as it was transmitted through the tradition that culminated in the Homeric poems as a woman who not only disgraced herself but betrayed her family and people. In the post-Homeric literary tradition, Helen is repeatedly reviled, whether as the treacherous wife or as the libertine who preferred pleasure to honor. The author illustrates that Sappho thinks not of Helen worshiped as a goddess at Sparta, but of Homer’s Helen, the shameful woman canonized in the epic tradition,ion thus exonerating Helen on the grounds that, beauty and the desire for beauty are qualities that override all other ethical and social considerations. However, in the archaic period, when lyric poetry was emerging as a personal reflection on traditional myths, a curious counter-movement arose to rescue Helen’s reputation from this disrepute that had accrued to it from the epic tradition. Stesichorus, a significant focus of the author, proposes a radical revision: Helen herself had never sailed to Troy but had been impersonated there by a ghost or eidolon. Thus, at a single stroke, Helen would be removed from Troy, those ambiguities would disappear from her character, and the scandal erased once and for all (The source story for this revision is Plato, in the passage of Phaedrus). 

This contradiction, for me, is fascinating because this revision supplements the incomplete nature of Homer’s narrative. Helen does not adequately express herself in Homer’s composition, leading to abounded variants in Greek myth. However, Stesichorus presented his version of Helen’s myth not merely as a variant but as a thorough repudiation of the Homeric story, because without Helen, the whole story of Homer would fall apart. For this specific case, I still count it as a distortion from Homeric narratives. The motivations expressed in the anecdote of this revision show that honor and shame are the driving forces behind this revisionist plot, as they were of the Homeric plot, though with different focuses. First, Helen in this story is not a woman. However, she has been elevated to unambiguous godhood, with man insulting the goddess, and the goddess taking her immediate and ruthless revenge. A period of alienation then follows between the men and the goddess, but they finally reconcile. Still, versions from the later period are also being analyzed: In Herodotus’ story, Helen is in Egypt, whereas in Euripides’ story, Helen is turned into a sophist. Three of these stories all provide us with different aspects that speculate Helen, which at least reveals the inadequacy and ambiguity of the Homeric portrait of Helen. Moreover, this book enables me to focus more on the theme of eidolon, since the eidolon, whether taken as a revision or as an intriguing interpretation of the traditional myth, is an uncanny expression of the ambivalences continuously at work in the construction of the Helen myth. Also, by tracing a single theme through literature that has lasted several centuries, one risks doing injustice to the individual authors, various references from foreign sources, attitudes, historical backgrounds, and religions that have all contributed to this composition and which deserve a better analysis. 

Blondell, Ruby. Helen of Troy: beauty, myth, devastation. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Pr., 2013.

The author stands on feminist grounds and focuses on the twin themes of beauty and female agency to argue that Helen of Troy is the mythical incarnation of an ancient Greek obsession: the control of female sexuality and women’s sexual power over men. Moreover, the author believes that the war is caused not only by men’s inability to control the beautiful Helen but by their equal inability to dismiss or destroy her. The author reveals that only in Homer is Helen simultaneously guilty and sympathetic. What more, according to the author’s analysis, in the archaic period, Helen is shown as replaced by a double, created for gods’ purpose. In Athenian tragedy, Helen was used as a significant offstage role being suppressed in the interest of establishing Athenian democracy. In Euripides’ plays, Helen is depicted as a shameless sophist among the Trojan Women and an unattainable fantasy of virtuous female beauty.

I learned that the ancient Greeks had a well-developed discourse of praise and blame that functioned as a means of social control. However, Helen can never be considered as just a scapegoat, since the behavior for which she is to blame is inseparable from her infinitely seductive beauty, and making it impossible to reduce Helen to a mere object of abuse. The Greek warriors’ willingness to pursue an adulterous woman at such an enormous cost risk exacerbating the shame of losing control over her in the first place. Overt abuse of Helen forces them to confront her grip over them, and hence the embarrassing spectacle of their emasculation. The blame on Helen brings the blame on man in its train. Consequently, ancient authors excuse or palliate Helen’s behavior as often as they censure it. Some actively defend her. Insofar as blame is an acknowledgment of power; however, such texts render Helen less potent by the very fact of refusing blame. 

Hughes, Bettany. Helen of Troy: goddess, princess, whore. London: Cape, 2005.

The author follows from Helen’s fortunes as recounted by Homer to scribe in the ancient and medieval worlds, which carefully copied Helen’s story on the papyrus, parchment, and vellum, and to Caxton’s printing press to Westminster in 1476. He focuses on four main topics in his book: Helen’s Facelessness, an Evil Destiny, Helen-Hunting, Goddess, Princess, and Whore. 

Talking about Helen’s facelessness, the author thinks that though the vase painters, sculptors, and fresco artists of Greece and Rome worked for a recognized formula, we have no lifelike representation of Helen from antiquity. Museum storerooms around the world have shelves crammed with vases showing Helen at various points in her life-story and her evolution as an idol, Helen as a girl, Helen as a queen, Helen as a demi-goddess, Helen as a whore. However, these images, without exception, are all made up: they reveal not who Helen was, but whom men have wanted her to be. 

In the section talking about Helen’s identity as an evil destiny, the author believes that Helen is a paradox. A bedazzling, unfaithful queen, a duplicitous homewrecker who caused decades of misery, but she nonetheless survived unscathed: an inscrutable mix of self-will and suggestibility, intellect and instinct, frailty and power. Created at a time before good and evil were regarded as distinct entities, Helen embraces both. 

In the section on Helen-Hunting, the author believes that Helen represents a story of two civilizations, Greeks and Trojans. Also, here are not enough Hittite scholars or research funds, to do the work of publishing information on the excavation, these Hittite texts give an Eastern point of view to the Troy story that has not been fully explored. If Helen is to be understood as a real woman and in the Bronze Age context, then they are vital testimonies. Thus, the author looks not just at what she has come to mean, but what she meant to the people of the past.

In the section on Helen as a Goddess, Princess, and Whore, the author talks about the possible existence of Helen and believes that all three incarnations find their root in the Bronze Age Helen. Within the context of her world, there were prominent and significant aristocratic women who were used as diplomatic trading ships. They were highly valued commodities passed from one state to another. Also, because Mycenaeans and the Hittites imploded into a dramatic rush at the end of the 13th century BC, Helen has come to represent a symbol of war, and her story is proving increasingly appropriate to the circumstances of the Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age burial in Sparta contains a skeleton with sufficient uncontaminated DNA to test as female, lying next to a Greek king. Both corpses wore Trojan gold so that Helen’s existence is undoubtedly interminable. 

I learn that Helen’s story is not adequately discussed due to a lack of sources. Its variety and complexity are all due to historical distortions and needs. Though stories were told all through multiple layers of lens, we could scrutinize and analyze all generations of people. Whenever we clearly understand their cultural demands, the needs and orientation of these distortions should also be precise. The difficulties we face are related to invisible and unrecorded traditions. For instance, oral traditions are not available for us to recover and later analyze. These are the lost treasures for which we should acknowledge our inability to retrieve. The way out is to discern the intentional reliability that approves the subtle distortions or restore certainty, and erase misleading facts. In short, this filtering process is embedded in our comprehensive understanding, and its acceptance approves the rules.

Other bibliography:

Naddaff, Ramona. “No second Troy: imagining Helen in Greek antiquity.” Logos and muthos: philosophical essays in Greek literature. Ed. Wians, William C.. SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany (N. Y.): State University of New York Pr., 2009. 73-97.

Cyrino, Monica Silveira. “Helen of « Troy ».” Troy: from Homer’s « Iliad » to Hollywood epic. Ed. Winkler, Martin M.. Oxford ; Malden (Mass.): Blackwell, 2007. 131-147.

Des Bouvrie, Synnøve. “Helen of Troy : a symbol of Greek culture.” The Norwegian Institute at Athens: the first five lectures. Eds. Andersen, Øivind and Whittaker, Hélène. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens; 1. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens, 1991 . 29-40.