Paris and H elen
T here is no question about the d irect cau se o f the Trojan w ar. The abduction o f H elen by Paris is repeatedly alluded to as the cause by a num ber o f characters ( //. 2. 161-2, 3 5 6 1, 3. 100, 136-8, 156-7, 351-2, 6. 328, 355-6, 19. 3 2 4 -5 , 22. 114-6, 24. 7 6 3-4, O d . 4. 145-6, 11. 438, 17. 118-9, 22. 227-9) and once by the poet (II. 24. 28).
N aturally, the p air are m uch resented by both the A chaeans and the T rojans, especially by the latter w hose city th reaten s to be destroyed by the w ar. The hatred o f both parties is expressed m o st strongly w hen P aris has d isap p eared in the m iddle o f the com bat w ith M enelaus and nobody can find him (II. 3. 453-4):
obphs ydp (fxAdnjrf dceiOavw, el n ? tSocro low ydp oxptv naoiv chnfyOrno icrpl peXaCuj)
Even his b ro th er H ector w ishes th at P aris had n ev er been b o rn (II. 3. 40) or th at he dies im m ed iately ( / / . 6. 2 8 1 -2 ).2 A lthough w e know that his brotherly love w ould not let him hate P a ris c o m p le te ly , th e s e w ish e s do c o n ta in so m e p ro fo u n d bitterness. U nlike H ector, w hose strong sense o f resp o n sib ility for the T rojans w ill lead him to his alm ost su icid al en co u n ter w ith A chilles, Paris does not take his resp o n sib ility seriously (cf. II. 6.
* A version o f this chapter has been published in B u n g a k u - K e n k y u R o n s h u [Journal o f L iterary Studies] vol. 7 (A volum e in the h o n o u r o f P ro fe sso r S. Y aginum a on the occasion o f h is re tire m e n t from th e U n iv ersity o f T sukuba, ed. T sukuba Society o f C o m p arativ e L ite ratu re, T sukuba, Japan, 1990) 43-51.
* I take "EAcVtjs* dpfnjfiaTd r e a ro va xd s' re' as 'strggles and groans o f the
A ch aean s b ec au se o f H elen1, w ith A ristarchus and others, cf. ed. H. Erbse,
S cholia G raeca in H om eri Iliadem ad loc.; ed. W . Leaf, The Ilia d ? , ad loc.; G. S. K irk, The Ilia d : A C o m m entary, ad loc..
523-5). He tries to hide aw ay from M enelaus ( //. 3. 30-32) and ju s t after having escaped from the single com bat w ith M enelaus by a divine hand, he fancies nothing but m aking love w ith H elen
(II. 3. 441-6). He stubbornly refuses to retu rn H elen w hen there still seems to be some hope to save Troy by doing so (II. 7. 362). H elen know s his c h aracter w ell by now and co m p lain s about it b itterly (II. 6. 350-1):
dvSpds' irrEif dfyeAAov q ie b w o s' elvat (korn?, ds'ffir} vfyeotvTEKai ato^ea m&X difyumwv.
Paris does not seem to have any sense o f g u ilt at all about the d isa ste r he has b ro u g h t in to h is c ity an d , alth o u g h the audience know s his end, there is no p ro sp ect o r rec o lle ctio n o f d iv in e punishm ent o f P aris in his ow n p erso n in the epics o f H o m e r.3
H e l e n h e rself is far m ore re g re tfu l than P aris ab o u t the consequences of their m arriage. By the tim e in w hich the Iliad is set, i. e. the last year o f the w ar, she has started longing to go
3 The com m ent o f Helen at II. 6. 353 and the fact that the word drrj is used to describe Paris' conduct (''k\e£dv8pov dvetf drrj^' II. 6. 356, 24. 28) do throw
som e shadow over his future. T he sam e phrase is read in M enelaus' speech
at II. 3. 100 by Z enodotus w hom A ristarchus c ritic iz e s m ain tain in g , 'd a r a i dnoXoyovp.euos' MeWAaos* 8ti d rq i wepidweoev 6 ’AXdfavSpos*, and reads 'dpxfjs
instead o f 'drr)? (W. L eaf on II. 3 100). F or the sam e reason, he reads drrjs' at 24. 28 spoken by H elen. A ristarchus' in te rp re ta tio n presu p p o ses th a t d r i) is a god-sent disaster fo r w hich the person h it by it is n o t en tirely
resp o n sib le , and th ere fo re M enelaus should u se a s tro n g e r term n o t involving any divine influence. A gainst his o pinion, W . L e a f no tes, 'drrj,
how ever, is often = s in , and reg ard ed as d e serv in g m o ral con d em n atio n ; see e.g. I 510-2; and certainly A chilles is n o t 'ap o lo g isin g ' fo r A gam em non in A 412.' They are both m aking a valid point. As we will see later
(C hapter 4), drrj does com e from the gods som etim es (e.g. II. 19. 87-90) and, n e v e rth ele ss, does not cancel o u t th e re sp o n sib ility o f th o se w ho have done som ething w rong u n d e r its in flu en ce (e.g. II. 19. 137-8), as H elen know s w ell. Calling h er foolish conduct the 'd rrj sent from A phrodite' (O d . 4. 261-2) scarcely eases h e r rem orse, cf. H eu b eck -W est-H ain sw o rth , A C om m entary on H om er's O dyssey Volum e I on 4. 261; E. R. Dodds, The G reeks a n d the Irrational, pp. 2-8; J. M. Brem er, H a m a r tia (A m sterdam 1969), p.
104. How ever, as in h er case, d rrj does not alw ays a ttrac t punishm ent.
back to Sparta (//. 3. 139-40, O d . 4. 259-261). She is fully aware o f her resp o n sib ility for the catastro p h ic w ar and the thought, as w ell as the h ostility o f the T ro jan s ( //. 24. 7 6 8 -7 7 5 ), seem s to torm ent her (II. 3. 176 rd m l KXaiovcra r^TTjm ). W henever she talks about the war, the epithet she gives h e rse lf is the ’b itch ' (II. 6. 344, 356, Od. 4. 145) and , unlike Paris, it is she h erself who often w ishes she had died before all this happened (II. 3. 173-4, 6. 345- 8, 24. 764). Even the web she is w eaving d ep icts the battle b etw een the A chaeans and the T rojans (II. 3. 125-8). No doubt she cannot get it out of her head at any tim e.4
It m ay be because o f h er deep rep e n tan c e th at she gets m ore sym pathetic treatm ent than Paris at least from Priam (II. 3. 164-5) and H ector (II. 24. 767-772). A nd later, after all, she will be w elcom ed in M enelaus' house again as a happy w ife. She is not punished in any obvious w ay, but suffers only from her own r e g r e t .
T he O lym pian scenario
It is, how ever, not only th is 'naughty p a ir' w ho are blam ed fo r causing the war. The gods’ hands are lurking behind the scene already w hen a carpenter builds ships fo r Paris to visit Sparta (II.
5. 62-4):
d f kuI 'AXefdvSjpQj TQ cnfyaro v r p s Itcra?
dpXEKdkoV?, CLL TTOOl KOKfoTpOJEOUl y& ow o
d 7* am p. £md ou tl QeCv be O M ara fBrf.
4 cf. C. H. W hitm an, H om er and the H ero ic T ra d itio n, pp. 117-8: 'H elen's great w eb is w oven with pictures o f the w ar fo r h er sake, and becom es in an in sta n t the sym bol o f h er self-co n scio u s g rea tn ess and g u ilt,
The g ods’ ultim ate responsibility fo r cau sin g the w ar is felt by both p arties involved and others alike. It is stated by Priam ( / / . 3. 164-5), H elen ( / /. 6. 34 9 ), A c h ille s (II. 2 4 . 5 4 7 -8 ), T elem achus (Od. 1. 348 'Zed? a ln o ?, 17. 119), A lcinous (Od. 8. 579- 80), and Sirens ( Od. 12. 189-90). L ooking back to the incident ten years after the w ar, H elen says that she left her hom e and fam ily because of the ' drrf sent by A phrodite ( O d . 4. 261). Penelope also sees a god's hand and ' c ! t t ) ' at w ork in the sh am eless flig h t of
H elen (Od. 23. 222-4).
On the o th er hand, w hen w e turn our ey es to O lym pian scen es, we see the co m p lex ity o f c o n te n d in g d iv in e in te rests. H era and A thena are the principal co n triv ers o f the fall o f Troy
(II. 4. 20-21, 8. 457-8, 448-9 18. 364-7). T hey have even sworn never to save the T rojans under any c irc u m sta n ce s (II. 20. 313- 317). T roy falls w ith the trick of the w ooden h o rse in sp ired by A thena (II. 15. 70-1, O d . 8. 493, c.f. 13. 386-8) and the A chaeans w in the final battle with her aid ( O d . 8. 519-20). W hen the two arm ies have m ade the truce, it is H era w ho an g rily o pposes the idea of saving Troy by letting it be accom plished (II. 4. 25-9). W e know the reason for the hatred o f the tw o g o ddesses, th at is, the jud g em en t of Paris alluded to at II. 24. 29-30.
On the other hand, Zeus, who is supposed to be ultim ately resp o n sib le fo r the destiny of Troy, is in fact relu c ta n t to destroy the city as he says in his reply to H era’s p ro test ag ain t the truce criticizin g her (II. 4. 31-8):
SaLfJoUr) tC w o fUplapos' Tlpcdfj-ocd te WLiSes'
T & ru a K coc& ftC ovw -v, 6 f d cn vep x jlsyjE V E a b seis
’1 XCov i£aAaTrd£ai £ticr((±evov TrroXCedpou,