contradict the greatest and best known of all the epic stories.
It is evident that this innovation did not prosper. Isocrates in his Encomium of Helen, passes it by in silence, nor do I know of any modern reproduction, save that of the German Wieland. There is all through the play a friendly and even respectful handling of Sparta and the Spartans, which is unique among the extant tragedies. Again, though there is much scepticism expressed, especially as regards prophecies, his noblest character is here a prophetess, who possesses an unerring knowledge of the future. Menelaus again, who is elsewhere a mean and cowardly bully, is here a ragged and distressed, but honourable and adventurous hero, with no trace of his usual Euripidean attributes. Lastly, Helen is a faithful and persecuted wife, though in the shortly preceding Troades, and succeeding Orestes, appears in most odious colours. These anomalies make the Helena full of difficulties to the student of Euripides' opinions. We wonder how he should have chosen that mythical couple, whose conjugal relations in all his other tragedies were most disagreeable, exemplify the purest and most enduring domestic affection. Their recognition scene may take its place with the matchless narrative in the Odyssey, for the love of husband and wife was rarely idealised by the Greeks, and these exceptions are worthy of special note.
I suppose that by this bold contradiction not only of the current views about Helen, but of his own treatment of her and Menelaus in other plays, the poet meant to teach that the myths were only convenient vehicles for depicting human character and passion, and had no other value.
I have not analysed this argument minutely, as the poet has taken up an analogous subject, and treated it with far greater power and with less of miracle in his Tauric Iphigenia—one of the most perfect of his plays. But here again it is still the plot which affords the
