Helen

For it does not belong to the same mentality to do justice to both kinds of subjects; on the contrary, while it is easy by eloquence to overdo the trivial themes, it is difficult to reach the heights of greatness of the others[*](Cf. Isoc. 12.36.); and while on famous subjects one rarely finds thoughts which no one has previously uttered, yet on trifling and insignificant topics whatever the speaker may chance to say is entirely original.

This is the reason why, of those who have wished to discuss a subject with eloquence, I praise especially him who chose to write of Helen[*](This statement certainly seems to refer to Gorgias, Isoc. 10.(see particularly the end of that composition which is translated by Van Hook, Greek Life and Thought, pp. 162 ff. See also the Introduction to this discourse).), because he has recalled to memory so remarkable a woman, one who in birth, and in beauty, and in renown far surpassed all others. Nevertheless, even he committed a slight inadvertence—for although he asserts that he has written an encomium of Helen, it turns out that he has actually spoken a defense of her conduct!

But the composition in defense does not draw upon the same topics as the encomium, nor indeed does it deal with actions of the same kind, but quite the contrary; for a plea in defense is appropriate only when the defendant is charged with a crime, whereas we praise those who excel in some good quality. But that I may not seem to be taking the easiest course, criticizing others without exhibiting any specimen of my own[*](The same sentiment if found in Isoc. 11.9.), I will try to speak of this same woman, disregarding all that any others have said about her.

I will take as the beginning of my discourse the beginning of her family. For although Zeus begat very many of the demigods, of this woman alone he condescended to be called father. While he was devoted most of all to the son of Alcmena[*](Heracles.) and to the sons of Leda[*](Castor and Pollux.), yet his preference for Helen, as compared with Heracles, was so great that, although he conferred upon his son strength of body, which is able to overpower all others by force, yet to her he gave the gift of beauty, which by its nature brings even strength itself into subjection to it.

And knowing that all distinction and renown accrue, not from a life of ease, but from wars and perilous combats, and since he wished, not only to exalt their persons to the gods, but also to bequeath to them glory that would be immortal, he gave his son a life of labors and love of perils, and to Helen he granted the gift of nature which drew the admiration of all beholders and which in all men inspired contention[*](Quoted and discussed by Demetrius, On Style 23.).

In the first place Theseus[*](For Isocrates' view of Theseus see Isoc. 12.126 ff., with his references to this discussion of the hero. For Theseus see Eur. Hipp. 887 ff. and Plut. Thes. Theseus, reputed son of Aegeus and of Aethra, daughter of Pittheus, king of Troezen in Argolis, was honored as the founder of the political institutions of Athens. Cf. p. 79 and note.), reputedly the son of Aegeus, but in reality the progeny of Poseidon, seeing Helen not as yet in the full bloom of her beauty, but already surpassing other maidens, was so captivated by her loveliness that he, accustomed as he was to subdue others, and although the possessor of a fatherland most great and a kingdom most secure, thought life was not worth living amid the blessings he already had unless he could enjoy intimacy with her.