CHAPTER XXII

THE RING OF HELEN

In the countries dealt with in this book I give instances where Fish and Fishing have, according to myth or tradition, played a prominent part in human affairs, and have been the cause, direct or indirect, of important events.

Thus in Greece and Rome, to fish is assigned the responsibility for—

(A) The death of Homer, from his inability to solve the riddle of the lads.[742]

(B) The death of Theodoric, who recognised in the head of a pike which he was eating the head of his murdered victim, Symmachus.[743]

(C) No less an event than the Trojan War, which, according to the windbag Ptolemy Hephæstion, happened on this wise.

In the belly of a huge fish named _Pan_ (from its resemblance to that god) was found a gem (_asterites_), which when exposed to the sun shot forth flames and became a powerful love philtre. Helen, on acquiring this, had it engraved with a figure of the _Pan_ fish, and when desirous of making a special impression wore it as a signet ring.

Thus, when Paris visited Sparta the charm blazed from her finger with the result of the immediate conquest of Paris, the flight from Menelaus, and the Ten Years’ War!

But, despite Homer, it was _discovered_ (!) afterwards that Helen was not in Ilium at any time during the siege, and that what the Trojans harboured was not her real self, but only her “living image,” εἴδωλον ἔμπνουν.[744] The discoverer of this interesting fact was (so ran the slander) Stesichorus. Struck with blindness after writing an attack on Helen, he recovered his sight by composing a Palinodia.[745] The ghost of Achilles, when raised by that most famous medium of antiquity, Apollonius of Tyana, denied positively that Helen was in Ilium.[746]

If Mr. J. A. Symonds be right, “We fought for fame and Priam’s wealth,” and for naught else, then she “with the star-like sorrows of immortal eyes” was neither _causa causans_ nor any cause of the Fall of Troy. Perhaps “Priam’s wealth” is but an intelligent anticipation of Mr. Leaf’s theory that the War was fought for “The Freedom of the Sea” (Euxine), and, incidentally, the capture of another nation’s profits.

FOOTNOTES:

[741] From a splendid vase-painting representing the two sides of a magnificent _scyphos_ made by the potter Hieron and painted by the artist Makron. The original (now in Boston) is of the finest fifth-century (B.C.) art. See Furtwängler and Reichhold, _Griechische Vasenmalerei_ (München, 1909), vol. II. 125 ff., pl. 85.

[742] See Chapter III.

[743] See _antea_, p. 200.

[744] Eurip., _Hel._, 34.

[745] Plat., _Phardi._, 243A; Isokr., _Hel._, 65; Pausanias, III. 19, 13.

[746] _Op. cit._, IV. 16. In his palinode, of which a few lines (_frag._ 32, Bergk^4) are extant, Stesichorus asserts that it was not Helen herself, but only her semblance or wraith, which Paris carried off to Troy. Greeks and Trojans slew one another for a mere phantom, while the real Helen never left Sparta. Hdt., 2, 112 ff., gives a rather different turn to the story. According to him, Helen eloped from Sparta with Paris, but was driven back by a storm to Egypt, where Paris told lies and was punished by Proteus. Euripides in his _Helena_ combines the two versions. Like Stesichorus, he makes the truant a mere phantom, an ‘eloping angel.’ Like Herodotus, he sends the real Helen to Egypt. Menelaus, who, escorting the phantom home from Troy, arrives in Egypt, is there confronted with the real Helen and is sadly puzzled. Just as he begins to think himself a bigamist, the misty Helen evaporates!

EGYPTIAN FISHING

NOTE

Conflicting chronologies prevent the definite dating of the earlier Egyptian monarchs: verily a thousand years are but as yesterday in the sight of Manetho, Mariette _et cie._ Thus it is that the reign of Menes, the first historical king, has no permanent abiding place in the 3167 years between 5867 and 2700 B.C. Discrepancy in dates is not confined to the older or later computators, such as Champollion-Figeac, Wilkinson, Lepsius, and Petrie, but has infected quite recent writers, like Borchardt and Albright, who in 1917 and in 1919 respectively place Menes _c._ 4500, and _c._ 2900 B.C.

If the authorities disagree as to the dates of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms (the divisions used in my pages), they agree fairly well on what Dynasties are comprised in each of these. So whether a reader adhere to 5867 or to 2700 B.C. for Menes, the Old Kingdom still comprises Dynasties I. to XI.; the Middle Kingdom Dynasties XII. to XVI.; the New Kingdom Dynasty XVII. to Alexander the Great or 332 B.C., at which stage the Ptolemies came on the scene.

EGYPTIAN FISHING[747]