Doolittle’s depictions of Theseus as both necessary and unnecessary in Helen in Egypt, then, might be read as one of these challenges encouraged by the Professor. The paradoxical relationship between Helen and Theseus remains particularly apparent in Doolittle’s presentation of Theseus as espousing a similar model of symbol and interpretation as the one that Helen has devised for herself throughout the first half of the book. In the first and second poem of the fifth book of “Leuke,” for instance, Theseus elaborates on the connection that Helen has established between the poetic image and the remembered or experienced one, suggesting that one must interpret the symbols within one’s life as one would delve into the many possible readings of a text. Resembling Doolittle’s own model of the psychoanalytic process, Theseus merely presents an extension of Helen’s own personal philosophy, rather than offering new and revelatory insights. In short, Helen becomes both patient and analysand in much the same way that Doolittle perceived herself:

In this piece, which is spoken by Theseus, H.D. presents the mythical hero and his wisdom within the framework that Helen has already devised, in which objective images serve as a point of entry to the subjective emotions one must overcome in psychoanalysis. Conveyed within the poem in terms of concrete images, which represent the recurring symbols and motifs in Helen’s life, her perception of such objective images as being merely a means toward the interpretations and associations that they generate remains equally prominent in Theseus’s worldview. Read with these ideas in mind, Doolittle’s presentation of Helen’s relationship with Theseus offers an egalitarian view of psychoanalysis, in which one can become both patient and analyst through such introspection, as well as by engaging with the symbols that surface within one’s life.

Because Doolittle defines “symbol” and “interpretation” so broadly, this idea of serving as one’s own analyst encompasses greater possibilities for interpretation than merely thinking about one’s own life. Rather, her vision of “analysis” represents a greater level of critical engagement with cultural, historical, and artistic symbols, which inhabit the analysand’s life while raising larger questions about his or her place in society. The role of analyst, then, entails a constant interrogation and reinterpretation of questions larger than oneself, to which one’s lived experience remains merely a point of entry.

Symbol, Interpretation, and Science in “Leuke”

By presenting such an egalitarian view of psychoanalysis, in which an individual might become one’s own analyst, Doolittle cautions against the emergent rhetoric of science and psychology that frequently mediated many analysands’ experience of the realm of dream, symbol, and the subconscious. Although both H.D. and Helen found these aspects of consciousness revelatory when first experiencing them, the text of Helen in Egypt frequently cautions against an external and definitive interpretation of one’s psyche, a theme that grows increasingly prominent within the pages of “Leuke.” As Adelaide Morris argues in her book, How to Live/What to Do, “…[for H.D.] science is a process rather than a product, a way of knowing rather than a thing that’s known…” Likewise, psychoanalysis appears throughout Helen in Egypt as an ongoing process, in which knowledge of the constantly changing self remains merely an approximation of a complete understanding of one’s psyche, a stark contrast to the rhetoric of modern, empirical science that remained prominent in the 1930s.

Several poems within the second section of Helen in Egypt caution against a single definitive interpretation of a symbol, often while, at the same time, highlighting the myriad possible readings of any given text or thing. In the sixth poem of “Leuke: Book Five,” she begins with a description of Theseus guiding Helen as she comes to terms with the traumas of her past. Although the mythical heroine appears closer to finding a sense of resolution, the two characters approach her story with a different understanding of Achilles and his relationship to Helen. Particularly apparent in the verse section of the piece, which Theseus narrates, this disparity manifests itself as he names various women in Achilles’ life while the heroine continues to idealize him as “Helen’s Achilles on the desolate beach.” For Theseus, this discrepancy between the two characters’ interpretations of the past raises questions about any analysand’s attempts to “decipher” and find definitive meaning in the symbols of his or her past. The poem ends with Theseus asking, “how do you know that? / can you read the past / like a scroll?” Evoking the symbols, friezes, and hieroglyphs of the earlier poems of “Pallinode,” the question of attaching fixed meanings to the ever changing symbols of one’s life remains central to both the text and Doolittle’s analysis with Freud — a theme that Doolittle conveys both descriptively and through the structure of her poem.