The speaker(s) of the chorus find that this question of justification raises yet another, that of the transient of nature suffering when compared to the omnipresence of such works of art in contemporary society. They ask, “was it a challenge to Death, to all song forever?” suggesting both the immortality of works like Helen, the “Pallinode” of Stesichorus of Sicily, and Euripides’ The Trojan Women, as well as the influence such works continue to wield over Western art and the social criticisms within their pages that remain relevant to the First World War and its generation. In the end acknowledging the labyrinthine quality of such questions, the speaker(s) ask, “was it a question asked, / to which there was no answer?” This statement, while revealing the futility of interpreting such symbols, does not stop such attempts to decipher them within the chorus, as similar questions comprise the remainder of the poem. The imagistic quality of the poem, as well as its descriptions of the Trojan War, suggest that while these interpretations remain a labyrinthine effort that begets new challenges, the process remains a necessary endeavor, one that forces both introspection and the critical view of history and society that emerges as a result of this generative process. While positing this self-reflexive method of interpreting symbols as an ideal, which reconciles subjective and objective within the poem, Doolittle also recognizes the ways in which individuals fail to enact this idea. In doing so, she grounds her analysis of symbol and interpretation in the currents of history, all the while recognizing the possibility of negotiating subjective with objective.

As the work unfolds, the chorus introduces questions that challenge the status quo, as well as trivial questions about the masculine world of war, suggesting that the interpretation of history’s symbols often falls into the hands of socially dominant groups. By pairing substantial questions that ask who controls the currents of history, such as “who set the scene? / who lured the players from home / or imprisoned them…?” with others that address masculine pride (such as “was Paris more skillful than Teucer?”), Doolittle suggests that the more substantial interpretations of history’s symbols are overshadowed by culturally privileged groups. By ending the poem with such a trivial question about Achilles’ being more skillful “than Hector,” she ends the poem on a dark note, recognizing the possibilities inherent in such efforts to decipher symbols and the manner in which their subjectivity often becomes a vehicle for other agendas. In doing so, she acknowledges and pays tribute to the language of analysis and interpretation, but because individuals often misuse it, privileges an unmediated experience of myth and symbol. Such an approach emphasizes the possibilities for discovery inherent in interpretation, rather than imposing authoritative readings of any type of symbol.

This theme of privileged and marginalized interpretations of cultural recurs throughout Helen in Egypt, and often serves as a foundation for her criticisms of the rhetoric of science, psychology, and interpretation. As Louis L. Martz argues in Many Gods and Many Voices, H.D. assumes the role of a visionary, in which she cautions against the problems civilization has experienced as a result of these falsely authoritative interpretations of cultural and historical symbols. He writes, “To say that Helen speaks throughout as the prophet or priestess of Isis would be to sum up the meaning of the work; for Isis, that benevolent, creative goddess, was known throughout the Mediterranean world as the ‘Goddess of many names.’ For H.D., in this poem, her name is Helen.” As Martz suggests, Doolittle assigns Helen the role of a cautionary prophet, whose connection with the goddess Isis evokes the process of interpretation and reinterpretation inherent in the creative arts. As the poem progresses, she explores the intersection of cultural and artistic interpretation, namely as Helen and the legends surrounding are depicted in the proliferation of art that followed the Trojan War.

The Artistic Symbol in “Eidolon”

Casting doubt upon the efforts of culturally dominant groups to interpret and define symbols, she often invokes the great art produced as a result of the Trojan War, suggesting that the process of artistic creation remains rooted in existing symbols and methods of interpretation. In this respect, the historical definition of “symbol” and “interpretation” that Doolittle posits near the end of the book contrasts sharply with the primarily literary and personal one that appeared in earlier poems. She suggests that the definitive scientific interpretations offered by contemporary psychoanalysis risks becoming part of this cultural mechanism, in which the ability to interpret cultural symbols is restricted to culturally dominant groups. Cautioning readers, analysts, and analysands against this possible outcome, Doolittle continually depicts these undesirable frameworks of interpretation as authoritarian, rather than pluralistic.