Book 6, with which the Latin Dictys ends, seeins very compressed; it attempts to summarize the whole story of the return of the. Greeks after the Trojan War. According to legend, the chain of events that led to the Trojan War started at a royal wedding. Peleus, king of the Myrmidons (a race of people created from ants !). Troy and the True Story of the Trojan War Michael Trapp [Note (February ). .. 8 And how might the story to be told in that book connect up with other forms.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||23.36 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.67 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
The Trojan war. If you download the book in PDF, as soon as the book opens, DOWNLOAD IT clicking the icon that appears at the top of the. The same Harmonia who, in the other tradition, is the daughter of Ares and. Aphrodite. She married Cadmus. • Iasion loved Demeter, killed by Zeus. • Dardanus. The Trojan musicmarkup.info - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or view Books which can be used at home or at school as supporting musicmarkup.info Regards.
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Troy and the True Story of the Trojan War. Michael Trapp. It has circulated fitfully in typescript since then, leaving ghostly traces in bibliographies and footnotes. Apart from the addition of a few extra references to sources and studies, to supplement what was on the original seminar handout, I haven't yet tried to revise my text in the light of the considerable volume of relevant publication since My title refers to the set piece, not the preliminaries - so don't be alarmed if Troy isn't mentioned for the first few minutes; you aren't at the wrong seminar.
Agamemnon refuses. An annoyed Chryseis persuades the god Apollo to shoot arrows infected by the plague at the camp. One day. Troy is at stake. Seeing how the plague takes hold of the Greek camp and having found out the reason behind the curse.
Achilles forces Agamemnon to hand over Cressida. Agamemnon agrees in order to save the camp from the plague and to appease the anger of his best warrior. You are just a soldier in my army. From then onwards.
The gods will curse you as I am doing now. In return I will keep your slave. I will hand over Cressida. Agamemnon does not want to completely give in to Achilles and sets out his conditions: You bad king.
Achilles refuses to fight for the Greeks. When they find out about the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles. Achilles and his Myrmidons just watch and do not take part in the battle. Achilles does not accept them and continues to refuse to participate in the war. After a couple of defeats for the Greeks. At some point. Hector challenges him and kills him thinking that he is Achilles.
After holding off the Trojan attack. Do not go after the Trojans. You can take them into battle. Achilles replied. Without realising. Agamemnon sees Achilles putting his helmet on in order to fight the Trojans again and smiling he turns to his deputies and says: When Achilles finds out about the death of his companion Patroclus. There he duels with Hector and kills him. Achilles manages to hold off the Trojan army right up to the walls of Troy. Achilles is surprised at his appearance.
Having observed several days of funeral rites following the death of Patroclus. Do not be afraid. Great warrior. It was a fair fight. If only our king was like you. Great King of Troy. The Myrmidons will escort you through the camp. Achilles replies. By way of gratitude. They arrange a secret ceremony to celebrate the marriage.
I will allow you to marry my daughter. When they first met. At some time during the celebration. Achilles had told Polyxena his secret: The Greeks are left without their hero and leader. The Greek camp becomes deeply dejected when it learns of the unfortunate death of its hero. During the cremation ceremony.
Helen no longer has anything which ties her to Troy and she gradually distances herself from it. Now the person responsible for causing the war is dead and Helen is a widow. Following the death of his two sons. Priam forces Helen to marry another of his sons. Priam cannot tolerate the idea of handing her back to Menelaus. Agamemnon thinks that it is a good idea. By way of preparation. We will build an enormous wooden horse inside which we will hide our best warriors. After nine years at war and exhausted by the siege of Troy.
The fact is that there were no other ideas. We will take it to the city. Priam arrives at the beach and studies the wooden horse. All that remains on the beach is an enormous wooden horse. It looks like they have finally returned to Greece. One morning the Trojan sentinels cannot see either the camp or the Greeks. And that is what happens. An analysis which picks up - perhaps a little credulously - on the statement in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.
Desideri, for his part, declares for what he calls a 'political' reading of the speech, though this turns out in practice to be - in keeping with his overall project - as much cultural-political as polis-political in nature.
For him, the key passage comes towards the end of the oration, where Dio points out that changed political circumstances - the advent of the Roman Empire - make exercises like Homer's in boosting Greek morale against the Trojans unnecessary.
Myths, that is to say, go out of date, and it is the entitlement, even the duty, of the modern intellectual to rewrite them in tune with the changed times, as Dio has done to Homer. The speech thus emerges as a general programme for cultural action, the theoretical justification for Dio's practice as Desideri sees it not only in this speech, but in many others besides. At the same time, it delivers the practical message that in the world of the Empire concord and treaties are better than conflict.
But in neither case is Troy the real point; it is only a specific illustration of some more general truth, about myths and the modern world, or about self-deception and vanity. And in neither case is the local context discussed at any length. Now, I am not entirely hostile to the idea that Homer's Trojan War may be a means to some further end, but I am pretty sure that the end is not what either Desideri or Kindstrand wants it to be.
And I would like to think that the process of coming up with something better takes us via a more careful look at local sentiments. Desideri's myth-manipulating Dio is an interesting construct, as is his picture of Dio as ideological evangelist for Roman Imperial values.
But I wonder in general at the wisdom of trying to make every last major oration fit the same pattern to give him his due, Desideri himself is a little uneasy, speaking of the 'temptation' at least to try to include this oration in the political scheme.
Moreover, in the specific case of Oration 11, it seems strained to make a relatively fleeting remark in the final stages of the performance the crucial key to the whole, as Desideri has to. There may also be problems in the view of mythological and ideological truth that he attributes to Dio in the course of constructing his reading, but I am not sure I'm in a position to take those on now.
Kindstrand perhaps deserves a slightly more extended discussion, if only because he offers some more obvious handles to criticism. His confidence that the oration can be read as a Cynicizing, therefore philosophically serious piece rests on some very shaky foundations. For one thing, it depends on an uncritical acceptance of the sophist- versus-philosopher antithesis as a useful tool for understanding Dio he agrees with Synesius that the oeuvre can be divided into the early and sophistic and the later and philosophical.
In addition, the identification of individual Cynic elements is frequently optimistic: But above all, it seems to me that Kindstrand has to attribute to Dio an almost incoherent overall strategy in the Oration.
The aim is allegedly to cure the Ilians of their unhelpful vanity and pretentiousness, by showing them just how deeply in error they can be even when they are surest of their ground, and by revealing to them the perversity of basing their civic pride on what ought to count as the greatest of misfortunes. In the abstract, this would indeed make sense as an attempt to shake them free of worldly values.
But can this really be the aim when the actual speech is - as we have seem - so very full of appeals to just the kind of educated values and empty cultural pride that the Cynic ought to foreswear?
There is surely too much conventional culture and educated pride in the attack for it really to be an attack of the kind Kindstrand wants. But if the oration is not to be read as moral preaching or political propaganda, how exactly are we to place it instead? I've already suggested that, irrespective of the circumstances, the precise location, of its delivery, it can be taken as a splendid piece of entertainment for the classically educated. What I now wish to add is that for a specifically Ilian audience, it might be rather more - splendid entertainment with a hidden sting, which in its turn offers although it does not insist on deeper reflection.
However, the kind of reflection I want to see is not that envisaged by Kindstrand or Desideri. To get at it, we need to take that closer look at the civic environment in which Dio performed. The city of Ilion in the first and second centuries AD was deeply committed to its Trojan past, and had been for centuries. Its great shrine to Athena Ilias, first developed under Antigonus Monophthalmus and rebuilt under Augustus, with its festival, could look back to the temple in which Theano and the women of Troy pray in Iliad 6.
Trojan heroes adorned the coinage and stood in bronze and stone in the city's public spaces: And it appears that some of the city's twelve tribes were named for the Trojans of old: Not everyone, however, was sure that the line was true. Book 13 of Strabo's Geography reveals that something like the controversy that we know best in connection with Schliemann was already under way in antiquity. There was the possibility of polemic between the Ilians, proudly defending their claim to geographical identity with Priam's city, and those who maintained that the present city of Ilion was the result of a migration, and that the site of Ilus's foundation was the hamlet now known as the 'Village of the Ilians' jIlievwn kwvmh.
Moreover, these sceptics, according to Strabo, based their arguments on the analysis of Homer Meyer in RE Suppl. Die Inschriften von Ilion ed. Frisch, Habelt , nos. Bellinger, Troy. The coins Princeton UP , e.
Other students too relate that the city has changed its place several times, before eventually settling for good where it now is in about the time of Croesus They say that the present Ilion was for some time a mere village At the same time, we must remind ourselves, they will also have been as keen as any such group anywhere in the eastern half of the Empire to think of themselves as educated Greeks, heirs also to the riches of Hellenic culture.
Loyalty to Priam's Troy did not involve renunciation of Hellenic in favour of Phrygian identity.
It is this context - which Desideri and Kindstrand do not take the time to explore even as briefly as I have just done - that I believe opens the way to another reading of Dio's oration. For it allows us to envisage, behind the uncomplicated enjoyment of the rhetorical skill and mastery of the classical heritage with which Dio works, a more sophisticated and provocative or at least, teasing current.
For what the argument of the Trojan Oration implicitly does is to remind its Ilian audience of just the dual heritage I have just sketched, and to propose them a dilemma arising from it, a dilemma that threatens to pull apart the two sides to that heritage, as Trojans and as Hellenes, and to manoeuvre them into a position in which they are threatened with having to choose one or the other.
Are they going to welcome the revelation that their city was never captured, and accept its truth? Or are they going to cling to the old Homeric story, in the teeth of reasoned criticism, simply because it is the old Homeric story? But if they do that, then they will have to renounce the role that has brought them all their fame in the Greek-speaking world, and turn their backs on the greatest Hellenic poet.
If, on the other hand, they prefer to maintain their credentials as admirers of Homer, and sustainers of hallowed tradition, then they will have to acknowledge more openly that their reputation is built on the shame of military defeat.
I say that this strategy 'threatens' to put the Ilians on an uncomfortable spot, because in the event the blow is softened by Dio's peroration, in which he suggests an accommodation that salvages everybody's credit, and even affects surprise that his arguments might be believed. But I would like to think that this final softening does not entirely remove the tease.
Something of the challenge, of the sense of the paradox of being a Trojan Greek remains, even if the suggestion that a real choice has to be made eventually recedes. At the same time, as I have hinted, I don't want to rule out all suggestion of something a shade more 'serious'. The question 'are you keener to be Trojans or Greeks? Anyone who wanted to press for this understanding could point to the way Dio chooses to end the speech on a moralzing note, with the suggestion that it would be better for the Greeks not to have sacked Troy, if sacking a city necessarily involves the vicious actions normally associated with such an event.
If the Greeks have reason to relinquish conventional glory for moral reasons, perhaps the Trojans do too; and if moral motives take precedence, then one is being offered a vantage-point from which issues of Greekness or Trojanness might fade away.
It would, for instance, be both like and unlike his performance in the Alexandrian Oration: There is more than one way for a visiting orator to display his sensitivity to this audience in this place.
But what remains true is that we risk missing something important about the speeches if we do not attend closely to the civic context, just as we risk missing something important about the civic context if we do not attend closely to the speeches.
Synopsis of the Trojan Oration Proem Truth and error; human perversity in clinging to familiar falsehood Preliminary indications of Homer's mendacity, and of the means to unmask them Argumentation Homer the Liar The True Story Hector's triumph Achilles's sortie and death at Hector's hands Greek homecomings and Trojan colonization Peroration The persistence of falsehoods.
Defense of Homer's lies as a sensible response to post-war conditions, now no longer needed. No shame to the Greeks not to have captured Troy. Download pdf. It is this last set of questions that provides me with my transition.
A couple of years ago, I tried out some ideas along these lines in connection with Dio Chrysostom's Alexandrian Oration Or. For this is the speech in which Dio argues, in Ilion, perhaps in the course of the festival of Athena Ilias, that Troy was never captured by the Greeks.
The story told by Homer in the Iliad, and by all the subsequent poets influenced by him, Dio proclaims, is a tissue of lies, which, for all their cunning and all the credence they have enjoyed over the centuries, can be decisively unmasked, both by internal analysis of their implausibilities and inconsistencies, and by confrontation with a superior historical source. That superior historical source, we discover in chapters , is a venerable Egyptian priest, whom Dio claims to have encountered in the city of Onouphis, and who was himself dependent on the section of Egyptian historical records compiled from information received from the visiting Menelaus in Egyptian terms, a relatively 8 M.
Innes et al. What Dio presents in the remainder of the oration or at least its greater part, chapters is supposed to be a report of what the priest told him, bulked out by supporting considerations of his own that testify to its superior plausibility compared with the mendacious Homeric alternative.
In practice, the situation becomes somewhat blurred as the oration proceeds: the priest rather fades from view he is last definitely in the frame in ch. This awkwardness may be connected with the fact that we seem to have in the text of the oration as it now survives a combination of several different versions. Thus at the outset we are told that Paris came to Greece not as an adulterer and an abductor, but as a legitimate suitor for Helen's hand, and that Tyndareus, with a sharp eye for a good dynastic union, accepted his suit.
Accordingly, the Greek expedition against Troy was not mounted to take just vengeance for villainy, but from wounded pride wasn't a Greek good enough?
The rival Homeric account, that makes Paris the villain of the piece, simply will not stand up. It is absurd to imagine Paris falling in love with a woman he had never seen, and Helen consenting to leave home and family for a foreigner. And even if Paris had conceived such a lunatic scheme, would wise Priam and noble Hector ever have let him carry it out?
How come neither Helenus nor Antenor nor Cassandra had anything to say about it? Again, if Menelaus had been at home, he couldn't have failed to see what was going 10 See H. And come to that, doesn't Homer somewhere say that Troy had been sacked only a few years before by Heracles?
How is that consistent with Priam's sitting on the throne of Troy, let alone conniving at a venture that was bound to provoke reprisals? At the end of the story, we learn that the Greeks were ultimately forced to sail away from the Troad after a negotiated settlement, leaving behind a wooden horse dedicated to Athena Ilias, in acknowledgement of their failure. Homer's story hinted at by him, and developed by others under his spell that they sacked the city, and that the dedication was in fact the crucial strategem that allowed them to do it, does not bear close scrutiny.
It is in general deeply implausible that a tiny expeditionary force should succeed against a rich and powerful city, and the claim that this was done by packing armed men into a wooden horse only makes things worse. Moreover, Trojan rather than Greek success makes far better sense of what is recorded as happening next to each of the two sides: sorry returns from the Greeks, to find murderers and usurpers at home, but for the Trojans, a whole string of successful colonial ventures including the foundation of what was to become the greatest city of all - Rome.
So much for the rival version of events at Troy. Lengthily and lovingly as it is unfolded and defended, it is not however the only element in Dio's assault on Homer, nor the first. He begins by arguing in chapters 15 to 37 that we can know Homer to be a liar on other grounds too, and these other grounds provide an essential prelude to the case of Troy.
Firstly, there is general agreement even among those who accept his authority that Homer was a wanderer and a beggar; no shame in that, but beggars in general have strong reasons for saying what they need to in order to curry favour rather than what is true.
Moreover, Homer himself is open in his praise and sympathy for liars: witness what he says about Odysseus and Autolycus Thirdly, there is something deeply suspicious about Homer's narrative style - that choice to begin in medias res and to end before the real end of his story.
To thus relegate what ought to be the essential elements of the tale the initial crime of Paris, and the eventual fall of his city to positions of near-invisibility can only be a sign of evasiveness and of a guilty conscience, of a liar trying to divert attention from the most dangerous proof of his mendacity Thus before the individual lies about Troy are unmasked, it has already been established in general and in principle that Homer is a liar.
It remains only to consider the Introduction and Peroration, with which Dio encloses this complex of arguments. Here perhaps we may see some attempt to steer his audience's reaction to it. The peroration chs takes the form of a gesture of reassurance, directed at anyone who may still be worried at the propriety of impugning Homer's honesty and insulting the Greeks by denying them one of their greatest achievements.
Homer had every reason to lie as he did, and he can be seen to have lied in a good cause. After such a defeat as that, it was essential to lie in order to sustain Greek morale - just as the Persian high command lied to the Persian people about the outcome of Xerxes's expedition. But the need for such an exercise is now long gone - there is no further danger of east-west conflict in the Roman empire - so the lie can safely and respectably be unmasked. Nor are the Greeks thereby done down in any hurtful sense.
The sack of Troy as the poets tell it is full of shocking and criminal actions on the part of the victors: surely sacrificing the glory of sacking Troy is a small part to pay for being freed from the more serious charge of vice and depravity. The closing moments of the speech, therefore, are directed at an audience assumed to be suffused by Hellenic feeling, for the national classic and the glorious past.
The 12 introduction, ostensibly, appeals to a more general level of reflectiveness, even as it anticipates a specifically local reaction to what Dio is about to say The reluctance that the people of Ilion are going to feel to accept that the Greeks never sacked their city is just one instance of a general human tendency, that of clinging to familiar falsehoods when confronted with a novel truth; it is a striking but by no means unique testimony to the power of doxa over aletheia.
The people of Argos would feel the same at being told that Thyestes didn't in fact commit adultery with Aerope, as would the Thebans on hearing that King Oedipus never did and suffered what the old stories claim. There then is Dio's Troicus. What are we to make of it? Who is it for, and what is it trying to do for them?
To impugn Homer's veracity and to question the outcome of the Trojan War is in itself a gorgeous paradoxon, worthy of Gorgias's Helen. An apparently outrageous 'what if? But the piquancy of the exercise is immensely enhanced by the way this attack on a pair of cultural monuments is itself conducted with materials drawn from almost equally central elements of the Hellenic heritage. Dio himself says early on that he will 'refute Homer from nowhere else than his own poetry' which I would like to see as a knowing parody of the critical maxim of 'illuminating Homer from Homer' [ch.
This mobilization of resources from the educated repertoire has a number of aspects. As was pointed out long ago by Kroll, and in his footsteps by Mesk , the negative 13 arguments that Dio and his priest bring against the veracity of Homer's version, both in themselves, and in the way they are piled one on the other, draw on the strategies of the familiar rhetorical exercise of anaskeue 'refutation' , which was canonically the fifth or thereabouts in the sequence of progymnasmata and one might also note that attack on the proponents of the view or story refuted, as well as on the story itself, is recommended by the handbooks for this exercise.
For Kindstrand, this is an indication that anaskeue is not a useful key to the oration, which he wishes in general to read as a piece of moral philosophizing rather than a rhetorical sophistic performance more on this later. I would prefer to accept that both associations - anaskeue and Homeric criticism - are in play, and to add that the contemporary audience will also have heard echoes of judicial oratory - specifically, the undermining of the opposition's narrative and his witnesses which is, after all, what anaskeue was there to train the aspiring orator in in the first place.
Along with this, Dio also weaves into his oration a series of reminiscences of classic literature, which both flatter his audience's ability to recognize and appreciate them, and implicitly claim the authority of the greats of the past for his own procedure or rather, for the procedure of the persona through which he speaks this particular oration. The invocation of the priest of Onouphis, and deference to his authority, recalls above all Herodotus's account of his own Egyptian researches which, it will be remembered, include a revisionary account of the story of Helen, and thus of the aetiology of the Trojan War, in which priestly records and the testimony of Menelaus are used to 'correct' Homer.
Aphthonius, Rhet. II, Spengel, with G. Towards the end of the oration ch. Finally, as a critic of Homer, who wishes to argue that his poetry is both mendacious and inappropriate to present needs, 'Dio' takes on something of the mantle of the Plato of Republic 2 and 3. But is there another level to all this? And is there something extra that the performance gains from its location - as this time round at least a speech to educated Ilians, rather than some other group of educated Hellenes?
The two most prominent attempts to answer these questions in the affirmative come from Kindstrand in Homer in der Zweiten Sophistik and Desideri in Dione di Prusa.
Desideri, Dione di Prusa n. For him, it is emphatically the mature, philosophical Dio who speaks, not the callow young sophist. On this reading, the key section of the oration is its very first, the discussion of truth, falsehood and opinion.
The demolition of Homer's account of the Trojan War is just one possible example among many - albeit one with a special immediacy for the people of Ilion - with which to advance Dio's ongoing 'Kampf gegen die dovxa' p. At the same time, though this seems for Kindstrand to be a secondary matter, the speech is also pro-Roman propaganda, an attempt to counter anti-Roman scorn by pointing out that they are the descendants of the victors of the Trojan War, not its vanquished.
An analysis which picks up - perhaps a little credulously - on the statement in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.