TROJAN WAR STORY PDF
Troy and the True Story of the Trojan War Michael Trapp [Note (February ). This paper was delivered to the Oxford Ancient History Seminar on 4 February. The Trojans call themselves 'Dardans' . War. • Oath of Tyndarius. – Former suitors bound by oath to protect the marriage Story of Odysseus' ten year voyage. 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 !).
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||16.49 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.41 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
The Trojan ppti.info - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or view presentation slides online. Envy, vengeance, love and war come together in this story. The Trojan war. envy, revenge, love and war came together to produce this fascinating story. If you download the book in PDF, as soon as the book opens, DOWNLOAD IT PDF Format. download the book pdf Format. An epic poem is a long narrative that relates the deeds of heroes. Many of the stories of the Trojan War were compiled in an epic poem called the Iliad by the.
And it is also unfair, in looking at more recent work, to confine your attention to works of synthesis and survey, where of course some even quite important aspects of a subject are bound to recede, and even go missing entirely. Remove the blinkers and you will see a plethora of good writing on Greek culture in the Imperial period that privileges rhetoric and oratory, rhetors and orators, in precisely the way you seem to want.
Look at all the work on Sophists and declamation, and their place both in the political processes and the social structures of the day.
Les Belles Letres ; P. Desideri, Dione di Prusa G.
D'Anna ; C. Russell and N. Wilson ed.
Anderson, Philostratus Croom Helm ; id. Exempli gratia - omissions not pointed. There is certainly a rich literature, and I am as pleased by it and grateful for it as anyone can be. But I still feel inclined to stick by my sense that there is a distinct civic dimension to the oratory and rhetoric of this period that, in varying degrees, these works fail to do justice to - one that begs for, and will reward, further exploration.
The proposition that oratory and rhetoric needed cities as much as cities needed oratory and rhetoric can and should be leant on harder, both in our sociological accounts of the Greek city of the later period, and in our readings of individual texts. I suppose of the scholars I listed a moment ago, it is C.
Jones, in his Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, who might seem to come closest to giving the lie to my complaint. Here indeed, epigraphic material, and a sophisticated understanding of both local and imperial politics are brought into play to contextualize individual orations, and the resulting readings of individual items are fitted together into an intelligently revisionary biography of the orator.
This is close to at least part of what I think I'm looking for, but its a closeness that in the end serves less to satisfy than to sharpen a sense of other projects to pursue.
Jones uses data about cities to illuminate speeches more than he uses speeches to illuminate the culture of cities; and his focus on the specifics of an individual career leaves little room for more generalizing reflection on the physical and institutional surroundings in which that career unfolded.
I could go on with this sort of ungrateful carping - looking for instance also at the worrying tendency to treat 'political' and 'epideictic' as mutually exclusive terms - but it would no doubt be a relief to turn to something more positive. This will both force 6 me a little further into the open, and provide me with a transition to my declamation proper.
What is it, then, that I would like to see instead of - or rather, in addition to - what has already been said about oratory and rhetoric in the Imperial period?
Broadly - as I hope I have already done something to convey - I am after accounts that take a closer look at the enmeshedness of the techniques of formal speech in civic culture - in the ways that rhetorical training and oratorical practice were woven into the life and processes of individual cities; in the ways in which one might want to write them in to an anthropologically and sociologically 'thick' account of 'the city'; in the ways in which they conditioned and interacted with the shared experience of citizens.
And I should like all these questions to be posed on the level of the individual civic community, and from the citizen's viewpoint, rather than from some lofty and distant eminence, from which individual detail, and the sense of individual locality, is lost in the grander sweep of kingdom or empire.
Within the territory thus marked out, I see a number of more specific projects that I would like to see carried further. In the first place, there is the question of the role of rhetorical training: not only in preparing its recipients for practical activity as orators, but also in forming them as members of the citizen elite, inculcating both norms of deportment and self- presentation, and weapons for the competitive struggle for status.
This is the seam which Maud Gleason has started to mine so splendidly in Making Men, and it's one I think cries out to be taken further. Gleason, Making Men. Sophists and self-presentation in ancient Rome Princeton UP Can we for instance find the tussle between rhetoric and philosophy reproduced on this level too?
This might in turn lead us on to ask also about the city as performance-space: on the one hand, the various physical 'platforms' and surroundings it offered for oratorical activity; on the other, the extent to which the words spoken might or might not be expected to interact with those surroundings - acknowledging or not acknowledging what the eyes of an audience see, besides the orator, as they listen to his words, and their sense of physical space.
Oratory and the built and sculpted environment is an intriguing topic as I continue to feel in spite of having tried to read Richard Sennett's Flesh and Stone while I was preparing this paper - there are some good questions buried somewhere in that book, even if the answers are daft.
How far can we legitimately see speeches - particularly symbouleutic and epideictic speeches - and the written texts arising from them - as places where communal values and communal pride were sustained, tested, and modified? Is there a book on The Perpetuation of Prusa vel sim. Trapp, Philosophy in the Roman Empire: ethics, politics and society Ashgate , Sennett, Flesh and Stone Norton 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.
Legend of the Trojan Horse
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.
The Trojan War: Summary & History
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.
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.
He cannot kill his own son and secretly orders that he be left beside a bush on Mount Ida. Nine days later, Agelaus, the herdsman, watches in amazement as a bear suckles the child.
He takes him home as if he were his own son and secretly brings him up. Paris is raised as part of Agelaus family.
Idioma / Language
After a few years, Paris turns into a handsome young man. The people who know him, appreciate the fairness with which he resolves various matters. As a result, Zeus, the king of the gods, orders him to intervene in a dispute between the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, and choose the most beautiful of them.
All three are equally beautiful. In the end, Paris chooses Aphrodite, and by way of reward she promises him that the most beautiful woman on Earth will fall in love with him. Hera and Athena leave, both vowing revenge against Paris for his choice. During some local celebrations in Troy, Paris participates in various tests of skill. He wins all of them, beating several noblemen, including King Priams sons.
This really infuriates them and they start to chase after him. When they have caught him, Agelaus forces his way through the crowd and shouts to Priam: - Your Majesty, its your long-lost son!
Dont hurt him! Meanwhile, in Sparta, a city in Greece, Helen, the most beautiful woman of the Peloponnese is ready to marry. Her suitors include almost all of the Greek princes and kings: Diomedes, Patroclus, Palamedes, Ajax, Odysseus, Menelaus Odysseus asks them to swear an oath to defend the chosen one against anyone who bears a grudge, so as to prevent quarrels between them after Helen makes her choice.
They all do as they are asked. Several months later, Menelaus comes to Troy on a commercial visit and meets the young Paris. They get on well with each other and Menelaus invites him to go to Sparta with him.
Paris accepts. In Sparta he meets Helen, who falls hopelessly in love with him. They plan to run off and, taking advantage of the fact that Menelaus has an urgent trip to Crete, they flee to Troy, taking important Spartan treasures with The promise that the goddess Aphrodite had made to Paris was becoming a reality.
By way of revenge against Paris, the goddess Hera sends a big storm which does not sink the lovers ship but does alter its course. They eventually arrive off the coast of Cyprus. Paris subsequently conquers the city of Sidon and with it numerous treasures that he takes with him.
Now is the time to keep your promise. One by one they all end up agreeing, even the hero Achilles.The three great tragedians of Athens — Aeschylus , Sophocles , and Euripides —wrote a number of dramas that portray episodes from the Trojan War.
The oracle of Delphi, was a well known oracle. Achilles replies. If you also agree, hold up your hands. Dont hurt him! Defense of Homer's lies as a sensible response to post-war conditions, now no longer needed.
How come neither Helenus nor Antenor nor Cassandra had anything to say about it? Paris accepts.