![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Homer and Herodotus
So I'm reading Herodotus -- particularly the section from Histories where he talks about Egypt. In which I came across an alternate view of the Trojan war that highlights exactly how little I really know about ancient Greek mythology/history.
We all know Homer's version -- Paris steals Helen, goes back to Troy, the Greeks lay siege, lovely popularised romantic view of Paris and Helen holed up in Troy, love against all odds, yadda yadda yadda.
According to Herodotus (who calls Paris by the name of Alexander, although all the other names are the same) Helen never even went to Troy. Their ship was blown off course and landed in Egypt, where some of the crew reported Paris's abduction of Helen to the local authorities, and King Proteus confiscated the stolen goods (namely Helen, and some additional finery) before sending Alexander (Paris) on his way. The Greeks show up at Troy only to be told Helen isn't there -- she's in Egypt. Menelaus doesn't believe them, and sacks the city anyway, only to find that they were telling the truth, at which point he has to go to Egypt to claim his wayward wife, which he does, before getting on Proteus's bad side by sacrificing a couple of Egyptian children.
This version, Herodotus claims, makes more sense than Homer's, as Priam was no idiot, and Paris wasn't even his eldest son and heir, so certainly he would have returned Helen to Greeks before allowing his children to be murdered and his city to be destroyed had such a thing been possible.
Moreover, Herodotus shows with quotes from the Iliad that Homer was aware of this alternate history (incidently pointing to inconsistencies between the Iliad and the Cypria that he says proves the Cypria was not in fact written by Homer) and speculates that Homer's version of the story was invented simply because it suited Homer's purposes better than the truth.
I'm sure no one else here is interested, but I found the whole passage fascinating. I don't suppose anyone knows which version scholars credit with more authenticity? I really need to study the classics more.
We all know Homer's version -- Paris steals Helen, goes back to Troy, the Greeks lay siege, lovely popularised romantic view of Paris and Helen holed up in Troy, love against all odds, yadda yadda yadda.
According to Herodotus (who calls Paris by the name of Alexander, although all the other names are the same) Helen never even went to Troy. Their ship was blown off course and landed in Egypt, where some of the crew reported Paris's abduction of Helen to the local authorities, and King Proteus confiscated the stolen goods (namely Helen, and some additional finery) before sending Alexander (Paris) on his way. The Greeks show up at Troy only to be told Helen isn't there -- she's in Egypt. Menelaus doesn't believe them, and sacks the city anyway, only to find that they were telling the truth, at which point he has to go to Egypt to claim his wayward wife, which he does, before getting on Proteus's bad side by sacrificing a couple of Egyptian children.
This version, Herodotus claims, makes more sense than Homer's, as Priam was no idiot, and Paris wasn't even his eldest son and heir, so certainly he would have returned Helen to Greeks before allowing his children to be murdered and his city to be destroyed had such a thing been possible.
Moreover, Herodotus shows with quotes from the Iliad that Homer was aware of this alternate history (incidently pointing to inconsistencies between the Iliad and the Cypria that he says proves the Cypria was not in fact written by Homer) and speculates that Homer's version of the story was invented simply because it suited Homer's purposes better than the truth.
I'm sure no one else here is interested, but I found the whole passage fascinating. I don't suppose anyone knows which version scholars credit with more authenticity? I really need to study the classics more.