Download the Full Ebook and Access More Features - ebooknice.

com

(Ebook) Planning and Passing Your PhD Defence; A

Global Toolbox for Success by Olga Degtyareva &
Eva O.L. Lantsoght

[Link]
defence-a-global-toolbox-for-success-53878824

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at [Link]

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

(Ebook) A Practical Guide to Planning for E-Business

Success: How to E-enable Your Enterprise by Anita Cassidy
ISBN 9781574443042, 1574443046
[Link]
business-success-how-to-e-enable-your-enterprise-1386730

[Link]

(Ebook) Own Your Psychology Major!: A Guide to Student

Success by Glenn Geher PhD ISBN 9781433830662, 1433830663

[Link]
student-success-38476468

[Link]

(Ebook) The 99 days to re-entry success journal: your

weekly planning and implementation tool for staying out
for good! by Krannich, Ronald L ISBN 9781570233739,
157023373X
[Link]
your-weekly-planning-and-implementation-tool-for-staying-out-for-
good-11872986
[Link]

(Ebook) The Mid-Career Success Guide: Planning for the

Second Half of Your Working Life by Sally J. Power ISBN
9780275988012, 0275988015
[Link]
for-the-second-half-of-your-working-life-1392384

[Link]
(Ebook) The Therapist's Toolbox : 26 Tools and an
Assortment of Implements for the Busy Therapist by Susan
E. Carrell ISBN 9780761922643, 9781452252094, 0761922644,
1452252092
[Link]
assortment-of-implements-for-the-busy-therapist-44159450

[Link]

(Ebook) Piano adventures Performance 3b by Nancy and

Randall Faber

[Link]

[Link]

(Ebook) Hematopathology: A Volume in the High Yield

Pathology Series by Jon C. Aster MD PhD, Olga Pozdnyakova
MD PhD, Jeffery L. Kutok MD PhD ISBN 9781437717587,
1437717586
[Link]
yield-pathology-series-4768276

[Link]

(Ebook) Athletic Training Student Primer: A Foundation for

Success by Andrew P. Winterstein PhD ATC ISBN
9781556425707, 1556425708
[Link]
foundation-for-success-2167062

[Link]

(Ebook) Mastering Your PhD: Survival And Success In The

Doctoral Years And Beyond by Patricia Gosling, Bart
Noordam ISBN 9783031114168, 9783031114175, 3031114167,
3031114175
[Link]
in-the-doctoral-years-and-beyond-48702022

[Link]
Planning and Passing
Your PhD Defence

This book is a toolbox for PhD students to plan and pre-

pare for the PhD defence regardless of their scientific dis-
cipline or location. The authors discuss various defence
formats that are used internationally and identify the main
differences and similarities.
With international examples, practical strategies, and
tips from former PhD students and supervisors, this book
unpacks the principles and unwritten rules underpinning
the defence. Addressing planning and preparing for the
doctoral defence, and what to do afterwards, this book
covers topics such as:

• understanding your defence format

• preparing for committee questions
• preparing mentally and dealing with anxiety
• dealing with corrections, finalizing your gradua-
tion requirements and marking the end of your PhD
trajectory.

This book is crucial reading for students across the world

looking to defend their PhD thesis, and also for their
supervisors and examiners.

Olga Degtyareva is an award-winning scientist turned

productivity coach, who runs her own company, Produc-
tivity for Scientists, helping researchers around the world
to be more productive and in charge of their day.
Eva O.L. Lantsoght is the Professor of Structural Engi-
neering at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito,
Ecuador, a tenured assistant professor at Technische
Universiteit Delft, Netherlands, and author and co-host of
the PhD Talk blog and podcast.
Insider Guides to Success in
Academia
Series Editors:
Helen Kara,
Independent Researcher, UK and
Pat Thomson,
The University of Nottingham, UK.

The Insiders’ Guides to Success in Academia address topics too

small for a full-length book on their own, but too big to cover in a
single chapter or article. These topics have often been the stuff of
discussions on social media, or of questions in our workshops.
We designed this series to answer these questions and to provide
practical support for doctoral and early career researchers. It is
geared to concerns that many people experience. Readers will
find these books to be companions that provide advice and help
to make sense of everyday life in the contemporary university.
We have therefore:
(1) invited scholars with deep and specific expertise to
write. Our writers use their research and professional
experience to provide well-grounded strategies to par-
ticular situations.
(2) asked writers to collaborate. Most of the books are
produced by writers who live in different countries, or
work in different disciplines, or both. While it is difficult
for any book to cover all the diverse contexts in which
potential readers live and work, the different perspec-
tives and contexts of writers goes some way to address
this problem.
We understand that the use of the term ‘academia’ might be
read as meaning the university, but we take a broader view. Pat
does indeed work in a university, but spent a long time working
outside of one. Helen is an independent researcher and some-
times works with universities. Both of us understand academic –
or scholarly – work as now being conducted in a range of sites,
from museums and the public sector to industry research and
development laboratories. Academic work is also often under-
taken by networks which bring together scholars in various
locations. All of our writers understand that this is the case, and
use the term ‘academic’ in this wider sense.
These books are pocket sized so that they can be carried
around and visited again and again. Most of the books have a
mix of examples, stories and exercises as well as explanation and
advice. They are written in a collegial tone, and from a position of
care as well as knowledge.
Together with our writers, we hope that each book in the
series can make a positive contribution to the work and life of
readers, so that you too can become insiders in scholarship.
Helen Kara, PhD FAcSS,
independent researcher
[Link]
@DrHelenKara (Twitter/Insta)
Pat Thomson PhD PSM FAcSS FRSA
Professor of Education, The University of Nottingham
[Link]
@ThomsonPat
Books in the Series include:
The Thesis by Publication in the Social Sciences and
Humanities
Putting the Pieces Together
Lynn P. Nygaard and Kristin Solli
Your PhD Survival Guide
Planning, Writing and Succeeding in Your Final Year
Katherine Firth, Liam Connell, and Peta Freestone
Planning and
Passing Your
PhD Defence
A Global Toolbox for
Success

Olga Degtyareva and

Eva O.L. Lantsoght
Cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Olga Degtyareva and Eva O.L. Lantsoght
The right of Olga Degtyareva and Eva O.L. Lantsoght to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Degtyareva, Olga, author. | Lantsoght, Eva O. L., author.
Title: Planning and passing your PhD defence : a global toolbox for success/
Olga Degtyareva and Eva O.L. Lantsoght.
Other titles: Planning and passing your PhD defense
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. |
Series: Insider guides to success in academia | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021024429 (print) | LCCN 2021024430 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367366650 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367366667 (paperback) |
ISBN 9780429347900 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Doctor of philosophy degree—Handbooks, manuals, etc. |
Dissertations, Academic—Handbooks, manuals, etc.
Classification: LCC LB2369.D444 2022 (print) | LCC LB2369 (ebook) |
DDC 378.2/42—dc23
LC record available at [Link]
LC ebook record available at [Link]
ISBN: 978-0-367-36665-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-36666-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-34790-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9780429347900
Typeset in Helvetica
by codeMantra
Contents

1 Introduction: The PhD defence as

the pinnacle of the PhD trajectory 1
Scope 2
Chapter structures 5
How to use this book as a PhD student 5
How to use this book as a supervisor 6
How to use this book in a classroom setting 8

2 Overview of defence formats 13

History and purpose of the defence 13
Defending before or after finalizing the thesis 15
Written or oral defence 17
Single-step versus two-step defences 19
Public or behind closed doors 21
Defence day – fixed schedules and schedules
driven by committee 22
Similarities and differences 23
Similarities 23
Originality 25
Differences 27
Research results on doctoral defence
practices and student perception 29

3 Planning for a successful defence 35

Overall planning of your PhD and possible
pitfalls 35
The duration of a PhD program 35
Funding and the duration of your PhD 39
Sources of delays during the PhD 40
viii Contents

Hard deadlines for the PhD duration 45

Planning towards your defence 46
Working on your PhD with the defence in mind 51
From research ideas to research planning 51
Planning for different types of PhD programs 52
Prepare for your defence by giving
talks throughout your PhD 54
Document your PhD journey 56

4 Preparing for your defence 59

Preparing for all elements of your defence 59
Elements of the defence 59
Preparing to answer questions 61
Practical aspects 61
Research insights on preparing for
the defence 62
General preparation before the defence 67
Our advice on preparing for the defence 67
Former PhD candidates’ experiences
of preparing for the defence 69
How committee members prepare
for the defence 71
Your committee 72
Purpose of your committee 72
Internal committee members 74
External committee members 74
Assigned committee 78
Selecting a committee 79
Preparing for committee feedback 82
Making your presentation 82
Presenting for your audience 82
Summarizing your work 86
Other forms of visual information 91
Tips for presenting 92
 Contents ix

How to prepare for committee questions 95

Dealing with anxiety before thesis
submission and defence 101
Dealing with anxiety before the thesis
submission 102
Dealing with anxiety before the thesis
defence 104
Practicing for the defence 109

5 Defences around the world 115

Introduction 115
The Netherlands 118
Belgium 119
France 120
Germany 120
Portugal 121
Spain 121
Sweden 122
Finland 123
Norway 124
Bulgaria 124
Ukraine 125
Russia 125
Georgia 126
United Kingdom and Ireland 127
United States 129
Canada 131
Chile 132
Australia 133
New Zealand 133
Japan 134
Iran 135
Pakistan 135
Egypt 136
x Contents

6 Your PhD defence 142

The big day 142
Introduction 142
The last days before the defence 143
The day of the defence 145
Special needs 146
Some advice for the defence day from
former students 147
Some advice for the defence from
committee members 147
Research insights 148
Dealing with anxiety on the day of the defence 152
Understanding your anxiety 152
Strategies for dealing with anxiety on the
day of the defence 153
Advice from former PhD students 154
Advice from committee members 156
How to handle committee questions 157
Relation between defence format and
questions 157
Understanding the role of the committee
members 157
Surprisingly easy questions 158
Not being able to answer questions 159
Long and convoluted questions 161
Language-related difficulties with
questions 163
Advice from former PhD students 165
Advice from committee members 165
Research insights 167
Possible difficulties during the defence 168
Difficulties related to the committee 169
Horror stories and urban myths 169
Advice from former students on difficulties 173
Advice from committee members
regarding difficulties 174
 Contents xi

7 After the PhD defence 178

Final graduation requirements 178
Fulfilling graduation requirements 178
Distributing your dissertation 180
Practical tips 180
Celebrating your achievement 181
Final recommendations 185
Further reading 188

Index 193
1 Introduction
The PhD defence as
the pinnacle of the
PhD trajectory

Your PhD trajectory will typically take a minimum of three

years and can take as long as ten years. In any case, it is
a huge intellectual and organizational endeavor that will
occupy you fully for years and will require an immense
effort. And yet there is a pinnacle to this journey! What is
it exactly? You say: thesis submission?… Ah yes, that too!
Indeed, that is a culmination of all your research and writing
up. However, your thesis submission is followed by another
(real) pinnacle; that is your thesis defence. Your PhD defence
is an event where you defend your thesis in front of experts
in your research area. You will present your research, show
your contribution to your scientific field, demonstrate that
you actually can do an independent research study, and
show that you have done it by yourself and that you know
what you are doing. You will be examined on how well you
can present and communicate your work and how deep is
your understanding of the subject and of the results you
have produced. You will be assessed and evaluated during
your PhD defence and you will receive the final judgement at
the end of it. You will be pronounced a Doctor of Philosophy
(a PhD). This is the moment when one of your life’s dreams
comes true, the moment of accomplishment and relief.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429347900-1
2 Introduction

We hope that this book will help you navigate a path full
of uncertainties towards your thesis defence by giving you
guidance on how to prepare for it and what to expect, how
to plan it and how to succeed. We will show you some dif-
ferences in how it is done in different universities and coun-
tries. A major part of the preparation for your PhD defence
will take place close to the time of the event itself, but there
are some aspects you need to work on throughout your
whole PhD journey. For example, you need to develop
your presentation and speaking skills: these take years to
learn and practice. So do not leave reading this book until
just before your defence. Start reading it today and begin
preparing yourself for the positive completion of your PhD
journey: a well-planned PhD defence that you successfully
pass; it will be the pinnacle of your PhD trajectory.

Scope

The topic of this book is the PhD defence, sometimes

also called the viva voce or, in short, viva. We will use the
term “defence”, which is commonly used in the United
States and continental Europe, throughout except when
we discuss national practices and associated terms (e.g.,
the viva for the United Kingdom (Share, 2016)). The term
“defence” may imply that the candidate has to “defend”
and “battle for” their main hypothesis (Tinkler & Jackson,
2000). As some institutional guidelines contain references
to the role of the examining committee in making the can-
didate feel at ease and avoiding aggressive questioning
styles, this term may not be accurate. However, we have
opted to stay with “defence” for the writing of this book,
placing a side note here on the possible connotations of
the term.
 Introduction 3

While you may think that a book about the PhD defence
is limited in scope to an event of just a few hours at the end
of your PhD journey, we wanted to write this book because
the PhD defence is the pinnacle of your PhD trajectory,
and because of the mystery that surrounds the defence
in some universities. Depending on your university, your
defence may influence the outcome or grade of your PhD
or may simply be a formality. We will discuss the differ-
ences between defences in various countries in Chapters
2 and 5. Regardless of the official weight associated with
the defence, it is an event with a significant emotional value
for you as a PhD candidate: it is your moment to celebrate
with friends, colleagues, and family. Even when the defence
is simply a formality, the emotional stakes are always high.
This book addresses planning and preparing for your
doctoral defence and briefly touches upon the topic of
what to do afterwards. Most of the activities we describe
will take place in the last year of your doctoral journey.
In terms of planning, we discuss how you can plan for
your defence and set yourself up for success. In terms
of preparing for the defence, we discuss practical steps,
such as selecting your committee, making your presenta-
tion, and preparing for committee questions, as well as
preparing mentally for your defence. On the topic of the
defence itself, we discuss a wide array of subject matter:
from the logistics of the day of your defence, to dealing
with spur-of-the-moment anxiety, to addressing unex-
pected committee questions and difficulties, and how to
own the day of your defence. We have included advice
from former PhD candidates and committee members.
Finally, the last topic in this book is what to do after the
defence: how to deal with corrections, how to finalize
your graduation requirements, and what to do to mark
the end of your PhD trajectory.
4 Introduction

If you are a PhD candidate, you may also find this

book valuable in other situations during your PhD journey
where you have to present and argue in favor of your (pro-
posed) research. Examples of such occasions are the Go/
No Go Meeting after the first year of PhD studies in the
Netherlands, the Confirmation of Candidature in the first 6
or 12 months in Australia, and the presentation of the pro-
posal in North America. This book could also be insightful
for PhD candidates and supervisors in Australia, where
an oral defence may not be common: we have included
information on the written defence in Australia, and for
those Australian universities that are moving towards an
oral defence, the testimonies and literature insights in this
book can help develop best practices.
We wrote the book for an international audience
and find that this approach sets it apart in the liter-
ature on the PhD defence. Both within existing text-
books or advice books for PhD students, as well as in
the scientific literature on the topic of the PhD defence
(see Chapter 2 for our extensive review), most authors
consider and investigate only the national context of
the PhD defence. However, we wanted to write a book
that is useful for students and supervisors worldwide.
We included several topics that allow us to have an
international outlook: the different formats of the PhD
defence (Chapter 2), and a description of the defence in
different countries (Chapter 5, based on my (Eva’s) PhD
Talk blog series “PhD Defences around the world”).
This international approach can be particularly valua-
ble if you are defending your PhD in a country that is
not where you did your previous studies, or if you are a
supervisor who will participate in a committee abroad.
This book is suitable for students, supervisors, and
committee members in all research fields.
 Introduction 5

Chapter structures

In writing the book we’ve brought together various

sources: our own experiences as doctoral students, our
later-career professional experiences, the literature on
the topic of the defence, as well as testimonies from for-
mer PhD candidates and committee members from the
“Defences around the world” series. You will find that, in
referring to our own stories we use the first person, that
we refer to testimonies using the citation of the relevant
blog post, and that we refer to the literature by citing the
reference. In the longer chapters, we’ve used subchapters
to identify and bring together insights from these different
sources. In the shorter chapters, we used paragraphs to
group the insights. We’ve followed this sequence: general
overview, then former student experiences, then com-
mittee member experiences, and then (where relevant) a
deeper dive into research insights.

How to use this book as a PhD student

If you are a PhD student, consider this book as a toolkit.

We have included information that is useful for PhD stu-
dents all over the world. Not everything included may be
of direct practical value for you: pick the tools you need
for your particular situation.
We invite you to read this book from cover to cover
first, so that you have a better understanding of the PhD
defence and its international context and can assem-
ble your toolkit. Highlight passages that are of particu-
lar interest to you, and put placeholders on the pages
that contain the most practical information for you. Look
6 Introduction

out for possible pitfalls ahead. If you are aware of those

potential difficulties, you can make life easier for yourself
as you sail through them.
As with every book that contains advice, you need
to put that advice into practice if you want to reap the
benefits of the book. Consider the book your pock-
et-sized mentor. If you find it useful, set aside time
for “meetings with your coach”, during which you can
actively work on the topics in its pages. For example:
reread and reflect on the subchapter on “making your
presentation” when you start working on the presenta-
tion for your defence.
The caveat with advice books is that it may sound as
if there is a single solution that works for everybody. We
disagree with this idea: we understand that each thesis,
each PhD trajectory, and each PhD candidate are unique
(Kamler & Thomson, 2008). From that perspective, our
toolbox-based approach aims at serving a wide range of
PhD candidates. But, for this approach to work for you,
you need to do the work of self-reflection. We are not
offering a step-by-step guide to success. Instead, we are
presenting food for thought. While this process requires
extra effort from you, we are convinced that a deeper
understanding of your situation will make you a better
researcher.

How to use this book as a supervisor

As a supervisor, you can use this book for two purposes:

to help your students plan and prepare for their defence
(i.e., as a supervisor for your student) and to prepare
yourself to be a committee member abroad (i.e., as an
examiner of another student). If you help your students
 Introduction 7

plan and prepare for their defence, you may go through

the following steps:
8 Introduction

If you use this book to prepare yourself as a committee

member for a defence in a different country, you should
read it cover to cover. By reading it through first, you will get
an unbiased overview of the universal similarities between
defences and the expectations and goals associated with
these similarities, as well as a deeper insight into interna-
tional practices. Then, shortly before the defence and after
going through the thesis, you can revisit relevant sections.
After this quick recap, you can adjust the type of questions
you will ask. For example, if you are to serve as external
examiner for a viva in the United Kingdom, you will be able to
ask a large number of questions ranging from philosophical
aspects to more detailed questions related to each chapter.
On the other hand, if you serve as one of eight committee
members in the Netherlands, you may need to prepare a
maximum of three questions of a more general nature, each
of them sufficiently challenging to serve as your (possibly)
only question during the defence.

How to use this book in a classroom

setting

Instructors of doctoral training programs can refer to this

book in different ways as:

1 background to a module related to preparing for the

doctoral defence within a larger doctoral course,
 Introduction 9

2 course text for a short course on preparing for the

doctoral defence, and
3 referenced background reading for a training course
for supervisors.

For the first application, we recommend that you sched-

ule half a day to work with students who are one to two
months away from their defence. The contents of this
module should relate solely to preparing for the doctoral
defence. You can assign the following homework:

• Read through this book to gain a thorough under-

standing of the purpose of the doctoral defence,
• Learn the university regulations regarding the defence,
• List the main strengths, weaknesses and original con-
tributions of their thesis.

During the half day session, include the following:

• Discuss the main findings regarding similarities and

differences between doctoral defence formats. Ask
students which advice they found particularly helpful,
and why.
• Revision of doctoral regulations to see if everyone
understands the requirements correctly.
• Discuss emotional aspects related to the defence.
Include exercises to teach students how to face anxiety
before or during the defence. Exercises may include
developing confidence when presenting, the student
as the authority on their own research, how to answer
unexpected questions, etc.
• Brainstorm possible committee questions. Ask each
student to relate possible questions to the strengths
and weaknesses of their dissertation.
10 Introduction

• Discuss best practices for the presentation.

• Develop a rough plan for the next month(s) or refine
the existing plan, and make a checklist for the defence
day itself.

For the second application, i.e., a short course for PhD

students on preparing for their doctoral defence, we
recommend a number of sessions in the final year of
the PhD. Table 1.1 gives a possible plan. The first mod-
ule deals with planning towards the defence with, as its
outcome, a draft plan for the final year aimed to submit
and defend within the agreed timeframe. The second
module deals with the goals of the doctoral defence.
Review and discuss the literature related to the doctoral
defence and differences and similarities between vari-
ous defence formats, as well as the university doctoral
regulations regarding the defence. The outcome should
be that each student understands the university’s reg-
ulations for the defence. The third module deals with
preparing for the defence in a general way: the commit-
tee, identifying strengths and weaknesses within your
dissertation, preparing for questions, and the emotional
aspect of the defence. The fourth module also deals
with preparing for the defence but in a more practical
way: the presentation (ideally discussing the slides of
presentations the students have already prepared),
brainstorming possible questions, and practical exer-
cises on how to deal with anxiety before and during the
defence. The fifth and final module should take place
after the defence and serves as a moment for reflection
and evaluation of the defence, the course, and lessons
learnt along the way.
For the third application, i.e., as a module within a
training course for supervisors, we recommend a half or
 Introduction 11

Table 1.1 Proposed timeline for series of meetings based on

this book to prepare final year PhD students for the
defence

Nr Topic Duration Chapters When?

1 Planning your final 3 hours 3 1 year before the

year defence
2 The goal of the 2 hours 1, 2 6 months before
defence the defence
3 Preparing for the 2 hours 4 2 months before
defence (1) the defence
4 Preparing for the 4 hours 5, 6 2 weeks before
defence (2) the defence
5 Evaluation and 2 hours 7 within 1 month
reflection after the
defence

full day session, during which the following topics can be

addressed:

• Discussing the main findings regarding similarities and

differences between defence formats. Ask supervisors
which preconceived ideas they had about the defence
based on their own experience or expectations that, in
the light of research findings reported in the book, may
have been misguided.
• Brainstorming on best practices for guiding PhD stu-
dents during their preparations towards the defence,
keeping in mind that each student is unique and each
may need a different supervision style.
• Revising the university regulations regarding the doc-
toral defence, see if all supervisors understand the
requirements correctly, and discuss any possible mis-
understandings or urban legends that may be shared
among faculty but are not based on actual regulations.
12 Introduction

• Discussing emotional aspects related to the defence.

Teach supervisors how to support their students when
they are faced with strong emotions, as well as how to
explore, understand, and manage their own emotions.
• Discussing how to prepare for serving on committees
at universities abroad. Discuss how the findings in the
book are in line with or contradict past experiences.
• Discussing how to ask fair and thought-provoking
questions during defences and how to prepare stu-
dents for questions.
• Giving supervisors the tools for setting up a mock
defence or departmental presentation.
• Developing self-reflection tools to process insights after
each defence in which supervisors have participated.

References
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books:
Toward alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing. Educational
Researcher, 37(8), 507–514.
Share, M. (2016). The PhD viva: A space for academic development.
International Journal for Academic Development, 21(3), 178–193.
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: Institutional
policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher
Education, 25(2), 167–180.
2 Overview of
defence formats

History and purpose of the defence

The historical roots of the PhD defence go back to

Medieval times. Originally called the ‘disputation’, the
defence (Crossouard, 2011) qualified an individual to
become a teacher in the medieval university. The goal of
the defence was to show dialectical skills as teaching was
based on asking questions. Generation of new knowledge
was not required – the Bible was considered the source
of all knowledge. Working on dialectical skills was an
endeavor for the elite only, as only they could afford to do
it. The defence changed with educational reforms in 19th
century Germany, where the University of Berlin started
to require contributions to research in order to qualify for
the doctoral title. This model then spread throughout the
world in the 19th and 20th centuries. Research contribu-
tions became the standard and the chief criterion for the
award of a doctoral degree. The definition of originality
related to the PhD has changed over time (Sikes, 2017):
“Up until the end of the 1970s there was an expectation
that a thesis should be a scholarly, original life work. From

DOI: 10.4324/9780429347900-2
14 Overview of defence formats

the 1980s onwards it’s tended to be seen more as a craft

piece”. Nowadays, the PhD defence evaluates whether
the candidate has been able to carry out research inde-
pendently and the focus has shifted from quoting scrip-
ture to critical thinking. In addition, the democratization
of higher education has made the doctorate accessible
to more students, but there are still barriers to entrance
for those who have financial dependents. Moreover, new
doctoral degrees with different focuses have developed,
such as the Doctor of Education (Ed.D, which is the sec-
ond most popular research doctorate after the Ph.D.)
or the Professional Doctorate in Engineering ([Link]),
which is an industry-oriented degree awarded in the
Netherlands (similar to the Eng.D. in the UK).
The defence fulfils different purposes: an oral exam-
ination, a celebration, and a rite of passage. Chapter 4
discusses different functions of the defence further and
covers how there may be a mismatch between commit-
tee members and students in their interpretations thereof.
Sometimes, defences are dismissed as meaningless rit-
uals. Compared to other academic ceremonies (Mežek &
Swales, 2016) for awarding prizes, honors and degrees,
the defence is markedly different in character. It is a high-
level discussion between scholars, where you as a candi-
date will show that you are ready to get your doctoral title
and to discuss the independent research you carried out.
The outcome of the PhD defence depends on the
defence format. If your thesis is accepted and published
before the defence, then it is virtually impossible to fail
your defence. If, on the other hand, you defend before
you finalize your thesis, the defence may determine the
level of revisions needed for the thesis. In many cases
(63%, based on a Twitter poll (Lantsoght, 2020)) you will
be asked to make minor corrections. While failing your
 Overview of defence formats 15

defence is unlikely, it is still possible (5% of respondents),

and major corrections are a possible outcome as well (8%
of respondents). All in all, 87% of respondents walked out
with no or limited work on their thesis after the defence.
Similarly, (Ryder, 2014a) found that 84% of candidates in
the United Kingdom pass with minor corrections, over 9%
with no corrections at all, and fewer than 7% with major
corrections. Subdividing these results between Science
and Engineering majors and Arts, Social Sciences and
Humanities majors showed that the percentage of minor
corrections was slightly higher in Science and Engineering
where, overall, 93% pass with minor or no corrections. In
the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities the percentage
of major corrections is slightly higher.

Defending before or after finalizing the

thesis

One of the most important elements of a defence format is

the university’s requirement for the timing of finalizing and
publishing the thesis: before or after the defence. Figure 2.1
shows the steps for both scenarios: defending before the
thesis is finalized and defending afterwards. While the over-
all timeline between draft thesis and graduation may be sim-
ilar, the point in time when you defend is different.
If you are required to publish the thesis before the
defence, then the thesis is a finished product. Your com-
mittee will already have approved the thesis for pub-
lication and the defence is mostly a formality. A failing
grade would be quite shocking. For example, in Sweden
(Mežek & Swales, 2016), Belgium (for the second, pub-
lic, defence), and the Netherlands, the thesis is published
several weeks before the defence.
16 Overview of defence formats

Defence before thesis Defence after thesis

Draft thesis Draft thesis

Committee Committee

Defence Revisions

Revisions Defence

Committee Graduation

Revised version OK

Graduation

Figure 2.1 Possible defence formats depending on defending

before or after finalizing the thesis.

On the other hand, if you are expected to finish your

thesis after the defence, you may be less certain about
the outcome of the defence. Failing the defence is still
highly unlikely since your supervisor would not have
allowed you to defend if your work was not worthy of
a doctorate. However, since the defence is an integral
component of the PhD examination (Remenyi, Money,
Price, & Bannister, 2003), it would be technically possi-
ble to fail the PhD on the basis of an unsatisfactory oral
examination. An analysis of the doctoral regulations from
20 institutions in the UK revealed that in 60% of univer-
sities the option of failing the PhD based on an unsat-
isfactory defence is part of university policy (Jackson &
Tinkler, 2001). Most likely, however, you will pass without
revisions, with minor revisions, or with major revisions.
 Overview of defence formats 17

Depending on the outcome of the defence and the eval-

uation of your thesis by the committee, you can expect
to spend from a few more days to a few more weeks to
finalize your thesis and be cleared for graduation.
Minor corrections are usually the outcome in the USA,
so that you can go through commencement as planned,
and it is similarly common in Norway and Denmark to make
corrections to the thesis after the defence (Anonymous,
2016). In Norway (Kyvik, 2014) the thesis is published
before the defence but a resubmission with minor correc-
tions after the defence may be required, whereas in the
USA, no form of the thesis will be published before the
defence, and the actual submission always takes place
after the defence.

Written or oral defence

The most common format of the defence is the oral

defence. One common denominator of the oral defence is
that the PhD student answers questions – from one or more
appointed examiners, or from a committee, and/or from an
audience. One of the main challenges with the oral defence
is that you need to answer questions on the spot, whereas in
the written defence format, you have time to think about any
comments. This book mostly addresses the oral defence
format and we have therefore included a more extensive
discussion on the written defence in this section.
At some universities and in some countries, there is no
oral defence and you receive written reports from com-
mittee members instead or you work with your committee
members until they accept the thesis. The written reports
are similar to what you can expect from reviewers after
peer review of a journal paper. In the case you work with
18 Overview of defence formats

committee members until they approve the thesis, your

committee members will typically be at your university,
so that you can meet them frequently while revising your
thesis (Berg, 2017).
In South Africa and Australia, the written defence is
common because, due to these countries’ geographi-
cal isolation, flying in experts for the defence from other
continents is expensive and time-consuming (Coupland,
2018; Golding, Sharmini, & Lazarovitch, 2014; Remenyi
et al., 2003). In Australia, you submit your thesis to the
graduate research school. This department then sends
the thesis to two (usually anonymous) external reviewers,
who review the thesis in the same way research papers
are reviewed. After a while, you will receive an email with
the outcome of the review process, with possible out-
comes from “accept as is” to “significant further work
required for thesis to satisfy requirements of PhD”. When
they require significant further work, you may need to
perform extra research or data analysis. After you resub-
mit the thesis, it goes back to the reviewers. If they then
accept it, you can expect an acceptance email. While this
system does not include an oral defence, it is great prac-
tice for the rebuttal process you go through when work-
ing on journal papers. Based on research findings on the
written defence format in Australia (Johnston, 1997), we
learn that you should see the reviewer as a normal reader
(a reader who expects not to get distracted by too many
spelling and grammatical errors, and favors a well-writ-
ten and well-presented document) as well as a scholarly
reader (a reader who evaluates your independent research
work and favors a thesis that engages with the literature,
has a convincing approach and analysis, engages with
the findings, and that is publishable). Reviewers evaluate
the thesis not only in light of university requirements, but
 Overview of defence formats 19

based on their internal assumptions about what makes

a doctoral thesis (Holbrook, 2001) and they take their
responsibility seriously. A systematic review (Golding
et al., 2014) found that reviewers tend to be consistent
with each other and are reluctant to fail a thesis.
While the written defence format has been the format
of choice in Australia, there is a move towards using vid-
eoconferencing tools during the defence (Murugayah,
2019; Regal, 2016; Shields, 2018; Shimabukuro, 2018).
Online tools make including committee members from
other institutions and regions easier, and reduce travel
time and costs, including the associated environmental
cost (Spinellis & Louridas, 2013).

Single-step versus two-step defences

While the most common defence format is the use of

one defence, some universities use two defences: a
private defence and then a public defence. During the pri-
vate defence, your committee will address all details. You
can be alone with only the examiners (as is common at
Ghent University (Masuzzo, 2017)), or your committee can
include your supervisor and a Chair who is responsible
for the formalities (as at Université Catholique de Louvain
(Debecker, 2016)). You need to pass the private defence
and make amendments to your thesis before you receive
approval for the public defence. The public defence is then
more of a celebration. In Belgium, the committee dresses
in caps and gowns for the public defence, emphasizing the
ceremonial part of this event. You can expect more general
and broader questions, and sometimes questions from the
public, during your public defence.
20 Overview of defence formats

If you have a single-step defence, then the significance

of your performance on the day of the defence depends
on when you finalize your thesis, as we discussed in
Section “Defending before or after finalizing the thesis”.
If you defend after your thesis is a finished product, you
may have had the in-depth discussions with your com-
mittee members in separate meetings. If you defend
before your thesis is published, you can expect in-depth
feedback during the defence.
At some institutions, the defence itself is broken up
into two parts: the defence is public, but with a private
part during which the committee asks the candidate more
probing questions (Mežek & Swales, 2016). This approach
is common in the United States (Lantsoght, 2011). You
first have a public part, during which you present your
work to friends, family, colleagues, and your committee.
The audience can ask questions, and the committee
may also ask general questions. After this part, the audi-
ence leaves the room and you stay with your committee
to answer more in-depth questions. The final part of the
defence then consists in the proclamation of the outcome
of the defence for the entire audience.
While such two-step defences may not be that com-
mon internationally, more and more institutions require
PhD students to pass certain milestones during the PhD
trajectory. As such, one could argue that there’s no such
a thing as a single-step defence but that the difference
lies in the semantics of what different progress meetings
are called. For example, in Chile (Muqoz Llancao, 2016),
you have to pass at least two previous evaluations (mini-
defences) with the PhD committee before you are allowed
to defend your thesis. Within six months, you have to send
your thesis to the committee and, if all goes well, you
receive the date for a private defence. The public defence
 Overview of defence formats 21

is the final step. Similarly, in the United States, most insti-

tutions require you to defend your proposal when you
are about halfway through your PhD trajectory and in the
Netherlands, you may need to pass your Go/No Go meet-
ing after the first year of your PhD studies. This involves
defending your proposed approach and planning before
a committee.

Public or behind closed doors

We generally tend to think of defences as either public or

private. In the strict sense, a private defence is between you
and your committee alone and a public defence is open to
the public (Abambres, 2019). However, exploring the differ-
ent formats that are available, we can see that there are dif-
ferent gradations of public and private defences.
While in the strictest sense, the private defence is
between you and your committee of examiners alone,
there are other formats of private defences where your
supervisor and/or a Chair are present. At some univer-
sities (Mallinson, 2016), defences are technically public
but never advertised, so they become private in prac-
tice. Sometimes, the private defence is a step before a
more celebratory public defence, as discussed in Section
“Single-step versus two-step defences”. While the idea is
that a private defence allows the committee more critical
questions than a public defence, there are no rules set in
stone for this – in the end, the way in which committee
members examine a doctoral thesis differs between them
and between disciplines as individuals have different
ideas of what the standard for a PhD should be (Johnston,
1997). Because of this, the way in which the defence is
conducted depends on the committee members.
22 Overview of defence formats

The public defence is a defence your friends, family, and

colleagues can attend. However, here again there are differ-
ences in format: the questions can come from your commit-
tee alone, or from everybody present at the defence.
In Finland (Mikhailova, 2016), it’s a formality to ask at
the end of the defence if anybody in the audience has any
questions but no audience questions are expected. Many
public defences have a more celebratory feeling to them,
since your friends and family will be there to celebrate
with you. While, during a private defence, your committee
may examine your thesis on a page-by-page basis, this
method is not common for a public defence – it is under-
stood that this approach would bore the audience to
death. Therefore, the type of questions you may expect at
a public defence can be more general and more related
to the core of your argument. But again, it all depends on
your committee.
In the light of European standardization of the assess-
ment of PhD theses, there is a debate about the preferable
defence format: public or private. A choice on which defence
format should be uniform in Europe is not yet made, and the
need for such uniformity may not be that urgent given the
similarities between defences as we will discuss later in this
chapter (see the section “Similarities and differences”).

Defence day – fixed schedules and

schedules driven by committee

Whether the defence follows a fixed schedule or is driven

by the committee depends on the defence format. The
difference between a fixed schedule for the defence day
and a committee-driven schedule is that you know more
 Overview of defence formats 23

about what to expect with a fixed schedule – although the

main surprises still lie in the questions you will receive.
When you have a committee-driven schedule, you may
not know how long the defence will take.
There are different levels of detail in how schedules
are fixed as well. For example, in the Netherlands (Muqoz
Llancao, 2016), the amount of time the entire committee
has for asking questions is pre-determined, the order
in which the committee members will ask questions is
pre-determined, and the unwritten rule is that the first
committee members, who are the external members, will
have more time to ask questions. There is however no
fixed amount of time for each committee member individ-
ually to ask questions in this format.
The total length of the PhD defence (Lantsoght, 2018)
is variable. I (Eva) ran a Twitter poll on this topic and half
(50%) of the respondents indicated that their PhD defence
lasted between one and two hours, with 10% less than
one hour, 29% over two hours and 11% in the “other” cat-
egory. While you may have heard the horror stories of the
defences that last for hours on end, such long defences
are rather uncommon. The most extreme case that I (Eva)
came across in the literature (Remenyi et al., 2003) is an
observation that “there have even been incidents where
the viva has run into a second day”.

Similarities and differences

Similarities

Regardless of the defence format, there are a number of

similarities across the different forms of examining. As
24 Overview of defence formats

Watts (2012) writes: “Despite its myriad manifestations, the

PhD viva voce (live voice), as oral examination of the doc-
toral thesis, constitutes the final ‘test’ of the PhD endeav-
our”. Golding et al. (2014) argue that the importance of the
oral defence is less than that of the thesis. When it comes
to written documentation of defence requirements and reg-
ulations, Tinkler and Jackson (2000) found that, for universi-
ties in the UK, there is a large degree of consistency about
“key” criteria. All stated that the candidate should be able to
locate their PhD research in the broader context and all but
one referred to the candidate displaying knowledge of their
thesis. Based on insights from the literature and our own
analysis of defence stories, we identify the following similar-
ities among the different oral defence formats:

• Regardless of the format of the defence, you can expect

the defence to consist of a process involving questioning,
clarification and discussion of key elements (Watts, 2012).
• The examiners look for a confirmation that you did the
work. If you’ve had several meetings with your com-
mittee members before your defence, or worked with
them for parts of your research, then they will already
know the answer to this question. If you find your com-
mittee members asking a question that seems simple
to you during your defence, the goal may be to identify
that you did the work.
• The defence tests “the ability of the student to defend
their work, with being ‘articulate under stress’ seen
as an important credential of being a professional
researcher” (Watts, 2012). Even when your defence is a
formality, there is the pressure to do well, especially if
the event is public.
• The questions depend on your committee members.
You can have an idea of what to expect based on
 Overview of defence formats 25

previous meetings and your understanding of their

work (and pet peeves), but in the end you can’t predict
with certainty what to expect.
• You will inevitably go through a number of moments
where your work is evaluated prior to the defence. This
evaluation can take place in a more formal way, such
as during the defence of your proposal, a mini-defence,
or a Go/No Go meeting. It can also be less formal, for
example: meetings with your committee members,
meetings with your supervisor, conference presenta-
tions … Every time you show your work to someone
else who has the knowledge to provide you with feed-
back, you put your work out there for scrutiny – which
your committee will eventually do in a more official way.
Every time you present, you prepare for your defence
and learn how to communicate your findings.

Originality

Universities ask for an original contribution as the cor-

nerstone of the PhD. The vague description of originality
can create anxiety. So let’s look at the literature on this
topic first and then let’s look at our practical experience
with this ill-defined concept. In analyzing the regulations
of 20 universities in the UK, the one specification com-
mon to all was “that the candidate’s work must provide
an original contribution to knowledge to be worthy of the
award of PhD” (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000). According to
the official regulations, your defence is the moment to
make clear what your novel contribution is – but how is
this original contribution defined (Mullins & Kiley, 2002)?
It turns out that we can give a variety of definitions to
originality, which can be theoretical or methodological, or
26 Overview of defence formats

both (Watts, 2012). In more detail, originality can be one

of the following (Golding et al., 2014):

• opening up a new area of research or reframing an old

issue;
• introducing a new method, theoretical frame or
concept;
• applying established methods, theories and concepts
in new areas;
• gathering new data which lead to new findings and
conclusions; or
• providing a novel interpretation or synthesis of estab-
lished data, theories, or conclusions.

Clarke and Lunt (2014) studied the concept of ‘originality’

in doctoral theses and examination and concluded that:

• doctoral candidates generally have a good under-

standing of what is expected from them;
• there is a difference between “originality” and “making
a contribution”;
• the concept of originality may differ between fields
of research; and
• many examiners also expect the research to be
publishable.

So, with the definition of originality changing over time

and being different in different fields of research, you
may ask: “What, after all, is expected from me?” In our
opinion, Phillips and Pugh (2010) give the clearest defi-
nition (which eschews the use of the word “originality”
altogether) of what is expected: the PhD degree is given
to you if you can demonstrate that you can carry out
research independently.
 Overview of defence formats 27

Differences

While most defences serve the same purpose, the most

important differences are:

• The weight of your defence depends on whether

or not your thesis is already printed and final before
your defence, as discussed in the section “Defending
before or after finalizing the thesis”. If your thesis is
not final before the defence, then your defence may
be the moment when your committee changes their
recommendation from “minor revisions” to “major revi-
sions”, or the other way around. If your thesis is already
approved by your committee before the defence and
has been printed and distributed, then rest assured:
your defence is just a mere formality. Even though you
want to do well, you won’t win or lose anything by how
you perform during your defence.
• If the examination time is limited, the focus of ques-
tions may be broader: your research question, your
methods and findings, your assumptions, and your
work within the larger body of knowledge. If there is
no time limit for your defence, and you have not had
in-depth discussions with your committee members
before it, your committee may go through your thesis
on a page-by-page basis.
• One main difference in the defence formats lies
in the format of a written defence versus an oral
defence. As we’ve seen in the section “Written or
oral defence”, a written defence is uncommon inter-
nationally and will perhaps even become obsolete as
videoconferencing tools improve, but at the moment
it is the defence format of preference in Australia
and South Africa.
28 Overview of defence formats

• There is a difference in the function of the defence

between the public defence and the private defence,
see the section “Public or Behind Closed Doors”. A
private defence has less of a celebratory function than
a public one. When your friends, family, and colleagues
all show up for your public defence, the celebratory
component is important. Your private defence will still
serve as a rite of passage, and you can still celebrate
with friends, family and colleagues once you leave the
exam room, yet the defence itself will contain fewer
celebratory elements.

While there are consistencies in the key criteria for

the PhD examination, there are significant differences
between universities in terms of the procedures and prac-
tices (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000). There is no consensus
regarding the role of the defence in the PhD examination
process (Jackson & Tinkler, 2001). There’s a mismatch
in understanding on the role of the defence between
examiners and candidates. Academics (142 respond-
ents) identify the purpose of the viva as: authentication,
examining, monitoring standards, provision of guidance
and advice, acting as a rite of passage. Candidates (88
respondents) identified the purpose as: examination and
a means to authenticate authorship, but also to harass,
humiliate, and make the student suffer. Goulding and
Geraghty (2011) carried out a survey of 41 PhD supervi-
sors regarding their preference for PhD defence format.
The focus of the survey was on the difference between
the British viva (behind closed doors, without the super-
visor, typically with one external and one internal exam-
iner) and the continental defences (formats vary, but the
defences are often public, with a large committee, includ-
ing the supervisor, examining the candidate) as there is
 Overview of defence formats 29

Table 2.1 Outcomes of survey related to the defence,

summarized from Goulding and Geraghty (2011)

Statement Agree Disagree No opinion

Defence in English across 44% 36% 20%

Europe
Viva voce examination alone 64% 26% 10%
Panel of examiners and public 39% 39% 22%
defence
PhD supervisors should have 11% 82% 7%
role in examination
Examiners should include one 29% 58% 13%
international member

a push towards unifying defence formats within Europe.

The outcomes of the survey related to the defence are
summarized in Table 2.1. It is interesting here that UK
supervisors prefer to adhere to UK practice (see the level
of agreement with statements related to the UK-style viva
and the level of disagreement with statements related to
continental Europe-style defence formats), and do not
want general European-level standardization.

Research results on doctoral defence

practices and student perception

A number of studies have focused on the perceptions of

PhD students about the doctoral defence. Positive per-
ceptions are (Davis & Engward, 2018): being able to pres-
ent and defend the thesis, and the effort the committee
takes in reading and being genuinely interest in the work.
Negative perceptions during the defence are (Davis &
Engward, 2018): examiners dominating the defence, not
30 Overview of defence formats

having enough opportunities to defend the thesis, unethi-

cal practices (being forced to cite the committee mem-
ber’s work), the defence not being fair, and the start of
the glass ceiling for female academics (Gallego-Morón,
2017). Candidates have also felt humiliated and alienated
when they had to accommodate the priorities of the com-
mittee members.
International students, female candidates, students from
minority groups, students with disabilities and first-genera-
tion academics face additional barriers (Lantsoght, 2021).
Respondents from a working-class background have
reported that, during their defence, they were reminded of
previous assessments not going well and felt more aware
of their social class (Crossouard, 2011). Crossouard (2011)
found that when the candidate speaks in a “soft” and
“searching” way (based on gender or cultural background),
the committee may consider the candidate insecure and
incompetent. This cultural aspect of the defence is impor-
tant and is only touched upon briefly in the current literature.
Research has also focused on the emotional aspect of
the defence (Davis & Engward, 2018). Even people who
describe themselves as calm experience stress and anx-
iety in the anticipation of the defence, or as a result of
the behavior of the committee members. Being prepared
helps to manage emotions: practical matters such as tim-
ing and layout, coming up with possible questions and
answering them in advance, having a mock defence, and
being prepared to act “tough”.
In terms of practical accommodations, Davis and
Engward (2018) found that it is preferable to have the
defence in a room with windows, to allow the candidate
to be seated closer to the exit, and to provide water.
The majority of students feel well-prepared for the
defence and are satisfied with it (Share, 2016). Their
 Overview of defence formats 31

reported sources of preparation are as follows: super-

visor advice (73%), presentations at conferences (71%),
presentation at internal seminars (53%), reading PhD
advice books (47%), mock defences (25%), family advice
(10%), and viva workshops (7%).
Since so many factors and players come together dur-
ing the defence, we need to be alert for situations where
one or more of the players does not act professionally. As
a supervisor, you should be aware of possible negative
perceptions during the defence and of who could amend
the situation during the defence or afterwards. As a com-
mittee member, you should be well-informed about the
practices and expectations of the university. As a PhD
student, you should be aware of the different dimensions
of the defence where scholarship, emotions, and culture
come together.

References
Abambres, M. (2019). PhD defenses around the world: A defense in Portugal.
[Link]
[Link].
Anonymous. (2016). PhD defenses around the world: A defense in Sweden.
[Link]
[Link].
Berg, M. (2017). PhD defense around the world: A defense (without a
defense) in biology from UC Berkeley. [Link]
com/2017/10/phd-defenses-around-the-world-a-defense-without-
[Link].
Clarke, G., & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph.D.: How
is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 39(7), 803–820.
Coupland, K. (2018). PhD defenses around the world: A defense in neu-
roscience from Australia. [Link]
phd-defenses-around-the-world-a-defense-in-neuroscience-from-
[Link]
32 Overview of defence formats

Crossouard, B. (2011). The doctoral viva voce as a cultural practice: The

gendered production of academic subjects. Gender and Education,
23(3), 313–329.
Davis, G., & Engward, H. (2018). In defence of the viva voce: 18 candi-
dates’ voices. Nurse Education Today, 65, 30–35.
Debecker, D. (2016). PhD defenses around the world: A defense in Belgium.
[Link]
[Link]
Gallego-Morón, N. (2017). Breaking the glass ceiling – The doctoral the-
sis defence as a key turning point. Métode Science Studies Journal,
7, 113–119.
Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners
do: What thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 39(5), 563–576.
Goulding, N. J., & Geraghty, A. (2011). Standards for PhD education
in pharmacology in the UK. Turkish Journal of Biochemistry, 36(1),
19–25.
Holbrook, A. (2001). PhD examination – assessment’s least mapped
frontier. AARE Conference, Fremantle.
Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of
the purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 26(4), 355–366.
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examin-
ers’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3),
333–347.
Kyvik, S. (2014). Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as
viewed by examiners from the USA, the UK and Sweden. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 140–153.
Lantsoght, E. (2011). A PhD defense at Georgia Tech. [Link]
[Link]/2011/08/[Link]
Lantsoght, E. (2018). How long does a PhD defense last? [Link]
[Link]/2018/06/[Link]
Lantsoght, Eva O.L. (2021) “Students’ perceptions of doctoral defense in
relation to sociodemographic characteristics.” Education Sciences,
11(9): 463. [Link]
Mallinson, D. J. (2016). PhD defenses around the world: A defense
in political science from Penn State. [Link]
com/2016/06/phd-defenses-around-the-world-a-defense-in-politi-
[Link]
Masuzzo, P. (2017). PhD defenses around the world: A defense in
Bioinformatics in Belgium. [Link]
phd-defenses-around-the-world-a-defense-in-bioinformatics-in-
[Link]
Other documents randomly have
different content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of
Achilles
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at [Link]. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Achilles

Author: Karl Friedrich Becker

Translator: George P. Upton

Release date: June 23, 2020 [eBook #62453]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by D A Alexander, Stephen Hutcheson, and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
[Link]
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ACHILLES ***

 DEATH OF HECTOR

Life Stories for Young People

ACHILLES
Translated, and abridged from the
German of
Carl Friedrich Becker
BY
GEORGE P. UPTON
Translator of “Memories,” “Immensee,” etc.
 WITH THREE ILLUSTRATIONS

CHICAGO
A. C. McCLURG & CO.
1912

Copyright
A. C. McClurg & Co.
1912
Published September, 1912
THE·PLIMPTON·PRESS
[W·D·O]
NORWOOD·MASS·U·S·A

v
 Translator’s Preface
In tracing the career of Achilles in connection with the
Trojan war, that inimitable classic story-teller, Carl
Friedrich Becker, follows the lines of Homer’s Iliad. He
gives the reader a graphic picture of the stirring events
in the ten years’ siege maintained by the Greeks, under
the leadership of Agamemnon, king of Mycenæ, in their
finally successful effort to redress the injury done to
Menelaus, king of Sparta, whose wife, Helen, was
carried off by Paris. The striking points in this thrilling
narrative are the quarrel between Agamemnon and
Achilles; the exploits of Hector, noblest character of
them all; the human impersonations of the gods, who
take part in the strife—some on one side, some on the
other; the death of Patroclus; the final reconciliation of
Achilles and Agamemnon and the former’s tremendous
exploits; the death of Hector, and the touching interview
with the aged Priam, who seeks to recover his body.

The ultimate fate of Achilles and the fall of the city are vi
not told, nor the wretched end of Agamemnon, who,
according to Æschylus, was killed by Clytemnestra, the
queen, upon his return. Hector is one of the most
conspicuous figures in this great drama and appears
only second to Achilles among all the warriors. The
exciting Trojan war story has never been told more
graphically or interestingly in modern prose than in
Becker’s version. In adapting it to the series of “Life
Stories” the translator has been obliged to abridge the
original work somewhat, but the parts omitted do not
interfere with the flow of the story.

G. P. U.

Chicago, May, 1912.

vii
 Contents
Chapter Page
I 11
The Greeks March Against Troy—Agamemnon Quarrels with
Achilles
II 21
Thetis Promises to Aid the Angry Achilles and Begs Jupiter’s
Assistance—Juno is Angry—Agamemnon and the Other Princes
Summon the Greeks to Battle
III 28
Meeting of the Armies—Menelaus and Paris—Agamemnon
Leads the Greeks into Battle
IV Continuation of the Battle—The Gods Take Part 38
V 46
The Greeks are Successful—Hector Hastens to the City—
Glaucus and Diomedes, Hector and Andromache
VI 53
Hector and Ajax in Single Combat—A Truce—Another Battle
at the Ships
VII 63
Agamemnon Advises Flight—Council of the Princes—A
Deputation is Sent to Achilles
VIII 71
Agamemnon in Battle—Many of the Greeks are Wounded
IX 82
Agamemnon Consoled—The Gods Take Part in the Strife and
the Trojans are Driven Back
X 90
Jupiter’s Message to Poseidon—The Battle for the Ships
XI 97
Patroclus Hastens into Battle and Scatters the Trojans—
Hector and Patroclus
XII 104
The Fight for Patroclus’ Body—Achilles Mourns His Fallen
Friend—Thetis and Vulcan—The Shield of Achilles
XIII 115
Achilles and Agamemnon Become Reconciled—Achilles Goes
into Battle
XIV 120
Achilles in Battle—His Fight on the River Scamander
XV Hector and Achilles—Hector’s Death 131
XVI Priam and Achilles—Hector’s Burial in Troy 139

ix
 Illustrations
Death of Hector Frontispiece
Rescue of Paris by Aphrodite 34
Thetis Consoling Achilles 110

11
Achilles
 Chapter I
The Greeks March against Troy—Agamemnon Quarrels with
Achilles

Troy was a small portion of that section of Asia Minor

which was later called Phrygia. Its northern coast
touched the entrance to the Hellespont. It was very
densely populated and had, besides many little
plantations, villages, and settlements of farmers or
herdsmen, a large city with a strong wall, towers, and
gates. Homer never called the city Troy, but always Ilios
or Ilium. The surroundings he calls Troy and the
inhabitants Trojans, after an ancestor named Tros, who
was said to have founded the city. He describes them as
a bold, enterprising people, who lived in a high degree
of comfort and practised many arts of which the
Europeans of that time were ignorant.

The Achaians, as Homer calls the inhabitants of Greece, 12

and the Trojans, engaged in mutual depredations upon
each other’s property,—until at last the long-standing
national hatred broke out violently through the fault of
the Trojans. Alexandros, or Paris, one of the sons of the
old Trojan king, Priam, sailed across to Europe and paid
a visit to King Menelaus, ruler over several cities in
Sparta. He was hospitably received and entertained for
many days, but repaid his good host with most
shameless ingratitude. He persuaded the queen, the
beautiful Helen, to forget her duty and flee with him.
Menelaus sought revenge and called upon his brother
Agamemnon, ruler over Mycenæ, old Nestor of Pylos,
Ulysses of Ithaca, and many other valiant princes to ally
themselves with him. A number of young lords who had
long been wishing to take part in some glorious
enterprise, like the expedition of the Argonauts, of
which their fathers had so much to tell, offered their
services with innumerable followers.

News of the mighty campaign which was being

arranged spread throughout Greece, causing great
rejoicing. Everyone looked upon it as a great
opportunity and an event in which it would be shameful
not to take part. A whole year passed in preparing the
equipments. In the meanwhile Nestor and Ulysses
travelled about everywhere to persuade the princes of
Greece and its neighboring islands, who had hesitated
hitherto, not to miss their share in the honors and spoils
which so brilliant a campaign was sure to afford. For the
object was nothing less than the destruction of the
celebrated city of Troy, and the booty which was to be
expected from such a rich people was incalculable. They
had excellent success on this recruiting expedition,
calling upon Peleus, father of Achilles in Thessalia, King
Idomeneus in Crete, old Telamon in Salamis, and
others.

The harbor of Aulis in Bœotia was selected for the place 13

of meeting and at the appointed time more than one
thousand ships assembled, with men from all parts of
Greece. They agreed to offer the command to
Agamemnon, one of the foremost among the princes,
partly because he had brought the largest following and
partly because he and his brother had organized the
campaign. He was, besides, a clever and honorable man
and a brave warrior, although considerably inferior in
physical strength to Achilles, the invincible.

All was ready for departure, but the ships waited in vain
for a favorable wind. It was supposed that some god
was delaying the voyage and that he must be
propitiated by an offering, so the priest Calchas was
commanded to consult the oracle. After observing the
usual signs he announced that Agamemnon had slain a
sacred animal in the chase, thereby offending Artemis,
who now demanded a human sacrifice in the shape of
Agamemnon’s eldest daughter, Iphigenia. She was
accordingly brought to the altar, but Artemis relented at
the moment when the fatal stroke was about to be
given, removed the trembling maiden in a dense cloud,
and put an animal in her place. When Iphigenia awoke
from her swoon, she found herself in the temple of
Artemis in Taurus, where she served for a long time as
priestess.

The same day, after this sacrifice, a favorable wind 14

swelled the sails and the impatient heroes boarded their
ships. In a few days the fleet arrived at Troy. On the
way they had stopped to plunder a few cities on the
islands of Scyros and Lesbos, had killed the men, and
taken the women on board as slaves. After landing they
proceeded in the same manner in the country about
Troy. At the end of the war the godlike Achilles boasted
that he alone with his Myrmidons had conquered twelve
rich cities by sea and eleven by land in the Trojan
territory. The booty which each skirmishing party
brought in to camp was divided and the chief always
received the best of everything. The inhabitants of the
capital were safe behind their walls, and as the Greek
forces were seldom united, the Trojans were often able,
by a sudden sortie, to repulse the attacking parties
which ventured too near the gates. This desultory
warfare continued for several years, until many of the
Achaians began to long for home. But they were
ashamed to depart thus, without having accomplished
their object. The leaders concentrated their men and
began the siege in earnest.

The Trojans now took measures for more careful

defence and sent to the neighboring peoples to demand
their aid. Many princes responded to the call with their
followers, until they had formed an alliance equal in
strength to the Achaians. In the tenth year of the siege
fortune seemed to have turned her back on the Greeks,
for besides the hardships of war, they had to contend
with a pestilence, and finally were nearly destroyed by
the Trojans, while their two mightiest chiefs,
Agamemnon and Achilles, were quarrelling.

Agamemnon had plundered a city and had taken 15

Chryseïs, daughter of a priest of Apollo, for his slave. In
the same way Achilles had become possessed of a maid
named Briseïs, to whom he became so attached that he
wished to keep her always with him. After a time the
priest appeared in the Greek camp with rich presents to
ransom his daughter, but Agamemnon did not wish to
give up the maiden and returned a harsh answer. The
Greeks urged him to release the maid out of respect for
the priest and for fear of Apollo’s wrath, but the
obstinate man refused to listen to reason and bade the
father depart on pain of chastisement. With loud
lamentations the old man retired to the seacoast and
prayed to Apollo. The legend tells us that Apollo at once
left Olympus, seated himself at some distance from the
ships, and began to shoot his arrows into the Greek
camp. Whatever was struck died a sudden death by the
plague. First the donkeys and dogs and then the men
fell victims. The pestilence raged for nine days, during
which the funeral pyres burned incessantly.

This filled the leaders with great apprehension, so that 16

on the tenth day Achilles summoned a folk assembly
and advised the people to call upon the seer Calchas to
discover what fault of the army had brought this woe
upon them and by means of what sacrifice the god
might be appeased. Calchas hesitated, but at length
answered that he knew the reason, but feared to give it
until the bravest among the heroes had sworn to
protect him in case a man of great power among the
Achaians should be angry at his decree. Then Achilles
stood up and made a public vow to protect him, even
though the man he meant were Agamemnon, mightiest
of the Greeks. “Very well, then,” replied Calchas, “I will
declare the truth. Yes, it is Agamemnon with whom
Apollo is angry, for he has dishonored his priest and has
refused to restore his daughter to him. Therefore hath
he sent this punishment upon us and we cannot escape
it until the maiden shall be returned freely to her father
and a rich sacrifice has been offered to the god upon his
holy altar.”

Agamemnon, trembling with rage, cried: “Miserable

seer, must I do penance for the people’s sins? The
maiden is wise and well trained in feminine tasks. I prize
her above my spouse, Clytemnestra, and must I give
her up? Let it be so; take her! I will bear even more
than this for the people’s good. But I tell you, ye must
provide another gift in her place, for she was my share
of the booty.”

“Avaricious, insatiable man,” answered Achilles, “what

dost thou demand? I knew not that we had treasures in
reserve. Therefore be patient until the gods aid us to
conquer rich Troy. Then thou mayst replace thy treasure
many times over.”

Although this speech was just, the angry man imagined 17

that it was intended in mockery and he cried: “Not so,
Achilles; strong and brave as thou art, thou shalt not
intimidate me! Dost thou expect to keep thy spoils and
the others theirs, while mine is taken from me? I tell
thee, if I receive no compensation, I will myself take it
from thy tent or those of Ulysses or of Ajax, or wherever
I please, and let him whom I despoil avenge himself.
Take now the maiden, put her aboard the ship, together
with the sacrificial steer, and row her to Chryse, where
her father lives, that the god may no longer be angry
with us.”

This speech infuriated Achilles and he cried angrily:

“What! Thou wouldst take away my prize? Did we
march against the Trojans for our own sakes? Not I,
indeed! They never injured me, nor ever robbed me of a
horse or cow, nor pillaged my newly sown fields. I was
well protected by wooded hills and the broad sea and
never thought of Troy in my Phthian home. It was solely
on thy account, thou selfish, shameless man, that I
came hither to avenge thine and thy brother’s sullied
honor. And this hast thou so speedily forgotten and
threatenest even to take away the spoils which the
Achaians have unanimously accorded me and which I
have honestly earned? Have I not hitherto borne the
chief burden of the war? Who has fought as much as I?
Let him appear! And when have I received prizes like
thine? Thou hast always taken the best of everything,
while I have contented myself with little. Very well!
Thou mayest fight alone! I return to Phthia!”
“Fly, if thy heart bids thee!” flashed forth Agamemnon in 18
anger. “Truly I shall not beg thee to remain. There are
other warriors here through whom Jupiter will help me
to achieve honor. Thou hast been obnoxious to me from
the beginning. Thou hast ever loved quarrelling and
strife and hast never kept peace. Thy strength hath
been given thee by the gods and thou dost pride thyself
altogether too much upon it. Thou mayest sail away
with all thy followers and rule peacefully over thy
Myrmidons. Thy wrath is nothing to me. But I tell thee,
that as Phœbus Apollo has taken Chryse’s daughter
from me, I shall take from thee the rosy daughter of
Briseïs, thy prize, so that thou mayest learn how much
more powerful I am than thou, and that no other in
future shall dare to defy me as thou hast done.”

In a rage Achilles drew his shining sword from its

scabbard to cut down Agamemnon. Suddenly, unseen
by all the rest, the goddess Athena stood behind him
and whispered to him not to draw his sword against the
king, but that he might scold as much as he pleased.
“Thy word I must obey, oh goddess,” answered Achilles,
“though anger fills my heart. The gods attend those
who follow their counsel.” With these words he returned
his sword to its scabbard, but turning to Agamemnon he
cried: “Thou miserable drunkard, with the look of a dog
and the courage of a hare! Never hast thou dared to
risk a decisive battle or to lie in ambush with the other
nobles; but it is more comfortable to take away his prize
from the single man who opposes thee. I swear that
thou shalt never again see me raise my arm against the
Trojans, though all thy Achaians should perish and thou
shouldst beseech me on thy knees to save thee.”

Thus he spake, and dashing his sceptre upon the 19

ground, sat down in silence. Agamemnon was preparing
to answer this passionate speech when up rose old
Nestor, reverenced like a father by everyone for his age,
wisdom, and experience. When it was seen that he
wished to speak all were quiet. Even Agamemnon
bridled his anger, and the well-meaning old man began:
“Dear friends, what are you about! What an unhappy
fate do ye bring upon us all! How Priam, his sons, and
the whole Trojan people will rejoice when they hear that
the foremost Achaians are quarrelling. Listen to me, for
ye are all much younger than I. However much power
the Achaians have given thee, Agamemnon, do not
abuse it. Let Achilles keep the prize with which the
Achaians have rewarded him. And thou, Achilles, do not
defy the king, for never has Jupiter crowned a king with
such honor as this one. Though thou art stronger than
he and boastest thyself of divine ancestry, he is the
more powerful and all the people obey him.”

“Truly, honorable father,” answered Agamemnon, “thou

hast spoken worthily. But this man is unreasonable; he
wishes to be above all others, to rule all, to make laws
for all.”

Achilles interrupted him. “Indeed I should be a coward 20

did I submit to all thy insults. I will keep the vow I have
sworn. One thing I will say—if the Achaians wish the
maiden they have given me, they may have her. But
woe to thee if thou layest hands upon my other spoils.”

Agamemnon insisted on taking the maiden, and he had

the power to carry out his threats. Wisdom counselled
Achilles to surrender what he was not strong enough to
hold. He withdrew from the quarrel with more dignity
than his unjust enemy, and his threat of abandoning the
war gave him ample satisfaction. The result proved his
value. He had thus far been the only one able to
vanquish Hector, Priam’s most valiant son; and now that
he had withdrawn, it was the Trojans, day after day,
who were the victors. It seemed as though a god had
doomed the Greeks to destruction.

Agamemnon first sent Ulysses to conduct his slave and

the appointed animals for the sacrifice to her father’s
home. Next he called upon two heralds to fetch the
beautiful Briseïs from Achilles’ tent. They obeyed his
command in fear and trembling. But Achilles banished
their fears, saying: “Come hither, ye sacred messengers
and peace be with ye. For ye are not to blame, but he
who sends ye. He shall have the maid. Go, Patroclus,
and fetch her out. Ye are all witnesses before gods and
men that I have sworn never to lift a hand again for
Agamemnon against Troy.”

They received the maid from the hands of his friend,

Patroclus, and she went reluctantly away with them,
often glancing sorrowfully backward toward the tent of
her former beloved master.

21
 Chapter II
Thetis Promises to Aid the Angry Achilles and Begs Jupiter’s
Assistance—Juno is Angry—Agamemnon and the Other
Princes Summon the Greeks to Battle

Achilles gazed gloomily after the men, then arose

quickly and seated himself far from his companions on
the beach, looking moodily out over the dark waters. He
bethought him of his mother, Thetis, who lived in the
blue depths of the sea, spread out his arms, and prayed
to her for aid. She heard him and hastened to appear.
Floating over the sea like a cloud, she seated herself
beside her weeping son and tenderly caressed him.
“Dear son, why dost thou weep?” she asked. “What
troubles thee? Speak! Conceal nothing from me.” With
deep sighs he related what had happened to him,
begging his mother to avenge his wrongs and to
intercede for him with Jupiter.

It was early on the twelfth day since Achilles had retired 22

from the fray when Thetis rose from the dark waves and
ascended the heights of Olympus. She found the mighty
Jupiter seated on the summit of the mountain, apart
from the other gods, bowed herself before him,
embraced his knees with her left hand, and caressed his
chin with her right hand. “Father Jupiter,” she said
coaxingly, “if thou lovest me, grant me a boon and show
favor to my son, who has but a short life to live. Give
him redress against Agamemnon and let the Trojans
prevail, until the Achaians shall be obliged to
recompense him with redoubled honors, for this base
insult.”

The father of the gods and men began dejectedly:

“Thou wilt involve me in strife and enmity with Juno.
Even now she quarrels with me and says I am aiding
the Trojans. Leave me quickly, that she may not see
thee, and I will grant thy request with a nod.”

The goddess descended from the shining heights of

Olympus into the depths of the sea, while Jupiter arose
and went to his palace. When the gods saw him coming
they all left their places and went respectfully to meet
him. He approached the throne and seated himself. But
his jealous consort had noticed Thetis and began
straightway to pick a quarrel with him. “Yes, I saw the
silver-footed Thetis at thy knee, saw thy nod, and saw
her depart content. Doubtless thou art about to honor
Achilles once more, castigate the Achaians, and protect
the insolent Trojans.”

“Thou art continually spying upon me,” answered the

ruler. “But it shall do thee no good—I do as I please.
Therefore sit still and be silent, for shouldst thou arouse
my anger, all the immortals together could not save
thee from my powerful hands.”

Thus spake the Thunderer, and Juno was frightened. All 23

the gods were sorry for her, especially Hephæstus, the
artist god of fire; for she was his mother, and he had
already learned that Jove’s threats often received
terrible fulfilment. He began in his mother’s behalf: “It is
intolerable that thou shouldst quarrel over mortals. I
admonish thee, mother, to bear thyself acceptably, that
our father may be content and our feast be
undisturbed.” He took his goblet, and handing it to his
mother, said: “Be patient, dear mother, even though
grieved at heart, that I may not have to look upon thy
punishment. Once before when he struck thee and I
attempted to restrain him, he took me by the heel and
cast me down into the air, so that I fell for a whole day
before I struck the earth, and I have limped ever since.”

The mother smiled and took the cup, and Hephæstus

filled the goblets of the other gods. Then Apollo with his
muses broke forth in sweet song, and thus the day
passed among the immortals in blissful contentment.
When Helios had put out his flaming torch, each went to
his dwelling to rest. Jove was the only one whom sleep
fled. He meditated anxiously how he might favor
Achilles by defeating the Greeks. He sent a deceptive
dream to Agamemnon, telling him to prepare for battle
and that it would be easy for him to conquer the city. As
soon as he awoke, Agamemnon told the other princes
of his dream. The assembly was called together.
Agamemnon was uncertain whether he dared call upon
the discontented army, and wishing first to feel his way,
he began to talk of their return. “Here we have lain for
ten years,” he said. “The ships are rotting, the anchor
ropes are mouldering, and we have as yet accomplished
nothing. Indeed the gods seem to be against us.
Therefore my advice is that we quickly put to sea and
sail for home before the Trojans do us a greater
mischief. You all must see that we cannot take the city.”

He had scarcely ended when the whole company rushed 24

exultantly away to the ships, for all were anxious to
return to their homes. This was more than the king had
expected and he looked on in despair, while the other
brave leaders gnashed their teeth. They were powerless
to stay the tumultuous rabble until Ulysses, hurrying
forward with quick presence of mind, admonished
leaders and men to return to the assembly. “Do not be
in such a hurry,” he would say when he met one of the
princes; “hear the end. Thou dost not know the king’s
mind yet. He but wished to test us, and woe to thee if
the mighty king’s wrath overtake thee.” Then he drove
the people back, and they came with a roar like angry
waves breaking on a rocky shore. They knew Ulysses’
warlike spirit and feared he might advise renewal of the
struggle. Only respect for his great authority moved
them to return.

When all the princes were seated and order had once 25
more been restored, Ulysses was about to take up the
sceptre. Suddenly Thersites pushed forward. He was
despised by the whole army as a quarrelsome, insolent
fellow, who seldom let an opportunity go by to insult the
princes, not excepting Agamemnon himself, with
mocking, rebellious words. He was the ugliest of all the
Greeks, having a lame foot, a deformed shoulder, a
pointed, bald head, and a cast in one eye.

“What wilt thou now, Atreus’ son?” he shrieked at

Agamemnon. “I should have thought thou hadst
collected enough money and valuable spoils to have
satisfied thy avarice. Dost thou desire still more? Must
the Achaians still sacrifice themselves to fill thy
insatiable throat? Are ye not ashamed, ye princes, to
suffer such a king to lead ye to destruction? But ye are
women or ye would desert him and embark without
him.”

“Silence, foolish babbler!” cried Ulysses. “If I ever again

hear thee slander one of us so shamelessly, true as I
live, I will tear thy clothes from thy body and whip thee
out of the assembly so that the whole camp shall hear
thy cries!” Thus spake the hero, beating him about the
back and shoulders with the sceptre, so that he
cowered down and then ran away crying out.

The heralds now commanded silence as Ulysses again 26

stood up to speak. Turning to Agamemnon he said: “Oh
son of Atreus, how badly have the Achaians kept faith
with thee. They promised not to return home until we
had conquered Troy, and now they act like children. I do
not blame anyone for longing for his home after ten
years of absence. But just because we have waited so
long, it were a shame to return when we are so near
the goal. For we must succeed or all the signs of the
immortal Jove are a mockery. Did not Calchas tell us,
back in Aulis, how it would be? Do ye not remember the
sparrow’s nest in the beautiful maple tree near our
altar? I can still see the spotted serpent gliding up its
trunk and swallowing the eight young birds and
catching the frightened mother bird at last by the wing.
We were all alarmed at the omen, but Calchas
interpreted the occurrence favorably. He said: ‘The war
shall consume nine years, but in the tenth, Troy shall
fall.’ Behold, friends, the prophecy is about to be
fulfilled, and will ye now flee? Wait but a short time until
we have taken the proud city of Priam, and then let us
depart laden with rich booty and crowned with immortal
glory.”

Old Nestor next arose to persuade those who still

hesitated. “That is right,” he said. “Let reason speak to
you. Shall our great plans go up in smoke and shall our
sacred vows to Menelaus and his good brother,
Agamemnon, be broken? Indeed no! Lead the Achaians
into battle, great king, and most of them will, I hope,
cheerfully follow thee. Let the men be gathered
together by tribes, that each may fight for his own
blood. Then thou shalt clearly see whether the gods
protect the city or whether it is the cowardice and
ignorance of our army which defeats us.”

“Well spoken!” cried Agamemnon. “We must not rest 27

until the fortress is taken. Jove will surely aid us. His
flashing lightnings as we left Aulis are the surest pledge
of this. The city would already be ours had I ten men in
my army as wise as thou art, O Nestor, and alas! had
Achilles not left us—Achilles, whom I have wounded so
sorely. But come! Let everyone prepare for the battle.
Let us quickly refresh and strengthen ourselves and
then advance upon the city in a body.”

With these words he dismissed the assembly and the

people streamed back to the tents to arm themselves
and take some food. The king invited all the chiefs to
join him at breakfast in his tent. Nestor, Idomeneus, the
two brave Ajaxes, Diomedes, and Ulysses were there,
besides his brother Menelaus. They took a steer,
strewing sacred barley upon it, and while they all stood
about it in a circle, Agamemnon lifted up his voice and
prayed to Jupiter for victory. Alas! he did not know that
the god had turned against him.

The drivers harnessed their horses, the warriors donned

helmet and shield and took up their lances, and the
heralds lifted up their mighty voices above the din, to
call the stragglers together. Company after company,
they assembled like a swarm of migrating birds. Then
the princes hastily mustered the ranks and arranged the
races and tribes as Nestor had advised. But the king
called to them in a loud voice to fight bravely, and when
all was in readiness they swept forwards with a din and
outcry, like a flock of screeching cranes.
 28

Chapter III
Meeting of the Armies—Menelaus and Paris—Agamemnon
Leads the Greeks into Battle

The Trojan nobles were holding a council of war before

the palace when Iris, a messenger from Jupiter,
appearing in the shape of Priam’s son Polites, joined
them. He came from one of the watch towers and
brought the news that an incalculable number of
Achaians was approaching. Hastily the council broke up,
each chief going to assemble his people, that they
might be ready to meet the Greeks before they should
reach the city wall. In their midst were many heroes,
but distinguished amongst them all for invincible
strength and heroic courage were Hector, son of Priam,
several of his brothers, and also Æneas, a connection of
the royal house.

Masses of men now poured out of the open city gates 29

and ranged themselves in long lines of battle. The
Achaians advanced ever nearer, but could not be
distinguished for the tremendous dust which arose
before them, enveloping them like a cloud. When they
came to a standstill the leaders at last recognized one
another. In front of the Trojans marched the godlike
Paris, wearing a leopard skin, his bow slung over his
shoulder, his sword on his thigh, and swinging two
javelins in his right hand. With mocking words he
challenged the bravest Achaians to combat. His arch-
enemy, Menelaus, was the first to hear him and his
heart swelled with anger, while he burned to meet the
robber of his honor. He guided his chariot toward him,
sprang hastily down, and ran to meet him, eager as a
lion to spring upon its prey. The handsome youth was
frightened at his appearance and fled, vanishing among
the throng of Trojans.

His brother Hector saw his flight and was indignant at

the sight. “Coward,” he cried, “would that thou hadst
never been born or else hadst died ere ever thou didst
learn to seduce women! Now thou hast made a
laughing-stock of thyself before both armies. I can only
wonder how thou hadst ever the courage to go to a
foreign land and there to steal away a beautiful woman.
The deed has been the undoing of us all and brought
eternal shame upon thyself. Menelaus appears quite
different to thee to-day, I suppose, from what he did
then? Had he caught thee, thy lute and curled hair, thy
slender shape, and the favor of Aphrodite had availed
thee little. Were the Trojans not a cowardly rabble thou
wouldst long ago have paid the penalty for all thou hast
brought upon them.”

Paris answered: “Thou art right, brother. But forgive me. 30

Wouldst thou see me fight, bid the others cease and let
me challenge Menelaus to single combat before the
people. Then let whichever is the victor take Helen, with
all the other treasures, that the Trojans and Achaians
may part in peace.”

These words pleased Hector and he advanced, holding

out his lance before the Greeks and calling upon them
to cease fighting. The arrows of the enemy fell about
him like rain until Agamemnon spied him and cried
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

[Link]