Printable View
I think that description of the sleeping arrangements tells us two things we didn't know before. Firstly, that Achilleus has found a replacement for Briseis and secondly, that Patroklos has at least one concubine.
This is Homer's euphemistic way of telling us that their sexual needs are being met by women.
I am sure it would have gone over more gracefully in a poem than just saying outright, "Oh and by the way, these two weren't lovers"
Yes, mostly because we all know the text was only fixed centuries ago. So, we just find things a modern editor would just off - they maybe just details or not, but then, we cann't get more symbolism from the list of ships, do we?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
The problem Ainia, you are talking about two individuals (Homer and Achilles) who may not have existed at all. So, all you have is speculation and the text. You may interpret it as you want - it can go as much as Achilles having a homo-erotic relation with Patroklos (and planned a 4 and some) or even shunned homo-erotic feelings and wanted to watch him, so he could get with a woman... or as much as those sexual relations, homo or hetero - had no privative character as would a marriage, and it could be normal to share places... You will get always in a if, because in the end Homer didn't deal with it (classic literature has more explict momments, I mean, Gannymedes is around and there is of course, Apollo) or better saying, the latter organizes didnt consider the question relevant enough to incluse more specific references.
It's not exactly easy to assess Greek attitudes towards homosexual relations, all we really know is that they occurred frequently enough that they were discussed.
We just have some small comments on the issue from a handful of writers. Some, like Plato considering a pure asexual or even erotic relationship, others exalting the sexual aspects, and others, like Aristophenes, making homophobic jabs at those who partake in it when it seems otherwise socially accepted.
If we took a sample of gay rights literature written in the 20th century and compared it to the psychological discourse on homosexuality from Victorian England we would get quite the incoherent picture of how Anglo-Saxon culture has treated homosexuality. That's exactly what we get with the Ancient Greeks, we have samples of literature sometimes written centuries apart that deal with the issue in strikingly different ways.
Now I don't think the issue is even relevant in the Iliad, it barely matters beyond a contemporary concern with psychological motive. I don't think many of the Greeks in late Antiquity would have had a fixed answer about the relationship either.
You make a good point. However, when we consider that this is a story, a poem, Homer's focus would have been on telling us all the things that did happen, instead of all the things that did not happen.
He shows us that they are having sexual relations with women, and does not show us that they are having sexual relations with each other. In my opinion, that is how he deals with this question.
For the record, I think that Homer wants to make clear to his audience that Achilleus and Patroklos were not lovers. Perhaps it was a non issue in that culture at the time, but perhaps it was. There are other stories about Achilleus in which it is made clear that he engaged in homosex. I think that these stories are what fuel the speculation about the nature of the relationship between Achilleus and Patroklos.
Homer may have been saying to us, "Yes we all know that Achilleus had sex with men, but Patroklos wasn't one of them."
Homer isn't really one person though, and we can't know what he intended, we can only know what is in the text.
Plato's interpretation of the myth is that they were a model of platonic love which was or was not sexual. And that is probably the most accurate interpretation, understanding Greek culture, then it there being a sexual relationship between them might not have been unusual. It isn't critical that there was or was not one though, and we can't really know Greek standards of propriety at the time, maybe it wasn't socially acceptable to speak of it directly.
Plato is essentially the earliest critic of the Iliad we have, and even then this question was part of the critical discourse. The essence of it is the strength of the bond between them, and whether you want to bring a sexual association to that changes little of the meaning of the text.
Achilles and Patroclus as larger cultural icons have always been to some extent a symbolic positive representation of homosexuality, along perhaps some interpretations of the Ganymede myth or the homosexual Aeclogue of Virgil. How the Iliad has been read historically is important to understanding the status of Achilles and Patroclus as symbols outside of the text, more than it is to understanding the Iliad.
Yes, even if Homer was one, we know for sure the Iliad and Odissey we have are selected years after, a bit like the best and most liked passage.
But even so, not all is in the Iliad, it is possible that any futher notice of relationship between them were out, because it was not relevant for that episode. And of course, it could be something casual, like taking a bath... Whywould he mention, for them it could be obvious. Or like you said, he didnt mention because it didnt happen.
That is why the question is open - we have only the text of Homer, nothing else. Very vague, from a vague historical person and a mythical one. (And a poet can tell about things that didnt happen, get some poetry from romantic period, like Keats La Belle Dame Sans Merci - a guy spend the night with a wild beautiful woman and all he does was petting her chin? It could not be poetic- not all authors or periods do well with erotism - or 1001 Nights. Sharyar marries Scherazade, she tells stories to him every night, on his bed, she is his wife. Not once she is physically described or they talk about sexual relation between them, but she tells even erotic stories... Why would the story not reveal it? Not because it didnt happen, more because it wasn't necessary to tell)
STOP SIDESTEPPING THE QUESTION!
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TAKE A STAND!
Even if it doesn't change the meaning of the story for you, what does your intuition tell you about them?
People who think this question is not worthy need not respond.
You're presenting a false dichotomy, its not an either, or situation it's more of a maybe, maybe not situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ainia
Were Brick and Skipper lovers in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"? When it comes to fictional and mythological figures, the question becomes unanswerable, since any sex that they may have had never actually happened.
Of course the question is unanswerable.
Of course maybe, maybe not
What is your best guess?
Be brave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ainia
My intuition tell that the question has not answer, after all 3000 years and even those familar with the costumes, side stories and idiom are unable to answer it.
Tomorrow I may wake and think: Very gay, then I may read a different translation and very macho. And this is not sidestepping the question, is reckonigtion of the question. That is all.
Thank you JCamilo.
Would anyone else like to not answer my question?
Would anyone else like to try to boss other people around, tell them what to do, and then whine if they won't do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ainia
Why should we obey your commands, Ainia? Who the heck are you?
Ouch!
JCamilo -- If I said something to you that hurt your feelings or made you angry I am sorry.
The truth is that you put me on the defensive very early on in this discourse when you said that my question doesn't matter and then redirected the discussion.
If I sounded frustrated it is because I was.
I am new to this forum.
I will try to be more respectful in the future.
Thank you for responding to my question even though you think it doesn't matter.
I hope you will read and respond to my questions in the future even if it is only to tell me that you think they don't matter.
Sincerely,
Ainia
P.S. I thought we were having fun.