Achilleus & Patroklos;
Were they friends or lovers or both?
Printable View
Achilleus & Patroklos;
Were they friends or lovers or both?
They were cousins, and certainly friends. However, in view of the Ancient Greek ideal of 'love to boys', they were probably lovers also.
Everything Achilles does after Patrocles' death shows how deeply he loved him. Modern labels simply don't fit their world. Did they sleep together? who knows, Does it matter to the story? I think not.
Were Achilleus and Patroklos friends or lovers or both?
I think it is one of the big unanswered questions people have when they read the Iliad. Just like we don't really know whether Helen was abducted or seduced. Does it matter to the story?
In my opinion, Achilleus' reaction to Patroklos' death is an over reaction to say the least. It gives me the feeling that Homer isn't telling us the whole story about those two.
Does it matter to the story? Only if the reader is trying to understand the characters and the culture.
Does not matter much, Achilles reaction is not just due to Patroklos death, but also the length of the war, how he had his status spoiled... And Homer is really saying what Achilles did was not good.
He is not the only character who overeacts for the death of a friend, Gilgamesh does too for example (albeit in a different way).
He felt responsible for Patroklos' death as well, he'd promised to look after him and failed to do so. That also explains his "over reaction."
We all know that Achilleus loved Patroklos.
The question seems to have changed from, "Were they lover?" to "What does it matter?"
"The relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is a key element of the myths associated with the Trojan War. Its exact nature has been a subject of dispute in both the classical period and modern times."
Achilles and Patroclus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I won't bore you with the six pages of arguments, quotations, citations and references that followed.
But to say that the nature of their relationship 'does not matter to the story' is selling them both short, and reduces the story to an action adventure.
It is not an irrelevant question.
You just proved it does not matter.
It is in dispute for always. It didnt affect at all the story, the understanding, the effect. The answer does not affect the wrath.
Just because something has been in dispute (like this question) ever since the story was put down on paper, does not prove that it is an unimportant question. Quite the opposite.
In my opinion Achilleus is the most interesting character in the story. When I try to understand him and put myself in his position, I can't help but think about what his position might have been.
Furthermore, how I feel about Achilleus changes when I change that position in my mind.
For example, I like Achilleus better when I take the position that his relationship with Patroklos was platonic. He seem more honorable to me in that scenario. (This is probably because I like to think that lovers are a dime a dozen, while a good friend is priceless.)
However when I think about which thing would be more likely to make me feel out of control crazy; losing a best friend, losing a lover, or losing a bestfriend/lover, I have to go with the last one. And I have more compassion for him if this was his position.
But I already know what I think. I want to know what you think and why.
OK, I will tell a secret. Pithagoras was a shield, I was a spear. And I saw Achilles kissing Patro-boy. Yes, it was not platonic.
Now that you have the answer, what it changes?
Or, the way you like Achilles (he still the main character of the story) ?
Changed the way the Iliad was read? Copied? Understood (It was a bit irrelevant for the greeks, who barelly cared to develop stories about it) ? Crafted?
No, it didnt. The question remains oppen simple because the copists of homer (or himself) didnt raised it. Didnt bother with making it clear. Didnt picked a passage that explored the theme.
The greeks even had the concept of love as we have. Of platonic love. It is all dear - i agree it is - for you. By the way, you liked to read it?
So, you think that Achilleus and Patroklos were friend/lovers.
What makes you think that?
Also, you are wrong if you think Homer did not deal with this question in the story. He did. If you want, I can tell you where, so you can read it for yourself.
If you are looking for reasons for Achilles' reaction to the death of Patrocles, then considering whether or not they were physical lovers may be pertinent. But there are plenty of other motivating factors that outway this.
I think this episode is about Pride (as a bad thing) Patrocles' death was a sacrifice and punishment for the pride of Achilles. I think Achilles realised this and knew he was to blame. But he could not change his character, in his sulk Achilles was over the top, as he was in his sorrow and in his wrath.
no, Ainia I do not think it. I was joking because it was the opposite of your opinion. Homer didnt deal with the question, otherwise the question would be answered. Every single debater would find outside Homer reasons to believe how Achilles and Patroklos reaction is. But homer does not say anything about their relationship beyond the sphere or them liking each other. If you want to see Homer dealing with love, see the difference between Heitor farewell and Achilles reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ainia
His wrath is justifiable independent of the kind of relationship they had. And like they are pointing, there is a process of upsets that lead Achilles to get upset. He didnt want to be there in first place, was there for 10 years, the war was "lost", Briseis sittuation (considerable more explict than Protoklos), Odysseus insistence... all exploded with the death of his friend/lover. Considering he starts the story overacting due to Briseis, his reaction to Protoklos is not out of character. And is suitable either they are comrades, lovers, or even the platonic love(an idea not classical). It works, as it worked for you to feel his plighty despite not knowing the answer.
In my opinion, Homer does deal with the question of whether or not Achilleus and Patroklos are lovers.
Somewhere in the book (I'm still trying to find where it is) there is a description of Achilleus' and Patroklos' sleeping arrangement.
It is described as follows; A. They sleep in the same tent. B. They each have their own bed. C. The beds are in opposite corners from each other. D. Each bed contains a woman.
If I remember correctly, this description; doesn't follow from, or lead into, any part of the story. It's just in there gratuitously. Almost as if Homer is putting it in there in order to head off any speculation that they might be lovers.
If any of you can remember where this description is, please help.
I remember the passage, but that is just Homer doing his thing. The work is full of such " gratuitous" detail, it is what makes it so brilliant.
I think the homosexuality aspect was not an issue in that society at that time.
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.
It is all fine. No Spoiled fun.
Cheer up Ainia, they were both repressed homosexuals. Achilles was brought up by women and was unafraid of his feminine side. Patrocles was young and exploring his sexuality. Even the donkeys weren't safe.
JCamilo & prendrelemick
It has been fun.
Thank you for making me think.
Thank you for making me laugh.
Sincerely Ainia
P.S. Would either of you like to talk about The Amazon Warrior Women in Herodotus?
From my understanding the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is something modern humans very often achieve in life.
So it would in return be something we have trouble understanding. It is so rare for us to see two men who share close bonds with one another, willing to die, willing to protect the other, in a very strong lasting way.
I believe the relationship between the two is an example by Homer at the Ideal Friendship that a man can have within his lifetime. And we all know Achilles was very adamant about his own being and its dues.