darlingpoppet - Tumblr blog

darlingpoppet · 21 days ago

Note

What do you think of complaints about Pat being mistakenly remembered as "soft"? More specifically, about him being more warlike than gentle

Oh, dear, you're making me talk about something significant to me. Get ready for a long text! I know it took me a while to respond (more than a month), but life was busy and since this is a topic I like, I didn't want to respond without due attention.

First of all, a few details:

I'm not an academic! This is a hobby!

I tried to bring the academic interpretations I found regarding Patroclus' kindness, especially those I agree with. After all, the post is about what I think, right? It is not necessary to agree with all of them, interpretations are interpretations. The intention was just to show how this characteristic was exploited by people. Likewise, my interpretation is also ONLY my interpretation.

There are some moments where Greek texts (The Iliad and scholia bT) were used and there was a kind of translation of words. Note that I obviously don't know any form of Greek! The method used to arrive at the result will be explained. In any case, it's just to get an IDEA of what was said, it isn't a super serious translation. Please don't quote me on this. If you have any corrections on this aspect, I'm open to them!

Homeric epithets

First of all, what is an epithet? Anyone who reads Homer has probably read/heard this word a considerable number of times, but what is the explanation for this term? Speaking very simply, the term came from Greek and basically refers to a characteristic of the character. This characteristic can refer to the character's appearance, personality, ability, function, ancestry or place of origin. Among the possible reasons for the use of epithets, it has been suggested that they are ornamental resources, that they seek to complement the structure of the poem (in the sense of quantity and organization of the verses) and that they have literary relevance in the development of the character — information taken from Frederico Loureço's introductory text of The Iliad in Portuguese, with the third case being his suggestion. They’re considered formulaic in the sense that they have a ready-made structure that can be fitted into the poem, and the idea of formulas in Homeric epic is generally accepted as a result of oral tradition because it facilitates oral recitation without losing the poetic quality. Even if you had never heard this word before, if you read Homer you certainly noticed its existence. For example, perhaps you noticed how many times Menelaus is emphasized by the color of his hair (in Greek, xanthus. In English translations, it varies). This is because this is one of Menelaus' epithets, in this case referring to his appearance. Some other examples are:

Their appearance (ex: Ajax with aka “giant/gigantic”)

Their abilities (ex: Achilles with “swift-footed” as an example of physical ability and Odysseus with “tactician” as an example of intellectual ability)

Their role (ex: Agamemnon with "lord of men/shepherd of people" because he’s the leader of the Achaean army)

Their ancestrality (ex: Diomedes with aka "Tydeus' son")

The gentle epithet in The Iliad

Regarding epithets, Patroclus was portrayed as gentle by Homer. He may not be what we see as "gentle" today because a soldier isn't exactly the picture of gentleness in modern times, but by the standards of the time and even among Homeric characters, Patroclus was considered gentle. This isn't an interpretive case, it's something that is evident in the text of The Iliad.

When Menelaus announces the death of Patroclus, this is how he describes him:

Much he enjoined on Meriones and the Aiantes: “Aiantes, leaders of the Argives, and Meriones, now let you each be mindful of gentle, unhappy Patroclus, for to all men he knew to be kind while he was alive; and now death and fate have swallowed him.”

The Iliad, 17.698-672. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Greek, the sentence in which Menelaus refers to Patroclus as kind is:

Αἴαντ' Ἀργείων ἡγήτορε Μηριόνη τε νῦν τις ἐνηείης [gentle/kind] Πατροκλῆος δειλοῖο 670 μνησάσθω: [gentleness/kindness] πᾶσιν γὰρ ἐπίστατο μείλιχος εἶναι ζωὸς ἐών: νῦν αὖ θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα κιχάνει.

The Iliad, 17.669-672.

When thinking about the fate of mortals, this is how Zeus describes Patroclus:

And as from afar Zeus who gathers the clouds saw him arrayed in the armor of the godlike son of Peleus, shaking his head he addressed his own heart: 200 “Ah, poor wretch, death troubles your heart not at all, death which is now close by you; you are putting on the immortal armor of a noble man, before whom all others tremble. His companion you have slain was both strong and gentle, and you were not right to take the armor from his head and shoulders. But yet I will hand you now great victory, compensation for this—that Andromache will not receive you safe-returned from fighting, nor the famous armor of the son of Peleus.”

The Iliad, 17.198-209. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Greek, the sentence in which Zeus refers to Patroclus as kind is:

τὸν δ' ὡς οὖν ἀπάνευθεν ἴδεν νεφεληγερέτα Ζεὺς τεύχεσι Πηλεί̈δαο κορυσσόμενον θείοιο, κινήσας ῥα κάρη προτὶ ὃν μυθήσατο θυμόν: 200 ἆ δείλ' οὐδέ τί τοι θάνατος καταθύμιός ἐστιν ὃς δή τοι σχεδὸν εἶσι: σὺ δ' ἄμβροτα τεύχεα δύνεις ἀνδρὸς ἀριστῆος, τόν τε τρομέουσι καὶ ἄλλοι: τοῦ δὴ ἑταῖρον ἔπεφνες ἐνηέα [gentle/kind] τε κρατερόν τε, τεύχεα δ' οὐ κατὰ κόσμον ἀπὸ κρατός τε καὶ ὤμων 205 εἵλευ: ἀτάρ τοι νῦν γε μέγα κράτος ἐγγυαλίξω, τῶν ποινὴν ὅ τοι οὔ τι μάχης ἐκνοστήσαντι δέξεται Ἀνδρομάχη κλυτὰ τεύχεα Πηλεί̈ωνος.

The Iliad, 17.198-207.

When mourning the death of Patroclus, Briseis said:

“[...] So now I mourn your death — I will never stop — you were always kind."

The Iliad, 19.355. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Greek, the sentence in which Briseis refers to Patroclus as kind is:

ἐς Φθίην, δαίσειν δὲ γάμον μετὰ Μυρμιδόνεσσι. τώ σ' ἄμοτον κλαίω τεθνηότα μείλιχον αἰεί. [always gentle/kind]

The Iliad, 19.299-300.

One of Priam's sons, Lycaon, when begging to be spared by Achilles appeals to the memory of Patroclus and describes him thus:

“[...] I will escape your hands, since some divine force has brought me to this place. Yet I will say one other thing to you, and put this within your heart; do not kill me, since I am not born of the same womb as Hector, who slew your strong and gentle comrade.”

The Iliad, 21.93-96. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Greek, the sentence in which Lycaon refers to Patroclus as kind is:

ἄλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ' ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσι: μή με κτεῖν', ἐπεὶ οὐχ ὁμογάστριος Ἕκτορός εἰμι, ὅς τοι ἑταῖρον ἔπεφνεν ἐνηέα [gentle/kind] τε κρατερόν τε. ὣς ἄρα μιν Πριάμοιο προσηύδα φαίδιμος υἱὸς

The Iliad, 21.94-97.

The narrator also describes him as kind, most notably when he says that the Achaeans are mourning Patroclus:

So he spoke, and the men obeyed the swift-footed son of Peleus. And first they extinguished the pyre with dark-gleaming wine, everywhere the flame reached and the ash had fallen deep; and, weeping, they gathered up the white bones of their gentle comrade [...]

The Iliad, 23.249-252. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

ὣς ἔφαθ', οἳ δ' ἐπίθοντο ποδώκεϊ Πηλεί̈ωνι. πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ πυρκαϊὴν σβέσαν αἴθοπι οἴνῳ ὅσσον ἐπὶ φλὸξ ἦλθε, βαθεῖα δὲ κάππεσε τέφρη: κλαίοντες δ' ἑτάροιο ἐνηέος [gentle companion/kind comrade] ὀστέα λευκὰ

The Iliad, 23.249-252.

And Achilles:

[...] “Son of Atreus and you other strong-greaved Achaeans, these prizes are set down in assembly and await the horsemen. If we Achaeans were now contending in honor of any other man, I myself would surely carry these to my shelter after coming first; for you all know by how much my horses are superior in speed. For they are immortal, and Poseidon gave them to my father Peleus, and he in turn gave them into my hands. But as it is I will stay here, as will my single-hoofed horses; for such was the charioteer whose noble strength they lost, so kind, who many a time poured limpid oil upon their manes, after washing them with shining water. They both stand grieving for him, and their manes hang upon the ground, they both stand grieving in their hearts. But the rest of you throughout the army, ready yourselves, whoever of you trusts his horses and his bolted chariot.”

The Iliad, 23.272.-286. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

ἀλλ' ἤτοι μὲν ἐγὼ μενέω καὶ μώνυχες ἵπποι: τοίου γὰρ κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἀπώλεσαν ἡνιόχοιο ἠπίου [gentle/kind], ὅς σφωϊν μάλα πολλάκις ὑγρὸν ἔλαιον χαιτάων κατέχευε λοέσσας ὕδατι λευκῷ.

The Iliad, 23.279-282.

Achilles, Menelaus, Briseis, Lycaon, Zeus and the narrator related Patroclus to kindness. So I highly doubt that Patroclus being described as kind is just an opinion, it really does seem like a character trait to me. In the case of conventional epithets of male characters, they're big, they're fast, they have an important lineage, they play a big role. Patroclus has epithets like these too. He is "descendent of Zeus” (διογενές), he is "Menoetius' son" (Μενοιτιάδης), he is "great-hearted" (μεγαλήτωρ). And yet he’s the only one who has the epithet "gentle". It’s common for characters to receive personality-related epithets regarding their smartness or their courage, but Patroclus also receives “gentle”. This actually caught some attention in academic circles!

Scholia bT of The Iliad

First, why not start with the Greek scholia of Homer? More specifically, an ancient scholia, currently untranslated. Even earlier, the emphasis on the gentleness of Patroclus was noted in the scholia written by Greeks, it isn't an emphasis that only emerged with non-Greek scholarship. It's also interesting because some of the modern scholars I'll mention have used these texts as references, you will notice this when they cite things like Scholia bT.

For the Greek text, I consulted the Scaifer Viewer. For those interested, I'll list the sections of this website from which I took the excerpts. This scholia doesn't have a complete translation, only some parts were translated in specific contexts and (for those who read lost fragments of authors, you have probably already read part of it; for example, in the fragments attributed to Hesiod). For those that I was able to find translations, I used the translation and gave credit. For those that I didn't find translated, I “”“translated””” in a very improvised way with the help of dictionaries, automatic translators and academic texts that summarized the excerpt. Although I tried to capture the general idea of the excerpt (that is, what is being explained), this doesn't even remotely attempt to be a faithful translations in terms of grammar and language.

Taken from section 5.1.192.

〈Μενοιτιάδῃ⟩] εἰκότως τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ θυμικῷ ὄντι ἤπιος ὢν [*] Πάτροκλος πάρεστι πρὸς τὸ τὸν θυμὸν αὐτοῦ μαλάσσειν. ὅτι δὲ πρᾷός ἐστι, δῆλον ἐξ ὧν οἰκτείρει τοὺς Ἀχαιούς· Εὐρύπυλον ἰᾶται, καὶ Μενέλαος περὶ αὐτοῦ φησι νῦν τις ἐνηείης Πατροκλῆος—μεμνή σθω” (Il. 17. 670)· κατʼ ἐξοχὴν δὲ ἰδιαζόντως εἶπε περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἀξιόχρεως ᾖ, τελευτῶν ἐγείρειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν μάχην. Patroclus, the son of Menoetius, being gentle, is fittingly present beside Achilles, who is prone to anger, in order to soothe his spirit. That he’s gentle is clear from the fact that he feels pity for the Achaeans, he heals Eurypylus and Menelaus speaks about him saying, “remember the gentle Patroclus” (Il. 17.670). He spoke about him in a particularly distinct and personal way, so that he might be worthy, ending with the exhortation to rouse him into battle.

[Improvised translation, don't quote me for this if the subject is complete accuracy]

General idea: The schoalist argues that Patroclus having kindness as a personality trait is clear and he gave as argumentative examples Patroclus' compassion for the Achaeans (note: this is especially demonstrated at the beginning of Book 16, but had already been portrayed in Book 11. Probably hinted in Book 9 as well, given Phoenix's story about Meleager in which Cleopatra is parallel to Patroclus), the way he heals Eurypylus (note: see Book 11) and the way Menelaus encourages the Greeks by reminding them that Patroclus was kind (note: see Book 17). He also interprets that Patroclus being shown in scenes alongside Achilles is appropriate, as his kindness is supposed to soften Achilles' anger.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.1.205.

Πάτροκλος δὲ φίλῳ] τὸ ἤπιον αὐτοῦ διὰ τῆς σιωπῆς τῆς νῦν τε κἀν ὅλῃ τῇ στάσει κἀν τῷ μηνιθμῷ δείκνυται· καὶ νῦν δὲ οὐ φθέγγεται, ἵνα μὴ ἢ παροξυντικός. Patroclus, however, shows his gentler nature through the silence both now and in the entire situation and in the month; and now he does not speak, so as not to be provocative.

[Improvised translation, don't quote me for this if the subject is complete accuracy]

General idea: The scholiast interprets Patroclus being silent as a sign of his gentle nature. This part is specifically about Book 1, where while Achilles is visibly angered by the situation Patroclus is a silent figure and his only role in this part is to obey Achilles' order to bring Briseis. Apparently, the idea is that Patroclus doesn't speak in front of the men sent by Agamemnon so as not to be provocative; perhaps it refers to him not making any comment about the situation so as not to incite Achilles's anger even more.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.11.390

ληίδα δʼ ἐκ πεδίου] αἰδήμων ὁ Πάτροκλος· ἐπειγόμενος 〈γὰρ〉 ἀνέχεται τοῦ γέροντος μακρολογοῦντος· οἰκονομικῶς δὲ πέπλασται τῷ ποιητῇ ἡ μακρὰ διήγησις, ἵνα ὁ Εὐρύπυλος ἐκ τῆς μάχης φθάσας ἐλθεῖν περιτύχῃ Πατρόκλῳ, καὶ παρὰ τούτῳ 〈αὐτοῦ〉 ἐμβραδύνοντος δεινὴ γένηται ἡ τειχομαχία· εἰ γὰρ ταχέως ἐπανῆλθε πρὸς Ἀχιλλέα καὶ ἐκπεμφθῆναι ἑαυτὸν ἔπεισεν εἰς τὴν μάχην, ἀνῃρέθη ἂν ἡ τιχομαχία, δι’ ἣν ἐπλάσθη τὸ τεῖχος. Patroclus is respectful: for, although he is in a hurry, he puts up with the old man when he is speaking for such a long time. The long narration is crafted economically by the poet, so that Eurypylus, who returns early from the battle encounters Patroclus, and slows down in his presence on account of the wall-fight. For if he had returned quickly to Achilles and had persuaded him to send him to the battle, the wall-fight, for which the wall has been introduced, would have been taken away.

[Translation by Jonas Grethlein]

General Idea: In Book 11, Patroclus encounters Nestor, who is as verbose as ever, although Patroclus is impatient given the circumstances. The schoalist interprets Patroclus as being particularly respectful because, although he's in a hurry, he entertains Nestor for a long time in his conversation. The schoalist later comments on the economy of the narrative in the way it is structured.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.11.385

[...] §. ἔστι δὲ μείλιχος Πάτροκλος· διὸ ἱστάμενος αἰδεῖται τὸν γέροντα (649). [...] Patroclus is indeed gentle; therefore, standing there, he feels shame before the elder."

[Improvised translation, don't quote me for this if the subject is complete accuracy]

General idea (parts cut in [...] for reasons of uncertain translation on my part): this part is about the interaction between Nestor and Patroclus in Book 11. The scholiast initially (in the cut part) appears to comment on Nestor's advising speeches, eventually interpreting that Patroclus is kind in the way he behaves because he demonstrates humility and respect in front of an older person.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.2

δάκρυα θερμά] εἰκότως ὁ πρᾶος Πάτροκλος κλαίει, τὰ μὲν [*] ἀκοῇ τὰ δὲ αὐτοψεὶ τῶν δεινῶν ἐπισκοπήσας. διὸ οὐδὲ φθέγξασθαί τι οἷός τε ἐστὶ συγκεχυμένος ὑπὸ τῶν δακρύων, ἀλλὰ σιωπῶν ἵσταται διὰ τοῦ σχήματος τὸν ἔλεον ἐπαγόμενος. καὶ ἐν ταῖς Λιταῖς (Il. 9.433) ὁ Φοῖνιξ “δάκρυʼ ἀναπρήσας· περὶ γὰρ δίε νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν.” *μελάνυδρος] ἡ βαθύυδρος, ᾗ κατὰ τοὺς φυσικοὺς μέλαν ἐστὶ [*] τὸ ὕδωρ. The gentle Patroclus laments appropriately, since he has both heard and seen terrible things. So he is not able to cry out, being overwhelmed by his tears, but stands in silence, bringing pity upon himself because of his appearance. Similarly in the Litai (Iliad 9.433) Phoenix “burst into tears, for he feared greatly for the Greek ships” Melanidros] the deep water, in which according to the naturalists is black water.

[Translation from British Library]

General Idea: In Book 16, Patroclus runs crying to Achilles after hearing more news about the horrific events happening to his companions. He, however, says nothing until Achilles asks him why he is crying, at which point Patroclus explains the situation and begs Achilles to have compassion. The schoalist interprets this scene as Patroclus's initial silence occurring because he is overwhelmed by his own emotions, associating his empathy with his kindness. He compares this to the scene in Book 9 where Phoenix is concerned about the way the Trojans are increasingly advancing on the Greek ships. Furthermore, he notes that the term used in Greek refers to dark water in the sense of symbolizing deep water, indicating that Patroclus's tears are deep.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.5

[...] οἱ μὲν σκληροὶ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ πρᾴους γυναιξὶν εἰκάζουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἐπιεικεῖς τοὺς στερεοὺς ἀγρίους καὶ ἀνημέρους φασίν. καὶ νῦν ὁ μὲν Ἀχιλλεὺς τὸν Πάτροκλον ὡς κόρην, ὁ δὲ Πάτροκλος τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ὡς πετρῶν παῖδα (35). [...] The harsh/hard/severe ones liken the gentle/kind and mild to women, while the gentle/kind ones say the harsh/hard/severe ones are wild and untamed. And now, Achilles regards Patroclus as a girl, while Patroclus sees Achilles as a child of stone.

[Improvised translation, don't quote me for this if the subject is complete accuracy]

General idea, including the part I removed (where it says [...]) because I couldn't find a sufficiently comprehensible translation: the scholiast discusses the scene in Book 16 in which Patroclus begs Achilles to be more compassionate, to which Achilles responds by comparing Patroclus to a little girl begging for her mother's attention because he is crying. Patroclus, in turn, says that Achilles is not the son of either Thetis or Peleus, but of the sea and rocks. The scholiast interprets this dialogue as portraying the idea that a man who behaved compassionately was sometimes compared to a woman because this type of compassion was associated with femininity, while gentle people saw harsh people as so hard-hearted that they seemed to distance themselves from a certain idea of humanity. Therefore, the scholiast's interpretation is that when Achilles compares Patroclus to a little girl, he is thus mocking his compassionate tears by saying that he sounds effeminate. When Patroclus says that Achilles was born of the sea and rocks, he is thus saying that Achilles at this point has so little compassion that it is as if he had not been generated by people. Achilles then criticizes Patroclus's gentle behavior (note: ironically, Achilles later praises this trait in Patroclus when he comments about the horses missing their kind caretaker. Whether this was a case of "giving value after losing" or whether Achilles only said it in the first place because he was hot-headed, it's up to each person's interpretation).

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 4.21.44:

ἐνηέα ] ἐν τῷ ἐπιθέτῳ τοῦ φίλου μαλάσσειν αὐτὸν οἴεται , διδάσκων ζηλοῦν τὴν σήνειαν τοῦ φίλου . Gente/kind: with this epithet of Akhilleus' friend he thinks he may soften him, by teaching him to emulate his friend's kindness.

[Translation by Nicholas Richardson]

General idea: this is a scene from Book 21 in which the Trojan Lycaon begs Achilles to show mercy and mentions Patroclus, characterizing him as kind. In the scholiast's interpretation, this was an attempt by Lycaon to bring out in Achilles a feeling of trying to emulate the kindness of his deceased friend.

Patroclus “gentle” epithet in The Iliad in modern analyse

Cambridge University has published The Iliad: A Commentary Series, a 6-volume series of books that aims to analyze all the books of The Iliad in detail. The volumes are:

Volume 1: Analysis of Books 1-4 by George S. Kirk.

Volume 2: Analysis of Books 5-8 by George S. Kirk.

Volume 3: Analysis of Books 9-12 by Bryan Hainsworth.

Volume 4: Analysis of Books 13-16 by Richard Janko.

Volume 5: Analysis of Books 17-20 by Mark E. Edwards.

Volume 6: Analysis of Books 21-24 by Nicholas Richardson.

Some of these volumes contain analyses of Patroclus's kindness! I will list them here, and the notes in “[]” are my additions, that is, they aren't from the original text. This is because the original text sometimes uses Greek (obviously), but without necessarily indicating what the Greek term means, which can be confusing. The meanings I gave were based on online Greek dictionaries and the translations that I know of the scenes mentioned.

While analyzing Book 9 of The Iliad, Bryan Hainsworth mentions how the scholia bT emphasizes Patroclus' kindness in scenes from this moment. In case you don’t remember, this is the book where we have the embassy sent by Agamemnon (consisting of Odysseus, Big Ajax and Phoenix) visiting Achilles in an attempt to convince him to return. Patroclus is largely a silent presence in this book — he is shown listening to the music that Achilles plays, he prepares food for Achilles and the guests, he silently listens to each of their arguments, he obeys Achilles when he asks Patroclus to prepare a place for Phoenix to sleep, and finally he is shown sleeping. According to Hainsworth:

205 Patroklos makes no reply. bT make this a point of characterization, cf their remark at 11.616, σιωπηλὸς ἀεὶ καὶ ἐνηὴς Πάτροκλος. His self-effacing and gentle nature (ἐνηείη, 17.670) is often praised by the exegetical scholia (bT at 1.307, 337, 345). Kindliness, like other co-operative virtues, is appropriate between friends, but there is no reason why it should be shown to enemies; Patroklos displays his mettle in book 16. In spite of his disapproval of Akhilleus' present attitude towards his friends, which surfaces at 16.29-35, respect for his superior in rank keeps Patroklos silent at this point. His silence is, of course, necessary if Akhilleus is to maintain his present stance.

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume V: Books 9-12 pg 90.

While analyzing Book 17 of The Iliad, Mark W. Edwards refers to Patroclus' kindness as unique in the entire poem. But note that he is talking about language; he isn’t implying that there are no other kind characters (Menelaus, for example, is constantly used as an example of Homeric kindness and is even compared to Patroclus in academic circles), but rather referring to how Patroclus is explicitly referred to as kind. This book, in case you don't remember, shows the Achaeans (especially Menelaus and Ajax) trying to recover Patroclus while Hector encourages the Trojans and allies to recover the body because he wants to feed the corpse to the dogs. According to Edwards:

669-73 On 669 see 507-8n. The two Aiantes were fighting side by side at 531-2. TIS (670) refers to all the Greeks, not just the three leaders he addresses. ἐνήης [Note: kind/gentle] is used of Patroklos by Zeus at 204 21.96 and 23.252; otherwise only by Nestor of himself in proximity to a reference to Patroklos (23.648, cf. 646), and of Athene disguised as a friendly Phacacian (Od. 8.200). The usages suggest that it may have been a conventional epithet for ἑταῖρος [Note: hetaîros. This word has more than one meaning, but in translations into English they generally use "companion"], in the II. restricted to Patroklos for artistic reasons. Similarly, the form δειλοῖο [Note: miserable/wretched/poor, but in a compassionate sense] is used only in this formula for Patroklos (here and 3 × in book 23), and he is the only person to whom μείλιχος [Note: meílikhos. Gentle/kind] is applied, here and when Briseis says that he was μείλιχος aiɛí [Note: always gentle/kind] (19.300; it is used with a negative for Hektor by Andromakhe, 24.739). Patroklos' gentleness is unique in the language of the poem, and seems to be recognized in the unusual number of direct addresses to him by the narrator. [...]

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume V: Books 17-20, pg 127.

In his analysis of Book 21, Nicholas Richardson again cites the scholia bT to point out that Lycaon, by referring to Patroclus as kind, was trying to remind Achilles of his friend's kindness as a way for Achilles to follow Patroclus' example. Ironically, the mention of Patroclus didn’t make Achilles kinder, but rather made him angrier. According to Richardson:

96 ἐνηέα [gentle/kind]: 'with this epithet of Akhilleus' friend he thinks he may soften him, by teaching him to emulate his friend's kindness' (bT). Ironically, the reference to Patroklos' death only sparks off Akhilleus' bitter reply. The verse echoes 17.204, in the speech by Zeus prophesying Hektor's death, when he puts on Akhilleus’ armour after killing Patroklos, and the epithet is nearly always applied to Patroklos in the poem (see on 23.252).

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume VI: Books 21-24, pg 61.

Richardson, while analyzing passages from Book 23 of The Iliad, also emphasizes Patroclus' epithets. In particular, he notes the combination of "gentle", only applied to Patroclus, with "companion", thus forming "gentle companion" (ἑτάροιο ἐνηέος), even more restricted to Patroclus. This part, in case you don't remember, refers to the funeral. In addition, he also analyzes the part in which Achilles describes Patroclus' treatment of the horses. According to Richardson:

973-86 Akhilleus' speech appropriately introduces the first and most important contest, by referring to the supremacy of his own horses (cf.2.770), and to the loss of Patroklos, their driver. This reference is developed pathetically with the reminiscence of his gentle care for them and of their grief for him, a motif which recalls 17.426-56 and 19.400-24.

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume VI: Books 21-24, pg 205.

252 ἑτάροιο ἐνηέος [note: gentle companion] almost exclusively of Patroklos in Il.; cf. 17.204, 21.96 ἑταῖρον [note: hetaîros. companion] . . . ἐνηέα [note: gentle], 17.670 ενηείης Πατροκληος [note: gentle Patroclus. The “Πατροκληος” is his name], and once of Nestor at 23.648, just after a reference to Patroklos (see comment).

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume VI: Books 21-24, pg 199.

Richardson (yes, the same Richardson), in a critical study of the exegetical scholia of the Iliad (the bT scholia is part of this) published in The Classical Quarterly in 1980, notes how scholiasts viewed the text as a whole and analyzed it with the idea that even the smallest details had a purpose. To illustrate this, Richardson uses the scholastics' interpretations of Patroclus' role in the narrative, including his kindness:

This is an elaboration of the Aristotelian view which the Scholia follow, and they do not put it so explicitly. But they do assume that the poet has a clear idea from the beginning of the direction in which his narrative is moving. It is particularly illuminating to see how they comment on the role of Patroclus in the poem. He is first mentioned at 1.307, when Achilles returns with him and his companions to their tents after the quarrel. Here they note that his introduction at this early point in the narrative already prepares the way for his later intervention to plead with Achilles to return to the battle. Again the fact that Achilles entrusts Briseis to him (337) indicates their closeness, and his silence here (345) is picked up in the Embassy by the way he remains in the background, which suggests his gentleness (BT 1.307, 337, 345). The Scholia compare his healing of Eurypylus, his distress at the Greek misfortunes, and the description of him as 'gentle' by Menelaus (17.670). When we come to the series of events leading up to Patroclus' intervention, they are fully aware of the careful way in which this is prepared. The wounding of the heroes in Book 11 leads to the Greek rout and battle by the ships (BT 11.318, 407, 598). Machaon goes back to the ships in his chariot when wounded, and so passes Achilles' view rapidly: Achilles therefore sends Patroclus to find out what has happened (BT 11.512; cf. ABT 11.604). Achilles has been watching the battle from his ship, clearly longing for the moment when he can return (BT 11.600). Patroclus goes to Nestor, and this ensures that Nestor's eloquence will succeed where the Embassy had failed (AB 11.611). Nestor's long story is designed οἰκονομικῶς, i.e. as part of the poet's plan, because this gives time for Eurypylus to return and meet Patroclus. This delays Patroclus and allows the poet to introduce the battle at the wall which follows (BT 11.677-8, 809). Patroclus is respectful (αἰδήμων), and so he listens politely, in spite of the urgency of the situation. The wounding of Machaon has removed the doctor who could have treated Eurypylus, and so Patroclus does so instead (T 11.833; cf. also BT 11.813). His kindness leads him to stay with Eurypylus after treating him (BT 12.1). Finally, we return to Patroclus and Eurypylus at 15.390, when great battle has made the Greek plight far more desperate and P sympathy for them all the greater (BT 15.390 and 12.1). Later, death, Hector drags his body in order to cut off his head and gi the dogs (17.125-7). This barbaric intention is often overlooked observe that it helps to justify Achilles' mistreatment of Hector’s body (BT 17.126-7). Whether or not Achilles is justified the motif surely to his retaliation.

Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch, pg 268-269.

When addressing how scholiasts seemed to interpret each character, Richardson once again highlights their tendency to emphasize Patroclus' gentleness, while commenting that this contrasts with the portrayal of Paris, who is not violent but is cowardly (something Patroclus is not), and Agamemnon, who is noble but has an arrogant personality (also not so typical of Patroclus, although here I should remember that in Book 16 Patroclus does indeed display arrogance. However, we will address this separately). In turn, Menelaus is seen as a similar figure to Patroclus in the narrative. He also mentions the apostrophes, which is an interesting point, but I'll address this separately as well.

[...]They are quick to observe points of characterization of the individual heroes. Patroclus' gentleness has already been noted (cf. also BT 11.616, 670, 677-8, 814, 12.1, 19.297). The poet's sympathy for him is shown by his use of apostrophe, addressing him in the vocative (BT 16.692-3, 787; cf. Eustathius 1086.49). He uses the same device for Menelaus: προσπέπονθε δὲ Μενελάῳ ὁ ποιητής (ΒΤ 4.127; cf. 146, 7.104, Τ 13.603). The Scholia regard him as a moderate and gentle character (BT 6.51, 62), who evokes the sympathy of his companions (BT 4.154, 207, 5.565, 7.122). He is called a 'soft fighter' (17.588), but this is said by an enemy and is not the poet's own view (ABT). His φιλοτιμία is displayed in his dispute with Antilochus after the chariot-race (BT 23.566). Paris is contrasted with him, as cowardly, effeminate, and disliked by his own people (BT 3.19, AB 3.371, Porphyry ap. B 3.441 quoting Aristotle, fr. 150, BT 4.207, 5.565, 6.509, etc.). Agamemnon is also contrasted, as noble and commanding, but arrogant and brutal: the Scholia reflect attempts to defend him from criticism, as he is the Greek leader and so ought to be a model of kingship, but they cannot whitewash him entirely (cf. especially BT 1.225, and T 1.32, ABT 2.478, BT 6.58, 62). His defeatist speeches to the army, suggesting return home, are interpreted as having a covert intention which is the opposite of their apparent one (Porphyry ap. B 2.73, BT 2.110 ff., 9.11, 14.75). This may be true of 2.110 ff., but fails to convince us that Agamemnon is not being portrayed as a weak and vacillating leader later.

Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch, pg 272-273.

In a 1972 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology journal, Adam Parry wrote Language and Characterization in Homer, where at one point he emphasized how the language of The Iliad seems to highlight Patroclus’s gentleness. He mentions the use of apostrophes (again, I’ll get into this later) and mentioned how the descriptive μείλιχος (gentle) appears in the text, but in terms of the character only Patroclus receives such a description (at other times, it’s used to describe things and not people). The word ἐνηής, which Parry translates as “goodness,” appears 5 times in The Iliad, 4 of which are about Patroclus.

The case of apostrophe must be more complex than either the traditional or the modern view suggests. Let us consider the three characters with whom apostrophe is especially associated. Before book 16, Patroclus plays a part in books 1, 9, 11, and 15, being mentioned by name or patronym in those books twenty-one times. Apostrophe, however, is used for him only in book 16, where it occurs six times, always at significant points of the action. The special place Patroclus occupies in the organization of the poem scarcely needs comment. This place, in our poem, depends on his character. He is the sweetest and most compassionate of the Homeric warriors. We see this most clearly in the moving lament for him spoken by Briseis in 19.282-300, where she says of him: “When Achilles slew my husband, you would not let me cry. You promised to make me Achilles�� wedded wife, to bring me back to Phthia, and to give me a marriage feast there, among the Myrmidons. And so now with all my heart I weep for your death, for you were always sweet” ---τῶ σ᾽ ἄμοτον κλαίω τεθνηότα μείλιχον αἰεί. μείλιχον is in this sense a word reserved for Patroclus in the Iliad. Elsewhere it is used almost entirely to mean “‘gentle words” as opposed to “harsh” (10 times), the other two occurrences being ironic — ‘“‘he was no gentle fighter in battle.’’ Only Patroclus as a man is μείλιχος, and the distinctive word defines that quality in him which ensures his death and with it the tragic plot of the poem.

Menelaus also signals this quality when in 17.669 he calls for help in protecting the body of Patroclus: “Ajax, you and your brother, and Meriones, let us remember the goodness of unhappy Patroclus; he was able to be sweet (μείλιχος) to everyone, while he was alive; now death and doom have found him.” The word I translate as “goodness” is ἐνηής. Of its five occurrences in the Iiad, four refer to Patroclus. The single exception is in 23.648 where the egotistical Nestor speaks of himself, and here the adjective occurs immediately after Nestor has himself spoken of Patroclus, so that some process of association appears likely. To Patroclus is attributed in the poem a distinct character: kind, easily moved to pity, remarkably free from the sort of heroic self-assertion which many, and recently Professor Adkins, have sought to define for us. This character is manifested in the poem not only by his actions, but also by a distinct vocabulary.

Language and Characterization in Homer, pg 10-11.

BONUS: James P. Holoka, in his edition of Simone Weil’s The Poem of Force, not only follows Edwards’s idea that Patroclus’s gentleness is linguistically unique but also emphasizes his duality as a kind person yet a formidable warrior. He mentions this because Weil, the author of the poem he is commenting on, at one point considers Patroclus the only soldier who showed any restraint regarding strength, describing him as “knowing how to be sweet to everybody” in a likely reference to Menelaus’s description of Patroclus in Book 17. Holoka says:

“[...] Only Patroclus is an exception in the Iliad. Though a most formidable warrior, he also has the capacity for kindness; cf. Edwards (1991): “he is the only person to whom μείλιχος [“gentle”] is applied, here [17.671] and when Briseis says that he was μείλιχοναἰεί. [“always gentle”] (19.300; it is used with a negative for Hektor by Andromakhe, 24.739). Patroklos’ gentleness is unique in the language of the poem...

Simone Weil’s The Iliad or The Poem of Force: A Critical Edition, pg 94.

This is a bonus because I haven't read Simone Weil's entire text, so I can't say I agree with her. It's different from the more pointed analyses of others here, it's a text with a very interconnected context. I only read the text around the Patroclus part and didn't quite agree with the thinking there, but that could very well be because I didn't read it with the complete context.

Apostrophes in The Iliad

Homer intentionally emphasized this characteristic of Patroclus and never treated it as a weakness, but rather as a quality. Gentle or kind only appears describing Patroclus after his death — Menelaus and Briseis feel affected by Patroclus' death because he was kind to them, Zeus talks about how Hector is destined to die for having killed Patroclus while associating Patroclus with kindness and strength, Lycaon tries to win Achilles' mercy by remembering that Patroclus was kind, Achilles speaks of his horses' grief at losing a kind charioteer, the Acheans mourns a lost companion who was kind. The preserved memory of Patroclus by those who mourn or speak of his death isn’t just his strength or his courage, but his gentleness. This makes me think that the choice to make Patroclus the only hero to receive this type of epithet is precisely to aggravate the tragedy of his destiny — Achilles was the most affected, but he wasn’t the only one to mourn between the characters and even the listener/reader.

This seems even more the case given the number of times Homer uses apostrophes with Patroclus. And again, even if you don't know what the term apostrophe means, you've certainly noticed its presence in the text just as you did with epithets. Depending on the situation, you may have even thought about it! At least, I've seen posts where people talked about it without knowing the specific term, but they remarkably understood the spirit of the thing. This is great because I think that getting the spirit of the thing without knowing what the thing is called is preferable to knowing what the thing is called but not understanding it. Basically, this word is the name for when the poet refers directly to the character, almost as if he were talking to him instead of narrating in the third person as he did throughout the entire poem. Menelaus and Patroclus are the characters in which this narrative device was used the most, with Menelaus it was 7 times and with Patroclus it was 8 times. In particular, this draws the reader's sympathy to the character being referred to.

In a text published in The Center of Hellenic Studies, entitled Revisiting the Apostrophes to Patroclus in Iliad 16, Emily Allen-Hornblower conceptualizes the narrative use of apostrophes:

Apostrophes in Homeric poetry—those instances where the poet addresses a character directly in the vocative—are “embarrassing” for the reader and critic. The apostrophe disrupts the flow of the third-person narrative by bringing the poet, performer, and audience in direct contact with one of the characters. To what end? In the Iliad, the overwhelming majority of apostrophes are addressed to Patroclus (8 times, all of them in book 16) and Menelaus (7 times). Much like a historical present, they take the listener into the here-and-now of the scene, creating a sense of greater proximity with the character being thus addressed. Scholars since Antiquity have interpreted these apostrophes as expressions of particular concern on the part of the poet for the characters in question. The fact that the majority of apostrophes are principally directed at Patroclus and Menelaus is seen as a reflection of the fact that these are the two heroes that the poem represents as “unusually sensitive and worthy of the audience’s sympathy.” No doubt the large number of apostrophes directed at Patroclus, all confined to book 16, contributes to heighten the pathos and overall emotional effect of his excruciatingly slow and horrible death at the hands of Apollo at the end of the book.

Thus, Allen-Hornblower is theorizing through the idea that apostrophes seek to induce sympathy in the reader. When we think of the characters in which this device is most used, Menelaus and Patroclus, this really makes sense. Menelaus is the one who wants to be reunited with his wife after many years, we should sympathize with the pain of a husband who is so desperate that he has reached the point of putting himself at excessive risk even knowing the consequences (an example of this is when Menelaus readily offers to duel Hector in Book 7, even though Hector's martial superiority is known. He has to be stopped by Agamemnon). Patroclus is the character whose death is extremely important and is the catalyst for one of the climaxes of the war. We should sympathize with the empathy that made him want to fight alongside his companions and sympathize with Achilles' pain so that we can understand why this death made him act when nothing else did.

It's also no coincidence that Menelaus and Patroclus are by far the most sympathetic characters in the Achaean army. I have already given enough evidence for Patroclus, but there are also clues for Menelaus and I will illustrate them here as a way to try to make the Allen-Hornblower concept even more understandable. For example, although Menelaus in theory is the one who should feel the most negative feelings towards Troy, in a scene in Book 6 Menelaus is willing to spare a Trojan and the Trojan would have lived if it were not for the interference of Agamemnon, who is much less “soft” than Menelaus in the Homeric text. In Book 23, despite being angry with Antilochus’s trickery, he easily forgives him. This characterization of Menelaus as a person we should sympathize with continues in The Odyssey. In a text where hospitality is a big theme, Menelaus is portrayed as the perfect host. He is quick to provide gracious hospitality, unlike Polyphemus and Circe, but is also quick to allow his visitor to leave if that is what he wishes, unlike Calypso. Still someone we can empathize with, Menelaus is portrayed as mourning his brother, Agamemnon. Although the characterization of Menelaus has changed in other Greek texts, the Homeric Menelaus, at least to my mind, is a kind and sympathetic character given the social context.

Allen-Hornblower argues that, in the case of Patroclus, the apostrophes help to build the impending tragedy of his aristeia. For contextualization purposes, aristeia is when a character proves himself to be an aristo, that is, the best. For example, Achilles' aristeia is his return to battle after Patroclus' death, and Diomedes' aristeia includes his clash with Ares and Aphrodite. Patroclus' aristeia is sometimes called Patrocleia/Patrokleia. Allen-Hornblower's idea can be seen through the moments in which the device is applied. The first of these appears at the beginning of Book 16, when Homer writes “Then groaning deeply you addressed him, rider Patroclus” (16.20) and they only increase throughout the narrative of Patrocleia. More specifically, they become even more evident the closer Patroclus is to death and begin precisely with his request to Achilles, since the request is the catalyst for his death. They are an emotional element that makes the audience sympathize with the character because they are warnings that precede the tragic event that will turn his desired aristeia into a destructive aristeia.

Finally, Allen-Hornblower concludes:

It has been suggested that the apostrophes to the dying in Homeric poetry may be connected with the ritual practice of apostrophizing the dead. Whether or not the connection with ritual is there, it remains true that every address to Patroclus in the vocative throughout the Iliad following book 16 is uttered by Achilles in lament for his philos; the last occurrence is an address to Patroclus’ ghost. The apostrophes punctuating the scene of Patroclus’ death thus gesture toward Achilles’ later, mournful invocations to Patroclus. Through the apostrophes, the poetry anticipates Achilles’ excruciating grief to come by initiating his transition from ignorance to painful knowledge on a poetic level, before Achilles has actually been informed of Patroclus’ fate. The scene of Patroclus’ death has a profound impact on us because it generates a sense of Achilles’ emotional reaction to it. It is a perfect example of the way in which the Homeric epic acquires its tragic nature, aptly described by Bassett (1938) as follows: “… both Attic tragedy and the Homeric poems show clearly that action is only, as it were, the skeleton of the organism, whose life is most deeply revealed by the effect of the incidents upon the persons. In Attic tragedy we witness only the psychological “reaction” to off-scene occurrences. In Homer, “father of tragedy,” it is less the actions than their dramatized effect upon the persons which makes the deepest impression of the finality of great lives…” Bassett goes on to cite the laments for Patroclus and Hector as examples. I would add that the apostrophes to Patroclus (and the Achillean focalization they reflect in the scene of his death) are crucial tools in the poet’s arsenal that convey the “dramatized effect” of Patroclus’ death on his nearest and dearest philos—an effect which, in turn, guides the audience’s response as well. By expressing the sympathy of the poet and merging the poet’s voice with that of Achilles, the apostrophe plays an important role in foregrounding the tension that lies at the heart of the scene of Patroclus’ death, between the necessity that Patroclus (and, subsequently, Achilles) die in order for them to receive kleos, and the cost at which this kleos comes.

[Philos = friend, in this context a very dear friend. Kleos = glory, in this context martial glory usually won through war]

I have summarized the text immensely here. Personally, I recommend that you read it for yourself! It isn't long and is available for free here. Seriously, Allen-Hornblower wrote something super interesting. Anyway, I agree with the interpretation that, through the sympathy invoked by this device, Homer warns us of Patroclus' imminent and immutable death. Every time the poet refers directly to the character, we know that fate is approaching. However, part of the reason that Patroclus works so well as a character used to elicit empathy from the audience is because he has, until now, been portrayed primarily as a calmer, wiser, and gentler person compared to the other characters. The moment he wasn't like that in The Iliad was when his death arrived. I think it's no coincidence that Menelaus and Patroclus are the characters with whom these devices are most used, especially when they share the similarity of being seen as the gentlest male Homeric characters on the Achaean side.

Shared Identity in The Iliad

While the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, regardless of how you view it (family, friend, lover, whatever), is interesting as a unique type of relationship, it's also interesting in telling us about the character of Patroclus. At this point, many academics have written their analyses of this relationship, especially from Book 9 of The Iliad onwards. Here, I'll also address how Patroclus’s personality in Book 16 is possibly related to Achilles.

Gregory Nagy, in his text “Achilles and Patroklos as Models for the Twinning of Identity,” seeks to argue that Achilles and Patroclus may represent a model of twin identities in mythology. This is, for example, expressed in how they both die on Apollo's plan and how epithets usually attributed to Achilles are attributed to Patroclus in Book 16, precisely while Patroclus personifies him by wearing his armor. According to Nagy, Achilles and Patroclus represent similarities while still maintaining individualities, one of the forms of individualization being the fact that Patroclus isn't the one who must fulfill the task of killing Hector, while Achilles is. It's also argued that the moment in which the term theraphon is used by Achilles to refer to Patroclus is precisely while he is making libations to Zeus, asking Zeus to protect him while Homer says that Zeus won't protect him. For Nagy, there is a link between Patroclus's death and the fact that he is theraphon, a trait that Nagy defines succinctly as Patroclus being responsible for caring for Achilles while becoming a secondary hero to the primary hero Achilles (although he himself argues that there is long more than this). His central point is that theraphon also possibly has Anatolian origins, particularly Hittite origins, which link the term to the idea of ritual substitute, in which a victim was sacrificed while symbolizing another being. Patroclus, then, as a ritual substitute for Achilles dies while impersonating Achilles. There are, in fact, many more arguments than this, for example exploring the idea of death by Ares and Apollo, Hittite rituals, other Greek texts, etc, but it would be too much. Personally, if you want to know more about Nagy's theory, I recommend simply reading the entire text here. As a summary of Nagy's idea, I have chosen the following excerpts:

Twinning in myth is a way to think about identity. As Douglas Frame shows in his essay, which is a twin to this one, mythical twins share one identity, but this identity is differentatiated. That is, the fused identity of mythical twins is at the same time a split personality. In this essay, I will argue that the epic heroes Achilles and Patroklos are paired off in the Homeric Iliad in such a way as to resemble and even to duplicate such a model of twinning in myth. Two ancient Greek words that will figure prominently in my argument are therapōn, conventionally translated as ‘attendant’, and philos, meaning ‘friend’ as a noun and ‘near and dear’ or ‘belonging to the self’ as an adjective. The uses of these two words, as we will see later on, are interconnected in shaping the plot of the Iliad, since Achilles and Patroklos care for and about each other, and they care more for each other than for anyone else. Such caring, as we will also see, is at the root of the meaning of both words, therapōn as well as philos. To say it another way, such caring determines the identification of Patroklos as the virtual twin or body double of Achilles in Homeric mythmaking.

[...] Such a meaning, ‘ritual substitute’, must be understood in the context of a Hittite ritual of purification that expels pollution from the person to be purified and transfers it into a person or an animal or an object that serves as a ritual substitute; the act of transferring pollution into the victim serving as ritual substitute may be accomplished either by destroying or by expelling the victim, who or which is identified as another self, un autre soi-même. According to the logic of this Hittite ritual of substitution, the identification of the self with the victim serving as the other self can take on a wide variety of forms: the victims range from humans to animals to figurines to ceramic vessels [...] Having said this much about therapōn, I turn to the other of the two words that I intended to analyze in this essay. That word, as I noted at the beginning, is philos, meaning ‘friend’ as a noun and ‘near and dear’ or ‘belonging to the self’ as an adjective. By contrast with my lengthy analysis of therapōn, however, I can confine myself here to the shortest of summaries, since I have already analyzed this word philos at some length in my earlier work. Here I attempt to summarize all that work in a single nested paragraph:

Patroklos as the personal therapōn of Achilles is thereby also the nearest and dearest of all the companions of Achilles. This closeness is measured in terms of the word philos in the sense of being ‘near and dear’ to someone. Achilles considers Patroklos to be the most philos ‘near and dear’ of them all. Or, if we were to express this idea in terms of the noun philos, meaning ‘friend’, instead of using the adjective philos, meaning ‘near and dear’, we would say that Patroklos is the very best friend of Achilles. This word philos defines identity by way of measuring how much you can identify with someone else: the more you love someone, the more you identify with this special someone – and the closer you get to your own self. That is why Patroklos is truly the alter ego of Achilles. In his essays on morality, Aristotle defined a true friend as an allos egō ‘another I’ – and this terminology helps explain the use of the pseudo-scientific Latin term alter ego in English-language translations of the works of Freud. Such an idea of Patroklos as the other self of Achilles is surely parallel to the idea of twinning, and this parallelism helps explain other features of Achilles and Patroklos that they share with the Dioskouroi, such as the power to heal. The therapeutic powers of Achilles and Patroklos are analyzed in this light by Douglas Frame in his twin essay. The time has come for me to conclude. As the other self who is ready to die for the self that is Achilles, Patroklos achieves an unsurpassed level of intimacy with the greatest hero of the Homeric Iliad. This intimacy is sacral, thus transcending even sexual intimacy. But this sacred intimacy has an uncanny other side to it, which is a kind of sacred alienation. As we saw in the case of the Hittite prisoner, about to be expelled into an alien realm, he must wear the clothing of the king, thus becoming ritually intimate with the body of the king. So too Patroklos wears the armor of Achilles when he dies, and he wears something else that is even more intimately connected with his best friend. Patroklos wears also the epic identity of Achilles, as expressed by the epithets they share. These heroic epithets, such as the one that makes them both ‘equal to Ares’, will predestine both of them to live and die the same way. And the sameness of their shared life and death can be seen as an uncanny mix of intimacy and alienation that only twins will ever truly understand.

Thus, in Book 16, Patroclus's shocking personality is a sort of side effect of being the theraphon, that is, the ritual substitute for Achilles. Having to be a sacrifice representing Achilles, Patroclus needs to take on his characteristics. He wears the same armor, has the same epithets, has great achievements, displays the same arrogance. He isn't only Patroclus, he is Achilles. However, he is still Patroclus, for he can never truly be the equal of Achilles. This is why he dies fighting Hector while Achilles doesn't. This is why Patroclus the warrior dies while Automedon his charioteer doesn't, although in The Iliad it is quite common for the charioteer to die before the warrior. This is all because Patroclus isn't Achilles, even though he is his ritual substitute. Nagy doesn't mention this in the text as far as I can remember, but other academics have suggested that this is already indicated by the time Patroclus is putting the armor. Although he fits easily into Achilles' armor, Patroclus leaves Achilles' spear behind because he is unable to lift it. More specifically, no one but Achilles can. This is made explicit in the text, and more than once Homer emphasizes that Achilles' spear can only be lifted by Achilles. Patroclus cannot fully become Achilles, and this is represented by the fact that he cannot lift his spear. This, however, isn't a demerit of Patroclus: no one can become Achilles, as represented by the fact that not only Patroclus but no one else can lift the spear. Finally, the fact that Patroclus dies more because of Apollo than because of Hector reflects the fact that Achilles' death is more Apollo's responsibility than Paris's. For Nagy, this makes the connection between Patroclus and Achilles practically sacrosanct. Several other texts explore Patroclus' impersonation of Achilles in Book 16 and even in the aspects of the death (for example, the ghost of Patroclus knowing that Achilles will die soon and wishing that they will be one in death through the ashes, the horses warning Achilles that he will die soon and there is also the possible interpretation that Achilles while preparing Patroclus' funeral is almost preparing his own death. But, anyway, a topic for another post perhaps), however I will only stick with Nagy's text here because I feel it exemplifies the point sufficiently.

Now we have Celsiana Warwick. Honestly, when I decided to read it I was hesitant because I had already read something by Warwick. It was an interpretation of Lycophron's Alexander and the interpretation presented had interesting parts, more specifically those around the (romantic) relationship between Achilles and Iphigenia in the poem, but the general proposal and the way Achilles was fitted into it...it wasn't something that really convinced me. However, I have to admit that I was convinced by her text “We Two Alone: Conjugal Bonds and Homoerotic Subtext in the Iliad”. As the title suggests, the focus is on analyzing the marital and homoerotic contexts, but that's not the part I'll be dealing with here, so if you're interested read the article. The part that I must admit that I agree with Warwick and that is useful for this post is her analysis of Patroclus' personality.

Achilles and Patroclus can also be shown to share a kind of unique like-mindedness specifically with regard to shared characteristics, although previous scholars have often portrayed them as opposites. This perception results from the fact that Patroclus’s most commonly repeated epithet in the Iliad is ἐνηής (gentle, Il. 17.204, 670; 21.96), and he is portrayed as being strongly compassionate, as when he stops to help the wounded Eurypylus at Il. 11.807–848, or when he begs Achilles to have mercy on the dying Greeks at Il. 16.1–100. Achilles, on the other hand, is extremely wrathful and violent throughout most of the Iliad, with his destructive rage directed first towards Agamemnon and the Greek army, and then towards Hector. It must be noted, however, that Patroclus is not exclusively gentle, nor is Achilles exclusively wrathful. At the climax of the Iliad in Book 24, Achilles forgoes his rage and performs an astonishingly compassionate act when he not only assents to Priam’s supplication, but also weeps with him in shared pain for their lost loved ones and attempts to console him by emphasizing the universality of human suffering (24.475–670). Nor is this the only time that Achilles displays compassion. In Iliad 1 he calls the assembly out of concern for the Greeks dying from Apollo’s plague (1.54), and in 6.16–28 we learn that before the events of the poem he ransomed Andromache’s mother and buried her father with honor.

Similarly, Patroclus displays a ferocity seemingly at odds with his previous actions when he goes into battle in Book 16, slaughtering dozens of Trojans in a reckless charge and cruelly mocking his fallen enemies. But although scholars are willing to grant Achilles a complex characterization as a man capable of both great violence and great compassion (Schein 1984, 98), the consensus regarding Patroclus is that he becomes violent only when he plays the role of Achilles and fights in Achilles’ armor, and that these actions are alien to his true character. Cedric Whitman writes: The gentlest man in the army becomes a demon-warrior, who drives the Trojans headlong from the ships, slays the redoubtable Sarpedon, utters proud, insulting speeches over his fallen enemies, and sets foot on the ramparts of Troy itself . . . Patroclus is playing the role of Achilles. For the moment, he has become Achilles, and acts much more like the great hero than like himself. (1958, 200) Dale Sinos (1980, 75) agrees: “[Patroclus] sacrifices himself by acting out of character, by becoming a warrior in order to provide the correct model for Achilles.”

An alternate reading of Iliad 16, however, is that Patroclus behaves like a violent and wrathful Achilles because he already possessed the capacity to do so and had simply not displayed it up to that point in the poem. Support for this interpretation comes from the speech of Patroclus’s ghost in Book 23, in which he reveals that he came to live with Achilles in Phthia when they were both boys because he had gotten angry and accidentally killed another child (23.85–88): εὖτέ με τυτθὸν ἐόντα Μενοίτιος ἐξ Ὀπόεντος ἤγαγεν ὑμέτερόνδ’ ἀνδροκτασίης ὕπο λυγρῆς, ἤματι τῷ ὅτε παῖδα κατέκτανον Ἀμφιδάμαντος, νήπιος, οὐκ ἐθέλων, ἀμφ’ ἀστραγάλοισι χολωθείς·’ “When Menoetius brought me, still little, from Opus To your country on account of baneful manslaying, On the day when I killed the son of Amphidamas, Foolish and not intending it, angered over a game of dice.” From this passage, we see that Patroclus is, like Achilles, capable of experiencing impulsive, destructive anger in his own right. It is therefore most accurate to say that Achilles and Patroclus are similar in that they both possess a temperament prone to unusual extremes of compassion and violence which sets them apart from other heroes in the poem, although this similarity is partially disguised because within the relatively narrow time-frame of the Iliad Achilles appears as predominantly wrathful and Patroclus appears as predominantly compassionate. Thus, the combination of wrath and compassion which has been described as one of Achilles’ defining characteristics can be shown to be shared by Patroclus alone out of all other characters in the Iliad. In this way, Achilles and Patroclus can be said to have homophrosynē. This like-mindedness does not bring them the happy ending of Odysseus and Penelope, but it underscores the unique and exclusive nature of their relationship.

We Two Alone: Conjugal Bonds and Homoerotic Subtext in the Iliad, pg 126-128.

Notably, since the subject of Warwick’s article is marital subtext, this part was meant as a way of drawing a parallel with Odysseus and Penelope, but that’s not my point here. My point here is that, yes, Patroclus is kind, but I genuinely believe that he was always capable of the violence he demonstrated in Book 16 since it's after all because of an attitude of exaggerated violence that he was sent to Phthia. I don’t think Patroclus and Achilles are opposites, but I also don’t think they are “link-minded” like Odysseus and Penelope exactly. I think they're complementary, that is, they aren't similar enough in thought to have something like the term homophrosyne attached to them, but they are also not so opposite that the only possible explanation for Patroclus’ violence in Book 16 is that it's entirely an imitation of Achilles’ violence. To be clear: I don't consider the idea that Patroclus naturally resembles Achilles in certain respects to be inherently exclusive to the idea that Patroclus impersonates Achilles in The Iliad, as I also believe in the popular interpretation of the personification in Book 16.

Patroclus and the Dices

That Patroclus killed a child, usually called Clysonimus, is known and acknowledged in multiple sources.

“[...] And I will say and charge you with another thing, if you will be persuaded; do not lay my bones apart from yours, Achilles, but together, even as we were raised in your house, when Menoetius brought me, when I was little, out of Opoeis to your home, because of an evil murder, on the day when I killed the son of Amphidamas— I was a child, it was not intentional—in anger over a game of knuckle-bones. Then the horseman Peleus received me in his house and reared me with kindness and named me your companion; so let the same urn enclose the bones of us both, the golden amphora, which your lady mother gave you.”

The Iliad, 23.82-92.Translation by Caroline Alexander.

[...] At Opus, in a quarrel over a game of dice, Patroclus killed the boy Clitonymus, son of Amphidamas, and flying with his father he dwelt at the house of Peleus [...]

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

VINEDR: [...] They also sing of how, while young herdsmen were playing dice around the altar of Achilles, one would have struck the other dead with a shepherd's crook, had not Patroklos scared them away, saying, "One shedding of blood on account of dice is enough for me." But it is possible to find out about these things from the cowherds or anyone living in Ilion. [...]

Heroica, 686. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

In a version given by Strabo of a local tradition of the Locrians, the boy's name is extremely different, as it’s Aeanis.

[...] Now Homer says that Patroclus was from Opus, and that after committing an involuntary murder he fled to Peleus, but that his father Menoetius remained in his native land; for thither Achilles says that he promised Menoetius to bring back Patroclus when Patroclus should return from the expedition. However, Menoetius was not king of the Opuntians, but Aias the Locrian, whose native land, as they say, was Narycus. They call the man who was slain by Patroclus "Aeanes"; and both a sacred precinct, the Aeaneium, and a spring, Aeanis, named after him, are to be seen.

Geography, 4.4.2. Translation by H. L. Jones.

The scholia of The Iliad also comments on this, giving two possible names for the dead boy.

Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος υἱός] Πάτροκλος ὁ Μενοιτίου τρεφόμενος ἐν ᾿Οποῦντι τῆς Λοκρίδος περιέπεσεν ἀκουσίωι πταίσματι· παῖδα γὰρ ἡλικιώτην ᾿Αμφιδάμαντος οὐκ ἀσήμου Κλ<ε>ισώνυμον, ἢ ὥς τινες Αἰάν<ην>, περὶ ἀστραγάλων ὀργισθεὶς ἀπέκτεινεν· ἐπὶ τούτωι δὲ φυγὼν εἰς Φθίαν ἀφίκετο, κἀκεῖ κατὰ συγγένειαν Πηλέως ᾿Αχιλλεῖ συνῆν. φιλίαν δὲ ὑπερβάλλουσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφυλάξαντες ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ ῎Ιλιον ἐστράτευσαν. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ ῾Ελλανίκωι. Menoitios’ son Patroklos grew up in Opos in Locris but was exiled for an involuntary mistake. For he killed a child his age, the son of the memorable Amphidamas Kleisonumos, or, as some say, Aianes, because he was angry over dice. He went to Phthia in exile for this crime and got to know Achilles there because of his kindship with Peleus. They cemented a deep friendship with one another before they went on the expedition against Troy. This story is from Hellanicus.

[Translation from here].

While the accidental murder of Clysonimus is often remembered as a way of arguing for the idea of Patroclus as a violent person (because really, what kind of child accidentally kills another in an argument? Was he the aggressive type? He was SO angry? We never get enough details about this), he is rarely remembered as a way of demonstrating Patroclus as someone who regretted this unrestrained violence. I'm not saying that Patroclus isn't capable of violence, he very obviously is. I mean, he's a soldier! And one of the best! He IS capable of violence. But, for the context of ANCIENT GREECE (we're not talking about modern contexts), Patroclus could exert a controlled type of force. In his aristeia, his lack of control over his actions indirectly leads to his death, because it is his recklessness in wanting to conquer Troy allows him to be an easy victim of Zeus and Apollo's plans. The accident with Clysonimus, similarly, demonstrates no control: It was an accident and therefore unplanned and it was caused by an extremely trivial reason (dices game) and therefore wasn’t rational. Although we don’t have details of the exact way in which Patroclus killed Clysonimus, we can assume that it was probably in a more “brute” way and not with more “professional” force. Something like punching or pushing someone because he is very angry instead of using trained techniques.

Furthermore, I feel that Homer didn’t write ghost Patroclus using the last words he could offer Achilles with trivial information. In The Iliad, it’s said that Patroclus is supposed to be an example to Achilles (Book 11, where Nestor repeats Menoetius' words to Patroclus that, as strong and godlike as Achilles is, Patroclus is older and wiser). And in a way, that is what the characters try to do. Nestor (Book 11) and perhaps Phoenix (Book 9, through the story of Meleager and Cleopatra), who are characterized as wise characters, both seem to have come to the same reasoning that convincing Patroclus to show empathy is, in turn, guaranteeing Achilles' empathy. Even Lycaon seems to think that there is a chance of making Achilles merciful by talking about Patroclus' kindness (Book 21). It seems fitting, therefore, that Patroclus would use his last words to try to influence Achilles, as he is expected to do from the beginning.

While describing how he came to grow up with Achilles, Patroclus says that he was responsible for an “evil murder” while contextualizing the situation by claiming that “I was a child, it was not intentional—in anger over a game of knuckle-bones.” To Patroclus, his actions were reprehensible, regardless of whether they were intentional or not. To him, they were “evil.” He also emphasizes that the accident happened because he was motivated by anger. Extremely angry over the dice, Patroclus accidentally caused an unintended consequence: the death of Clysonimus. He wasn't thinking, and his lack of rationality resulted in a greater evil. Not only did Clysonimus die for such a silly reason, but Patroclus lost what he had: his home, Opus. By allowing his anger to get the better of him, Patroclus lost something important to him because he was too busy being irrational to think about taking a more mature approach. He was then exiled and sent to Phthia, where, he says, Peleus not only received him but raised him with kindness.

But this, of course, is Alexander's translation. I was curious to know if perhaps in Greek the words might give me clues to the thought I am trying to explain here. In Greek, this passage goes as follows:

[...] ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ ὡς ἐτράφημεν ἐν ὑμετέροισι δόμοισιν, εὖτέ με τυτθὸν ἐόντα Μενοίτιος ἐξ Ὀπόεντος 85 ἤγαγεν ὑμέτερόνδ' ἀνδροκτασίης ὕπο λυγρῆς, ἤματι τῷ ὅτε παῖδα κατέκτανον Ἀμφιδάμαντος νήπιος οὐκ ἐθέλων ἀμφ' ἀστραγάλοισι χολωθείς: ἔνθά με δεξάμενος ἐν δώμασιν ἱππότα Πηλεὺς ἔτραφέ τ' ἐνδυκέως καὶ σὸν θεράποντ' ὀνόμηνεν: ὣς δὲ καὶ ὀστέα νῶϊν ὁμὴ σορὸς ἀμφικαλύπτοι χρύσεος ἀμφιφορεύς, τόν τοι πόρε πότνια μήτηρ.

The Iliad, 23.84-93.

We have that in the sentence “ἤγαγεν ὑμέτερόνδ' ἀνδροκτασίης ὕπο λυγρῆς” (23.86), where Patroclus explains the reason for having been exiled (that is, he is saying that he murdered someone), ἀνδροκτασία can be translated as “slaughter of men” and λυγρῆς can be translated as “sore, baneful, mournful”, etc. In “νήπιος οὐκ ἐθέλων ἀμφʼ ἀστραγάλοισι χολωθείς” (23.88), Patroclus recounts the accident that occurred, where νήπιος can be translated as “thoughtless, foolish, childish” or even as “child” and χολόω is “anger”. In “ἔτραφέ τ' ἐνδυκέως καὶ σὸν θεράποντ' ὀνόμηνεν:” (23.90), Patroclus is describing Peleus’s attitude toward him, where ἐνδυκέως can be translated as “friendly carekindly, attentively, considerately" (addendum: some people disagree that this is the exact meaning of this word. However, in this particular passage it is generally understood this way.). These are meanings based on the Cambridge Greek Lexicon. Overall, the meaning is still that Patroclus described himself as a child whose immaturity caused him to lose himself in anger to the point of causing a regrettable death, but who was fortunately kindly taken in by someone else. Peleus not only took care of him kindly but also named him Achilles' companion. That is, Peleus entrusted his son to Patroclus. Despite having lost his home (Opus) because of his anger, it's the kindness that someone (Peleus) showed him that allowed him to build something new (a home in Phthia, a position as Achilles' theraphon).

I interpret the idea here to be that Patroclus, in his words, is also giving a warning: “I lost everything when I allowed anger to overcome me, but the kindness of another saved me. Don't allow anger to overcome you, for it won't bring me back.” It wasn't anger that allowed Patroclus to gain what he had lost, it was kindness. And while Achilles cannot literally resurrect Patroclus in the same way that Patroclus could build a new home, he can at least allow himself to be healed. The proof that anger really won't get you what you want is the moment when Achilles tries to embrace Patroclus but fails. Patroclus isn't alive, he's a ghost and ghosts don't embrace. Achilles' revenge didn't change that.

And answering him swift-footed Achilles spoke: “Dear friend, why have you come to me and laid each of these injunctions on me? For you I will surely accomplish everything and obey you, as you bid. But stand near me, even for a little time let us embrace each other and take solace in painful lamentation.” So speaking he reached out with his arms, but did not take hold of him; and the shade departed beneath the earth like smoke, with a shrill cry. And Achilles started up in astonishment and clapped his hands together, and spoke in lament: “See now! There is after all even in the house of Hades some kind of soul and image, though the power of life is not altogether there; for night long the shade of poor Patroclus stood by shedding tears and weeping, and enjoined on me each thing to do; wonderful was the likeness to him.” So he spoke; and in the hearts of all he stirred desire for weeping.

The Iliad, 23.93-109. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

The ending of The Iliad exemplifies this idea even more powerfully. After all the anger he felt, the way we get closure to the story of Achilles' grief is when he and Priam interact. As he watches Priam grieve over the death of his son Hector, Achilles sees in Priam his own father, Peleus, who he will never see again. For the first time in a long time, Achilles puts himself in someone else's shoes, just as Patroclus begged him to do in Book 16. They talk, they eat together, and Priam even sleeps there, while Achilles hides him from the other Achaeans. The two agree to a truce so that Priam and the other Trojans can have time to mourn Hector properly. And then, Priam returns and the Trojans can mourn. Achilles realizes that keeping Hector there wasn't making him feel any less empty. On the other hand, keeping Hector there was causing Priam a pain similar to that which Peleus would later feel. Not only did his anger cause suffering for many (as the famous opening of Book 1 so aptly describes), but in the end it didn't help him overcome the pain he felt. On the other hand, showing Priam a gesture of mercy brought him a kind of fulfillment that Hector’s death didn't. As with Patroclus and his dice, it was a gesture of mercy that truly made the difference, not a gesture of anger. This is further emphasized in Heroica, where Philostrathus has Patroclus’ ghost appear and stop a fight, fearing that it will result in death. He says: “one shedding of blood on account of dice is enough for me". And I think it is a very Patroclus attitude.

Other Greek sources (not Homeric)

The duality of Patroclus' personality was even mentioned by Plutarch in Moralia. While commenting on how a man can praise himself without, for example, appearing arrogant, he uses The Iliad as example. Plutarch comments that although Homer wrote Patroclus as someone "in the happinesses of his life as smooth and without envy", he still had courageous attitudes and died with his last words praising himself. The phrase mentioned refers to that at the time of his death in Book 16, Patroclus tells Hector that he would have killed 20 of him if not for Hector having help from Apollo and Zeus.

Now talking after an high and glorious manner proves advantageous, not only to persons in danger of the law or such like eminent distress, but to those also who are clouded in a dull series of misfortunes; and that more properly than when they appear splendid in the world. For what addition can words make to those who already seem possessed of real glory, and do lie indulging and basking in her beams? But those who at present are incapable of ambition, if they express themselves loftily, seem only to bear up against the storms of Fortune, to undergird the greatness of their souls, and to shun that pity and commiseration which supposes a shipwrecked and forlorn condition. As therefore those who in walking affect a stiffness of body and a stretched-out neck are accounted effeminate and foppish, but are commended if in fencing and fighting they keep themselves erect and steady; so the man grappling with ill fortune, if he raise himself to resist her, Like some stout boxer, ready with his blow," and by a bravery of speech transform himself from abject and miserable to bold and noble, is not to be censured as obstinate and audacious, but honored as invincible and great. So, although Homer described Patroclus in the happinesses of his life as smooth and without envy, yet in death he makes him have something of the bravo, and a soldier's gallant roughness: Had twenty mortals, each thy match in might, Opposed me fairly, they had sunk in fight." So Phocion, though otherwise very mild, after the sentence passed on him, showed the greatness of his mind in many respects; particularly to one of his fellow-sufferers, who miserably cried out and bewailed his misfortune, What, says he, is it not a pleasure to thee to die with Phocion?

How A Man May Inoffensively Praise Himself Without Being Liable To Envy, 5. Translation by William Watson Goodwin.

In Heroica, Patroclus is constantly described as a formidable warrior. At one point, he is even called an "excellent fighting machine” by Palamedes. And yet, he still stars in the scene where his ghost asks two men not to fight because one bloodshed over dices is enough (I already showed this part in this post). Again, a kind of duality. This is interesting because Heroica doesn’t entirely follow the most well-known version of the myth, as Philostrathus was more focused on representing the cult figures in the way he judged faithful. For example, Patroclus never wears Achilles' armor. And yet, he still maintains the duality of Patroclus.

This one is entirely my personal opinion. While Plutarch makes the duality obvious and in Heroica you can notice this duality yourself, the example here will be Sophocles' Philoctetes and this is entirely my impression. I don't even know if any commentator found this relevant, for example. But something I found curious is the way Philoctetes remembers the Achaean warriors while talking to Neoptolemus, who is lying about supposedly being despised by the Achaeans to the point that even Achilles' armor was denied to him (the reason being that he is following the orders of Odysseus, who is trying to capture Philoctetes because of Helenus' prophecy).

PHILOCTETES: You've sailed here carrying your grief, pain like my own, a certain guarantee. You and your story harmonize with mine, so I can recognize how those men act, the sons of Atreus and that Odysseus, a man who, I know well, would set his tongue to every evil lie or debased act to get the unjust end he's looking for. No, what you've said does not surprise me, though I do wonder how great Ajax, if he was there, could bear to witness it. NEOPTOLEMUS: My friend, Ajax was no longer living — had he been alive, they'd not have robbed me. PHILOCTETES: What's that you say? Did death get Ajax, too? NEOPTOLEMUS: He's dead and gone. Imagine Ajax no longer standing in the sunlight. PHILOCTETES: No, no. It's dreadful. But Diomedes, son of Tydeus, and that Odysseus, son of Sisyphus (so people say), sold to Laertes still in his mother's womb, they'll not die, for they don't deserve to live. NEOPTOLEMUS: No they won't. That's something you can count on. In fact, right now within the Argive army those two are really thriving. PHILOCTETES: And Nestor? What about that fine old friend of mine from Pylos? Is he alive? He's the one who with his prudent counsel often checked the nasty things that those two men would do. NEOPTOLEMUS: Right now he's not doing well. That son of his, Antilochus, who stood by him, is dead. PHILOCTETES: That's more bad news. Those two men you mention — I really didn't want to hear they'd died. God knows what we should look for in this world, when such men perish and Odysseus lives, and at a time when we should hear the news that he was dead instead of those two men. NEOPTOLEMUS: He's a slippery wrestler, Philoctetes, but even clever schemes are often checked. PHILOCTETES: Now, for the gods' sake, what of Patroclus? On that occasion where was he? Tell me. Your father loved him more than anyone. NEOPTOLEMUS: He was also dead. I can tell you why in one brief saying — given the choice, war takes no evil men. It always wants to seize the good ones.

Phiclotetes. Translation by Ian Johnston.

When referring to the Achaean warriors, Philoctetes characterizes Ajax as “great”, Diomedes and Odysseus as malicious (context: he resents them for having been left on Lemnos), Nestor as prudent in giving advice and Patroclus as loved by Achilles (I didn’t ignore the description of Antilochus! But it was Neoptolemus who gave it, not Philoctetes). Earlier in the text, Neoptolemus had said that Apollo killed Achilles, to which Philoctetes said “both noble beings, the killer and the killed”, although he was saddened by the news (at least in this play, he likes Achilles. This is precisely why Odysseus uses Neoptolemus, Achilles’ son, to get closer to Philoctetes). In Philoctetes' opinion:

Ajax is great

Diomedes and Odysseus aren’t trustworthy

Nestor is prudent and a good advisor

Achilles is noble

Patroclus is dear to Achilles

You've probably noticed that there's something different about the way Patroclus is characterized. All the other heroes are given their own characteristics, but Patroclus is recognized for the value that Achilles places on him. Interestingly, they're all recognizable characteristics. You remember “great” when thinking of Ajax, Nestor is the advisor, Achilles was indeed considered noble by the standards of the time and Diomedes and Odysseus as a duo were generally indeed somewhat cunning (examples: discovering Achilles' disguise in Skyros, death of Palamedes, invasion of the Trojan camp, recovering the statue inside Troy surreptitiously, etc.). Like it or not, Patroclus is really mostly known for his relationship with Achilles, regardless of how you interpret that relationship. He could have described Patroclus as a warrior, as wise or something like that because it would be true, but him being loved by someone was a more memorable characteristic of the character. I find that interesting! This reinforces my idea that the image of Patroclus, which includes his personality, in popular culture at the time was made to make it understandable why someone would see him as a beloved person.

Conclusion

In my opinion, just as it's frustrating when people make it seem like Patroclus was a saint (he wasn't!), it's annoying when people purposefully pretend that the idea of Patroclus being seen as kind is a modern problem. It's not modern, folks, it's old news. Very old! And that's okay! Why are some people so desperate to pretend that Patroclus is just a bloodthirsty warrior who spends 24 hours a day bathed in blood and making scary looks? That would make him an extremely boring character, he would be just another good warrior among many other warriors. For the love of god, let him have some nuance!

Personally, I think that Patroclus was this kind in comparison to the other characters and it was intentional. More specifically, Patroclus is supposed to be a role model for the younger Achilles (as said by Nestor in Book 11). It makes sense, then, that Patroclus is supposed to be wiser and kinder than Achilles since these are the characteristics that Achilles has less of than Patroclus (which doesn't mean that Achilles doesn't have them). Patroclus doesn't need to be a warrior example for Achilles, Achilles is already better at it than him. However, Patroclus being kinder or more mature than Achilles doesn't mean that he isn't capable of recklessness and violence. As a young man, Patroclus accidentally killed a boy over a silly game of dice… even though it was accidental, it's at least something to think about. What kind of child, when so angry over a game, ends up accidentally killing another child? Furthermore, Patroclus was portrayed as a good warrior in the ancient sources, and in Book 16 of the Iliad in particular he kills countless people. If I'm not mistaken, he has the highest death count in a single book! (not in the entire Iliad, but within a single book).

However, I also agree with the idea that the deconstruction of Patroclus' personality in Book 16 has to do with him impersonating Achilles. That's not to say that this wasn't Patroclus being himself, I think he was, but I also think it has a lot to do with him resembling Achilles at the time of his aristeia. I'm not a fan of the interpretation that Patroclus and Achilles should represent opposites, I'm more of the idea that they are complementary. They have very different characteristics (patience, for example), but they're also similar deep down (violence, for example). Patroclus is the perfect match for Achilles not because he is everything that Achilles isn't, but because he is similar to Achilles while still having different characteristics to add.

In The Iliad, the narrative elements point to Patroclus as a kind and sympathetic character. He has the epithet gentle, although no one else does. A term that alludes to kindness and that is associated most of the time with things and not people in The Iliad (μείλιχος) is only used with one person, which is Patroclus (at one point it is used of Hector by Andromache, but it's in the sense of absence. She says that he wasn't kind on the battlefield as a way of emphasizing his heroic aspect. That is, she doesn't state that he was, but rather that he wasn't. The only human character who is stated to be kind while this specific Greek term is used is Patroclus). The number of apostrophes and the way they're constructed indicate that Patroclus must be tragic. The bT scholia notably portrays him as gentle. Although the dice episode represents how he was violent even before Achilles, it also represents how Patroclus regrets his uncontrolled violence. The only time he engages in such uncontrolled violence in The Iliad, he dies. When Phoenix tells the story of Meleager and Cleopatra, Meleager is a parallel to the furious Achilles while Cleopatra is a parallel to the empathetic Patroclus (also, Cleopatra is the feminine version of the name Patroclus). Not only Achilles, but several characters (Menelaus, Zeus, Briseis, Lycaon) throughout the text see him as a calm and gentle presence compared to him. More than one character (Nestor, Phoenix, Lycaon) thinks that he can win Achilles' mercy by having Patroclus influence him positively. In other sources, Patroclus' duality remains (Plutarch and Philostrathus) and his characteristic of being a beloved person too (in the latter case, I only showed Sophocles' Philoctetes, but there are several other example texts).

Anyway, sorry for taking so long, but I wanted to make my point as clear as possible! I hope my response has answered your questions!

#patroclus #the iliad

15 notes · View notes