#Birdiethings | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

babyrdie · 14 days ago

Text

Gender roles, ethnicity, slavery and illegitimacy in the Aeschylus' Clytemnestra-Cassandra and Sophocles' Agamemnon-Teucer parallel

Yeah, dramatic title.

This possible parallel is something that has been on my mind for a while, but I never posted anything about it because I kind of wasn't sure if I wasn't "forcing" it. First of all, here I'm thinking in the case of Teucer and Agamemnon, of Sophocles' Ajax, and in the case of Cassandra and Clytemnestra, of Aeschylus' Agamemnon (the first play of the Oresteia trilogy). The parallels here will be Teucer → Cassandra and Agamemnon → Clytemnestra specifically. Although the focus is on Sophocles and Aeschylus, other authors will also occasionally be cited just for the sake of comparison (i.e., it's not part of the main idea, which is between Sophocles and Aeschylus. It's just extra detail). That said, a few additional details:

I always point this out in posts like this, but I am NOT an academic. It's a hobby!

This parallel is something I noticed a while ago, but I admit I didn't look it up to see if anyone else had mentioned it. So, if anyone knows of any annotated translations or academic texts that address this perspective, feel free to suggest them in the comments or something.

Because some people are a bit sensitive, I want to say here that I don't hate any of the characters involved. I'm also not one to sugarcoat words, so yes, if I think a scene demonstrates elitism, xenophobia, or misogyny, I will describe the character's attitude as such. This isn’t hate at all. For example, I’ll use descriptors like this for Clytemnestra, and she is actually one of my favorite mythological characters. I also don't think I need to keep saying "well, back then this wasn't considered xenophobia/misogyny/elitism" to indicate that I know this. I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who, as a modern person, recognizes these characteristics. My focus here is to talk about power dynamics from the perspective of those in an expected submissive position (slaves, foreigners, women), which is why Agamemnon's character is possibly the least explored here because he isn't typically portrayed as applying one of those characteristics (although I'll mention an ethnic aspect in note 1 and this ethnic context in specif, in a way, applies to Agamemnon). It's not that I don't recognize his nuances, it's just that what's complex about him isn't part of the topic of the post. Similarly, there are times when I would approach a character as both a victim and aggressor/precursor of violence, as is the case with Clytemnestra.

At times, I’ll show more than one translation example. If you start reading the paragraph and is like “this is not English”, then congratulations, you are at the part where I cite a translation in Portuguese (Brazilian and Portuguese, more specifically). You won’t lose any context by ignoring these parts if you aren’t a reader of Portuguese (although, I imagine, perhaps those who know Spanish will be able to understand them due to the similarities between the languages. I personally can understand some texts in Spanish even without studying Spanish for that reason). I’m here because these are translations that I found interesting and I know that I have followers who know Portuguese, so here it is. If you’re still interested even if you don’t understand them, then you can try to use the automatic translator to get a rough idea. However, most of the texts here will be used in English precisely because it is more likely that whoever reads the post will understand English than Portuguese. In the case of academic texts, I’ll include both the original version (in Portuguese) and a kind of translation (in English).

There will be parts with [X] similar to explanatory notes from. These are extra comments I made in my personal interpretation. At times, I’ll share academic texts that exemplify my thinking better than I could. With the exception of these specific passages, these notes aren’t super-deep academic comments, they’re just there because they’re information that I think helps to explain my interpretation, but which I felt that, if I included them in the text at that exact moment, it could make the reading more confusing. They’re at the end of the post.

To understand what I'm trying to do here (I don't even know if I'll be able to explain properly), you need to know some information. I imagine that most people already know Cassandra's core information, but not Teucer's, so here's a recap of information from various sources (that is, I've combined several different accounts in this summary):

CONTEXT OF TEUCER: Years before the famous Trojan War, the Trojan king of the time Laomedon had the city walls built by the gods Apollo and Poseidon, who were given the task of doing so as punishment imposed by Zeus for having rebelled against him previously. However, after the walls were completed, However, after the walls were built, Laomedon didn’t pay/honor the gods, thus committing an offense to the gods. Obviously there were punishments for this and the Trojan princess Hesione was given as a sacrifice so that a sea monster wouldn’t destroy Troy. Hesione was saved by Heracles because Laomedon promised him that he would give him divine horses (given to him by Zeus as compensation for the kidnapping of his son, Ganymede) as a reward. But, just as Laomedon tried to deceive Apollo and Poseidon by not paying for the work done, he tried to do the same to Heracles. Angered, Heracles along with other Achaeans sacked Troy. The kingdom was given to the prince Priam, one of Laomedon's sons, either because Heracles decided to spare him or because Hesione bought her brother's freedom (it depends on the version). Princess Hesione was taken as a prize by the Achaeans. Heracles then gave her to Telamon, king of Salamis and brother of Peleus (father of Achilles), to be his concubine. Taken back to Salamis by Telamon, Hesione eventually became pregnant and gave birth to Teucer, who would become one of the Achaean archers in the Trojan War. Teucer is therefore Telamon's illegitimate son, as his wife is in fact Periboea, mother of Big Ajax. As a bastard, Teucer is in a much more disadvantaged situation than his half-brother Ajax, but they have a good relationship. When Ajax went to Troy, Teucer was part of the Salamis army. In the tenth year of the Trojan War, Achilles died and there was a contest between Odysseus and Ajax over who would get his armor. The details vary, but what matters is that Odysseus won and this resulted in conflicts that eventually led to Ajax's suicide. Subsequently, because of Ajax's death, Teucer was banished from Salamis by Telamon.

CONTEXT OF CASSANDRA: The Achaeans won the Trojan War and one of the consequences was the enslavement of women, some of whom were taken as sex slaves. One of them was Cassandra, the Trojan princess known for being a priestess of Apollo and also a prophetess who had been cursed by Apollo to never be believed. The one who takes her as a war prize is Agamemnon, the leader of the Achaean army. Therefore, when the Greeks leave for home after burning Troy, Cassandra is taken by Agamemnon to Mycenae, his kingdom. Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, and Clytemnestra, Spartan princess and queen of Mycenae, are married. Previously, Agamemnon sacrificed their eldest daughter, Iphigenia, to appease the wrath of the goddess Artemis, as otherwise the Achaeans wouldn’t have been able to go to Troy because Artemis had stopped the winds in Aulis out of anger (depending on the version, the reason for the anger is that Agamemnon had committed hubris towards her). Clytemnestra was against this sacrifice and was tricked into taking Iphigenia to Aulis, as Agamemnon had told her that Iphigenia was actually going to marry Achilles, the demigod son of the Nereid Thetis. Depending on the version, Iphigenia is saved by Artemis, replaced by a deer on the sacrificial altar and taken to Tauris, where she continues to be a priestess of Artemis. However, the other characters don’t know that she is in Tauris, as she is usually only discovered later by Orestes, her younger brother. That is, regardless of whether Iphigenia is sacrificed or replaced, for all intents and purposes Clytemnestra thinks of her as dead. This infuriates her with Agamemnon, and her anger only increases when she discovers that Agamemnon has taken sex slaves, Chryseis and Cassandra. She eventually begins an extramarital affair with Aegisthus, Agamemnon's cousin (he is the son of Thyestes, Atreus' brother) who covets the throne of Mycenae, and plans to have both her husband and Cassandra killed.

[Obviously there are differences depending on the version, but that's the general idea.]

Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, in their respective scenarios, are in positions of power. In Troy, Agamemnon is king of Mycenae and the leader of the Achaean army, both of his parents were free Greeks and he was a legitimate son and therefore also the legitimate successor to the throne of Mycenae. In comparison, Teucer was an illegitimate son and didn’t have the same rights as a legitimate son, in addition to having a mother of foreign origin (Hesione is Trojan) who also wasn’t a free woman (as she was given as a prize to Telamon). In the army, he was also not one of the leaders, as the leader of the army of Salamis was Ajax, his half-brother and the legitimate heir of Telamon. In Mycenae, Clytemnestra is the queen, a free woman of noble lineage (Spartan royalty) and the legitimate wife in comparison to Cassandra, who although of noble lineage (as she was Trojan royalty), was now enslaved (therefore, no longer a princess and no longer free), was a Trojan on Greek land and was a sexual slave and didn’t have the rights of a legitimate wife.

In the play Ajax, Sophocles tells his version of the myth of Ajax's suicide. Odysseus wins the competition for Achilles' weapons, which enrages Ajax to the point that he returns to his tent while contemplating killing Odysseus, Agamemnon, and Menelaus, believing that they don’t value his importance as one of the greatest Achaean warriors and that Odysseus receiving the weapons of the deceased demigod Achilles, Ajax's cousin (Telamon is brother of Peleus), was just further proof of this. However, the goddess Athena favored Odysseus and, knowing that Ajax had murderous intentions towards her favorite, she drove him mad by causing him to kill the Achaeans' cattle while believing he was killing the three leaders. Eventually, Ajax comes out of his induced and maddened state and, realizing what had really happened, he’s frustrated, embarrassed, and somewhat shocked. Although Tecmessa, Ajax's sex slave/war prize (and mother of Eurysarces by Ajax), tried to prevent anything worse from happening, Ajax did commit suicide (Ajax's death represents a greater vulnerability for Tecmessa, who, as a woman who is no longer free and has had her home invaded and looted, has no stability other than her captor’s “protection”). Ironically, he committed suicide with the sword that Hector, the deceased Trojan prince and Troy's greatest warrior, had given him. Teucer, Ajax's half-brother, arrives too late to save him after hearing that Ajax was behaving strangely and is disturbed by the situation, both because of his feelings for Ajax (they had a good brotherly relationship) and because he understands the consequences of this. Odysseus, Agamemnon and Menelaus know that Ajax killed the cattle thinking they were the cattle. Although Odysseus isn’t angry and even offers to help Teucer with Ajax's body (an offer Teucer rejects), the brothers Agamemnon and Menelaus aren’t so willing to show that forgiveness. As a result, Agamemnon wants to punish Ajax's attempted murder by not allowing Teucer to give his brother the necessary funeral rites. Teucer, however, is obviously not pleased with this and they argue. At one point, Agamemnon insults Teucer, trying to belittle him for being the son of a Trojan captive:

Agamemnon So it is you, they tell me, who dared open your mouth wide to make fierce threats against us—and are you still unpunished? Yes, I mean you—you, the captive slave's son. No doubt if you were born from a noble mother, [1230] your talk would reach the sky and you would proudly strut about, when now it is the case that, though you are a nobody and a nothing, you have stood up for this other nothing lying here, and have vowed that we came out with no authority either as admirals or as generals to rule the Greeks or you. No, as an autonomous ruler, you say, Ajax set sail. [1235] Does it not shame me that I hear these proud words from slavish mouths? What was the man whom you shout about with such arrogance? Where did he advance, or where did he stand his ground, where I did not do the same? Have the Greeks, then, no other men but him? To our own harm, it seems, we announced [1240] to the Greeks the contests for the arms of Achilles, if on all sides we are accounted corrupt because of Teucer, and if it will never satisfy you Salaminians, even when you are defeated, to accept the verdict which satisfied the majority of the judges. But instead you will always no doubt aim your slanderous arrows at us, [1245] or treacherously lash at our backs when you fall behind us in the race. Yet in a place where such ways prevail, there could be no settled order for any law, if we are to thrust the rightful winners aside and bring those in the rear up to the front ranks. [1250] These tendencies must be checked. It is not the stout, broad-shouldered men that are the steadiest allies. No, it is the wise who prevail in every engagement. A broad-backed ox is kept straight on the road all the same when only a small whip directs him. [1255] And a dose of this very medicine, I foresee, will find you before long, unless you gain a little good sense. He no longer exists, but is already a shade, yet still you boldly insult us and give your tongue too much freedom. Restrain yourself, I say. Recall your birth, your nature. [1260] Bring someone else here—a man who is freeborn—who can plead your cause before me in your place. For when you speak, I no longer understand— I do not know your barbarian language.

Ajax, 1226-1263. Translation by Richard Jebb.

Teucer, however, responds to this attempted offense by stating that he is proud of the blood he has, even emphasizing that his mother Hesione has noble blood, and by speaking about how Agamemnon isn’t someone to talk about family, since the House of Atreus (Atreus is the father of Agamemnon and Menelaus) has a curse that causes people in the family to go through tragic situations and also by pointing out that Agamemnon has ancestors who weren’t Greek[1]:

Teucer My, how quickly gratitude to the dead seeps away from men and is found to have turned to betrayal, since this man no longer offers even the slightest praise in remembrance of you, Ajax, even though it was for his sake [1270] you toiled so often in battle, offering your own life to the spear! No, your assistance is dead and gone, all flung aside! Full and foolish talker, do you no longer remember anything of the time when you were trapped inside your defenses, [1275] when you were all but destroyed in the turn of the battle and he, he alone came and saved you at the moment when the flames were already blazing around the decks at your ships' sterns and Hector was leaping high over the trench towards the vessels? [1280] Who averted that? Was it not Ajax who did it, the one who, you say, nowhere set foot where you were not? Well, do you grant that he did his duty to you there? And what about when another time, all alone, he confronted Hector in single combat according to the fall of the lots, and not at anyone's command? [1285] The lot which he cast in was not the kind to flee the challenge; it was no lump of moist earth, but one which would be the first to leap lightly from the crested helmet! It was this man who did those deeds, and I, the slave, the son of the barbarian mother, was at his side. [1290] Pitiful creature, how can you be so blind as to argue the way you do? Are you not aware of the fact that your father's father Pelops long ago was a barbarian, a Phrygian? That Atreus, your own begetter, set before his brother a most unholy feast made from the flesh of his brother's children? [1295] And you yourself were born from a Cretan mother, whose father found a stranger straddling her and who was consigned by him to be prey for the mute fish. So being of such a kind, can you reproach a man like me for my lineage? I am the son of Telamon, [1300] who won my mother for his consort as prize for valor supreme in the army. And she was the daughter of Laomedon, of royal blood, and it was as the flower of the spoil that Alcmena's son gave her to Telamon. Thus nobly born as I am from two noble parents, [1305] could I disgrace my own flesh and blood, whom even as he lies here subdued by such massive troubles, you, making your pronouncements without a blush of shame, would thrust out without burial? Now consider this well: wherever you cast him away, with him you will also cast our three corpses. [1310] It is right for me to die before all men's eyes while I am toiling in his cause, rather than for your wife—or should I say your brother's? With this in mind, then, look not to my safety, but to yours instead, since if you cause me any grief at all, you will soon wish [1315] that you had been more timid than bold when confronting me.

Ajax, 1266-1315. Translation by Richard Jebb.

Another interesting point is that Teucer laments how, now that Ajax is dead, Telamon will surely punish him, knowing that his status as a bastard son of a woman conquered in war won’t give him an advantage with Telamon, who has an undisguised favoritism for the legitimate Ajax and has a complicated temperament (a complicated temperament that seems to be a constant in the sources, particularly notable in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica where Telamon is certainly one of the most irritable Argonauts This characteristic is even more obvious because Peleus, his brother, is notably one of the most self-controlled Argonauts):

Teucer This sight is truly most painful to me of all that my eyes have seen. [995] And the journey truly loathsome to my heart above all other journeys is this one that I have just now made while pursuing and scouting out your footsteps, dearest Ajax, once I learned of your fate! For a swift rumor about you, as if sent from some god, passed throughout all the Greek army, telling that you were dead and gone. [1000] I heard the rumor while still far away from you, and I groaned quietly in sadness. But now that I see its truth, my heart is utterly shattered! Oh, god! Come, uncover him; let me see the worst. The corpse of Ajax is uncovered. O face painful to look upon and full of cruel boldness, [1005] what a full crop of sorrows you have sown for me in your death! Where can I go? What people will receive me, when I have failed to help you in your troubles? No doubt Telamon, your father and mine, will likely greet me with a smile and kind words, [1010] when I return without you. Yes, of course he will—a man who, even when enjoying good fortune, tends not to smile more brightly than before! What will a man like him leave unsaid? What insult will he forego against “the bastard offspring of his spear's war-prize,” against your “cowardly, unmanly betrayer,” dear Ajax, [1015] or better yet, your “treacherous betrayer” with designs to govern your domain and your house after your death? So will he insult me; he is a man quick to anger, severe in old age, and his rage seeks quarrels without cause. And in the end I shall be thrust out of our land, and cast off, [1020] branded by his taunts as a slave instead of a freeman. These are my prospects at home. At Troy, on the other hand, my enemies are many, while I have few things to help me. All this have I gained from your death! Ah, me, what shall I do? How shall I draw your poor corpse [1025] off the sharp tooth of this gleaming sword, the murderer who, it seems, made you breathe your last? Now do you see how in time Hector, though dead, was to destroy you? By the gods, note the fortune of this mortal pair. [1030] First Hector with the very warrior's belt given to him by Ajax was lashed to the chariot-rail and shredded without end, until his life fled with his breath. Now Ajax here had this gift from Hector, and by this he has perished in his deadly fall. Was it not the Fury who forged this blade, [1035] was not that belt the product of Hades, the grim artificer? I, for my part, would affirm that these happenings and all happenings ever are designed by the gods for men. But if there is anyone in whose judgment my words are unacceptable, let him cherish his own thoughts, as I do mine.

Ajax, 992-1039. Translation by Richard Jebb.

Okay, save those scenes! Now let's move on to Cassandra's part. In the play Agamemnon, Aeschylus writes his version of Agamemnon's return from Troy. Clytemnestra has taken Aegisthus as her lover and, knowing that her husband is returning with Cassandra as his concubine, she wants to kill them with the support of Aegisthus, who sees the advantage in this because he will be able to marry Clytemnestra and thus have the throne of Mycenae again (years ago, Thyestes and his son Aegisthus had stolen the throne from Atreus, resulting in the exile of the young Menelaus and Agamemnon. However, Mycenae was recovered when the brothers had already grown up and Aegisthus fled). Clytemnestra has already planned everything, from a scheme to keep her informed of Agamemnon's distance to how she will kill them without them having a chance to fight back. Agamemnon and Cassandra arrive, Clytemnestra and Agamemnon talk, Agamemnon enters the palace and Clytemnestra then tries to talk to Cassandra, who in turn already knows everything because of her prophetic powers (but who is unable to tell the truth to anyone, as she is cursed by Apollo not to be believed after having broken a promise to the god). Cassandra doesn’t entertain Clytemnestra, who, irritated at not being able to make her talk, insults her and Cassandra still doesn’t answer her:

Clytaemestra [1035] Get inside, you too, Cassandra; since not unkindly has Zeus appointed you to share the holy water of a house where you may take your stand, with many another slave, at the altar of the god who guards its wealth. Get down from the car and do not be too proud; [1040] for even Alcmene's son, men say, once endured to be sold and eat the bread of slavery. But if such fortune should of necessity fall to the lot of any, there is good cause for thankfulness in having masters of ancient wealth; for they who, beyond their hope, have reaped a rich harvest of possessions, [1045] are cruel to their slaves in every way, even exceeding due measure. You have from us such usage as custom warrants. Chorus It is to you she has been speaking and clearly. Since you are in the toils of destiny, perhaps you will obey, if you are so inclined; but perhaps you will not. Clytaemestra [1050] Well, if her language is not strange and foreign, even as a swallow's, I must speak within her comprehension and move her to comply. Chorus Go with her. With things as they now stand, she gives you the best. Do as she bids and leave your seat in the car. Clytaemestra [1055] I have no time to waste with this woman here outside; for already the victims stand by the central hearth awaiting the sacrifice—a joy we never expected to be ours. As for you, if you will take any part, make no delay. [1060] But if, failing to understand, you do not catch my meaning, then, instead of speech, make a sign with your barbarian hand. Chorus It is an interpreter and a plain one that the stranger seems to need. She bears herself like a wild creature newly captured. Clytaemestra No, she is mad and listens to her wild mood, [1065] since she has come here from a newly captured city, and does not know how to tolerate the bit until she has foamed away her fretfulness in blood. No! "I will waste no more words upon her to be insulted thus."Exit Chorus But I will not be angry, since I pity her. [1070] Come, unhappy one, leave the car; yield to necessity and take upon you this novel yoke.

Agamemnon, 1035-1071. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

Cassandra also occasionally refers to Troy and her family in the play:

Cassandra O the sufferings, the sufferings of my city utterly destroyed! Alas, the sacrifices my father offered, the many pasturing cattle slain to save its towers! [1170] Yet they provided no remedy to save the city from suffering even as it has; and I, my soul on fire, must soon fall to the ground.

Agamemnon, 1167-1773. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

Cassandra [1305] Alas for you, my father and for your noble children! She starts back in horror

Agamemnon, 1305. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

Obviously there are other things in these plays as well (e.g. Teucer argues with Menelaus too, Tecmessa has lines, there are scenes from Odysseus, Clytemnestra talks to the Chorus, Cassandra talks to the Chorus, there are the deaths of Agamemnon and Cassandra, etc), but these are the points that matter for what I'm going to talk about. And I know I've talked A LOT about Sophocles' Ajax, but a fair amount of people here haven't read Ajax and I feel like the context would be helpful to better understand the parallels I'm trying to suggest here. The myth surrounding the murder of Cassandra and Agamemnon is pretty well-known, so I've commented less on it.

And here we have some similarities between these moments. Teucer and Cassandra are both offended by people of greater power than him, whose offenses have a xenophobic character. Both Agamemnon and Clytemnestra use their Trojan heritage as something offensive (because they’re then "barbarians") and both mention the aspect of slavery in a “joking” way (Agamemnon by mocking Teucer's mother being a captive and by saying that he is like a slave because of this; Clytemnestra by speaking ironically about Cassandra now being a slave and even commenting on her sexual situation).

They actually behave similarly regarding "not understanding". Agamemnon says "Bring someone else here—a man who is freeborn—who can plead your cause before me in your place. For when you speak, I no longer understand— I do not know your barbarian language" [2], stating that it’s better to bring a free man (and not the son of a captive) because Agamemnon doesn't understand Teucer's barbarian language (because Teucer's mother is Trojan and therefore barbarian). Clytemnestra, in turn, says "Well, if her language is not strange and foreign, even as a swallow's, I must speak within her comprehension and move her to comply" negatively emphasizing how Cassandra's language is foreign and "But if, failing to understand, you do not catch my meaning, then, instead of speech, make a sign with your barbarian hand", insinuating that Cassandra may not be able to understand her (in this case, because she sees Cassandra as crazy, someone without understanding) and characterizing her as barbarian (for being Trojan) by saying "barbarian hand".[3]

In both cases, the offense is motivated by the anger of the one who is offended by the behavior of another person, as Clytemnestra was already furious with Cassandra for Agamemnon's unfaithfulness and Agamemnon was already furious because he knew that Ajax intended to kill him when he killed the cattle. Both Clytemnestra and Agamemnon transfer the impact hat the actions of a person in a privileged position have on them (Ajax because he’s really a legitimate son and not the son of a foreign captive, while Agamemnon because he’s really king of Mycenae and a free man) onto the less privileged people (Teucer because he is a bastard son of a foreign mother, Cassandra because she is a foreign woman enslaved). In both cases, the anger is subsequently increased by the attitude that actually belongs to the target of the offense (Teucer/Cassandra) rather than someone else (Ajax/Agamemnon), as Agamemnon is enraged to see that Teucer is reacting to his half-brother's death and sees no problem in questioning the Achaean authorities (Menelaus and Agamemnon), and Clytemnestra is enraged that Cassandra won’t peak to her, seeing this as an offense ("I will waste no more words upon her to be insulted thus").

Another similarity is that both Cassandra and Teucer, in a way, make it clear that they share a “disadvantageous” characteristic in common with the character who offends them. Teucer, as already indicated, brings Agamemnon closer to his condition by commenting on how Agamemnon also has foreign blood, which would make them both “barbarians” in Agamemnon’s argument. On the other hand, Cassandra says:

“Such boldness has she, a woman to slay a man. What odious monster shall I fitly call her? An Amphisbaena? Or a Scylla, tenanting the rocks, a pest to mariners, [1235] a raging, devil's mother, breathing relentless war against her husband? And how the all-daring woman raised a shout of triumph, as when the battle turns, the while she feigned to joy at his safe return!”. Em uma versão em português de Mário da Gama Kury, temos: “Audácia enorme! A fêmea mata o próprio macho! A que bifronte monstro repugnante, víbora ou Cila moradora em rochedos ocultos, desolação de infortunados marinheiros, irei pedir o mais horripilante nome, conforme a essa mãe do inferno, furiosa, resfolegando a destruição de sua gente? E o grito de triunfo da mais que atrevida, como se fosse a vencedora de um combate! Fingindo júbilo diante do regresso!”

And the thing is: Clytemnestra as a woman who was repeatedly betrayed by her husband (she herself acknowledges the existence of Chryseis and is clearly bothered by Cassandra, Iphigenia wasn’t the only reason although Iphigenia for sure is a very relevant factor), deals with mourning the death of a daughter (Iphigenia) and even has her attitudes negatively associated with her being a woman by her husband[4] is in this situation partly because she is a woman but isn't Cassandra in this disadvantageous scenario also partly because she is a woman? Isn't she Agamemnon’s sex slave because she is a young woman that he desired carnally and, motivated by this, exercised power over her? Agamemnon himself, ironically, uses both being a woman and being a barbarian as if they were something offensive given the pompous way in which Clytemnestra perceives him, thus associating Clytemnestra's excess (purposeful excess, by the way) with her being a woman and equating this with barbarian lack of control. [5]:

“For the rest, pamper me not as if I were a woman, nor, like some barbarian [920] grovel before me with widemouthed acclaim” [read here] ”For the rest, treat me not as if I were a woman, in a luxuriant [habros] manner, nor, like some barbarian, 920 grovel before me with widemouthed acclaim” [read here] ”No, do not soften my delicious steps so womanly with this, nor fall and worship, crying aloud to me like some barbarian”. [read here] Em uma versão em português de Mário da Gama Kury, temos: “Ainda mais: não quero que me envolvas hoje em luxos próprios de mulheres, nem me acolhas prostrada e boquiaberta como me apareces pois não estás diante de algum ser exótico”

Okay, now that I already indicated here the scenes I’m comparing, let's look at an important detail. If Teucer and Cassandra have similarities in the way they are approached by Agamemnon and Clytemnestra in an elitist manner (when talking about Teucer and Cassandra's condition with slavery)[6] and xenophobic (when considering them as barbarians and, therefore, inferior) and there is also a misogynistic tone (in Teucer's case, directed at Hesione. In Cassandra's case, directed at her)[7] and they also both bring their offender closer to their condition (Teucer by pointing out that Agamemnon has foreign blood, Cassandra by pointing out that Clytemnestra is a woman), the ways in which they immediately react to the offender is different. Where Teucer is all sharp tongue, Cassandra is completely silent. This difference creates the shared perception that Teucer fights against the oppression imposed on him, but it raises debates about whether Cassandra does the same or is a passive character as a form of narrative opposition to the very active Clytemnestra. I have said this in another post and I will repeat it here: I don’t think Cassandra is passive in this scene, in fact I think she does the same as Teucer by other means. In the play, Clytemnestra WANTS Cassandra to speak and is irritated when she sees that she refuses to speak. Even the Chorus notes this when trying to convince Cassandra to comply:

Chorus It is to you she has been speaking and clearly. Since you are in the toils of destiny, perhaps you will obey, if you are so inclined; but perhaps you will not. [...] Chorus Go with her. With things as they now stand, she gives you the best. Do as she bids and leave your seat in the car.

Agamemnon. Translation by G.C. Armstrong.

As shown, Clytemnestra gets irritated and leaves. And it’s right after Clytemnestra leaves that Cassandra breaks her silence:

Clytaemestra No, she is mad and listens to her wild mood, [1065] since she has come here from a newly captured city, and does not know how to tolerate the bit until she has foamed away her fretfulness in blood. No! I will waste no more words upon her to be insulted thus.Exit Chorus But I will not be angry, since I pity her. [1070] Come, unhappy one, leave the car; yield to necessity and take upon you this novel yoke. Cassandra Woe, woe, woe! O Apollo, O Apollo!

Agamemnon. Translation by G.C. Armstrong.

In other words, she deliberately didn’t speak while Clytemnestra was present. It was a deliberate move. If she just wanted to be passive and go unnoticed, she would probably have remained silent in front of the Chorus, something she absolutely doesn’t do even though she knows they don’t understand her. In some scenes, she even displays a bitter irony regarding the Chorus's confused reactions, such as:

Agamemnon, 1252-1255. Translation by G.C. Armstrong.

Which, by the way, ties in with the scene in which Clytemnestra had jokingly insinuated that Cassandra wouldn’t be able to understand them. Cassandra understands them well, it’s they who don’t understand her. And not because she is barbaric or crazy, as Clytemnestra insinuates, but because she is cursed:

Cassandra The seer Apollo appointed me to this office. Chorus [1204] Can it be that he, a god, was smitten with desire? Cassandra [1203] Before now I was ashamed to speak of this. Chorus [1205] In prosperity all take on airs. Cassandra Oh, but he struggled to win me, breathing ardent love for me. Chorus Did you in due course come to the rite of marriage? Cassandra I consented to Loxias but broke my word.

Agamemnon, 1203-1208. Translation by G.C. Armstrong.

We are therefore in a context where an enslaved foreign woman actively refused to comply with the order given to her by her master's lawful wife. This, to me, is resistance[8] as much as Teucer's verbal expression to Agamemnon (and, in earlier scenes, to Menelaus).

In an explanatory note to the Brazilian edition, Kury comments:

TEXTO ORIGINAL

Alguns comentaristas criticam a inconsequência aparente de Clitemnestra: se Cassandra não a entendia, como poderia manifestar-se por gestos? Esse contra-senso explica-se como decorrência da irritação de Clitemnestra, que Ésquilo dessa forma pretende acentuar, diante do silêncio de Cassandra, que a rainha interpreta como arrogância.

Oréstia: Agamêmnon, Coéforas, Eumênides, pg 86.

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

Some commentators criticize Clytemnestra's apparent inconsistency: if Cassandra didn’t understand her, how could she express herself through gestures? This contradiction can be explained as a result of Clytemnestra's irritation, which Aeschylus thus intends to accentuate, in the face of Cassandra's silence, which the queen interprets as arrogance.

Oréstia: Agamêmnon, Coéforas, Eumênides, pg 86.

That is, Cassandra's silence angered Clytemnestra. In Clytemnestra’s point of view, this was offensive and angered her greatly. Cassandra hurt her much more by disobeying her by remaining silent than she would have if she had argued against her. This caused Clytemnestra's authority to be disregarded, which certainly bothers her immensely (even more so if we consider how Clytemnestra actually exercises political power in both Agamemnon and Libation Bearers. Power is important to Clytemnestra, this being part of what makes her a character who reverses gender roles, as she displays more authority, violence and power than Aegisthus, characteristics that are considered typically masculine. And she is in fact referred to as masculine by other characters, while Aegisthus is accused of being effeminate). On the other hand, if Teucer had remained silent before Agamemnon, that would have been what Agamemnon wanted. Because, as Agamemnon says, he would rather speak to a free man than to a “enslaved” man like Teucer. Teucer's silence would only confirm to Agamemnon the distorted idea that he is superior to Teucer. In this sense, in relatively similar situations, Teucer and Cassandra's reactions were different, but both were a way of reclaiming autonomy and combating the authority of their offenders.

Finally, I just want to point out how ironic it is that Teucer sided with the Greeks and helped to pillage, enslave, and destroy Troy and its allies, having been raised in a Greek context despite having a Trojan mother, but that ultimately doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of many, he is not really Greek enough. To Agamemnon, the moment Teucer displeased him, then he was no longer a Greek loyal soldier but a “barbarian slave”. To Telamon, the moment Teucer displeased him, then he was just a bastard and didn’t have the importance of the legitimate son and son of a Greek mother Ajax. Although Teucer was one of those indirectly responsible for Cassandra's (and other Trojans') situation, in the end his acceptance of Greek objectives didn’t prevent him from being treated in a similar way to the Trojans he, following Greek norms and goals, helped to oppress. And as much as all this has happened, Teucer seems to be aware of the risks, given the way he anticipates the actions of Telamon (who, in other sources, is said to have banished him from Salamis because of Ajax's death) and the way he interacts with Tecmessa and Eurysarces, a captive woman and her son (similar to the roles played by Hesione and Teucer himself. Tecmessa was even aware of the dangers she and her son faced in their status as a captive woman and illegitimate child, something she tried to tell Ajax to convince him to stay alive since his death would possibly make their situation even more precarious). Teucer, upon learning that Ajax is dead, also laments how his situation is precarious now. Despite being part of Tecmessa's captors (that is, the Achean army), he ultimately had the same fears as she did because, internally, he knows he is more like Tecmessa than Ajax. [9] Teucer knows that he will never be seen as Greek or free enough by those who are considered free Greeks by birth. This complex situation in which Teucer is included in these ethnic and power dynamics is painfully realistic.[10]

NOTES

[1] Additional context regarding Agamemnon's lineage: Teucer mentions Pelops being a Phrygian. Pelops was a king of Pisa, father of Atreus and therefore grandfather of Agamemnon. He was the son of Tantalus, who in some sources is depicted as a Phrygian or even a Lydian king and therefore as foreign as the Trojans. The fact that Pelops was possibly a Phrygian, ironically make Agamemnon even closer to the general view of the Trojans in that for a period the Trojans were strongly associated with Phrygia in what has been called "Phrygianization", a famous example of this being the way Paris came to be depicted on pottery wearing Phrygian clothing, which accentuated the contrast between him and the Greek Helen who, on these pottery, wore Greek clothing. Note that this is about the Greek perception of the Trojans, not about archaeological studies trying to understand what ethnicity the Trojans might have been (generally assumed to be probably Hittite). In fact, Pelops himself, Agamemnon's grandfather, was sometimes depicted as a young man in Phrygian robes carrying the Greek Hippodamia, notably dressed in Greek robes. Here is an example for Paris that and here's an example for Pelops. Sophocles' play Ajax was written in the period of Classical Greece, when the "Phrygianization" of foreigner people was already a feature of art, and so his having Teucer point out Agamemnon's foreign lineage is... well, it seems to me that it might have something to do with the perception of Pelops, ancestor of the House of Atreus, and the Trojans, Teucer's maternal ancestors, becoming similar in this period to some extent. There have been instances where scholars have debated whether the scene of a young Phrygian man carrying off a Greek woman was Pelops-Hippodamia or Paris-Helen, although generally depictions with horses tend to be Pelops (because of the horse race orchestrated by Hippodamia's father). An example of these similarities between these couples is this article. That's how ironic this Agamemnon-Teucer situation is. Is Agamemnon really that different?

[2] For comparative purposes, other translations:

“Get some sense, Teucer! Learn who you are! You are a slave! Bring a free man to speak on your behalf! I cannot understand a thing you’re saying. I do not speak the language of the barbarians.” [read here] “Why not let another man step forward, [1260] someone free born, to state your case to us instead of you? For when you’re speaking, 1520 I’m not prepared to listen any more. To me your barbarian way of speaking is quite impossible to understand.” [read here] Em uma versão em português de Maria Luísa de Oliveira Resende, temos: E eu vejo esse remédio que se aproxima de ti em breve se não ganhares senso não estando já vivo este homem, mas sendo apenas uma sombra, tu és presunçoso e insolente, e falas como se tivesses liberdade. Não te tornarás sensato? Não compreendes que natureza é a tua, e não conduzirás para aqui um outro homem, que seja livre, que fale comigo sobre os teus assuntos, em vez de ti? Se fores tu a falar, eu não compreenderei nada, pois não entendo a língua bárbara.

[3] For comparative purposes, other translations:

“My words get through to her, even if her wont's 1050 the baby-language of her savage brood, barbarian birdsong, twittering swallow-cry” e “Or if your mouth couldn't make him understand, 1060 perhaps you should have used those supple hands” [read here]. “I wot-unless like swallows she doth use some strange barbarian tongue from oversea my words must speak persuasion to her soul” e “From these my words, let thy barbarian hand fulfil by gesture the default of speech” [read here] Em uma versão em português de Mário da Gama Kury, temos: “Se ela não fala em sua terra língua exótica como a dos bárbaros, vou tentar expressar-me de acordo com seu ânimo e a tornarei obediente aos mandamentos da razão.” e “se não és capaz de compreender-me e não dás conta do que digo, faze com as mãos exóticas um simples gesto!”

[4] There are not many examples of Agamemnon's behavior towards Clytemnestra as a woman in The Oresteia, since ironically Agamemnon isn’t a character with many lines and Clytemnestra and Cassandra speak more than he does. However, there are some. One of the examples is the already shown association of Clytemnestra's thoughtless attitude in Agamemnon's eyes (the display of pomp by making Agamemnon walk on the purple tapestry, something he considers a sign of pride and disrespect to the gods. This attitude isn’t really thoughtless, it is in fact planned, but he doesn’t know it) as a feminine characteristic. Still in this tapestry scene, Clytemnestra is trying to convince him to do what she asks and at one point says "he who is unenvied is unenviable", to which Agamemnon responds with "surely it is not woman's part to long for fighting". In Aeschylus, these are the only moments.

In case you're curious about how other authors portray this type of conflict, here are some. In the Homeric texts, in Book 1 of The Iliad Agamemnon states in front of the entire army that he finds Chryseis, the sexual captive he has taken, a better bedmate than Clytemnestra, his wife. In Book 11 of The Odyssey, Agamemnon uses his traumatic experience of being betrayed by his own wife to state to Odysseus how women are untrustworthy, that you shouldn't share secrets with them and that Clytemnestra's crime stains them all, although he points out that Penelope is an exception and Odysseus doesn't need to worry about her (here the betrayal lies in her having an affair with Aegisthus and helping him kill Agamemnon, since in the Homeric texts Clytemnestra kills Cassandra, but Aegisthus kills Agamemnon. In the case of Aeschylus, Clytemnestra kills both. Also, not to excuse misogynistic behavior, but Agamemnon was obviously affected by the fact of...being KILLED by his wife. Like yeah, he is surely upset). It’is also said in The Odyssey that Agamemnon ordered a servant to keep watch over Clytemnestra, which can be interpreted as both an act of protection by Agamemnon and an indication of his distrust in leaving his wife alone for years. In Iphigenia in Aulis, a play by Euripides, Clytemnestra details:

Clytemnestra Well, now listen; for I will unfold my meaning and no longer employ dark riddles. In the first place—to reproach you first with this—it was not of my own free will but by force that you took and wed me, [1150] after slaying Tantalus, my former husband, and dashing my baby on the ground when you had torn him from my breast with brutal violence. Then those two sons of Zeus, who were my brothers, came flashing on horseback to war with you; [1155] but Tyndareus, my old father, rescued you because of your suppliant prayers, and you in turn had me to wife. Once I was reconciled to you upon this footing, you will bear me witness I have been a blameless wife to you and your family, chaste in love, [1160] an honor to your house, that so your coming in might be with joy and your going out with gladness. And it is seldom a man secures a wife like this, though the getting of a worthless woman Is no rarity. Besides three daughters, of one of whom you are heartlessly depriving me, [1165] I am the mother of this son of yours. If anyone asks you your reason for slaying her, tell me, what will you say? or must I say it for you? “It is that Menelaus may recover Helen.” An honorable exchange, indeed, to pay a wicked woman's price in children's lives! [1170] It is buying what we most detest with what we hold most dear. Again, if you go forth with the army, leaving me in your halls and are long absent at Troy, what will my feelings be at home, do you think? when I behold each vacant chair [1175] and her chamber now deserted, and then sit down alone in tears, making ceaseless lamentation for her, “Ah! my child, he that begot you has slain you himself, he and no one else, nor are was it by another's hand, leaving behind him such a return to his home.” [1180] For it needs now only a trifling pretext for me and the daughters remaining to give you the reception it is right you should receive. I adjure you by the gods, do not compel me to sin against you, or sin yourself.

Iphigenia in Aulis, 1146-1184. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

In any case, although Clytemnestra is a character with criminal attitudes and who makes innocent victims (Cassandra, Orestes, Electra, Chrysothemis, etc), this doesn’t prevent her from also being a victim in certain aspects. There is this idea that Clytemnestra being a victim of a sexist society is an attempt to excuse her crimes, but this isn’t necessarily the case. Patriarchal customs, in fact, constantly try to limit Clytemnestra. In The Oresteia, Clytemnestra is remarkably aware of what is expected of a woman. In Agamemnon, before the murder, she manipulates Chorus and Agamemnon through her role-playing of a devoted wife who is happy with her husband's return because she knows that this is what is expected, that this is what will not arouse suspicion. No one finds the sacrifice she orders strange, the way she makes Agamemnon walk on the purple tapestry, the way she talks about preparing victims to slaughter him, etc because they think she sacrificed them in honor of her husband's army's victory, that her attitude towards the tapestry is just a woman being reckless and that the victims she speaks of are the animals used in the banquet in honor of Agamemnon. More than once, Clytemnestra speaks to the Chorus and characterizes herself as a woman in her speech, saying things "I speak as a woman". In Libation Bearers, Clytemnestra shows her breast to Orestes in an attempt to sensitize him so he won't kill her, wanting to claim motherhood as a reason to show her mercy. Clytemnestra is aware of gender roles, but the thing is that most of the time she purposefully uses them as a tool or distorts them. Throughout both plays, Clytemnestra excuses her actions with what a woman would do. Yes, she seems elated, but hey, women are like that! She isn’t only aware of what is expected of her as a woman, but also not satisfied with the position she would be given if she followed typical roles, as made clear by the way the power is in her hands and not Aegisthus', although she still needs Aegisthus. Regarding the power aspects of the Clytemnestra-Aegisthus marriage:

TEXTO ORIGINAL

Clitemnestra é uma mulher considerada muito acima do que seria o status adequado de uma esposa para Egisto (FOLEY, 2011, p. 66) e isso justificaria em parte um maior comando da Tindarida. Além disso, eles se casam de maneira matrilocal: o marido passa a morar na casa da mulher, e isso indica que a linhagem da mulher é muito excelsa e que os filhos do casal podem ter preferência ao trono mesmo ante os irmãos da esposa (POMEROY, 1995, p. 20). O casamento de Helena e Menelau em Homero também era matrilocal, o que dava um motivo muito político para o Atrida travar uma guerra: o reinado dele estava baseado em seu casamento com a filha de Tíndaro (POMEROY, 1995, p. 20-21). Em outras palavras, Egisto precisa de Clitemnestra para vingar o pai e para governar. Por sua vez, Clitemnestra, numa cultura que nega autonomia às mulheres, necessita de uma autoridade masculina para exercer poder sobre Argos e para continuar viva após ousar assassinar seu marido e rei. Eles necessitam um do outro, e o casamento entre eles é político, como qualquer outro casamento da Hélade. As últimas palavras da tragédia Agamêmnon, proferidas por Clitemnestra, indicam a natureza da união: “Não cuides mais destes vãos latidos. Eu/ e tu no poder bem disporemos do palácio” (μὴ προτιμήσῃς ματαίων τῶνδ' ὑλαγμάτων· ἐγὼ/καὶ σὺ θήσομεν κρατοῦντε τῶνδε δωμάτων καλῶς; v. 1672-1673). Apesar da necessidade mútua, é incerto supor uma igualdade entre os membros do casal. A cultura concede o poder ao homem, entretanto, a heroína central de Agamêmnon é claramente a mulher. Em sua fala apaziguadora entre Egisto e o Coro numa tentativa de evitar conflitos com a população (v. 1654-1661), a rainha de Argos, sempre política, alerta o marido, mas imbui seu discurso de uma humildade que destoa completamente da ousadia que demonstrara em todos os outros momentos: “assim fala mulher, se merece ouvidos” (ὧδ' ἔχει λόγος γυναικός, εἴ τις ἀξιοῖ μαθεῖν; v. 1661). Alguns podem interpretar que Clitemnestra cede a Egisto; todavia, entendo que as palavras femininas e próprias de uma esposa zelosa são claramente uma atuação e mais uma demonstração da excelência retórica ante o público apropriado, evitando que a imagem masculina de Egisto seja ferida.

No entanto, essa união os protege dos homens, não dos deuses. A justiça que Egisto está incumbido de executar é a de vingar o seu pai matando Agamêmnon. Tomar a mulher, o trono e todos os tesouros dos espólios de Tróia – frutos de uma guerra que Egisto não lutou – pode lhe acarretar em húbris. Isso daria razão à censura do Coro sobre a posição guerreira de Agamêmnon em oposição à caseira de Egisto. Por Egisto estar com Clitemnestra e não ter agido diretamente, ele fica vulnerável a insultos de uma cultura centralmente masculina, especialmente de um Coro que passou a tragédia inteira ressaltando as qualidades masculinas de Clitemnestra. As qualidades e as atitudes “viris” da rainha (a ousadia, o domínio da retórica, o uso de uma arma, a execução da justiça vingativa de acordo com o código heroico, dentre outras), apesar de muito repreendidas, foram essenciais para executar seu intento. Contudo, são os anciãos que atribuem virilidade à Clitemnestra, fiéis a uma cultura que associa fixamente comportamentos com gênero. Ela mesma nunca se vê fora do feminino, pelo contrário, o fundamento principal de seu ato é tipicamente feminino: a maternidade. A rainha de Argos é motivada por questões próprias da mulher e, paradoxalmente, é a partir da falta de consideração dessas questões pela cultura na qual ela está inserida que Clitemnestra se vê forçada a romper violentamente com as normas vigentes se quiser reivindicar a justiça que lhe é negada.

O aidós de Clitemnestra: política e poder no Agamêmnon de Ésquilo por Tiago Irigaray, pg 12-13.

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

Clytemnestra is a woman considered far above what would be the appropriate status of a wife for Aegisthus (FOLEY, 2011, p. 66) and this would partly justify a greater command of the Tyndareus. Furthermore, they marry in a matrilocal manner: the husband goes to live in the woman's house, and this indicates that the woman's lineage is very exalted and that the couple's children may have preference for the throne even over the wife's brothers (POMEROY, 1995, p. 20). The marriage of Helen and Menelaus in Homer was also matrilocal, which gave a very political reason for the son of Atreus to wage war: his reign was based on his marriage to the daughter of Tyndareus (POMEROY, 1995, p. 20-21). In other words, Aegisthus needs Clytemnestra to avenge his father and to rule. In turn, Clytemnestra, in a culture that denies autonomy to women, needs a male authority to exercise power over Argos and to remain alive after daring to murder her husband and king. They need each other, and the marriage between them is political, like any other marriage in Hellas. The last words of the tragedy Agamemnon, spoken by Clytemnestra, indicate the nature of the union: "Do not care any more for these vain barkings. I/and you in power will dispose of the palace well” (μὴ προτιμήσῃς ματαίων τῶνδ' ὑλαγμάτων· ἐγὼ/καὶ σὺ θήσομεν κρατοῦντε τῶνδε δωμάτων καλῶς; Despite the mutual need, it’s uncertain to assume equality between the members of the couple. Culture grants power to men, however, Agamemnon's central heroine is clearly women. In her conciliatory speech between Aegisthus and the Chorus in an attempt to avoid conflict with the population (v. 1654-1661), the queen of Argos, always political, warns her husband, but imbues her speech with a humility that completely clashes with the boldness she had demonstrated at all other times: “thus speaks a woman, if she deserves to be heard” (ὧδ' ἔχει λόγος γυναικός, εἴ τις ἀξιοῖ μαθεῖν; v. 1661). Some may interpret this as Clytemnestra giving in to Aegisthus; However, I understand that the feminine words of a dutiful wife are clearly an act and a further demonstration of rhetorical excellence before the appropriate audience, preventing Aegisthus' masculine image from being harmed.

However, this union protects them from men, not from the gods. The justice that Aegisthus is charged with executing is to avenge his father by killing Agamemnon. Taking the woman, the throne and all the treasures of the spoils of Troy – fruits of a war that Aegisthus didn’t fight – could lead to hubris. This would justify the Chorus's criticism of Agamemnon's warrior position as opposed to Aegisthus' domestic one. Because Aegisthus is with Clytemnestra and hasn’t acted directly, he’s vulnerable to insults from a centrally masculine culture, especially from the Chorus that has spent the entire tragedy emphasizing Clytemnestra's masculine qualities. The queen's "virile" qualities and attitudes (her boldness, mastery of rhetoric, use of a weapon, execution of vengeful justice according to the heroic code, among others), despite being much reprimanded, were essential to carry out her intent. However, it’s the elders who attribute virility to Clytemnestra, faithful to a culture that firmly associates behavior with gender. She herself never sees herself outside the feminine; on the contrary, the main basis of her act is typically feminine: motherhood. The queen of Argos is motivated by issues specific to women and, paradoxically, it’s from the lack of consideration of these issues by the culture in which she is inserted that Clytemnestra finds herself forced to violently break with the prevailing norms if she wants to claim the justice that is denied to her.

O aidós de Clitemnestra: política e poder no Agamêmnon de Ésquilo por Tiago Irigaray, pg 12-13.

Thus, the relationship with Aegisthus in The Oresteia gives her a kind of autonomy and power that Clytemnestra doesn’t receive with Agamemnon, who in the relationship is clearly the family authority figure. Agamemnon, as a man who exercises socially expected power and gender dynamics of his time, limits her even if he is not doing so with malicious intent. And while there are wives who are portrayed as not caring about these gender dynamics, that is definitely not the case with Clytemnestra. And it's not that she didn't try, most sources don't seem to point to anything different about her before the Trojan War and some even make it clear that she was a fairly typical wife and mother (e.g. Iphigenia in Aulis in the excerpt shown here. Even The Odyssey describes her as initially resistant to Aegisthus and having been a sensible woman), but circumstances made her decide in the end that it wasn't worth trying.

Personally, I imagine that Iphigenia was the trigger for this while Chryseis and Cassandra were the catalysts. Despite being a good mother, Clytemnestra still unjustly lost her innocent daughter. In the play Iphigenia in Aulis, she even claims that it should have been Hermione since it was Helen's infidelity (yes, Euripides' Clytemnestra and Aeschylus' Clytemnestra seem to share different views on Helen's guilt, as in The Agamemnon she berates the Chorus for blaming Helen) and Menelaus's goals in getting his unfaithful wife back. To Clytemnestra, Helen and Menelaus deserve to lose their daughter for their actions, but she doesn’t. She did nothing to justify this tragedy. Notably, after Iphigenia's death, any good motherhood Clytemnestra had shown was gone. In sources that portray her relationships with her other children, she is a negative and even tyrant figure. She abuses Electra by forcing her into a situation akin to slavery and, depending, even forcing her into an unwanted marriage. She wishes Orestes were dead, sometimes celebrating her son's death when she is tricked into thinking he has died. Although Chrysotemis is obedient to Clytemnestra and doesn’t appear to be suffering the punishments that Electra suffers, she is clearly only cooperating because she is afraid of Clytemnestra and feels it is safer to be on the side of the victors (note the similarity of Chrysotemis and Electra's conversation in Sophocles' Electra to Ismene and Antigone's conversation in Sophocles' Antigone , in which one figure is willing to take revenge even if it puts her at risk while the other is willing to accept injustice for the sake of safety. And yet, the figure who accepts the injustice eventually tries to help the defiant sister). Along with Iphigenia, the role of mother died.

In the war, Agamemnon takes Chryseis and Cassandra as sexual slaves/concubines, and Clytemnestra is aware of this and becomes jealous of the situation. Although what Agamemnon did wouldn’t be considered treason in their time (because Chryseis and Cassandra are slaves), the idea of the jealous wife of captives isn’t new and quite common in mythology (note the women of Lemnos being exchanged for enslaved Thracian women, or Hermione's attitude when she feels that Neoptolemus prioritizes the enslaved Andromache). That this type of behavior was common doesn’t indicate that it was 100% accepted, as is clear from how frequent these portrayals are. In fact, Aristotle even criticizes Agamemnon's behavior by claiming that by being unfaithful to his wife he lost her loyalty, and comparing him to Odysseus, who Aristotle said was rewarded for his fidelity by his wife's fidelity:

By choosing the better of all these alternatives a husband should secure the agreement, loyalty, and devotion of his wife, so that whether he himself is present or not, there may be no difference in her attitude towards him, since she realizes that they are alike guardians of the common interests; and so when he is away she may feel that to her no man is kinder [130] or more virtuous or more truly hers than her own husband.And <a good wife> will make this manifest from the beginning by her unfailing regard for the common welfare, novice though she be in such matters. And if the husband learns first to master himself, he will thereby become his wife's best guide in all the affairs of life, and will teach her to follow his example. For Homer pays no honor either to affection or to fear apart from the shame or modesty that shrinks from evil. Everywhere he bids affection be coupled with self-control and shame; whilst the fear he commends is such as Helen owns when she thus addresses Priam: "Beloved sire of my lord, it is fitting that I fear thee and dread thee and revere"; meaning that her love for him is mingled with fear and modest shame. And again, Ulysses speaks to Nausicaa in this manner: [140] "Thou, lady, dost fill me with wonder and with fear." For Homer believes that this is the feeling of a <good> husband and wife for one another, and that if they so feel, it will be well with them both. For none ever loves or admires or fears in this shamefaced way one of baser character; but such are the feelings towards one another of nobler souls and those by nature good; or of the inferior toward those they know to be their betters. Feeling thus toward Penelope, Ulysses remained faithful to her in his wanderings; whereas Agamemnon did wrong to his wife for the sake of Chryseis, declaring in open assembly that a base captive woman, and of alien race besides, was in no wise inferior to Clytemnestra in womanly excellence. [150] This was ill spoken of the mother of his children; nor was his connection with the other a righteous one. How could it be, when he had but recently compelled her to be his concubine, and before he had any experience of her behavior to him? Ulysses on the other hand, when the daughter of Atlas besought him to share her bed and board, and promised him immortality and everlasting happiness, could not bring himself even for the sake of immortality to betray the kindness and love and loyalty of his wife, deeming immortality purchased by unrighteousness to be the worst of all punishments. For it was only to save his comrades that he yielded his person to Circe; and in answer to her he even declared that in his eyes nothing could be more lovely than his native isle, rugged though it were; [160] and prayed that he might die, if only he might look upon his mortal wife and son. So firmly did he keep troth with his wife; and received in return from her the like loyalty.

Economics. Translation by G.C. Armstrong.

Agamemnon's behavior is negative not because it was illegal or widely judged, but because the man's infidelity threatens the wife's fidelity and, in this case, the nostos is in danger since it is the wife's role to guarantee it in the husband's absence similar to how Penelope did with Odysseus. Indirectly, if Iphigenia was a trigger for Clytemnestra's loss of maternal behavior, Chryseis and Cassandra were partly the cause of Clytemnestra's infidelity as a wife. Because, in the end, it wasn't worth it for Clytemnestra. She tried hard, but she thinks Agamemnon didn't try hard enough (regardless of whether he tried or not. In the case of the sex slaves, he doesn't really seem to care much, but it is known that Agamemnon didn't want to kill Iphigenia and was forced to. In Clytemnestra's point of view, however, he is still her daughter's murderer). So why care? Not only the curse of the House of Atreus, but Agamemnon's own actions ruined his House's stability and this is reflected in Clytemnestra's reversion of gender roles, an attitude seen as threatening to patriarchal family stability. This is a couple that exemplifies what is dysfunctional in a family, especially according to Ancient Greek standards.

[5] For comparison, consider how Euripides’ Agamemnon behaves in Iphigenia in Aulis when he describes the ostentatious clothing of Paris as “barbaric,” thus characterizing excess as a foreign characteristic: “Then there came to Lacedaemon from the Phrygians the man who, Argive legend says, judged the goddesses' dispute; in robes of gorgeous hue, ablaze with gold, in true barbaric pomp” (E. P. Coleridge).This is why Clytemnestra's pomp, the one who is purposely doing this to antagonize Agamemnon, brings her closer to barbaric behavior in Agamemnon’s opinion. Likewise, the idea of barbarians as inferior is present in Iphigenia at Aulis, as the heroine Iphigenia declares that “And it is right, mother, that Hellenes should rule barbarians, but not barbarians Hellenes, those being slaves, while these are free”, reinforcing the xenophobic association of the Trojans as slaves by nature. In any case, the association of pomp with “barbarians” is again made by Agamemnon in Aeschylus, as Clytemnestra, trying to convince him to walk on the purple tapestry, asks him what he thinks Priam would do if he were the victor and Agamemnon replies “he would have set foot upon the embroideries, I certainly believe”, having no doubt that the Trojan king is someone of excess. In this regard:

TEXTO ORIGINAL:

Em Helena, o adjetivo polykhrýsos (no acusativo plural, polykhrýsous) é usado para designar os dómoi (construções) troianos. Em Ifigênia em Áulis, Agamemnon comenta o princípio da guerra, quando “O homem que julgou as deusas/ (assim é a história que os homens contam)/ veio da Frígia para a Lacedemônia vestido roupas de cores vibrantes/ e brilhando com joias de ouro, a luxúria dos bárbaros” [ἐλθὼν δ᾽ ἐκ Φρυγῶν ὁ τὰς θεὰς/ κρίνων ὅδ᾽, ὡς ὁ µῦθος Ἀργείων ἔχει,/ Λακεδαίµον᾽, ἀνθηρὸς µὲν εἱµάτων στολῇ/ χρυσῷ δὲ λαµπρός, βαρβάρῳ χλιδήµατι] (vv. 71-74). Esse excerto revela que o ouro é a “luxúria dos bárbaros”: a predileção pelo ouro é um costume do Outro e o distingue dos gregos. A helenista Helen Bacon afirma que Eurípides é menos detalhista que Sófocles e Ésquilo ao descrever as vestimentas bárbaras, embora o embate com o bárbaro esteja mais presente em suas obras, mas que o ouro em excesso, a riqueza das roupas, é um elemento distintivo do bárbaro (BACON, 1955, p. 87, 123 e 124), servindo, assim, como um marcador étnico. Muito ouro é sinal de excesso; por isso é que os bárbaros são caracterizados com o adorno de muitas joias (HALL, 1989, p. 80) Em Andrômaca, esse adjetivo (no dativo, polychrýsō) é novamente utilizado para designar os troianos (v. 2). Contudo, a própria Hermíone (v. 147-154), uma grega, usa muito ouro e a própria Helena se deixa seduzir pelo ouro de Páris, como vimos no excerto de As Troianas. Não podemos deixar de observar que Hermione é uma espartana. Os espartanos, nas obras de Eurípides, são representados como pessoas que se assemelham aos bárbaros, como fica claro, por exemplo, na passagem em que Tíndaro recrimina Menelau, dizendo-lhe “Tornaste-te bárbaro por teres vivido tanto tempo entre os bárbaros” [βεβαρβάρωσαι, χρόνιος ὢν ἐν βαρβάροις] (Orestes, v. 485). Eurípides os representa dessa maneira porque eles são os inimigos dos atenienses na Guerra do Peloponeso: o grego pode voltar a um estado de barbárie, como acontece com os espartanos. Assim, representar Hermíone usando muito ouro ou depreciar Menelau (como acontece em Orestes ou Ifigênia em Áulis que, inclusive, ganha o primeiro prêmio na competição trágica em que foi encenada), é representar o espartano como semelhante ao bárbaro porque é digno de cometer atos bárbaros, sobretudo durante a guerra. Entretanto, por mais que Eurípides faça essas correlações, dada a natureza “temática e simbólica” de suas obras (BACON, 1955, p. 124), o troiano ainda é o referencial de barbárie: em Andrômaca Hermione afirma à personagem-título que “não há nenhum Heitor aqui/ nenhum Príamo ou seu ouro: essa é uma cidade helênica” [οὐ γάρ ἐσθ᾽ Ἕκτωρ τάδε,/ οὐ Πρίαµος οὐδὲ χρυσός, ἀλλ᾽ Ἑλλὰς πόλις] (vv. 168-169), pedindo para que ela não introduza costumes do seu “bárbaron génos” lá. Em Orestes, a caracterização do frígio como um homem medroso, covarde, que se prosterna e elabora um discurso defensivo para manter a sua vida corrobora seu pertencimento ao domínio dos bárbaros.

Páris Épico, Páris Trágico: Um estudo comparado da etnicidade helênica entre Homero e Eurípides (séculos VIII e V a.C.) por Renata Cardoso, pg 84-85.

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

In Helen, the adjective polykhrýsos (in the accusative plural, polykhrýsous) is used to designate the Trojan dómoi (buildings). In Iphigenia in Aulis, Agamemnon comments on the beginning of the war, when “The man who judged the goddesses/ (so is the story men tell)/ came from Phrygia to Lacedaemon dressed in brightly colored clothes/ and shining with jewels of gold, the luxury of the barbarians” [ἐλθὼν δ᾽ ἐκ Φρυγῶν ὁ τὰς θεὰς/ κρίνων ὅδ᾽, ὡς ὁ µῦθος Ἀργείων ἔχει,/ Λακεδαίµον᾽, ἀνθηρὸς µὲν εἱµάτων στολῇ/ χρυσῷ δὲ λαµπρός, βαρβάρῳ χλιδήµατι] (vv. 71-74). This excerpt reveals that gold is the “luxury of barbarians”: the predilection for gold is a custom of the Other and distinguishes them from the Greeks. Hellenist Helen Bacon states that Euripides is less detailed than Sophocles and Aeschylus when describing barbarian clothing, although the clash with the barbarian is more present in his plays, but that excessive gold, the richness of clothing, is a distinctive element of the barbarian (BACON, 1955, p. 87, 123 and 124), thus serving as an ethnic marker. A lot of gold is a sign of excess; that is why barbarians are characterized by the adornment of many jewels (HALL, 1989, p. 80) In Andromache, this adjective (in the dative, polychrýsō) is used again to designate the Trojans (v. 2). However, Hermione herself (v. 147-154), a Greek, wears a lot of gold, and Helen herself is seduced by Paris' gold, as we saw in the excerpt from The Trojan Women. We cannot fail to notice that Hermione is a Spartan. In the plays of Euripides, the Spartans are represented as people who resemble barbarians, as is clear, for example, in the passage in which Tyndareus rebukes Menelaus, telling him, "You have become a barbarian by having lived so long among the barbarians" [βεβαρβάρωσαι, χρόνιος ὢν ἐν βαρβάροις] (Orestes, v. 485). Euripides represents them in this way because they are the enemies of the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War: the Greek can return to a state of barbarism, as happens with the Spartans. Thus, to represent Hermione wearing a lot of gold or to disparage Menelaus (as happens in Orestes or Iphigenia in Aulis, which even wins first prize in the tragic competition in which it was performed), is to represent the Spartan as similar to the barbarian because it is worthy of committing barbaric acts, especially during war. However, as much as Euripides makes these correlations, given the “thematic and symbolic” nature of his plays (BACON, 1955, p. 124), the Trojan is still the reference of barbarism: in Andromache Hermione states to the title character that “there is no Hector here/ no Priam or his gold: this is a Hellenic city” [οὐ γάρ ἐσθ᾽ Ἕκτωρ τάδε,/ οὐ Πρίαµος οὐδὲ χρυσός, ἀλλ᾽ Ἑλλὰς πόλις] (vv. 168-169), asking that she doesn’t introduce customs of her “barbaron génos” there. In Orestes, the characterization of the Phrygian as a fearful, cowardly man, who prostrates himself and elaborates a defensive speech to maintain his life corroborates his belonging to the domain of the barbarians.

Páris Épico, Páris Trágico: Um estudo comparado da etnicidade helênica entre Homero e Eurípides (séculos VIII e V a.C.) by Renata Cardoso, pg 84-85.

Finally, effeminization is a not-so-rare component of this kind of view of "barbarians," and so the way in which Agamemnon somehow equates feminine behavior with barbarian behavior isn’t unexpected. This is also an element of Orientalism, also associated with the vision of the "Other": “[...] Every one of them kept intact the separateness of the Orient, its eccentricity, its backwardness, its silent indifference, its feminine penetrability, its supine malleability [...]” (Orientalism by Edward Said, pg 206) / “No Jess than entrepreneurial visionaries like de Lesseps, whose plan was to liberate the Orient and the Occident from their geographical bonds, French scholars, administrators, geographers. and commercial agents poured out their exuberant activity onto the fairly supine, feminine Orient” (Orientalism, pg 219-220). This phenomenon is usually exemplified in Greek mythology by...well, Paris. He is generally understood as an archetype of the effeminate, pompous and lascivious barbarian, even if he obviously has more nuances than that (by this I mean that even ancient Greek authors gave some nuance to him despite the archetype). This doesn’t mean that a male character who takes on feminine characteristics or roles has this aspect NECESSARILY linked to ethnicity. For example, as I have said before, Jason in Argonautica isn’t exactly an example of masculinity and he is in no way associated with foreign imagery. In fact, the foreigner is his lover, Medea, and in Euripides' play Medea Jason prioritizes a Greek wife (Creusa) over her precisely because Medea is saw as barbarian.

[6] As a comparison, this arrogance in seeing themselves as authorities who demonstrate their power through enslaved people is also notable in the way in which, in The Iliad Book 1, Agamemnon says: “No, either the great-hearted Achaeans will give me a prize suited to my wishes, of equal value— or if they do not give one, then I myself will go and take either your own prize, or that of Ajax, or I will take and carry away the prize of Odysseus; and whomever I visit will be made angry; but, we shall consider these things later” and “so I will take Briseïs of the pretty cheeks, yes, your prize, going myself to your hut, so that you will discern how much I am your better and so another man will be loath to speak as my equal, openly matching himself with me” (Caroline Alexander). Thus he arrogantly exercises his power not only over Achilles, but over the entire army of which he is the leader, through which he could take the slaves of all. Slaves who were war prizes and were therefore linked with the recognition and honor of the soldiers, which implies that Agamemnon thought of himself as someone with the authority to despise his soldiers. Thus, in this context, these captives became instruments of power for the Achaeans in general, something that Agamemnon displays in this scene. The way Clytemnestra treats enslaved people is also reflected in her daughter, Electra, in Sophocles' play. Electra even specifically says that it is as if she is a "foreign slave", which in this post is the case of Cassandra and Hesione. An example: “[185] But the best part of life has passed away leaving me in hopelessness, and I have no strength left. I waste away without children and have no loving husband to champion me, but like some despised foreign slave, [190] I serve in the halls of my father, wrapped in shabby garments and standing to eat scanty meals” (Electra’s line. Translation by Sir Richard Jebb). In Clytemnestra's mindset, one way to abusively humiliate her daughter was to take away the treatment that a princess would receive and equipare her to someone who was enslaved. Again, enslavement or at least treatment similar to enslavement becomes a power play, as notably in the play Electra is antagonistic to Clytemnestra and questions her authority: “You run loose again, it seems, since Aegisthus is not here, who used always to keep you at least from coming out to the gates and shaming your family. But now, since he is absent, you pay [520] me no mind. And yet you have said of me often and to many listeners that I am a rash and unjust tyrant, who violently abuse you and yours. But it is not I who do violence; I only return the insults that I so often hear from you”. (Clytemnestra’s line).

Regarding the social consequences of slavery (besides the sexual, psychological, economic and physical violence, I mean), William M. Owens says:

In Slavery and Social Death, his seminal cross-cultural study of slavery, sociologist Orlando Patterson argues that slavery involves the systemic degradation and extreme social marginalization of enslaved persons, a process Patterson characterizes with the provocative metaphor of “social death.” [7] However, the ancients themselves may have thought of enslavement as a kind of death. The third-century CE jurist Florentinus commented in the Digest that slaves are called servi because the commanders spare the lives of those whom they take prisoner instead of killing (1.5.4, servare nec occidere solent). In a discussion regarding the inheritability of legacies, Florentinus’ contemporary Ulpian made an explicit association between slavery and death. A legacy would terminate in the event of the legatee’s death; a legacy would also terminate if the legatee should be sentenced to slavery, “because slavery is likened to death” (Digest 35.1.59, quia servitus morti adsimulatur). I have argued recently that the enslavement of protagonists in the Greek novels is frequently connected with their apparent, but false, death, a literary device known as Scheintod. [8]

Briseis and Andromache Enslaved: Sleeping with the Enemy in Greek and Roman Epic.

There are also things regarding the difference in how slavery was portrayed in relation to characters of noble origin, such as Cassandra and Electra (who live in a similar situation, let's say), and common characters. In Euripides' play Hecuba, for example, Polyxena doesn’t seem outraged by the slavery system itself, but by the idea that she, a princess, goes through it. In the fragments of the lost play Alexander, Paris wins a competition and this infuriates his opponents, who refuse to lose to a slave. As a way of pacifying the situation, Hecuba even considers having Paris killed. However, Paris' identity as a prince is revealed and suddenly he isn’t arrogant nor did he win unfairly; suddenly it makes perfect sense that he was the winner and that throughout his life he didn’t behave as an enslaved person was expected to behave. He is noble by blood, after all. In The Odyssey, where most of the enslaved are common people, they don’t receive this kind of attention. Any positive aspects of them are tied to how loyal they’re to the people who enslaved them, as is the case with Eurycleia, compared to how outrageous it is that a slave would dare betray the slaveholder, as is exemplified by Melantho.

[7] The scene I showed of Agamemnon jokingly talking about Hesione's situation as a sex slave already indicates this. But, as I think I didn't include Clytemnestra's misogynistic attitude in the excerpts presented, an example is when she says “and here she lies, his captive, and auguress, and concubine, his oracular faithful whore, yet equally familiar with the seamen's benches” when describing the body of the deceased Cassandra to the Chorus. Although Clytemnestra is a woman, the violence she exerts against Cassandra is partly gender violence. I think the iconography may also support this idea. In at least two scenes (scene one, scene two) the characters portrayed are identified as Clytemnestra and Cassandra, Clytemnestra appears to pull Cassandra's hair. The element of “pulling hair” is a visual device to indicate violence, present, for example, in the portrayal of the scene in which Achilles slays Troilus. This element, however, is famously known to characterize the various depictions of the Locrian Ajax's attack on Cassandra. This is interesting because this type of visual representation of Ajax-Cassandra was quite well-known and common, so I wonder if a portrayal of Clytemnestra-Cassandra that was a parallel to Ajax-Cassandra wasn’t intended. It wouldn’t be impossible, note how the murder of Priam by Neoptolemus seems linked to the murder of Troilus by Achilles in iconography (sometimes appearing on the same vase), suggesting that the Greeks saw a parallel and even a symbolic link between the situations.

[8] There is a frequently shared excerpt from “Cassandra and the Poetics of Prophecy in Greek and Latin Literature” by Emily Pilinger that I think sums up this aspect of Cassandra as a character who expresses resistance:

Cassandra’s life story tells of repeated marginalization in every respect: sexual, social, cultural and linguistic. Even in the extant ancient texts that tell her story she is generally found on the periphery of the narrative, rather than at its centre. Her rambling narratives, wandering as they do backwards and forwards through time and space, are the product a prophet who is always displaced, no matter where she is. Yet even as Cassandra is repeatedly victimized and marginalized, she boldly resists every act of oppression she faces. Her speech, in particular, both heightened and hobbled in its reach, is the weapon with which she asserts her authority.

I'm not including page number because, honestly, I haven't read this text since I've never found it available for free on the internet and therefore have no way of checking which page it is. But man, it looks good. Really sad that I can't read it. I suppose I should at least be glad that this particular excerpt was shared online and I was able to see it.

[9] In order to better visualize, here are the speeches of Tecmessa and Teucer that show their fear of Ajax's death as a possible trigger for their possible increased vulnerability:

[Teucer’s line] O face painful to look upon and full of cruel boldness, [1005] what a full crop of sorrows you have sown for me in your death! Where can I go? What people will receive me, when I have failed to help you in your troubles? No doubt Telamon, your father and mine, will likely greet me with a smile and kind words, [1010] when I return without you. Yes, of course he will—a man who, even when enjoying good fortune, tends not to smile more brightly than before! What will a man like him leave unsaid? What insult will he forego against “the bastard offspring of his spear's war-prize,” against your “cowardly, unmanly betrayer,” dear Ajax, [1015] or better yet, your “treacherous betrayer” with designs to govern your domain and your house after your death? So will he insult me; he is a man quick to anger, severe in old age, and his rage seeks quarrels without cause. And in the end I shall be thrust out of our land, and cast off, [1020] branded by his taunts as a slave instead of a freeman. These are my prospects at home. At Troy, on the other hand, my enemies are many, while I have few things to help me. All this have I gained from your death! Ah, me, what shall I do? How shall I draw your poor corpse [1025] off the sharp tooth of this gleaming sword, the murderer who, it seems, made you breathe your last? Now do you see how in time Hector, though dead, was to destroy you?

[Tecmessa’s line] [485] Ajax, my lord, the fortune that humans are compelled to endure is their gravest evil. I was the daughter of a free-born father mighty in wealth, if any Phrygian was. Now I am a slave, for somehow the gods so ordained, [490] and even more so did your strong hand. Therefore, since I have come into your bed, I wish you well, and I do beg you, by the Zeus of our hearth, by your marriage-bed in which you coupled with me, do not condemn me to the cruel talk [495] of your enemies, do not leave me to the hand of a stranger! On whatever day you die and widow me by your death, on that same day, be sure, I shall also be seized forcibly by the Greeks and, with your son, shall obtain a slave's portion. [500] Then one of my masters will name me bitterly, shooting me with taunts: “ See the concubine of Ajax, who was the mightiest man in the army. See what menial tasks she tends to, in place of such an enviable existence!” Such things will men say, and so will destiny afflict me [505] while the shame of these words will stain you and your family. Show respect to your father, whom you abandon in miserable old age, and respect your mother with her share of many years, who often prays to the gods that you may come home alive. [510] Pity, too, my king, your son. Pity him the great sorrow which at your death you will bequeath both to him and to me, if robbed of nurturing care he must spend his days apart from you, an orphan tended by guardians who are neither family nor friends.

[10] Regarding Teucer's apparent attempts to be legitimate, even symbolically, and the protection offered by Ajax, there are several texts analyzing various scenes. Since I commented mainly on Sophocles’ Ajax, I wanted to show Mary Ebott's approach to the Homeric portrait (in which Agamemnon doesn’t have an antagonizing role in relation to Teucer, although he apparently uses the possibility of symbolic legitimacy as a motivating element for Teucer fight for his cause):

Before I deal with the relationship between the brothers in detail, however, let us look more closely at the speech in which Agamemnon calls Teucer a nothos. During Teucer’s aristeia in Iliad 8, Agamemnon expresses his delight at Teucer’s success and encourages him to continue. Agamemnon addresses Teucer in terms of his father, and also points out his illegitimacy. 280 στῆ δὲ παρ’ αὐτὸν ἰὼν καί μιν πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπε· Τεῦκρε φίλη κεφαλή, Τελαμώνιε κοίρανε λαῶν βάλλ’ οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένηαι πατρί τε σῷ Τελαμῶνι, ὅ σ’ ἔτρεφε τυτθὸν ἐόντα, καί σε νόθον περ ἐόντα κομίσσατο ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ· 285 τὸν καὶ τηλόθ’ ἐόντα ἐϋκλείης ἐπίβησον. He stood, going next to him, and addressed a speech [mûthos] to him: “Teucer, dear one, son of Telamon, commander of the people, strike that way, so that you may be a light to the Danaans and to your father Telamon, who raised you when you were little, and took care of you in his house even though you are illegitimate; bring him to glory, though he is far away.” Iliad 8.280–285 Let us notice first that Agamemnon is speaking a mûthos—that is, he is performing. [3] The elaborate apostrophe to Teucer confirms that this is a special form of speech, and in it he addresses Teucer with a patronymic. This reference to his father Telamon becomes the focus of his exhortation. Agamemnon is flattering Teucer after a fashion, claiming that Teucer has an especially—if unexpectedly—close relationship with his father. The phrasing of τρέφω plus τυτθὸν ἐόντα is used in cases in which someone is raised by someone other than a parent or to signal a close relationship to a parent. [4] Mentioning that Teucer was taken care of in Telamon’s own house reinforces the sentiment. Agamemnon also encourages Teucer by saying that he can make his father proud, a concern of Teucer’s that we will see again in the Ajax. Here as there the impetus seems to be that Teucer can prove that he is truly Telamon’s son and perhaps also repay him for his active interest in Teucer. In this light, Teucer’s illegitimacy becomes a crucial aspect of Agamemnon’s motivational speech. As he tells Teucer to be a light that brings glory, Agamemnon exhorts Teucer to come out of the shadows in which a nothos resides, and in which Teucer literally fights in battle.

It is indeed in his method of fighting that another image connected to Teucer’s illegitimacy emerges. The description and characterization of this method of fighting in battle recalls some of the same qualities we have already seen in other narratives about nothoi, especially that of being hidden away with their mothers. Teucer is described in battle as standing behind the shield of Ajax, moving out to shoot, and, once he has hit someone, retreating to the safety of the shield of his brother. Significantly, as Teucer returns he is described as a child placing himself under the protection of his mother. Τεῦκρος δ’ εἴνατος ἦλθε, παλίντονα τόξα τιταίνων, στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπ’ Αἴαντος σάκεϊ Τελαμωνιάδαο. ἔνθ’ Αἴας μὲν ὑπεξέφερεν σάκος· αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ ἥρως παπτήνας, ἐπεὶ ἄρ’ τιν’ ὀϊστεύσας ἐν ὁμίλῳ 270 βεβλήκοι, ὁ μὲν αὖθι πεσὼν ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὄλεσσεν, αὐτὰρ ὁ αὖτις ἰὼν πάϊς ὣς ὑπὸ μητέρα δύσκεν εἰς Αἴανθ’· ὁ δέ μιν σάκεϊ κρύπτασκε φαεινῷ. Teucer came ninth, bending his curving bow back, and he stood under the shield of Ajax, son of Telamon. Then Ajax lifts his shield up and out. But the hero once he looked around, when he shoots and hits someone in the crowd, that man falling down on the spot is deprived of his life, but Teucer goes back, like a child running behind his mother, to Ajax. And he hides him with his shining shield. Iliad 8.266–272 The visual nature of this description paints a picture for us. While in battle Teucer, an archer, hides behind the shield of the fully armed warrior Ajax. Ajax’s shield is famous as being enormous and covering the whole body: it is described as large (mega sakos at Iliad 11.572 and Iliad 23.820, where Diomedes can only get at Ajax’s neck, so we imagine it covering the rest of his body), like a tower (11.485), and very heavy (Iliad 13.709–711 and 16.106–107). Thus, we can imagine either that Teucer is completely covered by it, so that he cannot be seen when he is behind it, or that his head appears next to Ajax’s above the shield, but it covers both their bodies, and so they might appear like the Moliones—as conjoined twins. [5] Teucer is marked out by this passage as a fighter who is covered by another’s shield as a regular part of his fighting (the iteratives dusken and kruptaske indicate that this is a repeated procedure for the brothers). [6]

To shoot his arrows, Teucer darts out after looking around, and when he has hit someone, he goes back to Ajax. At this point he is described as a child running to his mother. In fact, Richmond Lattimore translates the second half of Iliad 8.271: “like a child to the arms of his mother,” rendering the expression ὑπὸ μητέρα in an easily evoked image familiar from many different cultures. What we have seen indicated implicitly through metaphors in other narratives about nothoi, that a nothos is especially associated with his mother and is pictured as a perpetual child hidden away with her, is here made explicit, but in a simile. Because Teucer is especially associated with his brother Ajax, Ajax is then comparable to a mother and Teucer the nothos is still figured as a child. That Teucer hides behind the shield of Ajax tells us just how connected Teucer’s identity is with that of Ajax, since it is his shield that identifies Ajax both by the narrative and within the narrative. The formulaic epithets for Ajax have to do with his shield: it is described as Aiantos deinon sakos heptaboeion, Ajax’s terrible shield of seven ox hides, which Ajax carries like a wall (Aias d’enguthen êlthe pherôn sakos êüte purgon). [7] The shield-related terms that are also the names of Ajax’s father and his son are actually heard in descriptions of his shield: telamône (14.404) and euru … sakos (11.527). And this description of the broad shield of Ajax in Iliad 11 comes from the Trojan Kebriones, who identifies Ajax to Hektor (that is, within the narrative itself) by his shield: “Ajax, son of Telamon, drives on [the Trojans]. I know him well, for he carries the broad shield on his shoulders” (Iliad 11.526–527).

When Teucer is behind the shield of Ajax, then, his identity becomes one with Ajax. This equation or combination of the two with one identity is also seen in the use of the dual Aiante when it means ‘Ajax and Teucer’ rather than ‘Ajax and Ajax’. That this dual can refer to the two brothers was first recognized by Jacob Wackernagel and elaborated by Denys L. Page. [8] It is generally recognized that the meaning of the dual as ‘Ajax and Teucer’ is the older one. When viewed from a diachronic and evolutionary perspective, we can see that the Iliadic tradition transmits both meanings. [9] In fact, as I will now argue, the request by Menestheus for the Aiante to come and help him seems to be a self-reflexive comment on what Aiante can mean. When Glaukos and Sarpedon attack Menestheus’s position, he sends for help, asking for Ajax. In the passage it is said that he could see the Aiante, and Teucer (12.335–336). Gregory Nagy has argued that this use of the dual does not have to mean the two Ajaxes and Teucer, but that Aiante could mean ‘Ajax and Teucer’ and that Teucer is then made explicit by naming him. [10] His argument is borne out by the way the request is phrased. Menestheus tells his runner Thoötes to call Ajax, singular, or rather, both of them, and then explains that he would prefer both Ajaxes, but needs at least Ajax and Teucer.

ἔρχεο, δῖε Θοῶτα, θέων Αἴαντα κάλεσσον, ἀμφοτέρω μὲν μᾶλλον· ὃ γάρ κ’ ὄχ’ ἄριστον ἁπάντων 345 εἴη, ἐπεὶ τάχα τῇδε τετεύξεται αἰπὺς ὄλεθρος. ὧδε γὰρ ἔβρισαν Λυκίων ἀγοί, οἳ τὸ πάρος περ ζαχρηεῖς τελέθουσι κατὰ κρατερὰς ὑσμίνας. εἰ δέ σφιν καὶ κεῖθι πόνος καὶ νεῖκος ὄρωρεν, ἀλλά περ οἶος ἴτω Τελαμώνιος ἄλκιμος Αἴας, 350 καί οἱ Τεῦκρος ἅμα σπέσθω τόξων ἐῢ εἰδώς. Go, running, godlike Thoötes, and call Ajax, or, rather, both of them. For that would be the best by far, since utter destruction is quickly being made here. For such do the leaders of the Lykians oppress us, who even before have proved to be fierce fighters in strong combat. But if hard labor and strife has arisen for them there also at least let stout Ajax, son of Telamon, come by himself and let Teucer follow with him, since he is skilled with the bow. Iliad 12.343–350 So when the messenger addresses the “Aiante” to ask for help, two possibilities present themselves. Either the two Ajaxes will come, which Menestheus would prefer, or at least Ajax son of Telamon will, with Teucer following. What the narrative is doing is indirectly referring to the two possible meanings of Aiante: Menestheus asks for the dual (“both of them”) with the “new” meaning of the two Ajaxes, but says he will accept the “old” meaning of the dual, Ajax and Teucer. The composer is not confused and does not make mistakes about this dual, as some modern commentators would have us believe. Rather, the oral tradition can use both meanings of the dual, and can make explicit when Teucer is involved, or when Ajax, son of Oileus is meant, or when they both are. The poetry here shows how the tradition is aware of the suppleness of the shifting meaning of the dual Aiante.

This use of Ajax’s name to form the dual Aiante reveals its elliptical nature when it means ‘Ajax and Teucer’, as Nagy argues. [11] An elliptical plural names one element as a way of elliptically including the others, such as the plural of Crete at Odyssey 16.62, which should be understood as “Crete and everything that belongs to it.” [12] Nagy also gives the example from Sanskrit of an elliptical dual pitarau, which means not ‘two fathers’ but ‘father and mother’. In both of these examples, it is the “dominant” member of the group or pair that gives its name to the elliptical plural or dual. The parallel example from Indian epic of the dual “the two Kṛṣṇas” meaning the deity Kṛṣṇa and his mortal companion Arjuna, shows a similar construction of the dual carrying the name of the dominant party. [13] Thus the dual Aiante names the brothers using the name of the dominant brother, Ajax. In the example of the Kṛṣṇas, ोas well as in that of Castor and Polydeuces (which I discuss below), the opposition of dominant and recessive is expressed as immortal and mortal. The brothers Castor and Polydeuces are collectively called the Dioskouroi, ‘Sons of Zeus’, although in many versions this technically applies only to the immortal twin, Polydeuces. [14] The opposition of legitimate and illegitimate with the brothers Ajax and Teucer is a parallel contrasting pair. The shift may result from the fact that Ajax and Teucer have different mothers but the same father whereas Castor and Polydeuces have different fathers and share the same mother. [15] The “recessive” nature of Teucer is characteristic of his illegitimate status and is visualized in his hiding behind the shield that identifies his brother. That is, both the description of Teucer’s method of fighting and his inclusion in a dual form derived from Ajax’s name point to a definition of Teucer’s identity as the “recessive” brother of Ajax. But, as I argued above, this depiction of their fighting method and their inclusion together in the older dual form also creates a shared identity between the brothers.

Imagining Illegitimacy in Classical Greek Literature by Mary Ebott, pg 38-43. Online here.

#Teucer #Cassandra of Troy #Agamemnon #Clytemnestra #Tecmessa #Birdie.txt #Birdiethings #tw: rape #tw: slavery

7 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 1 month ago

Note

I wonder how the twins would have reacted to Priam's (terrible) idea of bringing Cassandra and Otrioneus together (and without a dowry, as a bonus)

If it were up to me I would never finish writing about this, but since there is a limit on the number of letters I will only put the basics…

Who can commit to your daughter with clear mental problems?

Why without a dowry? Okay, maybe the royal treasury is running out, I'll buy her... but man, isn't a dowry supposed to help the couple financially and strengthen alliances? Didn't they think about how difficult it would be to support themselves after a war? Also, couldn't it be considered disrespectful to the bride?

What must Cassandra have thought? Was she afraid of marriage? The possibility that she would be hurt away from her family? that her father was trying to get rid of her because of her "insanity"? Could she have predicted the death of her fiancé? And if she could, how did she feel?

Do the women in her family empathize with her? Or did they already have her on a secondary side? How many more times has Priam wanted to do something like that with Cassandra?

And Helenus? Did he think it would be good for his sister? Could he have questioned his father's choice? How did it affect their family ties? Besides the fact that he was possibly the closest male figure to Cassandra (at least that's how I like to imagine), was he afraid that if something happened to him on the battlefield, his sister would be left unprotected?

These are the questions that keep me up at night…

I thought about the possibility that Cassandra and the extra could live in Troy, so she would have her family in case of any discomfort, but that is not something that is assured. Just as we don't know how she would have been treated thanks to her curse. Or if she would be an important wife or concubine, or one more.

PD: saludos <3

I'll start this answer with a little information: I actually started explaining my thinking by presenting a lot of context to the point where I was essentially analyzing sources and interpretations of Cassandra throughout the centuries, and then I thought "oh my god, this seems REALLY important for me to explain my point, but maybe I should skip that part and trust that people will understand what I'm talking about even without THAT much context". So that's it, I mean this answer was going to be VERY, VERY long and it was going to be practically THE CASSANDRA POST on this blog, but I decided to change it. The answer is still very long though lol

This ask is about this:

And graying though he was, Idomeneus in command of the Danaans rushed upon the Trojans and incited panic in them. He slew Othryoneus, who was with them from Kabesos, who had come recently after report of the war, and had asked for the hand of the most beautiful of Priam’s daughters, Cassandra, without bride-price, and promised a great deed— to drive away from Troy by force the sons of the Achaeans. And old Priam nodded assent and promised to give her to him; and Othryoneus fought trusting in his promises. At this man Idomeneus took aim with his shining spear and cast, striking him in mid high-stepping stride; nor did his breastplate protect him, bronze though it was, which he was wont to wear, but it fixed in the middle of his stomach, and he fell with a thud. And Idomeneus vaunted over him in a loud voice: “Othryoneus, I compliment you beyond all men, if you are really to accomplish all you promised to Dardanian Priam; and he promised you his daughter. We too would promise to fulfill the same terms for you, and give you the son of Atreus’ most beautiful daughter, bringing her out from Argos to marry, if joining with us you would sack the well-settled city of Ilion. Come, follow me, so that we may come to agreement by our seagoing ships about your marriage, since we are not greedy about marriage gifts.”

The Iliad, 13.361-382. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

Why did Priam promise Cassandra to Othryoneus?

First, let's address the part about Cassandra being "supposedly insane" from Priam's point of view. The thing is: I agree with the idea that the Homeric Cassandra might not have been a prophetess and therefore not cursed. Homeric Helenus, on the other hand, was a diviner for sure. Not only is he called an "excellent diviner" but he is also shown reading bird omens for Hector, although Hector ignores it. So there is a possibility that Othryoneus didn't have a "mad princess" as a bride, but simply a princess. Later, the figure of Cassandra as a tragic prophetess became stronger. In the original version of the post, there was a long explanation about this, but well… this is a summarized version. So here we go.

According to De Paoli, Cassandra's character was probably not always a prophetess or even a priestress. In Book 13 and Book 24 of The Iliad, her beauty is emphasized (at one point she is called the fairest daughter, at another point she is compared to Aphrodite). In Book 13 of The Iliad, her status as a pathernía is qualified in relation to Othryoneus, and in Book 11 of The Odyssey she's probably a prize for Agamemnon, although this isn't explicitly stated by Homer and is rather a common consensus that this is her status in later sources. In both Book 24 of The Iliad and Book 11 of The Odyssey, Cassandra is characterized by her cries (in the first case, lamenting Hector. In the second case, while being murdered by Clytemnestra). De Paoli noted that in The Iliad, Helenus is already identified as a diviner, but at no point is such a characteristic attributed to Cassandra. Following Alexander's translation of The Iliad and Lattimore's translation of The Odyssey, here are the moments in which Cassandra appears, in case you want to check it out:

She was beautiful (described as “like golden Aphrodite”)

She was promised to Othryoneus in exchange for help in battle (The Iliad, 13.361-370)

She mourned Hector (The Iliad, 24.691-710)

She was killed by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus along with Agamemnon (The Odyssey, 11.421-434)

When summarizing the prophetic condition of twins in the Homeric texts, De Paoli says:

TEXTO ORIGINAL:

Sendo assim, em Homero, é somente Heleno, seu irmão, quem possui o dom da adivinhação – Heleno é ο οἰωνοπόλος ἄριστος, o “excelente adivinho”. Cassandra é, na Ilíada, uma bela donzela cuja promessa de matrimônio inspira ações heroicas e, na Odisseia, aquela que, como vítima inocente, partilha do destino cruel de Agamêmnon, ao lado de quem encontra seu fim. De uma a outra epopeia, tudo que dela ouvimos são seus gritos e lamentos.

Cassandra em três tempos: bela, adivinha, trágica, pg 5.

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

Therefore, in Homer, it’s only Helenus, her brother, who has the gift of divination – Helenus is the οἰωνοπόλος ἄριστος, the “excellent diviner”. In the Iliad, Cassandra is a beautiful maiden whose promise of marriage inspires heroic actions and, in the Odyssey, she is the one who, as an innocent victim, shares Agamemnon’s cruel fate, at whose side she meets her end. From one epic to the next, all we hear of her are her screams and lamentations.

Kirk also comments on the Homeric Cassandra dilemma, even adding that in the bT scholia (the Greek scholia of The Iliad) the schoalist believes that Homer didn't write Cassandra as prophetic:

Kassandre makes a brief but memorable appearance here. The only other mention of her in the Iliad was at 13.365-7 where Othruoneus was said to have tried to marry her, and she was called the fairest of Priam's daughters (see comment). The comparison of her to Aphrodite fits this description. In Od. 11.421-3 her later death at Klutaimestre's hands is recounted by Agamemnon's ghost. bT comment that she is watching because she is deeply anxious about her brother and father, and not because the poet has any knowledge of the tradition which made her inspired. They compare Nestor at 10.532; one could add Idomeneus at 23.450-1 (see comment). We cannot tell whether the poet really does have in mind her prophetic gifts, or whether her role as announcer of sad news may have helped to foster the later tradition of her as prophetess of doom. As often, however, one is inclined to think that the poet knows more than he tells us, and to read the scene in the light of what we ourselves know from later tradition.

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume VI: Books 21-24, pg 348.

And Kirk says more about this:

Helenos' previous appearance has been at 6.76, as Πριαμίδης "Έλενος, οιωνοπόλων ὄχι ἄριστος, where he suggests Hektor's withdrawal to Troy to organize prayers to Athene. No special act of divination, or supernatural understanding of divine wishes or conversations, is credited to him on that occasion, which in some respects exemplifies the typical 'advice pattern', see on 6.75-9; yet his suggestion is of a religious kind, and Hektor accepts it from him without question (see also on 6.73-101). His later appearances will be simply as commander (at 12.94) and warrior (at 13.576-99, cf. 758-82 where he is wounded by Menelaos) or as one of the sons rebuked by Priam at 24.249. In the post-epic tradition he reveals by prophecy that Troy can only be taken by means of Herakles' bow (Sophocles, Phil. 604-13), and escapes to Epeiros to become Andromakhe's second husband (Euripides, Androm. 1243-5, cf. Virgil, Aen. 3.294ff.) - these are exotic developments perhaps of no great antiquity. The tale that he and his sister Kassandre gained the power of hearing divine voices when their ears were licked by snakes as babies (cf. Melampous) is recounted in the D and bT scholia on the present passage and credited to the inventive 3rd-cent. B.C. writer Anticleides (FGH 140F17). It is salutary to remember that Kassandre's own prophetic powers are passed over in silence by Homer, indeed by all surviving sources until Pindar (Py. 11.33). Yet the Trojans need a prophet, if only to balance Kalkhas, and Helenos is assigned the rôle at 6.76 (where, however, he makes no prophecy) and here, where intriguing hints are given of his technique. He intuits the divine plan, σύνθετο θυμῷ, 'put it together for himself [the literal meaning being more apt here than ‘gave heed to' vel sim. as at e.g. 1.76] in his heart' (or mind). Aristarchus (Arn/A) interpreted this as meaning that he understood by prophecy, not by hearing their conversation; μαντικῶς συνῆκεν οὐκ ἀκούσας αὐτῶν τῆς φωνῆς It is true that 44f. need not imply that he perceived their actual words in some way (though they do not exclude it), or did any more than a μάντις usually does when he divines a god's thoughts or intentions, as Kalkhas with Apollo's at 1.93ff. Yet 52-3 will completely alter the picture: see the comment there.

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume II: Books 5-8, pg 237.

Consequently, it's likely that the promised daughter in this scenario would be seen as sane.

Still, if we consider the way Servius (scholiast of the Aeneid, here he is talking about Book 2) describes Cassandra as the “sponsam” (bride) of Coroebus, then in later traditions it's possible that Cassandra, already established as a prophetess seen as mad, was engaged. Coroebus also appears in the play Rhesus (previously attributed to Euripides, currently its authorship is debated), so this character isn't a Roman invention, although it isn't possible to know whether his bridal connection with Cassandra already existed at the time of this play since there is no mention of it and the other surviving sources for the character are later. He's also in Book 13 of Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica, described as dying without being able to be with Cassandra.

But okay, let's suppose that Cassandra was still seen as crazy in the Homeric texts, as some people have argued given the structuring of the scene in which she sees Priam returning with Hector, as De Paoli explains, although she doesn't agree with the theory:

TEXTO ORIGINAL

Como observa Brügger (2017, p. 251), nessa cena tem-se um padrão narrativo “ação-percepção-reação”. Ação: Príamo e o arauto aproximaram-se das muralhas de Troia, carregando na carruagem o cadáver de Heitor; percepção: Cassandra, notou-os (ἔγνω, v. 698), reconheceu-os (εἰσενόησεν, v. 700) e viu (ἴδε, v. 702) o corpo deitado de Heitor sobre a carruagem; reação: a jovem lamentou (κώκυσεν, v. 703) e gritou (γέγωνε, v. 703). Há nesta passagem dois elementos que costumam ser muitas vezes tomados como indícios dos dons divinatórios de Cassandra por aqueles que não aceitam o silêncio — como sempre, ensurdecedor — de Homero sobre o assunto. Um deles é o fato de Cassandra ter sido a primeira, dentre homens e mulheres, a ter notado a chegada de Príamo. Mas, como nos alerta Brügger (2017, p. 252), trata-se de um motivo — “nenhum outro antes...” (οὐδέ τις ἄλλος... πρόσθ’, vv. 697-8) — que se encontra igualmente presente em outras passagens da Ilíada. O outro elemento é a referência ao local onde Cassandra se encontra: Pérgamo, a “acrópole” troiana; isto é, o local mais alto da cidade, onde havia um templo de Apolo, o que poderia indicar uma relação entre a jovem e o deus, de quem seria sacerdotisa. As palavras de Cassandra, porém, nada têm de proféticas. Elas justapõem, criando um efeito patético, o momento presente, em que Heitor jaz sem vida sobre a carruagem, e o passado, em que o herói, para a alegria dos seus, retornava dos combates. Mas esses tempos são claramente delimitados — o presente marcado pelo imediatismo do valor imperativo de ὄψεσθε (v. 704) e o passado, pela expressão εἴ ποτε (v. 705) —, e é justamente do contraste entre eles que advém o páthos da cena.

Cassandra em três tempos: bela, adivinha, trágica, pg 10-11.

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

As Brügger (2017, p. 251) observes, this scene has an “action-perception-reaction” narrative pattern. Action: Priam and the herald approached the walls of Troy, carrying Hector’s corpse in their chariot; perception: Cassandra noticed them (ἔγνω, v. 698), recognized them (εἰσενόησεν, v. 700) and saw (ἴδε, v. 702) Hector’s body lying on the chariot; reaction: the young woman lamented (κώκυσεν, v. 703) and cried (γέγωνε, v. 703). There are two elements in this passage that are often taken as evidence of Cassandra’s divinatory gifts by those who don't accept Homer’s — deafening, as always — silence on the subject. One of them is the fact that Cassandra was the first, among men and women, to have noticed Priam’s arrival. But, as Brügger (2017, p. 252) warns us, this is a motive — “no other before…” (οὐδέ τις ἄλλος… πρόσθ’, vv. 697-8) — that is equally present in other passages of the Iliad. The other element is the reference to the place where Cassandra is: Pergamum, the Trojan “acropolis”; that is, the highest point in the city, where there was a temple of Apollo, which could indicate a relationship between the young woman and the god, of whom she would be a priestess. Cassandra's words, however, aren't at all prophetic. They juxtapose, creating a pathetic effect, the present moment, in which Hector lies lifeless on his chariot, and the past, in which the hero, to the joy of his followers, was returning from battle. But these times are clearly delimited — the present marked by the immediacy of the imperative value of ὄψεσθε (v. 704) and the past, by the expression εἴ ποτε (v. 705) —, and it is precisely from the contrast between them that the pathos of the scene comes.

Well, in this context where the tradition was perhaps still the same, I don't think Priam did it with bad intentions at all. Like it or not, marriage was an essential part of women's lives in ancient Greek society. By denying Cassandra the possibility of marriage because he thinks she is crazy, Priam would be neglecting/segregating her much more than he would have done by promising her marriage, whether he did it for protection or not. In a way, marriage and "woman" were a linked concept. I say "woman" in the sense of "a person of the adult female gender." In a way, actively preventing your daughter from getting married is like actively preventing her from growing up. Part of the reason Acrisius's behavior towards Danae is negative is precisely because he is denying Danae the possibility of being a wife and a mother, both roles that were seen as socially expected for a woman. By keeping her isolated in an attempt to avoid the prophecy, he is not only putting her in a terrible state of loneliness, but he is also sabotaging the ideal life that Danae should have (although it's relevant to add that, in the end, Danae chooses not to marry, be it in Seriphus, Argos or Mycenae).

It was common accepted custom in ancient Greece that young women were expected to marry as a virgin. Moreover, the marriage was usually organized by their father, who chose the husband and accepted from him a dowry. If a woman had no father, then her interests (marriage prospects and property management) were looked after by a guardian (kyrios or kurios), perhaps an uncle or another male relative (Cartwright, 2016). Married at the typical age of 13 or 14, love had little to do with the matching of husband and wife (damar). Of course, love may have developed between the couple, but the best that might be hoped for was philia – a general friendship; eros, the love of desire, was often sought elsewhere by the husband. All women were expected to marry, there was no provision and no role in Greek society for single mature females.

Status of Women in Ancient Greece by Zhulduz Amangelidyevna, pg 53.

One could argue about Cassandra's status as a prophetess in this, but 1) it is still debated whether or not Cassandra MUST remain a virgin to be a prophetess since, for example, there were priestesses getting married and the rules weren't the same for every temple 2) there is the argument about the Pythias of Delos, but besides the sexual statuses of the Pythias also being debated, Cassandra isn't actually a Pythia 3) in any case, there is no mention of Cassandra being a priestess in the Homeric texts and, therefore, no indication that she HAS to remain a virgin.

Furthermore, I wonder how “crazy” the Trojans saw her. They saw her as such while she was trying to prophesy to them, because in that case they would automatically be divinely compelled not to believe her, and in that case Cassandra would seem to be talking a lot of nonsense. For example, this scene from Posthomerica exemplifies the situation well (a Trojan's reaction after Cassandra warns her about the horse trick):

Then cried a scoffing voice an ominous word: "Why doth a raving tongue of evil speech, daughter of Priam, make thy lips to cry words empty as wind? No maiden modesty with purity veils thee: thou art compassed round with ruinous madness; therefore all men scorn thee, babbler! Hence, thine evil bodings speak to the Argives and thyself! For thee doth wait anguish and shame yet bitterer than befell presumptuous Laocoon. Shame it were in folly to destroy the Immortals' gift."

Posthomerica, 12.595-605. Translation by A.S. Way.

But the thing is, as long as she wasn’t actively prophesying, there was nothing “crazy” about Cassandra’s behavior in Trojan eyes. Because of this, I don’t think they thought she was completely incapable of taking responsibility or being active in a relationship. And while it’s true that in Lycophron’s Alexandra text Cassandra is apparently imprisoned while being watched by a slave because of Priam's order, this theme doesn’t seem to be repeated often in the sources, so I don’t think the “she’s crazy, she should be imprisoned” reaction was a common reaction from Priam in the myth.

In fact, I think the Trojans felt that Cassandra was capable of taking on important responsibilities/roles in society. In a way, I think that Cassandra remaining a priestess says a lot about the respect her family still had for her. Considering the extreme importance of religion in the context of this myth and the fact that Apollo specifically was one of the most important gods in mythical Troy, I like to think that the fact that Cassandra is allowed to be a priestess of Apollo shows that, even if the Trojans don't believe in her, they at least respect her enough to see that she is worthy of such a responsibility.

Women’s ritual activities fell within two categories: rituals involving unmarried girls (parthenoi) and married, adult women (gynaikes). Parthenoi could participate in festivals such as the Arrhephoria and the Arkteia or act as a basket-bearer (kanephoros) in ritual processions. Adult women participated in a regular cycle of festivals such as the Thesmophoria, Adonia, Haloa, Skira, and Stenia, all of which addressed sexual or reproductive themes. Additionally, gynaikes could serve as a priestess (hiereia) for goddesses including, but not limited to, Athena, Artemis, Agleuros, Pandrosos, Kourotrophos, Bendis, and Cybele. An inscription from the deme of Halai Axionides lists seven additional priestesses (IG II2 1356): this suggests that numerous religious offices of lesser status were available to Attic women. This conclusion is not unreasonable, given that approximately 2000 cults were estimated to operate in Attica during the classical period. The duties of a priestess primarily involved temple administration or were associated with public worship, adherence to correct ritual procedures, participation in ritual purification, offering prayers on behalf of the city, overseeing visitors to the temple, and maintaining the cult statue. In contrast to the ideal of seclusion voiced by Pericles, these duties granted women substantial power and sanctioned their frequent appearance in public settings. Athenian priestesses were permitted exceptional status in religion based on three cultural beliefs, as described by Pritchard in The Position of Attic Women in Democratic Athens: the age and gender of a cult member should reflect the corresponding object of worship; a religious undertaking would only be successful if it was supported by the god or goddess who exerted control over the realm in question; and, given the analogy drawn in Athenian belief systems between agriculture and human fertility, women were more capable than men of attaining the support of the gods in matters pertaining to farming and childbirth. However, an Athenian inscription from the imperial period, IG II2 1346, provides an account of the household duties required of priestesses. In many ways these duties reproduced the role of a housewife in the oikos, thus indicating that priestesses were not fully unshackled from the gender roles of the period despite their elevated cultural status. Analogous circumstances are at play in modern society, where the upward mobility of women in professional contexts may be limited due to their disproportionate responsibility for domestic and caring labour in the family.

Priestesses and the Intersection of Gender, Religion, and Power in Classical Athens by Isobel Barlow-Busch, pg 41-42.

Although, of course, Hecuba, for example, was quite protective of Cassandra's supposed mental capacity.

First Semi-Chorus O misery! [165] woe to us Trojan women, soon to hear of our troubles: “Come out of the house, the Argives are preparing to return”. Hecuba Oh! please do not bid the [170] wild Cassandra leave her chamber, the frantic prophetess, for Argives to insult, nor to my griefs add yet another. Woe to you, ill-fated Troy, Troy, your sun is set; and woe to your unhappy children, living and dead alike, [175] who are leaving you behind!

The Trojan Women, 165-175. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

Hecuba You god of fire, it is yours to light the bridal torch for men, but piteous is the flame you kindle here, [345] beyond my blackest expectation. Ah, my child! How little did I ever dream that such would be your marriage, a captive, and of Argos too! Give up the torch to me; you do not bear its blaze aright in your wild frantic course, nor have your afflictions left you in your sober senses, [350] but still you are as frantic as before. Take in those torches, Trojan friends, and for her wedding madrigals weep your tears instead.

The Trojan Women, 342-354. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

And yet, Hecuba may seem embarrassed by the possibility of Cassandra drawing attention to herself in the first line and reprimands Cassandra in the second (such as saying that she is holding the torches wrong), but she also says "how little did I ever dream that such would be your marriage", so clearly Hecuba has a problem with the context and not with the idea of marriage itself. It's even interesting that it's Hecuba who warns Cassandra about her wrong holding of the torch, considering that, in an ideal scenario, the one who should be holding the torch is Hecuba, since the bridal torch was usually held by the mother, and this only makes it more evident how unideal the current situation is. This is, for example, demonstrated by Clytemnestra's desire to hold the bridal torch for Iphigenia at her supposed wedding to Achilles:

Agamemnon Go to Argos, and take care of your unwedded daughters. Clytemnestra And leave my child? Then who will raise her bridal torch? Agamemnon I will provide the proper wedding torch. Clytemnestra That is not the custom; but you think lightly of these things. Agamemnon [735] It is not good for you to be alone among a soldier-crowd. Clytemnestra It is good that a mother should give her own child away.

Iphigenia in Aulis, 731-736. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

Or even in the way Hera, who raised Thetis, was the one who held the bridal torch at the wedding with Peleus:

[...] And when she had given her message to him also and rested her swift knees from her course, then Thetis leaving Nereus and her sisters had come from the sea to Olympus to the goddess Hera; and the goddess made her sit by her side and uttered her word: "[...] And with my own hand I raised the bridal torch, in return for the kindly honour thou didst pay me. [...]"

Argonautica, Book 4. Translation by R.C. Seaton.

Hecuba doesn't worry about the idea of associating Cassandra with marriage motives, she worries about the extremely non-ideal situation. If it were a good marriage, a desirable marriage, Hecuba would be satisfied with marrying off her daughter. But this is, of course, me trying to come up with a logic for the character's actions in a way that I guess could be called headcanon, after all I'm combining different sources for this. So I looked up explanations for the "no dowry" part and found these.

And here it is important to mention something. Often, when we talk about "dowry" the main mental image is the dowry that the bride's family gives to the groom. It wouldn't be an absurd assumption. For example, in one of the fragments of Sappho, Andromache arrives to marry Hector with a bunch of expensive items and this is her dowry. This type of dowry, according to Cheryl Cox (who is analyzing specifically classical Athena, it's worth remembering, although the concept of dowry in this context is generally quite common. Apparently, even Hittite societies, which are theorized to be one of the inspirations for the Trojans, had one, whose term is iwaru), was essential to guarantee the bride's safety in some way.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the past two decades or so among social historians and anthropologists of the proposition that women in European societies, both in the past and in the present, have informal power at the private level of the household. Women’s interests were reflected and expressed in succession practices and in the management of the household economy. Central to the status of women was the dowry because of its place in the conjugal household and the negotiations over its use and transmission. A large dowry ensured the woman’s important role in the decisions of the marital household and thus helped to stabilize the marriage. Because the dowry, as the property of the woman’s natal kin, would ideally be transmitted to the man’s children, the man could become involved in the property interests of his wife’s family of origin. In a material sense, in classical Athens the wife’s dowry allowed for the cohesion of two households (oikoi): the oikos of her marriage and that of her natal family. The dowry in legal terms belonged to the woman’s natal family, as it had to be returned to her family of origin either on divorce or on the death of her husband and her remarriage. Much of the information we have for dowries pertains to elite families. Because the woman’s dowry could be inherited by the children, it was worth fighting for, especially if she had not received her full share (Dem. 41 passim). In addition, the potential loss of a substantial dowry would inhibit divorce (Is. 3.28). Certainly the dying husband realized its power when he gave his widow a dowry exceeding the value of those commonly given young brides of elite families. In one case, that of Cleoboule, Demosthenes’ mother, part of the dowry given to her by her dying husband consisted of items she had brought into her first marriage (Dem. 27.4.13; Aeschin. 3.172). Her first dowry had been given to her by her mother (Demosthenes and Aeschines, ad loc) and had allowed her to reenter Athenian society and to be married to a wealthy Athenian after her father’s political disgrace and exile. In another case, the speaker argues that his mother’s dowry, after the end of her first marriage, would have been increased by her brothers to ensure a proper second marriage for her ([Dem.] 40.19-27). Although the dowry was valued in cash, it frequently consisted not just of cash, but also of movable items — furniture, jewels, plated ware — and perhaps land, and could be amalgamated with the husband’s estate. Thus in his list of his father’s property Demosthenes included his mother’s jewelry and gold-plated objects (27.9-11). Although this was not productive wealth, the prestige associated with this wealth allowed Demosthenes’ mother a good deal of influence in her household of marriage. She was the driving force behind Demosthenes’ lawsuit against his guardians for defrauding his father’s estate.

Women and Property in Ancient Athens: A Discussion of the Private Orations and Menander, pg 1.

What of pre-nuptial negotiations concerning the dowry? As the defender of his daughter’s virtue (Aeschin. 1.182-83; [Dem.] 40.57; 59.65ff.), the father gave his daughter away in marriage by the act of engye, the handing over of one man’s daughter to another man’s son ([Dem.] 44.49; Dem. 40.57, 59.65ff.). 5 By classical times, the rite was integrally connected with the notion of legitimacy and citizenship. The father ensured that his daughter married a trustworthy man of her own status and of good repute; to marry her to a man of bad repute could bring shame upon the father (Hyp. Eux. 31). Integral to the marriage negotiations was the settling of the dowry. Although the dowry was never legally required, it was a social obligation. Not only could a marriage be suspect without it, but also the prestige of the family depended on a good match made through a substantial dowry. The orations reveal that dowries were needed to attract prestigious husbands (Lys. 19.15-16; [Dem.] 40.6), while the giving of a large dowry was an indication of a family’s good standing and that of its affines (Dem. 39.32-33, 40.2022). Even though the amount of wealth devoted to a daughter’s dowry was not equal to the wealth from the paternal estate inherited by her brother, a great deal of attention was directed towards the dowry by both father and brother. In most cases, the father set aside the dowry, or attempted to, before his death (Lys. 19.14-15, 32.6; Is. 8.7-8, 11.39; Dem. 27.5, 28.15-16, 29.43; 40.6-7, 20-22, 56- 57; 41.3, 6, 26, 29; 45.66, 59.7-8; Plut. Alc. 8.1-5 ([And.] 4.13; Isoc. 16.31). Demosthenes’ father went so far as to make a will bequeathing two talents of his fourteen-talent estate (oneseventh of his wealth, in other words) to his five-year-old daughter and specifically stated whom she was to marry (Dem. 27.5; 28.15-16, 19; 29.43-45). Once the woman was married, her brothers, if their father was deceased, were concerned about the recovery of the dowry in the event the marriage was terminated (Lys. 19.32-33), or ensured that she was remarried with a dowry equal in value to the one initially set aside by the father for her first marriage (Dem. 29.48 30.7 31.6-9; 40.6-7). The concern for the sister’s dowry and the fact that she did not inherit equally with her brother encouraged a brother’s close emotional ties with his sister and he husband. Concern for the dowry and a good match for the young woman (as well as the younger age of marriage for girls) ensured in many cases that she married before her brother of a relatively equal age.

Women and Property in Ancient Athens: A Discussion of the Private Orations and Menander, pg 2-3.

In this context, it would seem awful that Priam didn’t give Cassandra a dowry, right? After all, it could harm her safety in several ways. But the thing is: why would a bride without a dowry be presented as an advantage if the dowry in question is the one that is paid to the groom? Like, why would it seem more appealing to Othryoneus to get married without the bride’s father paying her dowry to him? It doesn’t make sense in the context, right? Well, that’s because the dowry here is something else. In fact, the dowry that Cassandra doesn’t have is the other one: the gift that the groom gives to the bride. That’s why it’s an advantage for Othryoneus: because he doesn’t have to give gifts. In this context, Othryoneus doesn’t give Cassandra a gift because the compensation is military aid itself. It’s as if the dowry he gives her is support in the war. For example, what advantage would Achilles have in Agamemnon not paying him the dowry of one of his daughters (Agamemnon explicitly states that he will offer any of his daughters in marriage without a dowry to Achilles)? Well, according to Gregory Nagy:

The irony deepens ever further, I venture to add. I follow up on what I have already noted about the words of Achilles, quoted above, that are spoken in reply to Odysseus, who is one of three emissaries delegated by the over-king Agamemnon to offer compensation that would supposedly induce the best of the Achaeans to re-enter the Trojan War. In the larger context of what I have quoted, I now note in addition that Achilles is rejecting not only the overall offer of Agamemnon. The best of the Achaeans is also detailing for explicit rejection the part of the offer where Agamemnon had expressed his willingness to give away as bride to Achilles one of three daughters of his, whichever one of them Achilles chooses to marry (9.144–147, 286–289). In terms of the offer, Achilles would be a non-suitor, that is, he would not even be obliged to give a wedding-gift in return for the gift of a bride. And the word here for a non-suitor bridegroom-to-be is expressed by way of the word anaednos, meaning ‘without being obliged to give a wedding-present’ (ἀνάεδνον at 9.146, 288). This negativized adjective is derived from the noun hedna / eedna, meaning ‘wedding-presents’, which is to say, gifts that a suitor is expected to offer to the father of the woman whom he proposes to win as his bride. We find a striking example of this noun in the Hesiodic Suitors of Helen (F 204.45), where Ajax as a suitor of Helen is offering gifts to the would-be mortal father of the bride, Tyndareos: δίδου δ’ἄρα ἕδνα ἐ̣[ο]ι̣κότα ‘he [= Ajax] was offering wedding-presents [hedna] that were quite seemly’.

How are the epic verses of the Hesiodic Suitors of Helen relevant to Achilles in our Homeric Iliad?

So yeah, specific type of dowry here. Some explanations I found:

According to Raymond Westbrook, the dowry wasn't really mandatory.

References to marital property in the Homeric poems fit neatly into the above pattern. The “bride-price,” which is designated by the term hedna (see below), is normally given by the groom to the bride’s father (Od. 8.318-319). Payment secures the bride against third parties (Od. 6.159; 15.16-18; 16.390-392; 21.160-162) and entitles the groom to claim the bride at the father-in-law’s house (Il. 22.471-472). It is not a necessary item; some marriages are said to be “without ‘bride-price’ ” (anaednon).

Penelope’s Dowry and Odysseus’ Kingship, pg 4.

And in the explanatory note, he even offers some examples:

Lacey 1966 suggests that these were all uxorilocal marriages, “bride-price” applying only to virilocal marriages. The division of marriages into two rigid categories on the basis of a limited sample illustrates one of the problems that arise from creating a system out of the Homeric references alone: the danger of equating literary topos with legal category. The many references from the ancient Near East show that the connection between uxorilocal marriage and the absence of “bride-price” is legally speaking fortuitous. It is obviously more likely to occur in such a marriage, where the groom tends to be poorer and his father-in-law is more interested in his services. It is a favorite topos of heroic stories, but even there the absence of “bride-price” is more apparent than real. When Saul offers his daughter in marriage to David, he informs him: “the king has no desire for ‘bride-price’ (mohar) but for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to have revenge on the king’s enemies” i.e. a deed of heroism (1 Sam 18:25). David obliges, and duly takes up residence in Saul’s palace with his bride. Some years later, however, when he is embroiled in civil war with Saul’s son, he is able successfully to claim that the latter hand over to him “my wife…whom I betrothed for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines” (2 Sam 3:14). David’s heroic deed thus had the legal effect of a “bride-price.” Closer examination of the examples in Homer show that where the term “without ‘bride-price’ ” is used, there is in fact a quid pro quo: Othryoneus offers Priam military service in exchange for Cassandra (Il. 13.363-382), and Agamemnon makes his offer to Achilles in anticipation of the same (Il. 9.144-148). Nor would the latter arrangement appear in any case to be uxorilocal.

Penelope’s Dowry and Odysseus’ Kingship, pg 4.

Peter Karavites seems to interpret the "no dowry" aspect as coming from the idea of Cassandra's marriage being a military alliance. It kind of reminds me of, for example, how Menelaus offers Hermione in exchange for Neoptolemus's services in the war.

Othryoneus asked for and was promised the hand of Cassandra. In return, he pledged to help drive the Achaeans out of Troy. This marriage implied a politico-military alliance between the two families. Unfortunately, Idomeneus killed Othryoneus before the latter could effect any change in the military equilibrium, and so Idomeneus deprived the Trojans of their most recent ally. The alliance seems to have been a simple gentlemen's agreement in which no horkoi or horkia pista were deemed necessary beyond the promises given by both parties. However, this is an unusually difficult text. The term endon seems to distinguish Othryoneus from other allies, but most of the explanations offered of this passage seem unsatisfactory. The true location of Kabesos is equally problematic. The term eidos aristên is taken by many to refer to Cassandra's ability to predict (mantikês eidêsin), not to her beauty. The anaendon admits a double interpretation: the phrase can refer to gifts given by a groom or to the usual dowry of a bride. Since the latter seems to be more appropriate here, the passage indicates Othryoneus was willing to accept Cassandra without the usual dowry (Eust. ad loc.).

Promise-Giving and Treaty Making: Homer and the Near East, pg 30-31.

Jan B. Meister points out that marriage without a dowry is unusual, but it was still a possibility.

The hedna are always paid to the bride’s father and whenever specified they consist of livestock: cf. Hom. Il. 11.243–245 (see infra), Od. 11.289–290 where Neleus promises his daughter to whomever returns his stolen cattle and Il. 18.593 where girls are described as cattle-bringing (ἀλφεσίβοιαι); otherwise hedna are used rather in a rather formulaic manner (Il. 16.178; 190; 22.472; Od. 2.196; 11.282). If the marriage is annulled and it is the wife’s fault, Od. 8.318 seems to imply that the hedna can be reclaimed. Marrying without hedna is unusual and thus specially noted as in the case of Othryoneus who gets to marry Cassandra anaednos under the condition that he fights for Priam (Il. 13.365–369) – an arrangement that causes him to be mocked by Idomeneus at his death (Il. 13.377–382); Agamemnon’s offer to marry one of his daughters anaednos to Achilles belongs to the same category. For hedna and Homeric marriage-practices cf. Finley 1955; Vernant 1974; Mossé 1981: 149–151; Wickert-Micknat 1982: 89–94; Wagner-Hasel 1988; Perysinakis 1991; Patterson 1998: 56–62.

”Bought, not wed!“: Hesiod and the Aristocratic ‘Peasants’, pg 5.

Alain Testart suggests that military aid compensated the absence of a dowry:

In the case of Othryoneus (Iliad 13.363–384), who did not provide hedna and sought to wed Priam’s daughter Cassandra, the Trojans accepted on condition that he fight on their side against the Greeks. Thus, one form of compensation (military aid) replaces another (the customary bridewealth).

Reconstructing Social and Cultural Evolution: The Case of Dowry in the Indo-European Area, pg 38.

So Priam may have offered Cassandra without a dowry for the same reason that Agamemnon offered any of his daughters without a dowry to Achilles: at that point in the negotiations, military support was desperately important to the point that dowry was disregarded. Agamemnon was desperate for Achilles to return to action, seeing how they were dying and losing and the Trojans were getting closer. Likewise, by the tenth year of the war, Priam was certainly already desperate at the fact that the war seemed to never end and he had already lost a considerable number of sons by that point. Both took exceptional measures because the times were exceptional. Likewise, Menelaus knew that Hermione was promised to Orestes, but in times of desperation he disregarded this and promised her to Neoptolemus in exchange for military service.

Also, in terms of symbolism, it's interesting that Cassandra is a heroine VERY connected to marriage. Here are some posts about that: 1, 2.

Note: in case you're curious, De Paoli said that the first written source to undeniably (i.e. not a case of debate like Homer) indicate that Cassandra is a prophetess is Pindar in Pythian Ode 11, as he uses the term mantis (prophetic) to describe her. I, however, remember Cassandra prophesying in Proclus' summary of The Cypria. Perhaps De Paoli is not considering it because it is a summary of Proclus and not the work itself?

Characters' reactions

This is a completely headcanon scenario, I have no intention of giving a serious and in-depth explanation here, but… I feel that Cassandra has a strong personality in a considerable amount of the sources. I don't mean this in the sense of "she's been through so much, her resilience is admirable", but literally in the sense that she is clearly a character with a lot of personality.

For example, in Aeschylus's Agamemnon, Clytemnestra wants Cassandra to speak, but Cassandra ignores her while Clytemnestra tries to get a reaction out of her. She even doesn't care when Clytemnestra makes xenophobic and insulting comments about her supposedly being insane.

Clytaemestra [1035] Get inside, you too, Cassandra; since not unkindly has Zeus appointed you to share the holy water of a house where you may take your stand, with many another slave, at the altar of the god who guards its wealth. Get down from the car and do not be too proud; [1040] for even Alcmene's son, men say, once endured to be sold and eat the bread of slavery. But if such fortune should of necessity fall to the lot of any, there is good cause for thankfulness in having masters of ancient wealth; for they who, beyond their hope, have reaped a rich harvest of possessions, [1045] are cruel to their slaves in every way, even exceeding due measure. You have from us such usage as custom warrants. Chorus It is to you she has been speaking and clearly. Since you are in the toils of destiny, perhaps you will obey, if you are so inclined; but perhaps you will not. Clytaemestra [1050] Well, if her language is not strange and foreign, even as a swallow's, I must speak within her comprehension and move her to comply. Chorus Go with her. With things as they now stand, she gives you the best. Do as she bids and leave your seat in the car. Clytaemestra [1055] I have no time to waste with this woman here outside; for already the victims stand by the central hearth awaiting the sacrifice—a joy we never expected to be ours. As for you, if you will take any part, make no delay. [1060] But if, failing to understand, you do not catch my meaning, then, instead of speech, make a sign with your barbarian hand. Chorus It is an interpreter and a plain one that the stranger seems to need. She bears herself like a wild creature newly captured. Clytaemestra No, she is mad and listens to her wild mood, [1065] since she has come here from a newly captured city, and does not know how to tolerate the bit until she has foamed away her fretfulness in blood. No! I will waste no more words upon her to be insulted thus. Exit

Agamemnon, 1035-1069. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

I’ve seen this interpreted by some as an example of Cassandra being a more modest and submissive figure compared to the unfaithful and domineering Clytemnestra (and in that sense, Cassandra symbolizes an ideal partner while Clytemnestra would represent the wrong partner), but I think it’s actually an act of courage on Cassandra’s part. Clytemnestra is the legitimate wife of Cassandra’s master, she’s a free woman, she’s the queen of the territory that foreigner Cassandra is in. And Clytemnestra, as an authority, wants something: she wants Cassandra to speak. When Cassandra refuses to speak, she’s directly challenging Clytemnestra’s authority. She’s resisting. It’s true that Aeschylus does indeed repeatedly represent Clytemnestra as what a mother and wife shouldn't be. Who doesn’t remember the iconic moment when Clytemnestra says she speaks like a woman, and the Chorus says she speaks like a man? She's repeatedly masculinized by Aeschylus in a pejorative way, similar to how Aegithus is feminized in a way that is clearly intended to be pejorative. But I think that the fact that Clytemnestra is used as an example of a non-ideal woman doesn't make all of Cassandra's actions solely about her being the ideal woman.

Cassandra’s resilience is also reinforced in the way she interacts with Apollo. I feel that she loves and respects him despite everything, because he is her god. On a religious level, even though he was cruel to her, Cassandra somehow “deals” with this cruelty in the sense that humans are subject to gods and, as a priestess, the religious aspect is something essential to her and, therefore, Apollo’s cruelty isn't enough to make her not have any positive feelings towards him. And yet, even though he is her god and even though she is aware of what happens when one receives divine punishment, Cassandra still directly blames him. She is aware that he has a role in this and, even though she understands that she will be avenged later, that doesn't stop her from expressing her negative feelings. He is her lord god, but he is still her destroyer.

Cassandra Woe, woe, woe! O Apollo, O Apollo! Chorus Wherefore your cry of “woe” in Loxias' name? [1075] He is not the kind of god that has to do with mourners. Cassandra Woe, woe, woe! O Apollo, O Apollo! Chorus Once more with ill-omened words she cries to the god who should not be present at times of lamentation. Cassandra [1080] Apollo, Apollo! God of the Ways, my destroyer! For you have destroyed me—and utterly—this second time. Chorus I think that she is about to prophesy about her own miseries. The divine gift still abides even in the soul of one enslaved. Cassandra [1085] Apollo, Apollo! God of the Ways, my destroyer! Ah, what way is this that you have brought me! To what a house! Chorus To that of Atreus' sons. If you do not perceive this, I'll tell it to you. And you shall not say that it is untrue. Cassandra [1090] No, no, rather to a god-hating house, a house that knows many a horrible butchery of kin, a slaughter-house of men and a floor swimming with blood. Chorus The stranger seems keen-scented as a hound; she is on the trail where she will discover blood.

Agamemnon, 1072-1095. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

Cassandra even expresses herself through sarcasm. While the Chorus claims not to understand her, she sarcastically responds that she understands Greek very well. I also find it interesting how this somehow reminds me of Clytemnestra's insinuation that Cassandra is not able to understand her. But Cassandra does. Not only that, Cassandra openly rips off Apollo's symbols. About this I've read people suggesting different interpretations. One is that Cassandra is expressing frustration, because she remained loyal to Apollo despite everything, and in the end she feels as if he himself led her to death. The other is that this is actually another sign of Cassandra's complex loyalty to Apollo, as if she gives up her position as priestess so that when she herself is disrespected, it wouldn't be disrespectful to Apollo as well since she would no longer theoretically be a symbol of him (remember how Agamemnon's disrespect towards Chryses in The Iliad translated into disrespect towards Apollo).

Cassandra Surely you must have missed the meaning of my prophecies. Chorus I do not understand the scheme of him who is to do the deed. Cassandra And yet all too well I understand the Greek language. Chorus [1255] So too do the Pythian oracles; yet they are hard to understand. Cassandra Oh, oh! What fire! It comes upon me! Woe, woe! Lycean Apollo! Ah me, ah me! This two-footed lioness, who mates with a wolf in the absence of the noble lion, [1260] will slay me, miserable as I am. Brewing as it were a drug, she vows that with her wrath she will mix requital for me too, while she whets her sword against her husband, to take murderous vengeance for bringing me here. Why then do I bear these mockeries of myself, [1265] this wand, these prophetic chaplets on my neck? Breaking her wand, she throws it and the other insignia of her prophetic office upon the ground, and tramples them underfoot You at least I will destroy before I die myself. To destruction with you! And fallen there, thus do I repay you. Enrich with doom some other in my place. Look, Apollo himself is stripping me [1270] of my prophetic garb—he that saw me mocked to bitter scorn, even in this bravery, by friends turned foes, with one accord, in vain—but, like some vagrant mountebank, called “beggar,” “wretch,” “starveling,” I bore it all. [1275] And now the prophet, having undone me, his prophetess, has brought me to this lethal pass. Instead of my father's altar a block awaits me, where I am to be butchered in a hot and bloody sacrifice. Yet, we shall not die unavenged by the gods; [1280] for there shall come in turn another, our avenger, a scion of the race, to slay his mother and exact requital for his sire; an exile, a wanderer, a stranger from this land, he shall return to put the coping-stone upon these unspeakable iniquities of his house. For the gods have sworn a mighty oath [1285] that his slain father's outstretched corpse shall bring him home. Why then thus raise my voice in pitiful lament? Since first I saw the city of Ilium fare what it has fared, while her captors, by the gods' sentence, are coming to such an end, [1290] I will go in and meet my fate. I will dare to die. This door I greet as the gates of Death. And I pray that, dealt a mortal stroke, without a struggle, my life-blood ebbing away in easy death, I may close these eyes.

Agamemnon, 1251-1295. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

Aware of her fate, Cassandra doesn't even try to escape; she simply enters the palace of Mycenae despite knowing what awaits her. And we know that she wanted to live. She wasn't a character who preferred death, as is the case with Polyxena in Hecuba. Some people subvert the way Clytemnestra kills her as a form of compassion, since death would be the end of Cassandra's pain, but, besides the fact that Clytemnestra clearly hated Cassandra, the fact is… Aeschylus' Cassandra didn't want to die. I wouldn't judge her in any way if that was her wish. For example, I understand why, depending on the version, Hecuba tries to kill herself by throwing herself into the fires of Troy. But the thing is: that's not the case with Cassandra. And I think that this, the fact that Aeschylus' Cassandra wanted to live despite everything, is relevant.

Euripides' Cassandra, for example, is also strong, although in a different way. She suffered Ajax's attack and was chosen by Agamemnon, who is called the "second Ajax" in a rather significant way.

Poseidon [70] I do: when Aias dragged away Cassandra by force.

The Trojan Women, 70. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

Hecuba This is necessity's grim law; it was just now that Cassandra was torn with brutal violence from my arms. Andromache Alas, alas! it seems a second Aias has appeared to wrong your daughter; but there are other ills for you.

The Trojan Women, 617-219. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

She is seeing her family being killed or enslaved in the present, and she is seeing in the future what will happen to her. And while she knows that she will be brutally killed, Cassandra isn't even focused on that. No, she's focused on the fact that her death is necessary for Agamemnon to die, and that Agamemnon's death is, in a way, part of the punishment suffered by the Achaeans for their excesses. Even as Hecuba acts as if she's embarrassed by the way Cassandra is behaving, Cassandra doesn't care about what people will think of her as she prophesies with torches in her hands. She's more focused on the fact that she will get her revenge, no matter how.

The implication of violence, of nonconsensual sex, in these passages of the Ion is also seen in uses of skotios in another of Euripides’ plays, Trojan Women. In the prologue of this play, Poseidon explains what has happened to the Trojan royal family now that Troy has fallen. About Cassandra, the one daughter left, he says, “Neglecting the gods and what is sacred, Agamemnon will marry [her] violently in a dark [illegitimate] bed”: τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τε παραλιπὼν τό τ’ εὐσεβὲς/ γαμεῖ βιαίως σκότιον ̓Αγαμέμνων λέχος (Trojan Women, 43–44). The mention of violence (along with the comment that he is taking Cassandra contrary to the gods and any holiness) leaves no doubt that the relationship is marked as not sanctioned, and not just occurring in a dark room. Talthybios later describes what is in store for Cassandra in similar terms. He has said to Hecuba that he will tell her which Greek has been allotted which Trojan woman, and she asks about Cassandra first. When he says that Agamemnon has chosen Cassandra, Hecuba’s reaction is horror that she is to be Clytemnestra’s slave (247–250). Talthybios corrects her, saying: “No, rather, [she was chosen] for dark [skotia] nuptials in bed” (οὔκ, ἀλλὰ λέκτρων σκότια νυμφευτήρια, 251). The bed, which is a metonym for sexual activity but also for the marriage that is supposed to accompany such, and the so-called ‘nuptials’ are both described by words related to skotios, a term that, as we have seen, carries connotations of “illicit” or “illegitimate.” This label reveals that this is no marriage at all, but rather an inversion of marriage. The sexual relationships between Apollo and Kreousa and between Cassandra and Agamemnon are furtive and without consent. Although Euripides (through the speeches given by Kreousa and Cassandra) emphasizes in both cases the lack of the woman’s consent to the sexual relationship, the crucial element for society, the permission of the woman’s parents, is also lacking. As we saw with the story of Danaë, this lack of consent of the kurios disqualifies the relationship and any resulting children from legitimacy. The approval required for a legitimate union of man and woman, one that will produce legitimate children, is encapsulated in the imagery of the torch-lit wedding. Euripides plays on this symbolism in the Trojan Women by having a frenzied Cassandra enter with a torch to announce her “wedding” to Agamemnon while singing a hymenaios, or wedding hymn (308ff.). Hecuba’s response shows clearly that the marriage symbolism is inappropriate in this case. She addresses Hephaistos, the god of fire, saying that in mortal marriages he carries the torch, but now he raises a mournful light (341–342). She even mentions that the “bride” Cassandra (who, as bride, would not be the one carrying the torch anyway) cannot hold the torch straight (348) and has it taken away (351–352). With Cassandra’s prophecies (especially those at 404–405 and 445–450), it becomes clear that her torch is not a wedding torch at all, but rather the torch of an avenging Erinys.

Imagining Illegitimacy in Classical Greek Literature by Mary Ebbott.

Cassandra uses what was supposed to be an important and anticipated moment for a virgin (marriage) in a subversive way. Here, her and Agamemnon's supposed marriage will cause the death of the bride and the groom. The idea of the connection between death and marriage isn't entirely unexpected, considering that it already appears in a fragment of Sappho (one about the marriage of Andromache and Hector) and in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, for example. According to a book by Giuliana Ragusa that I read, part of this is the parallel of both events as rites of passage. Other "brides" are linked to death, for example: Iphigenia prepares to get married, but it's actually a sacrifice; in some versions, Polyxena is sacrificed as a bride for Achilles; Antigone, in Sophocles' version, has a parallel with Danae in relation to the cave in which she's supposed to die without actually getting married; Alcestis sacrifices herself for her husband, that is, she dies for the marriage; etc.

In a way, even her death has a religious aspect, considering that she is part of the trigger for Clytemnestra to kill Agamemnon (because it wasn't just Iphigenia, Clytemnestra makes this clear in Aeschylus when she mentions Chryseis and by the way she treats Cassandra. In the Homeric texts it isn't possible to prove the sacrifice of Iphigenia and she still kills Agamemnon and Cassandra in The Odyssey) and Agamemnon's death is, in a way, a trigger for the purification of the House of Atreus through Orestes. This purification will come with the help of Apollo, even visually represented. Even in death, Cassandra, in a way, is a "sacrificial offering" in this context. She is, in a way, ironically similar to Iphigenia, a divine sacrifice to appease something greater. It's as if, by killing Cassandra, Clytemnestra was also killing an image of her own daughter. This aspect is present in Aeschylus in the way Clytemnestra makes a play on words (she does this a lot in this play, let's just say Clytemnestra is clever with words), talking about needing to prepare the "victims", implying that she is talking about a banquet while she is talking about Agamemnon and Cassandra, thus in a way equating them to animals. Cassandra herself says "I am to be butchered in a hot and bloody sacrifice".

Cassandra's descriptions are repeatedly intense. Although her beauty is repeatedly emphasized in various texts (e.g. The Iliad, Ibycus' fragment, Alcaeus' fragment, etc), when prophesying or when lamenting she isn't made to be a sweet, sad little thing. She's intense. When she despairs, she REALLY despairs. When she is angry, she is angry. When she is bitter, she is bitter.

One heart was steadfast, and one soul clear-eyed, Cassandra. Never her words were unfulfilled; yet was their utter truth, by Fate's decree, ever as idle wind in the hearers' ears, that no bar to Troy's ruin might be set. She saw those evil portents all through Troy conspiring to one end; loud rang her cry, as roars a lioness that mid the brakes a hunter has stabbed or shot, whereat her heart maddens, and down the long hills rolls her roar, and her might waxes tenfold; so with heart aflame with prophecy came she forth her bower. Over her snowy shoulders tossed her hair streaming far down, and wildly blazed her eyes. Her neck writhed, like a sapling in the wind shaken, as moaned and shrieked that noble maid: "O wretches! into the Land of Darkness now we are passing; for all round us full of fire and blood and dismal moan the city is. Everywhere portents of calamity Gods show: destruction yawns before your feet. Fools! ye know not your doom: still ye rejoice with one consent in madness, who to Troy have brought the Argive Horse where ruin lurks! Oh, ye believe not me, though ne'er so loud I cry! The Erinyes and the ruthless Fates, for Helen's spousals madly wroth, through Troy dart on wild wings. And ye, ye are banqueting there in your last feast, on meats befouled with gore, when now your feet are on the Path of Ghosts!"

Posthomerica, 12.565-594. Translation by A.S. Way.

With anguished hearts the captive maids looked back on Ilium, and with sobs and moans they wailed, striving to hide their grief from Argive eyes. Clasping their knees some sat; in misery some veiled with their hands their faces; others nursed young children in their arms: those innocents not yet bewailed their day of bondage, nor their country's ruin; all their thoughts were set on comfort of the breast, for the babe's heart hath none affinity with sorrow. All sat with unbraided hair and pitiful breasts scored with their fingers. On their cheeks there lay stains of dried tears, and streamed thereover now fresh tears full fast, as still they gazed aback on the lost hapless home, wherefrom yet rose the flames, and o'er it writhed the rolling smoke. Now on Cassandra marvelling they gazed, calling to mind her prophecy of doom; but at their tears she laughed in bitter scorn, in anguish for the ruin of her land.

Posthomerica, 14.411-430. Translation by A.S. Way.

ALL will I tell truly that thou askest from the utter beginning, and if the tale be prolonged, forgive me, master. For not quietly as of old did the maiden loose the varied voice of her oracles, but poured forth a weird confused cry, and uttered wild words from her bay-chewing mouth, imitating the speech of the dark Sphinx. Thereof what in heart and memory I hold, hear thou, O King, and, pondering with wise mind, wind and pursue the obscure paths of her riddles, whereso a clear track guides by a straight way through things wrapped in darkness. And I, cutting the utter bounding thread, will trace her paths of devious speech, striking the starting-point like winged runner.

Alexandra, 1-15. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Cassandra's situation is clearly tragic and this makes Cassandra a tragic heroine,but she doesn't behave like someone passive. She's a victim who fights back against those who hurt her, even if her way of fighting back isn't violent. She's a determined woman, who insists even when she knows she won't be heard. In a way, this isn't just about others, it's about her too. It's about how much she won't give up on showing what she feels, on denouncing what she goes through. She doesn't want to give up and she hasn't given up. In no way do I imagine Cassandra being a shy, insecure and obedient girl. Curse or not, known as crazy or not. So, honestly, I think Cassandra would be verbal if she didn't like the arrangement because Cassandra is a very verbal person. It isn't as if she didn't have other suitors, it's made very clear in the most varied sources (including the Homeric texts) how beautiful she is and how men desire her (whether this desire is violent or not) and even a god desired her. It isn't as if Othryoneus was a rare case.

Cassandra being the way she is, I doubt she wouldn't make her opinion on this clear, even if Priam has the right to give her in marriage to whomever he wants by the laws and customs of the time. I imagine that Cassandra, as someone who constantly tries to claim her autonomy despite how many times that autonomy (sexual, physical, social, linguistic, etc) is taken away from her, would be more bothered if Priam judged her as unfit for marriage because, in his supposed view in this scenario, she woulnn't have enough autonomy to assume such a social position (that of a wife). And, in any case, if we consider Cassandra's prophetic gifts, she already knows that this marriage won't happen. It would just be another reminder of an attempt to save a city that is destined to fall. I think Cassandra would see this as just another one of those times when they tried and failed to defy fate. I think it would be less about her, and more about a greater burden. Though honestly, with how committed Cassandra seems to be to her virginity (to the point of rejecting Apollo, who we know she worshipped, even), I can't imagine her as the kind of girl who would daydream about marriage.

As for the other characters… I think they have a similar mindset to Hecuba in Trojan Women. That is, Cassandra getting married wouldn't be a problem (regardless of what they thought about her sanity), but the context of the marriage could be one (and being a sex slave was certainly the context Hecuba didn't accept, and rightly so). Now, as for the lack of a dowry, would that be a negative "context" for them? Well, let's look the bT scholia (Greek scholia of The Iliad) on the subject:

Schol. bT ad Il. 13 365-6 ex

“He was asking to marry the most beautiful of Priam’s daughters without a bridegift” This is also foreign. For we can find no place in Greece where they go to war for pay and posit before that they will not be allies without a contract. Also, consider the payment. For he came, asking for the girl, not because she was royal, but because she was the most beautiful. Certainly the most intemperate suitors among the Greeks “strive because of [her] excellence” [Od 2.366] But “without bridegifts” [Il.13.366] is cheap: even the most unjust suitors offer bridegifts to Penelope.”

ex. ᾔτεε δὲ Πριάμοιο <θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην / Κασσάνδρην ἀνάεδνον>: βαρβαρικὸν καὶ τοῦτο· οὐδέποτε γὰρ εὑρήσομεν παρ’ ῞Ελλησι τὸ ἐπὶ μισθῷ στρατεύειν καὶ πρότερον αἰτεῖν καὶ χωρὶς ὑποσχέσεως μὴ συμμαχεῖν. ὅρα δὲ καὶ τὸν μισθόν· κόρης γὰρ ἐρῶν ἧκεν, οὐχ ὅτι βασιλική, ἀλλ’ ὅτι εἶδος ἀρίστη. καίτοι παρ’ ῞Ελλησιν οἱ ἀκολαστότατοι μνηστῆρές φασιν „εἵνεκα τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐριδαίνομεν” (β 206). καὶ τὸ ἀνάεδνον (366) γλίσχρον, ὅπου γε οἱ ἀδικώτατοι μνηστῆρες ἕδνα τῇ Πηνελόπῃ προσφέρουσιν.

Translation from here.

That is, again here it's reinforced that the dowry here is not the dowry that the bride brings (see, for example, the dowry that Andromache brings in her marriage to Hector in the Sappho fragments), but it's the gift that the groom offers to the bride. This is a common motif in Greek texts, where you see parents demanding that suitors offer something in exchange for the hand of their daughter (see Hesiod's Catalogue of Women as example). The lack of dowry is an advantage for Achilles in the sense that supposedly he wouldn't need to pay to get married, in the same way that Othryoneus wouldn't need to. Both Agamemnon's daughters and Cassandra, I imagine, usually demanded a very expensive type of gift considering their status (in fact, Nagy even interprets that Agamemnon was trying to mock Achilles by insinuating that he couldn't pay anyway, but the attempt backfired because Achilles rejected the proposal and, therefore, Agamemnon became the despised one lol). The schoalist finds this to be a shocking attitude, as he considers it "cheap" towards the bride, stating that even Penelope's worst suitors offered something. In this sense, it's indeed a kind of demoralizing attitude towards the bride, although it isn't an attitude that creates insecurity as it would if the bride's dowry (and not the groom's gift) weren't paid. Cassandra's security and stability aren't threatened, but, of course, it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to take offense.

Personally, I don't think it's impossible that Hecuba herself wasn't particularly pleased. In Trojan Woman, she clearly cares about Cassandra's very less-than-ideal circumstances, and while the context of slavery is far more serious and damaging than a lack of dowry, it's still an indication of how much Hecuba cared about providing a worthy marriage for her daughter. Again, I emphasize how this is reinforced in the way Hecuba admonishes Cassandra about holding the torch, a symbol both conjugal (it should be held by the bride's mother) and vengeful (in this case, the Erinyes), as a way of demonstrating the complexity of Agamemnon and Cassandra's relationship. If Clytemnestra of Iphigenia at Aulis can be used as an example of how a mother might be written in this scenario, then I think it's even more likely that Hecuba would be bothered since Clytemnestra is written as clearly caring a great deal about Iphigenia's marriage (she wants to know as much information about Achilles as possible, she wants to be there to hold the torch, she wants to meet Achilles beforehand and have a good relationship with him, etc). However, given Hecuba's tendency to be seen as more of a mediator/planner type of character, I imagine she would eventually deal with it while figuring out how best to ensure that Troy remains intact because if Troy falls, then her concerns will be even greater (as they were, since Cassandra was enslaved).

And the thing is, Helenus is also clearly a long-term planning type of character, similar to his mother in that regard. He doesn't seem like the type to take action with short-term thinking in mind, at least not most of the time. In The Iliad, he is constantly advising the Trojan side. And as someone with prophetic powers, he was aware of the ever-approaching danger. You can tell he had enough foresight to be aware of this because he is the one who prophesied the need for Neoptolemus and Philoctetes for the fall of Troy (see Sophocles' Philoctetes, The Little Iliad fragment 1, Pseudo-Apollodorus' Library E.5.10, among others for examples). If he foresaw what was needed for Troy to fall, then I imagine he also foresaw how close the fall was to some extent. Not in the sense that he had ALL the details, but I think he had a feeling. In this context, again I think he would understand Priam's desperation, again reflecting Helenus's quality as a mediator. Ironically, one of the few unthinkingly hot-headed acts Helenus does is in the version where he tries to marry Helen but loses to Deiphobus (see, for example, Pseudo-Apollodorus' Library E.5.9) and this is interestingly what leads to him being captured by Odysseus and forced to tell the truth about the fall of Troy because, in anger, he leaves Troy even though he is certainly aware of the dangerous context surrounding this act (not that he knew he was CERTAINLY going to be kidnapped, but anyone in the tenth year of the war already knew the risks of walking around alone). So yeah, one of the few times the poor guy allowed himself to not try to control himself... something bad happened. He could still sympathize with Cassandra, obviously, but I don't think he would be constantly angry with Priam, no.

The married women in the family would probably be sympathetic. For example, Andromache has an ideal marriage, so I imagine she would wish something like that for the people she cares about. Cassandra, as her sister-in-law, must have been important to her. Laodice, for example, who is also described as Priam's most beautiful daughter in The Iliad, is also married.

But in any case, the tradition of Othryoneus doesn't seem to be common in the surviving texts. He is in The Iliad and is also mentioned by Strabo, who mentions this scene. Of course, the Greek scholia of The Iliad also deal with it, as I have shown here. Othryoneus, however, doesn't appear in any other surviving source, as far as I know. Coroebus is a more frequent figure as Cassandra's legitimate suitor (I clarify legitimate in the sense that he wanted to marry her legitimately. It isn't the same as Apollo, Ajax the Lesser, or Agamemnon). In fact, not even his location is certain. The name is in the text, but knowing where Kabesos is is… complicated. This is what I found:

Othruoneus' name may be based on Όθρυς,, 'mountain' (cf. Mt Othrus in Thessaly), glossed as Cretan by Hsch.; cf. the toponym *O-du-ru, |Odrus|, on the Knossos tablets (Chantraine, Dict. s.v.). For the formation cf. Ιλιονεύς [note: Illiounes] and the Spartan warrior Othruadas. Does Othruoneus' slaying by Idomeneus reflect Cretan saga, like the Phaistos slain by Idomeneus at 5.43, or even Asios, whose home, Arisbe, is named after a Cretan girl (so Steph. Byz. s.v.) – cf. Arisbas, father of a Cretan at 17.345? Cf. too 16.603-7n. Asios' patronym Hurtakides recalls the Cretan city Hurtakos or Hurtakine (von Kamptz, Personennamen 313), but also Lycian Ορτάκια = urtaqijahñ (Scherer, ‘Nichtgriechische Personennamen' 37). — The ancients identified the unique toponym Kabesos with various places with similar Anatolian-sounding names, in the Hellespontine area, Thrace, Cappadocia or Lycia (cf. T, Steph. Byz. [note: Seph. Byz = Stephanus of Byzantium] s.v. Kaßaooós and Zgusta, Ortsnamen 207f.). As bT [note: bT is the Homeric scholia] note, Ενδον ιόντα (21× Hom.) often means 'who was present', but only when he is indoors. Here it is a misused formula, cf. ἐν νῷϊ Κυθηρόθεν |... ἐτίομεν ἐν μεγάροισι (15.438f.): Homer was thinking of Othruoneus joining Priam's household from Kabesos, but he is not literally ‘inside' here (cf. HyAp 92!). To solve the 'problem' the Argolic 'city' MS [note: scholia manuscripts] read 'Εκάβης νόθον υιόν εόντα [note: something like “illegitimate son of Hecuba”, with Εκάβης being the name Hecuba], making him a half-brother of his bride-to-be (Did/AT)! [note: Did/AT = Didymus in MSS A and T. It's a scholia]

The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume IV: Books 13-16 by Richard Janko, pg 94. The additions in [] are mine.

That is, the obvious lack of information about him makes it hard to know why Othryoneus' military assistance was so advantageous. I can only assume he had a decent army or something like this. Although, to get involved in a war he had no involvement in as far as we know because of marriage, I like to think he at least really wanted to marry Cassandra. I like to think that, if he had had the chance, he would have tried to make a good marriage with her. Same for Coroebus, who is even more obviously in love with Cassandra.

P.S: saludos para você também!

#Ask #alabanza-a-lucretia #Cassandra of Troy #Helenus of Troy #Priam #Hecuba #Coroebus #Othryoneus #Tw: slavery #Tw: rape #Birdiethings #Birdie.txt

7 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 8 months ago

Text

Hey!

Vetted Palestinian Campaigns

Donations Masterpost

Basic things

You can call me Birdie.

NO AI!!!

I'm a woman, but don't worry about pronouns.

I'm Brazilian. If you are from a Portuguese-speaking country, feel free to speak to me in Portuguese. If you're Hispanic and prefer to speak Spanish, I can also understand some Spanish although I'm not fluent. I'm not fluent in English either and I'm better at reading than writing, that's why I still have to use online translators. So please consider that there may be a miscommunication when you find something I wrote strange.

If that matters in your decision to interact, I'm an adult. There is some NSFW content here, specifically nudity. It's not a big deal, but if that matters to you please be aware.

I post mostly about Greek Mythology, but I reblog about a variety of things because 1) I have multiple fandoms 2) I reblog beautiful art even if I don't saw the original work. The fandons I'm currently most invested in are Dungeon Meshi and ATLA, but I have others like tgcf, kny, etc.

In any post you read about mythology, consider one detail: I am not a classicist, historian, archaeologist, etc. It's just a hobby.

More here.

#birdiethings #birdie.txt

7 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 4 months ago

Note

Hi I'm back after a while without showing up in your askbox!! I saw this post and was wondering if perhaps you had any idea of Patroclus's feats and abilities in the sources in general? Not just The Iliad, but The Iliad + other sources!

Hi, no problem!

I'm going to list skills in general, not just the most obvious ones (i.e. warrior skills). Also, when I say the translation is "improvised" it's a euphemism for "I ran the Greek text through several different translators, looked up Greek dictionaries online when a word confused me, and looked to see if any academics mentioned it in a way that made the meaning clearer" and, therefore, it's not a 100% faithful translation but more like something that reflects the spirit of the thing. As you may notice, this process takes some time and in the end I can't even be 100% sure about what's being said, so that's why I'm going to ignore the fact that the name Patroclus is mentioned a considerable number of times in Homer scholia. There may be a lot of interesting stuff there, but since there's no point in me going through this time-consuming process every single time the name is mentioned, that's all we'll have for today. And I noticed that the OP of your print mentioned Diomedes, but since you only asked me about Patroclus, I'll focus on Patroclus. And finally, the usual disclaimer that this is just a hobby and I am not an academic of anything, so there may be mistakes!

Healing

Patroclus has knowledge of healing, as Achilles taught him what he learned from Chiron. This doesn’t make him the camp's "doctor", just someone who can be useful if needed. As the text itself mentions, Achilles also knows and, not only that, he was the one who taught Patroclus! And well, no one claims that Achilles is the camp's doctor. STILL I think it's fair to mention it because it's useful and I think it's kind of ridiculous to pretend the scene doesn't exist and I've seen people claim that Patroclus NEVER knew ANYTHING about healing, which is objectively false. There's no way to say that this is a useless skill, right? And what Achilles taught was what he learned from the wise Chiron, so it was certainly a good lesson. While Patroclus isn't really focused on healing, it's a good ability and I think it's unfair to dismiss it entirely.

”[…] And spread the soothing, healing salves across it, the powerful drugs they say you learned from Achilles and Chiron the most humane of Centaurs taught your friend. […]“

The Iliad, XI, 992-994. Translation by Robert Fagles.

I think in the Republic Plato talked about the sons of Asclepius and mentioned that Patroclus was in charge at the time, but I'm not sure if Plato was referring to Patroclus taking over as healer in the absence of the camp doctors (because it's been a while since I read that passage). This scene is also analyzed in Homeric scholia. Anyway, if this ability of Patroclus's was such an important characteristic of the character, I imagine it would be more commonly emphasized. There is also no iconographic context that associates Patroclus with healing that I have seen (I can be mistaken), the only one that shows him in a healing scene is the famous kylix in which Achilles is taking care of him. But well, the healer in this case is Achilles, not Patroclus. So I interpret this as him knowing enough to be useful to be needed, but he's no Machaon or Podalirius. I don't know if I explained it decently, I hope so. In any case, this doesn’t antagonize Patroclus's warlike abilities, since even Machaon fights and Achilles, who is canonically the best of warriors, is even more associated with healing than Patroclus.

Horses

He’s an excellent horseman, even capable of controlling the divine horses Xanthus and Balius. Even Automedon, who is Achilles' charioteer, seems to consider Patroclus to be better at this than he was. In other words, he was better at this than the guy whose main job was to do that.

Diores’ son Automedon shouted back, "Alcimedon! What other Achaean driver could match your skill at curbing this deathless team or spurring on their fury? Only Patroclus. skilled as the gods themselves while the man was still alive— now death and fate have got him in their grip. On with it! Take up the whip and shining reins. I’ll dismount the car and fight on foot.”

The Iliad, 17.544-551. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Furthermore, in The Iliad the horses mourn Patroclus, missing him after he dies and only move after Zeus intervenes. During Patroclus' funeral, Achilles even describes how the horses are sad because Patroclus was so good at taking care of them. Therefore, Patroclus's skill in this context wasn’t a claim of Automedon alone. It isn’t a subjective idea, it’s objective.

Plutarch, while making arguments — not related to the myth, he just uses the myth as an example —, mentions how Achilles' horses were loyal to Patroclus.

[...] Now I here call those honors which the people, Whose right it is, so name; with them I speak: as Empedocles has it; since a wise statesman will not despise true honor and favor, consisting in the good-will and friendly disposition of those who gratefully remember his services; nor will he contemn glory by shunning to please his neighbors, as Democritus would have him.For neither the fawning of dogs nor the affection of horses is to be rejected by huntsmen and jockeys; nay, it is both profitable and pleasant to breed in those animals which are brought up in our houses and live with us, such a disposition towards one's self as Lysimachus's dog showed to his master, and as the poet relates Achilles's horses to have had towards Patroclus. [...]

Moralia, Political Precepts, 820f-821a. Translation by William Watson Goodwin.

Philostratus, who directly disagreed with Homer on some points and directly agreed with him on others (through the account of the ghost of the character Protesilaus, here a cult figure) in a context too complex for me to explain, says that “his horses carried Patroklos safe and sound, just as they did Achilles” and when describing Patroclus mentions that “His nose was straight, and he flared his nostrils as eager horses do” (Heroica, 736). So there is still an association of Patroclus with horses, although not as emphasized as in The Iliad. Also, Philostratus wrote the characters in a way that is very intertwined with their hero cults.

Interestingly, Ptolemy Hephaestion wrote a version of the story in which the reason Patroclus was a good horseman was that the god Poseidon, whose lover he was, taught him.

[...] Homer calls Patroclus the first horseman because he learned from Poseidon, who loved him, the art of riding horses.

Bibliotheca, 190.6. Translation by John Henry Freese.

Sure, when I read this I thought it was funny that Patroclus fucked his friend's great-grandfather (context: Poseidon > Neleus > Nestor > Antilochus), and in fact Ptolemy gives a number of versions not found anywhere else and not really very popular, and I won't lie and say I really like his versions (for example, Oneiros seems like a really pointless addition to me. And the Penthesilea myth is so... anticlimactic?). But when I try to think about what logic Ptolemy used, it's actually kind of... impressive? I mean, Poseidon is the associated with horses and even the creation of horses is credited to him — as a quick example of Poseidon's association with horses: “Earth-shaking Poseidon, he is devoted to you, who rule over horse-races, and his thoughts are pleasing to you. His sweet temperament, when he associates with his drinking companions, surpasses even the bee's intricate honeycomb”, Pythian Ode 6 by Pindar. Hephaestion justifying Patroclus' skill with horses by using the god associated with them, in a way, a way of highlighting that Patroclus is so good at it that he received divine teaching from the god who supposedly knows the most about the subject. So to me, this isn't just about Patroclus fucking Antilochus' great-grandfather (sorry for my immaturity, I still think the idea is funny), it's also about his skill!

Anyway, what I want to say is that Patroclus was certainly a horse girl.

Dogs

This is kind of a bonus, but in The Iliad it’s said that Patroclus had nine dogs in “And the dead lord Patroclus had fed nine dogs at table” (Book 23, lines 198-199). Because of the term used, it is believed that these are Patroclus's actual pet dogs. I’m putting this here to argue for the possibility that Patroclus was simply skilled with animals in general, given the whole horse girl thing and now this.

Cooking

And, of course, he knows how to cook. It's not a war skill, but I still think it's worth mentioning that he was responsible for serving food and wine to Achilles and sometimes Achilles' guests.

He paused. Patroclus obeyed his great friend, who put down a heavy chopping block in the firelight and across it laid a sheep’s chine, a fat goat’s and the long back cut of a full-grown pig, marbled with lard. Automedon held the meats while lordly Achilles carved them into quarters. cut them well into pieces. pierced them with spits and Patroclus raked the hearth, a man like a god making the fire blaze. Once it had burned down and the flames died away, he scattered the coals and stretching the spitted meats across the embers, raised them onto supports and sprinkled clean pure salt. As soon as the roasts were done and spread on platters, Patroclus brought the bread, set it out on the board in ample wicker baskets. Achilles served the meat.

The Iliad, 9.246-260. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Given how casually Achilles asked Patroclus to cook and Patroclus complied, it seems to me that this is a common occurrence. Achilles also helps him naturally, as if it were a domestic routine. Therefore, Patroclus' cooking skills were hardly just basic survival skills, since they were part of his daily duties and he was even responsible for serving guests. This seems even more the case given that Achilles specifically laments not being able to eat Patroclus' food. He even describes Patroclus's cooking style as "quick and expert”.

[...] The memories swept over him ... sighs heaved from his depths as Achilles burst forth, "Ah god, time and again, my doomed, my dearest friend, you would set before us a seasoned meal yourself, here in our tents, in your quick and expert way, when Argive forces rushed to fight the Trojans. stampeding those breakers of horses into rout. But now you lie before me, hacked to pieces here while the heart within me fasts from food and drink though stores inside are fuIlI'm sick with longing for you! There is no more shattering blow that I could suffer. [...]”

The Iliad, 19.372-382. Translation by Robert Fagles.

This role of Patroclus (in this case, serving Achilles and his guests) is mentioned in other texts, especially those that try to interpret this passage from Homer. Here are some examples, just because I find it intriguing to see sometimes what kind of analyses the ancients were interested in doing.

Concerning That Expression In Homer, ζωϱότεϱον δὲ ϰέϱαιε." NICERATUS, SOSICLES, ANTIPATER, PLUTARCH Some at the table were of opinion that Achilles talked nonsense when he bade Patroclus "mix the wine stronger," subjoining this reason, For now I entertain my dearest friends. But Niceratus a Macedonian, my particular acquaintance, maintained that ζωϱόν did not signify pure but hot wine; as if it were derived from ζωτιϰός and ζέσις (life-giving and boiling), and it were requisite at the coming of his friends to temper a fresh bowl, as every one of us in his offering at the altar pours out fresh wine. But Socicles the poet, remembering a saying of Empedocles, that in the great universal change those things which before were ἄϰϱατα, unmixed, should then be ζωϱά, affirmed that ζωϱόν there signified εὔϰϱατον, well tempered, and that Achilles might with a great deal of reason bid Patroclus provide well-tempered wine for the entertainment of his friends; and it was not absurd (he said) to use ζωϱότεϱον for ζωϱόν, any more than δεξιτεϱόν for δεξιόν, or ϑηλύτεϱον for ϑηλυ, for the comparatives are very properly put for the positives. My friend Antipater said that years were anciently called ὠϱοι, and that the particle ζα in composition signified greatness; and therefore old wine, that had been kept for many years, was called by Achilles ζωϱόν.

Moralia, Quaestiones Convivales, 5.4. Translation by William Watson Goodwin.

Again, Homer tells us what we are to do before we beg to eat, namely, we are to offer as first-fruits some of the food to the gods. At any rate, the men in the company of Odysseus, even when they were in the Cyclops's cave: 'Therefore" (they say) "we lighted a fire and offered sacrifice, and then we took ourselves and ate of the cheeses." And Achilles, although the envoys had come in haste in the mid-watches of the night, none the less "bade Patroclus, his companion, to offer sacrifice to the gods; and he lad first-offerings on the fire." Homer also shows us the feasters at least offering libations: "Young men filled the mixing-bowls to the brim with wine, and then measured it out to all, after they had poured the drink-offering into the cups. Then, when they had made libation. . . ." All of which Plato also retains in his symposium. For after the eating was over, he says that they offered libation and thanksgiving to the god with the customary honors. Similarly also Xenophon. But with Epicurus there is no libation, no preliminary offering to the gods; on the contrary, it is like what Simonides says of the lawless woman: "Oft times she eats up the offerings before they are consecrated."

Deipnosophists, 5.7. Translation by Charles Burton Gulick.

Battle/Body Count

Okay, I was actually going to start with Book 16 of The Iliad, but then I realized… ironically the first commonly caused death of Patroclus was accidental: Clysonymus. And the interesting part is: we don’t know how the hell this happened. People usually assume that Patroclus pushed him or something and I thought that too, but ironically there’s nothing that explicitly states the manner of death as far as I know. In fact, we don't even know what motivated Patroclus' anger... he lost and didn't accept it, Clysonimus cheated, was there some verbal provocation? We don't know. Anyway, maybe Patroclus was a hot-headed child? It’s not every day that you accidentally kill someone over a game after all… that’s not something that would happen commonly in a childish fight. Also, I think it's probably best if I mention that the Heroica excerpt shows Patroclus as a ghost and a cult figure, just to add context. Anyway, I'm going to count Clysonymus as the first kill, but that's not about battle prowess, since it was an accident and he was a child. It's just for the "Body Count" part.

“[...] But one thing more. A last request — grant it, please. Never bury my bones apart from yours, Achilles, let them lie together... just as we grew up together in your house, after Menoetius brought me there from Opois, and only a boy, but banished for bloody murder the day I killed Amphidarnas' son. I was a fool! — never meant to kill him — quarreling over a dice game. Then the famous horseman Peleus took me into his halls, he reared me with kindness, appointed me your aide. So now let a single urn, the gold two — handled urn your noble mother gave you, hold our bones — together!"

The Iliad, 23.99-110.Translation by Robert Fagles.

[...] 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.

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.

Scholia of Iliad. See here.

There is another possible first death of Patroclus, this being Las. This is because it happened when Patroclus was Helen's suitor, which makes more sense to have happened before his exile given the circumstances of the event. Why would such a exiled child be Helen's suitor? It doesn't make sense. Now someone with high status? It makes sense. Even though he was chronologically too young for Helen, he could have been betrothed until he came of age. This idea of Patroclus killing Las doesn’t seem to be a common version, and seems to be a speculation by Pausanias in my opinion. Despite saying that the local myth that Achilles killed Las is wrong because Achilles was never Helen's suitor and attributing it to Patroclus because he was one of the suitors (see Library 3.10.8 and Fabulae 81 as examples of this), Pausanias never explains how this happened or why. I mean, yeah, Patroclus was a suitor...but what about that? A lot of mythological male characters were. Grown men, even. Why Patroclus and not them? Is it because of his association with Achilles? Like, "hey, you guys thought it was Achilles, but it wasn't him. It was his dearest, duh"?

At a spot called Arainus is the tomb of Las with a statue upon it. The natives say that Las was their founder and was killed by Achilles, and that Achilles put in to their country to ask the hand of Helen of Tyndareus. In point of fact it was Patroclus who killed Las, for it was he who was Helen's suitor. We need not regard it as a proof that Achilles did not ask for Helen because he is not mentioned in the Catalogue of Women as one of her suitors.

Description of Greece, 3.24.10. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Honestly, I find the whole idea kind of funny because, chronologically, Achilles at this time was probably less than 10 years old and Patroclus wasn't much older. So this local legend indicates that the founder of the city was killed by a child. Sure, in Achilles' case I guess it could make sense because of the whole thing about him being stronger than the average human, but with Pausanias' assumption that it was Patroclus, an common mortal who was a child or at most a pre-teen, who killed Las... well, I imagine that this legend probably exists because being killed by Achilles would be a woah! way to die (after all, no one can judge you as weak for that since it's Achilles) and no one was really thinking about chronology as is typical of organic myths. As for the version with Patroclus, I think it exists because theoretically Achilles wasn’t Helen's suitor, and he was never even involved in the Oath of Tyndareus in the sources i’ve read. But we can't be absolutely sure if this was just Pausanias' deduction or if it was already a thought that others had and Pausanias repeated. In any case, it was a local tradition that hasn’t been widely spread.

And here you think: okay, now it's TROY! No, now it's the JOURNEY TO TROY! Ships, remember? Before Troy, the Achaeans fought against the Mysians, who were led by Telephus, a son of the famous Heracles. If you know the basics of this myth you already know that Telephus was wounded by Achilles and later had to be healed by him, but an interesting detail that Pindar mentions is that Patroclus “stood alone beside Achilles, when Telephus turned to flight the mighty Danaans”. There is no death caused by Patroclus stated here, but it fits as a battle feat I imagine. At least, in the Greek scholia there was a passage that was something like “to present to the wise man how Patroclus was equipped with courage”/”in order to present to the prudent man how Patroclus was distinguished by courage” in an improvised translation/”so that the wise man would know that Patroclus was brave, standing against Telephus” (see here and here).

[...] Menoetius, whose son went with the Atreidae to the plain of Teuthras, and stood alone beside Achilles, when Telephus turned to flight the mighty Danaans, and attacked their ships beside the sea, to reveal to a man of understanding. From that time forward, the son of Thetis exhorted him in deadly war never to post himself far from his own man-subduing spear.

Olympian Ode 9. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

This is also mentioned by Philostratus, although he adds Protesilaus as one of the prominent characters in the scene — the text of Heroica emphasizes Protesilaus in general, so this isn’t unexpected.

VINEDR: [...] Protesilaos said that he and Achilles together with Patroklos were arrayed against the Mysians [...]

Heroica, 689. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

And now it's Troy! In Book 16, Patroclus’s named deaths are:

(I’m using Robert Fagles’ translation as references for the localizations in parentheses)

Pyraechmes (337)

Areilycus (362)

Pronous (474)

Thestor (477)

Erylaus (490)

Amphotereus (495)

Erymas (495)

Epaltes (495)

Tlepolemus (496)

Echius (496)

Pyris (496)

Ipheus (497)

Euippus (497)

Polymelus (497)

Thrasymelus (550)

Sarpedon (578-579)

Sthenelaus (684)

Adrestus (812)

Autonous (812)

Echeclus (812)

Perimus (813)

Epistor (813)

Melanippus (813)

Elasus (814)

Mulius (814)

Pylartes (814)

Cebriones (860)

But Patroclus actually killed more people than that in his aristeia — moment when a character proves to be an aristo, that is, the best; basically, generally martial/warlike prominence of the character —, after all we still have these lines:

[…] and Patroclus charged the enemy, fired for the kill. Three times he charged with the headlong speed of Ares, screaming his savage cry, three times he killed nine men.

The Iliad, XVI, 911-913. Translation by Robert Fagles.

He attacked three times and each time killed nine men, resulting in twenty-seven unnamed deaths. This means that in Book 16, Patroclus killed a total of 54 men in a single battle. This is an impressive feat indeed, but I also have to be fair and not omit that Patroclus had Zeus’s divine aid — Diomedes, Achilles, Odysseus, Paris and other characters also had divine aid so nothing rare or that takes away the merit completely, but important to mention. Euphorbus and Hector also killed Patroclus with divine aid (Apollo and Zeus, hi! Many remember Apollo because he literally knocked Patroclus off the walls of Troy and literally stripped him of his armor, but Zeus also masterminded it!). Zeus didn't directly interfere like Aphrodite did with Paris and Apollo did with Hector, but Achilles made a libation to him and asked for two things 1) that Patroclus get glory 2) that Patroclus return safely, and the text says that Zeus accepted the first prayer and rejected the second...so I imagine he had some influence on Patroclus getting glory. And yes! Zeus both gave glory to Patroclus and was partly responsible for his death, but no, this wasn't Zeus being volatile! Suffice it to say, there was a whole context about balance, destiny, necessary things, etc.

Clearly the most notable of these deaths is Sarpedon, a demigod of Zeus. Not only is he the most prominent character of those Patroclus killed, he is generally Patroclus's most remembered feat in other texts. In a fragment attributed to Hesiod, we have a part related to Sarperdon. Although it doesn’t finish what is being said, it’s obviously about Patroclus’ aristeia and the death of Sarpedon:

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1358 fr. 1 (3rd cent. A.D.): “[…] Very greatly did he excel in war together with man-slaying Hector and brake down the wall, bringing woes upon the Danaans. But so soon as Patroclus had inspired the Argives with hard courage…“

Catalogues of Women, frag 19A. Translation by Evelyn-White, H G.

Pseudo-Apollodorus also mentions Sarpedon prominently, while the others are just “many”.

But when Achilles saw the ship of Protesilaus burning, he sent out Patroclus with the Myrmidons, after arming him with his own arms and giving him the horses. Seeing him the Trojans thought that he was Achilles and turned to flee. And having chased them within the wall, he killed many, amongst them Sarpedon, son of Zeus, and was himself killed by Hector, after being first wounded by Euphorbus.

Library, E.4.6. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Philostratus says that Patroclus never wore Achilles' armor. Yet Patroclus's deeds remain. The difference is that there is no Achilles' armor in the equation.

VINEDR: Not in the way that Homer when he depicted cities, stars, wars, fields, weddings, and songs, but the following is what Protesilaos says about it. The armor of Achilles has never been anything other than what he brought to Troy, neither was Achilles' armor ever destroyed, nor did Patroklos put it on because of Achilles' wrath. He says that Patroklos died in his own armor while distinguishing himself in battle and just grasping the wall, and the armor of Achilles remained inviolable and unassailable.

Heroica, 732. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

Tryphiodorus' poem, which is more like a summary to be honest, also chose this moment as one of the important ones to report:

[...] The Lycians wept for Sarpedon whom his mother, glorying in the bed of Zeus, had sent to Troy; howbeit he fell by the spear of Patroclus, son of Menoetius, and there was shed about him by his sire a mist that wept tears of blood. [...]

The Taking of Ilios. Translation by A.W. Mair.

What is told by Quintus Smyrnaeus occurs AFTER Patroclus's death, and therefore Patroclus isn’t really a character in Posthomerica/The Fall of Troy. However, he’s still mentioned. In one of these mentions, we have the fight against Sarpedon.

[...] So in their midst gave Thetis unto him a chariot and fleet steeds, which theretofore mighty Patroclus from the ranks of Troy drave, when he slew Sarpedon, seed of Zeus [...]

Posthomerica, Book 4. Translation by A.S. Way.

Clement of Alexandria, whose work also has a really specific context, at one point uses the death of Sarpedon by Patroclus as a kind of argument.

You have proof of all this in your mysteries themselves, in the solemn festivals, in fetters, wounds and weeping gods: "Woe, yea, woe be to me! that Sarpedon, dearest of mortals, doomed is to fall by the spear of Patroclus son of Menoetius." [Homer, Iliad 16.433] The will of Zeus has been overcome, and your supreme god, defeated, is lamenting for Sarpedon’s sake.

Exhortation to the Greeks, Book 4.Translation by G.W. Butterworth.

Dictys Cretensis, despite varying considerably from the most common version of the myth (for example, Patroclus doesn’t die on the same day that he kills Sarpedon), still presents Patroclus as being the one who kills Sarpedon.

In another part of the field Patroclus and Sarpedon the Lycian had withdrawn from their men and were trying to protect the flanks of their respective armies. Driving out beyond the battle lines, they challenged each other to fight in single combat. First, they threw their spears, but neither hit the mark. Then, leaping from their chariots and drawing their swords, they came face to face and fought for much of the day, exchanging blows fast and furious, but neither could wound the other. Finally, Patroclus, realizing that he must act with greater boldness, crouched behind the protection of his shield and came to close quarters. With his right hand he dealt Sarpedon a crippling blow along the back sinews of the leg and then, pressing his body against him – Sarpedon was faint and beginning to totter – pushed him over and finished him off as he fell.

Dictys Cretensis, Book 3. Translation by R.M. Frazer.

Hyginus — Fabulae has a lot of Greek myths adapted for a Roman audience, so I'm considering it — seems to be just repeating Homer. The descriptions of Patroclus’ attitudes follow The Iliad and he even says Patroclus killed 54 people, the same number of men he kills in Book 16 (see Fabulae, 106, 112, 114). The thing is: considering that the number is the same as in Book 16 of The Iliad, it seems to me that Hyginus was counting Patroclus' deaths in just one day and not actually the people he killed in the entire ten years of war — that number is still unknown.

There is a VERY unusual version of the myth in which the Trojan prince Paris is killed by both Achilles and Patroclus, and we know this because of Plutarch. This, of course, is an unusual version, since usually both Patroclus and Achilles die before Paris. Furthermore, Paris' death is usually caused by a poisoned arrow from the hero Philoctetes, a gift from Heracles to him, coupled with Paris’ rejected first wife Oenone's refusal to heal Paris after he had unjustly abandoned her in favor of beautiful Helen, which leads to his death. Plutarch finds this version dubious, and attributes it to Ister. I honestly find it surprising even for a variant, not only because for this to happen the myth would have to change drastically, but also because I genuinely cannot understand how the hell it would take two of them to kill Paris. Menelaus is weaker than Achilles and he single-handedly defeated Paris before Aphrodite intervened, after all. Incidentally, Hector is stronger than Menelaus and needed a lot of help to kill Patroclus and was killed by Achilles (who also received help, mind you. Athena, hi). Even Paris only killed Achilles because he had help from Apollo and some versions even mention only Apollo as the killer without mentioning Paris having any role (e.g. Sophocles' Philoctetes, Fabulae, Quintus' Posthomerica). In other words, it really doesn't make sense in my opinion. Anyway, I think it's fair to mention all versions, so here I am.

But a very peculiar and wholly divergent story about Aethra is given by Ister in the thirteenth book of his "Attic History." Some write, he says, that Alexander (Paris) was overcome in battle by Achilles and Patroclus in Thessaly, along the banks of the Spercheius, but that Hector took and plundered the city of Troezen, and carried p81 away Aethra, who had been left there. This, however, is very doubtful.

Life of Theseus, 34.2. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

There are other times when Patroclus's war skills are highlighted in texts, whether these texts are poems, plays, debates, etc.

Plutarch mentions the duality of Patroclus' character at one point in the text, mentioning how he had a calm personality and yet was able to do what he did in his aristeia. For context: the phrase mentioned by Plutarch is a reference to what Patroclus says to Hector before he dies — thus, Book 16 of The Iliad —, claiming that Hector only defeated him with divine help from Apollo and Zeus and that, otherwise, several of him still wouldn't be enough.

[...] 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." [...]

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

In Philostratus' text, Patroclus' warrior skill is emphasized. For example, at one point, the character Vinedr uses Patroclus along with Diomedes and Ajax as examples of good warriors.

VINEDR: [...] As a fighter, he would not have been inferior in any way to Diomedes, Patroklos, or the lesser Ajax.

Heroica, 675. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

When speaking about the importance of Telephus, son of Heracles, in Mysia, Vinedr once again uses Diomedes and Patroclus as references for heroes celebrated alongside the Aiakidai — the descendants of the judge of the dead Aeacus, son of the nymph Aegina and the Olympian Zeus; for example, Achilles, a descendant on the side of Peleus, of whom Aeacus is the father with Endeis being the mother.

VINEDR: [...] Just as the Achaeans celebrated in song the Aiakidai and heroes as renowned as Diomedes and Patroklos, so the Mysians sang the names of Telephos and Haimos, son of Ares. [...]

Heroica, 688. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

Both Patroclus and Big Ajax are described as “excellent fighting machines” by Palamedes. And of course, you may remember Palamedes from the Epic Cycle, but I want to clarify that Philostratus writes Palamades in a positive light as opposed to Odysseus, who he writes in a negative light. So in this case, Palamades is a pretty reliable figure.

VINEDR: [...] When Palamedes sailed back to the encampment and reported the events of the expedition, ascribing everything to Achilles, he said he said, "King, are you ordering me to attack the walls of Troy? I believe the Aiakidai, both the son of Kapaneus and the son of Tydeus, the Locrians, and, of course, Patroklos and Ajax are excellent fighting machines. But if you also need lifeless fighting machines, believe Troy already lies within my control." [...]

Heroica, 714. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

In the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, there is an explanation of a proverb about the descendants of the nymph Aegina, supposedly in reference to their having been better in the past. Among the said descendants of Aegina who were better in the past, Patroclus is listed. Thus, Patroclus is an example of “excellent youth”.

Translated headword: at first Aegina brought forth excellent youths [...] Translation: A proverb. For at its peak, they say, the Aeginetans changed for the worse from [sc the days] of Achilles, Patroclus, Aias [and] Neoptolemus]. Greek Original: *ta\ prw=t' a)ri/stous pai=das *ai)/gin' e)ktre/fei: paroimi/a. e)n a)kmh=| ga/r, fasi/, metaba/llousin e)pi\ to\ xei=ron oi( *ai)ginh=tai a)po\ *)axille/ws, *patro/klou, *ai)/antos, *neoptole/mou.

Suda, tau.109. Translation by David Whitehead.

Patroclus' association with Aegina occurs in more than one way (Hesiod says that Menoetius was the brother of Peleus, whose grandmother Aegina is. See Catalogues of Women, frag 61. Pindar says that Menoetius is the son of Aegina and Actor. See Olympian Ode, 9.50. A scholia of Pindar says that Menoetius is the son of Actor by Damocratia, daughter of Aegina and Zeus and thus Aeacus’ sister. See here. An improvised translation would be something like: “And Pythenetus (FHG IV, 487) says that, having come together with Zeus, Aegina gave birth to Aeacus and Damocratia, whom Actor was to marry in Thessaly and to bear Menoetius; afterwards, however, he went to Opuntia... for he was a relative of the Locrian.”), and the Suda doesn’t specify which version it’s using when it says this.

In the comedy Frogs, Aristophanes has Aeschylus claim that he composed “many great feats of valor,” and he gives Patroclus and Teucer as examples (see Frogs). Sure, you might think, “Since when did Aeschylus write anything about those two?” but in that case, we should remember that many of Aeschylus’ plays are lost. It’s possible that Aristophanes was referring to real plays. For example, judging by the titles of some of the lost plays, it’s been theorized that he may have written a trilogy centered around the suicide of Ajax, which would likely have included Teucer as a character. And one of the lost trilogies concerned Achilles, including the character Patroclus. Patroclus was already dead, since the first play entitled Myrmidons is about Achilles’ mourning, but it shows that at least Aeschylus didn’t ignore Patroclus. So perhaps it makes sense that Aristophanes chose Patroclus and Teucer, because Aeschylus probably actually wrote about such characters.

The bucolic poet Theocritus uses Patroclus as one of the comparisons to exalt Adonis. It seems random, but it will make more sense if you read the complete text. The characteristic attributed to Patroclus is bravery, which is probably linked to the war scenario.

[...] And blosoms bare all shining fair will raise this shrilling lay; �� “O sweet Adonis, none but thee of the children of Gods and men ‘Twixt overworld and underworld doth pass and pass agen; That cannot Agamemnon, nor the Lord o’ the Woeful Spleen, Nor the first of the twice-ten children15 that came of the Trojan queen, Nor Patroclus brave, nor Pyrrhus bold that home from the war did win, Nor none o’ the kith o’ the old Lapith nor of them of Deucalion’s kin – E’en Pelops line lacks fate so fine, and Pelasgian Argos’ pride. Adonis sweet, Adonis dear, be gracious for another year; Thou’rt welcome to thine own alwáy, and welcome we’ll both cry to-day and next Adonis-tide.”

Idyll XV, 134-144. Translation by J.M. Edmonds.

In one of Pindar's odes, he writes about the victorious boxer Hagesidamus and his mentor Ilas, comparing them to Patroclus and Achilles. This comparison has opened up room for possible interpretation, with some people interpreting the passage as indicating that, similar to Hagesidamus and Ilas, Patroclus and Achilles were also capable boxers. However, Pindar could also simply have intended to use Patroclus and Achilles as a model of a relationship to be compared with Hagesidamus and Ilas.

[...] let Hagesidamus, victorious as a boxer at Olympia, offer thanks to Ilas, just as Patroclus did to Achilles. [...]

Olympian Ode 10. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

The only other time I remember Patroclus and boxing appearing in the same scenario is in relation to his Funeral Games, where boxing was one of the sports. Now, that doesn't mean Patroclus liked boxing, just that it was one of the sports. There was also an archery competition and I don't remember any source associating Patroclus with archery, for example.

Ghost

You see, we know that in The Iliad the ghost of Patroclus appears briefly only to ask Achilles to give him the funeral rites, otherwise he will be unable to enter Hades and, consequently, find rest. This, mind you, is not an ability of Patroclus, just a side effect of being a dead without rites. He isn’t even the only one to do this, as seen in Euripides’ Hecuba with Polydorus. However, this is not the only time a source shows the ghost of Patroclus in action.

In Heroica, Patroclus' ghost is able to manifest at will. This is because of Patroclus' status as a worshipped hero, as these regional cults were characterized by the belief that the hero could manifest himself either at the place of worship or at his tomb, and sometimes both were the same place. Since Philostratus, the writer, was concerned with representing the Homeric heroes as closely as possible to their cult figures, it makes sense that he would write this type of scene. Patroclus manifested his presence to break up a fight, using his own regret for accidentally killing Clysonimus as an argument.

VINEDR: The events in the Pontus, my guest, if you have not yet sailed to it, and all those things that he is said to do on the island there I shall tell you [....] 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. Since we inhabit the banks of the Hellespont's outlets, we are in close contact with each other, and, as you see, we have turned the sea into a river. [...]

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

In the cities of the Black Sea/Euxine Pontus there was a cult of Achilles, who was given the name Achilles Pontarches to represent his role, since Pontarches meant something like “he who commands the sea” and Achilles was worshipped as the protector of sailors and provider of water. And what does this have to do with Patroclus, you ask? Well, this cult is associated with the myth in which Achilles is transported to a sacred island called Leuke after death instead of going to the Underworld, first attested in the lost epic Aethiopis. And although this epic doesn’t mention Patroclus going there, later sources, such as Pausanias, list Patroclus as a figure present at Leuke. In the Roman period, Arrian traveled through the region and, visiting places and speaking with locals, described characteristics of the cult. Among the characteristics, he said that Patroclus was also worshiped in the region and that his ghost even communicated with the residents.

[...] Some are in praise of Patroclus, whom those, who are disposed to honour Achilles, treat with equal respect. [...] They even say further, that Achilles has appeared to them not in time of sleep, or a dream, but in a visible form on the mast, or at the extremity of the yards, in the same manner as the Dioscuri have appeared. This distinction however must be made between the appearance of Achilles, and that of the Dioscuri, that the latter appear evidently and clearly to persons, who navigate the sea at large, and when so seen foretell a prosperous voyage; whereas the figure of Achilles is seen only by such as approach this island. Some also say, that Patroclus has appeared to them during their sleep. [...]

Arrian’s Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. Translation by William Falconer.

#Ask #Louiseeh #Patroclus #Birdiethings #Birdie.txt

8 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 5 months ago

Text

PERSEUS & CIA (PART 1)

Part 2 here!

This post is basically me gathering information about the myths of Perseus and, by extension, Danae, Andromeda and Medusa. I like these characters from what I've seen superficially, so this was basically just me trying to get to know them better. I actually started writing this in a doc for myself, because it would be easier for me to compare the versions, but I decided to post it in case anyone else was as curious as I was. First of all, a few details:

The sources aren’t in chronological order, but rather in order of which source I remembered to write about here first precisely because I had not initially written it with the intention of posting it.

By “alternative myth” I mean myths that actually change the situation a lot, not variants that are just details. I think most of them are rationalized versions, but there are a few others that I considered alternatives as well. One of them includes Proetus as Perseus’ father (pretty obvious why I considered it a variant), another has Athena as the motivation for Medusa’s death (only because Pseudo-Apollodorus, at least in the translation I read, writes it as if it were a different version than Polydectes’ and not a version with an extra detail), and another has Perseus fighting Dionysus (not because it’s a very late version, although it really is, but because it seems really lost in terms of chronology when compared to the more usual myth).

Since I know people are especially sensitive about Greek vs. Roman myth when it comes to the Perseus myth, let me be clear: in this post, I am talking about Greek sources, not Roman sources. I do, however, consider later Greek sources, whether from the Roman or Byzantine period, and they can certainly be influenced by Roman versions. But since they were clearly used by Greeks at some point, I genuinely don't see why I should disregard them. Furthermore, there are three Roman sources here. Fabulae and Astronomica, attributed to Hyginus, will be considered because they explicitly relate Greek myths, the author even credits the version he is talking about. The other is a book by Aelianus, and you will understand why. Other than that, there are no other Roman sources. The reason is that I don’t know enough about Rome.

I'm not a historian, classicist or anything like that. It's just a hobby. So yeah, I can be mistaken.

I'm not fluent in English, which might be obvious in a long post like this.

DANAE

Family

Danae is the daughter of Acrisius, king of Argos (this is constant) with Eurydice, daughter of Lacedaemon or Eurotas, or with Aganippe.

Danae was the daughter of Acrisius and Aganippe. [...]

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

[2.2.2] And Acrisius had a daughter Danae by Eurydice, daughter of Lacedaemon [...]

Library, 2.2.2. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

[...] Acrisius, the king of the Argives, and Eurydice, the daughter of Eurotas, had a daughter named Danae. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Pseudo-Apollodorus' version is inspired by Hesiod's version.

Apollodorus, ii. 2.1.4: Acrisius was king of Argos and Proetus of Tiryns. And Acrisius had by Eurydice the daughter of Lacedemon, Danae; and Proetus by Stheneboea "Lysippe and Iphinoe and Iphianassa'. And these fell mad, as Hesiod states, because they would not receive the rites of Dionysus.

Catalogues of Women, frag 18. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Confinement and Zeus

Well, the first mention we have of Zeus and Danae having Perseus is in the Iliad, when Hera seduces Zeus in order to give Poseidon time to intervene in the Trojan War on behalf of the Achaeans. In this scene, Zeus gives a long speech listing several of his lovers/victims in a sort of "none of these many women I've cheated on you with have ever aroused my desire as much as you have." One of those mentioned is Danae, daughter of Acrisius, and there are no more details about her.

[...] not when I loved Acrisius' daughter Danaё — marvelous ankles — and Perseus sprang to life and excelled all men alive. [...]

The Iliad, 14.383-384. Translation by Robert Fagles

Pindar mentions Perseus as the son of Danae conceived in a spontaneous shower of gold.

[..] Perseus, the son of Danae, who they say was conceived in a spontaneous shower of gold [...]

Pythian Ode 12. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

In Sophocles' Antigone, the Chorus says that the beautiful Danae was confined in a “chamber” with “brass-bound walls”, but this didn’t stop Zeus, as he impregnated her in the form of golden rain.

So too endured Danae in her beauty to change the light of the sky for brass-bound walls, and in that chamber, both burial and bridal, she was held in strict confinement. And yet was she of esteemed lineage, my daughter, and guarded a deposit of the seed of Zeus that had fallen in a golden rain.

Antigone. Translation by Sir Richard Jebb.

In Lycophron's Alexandra, Perseus is referred by Cassandra as “the eagle son of the golden Sire”, which refers to both Perseus being the son of Zeus and the fact that this pregnancy happened because of a golden rain.

[...] the eagle son of the golden Sire – a male with winged sandals [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

The scholia of this poem by Ioannis Tzetzes tells how Acrisius heard from an oracle that he would be killed by the son of Danae and therefore locked her in an iron chamber so that she would remain a virgin. Zeus, however, impregnated her in the form of golden rain.

[...] The story goes like this: Acrisius, the king of the Argives, and Eurydice, the daughter of Eurotas, had a daughter named Danae. Acrisius, her father, having made an iron chamber, locked her up so that she would remain a virgin in this way: for he had heard from an oracle that he would be killed by her offspring. Zeus, as they say, turned himself into gold and, having poured through a hole, mingled with her and she conceived Perseus in her womb. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Hyginus says that there was a prophecy saying that Acrisius would die at the hands of his daughter's son. This caused him to confine Danae to a "stone-walled prison". Danae still gave birth to Perseus, because Zeus — here Jove, as Hyginus tells the myths to a Roman audience — impregnated her in the form of a golden rain.

[...] A prophecy about her said that the child she bore would kill Acrisius, and Acrisius, fearing this, shut her in a stone-walled prison. But Jove, changing into a shower of gold, lay with Danae, and from this embrace Perseus was born. [...]

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

Diodorus Siculus says that Perseus was the son of Danae and Zeus, but he doesn't give any details. Some other sources do the same as Diodorus and Homer (that is, indicate Perseus' genealogy without giving any details), and I won't mention those here because, well, you get the idea. I'll focus on the ones that mention the golden rain.

This, then, is the story as it has been given us: Perseus was the son of Danaê, the daughter of Acrisius, and Zeus. [...]

Library of History, 4.9.1. Translation by C.H. Oldfather.

Pseudo-Apollodorus says that Acrisius asked the oracle about when he would have sons, and instead received the prophecy that his daughter's son would kill him. Acrisius then decided to imprison Danae in a bronze tower to prevent her from getting pregnant, which didn’t work because Zeus impregnated her in the form of golden rain.

[2.4.1] When Acrisius inquired of the oracle how he should get male children, the god said that his daughter would give birth to a son who would kill him. Fearing that, Acrisius built a brazen chamber under ground and there guarded Danae.[...] but some say that Zeus had intercourse with her in the shape of a stream of gold which poured through the roof into Danae's lap. [...]

Library, 2.4.1. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Euripides wrote a lost play entitled Danae, which dealt with this theme. I will not include translations of the fragments as it would be too long, so I’ll stick with the summary by the editors and translators Christopher Collard and Martin Cropp. But from what I read, there were lines from Acrisius commenting on having children and the difference between sons and daughers, Danae (this one is debatable) commenting on social injustices (more specifically, related to money), Hermes summarizing the situation and the Chorus, as typical, responding to the characters. The Chorus here is female.

DANAE, APPENDIX: F 1132 This extraordinary confection has a disputed bearing on the plot and reconstruction of the authentic play. The play opening (vv. 1-65) has been dated almost certainly to the 5th-6th c. A.D. on grounds of its style and versification, but there is an unresolved argument about the origin, and therefore credibility, of the hypothesis' that precedes it; this is very similar to the narrative in Lucian 78.12 telling how the Nereids rescued the chest containing Danae and the infant Perseus. W. Luppe, ZPE 87 (1991),1-7 and 95 (1993), 65-9 argues that it goes back to the "Tales from Euripides' (see General Introduction). H. Van Looy does not expressly dissent (ed. Budé VIII.2.55-8), but R. Kannicht, ZPE 90 (1992), 33-4 and TrGF 5.1030 maintains that its detail indeed derives from Lucian and cannot safely be used in reconstructing Euripides' play. DANAE Hypothesis of Danae: Acrisius a king of Argos, responding (as he would) to some oracle, shut up his daughter Danae in her maiden's quarters and kept watch on her; she was very beautiful. Zeus fell in love with her, and as he had no way of having intercourse with her, he changed himself into gold and poured through the roof into the maiden's embrace, and made her pregnant. When her time came, Danae gave birth to a child, Perseus. On learning this Acrisius put both mother and baby into a chest, and ordered it thrown into the sea. The Nereids saw this and, from pity at what had happened, put the chest into the nets of fishermen of Seriphos; and then the mother was saved together with her baby, which when it reached manhood was named Perseus. Characters of the play: Hermes, Danae, Nurse, Acrisius, Messenger, Chorus, Athena.

One new element is that during Hermes' summary, we get more details about Danae. Here it’s made explicit that not only did she have no idea that the golden rain was Zeus impregnating her, but she was also completely frightened when she learned of the pregnancy. She tried to escape safely from Argos, fearing Acrisius's reaction, but was discovered and so Acrisius, enraged, had her imprisoned to watch her. Here Danae apparently wasn’t confined when Zeus impregnated her, but was confined after she was impregnated. Judging by certain fragments, Acrisius apparently thinks that it was a mortal man who did this.

Sophocles wrote a play entitled Acrisius, sometimes considered to be the same as his other lost play entitled Danae (some plays had double names. But it is debatable whether this is the case with Danae and Acrisius, and the book I am using as a reference considers the plays separately), which seemed to deal with this subject. According to Ioanna Karamanou, the surviving fragments depict Acrisius as being quite afraid of something, most likely the prophecy of his death, and there are also fragments that point to a conflict between Danae and her father. Furthermore, Perseus is never mentioned, although there is a certain term used that may denote the idea of conception, although this could simply refer to Danae's pregnancy and does not necessarily indicate that Perseus was born. Indeed, it may even refer to Danae's hypothetical pregnancy, prophesied by the oracle. Terms associated with walls are theorized to refer to the brazen chamber (as the term used also has associations with metals) in which Danae was confined.

On the other hand, Sophocles' lost play Danae, which Karamanou believes to be a different play from the lost Acrisius, explicitly refers to Perseus in a passage that likely shows Acrisius rejecting Danae's claim that she was a victim of sexual abuse and therefore the pregnancy is not her fault. Karamanou theorizes that Acrisius was about the prophecy and the moments before Danae's actual confinement — references to the chamber in this context would be Acrisius planning —, while Danae was possibly about the confinement, the pregnancy, and the her and Perseus being thrown into the sea inside a chest.

According to the Byzantine Encyclopedia Suda, the comic poet Sannyrion is said to have written a work entitled Danae.

Athenian, comic poet. These are his plays: Laughter, Danae, Io, Coolers in the Shade; according to Athenaeus in Deipnosphistai.

Suda, sigma,93. Translation by David Whitehead.

Karamanou commented on a surviving fragment as follows: “presents someone as trying to change form, in order to sneak into somewhere [...] a reasonable assumption is that this character could be Zeus, trying to transform himself, in order to reach and seduce Danae. Fr.10 K.-A. of the same play praises the maiden's beauty” (pg 13).

She also mentioned that the classical poet Eubulus wrote a lost play also entitled Danae. A surviving fragment is a speech by Danae and is possibly a paratragic lament in lyric iambics. In academia, it’s widely theorized that Danae is referring to her rape by Zeus, which wouldn’t be unusual since Greek comedies had rape as a common theme. She also says: "In even more specific terms, these lines could be paralleled to the description of Pamphile's reaction to her rape in Menander's Epitrepontes". Therefore, Danae here would be having a common action of maidens in comedy.

And finally:

The title Chrysochoos of Diphilus' play ('one who pours in as gold', which may well connote Zeus' transformation), in conjunction with fr. 85 K.-A. presenting someone as peeping at a pretty girl from the smoke-hole (for lovers sneaking into women's chambers from the smokehole, cf. Xenarchus' Pentathlos fr. 4.11 K.-A.), could suggest that the play was a burlesque of Danae's seduction by Zeus. Comic illustrations of Zeus as secret lover, as that depicted on a phlyax-vase in the Vatican, also point in this direction.64 The theme of Danae's seduction by Zeus transformed into golden shower was a source of artistic inspiration, as emerges from fifth and fourth-century iconography (LIMC s.v. 'Danae' figg. 1-12, 24-31). In literature from the end of the fourth century onwards (starting with Menander's Samia, cf. T6 and note ad loc.), this subject became proverbial.

Euripides Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary, by Iaonna Karamanou, pg 14.

This myth has also been represented in visual art, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Alternative myth

Pseudo-Apollodorus mentions a rare version in which Perseus' father is Proetus, twin brother of Acrisus and therefore uncle of Danae. His seducing Danae caused the brothers to have a quarrel.

[...] However, she was seduced, as some say, by Proetus, whence arose the quarrel between them [...]

Library, 2.4.1. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Journey

In one part of Apollonius Rhodius' poem, Arete mentions that Danae had to endure hardships at sea because of her father. She says this to her husband, Alcinous, in order to sensitize him to the cause of the Argonauts after being convinced by Medea to help them.

“[...] What woes did Danae endure on the wide sea through her sire's mad rage! [...]”

Argonautica, Book 4. Translation by R.C. Seaton.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Danae gave birth to Perseus after being impregnated by Zeus in the form of a golden rain. When Acrisius found out, he didn’t believe that the father of the child was Zeus and put both daughter and grandson in a chest and threw them into the sea. The chest reached Seriphus, where Dictys found them and raised Perseus.

[2.4.1] [...] When Acrisius afterwards learned that she had got a child Perseus, he would not believe that she had been seduced by Zeus, and putting his daughter with the child in a chest, he cast it into the sea. The chest was washed ashore on Seriphus, and Dictys took up the boy and reared him.

Library, 2.4.1. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Although Pausanias doesn’t describe the myth in detail, he does mention a temple in which Dictys and his wife, Clytemene, were honored as saviors of Perseus. It’s therefore possible to deduce that this is the typical version in which Dictys finds the chest. Furthermore, this Clytemene doesn’t seem to be a very frequent character in the other surviving sources.

[2.18.1] By the side of the road from Mycenae to Argos there is on the left hand a hero-shrine of Perseus. The neighboring folk, then, pay him honors here, but the greatest honors are paid to him in Seriphus and among the Athenians, who have a precinct sacred to Perseus and an altar of Dictys and Clymene, who are called the saviours of Perseus. [...]

Description of Greece, 2.18.1. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

According to Tzetzes, Acrisius discovered that Danae was pregnant and waited for her to give birth. After Perseus was born, Acrisius put both his daughter and grandson in a wooden chest and threw them into the sea. The chest arrived in Seriphus, where Poseidon's demigod Polydectes reigned. His brother, Dictys, then treated Perseus as a son and took care of Danae.

[...] When her father learned of this, he waited for her to give birth and, having put her and the baby in a wooden chest, he threw them into the sea, which carried them to the island of Seriphos, one of the Cyclades, where Polydectes, the son of Poseidon and Cerebia, ruled. Polydectes had a brother named Dictys, who treated Perseus as his own son and took care of Danae. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Strabo says that Perseus and Danae were found by Dictys.

And there is Seriphos, the scene of the mythical story of Dictys, who with his net drew to land the chest in which were enclosed Perseus and his mother Danae, who had been sunk in the sea by Acrisius the father of Danae; for Perseus was reared there [...]

Geography, 10.5.10. Translation by H. L. Jones.

This myth has also been represented in visual art, for example: 1, 2, 3.

Alternative myth

According to Hyginus, one version tells that when Acrisius found out about Perseus, he put his daughter and grandson in a chest and threw it into the sea. But they didn’t die because Zeus made sure the two arrived safely at Seriphus, where the fisherman Dictys found them. Danae married Polydectes, king of Seriphus, and he raised Perseus in the temple of Athena. The “alternative” part of this myth is precisely that Polydectes isn’t an antagonist, as is usual.

[...] Because of her sin her father shut her up in a chest with Perseus and cast it into the sea. By Jove's will it was borne to the island of Seriphos, and when the fisherman Dictys found it and broke it open, he discovered the mother and child. He took them to King Polydectes, who married Danae and brought up Perseus in the temple of Minerva. [...]

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

Aeschylus wrote a satirical version entitled The Net-Draggers which dealt with the rescue of Danae and Perseus, although the play is lost. I am including it as an alternative simply because I am not sure how much the satirical tone of the play interfered with the plot. The presence of satyrs is certainly an unusual element of the Perseus myth, although typical of satires. It was originally part of a trilogy by Aeschylus which was entirely about the Perseus myth, the other two plays being The Phorcydes and Polydectes.

One of the surviving fragments appears to be of Dictys discovering the chest. There are theories that the person he’s talking to may have been a slave. It’s also theorized that Dictys had help from satyrs.

?—Can you see . . .? DICTYS. —I can see. . . . ? —What do you want me to look out for? . . . DICTYS. —In case anywhere . . . in the sea. . . . —Not a sign; so far as I can see, the sea’s a mill-pond. DICTYS. —Look now at the crannies of the cliffs by the shore. ? —All right, I’m looking. . . . Good Lord, what am I to call this! Is it a monster of the sea that meets my eyes, a grampus or a shark or a whale? Lord Poseidon and Zeus of the deep, a fine gift to send up from the sea . . .! DICTYS. —What gift of the sea does your net conceal? It’s covered with seaweed like. . . . Is it some warm-blooded creature? Or has the Old Man of the Islands sent us something in a chest? How tremendously heavy it is! the work’s not going ahead! I’ll shout and raise an alarm. HALLO THERE! Farmers and ditchers, this way, all of you! Herdsmen and shepherds, anyone in the place! Coastal folk and all you other toilers of the sea!...

The Net-Draggers, fragment 274. Translation by Hugh Lloyd-Jones.

Another fragment shows an interaction between Danae and an uncertain person, although this translator (and most translators, from what I have noticed) have gone with the possible assumption that it may have been the god Silenus. Danae is asking for divine help and trying to obtain protection. Perseus doesn’t has lines, as he’s still too young.

SILENUS. [765] . . . I call upon . . . and the gods to witness what I now proclaim to the whole company. But whatever you do, don’t rush recklessly away from us; understand at last and accept me as a most kindly protector and supporter. Why, look, the boy is greeting me with friendly words, as he would his respected grandmother. Won’t he always be the same towards me, as time goes on? DANAË [773] Rivers of Argos and gods of my fathers, and you, Zeus, who bring my ordeal to such an end! Will you give me to these beasts, so that they may outrage me with their savage onslaughts, or so that I endure in captivity the worst of tortures? Anyhow, I shall escape. Shall I then knot myself a noose, applying a desperate remedy against this torture, so that no one may put me to sea again, neither a lascivious beast nor a father? No, I am afraid to! Zeus, send me some help in this plight, I beg you! for you were guilty of the greater fault, but it is I who have paid the full penalty. I call upon you to set things right! You have heard all I have to say. CHORUS. [786] Look, the little one is smiling sweetly as he looks on his shining raddled bald pate. . . . Qualis vero amator mentularum est hic pusillus!

[SILENUS.] [788] . . . if I don’t rejoice in the sight of you. Damnation take Dictys, who is trying to cheat me of this prize behind my back! [To Perseus.] Come here, my dearie! [He makes chuckling noises.] Don’t be frightened! Why are you whimpering? Over here to my sons, so that you can come to my protecting arms, dear boy—I’m so kind—, and you can find pleasure in the martens and fawns and the young porcupines, and can make a third in bed with your mother and with me your father. And daddy shall give, the little one his fun. And you shall lead a healthy life, so that one day, when you’ve grown strong, you yourself—for your father’s losing his grip on his fawn-killing footwork—you yourself shall catch beasts without a spear, and shall give them to your mother for dinner, after the fashion of her husband’s family, amongst whom you’ll be earning your keep. CHORUS [821] Come now, dear fellows, let us go and hurry on the marriage, for the time is ripe for it and without words speaks for it. Why, I see that already the bride is eager to enjoy our love to the full. No wonder: she spent a long time wasting away all lonely in the ship beneath the foam. Well, now that she has before her eyes our youthful vigour, she rejoices and exults; such is the bridegroom that by the bright gleam of Aphrodite’s torches. . . .

The Net-Draggers, fragment, 275. Translation by Hugh Lloyd-Jones.

On the Theoi website, which is linked above, you can check Lloyd-Jones' translation note for more details, as the status of this play is really uncertain. I looked for a possible summary and found this one by Patrick O'Sullivan, in which he mentions the possibility of Silenos and the chorus acting as foster-parents for the baby Perseus and comments that apparently in academia this play is seen as having a more light-hearted mood (although Sullivan argues otherwise):

The story of Danae and her son Perseus on Seriphos, where they are initially rescued by Dictys only to be his molested by his brother Polydectes, appeared in Greek lyric, tragedy, and comedy. Aeschylus’ satyric handling of the story has been read as a light-hearted, romantic romp with Silenos and the chorus acting as benign foster-parents to the infant hero. But Aeschylus gives Silenos and the chorus of satyrs a more menacing identity than they generally had in other plays of this genre. Silenos can be seen as the comical counterpart of Polydectes, and appears to have the full support of his sons, something he clearly does not enjoy in other satyric dramas. The satyrs of the chorus stand in contrast to the often more sympathetic, if clownish, creatures they can be elsewhere. Diktyoulkoi contains elements typical of satyr drama, but in paradoxical ways not without moments of pathos.

Aeschylus Dictyulci: A Typically Atypical Satyr Play?, by Patrick O’Sullivan, pg 1.

MEDUSA

Family

According to Hesiod, the goddess Ceto and the ancient sea god Phorcys had three gorgon daughters named Sthenno, Euryale, and Medusa. Of the sisters, only Medusa was mortal.

And again, Ceto bare to Phorcys [...] the Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night where are the clear-voiced Hesperides, Sthenno, and Euryale, and Medusa who suffered a woeful fate: she was mortal, but the two were undying and grew not old. [...]

Theogony. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Medusa's genealogy as the daughter of Ceto and Phorcys is followed by most surviving sources, although Hyginus gives an apparently different mother named Gorgon.

From Phorcus and Ceto: Phorcides Pemphredo, Enyo and Persis (for this last others say Dino). From Gorgon and Ceto, Sthenno, Euryale, Medusa. [...]

Fabulae, 9. Translation by Mary Grant.

Besides the Gorgons, Medusa had other possible siblings:

According to Hesiod in Theogony, Echidna, the monstrous wife of the monstrous Thyphon, was also the daughter of Ceto and Phorcys. Pseudo-Apollodorus (Library, 2.1.2) and Pausanias (Description of Greece, 8.18.2), however, offer different genealogies. I was left with the impression that in the case of Echidna, her children are better documented than her parents. Of Medusa's sisters, Echidna is the least commonly considered a sister. He also says that Ladon, the dragon/serpent responsible for guarding the apples of the nymphs daughters of Atlas Hesperides, is their son although other sources indicate other parents.

Although many today remember the myth in which Scylla was a nymph who was transformed into a monster by the sorceress Circe (Fabulae, 199) or by the Nereid Amphitrite (Ad Lycophronem, 46), both motivated by jealousy of Glaucus/Poseidon's interest in Scylla, the older versions simply have Scylla being born a monster. Homer says that Scylla is the daughter of Krataiis, who may be identified with Ceto, and doesn’t mention any transformation. In fact, Circe says that "She is the mother of Skylla and bore this mischief for mortals", which honestly seems to imply that she was born a monster (The Odyssey, XII.125. Lattimore translation). In Book 4 of Argonautica, Apollonius Rhodius says that Scylla is the daughter of Krataiis — here explicitly identified with Hecate — and Phorcys and there is no mention of her being transformed. A fragment of Acusilaus also says that Scylla is the daughter of Hecate (fragment 27). In another version given by Hyginus, Scylla is the daughter of Echidna and Thypon, both monsters with several monstrous children (Fabulae, 151). Some scholias give other relationships for Scylla, such as Lamia as her mother — a sea monster, which strongly implies that Scylla was born a monster —, Triton or Poseidon as her fathers. Pseudo-Apollodorus claims that Scylla's mother is Krataiis, who is perhaps identified with Crete, known for giving birth to monsters, with Teneis or Phorcus/Phorcys (Library, E.7.20). Overall, the most commonly attributed father of Scylla is Phorcys, who with the exception of the nymph Thoosa only has grotesque or ugly creatures attributed as children. Even considering Poseidon as her father doesn’t negate the possibility of her being born a monster, since from his relationship with the nymph Thossa the cyclops Polyphemos was born. The most common mother is Krataiis, who maybe can be either Ceto or Hecate depending on the version. If it’s Ceto, well, she’s also known for giving birth to monsters. In Hyginus' transformation version, the name Krateiis/Crataeis is given to a male being and not a female one as is usual, this being a river god who is the father of Scylla. Scylla's particularly monstrous genealogy coupled with the evident absence of mention of transformation in older sources and the fact that such mention only occurs in later sources — Hyginus is from the Roman period, Tzetzes is Byzantine — give me the impression that Scylla, similar to Medusa, in earlier sources was born a monster and later received a tradition in which she was transformed into one. In any case, she was usually at least Medusa's half-sister on her father's side. In any case, choose the version you prefer.

According to Homer in The Odyssey, the nymph Thoosa was the daughter of Phorcys. The mother wasn’t mentioned, but this makes her at least Medusa's half-sister. She’s also the only one never to have been considered monstrous or grotesque, although she did give birth to one: the cyclops Polyphemus, son of the god Poseidon.

Finally, the sisters most associated with the Gorgons: the Graiai/Graeae, also called Phorcides/Phorkydes. They were often daughters of Phorcys (as the name "Phorcides" itself indicates) and, in the sources where their mother was mentioned, the mother was Ceto. They were usually old women who shared one tooth and one eye between the three. Hesiod in the Theogony, however, speaks of only two rather than three. Aeschylus describes them as resembling swans, although it’s uncertain whether this is literal or just figurative (Prometheus Bound). Hesiod describes them in a way that suggests a beautiful appearance and some visual representations depict them as young women, but they were more commonly blind, toothless old women. They also have a role in the myth of Perseus. Their names also seem to indicate this, as the collective name Graiai seems to relate to old age while the proper names usually given to the sisters probably denote frightening characteristics.

Medusa was generally depicted as having a monstrous appearance, including in the earliest source of her, the Theogony from Archaic Greece. However, there is evidence that in Classical Greece there was a version of the myth in which Medusa didn’t have a hideous appearance. Pindar, for example, describes her as “beautiful Medusa” in Diane Arnson Svarlien’s translation, and I've seen a translation in which it was "fair-cheeked Medusa" and this description also denotes feminine beauty (Pythian Ode, 12.1). Furthermore, some visual representations from Ancient Greece show a woman who isn’t a grotesque monster (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. There is also a ceramic one in The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, although it’s unfortunately rare to find on sites like Theoi and Wikimedia Commons). In terms of written source, Pindar is believed to be from 518 BC-438 BC and the probably oldest visual representation — it’s number 1 of those I linked — is attributed to Polygnotus, who must have been a painter from the mid-5th century BC. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, Medusa as a non-hideous woman is NOT an invention of Ovid, much less a Roman invention. It’s a Greek invention, documented from the classical period!

Reason for the mission

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Dictys' brother was Polydectes, king of Seriphus. He was interested in Danae, but couldn't do anything with her because Perseus, now grown up, wouldn't allow it. Irritated, Polydectes wanted to get rid of Perseus. To this end, he called Perseus and other men to a meeting and said that he wanted to collect contributions for a wedding gift for Hippodamia, daughter of Oenomaus (in case you're wondering...yeah, that's Hippodamia who married Pelops, ancestor of the Atreides). Polydectes demanded that Perseus bring the head of the Gorgon, thus wishing that he would die in the task.

Polydectes, brother of Dictys, was then king of Seriphus and fell in love with Danae, but could not get access to her, because Perseus was grown to man's estate. So he called together his friends, including Perseus, under the pretext of collecting contributions towards a wedding gift for Hippodamia, daughter of Oenomaus. Now Perseus having declared that he would not stick even at the Gorgon's head, Polydectes required the others to furnish horses, and not getting horses from Perseus ordered him to bring the Gorgon's head. [...]

Library, 2.4.2. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Tzetzes simply gives the same version as Pseudo-Apollodorus. He emphasizes Polydectes' motivation in forcing himself on Danae and not wanting Perseus’ interference.

Polydectes forced himself on Danae, but unable to have her because of Perseus, who was now approaching manhood, he pretended that he needed a dowry for his marriage to Hippodameia, the daughter of Oenomaus, and asked each of his friends for something different. He sent Perseus to behead the Gorgon Medusa and bring her head back to him as a gift for Hippodameia. He did this hoping that Perseus would be killed by the Gorgons, so that he could have Danae without any trouble.

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Alternative myth

It’s a continuation of the version in which Polydectes is married to Danae. Acrisius goes to Seriphus because he is aware that Perseus is there, but Polydectes doesn’t allow Acrisius to kill Perseus. A storm traps Acrisius in Seriphus, and while he is there Polydectes dies. Funeral games are held in Polydectes' honor, and Perseus accidentally kills Acrisius, fulfilling the prophecy. There is no mention of Perseus going on a mission..

[...] When Acrisius discovered they were staying at Polydectes' court, he started out to get them, but at his arrival Polydectes interceded for them, and Perseus swore an oath to his grandfather that he would never kill him. When Acrisius was detained there by a storm, Polydectes died, and at his funeral games the wind blew a discus from Perseus' hand at Acrisius' head which killed him. Thus what he did not do of his own will was accomplished by the gods. When Polydectes was buried, Perseus set out for Argos and took possession of his grandfather's kingdom.

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

In an alternative version given by Pseudo-Apollodorus, Medusa was killed by Perseus for the sake of Athena, who had been offended by Medusa's presumption in thinking she equaled her in beauty. The way Pseudo-Apollodorus wrote it made me think it was a different version of Polydectes as the motivator of the mission.

[2.4.4] [...] But it is alleged by some that Medusa was beheaded for Athena's sake; and they say that the Gorgon was fain to match herself with the goddess even in beauty.

Library, 2.4.4. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Ioannis Tzetzes also commented on the version in which Athena was offended by Medusa comparing herself to her in beauty.

[...] But this is nonsense; Polydectes was three generations before Hippodameia. The truth is more mythical, but I have spoken more allegorically at the beginning (17 6). Perseus knew that Polydectes was forcing himself on Danae. Medusa, a woman from Pisidia, rivaled Athena in beauty, so Athena sent Perseus against her, showing him a painting of the Gorgon around the city of Samos, called Deicterion, from the fact that these things were shown to him.[...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Mission

Graiai, Nymphs and Hyperboreans

Aeschylus wrote a play called The Daughters of Phorcys/The Phorcides which told of Perseus's interaction with the Graiai. The play is lost, but has been mentioned by other authors. Hyginus, for example, says that Aeschylus wrote of the Graiai as the guardians of the gorgons.

[...] But as Aeschylus, the writer of tragedies, says in his Phorcides, the Graeae were guardians of the Gorgons. [...]

Astronomica, 2.12.2. Translation by Mary Grant.

A short fragment was preserved because of Athenaeus of Naucratis, who said that Aeschylus in The Phorcides wrote Perseus entering the cave of the gorgons like a wild boar.

And Aeschylus, in his Phorcides, comparing Perseus to a wild boar, says— He rush'd into the cave like a wild boar (ἀσχέδωρος ὥς).

The Deipnosophists, 9.65. Translation by Henry G. Bohn.

In Lycophron's Alexandra, there is what appears to be a reference to Perseus stealing the Graiai in order to get help in his quest to kill Medusa. They, in this context, are called guides, so it seems that Lycophron also considered the Graiai to be indicating the way. There are three of them here, although their names aren’t given.

[...] he that stole the lamp of his three wandering guides.

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Tzetzes says that Perseus went to the Graiai, here named as two (Pephredo and Enyo), and stole their one eye and one tooth. He didn’t return the tooth and eye until he was told the way by the nymphs — these are the Hesperides —, and this the Graiai showed him. From the nymphs Perseus acquired the following equipment: winged sandals, a bag or box, the helmet of Hades, an adamant sickle from Hermes, and a mirror from Athena. After this he flew to where the Gorgons lived.

He first went to the Phorcides, Pephredo and Enyo, who were old from birth and sisters of the Gorgons, and took from them their one eye and one tooth, which they only had in turn, and did not give them back until they guided him to the nymphs. Taking the winged sandals of the nymphs, a bag or box, the helmet of Hades, an adamant sickle from Hermes, and a mirror from Athena, he flew to the Gorgons, who were by the Ocean around Tartessos, the city of Iberia.

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Pausanias, while describing scenes depicted on a wall in a temple, tells of the nymphs giving the cap and winged sandals to Perseus, who was on his way to kill Medusa in Libya.

[3.17.3] [...] There are also represented nymphs bestowing upon Perseus, who is starting on his enterprise against Medusa in Libya, a cap and the shoes by which he was to be carried through the air. [...]

Description of Greece, 3.17.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Pseudo-Apollodorus says that Hermes and Athena guided Perseus to the Graiai, here named as three (Enyo, Pephredo, Dino). Knowing that the one eye and one tooth they shared were important to them, Perseus stole them both and stated that he would only return them if they told him the way to the nymphs, which they did. He then returned the eye and the tooth to them. From the nymphs, Perseus acquired winged sandals, the cap of Hades and a kibisis, which was a kind of wallet. From Hermes, he received an adamantine sickle. Once equipped, Perseus flew to where the Gorgons slept.

[2.4.2] [...] So under the guidance of Hermes and Athena he made his way to the daughters of Phorcus, to wit, Enyo, Pephredo, and Dino; for Phorcus had them by Ceto, and they were sisters of the Gorgons, and old women from their birth. The three had but one eye and one tooth, and these they passed to each other in turn. Perseus got possession of the eye and the tooth, and when they asked them back, he said he would give them up if they would show him the way to the nymphs. Now these nymphs had winged sandals and the kibisis, which they say was a wallet. [But Pindar and Hesiod in The Shield say of Perseus: -- “But all his back had on the head of a dread monster, <The Gorgon,> and round him ran the kibisis.” The kibisis is so called because dress and food are deposited in it.] They had also the cap <of Hades>. When the Phorcides had shown him the way, he gave them back the tooth and the eye, and coming to the nymphs got what he wanted. So he slung the wallet (kibisis) about him, fitted the sandals to his ankles, and put the cap on his head. Wearing it, he saw whom he pleased, but was not seen by others. And having received also from Hermes an adamantine sickle he flew to the ocean and caught the Gorgons asleep [...]

Library, 2.4.2. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

These nymphs were named as the Hesperides by Hesiod in the Theogony.

[...] the Gorgons who dwell beyond glorious Ocean in the frontier land towards Night where are the clear-voiced Hesperides [...]

Theogony. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Pindar says that Perseus, guided by Athena, visited the Hyperboreans and received hospitality from them. This was after getting Graiai's advice and getting the items from Hesperides.

Neither by ship nor on foot could you find the marvellous road to the meeting-place of the Hyperboreans — Once Perseus, the leader of his people, entered their homes and feasted among them, when he found them sacrificing glorious hecatombs of donkeys to the god. In the festivities of those people and in their praises Apollo rejoices most, and he laughs when he sees the erect arrogance of the beasts. The Muse is not absent from their customs; all around swirl the dances of girls, the lyre's loud chords and the cries of flutes. They wreathe their hair with golden laurel branches and revel joyfully. No sickness or ruinous old age is mixed into that sacred race; without toil or battles they live without fear of strict Nemesis. Breathing boldness of spirit once the son of Danae went to that gathering of blessed men, and Athena led him there. He killed the Gorgon, and came back bringing stony death to the islanders, the head that shimmered with hair made of serpents. To me nothing that the gods accomplish ever appears unbelievable, however miraculous. Hold the oar!

Pythian Ode 10. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

This myth has also been represented in visual art, for example: 1.

Death of Medusa

Pindar says that Athena was inspired by hearing the screams of the Gorgons when Perseus killed Medusa.

[...] Pallas Athena discovered when she wove into music the dire dirge of the reckless Gorgons which Perseus heard pouring in slow anguish from beneath the horrible snakey hair of the maidens, when he did away with the third sister [...] Yes, he brought darkness on the monstrous race of Phorcus [...] he stripped off the head of beautiful Medusa, Perseus, the son of Danae, who they say was conceived in a spontaneous shower of gold. But when the virgin goddess had released that beloved man from those labors, she created the many-voiced song of flutes so that she could imitate with musical instruments the shrill cry that reached her ears from the fast-moving jaws of Euryale. The goddess discovered it [...]

Pythian Ode 12. Translation by

In Euripides' play Electra, the Chorus at one point sings about Achilles. During this, they describe Achilles' equipment and talk about the myth of Perseus depicted on Achilles' shield, particularly focusing on the death of Medusa with the help of Hermes.

I heard, from someone who had arrived at the harbor of Nauplia from Ilium, that on the circle of your famous shield, O son of Thetis, were wrought these signs, a terror to the Phrygians: on the surrounding base of the shield's rim, Perseus the throat-cutter, over the sea with winged sandals, was holding the Gorgon's body, with Hermes, Zeus' messenger, the rustic son of Maia.

Electra. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

In Lycophron's poem Alexandra, Cassandra mentions Perseus when she speaks of a man with the winged sandals of Hermes, which again indicates the god's assistance in the mission. In addition, Medusa is described as having been beheaded by Perseus, although here she’s called a "stony-eyed weasel". The first part is in relation to the power of petrification, the second in reference to the belief that weasels gave birth through their necks.

[...] the eagle son of the golden Sire – a male with winged sandals who destroyed his liver. By the harvester’s blade shall be slain the hateful whale dismembered: the harvester who delivered of her pains in birth of horse and man the stony-eyed weasel [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Tzetzes describes the gorgons' monstrous appearance and also says that Perseus had to look into a reflection.

[...] They had dragon-like heads, large pig teeth, bronze hands, and wings with which they flew. So, flying to them and finding them asleep, he beheaded Medusa while looking in the mirror, not at her; for he would have turned to stone if he had seen her. Her sisters let out a great lament from their many snake-like heads, sending out a hissing sound, from which Athena, according to Pindar, found the so-called polycephalic law of the aulos (Pind. P XII 14. 34). Perseus then placed the head in the wallet and carried it on his back as he journeyed. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, the reason Medusa was chosen was because she was the only mortal among the Gorgons. Having arrived where they lived, Perseus found them sleeping. However, even sleeping it was difficult to kill them because, as monsters, they weren’t weak. And because of the power of petrification, Athena guided Perseus to kill Medusa by looking at the reflection of the bronze shield, so he would be able to see her without being petrified.

[2.4.2] [...] And having received also from Hermes an adamantine sickle he flew to the ocean and caught the Gorgons asleep. They were Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa. Now Medusa alone was mortal; for that reason Perseus was sent to fetch her head. But the Gorgons had heads twined about with the scales of dragons, and great tusks like swine's, and brazen hands, and golden wings, by which they flew; and they turned to stone such as beheld them. So Perseus stood over them as they slept, and while Athena guided his hand and he looked with averted gaze on a brazen shield, in which he beheld the image of the Gorgon, he beheaded her. [...]

Library, 2.4.2. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Again, a description on a piece of equipment. But it isn’t the shield of Heracles and it isn’t the shield of Achilles, but the quiver of Philoctetes.

[...] There Perseus slew Medusa gorgon-eyed by the stars' baths and utmost bounds of earth and fountains of deep-flowing Ocean, where Night in the far west meets the setting sun. [...]

Posthomerica, Book 10. Translation by A.S. Way.

This myth has also been represented in visual art, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4,

Alternative myth

Diodorus Siculus tells a rationalized version in which there was a people of warrior women called the Gorgons and led by Medusa. Attempts to defeat them were unsuccessful until Perseus subdued them.

Now there have been in Libya a number of races of women who were warlike and greatly admired for their manly vigour; for instance, tradition tells us of the race of the Gorgons, against whom, as the account is given, Perseus made war, a race distinguished for its valour; for the fact that it was the son of Zeus, the mightiest Greek of his day, who accomplished the campaign against these women, and that this was his greatest Labour may be taken by any man as proof of both the pre-eminence and the power of the women we have mentioned. Furthermore, the manly prowess of those of whom we are now about to write presupposes an amazing pre-eminence when compared with the nature of the women of our day. [...] And since the natives were often being warred upon by the Gorgons, as they were named, a folk which resided upon their borders, and in general had that people lying in wait to injure them, Myrina, they say, was asked by the Atlantians to invade the land of the afore-mentioned Gorgons. But when the Gorgons drew up their forces to resist them a mighty battle took place in which the Amazons, gaining the upper hand, slew great numbers of their opponents and took no fewer than three thousand prisoners; and since the rest had fled for refuge into a certain wooded region, Myrina undertook to set fire to the timber, being eager to destroy the race utterly, but when she found that she was unable to succeed in her attempt she retired to the borders of her country. Now as the Amazons, they go on to say, relaxed their watch during the night because of their success, the captive women, falling upon them and drawing the swords of those who thought they were conquerors, slew many of them; in the end, however, the multitude poured in about them from every side and the prisoners fighting bravely were butchered one and all. Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres and raised up three great heaps of earth as tombs, which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds." But the Gorgons, grown strong again in later days, were subdued a second time by Perseus, the son of Zeus, when Medusa was queen over them; and in the end both they and the race of the Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the west and set up his pillars in Libya, since he felt that it would ill accord with his resolve to be the benefactor of the whole race of mankind if he should suffer any nations to be under the rule of women. The story is also told that the marsh disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay towards the ocean were torn asunder.

Library of History, 3.52 and 54.2-55.1. Translation by C.H. Oldfather.

Pausanias tells a rationalized version of the myth in which the beautiful Medusa reigned over the people living around Lake Tritonis and led the Libyans into battle. Perseus' army was an enemy of hers, and one night while she was encamped, Perseus murdered her while she slept and showed her head to the Greeks.

[2.21.5] Not far from the building in the market-place of Argos is a mound of earth, in which they say lies the head of the Gorgon Medusa. I omit the miraculous, but give the rational parts of the story about her. After the death of her father, Phorcus, she reigned over those living around Lake Tritonis, going out hunting and leading the Libyans to battle. On one such occasion, when she was encamped with an army over against the forces of Perseus, who was followed by picked troops from the Peloponnesus, she was assassinated by night. Perseus, admiring her beauty even in death, cut off her head and carried it to show the Greeks.

Description of Greece, 2.21.5. Translation by W.H.S Jones.

In a relatively different version of this alternative myth, which Pausanias credits to Procles, in Lybia there were wild men and women. One of these women, apparently Medusa, came to Lake Tritonis and harried the neighbours until, with the help of Athena, Perseus killed her.

[2.21.6] But Procles, the son of Eucrates, a Carthaginian, thought a different account more plausible than the preceding. It is as follows. Among the incredible monsters to be found in the Libyan desert are wild men and wild women. Procles affirmed that he had seen a man from them who had been brought to Rome. So he guessed that a woman wandered from them, reached Lake Tritonis, and harried the neighbours until Perseus killed her; Athena was supposed to have helped him in this exploit, because the people who live around Lake Tritonis are sacred to her.

Description of Greece, 2.21.6. Translation by W.H.S Jones.

In the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, Perseus wanted to dominate the Medes and had mystical knowledge. Following what he learned, he once encountered a hideous and ugly woman named Medusa, whom he decapitated and used her head as a kind of protective amulet. The name Gorgon was given by Perseus himself in this version. Furthermore, this Pekos is another name for Zeus; Perseus's paternity hasn’t changed.

She [who was] also called Gorgon. Perseus, the son of Danae and Pekos, having learned all the mystic apparitions and wanting to establish for himself his own kingdom, despised that of the Medes. And going through a great expanse of land he saw a virgin maiden, hideous and ugly, and turning aside [to speak] to her, he asked "what is your name?" And she said, "Medusa." And cutting off her head he despatched her as he had been taught, and he hung it up, amazing and destroying all who saw it. The head he called Gorgon, because of its sheer force. [...]

Suda, mu,406. Translation by Jennifer Benedict.

Post-Medusa’s death

In the Theogony, Hesiod said that Medusa was pregnant by Poseidon, with whom she had sex in a flower field. When Perseus cut off her head, her sons Chrysaor and the famous Pegasus came out.

[...] With her lay the Dark-haired One in a soft meadow amid spring flowers. And when Perseus cut off her head, there sprang forth great Chrysaor and the horse Pegasus who is so called because he was born near the springs (pegae) of Ocean; and that other, because he held a golden blade (aor) in his hands.

Theogony. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

In the Shield of Heracles, there is a moment where Hesiod talks about the myth of Perseus. Perseus is said to have been wearing the following accoutrements: a shield forged by Hephaestus, the winged sandals of Hermes, and the cap of Hades. The scene described depicted Perseus, now with the head of Medusa, fleeing from the Gorgon's angry sisters.

There, too, was the son of rich-haired Danae, the horseman Perseus: his feet did not touch the shield and yet were not far from it — very marvellous to remark, since he was not supported anywhere; for so did the famous Lame One fashion him of gold with his hands. On his feet he had winged sandals, and his black-sheathed sword was slung across his shoulders by a cross-belt of bronze. He was flying swift as thought. The head of a dreadful monster, the Gorgon, covered the broad of his back, and a bag of silver — a marvel to see— contained it: and from the bag bright tassels of gold hung down. Upon the head of the hero lay the dread cap of Hades which had the awful gloom of night. Perseus himself, the son of Danae, was at full stretch, like one who hurries and shudders with horror. And after him rushed the Gorgons, unapproachable and unspeakable, longing to seize him: as they trod upon the pale adamant, the shield rang sharp and clear with a loud clanging. Two serpents hung down at their girdles with heads curved forward: their tongues were flickering, and their teeth gnashing with fury, and their eyes glaring fiercely. And upon the awful heads of the Gorgons great Fear was quaking.

Shield of Heracles, 216-316. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Lycophron in Alexandra describes the birth of Chyrsaor and Pegasus after Perseus beheads Medusa.

[...] who delivered of her pains in birth of horse and man the stony-eyed weasel whose children sprang from her neck. [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Hyginus says that with Poseidon Medusa had Chrysaor and Pegasus, although he doesn’t say how they were born. I imagine it’s presumably the same way as in the other sources, that is, after Perseus beheaded Medusa.

CHILDREN OF TYPHON AND ECHIDNA: [...] From Medusa, daughter of Gorgon, and Neptune, were born Chrysaor and horse Pegasus [...]

Fabulae, 151. Translation by Mary Grant.

Pausanias, who was describing an art, also mentions that Perseus was pursued by Medusa's sisters after killing her, and he emphasizes that the gorgons had wings.

[5.18.5] [...] The sisters of Medusa, with wings, are chasing Perseus, who is flying. Only Perseus has his name inscribed on him.

Description of Greece, 5.18.5. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Pseudo-Apollodorus says that as soon as Medusa was beheaded, Chrysaor and Pegasus, Medusa's sons with the god Poseidon, emerged from her neck. Perseus put the head in a bag and prepared to leave, but the immortal gorgon sisters awoke in a rage and chased him. However, Perseus managed to escape because he wore the cap of Hades, which allowed the wearer to become invisible.

[2.4.2] [...] When her head was cut off, there sprang from the Gorgon the winged horse Pegasus and Chrysaor, the father of Geryon; these she had by Poseidon. [2.4.3] So Perseus put the head of Medusa in the wallet (kibisis) and went back again; but the Gorgons started up from their slumber and pursued Perseus: but they could not see him on account of the cap, for he was hidden by it. [...]

Library, 2.4.2-3. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Apollonius says that, while Perseus flew over Libya with the head of Medusa, the blood of the Gorgon gave rise to poisonous serpents.

[...] But into whatever of all living beings that life-giving earth sustains that serpent once injects his black venom, his path to Hades becomes not so much as a cubit's length, not even if Paeeon, if it is right for me to say this openly, should tend him, when its teeth have only grazed the skin. For when over Libya flew godlike Perseus Eurymedon for by that name his mother called him -- bearing to the king the Gorgon's head newly severed, all the drops of dark blood that fell to the earth, produced a brood of those serpents. [...]

Argonautica, Book 4. Translation by R.C. Seaton.

Tzetzes mentions that a poet named Polyidos wrote that there was a Lybian shepherd named Atlas who, rather than allowing Perseus to pass, asked him who he was. This caused Perseus to petrify him, upset at not being immediately granted passage. This poet Polyidos is believed to be possibly from 398 BC.

Polyidos, the dithyrambic poet, says that this Atlas was a Libyan shepherd, not a mathematician, and was turned to stone by Perseus showing him the Gorgon because he would not let him pass, but asked him who he was. This Atlas was also the father of Hesperus according to the rest (Diod. l.l., EM 348 7), not according to Polyidos.

Ad Lycophronem, 879.

This myth has also been represented in visual art, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4.

#Perseus #Acrisius #Danae #Polydectes #Dictys #Medusa #Gorgons #Birdiethings #Birdie.txt #Tw: rape

2 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 5 months ago

Text

Masterpost

Headcanonverse:

Imagine this is something like my Greek mythology universe. That is, it mixes versions of myths (signaled) and headcanons (also signaled). It’s different from when I talk about sources as if they were sources, mind you! Furthermore, the only deities I do headcanons for are nymphs because of their association with the mortal characters I do hc, so if you ask me headcanon about, for example, Olympians…I admit I won't have any to give you…

Headcanon about Automedon pt 1

Headcanon about Automedon pt 2

Headcanon about Automedon pt 3

How having a nymph mother affects a child to me (more specifically, my Achilles and my Penelope)

Paris in Trojan family

Cassandra and Helenus relationship

Silly guys competing (Antilochus, Achilles, Patroclus, Big Ajax, Teucer, Odysseys)

Headcanon about Odysseus

Headcanon about Patroclus' personality

Headcanon about Penelope

Headcanon about Achilles

Patrochilles' relationship headcanon part 2

Pet buddies (Patroclus, Antilochus, Automedon)

Patrochilles' relationship headcanon pt 2

Ajax and Odysseus headcanon

Patroclus, Achilles and Antilochus headcanons

Achilles sexual/romantic intereses headcanons

Patroclus' afterlife

Deidamia headcanon

Genderbend Patrochilles (search for the tag #Fem!Patrochilles for more)

Pat during Skyros

Talking about ancient sources:

These are sources, there are no headcanons. It's different from the headcanonverse.

Thetis and Hephaestus (I was thinking about putting it in takes since it's my opinion on a relationship that I think is underrated, but I'll put it here since a lot of the post is me quoting sources)

Thetis and Peleus

Peleus sources (like Patroclus')

Oenone's sources

Achilles and Helen as a couple (yeah, this is real!)

Penelope's family (it's very confusing)

Achilles and Skyros (Deidamia and Neoptolemus sources as well) part 1, part 2, part 3

Patroclus and Achilles kinship

Cult of Achilles in Black Sea/Euxine Pontus (not my theories or explications lol this is a group of academic explanations and ancient texts)

Perseus, Danae, Andromeda and Medusa sources part 1, part 2, part 3

Patroclus' skills

Antilochus weird exposure in Fabulae

Some takes:

These are just my opinions, interpretations, associations of myths. They aren't necessarily headcanons, but they aren't objective enough to be 100% canon in the sources.

Patroclus as a healer (I like! But with a few reservations)

Thetis in mithology (I love her and I don't understand anyone who thinks she's an empty archetype)

Do I prefere invulnerable or vulnerable Achilles (the answer is vulnerable)

About Paris and vanity

Achilles' association with water elements (In a not that serious way lol)

Achilles and Zeus' blood (talking about the prophecy)

Jason and Medea in Argonautica

Patroclus and gentleness

Patroclus and Neoptolemus

Cassandra and marriage

Where is post X?

Some of my posts were deleted (e.g. Patroclus' sources) because I found them disorganized and others were privatized (e.g. some fanarts) for various reasons. If you didn't find post X, it's likely that I deleted or privatized it.

#birdie.txt #birdiethings

1 note · View note

babyrdie · 6 months ago

Text

ACHILLES ON SKYROS [PART 3]

Part 1 here. Part 2 here.

This text is a continuation of the previous one, therefore the warnings given in the previous one apply here. Reading the post before this one is recommended if you're interested in reading this one.

Posthomerica, by Quintus Smyrnaeus (4th century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Posthomerica, or The Fall of Troy, is an epic poem that aims to tell what happened after what was narrated in The Iliad. For example, the death of Penthesilea by Achilles, the death of Antilochus by Memnon, the death of Memnon by Achilles, the death of Achilles, the search and arrival of Neoptolemus, etc etc. The part that is interesting for this post is that of Neoptolemus in Book 6 and Book 7, as they’re the ones that provide details about Skyros.

This part is too long to copy and paste entirely here, so I'll summarize it instead. However, I recommend reading at least Book 7 of Posthomerica for context. It's long for a post, but not long for a read, I promise!

[Book 6] Although the prophecy regarding Neoptolemus is usually given by Helenus after he was kidnapped by Odysseus, in Posthomerica the person responsible for the prophecy is Calchas, the seer of the Greeks. He tells the Greeks that they must send Diomedes and Odysseus to Skyros to bring Achilles' son, as he’s essential to the fall of Troy.

Menelaus tells Odysseus, if Neoptolemus accepts to fight in the Trojan War for the Greeks, he will marry him to his daughter, Hermione. He did this as a guarantee, as this marriage would be too promising for Neoptolemus to refuse, as it would connect him with the royalty of Sparta.

Odysseus and Diomedes leave for Skyros. The rest of Book 6 is unrelated to the post topic, so let's move on to Book 7.

[Book 7] While things were going on in Troy, Diomedes and Odysseus arrived on Skyros. As they approached the Palace of Skyros, they found Neoptolemus practicing. Upon seeing Neoptolemus, they were happy to find him and at the same time sad, as they immediately recognized him precisely because he looked a lot like Achilles thanks to his beauty and the way he practiced, which reminded them of their deceased friend. Neoptolemus then greeted them.

Odysseus greets Neoptolemus, introduces himself and Diomedes, praises him saying he’s similar to Achilles, offers the armor forged by Hephaestus that belonged to Achilles while explaining how he won it and informs him of the marriage promise offered by Menelaus. Neoptolemus accepts, saying if the oracles call for him then he will come, and invites them to enter.

They meet Deidamia, here called Queen Deidamia, who was immensely sad because she had already learned about Achilles' death. Neoptolemus introduced Diomedes and Odysseus to her, but decided to tell her the reason for their journey the next day to avoid increasing his mother's sadness.

There was a good reception for the guests and everyone slept well, except Deidamia. She noticed the names of Diomedes and Odysseus were the same names as the men who had convinced Achilles to leave her to go to the same war that made her a widow. Blaming them for the grief she and Peleus (Peleus is actually mentioned) feel, Deidamia cannot sleep because she knows they’re after her son and she’s afraid that Neoptolemus will suffer the same fate as his father, that is: leaving with Odysseus and Diomedes in search of a promised glory and never returning.

The next day, Deidamia tried to convince Neoptolemus not to leave, saying he was too young to go to such a cruel war, saying that if even someone as powerful as his father didn't survive she felt that Neoptolemus wouldn't survive either, accusing Diomedes and Odysseus of being cunning and saying there is no sadder fate for a woman than losing both her husband and her children.

Neoptolemus tells her not to have so many bad feelings, but he also said that only those who are destined die and that if his destiny is to die for the Greeks, then he will do so. Lycomedes, an elderly man here, doesn't try to convince him not to go, and instead says he looks like his father, gives him lots of advice and kisses him.

Neoptolemus is excited to leave, but Deidamia tearfully stops him to say goodbye. Despite her pain, she’s proud of her son. She kisses him several times, and then Neoptolemus leaves along with trusted men that Deidamia has chosen. After her son's departure, Deidamia goes to Neoptolemus' room and cries on his bed, on the doorpost, on top of his childhood toys, on top of his dart.

Poseidon (“Raven-haired, the Lord of all the sea”), Thetis and the Nereid watch Neoptolemus' journey, pleased with his joy. Subsequently, the Book focuses on the reception of Neoptolemus by the Greeks, which is not the focus here.

Here, Deidamia and Achilles are apparently married, since she’s described as a widow. Her being described as “Queen” is curious to say the least, since this isn’t a title commonly given to her.

The parallels between Achilles and Neoptolemus have always been obvious. The two had a prophecy that made them essential to the fall of Troy, they were both recruited in Skyros by Odysseus (according to the most popular versions of the myths. This varies, as I have already shown in this post), in both cases their mothers tried to stop them from leaving and in both cases they left anyway, in both cases they were too young for war, in both cases they were described as beautiful and great warriors, both committed the same sacrilege (attacking a supplicant inside a temple of a god), both were represented as sincere (in the case of Achilles this already appeared in The Iliad, in the case of Neoptolemus you can read Philoctetes for reference) and both died young (in the case of Neoptolemus, he survived the war). They even share similar names, since more than one source says that Achilles' feminine name on Skyros was Pyrrha and more than one source says that Neoptolemus' birth name was Pyrrhus, it was Pyrrhus, and in one of them Phoenix is the one who renamed him precisely in honor of Achilles (because Neoptolemus means “new war”, thus referencing the youth of both Achilles and Neoptolemus). In a way, both were promising young men with an exceptional lineage who, eager for glory, entered a war at a very young age and, throughout that war, became corrupted to the point of committing sacrilege (Achilles kills Troilus inside the Temple of Apollo, Neoptolemus kills Priam inside the Temple of Zeus). In particular, I think that reading Iphigenia at Aulis by Euripides and Philoctetes by Sophocles it’s very easy to see how Achilles (in Euripides' case) and Neoptolemus (in Sophocles' case) were actually very young and innocent at the beginning of it all. On the other hand, reading the characters in sources that report their deeds in War, they’re definitely not innocent. Both were born for war, as the prophecies said, and they were "lost" in it. In the case of Neoptolemus, it is even in the etymology of his name.

In Greek mythology, the character of Achilles seems haunted by the prophecy (which the theme of this post emphasizes well, since the most common/famous tradition of Achilles + Skyros is that he was taken to Skyros because of the prophecy. Likewise, he left Skyros because of the prophecy. Likewise, he didn’t return to Deidamia because of the prophecy), but Neoptolemus' character seems haunted by the ghost of his father. He only participates in the Trojan War after the death of Achilles and, upon joining the army, ironically fills the role that previously belonged to his father as an impressive young and unstoppable offensive attacker. Often, praise directed at Neoptolemus is made by comparing him with Achilles, for example Philoctetes only trusts Neoptolemus because he trusted Achilles previously in Sophocles' play and in Posthomerica Quintus uses Achilles as a way of exemplifying Neoptolemus' beauty and skill. Deidamia is afraid of losing her son because she lost Achilles first. Neoptolemus seeks glory for himself and also for Achilles. Commonly, Neoptolemus also wears the iconic armor made by Hephaestus that previously belonged to Achilles. While Achilles aimed to be the strongest of his generation without thinking about a specific name, Neoptolemus aimed at his goal while thinking about Achilles.

However, Posthomerica seems dedicated to emphasizing these similarities. Neoptolemus is presented as being easily recognizable due to his similar appearance and practice skills as Achilles, for example. But the most interesting resemblance here is Deidamia, wife of one and mother of another. In Book 7, she’s the link between them. It's from her point of view that, seeing how Neoptolemus is being recruited, we learn that his father was recruited in a very similar way. In some sources Deidamia is portrayed as asking Achilles to stay (in visual representations of discovery of the disguise it’s also common for her to be depicted at his side), and here she does the same for Neoptolemus because she sees in him the dead husband who will become the dead son. More than that, ironically Deidamia reminds me of the way in which Thetis also tried to prevent his son's death because of a prophecy, an attempt that in myths is almost always the reason for Deidamia and Achilles to meet (depending on the source, Thetis is not mentioned . In an unusual version, it is Peleus). In a way, Posthomerica presents a little explored (at least in the surviving sources) vision of an older Deidamia. Not a princess, but a queen. Not a girl trying desperately to keep her boy from leaving, but a woman trying desperately to keep her beloved son from leaving. Throughout the text, Deidamia is in grief. If we were first introduced to a widowed Deidamia who mourns her husband, later we were introduced to a Deidamia who prematurely mourns the fate of her son. Thus, Deidamia is used as a way to emphasize the similarity between the two young heroes.

Bibliotheca, by Photius I of Constantinople (9th century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Bibliotheca was dedicated to Photius' brother, and contains reviews of books he read. As such, the intention wasn’t to be a reference, as was the case with Pseudo-Apollodorus and Hyginus, but currently it has great importance because of the number of versions it offers. In addition, there is information about lost works that are now only found in the Bibliotheca. Anyway, it's because of things like this that I recommend not ignoring Byzantine sources.

Photius says that Aristonicus of Tarentum said that while Achilles was disguised as a girl, his name was Cercysera. Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to be sure which period Aristonicus belongs to and, therefore, there is no way to know which period this information is from. Photius then goes on to speak of other names attributed to Achilles, including Pyrrha.

Aristonicus of Tarentum said that Achilles, when he lived among the young girls at the house of Lycomedes, was called Cercysera; he was also called Issa and Pyrrha and Aspetos and Prometheus.

Bibliotheca, 190.9. Translation by John Henry Freese.

Photuis says, according to Ptolemy Hephaestion, Achilles and Deidamia hadn’t only Neoptolemus, but also Oneiros. As far as I know, this is the only source mentioning Oneiros and, like his brother, he was killed by Orestes. The difference is that in the case of Oneiros the death was accidental, while in the case of Neoptolemus it was deliberate. Due to a passage in the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, Ptolemy Hephaestion is theorized to possibly be Ptolemy Chennus, a contemporary of Trajan and Hadrian. If he really was Chennus, then this is a version dating possibly to Roman Greece.

Achilles and Deidamia had two children: Neoptolemus and Oneiros; Oneiros was killed by Orestes, who didn't recognise him, while fighting with him in Phokis for a place to pitch a tent.

Bibliotheca, 190.20. Translation by John Henry Freese.

Visual Representantion

The oldest on record is a Greek painting made by Polygnotus of Thasos and belonging to the 5th century BC. It didn’t survive, but is attested by Pausanias. Another Greek painting was painted by Athenion of Maroneia and belongs to the 4th or 3rd century BC. It didn’t survive, but is attested by Pliny the Elder. Later, the Romans retracted this myth. According to Michel E. Fuchs: “The subject of Achilles on Skyros, showing Odysseus coming to look for Achilles in the court of king Lycomedes where it is hidden, disguised as woman, to try to escape its fate, is represented on about fifteen mosaics dated from the 2nd to the 4thc. These mosaics are as well in the western part as in the oriental part of the Roman Empire (Fig. 1). A group includes pavements of Gallia, Germania Superior, Iberic peninsula, North Africa and Britain; the second group is situated between Greece and the antique city of Zeugma.” (Achilles on Skyros: Crossing over Architecture, Mosaic and Wall Painting, pag 36). Thus, we certainly cannot say that this myth hasn’t become popular.

About the theme, Katherine Dunbabin says:

An enormous amount has been written about Achilles on Skyros, and there have been many subtle readings of the varied composition of these scenes and the different messages that they may have conveyed in their specific contexts. The fundamental sense of the Skyros episode is clearly the self-revelation of the hero, rejecting the life of soft luxury for that of manly virtue and his warlike destiny; but it can be tempered, to a greater or lesser degree, by the erotic elements: Achilles as the lover of Deidameia, who tries in vain to hold him back, or as the general object of female desire, surrounded and clutched by a bevy of maidens. In the eastern versions the ambivalent, feminine side of the disguised Achilles is much more apparent; emphasis is placed on the transformation, the male body emerging from the female clothing. My concern in this paper is not with the specific way(s) in which viewers might have read any one of these scenes, nor with the message that each patron may have been wishing to convey, but with the flexibility of the scene and its potential to be adapted to so wide a range of meanings. Nevertheless, a central core persists through all the changes and variations, which allows the underlying story to be identified, and is essential if the image is to have any meaning at all.

Transformations of Achilles on Late Roman Mosaics (Wandering Myths by Katherine Dunbabin, pg 362-363.

When analyzing the common characteristics between the representations (especially the Roman ones), Winsor also discusses about the gender aspect:

The second extra-textual consideration is the status of the myth of Achilles on Skyros to which Horace alludes in conclusion. As I have suggested, the rhetoric of the passage contains certain self-undermining implications, but the same might be said of the story itself. How seriously should we take Horace's comparison? As an item in heroic tradition, the story derives from the secondary epics rather than the Homeric mainstream, and was particularly favored by the deviant Alexandrians. Literary testimony reports that it was the subject of two Greek pictorial representations: one by Polygnotus and another by Athenion of Maronea who worked around 330 B.C. Descriptions of these provide insight into the kind of derogatory responses that the subject could provoke. Pausanias (1.22.6) deplores the earlier painting, declaring that Homer had done well to represent Achilles as the captor of Skyros, rather than saying he had lived there among the maidens as Polygnotus showed him. Pliny (HN 35.134) describes Athenion's rendering of the topic with emphasis on action and dress: "Achillem virginis habitu occultatum Ulixe deprendente et in una tabula VI signa.” Apparently what struck him was the incongruous costume, virginis habitus, meant for concealment.

The subject appears also in several Pompeian panels, primarily from the fourth style period and therefore post-Horatian, but conceivably mediated through earlier representations known at Rome (figs. 1-5, p. 341). Allowing for variations in the placement of figures we see common characteristics among these compositions, which unexceptionally depict the moment when Odysseus and Diomedes succeed in provoking Achilles to betray his disguise through their trick of offering arms; in three examples, these arms include a shield on which Achilles himself is depicted as Chiron's pupil. Like Athenion's rendering of the subject, all these paintings show Achilles in female dress, the drape parting to reveal a substantially fleshed thigh; yet one might say that the painters, as if interesting themselves in the credibility of the erstwhile successful disguise, had actually underplayed the incongruity between the revealed male figure and woman's clothes. Many features of Achilles' person in these paintings are effeminate. The details differ from one example to another but variously include long coiffed hair, rounded cheeks and light skin. Feminine characteristics are most explicitly developed in the Casa dei Dioscuri painting (fig. 1) where the hero's pale and fleshy limbs, emerging from a swirling voluminous chiton, contrast with Odysseus' bronzed, muscular physique. Beyond this, the posture of Achilles, whom Diomedes has grasped from the rear, is actually that of woman as the object of sexual aggression, as can be seen in several analogous portrayals: Hercules and Auge (fig. 6) ; Apollo and Daphne (fig. 7); Mars and Venus (fig. 8); or a Satyr surprising a Maenad (fig. 9 [figs. 6-9, p. 342]). Here, then, is an Achilles whom cross-dressing has so successfully integrated into feminine society that his gender identity has become visibly questionable. Beneath appearances lies nonetheless another incongruity made clear by Deidamia's presence both in this and in other painted versions of the subject. In spite of Achilles' costume and gesture we must understand his identity as fully male because his liaison with the princess has confirmed his sexuality. The result is a comic view of crossdressing. This idea, which is adumbrated in Horace's phrase cultus virilis, as much applicable to costume as to education, may raise another question about Sybaris. Is he hiding because his habituation to the soft amorous life has made him genuinely effeminate? If so his healthy Roman recovery may seem less assured and the condition to which he has been reduced more serious.

Several recent studies by classical scholars have explored ways in which ancient literary and artistic representation of crossdressing highlights flexibility in gender definition and the recognition of gender as a primarily social construction. Examining the phenomenon across a broader chronological spectrum from the Renaissance to the present day, Marjorie Garber places cross-dressing within the Lacanian literary-cultural realm of the symbolic and notes its occurrence as calling attention to category crisis: cultural, social, and aesthetic dissonances. Insofar as the social construction of gender involves a complex of conditions programming the routines by which personal identity is validated, a foregrounding of gender indeterminacy may signal the disorientation of these routines by changed social circumstances. Although the general practice of cross-dressing is understood as a source of gratification to those who engage in it, all the same when cross-dressing also involves misidentification of gender, it discomforts persons who have a stake in keeping their gender identity clear. Thus Achilles' spontaneous and decisive response to Odysseus' trick makes his disguise appear comically awkward.

Horace Carmen 1.8: Achilles, the Campus Martius, and the Articulation of Gender Roles in Augustan Rome by Eleanor Winsor Leach, pg 339-340.

The figures she’s referring to are:

Achilles on Skyros (pag 341)

Women being assaulted (pag 342)

Synthesis

Fun fact: the reason Libanius' Oration 64 is only at the beginning of post 1 and is not among the sources and has no interpretation presented is that I simply couldn't find an accessible translation. All I got were academics arguing about the text and I don't know if this section at the beginning is the complete part that refers to Achilles in Skyros, so I didn't comment on it. I know there is a widely used translation by Margaret Molly and it's available on the Loeb website. The problem is: without having an institution that gives me access to Loeb, the first year of registration is $175 DOLLARS. My friends, my country's currency costs about 5 times less than the dollar. Can you imagine me paying for this subscription? You can't, right? Alright! So no Libanius here, but I still wanted to mention that this text exists, so I put it as a quote at the beginning of the post. I also know about Ioannis Malalas, who is theorized to be one of the sources for Ioannis Tzetzes, but I didn't really know what to do with him, so I didn't include him. Anyway, let's get to the synthesis.

VERSIONS: The following divisions are used in academia:

Option 1 (seems to be the most used)

There is a version where Achilles sacks Skyros (The Iliad)

There is a version where Achilles ends up on Skyros because of a storm (The Cypria and The Little Iliad)

There is a version that Achilles disguises himself as a girl on Skyros (most sources dealing with this topic)

Option 2

There is a version where Achilles ends up on Skyros because of a storm and plunders the island (The Cypria and The Little Iliad + The Iliad)

There is a version that Achilles disguises himself as a girl on Skyros (most sources dealing with this topic)

Option 3

There is a version in which Achilles disguises himself as a girl in Skyros at one point and, later (already in the army), accidentally ends up in Skyros because of a storm and sacks the island.

Interestingly, I didn't see Heroica considered in these divisions proposed by academics. I imagine, by purposely seeking to differentiate as much as possible from the most traditional version of the myth (especially Homer), it ends up presenting a completely new version that no previous author had used and is, therefore, a completely separate version. Thus, if we consider Heroic, it would be necessary to add one more version for each option, totaling: option 1 has 4 versions of the myth, option 2 has 3 versions of the myths and option 3 has 2 versions of the myth. Tzetzes' version is also not accounted for and, in fact, isn't present in any other source, but I think it may fit with Heroica's version due to the idea that “they were married and had a son, and Achilles went to the Trojan War of his own free will and the disguise never happened” even if unintentionally.

RELATIONSHIP: Although it's a constant Achilles had something sexual with Deidamia as the character of Neoptolemus exists, the nature of the relationship seems to change.

According to Homer, it isn't possible to have any information other than to assume that there was no marriage since Achilles is thinking about getting married. Any other idea is mere speculation.

According to the summary of Stasinus of Cyprus's work, it is possible to know that they got married. However, it isn't possible to know the development of this and theories of how the development happened are just theories.

According to the summary of the Lesches of Mytilene's work, it's possible to know that he uses the same version of Stasinus in which Achilles disembarks on Skyros because of a storm. However, nothing else is possible to know and anything else is just theory.

According to Euripides, it is not possible to know much because the play is fragmentary. However, there is a possibility that the rape element is present, not because it is stated in the surviving fragments but because there are textual elements similar to scenes in which a character becomes pregnant after a rape. Still, the fragmentary state allows us only speculation.

According to Lycophron, Deidamia is the adoptive mother of Neoptolemus, who is the son of Iphigenia, and Achilles actually disguised himself as a girl. However, there is no mention of a sexual/romantic relationship between Deidamia and Achilles. The rest is theory.

According to Bion of Smyrna, their relationship was consensual, flirtatious in nature, and possibly with a homoerotic subtext. The rest is theory.

According to Horace, Achilles disguised himself as a girl and there are no further details. The rest is theory.

According to Hyginus, it isn't possible to have any information other than that they were living under the same roof, had sexual intercourse and Deidamia became pregnant. The rest is theory.

According to Ovid, it's possible to know that a sexual thing occurred while Achilles was disguised as a girl, although it's ambiguous in terms of consent. The rest is theory.

According to Statius, the relationship began as a romance and was apparently reciprocal (in terms of feelings, not actions. Deidamia didn't want to date), but developed into a rape (it isn't ambiguous and isn't between the lines as may perhaps be the case with, it's actually abuse). The rest is theory.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, they lived together for several years once Achilles was taken to Skyros at the age of 9. When Achilles was around 14 or 15, Deidamia and he became involved and she became pregnant. There is no mention of marriage. The rest is theory.

According to Philostratus (the Athenian or the Elder), Deidamia and Achilles were married in an unusual version in which Achilles goes to Skyros to punish Lycomedes. The rest is theory.

According to Philostratus the Younger, Deidamia and Achilles were secretly involved. There is no mention of marriage. The rest is theory.

According to Tryphiodorus, Achilles and Deidamia had a son. The rest is theory.

According to Quintus Smyrnaeus, there was apparently a marriage before Achilles went with Odysseus and Diomedes to Troy and years later Deidamia is still mourning him. The rest is theory.

According to Photius, it isn't possible to have any information other than that they were living under the same roof and were sexually involved. Unlike the other versions, he offers a version where there are two children instead of one. The rest is theory.

According to Ioannis Tzetzes, there were versions of the myth in which Achilles disguised himself as a girl, but he believes the true version is that he was already married to Deidamia and had a son with her until he was called into the Trojan War and left. The rest is theory.

THEME: This myth was used for possible themes: military conquest (e.g. The Iliad), eroticization/romance (e.g. Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia), discussion of gender roles (e.g. The Skyrians), coming of age (possible interpretation in most versions in which Achilles is hidden in Skyros. Although the interpretation focuses on male coming of age through reaffirming masculinity, it's also possible to comment on female coming of age represented through Deidamia becoming a mother), subversion of the character Achilles (e.g. Alexandra ), reaffirmation of masculinity (e.g. Achilleid), ironization of social customs (e.g. Art of Love) and explanation of the existence of a character (the character is Neoptolemus. The only source in which this doesn't happen is Alexandra).

RAPE: Rape isn't actually present in most versions, but it's undeniably present in Achilleid and possibly in Art of Love (depends on academic interpretation) as a way of reaffirming masculinity. In versions like The Iliad, The Cypria, and The Little Iliad, any rape is speculation. In the case of The Skyrians, it's a possibility presented in academia, but there is no way to confirm it with certainty due to the fragmentary state of the work (however, if we consider that there is, it serves the same purpose as Achilleid). For the rest, there is no evidence of lack of consent. In Epithalamium, in particular, consent is an important narrative resource as a way of extolling romantic courtship and not typical masculine strength.

ACHILLES' FEELING ABOUT GENDER ROLES: In at least 2 versions, Achilles is initially comfortable with the idea of playing female roles. Imagines and Epithalamium, both Greek. However, Imagines paints a scenario in which it appears that Achilles is beginning to be upset, not by the idea of femininity but by the idea of the repression of masculinity. In Epithalamium, the character continues in femininity and at no point appears uncomfortable with it. In Alexandra, Achilles is effeminate, but it isn't possible to know how he felt about this since the point of view is Cassandra's. Achilleid and Art of Love both represent a clear discomfort with the idea of the suppression of masculinity, although in Achilleid the feeling is Achilles's while in Art of Love the feeling is primarily the narrator's. In the rest of the versions, it isn't possible to know either because the author did not address this subject (for example, Quintus) or because the work is too fragmentary to know (for example, Euripides).

THETIS' ROLE: Considering the plot itself without further interpretation, Thetis is just an immortal mother worried about the imminent death of her mortal son. However, in terms of considering narrative resources, it's interesting Thetis is only visibly absent as a justification for Achilles' stay on Skyros in versions in which Achilles' character needs to have a greater association with femininity. That is, in Alexandra and Epithalamium. In the first case the absence of Thetis reinforces the idea that Achilles was so afraid of Hector he preferred to pretend to be a girl and in the second case the absence of Thetis reinforces the idea that Achilles is comfortable with the femininity he performs. In the other narratives, generally focused on Achilles somehow regaining his masculinity (in particular, when he is deceived by Odysseus and later decides to leave for Troy), Thetis is always used as a justification for why Achilles is there, as a kind of in a way of saying “hey, this hero is only doing this for his mother. He wouldn't do it willingly” in order to protect the character's traditional heroic image. This element is even more evident in the Achilleid narrative, in which other characters are shown to be opposed to Thetis' idea (e.g. Chiron, who is said to not have allowed her to take Achilles if he knew, and Calchas, by the way he describes as Thetis hides Achilles). If we consider the interpretation that the disguise myth concerns adulthood, Thetis can also be interpreted as the archetype of the mother who, afraid of the dangers of adult life, doesn't allow her son to grow up and tries to keep him in the safety of childhood. This second case is mirrored by Deidamia in Posthomerica.

GREEK DEIDAMIA: Combining ALL sources of Greek mythology (Ode I.VIII, Achilleid and Art of Love not included as they're Roman mythology), the information we have about Deidamia is:

She's the daughter of Lycomedes, king of the island of Skyros (a constant);

She's the oldest of the girls (Imagines);

If Achilles' courting manner seeks sincere praise, she is good at weaving (Epithalamium);

She and Achilles become involved sexually and in secret (portrayed consensually in Greek mythology);

In at least one source (Epithalamium) this interest appears to arise while she still thinks Achilles is a girl;

She usually becomes pregnant with one child, Neoptolemus (a constant. The exceptions are Alexandra, where she is Neoptolemus' adoptive mother, and Photius' Bibliotheca, where she has Neoptolemus and Oneiros);

She and Lycomedes raised Neoptolemus (constant);

When Odysseus came to get Neoptolemus, she didn't want to let him go for fear that he would suffer the same fate as his father (Posthomerica);

She's given in marriage to Helenus, the ex Trojan prince (Library).

ODYSSEUS/ULYSSES AND DIOMEDES: Regarding the presence of Odysseus and Diomedes, we have:

According to Homer, there was no disguise.

According to the summary of Stasinus of Cyprus's work, there was no disguise.

According to the summary of Lesches of Mytilene's work, there was no disguise.

According to Euripides, Odysseus is certainly present and appears to have an important role, since two lines in the fragments are Odysseus' reprisals directed at Achilles because of his unmanly and unhonorable behavior. Because of the fragmentary state of the piece, there is no way of knowing who he is accompanied by.

According to Lycophron, it isn't possible to know how Achilles was discovered.

According to Bion of Smyrna, it isn't possible to know about how Achilles was discovered.

According to Horace, the discovery isn't explored.

According to Hyginus, Odysseus is responsible for the discovery and there is no mention of Diomedes.

According to Ovid, Ulysses recruited Achilles.

According to Statius, Diomedes and Ulysses recruited Achilles.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Odysseus discovered Achilles and there is no mention of Diomedes.

According to Philostratus (the Athenian or the Elder), there was no disguise.

According to Philostratus the Younger, Odysseus is responsible for discovering Achilles, but he was accompanied by Diomedes.

According to Tryphiodorus, it isn't possible to know the version of the myth.

According to Quintus Smyrnaeus, both Odysseus and Diomedes recruited Achilles.

According to Photius, the discovery isn't explored.

According to Ioannis Tzetzes, there was no disguise.

ART: There are at least two works of art attested from Classical Greece (one attested by Pausanias, another attested by Pliny the Elder), the rest are late works, mainly moisacos and wall paintings. In these works, it's well exemplified how the ancients (mainly Romans) saw the social construction of gender, since the representation of Achilles played with this idea, reaching the point that in at least one of them the position of Diomedes and Achilles resembled the position when a woman was harassed (Achilles being the woman here). The difference between how Achilles was painted in Skyros and how he was painted in Troy is evident, especially in his skin (in one pale, in another tanned) and in his hair (the curl was more pronounced in the female disguise). Generally the core consisted of Achilles, Deidamia, and Ulysses as characters, Achilles at least exposing his thigh, and Ulysses' trick weapons present. Deidamia was portrayed in certain instances as trying to stop Achilles, and could also serve as a reminder of their relationship (which, in turn, was a reminder that Achilles was, in fact, a man). In some cases, Achilles was surrounded by Lycomedes' daughters, as if he was attractive to them.

Sources

Myth texts:

The Iliad. Translated by Fagles, Robert. Penguin Books, 1991.

Hesiod, Homeric Hymns, Epic Cycle, Homerica. Translated by Evelyn-White, H G. Loeb Classical Library Volume 57. London: William Heinemann, 1914.

Flavius Philostratus: On Heroes. Translated by Ellen Aitken, Jennifer K. Berenson Berenson, Berenson. 2003.

Elder Philostratus, Younger Philostratus, Callistratus. Translated by Fairbanks, Arthur. Loeb Classical Library Volume 256. London: William Heinemann, 1931.

The Library of Photius, Volume 1.Translated by Freese, John. Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1920.

Oppian, Colluthus and Tryphiodorus. Translated by Mair, A. W. Loeb Classical Library Volume 219. London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1928.

Quintus Smyrnaeus. The Fall of Troy. Translated by Way. A. S. Loeb Classical Library Volume 19. London: William Heinemann, 1913.

Ovid. Metamorphoses. Translated by More, Brookes. Boston, Cornhill Publishing Co. 1922.

P. Ovidius Naso. Ovid's Art of Love (in three Books), the Remedy of Love, the Art of Beauty, the Court of Love, the History of Love, and Amours. Anne Mahoney. edited for Perseus. New York. Calvin Blanchard. 1855.

The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855.

Apollodorus. The Library. Translated by Sir James George Frazer. Loeb Classical Library Volumes 121 & 122. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1921.

Pausanias. Pausanias Description of Greece with an English Translation by W.H.S. Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A., in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918.

Statius, Thebaid, Achilleid. Translated by Mozley, J H. Loeb Classical Library Volumes . Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1928.

Libanius, Libanius and The Dancers. Trans. M.E. Molloy. 1996. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York.

Academic texts:

Tsagalis, Christos. Cypria fr. 19 (Bernabé, West): further considerations. 2012. Tsagalis published it for free here.

Fantuzzi, Marco. Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies. Oxford, 2012. Fantuzzi published the book for free here.

Fantuzzi, Marco. Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and Its Reception. Brill, 2012. Fantuzzi published the chapter he wrote for free here.

Funke, Melissa. Euripides and Gender: The Difference the Fragments Make. University of Washington, 2013. Melissa published it for free here.

Warwick, Celsiana. Chthonic Disruption in Lycophron’s Alexandra. The Classical Quarterly . 2022 Warwick published it for free here.

Leach, Eleanor Winsor. “Horace Carmen 1.8: Achilles, the Campus Martius, and the Articulation of Gender Roles in Augustan Rome.” Classical Philology 89, no. 4 (1994): 334–43. Eleanor published it for free here.

Diack, Jacqueline. Men, Marriage and Mistresses: Ovid’s use of Myth in the Ars Amatoria I-III. University of Johannesburg, 2018.

Fuchs, Michel. The proceedings of IV. International Mosaic Corpus of Turkiye. Uludag Universitesi Mozaik Arastirmalari Merkezi, 2008. Fuchs published his part of the book for free here.

Davis, Peter. Allusion to Ovid and Others in Statius' Achilleid. Ramus, 2006. Davis published it for free here.

Dunbabin, Katherine. Transformations of Achilles on Late Roman Mosaics (Wandering Myths). 2018. Dunbabin published it for free here.

#Achidamia #Achilles #Deidamia #Deidameia #Neptolemus #Thetis #tw: rape #Pyrrha #Epic Cycle #birdie.txt #birdiethings

8 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 6 months ago

Text

ACHILLES ON SKYROS [PART 2]

Part 1 here. Part 3 here.

This text is a continuation of the previous one, therefore the warnings given in the previous one apply here. Reading the post before this one is recommended if you're interested in reading this one.

Metamorphoses and The Art of Love, by Ovid (1st century)

Both are sources of Roman mythology. Metamorphoses narrates the history of the world as a whole, going through various events up to the period contemporary with Ovid. Among the stories, there is an approach of the myths of the Trojan War. More specifically, in book 13 Ulysses and Big Ajax are competing for Achilles' weapons and giving their arguments. Ironically, both use Achilles as a way to prove their worth, Big Ajax by emphasizing the kinship between him and Achilles and Ulysses when saying that he was the one who brought Achilles and that, as Achilles was a key player in the Trojan War, Ulysses was also essential. In this way, we have a typical description of Achilles hiding among the girls at Thetis' desire and Ulysses tricking him into revealing himself.

"Achilles' Nereid mother, who foresaw his death, concealed her son by change of dress. By that disguise Ajax, among the rest, was well deceived. I showed with women's wares arms that might win the spirit of a man. The hero still wore clothing of a girl, when, as he held a shield and spear, I said `Son of a goddess! Pergama but waits to fall by you, why do you hesitate to assure the overthrow of mighty Troy?’ With these bold words, I laid my hand on him—and to: brave actions I sent forth the brave: his deeds of Bravery are therefore mine it was my power that conquered Telephus, as he fought with his lance; it was through me that, vanquished and suppliant? he at last was healed. I caused the fall of Thebes; believe me, I took Lesbos, Tenedos, Chryse and Cilla—the cities of Apollo; and I took Scyros; think too, of the Lyrnesian wall as shaken by my hand, destroyed, and thrown down level with the ground. Let this suffice: I found the man who caused fierce Hector's death, through me the famous Hector now, lies low! And for those arms which made Achilles known I now demand these arms. To him alive I gave them—at his death they should be mine.

Metamorphoses, 13.162-180. Translation by Brookes More.

We have no information about Deidamia in this part, although Neoptolemus exists. But there is more about Deidamia in another poem by Ovid, and here we enter a controversial scenario. The Art of Love (or Ars Amatoria) are instructive poems that sought to give tips about relationships, the first two books being aimed at male audiences and the third at female audiences. What we will analyze is in Book 1, so it’s aimed at the male audience. Unlike the other texts presented, here rape is part of the plot (although there is no explicit/graphic description of the moment), so be aware.

[...] To their dull mates, the noble ravisher. What Deidamia did in days of yore, The tale is old but worth the telling o'er. When Venus had the golden apple gain'd, And the just judge fair Helen had obtained; When she with triumph was at Troy receiv'd, The Trojans joyful, while the Grecians griev'd: They vow'd revenge of violated laws, And Greece was arming in the cuckold's cause; Achilles, by his mother warn'd from war, Disguis'd his sex, and lurk'd among the fair. What means Aeacides to spin and sew? With spear and sword in field thy valour show! And leaving this, the noble Pallas know. Why dost thou in that hand the distaff wield, Which is more worthy to sustain the shield? Or with that other draw the woolly twine, The same the fates for lector's thread assign? Banish thy falchion in thy powerful hand, Which can alone the pond'rous lance command. In the same room by chance the royal maid Was lodg'd, and, by his seeming sex, betrayed, Close to her side the youthful hero laid. I know not how his courtship he began; But, to her cost, she found it was a man. 'Tis thought she struggled, but withal 'tis thought Her wish was to be conquer'd, when she fought. For when disclos'd, and hast'ning to the field, He laid his distaff down and took the shield, With tears her humble suit she did prefer, And thought to stay the grateful ravisher. She sighs, she sobs, she begs him not to part; And now 'tis nature what before was art. She strives by force her lover to detain, And wishes to be ravish'd once again. This is the sex; they will not first begin, But when compelled, are pleas'd to suffer sin. Is there, who thinks that woman first should woo? Lay by thy self-conceit, thou foolish beau. Begin, and save their modesty the shame; 'Tis well for thee, if they receive thy flame. 'Tis decent for a man to speak his mind; They but expect th' occasion to be kind. Ask, that thou may'st enjoy; she waits for this: And on thy first advance depends thy bliss. E'en Jove himself was forc'd to sue for love; None of the nymphs did first solicit Jove. But if you find your pray'rs increase her pride, Strike sail awhile, and wait another tide. They fly when we pursue; but make delay. And when they see you shaken, they will stay. Sometimes it profits to conceal your end; Name not yourself her lover, but her friend. How many skittish girls have thus been caught? He prov'd a lover, who a friend was thought. Sailors by sun and wind are swarthy made; A tann'd complexion best becomes their trade. 'Tis a disgrace to ploughmen to be fair; Bluff cheeks they have, and weather-beaten hair. Th' ambitious youth who seeks an olive crown, Is sun-burnt with his daily toil, and brown; But if the lover hopes to be in grace, Wall be his looks, and meagre be his face. That colour from the fair compassion draws; She thinks you sick, and thinks herself the cause. [...]

The Art of Love, 1. Translation by Anne Mahoney.

You've certainly noticed that there's something different about Ovid's narrative compared to previous ones. In the case of The Iliad, it isn’t possible to know the nature of Achilles' relationship with his son's mother (she has no identity) and everything that is said is mere speculation. In the case of what we know about The Cypria, there is no rape narrative in the summary, the relationship being simply described as Achilles having arrived on Skyros and married Deidamia. In the case of The Little Iliad, no information is available about the nature of the relationship, although Achilles is also driven to Skyros by a storm and Neoptolemus is from Skyros. In the case of The Skyrians, the extremely fragmentary state of the text doesn’t allow conclusions to be drawn about the nature of the relationship with certainty. In Alexandra's case, Achilles and Deidamia's relationship doesn’t appear to exist and Achilles' confirmed romantic and/or sexual interests (Iphigenia, Helen, Medea) don’t include any rape narrative (Iphigenia was a reciprocal and consensual love, Helen didn’t result in any relationship and Medea we only know that she’s his wife in the afterlife). In the case of Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia, the rape cannot happen because narratively it makes no sense with the proposal. In Horace's case, there isn’t even a clear approach to Achilles' relationship with Deidamia. In Hyginus' case, the relationship takes place, but there is no mention of rape. Here, in the case of Art of Love, rape is made evident. If in other texts rape didn’t happen or at most it could be discussed as a mere possibility, here for the first time it seems to be an undeniable element.

The controversy arises because of the part in which Ovid uses the myth of Deidamia and Achilles as an exemplification of a tip he’s giving to men, in particular regarding the idea that the man should take the first step even if the woman initially seems not to be willing (what we nowadays call rape, obviously) and he considers this to be part of the art of seduction and not necessarily something inappropriate in an expected relationship. He even has Deidamia desperately beg Achilles to stay with her, despite Ovid saying he raped her. The problem is: because of Ovid's social context, there is uncertainty in academia as to whether he was referring to what we understand today as rape. Jacqueline Diack, for example, proposes the possibility the rape isn’t as literal as it may seem to us, modern readers. In her argument, she uses the social context of Ovid plus the construction of the text as a whole.

She first analyzes the other tips offered by Ovid and concluded that none of them are presented in a violent way towards women. Even the more questionable ones, related to deception (basically, he says a man shouldn’t make a woman cry. Instead, the man should be the one who cries, as this will win the sympathy of the woman he desires) seem to be justified with the social context that the women were deceitful. Not necessarily because they were malicious, but because they were expected to lie about their interests in order to preserve modesty. Ovid also appears to disagree with Theseus' attitude towards Ariadne, possibly indicating that he didn’t view a man maliciously deceiving a woman as acceptable. In the original text, when entering the part that seems most doubtful in terms of consent, the language used still sounds ambiguous. Thus, Diack interprets that Ovid's intention wasn’t to portray a literal rape, but to tell the reader (a man seeking to conquer a woman) that to be a good lover he must learn to read women, including when they’re interested without being able to demonstrate that they’re interested.

[For the text below, keep it in mind: puella = young girl. There are other terms in Latin, but this one is essential that you understand because of how often it’s used]

The advice proceeds with oscula qui sumpsit, si non et cetera sumet, | haec quoque, quae data sunt, perdere dignus erit [he who has taken kisses, but does not also take the rest, will deserve to lose all things that have been given] (AA 1: 669-670). Ovid clearly addresses the willingness, or lack thereof, of the puella. According to Kennedy (2012: 193) it implies that she is willing to engage in aggression. Considering Ovid's advice in the previous couplet to be gentle when stealing kisses, it seems unlikely that Ovid depicts such a woman. Murgatroyd (1982: 134) considers the couplet to be outrageous for various reasons. He says, firstly, that it implies that kisses naturally lead to sexual intercourse. Secondly, he states that the resistance to being kissed is token as the kisses move from sumpsit (AA I: 669) to data sunt (AA 1: 670). Lastly, he considers the lines to imply that every reader's goal is sexual intercourse. The first and final critique seem to be examples of a modern moral being applied, rather than considering the contemporary context or the intratextual structure of the original text. Ovid introduces his list of locations to find a girl with the statement that, if his amator yearns for a long-term affair, he will not have one until he's found the right places to look for a girl (AA 1: 49-50). Ovid later suggests that the amator can find both a short- and long-term partner at the theatre (AA I: 91-93). The mythical long-term partner at the theatre (digressions discussed so far have all made an argument for persuasion rather than violence, as well as an increased female involvement in the erotic liaison.

Ovid also does not explicitly state that what would be given is sexual intercourse, even if it may appear to be implied. Ovid has given his reader options for the kind of relationship he can pursue with this skill set, ranging from something playful to something quite serious (AA I: 91-93). Kisses given willingly, as implied with data sunt (AA I: 670), indicate willingness of the female partner. Ovid evokes social convention, which requires that women feign resistance even when they are interested. Therefore, the amator is being instructed to decipher the conditioned social norm from the true desires of his puella, and if he can do so effectively and has the courage to pursue his desire, then he can have the puella. However, should he misread the sign of interest and give up, then he did not even deserve the kisses he did receive. He is not the ideal amator of the Ars because he lacks the sophistication of such a lover.

Ovid assigns giving up to rusticitas [lack of refinement] (AA I: 672) rather than modesty, recalling the idea of social convention. The use of rusticitas ties in with the idea of ars. The reader is already aware that rustic equates to lack of sophistication from the mythical digression of the rape of the Sabine women. The implication is that ars is required for success. Ei mihi [Oh my!] (AA II: 672) is an interjection frequent in early comedy, and occasionally also found in epic and tragedy (Hollis 1977: 137). It was intended as an exclamation of pain (Kennedy 2012: 194). The expression is also one Ovid uses often. With it he inserts an element of comedy into the subject matter of the lines. In this case it is a play on the idea that pudor [modesty] (AA II: 672) is a poor excuse for a young man lacking the skill to read the signs that indicated his puella was willing. Pudor, however, also means shame, which can as easily be implied here. Ovid appears to imply that the amator should be ashamed of his lack of skill, which he falsely asserts is modesty. Ovid often contrasts As such, a comparison can be made between these lines and the prologue of the poem. Ovid uses the word votum both here (AA I: 671) and in the prologue (AA 1: 90) to indicate desire, but then contrasts the lover's rusticitas (AA 1: 672) with the cultissima (AA I: 97) modern woman sophistication. Ovid concludes this instruction with the statement: vim licet appelles: grata ata est vis ista puellis: quod iuvat, invitae saepe dedisse volunt [Although you call it force: that force is pleasing to girls: Which gratifies, to have given unwillingly often what they desire] (AA 1: 673-674)

The primary meaning of licet is "it is lawful, permitted" (Lewis & Short 1879 s.v. licet I). Followed by an implied ut with the subjunctive apelles: the meaning would be "it is permitted that you/you may call it force". However, using the transferred meaning of licet as a conjunction, meaning "although" (Lewis & Short 1879 s.v. II); the translation now becomes "although you call it force." Ovid's choice of licet is perhaps even more important than the word vis. Ovid uses it ambiguously here, as a conjunction is not required, but makes more sense than the primary meaning within the context. However, if Ovid says it is permitted that you call it force the immediate implication is that Ovid does not consider it force, which becomes clear from the context. The common use of vis in elegy is to depict the (usually) masculine exercise of strength for sexual gratification, which is in some cases clearly rape (Kennedy 2012: 193). On the other hand, velle is the verb used to indicate sexual willingness (Kennedy 2012: 193). Ovid uses both vis and velle in the couplet above, clearly indicating a mixed message, both to the audience, and from the puella. Vis (AA I: 673) implies the enforcement of the amator's will, just as volunt (AA I: 674) speaks to the wishes of the puella. Ovid thus continues to address the idea of willingness, contrasting it with social convention. Kennedy (2012: 193) investigates the concept and language of willingness, discussing actual aggression versus its appearance in elegiac poetry. He questions how the audience is to know the difference. For example, he asks when one can determine whether a woman's submission to her lover is truly unwilling. He (2012: 195) explains that vis can be both symbolic and physical in elegy, just as vis and gratus both bear sexual connotations. Ovid clearly uses syntax to indicate willingness and desire. Murgatroyd (1982: 136), however, argues that the pointed repetition of vis heightens the generalisation of puellis (AA I: 673), and in turn the outrageousness of the statement that force pleases girls. However, it is exactly such an outrageous generalisation which brings to the fore its own absurdity. It thus accentuates just how ludicrous the social custom of pretending to be unwilling is, which is in turn depicted in the couplet that follows (AA I: 677-678). Ovid makes use of the perfect infinitive dedisse (AA 1: 674), thus adding a temporal element to his explanation of the female's level of desire.

This is typically Ovidian, occurring also in the Amores (Hollis 1977: 137). The line indicates that, although unwilling to give something at the time, in hindsight the puella is pleased to have given it. However, this is a play on whether or not she was, in fact, objecting or pretending. What she is unwilling to give is encompassed in the phrase quod iuvat [what is pleasing] (AA 1: 674). The phrase is ambiguous as one cannot know whether what is given is pleasing to the male lover, his female conquest or to both of them (Kennedy 2012: 194). This, in turn, brings into question the willingness of the puella, and the true extent to which force actually occurred. In essence, the lines state the elegiac viewpoint, but the stylistic features, combined with the jest of the previous line and the following couplet, undermine any seriousness in the instructions. Instead, it seems Ovid is implying rather that, when the woman in question is the willing modern puella, all that is required is for the sophisticated male lover to be able to distinguish desire from protest. Through this ambiguity and the humour of the previous couplet Ovid simultaneously criticises the elegiac promotion of force, rather than the alternative.

Marriage and Mistresses: Ovid’s use of Myth in the Ars Amatoria I-III by Jacqueline Diack, pag 129-132.

Diack continues to argue the ambiguity of the text and how, placed in the proper social context, it perhaps doesn’t concern rape. She makes a comparison with the way Ovid writes this supposed rape with the way he describes other rape (Sabine women) and in the second case he has already shown to portray them negatively. This therefore implies the idea Ovid recognizes the negative consequences that rape can bring, which at the very least makes the portrait he composed of Deidamia in this text strange in comparison to the portrait he painted of other rape victims. Another similar case of ambiguity in Ovidian literature is his portrayal of the myth of Phoebe and Hilaira kidnapped by the Dioscuri, in which Ovid describes them as happy with the situation, thus indicating that the idea was possibly not about rape (in the sense of absence of sexual consent) but in the sense of a relationship that doesn’t follow the laws (as they were taken without the family's permission, regardless of whether the women themselves consented). Therefore, when talking about rape in Ovidian literature it’s necessary to consider the ambiguity. She argues that Ovid was possibly ridiculing the social norm that women should feign disinterest, which denies female sexual desire. By demonstrating female sexual desire (especially portrayed by Deidamia's reaction), Ovid would be criticizing the norms of his time by ironizing them.

Therefore, regarding Deidamia's consent, Diack says:

The increased alliteration in the line accentuates voluit, thus highlighting the role of desire within the context. The interjection of ita credere oportet (AA I: 699) places instant doubt on the details of the myth. The phrase implies that perhaps Deidamia was not taken by force, rather that she was a willing participant. This implication is supported by saepe ‘mane!’ dixit [often she said “stay!”] (AA I: 701). Although Ovid says at the beginning of this instruction that women want to be won by force, the implication is that the amator should persist when he knows the puella is willing, as mentioned. Ovid contrasts the elegiac sentiment mocked in that earlier statement by questioning both where that force is now (AA I: 703) and Deidamia’s unwillingness to allow the auctorem stupri [perpetrator of her rape] to leave for war (AA I: 704). This questioning informs the audience that they, too, should question whether women are willing participants whose behaviour is simply dictated by social rules which themselves can be overcome, and women easily won, if approached with appropriate art and skill. Ovid mocks Deidamia as well, to accentuate the absence of a rape and replace it with consensual intercourse with a willing puella. The aforementioned questioning (AA I: 703-704) implies that Deidamia has actually deceived us and that it was not rape, which levels the playing-field between the lovers. Ovid also gives Deidamia a voice by questioning her. He ensures she is an equal participant in the affair. After all, she tells Achilles to stay. The imperative mane (AA I: 701) to an extent places her in a position of control. It is notable that the only direct speech of this section of the poem is spoken by women. Both Ovid’s questions and Deidamia’s instruction to Achilles create humour. Murgatroyd (1982: 135) points out that Ovid is as interested in the comedy and incongruity of the myth as he is in promoting his point. As a result the lines are funny without dispensing with his skilful and neat composition. He increases the humour of the lines by addressing the character of the lovers with what Murgatroyd (1982: 140) terms a “mocksolemn” rhythm. In doing so, Ovid is able to use the myth argumentatively. Instead of being a victim, Ovid’s Deidamia is portrayed as a willing partner, calling for her lover to remain with her. This is the primary aspect in which this retelling differs from the other mythical digressions Ovid has related thus far.

Marriage and Mistresses: Ovid’s use of Myth in the Ars Amatoria I-III by Jacqueline Diack, pag 138-139.

Regarding the representation of Achilles as a man disguised as a girl and practicing feminine activities, Diack's interpretation of Ovid's stance is:

Ovid abruptly refers to Achilles’ shameful disguise as a woman (AA I: 689-690), which is even more disgraceful in light of the fact that he is hiding while an oath is being fulfilled by the other Greek soldiers. Ovid mentions that he did this at his mother’s request, but tribuisset [he had yielded] (AA I: 689) accentuates the shame. Not only is his feminine garb inappropriate, but so too is his submission to his mother’s wishes, not to mention that he is not soldiering (the skill for which he is known). Ovid’s use of the epic-style patronymic Aeacide [grandson of Aeacus] (AA I: 691) heightens the contrast between his current occupation (weaving) and what he should be doing (fighting) (Hollis 1977: 140). Ovid continues his insults with repeated and derogatory references to wool spinning in the subsequent lines (AA I: 691-695, 702). First, he informs Achilles that spinning is not his work (AA I: 691). He calls on Achilles to seek dignity by practicing the other skills of Pallas (Minerva) (AA I: 692), known for being the patron of spinning, but also a warrior goddess (Hollis 1977: 140). Ovid then refers to the baskets that the washed wool would be carried in before it was spun (Hollis 1977: 140), chastising Achilles for using his arm for carrying a basket when it should be wielding a shield (AA I: 693). Ovid asks why the hand that will kill Hector is holding the wool weighed out for spinning in a day’s work (pensa) (AA I: 694). The implication that women provide a service is indicated by pensa, which recalls muneris (AA I: 676). Ovid’s questions are concluded with an imperative as he instructs Achilles to refuse the spindles covered with worked wool (AA I: 695) and reminds him of his spear, cut from Mount Pelion and only able to be brandished by his hand (AA I: 696). The euphemism is unmistakably phallic, reminding Achilles he is a man and that his weapon is his penis. Ovid clearly undermines Achilles’ masculinity. Ovid can safely insult a mythical figure, especially a Greek hero, and takes full advantage of this scope. Ovid chastises Achilles for dressing and behaving as a woman when he is a man and a soldier.

Marriage and Mistresses: Ovid’s use of Myth in the Ars Amatoria I-III by Jacqueline Diack, pag 135-136.

Therefore, despite the initial perception that Ovid is encouraging men to rape women, it is possible that the intention is in fact the opposite. Achilles, by neglecting his role as a man, is scorned and doesn’t represent an ideal lover. Through persuasion (and not force, as it may seem) he has a sexual involvement with Deidamia, which Diack interprets as being a consensual part, and it’s this ability of Achilles to take the attitude of an ideal lover (conquering a woman by persuasion and not by force) that makes him regain his masculinity. Not rape, but conquest. Deidamia, in turn, aims to represent a kind of ironization and criticism of the behavior of Roman women, who avoided showing interest because of social norms. Her facade falls when Achilles intends to leave, as in this case there is no time for social games, and so Deidamia openly expresses her desire in a way he hadn’t expressed before, which is almost exaggerated. However, Achilles has already fulfilled his role as a man in the sexual scenario by sleeping with Deidamia and must fulfill other roles, in this case as a warrior. He can't be with her anymore, even if she begs him in a way she never has before. If he neglected military activities for a woman, he wouldn’t be an ideal young man in Roman society.

It seems like I've put a lot of the text here, but oddly enough there's a lot more to read! The chapter goes from page 124 to page 144, totaling 20 pages (no pictures or tables or anything like that. It's all text) and I didn't even put full pages in. I personally recommend reading it, there are things mentioned by Diack that I didn't include here.

Natural History, by Pliny the Elder (1st century AD)

This is a Greco-Roman mythology source, but I’ll be using it for Greek mythology purposes. Natural History has an encyclopedic character and isn’t actually focused on mythology like Library, for example, but it’s possible to learn some mythological information here.

With Nicias has been compared, and indeed sometimes preferred to him, Athenion of Maronea, a pupil of Glaucion of Corinth. In his colouring he is more sombre than Nicias, and yet, with all his sombreness, more pleasing; so much so indeed, that in his paintings shines forth the extensive knowledge which he possessed of the art. [...] an Achilles also, concealed in a female dress, and Ulysses detecting him [...]

Natural History, 35.40.

This Athenion refers to Athenion of Maroneia, a painter who flourished between late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC.

Achilleid, by Statius (1st century AD)

This is a source of Roman mythology. Achilleid is an epic poem that was never completed because its author, Statius, died before it was finished. As the name suggests, the theme was Achilles, which included the part of the myth where he was on Skyros. I'm not going to put the entire text like in the other cases because it's very long, so read it if you want here, although I must warn you that the rape narrative is especially emphasized here. It isn’t speculative as in other texts or questionable as in Art of Love, it’s very evident rape.

Now, the summary:

[Book 1] Paris has already taken Helen and the war is about to begin. Thetis, watching Paris' ship depart, remembers the prophecy concerning Achilles Proteus had told her. Desperate, she begs Neptune (Poseidon's Roman counterpart) to drown the ship so the war doesn’t happen. However, Neptune rejects the request because he says it is a destiny that needs to be fulfilled.

Thetis goes to Pelion, where Chiron is educating Achilles. She tells Chiron that she wants to take Achilles back, but purposely omits her plan. Instead, she lies to Chiron Proteus advised her to purify Achilles a second time in the waters of the Styx. According to the narrator: “Thus spoke his mother in lying speech – nor would he have given him up, had she dared to confess to the old man the soft raiment and dishonourable garb.”

Chiron replies he had noticed that something was changing, as Achilles used to be an obedient student and in recent days he has been unstoppable. He agrees to have Thetis take him to the Styx. Then Achilles appears accompanied by Patroclus and, upon seeing Thetis, immediately runs to hugs her. At night, there is a joyful party.

While the others sleep, Thetis deliberates between different places to hide her son, until she decides on Skyros. She then deliberates how she will take Achilles, until she decides to call the pair of dolphins she nurtured. Thetis carries the sleeping Achilles in her arms while Chiron watches, already sad and hoping for a near return (as he thought she would just dip him in the Styx and soon Achilles would return).

The next day, Achilles wakes up and is worried to see that he isn’t on the Pelion, but Thetis reassures him. She explains the plan and tries to convince him, even naming men who have associated themselves with the feminine and remain powerful (Hercules, Bacchus, Jupiter, Caeneus) as a way of ensuring that clothes won’t make him weaker and promises that she won’t tell Chiron anything.

Achilles, however, isn’t convinced by the speech. But he sees the daughters of Lycomedes participating in a festive day in honor of Pallas and notices the one who leads the choir, Deidamia. She’s described in long lines as immensely beautiful and Thetis, noticing her son's attention directed towards the girl, begins to ask if it’s so difficult to have to spend time with these maidens. He then agrees to the plan to stay close to Deidamia.

Thetis dresses Achilles and teaches him to behave in a feminine manner so as not to be discovered, and then takes him to Lycomedes. She lies to Lycomedes Achilles is his sister who, like her brother, is proud. Thetis says her daughter was raised as an Amazon, rejecting marriage, but now that war is approaching Thetis thinks that having Achilles at risk is enough pain for a mother and she would prefer her daughter to be safe living like a common woman. Leaving her daughter in the care of Lycomedes and among his daughters, the daughter can learn how to lead an female life. Lycomedes accepts.

Lycomedes' daughters observe Achilles, noticing that he’s taller and broader than them and are impressed. However, none suspect that he isn’t a girl and they invite him to dance with them. Thetis says goodbye, still anxious about the fate of her son.

The Greeks prepare for war and only Achilles' home kingdom is absent, and the citizens lament that Peleus is too old and Achilles is too young and therefore they won’t be able to win glory in war (because it would be necessary for one of them to lead the army. If none of them are of the appropriate age, the army doesn’t leave).

In Aulis, the Greeks are eager for Achilles to join them and they gossip about the boy, about how incredible his lineage is, how exceptionally raised he was, how he was dipped in the Styx, etc etc. Seeing this, Protesilaus complains to Calchas, the seer of the Greeks, that although they have incredible warriors like Big Ajax among them the Greeks aren’t paying any attention and prefer to think about Achilles and therefore it seems that ideally they would get Achilles first. Saying that he wasn’t found with either Peleus or Chiron, he asks Calchas to tell them where the boy hid. Calchas sees Thetis taking Achilles to Skyros and hiding him among the girls. Then Diomedes tells Ulysses that they should go after Achilles and he agrees. The Greeks are really excited with the idea.

Meanwhile, on Skyros Deidamia discovered Achilles' secret in a way that is never really explained. She thinks her sisters know too and are just keeping quiet, but the reality is that only Deidamia knows because Achilles very clearly uses every opportunity to be close to her and doesn't interact that much with the other girls. They develop a friendship, Achilles even tells her things about his life, and Deidamia helps him maintain his disguise, teaching him things like dancing and weaving. They develop a friendship, Achilles even tells her things about his life, and Deidamia helps him maintain his disguise, teaching him things like dancing and weaving. Deidamia is amazed by Achilles, but still avoids him in every way from confessing to her (in this part, they are compared to Jupiter, the Roman counterpart of Zeus, and Juno, the Roman counterpart of Hera). This makes Achilles impatient.

A Bacchus (Dionysus) festival exclusively for women happens and, as Achilles is thought to be a girl, he’s among the participants. The narrative highlights that Deidamia is more impressive than the other women present, but Achilles is more impressive than her. Achilles thinks to himself about repressed masculinity due to his mother's fault and wonders if Patroclus is taking his place while Achilles is stuck doing feminine things. Having decided that he’s tired of this situation, Achilles rapes Deidamia in the woods. She screams, but no one notices the situation because of the Bacchus festival.

Achilles solaces Deidamia (seriously, that's the word used) saying that it was because of her that he subjected himself to this humiliation (that is, living like a girl), that he was given birth next to Jupiter (Zeus), that Deidamia is the daughter-in-law of a deity, that she will give birth to grandchildren from Olympus, etc. Basically, his consolation is to say something like “yes, I raped you, but look how amazing my lineage is and now you’re part of it. Plus you're so beautiful you made someone like me humiliate myself just to be with you”

Deidamia is horrified by the situation, but decides not to tell Lycomedes about the rape because fears Lycomedes will have a negative reaction to her and, oddly enough, she’s still in love with Achilles and doesn’t want him to be punished. She makes her nurse complicit in this while hiding the pregnancy. She bore a son.

Diomedes and Ulysses arrive on Skyros, and Ulysses tells Diomedes that he has a plan to trick Achilles if he’s actually there. Ulysses and Diomedes then speak to Lycomedes bringing news about the war. Ulysses notices that one of the girls doesn't seem to have feminine modesty and keeps that in mind.

Now with the girls present and the banquet served, Ulysses talks about the glory of war. Achilles is going to reveal himself, but Deidamia stops him. A dance is performed, but Achilles is no longer even trying to appear graceful, for he despises female life more than ever now. Meanwhile, Diomedes went to get the items for Ulysses' plan.

Ulysses offers the gifts and says the Lycomedes girls can choose whatever they want. While everyone was more interested in more typically feminine things, Achilles was interested in a shield. He hesitated after being embarrassed to see himself reflected in the metal, but Ulysses had already noticed him and came to whisper that he knew who he was.

At this moment, a war trumpet sounded. Achilles reacted immediately, removing his clothes, taking a spear and shield and positioning himself to fight. So his disguise was revealed and Lycomedes was shocked and felt a bad omen. Deidamia lamented the discovery, knowing that Achilles would leave (because, again, Statius wrote her still in love with Achilles despite the rape). Seeing this, Achilles decides to comfort Lycomedes by saying that now Lycomedes will have fame because of him, that he has the honor of participating in the great lineage of Achilles' family through Deidamia and that he should not blame Deidamia because there was no way for her to resist Achilles. So he takes his son and puts him at Lycomedes' feet and tells him to stop being angry because he’s already his father-in-law. He also convinces Lycomedes to marry Deidamia to him.

Deidamia is saddened by Achilles' departure and asks him to promise that he won’t have any children with another woman in Troy. Achilles comforts her and promises that he will bring her many gifts from Troy (i.e., the spoils of war).

[Book 2] Deidamia and Achilles are already married and the child's name is Pyrrhus. Both are saddened by the separation while Achilles leaves with Ulysses, who convinces Achilles to focus on the war (Ulysses even encourages Achilles by telling him to think of a plunderer taking Deidamia like Paris took Helen, which makes him blush with anger). Achilles feels that, through war, he will be able to compensate for the dishonor he suffered because of Thetis's plan. The rest is Achilles talking to Diomedes.

You have certainly noticed that Statius appears to be the author most concerned with ensuring Achilles' masculinity. For example:

Thetis is much more pronounced as the one responsible for the dishonorable situation (she lies to Chiron, she takes Achilles asleep, etc);

Chiron already comments on how uncontrollable Achilles is at such an age

Achilles is represented as actively refusing Thetis' idea and accepting it only because of lust (when seeing Deidamia);

Achilles' appearance being different from the other girls is noticed by the girls;

Thetis has to give a backstory that justifies his unfeminine behavior (life as an Amazon). Other references to Amazons are mentioned in the little text we have, which may be foreshadowing regarding Achilles' gender, since Amazons were women who lived a life considered masculine and Achilles is a boy living a feminine life.

Deidamia has somehow realized that he’s a boy and apparently finds it so obvious she thinks his sisters know too;

Achilles spends his time on Skyros trying to have something with Deidamia and appears to be bad at feminine activities;

Deidamia is amazed by his deep voice;

Achilles sees the flirtation he has with Deidamia as a weakness (because he feels trapped by her wishes) and rapes her;

Achilles is afraid that Patroclus will take his place (which could also be a reference to the future related to Patroclus' death);

Achilles tries to reveal himself when Ulysses talks about the war, before the trick is even applied;

Ulysses notices Achilles doesn’t have a modest behavior and has no difficulty identifying him;

Achilles had already been attracted to the shield even before the full plan with the trumpet,

Achilles is constantly bragging about having impregnated Deidamia and the glory of his lineage (Pyrrhus), etc;

Many of these elements aren’t found in any other source.

It’s commented in academic circles that Statius's writing appears to have a strong Ovidian influence. Therefore, it’s possible to consider that Statius included a rape because it was inspired by Art of Love, where there is the presence of a possible rape (yes, it’s possible that it wasn’t a literal rape, but it still has the possibility of having inspired versions with literal rapes). Achilleid probably began to be composed in 94 or 95 AD, while, in turn, the first book of The Art of Love/Ars Amatoria was published in 2 AD, thus making chronological sense the possibility that Ovid's version inspired Statius.

It has become a commonplace of Statian criticism that, if Thebaid invokes Virgil as model,' then Achilleid sees Statius using Ovid. Important work has been done in this field, most notably by Rosati and Hinds: Rosati has explored the relationships between Achilleid and several Ovidian texts, while Hinds has insisted on the centrality of Metamorphoses to understanding Achilleid: 'it is an epic: a markedly Ovidian, markedly metamorphic epic'. This essay aims to extend that discussion through consideration of the differences between Statius and his Ovidian models in his handling of a number of key episodes. The most obvious connection between Ovid's works and Statius' Achilleid is the story of Achilles' rape of Deidamia, for these are the only extant classical poets to narrate the story at any length. That Statius' account actually alludes to Ovid's account in Art of Love is clear. For example, both poets use marked alliteration when describing Achilles' violence.

Allusion to Ovid and Others in Statius' Achilleid by Peter Davis, pg 129-130.

Other similarities are listed by Davis as, for example, Achilles' courting attempts in Achilleid being similar to the advice given by Ovid in Art of Love (e.g. try to enchant her with music), also other similar forms of writing and the way in which both texts are concerned with Achilles' masculinity (in Art of Love, it’s the narrator who reprimands Achilles. In Achilleid, Achilles is the one who is bothered). However, there is a very clear difference between the texts and that is Deidamia and her voice regarding rape. If in Ovid's case the rape as a literal rape is ambiguous, Statius makes it quite obvious that it really is a rape. Yet he portrays Achilles and Deidamia as if she were romantically invested (for example, in how Deidamia doesn't tell Lycomedes the truth because she fears being punished and she fears Achilles will be punished. In other words, it’s not just herself that she wants to protect, she also wants to protect Achilles from the punishment of the crime committed), the rape here is literal and there aren’t many elements in the text that support the idea that Deidamia was consenting. Yes, she’s portrayed as being interested in Achilles previously despite avoiding his advances, but that doesn't mean she would necessarily consent to any sexual relations with him. Just because you're in love with someone doesn't mean you want to have sex with them, and if they force you despite that then it's still rape. There are academics who read this text as an example of a deeply erotic narrative and even those who theorize that Statius' intention in the next Books was to portray Achilles' erotic involvement with other women in Troy (which isn’t possible to be sure, since the work was never finished), but a deeply erotic narrative doesn’t necessarily erase the rape.

What then of wanting to be forced? As we have seen, the teacher could hardly be more explicit: the Ovidian Deidamia wanted to be overcome by strength (Ars 1.700). There is no suggestion in Statius' narrative that Deidamia wanted to be raped. Indeed in this poem there is only one character who wishes to be forced and that is Achilles himself: mulcetur laetumque rubet uisusque proteruos obliquat uestesque manu leuiore repellit. aspicit ambiguum genetrix cogique uolentem iniecitque sinus. (Ach. 1.323-26) He is caressed and blushes with pleasure and slants wanton glances and pushes away the clothes with lighter hand. His mother sees that he is ambiguous and wanting to be forced and throws the garments on him. As Dilke points out, the phrase cogique uolentem ('wanting to be forced') alludes to the Ovidian account of Deidamia's rape. The language used here to describe the interplay between Thetis and her son suggests nothing so much as lovers' games, for there are caresses, blushes and wanton looks, culminating in the desire to be forced and, finally, action. Indeed the language of this passage suggests that dressing Achilles in women's clothing is a kind of rape.

That the Statian Deidamia was not willing to be forced is clear both from the prelude to the rape and her reaction. First of all, Statius takes care to separate the innocent flirting of boy and girl from the rape itself. Indeed Deidamia herself attempts to prevent their relationship from advancing beyond innocent play: iam iamque dolos aperire parantem uirginea leuitate fugit prohibetque fateri. sic sub matre Rhea iuuenis regnator Olympi oscula securae dabat insidiosa sorori frater adhuc, medii donec reuerentia cessit sanguinis et uersos germana expauit amores. (Ach. 1.586-91) With a virgin's fickleness she flees him just when he is preparing to reveal the deception and forbids him to confess. So under mother Rhea the young ruler of Olympus gave deceitful kisses to his unsuspicious sister, still her brother, until respect for their shared blood gave way and the sister feared that their love had been transformed. The phrase uirginea leuitate ('with a virgin's fickleness') hardly suggests responsible behaviour. On the other hand, preventing Achilles from revealing his masculinity also prevents him from making sexual advances. But the simile makes plain that the balance of responsibility in this affair lies with Achilles, for the description of Jupiter's behaviour (oscula...dabat, 'was giving kisses') corresponds precisely to that of Achilles in the preceding lines (mille per oscula laudat, 'praises her though a thousand kisses', 1.576). In that case, the adjectives prove particularly telling, for Jupiter's kisses are insidiosa (‘deceitful”), while Juno remains secura ('unsuspicious').

Note too that Statius changes the location of the rape. The Ovidian Deidamia is raped in her own bedroom (1.697). A reader of Art of Love who was inclined to defend Achilles might take up the teacher's suggestion that Deidamia really wanted to be forced, that her 'no' was really 'yes'. No such excuse is open to the Statian Achilles, for the rape takes place at a Bacchic festival immediately after a soliloquy in which Achilles urges himself to rape Deidamia (1.624-39). And this Deidamia responds, not by wanting to repeat the experience, but by loud protest: uidit chorus omnis ab alto astrorum et tenerae rubuerunt cornua Lunae. illa quidem clamore nemus montemque repleuit. (Ach. 1.643-45) The whole chorus of stars saw from above and the tender-hearted Moon's horns blushed. Deidamia filled forest and mountain with her shouting. This is not a woman wanting to be forced. This interpretation is confirmed, moreover, by Achilles' own words to Lycomedes: quid enim his obstare lacertis,/qua potuit nostras possessa repellere uires? ('What could resist these arms of mine, how could she, in my possession, repel my strength?', 1.904f.). Note too that far from saying mane ('Stay!', Ars 1.701) to Achilles as he leaves, this Deidamia begins three successive lines (940, 941, 942) with the word i ('Go!'). The language of Achilles and Deidamia seems chosen to rebut the Ovidian teacher's account of Deidamia's rape and, by implication, of the nature of female sexuality.

At this point it is worth noting that while the Statian account of Achilles' rape of Deidamia seems to take issue with the version propounded in Art of Love, it actually has much in common with the rape stories found in Metamorphoses. First and most obviously, the tone is serious, not jocular. Second, there are common narrative elements: the girl's silence and sense of guilt or shame and the rapist's use of disguise. Third, there are particular connections, additional to those mentioned above, with the story of Leucothoe in Metamorphoses 4: the Bacchic context, the rapist being disguised as a woman and paternal anger against the girl (actual in Ovid, averted in Statius). This is perhaps not surprising if we recall that Metamorphoses and Achilleid are generically related as variants of epic, while Art of Love is a bizarre hybrid, a didactic elegy. The substance of Statius' account of Deidamia's rape may be drawn from Art of Love, but the treatment is more closely aligned with Metamorphoses.

Allusion to Ovid and Others in Statius' Achilleid by Peter Davis, pg 135-137.

Furthermore, unlike the bucolic poem Epithalamium, where a homoerotic reading from Deidamia's point of view is possible (especially because Achilles is conquering her through feminine practices), Davis argues Statius eliminates any possibility of a homoerotic reading by explaining that Deidamia already knew of the disguise a while ago and interacted with him while she knew he was a boy. At no point in the text does Deidamia's passion for Achilles occur without it being explained that she’s aware of the disguise.

So, if the interpretation that Deidamia consented is correct (something that Davis mentions is indeed a possibility and that I mentioned earlier using Diack) and Achilles regains his masculinity through conquering a woman sexually through courtship, in Achilleid such a possibility is denied. He follows the same advice presented in Art of Love, but Deidamia rejects the advances. Impatient and angry, Achilles rapes her and thus regains his masculinity through the use of force on a woman. Therefore, despite Ovid and Statius having similarities in their versions, there is a very important difference between them.

Library, by Pseudo-Apollodorus (1st or 2nd century AD)

Library, or Bibliotheca, is a work whose purpose is to collect different versions of myths. You see, it's not a play or a poem, but a sort of mythological encyclopedia. It had been attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, however such an attribution is now consensually considered erroneous for reasons of chronology. Because Library had already become known under the name of Apollodorus, “Pseudo” was simply added before the name, generally used to indicate an erroneous attribution (this case) or uncertain (the case of works attributed to Hyginus, for example). As already mentioned, it’s more of an encyclopedia and seeks to deal with a lot of myths, so Pseudo-Apollodorus didn’t waste time detailing every detail as would have happened if it were an epic, he just gave useful and succinct information.

According to a version given by Pseudo-Apollodorus, when Achilles was 9 years old, the seer Calchas (the same one who is with the Achaeans in the Trojan War) predicted his tragic destiny. His mother, Thetis, tried to prevent his premature death from happening by hiding him among the girls at Lycomedes' court. At one point, he had a thing with Deidamia, who got pregnant (Neoptolemus, hi). Odysseus, however, arrived at Skyros and then tricked Achilles into breaking out of his disguise. Achilles then left for Troy, and Pseudo-Apollodorus says he was 15 when he became admiral in the Achaean army. In other words, Achilles lived on Skyros for around 6 years, which easily explains the development of a relationship with Deidamia.

When Achilles was nine years old, Calchas declared that Troy could not be taken without him; so Thetis, foreseeing that it was fated he should perish if he went to the war, disguised him in female garb and entrusted him as a maiden to Lycomedes. Bred at his court, Achilles had an intrigue with Deidamia, daughter of Lycomedes, and a son Pyrrhus was born to him, who was afterwards called Neoptolemus. But the secret of Achilles was betrayed, and Ulysses, seeking him at the court of Lycomedes, discovered him by the blast of a trumpet. And in that way Achilles went to Troy.

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by J.G Frazer.

So Agamemnon in person was in command of the whole army, and Achilles was admiral, being fifteen years old.

Library, E.3.16. Translation by J.G Frazer.

Although this translation uses the term “intrigue”, which may suggest a secret relationship, the Greek text I saw apparently uses a word that doesn’t necessarily imply doing something in secret and is more along the lines of “lay with”. However, if it were secret it wouldn't be something new, since this, for example, happens in the bucolic poem I showed previously.

Furthermore, Library also gives us the future of Deidamia after Achilles dies. Neoptolemus is said to have given her in marriage to the former Trojan prince Helenus, who had apparently gone from being a common slave to ruling a city he himself founded.

Helenus founded a city in Molossia and inhabited it, and Neoptolemus gave him his mother Deidamia to wife. And when Peleus was expelled from Phthia by the sons of Acastus and died, Neoptolemus succeeded to his father's kingdom.

Library, E.6.13. Translation by J.G Frazer.

Description of Greece, by Pausanias (2nd century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Description of Greece has a self-explanatory title. Basically, Pausanias traveled around Greece writing down things he learned in each region, which included mythological traditions and visual representations that portrayed myths — like paintings, for example — as they form part of local cultures. For this reason, although Decription of Greece isn’t a mythological encyclopedia like Pseudo-Apollodorus's Library, it’s possible to learn different versions of the myths through Pausanias' accounts.

At one point, he’s describing paintings of the entrance to the Acropolis of Athens. He then praises Homer, considering his choice not to include Polyxena's sacrifice a good decision and also preferred the version he presented of Achilles conquering Skyros, claiming it to be better than the version in which he is disguised. This alone was enough to indicate the myth, but Pausanias also says that the painter Polygnotus represented the disguise version.

[...] And there is Polyxena about to be sacrificed near the grave of Achilles. Homer did well in passing by this barbarous act. I think too that he showed poetic insight in making Achilles capture Scyros, differing entirely from those who say that Achilles lived in Scyros with the maidens, as Polygnotus has re presented in his picture.

Description of Greece, 1.22.6. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

That Homer didn’t represent the sacrifice of Polyxena was possibly not an active decision by Homer to ignore the myth, but it may be that such a version of the myth wasn’t known to him. This is because, curiously, the sources that indicate Polyxena's sacrifice are later and don’t belong to Archaic Greece (Homer's period). The same possibility applies to the myth of Achilles disguised as a girl, since the sources we have for this myth are more recent than Homer. Does this mean I’m stating with 100% certainty that both myths ABSOLUTELY didn’t exist in Archaic Greece? No, after all we can only have access to physical-registred accounts and oral traditions don’t include this. But it’s possible that they developed around Classical Greece period. Anyway, it's at least funny that Pausanias, after saying that it was a good idea not to write Polyxena's sacrifice because it was a "barbarous act", talked about how it was also a good idea not to represent the version of Achilles is hidden in Skyros. It's almost as if the two things are comparable in terms of immorality.

The interesting part here isn’t Homer, but Polygnotus. He’s probably Polygnotus of Thasos (although he was adopted by Athenians and raised as one), who is from the 5th century BC. The 5th century BC begins in late Archaic Greece and continues into Classical Greece. In other words, this would make it possible for this myth to already exist during the transition between Archaic and Classical Greece depending on when Polygnotus was born (can't be sure).

Heroica, by Philostratus (2nd to 3rd century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. The authorship is disputed, being attributed to both Philostratus the Athenian and Philostratus the Elder (they were contemporaries, therefore regardless of who the author was, the work belongs to the same period). Heroica has the format of a dialogue, and proposes a discussion regarding the Homeric representation of the Trojan War. The historical context of Heroica makes it the type of work that purposefully wants to subvert the traditional version of the myth, for example by making Thetis and Peleus' relationship a consensual romance initiated by Thetis herself and by stating that Patroclus never wore Achilles' armor. More on this topic here.

This subversion also affects the meeting of Achilles and Deidamia. Here Achilles isn’t in Skyros to conquer it, nor does he accidentally end up there because of a storm, nor is he hiding from the war. In truth, he was sent by Peleus to avenge his father's friend Theseus, who had been killed by King Lycomedes. However, Achilles believes Lycomedes' defensive argument and spares him, even proposing to speak in his defense to Peleus. Then Achilles married Deidamia, and had with her Neoptolemus.

He says that after Theseus had fled from Athens because of the curse against his son, he died in Skyros by the hand of Lykomedes. Peleus, who had been Theseus's guest-friend and companion in the Calydonian deed, sent Achilles to Skyros to avenge Theseus. And after he set sail together with Phoenix, who by reason of old age knew only the deliberative arts, he overthrew Skyros, which was on high ground away from attack after it had been rebuilt on a rocky hill. He guarded Lykomedes and indeed did not kill him, but asked him what possessed him to kill a man better than himself. When Lykomedes said, "Because, Achilles, he came for unjust reasons and made an attempt on my dominion," Achilles released him, since he killed Theseus justly, and said that he would speak in his defense to Peleus. Achilles married Deidameia, daughter of Lykomedes, and there was born to them Neoptolemos, who was named this because of Achilles' youth when he rushed forward into war. Thetis appeared to Achilles while he was living there, and she attended to her son just as mortal mothers do. When the army was assembling at Aulis, she carried him over to Phthia because of the fates spun for him when she made Peleus the child's master. [...]

Heroica, 731-732. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

As for the mention of Neoptolemus being named in honor of Achilles' youth, it probably has to do with the etymology of the name since Neoptolemus means “new war” (see here).

Imagines, by Philostratus the Younger (3th century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Imagines is basically a series of descriptions of paintings, which are also accompanied by descriptions of the myths they depict. It isn’t possible to be sure whether all of these paintings actually existed, or whether Philostratus invented them as a narrative device to tell the intended myths. There are two series of Imagines with the same proposal, both written by a man called Philostratus. The difference is that one was attributed to Philostratus the Elder and the other was attributed to Philostratus the Younger. What I'm referring to concerns the younger one, who was even inspired by the older one, who was also his maternal grandfather.

In the first image, Philostratus comments on the myths of Achilles and Pyrrhus on Skyros. According to him, Thetis learned from her father Nereus (and not Calchas, as was the case in the version given by Pseudo-Apollodorus) about the prophecy of her son's death. She then hid Achilles among the girls of Lycomedes. He secretly became involved with Deidamia, described as the eldest of the girls, and she became pregnant. Achilles was later discovered and left for Troy.

Achilles here is between the feminine and the masculine. He's feminine enough to pass for a pretty girl, but masculine enough that there's a certain difference in the way he's painted compared to the others girls. Although Achilles claims to enjoy traditionally feminine activities like weaving, he still has an appreciation for traditionally masculine activities like being a warrior, which is why he fell into Odysseus' plan. In the end, Achilles chooses masculinity as his final decision after having lived in femininity, represented by the choice he made among the gifts offered by Odysseus. Furthermore, Achilles' expression is described in a way that indicates that he has some concern regarding the gender he plays (“girl who is tossing back her tresses, grim of aspect along with delicate grace will soon have her sex betrayed, and slipping off the character she has been forced to assume will reveal Achilles”).

The heroine crowned with reeds – for doubtless you see the female figure at the foot of the mountain, sturdy of form and dressed in blue – is the island of Scyros, my boy, which the divine Sophocles calls “wind-swept.” She has a branch of olive in her hands and a spray of vine. And the tower in the foot-hills of the mountain – that is the place where the daughters of Lycomedes follow their maidenly pursuits with the seeming daughter of Thetis. For when Thetis learned from her father Nereus the decree of the Fates about her son – that one of two things had been allotted to him, either to live ingloriously or becoming glorious to die very soon – her son was put away among the daughters of Lycomedes on Scyros and now lives hidden there; to the other girls he seems to be a girl, but one of them, the eldest, he has known in secret love, and her time is approaching when she will bring forth Pyrrhus. But this is not in the picture. There is a meadow before the tower, for this part of the island is a garden made to produce flowers in abundance for the maidens, and you see them scattered here and there plucking the flowers. All are surpassingly beautiful, but while the others incline to a strictly feminine beauty, proving indisputably their feminine nature by the frank glances of their eyes and the bloom of their cheeks and their vivacity in all they do, yet yonder girl who is tossing back her tresses, grim of aspect along with delicate grace will soon have her sex betrayed, and slipping off the character she has been forced to assume will reveal Achilles. For as the rumour of Thetis’ secret spreads among the Greeks, Diomedes in company with Odysseus sets forth to Scyros to ascertain the truth of this story. You see them both, one keeping the glance of his eyes sunk low by reason, I think, of his craftiness and his habit of continual scheming, the other, Tydeus’ son, prudent, ready in counsel and intent on the task before him. What does the man behind them mean, the one who blows the trumpet? And what is the significance of the painting? Odysseus, shrewd and an able tracker of secrets, devises the following plan to test what he is tracking out; when he throws down on the meadow wool-baskets and objects suited to girls for their play and a suit of armour, the daughters of Lycomedes turn to objects suitable to their sex, but the son of Peleus, though he claims to find pleasure in baskets and weaving-combs, forthwith leaves these things to the girls,and rushing to the suit of armour he divests himself of the feminine attire he ahs been wearing…

…. And Pyrrhus is no longer a country boor nor yet growing strong amid filth like brawling sons of herdsmen, but already he is a soldier. For he stands leaning on a spear and gazing towards the ship; and he wears a purple mantle brought up from the tip of the shoulder over to his left arm and a white tunic that does not reach the knee; and though his eye is flashing, it is not so much the eye of a man in full career as of one still holding back and vexed at the delay; and his mind images something of what will happen a little later in Ilium. His hair now, when he is at rest, hangs down his forehead, but when he rushed forward it will be in disorder, following, as it tosses to and fro, the emotions of his spirit. The goats skipping about unchecked, the straying herds, and the shepherd’s staff with its crook lying among them where it has been thrown imply some such story as this, my boy: – Vexed with his mother and his grandfather for being kept on the island, since after the death of Achilles in fear for the boy they had sworn that Pyrrhus should not depart, he set himself over the goats and kine, subduing the bulls that scorned the herd – the bulls that may be seen on the mountain at the right. But when the oracle came to the Greeks that Troy would be captured by none other than the descendants of Aeacus, Phoenix is sent to Scyros to fetch the boy, and putting ashore he encounters him, each unknown to the other except in so far as the boy’s graceful and well-grown form suggested that he was Achilles’ son. And as soon as Phoenix recognized who he was, he himself be came known to Lycomedes and Deiodameia. All this is what art would teach us by means of this small picture, and it is so painted as to furnish to poets also a theme for song.

Imagines, 1. Translation by Arthur Fairbanks.

The Taking of Ilios, by Tryphiodorus (3rd or 4th century AD)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Similar to Quintus Smyrnaeus and Nonnus of Panopolis, Tryphiodorus is included among the late poets of Greco-Roman mythology. Tryphiodorus appears to have been immensely inspired by ancient Greek poets, although there is a possible influence from Virgil as well. Unlike other texts, The Taking of Ilios isn’t a detailed text and seems more like a poetic summary. As is notable, there isn't much here about Achilles and Skyros. Neoptolemus is the son of Achilles and Deidamia and that's it.

[...] From Scyros, too, leaving that city of fair maidens, came the son of Achilles and august Deidameia; who, albeit he mantled not yet on his goodly temples the down of manhood, showed the prowess of his sire, young warrior though he was. [...]

The Taking of Ilios. Translation by Mair, A. W.

Part 1 here. Part 3 here.

#Achilles #Deidamia #Achidamia #Deidameia #Neptolemus #Pyrrha #Thetis #tw: rape #birdie.txt #birdiethings

3 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 6 months ago

Text

ACHILLES ON SKYROS [PART 1]

The dancer displayed for you the many Lycomedian maidens and the work and tools of girls, the distaff, the spindle, the wool, the warp, the woof, and he has represented Achilles playing the part of a maiden. Don't worry. He won't stop the dance at this point, for Odysseus is coming to the door, and Diomedes with his trumpet, and the son of Peleus is revealing what he really is instead of what he seems to be.

Libanius and the Dancers, by Margaret E.Molly.

I decided to make a post with ancient sources that deal with the association of Achilles with Skyros in Greco-Roman mythology. For this, I’ll be using both Greek and Roman sources, but I’ll be making it clear which versions are Greek and which versions are Roman. Therefore, this post, in addition to serving to understand Achilles' associations with Skyros, in a way also serves as a group of sources for the character Deidamia and sources for the birth of the character Neoptolemus. This myth touches on topics such as gender roles in society, misogyny and rape (including depictions of glorified rape), so be aware of this if you intend to read the post.

When talking about "feminine" and "masculine" here I’ll be considering the traditional idea of gender in antiquity, which doesn’t mean that all women and men were like this or even that all mythological characters were strictly idealized in this way. For example, cowardice was a characteristic more associated with the feminine, so much so that Aeschylus writing Aegythus as a coward makes him effeminate while writing Clytemnestra as the one who holds violent power masculinizes her. Does this stop Antigone from being brave without being masculine? No! But it doesn't change that cowardice, especially in the context of battle, was associated with the feminine and not the masculine, it's no wonder in The Iliad male characters call other male characters women as a form of offense by insinuating that they are cowards/aren't skilled warriors. Although there were female warrior characters like the Amazons, violence (and consequently war) was still a male attribute in the same way that weaving was a female craft (a very important one in the cultural context, including. This is why weaving was cited so often by writers as a feminine activity Achilles did while in disguise). As horrible as it’s to say that rape is a narrative device to exalt masculinity, this is how rape was treated in Roman sources like Achilleid. The perception of gender here is less about modern perception and more about ancient perception, and the traditional idea is used as a social reference and not the exceptions. This even applies to texts that subvert gender roles in some way, because, to recognize a subversion, you first have to recognize the traditional.

Furthermore, this post presents different interpretations/analyses from academics instead of being a post focused on my interpretations, as I believe they have more knowledge of the subject than I do. I’ll try to present different views, including those I don't necessarily agree with and I’ll avoid as much as possible (not entirely, however) giving an opinion on which interpretation is my favorite to avoid influencing whoever is reading it. Because they’re interpretations, it mean that they aren’t absolute truths, so it’s entirely possible for you to disagree and that’s okay.

And now, some details:

I use the spelling Skyros because I got used to it, although the most common in English is Scyros. Same about Deidamia/Deidameia.

I'm definitely not a classicist and this is purely a hobby, so don't expect anything super complex. If I make a mistake, let me know and I'll fix it! If you have anything to add that I didn't include, be free!

The dates refer to the likely periods of the authors, not the works themselves. It isn’t always possible to be sure of an author's lifetime, but if I were to try to organize the period in which the work was written it would be even more difficult.

There may be writing errors, as I’m not fluent in English and this is more evident in a long post.

The Iliad, by Homer (8th century BC)

This is a source of Greek mythology. The Iliad requires no introduction, I suppose. Homer doesn't give us many details on the subject, but Achilles' association with Skyros was already present in The Iliad, although it’s clear that it isn’t the most popular version of the girl disguise. So now I'll organize the chronology.

At some point we don't know when or how, Achilles had a son named Neptolemus, who continued to live on Skyros when Achilles left for Troy. We currently know the mother attributed to Neoptolemus is princess Deidamia, but in The Iliad the mother's name or status is never mentioned. Thus, it isn’t possible to know anything about the identity of Neoptolemus's mother or details about his conception — for example, how she and Achilles met.

[...] or the death of my dear son, reared for me in Scyros, if Prince Neoptolernus is still among the living [...]

The Iliad, 19.388-389. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Regardless of how or when Neoptolemus was conceived, the fact is: Achilles didn’t go from Skyros to Troy in the Homeric version. We know this because Odysseus explicitly says Peleus sent Achilles to Agamemnon directly from Phthia. I've read the argument that Odysseus, being the one who usually discovers Achilles' disguise, could be lying because a man dressing up as a woman to escape war wouldn't exactly do the best with Achilles' image. But besides me not considering this a concrete theory (if you see this as a headcanon, okay. But theory…well, I think it lacks some substance), Phoenix also says the same thing. So it's not just Odysseus who says it.

[...] Oh old friend, surely your father Peleus urged you, that day he sent you out of Phthia to Agamemnon [...]

The Iliad, 9.306-307. Translation by Robert Fagles.

[...] The old horseman Peleus had me escort you, that day he sent you out of Phthia to Agamernnon, a youngster still untrained for the great leveler, war, still green at debate where men can make their mark. [...]

The Iliad, 9.533-536 Translation by Robert Fagles.

At some point after he had already joined the Achaean army, Achilles conquered Skyros. From there he brought Iphis as a slave, whom he gave to Patroclus. That is, for Homer, Skyros was conquered by the Achaean army during the Trojan War events.

And over across from him Patroclus slept with the sashed and lovely Iphis by his side, whom Prince Achilles gave him the day he took the heights of Scyros, Enyeus' rocky stronghold.

The Iliad, 9.813-816. Translation by Robert Fagles.

I got the impression that Achilles and Neoptolemus' mother aren’t married in this version, since Achilles says that he thinks about Peleus choosing a wife for him.

[...] If the gods pull me through and I reach home alive. Peleus needs no help to fetch a bride for me himself Plenty of Argive women wait in Hellas and in Phthia, daughters of lords who rule their citadels in power. Whomever I want I'll make my cherished wife-at home. Time and again my fiery spirit drove me to win a wife, a fine partner to please my heart. to enjoy with her the treasures myoid father Peleus piled high. [...]

The Iliad, 9.480-487. Translation by Robert Fagles.

I have placed the conception of Neoptolemus as the first part in the chronology, but it’s actually not possible to be certain. Because of the lack of clarity, Homeric Neoptolemus could have been conceived during the conquest of Skyros rather than before the Trojan War, as is usual in myths. This, in turn, could add some tension to the relationship aspect of Achilles and his son's mother, as she would have been a native of a conquered place (maybe a war-rape?). But this isn’t clear or explicit and, furthermore, I prefer to think that Neoptolemus was conceived before the Trojan War for age reasons. He's already very young in the pre-Trojan War version, I don't even want to think about how old he would have been when he was found by the Achaeans if he had been born during the Trojan War. But yes, it’s still a possibility.

Christos Tsagalis offers a possible link between Homer's version and a version of a Homeric scholia in which Achilles sacked Skyros before the Achaeans reached Troy, which would explain Neoptolemus' age and reinforces the possibility of a war-rape (a war-rape that, however, is practically never confirmed. Currently we can only deal with possibilities). He also comments on how, however, in antiquity there were attempts to make this version credible even considering the version in which Achilles receives hospitality in Skyros.

[...] another version (reported by an exegetical scholium ad Il. 9, 668b), according to which Achilles sacked the island of Scyros at the time of the first recruitment in Aulis, so as to subjugate the Dolopes who had revolted from the rule of Peleus. This last version featuring a heroic Achilles sacking Scyros is consonant with Il. 9,668, where it is said that Achilles sacked steep Scyros, the citadel of Enyeus (Σκῦρον ἑλῶν αἰπεῖαν, Ἐνυῆος πτολίεθρον). We do not need to get involved into fanciful explanations, of the kind entertained by ancient scholars who argued that the Scyros Homer is referring to in Il. 9.668 may have been a city and not the island on the NE of Euboea or that Achilles liberated the island from the Dolopes, who had revolted against Peleus. It is understandable that such explanations stemmed from the paradox of having Achilles sack the island where he had been of fered hospitality in the past. This paradox though is based on the belief that Achilles’ hiding and cross-dressing episode at Scyros formed part of the Cypria. According to this line of thought, Homeric poetry had downplayed such a cyclic episode, although it may have been very much aware of its existence. The episode of Achilles’ arrival at Scyros after a storm may have also formed part of the Ilias parva (dubitantibus Allen, Bernabé – assentientibus Davies [frr. 4A and 4B], West [frr. 4-5]), where in an analeptic reference, Odysseus may have told Neoptolemus, while they were still on Scyros, that part of his father’s past life which his mother Deidameia could not have possibly known, i.e. from his departure from Scyros until his death at Troy. Such a flashback may have included both Achilles’ forced landing on Scyros because of a storm after the abortive Teuthranian expedition (fr. 24 incerti operis, p. 82 Bernabé = Ilias parva fr.4A Davies = Ilias parva fr. 4 West) and the description of the famous ‘Pelian’ spear given to Peleus by Chiron and then passed on to Achilles (Ilias parva fr. 5 = Bernabé = Ilias parva fr. 4B Davies = Ilias parva fr. 5 West).

Cypria fr 19 (Bernabé, West): further considerations by Christos Tsagalis, pg 260-261.

Skyros here seems to serve to reinforce Achilles' ability (as it’s his achievement) and to explain the existence of an important character (Neoptolemus). Years later, a The Iliad scholiast mentioned the myth of Achilles disguised as a woman in Skyros, writing about the presence of Deidamia and also mentioning that Achilles left female life for weapons (you can see the text here, although it’s in Greek). One scholia about The Iliad presents Thetis as the person responsible for hiding Achilles, while another scholia presents Peleus. The version with Peleus is extremely unusual, so there is a theory in academia that it was a mistake on the part of the schoalist.

It’s argued that Achilles' association with Skyros has three different versions and that the one presented in The Iliad is a separate version from the other sources.

By scrutinizing the available ancient evidence concerning the association between Achilles and Scyros, it is argued that we should distinguish between three versions: (1) the version reflected in Il. 9, 666-668, according to which Achilles sacked and looted Scyros, and distributed the spoils to his allies; (2) the version represented by the Cypria and Ilias parva that is reported by the exegetical scholium ad Il. 19, 326a1-a2, according to which Achilles is forced to land on Scyros because of a storm after the abortive expedition to Teuthrania and the wounding of Telephus by Achilles; and (3) the version reported by scholium D ad Il. 19, 326, P.Berol. 13930, and the scholia ad Il. 9, 668b and Il. 19, 326, and some other sources, according to which Achilles was sent by Thetis (or Peleus) to hide at Scyros in an attempt to avoid going to the war, in which he was destined to die.

Cypria fr 19 (Bernabé, West): further considerations by Christos Tsagalis, abstract.

There are those who consider the existence of two versions. The first being the sum of the version of The Iliad with the version of The Cypria and The Little Iliad (I'll explain them), thus causing Achilles to sack Skyros after being forced to land on the island because of a storm. The second being the version being the one where he was hidden as a girl on Skyros. There are those who also try to connect the three, interpreting that there was a first visit by Achilles to Skyros when hidden and a second when he sacked Skyros. Personally, I prefer the interpretation that there are three versions.

The Cypria, by Stasinus of Cyprus, and The Little Iliad, by Lesches of Mitylene (7th century BC)

This is a source of Greek mythology. The Cypria, commonly attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus, is, unfortunately, a lost epic poem. This means we’re unable to access the details, so the most I have to offer is a summary given by Proclus in Chrestomathy. It’s possible to know that the theme of The Cypria dealt with the pre-time to the Trojan War, things like the judgment of Paris, the kidnapping of Helen, etc.

In Stasinus' version, Achilles and Deidamia's meeting took place after he was already counted as one of the participants in the Achaean army, thus possibly not presenting the disguise version. At one point, a storm caused the Myrmidons to end up disembarking on Skyros. There, Achilles married/made love to Deidamia. In other words, here Neoptolemus' mother has a specified identity. But unfortunately, there's no way to know how this relationship developed.

[...] As they put out from Mysia a storm comes on them and scatters them, and Achilles first puts in at Scyros and married Deidameia, the daughter of Lycomedes, and then heals Telephus, who had been led by an oracle to go to Argos, so that he might be their guide on the voyage to Ilium. [...]

The Cypria, frag 1. Translation by. H.G. Evelyn-White.

Here Skyros seems to serve especially to explain the existence of an important character (Neoptolemus). Unlike Homer, there is no mention of Skyros being conquered, and unlike a lot of other sources there is no disguise. However, despite the absence of conquest or disguise, there are people who attempt to link Cypria with at least one of these versions. In the first case, to try to make Cypria make narrative sense with The Iliad, where the conquest happens. In the second case, to try to make Cypria make narrative sense with several other sources in which the disguise occurs. Regarding the possibility of Cypria dealing with the disguise episode, Tsagalis says:

Kullmann is right that absolute precision on the part of Proclus is not to be sought, but it is very surprising that Proclus had decided not to refer at all to the recruitment of Achilles, the best of the Achaeans. The most reasonable explanation is that contrary to Odysseus’ ‘problematic and unheroic recruitment’, Achilles had been sent willingly by his father Peleus to Troy and that Proclus, who may well have regarded this episode as of minor importance (in the manner of the recruitment of Palamedes that is also not mentioned in his summary), decided to omit it. It is highly unlikely that the Cypria dealt with two ‘problematic and unheroic’ recruitments (Odysseus and Achilles) but Proclus decided to refer only to the former at the expense of the latter. This thematic predilection is against the principles governing his summarizing technique and can hardly be explained (unless, as argued above, Achilles’ case is not a ‘problematic’ recruitment). Moreover, Proclus refers to traveling all around Greece and gathering the Greek kings before (§ 21 Kullmann = 118-119 Severyns) turning to the episode of Odysseus (§ 22 Kullmann = 119-121 Severyns); in other words, if the episode of Achilles at Scyros really formed part of the Cypria, it may have been placed before the episode of Odysseus, which was the last in the list. If this was the case and Odysseus did not form part of the embassy to Peleus, we may start considering the possibility that the Cypria did not include the theme of Achilles hiding in Scyros at all. In a nutshell, if there is no Odysseus to reveal Lycomedes trick, then there may be – at this stage of the plot – no Lycomedes, and hence no Scyros.

Cypria fr 19 (Bernabé, West): further considerations by Christos Tsagalis, pg 264.

In another lost epic, The Little Iliad of Lesches of Mitylene, the same version with a storm is presented and that is why I’m putting the two together here. Unlike The Cypria, The Little Illiad was intended to deal mainly with myths after The Iliad, such as the death of Ajax, Helen's marriage to Deiphobus, and the search for Philoctetes and Neoptolemus. A Homeric scholia mentioned the link of Achilles and Skyros in The Cypria.

Eustathius on Homer, Il. 326: The author of the Little Iliad says that Achilles after putting out to sea from the country of Telephus came to land there: "The storm carried Achilles the son of Peleus to Scyros, and he came into an uneasy harbour there in that same night."

The Little Iliad, frag 5. Translation by. H.G. Evelyn-White.

Although there is no mention of Deidamia, a summary of Proclus (frag 1) says that “Odysseus brings Neoptolemus from Scyros”, thus still linking the birth of Neoptolemus to Skyros. Marco Fantuzzi mentions that this version was preferred by many because it didn’t “tarnish” Achilles' traditionally masculine heroic image, which happens in the version where he disguises himself as a girl (non-masculine) to avoid war (non-heroic). It was only later that the myth of disguise gained greater popularity, but it still generated reactions. As for when the disguise myth arose, unfortunately it isn’t possible to be sure. The oldest source belongs to Classical Greece, but there is a possibility that it existed in Archaic Greece and simply wasn’t the common version of the myth.

If we believe that the silence of Proclus is more reliable than Σ D Il. 19.326, we may instead suppose that the Iliad, the Little Iliad, and the Cypria knew of a version of the story — which perhaps existed before the transvestism version and was clearly an alternative to it — in which Achilles, already a member of the expedition against Troy, was blown to Scyros by a storm while sailing back from the land of Telephos, and on that occasion he had the opportunity of meeting Deidameia and having sex with her. In any case, at least in Homer and in the Little Iliad (we do not know for certain about the Cypria) neither the fact that the young Achilles was led to Scyros by an anxious protective parent nor the disguise of cross-dressing and its detection by Odysseus is attested. In the Little Iliad Achilles was simply “cast away” on the island by a tempest independently of his or his parent’s will. Therefore, there was no deliberate dodging of the draft, and Achilles’ heroic ethos and reputation were not sullied by an implied suspicion of cowardice. Indeed, at least some of the ancients embraced with sympathy this thoroughly heroic version commenting on Il. 9.667–668, the passage where Achilles’ conquest of Scyros is mentioned, the schol. ex. T to line 668 observes: Σκῦρον ἑλών· οἱ μὲν νεώτεροι ἐκεῖ τὸν παρθενῶνά φασιν, ἔνθα τὸν ᾿Αχιλέα ἐν παρθένου σχήματι τῇ ∆ηιδαμείᾳ †κατακλίνουσιν†, ὁ δὲ ποιητὴς ἡρωϊκῶς πανοπλίαν αὐτὸν ἐνδύσας εἰς τὴν Σκῦρον ἀπεβίβασεν οὐ παρθένων, ἀλ᾽ ἀνδρῶν δια- πραξόμενον ἔργα, ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰ λάφυρα δωρεῖται τοῖς συμμάχοις. “Having taken Scyros”: Post-Homeric poets say that there [= in Scyros] was the gynaeceum where they have Achilles, disguised as a girl, lie down in bed [?] with Deidameia. The poet, instead, dressed him up in his panoply in a heroic way and had him disembark on Scyros to do not women’s work, but that of men, and he [Achilles] also presents his comrades with spoils from these deeds.

Achilles at Scyros and One of his Fans: The Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidamia (Buc. Gr. 157f. Gow) by Marco Fantuzzi, pg 286.

Skyrians, by Euripides (5rd century BC)

This is a source of Greek mythology. I suppose Euripides needs no introduction, so let’s get to it. Like Aeschylus and Sophocles, Euripides wrote more plays than we have access to, as they’re unfortunately lost. For example, Aeschylus wrote a trilogy focusing on Achilles, of which only fragments survive. Sophocles wrote a play called Peleus, which also didn’t stand the test of time.

Among the lost plays of Euripides, there was one called Skyrians, which, as the name clearly suggests, was related to Skyros. The title, of course, doesn’t necessarily confirm that this is the myth of Achilles, after all Sophocles has a lost play with the same name whose theme is commonly believed to be about Neoptolemus and not Achilles, but in this case it really is about that myth. In the hypothesis, it’s possible to have an idea of the content of the play (which is fragmentary), and the theme follows exactly the idea of Thetis knowing the prophecy and hiding Achilles as one of Lycomedes' girls:

Skyrians, which begins, ‘O daughter of Tyndareus from Sparta…; the plot is as follows: Thetis, having learned of (the destiny) of her son Achilles, wanted (to keep) him out of the expedition (against Troy), and so (she concealed) him in a girl’s clothing (and deposited him) with Lycomedes the (ruler) of the Scyrians. Lycomedes was raising (a daughter) named (Deidameia) whose mother had died, and he brought (Achilles) up as a girl together with her, his real identity being unrecognized; and Achilles... seduced Deidameia and made her pregnant. Agamemnon and his comrades (were told) by an oracle not (to make their expedition) without Achilles...Diomedes...(they,) learning…

Hypothesis of Skyrians.

The play opens with Deidamia realizing that she’s pregnant. Because the play is extremely fragmented, it isn’t possible to be completely sure if it was consensual or not. However, Melissa Karen Anne Funke argues that there are textual elements that imply a typical “rape and pregnancy discovery” storyline:

The play opens with a character, presumably Deidameia’s nurse, revealing to Lycomedes that Deidameia is ill, an act which recalls Canace concealing her own pregnancy with the excuse of illness. This is a conventional way to begin a play with a rape and recognition plot, however Achilles’ continued presence on Scyros departs from the usual brief encounter between the parthenos and the man who impregnates her, while the recognition centers not on the child, but on Achilles himself. Lycomedes’ response to the nurse exposes either just how effective Achilles’ disguise has been, or how confident Lycomedes has been of his success in segregating his daughter from outside influence: What is the cause? What ailment is overcoming her? Is some chill in her bile troubling her chest? (fr. 682)

Euripides and Gender: The Difference the Fragments Make, by Melissa Karen Anne Funke, pg 166-167.

Another possible argument to indicate the presence of rape is the fact that Euripides addresses gender in this play. Forced to hide like a girl, the more time passed, the more impatient Achilles became. By impregnating a woman, even by force, he would be reaffirming his supposedly repressed masculinity. The theme of femininity x masculinity continues, becoming even more evident when the character of Odysseus is present. When he discovers that Achilles is hiding from the war while living as a girl, he humiliates him by saying that such a situation tarnishes his status as a son of Peleus:

And you, extinguisher of your family’s brilliant light, are you combing wool– you, born of the most valiant father in Greece? (fr. 683a)

Thus, not only does he deny his masculine position as a warrior, but he also tarnishes Peleus' honor. A fragment attributed to Skyrians and believed to be possibly part of Odysseus' speech to convince Achilles to leave Skyros strengthens this idea:

Young men should get honours not amongst women but amidst arms and weaponry. (fr. 880)

Once again, the argument used by Odysseus is to state that, by remaining in Skyros, Achilles' masculinity is compromised. Even if Achilles, now revealed, lived as a man and played the masculine role of father to Neoptolemus, his masculinity would still be undermined by the decision to actively flee the war, an unmasculine attitude. And in doing so, Achilles wouldn’t only compromise his masculinity, he would also compromise his family, shaming his lineage by being less than a ideal man.

In a way, as Melissa's text addresses (I highly recommend reading pages 164-170, which are the part that deals with Skyrians), the play portrays how restrictive gender roles are. Deidamia is trapped in the role of mother and has no choice about it because that is her duty as a woman and refusing motherhood would be reprehensible, regardless of whether the relationship is consensual or not — even if it's not consensual, she still has to be a mother. In turn, the only way Achilles has to ensure masculinity is by going to the Trojan War. Now it’s no longer enough to live as a man after leaving the disguise, assuming the position of Neoptolemus's father or even Deidamia's husband, male positions. The only way is by going to the Trojan War, also a limiting choice. And if he doesn't do this, not only will his honor be compromised, but the honor of his family as well (represented by Peleus). Despite this, because of the fragmentary state of the play, it isn’t possible to know Achilles' thoughts on this. It’s somewhat intriguing that apparently Odysseus needed to persuade (the fragmentary speech) Achilles after discovering him, but it isn’t enough of an argument to be sure what Achilles thought of the play. Also, Euripides had a tendency to give female characters a significant voice, so I imagine there is a possibility the poem could have explored giving at least some voice to the character Deidamia.

Here, Skyros seems to serve to explain the existence of an important character (Neoptolemus), but also to discuss society (gender roles, adulthood).

Alexandra, by Lycophron (4th century BC)

This is a source of Greek mythology. Alexandra is a poem written in an enigmatic way, as it concerns the prophecies of the Trojan prophetess Cassandra, who is being observed by a slave and having her prophecies written because of Priam's orders. Because of how the text is written, it’s difficult to be sure of what is written and it needs to be interpreted a lot. As such, there is no way for me to guarantee the accuracy of the interpretations. Well, here we go:

And he shall come upon his homeward path, raising the tawny wasps from their holds, even as a child disturbs their nest with smoke. And they in their turn shall come, sacrificing cruelty to the blustering winds the heifer that bare the war-named son, the mother that was brought to bed of the dragon of Scyrus; for whom her husband shall search within the Salmydesian Sea, where she cuts the throats of Greeks, and shall dwell for a long space in the white-crested rock by the outflowing of the marshy waters of the Celtic stream; yearning for his wife whom at her slaying a hind shall rescue from the knife, offering her own throat instead. [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W.Mair.

And he shall come upon his homeward path, raising the tawny wasps from their holds, even as a child disturbs their nest with smok = Paris doing his chaotic things. The “raising the tawny wasps” is probably the Greeks reacting.

And they in their turn shall come, sacrificing cruelty to the blustering winds the heifer = The Greeks sacrifice Iphigenia so the wind returns.

that bare the war-named son, the mother that was brought to bed of the dragon of Scyrus; = “War-named son” is Neoptolemus, whose name means "new war", and “dragon of Scyrus” is maybe Achilles, related to his stay on Skyros. This implies that Achilles and Iphigenia actually lay together and it wasn't just fake, and from that Neoptolemus was born. Here Deidamia isn’t the mother.

…for whom her husband shall search within the Salmydesian Sea, where she cuts the throats of Greeks, = The version of the myth in which Iphigenia is taken by Artemis to Tauris, where she’s forced to use travelers (mostly Greeks) as sacrifice. Euripides wrote a play on this. The husband is Achilles because of the marriage, which in this version was apparently consumed judging by the previous line.

…and shall dwell for a long space in the white-crested rock by the outflowing of the marshy waters of the Celtic stream; = It's talking about White Island, also known as Leuke. It concerns the version of the myth in which Achilles and those dear to him don’t go to conventional Elysium, but to another form of paradise on an island. According to Antoninus Liberalis, Iphigenia was the wife of Achilles in the afterlife. However, by Charles McNelis and Alexander Sens' interpretation, here Iphigenia doesn’t literally become Achilles' postmortem wife, that role belongs to Medea (cited as Achilles' future wife elsewhere in the poem). For them, in Alexandra the idea of Leuke is subverted from a reward (an after-death paradise) to a loss (the actual loss of Iphigenia).

…yearning for his wife whom at her slaying a hind shall rescue from the knife, offering her own throat instead = “his” refers to Achilles, and “wife” refers to Iphigenia in reference to the marriage. This part talks about how Iphigenia offered herself as a sacrifice, but Artemis replaced her with a deer at the time, and how Achilles regrets it because in this version she’s his beloved. Euripides wrote a play on this.

Regarding the unexpected "the heifer that bare the war-named son, the mother that was brought to bed of the dragon of Scyrus", the Byzantine scholiast of Alexandra, Ioannis Tzetzes, says “according to some, Pyrrhus was born from her (Iphigenia) and Achilles. After her sacrifice, Achilles entrusted his son to Deidamia in Scyros. Therefore, Iphigenia is the first-born mother of Pyrrhus”, thus describing an unusual version in which Deidamia is actually the adoptive mother of Neoptolemus while Iphigenia is the biological mother. So there is no guarantee Achilles had something sexual with Deidamia in this version. Later, Tzetzes explains Neoptolemus' mother is generally Deidamia and the marriage of Achilles and Iphigenia is generally false. In any case, Tzetzes discards all these versions as mythological nonsense and tells another version, which isn’t the focus here. In another part of the text, when describing Polyxena's sacrifice at the hands of Neoptolemus, Cassandra says "sullen lion, child of Iphis", here Neoptolemus, is "imitating his dark mother's lustrations", a likely reference to Iphigenia's role as the priestess who sacrificed foreigners in Tauris.

At another moment, Cassandra makes a clear allusion to Achilles' disguise as a girl in the Court of Lycomedes, talking about a “trafficker in corpses” who hid in a female robe to avoid his fate. I don't know what the Greek text looks like, but the translator's decision to use the term "endure" certainly implies that the idea of a boy living as a girl is here treated as a burden to the boy. That is, Achilles and Deidamia really know each other and so it makes sense that Achilles entrusted Neoptolemus to her after the "death" of Iphigenia, even if Neoptolemus isn’t her son. Although I don't know if he did this because Deidamia is a trusted friend or if it's because she's a lover.

[...] even he, the trafficker in corpses, who, fearing beforehand his doom, shall endure to do upon his body a female robe, handling the noisy shuttle at the loom, and shall be the last to set his foot in the land of the foe, cowering, O brother, even in his sleep before thy spear.

Alexandra, 275-280. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Tzetzes claimed that this isn’t the correct version. Apparently he found this idea absurd. Judging by the way he wrote, I imagine that Tzetzes found the version of the myth in which the hero tries to escape the way of achieving glory (war) by dressing as a girl (something considered reprehensible) too humiliating to be believable. Instead, he tells another version that made Achilles similar to other male characters in the Trojan War, that is: a married man with a son who had to leave his wife and child behind to go to war. Thus, Tzetzes erases any possible debate about gender, since Achilles is inserted in a context perfectly typical of the male gender and resembles typically male characters like Agamemnon and Odysseus in this respect.

But these things have been fabricated and mythologized, the truth is this: Achilles, having just taken Deidameia, Lycomedes' daughter, to wife, was living with her in the bridal chamber and in the longing of a newlywed, hence they fabricated that he had assumed women's clothing. When Odysseus announced the expedition, he eagerly obeyed and rushed to war, even though he learned from an oracle that he would have a short life if he sailed to Troy. This announcement and the fear from the oracle they represented with swords and spindles; for Achilles did not show cowardice, but eagerly rushed to war, and Homer testifies in the L (767) rhapsody, introducing Nestor speaking to Patroclus: "I came, and divine Odysseus, gathering the people, to fair-womaned Achaea" and a little later (781) he says "I led - they were willing". All these things are allegorized, but this barbarian-tongued Lycophron accepts them more mythically. Therefore, it seems burdensome to me to allegorize in things not being allegorized, as I have often said.

Ad Lycophronem, 277.

Regarding gender roles, Celsiana Warwick interprets that in Alexandra the character of Achilles is subverted. Where in other myths his most exalted aspects are mainly traditionally masculine characteristics (be they positive ones like courage, or negative ones like violence), Alexandra makes him a figure considered effeminate. She interprets these three characters as being represented as "forces opposing Olympus", so to speak.

Achilles in the Alexandra also exhibits monstrous hybridity in that he transgresses the boundaries of masculinity and femininity. Cassandra describes the episode in which Achilles dresses as a girl on Scyrus to avoid being sent to war (276–80): νεκροπέρνας, ὃς προδειμαίνων πότμον καὶ θῆλυν ἀμφὶ σῶμα τλήσεται πέπλον δῦναι, παρ᾽ ἱστοῖς κερκίδος ψαύσας κρότων, καὶ λοῖσθος εἰς γῆν δυσμενῶν ῥῖψαι πόδα, τὸ σόν, ξύναιμε, κἀν ὕπνῳ πτήσσων δόρυ. The corpse-seller, who fearing in advance his fate Will dare to put a woman’s dress around his body, Handling the rattling shuttle at the loom, And cast his foot upon the land last of our enemies, Cowering before your spear, brother, even in his sleep According to Cassandra, Achilles wears women’s clothes and performs women’s work because of a desire to avoid fighting, opening himself up to charges of effeminacy and cowardice. But by describing Achilles as ‘cowering before Hector’s spear’, Cassandra conjures up an image of a terrified female figure menaced by a warrior’s weapons. Similar imagery describes Xerxes later when he is said to fear the Greek fleet ‘like a girl fears the dark twilight … terrified by a bronze weapon’ (ὡς λυκοψίαν κόρη κνεφαίαν … χαλκηλάτῳ κνώδοντι δειματουμένη, 1431–3). Both images impugn the masculinity of a male character, but also resonate with the theme of female helplessness in the face of male violence. Crucially, while Xerxes is likened to a girl only with respect to his fear, Achilles undergoes a kind of temporary transformation by assuming the female role through his dress and actions. He is not only like a terrified girl at the loom, he actually takes on the lived experience of a woman, making him a hybrid figure, both savage warrior and frightened maiden. The passage thus has a double function—it undermines Achilles’ martial reputation, but also suggests that, in terms of the poem’s depiction of the conflict between male and female, Cassandra is presenting Achilles as conceptually allied with the female, just as Typhon is allied with the chthonic feminine in the Theogony. The Alexandra’s presentation of several key episodes suggests that the poem deliberately downplays Achilles’ role as an enactor of specifically patriarchal violence in the mythological tradition in favour of aligning him with the female and the chthonic. It would have been easy for the Alexandra to vilify Achilles by playing up myths in which he enacts violence against young women, such as his slaying of Penthesilea or his ghost’s demand for the sacrifice of Polyxena over his tomb. However, the Alexandra conspicuously does not do this; instead, it attributes the sacrifice of Polyxena to Neoptolemus only (323–6), who is said to perform the deed ‘imitating the sacrifices of his dark mother’ (μητρὸς κελαινῆς χέρνιβας μιμούμενος, 325). While the Alexandra does mention the death of Penthesilea (999–1001), this passage mentions Achilles not as her killer but as the avenger of the desecration of her corpse by Thersites, again positioning him as the champion of the female against the male. In a poem with such an emphasis on the victimization of women by male heroes, these details signpost Achilles’ unique role in the Alexandra’s thematic structure as a masculine figure aligned with chthonic feminine disruption.

Chthonic Disruption in Lycophron’s Alexandra, by Celsiana Warwick, pg 547-548.

Fantuzzi also believes that the character of Achilles was deconstructed and reconstructed, although he gives a different motivation for this compared to Celsiana Warwick. While Warwick seeks to present an interpretation that links the characters of Cassandra, Clytemnestra and Achilles in a similar narrative role, Fantuzzi interprets that such a reinterpretation of Achilles happens because he’s an Achaean symbol since he’s the best Achaean warrior, and Alexandra's narrative seeks the Trojan point of view, in which the Achaean characters are much more negatively portrayed while the Trojan characters are exalted. Achilles, as a symbol of bravery, is transformed into a symbol of cowardice, which was mostly seen as a typically feminine trait. For example, Alexandra is apparently the only source in which Achilles is depicted as being afraid of Hector, who is usually the one who runs when he sees Achilles.

Lycophron's outlook reflects the usual anti-Greek bias with which the Trojan Alexandra/Cassandra describes the characters and deeds of the major Greek heroes at Troy; this bias is especially bitter in the case of Achilles, as he had killed her brother Hector. In an attempt to cast Achilles in as pejorative a light as possible, Alexandra even goes so far as to omit Thetis' role in her son's cross-dressing in Scyros. The idea that Achilles acquiesced in his cross-dressing adventure solely to assuage his mother's anxieties seems to (p.40) have been the most common apology entertained by the authors who passed judgement on this episode in his life, but did not want to be overly censorious [...] [...] We might certainly suppose that Lycophron omitted the agency of Thetis simply because of the brevity of his reference to the episode of Achilles' cross-dressing, or because in general he is cryptically elusive—in this case he could presuppose that every reader would assume Thetis' or Peleus' role in the hiding of the boy Achilles at (p.41) Scyros, as this role was present in every other version of the episode of the transvestite Achilles that we know before Lycophron. But in the context of Alexandra's words, brimming as they are with hatred, her silence on Thetis' responsibility surely magnifies the cowardice of which Alexandra most explicitly accuses him by suppressing every extenuating circumstance. As for the fact that Achilles defeated and killed Hector, Alexandra highlights both the cruel greed with which he demanded a very high ransom for Hector's body (only to suffer the same fate when he himself died) and the cowardice with which he originally tried to avoid Hector's spear (Al. 269–80). [...] [...] Lycophron's Alexandra cannot rewrite the story of the war or the death of Hector (the Iliad still exists), but at least she can acrimoniously re-read the story of these events with an anti-Iliad and anti-Greek perspective. It is impossible to establish whether this (p.43) spiteful deconstruction of Achilles' heroism relied on some source or not, or whether it was just the backbiting of a prophetess accustomed to manipulating the presentation of events. In the Iliad Achilles proudly maintains that, while he was fighting with the Greeks, 'Hector was never willing to push the battle away from the wall, but would come out no further than the Scaian gates and the oak-tree. There he once stood up to me alone, and barely escaped my attack' (9.352-5). Certainly, when Agamemnon tried to restrain Menelaus from fighting with Hector, he warned him that 'even Achilles shudders (pply') to meet this man [= Hector] in the fighting where men win glory, and he is a much better man than you' (7.113-14). But at least some of the ancients considered these lines a 'lie' invented by Agamemnon to 'deter' Menelaus from fighting: Σ minora II. 7.114 “ἔρριγ ̓ ἀντιβολῆσαι means 'he feared to encounter'. This was a lie; he said this to Menelaus in order to dissuade him (τοῦτο δὲ ἐψεύσατο· ἵνα δὲ ἀποστρέψηι τὸν Μενέλαον εinεv avτw)". Probably there were no other passages the ancients could bring to mind where Achilles was actually portrayed as frightened by Hector, or they applied their common protective concern for Achilles' heroism.

Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies by Marco Fantuzzi, pg 16-20.

In the interpretation offered in “The Alexandra of Lycophron: A Literary Study”, there is greater agreement with Fantuzzi's interpretation in attributing Achilles' subversion to him being an Achaean symbol and, therefore, being the main target of ridicule. Like Warwick, this text also links Achilles' relationships as a way of minimizing him (by portraying him as being excessively passionate, as in the case of Iphigenia, or by portraying him as not being able to achieve the desired relationship, as in the case of Helen, or by erasing some of his relationships, as in the case of Deidamia). However, in addition, the writers draw a parallel between Achilles and Paris, a character who was commonly represented as not fulfilling the expectations of what a man ideally was — as he was often portrayed as effeminate, cowardly, not very skilled in fighting, vain and too involved in romance/eroticism in a way that wasn’t necessarily always connected to violent conquest. While Achilles and Paris were generally written as opposites when it came to "meeting social expectations of masculinity", in Alexandra they’re written more similarly.

The opening line of this narrative evokes Paris' account of the couple's initial lovemaking on Cranae at II. 3.442-7, where, having been rescued from his duel and beautified by Aphrodite, he takes Helen to bed: οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ μ ̓ ὧδέ γ' ἔρως φρένας ἀμφεκάλυψεν, οὐδ ̓ ὅτε σε πρῶτον Λακεδαίμονος ἐξ ἐρατεινῆς ἔπλεον ἁρπάξας ἐν ποντοπόροισι νέεσσι, νήσῳ δ ̓ ἐν Κραναῇ ἐμίγην φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ, ὥς σεο νῦν ἔραμαι καί με γλυκὺς ἵμερος αἱρεῖ. ἦ ῥα, καὶ ἄρχε λέχοσδὲ κιών· ἅμα δ' εἵπετ ̓ ἄκοιτις. Not ever yet has such desire covered my wits, not even when first, having snatched you up, I sailed from lovely Lacedaemon in my sea- faring ships, and I mixed with you in love and the bed on the island Cranae, as now I desire you and sweet lust seizes me. So he spoke and he went and led her to bed, and his wife followed him.

In the Alexandra, Cassandra's narrative begins like the Homeric version (110 νήσῳ δ ̓ ἐνὶ δράκοντος ἐγχέας πόθον ~ Π. 3.445 νήσῳ δ ̓ ἐν Κραναῇ ἐμίγην φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ) but immediately thereafter takes a different tack. According to her version, Paris did not get to enjoy sex with Helen a second time, since she was taken from him by Proteus, leaving him only with a cold, empty embrace; the obvious reference here is to the famous story that Helen was replaced by a phantom. The version recounted by Cassandra seems to combine elements of the story reported by Herodotus, in which Proteus' moral outrage led him to send Paris away but retain Helen after the couple landed in Egypt on their way to Troy (2.112-15), with Stesichorus' Palinode, in which a phantom of Helen was sent to Troy in her stead. The Stesichorean palinode took specific issue with the veracity of the traditional account (cf. Chamaeleon POxy. 2506 fr. 26.i; Stesich. PMG 192 οὐκ ἔστ ̓ ἔτυμος λόγος οὗτος / οὐδ ̓ ἔβας ἐν νηυσὶν εὐσέλμοις / οὐδ ̓ IKEо Пéруaμа Tрoías "this story is not true, nor did you go in well- benched ships, nor did you reach the towers of Troy"), and the allusion to the Homeric version at the opening of Cassandra's narra- tive is thus particularly pointed, since it sets up expectations that are disappointed by what follows. Instead of simply following the Iliadic narrative, Cassandra's prophecy rationalizes two competing versions, the Homeric account in which the adulteress Helen made her way to Troy, and that attested in, for example, Euripides' Helen," where Helen's marriage remained inviolate: in the Alexandra, Helen will have sex with Paris, but only once. Moreover, the allusion to Paris' speech in which he describes his own sexual desire and persuades Helen to follow him to bed calls attention to the fact that, unlike in Homer, Lycophron's Paris will never have the opportunity to have sex with her a second time. In both theme and language, Cassandra's account of Achilles' marriage builds upon her own representation of Paris' relationship with Helen. At the verbal level, eg oveípov (172 "from dreams") resembles καξ ὀνειράτων (113), while ἐν δὲ δεμνίοις (171) recalls Séμva (114). Like Paris, the husband described in 171-3 sleeps only with a phantom (εἰδωλοπλάστῳ προσκαταξανει ῥέθει). In fact, Achil- les is husband to Helen only in his imagination, and in this sense the verbal echoes of the frustrated union between Paris and Helen are reinforced at the thematic level. This parallelism between Achilles and Paris is also reinforced in the structural design of the broader narrative. As we have noted (Chapter 4), verses 180-215 are framed as a diptych, in which the gatherings of the Greeks at Aulis are set in opposition first to Paris' return from Sparta and then to Achilles' travels in Scythia. Thus, Paris' return to Troy (180 x μèν паλμпóρ- ευτον ἵξεται τρίβον) is mirrored by Achilles' wandering (200 χώ μὲν TаτýσEι Xâроv aiálov Zкúony), while 183-4 and 202-4, each of which describes a ritual activity of the Greeks (the sacrifice of Iphi- genia, the oath), begin in a similar manner (183-4 oi d' av πрoуeνvý- τειραν... χερνίψαντες ~ 202-4 οἱ δ ̓ ἀμφὶ βωμὸν... ὅρκων τὸ SEUTEроûXov aрoavтes). Achilles, then, is presented as a doublet ofParis.

The Alexandra of Lycophron: A Literary Study by Charles McNelis and Alexander Sens, pg 105-106.

Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia, by Bion of Smyrna (1st or 2nd century BC)

This is a source of Greek mythology. The Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia has no confirmed authorship, although it’s mainly attributed to Bion of Smyrna, a bucolic poet. The term bucolic designates a pastoral type of poem, often celebrating rural life and describing rural customs. In Ancient Greece, many of these poets also referenced myths, since myths were a strong part of the culture. Unfortunately, like The Skyrians, this is a fragmentary work and only the beginning of the poem has been preserved to the present day.

The title itself is significant, as it alone denotes the romantic and/or erotic nature of the poem. If you have never read the word Epithalamium before, the Collins Dictionary definition is “a poem or song written to celebrate a marriage; nuptial ode” and has its origins in the Greek epithalamion, from epi ‘upon’ + thalamos ‘bridal chamber’. Fantuzzi clarifies it’s more likely this title was added later rather than being the poet's original title.

Anyway, these are the lines we currently have access to (the rest are lost), showing that this poem is about the secret romance between Achilles and Deidamia while he disguises himself as a girl:

Myrson. Wilt thou be pleased now, Lycidas, to sing me sweetly some sweet Sicilian song, some wistful strain delectable, some lay of love, such as the Cyclops Polyphemus sang on the sea-banks to Galatea? Lycidas. Yes, Myrson, and I too fain would pipe, but what shall I sing? Myrson. A song of Scyra, Lycidas, is my desire, —a sweet love-story,—the stolen kisses of the son of Peleus, the stolen bed of love how he, that was a boy, did on the weeds of women, and how he belied his form, and how among the heedless daughters of Lycomedes, Deidamia cherished Achilles in her bower. [176] Lycidas. The herdsman bore off Helen, upon a time, and carried her to Ida, sore sorrow to Oenone. And Lacedaemon waxed wroth, and gathered together all the Achaean folk; there was never a Hellene, not one of the Mycenaeans, nor any man of Elis, nor of the Laconians, that tarried in his house, and shunned the cruel Ares. But Achilles alone lay hid among the daughters of Lycomedes, and was trained to work in wools, in place of arms, and in his white hand held the bough of maidenhood, in semblance a maiden. For he put on women’s ways, like them, and a bloom like theirs blushed on his cheek of snow, and he walked with maiden gait, and covered his locks with the snood. But the heart of a man had he, and the love of a man. From dawn to dark he would sit by Deidamia, and anon would kiss her hand, and oft would lift the beautiful warp of her loom and praise the sweet threads, having no such joy in any other girl of her company. Yea, all things he essayed, and all for one end, that they twain might share an undivided sleep. Now he once even spake to her, saying— ‘With one another other sisters sleep, but I lie alone, and alone, maiden, dost thou lie, both being girls unwedded of like age, both fair, and single both in bed do we sleep. The wicked Nysa, the crafty nurse it is that cruelly severs me from thee. For not of thee have I... ’

Theocritus, Bion and Moschus Rendered into Enlish Prose. Love of Achilles. Edited by Andrew Lang.

The idea of hidden romance is especially noticeable due to the use of the word “stolen” which, according to Fatuzzi: “'Stolen', not only according to the traditional motif of sex as ontologically furtive, namely consummated in private, which dates from Hom. Il. 6.161 and Mimn. 7.3 Gentili-Prato = IEG 1.3 and is widespread in Latin love elegy (cf. most recently McKeown (1987–9) ii.101; Floridi (2007) 164-5); compare in particular Ps.- Theocr. 27.68 pápios evvá. In Epith. 6 the epithet is remotivated: the kisses and sex which Achilles enjoyed with Deidameia are 'stolen', since he acquired them thanks to his cross-dressing disguise”. That is, “stolen” here isn’t intended to refer to the lack of consent, but the way Achilles and Deidamia do it secretly and how Achilles was only able to court Deidamia because he approached her as a girl, if we take into account the same as in other versions apparently Lycomedes purposely keeps Deidamia out of contact with boys (like in The Skyrians).

Fantuzzi argues that, when comparing Lycophron's Alexandra with this poem, it’s possible to notice how, although both poems deal with Achilles' so-called non-heroic conduct in dressing up as a girl to escape war, Epithalamium sympathizes with this rather than portraying it in a completely negative way like Alexandra. Furthermore, Epithalamium, unlike most sources, has no intention of focusing on the way Achilles gives up the feminine (his disguise) for the masculine (war). Instead, the poem praises his stay on Skyros for its romantic aspect, which isn’t unexpected for a bucolic poem since some of them had love as their focus. This is shown in how the poet describes how other male characters are busy with war, and then immediately describes how Achilles is among the girls. Also in how he opens the story talking about the "stolen kisses of the son of Peleus" rather than "the rage of Peleus’ son" and goes on to describe romantic conquests instead than how many died because of his rage. The "cruel" used to describe Ares is also not simply one of his epithets, but an adjective from this poem specifically, which may sound like a kind of condemnation of war in comparison to the art of flirting.

The poem doesn’t even bother to mention that Achilles is forced there as in most texts, as the poem doesn’t seek to justify an attitude considered dishonorable, as the poet doesn’t condemn Achilles' attitude. In a way, Thetis' absence here serves the opposite of Alexandra, where Thetis' absence was perhaps intended to emphasize Achilles' negative cowardice, while her absence here is as a way of ensuring that not going to war and prioritizing Deidamia is positive and therefore doesn’t need to be justified, a vision influenced by the bucolic perspective. Not only is Thetis absent as a justification for Achilles' non-heroic attitude, but Achilles is clearly comfortable spending his days dressed as a girl, weaving and flirting, unlike other texts that somehow address his discontent or are neutral about this.

The fact that Achilles appears to be perfectly at ease in his cross-dressing and is deeply feminized is another antimilitaristic element that contributes to the erotic atmosphere and viewpoint of the Epith. Achilles is depicted as enjoying his situation, and fully complying with the demands of his disguise: he has white skin (16) and snowy cheeks (19) which blush shyly (19); he learns how to spin wool (16), he walks like a woman (19-20), and he wears a veil (20).96 In effect, as the author invites us to acknowledge, ἐφαίνετο δ' ήύτε κώρα· | καὶ γὰρ ἤ (p.56) σον τήναις θηλύνετο 'he looked like a girl. Womanlike as they he bore himself', 17-18. Furthermore, in the Epith. it is precisely this comfortable familiarity with his transvestism that Achilles exploits in the verbal strategies he uses to conquer Deidameia. We cannot rule out the possibility that he had been doing the same thing in other texts that narrate this episode of his life. In any case at least in the most detailed poetic treatment of the myth known to us, Statius' Achilleid, from the beginning (1.318-24) to the end (1.652-4) of his cross-dressing Achilles is aware that this disguise allows him to stay close to Deidameia and to wait for a good opportunity to satisfy his passion. But when he finally decides to engage with her sexually, he does so in the Achilleid through the violence of rape, which he views as his first male action after the extended repression of his manly temper under female clothes: cf. 1.638-9 quonam usque premes urentia pectus / vulnera, teque marem (pudet heu!) nec amore probabis? 'How long will you suppress the wound that burns your breast, nor even in love (for shame!) prove yourself a man?'97 And he was also supposed to have raped Deidameia in the brief account offered by Ov. Ars am. 1.681–704, where Achilles' conquest of Deidameia is presented as a paradigm of male force being used in the conquest of love objects. On the contrary, in the scene that concludes the surviving part of the Epith. (lines 25–30), Achilles tries to attain his goal by furthering his pretence of femininity to the most extreme point:

πάντα δ ̓ ἐποίει σπεύδων κοινὸν ἐς ὕπνον. ἔλεξέ νυ καὶ λόγον αὐτᾶι· “ἄλλαι μὲν κνώσσουσι σὺν ἀλλήλαισιν ἀδελφαί, αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ μούνα, μούνα δὲ σύ, νύμφα, καθεύδεις. αἱ δύο παρθενικαὶ συνομάλικες, αἱ δύο καλαί, ἀλλὰ μόναι κατὰ λέκτρα καθεύδομες..." and all his endeavour aimed that they should sleep together; indeed he said to her: ‘Other sisters sleep with one another, but I alone and you alone, maiden. Though both be girls of the like age and both fair, alone in our beds we sleep…’ Not without some awareness of the paradoxicality of this idea (cf. πάντα δ ̓ ἐποίει, ἔλεξέ νυ καί), the author ascribes to Achilles a speech (p.57) in which he appears to appropriate the female voice of Sappho or a Sapphic character: in an Aeolizing text usually ascribed to Sappho (168b Voigt), female voice, who is possibly, but not necessarily, the author, expresses distress over her nocturnal solitude in bed, perhaps implying that she hoped it would be otherwise: δέδυκε μὲν ἀ σελάννα καὶ Πληΐαδες· μέσαι δὲ νύκτες, παρὰ δ ̓ ἔρχετ ̓ ἄρα· ἔγω δὲ μόνα κατεύδω. The moon has set and the Pleiades. The night is at its midpoint, time passes, and I sleep alone.

This fragment (or could it be a complete short poem?) quoted by Hephaestion as an anonymous example of a metre (the ionic tetrameter), and is only ascribed to Sappho by Byzantine paromiographers. Therefore, its Sapphic authorship has sometimes been questioned. Regardless of whether it is by Sappho or by one of her imitators, however, the desire which it describes is erotic and the memorable έyw δὲ μόνα κατεύδω of the Aeolic text will have been easily perceived as the intertext in the background of Epith. 28: αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ μούνα, μούνα δὲ σύ, νύμφα, καθεύδεις (female voices expressing sexual desire must have been few in Greek poetry). The sense to be inferred from this intertextual connection is that Achilles, disguised as a girl, was trying to deceive Deidameia by taking on the additional disguise of a female homoerotic voice. At the same time, however, the Achilles of the Epith. challenges the phrasing of the Sapphic text, especially by twisting it to also function as a warning for Deidameia, when he suggests that the feeling of solitude is shared by (p.58) both himself and her. He thus transforms the original nostalgic sense of the erotic solitude of a single person into a paraenetic motivation for Deidameia to sleep in the same bed as another girl in order that they might overcome this shared solitude. In other words, through the allusion to Sappho Achilles hints at the erotic distress of his solitude, but at the same time, for the sake of Deidameia's innocent ears, he seems simply to suggest an innocent sharing of the bed for companionship. In the same twofold allusive interplay, Achilles' designation of the other girls who surround Deidameia as ovvoμάλɩkeç probably includes another connotation which is particularly well-suited (and of good omen) to Achilles' wishes, since Sappho had twice mentioned the vμάλɩkεç of the bride celebrating weddings in her epithalamia (30.7, 103.11), and Theocr. 18.22 (another epithalamium) had also defined—in a probable reference to Sappho-the singers of this poem as σvvoμáàɩKEÇ of Helen. Besides, výμça from line 28 of the Epith. is also charged with a convenient ambiguity whose promising connotations Achilles could be exploiting for himself without allowing Deidameia to understand, or to be disquieted by, his true intentions. Deidameia would have believed that she was being addressed as a 'marriageable maiden,' according to one of the two possible meanings of vúμôn. The word, however, is also quite a common designation of the bride-e.g. again, in the vocabulary of Sappho's epithalamia (frr. 30.4, 103.2, 103b.2, 116, 117)—and Achilles might thus be hinting at this other meaning as a sign of his wish, and an anticipation of his imminent erotic conquest. Amusingly enough, if any real sexual intention can be grasped from the supposedly innocent invitation spoken by Achilles to Deidameia, Achilles has to seem a homosexual wooer: he Achilles' impersonation of a female voice is objectively an effective stratagem of a male lover pursuing the target of his desire; but within the textual strategy of the Epith. it also contributes to the general picture of Achilles' compliant effeminacy.

Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies by Marco Fantuzzi, pg 31-35.

Here rape doesn’t happen not only for moral reasons, but mainly for narrative reasons. The poet, unlike other authors, doesn’t disapprove of Achilles' unmanly or unheroic attitude. On the contrary, he portrays it in a positive light. So Achilles is perfectly comfortable with the female condition and doesn’t feel repressed. Because he doesn’t feel repressed, there is no need to use rape as a narrative resource to "regain masculinity". Likewise, when Myrson is starting the story it’s already clear that "Deidamia cherished Achilles in her bower" and “bed of love how he”, that is, they slept (so even if we don't have the end of the text, we know Achilles was successful), but it isn’t important to immediately mention pregnancy as in other sources. This is because the sexual act here not only has no intention of reinforcing masculinity through violence (as in the case of versions with rape) but also has no intention of reinforcing masculinity through the idea of getting someone pregnant (something emphasized even in versions without rape). This is because in other texts masculinity is intimately linked to the idea of achieving the glory of war, something that this text doesn’t exalt. Achilles' comfort with femininity is so great that, even though his courtship with Deidamia is described in the text as happening because "But the heart of a man had he, and the love of a man", the tactics used are feminine. He cannot bed Deidamia by reinforcing masculine acts, he can bed Deidamia by being so feminine that the courtship is almost homoerotic from Deidamia's point of view. Here, the poet is more interested in the idea of the sexual act as an erotic/romantic context than in the context of reinforcing a great warrior through violence or fertility.

It’s currently not possible to be sure whether before this poem there were other Greek representations of the Achilles myth in Skyros that focused on the erotic aspect or that hyperfeminized Achilles in the same way. Because of this, this poem is considered by some to be the Greek version that possibly sparked a kind of "response" from Roman authors, who sought to reaffirm masculinity in opposition to hyperfeminization.

It is appealing to suppose that the experiment of the Epith., or some other version that is unknown to us in which Achilles was hyper-erotized/hyper-feminized in a similar way, attracted the attention of Ovid in the Ars amatoria (1.681–704) and triggered his reworking of the story. Dressed in the garb of grave moralism, which was surely more than half-jesting in the context of such a work as the Ars, Ovid’s silences and comments about the story of Achilles’ stay at Scyros parodically re-propose a critical discourse similar to the one which had been formulated in a more serious way by Horace (Ars poet. 119–122) about the opportunity for global coherence for some characters to whom the literary tradition had granted an especially monolithic characterization. A substantial dignification of Achilles’ stay at Scyros is also erected by Statius’ Achilleid, which may also have been at least in part a reaction to the Epith. or a similarly hypererotized version of the tale, and was most likely in tune with the need for epic consistency in Achilles’ biography, which Statius was going to write. After Statius, no other Latin text develops the story of an Achilles who appears to dodge the draft on his own initiative, while deeply enjoying his transvestism — transvestism which by the way was a rigid taboo for the Latin notion of masculinity. In a striking confirmation of Horace’s stylistic dictum, the feminised super-star of erotic poetry who starred in an epyllion like the Epith. in a role that belied his Iliadic future appears to have quickly lost his battle with the Achilles of Ovid and Statius, whose impatience for cross-dressing and virile rape were much more acceptable incunabula of the warlike hero sung by epic.

Achilles at Scyros and One of his Fans: The Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidamia (Buc. Gr. 157f. Gow) by Marco Fantuzzi, pg 305.

Ode I.VIII by Horace (1st century)

This is a source of Roman mythology. Useless information: Horace is presumed to be only a year older than the next writer on the list (he’s presumably from 65 BC and the next presumably from 64 BC), and I almost reversed them! But correction made, here we are. Among his many works was Odes, a collection of four books that contained lyric poems. Of these, the one we’re interested in here is Ode 8 of Book 1, as it’s the one mentioning Achilles in Skyros. More specifically, the girl disguise version.

Lydia, by all the gods, say why you’re set on ruining poor Sybaris, with passion: why he suddenly can’t stand the sunny Campus, he, once tolerant of the dust and sun: why he’s no longer riding with his soldier friends, nor holds back the Gallic mouth, any longer, with his sharp restraining bit. Why does he fear to touch the yellow Tiber? Why does he keep away from the wrestler’s oil like the viper’s blood: he won’t appear with arms bruised by weapons, he who was often noted for hurling the discus, throwing the javelin out of bounds? Why does he hide, as they say Achilles, sea-born Thetis’ son, hid, before sad Troy was ruined, lest his male clothing had him dragged away to the slaughter, among the Lycian troops?

Odes, I.VIII. Translation by A. S. Kline.

This ode tells the story of the warrior Sybaris, who neglects the expected activities of young men (listed in the ode) because of a woman named Lydia. Horace ends the ode by comparing Sybaris' situation with that of Achilles, claiming Sybaris is hiding from male activities in the same way that Achilles did when he hid on Skyros. The description of Achilles as the son of Thetis may serve to indicate that, as in the case of Sybaris, Achilles' neglect of the male role was influenced by a female figure. Deidamia isn’t mentioned, but, according to Eleanor Winsor Leach, there is the possibility that Deidamia is a presence deduced by the Roman public and represents a parallel with Lydia, symbolizing a female character who seduced the young man away from his duties. This idea of the erotic as an obstacle to military activities, according to her, is consistent with the Augustine context. Winsor also mentions that, although the responsibility for the suppression of Achilles' masculinity is presumably attributed to Thetis, the terms used in the poem in the original language leave room for a possible interpretation that Achilles is or also is responsible.

Regarding Horace's Achilles, she concludes:

In Horace's poem, this indeterminate condition of gender, likewise painted with a comic touch, might be taken to reflect the somewhat ambivalent career prospects of the young Augustan male, who, while being encouraged to pursue an old-fashioned educational regimen, was actually being prepared to dedicate his energies to a new governmental regime where the rules and expectations of offices and rewards were in a state of change. Thus, let me suggest that Lydia's destructive blandishments and distractions are merely eliciting a condition that already exists in Augustan society and is especially highlighted by the posturing of the elegiac poets." elegiac poets. The exhibitionist lover who revels in effeminacy dramatizes the way in which he has been softened to play the role of the conquered. But Sybaris is not even posturing; the way in which the poetic speaker, by addressing his words to Lydia, talks around the young man brings out the passivity of his role.

Horace Carmen 1.8: Achilles, the Campus Martius, and the Articulation of Gender Roles in Augustan Rome by Eleanor Winsor Leach, pg 340-343.

Fabulae, by Hyginus (1st century)

This is a source of Greek mythology, but adapted to a Roman audience. Fabulae isn’t a poem or a play, but a treatise on mythology, which brings together versions of myths without writing a detailed narrative in the way other literary genres would. It’s commonly attributed to Hyginus, although some disagree and for this reason his authorship is sometimes described as "Pseudo-Hyginus".

According to Fabulae, Thetis somehow learned that Achilles would die if he went to Troy. Wishing he wouldn’t be recruited by the Achaeans, she hid him on Skyros among the girls of King Lycomedes' court. Because of the color of his hair, Achilles was nicknamed Pyrrha — yes, it's the female version of Pyrrhus, one of the names given to Achilles' son, Neoptolemus; see Library 3.13.8. Somehow the Achaeans learned Achilles was hiding there and asked Lycomedes to give him to them, but Lycomedes denied Achilles was there, although he permitted an inspection. Odysseus then deceived Achilles, causing him to ruin his own disguise. After that, Achilles left for Troy. Additionally, Neoptolemus is listed as the son of Deidamia, who we know is Lycomedes' daughter. However, Hyginus doesn’t give us details of the relationship.

ACHILLES: When Thetis the Nereid knew that Achilles, the son she had borne to Peleus, would die if he went to attack Troy, she sent him to island of Scyros, entrusting him to King Lycomedes. He kept him among his virgin daughters in woman's attire under an assumed name. The girls called him Pyrrha, since he had tawny hair, and in Greek a redhead is called pyrrhos. When the Achaeans discovered that he was hidden there, they sent spokesmen to King Lycomedes to beg that he be sent to help the Danaan. The King denied that he was there, but gave them permission to search the palace. When they couldn't discover which one he was. Ulysses put women's trinkets in the fore-court of the palace, and among them a shield and a spear. He bade the trumpeter blow the trumpet all of a sudden, and called for clash of arms and shouting. Achilles, thinking the enemy was at hand, stripped off his woman's garb and seized shield and spear. In this way he was recognized and promised to the Argives his aid and his soldiers, the Myrmidons.

Fabulae, 96. Translation by Mary Grant.

NEOPTOLEMUS: Neoptolemus, son of Achilles and Deidamia [...]

Fabulae, 123. Translation by Mary Grant.

Part 2 here.

#Achilles #Deidamia #Achidamia #Deidameia #Neptolemus #Thetis #Pyrrha #tw: rape #birdie.txt #birdiethings

6 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 2 months ago

Note

Hey Babyrdie! I was wondering if you knew of any source (probably quite late) that mentions that Achilles had heterochromia. I could swear that an actual primary source mentioned in passing that Alexander (the Great) and Achilles shared this trait, but I've been searching for it like crazy and now I'm not sure if I just dreamt it up. Are you familiar with anything on the subject? Hope you have a great day!!!

Hey, nonnie!

I looked for texts that possibly described Achilles' eyes in some way, but I honestly didn't find anything that indicated heterochromia (Alexander' eyes yes, but not Achille's). I may have missed some text, though. I also tried to look at visual sources, again without heterochromia.

But anyway, although I didn't find heterochromia, here are some descriptions:

Philostrathus, in Heroica (Greek author of the Roman period), apparently describes Achilles with eyes with the word "χαροποῖς". In the translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, this mean "bluish-gray":

[...] The spirit in his eyes, which are bluish-gray, casts off a certain eagerness even when he is still; when he is rushing on, they spring out along with his purpose, and then he seems more lovely than ever to those who cherish him. [...]

However, if I understand correctly (I don't know Greek) and χαροποῖς is descriptive of the eyes in the original Greek text, this word has more than one possible meaning.

The LSJ website says it can be: flashing/bright eyes, glassy, glazed, dull, of the eyes of winedrinkers, bluish-grey eyed, grey. This term is not necessarily restricted to people, as the LSJ gives examples of the term being used metaphorically, being used in animals and even in relation to the sea.

The Middle Lidel website says it can be glad-eyed, bright-eyed, light-blue-eyed, grayish-eyed or even “of the eyes of youths,

sparkling with joy, joyous, gladsome”. On the Autherienth website, it's said that the meaning is “with glaring eyes”.

In other words, there are many possible meanings. It can refer to a bluish or grayish color, but it has also been used to refer to bright eyes, glassy eyes,or even happy/intense eyes. The LSJ website, however, uses Heroica as an example of “bright eye”:

2). of eyes, flashing, bright, βλέποντος χαροποῖς τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν κόρυν οἷον οἱ λέοντες ἐν ἀναβολῇ τοῦ ὁρμῆσαι Philostr. Her. 12a . 1 ; τὸ χ. αὐτοῦ καὶ γοργόν Id. Im. 1.23 ; χ. βλέμματος ἀστεροπαί AP 5.152 ( Asclep.), cf. 155 ( Mel.); ὄμματά μοι γλαυκᾶς χαροπώτερα πολλὸν Ἀθάνας Theoc. 20.25 ; ὄμμα χ., typical of a brave man, Arist. Phgn. 807b1 ; of persons, flashing-eyed, φοβερὰ καὶ χαροπὴ καὶ δεινῶς ἀνδρική (sc. ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ) Luc. DDeor. 19.1 : neut. as Adv., χαροπὸν βλέπειν Philostr. Im. 1.28 ; χαροπὸν στράπτουσιν ὀπωπαί (of the hare) Opp. C. 3.510 (regul. Adv. -πῶς Sch. ad loc.).

When I looked for other translated texts that had the original term χαροποῖς, I found this part often translated simply as “blue” or some variant of blue at least. An example of this is an excerpt from the Greek Anthology translated by William Roger Panton, also referring to eyes:

ἁ φίλερως χαροποῖς Ἀσκληπιὰς οἷα γαλήνης ὄμμασι συμπείθει πάντας ἐρωτοπλοεῖν. Love-loving Asclepias, with her clear blue eyes, like summer seas, persuadeth all to make the love-voyage.

While analyzing a hymn in which the word is used to characterize a bull, Ljuba Merlina Bortolani commented:

4 ἡ χαροποῖς ταύροισιν ἐφεζομένη: Considering that χαροπός (cf. 11.25–44, B), in its meaning of ‘fierce’, is never used for bulls but only for their horns, I prefer its meaning ‘bluish-grey’ which can be used to qualify the moon, the dawn and certain stars. Since the passage focuses on lunar attributes, the depiction of a sort of Potnia Theron would seem out of context, but the ‘bluish-grey bulls’ could refer to the lunar phases – the initial and final quarter (see 12.23).

Magical Hymns From Roman Egypt: A Study of Greek and Egyptian Traditions of Divinity, pg 327.

That is, here she indicates that it could mean “fierce,” although the meaning “bluish-grey” is also possible. In the case of the text she analyzes, it would be something more metaphorical because of the rather religious content, but perhaps in the case of Heroica it is literal.

In Heroica, whether the intention is actually to indicate a blue hue or if it has a more ambiguous intention, however, I don't know for sure. As stated, LSJ seems to believe that the case here is simply to say that Achilles has bright eyes. Perhaps it was about Achilles being witty, since the entire sentence and not just the adjective for the eye alone is about Achilles being a witty person.

I also found a text that translates it as “dark blue”:

Φοῖνιξ. Ἦ καὶ δείξεις αὐτόν, ἀμπελουργέ, καὶ ἀναγράψεις ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους; Ἀμπελουργός. Τί δὲ οὐ μέλλω φιληκόου γέ σου τυγχάνων; τὴν μὲν δὴ κόμην ἀμφιλαφῆ αὐτῷ φησιν εἶναι καὶ χρυσοῦ ἡδίω καὶ εὐσχήμονα, ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως κινοίη αὐτὴν ἢ ἄνεμος ἢ αὐτός, τὴν δὲ ῥῖνα οὔπω γρυπὴν ἀλλ' οἷον μέλλουσαν, τὴν δὲ ὀφρῦν μηνοειδῆ, τὸν θυμ��ν δὲ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι χαροποῖς οὖσιν ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν ἀναϐάλλεσθαί τινα ὁρμήν, ὁρμήσαντος δὲ συνεκπηδᾶν τῇ γνώμῃ, τοῖς τε ἐρῶσιν ἡδίω αὐτὸν φαίνεσθαι. πεπονθέναι γάρ τι τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν οἷόν τι πρὸς τοὺς ἀλκίμους τῶν λεόντων· ἀσπαζόμενοι γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς χαίρομεν ἐπὰν θυμοῦ ὑποπλησθέντες ἐπὶ σῦν ὁρμήσωσιν ἠ ταῦρον ἤ τι τῶν μαχίμων θηρίων. τὸ δὲ λῆμα τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δηλοῦσθαί φησι34 καὶ παρὰ τοῦ αὐχένος· εἶναι γὰρ δὴ ὀρθὸν καὶ ἀνεστηκότα. Phoenician: Will you also show him, winemaker, and give a description of his appearance? Winemaker: Why won’t I since I find in you an active listener? He [Protesilaus] says that his hai is bushy, more pleasant than gold, good–looking no matter where and how it is shaken by the wind or by itself. His nose is not quite aquiline, but seemingly destined to be so; his brow is crescent–shaped; the ardour in his eyes, which are dark blue, brings out some eagerness when he is at rest, but when he is eager, it springs out along with his resolution and appears more charming to his lovers. For the Achaeans have the same feelings towards him as towards brave lions: although we cherish them when they are at rest, we are even more rejoiced by them whenever, filled with ardour, they rush headlong at a boar or a bull or some other warrior animal. He [Protesilaus] says that Achilles’ high spirit is also discernible in his neck, for it is straight and erect. (Philostr. Her. 48.1–4) [...] Beyond the duality between fierceness and charm, the eyes of Achilles in the Heroikos are definitely dark blue (ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι χαροποῖς οὖσιν): this trait occurs neither in the Iliad nor in any other portrait of Achilles. Only those of Theagenes are not yet dark blue (χαροποί), but they soon will be of this precise colour (ὀφθαλμὸς οὔπω μὲν χαροπός). If we follow the handbooks of physiognomy, this eye colour means nothing in itself; considered within a network of other physical signs however, it signals a brave, manly person, and a perfect Greek man in Polemon’s theories. The young boy in Heliodorus is less mature than the Achilles in Philostratus

From Achilles to Theagenes and vice-versa: Epideictic topics and commonplace in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica and beyond by Valentin Decloquement, pg 3 and pg 11.

That is, if this term is used here as the literal color, then Achilles has eyes of some shade of blue, whether that be dark blue or blue-gray. He doesn't, however, have heterochromia. Even if we consider bluish-grey, it's only indicating that BOTH eyes are a grayish shade of blue and not that one eye is blue and the other gray, for example.

In Ana Untila's translation, Ioannis Tzetzes (Byzantine Greek) in Posthomercia says that Achilles had "the eyes of a woman." Anna Untila's translation was based on the original Greek edition by Friedrich Jacobs. It was kind of difficult, but I found the part about Achilles' appearance while searching on Jacobs' book. Since his eyes were mentioned in the English (eyes of a woman) and I only started this whole research because of the eyes, it seemed ridiculous to give up right away in this case.

Λευκός, ξανθοκόμης, οὐλόθριξ, πυκνοέθειρος, Μακρόῤῥις, μελίγηρυς, κούρης δ ̓ εἶχεν ὅπωπας. Γοργὸς ἔὴν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς, ἐν δρόμοισι ποδάρκης, και τα ὑπήνην. Μακρὰ δ ̓ ἔχει σκέλεα

κούρης apparently can actually have the meaning “of a maiden” from what I’ve seen while ὅπωπας refers to the eyes/the sight according to Scaife Atlas (and here we’ll pray that Scaife Atlas is right because it was hard to find the meaning and it would be really annoying if those weren’t the real meanings). In other words, it would really be something like saying that Achilles has the eyes of a maiden. So yes, oddly enough, the translation “eyes of a woman” isn't a weird translation. What does it mean? I don’t know. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any analysis regarding it. But, well, it doesn’t refer to a color, as far as I know. I tried to research something about this, but the most I found was a Greek girl commenting something about big eyes being appreciated feminine traits (it was a comment about Greek physical appearance and the modern beauty standart in Greece in a different topic. She wasn't talking about Tzetzes).

In a text by Isaac Commenus (Byzantine Greek) apparently called On the peculiarities and characteristics of the Greeks and Trojans who were in Troy (Περὶ ἰδιότητος καὶ χαρακτήρων τῶν ἐν Τροίᾳ Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Τρώων), Achilles' eyes are simply described as "fierce eyes" in Valentin Decloquement's translation. Apparently the Greek word that was translated as "fierce" was γοργός, which Wikipedia says:

γοργός • (gorgós) m (feminine γοργή, neuter γοργόν); first/second declension 1. grim, fierce, terrible 2. spirited, vigorous 3. (of literary style) vehement, vigorous

The phrase that is translated as "having fierce eyes" in the Greek text is γοργοὺς ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς.

Adamantius, a Jewish Greek Byzantine, wrote a treatise on physiognomy. In this treatise, he describes features considered "typically Greek" in physical terms, of which "fierce eyes" is one of the descriptives:

From Adamantius’ Physiognomy we have the following description of ‘Hellenic’ or Ionian looks; its emphasis on the primacy of the ‘Hellenic race’ ‘verges on the nationalistic’, to borrow Simon Swain’s remark. Any who have guarded the Hellenic and Ionic race and kept it pure are sufficiently large men, rather broad, upright, strong, with a rather white colour, pale, having a moderate and rather firm mixture of flesh, straight legs, shapely extremities, a round head of medium size, a strong neck, rather pale and soft hair that curls gently, a square face, thin lips, a straight nose and moist, dark blue, fierce eyes with plenty of light in them; for the Hellenic race has the best eyes of all races.

Visualizing the invisible with the human body: Physiognomy and ekphrasis in the ancient world edited by J. Cale Johnson and Alessandro Stavru, pg 247.

Adamantius adds "Hellenic race has the best eyes of all races", so I suppose when Commenus described Achilles like this perhaps he was describing his eyes positively.

In the Greek Anthology, Christodorus (Byzantine Greek) described a statue of Achilles that supposedly stood in a public gymnasium called Zeuxippos. In William Roger Paton's translation, Achilles' eyes were described as follows:

[...] he seemed to be scattering the threatening cloud of battle, for his eyes shone with the genuine light of a son of Aeacus.

Aeacus is the demigod son of the nymph Aegina and the god Zeus. He is the grandfather of Achilles, as he is the father of Peleus. Here, I imagine that Christodorus was simply positively reinforcing Achilles lineage.

There are also colorful visual representations of Achilles, although given how old they are, it’s a bit tricky to know the exact colors at the time they were painted, so I’m going with the colors of the images we have today.

For example, this Roman mosaic from the 4th century AD shows Achilles being discovered among the girls of Lycomedes. I’ve taken a close-up, so it’s hard to tell who’s who, but Achilles is the person on the right (it’s easy to tell because in the full image he’s holding his spear and shield while the girls try to stop him). Personally, I got the impression that Achilles here has brown eyes.

Achilles being adored by princesses of Skyros. Odysseus (Ulysses) discovers him dressed as a woman and hiding among the princesses at the royal court of Skyros. A late Roman mosaic from La Olmeda, Spain, marble and tiled glass, 2.20 by 2.50 meters. For full descriptions (in Spanish). See here.

In a Roman fresco in Pompeii, in an attempt to make the colors more vivid (because, remember, the fresco was found faded), a scene depicting Achilles and Patroclus at the moment when Agamemnon's soldiers come to fetch Briseis seems to have painted not only Achilles but all the characters in the scene as having dark eyes.

Achilles sitting in his tent, Briseis is led out of the tent (to Agamemnon), in the presence of many Greek heroes - period / date: fourth style of pompeian wall painting - height: 127 cm - width: 122 cm - findspot: Pompeii VI, 8, 5, house of the tragic poet, atrium (3) - museum / inventory number: Napoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 9105. See here.

A Roman mosaic from Pompeii depicts the scene in which Achilles is thinking of attacking Agamemnon with his sword, but has his hair pulled by Athena. In this mosaic, the characters seems to have dark eyes, although I personally got the impression that in the center of Achilles' eyes there is a shade of blue.

Achilles and Agamemnon, scene from Book I of the Iliad, Roman mosaic. See here.

Another Mosaic depicting Achilles with dark eyes. I got the impression that his eyes here look kind of brown, but I'm not sure. This is the scene of him being discovered in Skyros.

The Achilles Mosaic was at the bottom of a pool with a waterspout in the impluvium of the Poseidon Villa in Zeugma. Achilles has been sent by his parents to a friend-King's palace where he even dresses up as a woman. Odysseus wants to find him, an plays a trick to find him amongst the "women": he brings fine gifts of clothing, jewellery, but also fine weaponry. The one to grab that must be Achilles. Here he's found out. See here.

There is also the detail that, in the case of mosaics, it isn'tpossible for there to be much detail in the eyes because of the way mosaics are made. Perhaps dark tones were chosen because they look better on the mosaic? After all, all the mosaic characters I have seen in this post so far have dark eyes, not just Achilles. Anyway, I'm not sure.

In a Roman fresco from the 1st century AD depicting Chiron educating Achilles (in a more colorful version. The original is more faded), Achilles seems to have brown eyes.

The centaur Chiron teaching Achilles how to play the lyre, Roman fresco from Herculaneum, National Archaeological Museum of Naples. See here.

In another Roman fresco showing Achilles being discovered on Skyros, I again got the impression that his eyes are some shade of brown.

Achilles, disguise in women, is recognized by Ulysses among the daughters of Lycomede a Scyros Fresco of Pompei. 1st century AD. Dim. 145,5x137,5 cm Naples, national archeological museum - Roman Art. Violent struggle between the people of Pompeii and Nocer. See here.

There are other mosaics of Achilles, but as stated, they generally have the same dark eyes characteristic of these types of mosaics. When the tone is a little lighter, Achilles usually seems to have brown eyes. There is another fresco in which Achilles is supposed to be between Briseis and Patroclus, but while Briseis and Patroclus have their faces visible, the part where Achilles' face was located has not survived…so yeah, no eyes.

Also, in this article, G.I.C Robertson indicated an interpretation that, in the scene from Book 1 of The Iliad, the descriptive of eyes usually taken to refer to Athena actually referred to Achilles.

THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT in the first book of the Iliad: Achilleus is about to be persuaded by Athene to resist the urge to kill Agamemnon after the latter has declared his intention to seize Achilleus' concubine Briseïs. The text appears above as it is printed in the OCT (Monro and Allen 1902: 8), and the translation given here represents the interpretation that has been accepted by the vast majority of commentators and translators. With very few exceptions, scholars have not seriously entertained the possibility that the eyes in line 200 may not be Athene’s; but the pronoun oi could equally be read as meaning “his," and the eyes may be those of Achilleus.1 I shall argue here that this interpretation deserves more attention than it has usually been given. Some older arguments will be revisited, including the relatively recent contribution of H.-W. Nörenberg (1972), but I believe that the case for such a reading can be strengthened by some further points which have not previously been made. Achilleus' behaviour later in the poem, in particular at the assembly in Book 19, favours this interpretation, and the question is significant for our understanding of the character of the hero. At 1.200, the scholiasts (Erbse 1969: 65) acknowledge both possibilities; they suggest o dé avti toû yάp, implying that Achilleus recognized Athene because of the appearance of her eyes, but add τινὲς δὲ φάανθεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐφωτίσθησαν oi toû ñρwos opłaλμoí, i.e., other scholars refer the flashing eyes to the hero.2 As to the first interpretation, the assumption that Achilleus needs some visible characteristic of the goddess to facilitate recognition may be thought to be justified by other divine epiphanies in the poem, such as Helen's recognition of Aphrodite's "beautiful neck, lovely bosom, and shining eyes” (лɛрiкαλλéα dɛipǹν / otηleά θ ̓ ἱμερόεντα καὶ ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα, 3.396-397) and the recognition of the "tracks" (ixvia) of Poseidon by the lesser Aias at 13.66-72. But those deities have disguised themselves as humans (3.386–389; 13.45), whereas in our case Athene does not bother with a disguise; the appearance of specific characteristics enabling identification is therefore not necessary, and Achilleus (to whom alone she appears: o pavoμévη, 1.198) recognizes her at once. The implication is that deities are perfectly capable of making themselves recognizable to mortals when the occasion requires it.

Following the line of thought that there must be something about Athene's eyes in particular that prompts the recognition, some have suggested that there is a connection with Athene's epithet γλαυκῶπις. Kirk is among these, and it is noteworthy that the most recent major commentary on the Iliad does not even mention the possibility that the eyes may not be those of Athene after all, an opinion which (though it has found few adherents) is at least as old as the scholia. Mazon suggests that attempts to see in the phrase δεινώ δέ οἱ ὄσσε φάανθεν reference to a permanent characteristic of the goddess are misguided: “le temps employé par le poète, l'aoriste, ne peut désigner l'éclat permanent d'un regard; il convient seulement �� une lueur subite apparaissant dans ce regard” (Mazon et al. 1937: 11). But the fact that these eyes (whether they are Athene's or Achilleus') appear "terrible" at this moment does not mean that they cannot be "terrible” on other occasions, or indeed habitually, and so this argument must be regarded as inconclusive. Further light may be shed on the question by looking at the pronoun of, which is usually taken to be a possessive dative referring to Athene, with or without explicit reference to the dέ/yάp equivalence noted by the scholia. But Achilleus is the subject of the sentence (1.199-200), and speaks at 1.202; oi refers more naturally to him. Some scholars have, therefore, understood the pronoun to refer to Achilleus, but not in a possessive sense: Athene's eyes appeared dɛivó to the hero. Leaf (1900: 18) considers both options, and casts his vote for the possessive: may refer to Athene her eyes gleamed terrible; or to Achilles-terrible shone her eyes on him." He compares Iliad 19.16-17 which, he says, "is in favour of the former view." Now at 19.16-17, oi does indeed appear in a possessive sense, and in a clause whose relevance to 1.200 is immediately apparent:

"oiὡς εἶδ', ὥς μιν μᾶλλον ἔδυ χόλος, ἐν δέ οἱ ὄσσε δεινὸν ὑπὸ βλεφάρων ὡς εἰ σέλας ἐξεφάανθεν. When he saw [the armour], then all the more the anger came upon him, and under his eyelids his eyes flashed out terribly, like a flame.

The Eyes of Achilleus, pg 1-3.

There are other arguments, but in this case I recommend reading the article. It's short, only 7 pages! As Robertson said, the idea that the descriptive could refer to Achilles and not Athena is not new, although generally people choose to conclude that, between Achilles and Athena, the descriptive belongs to Athena since it is her common epithet.

Anyway, that's all I could find regarding Achilles' eyes. If anyone knows anything, feel free to speak! I don't know Greek and I don't study classics or history, so I guess it wouldn't be surprising if I missed or misunderstood something. Also, the other thing I know is that Alexander claimed to be descended from Achilles through one of Neoptolemus' sons with Andromache. This is because Olympia, his mother, was a royal from Epirus. Epirus, mythologically, was ruled by the Trojan Helenus, who later married Andromache (after Neoptolemus died). And when Andromache came to Epirus, she brought the son/children (the number varies) she had with Neoptolemus.

Also, the Alexander Romance said that Alexander had heterchromia (something still debated by historians), but doesn't mention Achilles:

hen these events occurred, Philip said: "I planned not to rear the child, Lady, because he is not my son. But now, since I see clearly that his origin is the seed of a god, and the babe is someone marked by the cosmic elements, let him be reared and in memory of my son by my former wife, my son who perished, let him be called Alexander." When he said these words, the child received the proper care. And through all Pella and Thrace and Macedonia the people celebrated the event, wearing crowns of flowers. Now the boy grew up and he did not look like Philip or Olympias. For he had his own type, a leonine mane of hair, eyes of different colours, one white, one black. And he had sharp teeth like fangs, and the passionate nature of a wild lion. And his personality very clearly indicated what the boy would be like. And in time he grew up and tried his wings at learning and at ruling.

Alexander Romance, Book 2. Translation by E.H. Haight and A.M.Wolohojian.

According to Wikipedia:

The Alexander Romance is an account of the life and exploits of Alexander the Great. Of uncertain authorship, it has been described as "antiquity's most successful novel". The Romance describes Alexander the Great from his birth, to his succession of the throne of Macedon, his conquests including that of the Persian Empire, and finally his death. Although constructed around an historical core, the romance is mostly fantastical, including many miraculous tales and encounters with mythical creatures such as sirens or centaurs. In this context, the term Romance refers not to the meaning of the word in modern times but in the Old French sense of a novel or roman, a "lengthy prose narrative of a complex and fictional character" (although Alexander's historicity did not deter ancient authors from using this term). It was widely copied and translated, accruing various legends and fantastical elements at different stages. The original version was composed in Ancient Greek some time before 338 AD, when a Latin translation was made, although the exact date is unknown. Some manuscripts pseudonymously attribute the texts authorship to Alexander's court historian Callisthenes, and so the author is commonly called Pseudo-Callisthenes.

From what I have read about this Alexander Romance, it is generally understood that the author wanted to indicate that Alexander had one dark eye and one light eye, and some people suggest the colores would be specifically brown and blue. So yes, one of the sources mentions Alexander having heterochromia, although there is no consensus that this was true, but I don't recall any of them doing the same with Achilles. Perhaps someone put together Alexander Romance's claim that Alexander had heterochromia + the claim that he was descended from Achilles (because of Olympia) and thus came up with Achilles with heterochromia. But anyway, don't sure.

#Ask #Anon #Achilles #Birdiethings #Birdie.txt

5 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 5 months ago

Text

@greekmythologylover234 Sorry for the big delay, I was trying to find different academic sources andI kind of reread an entire book just to make sure my memory was right. I wanted to present various theories, those who agree with the theory, those who disagree with the theory and those who give the benefit of the doubt. I tried to present it in chronological order, this way it would be easier to analyze the development of the debate (in addition, in many cases a later academic is responding directly to a previous academic and such a response would only make sense knowing the proposal of the previous academic). I'm replying as a post because otherwise I would have to tag you in multiple comments, which would be inconvenient! I made a separate post instead of reblogging the post we were talking about just to keep it more organized. Also, what I write here is what I have read, but I'm not an academic myself, which is important to remember (I'm not a historian, nor a clacissist, nor anything. That's precisely why I'm basically just repeating other people's theories instead of giving my own explanations)! Everything here is just me repeating what an academic said lol

Short answer:

It's uncertain, although it most likely does have some connection with Thetis since Achilles Pontarches is a protector linked to the sea and signs have been found that Thetis was worshiped in Olbia (where there was a strong cult of Achilles Pontarches) as well. But it's still not possible to say with certainty why Achilles was deified, especially in a specific region (Black Sea/Euxine Pontus), since all of his other cults were heroicfrom what we know (which, despite being a cult, doesn’t make the object of worship a deity). Some even argue that perhaps Achilles Pontarches was another cult hero. There are also arguments as to whether, if it’s a case of deification, this was an entirely Greek creation or whether it was influenced by non-Greek peoples from abroad in the Black Sea region (what I see being argued the most are the Scynthians). To really talk about this subject, it would be necessary to consider several theories and analyze the academics who agree with and criticize them, as it isn’t such a simple subject to talk about. Much of what is discussed is mere possibility. There is also the detail that much of the content on the subject isn’t so accessible because they’re texts that aren’t found in English, probably because the cities related to this subject currently belong to Ukraine (I say this because a considerable amount of the texts are from Russians and I really think this has to do with the archaeological site belonging to Ukraine).

Long answer:

Firstly, I recommend looking at a map where Pontic Olbia, Borysthenes (Berezan island), Neapolis and Leuke/Island of Achilles (Snake Island) were located. Just giving a hint because it might be confusing to read this without having an idea of the location, but these places really weren't too far from each other. Furthermore, at the end of the post are the ancient sources mentioned in the academic texts, if you’re curious to know which texts they’re talking about.

IMPORTANT DATES

This section is basically a summary of what is theorized to have happened historically in the region. Keep in mind that when it comes to history, we are working with possibilities and something like 100% accurate information isn’t really possible. For example, the settlement of Olbia has been theorized to date back to both the 7th century BC and the 6th century BC. Furthermore, the cult of Achilles in the region could only be confirmed more reliably with archaeological discoveries and many of the important texts on this subject are outdated in some aspects, such as the inscriptions about Pontarches. Older books give different dates (they tend to put it in earlier centuries) for the Getae invasion, but I used the one I saw most often used in more recent texts. What I mean is that don't take everything as exact. Also, I know it seems a bit ?! that I’m making a somewhat political timeline, but in the case of this cult, it’s important to have at least a brief idea of what went on behind the scenes. For example, the main cult was moved from Olbia to Berezan/Borysthenes. Why? Well, the political context of the time explains it. Things like that. Also, the theories I intend to present about the cult sometimes mention things like that, so I think it's good to clarify so that no one gets extremely confused.

LINEAR B (possibly 13/14th century BC)

And yet the name of Achilles is "attractively identified," as Palmer puts it, in the Linear B tablets: In the text of Pylos tablet Fn 70. 2, a list of names in the dative includes a-ki-re-we, to be read as Akhil(l)ēwei. As I commented on this attestation, "we must be ready to assume that the mythopoeic name of ̓Αχιλλεύς inspired the naming of historical figures called Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς. Palmer comments on my comment: "In fact, it is at the very least unlikely that any parent would have bestowed such a name on his son unless its inauspicious overtones had been masked by its occurrence as a heroic name in a famous story." If Palmer's "chain of reasoning," as he calls it, is correct, "then the Pylian record may be construed as implying that a version of the 'Wrath of Akhilleus' was current at the time of the destruction of Pylos." (The Name of Achilles: Questions of Etymology and "Folk-Etymology', by Gregory Nagy, pg 8)

That is, a name found in Linear B seems to attest to the existence of the name Achilles among the Mycenaeans. Gregory Nagy suggested that the name predates the myth and that a later mythological hero (Achilles son of Thetis) had this name attributed to him. However, Leonard Robert Palmer finds this unlikely, since Palmer (like Nagy, in fact) interprets the etymology of the name as being associated with mourning and, given the importance that the meanings of the names seemed to have, it would be strange for the name Achilles to be a name used. Why would parents choose to give their children names associated with bad omen when most give them names associated with virtues and beauty? Nagy then comments that if Palmer is right, then perhaps there was a version of the famous "Wrath of Akhilleus" even in the Mycenaean period. For context, Linear B is a script theorized to date back to the 13th/14th century BC and is a record of the Mycenaean language, predating the Greek alphabet.

SCYTHIANS IN THE BLACK SEA (predates Greek settlement, but uncertain date)

The real Scythians were a broad group of peoples, probably Iranian in origin, who originally lived as nomadic herders. They were among the earliest in a long line of peoples who migrated from central Asia to the west, driving before them vast herds of horses, sheep, and cows. By the 700s BC, they seem to have displaced the earlier Cimmerians, who themselves probably also migrated from the east.

The arrival of the Scythians in the Black Sea zone alarmed the kingdoms of the Near East. Records of conflicts with the Scythian host appear in several ancient texts, under names that prefigure later labels. They are perhaps the Ashkenaz of Hebrew sources (Genesis 10:3), and in the sixth century BC the Persians vanquished an eastern people they called the Saka. The famous rock relief at Behistun in western Iran depicts Darius and his subjugated enemies, with the shackled Skunkha, ruler of the Saka, shown with the long beard and pointed hat that were the standard visual representations of northern barbarians. (After conquering the Scythians of the east, Darius led another, unsuccessful campaign against their western cousins around 513 BC.) (The Black Sea, by Charles King, pg 35-36)

That is, Scythians appear to be a people who originated in Asia (possibly of Iranian origin), but eventually spread until they eventually reached the Pontic region. Later, the Greeks settled in the region. Therefore, the Scythian presence is possibly earlier than the Greek presence in the region. Still, it’s uncertain when this happened, although it was at least before the Greek settlement, which occurred around the 7th century BC. Furthermore, they were nomadic, had shepherding as a strong cultural trait, were equestrians and appear to have been good archers.

HOMERIC TRADITIONS (possibly 8th century BC)

I'm putting it here, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's later than the Scythian occupation of the Black Sea/Euxine Pontus. From what I've seen, it's not possible to be certain about this. Anyway, just keep these things in mind: Homer wrote, possibly in not too distant periods, the poems The Iliad and The Odyssey, which were based on oral traditions of the Greek people. So the myths themselves are older, but the way we know them from Homer is probably from the 8th century BC. In The Iliad, there are two characters I want you to remember. One is the main hero Achilles (Ἀχιλλεύς,) and the other is the river god Achelous (Ἀχελώϊος). Also, in The Odyssey the dead are depicted as being in Asphodel, which includes characters like Achilles, Big Ajax, Patroclus, Antilochus, Agamemnon, Tiresias, the suitors, etc. So Achilles here isn’t in Leuke. In fact, the heroes in general aren’t even in Elysium. The only hero explicitly associated with this place is Menelaus, as it’s said that as Zeus' son-in-law he will live in the Elysian fields.

THE MYTH OF LEUKE (possibly 8th century BC)

Supposedly, the lost epic Aethiopis was written in the 8th century BC by Arctinus of Miletus and postdates Homer's poems. As far as is known, it’s the earliest written source for the myth relating Achilles to Leuke, an island in the Euxine Pontus/Black Sea region. It’s possible to know this because of a summary made by Proclus (5th century) in the work Chrestomathy. That is, the myth of Achilles and Leuke appears to predate the Greek settlement of the region. (Encyclopædia Britannica, Arctinus)

SETTLEMENT OF BEREZAN (possibly 7th century BC)

“[...] the harbour of the Berezan settlement, established by Milesian colonists in the 7th century BC prior to the foundation of Olbia Pontica in the same area [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 25).

That is, the settlement (and creation of the port) by the Milesians (people of Miletus) in Berezan (ancient Borysthenes) probably took place during the 7th century BC and predated the founding of Olbia in the same region.

SETTLEMENT OF OLBIA (possibly 6th century BC)

“Olbia, one of the richest sites in the North Pontic region, is situated along the estuary of the river Bug. The city was founded by Milesian colonists in the first half of the sixth century B.C. and prospered through the fourth century B.C.[...]” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 534).

That is, Olbia was probably settled, also by the Milesians, in the 6th century BC. One of the reasons for the interest in Olbia is because it was strategically located for a commercial port. And in fact, Olbia had a very important port for trade and navigation in the Black Sea that was of great importance for the growth of the city's influence, which made it gain autonomy later. However, it was also located in a region full of foreign peoples (including the Scynthians who, as mentioned, were already in the region when the Greeks arrived), which influenced social, political and economic aspects.

SCYTHIAN DYNASTY (possibly around 600 BC)

“In about 600 bc, a Scythian royal dynasty emerged and ruled for almost a century. Scythian chieftains are usually called ‘kings’ as classical Greek writers designated them with the word basileus: this should not be assumed to mean that their state organization was at the same level as in Iran, whose rulers were also called basileus, but it is clear that hereditary power existed in Scythia during the fifth and fourth centuries bc. In the mid-fifth century. [...]” (Scythians: Warriors of ancient Siberia, by A. Yu. Alexeyev, pg 25).

That is, it’s possible to know that, at least around 600 BC (7th century BC), the Scythians had a hereditary political model, constituting a royal dynasty.

LORD OF SCYTHIA (possibly around the begin of greek settlement)

“Around 600 BC, broadly synchronous with the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia, we have the poetry of Alcaeus, which includes the line ‘Achilles, lord of Scythia’. Since the fragment has. Since the fragment has survived without its original context, much remains uncertain about Alcaeus’ words. [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 52-53).

That is, in a period synchronized with the beginning of the Greek settlement in the region of Greater Olbia (which covers more than just the city of Olbia, to be clear. It’s about Olbia and the other cities influenced by it), the Greek poet Alcaeus wrote a poem that unfortunately only survives in fragments with very few contextualizations. One of the fragments found described Achilles as “Lord of Scythia”. According to Braund, at that time there was already a slave trade from Scythia that went from the Black Sea to other Greek poleis, and for this reason the Scynthians were already a relatively well-known people even by Greeks who weren’t from the region,as is the case of Alcaeus of Mytilene/Lesbos (pg 54).

CULT OF ACHILLES IN BLACK SEA (possibly 6th century BC)

“For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century BC. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 315)

That is, the cult of maybe deified Achilles in the Black Sea appears to date back to at least the 6th century BC. Most scholars seem to agree that it’s a creation of Greek origin, although some suggest that it originated from the non-Greek populations already existing in that region, especially the Scythians (but the Thracians are also suggested).

KING SCYLES (possibly 5th century BC)

Among the Scythian kings, one that will be relevant in this post is Scyles because of an account by the Greek historian Herodotus. According to Herodotus, he had a Greek mother (the father was Scythian) and this made him appreciate Greek culture and seek to connect with it. Scyles participated in the Bacchic cults of Olbia, which caused the citizens of Olbia to mock the Scythian because, although they mocked the faith of the Greeks, their king was there worshiping Dionysus. This caused Scyles to have problems with his people, which eventually led to his betrayal and death.

OLBIA HAD AUTONOMY (possbily 4th century BC)

“The city rapidly became self-governing, reaching full prosperity in the 4th c. B.C [...]” (The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Site)

That is, it’s theorized that the heyday of Olbia was during the 4th century BC, a period in which the city was already autonomous. Therefore, any influence that Olbia exerted over other Pontic cities (which was quite a bit of influence, by the way) had no relation to Miletus. Braund calls the region of Olbia + Pontic Olbia-influenced cities (+Leuke) Greater Olbia.

OLBIA HAD INTEREST IN LEUKE (document is possibly from 3rd century BC)

”Certainly, later inscriptions show Olbian protection of the island. Particularly evocative is an honorary inscription dated no later than the early third century BC [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 54).

“The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island.” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 46).

That is, in the 3rd century BC Olbia had established a possible kind of protectorate over Leuke. This inscription is called IOSPE i² 325 and mentions that a statue was erected in Leuke by the Olbiopolitans in honor of a citizen who was of importance at that event.

POSIDEOS’ INSCRIPTION TO ACHILLES (possibly 2nd century BC)

“The other pertinent document – IOSPE I² 672 – is a dedication to Achilles, “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC. [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 47).

Thus, in Neapolis was found a dedication to Achilles as a thank you for helping to defeat the pirates and calling him “lord of the island”. The owner of the inscription was identified as a citizen of Olbia (Olbia wasn’t so far from Neapolis) named Posideos. Supposedly, the inscription belongs to around the 2nd century BC.

MITHRIDATES RULES BLACK SEA (possibly at the end of 2nd century BC)

“[...] Mithridates did extend his sway in this area at least as far as the city of Olbia. The most important evidence for his relations with Olbia is an inscription of its people honouring a ship captain from Amisus (IOSPE 1² 35). The inscription is fragmentary and its interpretation much disputed, but the most satisfactory version is that of Wilhelm: the captain was entrusted with a shipment of royal supplies for the Armenians settled in Olbia by Mithridates; he set out from Amisus and stopped in at Sinope to pick up an embassy of Olbians and perhaps the help (boetheian? 1.10) they had been sent to seek. He brought his shipment through safely in very difficult conditions. It is known that Mithridates did resettle some of his subjects from Pontus in the Bosporan kingdom, so it is not unlikely that there should be Armenians in Olbia, but Wilhelm does not attempt to explain why they were there. One natural assumption is that the Armenians were not just randomly resettled, but constituted a Pontic garrison. That Olbia would have needed a garrison for protection is demonstrated vividly by the inscription honouring Niceratus, who died in defence of the city against the constant threat of the enemy (IOSPE 1² 34; SIG3 730). The exact date is not clear, but the end of the second century or beginn- ing of the first is usually assumed. It therefore probably refers to the situation in Olbia just before the city came under the protection of Mithridates, although it may date from the period between the dissolu- tion of Mithridates' protectorate and the sack of the city by the Getae towards the middle of the first century (Dio Chrys. 36.4-5). Either way, the Olbians will no doubt have been looking for just the sort of protection that other cities of the Euxine were seeking. It is also difficult to attach with confidence a date to the inscription honouring the Amisene sea captain. If the Armenians are from Armenia Maior then presumably it will date from the time after the marriage of Mithridates' daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes, as it seems only from then that Pontus and Armenia were allies. The term "Armenians", however, could just as easily apply to inhabitants of Armenia Minor, over which Mithridates gained control probably before his alliance with Tigranes. As for a lower date, the end of Mithridates' reign is the only limit. For although in 72/1 M. Terentius Varro Lucullus launched a successful campaign against the cities of the western Euxine supporting Mithridates, the cities further north were not affected: Tyras remained in Eupator's sphere during the last decade of his life, and, therefore, it is to be assumed that Olbia did also.

Coins of Olbia show possible Mithridatic influence. The king's own features are thought to be represented on the obverse of two Olbian issues. Another issue depicts on the reverse a dolphin between caps of the Dioscuri with eight-rayed star in field. As already noted (above p. 54), a cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri is a common type for the municipal coins of Pontus issued under Mithridates Eupator's rule, and the dolphin of the Olbian issue has in fact a very similar shape to the cornucopia. It is, however, the circulation "in enormous quantities at Olbia" of Pontic municipal issues which points most clearly to the city's inclusion in Mithridates' realm.” (The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, by Brian McGing, pg 55-56)

That is, Olbia came under the rule of Mithridates Eupator apparently around the end of the 2nd century BC, and it wasn’t the only one as the other Pontic cities did too. Apparently, this wasn’t seen entirely negatively by the people of Olbia, as in fact they were having problems with many external attacks and Eupator's intervention saved the city from destruction. They even thanked Eupator, as can be seen in one of the inscriptions found. But of course, this didn’tt happen out of Eupator's pure good heart. In fact, Mithridates Eupator sought to dominate Asia Minor and the Black Sea region, which included Olbia, because he wanted to gain power to defeat the influence of the Roman Republic over the Greek and Asian regions. He was considered the King of Pontus, and his battles with Rome were called the Mithridatic Wars and took place during the 1st century BC. Despite the great power gained by Eupator, Rome emerged victorious (Eupator having died possibly in 63 BC). This book is from 1986, but David Braund follows a similar historical line in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me that this part is outdated.

OLBIA WAS SACKED (possibly at the middle of 1st century BC)

In the mid-1st century BC Olbia was probably invaded by Getae, as mentioned in Dio Chrysostom’s oration Borystheniticus (Or. 36.4-6). As a result, the city was ruined and its fortification walls were destroyed. [...] (Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 54)

That is, Olbia was sacked and destroyed by the Getae, a people who inhabited the region below the Danube River and who are sometimes related to the Dacians and/or Thracians in theories by modern academics.

OLBIA WAS REBUILT (possibly 1st century)

“Then the question arises as to when Olbia was rebuilt after the Getic rout. Unfortunately neither the circumstances nor the date of that rebuilding are known. In the academic literature it is virtually taken for granted that the city remained empty for several decades and was only restored at the end of the 1st century BC. This hypothesis is based mainly on archaeological data. To this day archaeological levels or remains of buildings, which would relate to the second half of the 1st century BC or to the first half of the 1st century AD, are virtually unknown. It is only within the territory of the suburbs that paving, rubbish pits and pottery kilns dating from the beginning of the 1st century AD have been recorded. Recently also in Trench R-25 – near the place where the inscription published here was discovered – cellars were cleared which contained materials dating from the first half of the 1st century AD. Objects dating from the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD are however encountered in Olbia in levels of a later period almost everywhere. Nevertheless it has not been possible to assign them sufficiently precise dates, which would have made it possible to single out from among them objects of the third or fourth quarter of the 1st century BC and so archaeological data cannot provide an answer to the question as to when exactly Olbia was re-built. [...]” (A New Dedication from Olbia and the Problems of City Organization and of Greco-Barbarian Relations in the 1st Century AD, by Askold I. Ivantchik, pg 199)

That is, Olbia was rebuilt in some period of which no one knows for sure, but academically the 1st century is usually considered (note: uncertainty in historical studies is common, but in the case of Olbia this is a constant element because the region has not been studied as much as others. At least, that is what I have read at least 3 academics mention). However, it has considerably lost its size. If in previous centuries Olbia had a great influence on other Pontic cities, now its golden age was gone. According to Kozlovskaya: “territory of the city proper was approximately three times smaller than it was during the Hellenistic period.” (The Harbour of Olbia, pg 54)

OLBIA LOST AUTHORITY OVER LEUKE (possibly 1st century AD)

“In addition, Olbia was no longer able to maintain its patronage over the sanctuary of Achilles on the island of Leuke: by the end of the first century CE, it seems to have passed to some other West Pontic city, probably Tomi. [...]” (The Nothern Black Sea in Antiquity, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 43).

That is, despite Olbia's interests in Leuke and the apparent protection that Olbia offered Leuke because of the importance of the site, they were unable to maintain this due to the problems they faced. By the 1st century, another West Pontic city had taken over this role.

BEREZAN BECAME THE CENTER OF THE CULT OS ACHILLES (possibly 1st century)

“This stage lasted into the Hellenistic Age, but as time went by, the prosperity and importance of Olbia declined, and it was often threatened by native populations. In the Roman period, we find that the focus of Olbian worship of Achilles is not Leuke but rather nearby Berezan, which probably led to the confusion with Leuke in our later sources. When Olbia could no longer dominate Leuke, the range of its cult practice retreated, and Berezan apparently became a substitute. The cult seems to become more formal and institutional as Olbia becomes less powerful, with priests and rather monumental inscriptions. The epithet Pontarches underscores the expansion of status for Achilles from hero to divinity; at the same time the hyperbolic geographical claim for the sphere of Achilles' influence is a wishful inversion of the city's receding power.” (The Death and Afterlife of Achilles, by Jonathan S Burgess, pg 128)

That is, with Olbia having lost authority over Leuke due to the city’s declining influence, Olbia moved the center of the cult of Achilles to Berezan. For this reason, in the Roman period Berezan was the island that hosted the most important temple of Achilles in the region. This has led some academics to debate whether it is safe to assume that every “island of Achilles” mentioned in texts from the Roman period refers to Leuke, since Berezan in that period was an island also associated with Achilles. And I say “also” because even texts from that period associate Leuke with Achilles, so this association wasn't lost simply because Olbia moved the cult center to Berezan. Ancient texts, however, give the impression that Leuke wasn’t inhabited and, in fact, it was even forbidden to spend the night there. Anyway, remember that this doesn’t mean that the cult of Achilles in Berezan began at this time. It already existed! Since the 6th century BC, in fact! What changed was that it became the center of worship.

THE TERM PONTARCHES (possibly 1st century AD)

“A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 314)

That is, although the cult itself already existed, what we have of the term “Pontarches” itself dates back to at least the 2nd century AD, when the cult had already been changed to Berezan. The earlier periods of the cult of Achilles on the Black Sea are present in texts that deal with Pontarches because, as already said, the cult of Berezan is an extension of the earlier cult. Olbia only changed the main location. However, there is a detail. This text is from 1986 and, in 1988, there were new discoveries: “F.V. Shelov-Kovedyayev published an inscription found in 1988, a versified Greek dedication to Achilles Pontarches dating to the first century A.C.” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 539).

RISE OF THE CULT OF PONTARCHES (possibly 2nd/3rd century BC)

[...] It reached its height in the Roman period, during which (in the second and third centuries AD) Achilles in Olbia was worshiped under the cult title of Achilles Pontarches, the patron of the college of archons. [...] (Immortal Achilles, by Dianna Burton, pg 22)

That is, despite the previous fame that the cult already had (as we can see from how much Leuke is mentioned in earlier sources), it reached its peak in the Roman period with Achilles Pontarches.

THEORIES

I have tried to gather an interesting set of theories, including some that disagree with each other! However, there are certainly more theories than that. On a fair number of occasions, I have come across names that were mentioned frequently, but that I had no way of reading because the texts were in Russian or German. On one occasion, I came across a book by a Greek author, but it had never been translated into any other language, so I couldn't read it either. Occasionally I have come across theories in French. So yes, there is certainly much more than I have shown here. Still, I hope this is enough to make the point that there is much that is uncertain, much that is variable, and much that is interesting. There is, in my opinion, MUCH more appeal to the idea of Achilles at Leuke than to the idea of Achilles in Elysium.

Theory 1: there is no divine cult or ancestral cult, they’re all hero cults, and probably emerged after Homer!

When you search for articles dealing with the idea of a cult of Achilles, you may see the name Farnell mentioned. This is Lewis Richard Farnell, who in 1920 published an Oxford book called "Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality" with the objective of exploring hero cults in Ancient Greece. He concluded that, although Achilles had cults in different places, none of them were a divine or ancestral cult (that is, a local cult directed to the ancestor of the region), but rather all were heroic. Therefore, Farnell doesn't interpret he was deified in the Black Sea.

I have presented all the facts that appear to me relevant ; and the working hypothesis that they suggest for dealing with Achilles-legend and cult is merely thi: Achilles was no local Achaean god, nor in his primary significance an Achaean tribal ancestor like Aiakos, but a definite heroic personage associated with a definite Achaean saga of semihistorical value; and always regarded, whether rightly or wrongly, as a real man; his cult was always hero-cult, and may have begun before Homer, but in post-Homeric times, independently of tribal affinities, was diffused and quickened by the powerful influence of the epic.

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 289.

However, it's important to mention that when saying "Achean God" he was referring to a theory related to the etymology of the name Achilles that said it possibly had roots in a deity associated with rivers. In other words, it isn't a theory formed based on archaeological finds or ancient texts as in the case of Euxine theory, it's a theory formed because of etymology. This theory doesn't really seem to be popular today, I don't remember seeing it being fervently defended in modern articles, but perhaps it was being considered at the time this book was published. From what I've noticed, most theories that attempt to explain that a mortal mythological character was initially a deity don't seem to have much support in the academic consensus, especially since the pre-Homeric details are too nebulous for such a strong claim. Yes, Achilles has elements associated with water and that's noticeable, but assuming he was a river deity who was converted into a mortal hero is a bolder and a very uncertain idea. Furthermore, Farnell theorizes the possibility of the cult of Achilles is post-Homeric, being a direct consequence of the hero's fame in poetry.

But his name and his parentage, his birth from the sea-goddess, have persuaded many that he was originally a river-god, his name arising from the same root as the river-name Ἀχελῷος. On this theory we may explain the facts thus : a Thessalian river-god becomes the ancestor of a powerful Thessalian tribe, a most natural evolution ; the ancestor leaves the river and becomes a mere ancestor-hero, who accompanies the tribe in its wanderings and conquests, and shares in the glory of its achievements. This hypothesis might satisfy if more of the facts were relevant to it. But none of them really are, except the name Ἀχιλλεύς?, which certainly seems to claim affinity with Ἀχελῷος?, though other etymologies have been suggested. But if we have reason to suspect a primitive custom once prevailing in Greece of baptizing children in rivers, if we find in the Aeolic Troad a rite that may be old Thessalian, of maidens dedicating their virginity to the river-god before marriage, so that the spirit of the river-god might enter into the child she might conceive ^, what would be more natural than to name the new-born child after the name of the river-god ? Nowhere does the cult and legend of Achilles betray any reminiscence of an aboriginal river-god or of any other nature-divinity. No river is ever named after him, possibly one fountain (while many are associated with Herakles) and two or three

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 285-286.

Theory 2: hero cults, not only of Achilles but in general, are post-Homeric!

In 1925, Erwin Rohde published the book "Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks". The main objective of the book was to analyze the opinions of the Greeks regarding what happened to the human soul after death. In this book Rohde, although he recognized that there are elements in Homeric poetry that appear to make references to cult practice (for example, the funeral of Patroclus), argues there was no cult of the dead in the pre-Homeric age. That is, there was no cult of dead heroes, which includes Achilles. This is his opinion because of the way the soul of the dead appears to be portrayed by Homer in The Iliad and The Odyssey. Although they didn't use the same argument, both Rohde and Farnell theorized the non-existence of Achilles worship before Homer. This idea, however, will be challenged in the following years.

Such are the relics of ancient soul-worship to be found within the limits of the Homeric world. Further attention to the spirits of the dead beyond the time of the funeral was prevented by the deeply ingrained conviction that after the burning of the body the psyche was received into the inaccessible world of the Unseen, from which no traveller returns. But, in order to secure this complete departure of the soul, it is necessary for the body to be burnt. Though we do occasionally read in the Iliad or the Odyssey that immediately after death and before the burning of the body “the psyche departed to Hades”, the words must not be taken too literally; the soul certainly flies off at once towards Hades, but it hovers now between the realms of the living and the dead until it is received into the final safekeeping of the latter after the burning of the body. The psyche of Patroklos appearing by night to Achilles declares this; it prays for immediate burial in order that it may pass through the door of Hades. Until then the other shadow-creatures prevent its entrance and bar its passage across the river, so that it has to wander restlessly round the house of Aïs of the wide gate (Il. xxiii, 71 ff.). This hastening off towards the house of Hades is again all that is meant when it is said elsewhere of Patroklos himself (Il. xvi, 856) that the psyche departed out of his limbs to the house of Hades. In exactly the same way it is said of Elpenor, the companion of Odysseus, that “his soul descended to Hades” (Od. x, 560). This soul meets his friend, nevertheless, later on, at the entrance of the Shadow-world, not yet deprived of its senses like the rest of the dwellers in that House of Darkness; not until the destruction of its physical counterpart is complete can it enter into the rest of Hades. Only through fire are the souls of the dead “appeased” (Il. vii, 410). So long, then, as the psyche retains any vestige of “earthliness” it possesses some feeling still, some awareness of what is going on among the living. But once the body is destroyed by fire, then is the psyche relegated to Hades; no return to this earth is permitted to it, and not a breath of this world can penetrate to it there. It cannot even return in thought. Indeed, it no longer thinks at all, and knows nothing more of the world beyond. The living also forget one so completely cut off from themselves (Il. xxii, 389). What, then, should tempt them, during the rest of their lives here, to try to hold communication with the dead by means of a cult?

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 18-19.

Furthermore, in the explained notes Rohde offers a group of information regarding the mythology of Achilles with Leuke and the known cults.

Leuke, to which already in the Aithiopis Achilles had been translated, was originally a purely mythical place (see above, p. 65), the island of the pallid shades (like the Λευκὰς πέτρη of Od. ω 11, at the entrance of Hades; cf. κ 515. It is the same rock of Hades from which unhappy lovers cast themselves down to death, ἀρθεὶς δηὖτ’ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πέτρης κτλ. Anacr. 17, etc. [cf. Dieterich, Nek. 27 f.]. λεύκη, the white poplar, as the tree of Hades, was used to make the garlands of the Mystai at Eleusis; cf. λευκὴ κυπάρισσος at the entrance of Hades, Epigr. Gr. 1037, 2).—It was probably Milesian sailors who localized this island of Achilles in the Black Sea (there was a cult of Ach. in Olbia and in Miletos itself). Alc. already knows of the champion as ruling over the country of the Scythians: fr. 48b, ἐν Εὐξείνῳ πελάγει φαεννὰν Ἀχιλεὺς νᾶσον (ἔχει), Pi. N. iv, 49. Then Eur., Andr. 1259 ff.; IT. 436 ff.; finally Q.S. iii, 770 ff. Leuke was particularly identified with an uninhabited islet rising with its white limestone cliffs out of the sea at the mouth of the Danube: 566 Κέλτου πρὸς ἐκβολαῖσι, Lyc. 189 (probably the Istros is meant but the latest editor simply substitutes Ἴστρου πρὸς ἐκ.—a far too facile conjecture).—It stood, more exactly, before the ψιλὸν στόμα, i.e. the most northerly mouth of the river (the Kilia mouth): Arrian, Peripl. 20, 3 H.: [Scylax] Peripl. 68 prob. means the same island; cf. Leuke, εὐθὺ Ἴστρου, Max. Tyr. 15, 7. It has been proposed to identify it with the “snake island” which lies more or less in the same neighbourhood: see H. Koehler, Mém. sur les îles et la course cons. à Achille, etc., Mém. acad. S. Petersb. 1826, iv, p. 599 ff. It was only by a confusion that the long sandy beach at the mouth of the Borysthenes, called Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος, was identified with Leuke (e.g. by Mela, ii, 98; Plin., NH. iv, 93; D.P. 541 ff.); legends of Achilles’ epiphanies may have been current there too (as in other islands of the same name: Dionys. of Olbia ap. Sch. A.R. ii, 658); the Olbiopolitai offer a cult to Ἀχιλλεὺς Ποντάρχης there: CIG. 2076–7, 2080, 2096b–f (IPE. i, 77–83). But as a settled abode of Achilles only Leuke was generally recognized (there was a δρόμος Ἀχιλλέως there as well: Eur., IT. 437; Hesych. Ἀχιλλ. πλάκα; Arr. 21—hence the confusion mentioned above). Strabo’s remarks on the subject are peculiar (vii, 306 f.). He distinguishes the Ἀχ. δρόμος (which had already been mentioned by Hdt. iv, 55) from Leuke altogether; and he places that island not at the mouth of the Istros but 500 stades away at the mouth of the Tyras (Dniester). But the place where sacrifice and worship was made to Achilles, as the abode of his spirit, was definitely fixed; and this was, in fact, the island at the mouth of the Danube (κατὰ τοῦ Ἴστρου τὰς ἐκβολάς, Paus. 3, 19, 11), of which Arr. 23, 3, gives an account based partially on the evidence of eye-witnesses (p. 399, 12 Müll.).

It was an uninhabited, thickly wooded island only occupied by numerous birds; there was a temple and a statue of Ach. on it, and also an oracle (Arr. 22, 3), which must have been an oracle taken by casting or drawing lots (for there were no human intermediaries) which those who landed on the island could make use of for themselves. The birds—which were perhaps regarded as incarnations of the Heroes, or as handmaidens of the “divinity of light” which Achilles was, acc. to R. Holland, Heroenvögel in d. gr. Myth. 7 ff., 1896—the birds purify the temple every morning with their wings, which they have dipped in the water: Arr., p. 398, 18 ff. Philostr., Her. 746, p. 212, 24 Kays. (Cf. the comrades of Diomedes changed into birds on his magic island: Iuba ap. Plin., NH. x, 127—another bird miracle: ib., x, 78). No human beings dared to live on the island, though sailors often landed there; they had to leave before nightfall (when spirits are abroad): Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35; Philostr., Her. 747, p. 212, 30–213, 6.

The temple possessed many votive offerings and Greek and Latin inss. (IPE. i, 171–2). Those who landed there sacrificed the goats which had been placed on the island and ran wild. Sometimes Ach. appeared to visitors; at other times they heard him singing the Paian. In dreams too he sometimes appeared (i.e. if a person happened to sleep—there was no Dream-oracle there). To sailors he gave directions and sometimes appeared like the Dioskouroi (as a flame?) on the top of the ship’s mast (see Arr., Peripl. 21–3; Scymn. 790–6; from both these is derived Anon., P. Pont. Eux. 64–6; Max. Tyr. 15, 7, p. 281 f. R.; Paus. 3, 19, 11; Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35). (The account in Philostr., Her. 745, p. 211, 17–219, 6 Kays., is fantastic but uses good material and is throughout quite in keeping with the true legendary spirit—esp. in the story also of the girl torn to pieces by ghosts: 215, 6–30. Nor is it likely that 567 Phil. himself invented the marvellous tale laid precisely in the year 163–4 B.C.). Achilles is not regarded as living quite alone here: Patroklos is with him (Arr. 32, 34; Max. Tyr. 15, 7), and Helen or Iphigeneia is given him as his wife (see above, n. 99). Leonymos of Kroton, sixth century B.C., meets the two Aiantes and Antilochos there: Paus. 3, 19, 13; Conon 18; D.P. (time of Hadrian) says (545): κεῖθι δ’ Ἀχιλλῆος καὶ ἡρώων φάτις ἄλλων ψυχὰς εἱλίσσεσθαι ἐρημαίας ἀνὰ βήσσας (which Avien., Des. Orb., misunderstands and improves on: 722 ff.). Thus the island, though in a limited sense, became a true μακάρων νῆσος—insula Achillea eadem Leuce et Macaron appelata, Plin., NH. iv, 93.

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 565-566.

Theory 3: Pontarches was a god related do sailors and sea, he’s also of Greek origin!

Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, also known as Pauly-Wissowa or RE, is a encyclopedia on antiquity, its first volume published in 1839. In the 1953 volume, Bernhard Kruse and Erich Wilhelm Diehl wrote about Pontarches in the encyclopedia, a name attributed to Achilles in the Euxine Pontus. You can find them here, but in German.

In Kruse's part, we have:

He says Pontarches is Achilles and explains the hero after his death was transported to Leuke, which he describes as a mythical land that was later discovered to be a real geographical location on the Black Sea, close to the Danube.

Kruse says although there are texts mentioning the existence of a temple on the island of Borysthenes (today Berezan), the existence of this temple is archaeologically uncertain. However, he was certainly worshiped in Olbia, which was a neighbor of Borysthenes. There, he was called Pontarches/Ποντάρχης (something that refers to commanding/ruling the sea, as Lord of Sea or Ruler of Sea), documented in inscriptions found in the area that contained dedications to Achilles Pontarches and his mother, the Nereid Thetis. He says it's believed the inscriptions are all from Olbia, none of them originating from the Isle of Achilles. Kruse describes him as "divine patron of Greek sailors on the Black Sea", which explains why the title Pontarches. Kruse says the Olbia inscriptions had only been found dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

For him, it's uncertain whether there were sanctuaries or other places of worship in the regions where the cult inscriptions were found, as few of the stones used in them were found. Regarding inscriptions found outside Olbia, Kruse theorizes they may be where sailors had reason to disembark for the night, shelter from storms, or renew drinking water (once again linking the role of Achilles Pontarches with the protection of sailors). He says, however, this isn't proof that there was a temple in Olbia even though there was one in Leuke, as a temple wouldn't be necessary for that.

Finally, Kruse ends by saying the inscriptions aren't isolated cases, as there are similar inscriptions in several places on the Black Sea dating back to the 4th century BC.

In Diehl's part, we have:

He says the chronology of the writings about Achilles Pontarches is uncertain because names rarely provide enough clues to determine years more precisely.

He mentions there are mentions of agon winners, apparently written following competition celebrations, but there is a lack of further documentary evidence on the subject.

Diehl mentions the presence of the term χαριστήριον, which is an expression of thanks. He speculates that it may be a thank you to the goodwill of Achilles Pontarches to act on a very specific occasion, whether in support during agony or in rescuing a danger, such as a danger at sea that was feared. In this case, expressing gratitude immediately after receiving help would make sense.

Diehl says the cultic reason for placing stones related to Achilles Pontarches is unknown, in particular the reason for having some of these outside Olbia (that is, assuming they were found where they actually were, and not moved outside of Olbia).

Records were found about living conditions in Olbia and about the priests.

He says the word evлooía appears to be present only in priestly inscriptions and appears to be important. According to him: "The word undoubtedly means the concept of good drinking water. Even more than protecting against water shortages in the city itself, we have to think about providing good quality drinking water to seafarers. On the long journey along the coast, the crew and passengers are dependent on the wells and springs. Who should save sailors from dying of thirst if not their divine patron? Therefore, it is obvious that a priest of Achilles Pontarches, and not an archon or strategist, acts as a mediator between the people and the functions of Achilles Pontarches."

He mentions the presence of Thetis, who was certainly worshiped as a goddess.

There is a part trying to analyze the chronology of Achilles' cults (he isn't analyzing the nature of the cult itself, however). He says that from at least the 5th century BC, Achilles was worshiped in Leuke. He says it's not possible to date the link between White Island and Olbia with certainty, but Diehl thinks it's certainly ancient. He said that in Dromos Achilleios (aka Racecourse of Achilles) writings were found that partially reveal the name Achilles, especially associated with sailors. He says that in Neapolis there are tributes paid to the Lord of Leuke. Diehl comments on the possibility of the cult of Aquiles Pontarches specifically having started in Olbia.

Diehl comments on the various attempted analyzes of the possible divine nature of Achilles, arguing why they don't make sense. For example, he talks about a theory that he was a solar deity, to which he counters that Achilles, like his mother, clearly belongs to the element sea and not the sun.

He comments on previous attempts to link the origin of Achilles Pontarches to a non-Greek origin, such as the Thracians, the Scythians and even Asia Minor. Diehl disagrees with these suggestions, being of the opinion: "Everything ancient sources tell us about Achilles and Achilles Pontarches shows us he's a purely Greek figure."

It's interesting to mention that scholars who try to explore the cults of Achilles tend to list at least Diehl as a reference, so this text influenced later ones.

Theory 4: hero cults are pre-Homeric and the divine side of Achilles is intrinsically related to Thetis, including the sea element!

In 1979, Gregory Nagy published a book intitled "The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry". Nagy argued that both The Iliad and The Odyssey already presented elements of cult, including in scenes related to Achilles, and therefore the practice of hero cult is pre-Homeric. The reason it wasn't further explored was the fact that Homer wrote pan-Hellenic poetry, featuring Greek characters from different regions, while cults tended to be regional. How do you delve deeper into something that has the characteristic of being regional in a pan-Hellenic history? Therefore, the argument that there were no cults of Achilles before Homer and other poets because there are no signs of it in the writing wouldn't be a strong enough argument.

This was a direct response to Rohde. In fact, Nagy says Rohde himself noticed signs of hero worship in Homeric poetry, but deliberately didn't consider them because they were arguments that would contradict his thesis. Although Nagy focuses on Rohde, Farnell is mentioned in the notes to the passage in which he says that certainly the religion surrounding Greek heroes isn’t post-Homeric. Therefore, it was also a disagreement in relation to Farnell's theory. He cites other critics of Farnell's interpretation as well.

[Akho/Ákhos = grief, sorrow; public expression of grief, sorrow, by way of lamentation or keening. Pénthos = grief, lamentation. Laós = people assembled, the people of a country, soldiers. Kléos = glory]

[…] ákhos/pénthos requires the rituals of cult, as we have already seen from the evidence on the cult of Demeter Akhaiá. By performing ritual lamentations, the community involves itself with the ákhos of Demeter over the káthodos of Kore. $26. The death of Achilles would be an ákhos not only to the laós, in epic, but also to the community at large, in cult. There are clear traces that we can cite from the hero cults of Achilles in the classical and even postclassical periods. For just one example, let us consider a custom in Elis that Pausanias mentions in connection with various local athletic traditions-among them the restricted use of a site with the epichoric name of hieròs drómos 'sacred run' (6.23.2). On an appointed day at the beginning of the Olympic Games, as the sun is sinking in the west, the women of Elis perform various rituals to worship Achilles (τοῦ ̓Αχιλλέως δρῶσιν ἐς τιμήν), and the ritual that is singled out specifically is that of mourning (KóπTTEσ0αι: Pausanias 6.23.3). Whereas Achilles gets kléos from epic, he gets ákhos/pénthos from cult. $27. This is not the place, of course, to attempt a detailed exposition of how the cult of heroes in Greek religion is decidedly not some relatively late phenomenon, motivated somehow by the stories of heroes in Greek epic. The monumental work of Erwin Rohde remains one of the most eloquent sources for our under- standing the héros 'hero' as a very old and distinct concept of traditional Greek religion, requiring cult practices that were also distinct from those of the gods. The cult of heroes was a highly evolved transformation of the worship of ancestors, within the social context of the city-state or pólis. As a parallel, I would propose that the κλέα ἀνδρῶν / ηρώων kléos [plural] of men who were heroes of Iliad IX 524-525 represents the evolution of Greek epic from earlier "stories about the ancestors," as still represented by the names Kleo- pátré/Patro-klées, and, vestigially, by the function of the traditional figures assigned to these names.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 114-115.

$29 The hero of cult must be local because it is a fundamental principle in Greek religion that his power is local! On the other hand, the Iliad and the Odyssey are Panhellenic. What results is that the central heroes of this epic tradition cannot have an overtly religious dimension in the narrative. Such a restriction on the self-expression of epic led Rhode to misunderstand the Homeric evidence on heroes. In general, his thesis was that the overall Homeric silence on the subject of hero cults implies an absence of even the ideological background? In specifics, however, Rohde himself noticed sporadic instances in the Iliad and the Odyssey where some sort of reference is indeed being made to hero cults, but he did not integrate this evidence, which went against his thesis. Each of these instances would require a detailed exposition, but I restrict the discussion here to just one instance that reflects on the status of Patroklos/Achilles in the Iliad. $30 As Rohde himself had noticed, the Funeral of Patroklos at Iliad XXIII has several features that connote the rituals of hero cults. For example, the wine libation (XXIII 218-221) and the offering of honey with oil (XXIII 170; cf. xxiv 67-68) "can hardly be regarded as anything but sacrificial." Such marginal details of cult, as also the integral element of singing lamentations at XXIII 12 and 17, give ritual form to the akhos of Achilles for Patroklos at XXIII 47.3 Even the central epic action of Book XXIII, the Funeral Games of Patroklos, has ritual form.‘ In Homeric narrative, the funeral of a hero is the only occasion for athletic contests (XXIII 630-631: Amarynkeus; xxiv 85-86: Achilles himself). In classical times, local athletic contests were still motivated as funeral games for the epichoric hero (cf., e.g., Pausanias 8.4.5). As a general principle, the agon was connected with the cult of heroes, and even the Great Panhellenic Games were originally conceived as funeral games for heroes.* The custom of mourning for Achilles at the beginning of the Olympics (Pausanias 6.23.3) is a striking instance of this heritage. As a parallel, epic offers a corresponding single event in the mourning for Patroklos that inaugurates the Funeral Games in Book XXIII. Even though there are hints within the Iliad that the Funeral of Patroklos is presented as a grand beginning of cult (XXIV 592-595), the overt singularity of the event forced Rohde to rule it out as a parallel to the cult of heroes, which is recurrent? And yet, the Iliad itself is a singularity. What is recurrent in ritual is timeless in the epic tradition, just like the kléos aphthiton of Achilles.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 116-117.

[Note: Regarding "hieròs drómos 'sacred run'" mentioned, in English the name is "Racecourse of Achilles". Probably related to the Achilles element as "swift-footed". In a Roman source, it’s said that this is the name because the "Thessalian leader", in this case Achilles, exercised there (presumably ran). In a Byzantine source, this was said to be the route Achilles took in search of his lover Iphigenia, a version of the myth told by Lycophron in the poem Alexandra (Hellenistic Greece) which the Byzantine source was analyzing. When looking for Iphigenia, he presumably ran. Regardless of the real origin, there is a connection with the agile aspect of Achilles.]

Nagy also discusses the divine side of Achilles, especially connecting him with his mother's domain: the sea. He also explores the idea of the birth of Thetis's son as a cosmic threat (In this case, a cosmic threat averted. And the avoidance of that threat gave birth to Achilles).

[Póntos = sea. Mêtis = wisdom, craft. Mênis = wrath, anger. Bíē = force, violence]

$24. The Hellespont, then, is a focal point for the heroic essence of Achilles Homeric poetry presents his tomb as overlooking its dangerous waters, the setting for violent storms expressed by the same imagery that expresses the hero's cosmic affinity with fire and wind. Moreover, epic diction presents this fire and wind as primarily endangering the ships of the Achaeans, which are conventionally described as being beached on the Hellespont (XV 233, XVII 432, XVIII 150, XXIII 2). In other words, the Hellespont is also a focal point for the heroic essence of all the Achaeans who came to fight at Troy. Moreover, Troy itself and the Hellespont are presented in epic diction as parallel markers of the place where the Trojan War took place (XII 30, XXIV 346). It is by sailing down the Ἑλλήσποντον … ἰχθυόεντα 'fish-swarming Hellespont' that Achilles could have left Troy and come back home safely to Phthia (IX 359-363). In fact, from the standpoint of a Homeric audience in the eighth or seventh centuries B.C., the site of the Trojan War is significant not so much because of Troy itself but because of the Hellespont, passage to the Black Sea. And the prime affinity of Achilles with the Hellespont and the realms to which it leads will survive for centuries, well beyond the classical period. From inscriptions found in the Black Sea area, we know that Achilles still presides over the póntos even as late as the second/third centuries A.D.: he is in fact still worshiped as the Pontárkhés 'Ruler of the Póntos". $25. The cosmic affinity of Achilles with the póntos in general and with the Helléspontes in particular is of course inherited from his mother Thétis. We are reminded of the initial Iliadic scene where the solitary figure of a weeping Achilles is pictured gazing out toward the póntos (1 350), actually praying to the divine Thetis (1 351-356). The goddess then makes an epiphany that is characteristic of a true Nereid, emerging from the sea like a cloud of mist (I 357-359). Of course, Thetis was actually born in the póntos (Hesiod Th. 241/244), the granddaughter of Póntos incarnate (Th. 233). In Pindar's Isthmian 8, a poem that tells how she would have given birth to a son greater than his father if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with her (lines 31-35), she is actually called ποντíαν θeóv 'goddess of the póntos' (line 34). To avoid the danger that the essence of Thetis poses to the cosmic order, the gods get her married off to the mortal Peleus (lines 35-40). And the son that issues from this marriage of Peleus and Thetis grows up to fulfill a function that is latent in the very word póntos: γεφύρωσέ τ' Ατρείδαι- σι νόστον … and he Achilles bridged a safe homecoming for the sons of Atreus. Pindar 1.8.51 In other words: by dint of his exploits at Troy (1.8.51-55), Achilles made it possible for the leaders of the Achaeans to traverse the sea and go back home. The semantics of "bridge" here correspond to the semantics of Latin pōns, cognate of Greek póntos.

$26. The cosmic powers of Thetis over the póntos are evident from local traditions connected with her actual cult. Perhaps the most striking example is in Herodotus 7.188-192, the account of a shipwreck suffered by the Persian fleet off the coast of Magnesia. The precise location of the shipwreck was an akté 'headland' called Sepiás (after sepía 'sepia, cuttlefish')-given that name, says Herodotus, because local tradition had it that Thetis was abducted by Peleus at this spot (192). Moreover, the storm that wrecked the ships of the Persians took the form of a violent wind that the local Hellenic population called the Hellespontíes (188). We are reminded that the tomb of Achilles was on an akté 'headland' at the Helléspontos (xxiv 82)!n After the storm has raged for three days, the Magi of the Persians sing incantations to the wind and sacrifice to Thetis, having been informed by the natives of the lore connecting the name Sepiás with her and the other Nereids (Herodotus 7.191). $27. The place Sēpiás is connected with Thetis not only because Peleus abducted her from there. In a story that was probably incorporated in the epic Cypria, the polymorphous Thetis actually assumes the shape of a sēpíā 'sepia, cuttlefish' at the very moment when Peleus mates with her (scholia ad Lycophron 2.175, 178).1 This identification is most significant in view of the sepia's function as animal of mêtis in Greek lore (e.g., onmin doλóunts in Oppian Halieutica 2.120). As Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant have argued most convincingly, Thetis herself is a figure of mêtis. To go into this topic now would be to stray far beyond my line of inquiry, which has been confined mainly to the bíē of Achilles and its cosmic affinities. Suffice it to say that the mêtis of Thetis also relates to the póntos. It is a key to the fundamentals of navigation, as embodied in the orienting principles of Póros 'charted path [over the sea]' and Tékmōr 'goal', which are opposed to the disorienting principle of Skótos 'darkness'. These personifications of opposing themes stem from the local cosmogonic traditions of Laconia as preserved in the poetry of Alcman, fr. 2P. From this same fragment, we also know that the opposing figures of Póros/Tékmōr vs. Skótos are presented as fundamental cosmic principles that are transcended by one all-encompassing figure, who is none other than the goddess Thetis! I will simply refer to Detienne and Vernant for a discussion of the rich mythology surrounding these related themes of navigation, orientation, and cosmogony, confining myself here to one point: in local traditions such as the Laconian, Thetis figures as a primordial goddess with the most fundamental cosmic powers, and her primacy is reflected by the utmost reverence that is her due in cult (consider the Laconian practices mentioned by Pausanias 3.14.4).

$28. My point is that Thetis must by nature also transcend the concept of Achilles, a son who is after all a mere "demigod," hemítheos. Her power over the póntos entails the principle of mêtis, whereas his power has affinities only with the bíē of wind and fire." And yet, the heroic irony is that Achilles as son of Thetis could actually be more powerful than Zeus himself, if only he had been fathered by the god instead of a mortal (Pindar 1.8.31-35). We have indeed seen that the mênis of Achilles creates effects that are parallel to those created by the bíē of Zeus in a thunderstorm, and that these effects are actually validated by the Will of Zeus. In this sense, Zeus himself is validating the divine potential of the mortal Achilles Moreover, the theme of the hero's divine potential is actually conjured up by the manner in which the Will of Zeus goes into effect in the Iliad. The wind- and firelike devastation from the mênis of Achilles is willed by Zeus because Thetis asks for it (I 407-412, 503-510). Moreover, the validation of the hero's essence in the Iliad is in return for what Thetis had done for Zeus, when she rescued him from imprisonment by his fellow Olympians (I 396-406). Here we see a vital link with the theme of the hero's divine potential. Thetis rescued Zeus by summoning Briáreōs the Hundred-Hander, who then frightened the Olympian rebels away from ever endangering Zeus again (I 401-406). In this context, the Hundred-Hander is specifically described as βίην οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων better in bíē than his father' (I 404). The theme is strikingly parallel to what would have been if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with Thetis. $29. The figure of Briáreos, also called Aigaiōn (I 404), is a sort of nightmarish variant of Achilles himself. In the Hesiodic tradition, Briáreos/Obriáreōs is likewise one of the Hundred-Handers (Hesiod Th. 147-153). These figures are equal to the Titans themselves in bíē (Th. 677-678), and they use their bíē to defeat the Titans (Th. 649-650), thus ensuring the krátos of Zeus (Th. 662). Their action in defeating the Titans (Th. 674-686, 713-719) is in fact a correlate of the victorious action taken by Zeus himself with the bíē of a cosmic thunderstorm (Th. 687-712). In other traditions, Aigaiōn is likewise a figure who fights against the Titans (Titanomachy fr. 2 p. 110 Allen); moreover, he lives in the sea and was actually fathered by Póntos (ibid.). On the other hand, still another tradition has Briáreōs fathered by Poseidon himself (scholia ad Iliad I 404). These variant figures Briáreōs and Aigaíon, synthesized as one figure in Iliad I 403-404, conjure up the Iliadic theme of Achilles] He too is an exponent of bíē; he too has strong affinities with the pontos. Here is a hero who would have been better than Poseidon-better than Zeus himself — if either had fathered him. Just as the divine essence of Zeus was validated by the bíē of Briáreos/Aigaíon, so also the god will now validate in return the heroic essence of Achilles in the Iliad. The bie of the Hundred-Hander is an antecedent for the bie that will mark Achilles] The hero cannot be the best of the gods, but he will be the best of heroes. And in the poetry that all Hellenes must recognize, he will be the best of the Achaeans.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 343-347.

In fact, Nagy is an important name in the Homeric scholia, so don't be surprised to see that in the following texts he's present. From what I've noticed, he’s frequently referenced in works.

Theory 5: Achilles was a deity of the Underworld, of Greek origin!

In 1980, Hildebrecht Hommel published a book entitled "Der Gott Achilleus", which means "God Achilles", in which he intended to argue in favor of the idea that the cult of Achilles in the Euxine Pontus was a deity cult and not a heroic cult. Perhaps boldly, he tried to argue the divine Achilles had an association with the Underworld (linking Achilles with the Underworld isn’t bold...he’s truly a character surrounded by death, be it his own death or the death of others. The idea of him being an Underworld deity is bold). Unfortunately, I didn't find Hommel's text accessible online in English, only in German. But it's important to mention him because Hommel is often mentioned as a reference in later researchers, whether to agree or disagree.

The Classical Review publishes informative reviews, subject profiles and notices from leading scholars on new work covering the languages, literature, history, archaeology, philosophy and reception of ancient Greece and Rome and Asia Minor (definition given by the Cambridge website). One of the issues was published in 1982 (that is, two years after the publication of Hommel's book) was written by Emily Kearns and was a review of Hommel's theory. According to her:

This is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship, and yet, as its author suggests in conclusion, it has the air of a preliminary foray into a larger area. Its subject is not the whole complex of divine cults of Achilles in the Greek world, but the most remarkable and well-documented of these, the cult of Achilles Pontarches in the Black Sea area: Olbia, Leuke and Berezan. This puzzling figure, apparently so unlike the Achilles of the Iliad (with whom he is linked, however, by the tradition, found in the Aithiopis, of his translation to the island of Leuke) poses two obvious questions. Is he a purely Greek god, or does he contain native Scythian elements? And what is the precise nature of his sphere of influence? H. rejects the now more usual view of a syncretistic, largely Scythian/Thracian Achilles in favour of a Greek one. He is clearly right to point to the improbability of a simple identification of some such foreign god with the epic, heroic Achilles. It seems impossible to deny that it is a genuinely Greek tradition, though one suppressed in Homer, to attribute divine features to Achilles; but this Greek god could then the more easily be merged with a foreign deity. The main aim of the book, however, is to demonstrate that the Pontic Achilles was in origin an underworld god - not of course a new idea, as H. acknowledges. Indeed it is clear that Achilles was often pictured as occupying a specially privileged position among the dead on the Isles of the Blest. Further investigation of the diffusion of this concept might have been useful, for this, together with the identification of the νήσος μακάρων with Leuke, really provides the only hard-and-fast evidence for the Pontic Achilles as lord of the dead. H.'s black-figure amphora from the British Museum is too uncertain of interpretation to be useful, and Od. 11. 467 ff. can, and surely should, be explained exclusively in terms appropriate to epic concepts of death. Further evidence adduced is of a more indirect nature - investigations into the chthonic or underworld associations of the various figures who appear as consorts of the translated Achilles, and speculations on an etymological connexion of 'Achilles' with Acheloös, Acheron, and ἀχερωίς (the white poplar). Some of these points are suggestive, but none is wholly persuasive. They do not seem sufficient to determine the character of the cult on Leuke and the associated areas. Here the evidence is maddeningly inconclusive; graffiti on pottery from Leuke, Berezan and the mainland, some now dated as early as the sixth century, reveal very little. Yet it seems remarkable that one who was simply the lord of the dead could inspire so much positive attention, and still more remarkable that by the second century after Christ he should be a figure of major importance, capable of bestowing every sort of benefit, both to the individual and more particularly to the city. H. demonstrates the connexion of Achilles with death, both for the Pontus region and elsewhere; but to imagine that his significance in cult is confined to this, to reduce his function to a formula, is surely misconceived.

The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1982), pg 285-286.

Kearns alludes there was debate about the divine Achilles before the 1980s since she says "this is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship", which makes sense since Farnell in 1920 was refuting a theory linked to the idea of the pre-Homeric divine Achilles. However, if we take into account what Kearns says, then apparently the debates surrounding the cult of Achilles at the time seemed to consider it of Scythian/Thracian origin (which reminds me of how in Diehl's text he also mentioned this), which Hommel disputes by arguing that it’s entirely Greek, something Kearns agrees with (also similar to Diehl’s text). However, she disagrees with the idea that he was a deity related to the Underworld (which she mentions isn't new. So apparently it's been suggested or at least implied before?), as, although she agrees Achilles is associated with death in certain ways in mythology, she thinks the evidence is too inconclusive to assert with certainty the character of the cult. Yes, the cult existed, but was it really about an Underworld deity?

Theory 6: Achilles' mortality is an essential element, and his cults are entirely heroic!

In 1988, J. T. Hooker opposed the Hommel idea, arguing that although a cult of Achilles did indeed exist in the Black Sea, the divine or heroic nature of the cult is uncertain. He says etymological speculations are just speculations and Achilles' status as a very mortal man is very well established (because his story is very related to his mortality. This is why death in the character of Achilles is such a strong element compared to other characters in the Trojan War, which includes the various sources regarding his afterlife). He also mentions Farnell as an example of an academic who, unlike Hommel, interpreted Achilles only had hero cults.

Theory 7: Pontarches was a god related to sea and sailors!

In 1991, Guy Hedreen explained why it's possible that the cult resembled a deity cult more than a heroic cult, which could have been a possibility since mythological characters actually receiving heroic worship weren't non-existent:

A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. These are public dedications made by the archons, generals, and priests of Olbia, thank-offerings to Achilles for the well-being of the city and of the dedicants themselves. Achilles' status was never higher than in the Roman period at Olbia. We learn from the inscriptions that he was the patron of the college of archons, and as such he presumably was endowed with powers approaching those of a god; there are few significant differences between the inscribed dedications to Achilles Pontarches and those to Apollo Prostates and Hermes Agoraeus, the patrons of the Olbian generals and the agoranomoi. This accords well with what Dio Chrysostomos reports after his visit to Olbia around the end of the 1st century after Christ. He writes that the Olbians honor Achilles as their god and that they had established two temples in the hero's honor, one in Olbia itself and another on "Achilles' island. "

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 314-315.

As you can notice, he's mainly talking about the Romans and not the Greeks. However, he later clarifies that there was already evidence of such a cult in Classical Greece and that more recently there was evidence in Archaic Greece. In other words, it isn't a Roman invention, but it's a Greek invention adopted by the Romans.

For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century B.C. The most interesting class of Achilles-related graffiti consists of short inscriptions and crude drawings on clay disks made from pottery fragments. The disks are more or less carefully worked into the shape of a circle, ranging in diameter from three to six centimeters. The largest number of inscribed disks comes from the late 6th-century site of Beikush located at the confluence of the Berezan and Beikush inlets, approximately forty kilometers west of Olbia. Thirtynine disks from the site bear graffiti, most including the name of Achilles or an abbreviation of the name: A, AXI, AXIɅɅ, AXIɅɅE, or AXIɅɅEI. In addition to the letters, many of the disks have depictions of objects, including snakes, human figures, and perhaps boats, swords, and daggers. The excavator of the Beikush disks also published eight similar disk from Olbia. These disks, formed out of black-glazed pottery fragments, are characterized by more careful workmanship than the Beikush examples. Six of them are incised with figures or letters, but only one, bearing a solitary letter A, is exactly comparable to the Beikush series. Three other inscribed pottery disks from Olbia were published by Yailenko. One bears the letters AXIɅE plus an obscure drawing. The other two have drawings and the letter A. Since Beikush is the most fully excavated of some three dozen laten Archaic Greek settlements in the vicinity of Berezan, there is hope that other, as yet unexplored settlements will yield further Achilles-related disks.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 315-316.

One of the reasons this cult is of such interest is that the current evidence far outweighs the evidence for the cult of Achilles in other regions, including the cult dedicated to him in the Troad at the site of what was believed to be his tomb (hence, the tomb of Antilochus and Patroclus also since they were all in the same urn according to mythological tradition). According to Strabo, not only Achilles was honored, but Patroclus, Antilochus and Big Ajax as well, all heroes who died in Troy.

The length of this coast, I mean on a straight voyage from Rhoeteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is sixty stadia; and the whole of it lies below Ilium, not only the present Ilium, from which, at the Harbor of the Achaeans, it is about twelve stadia distant, but also the earlier Ilium, which lies thirty stadia farther inland in the direction of Mt. Ida. Now there are a sanctuary and a monument of Achilles near Sigeium, as also monuments of Patroclus and Antilochus; and the Ilians offer sacrifices to all four heroes, both to these and to Aias.

Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Horace Leonard Jones.

The cult of Achilles (by extension, the associated heroes already mentioned) in the Troad had considerable political importance. Jonathan S. Burgess describes some examples of how the tomb has been used over the years for political reasons.

The potential political significance of a Troad tumulus of Achilles of mytho-poetic fame and cultic importance was soon recognized. In Herodotus’ account of rivalry between Athens and Mytilene in the Troad, which apparently occurred in the sixth century, Mytilene established a town in the area called “Achilleion” after the Athenians took over Sigeion. This town apparently derived its name from a nearby tumulus identified as that of Achilles, as Strabo and Pliny later confirm. So by the sixth century BCE, at least, there existed a place in the Troad formally recognized as the burial place of Achilles, of such significance that it could give its name to a town established nearby. One surmises that in the struggle between Athens and Mytilene, both outsiders to the Troad, control of the tomb of Achilles, and by extension the glory of the Greek mythological past, was deemed of great political value. A series of political leaders in antiquity went out of their way to visit Troy, and often the tomb of Achilles. The topography of the Troad and its surviving monuments served as a stage for enactment of ideological conceptions of East and West. What could be viewed and visited in the Troad could suggest the mythological past of the Trojan war, which had long functioned as an endlessly malleable allegory. Trojan war myth had obvious use as a metaphor for West and East, Greek and barbarian, but it also offered opportunities for much different interpretations. Sympathy for vanquished Trojans and foundation stories featuring Trojan dispersal into the Western world resulted in various and highly complex use of the Trojan war story. Even when a certain perspective identified with one side or the other of the Trojan war, respect could be displayed towards both sides; or rather, one might seek to appease one side even as one actively identified with the other. As for visitation to the Troad, much depended on who was visiting and where they were proceeding after that. Xerxes stopped by Troy before invading Greece, sacrificing to Athena and making libations to “heroes,” though we do not hear of his visiting tombs. In 334 BC Alexander the Great, styling himself a second Achilles conquering eastern barbarians, visited the tomb of Achilles. He ran naked to the tomb of Achilles and laid a wreath there, while his close friend Hephaistion performed similar rituals at a nearby mound identified as the tomb of Patroklos. Later still Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, reportedly visited the tombs of Ajax and Achilles. He was said to have fancied himself an avenger of Troy, but he may have seen a need to appease ancient Greek heroes in this mission, much as Alexander in his previous visit to Troy sought to placate the shade of Priam.

The Romans traced their lineage back to the Trojans, and so visiting Romans tended to focus on Trojan heroes. However, when Caracalla visited the Troad in 214 CE he dedicated a bronze statue to Achilles and honored him with sacrifices; what is more, he had his freedman Festus cremated there, with a great tumulus constructed over his bones, in imitation of the burial of Patroklos. The tomb of Achilles was also visited by Julian in the fourth century. The Troad had become a tourist site by the imperial period, and doubtless there were other undocumented visitations of Troad monuments by prominent figures. On a more imaginary level, prominent tourists included Charon and even Homer himself. Lucian has Hermes, as tour guide, pointing out the tomb to Charon; it is said to be by the sea, in view of Sigeion and Ajax’s tomb at Rhoetion (the tombs are “not big,” sniffs Charon, unimpressed). A biographical anecdote reported that Homer was blinded when Achilles appeared to him in full armor at his tomb. Political considerations are prominent in Philostratus’ account of the Thessalian cult worship of Achilles in the Troad. When the Thessalians sided with the Persians during the invasion of Xerxes, it is reported by Philostratus, they abandoned the cult of Achilles. Later under Macedonian rule they returned to the practice because of Alexander’s fascination with Achilles. In other words, Thessalian attention to a Troad cult of Achilles reflected how their political rulers identified with the myth of the Trojan war.

Tumuli of Achilles, Political Visitations.

As noted, the cult at Troad had its importance. And yet, there is a difference between this cult and the cult at Euxine. Firstly, as already said, the cult in Euxine currently has more evidence than the cult in Troad, being better documented. Secondly, the cult in the Troad is considered a heroic cult and this is a consensus, unlike the debate surrounding the cult in Euxine. I'm taking a quick look at the Troad cult, although I haven't done the same with other Achilles cults, just to give an example of a hero cult and how it used to be local, have some relationship with death no matter how small and had importance even if it wasn't a cult of a deity. As I just want to give an example, I won't extend it to other cults.

Off all the differences between hero-worship and divine worship in ancient Greece, possibly the most fundamental is the difference in the geographical limits of the two types of cult. A hero-cult was most often restricted to a particular locale, whereas the worship of an Olympian god or goddess was usually widespread. The site of a hero-cult requires some connection with the hero, the physical remains of the body being the most direct. With respect to this general distinction between heroic and divine worship the cult of Achilles is problematic. On the one hand, there was a cult near Troy at the site identified as the burial mound of Achilles. We hear in the Odyssey that a great tumulus was heaped up by the Achaeans on a promontory at the mouth of the Hellespont, "so that it may be conspicuous to men travelling by sea, those living now as well as those to come" (Homer, Odyssey 24.80-84). The little we know about the cult at the tumulus of Achilles is from literary sources. It is as early as the 5th century B.C., if not earlier, and it was regularly patronized by the Thessalians. Occasionally other notables worshipped the hero there, including the Persian expeditionary force, Alexander the Great, and the emperor Caracalla. On the other hand, Achilles was also worshipped at a number of other places in the ancient world, including Kroton in South Italy, Lakonia and Elis in the Peloponnese, Astypalaia in the Cyclades, and Erythrai in Asia Minor. We know very little about these cults, which are mentioned in passing in the ancient sources, but their existence shows that the worship of Achilles was not confined to one place or to the immediate vicinity of his tomb. What is most puzzling is the popularity of the cult of Achilles among the Greeks who settled along the northern coast of the Euxine and among the sailors who traveled in this area. The evidence for the cult in this region is considerable and far outweighs the evidence for the worship of Achilles in other parts of Greece, including the Troad.' The cult appears to have originated in the 6th century B.C. and was still in existence in the 3rd century after Christ. Achilles was worshipped at the Milesian colony of Olbia as well as on an island in the middle of the Euxine from the Archaic period on. A third location of cult activity in honor of the hero was a long strandlike land formation southeast of Olbia. The evidence for the cult of Achilles in the Euxine is not very well known, partly because some of it has been published only in Russian. A very useful summary of the material was written by Diehl in 1953, but since then interesting new material has appeared. The more recent study of Hommel touches on some of the new archaeological material but is primarily concerned with theological questions.' I will review the evidence for the worship of Achilles in the Euxine and then consider one of the pressing questions surrounding the cult.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 313-314.

Theory 8: the etymology of the name Achilles is related to immortality and inherited Indo-European traditions (although, in this case, the argument isn’t that he was a deity)!

I searched to see if there was any text before Farnell that dealt with the etymological theory of “Achean God”, but I couldn't find it. I mean, it certainly existed, since Farnell rejected to this theory, but in my research I particularly only found authors contesting or quickly mentioning it and not actually presenting it. But here a text by Alexander Nikoalev from the "Etymologies" section of the book "Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective", published by the Cambridge Philological Society in 2007. As my goal here is to try to expand the theories as much as possible, then here is an etymological theory in favor of the name etymologically connecting Achilles with immortality after many texts arguing against it.

Nikolaev says, although there have been many attempts to trace the etymological origin of the name of the "foremost hero of the Iliad”, the etymological theories have all been restricted to Homer and have rarely considered other linguistic material. Currently, the academic consensus (academic consensus is what the majority believes, it isn’t necessarily an indisputable truth) is that the name Achilles is etymologically related to axoς 'grief', which Nikolaev comments was first introduced in the scholia and later prepared by academics such as Paul Kretschmer, Leonard Palmer and Gregory Nagy.

He gives an extensive argument, which I couldn't dream of summarizing in a decent way and which I can't put entirely here because it's too long, but you can find it by searching the internet. But in an attempt to explain what he said (I still recommend reading what he said rather than my explanation for reasons already explained), his main argument against the most popular etymological idea is: "As is noted in the standard works on Greek etymology, there is a considerable difference between the meaning of axoς 'pain, anguish, distress' (and the related verbs ǎxvvμai, ǎxouai 'I grieve, mourn') and what are usually assumed to be its cognates: Go. agis 'fear, OIr. ad-ágor 'I am afraid." Given this discrepancy in meaning, it is worth considering another approach" (pg 163). That is, Nikolaev believes that the popular idea arose from an interpretation that confused similar, but not identical, terms. He also argues against the idea of Axi-λãoc relating to 'bringing ǎxoç to his host of men' (the λαός/láos part of Achilles is theorized to mean “people, soldiers, nation”, which makes the coupling of this with the idea of axoς/ákhos as “grief” results in “he whose people have distress” and similar). Instead, he suggests: “Axıλ(^)eúc is derived from a stem *akʰilo- that goes back to a compound *h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)ul(h𝑥)-o- 'slaying pain/death, with an i-stem as the first member and a development of initial *h₂ngʰ-> ȧx- in accordance with the treatment of laryngeals before nasals discussed” (pg 167)

And what's his suggestion then, you ask. Basically, Nikolaev is suggesting an Indo-European origin. More specifically, ἄχος (ákhos; the part that is usually theorized to mean “grief”) results from a contamination between two different terms, but which could have had quite similar stems in Proto-Greek. To reinforce his idea, Nikolaev gives an extensive list of examples of words that had the phonological development he’s arguing for, and thus says that, therefore, the assumption the contamination of the Indo-European word for “fear” (h₂eĝʰ-o/es) with the Indo-European word for “distress” (h₂enĝʰ-o/es) isn’t so absurd. He theorizes that contamination between the two Indo-European words resulted in the Proto-Greek akʰos. As mentioned, akʰilo- has a possible Indo-European origin in the compound (h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)υ̯l(h𝑥)-o-). It turns out that, with regard to contamination, this opens up the possibility of connecting the Greek ἄχος with the Indo-European h₂enĝʰes-, a term that was used in poetic traditions related to the formula of the hero who has a victory over death. In turn, as for the second part of the name Achilles (usually theorized to be laiós/λαός, but as I said, this is something he also disagrees with), Nikolaev assumes that it’s safe to assume that it may have a connection with the Indo-European (h⅔)υ̯elh⅓- and argues that the intransitive meaning doesn’t prevent the reconstruction of a factitive bahuvrihi compound “the one who provides death with defeat/death” and is reflected in the Greek. The result: he’s suggesting that the etymological meaning of Achilles is "the one who overcomes death”.

But this might make you wonder what argument Nikolaev is trying to make here. After all, the most popular theory makes sense with the myth of Achilles, because “grief” makes perfect sense for his character. Well, the argument is related to the mortality/immortality theme of Achilles, famously known because of the myth of Thetis trying to make her son immortal and failing. According to him:

[μñvic = depsent anger, Homer uses this term only to describe divine wrath and the exception to this is Achilles. Prooimion = prelude, preface, opening]

There is an obvious semantic justification of this etymology: the impending death of Achilles is a significant part of the plot of the Iliad. On the one hand, all of Achilles' heroic deeds are performed against the background of his future death, of which he is well aware (e.g. Il. 1.352, 19.328); on the other hand, the reader is constantly reminded that immortality was bestowed upon Achilles in his childhood, through references to his genealogy (tòv áðavátη tέke μýtnp Il. 10.404, 17.78), his accoutrements (außρota Tεúxea II. 17.194) and even his horses (ллоι | аμẞротоι Пl. 16.866-7). The death of Patroclus is naturally noteworthy in this connection, since it precedes and, to a certain extent, anticipates and forestalls the death of Achilles himself. A name 'the one who overcomes death' immediately reminds us of the well-known story of Thetis' attempts to endow her son with immortality by putting him into the hearth and anointing his body with ambrosia (Schol. D ad Il. 16.36; according to another version, Thetis immersed Achilles in the waters of the Styx). Thus the hero's name could have contained a reference to the whole plot of the epic, possibly even adding to its suspense.

The etymology suggested in this paper allows us to look at the problem from another angle. Achilles' immortality and his godlike status are topics too broad to be treated with thoroughness here, but it is worth mentioning the links between Achilles and the Olympian gods, such as the usage of the formulaic word μñvic, which is used in the epic only of the gods and Achilles (Watkins (1977) 189), or the striking fact that, in a recently published elegy on Plataea by Simonides, Achilles is the subject of the prooimion, otherwise reserved for addressing the gods (West (1993)). There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god. If we are prepared to take this evidence at face value and acknowledge the figure of a possibly pre-Iliadic deity Achilles, which may have had nothing to do with the epic story other than the name it lent to its hero, this casts quite a different light on the matter: a connection between the name of the ruler of the μakáρwv vñσoι and the archaic myth of victory over death is both expected and welcome. But this must necessarily remain speculative. The name Axt()ɛúc thus probably preserves a precious fragment of an archaic myth of a hero who defeats death. If this is correct, we are left with a further open question, namely whether the whole story of Achilles' uñvic, undoubtedly one of the central themes of the Iliad, is based on a misinterpretation of the archaic name and consequently on the reinterpretation of the character himself as 'the one who brings ǎxoc to his host of men.

Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, pg 170-171.

As noted, Nikoalev's aim isn’t to argue for the Pre-Iliadic divine Achilles, although he doesn’t reject the possibility as do the other authors I have listed, but rather to argue for the existence of a possible narrative of a (mortal) hero who conquered death. He argues that there is evidence that the Greeks inherited this Indo-European theme using as examples Orpheus' failed attempt to save Eurydice and the myth of Zagreus/Dionysus. Furthermore, when he says "There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god" he’s referring to the cult of Pontarches. The reason Nikolaev makes a point of emphasizing that he knows this is an uncertain idea is because it’s still a debated topic, as he indicates by referencing Farnell and Hedreen as examples of opposing arguments in the explanatory notes. However, I imagine that perhaps his explanation also serves to understand why there is an etymological debate surrounding the pre-Homeric figure of Achilles. He also separates part of the text to clarify why his theory isn’t antagonistic to the idea of the name Achilles in Mycenaean format in Linear B.

Again, I emphasize that Nikolaev's theory is NOT the theory that Farnell rejected. Both are etymological theories, but Nikolaev's seeks to interpret aspects of the name's possibly Indo-European roots as a possible reference to a later myth of Achilles as a hero who conquered death, a type of myth that did exist in Indo-European traditions. On the other hand, the theory that Farnell rejected concerns supposed similarities between the names Achilles, the mortal hero son of Thetis, and Achelous, a river god, indicating that Achilles himself may be an ancient river god who, over the years, had his mythos altered to that of a mortal whose divine connection to water is through his mother, Thetis, rather than through his own role as a river deity. I unfortunately didn't find anything that actually argued in favor of Achelous' theory, just quick mentions or articles disagreeing, but I still wanted to present an etymological theory related to the post in some way (in this case, Achilles + immortality), so here I am.

Theory 9: Maybe there is Scythian influence!

In 2007, a book entitled "Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD" and edited by David Braund and S.D Kryzhitskiy was published.

I'm putting this book here because I wanted something that would better explore why the Pontarches-as-non-Greek theory exists in the first place. In the previous texts, a fragment of a text by Alcaeus was mentioned describing Achilles as having some authority over the Scythians (the texts don't show the fragment, but it’s “Achilles, thou who dost command/O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land” in Walter Petersen's translation), but it seemed strange to me that this alone would be enough to assume that an entire cult isn’t of Greek origin. And considering the academics listed here kept mentioning this theory, although generally to disagree with it and say that the Pontic cult of Achilles is a Greek creation, I thought it would be at the very least important to give it some space. I tried to do this with the etymological theory (the very disputed theory that Achilles was originally not Achilles the mortal, but a river god), but I couldn't find a decent enough text exploring it, so I'll at least do that with this one since I found a book. I’lll start with the chapter “Greater Olbia: Ethnic, Religious, Economic, and Political Interactions in the Region of Olbia, c.600–100 BC”, written by David Braund.

First of all, with “Greater Olbia” Braund isn’t referring solely to the city of Olbia itself. According to him: “At times Olbia’s mini-empire in the north-west Black Sea region included not only the city itself and the many agrarian settlements along the estuary of the river Bug, but probably also a range of settlements along the lower Dnieper, north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of the Dnieper (Hylaea), Berezan, and, to the west, the island of Leuke, as well as possibly other settlements reaching towards the Dniester. For all our uncertainty about the details, this large region may reasonably be termed ‘Greater Olbia” (pg 37).

Well, in this chapter Braund tries to explore the possible relations of the Greeks with the non-Greeks (especially the Scythians) in the region of “Greater Olbia”. In terms of the possibility of different ethnicities interacting strongly and cultures having contact, he concludes:

Modern scholarship on Olbia is much concerned with ethnic distinctions, although it is now also well understood that the allocation of ethnicity is actually extraordinarily fraught, even when we have far more insight than we can hope to have about anything in antiquity, let alone Olbia. We have seen that the material culture of the rural territory, as also its religious expression, varies little from that of the city of Olbia itself. Presumably that renders its population (or much of it) in some sense Greek, but on the rare occasion that we have direct evidence we find a certain distance envisaged from the perspective of Olbia at least, most clearly in the Protogenes text, where the rural territory is populated by halfGreeks and what seems to be a dependent labour force, both hitherto ready to fight for Olbia. Earlier, there were also Herodotus’ GreekScythian Callippidae. What of the other peoples mentioned? Should we envisage even the Scythian Alazones also in rural settlements? If not them, then what of the panicked Thisamatae and the rest from Protogenes’ time?

[...] Of course, we are not well placed to answer these questions, by virtue of the complexities of the issue, the lack of much evidence, and perhaps above all the simple fact that these names have no real meaning for us. But we need not be overly despondent, for the main point seems clear enough through all the fog of our ignorance. That remains symbiosis. Olbiopolitans may well have had all kinds of negative views of these peoples, but some Greeks were similarly contemptuous of Olbiopolitans themselves, it must be noted, for the very reason that their Greekness was imagined as having been contaminated by their neighbours. A glance at the personal names of Olbiopolitans shows a rich mix of traditional names familiar in the Greek world and some remarkably ‘barbarian’ ones, co-existing in the same families. However distinct and Greek the Olbiopolitans may have liked to think themselves, the key observation which emerges is the extensive cultural osmosis between Greek (itself a large term) and non-Greek in and around the city. We have seen this osmosis, and the more extensive symbiosis which it no doubt facilitated, across religion (notably the cult of Achilles), pottery, names, and more besides. Once again Dio Chrysostom’s novelistic exposition is true to the spirit of the place, one suspects, when he finds a young Olbian cavalryman steeped in old-fashioned Greek traditions of conduct and taste, who rides about in ‘barbarian’ clothing with his head full of Achilles.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 76-77.

Thus, in Braund’s conclusion, the local population was recorded in ancient texts as having had considerable contact with foreigners, thus having an ethno-cultural sharing (such contact wasn’t necessarily friendly, mind you). This, for example, may explain the description by the Greek historian Herodotus: “Northward of the port of the Borysthenites, which lies midway in the coastline of all Scythia, the first inhabitants are the Callippidae, who are Scythian Greeks” (Histories, 4.17) and the account by the Greek Dio Chrysostom, who portrays the population of Borysthenes as excessively honoring Homer and Achilles while they themselves have mannerisms considered “barbarian”. For example:

Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart.

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9. Translation by Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby.

[Note: according to Braund, the Callippidae described by Herodotus have been identified with a people who appear to have occupied an area on the coast to the south rather than the banks of the Bug/Hypanis river north of the city.]

Braund comments on how, apparently, the Greek colonies in this region were somewhat “abandoned” by the Greeks of the Mediterranean region. It seems that most of the time they had to resist attacks from foreigners without receiving help. This led to Greek communities in the Black Sea acquiring the habit of supporting each other against foreign peoples. At one point, in the period contemporary to the Roman Republic, they were in quite complicated situations, until the ruler of the Kingdom of Pontus Mithridates Eupator sent reinforcements that prevented Olbia from falling (Eupator had his own interests). This, however, as Braund makes a point of stating, doesn’t mean that all the problems were generated by the so-called “barbarian threat”. They had their own problems that weren’t necessarily related to foreign peoples, but apparently the theme of “relatively abandoned Greek population resisting the 'barbarians'” is popular in academia when the subject is Olbia and this can cause the region's adversities to be mistakenly summarized as solely originating from conflict between Greeks and non-Greeks, as Braund understands. Especially in the Hellenistic period, there was a strong habit of honoring benefactors (for example, to Niceratus of Olbia in the 1st century BC for having ended hostility between two cities) and parts of these archaeological artifacts have survived, which make it possible to gain some insight into the problems of the population.

Braund describes the existence of new non-Greek peoples in the region since Herodotus' account (e.g. the Gauls) and the different contacts (e.g. the relations with the Saii were not exactly friendly, but apparently more tolerable), but let us focus on the Scythians. Braund, using Herodotus' account of Scyles, a Scythian king whose mother was Greek and who appreciated Greek culture more than Scythian culture and this eventually led to a situation that caused his death (further context here: Histories, 4.78-80) comments:

When Herodotus was visiting the region he seems particularly to have based himself in and around Olbia; it is there that we should probably locate his exchange with Tymnes the epitropos of the Scythian king. Certainly, Olbia was a likely place to find a powerful Scythian, perhaps especially an epitropos, if the title indicates an economic role. After all, the logic of the story of Scyles is that a Scythian king might normally visit the city on a regular basis. Of course, Scyles came to a bad end, but there is no indication in the story as we have it that his visits to Olbia raised alarm among his Scythian subjects. Certainly, Scyles’ half-Greek background (from his Istrian mother) is used to explain his behaviour, but that too is a matter of some interest. We can only speculate how many women of Olbia might find themselves married to Scythians. For the whole position of Olbia, both the civic core and Greater Olbia, depended upon a symbiosis with neighbouring peoples and cities. At the same time, however, it would be naïve to imagine that relationships with all neighbours always ran smoothly, not least because Olbia could expect to be drawn into conflicts between different groupings in the region. In later periods, at least, there was also conflict with other Greeks of the region, particularly with Chersonesus in the south-west Crimea.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 60.

[In a note regarding the idea of Olbian women marrying Scynthians, he mentions Kalligone, a lost Greek novel: “The theme may have attracted a novelist, though that shows nothing about Olbian realities:on Kalligone, an Olbian woman’s adventures among Scythians and the like, largely located on the southern coast of the Black Sea and around Tanais, it seems, see Stephens & Winkler 1995, 267–76”.]

So the general idea for now is this: it was a complicated relationship. The contacts weren’t always friendly. Herodotus' story about Scyles may indicate the conflict in the idea of sharing culture peacefully (the Scythians are angered when they discover that Scyles, interested in the Greek culture taught to him by his mother, has sought initiation into the Bacchic mysteries. In turn, the Greeks of Olbia mock the Scythians by saying that the Scythians mock the Dionysian practices of the Greeks, yet their king is worshiping Dionysus). In fact, Scythians and the Greeks of the region have already entered into conflict, so there was no lasting peaceful relationship. Still, the peoples probably shared cultures unconsciously simply through contact (an example given was the possible relationship of the Olbiopolitans and the Scythians with regard to Heracles and his cult) and there was even intermarriage between the two peoples. The Greek populations of the region faced various problems, not exclusively linked to conflicts with non-Greeks, and Olbia was apparently in a strategic position for a commercial port. Furthermore, the Scythians had pastoral practices and seemed to be known to the Greeks of the eastern Aegean by the 600s BC since Alcaeus mentions Scynthian shoes and Sappho comments on Scynthian hair color, but possibly such knowledge came about because of the Scynthian slave trade to that region. And what do we have of the cult of Achilles in this scenario?

Well, the cult of Achilles in the region had a strong connection with the culture of Olbia and Braund treats him as divine and not heroic (as he refers to Achilles as "god"). He even suggests that it may have some ideological connection with the expansion of Greater Olbia, since the cult was present from the island of Leuke in the west through Berezan and on the northwestern coast above the Crimea, where the Hippodrome of Achilles was located on the narrow Tendra inlet, and possibly in Beykush (in the case of Beykush, because of recent archaeological discoveries). Him being a cultural figure related to Olbia, however, doesn’t mean that Achilles had no impact among the Scythians, on the contrary! Achilles was a figure present in Scythian culture, especially among the military elite. Braund theorizes that Achilles may have been a "constructive point of contact between Greek and Scythian culture". About this he says:

Near the northern Black Sea coast, four bow cases depicting the life of Achilles were found, and are said to have been left there in fourth-century burials at Chertomlyk, Melitopol, Ilintsy, and near Rostov on the Don estuary. Although these cases aren't related to the Olbia theme (since they were found elsewhere), they’re Scynthian cases, which shows the people's interest in the figure of Achilles. Although the cultural significance of these images is debatable (e.g., it’s unclear what connotation they had, whether they were cult images or not, etc), it’s at least interesting that they were used in burials of members of the Scynthian elite and were considered appropriate for such an occasion. The theme of the images depicted a warrior in life and concluded with his mother carrying his remains to another region, a link to the version of the myth in which Achilles, after death, is taken by Thetis to Leuke.

Fragments of a poem by Alcaeus mentioning an "Achilles, lord of Scythia" have been found, possibly composed around 600 BC (the time of the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia). The largely lost state of the text makes it impossible to identify the context, and can only be speculated upon. Braund notes that Alcaeus seems to have been aware of the Leuke myth and possibly for this reason describes Achilles as lord of Scythia, since the supposed resting place of Achilles according to this myth was in a region with Scythian connections. The cult of Pontarches, on the other hand, seems specific to the area and doesn’t appear to have cultural roots in Miletus (remember that the author of Aethiopis, the lost epic that relates the Leuke myth, was possibly Arctinus of Miletus. Also, remember that the one who settled this region was Miletus), which has led some academics to interpret the cult of Pontarches as a Greek interpretation of a local non-Greek cult. (Note: and of course, just as there were these interpretations, there were disagreements. Note how other texts in this post, such as Diehl's, rejected the theory).

Additionally, Braund comments on Olbia and Leuke's relationships. In addition to the religious importance of Leuke to Olbia (because it was the place where Achilles was supposedly taken by Thetis, which Braund explains is already an association from the archaic period), Leuke was also strategically located as a port of call for shipping between the lower Danube and other parts of the north-west Black Sea, including Olbia. Braund mentions the possibility of the nymph Broysthenis, present in a Eumelan mention, representing a kind of link between Olbia and Leuke, since she was possibly the daughter of the river Borysthenis (Scynthian river god) and can be understood as part of Thetis' entourage who took Achilles to Leuke. Among the archaeological finds, an inscription was found that made reference to the protection of Olbia from pirate attacks directed at Leuke. The Olbiopolitans raised a statue as a sign of protection. In short, Olbia was interested in Leuke and extended its protection to it.

...Olbiopolitans...Since he killed those who had occupied the island for piracy against the Greeks and expelled from the island their associates and while in the city he served the People of the Olbiopolitans in many great matters, and for these things the People bestowed honours upon him in his lifetime and awarded him a public burial. Therefore the People of the Olbiopolitans resolved to erect a statue of him, so that his deeds might be remembered and so that the city might make it clear to the Greeks, that it has great care for the island in accordance with ancestral practices and that when men strive for the island the city gives them honour in life and due rewards upon their death. (IOSPE I² 325, dated no later than the early 3rd century BC)

Interestingly, Braund points out, there was a religious difference between the city of Olbia and Greater Olbia. Although they all shared the common cult of Achilles, a figure in particular related to maritime functions (probably because his mother, Thetis, was a Nereid) and whose popularity was great in the region (possibly because, considering the geographical layout and the activities practiced, a maritime deity having greater prominence makes perfect sense. In addition, there is the thing of Achilles' association with Leuke, an island present there), the cults to other gods didn’t have much similarity. In Olbia, Apollo seemed to have great importance (especially related to the civilizing role), but there is no sign of him being particularly important in other settlements. Not only him, but other deities of the Greek pantheon as well. Although the presence of the god Dionysus is attested in the culture of the city of Olbia (although not in a similar way to Apollo, since Apollo was present in association with cities and civilization and Dionysus was associated with unbridled nature), he doesn’t seem to have had much popularity in the Olbia-influence region. Braund comments on the possibility that Scyles' story didn’t encourage Scythian populations to worship him. Also, Braund clarifies that much of what is said is possibility/theory, as more substantial evidence is kind of lacking. Furthermore, Braund points out that such characteristics don’t make Olbia more Greek than other cities. They were all Greek, it's just cultural differences.

Theory 10: There is no Scynthian influence!

In another chapter of the previous book, titled “Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia” and written by A. S. Rusyayeva, there is an exploration of the religious relationships shared between Olbia and Scythia and her opinion is different from Braund's. She emphasizes that, in comparison to the studies related to Bosporus, the studies related to Olbia are quite uncertain. Furthermore, regarding what we should understand as “Schythia”, Rusyayeva says: “‘Scythia’ was reckoned by the Olbiopolitans (as by other Greeks, notably Herodotus) not as a single state but as a vast geographical area, within which lived not only a range of non-Greek peoples, but also the Greeks themselves” (pg 94). Therefore, theidea of “Scythia” in this context is very broad, making it even more complicated to make specific statements in a truly convincing way.

Now, as I introduced Braund's idea first, I’ll establish some comparisons between the interpretations/theories of both academics.

Both explored the contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks, with a special focus on Scythians. However, they took different interpretations. Braund gives credit to the possibility of the Scythians having influenced Greek cults, especially in relation to the argument of the myth of the snake woman and Heracles and the characteristic of the cult of Achilles (his association with Scythia), although he acknowledges that both peoples could demonstrate a certain rejection of each other's customs (especially according to Herodotus' account). Rusyayeva, on the other hand, doesn’t believe that the cultures influenced each other to such a crucial level. For her, both the Greeks and the Scythians had a level of rejection of each other's culture and a desire to maintain their traditional beliefs strong enough that the contact between the two did not significantly influence the myths of each people, which includes the creation of their own cults. Braund emphasized the popularity of Achilles specifically among the Scynthian military elite and the greater openness of the cult of Heracles, while Rusyayeva argued that Greek myths were popular among the Scynthian elite and generally didn’t have much popularity among the common people (which runs counter to Braund's interpretation of the cult of Heracles in Olbia). As for Olbia, she believes that there is a lack of concrete evidence that Scynthian practices influenced them in any significant way, with the exception of the way in which women's burials were performed, since they originated in the north.

While Braund commented that the description of Achilles as "Lord of Scynthia" in Alcaeus' poem could be connected to the myth of Leuke (as far as we know, the oldest written source being the lost epic Aeithiopis) and the fact that the supposed region to which the hero was taken by Thetis had connections with the Scythians and made only a brief mention of the cult of Achilles possibly having an ideological aspect, Rusyayeva elaborated on the idea of the belonging of the territory to the ideological aspect of the myth. Not only that of Achilles, but that of Heracles as well. While Braund interpreted the myth of the snake woman as possibly influenced by the Scynthian culture, Rusyaeva interpreted it as possibly representing the peaceful coexistence between different peoples through the sacred marriage of Heracles (who represents the Greeks) with the snake woman (who supposedly represents the non-Greeks). Thus, rather than the myth of Heracles with the snake having influence from Scythian culture in the element of the snake woman, it’s a Greek myth about the relationship with foreign peoples, including Scythians. Regarding Achilles, she says:

[...] From time to time some scholars argue that idiosyncrasies of the cult of Achilles at Olbia emerge from the amalgamation of his Greek identity with a local divinity, variously regarded as Cimmerian, Thracian, or Scythian. However, such arguments neglect the fact that his earliest cult sites in the north-west Black Sea (including Olbia), both in the colonial and the pre-colonial periods, were in a region where there were no resident local peoples. Sometimes it is also suggested that Achilles was somehow identified with a snake worshipped by Scythians: this snake (it is claimed) and not Heracles was associated with the mythical snakewoman of Hylaea and, consequently, was the father of the three eponyms, or was her brother.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 98.

For context, this snake woman myth that both authors mention is told by Herodotus in Histories, 4.9-10. The goddess theorized by Braund as having a relationship with the myth is the Anguipede Goddess, the ancestor goddess in Scythian religion. Another ancestor deity theorized as possibly having a relationship with Achilles was Targī̆tavah, who may perhaps have been identified with either Heracles (for his role in fathering children with the snake woman who, in this theory, would be the Anguipede Goddess) or with Pontic Achilles (because of the goddess Api, a Scythian deity associated with water and earth who was also called Borysthenis and who was mother of Targī̆tavah). Apparently J. Hupe wrote about Achilles cult association with foreign people, but I won't be able to show that opinion because I didn't find it accessible in English (in fact, I simply didn't find it. In any language). Additionally, the Pontic cult of Achilles was associated with snakes.

Theory 11: there is really no theory as it isn’t focus!

In 2008, the academic journal “Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia” published e’s text entitled “The Harbour of Olbia”. The focus of this text is more on the political and economic scenarios around Olbia and neighboring cities, not on the cult of Achilles Pontarches. However, it’s interesting how Kozlovskaya occasionally mentions the importance of the cult of Achilles in terms of politics. For example, how Olbia's interest in Berezan (Borysthenes) might be suggested by the construction of a sanctuary dedicated to Achilles in Berezan, which in turn may have been built because Olbia lost authority over Leuke, where the main temple was located.

After ships started to use the shorter and more direct route across the sea on a regular basis, there was much less need for the “transit” harbour of Berezan. This development probably took place already at the end of the 5th to the fi rst half of the 4th centuries BC169 and has been linked to the foundation of the Greek city of Chersonesos on the northern coast of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century BC. Th is route either went straight across the Black Sea from its southern coast to its northern coast or, alternatively, combined the cabotage sailing along the western coast of the Black Sea with crossing open water from some point straight to the southern shore of the Crimean peninsula. Presumably, in the 4th century BC fewer ships sailing to the North Pontic region were still using the full-length cabotage route along the Northwestern Black Sea coast. This probably caused an inevitable decrease of maritime traffi c in the area and may have been one of the factors contributing to the overall decline of the settlement on Berezan. The Berezan harbour may still have continued to function, but on a smaller scale than before, serving primarily local needs and only occasionally as a stop-over for foreign ships. A similar development has been observed for other areas of the ancient world, where the introduction of open-water navigation led to changes in trade patterns that consequently aff ected coastal cities and their harbours. However, notwithstanding this change in sailing patterns, the island of Berezan and its harbour must not have lost their importance to Olbia, for the reasons mentioned above

Olbia’s continuous interest in the island is also confirmed by the fact that during the early centuries AD Berezan housed an important cult center of Achilles Pontarches. Rostovtsev suggested that Olbia probably established this new sanctuary on Berezan after she had lost her protectorate over the island of Leuke, the main cult center of Achilles in the region. Currently this hypothesis is accepted by many scholars, who agree that during the Roman period the patronage over Leuke passed to one of the West Pontic cities, most likely Tomis. The harbour of Berezan must have continued to function during this period, even if only to serve the visitors of the sanctuary, who were coming by sea.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 53.

In addition to possible pirate attacks specifically targeting the objects present in the temple of Achilles and a dedication after Olbia had possibly managed to defend the attacks. This part refers to IOSPE I² 325, the same text explored by Braund regarding the protection that Olbia granted to Leuke. Here Kozlovskaya gives some more details about this situation, since Braund didn’t go into this in depth as it wasn’t his focus.

The city must have needed some military vessels for protection against piracy or for use in military actions (and the two cannot always be easily separated). Piracy in the Hellenistic period is a well-known phenomenon, also in the Black Sea region. At least two documents show that Olbia had to face this problem. The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island. In general, the practice of pirating near important Panhellenic sanctuaries is well attested for other regions of the ancient world. For example, we know that in the 1st century BC pirates established themselves on the small and barren island of Pharmakoussa, which supposedly was under Milesian control. Th e convenient location on the way to the sanctuary at Didyma probably allowed them to take advantage of nearby sea-traffi c and of the fact that many rich pilgrims must have passed by Pharmakoussa in order to reach the Oracle. The other pertinent document – IOSPE I² 672 – is a dedication to Achilles, “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC.123 Both in this case and in the events described in IOSPE I² 325 warships must have been employed in order to settle the conflict and take control of the situation.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 46-47.

Theory 12: even in the cult, Achilles belongs to death!

In 2016, Diana Burton published “Immortal Achilles”. First of all, I want to clarify that Burton’s interest here isn’t in analyzing the type of Achilles cult in the Black Sea. She explicitly states that she doesn’t want to dwell on this and leaves an explanatory note with the following details regarding the debate:

For the argument that Achilles’ cult is divine rather than hero-cult, see Hommel (n. 16), on whom see the comments in S. B. Bujskich, ‘Kap Bejkuš – Kap des Achilleus: eine Kultstätte des göttlichen Heros im Mündungsgebiet des Bug’, in Hupe (n. 34), 129. Against Hommel, see J. T. Hooker, ‘The Cults of Achilles’, RhM 131 (1988), 1–7; Burgess (n. 5), 111–16, 128, who sees the cults of Achilles as initially hero-cults, which in some cases later increased in status to divine cult (e.g. in Olbia with the Roman period epithet Pontarches: J. Hupe, ‘Die olbische Achilleus- Verehrung in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in Hupe [n. 34], 165–234). In this article I am less concerned with the cult’s origins than with its form and the early perception of Achilles’ status in it.

Immortal Achilles, pg 20.

Now, let's summarize what Burton says about this specific cult (I say “specific” because she also mentions other cults of Achilles, in this case those that are considered heroic in the academic consensus).

This was the most prominent cult of Achilles. It emerged in the archaic period, more specifically in the 6th century BC, and reached its peak in the Roman period. There are indications that Achilles actually came to be honored as a god.

The city Achilleion (archaeologically uncertain, but mentioned in literature) and the Racecourse of Achilles were places named after the hero.

The earliest sites of the Olbian cult seem to have been Berezan Island and the adjacent Cape Beikuš. At Cape Beikuš, there was probably the presence of a temple and a grove in addition to signs of cult rituals. At Cape Beikuš and Berezan the following were found: “inscriptions on clay discs made from pottery fragments (both local and imported), which have the name of Achilles inscribed (either in full or abbreviated) and also include grafﬁti of snakes, branches, stick ﬁgures, swords, daggers, arrows, boats, and water; one shows a hoplite with a votive form of Achilles’ name, and a fragmentary grafﬁto which may be the name of the dedicator. This iconography is a mixture of that which is appropriate to Achilles’ warrior status (weapons, hoplites) and that which beﬁts his cult (snakes – common for heroes – and boats, to which we shall return)” (pg 22-23). She mentions Hedreen's theory regarding the disks. Basically, he commented that such disks were commonly found in the Greek world as gifts to heroes and were also found in tombs. Regarding the disk's role with Achilles, Hedreen theorized that they could symbolize playing pieces, which Burton commented is appropriate since Achilles has an iconography of being depicted playing with Big Ajax.

The cult at Leuke was established at a similar date to the other two (i.e. 6th century BC), as the oldest finds date from this period. Leuke was mentioned by several authors, who also mentioned its location (one example Burton gives is Pausanias). It was populated by birds and snakes, which Burton theorizes may have influenced the mysticism. For example, there is a possible association in Greek literature of birds with the souls of the dead, which makes sense with the cult of Achilles since he was supposedly transferred to Leuke after his death. It was, however, apparently uninhabited (with respect to any permanent human presence). An inscription was found that emphasized the connection of this island with the Leuke of myth, as it reads “Glaucus son of Posideius dedicated me to Achilles lord of Leuke”. Remains of the temple of Achilles were also found, but they were obliterated by the construction of a lighthouse and, analyzing tiles found, it seems that the temple had been there for a long time (they dated from 6th century BC to 1st century AD).

Among the functions of Achilles are: protector of sailors and sea voyages, he indicates safe anchorages for those traveling near the island, and he appears on the masts and yards. An inscription reads "'Glaucus, be careful sailing in!'", which, considering the mention of Achilles as lord of Leuke in the inscription mentioning Glaucus, associates Achilles with the care of those traveling at sea. Burton comments that this role makes sense to be associated with Achilles, as he’s the son of Thetis whose element is the sea, and may also explain the presence of boats on the aforementioned disks.

Leuke and Olbia were intimately linked ideologically. Although the settlement of Olbia was due to Miletus, there is no evidence that the cult originated from Miletus. Burton also doesn’t believe that the Scythian culture of the region had anything to do with it, but rather that it was of Greek origin. Although it was a cult specific to the Black Sea, it clearly achieved a pan-Hellenic fame and was even mentioned in later sources. Burton believes that the fact that Leuke was an isolated island contributed to the mysticism surrounding the island remaining strong for so many years.

Achilles seems more active than heroes are usually depicted as being after death (I am not talking about deified heroes like Heracles, but mortal heroes like Odysseus). He, for example, can be heard singing or riding, he even flirts with Helen, he demands a girl and kills her (the reason given by the text, written by Philostratus, is that she was a Trojan woman described as a descendant of Priam), he runs, and none of these actions seem to have any cult characteristics. In fact, he seems to be more associated with the epic image than the cult image of him (there is usually a difference between the cult image and the epic image of a hero). The epic figure of Achilles is indeed depicted in relation to music, he has been romantically associated with Helen before, he has agility as an important factor, and although he isn’t shown tearing a girl to pieces in any poem or play, he has certainly been shown as an antagonistic figure to the Trojans.

There is a difference between the role of Achilles and the Dioscuri as protectors of sea travelers: although the three are important heroes who are active in helping sailors, the Dioscuri operate in generalized areas while Achilles, from what Arrian says, has his role restricted to at specific region.

Finally, Burton concludes on Achilles' association with death and the presence of this element even in his cult:

[...] In Achilles, conversely, we are looking at different aspects of death. The hero of hero-cult exists between the living and the dead: for Achilles, the scales are weighted towards death. The tradition of Achilles’ choice and consequent death, found in its most absolute form in the Iliad, is deeply rooted in all his myths, and underlies even the version in which he is snatched away to a better place after death. Paradoxically, it is the certainty of his death that allows him such a rich variety of afterlives. Unlike Heracles and the Dioscuri, Achilles’ myth and cult do not arise from a contradiction: they match each other perfectly. The hero of hero-cult draws his power, and the degree of immortality which he possess with it, from the underworld: he is a hero and an object of cult because he is dead. Both as epic hero and as cult hero Achilles is ineluctably committed to death. The totality of his identity in myth and cult fulﬁls his extraordinary potential; his life after death explores every kind of variation, with the one proviso that he is, always, dead.

Immortal Achilles, pg 27-28.

Theory 13: Achilles was deified and there are elements related to this, including his marriage to Helen/Iphigenia!

In 2021, a book with a lot of authors entitled "The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea". What I’ll be using here is the chapter "From the tower of Kronos to the island of Achilles: placing Leuce in the Greek conception of heroic apotheosis", by Marios Kamenou from the University of Cyprus. According to Kamenou regarding this chapter “The particular focus is upon whether in those cases the immortality of heroes grants them divine status and how this peculiarity affects the cultic expression of the heroic apotheosis.”.

Like the other authors, he gives interesting details about Leuke and, since it’s only one chapter, it’s a fluid read. However, since the focus of the post is more on the idea of deification, I’ll focus on why Kamenou believes that Pontarches is the object of worship of a divine cult (and not a hero cult) and what he says about deification.

Anyway, Kamenou first introduces the mythological Leuke, then talks about the cult of Achilles and finally explains why he believes the cult of Achilles in the Black Sea was a deity cult and not a hero cult:

[Xoanon = archaic wooden cult image. Apotheosis = deification. Soter = a saviour, a deliverer. Enagismata = offerings to the dead. Thusia = sacrifice]

The evidence from ancient testimonies indicates that the transformation of Achilles on Leuce has also an identifiable ritual expression in the form of sanctuaries, cultic statues, hymns, rituals and offerings. Arrian states that in the island there is a temple and a xoanon of ancient workmanship, and many other offerings such as bowls, rings and jewellery, as well as Greek and Latin inscriptions praising Achilles and Patroclus (Arrian Periplus 32, 33). Pausanias (3. 9. 11) also reports a temple of Achilles with an image, and Maximus of Tyre (Orations 9. 7) speaks of temples and altars where sacrifices of animals were performed. Apparently an oracle functioned at the temple, revealing the polymorphism of the sanctuary (Philostratus Heroicus 19. 17; Ammianus Marcellinus 22. 35; Tertullian De Anima 45). The religious structures on Leuce illustrate the impact of these myths on the cult that had spread around the Pontus Euxinus. Building a temple on Leuce is a significant element that widens the meaning of the immortalisation of the hero as transformation to a status comparable to the divine (apotheosis), given that the Greeks perceived the temple as the house of the divine, and this same observation is made valid by the presence of altars. The majority of the hero cults known to us are strictly linked with the Underworld and the sacrifices towards the heroes' tombs were adapted to this concept. At the islands of Diomedes, for instance, a tomb stood along with the shrine (Pliny NH. 3. 151, 10. 126- 127; Solinus 2. 45). Altars on the other hand were connected to the gods, as the smoke of the libations and the sacrificing of animals were destined to be received by the gods in the heavens. This alteration was a major difference of ritual expression between hero and divinity cults.

Temples of Achilles are erected also in the nearby region, at the Cape of Tendra (the Dromos of Achilles), functioning from the late 4th century BC, and in Borysthenes, the latter mentioned by Dio Chrysostom. He reports further that the population perceived Achilles as a god (Orations 36. 14). In addition to this, Quintus Smyrnaeus states that in the Euxine Achilles was worshiped as a god, an implication that the concept of immortalisation was an actual process of deification. The large body of epigraphic material from Olbia and its surroundings correspondingly shapes a cult that existed around the 6th century BC, where Achilles is given epithets that usually define the qualities of a god, like Soter and Pontarches ("lord of Pontus"). Furthermore, the official nature of some inscriptions ending with the epiclesis 'for the stability and health of the city' displays a cult of a dedicated deity as protector of the city (IOSPE 12 130, 132, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142). The immortality of heroes thus seems to have created a state of ritual confusion requiring specific ritual adaptations. The case of Hercules presents here the most renowned example: Pausanias records that at Sicyon portions of sacrificed lambs are burnt for Hercules the hero as enagismata, while the rest of the meat is sacrificed for Hercules the god as thusia. In the case of the immortal Achilles, our sources keep full discretion regarding the specific rituals and sacrifices, but the presence of temples and altars suggest that the rituals were directed towards the divine nature of Achilles. In this perspective, temple, oracle, altars, cultic statues, dedications, sacrifices and offerings made the island of Achilles a polyvalent religious centre, distant from a traditional heroic cult, evidencing that the immortalisation of the hero had to be ritually expressed in a way and that the appropriate transformation of the religious landscape was vital.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139.

Having established he’s treating Pontic Achilles' cult as a divine cult, Kamenou wants to delve deeper into deification, including exploring the idea Achilles' marriage to Helen or Iphigenia in Leuke version is a possible way of legitimizing the divine status of the members involved in the marriage. Therefore, this would explain why Achilles is reported as having been married in the afterlife to Iphigenia or Helen specifically in Leuke versions, something that doesn’t happen in versions that, for example, establish Achilles is in Elysium (his wife, in this case, is usually Medea). Being dead in Elysium, Achilles wouldn’t be a deity, as he would be removed from the possibility of immortality of a divine nature (since heroes in a certain way had a type of immortality, but it isn’t in the same sense as the gods). Since he isn’t a deity in this version, Helen or Iphigenia don’t appear as a wife.

[Parhedros = It's kind of complex, but the word means "sitting beside or near". So here it's used to describe the role of Iphigenia and Helen in relation to Achilles at Leuke]

Immortality was a fundamental element in the Greek polytheism that separates emphatically heroes from gods. Even so, in a way, all heroes are immortal, as otherwise they would be unable to exercise their benevolent or malevolent actions in the world of humans and therefore their worship would not be necessary. Nevertheless, the immortality of heroes is not equal to the immortality of gods. Heroes have lived a human life, have accomplished certain feats and eventually died, even if after death they have continued to affect the life of humans. Their heroic existence is demoted to their past and their extraordinary deeds. However, in these cases heroes such as Achilles, Rhadamanthys, Peleus, Cadmus and others, were destined to live blissfully and were exempt from death. This basic characteristic explains the absence of a tomb in Leuce and other places of Pontus where Achilles was worshipped. Instead, the hero lives in his temple and its surroundings, similarly to the gods. Furthermore, his cultic statue represented the living image of him, a symbol of his presence in life. Likewise, his altar that received sacrifices in his honour was a ritual instrument destined to serve him just like the other immortal beings present in Greek religion." The epigraphic material reflects that perception. A revealing example of this is a dedication from Scythian Neapolis dated to the 2nd(?) century BC (IOSPE 12 673 ), where Achilles is placed side by side to the gods of the local Pantheon as equal in power and nature. This cultic conception had to be legitimated or accompanied by a mythological tradition that probably went back to the prestigious Aethiopis of Arctinus from Miletus.

In certain mythological versions of this tradition the hero is associated with a female parhedros, the most frequent point to Iphigenia and Helen of Troy. Philostratus (Heroicus 54. 4) mentions that in the sanctuary of the hero there was a statue of Helen, which indicates a common worship. Antoninus Liberalis, on the other hand, recounts that Iphigenia was transformed by Artemis into an ageless immortal deity and became the spouse of the hero (Metamorphoses 27). Such marriage was necessary to consolidate the heroic apotheosis, as for instance in the case of Hercules marrying Hebe." It reinforced the hero's divine aspect by recreating the divine couple of Olympus, which represents the supreme, inspiring model of a ruler's image; this fits with the perception of Achilles as Pontarches, lord of his island and the whole Euxine.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139-140.

Theory 14: Achilles in Black Sea was a deity (again)!

Also released in 2021, ““The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area” by Yulia Ustinova also interprets Achilles as a deity in this region of the Black Sea. In addition to emphasizing the archaeological findings that I have already mentioned, Ustinova makes an association between the title of Achilles with the title of the goddess Aphrodite and seems to lean towards the theory of Achilles’ association with the Scythians.

[...] Furthermore, the designation of Achilles as Leukēi medeōn, the Master of Leuke, is immediately reminiscent of the cultic title of Aphrodite Apatourou medeousa, the mistress of Apaturum, and is probably indicative of a similar perception of the deity as the sovereign of the area. [...] In the multicultural area of Olbia, the cult of Achilles may have also profited from the devotion of the Scythians. Since scenes from Achilles' biography decorate bow-cases discovered in four Scythian aristocratic tumuli, the Scythians probably associated one of their own deities with the Greek hero. However, the three centres of Achilles' cult near Olbia have not yielded any specifically non-Greek materials, and there is no evidence to support assumptions about its indigenous origin, therefore the worship of Achilles in Greater Olbia appears as a basically Greek phenomenon. The cult of Achilles is conspicuously absent from Olbia's metropolis. The emergence of a prominent cult, with its several centers, and its pan-Pontic fame, was entirely due to the intensity of the local devotion to the hero. This case exemplifies a very interesting phenomenon, namely, the transformation of a Greek cult in the colonial environment. The Greek hero was translated to Scythia, allotted land, new mythological episodes, a thriving cult, and new appellations. The cult belongs solely to the colonial milieu, but it appears to have evolved entirely within the Greek tradition.

“The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area, pg 6-7.

ANCIENT SOURCES

This section is basically me listing all the ancient sources I can think of that mention Leuke or the cult of Achilles (mostly heroic cults). This includes non-Greek sources, from different periods and from different textual genres. The credibility of these sources isn’t always considered certain in academia, and some are considered uncertain (for example, Philostratus' account of the cult of Achilles is a matter of debate in academia).

Leuke mentions in ancient texts:

[...] The Achaeans then bury Antilochus and lay out the body of Achilles, while Thetis, arriving with the Muses and her sisters, bewails her son, whom she afterwards catches away from the pyre and transports to the White Island. After this, the Achaeans pile him a cairn and hold games in his honour. Lastly a dispute arises between Odysseus and Aias over the arms of Achilles.

Arctinus of Miletus, The Aethiopis, frag 1. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White. [If the author is indeed the attributed Arctinus, then it is 8th or 7th century BC]

[...] From there, walking dry-shod out of the deep [1260] you will see your beloved son and mine, Achilles, dwelling in his island home on the strand of Leuke in the Sea Inhospitable [...]

Euripides, Andromache. Translation by David Kovacs. [5th century BC]

[...] Exactly over against this mouth there lies an island, situated directly opposite to the course of those who sail with a North wind. Some call this the island of Achilles; others call it the chariot of Achilles; and others Leuce, from its colour. Thetis is said to have given up this island to her son Achilles, by whom it was inhabited. There are now existing a temple, and a wooden statue of Achilles, of ancient workmanship. It is destitute of inhabitants, and pastured only by a few goats, which those, who touch here, are said to offer to the memory of Achilles. Many offerings are suspended in this temple, as cups, rings, and the more valuable gems. All these are offerings to the memory of Achilles. Inscriptions are also suspended, written in the Greek and Latin language, in praise of Achilles, and composed in different kinds of metre. Some are in praise of Patroclus, whom those, who are disposed to honour Achilles, treat with equal respect. Many birds inhabit this island, as sea-gulls, divers, and coots innumerable. These birds frequent the temple of Achilles. Every day in the morning they take their flight, and having moistened their wings, fly back again to the temple, and sprinkle it with the moisture; which having performed, they brush and clean the pavement with their wings. This is the account given by some persons. Those, who come on purpose to the island, carry animals proper for sacrifice with them in their ships, some of which they immolate, and others they set at liberty in honour of Achilles. Even those, who are compelled by stress of weather to land upon the island, must consult the God himself, whether it would be right and proper for them to select for sacrifice any of the animals, which they should find feeding there; offering, at the fame time, such a recompense, as to them seems adequate to the value of the animal so selected. But if this should be rejected by the Oracle, for there is an Oracle in this temple, they must then add to their valuation; and if the increased valuation be still rejected, they must increase it again, till they find, from the assent of the Oracle, that the price they offer is deemed sufficient. When this is the case, the beast to be sacrificed stands still of its own accord, and makes no effort to escape. A considerable treasure is laid up in this temple as the price of these victims. It is said that Achilles has appeared in time of sleep both to those who have approached the coast of this island, and also to such as have been sailing a short distance from it, and instructed them where the island was most lately accessible, and where the ships might best lie at anchor. They even say further, that Achilles has appeared to them not in time of sleep, or a dream, but in a visible form on the mast, or at the extremity of the yards, in the same manner as the Dioscuri have appeared. This distinction however must be made between the appearance of Achilles, and that of the Dioscuri, that the latter appear evidently and clearly to persons, who navigate the sea at large, and when so seen foretell a prosperous voyage; whereas the figure of Achilles is seen only by such as approach this island. Some also say, that Patroclus has appeared to them during their sleep. I have thus put down what I have heard concerning this island of Achilles, either from persons who had touched there themselves, or from others that had made the same enquiries; and indeed these accounts seem to me to be not unworthy of belief. I am myself persuaded, that Achilles was a hero, if ever man was, being illustrious by his noble birth, by the beauty of his person, by the strength of his mind and understanding, by his untimely death in the flower of youth, by his being the subject of Homer's poetry, and, lastly, by the force of his love, and constancy of his friendship, insomuch that he would even die for his friends.

Arrian of Nicomedia, Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. Translation by William Falconer. [2nd century AD]

A story too I will tell which I know the people of Crotona tell about Helen. The people of Himera too agree with this account. In the Euxine at the mouths of the Ister is an island sacred to Achilles. It is called White Island, and its circumference is twenty stades. It is wooded throughout and abounds in animals, wild and tame, while on it is a temple of Achilles with an image of him. The first to sail thither legend says was Leonymus of Crotona. For when war had arisen between the people of Crotona and the Locri in Italy, the Locri, in virtue of the relationship between them and the Opuntians, called upon Ajax son of Oileus to help them in battle. So Leonymus the general of the people of Crotona attacked his enemy at that point where he heard that Ajax was posted in the front line. Now he was wounded in the breast, and weak with his hurt came to Delphi. When he arrived the Pythian priestess sent Leonynius to White Island, telling him that there Ajax would appear to him and cure his wound. In time he was healed and returned from White Island, where, he used to declare, he saw Achilles, as well as Ajax the son of Oileus and Ajax the son of Telamon. With them, he said, were Patroclus and Antilochus; Helen was wedded to Achilles, and had bidden him sail to Stesichorus at Himera, and announce that the loss of his sight was caused by her wrath.

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.19.11-13. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

Then from the surge of heavy-plunging seas rose the Earth-shaker. No man saw his feet pace up the strand, but suddenly he stood beside the Nereid Goddesses, and spake to Thetis, yet for Achilles bowed with grief: "Refrain from endless mourning for thy son. Not with the dead shall he abide, but dwell with Gods, as doth the might of Herakles, and Dionysus ever fair. Not him dread doom shall prison in darkness evermore, nor Hades keep him. To the light of Zeus soon shall he rise; and I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. Hush thy laments, vex not thine heart with grief." Then like a wind-breath had he passed away over the sea, when that consoling word was spoken; and a little in her breast revived the spirit of Thetis: and the God brought this to pass thereafter. All the host moved moaning thence, and came unto the ships that brought them o'er from Hellas. Then returned to Helicon the Muses: 'neath the sea, wailing the dear dead, Nereus' Daughters sank.

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

[...] After the passage of time, Artemis transferred Iphigenia to what is called the White Island [Leuke] to be with Achilles and changed her into an ageless immortal deity, calling her Orsilochia instead of Iphigenia. She became the companion of Achilles.

Antoninus Liberalis, The Metamorphoses, 27. Translation by Francis Celoria. [2nd century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce, entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships; for it is said that no one can pass the night there except at the risk of his life. At that place there are also springs and white birds live there resembling halcyons, of whose origin and battles in the Hellespont I shall speak at the appropriate time. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

At a distance of 120 miles from the Tyra is the river Borysthenes, with a lake and a people of similar name, as also a town in the interior, at a distance of fifteen miles from the sea, the ancient names of which were Olbiopolis and Miletopolis. Again, on the shore is the port of the Achæi, and the island of Achilles, famous for the tomb there of that hero, and, at a distance of 125 miles from it, a peninsula which stretches forth in the shape of a sword, in an oblique direction, and is called, from having been his place of exercise, Dromos Achilleos: the length of this, according to Agrippa, is eighty miles. The Taurian Scythians and the Siraci occupy all this tract of country. [...] [...] Before the Borysthenes is Achillea previously referred to, known also by the names of Leuce and Macaron. Researches which have been made at the present day place this island at a distance of 140 miles from the Borysthenes, of 120 from Tyra, and of fifty from the island of Peuce. It is about ten miles in circumference. The remaining islands in the Gulf of Carcinites are Cephalonnesos, Rhosphodusa, and Macra. [...]

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 4.26-27. Translation by John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. [1st century AD]

There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

[...] and Achilles holds the shining island in the Euxine sea.

Pindar, Nemean Ode 4. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien. [5th century BC]

The 18th; when the Lokrians fought, since Ajax was a relative of theirs, they used to leave an empty space in the formation, in which Ajax supposedly stationed himself. When they were arrayed in battle against the Krotoniats, Autoleon of Kroton advised that they burst through the gap and surround the enemy. Tormented by a ghost he turned his thigh and was becoming gangrenous, until, in accordance with an oracle, he showed up at the island of Achilles in the Pontus (reached by sailing past the Ister river beyond the Tauric peninsula) and appeased the other heroes and particularly the soul of Ajax the Lokrian. He was healed, and returning from there he conveyed to Stesichoros Helen's command that he sing her a retraction if sight was dear to him. Stesichoros straightaway composed hymns to Helen and recovered his vision.

Conon, Narrations, 18. Translation by Brady Kiesling. [1st century BC]

VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those sailing into the mouth of the Pontus put on their left. It is about thirty stades long, but not more than four stades wide; the trees growing on it are poplars and elms, some stand without order, but others already stand in good order around the sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated near the Sea of Maiotis (which, equal in size to the Pontus, flows into it), and the statues in it, fashioned by the Fates, are Achilles and Helen. Indeed, although the act of desire lies in the eyes and poets in song celebrate desire as originating from this, Achilles and Helen, because they had not even been seen by one another, since she was in Egypt and he in Ilion, were the first who started to desire one another by finding their ears to be the origin of their longing for the body. Because no land under the sun had been fated for them as an abode for the immortal part of their life — although the Ekhinades downstream from Oiniadai and Acarnania were immediately defiled at the very time when Alkmaion killed his mother, he settled at the estuary of the Akheloos on land formed more recently than his deed — Thetis beseeched Poseidon to send up from the sea an island where they could dwell. After Poseidon had pondered the length of the Pontus and that, because no island lay in it, it was sailed uninhabited, he made Leuke appear, of the size I have described, for Achilles and Helen to inhabit, but also for sailors to stay and set their anchor in the sea. As ruler over everything that is by nature wet, after he also conceived of the rivers Thermodon, Borysthenes, and Istros so that they were carried off into the Pontus by irresistible and continually flowing currents, Poseidon heaped together the sediment from the rivers, which they sweep into the sea starting at their sources in Scythia. He then neatly fashioned an island of just the size I mentioned and set its foundation on the bottom of the Pontus. There Achilles and Helen first saw and embraced one another, and Poseidon himself and Amphitrite hosted their wedding feast, along with all the Nereids and as many rivers and water-spirits as flow into the Sea of Maiotis and the Pontus. They say that white birds live on the island and that these marine birds smell of the sea. Achilles made them his servants, since they furnish the grove for him with the breeze and rain drops from their wings. They do this by fluttering on the ground and lifting themselves off a little bit above the earth. For mortals who sail the broad expanse of the sea, it is permitted by divine law to enter the island, for it is situated like a welcoming hearth for ships. But it is forbidden to all those who sail the sea and for the Hellenes and barbarians from around the Pontus to make it a place of habitation.

§ 747 Those who anchor near the island and sacrifice must go onboard when the sun sets, so that they do not sleep on its land. If the wind should follow them, they must sail, and if it does not, they must wait in the bay after mooring their ship. Then Achilles and Helen are said to drink together and to be engaged in singing. They celebrate in song their desire for one another, Homer's epics on the Trojan War, and Homer himself. Achilles still praises the gift of poetry which came to him from Calliope, and he pursues it more seriously, since he has ceased from military activities. At any rate, my guest, his song about Homer was composed with divine inspiration and the art of poetry. Indeed, Protesilaos knows and sings that song. [55] PHOEN: May I hear the song, vinedresser, or is it not proper to disclose it? VINEDR: Why, of course you may, my guest! Many of those who approach the island say that they hear Achilles singing other things as well, but only last year, I believe, did he compose this song, which is most graceful in thought and intentions. It goes like this:

Echo, dwelling round about the vast waters beyond great Pontus, my lyre serenades you by my hand. And you, sing to me divine Homer, glory of men, glory of our labors, through whom I did not die, through whom Patroklos is mine, through whom my Ajax is equal to the immortals, through whom Troy, celebrated by the skilled as won by the spear, gained glory and did not fall. PHOEN: Vinedresser, Achilles sings at any rate by divine inspiration and in a manner worthy of both himself and Homer. Besides, it is sensible not to lengthen these matters in lyric songs or to perform them in an extended fashion. From of old, poetry was thus both esteemed and cleverly devised.

Philostratus, Heroica, 745-747. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

Not all daimones perform all functions, however; now too, as in life, each is given a different job. It is here that we see the role of that susceptibility to the emotions that marks them off from God." They do not want to rid themselves entirely of the natures that were theirs when they lived on earth. Asclepius continues to heal the sick, Heracles to perform mighty deeds, Dionysus to lead the revels, Amphilochus to give oracles,” the Dioscuri to sail the seas, Minos to dispense justice, and Achilles to wield his weapons. Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple. Sailors passing the island have often seen a young man with tawny hair, clad in golden armour, exercising there. Others have not seen him, but have heard him singing. Yet others have both seen and heard him. One man even fell asleep inadvertently on the island. Achilles himself appeared to him, raised him to his feet, took him to his tent, and entertained him; Patroclus was there to serve the wine, Achilles played the lyre, and Thetis and a host of other daimones were present too. [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] From there too the gulf of Melas flows towards the Hellespont, churning foam. As one goes far to the north, § 54 there extends on this side and that the swell of the Propontic sea. There is also, above the left-hand path of the Euxine, opposite the Borysthenes, a well-known island in the sea, the Island of Heroes. They call it by the name of Leuce, because the serpents there are white. There rumour has it the spirits of Achilles and other heroes roam this way and that through the deserted glens. This is the gift from Zeus which attends the most noble in reward for their virtue. For virtue is allotted a pure honour.

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 53-54. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

"The one he slept with," they say that after Iphigeneia was snatched by Artemis, Achilles heard that she was in Scythia and set out to find her. Not finding her, he settled near the White Island, which is in the Black Sea. The White Island in the Pontus is so named because of the multitude of white birds that live there. Otherwise, this is the meaning: Achilles, her lover, seeking her, will live for a long time on the so-called White Island, also known as Spilos — this island is near the mouths of the rivers of the Celtic lake — longing for his bride, whom once a deer saved from the swords.

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 186. [12th century AD]

[...] But you would appear to have been sent to us by Achilles himself from his holy isle, and we are very glad to see you and very glad also to listen to whatever p445 you have to say. [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.24. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Cults and places dedicated to Achilles mentions in ancient texts:

[3.20.8] On the road from Sparta to Arcadia there stands in the open an image of Athena surnamed Pareia, and after it is a sanctuary of Achilles. This it is not customary to open, but all the youths who are going to take part in the contest in Plane-tree Grove are wont to sacrifice to Achilles before the fight. The Spartans say that the sanctuary was made for them by Prax, a grandson of Pergamus the son of Neoptolemus. [6.23.1] One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of this enclosure is called Xystus, because an exercise of Heracles, the son of Amphitryo, was to scrape up (anaxuein) each day all the thistles that grew there. [6.23.2] The track for the competing runners, called by the natives the Sacred Track, is separate from that on which the runners and pentathletes practise. In the gymnasium is the place called Plethrium. In it the umpires match the competitors according to age and skill; it is for wrestling that they match them. [6.23.3] There are also in the gymnasium altars of the gods, of Idaean Heracles, surnamed Comrade, of Love, of the deity called by Eleans and Athenians alike Love Returned, of Demeter and of her daughter. Achilles has no altar, only a cenotaph raised to him because of an oracle. On an appointed day at the beginning of the festival, when the course of the sun is sinking towards the west, the Elean women do honor to Achilles, especially by bewailing him

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.20.8 and 6.23.1-3. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

[...] And in the island of Astypalaea Achilles is most devoutly worshipped by the inhabitants on these grounds [...]

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 17.43. Translation by H. Rackham. [1st century BC]

The extent of this sea-coast as we sail in a direct line from Rhœteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is 60 stadia. The whole of the coast lies below the present Ilium; the part near the port of the Achæans, distant from the present Ilium about 12 stadia, and thirty stadia more from the ancient Ilium, which is higher up in the part towards Ida. Near the Sigeium is a temple and monument of Achilles, and monuments also of Patroclus and Anthlochus. The Ilienses perform sacred ceremonies in honour of them all, and even of Ajax. [...]

Strabo, Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Falconer, W. [1st century]

[...] I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. [...]

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce, entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships [...] [...] Next to these is a narrow strip of shore which the natives call Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος [Racecourse of Achilles], memorable in times past for the exercises of the Thessalian leader. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35 and 38. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

5. Then come the vast forests that these lands bear, as well as the Panticapes [Ingulets] River, which separates the Nomads and the Georgians. At that time the land, which pulls back for a long stretch, is tied to the shore by a slender base; subsequently, where it is moderately wide, the land fashions itself gradually into a point. Just as if it were collecting its long sides into a sword point, the land affects the appearance of a drawn sword. Achilles entered the Pontic Sea with a hostile fleet, and it is remembered that he celebrated his victory there with competitive games and that there he routinely exercised himself and his men when there was a respite from the fighting. Therefore the land is called Dromos Achilleos [Grk., Achilles' Racecourse; Tendrovskaya Kosa].

6. Then the Borysthenes [Dnepr] River washes up on the territory of the nation that bears its name. The loveliest among Scythia's rivers, it flows down the most smoothly (the others are turbulent), and it is calmer than the others and absolutely delicious to drink. This river feeds the most prolific pastures and sustains big fish with the best flavor and no bones. The Borysthenes comes from a long way off and rises from unidentified springs. With its bed the river skims through a path of forty days' hiking, is navigable over the same route, and debouches between the Greek towns of Borysthenida and Olbia.[...]

98. There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.5-6 and 98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

§ 741 For then, while invoking chthonian and ineffable gods, they keep pure, I think, the fire that is out on the sea. Whenever the sacred ship sails in and they distribute the fire both to its new abode and to the forges of the artisans, from that source is the beginning of new life. The Thessalian offerings which came regularly to Achilles from Thessaly were decreed for the Thessalians by the oracle at Dodona. For indeed the oracle commanded the Thessalians to sail to Troy each year to sacrifice to Achilles and to slaughter some sacrificial victims as to a god, but to slaughter others as for the dead. At first the following happened: a ship sailed from Thessaly to Troy with black sails raised, bringing twice seven sacred ambassadors, one white bull and one black bull, both tame, and wood from Mount Pelion, so that they would need nothing from the city. They also brought fire from Thessaly, after they had drawn both libations and water from the river Sperkheios. For this reason, the Thessalians first customarily used unfading crowns for mourning, in order that, even if the wind delayed the ship, they would not wear crowns that were wilted or past their season. It was indeed necessary to put into the harbor at night, and before touching land, to sing Thetis a hymn from the ship, a hymn composed as follows: Dark Thetis, Pelian Thetis: Troy gained a share of him to the extent that his mortal nature held sway, but to the extent that the child derives from your immortal lineage, the Pontus possesses him.

§ 742 Come to this lofty hill in quest of the burnt offerings with Achilles. Come without tears, come with Thessaly, Pelian Thetis. When they approached the tomb after this hymn, a shield was struck heavily as in battle, and together they cried aloud with rhythmic rapid delivery, calling repeatedly upon Achilles. When they had wreathed the summit of the hill and dug offering pits on it, they slaughtered the black bull as to one who is dead. They also summoned Patroklos to the feast, in the belief that they were doing this to please Achilles. After they slit the victim's throat and made this sacrifice, they immediately went down to the ship, and after sacrificing the other bull on the beach again to Achilles and having begun the offering by taking from the basket and by partaking of the entrails for that sacrifice (for they made this sacrifice as to a god), they sailed away toward dawn, taking the sacrificed animal so as not to feast in the enemy's country. My guest, these rites, so holy and ancient, they say were both abolished by the tyrants, who are said to have ruled the Thessalians after the Aiakidai, and were neglected by Thessaly. Some cities sent their offerings, others did not consider them worthwhile, others said they would send them next year, and still others rejected the matter. § 743 When the land was hard pressed by drought and the oracle gave the order to honor Achilles "as was meet and right," they removed from the rites what they customarily observed for a god, interpreting "as was meet and right" in this way. They used to sacrifice to him as to one who is dead, and they would cut up as a sacrifice the first animals they encountered. Thus it was until Xerxes' expedition into Greece occurred. During this expedition, the Thessalians, who sided with the Medes, once again abandoned the prescribed customs for Achilles, seeing that a ship sailed to Salamis from Aigina carrying the house of the Aiakidai to support the Hellenic alliance. When in later times Alexander, the son of Philip, subjugated the other part of Thessaly and dedicated Phthia to Achilles, he made Achilles his ally in Troy while marching against Darius. The Thessalians returned to Achilles and, in addition, they rode the cavalry, which Alexander brought from Thessaly, around his tomb and fell upon one another as though they were fighting on horseback. And after praying and sacrificing they departed; they invoked Achilles against Darius, and along with him Balios and Xanthos, as they shouted these prayers from their horses. But after Darius was captured and Alexander was in India, the Thessalians reduced the sacrifices and sent black lambs. Because the sacrifices did not even reach Troy, and if each arrived in broad daylight, they were not done in proper order, Achilles became angry. And if I should relate how much harm he hurled upon Thessaly, the tale would be tedious. Protesilaos said that he had come from the Pontus about four years before meeting me here. When he had procured a ship, he sailed like a guest-friend to Achilles, and this he did often. When I said that he was devoted and gracious in his friendship for Achilles, he said,

§ 744 "But now, because I have quarreled with him, I have come here. When I perceived that he was angry with the Thessalians over the offerings to the dead, I said, 'For my sake, Achilles, disregard this.' But he was not persuaded and said that he would give them some misfortune from the sea. I certainly feared that this dread and cruel hero would find something from Thetis to use against them." As for me, my guest, after I heard these things from Protesilaos, I believed that red blights and fogs had been hurled by Achilles upon the grainfields of Thessaly for destruction of their agricultural produce, since these misfortunes from the sea seemed somehow to settle upon their fruitful lands. I also thought that some of the cities in Thessaly would be flooded, in the way that Boura and Helike, as well as Atalante in Locris, had suffered; they say that the former two sank, and the latter one broke apart. Other actions seemed good instead to Achilles and Thetis, by whom the Thessalians were destroyed. Because the prices for the shellfish from which people skillfully extract the purple dye were quite great, the Thessalians were somewhat guilty of transgressing the law in order to obtain this dye. § 745 If these things are true, I do not know. Stones then hung over them, because of which some people gave up their fields and others their homes. Some of their slaves ran away from them, others were sold. And the common folk did not even offer sacrifice to their ancestors, for they even sold the tombs. And so this we believe, my guest, was the evil that Achilles had threatened to give to the Thessalians from the sea. [54] PHOEN: You speak of an anger that is "ruinous" and implacable, vinedresser. But tell me what marvel Protesilaos knows about the island in the Pontus, since it was there, I suppose, that he was with Achilles. VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those

Philostratus, Heroica, 741-745. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

[...] Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] and the Tauri, who inhabit the lofty Track of Achilles, both narrow and long, as far as the mouth of the lake itself. [...]

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 30. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

“Deep within the chasm”: In Scythia, there is a beach extending to a length of 500 stadia, which is called Achilles' racecourse because Achilles alone ran there and crossed it. It has been common for a long time. "Deep" will be called "deserted racecourse" of the "bridegroom", or of Achilles in that place, which he crossed running. "Deserted" is said because he ran in vain. The Achilles' racecourse was named for such a reason: When Iphigenia was about to be sacrificed in Aulis to Artemis, Artemis snatched her away and sent her to Scythia. Then Achilles fell in love with her and pursued her to a certain place. And from there it was called Achilles' racecourse.

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 192. [12th century AD]

[9] Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name17 and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart. [11] [...] Why, in comparison with the entire Iliad and Odyssey are not these verses noble to those who pay heed as they listen? Or was it more to your advantage to hear of the impetuous leaping and charging of Achilles, and about his voice, how by his shouts alone he routed the Trojans?24 Are those things more useful for you to learn by heart than what you just have heard, that a small city on a rugged headland is better and more fortunate, if orderly, than a great city in a smooth and level plain, that is to say, if that city is conducted in disorderly and lawless fashion by men of folly?' And Callistratus, receiving my remarks with no great pleasure, replied, "My friend, we admire and respect you greatly; for otherwise no man in Borysthenes would have tolerated your saying such things of Homer and Achilles. For Achilles is our god, as you observe, and Homer ranks almost next to the gods in honour." [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9 and 11. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Achilles, thou who dost command O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land.

Alcaeus, fragment. Translation by Walter Petersen. [6th century BC]

#Achilles #Thetis #birdie.txt #birdiethings

5 notes · View notes