#Birdiethings

[babyrdie]

Could you share that text about Patroclus? You said it was not a very interesting topic but I'm still interested in Patroclus posting!!

How Patroclus looked?

Okay, but I warned you it was a lot of text for a random and not very relevant topic. This post is me trying to get an idea of ​​how the ancients imagined Patroclus in terms of physical appearance. Note that this post:

It isn’t written with the intention of indicating to people how they should imagine Patroclus. As is notable in the sources here, not even the authors agree with each other and Patroclus' appearance seems to have been much more uncertain compared to characters like Odysseus and Achilles, whose iconography is generally quite recognizable.

It's not educational. This is more of me sharing how I'm so obsessed with Patroclus that I desperately need more content to the point that I'm here using my time to do something so... specific. As someone who doesn't know Greek and isn't an expert on Greek culture, I'm not posting this with the intention of providing educational information. You know when someone posts about an obscure official art of a character from a game? Well, it's more like that. Don't take me too seriously. This post being just a random moment also explains why I'm not even giving information about the sources listed, as I usually do.

It’s written by someone who knows neither Greek nor Latin. As will become quite obvious, I just obsessively compare online dictionaries, different translations and read articles explaining possible meanings of a word/phase. In turn, note that, as the intention is to get an idea of ​​how the ancients saw the character, I’m focusing on more literal translations. It doesn't mean that because one translator here sounds less literal than the other that his translation is bad, they’re just different ways of translating. 

It doesn’t include all existing representations of Patroclus. For example, I’m not considering things like medieval Italian, French, etc texts. I’m considering ancient Greek and Roman texts + Byzantine texts. For visual representations, I’m considering Etruscan ones as well. And even then, I’m obviously not going to collect them all by myself.

Since I didn't intend to post this, I just made a brief edit to make the text more "readable". However, it's still a pretty dubious edit, so I'm going to disable reblogging to prevent a post with a glaring error from being immortalized in a reblog. If you want to talk about it, comment, ask, send a DM, whatever. But unfortunately, no reblog tags.

The Iliad, Homer

In Book 16, Patroclus arms himself with Achilles' armor to go to war since Achilles still refuses to fight. He takes everything except the spear, as it is said that no one but Achilles can lift it. But while Patroclus has difficulty with the spear, he has no difficulty with the armor. There is no mention of it being too loose or too tight, which could be interpreted as Achilles and Patroclus being similar in size:

So he spoke, and Patroclus began to arm himself with gleaming bronze.  First he strapped the splendid greaves around his shins, fitted with silver bindings around his ankles; next he girt about his chest the breastplate— elaborate, star-strewn—of swift-footed Aeacides; across his shoulders he slung his bronze sword studded with silver; and then the great strong shield; over his powerful head he placed the well-forged helmet with its flowing horsehair; and terribly the crest nodded on it. He took strong spears, fitted to his hand. Only the spear of blameless Aeacides he did not take up, heavy, massive, powerful; this no other of the Achaeans could wield, but only Achilles knew how to wield it, the spear of Pelian ash, which Chiron gave to his beloved father from the heights of Mount Pelion to be death to warriors.

16.130-144. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In comparison, when Hector wears armor in Book 17 (he got it from Patroclus, now dead), Zeus makes the armor grow to fit Hector, possibly indicating that Hector is larger than both Patroclus and Achilles:

[...] and the son of Cronus nodded with his blue-black brows; he fitted the armor upon Hector’s body, and the terrible battle spirit  of Ares entered him, and Hector’s limbs were filled inside with strength and courage. And he went toward his illustrious allies crying aloud, and appeared to them all made bright by the armor of the great-hearted son of Peleus [...]

17.208-214 . Translation by Caroline Alexander.

But there is a problem here. It’s possible, of course, to interpret that Achilles and Patroclus are similar in size, but Hector is larger than both. This wouldn’t be impossible if we try to rationalize it with ideas like “well, Achilles is a runner, he must have a slender build” and “Hector is older and has a similar fighting style to Big Ajax, it’s normal for him to be more robust” and “Patroclus is supposed to be complementary to Achilles, perhaps that includes appearance” and, consequently, Patroclus wouldn’t be physically very robust because Achilles isn’t. But there is a catch! It has also been suggested that this scene has nothing to do with literal body dimensions. Instead, it’s referring to the roles of each character, something much more metaphorical!

In the metaphorical interpretation, the armor is a metaphor for the narrative role that Achilles plays as the greater warrior. By assuming the armor, Patroclus assumes the narrative role of Achilles, even receiving the same epithets and assuming a personality similar to his during his aristeia (moment when a character shows himself to be aristos, that is, better). He, however, cannot truly take over Achilles' position in its entirety while he is absent, and that is why he dies. This was already premeditated when, when putting on his companion's armor, Patroclus was unable to carry the spear given to Achilles by Peleus, who had received it from Chiron, because it was so heavy that only Achilles was able to lift it. It was also made evident by the apostrophes employed in Patroclus in Book 16 (those moments when the poet spoke directly to the Patroclus whenever he got closer and closer to death). But, as the description of the spear itself indicates, not only is Patroclus not able to assume Achilles' narrative role (he is unable to lift the spear) but no one else is able to do so (only Achilles is able to lift the spear). Hector, by taking Achilles' armor from Patroclus and putting it on, also indirectly becomes a parallel to Achilles with regard to his role on the battlefield. But Zeus having to force the armor to fit Hector was already an indication that he couldn’t be Achilles either, just as him only being able to defeat the “fake Achilles” (Patroclus) with the help of two gods (Zeus, Apollo) and a human (Euphorbus) also predicts this — he didn’t single-handedly overcome the false Achilles who, as Apollo himself made clear when he spoke to Patroclus before pushing him off the wall, wasn’t as good as the real one in terms of power, so how could he overcome the real one? Achilles gets a new armor, picks up his spear that only he lifts, returns to the field and kills Hector, definitively reclaiming his narrative position as the greatest warrior. And, in this scenario, Patroclus fitting into Achilles’ armor and Hector not fitting wouldn’t concern literal body dimensions, but would only indicate that Patroclus, as Achilles's complement (reinforced by the mixed ashes), was more intimate with this narrative role than Hector, who had to be forced into it by Zeus. And ironically, Zeus is the one who allows Patroclus' moment of glory and then indirectly kills him and is the one who makes Hector part of the plan to kill Patroclus (also being the one who makes him fit on the armor), but is the one who premeditates that Hector will have to die for killing Patroclus. Being the one represented in The Iliad with the scales and with the function of respecting Fate, Zeus is the mediator of this exchange of narrative roles symbolized by the armor.

So I suppose it's up to the reader which interpretation they like best. Is it literal? That is, Patroclus and Achilles are similar in size, but Hector is taller than them? Is it symbolic? That is, the armor merely symbolizes Achilles' narrative role? Or both?

Also in Book 16 we have “[...] Μενοιτιάδεω Πατροκλῆος λάσιον κῆρ” (16.554). The first two terms are relatively identifiable even for those who don't know Greek just by the context, in this case it's just Menotiades (son of Menoetius) and the name Patroclus. As for the other two, “λάσιον” can be “hair, rough, shaggy, bushy, overgrown” and “κῆρ” is “heart”. Some translations end up opting for something that, in English, the equivalent would be “hairy chest” (I don’t know if there is an English translation that uses this type of choice, I’m thinking of a non-English translations when I say “hairy chest”. I've seen this most often in Latin languages), which would perhaps invoke in the reader the idea that Patroclus has a hairy chest. Although I have seen this choice in other editions, I’ll only use Frederico Lourenço as an example. Well, this idea would also apply to Achilles and Hephaestus because they’re given the same descriptive (“peito hirsuto”, meaning “hairy chest”). Pilemenes receives a similar description, but with a more literal translation that would be something like “hairy heart” (“coração hirsuto”). Although Frederico Lourenço used something like “hairy chest”, he doesn’t seem to have had literal intentions with this choice of translation since with Pilemenes he opted for “hairy heart” and, as we know, this isn’t exactly a very literal image. I got the impression that he wanted to convey something emotional, which, checking known English translations, seems to have been the understanding of other translators as well — for example, Fagles opted for “savage spirit” and Alexander opted for “rugged-hearted.”

Regarding this Homeric formula:

And whereas λάσιος normally means ‘hairy, densely grown’, the Homeric formula λάσιον κῆρ can be understood as denoting a clever mind. Nussbaum (1976: 69) already drew attention to the following verses: δαυλοὶ γὰρ πραπίδων δάσκιοί τε τείνουσιν πόροι (…) A. Supp. 93–94 For dense and heavily shadowed the ways of his mind stretch out

Remaining Issues Concerning *r̥ by Lucien Van Beek, pg 382.

Sciarraba also says: “Anche il nesso λάσιον κῆρ (Il. XVI, 554 ed Od. II, 851, lett. “cuore, petto villoso”) designa metaforicamente il cuore vigoroso, coraggioso” (Uso e accezione degli psiconimi nella poesia elegiaca latina di età augustea: fra tradizione e innovazione, pg 37, note 183). That is, this structure aims to designate someone vigorous, courageous in a metaphorical way. Note that the Italian “petto” means “chest”, similar with the Portuguese “peito”.

Conclusion: it’s a metaphorical description. Not only does the term “κῆρ“ refer more to “heart” than to “chest”, but the intention is to accentuate a personality trait and not a physical characteristic of the character. Thus, The Iliad didn’t simply find it relevant to comment that the characters’ chests are hairy, but rather found it relevant to emphasize their prowess of mind and spirit. Thus, it isn’t an indication of Patroclus’ appearance.

In Book 23, the ghost of Patroclus appears to Achilles with the intention of asking Achilles to give him funeral honors, since his ghost is trapped outside Hades because his body remains unburied. He also takes the opportunity to ask for something more specific: that, when Achilles dies, his ashes be mixed with Achilles'. The ghost, however, disappears when Achilles tries to embrace him. At this moment, Patroclus is described like this:

And when sleep took hold of him, melting the cares of his heart, sweet, enveloping sleep—for his shining limbs were exhausted from hounding Hector to windswept Ilion— there came to him the shade of poor Patroclus, like to him in every way, his great stature, his fine eyes, his voice, even the clothes such as his body wore. And this stood above Achilles’ head and spoke a word to him: [...]

23.62-68. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

I looked for a Greek version and apparently the part “like to him in every way, his great stature, his fine eyes/his voice, even the clothes such as his body wore“ in Greek would be “πάντ' αὐτῷ μέγεθός τε καὶ ὄμματα κάλ' ἐϊκυῖα/καὶ φωνήν, καὶ τοῖα περὶ χροὶ̈ εἵματα ἕστο” (66-67).

According to the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, “μέγεθος” can translate to things like “size”, “magnitude”, “tallness”, “stature”, “build” “height” and other similar things when it comes to body dimensions. The dictionary uses Homer as an example in meaning 3, which is:

3 bodily size (esp. in terms of height); stature, build, tallness (of persons, deities, animals, mythol. beings) Hom. Hes. Tyrt. A. Hdt. Pl.

So it seems that Patroclus's physique had some notable enough dimension that this is something that is used to indicate how similar his shade is to his real self. From what I understand, it seems to refer more specifically to height in this particular context, which would imply that Patroclus is ´possibly tall. But of course, other possible meanings allude not necessarily to height, but to size (i.e. robustness). If you consider the way in which it is reinforced that Patroclus's shade is very similar to his living self, it’s safe to assume that his physical measurements are also the same and therefore this isn’t a glorified afterlife vision, but a faithfully sized image of Patroclus while alive, and that this could be a Homeric nod to the way heroic cult images were seen. That is, the evocation of a hero in cult would show him as he was in life:

[...] In Homer they are all apparently life-size. When the psychē of Patroclus appears to Achilles, “in every way, in stature and his beautiful eyes and in voice he is like himself, πάντʼ αὐτῷ μέγεθός τε καὶ ὄμματα κάλʼ ἐϊκυῖα / καὶ φωνήν (Iliad 23.66-7; 102). Like an eidōlon in Homeric usage, a cult hero occupies an interstitial space. From the vantage point of the living, both can move between realms, and importantly, retain agency in both worlds. [...]

Invoking Achilles: Black-figure Iconography and Hero Cult by Stan Burgess.

The part that describes Patroclus’ eyes is “ὄμματα κάλʼ”. The Cambridge Greek Lexicon informs me that “ὄμματα” can actually be translated as “eye” or even as “look”, but unfortunately I haven’t found an English dictionary that tells me about “κάλ” specifically. However, I have seen that Deyvis Deniz Machin translated it as “hermoso” into Spanish in a magazine and that a thesis by Gaia Di Giacomo translated it as “belle” into Italian. So I’m going to assume that it is indeed being said that Patroclus has beautiful eyes.

His voice and clothes are also mentioned. The clothes aren’t relevant now, but the voice would be interesting. However, there are no details about it, the only thing we know is that it is the same voice as when he was alive. He could have a squeaky voice and I wouldn't know!

There is also a detail in this scene, however:

TEXTO ORIGINAL 

[...] Ahora bien, lo que me gustaría resaltar acá no es tanto el hecho de que la psychế de Patroclo venga descrita como εἴδωλον, esto es, sombra, espectro, imagen u holograma, tampoco el hecho de que ésta venga a confirmar que, en  tanto individuo, Patroclo ha abandonado definitivamente la vida, ni siquiera que, en tanto sombra o espectro, a lo sumo él sea una experiencia de vida exclusivamente subjetiva venida en sueños a Aquiles, es decir, el sueño de Aquiles es lo que otorgaría realidad, para no decir existencia, a Patroclo. Indiscutiblemente, todas estas conexiones son muy relevantes; no obstante, deseo llamar la atención sobre otro elemento que, aunque conexo con éstos, es aún más sutil y complejo al tiempo que enriquecedor para poder comprender la relación entre corporeidad, facultades e identidad personal; dicho en términos muchos más generales, entre anatomía y psicología o, dicho algo más prosaicamente, entre carne, cuerpo e identidad, puesto que ello fue constituyendo no sólo el punto de partida, sino al mismo tiempo la piedra de toque de cualquier tentativa de abordaje en torno al alma. La respuesta de Aquiles a su compañero adquiere en este sentido especial significación, toda vez que recalca que en el reino de Hades el alma desencarnada no goza de vitalidad ni facultades.

Congresso Internacional de Filosofia Grega:  El Alma o de la Posibilidad de Palpar-se con el Mundo, by Deyvis Deniz Machín, pg 260. 

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

[...] Now, what I would like to emphasize here isn’t so much the fact that Patroclus’ psychế is described as εἴδωλον, that is, shade, spectre, image or hologram, nor the fact that this confirms that, as an individual, Patroclus has definitively abandoned life, nor even that, as a shade or spectre, he is at most an exclusively subjective life experience that comes to Achilles in a dream, that is, Achilles’ dream is what would grant reality, if not existence, to Patroclus. Undoubtedly, all these connections are very relevant; nevertheless, I wish to draw attention to another element that, although connected to these, is even more subtle and complex while enriching to understand the relationship between corporeality, faculties and personal identity: In much more general terms, between anatomy and psychology or, more prosaically, between flesh, body and identity, since this was not only the starting point, but also the touchstone of any attempt to approach the soul. Achilles' response to his companion takes on special significance in this sense, since it emphasizes that in the realm of Hades the disembodied soul has neither vitality nor faculties.

Congresso Internacional de Filosofia Grega:  El Alma o de la Posibilidad de Palpar-se con el Mundo, by Deyvis Deniz Machín, pg 260. 

As noted, there is a subjective aspect to this scene to some extent. If you prefer to give more consideration to the interpretation that Patroclus is a subjective view of Achilles rather than the interpretation that Patroclus is a nod to hero worship, then you might consider that he may not be being described objectively. That is, perhaps he is of remarkable stature and has beautiful eyes because that is the image Achilles has of him in the dream. Achilles, who has been mourning him for days, would see any opportunity to have Patroclus back alive as something idealized. And it would be for this reason, and not because it’s a nod to perceptions of hero worship, that the narrative emphasizes that he looks as he did when he was alive: because Achilles, in his mind, wishes to have him alive. In fact, Patroclus looks so alive that Achilles even tries to embrace him, seeming to forget that he is dead and only remembering when, when he tries, Patroclus's form fades away.

So again, it's up to the reader's interpretation, I guess. Is the image really 100% faithful to Patroclus or is it altered by Achilles' subjectivity?

In this dialogue (Book 23, I mean), Patroclus also says that he and Achilles grew up together. The idea of ​​"growing up together" would be quite meaningless if we were talking about, for example, characters with many years of age difference because at that point one of them would already be grown up. Therefore, I believe this implies that, although Patroclus is older (something explicitly stated in Book 11), the difference isn’t that significant. Achilles doesn’t appear to be the youngest (for example, Antilochus appears to be younger), but he is one of the younger men in the army. Patroclus being only slightly older could put him either in the younger age range or in a more typical age range (not too old, not too young to be on a military campaign).

Myrmidons, Aeschylus

Aeschylus wrote a lost trilogy focused on Achilles, with the first play apparently dealing with the mourning of the dead Patroclus. It's called Myrmidons, and among the fragments we have this:

No reverence hadst thou for the unsullied holiness of thy limbs, oh thou most ungrateful for my many kisses!

Aeschylus, frag 64. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

And the Greek text:

σέβας δέ μηρῶν ἀγνόν ουκ ἐπηδέσω, ὢ δυσχάριστε τῷν πυκνῶν φιλημάτων μηρῶν τε τῶν σῶν εὐσέβησ᾽ ὁμιλίαν κλαίων

From what I understand, the term that describes the part of Patroclus' body that Achilles is referring to is "μηρῶν", which, from what I've seen, refers to the thighs. So, Achilles is basically talking about kissing and Patroclus' thighs. I've seen people take this as a sign that Patroclus has killer thighs, and I'm honestly not going to deny the possibility of this headcanon. But personally, I think Achilles is saying this to emphasize the aspect of their relationship and not Patroclus' appearance. And considering how other authors have used this line as a sign of how Aeschylus viewed their relationship, it seems that this was the meaning:

Plato's well-known excerpt about the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles is a kind of response to Aeschylus' interpretation, as Plato disagreed on who was "eromenos" and who was "erates" (Symposium, 179-180). Plutarch also mentions this Aeschylus' fragment in Amatorius in a non-platonic context:

Add to this of Solon that other of Aeschylus: "Ungrateful, for the kisses of my lips, Not to revere the glory of my lips."

Amatorius, 5. Translation by "several hands". See in Greek here.

Athenaeus of Naucratis also appears to reference this play by Aeschylus in a romantic sense.

And, in fact, there was such emulation about composing poems of this sort, and so far was any one from thinking lightly of the amatory poets, that Aeschylus, who was a very great poet, and Sophocles, too, introduced the subject of the loves of men on the stage in their tragedies: the one describing the love of Achilles for Patroclus [...]

The Deipnosophists, 13.75. Translation by Henry G. Bohn.

This excerpt from Aeschylus being interpreted as sexual and/or romantic also seems to have remained in the Roman Greece, since the text "Amores", attributed to Lucian of Samosata, refers the Aeschylus excerpt in a sexual context in 54.

[...] Do not be surprised: Patroclus in fact, was not loved by Achilles just because he was seated before him, waiting for Achilles to finish his song…but it was lust that mediated their friendship. For Achilles, moaning upon the death of Patroklos, allows his unrestrained passion to burst out with the power of truth when he says: "The holy commerce of your thighs my tears do mourn". I also believe that those whom the Greeks call ‘comastes' are none other than professional lovers. Some might call this a shameful thing to say, but at least it is the truth, by the Aphrodite of Cnidus!

Amores, 54. Translation by Andrew Kallimachos. In Greek here. Note: This excerpt was used only to show the use of Aeschylus. The context of the text as a whole is best seen by reading.

That is, I do not consider this to be a physical-focused portrait of Patroclus, but an emotional portrait-focused of Patroclus and Achilles.

Fabulae, Hyginus or Pseudo-Hyginus

Fabulae is a Latin collection of myths, apparently using a lot of Greek authors as references given the number of times it references them (Euripides, Aeschylus, Apollonius, etc). The authorship is a matter of debate, with the Roman Hyginus generally being the most suggested name. However, as there are arguments that it doesn't make sense to be him for X reasons, Pseudo-Hyginus is also a nomenclature used to indicate that it isn’t really Hyginus as previously thought. There is no shockingly detailed description here, you just need to know that the author of this mythographic collection thought it would be relevant to make a list of the most beautiful ones. And guess who is on it?

THOSE WHO WERE MOST HANDSOME: Iasion, son of Ilithius, whom Ceres is said to have loved [credible, since vouched for by old histories]. Cinyras, son of Paphos, king of the Assyrians. Anchises, son of Assaracus, whom Venus loved. Alexander Paris, son of Priam and Hecuba, whom Helen followed. Nireus, son of Charops. Cephalus, son of Pandion, whom Aurora loved. Tithonus, husband of Aurora. Parthenopaeus, son of Meleager and Atalanta. Achilles, son of Peleus and Thetis. Patroclus, son of Menoetius. Idomeneus, who loved Helen. Theseus, son of Aegeus and Aethra, whom Ariadne loved.

Translation by Mary Grant.

Anyway, the only information that Fabulae gives us about Patroclus’ physical appearance is that he was hot enough to be on the “hottest” list. And here we have the issue of possible reader interpretations. “Handsome”, “pretty” and “beautiful” in English often evoke different beauties in the reader and only when you type these terms into Google do you realize this because the resulting images are different. In particular, “handsome” is in the common imagination associated with a more masculine and sober beauty. For example, this is how Dictionary Colins describes “handsome”:

1. adjectivo B1 A handsome man has an attractive face with regular features. ...a tall, dark, handsome sheep farmer.  pretty Synonims good-looking, attractive, gorgeous [informal], fine   Mais sinônimos de handsome 2. adjectivo B2 A handsome woman has an attractive appearance with features that are large and regular rather than small and delicate. ...an extremely handsome woman with a beautiful voice.

So perhaps a reader of Mary Grant (the translator) might think that here Fabulae is necessarily indicating that Patroclus is handsome in the sense of a guy with a defined jaw, sharp eyes, tall, etc, but not necessarily. Note, for example, that Paris is one of the men listed and he was definitely not an example of traditional masculinity. Was good-looking? Yes, he was, that is a constant characteristic of him. But he wasn’t considered masculine by the other characters, nor by the authors of the time. The Latin text I found online indicates that the part “those who were most handsome” in Latin is “qui formosissimi fuerunt”, and an online Latin Lexicon I found says:

fōrmōsus (fōrmōnsus) adj. with comp. and sup. forma, finely formed, beautiful, handsome: pyramidis (forma) videtur esse formosior: virgines formosissimae: Vis formosa videri, H.: Formosi pecoris custos formosior ipse, V.: omnium aetatis suae formosissimus, N.: tempus (i. e. ver), O.: oculis, O.: nihil{*}est virtute formosius.

And according to Wiktionary, “formosissimi” is actually masculine, but there are feminine versions of this term, whose meaning is apparently the same and the change is only for grammatical reasons. So I imagine that Fabulae was referring to a broader type of beauty, not necessarily indicating in what way these characters were beautiful.

Heroica, Philostrathus

Heroica, or On Heroes, is a text by Philostratus. There was more than one Philostratus and the authorship of Heroica is debated, the identification being somewhat complicated because the two Philostratus lived in similar times and in fact apparently belonged to the same family and had styles similar enough to be inspired by each other. For the sake of differentiation, one is known as the Elder (or the Athenian) and the other is known as the Younger. Authorial issues aside, Heroica has a very specific context. It was written during the Second Sophistic, a period in which authors often promoted true versions of the mythological account of the Trojan War, especially in opposition to the “Homeric canon” so to speak. Heroica does the same, including often comparing its own account with that given by Homer, thus making clear the intention of “revising” the facts. In the case of Philostrathus, he especially seemed focused on the idea of ​​heroic worship, that is, cults offered in honor of mortals who achieved some notable glory. It’s different from the cult of a deity, to be clear. Heroic cults were mainly regional, which resulted in different perceptions of those characters. In some cases, it was possible for a hero to have a cult that was especially predominant in an area, as is the case with the especially strong and documented cult of Achilles in the Euxines Pontus/Black Sea, although this specific cult has generated much debate as to whether it was truly a heroic cult (as, for example, happens in the cult of Achilles at the site identified as his tomb) or whether it was a divine cult (as there have been archaeological finds that seem to imply the view of Achilles as a deified hero). Indeed, The Iliad has been interpreted by academics as being a pan-Hellenic work that used several regional heroes in a single and big narrative, and there has been much debate about possible hints of hero worship practice within the lines of The Iliad (one example used for this was the funeral of Patroclus, for example, which contained elements that academics have identified as resembling cult practices and, therefore, being a possible indication that Homer was actually using cult heroes before him in a unified pan-Hellenic, narrative). Here, Philostratus seems to have the intention of rescuing cult heroes that were “appropriated” in the Homeric narrative (his opinion, in this case), and one way he uses to do this is to try to invoke credibility through the character Protesilaus by claiming that the information brought in the Heroica was given by Protesilaus, also a cult hero of the Trojan War. [Note: This explanation was HEAVILY based on Gregory Nagy's introduction to the Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken translation, as well as several other texts I researched months ago when I was trying to learn about Achilles Pontarches. There is a post about Achilles Pontarches, so anyone who is curious can check out the texts used there].

In Heroica, the description of Patroclus, based on the supposed words of Protesilaus, is as follows:

My guest, Protesilaos says that Patroklos, although he was not much older than Achilles, was a divine and sensible man, the most suitable companion for Achilles. He said that Patroklos rejoiced whenever Achilles also rejoiced, was distressed in the same manner, was always giving some advice when he sang. Protesilaos says that even his horses carried Patroklos safe and sound, just as they did Achilles. In size and bravery he was between the two Ajaxes. He fell short of the son of Telamon in all things, but he surpassed both the size and bravery of the son of Locris. Patroklos had an olive complexion, black eyes, and sufficiently fine eyebrows, and he commended moderately long hair. His head stood upon his neck as the wrestling schools cultivate. His nose was straight, and he flared his nostrils as eager horses do (translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken)

In Greek, the text is as follows:

τὸν δὲ Πάτροκλον ὁ Πρωτεσίλεως, ὦ ξένε, πρεσβύτερον μὲν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως οὐ πολὺ γενέσθαι φησί, θεῖον δὲ ἄνδρα καὶ σώφρονα τῷ τε Ἀχιλλεῖ ἐπιτηδειότατον τῶν ἑταίρων, χαίρειν τε γάρ, ὁπότε καὶ ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἔχαιρε, λυπεῖσθαί τε τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ξυμβουλεύειν ἀεί τι καὶ ἀκούειν ᾄδοντος, καὶ οἱ ἵπποι δὲ αὐτὸν ἔφερον χαίροντες, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα. ἦν δὲ καὶ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν μεταξὺ τοῖν Αἰάντοιν, τοῦ μὲν γὰρ Τελαμωνίου πάντα ἐλείπετο, ἐκράτει δὲ ἄμφω τοῦ Λοκροῦ, καὶ μελίχλωρος ἦν ὁ Πάτροκλος καὶ τὼ ὀφθαλμὼ μέλας καὶ ἱκανῶς εὔοφρυς καὶ μέτρα ἐπαινῶν κόμης, ἡ κεφαλὴ δὲ ἐβεβήκει ἐπ᾽ αὐχένος, οἵου αἱ παλαῖστραι ἀσκοῦσιν, ἡ δὲ ῥὶς ὀρθή τε ἦν καὶ τοὺς μυκτῆρας ἀνευρύνετο, καθάπερ οἱ πρόθυμοι τῶν ἵππων.

I've made it quite clear that I don't know Greek, and so no, I'm not about to attempt a proper translation here. I'm just trying to identify specific words, and after what must have been endless online dictionary searches, I've come up with the following:

Apparently, “although he was not much older than Achilles”bin Greek is perhaps “πρεσβύτερον μὲν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως οὐ πολὺ γενέσθαι φησί”

Apparently, “In size and bravery he was between the two Ajaxes. He fell short of the son of Telamon in all things, but he surpassed both the size and bravery of the son of Locris” in Greek is perhaps “ἦν δὲ καὶ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν μεταξὺ τοῖν Αἰάντοιν, τοῦ μὲν γὰρ Τελαμωνίου πάντα ἐλείπετο, ἐκράτει δὲ ἄμφω τοῦ Λοκροῦ”

Apparently, “Patroklos had an olive complexion” in Greek is perhaps “μελίχλωρος ἦν ὁ Πάτροκλος”.

Apparently, “black eyes” in Greek perhaps come from this part: “καὶ τὼ ὀφθαλμὼ μέλας”

Apparently, “sufficiently fine eyebrows” in Greek perhaps come from this part: “καὶ ἱκανῶς εὔοφρυς”

Apparently, “he commended moderately long hair” in Greek perhaps come from this part: “καὶ μέτρα ἐπαινῶν κόμης”

Apparently, “His head stood upon his neck as the wrestling schools cultivate” in Greek perhaps come from this part: “ἡ κεφαλὴ δὲ ἐβεβήκει ἐπ᾽αὐχένος, οἵου αἱ παλαῖστραι ἀσκοῦσιν”

Apparently, “His nose was straight, and he flared his nostrils as eager horses do” in Greek is perhap “ἡ δὲ ῥὶς ὀρθή τε ἦν καὶ τοὺς μυκτῆρας ἀνευρύνετο, καθάπερ οἱ πρόθυμοι τῶν ἵππων”.

And honestly, the translation in this edition seems quite faithful! I've seen people complain about how the descriptions in this translation supposedly seem strange, but I got the impression that the translators were just trying to maintain the vibe and rhythm of the original.

First, let's look at age. Where texts usually don't mention age for Patroclus or just let us know that he is older, Philostrathus makes it clear that Patroclus isn’t much older (in Greek “πρεσ” is “older” while “οὐ πολὺ” can be translated as “not much”). So, for example, 10 years of difference would be a disposable idea in Heroica. Considering that Achilles is young (something Heroica also highlights with “Achilles was a young man and Ajax a grown man”), the idea of ​​Patroclus being only slightly older also implies that he is young.

Another characteristic we have is Patroclus' height, although it isn’t an exact description. We know it’s about size that is being referred to because the word translated as "size" is probably “μέγεθος” in the Greek text, and according to the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, the possible meanings for this are: greatness, magnitude, size, height, stature. He is said to be shorter than Ajax Telamonian, but taller than Ajax Locrian. And honestly, that doesn't tell me much. He could be shorter than Ajax Telamonian and be tall, average or short, since this Ajax is very tall. And he could be taller than Ajax Locrian and not necessarily be tall. Anyway, height is inconclusive.

Although “sufficiently fine eyebrows” may seem like a strange description to some people, in Greek we have that in a rather crude and literal translation:

καὶ ἱκανῶς εὔοφρυς [and][sufficient][fine eyebrows]

According to Liddell, ἱκανῶς when describing things (in this case, eyebrows) means “sufficient, adequate.” When referring to size, it can mean “large enough.” According to LSJ, “εὔοφρυς eúophrys” (being ophrys eyebrow) is literally something like “with fine eyebrows.” So even though describing someone as having “fine enough eyebrows” doesn’t seem like a very common compliment, the translators were really just trying to preserve the original sense. This word also appears in the Greek Anthology in a text by Rufinus, a Greek poet from Roman Greece:

αὕτη πρόσθεν ἔην ἐρατόχροος, εἰαρόμασθος, εὔσφυρος, εὐμήκης, εὔοφρυς, εὐπλόκαμος: ἠλλάχθη δὲ χρόνῳ καὶ γήραϊ καὶ πολιαῖσι, καὶ νῦν τῶν προτέρων οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ οὐδὲν ἔχει, ἀλλοτρίας δὲ τρίχας, καὶ ῥυσῶδες τὸ πρόσωπον, οἷον γηράσας οὐδὲ πίθηκος ἔχει.

Greek Anthology, 5.76. 

The translation in the book by Marguerite Johnson and Terry Ryan says:

Once upon a time her appearance aroused desire: breasts springing with  youth,  strong and healthy, tall, with fine eyebrows, hair like a goddess. The passage of time and old age and grey hair have brought change,  and now she is not even a shadow of what she once was, but decks herself in wigs and her face is rutted with wrinkles,  and her features are like those of an aged ape. 

Sexuality in Greek and Roman Society and Literature, pg 172.

One interesting thing I discovered is that the Byzantine chronicler Constantine Manasses described Helen, the most beautiful of women, also with “εὔοφρυς”. I discovered this randomly because, while searching for the word, one of the results was the Gutenberg Project. I didn’t read the whole text because I honestly only clicked on it for that purpose, but one part says:

Even Constantinus Manasses sought to adorn his bald chronicle with a picture of Helen. I must thank him for the attempt, for I really should not know where else to turn for so striking an example of the folly of venturing on what Homer’s wisdom forbore to undertake. When I read in him:

ἦν ἡ γυνὴ περικαλλὴς, εὔοφρυς, εὐχρουστάτη, εὐπάρειος, εὐπρόσωπος, βοῶπις, χιονόχρους, ἑλικοβλέφαρος, ἁβρὰ, χαρίτων γέμον ἄλσος, λευκοβραχίων, τρυφερὰ, κάλλος ἄντικρυς ἔμπνουν, τὸ πρόσωπον κατάλευκον, ἡ παρειὰ ῥοδόχρους, τὸ πρόσωπον ἐπίχαρι, τὸ βλέφαρον ὡραῖον, κάλλος ἀνεπιτήδευτον, ἀβάπτιστον, αὐτόχρουν, ἔβαπτε τὴν λευκότητα ῥοδόχροια πυρσίνη, 128ὡς εἴ τις τὸν ἐλέφαντα βάψει λαμπρᾷ πορφύρᾳ. δειρὴ μακρά, κατάλευκος, ὅθεν ἐμυθουργήθη κυκνογενῆ τὴν εὔοπτον Ἑλένην χρηματίζειν

And a note translates: 

“She was a woman right beautiful, with fine eyebrows, of clearest complexion, beautiful cheeks; comely, with large, full eyes, with snow-white skin, quick-glancing, graceful; a grove filled with graces, fair-armed, voluptuous, breathing beauty undisguised. The complexion fair, the cheek rosy, the countenance pleasing, the eye blooming; a beauty unartificial, untinted, of its natural color, adding brightness to the brightest cherry, as if one should dye ivory with resplendent purple. Her neck long, of dazzling whiteness; whence she was called the swan-born, beautiful Helen.”

So, while I honestly don’t understand why this is a compliment, it’s at least intriguing that I have found this same compliment directed at women in contexts where this characteristic is meant to denote great beauty. In the case of Rufinus, he describes a woman who in her youth was immensely beautiful, but whose aging has made her unattractive (this second part has a jocular tone in the text). In the first part, where Rufinus lists the physical characteristics that made her so desirable when she was young, it says “fine eyebrows.” And, according to the book already cited (the one I got the translation from), this passage is specifically intended to describe a heitara. In ancient times, a heitara had to be not only pleasant and educated company, but also immensely beautiful. In the chronicle of Constantine Manasses, the word is present in the description of Helen, famously known as the most beautiful woman, and therefore the word is here to emphasize how beautiful she is. Finally, in a book of Greek folklore called, there is a story called “The Wicked Mother-in-Law”, said to have been know by M.E Legrand, and the protagonist Konstantine is described as having “braid-fine eyebrows” (Greek folk poetry, annotated translations from the whole cycle of Romaic folk-verse and folk-prose, pg 185). However, other than Google recommending this book to me when I searched for “fine eyebrows” in association with Greek texts, I know nothing more about this apparently folkloric story. I don’t even know if “braid-fine eyebrows” is intended to be “εὔοφρυς”. In any case, what I understand from this research is that Protesilaus thinks Patroclus is hot.

The same principle of “sufficient”, “moderate”, “enough” applies to the hair. In English it’s taken as “he commended moderately long hair” and in Greek:

καὶ μέτρα ἐπαινῶν κόμης [and][length][to praise/praising][hair of the head]

When put in this extremely literal and simplistic form, ἐπαινῶν seems kind of random, but considering how dictionaries comment on the association of this word with “what is praised, recommended, advised” (see here), I imagine that in a more fluid translation it would really be something like “hair of commendable length”, which the translators chose to indicate through “moderately”. After all, that moderate is associated with recommended/advised and, therefore, commendable makes sense. In Philostrathus' time, short male hair was already quite common, but, considering that here he is invoking Greek mythological heroes from earlier periods and whose popular images were particularly influenced by Homer (who describes them with long hair), I’m also not surprised by the idea of ​​Patroclus' hair length being something to be mentioned.

And here is the word that got me started all this research. Yes, it started because of a single word. Basically, I was reading Heroica and I noticed that eyes are often described as “dark” or “black”, which is also the case for Patroclus. I was curious to know how this could be done because the last time I tried to understand a character’s eyes in Heroica (it was Achilles’ eyes. In that case, I was asked and I tried to give some sort of answer) the research was intense because apparently things aren’t always simple. Well, for Patroclus the word was “μέλας” mélas (in case anyone finds “mélas” familiar, it’s because this word is in the etymology of melanin) and… well, apparently, it can actually be both “dark” and “black” (see here). There are, of course, symbolic and metaphorical contexts related to this color, but in this specific case it simply seems that Patroclus has dark eyes and that's it (for example, it has been used to designate water. Not because water is literally black, but because it’s dark). In Greece, as in most countries, dark eyes are more common, so Patrolcus having dark eyes isn’t surprising.

Patroclus is described as having an “olive” complexion, a characteristic that in Greek is indicated by the word “μελίχλωρος”. I found some texts about this. For example, Saito Yukiko says “There is the term of μελίχλωρος (‘yellow or pale as honey’) in ancient Greek, which can be found as a rather dark shade; Kober 1932, 67” (The Flowing Colour of Religious Μέλι and its Transformed Metaphorical Function in Homer, pg 18, note 23). So she seems to interpret that, although the literal meaning refers to yellow or honey, in terms of color it seems to indicate a relatively dark tone, which would indicate that Patroclus isn’t pale and also not literally yellow. It’s more of that brownish honey tone, you know?

Monica Durán Mañas argues that in Theocritus’ text, which also uses “μελίχλωρος” to describe skin, this indicates that the girl has “piel tostada,” that is, she is tanned. In the argument offered, the young girl, because she dedicated herself to the chores of the fields (Theocritus was a poet of pastoral poetry), was frequently exposed to the sun and, therefore, had tanned skin. Because of ancient beauty standards, this would normally be considered a negative characteristic in a woman, but Theocritus subverts this idea by apparently using this descriptive in a positive way (Las mujeres en los Idilios de Teócrito, pg 125-126). Thus, the term would indicate the tone that the skin acquires with tanning. And when we think of honey, it isn’t really a literal yellow, it has a brighter tone, between orange, yellow and brown. In this sense, the description of the girl's skin as similar to honey actually fits with the vision of a young woman who is tanned. Thus, Philostrathus could also be pointing out that Patroclus, probably because he is a warrior, is tanned.

Finally, there is this explanation:

Gow argues, in view of the way μβλίχλωρος is used elsewhere, that it may be a synonym for ώχρός, and that Theocritus is here not flattering the girl but describing her as opposite to what she was. Although she was dark, to her lover she seemed fair, as suited an attractive girl. He cites in support of μελχλωρος ("‘pale”) Plato and the fact that μελιχρούς (a synonym for μελίχλωρος) is the regular word for “fair-skinned” in Egyptian legal documents. But Gow also introduces evidence that μελίχλωρος meant “dark” to some writers. Meleager (A.P. 12.1 65ff) contrasts two boys as λευκανθής and μελίχροος; in the fourth line of the poem, they are λευκός and μελας, corresponding apparently to the two parts (μελας and αρωγός) of his name. Lucretius (4.1160), in speaking of men ascribing to women excellencies they do not possess, gives as the flattering equivalent of nigra, melichrus. It is possible, according to Gow, that for Theocritus, too, μελίχλωρος suggested “dark,” and he was using it as a synonym for αλίόκαυστος. Gow, then, leaves the question open. Professor L. Woodbury of the University of Toronto has pointed out to the author that the two extremes of pale and dark need not present a contradiction. From Plato we know that μελίχλωρος is not the lightest complexion (represented by λευκός). Presumably it lies somewhere between λευκός and μελας, and .as a medium shade was capable of being applied to either extreme. Theocritus used it hypocoristically for “sun-burned”; for him it was a complimentary expression, lightening the girl’s colouring somewhat. So, with the other passages, if we take μελίχλωρος as a medium complexion, it can be used as a hypocorism for someone who is either too pale or too dark. For these writers (with the possible exception of pseudo-Aristotle) μελίχλωρος was an attractive expression particularly suited to the complexion, whereas χλωρός alone indicated a sickly pallor (see p. 64 f.). Although for the early poets, μέλι χλωρόν ought to have meant “liquid honey,” no trace of this meaning remains in the adjective. Perhaps the fact which we remarked earlier, that μελί χλωρόν disappeared from poetic vocabulary explains why the transition to the adjective could be made with a loss of the original force. One would suppose that the epic tag applied mistakenly to the hue of honey led to the coining of μελίχλωρος.

Colour terms in Greek poetry by Eleanor Irwin, pg 58-60.

Irwin concluded that this description probably refers to something between light and dark, that is, to the intermediate tone. This could very well be a tan, as is the case with Durán, and it could very well refer to the hue of honey in a tone not literally yellow but rather darker, as Saito says. The description “olive” also fits. Patroclus being described in this way is relatively predictable because, as noted by the visual representations of Philostratus' time, the male ideal was a tanned skin, opposed to the aesthetic idealization of the pale woman.

Dares the Prygian

Dares the Prygian is a Latin text. Often compared to the Dictys Cretensis, it has resulted in debates in academic circles as to whether the work is Greek or Roman in origin. This is because both Dares the Prygian and Dictys Cretensis claim to be Latin translations of a Greek text. In one case, the translator is identified as Cornelius Nepos, and in the other case, the translator is identified as Lucius Septimus. The problem is that both texts purport to be a “true account of the Trojan War,” so claiming that the text is in Latin because it is a translation from Greek could very well be just a way of increasing credibility. After all, if this is the true account of the Trojan War, it probably had to have been written in Greek first. For a time, nothing was found about the supposed Greek original, leading both texts to be interpreted as part of the Latin literary tradition, without a Greek original. However, papyri have been discovered that contain fragments of a Greek text that match the Latin version of Dictys Cretensis. Not only that, but these papyri predate the publication of the Latin text. In other words, Dictys Cretensis did indeed have a Greek original. This makes the possibility that Dares the Prygian had a Greek original seem not so far-fetched, but apparently no credible evidence of this has yet been found. Therefore, while Dictys Cretensis is now considered to have been part of Greek literature and later entered Latin literature, Dares the Prygian is still primarily seen as Latin literature. [Note: text supported by explanations I have read from various theses, books and translations that discussed Dares].

Well, Dares is the narrator of the story, and so the descriptions of the characters are from his point of view. Regarding Patroclus, he says the following:

Patroclus was handsome and powerfully built. His yes were gray. He was modest, dependable, wise, a man richly endowed. (translation by R.M. Frazer)

In a Latin version, this is the description:

Patroclum pulchro corpore, oculis vividis et magnis, verecundum, rectum, prudentem, dapsilem.

Note: from “verecundum” onwards I’ll ignore it, as these are personality traits and not physical appearance aspects.

“Corpore” refers to the body, with “pulchro” being the word that characterizes it. According to A Latin Dictionary, pulchro can mean beautiful, beauteous, fair, handsome. In a literal interlinear translation of The Aeneid (Books I-VI) by Frederick Holland, I found the word “pulchro” as “fair” and the description “in pulchro corpore” as “in a handsome frame”. Virgil also wrote “virtus veniens gratior in pulchro corpore”, which Levi Hart and V.R. Osborn translate as “virtue coming more grateful in a beautiful body”. Another example of “pulchro” is seen in Latin literature with the use of “pulchro pectore” when referring to a beautiful chest (Virgil does this in The Aeneid, Avianus does this in Fables. Virgil describes a woman, Avianus describes a leopard). Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is that apparently the literal form of the literal is that Patroclus is described as having a "beautiful body", a rather simple description compared to "Patroclus was handsome and powerfully built". The handsome is clearly coming from "pulchro" and the context here is clearly Patroclus' "corpore" (Frazer doesn't have to literally state that he's describing the body for you to notice this. By saying "Patroclus was", it's already noticeable).

The part “oculis vividis et magnis” designates Patroclus’ eyes, as indicated by “oculis”. “Vivids” has the meaning of alive, animated, lively, vigorous, while “et” is “and” and “magnus” has the meaning of “great”, “big”, “large”. In general, magnus denotes great size, value or power. In other words, quite literally, Patroclus’ eyes are “vivid and large”. Since Frazer explicitly says that they’re grey, I tried to find out if “vivids” was somehow used poetically to refer to grey or something like that, but I found nothing. Considering that Frazer apparently left “magnus” out of the translation, it’s possible that “grey” itself was a free addition by him. After all, Frazer himself makes it clear at the beginning of the book that he intends to make a freer translation. It isn’t as if he hides this from the reader. He wanted to maintain the spirit and be faithful in the most relevant details (for example, the themes and narratives), but he tried to “restructure” the writing present in the original Latin because he considered it too simplistic:

Dictys’ Latin prose is simple and fairly good. Dares’, on the other hand, is very bad; it is, as Gilbert Highet says, “of extreme simplicity, verging on stupidity.” My English translations are simple, too, but not so simple, I hope, as to verge on stupidity. I have tried to translate accurately, but not word for word, or even sentence for sentence. Sentences in my translation do not always correspond exactly, in structure or extent, with those of the Latin text. Sometimes I have used a proper name instead of a pronoun, or even instead of an alternate proper name, such as “Neoptolemus” for “Pyrrhus.” Thus I have striven for clarity and readability as well as for accuracy. (pg 15)

BUT he also made it clear that he used Ferdinand Meister's 1873 Latin edition as a reference for his translation, so I figured it was probably Meister's idea and Frazer replicated it, either accidentally or because he thought it was a more interesting idea (since he was doing a more live translation anyway). Here's Meister's excerpt:

Patroclum pulchro corpore oculis caesiis viribus magnis verecudum certum prudentem depsilem.

Here, the part referring to eye color is “oculis caesiis”. Caesiis, according to A Latin Dictionary:

caesĭus , a, um, adj. cf. caeruleus, I.bluish gray; very rare, and only of the eyes, cat-eyed: virgo caesia, Ter Heaut. 5, 5, 18; v. Don. in h. l. and Gell. 2, 26, 19: “isto modo dicere licebit caesios oculos Minervae, caeruleos esse Neptuni,” Cic. N. D. 1, 30, 83 (cf. in Gr. γλαυκῶπις ᾿Αθήνη): caesia, Παλλάδιον, has she gray eyes? she is the impersonation of Pallas, * Lucr. 4, 1161: “caesius, Ter Hec. 3, 4, 26 (glaucis oculis, quasi felis oculos habens et glaucos, Don.): hunc, judices, dico, rubrum, brevem, incurvum, canum, subcrispum, caesium,” Auct. Her. 4, 49, 63: “leo,” Cat. 45, 7: “sub septentrionibus nutriuntur gentes immanibus corporibus oculis caesiis,” Vitr. 6, 1.—Sup. caesissimus, acc. to Varr. L. L. 8, § 76 Müll.—Comp. not in use.

Considering that one of the examples the dictionary uses is “oculis ceasiis,” it does indeed seem to be the same word. In this case, Frazer’s “gray” would come from the edition he is using as a basis, Meister. In other words, it wasn’t a more free choice on Frazer's part.

A more literal translation of the version I used at the beginning (Patroclum pulchro corpore, oculis vividis et magnis, verecundum, rectum, prudentem, dapsilem) would be:

Beautiful of body, with big bright eyes, modest, upright and generous (translation by Maud Mclerney) Patroclus was a handsome man with big, lively eyes. He was modest, respectable, wise, and generous (translation by Jonathan Cornil)

And perhaps there is the question of why the Latin texts shown here are different. Well, the thing is that in basically every book, article and website I read, it’s clearly stated that Dares has MANY manuscripts precisely because it was very popular in Medieval time. I have my serious doubts that all the manuscripts were identical, so it’s a possibility that the manuscripts used as the basis for these Latin versions shown here are different.

A detail that intrigued me is that Cornil also uses Meisen's version as a reference, including it in his text as the original Latin, and explains that he didn’t use the online version at Latin Library. And so I was intrigued by this too. Where is the full text of this site from? This version that is apparently the same as Mclerney's? Well, I looked for other translations of Dares and found a bilingual Latin-French edition by Nicolas Louis Archaintre and Antoine Calloit from 1813. In it, the Latin description for Patroclus is “Patroclum pulchro corpore, oculis vividis et magnis, verecundum, rectum, prudentem, dapsilem”... familiar, right? The French translation, if anyone is interested, is “Patrocle était un bel homme; il avait de grands yeux verts, de la modestie, de la droiture, de la prudence et la génereux” (pg 192-193). Interestingly, although the rest of the translation is quite similar to the others, the description of the eyes is “grands yeux verts”. That is: large (grands) green (verts) eyes (yeux). Yes, green. There is no word that literally means green, so I can only assume that the translators interpreted “vividis” (vivid) as some kind of vivid color (rather than being vivid in the sense of the character’s emotion, for example) and thought green fit that idea. But that’s just my guess. I also found a French edition from 1592 in which the part about Patroclus’ eyes is also described as “les yeux verds”, so this translation choice on Anchaintre and Calloit’s part isn’t new in the French editions. And then I made another discovery! There is an 1835 edition by Andres Dederich whose Latin description for Patroclus is “Patroclum pulcro corpore, oculis vividis et magnis, verecundum, rectum, prudentem, dapsilem”. “Pulchro” here is “pulcro”, but otherwise unchanged in comparison with Latin Library online. An edition of the Delphin Series in 1680 gave the Latin text as “Patroclum corpore, oculis viridibus & magnis, verecundum, rectum, prudentem, depfilem”, notably without the presence of the “caesiis” although the description of the eyes is somewhat different (viridibus instead of vivids). [Here is the edition by 1592, 1680, 1813, 1835]

So, at least here I know that in 1680 there was an edition without “caesiis” and that in 1813 there was already an edition similar to the one I showed initially, although I don’t know which manuscript was used in them. I found another file of the Meisen version, and then I was able to notice something I hadn’t noticed before. At the bottom of the page that shows the description (pg 16), there are words from the text + letters. One of the combinations is “caesiis om. LG”. Later, I discovered on the previous page of the translation there is a “Singlorum tabula”, that is, a list of acronyms. The acronym L is identified as “codex Leidensis s. X” and the acronym G is identified as “codex Sangallensis s. X”. So, apparently somehow the descriptive “caesiis” supposedly comes from these manuscripts (I say supposedly because I may have misunderstood since the edition is in Latin and it’s not like I found these manuscripts to try to check). Anyway, there is no way for me to check these manuscripts, but I’ll trust Meisen and I’ll also trust that the other people who didn’t have “caesiis” in their texts didn’t deliberately leave it out, but simply used a manuscript that didn’t have it. Therefore, I’ll assume that the existence of “caesiis” depends on the manuscript.

What we conclude here is: Patroclus is handsome and his eyes are a flexible subject. But if we consider the manuscripts that possibly have “caesiis”, then the possible colors are bluish-gray or simply gray. If we consider the descriptions without color, then they’re usually big (magnus/magnis) and vivid (vivids/vividis) or strong (viribus/viridibus).

Description of Greece, Pausanias

At one point, Pausanias describes a painting. It’s said that, with the exception of Agamemnon, all the characters are beardless. This includes Patroclus:

After the daughters of Pandareos is Antilochus, with one foot upon a rock and his face and head resting upon both hands, while after Antilochus is Agamemnon, leaning on a scepter beneath his left armpit, and holding up a staff in his hands. Protesilaus is seated with his gaze fixed on Achilles. Such is the posture of Protesilaus, and beyond Achilles is Patroclus standing. With the exception of Agamemnon these figures have no beard.

Description of Greece, 10.30.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Beards, as far as Ancient Greece is concerned, seem to have been a symbol of male maturity. For example, in the Odyssey, the beard seems to be a constant indicator of this (excerpts from Richmond Lattimore's translation below):

“[...] Hermes, of the golden staff, met me on my way, in the likeness of a young man with beard new grown, which is the most graceful time of young manhood [...]” 

10.277-279. 

“[...] Surely they would have carried it out if they had come to maturity, but the son of Zeus whom Leto with ordered hair had borne him, Apollo, killed them both, before ever the down gathered below their temples, or on their chins the beards had blossomed. [...]”

11.317-320.

Eurynome the housekeeper said to her in answer: ‘Now all this you have said, my child, was fair and orderly. Go then, and speak a word to your son, hide nothing. Only first you should wash your body and anoint your face. Do not go down with a face so ravaged all over by tears, as it now is, since nothing is gained by indiscriminate sorrowing always. For now your son is come of age, and you know you always prayed the immortals, beyond all else, to see him bearded.’

13.169-177.

If we consider beards as an indication of age, then it is possible that the artist mentioned by Pausanias deliberately chose who to give a beard or not. Agamemnon has a beard, but Antilochus, Protesilaus, Achilles and Patroclus don’t. And when thinking about Antilochus, it’s easy to remember that in the sources (including The Iliad) he is repeatedly described as one of the youngest in the army. In turn, part of Achilles' tragedy is that he dies young. In their case, certainly the absence of a beard can be justified as an indication of youth. So I don’t rule out the possibility that the artist imagined a young Patroclus.

Posthomerica, Ioannis Tzetzes

In the Posthomerica of the Byzantine Ioannis Tzetzes (don’t confuse with Quintus of Smyrna), the description of Patroclus is “Patroclus was middle-aged, potbellied and well-bearded. He had blond hair, red skin and lovely face” (translation: Ana Untila). I know there is the Greek text somewhere because I saw it while analyzing the description of Achilles in another post (more specifically, his eyes). I, however, can’t find it anymore, so I won’t even try to see what it is in Greek and will simply consider the English translation.

Here, Patroclus is considerably older than Achilles, already middle-aged. This would make him at least in the generation of Agamemnon. This is certainly an unusual age for Patroclus, who doesn’t tend to be so old as to equal characters of the Atreide generation. He has a beard, which doesn’t tend to be an element in the surviving literary sources, but is recorded in visual sources before Tzetzes. Tzetzes describes him as blond, which is unusual. I can think of no other source, either visual or literary, where Patroclus is blond rather than brunette or at least of undefined hair color. His body is potbellied, also not found in any other source, but it distances his physique from that of Achilles (including Tzetzes's Achilles, who is described differently). Patroclus's skin is red, though I’am not sure if Tzetzes intended him to be the sort of blond with pink undertones or if this is a way of indicating time in the sun. “Lovely face” is nothing more than an indication that he is handsome, and heroes being described as handsome isn’t uncommon.

And finally, we have some surviving visual representations. I won't post them here but just link them to avoid any limitations on the number of images on Tumblr.

See here. On a black-figure Kylix, two men in military clothing are depicted, one healing the other's arm. These are Achilles (the healer) and Patroclus (the one being healed). Here, Patroclus is a man with short curly hair, a prominent nose, long eyelashes, a beard and mustache. The detail of the nose is more discreet, but compare it to Achilles's straight nose and it’s more notable. Blessed were the hands of whoever decided to give Patroclus this nose! In any case, Patroclus being depicted with a beard while Achilles is beardless may have been an artistic device to indicate who is the older of the two.

See here. On this black-figure pottery, there is a depiction of Agamemnon's Embassy sent to convince Achilles to return to war (Book 9 of The Iliad). Big Ajax is very clearly absent, but the other elements are there. We have a rather bald old man who is supposed to be Nestor, a chill man who is supposed to be Odysseus, a sullen young man who is supposed to be Achilles, and behind this sullen man there is another young man who is supposed to be Patroclus. Patroclus looks quite similar to Achilles: a beardless young man with short hair and an athletic build. He also does a cunty pose. This isn’t relevant to the subject of this “source collection”, I just wanted to point it out. In any case, the similarity between Achilles and Patroclus can probably represent that they’re from the same generation, that is, they’re very similar in age. And since Achilles is young, so is Patroclus.

See here. On an Attic black-figure amphora attributed to The Priam Painter and thought to possibly date to around 520BC-510BC, we have Achilles doing his typical Achilles thing of dragging Hector's body, which is tied to a chariot. And here you might think, "But Birdie, Patroclus is obviously already dead at this point. I even remember Hector being dragged around his tomb. You wanted to show Patroclus' tomb as a joke? I don't see a tomb." But that's not what this is about...it's just that on this pottery there's a little guy flying up there. See him? He's a tiny little guy in armor. This little guy, my friend, is the soul of Patroclus. Not exactly useful for knowing what he looks like, since he's wearing a helmet. I mean, those are of course killer thighs, but that's because of the style of this kind of art. That is, it's not exactly useful for the purposes of analyzing the character's appearance, but I wanted to include mini Patroclus.

See here. And these are fragments, but I swear there's a reason they're here. Thought to probably date to around 580BC-575BC, these are recovered parts of what was supposed to be an Attic black-figure kantharos. One of the surviving pieces shows a bearded man with an inscription next to it (and a silly face). According to the British Museum, this inscription is supposed to be the name Patroclus. Since I certainly can't read the writing, I'll trust the Museum's description.

See here. An Attic black-figure calyx potentially dated to 530BC found in Phthia, painted in the manner of Exekias. This represents the conflict for the body of Patroclus, which is the corpse on the ground. He is a slender young man, beardless and with long (apparently straight) hair.

See here. An Etruscan cinerary chest probably dated to 300BC-100BC depicts what appears to be the death of the Trojan prince Troilus, the young (apparently teenage) man riding the horse. The young man pulling him off the horse is Achilles, another man next to him is identified as Patroclus and the winged woman is said by the British Museum to be a Fury. There is a Phrygian hat on the ground, probably belonging to Troilus and knocked off by the sudden movement of being pulled by Achilles. Other than that Patroclus certainly has a big ass in that, there isn’t much else to comment on Patroclus' appearance. Perhaps the lack of a beard, I think. The shield covers his mouth, but you can see from the side of his face that Patroclus has no beard.

See here. Dating probably to the 1st century AD, a Roman fresco found in the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii depicts Briseis being led away by the heralds of Agamemnon. There are two men in the center (Briseis is on the side), namely Achilles and Patroclus. Patroclus is a young, beardless, tanned man with short brown hair and apparently also dark eyes and he holds Briseis' arm, probably handing her over to the heralds as ordered by Achilles (Book 1 of The Iliad).

See here. Another Roman fresco found in Pompeii, this time in the House of the Golden Cupids, shows Briseis, Achilles and Patroclus. The torso and face of Achilles are missing, only his legs. Briseis is entirely visible and Patroclus is almost entirely visible. You can't see his eyes, but he is a young, tanned, beardless man with short brown hair. It is, in fact, quite similar to the earlier fresco.

See here. Supposedly dated to around 30 BC-AD 80, a Roman marble panel depicts in relief what are apparently Agamemnon's heralds coming to take Briseis (Book 1 of The Iliad). The young man sitting looking away is Achilles, the only woman in the scene is Briseis, the older man + the partially cut man are the heralds, and the other young man (the one between Achilles and Briseis) is Patroclus. I don't know exactly how these identifications were made, but I imagine that the fact that young man 2 has his hand on the woman's shoulder helped with the identification of him as Patroclus, since in The Iliad he is the one who brings her to be give to the heralds. Notably, Patroclus again resembles Achilles: an athletic young man with short hair and no beard.

See here. Theorized to date from 100-200 AD, this Roman fresco depicts Agamemnon's heralds carrying Briseis. From left to right, the theorized identifications are: Patroclus (because he is the other young man in the company), Achilles (because of his typical head-in-hand pose and long blond hair), Phoenix (because he is the elderly character who would be in Achilles's area at this point), Briseis (the only woman in the scene) and the heralds (who are with Briseis). If it’s Patroclus (and let's face it, it’s quite likely), then here he is a young man, beardless, pale, with short, wavy brown hair and dark eyes. His face is very similar to Achilles', although I don't know if this is intentional or simply a consequence of the style. Interestingly, he also appears to be one of the shortest in the scene (Achilles doesn't count, as he is lying down).

See here. Probably dating from the 1st-3rd century AD, this Roman plaste glass gem shows three figures, with two men apparently placing a third on the chariot. It’s theorized that it may be Menelaus and Meriones placing Patroclus' body on the chariot to take it back to the Achaean camp. Well... because of the type of material, it isn’t very helpful in indicating the physical characteristics of the characters, but I’ll include it here anyway.

See here. Another similar case is one that is theorized to be Menelaus carrying the body of Patroclus. Again, not very useful for looking at appearances, but hey, I'll include it.

See here. I swear this is the last of its kind I'll shown (there are more of its kind theorized to depict Patroclus, but overall it's not possible to tell much about the physical appearance), two soldiers with one of them healing the other's leg. It's theorized to perhaps depict Patroclus and Achilles. I can't say for sure why this theory exists, but I'm going to assume it's because of the kylix with Achilles healing Patroclus. The only noticeable thing about it is the athletic body. 

See here. Dating back to the 2nd century AD, a Roman sarcophagus depicts Achilles mourning the dead Patroclus. Patroclus can be identified as the man lying on the bed (in this case, the corpse of Patroclus) and surrounded by people who appear to be mourning, with the figure sitting next to the bed appearing to be in the main one (Achilles, who also has the shortest hair of all the figures). He appears much older than Achilles, with short curly hair, a full curly beard and a straight nose.

See here. Probably dating from the 4th century, a bronze scabbard from the Roman Empire depicted two scenes. One of the scenes looked very much like Briseis being led away by Agamemnon's heralds, similar to the fresco already shown, and the other scene showed two men. One man is seated on what appears to be a throne, while the other looks alarmed. Probably because the other scene looked so much like Briseis being led away, it has been theorized that this scene was Patroclus asking Achilles to return to the war or at least let him wear his armor. After all, Patroclus only has to beg this because Achilles isn’t in the war, and Achilles is only not in the war because of the conflict with Agamemnon, so the scenes would complement each other. If this is indeed Patroclus and Achilles, then Patroclus is an athletic, beardless young man with short hair.

[babyrdie]

Could you show more of the pious Theseus?

A non-exhaustive list of places where Theseus is shown to be pious in some way. Note that the nature of these texts is different. Some are argumentative, some are narrative, some are sophistical, etc. The deities named are in alphabetical order, but the sources are simply in the order I remember them (i.e. not in source chronological order, myth chronological order, alphabetical order, importance, etc. It's random). When I feel that I need to explain why I included some source, I’ll explain it with an "explanation". In the case of passage that needs to be specified/previous context, I’ll enclose it in "[]", for example "[Theseus]".

Also, since I'm talking about Theseus being pious and not Theseus being right in everything he does, I'm including episodes like Hyppolitus' unjust death. Like it or not, he still prayed for that. After all, me trying to say that I think Theseus was portrayed as the pious type of hero doesn't mean I think he didn't commit unjust acts. In fact, I'm not even arguing that Theseus never offended the gods, since he followed Pirithous's wish to try to kidnap Persephone, which is certainly an offense to the gods. In fact, when I try to think through the myths of Theseus as chronologically as possible, it's interesting that he seems to start out as a prudent person and gradually becomes careless and irresponsible. Initially portrayed as an idealized king, Theseus eventually takes actions that exemplify what a king shouldn’t do. I wonder if the gradual shift from the very pious Theseus who cares immensely about what the gods want to the Theseus who directly offends the gods by trying to kidnap Persephone (pretty obvious why it's offensive) and kidnapping Helen (in Plutarch, Theseus kidnaps Helen from the temple of Artemis. While, as far I remember, this source doesn't explicitly say that Artemis was offended, I still can't help but think that it wasn't exactly a pious decision to break into a temple to do so. Plus, in Fabulae, Zeus isn't pleased about the kidnapping) is purposeful to demonstrate what recklessness does to someone. While most of the sources here contain pre-punishment myths, not all of the passages do. Theseus also often employs honors for mortals (performing sacrifices in someone's honor, for example), but I won't include those cases here.

Aphrodite (feat Peitho)

And it is reported that the god at Delphi commanded him [Theseus] in an oracle to make Aphrodite his guide, and invite her to attend him on his journey, and that as he sacrificed the usual she-goat to her by the sea-shore, it became a he-goat ("tragos") all at once, for which reason the goddess has the surname Epitragia.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 18.2. Bernadotte Perrin.

On his voyage from Crete, Theseus put in at Delos, and having sacrificed to the god and dedicated in his temple the image of Aphrodite which he had received from Ariadne, he danced with his youths a dance which they say is still performed by the Delians, being an imitation of the circling passages in the Labyrinth, and consisting of certain rhythmic involutions and evolutions.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 21.1. Bernadotte Perrin.

When Theseus had united into one state the many Athenian parishes, he established the cults of Aphrodite Pandemos (Common) and of Persuasion (Peitho). The old statues no longer existed in my time, but those I saw were the work of no inferior artists. [...]

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 1.22.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[...] Near the rock is a sanctuary of Aphrodite Nymphia (Bridal), made by Theseus when he took Helen to wife.

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 2.32.7. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[...] At Delos, too, there is a small wooden image of Aphrodite, its right hand defaced by time, and with a square base instead of feet. I am of opinion that Ariadne got this image from Daedalus, and when she followed Theseus, took it with her from home. Bereft of Ariadne, say the Delians, Theseus dedicated the wooden image of the goddess to the Delian Apollo, lest by taking it home he should be dragged into remembering Ariadne, and so find the grief for his love ever renewed. I know of no other works of Daedalus still in existence. For the images dedicated by the Argives in the Heraeum and those brought from Omphace to Gela in Sicily have disappeared in course of time.

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 9.40.3-4. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Apollo

[...] Phae: In his case, it was the result of a coincidence, Echecrates. It so happened that the prow of the ship which the Athenians send to Delos was crowned the day before the trial. Ech: And what ship is this? Phae: It is the ship on which, according to the Athenians, Theseus once travelled to Crete bringing the “twice seven”young people, and he saved them and saved himself.[4] Now it is said that they vowed to Apollo, there and then, to send a sacred expedition to Delos every year if they were saved. Accordingly, every year since then, including this year, they send an expedition to honour the god. Now they have a law that once they begin the expedition, the city is to be kept pure during that period, and no one may be executed by the authorities until the ship has arrived at Delos and returned once more; and on occasion, whenever the winds happen to detain them, this takes a lot of time. The sacred expedition begins once the priest of Apollo crowns the prow of the ship, and this happened, as I said, the day before the trial took place. That is why Socrates had so much time in prison between the trial and his death.

Plato’s Phaedo, 58A-58C. Translation by David Horan.

Since it was still a custom at that time for youth who were coming of age to go to Delphi and sacrifice some of their hair to the god, Theseus went to Delphi for this purpose, and they say there is a place there which still to this day is called the Theseia from him. But he sheared only the fore part of his head, just as Homer​ said the Abantes did, and this kind of tonsure was called Theseïs after him.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 5.1. Bernadotte Perrin.

But Theseus, desiring to be at work, and at the same time courting the favour of the people, went out against the Marathonian bull, which was doing no small mischief to the inhabitants of the Tetrapolis.​ After he had mastered it, he made a display of driving it alive through the city, and then sacrificed it to the Delphinian Apollo.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 14.1. Bernadotte Perrin.

When the lot was cast, Theseus took those upon whom it fell from the prytaneium and went to the Delphinium, where he dedicated to Apollo in their behalf his suppliant's badge. This was a bough from the sacred olive-tree, wreathed with white wool. Having made his vows and prayers, he went down to the sea on the sixth day of the month Munychion, on which day even now the Athenians still send their maidens to the Delphinium to propitiate the god.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 18.1. Bernadotte Perrin.

On his voyage from Crete, Theseus put in at Delos, and having sacrificed to the god and dedicated in his temple the image of Aphrodite which he had received from Ariadne, he danced with his youths a dance which they say is still performed by the Delians, being an imitation of the circling passages in the Labyrinth, and consisting of certain rhythmic involutions and evolutions. This kind of dance, as Dicaearchus tells us, is called by the Delians The Crane, and Theseus danced it round the altar called Keraton, which is constructed of horns ("kerata") taken entirely from the left side of the head. He says that he [Theseus] also instituted athletic contests in Delos, and that the custom was then begun by him of giving a palm to the victors.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 21.1-2. Bernadotte Perrin.

After burying his father, Theseus paid his vows to Apollo on the seventh day of the month Pyanepsion; for on that day they had come back to the city in safety. Now the custom of boiling all sorts of pulse on that day is said to have arisen from the fact that the youths who were brought safely back by Theseus put what was left of their provisions into one mess, boiled it in one common pot, feasted upon it, and ate it all up together. At that feast they also carry the so‑called "eiresione," which is a bough of olive wreathed with wool, such as Theseus used at the time of his supplication, and laden with all sorts of fruit-offerings, to signify that scarcity was at an end, and as they go they sing:— "Eiresione for us brings figs and bread of the richest, Brings us honey in pots and oil to rub off from the body, Strong wine too in a beaker, that one may go to bed mellow." Some writers, however, say that these rites are in memory of the Heracleidae,​ who were maintained in this manner by the Athenians; but most put the matter as I have done.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 22.4-5. Bernadotte Perrin.

[...] Lately, I remember, reading in the Attic annals, I found that Theseus first instituted games in Delos, and tore off a branch from the sacred palm-tree, which was called spadix (from σπάω, to tear.) [...]

Plutarch's Quaestiones Convivales. Translation by William Watson Goodwin.

[...] About the temple stand images of Heracles, Theseus, Apollo binding his hair with a fillet, and statues of Calades, who it is said framed laws for the Athenians, and of Pindar, the statue being one of the rewards the Athenians gave him for praising them in an ode.

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 1.8.4. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Close to the temple of Olympian Zeus is a statue of the Pythian Apollo. There is further a sanctuary of Apollo surnamed Delphinius. The story has it that when the temple was finished with the exception of the roof Theseus arrived in the city, a stranger as yet to everybody. When he came to the temple of the Delphinian, wearing a tunic that reached to his feet and with his hair neatly plaited, those who were building the roof mockingly inquired what a marriageable virgin was doing wandering about by herself. The only answer that Theseus made was to loose, it is said, the oxen from the cart hard by, and to throw them higher than the roof of the temple they were building.

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 1.9.1. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

The origin of the custom is said to be that Theseus, on his return from Crete, held games in Delos in honor of Apollo, and crowned the victors with palm. Such, it is said, was the origin of the custom. The palm in Delos is mentioned by Homer in the passage where Odysseus supplicates the daughter of Alcinous.

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 8.48.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Now every Siren is moved on your account, every barbitos and lyra sounds , peoples and cities sing of your deeds. Now the sacred vessel departs for Delos, carrying an Attic chorus to the god [Apollo], the kind they say Theseus established for him after leaving Crete. Let that chorus sing a hymn asking that this man govern Greeks for a very long time. This is what I sing to you for now, you person dear to the gods. And if the Delian god [Apollo] grants me the favor, I shall pay my debt to you in full in the future.

Himerius’ Orations, 38 “To the Proconsul Cervonius”. Translation by Robert J. Penella.

Εἰρεσιώνη: eiresione: [Meaning] a branch of olive, wreathed with woollen fillets [eria] and having all sorts of produce of the earth suspended from it. A boy with both parents living carries out this and places it before the door of the sanctuary of Apollo during the Pyanopsia [festival]. For it is said that Theseus, when he was sailing to Crete, put in at Delos because of bad weather and vowed to Apollo that whenever he returned safely after slaying the Minotaur, he would wreath the god with branches of olive, and offer sacrifice; and he [duly] placed this suppliant's branch upon the god and boiled pots of soot and soup, and consecrated an altar. For this reason the festival seems to be called the Pyanopsia, as if to say Kyamepsia. For in the past they used to call kyamoi ['beans'] pyanoi. They used to celebrate [the festival] on occasions for averting pestilence. Boys sang as follows: "Eiresione brings figs and rich cakes and honey in a cup and olive oil to anoint oneself and a drinking cup of neat wine, so you may get drunk and go to sleep." After the festival [they bring eiresionai] out from the fields and place them at the doors themselves. Crates the Athenian in his [treatise] Concerning Sacrifices at Athens states that once, when barrenness gripped the city, they wreathed a suppliant's branch with woollen fillets and offered it to Apollo. [...]

Suda, ei.184. Translation by Blake Tyrrell.

Theseus Have courage concerning me; never will I betray you. Oedipus [650] I will not bind you with an oath as if an evil man. Theseus Well, you would win nothing more than by my word. Oedipus What will you do, then? Theseus What is it that you fear? Oedipus Men will come— Theseus But these men here will see to that. Oedipus Beware that if you leave me— Theseus Do not instruct me in my duties. Oedipus [655] Fear constrains me— Theseus My heart feels no fear. Oedipus You do not know the threats— Theseus I know that none will lead you from here against my will. Often threats have blustered in men's hearts with words loud and vain; but when the mind comes to itself once more, [660] the threats have vanished. For those men, too, perhaps—yes, even if in boldness they have spoken dreadful things of bringing you back, the voyage here will prove long and hard to sail. Now I exhort you, apart from any decision of mine, to take heart, [665] if indeed Phoebus has been your escort here. Even if I am not present, still my name, I know, will shield you from harm.

Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, 649-667. Translation by Richard Jebb. [Explanation: I'm considering that since part of Theseus' motivation for protecting Oedipus is that he believes it is Phoebus Apollo's wish, this indicates the respect he has for Apollo]

Artemis

In the market-place of Troezen is a temple of Artemis Saviour, with images of the goddess. It was said that the temple was founded and the name Saviour given by Theseus when he returned from Crete after overcoming Asterion the son of Minos. [...]

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 2.31.1. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Athena

Theseus Lady Athena, I will hearken to your words; for you set me up, so that I do not go astray. And I will bind this man by an oath; only guide my steps [1230] aright. For if you are friendly to our state, we shall live secure for the future.

Euripides’ The Suppliants, 1228-1231. Translation by E.P. Coleridge.

Theseus I go down to Marathon, so that . . . and [Pallas] leads the way. [You have thus learned from me] what you asked me. And you, good mother, [tell me, for I also] wish to hear you for a while [speaking] . . . you live an old woman in a lonely . . .

Callimachus’ Hecale, fragment 253. Adapted by Daniel Curley   from the translation of C.A.Trypanis.

Dionysus

[...] Protesilaos said that he also observed these sacred festivals of Dionysos as established by Theseus. [...]

Philostratus’ Heroica, § 720. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

It was Theseus who instituted also the Athenian festival of the Oschophoria. For it is said that he did not take away with him all the maidens on whom the lot fell at that time, but picked out two young men of his acquaintance who had fresh and girlish faces, but eager and manly spirits, and changed their outward appearance almost entirely by giving them warm baths and keeping them out of the sun, by arranging their hair, and by smoothing their skin and beautifying  p51 their complexions with unguents; he also taught them to imitate maidens as closely as possible in their speech, their dress, and their gait, and to leave no difference that could be observed, and then enrolled them among the maidens who were going to Crete, and was undiscovered by any. 3 And when he was come back, he himself and these two young men headed a procession, arrayed as those are now arrayed who carry the vine-branches. They carry these in honour of Dionysus and Ariadne, and because of their part in the story; or rather, because they came back home at the time of the vintage. And the women called Deipnophoroi, or supper-carriers, take part in the procession and share in the sacrifice, in imitation of the mothers of the young men and maidens on whom the lot fell, for these kept coming with bread and meat for their children. And tales are told at this festival, because these mothers, for the sake of comforting and encouraging their children, spun out tales for them. At any rate, these details are to be found in the history of Demon. Furthermore, a sacred precinct was also set apart for Theseus, and he ordered the members of the families which had furnished the tribute to the Minotaur to make contributions towards a sacrifice to himself. This sacrifice was superintended by the Phytalidae, and Theseus thus repaid them for their hospitality.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 23.2-3. Bernadotte Perrin.

Phobos 

Now for a long time there was hesitation and delay on both sides in making the attack, but finally Theseus, after sacrifi­cing to Fear [Phobos], in obedience to an oracle, joined battle with the women [Amazons]. [...]

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 27.2. Bernadotte Perrin.

Poseidon

During the rest of the time, then, Aethra kept his true birth concealed from Theseus, and a report was spread abroad by Pittheus that he was begotten by Poseidon. For Poseidon is highly honoured by the people of Troezen, and he is the patron god of their city; to him they offer first fruits in sacrifice, and they have his trident as an emblem on their coinage.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 6.1. Bernadotte Perrin. [Explanation: Theseus is from Troezen, so I consider that he would probably also be involved in the worship of Poseidon according to this version].

[...] by his own appointment they should celebrate Isthmian games in honour of Poseidon. For the games already instituted there in honour of Melicertes were celebrated in the night, and had the form of a religious rite rather than of a spectacle and public assembly. But some say that the Isthmian games were instituted in memory of Sciron, and that Theseus thus made expiation for his murder, because of the relation­ship between them; for Sciron was a son of Canethus and Henioche, who was the daughter of Pittheus. And others have it that Sinis, not Sciron, was their son, and that it was in his honour rather that the games were instituted by Theseus. However that may be, Theseus made a formal agreement with the Corinthians that they should furnish Athenian visitors to the Isthmian games with a place of honour as large as could be covered by the sail of the state galley which brought them thither, when it was stretched to its full extent. So Hellanicus and Andron of Halicarnassus tell us.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 25.4-5. Bernadotte Perrin.

Theseus They say a man—not from your city, yet of your race—has somehow thrown himself down, as a suppliant, at our altar of Poseidon, where I was sacrificing when I first set out here.

Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, 1157-1159. Translaiton by Richard Jebb.

Chorus Hurry, my son, come to us! If you chance to be in the glade sacrificing an ox to the sea-god Poseidon, [1495] then come! For the stranger thinks you worthy, you and your city and your friends, to receive just return for benefits. Hasten quickly, lord!

Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, 1491-1499. Translation by Richard Jebb.

Theseus stretching out his arms, palm upwards, in prayer Merciful gods! So you were after all truly my father, Poseidon, [1170] since you have heard my prayer. How did he perish? Tell me, how did Zeus's cudgel strike him for dishonoring me?

Euripides’ Hippolytus, 1169-1174. Translation by David Kovacs.

[...] But Phaedra, fearing that he might accuse her to his father, cleft open the doors of her bed-chamber, rent her garments, and falsely charged Hippolytus with an assault. Theseus believed her and prayed to Poseidon that Hippolytus might perish [...]

Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library, E.1.18-19. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Zeus

Now the story of Hecale and her receiving and entertaining Theseus on this expedition seems not to be devoid of all truth. For the people of the townships round about used to assemble and sacrifice the Hecalesia to Zeus Hecaleius, and they paid honours to Hecale, calling her by the diminutive name of Hecaline, because she too, when entertaining Theseus, in spite of the fact that he was quite a youth, caressed him as elderly people do, and called him affectionately by such diminutive names. And since she vowed, when the hero was going to his battle with the bull, that she would sacrifice to Zeus if he came back safe, but died before his return, she obtained the above mentioned honours as a return for her hospitality at the command of Theseus, as Philochorus has written.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 14.2-3. Bernadotte Perrin.

He also instituted the games here, in emulation of Heracles, being ambitious that as the Hellenes, by that hero's appointment, celebrated Olympian games in honour of Zeus [...]

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 25.4. Bernadotte Perrin.

Across the Cephisus is an ancient altar of Zeus Meilichius (Gracious). At this altar Theseus obtained purification at the hands of the descendants of Phytalus after killing brigands, including Sinis who was related to him through Pittheus. [...]

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, 1.37.4. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Theseus [1760] Children [Antigone and Ismene], he [Oedipus] told me that no one should draw near that place, or approach with prayer the sacred tomb in which he sleeps. He said that, so long as I saw to this, I would always keep the country free from pain. [1765] The divinity heard me say these things, as did the all-seeing Oath of Zeus.

Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, 1760-1769. Translation by Richard Jebb[Explanation: see 1586-1667 for more context].

Deities in general

Theseus Cease your lament, children [Antigone and Ismene]! Where the favor of the nether night is stored up, there is no room for sorrow; divine retribution would follow.

Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, 1751-1753. Translation by Richard Jebb [Explanation: Theseus believes divine retribution will happen].

Theseus [195] Full often have I argued out this subject with others. For there are those who say, there is more bad than good in human nature; but I hold a contrary view, that good over bad predominates in man, [200] for if it were not so, we should not exist. He has my praise, whichever god brought us to live by rule from chaos and from brutishness, first by implanting reason, and next by giving us a tongue to declare our thoughts, so as to know the meaning of what is said, [205] and bestowing fruitful crops, and drops of rain from heaven to make them grow, with which to nourish earth's fruits and to water her lap; and more than this, protection from the wintry storm, and means to ward from us the sun-god's scorching heat; the art of sailing over the sea, so that we might exchange [210] with one another whatever our countries lack. And where sight fails us and our knowledge is not sure, the seer foretells by gazing on the flame, by reading signs in folds of entrails, or by divination from the flight of birds. Are we not then too proud, when heaven has made such [215] preparation for our life, not to be content with it? But our presumption seeks to lord it over heaven, and in the pride of our hearts we think we are wiser than the gods. I think you also are of this number, a son of folly, [220] seeing that you, though obedient to Apollo's oracle in giving your daughters to strangers, as if gods really existed, yet have hurt your house by mingling the stream of its pure line with muddy waters; no! never should the wise man have joined the stock of just and unjust in one, [225] but should have gotten prosperous friends for his family. For the god, confusing their destinies, often destroys by the sufferer's fate his fellow sufferer, who never committed injustice. You led all Argos forth to battle, [230] though seers proclaimed the will of heaven, and then in scorn of them and in violent disregard of the gods have ruined your city, led away by younger men, those who court distinction, and add war to war unrighteously, destroying their fellow-citizens; one aspires to lead an army; [235] another would seize the reins of power and work his wanton will; a third is bent on gain, careless of any ill the people thereby suffer. For there are three ranks of citizens; the rich, a useless set, that ever crave for more; [240] the poor and destitute, fearful folk, that cherish envy more than is right, and shoot out grievous stings against the men who have anything, beguiled as they are by the eloquence of vicious leaders; while the class that is midmost of the three preserves cities, [245] observing such order as the state ordains. Shall I then become your ally? What fair pretext should I urge before my countrymen? Depart in peace! For if you have been ill-advised, drag your own fortune down, but leave us alone.

Euripides’ The Suppliants, 195-249. Translation by E.P. Coleridge.

Theseus [1165] Adrastus, and you women sprung from Argos, you see these children bearing in their hands the bodies of their valiant sires whom I redeemed; to you I give these gifts, I and Athens. And you must bear in mind the memory of this favor, [1170] marking well the treatment you have had of me. And to the children I repeat these same words, that you may honor this city, to children's children ever handing on the the memory of what you have received. Be Zeus the witness, with the gods in heaven, [1175] of the treatment we vouchsafed you before you left us.

Euripides’ The Suppliants, 1165-1176. Translation by E.P. Coleridge. [Explanation: putting it here instead of in “Zeus” because the “with the gods in heaven” part].

As he [Theseus] went forward on his journey and came to the river Cephisus, he was met by men of the race of the Phytalidae, who greeted him first, and when he asked to be purified from bloodshed, cleansed him with the customary rites, made propitiatory sacrifices, and feasted him at their house. This was the first kindness which he met with on his journey.

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 12.1. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

[...] But Theseus, putting in to shore, sacrificed in person the sacrifices which he had vowed to the gods at Phalerum when he set sail, and then dispatched a herald to the city to announce his safe return. [...]

Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 22.1. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

[...] his [Theseus’s] piety toward the gods in connexion with the supplications of Adrastus and the children of Heracles when, by defeating the Peloponnesians in battle, he saved the lives of the children, and to Adrastus he restored for burial, despite the Thebans, the bodies of those who had died beneath the walls of the Cadmea [...]

Isocrates’ Helen, 10.31. Translation by George Nolin.

For he [Theseus] saw that those who seek to rule their fellow-citizens by force are themselves the slaves of others, and that those who keep the lives of their fellow-citizens in peril themselves live in extreme fear, and are forced to make war, on the one hand, with the help of citizens against invaders from abroad, and, on the other hand, with the help of auxiliaries against their fellow citizens; further, he saw them despoiling the temples of the gods, putting to death the best of their fellow-citizens, distrusting those nearest to them, living lives no more free from care than do men who in prison await their death; he saw that, although they are envied for their external blessings, yet in their own hearts they are more miserable than all other men—

Isocrates’ Helen, 10.32-33. Translation by George Nolin. [Explanation: emphasis on “ he saw them despoiling the temples of the gods”].

Heracles O Theseus, did you see this struggle with my children? Theseus [1230] I heard of it, and now I see the horrors you mean. Heracles Why then have you unveiled my head to the sun? Theseus Why have I? you, a mortal, can not pollute what is of the gods. Heracles Try to escape, luckless wretch, from my unholy taint. Theseus The avenging fiend does not go forth from friend to friend. Heracles [1235] For this I thank you; I do not regret the service I did you. Theseus While I, for kindness then received, now show my pity for you. Heracles Ah yes! I am piteous, a murderer of my sons. Theseus I weep for you in your changed fortunes. Heracles Did you ever find another more afflicted? Theseus [1240] Your misfortunes reach from earth to heaven. Heracles Therefore I am resolved on death. Theseus Do you suppose the gods attend to your threats? Heracles The god has been remorseless to me; so I will be the same to the gods. Theseus Hush! lest your presumption add to your sufferings.

Euripides’ Heracles, 1229-1244. Translation by E.P. Coleridge.

[...] he [Adrastus] lost a great number of his Argive soldiers in the battle and saw all of his captains slain, though saving his own life in dishonor, and, when he failed to obtain a truce and was unable to recover the bodies of his dead for burial, he came as a suppliant to Athens, while Theseus still ruled the city, and implored the Athenians not to suffer such men to be deprived of sepulture nor to allow ancient custom and immemorial law to be set at naught—that ordinance which all men respect without fail, not as having been instituted by our human nature, but as having been enjoined by the divine power? When our people [Athenians] heard this plea, they let no time go by but at once dispatched ambassadors to Thebes to advise her people that they be more reverent in their deliberations regarding the recovery of the dead and that they render a decision which would be more lawful than that which they had previously made, and to hint to them also that the Athenians would not countenance their transgression of the common law of all Hellas.

Isocrates’ Panathenaicus, 12.169-170. Translation by George Nolin. [Explanation: Similar to how Sophocles' Antigone deals with the duel between human law, Creon, and divine law, Antigone, regarding allowing the enemy a proper burial, it is the same case when Thebes refuses to allow the Argives to bury their dead. Adrastus begs for interference from Athens, at the time ruled by Theseus, and Theseus then assists him in enforcing divine law. This is the theme of Euripides' The Suppliants].

[babyrdie]

Hiii, I hope you're well :))) I want to complain about something if you don't mind. It saddens me that Andromeda by Sophocles and Euripides is lost because they expanded Andromeda's character. We would have been able to learn about her personality, as well as her relationship with her parents

But still one thing that is clear is that she did NOT want to be sacrificed, she had dreams/desires and wanted to live at all costs, even if people see that as selfish she has every right to want to live

But in several retellings they make her want to sacrifice herself for the good of her kingdom which is totally out of character, because supposedly they want to give her "a voice" but they only do it to make Perseus look bad since that is not even what Andromeda wanted

I remember reading an article where the author mentioned a Greek pottery dating back to the VI BC depicting Perseus confronting Cetus with stones that Andromeda Gave Him (I don't remember if I ever saw the pottery) and the author basically said that apparently the earliest versions of the story had Andromeda participating in the defeat of Cetus or helping Perseus in some way, which I think is a much better way to do in retellings if they really want her to have more involvement in her own myth

—🪷

Hey! Thanks for the question, I'm doing fine and I hope it's the same for you. Also, sorry for taking so long! I was trying to find some article/book that commented on this vase you mentioned because I found interesting! I also found other things, so this post will probably be long because I feel they’re of interest to the seemingly eternal debate surrounding the Andromeda agency (whether in relation to sacrifice or marriage).

I don't usually read retellings or watch adaptations, so I don't know what the adaptations of the Andromeda myth are like. So, I won't focus on that and will think more about the aspect of what we can learn about Andromeda from the myths. I think that even with Euripides and Sophocles gone, we have enough hints about Andromeda's psyche. So, this post will be more me arguing in favor of the following things:

1) Andromeda wasn't a character adept at self-sacrifice;

2) Perseus saved Andromeda, if not out of love, at least out of passion;

3) At some point, the feeling was reciprocal;

4) The marriage wasn't disadvantageous to Andromeda.

Details:

I usually include the secondary source details (author, page, title) at the time I cite them, but in this case I'll try another organization. As for primary sources, I obviously didn’t include all of the Greco-Roman primary sources for Andromeda. Also, Sophocles' play is notably absent because, unlike Euripides' play, the surviving fragments do not give us enough insight into the character's psyche.

Sometimes the post will tend to other characters, but that's because I feel they will be useful examples of my opinion (in this case, sacrificial characters besides Andromeda). Note that, since the focus is STILL Andromeda, I won't go into too much depth on them and will use them in a more simplistic way. So if someone thinks "well, but the context of this character is much more complex and..." yeah, but the character isn’t the focus. It's just an example.

And as always, a typical warning in case someone who doesn't follow me reads this post... it’s a hobby post. My posts are huge, yes, but they're all purely for entertainment. This is an opinion post. Lotus Anon wanted to talk to me about the subject, I'm just "talking" so to speak.

ANDROMEDA: WILLING OR UNWILLING SACRIFICIAL MAIDEN?

When I received this ask, I at one point wondered what the oldest literary source of Andromeda had to say about her since you mentioned the article theorizing about oldest version with a visual source. When I was trying to remember, I got the impression that there was an apparent Andromeda absence in ancient literary sources — absence not in the sense of necessarily not existing at the time, but of not being mentioned — even when Perseus, her husband, is mentioned. The oldest literary source of Perseus is The Iliad, since the Homeric text presents an episode in Book 14 known as the seduction of Zeus by Hera, who intended to distract him (sexually) and put him to sleep with the help of the god Hypnos in order to give the Achaeans an advantage in the Trojan War. At one point, Zeus compares Hera to the other women who attracted him, claiming that none of them attracted him more than Hera was attracting him at that moment. Among them, he cites Danae as saying “nor when I desired Danaë of the shapely ankles, daughter of Akrisios, who bore Perseus, conspicuous among all men” (14.319–320, trans. Caroline Alexander). Also, “Sthenelos, son of Perseus” is identified when describing Hera’s intervention in the birth of Heracles (19.97–144). The Iliad, however, doesn’t give the heroic Perseus who saves his mother and future wife, but rather gives his genealogy — maternal grandfather Acrisius, mother Danae, father Zeus, son Sthenelos. Consequently, Andromeda isn’t actually mentioned, although it could perhaps be argued that she is implied since Sthenelos in later sources is explicitly the son of Andromeda. A text usually attributed to Hesiod had already demonstrated the heroic aspect of the Perseus myth by describing him dealing with the Gorgon sisters in the Shield of Heracles (216–236, trans. H.G. Evelyn-White), although Andromeda was still notably absent since her sacrifice wasn’t the theme, but rather the killing of the Gorgons. In later sources it was specified that Perseus was meant to protect his mother, although the Shield of Heracles doesn’t make this explicit, so perhaps it could be argued that Perseus as protector of his family was already implied. 

Then I noticed that, although Andromeda is apparently absent in these older texts, the idea of ​​a virgin being sacrificed isn’t completely absent. In the Homeric texts, there really isn't much to be said. Polyxena is never acknowledged as existing, and consequently her sacrifice isn’t a theme — something that Pausanias, in Description of Greece 1.22.6, seems to think was intentional on the poet's part. Iphigenia is also never directly mentioned, and her existence in the Homeric tradition is a matter of debate, with some arguing that a speech by Agamemnon (1.101-120) indicates that Calchas had previously asked him to sacrifice Iphigenia, others arguing that Iphinassa is Iphigenia and therefore Iphigenia is alive (9.144-145), and finally, there is further debate as to Clytemnestra's motivation for murdering Agamemnon in The Odyssey — Cassandra is certainly a catalyst, judging by Book 11, but in the Homeric tradition is Iphigenia supposed to be a catalyst as well? For all intents and purposes, however, Iphigenia is still not explicitly mentioned in any of these narratives, regardless of the debates. But, according to Pausanias, the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women apparently already alluded to the sacrifice of Iphigenia although he apparently went with the version in which she isn’t literally killed (frag 71) and the lost poems of the Epic Cycle apparently also already acknowledged the maidens sacrifices — Proclus' summaries of The Cypria and The Sack of Ilium (considered frag 1 of each epic) indicate that in the first epic there was the sacrifice of Iphigenia and in the second there was the sacrifice of Polyxena. Thus, even if the myth of Andromeda isn’t explicit in the sources, the trope of the sacrificed virgin already was.

Ironically, it’s as if Andromeda's essence is here, but Andromeda herself isn’t. Perseus, her husband, and Sthenelos, her son, exist, but she isn’t mentioned. The virgins are being sacrificed, but we don’t hear of Andromeda's sacrifice. Looking for any signal of her in literary sources, I felt as if I were getting hints of Andromeda in Archaic Greece, but not the real thing. Or at least, that is what I thought when I checked the Evelyn-Hugo edition of the Catalogue of Women in the Theoi... I later found the detail that fragment 135 MW is also listed as being in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and contains a reference to Andromeda:

... Abas; and he be[got a son,] Akrisios.... [Pe]rseus, whom... [in a che]st into the sea... [b]rought up for Zeus... gold... dear Perseus... [and from him and] Andromeda [daughter of] Kepheus [were born Alkaios] and [S]thenelos and the force [of Elektryon]... by the cattle... for [the Te]leboai... [A]mphitryon  

Translation by Silvio Curtis, retired from gantzmythsources. Note that the parts “[]” are reconstructions and “...” are lacunas.

So, a literary confirmation of the existence of Andromeda in Archaic Greece! Although her myth hasn’t been preserved in this part, the mention of her marriage to Perseus seems to be a nod to her sacrifice, rescue and consequent marriage. Considering that the edition of Theoi is from 1914, I imagine that this fragment doesn’t appear in it because it was added to the fragments of the Catalogue of Women in some later year of the academic research that tries to reconstruct it. I saw that West (1985) had already commented on this fragment, although he was particularly interested in the geographical and genealogical aspects and, therefore, it isn’t useful to me because I’m trying to get clues about the psychological aspect of Andromeda. I saw that many also argued in favor of the myth of Andromeda having foreign influences, but the uncertainties of the more complex parts of these theories don’t give me many clues about what this means for the character's psychology and says more about the narrative and visual elements of the myth. In short, all this only attests to Andromeda's existence, but gives us nothing about her thoughts.

Ogden (2008, p. 67–68) has commented on the earliest visual source attesting to Andromeda. It’s the Corinthian black-figure amphora of ca. 575–50 BC, which places it as a 6th century BC source. It’s possible to identify it because the inscriptions of the characters have been preserved, indicating the names Cetus, Perseus, and Andromeda. However, Perseus' usual weapons — the head of Medusa or a sword — are notably absent, and he actually appears to be throwing stones at Cetus. I imagine this is the pottery you were talking about, nonnie! It really does exist!

Perseus rescuing Andromeda from the monster at Joppa. Late Corinthian amphora, second quarter of the sixth century BC. Berlin F1652. Drawing by author. See here.

This pottery had already been mentioned by Philips (1968, p. 1), who interpreted Andromeda's drawing as an indication of her excitement:

Perseus in his role as savior of Andromeda is known as early as the first half of the sixth century B.c. on a late Corinthian amphora now in Berlin (pl. I, fig. I). Here, with neither the Gorgon's head nor his harpe, he seems to throw stones at a long-tongued monster while Andromeda gesticulates in excitement. Each character is named. 

If we follow this interpretation, it would make one of the earliest sources of Andromeda an indication of her happiness at being rescued, which could imply her uncooperativeness with the sacrifice. Looking at the figure, it’s interesting that although Andromeda is behind Perseus, she appears to be holding more rocks. This could indeed imply that Andromeda is actively helping to defeat Cetus, which again would indicate her opposition to being sacrificed and her willingness to receive help. The detail that one of the earliest sources of Andromeda depicts her as opposing her sacrifice is significant, as there is nothing to prevent other lost contemporary sources from having followed the same logic — in fact, it’s much more evident from the later surviving sources.

As for Andromeda's cooperativeness in her sacrifice, a emphasized element in her myth is the way in which Andromeda was intended to be sacrificed. Several texts, both Greek and Roman, described how she was chained, for example:

Euripides’ Andromeda — “Do you see? Not in dancing choruses nor among the girls of my age do I stand holding my voter’ funnel, but entangled in close bounds I am presented as a food for the sea monster Glaucetes, with a paean not for my wedding but for my binding. Bewail me, women, for I have suffered pitiful plight—O suffering, suffering man that I am!—and other lawless afflictions from my kin, though I am implored the man, as light a lament filled with tears for my death”, frag 122. Loeb edition.

Ovid’s Metamorphosis — “They bound her fettered arms fast to the rock”, Book 4. Translation by Brookes More.

Ovid’s Ars Amatoria — “What was less hoped for by Andromeda, in chains”, Book 3. Translation by A.S. Kline.

Lucian’s Dialogue of the Sea — “Andromeda, fettered to a jutting rock”. Translation by H.W. and F.G. Flower.

Pliny the Elder’s Natural History — “and Joppe, a city of the Phoenicians, which existed, it is said, before the deluge of the earth. It is situate on the slope of a hill, and in front of it lies a rock, upon which they point out the vestiges of the chains by which Andromeda was bound”, 5.69. Translation by Henry T. Riley.

Philostrathus, Imagines — “while Eros frees Andromeda from her bonds”, 1.29. Translation by Arthur Fairbanks.

Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library — “But Ammon having predicted deliverance from the calamity if Cassiepea's daughter Andromeda were exposed as a prey to the monster, Cepheus was compelled by the Ethiopians to do it, and he bound his daughter to a rock”, 2.4.3. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Antiphilus in Greek Anthology — “she who is chained to the rock is Andromeda”, 147. Translation by W.R. Paton.

Solinus’ Polyhistor — “This town displays a rock which to this day retains traces of the chains used to bind Andromeda”, 34. Translation by Arwen Apps.

Nonnus’ Dionysiaca — “One made for Cepheus's daughter, and with starry fingers twisting a ring as close as the other, enchained Andromeda, bound already, with a second bond aslant under her bands”, Book 1; “Again she awakened a new resentment, seeing the heap of Andromeda's broken chains beside the Erythraian sea, and that rock lying on the sand, Earthshaker's monstrous lump”, Book 31; “Perseus on the wing loosed the chains of Andromeda and offered the stone seamonster as a worthy bridal gift”, Book 47. Translation by W.H.D. Rouse.

And one has to wonder why Andromeda is chained in the sources in general when I can't think of this as a common sacrificial motif in Greco-Roman literature, but here I want to focus on the fact that she is still chained in the Euripidean version. Euripides certainly knows what to do when he wants to emphasize that a character who is a sacrificial victim has regained some agency, however small. If Aeschylus depicted Iphigenia crying and screaming and being bound in Agamemnon, Euripides depicted her walking freely to the altar. If visual representations of Polyxena depicted her being immobilized and carried away by the Achaeans, Euripides made it so that, by showing no resistance, such immobilization was unnecessary. This isn’t to say that Iphigenia or Polyxena wanted to die in Euripides’ version, but it does indicate something about the role resistance plays into their death. And even with Euripides having  this tendency, his Andromeda remains chained rather than subverted as he did with Iphigenia and Polyxena. In the purpose of explaining what I want to explain, let’s do some comparison. These are examples that involve the need for someone to give up their life. Menoeceus and Alcestis weren’t literally sacrificed as were Iphigenia, Polyxena, Andromeda, and Maiden (Macaria), but I’m still including them.

In Alcestis, king Admetus (he was the king of Pherae) was given the opportunity to live beyond his destined life because of the favor of the god Apollo, but on the condition that someone else would have to willingly die in his place. Admetus couldn’t find anyone willing to do this for him, including his elderly parents, and so when Death came to collect his share of the bargain, his wife Alcestis volunteered to die in his place. Since the bargain required a voluntary sacrifice, Alcestis did so of her own will, even though Admetus didn’t wish her to die and lamented it greatly afterwards. Her act was praised as an act of love and is even cited as an example in Plato's Symposium (179b-208d). She was later rescued from Death by Heracles, who was a guest of Admetus.

In The Phoenician Women, the Thebans and Argives are in conflict because of the brothers Eteocles and Polynices, both of whom desire the crown and have also been cursed by their father Oedipus. At one point, the seer Tiresias informs the Theban king Creon that he must sacrifice his son Menoeceus to save Thebes from divine punishment imposed by the god Ares. Creon, however, actively resists the plan, even instructing Menoeceus to flee so that he may live. However, despite pretending to agree with his father, Menoeceus disobeys and willingly sacrifices himself, appeasing the divine wrath. This is considered a heroic act, as he willingly offered his life in exchange for the salvation of his people despite having the option of fleeing and being supported in doing so by Creon.

In Iphigenia in Aulis, Iphigenia initially shows resistance and fear at the idea of ​​being sacrificed to the goddess Artemis, but eventually gives in and subverts her sacrifice from a tragedy to a form of immortality despite the active opposition of her mother Clytemnestra and the suggestion of her not-really-groom Achilles to save her. By showing no more resistance, Iphigenia, according to the Messenger who notifies Clytemnestra, also “dies” — she is, in fact, replaced by a deer — in the most dignified way possible considering the context. Her voluntary sacrifice seems to be equated with the sacrifice of a warrior to obtain kleos, making her in some ways an active heroine rather than a passive victim — although she is still a victim of the war. Iphigenia, despite having had a fear of death, eventually sees it as a source of pride.

In Hecuba, Polyxena, having no other choice, is conformed to be sacrificed and attempts to regain some agency by taking this as her way out of slavery despite the active opposition of her mother Hecuba. Because she doesn’t resist, regardless of how she feels, Polyxena isn’t forcibly dragged away or anything like that. Talthybius would later report to Hecuba that Polyxena supposedly died in the most dignified way possible, given the situation she was in. Polyxena is different from Iphigenia in that she isn’t seeking fame or any recognition of her sacrifice, but she is still emphasized as being dignified to the point that Talthybius makes a point of emphasizing that Polyxena managed to hide her body as she died in order to maintain modesty. Part of Polyxena's argument was precisely to be able to maintain as much dignity as possible, since this was and would be further stripped from her as a princess on the losing side and enslaved girl.

In The Heraclidae, Maiden has the chance to escape the sacrifice, but doesn’t do so, going so far as to refuse a lottery (which maybe would have given a maiden other than her and thus prevented her from being killed) and offers to be sacrificed, thinking that this will help her city win the conflict since the oracle informed them that they would only win if a maiden was sacrificed. She does so even though Iolaus shows resistance to the idea. Maiden sees this as a noble act because she considers it to demonstrate her courage and not her cowardice, again indicating how this is something she does because she wants to be heroic and save everyone.

In all cases, one or more figures demonstrate more resistance than the person who will die (Admetus/Alcestis, Creon/Menoeceus, Clytemnestra-Achilles/Iphigenia, Hecuba/Polyxena, Iolaus/Maiden), which isn’t the case with Andromeda, who in the fragments seems to be the one demonstrating the most active resistance. The characters refuse this resistance for their own reasons, but unlike Andromeda, she begs Perseus to help, actively wanting her sacrifice to be stopped (frag 128). Eventually the character allows herself to be sacrificed, even though the reasons and context are quite difficult and in all cases there is a hint of coercion in the fact that, if they don’t accept, they will either be forced or will condemn the others. With this kind of attitude, they claim it as a way of maintaining dignity, or as a noble act, or as a heroic attitude or something of the sort. Andromeda doesn’t do this, she sees it as a complete tragedy, as a miserable life, and she doesn’t seem to try to comfort herself with the idea that if she accepts being sacrificed, she will be heroic (frag 122). In any case, none of them have their movements limited, as they’re all “willing”. On the other hand, Andromeda is chained, as if, by allowing her freedom, she won’t stay there. The physical immobilization itself is a miserable attempt to immobilize her emotions, to make her conform. She is physically chained, yes, but metaphorically she is also supposed to feel chained by duty to her people… and yet Andromeda isn’t. There is no patriotism in the world that will make her be. Silva (2023, p. 122) is of the opinion that Andromeda’s lament, unlike Iphigenia’s lament, doesn’t demonstrate any longing for the past and no hope that her mother or father will do something for her. There is nothing that will make her invest emotionally to the point of giving up on living, even under coercion.

In fact, Andromeda seems to contrast some elements of the other characters! For example:

Polyxena, in Hecuba, says “By the gods, leave me free; so slay me, that death may find me free; for to be called a slave among the dead fills my royal heart with shame“ (550-552, trans. E.P Coleridge), thought apparently shared by The Trojan Women Andromache when she speaks “Her death was even as it was, and yet that death of hers was after all a happier fate than my life” (630-631, trans. E.P. Coleridge) concerning the death of Polyxena. But Andromeda, when begging Perseus says “take me with you, stranger, whether you want me as a servant, a wife, or a slave” (frag 129, Loeb edition), implying that she would even prefer to be enslaved rather than die, which is the opposite of Polyxena.

In Iphigenia in Aulis, Achilles says “But now that I have looked into your noble nature, I feel still more a fond desire to win you for my bride. Look to it; for I want to serve you and receive you in my halls; and, Thetis be my witness, how I grieve to think I shall not save your life by doing battle with the Danaids. Reflect, I say; a dreadful ill is death” (1410-1415, trans. E.P. Coleridge), reiterating the offer that Iphigenia could supposedly marry him after he saved her (she wouldn’t be obliged to marry in order for him to save her, to be clear. But since Iphigenia had initially wanted to marry, his offer was a way of guaranteeing her something), but between (unlikely) marriage and death, Iphigenia still declines Achilles' offer by saying "let me, if I can, save Hellas" (1420, trans. E.P. Coleridge). On the other hand, Andromeda accepts Perseus' offer that, as a reward for rescuing her, she marry him (frag. 129-129a).

Bocholier (2020, p. 15), when commenting on the plot of The Heraclidae, says “Who but a girl, besides, to embody this absolute fidelity to kin and blood ties, this family order older than the Greece of the cities?”, interpreting that Maiden's sacrifice has a symbolic aspect regarding familial loyalty — that is, Maiden offers herself out of loyalty to her family and her city, which theoretically should be above her own desires. On the other hand, Andromeda seems to deal with a lack of family structure more than a reaffirmation of those relationships. Cassiopeia, her mother, didn’t consider the consequences when she committed hubris (although she obviously didn't want that) and Cepheus, her father, may not have been happy with the sacrifice, but still went so far as to accept his daughter being chained. And when it is all over, Andromeda still leaves with Perseus despite Cepheus' disapproval (a reconstruction theory based on later sources that indicate that Euripides had this plot). There is no reaffirmation of filial loyalty here, although the familial relationship is still complex.

And still on the subject of chaining, while in The Phoenician Women Creon offered Menoeceus the chance to escape to another place and be helped by his father when Creon suggests “But come, my son, before the whole city learns this, fly with all haste away from this land, regardless of these prophets' reckless warnings; for he will tell all this to our rulers and generals [going to the seven gates and the captains]; now if we can forestall him, you are saved, but if you are too late, we are ruined and you will die” (970-976, trans. E.P. Coleridge), Cepheus never gave Andromeda such an opportunity. Menoeceus didn’t run away because he chose to, but Andromeda didn’t run away because she had no choice (frag 122).

In Alcestis, the request needs someone willing to die, without requiring a specific person and desiring live will. But in the myth of Andromeda, she is specifically requested and her willingness isn’t required.

In this sense, it is as if the characters were divided into the following categories:

Certainly voluntary sacrifice, since the willingness was necessary and there was no external agent that forced it: Alcestis;

Ambiguous sacrifice in voluntariness, since although the characters claim their agency by transforming the sacrifice into something that supposedly benefits them, there are still external agents that would possibly prevent them from rejecting it: Polyxena, Iphigenia, Menoeceus, Maiden.

Certainly involuntary sacrifice, since disposition doesn’t matter, there is no claim of agency and there are repeated attempts until the end of the play to escape: Andromeda.

While the other characters died clothed, this kind of dignity is sometimes not afforded to Andromeda: “I was looking at the picture of Andromeda brought down by Perseus naked from the rock” (Hellodorus’ Ethiopica trans. Thomas Underdowne), “Andromeda, fettered to a jutting rock, her hair hanging loose about her shoulders; ye Gods, what loveliness was there exposed to view!” (Dialogues of the Sea 14 trans. H.W. and F.G. Flower). Again, it makes it hard to believe that her sacrifice was considered voluntary or even ambiguous. She is, of course, not always mentioned naked and has often been visually depicted clothed, but the chains still seem a constant. Even when Andromeda is fully clothed, she has still been stripped of her agency. She still feels humiliated, still feels as if she isn’t being treated as a person. This is all still very disturbing for Andromeda, an overwhelming feeling that the end is coming and she can't do anything about it — an immense feeling of helplessness. A princess stripped of any power, quite ironic.

Comparing some lines:

“Who will escort me from here, before my hair is torn?”, Iphigenia asks in 1458. Hair-pulling is a form of violent humiliation known from Greek works, but it’s especially famous in the visual representations in which the Trojan princess Cassandra is depicted with her hair being pulled by Lesser Ajax. Other visual examples that I know of are a visual source that shows Achilles dragging prince Troilus by his hair and two visual sources that show Clytemnestra dragging Cassandra by her hair. With this line, Iphigenia shows that, as much as she saw pride in her voluntary sacrifice, she is quite aware that if she hadn’t accepted, she would have been violently coerced (something that, for example, happened in Aeschylus' version, as indicated in the play Agamemnon). Therefore, by accepting, Iphigenia also demonstrates an attempt to control the dignity with which she dies.

“Then he, half glad, half sorry in his pity for the maid, cut with the steel the channels of her breath, and streams of blood gushed forth; but she, even in death, took good heed to fall with grace, hiding from the gaze of men what must be hidden. When she had breathed her last through the fatal gash, no Argive set his hand to the same task, but some were strewing leaves over the corpse in handfuls, others bringing pine-logs and heaping up a pyre; and the one who brought nothing would hear from him who did such taunts as these, “Do you stand still, ignoble wretch, with no robe or ornament to bring for the maiden? will you give nothing to her that showed such peerless bravery and spirit?”, says Talthybius when reporting the sacrifice of Polyxena in 566-580. Polyxena isn’t shown being held down while she is killed, as happens in some visual representations in which she is immobilized by Achaeans, but rather offering her chest (heart) and throat (trachea) to be cut. By exposing herself without an external agent immobilizing her, Polyxena is given the chance, in her last moments, to be able to quickly move to cover herself, thus dying in a way that she considers dignified (i.e., not naked to the eyes of the enemy). Although her sacrifice is required by the context, her attitude of exposing herself is interpreted as a sign of bravery and, therefore, she receives ornaments, which theoretically should be a form of funerary honor. Such “honor” would hardly have been made available to Polyxena’s body if she weren’t seen as “brave”. If Polyxena had actively resisted, she would have forced herself into it and would have died in a much physically violent way, without any chance to try to gain as much comfort as possible from a miserable death.

While Menoeceus is never threatened with a possibly undignified situation (which makes me wonder if this has something to do with him being a male sacrifice required  rather than a sacrificial maiden), Creon's lines “Ah me! what shall I do? Am I to mourn with tears myself or my city, which has a cloud around it [as if it went through Acheron]? My son has died for his country, bringing glory to his name, but grievous woe to me. His body I have just now taken from the dragon's rocky lair and sadly carried the self-slain victim here in my arms; and the house is filled with weeping; but now I have come for my sister Jocasta, age seeking age, that she may bathe my child's corpse and lay it out. For those who are not dead must reverence the god below by paying honor to the dead” in 1310-1321 are structured so that the declaration that Menoeceus' death was heroic precedes the demand for dignified funeral honors. Voluntary death dignified Menoeceus.

Maiden isn’t threatened because her sacrifice isn’t asked for directly, but by saying “Then fear no more the Argive enemy's spear. For I am ready, old man, of my own accord and unbidden, to appear for sacrifice and be killed. For what shall we say if this city is willing to run great risks on our behalf, and yet we, who lay toil and struggle on others, run away from death when it lies in our power to save them? It must not be so, for it deserves nothing but mockery if we sit and groan as suppliants of the gods and yet, though we are descended from that great man who is our father, show ourselves to be cowards. How can this be fitting in the eyes of men of nobility? Much finer, I suppose, if this city were to be capture（God forbid! and I were to fall into the hands of the enemy and then when I, daughter of a noble father, have suffered dishonor, go to my death all the same! But shall I then accept exile from this land and be a wanderer? Shall I not feel shame if someone thereafter asks, [Why do you come here with your suppliant branches when you yourselves lack courage? Leave this land: for we do not give help to the base]?” in 500-519 (trans. David Kovacs) she reveals that her motivation isn’t solely heroic. It isn’t only that she wishes to demonstrate courage and nobility by sacrificing herself for the good of all, but it is also because she recognizes that if the prophecy isn’t fulfilled and no maiden is sacrificed, her people will lose the war and that means dead men and enslaved women, including herself. By sacrificing herself, Maiden prevents herself from being enslaved and also prevents other women from being enslaved. She follows a logic that it’s better to have a glorious death than a miserable life, again her voluntariness linked to the dignity.

The case of Alcestis doesn’t apply in this specific comparison, as the sacrifice couldn’t be coerced.

In contrast, Andromeda feels so humiliated that she compares herself to food, and part of this feeling that her dignity has been taken away from her is motivated by the chain: “to set (me) out as food for the sea monster” (frag 115), “[...] but entangled in close bonds I am presented as food [...]” (frag 122). Devoured by the monster, Andromeda wouldn’t have a quick and clean death, and it would definitely not be a death that would make her feel dignified. She feels like food because she feels dehumanized. She has no hope of trying to find a more "humane" or "dignified" way to die because, once the death is being eaten alive by a monster, there aren't many options.

There are texts, both Greek and Roman, that emphasize Andromeda's feelings at the moment, making it clear how sad she was about being sacrificed and how happy she was to be saved:

Euripides’ Andromeda — “Why have I, Andromeda, been given a share of suffering above all others—I, who in misery here am facing death?”, frag 115; “Feel my pain with me, for the sufferer who shares his tears has some relief from his burden”, frag 119. Loeb edition.

Ovid’s Metamorphosis — “but the breeze moved in her hair, and from her streaming eyes the warm tears fel [...] as overcome with shame, she made no sound: were not she fettered she would surely hide her blushing head; but what she could perform that did she do—she filled her eyes with tears [...] Over the waves a monster fast approached, its head held high, abreast the wide expanse —The virgin shrieked”, Book 4. Translation by Brookes More.

Ovid’s Ars Amatoria — “What was less hoped for by Andromeda, in chains han that her tears could please anyone?”, Book 3. Translation by A.S. Kline.

Philostratus, Imagines — “for she seems to be incredulous, her joy is mingled with fear, and as she gazes at Perseus she begins to send a smile towards him”, 1.29. Translation by Arthur Fairbanks

Nonnus’ Dionysiaca — “Perseus saved Andromeda in her affliction”, Book 18; “old Cepheus is unhappy still, when he sees Andromeda's fear, and the Monster of Olympos coming, after what happened here on earth!”, Book 25. Translation by W.H.D. Rouse.

Andromeda’s unhappiness at being sacrificed may not necessarily indicate her lack of consent to it — after all, Iphigenia in Iphigenia in Aulis also openly expressed her unhappiness and in the end she consented —, but her determination to get help and her immense joy at actually being helped are indications of how unwilling she was. She could have refused it, just as the other characters I’ve given as examples did, but she didn’t. Andromeda wanted this help because she never wanted to be there and she never even tried to regain agency like, for example, Polyxena did — who also didn't want to be in the situation she was in and had no real agency but tried to get the impression of it. Andromeda accepted that she had no agency and showed no signs of wanting to subvert it. It’s as if, while Iphigenia made the sacrifice about her more than the war, Andromeda had no such pretensions. Andromeda not only knows it’s not about her — she also doesn’t want it to be. There is no sense of accomplishment for her, as there may have been for Menoeceus and Maiden. She is in deep despair. In this sense, Euripides' Andromeda more closely resembles the kind of description Aeschylus offered of Iphigenia's sacrifice, in which she wept and screamed and resisted so much that she was immobilized and silenced. That is, she more closely resembles an example where there isn’t a self-sacrifice, but an entirely forced sacrifice without any attempt to regain agency through the sacrifice itself, but the agency being played out in vain resistance (for however much Aeschylus Iphigenia and Euripides Andromeda resisted, it didn’t alter the minds of their people. Andromeda had an strange not affected by the context to be bothered by the situation, but Iphigenia received no such thing).

Therefore, with this, I wanted to argue in favor of the idea that Andromeda's sacrifice, in the sources in general, isn’t voluntary.

ANDROMEDA AND PERSEUS: A LOVE STORY?

Here, I’ll discuss my interpretation of the relationship based on the sources. First, it’s notable that there is an eroticism surrounding the myth of Andromeda. Although this is already evident in many sources, it becomes even more obvious when the god Eros is literally included. In the Greco-Roman literary sources, these are some examples of the emphasis on eroticism in the myth (note that I’m using eroticism as an term for both romance and sexuality):

Above all beware of reproaching girls for their faults, it’s useful to ignore so many things. Andromeda’s dark complexion was not criticised by Perseus, who was borne aloft by wings on his feet. [...]

Ars Amatoria, Book 2. Translation by A.S. Kline.

PHILODEMUS O feet, O legs, O thighs for which I justly died, O buttocks, O pubis, O flanks, O shoulders, O breasts, O slender neck, O arms, O eyes I am mad for, O accomplished movement, O admirable kisses, O exclamations that excite! If she is Italian and her name is Flora and she does not sing Sappho, yet Perseus was in love with Indian Andromeda.

Greek Anthology, 5.132. Translation by W.R. Paton.

TRITON: When he was at the Ethiopian shore here, and now flying low, he saw Andromeda lying fastened to a projecting rock—ye gods, what a beautiful sight she was!—with her hair let down, but largely uncovered from the breasts downwards. At first he pitied her fate and asked the reason for her punishment, but little by little he succumbed to love, and decided to help, since she had to be saved. So when the monster came—a fearsome sight it was too!—to gulp her down, the young man hovered above it with his scimitar unsheathed, and, striking with one hand, showed it the Gorgon with the other, and turned it into stone. At one and the same time was the monster killed, and most of it, all of it that faced Medusa, petrified. Then Perseus undid the maiden’s chains, and supported her with his hand as she tip-toed down from the slippery rock. Now he’s marrying her in Cepheus’ palace and will take her away to Argos, so that, instead of dying, she’s come by an uncommonly good marriage.

Dialogue of the Sea Gods, 14.3.  Translation by Henry Watson and Fowler.

[...] Without a dower he takes Andromeda, the guerdon of his glorious victory, nor hesitates.—Now pacing in the van, both Love [Eros] and Hymen wave the flaring torch, abundant perfumes lavished in the flames. The houses are bedecked with wreathed flowers; and lyres and flageolets resound, and songs— felicit notes that happy hearts declare. The portals opened, sumptuous halls display their golden splendours, and the noble lords of Cepheus' court take places at the feast, magnificently served. After the feast, when every heart was warming to the joys of genial Bacchus , then, Lyncidian Perseus asked about the land and its ways about the customs and the character of its heroes. [...]

Metamorphoses, Book 4. Translation by Brookes More.

No, this is not the Red Sea nor are these inhabitants of India, but Ethiopians and a Greek man in Ethiopia. And of the exploit which I think the man undertook voluntarily for love, my boy, you must have heard – the exploit of Perseus who, they say, slew in Ethiopia a monster from the sea of Atlas, which was making its way against herds and the people of this land. Now the painter glorifies this tale and shows his pity for Andromeda in that she was given over to the monster. The contest is already finished and the monster lies stretched out on the strand, weltering in streams of blood – the reason the sea is red – while Eros [Love] frees Andromeda from her bonds. Eros is painted with wings as usual, but here, as it not usual, he is a young man, panting and still showing the effects of his toil; for before the deed Perseus put up a prayer to Eros that he should come and with him swoop down upon the creature, and Eros came, for he heard the Greek’s prayer. The maiden is charming in that she is fair of skin though in Ethiopia, and charming is the very beauty of her form; she would surpass a Lydian girl in daintiness, an Attic girl in stateliness, a Spartan in sturdiness. Her beauty is enhanced by the circumstances of the moment; for she seems to be incredulous, her joy is mingled with fear, and as she gazes at Perseus she begins to send a smile towards him. He, not far from the maiden, lies in the sweet fragrant grass, dripping sweat on the ground and keeping the Gorgon’s head hidden lest people see it and be turned to stone. Many cow-herds come offering him milk and wine to drink, charming Ethiopians with their strange colouring and their grim smiles; and they show that they are pleased, and most of them look alike, Perseus welcomes their gifts and, supporting himself on his left elbow, he lefts his chest, filled with breath through panting, and keeps his gaze upon the maiden, and lets the wind blow out his chlamys, which is purple and spattered with drops of blood and with the flecks which the creature breathed upon it in the struggle. Let he children of Pelops perish when it comes to a comparison with the shoulder of Perseus! for beautiful as he is and ruddy of face, his bloom has been enhanced by his toil and his veins are swollen, as is wont to happen when the breath comes quickly. Much gratitude does he win from the maiden.

Imagines, 1.29. Translation by Arthur Fairbanks.

ANTIPHILUS On a Painting of Andromeda The land is Ethiopian; he with the winged sandals is Perseus; she who is chained to the rock is Andromeda; the face is the Gorgon’s, whose glance turns men to stone; the sea-monster is the task set by Love [Eros], she who boasted of her child’s beauty is Cassiopea. Andromeda releases from the rock her feet inured to numbness and dead, and her suitor carries off the bride his prize.

Greek Anthology, 16.147. Translation by W.R. Paton.

When he saw the girl hanging from the rock,  he stiffened—he whom even his enemy had not stunned.  Scarcely did he hold his prize in his hand,  and the conqueror of Medusa was conquered in the presence of  Andromeda.

Liber Quintus. Translation by James Uden. [Detail: there is also the argument that this source is actually a way of de-emphasizing eroticism, for those interested see “A Song from the Universal Chorus: The Perseus and Andromeda Epyllion”]

Regarding visual representations, Odgen (2008, p. 81-82) comments:

Artists also exploited the erotic potential of the suspended Andromeda. Vase painters and wall painters often preferred to represent her clothing diaphanously (e.g. LIMC Andromeda I no. 23, a Sicilian calyx-crater of ca. 350–25 bc, and no. 32, a Roman wall- painting from Boscotrecase). And as with the writers, wardrobe mal- function could be deployed to enhance the effect. One notable example of this is found in the case of a fragment of a Lucanian bell-crater of the early fourth century bc, on which a voluptuous Andromeda holds her thin peplos-dress up in her teeth to preserve her modesty (LIMC Andromeda I no. 22). In ca. 340 bc the female nude entered the canon of Greek sculpture, and this seems to have had an impact on the ways in which Andromeda could be shown. A nude Hellenistic statue, preserved only in the form of a Roman copy reduced to little more than a torso, indicates what could be done. The delicate chain that rests across the top of the girl’s right thigh offers little to her modesty (LIMC Andromeda I no. 157, from Alexandria). No doubt this was the sort of thing Roman writers had in mind when they compared the suspended Andromeda to a statue. Full nudity was too much for the vase painters, and the only completely nude Andromeda to be found on a vase is a burlesque figure of ca. 340–30 bc on a Campanian hydria (LIMC Andromeda I no. 20). From the third century bc and onwards Etruscan and Roman relief-sculptors and wall-painters were less reticent about going all the way (e.g. LIMC Andromeda I nos. 53, 55, 75, 146a, 152). Roman artists favoured three tender vignettes with little or no correlate in the literary tradition, and all of these are to be found in profusion in Pompeian wall-paintings. In one Perseus is shown helping Andromeda down from her place of suspension, with a miniaturised dead ketos sometimes lying at their feet (e.g. LIMC Andromeda I nos. 67–71, 73–4, 78, 83–9, 209–11, 222). In the second, completely absent from the written record, we catch a now fully relaxed Perseus and Andromeda, their troubles behind them, sitting together and gazing at the reflection of the Gorgon-head in a rock-pool. Perseus is evidently recounting his earlier adventures to his new fiancée, perhaps still on the shore where the ketos was killed (LIMC Andromeda I nos.102–4, 109–10, 118, 120, Perseus nos. 66–73). In the third we find Perseus transporting Andromeda through the air, presumably back to Seriphos (LIMC Perseus nos. 229–30).

Furthermore, it must be considered that Eros/Love is represented, in some cases, in ceramics that address the rescue of Andromeda by Perseus, emphasizing the eroticism of the myth (for example, see here).

Gibert (1999-2000), in relation to Euripides' play Andromeda, comments on how it most likely had as its focus not the heroic conquest of Perseus, but the love between Perseus and Andromeda. There are even surviving lines in which the god Eros is invoked to help the pair of star-crossed lovers. One of the possibilities to be commented on is also the chances that Andromeda was the first play to represent a man falling in love. Note that it isn’t “a man in love”, but a “man falling in love” — that is, the moment in which the feeling arises. Furthermore, Andromeda was part of a trilogy that also contained the play Helen, which, unlike Andromeda, has survived. Although Helen has more than one theme, the emphasis on the romantic relationship between Helen and Menelaus is quite obvious, which perhaps allows for the theory that this specific trilogy proposed an approach to mythological romantic relationships. Not only that, but both Andromeda and Helen are a subject of debate in terms of genre, with scholars debating whether they are tragedy, comedy, or something else — much of this debate exists by the fact that Aristotle’s “Poetics” is often used as a reference for the rules of theatrical genres. Euripides, in this trilogy, apparently wasn’t trying to follow the known strict formulas.

The presence of such strong eroticism in the myth of Andromeda is actually something that intrigues me. It intrigues me how, in some ways, their relationship became stronger than Perseus’ heroic conquests. Yes, Perseus is still praised for facing Cetus, saving Andromeda, and then dealing with Phineus, but the focus is still on how he and Andromeda feel about each other. This, at least to my mind, still sounds more like a relationship myth than a conquest myth, although both elements are present and important. Even when we have sources that speak of Perseus' immortalization in the stars, Andromeda is usually emphasized as being immortalized in the stars as well (Nonnus' Dionysiaca, Pseudo-Hyginus' Astronomica, Aratus' Phaenomena).

Regarding Andromeda's reciprocity, Silva (2023, p. 130-131) comments that Andromeda, as a character in an Euripidean play that includes the elements of “escape” and “salvation,” resembles Euripidean characters Iphigenia (Iphigenia in Tauris) and Helen (Helen), and this would include her non-passivity in her escape. She supports this idea with what Erastatones says in Catasterismi 17, where he describes that Andromeda refused to stay her father and mother and went with Perseus of her own free will, and what is said in Pseudo-Hyginus' Astronomica, which gives a similar account that also emphasizes Andromeda's desire. For Silva, the play, therefore, addresses the idea of ​​a girl abandoning her family and homeland in order to follow her lover to an unknown situation. She also recalls that Peterson (1904, p. 101) interpreted Andromeda's decision as a disregard for traditional duties, after all she disobeyed her parents' wishes and left her homeland to go with a stranger. It wasn't supposed to be an easy decision.

Pseudo-Apollodorus records:

[...] But Ammon having predicted deliverance from the calamity if Cassiepea's daughter Andromeda were exposed as a prey to the monster, Cepheus was compelled by the Ethiopians to do it, and he bound his daughter to a rock. When Perseus beheld her, he loved her and promised Cepheus that he would kill the monster, if he would give him the rescued damsel to wife. These terms having been sworn to, Perseus withstood and slew the monster and released Andromeda. However, Phineus, who was a brother of Cepheus, and to whom Andromeda had been first betrothed, plotted against him; but Perseus discovered the plot, and by showing the Gorgon turned him and his fellow conspirators at once into stone. [...]

Library, 2.4.3. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Regarding this passage, Faria (2023, p. 11) interprets that “it can be inferred that Perseus takes Andromeda's salvation as proof of love and, in order to free her, he faces the monster to which she was exposed and deals with conspiracies and adversities from opponents, such as Phineus” (improvised translation, the original was in Portuguese).

Now that I have established why I think Perseus was motivated by love and that the feeling was mutual, I’ll argue why I think the marriage was beneficial to Andromeda. Again, the comparison territory! Hesione is probably the sacrificial maiden most similar to Andromeda and I wouldn’t be surprised if one was derived from the other. Laomedon, the Trojan king, didn’t pay homage to the gods Apollo and Poseidon by building the walls of Troy, forced by the king of the gods Zeus to do so as punishment for both of them being part of a plan to betray him. This led to the prophecy that a sea monster would be sent to destroy Troy and that the only way to prevent this would be to sacrifice Hesione, one of the princesses. Heracles, seeing her there and talking to her, learned of what had happened. He then told King Laomedon that he would save her and Troy by killing the monster, but that he wanted Laomedon's divine horses as a reward (which, depending on the source, are explained as gifts from Zeus as compensation for the kidnapping of the young and beautiful Ganymede). Laomedon made the promise, but, just as he didn’t fulfill his duty to the gods, he didn’t fulfill his duty to Heracles. As a result, Heracles, along with other Achaeans, sacked Troy with drastic results. Priam, one of the princes, ended up inheriting Laomedon's throne, and Hesione was taken as a prize of war, with Heracles giving her to Telamon for his usefulness in the sack (see, for example, Pseudo-Apollodorus' Library and the Byzantine scholia of The Iliad).

The similarities to Andromeda are obvious, in terms of context:

The event takes place in a foreign/non-Greek place (Aethiopia/Troy);

A hierarchical power figure of the community commits hubris against the gods (Cassiopeia/Laomedon);

Poseidon is involved in both cases (he is requested by the Nereids, who were offended/he is one of the offended gods);

It’s prophesied that a sea monster (in the case of Andromeda, his name is Cetus) will destroy the city (Aethiopia/Troy) as punishment for this hubris; 

It’s also prophesied that the only way to avoid the destruction of the city (Aethiopia/Troy) is with the sacrifice of the daughter (Andromeda/Hesione) of the one who offended the gods (Cassiopeia/Laomedon). They’re both maidens and the sacrifice of both is justified as being the "best" for the community;

A Greek hero (Perseus/Heracles) appears, talks to the maiden (Andromeda/Hesione), finds out from her what is happening and negotiates a reward with her father (marriage/divine horses). Both heroes are sons of Zeusand have a mortal father figure (Dictys/Amphitryon);

The monster is defeated, the girl (Andromeda/Hesione) is taken.

There are, however, some crucial differences here, which I’ll comment on. Well, let us return to Euripides. Although the fragments of the play Andromeda aren’t in a 100% sure order, this is one of the possibilities suggested:

Perseus Maiden, if I should rescue you, will you show me gratitude?  Andromeda Take me with you, stranger, whether you want me a servant, a wife or a slave. Perseus  I have never abused the unfortunate in their unfortunate in adversity, for I may suffer adversity myself. Andromeda Do not bring me to tears by offering my hope; many things may happen that are unanticipated. 

Fragments 129-130. Loeb edition.

If we consider that the order is this, then the dialogue would be structured in such a way as to build a scene in which, despite Perseus initially demanding a reward for saving Andromeda, when Andromeda responded with such desperation (indicated by the way she even claims that she would be his slave, as long as he saved her), Perseus apparently realized that this wasn’t the best thing to say and made sure to assure Andromeda that he wouldn’t use her current vulnerability as a way to exploit her (which is why, right after Andromeda suggested slavery as his reward, Perseus claimed that he avoids taking advantage of other people's misfortune). In this case, Perseus would apparently be recognizing Andromeda's lack of power at that moment, knowing that vulnerability would possibly make her enter into exploitative scenarios, and in response he would have tried to assure her that her safety was guaranteed.

If this is indeed the original order of the play, it would make Andromeda's situation quite different from Hesione's. Hesione had no such safety guaranteed to her by Heracles or Telamon; she was actually taken to be enslaved in Salamis. For example, in Pseudo-Apollodorus Library 2.6.4 she is said to have been given as a prize to Telamon (“he [Heracles] assigned Laomedon's daughter Hesione as a prize to Telamon”, trans. J.G. Frazer), in Sophocles’ Ajax she is directly referred to as an enslaved captive (“you, the captive slave's son”, trans. Richard Jebb), and in the Byzantine scholia the scholiast makes Hesione's extremely disadvantageous situation even more obvious by saying “When Heracles sacked Troy, he took as prisoner Hesione, the daughter of Laomedon (and sister of Priam), and gave her as a war-prize to Telamon because he had fought with him” (trans. R. Scott Smith). Hesione has no legitimate status and consequently doesn’t have the legal protection of a wife. She is an enslaved woman, not a free person. We don't have to think about what Andromeda's life would be like if Perseus was the kind of guy who saved a girl from being sacrificed just to get her as a prize, without really considering her safety or feelings, because Telamon already did that with Hesione. We already know that story. Sure, there are a lot of euphemisms for master-slave relationships in the writing of some ancient authors, Briseis and Achilles is probably the most obvious example of this with authors talking about how Briseis' beauty turned him on and oh how he would leave the battlefield from her bed and the like, but even Briseis has been acknowledged for her disadvantageous status in various texts. No one has the slightest doubt that she has no legal protection, no one has the slightest doubt that Achilles has more power over her than any healthy relationship should allow and the Byzantine scholia, just as it recognized that Hesione is a prisoner, recognized that Iliadic Achilles wasn’t really caring about Briseis. But Andromeda? She never had this type of source. There is no euphemism in the world that would make Andromeda, with the amount of sources she has, not have been identified as being in a disadvantageous situation by at least one author. I would understand if she was a obscure character, but she's not.

And to further emphasize how Hesione is a very obvious example of what happens when the hero isn’t genuinely trying to save the girl, consider this fragment from Euripides’ play that is interpreted as Andromeda’s: “I forbid the acquiring of illegitame sons. Though in no way inferior to legitimate ones, they are handicapped by convention and this is something you must beware of” (frag 141). Presumably this line is Andromeda making Perseus assure her that he won’t have any illegitimate children, that is, children other than with Andromeda, whom he is promising to make his wife. The justification is that this will be a problem for the child who, no matter how good they are, will be treated with contempt by social convention. And well, since Hesione is an enslaved concubine and not a wife, Teucer, her son, is illegitimate. And he does have a problem with that. In Book 10 of The Iliad, Agamemnon reminds him that Telamon raising him in his household despite Teucer being a bastard is something that should be rewarded by Teucer bringing glory to Salamis. In Sophocles' Ajax, Agamemnon dismisses Teucer by saying that, as the son of an enslaved Trojan woman, he is also a barbarian and a slave, and as such, Agamemnon has no reason to listen to him. In other sources (Sophocles' lost plays, Euripides' Helen, Ioannis Tzetzes' Ad Lycophronem, Pausanias' Description of Greece, etc), Ajax's death results in Teucer's banishment by Telamon. Teucer's safety in Salamis was assured by Ajax, the legitimate son, caring for him. From the moment Ajax died, Teucer, in his illegitimate condition, also lost his safety. Not only is Hesione the embodiment of what Perseus's assurance is meant to prevent, Teucer is the embodiment of what Andromeda's demand is meant to prevent. 

And interestingly, none of the sources mention Perseus having mistresses or illegitimate children, so from what can be assumed from the surviving sources, he was indeed loyal and faithful to Andromeda.

THE SUBVERSION OF ANDROMEDA’S MYTH

Even in the comedy genre, which wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, these aspects of Andromeda remain. In Thesmophoriazusae, Aristophanes wrote a scene parodying Euripides’ Andromeda. Consequently, the characterization of the characters in this absurd situation (the context of this scene is insane, but I honestly don’t think it’s useful for this post) reflects Euripidean characterization and, consequently, Andromeda here is represented as someone who actively mourns and wants help. However, this becomes comical. Lourenço (1995, p. 285-291) argues that Aristophanes parodied this specific play because, similar to Euripides’ Helen (also parodied by him), it was one of the materials that provided the greatest melodramatic potential. The subversion of parody lies in transforming the tragic into the comic and the romantic into a very unromantic scenario. if the subversion of the play, forming the parody, is in making it funny and unromantic, then it reinforces the status of Euripides' original play as the story of a tragic couple in love. Ribeiro (2018, p. 126-139) comments on how well received the play was at the time, capable of arousing a lot of sympathy from the public with the sweet and tragic couple. This type of parody wouldn’t have had the impact it had if it weren’t for the positive reception and the original aspects of Euripides' play. Even today, when calling Andromeda a "controversial" play, the intention tends to be more in the realm of debate about what makes something a tragic play in terms of genre. It usually takes into account what Aristotle says in Poetics, which clearly doesn’t fit with what we know about the structure of Andromeda (just as, for example, it doesn’t seem to fit with Helen) and that’s why there is the debate. It's not about having had a troubled reception.

Gibert says (1999-2000, p. 85-86):

This brings us back to genre. Perseus' love is the only target of Aristophanes' parody that might also be called a structural element of Andromeda's, love story. All of his targets, however, would have contributed to the unusual atmosphere and tone of the Euripidean original: the daring use of Echo, the exotic predicament and exaggerated pathos of the exposed maiden, and the arrival of the gallant hero through the air. So would several other elements of the dramatic situation. When they meet, the two principals are young and unattached, and Andromeda is a parthenos, ripe for marriage. A victim of her father's cruelty, she attracts sympathy through her opening scenes, and her savior Perseus appears to have been no less sympathetic a character. He was at any rate acceptable to Andromeda, and this suggests that the audience too will have wanted the couple's marriage plans to succeed. They do succeed, as everyone surely expected all along. Against this background, Perseus' constant love deserves to be called an ethically serious development of the legend's romantic potential. We do not know whether he expounded other motives or was consistently high-minded, nor whether Andromeda felt anything other than gratitude. In treating joyful true love seriously, however, Euripides enlarged the boundaries of the tragic genre.

In the Greek Anthology, an anonymous epigram presents Andromeda rejecting Perseus and he, enraged, petrifying her:

What Perseus would say after slaying the Monster, when Andromeda refused him: The cruel fetters of the rock have turned thy heart to stone, and now let the eye of Medusa turn thy body, too, to stone.

9.479. Translation by W.R. Paton.

This kind of epigram seems to be intended to be humorous by breaking expectations. Audiences familiar with the typical romantic story would be shocked at how messy everything has become. But then again, this kind of thing is only possible because there has been a breaking of expectations, which was only possible because Perseus and Andromeda was already known as a story of love and gratitude. Andromeda's refusal is supposed to surprise, it isn’t supposed to someone see this and think "aha! The real story that had been hidden!"

Conon, in Narrations 40, offers a rationalized version of the myth that doesn’t include a attempt of sacrifice. And yet, curiously, Andromeda's dissatisfaction with the situation imposed upon her is still evident:

The 40th story tells the history of Andromeda quite differently from the myth of the Greeks. Two brothers were born, Kepheus and Phineas, and the kingdom of Kepheus is what is later renamed Phoenicia but at the time was called Ioppa, taking its name from Ioppe the seaside city. And the borders of his realm ran from our sea [the Mediterranean] up to the Arabs who live on the Red Sea. Kepheus has a very fair daughter Andromeda, and Phoinix woos her and so does Phineas the brother of Kepheus. Kepheus decides after much calculation on both sides to give her to Phoinix but, by having the suitor kidnap her, conceal that it was intentional. Andromeda was snatched from a desert islet where she was accustomed to go and sacrifice to Aphrodite. When Phoinix kidnapped her in a ship (which was called Ketos [sea monster], whether by chance or because it had a likeness to the animal), Andromeda began screaming, assuming she was being kidnapped without her father's knowledge, and called for help with groans. Perseus the son of Danae by some daimonic chance was sailing by, and at first sight of the girl, was overcome by pity and love. He destroyed the ship Sea Monster and killed those aboard, who were only surprised, not actually turned to stone. And for the Greeks this became the sea monster of the myth and the people turned to stone by the Gorgon's head. So he makes Andromeda his wife and she sails with Perseus to Greece and they live in Argos where he becomes king.

Translation by Brady Kiesling.

Conon wanted to rationalize the myth, but still keep it with certain known themes and elements (e.g. Perseus rescuing Andromeda and Cepheus still being an ambiguous figure). And it makes you wonder...couldn't Andromeda's unwillingness be one of those elements?

Therefore, I think that, even looking at the logic of the subversions, my already shared opinions remain.

SECONDARY SOURCES

WEST, M.L. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure and Origins. Oxford, 1985.

PHILIPS, Kyle. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1968), pp. 1-23.

BOCHOLIER, Julien. The Ambiguities of Voluntary Self-Sacrifice: the Case of Macaria in Euripides’ Heraclidae. 2020.

LOURENÇO, Frederico. HVMANITAS — Vol. XLV. Tema(s) e Desenvolvimento Temático nos Tesmoforiantes de Aristófanes. 1995. 

RIBEIRO, Wilson. Codex – Revista de Estudos Clássicos, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2018, pp. 123-15

ODGEN, Daniel. Perseus. Routledge, 2008.

SILVA, Maria de Fátima. PROMETEUS - Ano 15 - Número 43 – setembro - dezembro 2023.

GIBERT, John. Illinois Classical Studies, Vol. 24/25, Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (1999-2000), pp. 75-91.

FARIA, Rui Tavares. Calíope: Presença Clássica | 2023.1 . Ano XL . Número 45 (separata 4). “O herói-viajante em Eurípides: missão, errância, reconhecimento e fuga”

[babyrdie]

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.

[babyrdie]

Would you be interested about talking more about Jason and his character? I’d love to hear more about what you like about his characterisation in general, and how Apollonius describes him 🙂 /gen

Sure! Sorry for the delay, there was a lot to say since I don't usually talk about Jason here.

A few details first:

I was immensely inspired by Fernando Rodrigues Junior's translation because he wrote essays about the poem at the end of the edition, and they were very helpful. Credit to him. In addition to him, I looked for other academic opinions that better explained what I think. However, any opinion is still an opinion, be it mine or those of academics, and therefore you can certainly disagree.

When I refer to Jason as a non-traditional hero, I am talking about Argonautica. Pindar, for example, writes him in a traditional way. I’ll mention other sources here, but the focus is still Argonautica. Also, I'm going to assume that Argonautica uses the popular version of the myth (including Jason's family context and his ending with Medea) for character opinion purposes, but I'm aware that the text doesn't explicitly state anything.

I have reread considerable parts of the Argonautica (which is part of the reason I took so long to respond), but I haven’t reread it in its entirety. My memory may therefore be deceiving!

You asked about Jason, but I talked about Medea too because their developments are connected.

I'm not fluent in English and the translator is an ally, so please forgive any mistakes.

I'll take this opportunity to say that I think the debates surrounding the mythological Medea and Jason tend to be a waste of time, which is why I've given up on looking for anything about them here. Most of the time, people are making long posts about how Medea is cruel for killing her children as if people need constant reminders that killing your child (or children in general) is wrong. And no, someone posting something silly like "Medea is a queen" doesn't mean they don't know that Medea is cruel. People post about how Achilles and Odysseus are just little guys all the time and no one makes a post about how they're war criminals every time someone posts something like that. Because in the case of male characters, people realize it's a joke and in the case of female characters, people simply lose the ability to understand jokes. You have the right to sympathize with male characters who were also cruel, but you need to explain yourself if you do the same with cruel female characters. As for Jason, he's restricted to "the guy who was cruel to Medea" and apparently no one makes an effort to comment on anything more interesting about him, especially about the poem entirely dedicated to his journey. There are a lot of heroes who weren't as nice people as Jason either, but they at least get a chance to be explored in another way. It seems that most people don't want to talk about the complexities of the characters, most seem more focused on reaffirming obviousness (Medea is cruel) and reducing characters to a single thing (Jason is a bad husband). I'm incredulous that people don't comment, for example, on how Jason is innovative in Argonautica. No one comments on how Medea and Jason as a couple have an incredible dynamic and that part of the flavor of this couple is precisely that they're not cute and healthy. "Ah, but their marriage sucks!"...yes, it sucks! That's part of the fun! They're doomed, that's the point! Even Apollonius clearly knows about it, as I'll talk here. And it's not like I expect people to make deep, knowledgeable posts... I'm also just looking at mythology as a hobby and having fun with no major pretensions. I just wish the topic was less restricted, you know. Something other than debating Medea's morality or simply complaining that Jason is a bad husband. Likewise, trying to defend the morality of any of these characters is equally a waste of time.

Fernando (the mentioned translator) comments that, although Argonautica deals with many themes, by far the one that has most attracted academics to discuss the poem is the validity of the supposed heroism in the character of Jason. And, honestly, reading Argonautica I can see why. The elements of “young hero” and “hero who goes on a mission because he was ordered” are treated in a somewhat…different way here?

Okay, let's take Achilles and Perseus as an example, since I've already introduced them in this post. According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Achilles was 15 when he joined the army, and even authors who don't give an exact age agree that he was very young. This is also visible in the iconography, since Achilles is always depicted beardless. His being young is part of the tragedy, but in the end he’s still a fearsome hero. His youth doesn’t inhibit his power, so to speak. Perseus is young (I'm not sure if he was a teenager or a young adult, though) and he went on a mission not because he wanted to, but because he had to — because of his mother, Danae, by order of King Polydectes. But in the end, Perseus is still heroic. He not only kills Medusa but saves Andromeda from the sea monster and returns home to save his mother, Danae. And he has divine help in this, but the divine help factor is something common for heroes. The thing is: Perseus doesn't need other people (note the term people, which excludes deities) to do things for him. Neither does Achilles, for that matter. Jason in Argonautica isn't like that. He’s young, he’s insecure, he’s passive, he’s unresponsive, he has people doing things for him all the time. Even the heroine of the poem, Medea, is more active and determined than he is, which is not exactly a common characteristic in Ancient Greek works. He isn’t fearsome like Achilles and he is not brave like Perseus.

In academia, Jason's character raised doubts. Among those who study ancient Greek literature, he seems to be...well, he's not like the others. Fernando comments on how Auguste Coaut, Alfred Körte, J.W. Mackail, C.M. Bowra, F. Wright, and G.W. Money all seem to think that Jason lacks something that makes him heroic — by ancient Greek standards — or even something that makes him a protagonist — i.e., the focal character who moves the narrative forward. The reasons are similar: he's passive, he's not brave, he has a weak presence, he's uninteresting, and some say he's selfish — in the sense of not doing something that benefits others. Compared to the other characters, Jason seems surprisingly lackluster to some readers, which is unexpected for a hero protagonist. When you read The Iliad, Achilles definitely doesn't seem like a weak presence or a coward. Same with Odysseus in The Odyssey and with other characters like Perseus and Heracles when their myths are told. None of these characters seem to need, for the most part, other people (note that I say people, not deities. Deities helping heroes is common) to solve things for them at all times. If anything, it's Achilles who is the most active of the Greek warriors in the Trojan War, it's Odysseus who is the main voice throughout the poem, it's Perseus who helps Andromeda and Danae, it's Heracles who overcomes his conflicts. They may receive help, but you can see that they’re capable. You don't question their capabilities at any point. Jason, on other hand, is very much questioned.

I'll give a summary, just to make it more understandable for those who haven't read it and to refresh the minds of those who have. The summary is focused more on Jason's attitudes or lack of attitudes, so it is not a summary of Argonautica itself. For example, I didn't describe Apollo's importance in the text because it doesn't really affect what I want to talk about. There are several myths mentioned by Apollonius that I didn't mention, and I also didn't mention all the reported fates of the Argonauts.

In Book 1, we have:

As Jason is leaving Ioculs, Apollonius points out that he’s hot like Apollo. Jason doesn't volunteer to be the leader and instead asks the Argonauts who should be the leader. Obviously, everyone chooses Heracles, the most experienced of the crew, but Heracles says that the job should go to Jason because he's the one who brought them together. And just because Heracles said it, the Argonauts agree. So not only did Jason not volunteer to take the lead, he wasn't the first choice. Furthermore, right at the beginning, Jason is already crying because he misses home (bro really wasn’t excited about this mission). The ship's seats are drawn at random, with the exception of Heracles and Ancaeus, who by unanimous decision are given the middle seat. Also by group decision, Tiphys is given the position of helmsman.

After making sacrifices to Apollo and Idmon, who is capable of divination, assuring them that they will return with the fleece but that Idmon is destined to die in a distant land, the Argonauts are both happy and saddened by both news. While everyone was having fun drinking and eating, Jason was despondent and thoughtful. Idas taunts him, insinuating that Jason is a fearful coward and that Idas, on the other hand, is strong and courageous. Jason doesn’t respond to Idas, but Idmon gets angry and reprimands Idas for not comforting a discouraged comrade with appropriate words. Idmon and Idas argue and the one who stops the argument is Orpheus singing and playing. The most Jason does is stop Idas from attacking Idmon, but all the Argonauts do that and not just Jason (that typical moment when a lot of people try to break up a fight lol).

When they land on Lemnos, an island of only women (they killed the men) who had even armed themselves to defend themselves, Jason's way of avoiding conflict is through eroticism and not heroism. Because he’s beautiful and charming, he’s captivating (like, all the women of Lemnos thought he was really hot lol). Thus, the heroes avoid conflict with the women and even spend days having sex (in Jason's case, with Hypsipyle, the queen of Lemnos). And it's not Jason who reminds the heroes that they have a mission to accomplish, but Heracles is the one who does. Heracles, who had stayed to guard the ship Argo, has to go and remind everyone that they have a mission and that the Golden Fleece won’t go to Iolcus alone. 

They disembark at the place of the Deliones, ruled by the newly married king Cyzicus. That part wasn't a problem for them, as Cyzicus was a good host. When they left, they were attacked by six-armed giants (known as Earth-born men) because such monsters were created by Hera as a trial for Heracles. However, Heracles dealt with them all. They set off again and it was night when the boat was moved to get closer to Deliones' home again without anyone noticing that they were on the same land they had been on before. The Doliones, who were constantly having problems with other people, thought the Argonauts were enemies and attacked them. Jason then kills Cyzicus without recognizing him and subsequently the rest of the Argonauts kill other Doliones. Only later did they realize that they had killed their own allies and spent three days mourning. Cyzicus' widow hanged herself.

Then they set off. As they sailed, a bird made a noise. Mopsus, hearing the animal, realized that it was a sign of good omen (birds were considered signs in divination) and told Jason where they should go and what to do. After doing what Mopsus said they should, they rowed again. When the sea became too strong, Heracles alone rowed hard enough, but ended up breaking his oar. They’re in Mysia and Heracles orders them to prepare something to eat while he goes to get wood to make a new oar. However, Heracles is accidentally left behind in Mysia along with the Argonaut Polyphemus (Heracles wanted to look for Hylas, who had been taken by the nymphs while looking for water, and so didn’t embark in time. And Polyphemus was the one who heard Hylas screaming, so he also stayed to help Heracles) without Jason noticing the absence. When the Argonauts notice Heracles' absence, Telamon accuses Jason of doing it on purpose so that Heracles wouldn’t overshadow him, and Jason doesn’t even defend himself. Telamon tries to get Tiphys to return for Heracles, but Boreas' sons (Zethes and Calais) stop him. The situation only ends when the god Glaucus intervenes and explains that Heracles was left behind by divine will, as he must finish his labors rather than continue with the Argonauts.

In Book 2, we have:

The Argonauts arrive at the home of the Bebrycians, whose king Amycus has a habit of challenging travelers to fight him in a boxing match. He then orders the Argonauts to choose the bravest warrior and doesn't even care to know who they are, which angers Polydeuces. That's why it's not Jason who volunteers, but Polydeuces (Helen's brother. The Dioscuri are part of the Argonauts and Polydeuces, specifically, is the demigod of Zeus. Castor is the son of Tyndareus). And indeed, it’s Polydeuces who defeats Amycus. This caused Bebrycians to attack the Argonauts, which led to a fight in which the Argonauts won and sent their enemies running (like, literally). One of the Argonauts comments that if Heracles was still with the Argonauts they probably wouldn't have gone through this, since Amycus would hardly challenge Heracles.

At one point, they stop at a place near the house of Phineus, an elderly and blind seer who is daily tormented by harpies because of a divine punishment imposed by Zeus. The Argonauts want to free him from the problem with the harpies, but it isn’t Jason who does it, but Zethes and Calais (demigods of the god of the north wind Boreas). Phineus, being a seer, prophesies to the Argonauts the challenges they will have to face. What he says leaves everyone scared, including Jason, who even takes a while to respond to Phineus because he’s so shocked.

They have to pass two rocks that move to crush those who sail between them, but they manage to advance. Not because of Jason, but because the goddess Athena helped them and the helmsman Tiphys was skilled. After they pass the Clashing Rocks with Athena's support, Tiphys notices how fearful Jason is and tries to comfort him telling him that they have divine help (in this case, Athena) and that Phineus, who is a seer, said that the voyage would continue well. Discouraged, Jason gently responds that he shouldn’t have accepted Pelias's imposition and instead should have never set out because he fears that he will lead all his companions to their deaths. However, the Argonauts motivate him and he regains the motivation to continue.

At one point, they are attacked by a wild boar and Idmon dies because of the animal. The Argonauts are obviously alarmed, but it isn’t Jason who resolves the situation. Peleus is the first to react and wounds the animal, and Idas is the one who delivers the fatal blow. Later in the journey, the helmsman Tiphys dies from an illness.

After losing their companions, the Argonauts are sad and don’t continue their journey. Jason, as their leader, doesn’t motivate them and instead joins them. Ancaeus, driven by Hera, motivates them to continue without fear and yet Jason does nothing. Peleus, however, is motivated and tries to encourage Jason, who dejectedly says that he thinks they have an evil fate awaiting them in a hopeless mood. And then Ancaeus, still driven by Hera, simply decides not to waste time with Jason and moves the ship himself. Hera is really motivated to bring Medea to Iolcus lol

Further on, they pass by the island of Ares, and one of the island's birds attacks Oileus, causing him to stop rowing. In the face of this attack, Jason does nothing. The ones who resolve the situation are Clytius, who kills the bird, and Eribotes, who tends to Oileus's wound. All of this without Jason's order. Furthermore, it’s Amphidamas who gives the suggestion that prevents the birds from stopping attacking them: to make noises to scare them away.

Later, the Argonauts encounter the sons of Phrixus, who had brought the Golden Fleece to Colchis years ago, in trouble after being shipwrecked. One of them, Argus (not to be confused with Argus, Arestor's son, who built the ship Argo), asks the Argonauts for help. It’s Jason who diplomatically mediates the situation, noting that this is part of Phineus' prophecies. After helping the sons of Phryxus, Jason takes the opportunity to ask them to reward him by helping him get the Golden Fleece. Argus, however, tells them about how cruel, powerful, and a demigod of Helios Aeetes is. This leaves everyone frightened, and once again, Jason does nothing to lift their spirits. But Peleus cheers everyone up.

Sighting Colchis, it’s Ancaeus who tells them that they must choose a strategy on how to approach Aeetes. Argus advised them where they should anchor the ship, so Jason gave the order for Argus's advice to be followed.

In Book 3, we have:

The Argonauts are still on the ship, unnoticed. Athena and Hera then think about how to get them the golden fleece. Hera wants to know if they should advise/influence them to try to deceive the king with smooth words or if Athena has a scheme in mind. Both then thought about what to do, until Hera gave an option: ask Aphrodite to make her son, Eros, make Medea fall in love with Jason.

On the Argo, Jason once again wants to know the Argonauts' opinion on his plan and encourages them to speak up, stating that as common cause is common cause, so is the right to speak. The plan is for the Argonauts to rest on the Argo while Jason, the sons of Phrixus, and two other comrades go to the palace to speak with Aeetes. He will then first see if, with words alone, he can deal with Aeetes or if it will be necessary to resort to more violence. Jason thinks it’s better to first test speech before violence, and comments that years before Aeetes welcomed Phrixus, so why assume that he would immediately be antagonistic to foreigners (in the future we will discover that Aeetes actually hates foreigners and only accepted Phrixius by divine order from Hermes). The Argonauts by mutual consent accept Jason's idea, and the comrades chosen to go along with him and the sons of Phrixus are Telamon and Augeias.

They easily go to the palace without being interrupted by the Colchians because Hera helped them to go unnoticed along the way. Medea quickly calls her sister, Chalciope, as she is Phrixus' widow and the mother of his children. Next come Aeetes and his wife, Eidiya. Taking advantage of the distraction, Eros shoots Medea, who immediately falls in love with Jason.

Aeetes asks his grandsons what happened and who these strangers are, and Argus, who is the oldest, answers. Basically, he describes the Argonauts in a very complimentary way, talks about how they saved him, says that they need the fleece to end a curse and even says, “Hey, Jason’s grandfather is Cretheus. Cretheus is Athamas’ brother. Guess who Athamas is? My grandfather! In other words, we’re related!” Aeetes gets furious because he thinks the Argonauts want the throne and tell them to leave, and threatens that he would have beheaded them if he hadn’t eaten with them. Jason tries to calm him down with his typical sweet and flattering words, but then Aeetes proposes to give him the fleece if Jason successfully completes a practically impossible task. Faced with this, Jason immediately becomes discouraged and thoughtful, but finally, desperate, he says that he will accept even if it is destiny to die because he has to carry out the order imposed by a king. Afterwards, Jason gets up and leaves with his companions while Apollonius describes that he is so hot that he surpasses everyone in beauty.

Argus suggests to Jason that he get help from Medea, as she is a follower of Hecate. He says that he can try to get her to contact Jason by asking his mother, Chalciope, to speak to Medea, since they are sisters. Jason accepts the suggestion. Returning to the Argo, Jason says that Aeetes has given the task of plowing the field using two fire-breathing oxen and planting seeds that create warriors (these are the seeds of Cadmus, who used them to form the first Thebans) and that it is Jason's duty to kill all the warriors on the same day, and he says that he accepted because there was nothing else to do. All the Argonauts are silent and desperate because no one (this includes the demigods in the group) there thought that this is a task that any of the Argonauts could accomplish. Again, it is Peleus who encourages them and comforts Jason. The Argonauts are excited and prepared.

Argus, however, stops the Argonauts and tells them that they must wait, as he will try to get help from Medea since she is skilled in the arts of Hecate. There are again bird signs, and Mopsus interprets to them that this is a positive sign that they should get help from Medea. All the Argonauts agree because they remember Phineus' words, except Idas. Idas finds it shameful that they’re asking for help from Aphrodite and not Ares, mocks the bird signs and thinks it’s bad that they focus on begging "waekling girls" instead of engaging in acts of war. The Argonauts murmur among themselves, but none actually say anything. Jason, as usual, ignores Idas and tells Argus to do as he was suggested, so Argus leaves to speak to his mother.

Argus talks to Calchiope, who agrees to talk to Medea that the foreigners want her help. She asks Medea to accept for the sake of Calchiope's children, but Medea would have already accepted for Jason anyway. Medea then prepares the necessary drugs and, at night, leaves to give them to Jason at the Temple of Hecate. Hera decides that she will make Jason more attractive to Medea, and Apollonius says that he has become so attractive that even the Argonauts are amazed and Mopsus immediately feels a good omen. Mopsus was supposed to go with Jason, but Hera tells him through a raven that no maiden will allow herself to be seduced with strangers around, so Mopsus assures Jason that it will be successful e but that he will have to go alone. Jason and Medea meet at the Temple of Hecate and the general idea is that they flirt with each other, Jason uses sweet words to convince Medea to help him (she is unsure about being a traitor to Colchis), Medea notices how hot Jason is, they blush and there is a promise of marriage in exchange for the help (it is not a hard promise for Jason, as he likes Medea and likes the idea of ​​marrying her). So they return to their proper places, Jason having the drugs that will help him in the task of Aeetes. Jason tells the Argonauts that it was a success and everyone is happy, except Idas who continued to sulk.

For the first time, Jason is able to have a moment of martial prowess all to himself as he successfully accomplishes Aeetes' task, including killing the warriors born from the seeds. However, he’s also only able to do so because Medea helped him by giving him drugs that made him temporarily invulnerable (in fact, he knew it would work because he had previously sprayed the drug on his equipment and had the Argonauts try to break it to see if it was invulnerable). Jason is compared to both Ares and Apollo. Apollo has been used before, but Ares to describe Jason is clearly a characteristic unique to this event of marcial demonstration. 

In Book 4, we have:

Hera urges Medea to leave with the Argonauts, as she wants her to be Pelias' punishment (he dishonored Hera). Medea runs to the Argonauts and tells them that she will put the fleece-guarding serpent to sleep and take the fleece herself, as long as Jason truly marries her under divine witness. Jason is happy, comforts her and makes a vow to Hera that he will make Medea his wife. They shake hands, as if making a deal. While being taken away on the Argo, Medea is sad to say goodbye to Colchis, but Jason comforts her.

They stop at the place where they will get the fleece. It is Medea who uses her drugs to put the guardian beast of the golden fleece to sleep. And during this process, Jason is described as being afraid while Medea does everything. She tells him to get the Golden Fleece, and then he goes and does it. The two return to Argo, where Jason shows the Argonauts the fleece and tells them to get ready as Aeetes will certainly come after them. Jason puts on his war armor and stands near Medea. Argus suggests where they should go and Hera gives a sign of good omen, which encourages the Argonauts and makes them do what Argus said.

The Colchians pursue the Argo, which makes Medea extremely angry (it’s said that she wanted to set the ship on fire, to get an idea) and Jason has to calm her down. She tells him that she has a plan to kill Absyrtus, her brother who is pursuing them, and Jason agrees to go along with the plan. Absyrtus is tricked and killed by Jason in front of the temple of Artemis, and her brother's blood splashes on Medea. Jason performs a sort of ritual to atone for murder (to avoid retribution from the Erinyes) and buries Absyrtus. The two return to the Argo, where Peleus encourages the Argonauts to row vigorously. Furious at the death of their prince, the Colchians are more than willing to pursue the Argonauts, but are prevented by Hera.

Zeus was angered by what Medea and Jason did to Absyrtus, and he wanted them to purify themselves with Circe on Aeaea. But none of the Argonauts knew this, so they passed right by the island and Zeus caused them to get lost. Hera, knowing what Zeus wanted, makes them turn back (there is a scene where she literally screams to warn them). Circe helps them, even recognizing that Medea is related to her because Medea has the bright eyes of the descendants of Helios.

Hera convinces Thetis to have the Nereids help the Argonauts to safe passage, using Achilles to do so (basically, he and Medea here are destined to marry in Elysium. So helping the Argonauts is helping her son's wife). Thetis goes to the Argo and, visible only to Peleus, simply tells him what needs to be done and then leaves. The Nereids really help them.

They arrive at the Phaeacian island, but the king wants to hand Medea over to Aeetes so that there will be no trouble. Medea, who is no fool, repeatedly begs Arete, the queen, not to let this happen. Arete is moved by Medea and goes to speak to her husband, Alcinous. Alcinous says that if Medea isn’t married, then he will hand her over to Aeetes because he is her guardian. But if Medea is married, then he won’t hand her over since she must stay with her husband. Arete sends a herald to warn Jason that he must marry Medea. The Argonauts celebrate the wedding of Jason and Medea, although they both wanted to marry at Ioculs with Jason's family present (in fact, Hera even sends nymphs to the wedding. And Medea and Jason consummate the marriage on a bed covered with the Golden Fleece). The next day, Alcinous agrees to help them, gives them gifts and Arete gives Medea handmaidens. The Argonauts set off and the second fleet of Colchians (remembering that the first was stopped by Hera) gives up pursuing them.

The Argonauts are stranded in Libya. Unable to get out, the Argonauts lose hope and quickly become discouraged. Medea and the handmaids too. Nymphs from Libya appear to give advice to Jason, who passes it on to the group. Peleus (yes, him again. He’s been working hard) interprets the instructions correctly and they finally make it out of there. They arrive at the Garden of the Hesperides and are very thirsty, so Orpheus asks them if they know of a source of water and promises to honor them when they return home. They reply that Heracles had previously come, killed the serpent and stolen the golden apples, and before leaving, he became thirsty and struck a rock and made water gush out for him to drink. The Argonauts go to drink from this new spring and one of them mentions that, even from a distance, Heracles was still of help to them.

Many things happen, including the presence of the god Triton to advise the Argonauts, but when they pass through Crete a bronze giant named Talos tries to stop them. However, Medea says that only she is capable of subduing Talos and so she alone deals with him using spells. The poem ends with the Argonauts arriving at Pegasae.

As you've probably noticed, Jason is a character who is constantly insecure and afraid. He has no attitude most of the time, he gets discouraged easily and has to be motivated by the Argonauts (when the opposite would be expected and Jason, as the leader, would be the motivator). He also doesn't defend his honor when he's accused (which is strange, considering how this was handled in Ancient Greece). He has people constantly solving things for him (whether they're arguments or bigger things), and when Jason is the one who solves something, he does it through the erotic aspect rather than the heroic one or using diplomacy instead of force. He has a mission imposed on him, he cries when he leaves to go on the mission and, in the middle of it, he even wishes he had never gone. Even when he accepts to do the task imposed by Aeetes, he once again reaffirms that he was ordered by a king and that there's nothing he can do about it. In the first two Books, Jason's character is considered by many to be almost irrelevant, with his greatest martial feat being accidentally killing someone he shouldn't have (Cyzicus). Instead, other characters take temporary prominence with each challenge faced. From Book 3 onwards, Jason's character gains prominence, although he evidently shares the prominence with Medea, who is also more grounded and a more appealing character to most readers than he is.

In John Frederick Carpescken's opinion, the protagonist of the story isn’t Jason as an individual, but the Argonauts as a group. The poem doesn’t begin by talking about a specific hero, as The Iliad does with Achilles and The Odyssey with Odysseus, but about men in group: “Beginning with thee, O Phoebus, I will recount the famous deeds of men of old, who, at the behest of King Pelias, down through the mouth of Pontus and between the Cyanean rocks, sped well-benched Argo in quest of the golden fleece” (translated by R.C. Seaton). In later moments, different characters have their qualities emphasized and most of them are quite necessary for the narrative to work. The poem doesn’t end with Jason like The Iliad and The Odyssey; in fact, it ends with the group's arrival at Pagasa. For this reason, Jason's weak presence isn't necessarily a thing that causes narrative problems in the unit, since he isn’t really the protagonist.

Gilbert Lawall doesn't see it that way. He sees Jason as a weak leader who is more of a victim than an active player, since he is only brought to where he is because of Apollo's prophecy and Pelias' plan. During much of the narrative, other heroes, especially Heracles, solve the problems. But he sees this as Apollonius' intention. For him, Jason being weak in Books 1 and 2 and starting to gain some prominence in Book 3 isn’t a mere coincidence, but a purposeful choice by Apollonius as a way to demonstrate a narrative about Jason's growth. With Hypsipyle, he learns that it’s possible to use eroticism as an ally tool. With Cyzicus, Jason becomes more alert after accidentally killing an ally and it’s intentional that, after this episode, force is the last resort (because, when it was the first, it caused this). With Phineus, Jason learns to be merciful, as he sees what happens if he displeases the gods (although it doesn't work out very well, as Jason commits a crime outside Artemis' temple in Book 4). Such teachings, however, aren’t about becoming a hero, according to Lawall. Instead, Jason is the opposite of a hero, he’s an anti-hero. He achieves things by being treacherous and relying on the help of others. Thus, Argonautica demonstrates the corruption of the traditional hero narrative.

Charles Beye believes that Jason is indeed the protagonist, and he thinks that Apollonius clearly emphasizes this. But he doesn’t think that Jason is some kind of anti-hero, he simply thinks that Apollonius deconstructs aspects of the Greek epic epic genre. Since Argonautica is a deconstruction, it makes sense that the protagonist also represents a deconstruction. In his interpretation, what Jason seeks to represent is a love hero. He’s a hero who is beautiful, charming and achieves things more through erotic power than through any other aspect. Heracles being forgotten in Mysia is, therefore, intentional from a narrative perspective, because Heracles, being a typical hero of a Greek epic epic, doesn’t fit into a poem that seeks to deconstruct this.

Graham Zenker also believes that Jason's main weapon is erotic power. But Apollonius' intention is not to deconstruct the epic's narrative, but rather to contribute to it with a new aspect: a narrative in which eros prevails and Jason, as the protagonist, is also represented by this. Idas, who throughout the poem opposes Jason whenever he has the opportunity, is a kind of representation of an obsolete type of heroism. In this case, the type that acts impulsively and violently. The greatest example of this is when he disagrees with the plan to get Medea's help, something that is accomplished through the erotic sphere, and ends up being wrong, since Jason only accomplishes Aeetes' task thanks to this. More than once, Jason's beauty is emphasized. Upon arriving in Lemnos, he has a detailed description of his beauty and charms the women, twice he is compared to a bright star (once with Hypsipyle, once with Medea) and once Hera highlights Jason's beauty when he goes to meet Medea. Furthermore, according to Zenker, Jason constantly avoids force and prefers diplomatic means, with force being a last resort. He often prefers to make group decisions rather than making them himself, including regarding the crew leader. When given confusing advice when the heroes were lost in Libya, Jason wanted to hear everyone's opinion. At no point does he have superhuman feats on his own, as the only time this happens is when doing Aeetes's task, and in that case he was under the influence of Medea's drugs. For Zanker, Jason's indecision and fear are purposefully written to make him more human and relatable.

Francis Vian sees Jason as the most human hero of the crew, and that is why he is the main character — because Apollonius is interested in portraying a human hero rather than showing heroes doing great deeds. In fact, while all the Argonauts embark on a quest for glory of their own free will, Jason is only there because it was forced upon him. Jason isn’t even thinking about honors; he is thinking about a peaceful life when he returns to Iolcus. While Pelias wants to get rid of Jason because he fears that he will take the throne because of Apollo's prophecy, Jason himself never shows any interest in being king.

Personally, I’m immensely inclined towards some of these interpretations (all mentioned by Fernando, remember), especially Zenker's.

In my interpretation, Jason is in fact extremely human and, next to other more impressive heroes, he actually can look quite pathetic. He’s afraid and insecure and at no point does he repeatedly complain about how shameful this is, he’s just that way. The poem doesn’t constantly judge the character for demonstrating characteristics considered as “weakness”, it just introduces this as a casual part of the narrative. There is no feeling that we are seeing a moral lesson, you know. It’s different from the way, for example, ancient authors wrote the myth of Achilles hidden as a girl in Skyros. Many condemned — even directly — the attitude as unmanly and unheroic and Achilles’ attitude of choosing war was seen as Achilles recovering the honor that was lost, to eventually become the ideal of male youth (I have already posted about this). Here we don’t have that, here Apollonius does not seem to have any intention of necessarily portraying this as a horrible defect that urgently needs to be corrected. Yes, the other characters sometimes get irritated with Jason, but this is simply something normal that happens when a bunch of men spend days together at sea. I mean, the characters also get irritated by other Argonauts. Furthermore, although I see Jason as the protagonist and not the typulation itself, I still find Carspecken's observation regarding the poem's opening in comparison to the Homeric poems pertinent. Let's see:

“Rage—Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion, feasts for the dogs and birds, and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end. Begin, Muse, when the two first broke and clashed, Agamemnon, lord of men and brilliant Achilles.”

The Iliad. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways, who was driven far journeys, after he had sacked Troy's sacred citadel. Many were they whose cities he saw, whose minds he learned of, many the pains he suffered in his spirit on the wide sea, struggling for his own life and the homecoming of his companions. Even so he could not save his companions, hard though he strove to; they were destroyed by their own wild recklessness, fools, who devoured the oxen of Helios, the Sun God, and he took away the day of their homecoming. From some point here, goddess, daughter of Zeus, speak, and begin our story

The Odyssey. Translation by Richmond Lattimore.

Beginning with thee, O Phoebus, I will recount the famous deeds of men of old, who, at the behest of King Pelias, down through the mouth of Pontus and between the Cyanean rocks, sped well-benched Argo in quest of the golden fleece.

Argonautica. Translation by R.C. Seaton. 

[This translation is in prose format.]

Homer opens both poems by addressing the Muse (Fagles translates as Goddess). This is because the Olympian Muses, often associated with the god Apollo, were deities of art and knowledge and believed to be sources of inspiration for poets. In the Theogony, for example, Hesiod credits his poetic ability to the Muses, who inspired him. Apollonius does not begin by addressing a Muse, but rather Apollo. But he isn’t asking Apollo to sing or tell anything (not asking Apollo for inspiration, as Homer is asking the Muse), he’s simply saying he will begin with him since it’s Apollo's prophecy that inspired Jason's mission.

Homer then gives an idea of ​​the theme of the poem (in The Iliad, Achilles' anger that will lead many to death and which was caused by a conflict with Agamemnon. In the Odyssey, the long and exhausting journey that Odysseus has after leaving Troy) and it’s notable that in both cases the main hero is emphasized. Achilles is referred to directly by name, while Odysseus is the "man of many ways", recognizable by that being the character's epithet. But Apollonius not only does not mention Jason by name, he simply doesn’t mention him directly at all, instead he refers to the Argonauts as a group. When your read it, you has the impression this isn’t about Jason having a journey, it’s about the Argonauts being on a journey. This is different from Odysseus who, although he also has a story with crew members, is still very obviously more prominent than the others.

This, of course, could open the door to the interpretation that the protagonist is, therefore, the Argonauts as a group and not Jason in isolation, as is the case with Achilles and Odysseus. Personally, I think that is a valid idea as well. But I also find it intriguing how, even at the moment when this was supposed to tell about how Jason is the hero of the poem, the credit is fairly shared with Jason's companions. And, since he’s a character who is written in a diplomatic way and who clearly understands the idea of ​​"unity is strength", I think it makes perfect sense for his character. In my interpretation, this is an early indication of what Jason's personality is like: a diplomatic person, a person who considers the abilities and opinions of his companions equally. He isn’t the leader who will give orders and they will obey and he isn’t the leader who will be remembered above the others, he’s the leader who is willing to listen and who doesn’t mind others taking the glory. In order to please the crew, Jason was perfectly willing to allow Heracles to be the leader.

In fact, the moment when Apollonius invokes a muse is in the opening of Book 3, where he invokes the muse Erato as a play on words with the name Eros, since Eros is part of the theme of the poem. And this time, he actually talks specifically about Jason instead of the Argonauts, which is quite convenient. Like, if in Books 1 and 2 Jason is often overshadowed and the Argonauts clearly stand out in many moments, it is from Book 3 onwards that he gains prominence. And, curiously, it’s precisely in Book 3 Apollonius opens the poem similar to Homer. But there is still a difference from Homer: Achilles is remembered for having led many to death because of his anger and Odysseus is remembered for having endured a long journey, while Jason... well, he’s remembered for being loved by Medea and right after that Apollonius talks about the power of Aphrodite. To me, this is just another sign that when Jason finally gets his moment to shine, his main skill is being loved/desired. It's the strength of Eros and Aphrodite that are primarily on his side, not martial gods.

[1] Come now, Erato, stand by my side, and say next how Jason brought back the fleece to Iolcus aided by the love of Medea. For thou sharest the power of Cypris, and by thy love-cares dost charm unwedded maidens; wherefore to thee too is attached a name that tells of love.

Argonautica, Book 3. Translation by R.C. Seaton.

Another moment in which he does this is in Book 4, although this time the protagonist is neither the Argonauts (as in book 1) nor Jason (as in book 3), but Medea. While the Argonauts are associated with the conquest of the Golden Fleece and Jason with the conquest through eroticism, Medea is a maiden with wiles. To me, this indicates that Medea here isn’t just a helpmate to the hero, as she was in Book 3, but is now a heroine herself.

[1] Now do thou thyself, goddess Muse, daughter of Zeus, tell of the labour and wiles of the Colchian maiden. Surely my soul within me wavers with speechless amazement as I ponder whether I should call it the lovesick grief of mad passion or a panic flight, through which she left the Colchian folk.

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

Also, like Perseus, Jason doesn't seem to want to embark on a quest for glory. He goes because it's a task imposed on him, and in any case, Jason wonders if he should have gone. Furthermore, he's not shown to be seeking a large fee upon returning home; most of the time, what he seems to want as a reward for returning is safety, since Jason is constantly fearing for his own life and the lives of his crew. But unlike Perseus, Jason doesn't become a traditional hero during the journey. He continues to be a non-traditional hero, and in the end he still manages to do what is necessary. While Perseus is, to me, special because he is a hero who doesn't seek glory, Argonautica Jason is special not only because he doesn't seek glory but also because he doesn't have any truly glorious attitudes (something Perseus has).

Regarding Jason's hesitation in relation to the mission, we have some examples:

Pelias imposes the mission (Book 1):

[5] Such was the oracle that Pelias heard, that a hateful doom awaited him to be slain at the prompting of the man whom he should see coming forth from the people with but one sandal. And no long time after, in accordance with that true report, Jason crossed the stream of wintry Anaurus on foot, and saved one sandal from the mire, but the other he left in the depths held back by the flood. And straightway he came to Pelias to share the banquet which the king was offering to his father Poseidon and the rest of the gods, though he paid no honour to Pelasgian Hera. Quickly the king saw him and pondered, and devised for him the toil of a troublous voyage, in order that on the sea or among strangers he might lose his home-return.

Jason, still at the beginning of the trip, already misses home (Book 1):

[519] Now when gleaming dawn with bright eyes beheld the lofty peaks of Pelion, and the calm headlands were being drenched as the sea was ruffled by the winds, then Tiphys awoke from sleep; and at once he roused his comrades to go on board and make ready the oars. And a strange cry did the harbour of Pagasae utter, yea and Pelian Argo herself, urging them to set forth. For in her a beam divine had been laid which Athena had brought from an oak of Dodona and fitted in the middle of the stem. And the heroes went to the benches one after the other, as they had previously assigned for each to row in his place, and took their seats in due order near their fighting gear. In the middle sat Antaeus and mighty Heracles, and near him he laid his club, and beneath his tread the ship's keel sank deep. And now the hawsers were being slipped and they poured wine on the sea. But Jason with tears held his eyes away from his fatherland. [...]

Jason wishes he had never accepted the mission (Book 2):

[619] He spake, and at once he sped the ship onward through the midst of the sea past the Bithynian coast. But Jason with gentle words addressed him in reply: "Tiphys, why dost thou comfort thus my grieving heart? I have erred and am distraught in wretched and helpless ruin. For I ought, when Pelias gave the command, to have straightway refused this quest to his face, yea, though I were doomed to die pitilessly, torn limb from limb, but now I am wrapped in excessive fear and cares unbearable, dreading to sail through the chilling paths of the sea, and dreading when we shall set foot on the mainland. For on every side are unkindly men. And ever when day is done I pass a night of groans from the time when ye first gathered together for my sake, while I take thought for all things; but thou talkest at thine ease, eating only for thine own life; while for myself I am dismayed not a whit; but I fear for this man and for that equally, and for thee, and for my other comrades, if I shall not bring you back safe to the land of Hellas."

I agree tha tJason avoids violence on the Argonautica, and most of the time, violence is mostly committed by other crew members. Jason doesn't want to be traditionally masculine, he wants to resolve things calmly. In Book 3, he explicitly states he don’t like using force as first recurse: “And let us not merely by force, before putting words to the test, deprive him of his own possession. But first it is better to go to him and win his favour by speech. Oftentimes, I ween, does speech accomplish at need what prowess could hardly catty through, smoothing the path in manner befitting”. He doesn't want to reaffirm his ideal manhood by reinforcing his leadership by taking decisive and self-efficient actions, he wants to know what the group thinks and wants to respect their decision. In Book 3, he even says “My friends, what pleases myself that will I say out; it is for you to bring about its fulfilment. For in common is our task, and common to all alike is the right of speech; and he who in silence withholds his thought and his counsel, let him know that it is he alone that bereaves this band of its home-return”. He doesn't get upset when Heracles is chosen as leader, although he is honored to be chosen as leader later. He doesn't want to resort to violence when there are other means, such as eroticism, to choose. If he can avoid a fight on Lemnos, why not? If he can lessen the difficulty with Medea's help, why not do so? Even if Idas disagrees, in the end Idas and his need to show himself as a hero of brute strength got him nowhere, while Jason and his new resources succeeded. On the other hand, in the two episodes of violence that Jason was emphasized, it resulted in something negative for Jason himself, and not just for the victim. In the Book, he accidentaly killed the one who had hosted him, and this resulted in the suicide of the king's young wife. In Book 4, the plan to kill Apsyrtus takes place in front of the temple of Artemis and both he and Medea need to turn to Circe to be purified of the crime.

Jason is, in fact, a social and realistic hero. Given the ancient Greek tradition of epic heroes with superhuman abilities and immense courage, it isn’t surprising that many academics accustomed to analyzing heroes in the Homeric model have read Argonautica and found Jason to be a dull character. However, I disagree. Jason isn't dull in Argonautica because he doesn't fit into epic heroism! Actually, he's special because he doesn't fit into epic heroism!

At the core of Jason’s heroic persona, therefore, is collaboration. He is gifted at forming  and shaping his relationships with women and men, crewmembers and foreigners alike. At  Pagasae and Colchis, for example, he reveals a keen interest in nurturing the crew’s sense of  commonality (cf. ξυνός, 1.336, 337; 3.173), and at the end of Book 1 he proves his dedication to  upholding the camaraderie of the men when he forgives Telamon, fostering the crew’s loyalty to  himself and to one another (1.1337-43). This commitment to group cohesion is celebrated in  Book 2 when the Argonauts dedicate a shrine to Homonoia (Unity) and make solemn oaths “to  aid one another for all time (εἰσαιέν) with unity of mind (ὁμοφροσύνῃσι νόοιο)” (2.714-19).15  Jason is also anxious to cultivate good relations with people outside of his crew: over the course  of the poem, he frequently embraces the value of diplomacy (cf. συνθεσίας, 1.340), and his  experiences with Hypsipyle at Lemnos (3.721-910) and with Medea at Colchis (esp. 3.948-1147)  confirm his talent at wooing women. Jason is a social hero. He is also remarkably realistic. While Achilles and Odysseus are certainly imbued with  realism on the level of emotion, relationships, and various experiences they face, on a strictly  heroic level they are superheroes. Achilles’ strength is impossibly incredible. Odysseus’ dependence on strategy and cunning is more believable than Achilles’ biē, but the sheer degree  of excellence Odysseus possesses in a variety of fields is not: in the world of the Odyssey, he is unmatched in mētis (passim), strength (e.g. he throws a heavier discus further than any of the  Phaeacian nobles, Od. 8.186-98), archery (e.g. the contest with the suitors, Od. 21.404-23), and  hand-to-hand combat (e.g. he wins a wrestling match against Philomeleïdes, Od. 4.341-46, and  slaughters dozens of suitors in Book 22). In contrast, Jason never once does something beyond  human ability, excluding the contest at the end of Book 3 where he relies on Medea’s magic to  accomplish the impossible tasks Aeetes has set. Jason is a credible hero with credible skills.

Iliadic and Odyssean Heroics: Apollonius’ Argonautica and the Epic Tradition, by Rebecca van der Horst, pg 7-8. 

[Mêtis = wisdom/craft/skill, biē = strength]

Another interesting detail is the clear lack of connection between Jason and Chiron in the Argonautica. Pindar, before Apollonius, had already written Jason as one of Chiron's students and even says that the name "Jason" was given to him by Chiron, without revealing his previous name. This is, in some ways, similar to the version of the myth in which Achilles was originally called Ligyron but was renamed Achilles by Chiron (see Library 3.13.6). This version also doesn’t belong to Classical Greece, since in Archaic Greece Hesiod had already written that Jason taught by Chiron on Pelion.

Scholiast on Homer, Od. xii. 69: Tyro the daughter of Salmoneus, having two sons by Poseidon, Neleus and Pelias, married Cretheus, and had by him three sons, Aeson, Pheres and Amythaon. And of Aeson and Polymede, according to Hesiod, Iason was born: "Aeson, who begot a son Iason, shepherd of the people, whom Chiron brought up in woody Pelion."

Catalogues of Women, frag 3. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

[...] Deep-thinking Cheiron reared Jason under his stone roof [...]

Nemean Ode, 3.50. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

“[...] But you know the chief points of this story. Good citizens, show me clearly the home of my ancestors, who rode on white horses. For I am the son of Aeson, and a native; I do not arrive in a strange foreign land. The divine centaur called me by the name Jason." [...]

Pythian Ode, 4.75. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

Apollonius, who is from Hellenistic Greece, postdates both Hesiod and Pindar. I find it really unlikely that he wouldn’t have heard of the idea of ​​Jason being educated by Chiron in childhood either through oral or written tradition. One could argue that there may not have been room in the narrative to fit this detail, but in fact there was. In Book 1, Chiron appears and with him goes his nymph-wife Chariclo who carries Achilles in her arms. Chiron's intention is to offer Peleus the chance to see his son. If, for Apollonius, the relationship between Chiron and Jason was as relevant as the relationship between Chiron and Peleus or Chiron and Achilles, he would have had a great opportunity to show it in Book 1 since Chiron was watching the Argonauts leave. In Book 2, the myth of Chiron's birth is told and again Chiron's relationship with a student is emphasized: Aristaeus, the son of Apollo and Cyrene, who wanted to maintain her maidenhood but was carried off by Apollo to Libya; In Book 4, Hera says Chiron and the nymphs are caring for Achilles on Pelion. 

So we already know of the following relationships:

In Book 1, we know that Chiron has a wife (unnamed, but I assume it's Chariclo, since she's his wife in other sources), is raising Achilles, and has come to see Peleus. That's 3 relationships. One of them is his wife, and therefore a romantic relationship. Since Chariclo is the one holding Achilles, it seems they're both responsible for Achilles. As for Peleus, Chiron in mythology is depicted as being fond of Peleus (depending on the source, he and Chariclo are both Peleus's grandparents via his mother Endeis), and that seems to be the same case here.

In Book 2, we know that his father is the titan Cronus and his mother is the nymph Philyra. The reason he was born half-horse is because Cronus turned into a horse at the last minute so that Rhea, his wife, wouldn't notice him cheating on her. In addition, Apollo took his and Cyrene's son, Aristaeus, to be raised by Chiron. So we already know his genealogy and we also know that Rhea is involved in the myth. We don't know his relationship with these three characters in the birth myth, but we do know that Apollo saw Chiron as a trustworthy figure, and that's why Apollo himself entrusted Aristaeus to him.

In Book 4, Hera tells Thetis about Achilles being raised by Chiron and the water-nymphs on Pelion. Hera and Chiron know each other, as is notable because Chiron knows the Olympians in general and this is even indirectly mentioned in the Argonautica with the idea of ​​the marriage of Thetis and Peleus being celebrated by the gods (the place of the celebration is usually on Pelion, it is on this occasion that Chiron gives the spear to Peleus that Peleus gives to Achilles. The one that Homer says only Achilles can lift). Again, we have Achilles as a student. Here we also have water-nymphs in the role of taking care of Achilles, so apparently Chiron here also has a relationship with the water-nymphs, since he entrusts his student to them. Maybe because his wife is a nymph too? Maybe because he's used to them, since they live on Pelion?

Given that it’s possible to infer so much about Chiron's relationships, including two students, even when the character only has a brief physical appearance and doesn’t even really interfere in the narrative, it seems unlikely to me that Apollonius would leave out Jason and Chiron's connection simply for "lack of opportunity". In fact, the Argonautica itself references several different myths, it is like a big crossover. Indeed, in my opinion it makes no sense for Apollonius to be silent about this part of the Jason myth if he really considered this myth. Thus, I think Apollonius didn’t consider Jason being raised by Chiron, which, given the lack of typical characteristics of the heroes taught by Chiron, makes sense. And Pseudo-Apollodorus mentions a version in which Jason lived in the country: "Jason loved husbandry and therefore abode in the country" (Library, 1.9.16). I imagine that this or something similar was probably the case for Apollonius as well. I personally prefer this version of Pseudo-Apollodorus compared to Hesiod and Pindar's, but that's because I find Jason more interesting the less typically heroic he is. And let's face it, being raised by Chiron is really obvious a traditional heroic motif.

Jason being with Chiron isn’t explained as far as I know (it could be my mistake), so I just assumed it was maybe because of Jason's family drama. I mean, Tyro had the twins Pelias and Neleus — that's Nestor's father! — with Poseidon, and with king of Iolcus Cretheus she had Pheres — that's Admetus' father, Admetus is the one who was served by Apollo for a while and who is Alcestis' husband —, Amythaon and Aeson. Pelias and Neleus were abandoned by Tyro because they were Poseidon's sons and she was afraid (detail: Poseidon tricked her by pretending to be a river god she loved. She didn't even know it was Poseidon. See Library 1.9.8) and so they were found and raised as commoners, but were later recognized and returned to being royalty (see Pseudo-Apollodorus' Library, Menander's Epitrepontes and Aristotles' Poetics). But Pelias was determined to be king of Iolcus and came into serious conflict with his brothers, which led to Neleus leaving Ioculs and founding Pylos (see Description of Greece 4.2.5), Pheres leaving Iolcus and founding Pherae (see Library 1.9.14) and Amythaon apparently following Neleus to Pylos (two of his sons went with Neleus according to Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History 4.68.3 and, according to Pindar in Pythian Odes 4.125, he was in Messania. Pylos is located in Messania). The only brother who remained in Iolcus was Aeson, and I can imagine why Aeson and his wife — she has several possible names — would think that sending Jason to Chiron was the best option. But honestly, it just makes the idea that Jason could be living a simple life in the countryside instead of sheltered with Chiron more appealing. This kid who grew up loving the countryside and didn't really think about being anyone special, this kid who wasn't raised by a wise centaur and who was already involved in a twisted family plot before he was even born. This child who grew up to set off on a journey he wasn't sure or confident about, but who survived to return victorious and with a devoted wife. This man who, along with his wife, left a trail of destruction. This wife whose extreme devotion proved to be capable of extreme hatred as soon as he dared to abandon her after everything she had done for him. The development seems more interesting to me with the version where he's not with Chiron, honestly.

Returning to Argonautica, Jason’s beauty is also different from the beauty of traditional heroes, especially the Homeric ones. Many heroes have been described as beautiful, but in Jason’s case his beauty is mainly emphasized in moments when it is clearly associated with his mission. Achilles’ beauty, for example, has no intrinsic role in his mission. Although Athena beautified Odysseus in The Odyssey, Odysseus’ achievements have no relation to his appearance. And in any case, Odysseus in his normal state (without Athena’s interference) isn’t repeatedly emphasized as objectively beautiful: after all, that isn’t his defining characteristic. His defining characteristic is his mind, something that is indeed emphasized. Likewise, even if Achilles is objectively the most beautiful of the Achaeans, his strength is still emphasized more than his beauty. Because Achilles’ main ability isn’t charm, it’s being strong beyond human capacity. Big Ajax is described as the second most handsome of the Achaeans, but this doesn’t interfere narratively with the character. Agamemnon is also handsome and even compared to three gods — Ares, Poseidon, Zeus —, but again: that doesn’t define him.

Now, let's look at some examples:

Here, in Book 1, Jason is compared to Apollo and this happens just when he is starting the journey.In addition to Apollo representing the ideal of young men, which includes the ideal of young men's beauty, he is also a deity involved in Jason's mission. After all, the prophecy came from him, and in addition, Apollo is also present at other points in the poem. Therefore, I particularly interpret it as reinforcing that Jason is objectively handsome as much as the association of Jason and Apollo. But there are academics who theorize that it's a kind of parody, since, as Jason hasn't done anything yet, there is no reason for this comparison with a god to happen.

[292] Thus with moaning she wept, and her handmaidens, standing by, lamented; but Jason spake gently to her with comforting words: "Do not, I pray thee, mother, store up bitter sorrows overmuch, for thou wilt not redeem me from evil by tears, but wilt still add grief to grief. For unseen are the woes that the gods mete out to mortals; be strong to endure thy share of them though with grief in thy heart; take courage from the promises of Athena, and from the answers of the gods (for very favourable oracles has Phoebus given), and then from the help of the chieftains. But do thou remain here, quiet among thy handmaids, and be not a bird of ill omen to the ship; and thither my clansmen and thralls will follow me." [306] He spake, and started forth to leave the house. And as Apollo goes forth from some fragrant shrine to divine Delos or Claros or Pytho or to broad Lyeia near the stream of Xanthus, in such beauty moved Jason through the throng of people; and a cry arose as they shouted together. And there met him aged Iphias, priestess of Artemis guardian of the city, and kissed his right hand, but she had not strength to say a word, for all her eagerness, as the crowd rushed on, but she was left there by the wayside, as the old are left by the young, and he passed on and was gone afar.

Here, in Book 1, Jason's beauty is emphasized when he’s on Lemnos. And it’s precisely his beauty that causes the conflict to be avoided.

[721] Now he had buckled round his shoulders a purple mantle of double fold, the work of the Tritonian goddess, which Pallas had given him when she first laid the keel-props of the ship Argo and taught him how to measure timbers with the rule. More easily wouldst thou cast thy eyes upon the sun at its rising than behold that blazing splendour. [...] [774] And he went on his way to the city like to a bright star, which maidens, pent up in new-built chambers, behold as it rises above their homes, and through the dark air it charms their eyes with its fair red gleam and the maid rejoices, love-sick for the youth who is far away amid strangers, for whom her parents are keeping her to be his bride; like to that star the hero trod the way to the city. And when they had passed within the gates and the city, the women of the people surged behind them, delighting in the stranger, but he with his eyes fixed on the ground fared straight on, till he reached the glorious palace of Hypsipyle; and when he appeared the maids opened the folding doors, fitted with well-fashioned panels. Here Iphinoe leading him quickly through a fair porch set him upon a shining seat opposite her mistress, but Hypsipyle turned her eyes aside and a blush covered her maiden cheeks [...]

[I shortened the description about Jason's equipment and didn't put Hypsipyle's dialogue to make it shorter and kept the parts that highlight his beauty. But the description of Jason's clothing here is a deconstruction of Homer's typical arming scenes.]

In Book 3, the first time they see each other after the Argonauts are received by King Aeetes, Jason's beauty is described as far more remarkable than that of his companions. Medea is described as admiring Jason's appearance and "honey-sweet words." Notably, she isn’t admiring things like strength, courage or achievements, but rather Jason's beauty and the way he speaks well, both constituent elements of courtship/flirting.

[396] He spake outright; and Jason rose from his seat, and Augeias and Telamon at once; and Argus followed alone, for he signed to his brothers to stay there on the spot meantime; and so they went forth from the hall. And wonderfully among them all shone the son of Aeson for beauty and grace; and the maiden looked at him with stealthy glance, holding her bright veil aside, her heart smouldering with pain; and her soul creeping like a dream flitted in his track as he went. So they passed forth from the palace sorely troubled. And Chalciope, shielding herself from the wrath of Aeetes, had gone quickly to her chamber with her sons. And Medea likewise followed, and much she brooded in her soul all the cares that the Loves awaken. And before her eyes the vision still appeared -- himself what like he was, with what vesture he was clad, what things he spake, how he sat on his seat, how he moved forth to the door -- and as she pondered she deemed there never was such another man; and ever in her ears rung his voice and the honey-sweet words which he uttered. And she feared for him, lest the oxen or Aeetes with his own hand should slay him; and she mourned him as though already slain outright, and in her affliction a round tear through very grievous pity coursed down her cheek; and gently weeping she lifted up her voice aloud: "Why does this grief come upon me, poor wretch? Whether he be the best of heroes now about to perish, or the worst, let him go to his doom. Yet I would that he had escaped unharmed; yea, may this be so, revered goddess, daughter of Perses, may he avoid death and return home; but if it be his lot to be o'ermastered by the oxen, may he first learn this, that I at least do not rejoice in his cruel calamity."

In Book 3, Hera beautifies Jason before meeting Medea. Clearly, Hera saw that beauty could be useful for the mission.

[919] Never yet had there been such a man in the days of old, neither of all the heroes of the lineage of Zeus himself, nor of those who sprung from the blood of the other gods, as on that day the bride of Zeus made Jason, both to look upon and to hold converse with. Even his comrades wondered as they gazed upon him, radiant with manifold graces; and the son of Ampycus rejoiced in their journey, already foreboding how all would end.

Here, in Book 3, they meet at Hecate's temple, where Jason speaks to her in order to convince her to help him. Again, his beauty and manner of speaking are emphasized as part of the reason Medea is in love with him. Plus, it’s precisely Medea's passion for Jason that makes the mission a success.

[1131] Thus he spake; and her soul melted within her to hear his words; nevertheless she shuddered to behold the deeds of destruction to come. Poor wretch! Not long was she destined to refuse a home in Hellas. For thus Hera devised it, that Aeaean Medea might come to Ioleus for a bane to Pelias, forsaking her native land. [1137] And now her handmaids, glancing at them from a distance, were grieving in silence; and the time of day required that the maiden should return home to her mother's side. But she thought not yet of departing, for her soul delighted both in his beauty and in his winsome words, but Aeson's son took heed, and spake at last, though late: "It is time to depart, lest the sunlight sink before we know it, and some stranger notice all; but again will we come and meet here."

In Jason's case, his attractiveness isn't just a detail, it's an intriguing part of his character. It's the most valuable weapon he has. And he seems to be, at the very least, unconsciously aware of this. After all, the way Jason behaves with Medea when they meet at the Temple of Hecate is amusingly akin to negotiation, something we already understand Jason enjoys using as a tool rather than immediate violence.

That is where Jason comes in, love-hero extraordinaire. Similar to Jason's interaction with Hypsipyle at Lemnos, Jason's first meeting with Medea near the temple of Hecate is cast in heroic light but celebrates erotic, not martial, prowess. As Jason sets out from the Argo to join Medea, he is described in grandiose, heroic terms: "Never before had there been such a man in earlier generations, neither among all the descendants of Zeus himself nor among all the heroes (ἥρωες) sprung from the blood of the other immortals, as on that day Zeus' wife had made Jason, both to behold and to converse with. Even his very comrades marveled as they gazed upon him, radiant with graces (xapítɛoσiv)” (3.919-26). Jason stands above all other heroes not for his skills as a soldier or a strategist, but as a symbol of attractiveness and charisma. To quote Beye, "[These lines] convey the grandeur of any traditional epic hero's entrance into battle, except that kallos and kharitas replace menos." He brings as weapons not a sword but his charm and sexual allure. Notably, while Athena similarly beautified Odysseus before his meeting with Nausicaa (6.229-37), Homer only notes that Athena made him appear taller and stronger with prettier hair; there are no sweeping statements about Odysseus looking more spectacular than any other hero ever born. That is Jason’s own special privilege as the “Eros-Heros”. And Jason does not even technically need Hera's help to stand out as a sex magnet: at Lemnos, without any god's embellishments, he attracted all of the women's eyes (3.774-86); at Colchis, after first meeting with Aeetes, Jason departs with his companions and Apollonius notes how "wondrously among all of them the son of Iason was distinguished for his beauty and graces (κáλλεï Kai Xapítɛooi)" (3.443-44); and Medea, too, has already become spellbound by his natural attractions (esp. 3.451-58). Jason appears to be, quite simply, a stud. And this appraisal of the hero is even more pronounced if, as some scholars propose, the gods are interpreted not as actual characters in the poem but as "allegorized psychology" (Beye [1982] 126), namely, that Cupid's arrow is not real but rather serves as a dramatization of how Jason's own sexual attraction provokes and inflames Medea's passion. Regardless, Jason's sexuality is—with and without divine help potent, and Apollonius is clearly bestowing on that eroticism heroic flavor. 

When Jason is compared to the rising Sirius, a simile used in the Iliad to describe Diomedes and Achilles right before their most significant contributions to the Trojan war, Apollonius further suggests that Jason's meeting with Medea is a kind of aristeia. As soon as Medea catches her first glimpse of Jason, Apollonius jumps into a simile that compares Jason to the star Sirius: “But soon he appeared to her longing eyes, striding on high like Sirius from the Ocean, which rises beautiful and bright to behold (каλòç μèv ȧρíÿηλòç t' έσidéolai), but casts unspeakable grief on the flocks. So did Jason come to her, beautiful to behold (кaλòc εioopάaolai), but by appearing he aroused lovesick distress" (3.956-60). The adjective "beautiful" (kaλòc) appears twice in this passage in the same metrical position. In contrast, when Diomedes (II. 5.1-8, preparing to enter the battlefield for his aristeia) and Achilles (II. 22.25-32, advancing on Hector for their final climactic battle) are compared to Sirius, the star is conspicuous for its brightness (μάλιστα / λαμπρὸν παμφαίνῃσι, 5.5-6; λαμπρότατος, 22.30), not its beauty, and the gleam of Sirius is specifically connected to the sheen of the heroes' armor (Diomedes' helmet and shield; Achilles' bronze breastplate). The focal point in Homer is on the Iliadic warriors' tools of war. In Apollonius, Jason's only weapon is his attractiveness. And yet it is no less effective at producing physical symptoms similar to death in Medea: her heart falls out of her chest, her eyesight darkens, and her body freezes, unable to move (3.962-65). Jason conquers through passion, not steel. Therefore, as Beye says, Apollonius sets the stage for Jason's interaction with Medea in this scene to be "almost a preliminary aristeia” ([1982] 137). Like Diomedes who is about to commence his famous rampage and Achilles who will soon kill the best of the Trojan warriors, Jason will be participating in an event that will determine his fate as a hero. He cannot win Aeetes’ trial alone, and thus far, acquiring Medea’s assistance has been the best (and only) feasible plan presented to the Argonauts. Jason's success, therefore, is vital. It is, without a doubt, the most important moment in Jason's career thus far.  And he performs admirably. His keen blend of diplomacy and romance cuts through all of Medea's indecision and wins him her full support. In his first speech, Jason sets up (as he did earlier with her father) many of the hallmarks of successful negotiation: Argus — continuing in Jason's role as intermediary between the Greeks and Colchians — is the one to arrange the meeting, and when Jason meets alone with Medea, he notes that the two of them have come to the table "with good will for each other" (ἀλλήλοισιν εὐμενέοντες, 3.980), observes that the temple of Hecate provides neutral and safe ground for their deliberation (3.981), emphasizes his status as a suppliant and guest in her land (3.985-989), and states that Medea should be upfront about her questions and conditions (3.3.978-79, 982). When Jason and Argus were dealing with Aeetes, they proposed subduing the Sauromatae as payment but made it clear that they were open to pursuing other forms of payment per Aeetes' desire ("as it is pleasing to you yourself, just in that way it will come to pass,” 3.350). Similarly, within the first eight lines of his first speech, Jason twice tells Medea that she should feel free to ask for and speak whatever she desires (3.979, 982). As with Aeetes, Jason is willing to parley.

Ilidiac and Odyssean Heroics: Apollonius’ Argonautica and The Epic Tradition, by Rebecca van der Horst, pg 123-126.

[Aristeia = when a character proves himself to be an aristo, that is, the best. It’s the character's moment of prominence, traditionally linked to a martial demonstration. For example, Book 16 of The Iliad is the aristeia of Patroclus. The author is suggesting that Jason's moment of "aristeia" is his conquest of Medea, as this is indeed his greatest achievement in Argonautica. As for the quote “[These lines] convey the grandeur of any traditional epic hero's entrance into battle, except that kallos and kharitas replace menos”, it’s like: "[These lines] convey the grandeur of any traditional epic hero's entrance into battle, except that beauty and graciousness replace violence”]

The importance of eros to the success of the mission is most evident in Book 3 in the scene where Aphrodite, the goddess of love and sexuality, at the request of Athena goes to her son Eros, the god of eroticism, and asks him to influence Medea. He does so, and Medea immediately falls in love with Jason, begins to feel immensely affected by him, and is slowly becoming more obsessed. If it weren’t for Aphrodite and Eros, either the literal gods or the concepts they represent, would Jason have succeeded? And the most interesting part is that this element of Eros/Aphrodite in association with Jason's victory is an element that exists even in sources other than Argonautica. For example:

Pindar's Pythian Ode says that Aphrodite taught Jason, which highlights that Jason's skill at flirting was useful. An interesting detail is: Pindar is temporally earlier than Apollonius, which indicates that, although Jason's realistic nature fits with the Hellenistic period (Apollonius' time), the characteristic of associating Jason in some way with Aphrodite or Eros was already present in Classical Greece (Pindar's time).

[...] And the queen of sharpest arrows brought the dappled wryneck from Olympus, bound to the four spokes [215] of the indissoluble wheel: Aphrodite of Cyprus brought the maddening bird to men for the first time, and she taught the son of Aeson skill in prayerful incantations, so that he could rob Medea of reverence for her parents, and a longing for Greece would lash her, her mind on fire, with the whip of Persuasion. [...]

Pythian Odes, 4.200. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

[Son of Aeson = Jason. Persuasion = Peitho, a goddess typically depicted alongside Aphrodite and whose persuasive power, which she personifies, can be associated with erotic persuasion.]

Euripides, also from Classical Greece, wrote Jason in the play Medea dedicating the success of the Argonauts' mission to Aphrodite.

Jason It appears, woman, that I must be no mean speaker but like the good helmsman of a ship reef my sail up to its hem and run before the storm [525] of your wearisome prattling. Since you so exaggerate your kindness to me, I for my part think that Aphrodite alone of gods and mortals was the savior of my expedition. As for you, I grant you have a clever mind—but to tell [530] how Eros forced you with his ineluctable arrows to save me would expose me to ill-will. No, I will not make too strict a reckoning on this point. So far as you did help me, you did well. But in return for saving me [535] you got more than you gave, as I shall make clear. First, you now live among Greeks and not barbarians, and you understand justice and the rule of law, with no concession to force. All the Greeks have learned that you are clever, [540] and you have won renown. But if you lived at the world's edge, there would be no talk of you. May I have neither gold in my house nor power to sing songs sweeter than Orpheus if it is not my lot to have high renown!

Medea, 522-545. Translation by David Kovacs. 

[He’s replicating Medea who, having discovered that Jason intends to abandon her for Creusa, had retaliated that Jason only succeeded because of Medea's help.]

Orphic Argonautica, of unknown authorship, has many similarities to Apollonius' poem, including the roles of Aphrodite and Eros.

[...] Then, on the advice of Hera, Medea of the unlucky marriage was conquered by the allure of Jason; for the Cytheran mother of love, Aphrodite, sent desire into her, and the most ancient one [Eros] sent an arrow into her heart. [...]

Orphic Argonautica, 858. Translation by Jason Colavito.

Hyginus' Fabulae directly mentions Aphrodite's interference. I'm using it as a source of Greek myth because Hyginus basically tells Greek myths adapted to a Roman audience, hence the Roman names. He even sometimes cites which Greek author he’s referencing, including mentioning Apollonius.

[...] He had carried her across when others who had passed over despised her. And so since she knew that Jason could not perform the commands without help of Medea, she asked Venus to inspire Medea with love. At Venus' instigation, Jason was loved by Medea. [...]

Fabulae, 22. Translation by Mary Grant. 

[Juno = Hera. Venus = Aphrodite.]

Ioannis Tzetzes, while writing a Byzantine scholia of Lycophron's poem Alexandra, told of how “Love is also called "Iynx" and a certain bird called "seisopygis", which the witches use for love potions” and, in explaining the myth of the bird, mentions that Aphrodite gave it to Jason while teaching him how to woo Medea, a version similar to Pindar's.

[...] So, they say, this Iynx was first given by Aphrodite to Jason, teaching him how to charm Medea. They say that this Iynx was a woman before, the daughter of Peitho or Echo and Pan, and having bewitched Zeus for the love of Io, she was pursued by Hera and turned into a bird. Others say that the Iynx is a very melodious lyre, hence everything desirable is called Iynx. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 310.

Even in sources where neither Aphrodite nor Eros are directly mentioned, the success of the mission is often linked to Medea's love for Jason, as this is what made her help him. To avoid having to quote excerpts, some sources that describe such a correlation are Library by Pseudo-Apollodorus (1.9.23), Library of History by Diodorus Siculus (4.46.4), Olympian Odes by Pindar (ode 13). It’s also notable how Hera, the goddess of marriage, plays an important role in Jason's mission, as she wished to take revenge on Pelias for not honoring her (Library of Pseudo-Apollodorus even specifies that Pelias committed sacrilege by killing a person inside Hera's temple, this is in 1.9.8). So Jason's mission isn’t only interfered with by deities associated with love and eroticism like Aphrodite and Eros, but also with the interference of the goddess of marriage, Hera, who purposely plans Medea as an evil for Pelias — an evil motivated by the desire to be useful to Jason, since that is the reason why Medea tricks Pelias' daughters into killing their father. 

This, of course, doesn’t mean that only deities associated with sexuality and marriage are involved, since, as I said, Apollo (this one is very present, but not as active as Hera) and Athena also participate. If we count non-Olympians, we still have: the Nereids, who help the argonauts; the Nymphs of Libya, who advise Jason; Glaucus, who warns them about the Zeus's plan for Heracles; Triton, who also advice them. Perhaps the Hesperides could also be considered, since they indicate where there is water to drink. Of the non-Olympian deities, most are related to the sea, which makes sense given the sea voyage (Glaucus, Thetis and the other Nereids, Triton. Although it’s interesting to remember that Thetis's help still has to do with the sphere of marriage, since it is influenced by Medea being her future daughter-in-law. Hera's first attempt to convince Thetis was also through marriage, as she mentioned Peleus as an Argonaut, although this aspect didn’t work). The nymphs of Libya are associated with the foreign land aspect, which also makes sense.

Having established that I believe in the interpretation that Jason’s mission will be accomplished through love and eroticism rather than martial power, I want to comment on how Aphrodite persuades her son Eros, here depicted as a child, to influence Medea. Aphrodite finds him playing with Ganymede, the young Trojan kidnapped by Zeus for being too beautiful. But Eros is a cheat and continues to cheat at the game while laughing at Ganymede’s frustration, which angers Ganymede and causes him to give up the game and leave — Ganymede here also seems to be a significantly juvenile figure, since the text narrates him and Eros, who we know is depicted as a child, playing dice as “as boys in one house are wont to do” and Aphrodite calls him an “innocent child.” Aphrodite approaches and reprimands Eros for gloating after winning unfairly, and then tells him that she will give him a new toy if he can make Medea fall in love with Jason, which Eros accepts although he’s initially suspicious of the proposal. But it turns out that this is no random toy, it’s a golden ball that belonged to Zeus himself and has detailed description. Such elements seem too specific for a supposedly simple scene of a mother convincing her son with a toy, and this has certainly led to possible interpretations in academic circles.

[...] Amid this farrago, one item commands special attention: the golden ball with which Aphrodite bribes her spoiled and willful son Eros when she seeks to win his aid for the proposed scheme. Apollonius describes the ball in some détail (although, as we shall see, commentators find it difficult to agrée on its appearance and construction) in Aphrodite's speech to her son, as follows: I will give you the beautiful toy of Zeus, which his dear nurse Adrasteia made for him while he was still a child in the Idaean cave, a well-rounded sphère. You'd get no finer one from the hands of Hephaestus. Its circles are wrought of gold, and around each one twofold rings whirl in a circle.  The seams are hidden, and a dark blue spiral runs over them  all (3, 132-40).  

Furthermore, this marvelous ball, when thrown, leaves a gleaming  trail, like a shooting star (ἀστὴρ ως3, 140-41).  Students of thè poem hâve long suspected that this toy is not merely  a child's plaything. While they recognize that its significance is far  greater than the brief description might suggest (thè bali never actually  appears in the poem), they characterize it differently. Accordingly, we  are told that the ball represents either «thè earth», «thè universe» or  «Planetenkreise und Sonnenkugel»; or that its ornamentation has «sans  doute une signification astronomique». Two associations hâve quite  properly led them to recognize the ball's importance. First, in the  visual arts, a ball associated with the adult Zeus regularly symbolizes  his power over thè universe4. Second, Adrasteia, the nurse who gave it  to him, frequently represents thè inevitability of fate that her name  implies. A third association will remove any doubt about the weight  we must accord this symbol, and that is the following fact.   Apollonius is alluding to a contemporary didactic poem, Aratus’  Phaenomena, in a fashion that makes it certain that the bail represents  the spherical cosmos. Recognizing this allusion clarifies two further  issues. First, it sheds light on the much-debated question of the ball's  physical appearance. Next, and more importantly, the implications of  Eros' control of the bail taken on startling — even alarming — force.

Eros Ludens: Apollonius' Argonautica 3, 132-41, by Mary Louise B. Pendergraft, pg 95-96. 

[This book by Aratus mentioned by Pendergraft describes constellations and weather signs. It’s available online at Theoi]

Therefore, the toy being so specific may seek to represent a power of cosmic origin, represented both by the clearly cosmic theme of the object’s appearance and by the fact that its former owner was none other than the king of the gods and, therefore, the one who has great power over the cosmos. Eros, in fact, was immediately introduced as a cunning and deceitful figure who obtains victory through reprehensible means — a child who doesn’t accept being told “no.” And it’s now this unstable figure who holds the power of the narrative.

When we realize that the marvelous toy, once Zeus's and now Eros', represents a model of the cosmos, we can feel only shock at the farreaching implication of the scene: the universe is but a bauble used to bribe a spoiled child. Now, Apollonius did not create the figure of Eros with a ball, but he did give it an almost unprecedented significance. When Anacreon pictures him as a ballplayer (Fr. 302 Page) or a dicer (Fr. 325 Page — the game at which he is cheating Ganymede in Argon. 3) he plays with the lives of individual men: he is ruthless, perhaps, but not of universal relevance. Eros does play a cosmic role in some other contexts: in Orphic writings he has a cosmogonic function. He holds the globe in artistic representations as well: on Roman coins, on gems, and on small bronzes — all, apparently, dating later than our poem. These traditions imply a belief in the creative power of Eros, of love as a guiding force in the world, a notion reminiscent of Empedocles' λórns or Lucretius' Venus. They portray, in short, the force of attraction, of fertility and life, ruling the cosmos. Radically different is the character Apollonius gives to his Eros. This deity evokes no awe or reverence; rather, he is simply a most unpleasant child. His mother complains of his temper, his shamelessness, his wickedness; she can win his cooperation only through bribery (3, 90-99). Greedy, suspicious, and heartless, he laughs at Ganymede's distress at being cheated; he is wheedling and impatient; distrusting even his mother, he counts his dice before entrusting them to her (3, 114-30, 145-55). Yet our investigation has made it clear that we must take him seriously, since his toy is nothing less than the universe. The closest parallel to such a figure is none of those we have mentioned, but rather Alcibiades' notorious shield device, where Eros wielding Zeus's thunderbolt provoked outrage by its arrogance. We can appreciate the response of Alcibiades' contemporaries by comparing Apollonius' vignette to Aratus' Phaenomena, a comparison he invites through his deliberate evocation of this source for his heavenly globe. «From Zeus let us begin» is the famous phrase that opens the poem; «we all depend on him in every way; for indeed we are his offspring». The Stoic poet also stressed the regularity and predictability of the stars and their movements; their reliable pattern, the visible form of the celestial sphere, is clear evidence of Zeus's providential care for his creatures: «he, kindly to mankind, gives us sure signs»>. Apollonius transforms this lofty and reassuring symbol by presenting the cosmic orb as a plaything for a selfish and petulant boy. The fate of the universe, as well as of individuals, is controlled neither by Adrasteia the inevitable nor by a providential father-god; events are not fixed or predictable; rather, everything is subject to the love-god's self-gratifying whims. The figure of Eros ludens has become an emblem that well represents the non-traditional and anti-heroic ethos of the Argonautica.

Eros Ludens: Apollonius' Argonautica 3, 132-41, by Mary Louise B. Pendergraft, pg 101-102.

[The aforementioned shield of Alcibiades is described by Plutarch: “But all this statecraft and eloquence and lofty purpose and cleverness was attended with great luxuriousness of life, with wanton drunkenness  and lewdness, with effeminacy in dress, — he would trail long purple robes through the market place, — and with prodigal expenditures. He would have the decks of his triremes cut away that he might sleep more softly, his bedding being slung on cords rather than spread on the hard planks. He had a golden shield made for himself, bearing no ancestral device, but an Eros armed with a thunderbolt. The reputable men of the city looked on all these things with loathing and indignation, and feared his contemptuous and lawless spirit. They thought such conduct as his tyrant-like and monstrous”. Perhaps the implication of this image with Eros having the power of Zeus was a kind of mockery of the way Alcibiades was sometimes seen as excessively lustful by the Greeks. You can read it here.]

Thus, Argonautia is a poem that not only doesn’t follow what is traditionally expected, but has as its theme love. Love isn’t only a pleasant concept, but also a destructive, selfish, suspicious and deceitful concept represented in the childlike figure of Eros, who now holds the power of the narrative when in more traditional narratives (such as the Homeric poems) it should be Zeus (the former owner of the toy). Ironically, these adjectives that can be used to describe the way Eros is represented in Argonautica also fit with what we know Jason and Medea's relationship will become. These signs are already showing up in the narrative, especially in the character of Medea, who is in fact destructive and deceitful if necessary for her beloved. Therefore, when Jason chooses to employ eros as a weapon he isn’t simply being weak, but is using a dangerous power. In the same way that Eros didn’t care about Ganymede's frustration for the sake of his own satisfaction, Jason and Medea will leave a trail of destruction with each questionable action that Medea will take for the sake of love.

As for his dynamic with Medea in Argonautica… I got the impression that I was reading characters with at least partially reversed gender roles! Who is the character that causes desire in other people, beautiful, fearful, insecure and who receives help from his love interest? Jason! Who is the character who is firm, courageous, active and who will achieve conquests in exchange for the hand of her beloved? Medea!

In mythology you usually see mortal men somehow making conquests for a beautiful woman (often the woman's high status is also part of the reward). Some examples: anything involving Helen; Odysseus, who marries Penelope either in exchange for solving Tyndareus's problem or by winning a race against other suitors; Pelops, who had to compete for the hand of Hippoddamia; Hippomene, who had to prove himself in competition with Atalanta to marry her; Perseus, who saved Andromeda from death and thus won her love; Heracles, who fought with the river god Achelous for the hand of Dejanira. In other cases, although the man doesn’t directly do anything for the marriage, he still marries a beautiful — and high-status — woman as a reward for some virtue/achievement of his. Some examples are Cadmus, who received the goddess Harmonia as his wife thanks to his importance in the founding of Thebes, and Neoptolemus, to whom Menelaus gave his daughter as a wife as a reward for participating in the Trojan War and thus fulfilling the prophecy.

Well, Jason doesn't do any such things. He certainly didn't receive Medea as a reward, since Aetes didn't actually authorize the marriage and the only deity who is actively willing their marriage is Hera, and this is usually attributed to her wanting revenge on Pelias (here in the Argonautica this is the reason as well. It's mentioned at the beginning of Book 1, and then Hera mentions it in her line in Book 3 and it’s repeated in the narrative of Book 4) and not wanting to reward Jason. He also didn't gain Medea's interest because of his deeds, after all she fell in love with him before he had even proven anything significant — Eros shot her with the arrow. And while Medea is described as beautiful and even a princess of status, these are certainly not the main characteristics about her that make Jason want her as is the case in the examples I gave. In fact, the reason Jason promises to marry Medea is because of her talents — i.e. Medea's help in saving Jason. And such talents aren’t skills expected of a good wife like weaving — an example is Penelope, whose weaving theme is a strong characteristic and whose character was used as an example of an ideal wife —, the talents Jason is placing value on is her ability to make drugs and, depending on the version, even her capacity for violence, which wasn’t an element men generally looked for in their wives in mythology.

On the other hand, divine interference (Hera who spoke to Athena, who asked Aphrodite, who made Eros interfere) aside, the reason Medea falls in love with Jason isn’t his heroism or his typically male virtues. Most of the time, I got the impression that the most striking characteristic of Jason to Medea was his beauty. She wasn’t heroically saved by a fearless man like Andromeda was, she didn't see her suitor defeat a god to get her as Dejanira, she didn't have a horrible situation in her home resolved by the foreign hero as Ariadne, etc. And, madly in love with Jason, Medea wants to have him through her usefulness rather than her beauty, modesty, or status (she has all these characteristics, though. Even modesty! She seems quite shy in Book 3, in fact). She wants him to see how she can save him, and she wants that to be enough to make him want her too. She wants him to see how brave and capable she is of achieving victory, and for that to seduce him. Furthermore, Medea's desire for Jason is clearly more emphasized than Jason's desire for Medea, which is also unusual for ancient Greek literature in the case of characters who actually form a couple. I say "actually form a couple" because I'm obviously not referring to cases like Phaedra x Hippolytus or Echo x Narcissus, because in those cases the male characters didn't simply show less interest than the female character...they really didn't want anything to do with them! This isn’t the case with Jason here, Jason actively takes action to establish the relationship. He isn’t a victim. The reciprocity of Jason's love is a matter of debate, as at times his supposed romantic feelings for Medea seem to be mixed with an interest in her usefulness. Personally, I interpret it as him finding her beautiful and interesting rather than merely convenient, but I don't think he will ever love Medea as she loves him.

In Emotion, Genre and Gender in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, pp. 52-217, Dimitra Karamitsou discusses gender roles in Greek literature. She explores Homer's epics and gender roles in tragedies and comedies, but unfortunately I won't comment on what she said because it would be too long for an already long post. So I'll stick to Argonautica only, although I won't show everything she explored and I'll focus only on what she said about Jason and Medea, since that's the focus of the post. Note that she's Greek and read Argonautica in Greek, so she's definitely not analyzing it with the same translation as us. Also, her text is also in Greek, which is why I'll summarize it instead of excerpting it. On the subject, she says:

In the Argonautica, Apollonius follows the idea of ​​women with intense emotions. This wasn’t uncommon for the Hellenistic period, as seen in Callimachus' Hecale, Moschus' Europa, and finally in Theocritus' characters: Simaetha of Idyll 2, Gorgo and Praxinoa of Idyll 15, and Alcmene of Idyll 24. The increasingly popular identification of women with intense emotions in the Hellenistic period is due to the strengthening of the female role of the period, both in the domestic and in the public sphere. Thus, female characters become the object of greater interest for Hellenistic authors, also influenced by the desire of the literature of the time to distance itself from more typical ideas, which sometimes included challenging gender stereotypes. In the Argonautica, the woman is not related to the heroic man and, instead, is more focused on the erotic sphere unlike the focus on chastity. This is consistent with the characteristic of Hellenistic literature of emphasizing eroticism. The strengthening of the female role in the narrative of the Argonautica is also evident in the number of female monologues and even dialogues between women and men, compared to previous epics. They are, however, still characterized mainly by more traditionally feminine emotions in literature, such as fear, anxiety and sadness. However, Karamitsou comments that the subversion of gender roles on both sides is notable in the Argonautica. In fact, women (especially Medea) begin to occupy a leading role in their own right and take typically masculine actions that develop the plot. This is a consequence of the tendency of Hellenistic poets to wish to turn to less explored ideas.

Jason's main emotional characteristic is his lack of anger. For example, he is not shown to be angry with Pelias despite all that he has done. The only time Jason is associated with anger throughout the poem is indirectly through the simile in Book 3, when he is doing Aeetes's task, which compares him to a wild boar ready to attack the hunters. Otherwise, Jason's lack of anger is evident throughout the rest of the poem. When Telamon fundamentally underestimates Jason's worth, he does not get angry despite this being the typical attitude of a male character in epic. In fact, throughout the poem, Jason treats Telamon kindly. For Karamitsou, Telamon offending him is not something that actually offends him, but something that makes him feel honored. Jason, as a leader, is less concerned with rewards and more concerned with companionship, which includes keeping his companions comfortable enough to be honest with him even if it’s in a negative way. For her, the value of friendship for Jason is confirmed when, after the situation is resolved, Jason is happy to know that Telamon would defend him with the same fervor that he defended Heracles if necessary. The terms μῆνιν and μενέηνας in Jason's speech denote anger, but in the first case he only states that being considered negatively by Telamon is not capable of making him angry, and in the second case he says that he would only be angry if the accusation referred to a material belonging. In this way, Apollonius indirectly associates anger with material belongings.

When Jason doesn’t participate in the festive atmosphere, Idas associates this with cowardice and insults him. Thus, while Telamon interpreted Jason's lack of reaction as indifference to Heracles and therefore a betrayal, Idas interpreted Jason's lack of reaction as a sign of cowardice and therefore a weakness. In both cases, Jason's heroism is questioned. In Idas' case, his name is not even mentioned after Idas's insult, since Idmon immediately takes action to defend him and, therefore, is the one whose name is mentioned. Jason's name appears again only when he, along with other Argonauts, tries to prevent Idas and Idmon from fighting physically. Thus, not only is he not overcome by anger, but he doesn’t want his companions to be. The other moment when Jason is expected to become angry, even by Hellenistic literary standards, is when Aeetes not only threatens him but also the Argonauts as a whole. He could, with right, respond to the insult in an angry manner. However, he addresses Aeetes calmly. While Aeetes gives an emotional speech, Jason gives a rational speech. He doesn't just try to calm Aeetes down, he tries to flatter him. This works, as Aeetes doesn't actually take any immediate violent action. It's notable that Jason is much more active in responding to Aeetes' insults compared to Telamon and Idas' insults, since in the case with the Argonauts he didn't even respond to them. This is because Telamon and Idas are angry fellows, while Aeetes is actually a threat. So while Jason's passivity has been criticized, it’s important in reaffirming the character's moral code (avoiding anger and violence) and in establishing him as a diplomatic and composed hero.

Another recurring emotion of Jason is embarrassment. When he is unable to make choices, the narrative depicts him as embarrassed. He’s often portrayed as introspective, often silent and apathetic while thinking. For her, this can be characterized as embarrassment or apathy, that is, the inability to allow oneself to experience an emotion and externalize it. Jason's constant refraining from experiencing emotion is sometimes contrasted with the experience of emotion by a female character. When they say goodbye, Jason's mother is quite emotional, while Jason seems mostly apathetic. When the women of Lemnos show their attraction to him, Jason simply looks at the ground. When he says goodbye to Hypsipyle, she’s clearly being quite emotional while Jason seems mostly practical. For Karamitsou, this is a consequence of Jason's indecision about how to deal with situations, which leads him to appear apathetic, which in turn can be a source of irritation to other characters. This is also contrasted with male characters, in this case the Argonauts. Jason shows no emotion when he learns that Heracles has been abandoned, unlike the others. While everyone is celebrating, Jason is not. Although Apollonius's decision to portray two Argonauts (Telamon, Idas) condemning this attitude may make it seem like he does, this isn’t the case, as demonstrated by the amicable way in which both episodes ended without Jason changing his personality. Jason's emotional detachment is positive, as it balances the tense atmosphere of the other Argonauts. He’s constantly perplexed and embarrassed by his own indecision, which often leads Jason to leave the final word to other characters. This characteristic manifests itself as indecision and apathy and, in a way, reaffirms the character's self-control and diplomacy. 

Jason is also constantly afraid, which often leads to embarrassment. When Tiphys dies, he is saddened by his death and embarrassed by the lack of a solution to the problem of the absence of a helmsman. Aeetes's announcement makes him afraid, which causes him to become embarrassed. Karamitsou says that, although this contrasts with the previous view that apathy and indecision are related to self-control and diplomacy and therefore not negative, the two views do not cancel each other out, but coexist. Feeling afraid is simply human, and although Jason initially feels embarrassed, he tends to be able to deal with it appropriately and calmly rather than reacting too negatively. Jason's sadness and fear also make him a pessimist, as repeatedly throughout the poem he thinks that he or his companions will die. Even at the moment Jason accepts his most heroic task (Aeetes's task), he’s pessimistic in saying that he has no choice. Such a pessimistic trait may characterize him as someone with a weak psyche. Karamitsou, however, mentions the possibility that he may have used pessimism deliberately to test his companions, which is when Jason becomes depressed after passing through the Clashing Rocks. This is a possibility due to the way the terms are used in Greek, which may suggest a lie in Jason's behavior. If this was indeed the case, it worked, as the Argonauts cheer up in an attempt to cheer him up. Therefore, although sadness and fear are characteristics that get in the way of the mission, they also serve to demonstrate the character’s humanity.

Jason is also a romantically involved hero whose erotic relationships are important to moving the plot forward. However, he is different from the love interests. While Hypsipyle is shown to be much more loving and mournful, Jason not only doesn’t reciprocate the feeling to the same extent but he also doesn’t seem to have a real problem with leaving her behind. In fact, he seems more concerned with their possible child than with her. This may, perhaps, make him an opportunist. This is also true of his relationship with Medea. While Medea repeatedly shows her love in different ways, Jason is limited to mostly verbal promises. In the Temple of Hecate, Jason's soft words still seem more like an exercise in rhetorical skill than entirely sincere words. He also, in a way, manipulates Medea by comparing her to Ariadne while conveniently leaving out the detail that Theseus abandoned Ariadne (I’ll comment on this later). In Euripides' Medea, Jason acts in a similar way, as he admits that he prefers to abandon Medea in favor of Creusa because this will bring him fewer difficulties since Creusa is a princess of Corinth and Medea is a barbarian. Despite being an erotic hero, this characteristic concerns more the desire that Jason inflicts on others and less about the desire that Jason himself feels for other people. Jason's love as a weapon shows how love is the driving force of Apollonius' poem.

While Jason’s main emotional characteristic is his lack of anger, Medea’s main emotional characteristic is love. Although initially born from the direct intervention of Eros, the feeling seems to develop into a real characteristic of Medea. Thus, despite the obvious divine interference, there is still the element of realistic emotions in the narrative. Medea is primarily motivated by her love for Jason, which at one point is described as τρέλα (madness) and makes her indecisive, something Medea attributes to weakness and attributes to divine responsibility. Her love for him, however, initially arises from an idealized version of him. After all, even before they interact, Medea is already thinking of him in a very idealized way.

Furthermore, Medea is clearly more affected by love than Jason. At night, Medea's sleep is interrupted by a dream she has in which Jason comes to Colchis not for the golden fleece, but to ask her to marry him. This dream represents how her love for Jason is also a challenge to her expected loyalty to her father, a dilemma whose outcome we already know. Upon waking, Medea wakes up screaming and desperate, almost as if it were a nightmare. The passages that describe Medea's love are influenced by Sapho and Archilochus, with descriptions of “symptoms” of passion such as: inability to speak, cold sweat, paleness, tremor, blushing, ringing in the ears, internal burning, accelerated palpitation, weakness of vision, inability to move. In one scene, Medea also glances at Jason sideways through the veil she wears, which may represent a maiden looking at the source of her desire through a "barrier" (in this case, the veil, which is also a symbol associated with chastity).

Although initially a pure love, even typical of a young virgin, throughout the narrative it’s associated with characteristics such as deceit and magic. The etymology of the name Medea is a clue to the reader of the evolution of a seemingly innocent young woman into a cunning character (Medea means something like "planner, schemer"). The magical characteristic is reinforced by her connection with the goddess Hecate, her kinship with both Circe and Pasithea, and her own abilities as a sorceress. Apollonius uses πολυφάρμακος (polypharmakos, meaning "knowing many drugs/maybe charms", similar to the schemer Odysseus' epithet polytropos, meaning "of many resources"), and interestingly the term is used both when Medea is the chaste virgin of Book 3 and when she’s the treacherous witch of Book 4. The connection of love with magic occurs when Medea's primary way of proving her love is by offering to help Jason through her magical abilities. The deception associated with love, on the other hand, is initially introduced in the conversation with her sister, where Medea lets her sister think that she’s motivated by helping her nephews and not by her love for Jason.

However, such youthful love evolves to resemble a forced contract. Furthermore, Medea flees Colchis not motivated by love, but by fear of Aeetes's reaction. When Jason makes vows to Hera, he and Medea part hands as if in a business agreement. She also doen’t marry for love, but because it’s necessary for Alcinous to help the Argonauts, which includes Medea herself. This, coupled with Jason's interest in Medea's love being motivated by the usefulness of her love, makes this love doomed from the start, since it was formed entirely on need and fear. Even when she asks Arete for help, she does not use her love for Jason as a reason for sympathy, but rather fear of the consequences. Her love begins as an intense mental state, which is then externalized with intense physical symptoms. Its nature is dual. Initially it is identified with pure amorous desire, but later it’s associated with trickery and magic, losing its purity. The role of Medea's love in the narrative plot is crucial, as it’s Jason's main 'weapon' to complete the mission.

Like Jason, Medea is also embarrassed and indecisive, although in her case it’s about a specific dilemma: her father or her future husband. Choosing Jason means being a traitor, choosing to lose her home and her family's honor. Medea is often described as unsure of which decision to make, which is why Jason has to convince her in the Temple of Hecate, for example. This is also why the dream of marrying Jason causes her to wake up with a nightmare-like reaction. And when she does choose Jason, Medea really has no other option but to marry him. This is why Medea not only asks the Argonauts to take her with them to avoid Aeetes' punishment, she makes Jason swear by Hera that he will marry her. By marrying again, Medea is able to obtain a new home, a new family, and her honor is restored, since the betrayal is justified by a wife's behavior in helping her husband. Her indecision, however, diminishes when she helps Jason and, throughout the narrative, disappears. Therefore, in her case, her embarrassment and insecurity are more related to her role as a woman and her maidenhood. It’s shameful that she would consider betraying her father, who is her guardian. It’s also shameful that, as a chaste young woman, she would desire Jason in this way. After she actually chooses Jason, this disappears. Thus, it doesn’t seem that indecision is a fixedly defining characteristic of Medea, but rather occasional/occasional, although it actively affects her.

Medea, like Jason, is also afraid and sad. But if Jason's fear is triggered by his mission, Medea's fear is triggered by the lust/love she feels for Jason (sometimes she feels sad because she loves him) or by Jason's own fate (sometimes she feels sad when she sees him or imagines him in threatening situations). However, these feelings are later replaced by a feeling that Jason does not demonstrate, but that Medea does: anger. The presence of this emotion is particularly striking in Book 4, confirming the transition in Medea's personality. Medea, by giving the Golden Fleece to Jason, is metaphorically giving him her own chastity. For this reason, feelings related to the dilemma of chastity no longer have space after this moment in the narrative. Anger also represents Medea's development in love, which ceases to be fanciful and idealized and becomes full of doubts and suspicions. The main cause of Medea's embarrassment was her desire to help Jason, and so by having this dilemma suppressed, this emotion is also suppressed. But it still exists, as shown by the way Medea looks away at her brother's death. This moment marks the moment when the new Medea emerges, so much so that when she kills Talos there is no embarrassment in her attitude.

Medea's development can also be seen through her veil, especially by analyzing five scenes. The first time is when she falls in love with Jason, the second is when she prepares to meet him at the Temple of Hecate, the third is when she leaves home to go with Jason, the fourth is when they kill her brother, and the last time is when she kills the bronze giant Talos. Initially, the veil is described as white/shining, to symbolize Medea's purity and beauty. In the Absyrtus scene, she covers her face with the veil out of shame for the murder. In the Talos scene, Medea doesn’t wear a veil, which represents her change as someone who is no longer a chaste and ashamed young woman. The veil is also a link between Apollonius' Medea and Euripides' Medea, as in the play she kills Creusa, Jason's bride, by giving her a poisoned veil as a gift. Thus, the veil demonstrates Medea's change from an innocent and chaste young woman to a cunning witch.

Returning to the theme of anger, unlike Jason, Medea is verbal about being angry. Angry, she confronts Jason and complains about his real motivations, indicating that she distrusts him. This distrust will become correct, because in the myth Jason breaks the only promise that Medea demanded (to maintain a marriage with her). She seems to consider Jason's sweet words as deceitful, which makes her furious, because Medea believes that it’s thanks to her willingness to defy her own home for him that Jason has the Golden Fleece. In her speech, she calls him “son of Aeson”, suggesting estrangement. Her anger makes her want to harm the Argonauts and herself, as it even makes her want to set fire to the ship. When she ran for the Argonauts to take her with them in their escape, Medea practically demanded Jason's vows to Hera as a way of forcing him to prove the sweet words that had made her help him. The idea that Jason could have ruined so much of her rationality that he made her risk her place in her family, home, and society and yet he couldn’t reward her angers Medea. It’s also in the midst of her anger that Medea then plans her brother's death, the first undeniably reprehensible act she commits. She also personifies anger in her defeat of the giant Talos, as she glares at him with hostility, invokes vengeful Chthonian deities such as the Erinyes, and is ultimately filled with destructive rage when she defeats him.

Thus, both characters subvert gender roles within the Greek epic genre. Jason isn’t a traditional hero and, consequently, he isn’t a traditional man either. The absence of characteristics such as pride, anger or even martial skills makes him immensely different from Achilles and Odysseus. Unlike Achilles, Jason clearly doesn’t care about his honor. Contrary to Hector's opinion that vanity and association with eros are negative characteristics of Paris, Jason uses both as his main weapon. Jason's characteristic of being a listener also doesn’t resemble Homeric leaders. Agamemnon only cares about public opinion at critical moments; general opinion isn’t part of his usual leadership strategy. Odysseus not only doesn't ask for opinions but also doesn't try to see the reaction of his companions, he just gives orders and the others execute them. On the other hand, Jason constantly wants to hear opinion and constantly observes the reaction. Where Agamemnon easily takes offense to Achilles and treats his suggestion to hand over Chryseis as disrespectful to him and consequently punishes Achilles for it, Jason doesn’t do anything similar. Even when Idas and Telamon directly insult him, Jason doesn’t punish them. Although he uses more strategy than force, he still does’t resemble Odysseus in this situation, for the one who actually has a similar type of cunning to Odysseus is Medea, as represented by her epithet that parallels Odysseus' epithet.

Similarly, Medea isn’t a Homeric female character. In Book 3, she even resembles the Homeric characters, as she’s chaste, beautiful and expresses her emotions especially in private environments with her feelings directed towards male figures — in this case Jason and Aeetes. Something similar to Helen from The Iliad and Penelope from The Odyssey. She helps Jason, but this isn’t enough to differentiate her entirely from the Homeric model of a female character, since she’s still not the protagonist of the conquest, but rather Jason, who is described as doing the tasks. For example, Odysseus is assisted by female figures while the main conquest is still his, since he is the protagonist. The Medea of ​​Book 4, however, does not fit the role of the woman in the epic, since she is more like the woman in the tragedy. Similar to characters such as Euripides' Iphigenia and Sophocles' Antigone, Medea defies gender restrictions and abandons the domestic environment for the public environment and begins to assume the leading role. Similar to Phaedra and Euripides' Medea, Medea has an uncontrolled passion that threatens the people around her. Anger as Medea's main emotion is also a characteristic more typical of tragic female characters, rather than female characters in the epic. Furthermore, Medea goes from being a helper to becoming an active participant. For example, she’s the one who kills Talos, something that wouldn’t happen with any mortal female character in Homeric poetry. And as already mentioned, it’s Medea who is indirectly associated with a Homeric hero, in this case Odysseus, through the use of similar epithets. Although she’s associated with Ariadne, who isn’t a Homeric heroine but is still a traditional female character in mythology, Medea herself says that she isn’t like her. Unlike her, Medea isn’t a helper, but an active protagonist, and she also doesn’t live happily ever after in a marriage. Furthermore, the deconstruction of Medea's chastity is also not something that Homer does with female characters.

Now that I've commented on Dimitra Karamitsou's interpretation, I want to comment on something that I found interesting while reading Argonautica: Medea’s willingness to be helpful to Jason is a parallel to Ariadne’s willingness to be helpful to Theseus. Both princesses who, loving a foreign hero, offer the help that will guarantee their success with the only condition of obtaining a marriage. And maybe this makes my opinion strange, since Ariadne is clearly not a character who subverts gender roles, but I think they have differences that make it possible to coexist the idea that Medea isn’t a character who fulfills the typical gender role and the idea that Medea can be a parallel to Ariadne. The difference, of course, is the personality and the type of help. Ariadne isn’t portrayed as someone who has a volatile and dangerous personality and the help she offers is a guide thread for Theseus to follow, and not something like drugs or even murder. 

I mean, can you imagine Ariadne doing that?

[350] Now when the maiden had mused upon all this, sharp anguish shook her heart unceasingly; and quickly she called forth Jason alone apart from his comrades, and led him aside until they were far away, and before his face uttered her speech all broken with sobs: "What is this purpose that ye are now devising about me, O son of Aeson? Has thy triumph utterly cast forgetfulness upon thee, and reekest thou nothing of all that thou spakest when held fast by necessity? Whither are fled the oaths by Zeus the suppliants' god, whither are fled thy honied promises? For which in no seemly wise, with shameless will, I have left my country, the glories of my home and even my parents — things that were dearest to me; and far away all alone I am borne over the sea with the plaintive kingfishers because of thy trouble, in order that I might save thy life in fulfilling the contests with the oxen and the earthborn men. Last of all the fleece — when the matter became known, it was by my folly thou didst win it; and a foul reproach have I poured on womankind. Wherefore I say that as thy child, thy bride and thy sister, I follow thee to the land of Hellas. Be ready to stand by me to the end, abandon me not left forlorn of thee when thou dost visit the kings. But only save me; let justice and right, to which we have both agreed, stand firm; or else do thou at once shear through this neck with the sword, that I may gain the guerdon due to my mad passion. Poor wretch! if the king, to whom you both commit your cruel covenant, doom me to belong to my brother. How shall I come to my father's sight? Will it be with a good name? What revenge, what heavy calamity shall I not endure in agony for the terrible deeds I have done? And wilt thou win the return that thy heart desires? Never may Zeus' bride, the queen of all, in whom thou dost glory, bring that to pass. Mayst thou some time remember me when thou art racked with anguish; may the fleece like a dream vanish into the nether darkness on the wings of the wind! And may my avenging Furies forthwith drive thee from thy country, for all that I have suffered through thy cruelty! These curses will not be allowed to fall unaccomplished to the ground. A mighty oath hast thou transgressed, ruthless one; but not long shalt thou and thy comrades sit at ease casting eyes of mockery upon me, for all your covenants." [391] Thus she spake, seething with fierce wrath; and she longed to set fire to the ship and to hew it utterly in pieces, and herself to fall into the raging flame. But Jason, half afraid, thus addressed her with gentle words: "Forbear, lady; me too this pleases not. But we seek some respite from battle, for such a cloud of hostile men, like to a fire, surrounds us, on thy account. For all that inhabit this land are eager to aid Apsyrtus, that they may lead thee back home to thy father, like some captured maid. And all of us would perish in hateful destruction, if we closed with them in fight; and bitterer still will be the pain, if we are slain and leave thee to be their prey. But this covenant will weave a web of guile to lead him to ruin. Nor will the people of the land for thy sake oppose us, to favour the Colchians, when their prince is no longer with them, who is thy champion and thy brother; nor will I shrink from matching myself in fight with the Colchians, if they bar my way homeward." [410] Thus he spake soothing her; and she uttered a deadly speech: "Take heed now. For when sorry deeds are done we must needs devise sorry counsel, since at first I was distraught by my error, and by heaven's will it was I wrought the accomplishment of evil desires. Do thou in the turmoil shield me from the Colchians' spears; and I will beguile Apsyrtus to come into thy hands — do thou greet him with splendid gifts — if only I could persuade the heralds on their departure to bring him alone to hearken to my words. Thereupon if this deed pleases thee, slay him and raise a conflict with the Colchians, I care not.

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

[Chased by the Colchians, Medea becomes enraged and needs to be calmed by Jason. She then tells him of her plan to kill her brother, Apsyrtus, who is chasing the Argo.]

And when I say that this parallel exists, it isn’t me merely linking the myths, it’s something Apollonius himself does. 

In Book 1, the Ariadne element was already present in some ways because of the Isle of Lemnos, as Queen Hypsipyle is the daughter of Thoas, a son of Dionysus and Ariadne (he was the only male from Lemnos to survive, as his daughter secretly helped him escape). After the erotic involvement between Hypsipyle and Jason and the necessity of the Argonauts' departure (remembered by Heracles), they say goodbye. Hypsipyle assures Jason that if he returns to Lemnos he can be king, although she herself feels that he won’t return. She then wants Jason to promise to remember her and asks what she should do if she finds out she's pregnant. Jason fears that he may not return home, so he asks her that if she has a son, she should send him to Iolcus to be raised there as a comfort to Jason's parents. Thoas' ancestrality, however, isn’t immediately stated in Book 1.

In Book 3, Jason is described as wearing “dark robe, which Hypsipyle of Lemnos had given him aforetime, a memorial of many a loving embrace”, a gift that wasn’t mentioned in Book 1. Remember that detail!

Anyway, let's continue with Book 3! After Jason met and talked with Medea, the myth of Ariadne and Theseus is introduced into the dialogue between the two by Jason. He tries to comfort her since she seems sad and insecure, and in the process he assures Medea that she will be known for being great, in the same way that Ariadne was known for having been important in the victory of the hero Theseus over the Minotaur. Basically, it's as if Medea is Jason's Ariadne. More specifically, he says: “[...] In days past the maiden Ariadne, daughter of Minos, with kindly intent rescued Theseus from grim contests — the maiden whom Pasiphae daughter of Helios bare. But she, when Minos had lulled his wrath to rest, went aboard the ship with him and left her fatherland; and her even the immortal gods loved, and, as a sign in mid-sky, a crown of stars, which men call Ariadne's crown, rolls along all night among the heavenly constellations. So to thee too shall be thanks from the gods, if thou wilt save so mighty an array of chieftains. For surely from thy lovely form thou art like to excel in gentle courtest." 

This comparison returns in their conversation because, at a certain point, Medea asks Jason to talk more about Ariadne. After all, wasn't he the one who compared Medea to her? He, however, changes the subject and doesn't finish the story.

[1063] Thus she spake, and cast her eyes to her feet in silence, and her cheek, divinely fair, was wet with warm tears as she sorrowed for that he was about to wander far from her side over the wide sea: and once again she addressed him face to face with mournful words, and took his right hand; for now shame had left her eyes: "Remember, if haply thou returnest to thy home, Medea's name; and so will I remember thine, though thou be far away. And of thy kindness tell me this, where is thy home, whither wilt thou sail hence in thy ship over the sea; wilt thou come near wealthy Orchomenus, or near the Aeaean isle? And tell me of the maiden, whosoever she be that thou hast named, the far-renowned daughter of Pasiphae, who is kinswoman to my father." [1077] Thus she spake; and over him too, at the tears of the maiden, stole Love the destroyer, and he thus answered her: "All too surely do I deem that never by night and never by day will I forget thee if I escape death and indeed make my way in safety to the Achaean land, and Aeetes set not before us some other contest worse than this. And if it pleases thee to know about my fatherland, I will tell it out; for indeed my own heart bids me do that. There is a land encircled by lofty mountains, rich in sheep and in pasture, where Prometheus, son of Iapetus, begat goodly Deucalion, who first founded cities and reared temples to the immortal gods, and first ruled over men. This land the neighbours who dwell around call Haemonia. And in it stands Iolcus, my city, and in it many others, where they have not so much as heard the name of the Aeaean isle; yet there is a story that Minyas starting thence, Minyas son of Aeolus, built long ago the city of Orchomenus that borders on the Cadmeians. But why do I tell thee all this vain talk, of our home and of Minos' daughter, far-famed Ariadne, by which glorious name they called that lovely maiden of whom thou askest me? Would that, as Minos then was well inclined to Theseus for her sake, so may thy father be joined to us in friendship!" [1102] Thus he spake, soothing her with gentle converse. But pangs most bitter stirred her heart and in grief did she address him with vehement words: "In Hellas, I ween, this is fair to pay heed to covenants; but Aeetes is not such a man among men as thou sayest was Pasiphae's husband, Minos; nor can I liken myself to Ariadne; wherefore speak not of guest-love. But only do thou, when thou hast reached Iolcus, remember me, and thee even in my parents' despite, will I remember. And from far off may a rumour come to me or some messenger-bird, when thou forgettest me; or me, even me, may swift blasts catch up and bear over the sea hence to Iolcus, that so I may cast reproaches in thy face and remind thee that it was by my good will thou didst escape. May I then be seated in thy halls, an unexpected guest!"

Argonautica, Book 3. Translation by R.C. Searton.

In Book 4, Hypsipyle's cloak returns. It is one of the false gifts offered to Apsyrtus in Medea's plan to deceive her brother. We learn that the Graces (best known for being Aphrodite's companions) wove it for Dionysus, and that Dionysus and Ariadne conceived Thoas on it. The divine cloak was then given to Thoas, who gave it to Hypsipyle, who gave it to Jason.

[421] So they two agreed and prepared a great web of guile for Apsyrtus, and provided many gifts such as are due to guests, and among them gave a sacred robe of Hypsipyle, of crimson hue. The Graces with their own hands had wrought it for Dionysus in sea-girt Dia, and he gave it to his son Thoas thereafter, and Thoas left it to Hypsipyle, and she gave that fair-wrought guest-gift with many another marvel to Aeson's son to wear. Never couldst thou satisfy thy sweet desire by touching it or gazing on it. And from it a divine fragrance breathed from the time when the king of Nysa himself lay to rest thereon, flushed with wine and nectar as he clasped the beauteous breast of the maiden-daughter of Minos, whom once Theseus forsook in the island of Dia, when she had followed him from Cnossus. And when she had worked upon the heralds to induce her brother to come, as soon as she reached the temple of the goddess, according to the agreement, and the darkness of night surrounded them, that so she might devise with him a cunning plan for her to take the mighty fleece of gold and return to the home of Aeetes, for, she said, the sons of Phrixus had given her by force to the strangers to carry off; with such beguiling words she scattered to the air and the breezes her witching charms, which even from afar would have drawn down the savage beast from the steep mountain-height.

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

Hoping to comfort and convince Medea, Jason compares her to Ariadne, to whom Medea is related by blood, though Jason probably did not know this when he made the comparison (her mother is Pasiphae, whom Apollonius claims is the daughter of Helios and therefore the sister of Aeetes, Medea's father. This makes Medea and Ariadne cousins). What he wants is for her not to feel bad about betraying her father and helping the Argonauts, assuring her like Ariadne she will become famous for providing aid to a foreign hero. However, when Medea asks Jason to tell her more about Ariadne, he changes the subject. He purposely doesn’t tell Medea that Theseus, the hero she helped, abandoned her on the island of Naxos. After all, how would that be any comfort to Medea? For all Jason knows, this could very well make her not help him. The association of Medea with Ariadne is already an sign: no matter how helpful Medea is now or even how Jason begins to reciprocate her feelings, this couple's ending will not be happy just as Theseus and Ariadne didn’t live happily ever after. Apollonius certainly seems to recognize the ending of Ariadne's story in Argonautica, after all, he tells us the story of the cloak Hypsipyle gave Jason: an item used by both Dionysus and Ariadne, now married and parents of Thoas, father of Hypsipyle.

Another way to know that this couple is doomed is through a line from Hera. In Book 4, Hera tries to persuade Thetis to have the Nereids help the Argonauts. Using Peleus, one of the Argonauts, as an argument is useless, since Thetis actually clearly has a negative opinion about their forced marriage (something that Hera seems not to really take into account and that, in fact, she was partly responsible for since she was the one who chose Peleus as Thetis' husband). Knowing this, Hera uses a person she knows will convince Thetis: Achilles, her son. She informs Thetis that Medea will be Achilles' wife in Elysium and, therefore, Thetis' daughter-in-law and for this reason she must help the Argonauts, since Medea is among them. This convinces Thetis, who gets the Nereids to help them. But if, after all, the poem introduces us to a love story between Medea and Jason starting in Book 3, why would Medea have to marry another man in Elysium? So, ironically, when Jason compares Medea to Ariadne, he’s trying to achieve success but is premeditating the tragic ending he will have.

They won't be together, something foreshadowed in Jason's comparison and reinforced in Hera's argument. The same love that guaranteed Jason future glory — by returning with the Golden Fleece thanks to Medea's help — will not persist for long. So, even if through seduction Jason has achieved conquests (peace with Hypsipyle and support with Medea, ironically both linked to Ariadne, who here is the exemplary representative of the trope of the young woman who helps a foreign hero), this will have greater consequences than he thinks. Even Apollonius recognizes the destructive power of Medea's love when he relates how, out of love for Jason, Medea planned her own brother's death and was an accomplice in a sacrilege (remembering that the murder took place in front of the temple of Artemis).

[445] Ruthless Love, great bane, great curse to mankind, from thee come deadly strifes and lamentations and groans, and countless pains as well have their stormy birth from thee. Arise, thou god, and arm thyself against the sons of our foes in such guise as when thou didst fill Medea's heart with accursed madness. How then by evil doom did she slay Apsyrtus when he came to meet her? For that must our song tell next.

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

Ironically, the cloak given to Jason is used in this scheme, as the excerpt I mentioned above in the post says. The cloak that represents Ariadne's happy ending, since it’s important for her relationship with Dionysus. The cloak that represents the love of a father for a daughter, since Thoas passed it on to Hypsipyle (a love reinforced by the fact that, while the women of Lemnons killed all the men, Hypsipyle saved her father). The cover that represents the love of a woman who knows she will never see her beloved again, as Hypsipyle gave something so important to Jason as a memory of her. This same cloak is the one used in the plan to murder Apsyrtus as one of the fake gifts, a plan devised by Medea who, in her destructive love, went so far as to wish her brother dead. Personally, I like to interpret this as a sign of how Medea's love is different. It is not the happily ever after love that Dionysus and Ariadne share, it is not a lasting love like Thoas and Hypsipyle, it is not the love of Hypsipyle's longing for Jason. It is an excessive love, it is a love that resembles madness. Medea told Jason that she can't compare to Ariadne and really, they are not the same. And Jason won't be her Theseus, after all he will really make her his wife, but he won't be her Dionysus either, because they won't be happy. The thing — seduction, love, eroticism — that made Jason capable of accomplishing the mission is the same thing that will ruin him.

And I think it is possible to reconcile Argonautica Jason with the Jason of other sources. I have already mentioned what I think about Chiron's involvement in Jason's education (I prefer when there is none) and I have already used other sources to reaffirm the idea of ​​eroticism surrounding Jason and the voyage of the Argonauts — in addition to, of course, having to use other sources to provide context for Jason's family. The thing is, let's analyze what Jason does after the voyage with the Argonauts in the other sources according to the popular version, which is: death of Pelias, Jason and Medea in Corinth, wrath of Medea and death of Jason.

After returning to Iolcus, Jason wanted Pelias punished. In one version, he wants to punish Pelias for sending him on such a dangerous mission (Fabulae 24), and in another he wants to punish Pelias for killing his father and younger brother Promachus and somehow causing his mother to commit suicide (Library of History 4.50.1-4, Library 1.9.27). Although the details vary, Medea, knowing that her husband wants Pelias dead, offers to do it herself, and Jason agrees to let her do it for him (note: in Library, it’s Jason who urges her to do this rather than her offering). And Medea actually does what she promised, tricking Pelias' daughters into killing their father while they think they are rejuvenating him. Then there are two versions: despite gaining power over the palace (albeit violently), Jason doesn’t keep the kingdom and gives it to Acastus, Pelias' son, or else he is expelled by Acastus. Either way, he and Medea go to Corinth after this. In a version in which Aeson isn’t dead he is rejuvenated by Medea, although the context of the original Greek is lost (Nostoi frag 2). If Ovid was faithful to the original context of the myth in his Metamorphoses, then Jason asked her to take part of his life to extend Aeson's life and Medea didn’t want to do this to Jason. Instead, she rejuvenated Aeson without having to take any of Jason's life. She later used the fact that this feat had become famous in Iolcus to convince Pelias' daughters that she could rejuvenate their father.

In Corinth, Medea and Jason lived for years as a married couple and had children, whose number and names vary depending on the source. However, Jason eventually wanted to abandon Medea for another woman. Through a possible marriage to Creusa, daughter of the Corinthian king Creon, he could try to start a new life. A new beautiful wife, a father-in-law who clearly views him favorably, and the elevation of status through marriage. The best-known version of the myth is from Euripides' play Medea, in which Jason not only acts completely asshole to Medea but also belittles her when she reminds him of how much she helped him. Not only was he going to betray Medea, he also agreed to have her banished from Colchis, since her presence there was uncomfortable because she was feared by Creon. When confronted about this, he tells Medea that he could not refuse the opportunity to marry a princess from Colchis and reminds Medea that, after all, she is still a barbarian woman and therefore does not represent the same status as Creusa. He offers to give Medea money to cover the costs of the children (yes, Jason didn’t mind his children being exiled either. He only keeps the children after Medea herself suggests it, although she did it as part of her revenge plan) and says that in the future she can still be his lover. This makes Medea furious, which causes her to execute a plan that results in the death of Jason's new wife and new father-in-law and she also kills both of their children and doesn’t allow Jason to give them a funeral as she says that she will do this herself while leaving in the sun chariot that was a gift from her grandfather Helios. This probably wasn't the oldest version of the myth, since there are indications that perhaps the oldest version was the one in which Medea leaves her children in the temple of Hera before fleeing and the Corinthians kill them (Pausanias mentions this version, if I'm not mistaken. In any case, possibly the first myth of Medea didn't include a mother who killed her children), but I consider this one because I like it better despite being more cruel.

In Euripides' version, Jason is destined to die crushed by the planks of the Argo, the ship used by the Argonauts on their mission and built with Athena's advice, for having dishonored his marriage vows to Medea. Apparently, Euripides' scholia also mentions a version in which Jason dies after being struck by lightning and also mentions that he died while sleeping on the Argo. According to Diodorus Siculus (who, by the way, presents a considerably different version of the myth of Jason and Medea), Jason killed himself. According to Hyginus, Jason was killed by Medea along with Creusa and Creon. Regardless of the version, his death is either quite tragic or quite pathetic.

But what then? Jason keeps turning to Medea for help, whether to kill Pelias or to rejuvenate Aeson. And even while dismissing her as a “barbarian” while Creusa is a Greek princess, Jason suggests that they eventually remain lovers, which shows that he still wanted to keep her (given how unaffectionate Jason is in this play, I’m more inclined to believe that it was for Medea’s usefulness or as a stupid attempt to calm her down, knowing her temper). By dishonoring his marriage vows to Medea, Jason receives a disgraceful end. In the end, Jason continues to have his most memorable moments linked to Medea’s usefulness (Pelias’ daughters) and in the end he continues to use relationships to his advantage (in this case, marriage to Creusa). And the act of discarding her as a wife still screws him over. She was the one who made him rise to glory, as the mission was only a success because of her, but she was also the one who made him have a miserable end. Jason still only achieves repeated success while he’s in a relationship with Medea. The other more typically heroic myths of Jason also tend to portray him in a group/team setting like in the Argonautica, as is the case with the Hunt of the Calydonian Boar myth.

So I think it’s possible to connect Argonautica to other sources. In Book 4, Jason has already done a really horrible thing, he committed sacrilege by killing Medea��s brother in front of the temple of Artemis. After all, he still has the potential to do evil things. And given the way love is portrayed as a destructive force in Argonautica, the mere act of being with Medea, who we know to be destructive, certainly makes him capable of causing misfortune himself. Also, Apollonius makes Jason out to be like an ordinary, human person, but isn't that what Jason was? He really was an ordinary person. But what about after returning from such a dangerous mission successfully? It wouldn't be strange if fame made him arrogant and, knowing that he can count on Medea's help, it wouldn't be strange if he increasingly used violence as a practical tool. And, thinking that he can keep Medea's help while using other women to gain status in the same way he gained status with Medea (not through marriage, but because she influenced the outcome of the mission), he’s still a Jason who uses his romantic/sexual/marital relationships to get what he needs. And since his fame was indirectly built through marriage, the destruction of said marriage is the destruction of Jason himself.

One way in which the transition is reflected is by repeated allusions to Jason and Medea’s doomed marriage. Throughout Books 3 and 4, in the lead up to their actual marriage at Argon. 4.1127–69, scenes in which Medea appears contain moments that can be read symbolically as representative of her relationship with Jason. For example, her veiled (or unveiled) face is repeatedly mentioned (3.444–7, 3.828–35, 4.41–6, 4.465–7), which both highlights her status as an unmarried girl and draws the reader repeatedly to Medea’s use of vision as an erotic signifier. 3 Moreover, the narrator twice draws on comparisons to grieving wives to elucidate Medea’s emotional turmoil (3.656–64, 4.1062–7); these two unhappy similes hint at a similarly unpleasant end to Medea’s relationship with Jason. Furthermore, Medea enacts a series of symbolic marital rituals as she flees her home (4.26–49), transferring into Jason’s protection during the night and leaving symbols of her virginity behind for her mother. These are some of the key ways in which wedding imagery pervades Medea’s representation throughout Books 3 and 4. In addition, the actual wedding between Jason and Medea contains aspects of wedding ritual; all of them are, however, undermined by the unsuitability of location, time and context. Queen Arete gauges from her husband King Alcinous that he intends to decree that Medea should only belong with the Argonauts if she is already married to Jason. This provokes a midnight marriage, performed in secret, with an armed guard and an unenthusiastic couple (οὐ μὲν ἐν Ἀλκινόοιο γάμον μενέαινε τελέσσαι | ἥρως Αἰσονίδης, μεγάροις δ᾽ ἐνὶ πατρὸς ἑοῖο, | νοστήσας ἐς Ἰωλκὸν ὑπότροπος· ὧς δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ | Μήδεια φρονέεσκε· τότ᾽ αὖ χρεὼ ἦγε μιγῆναι ‘The hero Jason wished to hold the wedding not in Alcinous’ land but rather in the halls of his father, having returned home to Iolcus. So too did Medea wish this: but necessity forced them to join there’, 4.1161–4). 6 The marriage scene itself, performed out of necessity rather than will, provides an inauspicious beginning for their marriage and allows for the pos- sibility that the eventual failure of their marriage can be traced to as far back as its origins.

Wedding Imagery in the Talos episode: Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 4-1653-88, by Sarah Cassidy, pg 442-443.

[babyrdie]

@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 name​17 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]

[Standard warning I put on posts of this type, but: reblog feature disabled because I do that when I kind of make a post as if it were a continuation of a comment]

[babyrdie]

Hey!

Basic things

You can call me Birdie.

NO AI!!!

I queue my posts, I just don't tag which ones

I'm a woman, but I 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.

I accept asks, including anon. You also can be an "identified" anon. But if you use anon to talk bullshit, I will block you. I accept DMs too, same "bullshit" rule applies. Feel free to tag me in tag games even if I'm not a mutual you talk to much. I usually participate, but there are cases where I don't (e.g. Spotify. I just don't have Spotify, so there's no way I can participate. Or things that involve information I don't want to give out publicly, like physical appearance).

What I post?

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.

About my posts

Please DO NOT take everything I post seriously. Sometimes I'm just trying to enjoy being stupid and futile.

Sometimes I talk about sexual slavery and rape in general in Greek-Roman literature. If you want to avoid this topic because it is one of your triggers, please block the "tw: rape" tag. About the terms I use, please check this. If the topic isn't an immediate trigger for you, but the use of any of these terms is, then I still recommend blocking the tag. The tag about slavery (not necessaraly sexual) is "Myth Slavery".

In any post you read about mythology, consider one detail: I'm not a classicist, historian, archaeologist, etc. It's just a hobby. I occasionally read articles on the subject and share names here, but that is to present the interpretations I have seen in a way that gives credit to the author (at least, where I have read them). It's not necessarily intended to prove a point, sometimes I share opinions that I disagree with. Also, often the excerpt used is short compared to the full text, so please don't assume that these shared passages have the full context of the original academic.

If even after checking the tags you haven't found a specific post, send an ask asking about it and I'll try to find and link it.

I prefer not to engage in discourse, so sorry…but if I realize you're interested in this, I'll probably ignore you or delete your comment/ask or block you.

Blocking

In case I didn't block you because I simply didn't find you enjoyable to be around, here are other reasons you might be blocked that aren't your fault: you post a lot about a topic I have no interest in but keeps showing up in my feed (it's Tumblr's bad algorithm's fault, not yours) or you talk a lot about personal trauma (it's a sensitive topic for me. I mean, my problem. It's not your fault).

The other reasons are things like annoying behavior ("annoying" in the sense that it's not harmful but it's annoying), intolerant behavior, supports/uses AI, etc, etc.

[babyrdie]

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 θυμόν 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 (Περ��� 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 à 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.

[babyrdie]

[This is a silly post of me rambling about Achilles' association with water elements. I'm just wanting to put together things that bring him closer to the water because I like the relationship between Thetis and Achilles lol]

Family Tree

We usually associate Achilles with water only because of Thetis (fair! I adore her, so I'm definitely not complaining), but I'm researching Peleus and there are also a huge number of deities related to water even on his mortal side (I know Peleus isn't exactly who we think of first when it comes to researching a mythological figure, but there is a reason lol). Having nymphs in the family isn't exactly the most uncommon thing, but I still think it's cool.

Asopus was a river god. He has more than one father/mother attributed, but in all versions at least one of them is associated with wate: Oceanos was the titan of world-river Ocean, Tethys was the titan of fresh water, Poseidon was the sea god, Eurynome was was a Oceanid-nymph, Pero was a Naiad-nymph. In fact, the only one who isn't a water deity was Zeus.

Metope was a Naiad-nymph, daughter of the river god Ladon, who was a son of Oceanus and Thethys. Asopus and Metope had daughters, including Naiad-nymph Aegina. Aegina and Zeus had the mortal Aeacus. Aeacus married with Endeis and had Telamon and Peleus. Endeis in one version is the daughter of Chiron, who is the son of Cronus with the Oceanid-nymph Philyra. Aeacus also had Phocus with Psamathe, a Nereid-nymph (daughter of Nereus, god of the sea's rich bounty of fish, and Oceanid-nymph Doris. Nereus is the son of Pontos, the primordial sea god). Peleus and Thetis (she's sister of Psamathe) had Achilles.

So...

[Obviously in some cases it depends on the versions. Here I'm considering the Oceanus and Tethys version for Asopus and the Chiron and Chariclo version for Endeis. And on the Oceanus part, by "ocean" I mean in the Ancient Greek concept of the great river which encircled the entire world]

And if someone is curious:

Asopus as Oceanos and Thethys' son, as Zeus and Eurynome's son, as Poseidon and Pero's son (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.12.6)

Metope as River Ladon's daughter (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.12.6; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.72.1)

Aegina as Asopus and Metope's daugther (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.12.6; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.72.1)

Endeis as Chiron's daughter (Hyginus, Fabulae, 14)

Phocus as Psamathe's son (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.12.6; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.72.6; Hesiod, Theogony, 1003; Pindar, Nemean Ode 5, 5.1; Pausanias, Description of Greece, 2.29.9; Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses, 38).

Nymph-related Elements

Additionally, in Argonautica, Hera describes Achilles to Thetis as being cared for by water-nymph:

‘Your son Akhilleus , who is now with Kheiron the Kentauros and is fed by Water-Nymphai [Naiades of Mount Pelion] though he should be at your breast

Argonautica, 4.812 ff

In Iphigenia in Aulis, Achilles' ships are described as having golden Nereids as their symbol (I'd also put golden Nereids on my ships if I had Thetis in the family, so fair!)

Chorus Next I sought the countless fleet, a wonder to behold, that I might fill my girlish eyes with gazing, a sweet delight. The warlike Myrmidons from Phthia held the right wing with fifty swift cruisers, upon whose sterns, right at the ends, stood Nereid goddesses in golden effigy, the ensign of Achilles' armament.

Iphigenia in Aulis, see here.

In Electra (Euripides', not Sophocles'), the chorus gives a description that I honestly think I don't even need to comment on.

Chorus O famous ships, you that once with countless oars went to Troy, conducting dances with the Nereids, where the music-loving dolphin leapt and rolled at your dark-blue prows, bringing Achilles, the son of Thetis, light in the leap of his foot, with Agamemnon to the banks of Trojan Simois.

Electra, see here.

The Roman Pliny the Elder describes these figures in a temple:

But the most highly esteemed of all his works, are those in the Temple erected by Cneius Domitius, in the Flaminian Circus; a figure of Neptune himself, a Thetis and Achilles, Nereids seated upon dolphins, cetaceous fishes, and sea-horses, Tritons, the train of Phor- cus, whales, and numerous other sea-monsters, all by the same hand; an admirable piece of workmanship, even if it had taken a whole life to complete it.

The Natural History, 36.4.

In both Homer and Quintus Smyrnaeus, the Nereids care for and mourn Achilles. In the Iliad, in Book 18, they come out of the sea to console him after the death of Patroclus. In the Odyssey, Book 24, it is described how they came to his funeral. As for Posthomerica, in Book 2 it's said that they worry about Achilles in his fight against Memnon, and in Book 3 they participate in Achilles' funeral.

Aeschylus' lost play "Nereids" (part of the "Achilles" trilogy) told of Achilles' lament over the death of Patroclus and the arrival of the Nereids. In Argonautica, Book 4, the Nereids only help the Argonauts because Hera convinces Thetis to do so in Achilles' name (there is a context). In 5.19.8 of Description of Greece, Pausanias describes an art he saw in which the Nereids were depicted bringing the armor to Achilles.

Cult

Like other heroes, Achilles had cults. One of his cults was on the Pontus Euxine, known as the Black Sea. There are other things you can research about this, but what I want to bring here is this detail:

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 inscribe 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" by Guy Hedreen, pag 314-315.

That mentioned "Pontarches" in Greek is "Ποντάρχης", which translates to something like "he who presides over sea" (so something like "Lord of the Sea"). Although Achilles is remembered primarily for being a warrior, in this Olbian cult he was also the giver of the city's fertility, water, health, and wealth.

Achilles assumed the role of the supreme Olbian deity in the Roman period and was worshiped with the title of Ποντάρχης, which is attested by a great number (more than 40!) of stone inscriptions of Olbian magistrates: archons, strategoi, agoranomoi and priests. In general the formula for these dedications adheres to the following pattern the inscription usually begins with the words Ἀγαθῆι τύχηι and immediately afterwards follows the name of Achilles Pontarches in the dative singular (Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρχηι). Then comes the name of the dedicator and, if a dedication belongs to a magistracy, there is a list of its members’ names starting with that of its chairman: οἱ περὶ τὸν (name and patronymic) ἄρχοντες, στρατεγοί (names and patronymics of the college of magistrates). The final part usually conveys the purpose of the dedication: ὑπὲρ εὐσταθίας τῆς πόλεως, διαμονῆς, εἰρήνης, ἀνδραγαθίας, πολυκαρπίας and εὐποσίας. Often the following words are added as well: ὑπέρ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ/ἑαυτῶν ὑγείας. Unlike dedications to Apollo Prostates and Hermes Agoraios, in inscriptions dedicated to Achilles Pontarches the words χαριστήριον or εὐχαριστήριον are almost always followed by the verbs ἀνέθεκαν, ἀνέθεκε or ἀνέστεσεν. Sometimes, however, the final formula consists of no more than the single word εὐχαριστήριον (IPE I², 155) or χαριστήριον. The χαριστήρια of Olbian magistrates present Achilles as the giver of fertility, water, health and wealth of the city, and one inscription from the pre-Get period calls him ‘the eternal father of Olbian archons’ (IPE I2. 53: Ἀχιλλε[ῖ Ποντάρχηι] ἀνέθεσα[ν οἱ ἄρχοντες] τῷ πατρί (α) ἰων[ίῳ]). One of the Olbian dedications to Achilles Pontarches (IPE I² 140) is presented by a retiring priest who thanks Achilles for “the continuance of the city”: ἀγαθῇ τύχηι Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρ χῃ Καλλίστρα τος Ἡρακλείδου 5 ἱερατεύσας ὑπ[ὲρ] τῆς πόλεως εἰρ[ή]

"Exploring the Hospitable Sea" by Manolis Manoledakis, pag 182.

The characteristic of Thetis being an essential part of Achilles' lineage remained in Olbia: "In the inscription of the priest Skartanes (IPE I², 142) not only the name of Achilles Pontarches is mentioned but also the name of his mother, Thetis: Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρχηι καὶ Θέτιδι." ("Exploring the Hospitable Sea" by Manolis Manoledakis, pag 182)

In 2.1.8 of Description of Greece, Pausanias quickly comments on altars to Achilles in precints by shores: "I know that there are altars to these in other parts of Greece, and that some Greeks have even dedicated to them precincts by shores, where honors are also paid to Achilles."

In more than one source, port cities (in particular, Achilleon) dedicated to Achilles have been attested:

There was also in former times a town of Achilleon, founded near the tomb of Achilles by the people of Mitylene, and afterwards rebuilt by the Athenians, close to the spot where his fleet had been stationed near Sigeum.

The Natural History, 5.33.

Hegesistratus, however, could not keep what Pisistratus had given him without fighting, for there was constant war over a long period of time between the Athenians at Sigeum and the Mytilenaeans at Achilleum. 

The Histories, 5.94.

From Pyrrhichus the road comes down to the sea at Teuthrone. The inhabitants declare that their founder was Teuthras, an Athenian. They honor Artemis Issoria most of the Gods, and have a spring Naia. The promontory of Taenarum projects into the sea 150 stades from Teuthrone, with the harbors Achilleius and Psamathus. On the promontory is a temple like a cave, with a statue of Poseidon in front of it.

Description of Greece, 3.25.4.

In Geopgrahy, Strabo mentions Achilleum:

"[...] it is a village where is the narrowest entrance into the lake, about stadia in breadth; opposite to it is a village situated in Asia, called Achilleum." (7.4)

"Next to the village Achilleium, where is the temple of Achilles, are stadia." (11.2)

"The narrow passage at the mouth of the Mœotis derives its name from the straits opposite the Achilleium" (11.2)

Conclusion

This entire post was simply me trying to find things to support my headcanon that, as a son of Nereid, Achilles has a certain proximity to his nymph side. And my conclusion is that I will die on this hill!

[babyrdie]

Pelion

This is a post collecting Greek and Roman versions of Chiron having taught Achilles, what the approach to their relationship was, and if there was anyone else. I see it being considered as something concrete that Patroclus and Ajax were there, but I had never read anything that they were actually there, so I got curious and did some research to see if I could find anything.

As my intention here is to try to find mentions of versions, note that I'm considering a LOT of texts. This means that I'm considering a LARGE amount of time and the author's profession/position is also varied (there are tragedians, there are sophists, there are senators, etc). I'm not trying to find a canon or anything, just trying to get an idea of when Patroclus and Ajax were added and the evolution of the perception of Achilles and Chiron's relationship over the years.

And of course, I may have missed something.

GREEK

Homer (8th century BC)

The translation used: Robert Fagles.

Homer doesn't give us an age for when Achilles was there, nor does he explicitly say whether anyone else was taught at the same time as him (although he mentions Machaon is the son of Asclepius and Asclepius learned from Chiron). We know, however, that for Homer Achilles had trained with Chiron and Achilles' spear even used to be Chiron's (although the one who gave it to Achilles was Peleus, as Chiron had given it to him)

And Achilles' only weapon Patroclus did not take was the great man's spear, weighted, heavy, tough. No other Achaean fighter could heft that shaft, only Achilles had the skill to wield it well: Pelian ash it was, a gift to his father Peleus presented by Chiron once, hewn on Pelion's crest to be the death of heroes.

The Iliad, XVI, 167-173.

On the other hand, Phoenix's mention of having helped raise Achilles leads me to understand that he didn't go to Pelion THAT early. Patroclus also says they grew up together on Phitia, Odysseus and Phoenix says Peleus sent Achilles to Agamemnon of Phitia. That is, there was some time before when he was in Phitia and a time after when he returned to Phitia.

Odysseus:

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

The Iliad, IX, 306-307.

Phoenix:

"[…] The old horseman Peleus had me escort you, that day he sent you out of Phthia to Agamernnon […]"

The Iliad, IX, 533-534.

"[…] Achilles— I loved you from the heart. You'd never go with another to banquet on the town or feast in your own halls. Never, until I'd sat you down on my knees and cut you the first bits of meat, remember? You'd eat your fill, I'd hold the cup to your lips and all too often you soaked the shirt on my chest, spitting up some wine, a baby's way… a misery. Oh I had my share of troubles for you, Achilles, did my share of labor. Brooding, never forgetting the gods would bring no son of mine to birth, not from my own loins. […]"

The Iliad, IX, 586-597.

Patroclus:

"[…] 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 — I 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, XXIII, 100-110.

Patroclus emphasizing that they grew up together, but having learne to heal from Achilles (who learned from Chiron) and not from Chiron himself makes me think that his presence in Pelion is ambiguous. But he also explicitly says it's time in Phitia, which leads me to believe that perhaps he wasn't in Pelion. I think in Homer's version there is a possibility Achilles spent less time with Chiron compared to other versions.

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

The Iliad, XI, 992-994.

Hesiod (between 750 BC-650 BC)

See here.

One of the fragments attributed to Hesiod (Catalogues of Women) mentions Achilles being with Chiron when the event of Helen's suitors occurred.

Berlin Papyri, No. 9739: (ll. 100-106) But Chiron was tending the son of Peleus, swift-footed Achilles, pre-eminent among men, on woody Pelion; for he was still a boy. For neither warlike Menelaus nor any other of men on earth would have prevailed in suit for Helen, if fleet Achilles had found her unwed. But, as it was, warlike Menelaus won her before.

We don't know from this source where Patroclus was, but Ajax was certainly not in Pelion because here he was one of the suitors.

Berlin Papyri, No. 9739: (ll. 55-62) And from Salamis Aias, blameless warrior, sought her to wife, and offered fitting gifts, even wonderful deeds; for he said that he would drive together and give the shambling oxen and strong sheep of all those who lived in Troezen and Epidaurus near the sea, and in the island of Aegina and in Mases, sons of the Achaeans, and shadowy Megara and frowning Corinthus, and Hermione and Asine which lie along the sea; for he was famous with the long spear.

Pindar (518 BC–438 BC)

See here.

Pindar establishes Chiron having reared Jason and Asclepius and a time later Achilles, but doesn't mention anyone else in Achilles' time.

§ 3.50 [...] Deep-thinking Cheiron reared Jason under his stone roof, and later Asclepius, [55] whom he taught the gentle-handed laws of remedies. And he arranged a marriage for Peleus with the lovely-bosomed daughter of Nereus, and brought up for her their incomparable child, nurturing his spirit with all fitting things, so that when the blasts of the sea-winds sent him to Troy, he might withstand the spear-clashing war-shout of the Lycians and Phrygians and Dardanians; and when he came into close conflict with the spear-bearing Ethiopians, he might fix it in his mind that their leader, powerful Memnon the kinsman of Helenus, should not return to his home. From that point the light of the Aeacids has been fixed to shine far. [...]

He also doesn't explore the relationship between Chiron and Achilles beyond Chiron's connection to Achilles' family.

Euripides (480 AC–406 AC)

See here.

In Iphigenia in Aulis, Agamemnon explains to Clytemnestra Peleus sent Achilles early to train with Chiron because he wanted to "prevent his learning the ways of the wicked". Therefore, he was young enough for isolation with Chiron to be considered a kind of deterrent for Achilles from coming into contact with "the ways of the wicked". Clytemnestra's question was if he was trained by Peleus or by Thetis and the answer was by Chiron. So really, he must have been quite young. 

CLYTAEMNESTRA: Did Thetis or his father train Achilles? AGAMEMNON: Chiron brought him up, to prevent his learning the ways of the wicked. CLYTAEMNESTRA: Ah wise the teacher, still wiser the father, who intrusted his son to such hands.

Here there is no mention of any other student of Chiron at the same time. Euripides also doesn't explore the relationship between Chiron and Achilles beyond Chiron's connection to Achilles' family.

Plato (427 – 348 BC)

See here.

In Republic, Achilles is mentioned as having been trained by Chiron:

[...] Achilles, the son of a goddess and of Peleus the most chaste1 of men, grandson2of Zeus, and himself bred under the care of the most sage Cheiron, [...]

And that is it.

Xenophon (430 BC-354/355 BC)

See here.

In Cygeneticus, Xenophon says that Chiron's students are: Cephalus, Asclepius, Meilanion, Nestor, Amphiaraus, Peleus, Telamon, Meleager, Theseus, Hippolytus, Palamedes, Odysseus, Menestheus, Diomedes, Castor, Polydeuces, Machaon, Podaleirius, Antilochus, Aeneas, Achilles.

§ 1 Game and hounds are the invention of gods, of Apollo and Artemis. They bestowed it on Cheiron and honoured him therewith for his righteousness. And he, receiving it, rejoiced in the gift, and used it. 2 And he had for pupils in venery and in other noble pursuits — Cephalus, Asclepius, Meilanion, Nestor, Amphiaraus, Peleus, Telamon, Meleager, Theseus, Hippolytus, Palamedes, Odysseus, Menestheus, Diomedes, Castor, Polydeuces, Machaon, Podaleirius, Antilochus, Aeneas, Achilles, of whom each in his time was honoured by gods. 3 Let no man marvel that the more part of these, even though they pleased gods, died none the less; for that was nature's work; but the praise of them grew mightily;—nor yet that not all of these flourished at one time. For Cheiron's lifetime sufficed for all. 4 For Zeus and Cheiron were brethren, sons of one sire, but the mother of the one was Rhea, of the other the nymph Nais: and so, though he was born before these, he died after them, for he taught Achilles.

Although it has Achilles and Antilochus, there is no Patroclus. Although it has Telamon, there is no Ajax. Considering, however, that there are characters of similar age to Achilles as Antilochus, perhaps in this version he wasn't the only student at the time.

Apollonius Rhodius (3rd century BC)

See here.

Right at the Book I of Argonautica, Apollonius shows Achilles being a child small enough for Chiron's wife hold in her arms.

§ 1.519 [...] And there came down from the mountain-top to the sea Chiron, son of Philyra, and where the white surf broke he dipped his feet, and, often waving with his broad hand, cried out to them at their departure, "Good speed and a sorrowless home- return!" And with him his wife, bearing Peleus' son Achilles on her arm, showed the child to his dear father.

Aristaeus, son of Apollo, is mentioned, but he's from before Achilles. So they weren't taught at the same time.

§ 2.500 [...] And here to Phoebus she bore Aristaeus whom the Haemonians, rich in corn-land, call "Hunter" and "Shepherd". Her, of his love, the god made a nymph there, of long life and a huntress, and his son he brought while still an infant to be nurtured in the cave of Cheiron. [...]

Hera mentions that Achilles is raised in Thetis's absence and water nymphs help Chiron raise him.

§ 4.770 "[...] When thy son shall come to the Elysian plain, he whom now in the home of Cheiron the Centaur water-nymphs are tending, though he still craves thy mother milk [...]"

Pseudo-Apollodorus (first or second century AD)

See here.

In the Library, Pseudo-Apollodurs appears to establish Achilles being raised by Chiron as very early as well, as chronologically he places Pelion's time shortly after Thetis attempted to immortalize Achilles. He was also young enough for Chiron to easily rename him (the original name being Ligyron). 

[3.13.6] When Thetis had got a babe by Peleus, she wished to make it immortal, and unknown to Peleus she used to hide it in the fire by night in order to destroy the mortal element which the child inherited from its father, but by day she anointed him with ambrosia. But Peleus watched her, and, seeing the child writhing on the fire, he cried out; and Thetis, thus prevented from accomplishing her purpose, forsook her infant son and departed to the Nereids. Peleus brought the child to Chiron, who received him and fed him on the inwards of lions and wild swine and the marrows of bears, and named him Achilles, because he had not put his lips to the breast; but before that time his name was Ligyron.

Furthermore, Achilles' Troy prophecy would have been known to Thetis only when Achilles was 9 years old and then she took him to Skyros, which gave me the impression that he was very young when he went to Pelion and was nine when he went to Skyros.

[3.13.8] 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.

However, he also considers the myths of Phoenix and clearly doesn't forget his presence in Phitia. This conflicts with the idea of Phoenix having helped raise Achilles, unless at the age of nine Achilles was actually no longer in Pelion but in Phitia. Although he mentions Patroclus accompanying Achilles to Troy, he doesn't mention him being at Pelion. In Ajax's parts, he isn't related to Pelion or Chiron.

He was accompanied by Phoenix, son of Amyntor. This Phoenix had been blinded by his father on the strength of a false accusation of seduction preferred against him by his father's concubine Phthia. But Peleus brought him to Chiron, who restored his sight, and thereupon Peleus made him king of the Dolopians. Achilles was also accompanied by Patroclus, son of Menoetius and Sthenele, daughter of Acastus; or the mother of Patroclus was Periopis, daughter of Pheres, or, as Philocrates says, she was Polymele, daughter of Peleus. 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 and became a minion of Achilles. . . .

In the case of the Library, this confusion is normal because it's an encyclopedia. Although the author seems to be trying to keep it as chronologically aligned as possible, whether or not it's still an attempt to record a lot of different versions of myths. And different myths can result in contradictions.

Also, although he doesn't write Ajax or Patroclus being with Achilles while he was with Chiron, Apollodorus describes both of them being present as suitors:

[3.10.8] Now the kings of Greece repaired to Sparta to win the hand of Helen. [...] Ajax and Teucer, sons of Telamon; Patroclus, son of Menoetius.

Pseudo-Plutarch (?-?)

See here.

Previously attributed to Plutarch (no longer), On Music emphasizes Achilles and Chiron's connection to music. It dates back to around Plutarch's time.

§ 40 Now for the advantages that accrue to men from the use of music, the famous Homer has taught it us, introducing Achilles, in the height of his fury toward Agamemnon, appeased by the music which he learned from Chiron, a person of great wisdom. For thus says he: Amused at ease, the god-like man they found, Pleased with the solemn harp's harmonious sound. The well-wrought harp from conquered Thebe came; Of polished silver was its costly frame. With this he soothes his angry soul, and sings The immortal deeds of heroes and of kings." Learn, says Homer, from hence the true use of music. For it became Achilles, the son of Peleus the Just, to sing the famous acts and achievements of great and valiant men. Also, in teaching the most proper time to make use of it, he found out a profitable and pleasing pastime for one's leisure hours. For Achilles, being both valiant and active, by reason of the disgust he had taken against Agamemnon withdrew from the war. Homer therefore thought he could not do better than by the laudable incitements of music and poetry to inflame the hero's courage for those achievements which he afterwards performed. And this he did, calling to mind the great actions of former ages. Such was then the ancient music, and such the advantages that made it profitable. To which end and purpose we read that Hercules, Achilles, and many others made use of it; whose master, wisest Chiron, is recorded to have taught not only music, but morality and physic.

Ptolemy Hephaestion (?-?)

See here.

Because of the information found in the Suda (§ pi.3037), it is theorized that this Ptolemey is Ptolemey Chennus. If so, Chennus was alive during the reigns of Trajan (duration: 98 AD-117 AD) and Hadrian (duration: 117 AD-138 AD)

In Photius's review of New History, he says that Ptolemy wrote that Cocytus, Dionysus and Achilles were taught by Chiron. There is no emphasis on Achilles and Chiron's relationship, but there is also Chiron giving him a name and Achilles going to Pelion at a very young age. In this version, Thetis also had six children before Achilles, but they all died.

§ 190.4 [...] "Only Cocytus washed the wounds of Adonis", was as follows: Cocytus was the name of a pupil to whom Chiron had taught medicine and who cared for Adonis when he was wounded by the wild boar.

§ 190.33 Dionysus was loved by Chiron, from whom he learned chants and dances, the bacchic rites and initiations. [...]

§ 190.46 [...] Thetis burned in a secret place the children she had by Peleus; six were born; when she had Achilles, Peleus noticed and tore him from the flames with only a burnt ankle-bone and confided him to Chiron. [...]

§ 190.47 [...]The teacher of Chiron was called Achilleus and it of him that the name came which Chiron gave to the son of Peleus. [...]

Pausanias (110 AD –180 AD)

See here. 

Pausanias describes the throne of the Amyclaean, by Bathycles of Magnesia (about 550 BC), and on it there are Achilles and Chiron.

[12] There is Peleus handing over Achilles to be reared by Cheiron, who is also said to have been his teacher. [...]

Philostratus the Elder (190 AD–230 AD)

See here and here.

The sophist Philostratus wrote Imagines, a series of descriptions of arts. Apparently it's still up for debate whether these are descriptions of real arts or not, but one of them involves Chiron's education of Achilles.

I'm not going to put the excerpt here because it's too small to be cut and too big to be put in the post, so if anything, see the link. Only Achilles and Chiron are present and the interaction between the two seems to have been approached from a more affectionate perspective. It's really sweet, actually.

In On Heroica, Protesilaus (not the same Protesilaus who was the first to die at Troy) mentions Ajax among Chiron's students:

§ 708 Protesilaos says that he himself shared the company of Kheiron at the same time with Palamedes, Achilles, and Ajax. [...]

Achilles and Chiron's relationship is described like this:

§ 730 and how Selene habitually visited the sleeping Endymion. "Peleus," she said, "I shall even give to you a child mightier than a mortal." When Achilles was born, they made Kheiron his foster-father. He fed him honeycombs and the marrow of fawns. When Achilles reached the age at which children need wagons and knucklebones, he did not prohibit such games, but accustomed him to small javelins, darts, and race courses. Achilles also had a small ashen spear hewn by Kheiron, and he seemed to babble about military affairs. When he became an ephebe, a brightness radiated from his face, and his body was beyond natural size, since he grew more easily than do trees near springs. He was celebrated much at symposia and much in serious endeavors. When he appeared to yield to anger, Kheiron taught him music. Music was enough to tame the readiness and rising of his disposition. Without exertion, he thoroughly learned the musical modes, and he sang to the accompaniment of a lyre. He used to sing of the ancient comrades, Hyacinthus and Narcissus, and something about Adonis. And the lamentations for Hyllas and Abderos being fresh — since, when both were ephebes, the one was carried into a spring until he disappeared, and upon the other the horses of Diomedes feasted — not without tears did he sing of these matters. I also heard the following things: that he sacrificed to Calliope asking for musical skill and mastery of poetic composition [...]

Himerius (315 AD–386 AD)

See here.

The sophist Himerius strongly associates Chiron with music and, consequently, Achilles. We even have this part, which I honestly found kind of funny...

§ 9.5 [...] Horsekeepers strike up a song when their colts start acting like adult males in their relations with mares. Chiron would not have remained silent in the case of Achilles, if the latter had not concealed his love for Hippodamia. And I understand that the pastoral god Pan played his pipe more forcefully when Dionysus took Ariadne to wife in Cretan caves.

Note: Hippodamia = Briseis.

He explicitly states that he doesn't believe in the myth of Skyros and Achilles went from Pelion directly to Troy.

§ 46.9 They say that Peleus of Thessaly, already old and because of his age not ready for war, bedecked his son Achilles with his own arms when the latter was still young and just getting a beard. He sent Achilles to Troy to be a general to the Greeks, and he sent him, not from the girls’ apartments and the house of Lycomedes—let us not believe the myths on this point—but from Mt. Pelion and from Chiron. Hence right in the midst of battle Achilles played his lyre § 46.10 and sang what the Centaur [Chiron] had taught him. He frightened Trojans> with his golden weapons and saved the Greeks. [...]

§ 26.20 I propose at the outset [of a young man’s career] a fervor for accomplishment, inasmuch as it is customary that... [Achilles] was . . . in battle as a result of the teachings of Chiron...[...]

There is no Ajax or Patroclus in Pelion, but Telamon (Ajax's father) is mentioned as one of Chiron's students.

§ 23.9 [...] Aeacus marveled at the Centaur for his skill and at how the chorus of swans immediately started dancing around the lyre, and he brought [his sons] Telamon and Peleus to Chiron and gave them to him, to be watched over along with the swans... to be satisfied with the meal I [provide], but if my eloquence skillfully provides food...

Ioannis Tzetzes (1100 AD-1800 AD)

See here.

He mention three students: Achilles, Asclepius, Jason. No Ajax or Patroclus.

§ 6.959 (TE2.94) CONCERNING THE THESSALIAN CHEIRON, HALF MAN HALF BEAST, TEACHER OF HEROES Cheiron, who was the teacher of many great men, From Asclepius to Jason and then Achilles himself,[...]

Chiron is also Achilles' maternal grandfather:

§ 6.994 (TE2.98) CONCERNING ACHILLES Achilles was son of Peleus and Thetis, Not the sea nymph but a mortal woman And daughter of Cheiron, the philosopher, Whom we described above as being the teacher of many heroes. He was instructed in hunting and archery and medicine and many arts By his very own grandfather.

? (?-?)

See here.

Dictys Cretenses was believed to be Roman, but it's actually a Latin translation of a Greek original, so I'm putting it here. But what we know about names and dates concerns the Latin version, so I can't say for sure the author or the time of the Greek original.

Here a rumor of Thetis being the daughter of Chiron is mentioned and Phoenix is explicitly stated as Achilles' teacher, so here Achilles lived in Phitia long enough for Phoenix to be his teacher.

§ 1.14 Next Achilles arrived, the son of Peleus and Thetis. (Thetis, so they say, was the daughter of Chiron.) Achilles was in the first years of his manhood, a noble youth and handsome. So great was his zeal for war that he was already known as the bravest champion alive. Nevertheless, it must be admitted, his character showed a certain ill-advised forcefulness, a certain savage impatience. He was accompanied by Patroclus, his close friend, and Phoenix, his guardian and teacher. [...]

§ 6.7 [...] Peleus, with whom he had become so intimate that he was able to tell, among other things, about Peleus' marriage with Thetis, Chiron's daughter. At that time many kings had been invited from everywhere to the wedding, which was at Chiron's home. During the banquet they had praised the bride and offered her toasts as if to a goddess, saying that she was a Nereid and that Chiron was Nereus. [...]

Art

Peleus delivers his son Achilles to the foster care of the wise centaur Chiron, ca 500 - 480 BC, attributed to Berlin Painter. See here.

Chiron holds the boy Achilles, 520 BC, attributed to Oltos. See here. 

ROMAN

Hyginus

See here.

Astronomica, attributed to Hyginus and believed to have been written between 27 BC–14 AD, establishes Chiron as having taught Achilles and Asclepius and doesn't explore beyond that, since the focus is on telling myths of the constellations. Also, Astronomica considers Greek myths despite being Roman.

§ 2.38.1 CENTAUR: He is said to be Chiron, son of Saturn and Philyra, who surpassed not only the other Centaurs but also men in justice, and is thought to have reared Aesculapius and Achilles. By his conscientiousness and diligence, therefore, he won inclusion among the stars.

He also mentions Euripides said Chiron's daughter Melanippe was once called Thetis.

§ 2.18.4 Euripides in his Melanippe, says that Melanippe, daughter of Chiron the Centaur, was once called Thetis. [...]

Ovid (43 BC-17/18 AD)

See here 

In Fasti, Ovid writes that Heracles visited Chiron while he was training Achilles, and Chiron was accidentally poisoned and died. There is no mention of anyone other than Achilles and his relationship with Chiron was clearly affectionate (Achilles even calls him "dear father"). In this version, then, Achilles wasn't the one who left the Pelion, but Chiron was the one who died before Achilles left the Pelion.

[...] Meantime Chiron looked askance at the club and lion’s skin and said, “Man worthy of those arms, and arms worthy the man!” Nor could Achilles keep his hands from daring to touch the skin all shaggy with bristles. And while the old man fingered the shafts clotted with poison, one of the arrows fell out of the quiver and stuck in his left foot. Chiron groaned and drew the steel from his body; Alcides groaned too, and so did the Haemonian boy. The centaur himself, however, compounded herbs gathered on the Pagasaean hills and tended the wound with diverse remedies; but the gnawing poison defied all remedies, and the bane soaked into the bones and the whole body. The blood of the Lernaean hydra, mingled with the Centaur’s blood, left no time for rescue. Achilles, bathed in tears, stood before him as before a father; so would he have wept for Peleus at he point of death. Often he fondled the feeble hands with his own loving hands; the teacher reaped the reward of the character he had moulded. Often Achilles kissed him, and often said to him as he lay there, “Live, I pray thee, and do not forsake me, dear father.” The ninth day was come when thou, most righteous Chiron, didst gird thy body with twice seven stars.

Valerius Flaccus (?-90 AD)

See here.

Valerius's version of an Argonautica establishes Patroclus as being in Pelion with Achilles.

Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 1. 406 ff: "Also Actor's son [Menoitios (Menoetius) upon departing with the Argonauts] leaves his child [Patroklos (Patroclus)] in Chiron's cave, side by side with his dear Achilles, to study the chords of the harp, and side by side to hurl a boy's light javelins, and to learns to mount and ride upon the back of the genial master."

Silius Italicus (26 AD –101 AD)

See here.

Again, just Achilles.

§ 11.449 A third lyre, whose strains moulded the minds of heroes and the spirit of great Achilles in the cave of Mount Pelion — the lyre that Cheiron loved, could quell the raging sea or the wrath of Hell itself, when he struck the strings. [...]

Statius (45 AD-96 AD)

See here and here.

In Achilleid. Statius establishes that Patroclus was at Pelion with Achilles

[158] [...] Patroclus follows him, bound to him even then by a strong affection, and strains to rival all his mighty doings, well-matched in the pursuits and ways of youth, but far behind in strength, and yet to pass to Pergamum with equal fate.

Achilleid also explores their (Achilles and Chiron) relationship as being of the more affectionate kind. In Silvae, it's even declared that blood isn't the only important thing and Chiron surpassed Peleus in fatherhood.

§ 2.1.80 [...] Suffer me, honoured parents; and thou, Nature, whose it is to knit the first heart-ties throughout the world, forbid not my words: it is not always nearness of blood or descent from a common stock that makes us kin: often changelings and adopted children steal closer to our hearts than our own people. Sons of our blood are ours perforce; sons of our love it is a joy to choose. Thus it was that half-brute Chiron outdid Peleus of Haemonia in loving-kindness to the boy Achilles.

Claudius Aelianus (175 AD-235 AD)

See here.

Aelianus seems to tend to emphasize Achilles learned from Chiron, but Patroclus didn't learn from Chiron but from Achilles. Although he's Roman, he had a preference for Greek authors, so I imagine he was going with Homer's version.

Aelian, On Animals 2. 18 (trans. Scholfield) (Greek natural history C2nd A.D.) : "In Homer skill in treating the wounded and persons in need of medicine goes back as far as the third generation of pupil and master [see Iliad 11. 832 above]. Thus Patroklos (Patroclus), son of Menoitios, is taught the healing art by Akhilleus (Achilles), and Akhilleus, son of Peleus, is taught by Kheiron (Chiron), son of Kronos (Cronus)."

Aelian, Historical Miscellany 12. 25 (trans. Wilson) (Greek rhetorician C2nd to 3rd A.D.) : "[On wise counsellors :] Odysseus benefited from Alkinous (Alcinous), Akhilleus (Achilles) from Kheiron (Chiron), Patroklos (Patroclus) from Akhilleus."

Art

Chiron instructs the boy Achilles in the playing of the lyre, ca 65-79 AD. See here.

OTHER

John Malalalas (491AD-578 AD)

See here.

Neither Greek nor Roman, but Syrian. Achilles once again is a student without the presence of Ajax or Patroclus. Here Chiron is his grandfather on Thetis' side.

§ 5.97 [...] They entreated Peleus and his wife Thetis and her father Cheiron the philosopher king, to provide Achilles, the son of Thetis and Peleus and grandson of Cheiron. This Cheiron sent and brought him. For he was spending time with King Lycomedes, the father in law of Achilles and father of Deidamia on the island. Achilles went with the Atreidai, having his own army with him, called Myrmidons then but now called Bulgars, three thousand, with Patrocles the camp commander (stratopedarches) and Nestor. They were entreated by Cheiron and Peleus and Thetis into going with Achilles.

CONCLUSION

In most versions, there was no mention of anyone else being trained at the same time as Achilles. In the art I've found, it's always just Achilles and he's always very young as well.

Some versions state or imply that Chiron is the father of Thetis, and therefore Chiron isn't only Achilles' teacher but also his grandfather. Chiron always appears associated with Achilles' family, whether by Thetis or Peleus or even both, but in these versions Chiron isn't only associated but is part of the family.

Some sources emphasize how Achilles being a musician is also because of Chiron. Depending on the source, this ability appears to be particularly valued. When Achilles appears capable of healing, this is also associated with Chiron. Although Chiron also taught him battle moves, it seemed to me that the most remembered skills taught to Achilles by Chiron are on the more peaceful/diplomatic side: he sings beautifully, he can heal, he was raised away from the wicked, etc and all of this because of Chiron. This makes me wonder if Achilles' characteristic of not liking trickery also had something to do with him being raised Chiron early (away from "the wicked", after all).

Patroclus is only concretely established as being present with Achilles in Pelion in Roman mythology. In the Greek, nothing. But I imagine in modern times he's associated with being in Pelion because, chronologically, for Patroclus to grow up with Achilles he has to go to Pelion with him (after all Achilles spent a considerable amount of his childhood with Chiron).

The sites keep saying that Ajax was trained by Chiron, but they never give the source. I was only able to find mention of his presence by the sophist Philostrathus the Elder, in Roman Greece. This perhaps indicates that Ajax's presence in Pelion with Achilles is a later addition/development. My guess for Ajax being so associated with Pelion in modern times is because Peleus, Telamon, and Achilles all have a relationship with Chiron.

For some curious reason, there was a greater focus on Achilles and Chiron's relationship during Roman Greece. Before that, their relationship wasn't explored much other than mentioning that Chiron trained him and that Chiron has a relationship with Thetis and Peleus. Sure, we can imagine it was good, but there wasn't a need to emphasize whether it was more of a teacher-student dynamic, more of a parent-child dynamic, or something different. In the Roman Era, Chiron seems associated with a father figure to Achilles. The exception seems to be Apollonius, who already paints them in a cute image and is theorized to be from the 3rd century BC, which makes him from Hellenistic Greece.

[babyrdie]

I know it's kind of pointless looking for a specific chronology in Greek mythology, especially using different versions, but I still find it kind of funny how Patroclus' age really confuses me.

Helen already had a daughter (Hermione) when she was taken by Paris and that child was 9 years old when this happened (Library, E.3.3)

Clytemnestra and Helen are either twins or at least close in age according to traditions.

By Homer, Clytemnestra had 3 daughters (Laodice, Chrysotemis and Iphinassa) and 1 son (the youngest Orestes). All the daughters were old enough to get married (The Iliad, IX, 169-178). If we consider versions with Iphigenia and Electra, then at least the first-born Iphigenia was old enough to marry in Aulis since there was a false marriage with Achilles (Iphigenia at Aulis, Cypria frag 1, Dictys Cretenses 20)

Female marriageable ages vary in Ancient Greece, the oldest source we have on the subject is Hesiod (Archaic Era), who suggests that it is recommended to marry a woman of around eighteen years of age. Sources from the Classical Era give different ages, the average generally being 14/15 years old, although in Sparta they generally married older probably at least 18 years old (see here).

So let's consider that Clytemnestra and Helen married at eighteen, since that is the theorized age for Sparta in the Classical Era and the Archaic Era source we have (Hesiod) gives the same age.

In an attempt to make Helen's age as young as possible, I'm going to assume that she had Hermione in the first year of her marriage. So 18 (marriageable age) + 9 (Hermione's age when Helen was taken), Helen would have been at least 27 when Paris took her. We add another 10 years of the Trojan War, so Helen has at least 37 in the last year of the war.

Clytemnestra's daughters would probably follow the Mycenaean coming of age, having been born and raised there. Unfortunately, I don't know what the Mycenaean female marriage age was. If we consider the sources with Iphigenia, Achilles was around 15 years old (Library, E.3.16) and Iphigenia was around the same age. So let's assume Chrysothemis, Laodice and Iphinassa were at least 15 years old each. Let's also consider that they were close in age to reduce Clytemnestra's age. Idk 15, 16 and 17 years old, something like that. It would be possible, after all taking the 10 years from the Trojan War, that would make them between 5-7 years old when Helen was kidnapped. Anyway, the oldest daughter could at most be 19 years old to match Hermione, and thus the ages of Clytemnestra and Helen match. So yeah, Clytemnestra at least 37 too.

If Helen is 37 years old in the tenth year of the Trojan War and married at 18, then the suitors thing was 19 years before the Trojan War.

If Achilles was about 15 when he joined Agamemnon's army, then he was about 25 when he died (because +10 years of Trojan War). That is, he's about 12 years younger than Helen.

Patroclus is older than Achilles (The Iliad, XI, 938-940). But they grew up together, so the difference shouldn't be much (The Iliad, XIII, 100-110). Maybe min 2 and max 4 years older? That is, Patroclus was between 27-29 years old when he died maybe.

Considering Patroclus was 27 because I think 2 years makes more sense with the idea of growing up together, then Patroclus is 10 years younger than Helen. Even if we consider 29, he's 8 years younger than Helen.

Patroclus was among Helen's suitors (Library, 3.10.8; Description of Greece, 3.24.10; Fabulae, 81).

If Helen was 18 and Patroclus is 10 years younger than her, he was 8 years old. If Patroclus is 8 years younger than her, then he was 10 years old. The male age for marriage was DEFINITELY not that.

It makes me wonder if this happened because:

A case of divergent chronology because there area lot of versions of the myths;

He was just there to see what Helen was like and who her other suitors were. After all, it was a meeting with the most beautiful woman in the world and certainly a bunch of impressive suitors;

In the rarest hope, perhaps the possibility of an engagement until he is of age. Neptolemus is at least 9 years younger than Hermione and we know he married her.

[babyrdie]

Paris and Vanity

[This is an extensive text of my opinion about the character of Paris. These are just opinions, not some super deep analysis! ALSO: I think it's interesting to mention that I use English editions because the post is in English, but I didn't read these editions in full, just the excerpts I wanted. I read editions in another language. So I'm not saying that I recommend any of these editions!!]

I find it interesting how the characteristic of Paris being vain makes perfect sense with his myths, regardless of the version (in this case, the Greek myths. I haven't read his Roman ones yet). Characters in Greek mythology tend to change their essence a lot depending on the version (I think one of the most obvious example is Menelaus), but Paris in his constant vanity always made sense to me.

The best-known version of the birth myth of Paris is the one in which Hecuba dreams that she will give birth to the one who will destroy Troy and, because of this, Paris is left to die on Mount Ida. But he is saved by Agelaus and grows up as a shepherd, unaware that he has Trojan royal blood.

Growing up as a shepherd, Paris did not have the status or wealth of royal lineage as his sibilings did. He was strong, but it's not like he had such grandiose adventures that would be enough to give him glory and fame. But there was something he undeniably had: beauty. Among Priam's children, Paris stands out for being very beautiful and, even when he thought he was a plebeian, this was already notable in him. At a time when he didn't have the power, the fame or the wealth, Paris had the beauty. I'm not surprised he became attached to his vanity. That was something of his, and it never stopped being his even when he wasn't a prince.

[3.12.5][...]The first son born to her was Hector; and when a second babe was about to be born Hecuba dreamed she had brought forth a firebrand, and that the fire spread over the whole city and burned it.227 When Priam learned of the dream from Hecuba, he sent for his son Aesacus, for he was an interpreter of dreams, having been taught by his mother's father Merops. He declared that the child was begotten to be the ruin of his country and advised that the babe should be exposed. When the babe was born Priam gave it to a servant to take and expose on Ida; now the servant was named Agelaus. Exposed by him, the infant was nursed for five days by a bear; and, when he found it safe, he took it up, carried it away, brought it up as his own son on his farm, and named him Paris. When he grew to be a young man, Paris excelled many in beauty and strength, and was afterwards surnamed Alexander, because he repelled robbers and defended the flocks.228 And not long afterwards he discovered his parents.

(The Library. Translation by James George Frazer)

Then once he was called to be a jury in the dispute between Athena, Hera and Aphrodite to decide which of the goddesses was the most beautiful. Each of them, in an attempt to gain his favor, offered him a different reward if she was chosen. He chooses Aphrodite and, as a reward, Paris has the most beautiful woman in the world: Helen of Sparta, already married to Menelaus.

[E.3.2] For one of these reasons Strife threw an apple as a prize of beauty to be contended for by Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite; and Zeus commanded Hermes to lead them to Alexander on Ida in order to be judged by him. And they promised to give Alexander gifts. Hera said that if she were preferred to all women, she would give him the kingdom over all men; and Athena promised victory in war, and Aphrodite the hand of Helen. And he decided in favour of Aphrodite51; and sailed away to Sparta with ships built by Phereclus.52

(The Library. Translation by James George Frazer)

I often joke about how Paris's choice is really dumb to me because I would never choose the most beautiful woman over Athena and Hera's other much more interesting gifts, but I actually think it makes sense. A woman so beautiful that she's desired by everyone, that she is known for it, that she elevates her husband's status just by being with her? I think Paris chose Helen over the other options because she had a different status, much more than choosing her because he was out of simple lust. There are different wealth and achievements out there, but he couldn't specifically have the most beautiful woman in the world if he didn't choose her now as she was already married. And since he's already so aware of his beauty, I wouldn't be shocked if Paris felt entitled to the most beautiful woman because he's so handsome. And then discovering that she has the divine blood of Zeus? Helen represented even higher status.

Even in The Odyssey, Proteus makes it seem like the main reason Menelaus is destined to go to Elysium is that he's Helen's husband and consequently this makes him Zeus's son-in-law. Of all the things he could say to Menelaus, the one he chooses to use to assure him that he will have Elysium is his marriage. Helen, as a wife, actually elevated Menelaus' status in a way beyond just marrying her putting him into the lineage of Sparta (which was already a big deal). She elevated him to the point of guaranteeing a good afterlife for him, at least in the Homeric tradition — this, of course, is not a fixed tradition in the myths because almost nothing is; Helen is not always married to Menelaus in Elysium, Pausanias even offers a version in which she is married to Achilles.

So I spoke, and he in turn spoke up and made answer: “That was Odysseus son of Laertes, who makes his home in Ithaka, whom I saw on an island, weeping big tears in the palace of the nymph Kalypso, and she detains him by constraint, and he cannot make his way to his country, for he has not any ships by him, nor any companions who can convey him back across the sea's wide ridges. But for you, Menelaos, O fostered of Zeus, it is not the gods' will that you shall die and go to your end in horse-pasturing Argos, but the immortals will convoy you to the Elysian Field, and the limits of the earth, where fair-haired Rhadamanthys is, and where there is made the easiest life for mortals, for there is no snow, nor much winter there, nor is there ever rain, but always the stream of the Ocean sends up breezes of the West Wind blowing briskly for the refreshment of mortals. This, because Helen is yours and you are son-in-law therefore to Zeus.”

(The Odyssey. IV, 554-571. Translation by Richmond Lattimore)

In The Iliad, unlike what usually happens, Paris has his consort status tied to Helen instead of her having her consort status tied to him. He who is "fair-hatred Helen's consort". It's she who gives status to Paris, and not the other way around.

Hesiod, for example, generally puts the active role in the masculine character. It's the husband who takes a wife, it's the man who takes a woman in his bed. But he doesn't seem to do this with Helen. In the fragments we have from the "Catalogue of Women", where Hesiod describes a lot of female characters from Greek mythology, it's the male suitors who want to be something for Helen. It's Helen who has the choice of choosing who she will take — when, in the myth of the Oath of Tyndareus, Helen chooses Menelaus, he is the one being given the honor of being her husband.

FRAGMENT 6838 - SUITORS OF HELEN (translation by Evelyn-White, H G.)

Berlin Papyri, No. 9739:

(ll. 31-33) to horse-taming Castor and prize-winning Polydeuces, desiring to be the husband of rich-haired Helen, though he had never seen her beauty, but because he heard the report of others.

(ll. 34-42) And from Phylace two men of exceeding worth sought her to wife, Podarces son of Iphiclus, Phylacus' son, and Actor's noble son, overbearing Protesilaus. Both of them kept sending messages to Lacedaemon, to the house of wise Tyndareus, Oebalus' son, and they offered many bridal-gifts, for great was the girl's renown, brazen . . . golden ((lacuna)) . . . (desiring) to be the husband of rich-haired Helen.

Berlin Papyri, No. 10560:

(ll. 52-54) . . . sought her to wife. And after golden-haired Menelaus he offered the greatest gifts of all the suitors, and very much he desired in his heart to be the husband of Argive Helen with the rich hair.

(ll. 63-66) But from Euboea Elephenor, leader of men, the son of Chalcodon, prince of the bold Abantes, sought her to wife. And he offered very many gifts, and greatly he desired in his heart to be the husband of rich-haired Helen.

Having talked about how Helen for me was more a choice of status than of desire, let's return to another aspect of Paris's vanity. Agamemnon contemptuously mentions how pompous Paris was on his visit to Sparta. 

"[...]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; and he, finding Menelaus gone from home, carried Helen off, in mutual desire, to his steading on Ida.[...]"

Iphigenia in Aulis. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

Considering that this happens in Iphigenia in Aulis, the same play in which Iphigenia even says "and it is right, mother, that Hellenes should rule barbarians, but not barbarians Hellenes, those being slaves, while these are free", this could just be a stereotypical and xenophobic portrayal of the Trojans. Or Agamemnon could be exaggerating, after all he has more than enough reasons to want to throttle Paris. But, in this specific case, I think that's really how it is. Having spent years as a shepherd and then suddenly returning to being a prince, Paris would certainly show off his wealth much more than the other Trojan princes and princesses. This is because others were used to wealth and status, they had it since birth. Paris, however? This was all very new to him, and he was going to overdo it to the fullest.

As to how Helen was taken, sources seem to disagree. Homer seems to be going the way she was kidnapped and didn't want to go, judging by Helen's behavior towards the war, Paris and Aphrodite. Some versions place the Helen who was in Troy as not even being the real Helen (such as the play Helen, by Euripides). Some versions seem to reaffirm that she went because she wanted to, like Iphigenia in Aulis. Others are too ambiguous to know who to trust, as is the case with The Trojan Women. Etc etc.

Here I will be taking an excerpt from The Trojan Women. Helen tries to defend herself to Hecuba and Menelaus because Menelaus is convinced to punish Helen, while Hecuba is convinced to try to get her punished, as she sees her as one of the reasons for her misfortune. With each explanation that Helen gives for being innocent, Hecuba finds a way to counter it in a way that would be convincing enough for Menelaus to take seriously.

Faced with Helen's argument that she was taken by force with the help of Aphrodite, who gave her as a prize to Paris, Hecuba says:

"[…]You won’t persuade people with sense. You say Cypris —that’s a laugh—came to Menelaus’ house with my son. As if she could not have stayed peacefully in heaven and brought you and Paris, Sparta, Amyclai and all, to Troy? My son was preternaturally handsome and your mind, on catching a glimpse of him, was turned into Cypris. All that mortals lust for becomes Aphrodite to them. Even the goddess’ name has come to suggest immodest desire. When you saw him in his exotic foreign attire shining with gold, you went mad with lust. You had little luxury in Argos where you lived, but once rid of Sparta you hoped to overwhelm the city of the Phrygians flowing with gold with your sense of style. The palace of Menelaus was too puny for your extravagance to run rampant […]"

(The Trojan Women. Translation by Cecelia Luschnig)

Paris' expensive clothes are mentioned again, this time by Hecuba (considering that Agamemnon's previous speech is from a play by Euripides and that this play is also by Euripides, this similarity makes sense). And also, once again his beauty is reinforced. Right after Hecuba gives reasons why Hera and Athena's beauty dispute is an absurd idea (the reasons: Hera is married to Zeus, Athena is a virgin goddess), she gives explanations why it doesn't make sense for Aphrodite to help kidnap Helen. One of the reasons is that Aphrodite could simply make her appear in Troy, the other is that Paris was immensely beautiful, well dressed and something new in Helen's boring life and that's why he was seductive.

I got the impression that, although Euripides leaves it open-ended as to what happened, he was trying very hard to frame Helen as being guilty as well. However, regardless of whether she was kidnapped as she says or not as Menelaus and Hecuba think, the point is that Paris here is once again characterized as a portrait of opulence and beauty. More than that, here his characteristic as "exotic interest that seduces a married woman out of her life" is made even more evident than in Iphigenia in Aulis. Paris being the typical character archetype of a person from a foreign land, with immense beauty, seductive personality and exotic air is something common for his character. It's not like only Euripides imagined him like that.

In The Iliad, other characters constantly highlight Paris' vanity as a flaw. Hector mainly, but not only. For example, Diomedes uses this as immediate offense after being hit by an arrow from Paris. And throughout the Iliad, we see how Paris has a chance to give up Helen and end the war, but doesn't. He was too proud to give up what Helen meant in the first diplomatic contact between Achaeans and Trojans years ago, and after ten years he is even more immutable in his opinion.

It's been ten years, why give up now? Menelaus surpasses Paris in status, being a king while he is a prince, and in power, being stronger than him and having almost defeated him if not for Aphrodite's intervention. Menelaus may not be the favorite of a specific god, as is the case with Hector with Apollo or Odysseus with Athena, but he also receives divine help. The only "thing" Paris now has that Menelaus doesn't is Helen, and he won't give it up.

So Paris's vanity being something consistent is something that makes so much sense! Paris grew up as a plebeian with the distinguishing characteristic of being very handsome will be very aware of this. Consequently, he sees in beauty something that he has more than other people. Being so different, he is entitled to have more. When the goddesses offer him 3 reward options, the status Helen offers is seductive to him. Beginning to rise in status with Aphrodite's favor and his return to Trojan royalty, Paris is fascinated by wealth and status, so he acts like a peacock. As a prince, he is still concerned about always maintaining his beauty, as this is the only characteristic that has been with him his entire life and the one he trusted most. When Troy is threatened by his actions, Paris refuses to give in because he is too proud to give up what Helen means.

[babyrdie]

CRONOLOGIA

INTRODUÇÃO

➥ Motivação?

Eu me guiar apenas. Como é feito mais para mim, não colocarei tags que ajudem a chegar em mais gente e manterei tudo em português. Mas se alguém quiser ler, que leia né.

➥ Quais obras?

As obras aqui abordadas são atualizadas enquanto vou lendo. Minhas opiniões sobre os personagens delas começam aqui e continua em mais de um post, mas o restante está sinalizado no que eu linkei. Algumas eu ainda não terei lido ainda (embora eu pretenda), mas vou botar mesmo assim porque tenho uma ideia de posição temporal.

➥ Exatidão?

Aqui vou estar fazendo uma tentativa de organizar mais ou menos a ordem cronológica dos acontecimentos. Obviamente não será exata, pois uma cronologia exata para mitologia grega sequer existe, mas será uma tentativa de eu não ficar muito perdida. E sim, tenho ciência que certas versões simplesmente são diferentes das outras e não necessariamente tudo se liga. Novamente, é apenas um guia muito básico e não uma tentativa real de desvendar como tudo se encaixa. Em casos de versões diferentes, vou TENTAR dar mais de uma cronologia.

➥ Exceções?

Não tentarei colocar em ordem histórias de deuses de cronologia mais incerta, como as contadas nos Hinos Homéricos ou a narrativas divinas deixadas ao longo da história como o caso de Afrodite e Ares em A Odisseia e Tétis criando Hefesto e ajudando Zeus em A Ilíada. Também não vou ficar tentando correlacionar nascimentos. Tipo, a Teogonia já menciona a linhagem do Odisseu, mas não vou picotar isso e botar lá pra frente da linha. Fica no começo mesmo, toda a Teogonia junta.

➥ Alterações?

Além disso, obras vão sendo mudadas de posição e botadas e tiradas do conjunto (por exemplo, trilogias) enquanto vou lendo mais coisas.

CRONOLOGIA DAS OBRAS

Aqui está mais ou menos a cronologia das obras em si, e não dos acontecimentos individuais.

➥ Teogonia (Hesíodo)

Conta da criação do universo, nascimento de diversas divindades criaturas, acontecimentos da titanomaquia, etc. É basicamente bem começo mesmo.

➥ As Bacantes (Eurípides)

Cadmo, fundador de Tebas, ainda está vivo. Então é de antes de Laio e, consequentemente, antes de Édipo e Creonte terem sidos reis tebanos. Logo, não pode ser posterior aos mitos referentes a Édipo.

➥ Argonaúticas (Apolônio de Rodes)

Se considerarmos que Édipo é contemporâneo de Teseu por conta de Édipo em Colono e consideramos que Teseu é contemporâneo de Jasão, afinal Teseu conhece Hércules e Hércules era um dos argonautas, então sabemos que Jasão e Édipo são ou da mesma geração ou gerações próximas.

Seguindo o parentesco que Apolônio de Rodes dá a linhagem da Jasão e a que sabemos de Édipo por outros escritores, temos o seguinte.

Jasão é filho de Esão, que é filho de Creteu, que é filho de Éolo, que é filho de Heleno.

Édipo é filho de Laio, que é filho de Lábdaco, que é filho de Polidoro, que é filho de Cadmo.

Sabendo que As Bancantes se passa com Cadmo ainda vivo, então As Argonaúticas é posterior. Agora...colocar antes ou depois das histórias de Édipo? Sinceramente, não tenho uma argumentação exata, mas algo me dá a impressão que essa viagem é antes. Um filho adulto dele aparece na Ilíada, aliás.

E Teseu é mencionado aqui (Apolônio coloca ele na cronologia estando preso o Tártaro como Piritou, então já rolou o sequestro de Helena e os Dioscuros levando Etra escrava) e temos netos dele em Ifigênia em Áulis.

Essa obra também ocorre DURANTE os trabalhos de Herácles.

➥ Medeia (Eurípides)

Jasão conhece Medeia nas Argonáuticas e a peça Medeia se passa após anos de relacionamento entre eles, com eles tendo inclusive filhos. Ou seja, tem de ser posterior.

➥ Hipólito (Eurípides)

Esse aqui eu tô BEM INCERTA, pois tá na parte de Teseu e Teseu é meio nebuloso cronologicamente.

Na Argonaútica, sabemos que Herácles AINDA está fazendo seus trabalhos e esse é um dos motivos para Zeus querer que ele não continue com os argonautas. Ainda, Apolônio descreve sobre a o trabalho de buscar o cinturão da rainha amazona Hipólita como se estivesse no passado da viagem de Jasão. Se considerarmos a versão da história que diz que Teseu foi com Herácles e que nessa viagem se apaixonou por uma das amazonas (Hipólita ou Antíope, varia de mito em mito) e sequestrou ela, e dela teve o filho Hipólito, então sabemos que o nascimento de Hipólito provavelmente foi antes dos argonautas. Isso porque a versão mais comum conta que as amazonas entraram em guerra com Atenas por causa de Antíope/Hipólito e nessa mesma guerra a amazona morreu. Nesse cenário, Teseu não teria tempo pra sair viajando com Jasão, como muitas versões colocam (não todas).

Isso quer dizer que Hipólito é de antes de Jasão partir em viagem, mas não quer necessariamente dizer que a peça “Hipólito” se passa antes de Argonáutica. Isso porque nessa peça Hipólito obviamente não é um recém-nascido, mas um adolescente. Isso daria pelo menos mais de 10 anos de distância entre o labor de Herácles nas Amazonas e essa peça, mas Herácles ainda estava realizando seus doze trabalhos na Argonáutica, então a Argonáutica provavelmente ocorre entre esses dois tempos. Logo, a história da peça provavelmente é de depois da Argonáutica.

Também sabemos que essa história se passa enquanto Teseu está exilado após matar os filhos de seu tio Palas, por questões relacionados ao conflito pelo trono de Atenas. Outra coisa é que sabemos que em algumas versões os filhos de Teseu (com Fedra, segunda esposa. Irmãos mais novos de Hipólito) participaram da Guerra de Troia por algumas fontes, como Ifigênia em Áulis.

De qualquer forma, os mitos referentes a Teseu são um dos mais difíceis de localizar. Por exemplo, a própria personagem da Medeia é uma que atrapalha uma cronologia mais “exata” (entre aspas porque exata de verdade não tem como existir). Isso porque:

Certas versões do mito contam que Medeia se casou com Egeu após fugir de Corinto, pois Jasão estava irado com ela por ter assassinado seus filhos. Anos antes disso, Egeu teve uma noite com Etra (mãe de Teseu) que também teve relações com Poseidon no mesmo dia e isso tornaria Teseu filho de ambos os pais. Na época, Egeu enterrou símbolos dele e disse a Etra que quando o herdeiro crescesse, ele deveria desenterrar os objetos e retornar com eles para Atenas a fim de reivindicar o trono. Pois bem, nas versões em que Medeia está casada com Egeu, ela tenta matar Teseu por não querer que ele mine as chances de seu filho de herdar o trono, porém não obtém sucesso e tem de fugir de Atenas. Egeu e Teseu se reconciliam como pai e filho, tendo então se encontrado pela primeira vez. Isso faria com que, logicamente, Hipólito se passasse pelo menos DEPOIS da peça Medeia, pois ela conta justamente o que aconteceu em Corinto com Jasão. Teseu, inclusive, ao retornar para Atenas atrás do trono sequer teria se casado com Fedra ainda. Se considerarmos como versão de tentativa de matar Teseu de Medeia aquela que diz que ela o fez ir atrás do Touro de Maratona, então isso se passaria pelo menos após o sétimo trabalho de Herácles, pois ele capturou o dito touro e o soltou em Maratona para início de conversa (isso depois de Minotauro já ter sido gerado, mas ainda não ser um problema. Afinal, quando Teseu foi enfrentar o Minotauro, ele já conhecia Egeu).

NO ENTANTO, como já dito, a viagem de Herácles até as amazonas acompanhado de Teseu é posta em algumas versões como sendo ANTERIOR aos argonautas e, portanto, Teseu já teria se relacionado com Antíope/Hipólita quando Medeia e Jasão se conheceram. Em praticamente todas as versões desse mito, Teseu já tinha ido até Atenas e inclusive governava ela, independentemente de quem é a amazona ou de como foi o desfecho dela. Ou seja, hipoteticamente ele já teria reivindicado seu direito ao trono para Egeu antes, mesmo que Medeia nem estivessem cena ainda.

AINDA NO ENTANTO, considerando a versão que indica esse sequestro de Antíope/Hipólita por Teseu como sendo em uma outra viagem não relacionada aos trabalho de Herácles, então a cronologia não necessariamente TERIA que ter alguma coisa a ver com a Argonáutica. Ainda assim, a coisa toda é nebulosa porque sabemos que Teseu primeiro teve algo com Ariadne até que a abandonou, depois teve algo com Antíope/Hipólita e, por fim, teve algo com Fedra. E nesse terceiro período, é onde passa a peça Hipólito. Mas como alinhar tudo, ainda mais considerando sua ligação com Herácles?

Enfim, por via das dúvidas e descargo de consciência, vou colocar Hipólito após Medeia. MAS isso é um caso de depender MUITO da versão.

__________________________

POSSÍVEIS CRONOLOGIAS PARA MITOS REFERENTES A TRAGÉDIA DE ÉDIPO, O CONFLITO DE ETÉOCLES E POLINICES E O DESAFIO DE ANTÍGONA.

➥ Trilogia Tebana (Sófocles)

Colocando as três peças juntas porque não parecem ter longo espaço entre elas. Sabemos que o conflito que os filhos de Édipo se meteram é o de Sete Contra Tebas e que Diomedes é filho de um dos participantes, então isso é anterior aos poemas homéricos.

OU

➥ Édipo Rei (Sófocles)

A mesma narrativa, porém alterando o final. Ao invés de Jocasta se matar e Édipo se cegar por isso, pense que Édipo se cegou, mas Jocasta não se matou. Isso porque na peça a seguir, Jocasta ainda está viva e Édipo permanece cego.

➥ As Fenícias (Eurípides)

Jocasta está viva e Édipo está cego, então o final é diferente de Édipo Rei. Fora isso, a narrativa de Édipo Rei parece se encaixar aqui, então As Fenícias é posterior.

Édipo ainda não foi exilado e só o é no final da peça, então não tem como ser depois de Édipo em Colono e, consequentemente, nem depois de Antígona.

Aqui já temos a conclusão conflito entre os irmãos, que por sua vez deveria acontecer entre o fim de Édipo em Colono (em que o conflito aparece estabelecido, mas não finalizado) e o começo de Antígona (em que o conflito já está finalizado, ambos os irmãos mortos). No entanto, a proibição de dar sepultamento a Polinices aparece aqui tanto como em Antígona.

Conclusão: acho que dá pra seguir Édipo Rei pra As Fenícias, mas não dá pra considerar Édipo em Colono e Antígona na mesma linha narrativa de As Fenícias, embora tenham semelhanças.

__________________________

➥ Hino Homérico Longo a Afrodite (autor incerto)

Embora eu vá evitar colocar os Hinos aqui, esse da Afrodite é sobre sua relação com Anquises, que viria a gerar Eneias (que é um jovem adulto na Ilíada). Ou seja, é uma quantidade razoável de tempo antes da Guerra de Troia acontecer, então dá pra botar.

➥ Ifigênia em Áulis (Eurípides)

Sabemos que acontece antes da Guerra de Troia, quando ainda estão no porto de Áulis, mas posterior a outros eventos porque é justamente eles se preparando para Troia.

➥ A Ilíada (Homero)

Décimo ano da Guerra de Troia. O décimo também é o último ano dela, embora a guerra em si não seja finalizada na Ilíada.

➥ Ájax (Sófocles)

Décimo ano da Guerra de Troia, porém posterior a morte de Aquiles. Ou seja, depois de A Ilíada. Eles ainda estão em Troia, então é anterior a qualquer evento que aconteça após a partida dos gregos.

➥ Filoctetes (Sófocles)

Décimo ano da Guerra de Troia. Eles já foram pegar Neotpólemo (que é um personagem aqui), o que acontece após a morte de Aquiles, então é posterior a A Ilíada. Considerando que o conflito entre Ájax e Odisseu foi pouco depois da morte de Aquiles, então a peça Ájax é anterior a peça Filoctetes. Embora a peça em si seja no décimo ano, ela também abrange antes de eles partirem para Troia, quando ainda estavam reunindo aliados.

➥ Hécuba (Eurípides)

Aqui os gregos ainda não tinha partido de Troia, mas a guerra já estava terminada e Troia rendida e eles estavam prontos para partir. Logo, depois de Ájax e Filoctetes, mas anterior A Oréstia (em que Agamêmnon já retornou).

➥ A Oréstia (Ésquilo)

A primeira peça, Agamêmnon, é pouco após o término da Guerra de Troia. É A Oréstia por inteiro porque na Odisseia é dito que, nos 10 anos em que Odisseu esteve preso ao mar, Clitemnestra e Egisto armaram para Agamêmnon e Orestes se vingou. Ou seja, nesse período de 10 anos, passou-se a narrativa inteira da trilogia já.

➥ A Odisseia (Homero)

Se passa 10 anos depois do fim da Guerra de Troia, então posterior A Ilíada. Também posterior a histórias que ocorreram dentro desses 10 anos, como a própria A Oréstia.

OBRAS FORA DE CRONOLOGIA

Aqui são obras que não tem como botar elas inteiras na cronologia, e sim eventos picotados delas espalhados.

➥ Cípria (Stasinus)

Cípria é como uma prequel da Guerra de Troia, contando acontecimentos anteriores a ela. Ou seja, certamente é anterior a qualquer obra que se passe durante a Guerra de Troia. No entanto, ela pega uma gama de acontecimentos muito grandes, indo dos Sete Contra Tebas (o que a colocaria entre os escritos relacionados a Édipo) até mais distante. Por exemplo, ela também traz um relato do sacríficio de Ifigênia, então como poderia ela ser anterior a Ifigênia em Áulis? Eu poderia fazer as duas na mesma linha semelhante ao que fiz com Édipo, mas Cípria é diferente. Ela também conta, por exemplo, coisas anteriores a Ifigênia em Áulis, então não é de fato duas cronologias do mesmo assunto apenas. Ela é mais como a Teogonia, que pega eventos antigos e eventos mais futuros (exemplo disso na Teogonia é que citam a família de Odisseu). Só que enquanto dá pra botar a Teogonia no começo mesmo assim sem grandes problemas, o mesmo não vale para Cípria. Então ela fica de fora, embora seja interessante.

➥ Biblioteca (autoria incerta, anteriormente atribuído a Apolodor de Atenas)

É basicamente uma obra que reúne várias versões dos mitos de vários personagens. Assim como Cípria, tem informações interessantes que podem ser úteis para preencher espaços na narrativa, porém justamente por isso não tem como ela inteira ser colocada numa ponto. O que daria para tentar fazer era usar ela para organizar os acontecimentos em si ao invés das obras, mas eu não vou fazer isso.

TENTATIVA DE LOCALIZAR OS TRABALHOS DE HERÁCLES

Primeiro Trabalho - Leão de Neméia

Segundo Trabalho - Hidra de Lerna

Terceiro Trabalho - Corça de Cerinéia

Quarto Trabalho - Javali de Erimanto

Considerando a versão que diz que um conflito que Héracles teve com outro centauro resultou em uma situação que acidentalmente mata Quíron com uma flecha embebida no veneno da Hidra (segundo trabalho) no tempo em que estava encarregado do Javali de Erimanto, isso tornaria a morte de Quíron por volta do quarto trabalho de Herácles. Isso, no entanto, entra em conflito com a Argonáutica, que se passa após o nono trabalho de Herácles e mostra Quíron ainda vivo treinando Aquiles.

Quinto Trabalho - Estábulos de Áugias

Sexto Trabalho - Aves de Estínfalo

Sétimo Trabalho - Touro de Creta

Esse sétimo trabalho se passa APÓS a concepção do Minotauro (isso porque o Touro de Creta é pai do Minotauro), porém ANTERIOR a morte dele (pois não se passa muito tempo depois e sabemos que a questão entre Atenas e Creta durou alguns anos até Teseu resolver). Ou seja, ele é posterior aos eventos que fizeram Minos ser punido, mas é anterior a qualquer história relacionada com Labirinto.

Se é anterior as questões com o Labirinto, então isso inclui a versão em que Ariadne casa com Dionísio após ser abandonada por Teseu na ilha de Naxos, o que por sua vez indica que o rei de Lemnos Toas ainda não havia nascido no sétimo trabalho já que ele é filho dos dois e, portanto, toda a situação do Massacre em Lemnos ocorre pelo menos após o sétimo trabalho. Embora a Argonáutica se passe pelo menos após o nono trabalho e, portanto, pareça ter algum sentido cronológico com essa ideia, na realidade existe uma contradição a partir do momento que Toas já estava idoso nessa época. Mas sendo Toas posterior a Herácles e Héracles sendo jovem na Argonáutica, isso deixaria a questão de ele ser "idoso" contraditória.

Se considerarmos a versão em que Medeia, casada com Egeu, planeja a morte de Teseu (para assim seu filho com Egeu herdar Atenas) enviando ele para matar o Touro de Maratona, então esse trabalho a anterior a essa história porque foi Herácles quem soltou o Touro em Maratona dependendo da versão.

O motivo de Medeia estar casada com Egeu é porque ela fugiu de Corinto após matar os filhos que teve com Jasão. Isso tornaria esse trabalho, então, anterior a peça Medeia e posterior aos eventos da Argonáutica. Isso, no entanto, contradiz a cronologia de Apolônio, em que a viagem de Jasão se dá pelo menos após o nono trabalho.

Oitavo Trabalho - Éguas de Diomedes

A história de Alceste e Admeto acontece no caminho de Herácles até o trabalho com as éguas carnívoras de Diomedes, então sabemos que toda essa história de Admeto e Alceste é anterior ao oitavo trabalho. Logo, a peça Alceste também.

Nono Trabalho - Cinturão de Hipólita

Se considerarmos a Argonáutica, esse trabalho é anterior a viagem que Jasão faz em busca do Velocino de Ouro. Isso, no entanto, tornaria ele anterior a Jasão conhecer Medeia, ter filhos com ela, ter eles assassinados por ela e então ela tendo fugido de Corinto para Atenas. Isso, por sua vez, entra em conflito com a versão em que Medeia, casada com Egeu, faz Teseu ir atrás do Touro de Maratona, que por sua vez está em Maratona por causa do sétimo trabalho de Herácles. Uma possibilidade seria que Medeia em Atenas é POSTERIOR ao nono trabalho de Herácles e que, durante esse tempo do sétimo trabalho até depois do nono trabalho, o Touro de Creta ficou vários anos atentando em Maratona sem ser pego. Afinal, não necessariamente Teseu matar o Touro é imediatamente depois de ele ser jogado lá.

Se considerarmos a versão em que Teseu viaja com Herácles nessa missão e no encontro com as amazonas sequestra uma delas (Hipólita/Antíope), então esse trabalho é certamente anterior ao casamento de Teseu com Fedra e, por sua vez, é anterior ao mito que relata a morte de Hipólito.

Por sua vez, ainda considerando a ideia de que esse trabalho vem antes da viagem de Jasão, então a morte de Hilas após ser sequestrado pelas ninfas é posterior a ele, pois ocorre durante a viagem dos argonautas segundo a Argonáutica.

Ainda na Argonáutica, Aquiles é mostrado já sendo treinado por Quíron. Não há como saber quantos anos ele ficou treinando (dependa da versão). Ele é jovem o bastante para a esposa de Quíron estar o segurando no colo, então ainda não adolescente. Ou seja, ainda não está perto da Guerra de Troia, pois ele foi para ela adolescente em praticamente todas as versões (Pseudo-Apolodoro dá a ele 15 anos quando parte de Esquiro). A presença de Aquiles no Monte Pélion, por sua vez, também indica que nessa versão Quíron ainda não tinha morrido por volta dessa época.

Décimo Trabalho - Gado de Gérion

Décimo Primeiro Trabalho - Pomos de Ouro

No fim da Argonáutica, ficamos sabendo que Herácles recentemente tinha passado pelo jardim das Hesperídes. Isso faz com que esse trabalho e a viagem dos argonautas se localizem em tempos contemporâneos.

Décimo Segundo Trabalho - Cérbero

Considerando a versão em que Herácles, tendo descido até o Submundo para realizar o décimo segundo trabalho que dizia respeito ao Cérbero, resgatou Teseu, que estava preso em uma pedra após tentar sequestrar a deusa Perséfone junto do companheiro Piritou, então esse trabalho é posterior ao sequestro de Helena por Teseu. Sabemos que Helena era bastante jovem, até mesmo considerada jovem demais para casar mesmo para os padrões de maioridade feminina na Grécia Antiga, motivo pelo qual Teseu deixou ela com a mãe Etra. Ele ficou alguns anos ali, mas quando saiu Helena ainda era jovem demais para já ter se caso com Menelau e tido Hermione e aí sim ter sido sequestrada, então é anterior a Guerra de Troia. Além disso, ao sair Etra não estava mais em Atenas, pois os Dioscúros a levaram como escrava quanto foram até Atenas resgatar Helena.

TENTATIVA DE TER UMA IDEIA DAS IDADES DOS AQUEUS NA GUERRA DE TROIA

Isso aqui sou eu juntando um monte de fontes para fazer minhas deduções, então obviamente não é necessariamente o que cada autor estava pensando quando cada um compôs suas obras. É mais uma ideia aproximada juntando várias versões.

Agamêmnon e Menelau

Ele já tinha sido expulso de Micenas junto de Menelau na infância após Tiestes e Egisto tomarem o poder de Atreu, se protegido em Esparta na corte de Tíndaro onde conheceu suas filhas Helena (que se tornaria esposa de Menelau) e Clitemnestra, casado com Clitemnestra (dependendo da versão, ela já estava casada e tinha um filho, mas ele matou o marido e o filho. Essa é a versão de Ifigênia em Áulis), retomado Micenas como rei, tido vários filhos (depende da versão, mas ele sempre tem pelo menos 1 menino, que é Orestes, e filhas no plural). Esse monte de acontecimentos e a quantidade de filhos o colocaria como não sendo TÃO jovem (o que não quer dizer que é velho), mesmo se considerarmos que seus filhos talvez tenham pouca diferença de idade.

Considerando a ideia de que entre essas filhas está Ifigênia (que não é mencionada por Homero, mas é personagem importante em várias outras versões), na época em que os aqueus estavam presos no porto de Áulis ela já estava na idade feminina para casar, tanto que foi arquitetado um plano falso em que ela se casaria com Aquiles. Pesquisei a média feminina de maioridade e as idades dadas variam, mas suponhamos que é aproximadamente catorze anos, então isso já tornaria Agamêmnon provavelmente na casa dos trinta. Na versão de Homero, suas três filhas estavam ou em idade para casar ou próximas dessa idade, pois eles as ofereceu a Aquiles em casamento, então isso continua colocando ele acima dos trinta anos (e aqui temos o detalhe de que isso se passa no décimo ano de Troia e pra essas filhas existirem elas foram concebidas antes de Agamêmnon ir para Troia, então elas têm pelo menos mais de dez anos).

Menelau é mais novo que Agamêmnon, mas não é uma diferença grande. Portanto, ele deve ter também aproximadamente aos trinta anos na época de Áulis. De qualquer forma, ambos ficaram dez anos em Troia, o que os puxaria para a casa dos quarenta na Ilíada. Por sua vez, Agamêmnon retornou rapidamente para casa, mas foi assassinado, então deve ter morrido na faixa dos quarenta ainda. Já Menelau ficou sete anos preso no mar segundo versões (tipo Odisseia) quando finalmente retornou em Esparta, o que o tornaria por volta dos cinquenta anos quando finalmente voltou para casa. Como não há mitos dele sendo assassinado logo após Troia, então ele pelo menos morreu com mais de cinquenta anos.

Helena e Clitemnestra

Helena e Clitemnestra são gêmeas, embora biologicamente de pais diferentes (Helena é de Zeus, Clitemnestra é de Tíndaro. Ênfase no aspecto biológico, pois Helena ainda é filha de Tíndaro por criação), portanto têm a mesma idade.

Considerando o mito em que Teseu certa vez sequestrou Helena, mas não casou com ela porque ela não tinha a idade para casar, então nessa época ela deveria ter menos de 13/14 anos (considerando essa a idade média feminina para maioridade na Grécia Antiga). Logo após, Teseu partiu com Piritou para sequestrar Perséfone e eles não retornaram de lá até Herácles salvar Teseu em seu último trabalho. Isso faz com Helena ainda não tenha tido toda a coisa de escolher pretendentes, juramento de Tíndaro e casar com Menelau ainda. Por sua vez, Clitemnestra também não teria idade para já ter se casado, seja com Agamêmnon ou com Tântalo (considerando a versão de Eurípides de ela ter se casado antes de Agamêmnon). Ou seja, nenhum dos filhos dela com Agamêmnon poderia ter existido ainda, incluindo os nomes mais relevantes como Electra, Orestes e Ifigênia.

Era normal que mulheres fossem mais novas que seus maridos, então eu não duvidaria que elas fossem adolescentes para os padrões modernos quando se casaram com seus maridos, que provavelmente era jovens adultos para os padrões modernos. Antes da Guerra de Troia, Clitemnestra teve vários filhos e Helena teve Hermione. Considerando o que já foi dito sobre a idade de Ifigênia para casar, imagino que Clitemnestra e Helena também já tenham estado por volta dos trinta (embora mais novas que os maridos).

Dez anos da Guerra de Troia, ambas por volta dos quarenta. Helena na maioria das versões vive por um tempo junto de Menelau, então assim como ele deve ter morrido após o cinquenta pelo menos. Clitemnestra morre assassinada por Orestes antes de Odisseu retornar para Ítaca, dez anos após o fim da Guerra. Ou seja, ela deve ter morrido com quarenta e poucos anos.

Aquiles, Antíloco e Pátroclo

Dos nomes principais, eles devem ser os mais novos.

As versões tendem a concordar que Aquiles era adolescente quando partiu para a guerra. Estabelecendo que Aquiles tinha 15 em Áulis do jeito que Apolodoro estabeleceu e passou dez anos na Guerra, então ele morreu por volta dos 25 anos. Pátroclo é posto como mais velho que Aquiles, porém sabemos que não é muita coisa até porque uma das questões do possível relacionamento sexual/romântico (depende da interpretação e da versão) traz a questão de eles não configurarem pederastia. Então suponho que Pátroclo morreu antes dos 30, mas depois dos 25.

Menelau diz na Ilíada que Antíloco é o mais novo deles. Se ele é mais novo até mesmo que Aquiles, então ele tem menos de 25. Mas não dá para saber quanto, pode ser que ele tenha tido 24 ao morrer ou até 20, não sabemos (ele morre ainda em Troia depois de Pátroclo e antes de Aquiles). Além disso, ele não é um personagem que é consistentemente colocado como estando no início da Guerra, então pode ser que ele foi uma adição tardia ao exército e, portanto, não passou exatos 10 anos em Troia.

Diomedes, Penélope, Telêmaco e Odisseu

Odisseu ao ser recrutado já era rei de Ítaca e também já era casado com Penélope e tinha tido Telêmaco com ela, portanto tanto ele quanto Penélope já tinham a maioridade em seus respectivos gêneros. Se Aquiles e Pátroclo estando pelo menos dos 25 adiante eram parte dos mais novos dos nomes principais do exército e Odisseu NÃO é um dos mais novos, então ele deveria ter mais de trinta anos. Se considerarmos que talvez Penélope tem idade próxima das primas Helena e Clitemnestra (ela já tinha idade para casar na época em que Helena estava escolhendo pretendentes, se considerarmos a versão em que Odisseu pede a mão dela em casamento em troca de bolar um plano para evitar conflitos), não duvido que Odisseu tenha idade próxima de Agamêmnon e Menelau.

Considerando que ambos tivessem por volta dos quarenta no décimo ano de Troia e somando isso com os dez anos de Odisseu preso ao mar, então no retorno dele a Ítaca eles tinham por volta dos cinquenta. Se considerarmos as versões das histórias em que Telêmaco ainda era um bebê de colo quando Odisseu foi recrutado (por ex, naquela em que ameaçam a vida de Telêmaco para fazer Odisseu parar de fingir que é louco na tentativa de fugir da Guerra de Troia) e que se passaram 20 anos desde que Odisseu partiu, então na Odisseia Telêmaco está na casa dos vinte e poucos.

Diomedes, por sua vez, já era casado com Egialia quando partiu para Troia, então a coisa toda a maioridade se aplica a ele. No entanto, ele não tem filhos que permitam facilitar que idade tinha antes. Mas ele é mais velho que os três mais novos, que têm menos de trinta, então ele pelo menos está na casa dos trinta ou perto dela. Ele não morreu imediatamente após Troia, então deve ter morrido mais velho que Agamêmnon.

EDIÇÕES:

Criação: 17/12/2023

Atualização: 19/12/2023

Atualização: 07/01/2024

Atualização: 24/01/2024