#Birdiethings

[babyrdie]

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

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

First of all, a few details:

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

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

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

Homeric epithets

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

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

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

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

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

The gentle epithet in The Iliad

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, 17.669-672.

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

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, 17.198-207.

When mourning the death of Patroclus, Briseis said:

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

The Iliad, 19.355. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

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

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

The Iliad, 19.299-300.

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

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, 21.94-97.

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, 23.249-252.

And Achilles:

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

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

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

The Iliad, 23.279-282.

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

Scholia bT of The Iliad

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

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

Taken from section 5.1.192.

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.1.205.

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.11.390

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

[Translation by Jonas Grethlein]

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.11.385

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.2

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

[Translation from British Library]

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.5

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 4.21.44:

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

[Translation by Nicholas Richardson]

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

Patroclus “gentle” epithet in The Iliad in modern analyse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language and Characterization in Homer, pg 10-11. 

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

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

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

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

Apostrophes in The Iliad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Allen-Hornblower concludes:

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

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

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

Shared Identity in The Iliad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patroclus and the Dices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation from here].

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

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, 23.84-93.

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

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

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

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

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

Other Greek sources (not Homeric)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phiclotetes. Translation by Ian Johnston.

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

Ajax is great

Diomedes and Odysseus aren’t trustworthy

Nestor is prudent and a good advisor

Achilles is noble

Patroclus is dear to Achilles

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

[babyrdie]

PERSEUS & CIA (PART 2)

Parte 1 here! Part 3 here!

ANDROMEDA

Euripides wrote a play entitled Andromeda about Perseus' rescue of Andromeda, but the play is lost. From the surviving fragments, it’s possible to learn a few things. For example, Perseus, while passing through the region, initially thought the chained Andromeda was a statue. Although he wasn’t in love yet (because he thought it was just a statue), he praised the supposed "artwork", which indicates that Perseus found Andromeda beautiful.

But ah, what hill is this I see, with sea-foam flowing round, and what image of a girl in chiseled stone that perfectly renders her form, the beautiful product of an artful hand?

Fragment 125. Translation by John Gibert.

Perseus asked Andromeda if she would repay him for saving her, and Andromeda promised that she would be whatever he wanted, whether as a slave or as a wife, as long as he saved her. Which gives me the impression that, in Euripides' version, as soon as Perseus realized that Andromeda was a woman and not a statue, he thought of saving her with the intention of having her marry him in return. The fact that Andromeda even offered to be a slave in exchange for being saved shows how desperately she wanted to live.

[...] and when he became much attached to him Crantor asked him, quoting a line out of the Andromeda of Euripides:— O virgin, if I save you, will you thank me? And he replied by quoting the next line to it:— Andromeda: O take me to you, stranger, as your slave, Or wife, or what you please.

Life of Arcesilaus, III. Translation by C. D. Yonge.

In John Gibert's translation, Perseus's question is “Maiden, if I should save you, will you show me gratitude?” and Andromeda's answer is “Take me, stranger, whether for servant, wife, or slave”.

There are other fragments, but I didn't put them here because I read them in a Brazilian translation (translation by Clara Lacerda Crepaldi) because the English translation of all the fragments is paid and I won't pay anything in dollars, so instead I'll summarize what was said. It's a bit complicated to know who's speaking, though. Anyone who's read an ancient Greek play knows that it's often the Chorus speaking and not the main characters, which makes things more confusing in cases of fragmented plays. Anyway, here:

The play seems to take place at night, as there are references to night. Andromeda, for example, admires the stars. In more than one fragment, Andromeda laments the situation she is in, about to be devoured by a monster. She doesn’t understand what she did to deserve this misfortune and compares herself to a pasture. One fragment suggests that Andromeda isn’t only lamenting out loud, but also crying. In addition, she mentions the chains. 

Andromeda talks about her friends and also talks to the nymph Echo, who is present in this play and is apparently in a cave. One fragment is apparently Echo repeating Andromeda's last word, which is "Olympus." Andromeda believes that it is better to mourn with friends. The Chorus emphasizes the absurdity of the situation, saying that Cepheus has no mercy and fathered a daughter only to send her to Hades for the sake of the country. The Chorus says this after Andromeda asks them to mourn with her, as the relief is greater when mourning together. Perhaps the Chorus were friends of Andromeda? I really don’t know for sure.

Perseus flies in on Hermes' sandals and mistakes Andromeda for a beautifully crafted statue, but eventually realizes that she’s a living woman. He tells her that he feels sorry for her seeing her like this. Andromeda asks Perseus to have mercy, Perseus asks if she will show gratitude, and Andromeda offers to be his servant, slave, or wife. At some point, what appears to be Perseus says that he doesn’t cause misfortunes to others because he fears that those misfortunes will come back to him. Someone I assume is Andromeda tells someone else, who I assume is Perseus, not to make her cry by giving her vain hopes since the future is uncertain. There is a comment from someone about how afflictions are sweet once they’re overcome. Someone, I assume Perseus, says that he has achieved fame but not without afflictions. There is a line about a person being more instigated by audacity and youth than by reason. More comments about the future. Eros is invoked to either dispel love (it is said more in the sense of not making the beautiful seem beautiful) or else to help both. Comments about love and lines that seem flirtatious. Someone, I imagine Perseus, is forbidden by another person to have bastard children because, although they’re worth as much as legitimate children, they aren’t treated the same way. One person says that the other is blessed to have money because a rich person is honored by others, but the answer is that although they have money they aren’t blessed in circumstances. I imagine the person answering is Andromeda, because she’s rich and is in a horrible situation.

The sea monster is spotted by someone, who is certainly not Andromeda (as she is referred to in the third person. Maybe it's the Chorus? They usually narrate things like that). After the monster's defeat, the people of Aethiopia appear bringing gifts and apparently the monster's defeat is celebrated. More comments about the future, destiny and luck. Finally, some trade is being made.

Parts of this play have also been preserved in the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, including: the dialogue in which Perseus asks if there will be gratitude (passage epsiloniota, 258) and Andromeda makes the proposal (passage alpha, 1367), part of Andromeda's lament (passage alphaiota, 245), a phrase related to the sky (passage alphaiota, 122), a phrase related to chariot-ride (passage iota, 531), etc.

It’s theorized that this was probably the first PLAY to depict a man falling in love with a woman IN THE MOMENT OF PASSION. I’m not talking about poems and I’m not talking about a man loving a woman, I am talking about a play specifically showing the exact moment in which he fell in love and this was apparently a very important theme of the play. It’s also commented that perhaps Perseus' entrance was an innovative detail, since apparently he appears flying with Hermes' sandals.

In Lycophron's Alexandra, Cassandra mentions this episode when telling how, in the towers of Cepheus (Aethiopia), a petrel (the monster) went in search of a woman (Andromeda), but came across “the eagle son of the golden sire – a male with winged sandals” (Perseus) and was killed by him.

[...] And he shall visit the towers of Cepheus and the place that was kicked by the foot of Hermes Laphrios, and the two rocks on which the petrel leapt in quest of food, but carried off in his jaws, instead of a woman, the eagle son of the golden Sire – a male with winged sandals who destroyed his liver [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

Tzetzes, in his scholia of Lycophron, gave more details. He says that Cassiopeia compared herself in beauty to Hera or the Nereids and she/they asked Poseidon to send a sea monster, which he did. Having consulted an oracle about what to do to save Aethiopia, King Cepheus offered his daughter Andromeda to be devoured by the monster and, for this purpose, bound her with chains. Perseus, after killing Medusa, was passing by and felt sorry for Andromeda, so he petrified the monster. After rescuing Andromeda, he married her. As far as I remember, this is the only version I've read that had Hera in the story.

"And the two rocks"; Andromeda is the daughter of Cepheus, the king of the Ethiopians, and Cassiepeia. When Cassiepeia was arguing about beauty with Hera or according to others with the Nereids, Poseidon sent a sea monster at their request, which was ravaging Ethiopia. Cepheus, after an oracle was given, offered his daughter Andromeda to be devoured by the monster and bound her with iron chains to a rock near the city of Ethiopia, Joppa. At that time, Perseus, having just beheaded the Gorgon, was passing through these places and, taking pity on Andromeda, he showed the head of the Gorgon to the monster and at the same time drawing his sickle, he turned part of the monster into stone and cut off the rest, and having rescued the girl, he married her. That the events concerning Andromeda took place near Joppa is testified by Aristeides (sch. hyp. t. t. 208 3), Libanius (IV 1109 R), Procopius (I 19 p. 100 20), Josephus (b. J. III 420); and someone of them says: "The city of Joppa, the prison of Andromeda", another again says that "there Io, having defeated Argos, became a human". The kepphos is a winged sea creature, hunted with foam, but now by misuse kepphos is said to be the sea monster.

Ad Lycophronem, 836.

He also interpreted that by implying that Perseus destroyed the monster's liver, Lycophron used the story of Heracles killing the sea monster at Troy, which had come to devour the princess Hesione, to compose the myth of Perseus. Tzetzes then claims that this is nonsense, since Perseus wasn’t swallowed like Heracles.

[...] “Liver-worker," because just as Heracles was consumed by the sea monster, so too was Perseus swallowed by the sea monster, which gnawed at his liver and he escaped and saved Andromeda. "Winged-sandaled" because of the winged sandals on his feet. He babbles, he prattles, not knowing what he writes, as also "liver-worker"; for the sea monster did not swallow Perseus as it did Heracles. It seems, however, that Lycophron, drunk with the luxuries and gifts of Ptolemy, transferred the story of Heracles and the sea monster according to Hesiod to Perseus and Andromeda. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 839.

He also says that Phineus, Andromeda's fiance and uncle, plotted to kill him but Perseus petrified him.

He turned Phineus, the brother of Cepheus who was betrothed to Andromeda and plotted against him, into stone by showing him the Gorgon.

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Furthermore, the Suda says that Lycophron of Chalcis apparently wrote a tragedy called “Andromeda.” Perhaps it is on that theme?

of Chalcis in Euboea; son of Socles, and by adoption of Lycus of Rhegium. Grammarian and tragic poet; he is one of the seven who are named the Pleiad. His tragedies are: Aeolus; Andromeda; Aletes; Aeolides; Elephenor; Heracles; Suppliants; Hippolytus; Cassandreis; Laius; Marathonians; Nauplius; Oedipus (1 and 2); Orphan; Pentheus; Pelopidae; Allies; Telegonus; Chrysippus. Of these, the Nauplius is a revision. He also wrote the so-called Alexandra, the obscure poem.

Suda, lambda,827. Translation by Malcolm Heath.

According to Hyginus, Andromeda's mother Cassiopeia boasted that her daughter was more beautiful than the Nereids. This offended Poseidon, who ordered the Aethiopians to offer Andromeda as a sacrifice to the sea monster he was about to send. Perseus was passing by, flying with Hermes' sandals, and seeing her there decided to rescue her. Perseus wanted to marry Andromeda, but her father and fiancé did not want this and planned to kill him. He heard about this, killed them both using the Gorgon's head, and left with Andromeda. Interestingly, I think this is the only version where I saw Cepheus actively try to stop the marriage in such a cunning/violent way.

Cassiope claimed that her daughter Andromeda's beauty excelled the Nereids'. Because of this, Neptune demanded that Andromeda, Cepheus' daughter, be offered to a sea-monster. When she was offered, Perseus, flying on Mercury's winged sandals, is said to have come there and freed her from danger. When he wanted to marry her, Cepheus, her father, along with Agenor, her betrothed, planned to kill him. Perseus, discovering the plot, showed them the head of the Gorgon, and all were changed from human form into stone. Perseus with Andromeda returned to his country. [...]

Fabulae, 64. Translation by Mary Grant.

He also tells that both Cassiopeia and Cepheus tried to dissuade Andromeda, but she still wanted to marry Perseus.

[...] Nor did he receive less kindness from her in return for his good deed. For neither her father Cepheus nor her mother Cassiepia could dissuade her from following Perseus, leaving parents and country. About her Euripides has written a most excellent play with her name as title.

Astronomica, 2.11.1. Translation by Mary Grant.

Pausanias also mentions the myth in which Perseus rescues Andromeda while explaining why the water in a region was red, reporting that a local tradition said that it became that color because Perseus washed off the blood in the spring. The fact that Perseus had to wash off the blood makes me wonder if the monster's defeat was different here, whereas in the more usual tradition he was simply petrified and not attacked.

[4.35.9] [...] Red water, in color like blood, is found in the land of the Hebrews near the city of Joppa. The water is close to the sea, and the account which the natives give of the spring is that Perseus, after destroying the sea-monster, to which the daughter of Cepheus was exposed, washed off the blood in the spring.

Description of Greece, 4.35.9. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Cassiopeia boasted that she was more beautiful than the Nereids, which offended both the Nereids and Poseidon. Poseidon then sent a flood and a monster to invade Aethiopia, but Ammon predicted that this could be avoided if Andromeda were used as a sacrifice. Cepheus was then forced by the people to do so. When Perseus appeared, he fell in love with Andromeda and told Cepheus that he would save them as long as Andromeda was given to him as a wife. Promise made, Perseus killed the monster and freed Andromeda. However, her fiancé and uncle, Phineus, plotted Perseus's death because he wanted Andromeda to marry him. The plot was discovered, and both he and his accomplices were turned to stone by Perseus, who used Medusa's head.

[...] Being come to Ethiopia, of which Cepheus was king, he found the king's daughter Andromeda set out to be the prey of a sea monster. For Cassiepea, the wife of Cepheus, vied with the Nereids in beauty and boasted to be better than them all; hence the Nereids were angry, and Poseidon, sharing their wrath, sent a flood and a monster to invade the land. 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.

Sophocles wrote a lost play entitled Andromeda on this subject. Here, I once again resorted to Brazilian texts written in colleges and made available for free because they are part of the published thesis, since it was getting boring to look for the plot of the fragments in English. The writer of the moment is Wilson Alves Ribeiro Jr. Ribeiro contextualizes that the date of the play is uncertain and it is not possible to be sure whether Sophocles or Euripides wrote a play entitled “Andromeda” first. It is theorized that in an Attic cranium with a white background by the Phyalian Painter, dated 440-435 BC, currently preserved in Akragas, in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, there is a scene that possibly corresponds to a representation of Sophocles’ Andromeda, more precisely to the moment when Perseus finds Andromeda tied to the rock. There is a scripture that identifies Perseus as Euaeon/Evaíon, son of Aeschylus. Euaeon/Evaíon was an actor, so it is quite apparent that this painting specifically depicted the performance of a play based on the myth, and the actor playing Perseus was Euaeon/Evaíon.

As for the fragments, ten short fragments survive. The beginning of the play shows Cepheus and his entourage chaining Andromeda to a rock. Imprisoned, Andromeda mourns either with her mother Cassiopeia or alone. When Andromeda is alone, Perseus appears and sees her. He makes a deal with Cepheus to marry her in exchange for saving her, defeats Phineus — it’s theorized that the outcome of the contest may have been announced by a messenger, as is typical of plays —, and leaves with Andromeda. The play seems to use Perseus as a Greek model of bravery while Phineus is a “barbarian” model of cowardice. In one of the surviving fragments (frag 126) someone says that Andromeda was chosen as a sacrifice by the polis because the “barbarians” had the custom of sacrificing people to Cronus since ancient times.

Philostratus in Imagines described paintings, which we can't be sure actually existed or whether Philostratus invented them for literary convenience. In any case, one of them depicted Perseus rescuing Andromeda. The description is extensive, so I'll give it a brief description, but you can read it here in Arthur Fairbanks' translation. The monster is already dead and bleeding profusely, which Philostratus says is the reason the sea is red. The winged god Eros, here a young man (which the author points out is unusual. Philostratus was from the Roman period, by the way), helps free Andromeda from her chains. Perseus is said to have asked Eros for help in defeating the monster, which he did. Perseus himself is hiding Medusa's head, fearing that he might accidentally petrify someone because there are Aethiopians in the scene who show up to offer Perseus things. Both Perseus and Andromeda are emphasized by their beauty, and they look at each other while Andromeda seems to feel a mixture of feelings: fear, incredulity and relief. I got the impression that the monster's defeat here was different. In addition to Eros's interference in the monster's defeat — Eros was in some visual representations, but usually to symbolize the erotic desire between Perseus and Andromeda and not to kill the monster —, the monster is bleeding. How would it bleed while being petrified? It's different from most other fonts, but I don't think it's different enough to be an alternative myth.

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

Alternative myth

Conon tells a rationalized version of the myth that is quite different from the usual one. Here, Andromeda was not under threat of death from a monster sent by Poseidon, but thought she had been kidnapped by one of her suitors and cried out for help (her father had approved, but decided not to tell her. So she didn't know that it was, like, supposedly a legitimate betrothal). Perseus happened to be traveling there by coincidence (he wasn't returning from Medusa thing) and, taking pity on Andromeda's screams, saved her. Andromeda then married Perseus.

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.

Narrations, 40. Translation by Brady Kiesling.

And, as a continuation of that version of Suda in which Medusa is simply an ugly woman who Perseus kills, after he does so he marries Andromeda, who in this very alternative version was found in a temple.

[...] And from there he went into a country that was ruled by Cepheus and he found in the temple a virgin maiden called Andromeda, whom he married [...]

Suda, mu,406. Translation by Jennifer Bennedict.

RETURN TO SERIPHUS

Pindar describes Perseus petrifying the people of Seriphus (note that it is the people here. It isn’t Polydectes' friends, it’s actually Seriphus) when he returned in revenge for the slavery and rape Danae suffered because of Polydectes. This is the only source I have found that mentions slavery in any sense, and it’s also the only source in which Danae apparently actually was abused by Polydectes.

[...] when he did away with the third sister and brought death to sea-girt Seriphus and its people. Yes, he brought darkness on the monstrous race of Phorcus, and he repaid Polydectes with a deadly wedding-present for the long slavery of his mother and her forced bridal bed [...]

Pythian Ode 12. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

In Lycophron's Alexandra, there is what appears to be a reference to Perseus petrifying Polydectes and the people of Seriphus. It says "men" and not "man", so I think it’s unlikely that it refers to the version where only Polydectes was turned to stone.

[...] Fashioning men as statues from top to toe he shall envelop them in stone [...]

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

According to Hyginus, when Perseus returned with Andromeda to Seriphus, Polydectes feared Perseus' power and attempted to kill him. However, Perseus discovered the plan and petrified him with the Gorgon's head.

[...] Perseus with Andromeda returned to his country. When Polydectes saw that Perseus was so courageous, he feared him and tried to kill him be treachery, but when Perseus discovered this he showed him the Gorgon's head, and he was changed from human form into stone.

Fabulae, 64. Translation by Mary Grant.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, when Perseus returned to Seriphus he discovered that Dictys and Danae had taken refuge at an altar to escape Polydectes. For context, the altar is a possible refuge because assaulting someone there could result in an offense to the guardian deity — examples: according to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Pelias, by killing Sidero inside the temple of Hera, displeased Hera, who purposefully planned Medea as his misfortune; In post-Homeric versions, Achilles, by killing Troilus inside Apollo's temple, caused the god to later kill him; Ajax the Lesser attacked Cassandra inside the temple of Athena, and on the way back was punished by the goddess; Neoptolemus, for having offended Apollo either intentionally or having offended his priests unintentionally, was killed by Orestes at Delphi. Anyway, Perseus went after Polydectes in his palace, where the king had gathered friends, and petrified everyone there. Afterwards, he made Dictys king of Seriphus and returned the gifts given to him by the gods, although he kept Medusa's head.

[2.4.4] [...] And having come to Seriphus he found that his mother and Dictys had taken refuge at the altars on account of the violence of Polydectes; so he entered the palace, where Polydectes had gathered his friends, and with averted face he showed the Gorgon's head; and all who beheld it were turned to stone, each in the attitude which he happened to have struck. Having appointed Dictys king of Seriphus, he gave back the sandals and the wallet (kibisis) and the cap to Hermes, but the Gorgon's head he gave to Athena. Hermes restored the aforesaid things to the nymphs and Athena inserted the Gorgon's head in the middle of her shield. 

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

Tzetzes says that Perseus went with Andromeda to Seriphus, where he discovered that Danae and Dictys had taken refuge in a temple because of Polydectes. Perseus then went to where Polydectes was holding a banquet and turned everyone to stone with the head of Medusa. After this, he gave the kingdom to Dictys and returned the divine gifts. He did not keep Medusa's head and instead gave it to the goddess Athena, who put Medusa on her shield. The "dog of Hades" is his cap, as it can also be referred to as the "dog-skin of Hades".

Perseus himself, with Andromeda, went to Seriphos. Finding his mother had taken refuge in the temple with Dictys because of Polydectes, he went to Polydectes' house and found a grand banquet. Showing them the Gorgon, he turned them all to stone. He gave the kingdom to Dictys, and Hermes took the sandals and the dog of Hades from him and gave them to their rightful owners. Perseus gave the head of the Gorgon to Athena, who fixed it in the middle of her shield. Others say that she fixed it on the ornament she wore on her chest, which is why it was called the Gorgonion from the Gorgon. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Strabo says that in revenge for Polydectes trying to abuse Danae, Perseus turned all of Seriphus to stone with the head of Medusa.

[...] it is said, and when he brought the Gorgon's head there, he showed it to the Seriphians and turned them all into stone. This he did to avenge his mother, because Polydectes the king, with their cooperation, intended to marry his mother against her will. The island is so rocky that the comedians say that it was made thus by the Gorgon.

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

[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]

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). 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 and Fabulae). 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]

This is actually part of my text on Peleus (basically collecting sources for his myths), but here is a separate post because the text focused on Peleus is too long. In this post there are no details of this relationship because I'll leave that for this text about Peleus, I'm just organizing excerpts here.

According to The Iliad, by Homer (8th century BC):

[It's Achilles' line im Book 18] "[...] Radiant gifts the gods presented Peleus that day they drove you into a mortal's marriage bed … I wish you'd lingered deep with the deathless sea-nymphs, lived at ease, and Peleus carried home a mortal bride. [...]"

[Book 24] But white-armed Hera flared at him in anger: "Yes, there'd be some merit even in what you say, lord of the silver bow-if all you gods, in fact, would set Achilles and Hector high in equal honor. But Hector is mortal. He sucked a woman's breast. Achilles sprang from a goddess-one I reared myself: I brought her up and gave her in marriage to a man, to Peleus, dearest to all your hearts, you gods. All you gods, you shared in the wedding rites, and so did you, Apollo-there you sat at the feast and struck your lyre. What company you keep now, these wretched Trojans. You-forever faithless!"

According to Cypria and Catalogue of Women frag, by Stasinus of Cyprus and Hesiod (7th and 8th century BC):

Voll. Herculan. (Papyri from Herculaneum), 2nd Collection, viii.105: The author of the Cypria says that Thetis avoided wedlock with Zeus to please Hera; but that Zeus was angry and swore that she should mate with a mortal. Hesiod also has the like account.

According to Prometheus Bound, by Aeschylus (6th century BC):

Prometheus Yes, truly, the day will come when Zeus, although stubborn of soul, shall be humbled, seeing that he plans a marriage that shall hurl him into oblivion from his sovereignty and throne; and then immediately the curse his father Cronus invoked as he fell from his ancient throne, shall be fulfilled to the uttermost. Deliverance from such ruin no one of the gods can show him clearly except me. I know the fact and the means. So let him sit there in his assurance, putting his trust in the crash reverberating on high and brandishing his fire-breathing bolt in his hands. For these shall not protect him from falling in ignominious and unendurable ruin. Such an adversary is he now preparing despite himself, a prodigy irresistible, even one who shall discover a flame mightier than the lightning and a deafening crash to outroar the thunder; a prodigy who shall shiver the trident, Poseidon's spear, that scourge of the sea and shaker of the land. Then, wrecked upon this evil, Zeus shall learn how different it is to be a sovereign and a slave.

According to Isthmian Ode 8, by Pindar (6th century BC):

All this was remembered even by the assembly of the blessed gods, when Zeus and splendid Poseidon contended for marriage with Thetis, each of them wanting her to be his lovely bride; for desire possessed them. But the immortal minds of the gods did not accomplish that marriage for them, when they heard the divine prophecies. Wise Themis spoke in their midst and said that it was fated that the sea-goddess should bear a princely son, stronger than his father, who would wield another weapon in his hand more powerful than the thunderbolt or the irresistible trident, if she lay with Zeus or one of his brothers. "No, cease from this. Let her accept a mortal's bed, and see her son die in battle, a son who is like Ares in the strength of his hands and like lightning in the swift prime of his feet. My counsel is to bestow this god-granted honor of marriage on Peleus son of Aeacus, who is said to be the most pious man living on the plain of Iolcus. Let the message be sent at once to Cheiron's immortal cave, right away, and let the daughter of Nereus never again place the leaves of strife in our hands. On the evening of the full moon let her loosen the lovely bridle of her virginity for that hero." So the goddess spoke, addressing the sons of Cronus, and they nodded assent with their immortal brows. The fruit of her words did not perish, for they say that Zeus shared the common concern even for the marriage of Thetis.

According to Nemean Ode 3, by Pindar (6th century BC):

Among old examples of excellence is king Peleus, who rejoiced when he cut a matchless spear, and who alone, without an army, captured Iolcus, and caught the sea-nymph Thetis after many struggles.

Accordint to Nemean Ode 5, by Pindar (6th century BC):

[...] Without hesitating he refused Acastus' bride, fearing the anger of father Zeus, the god of hospitality. And from the sky Zeus who rouses the clouds noticed, Zeus the king of the immortals, and he promised that soon he would make one of the Nereids of the golden distaff the sea-dwelling wife of Peleus, after gaining the consent of their brother-in-law Poseidon, who often comes from Aegae to the famous Dorian Isthmus.

According to Argonautica, by Apollonius Rhodius (3rd century BC):

[It's Hera's line] "[...] But thee indeed from thy infancy did I tend with my own hands and love beyond all others that dwell in the salt sea because thou didst refuse to share the couch of Zeus, for all his desire. For to him such deeds are ever dear, to embrace either goddesses or mortal women. But in reverence for me and with fear in thy heart thou didst shrink from his love; and he then swore a mighty oath that thou shouldst never be called the bride of an immortal god. Yet he ceased not from spying thee against thy will, until reverend Themis declared to him the whole truth, how that it was thy fate to bear a son mightier than his sire; wherefore he gave thee up, for all his desire, fearing lest another should be his match and rule the immortals, and in order that he might ever hold his own dominion. But I gave thee the best of the sons of earth to be thy husband, that thou mightest find a marriage dear to thy heart and bear children; and I summoned to the feast the gods, one and all. And with my own hand I raised the bridal torch, in return for the kindly honour thou didst pay me. [...]"

According to Fabulae, by Hyginus (Roman author, but Greek myths. 1st century BC-1st century AD):

A prediction about Thetis, the Nereid, was that her son would be greater than his father. Since no one but Prometheus knew this, and Jove wished to lie with her, Prometheus promised Jove that he would give him timely warning if he would free him from his chains. And so when the promise was given he advised Jove not to lie with Thetis, for if one greater than he were born he might drive Jove from his kingdom, as he himself had done to Saturn. And so Thetis was given in marriage to Peleus, son of Aeacus, and Hercules was sent to kill the eagle which was eating out Prometheus' heart. When it was killed, Prometheus after thirty thousand years was freed from Mount Caucasus.

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

Afterwards he married Thetis, daughter of Nereus, for whose hand Zeus and Poseidon had been rivals; but when Themis prophesied that the son born of Thetis would be mightier than his father, they withdrew. But some say that when Zeus was bent on gratifying his passion for her, Prometheus declared that the son borne to him by her would be lord of heaven; and others affirm that Thetis would not consort with Zeus because she had been brought up by Hera, and that Zeus in anger would marry her to a mortal. Chiron, therefore, having advised Peleus to seize her and hold her fast in spite of her shape-shifting, he watched his chance and carried her off, and though she turned, now into fire, now into water, and now into a beast, he did not let her go till he saw that she had resumed her former shape.

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

There is also a figure of Thetis as a maid; Peleus is taking hold of her, and from the hand of Thetis a snake is darting at Peleus.

According to Heroica (this version is purposely different), by Philostratus the Athenian (2nd-3rd century AD):

So shall it be, and you will say that you know everything about Achilles. I have heard the following about him. An apparition of a daimon of the sea used to visit Peleus. Because she loved him, the daimon had intercourse with Peleus, although out of shame for the crowd she did not yet speak about herself, not even from where she came. When the sea was calm, she happened to be frolicking seated upon dolphins and sea horses, while he, looking at these things from the summit of Mount Pelion, became aware of the goddess and feared her approach. But she made Peleus courageous by reminding him how Eos loved Tithonos, how Aphrodite was in love with Anchises, 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.

According to Posthomerica, by Quintus Smyrnaeus (4th century AD):

[It's Thetis' line] "[...] Let Priam's seed be glad but I unto Olympus will ascend, and at the feet of everlasting Zeus will cast me, bitterly planning that he gave me, an unwilling bride, unto a man -- a man whom joyless eld soon overtook, to whom the Fates are near, with death for gift. Yet not so much for his lot do I grieve as for Achilles; for Zeus promised me to make him glorious in the Aeacid halls, in recompense for the bridal I so loathed that into wild wind now I changed me, now to water, now in fashion as a bird I was, now as the blast of flame; nor might a mortal win me for his bride, who seemed all shapes in turn that earth and heaven contain, until the Olympian pledged him to bestow a godlike son on me, a lord of war. Yea, in a manner this did he fulfil faithfully; for my son was mightiest of men. [...]"

According to Ad Lycophronem (scholia in Lycophron's Alexandra), by Ioannis Tzetzes (12th century AD):

According to Euripides, Thetis, pursued by Peleus, transformed herself, like Proteus, into various forms. There, he caught her in the form of a cuttlefish and mated with her, hence the place in Magnesia of Thessaly is called Sepias.

[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]

Could you talk about Penelope family? I tried searching but it seems very confusing

This is a kind of interesting ask for the simple fact that it’s unexpected. But hey, here I am! First of all, I'd like to make a few things clear:

I'm not a classicist, it's just a hobby. If there's something wrong, you can say it and I'll fix it. If you have something to add, feel free to comment too! Penelope has A LOT of genealogy versions and some of them aren't even translated, so I REALLY may have missed something.

I’m considering Greek mythology sources, and I’m not considering Roman mythology. Not because I think Roman mythology is a farce, but simply because I consider the two separately and I don't know much about Roman mythology.

I don't usually write this because I feel like it's obvious, but when it comes to Penelope's family tree I feel like it's necessary: a version of the myth doesn't become invalid or false because you don't like it or because it doesn't match another source. Mythology is not a series of books where one book NEEDS to follow what the previous one said, it’s something much more organic than that. Yes, there were more "popular"/"traditional" versions, but that doesn't make the unusual ones invalid. So I'll consider all possible versions here, no matter if I like it or if the general public likes it. In other words, "ah, but you like this version…" it doesn't matter if I like it, what matters here is that it's a version.

PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS

Father: Icarius

King Icarius is, fortunately, a constant in Penelope's myths. However, Icarius' ancestry varies. There are two possible family trees.

Perieres and Gorgophone:

Perieres took possession of Messene and married Gorgophone, daughter of Perseus, by whom he had sons, to wit, Aphareus and Leucippus, and Tyndareus, and also Icarius. But many say that Perieres was not the son of Aeolus but of Cynortas, son of Amyclas; so we shall narrate the history of the descendants of Perieres in dealing with the family of Atlas

Library, 1.9.5. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

[...] Perieres, with whom Gorgophone the daughter of Perseus, according to Stesichorus, had Tyndareus, Icarius, Aphareus and Leucippus. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 511bs. 

Oebalus and Batia:

[...] But some say that Aphareus and Leucippus were sons of Perieres, the son of Aeolus, and that Cynortes begat Perieres, and that Perieres begat Oebalus, and that Oebalus begat Tyndareus, Hippocoon, and Icarius by a Naiad nymph Batia.

Library, 3.10.4. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Gorgophone:

Pausanias offers a version in which Gorgophone married both Perieres and Oebalus.

In Argos, by the side of this monument of the Gorgon, is the grave of Gorgophone (Gorgon-kilIer), the daughter of Perseus. As soon as you hear the name you can understand the reason why it was given her. On the death of her husband, Perieres, the son of Aeolus, whom she married when a virgin, she married Oebalus, being the first woman, they say, to marry a second time; for before this wives were wont, on the death of their husbands, to live as widows.

Description of Greece, 2.21.7. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

It also describes that Tyndareus is the son of Oebalus and Gorgophone, although it doesn’t specify Icarius.

Amyclas, too, son of Lacedaemon, wished to leave some memorial behind him, and built a town in Laconia. Hyacinthus, the youngest and most beautiful of his sons, died before his father, and his tomb is in Amyclae below the image of Apollo. On the death of Amyclas the empire came to Aigalus, the eldest of his sons, and afterwards, when Aigalus died, to Cynortas. Cynortas had a son Oebalus. He took a wife from Argos, Gorgophone the daughter of Perseus, and begat a son Tyndareus, with whom Hippocoon disputed about the kingship, claiming the throne on the ground of being the eldest. With the end of Icarius and his partisans he had surpassed Tyndareus in power, and forced him to retire in fear; the Lacedaemonians say that he went to Pellana, but a Messenian legend about him is that he fled to Aphareus in Messenia, Aphareus being the son of Perieres and the brother of Tyndareus on his mother's side. The story goes on to say that he settled at Thalamae in Messenia, and that his children were born to him when he was living there.

Description of Greece, 3.1. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Personally, I got the impression that Gorgophone was perhaps the most popular version as Icarius’ mother. Regardless, any of these versions are valid. Anyway, it’s because of Icarius that Penelope is cousins ​​with Clytemnestra, Helena and Dioscuri.

Mother: Periboea, Asterodia, Polycaste or Dorodoche

On Tumblr, the consensus is to consider Periboea as Penelope's mother (probably because she’s a Naiad), but Penelope doesn’t have a well-established (that is, constant) mother. Through surviving sources, we know of at least four possible mothers for Penelope. 

One of these versions is that Penelope's mother was Periboea, a Naiad (don’t confuse this with the Oceanid Periboea. Not the same character, despite the names and the fact that they’re both nymphs). The interesting part is that Pseudo-Apollodorus says that Periboea had 5 sons and 1 daughter, which means that she isn’t the mother of the Iphthime we see in The Odyssey.

Icarius and Periboea, a Naiad nymph, had five sons, Thoas, Damasippus, Imeusimus, Aletes, Perileos, and a daughter Penelope, whom Ulysses married.

Library, 3.10.6. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Another possible mother of Penelope is Polycaste, daughter of Lygaeus. Again, there is no mention of Penelope having a sister, although brothers are mentioned.

[...] Tyndareus, however, went back home, having married Leda, the daughter of Thestius, whereas Icarius stayed on, keeping a portion of Acarnania, and by Polycaste, the daughter of Lygaeus, begot both Penelope and her brothers [...]

Geography, 10.2.24. Translation by H. L. Jones.

In other version, Penelope's mother is Asterodia, daughter of Eurypylus. She’s mentioned in a scholia on The Odyssey as mother of Penelope, Iphthime and other children not mentioned by Homer, which I have only found in Greek (see here in 797). The credits for this version are given to Pherecydes. Still using this scholia as a reference, another wife attributed to Icarius is Dorodoche, daughter of Ortilochus (see here in 16).

None of them are mentioned more than the others in the sources, so it’s difficult to know which of them was the most popular version, although Asterodia particularly makes the most sense in my opinion.

SIBLINGS

Sister: Iphthime (Asterodia as mother) and Medes/Hypsipyle/Laodamea (Asterodia as mother)

You're probably already familiar with Iphthime because she already appears in The Odyssey. Athena uses her appearance when communicating with Penelope at one point, and we learn this about Iphthime:

Then the gray-eyed goddess Athene thought what to do next. She made an image, and likened it to Penelope's sister Iphthime, the daughter of great-hearted Ikarios, whose husband was Eumelos, and he lived in his home at Pherai.

The Odyssey, IV.795-798. Translation by Richmond Lattimore.

Years later, a The Odyssey schoalist said that Iphthime is the daughter of Icarius and Asterodia, just like Penelope. This scholia is available in Greek here (see 797), and in that same part it’s said that Penelope had another sister (also daughter of Asterodia), who was called Medes, Hypsipyle, or Laodamea (same character, differents names).

Brother: Thoas, Damasippus, Imeusimus, Aletes, Perileos (Periboea as mother) or unamed brothers/Alyzeus and Lucadius (Polycaste as mother) or Amasichus, Phalereus, Thoon, Pheremmelias and Perilaos (Asterodia as mother) 

In the Periboea is Penelope’s mother version, it’s said that Periboea and Icarius had Penelope as their daughter and Thoas, Damasippus, Imeusimus, Aletes, Perileos as their sons.

Icarius and Periboea, a Naiad nymph, had five sons, Thoas, Damasippus, Imeusimus, Aletes, Perileos, and a daughter Penelope, whom Ulysses married.

Library, 3.10.6. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

And that's it. They don't have much mythological relevance in surviving sources. The most we have is Pausanias saying that Perileos wasn’t very happy with Orestes after he found out that he killed Clytemnestra, Perileos' cousin on his father's side. (Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.34.4). I didn't know if there is a named nephew/niece for Penelope by her brothers.

Strabo, in the version in which Penelope's mother is Polycaste, mentions that Penelope has brothers, but doesn’t name them. He doesn’t even say how many, by the way.

[...] Tyndareus, however, went back home, having married Leda, the daughter of Thestius, whereas Icarius stayed on, keeping a portion of Acarnania, and by Polycaste, the daughter of Lygaeus, begot both Penelope and her brothers [...]

Geography, 10.2.24. Translation by H. L. Jones.

A little before this, he had mentioned Alyzeus and Lucadius as Penelope's brothers, but he described them as sons of Icarius and didn’t mention Polycaste, so I'm not sure if they’re her sons. Furthermore, in the case of Polycaste Strabo wrote in a “they say…” vibe, which harkens back more to oral tradition, while Alyzeus and Lucadius he specifically attributed to a work called Alcmaeonis (we don’t know about Alcmaeonis). I imagine that if Polycaste, Alyzeus and Lucadius were the same version, he would have simply credited Alcmaeonis when he spoke of Polycaste as well. So in my opinion it's uncertain whether they are Polycaste's unnamed children, but, interpret it your way. I think it's possible Polycaste is the mother.

The author of the Alcmaeonis says that Icarius, the father of Penelope, had two sons, Alyzeus and Leucadius, and that these two reigned over Acarnania with their father; accordingly, Ephorus thinks that the cities were named after these. 

Geography, 10.2.9. Translation by H. L. Jones.

In the scholia I mentioned before, the schoalist says that Penelope and Iphthime's mother is Asterodia and also attributes to them the brothers Amasichus, Phalereus, Thoon, Pheremmelias and Perilaos in 797. Perilaos is just another spelling for Perileos, thus being a constant between the Periboea and Asterodia versions. In 275, Penelope’s brothers (with Asterodia as mother) are Polymelos and Damasiclus. I've seen sites claiming that Damasiclus is another name for Amasichus, although I don't know what the source for this is.

CHILDREN

Telemachus

Telemachus as Penelope and Odysseus's son is a constant, so I certainly don't need to provide sources. An interesting fact that you may already know and that may not change anything in your life is that the name Telemachus means something like “far from war” or “fighting from afar” — etymologically "fighting from afar," from tēle "from afar" (see tele-) + makhē "a battle, fight" (see -machy); see here. Regarding this, there are the possibilities:

It refers to Telemachus being far from the Trojan War (and still “fighting”)

It's about his father being away because of the war.

Telemachus is the firstborn of both Odysseus and Penelope, regardless of source.

Poliphortes/Ptoliporthus

Another son of Penelope and Odysseus is Polyphortes, born only after Odysseus returned from war. His name is a combination of πτόλις (city) + πέρθω (perish), meaning “destroyer of cities” (see here), probably a reference to Odysseus's pivotal role in the destruction of Troy. The contrast between his name and the name of Telemachus is ironic to say the least.

This son was mentioned in the Library in a version in which Odysseus marries Queen Callidice and reigns over Thesprotians for a time until she dies, Odysseus leaves the kingdom to the son he had with her (Polypoetes) and returns to Ithaca, where he finds his second son with Penelope. It’s possible that Pseudo-Apollodorus was talking about the lost epic Telegony, as the plot is similar.

And after sacrificing to Hades, and Persephone, and Tiresias, he journeyed on foot through Epirus, and came to the Thesprotians, and having offered sacrifice according to the directions of the soothsayer Tiresias, he propitiated Poseidon. But Callidice, who was then queen of the Thesprotians, urged him to stay and offered him the kingdom; and she had by him a son Polypoetes. And having married Callidice, he reigned over the Thesprotians, and defeated in battle the neighboring peoples who attacked him. But when Callidice died he handed over the kingdom to his son and repaired to Ithaca, and there he found Poliporthes, whom Penelope had borne to him.

Library, E.7.34-35. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

This son is also mentioned by Pausanias, but he attributes this version to a poem called Thesprotis. What poem is Thesprotis? Well, there theories, but unfortunately, none of them are really conclusive.

In addition to the roads mentioned there are two others, leading to Orchomenus. On one is what is called the stadium of Ladas, where Ladas practised his running, and by it a sanctuary of Artemis, and on the right of the road is a high mound of earth. It is said to be the grave of Penelope, but the account of her in the poem called Thesprotis is not in agreement with this saying. For in it the poet says that when Odysseus returned from Troy he had a son Ptoliporthes by Penelope. [...]

Description of Greece, 8.12.5-6. W.H.S. Jones

Italus

Son of Penelope with Telegonus, son of Circe and Odysseus, who depending on the version is Penelope's second husband. This character is used to explain the name of country Italy. Furthermore, this isn’t a cheating version, as Odysseus was already dead when Penelope married Telegonus. 

[...] from Penelope and Telegonus Italus was born, who called the country Italy from his own name.

Fabulae, 127. Translation by Mary Grant.

Although Penelope marrying Telegonus appears in other sources, this is the only one where I found Italus as their son. 

Pan

This one is a long story. Finally, Penelope's son with the god Hermes.

Pseudo-Apollodorus says that Penelope was seduced by one of the suitors, Odysseus finding out about this sent her back to Icarius and eventually Penelope gave birth to Pan at Matinea. When I saw that she was seduced by one of the suitors in this version, I thought it would be Amphinomus, that suitor who tried to prevent the other suitors from killing Telemachus and who Odysseus wished to spare, but Athena had him killed along with the others. He was the best-behaved of the suitors and was said to be the one that pleased Penelope most.

Now Amphinomos spoke forth and addressed them. He was the shining son of Nisos, son of the lord Aretiades, and led those suitors who had come over from the abundant grasslands and grainlands of Doulichion, and pleased Penelope more than the others in talk, for he had good sense and discretion.

The Odyssey, XVI.394-398. Translation by Richmond Lattimore.

But it wasn't him, it was Antinous! The most insufferable of suitors!

But some say that Penelope was seduced by Antinous and sent away by Ulysses to her father Icarius, and that when she came to Mantinea in Arcadia she bore Pan to Hermes

Library, E.7.38. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Herodotus, when trying to establish a chronology for the births of the gods, talks about a version in which Pan is their youngest. He says this is because he was born to Penelope and is therefore post-Trojan War. He also claims this is the version believed by the Greeks.

[...] and Pan the son of Penelope (for according to the Greeks Penelope and Hermes were the parents of Pan) was about eight hundred years before me, and thus of a later date than the Trojan war.

Histories, 2.145. Translation by A. D. Godley.

Pausanias also writes a version in which Penelope was expelled by Odysseus, although he doesn’t mention her having children or that child being Pan. However, he says that it’s a Matinean version and that Penelope went to Matinea, the same place as Pseudo-Apollodorus said that Penelope and Hermes had Pan.

But the Mantinean story about Penelope says that Odysseus convicted her of bringing paramours to his home, and being cast out by him she went away at first to Lacedaemon, but afterwards she removed from Sparta to Mantineia, where she died.

Description of Greece, 8.12.6. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

There is a possibility that this myth exists because it got mixed up with the myth in which Pan's mother is Penelope, a nymph from Arcadia, and not Penelope, queen of Ithaca.

In the Homeric Hymn to Pan, there is no name of the mother, but it’s said that she is “daughter of Dryopos” and therefore not Penelope daughter of Icarius.

[...] For there, though a god, he used to tend curly-fleeced sheep in the service of a mortal man, because there fell on him and waxed strong melting desire to wed the rich-tressed daughter of Dryops and there he brought about the merry marriage.

Hymn to Pan. Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White.

Nonnus, in the Dionysiaca, says the mother's name is Penelope, but she’s a nymph and therefore not the human Penelope. Also, there are two Pans instead of one.

[...] With these were two other Pans, the sons of Hermes, who divided his love between two Nymphs: for one he visited the bed of Sose, the highland prophetess, and begat a son inspired with the divine voice of prophecy, Agreus, well versed in the beast-slaying sport of the hunt; the other was Nomios, whom the pasturing sheep loved well, one practised in the shepherd’s pipe, for whom Hermes sought the bed of Penelope, the country Nymph. 

Dionysiaca, Book 14. Translation by W.H.D. Rouse.

In some sources, a Penelope is mentioned, but there are no specifics about which Penelope is referred to. In some versions, Pan's father is not Hermes.

Fabulae says that Pan's parents Hermes and an unspecified Penelope. But the mention of Pan being initially mortal made me think it's not a nymph he's talking about, since all the nymph + god children I know were born immortal and the mortal nymph children were the children of nymph + humans. But of course, I might have missed something.

MORTALS WHO WERE MADE IMMORTAL: [...] Pan, son of Mercury and Penelope [...]

Fabulae, 224. Translation by Mary Grant.

Despite the chances of Penelope of Ithaca being confused with another character and this giving rise to this version, over time the idea of Penelope as Pan's mother became its own version. Therefore, I consider it valid, as apparently the ancient Greeks also considered it a possibility (as seen by Herodotus' statement). However, this was most likely not the most popular version of the myth, since Penelope was often used as an example of an ideal chaste wife (e.g. Aristoteles, Economics; Plutarch, Conjugalia Pracepta; Athenaues, The Deipnosophists. Also notable in visual depictions of Penelope in which she has her legs crossed so protecting chastity).

GRANDCHILDREN AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW

Through Telemachus (Penelope's other sons don’t have children attested from what I saw), Penelope has some possible grandchildren (and, consequently, daughters-in-law), as follows:

Latinus

This name is also attributed to two half-brothers of Telemachus. One of them is the son of Odysseus and Circe (Hesiod, Theogony) and the other is son of Odysseus and Calypso (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, E.7.24). This Latinus here is none of those, he’s a son of Telemachus and Circe. This character is used to explain the name of the Latin language.

[...] By the advice of Minerva again, Telegonus married Penelope, and Telemachus married Circe. From Circe and Telemachus Latinus was born, who gave his name to the Latin language [...]

Fabulae, 127. Translation by Mary Grant.

Poliphortes/Ptoliporthus

This name is also attributed to a brother of Telemachus, son of Penelope and Odysseus. In this case, I’m referring to the version of the late source Dictys Cretensis which described Polyphortes as the son of Telemachus by the princess Nausicaa. Yes, the same person who wanted to marry Odysseus in The Odyssey.

Soon afterwards, in answer to Ulysses’ hopes and prayers, Nausicaa, the daughter of Alcinous, was married to Telemachus. This was also the time when our leader Idomeneus died in Crete; and, according to the right of succession, the kingdom passed to Meriones. Laertes, three years after his son had returned, ended his life. Nausicaa and Telemachus had a son, to whom Ulysses gave the name Ptoliporthus (Sacker of Cities).

Dictys Cretensis, 6.6. Translation by R.M. Frazer.

Persepolis/Perseptolis

This name is also attributed to...okay, relax! There are no other children of Odysseus that you need to worry about, this time Persepolis is just Telemachus' son with Polycaste. Polycaste, in this case, was a princess of Pylos, daughter of Nestor (she isn’t the same character assigned as Penelope's mother). She appears in The Odyssey when Telemachus visits Nestor and is the princess who bathes him.

Meanwhile lovely Polykaste, who was the youngest of the daughters of Nestor, son of Neleus, had bathed Telemachos. But when she had bathed him and anointed him sleekly with olive oil, she threw a splendid mantle and a tunic about him, and he came out from the bath looking like an immortal and came and sat down beside Nestor, shepherd of the people

The Odyssey, 464-469. Translation by Richmond Lattimore. 

Years later, a schoalist of Homer presented a version of the myth in which Telemachus and Polycaste had a son named Persepolis. He attributed the credits to Hesiod, and is currently considered part of the Catalogues of Women.

FRAGMENT 12 - TELEMACHUS Eustathius. Hom. 1796.39: "So well-girded Polycaste, the youngest daughter of Nestor, Neleus' son, was joined in love with Telemachus through golden Aphrodite and bare Persepolis."

No grandchildren 

In addition to Circe, Nausicaa, and Polycaste, Cassiopheia is also an attributed wife of Telemachus, but they didn’t give Penelope any grandchildren. This version is told in a scholia on Lycophron’s poem Alexandra, which shows the Trojan prophetess Cassandra prophesying. Ioannis Tzetzes, while trying to decipher Cassandra's enigmatic prophecies, offers a version of the myth in which Circe and Odysseus' daughter Cassiphone is the wife of Telemachus.

Telemachus married Cassiphone, the daughter of Circe. Telemachus kills Circe, not wanting to bear her commands, and he himself is killed by Cassiphone, his wife, avenging her mother. What he says is this: Odysseus will die seeing the sufferings of Circe being killed by Telemachus, and him by Cassiphone, his own daughter.

Ad Lycophronem, 808. 

I only found Cassiopheia in this source.

[babyrdie]

I know this exists but I can't help but find the idea of Helen and Achilles as an afterlife couple weird (and what's the name of that ship? Hechilles? Achelen? The Godly Blondies™?)

I don't know the name of this ship (I don't even know if anyone ships them nowadays), but The Godly Blondies™ is really something, although I think they're more The Hot Blondies™! Dear nonny, I'll use your ask to talk about this version. I hope you don't mind! And I know people generally don't like this version, but I genuinely have some headcanons about it lol if anyone is interested in reading silly headcanons about Leuke, the ask box is open.

If someone who's never heard of this couple is reading this ask and going "wtf", well…the context:

Because she was very beautiful, when she reached marriageable age she caught the attention of several suitors. Achilles, however, was training at Pelion and didn't participate. Hesiod says that the only reason Helen married Menelaus is because of Achilles' absence, as he surpassed Menelaus and the other suitors, this being one of the oldest sources that insinuate anything romantic between Helen and Achilles. (Hesiod, Catalogues of Women, frag 68):

(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.

But the result is what we already know: Helen herself chooses Menelaus as her husband.

There is also a version of the myth in which Achilles wants to see Helen, and so Thetis and Aphrodite find a way for them to meet. But I don't know if the nature of this meeting is necessarily romantic, since I only read the summary of the frag in English and the description is very succinct there. Maybe the original fragment in Greek gives more certainty, but I don't know how to read Greek so I didn't even look to see if it's available online. Perhaps Aphrodite's presence at the meeting is what gives it a romantic vibe? I don't know (Stasinus of Cyprus, Cypria, frag 1).

In another version, the Trojan princess Cassandra prophesies about Helen's five husbands, who are: Theseus because he kidnapped her, Menelaus because he was her chosen husband, Paris because she was taken by him (kidnapped or not, it depends), Deiphobus because he married her after Paris' death, Achilles because they marry after death. At the same time, Cassandra herself says that Helen and Achilles is just a dream, as Achilles is destined to be Medea's husband (yes, that exists too. If anyone is curious, send an ask lol). So I really don't understand why he's mentioned as one of the five husbands in this version if they don't get married because of Medea (because if Lycophron were to put everyone who dreamed of Helen as one of her husbands, then there would be a whole poem just for that), but well….here he is (Lycophron, Alexandra, 139-179)

Additionally, Achilles had more than one wife assigned to him in the afterlife, and one of them was Helen (Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.19.13; Conon, Narrations, 18). And then maybe you think, “But Birdie, why is Helen with Achilles and not Menelaus?” and I honestly don't know the answer. I only know that the two of them married at Leuke is a myth associated with the poet Stesichorus of Himera (630 BC–555 BC), who supposedly went blind after writing offensive things about Helen and was cured by her after he wrote a eulogy for her. Another version where they are together in the afterlife even involves a winged son, although the development of the whole situation is really unexpected...

The fourth recounts that Helen was the first to imagine drawing lots with the fingers and that she won at chance with Alexander; she was the daughter of Aphrodite. There was born of Helen and Achilles in the fortunate isles a winged child named Euphorion after the fertility of this land; Zeus caught him and with a blow knocked him to earth in the isle of Melos, where he continued the pursuit and changed the nymphs there into frogs because they had given him burial. Some say that Helen was taken away by Alexander when she hunted on the mount of the Virgin (Parthenion); struck by his beauty, she followed him like a dog.

Bibliotheca, 190.24. Translation by John Henry Freese.

And finally, the only other source I know of with this relationship (there may be more, maybe I just don't know) tells about the creation of Leuke, Achilles and Helen also appear as a couple in the afterlife and was written by Philostrathus (the Athenian or the Younger, can't be 100% sure):

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.

Heroica, 746. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken.

There may be another source I'm missing, however…I'm not a classicist, so it's not like I study these myths deeply to be sure.

[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]

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 (Περὶ ἰδιότητος καὶ χαρακτήρων τῶν ἐν Τροίᾳ Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Τρώων), Achilles' eyes are simply described as "fierce eyes" in Valentin Decloquement's translation. Apparently the Greek word that was translated as "fierce" was γοργός, which Wikipedia says:

γοργός • (gorgós) m (feminine γοργή, neuter γοργόν); first/second declension 1. grim, fierce, terrible 2. spirited, vigorous 3. (of literary style) vehement, vigorous

The phrase that is translated as "having fierce eyes" in the Greek text is γοργοὺς ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς.

Adamantius, a Jewish Greek Byzantine, wrote a treatise on physiognomy. In this treatise, he describes features considered "typically Greek" in physical terms, of which "fierce eyes" is one of the descriptives:

From Adamantius’ Physiognomy we have the following description of ‘Hellenic’ or Ionian looks; its emphasis on the primacy of the ‘Hellenic race’ ‘verges on the nationalistic’, to borrow Simon Swain’s remark. Any who have guarded the Hellenic and Ionic race and kept it pure are sufficiently large men, rather broad, upright, strong, with a rather white colour, pale, having a moderate and rather firm mixture of flesh, straight legs, shapely extremities, a round head of medium size, a strong neck, rather pale and soft hair that curls gently, a square face, thin lips, a straight nose and moist, dark blue, fierce eyes with plenty of light in them; for the Hellenic race has the best eyes of all races.

Visualizing the invisible with the human body: Physiognomy and ekphrasis in the ancient world edited by J. Cale Johnson and Alessandro Stavru, pg 247.

Adamantius adds "Hellenic race has the best eyes of all races", so I suppose when Commenus described Achilles like this perhaps he was describing his eyes positively.

In the Greek Anthology, Christodorus (Byzantine Greek) described a statue of Achilles that supposedly stood in a public gymnasium called Zeuxippos. In William Roger Paton's translation, Achilles' eyes were described as follows:

[...] he seemed to be scattering the threatening cloud of battle, for his eyes shone with the genuine light of a son of Aeacus.

Aeacus is the demigod son of the nymph Aegina and the god Zeus. He is the grandfather of Achilles, as he is the father of Peleus. Here, I imagine that Christodorus was simply positively reinforcing Achilles lineage.

There are also colorful visual representations of Achilles, although given how old they are, it’s a bit tricky to know the exact colors at the time they were painted, so I’m going with the colors of the images we have today.

For example, this Roman mosaic from the 4th century AD shows Achilles being discovered among the girls of Lycomedes. I’ve taken a close-up, so it’s hard to tell who’s who, but Achilles is the person on the right (it’s easy to tell because in the full image he’s holding his spear and shield while the girls try to stop him). Personally, I got the impression that Achilles here has brown eyes.

Achilles being adored by princesses of Skyros. Odysseus (Ulysses) discovers him dressed as a woman and hiding among the princesses at the royal court of Skyros. A late Roman mosaic from La Olmeda, Spain, marble and tiled glass, 2.20 by 2.50 meters. For full descriptions (in Spanish). See here.

In a Roman fresco in Pompeii, in an attempt to make the colors more vivid (because, remember, the fresco was found faded), a scene depicting Achilles and Patroclus at the moment when Agamemnon's soldiers come to fetch Briseis seems to have painted not only Achilles but all the characters in the scene as having dark eyes.

Achilles sitting in his tent, Briseis is led out of the tent (to Agamemnon), in the presence of many Greek heroes - period / date: fourth style of pompeian wall painting - height: 127 cm - width: 122 cm - findspot: Pompeii VI, 8, 5, house of the tragic poet, atrium (3) - museum / inventory number: Napoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 9105. See here.

A Roman mosaic from Pompeii depicts the scene in which Achilles is thinking of attacking Agamemnon with his sword, but has his hair pulled by Athena. In this mosaic, the characters seems to have dark eyes, although I personally got the impression that in the center of Achilles' eyes there is a shade of blue.

Achilles and Agamemnon, scene from Book I of the Iliad, Roman mosaic. See here.

Another Mosaic depicting Achilles with dark eyes. I got the impression that his eyes here look kind of brown, but I'm not sure. This is the scene of him being discovered in Skyros.

The Achilles Mosaic was at the bottom of a pool with a waterspout in the impluvium of the Poseidon Villa in Zeugma. Achilles has been sent by his parents to a friend-King's palace where he even dresses up as a woman. Odysseus wants to find him, an plays a trick to find him amongst the "women": he brings fine gifts of clothing, jewellery, but also fine weaponry. The one to grab that must be Achilles. Here he's found out. See here.

There is also the detail that, in the case of mosaics, it isn'tpossible for there to be much detail in the eyes because of the way mosaics are made. Perhaps dark tones were chosen because they look better on the mosaic? After all, all the mosaic characters I have seen in this post so far have dark eyes, not just Achilles. Anyway, I'm not sure.

In a Roman fresco from the 1st century AD depicting Chiron educating Achilles (in a more colorful version. The original is more faded), Achilles seems to have brown eyes.

The centaur Chiron teaching Achilles how to play the lyre, Roman fresco from Herculaneum, National Archaeological Museum of Naples. See here.

In another Roman fresco showing Achilles being discovered on Skyros, I again got the impression that his eyes are some shade of brown.

Achilles, disguise in women, is recognized by Ulysses among the daughters of Lycomede a Scyros Fresco of Pompei. 1st century AD. Dim. 145,5x137,5 cm Naples, national archeological museum - Roman Art. Violent struggle between the people of Pompeii and Nocer. See here.

There are other mosaics of Achilles, but as stated, they generally have the same dark eyes characteristic of these types of mosaics. When the tone is a little lighter, Achilles usually seems to have brown eyes. There is another fresco in which Achilles is supposed to be between Briseis and Patroclus, but while Briseis and Patroclus have their faces visible, the part where Achilles' face was located has not survived…so yeah, no eyes.

Also, in this article, G.I.C Robertson indicated an interpretation that, in the scene from Book 1 of The Iliad, the descriptive of eyes usually taken to refer to Athena actually referred to Achilles.

THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT in the first book of the Iliad: Achilleus is about to be persuaded by Athene to resist the urge to kill Agamemnon after the latter has declared his intention to seize Achilleus' concubine Briseïs. The text appears above as it is printed in the OCT (Monro and Allen 1902: 8), and the translation given here represents the interpretation that has been accepted by the vast majority of commentators and translators. With very few exceptions, scholars have not seriously entertained the possibility that the eyes in line 200 may not be Athene’s; but the pronoun oi could equally be read as meaning “his," and the eyes may be those of Achilleus.1 I shall argue here that this interpretation deserves more attention than it has usually been given. Some older arguments will be revisited, including the relatively recent contribution of H.-W. Nörenberg (1972), but I believe that the case for such a reading can be strengthened by some further points which have not previously been made. Achilleus' behaviour later in the poem, in particular at the assembly in Book 19, favours this interpretation, and the question is significant for our understanding of the character of the hero. At 1.200, the scholiasts (Erbse 1969: 65) acknowledge both possibilities; they suggest o dé avti toû yάp, implying that Achilleus recognized Athene because of the appearance of her eyes, but add τινὲς δὲ φάανθεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐφωτίσθησαν oi toû ñρwos opłaλμoí, i.e., other scholars refer the flashing eyes to the hero.2 As to the first interpretation, the assumption that Achilleus needs some visible characteristic of the goddess to facilitate recognition may be thought to be justified by other divine epiphanies in the poem, such as Helen's recognition of Aphrodite's "beautiful neck, lovely bosom, and shining eyes” (лɛрiкαλλéα dɛipǹν / otηleά θ ̓ ἱμερόεντα καὶ ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα, 3.396-397) and the recognition of the "tracks" (ixvia) of Poseidon by the lesser Aias at 13.66-72. But those deities have disguised themselves as humans (3.386–389; 13.45), whereas in our case Athene does not bother with a disguise; the appearance of specific characteristics enabling identification is therefore not necessary, and Achilleus (to whom alone she appears: o pavoμévη, 1.198) recognizes her at once. The implication is that deities are perfectly capable of making themselves recognizable to mortals when the occasion requires it.

Following the line of thought that there must be something about Athene's eyes in particular that prompts the recognition, some have suggested that there is a connection with Athene's epithet γλαυκῶπις. Kirk is among these, and it is noteworthy that the most recent major commentary on the Iliad does not even mention the possibility that the eyes may not be those of Athene after all, an opinion which (though it has found few adherents) is at least as old as the scholia. Mazon suggests that attempts to see in the phrase δεινώ δέ οἱ ὄσσε φάανθεν reference to a permanent characteristic of the goddess are misguided: “le temps employé par le poète, l'aoriste, ne peut désigner l'éclat permanent d'un regard; il convient seulement 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]

PERSEUS & CIA (PART 1)

Part 2 here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

DANAE 

Family

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

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

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838. 

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

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

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

Confinement and Zeus

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

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

The Iliad, 14.383-384. Translation by Robert Fagles

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

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

Pythian Ode 12. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

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

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

Antigone. Translation by Sir Richard Jebb.

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

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

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

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

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

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suda, sigma,93. Translation by David Whitehead.

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

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

And finally:

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

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

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

Alternative myth

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

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

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

Journey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838. 

Strabo says that Perseus and Danae were found by Dictys.

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

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

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

Alternative myth

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

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

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDUSA

Family

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

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

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

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

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

Fabulae, 9. Translation by Mary Grant. 

Besides the Gorgons, Medusa had other possible siblings:

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

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

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

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

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

Reason for the mission

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

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

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

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Alternative myth

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

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

Fabulae, 63. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Mission

Graiai, Nymphs and Hyperboreans

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

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

Astronomica, 2.12.2. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pythian Ode 10. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

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

Death of Medusa

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

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

Pythian Ode 12. Translation by 

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

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

Electra. Translation by E. P. Coleridge.

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

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

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suda, mu,406. Translation by Jennifer Benedict.

Post-Medusa’s death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandra. Translation by A.W. Mair.

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

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

Fabulae, 151. Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad Lycophronem, 879.

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

[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]

PERSEUS & CIA (PART 3)

Part 1 here! Part 2 here!

LIFE OF PERSEUS AFTER THE MISSION

In Iphigenia at Aulis, Perseus is remembered as the founder of Mycenae, which was built with the help of the Cyclopes.

Iphigenia [....] O Pelasgia, land of my birth, and Mycenae, my home! Chorus [1500] Is it on Perseus' citadel you call, that town Cyclopean workmen built?

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

According to Hyginus, Perseus founded Perseis and Mycenae. Jove = Zeus.

TOWN AND THEIR FOUNDERS: [...] Perseus, son of Jove, founded Perseis. [...] Perseus, son of Jove, founded Mycenae. [...]

Fabulae, 275. Translation by Mary Grant.

Pausanias also mentions Perseus as the founder of Mycenae. The reason given is: after accidentally killing his grandfather Acrisius as the prophecy said, Perseus wanted to exchange the kingdom of Argos — which was Acrisius's, but became Perseus's because 1) he fled 2) he died — with Megaphentes, his cousin. The exchange was made, Megaphentes became king of Argos and Perseus founded Mycenae. Pausanias gives two possible stories for the name of the city: either Perseus's cap (myces) fell off and he considered it a sign or he was thirsty and used a mushroom (myces) to quench his thirst.

[2.15.4] Ascending to Tretus, and again going along the road to Argos, you see on the left the ruins of Mycenae. The Greeks are aware that the founder of Mycenae was Perseus, so I will narrate the cause of its foundation and the reason why the Argives afterwards laid Mycenae waste. [...] [2.16.2] [...] Afterwards Acrisius, learning that Perseus himself was not only alive but accomplishing great achievements, retired to Larisa on the Peneus. And Perseus, wishing at all costs to see the father of his mother and to greet him with fair words and deeds, visited him at Larisa. Being in the prime of life and proud of his inventing the quoit, he gave displays before all, and Acrisius, as luck would have it, stepped unnoticed into the path of the quoit. [2.16.3] So the prediction of the god to Acrisius found its fulfillment, nor was his fate prevented by his precautions against his daughter and grandson. Perseus, ashamed because of the gossip about the homicide, on his return to Argos induced Megapenthes, the son of Proetus, to make an exchange of kingdoms; taking over himself that of Megapenthes, he founded Mycenae. For on its site the cap (myces) fell from his scabbard, and he regarded this as a sign to found a city. I have also heard the following account. He was thirsty, and the thought occurred to him to pick up a mushroom (myces) from the ground. Drinking with joy water that flowed from it, he gave to the place the name of Mycenae.

Description of Greece, 2.15.4 and 2.16.2-3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

According to Pseudo-Apollodorus, Perseus, along with Danae and Andromeda, went to Argos to find Acrisius. But Acrisius discovered that his grandson was alive and fled. When the king of Larissa, Teutamides, held athletic games in honor of his deceased father and Perseus came to compete, Perseus accidentally killed Acrisius with a quoit and the prophecy was fulfilled. Perseus then buried Acrisius and, ashamed of claiming possession of Argos after having killed the king of Argos, asked Megaphentes to give him Tiryns in exchange for Megaphentes keeping Argos. Megaphentes accepted, and Perseus reigned over Tiryns, and later Midea and Mycenae.

Perseus hastened with Danae and Andromeda to Argos in order that he might behold Acrisius. But he, learning of this and dreading the oracle, forsook Argos and departed to the Pelasgian land. Now Teutamides, king of Larissa, was holding athletic games in honor of his dead father, and Perseus came to compete. He engaged in the pentathlum, but in throwing the quoit he struck Acrisius on the foot and killed him instantly. Perceiving that the oracle was fulfilled, he buried Acrisius outside the city, and being ashamed to return to Argos to claim the inheritance of him who had died by his hand, he went to Megapenthes, son of Proetus, at Tiryns and effected an exchange with him, surrendering Argos into his hands. So Megapenthes reigned over the Argives, and Perseus reigned over Tiryns, after fortifying also Midea and Mycenae.

Library, 2.4.5. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Clement of Alexandria said: “In the temple of Athena in the Acropolis at Larissa there is the tomb of Acrisius” (Exhortation to the Greeks, book 3). That is, again the place of Acrisius' death is Larissa. Clement, however, doesn't say how he died, but I imagine it to be the same way.

Tzetzes says that Perseus went with Andromeda and Danae to Argos to see Acrisius, but Acrisius feared the prophecy and fled. At Larissa, King Teutamides held games in honor of his deceased father, and Perseus, while competing, accidentally killed Acrisius with a quoit. This caused Perseus to mourn his death, bury him outside the city, and refuse to inherit Argos. He asked for Tiryns in exchange for Argos, and Megaphentes accepted. He later founded Mycenae and Midea.

[...] Perseus, with Andromeda and his mother Danae, hurried to go to Argos to see Acrisius. Acrisius, fearing the oracle, retreated to Pelasgus. When Teutamides, the king of the Larissans, held a pentathlon at his father's funeral, Perseus, competing, accidentally killed Acrisius with a discus throw and, mourning, buried him outside the city. He went to Megapenthes, the son of Proetus, and gave him his own kingdom, the rule of Argos, while Perseus himself held Tiryns, his kingdom. He founded Mycenae and Midea [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838. 

The theme of Acrisius's accidental death seems to have been a central plot point in Sophocles's lost play Larissaei/The Men of Larissa. Remember what I said about the play Acrisius sometimes being identified with the play Danae? Acrisius is also sometimes identified with Larissaei. Anyway, what we know about this play is that it’s about the accidental death of Acrisius by his grandson Perseus in Larissa. You can read more about this in volume I of The Fragments of Sophocles, ed. A. C. Pearson.

Alternative myth

In a late version of the myth, Perseus fought Dionysus to defend Argos encouraged by Hera. I am considering this an alternative myth not only because it is clearly a very late addition but also because it seems quite confusing in terms of the chronology of the usual Perseus myth.

Pausanias says that Dionysus led an army of Maenads to Argos, but Perseus defeated them.

[2.20.4] The tomb near this they call that of the maenad Chorea, saying that she was one of the women who joined Dionysus in his expedition against Argos, and that Perseus, being victorious in the battle, put most of the women to the sword. To the rest they gave a common grave, but to Chorea they gave burial apart because of her high rank. [...] [2.22.1] XXII. The temple of Hera Anthea (Flowery) is on the right of the sanctuary of Leto, and before it is a grave of women. They were killed in a battle against the Argives under Perseus, having come from the Aegean Islands to help Dionysus in war; for which reason they are surnamed Haliae (Women of the Sea). Facing the tomb of the women is a sanctuary of Demeter, surnamed Pelasgian from Pelasgus, son of Triopas, its founder, and not far from the sanctuary is the grave of Pelasgus. [...] [2.23.7] for instance, an underground building over which was the bronze chamber which Acrisius once made to guard his daughter. Perilaus, however, when he became tyrant, pulled it down. Besides this building there is the tomb of Crotopus and a temple of Cretan Dionysus. For they say that the god, having made war on Perseus, afterwards laid aside his enmity, and received great honors at the hands of the Argives, including this precinct set specially apart for himself.

Description of Greece, 2.20.4 and 22-1 and 23-7. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

In the Dionysiaca, Nonnus tells this version of the myth in more detail in Book 47. But it’s very long, so I’ll summarize just some relevant things:

As is typical of Dionysus, he became irritated at not receiving attention. This time, the target of his anger was the Arguments, and he tried to dominate Argos. Argos is dear to Hera, so she obviously doesn't allow Dionysus to conquer Argos. Furthermore, it doesn't help that Hera and Dionysus' relationship was, to say the least, not very good. In retaliation, Hera rallies the Argives led by Perseus to face Dionysus and the Maenads.

Encouraged by Hera to fight, Perseus goes to battle and exchanges intimidating speeches with Dionysus. After this, Hera has Perseus use Medusa on the Maenads and sends a flaming spear at Dionysus, who only scoffs at this, claiming that not even Zeus's lightning bolt killed him. More intimidating speeches, this time recalling what happened to Pentheus in Thebes. Conversation over, they fight again, more Maenads fall and the Satyrs join the battle. Perseus, however, feels intimidated by Dionysus and so decides not to fight him directly and instead fights the maddened Maenads. Perseus then uses Medusa's head to petrify Ariadne, who had accompanied Dionysus to Argos. And yeah, that last part seems like a weird summary, but it's actually like this in the poem: “When he had ended, he went on fighting: the Bacchants fell to, the Satyrs joined the battle. Over the head of Bromios Perseus flew in the air, flapping his light wings; but Iobacchos lifted his body and rose wingless on high near to the heavens with larger libs over flying Perseus, and brought his hand near the sevenring sky, and touched Olympos, and crushed the clouds: Perseus quivered with fear as he saw the right hand of Dionysos out of reach and touching the sun, catching hold of the moon. So he left Dionysos and fought with the mad Bacchants. He shook in his hand the deadly face of Medusa, and turned armed Ariadne into stone.”

Ariadne therefore dies. This enrages Dionysus to the point where Nonnus says that he would have destroyed Argos and Mycenae, killed the host of the Danaans and Perseus, and wounded Hera if it weren’t for the intervention of Hermes. He pulls Dionysus' hair to prevent him from doing anything, and appeals to the fact that Hermes was the one who saved the baby Dionysus as a way to persuade Dionysus to listen to him. Basically, the argument is that the war is due to Hera's machinations and Perseus isn’t to blame. The cult of Dionysus is recognized, and Perseus is allowed to keep the kingdom in peace. Hermes also consoles Dionysus about Ariadne's death. And that's it.

Still following the Suda's version that Medusa is just an ugly woman, Perseus continued to make conquests until he tried to conquer the kingdom of Cepheus, where he had found Andromeda in a temple (I didn't see any mention of Andromeda being Cepheus' daughter here, by the way). However, Cepheus was very old and therefore blind, and the amulet that Perseus made with Medusa's head didn't work. Perseus was dissatisfied and tested the head on himself. This petrified him, which killed him. Later, his son Merros burned the head.

[...] and he founded a city into a village, called Amandra, and he set up a stone [depicting] the Gorgon hanging. This [city] changed it name to Ikonion[4] because it was a representation [a)peiko/nisma] of the Gorgon. He also made war on the Isaurians and the Cilicians and founded a city that he named Tarsus. Its previous name had been Andrasus; but told by an oracle to found a city to mark victories, in the place where after the victory he hurt the flat [tarso/s] of his foot in dismounting from his horse, he called it Tarsus. After conquering the Medes too, he changed the name of the country and called it Persia. He taught the terrible initiation connected with the Gorgon to some of the Persians, whom he called magi. At this time too a ball of fire was brought down out of heaven, and from this Perseus took fire and gave it to those of his tribe to guard and to revere, as something brought down out of heaven. He made war on Cepheus, but because he was old and could not see, the head did not work, and thinking it to be useless, Perseus turned it toward himself and beheld it and perished. Later his son Merros burned it.

Suda, mu,406. Translation by Jennifer Benedict. 

PERSEUS AND ANDROMEDA’S CHILDREN

The first mention of a son of Perseus is in The Iliad, when the myth of the birth of Heracles and Eurystheus is described. At this point, we have Sthenelus, described as the son of Perseus and also the father of Eurystheus.

[...] Hera reached Achaean Argas in no time, where, she knew for a fact. the hardy wife of Sthenelus, Perseus' own son, was about to bear her child, but only seven months gone. So into the light Queen Hera brought the baby, two months shy, and the goddess stopped Alcmena's hour of birth, she held back the Lady of Labor's birthing pangs and rushed in person to give the word to Zeus: 140 'Zeus. Father, lord of the lightning bolt— here is a piece of news to warm your heart! Today an illustrious son is born to rule the Argives ... Eurystheus, son of Sthenelus, descended of Perseus— so he is born of your own stock and immortal blood and it's only right for him to rule the Argives!' [...]

The Iliad, 19.133-146. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Euripides more than once recalls in his plays that Heracles is a descendant of Perseus. For example, Admetus greets Heracles by calling him a descendant of Perseus in the play Alcestis. In Euripides' Heracles, Heracles' lineage is at one point explored, including mention of Alceus, Amphitryon's father, as a son of Perseus.

AMPHITRYON: What mortal hath not heard of him who shared a wife with Zeus, Amphitryon of Argos, whom on a day Alcaeus, son of Perseus begat, Amphitryon the father of Heracles? [...]

Heracles. Translation by Edward Philip Coleridge.

Herodotus says that one of the sons of Perseus and Andromeda, Perses, stayed with Cepheus because, as he had no sons, this boy would be the male descendant.

[...] These Persians were in old time called by the Greeks Cephenes, but by themselves and their neighbours Artaei. But when Perseus the son of Danaë and Zeus had come to Cepheus the son of Belus, and taken his daughter Andromeda to wife, a son was born to him whom he called Perses, and him he left there; for Cepheus had no male issue; it was from this Perses that the Persians took their name.

Histories, 7.61. Translation by Rawlinson.

And also gives the Argive version of the myth surrounding Perses:

Such is the Argives' account of this matter; but there is another story told in Hellas: That before Xerxes set forth on his march against Hellas, he sent a herald to Argos, who said on his coming (so the story goes), "Men of Argos, this is the message to you of king Xerxes. Perses our forefather had, as we believe, Perseus son of Danaë for his father, and Andromeda daughter of Cepheus for his mother; if that be so, then we are descended from your nation. Wherefore in all right and reason neither should we march against the land of our forefathers, nor should you become our enemies by aiding others, nor do aught but abide by yourselves in peace; for if all go as I desire, I will hold none in higher esteem than you." Hearing this, the Argives were thereby much moved; and though for the nonce they made no promise and demanded no share, yet when the Greeks strove to gain their aid, then, knowing that the Lacedaemonians would not grant it, they did demand a part of the command, that so they might have a pretext for abiding at peace.

Histories, 7.150. Translation by Rawlinson.

Tzetzes also says that Perses was the first son and was left with Cepheus.

[...] He also went to Ethiopia, where, as I said, he rescued Andromeda from the sea monster and took her as his wife. From her, he had a son, Perses, whom he left with Cepheus. [...]

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Hyginus mentions Electryon as the son of Perseus.

MEN WHO KILLED THEIR RELATIVES: [...] Amphitryon killed Electryon, son of Perseus. [....]

Fabulae, 224. Translation by Mary Grant.

Diodorus Siculus says that Andromeda and Perseus had Electryon, who with Eurydice, daughter of Pelops, had Alcmene, who after being deceived by Zeus in the appearance of her husband had Heracles.

[...] Now Andromeda, the daughter of Cepheus, lay with him and bore Electryon, and then Eurydicê, the daughter of Pelops, married him and gave birth to Alcmenê, who in turn was wooed by Zeus, who deceived her, and bore Heracles.

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

Pseudo-Apollodorus says that the children of Perseus and Andromeda are Perses (born before Perseus' return and raised by Cepheus, Andromeda's father), Alcaeus, Sthenelus, Heleus, Mestor, Electryon, and Gorgophone.

And he had sons by Andromeda: before he came to Greece he had Perses, whom he left behind with Cepheus (and from him it is said that the kings of Persia are descended); and in Mycenae he had Alcaeus and Sthenelus and Heleus and Mestor and Electryon, and a daughter Gorgophone, whom Perieres married.

Library, 2.4.5. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

In the part after this in the text, Pseudo-Apollodorus describes the descendants of Perseus and Andromeda. I'm not going to put it here because the focus is on children, but if you're interested, just let me know that from 2.4.5 onwards in the Library this is covered.

Pausanias speaks of Gorgophone (who had two husbands, Perieres and Oebalus), of Cynurus and mentions the Heracleides as descendants of Perseus.

[2.21.7] In Argos, by the side of this monument of the Gorgon, is the grave of Gorgophone (Gorgon-kilIer), the daughter of Perseus. As soon as you hear the name you can understand the reason why it was given her. On the death of her husband, Perieres, the son of Aeolus, whom she married when a virgin, she married Oebalus, being the first woman, they say, to marry a second time; for before this wives were wont, on the death of their husbands, to live as widows.

Description of Greece, 2.21.7. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[3.2.2] [...] The Cynurians are said to be Argives by descent, and tradition has it that their founder was Cynurus, son of Perseus.

Description of Greece, 3.2.2. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[2.18.7] [...] but the Heracleidae were descendants of Perseus [...]

Description of Greece, 2.18.7. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Tzetzes says that the sons of Perseus and Andromeda are: Alcaeus, Sthenelus, Heleus, Mestor, Electryon, Gorgophone and Perses, who was left with Cepheus.

He founded Mycenae and Midea, where he also had other sons from Andromeda: Alcaeus, Sthenelus, Heleus, Mestor, Electryon, and Gorgophone. His other son, Perses, was left in Ethiopia with his grandfather Cepheus, as we said.

Ad Lycophronem, 838.

Theocritus mentions Perseus in two poems related to the hero Heracles, but only to mention that Heracles is a descendant of Perseus. You can read it here. 

Alternative myth

Remembering that in the Suda version of Medusa the ugly woman and Perseus who turned to stone, he has a son named Merros. Although this Perseus is different enough that it isn’t strange that he could have other lovers besides Andromeda, I imagine that the son is hers because she’s the only woman mentioned in the passage.

Ioannis Tzetzes, scholiast of the Lycophron’s Alexandra, mentions a daughter of Perseus named Autochthe who was married to Aegeus, king of Athens known to be the mortal father of the hero Theseus. However, I haven’t seen her mentioned by anyone other than Tzetzes. Therefore, she doesn’t seem to me to be commonly a daughter of Perseus. I’ll consider it alternative as I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Third is Aegeus, the son of Pandion or Scyrius according to some or according to Lycophron (1324) Phemius and adopted by Pandion, reigning in Athens, he first marries Meda, the daughter of Hoples, second Chalkiope, the daughter of Rhexenor. As I found elsewhere, he had one wife, Autochthe, the daughter of Perseus. But as he had no child, fearing Pallas, Nisos, and Lycus, his brothers, he goes to Pytho to consult the oracle about having a child, and this oracle was given to him: "the foot of the protruding wineskin, the best of peoples, do not untie, until you reach the height of Athens."

Ad Lycophronem, 494.

DEATH/POST-DEATH

In Aratus' Phaenomena, he mentions the constellations of Cepheus, Cassiopeia, Perseus, and Andromeda. He says that the Cepheus family was placed in the sky because of its association with Zeus.

[179] Nor all unnamed shall rest he hapless family of Iasid Cepheus. For their name, too has come unto heaven, for that they were near akin to Zeus. Cepheus himself is set behind the Bear Cynosura, like to one that stretches out both his hands. From her tail-tip to both his feet stretches a measure equal to that from foot to foot. But a little aside from his belt look to find the first coil of the mighty Dragon. [188] Eastward his hapless wife, Cassiepeia, gleaming when by night the moon is full, wheels with her scanty stars. For few and alternate stars adorn her, which expressly mark her form with lines of light. Like the key of a twofold door barred within, wherewith men striking shoot back the bolts, so singly set shine her stars. But from her shoulders so faint she stretches a fathom’s length. Thou would’st say she was sorrowing over her daughter. [197] For there, too, wheels that woeful form of Andromeda, enstarred beneath her mother. Thou hast not to wait for a night, I ween, whereon to see her more distinct! So bright is her head and so clearly marked are both the shoulders, the tips of her feet and all her belt. Yet even there she is racked, with arms stretched far apart, and even in Heaven bonds are her portion. Uplifted and outspread there for all time are those hands of hers.  [...] [248] Her two feet will guide thee to her bridegroom, Perseus, over whose shoulder they are for ever carried. But he moves in the North a taller form than the others. His right hand is stretched toward the throne of the mother of his bride, and, as if pursuing that which lies before his feet, he greatly strides, dust-stained, in the heaven of Zeus.

Phaenomena, 179-204 and 248-252. Translation by G.R. Mair.

Pseudo-Eratostheni wrote a book with the same theme as Aratus. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it in an accessible English version, so no excerpts this time. Just as I did with the fragments of Euripides' Andromeda, I tried to use another language. Initially I tried a Brazilian translation, but unfortunately there was only a partial translation and it didn't cover what I wanted, so I tried Spanish and found it! According to Antonio Guzmán Guerra's translation:

Cepheus became a constellation by decision of Athena out of deference to Andromeda;

It isn’t said why Cassiopeia is a constellation, although here she is also seated;

Andromeda is a constellation by the will of Athena, who placed her there as a memory of Perseus' exploits;

Perseus is a constellation by the wish of Athena, who made him so because she wanted to reward him for killing Medusa.

According to Hyginus, Perseus was killed by Magaphentes, son of Proetus (Danae's uncle on her father's side) in retaliation for Proetus' death. He also says that Perseus was put among the stars.

MEN WHO KILLED THEIR RELATIVES: [...] Megapenthes, son of Proetus, killed Perseus, son of Jove and Danae on account of the death of his father. [...]

Fabulae, 244. Translation by Mary Grant.

MORTALS WHO WERE MADE IMMORTAL: [...] Perseus, son of Jove and Danae, put among the stars [...]

Fabulae, 224. Translation by Mary Grant.

SEA-MONSTER OR WHALE: Whale. With regard to the Sea-Monster, they say that it was sent by Neptune to kill Andromeda, about whom we have already spoken. But because it was killed by Perseus, on account of its huge size and his valour it was placed amongst the constellations.

Astronomica, 2.31.1. Translation by Mary Grant.

He also says that by the favor of Athena Andromeda was put among the constellations in honor of Perseus' bravery. Cassiopeia was also put among the constellations by the gods, but as punishment. Cepheus too, with the reason that it was so that the family would stay together.

CEPHEUS: Euripides and the rest have shown that he was the son of Phoenix, king of the Ethiopians, and father of Andromeda, the girl exposed to the sea-monster, according to the well-known tale. Perseus freed her from danger and made her his wife. And so, that the whole family be commemorated, the gods numbered Cepheus, too, among the constellations. CASSIEPIA: [CASSIOPEIA] Euripides and Sophocles and many others have said of her that she boasted that she excelled the Nereids in beauty. For this she was put among the constellations, seated in a chair [?]. On account of her impiety, as the sky turns, she seems to be carried along lying on her back. ANDROMEDA: They say she was put among the constellations by the favour of Minerva, on account of the valor of Perseus, who freed her from danger when exposed to the sea-monster. Nor did he receive less kindness from her in return for his good deed. For neither her father Cepheus nor her mother Cassiepia could dissuade her from following Perseus, leaving parents and country. About her Euripides has written a most excellent play with her name as title.

Astronomica, 2.9.1-2.11.1. Translation by Mary Grant.

MORE

According to the Suda, the comedy writer Phormos wrote a work called Kepheus/Cepheus and another work called Perseus. 

Syracusan, writer of comedy, contemporary of Epicharmus, friendly with the Sicilian tyrant Gelon and tutor to his children. He wrote 6 dramas, which are as follows: Admetos, Alkinous, Alkyones, The Sack of Troy [or] The Horse, Kepheus or Kephalaia or Perseus. He was the first to use a full-length garment and a booth of purple skins. Athenaeus in the Deipnosophists mentions another play also, the Atalanta.

Suda, phi, 609. Translation by Tony Natoli.

Another author to write an Andromeda was Phrynichus, I imagine it is also about her rescue. This play was a parody.

Son of Melanthas; Athenian, tragic poet. His plays include the following: Andromeda, Erigone. He also created Pyrrhics [war-dances]. [Note] that the Athenians fined Phrynichus a thousand [sc. drachmas] after he had depicted the capture of Miletus in a tragedy.

Suda, phi, 756. Translation by David Whitehead.

According to "Fragments of Old Comedy, Volume III: Philonicus to Xenophon. Adespotay" pg 47, Phrynichus presented a humorous parody that showed a drunken old woman being threatened by the sea monster, in reference to the myth of Andromeda. I honestly don’t know if this presentation is part of the Andromeda mentioned in the Suda.

As part of the trilogy with The Net-Draggers (Dictys' rescue of Danae and Perseus) and The Phorcydes (Perseus' encounter with the Graiai), Aeschylus also wrote a play entitled Polydectes. Unfortunately, no fragments survive from this play and we only know its name and authorship. I have a hunch that it might be about Perseus' return to Seriphus because that would complete the story: he arrives in Seriphus in The Net-Draggers, he goes after Medusa in The Phorcydes (and we know there's a passage describing him entering the cave of the gorgons in that play), and finally he returns to Seriphus in Polydectes. But of course, that's just a guess and there's no way to prove anything precisely because there's no fragment. For that reason, I didn't put it anywhere in the post's chronology and instead put it here.

According to Thomas Sims: “[...] and only the titles of Timocles’ Lycurgus and the Phorcides of Timocles or Philocles are known, preserved in the inscriptional records.” (A Commentary on the Fragments of Fourth-century Tragedy, pg 63). In other words, Timocles of Athens wrote a play with the title “Phorcides”, which may have the same theme as Aeschylus’ Phorcides and be related to the myth of Perseus. However, the play didn’t survive. As I did with Aeschylus’ Polydectes, I’ll put it here only because there is no way to prove anything. Similarly, Apollophanes wrote a work entitled Danae, but only the title survived.

The Suda mentions a joke related to Danae and Acrisius. It would seem strange to me for an encyclopedia to feature a random pun, so I imagine this pun was popular enough.

The [daughter] of Acrisius. "Go be judged: you are not Danaë the [daughter] of Acrisius." For when she was responding stubbornly to a lawsuit, a certain wiseguy said to her: "Go be judged: you are not Danaë the daughter of Acrisius. "And this mastered the mind of Danaë"; that is, gold.

Suda, delta,57. Translation by Jennifer Benedict.

It doesn't seem to make sense, but that's because it's a pun on Acrisius' name, which is widely accepted as meaning “'ill-judgment”, “"the man of bad judgment" or "the man who is not judged”.

Pausanias comments that Perseus first sacrificed to Zeus of Apesas on Mount Apesas.

[2.15.3] The Argives offer burnt sacrifices to Zeus in Nemea also, and elect a priest of Nemean Zeus; moreover they offer a prize for a race in armour at the winter celebration of the Nemean games. In this place is the grave of Opheltes; around it is a fence of stones, and within the enclosure are altars. There is also a mound of earth which is the tomb of Lycurgus, the father of Opheltes. The spring they call Adrastea for some reason or other, perhaps because Adrastus found it. The land was named, they say, after Nemea, who was another daughter of Asopus. Above Nemea is Mount Apesas, where they say that Perseus first sacrificed to Zeus of Apesas.

Description of Greece, 2.15.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

BONUS: As a bonus, there will be some uncertain information. One of them is my uncertainty as to whether two authors actually wrote the plays that the sites say they wrote, and the other is a Roman source that I have doubts had this information shared with the Greek sources.

Some websites claim that Pratinus of Philius and Aristias of Philius, father and son respectively, both wrote plays entitled "Perseus". However, I honestly haven’t been able to find the source of this information. I, of course, may just not have researched it properly, so I'll put it here as a "bonus" in case anyone knows anything about it.

Unlike the others, this is a Roman source written by Aelianu. It is said that Perseus once tried to rest upon returning to Seriphus, but the frogs kept making noise and it bothered him. He asked Zeus to help him with this, and Zeus made the frogs of Seriphus eternally silent.

In Seriphus you will never hear the Frogs croaking at all. If however you transport them elsewhere, they emit a piercing and most harsh sound.

On mount Pierus in Thessaly there is a lake; it is not perennial but is created in winter by the waters which flow together into it. Now if one throws Frogs into it they become silent, though vocal elsewhere. Touching the Seriphian Frogs the people of Seriphus boast that Perseus arrived from his contest with the Gorgon after covering an immense distance, and being naturally fatigued rested by the lake side and lay down wishing to sleep. The Frogs however worried the hero with their croaking and interrupted his slumbers. But Perseus prayed to his father to silence the Frogs. His father gave ear and to gratify his son condemned the Frogs there to everlasting silence. Theophrastus however upsets the story and relieves the Seriphians of their imposture by asserting that it is the coldness of the water that causes the aforesaid Frogs to be dumb.

Characteristics of Animals, 3.37. Translation by Alwyn Faber Scholfield.

But the interesting point is that there is a source before Aelianus that already mentioned the fact that the frogs are silent, but supposedly make noise if removed from Seriphus. This source was attributed to Aristotle, but nowadays this is no longer a consensus and the author is usually referred to as Pseudo-Aristotle. Although he isn’t  Aristotle, he’s still before Aelianus. And I honestly think it is very specific that the frogs are only silent specifically in Seriphus, as if the silence was linked to the location. This makes me think that perhaps Aelianus was passing on the explanation of this Greek legend. Pliny is before Aelianus and also mentions the silence of the frogs, but he is Roman, so there is nothing to prevent it from being a Roman legend in his case. The Suda also mentions it, but the Suda is Byzantine and therefore after Aelianus. It’s really Pseudo-Aristotle who is the key point here.

They say that in Seriphus frogs do not croak, but if they are removed to another place they do.

On Marvellous Things Heard, 70. Translation by W.S. Hett.

Aelianus also mentions a fish called Perseus in the Red Sea. Considering that the Red Sea has been attributed as the location of the myth of Andromeda (e.g. Pausanias), perhaps that is why this particular location supposedly had this fish. He also says that Perseus was quite fond of cicadas. However, none of this information is mentioned in any Greek source as far as I know, so I can't theorize like I did with the Seriphus frogs. Just commenting because yes.

SOURCES

Here is the alphabetical order of the sources mentioned, including those where the only thing known is the title. The order will be by the author's name, but the works themselves aren’t arranged in alphabetical order. In the case of authors with "Pseudo" I considered them with the letter P. Also, there are other authors who are sometimes represented with Pseudo that I did not put Pseudo, such as Hyginus. Next to each source, I've put a brief explanation of what you can find there, as I imagine it's easier to locate than having to keep returning to the post. With the exception of Hyginus and Aelianus, all the authors are Greek as far as I know.

A |

Aelianus, Characteristics of Animals - Perseus and animals

Aeschylus, The Net-Draggers - satire of the myth of Dictys' rescue of Perseus and Danae 

Aeschylus, The Phorcides - Perseus on his way to kill Medusa 

Aeschylus, Polydectes - no information other than authorship and title

Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica - explanation of the existence of poisonous snakes because of Medusa's blood 

Apollophanes, Danae - something with Danae

Aratus, Phenomena - constellation

C |

Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks - Acrisius’ tomb

Conon, Narrations (Preserved by Photius) - rationalization of Andromeda myth

D |

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History - rationalization of Medusa myth 

Diphilus, Chrysochoos - theorized to be about Danae's confinement

E |

Eubulus, Danae - Danae confinement 

Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis - mention because of Mycenae foundation

Euripides, Andromeda - the myth of the rescue of Andromeda

Euripides, Alcestis - mention of genealogy

Euripides, Electra - description of Perseus’ mission in a shield 

Euripides, Heracles - mention because of genealogy

Euripides, Danae - the myth of prophecy and pregnancy 

H |

Herodotus, Histories - about Perses

Hesiod, Theogony - Medusa’s background and mention of Perseus at the moment he cuts off her head 

Hesiod, Catalogues of Women - Danae’s genealogy

Hesiod, Shield of Heracles - description of Perseus’ mission in a shield 

Homer, The Iliad - mention of Danae because of Zeus’ affairs 

Hyginus, Astronomica - constellation 

Hyginus, Fabulae - versions of the myth 

I |

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem - scholia of Lycophron’s Alexandra, extra details

L |

Lycophron of Chalcis, Alexandra - mention of de myth of Medusa and the myth of the rescue of Andromeda 

Lycophron of Chalcis, Andromeda - possibly Andromeda rescue 

N |

Nonnus of Panopolis, Dionysiaca - Perseus x Dionysus alternative myth

P |

Pausanias, Description of Greece - rescue of Andromeda, Andromeda and Perseus’ children, foundation of Mycenae, accidental death of Acrisius, Perseus x Dionysus

Philostratus, Imagines - Andromeda myth

Phromos, Cepheus - ?

Phromos, Perseus -  ?

Phrynichos, Andromeda - Andromeda myth parody

Pindar, Pythian Ode 10 and 12  - Medusa myth

Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library - versions of the entire myth 

Pseudo-Aristotle, On Marvellous Things Heard - frogs of Seriphus

Pseudo-Eratosthenes, Catasterismi - constellation

Q |

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica - Medusa myth

S |

Sannyrion, Danae - confinement myth, but as a comedy

Sophocles, Antigone - mention because of Danae confinement 

Sophocles, Acrisius - the myth of prophecy

Sophocles, Danae - Danae's adversities myth

Sophocles, Larissaei - probably the death of Acrisius in Larissa

Strabo, Geography - Medusa myth

T |

Theocritus, Idyll XXIV and Idyll XXV - Heracles ancestrality 

 Timocles of Athens, The Phorcides - perhaps Perseus and the Graiai

V |

Various authors or Souidas, Suda - alternative myth, lost works 

In addition, I used some secondary sources. Obviously, there are the explanatory notes of the translations, but I also used “Euripides Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary” by Ioanna Karamanou, “Dangerous Beauty: Medusa in Classical Art” by Kiki Karoglou and “Falling in Love With Euripides ("Andromeda")” by John Gibert. In a very very very briefer consultation, I also used” A Commentary on the Fragments of Fourth-century Traged” by Thomas Sims and “Aeschylus Dictyulci: A Typically Atypical Satyr Play?” by Patrick O’Sullivan. In case anyone here is also a Portuguese speaker and is interested in the translation of the fragments of Andromeda by Euripides, the name of the text is “OS FRAGMENTOS DE ANDRÔMEDA DE EURÍPIDES”, by Clara Lacerda Crepalti. The Brazilian text referring to Sophocles’ Andromeda is “O sacrifício humano em prol da comunidade: a Andrômeda de Sófocles e o Erecteu de Eurípides”, by Wilson Alves Ribeiro Jr. All translations used were linked and, when the link is not possible, I gave credit to the author/editor/author. I imagine, therefore, that it should be easy to locate the sources.

[babyrdie]

Masterpost

I'm going to separate my list of posts from my pinned post because I think they're more organized that way.

About my blog:

My drawings (I'm not the type to update drawings frequently)

Why reblogs are often disabled

Headcanonverse:

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

Headcanon about Automedon pt 1

Headcanon about Automedon pt 2

Headcanon about Automedon pt 3

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

Paris in Trojan family

Cassandra and Helenus relationship

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

Headcanon about Odysseus

Headcanon about Patroclus' personality

Headcanon about Penelope

Headcanon about Achilles

Patrochilles' relationship headcanon part 2

Pet buddies (Patroclus, Antilochus, Automedon)

Patrochilles' relationship headcanon pt 2

Ajax and Odysseus headcanon

Patroclus, Achilles and Antilochus headcanons

Achilles sexual/romantic intereses headcanons

Patroclus' afterlife

Deidamia headcanon

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

Pat during Skyros

Talking about ancient sources:

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

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

Thetis and Peleus

Peleus sources (like Patroclus')

Oenone's sources

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

Penelope's family (it's very confusing)

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

Patroclus and Achilles kinship

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

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

Patroclus' skills

Antilochus weird exposure in Fabulae

Some takes:

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

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

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

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

About Paris and vanity

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

Achilles and Zeus' blood (talking about the prophecy)

Jason and Medea in Argonautica

Patroclus and gentleness

Patroclus and Neoptolemus

Where is post X?

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

[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]