#Birdiethings

[babyrdie]

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

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

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

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

—🪷

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

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

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

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

3) At some point, the feeling was reciprocal;

4) The marriage wasn't disadvantageous to Andromeda.

Details:

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

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

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

ANDROMEDA: WILLING OR UNWILLING SACRIFICIAL MAIDEN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing some lines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANDROMEDA AND PERSEUS: A LOVE STORY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metamorphoses, Book 4. Translation by Brookes More.

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

Imagines, 1.29. Translation by Arthur Fairbanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudo-Apollodorus records:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fragments 129-130. Loeb edition.

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

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

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

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

THE SUBVERSION OF ANDROMEDA’S MYTH

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

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

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

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

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

9.479. Translation by W.R. Paton.

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

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

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

Translation by Brady Kiesling.

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

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

SECONDARY SOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

ODGEN, Daniel. Perseus. Routledge, 2008.

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

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

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

[babyrdie]

Dance in Theseus and Ariadne myth

I would like to comment on an underrated element in the myth of Theseus and Ariadne: dance. I imagine that people already associate dance with Ariadne, especially since in The Iliad, from Archaic Greece, we have the description of Daedalus building a dance floor for her:

[...] And on it the famed crook-legged god made a patterned place for dancing, like that which once in broad Knossos Daedalus created for Ariadne of the lovely hair. There the unwed youths and maidens worth many oxen as their bridal price were dancing, holding each other’s hands at the wrist; and the girls were wearing finest linen, and the youths wore fine-spun tunics, soft shining with oil. And the girls wore lovely crowns of flowers, and the youths were carrying golden daggers from their silver sword-belts. And now the youths with practiced feet would lightly run in rings, as when a crouching potter makes trial of the potter’s wheel fitted to his hand, to see if it speeds round; and then another time they would run across each other’s lines. And a great crowd stood around the stirring dance filled with delight; and among them two acrobats, leaders of the dance, went whirling through their midst [...]

The Iliad, 18.590-606. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

But an often overlooked part is that there is actually another significant dance in this myth! About this description of the shield of Achilles made by Hephaesthus because of Thetis’ request, the Homeric scholia (12th century CE) says:

He wrought a dancing floor on it, etc. (ἐν δὲ χορὸν ποίησε καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς) Hephaistos also carefully wrought on [the shield] a dance that has a similar arrangement of dancers as the one that was created by the inventor Daidalos for Ariadne in the city of Knossos on Crete. For the story is told that when Theseus traveled from Aphidnai to Athens, he arrived just as the tributes—the seven boys and seven girls—were being sent to Minos on Crete. The Athenians were performing this tribute as payment for the treacherous murder of Androgeos, Minos’ son, when he was taking part in the Panathenaia festival and kept winning. Anyways, they say that Theseus willingly enlisted with the those heading off, and when he got to Crete he caught the eye of Ariadne, Minos’ daughter. Because of this he was saved by the skill of Daidalos in the following way. Daidalos gave Ariadne a ball of thread and told her to give it to Theseus so that he could attach the end of the thread to the entranceway. That would allow him to unwind the ball as he entered the Labyrinth, and, once he overcame the beast, he would have a simple and easy way back out of the Labyrinth, which had a complex, interwoven set of passages out. When Theseus got out after overcoming the beast, he along with the other boys and girls weaved a choral dance for the gods in such a way that it reflected his intricate weaving in and out of the Labyrinth. It was Daidalos that came up with and created the practice of choral dance.

Scholia D, 18.590. Translation by Scott Smith et al.

Although this scholia is very late, it certainly drew from older sources. Hesychius (5th/6th century CE) knew about geranos dance and Theseus dancing in gratitude:

[...] The mention of the two "leaders" is amplified by Hesychius. A yeрavovλκós, he says (s. v.), is "the leader of the dance on Delos." The same lexicographer defines the geranos (s. v.) as "a dance," without further elaboration; and the Etymologicum Magnum (s. v.) glosses it merely as "a kind of dance."[...] [...] A somewhat corrupt gloss of Hesychius (s. v. *Aŋλkakòs ẞwμós) speaks of the "running around the altar on Delos in a circle, and being beaten," and says that Theseus began the rite, in gratitude for his escape from the Labyrinth. [...]

The Geranos Dance — A New Interpretation by Lilian Brady Lawler, pgs 113 and 115.

But there is more! Already in the Roman Era, Pollux (2nd century CE) said something similar:

Pollux (4.101) says that the geranos is danced κат�� πλños, one dancer beside another in line, with "leaders" holding the end posi- tions on either side — ἕκαστος ὑφ ̓ ἑκάστῳ κατὰ στοῖχον, τὰ ἄκρα ἑκατέρωθεν τῶν ἡγεμόνων ἐχόντων. He says also that the followers of Theseus were the first to perform the dance, that they danced around the Delian altar, and that they imitated in their dance their escape from the Labyrinth.

The Geranos Dance — A New Intepratation by Lilian Brady Lawler, pgs 112-113.

From a similar period of Pollux, Plutarch (1st/2nd century CE) provides us with information about Theseus and the saved Athenians dancing in celebration of their freedom and the fact that they were alive:

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

Life of Theseus, 21.1-2. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

Plutarch credits this to Dicaearchus (4th/3rd century BCE, if this is Dicaearchus of Messana), indicating the existence of this myth in the Hellenistic Era. And indeed, we have a surviving source that confirms this! Callimachus (3rd century BCE), an author from Hellenistic Era, had already presented it in the Delian Hymn:

[...] Then, too, is the holy image laden with garlands, the famous image of ancient Cypris whom of old Theseus with the youths established when he was sailing back from Crete. Having escaped the cruel bellowing and the wild son of Pasiphaë and the coiled habitation of the crooked labyrinth, about thine altar, O lady, they raised the music of the lute and danced the round dance, and Theseus led the choir. Hence the ever-living offerings of the Pilgrim Ship do the sons of Cecrops send to Phoebus, the gear of that vessel.

Hymn to Delios, 307-315. Translation by A.W. Mair.

We have also a visual representation on the famous François Vase, which is supposed to date from around the 6th century BCE. Although the context isn’t fully known (I’ll explore this later), a dance is depicted and the names next to the characters indicate the connection to the myth of the Minotaur. For example, one of the girls is named as “Ariadne”.

François vase: details of Theseus’s Cretan adventure. Photo courtesy Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana. Retired from Guy Herdeen, pg 493.

François vase (Firenze, Museo Archeologico Nazionale): Top Friezes (sides A & B). Drawing reproduced from A; Furtwängler, Griechische Vasenmalerei, München, 1900/1993, plate 13. Retired from Sara Olsen.

One interpretation is that the vase was intended to be the dance performed on Delos by Theseus and the Athenians, mentioned by Plutarch:

One prominent element in the representation of Paris appears as yet unmatched in the metaphor: just how appropriate is the image of Paris as a dancer trying to fight to the metaphor of the cranes attacking the Pygmies? In fact, γέρανος ‘crane’ is the name of the famous dance performed on Delos by Theseus, Ariadne, and the Athenian youths and maidens on their return from Crete. In nature, cranes actually do perform a remarkable group dance all year round, [56] and their symbolic attributes in the Greek bestiary are especially appropriate to the context of the Theseus myth, as Marcel Detienne has shown: the γέρανος dance, which is consistently described as imitating the entry into or the passage from the labyrinth, is, like Ariadne’s thread, an invention of Daidalos. [57] But in form and function both the thread and the dance recall Greek descriptions of the two-headed, twisting line of flight made by cranes migrating from the ends of the earth and back. [58] In epic, the dancing-place on Akhilleus’ shield (cited above, 86–87) is explicitly likened [59] to the one Daidalos contrived for Ariadne in Crete, and the scholia identify the dance being performed by the ἠΐθεοι καὶ παρθένοι ‘adolescents and maidens’ on it as one performed on Crete {91|92} imitating the twists and turns of the labyrinth. [60] In fact, the scholia may be correct: this may actually be the dance called γέρανος that was later performed on Delos (see the discussion below). [...]

The Simile of the Cranes and Pygmies: A Study of Homeric Metaphor by Leonard Muellner.

There is, however, the problem of Ariadne's presence, as literary sources indicate that she was left on Naxos/Dia, that is, she wasn’t present on Delos:

Confirmation that the scholiast was reporting a well-known version of the myth comes from the François vase (ca. 570). One scene on this vase shows Theseus with a lyre leading the fourteen youths in a dance formation, as they alternate by sexes and hold hands. Ariadne stands facing the chorus and holding out a ball of string to Theseus. The old theory that this scene represents the dance on Delos mentioned by Plutarch has been conclusively refuted by Johansen. He cites the presence of Ariadne, who in all accounts of the myth was abandoned or killed before Theseus reached Delos, as well as parallel representations on other vases, to show that the painter of the François vase was depicting the liberation dance of Theseus and his companions on Crete the very same scene that the scholiast reports Homer was describing on Achilles' shield.

Homer and Ariadne by Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, pg 35.

On the other hand, there are those who think that it is a dance performed in Crete (hence the presence of Ariadne) and that it could represent the post-defeated moment of the Minotaur, as described in the Byzantine scholia — I won't present the arguments here because I imagine you can already imagine what they are, that is, ancient literary sources like scholia. However, Guy Hedreen interprets the possibility that François Vase shows the dance at the beginning of the arrival in Crete as an establishment of the relationship between Ariadne and Theseus, and not a post-triumphal dance as is the case in the literary sources:

Although the François vase clearly depicts Theseus leading a dance upon his arrival on Crete, most commentators have argued, on the basis of literary accounts, that Kleitias intended to depict a later moment in the story. The dance upon arrival, however, has several discursive functions within the image: by characterizing Theseus as the choregos of a dance traditionally performed by marriageable young people, it presents him as a promising husband for Ariadne; and by evoking the triumphal ritual arrival of Dionysos, the image anticipates that Theseus will be victorious. In this image, mythical narrative, spectacle, and the socialization of adolescence are carefully woven together. [...] [...] On the level of the narrative logic that governs the tale of the Cretan adventure, it would be premature to celebrate a victory dance before the victory has occurred. On the discursive level, however, Greek pictorial art often takes advantage of the possibilities of analeptic or proleptic allusion. Narrative art relies on the viewer to relate the elements of an image to the appropriate actions, characters, or logic in the underlying story, reformulating the story when necessary to account for the pictorial features. Many scholars have rightly connected the triumphant gestures of the sailors on the François vase with Theseus’s impending triumph over the Minotaur. It does not follow from the gestures, however, that the triumph has already occurred. Of greater interest are the ways in which the particular characterization of the dance contributes to the narrative intelligibility of the image. First, by depicting Theseus, at the moment when he first meets Ariadne, as the leader of a mixed dance of adolescent boys and girls, Kleitias offers an explanation of Ariadne’s decision to help him. The explanation operates at the level of the narrative as well as that of the discourse: putting ourselves in Ariadne’s place, we can appreciate why she might have decided that Theseus was an attractive (if risky) candidate for marriage. Kleitias conveys this idea by characterizing the choral dance on the vase as the sort of dance performed at a particular point in Greek life, the moment when adolescents begin to identify themselves as potential spouses, and “focalizes” it through Ariadne by making her a spectator of Theseus’s performance. By depicting the dance in this way, Kleitias has effectively imported into his visual narrative connotations of fitness for marriage. [...] [...] Kleitias represented the arrival of Theseus on Crete as a triumphal, mixed-gender dance for the sake of the connotations that those forms of dance contribute to the narrative potential or intelligibility of the image. Although it is possible that Kleitias was the first person to introduce choral dance into this heroic legend, there are good reasons to think that he has taken an existing element of the underlying story, the creation of the geranos by Theseus, and reconfigured it in the manner described here. In either case, the resulting image sets up a relationship between Theseus’s Cretan adventure as a myth and one particular form of ritual associated with marriage as a rite of passage. [...]

Bild, Mythos and Ritual: Choral Dance in Theseus' Cretan Adventure on the François Vase by Guy Herdeen, pgs 491 and 506-507.

More about the courtship possibility:

Of course, already about 570 BCE, with the explosion of mythical themes in Attic vase-paintings Theseus becomes a prominent figure in them. In the François vase he appears twice. In his Cretan exploit (fig. 5.5) the ship that brought the fourteen Athenian boys and girls who were to be Minotaur’s victims is landing; the gestures of the ship’s crew look like lamentation, while Theseus, richly gowned, is playing the lyre and leading the dancing young Athenians as he approaches Ariadne. She stretches out her hand holding a wreath and the ball of wool with the thread that will show him the way into the labyrinth, while her nurse, apparently uneasy about the happenings, gesticulates vividly. Theseus is wooing Ariadne (the wreath she holds might be his love gift) and she is responding; so it seems he will get her help and save the young Athenians from the Minotaur: an appropriate deed for the polis-hero. That there is no consistent rendering of time and place is not unusual:  the vase-painters choose instead to represent what they deem characteristic for the story

Innovations and Inventions in Athens c. 530 to 470 BCE – Two Crucial Generations by Marion Meyer, pg 105.

About the context, Sarah Olsen draws similarities between Apollo and Theseus to reinforce his role as the leader of the chorus of dancers, as the choregos, and also presents the interpretation that François Vase demonstrated the moment of the creation of the dance:

I have argued that reading the sailors in relation to the central dancing figures illuminates how this image conceptualizes choral performance as an activity distinct from the motion and physical activity of ordinary life. I turn now to the right side of the image, to consider how Theseus relates to the dance. Theseus stands with his back to the fourteen dancers, his body turned towards Ariadne. His stance recalls that of the other dancers – left foot forward, body twisted. Yet he is also clearly distinguished by his long garment and lyre. I argue that this instrument is a particularly important symbol of Theseus’ role in the dance, marking his role as both choregos, the internal leader of the dance, and choreographer, the external creative author of the choral production. As choregos, Theseus is both a participant in and leader of the chorus. On the François vase, his position at the head of the line of dancers marks him as a leader, while his stance and physical orientation, like that of the other fourteen youths, marks him as a dancer. In his later account of Theseus as a choral leader, Plutarch describes Theseus as both dancing and leading when he says: ἐχόρευσε μετὰ τῶν ἠϊθέων χορείαν ([Theseus] “danced a dance with the youths,” Thes. XXI) – Theseus is explicitly dancing himself, yet he is accompanied, implicitly followed, by the other youths.

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, a roughly contemporary literary source, helps to further illuminate Theseus’position here. In the final episode of the hymn, Apollo leads a group of Cretan sailors in a choral procession to Delphi, intending to install them as priests of his newly-founded shrine (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 453-547). The poet describes Apollo thus: ἦρχε δ᾽ ἄρα σφιν ἄναξ Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, φόρμιγγ᾽ ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔχων ἐρατὸν κιθαρίζων καλὰ καὶ ὕψι βιβάς∙ […] “And lord Apollo, son of Zeus, led them, holding a lovely lyre in his hands , playing well and stepping high (515-517).” Like Theseus on the François vase, Apollo is marked by a combination of lyre-playing and performance leadership. His high steps (ὕψι βιβάς) do not suggest ordinary movement – he is certainly dancing in some loose sense of the word. Yet he also holds an instrument in his hands, thus providing both the choreography and the musical accompaniment required for the procession. For the Athenian youths depicted on this frieze, Theseus plays a similar role. The orientation of the dancers’ bodies implies that they are following his physical lead, while his lyre presumably offers the aural component of their performance.

Yet Apollo, in his hymn, is more than just an internal choregos. He is also a choreographer – a producer of choral performance who brings his own vision to life through the bodies of the dancers. He leads the Cretans to Delphi for a very specific purpose, and uses his choral leadership to orient them towards the shrine and generate a model for future ritual procession. A choreographer, in this sense, is one who orchestrates the process of ritualization through choral performance. Theseus’ leadership and lyre indicate that he, too, may be more than an internal choregos of some previously established choreography. His leadership extends to the creation of the dance itself, the invention and instantiation of a new ritualized performance. As I argued in the first section of this essay, the contrast between the sailors and the dancers is consistent with the process of ritualization, the formalization and unification of bodily motion that allows dance to create group cohesion without overriding all individual distinctions. The iconography of Theseus on this frieze further suggests that this ritualization process begins with the choreographer: the figure holding the lyre and setting the steps of the dance. Thus, if we read this frieze from right to left, Theseus strums the lyre and initiates the dance, while the dancers embody a sense of communal activity and identity without the loss of personalizing details. Phaidimos, as the final dancer, is only just becoming a choral participant: his body not yet like the others, but nearly there. The sailors, on the far left, remain as spectators, still engaged in the disordered, non-ritualized motions of ordinary life. The uppermost frieze of the reverse side of the François vase thereby depicts a moment of choreographic creation: the initiation of a ritualized performance.

Conceptualizing Choreia on the François vase: Theseus and the Athenian Youths by Sarah Olsen, paragraphs 22-29.

It has been suggested that although the geranos dance probably existed for a considerable time, it wasn’t always associated with Theseus and that this association possibly had an Athenian origin, since Theseus was the national hero. Ben S Cassel addresses this in “The Thesean Ritual Landscape: Appropriation, Identify and Athenian Collective Memories” and I recommend reading at least those pages 243-245 if you are interested in this political context. She also argues for the symbolism of cultural maintenance in memory and other religious aspects.

Another factor is that, because The Iliad depicts a dance between young people of different genders and uses Ariadne as a comparison, it has been theorized that perhaps it was the poet's intention to allude to this myth. Although we cannot be certain, if this were indeed the case, it would place it as an element already present in the archaic period. Lawler (pgs 113-114), however, thinks that the dance described by Homer doesn't match the descriptions of dancing performed by Athenians in later sources. From a similar period (7th century BCE) there is the vase attributed to Analatos Painter, which depicts people of different genders dancing. There have been attempts to connect this with the possible Theseus myth, but the lack of names and the fact that the leader uses a flute and not a lyre (as is more typical of Theseus), has led to disagreement. It has been argued that the lyre might be a later development and therefore would not prevent Theseus from using a flute, but at present this vase is quite uncertain (Gutzwiller, pgs 35-36).

Furthermore, regarding the lyre in Theseus' hands, the idea of ​​a lyrist Theseus is present in ancient literature. To cite, Pausanias (2nd century CE) and Pseudo-Hyginus (1st century):

[...] There is Theseus holding a lyre, and by his side is Ariadne gripping a crown. [...]

Description of Greece, 5.19.1. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[...] In this connection, too, some have said that the Lyre, placed nearest this sign, is the lyre of Theseus, for he was skilful in all the arts and seems to have learned the lyre as well. This, too, Anacreon says: Near Theseus, son of Aegeus, is the Lyre.

Astronomica, 2.6.3. Translation by Mary Grant.

About Pausanias, Lawler comments “the general context here is of a dance, but there is no detail” (pg 113). In this sense, Pausanias was possibly making some sort of reference to a myth involving dance, one that included Ariadne. In addition to the François Vase, there are other visual representations in a cup by Oltos/Euphronios/Kachrylion (there are differents attributions) that include a boy, a girl and a lyre, similar to how Pausanias saw them depicted (Pausanias was describing a visual representation on the chest of Kypselos). Because of the resemblance, it has been suggested that they could be Theseus and Ariadne:

However, the London Oltos cup is considered here not solely for the abduction scene on the obverse, but for its other scenes as well. The tondo (pl. 41, fig. 3), as stated above, shows two confronted figures — a long- haired, beardless male playing a lyre at the left, and a young female holding a flower at the right. He is wreathed and wearing a himation. She wears a chiton and mantle, fillet, earrings, bracelet and sandals, and as she draws up her skirt, looks strikingly like an archaic kore. The inscription, emanating from the mouth of the youth, is no aid to their identification, for it reads simply "Chaire su." Beazley has suggested that the figures are Theseus and one of the maidens rescued from Crete, and cites the François vase as a comparison. If this analogy is apt, then surely we are dealing with Theseus and Ariadne, as suggested originally by Murray. The two are occasionally paired in earlier Greek art, and Theseus' traditional attribute in such depictions is the lyre. A mythological interpretation of this scene has been opposed by Greifenhagen who cites the facts that the figures are not labeled as on the obverse, and that on the Oxford cup (pl. 40, fig. 2) mentioned above (where, we might add, the mythological figures are also not labeled), the tondo filler is a mere hetaira. He, therefore, doubts that the pair by Oltos are anything other than singer and girlfriend. However, here there are no accoutrements denoting the banquet, as one finds on the Oxford kylix (ladle and cup) and elsewhere in such scenes. Also, the fancy apparel of the girl and her flower suggest more than genre. [...]

The Loves of Theseus: An Early Cup by Oltos by Jenifer Neils, pg 178.

Theseus and Ariadne. Attic red-figure cup, ca. 510 b.c., attributed to Euphronios. London, British Museum E 41 (GR 1837.6-9.58). Photo © Trustees of the British Museum. Retired from Guy Hedreen, pg 498.

It has been theorized that before the depiction of a man with a lyre and a woman became popular in Greek iconography in general without necessarily having any connection to myth, perhaps it was initially intended to represent Theseus and Ariadne (Hedreen, pg 409). In any case, this cup is from a period when the Athenians seemed interested in using the entire length of the object to tell a relatively linear story rather than myths of different characters. Considering this, there is also the factor that the other parts of the cup seem to indicate other Theseus myths involving women, hence the possible identification of Theseus and Ariadne.

Geranos dance is also commonly called the "crane dance" (although some have questioned whether the translation is actually "crane", see Lawler pg 117), and the dance is mentioned by Lucian of Samosata (2nd century CE) in his text "Dance". Although the mention is brief and Lucian doesn't give many details, he later cites inspirations for the dancers, one of which is "the wanderings of the island Delos" (trans. Fowler), a location heavily referenced in the sources.

In any case, the dance in the myth of Theseus and Ariadne was seen with many possibilities: myth of the origin of the dance of geranos, Athenian political action in relation to Delos, courtship between Theseus and Ariadne, union of group identity in relation to the saved Athenians, Athenian popular memory, etc.

[babyrdie]

There is a masterpost of Patroclus-related posts?

Patroclus gentleness (more The Iliad focused)

Patroclus' appearance (both literary and visual sources)

Explicit Patrochilles in ancient literary sources (both Greek and Roman)

Patroclus' skills (war-related, healing, cooking, affinity with animals)

Patroclus in Pelion (only in Roman version, as far I know)

About Iphis (a woman enslaved by Achilles and given to Patroclus)

The Antilochus tag also provides more about Patroclus in relation to Antilochus.

The post about Achilles Pontarches mentions a bit about the perception surrounding Patroclus in the afterlife with Achilles, but it is not focused on him.

I comment a little on my perception of Patroclus' relationship with the captive women here.

I currently have a draft of a big post involving Menoetius, Peleus and Achilles…but it's not posted yet. There are more posts than this, of course, but I think these are the main ones. The rest are in the Patroclus tag.

[babyrdie]

"I know a considerable amount of sources where they are explicitly lovers"

Share with the class? Before the post about Pseudo-Apollodorus I only knew Plato and Aeschylus

Edit (28/05/2025): I recommend checking the comments for a source by the Roman Aelian (2nd/3rd century CE) in Varia Historia 12.7. I hadn't included it here, but littlepeackooc reminded me of it. In this source, the eromenos is Patroclus and the erastes is Achilles.

This is a post grouping literary sources in which the author explicitly indicates that he sees Patroclus and Achilles in a romantic and/or sexual relationship. Here are some warnings:

Again, remember I said “explicit.” That is, if you’re thinking, “Where’s The Iliad? I think they’re pretty gay there,” “I heard Pindar might have made a comparison that implies…”, “Seneca’s mention of age debates probably refers to pederasty…”, etc., I’m not considering implicit/interpretive texts on this subject, regardless of whether I agree with the interpretation that seems to imply a romantic relationship or not.

These texts often inspired on each other (for example, many use Homer and Aeschylus as a reference), so I’ve tried to put them in a reasonable (but not exactly) enough chronological order that it won’t get confusing when one author draws on the previous one. So we have things like Aeschines using Homer (the other authors certainly also use Homer to some degree, perhaps Plato and Pseudo-Lucian being the most obvious in this sense besides Aeschines, who literally quotes excerpts), Plato using Aeschylus (Plutarch and Athanaeus also use Aeschylus), Theocritus apparently using Plato (apparently using Xenophon as well, but Xenophon disagrees that they’re a couple), etc.

Contrary to popular opinion, many of these authors weren’t just discussing couples they liked in mythology or not and there was actually a larger context, so I’ll try to provide the context of the text when possible. But I still recommend doing your own research because, after all, it is always possible to find different information/different points of view.

I do NOT know Greek. I will use parts of Greek, but this is me giving the meaning I have seen in articles, theses, books and dictionaries. But I do NOT know Greek myself, so keep that in mind as you read.

I’m considering non-Greek texts as well.

Some context about the debates…

Many of the sources has authors trying to see the dynamics of pederastic roles through the lens of pederastic roles. By “pederastic” these authors are trying to integrate them into the social roles of the context of the time. There is a popular idea that erastes is the ancient equivalent of top and eromenos is the equivalent of bottom, but these roles weren’t simply dominations of sexual preferences but rather had social expectations that didn’t necessarily have to do with the sexual aspect. By this, I’m in no way trying to argue that the sexual aspect was completely absent in these relationships between adult men and boys, but I’m trying to emphasize how this model of relationship is mainly institutional and, not only that, but a considerably elite institution. Adult men in consensual and egalitarian relationships were still subject to immense social judgment, as such relationships didn’t conform to the expectations of the social institutions of the time. Likewise, pederastic customs mainly concerned upper-class men and young men.

The erastes was expected to be older and guide the eromenos, and the eromenos was expected to be younger and especially beautiful, which is why some authors here argue that Patroclus is certainly the erastes and Achilles is the eromenos. On the other hand, the one to be protected was expected to be the eromenos, but in the myth Achilles plays the role of avenger/protector, which is why he is represented as the erastes depending on the text. Furthermore, the erastes tended to be socially higher than the eromenos precisely because the eromenos was starting out in society (the erastes, by guiding him, was supposed to help him in this process), but between the two Achilles is the one with the more established and recognized social position, another reason why he is sometimes seen as the erastes. The erastes was expected to advise, something that Patroclus does, but he was also expected to have more authority, something that Achilles has. Furthermore, the pederastic relationship was expected to be temporary (after all, if the intention was to guide the eromenos until he was fit for adult life, the moment he was considered fit there would be no reason to continue with it), but if we consider Patroclus and Achilles as lovers in the tenth year of the Trojan War, this was clearly not the case. Even though they were both well-established and grown up (even old enough to legitimately marry a woman, as was socially expected), they would still be in a relationship.

The mere fact that the ancients had to argue about who was who already indicates how Patroclus and Achilles don’t fit perfectly into the pederastic model, not only because of the lack of a significant age difference but also because of the fluid and relatively egalitarian dynamic that is not typical of pederasty, but the classical Athenian authors were interpreting them based on the culture of the period (in particular, heavily influenced by the views of classical Athens) hence these labels. To these authors, they were in the idealized pederastic relationship, but because the characterizations of these mythological figures don’t fit perfectly into this model the authors tended to disagree with each other regarding who should be the eromenos and who should be the erastes.

Though ancient scholars were willing to openly claim that Achilles and Patroclus shared an intimate relationship, it is not entirely accurate to place them within the confines of ritual pederasty. Firstly, Achilles and Patroclus were close in age, which went against the basis of pederasty, as it was meant to be shared between an older man and a younger boy. Also, as was just previously mentioned, Patroclus is technically of lower status than Achilles, which would make his being the erastes unlikely. Most importantly, however, is that pederasty was not practiced during the time period of the Iliad; the epic was set within the Greek Bronze Age (1750 to 1050 BC), and pederasty was not practiced until the end of the Archaic Period (around the fifth century BC) (Chadwick 37; Mariscal and Morales 292). It should also be added that pederasty was not a permanent situation, and most relationships ended once the younger of the two was of marrying age. Achilles and Patroclus were well past marrying age, yet neither of them had taken wives, despite Achilles being the only son and heir of Phthia, and no doubt having plenty of options to choose from for his bride.

He Whom I Loved as Dearly as My Own Life: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Achilles and Patroclus by Hayley Rhodes Wittenberg, pg 51-52.

According to the normative model of Classical Greek sexuality, adult citizen men desired and sexually penetrated their social inferiors: boys, women, and slaves (Dover 1978). A reciprocal erotic relationship in which one party did not seek to dominate the other was, according to these norms, unthinkable (Konstan 1997). An adult male who desired other adult males risked being branded a kinaidos, a figure of mockery whose love of being sexually penetrated rendered him an effeminate failed man (Winkler 1990; Richlin 1993). Achilles’ and Patroclus’ relationship in the Iliad thus posed a problem for Classical Greeks, since, although the emotional intensity of their bond was often read as erotic (cf. scholia A ad Il. 16.97-100), it did not fit the socially acceptable erastes/eromenos model of male same-sex desire. Patroclus is older than Achilles (Il. 11.785-89), but Achilles has a higher social position, and both are adults. Further, the two heroes seem to alternate taking on the “feminine” role in the relationship (Lesser 2022), suggesting a transgressive blurring of active and passive roles that threatens to undermine the dominance/submission paradigm upon which Classical masculinity is based. A number of Athenian sources portray Achilles and Patroclus as lovers but recast one of them as an adolescent eromenos in order to fit them into appropriate pederastic roles (Aeschylus, Myrm. fr. 135; Plato, Symp. 179e–180a; Aeschines, In Tim. 141–150). Some scholars have characterized this trend as a “misreading” of Homer by later Greeks who attempt to impose their own sexual categories anachronistically onto epic (Halperin 1990; Percy 1996; Hubbard 2013). However, given that the manipulation of Homeric exempla for rhetorical purposes is ubiquitous in Greek literature (Ford 1999), it is profitable to consider how these “misreadings” are employed as deliberate and artful commentary upon the nature of sexual and romantic relationships between males, whether pederastic or otherwise.

Queer Paradigms of Achilles and Patroclus by Celsiana Warwick.

In fact, it has even been argued that, since romantic relationships tended to have asymmetry while companionate relationships (without erotic factor) tended to be more symmetrical, Patroclus and Achilles, being too symmetrical to fit the pattern of a homoerotic/homossexual relationship (pederasty), couldn’t have been lovers in The Iliad specifically:

[...] In fact, the roles of friends in a bond of friendship are usually mutual and equal (Aristotle for instance adopted the maxim: φιλότης ἰσότης ‘amity is equality’ in Eth. Nic. 1157b 36, Eth. Eud. 1241b 13), whereas at least from the sixth/fifth century onwards, pederastic love involved a precise etiquette with asymmetrical roles for the lover (erastes) and the beloved (eromenos), according to which the two partners were believed to have different views of their liaison, in line with their different respective functions. The erastes was assumed to be older, to have a dominant and sexually active role, and to appreciate the beauty of the eromenos; the eromenos was younger and still displaying the tenderness and the hairlessness of a female body, sexually passive and thus equivalent to a woman, and he was supposed to appreciate the greater wisdom, not the comeliness, of the erastes. What to do, then, with Achilles and Patroclus, as the former was younger and the most handsome of the Greeks, while Homer never mentions any special handsomeness in Patroclus, yet in most situations it was Achilles who had the last word and was the principal? [...]

Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies by Marco Fantuzzi, pgs 226-227.

Generally, in the surviving sources, the role of erastes or at least the active role is attributed to Achilles (Aeschylus, Aeschines, Straton, Maximus, Pseudo-Apollodorus, Martial, scholia of The Iliad, etc), probably because he is the one with the greater authority in the relationship. Occasionally, Achilles is considered the eromenos because of his youth and beauty and Patroclus is the erastes (Plato, scholia of The Iliad). So even though there were debates around the roles, apparently the dynamic with erastes Achilles and eromenos Patroclus was more popular.

Aeschylus | 5th century BCE, Classic Era | the oldest of the three Greek classic tragedians 

This is a fragment of the tragic play "Myrmidons", which dealt with Achilles' mourning for Patroclus. It belonged to a trilogy focused on Achilles. In this frag, we have one of Achilles' lamentations.

And you did not respect the sacred honour of the thigh-bond, ungrateful that you were for those countless kisses! And I honoured the intimacy of your thighs by bewailing you.

Myrmidons, frag 64. Translation by Alan H. Sommerstein.

Other translation:

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

Myrmidons, frag 64. Translation by Herbert Weir Smith.

Because of the way the other authors (Plato, Plutarch, Athanaeus) have repeatedly emphasized that these lines are from Aeschylus' play and that they’re Achilles' speech to Patrolus, it is possible to be certain about the orator. Furthermore, Plato in Symposium, through Phaedrus, stated that Aeschylus represented Achilles as the erastes and Patroclus as the eromenos. Since we don’t have the complete play, it’s difficult to know whether this is so explicit in the original play or whether it was Plato's interpretation, but some have theorized that Achilles' mention of Patroclus' thighs indicates that Achilles, in Aeschylus’ vision, was the one who had the sexually active role in intercrural sex and was therefore the erastes. However, there is still debate about the mention of the thighs (the debate isn’t whether the line existed, but whether it is reliable to assume that it refers to intercrural sex).

Another similar quote was attributed to Aeschylus, Achilles again being the one speaking:

And the chaste nearness of thy limbs.

Myrmidons, frag 65. Translation by Herbert Weir Smith.

There is also another fragment that says “And yet – for that I love him – they are not repulsive to my sight” (frag. 66, trans. H.W. Smith), generally assumed to be Achilles referring to something related to Patroclus. It isn’t possible to be certain what exactly is supposed to be repulsive but ceases to be so because of love. It has been suggested that perhaps Achilles is referring to the sight of the dead Patroclus, which wasn’t repulsive enough to stop him from mourning over him and kissing him or something similar.

Aeschylus being the earliest available source for an explicit romantic relationship between the characters has raised questions about how much of it was his invention and how much was not (there may have been oral versions with this approach or there may have been written/visual versions that have been lost) and also the purpose. Regardless of whether Aeschylus drew from another source or not, it has been questioned why he chose an approach in which he made the homoerotic aspect between the characters explicit. Was he trying to convey a message? Michelakis suggests that Achilles and Patroclus' relationship serves as a way to accentuate the individual vs. community debate surrounding Achilles' return to battle:

[...] As well as being an institution for the self-definition of an aristocrat, homossexuality also features in the play as a catalyst for the social clash between one and many, and as a means of achieving social solidarity and empathetic understanding. [...] [...] By the end of the trilogy, or indeed by the end of the Myrmidons, the failure of the army and of democratic institutions to intervene successfully between individuals gives place to aristocratic practices which result in social cohesion through social differentiation and ultimately aristocratic self-destruction. Homosexuality,  lamentation and ritualised friendship provide Achilles with a symbolic affirmation of his power and of his right to maintain his individuality. Yet Achilles asserts his individuality in the prospect of his imminent death. By the end of the trilogy Achilles' individuality is salutary to the collective (the Achaeans and by extension Aeschylus' audience) because it helps in saving the community while also leading to the individual's death.

Achilles in Greek Tragedy by Pantelis Michelakis, pg 52-53 and 56-57.

Myrmidons is part of an Achilles-focused trilogy, more specifically the first play. This means that Patroclus is dead at the beginning of the trilogy, so the dynamic of the relationship isn't really happening "in person." It still exists because of Achilles' affection, but Patroclus has no way of actively contributing to it since he is dead (we have no evidence that there is a ghost Patroclus or anything like that involved, though certainly ghost characters wouldn’t be impossible since Aeschylus has the ghost Clytemnestra and Euripides has the ghost Polydorus). As such, the relationship seems to serve primarily to build Achilles' character.

Plato | 5th century BCE, Classic Era | one of the most important Greek philosophers 

PHAEDRUS: [...] In contrast, they honored Achilles, son of Thetis, and sent him to the Isles of the Blest, because when he learned from his mother that he would die if he killed Hector but that if he did not he would go home and live out a long life, he dared choose to help his lover Patroclus and avenge him, not only dying in behalf of but also in addition to the slain. This is why the gods in high admiration surpassingly honored him, because he counted his lover so important. Aeschylus talks nonsense in claiming that Achilles was the lover of Patroclus, when he was not only more beautiful than Patroclus but doubtless than all the other heroes too, and still beardless, since he was very much younger, as Homer tells. For though the gods really do honor this virtue of Eros in highest degree, they marvel and admire and reward it still more when the beloved cherishes the lover than when the lover cherishes the belove. For lover is more divine than beloved: the god is in him and he is inspired. That is also why they honored Achilles more than Alcestis, and sent him to the Isles of the Blest.

Symposium, 179d-180b. Translation by R.E. Allen.

In Plato’s Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes Agathon, Socrates and Alcibiades are written as if they’re all attending a symposium (Alcibiades makes a late and drunken entrance, he wasn’t there from the beginning) and are each giving their own discourse on the subject of Eros/Love. What interests us here is Phaedrus’s part. 

Phaedrus’s argument is based on the version of the myth in which Eros is one of the elder gods — the character Phaedrus indicates that he uses Hesiod, Acusilaus and Parmenides as authorities on this version —, and that this makes him very important. Because Eros is an ancient and powerful deity, Phaedrus argues that performing great acts of love will earn one honored even by the gods and rewards for it. To prove his point, he offers mythological examples: in order to illustrate that a woman is capable of great acts of love just as a man is, he uses Alcestis, who was willing to sacrifice herself for her husband Admetus and who as a reward was allowed by the gods to return from the Underworld, something unusual; he uses Orpheus as an opposite example to Alcestis, arguing that the gods didn’t offer him the desired reward — his wife Eurydice — because, unlike Alcestis, Orpheus didn’t dare to die for love but tried to get her back while staying alive; finally, he uses Achilles as an example of a lover willing to die by arguing that he knew the consequences of killing Hector because of the warnings of his mother Thetis, and yet decided that avenging his lover Patroclus was more worthwhile than being alive, and for this gesture he received a blessed place among the dead.

When Phaedrus mentions Aeschylus, he is referring to the play Myrmidons previously shown. He doesn’t disagree with Aeschylus' perception of the two in a romantic relationship, but with the roles assigned. Phaedrus speaks based on the perception of classical Athens that a homoerotic relationship should follow pederastic standards, including with regard to who is the erastes and who is the eromenos. He criticizes Aeschylus by commenting that there is no way for Achilles to be the erastes, since, as he is the most beautiful and youngest, he is the eromenos. In English, erastes tends to be translated as lover and eromenos as beloved since it designates who is the more active partner (the one who is actively desiring, therefore the lover) and who is the more passive partner (the one who is being desired, therefore the beloved). The reason this disagreement regarding Aeschylus is included in the speech is that Phaedrus here wishes to emphasize that Achilles' action is all the more valuable because he is the eromenos:

It is worth remarking on the connection between Eros and beauty in Phaedrus's speech. Love induces one to live καλός, beautifully, which here primarily means bravely and nobly. A lover wants to appear καλός to his beloved, and is loath to do anything αἰσχρός, shameful or ugly or cowardly. The power of love goes beyond this life to the next, as the examples of Alcestis and Achilles show, and Phaedrus implies that it is the lover, not the beloved, who is καλός: "For lover is more divine than beloved: the god is in him and he is inspired" (180b). The use of καλός to describe the lover rather than the beloved is also evidenced by vase paintings that label ithyphallic satyrs καλός. This cannot be merely linguistic, for the use Phaedrus rejects is embedded in his language.

The Dialogues of Plato: Volume 2 by R.E. Allen, pgs 13-14.

In this text, the focus of the dynamic is the romantic feeling, which motivates self-sacrifice. The context is philosophical, regarding the concepts and expectations surrounding Love/Eros. Even the debate around being eromenos or erastes is less about sexual positions and more about social expectations and how Achilles' sacrifice is viewed differently depending on what role you give him.

Aeschines | 5th century BCE, Classic Era | one of the greatest Greek orators and a statesman

[...] Indeed, they say he will not even spare the poems of Homer or the names of the heroes, but will celebrate the friendship between Patroclus and Achilles, which, we are told, had its source in passion. And he will pronounce an encomium on beauty now, as though it were not recognised long since as a blessing, if haply it be united with morality. For he says that if certain men by slandering this beauty of body shall cause beauty to be a misfortune to those who possess it, then in your public verdict you will contradict your personal prayers. [...] [...] But since you make mention of Achilles and Patroclus, and of Homer and the other poets—as though the jury were men innocent of education, while you are people of a superior sort, who feel yourselves quite beyond common folks in learning—that you may know that we too have before now heard and learned a little something, we shall say a word about this also. For since they undertake to cite wise men, and to take refuge in sentiments expressed in poetic measures, look, fellow citizens, into the works of those who are confessedly good and helpful poets, and see how far apart they considered chaste men, who love their like, and men who are wanton and overcome by forbidden lusts. I will speak first of Homer, whom we rank among the oldest and wisest of the poets. Although he speaks in many places of Patroclus and Achilles, he hides their love and avoids giving a name to their friendship, thinking that the exceeding greatness of their affection is manifest to such of his hearers as are educated men. For Achilles says somewhere in the course of his lament for the death of Patroclus, as recalling one of the greatest of sorrows, that unwillingly he has broken the promise he had given to Menoetius, the father of Patroclus; for he had promised to bring his son back safe to Opus, if he would send him along with him to Troy, and entrust him to his care. It is evident from this that it was because of love that he undertook to take care of him.

But the verses, which I am about to recite, are these: “Ah me, I rashly spoke vain words that day When in his halls I cheered Menoetius. I told the hero I would surely bring His famous son to Opus back again, When he had ravaged Ilium, and won His share of spoil. But Zeus does not fulfil To men their every hope. For fate decrees That both of us make red one spot of earth.” Hom. Il. 324-329 And indeed not only here do we see his deep distress, but he mourned so sorely for him, that although his mother Thetis cautioned him and told him that if he would refrain from following up his enemies and leave the death of Patroclus unavenged, he should return to his home and die an old man in his own land, whereas if he should take vengeance, he should soon end his life, he chose fidelity to the dead rather than safety. And with such nobility of soul did he hasten to take vengeance on the man who slew his friend, that when all tried to comfort him and urged him to bathe and take food, he swore that he would do none of these things until he had brought the head of Hector to the grave of Patroclus. And when he was sleeping by the funeral pyre, as the poet says, the ghost of Patroclus stood before him, and stirred such memories and laid upon Achilles such injunctions, that one may well weep, and envy the virtue and the friendship of these men. He prophesies that Achilles too is not far from the end of life, and enjoins upon him, if it he in any wise possible, to make provision that even as they had grown up and lived together, even so when they are dead their bones may be in the same coffer. Weeping, and recalling the pursuits which they had followed together in life, he says, Never again shall we sit together alone as in the old days, apart from our other friends, and take high counsel, feeling, I believe, that this fidelity and affection were what they would long for most. But that you may hear the sentiments of the poet in verse also, the clerk shall read to you the verses on this theme which Homer composed.

Read first the verses about the vengeance on Hector. But since, dear comrade, after thee I go Beneath the earth, I will not bury thee Till here I bring thee Hector’ s head and arms, The spoils of that proud prince who took thy life. Hom. Il. 18.333-35 Now read what Patroclus says in the dream about their common burial and about the intercourse that they once had with one another. For we no longer as in life shall sit Apart in sweet communion. Nay, the doom Appointed me at birth has yawned for me. And fate has destined thee, Achilles, peer Of gods, to die beneath the wall of Troy’ s Proud lords, fighting for fair-haired Helen’ s sake. More will I say to thee, pray heed it well: Let not my bones be laid apart from thine, Achilles, but that thou and I may be In common earth, I beg that I may share That golden coffer which thy mother brought To be thine own, even as we in youth Grew up together in thy home. My sire Menoetius brought me, a little lad, from home, From Opus, to your house, for sad bloodshed, That day, when, all unwitting, in childish wrath About the dice, I killed Amphidamas’ son. The knightly Peleus took me to his home And kindly reared me, naming me thy squire. So let one common coffer hide our bones. Hom. Il. 23.77

Now to show that it was possible for him to have been saved had he refrained from avenging the death of Patroclus, read what Thetis says. Ah me, my son, swift fate indeed will fall On thee, if thou dost speak such words. For know, Swift after Hector’ s death fate brings thine own. To her divine Achilles, swift of foot, In turn made answer. Straightway let me die, For when my friend was slain, my dearest friend, It was not granted me to succor him. Hom. Il. 18.95 Again, Euripides, a poet than whom none is wiser, considering chaste love to be one of the most beautiful things, says somewhere, making love a thing to be prayed for: There is a love that makes men virtuous And chaste, an envied gift. Such love I crave. Euripides

Against Timarchus, 133 and 141-151. Translation by Charles Darwin Adams.

There is a long story behind this text because there is a historical and judicial context, so I will summarize it immensely. Due to certain events, two men, Demosthenes and Timarchus, accused Aeschines, the author of this text, of high treason. In order to counter this accusation, Aeschines accused Timarchus of taking actions that were widely reprehensible by society as an argument for why he shouldn’t be considered fit to have public office. One of the accusations was related to Timarchus' alleged sexual habits when he was young, more specifically accusing him of having sexual relations with men in exchange for money, in other words, prostitution. The logic was that if he was willing to sell his body in a way they considered immoral, then nothing would stop him from also selling the interests of the state for immoral reasons. The legal case was a success for Aeschines' side.

Timarchus had been defended by Demosthenes. The defense had argued for the possibility of moral and even ideal relationships between two men by using Harmodious and Aristogeion, lovers who became heroic figures in Athens for opposing tyrants, as examples. Aeschines acknowledges that it’s possible to have an admirable relationship between two men, but claims that this wasn’t the case with Timarchus. He uses Patroclus and Achilles as an example of an acceptable homoerotic relationship by making a pederastic but chaste reading of them. Aeschines argues that Timarchus wasn’t trying to follow pederastic notions, wasn’t being chaste and didn’t have noble intentions in his alleged actions. Thus, he accuses Timarchus of being immoral while considering the mythological relationship used as an example to be moral. In this case, the relationship was used as an argument to undermine the opponent.

Similar to Plato's text, Aeschines' text interprets that in killing Hector, Achilles consciously chose death because that was the option that allowed him to avenge his dead lover. Also similar to Plato's text, the focus here is on the emotional aspect rather than the sexual. In the case of Phaedrus' argument in Plato, this was because the focus there was on how great actions motivated by feelings of love were rewarded by the gods, but in this case it’s because Aeschines wants to emphasize that Timarchus' sexual behaviors are considered sexually deviant, but those of Achilles and Patroclus aren’t because they supposedly fit within the requirements of a relationship between two men at the time. It has even been argued whether these similarities between Plato's text and Aeschines' text could indicate Aeschines demonstrating his knowledge of Plato, or whether this was simply a common enough theme in symposium debate to cause Aeschines and Plato, who were contemporaries, to share certain common arguments:

The main issue, though, for Aeschines, and for modern interpretations of the Iliad, and one unlikely to be ever resolved, is  whether the emotional relationship between Achilles and  Patroklos, which is certainly of a fierce and obsessive intensity  unparalleled elsewhere in the epics, is intended subtly to suggest a  homoerotic love, or whether (see e.g. Halperin 1990: 75–87) it is a  quite exceptional and passionate friendship. There was an intense  ancient debate on this, in fifth and fourth-century Athens, and  later (for how the debate affected Hellenistic editors of Homer as  seen in the Homeric scholia, see Clarke 1978: 384–6). In classical  Athens, only Xenophon’s Sokrates (Symp. 8. 31) claimed they were  no more than friends and companions, but Aeschylus (frr. 288,  289), like Aeschines, made Achilles the dominant figure, the ‘lover’, the nobler and the one responsible for his welfare, whereas  Phaidros in Plato’s Symposion (179e) claims that Achilles, the more  beautiful, and the younger, is clearly the ‘beloved’. Weil (1955)  sees this as a further case (see on 138) where Aeschines shows his knowledge of Plato’s text, but again it is as likely that he has participated in many oral debates on these topics. This debate  itself suggests that Homer was not describing a relationship  similar to what became the standard version of a noble, educative, love (and see also below on 144); but Aeschines’ general argument  that some form of erotic love is involved cannot be shown to be incorrect.

Aeschines’ Against Timarchus: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by Nick Fisher, pg 289.

Fisher (pg 290) also comments that, by taking Achilles' violent act and his union with Patroclus in death (by accepting to die for Patroclus, thus an indirect union in death) as a symbol of nobility, Aeschines brings the two closer to the considerably acceptable pederastic model of the time, Harmodious and Aristogeion, since both died for their participation in a violent act motivated by a cause considered noble. Again, reinforcing that Harmodious-Aristogeion and Achilles-Patroclus are examples of positive conduct, but Timarchus isn’t.

Theocritus | 3rd century BCE, Hellenistic Era | one of the main Greek bucolic poets

In sack, out sooth goes the saying, lad, and now that you and I are a-drinking we must fain be men of truth. I for one will tell what doth lie in my mind’s hold, and it is that you will not that I should love you with my whole heart. I know it; for such is the power of your beauty that there’s but half a living left me to love you withal, seeing my day is spent like as a god’s or in very darkness according as you do choose. What righteousness is here, to deliver one that loves you over unto woe? Trust me, if you ‘ld only hearken to your elder ‘twould be profit unto you and thanks unto me. Listen then: one tree should hold one nest, and that where no noisome beast may come at it; but you, you do possess one bough to-day and another to-morrow, seeking ever from this unto that; and if one but see and praise your fair face, straightway are you more than a three years’ friend to him, and as for him that first loved you, in three days, lad, you reckon him of those men whose very manhood you seem to disdain. Choose rather to be friends with the same body so long as you shall live; for if so you do, you will have both honour of the world and kindness of that Love who doth so easily vanquish the mind of man and hath melted in me a hart of very iron. O by those soft lips I beseech you remember that you were younger a year agone, and as we men wax old and wrinkled sooner than one may spit, so there’s no re-taking of Youth once she be fled, seeing she hath wings to her shoulders, and for us ‘tis ill catching winged beasts. Come then, think on these things and be the kinder for’t, and give love for love where true loving is; and so when Time shall bring thee a beard we’ll be Achilles and his friend. But if so be you cast me these words to the winds, and say, and say in your heart, “Peace, man; begone,” then, for all I would go now for your sake and get the Golden Apples to fetch you the Watch-dog o’ the Dead, I would not come forth, no, not if you should stand at my very door and call me, for the pain of my woodness would be overpast.

Idyll 29, The First Love-Poem. Translation by J.M. Edmonds.

It’s a pastoral poem apparently depicting a pederastic, i.e between a man and a boy, relationship from the older man's (the erastes) point of view. Achilles and Patroclus — he isn’t named, but it’s possible to tell that it is him from the context — are used at one point as an example of a homoerotic relationship. Theocritus has other texts dealing with this type of relationship, but he also wrote about love between man and woman. Some of the Idylls associated with him are uncertain or already consensually considered not to belong to him, being under the authorship of Pseudo-Theocritus, but the Idyll shown here is consensually considered to be genuine, so I put Theocritus in the title of this part instead of Pseudo-Theocritus. Since the poem explores a pederastic dynamic, it’s perhaps possible to imply that Theocritus was also trying to describe the dynamic between Patroclus and Achilles as pederastic. However, this isn’t explicitly stated in the text as it is in other authors (e.g. Plato) and "Achilles and his friend" is a mere mention. Relationships between men, even when romantic or sexual, had the aspect of companionship emphasized, so it isn’t surprising that the description  "friend" is used by Theocritus while also using them as an example of a couple.

There is also the argument that this poem actually represented a “deconstructed” version of the pederastic model:

Idyll 29 might appear potentially different from common representations of pederasty. In this poem, an ἐραστής in the throes of love laments being emotionally subjugated to a fickle and faithless παῖς.  Intercalating his lamentation with paraenetic advice, the lover warns the boy in traditional terms about the precariousness of young age and lectures him on social approval and reputation. Hunter argues that there is an archaicising tone in the idealisation of pederasty of the ἐραστής: οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, λέγεται, καὶ ἀλάθεα (‘wine, dear boy, and truth, the saying goes’, 1) echoes a famous sympotic (and pederastic) motto of Alcaeus (fr. 366 Voigt); αἰ γὰρ ὦδε πόῃς, ἄγαθος μὲν ἀκούσεαι / ἐξ ἄστων (‘for if you do so, you shall gain a good reputation in town’, 21-22) recalls the pivotal role of civic reputation in Theognidean elegy; in ἀλλ᾽ αἴ μοί τι πίθοιο νέος προγενεστέρῳ (‘listen to me, as you are young and I am older’, 10), he appeals to his wisdom and age to advise the young man; finally, the lover wishes that they could become like Achilles and Patroclus after the ἐρώμενος’ coming of age (ἀλλάλοισι πελώμεθ᾽ Ἀχιλλέιοι φίλοι, ‘we might be Achillean friends’, 34). According to Hunter, however, the ἐραστής’ seriousness and appeal to the ‘archaic nobility’ of pederasty are seemingly trivialised and undercut throughout. Hunter even envisages a ‘deconstruction’ of pederasty when the lover’s self-debasement is paralleled with the Heraclean labours (νῦν μὲν κἀπὶ τὰ χρύσια μᾶλ᾽ ἔνεκεν σέθεν / βαίην καὶ φύλακον νεκύων πεδὰ Κέρβερον, ‘now I would even go and seek the golden apples or fetch Cerberus, guardian of the dead’, 37-38), and when the physical component of the lover’s desire emerges as opposed to a supposedly de-eroticised archaic concern for the boy’s paideia. Importantly, Lambert and Hunter argue that it seems uniquely Hellenistic for the mature lover to expect to be reciprocated in a form of mutual and symmetrical relationship, like in Plato’s Phaedrus. [...] In fact, poem 29 also enacts such reversal. While the ἐραστής is clearly subjugated from the beginning  of the poem, the Idyll starts with the lover dispensing advice and wisdom to the younger boy. In the end,  however, the lover imagines that in the future the boy will pursue him, and threatens him that he will not  ‘come out to the door’ (τότα δ’ οὐδὲ κάλεντος ἐπ’ αὐλείαις θύραις ς / προμόλοιμί κε, παυσάμενος χαλέπω πόθω, ‘then, I will not come out to the door, should you call me, once my burdensome desire ceases to exist’, 39-40). Paradoxically, the lover’s imagined ‘empowered’ condition is what sanctions the power reversal in the poem. In his imagined paraklausithyron, προμόλοιμι means not simply ‘to come’, but specifically ‘to come out’: the speaker is casting the boy into the role of the exclusus amator and himself into that of the dura puella, so to say. [...]

“Hellenistic Homosexuality: Theocritus’ pederastic Idylls and the poetics of reversal” By Valentino Gargano, pgs 7-8 and 12.

Note: the author of this quoted text actually disagrees that there is a "deconstruction". He acknowledges that there are subversions, but he doesn’t think that this is something specific to the Hellenistic period and he doesn’t think that Theocritus intended to ridicule or criticize the classical pederastic model, as suggested by Hunter. Leaving this note here because, in case someone wants to read this text, I think it is good to make it clear that the author's argument isn’t "Theocritus deconstructed pederasty". In fact, Gargano “argues against two commonly accepted ideas concerning Theocritus’ homoerotic idylls: first, that they can be taken as evidence to argue that the Greek institution of pederasty was ridiculed and/or perceived to be obsolete in Hellenistic times; and second, that the power differential intrinsic in Greek classical pederasty had been lost in the passage to Hellenistic times. Opposing this developmentalist view, the paper argues that Theocritus’ idylls elaborate on the same tropes, themes, and structural devices as archaic and classical homoerotic poetry” (pg 3). But, as he mentioned, the idea that Theocritus was deconstructing is common in academia.

Bion of Smyrna | 1st/2nd century BCE, Hellenistic Era | one of the main Greek bucolic poets 

Happy are lovers when their love is requited. Theseus, for all he found Hades at the last implacable, was happy because Perithoüs went with him; and happy Orestes among the cruel Inhosptables, because Pylades had chosen to share his wanderings; happy also lived Achilles Aeacid while his dear comrade was alive, and died happy, seeing he so avenged his dreadful fate.

Fragment 8, Requited Love. Translation by J.M. Edmonds (prose version, but it’s a poem).

In this case, not only did Bion of Smyrna decide that Patroclus and Achilles were lovers, but he considered two other well-known male friendships to be romantic as well. These three relationships were the examples used by the character Socrates in Xenophon’s Symposium as an argument for why Patroclus and Achilles aren’t lovers, and the way in which Bion links the blessings of the relationship to a kind of union in death is reminiscent of Phaedrus’s speech in Plato’s Symposium. Given the Hellenistic tendency to draw inspiration from earlier periods and innovate upon them, it’s quite likely that Bion purposefully used symposia which characters with opposing arguments (Socrates and Phaedrus) as inspiration. In Bion’s case, he certainly interpreted them romantically since this is a love poem, but the focus was on the spiritual rather than the sexual aspect. In this sense, despite using the relationships indicated by Xenophon, he comes close to Plato's argument that fortunate lovers with a strong spiritual bond receive rewards (Marco Fantuzzi, pp. 232-235). These three relationships seem to have remained with some degree of reference as male relationships (not necessarily erotic), since I remember that Ovid mentioned them in Tristia. As far as I know, Orestes/Pylades and Theseus/Pirithous aren’t dynamics that were commonly interpreted romantically like Achilles/Patroclus was, but I may be missing something.

Plutarch | 1st/2nd century CE, Roman Era | Greek biographer and historian

[...] Protogenes was intending to go on at greater length, when Daphnaeus stopped him and said "You do well, by Zeus, to mention Solon, and we too may use him as the test of an amorous man. Does he not define such a one in the lines, 'As long as you love boys in the glorious flower of their youth for their kisses and embraces.' And add to Solon the lines of Aeschylus, 'You did not disdain the honour of the thighs, O thankless one after all my frequent kisses.' [...]”

Amatorius, 751b-751c. Translation by Arthur Richard Shiletto. 

Throughout the history of ancient Greece, there were debates about the relationship between a man and a woman (marriage) and the relationship between a man and a boy (pederasty), comparing their supposed advantages and disadvantages. This debate seems to have become stronger during Classical Greece, but this doesn’t mean that it only happened during that period. Plutarch, although belonging to the Roman Era, participated in this theme with Amatorius, in which he argued in favor of the relationship between a man and a woman being superior to the relationship between two men (two adult men, quite unusual to be accepted) or, more frequently, between a man and a boy (pederastic, more accepted compared to two men). Because of the theme, this text allows us to have an idea of ​​some traditions and sources around homoerotic/homosexual relationships, since Plutarch presents his repertoire on the subject. One of the examples is precisely Aeschylus representing Achilles and Patroclus.

In contrast, Plutarch also cites Achilles and Patroclus as an example of friendship in another text:

In the first place, then, let us begin at the hearth-stone, as the saying is, with the story of men's lives which history⁠7 has left us regarding steadfast friends, and let us take as witness and counsellor in our discussion the long and distant ages in which are mentioned, as paired in the bond of friendship, Theseus and Peirithoüs, Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades, Phintias and Damon, Epameinondas and Pelopidas. For friendship is a creature that seeks a companion; it is not like cattle and crows that flock and herd together, and to look upon one's friend as another self and to call him "brother" as though to suggest "th'other," is nothing but a way of using duality as a measure of friendship. It is impossible to acquire either many slaves or many friends with little coin. What then is the coin of friendship? fIt is goodwill and graciousness combined with virtue, than which nature has nothing more rare. It follows, then, that a strong mutual friendship with many persons is impossible, but, just as rivers whose waters are divided among branches and channels flow weak and thin, so affection, naturally strong in a soul, if portioned out among many persons become utterly enfeebled. This is the reason why, in the case of animals, love for their young is more strongly implanted by nature in those that give birth to but one at a time; and Homer's⁠ name for a beloved son is "the only one, child of our eld," that is to say, born to parents who neither have nor can ever have another child.

On Having Many Friends, 2. Translation by F. C. Babbitt.

I'm not sure if Plutarch was simply dealing with two different versions coexisting (lovers in one, friends in the other), if the nature of the relationship changes according to the objective (in one text he wants to talk about romantic/sexual relationships, in others the focus is on friendship) or if Plutarch simply sees them as being an example of friendship at the same time as a romance.

Pseudo-Lucian | around 2 century CE, Roman Era | uncertain author of a text in Greek, Lucian of Samosata (the most attributed author) was a Hellenized Syrian

THEOMNESTUS: [...] May I for my part find it my lot to love boys in this way. But may the airy talkers and those who raise their philosophic brows temple-high and even higher, beguile the ignorant with the speciousness of their solemn phrases. For Socrates was as devoted to love as anyone and Alcibiades, once he had lain down beneath the same mantle with him, did not rise unassailed. Don't be surprised at that. For not even the affection of Achilles for Patroclus was limited to having him seated opposite "waiting until Aeacides should cease his song." No, pleasure was the mediator even of their friendship. At any rate, when Achilles was lamenting the death of Patroclus, his unrestrained feelings made him burst out with the truth and say, "The converse of our thighs my tears do mourn With duteous piety " Those whom the Greeks call "revellers" I think to be nothing but ostentatious lovers. Perhaps someone will assert this is a shameful thing to say, but, by Aphrodite of Cnidus, it's the truth.

Erotes, 54. Translation by A.M. Harmon.

Erotes deals with the same debate as Plutarch, but the difference is that while Plutarch concludes that heterosexual relationships are better, Erotes concludes that pederastic relationships are preferable. In discussing the subject, Achilles and Patroclus are used as examples, more specifically using passages from The Iliad and Aeschylus' Myrmidons. This text is attributed to Lucian of Samosata, a famous satirist, or someone who apparently tried to emulate his style and is thus known as Pseudo-Lucian. The text is in the form of a dialogue, something that has already appeared in this post in Plato’s part (basically, those texts in which people, fictional or real, talk to each other). Theomnestus argues that although Patroclus and Achilles were friends, they’re also in love (or, at least, Achilles was in love) and that such feelings became evident after Patroclus' death.

Pseudo-Apollodorus | 1st/2nd century CE, Roman Era | text in Greek previously attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, but currently considered to be written by an unknown mythographer 

[...] In Opous he had had an argument about dice while playing a game and had killed Cleitonymos son of Amphidamas. He went into exile with his father, settled at the court of Peleus, and became Achilles’ boyfriend.

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by R. Scott Smith.

Smith translated the Greek word “ἐρώμενος”, that is, eromenos, as “boyfriend”. This isn’t me trying to correct him, his choice makes perfect sense in my opinion (I think using “beloved” would probably be too ambiguous compared to the original term since this text, being a mythography with quick summaries, doesn’t provide enough context for someone to understand that “beloved” was intended to be romantic here. So I imagine he opted for “boyfriend” to make it more obvious), I’m just making it clear that Pseudo-Apollodorus was still using pederastic descriptives. Robin Hard opted for “lover”, but he meant it in the sense of relationship status and not in the sense that erastes tends to be translated as “lover” and eromenos tends to be translated as “beloved”. In Pseudo-Apollodorus, the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is romantic, and more specifically, he fitted them into a pederastic concept in which the eromenos is Patroclus.

Martial | 1st/2nd century CE, Roman Era | Roman poet

Catching me with a boy, wife, you upbraid me harshly and point out that you too have an arse. How often did Juno say the same to her wanton Thunderer! Nonetheless, he lies with strapping Ganymede. The Tirynthian used to lay aside his bow and bend Hylas over: do you think Megara had no buttocks? Fugitive Daphne tormented Phoebus: but the Oebalian boya bade those flames vanish. Though Briseis often lay with her back to Aeacus' son, his smooth friend was closer to him. So kindly don't give masculine names to your belongings, wife, and think of yourself as having two cunts.

Epigrams, 11.43. Translation by D.R. Shackleton Bailey.

This is a obscene epigram in which Martial is mocking a situation in which a husband is unfaithful to his wife by cheating on her with a boy and responding to her attempts to keep him with the idea that male anal sex is different from having sex with a woman, whether anally or vaginally. In any case, the emphasis here is clearly on the sexual aspect and there is a humorous tone. Considering the way the text is written, it seems to deal with pederastic relationships (Zeus-Ganymede, Heracles-Hylas, Apollo-Hyacinthus), I imagine that Martial also sees Achilles and Patroclus in this way. The pattern is for the male character (Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, Achilles) who supposedly leaves a woman (Juno/Hera, Megara, Daphne, Briseis) aside for another male character (Ganymede, Hylas, Hyacinthus, Patroclus) to be the active partner, Martial apparently thinks of Patroclus as being the passive partner. If we were to apply the typical pederastic roles, this would make Achilles the erastes and Patroclus the eromenos. The humorous factor could make Achilles and Patroclus' sexual relationship something to be considered only for laughs, but considering that the other examples offered by Martial are quite common and famous, I think it’s more likely that he actually saw the two as a couple.

Straton of Sardis | 2nd century CE, Roman Era | Greek poet

So soon thou rushes t to the wars, still an ignorant boy and delicate. What art thou doing? Ho! look to it, change thy resolve. Alas ! who persuaded thee to grasp the spear? Who bad thee take the shield in thy hand or hide that head in a helmet? Most blessed he, whoever he be, who, some new Achilles, shall take his pleasure in the tent with such a Patroclus!

Greek Anthology, 12.217. Translation by W.R. Paton.

This is an erotic epigram by Strato, an author who seems to have written primarily about pederasty. In this particular case, an erastes appears to describe the growth of the eromenos, who is now old enough to try military conquests and will no longer be with the narrator. He is “an ignorant boy and delicate” for now, but is already taking up the spear, shield and helmet. The narrator seems to laments this development, but also mentions that in the military camp there will be someone lucky enough to have pleasure with him in the tent. In saying this, he draws a comparison with Achilles and Patroclus, which indicates that Strato saw them as lovers. If we consider that Strato saw them as a model pederastic (very likely, since Strato in one of his epigrams seemed to demonstrate an aversion to the idea of ​​a relationship between two adult men on equal terms), then it is possible that the comparisons also indicate Strato’s view of their positions. He compares the new man who will enjoy the eromenos to Achilles, indicating that he equates Achilles with an erastes, and he compares the eromenos himself to Patroclus, indicating that he saw Patroclus as eromenos. This time, the author seems to focus more on the sexual aspect of the dynamic.

Also, Strato is also known for a specific epigram in which he makes more explicit the ages that are likely typical of the practice. I decided to put it here in case anyone throughout this post has wondered about the possible ages:

I delight in the prime of a boy of twelve, but one of thirteen is much more desirable. He who is fourteen is a still sweeter flower of the Loves, and one who is just beginning his fifteenth year is yet more delightful. The sixtennth it is not for me, but for Zeus, to seek it. But if one has a desire for those still older, he no longer plays, but now seeks "And answering him back."

Greek Anthology, 12.4. Translation by W.R. Paton.

This in itself is just another example of how attempts to include this relationship in a pederastic dynamic were debated/uncertain in the times of these ancient authors. In one epigram, Strato emphasizes the youthful aspect of the eromenos, and in the other he equates Patroclus with the eromenos of Achilles, although Patroclus is older. Ironically, as already mentioned, Strato also demonstrated an aversion to relationships between men (and not between man and boy), although the example of Patroclus and Achilles in theory comes closer to a relationship between men if we were to consider the ages they both had when they were in the Trojan War (something clearly alluded to with the mention of the tent):

That an immature boy should do despite to his insensible age carries more disgrace to the friend who tempts him than to himself, and for a grown-up youth to submit to that, his season for which is past, is twice as disgraceful to him who consents as it is to his tempter. But there is a time, Moeris, when it is no longer unseemly in the one, and not yet so in the other, as is the case with you and me at present.

Greek Anthology, 12.128. Translation by W.R. Paton.

That an immature boy should do despite to his insensible age carries more disgrace to the friend who tempts him than to himself, and for a grown-up youth to submit to that, his season for which is past, is twice as disgraceful to him who consents as it is to his tempter. But there is a time, Moeris, when it is no longer unseemly in the one, and not yet so in the other, as is the case with you and me at present.

Greek Anthology, 12.255. Translation by W.R. Paton.

Maximus of Tyrus | 2nd century CE, Roman Era | Greek rhetorician

In Patroclus manly love is displayed, which is acquired by labour, proceeds with time, and ends not but with death. Here too both are young, and beautiful, and chaste. The one instructs, the other is instructed. The one is heavily afflicted, the other imparts consolation. The one sings, the other listens. This also is an amatory affection, to be desirous of having the liberty to fight, and yet to weep, as if this permission would not be granted by his lover. Achilles, however, complies with his request, adorns him with his own arms, is terrified at his long stay, desires to die when he finds that he is dead, and then lays aside his wrath. His nocturnal visions, his dreams, his tears, and his last gift, the cutting off his locks at his funeral, are all of them the effects of love. These are the amatory examples of Homer.

Dissertations, VIII, pg 92. Translation by Thomas Taylor.

Here Maximus Tyrius was analyzing what he interpreted to be examples of love relationships in Homer. He cited Achilles + Briseis, Agamemnon + Chryseis, Paris + Helen, Andromache + Hector, Zeus + Hera, suitors + Penelope, Calypso + Odysseus, Circe + Odysseus and finally Patroclus + Achilles. Not all of the examples are used as positive examples of behavior by Maximus Tyrius. For example, he considers the combination of Andromache and Hector an example of perfect and reciprocal love, but sees Paris as demonstrating licentious and adulterous behavior. He speaks of romantic and/or sexual relationships in general, and there doesn’t need to be reciprocity or consummation for him to consider it as an example (see, for example, how he considers Penelope's suitors). In the case of Patroclus and Achilles, he uses it as an example of positive homoerotic love. 

For an example of what I mean by the idea that Maximus saw the Homeric texts as examples of diverse loves, this is what he says:

[...] But he discusses every thing pertaining to love; in order, such as its works, age, species, passions, whatever is beautiful and whatever is base; love; chaste and intemperate, just and licentious, furious and gentle. And in things of this kind he is no long a rude ancient but a skifull artist. [...]

Dissertations, VIII, pg 90-91. Translation by Thomas Taylor.

I must admit that I have no idea whether Maximus is one of the authors interpreting them as a pederastic relationship or not. The word “ἐραστοῦ” that is included in the Greek text I found (in English, it is the “lover” in “as if this permission would not be granted by his lover”) is erastes from what Google and Wikipedia tell me. Here is the excerpt, if you know Greek:

καὶ τὸν ἀνδρεῖον ἐπὶ τῷ Πατρόκλῳ, τὸν πόνῳ κτητὸν καὶ χρόνῳ, καὶ μέχρι θανάτου προερχόμενον,  νέων καὶ καλῶν ἀμφοτέρων, καὶ σωφρόνων, τοῦ μὲν παιδεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ παιδευομένου· ὁ μὲν ἄχθεται, ὁ δὲ παραμυθεῖται· ὁ μὲν ᾄδει, ὁ δὲ ἀκροᾶται·  ἐρωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ τυχεῖν ἐθέλοντα ἐξουσίας πρὸς μάχην δακρῦσαι ὡς οὐκ ἀνεξομένου τοῦ ἐραστοῦ· ὁ δὲ ἐφίησιν, καὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ ὅπλοις κοσμεῖ, καὶ βραδύνοντος περιδεῶς ἔχει, καὶ ἀποθανόντος ἀποθανεῖν ἐρᾷ, καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν κατατίθεται· ἐρωτικὰ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐνύπνια, καὶ τὰ ὀνείρατα, καὶ τὰ δάκρυα, καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον δῶρον ἤδη θαπτομέν��� ἡ κόμη. Ταῦτα μὲν τὰ Ὁμήρου ἐρωτικά.

On the other hand, Maximus says “Here too both are young, and beautiful, and chaste” emphasizing that both are young and beautiful, which doesn’t seem to fit very well with other texts I found that were dealing with the pederastic interpretation of their relationship. Usually, when talking about beauty and youth, they described Achilles like this (when they want him to be the eromenos. If they see him as erastes, they conveniently ignore the information) and Patroclus’ age was either emphasized as being older than Achilles (for those who saw him as erastes) or was ignored without even being mentioned (for those who saw him as eromenos). Patroclus’ beauty wasn’t usually mentioned in such surviving interpretations, only Achilles’ (especially by those who see him as the eromenos). Now both? I don’t recall another surviving text doing this while intending to interpret them as being in a pederastic relationship.

From what I understand, if Maximus is considering them pederastic, he thinks Patroclus is the eromenos. At least, this is consistent with him emphasizing that Patroclus is young while ignoring that he is older than Achilles (to clarify, Patroclus is both young and older than Achilles. But usually, the author ignores either him being young or him being older in favor of his own opinion of the roles) and emphasizing that he is also beautiful when those who consider him the erastes don’t mention it. Also, the passage that contains the word I assume is “erastes” seems to refer to Achilles as the erastes/lover, since Maximus says (perhaps jokingly) that it is also a strategy to cry so much that your lover won’t resist and then talks about Achilles complying with Patroclus’ request (giving him his armor). In this idea, the one who is crying in order to convince the lover is Patroclus and therefore the lover is Achilles. If the word lover is erastes in Greek, then Achilles is the erastes.

But AGAIN, I emphasize that this particular text confused me on the pederasty aspect, especially since I couldn't find clearer interpretations of it online. Take my interpretation with a grain of salt. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to say something!

Athenaeus of Naucratis | 2nd/3rd century CE, Roman Era | Greek rhetorician and grammarian

[...] Stesichorus, another man of strong passions, composed the particular kind of lyrics that were called "boy songs" and "boy love." No one used to despise those who had a passionate nature: love affairs were such an open and everyday matter that the great poet Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles' love for Patroclus, Sophocles love of the boys in Niobe (which is why some people call this play Paiderastria) — and their audiences enjoyed such themes.

The Deipnosophists, 13.601. Translation by Andrew Dalby.

The Deipnosophists has books dealing with a wide range of subjects. In Book 13, while commenting on erotic literature (here I use “erotic” in both the sexual and romantic sense), there was this moment when, to exemplify how relationships between two men were also a subject in this type of literature, Aeschylus and Sophocles were mentioned. Sophocles has no relation to this post because the play that is mentioned for him is with other characters (sons of Niobe. In fact, an incestuous relationship between brothers too, in this case), but Aeschylus is mentioned here because of Myrmidons. In other words, he refers to Achilles and Patroclus, used here as an example of male characters in an erotic relationship in artistic representations. Apparently, the play Niobe was also known as "Pederasty" according to Athanaeus, but he doesn’t mention pederasty when talking about Aeschylus, unlike Plato.

BONUS: Scholiasts | 3rd century BCE, Hellenistic Era, and 12th century CE, Byzantine Greece | Greek scholars

We must definitely athetize the four lines. First of all, because the prayer is childish and impossible—either as it is jealous, or as it is erotic. What have the Myrmidons done wrong? How can Achilles appeal to Phoibus [16.97], who, as he has heard from Thetis, will be his killer? [cf. 21.276– 78]. Where is the greatness, if they plunder a desert city [16.100]? And demolishing walls is what builders do. And how can Hœ designate the nominative? Therefore Aristarchus says that Zenodotus was correct in suspecting that these lines were interpolated by people who believed that there were male loves in Homer, and suppose that Patroclus is the eromenos of Achilles.

Scholia of The Iliad, 2.16.53. Translation by Marco Fantuzzi.

Firstly, about the passage 2.16.53 (number of the edition in Scaife Viewer) of Byzantine Homeric scholia (12th century CE). In The Iliad, there is this passage spoken by Achilles to Patroclus:

“[...] Father Zeus and Athena and Apollo—would that not one of the Trojans escape death, as many as they be, not one of the Argives, but we two emerge from the destruction, so that we alone strip the sacred veil from Ilion.”

The Iliad, 16.97-100. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

Basically, Aristarchus argued that these lines must not have been part of the original The Iliad, but rather were added later and therefore should be removed from the edition. His argument is that it doesn't fit with the Homeric characterization of Achilles and therefore wasn’t written by the same author. Aristarchus also interpreted these lines as something that could indicate a homoerotic relationship, with Aristarchus believing that Patroclus was the eromenos. Apparently Zenodotus of Ephesus (3th century BCE) had this same interpretation. 

[...] Thus, in Aristarchus’ infamous athetization of an allusion  to Achilles’ homoerotic relationship with Patroclus (Iliad 16.97–100; discussed  in more detail below, section 5.2), the direction that four lines are not original  and are therefore ‘not to be read’ as part of Homer’s epic serves to highlight  those very lines and that very relationship as part of an alternative storyline, projecting a parallel counterfactual (or counterfictional) storyworld in which  Achilles’ character is indeed recast as the lover of Patroclus. [...] In this vein, the second-century BCE Alexandrian scholar Aristarchus athetizes  the poignant last words spoken by Achilles to Patroclus as he prepares to go into  battle, on the grounds that they are not compatible or consistent with Achilles’ character as it is represented elsewhere in the Iliad. As he bids farewell to Patroclus, Achilles wishes that every other man on the battle line, both Trojan  and Greek, could die so that they two could be alone (Iliad 16.97–100). Aristarchus considers this wish to be out of character for Achilles and, since  Homer is too perfect a poet to make such a mistake, considers these lines must  have been inserted into Homer’s text by another hand (schol. Iliad 16.97–100). Aristarchus does not object to the possibility of a homoerotic or pederastic  relationship between Achilles and Patroclus because of any objection to  inconsistency or indecorum in Homer’s representation of Achilles’sexuality: it is rather the (mis)representation of Achilles’ (lack of) sympathy for his fellow Greeks and his express wish that he and his lover might be the only two left in  their storyworld that is deemed improbable and therefore ‘not to be read’.

Narratology, chapter 5 by Genevieve Liveley.

According to Aristonicus in schol. A, Aristarchus athetized these verses on the grounds that they are an interpolation by someone who thought Achilles was in love with Patroclus'. Thus, in the opinion of Aristarchus, the verses show the heroes to be not only friends, but lovers. For that reason alone he athetized them [...] But, quite apart from considerations of vocabulary, why did these verses seem to Aristarchus to express paederastic love? The answer is surely because they show in extreme terms the intensely exclusive relationship of the two heroes. Let them all perish, Achilles prays, all the Trojans, and yes, all the Achaeans too, except we two; and may we two, alone, then share the ultimate glory of taking Troy. The ruthlessness and egotism of Achilles yield only to Patroclus — but to him readily and naturally. It is as if they are one person. Now this characterization, this quality of their relationship — suspiciously paederastic in the view of Aristarchus — is repeated in other terms many times in the Iliad, as I shall presently show. It can survive the athetesis of these verses quite easily. We can only wonder why there is no evidence that Aristarchus attacked a multitude of verses for the same reason he athetized these, since the sentiment they express is explicit over and over again in the Iliad.

Achilles and Patroclus in Love by W.M. Clarke, pgs 384-385.

[...] Heroic friendship is a firm bond; Homer never states that Akhilleus and Patroklos are lovers, but could be suppressing some such tale (cf. 1 i.786n. and K.J . Dover, Greek Homosexuality, London 1978, i94ff.). 'Let everyone perish but us' is paralleled as an erotic motif in modern folk-song (Kakridis, toc. cit.). Recalling their explicit portrayal as lovers in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons and later, Zenodotus and Aristarchus (in T) athetized 97-10 0 as the work of an interpolator with this view of their relationship. [...]

The Iliad: A Commentary — Volume IV: books 13-16 by Richard Janko, pg 328.

Now, other parts of the scholia:

These four lines are considered suspect because they are simple and Achilles’ grief is more emphatic than it is depicted here [in lines 4-5]. People also complain that manliness and menos aren’t different at all. The poet rarely says manliness when he means braveness. It is also somewhat twisted up, when he ends with “remembering these things” when they already had “thinking of his companion” above.

Scholia of The Iliad, 6.24.6. Translation by Joel Christensen.

Those who marked these lines as spurious are not somehow crack-brained, since they take these lines as naughty and suspect verses like this—because he longs for a bed-mate, not in the style worthy of demigods nor even of half women? For if this is wholly suspect, then Patroklos would be his lover because he [Achilles] is younger and very beautiful. The [verses are considered suspect] for these reasons. Manliness is the nature of the man. But he also says “noble menos” and the verb tolupeuse is not well put.

Scholia of The Iliad,2.24.2. Translation by Joel Christensen.

Those comments are bout this passage:

The games were dispersed, and the men scattered to go each to his own swift ship. And they began to think about their meal and giving themselves over to the pleasure of sweet sleep; but Achilles wept still, remembering his beloved companion, nor did sleep, who masters all, take hold of him, but he turned himself this side and that yearning for the manly strength and noble spirit of Patroclus, and remembered with yearning all he been through with him and all the woes he had suffered, running through dangerous waves and the conflicts of men. Recalling these things he let the warm tears fall, as he lay now on his side, now again on his back, and now face down; then starting up he would wander in distraction along the salt-sea shore. He came to know the dawn as she appeared over the sea and shore; and when he had yoked his swift horses to his chariot, he would tie Hector behind the chariot so as to drag him; and after dragging him three times around the tomb of Menoetius’ dead son he would rest again in his shelter, and leave Hector stretched in the dust upon his face. [...]

The Iliad, 24.1-18. Translation by Caroline Alexander. 

The games were over now. The gathered annies scattered, each man to his fast ship, and fighters turned their minds to thoughts of food and the sweet warm grip of sleep. But Achilles kept on grieving for his friend, the memory burning on... and all-subduing sleep could not take him, not now, he turned and twisted, side to side, he longed for Patroclus' manhood, his gallant heart— What rough campaigns they'd fought to an end together. what hardships they had suffered, cleaving their way  through wars of men and pounding waves at sea. The memories flooded over him, live tears flowing, and now he'd lie on his side, now flat on his back, now facedown again. At last he'd leap to his feet. wander in anguish, aimless along the surf and dawn on dawn flaming over the sea and shore would find him pacing. Then he'd yoke his racing team to the chariot-harness, lash the corpse of Hector behind the car for dragging and haul him three times round the dead Patroclus' tomb, and then he'd rest again in his tents and leave the body  sprawled facedown in the dust. [...]

The Iliad, 24.1-21. Translation by Robert Fagles.

In parts 6.24.6 and 2.24.2 of the Byzantine scholia, scholiasts had their suspicions about these lines. Basically, they thought that the lines around the “manhood” (Fagles)/”manly strength” (Alexander) part were ambiguous because they thought that the way the paragraph was structured implied that Patroclus and Achilles were lovers. In fact, the scholia even emphasizes that this was the reason these lines were considered interpolations and consequently excluded in some editions. One of the comments also says that, if this were true, Patroclus would be the erastes (Christensen translates it as “lover”) because Achilles is younger and more beautiful.

[...] Possibly in reaction to the scholars supporting their defence on the basis of the noble contents of the lines, some interpreters argued: ‘together with Patroclus Achilles undertook no heroic deed, and Achilles himself remembers his companion for lighter occupations ’(ἐπὶ κουφοτέροις: this comment refers to 19.315–17, where in fact Achilles remembers Patroclus as his cook-waiter, and is substantially correct in its emphasis, since—as we have seen—Patroclus often features in this role in the Iliad, whereas Achilles and Patroclus never do fight together in the battlefield or accomplish anything significant jointly). Still other commentators (T) highlighted the possible homoerotic undertones of our lines, whose authenticity they therefore doubted: ... κατηγοροῦντες ὅτι ὡς σύγκοιτον ποθεῖ, οὐχ οἷον ἡμιθέων, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ ἡμιγυναίκων ἄξιον <ὄν>; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως τοῦτο ὑπονοεῖν δεῖ, ἐραστὴς ἂν εἴη Πάτροκλος ὡς νεωτέρου καὶ περικαλλεστέρου. . . . objecting that [Achilles] desires [Patroclus] as a bedfellow—some- thing which is not worthy not only of half-gods, but even of half- women? In fact, if we have to go the whole hog in supposing this sense, Patroclus would be the erastes, as [Achilles] is younger and more handsome.

This last scholion is just another piece of evidence that a substantial and coherent interpretative direction existed which criticized as non-authentic the lines of the Iliad where an intensely emotional tenor led readers to suspect homosexual undertones. For the sake of maintaining what they considered the epic πρέπον, and/or for the sake of internal coherence (in a sort of application of the Aristarchan principle of explaining Homer through Homer), Aristonicus and, perhaps, already Aristarchus excluded the idea that Homer, who is usually silent about a sexual element in the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, could from time to time allude to this sexual component. This scholion also proves that a discussion existed between Homeric scholars who believed that Achilles would have been the erastes (A 16.97–100, discussed above, going back to Aristonicus) and scholars, whose works also filtered into the scholiastic tradition, who deemed him to be the eromenos. In other words, the definition of the roles in the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in terms of the pederastic etiquette of the classical age was so crucial that the debate about this issue was a ubiquitous one, which could also involve some of the ancient scholars who definitely discounted the idea that Homer presented the relation between Achilles and Patroclus as sexual love. [...]

Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies by Marco Fantuzzi, pgs 213-214.

I considered this section a bonus because these scholiasts don't really seem to agree that they are a couple, but I thought it would be a useful insight.

Disclaimer

This part is just so that no one misinterprets my post. This post isn’t intended to: deny the possibility that they’re cousins, deny that either of them is interested in women, deny that they don’t have a romantic/sexual relationship depending on the version, deny the opinion that they aren’t perfectly consistent with the pederastic model.

Yes, Achilles and Patroclus are also cousins ​​depending on the source (Pindar Olympian Odes, Pindaric scholia, Pseudo-Apollodorus, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and possibly the Binzatine Suda, for those interested in the sources). But being cousins ​​didn’t prevent romantic/sexual relationships in Ancient Greece (e.g. Alcestis and Amphitryon, Orestes and Hermione), the taboo regarding mortal incest seemed to focus more on dynamics like siblings and father and children, etc. So no, these authors considering them lovers isn’t a denial of the sources that consider them cousins. Likewise, them being cousins ​​doesn’t prevent a romantic and/or sexual relationship.

Yes, Achilles was interested in women and this is a constant characteristic of the character. Even if we don’t consider the captive characters (Briseis, Diomede. Already present in The Iliad, they continue as constants in other texts), we still have the attempted rape of Hemithea in later sources (for example, Plutarch), the pre-Troy relationship with Deidamia that varies between consensual and non-consensual depending on the source and already appears in sources from the Epic Cycle (The Little Iliad, Philostratus' Heroica, Euripides' Skyrians, Philostratus' Imagines, Pseudo-Hyginus' Fabulae, Statius' Achilleid, Ovid' Ars Amatoria, Byzantine scholia of The Iliad, a lot of visual sources), Penthesilea in one of his last battles (Quintus' Posthomerica, Tzetzes' Lycophronem, a lot of visual sources), Medea in post-death (Argonautica Book 4, Lycophron's Alexandra, Tzetzes' Ad Lycophronem), Helen (Philostratus’ Heroica, Pausanias’ Description of Greece, Lycophron’s Alexandra, Tzetzes’ Ad Lycophronem. Implied in Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women and frags of The Cypria), Iphigenia in Aulis or post-death (Lycophron’s Alexandra, Tzetzes’ Ad Lycophronem, Antoninus Liberalis’ Metamorphosis), Polyxena in the ambush of Achilles death version (Philostratus’ Heroica and and others, for example). Achilles having an interest in a man doesn’t make it impossible for him to have an interest in women, whether it be a beneficial and consensual interest (e.g. the relationship with Iphigenia depending on the version) or a violent one (e.g. Hemithea). Incidentally, Patroclus also had an often forgotten captive woman, Iphis (present in Book 9 of The Iliad, she is also mentioned in Pausanias’ Description of Greece and Philostrathus’ Heroica). In any case, this also serves the opposite argument that, since Achilles has an interest in women, it is impossible for him to have an interest in Patroclus.

And yes, I think them being friends/family without any romantic aspect is a valid version too. Xenophon, in his Symposium, for example agrees with this idea and the scholiasts cited in the bonus part, although they seemed to think that the Homeric texts leave the romantic relationship implicit, also seemed to think that this made such scenes false since they didn’t agree that it was a romantic relationship.

Regarding the topic of pederasty, I imagine that the entire post has already made the issues of inaccuracies/debates very clear.

Sources

Some of the texts/translations used here free and online, so here are the links of the ones I remember!

“A Restless night of Grief - Or, How the Scholia are Wrong about Iliad 24” by Joel Christensen. See here on Substack. Here are the translations of the scholia around the topic of manhood passage, for those interested. Cited on the post.

“Achilles and Patroclus in Love by W.M. Clarke”. See here on JSTOR. I used this article to find more sources about them as a couple. Cited on the post.

“Greek Anthology, Strato of Sardis”, translation by W.R. Paton. See here on Graeca Anthologia site. Here is the translation of this epigram. Cited on the post.

“Bion, poems”, translation by J.M. Edmonds. See here on Theoi. Here is the translation of Bion 8.  Cited on the post.

“Hellenistic Homosexuality: Theocritus’ pederastic Idylls and the poetics of reversal” by Valentino Gargano. See here on Academia.edu. I used this article to find interpretations on Theocritus’ representation of the theme pederasty.  Cited on the post.

“He Whom I Loved as Dearly as My Own Life: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Achilles and Patroclus” by Hayley Rhodes Wittenberg. See here on MTSU. I used this for some context on Achilles and Patroclus’ roles. Cited on the post.

“Maxime de Tyr: Dissertations”, French translation. See here. I used it for the Greek text of Maximus of Tyre.

“Queer Paradigms of Achilles and Patroclus” by Celsiana Warwick. See here on Classical Studies. I used it for some context on Achilles and Patroclus’ roles. Cited on the post.

“Theocritus, Idylls 26-30”, translation by J.M. Edmonds. See here on Theoi. Translation of Theocritus’ text. Cited on the post.

“Translating Strato: The Role of Translations in the Study of Ancient Sexuality and the Understanding of Classical Erotica” by James Jope. See here on Academi.edu. Not cited on the post.

Other texts that were mentioned/used (the ones I remember, of course):

“Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies” by Marco Fantuzzi. I used this book, more specifically the chapter about Patroclus, to see interpretations about this theme. Partially cited on the post (this means that not all the parts I used to make this post were directly cited, but at least some of them were).

“Apollodorus' Library and Hyginus' Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology” by R. Scott Smith. From there I used the translation of Pseudo-Apollodorus’ passage. Cited on this post.

“Aeschines’ Against Timarchus: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary” by Nick Fisher. I included Fisher’s interpretations of the text and my interpretation was also influenced by this translation, although I used another one for the passage. Partially cited on the post (this means that not all the parts I used to make this post were directly cited, but at least some of them were).

“The Iliad: A Commentary — Volume IV: books 13-16” by Richard Janko. Used for contextualizing commentary regarding the scholia. Cited on the post.

“The Iliad” translation by Caroline Alexander. Cited on this post.

“The Iliad” translation by Robert Fagles. Cited on this post.

“A Ilíada” translation by Frederico Lourenço. Not cited on this post.

“Narratology” by Genevive Liveley. Used for contextualizing commentary regarding the scholia. Cited on this post.

“The Library of Greek Mythology”, translation by Robin Hard. This wasn’t the translation included here for Pseudo-Apollodorus, but I used it for my best understanding. Not directly cited on this post.

“A Biblioteca do Pseudo Apolodoro e o estatuto da mitografia” by Luiz Alberto Cabral. This wasn’t the translation included here for Pseudo-Apollodorus, but I used it for my best understanding. Not cited on this post.

“Voz média e a geração automática de referências literárias na edição digital” by Caio Vieira Reis de Camargo. This wasn’t the translation included here for Pseudo-Apollodorus, but I used it for my best understanding. Not cited on this post.

“Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents” by Thomas K. Hubbard.  Partially cited on the post (this means that not all the parts I used to make this post were directly cited, but at least some of them were). The translation of Athanaeus was retired from this book.

“The Dialogues of Plato: Volume 2” by R.E. Allen. I used this book for context/interpretation on Plato and I also used the translation. Cited on this post.

“Achilles in Greek Tragedy” by Pantelis Michelakis. Used for different approaches about the relationship, but mainly for interpretations of Aeschylus. Partially cited on the post (this means that not all the parts I used to make this post were directly cited, but at least some of them were).

“The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology” by Robin Hard. Not cited on this post.

[babyrdie]

Trying to find out more about Menoetius in the hope of finding out more about Patroclus

A post with things about Patroclus' father as a mythological character, in case anyone is interested, either because he is obscure, or because they want to know more about Patroclus, or because they want to write a fic, whatever the reason. Since it is about his father, it turns out that there is information about Patroclus here. A few details first:

I can't emphasize enough how much of this is interpretive/speculative, so please don't take this entire post as absolute truth! Call it a headcanon post if you want.

When there is [!] at any point, it is because I’ll put a counterargument below and the reason why I chose that specific interpretation, just to make it clear that it is an interpretive conclusion and not an affirmation.

I edited this post very quickly, so be prepared for spelling/writing errors lol

Demigods?

Menoetius son of Iapetus x Menoetius son of Actor

I’m including it here because I have actually people saying the father of Patrocus was a Titan and I want to debunk it by clarifying that characters with the same name in Greek mythology don’t necessarily are the same person (it can be the same person, but it isn’t the case here). Not only is the context completely different, with one of them being very ancient and immortal and the other being recent and mortal, but the genealogical lineages are different since one is the son of Actor (a mortal man) and the other is the son of Iapetus (a Titan). And since there is more than one source for this, I’l simply compare the oldest literary sources I know for each: the epic poem The Iliad (8/7th century BCE) and the cosmogonic poem Hesiod’s Theogony (8/7th century BCE).

“[Nestor’s line] [...] old Peleus enjoined his son Achilles always to be best and to be better than all others, and right there and then Menoetius, son of Aktor, enjoined you thus: [...]”

The Iliad, 11.783-785. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

Now Iapetus took to wife the neat-ankled maid Clymene, daughter of Ocean, and went up with her into one bed. And she bore him a stout-hearted son, Atlas: [510] also she bore very glorious Menoetius and clever Prometheus, full of various wiles, and scatter-brained Epimetheus who from the first was a mischief to men who eat bread; for it was he who first took of Zeus the woman, the maiden whom he had formed.

Theogony 507-514. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Notably, they aren’t the same person. Patroclus' father Menoetius is human, the Menoetius who is related to the Titans is Titan, including being the brother of famous figures such as Atlas, the one who holds up the sky, and Prometheus, known for giving fire to humans and receiving a horrible punishment for it. Epimetheus is somewhat forgotten by the general public, but he is the husband of Pandora, known for having been created to be the first mortal woman and for having opened the forbidden jar.

Deities in the lineage of Menoetius

Depending on the version, Menoetius was a demigod. In at least some versions, Menoetius is the son of the daughter of River Asopus, the nymph Aegina, which would make him nymph-born. This is, for example, attested by Pindar (5th century BCE):

[...] the son of Actor and Aegina, Menoetius, [...]

Olympian Odes, 9.70-71. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

It’s also stated in the Byzantine scholia of The Iliad (12th century CE), which makes it even more evident that this Aegina really is a nymph daughter of the river god Asopus:

the best of the Myrmidons (Μυρμιδόνων τὸν ἄριστον) [...] He [Actor] married Aigina, the daughter of Asopos (the river of Thebes), after she had slept with Zeus and after some months fathered Menoitios. [...]

Scholia D, § 18.10. Edition by R. Scott Smith et al.

Menoetius and Peleus’ families

Menoetius and Peleus are from the same lineage, but the way in which they were related varies depending on the version. In The Iliad, there is no explicit kinship, although it’s possible to imagine that the way Peleus and Menoetius tend to be grouped in Menoetius' scenes implies a closeness, and this closeness could be motivated by a family relationship. But this is just speculation in the case of The Iliad, while in other texts the kinship is explicit.

In the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (8th/7th century BCE), poems intended to catalogue information about mythological women, the version used claimed that Peleus and Menoetius were brothers, making Patroclus and Achilles first cousins. At least, this is what one of the Byzantine scholiast of Homer (12th century CE) states:

Eustathius, Hom. 112. 44 sq: It should be observed that the ancient narrative hands down the account that Patroclus was even a kinsman of Achilles; for Hesiod says that Menoethius the father of Patroclus, was a brother of Peleus, so that in that case they were first cousins.

Catalogue of Women, frag 61. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-Hugo.

It isn’t, however, explained how they’re brothers. Is he a brother, son of the same mother and the same father, as Telamon generally is? Or is he a half-brother, son of the same father and another mother, as is the case with Phocus, who is son of the nymph Psamathe? Or perhaps they have the same mother but not the same father. In any case, Menoetius is consistently considered the son of Actor while Peleus is the son of Aeacus, so I don’t know who had the father changed (maybe the mother is the same? Again, I don’t know)

Other sources tend to make them other thing ​​rather than brothers. For example, Pindar (5th century BCE) in one of his odes says that Menoetius is the son of the mortal Actor and the nymph Aegina:

[...] the son of Actor and Aegina, Menoetius, [...]

Olympian Odes, 9.70-71. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

Aegina is consistently the mother of Aecus and therefore the grandmother of Peleus. In turn, here Aegina is the mother of Menoetius. As illustrated below, this indicates that Menoetius and Aeacus are half-brothers, making Menoetius a sort of uncle to Peleus. This makes Patroclus Peleus's first cousin and therefore Achilles Patroclus's first cousin once removed since he is the son of Patroclus's first cousin:

Byzantine scholia (12th century CE) appear to explain the location of Patroclus post-exile by the kinship between Peleus and Menoetius:

So among the huts the stalwart son of Menoitios (ὣς ὁ μὲν ἐν κλισίῃσι Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος υἱός) While growing up in Opous (in Locris), Patroclos son of Menoitios was involved in an involuntary mistake. In a fit of rage over a game of dice he killed a boy his age, Clesonymos, the son of Amphidamas (a man of some importance), but some say it was Aianes he killed. Exiled for this, he went to Phthia and, based on his kinship with Peleus, he stayed there with Achilles. They maintained an exceptional friendship with each other and went on campaign against Troy together. The story is in Hellanicus (fr. 145 Fowler; EGM 2.537). [AP, ChR, CR]

Scholia D, § 12.1. Edition by R. Scott Smith et al.

Although this scholia is from the 12th century CE, Hellanicus, the author credited for this explanation, may refer to Hellanicus of Lesbos, a famous Greek historian (remember that Greek historians tended to preserve mythological traditions, hence why cite a historian for something like this. This is, for example, notable in the Herodotus' Histories). And in this case, this Hellanicus is from the 5th century BCE, which implies that this explanation (Patroclus going to Phthia because of kinship) is considerably old. In this scholia, it’s said that Actor married Aegina (§18.10), so the kinship would be because Menoetius' mother was the grandmother of Peleus (Aegina is the mother of Aeacus, Peleus' father). In other words, the same version as Pindar, who was from the same century as Hellanicus of Lesbos.

In the Byzantine encyclopedia Suda, Patroclus is listed among the descendants of Aegina as is Achilles, indicating that they belong to the same shared lineage as Aegina's descendants:

“At first Aegina brought forth excellent youths” A proverb. For at its peak, they say, the Aeginetans changed for the worse from [sc the days] of Achilles, Patroclus, Aias [and] Neoptolemus

Suda tau,109. Translation by David Whitehead.

It isn’t, however, stated in what way they share this lineage, so I don’t know if whoever wrote this in the Suda was considering Menoetius and Peleus to be blood relatives. And you might think, “Well, obviously Patroclus is listed here because Menoetius is the son of Aegina!”, but that isn’t necessarily always how the connection between Aegina and Menoetius is indicated. Remember Pindar’s Olympian Ode 9? It has a scholia, and in it we have this:

[...] The Aiginetan local historian Pythainetos produced a lineage wherein Aigina and Zeus produce not only Aiakos, but a daughter Damokrateia (FGH 299 F 5 = ΣPindar Olympian 9.104a). Aktor married Damokrateia, producing Menoitios who married Sthenele, the mother of Patroklos (cf. ΣPindar Olympian 9.106a–b). As consistent with Aiginetan myth, the direction of heroic movement is away from Aigina to Thessaly, whither Damokrateia travels. In this view Menoitios and Patroklos were Aiginetan and Zeus-born through the female line, and presumably Myrmidons through the male, but not Aiakidai in the strictest sense. There may be a rationale in cult for this distinction, as Patroklos may not have received honors on Aigina as an Aiakid. Obviously, the name Damokrateia—was she simply Krateia originally? [166] —is classical, and there may be a now irrecoverable polemic here in which an elite, equated with the Aiakidai, acts harmoniously with a Myrmidonian damos, Menoitios beside Peleus and Patroklos beside Achilles.

The Aiakidai, the Herald-less War, and Salamis by Thomas Figueira.

Note: I’m using an academic article instead of the text because, as far as I know, this scholia by Pindar hasn’t been translated and so I have only found the Greek text. But Figueira is already explaining what is being said in the scholia anyway.

Basically, the scholia says that Pythainetos claimed that when Zeus kidnapped Aegina she gave birth not only to Aeacus (the most traditional version of the story), but also to a daughter named Damocrateia (whom I only saw attested in this scholia, if I'm being honest. I may be missing some text, though). This makes Aeacus and Damocrateia siblings ,as they share both parents. Aeacus later had Peleus as a son with Endeis, while Damocrateia married Actor and had Menoetius. This makes Peleus and Menoetius first cousins, with the father of one and the mother of the other being siblings. Menoetius marries Sthenele, with whom he has Patroclus (Sthenele is also attested as mother of Patroclus by Pseudo-Apollodorus: “Patroclus, son of Menoetius and Sthenele, daughter of Acastus”, 3.13.8 trans. J.G. Frazer). Peleus later has Achilles with Thetis. This makes Patroclus and Achilles cousins, since their parents are first cousins. In other words:

Menoetius’ family origin, status, possible wives

Personally, I got the impression that Menoetius, at least in most sources, isn’t supposed to be a king, but rather a noble!.

Ambiguous words/phrases about Patroclus’ status

In The Iliad, as far I know (I can be missing something), there is no concrete statement of the status of either Menoetius or Patroclus. It has been theorized that the epithet "διογενὲς" attributed to a lot of heroes, including Patroclus, indicates possible kingship (Fagles translates it as "prince", Lattimore as "Illustrious", Hammond as "Lord", and Alexander varies between "Descended from Zeus", "Zeus-descended", "seed of Zeus", "god-cherished"). διογενὲς can be written as diogenes. The etymology is:

Stress-shifted form of διογενής (diogenḗs, literally “born of Zeus”), from Διός (Diós, genitive of Ζεύς (Zeús)) +‎ -γενής (-genḗs, “born of”).

See here.

But although there have been theories about it, none of them are 100% confirmed and, furthermore, I was told that in the Greek perception this is simply a compliment, without necessarily referring to royal or nobility status (see the explanation of a person who actually understands Greek, unlike me, here). 

In line 23.173 the term “ἄνακτι” is used to refer to Patroclus, generally translated as “prince” or “lord” (in Caroline Alexander: “and there were nine dogs fed at the table of their lord”). According to the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, this term can in fact refer to a ruler, which includes royalty. However, it can also refer to an owner/master, which, let’s face it… seems to be the meaning here, Patroclus being, in this case, the lord of his dogs. Again, this isn’t a concrete confirmation of royalty.

Similarly, as indicated in the post I linked above, Pseudo-Apollodorus (1st/2nd century CE) uses the term “βασιλεύοντες” when designating Helen’s suitors and includes Patroclus among them (Library 3.10.8). While this term can be translated as “kings,” it doesn’t necessarily always mean that and in fact has more to do with those in power (a more literal translation would be “those who reign over”). This could, for example, apply to both royalty and nobility. That is, Pseudo-Apollodorus could be thinking of Patroclus as a prince, but he might not necessarily be thinking of him as a prince. That is, both The Iliad and Library aren’t explicit about Patroclus’s pre-exilic status and, consequently, don’t indicate Menoetius’s status.

The origins of Menoetius

In the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women version, he was probably at least a prince if he was indeed Peleus' brother, unless he was a non-recognized bastard. This is, however, a less commonly considered version, so I won’t dwell on it for too long. I’ll instead consider the more attested version, in which Menoetius and Peleus are related by Aegina and aren’t brothers.

In Pindar's Olympian Ode 9, Menoetius isn’t the king of Opus, but rather a foreigner (not in the sense of non-Greek, in the sense of not being from Opus). The king is actually someone else, as Pindar tells of how Phyrra and Deucalion had descendants after the flood, one of whom was a man named Opus (known as Opus I) who was king of the Epeians. This Opus I had a daughter, whom Zeus abducted and impregnated. Zeus then gave her to Locrus, king of the Locrians, and Locrus adopted this Zeus’ child after marrying the woman. This child was named after his grandfather, that is, Opus, and is known as Opus II. Since Locrus raised him as his son, he also gave him the right to inherit his kingdom. People came from other parts of Greece, including Menoetius (i.e. he was not born in Opus). Opus II, the king, valued him and so gave him land. That is, Menoetius was probably a noble in this version, the king was Opus II. It is true that there are myths in which a kingdom is divided between more than one king, but in these cases it is usually specified that the king gave not only land but also "part of the kingdom".

[...] But lend your tongue to the city of Protogeneia, where, by the ordinance of Zeus with the flashing thunderbolt, Pyrrha and Deucalion came down from Parnassus and made their first home, and without the marriage-bed [45] they founded a unified race of stone offspring, and the stones gave the people their name. Arouse for them a clear-sounding path of song; praise wine that is old, but praise the flowers of songs that are new. They tell, indeed, how the strength of the waters overwhelmed the dark earth; but by the skills of Zeus the ebbing tide suddenly drained off the flood. From these were descended your ancestors with their bronze shields, [55] young men sprung from the beginning from the stock of the daughters of Iapetus and from the powerful sons of Cronus, always a native line of kings, until the ruler of Olympus carried off the daughter of Opus from the land of the Epeians, and lay with her peacefully in the glens of Mount Maenalus, and brought her to Locrus, so that age would not overtake him and lay the burden of childlessness on him. His bride was carrying in her womb the seed of the greatest god, and the hero rejoiced to see his adopted son, and gave him the same name as his mother's father, Opus, [65] a man beyond words in beauty and fine deeds. Locrus gave him a city and a people to govern, and strangers came to him from Argos and Thebes, from Arcadia and Pisa. But among the settlers he chiefly honored the son of Actor [70] and Aegina, Menoetius [...]

Olympian Odes, 9.39-71. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

The idea that Menoetius arrived at Opus rather than being born there is present in other texts. In the Byzantine scholia (12th century CE), it’s said that Actor was in fact a Locrian by birth, but Menoetius wasn’t. In fact, Menoetius was born on Aegina, an island that was named after Zeus who took the kidnapped Aegina there — previously it was called Oenone, as stated in Pausanias’ Description of Greece § 2.5.2. It’s the birthplace of Peleus and Telamon, from which they were exiled by their father Aeacus after killing their half-brother Phocus. The scholia says that because Menoetius was born on Aegina, Patroclus was called Myrmidon. Menoetius later went to Opus because it was the birthplace of his father Actor, but he himself wasn’t born there.

the best of the Myrmidons (Μυρμιδόνων τὸν ἄριστον) Actor was a Locrian by birth. He married Aigina, the daughter of Asopos (the river of Thebes), after she had slept with Zeus and after some months fathered Menoitios. Menoitios returned to his father’s homeland, Opous, and fathered Patroclos, whom the poet fittingly called a Myrmidon because his father was born on Aigina. [RSS]

Scholia D, § 18.10. Edition by R. Scott Smith et al.

Now, establishing some details:

According to the same scholia (12th century CE), Myrmidons are associated with island Aegina because “Since Aiacos was all alone on the island, Zeus took pity on him and turned the ants {myrmē-} there into people, and this is the reason they are called Myrmidons” (Scholia D, § 1.180). That is, in the opinion of this scholia, the origin of Patroclus going back to Aegina through Menoetius is what makes him a Myrmidon. 

A scholia of Pindar says that, according to Hesiod: “And she conceived and bare Aeacus, delighting in horses. Now when he came to the full measure of desired youth, he chafed at being alone. And the father of men and gods made all the ants that were in the lovely isle into men and wide-girdled women. These were the first who fitted with thwarts ships with curved sides, and the first who used sails, the wings of a sea-going ship” (Catalogue of Women, frag 53, trans. H.G. Evelyn-White).

Clement of Alexandria (2nd century CE) says regarding the Thessalians:  “What else of Thessalians? They are reported to worship ants, because they have been taught that Zeus, in the likeness of an ant, had intercourse with Eurymedusa the daughter of Cletor and begat Myrmidon” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2, trans. G.W. Butterworth), although the credibility of this account is debated by some because Clement was a Christian author intent on discrediting pagan gods.

Strabo (1st century BCE) says “And it is reasonable to suppose that all the people, the subjects of Achilles and Patroclus, who had accompanied Peleus in his flight from Aigina, were called Myrmidons” (Geography, 9.6.9);

ROMAN MYTHOLOGY: this association between Aegina and the term Myrmidon was inherited from Greek myths into Roman myths. The Roman Ovid (1st century CE) in Metamorphoses Book VII.501-660, describes that Juno (Roman counterpart to Hera) was enraged by an island being named after one of Jupiter's (Zeus') betrayals and inflicted a plague on the inhabitants, causing them to die. Aeacus then begged his father Jupiter to have mercy, so Jupiter transformed ants into men to repopulate the island. Myrmidons are also associated with Aegina by the Roman Servius (5th century CE) in the scholia of the Latin epic The Aeneid § 4.402, where he also says that Jupiter/Zeus made men from ants to populate the island Aegina (although there are other details surrounding a woman named Myrmex as well). In addition to the population of Aegina being considered Myrmidons, Phthia is also associated with the Myrmidons, which was the name of the army commanded by Achilles in the Trojan War.

In other words, there is more than one version of the story, but the one I found to be most attested is the one in which, in order to repopulate the island of Aegina, where his son Aeacus lived, Zeus transformed the ants there into men. These men were called Myrmidons, since the etymology refers to ant. Later, when Peleus and Telamon were banished from Aegina by their father Aeacus for the murder of their half-brother Phocus, some of the Myrmidons accompanied Peleus. Therefore, not only is Myrmidon related to Aegina, but it is Myrmidon who is in the army led by the royalty of Phthia. Patroclus, then, would be a Myrmidon both because he is related to Aegina and because he is a soldier of Achilles. It’s possible then that the title of "Myrmidon" not only reiterates the army to which Patroclus belongs, but is a nod to his father not being Opuntian but having moved to Opus because Actor, Patroclus' grandfather, was Locrian. The Byzantine scholia of The Iliad (12th century CE), when discussing the title "best of the Myrmidons" at 6.18.6, presents three possibilities for this title: one being the kinship with the island of Aegina, another being that even though Patroclus was a Locrian he was counted in the army of Phthia, and the third is that there may be another enigmatic reason since oracles are ambiguous. 

The scholia for the Pindar’s Olympian Odes offers a version similar to that in Scholia D. In the case of Menoetius, there are two options. At 9.106a, the scholia agree with Pindar in saying that Aegina and Ator had Menoetius, while at 9.104b and 9.106b we have the version told by Pythainetos about Damocrateia being the daughter of Aegina and Zeus and having Menoetius with Ator. In 9.106b and 9.107a, Patroclus is said to be the son of Menoetius by a wife named Sthenele. In the version with Damocrateia as Menoetius' mother (and not Aegina, as is more frequent), localization in 9.104b, Actor is said to have married Damocrateia in Thessaly. This ancient Thessaly was a region, not a city, so this description isn’t very specific — for example, Achilles is a Thessalian hero, since Phthia is located there. In any case, the scholia goes on to say that although Menoetius wasn’t born in Opus, he later went there because of Locrian parentage. This fits with Scholia D, who stated that Menoetius wasn’t Locrian by birth, but Actor was. It also fits with Pindar, who said that Menoetius wasn’t born in Opus, but rather moved there, where he received honors from the king. Patroclus, unlike his father, is Opuntian by birth.

Almut Fries, in “Κλέος ἄφθιτον ἕξεις: Text and Reperformance in Early Greek Praise Poetry”, highlights the importance of Opus being open to foreigners, with one example of a foreigner being Menoetius. More specifically, Fries argues for the idea that Pindar intended to achieve a kind of pan-Hellenism in his text by incorporating Greeks from different places into one place. For Opus to accept other Greek immigrants would therefore be an exemplification of pan-Hellenism:

As to the ‘myth’, Hubbard (2004: 73) observed how in Olympian 9 the tale of the eponymous king of Locrian Opus is linked with Homeric epic in that Opus opens his city to foreigners, notably Menoetius, the father of Patroclus, whose deeds at Troy Pindar summarises (Ol. 9.61-79). This raises the local myth to pan-Hellenic status and makes it relevant to a wider audience. The latter was especially important, given that the mythical narratives lent themselves to separate circulation – witness the rich, and early, reception history of the Typhos-episode in Pythian 1. Epic allusions can also mitigate the epichoric bias of historical references. Thus in Pyth. 1.47-55 Pindar compares the martial achievements of the ageing and sick Hieron to those of Philoctetes who captured Troy despite his wounded foot. Ancient and modern scholars have debated which battle is meant here, but in a way this does not matter. The point is Hieron’s heroic defiance of his illness, and Pindar’s vagueness, together with the epic comparison, ensures that this is conveyed to changing audiences over time. Knowing the historical background enhances the experience of such passages (hence the frequent attempts of scholiasts to explain them), but is not required for basic understanding.

In “Status and Social Reproduction in Pindar’s Epinician Odes” (pg 116-117), Caitlin Lenore Miller also explores the idea that Menoetius’s foreignness is intentional. More specifically, she argues that Opus in Pindar’s depiction is a somewhat multi-ethnic place, and that this is made clear in the context of the birth of King Opus (he is adopted) and only reinforced by the fact that this king accepts immigrants and honors them:

This genealogy begins with an account of indigeneity that has no definite beginning or end, and is closely associated with the political status of kingship. The rulers in this era are ἐγχώριοι βασιλῆες αἰεί, monarchs at all times native to the land itself. But Lokros’ infertility suddenly threatens the possibility of this unbroken enchoric rulership. To compensate, Zeus introduces a divinely authorized exogamy and adoption. This child is not just any foreigner, but the son of Zeus, who has a double parenthood through the god and his grandfather Opus. This human paternity is formally conferred upon him by Lokros through a naming that also invokes his heredity excellence, both physically and pragmatically (ὑπέρφατον ἄνδρα μορφᾷ τε καὶ / ἔργοισι, “a man beyond words in form and in deeds”). As physical and political excellence are linked, so too divine birth and human parentage become complementary. Opus receives a polis and laos from his adoptive father, and eventually this city and people also begin to incorporate immigrants from around the Greek world. From a beginning in a strictly heredity line of kings to a present in an ethnically heterogenous polis community, the ode at each moment integrates a different form of kinship into its genealogical story. Exogamy and adoption are both divinely sanctioned, and even in the ending vision of a multi-ethnic polis political power remains in the hands of the epichoric basileus.

Therefore, it’s possible that, at least for Pindar, Menoetius not being a native of Opus was a key element in what he wanted to represent. It’s important that Menoetius isn’t from Opus, but is accepted and honored by the king of Opus, who is even adopted — in this way, there is a representation of a power of a multi-ethnic state (in the sense of people from different poleis) whose idea of ​​hierarchy isn’t restricted by blood, as seen by the fact that Opus isn’t the biological son of the previous king, Locrus. When foreigners (not in the sense of non-Greek, but not from Opus) are accepted into Opus and their families are incorporated into the kingdom, then pan-Hellenism is represented. Menoetius not being a native of Opus, but Patroclus being Oputian is like a reassertion of Pan-Hellenism, since Patroclus represents that Menoetius settled in Opus. 

Also, considering that at no point is it said that Menoetius inherited the kingdom of Opus (as happened with Peleus, who married the princess of Phthia Antigone and entered the lineage of the kingdom, and Telamon, whose king of Salamis had no heirs to dispute the throne and passed the throne to him), it’s more likely that Menoetius wasn’t king and was, at most, part of the local nobility in Pindar’s version.

Locrian Ajax and his family

Strabo (1st century CE) wrote a geographical treatise. In the part where he is talking about traditions and other aspects of Opus, he emphasizes that Locrian Ajax — also known as Ajax the Lesser or Lesser Ajax — was considered the king of Opus and therefore Menoetius wasn’t the king:

[...] 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. [...]

Geography, 9.4.2. Translation by Horace Leonard Jones.

Since The Iliad, Locrian Ajax is called the son of Oileus: “Of Locrians, swift Ajax, son of Oileus, was leader” (2.527), and his father is consistent in other sources. Oileus is said to be the son of Hodoedocus by Agrinome (Fabulae, § 14.2; Ioannis Tzetzes’ Ad Lycophronem § 1150). Hodoedocus tends to be considered in mythological dictionaries to be the offspring of Opus II. Oileus and Locrian Ajax were both mythological kings of the Locrians, which includes Opus. That is, Opus II already had living male descendants; he wouldn’t have needed to give his kingdom to someone else as, for example, Cychreus did with Salamis. Since there was no reason for Menoetius to have received the throne peacefully, and since there are no reports of Menoetius attempting to usurp the throne through violence, it does make sense to consider that it would be improbable (thought not impossible) for Menoetius to be king when the royal line was still alive and had suitable heirs. Finally, for reference, Oileus, the father of Locrian Ajax, is apparently of Menoetius's generation or at least a generation close to it, and was also an Argonaut: “A third with them was Oileus, peerless in courage and well skilled to attack the flying foe, when they break their ranks” (Argonautica, 1.74-75, trans. R.C. Seaton).

The wifes of Menoetius and mothers of Patroclus

While I'm increasingly leaning towards the possible idea that Menoetius and Patroclus lived as nobles rather than king and prince, it's quite notable that they were of high status, since Greek mythology tends to feature people from the upper classes as heroes and it's not “normal” for people from common backgrounds to have the level of prominence that Patroclus has. Patroclus being counted among Helen's suitors (Pseudo-Hyginus’ Fabulae and Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library) also makes it unlikely that pre-exile he had no status, considering that it would be quite difficult for a Spartan princess and demigoddess of Zeus to marry someone of simple origin. And if we consider the mothers attributed to Patroclus, they seem to tend to be of high status, so either way he wouldn't be a common person and neither would Menoetius, since aristocratic women married into the aristocracy. For example:

Sthenele, attested in both Pindar's Olympian Odes and Pseudo-Apollodorus, is described as the daughter of Acastus. Acastus is from the kingdom of Iolcus, best known as the hometown of the Argonaut hero Jason, and was a son of Pelias, king of Iolcus known for instigating the Argonaut expedition. After his father was killed by his own daughter because of Medea, Acastus took over as king. This means that his daughters are princesses, which includes Sthenele. In this case, Menoetius would have to be of high enough status to marry a princess, and even if Menoetius isn’t royal, Patroclus would still be of royal blood on his mother's side. Ironically, this Acastus is known to be an enemy of Phthia due to having had past grievances with Peleus, even attempting to conquer the place by taking advantage of the fact that Peleus is old, Achilles is dead and Neoptolemus has yet to return from Troy;

Polymele, attested by Pseudo-Apollodorus, was described as the daughter of Peleus. Peleus, as we know, was a prince in Aegina and became king in Phthia trough marriage with Antigone and favour of her father, the king. In other words, Polymele would be a princess, as was Sthenele. This, incidentally, would make Patroclus uncle of Achilles, since he would be married to his sister. Polymele's mother isn’t attested, but I think it is more likely that she was the daughter of Antigone, Peleus' first wife, than of Thetis. Polymele is a very poorly attested character in the surviving sources, although Pseudo-Apollodorus credits this version to a man named Philocrates. Peleus has another, more attested daughter, who is named Polydora and is married to Borus, although she had a son named Menestheus out of wedlock with the river Spercheus (this is already mentioned in The Iliad, where Menestheus is part of the Myrmidon army). Polydora and Polymele, however, don’t appear to be the same character with different names, as the only similarity is their father;

Periops, attested by Pseudo-Apollodorus, was described as the daughter of Pheres. Pheres was a prince of Iolcus, and was also the half-brother of Pelias, whom I mentioned in the part about Sthenele (same mother, Tyro, but the fathers are different, Pheres is the son of the mortal Cretheus and Pelias is the son of the god Poseidon) and also of Neleus (father of Nestor, twin brother of Pelias, founder of Pylos), Amythaon (also son of Cretheus, went to Pylos with Nestor) and Aeson (known to be the father of Jason, remained in Iolcus). He didn’t remain in Iolcus and founded a kingdom called Pherae, of which he was king. Periops is therefore also a princess. This would also make Periops the sister of a well-known mythological figure, Admetus, who is known to have been served by the god Apollo and for his loyal wife Alcestis;

The exception is Philomela, attested in Pseudo-Hyginus' Fabulae and in the Byzantine scholia of Homer, of whom we only know her name and know nothing about her life, and so we have no way of stating her status. Except for her, the wives attributed to Menoetius are royal, indicating that Menoetius was of sufficient status to have such a marriage and that Patroclus does in any case have royalty in his bloodline, although it’s more likely through his mother's side rather than his father's.

Actor, father of Menoetius

Now, Menoetius not being a king doesn’t mean that there is no royalty in him, so let's consider those possibilities as well. There is a possibility that Menoetius is of royal blood if his mother is not Aegina, but Damocrateia, as Pindar's scholia says, since she is the sister of the king of Aegina, Aeacus. On his mother's side, this is the only possibility, since the other version is a goddess, who isn’t limited to human reigns. Now, let's think about his father: Actor. There are many Actors in Greek mythology, so it’s an extremely confusing task to try to determine who the Actor father of Menoetius is, and therefore I’m not sure about Actor's status. So let's deal with the possibilities.

THE ILIAD (8th century BCE): The Iliad certainly recognizes multiple Actors. It’s possible to see that they’re clearly not all the father of Menoetius. Here are the Actors who are certainly not the same as the father of Menoetius:

In 2.511-516, we have an Actor who is the son of Azeus and whose daughter Astyoche became pregnant by the god Ares, giving birth to two sons named Ascalaphus and Ialmenus...clearly not the same guy. The locations are also different, the armies are those of Aspledon and Mynian Orchomenos.

In 2.615-624, characters named Amphimachus and Thalpios are leaders and sons of Eurytus and Cteatus, sons of Actor. This Actor is clearly not the same as Menoetius’ Actor and I actually know who this is, but I’ll explain later. These Amphimachus and Thalpios are the same ones who are referred to as “the Moliones boys from the line of Aktor” (11.750) and who are said to be sons of Poseidon, who protected them in a scene from The Iliad (11.751-752). Ampimachus is killed by Hector (13.185-186).

In 16.168-198, Echecles is a son of Actor married to Polymele, daughter of Phylas (not confuse with Polymele, daughter of Peleus). Before the marriage, Polymele had already become pregnant by the god Hermes and her son with him is named Eudoros. This Eudoros is part of the Myrmidons, thus having some connection to Patroclus, but they are clearly not related and only share grandfathers with the same name.

HESIODIC TEXTS (8th/7th century BCE): Catalogue of Women seems to consider different Actors. When talking about Helen’s suitors, at one point it says “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” (CW.F6831, trans. H.G. Evelyn-White). Not only is the place not the same, but Protesilaus isn’t related to Menoetius in any source, so he isn’t the same Actor who is Patroclus’ grandfather. 

In another fragment, we have:

The two sons of Actor and Molione... Hesiod has given their descent by calling them after Actor and Molione; but their father was Poseidon. But Aristarchus is informed that they were twins, not . . . such as were the Dioscuri, but, on Hesiod's testimony, double in form and with two bodies and joined to one another.

CW.F9. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White.

Clearly this Actor isn’t the same. The story is entirely different with this whole thing about him being married to Molione, who is never mentioned as Menoetius' mother, and this involvement with twins who are sons of Poseidon. As some may have noticed, this is the same story we have in The Iliad with the twins Amphimachus and Thalpios...yes, this Actor is the same as the man indicated as their father in The Iliad — adoptive father/stepfather, biological father is Poseidon.

Surprisingly, we aren’t done with the Catalogue Actors yet, there is another one! First, let's look at the origin of the woman named Pisidice:

[...] And the sons of Aiolos were born, kings ministering law and right,Kretheus, and Athamas, and wily Sisyphos, and unjust Salmoneus, and daring Perieres, and great Deion, and [….]  most renowed of men ….. being full of youthful joy in the house [30] [….] and they bore glorious children; and moreover Ainarete, having gone to bed with Aiolos bore to him thick-haired daughters who had a very lovely form, Peisidike and Alkyone similar to the Graces, and Kalyke, Kanake, and graceful Perimede [...]

Translation by E. Bianchelli.

Later, we have the following about her:

[...] and in turn the strong force of godlike Myrmidon [100] married Peisidike and she bore Antiphos and Aktor as her children, and having had intercourse in the arms of Poseidon, the thick-haired daughter of Aiolos gave birth twice [...]

Translation by E. Bianchelli.

This Pisidice married a man named Myrmidon and had a son Actor. Since the name Actor is consistently the name of Menoetius' father and since Patroclus is consistently a Myrmidon, either through his position in the army or through his relationship to Aegina, this has been considered as possible father of Menoetius.

The part about the "thick-haired daughter of Aiolos" who had relations with Poseidon confuses me since it's very fragmentary and Aiolos is listed here as having many daughters, but it doesn't seem to be Psidice because I've found that, among Aiolos' named daughters, Canace/Kanake is the only one who is consistently considered to have had children of Poseidon in the various sources. So I'm guessing that this part about Poseidon's twins refers to Canace and not Psidice, which would be possible since this part seems to be listing the fates of Aiolos' daughters in sequence, since before Psidice the passage was talking about Alcyone. In other words, these demigod twins of Poseidon are possibly not Antiphus and Actor, but other characters, and these two Psidice’s sons are indeed children of Myrmidon.

PSEUDO-HYGINUS (1st century): Menoetius' father remains Actor since we have the description "Menoetius, son of Actor, an Opuntian" (§ 14.2), which remarkably links the family to Opus. We have "Actor, son of Hippasus, from the Peloponnesus" (§ 14.4), but this isn’t Menoetius' father for two reasons. The first is that both are listed among the Argonauts and the sources tend to indicate that, with the exception of Heracles, the Argonauts were close in age, which would make the idea of ​​father and son participating improbable. Secondly, Pseudo-Hyginus could have connected that Actor with Opus as he did with the first, but he didn’t. Anyway, different people, I'm ruling out the Actor son of Hippasus as a possibility.

In § 102, a king Actor is mentioned when it is described that his shepherd tended the wounded Philoctetes. This, however, is certainly not the same Actor, as he is king of the island of Lemnos, which has no relation to the locations associated with Menoetius and Patroclus. In fact, Lemnos was one of the places the Achaeans passed through on their journey. This Actor, I suspect, may be a version of the same character used by Euripides in his lost play about Philoctetes, since both have a role in the tragedy of Philoctetes at Lemnos.

In § 157 a demigod of Neptune (Roman counterpart of Poseidon) named Actor is mentioned. He has a brother named Dictys and his mother is Agamede, daughter of Augeas. Clearly not the same character.

In this sense, although Menoetius remains the son of Actor in Pseudo-Hyginus, none of the other Actors mentioned in the text are his father.

DIODORUS SICULUS (1st century BCE): he says “[...] Peleus was banished by his father and fled to Phthia in what is now called Thessaly, where he was purified by Actor the king of the country and succeeded to the kingship, Actor being childless” (4.72.5, trans. C.H. Oldfather), which has led some to believe that this Actor is the same since he is related to the core mythological character of Patroclus by being located in Phthia and having a relationship with Peleus. However, I personally find this unlikely because Diodorus says that the reason Peleus succeeded to the kingdom is because this Actor had no sons, whereas in 4.39.1, he says “Menoetius, the son of Actor”. I feel that these are two different Actors, since the Actor who is Menoetius’ father isn’t really explored by Diodorus in his surviving books. Note that Diodorus isn’t like Pseudo-Apollodorus and Pseudo-Hyginus, who provide multiple versions as mythographers, so I find it unlikely that he was talking about different versions of the same character and I think he was citing different characters with the same name. In any case, this is an unusual version, as the name usually attributed to the king who received Peleus is Eurytion, who has a daughter Antigone (not to be confused with the daughter of Oedipus) who is considered to be Peleus' first wife. Therefore, I’ll be particularly ruling out the possibility that the king of Phthia is the same Actor as Menoetius' father.

PSEUDO-APOLLODORUS (1st/2nd century CE): He seems to be talking about  different Actors since the lineages and regions are different. Here they are:

The first one to be mentioned receives the following description: “[...] Dorus received the country over against Peloponnese and called the settlers Dorians after himself. Aeolus reigned over the regions about Thessaly and named the inhabitants Aeolians. He married Enarete, daughter of Deimachus, and begat seven sons, Cretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes, Perieres, and five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Pisidice, Calyce, Perimede. Perimede had Hippodamas and Orestes by Achelous; and Pisidice had Antiphus and Actor by Myrmidon” (1.7.3). 

The second Actor is the father of Eurytion (1.8.2), king of Phthia who received Peleus when he was banished from Aegina. His daughter Antigone married Peleus and part of the kingdom was given to him. During the hunt for the Calydonian Boar, Peleus accidentally killed him and seek purification at Iolcus with Acastus (3.13.1-2).

The third has this description: “Deion reigned over Phocis and married Diomede, daughter of Xuthus; and there were born to him a daughter, Asterodia, and sons, Aenetus, Actor, Phylacus, and Cephalus, who married Procris, daughter of Erechtheus.” (1.9.4).

The fourth guy is described as “Actor, son of Hippasus” (1.9.16). 

The fifth is an Actor who was married to Molinoe, who bore the sons Eurytus and Cteatus by Poseidon (2.7.2). This Actor is also described as being the brother of the king of Elis Augeas, who had conflicts with the Zeus’ demigod Heracles during one of the hero's labors in which he was tasked by Eurystheus with the mission of cleaning the stables (2.5.5/2.5.11/2.7.2).

Remarkably, despite having the same name, none of them are the same. They are from different places and lineages. The first is the same one from the Hesiodic fragment that I had thought might be the same character (related to Myrmidon), the second is probably the same one that Diodorus says hosted Peleus (but with the roles reversed, since in the common version Eurytion, the son, is the host while in Diodorus the host is the father, Actor), the third I don't know about, the fourth is the same one mentioned by Pseudo-Hyginus and the fifth is the same one from the Hesiodic fragments and one of those mentioned in The Iliad (the one with Poseidon's twins).

Among these, I have already ruled out Eurytion's father, Hippasus' son, and Molinoe's husband. That leaves Myrmidon's son and Deion's descendant as possibilities.

CONCLUSIONS: Between Deion and Myrmidon, the Myrmidon’s Actor is usually chosen as the possible father of Menoetius because of the similarities in name between Myrmidon and the title of Patroclus. There is, however, a problem of locality here. As I have already mentioned, Actor, in the versions of scholia D, Olympian Ode 9 and the Pindaric scholia, is a Locrian by birth, while Menoetius isn’t. However, Actor, son of Myrmidon, is…Thessalian! Figueira suggests that this happens simply because they’re different local versions, one of them seeking to associate the Myrmidons with Thessaly and the other claiming a local Locrian hero:

Compare Iliad 11.785; 16.14 with Aktor as the father of Menoitios, and Catalogue fr. 16.7–11, which has Aktor as the son of Myrmidon and Peisidike, while Myrmidon himself might be a son of Zeus (“Apollodorus” 1.7.3 = 1.52; cf. Iliad 18.10 for Patroklos as the best of the Myrmidons). Fitting Patroklos into the Aiakid genealogy, however, was problematical, as it raised difficulties with synchronizing generations in Patroklos’ line and that of Achilles. Contrast, therefore, Pindar, who identifies Menoitios as son of Aktor and Aigina, making him half-brother of Aiakos (and not of Peleus) and maternal uncle of Peleus (Olympian 9.69–70; cf. Eustathius Iliad 1.175.29). The ode honors a Lokrian, and Pindar may represent Lokrian tradition, juxtaposed with the more truly ‘ecumenical’ or panhellenic tradition of the Hesiodic Catalogue. Another related crux in Aiakid mythology involved the figure responsible for bringing the Myrmidons into Thessaly or Lokris. And its resolution affected how one viewed the very nature of the Myrmidons.

The Aiakidai, the Herald-less War, and Salamis by Thomas Figueira, note 169.

This note is from the part where Figueira comments on how Menoetius and Peleus are brothers in the Hesiodic version. That is why he begins by talking about comparing them with the Iliadic version, in which they aren’t. Figueira, in fact, comments on how the Homeric version doesn’t seem to demonstrate Aeacus's family tree with the same fervor as the later sources:

Most features of the conventional mythological genealogy of the Aiakidai are absent in Homer. The filiation of Aiakos to Zeus and Peleus to Aiakos is the only detail verifiable from Homer. Nothing suggests that Peleus and Achilles had anything to do with Aigina, either the nymph and daughter of Asopos or the island. The Myrmidons are exclusively Thessalian as far as can be determined from the Iliad. Neither Aias nor his father Telamon is ever treated as an Aiakid, and there is no hint that Aias and Achilles are cousins. No tie of kinship seems to exist between Achilles and Patroklos. Some of these discrepancies were recognized virtually from the ancient inception of Homeric studies. Eustathius cites Porphyry on the point that Homer does not attach Αἰακίδης to Aias nor does he treat Achilles and Aias as cousins (Iliad 1.439.29–32). [145] The scholiast to Iliad 21.186–187 was troubled by Achilles’ vaunting his descent from Zeus as superior to that of a river god, when he was in fact a descendant of Aigina, daughter of the river Asopos. There are a number of natural ways to account for epic’s failure to exploit these aspects of the myths on Aiakos. One might speculate that the Aiginetan connections of the Aiakids developed after “Homer” but before “Hesiod” or, at least, before the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Alternatively, we could posit the existence of a number of Aiakoi. Homer’s Aiakos would be a Thessalian, and, if it is thought necessary, a Thessalian Aigina could even be hypothesized to stand as his mother. Yet all of this would be sheer speculation, and the pattern of usage of Αἰακίδης suggests another approach entirely.

The Aiakidai, the Herald-less War, and Salamis by Thomas Figueira.

Overall, from what I understand from Figueira's explanations... the family tree of Menoetius and Patroclus has become immensely fluid at the hands of local traditions and their evolution.

Well, in the case of the Locrian Actor, we don't know who his parents are and, consequently, we don't know their status. In the case that you want to deal with the possibility that he is the son of Myrmidon and is actually Thessalian, then he is royalty since Psidice was a princess and Myrmidon was a prince. Personally, I prefer the Locrian version because I find it less uncertain and because I like the narrative in which Menoetius is a foreigner in Opus. In my opinion, it's a more unique narrative and I like the idea of ​​not every relevant character being a prince/king in the Trojan War.

Argonauts

Menoetius in the voyage of the Argonauts

Menoetius is attested in the Hellenistic epic poem Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodius (4th century BCE) as one of the argonauts. We can be absolutely certain that this Menoetius is the father of Patroclus because it says that his father is Actor and that he came from Opus. So yes, absolutely certain that it is the same guy.

Moreover Actor sent his son Menoetius from Opus that he might accompany the chiefs.

Argonautica, 1.69-70. Translation by R.C. Seaton.

Now, some may wonder, what did he do on this mission? Well, although Apollonius gives special moments to many characters, Menoetius isn’t one of them. This is the only time he is mentioned in the entire poem, and he has no significant moments. So, although he was an Argonaut in this version, he apparently did nothing significant. Peleus, father of Achilles, and Telamon, father of Big Ajax, for example, are vastly more memorable in the Argonautica narrative compared to Menoetius. It’s at most possible to assume that when the text says that the Argonauts in general did something, Menoetius is included among them. For example, when it comes to choosing a leader, when they have a sex marathon with the women of Lemnos, when they fight Amycus' guards, etc.

Pseudo-Hyginus (1st century), when listing the Argonauts, includes Menoetius:

ARGONAUTS ASSEMBLED: [...] Menoetius, son of Actor, an Opuntian [...]

Fabulae, §14. Translation by Mary Grant.

He was doing the work of a mythographer, that is, collecting different versions of the myth. More specifically, it’s assumed that his intention was to present Greek myths to a Roman audience, so much so that Fabulae is a text in Latin and constantly cites Greek authors. Among those cited is Apollonius Rhodius (“Peleus, Phthia, and Telamon, Salamis, which Apollonius of Rhodes calls Atthis”, §14). In other words, the author certainly had contact with Argonautica and may have included Menoetius for that reason. It’s also possible that Menoetius was already present in other lost versions, however.

Menoetius is also included in the list of Pseudo-Apollodorus (1st/2nd century CE):

Sent to fetch the fleece, Jason called in the help of Argus, son of Phrixus; and Argus, by Athena's advice, built a ship of fifty oars named Argo after its builder; and at the prow Athena fitted in a speaking timber from the oak of Dodona. When the ship was built, and he inquired of the oracle, the god gave him leave to assemble the nobles of Greece and sail away. And those who assembled were as follows: [...] Menoetius, son of Actor [...]

Library, 1.9.16. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Pseudo-Apollodorus, whoever he was, intended the Library to be a collection of different versions of the myth. This means that he basically recorded versions that he was familiar with, including literary sources. Like Pseudo-Hyginus, he clearly knew the Argonautica poem and used it as a reference, since he not only presents narratives very similar to it at one point, but also explicitly cites it in Book I when he says, “But Apollonius in the Argonautica says that the Harpies were pursued to the Strophades Islands and suffered no harm, having sworn an oath that they would wrong Phineus no more” (1.9.21). Similar to the Argonautica and Fabulae, Menoetius is listed as being present, but isn’t emphasized for any specific achievement.

He is also present in the Orphic Argonautica (4th century CE or later), a poem of unknown authorship narrated by the skilled musician Orpheus, one of the Argonauts:

[...] There even came Menoetius of Opus, a neighbor of the Minyans [...]

Orphic Argonautica. Translation by Jason Colavito.

But again, no episode dedicated to Menoetius. He's just there. This poem is often theorized to have been inspired by Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica because of certain similar narrative decisions (obviously, not just the myth itself. That's normal for similarities). If it is, then again it's possible that the inclusion of Menoetius was influenced by Apollonius. However, it's also possible that Menoetius was already considered an Argonaut anyway. 

In Roman mythology, Menoetius (referred to as "Actor's son") is also present in Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica. In 1.407–410, he is described as having left Patroclus with Chiron. In the Greek sources, it isn’t stated what happened to Patroclus during Menoetius' absence, although in the sources it is generally emphasized that Achilles is with Chiron during the journey, with the Argonautica showing him saying goodbye to his father with Chiron and Chariclo and in the Orphic Argonautica Peleus asks the argonauts to visit Pelion because of Achilles. The lack of explanation as to what happens to Patroclus may be because in the Greek sources he isn’t depicted on Pelion as far I know. Achilles is described as being there without Patroclus in basically all the surviving Greek sources I know, and The Iliad Book 11 even explicitly states that Patroclus learned healing from Achilles and not from Chiron. In Roman mythology, Patroclus is with Chiron in at least two sources that I know of, one being Valerius Flaccus and the other being Statius' Achilleid (in fact, I've seen academic texts trying to link Achilleid and Valerius' Argonautica and one of the arguments being this similarity between the two poems). Considering that from the surviving Greek sources we have (there is no way to speak for the lost sources) Patroclus isn’t a student of Chiron, I think it’s possible that in the more traditional version of the Greek myth he simply stayed behind in Opus while Menoetius traveled just like the other sons of the Argonauts stayed in their father’s home.

In one interpretation I've seen, Menoetius was mentioned in the Argonautica as a nod to his Homeric figure and his relationship with Patroclus:

Menoetius, the son of Actor, is mentioned only in AR 1.69-70 and does not appear elsewhere in the Argonautica. As the father of Patroclus he is often referred to with the patronymic Μενοιτιάδης (e.g. Il. 1.307 and Od. 24.77) or by his actual name (e.g. Il. 9.202 Μενοιτίου υἱέ, said by Achilles to Patroclus) in the Homeric epics. Thus this entry would strongly remind the reader of the next generation and the Trojan War. There are also a few passages in the Iliad, which deal with the role of Menoetius as the father of Patroclus in more detail, so that, in fact, the reader who wanted to know more about Menoetius would need to consult the Iliad rather than the Argonautica and in doing so would be made aware of his later role as an old father of a hero of the Trojan War. In Il. 11.785-789 Menoetius, here also referred to as the son of Actor, addresses Patroclus and tells him to offer advice to Achilles, because he is older, though Achilles is stronger and can claim nobler descent. In Il. 18.324-332 Achilles regrets that he promised Menoetius in vain that he would bring back his son to Opus, because Patroclus has died and he himself will die at Troy too. With his phrasing Apollonius subtly hints at a parallel between Actor and his son Menoetius and Menoetius and his son Patroclus in the Iliad, as in Ἄκτωρ υἷα ... | ὦρσεν, ἀριστήεσσι σὺν ἀνδράσιν ὄφρα νέοιτο (“Actor sent his son Menoetius from Opus to travel with the heroic men”, AR 1.69-70), he varies the usual verbs of coming or not staying behind to introduce a new Argonaut by drawing attention to the father’s role. With ἀριστήεσσι σὺν ἀνδράσιν he may intimate a somewhat secondary role for Menoetius, recalling that of Patroclus in Il. 11.785-789, cohering with the lack of prominence awarded Menoetius in the rest of the Argonautica, yet at the same time he implies a notion of progress, inasmuch as Patroclus is much more prominent and important in the Iliad than Menoetius in the Argonautica. Besides, as Patroclus must already have been born (see n.21), Apollonius’ readers could have recalled that, like Peleus, Menoetius left a young son at home. What is more, the two fathers, who are old and bereft in the Iliad and left behind in their turn, are here still young and vigorous. Apollonius hereby raises issues of heredity, repetitive life patterns and growth and decay across the generations.

Sons and fathers in the catalogue of Argonauts in Apollonius Argonautica 1.23-233 by Annette Harder.

Finally, in another interpretation, his presence seeks to explain that he already knew Peleus and, therefore, intentionally chose Phthia when Patroclus was exiled.

Menoetius’ relationship with Heracles 

According to Argonautica, Menoetius knew Heracles personally, since Apollonius Rhodius (4th century BCE) includes both of them as Argonauts. Other sources, however, give other forms of connections.

Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) says that Menoetius and Heracles were friends and, after Heracles' death, Menoetius established honors for him in Opus:

[...] After this, when the companions of Iolaus came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods. These men, therefore, performed the offerings to the dead as to a hero, and after throwing up a great mound of earth returned to Trachis. Following their example Menoetius, the son of Actor and a friend of Heracles, sacrificed a boar and a bull and a ram to him as to a hero and commanded that each year in Opus Heracles should receive the sacrifices and honours of a hero. [...]

Library of History, 4.38.3-39.1. Translation by C.H. Oldfather.

In a version of the myth told by Plutarch (1st/2nd century CE), Menoetius had a daughter named Myrto, who is considered to have been the mother of Eucleia by Heracles. This version isn’t attested in any other source that I know of, and from the way Plutarch wrote it, it appears to be a less common version, the more common being that Eucleia was a name for the goddess Artemis:

Now Eucleia is regarded by most as Artemis, and is so addressed; but some say she was a daughter of Heracles and of that Myrto who was daughter of Menoetius and sister of Patroclus, and that, dying in virginity, she received divine honours among the Boeotians and Locrians. For she has an altar and an image built in every market place, and receives preliminary sacrifices from would-be brides and bridegrooms.

Life of Aristides, 20.6. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

A son of Menoetius named Abedrus, lover of Heracles, is also mentioned: "Abderos, who was loved by Heracles, was the brother of Patroclus" (Phocus' Bibliotheca, 190.39, trans. John Henry Freese). Phocus, the writer of the Bibliotheca, claims that this came from Ptolemy Hephaestion's New History and has a bad opinion of the reliability of that book: "It abounds in extraordinary and badly imagined information; and the peak of absurdity is that he attempts, for certain trivial fables, to explain the reasons for their appearance” (190.1). New History is, in general, considered an uncertain source, including the possibility that the original manual was intended to be a parody, which is why, although it has elements that are actually present in the myth, there may possibly be intentional inventions or exaggerations.

Menoetius and Patroclus’ relationship

In regards to his family relationships, he is shown most closely associated with Patroclus, Peleus and Achilles. In particular, he is shown this way in the context of Patroclus being exiled. So, let’s talk about it.

The Iliad

Fiona McHardy's “The Role of the Extended Family in Exacting Blood Revenge in Classical Athens” argues that the practice of exile wasn’t so unexpected for the ancient Greeks exposed to the myth because of the following factors:

Menoetius and Peleus being usually cousins ​​may have played a role in the decision to exile Patroclus to Phthia. This is because the idea of ​​seeking protection by going to a relative isn’t uncommon in mythology. Examples cited by McHardy include: Orestes goes to live with his aunt's family, Pylades being his cousin, to protect him from Clytemnestra Aegisthus; Polydorus is sent by Priam to stay with Polymestor to protect him from the Trojan War, and in Fabulae Polymestor is married to one of Priam's daughters and thus is part of the family; after the murder of their half-brother Chrysippus, in order to avoid the wrath of their father Pelops, the twins Atreus and Thiestes choose to seek refuge with Euristheus, a relative of theirs since Euristheus is the son of their sister Nicippe; In the play Orestes, Hermione was raised by Clytemnestra in the absence of her parents, both in Troy (pg 7-9).

At least in Athenian culture (which influences a not insignificant amount of the surviving sources we have), the idea of ​​raising cousins ​​together wasn’t uncommon. McHardy gives the following examples: “Charmides was said to have been brought up from a young age in the home of his cousin Andocides (Andoc. 1.48), while the speaker of Lysias 3 Against Simon refers to the fact that he has taken in his sister and her children after the death of her husband and they are living at his house (3.6). Likewise, Aristarchus mentions to Socrates that he has taken in femal relatives from outside the oikos during a time of crisis (Xen. Mem. 2.7.2). A similar situation is represented in Menander’s Aspis where female cousins are brought up together because the brother of one of the girls has gone abroad to fight, leaving his sister in the care of her uncle (122–9)”. In general, it was expected that the family would offer support in vulnerable situations. She also adds that it was common for families to live close together, resulting in cousins ​​being raised together and the famous inter-relative marriage such as marriage between cousins or even between niece and uncle (pg 8-11).

Although McHardy doesn’t explicitly state what the danger would be in the case of Patroclus, I have my theories. I imagine that the danger would be the possible consequences of killing Clysonimus, since scholia D describes him as “Clesonymos, the son of Amphidamas (a man of some importance)” (§ 12.1). Given the description of Amphidamas as “a man of some importance” it’s possible that the death of Clysonimus, his son, could have posed a danger to Patroclus, since he would have accidentally killed someone who was the son of a man that had enough status to represent considerable social pressure for him to be punished for the crime. And if we consider the sources in which Menoetius appears to be a noble and not a king, then he could indeed have been in a situation where his social-economic influence wouldn’t have been sufficient, if the other offended man (Amphidamas) was also important. Another aspect is brought up by Alden, who comments on how, having Peleus fled to avoid punishment for the murder he committed, he appeared to have some kind of sympathy for people in similar situations, which included Patroclus:

A dynasty founded on homicide may well be sympathetic to homicides, as exemplified in Herodotus’ story of Croesus, whose dynasty  began with Gyges’ murder of Candaules (Hdt. 1.8 – 12), and who graciously received the fratricide, Adrestus (Hdt. 1.35). Several fugitives seek shelter with Peleus and Thetis, who send them to fight at Troy in the train of Achilles. One such is Epeigeus, who fled to Peleus  after killing his cousin (Il. 16.570 – 576). Patroclus, son of Menoetius, is another: when he was only a boy, he killed the son of Amphidamas in a quarrel over dice, and was taken from Opoeis in Locris to  the court of Peleus, where he was brought up with Achilles, becoming his θεράπων (‘companion in arms’) (Il. 23.85 – 90). Phoenix, another  fugitive, relates to Achilles the sordid events which led him to become the metanast of Peleus, with the duty of advising Achilles and the right to  his protection (Il. 9.438 – 443; 485 – 495). [...]

The Despised Migrant (Il. 9.648 = 16.59) by Maureen Alden, pg 122.

In the possibility that Peleus is indeed recognized as someone willing to accept people who would otherwise be punished in their local cities, Menoetius' choice makes even more sense. Indeed, even the way Patroclus describes the manner in which he was exiled is peculiar:

“[Patroclus’ line]  [...] 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, 23.81-92. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

He says “when Menoetius brought me, when I was little, out of Opoeis to your home” (23.84-85) indicating that Menoetius personally escorted Patroclus. In myths of exile, this is a rarity. Usually the exiled person is left alone, and isn’t escorted. It has been argued that Menoetius escorted Patroclus because he was a child and therefore it would be “???” to expect him to be able to maintain himself in the outside world. This is an explanation that makes sense, though I think it is also interesting to note that Menoetius could have sent trusted servants to do this if the concern was simply that, as a child, Patroclus wouldn’t know what to do without guidance. In a way, Menoetius deciding to escort him, in my view, curiously makes the scenario described by Patroclus more similar to myths in which one relative tries to protect another (e.g. Electra sending Orestes) than to myths of exile, which more resemble either an escape (see Atreus and Thiestes, Peleus and Telamon, Phoenix) or a possible solitary journey (see Oedipus; but in the case of Oedipus, the initially lonely journey ceases to be lonely when Antigone offers to go along.). The exile, therefore, seems to have a greater protective character on Menoetius' part than a punitive one, which is consistent with how scholia D says: “In a fit of rage over a game of dice he killed a boy his age, Clesonymos, the son of Amphidamas (a man of some importance), but some say it was Aianes he killed. Exiled for this, he went to Phthia and, based on his kinship with Peleus, he stayed there with Achilles”, emphasizing the status of Amphidamas (a possible threat) and the kinship with Peleus (a protection in a scenario of vulnerability).

Patroclus describes “Then the horseman Peleus received me into his house and reared me with kindness” (23.89-90), which makes it clear that Patroclus had a good experience in Phthia. Not only was he not abandoned, he was specifically taken to a place where he would receive good treatment. Although the Homeric tradition doesn’t explicitly state the shared genealogy of Patroclus and Achilles, given the other sources that do, then Menoetius likely thought he was sending Patroclus to a trusted relative, as Hellanicus’ version explains in Scholia D. Given that Peleus had a son close in age to Patroclus, it might even be expected that there would be close upbringing between cousins, as was common in certain parts of Greek culture. McHardy, for example, comments on how, although Patroclus and Achilles’ relationship is more complex, the kinship between the two and their parents may have influenced their closeness:

Patroclus is in many ways analogous to the one between Orestes and Pylades in  that the pair were raised together and formed a particularly strong bond which is  in many ways depicted as kin-like in the Iliad. As Donlan (1985: 300) notes: “Such slurred distinctions between ‘friends,’ ‘companions,’ and kin are frequent  in the epic. To cite only the most famous example: the emotional attachments  between Achilles and Patroclus (II. 17. 411, 655 – πολὺ φίλτατος ἑταῖρος) in life  and Achilles’ obligations to Patroclus dead (funeral rites, burial, blood vengeance)  were precisely those due and expected between close blood relatives.” In addition  to this conceptual link, Glotz (1904: 85–93) also made the linguistic link between etes and hetairos in Homer making the companions of heroes their paternal kinsmen (cf. Miller 1953: 47). Certainly it is made clear that extended kin such as  cousins could be living together when Phoenix says that he had many cousins and  relatives living in his father’s house who begged him not to leave home (Il. 9.464–  5) suggesting that extended kin were thought to congregate together and to defend  one another.

The Role of the Extended Family in Exacting Blood Revenge in Classical Athens“ by Fiona McHardy, pg 6.

If we consider that closeness between cousins ​​was to be expected in situations like these, then Menoetius might have thought that Phthia wouldn’t only be better for Patroclus because Peleus was someone he knew and found trustworthy, but also because Patroclus would have a figure close to his own age in Achilles.

That is, so far, with regard to exile, we have the following details:

Patroclus' exile, narratively speaking, is more similar to cases in which, in search of protection in a situation of crisis/vulnerability, the character is sent to the home of a relative. It doesn’t have many similarities with cases in which the exile is intended to punish, in fact, but rather when it is intended to protect.

Menoetius personally took Patroclus to Phthia, which was ruled by Peleus. Peleus, in turn, was a relative of Menoetius and a former companion (former Argonauts) and was even known for being hospitable. So when Patroclus says he was treated kindly, this was probably something Menoetius imagined would happen given Peleus's characteristics.

Peleus had a son close in age to Patroclus, and cousins ​​being raised together wasn’t uncommon in Greece, so it could be that Patroclus was raised with a cousin so that he could develop a close bond in a place far from home.

Even after his son's exile, Menoetius cared for him from what I understood. Let's set the facts out in an understandable order (not in the order they are presented in the text, but in the order that makes it easier to explain the whole thing). In the scene where Achilles talks about Patroclus crying, the reader is often reminded of Achilles joking about Patroclus being like a little girl running to her mother, but something that tends to get overshadowed is that he mentions Menoetius:

[Achilles’ lines] “Why are you tearful, Patroclus, like a foolish girl, who runs after her mother demanding to be picked up, grasping her dress, and holds her back as she hurries, and looks at her weeping, until she is picked up?  Like her, Patroclus, you let your soft tear fall. Have you something to proclaim to the Myrmidons or me, some message from Phthia you alone have heard? But they say Menoetius still lives, Aktor’s son, and Peleus, son of Aeacus, is alive among the Myrmidons; should both of those die we would surely be grieved— or do you weep in pity for the Argives, because they perish by the hollow ships on account of their arrogance? Speak out, don’t hide it, so that we both know.”

The Iliad, 16.7-20. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

Achilles is basically saying how surely Patroclus isn’t saddened by any message he has received, since he knows that both Menoetius and Peleus are alive and “should both of those die we would surely be grieved” (16.17). That is, Achilles here immediately thinks of Menoetius’ death as something that would make Patroclus sad, implying that Patroclus has significant enough feelings for Menoetius. But not only that, he includes himself! Achilles implies that whether it is Peleus’ death or Menoetius’ death, both possibilities have made both of them sad. He therefore equates the importance of both as father figures. Menoetius to Achilles doesn’t seem to be just a distant progenitor, but a father whose loss would be grievous. Achilles’ equating both is significant, since we know that Achilles cares for Peleus, Peleus even being one of the motivators for Achilles to show pity to Priam at the end of The Iliad (Priam reminded him of Peleus). And not only that, but we know that Patroclus also has positive relations with Peleus, as he describes him as having welcomed him kindly when he talks about them growing up together. In either case, the equating of Menoetius with Peleus implies a positive paternal image of Menoetius.

Later, while mourning the now dead Patroclus, Achilles remembers:

[...] so groaning deeply Achilles addressed the Myrmidons: “Alas, alas, empty were the words I let fall that day as I encouraged the warrior Menoetius within his walls; I said to him that I would bring his son back to Opoeis surrounded in glory after sacking Ilion and receiving a share of the spoils. But Zeus does not fulfill men’s every wish; for it was fated that we both stain the same earth here in Troy, since I will not be returning home  to be received by old Peleus, the horseman, in his halls, nor by Thetis my mother, but the earth will cover me here. […]”

The Iliad, 18.323-332. Translation by Caroline Alenxader.

First, this implies that Menoetius didn’t in fact cut off contact with Patroclus after his exile. After all, if he no longer had anything to do with Patroclus, why would Achilles feel the need to go to Menoetius' house in Opus [!] specifically to ask him for permission to take Patroclus to Troy? Just because he is Patroclus' progenitor? This makes no sense; the other character exiled by his father in The Iliad, Phoenix, clearly didn’t maintain relations with his father just because they’re related by blood. Blood relationship isn’t sufficient justification in this case.

[!] The Achilles had to go to Opus to make this request is my interpretation since Achilles says “within his walls” at 18.326, indicating that the scene took place at Menoetius’ house. In turn, Patroclus claims to be from Opus when he says “Menoetius brought me, when I was little, out of Opoeis” at 23.84 and Menoetius’s residence being in Opus is confirmed when Achilles specifies that he will bring Patroclus back to Opus when he says “I would bring his son back to Opoeis” (18.326). If Menoetius lived in Phthia, Achilles could have simply said that he would bring him back to Phthia or not mentioned the place, which would be implied since in this sense both Patroclus and Menoetius would live in the same local. However, there are those who interpret that Menoetius had been living in Phthia with Patroclus since his exile and was therefore at the goodbye moment, with the information that Achilles would bring Patroclus to Opus being an error on the part of the poet due to the peculiarities of the style of orally recited poetry. I disagree with this interpretation because the scene of Achilles' lament was mentioned by both Strabo and Aeschines and neither of them seemed to show any strangeness with the idea of ​​Menoetius living in Opus and yet being at the farewell in Phthia. It could be argued that Aeschines' context, a court case, made this question of little importance and therefore his not mentioning any problem with it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. However, Strabo was actively analyzing Homeric poetry and trying to make geographical sense of it and if the idea of ​​these characters (Peleus, Patroclus, Achilles) having relations with Menoetius in different locals was unrealistic to Greek perception, he would have commented on it because this is something he does repeatedly in his text. For example, he was the one who commented on the oddity of considering both Menoetius and the Locrian Ajax as kings of Opus. Furthermore, when looking at attempts to make maps of Ancient Greece, Opus and Phthia aren’t that far apart since they both tend to be depicted near the island of Euboea, although the exact location varies depending on the primary source used for reference. Anyway, what I want to say is that I disagree that such interactions are only possible if it is for narrative convenience or by mistake on the part of the poet.

Second, Achilles says “I encouraged the warrior Menoetius” (18.325), implying that not only were Menoetius and Patroclus close enough that Achilles felt it necessary to ask his permission, but he also had to encourage Menoetius. This possibly implies that Menoetius was hesitant to allow his son to go to war, which may have been motivated by concern. In the Greek edition I found, the word used is “θαρσύνω,” and Greek-English dictionaries agree that it means “to encourage, to cheer.” Achilles then, right after stating that it was necessary to encourage Menoetius, says “I said to him that I would bring his son back to Opoeis surrounded in glory” (18.326), so not only did Menoetius need to be encouraged, but one of Achilles’ ways of doing so was to promise that Patroclus would return home alive and in glory. In my opinion, this is an indication of the portrayal of Menoetius as a father concerned for his son.

Third, the next thing Achilles does is to remember that, like Patroclus, he is destined to die young and that Peleus and Thetis will mourn him. He equates himself with Patroclus in “for it was fated that we both stain the same earth here in Troy, since I will not be returning home” (18.329-330), indirectly equating Menoetius’s grief at learning of Patroclus’s death with the grief that Peleus and Thetis will later have to suffer. Indeed, even the fact that Achilles remembers Menoetius while he himself is mourning is a hint that, as he grieves, Achilles realizes that Menoetius will suffer as well. He, in a way, identifies with Menoetius in this regard.

Furthermore, such aspects of parallels between Peleus and Menoetius have already been noted previously:

Through the eyes of Nestor we receive a glimpse on a sacrificial meal prepared by the two young men and their fathers. In the moment depicted by Nestor, still no one could know that this will be their last meal together, before the sons will leave for war and die there. The very next moment, when Achilles recognizes Nestor and Odysseus standing in the gate, will be decisive for the future fate of both Achilles himself and his friend. But Nestor, at this point of the story, could not know that he recounts the last meal the two young men will ever have had together with their fathers. In fact, the counsel he will give at the end of his speech will prove to be the decisive factor, that neither Patroclus nor Achilles will ever return home. Nestor goes on to depict the scene, how Achilles joyfully got up from his seat to receive the unforeseen guests (11.777 – 779)

The Fate of Achilles in the Iliad by Martina Hirschberger, pg 191.

Patroclus’ relationship to his father Menoetius, which parallels Achilles’ relationship to his father Peleus, is also frequently mentioned in the poem, adding particular pathos to the hero’s death (Il. 11.771 – 789, 16.14 – 16, 18.325 – 327, 23.85).

Epithets with Echoes: A Study on Formula-Narrative Interactioby Naoko Yamagata, pg 458 

Moving on! As we know, Achilles gained Menoetius' approval. We have more details on this from Nestor, who was present when Menoetius and Peleus said goodbye to Achilles and Patroclus:

[Nestor’s line] “[...] Thus was I among men, if this ever happened. But Achilles alone will have benefit of his prowess; although I think that he will weep much after, when his people have perished. O my friend, surely Menoetius so instructed you on that day, when he sent you forth from Phthia to Agamemnon; for we two were inside, myself and brilliant Odysseus, and we heard everything in those halls, as he instructed; for we had come to the well-placed house of Peleus gathering the army throughout all-nourishing Achaea,  and there we found the warrior Menoetius inside and you, by Achilles’side; and the aged horseman Peleus was burning the fat-rich thighbones of an ox to Zeus who hurls the thunderbolt, in an enclosure of his courtyard; and he was holding a golden goblet, making libations of fire-bright wine on the fiery sacrifices; you two were busy with the meat of the ox, when we two stood in the entrance. In amazement Achilles sprang up, and led us in, taking us by the hand, and urged us to be seated; and duly set before us tokens of hospitality, which are the right of strangers; then when we were satisfied with eating and drinking,  I began my speech, urging you to come with us; both of you were very eager, both of them gave many instructions; old Peleus enjoined his son Achilles always to be best and to be better than all others, and right there and then Menoetius, son of Aktor, enjoined you thus: ‘My son, in birth Achilles is your superior, but you are older; in strength he is far the better; but speak you well to him and put in his mind close counsel and point the way; he will listen for his own good end.’ So the old man instructed, but you have forgotten. Yet even now  you might speak these things to brilliant Achilles, in the hope that he might yet be persuaded. Who knows, if with help from some god you might stir his heart, winning him over? For the persuasion of a comrade is a worthy thing. you might speak these things to brilliant Achilles, in the hope that he might yet be persuaded. Who knows, if with help from some god you might stir his heart, winning him over? For the persuasion of a comrade is a worthy thing. [...]”

The Iliad, 11.762-793. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

First, Nestor is narrating the moment when Achilles and Patroclus were being sent to Troy (“urging you to come with us; both of you were very eager”, 11.781-782), that is, Patroclus was already exiled from Opus at this point since Patroclus states that he was sent to Phthia after exile (“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”, 23.83-85). We also know that in the Homeric version, the girl disguise on Skyros never happened and Achilles was sent from Phthia by Peleus, accompanied by Phoenix, to serve in Agamemnon's army because both Phoenix and Odysseus state this in Book 9. Odysseus and Nestor are there precisely because of Achilles and Patroclus according to Book 11. Overall, the Iliadic painting suggests a recruitment that took place normally in Phthia, without any attempts at deception. Such differences were noted by Pausanias and the Byzantine scholia, both of whom commented on the absence of the disguise myth in The Iliad. There is no reason for Menoetius, who isn’t from Phthia, to be there...unless he specifically wanted to say goodbye to Patroclus [!]. He would therefore have had to have traveled specifically in order to be able to say goodbye to his son. Not only that, but his advice indicates that he didn’t demean Patroclus, but saw good in him. He acknowledges that Achilles is superior to Patroclus in strength (“‘My son, in birth Achilles is your superior, but you are older; in strength he is far the better”, 11.786-787), but he clearly considers Patroclus wiser than Achilles and advises him to value this and even seems to believe that Achilles would listen to Patroclus (“but speak you well to him and put in his mind close counsel and point the way; he will listen for his own good end”, 11.788-789) — he isn’t belittling Patroclus, he is just reinforcing that he has his unique positive characteristics. Furthermore, Nestor even tells this in a way that parallels the Peleus-Achilles and Menoetius-Patroclus moments, representing experienced fathers advising their young sons.

[!] Depending on the interpretation, Menoetius' presence in Phthia is explained by the interpretation that he also lived in Phthia or as a narrative convenience, in which the poet places him there even if it doesn't make geographical sense because it does make narrative sense. Again, I reiterate that I disagree with both interpretations and I've already explained my interpretation. I think it's perfectly possible that Menoetius simply traveled, especially considering that mythology doesn't always consider aspects of time and geography in a super realistic way. For example, see how in Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis the process of sending the message to Clytemnestra, Clytemnestra receiving the message and making preparations, the family traveling to Aulis and the family arriving in Aulis seems to have been conveniently quick when it would normally take much longer. Or even see how trying to map the voyages of Odysseus and the Argonauts in an entirely logical way is a difficult task since the authors weren't always making super accurate geographical representations because that wasn't the focus.

Other sources

Now, let's look other sources. First, see how the scene in which Achilles speaks about the promise to return with Patroclus remained remembered in other texts.

Aeschines (4th century BCE) said:

For Achilles says somewhere in the course of his lament for the death of Patroclus, as recalling one of the greatest of sorrows, that unwillingly he has broken the promise he had given to Menoetius, the father of Patroclus; for he had promised to bring his son back safe to Opus, if he would send him along with him to Troy, and entrust him to his care. It is evident from this that it was because of love that he undertook to take care of him. But the verses, which I am about to recite, are these: "Ah me, I rashly spoke vain words that day When in his halls I cheered Menoetius. I told the hero I would surely bring His famous son to Opus back again, When he had ravaged Ilium, and won His share of spoil. But Zeus does not fulfil To men their every hope. For fate decrees That both of us make red one spot of earth."

Against Timarchus, § 143-144. Translation by Charles Darwin Adams.

Strabo (1st century CE) said:

[...] 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. [...]

Geography, 9.4.2. Translation by Horace Leonard Jones.

And in this regard, it’s important to say that Achilles promised to bring Patroclus to Menoetius, that is, to Opus. Achilles says “bring his son back to Opoeis” in The Iliad, he doesn’t simply say that Patroclus will be alive. That is, Menoetius agreed to have Achilles take Patroclus with him with the expectation that he would have his son again in his homeland. If we consider that the poet did this intentionally, then Patroclus doesn’t seem like a complete exile, since his father is willing and even desires to welcome him back.

Compare, for example, with the way Aeacus is determined to prevent Telamon from remaining on Aegina:

When this blow of the quoit killed Phocus, the sons of Endeis boarded a ship and fled. Afterwards Telamon sent a herald denying that he had plotted the death of Phocus. Aeacus, however, refused to allow him to land on the island, and bade him make his defence standing on board ship, or if he wished, from a mole raised in the sea. So he sailed into the harbor called Secret, and proceeded to make a mole by night. This was finished, and still remains at the present day. But Telamon, being condemned as implicated in the murder of Phocus, sailed away a second time and came to Salamis.

Description of Greece, 2.29.10. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Or even how, in Book 9 of The Iliad, Phoenix recounts being cursed by his father and having to flee. He was welcomed into Phthia, but as a result of the curse, couldn’t have children and considered Achilles as a son instead. In another account, Amyntor even blinded him in his rage, but Peleus took him to Chiron, who cured him:

[...] 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 [...]

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

By comparison, Menoetius showed no anger. Patroclus's exile, as I have said, also doesn’t seem to be intended to permanently rid him of him without resorting to death, as was the case with Oedipus in Sophocles' plays Oedipus Rex and Oedipus at Colonus or Euripides's play Medea.

Now, another interesting detail is to note how scholia D (12th century) speaks about exile. This time, another translation with the most complete excerpt:

So among the huts the stalwart son of Menoitios (ὣς ὁ μὲν ἐν κλισίῃσι Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος υἱός) While growing up in Opous (in Locris), Patroclos son of Menoitios was involved in an involuntary mistake. In a fit of rage over a game of dice he killed a boy his age, Clesonymos, the son of Amphidamas (a man of some importance), but some say it was Aianes he killed. Exiled for this, he went to Phthia and, based on his kinship with Peleus, he stayed there with Achilles. They maintained an exceptional friendship with each other and went on campaign against Troy together. The story is in Hellanicus (fr. 145 Fowler; EGM 2.537).

Scholia D, 12.1. Edition by R. Scott Smith et al.

I have already discussed Amphidamas' status and relationship with Peleus and how this may influence the exile. But something interesting is that the text says "he" when talking about who went into exile, referring to Patroclus. Not only is Patroclus the only one mentioned in this section, but Menoetius isn’t described as going into exile as well. Again, I have an even stronger impression that Menoetius wasn’t exiled together and lived in Phthia as some theorize, but rather returned to Opus.

Another interesting detail is how Pseudo-Apollodorus describes the exile:

[...] 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.

In the Greek edition that I found, the term that was translated as “flying” is “φυγὼν”, which really has the meaning of fleeing, escaping, avoiding. In other words, Pseudo-Apollodorus wrote this in a way that implies that Patroclus was fleeing from something. But this “something” is not from his father, as, for example, Peleus and Telamon fled from Aeacus. After all, the text says “flying with his father”, indicating that Menoetius went with him. It doesn’t seem that the case is Patroclus fleeing from Menoetius’ punishment, but rather that the situation is Menoetius taking Patroclus and fleeing from the punishment that his son will suffer. Again, I get the impression that Patroclus’ so-called “exile” was a way of avoiding responsibility for the crime committed, an avoidance that has the full approval of Menoetius, who is actually an accomplice in the whole thing.

Name of Patroclus

The name Patroclus is a combination of πατήρ (“patḗr”, "father" stem pát-) and κλέος (kléos, "glory"), resulting in Πατροκλος ("glory of his father").

This name has resulted in a number of interpretations, ranging from its importance in emphasizing the Patroclus/Achilles and Cleopatra/Meleager parallels in Book 9 and Book 16 of The Iliad (Cleopatra has the “same name” as Patroclus, the difference being that one begins with glory and ends with father while the other begins with father and ends with glory. Cleopatra is thus a feminine version of the name Patroclus, reinforcing how they play the same role: begging the enraged hero to fight again) to the idea of ​​a shared Patroclus/Achilles identity (this requires a very long explanation, I will just summarize that it has been suggested that the “kleos” in Patroclus’ name is related to Achilles’ desire for kleos. For example, he returns to battle because of Patroclus, indirectly resulting in him gaining kleos through his performance on the battlefield and in this sense, Patroclus is indirectly part of the reason for Achilles' most memorable act, that is, "undying glory"). But another possibility lies with Patroclus’ father, Menoetius.

It has been suggested that Patroclus being repeatedly referred to as “son of Menoetius” (Μενοιτιάδαο) in The Iliad before Menoetius is actually introduced in Book 11 implies that the audience of the Homeric poem may have already been aware of Menoetius' identity (The Iliad: A Commentary - Volume IV: Books 13-16 by Richard Janko, pg 313-314). But when we look at the surviving sources, Menoetius doesn't seem to do much. Even the only famous quest we know of in which he is involved, the journey of the Argonauts, doesn't seem to give him any major achievements, and in fact is often interpreted as being more about Patroclus than Menoetius. When looking at the texts that mention Menoetius, he is often identified as Patroclus' father, while usually the opposite is true (the son being identified by the father). In a way, any fame Menoetius has, at least in the surviving sources, is because of Patroclus. In this sense, he is immensely different from Peleus and Telamon, who clearly have their own stories and don’t necessarily need the fame of their sons to be know. In this sense, Patroclus would truly be “the glory of the father,” since kleos gives undying fame to the one who achieves it, making him “immortal” in culture and in the popular imagination. And if Menoetius is remembered to this day, it seems to be because of Patroclus: Patroclus brought kleos to him.

Finally, I will comment on something that I imagine may simply be coincidence. Achilles promised to bring Patroclus back to Opus in glory, as he says in the Book 18 (“his son back to Opoeis surrounded in glory”). He failed to deliver on his promise that Patroclus would be back, but glory certainly did happen. This, in turn, reminds me of how, in Book 16, Achilles pours libations to Zeus and asks for two things: that Patroclus bring glory and that Patroclus return alive. It is said that Zeus agreed to give glory to Patroclus, but didn’t agree to keep him alive:

[...] But Achilles  went to his shelter, and removed the cover from a chest, beautiful, ornamented, that silver-footed Thetis put on the ship for him to take, having packed it carefully with tunics and cloaks to protect him from the wind, and thick fleecy blankets; here he kept his fine-wrought cup nor did any other man drink gleaming wine from it, nor did he make libation to any of the gods but Zeus the father. Taking this from the chest he purified it with sulphur first, then washed it with bright streams of water, and washed his own hands, and drew off gleaming wine.  Then standing in the middle of the courtyard he prayed and poured wine in libation, looking up into the sky, and Zeus who strikes with the thunderbolt saw him: “Lord Zeus of Pelasgian Dodona, dwelling far away, ruler of Dodona of the bitter winter, around you dwell the Selloi your interpreters, sleepers on the ground with unwashed feet; surely once before this you heard me when I prayed; honoring me you smote hard the host of the Achaeans; now, as once before, fulfill this wish for me; for I will remain amid my gathered ships, but I am sending my companion with the many Myrmidons to combat; send glory forth with him, Zeus far-thunderer; make brave the heart within his breast, so that even Hector comes to know whether my henchman on his own will prove skilled in fighting, or his hands rage invincible only at that time, when I myself go to join war’s struggle. Then when he has driven the din of battle and the fighting from the ships, unharmed let him return to my swift ships with all his armor and his close-fighting comrades.” So he spoke in prayer, and Zeus all-devising heard him; and the father granted one thing to him, but the other he refused him;  that his companion would drive the war and fighting from the ships he granted him, but he refused his safe return from battle. And when Achilles had made libation and prayed to father Zeus he went into his shelter again, and put the cup back in the chest. Then he went to stand before his shelter; for in his heart he still wished to look upon the dread combat of the Trojans and Achaeans.

The Iliad, 16.220-256. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

Patroclus brought glory to both Menoetius and Achilles, immortalizing his father's name and his own in the process, but in return his life was rather short-lived.

[babyrdie]

I am impressed with your ability to get really excited about talking about Theseus sometimes because I hadn't really considered that he was the kind of character you'd like so it was a funny discovery!

Just to know how many sources you can list about him…say 10 good things he did!

Feeling stupid (again lol) because I didn't notice this ask was here...and it's been a while since I closed the asks, which means this is here before this. Seriously, sorry for not noticing!!! But, well, anon, this is still easy as taking candy from a baby. Theseus is very well attested in the sources, consequently, just as it is quite easy to find negative things about him, it is quite easy to find positive attitudes. In fact, I'm going to offer even more than that. The myths aren’t in any particular order, they’re simply numbered so that it is easy to notice how many I have already cited. Also, the sources aren’t exhaustive...that is, I didn’t use all the sources that point to the information here, just enough to make it clear that I am not making stuff up.

➤ THE JOURNEY FROM TROEZEN TO ATHENS: Along the journey Theseus made from Troezen (the place where he was born and raised, the kingdom of which Aethra, his mother, was princess) to Athens (the kingdom of his mortal father Aegeus), Theseus got rid bandits (Periphetes, Sinis, Sciron, Cercyon, Procrustes) and a wild boar (Phaea), all of which were causing trouble for the people in the region. SOURCES: Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library 3.16.1-2; Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History 4.59.2-5; Fabulae § 38; Bacchylides’ Theseus; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 2.1.3-4; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 8-11; Strabo’s Geography 9.1.4; Isocrates’ Helen 29; Plutarch’s Comparison of Theseus and Romulus 1.2; probably Aeschylus’ Cercyon (lost); Sophocles’ Theseus (lost) and also the Sophocles’ frag 905.

➤ DEALING WITH THE CRETAN/MARATHONIAN BULL: After the demigod of Zeus Heracles brought the Cretan Bull to the Peloponnese as one of his labors, the animal began causing trouble in Marathon with his violent temper. Theseus volunteered to deal with the problem or was sent to do it by Aegeus, who was manipulated by his wife Medea. Not only that, but the bull was also sacrificed, as it should have been from the beginning. Depending on the source, such as Plutarch, the sacrifice is explicitly performed by Theseus. It could be said that Theseus was actually cleaning up Minos' mess. SOURCES: Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History 4.59.6; Fabulae 38; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.27.9-10 and 3.18.11 and 3.18.16; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 14.1-3; Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library E.1.5; Callimachus’ Hecale (lost).

➤ XENIA FOLLOWER: According to some accounts, on the way to deal with the Bull of Marathon/Cretan Bull, Theseus received hospitality from an elderly woman named Hecale. After the mission, he returned to see her again and discovered that she was dead. Wanting to honor the kindness she had shown him, he granted honors upon her in the cult of Zeus, a deity strongly associated with xenia, a law that Hecale followed perfectly. The Callimachus fragments, in particular, indicate a very friendly and respectful conversation between the two while Theseus was his guest, implying that not only was Hecale a good hostess but Theseus was also a good guest, making them both people who honor xenia. In fragment 235, for example, he shows sympathy for Hecale by being kind to him and feels sorry for the idea of ​​an elderly woman living in such a seemingly lonely life. SOURCES: Callimachus’ Hecale (lost); Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 14.2.

➤ ALTRUISTIC SACRIFICE: Depending on the version of the myth, Theseus volunteered to sacrifice himself to the Minotaur. He didn't have to do this, especially since he was a prince, but he did it because he wanted to save the Athenians. In one version told by Plutarch, the Athenians he was sacrificing himself for didn't even like him because they saw him as a foreigner, since he was born and raised in Troezen. And yet, feeling that he needed to prove to the citizens that he was worthy of ruling them rather than simply stating "it's my rightful right", Theseus did what was necessary to earn the power. SOURCES: Fabulae 41; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 17.1-2; Isocrates’ Helen 27-28; Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library E.1.7; Iliadic scholia 18.590.

➤ IN DEFENSE OF PERIBOEA/ERIBOEA: In one version, while Minos was taking the young to Crete, he attempted to rape a girl named Periboea, but she screamed and Theseus protected her despite already knowing of Minos's power and how Zeus favored him as his father. As a result, Minos's anger was directed at Theseus, as he felt his authority was being questioned. This event is part of the myth in which Minos challenges Theseus to prove that he is the son of Poseidon, which Theseus does. Periboea is also the future mother of Big Ajax, and some sources such as Athenaeus and Plutarch clarify that she was Theseus's lover, I imagine probably sometime after she was saved. Both authors specifically say that they were married, although I know of no surviving source that justifies a possible divorce considering that both characters later marry other people, namely the king of Salamis Telamon and the Cretan princess Phaedra. SOURCES: Bacchylides’ Youths; Astronomica 2.5.3; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.17.3 and 1.42.2; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 29.1.

➤ RELATIONSHIP WITH MINOS: In a version told by Pausanias, Theseus tried to talk to Minos, explaining what really happened to Androgeus, Minos' son, which, in some sources such as Pseudo-Apollodorus, is the justification for Minos' hatred for Athens, since the Cretan king blamed the Athenians for the loss of his dead son, even in the versions where what happened was an accident. In a version told by Athenaeus, who was repeating Zenis, Theseus managed to win Minos' affection, which is why Minos put aside his enmity with Athens and allowed Theseus' legal marriage to his daughter, Phaedra. In other words, the end of Minos' tyranny isn’t always achieved only through violence. Although it’s important to note that, in the case of Athenaeus, he seemed to be referring to a pederastic situation due to the context of the text, although it is never made clear whether Theseus reciprocated Minos in any way or if there was any physical involvement. And just for the sake of completeness, in a rationalized version retold by Plutarch (who is quoting Philochorus), the Minotaur was actually a man named Taurus, and when Theseus defeated him in the funeral games, both Ariadne and Minos were in awe, and that was the reason Minos accepted a peaceful agreement. SOURCES: Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.1.2; Athenaeus of Naucratis’ The Deipnosophistae 13.77; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 19.1-3.

➤ SURVIVORS: The focus on how Theseus freed the Athenians from Cretan oppression is usually on his killing of the Minotaur, but another detail that some sources emphasize is that he not only killed the Minotaur, but also saved the other young Athenians who were given as tribute. Depending on the source, it’s even emphasized that these survivors formed colonies. According to the scholia of The Iliad 18.590 and visual representation on the François Vase (see here), Theseus and the survivors danced together after the liberation symbolized by the death of the Minotaur. SOURCES: Strabo’s Geography 6.3.6 and 10.4.6; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 23.1.

➤ LOSING ARIADNE: In the version of the myth in which Ariadne is kidnapped by Dionysus, Theseus mourned her all the way back. This indicates that in this version he cared for her greatly, to the point that his mind was so broken that it made him forget the promise he made to his father Aegeus. In this case, he forget because he was depressed. SOURCES: Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library E.1.8-10; Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History 4.61.5-6; Philostratus’ 1.15; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 10.29.4.

➤ LOSING ARIADNE 2: This is a continuation of the previous topic (item 8) because I’m uncertain whether it is possible to combine the version in which Dionysus kidnaps Ariadne with the one attested by visual representations (examples:1, 2, 3, 4) in which Athena/Hermes appears to make Theseus abandon Ariadne. But I suppose that if he mourned in the abduction version, it wouldn't be strange if the mourning part was reflected in this one as well. There is also another version, in Plutarch's Life of Theseus 19.3-4, in which Ariadne was abandoned on the island accidentally because a storm blew the ship (Theseus was on it) away while Ariadne was on the island (she went to the island because she was seasick, since she was pregnant). He returned, but Ariadne had died in childbirth before she even saw the baby (she was helped by the women of the island). In this version, to honor her, Theseus made Ariadne a cult figure. Finally, still on the topic of the versions in which Theseus didn’t abandon her, The Odyssey says that she had to be left on Naxos at the wish of Dionysus, who for some reason wanted her dead and Artemis killed Ariadne for him. This version doesn’t appear in texts other than The Odyssey and the Byzantine Homeric scholia, which apparently interpreted the motivation for the death as being that Naxos/Dia had a sacred place for Dionysus and that place was dishonored by the couple having sex, as far as I know, 

➤ SON-FATHER RELATIONSHIP: Theseus is consistently portrayed as having a positive relationship with Aegeus. For example: in Callimachus’ Hecale frag 260 he immediately wishes Aegeus to be notified of his victory over the Marathonian Bull, claiming to ease his father’s worry; many ceramics depict/possibly depict Theseus saying goodbye to Aegeus before a mission (see H.A. Shapiro’s “Comings and Goings: The Iconography of Departure and Arrival on Attic Vases” for an analysis of this type of visual representation). Upon learning that Aegeus committed suicide because he believed Theseus to be dead (because of the sails on the ship); Theseus bestowed Aegeus with honors upon learning of his death, as noted in Plutarch's Life of Theseus 22. Overall, Aegeus seemed to view his son as something of a blessing, since Aegeus had been sterile until Theseus' birth and Theseus' arrival in Athens was a relief to him (for the father-son reunion, check out the sources about Medea trying to get Aegeus to poison Theseus, but failing because Aegeus recognizes the symbols Theseus carries). Judging his son dead, Aegeus committed suicide (attested in several sources), and Theseus, upon returning to what should have been happy news, immediately fell into mourning. It was a truly touching relationship, in my opinion.

➤ CENTAUROMACHY: Theseus attended the wedding of Pirithous and Hippodamia (the name varies depending on the source, but I'm using Hippodamia here), and when the drunken centaurs attacked the guests, Theseus fought them. This is a very famous episode, so rather than provide a long list of sources, suffice it to say that this event is well known as the "Centauromachy" and that by researching this term you will find a lot of literary and visual sources representing Theseus' presence. It’s a really old myth, as Nestor already mentions the episode in Book 1 of The Iliad and the Shield of Heracles (attributed to Hesiod) narrates the scene including Theseus. The Greek hero's confrontations with wild and drunken centaurs and the subsequent defeat of the centaurs are often symbolically perceived as being related to civilization. Therefore, Theseus, as the Athenian national hero, having such a strong presence in such a myth has an obvious symbolism.

➤ DEFENDING OEDIPUS: Depending on the source, Theseus receives Oedipus and Antigone on Athenian land and protects them when Creon comes after them because of the prophecy that the place where Oedipus dies will be blessed with an advantage in war. In Sophocles' play, when speaking to Oedipus, Theseus justifies his attitude by saying that he himself was once an exile and, therefore, wouldn’t judge Oedipus for being in exile. He also cares about what the people think and, seeing that they’re willing to welcome Oedipus, Theseus sees no reason to reject him. SOURCES: Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus’ 551-569 and 631-667 and 886-1780; Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library 3.5.9; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.28.7.

➤ RESCUING ARGIVES BODIES: After the end of the war between Thebes (Eteocles' side) and Argos (Polynices' side), Theseus intervened to recover the bodies of the dead Argives so that the grieving mothers could perform the necessary funeral rites. Depending on the source, such as Euripides, it’s further stated that Theseus does so only after obtaining the approval of his people to intervene in a war that theoretically doesn’t concern them. It’s notable that Theseus attempts to do this peacefully through a truce, something that Plutarch points out that he succeeds in most versions, although in Euripides' famous version, when his offer is refused by Creon, he decides that it is justifiable to start a battle in order to recover the bodies. Pausanias justifies the difference between the version in which the truce is successful and the one in which a battle is necessary as the former version being that told by the Thebans, who according to him claim that the bodies were returned voluntarily upon request without the need for Theseus to use the army. In a more unusual version of Lysias, the Athenians (ruled by Theseus) intervened without Adrastus having to make the request because upon learning of what had happened they disapproved of the Theban behavior of refusing to honor the dead. SOURCES: Euripides’ The Suppliants (the entire play), Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 29-3, Isocrates’ Helen 31, Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.39.2, Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library 3.7.1, Lysias’ Funeral Oration 2.7; Isocrates’ Panathenaicus 169-171; Aeschylus’s The Men of Eleusis (lost, possibly fragments in edition: 25A, 178, 199, 200, 214, 215, 241).

➤ LOYALTY TO HERACLES: Even after Heracles' reputation was severely damaged because he was known for going mad and violently killing his family, Theseus still believed in him and supported him, believing that since Heracles had proven himself to be a good and loyal friend, it was only fair that he should reciprocate. Not only did Theseus believe in Heracles, but he offered him a place in Athens, despite knowing of the other hero's current bad reputation. In Euripides' play, Theseus' attitude also seems to be built on self-awareness, since Heracles had just rescued Theseus from the punishment in the Underworld, which was imposed on him for committing hubris, and therefore it would have been hypocritical for Theseus to judge Heracles when Heracles hadn’t judged him. Plutarch says that Theseus, grateful for Heracles' help, honored him: "All the sacred precincts which the city had previously set apart for himself, he now dedicated to Heracles, and called them Heracleia instead of Theseia, four only excepted, as Philochorus writes" (trans. Bernadotte Perrin). I’m mentioning only this episode, but the friendship of Heracles and Theseus is quite well attested, from Plutarch writing that the young Theseus admired Heracles and used him as inspiration (6.6-7, 8.1, 11.1, 25.4, 29.3-5) to Theseus being present at Heracles' mission against the Amazons because of Hippolyta's girdle (various sources). Also, the friendship between the two heroes seems to extend to their children, considering that in Euripides' Heraclidae Theseus' son Demophon is an ally of Heracles' sons. SOURCES: Euripides’ Heracles 1178-1404; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 35; Euripides’ Heraclidae 202-231.

➤ LYRE SKILLS: It’s mentioned that Theseus was skilled in playing the lyre. SOURCES: Astronomica 2.6.3; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 5.19.1.

➤ WRESTLING SKILLS: Theseus was a good wrestler. One of the first times this is emphasized is in the myth of Cercyon (mentioned in item 1), but it also appears in other myths. Pausanias, for example, credits Theseus with teaching wrestling to the people, emphasizing that Theseus had skill when before him people relied on physical characteristics such as strength and size. This is also present in the rationalized version told by Plutarch in which the Minotaur is actually a man named Taurus, since Taurus was defeated by Theseus in the wrestling competition. This skill is also present in visual representations of Theseus, including in the duel against Minotaur (I got this information from an article by Alex Matsangou called "The Social and Political Significance of Theseus the Pankratiast: An Exploration of Form and Function in the Parthenon Centauromachy" that I quickly checked out months ago. I didn't read it all because I was looking for something specific, but what I saw was enough to indicate that the association of wrestling and Theseus was indeed something). SOURCES: Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.39.3 and 4.32.1; Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library E.1.3; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 19.3.

➤ PIOUS BEHAVIOR: He was generally portrayed as being pious. I already have a post listing some sources that indicate this (see here), but I will also emphasize that in two of these sources he doesn't even mind playing effeminate roles for the cults of Dionysus and Apollo, in several of these sources he plays a role as founder of cult habits and in a considerable amount he awaits divine advice to make a decision.

➤ GOOD GOVERNMENT DECISIONS: Theseus tends to be written as generally (not always) being good king for the Athenians. Even when the focus of the play isn’t Theseus and he is a secondary character, he is often shown not to make decisions as king without first consulting the Athenians' opinions. Furthermore, as a national hero, Theseus has been credited with bringing about the democratization of Athens, the creation of important festivals and games and other political and economic aspects such as political alliances, the use of specific currencies and the unification of the Athenian territory. SOURCES: Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History 4.61.9 ; Euripides’ The Suppliants 399-564; Pausanias’ Description of Greece 1.3.3 and 8.2.1; Plutarch’s Life of Theseus 24-25; Strabo’s Geography 9.1.20; Demosthenes’ The Funeral Speech 28; Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War 2.15.2.

➤ BONUS [AGE]: You know the whole thing about the bandits on the way from Troezen to Athens, the capture of the Cretan Bull, the killing of the Minotaur and saving the Athenians, the assumption of the throne after Aegeus' death, the first implementation of public policies, etc? You see, he did all this while being ridiculously YOUNG. Pausanias, in Description of Greece 1.27.8, informs us that Theseus was 16 years old when he left Troezen after raising the stone in which the symbols of Aegeus were hidden (which started the myths discussed in item 1 of the list). A Greek vase about the myth I mentioned in item 5 depicts Theseus in a similar way to how boys like Ganymede and Tithonus are depicted, emphasizing his youth (see here). Furthermore, the sources emphasize how the sacrifices HAD to be young people, and Theseus being one of them only indicates how he was a teenager at the time. In fact, some texts in Greek even use words that clearly indicate young age to designate the 14 youths, among whom Theseus was included, for example “παῖς” in Isocrates’ Helen 10.27. This isn’t exactly a positive point of the character, but I think it makes his achievements even greater, so it is a bonus.

So here it is! I feel like I’m kind of playing devil's advocate in this ask because I know this character is kind of hated here lol. Anyway, you asked me to list 10 positive points, but here are some more points. I'm sorry it took me so long, by the way! Part of the reason I took so long to answer is that, even though I knew what those positive points were, I preferred to provide sources so it would be clear that this isn’t headcanon or my interpretation, it's just what is written in the sources. I also want to emphasize that I have added sources I remember...sources I have read but don't remember, or sources I haven't read aren’t included. And Theseus has MANY surviving literary sources...so there is certainly more to it than what has been said here. He is also extensively attested in visual sources, especially Athenian ones, so yes...you will probably find even more in articles dealing with vase interpretation and the like.

It’s also quite easy to find negative myths about him, however. Theseus is very complex, in this sense. So some examples that counterpoint the positive points listed here are: in the case of the myths of the bandits from Troezen to Athens, there are versions in which in the process of defeating them he harms the families of these people (family members who had no involvement with the crimes committed by these men, I mean); in the case of Ariadne, there are a lot of sources in which he willing abandons her (the motivation varies, from already being in love with another woman to fear of public reaction) and the forgetting to change the colors of the candles has no relation to mourning for Ariadne; despite being mostly pious, Theseus offended the gods when he tried to kidnap Persephone for his friend Pirithous (whose friendship I didn't emphasize as a positive point like I did with Heracles because... honestly, I consider it a negative point lol don't get me wrong, I love their friendship, but the two of them together seem to almost never do anything approvable); despite being mostly a good king during the early and middle time of his reign, some sources point out that his reign ended up getting more and more fragile over time as Theseus became more and more reckless and selfish (this part encompasses several aspects of him, like the thing with Hippolyta/Antiope and Helen. And note that, in the case of Hippolyta/Antiope, even in the version where the two are genuinely a couple and there is consent from both, the behavior is still quite questionable because he didn't consider the political consequences); although his relationship with Aegeus is positive, Aegeus' death is indirectly Theseus' fault even though he obviously didn’t want it and his recklessness in the joint plan with Pirithous led to his mother Aethra being enslaved by the Dioscuri and Helen (again, Theseus obviously didn't want this and later Theseus's sons rescue her from slavery...but well, he could have cared more about how the consequences might affect her). Therefore, I find him interesting precisely because he has this non-linear development, which I find quite human. I think he's much more than just an idiot, he really deserves more attention.

Anyway, thanks for the ask!

[babyrdie]

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

How Patroclus looked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Iliad, Homer

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

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

16.130-144. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

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

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

17.208-214 . Translation by Caroline Alexander.

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

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

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

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

Regarding this Homeric formula:

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

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

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

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

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

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

23.62-68. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is also a detail in this scene, however:

TEXTO ORIGINAL 

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

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

IMPROVISED TRANSLATION

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

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

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

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

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

Myrmidons, Aeschylus

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

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

Aeschylus, frag 64. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

And the Greek text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fabulae, Hyginus or Pseudo-Hyginus

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

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

Translation by Mary Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

Heroica, Philostrathus

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

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

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

In Greek, the text is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greek Anthology, 5.76. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a note translates: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, there is this explanation:

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

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

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

Dares the Prygian

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

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

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

In a Latin version, this is the description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description of Greece, Pausanias

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

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

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

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

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

10.277-279. 

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

11.317-320.

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

13.169-177.

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

Posthomerica, Ioannis Tzetzes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[babyrdie]

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]

Post on the literary sources of Chryseis, Tecmessa and Iphis done, now one on Hecamede.

In The Iliad (8th century BC), Hecamede was the daughter of Arsinoos and came from Tenedos, an island near Troy. When Tenedos was sacked by the Myrmidons, Hecamede became a spoil of war. In the division of prizes, she was given to Nestor as recognition for his role as an advisor. She is described as preparing the reception for the Achaeans when they visited Nestor, indicating that one of her roles as a enslaved woman was to take on domestic roles. I’m not sure what status Hecamede had in her life before slavery, for although we know that her father is Arsinoos, I don’t know who Arsinoos was. I'm not sure if the lack of knowledge about who Arsinoos is is mine (that is, we know who he is, I don't), if it's because Arsinoos wasn’t relevant and therefore wasn’t specified in the sources (maybe he had high status, as is the case with Chryseis' father, for example) or if it's because we lost such information because we don't have the sources that originally specified him.

Now when the others reached the son of Neleus’ shelter, they descended to the nourishing earth, and his henchman Eurymedon released the old man’s horses  from the chariot; and the men dried the sweat from their tunics, standing to face the breath of wind by the shore of the salt sea; then going into the shelter they seated themselves on divans; and for them Hekamede with the lovely hair made a porridge, Hekamede whom the old man got from Tenedos, when Achilles sacked it, the daughter of great-hearted Arsinoös, she whom the Achaeans picked out for him, because he surpassed all men in counsel; she first pushed forward a table for them a beautiful one, well polished with legs of blue enamel, then on it a bronze basket for bread, and also an onion as relish for the drink  and pale yellow honey, beside sacred barley meal, and near it a cup of surpassing beauty, which the old man had taken from his home, studded with gold rivets; it had four handles, and on either side of each two doves of gold were feeding, and below them were two flanges. Any other man would labor to lift it from the table when it was full, but Nestor, the old man, raised it with ease. It was in this the woman resembling goddesses made a mix for them with Pramnian wine, and on it grated goat-milk cheese with a bronze grater, and sprinkled gleaming barley over;  and she summoned them to drink, when she had prepared the porridge.

The Iliad, 11.618-641. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Book 14, Machaon drinks a medicinal wine (the same one she gave Nestor in the other scene) and Hecamede is mentioned as heating the water for him to cleanse himself. Again, in addition to Hecamede's apparent medicinal abilities (the medicinal wine), her domestic duties are emphasized.

Now the shouting did not escape the notice of Nestor, although he was drinking, and to the son of Asclepius he addressed winged words: “Take thought, noble Machaon, how these matters will be; the battle shouts of our sturdy young men grow greater by the ships. You now sit and drink the dark-gleaming wine, until Hekamede of the lovely hair has heated warm water to bathe and washed away your clotted blood, and I will go to a watch place and quickly look around.”

The Iliad, 14.1-8. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In Plato’s Republic (5th century BC) Book 3, Hecamedeis is briefly mentioned in the phrase “I infer this from the fact that at Troy his sons did not find fault with the damsel who gave to the wounded Eurypylus to drink a posset of Pramnian wine plentifully sprinkled with barley and gratings of cheese inflammatory ingredients of a surety” (translation by Paul Shorey). The explanatory note b from page 272 says: “Plato is probably quoting from memory. In our text, — Tl, xi. 624, Hecamede gives the draught to Machaon and Nestor as the Ion (538 B) correctly states”.

The Ion to which the note refers also belongs to Plato (5th century BC). In this text, Hecamede is again mentioned as an example:

SOCRATES:  You know the passage in which Hecamede, the concubine of Nestor, is described as giving to the wounded Machaon a posset, as he says, 'Made with Pramnian wine; and she grated cheese of goat's milk with a grater of bronze, and at his side placed an onion which gives a relish to drink (Il.).' Now would you say that the art of the rhapsode or the art of medicine was better able to judge of the propriety of these lines? ION:  The art of medicine.

Ion. Translation by Benjamin Jowett.

The Deipnosophists by Athaeneus of Naucratis (2nd-3rd century AD) also mentions this scene in Book 11. I won't show the quote here because it doesn't add much to Hecamede, but well... it's there. Anyway, apparently Hecamede was mostly remembered for the scene where she takes on healing duties. From the literary sources, there's no way of knowing what Hecamede's personality is like, but apparently she had good enough skill in making healing drinks and often performed domestic duties, such as heating bathwater.

Regarding Hecamede's medical skills, Castelli interprets:

In this passage it is worth noting that Hecamede nurses Machaon, the doctor. The latter turns to this captive woman, although there are several references to his own mastery of medical arts, which might have allowed him to treat himself [20] just like Diomedes [21] or Odysseus, [22] who pull arrows from their bodies in other passages. Moreover, Hecamede lacks the competence of an iatros and does nothing requiring surgical skills. As Guido Majno has pointed out, nothing is done to stop bleeding. [23] At first glance, she does what a servant might do: offer a mixture to drink and a bath. But a large part of the efficacy of her action comes from the grace with which she is depicted as acting. Without advanced technical skills, Hecamede can be understood by the relationship she has with the men she is treating, who see her as a caregiver. In addition, her beauty, often evoked by the adjective euplokamos (literally “of the lovely hair”, “well-kempt”) invests her actions, in themselves banal, with a healing power which Machaon, although he is a doctor, does not have here. Even if the word is not used, one might think that she has a form of charis. [24] This comforts the beneficiaries of her actions and does them good. [25] For all that, her actions, unremunerated since she is enslaved, are not especially stressed. Homer mentions her only twice. Still, her efforts are considered useful. In fact, Patroclus, who is present during this scene, [26] sees no reason to interfere in Hecamede’s non-invasive treatment of Machaon – although he is perfectly capable of removing an arrow and taking care of the wound; he does just this in another tent for Eurypylus, immediately afterward. The injured man, Machaon, is himself a doctor, which means that he is expected to “cut out shafts and dress our wounds” as Idomeneus recalls a few lines earlier when he orders Nestor to take him from the battle field. However, when Machaon himself is injured, he allows Hecamede to proceed without trying to treat his shoulder himself or to call upon anyone else. Perhaps this is because the arrow caused a wound without remaining in his shoulder, which would explain why a superficial injury would be treated by Hecamede’s kukeôn, Nestor’s tales, and a hot bath. But perhaps also because this treatment is understood to have a special efficacy: if so, Hecamede’s actions and remedies have a magical dimension, like those of Hecate, Medea, or Circe.

The skills of Hecamede: Women as caregivers in Archaic and Classical Greece by Hélène Castelli and translated by Marian Rothstein.

I’m not sure whether Hecamede is in a situation of slave concubinage as is the case of Tecmessa (Big Ajax) and Briseis (Achilles), that is, a kind of relationship analogous to marriage, with the difference that the woman doesn’t have the rights and legal protection of a legitimate wife and still maintains her status as an enslaved woman, not being considered as having the right to express resistance/disagreement with her master. She is certainly a war prize, but that doesn’t necessarily imply concubinage. In any case, if it is a case of concubinage, unlike characters like Tecmessa and Briseis, who express hope of social advancement through legitimate marriage to their captor, this wouldn’t have been a possibility for Hecamede since Nestor has a legitimate wife. Nestor's legitimate marriage to a free woman doesn’t nullify the possibility of concubinage with an enslaved woman (see, for example: Agamemnon and Cassandra, Telamon and Hesione, Heracles and Iole) but it makes what was already quite unlikely (an enslaved woman receiving freedom and rising socially as a legitimate wife of a king) even more impossible. Therefore, I imagine that Hecamede didn’t have any expectation of freedom, unlike the others who tried to obtain freedom through marriage.

There has been debate about whether Nestor had Hecamede with sexual intentions, since the sources generally don’t emphasize the relationship between the two, as is the case with women enslaved for this purpose. If not, then Hecamede was probably not sexually assaulted. However, I don’t think it’s possible to completely rule out the possibility that Nestor had this kind of interest in her. The argument that Nestor is too old is weak, considering how in The Odyssey we meet Pisistratus, who is young enough to have been conceived in Nestor's old age, implying that age doesn’t impede him. Likewise, in The Iliad we have Priam, another example of a male character who continued to have relationships even when old. Furthermore, we know that Nestor not only doesn’t seem to have any aversion to the idea of ​​using sexual violence as a tool of war, but actively encourages it:

[...] Therefore, let no one press to return home before he has bedded the wife of a Trojan man, to exact requital for the struggle and groaning over Helen. [...]

The Iliad, 2.354-356. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In this sense, even if Nestor has no interest in doing this himself and Hecamede doesn’t actually become enslaved for sexual purposes and her function is solely domestic, he still has a strong role in the vulnerable condition of the captured women.

And as with the other women I tried to give some details about the process of the Acheaens sacking their hometowns, I’ll do the same with Hecamede and Tenedos. Similar to how it is with other places sacked by the Greeks on the expedition towards Troy, Achilles had a large part in the domination of Tenedos, Hecamede’s hometown. Some sources that attest to this are: The Iliad 11.625, Plutarch in Questiones Graecas 28 (1st-2nd century AD); Ioannis Tzetzes’ Ad Lycophronem 232 (12th century AD); Pausanias’ Description of Greece 10.14 (2nd century AD). The enslaved women were decided as a distribution among the spoils of war after the sacking was over, which means that the designated masters weren’t necessarily the ones who directly captured them. Considering how Achilles' role in Tenedos is emphasized and how Nestor's role in the field of raids is generally not emphasized, I consider it likely that Achilles captured her, but she was later unanimously decided among the Achaeans as a war prize for Nestor. It wouldn’t be impossible, after all Byzantine Homeric scholia 5.1.121 (12th century AD), for example, says that Chryseis was captured by Achilles and we know that she was not decided as being given to him, but rather to Agamemnon. Similarly, Iphis, the enslaved woman of Skyros given to Patroclus in The Iliad (Book 9), was given to him by Achilles, without Patroclus having been the one to capture her.

Tenedos was geographically considerably close to the final destination of the Achaeans, that is, Troy. An example of this is the way Pseudo-Apollodorus speaks of the place. In E.3.28, he says “putting to sea from Tenedos they made sail for Troy” (trans. J.G. Frazer), indicating that Tenedos was sacked shortly before they reached Troy. Already in E.5.14-15, when speaking of the plan in which the Achaeans pretended to leave, the landing point should be Tenedos, from where they would wait for the signal from Sinon, who was responsible for deceiving the Trojans, and then turn around to carry out the attack. The idea of ​​the Achaeans being in Tenedos waiting for the moment to attack was already present in the lost Epic Cycle according to Proclus, since in his summary of the poem The Sack of Illium (7th century BC) he says “The Greeks then sailed in from Tenedos, and those in the wooden horse came our and fell upon their enemies, killing many and storming the city” (trans. H.G. Evelyn-Hugo).

According to Proclus' summary of the lost epic The Cypria (7th century BC), Tenedos was the first landing point after the Achaeans departed from Aulis:

[...] When the expedition had mustered a second time at Aulis, Agamemnon, while at the chase, shot a stag and boasted that he surpassed even Artemis. At this the goddess was so angry that she sent stormy winds and prevented them from sailing. Calchas then told them of the anger of the goddess and bade them sacrifice Iphigeneia to Artemis. This they attempt to do, sending to fetch Iphigeneia as though for marriage with Achilles. Artemis, however, snatched her away and transported her to the Tauri, making her immortal, and putting a stag in place of the girl upon the altar.  Next they sail as far as Tenedos [...]

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

For visual purposes, here is a map. Note the distance between Tenedos and Troy:

See here.

In other words, it seems that Tenedos was sacked “shortly” before the Achaeans landed at Troy. In this case, Hecamede was probably already enslaved when Briseis, Chryseis and Tecmessa were captured (I'm not sure about Iphis and Diomede, they’re also from islands). Although the Achaeans sacked even cities not involved in the war, Tenedos was politically linked to Troy through Cycnus, the mortal father of the ruler Tenes, who showed support for Troy. This suggests that the attack on Tenedos may have also been made with the intention of undermining Troy's chances of receiving reinforcements from Tenedos. Cycnus, king of Kolonai and mortal father of Tenes, was also killed by Achilles. This is a common narrative in more than one source, so I’ll just cite Quintus Smyrnaeus (4th century AD) as an example:

Still sped the contests on; and many rose now for the leaping. Far beyond the marks of all the rest brave Agapenor sprang: loud shouted all for that victorious leap; and Thetis gave him the fair battle-gear of mighty Cycnus, who had smitten first Protesilaus, then had reft the life from many more, till Peleus' son slew him first of the chiefs of grief-enshrouded Troy.

Posthomerica, 4.523-531. Translation by A.S. Way.

In Chryseis' post, I mentioned a city near Thebes that is said to be her home, Chryse, being prominent in the cult of Apollo. Well, Tenedos apparently also has connections to Apollo since the priest Chryseis, when praying to him, not only mentions Chryse, but also Killa and Tenedos:

Thus he spoke; and the old man was afraid and obeyed his word, and he went in silence along the shore of the tumultuous sea. And going aside, the old man fervently prayed to lord Apollo, whom lovely-haired Leto bore: “Hear me, God of the silver bow, you who stand over Chryse and Killa most holy, you whose might rules Tenedos, God of Plague; if ever I roofed over a temple that pleased you, or if ever I burned as sacrifice to you the fatty thighbones  of bulls and of goats—grant me this wish: May the Danaans pay for my tears with your arrows.”

The Iliad, 1.31-42. Translation by Caroline Alexander.

In considerably later sources, this connection was reinforced through the mythological figure of Tenes, ruler of Tenedos who was killed during the sack by Achilles. Although Tenes wasn’t always a demigod according to Pseudo-Apollodorus (he says "son of Cycnus and Proclia, but according to some, he was a son of Apollo" in E.3.23, implying that he had an origin in which he was not Apollo's son), the same author emphasizes that Thetis knew that killing Tenes would incur Apollo's wrath, resulting in Apollo killing Achilles:

So when the Greeks were standing in for Tenedos, Tenes saw them and tried to keep them off by throwing stones, but was killed by Achilles with a sword-cut in the breast, though Thetis had forewarned Achilles not to kill Tenes, because he himself would die by the hand of Apollo if he slew Tenes.

Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library, E.3.26. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

According to Plutarch in Questiones Graecas 28, Thetis wanted to make sure that her son wouldn’t forget the warning and sent a servant to remind him of it and to make sure that Achilles wouldn’t kill Tenes without knowing what he was doing (that is, without knowing his identity). The servant, however, didn’t warn Achilles about Tenes' identity when the moment came, so Achilles actually killed Tenes. Angered upon discovering that, Achilles killed the servant and subsequently gave Tenes the appropriate funeral rites, and on that spot a temple dedicated to the local hero was erected. Plutarch further emphasizes that it was forbidden to mention Achilles' name in the temple, since he was the killer of the worshipped hero. Plutarch's and Pseudo-Apollodorus' versions differ in that one includes Hemithea, the sister of Tenes who was pursued by Achilles (this being the motivation for Tenes to fight Achilles in this version), and the other doesn’t (Tenes' motivation in fighting Achilles being solely to defend Tenedos in this version). Ioannis Tzetzes, in Ad Lycophronem 232, seems to repeat Plutarch (i.e., he includes Hemithea).

Pausanias gives a summary and, like Pseudo-Apollodorus, doesn’t include Hemithea as the cause of death but rather the defense of the country:

[...] The Greeks say that while Tennes was defending his country he was killed by Achilles. In course of time weakness compelled the people of Tenedos to merge themselves with the Alexandrians on the Troad mainland.

Description of Greece, 10.14.4. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Because of the sack of Tenedos, the Achaeans made sacrifices to Apollo in an attempt to appease his anger at the violence inflicted on a city important to him. It was during this time that Philoctetes was bitten by a snake, resulting in a wound that wouldn’t heal. Believing that Philoctetes would be more a burden than a help now, he was abandoned on the island Lemnos. In other words, it’s possible to know that the Achaeans didn’t go directly from Tenedos to Troy, despite Tenedos actually being one of the most recent pre-Troy sacks, since they went to  Lemnos first:

[...] and as they were offering a sacrifice to Apollo, a water-snake approached from the altar and bit Philoctetes; and as the sore did not heal and grew noisome, the army could not endure the stench, and Ulysses, by the orders of Agamemnon, put him ashore on the island of Lemnos, with the bow of Hercules which he had in his possession; and there, by shooting birds with the bow, he subsisted in the wilderness.

Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Library, E.3.27. Translation by J.G. Frazer.

Next they sail as far as Tenedos: and while they are feasting, Philoctetes is bitten by a snake and is left behind in Lemnos because of the stench of his sore. [...]

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

That is, unlike characters like Briseis and Chryseis, whose captures took place on land and who were probably also transported to the Achaean camp by land, Hecamede spent time on the Achaean ships before being in the fixed camp of the Achaeans.

We don’t know Hecamede's fate after the war, but considering how her emphasized role is domestic, if she is still alive when the Achaeans return, I imagine it would be a possibility that she would be taken as a household slave. For example, Euripides indicates that Hecuba was to be used by Odysseus for the purpose of serving Penelope and in The Odyssey we know that Odysseus' household had slaves serving domestic duties, and that while some were bought like Eumaeus, many were also conquered according to Telemachus.

[babyrdie]

Some big posts masterpost

Since asks are disabled, there's no way for people to ask me for links, so here's a sort of masterpost. Note that these are BIG posts only because that's usually what people ask me to link to in asks. This means that average/small posts aren't here, hence, the absence of posts about characters I've already mentioned more than once (Briseis, for example). Similarly, there are certainly more posts about Iphigenia, Medea, Achilles, Neoptolemus, Anitlochus, Andromache, etc, but they're mostly normal-sized posts. Also obviously there aren't all the long posts here, but I suppose that's enough to make up for the closed askbox. Otherwise, characters have tags (example: #Jason, #Cassandra of Troy) in posts that focus on them (when the character is just mentioned, I don't use the tag).

Trojan War-related characters

List of Patroclus' physical description/representantion

My take on Patroclus and kindness

List of Patroclus' skills

Trying (and failing) to get a concrete answer about the connected family tree of Achilles and Patroclus

Achilles in Skyros sources + academic takes: part 1, part 2, part 3.

Neoptolemus departure in literary and visual sources

Chryseis' literary sources

Tecmessa's (feat Teucer) literary sources

My take on Cassandra and marriage

Cassandra/Teucer + Clytemnestra/Agamemnon parallels in Aeschylus/Sophocles

Cult of Achilles in Black Sea (primary and secondary sources)

Troilus sources + my take on Troilus

My take on the slavery in Troy (mostly Paris-focused)

My take on Cassandra and Oilean Ajax myth

List of Oenone sources (disclaimer: kind of simple and disorganized)

Achilles art-related sources (primary and secondary)

Yapping about Deidamia

Neoptolemus, Andromache and Helenus in Epirus literary sources

List of Achilles' eyes sources

My take on Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis + Hecuba (Iphigenia, Polyxena, Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, Hecuba, Achilles posting) | extra explanation here

Iphigenia and Achilles relationship in the sources, 1 (romantic only), 2 (only Iphigenia in Aulis), 3 (in general)

Talking about Euripides' Skyrians teories

Philostrathus' representation of the death of Antilochus

List of visual sources about Big Ajax carrying Achilles

Yapping about Deidamia and Neoptolemus' relationship

List of sources about Penelope's mother + Penelope family in general

List of Peleus' sources

Other characters

Perseus & cia sources: part 1, part 2, part 3

My take on Andromeda's agency (sacrifice and marriage)

List of Theseus pious moments

Yapping about Jason and Medea in Argonautica

My take on Atalanta, Heracles and Theseus absence in Argonautica

A bit about Medea and Jason relationship in Apollonius Argonautica and Oprhic Argonautica

Academic takes on Atalanta parallels with Trojan War characters (mostly Achilles, but Helen and Thetis too)

[babyrdie]

Could you show more of the pious Theseus?

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

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

Aphrodite (feat Peitho)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apollo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suda, ei.184. Translation by Blake Tyrrell.

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

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

Artemis

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

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

Athena

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

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

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

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

Dionysus

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

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

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

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

Phobos 

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

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

Poseidon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deities in general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isocrates’ Helen, 10.31. Translation by George Nolin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...] Anyways, they say that Theseus willingly enlisted with the those heading off, and when he got to Crete he caught the eye of Ariadne, Minos’ daughter. Because of this he was saved by the skill of Daidalos in the following way. Daidalos gave Ariadne a ball of thread and told her to give it to Theseus so that he could attach the end of the thread to the entranceway. That would allow him to unwind the ball as he entered the Labyrinth, and, once he overcame the beast, he would have a simple and easy way back out of the Labyrinth, which had a complex, interwoven set of passages out. When Theseus got out after overcoming the beast, he along with the other boys and girls weaved a choral dance for the gods in such a way that it reflected his intricate weaving in and out of the Labyrinth. It was Daidalos that came up with and created the practice of choral dance.

Schol. (D) Il. 18.590. Translation by Scott Smith et al.

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

[Translation by Jonas Grethlein]

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 5.11.385

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.2

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

[Translation from British Library]

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 6.16.5

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

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

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

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

Taken from section 4.21.44:

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

[Translation by Nicholas Richardson]

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

Patroclus “gentle” epithet in The Iliad in modern analyse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language and Characterization in Homer, pg 10-11. 

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

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

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

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

Apostrophes in The Iliad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Allen-Hornblower concludes:

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

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

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

Shared Identity in The Iliad

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

Gregory Nagy, in his text “Achilles and Patroklos as Models for the Twinning of Identity,” seeks to argue that Achilles and Patroclus may represent a model of twin identities in mythology. This is, for example, expressed in how they both die on Apollo's plan and how epithets usually attributed to Achilles are attributed to Patroclus in Book 16, precisely while Patroclus personifies him by wearing his armor. According to Nagy, Achilles and Patroclus represent similarities while still maintaining individualities, one of the forms of individualization being the fact that Patroclus isn't the one who must fulfill the task of killing Hector, while Achilles is. It's also argued that the moment in which the term therapon 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 therapon, 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 therapon 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 therapon, 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' therapon).

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]

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

Hi, no problem!

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

Healing

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

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

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

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

Horses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliotheca, 190.6. Translation by John Henry Freese.

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

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

Dogs

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

Cooking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deipnosophists, 5.7. Translation by Charles Burton Gulick.

Battle/Body Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Menoitios’ son Patroklos grew up in Opos in Locris but was exiled for an involuntary mistake. For he killed a child his age, the son of the memorable Amphidamas Kleisonumos, or, as some say, Aianes, because he was angry over dice. He went to Phthia in exile for this crime and got to know Achilles there because of his kindship with Peleus. They cemented a deep friendship with one another before they went on the expedition against Troy. This story is from Hellanicus.

Scholia of Iliad. See here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympian Ode 9. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

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

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

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

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

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

Pyraechmes (337)

Areilycus (362)

Pronous (474)

Thestor (477)

Erylaus (490)

Amphotereus (495)

Erymas (495)

Epaltes (495)

Tlepolemus (496)

Echius (496)

Pyris (496)

Ipheus (497)

Euippus (497)

Polymelus (497)

Thrasymelus (550)

Sarpedon (578-579)

Sthenelaus (684)

Adrestus (812)

Autonous (812)

Echeclus (812)

Perimus (813)

Epistor (813)

Melanippus (813)

Elasus (814)

Mulius (814)

Pylartes (814)

Cebriones (860)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life of Theseus, 34.2. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

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

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

[...] So, although Homer described Patroclus in the happinesses of his life as smooth and without envy, yet in death he makes him have something of the bravo, and a soldier's gallant roughness: “Had twenty mortals, each thy match in might, Opposed me fairly, they had sunk in fight." [...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suda, tau.109. Translation by David Whitehead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympian Ode 10. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

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

Ghost

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

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

VINEDR: The events in the Pontus, my guest, if you have not yet sailed to it, and all those things that he is said to do on the island there I shall tell you [....] They also sing of how, while young herdsmen were playing dice around the altar of Achilles, one would have struck the other dead with a shepherd's crook, had not Patroklos scared them away, saying, "One shedding of blood on account of dice is enough for me." But it is possible to find out about these things from the cowherds or anyone living in Ilion. Since we inhabit the banks of the Hellespont's outlets, we are in close contact with each other, and, as you see, we have turned the sea into a river. [...]

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

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

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

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

[babyrdie]

@greekmythologylover234 Sorry for the big delay, I was trying to find different academic sources andI kind of reread an entire book just to make sure my memory was right. I wanted to present various theories, those who agree with the theory, those who disagree with the theory and those who give the benefit of the doubt. I tried to present it in chronological order, this way it would be easier to analyze the development of the debate (in addition, in many cases a later academic is responding directly to a previous academic and such a response would only make sense knowing the proposal of the previous academic). I'm replying as a post because otherwise I would have to tag you in multiple comments, which would be inconvenient! I made a separate post instead of reblogging the post we were talking about just to keep it more organized. Also, what I write here is what I have read, but I'm not an academic myself, which is important to remember (I'm not a historian, nor a clacissist, nor anything. That's precisely why I'm basically just repeating other people's theories instead of giving my own explanations)! Everything here is just me repeating what an academic said lol

Short answer:

It's uncertain, although it most likely does have some connection with Thetis since Achilles Pontarches is a protector linked to the sea and signs have been found that Thetis was worshiped in Olbia (where there was a strong cult of Achilles Pontarches) as well. But it's still not possible to say with certainty why Achilles was deified, especially in a specific region (Black Sea/Euxine Pontus), since all of his other cults were heroicfrom what we know (which, despite being a cult, doesn’t make the object of worship a deity). Some even argue that perhaps Achilles Pontarches was another cult hero. There are also arguments as to whether, if it’s a case of deification, this was an entirely Greek creation or whether it was influenced by non-Greek peoples from abroad in the Black Sea region (what I see being argued the most are the Scynthians). To really talk about this subject, it would be necessary to consider several theories and analyze the academics who agree with and criticize them, as it isn’t such a simple subject to talk about. Much of what is discussed is mere possibility. There is also the detail that much of the content on the subject isn’t so accessible because they’re texts that aren’t found in English, probably because the cities related to this subject currently belong to Ukraine (I say this because a considerable amount of the texts are from Russians and I really think this has to do with the archaeological site belonging to Ukraine).

Long answer:

Firstly, I recommend looking at a map where Pontic Olbia, Borysthenes (Berezan island), Neapolis and Leuke/Island of Achilles (Snake Island) were located. Just giving a hint because it might be confusing to read this without having an idea of the location, but these places really weren't too far from each other. Furthermore, at the end of the post are the ancient sources mentioned in the academic texts, if you’re curious to know which texts they’re talking about.

IMPORTANT DATES

This section is basically a summary of what is theorized to have happened historically in the region. Keep in mind that when it comes to history, we are working with possibilities and something like 100% accurate information isn’t really possible. For example, the settlement of Olbia has been theorized to date back to both the 7th century BC and the 6th century BC. Furthermore, the cult of Achilles in the region could only be confirmed more reliably with archaeological discoveries and many of the important texts on this subject are outdated in some aspects, such as the inscriptions about Pontarches. Older books give different dates (they tend to put it in earlier centuries) for the Getae invasion, but I used the one I saw most often used in more recent texts. What I mean is that don't take everything as exact. Also, I know it seems a bit ?! that I’m making a somewhat political timeline, but in the case of this cult, it’s important to have at least a brief idea of ​​what went on behind the scenes. For example, the main cult was moved from Olbia to Berezan/Borysthenes. Why? Well, the political context of the time explains it. Things like that. Also, the theories I intend to present about the cult sometimes mention things like that, so I think it's good to clarify so that no one gets extremely confused.

LINEAR B (possibly 13/14th century BC)

And yet the name of Achilles is "attractively identified," as Palmer puts it, in the Linear B tablets: In the text of Pylos tablet Fn 70. 2, a list of names in the dative includes a-ki-re-we, to be read as Akhil(l)ēwei. As I commented on this attestation, "we must be ready to assume that the mythopoeic name of  ̓Αχιλλεύς inspired the naming of historical figures called Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς. Palmer comments on my comment: "In fact, it is at the very least unlikely that any parent would have bestowed such a name on his son unless its inauspicious overtones had been masked by its occurrence as a heroic name in a famous story." If Palmer's "chain of reasoning," as he calls it, is correct, "then the Pylian record may be construed as implying that a version of the 'Wrath of Akhilleus' was current at the time of the destruction of Pylos." (The Name of Achilles: Questions of Etymology and "Folk-Etymology', by Gregory Nagy, pg 8)

That is, a name found in Linear B seems to attest to the existence of the name Achilles among the Mycenaeans. Gregory Nagy suggested that the name predates the myth and that a later mythological hero (Achilles son of Thetis) had this name attributed to him. However, Leonard Robert Palmer finds this unlikely, since Palmer (like Nagy, in fact) interprets the etymology of the name as being associated with mourning and, given the importance that the meanings of the names seemed to have, it would be strange for the name Achilles to be a name used. Why would parents choose to give their children names associated with bad omen when most give them names associated with virtues and beauty? Nagy then comments that if Palmer is right, then perhaps there was a version of the famous "Wrath of Akhilleus" even in the Mycenaean period. For context, Linear B is a script theorized to date back to the 13th/14th century BC and is a record of the Mycenaean language, predating the Greek alphabet.

SCYTHIANS IN THE BLACK SEA (predates Greek settlement, but uncertain date)

The real Scythians were a broad group of peoples, probably Iranian in origin, who originally lived as nomadic herders. They were among the earliest in a long line of peoples who migrated from central Asia to the west, driving before them vast herds of horses, sheep, and cows. By the 700s BC, they seem to have displaced the earlier Cimmerians, who themselves probably also migrated from the east. 

The arrival of the Scythians in the Black Sea zone alarmed the kingdoms of the Near East. Records of conflicts with the Scythian host appear in several ancient texts, under names that prefigure later labels. They are perhaps the Ashkenaz of Hebrew sources (Genesis 10:3), and in the sixth century BC the Persians vanquished an eastern people they called the Saka. The famous rock relief at Behistun in western Iran depicts Darius and his subjugated enemies, with the shackled Skunkha, ruler of the Saka, shown with the long beard and pointed hat that were the standard visual representations of northern barbarians. (After conquering the Scythians of the east, Darius led another, unsuccessful campaign against their western cousins around 513 BC.) (The Black Sea, by Charles King, pg 35-36)

That is, Scythians appear to be a people who originated in Asia (possibly of Iranian origin), but eventually spread until they eventually reached the Pontic region. Later, the Greeks settled in the region. Therefore, the Scythian presence is possibly earlier than the Greek presence in the region. Still, it’s uncertain when this happened, although it was at least before the Greek settlement, which occurred around the 7th century BC. Furthermore, they were nomadic, had shepherding as a strong cultural trait, were equestrians and appear to have been good archers.

HOMERIC TRADITIONS (possibly 8th century BC)

I'm putting it here, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's later than the Scythian occupation of the Black Sea/Euxine Pontus. From what I've seen, it's not possible to be certain about this. Anyway, just keep these things in mind: Homer wrote, possibly in not too distant periods, the poems The Iliad and The Odyssey, which were based on oral traditions of the Greek people. So the myths themselves are older, but the way we know them from Homer is probably from the 8th century BC. In The Iliad, there are two characters I want you to remember. One is the main hero Achilles (Ἀχιλλεύς,) and the other is the river god Achelous (Ἀχελώϊος). Also, in The Odyssey the dead are depicted as being in Asphodel, which includes characters like Achilles, Big Ajax, Patroclus, Antilochus, Agamemnon, Tiresias, the suitors, etc. So Achilles here isn’t in Leuke. In fact, the heroes in general aren’t even in Elysium. The only hero explicitly associated with this place is Menelaus, as it’s said that as Zeus' son-in-law he will live in the Elysian fields.

THE MYTH OF LEUKE (possibly 8th century BC)

Supposedly, the lost epic Aethiopis was written in the 8th century BC by Arctinus of Miletus and postdates Homer's poems. As far as is known, it’s the earliest written source for the myth relating Achilles to Leuke, an island in the Euxine Pontus/Black Sea region. It’s possible to know this because of a summary made by Proclus (5th century) in the work Chrestomathy. That is, the myth of Achilles and Leuke appears to predate the Greek settlement of the region. (Encyclopædia Britannica, Arctinus)

SETTLEMENT OF BEREZAN (possibly 7th century BC)

 “[...] the harbour of the Berezan settlement, established by  Milesian colonists in the 7th century BC prior to the foundation of Olbia Pontica in the same area [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 25). 

That is, the settlement (and creation of the port) by the Milesians (people of Miletus) in Berezan (ancient Borysthenes) probably took place during the 7th century BC and predated the founding of Olbia in the same region.

SETTLEMENT OF OLBIA  (possibly 6th century BC)

“Olbia, one of the richest sites in the North Pontic region, is situated along the estuary of the river Bug. The city was founded by Milesian colonists in the first half of the sixth century B.C. and prospered through the fourth century B.C.[...]” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 534). 

That is, Olbia was probably settled, also by the Milesians, in the 6th century BC. One of the reasons for the interest in Olbia is because it was strategically located for a commercial port. And in fact, Olbia had a very important port for trade and navigation in the Black Sea that was of great importance for the growth of the city's influence, which made it gain autonomy later. However, it was also located in a region full of foreign peoples (including the Scynthians who, as mentioned, were already in the region when the Greeks arrived), which influenced social, political and economic aspects.

SCYTHIAN DYNASTY (possibly around 600 BC)

“In about 600 bc, a Scythian royal dynasty emerged and ruled for almost a century. Scythian chieftains are usually called ‘kings’ as classical Greek writers designated them with the word basileus: this should  not be assumed to mean that their state organization  was at the same level as in Iran, whose rulers were also called basileus, but it is clear that hereditary power existed in Scythia during the fifth and fourth centuries bc. In the mid-fifth century. [...]” (Scythians: Warriors of ancient Siberia, by A. Yu. Alexeyev, pg 25).

That is, it’s possible to know that, at least around 600 BC (7th century BC), the Scythians had a hereditary political model, constituting a royal dynasty.

LORD OF SCYTHIA (possibly around the begin of greek settlement)

“Around 600 BC, broadly synchronous with the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia, we have the poetry of Alcaeus, which includes the line ‘Achilles, lord of Scythia’. Since the fragment has. Since the fragment has survived without its original context, much remains uncertain about Alcaeus’ words. [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 52-53). 

That is, in a period synchronized with the beginning of the Greek settlement in the region of Greater Olbia (which covers more than just the city of Olbia, to be clear. It’s about Olbia and the other cities influenced by it), the Greek poet Alcaeus wrote a poem that unfortunately only survives in fragments with very few contextualizations. One of the fragments found described Achilles as “Lord of Scythia”. According to Braund, at that time there was already a slave trade from Scythia that went from the Black Sea to other Greek poleis, and for this reason the Scynthians were already a relatively well-known people even by Greeks who weren’t from the region,as is the case of Alcaeus of Mytilene/Lesbos (pg 54).

CULT OF ACHILLES IN BLACK SEA  (possibly 6th century BC)

“For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century BC. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 315)

That is, the cult of maybe deified Achilles in the Black Sea appears to date back to at least the 6th century BC. Most scholars seem to agree that it’s a creation of Greek origin, although some suggest that it originated from the non-Greek populations already existing in that region, especially the Scythians (but the Thracians are also suggested).

KING SCYLES (possibly 5th century BC)

Among the Scythian kings, one that will be relevant in this post is Scyles because of an account by the Greek historian Herodotus. According to Herodotus, he had a Greek mother (the father was Scythian) and this made him appreciate Greek culture and seek to connect with it. Scyles participated in the Bacchic cults of Olbia, which caused the citizens of Olbia to mock the Scythian because, although they mocked the faith of the Greeks, their king was there worshiping Dionysus. This caused Scyles to have problems with his people, which eventually led to his betrayal and death.

OLBIA HAD AUTONOMY (possbily 4th century BC)

“The city rapidly became self-governing, reaching full prosperity in the 4th c. B.C [...]” (The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Site)

That is, it’s theorized that the heyday of Olbia was during the 4th century BC, a period in which the city was already autonomous. Therefore, any influence that Olbia exerted over other Pontic cities (which was quite a bit of influence, by the way) had no relation to Miletus. Braund calls the region of Olbia + Pontic Olbia-influenced cities (+Leuke) Greater Olbia.

OLBIA HAD INTEREST IN LEUKE (document is possibly from 3rd century BC)

”Certainly, later inscriptions show Olbian protection of the island. Particularly evocative is an honorary inscription dated no later than the early third century BC [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 54). 

“The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on  account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that  the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the  sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their  base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came  to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the  island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the  text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island.” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg  46). 

That is, in the 3rd century BC Olbia had established a possible kind of protectorate over Leuke. This inscription is called IOSPE i² 325 and mentions that a statue was erected in Leuke by the Olbiopolitans in honor of a citizen who was of importance at that event.

POSIDEOS’ INSCRIPTION TO ACHILLES (possibly 2nd century BC)

“The other pertinent document – IOSPE I²  672 – is a dedication to Achilles,  “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating  Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC. [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 47). 

Thus, in Neapolis was found a dedication to Achilles as a thank you for helping to defeat the pirates and calling him “lord of the island”. The owner of the inscription was identified as a citizen of Olbia (Olbia wasn’t so far from Neapolis) named Posideos. Supposedly, the inscription belongs to around the 2nd century BC.

MITHRIDATES RULES BLACK SEA (possibly at the end of 2nd century BC)

“[...] Mithridates did extend his sway in this area at least as far as the city of Olbia. The most important evidence for his relations with Olbia is an inscription of its people honouring a ship captain from Amisus (IOSPE 1² 35). The inscription is fragmentary and its interpretation much disputed, but the most satisfactory version is that of Wilhelm: the captain was entrusted with a shipment of royal supplies for the Armenians settled in Olbia by Mithridates; he set out from Amisus and stopped in at Sinope to pick up an embassy of Olbians and perhaps the help (boetheian? 1.10) they had been sent to seek. He brought his shipment through safely in very difficult conditions. It is known that Mithridates did resettle some of his subjects from Pontus in the Bosporan kingdom, so it is not unlikely that there should be Armenians in Olbia, but Wilhelm does not attempt to explain why they were there. One natural assumption is that the Armenians were not just randomly resettled, but constituted a Pontic garrison. That Olbia would have needed a garrison for protection is demonstrated vividly by the inscription honouring Niceratus, who died in defence of the city against the constant threat of the enemy (IOSPE 1² 34; SIG3 730). The exact date is not clear, but the end of the second century or beginn- ing of the first is usually assumed. It therefore probably refers to the situation in Olbia just before the city came under the protection of Mithridates, although it may date from the period between the dissolu- tion of Mithridates' protectorate and the sack of the city by the Getae towards the middle of the first century (Dio Chrys. 36.4-5). Either way, the Olbians will no doubt have been looking for just the sort of protection that other cities of the Euxine were seeking. It is also difficult to attach with confidence a date to the inscription honouring the Amisene sea captain. If the Armenians are from Armenia Maior then presumably it will date from the time after the marriage of Mithridates' daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes, as it seems only from then that Pontus and Armenia were allies. The term "Armenians", however, could just as easily apply to inhabitants of Armenia Minor, over which Mithridates gained control probably before his alliance with Tigranes. As for a lower date, the end of Mithridates' reign is the only limit. For although in 72/1 M. Terentius Varro Lucullus launched a successful campaign against the cities of the western Euxine supporting Mithridates, the cities further north were not affected: Tyras remained in Eupator's sphere during the last decade of his life, and, therefore, it is to be assumed that Olbia did also.

Coins of Olbia show possible Mithridatic influence. The king's own features are thought to be represented on the obverse of two Olbian issues. Another issue depicts on the reverse a dolphin between caps of the Dioscuri with eight-rayed star in field. As already noted (above p. 54), a cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri is a common type for the municipal coins of Pontus issued under Mithridates Eupator's rule, and the dolphin of the Olbian issue has in fact a very similar shape to the cornucopia. It is, however, the circulation "in enormous quantities at Olbia" of Pontic municipal issues which points most clearly to the city's inclusion in Mithridates' realm.” (The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, by Brian McGing, pg 55-56)

That is, Olbia came under the rule of Mithridates Eupator apparently around the end of the 2nd century BC, and it wasn’t the only one as the other Pontic cities did too. Apparently, this wasn’t seen entirely negatively by the people of Olbia, as in fact they were having problems with many external attacks and Eupator's intervention saved the city from destruction. They even thanked Eupator, as can be seen in one of the inscriptions found. But of course, this didn’tt happen out of Eupator's pure good heart. In fact, Mithridates Eupator sought to dominate Asia Minor and the Black Sea region, which included Olbia, because he wanted to gain power to defeat the influence of the Roman Republic over the Greek and Asian regions. He was considered the King of Pontus, and his battles with Rome were called the Mithridatic Wars and took place during the 1st century BC. Despite the great power gained by Eupator, Rome emerged victorious (Eupator having died possibly in 63 BC). This book is from 1986, but David Braund follows a similar historical line in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me that this part is outdated.

OLBIA WAS SACKED (possibly at the middle of 1st century BC)

In the mid-1st century BC Olbia was probably invaded by Getae, as mentioned in Dio Chrysostom’s oration Borystheniticus (Or. 36.4-6). As a result, the city was ruined and its fortification walls were destroyed. [...] (Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 54)

That is, Olbia was sacked and destroyed by the Getae, a people who inhabited the region below the Danube River and who are sometimes related to the Dacians and/or Thracians in theories by modern academics.

OLBIA WAS REBUILT (possibly 1st century)

“Then the question arises as to when Olbia was rebuilt after the Getic rout.  Unfortunately neither the circumstances nor the date of that rebuilding are  known. In the academic literature it is virtually taken for granted that the city  remained empty for several decades and was only restored at the end of the 1st century BC. This hypothesis is based mainly on archaeological data. To this  day archaeological levels or remains of buildings, which would relate to the  second half of the 1st century BC or to the first half of the 1st century AD, are  virtually unknown. It is only within the territory of the suburbs that paving,  rubbish pits and pottery kilns dating from the beginning of the 1st century AD  have been recorded. Recently also in Trench R-25 – near the place where the  inscription published here was discovered – cellars were cleared which contained materials dating from the first half of the 1st century AD. Objects dating from the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD are however encountered in Olbia in levels of a later period almost everywhere. Nevertheless it has not been  possible to assign them sufficiently precise dates, which would have made it  possible to single out from among them objects of the third or fourth quarter  of the 1st century BC and so archaeological data cannot provide an answer to  the question as to when exactly Olbia was re-built. [...]” (A New Dedication from Olbia and the Problems of City Organization and of Greco-Barbarian Relations in the 1st Century AD, by Askold I. Ivantchik, pg 199)

That is, Olbia was rebuilt in some period of which no one knows for sure, but academically the 1st century is usually considered (note: uncertainty in historical studies is common, but in the case of Olbia this is a constant element because the region has not been studied as much as others. At least, that is what I have read at least 3 academics mention). However, it has considerably lost its size. If in previous centuries Olbia had a great influence on other Pontic cities, now its golden age was gone. According to Kozlovskaya: “territory of the city proper was approximately three times smaller than it was during the Hellenistic period.” (The Harbour of Olbia, pg 54)

OLBIA LOST AUTHORITY OVER LEUKE (possibly 1st century AD)

“In addition, Olbia was no longer able to maintain its patronage over the  sanctuary of Achilles on the island of Leuke: by the end of the first century CE, it seems to have passed to some other West Pontic city, probably Tomi. [...]” (The Nothern Black Sea in Antiquity, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 43).

That is, despite Olbia's interests in Leuke and the apparent protection that Olbia offered Leuke because of the importance of the site, they were unable to maintain this due to the problems they faced. By the 1st century, another West Pontic city had taken over this role.

BEREZAN BECAME THE CENTER OF THE CULT OS ACHILLES (possibly 1st century)

“This stage lasted into the Hellenistic Age, but as time went by, the prosperity and importance of Olbia declined, and it was often threatened by native populations. In the Roman period, we find that the focus of Olbian worship of Achilles is not Leuke but rather nearby Berezan, which probably led to the confusion with Leuke in our later sources. When Olbia could no longer dominate Leuke, the range of its cult practice retreated, and Berezan apparently became a substitute. The cult seems to become more formal and institutional as Olbia becomes less powerful, with priests and rather monumental inscriptions. The epithet Pontarches underscores the expansion of status for Achilles from hero to divinity; at the same time the hyperbolic geographical claim for the sphere of Achilles' influence is a wishful inversion of the city's receding power.” (The Death and Afterlife of Achilles, by Jonathan S Burgess, pg 128)

That is, with Olbia having lost authority over Leuke due to the city’s declining influence, Olbia moved the center of the cult of Achilles to Berezan. For this reason, in the Roman period Berezan was the island that hosted the most important temple of Achilles in the region. This has led some academics to debate whether it is safe to assume that every “island of Achilles” mentioned in texts from the Roman period refers to Leuke, since Berezan in that period was an island also associated with Achilles. And I say “also” because even texts from that period associate Leuke with Achilles, so this association wasn't lost simply because Olbia moved the cult center to Berezan. Ancient texts, however, give the impression that Leuke wasn’t inhabited and, in fact, it was even forbidden to spend the night there. Anyway, remember that this doesn’t mean that the cult of Achilles in Berezan began at this time. It already existed! Since the 6th century BC, in fact! What changed was that it became the center of worship.

THE TERM PONTARCHES (possibly 1st century AD)

“A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 314)

That is, although the cult itself already existed, what we have of the term “Pontarches” itself dates back to at least the 2nd century AD, when the cult had already been changed to Berezan. The earlier periods of the cult of Achilles on the Black Sea are present in texts that deal with Pontarches because, as already said, the cult of Berezan is an extension of the earlier cult. Olbia only changed the main location. However, there is a detail. This text is from 1986 and, in 1988, there were new discoveries: “F.V. Shelov-Kovedyayev published an inscription found in 1988, a versified Greek dedication to Achilles Pontarches dating to the first century A.C.” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 539).

RISE OF THE CULT OF PONTARCHES (possibly 2nd/3rd century BC)

[...] It reached its height in the Roman period, during which (in the second and third centuries AD) Achilles in Olbia was worshiped under the cult title of Achilles Pontarches, the patron of the college of archons. [...] (Immortal Achilles, by Dianna Burton, pg 22)

That is, despite the previous fame that the cult already had (as we can see from how much Leuke is mentioned in earlier sources), it reached its peak in the Roman period with Achilles Pontarches.

THEORIES

I have tried to gather an interesting set of theories, including some that disagree with each other! However, there are certainly more theories than that. On a fair number of occasions, I have come across names that were mentioned frequently, but that I had no way of reading because the texts were in Russian or German. On one occasion, I came across a book by a Greek author, but it had never been translated into any other language, so I couldn't read it either. Occasionally I have come across theories in French. So yes, there is certainly much more than I have shown here. Still, I hope this is enough to make the point that there is much that is uncertain, much that is variable, and much that is interesting. There is, in my opinion, MUCH more appeal to the idea of ​​Achilles at Leuke than to the idea of ​​Achilles in Elysium.

Theory 1: there is no divine cult or ancestral cult, they’re all hero cults, and probably emerged after Homer!

When you search for articles dealing with the idea of ​​a cult of Achilles, you may see the name Farnell mentioned. This is Lewis Richard Farnell, who in 1920 published an Oxford book called "Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality" with the objective of exploring hero cults in Ancient Greece. He concluded that, although Achilles had cults in different places, none of them were a divine or ancestral cult (that is, a local cult directed to the ancestor of the region), but rather all were heroic. Therefore, Farnell doesn't interpret he was deified in the Black Sea.

I have presented all the facts that appear to me relevant ; and the working hypothesis that they suggest for dealing with Achilles-legend and cult is merely thi: Achilles was no local Achaean god, nor in his primary significance an Achaean tribal ancestor like Aiakos, but a definite heroic personage associated with a definite Achaean saga of semihistorical value; and always regarded, whether rightly or wrongly, as a real man; his cult was always hero-cult, and may have begun before Homer, but in post-Homeric times, independently of tribal affinities, was diffused and quickened by the powerful influence of the epic.

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 289.

However, it's important to mention that when saying "Achean God" he was referring to a theory related to the etymology of the name Achilles that said it possibly had roots in a deity associated with rivers. In other words, it isn't a theory formed based on archaeological finds or ancient texts as in the case of Euxine theory, it's a theory formed because of etymology. This theory doesn't really seem to be popular today, I don't remember seeing it being fervently defended in modern articles, but perhaps it was being considered at the time this book was published. From what I've noticed, most theories that attempt to explain that a mortal mythological character was initially a deity don't seem to have much support in the academic consensus, especially since the pre-Homeric details are too nebulous for such a strong claim. Yes, Achilles has elements associated with water and that's noticeable, but assuming he was a river deity who was converted into a mortal hero is a bolder and a very uncertain idea. Furthermore, Farnell theorizes the possibility of the cult of Achilles is post-Homeric, being a direct consequence of the hero's fame in poetry.

But his name and his parentage, his birth from the sea-goddess, have persuaded many that he was originally a river-god, his name arising from the same root as the river-name Ἀχελῷος. On this theory we may explain the facts thus : a Thessalian river-god becomes the ancestor of a powerful Thessalian tribe, a most natural evolution ; the ancestor leaves the river and becomes a mere ancestor-hero, who accompanies the tribe in its wanderings and conquests, and shares in the glory of its achievements. This hypothesis might satisfy if more of the facts were relevant to it. But none of them really are, except the name Ἀχιλλεύς?, which certainly seems to claim affinity with Ἀχελῷος?, though other etymologies have been suggested. But if we have reason to suspect a primitive custom once prevailing in Greece of baptizing children in rivers, if we find in the Aeolic Troad a rite that may be old Thessalian, of maidens dedicating their virginity to the river-god before marriage, so that the spirit of the river-god might enter into the child she might conceive ^, what would be more natural than to name the new-born child after the name of the river-god ? Nowhere does the cult and legend of Achilles betray any reminiscence of an aboriginal river-god or of any other nature-divinity. No river is ever named after him, possibly one fountain (while many are associated with Herakles) and two or three

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 285-286.

Theory 2: hero cults, not only of Achilles but in general, are post-Homeric!

In 1925, Erwin Rohde published the book "Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks". The main objective of the book was to analyze the opinions of the Greeks regarding what happened to the human soul after death. In this book Rohde, although he recognized that there are elements in Homeric poetry that appear to make references to cult practice (for example, the funeral of Patroclus), argues there was no cult of the dead in the pre-Homeric age. That is, there was no cult of dead heroes, which includes Achilles. This is his opinion because of the way the soul of the dead appears to be portrayed by Homer in The Iliad and The Odyssey. Although they didn't use the same argument, both Rohde and Farnell theorized the non-existence of Achilles worship before Homer. This idea, however, will be challenged in the following years.

Such are the relics of ancient soul-worship to be found within the limits of the Homeric world. Further attention to the spirits of the dead beyond the time of the funeral was prevented by the deeply ingrained conviction that after the burning of the body the psyche was received into the inaccessible world of the Unseen, from which no traveller returns. But, in order to secure this complete departure of the soul, it is necessary for the body to be burnt. Though we do occasionally read in the Iliad or the Odyssey that immediately after death and before the burning of the body “the psyche departed to Hades”, the words must not be taken too literally; the soul certainly flies off at once towards Hades, but it hovers now between the realms of the living and the dead until it is received into the final safekeeping of the latter after the burning of the body. The psyche of Patroklos appearing by night to Achilles declares this; it prays for immediate burial in order that it may pass through the door of Hades. Until then the other shadow-creatures prevent its entrance and bar its passage across the river, so that it has to wander restlessly round the house of Aïs of the wide gate (Il. xxiii, 71 ff.). This hastening off towards the house of Hades is again all that is meant when it is said elsewhere of Patroklos himself (Il. xvi, 856) that the psyche departed out of his limbs to the house of Hades. In exactly the same way it is said of Elpenor, the companion of Odysseus, that “his soul descended to Hades” (Od. x, 560). This soul meets his friend, nevertheless, later on, at the entrance of the Shadow-world, not yet deprived of its senses like the rest of the dwellers in that House of Darkness; not until the destruction of its physical counterpart is complete can it enter into the rest of Hades. Only through fire are the souls of the dead “appeased” (Il. vii, 410). So long, then, as the psyche retains any vestige of “earthliness” it possesses some feeling still, some awareness of what is going on among the living. But once the body is destroyed by fire, then is the psyche relegated to Hades; no return to this earth is permitted to it, and not a breath of this world can penetrate to it there. It cannot even return in thought. Indeed, it no longer thinks at all, and knows nothing more of the world beyond. The living also forget one so completely cut off from themselves (Il. xxii, 389). What, then, should tempt them, during the rest of their lives here, to try to hold communication with the dead by means of a cult?

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 18-19.

Furthermore, in the explained notes Rohde offers a group of information regarding the mythology of Achilles with Leuke and the known cults.

Leuke, to which already in the Aithiopis Achilles had been translated, was originally a purely mythical place (see above, p. 65), the island of the pallid shades (like the Λευκὰς πέτρη of Od. ω 11, at the entrance of Hades; cf. κ 515. It is the same rock of Hades from which unhappy lovers cast themselves down to death, ἀρθεὶς δηὖτ’ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πέτρης κτλ. Anacr. 17, etc. [cf. Dieterich, Nek. 27 f.]. λεύκη, the white poplar, as the tree of Hades, was used to make the garlands of the Mystai at Eleusis; cf. λευκὴ κυπάρισσος at the entrance of Hades, Epigr. Gr. 1037, 2).—It was probably Milesian sailors who localized this island of Achilles in the Black Sea (there was a cult of Ach. in Olbia and in Miletos itself). Alc. already knows of the champion as ruling over the country of the Scythians: fr. 48b, ἐν Εὐξείνῳ πελάγει φαεννὰν Ἀχιλεὺς νᾶσον (ἔχει), Pi. N. iv, 49. Then Eur., Andr. 1259 ff.; IT. 436 ff.; finally Q.S. iii, 770 ff. Leuke was particularly identified with an uninhabited islet rising with its white limestone cliffs out of the sea at the mouth of the Danube: 566 Κέλτου πρὸς ἐκβολαῖσι, Lyc. 189 (probably the Istros is meant but the latest editor simply substitutes Ἴστρου πρὸς ἐκ.—a far too facile conjecture).—It stood, more exactly, before the ψιλὸν στόμα, i.e. the most northerly mouth of the river (the Kilia mouth): Arrian, Peripl. 20, 3 H.: [Scylax] Peripl. 68 prob. means the same island; cf. Leuke, εὐθὺ Ἴστρου, Max. Tyr. 15, 7. It has been proposed to identify it with the “snake island” which lies more or less in the same neighbourhood: see H. Koehler, Mém. sur les îles et la course cons. à Achille, etc., Mém. acad. S. Petersb. 1826, iv, p. 599 ff. It was only by a confusion that the long sandy beach at the mouth of the Borysthenes, called Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος, was identified with Leuke (e.g. by Mela, ii, 98; Plin., NH. iv, 93; D.P. 541 ff.); legends of Achilles’ epiphanies may have been current there too (as in other islands of the same name: Dionys. of Olbia ap. Sch. A.R. ii, 658); the Olbiopolitai offer a cult to Ἀχιλλεὺς Ποντάρχης there: CIG. 2076–7, 2080, 2096b–f (IPE. i, 77–83). But as a settled abode of Achilles only Leuke was generally recognized (there was a δρόμος Ἀχιλλέως there as well: Eur., IT. 437; Hesych. Ἀχιλλ. πλάκα; Arr. 21—hence the confusion mentioned above). Strabo’s remarks on the subject are peculiar (vii, 306 f.). He distinguishes the Ἀχ. δρόμος (which had already been mentioned by Hdt. iv, 55) from Leuke altogether; and he places that island not at the mouth of the Istros but 500 stades away at the mouth of the Tyras (Dniester). But the place where sacrifice and worship was made to Achilles, as the abode of his spirit, was definitely fixed; and this was, in fact, the island at the mouth of the Danube (κατὰ τοῦ Ἴστρου τὰς ἐκβολάς, Paus. 3, 19, 11), of which Arr. 23, 3, gives an account based partially on the evidence of eye-witnesses (p. 399, 12 Müll.).

It was an uninhabited, thickly wooded island only occupied by numerous birds; there was a temple and a statue of Ach. on it, and also an oracle (Arr. 22, 3), which must have been an oracle taken by casting or drawing lots (for there were no human intermediaries) which those who landed on the island could make use of for themselves. The birds—which were perhaps regarded as incarnations of the Heroes, or as handmaidens of the “divinity of light” which Achilles was, acc. to R. Holland, Heroenvögel in d. gr. Myth. 7 ff., 1896—the birds purify the temple every morning with their wings, which they have dipped in the water: Arr., p. 398, 18 ff. Philostr., Her. 746, p. 212, 24 Kays. (Cf. the comrades of Diomedes changed into birds on his magic island: Iuba ap. Plin., NH. x, 127—another bird miracle: ib., x, 78). No human beings dared to live on the island, though sailors often landed there; they had to leave before nightfall (when spirits are abroad): Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35; Philostr., Her. 747, p. 212, 30–213, 6.

The temple possessed many votive offerings and Greek and Latin inss. (IPE. i, 171–2). Those who landed there sacrificed the goats which had been placed on the island and ran wild. Sometimes Ach. appeared to visitors; at other times they heard him singing the Paian. In dreams too he sometimes appeared (i.e. if a person happened to sleep—there was no Dream-oracle there). To sailors he gave directions and sometimes appeared like the Dioskouroi (as a flame?) on the top of the ship’s mast (see Arr., Peripl. 21–3; Scymn. 790–6; from both these is derived Anon., P. Pont. Eux. 64–6; Max. Tyr. 15, 7, p. 281 f. R.; Paus. 3, 19, 11; Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35). (The account in Philostr., Her. 745, p. 211, 17–219, 6 Kays., is fantastic but uses good material and is throughout quite in keeping with the true legendary spirit—esp. in the story also of the girl torn to pieces by ghosts: 215, 6–30. Nor is it likely that 567 Phil. himself invented the marvellous tale laid precisely in the year 163–4 B.C.). Achilles is not regarded as living quite alone here: Patroklos is with him (Arr. 32, 34; Max. Tyr. 15, 7), and Helen or Iphigeneia is given him as his wife (see above, n. 99). Leonymos of Kroton, sixth century B.C., meets the two Aiantes and Antilochos there: Paus. 3, 19, 13; Conon 18; D.P. (time of Hadrian) says (545): κεῖθι δ’ Ἀχιλλῆος καὶ ἡρώων φάτις ἄλλων ψυχὰς εἱλίσσεσθαι ἐρημαίας ἀνὰ βήσσας (which Avien., Des. Orb., misunderstands and improves on: 722 ff.). Thus the island, though in a limited sense, became a true μακάρων νῆσος—insula Achillea eadem Leuce et Macaron appelata, Plin., NH. iv, 93.

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 565-566.

Theory 3: Pontarches was a god related do sailors and sea, he’s also of Greek origin!

Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, also known as Pauly-Wissowa or RE, is a encyclopedia on antiquity, its first volume published in 1839. In the 1953 volume, Bernhard Kruse and Erich Wilhelm Diehl wrote about Pontarches in the encyclopedia, a name attributed to Achilles in the Euxine Pontus. You can find them here, but in German.

In Kruse's part, we have:

He says Pontarches is Achilles and explains the hero after his death was transported to Leuke, which he describes as a mythical land that was later discovered to be a real geographical location on the Black Sea, close to the Danube.

Kruse says although there are texts mentioning the existence of a temple on the island of Borysthenes (today Berezan), the existence of this temple is archaeologically uncertain. However, he was certainly worshiped in Olbia, which was a neighbor of Borysthenes. There, he was called Pontarches/Ποντάρχης (something that refers to commanding/ruling the sea, as Lord of Sea or Ruler of Sea), documented in inscriptions found in the area that contained dedications to Achilles Pontarches and his mother, the Nereid Thetis. He says it's believed the inscriptions are all from Olbia, none of them originating from the Isle of Achilles. Kruse describes him as "divine patron of Greek sailors on the Black Sea", which explains why the title Pontarches. Kruse says the Olbia inscriptions had only been found dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

For him, it's uncertain whether there were sanctuaries or other places of worship in the regions where the cult inscriptions were found, as few of the stones used in them were found. Regarding inscriptions found outside Olbia, Kruse theorizes they may be where sailors had reason to disembark for the night, shelter from storms, or renew drinking water (once again linking the role of Achilles Pontarches with the protection of sailors). He says, however, this isn't proof that there was a temple in Olbia even though there was one in Leuke, as a temple wouldn't be necessary for that.

Finally, Kruse ends by saying the inscriptions aren't isolated cases, as there are similar inscriptions in several places on the Black Sea dating back to the 4th century BC.

In Diehl's part, we have:

He says the chronology of the writings about Achilles Pontarches is uncertain because names rarely provide enough clues to determine years more precisely.

He mentions there are mentions of agon winners, apparently written following competition celebrations, but there is a lack of further documentary evidence on the subject.

Diehl mentions the presence of the term χαριστήριον, which is an expression of thanks. He speculates that it may be a thank you to the goodwill of Achilles Pontarches to act on a very specific occasion, whether in support during agony or in rescuing a danger, such as a danger at sea that was feared. In this case, expressing gratitude immediately after receiving help would make sense.

Diehl says the cultic reason for placing stones related to Achilles Pontarches is unknown, in particular the reason for having some of these outside Olbia (that is, assuming they were found where they actually were, and not moved outside of Olbia).

Records were found about living conditions in Olbia and about the priests.

He says the word evлooía appears to be present only in priestly inscriptions and appears to be important. According to him: "The word undoubtedly means the concept of good drinking water. Even more than protecting against water shortages in the city itself, we have to think about providing good quality drinking water to seafarers. On the long journey along the coast, the crew and passengers are dependent on the wells and springs. Who should save sailors from dying of thirst if not their divine patron? Therefore, it is obvious that a priest of Achilles Pontarches, and not an archon or strategist, acts as a mediator between the people and the functions of Achilles Pontarches."

He mentions the presence of Thetis, who was certainly worshiped as a goddess.

There is a part trying to analyze the chronology of Achilles' cults (he isn't analyzing the nature of the cult itself, however). He says that from at least the 5th century BC, Achilles was worshiped in Leuke. He says it's not possible to date the link between White Island and Olbia with certainty, but Diehl thinks it's certainly ancient. He said that in Dromos Achilleios (aka Racecourse of Achilles) writings were found that partially reveal the name Achilles, especially associated with sailors. He says that in Neapolis there are tributes paid to the Lord of Leuke. Diehl comments on the possibility of the cult of Aquiles Pontarches specifically having started in Olbia.

Diehl comments on the various attempted analyzes of the possible divine nature of Achilles, arguing why they don't make sense. For example, he talks about a theory that he was a solar deity, to which he counters that Achilles, like his mother, clearly belongs to the element sea and not the sun.

He comments on previous attempts to link the origin of Achilles Pontarches to a non-Greek origin, such as the Thracians, the Scythians and even Asia Minor. Diehl disagrees with these suggestions, being of the opinion: "Everything ancient sources tell us about Achilles and Achilles Pontarches shows us he's a purely Greek figure."

It's interesting to mention that scholars who try to explore the cults of Achilles tend to list at least Diehl as a reference, so this text influenced later ones.

Theory 4: hero cults are pre-Homeric and the divine side of Achilles is intrinsically related to Thetis, including the sea element!

In 1979, Gregory Nagy published a book intitled "The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry". Nagy argued that both The Iliad and The Odyssey already presented elements of cult, including in scenes related to Achilles, and therefore the practice of hero cult is pre-Homeric. The reason it wasn't further explored was the fact that Homer wrote pan-Hellenic poetry, featuring Greek characters from different regions, while cults tended to be regional. How do you delve deeper into something that has the characteristic of being regional in a pan-Hellenic history? Therefore, the argument that there were no cults of Achilles before Homer and other poets because there are no signs of it in the writing wouldn't be a strong enough argument.

This was a direct response to Rohde. In fact, Nagy says Rohde himself noticed signs of hero worship in Homeric poetry, but deliberately didn't consider them because they were arguments that would contradict his thesis. Although Nagy focuses on Rohde, Farnell is mentioned in the notes to the passage in which he says that certainly the religion surrounding Greek heroes isn’t post-Homeric. Therefore, it was also a disagreement in relation to Farnell's theory. He cites other critics of Farnell's interpretation as well.

[Akho/Ákhos = grief, sorrow; public expression of grief, sorrow, by way of lamentation or keening. Pénthos = grief, lamentation. Laós = people assembled, the people of a country, soldiers. Kléos = glory]

[…] ákhos/pénthos requires the rituals of cult, as we have already seen from the evidence on the cult of Demeter Akhaiá. By performing ritual lamentations, the community involves itself with the ákhos of Demeter over the káthodos of Kore. $26. The death of Achilles would be an ákhos not only to the laós, in epic, but also to the community at large, in cult. There are clear traces that we can cite from the hero cults of Achilles in the classical and even postclassical periods. For just one example, let us consider a custom in Elis that Pausanias mentions in connection with various local athletic traditions-among them the restricted use of a site with the epichoric name of hieròs drómos 'sacred run' (6.23.2). On an appointed day at the beginning of the Olympic Games, as the sun is sinking in the west, the women of Elis perform various rituals to worship Achilles (τοῦ ̓Αχιλλέως δρῶσιν ἐς τιμήν), and the ritual that is singled out specifically is that of mourning (KóπTTEσ0αι: Pausanias 6.23.3). Whereas Achilles gets kléos from epic, he gets ákhos/pénthos from cult. $27. This is not the place, of course, to attempt a detailed exposition of how the cult of heroes in Greek religion is decidedly not some relatively late phenomenon, motivated somehow by the stories of heroes in Greek epic. The monumental work of Erwin Rohde remains one of the most eloquent sources for our under- standing the héros 'hero' as a very old and distinct concept of traditional Greek religion, requiring cult practices that were also distinct from those of the gods. The cult of heroes was a highly evolved transformation of the worship of ancestors, within the social context of the city-state or pólis. As a parallel, I would propose that the κλέα ἀνδρῶν / ηρώων kléos [plural] of men who were heroes of Iliad IX 524-525 represents the evolution of Greek epic from earlier "stories about the ancestors," as still represented by the names Kleo- pátré/Patro-klées, and, vestigially, by the function of the traditional figures assigned to these names.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 114-115.

$29 The hero of cult must be local because it is a fundamental principle in Greek religion that his power is local! On the other hand, the Iliad and the Odyssey are Panhellenic. What results is that the central heroes of this epic tradition cannot have an overtly religious dimension in the narrative. Such a restriction on the self-expression of epic led Rhode to misunderstand the Homeric evidence on heroes. In general, his thesis was that the overall Homeric silence on the subject of hero cults implies an absence of even the ideological background? In specifics, however, Rohde himself noticed sporadic instances in the Iliad and the Odyssey where some sort of reference is indeed being made to hero cults, but he did not integrate this evidence, which went against his thesis. Each of these instances would require a detailed exposition, but I restrict the discussion here to just one instance that reflects on the status of Patroklos/Achilles in the Iliad. $30 As Rohde himself had noticed, the Funeral of Patroklos at Iliad XXIII has several features that connote the rituals of hero cults. For example, the wine libation (XXIII 218-221) and the offering of honey with oil (XXIII 170; cf. xxiv 67-68) "can hardly be regarded as anything but sacrificial." Such marginal details of cult, as also the integral element of singing lamentations at XXIII 12 and 17, give ritual form to the akhos of Achilles for Patroklos at XXIII 47.3 Even the central epic action of Book XXIII, the Funeral Games of Patroklos, has ritual form.‘ In Homeric narrative, the funeral of a hero is the only occasion for athletic contests (XXIII 630-631: Amarynkeus; xxiv 85-86: Achilles himself). In classical times, local athletic contests were still motivated as funeral games for the epichoric hero (cf., e.g., Pausanias 8.4.5). As a general principle, the agon was connected with the cult of heroes, and even the Great Panhellenic Games were originally conceived as funeral games for heroes.* The custom of mourning for Achilles at the beginning of the Olympics (Pausanias 6.23.3) is a striking instance of this heritage. As a parallel, epic offers a corresponding single event in the mourning for Patroklos that inaugurates the Funeral Games in Book XXIII. Even though there are hints within the Iliad that the Funeral of Patroklos is presented as a grand beginning of cult (XXIV 592-595), the overt singularity of the event forced Rohde to rule it out as a parallel to the cult of heroes, which is recurrent? And yet, the Iliad itself is a singularity. What is recurrent in ritual is timeless in the epic tradition, just like the kléos aphthiton of Achilles.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 116-117.

[Note: Regarding "hieròs drómos 'sacred run'" mentioned, in English the name is "Racecourse of Achilles". Probably related to the Achilles element as "swift-footed". In a Roman source, it’s said that this is the name because the "Thessalian leader", in this case Achilles, exercised there (presumably ran). In a Byzantine source, this was said to be the route Achilles took in search of his lover Iphigenia, a version of the myth told by Lycophron in the poem Alexandra (Hellenistic Greece) which the Byzantine source was analyzing. When looking for Iphigenia, he presumably ran. Regardless of the real origin, there is a connection with the agile aspect of Achilles.]

Nagy also discusses the divine side of Achilles, especially connecting him with his mother's domain: the sea. He also explores the idea of ​​the birth of Thetis's son as a cosmic threat (In this case, a cosmic threat averted. And the avoidance of that threat gave birth to Achilles).

[Póntos = sea. Mêtis = wisdom, craft. Mênis = wrath, anger. Bíē = force, violence]

$24. The Hellespont, then, is a focal point for the heroic essence of Achilles Homeric poetry presents his tomb as overlooking its dangerous waters, the setting for violent storms expressed by the same imagery that expresses the hero's cosmic affinity with fire and wind. Moreover, epic diction presents this fire and wind as primarily endangering the ships of the Achaeans, which are conventionally described as being beached on the Hellespont (XV 233, XVII 432, XVIII 150, XXIII 2). In other words, the Hellespont is also a focal point for the heroic essence of all the Achaeans who came to fight at Troy. Moreover, Troy itself and the Hellespont are presented in epic diction as parallel markers of the place where the Trojan War took place (XII 30, XXIV 346). It is by sailing down the Ἑλλήσποντον … ἰχθυόεντα 'fish-swarming Hellespont' that Achilles could have left Troy and come back home safely to Phthia (IX 359-363). In fact, from the standpoint of a Homeric audience in the eighth or seventh centuries B.C., the site of the Trojan War is significant not so much because of Troy itself but because of the Hellespont, passage to the Black Sea. And the prime affinity of Achilles with the Hellespont and the realms to which it leads will survive for centuries, well beyond the classical period. From inscriptions found in the Black Sea area, we know that Achilles still presides over the póntos even as late as the second/third centuries A.D.: he is in fact still worshiped as the Pontárkhés 'Ruler of the Póntos". $25. The cosmic affinity of Achilles with the póntos in general and with the Helléspontes in particular is of course inherited from his mother Thétis. We are reminded of the initial Iliadic scene where the solitary figure of a weeping Achilles is pictured gazing out toward the póntos (1 350), actually praying to the divine Thetis (1 351-356). The goddess then makes an epiphany that is characteristic of a true Nereid, emerging from the sea like a cloud of mist (I 357-359). Of course, Thetis was actually born in the póntos (Hesiod Th. 241/244), the granddaughter of Póntos incarnate (Th. 233). In Pindar's Isthmian 8, a poem that tells how she would have given birth to a son greater than his father if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with her (lines 31-35), she is actually called ποντíαν θeóv 'goddess of the póntos' (line 34). To avoid the danger that the essence of Thetis poses to the cosmic order, the gods get her married off to the mortal Peleus (lines 35-40). And the son that issues from this marriage of Peleus and Thetis grows up to fulfill a function that is latent in the very word póntos: γεφύρωσέ τ' Ατρείδαι- σι νόστον … and he Achilles bridged a safe homecoming for the sons of Atreus. Pindar 1.8.51 In other words: by dint of his exploits at Troy (1.8.51-55), Achilles made it possible for the leaders of the Achaeans to traverse the sea and go back home. The semantics of "bridge" here correspond to the semantics of Latin pōns, cognate of Greek póntos.

$26. The cosmic powers of Thetis over the póntos are evident from local traditions connected with her actual cult. Perhaps the most striking example is in Herodotus 7.188-192, the account of a shipwreck suffered by the Persian fleet off the coast of Magnesia. The precise location of the shipwreck was an akté 'headland' called Sepiás (after sepía 'sepia, cuttlefish')-given that name, says Herodotus, because local tradition had it that Thetis was abducted by Peleus at this spot (192). Moreover, the storm that wrecked the ships of the Persians took the form of a violent wind that the local Hellenic population called the Hellespontíes (188). We are reminded that the tomb of Achilles was on an akté 'headland' at the Helléspontos (xxiv 82)!n After the storm has raged for three days, the Magi of the Persians sing incantations to the wind and sacrifice to Thetis, having been informed by the natives of the lore connecting the name Sepiás with her and the other Nereids (Herodotus 7.191). $27. The place Sēpiás is connected with Thetis not only because Peleus abducted her from there. In a story that was probably incorporated in the epic Cypria, the polymorphous Thetis actually assumes the shape of a sēpíā 'sepia, cuttlefish' at the very moment when Peleus mates with her (scholia ad Lycophron 2.175, 178).1 This identification is most significant in view of the sepia's function as animal of mêtis in Greek lore (e.g., onmin doλóunts in Oppian Halieutica 2.120). As Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant have argued most convincingly, Thetis herself is a figure of mêtis. To go into this topic now would be to stray far beyond my line of inquiry, which has been confined mainly to the bíē of Achilles and its cosmic affinities. Suffice it to say that the mêtis of Thetis also relates to the póntos. It is a key to the fundamentals of navigation, as embodied in the orienting principles of Póros 'charted path [over the sea]' and Tékmōr 'goal', which are opposed to the disorienting principle of Skótos 'darkness'. These personifications of opposing themes stem from the local cosmogonic traditions of Laconia as preserved in the poetry of Alcman, fr. 2P. From this same fragment, we also know that the opposing figures of Póros/Tékmōr vs. Skótos are presented as fundamental cosmic principles that are transcended by one all-encompassing figure, who is none other than the goddess Thetis! I will simply refer to Detienne and Vernant for a discussion of the rich mythology surrounding these related themes of navigation, orientation, and cosmogony, confining myself here to one point: in local traditions such as the Laconian, Thetis figures as a primordial goddess with the most fundamental cosmic powers, and her primacy is reflected by the utmost reverence that is her due in cult (consider the Laconian practices mentioned by Pausanias 3.14.4).

$28. My point is that Thetis must by nature also transcend the concept of Achilles, a son who is after all a mere "demigod," hemítheos. Her power over the póntos entails the principle of mêtis, whereas his power has affinities only with the bíē of wind and fire." And yet, the heroic irony is that Achilles as son of Thetis could actually be more powerful than Zeus himself, if only he had been fathered by the god instead of a mortal (Pindar 1.8.31-35). We have indeed seen that the mênis of Achilles creates effects that are parallel to those created by the bíē of Zeus in a thunderstorm, and that these effects are actually validated by the Will of Zeus. In this sense, Zeus himself is validating the divine potential of the mortal Achilles Moreover, the theme of the hero's divine potential is actually conjured up by the manner in which the Will of Zeus goes into effect in the Iliad. The wind- and firelike devastation from the mênis of Achilles is willed by Zeus because Thetis asks for it (I 407-412, 503-510). Moreover, the validation of the hero's essence in the Iliad is in return for what Thetis had done for Zeus, when she rescued him from imprisonment by his fellow Olympians (I 396-406). Here we see a vital link with the theme of the hero's divine potential. Thetis rescued Zeus by summoning Briáreōs the Hundred-Hander, who then frightened the Olympian rebels away from ever endangering Zeus again (I 401-406). In this context, the Hundred-Hander is specifically described as βίην οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων better in bíē than his father' (I 404). The theme is strikingly parallel to what would have been if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with Thetis. $29. The figure of Briáreos, also called Aigaiōn (I 404), is a sort of nightmarish variant of Achilles himself. In the Hesiodic tradition, Briáreos/Obriáreōs is likewise one of the Hundred-Handers (Hesiod Th. 147-153). These figures are equal to the Titans themselves in bíē (Th. 677-678), and they use their bíē to defeat the Titans (Th. 649-650), thus ensuring the krátos of Zeus (Th. 662). Their action in defeating the Titans (Th. 674-686, 713-719) is in fact a correlate of the victorious action taken by Zeus himself with the bíē of a cosmic thunderstorm (Th. 687-712). In other traditions, Aigaiōn is likewise a figure who fights against the Titans (Titanomachy fr. 2 p. 110 Allen); moreover, he lives in the sea and was actually fathered by Póntos (ibid.). On the other hand, still another tradition has Briáreōs fathered by Poseidon himself (scholia ad Iliad I 404). These variant figures Briáreōs and Aigaíon, synthesized as one figure in Iliad I 403-404, conjure up the Iliadic theme of Achilles] He too is an exponent of bíē; he too has strong affinities with the pontos. Here is a hero who would have been better than Poseidon-better than Zeus himself — if either had fathered him. Just as the divine essence of Zeus was validated by the bíē of Briáreos/Aigaíon, so also the god will now validate in return the heroic essence of Achilles in the Iliad. The bie of the Hundred-Hander is an antecedent for the bie that will mark Achilles] The hero cannot be the best of the gods, but he will be the best of heroes. And in the poetry that all Hellenes must recognize, he will be the best of the Achaeans.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 343-347.

In fact, Nagy is an important name in the Homeric scholia, so don't be surprised to see that in the following texts he's present. From what I've noticed, he’s frequently referenced in works.

Theory 5: Achilles was a deity of the Underworld, of Greek origin!

In 1980, Hildebrecht Hommel published a book entitled "Der Gott Achilleus", which means "God Achilles", in which he intended to argue in favor of the idea that the cult of Achilles in the Euxine Pontus was a deity cult and not a heroic cult. Perhaps boldly, he tried to argue the divine Achilles had an association with the Underworld (linking Achilles with the Underworld isn’t bold...he’s truly a character surrounded by death, be it his own death or the death of others. The idea of ​​him being an Underworld deity is bold). Unfortunately, I didn't find Hommel's text accessible online in English, only in German. But it's important to mention him because Hommel is often mentioned as a reference in later researchers, whether to agree or disagree.

The Classical Review publishes informative reviews, subject profiles and notices from leading scholars on new work covering the languages, literature, history, archaeology, philosophy and reception of ancient Greece and Rome and Asia Minor (definition given by the Cambridge website). One of the issues was published in 1982 (that is, two years after the publication of Hommel's book) was written by Emily Kearns and was a review of Hommel's theory. According to her:

This is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship, and yet, as its author suggests in conclusion, it has the air of a preliminary foray into a larger area. Its subject is not the whole complex of divine cults of Achilles in the Greek world, but the most remarkable and well-documented of these, the cult of Achilles Pontarches in the Black Sea area: Olbia, Leuke and Berezan. This puzzling figure, apparently so unlike the Achilles of the Iliad (with whom he is linked, however, by the tradition, found in the Aithiopis, of his translation to the island of Leuke) poses two obvious questions. Is he a purely Greek god, or does he contain native Scythian elements? And what is the precise nature of his sphere of influence? H. rejects the now more usual view of a syncretistic, largely Scythian/Thracian Achilles in favour of a Greek one. He is clearly right to point to the improbability of a simple identification of some such foreign god with the epic, heroic Achilles. It seems impossible to deny that it is a genuinely Greek tradition, though one suppressed in Homer, to attribute divine features to Achilles; but this Greek god could then the more easily be merged with a foreign deity. The main aim of the book, however, is to demonstrate that the Pontic Achilles was in origin an underworld god - not of course a new idea, as H. acknowledges. Indeed it is clear that Achilles was often pictured as occupying a specially privileged position among the dead on the Isles of the Blest. Further investigation of the diffusion of this concept might have been useful, for this, together with the identification of the νήσος μακάρων with Leuke, really provides the only hard-and-fast evidence for the Pontic Achilles as lord of the dead. H.'s black-figure amphora from the British Museum is too uncertain of interpretation to be useful, and Od. 11. 467 ff. can, and surely should, be explained exclusively in terms appropriate to epic concepts of death. Further evidence adduced is of a more indirect nature - investigations into the chthonic or underworld associations of the various figures who appear as consorts of the translated Achilles, and speculations on an etymological connexion of 'Achilles' with Acheloös, Acheron, and ἀχερωίς (the white poplar). Some of these points are suggestive, but none is wholly persuasive. They do not seem sufficient to determine the character of the cult on Leuke and the associated areas. Here the evidence is maddeningly inconclusive; graffiti on pottery from Leuke, Berezan and the mainland, some now dated as early as the sixth century, reveal very little. Yet it seems remarkable that one who was simply the lord of the dead could inspire so much positive attention, and still more remarkable that by the second century after Christ he should be a figure of major importance, capable of bestowing every sort of benefit, both to the individual and more particularly to the city. H. demonstrates the connexion of Achilles with death, both for the Pontus region and elsewhere; but to imagine that his significance in cult is confined to this, to reduce his function to a formula, is surely misconceived.

The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1982), pg 285-286.

Kearns alludes there was debate about the divine Achilles before the 1980s since she says "this is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship", which makes sense since Farnell in 1920 was refuting a theory linked to the idea of ​​the pre-Homeric divine Achilles. However, if we take into account what Kearns says, then apparently the debates surrounding the cult of Achilles at the time seemed to consider it of Scythian/Thracian origin (which reminds me of how in Diehl's text he also mentioned this), which Hommel disputes by arguing that it’s entirely Greek, something Kearns agrees with (also similar to Diehl’s text). However, she disagrees with the idea that he was a deity related to the Underworld (which she mentions isn't new. So apparently it's been suggested or at least implied before?), as, although she agrees Achilles is associated with death in certain ways in mythology, she thinks the evidence is too inconclusive to assert with certainty the character of the cult. Yes, the cult existed, but was it really about an Underworld deity?

Theory 6: Achilles' mortality is an essential element, and his cults are entirely heroic!

In 1988, J. T. Hooker opposed the Hommel idea, arguing that although a cult of Achilles did indeed exist in the Black Sea, the divine or heroic nature of the cult is uncertain. He says etymological speculations are just speculations and Achilles' status as a very mortal man is very well established (because his story is very related to his mortality. This is why death in the character of Achilles is such a strong element compared to other characters in the Trojan War, which includes the various sources regarding his afterlife). He also mentions Farnell as an example of an academic who, unlike Hommel, interpreted Achilles only had hero cults.

Theory 7: Pontarches was a god related to sea and sailors!

In 1991, Guy Hedreen explained why it's possible that the cult resembled a deity cult more than a heroic cult, which could have been a possibility since mythological characters actually receiving heroic worship weren't non-existent:

A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. These are public dedications made by the archons, generals, and priests of Olbia, thank-offerings to Achilles for the well-being of the city and of the dedicants themselves. Achilles' status was never higher than in the Roman period at Olbia. We learn from the inscriptions that he was the patron of the college of archons, and as such he presumably was endowed with powers approaching those of a god; there are few significant differences between the inscribed dedications to Achilles Pontarches and those to Apollo Prostates and Hermes Agoraeus, the patrons of the Olbian generals and the agoranomoi. This accords well with what Dio Chrysostomos reports after his visit to Olbia around the end of the 1st century after Christ. He writes that the Olbians honor Achilles as their god and that they had established two temples in the hero's honor, one in Olbia itself and another on "Achilles' island. "

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 314-315.

As you can notice, he's mainly talking about the Romans and not the Greeks. However, he later clarifies that there was already evidence of such a cult in Classical Greece and that more recently there was evidence in Archaic Greece. In other words, it isn't a Roman invention, but it's a Greek invention adopted by the Romans.

For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century B.C. The most interesting class of Achilles-related graffiti consists of short inscriptions and crude drawings on clay disks made from pottery fragments. The disks are more or less carefully worked into the shape of a circle, ranging in diameter from three to six centimeters. The largest number of inscribed disks comes from the late 6th-century site of Beikush located at the confluence of the Berezan and Beikush inlets, approximately forty kilometers west of Olbia. Thirtynine disks from the site bear graffiti, most including the name of Achilles or an abbreviation of the name: A, AXI, AXIɅɅ, AXIɅɅE, or AXIɅɅEI. In addition to the letters, many of the disks have depictions of objects, including snakes, human figures, and perhaps boats, swords, and daggers. The excavator of the Beikush disks also published eight similar disk from Olbia. These disks, formed out of black-glazed pottery fragments, are characterized by more careful workmanship than the Beikush examples. Six of them are incised with figures or letters, but only one, bearing a solitary letter A, is exactly comparable to the Beikush series. Three other inscribed pottery disks from Olbia were published by Yailenko. One bears the letters AXIɅE plus an obscure drawing. The other two have drawings and the letter A. Since Beikush is the most fully excavated of some three dozen laten Archaic Greek settlements in the vicinity of Berezan, there is hope that other, as yet unexplored settlements will yield further Achilles-related disks.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 315-316.

One of the reasons this cult is of such interest is that the current evidence far outweighs the evidence for the cult of Achilles in other regions, including the cult dedicated to him in the Troad at the site of what was believed to be his tomb (hence, the tomb of Antilochus and Patroclus also since they were all in the same urn according to mythological tradition). According to Strabo, not only Achilles was honored, but Patroclus, Antilochus and Big Ajax as well, all heroes who died in Troy.

The length of this coast, I mean on a straight voyage from Rhoeteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is sixty stadia; and the whole of it lies below Ilium, not only the present Ilium, from which, at the Harbor of the Achaeans, it is about twelve stadia distant, but also the earlier Ilium, which lies thirty stadia farther inland in the direction of Mt. Ida. Now there are a sanctuary and a monument of Achilles near Sigeium, as also monuments of Patroclus and Antilochus; and the Ilians offer sacrifices to all four heroes, both to these and to Aias.

Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Horace Leonard Jones.

The cult of Achilles (by extension, the associated heroes already mentioned) in the Troad had considerable political importance. Jonathan S. Burgess describes some examples of how the tomb has been used over the years for political reasons.

The potential political significance of a Troad tumulus of Achilles of mytho-poetic fame and cultic importance was soon recognized. In Herodotus’ account of rivalry between Athens and Mytilene in the Troad, which apparently occurred in the sixth century, Mytilene established a town in the area called “Achilleion” after the Athenians took over Sigeion. This town apparently derived its name from a nearby tumulus identified as that of Achilles, as Strabo and Pliny later confirm. So by the sixth century BCE, at least, there existed a place in the Troad formally recognized as the burial place of Achilles, of such significance that it could give its name to a town established nearby. One surmises that in the struggle between Athens and Mytilene, both outsiders to the Troad, control of the tomb of Achilles, and by extension the glory of the Greek mythological past, was deemed of great political value. A series of political leaders in antiquity went out of their way to visit Troy, and often the tomb of Achilles. The topography of the Troad and its surviving monuments served as a stage for enactment of ideological conceptions of East and West. What could be viewed and visited in the Troad could suggest the mythological past of the Trojan war, which had long functioned as an endlessly malleable allegory. Trojan war myth had obvious use as a metaphor for West and East, Greek and barbarian, but it also offered opportunities for much different interpretations. Sympathy for vanquished Trojans and foundation stories featuring Trojan dispersal into the Western world resulted in various and highly complex use of the Trojan war story. Even when a certain perspective identified with one side or the other of the Trojan war, respect could be displayed towards both sides; or rather, one might seek to appease one side even as one actively identified with the other. As for visitation to the Troad, much depended on who was visiting and where they were proceeding after that. Xerxes stopped by Troy before invading Greece, sacrificing to Athena and making libations to “heroes,” though we do not hear of his visiting tombs. In 334 BC Alexander the Great, styling himself a second Achilles conquering eastern barbarians, visited the tomb of Achilles. He ran naked to the tomb of Achilles and laid a wreath there, while his close friend Hephaistion performed similar rituals at a nearby mound identified as the tomb of Patroklos. Later still Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, reportedly visited the tombs of Ajax and Achilles. He was said to have fancied himself an avenger of Troy, but he may have seen a need to appease ancient Greek heroes in this mission, much as Alexander in his previous visit to Troy sought to placate the shade of Priam.

The Romans traced their lineage back to the Trojans, and so visiting Romans tended to focus on Trojan heroes. However, when Caracalla visited the Troad in 214 CE he dedicated a bronze statue to Achilles and honored him with sacrifices; what is more, he had his freedman Festus cremated there, with a great tumulus constructed over his bones, in imitation of the burial of Patroklos. The tomb of Achilles was also visited by Julian in the fourth century. The Troad had become a tourist site by the imperial period, and doubtless there were other undocumented visitations of Troad monuments by prominent figures. On a more imaginary level, prominent tourists included Charon and even Homer himself. Lucian has Hermes, as tour guide, pointing out the tomb to Charon; it is said to be by the sea, in view of Sigeion and Ajax’s tomb at Rhoetion (the tombs are “not big,” sniffs Charon, unimpressed). A biographical anecdote reported that Homer was blinded when Achilles appeared to him in full armor at his tomb. Political considerations are prominent in Philostratus’ account of the Thessalian cult worship of Achilles in the Troad. When the Thessalians sided with the Persians during the invasion of Xerxes, it is reported by Philostratus, they abandoned the cult of Achilles. Later under Macedonian rule they returned to the practice because of Alexander’s fascination with Achilles. In other words, Thessalian attention to a Troad cult of Achilles reflected how their political rulers identified with the myth of the Trojan war.

Tumuli of Achilles, Political Visitations.

As noted, the cult at Troad had its importance. And yet, there is a difference between this cult and the cult at Euxine. Firstly, as already said, the cult in Euxine currently has more evidence than the cult in Troad, being better documented. Secondly, the cult in the Troad is considered a heroic cult and this is a consensus, unlike the debate surrounding the cult in Euxine. I'm taking a quick look at the Troad cult, although I haven't done the same with other Achilles cults, just to give an example of a hero cult and how it used to be local, have some relationship with death no matter how small and had importance even if it wasn't a cult of a deity. As I just want to give an example, I won't extend it to other cults.

Off all the differences between hero-worship and divine worship in ancient Greece, possibly the most fundamental is the difference in the geographical limits of the two types of cult. A hero-cult was most often restricted to a particular locale, whereas the worship of an Olympian god or goddess was usually widespread. The site of a hero-cult requires some connection with the hero, the physical remains of the body being the most direct. With respect to this general distinction between heroic and divine worship the cult of Achilles is problematic. On the one hand, there was a cult near Troy at the site identified as the burial mound of Achilles. We hear in the Odyssey that a great tumulus was heaped up by the Achaeans on a promontory at the mouth of the Hellespont, "so that it may be conspicuous to men travelling by sea, those living now as well as those to come" (Homer, Odyssey 24.80-84). The little we know about the cult at the tumulus of Achilles is from literary sources. It is as early as the 5th century B.C., if not earlier, and it was regularly patronized by the Thessalians. Occasionally other notables worshipped the hero there, including the Persian expeditionary force, Alexander the Great, and the emperor Caracalla. On the other hand, Achilles was also worshipped at a number of other places in the ancient world, including Kroton in South Italy, Lakonia and Elis in the Peloponnese, Astypalaia in the Cyclades, and Erythrai in Asia Minor. We know very little about these cults, which are mentioned in passing in the ancient sources, but their existence shows that the worship of Achilles was not confined to one place or to the immediate vicinity of his tomb. What is most puzzling is the popularity of the cult of Achilles among the Greeks who settled along the northern coast of the Euxine and among the sailors who traveled in this area. The evidence for the cult in this region is considerable and far outweighs the evidence for the worship of Achilles in other parts of Greece, including the Troad.' The cult appears to have originated in the 6th century B.C. and was still in existence in the 3rd century after Christ. Achilles was worshipped at the Milesian colony of Olbia as well as on an island in the middle of the Euxine from the Archaic period on. A third location of cult activity in honor of the hero was a long strandlike land formation southeast of Olbia. The evidence for the cult of Achilles in the Euxine is not very well known, partly because some of it has been published only in Russian. A very useful summary of the material was written by Diehl in 1953, but since then interesting new material has appeared. The more recent study of Hommel touches on some of the new archaeological material but is primarily concerned with theological questions.' I will review the evidence for the worship of Achilles in the Euxine and then consider one of the pressing questions surrounding the cult.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 313-314.

Theory 8: the etymology of the name Achilles is related to immortality and inherited Indo-European traditions (although, in this case, the argument isn’t that he was a deity)!

I searched to see if there was any text before Farnell that dealt with the etymological theory of “Achean God”, but I couldn't find it. I mean, it certainly existed, since Farnell rejected to this theory, but in my research I particularly only found authors contesting or quickly mentioning it and not actually presenting it. But here a text by Alexander Nikoalev from the "Etymologies" section of the book "Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective", published by the Cambridge Philological Society in 2007. As my goal here is to try to expand the theories as much as possible, then here is an etymological theory in favor of the name etymologically connecting Achilles with immortality after many texts arguing against it.

Nikolaev says, although there have been many attempts to trace the etymological origin of the name of the "foremost hero of the Iliad”, the etymological theories have all been restricted to Homer and have rarely considered other linguistic material. Currently, the academic consensus (academic consensus is what the majority believes, it isn’t necessarily an indisputable truth) is that the name Achilles is etymologically related to axoς 'grief', which Nikolaev comments was first introduced in the scholia and later prepared by academics such as Paul Kretschmer, Leonard Palmer and Gregory Nagy. 

He gives an extensive argument, which I couldn't dream of summarizing in a decent way and which I can't put entirely here because it's too long, but you can find it by searching the internet. But in an attempt to explain what he said (I still recommend reading what he said rather than my explanation for reasons already explained), his main argument against the most popular etymological idea is: "As is noted in the standard works on Greek etymology, there is a considerable difference between the meaning of axoς 'pain, anguish, distress' (and the related verbs ǎxvvμai, ǎxouai 'I grieve, mourn') and what are usually assumed to be its cognates: Go. agis 'fear, OIr. ad-ágor 'I am afraid." Given this discrepancy in meaning, it is worth considering another approach" (pg 163). That is, Nikolaev believes that the popular idea arose from an interpretation that confused similar, but not identical, terms. He also argues against the idea of Axi-λãoc relating to 'bringing ǎxoç to his host of men' (the λαός/láos part of Achilles is theorized to mean “people, soldiers, nation”, which makes the coupling of this with the idea of axoς/ákhos as “grief” results in “he whose people have distress” and similar). Instead, he suggests: “Axıλ(^)eúc is derived from a stem *akʰilo- that goes back to a compound *h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)ul(h𝑥)-o- 'slaying pain/death, with an i-stem as the first member and a development of initial *h₂ngʰ-> ȧx- in accordance with the treatment of laryngeals before nasals discussed” (pg 167)

And what's his suggestion then, you ask. Basically, Nikolaev is suggesting an Indo-European origin. More specifically, ἄχος (ákhos; the part that is usually theorized to mean “grief”) results from a contamination between two different terms, but which could have had quite similar stems in Proto-Greek. To reinforce his idea, Nikolaev gives an extensive list of examples of words that had the phonological development he’s arguing for, and thus says that, therefore, the assumption the contamination of the Indo-European word for “fear” (h₂eĝʰ-o/es) with the Indo-European word for “distress” (h₂enĝʰ-o/es) isn’t so absurd. He theorizes that contamination between the two Indo-European words resulted in the Proto-Greek akʰos. As mentioned, akʰilo- has a possible Indo-European origin in the compound (h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)υ̯l(h𝑥)-o-). It turns out that, with regard to contamination, this opens up the possibility of connecting the Greek ἄχος with the Indo-European h₂enĝʰes-, a term that was used in poetic traditions related to the formula of the hero who has a victory over death. In turn, as for the second part of the name Achilles (usually theorized to be laiós/λαός, but as I said, this is something he also disagrees with), Nikolaev assumes that it’s safe to assume that it may have a connection with the Indo-European (h⅔)υ̯elh⅓- and argues that the intransitive meaning doesn’t prevent the reconstruction of a factitive bahuvrihi compound “the one who provides death with defeat/death” and is reflected in the Greek. The result: he’s suggesting that the etymological meaning of Achilles is "the one who overcomes death”.

But this might make you wonder what argument Nikolaev is trying to make here. After all, the most popular theory makes sense with the myth of Achilles, because “grief” makes perfect sense for his character. Well, the argument is related to the mortality/immortality theme of Achilles, famously known because of the myth of Thetis trying to make her son immortal and failing. According to him:

[μñvic = depsent anger, Homer uses this term only to describe divine wrath and the exception to this is Achilles. Prooimion = prelude, preface, opening]

There is an obvious semantic justification of this etymology: the impending death of Achilles is a significant part of the plot of the Iliad. On the one hand, all of Achilles' heroic deeds are performed against the background of his future death, of which he is well aware (e.g. Il. 1.352, 19.328); on the other hand, the reader is constantly reminded that immortality was bestowed upon Achilles in his childhood, through references to his genealogy (tòv áðavátη tέke μýtnp Il. 10.404, 17.78), his accoutrements (außρota Tεúxea II. 17.194) and even his horses (ллоι | аμẞротоι Пl. 16.866-7). The death of Patroclus is naturally noteworthy in this connection, since it precedes and, to a certain extent, anticipates and forestalls the death of Achilles himself. A name 'the one who overcomes death' immediately reminds us of the well-known story of Thetis' attempts to endow her son with immortality by putting him into the hearth and anointing his body with ambrosia (Schol. D ad Il. 16.36; according to another version, Thetis immersed Achilles in the waters of the Styx). Thus the hero's name could have contained a reference to the whole plot of the epic, possibly even adding to its suspense.

The etymology suggested in this paper allows us to look at the problem from another angle. Achilles' immortality and his godlike status are topics too broad to be treated with thoroughness here, but it is worth mentioning the links between Achilles and the Olympian gods, such as the usage of the formulaic word μñvic, which is used in the epic only of the gods and Achilles (Watkins (1977) 189), or the striking fact that, in a recently published elegy on Plataea by Simonides, Achilles is the subject of the prooimion, otherwise reserved for addressing the gods (West (1993)). There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god. If we are prepared to take this evidence at face value and acknowledge the figure of a possibly pre-Iliadic deity Achilles, which may have had nothing to do with the epic story other than the name it lent to its hero, this casts quite a different light on the matter: a connection between the name of the ruler of the μakáρwv vñσoι and the archaic myth of victory over death is both expected and welcome. But this must necessarily remain speculative. The name Axt()ɛúc thus probably preserves a precious fragment of an archaic myth of a hero who defeats death. If this is correct, we are left with a further open question, namely whether the whole story of Achilles' uñvic, undoubtedly one of the central themes of the Iliad, is based on a misinterpretation of the archaic name and consequently on the reinterpretation of the character himself as 'the one who brings ǎxoc to his host of men.

Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, pg 170-171.

As noted, Nikoalev's aim isn’t to argue for the Pre-Iliadic divine Achilles, although he doesn’t reject the possibility as do the other authors I have listed, but rather to argue for the existence of a possible narrative of a (mortal) hero who conquered death. He argues that there is evidence that the Greeks inherited this Indo-European theme using as examples Orpheus' failed attempt to save Eurydice and the myth of Zagreus/Dionysus. Furthermore, when he says "There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god" he’s referring to the cult of Pontarches. The reason Nikolaev makes a point of emphasizing that he knows this is an uncertain idea is because it’s still a debated topic, as he indicates by referencing Farnell and Hedreen as examples of opposing arguments in the explanatory notes. However, I imagine that perhaps his explanation also serves to understand why there is an etymological debate surrounding the pre-Homeric figure of Achilles. He also separates part of the text to clarify why his theory isn’t antagonistic to the idea of ​​the name Achilles in Mycenaean format in Linear B.

Again, I emphasize that Nikolaev's theory is NOT the theory that Farnell rejected. Both are etymological theories, but Nikolaev's seeks to interpret aspects of the name's possibly Indo-European roots as a possible reference to a later myth of Achilles as a hero who conquered death, a type of myth that did exist in Indo-European traditions. On the other hand, the theory that Farnell rejected concerns supposed similarities between the names Achilles, the mortal hero son of Thetis, and Achelous, a river god, indicating that Achilles himself may be an ancient river god who, over the years, had his mythos altered to that of a mortal whose divine connection to water is through his mother, Thetis, rather than through his own role as a river deity. I unfortunately didn't find anything that actually argued in favor of Achelous' theory, just quick mentions or articles disagreeing, but I still wanted to present an etymological theory related to the post in some way (in this case, Achilles + immortality), so here I am.

Theory 9: Maybe there is Scythian influence!

In 2007, a book entitled "Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD" and edited by David Braund and S.D Kryzhitskiy was published. 

I'm putting this book here because I wanted something that would better explore why the Pontarches-as-non-Greek theory exists in the first place. In the previous texts, a fragment of a text by Alcaeus was mentioned describing Achilles as having some authority over the Scythians (the texts don't show the fragment, but it’s “Achilles, thou who dost command/O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land” in Walter Petersen's translation), but it seemed strange to me that this alone would be enough to assume that an entire cult isn’t of Greek origin. And considering the academics listed here kept mentioning this theory, although generally to disagree with it and say that the Pontic cult of Achilles is a Greek creation, I thought it would be at the very least important to give it some space. I tried to do this with the etymological theory (the very disputed theory that Achilles was originally not Achilles the mortal, but a river god), but I couldn't find a decent enough text exploring it, so I'll at least do that with this one since I found a book. I’lll start with the chapter “Greater Olbia: Ethnic, Religious, Economic, and Political Interactions in the Region of Olbia, c.600–100 BC”, written by David Braund.

First of all, with “Greater Olbia” Braund isn’t referring solely to the city of Olbia itself. According to him: “At times Olbia’s mini-empire in the north-west Black Sea region included not only the city itself and the many agrarian settlements along the estuary of the river Bug, but probably also a range of settlements along the lower Dnieper, north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of the Dnieper (Hylaea), Berezan, and, to the west, the island of Leuke, as well as possibly other settlements reaching towards the Dniester. For all our uncertainty about the details, this large region may reasonably be termed ‘Greater Olbia” (pg 37).

Well, in this chapter Braund tries to explore the possible relations of the Greeks with the non-Greeks (especially the Scythians) in the region of “Greater Olbia”. In terms of the possibility of different ethnicities interacting strongly and cultures having contact, he concludes:

Modern scholarship on Olbia is much concerned with ethnic distinctions, although it is now also well understood that the allocation of ethnicity is actually extraordinarily fraught, even when we have far more insight than we can hope to have about anything in antiquity, let alone Olbia. We have seen that the material culture of the rural territory, as also its religious expression, varies little from that of the city of Olbia itself. Presumably that renders its population (or much of it) in some sense Greek, but on the rare occasion that we have direct evidence we find a certain distance envisaged from the perspective of Olbia at least, most clearly in the Protogenes text, where the rural territory is populated by halfGreeks and what seems to be a dependent labour force, both hitherto ready to fight for Olbia. Earlier, there were also Herodotus’ GreekScythian Callippidae. What of the other peoples mentioned? Should we envisage even the Scythian Alazones also in rural settlements? If not them, then what of the panicked Thisamatae and the rest from Protogenes’ time?

[...] Of course, we are not well placed to answer these questions, by virtue of the complexities of the issue, the lack of much evidence, and perhaps above all the simple fact that these names have no real meaning for us. But we need not be overly despondent, for the main point seems clear enough through all the fog of our ignorance. That remains symbiosis. Olbiopolitans may well have had all kinds of negative views of these peoples, but some Greeks were similarly contemptuous of Olbiopolitans themselves, it must be noted, for the very reason that their Greekness was imagined as having been contaminated by their neighbours. A glance at the personal names of Olbiopolitans shows a rich mix of traditional names familiar in the Greek world and some remarkably ‘barbarian’ ones, co-existing in the same families. However distinct and Greek the Olbiopolitans may have liked to think themselves, the key observation which emerges is the extensive cultural osmosis between Greek (itself a large term) and non-Greek in and around the city. We have seen this osmosis, and the more extensive symbiosis which it no doubt facilitated, across religion (notably the cult of Achilles), pottery, names, and more besides. Once again Dio Chrysostom’s novelistic exposition is true to the spirit of the place, one suspects, when he finds a young Olbian cavalryman steeped in old-fashioned Greek traditions of conduct and taste, who rides about in ‘barbarian’ clothing with his head full of Achilles.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 76-77.

Thus, in Braund’s conclusion, the local population was recorded in ancient texts as having had considerable contact with foreigners, thus having an ethno-cultural sharing (such contact wasn’t necessarily friendly, mind you). This, for example, may explain the description by the Greek historian Herodotus: “Northward of the port of the Borysthenites,​ which lies midway in the coastline of all Scythia, the first inhabitants are the Callippidae, who are Scythian Greeks” (Histories, 4.17) and the account by the Greek Dio Chrysostom, who portrays the population of Borysthenes as excessively honoring Homer and Achilles while they themselves have mannerisms considered “barbarian”. For example:

Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name​ and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart.

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9. Translation by Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. 

[Note: according to Braund, the Callippidae described by Herodotus have been identified with a people who appear to have occupied an area on the coast to the south rather than the banks of the Bug/Hypanis river north of the city.]

Braund comments on how, apparently, the Greek colonies in this region were somewhat “abandoned” by the Greeks of the Mediterranean region. It seems that most of the time they had to resist attacks from foreigners without receiving help. This led to Greek communities in the Black Sea acquiring the habit of supporting each other against foreign peoples. At one point, in the period contemporary to the Roman Republic, they were in quite complicated situations, until the ruler of the Kingdom of Pontus Mithridates Eupator sent reinforcements that prevented Olbia from falling (Eupator had his own interests). This, however, as Braund makes a point of stating, doesn’t mean that all the problems were generated by the so-called “barbarian threat”. They had their own problems that weren’t necessarily related to foreign peoples, but apparently the theme of “relatively abandoned Greek population resisting the 'barbarians'” is popular in academia when the subject is Olbia and this can cause the region's adversities to be mistakenly summarized as solely originating from conflict between Greeks and non-Greeks, as Braund understands. Especially in the Hellenistic period, there was a strong habit of honoring benefactors (for example, to Niceratus of Olbia in the 1st century BC for having ended hostility between two cities) and parts of these archaeological artifacts have survived, which make it possible to gain some insight into the problems of the population.

Braund describes the existence of new non-Greek peoples in the region since Herodotus' account (e.g. the Gauls) and the different contacts (e.g. the relations with the Saii were not exactly friendly, but apparently more tolerable), but let us focus on the Scythians. Braund, using Herodotus' account of Scyles, a Scythian king whose mother was Greek and who appreciated Greek culture more than Scythian culture and this eventually led to a situation that caused his death (further context here: Histories, 4.78-80) comments:

When Herodotus was visiting the region he seems particularly to have based himself in and around Olbia; it is there that we should probably locate his exchange with Tymnes the epitropos of the Scythian king. Certainly, Olbia was a likely place to find a powerful Scythian, perhaps especially an epitropos, if the title indicates an economic role. After all, the logic of the story of Scyles is that a Scythian king might normally visit the city on a regular basis. Of course, Scyles came to a bad end, but there is no indication in the story as we have it that his visits to Olbia raised alarm among his Scythian subjects. Certainly, Scyles’ half-Greek background (from his Istrian mother) is used to explain his behaviour, but that too is a matter of some interest. We can only speculate how many women of Olbia might find themselves married to Scythians. For the whole position of Olbia, both the civic core and Greater Olbia, depended upon a symbiosis with neighbouring peoples and cities. At the same time, however, it would be naïve to imagine that relationships with all neighbours always ran smoothly, not least because Olbia could expect to be drawn into conflicts between different groupings in the region. In later periods, at least, there was also conflict with other Greeks of the region, particularly with Chersonesus in the south-west Crimea.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 60.

[In a note regarding the idea of ​​Olbian women marrying Scynthians, he mentions Kalligone, a lost Greek novel: “The theme may have attracted a novelist, though that shows nothing about Olbian realities:on Kalligone, an Olbian woman’s adventures among Scythians and the like, largely located on the southern coast of the Black Sea and around Tanais, it seems, see Stephens & Winkler 1995, 267–76”.]

So the general idea for now is this: it was a complicated relationship. The contacts weren’t always friendly. Herodotus' story about Scyles may indicate the conflict in the idea of ​​sharing culture peacefully (the Scythians are angered when they discover that Scyles, interested in the Greek culture taught to him by his mother, has sought initiation into the Bacchic mysteries. In turn, the Greeks of Olbia mock the Scythians by saying that the Scythians mock the Dionysian practices of the Greeks, yet their king is worshiping Dionysus). In fact, Scythians and the Greeks of the region have already entered into conflict, so there was no lasting peaceful relationship. Still, the peoples probably shared cultures unconsciously simply through contact (an example given was the possible relationship of the Olbiopolitans and the Scythians with regard to Heracles and his cult) and there was even intermarriage between the two peoples. The Greek populations of the region faced various problems, not exclusively linked to conflicts with non-Greeks, and Olbia was apparently in a strategic position for a commercial port. Furthermore, the Scythians had pastoral practices and seemed to be known to the Greeks of the eastern Aegean by the 600s BC since Alcaeus mentions Scynthian shoes and Sappho comments on Scynthian hair color, but possibly such knowledge came about because of the Scynthian slave trade to that region. And what do we have of the cult of Achilles in this scenario?

Well, the cult of Achilles in the region had a strong connection with the culture of Olbia and Braund treats him as divine and not heroic (as he refers to Achilles as "god"). He even suggests that it may have some ideological connection with the expansion of Greater Olbia, since the cult was present from the island of Leuke in the west through Berezan and on the northwestern coast above the Crimea, where the Hippodrome of Achilles was located on the narrow Tendra inlet, and possibly in Beykush (in the case of Beykush, because of recent archaeological discoveries). Him being a cultural figure related to Olbia, however, doesn’t mean that Achilles had no impact among the Scythians, on the contrary! Achilles was a figure present in Scythian culture, especially among the military elite. Braund theorizes that Achilles may have been a "constructive point of contact between Greek and Scythian culture". About this he says:

Near the northern Black Sea coast, four bow cases depicting the life of Achilles were found, and are said to have been left there in fourth-century burials at Chertomlyk, Melitopol, Ilintsy, and near Rostov on the Don estuary. Although these cases aren't related to the Olbia theme (since they were found elsewhere), they’re Scynthian cases, which shows the people's interest in the figure of Achilles. Although the cultural significance of these images is debatable (e.g., it’s unclear what connotation they had, whether they were cult images or not, etc), it’s at least interesting that they were used in burials of members of the Scynthian elite and were considered appropriate for such an occasion. The theme of the images depicted a warrior in life and concluded with his mother carrying his remains to another region, a link to the version of the myth in which Achilles, after death, is taken by Thetis to Leuke.

Fragments of a poem by Alcaeus mentioning an "Achilles, lord of Scythia" have been found, possibly composed around 600 BC (the time of the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia). The largely lost state of the text makes it impossible to identify the context, and can only be speculated upon. Braund notes that Alcaeus seems to have been aware of the Leuke myth and possibly for this reason describes Achilles as lord of Scythia, since the supposed resting place of Achilles according to this myth was in a region with Scythian connections. The cult of Pontarches, on the other hand, seems specific to the area and doesn’t appear to have cultural roots in Miletus (remember that the author of Aethiopis, the lost epic that relates the Leuke myth, was possibly Arctinus of Miletus. Also, remember that the one who settled this region was Miletus), which has led some academics to interpret the cult of Pontarches as a Greek interpretation of a local non-Greek cult. (Note: and of course, just as there were these interpretations, there were disagreements. Note how other texts in this post, such as Diehl's, rejected the theory).

Additionally, Braund comments on Olbia and Leuke's relationships. In addition to the religious importance of Leuke to Olbia (because it was the place where Achilles was supposedly taken by Thetis, which Braund explains is already an association from the archaic period), Leuke was also strategically located as a port of call for shipping between the lower Danube and other parts of the north-west Black Sea, including Olbia. Braund mentions the possibility of the nymph Broysthenis, present in a Eumelan mention, representing a kind of link between Olbia and Leuke, since she was possibly the daughter of the river Borysthenis (Scynthian river god) and can be understood as part of Thetis' entourage who took Achilles to Leuke. Among the archaeological finds, an inscription was found that made reference to the protection of Olbia from pirate attacks directed at Leuke. The Olbiopolitans raised a statue as a sign of protection. In short, Olbia was interested in Leuke and extended its protection to it.

...Olbiopolitans...Since he killed those who had occupied the island for piracy against the Greeks and expelled from the island their associates and while in the city he served the People of the Olbiopolitans in many great matters, and for these things the People bestowed honours upon him in his lifetime and awarded him a public burial. Therefore the People of the Olbiopolitans resolved to erect a statue of him, so that his deeds might be remembered and so that the city might make it clear to the Greeks, that it has great care for the island in accordance with ancestral practices and that when men strive for the island the city gives them honour in life and due rewards upon their death. (IOSPE I² 325, dated no later than the early 3rd century BC)

Interestingly, Braund points out, there was a religious difference between the city of Olbia and Greater Olbia. Although they all shared the common cult of Achilles, a figure in particular related to maritime functions (probably because his mother, Thetis, was a Nereid) and whose popularity was great in the region (possibly because, considering the geographical layout and the activities practiced, a maritime deity having greater prominence makes perfect sense. In addition, there is the thing of Achilles' association with Leuke, an island present there), the cults to other gods didn’t have much similarity. In Olbia, Apollo seemed to have great importance (especially related to the civilizing role), but there is no sign of him being particularly important in other settlements. Not only him, but other deities of the Greek pantheon as well. Although the presence of the god Dionysus is attested in the culture of the city of Olbia (although not in a similar way to Apollo, since Apollo was present in association with cities and civilization and Dionysus was associated with unbridled nature), he doesn’t seem to have had much popularity in the Olbia-influence region. Braund comments on the possibility that Scyles' story didn’t encourage Scythian populations to worship him. Also, Braund clarifies that much of what is said is possibility/theory, as more substantial evidence is kind of lacking. Furthermore, Braund points out that such characteristics don’t  make Olbia more Greek than other cities. They were all Greek, it's just cultural differences.

Theory 10: There is no Scynthian influence!

In another chapter of the previous book, titled “Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia” and written by A. S. Rusyayeva, there is an exploration of the religious relationships shared between Olbia and Scythia and her opinion is different from Braund's. She emphasizes that, in comparison to the studies related to Bosporus, the studies related to Olbia are quite uncertain. Furthermore, regarding what we should understand as “Schythia”, Rusyayeva says: “‘Scythia’ was reckoned by the Olbiopolitans (as by other Greeks, notably Herodotus) not as a single state but as a vast geographical area, within which lived not only a range of non-Greek peoples, but also the Greeks themselves” (pg 94). Therefore, theidea of ​​“Scythia” in this context is very broad, making it even more complicated to make specific statements in a truly convincing way.

Now, as I introduced Braund's idea first, I’ll establish some comparisons between the interpretations/theories of both academics.

Both explored the contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks, with a special focus on Scythians. However, they took different interpretations. Braund gives credit to the possibility of the Scythians having influenced Greek cults, especially in relation to the argument of the myth of the snake woman and Heracles and the characteristic of the cult of Achilles (his association with Scythia), although he acknowledges that both peoples could demonstrate a certain rejection of each other's customs (especially according to Herodotus' account). Rusyayeva, on the other hand, doesn’t believe that the cultures influenced each other to such a crucial level. For her, both the Greeks and the Scythians had a level of rejection of each other's culture and a desire to maintain their traditional beliefs strong enough that the contact between the two did not significantly influence the myths of each people, which includes the creation of their own cults. Braund emphasized the popularity of Achilles specifically among the Scynthian military elite and the greater openness of the cult of Heracles, while Rusyayeva argued that Greek myths were popular among the Scynthian elite and generally didn’t have much popularity among the common people (which runs counter to Braund's interpretation of the cult of Heracles in Olbia). As for Olbia, she believes that there is a lack of concrete evidence that Scynthian practices influenced them in any significant way, with the exception of the way in which women's burials were performed, since they originated in the north.

While Braund commented that the description of Achilles as "Lord of Scynthia" in Alcaeus' poem could be connected to the myth of Leuke (as far as we know, the oldest written source being the lost epic Aeithiopis) and the fact that the supposed region to which the hero was taken by Thetis had connections with the Scythians and made only a brief mention of the cult of Achilles possibly having an ideological aspect, Rusyayeva elaborated on the idea of ​​the belonging of the territory to the ideological aspect of the myth. Not only that of Achilles, but that of Heracles as well. While Braund interpreted the myth of the snake woman as possibly influenced by the Scynthian culture, Rusyaeva interpreted it as possibly representing the peaceful coexistence between different peoples through the sacred marriage of Heracles (who represents the Greeks) with the snake woman (who supposedly represents the non-Greeks). Thus, rather than the myth of Heracles with the snake having influence from Scythian culture in the element of the snake woman, it’s a Greek myth about the relationship with foreign peoples, including Scythians. Regarding Achilles, she says:

[...] From time to time some scholars argue that idiosyncrasies of the cult of Achilles at Olbia emerge from the amalgamation of his Greek identity  with a local divinity, variously regarded as Cimmerian, Thracian, or Scythian. However, such arguments neglect the fact that his earliest cult  sites in the north-west Black Sea (including Olbia), both in the colonial  and the pre-colonial periods, were in a region where there were no resident local peoples. Sometimes it is also suggested that Achilles was somehow identified with a snake worshipped by Scythians: this snake (it is  claimed) and not Heracles was associated with the mythical snakewoman of Hylaea and, consequently, was the father of the three eponyms, or was her brother.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 98.

For context, this snake woman myth that both authors mention is told by Herodotus in Histories, 4.9-10. The goddess theorized by Braund as having a relationship with the myth is the Anguipede Goddess, the ancestor goddess in Scythian religion. Another ancestor deity theorized as possibly having a relationship with Achilles was Targī̆tavah, who may perhaps have been identified with either Heracles (for his role in fathering children with the snake woman who, in this theory, would be the Anguipede Goddess) or with Pontic Achilles (because of the goddess Api, a Scythian deity associated with water and earth who was also called Borysthenis and who was mother of Targī̆tavah). Apparently J. Hupe wrote about Achilles cult association with foreign people, but I won't be able to show that opinion because I didn't find it accessible in English (in fact, I simply didn't find it. In any language). Additionally, the Pontic cult of Achilles was associated with snakes.

Theory 11: there is really no theory as it isn’t focus!

In 2008, the academic journal “Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia” published e’s text entitled “The Harbour of Olbia”. The focus of this text is more on the political and economic scenarios around Olbia and neighboring cities, not on the cult of Achilles Pontarches. However, it’s interesting how Kozlovskaya occasionally mentions the importance of the cult of Achilles in terms of politics. For example, how Olbia's interest in Berezan (Borysthenes) might be suggested by the construction of a sanctuary dedicated to Achilles in Berezan, which in turn may have been built because Olbia lost authority over Leuke, where the main temple was located.

After ships started to use the shorter and more direct route across the sea on a regular basis, there was much less need for the “transit” harbour of Berezan. This development probably took place already at the end of the 5th to the fi rst half of the 4th centuries BC169 and has been linked to the foundation of the Greek city of Chersonesos on the northern coast of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century BC. Th is route either went straight across the Black Sea from its southern coast to its northern coast or, alternatively, combined the cabotage sailing along the western coast of the Black Sea with crossing open water from some point straight to the southern shore of the Crimean peninsula. Presumably, in the 4th century BC fewer ships sailing to the North Pontic region were still using the full-length cabotage route along the Northwestern Black Sea coast. This probably caused an inevitable decrease of maritime traffi c in the area and may have been one of the factors contributing to the overall decline of the settlement on Berezan. The Berezan harbour may still have continued to function, but on a smaller scale than before, serving primarily local needs and only occasionally as a stop-over for foreign ships. A similar development has been observed for other areas of the ancient world, where the introduction of open-water navigation led to changes in trade patterns that consequently aff ected coastal cities and their harbours. However, notwithstanding this change in sailing patterns, the island of Berezan and its harbour must not have lost their importance to Olbia, for the reasons mentioned above

Olbia’s continuous interest in the island is also confirmed by the fact that during the early centuries AD Berezan housed an important cult center of Achilles Pontarches. Rostovtsev suggested that Olbia probably established this new sanctuary on Berezan after she had lost her protectorate over the island of Leuke, the main cult center of Achilles in the region. Currently this hypothesis is accepted by many scholars, who agree that during the Roman period the patronage over Leuke passed to one of the West Pontic cities, most likely Tomis. The harbour of Berezan must have continued to function during this period, even if only to serve the visitors of the sanctuary, who were coming by sea.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 53.

In addition to possible pirate attacks specifically targeting the objects present in the temple of Achilles and a dedication after Olbia had possibly managed to defend the attacks. This part refers to IOSPE I² 325, the same text explored by Braund regarding the protection that Olbia granted to Leuke. Here Kozlovskaya gives some more details about this situation, since Braund didn’t go into this in depth as it wasn’t his focus.

The city must have needed some military vessels for protection against piracy or for use in military actions (and the two cannot always be easily separated). Piracy in the Hellenistic period is a well-known phenomenon, also in the Black Sea region. At least two documents show that Olbia had to face this problem. The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island. In general, the practice of pirating near important Panhellenic sanctuaries is well attested for other regions of the ancient world.  For example, we know that in the 1st century BC pirates established themselves on the small and barren island of Pharmakoussa, which supposedly was under Milesian control. Th e convenient location on the way to the sanctuary at Didyma probably allowed them to take advantage of nearby sea-traffi c and of the fact that many rich pilgrims must have passed by Pharmakoussa in order to reach the Oracle. The other pertinent document – IOSPE I² 672 – is a dedication to Achilles, “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC.123 Both in this case and in the events described in IOSPE I² 325 warships must have been employed in order to settle the conflict and take control of the situation.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 46-47.

Theory 12: even in the cult, Achilles belongs to death!

In 2016, Diana Burton published “Immortal Achilles”. First of all, I want to clarify that Burton’s interest here isn’t in analyzing the type of Achilles cult in the Black Sea. She explicitly states that she doesn’t want to dwell on this and leaves an explanatory note with the following details regarding the debate:

For the argument that Achilles’ cult is divine rather than hero-cult, see Hommel (n. 16), on whom see the comments in S. B. Bujskich, ‘Kap Bejkuš – Kap des Achilleus: eine Kultstätte des göttlichen Heros im Mündungsgebiet des Bug’, in Hupe (n. 34), 129. Against Hommel, see J. T. Hooker, ‘The Cults of Achilles’, RhM 131 (1988), 1–7; Burgess (n. 5), 111–16, 128, who sees the cults of Achilles as initially hero-cults, which in some cases later increased in status to divine cult (e.g. in Olbia with the Roman period epithet Pontarches: J. Hupe, ‘Die olbische Achilleus- Verehrung in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in Hupe [n. 34], 165–234). In this article I am less concerned with the cult’s origins than with its form and the early perception of Achilles’ status in it.

Immortal Achilles, pg 20.

Now, let's summarize what Burton says about this specific cult (I say “specific” because she also mentions other cults of Achilles, in this case those that are considered heroic in the academic consensus).

This was the most prominent cult of Achilles. It emerged in the archaic period, more specifically in the 6th century BC, and reached its peak in the Roman period. There are indications that Achilles actually came to be honored as a god.

The city Achilleion (archaeologically uncertain, but mentioned in literature) and the Racecourse of Achilles were places named after the hero.

The earliest sites of the Olbian cult seem to have been Berezan Island and the adjacent Cape Beikuš. At Cape Beikuš, there was probably the presence of a temple and a grove in addition to signs of cult rituals. At Cape Beikuš and Berezan the following were found: “inscriptions on clay discs made from pottery fragments (both local and imported), which have the name of Achilles inscribed (either in full or abbreviated) and also include graffiti of snakes, branches, stick figures, swords, daggers, arrows, boats, and water; one shows a hoplite with a votive form of Achilles’ name, and a fragmentary graffito which may be the name of the dedicator. This iconography is a mixture of that which is appropriate to Achilles’ warrior status (weapons, hoplites) and that which befits his cult (snakes – common for heroes – and boats, to which we shall return)” (pg 22-23). She mentions Hedreen's theory regarding the disks. Basically, he commented that such disks were commonly found in the Greek world as gifts to heroes and were also found in tombs. Regarding the disk's role with Achilles, Hedreen theorized that they could symbolize playing pieces, which Burton commented is appropriate since Achilles has an iconography of being depicted playing with Big Ajax.

The cult at Leuke was established at a similar date to the other two (i.e. 6th century BC), as the oldest finds date from this period. Leuke was mentioned by several authors, who also mentioned its location (one example Burton gives is Pausanias). It was populated by birds and snakes, which Burton theorizes may have influenced the mysticism. For example, there is a possible association in Greek literature of birds with the souls of the dead, which makes sense with the cult of Achilles since he was supposedly transferred to Leuke after his death. It was, however, apparently uninhabited (with respect to any permanent human presence). An inscription was found that emphasized the connection of this island with the Leuke of myth, as it reads “Glaucus son of Posideius dedicated me to Achilles lord of Leuke”. Remains of the temple of Achilles were also found, but they were obliterated by the construction of a lighthouse and, analyzing tiles found, it seems that the temple had been there for a long time (they dated from 6th century BC to 1st century AD).

Among the functions of Achilles are: protector of sailors and sea voyages, he indicates safe anchorages for those traveling near the island, and he appears on the masts and yards. An inscription reads "'Glaucus, be careful sailing in!'", which, considering the mention of Achilles as lord of Leuke in the inscription mentioning Glaucus, associates Achilles with the care of those traveling at sea. Burton comments that this role makes sense to be associated with Achilles, as he’s the son of Thetis whose element is the sea, and may also explain the presence of boats on the aforementioned disks.

Leuke and Olbia were intimately linked ideologically. Although the settlement of Olbia was due to Miletus, there is no evidence that the cult originated from Miletus. Burton also doesn’t believe that the Scythian culture of the region had anything to do with it, but rather that it was of Greek origin. Although it was a cult specific to the Black Sea, it clearly achieved a pan-Hellenic fame and was even mentioned in later sources. Burton believes that the fact that Leuke was an isolated island contributed to the mysticism surrounding the island remaining strong for so many years.

Achilles seems more active than heroes are usually depicted as being after death (I am not talking about deified heroes like Heracles, but mortal heroes like Odysseus). He, for example, can be heard singing or riding, he even flirts with Helen, he demands a girl and kills her (the reason given by the text, written by Philostratus, is that she was a Trojan woman described as a descendant of Priam), he runs, and none of these actions seem to have any cult characteristics. In fact, he seems to be more associated with the epic image than the cult image of him (there is usually a difference between the cult image and the epic image of a hero). The epic figure of Achilles is indeed depicted in relation to music, he has been romantically associated with Helen before, he has agility as an important factor, and although he isn’t shown tearing a girl to pieces in any poem or play, he has certainly been shown as an antagonistic figure to the Trojans.

There is a difference between the role of Achilles and the Dioscuri as protectors of sea travelers: although the three are important heroes who are active in helping sailors, the Dioscuri operate in generalized areas while Achilles, from what Arrian says, has his role restricted to at specific region.

Finally, Burton concludes on Achilles' association with death and the presence of this element even in his cult:

[...] In Achilles, conversely, we are looking at different aspects of death. The hero of hero-cult exists between the living and the dead: for Achilles, the scales are weighted towards death. The tradition of Achilles’ choice and consequent death, found in its most absolute form in the Iliad, is deeply rooted in all his myths, and underlies even the version in which he is snatched away to a better place after death. Paradoxically, it is the certainty of his death that allows him such a rich variety of afterlives. Unlike Heracles and the Dioscuri, Achilles’ myth and cult do not arise from a contradiction: they match each other perfectly. The hero of hero-cult draws his power, and the degree of immortality which he possess with it, from the underworld: he is a hero and an object of cult because he is dead. Both as epic hero and as cult hero Achilles is ineluctably committed to death. The totality of his identity in myth and cult fulfils his extraordinary potential; his life after death explores every kind of variation, with the one proviso that he is, always, dead.

Immortal Achilles, pg 27-28.

Theory 13: Achilles was deified and there are elements related to this, including his marriage to Helen/Iphigenia!

In 2021, a book with a lot of authors entitled "The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea". What I’ll be using here is the chapter "From the tower of Kronos to the island of Achilles: placing Leuce in the Greek conception of heroic apotheosis", by Marios Kamenou from the University of Cyprus. According to Kamenou regarding this chapter “The particular focus is upon whether in those cases the immortality of heroes grants them divine status and how this peculiarity affects the cultic expression of the heroic apotheosis.”.

Like the other authors, he gives interesting details about Leuke and, since it’s only one chapter, it’s a fluid read. However, since the focus of the post is more on the idea of ​​deification, I’ll focus on why Kamenou believes that Pontarches is the object of worship of a divine cult (and not a hero cult) and what he says about deification.

Anyway, Kamenou first introduces the mythological Leuke, then talks about the cult of Achilles and finally explains why he believes the cult of Achilles in the Black Sea was a deity cult and not a hero cult:

[Xoanon = archaic wooden cult image. Apotheosis = deification. Soter = a saviour, a deliverer. Enagismata = offerings to the dead. Thusia = sacrifice]

The evidence from ancient testimonies indicates that the transformation of Achilles on Leuce has also an identifiable ritual expression in the form of sanctuaries, cultic statues, hymns, rituals and offerings. Arrian states that in the island there is a temple and a xoanon of ancient workmanship, and many other offerings such as bowls, rings and jewellery, as well as Greek and Latin inscriptions praising Achilles and Patroclus (Arrian Periplus 32, 33). Pausanias (3. 9. 11) also reports a temple of Achilles with an image, and Maximus of Tyre (Orations 9. 7) speaks of temples and altars where sacrifices of animals were performed. Apparently an oracle functioned at the temple, revealing the polymorphism of the sanctuary (Philostratus Heroicus 19. 17; Ammianus Marcellinus 22. 35; Tertullian De Anima 45). The religious structures on Leuce illustrate the impact of these myths on the cult that had spread around the Pontus Euxinus. Building a temple on Leuce is a significant element that widens the meaning of the immortalisation of the hero as transformation to a status comparable to the divine (apotheosis), given that the Greeks perceived the temple as the house of the divine, and this same observation is made valid by the presence of altars. The majority of the hero cults known to us are strictly linked with the Underworld and the sacrifices towards the heroes' tombs were adapted to this concept. At the islands of Diomedes, for instance, a tomb stood along with the shrine (Pliny NH. 3. 151, 10. 126- 127; Solinus 2. 45). Altars on the other hand were connected to the gods, as the smoke of the libations and the sacrificing of animals were destined to be received by the gods in the heavens. This alteration was a major difference of ritual expression between hero and divinity cults.

Temples of Achilles are erected also in the nearby region, at the Cape of Tendra (the Dromos of Achilles), functioning from the late 4th century BC, and in Borysthenes, the latter mentioned by Dio Chrysostom. He reports further that the population perceived Achilles as a god (Orations 36. 14). In addition to this, Quintus Smyrnaeus states that in the Euxine Achilles was worshiped as a god, an implication that the concept of immortalisation was an actual process of deification. The large body of epigraphic material from Olbia and its surroundings correspondingly shapes a cult that existed around the 6th century BC, where Achilles is given epithets that usually define the qualities of a god, like Soter and Pontarches ("lord of Pontus"). Furthermore, the official nature of some inscriptions ending with the epiclesis 'for the stability and health of the city' displays a cult of a dedicated deity as protector of the city (IOSPE 12 130, 132, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142). The immortality of heroes thus seems to have created a state of ritual confusion requiring specific ritual adaptations. The case of Hercules presents here the most renowned example: Pausanias records that at Sicyon portions of sacrificed lambs are burnt for Hercules the hero as enagismata, while the rest of the meat is sacrificed for Hercules the god as thusia. In the case of the immortal Achilles, our sources keep full discretion regarding the specific rituals and sacrifices, but the presence of temples and altars suggest that the rituals were directed towards the divine nature of Achilles. In this perspective, temple, oracle, altars, cultic statues, dedications, sacrifices and offerings made the island of Achilles a polyvalent religious centre, distant from a traditional heroic cult, evidencing that the immortalisation of the hero had to be ritually expressed in a way and that the appropriate transformation of the religious landscape was vital.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139.

Having established he’s treating Pontic Achilles' cult as a divine cult, Kamenou wants to delve deeper into deification, including exploring the idea Achilles' marriage to Helen or Iphigenia in Leuke version is a possible way of legitimizing the divine status of the members involved in the marriage. Therefore, this would explain why Achilles is reported as having been married in the afterlife to Iphigenia or Helen specifically in Leuke versions, something that doesn’t happen in versions that, for example, establish Achilles is in Elysium (his wife, in this case, is usually Medea). Being dead in Elysium, Achilles wouldn’t be a deity, as he would be removed from the possibility of immortality of a divine nature (since heroes in a certain way had a type of immortality, but it isn’t in the same sense as the gods). Since he isn’t a deity in this version, Helen or Iphigenia don’t appear as a wife.

[Parhedros = It's kind of complex, but the word means "sitting beside or near". So here it's used to describe the role of Iphigenia and Helen in relation to Achilles at Leuke]

Immortality was a fundamental element in the Greek polytheism that separates emphatically heroes from gods. Even so, in a way, all heroes are immortal, as otherwise they would be unable to exercise their benevolent or malevolent actions in the world of humans and therefore their worship would not be necessary. Nevertheless, the immortality of heroes is not equal to the immortality of gods. Heroes have lived a human life, have accomplished certain feats and eventually died, even if after death they have continued to affect the life of humans. Their heroic existence is demoted to their past and their extraordinary deeds. However, in these cases heroes such as Achilles, Rhadamanthys, Peleus, Cadmus and others, were destined to live blissfully and were exempt from death. This basic characteristic explains the absence of a tomb in Leuce and other places of Pontus where Achilles was worshipped. Instead, the hero lives in his temple and its surroundings, similarly to the gods. Furthermore, his cultic statue represented the living image of him, a symbol of his presence in life. Likewise, his altar that received sacrifices in his honour was a ritual instrument destined to serve him just like the other immortal beings present in Greek religion." The epigraphic material reflects that perception. A revealing example of this is a dedication from Scythian Neapolis dated to the 2nd(?) century BC (IOSPE 12 673 ), where Achilles is placed side by side to the gods of the local Pantheon as equal in power and nature. This cultic conception had to be legitimated or accompanied by a mythological tradition that probably went back to the prestigious Aethiopis of Arctinus from Miletus.

In certain mythological versions of this tradition the hero is associated with a female parhedros, the most frequent point to Iphigenia and Helen of Troy. Philostratus (Heroicus 54. 4) mentions that in the sanctuary of the hero there was a statue of Helen, which indicates a common worship. Antoninus Liberalis, on the other hand, recounts that Iphigenia was transformed by Artemis into an ageless immortal deity and became the spouse of the hero (Metamorphoses 27). Such marriage was necessary to consolidate the heroic apotheosis, as for instance in the case of Hercules marrying Hebe." It reinforced the hero's divine aspect by recreating the divine couple of Olympus, which represents the supreme, inspiring model of a ruler's image; this fits with the perception of Achilles as Pontarches, lord of his island and the whole Euxine.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139-140.

Theory 14: Achilles in Black Sea was a deity (again)!

Also released in 2021, ““The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area” by Yulia Ustinova also interprets Achilles as a deity in this region of the Black Sea. In addition to emphasizing the archaeological findings that I have already mentioned, Ustinova makes an association between the title of Achilles with the title of the goddess Aphrodite and seems to lean towards the theory of Achilles’ association with the Scythians.

[...] Furthermore, the designation of Achilles as Leukēi medeōn, the Master of Leuke, is immediately reminiscent of the cultic title of Aphrodite Apatourou medeousa, the mistress of Apaturum, and is probably indicative of a similar perception of the deity as the sovereign of the area. [...] In the multicultural area of Olbia, the cult of Achilles may have also profited from the devotion of the Scythians. Since scenes from Achilles' biography decorate bow-cases discovered in four Scythian aristocratic tumuli, the Scythians probably associated one of their own deities with the Greek hero. However, the three centres of Achilles' cult near Olbia have not yielded any specifically non-Greek materials, and there is no evidence to support assumptions about its indigenous origin, therefore the worship of Achilles in Greater Olbia appears as a basically Greek phenomenon. The cult of Achilles is conspicuously absent from Olbia's metropolis. The emergence of a prominent cult, with its several centers, and its pan-Pontic fame, was entirely due to the intensity of the local devotion to the hero. This case exemplifies a very interesting phenomenon, namely, the transformation of a Greek cult in the colonial environment. The Greek hero was translated to Scythia, allotted land, new mythological episodes, a thriving cult, and new appellations. The cult belongs solely to the colonial milieu, but it appears to have evolved entirely within the Greek tradition.

“The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area, pg 6-7.

ANCIENT SOURCES

This section is basically me listing all the ancient sources I can think of that mention Leuke or the cult of Achilles (mostly heroic cults). This includes non-Greek sources, from different periods and from different textual genres. The credibility of these sources isn’t always considered certain in academia, and some are considered uncertain (for example, Philostratus' account of the cult of Achilles is a matter of debate in academia).

Leuke mentions in ancient texts:

[...] The Achaeans then bury Antilochus and lay out the body of Achilles, while Thetis, arriving with the Muses and her sisters, bewails her son, whom she afterwards catches away from the pyre and transports to the White Island. After this, the Achaeans pile him a cairn and hold games in his honour. Lastly a dispute arises between Odysseus and Aias over the arms of Achilles.

Arctinus of Miletus, The Aethiopis, frag 1. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White. [If the author is indeed the attributed Arctinus, then it is 8th or 7th century BC]

[...] From there, walking dry-shod out of the deep [1260] you will see your beloved son and mine, Achilles, dwelling in his island home on the strand of Leuke in the Sea Inhospitable [...]

Euripides, Andromache. Translation by David Kovacs. [5th century BC]

[...] Exactly over against this mouth there lies an island, situated directly opposite to the course of those who sail with a North wind. Some call this the island of Achilles; others call it the chariot of Achilles; and others Leuce, from its colour. Thetis is said to have given up this island to her son Achilles, by whom it was inhabited. There are now existing a temple, and a wooden statue of Achilles, of ancient workmanship. It is destitute of inhabitants, and pastured only by a few goats, which those, who touch here, are said to offer to the memory of Achilles. Many offerings are suspended in this temple, as cups, rings, and the more valuable gems. All these are offerings to the memory of Achilles. Inscriptions are also suspended, written in the Greek and Latin language, in praise of Achilles, and composed in different kinds of metre. Some are in praise of Patroclus, whom those, who are disposed to honour Achilles, treat with equal respect. Many birds inhabit this island, as sea-gulls, divers, and coots innumerable. These birds frequent the temple of Achilles. Every day in the morning they take their flight, and having moistened their wings, fly back again to the temple, and sprinkle it with the moisture; which having performed, they brush and clean the pavement with their wings. This is the account given by some persons. Those, who come on purpose to the island, carry animals proper for sacrifice with them in their ships, some of which they immolate, and others they set at liberty in honour of Achilles. Even those, who are compelled by stress of weather to land upon the island, must consult the God himself, whether it would be right and proper for them to select for sacrifice any of the animals, which they should find feeding there; offering, at the fame time, such a recompense, as to them seems adequate to the value of the animal so selected. But if this should be rejected by the Oracle, for there is an Oracle in this temple, they must then add to their valuation; and if the increased valuation be still rejected, they must increase it again, till they find, from the assent of the Oracle, that the price they offer is deemed sufficient. When this is the case, the beast to be sacrificed stands still of its own accord, and makes no effort to escape. A considerable treasure is laid up in this temple as the price of these victims. It is said that Achilles has appeared in time of sleep both to those who have approached the coast of this island, and also to such as have been sailing a short distance from it, and instructed them where the island was most lately accessible, and where the ships might best lie at anchor. They even say further, that Achilles has appeared to them not in time of sleep, or a dream, but in a visible form on the mast, or at the extremity of the yards, in the same manner as the Dioscuri have appeared. This distinction however must be made between the appearance of Achilles, and that of the Dioscuri, that the latter appear evidently and clearly to persons, who navigate the sea at large, and when so seen foretell a prosperous voyage; whereas the figure of Achilles is seen only by such as approach this island. Some also say, that Patroclus has appeared to them during their sleep. I have thus put down what I have heard concerning this island of Achilles, either from persons who had touched there themselves, or from others that had made the same enquiries; and indeed these accounts seem to me to be not unworthy of belief. I am myself persuaded, that Achilles was a hero, if ever man was, being illustrious by his noble birth, by the beauty of his person, by the strength of his mind and understanding, by his untimely death in the flower of youth, by his being the subject of Homer's poetry, and, lastly, by the force of his love, and constancy of his friendship, insomuch that he would even die for his friends.

Arrian of Nicomedia, Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. Translation by William Falconer. [2nd century AD]

A story too I will tell which I know the people of Crotona tell about Helen. The people of Himera too agree with this account. In the Euxine at the mouths of the Ister is an island sacred to Achilles. It is called White Island, and its circumference is twenty stades. It is wooded throughout and abounds in animals, wild and tame, while on it is a temple of Achilles with an image of him. The first to sail thither legend says was Leonymus of Crotona. For when war had arisen between the people of Crotona and the Locri in Italy, the Locri, in virtue of the relationship between them and the Opuntians, called upon Ajax son of Oileus to help them in battle. So Leonymus the general of the people of Crotona attacked his enemy at that point where he heard that Ajax was posted in the front line. Now he was wounded in the breast, and weak with his hurt came to Delphi. When he arrived the Pythian priestess sent Leonynius to White Island, telling him that there Ajax would appear to him and cure his wound. In time he was healed and returned from White Island, where, he used to declare, he saw Achilles, as well as Ajax the son of Oileus and Ajax the son of Telamon. With them, he said, were Patroclus and Antilochus; Helen was wedded to Achilles, and had bidden him sail to Stesichorus at Himera, and announce that the loss of his sight was caused by her wrath.

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.19.11-13. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

Then from the surge of heavy-plunging seas rose the Earth-shaker. No man saw his feet pace up the strand, but suddenly he stood beside the Nereid Goddesses, and spake to Thetis, yet for Achilles bowed with grief: "Refrain from endless mourning for thy son. Not with the dead shall he abide, but dwell with Gods, as doth the might of Herakles, and Dionysus ever fair. Not him dread doom shall prison in darkness evermore, nor Hades keep him. To the light of Zeus soon shall he rise; and I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. Hush thy laments, vex not thine heart with grief." Then like a wind-breath had he passed away over the sea, when that consoling word was spoken; and a little in her breast revived the spirit of Thetis: and the God brought this to pass thereafter. All the host moved moaning thence, and came unto the ships that brought them o'er from Hellas. Then returned to Helicon the Muses: 'neath the sea, wailing the dear dead, Nereus' Daughters sank.

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

[...] After the passage of time, Artemis transferred Iphigenia to what is called the White Island [Leuke] to be with Achilles and changed her into an ageless immortal deity, calling her Orsilochia instead of Iphigenia. She became the companion of Achilles.

Antoninus Liberalis, The Metamorphoses, 27. Translation by Francis Celoria. [2nd century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce,​ entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships; for it is said that no one can pass the night there except at the risk of his life. At that place there are also springs and white birds live there resembling halcyons, of whose origin and battles in the Hellespont I shall speak​ at the appropriate time. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

At a distance of 120 miles from the Tyra is the river Borysthenes, with a lake and a people of similar name, as also a town in the interior, at a distance of fifteen miles from the sea, the ancient names of which were Olbiopolis and Miletopolis. Again, on the shore is the port of the Achæi, and the island of Achilles, famous for the tomb there of that hero, and, at a distance of 125 miles from it, a peninsula which stretches forth in the shape of a sword, in an oblique direction, and is called, from having been his place of exercise, Dromos Achilleos: the length of this, according to Agrippa, is eighty miles. The Taurian Scythians and the Siraci occupy all this tract of country. [...] [...] Before the Borysthenes is Achillea previously referred to, known also by the names of Leuce and Macaron. Researches which have been made at the present day place this island at a distance of 140 miles from the Borysthenes, of 120 from Tyra, and of fifty from the island of Peuce. It is about ten miles in circumference. The remaining islands in the Gulf of Carcinites are Cephalonnesos, Rhosphodusa, and Macra. [...]

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 4.26-27. Translation by John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. [1st century AD]

There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

[...] and Achilles holds the shining island in the Euxine sea. 

Pindar, Nemean Ode 4. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien. [5th century BC]

The 18th; when the Lokrians fought, since Ajax was a relative of theirs, they used to leave an empty space in the formation, in which Ajax supposedly stationed himself. When they were arrayed in battle against the Krotoniats, Autoleon of Kroton advised that they burst through the gap and surround the enemy. Tormented by a ghost he turned his thigh and was becoming gangrenous, until, in accordance with an oracle, he showed up at the island of Achilles in the Pontus (reached by sailing past the Ister river beyond the Tauric peninsula) and appeased the other heroes and particularly the soul of Ajax the Lokrian. He was healed, and returning from there he conveyed to Stesichoros Helen's command that he sing her a retraction if sight was dear to him. Stesichoros straightaway composed hymns to Helen and recovered his vision.

Conon, Narrations, 18. Translation by Brady Kiesling. [1st century BC]

VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those sailing into the mouth of the Pontus put on their left. It is about thirty stades long, but not more than four stades wide; the trees growing on it are poplars and elms, some stand without order, but others already stand in good order around the sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated near the Sea of Maiotis (which, equal in size to the Pontus, flows into it), and the statues in it, fashioned by the Fates, are Achilles and Helen. Indeed, although the act of desire lies in the eyes and poets in song celebrate desire as originating from this, Achilles and Helen, because they had not even been seen by one another, since she was in Egypt and he in Ilion, were the first who started to desire one another by finding their ears to be the origin of their longing for the body. Because no land under the sun had been fated for them as an abode for the immortal part of their life — although the Ekhinades downstream from Oiniadai and Acarnania were immediately defiled at the very time when Alkmaion killed his mother, he settled at the estuary of the Akheloos on land formed more recently than his deed — Thetis beseeched Poseidon to send up from the sea an island where they could dwell. After Poseidon had pondered the length of the Pontus and that, because no island lay in it, it was sailed uninhabited, he made Leuke appear, of the size I have described, for Achilles and Helen to inhabit, but also for sailors to stay and set their anchor in the sea. As ruler over everything that is by nature wet, after he also conceived of the rivers Thermodon, Borysthenes, and Istros so that they were carried off into the Pontus by irresistible and continually flowing currents, Poseidon heaped together the sediment from the rivers, which they sweep into the sea starting at their sources in Scythia. He then neatly fashioned an island of just the size I mentioned and set its foundation on the bottom of the Pontus. There Achilles and Helen first saw and embraced one another, and Poseidon himself and Amphitrite hosted their wedding feast, along with all the Nereids and as many rivers and water-spirits as flow into the Sea of Maiotis and the Pontus. They say that white birds live on the island and that these marine birds smell of the sea. Achilles made them his servants, since they furnish the grove for him with the breeze and rain drops from their wings. They do this by fluttering on the ground and lifting themselves off a little bit above the earth. For mortals who sail the broad expanse of the sea, it is permitted by divine law to enter the island, for it is situated like a welcoming hearth for ships. But it is forbidden to all those who sail the sea and for the Hellenes and barbarians from around the Pontus to make it a place of habitation.

§ 747  Those who anchor near the island and sacrifice must go onboard when the sun sets, so that they do not sleep on its land. If the wind should follow them, they must sail, and if it does not, they must wait in the bay after mooring their ship. Then Achilles and Helen are said to drink together and to be engaged in singing. They celebrate in song their desire for one another, Homer's epics on the Trojan War, and Homer himself. Achilles still praises the gift of poetry which came to him from Calliope, and he pursues it more seriously, since he has ceased from military activities. At any rate, my guest, his song about Homer was composed with divine inspiration and the art of poetry. Indeed, Protesilaos knows and sings that song. [55] PHOEN: May I hear the song, vinedresser, or is it not proper to disclose it? VINEDR: Why, of course you may, my guest! Many of those who approach the island say that they hear Achilles singing other things as well, but only last year, I believe, did he compose this song, which is most graceful in thought and intentions. It goes like this:

Echo, dwelling round about the vast waters beyond great Pontus, my lyre serenades you by my hand. And you, sing to me divine Homer, glory of men, glory of our labors, through whom I did not die, through whom Patroklos is mine, through whom my Ajax is equal to the immortals, through whom Troy, celebrated by the skilled as won by the spear, gained glory and did not fall. PHOEN: Vinedresser, Achilles sings at any rate by divine inspiration and in a manner worthy of both himself and Homer. Besides, it is sensible not to lengthen these matters in lyric songs or to perform them in an extended fashion. From of old, poetry was thus both esteemed and cleverly devised. 

Philostratus, Heroica, 745-747. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

Not all daimones perform all functions, however; now too, as in life, each is given a different job. It is here that we see the role of that susceptibility to the emotions that marks them off from God." They do not want to rid themselves entirely of the natures that were theirs when they lived on earth. Asclepius continues to heal the sick, Heracles to perform mighty deeds, Dionysus to lead the revels, Amphilochus to give oracles,” the Dioscuri to sail the seas, Minos to dispense justice, and Achilles to wield his weapons. Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple. Sailors passing the island have often seen a young man with tawny hair, clad in golden armour, exercising there. Others have not seen him, but have heard him singing. Yet others have both seen and heard him. One man even fell asleep inadvertently on the island. Achilles himself appeared to him, raised him to his feet, took him to his tent, and entertained him; Patroclus was there to serve the wine, Achilles played the lyre, and Thetis and a host of other daimones were present too. [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] From there too the gulf of Melas flows towards the Hellespont, churning foam. As one goes far to the north, § 54  there extends on this side and that the swell of the Propontic sea. There is also, above the left-hand path of the Euxine, opposite the Borysthenes, a well-known island in the sea, the Island of Heroes. They call it by the name of Leuce, because the serpents there are white. There rumour has it the spirits of Achilles and other heroes roam this way and that through the deserted glens. This is the gift from Zeus which attends the most noble in reward for their virtue. For virtue is allotted a pure honour.

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 53-54. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

 "The one he slept with," they say that after Iphigeneia was snatched by Artemis, Achilles heard that she was in Scythia and set out to find her. Not finding her, he settled near the White Island, which is in the Black Sea. The White Island in the Pontus is so named because of the multitude of white birds that live there. Otherwise, this is the meaning: Achilles, her lover, seeking her, will live for a long time on the so-called White Island, also known as Spilos — this island is near the mouths of the rivers of the Celtic lake — longing for his bride, whom once a deer saved from the swords. 

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 186. [12th century AD]

[...] But you would appear to have been sent to us by Achilles himself from his holy isle,​ and we are very glad to see you and very glad also to listen to whatever  p445 you have to say. [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.24. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Cults and places dedicated to Achilles mentions in ancient texts:

[3.20.8] On the road from Sparta to Arcadia there stands in the open an image of Athena surnamed Pareia, and after it is a sanctuary of Achilles. This it is not customary to open, but all the youths who are going to take part in the contest in Plane-tree Grove are wont to sacrifice to Achilles before the fight. The Spartans say that the sanctuary was made for them by Prax, a grandson of Pergamus the son of Neoptolemus. [6.23.1] One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of this enclosure is called Xystus, because an exercise of Heracles, the son of Amphitryo, was to scrape up (anaxuein) each day all the thistles that grew there. [6.23.2] The track for the competing runners, called by the natives the Sacred Track, is separate from that on which the runners and pentathletes practise. In the gymnasium is the place called Plethrium. In it the umpires match the competitors according to age and skill; it is for wrestling that they match them. [6.23.3] There are also in the gymnasium altars of the gods, of Idaean Heracles, surnamed Comrade, of Love, of the deity called by Eleans and Athenians alike Love Returned, of Demeter and of her daughter. Achilles has no altar, only a cenotaph raised to him because of an oracle. On an appointed day at the beginning of the festival, when the course of the sun is sinking towards the west, the Elean women do honor to Achilles, especially by bewailing him

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.20.8 and 6.23.1-3. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

[...] And in the island of Astypalaea Achilles is most devoutly worshipped by the inhabitants on these grounds [...]

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 17.43. Translation by H. Rackham. [1st century BC]

The extent of this sea-coast as we sail in a direct line from Rhœteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is 60 stadia. The whole of the coast lies below the present Ilium; the part near the port of the Achæans, distant from the present Ilium about 12 stadia, and thirty stadia more from the ancient Ilium, which is higher up in the part towards Ida. Near the Sigeium is a temple and monument of Achilles, and monuments also of Patroclus and Anthlochus. The Ilienses perform sacred ceremonies in honour of them all, and even of Ajax. [...]

Strabo, Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Falconer, W. [1st century]

[...] I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. [...]

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce,​ entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships [...] [...] Next to these is a narrow strip of shore which the natives call Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος [Racecourse of Achilles],​ memorable in times past for the exercises of the Thessalian leader. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35 and 38. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

5. Then come the vast forests that these lands bear, as well as the Panticapes [Ingulets] River, which separates the Nomads and the Georgians. At that time the land, which pulls back for a long stretch, is tied to the shore by a slender base; subsequently, where it is moderately wide, the land fashions itself gradually into a point. Just as if it were collecting its long sides into a sword point, the land affects the appearance of a drawn sword. Achilles entered the Pontic Sea with a hostile fleet, and it is remembered that he celebrated his victory there with competitive games and that there he routinely exercised himself and his men when there was a respite from the fighting. Therefore the land is called Dromos Achilleos [Grk., Achilles' Racecourse; Tendrovskaya Kosa].

6. Then the Borysthenes [Dnepr] River washes up on the territory of the nation that bears its name. The loveliest among Scythia's rivers, it flows down the most smoothly (the others are turbulent), and it is calmer than the others and absolutely delicious to drink. This river feeds the most prolific pastures and sustains big fish with the best flavor and no bones. The Borysthenes comes from a long way off and rises from unidentified springs. With its bed the river skims through a path of forty days' hiking, is navigable over the same route, and debouches between the Greek towns of Borysthenida and Olbia.[...]

98. There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.5-6 and 98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

§ 741 For then, while invoking chthonian and ineffable gods, they keep pure, I think, the fire that is out on the sea. Whenever the sacred ship sails in and they distribute the fire both to its new abode and to the forges of the artisans, from that source is the beginning of new life. The Thessalian offerings which came regularly to Achilles from Thessaly were decreed for the Thessalians by the oracle at Dodona. For indeed the oracle commanded the Thessalians to sail to Troy each year to sacrifice to Achilles and to slaughter some sacrificial victims as to a god, but to slaughter others as for the dead. At first the following happened: a ship sailed from Thessaly to Troy with black sails raised, bringing twice seven sacred ambassadors, one white bull and one black bull, both tame, and wood from Mount Pelion, so that they would need nothing from the city. They also brought fire from Thessaly, after they had drawn both libations and water from the river Sperkheios. For this reason, the Thessalians first customarily used unfading crowns for mourning, in order that, even if the wind delayed the ship, they would not wear crowns that were wilted or past their season. It was indeed necessary to put into the harbor at night, and before touching land, to sing Thetis a hymn from the ship, a hymn composed as follows: Dark Thetis, Pelian Thetis: Troy gained a share of him to the extent that his mortal nature held sway, but to the extent that the child derives from your immortal lineage, the Pontus possesses him.

§ 742  Come to this lofty hill in quest of the burnt offerings with Achilles. Come without tears, come with Thessaly, Pelian Thetis. When they approached the tomb after this hymn, a shield was struck heavily as in battle, and together they cried aloud with rhythmic rapid delivery, calling repeatedly upon Achilles. When they had wreathed the summit of the hill and dug offering pits on it, they slaughtered the black bull as to one who is dead. They also summoned Patroklos to the feast, in the belief that they were doing this to please Achilles. After they slit the victim's throat and made this sacrifice, they immediately went down to the ship, and after sacrificing the other bull on the beach again to Achilles and having begun the offering by taking from the basket and by partaking of the entrails for that sacrifice (for they made this sacrifice as to a god), they sailed away toward dawn, taking the sacrificed animal so as not to feast in the enemy's country. My guest, these rites, so holy and ancient, they say were both abolished by the tyrants, who are said to have ruled the Thessalians after the Aiakidai, and were neglected by Thessaly. Some cities sent their offerings, others did not consider them worthwhile, others said they would send them next year, and still others rejected the matter. § 743  When the land was hard pressed by drought and the oracle gave the order to honor Achilles "as was meet and right," they removed from the rites what they customarily observed for a god, interpreting "as was meet and right" in this way. They used to sacrifice to him as to one who is dead, and they would cut up as a sacrifice the first animals they encountered. Thus it was until Xerxes' expedition into Greece occurred. During this expedition, the Thessalians, who sided with the Medes, once again abandoned the prescribed customs for Achilles, seeing that a ship sailed to Salamis from Aigina carrying the house of the Aiakidai to support the Hellenic alliance. When in later times Alexander, the son of Philip, subjugated the other part of Thessaly and dedicated Phthia to Achilles, he made Achilles his ally in Troy while marching against Darius. The Thessalians returned to Achilles and, in addition, they rode the cavalry, which Alexander brought from Thessaly, around his tomb and fell upon one another as though they were fighting on horseback. And after praying and sacrificing they departed; they invoked Achilles against Darius, and along with him Balios and Xanthos, as they shouted these prayers from their horses. But after Darius was captured and Alexander was in India, the Thessalians reduced the sacrifices and sent black lambs. Because the sacrifices did not even reach Troy, and if each arrived in broad daylight, they were not done in proper order, Achilles became angry. And if I should relate how much harm he hurled upon Thessaly, the tale would be tedious. Protesilaos said that he had come from the Pontus about four years before meeting me here. When he had procured a ship, he sailed like a guest-friend to Achilles, and this he did often. When I said that he was devoted and gracious in his friendship for Achilles, he said,

§ 744  "But now, because I have quarreled with him, I have come here. When I perceived that he was angry with the Thessalians over the offerings to the dead, I said, 'For my sake, Achilles, disregard this.' But he was not persuaded and said that he would give them some misfortune from the sea. I certainly feared that this dread and cruel hero would find something from Thetis to use against them." As for me, my guest, after I heard these things from Protesilaos, I believed that red blights and fogs had been hurled by Achilles upon the grainfields of Thessaly for destruction of their agricultural produce, since these misfortunes from the sea seemed somehow to settle upon their fruitful lands. I also thought that some of the cities in Thessaly would be flooded, in the way that Boura and Helike, as well as Atalante in Locris, had suffered; they say that the former two sank, and the latter one broke apart. Other actions seemed good instead to Achilles and Thetis, by whom the Thessalians were destroyed. Because the prices for the shellfish from which people skillfully extract the purple dye were quite great, the Thessalians were somewhat guilty of transgressing the law in order to obtain this dye. § 745  If these things are true, I do not know. Stones then hung over them, because of which some people gave up their fields and others their homes. Some of their slaves ran away from them, others were sold. And the common folk did not even offer sacrifice to their ancestors, for they even sold the tombs. And so this we believe, my guest, was the evil that Achilles had threatened to give to the Thessalians from the sea. [54] PHOEN: You speak of an anger that is "ruinous" and implacable, vinedresser. But tell me what marvel Protesilaos knows about the island in the Pontus, since it was there, I suppose, that he was with Achilles. VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those

Philostratus, Heroica, 741-745. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

[...] Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] and the Tauri, who inhabit the lofty Track of Achilles, both narrow and long, as far as the mouth of the lake itself. [...]

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 30. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

“Deep within the chasm”: In Scythia, there is a beach extending to a length of 500 stadia, which is called Achilles' racecourse because Achilles alone ran there and crossed it. It has been common for a long time. "Deep" will be called "deserted racecourse" of the "bridegroom", or of Achilles in that place, which he crossed running. "Deserted" is said because he ran in vain. The Achilles' racecourse was named for such a reason: When Iphigenia was about to be sacrificed in Aulis to Artemis, Artemis snatched her away and sent her to Scythia. Then Achilles fell in love with her and pursued her to a certain place. And from there it was called Achilles' racecourse.

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 192. [12th century AD]

[9] Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name​17 and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart. [11] [...] Why, in comparison with the entire Iliad and Odyssey are not these verses noble to those who pay heed as they listen? Or was it more to your advantage to hear of the impetuous leaping and charging of Achilles, and about his voice, how by his shouts alone he routed the Trojans?​24 Are those things more useful for you to learn by heart than what you just have heard, that a small city on a rugged headland is better and more fortunate, if orderly, than a great city in a smooth and level plain, that is to say, if that city is conducted in disorderly and lawless fashion by men of folly?' And Callistratus, receiving my remarks with no great pleasure, replied, "My friend, we admire and respect you greatly; for otherwise no man in Borysthenes would have tolerated your saying such things of Homer and Achilles. For Achilles is our god, as you observe, and Homer ranks almost next to the gods in honour." [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9 and 11. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Achilles, thou who dost command  O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land.

Alcaeus, fragment. Translation by Walter Petersen. [6th century BC]

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

[babyrdie]

Hey!

Basic things

You can call me Birdie.

NO AI!!!

I queue my posts, I just don't tag which ones. So "how the hell are you always online???" I'm not, that's the answer.

I'm a woman, but I don't worry about pronouns. Call me he, she, they, I don't care. You can call me dude, bro, etc too, I don't care.

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

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

What I post?

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

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

About my posts

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

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

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

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

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

I usually remove reblogs from my posts and don't use many reach tags. This is because I simply prefer to avoid drawing too much attention because I haven't had the most pleasant experiences in fandons before.

Blocking

I block a LOT, most of the time it's not even for a serious or personal reason and I don't even remember doing it. So don't stress your pretty little head about it. I'm explaining this notice because people have already asked me questions...

[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.