#Iliou Persis | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thrassa · 2 years ago

Text

While I fully agree with the overall point, I still personally think that we can't say for certain that his war prize(s) (plural, if we also include Hekabe) were used as concubines by him or if they were treated similarly to house servants or anything of the sort because we don't have sufficient information on the matter, just a passing mention.

War Prizes were, of course, either stolen by the men themselves (how Achilles took Briseis, after murdering her family) or given to them as gifts for their contribution to the war and of course we know that oftentimes they were used to satisfy their captors sexually but we do have instances were the war prize remained untouched for different reasons (Agamemnon and Briseis, Odysseus and Hekabe).

In any case, though, it makes very little difference if he did use his war prize as a concubine or not, because he was allowed and even somewhat expected to, given the society of the era (the Homeric Era, at least as we can't be too sure about fidelity in the Mycenaean times). It wouldn't matter. Maybe not even to Penelope.

Side note: I still would personally like to believe that he remained faithful to Penelope, given their connection and the way they reflect each other, so I'm going to keep telling myself that he stayed faithful - but that doesn't mean that another interpretation can't be valid. It's just dumb of people to oversimplify the morality of a cultural figure based on . . . Whether he followed his time's cultural practices or not.

So, yeah, I'm not making much sense right now, I guess, but at the end of the day, Odysseus was just as flawed and complex as all other figures depicted in the Epics. He was neither bad nor good, he had layers and I know thats hard for people to understand, given all the whitewashing they're used to when it comes to their "faves", but come on. It's 2023, and the poor ancient people that did things you consider fucked up (due to your own time and society) are one with the earth right now, let them rest ffs.

I keep on reading and reading so many people so far saying "Odysseus didn't have a concubine in the Iliad uwu he is good" and I'm like.... people, please, PLEASE, read the Iliad. Read it, it's a precious book, and you will love it.

Summary: Agamemnon threatens to take the concubine of Ayax, Odysseus, Achilles, or whoever he chooses.

#I'm sleepy if you can't tell #I will defend Odysseus with my life but come the fuck on the man literally committed war crimes #Is a war prize the line you guys refuse to cross?#Really? In Iliou Persis he kills a baby but the war prize is what you're going to focus on to find him 'problematic'#Btw #Dearest op #You always bring forth the sources and I shall thank you for your heroic service and patience #Because that's got to be freaking exhausting

66 notes · View notes

lunamay3 · 4 months ago

Text

Since the watch party for the Thunder Saga is tomorrow, I’m going to put out there my last minute predictions for the Thunder Saga and the rest of Epic: the Musical.

So if you don’t want any spoilers for the Thunder Saga, don’t read on.

So, I still stand by my initial theory that the first two songs of act 2 are going to set up some theme that is going to be continued throughout the rest of the act, only to be resolved during the last song. Mostly because this is exactly what happened in act 1.

So, The Horse and The Infant and Just a Man do not draw their plot from The Odyssey. Sure the Trojan Horse is retold in the Odyssey, but, perhaps more importantly for Epic, the infant, Prince Astyanax, is not mentioned anywhere in The Odyssey. As far as I can tell the only pieces of Ancient Greek literature that mention Astyanax being murdered by Odysseus (or on his orders) are The Trojan Women and Iliou Persis.

Furthermore, The Horse and The Infant and Just a Man set up the theme in act 1 of “When does a man become a monster?”, a question that is resolved in the act 1 closer Monster.

We know that the first two songs of Act 2, Suffering and Different Beast also do not draw from The Odyssey, which seems to parallel with The Horse and The Infant and Just a Man.

We also know that Suffering and Different Beast probably are duets between Odysseus and Penelope due to the fact that Jorge and Anna Lea are listed as singers on the songs. And Jorge has told us that song 40, the last song of act 2, is going to be a duet between Odysseus and Penelope. This, to me, also seems to parallel the set up between the first two songs of act 1 and the act 1 closer.

In short, I think Suffering and Different Beast are going to play the same structural role in Act 2 that The Horse and The Infant and Just a Man played in Act 1. But I guess I can’t completely prove that until The Ithaca Saga comes out.

#epic the musical #the thunder saga #epic the thunder saga #epic spoilers #epic the musical theories

23 notes · View notes

katerinaaqu · 24 days ago

Note

Hello!!

Since I've seen that you've listened to both Epic and Paris the musical, I was curious to know what are your toughts on them! Did you like how the myths and characters where handled? What do you like best and worst? (If you'd like to share, what's your favourite song/moment in each?)

Thanks :]

My my you really wanna get me have an even bigger target on my back than the one I put already! Hahaha! Ok so be it! Hahaha If this gets waaaaaay too long or too runty forgive me! ^_^

You have noticed from many of my comments and my notifications, memes or jokes. I am not a fan of EPIC. Not at all. I believe I am one of the most disliked people on Tumblr on mythology matters because I so openly speak my dislike against EPIC and being annoying about it! Hahaha! XD The thing I absolutely love about it is of course the guy's passion with the project, the way the music works and all (undoubtedly the guy is a very talented composer and can combine the scene with music and emotions and the tricks he uses with music are great) but the way the plot of Odyssey was twisted beyond recognition and to the point that to me you can literally change the names of the characters to anything else and still have the story he presents with the Musical. Maybe that was his goal but in my head that is not what a retelling or an adaptation is about. A retelling to me is not something that seeks to change literally as much as possible from the plot to fit the modern standards or the fanbase. A retelling is something as the word says that "retells the story" aka adapts the story as loyally as possible and adapts it to the audinece by taking creative liberties that are still generic to the story as it was originally told so that it will fit more to the modern standards or ear.

I believe we have so much twisted the word "retelling" that nowadays "retelling" seems to be equivalent to "let's change the hell out of the story because the original plot is not even THAT important to be salvaged and no modern person would watch it anyways" which in my opinion is not the case at all. Unless of course one writes satire. Then it doesn't matter, as I mentioned to another ask of mine.

I lost interest and was massively disappointed from the end of second saga and the song "Storm". The first two sagas were a masterpiece. The creative liberties were amazing to make sense with the plot and give the characters motivation (for example "I'm just a man" was FANTASTIC! The way the myth from Iliou Persis that gave us only one phrase "Odysseus kills Astyanax by throwing him off the wall" is now transformed into a marvelous emotional dilemma and a painful decision). In this case the creative liberty work WITH the plot and not against it. I didn't mind it as much that they made Polites a fluffy guy for no reason to fit that stereotypical "innocence of the team" plot because Polites is a clean slate character in Odyssey. However after Storm I started seeing your typical "Hollywood film 'adaptation' logic with changing stuff at the plot". I was intrigued at how they decided to give Polyphemus an excuse to kill like the guys enter a cave that is obviously habitable and kill an animal that is obviously domesticated and they do not know someone lives there? In the original it was clear someone lived there which made Odysseus curious to interract with them. I was willing to ignore that because ok creative liberties but then Athena was there!? And she gave Odysseus every opportunity to kill him while Odysseus was just "TOO NICE?!" like since when? Odysseus was all about killing him but he had no guarantee he would plus he needed him to open the cave. And the way he revealed his name in the musical was so rush and almost "out of spite" for Athena not a result of a secclusion in a cave for days and days and then his pride speaking up when Polyphemus called him a coward (which I tried to capture to my fic, not sure if I succeeded but still). So anyways at that point I was sure we wouldn't see the last of it with the changes. Poseidon destroys the ships instead of the Laestrygonians (no surprise there, rarely ever see anyone even mention the Laestrygonians yet alone show their contribution to the Odyssey) but then Circe happened and I just knew that we would have to derail from the original more and more

Circe's role was incredibly diminished for the sakes of making her actions more mellow and pass the message of loyalty and kindness. Circe in the original gives Odysseus valid information for his trip provisions and much more. In Epic not only we do not see the importance of Odysseus selling himself to Circe and we have Circe for some reason seducing him to kill him (removing her humanity from when she got scared that her magic won't work on him, potentially thinking he is some kind of god, begging for her safety to then suggesting her bed as Hermes predicts) I mean she had lions and wolves to her disposal she doesn't need to seduce him to kill him. Then of course Jorge realized that a big chunk of plot is missing and so he made Odysseus find out about Skylla by the sirens?! Like...okay... Even Tiresias gives him almost nothing (in the original he also tells him how to break the curse) Which seems interesting how Odysseus breaks down with "Monster" in Tiresias when he has received an act of kindess before. Wouldn't it be more amazing if he had that breakdown AFTER he paid the price with Circe with his own body? That even kindess has a terrible price? Of course the most iconic scene of the Odyssey after the murder of the suitors and Cyclops, the Sirens were twisted to whatever we had there; Odysseus listening to their song was of massive importance to his natural curiocity and we didn't get that (not to mention how would the sirens spell work on him and have Penelope there if he didn't hear their song in the first place?) and of course the fact that he kills them?! Like...how that even works I have no idea and like in the original people were running for their lives. Didn't even look back. Apparently they had all the time in the world to capture them, they knew apparently exactly how many they were and then they kill them?! Like I won't even say that they used the medieval mermaid instead of the sirens and then they "leave them drown" (how you drown fish people is beyond me! Maybe they are sharks that need to keep moving lol) and of course again that scene seemed to me that it was there only to show that "Odysseus is a monster" which makes no sense Odyssey-wise for many reasons. and then of course again Skylla; Odysseus doesn't gear up to protect his men, he is the one who chooses the sacrifice out of spite etc etc

Many others got sped up like the Helios cattle but ok I guess that is expected up to one point even if it could be handled differently but of course then we have also Zeus being a jerk and again making Odysseus choose? The storm that took the lives of his men was a natural consequence, not some twisted thing to prove how "monstrous" Odysseus is. In fact Odysseus tried till the last moment to sail away and save the lives he could (see my other analysis here) and of course again as many people said on God Games and all how Zeus was twisted yet another time although in Odyssey he had zero reasons to object apart from the natural hubris nemesis sequence. He never called Odysseus "shameful" either. In fact he says he agrees with Athena that calls him the most pious.

I think the massive change that I believe is abused by modern retellings is the whole "monster to man" trope. Odysseus losing his moral compass and "becoming the monster" and the plot around revolving to it. That was never the pont of Odyssey in my opinion. Odysseus never really lost his moral compass it is just his morality was not all pure and lovey in the first place. Was he changed by his experiences to be more ruthless in general? Absolutely but he was never changed to a monster according to Homeric version (because post-homeric versions already treat him as a villain from the get-go)

As for the things I liked about it, I had made a post you can see here:

I do love the harmonies and the music in it and I love the passion and the talents of the people in it. It is just that the whole plot for me is just not it. Also maybe I am also mostly annoyed with how the "fandom logic" has taken over it. Like internet getting swarmed by it. Epic quotes or facts getting literally mixed up or associated with the original or the fact we can no longer speak on the original unless someone brings up Epic the Musical... This annoys me to no ends. Of course I recognize the passion of the fans of the musical. Is just a personal thing to me. I felt the same when people were using Percy Jackson or Miller's books to talk on mythology before. Is the same here.

Of course I need to say this all the above is my PERSONAL OPINION. I have literally NOTHING against people who love the musical and the original equally. I am just NOT one of them. Also i have nothing against the artist either. I just do not agree with his outtake. Still appreciate his hard work. However when I saw the firsttwo sagas I knew this guy KNEW his mythology which is why I feel so disappointed that his later sagas felt like "Hmm...let me use that knowledge I definitely have on Odyssey just to change the hell out of it!" And that had me very sad and lowkey annoyed because I think this guy had some real stuff to create an actual Odyssey adaptation and yet again we had your average hollywood film plot where you barely see any of the plot he ellegedly adapts

Now on Paris the Musical I had answered another ask you can see here

I will not take more space on this already huge and runty post that probably made me more annoying and irritating around Tumblr! XD Generally again has little to nothing to do with Iliad but I loved the music (it was arguably one of the most original choices for music for a musical) and the songs I mention to the ask. Apart from that I am ot ecstatic by it either (arguably stage musicals do not seem to work for me when it comes to the ancient classics to a large degree because of how much the plots need to be overly simplified to fit the time frame) but I am more happy that it din't get blasted out of proportions like Epic was so the plot of it doesn't even need to be pointed out that it is not accurate and all. It is self-evident. The fact that the creator of Epic needed to "warn the fans" on how inaccurate his work is, speaks volumes to me.

I will close this runt now because is already too long. I think both Epic and Paris musicals have little to nothing to do with the things they adapt but Ironically Paris the Musical changed less stuff than Epic in comparison to magnitude. Both are passionate projects with great potential and very good music but plot wise I am not anymore surprised that they do not follow the actual plots or character developments. I am surprised that Epic was more accurate to the character development of Eurylochus than the main protagonist Odysseus! Made me focus more on Eurylochus than Odysseus! Hahaha!

I am glad that the musicals make more people willing to read the originals though. For that I am grateful.

And if I have to pick one song from each musical I would say "Just a Man" and "Business" respectably but of course I like others as well especially from Epic such as "Horse and the Infant", "Will of the gods" and "Storm".

I hope this answers your questions! I will elaborate further on some of the points I make here if you want! ^_^

#katerinaaqu answers #epic the musical #paris the musical

65 notes · View notes

littlesparklight · 7 months ago

Text

A (not exhaustive) inventory of Astyanax's death and survival.

In the Little Iliad, Neoptolemos is the killer. In the Iliou Persis, Odysseus is the killer.

In the Trojan Women we don't actually know who does the deed, "merely" that Odysseus is singled out as the (major) voice who argued for his death. As Andrew Erskine in Troy Between Greece and Rome points out (referencing another academic as well), given the lack of detail in what's left to us, Odysseus might well have been involved in Astyanax's death in the Little Iliad as well, in the same role he has in here in the Trojan Women.

Seneca (Troades) follows Euripides in the public deliberation and has Odysseus being present for Astyanax's death, but he has Astyanax leap voluntarily. (Excuse me, WTF.)

Quintus of Smyrna, in his Posthomerica, has the killing be done by "the Greeks". Not just the deliberation like in the Trojan Women, but "they" seized him and tossed him from the wall. Whether intended or not, it makes it read a little like a mob scene. (edited to add this, because I'd forgotten to check.)

Tryphiodoros, in the Taking of Ilios, has it again be Odysseus.

So what we get is that even when Odysseus isn't actively the hand that commits the deed, he's the (first? major? leading?) voice in claiming it "needs" to be done. For the ~safety of Greece~, of course.

So, now we come to myths and stories of Astyanax's survival. It's mostly here the "not exhaustive" disclaimer applies. For a lot of the Medieval sources (where this idea flourishes) I can't double check if they say anything about who/how Astyanax survives.

With that said; the Medieval manuscripts aren't the earliest ideas of Astyanax's survival!

One is late Classical or earlier; Dionysios of Halikarnassos reports of the Ilians (that is, the Anatolian Greeks of the "modern" Ilion/Troy, built somewhere after ~1000 BC) had a founding legend that involved Astyanax and Askanios. Given that Astyanax can approach his cousin after being released by Neoptolemos, presumably Neoptolemos didn't kill Astyanax but rather take him along into slavery with his mother and Helenos.

I'll just include this screencap from Troy Between Greece and Rome for the next bit since it's easier:

On to the Medieval sources; the absolute earliest appearances of Astyanax here is as the founder of the Franks, now named Francion/Francus. French Wikipedia has a note to an author that says that Astyanax's survival was effected by (unnamed in the text and note) Medieval authors by the Greeks softening up and ending up not killing Asyanax because of his beauty.

Next is the "Andromache swaps Astyanax for another child and the Greeks (more like Odysseus) is tricked and kills the substitute". It has several appearances/uses, but the earliest (at least by the list in Wikipedia) seems to be Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato (1495).

While being unable to, like, check if anyone is named as the rescuer in some of these (Wiki also has an unsourced mention of Talthybios), in general we seem to land on either Neoptolemos or, in later stories, Andromache herself. I wouldn't think Neoptolemos ends up not killing Astyanax out of the goodness of his heart, more as a way to control Andromache, but there it is either way. Odysseus is only ever an obstacle to be worked around, which isn't odd given how often he is either the killer, or, maybe far more important, the voice to argue that Astyanax need to die. Not so odd he'd then be construed in later stories as the character to be specifically tricked by the child-swap.

I'll put the sources under the cut!

(For the Little Iliad) Scholiast on Lycophr. Alex., 1268: "Then the bright son of bold Achilles led the wife of Hector to the hollow ships; but her son he snatched from the bosom of his rich-haired nurse and seized him by the foot and cast him from a tower. So when he had fallen bloody death and hard fate seized on Astyanax. And Neoptolemus chose out Andromache, Hector's well-girded wife, and the chiefs of all the Achaeans gave her to him to hold requiting him with a welcome prize. And he put Aeneas, the famous son of horse-taming Anchises, on board his sea-faring ships, a prize surpassing those of all the Danaans."

(For the Sack of Ilion/Ilioupersis) The Greeks, after burning the city, sacrifice Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles: Odysseus murders Astyanax; Neoptolemus takes Andromache as his prize, and the remaining spoils are divided.

(Note 136 to Apllodorus' Library, trans. Frazer) Compare Arctinus, Ilii Persis, summarized by Proclus, in Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. G. Kinkel, p. 50; Eur. Tro. 719-739, Eur. Tro. 1133-1135; Eur. And. 8-11; Paus. 10.26.9; Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica xiii.251-257; Tryphiodorus, Excidium Ilii 644-646; Tzetzes, Scholiast on Lycophron 1263; Scholiast on Eur. Andr. 10; Ov. Met. 13.415-417; Hyginus, Fab. 109; Seneca, Troades 524ff., 1063ff. While ancient writers generally agree that Astyanax was killed by being thrown from a tower at or after the sack of Troy, they differ as to the agent of his death. Arctinus, as reported by Proclus, says merely that he was killed by Ulysses. Tryphiodorus reports that he was hurled by Ulysses from a high tower. On the other hand, Lesches in the Little Iliad said that it was Neoptolemus who snatched Astyanax from his mother's lap and cast him down from the battlements (Tzetzes and Paus. 10.26.9). According to Euripides and Seneca, the murder of the child was not perpetrated in hot blood during the sack of Troy but was deliberately executed after the capture of the city in pursuance of a decree passed by the Greeks in a regular assembly. This seems to have been the version followed by Apollodorus, who apparently regarded the death of Astyanax as a sacrifice, like the slaughter of Polyxena on the grave of Achilles. But the killing of Astyanax was not thus viewed by our other ancient authorities, unless we except Seneca, who describes how Astyanax leaped voluntarily from the wall while Ulysses was reciting the words of the soothsayer Calchas and invoking the cruel gods to attend the rite.

(Trojan Women, Euripides) Talthybius You that once were the wife of Hector, bravest of the Phrygians, [710] do not hate me, for I am not a willing messenger. The Danaids and sons of Pelops both command—

Andromache What is it? your prelude bodes evil news.

[…]

Talthybius They mean to slay your son; there is my hateful message to you.

Andromache [720] Oh me! this is worse tidings than my forced marriage.

Talthybius So spoke Odysseus to the assembled Hellenes, and his word prevails.

Andromache Oh, once again alas! there is no measure in the woes I bear.

Talthybius He said they should not rear so brave a father's son.

(Dionysios of Halikarnassos; Ant. Rom. 1. 47. 5–6) Aineias . . . sent Askanios, the eldest of his sons, with some of the allies, mainly Phrygians, to the land called Daskylitis, where the Askanian lake is, since his son had been invited by the inhabitants to rule over them. Askanios did not dwell there for long. When Skamandrios and the other descendants of Hektor approached him after Neoptolemos had released them from Greece, he went to Troy and restored them to their ancestral kingdom.

#the iliad #trojan war #astyanax #odysseus #andromache of troy #neoptolemus #greek myth thoughts

129 notes · View notes

katerinaaqu · 4 months ago

Text

You know...I wonder if Odysseus was pretty much numb at that point. If one thinks about it he was already forced or not to lead Iphigenia to the altar to be sacrificed. He had already been through and also directly or indirectly committed many atrocities to the name of war including many killings the invention of Trojan Horse and the taking of Troy.

Now he is once again said that HE has to take Polyxena from the hands or Hecuba who was also won in the lottery as his personal slave.

Maybe I am way too biased with Homer's version of Odysseus who is much less of the monster depicted in post-homeric sources such as the Aenaeaid and even Eurypedes works but imagine being Odysseus, being directly or indirectly responsible for both the beginning and the ending of the war; Odysseus who put the life of his son above anything else now he found himself not once but TWICE before the decision of the horrifying fate of human sacrifice (and we know even in his world that was horrifying because Athena was still furious when Polyxena was sacrificed). Odysseus who later sells himself to a goddess to assure his men will be safe (thus showing his mentality that his men come first like his family comes first)

This Odysseus for ten years after the horrible act of the sacrifice or Iphigenia he was always personally involving himself to the dirtiest of businesses in the war from spy missions to night raids in the city to captures of princes and abstraction of information (and I am sure he didn't persuade Helenus to betray his city just with treats and wine) stealing plundering and so on and so forth and who was personally present into the taking of Troy (and if you follow Iliou Persis then he personally killed Astyanax otherwise we follow Little Iliad where Neoptolemus does it but Odysseus feels the act in his flesh no doubt) and now AGAIN he has to take Polyxena to her doom.

Odysseus is not a man who believes in miracles even if he is accompanied by a goddess. I doubt he would expect the same thing that happened to iphigenia would happen to Polyxena. But from how I read his personality in Homer then Odysseus must have been exhausted. He struggled to go home and he was ready to pay ANY price for it even taking the city by Trickery and committing a war crime for it but now the true magnitude of that came to light and that probably destroyed him. He cannot resist that anymore. He is numb. Perhaps he is still under the fever of battle perhaps he is also like "oh well one more sin and then I can go home"

I mean...knowing his reaction in Phaeakes Island where he literally sobs his eyes out in his veil once Troy and her sad story is brought to the picture one knows how deeply the events affected him ultimately. No doubt that he didn't resist the sacrifice. Odysseus was always the one to get his hands dirty so others didn't have to. At that point he had sunk his hands so deeply in that dirt that it didn't matter anymore...

I actually think of it that way when this myth is brought up mainly because as I said before I like to analyze taking Homer as a starting point.

Thinking about Agamemnon sacrificing his teenage daughter in order to go to war. Thinking about Odysseus trying to avoid going to war but when the choice was to kill his infant son or to go to war he chose the war. Thinking about how upon the death of Achilles, Odysseus recruited Achilles's teenage son Neoptolemus to join the war. About Odysseus or sometimes it's Neoptolemus throwing Hector's infant son off the battlements to his death. About Achilles's ghost demanding the sacrifice of Hecuba's daughter Polyxena before the Greeks can sail home from Troy and when Hecuba begged Odysseus to spare Polyxena he said no, I want to go home, we're going to kill her. Thinking about how the only one of the Greek generals opposing Polyxena's sacrifice was Agamemnon. How Odysseus never wanted to be here but he will inflict the pain he wanted to avoid on others out of his duty to the other Greek soldiers. How Agamemnon, leader of the Greek soldiers, is so, so tired of sacrificing children to this war. How it happens anyway.

#tagamemnon #the Iliad #Euripides #some Iliad mostly the plays. Hecuba. Iphigenia in Aulis. The Trojan Women #homer odyssey #odysseus #homeric odysseus is just its own thing!#homer's odysseus #katerinaaqu analyzes

4K notes · View notes

scriptmyth · 7 years ago

Note

Hi! I was wondering if you guys knew any myths about twins or mythical twins in general? Thank you!

Hello Nonny!

Twins are widely represented in mythology and appear quite frequently in different cultures and myths. They are tightly connected to the ideas of duality and divinity, their births often being attributed to some kind of supernatural force or divine intervention.

It is not a surprising development, considering that birth of twins is not a normal occurrence for humans. Interestingly, on the flip side of supernatural, since most animals give birth to more than one offspring at a time, sometimes human twin births were considered as an evidence of an act of bestiality. The Dioscuri, who hatched from eggs, can be one classic example of such beliefs, even though their birth is more due to divine interference.

In some cultures the birth of twins was attributed to women eating certain fruits or other produce. According to James Frazer’s The Golden Bough, the Galelareese of New Guinea believed a woman who consumed two bananas growing from a single head might find herself pregnant with twins; the Guarani of South America similarly believed eating a double grain of millet would do the same. Similar beliefs concerning various fruits also exist in different cultures throughout the world.

Twins are often multiplied into further pairs. Claude Levi-Strauss explains it as a structural element of the myth — each new pair of twins emphasizing the general structure of the plot.

Twins can serve different functions in a story. They are always regarded as supernatural in some way, appearing in creation myths as two sometimes opposing, but still tightly tied together, forces. They also frequently appear in etiological myths — myths that explain the origin of an ethnic group or a city (Jacob and Esau, Romulus and Remus). God-twins often represent natural objects and phenomena that are put in dual opposition — such as Apollo representing the sun and Artemis the moon. Whether they were prescribed this opposition from the start, or it grew out of their existing connection as twins, is not always so clear.

In the course of our research, we found the “Why the Healing Gods are Twins” article very helpful when it came to general information, but the treatment of specific cultures looked sketchy to us. You can still give it a go.

Wikipedia has an incomplete list of some more renowned mythological twins, grouped by cultural provenance, which is a great starting point. We are working now on a Mythological Twins Master Post, but, in the meantime, the twins listed below are the ones the Chorus and the Muses know of. If you have any questions about any of them please feel free to send in another ask with the specific twin set you would like to know more about!

(List under the Read More line)

Verified Twins:

Native American

Ioskeha and Tawiscara

Naayéé’ Neizghání and Tóbájíshchíní

Flint and Sapling

Ioskeha and Tawescaron

Central America

One Hunahpu and Seven Hunahpu

One Monkey and One Artisan

Hunahpu and Xbalanque

One Death and Seven Death

Africa

Da Zodji and Nyohwe Ananu

Agbe and Naete

Marassa Jumeaux

Egypt and Mesopotamia

Inanna and Utu

Isis and Nephthys

India

Ashvins

Greek and Roman

Castor and Pollux (Polydeuces)

Lynceus and Idas

Artemis and Apollo

Romulus and Remus

Bible

Jacob and Esau

Pharez and Zarah

Norse

Freyr and Freyja

Dubious Twins:

Africa

Nommo

This is technically a twin set but out sources on it are weak.

Egypt

Osiris and Khonsu

The twin association between these two is a mystical one and not a physical one.

Greek

Heracles and Iphicles

Only source of them being brothers is in the Bibliotheca Apollodorus [2.7.3]: “That being so, Cepheus and his sons took the field, and in the battle he and his sons perished, and besides them Iphicles, the brother of Hercules.”

Eteocles and Polyneices

Brothers who co-ruled Thebes

Asclepius and Ericthonius

Asclepius was the son of Apollo and the mortal woman Koronis from Thessaly (x)

Ericthonius was a autochthonic god borne of Hephaestus’ semen on a woolen rag, which had been discarded by Athena as she had wiped the semen off (x)

Athena had dispensed Gorgon-blood to both Asclepius and Ericthonius (x)

Machaon and Podalirius

Sons of Asclepius

“Podaleirius and Machaon are the leeches of the Grecian army, highly prized and consulted by all the wounded chiefs. Their medical renown was further prolonged in the subsequent poem of Arktinus, the Iliou Persis, wherein the one was represented as unrivalled in surgical operations, the other as sagacious in detecting and appreciating morbid symptoms. It was Podaleirius who first noticed the glaring eyes and disturbed deportment which preceded the suicide of Ajax.” - The Iliad, hosted on Project Gutenberg, footnote 132 on page 192 (x)

Aloadae: Otus and Ephialtes

Described as brothers, borne of Iphimedeia of Thessaly and Poseidon

There’s no mention of separate births, and only one conception by Poseidon

They’re frequently referred to by the single name “Aloadae” in reference to their mother’s husband, Aloeus

Aeolus and Boeotus

Mother was the nymph Melanippe, father Poseidon

Theano’s twins

Attested to be either Aeolus and Boeotus, or her own sons by her husband, but unknown if they were actual twins (x). As these references were written by Hyginus, it’s advised to take them with a grain of salt

Proteus and Acrisius

They’re claimed to be twins, but the only sources available can prove them only as brothers (x x x)

Biblical

James and John

Jesus and Judas Thomas (in one apocryphon – The Gospel According to Thomas)

#twins #mythology #roman #greek #norse #bible #biblical #egypt #africa #india #mesopotamia #north america #native american #central america #maya #aztec #ask #answer #links

108 notes · View notes

kashuan · 7 years ago

Note

If you could save just one (1) of the lost epics of the Trojan Cycle (Cypria, Iliou Persis etc) which one would it be?

Just one……JUST ONE? What cruel person asked this :(((((((((((((Honestly my first inclination is to say Cypria just because I am super interested to know how the first 9 years play out, and it would mean more content of all the characters, but more importantly it would mean more content of Atreides, my BOYS. Because the Iliad starts where it does, the Agamemnon vs Achilles plot has probably become The most commonly known thing about it and tends to primarily be that which everyone characterizes them around, so I would love some additional scenes that would open up looking at the characters in other ways… Nostoi, the one set just after the end of the war, is also super tempting in this respect because it supposedly includes a lot of Agamemnon specific content including a version Oresteia, and I’m bias. Plus if there’s details on Menelaus’ own version of the Odyssey where he detoured in Egypt and stuff, and more importantly, has more Helen content, that makes it a really close contender…Actually, though, Telegony is probably the one I’ve actually spoken the most with friends about wanting to read? Because I also adore Telemachus and would love to read this Odyssey sequel, if just to see how they pulled off the “we were renewed for an 8th season and we’re running out of plot ideas” plot of Telemachus marrying Circe of all people, lmao.

13 notes · View notes

katerinaaqu · 2 months ago

Photo

@dilutedh2so4 Yup! Although this is not memorized in any part of the epic cycle and most scholiasts of it have a variety of opinions there doesn't seem to be any written source that confirms either that Neoptolemous kills the baby and then uses the corpse as a club or if he kills them both simoultaneously with this blow thus using the living baby as a club.

However vase-painting has a plethora of images such as this which puzzled many people. I have heard the theory that this is simply a lost version of the epic cycle that happened to be known in antiquity but not surviving to us nowadays (just like a large number of texts from the Epic Cycle is lost such as the Nostoi apart from the Odyssey)

The way I see it is quite possible or that it is a symbolic scene that Neoptolemous is responsible for both deaths at the same time (as opposing to Iliou Persis where we name Odysseus as the killer of the baby). Most versions of the epic cycle seem to agree for example Little Ilias naming Neoptolemous as the actual killer (while Eurypedes places Odysseus as the mastermind behind the plotting of the murder) while writers like Seneca take a theory that Astyanax was older of age and throws himself off the walls voluntarily or others that speak of Astyanax suriving the ordeal (the baby thrown off the walls belonging to someone else) and start another streak of myths where he is a mythological ancestor of cities for example in Corsica and Sardinia but I think those are much later myths

Either way this version seems very brutal to imagine if the image is indeed literal and this is how both Astyanax and Priam find their end and not some symbolic scene to point Neoptolemous as the killer of them both And if this myth is actually valid and literal then makes me wonder how people like Sophocles when creating their tragedies name Neoptolemous as a righteous and pure individual. In "Philoctetes" he is even naive, winded up like a tin soldier by Odysseus till he finds out the depth of sorrow Philictetes was suffering.

I wonder if that was Sophocles's interpretation of young Pyrrhus then I wonder indeed what kind of pressure was the kid under or what kind of actrcities he had to perform before the sacking of Troy in order to turn from a kind, righteous and kinda naive young man to a bloodthirsty killer who performed some of the most atrocious crimes in the battle such as killing an individual that seeks sanctuary or snatch a baby from her mother's arms and throw him off the walls or worse...perform THIS act!

That was really the question that I wanted to touch while writing my random little fics

Guilt: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3

and Philoctetes Inspiration 2

and barely scratched the surface. Makes me wonder how an epic poem featuring Neoptolemous would be like.

Priam killed by Neoptolemus

Greek, ca. 520 BC–510 B.C.

#katerinaaqu analyzes #neoptolemus #priam #astyanax #trojan war #fall of troy #tagamemnon #You know...if Epic was about Neoptolemous and how HE loses his innocence at war I would seriously be more fixated! XD

219 notes · View notes

littlesparklight · 1 month ago

Note

do we know how Helen reacted to Paris’ death? and how did her reunion with Menelaus go?

Very few of the sources we know that might have touched on it (like the Little Iliad) have survived intact. (Or survived at all, in cases of other treatments of the war that we know about, or don't know about.) We only have a couple late sources, as far as I am aware, that say anything - but whether they're representative in any way, we don't know.

Paris' death Dares: "Helen took part in the funeral with loud lamentations. Alexander, she said, had treated her kindly; [...]" and "Helen, returning home with Menelaus, her husband, was grieved more deeply than when she had come."

Dictys makes no specific mention of how Helen reacted to Paris' death.

Quintus of Smyrna and his Posthomerica: "[...] but long and loud lamented Helen; yet those wails were but for Trojan ears; her soul with other thoughts was busy, as she cried[...] (skipping the actual speech here) So cried she: but for him far less she mourned than for herself, remembering her own sin."

So I guess that depends on if you'd say this means no honest grieving at all, or some. Or if Quintus means there to be some, in truth, or none; he also specifies that no one but Oinone grieves Paris in earnest, despite that, compared to the qualifiers he gives Helen's lamenting, Hecuba gets no such and she seems to be in earnest if it weren't for that comment. (Quintus is also, like often happens later, writing very moralising. Obviously Paris is then not going to get much from him.)

The reclamation of Helen The most usual, and perhaps until late only version of Helen and Menelaos' reunion, involves Menelaos threatening her life (and Aphrodite interfering). Ibycus and the Little Iliad both seem to have had this, and it's possible (neither the summary nor the surviving fragments say anything about this) Iliou Persis had it as well. Some want to claim a lack of attempted violence on Menelaos' part in the Sack's version, but we have no proof of that either.

Vase art has a couple variants, which generally are on a line of Helen either fleeing from Menelaos/Menelaos dropping his sword, or already leading Helen away, sword in hand. Generally this is pointed at her (an obvious threat) or merely held, but as I understand it from the academics I've read, in this case the sword is still an implicit threat towards Helen, and not, and some may want to claim "meant to secure their safe leave from Troy". Aeneas, for example, as he leads his family away, is never shown wielding a sword (no matter which way it might be pointed), despite that he, surely more than Menelaos, would need one.

(Guy Hedreen is a good jumping off point if you want to read more.)

As for what our late surviving sources say, Dares makes no mention of their immediate meeting during the sack. The only reference is the same one I quoted up above under the death of Paris.

Dictys: "First of all, Helen was freely given to Menelaus;" and "When Troy had been taken, Ajax had been the first to propose that she should be killed because of the troubles and sufferings she had caused for so long a time. Many good men had assented. But Menelaus, still loving his wife, had gone the rounds, and plead for her life, and finally, through the intercession of Ulysses, had won her back unharmed."

So the situation seems similar to Euripides' Trojan Women, in that Helen was treated as a captive to be handed over, but, here we have seeming break from the version of Menelaos attempting to murder Helen. Dictys says nothing about how Menelaos reacted to Helen when he found her during the sack, merely that he tortured Deiphobos to death. And despite the apparent situation of Helen being treated as a captive, compared to TW Menelaos acts to keep Helen safe - but, as we see, a threat to Helen's life post-sack, if not from Menelaos then all the Achaeans, clearly remains a feature.

Quintus of Smyrna: "Menelaus mid the inner chambers found at last his wife, there cowering from the wrath of her bold-hearted lord. He glared on her, hungering to slay her in his jealous rage. But winsome Aphrodite curbed him, struck out of his hand the sword, his onrush reined, jealousy's dark cloud swept she away, and stirred love's deep sweet well-springs in his heart and eyes."

There's more after this, Menelaos pretending to continue the attack after Aphrodite has turned his heart and Agamemnon stopping him. Then later as Menelaos leads her out, though Helen fears being attacked by the Achaeans, Aphrodite intervenes again, making sure they're all struck, basically as Menelaos already was.

So in Quintus the threat to Helen is really emphasised. There's not just the intended intimate revenge from Menelaos, but also a potential general one from the Achaean forces as a whole.

What we basically have, then, is that Helen's survival isn't a given. Aphrodite will ensure she survives, of course. But from the mortal end of things in most sources, from threats during the sack (by Menelaos) to post-sack threats from either Menelaos (Trojan Women) or the Achaeans as a whole, Helen's survival isn't seen as a necessary condition for the victory. In fact, in some ways, Helen paying for her life (for the apparent, in the case of kidnapping, or actual, where she was willing, adultery) seem to be intimately bound together with the Achaeans' victory.

Only divine intervention (via Aphrodite giving Helen sanctuary and inspiring Menelaos' former love) in most sources, until we get to Dictys' and Dares' realistic and godless versions, saves Helen.

#asks #helen of sparta #paris of troy #menelaus #greek myth thoughts

24 notes · View notes