#but in the Iliad he works against her which she takes very personally

[sarafangirlart]

[luminouslumity]

THOUGHTS ON: ARIADNE and ELEKRA

So I've reentered my Greek myth phase and I just want to talk about these two books for just a second!

First off, look how beautiful the covers are! And second, out of all these authors who've been retelling the Greek myths, Jennifer Saint is definitely one of my favorites! Something I've always hated about a lot of retellings (even with ones I've liked) is how characters are brought down in order to elevate the likability of another, even if that character has had no basis of being petty or cruel previously. And honestly, I probably wouldn't find it nearly as irritating as I do now if it weren't done with the same characters over and over again, with many of these stories having absolutely nothing new to say! Because then it just feels less like the author is trying to be revolutionary and more like they're just following a trend. And where's the challenge in that?

Enter Ariadne, a story all about challenging perspectives, about how appearances can be deceiving, even those made by the decent ones. Of course, you have Theseus with his abandonment of Ariadne after building himself up to be the greatest hero since Heracles, but later on, you also get Perseus; whom Ariadne comes to despise both because of his beheading of Medusa and because of his refusal to let his people worship Dionysus... until she actually meets the guy and finds that not only is he actually really nice and in a very complicated situation, but she herself even acknowledges that her perception of heroes may have been warped because of what Theseus had done to her, all while still having Perseus as an enemy.

As for Elektra, I actually liked it more than I did Ariadne, but also didn't, if that makes sense. So take Helen for example. How many times have we seen her as either vapid or selfish, someone who doesn't care that lives were lost in her name? Well, in this book... I wish we could say we get the opposite of that, but the thing is, this portrayal of Helen has very little personality to even speak of other than being nice! Seriously, even what led her to run away with Paris is treated with complete ambiguity! Like, I prefer it to her being demonized (Atwood, Miller to an extent) or desperately longing for freedom to the point of selfishness (Gill, Heywood), but that's not really saying much, is it?

Compare this to the Epic Cycle, where we get scenes like this:

Then Iris went as messenger to white-armed Helen, in the likeness of her husband’s sister, the wife of Antenor’s son, she whom Antenor’s son, lord Helikaon, held—Laodike, most outstanding in beauty of all of Priam’s daughters. She found Helen in her chamber; she was weaving a great cloth, a crimson cloak of double thickness, and was working in the many trials of the Trojan horse-breakers and bronze-clad Achaeans, trials which for her sake they had suffered under the hand of Ares. Standing close, Iris of the swift feet addressed her: “Come this way, dear bride, and see the marvelous deeds of the Trojan horse-breakers and bronze-clad Achaeans, who earlier carried war and all its tears against each other into the plain, in their longing for deadly battle; these men now sit in silence, the war stopped, leaning on their shields, their great spears fixed upright beside them; and Alexandros and Menelaos beloved by Ares are to fight with their great spears on your account; and you will be called wife of that man who is victor.”

So speaking the goddess aroused in Helen’s heart sweet longing for her husband of old, her city and her children.

[...]

“Honored are you to me, dear father-in-law, and revered, and would that evil death had pleased me at that time when I followed your son here, abandoning my marriage chamber and kinsmen, my late-born child, and the lovely companions of my own age. But that did not happen; and so I waste away weeping. [...]”—Homer, Iliad (trans. Caroline Alexander)

And this:

“Come here; Alexandros summons you home; he is there, in his bedroom, on his bed that is inlaid with rings, shining in beauty and raiment—you would not think that he came from fighting a man, but rather that he was going to a dance, or had just left the dance and was reclining.”

So she spoke; and stirred the anger in Helen’s breast. And when she recognized the goddess’ beautiful cheeks and ravishing breasts and gleaming eyes, she stood amazed, and spoke out and addressed her by name:

“Mad one; why do you so desire to seduce me in this way? Will you drive me to some further place among well-settled cities, to Phrygia or lovely Maeonia? Perhaps there too is some mortal man beloved by you—since now Menelaos has vanquished godlike Alexandros and desires that I, loathsome as I am, be taken home. Is it for this reason you stand here now conniving? Go, sit yourself beside him, renounce the haunts of the gods, never turn your feet to Olympus, but suffer for him and tend him forever, until he makes you either his wife, or his girl slave. As for me, I will not go there—it would be shameful—to share the bed of that man. The Trojan women will all blame me afterward; the sufferings I have in my heart are without end.”

Then in anger divine Aphrodite addressed her: “Do not provoke me, wicked girl, lest I drop you in anger, and hate you as much as I now terribly love you, and devise painful hostilities, and you are caught in the middle of both, Trojans and Danaans, and are destroyed by an evil fate.”

So she spoke; and Helen born of Zeus was frightened; and she left, covering herself with her shining white robe, in silence, and escaped notice of the women of Troy; and the divine one led her.

When the women arrived at the splendid house of Alexandros, the handmaids swiftly turned to their work, and she, shining among women, entered into the high-roofed chamber; then laughter-loving Aphrodite, taking a stool for her, placed it opposite Alexandros, the goddess herself carrying it. There Helen took her seat, daughter of Zeus who wields the aegis, and averting her eyes, reviled her husband with her words: “You’re back from war; would that you had died there broken by the stronger man, he who in time past was my husband. Yet before this you used to boast that you were stronger than Menelaos, beloved by Ares, in your courage and strength of hand and skill with spear; go now and challenge Menelaos beloved by Ares, to fight again, face-to-face—but no, I recommend you give it up, and not fight fair-haired Menelaos man-to-man, or recklessly do battle, lest you be swiftly broken beneath his spear.”—Homer, Iliad (trans. Caroline Alexander)

And if you want to look beyond the Iliad itself, there's also this:

Next comes the Little Iliad in four books by Lesches of Mitylene: its contents are as follows. The adjudging of the arms of Achilles takes place, and Odysseus, by the contriving of Athena, gains them. Aias then becomes mad and destroys the herd of the Achaeans and kills himself. Next Odysseus lies in wait and catches Helenus, who prophesies as to the taking of Troy, and Diomede accordingly brings Philoctetes from Lemnos. Philoctetes is healed by Machaon, fights in single combat with Alexandrus and kills him: the dead body is outraged by Menelaus, but the Trojans recover and bury it. After this Deiphobus marries Helen, Odysseus brings Neoptolemus from Scyros and gives him his father's arms, and the ghost of Achilles appears to him. Eurypylus the son of Telephus arrives to aid the Trojans, shows his prowess and is killed by Neoptolemus. The Trojans are now closely beseiged, and Epeius, by Athena's instruction, builds the wooden horse. Odysseus disfigures himself and goes in to Ilium as a spy, and there being recognized by Helen, plots with her for the taking of the city; after killing certain of the Trojans, he returns to the ships. Next he carries the Palladium out of Troy with help of Diomedes. Then after putting their best men in the wooden horse and burning their huts, the main body of the Hellenes sail to Tenedos. The Trojans, supposing their troubles over, destroy a part of their city wall and take the wooden horse into their city and feast as though they had conquered the Hellenes.—Proclus, Chrestomathia

And this:

Concerning Aethra Lesches relates that when Ilium was taken she stole out of the city and came to the Hellenic camp, where she was recognised by the sons of Theseus; and that Demophon asked her of Agamemnon. Agamemnon wished to grant him this favour, but he would not do so until Helen consented. And when he sent a herald, Helen granted his request.—Pausanias

Say what you will about society in Ancient Greece, but it really is sad when the source material is even slightly more progressive than the retellings are, such as when Helen tries to resist Aphrodite. And that's not to say Helen has never been given a more assertive personality before, but when she is, it's usually at the expense of making Menelaus a terrible husband (again, Gill, Heywood). The only other one I can think of that even comes close to this without attacking another character is The Private Life of Helen of Troy by John Eriskine, and not only did it come out in 1925, but it's a sequel anyway too.

Going back to Elektra, I'm surprised there has yet to be a generational series on the House of Atreus as a whole, because wow did I forget how messed up this family was and I love it! You've got your family drama, your betrayals, your cycle of vengeance! And with Pelops' line specifically, it all leads up to a mother avenging her daughter and a daughter avenging her father. It's perfect! But seriously, if anyone knows of a show or book series covering Tantalus and his bloodline, please tell me!

Which brings me to Agamemnon, whose portrayal here I found to be interesting. So something about Elektra is that it's told from three different PoVs, and because of that, each views Agamemnon in a certain way: to Clytemnestra, he's the proud warrior who killed their eldest daughter; to Elektra, he's the kind father whom she misses dearly; to Cassandra, he's her captor and destroyer of her city. And even then, we still get these tiny glimpses of his true self beneath his usual stern exterior—that of an insecure man who's desperately trying to make something out of his family name after reclaiming his home, a name that had already been cursed since long before he was born. But maybe he can change that by gaining glory in war... even if it means sacrificing his own daughter for a fair bit of wind.

Then you have the clear parallels that are drawn between Clytemnestra and Elektra as the book goes on, simultaneously sympathizing and condemning both for the actions they take. Even Aegisthus probably would've been seen as a hero if this were any other story. And I feel like this is true to the original Oresteia as well, how not one person can be categorized as being solely a hero or villain, but human.

So go ahead and give me the love story of Hades and Persephone, but remember that it's mournful Demeter's tale as much as it is theirs.

Give me the stories of the women and goddesses who have long been ignored throughout the centuries, but remember that it's possible to write such tales without having there be a need to drag those around them down.

Give me love, give me drama, but most of all, give me understanding and complexity.

And going back to the books themselves, honestly, if there was anything negative I had to say about both of them is that the myths are retold pretty directly for the most part, something I myself didn't actually have much of a problem with, but I understand may be a turn-off for some people, especially if you're looking for something a little more deviating from the source material in terms of characterization. Also, for some reason, both Greek and Roman spellings are used, instead of just sticking to one, hence why I've been using Elektra instead of Electra, but not Klytemnestra and Kassandra for, well, Clytemnestra and Cassandra. Not unique to Saint, but still no less jarring.

Like I said, of the two, Elektra was probably my favorite, but there were still a ton of problems I had with it, some more nitpicky than others, I'll admit. I already went over my feelings on Helen, but besides that, seeing more of Elektra's relationship with her father before he goes off to war would've been nice to see too. I also feel like if each book absolutely had to be named after a single character, then I kinda think this one should've been called Clytemnestra instead since it really did feel more like her story than Elektra's, at least for me. Some parts also felt a little rushed, especially with how the final chapter just jumps from Elektra getting her revenge to the epilogue describing what had happened afterwards instead of actually showing it, which makes me wish this book had either been a little longer or divided into a duology—one part focusing on Clytemnestra getting her revenge while the other is focused on Elektra's, similar to how Aeschulys divides them in his Oresteia trilogy. Or if neither of these solutions while still keeping the book at the same length, then maybe Cassandra's PoVs could've even been saved for her own book instead.

Speaking of Cassandra, there's also the fact that her fate ends up being a mercy kill rather than the cold-blooded murder it was in the original, basically absolving Clytemnestra of any wrongdoing when it came to this. Admittedly, I wasn't as annoyed over it as I could've been and the choice made sense to me as far as the presentation of the characters in the novel are concerned, but at the same time, it'd be nice to see more retellings actually portray Clytemnestra as so far gone by the time Agamemnon returns that she ends up killing an innocent in cold blood rather than just being a mournful mother out for revenge. Seriously, it's possible to do both.

And as for Elektra herself, the fact that it is very heavily implied she has the complex that's been named after her is just... no. And if that's the case, here's hoping Saint never does an Oedipus retelling. I can handle it with the gods because they're gods, but not when its mortals.

Also, the fact that Theseus isn't even mentioned once in Elektra despite the fact that he (and Pirithous) tried to kidnap Helen when she was twelve always felt like a missed opportunity to me, especially considering the book was published after Ariadne, where Theseus is of course a major character and him and Pirithous trying to kidnap Persephone is actually mentioned. It wouldn't have added anything to the story, but I still think addressing that little connection would've been neat.

And yet despite all of this, I still loved it, as well as Ariadne, flaws and all. But here's hoping Atalanta will be even better!

[kyndaris]

The Treasure of King Priam

The tale of Troy is well-known among many. For some, the tale of the Trojan Horse was simply the start of Odysseus’s journey back home. For others, it was the tragic end of Achilles after his friend, Patroclus was killed by Hector, which led him to seek revenge before losing his life to Paris (which helped spawn the best selling novel of The Song of Achilles. At least, I think that’s what it’s about. I have yet to read Madeleine Miller’s book). 

According to the Romans, of course, the war with Troy also led to the founding of their city. As to whether there is any truth to that, who’s to say. But a displaced group of people finding a home across continents does sound plausible.

But the tale of Troy is not simply a fight between two warring human factions. It was also a battle between the Greek Gods. In fact, the entire story of woe began with Eris, Goddess of Strife and Discord, and her being slighted by the other Gods. In turn, she created the Golden Apple on which was was inscribed: For the Fairest.’ This, in turned, sparked competition between the three main Goddesses: Hera, Athena and Aphrodite.

Not wanting to suffer the anger that would come as a result of choosing who the apple would go to, Zeus nominated Paris, prince of Troy, to choose in his stead. And, as the story goes, he chose Aphrodite. And thus, he was rewarded the love of the most beautiful woman in the world: Helen of Sparta. 

The problem, of course, was that she was already married to King Menelaus.

And so, from one simple choice, war sprung forth for ten long years. After all, Helen’s face was the one that led the launch of a thousand ships to bring her back home. The war the raged was one where heroes rose and fell on the battlefield until, at least, Odysseus came up with the most clever of ploys: hiding Greek troops in a wooden horse that would be presented to the Trojans as a symbol of the Greeks’ surrender. Feigning retreat, they would return in the dead of the night to an open gate and storm the city.

Ever since playing Age of Mythology and becoming obsessed with such stories, the tale of Troy was one of the very first to capture my imagination at a very young age. But I was the first such individual. In the 1800s, an archaeologist by the name of Heinrich Schliemann was also intent on uncovering the lost city.  Though a dedicated scholar, he was also something of a treasure seeker and smuggled away many precious valuables out of Turkey for his personal gain. In his excavations, he also damaged quite a bit of the city and also incorrectly pronounced that Troia II as the one from the Iliad, though later scholars would grant the honour to Troia VI based on the defensive structures an imposing citadel.

While not as impressive as the remains at Ephesus, I still enjoyed my time exploring the ruins of Troy, or Troia as it was written, despite the cutting wind. There was even a statue of a wooden horse (not the original) created by the Turkish artisan: Izzet Senemoglu.

Another interesting fact about Troy/Trioa/ Hisarlik is that it isn’t very far from the Dardanelles Strait. Now, a student of modern history, and in particular, the world Wars, will know that this is where the famous battle of Gallipoli was held. And it was here that the allied forces launched the attack against the Turks in order to take the waterway linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

After we finished looking around Troy, we drove to a restaurant in Gelibolu (Gallipoli) for lunch before taking the scenic route along the Sea of Marmara back to Istanbul for our second last day in Turkey.

Tomorrow promises to be an interesting day where we will visit a mosque and maybe do some shopping before heading to the airport for the long flight back to Sydney.

My time overseas has felt both long and short in equal measure but all such things must come to an end. I, certainly, am eager to go back home and bask in the familiar, even if the idea of returning to work and the stresses it promises doesn’t seem very appealing. 

Still, I’ll be starting in a new position (which at time of writing this post, has been about a week and it’s going okay!). And there’s also the Toymaker story that I’ve been writing which needs to get finished before I can editing! Then onto the next the next story project that I’ve been meaning to write for a while now!

Oh, and games. Can’t forget those video games. During my time overseas, I was playing through quite a bit of Theatrhythm: Final Bar Line and there’s an impressions blog just waiting to be written up and uploaded!

[fragiledewdrop]

You know what? You are right, up to a point.

These are all things I have been thinking about for years, and yes, we do tend to romanticize a lot of historical figures a little too much sometimes. But I think as human beings we build myths, and part of the foundation of myth is turning people and things into symbols and archetypes.

Why DO people care about royals so much, for example?

Because

a) ever since the middle ages, aristocracy has become short-hand for a certain type of courtly love, a certain imagery, a certain moral code. Kings and knights stand for oyalty, stand for devotion, stand for honour (or the subversion of those themes, like Galavant);

b) when people stand for entire countries, personal problems and decisions are amplified, dramatized to the maximum. You want to talk about betrayal? Here it leads to a war or an execution. About loving someone against the rules? You stand to loose a kingdom if you do it.

I enjoy the Arthurian cycle, and yet I think monarchy is a blight upon the earth. I like Hamlet and Macbeth, even though in real life I'd join the mob that kills them. I routinely listen to an album about Anne Boleyn, but the way she helped plunge her country into war doesn't sit right with me at all. I abhor the crusades with all of my being, I have argued with several people about them until we almost came to literal blows l, and yet I love Nicolò in "The Old Guard" . I will mantain that the Iliad is one of the best things ever written. I cry when I read it. Does it mean I think that slavery and body desacration are cool?

There is a difference between what an historical character actually did and were, and what they represent in a story.

Pirates are also an archetype, a narrative short-hand. They represnt freedom, and they represent outcasts that go against the status quo. "Black Sails" is a perfect example of this,and it does deal with racism and imperialism and misoginia and homophobia like few other shows do- yet the characters, which the audience comes to love, are pirates. Their namesakes have sometimes done terrible things, but there's the rub: this is not an historical series, Nor a documentary. In that case, I would take issue with a glorification of some of these man; in Black Sail's case, they stop being real people and become narrative foils for all outcasts. They become tragic and epic heroes.

I mean, take Juslius Caesar as a similar example. He was a dictator, a megalomaniac, a ruthless, cruel conqueror who wrote his own propaganda. Should we stop reading Shakespeare 's "Julius Caesar"? "Anthony and Cleopatra"?

The case of "Our Flag Means Death" is a little different, because it leans heavily into commedy and into the "oh they are just poor little meow meows" of it all, and I have to admit that although I enjoyed immensly I personally do have issues with the way they handled historical facts. I have to aknowledge, however, that they were very very clearly going for a "pirates as outcasts"/"piracy as queerness" symbolism that is a direct consequence of the way pirates have been conceptualized by the popular conscience for centuries.

So yeah, people do in fact remove concepts from their historical context and make them into symbols. They have ever since the beginning of time. We have made some people into gods, others into heroes, others into villains. We can love what they stand for in the collective immagination of our cultures, and then turn around and criticize the historical reality of them. It's possible, and it's not a contraddiction, nor is it strange or a new phenomenon.

It seems that we do not do it (much) with RECENT historical figures and movements, but that's what the filter of time does: it removes context, and leaves the outline. It is the work of the historians, and of us who live in history, to figure out what that context was and discuss it. It is the work of the artist and the reader/viewer to figure out what the outline can stand for in the metaphorical story of humankind. There is a time and place for both.

Those are my two cents anyway.

also like pirates in general and piracy as a practice throughout all of history are inextricably intertwined with human trafficking, especially slavery, and if youre not willing to have a discussion or even acknowledge that in your story.... dont write about pirates?

[catilinas]

I'm currently reading lattimore's iliad, and I'm planning to read an oresteia translated by Anne Carson. What are some other works you'd recommend/love? And the translation you like. I want to read up on the classics as I didn't really go to school past 14, and I love how passionate you are about them, so I thought I'd ask, thanks either way!

hi! sorry for taking one million years to reply to this :/ every time i try to make a Brief list of my fave texts i explode. also please bear in mind that this is a list of Texts I Personally Really Like and not a list of Texts That Are The Hashtag Classical Canon.

if you enjoy(ed. it's been a while) the iliad and An Oresteia then probably try the odyssey? i like emily wilson's translation and also ive said this before but her introduction is soooooo good. she has a translation of the iliad coming out next year and i'm probably more excited to read her introduction to it than like. the actual translation

also in the genre of epic (the best genre) i actually prefer latin epic so. definitely the aeneid (post on different translations here!) which is also very uhhh foundational for so so much of subsequent latin literature. including my other favourite epic poem, lucan's pharsalia (post on translations again!) which is a historical epic about the civil war between caesar and pompey.

this is where the list gets very much into things i personally like. the pharsalia is so cool to me because it's not a history/historiography but it Does do weird things To history and gets away with them because of its genre. veryyy similarly, aeschylus' persians is a tragedy (the only surviving tragedy based on historical events!) about the persian response to defeat at the battle of salamis. i don't have a preferred translation for this one just read whatever! but definitely read some sort of introduction or the wikipedia page because it's weird for a Lot of reasons. also necromancy happens. and there's boats. what more can anyone want!

i've also been really into livy's ab urbe condita atm. it's a history of rome but the first 5 books especially are very. well i just don't think that actually happened. BUT the early roman like. political myth making is cool actually! (if only because if you read it then when lucan is like oh and the ghost of curius dentatus was there you can be like oh i know who that guy is! a Lot of latin lit involves invoking historical exempla and livy is a major source for a Lot of those.) i actually care very little about greek myth (and the take that the romans just 'stole' greek religion. like what) because i think the romans' mythologisation of e.g. lucius junius brutus is way more fun. but ALSO livy was writing a history starting from the Foundation of rome at a time when augustus was 'ReFounding' rome so you're always a bit like. hmmmmmm. or like you read about coriolanus in livy and you're like oh wow foreshadowing of the political situation that would later lead to the civil wars! but then you remember that livy was writing it After the civil wars and then you fall into the livian timeloop and then you explode.

ok now ignore livy because my favourite historian is actually sallust. would recommend william batstone's translation of (and introduction to) the bellum catilinae. Catilina Is There. sallust's catiline is soooooo sexy like his countenance was a civil war itself! enough eloquence but not enough wisdom! animus audax subdolus varius! he's haunted by sulla's ghost! he's didn't cause the fall of the republic so much as he was a symptom of it! he's an antihero! he's cicero's mimetic double! he probably doesn't drink blood! he would have died a beautiful death IF it had been on behalf of his country (except that quote is actually from florus maybe via livy lol)! He Did Nothing Wrong. you want to read the bellum catilinae soooooo bad. also it is v fun to read alongside with cicero's catilinarian orations (the invective speeches against catilina). i think i read the oxford world's classics translation of those but i Cannot remember who it is by.

also you know what i really like what i've read of florus' epitome of roman history which is maybe kind of a summary of livy but also florus is totally doing his own thing (he is sooo influenced by lucan! nice!) highly recommend the (relatively brief) section on the first punic war. it does cool things with boats.

i also love plutarch's life of cato the younger!!! one of my favourite ancient texts of all time ever. like a) it's plutarch and he is fun. would recommend the life of alexander the great as well tbh. and b) it's cato the younger and he is so so so fucked up.

finallyyyyyy bcs this is getting long. the poetry of catullus (and a post on translations is here!) like It's Catullus. the original poor little meow meow. what more can i say

[whatshouldwecallhomer]

@ everyone in the last post pointing out that Odysseus slept with other women while he was trying to get back to Ithaca like it's brand new information: first off, we know, thank you, we've read the damn book.

Secondly, have you read the book? In neither case is Odysseus' tenure with Circe and Calypso portrayed as fully voluntary - he's an outright captive of Calypso and spends all his free time crying and staring at the sea. Things didn't get off to a great start with Circe either. I feel like the modern interpretation of the encounters with the goddesses in the Odyssey make it out as though Odysseus was just screwing around for the ten years between the end of the Trojan War and his homecoming, but that is reading against the text pretty significantly. I'm not saying there's 0 textual support for that reading but there's much much more in the opposite direction. The Odyssey is a nostos story - it derives its narrative tension from Odysseus' struggle to get home, so the story doesn't happen without the challenges he faces along the way.

Third - when you reduce the episodes with Calypso and Circe to "Odysseus is a bad husband because he cheated on Penelope", you're missing a really interesting parallel to the Iliad, where the events of the story are precipitated by a fight over a captive woman. We don't actually get very much of Briseis' perspective, despite the fact that the story couldn't start without her. She has very few lines of dialogue. But when we get to the Odyssey, now the story starts with the main character who is essentially powerless in the role of a slave concubine. Do the gender ramifications there not make your head spin? In the Iliad, a straightforward poem about straight shooting heroes, which romanticizes war as much as it critiques it, the experiences of the war captives is all but absent. In the Odyssey, we see the aftermath of war and its impacts up close and personal, although the narrative comes at it at an angle (incidentally, the way Odysseus himself comes at problems). If you don't want to examine that because you think Odysseus was a bad guy for cheating on Penelope... okay? That's your prerogative I guess. You're missing out some of the best stuff in the poems though!

(Incidentally I'm not saying Odysseus is a *good* guy, either - he's a man of many ways, as Emily Wilson put it, he's "a complicated man" - but that's what makes him so interesting! If he were 100% wholesome and Unproblematic, we wouldn't be reading this shit 2800 years later! Trust me! There are some extremely boring ancient works I've read where everybody does exactly what they were supposed to do! I'd rather read the Odyssey!)

Fourth, and I don't exactly know how to frame this, even if you take Odysseus' captivity with Circe and/or Calypso as infidelity... that doesn't actually mean that he and Penelope don't still have this crazy powerful bond! He deploys all his cleverness to escape from Calypso (even though she offers him immortality!) and then from Circe (in part) because they can't offer him the like-mindedness he has with Penelope! He leaves because he wants to go back to Ithaca, his kingdom, and his family! And it's not some kind of secret affair! Odysseus TELLS Penelope about both of them the same day she finally recognizes him and they reunite! If it is infidelity, it doesn't compromise the foundation of their relationship.

Sorry for the long post y'all but I could not let this go

[katerinaaqu]

Thanks for the mention @prompted-wordsmith

Yes I have mentioned many times in the past how Homer clearly is stating Odysseus was unwilling. In fact I answered an ask about it very recently;

In it I include answers to OP questions as to what the "no longer liked the nynph" line and the clear lines where it is stated he had no choice. Both with her and circe by the way.

In more than one occasion he calls her "dreadful goddess". A goddess that brings fear. Homer mentions Circe being afraid because she was never resisted against before. She is not afraid for her life for she is immortal. My estimation goes that she is initially afraid of Odysseus because she assumes he either is a God or protected by Gods much higher than her thus him being unaffected of her spell. Odysseus himself was so afraid of her to the point that he sleeps with his comrades after their return from the underworld and he is brought inside by Circe. In more cases than one he expresses his horror for them but as @prompted-wordsmith said he cannot speak bad of gods the same much that he hasn't spoken badly for other kings as well not even for Neoptolemus whom we know killed at least Priam upon an altar.

Emily Wilson is not just mistranslating many passages (I discover so many errors in passages that is even funny at points because what she translates makes no sense apart from fitting her narrative or at best her metric system). She also supports Telegony to my knowledge which has way too many contradictions with the Odyssey including his death prophesied by Tiresias. She also brings as a reason why Odyssey has no definitive ending and that there is more not because the prophecy of Tiresias that is yet to be fulfilled but because "Odysseus wants to flee his home and be absent again" which makes no sense in narrative. Odysseus is known for violence more times than one can count, yes, but he never seeks it and he tries to avoid it. Willson is incredibly biased in the feministic movement from what I see and more often whatnot she claims stuff that are not just blunt but often seem deliberate. Is she a good scientist? Absolutely she has studied a long time. However she has tried many times to use her work to push her narrative. She even seems to be supporting modern retellings like Miller for their feministic takes even if even non experts know how inaccurate they are (that is what I heard by the way do not take this as 100% fact for I am not 100% sure on it) but she has the tendency to translate the men in her story as evil as possible or using deliberately words that lead to that (for instance she names Agamemnon "cannibal" among others where there is no such word in the Iliad)

I find it interesting that you keep mention misogyny given how incredibly woman-centric the Odyssey is. Helen is a queen who speaks her mind and gives solutions, Penelope is regent who rules in place of her husband till Telemachus is of age. Circe is a goddess who lives in her own accord and is eventually redeemed and given a complicated personality, Arete is the powerful figure that Odysseus has to plead to when he reaches Scheria, Nausicaa helps a stranger in her own accord. Euryclea is also a slave and yet she enjoys a lot of privilege in her household etc. Half of Odyssey revolves around women and women in various cases of power and they are shown incredibly positively. The only woman that is badmouthed in the Odyssey is Clytemnestra by Agamemnon and let's face it Agamemnon was her victim of course he would speak bad of her. Agamemnon in fact praises Penelope so his problem is not against women either but against the specific woman who he believes wronged him. And of course Athena being a central figure. Are women equal in Homer's time? Absolutely not. We have binary roles and eveey part is doing its own thing. But "misogyny" implies that Homer deliberately depicts women negatively because he hates them. That doesn't happen in the Odyssey. In fact the focus on women is so great that led people like Butler speak on a female writer in the Odyssey.

The answer as to why didn't Poseidon attack Calypso's isle is very simple OP. Poseidon never wished to attack Odysseus to kill him. He wanted to detain him. Calypso was doing that job for him and he didn't need to do anything. Once Odysseus was released his anger was released anew and he sank his raft. Odysseus swam to Scheria. After that the prophecy was completed. Poseidon knew that Odysseus would return home as per the second part of the prophecy.

I also see how you say that Penelope was a prize for Odysseus where it simply wasn't the case or I believe you forget or never seen Pausanias where he mentions that Odysseus gave Penelope a choice and Penelope chooses him as her husband. If she wanted she could have stayed with her father. She was never a prize. In fact many sources claim that Odysseus invented the Oath so that he could get a chance to fight for her hand. He has to face her father in a race as well. But even if we take it as correct and assume that Penelope was "his prize" that still doesn't necessarily imply that he had a willing affair in Homer. In fact we see many different characters that end up with the woman they considered a Prize (ironically Hades included) such as Ajax the Greater who keeps his war prize close like a wife and we see that to Sophocles's play. Other characters like Euryclea were also mentioned in the Odyssey and how Laertes was fond of her but he never took her to his bed because of his wife Anticlea. Euryclea was also a prize technically and she was treated with respect. Also in one way then Helen should be considered a "prize" to Menelaus as well and yet Menelaus started a war for her (now there are of course some sources that mention Menelaus having slaves to his bed but that is another story). Even if one considered Penelope "his prize" still is not necessarily an indicator that Odysseus cheated on her willingly and Homer seems to make it clear in my opinion.

The case of Ismarus is a case where Homer shows the dark side of war and warfare after 10 years. Also Odysseus and his men were pulled away by a storm. Piracy was a very common way for people to get provisions. But I don't know why you bring Ismarus to strengthen your opinion that Odysseus cheats on his wife. Like "he enslaved all the women of Ismarus and therefore all women are products to him"? That is not how it works. In fact Odysseus aspired enough loyalty so that only 12 out of his 50 slave girls betrayed him. The case of Ismarus is what war and famine did to the men. And of course the enslavement of women was a common trope for wars (I touch the subject to my own fanfiction and retelling of Ismarus) which was so that Homer shows a spherical view of the character including the darker side of both him and his men during the war.

I also see that you say "Penelope's name is missing from the story" as a proof but in reality the story was not about her exclusively unlike what modern retellings say. Odysseus knows he has to see his men in the here and now. He knows where Penelope is and his goal to go home. Homer uses the word νόστος which gives the name to words "nostalgia". It means the return home. Home is everything in it including family and loved ones. Odysseus in many occasions speaks on "his loved ones" that include Penelope. He doesn't need to mention her name every five lyrics. And he says his story because again Odyssey is a poem about return. It is not a love poem of a lost husband to go home. Like I said it is a NOSTOS a tale for return home and to your loved ones. Telling one's story is also part of the law of Xenia. As to why he doesn't resist Hermes is very easy again the point was the arduous trip not Odysseus screaming the name of Penelope every five minutes. What was more nothing Odysseus would say to Hermes would change a thing. He had no choice but to accept Circe's bed if he wanted to save his men. Homer adding extra 100 lyrics to show a moral dilemma wouldn't change a thing. What is more like I said before Odysseus is a man in a survival mode. He has a goal before him and that is to save his men. Not to cry his own miserable fate. Which is again why he shows no hesitation or at least he doesn't mention any. And again he has already explained himself that "there is nothing sweeter than one's home and loved ones". We already know his motivation by his actions. He doesn't need to have a mental breakdown every second page in the Odyssey. Odyssey is an epic poem not a lyric song or a tragedy.

In scheria he doesn't cry of nostalgia. He cries of guilt. If you read how Odysseus is described to cry like a widow over the husband etc. It is literally a passage that photographs the fall of Troy. Odysseus cries of guilt. And yes he doesn't want to go home only because of his wife. He wants to go home because it is his beloved land: the place he was born the place he lived. His Nostos again is to go back home and to everything in it.

You say that he "suddenly being helpless against goddesses" is out of character? Sorry OP but that is straight out wrong in my opinion. Both Calypso and Circe are goddesses. He cannot kill or face them. Would you then say that Helen who chooses her husband being helpless against Aphrodite is out of character? Also interesting how you mention Skylla Charybdis and Sirens which are the ultimate proof of how helpless Odysseus was. Every stop of his trip was a painful sacrifice, a loss for him and a reminiscent of his mortal nature. Would you call Heracles "out of character" because he couldn't resist the madness Hera invoked him just because he killed the snakes she sent? No, I believe. The same goes for Odysseus.

I am not gonna comment on the "mass rapist" characterizations you bring because i believe in my humble opinion they miss the point of mythology. Mythology unlike epic poetry or plays are massively allegorical. The "lack of consent" in the myths is a symbol that the humans cannot resist the will of the gods (also Hepheatus doesn't rape Athena. He attempts to though) but even if you intend to use the gods and such as an example then it actually shows even more how helpless Odysseus was against goddesses. And since you bring the subject of rape and want to take it to its literal form I shall respect it and say that gods and goddesses pictured as selfish to their erotic pursues is yet another reason to show how helpless Odysseus was against the goddesses.

As for why are not other sources reliable to interpret the Odyssey itself is the same reason as Ovid is not a source for the myth of Medusa; future writers interpreted it according to their own views and as you rightly said according to their biases from their time. There are various of versions of the myths as well and Homer himself seems to be winking at thwm

I also find it ironic that you say "modern adaptations" make Neoptolemus the killer of Astyanax. Most ancient sources including Little Iliad from the Epic Cycle mention Neoptolemus as the killer of Astyanax. The only source where Odysseus himself kills the child is Iliou Persis. Most of sources and art speak on Neoptolemus killing the baby and Eurypedes who was always writing Odysseus negatively, places Odysseus as the mastermind behind the killing

I admire your attempt to use many different sources but I think you used the wrong examples here or that you miss pieces of information. But even after what I told you you still wanna stick to your interpretation I absolutely respect it but bear in mind what is here. However in my humble Opinion what you listed would be great to interpret Odysseus from the other sources you mention which name the affair with Calypso as a willing one. Homer seems pretty clear with his mention of how both affairs are unwilling

Now if you want to interpret the passages differently is of course valid and a very good attempt to add all the different versions but I feel like the way the train of thought was it wasn't very right. But I could be wrong. Either way it is great that you tried to use the sources to support your opinion.

Odysseus and Calypso Were Lovers

As problematic as that sounds because WTF, hear me out because it's complicated and there's a lot to discuss. Trigger warning for sa. Also, not directly Epic: The Musical related; that's a whole other ballpark.

She trapped him on her island!

I'm not denying that nor am I denying how objectively messed up that is.

However, the captor and prisoner trope is one that does crop up in Greek mythology now and then.  The most famous example I can think of is Hades’ kidnapping of Persephone.  I have seen that situation blatantly called rape in the original story, and yet today, modern storytellers do like to revise that myth into a version that makes Demeter out to be an overbearing mother and Persephone's ‘kidnapping’ so to speak becomes an escape.  Personally, I think that is a very graceful way to make a barbaric story a bit more palatable to modern audiences.

So regarding Odysseus’ situation where falling in love with his captor is problematic…my thought process runs as, “Fucking Greek mythology and its weird idea of what constitutes as a love story.”

As a result, I have no serious thoughts on the morality of certain figures of Greek mythology because they frankly come from a time period where the people had a very different culture and set of moral values and ideas on what was acceptable. Therefore, it's futile to judge their stories by my own modern moral compass.

Where in The Odyssey does it say they were lovers?

The main line I can't ignore that strongly implies the nature of their relationship is Odysseus' farewell to Calypso:

“The sun went down and brought the darkness on. They  [Odysseus and Calypso] went inside the hollow cave and took the pleasure of their love, held close together.”  - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

Keep in mind, she’s already told him he’s free to go.  He’s free to build his raft, she’s giving him supplies, and yet he says goodbye this tenderly.  Note the absence of Calypso using magic to compel him. If you cherry-picked this line, you'd find a fond goodbye.

Odysseus’ Tears

A lot of people making the ‘Odysseus/Calypso was a non-consensual situation’ argument like to cite the line that Odysseus cried every day on Ogygia.  And yes, he did weep every day he was there.  But this is the full stanza.

“On the tenth black night, the gods carried me till I reached the island of Ogygia, home of the beautiful and mighty goddess Calypso.  Lovingly she cared for me, vowing to set me free from death and time forever.  But she never swayed my heart.  I stayed for seven years; she gave me clothes like those of gods, but they were always wet with tears.” - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

‘Beautiful and mighty….Lovingly she cared for me….she never swayed my heart.’  He speaks highly of her, not with hate or venom for her delaying him.

In my literature class where we read The Odyssey, the tears line was discussed and largely interpreted as Odysseus’ reaction to all the monsters he’d faced and losing all his crew and friends.  The PTSD of a war veteran.  From the cultural mindset of Ancient Greece, Odysseus was a king, and he failed his people when they all died under his command and he was unable to bring them home.  Similarly, the hero Theseus was once king of Athens.  He was usurped in absentia (Theseus being trapped in the Underworld at the time) and when he returned to his kingdom, he found another man on his throne, was forced to flee, and died a rather ignoble death when a supporter of his usurper shoved him off a cliff.  So Odysseus being a king who let an entire fleet die under his watch is certainly grounds for shame to the point of tears in the eyes of the Ancient Greeks.  And with an entire line-up of men attempting to court his wife and take his place, it drives home the idea that he was replaceable.

Also important to note:  He’s still miserable when he leaves Ogygia.  When he arrives at King Alcinous’ court, he is welcomed, provided food, shelter, and entertainment, but when the king checks in with his heartbroken guest, he pleads with him to tell him what’s wrong, which kickstarts the telling of Odysseus’ journey.

Odysseus was afraid of Calypso!

That said, it's also important to address this concept because this is Odysseus' reaction to the goddess telling him she is sending him on his way to Ithaka:

‘Goddess, your purpose cannot be as you say; you cannot intend to speed me home. You tell me to make myself a raft to cross the great gulf of ocean--a gulf so baffling and so perilous that not even rapid ships will traverse it, steady though they may be and favoured by a fair wind from Zeus. I will not set foot on such a raft unless I am sure of your good will--unless, goddess, you take on yourself to swear a solemn oath not to plot against me any new mischief to my ruin.’ The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Shewring.

His suspicion certainly suggests mistrust and fear that she intends to do him harm, and considering his track record of being hated by deities, that's understandable. This isn't exactly what you'd call a loving relationship. But this also brings up a weird contradiction in the poem. I would 100% say this was a completely non-consensual situation were it not for this line:

His eyes were always tearful; he wept sweet life away, in longing to go back home, since she [Calypso] no longer pleased him. - Wilson.

Not ‘she did not please him.’  She no longer pleased him.  That implies she 'pleased' him at one point and because of that, one could argue Calypso was a mistress and Odysseus eventually tired of her. (Probably long before seven years had passed.)

What Do The Translators Say?

I can't speak for all translators, but in the Emily Wilson translation, she includes a lengthy introduction describing Odysseus' world, the culture of Ancient Greece, the reasoning behind specific English wordage in the translation, etc. In the introduction, she refers to Calypso and Circe as Odysseus' affairs. Not his abusers. He also has a brief flirtation with Princess Nausicaa, the daughter of his final host, King Alcinous. Wilson then goes on to describe how these affairs are not a character failing of Odysseus in comparison to the treatment of Penelope where she is expected to be faithful and how that is indicative of a good woman.

Taking a step back from Greek mythology, consider the actions of King Henry VIII of England. Most historians agree that, for the first few years, the king's relationship with his first wife Katherine of Aragon was unusually good for the times. And yet he was an unfaithful husband, had at least one acknowledged bastard and historians speculate there were more. But while 'indiscretions' such as this were frowned upon in the Tudor Period, Henry VIII did not receive near as much criticism as Queen Katherine would have if she'd had an illegitimate child. If Katherine was 'indiscreet,' that was considered treason because she compromised the legitimacy of the succession and that was cause for a beheading.

Because misogyny. Again, different time, different moral values.

Misogyny in The Odyssey

Whatever one's thoughts on Calypso are, it is incredibly misogynistic of Homer to solely blame her for keeping Odysseus trapped while he conveniently ignores the plot hole that her island is completely surrounded by ocean and we all know that Poseidon was lurking out there just waiting for his shot at vengeance.  Odysseus is barely two stanzas off Calypso’s island before Poseidon goes after him.  It’s almost hilarious how quickly it happens.  The poem says Poseidon was returning from Ethiopia, not that he was there for the whole seven years, and Hermes clearly did not pass along the memo that Odysseus was free to return to Ithaka.  Although I like to imagine it was Zeus who forgot about Poseidon’s grudge against Odysseus, and Hermes, being the mischievous scamp that he is, did not remind him.

If one line in the text says Odysseus/Calypso was consensual while another says otherwise, which is it?

Honestly, I don't think there's a conclusive answer with just The Odyssey. I'm a hobbyist, not an expert, so I do refer to the judgment of translators like Wilson to make that call. If she and other translators say Calypso and Circe were affair partners and I can see the lines in the text to support that, I'll believe it and chalk up the rest as Greek mythology being problematic.

That said, we can also look at the opinions of other Greek poets in their further writings of the mythology:

“And the bright goddess Calypso was joined to Odysseus in sweet love, and bare him Nausithous and Nausinous.” - The Theogony; Of Goddesses and Men, Hesiod, translated by Evelyn-White.

“… after brief pleasure in wedlock with the daughter of Atlas [Calypso], he [Odysseus] dares to set foot in his offhand vessel that never knew a dockyard and to steer, poor wretch…” - Alexandra, Lycophron, translated by Mair.

Both seem to be of the opinion Calypso was Odysseus' lover.

Interestingly, Hesiod also writes in The Catalogues of Women Fragment:

“…of patient-souled Odysseus whom in aftertime Calypso the queenly nymph detained for Poseidon.” - The Catalogues of Women Fragment, Hesiod, translated by Evelyn-White.

The wording ‘detained for Poseidon’ implies Calypso was acting at Poseidon’s command or she was doing the sea god a favor or she possibly didn't have any free will herself whether or not Odysseus stayed on Ogygia. Either way, it does neatly account for Homer's aforementioned misogyny/plot hole.

But if Hesiod and Lycophron's works are not part of The Odyssey, why should we take them seriously?

You don't have to consider them canon. Just because I prefer to consider all mythology canon doesn't mean anyone else does. Just as easily, I could ask why we should take Homer's work seriously even though historians can't even agree whether or not he was a real person.

The truth is, Ancient Greece as we think of it lasted a thousand years.  Their culture/values changed several times and so did their stories to reflect those changes, and those stories continue to evolve to the modern day. Odysseus himself goes through a few different descriptions over the centuries, being described as scheming and even cruel in other works. So I consider modern works like Percy Jackson, Epic: The Musical, Son of Zeus, and so on to be just more cogs in the evolving narrative. Much like how retellings of Hades and Persephone are shifting to circumstances easier to accept by audiences today.

But why would Odysseus be unfaithful to his loving wife?

The loving wife he claimed as payment for helping out King Tyndareus? Yeah...Odysseus and Penelope's relationship may not quite be the undoubted loving one modern retellings make it out to be nor is Odysseus a saint in The Odyssey.

“A blast of wind pushed me [Odysseus] off course towards the Cicones in Ismarus.  I sacked the town and killed the men.  We took their wives and shared their riches equally amongst us.”  - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

Raiding a town unprovoked, killing the men, kidnapping the women, stealing their treasure is not indicative to what we in the modern day consider heroic or good protagonist behavior. Also, at the end of the Trojan War, Queen Hekuba was made a slave and given to Odysseus.

As for the chapter with Circe, Penelope's name isn't even mentioned. Moreover, the wording of the Wilson translation gives the troubling connotation that Circe may have been the one who was assaulted.

Hermes’ instructions to Odysseus are as follows:

"...draw your sharpened sword and rush at her as if you mean to kill her. She will be frightened of you, and will tell you to sleep with her." - Wilson

She'll be frightened of him? Hermes is encouraging Odysseus to render Circe powerless by eating the Moly plant so she can't turn him into a pig, then threaten her with a sword, which does frighten her, and then sleep with her. That line of events is disturbing. Circe is the one who offers to take Odysseus to bed, sure, but there’s a strange man in her house, she’s allegedly afraid according to Hermes, and she’s unable to resort to her usual defense and turn him into a pig as she did with the others.  Under those circumstances, sleeping with an invader is a survival tactic.

However...after Odysseus makes Circe promise to turn his men back, she bathes him and gives him food like a proper Ancient Greek host. Yet before Odysseus accepts the meal, he puts his men first, saying he can't bear to eat until he knows they're well. So Circe turns them back, then Odysseus returns to where the rest of the crew are waiting on the shore. They're all convinced their comrades are dead until Odysseus tells them what transpired and they rejoice. All except suspicious Eurylochus who calls them fools for trusting Odysseus' word based on his previous bad decisions. Odysseus thinks about cutting his head off for speaking that way. Damn, that went from zero to a hundred fast.

But Penelope's name is missing from the story.

Odysseus only thinks of leaving Circe's island when his men speak of returning to their homeland, after which he goes to Circe about the matter, and she instructs him to go to the Underworld.

"That broke my heart, and sitting on the bed I wept, and lost all will to live and see the shining sun." - Wilson

Odysseus and his men all lament the idea of sailing into the land of the dead. So his tears and despair did not start with Calypso. Also, they return to Circe's island after the journey so she can help them make sense of Tiresias' instructions.

But setting all that aside, even when Hermes instructed him on what to do, Odysseus didn't make some grand speech on how he can’t betray his wife.  He doesn’t specifically say he’s crying for Penelope on Calypso’s island.  He doesn’t mention Penelope at all, and when King Alcinous asks him about his sorrow, Odysseus tells his whole story, barely bringing up his wife or his love for her.

So is Odysseus a good guy?

In all, Odysseus is a clever character who is known for using his wits to get out of any situation.  Polyphemus, the Sirens, Scylla, he had a plan.  The idea that he’s suddenly helpless against Calypso and Circe is out of character.  They may be goddesses, but they’re not exactly the heavy hitters of the pantheon, which is why Poseidon could absolutely order a minor sea nymph to stop what she’s doing and hold a man prisoner for him. And while Odysseus spends the entire story being thwarted by the gods, one could say he also thwarts the gods right back by refusing to give up.

Like most Greek heroes, I would say Odysseus is not what we today would call a hero. But when he shares a roster with characters like this:

Zeus:  Serial rapist

Poseidon:  Serial rapist

Hades:  Kidnapped Persephone (setting aside modern interpretations she went with him willingly)

Herakles:  Raped a princess named Auge  (Yes, really.)

Theseus:  Kidnapped Helen of Sparta when she was a child because he wanted to marry a daughter of Zeus, aided and abetted his cousin in an attempt to kidnap Persephone, abandoned Ariadne, etc.

Jason the Argonaut:  Tried to abandon his wife. (I say ‘try’ because he didn’t get the chance. His wife Medea killed the other woman first.)

Hephaistos:  Raped Athena after she refused him.

Achilles:  Murdered a child to prevent a prophecy from coming true.

...Odysseus's atrocities are weirdly tame by comparison. Even the narrative where he kills the infant Prince Astyanax, modern retellings usually give that role to the lesser known Neoptolemus. More on that here.

In the end, it's not necessarily thematically important whether or not Odysseus is good or bad. The core of his character revolves around his cleverness and ability to build and strategize and make his own way in the world he lives in. Rounding this out is Emily Wilson's commentary on the symbolism behind the tree bed,

"In leaving Calypso, Odysseus chooses something that he built with his own mind and hands, rather than something given to him. Whereas Calypso longs to hide, clothe, feed, and possess him, Athena enables Odysseus to construct his own schemes out of the materials she provides." - The Odyssey, Homer, trans. by Emily Wilson, Introduction Pg 64.

So were Odysseus and Calypso lovers?

Based on the above, my opinion is 'Yes they were, but with the caveat they were problematic af.' Because problematic themes like that are pretty par for the course in Greek mythology.

[alpaca-writes]

Mystics, Chapter 36

84,000 words later....

I can’t thank everyone enough who sent in asks, commented, liked, and reblogged Mystics as it was being created. It meant the world to me and gave me so much inspiration to continue! Special thanks to Myst, of course. Continue to send in asks for the OCs as much as you want. A part 2 is in the works.

Enjoy Mystics’ final chapter. I hope its been as much fun to read as it was for me to write! <3

Xx -Alpaca

Taglist: @myst-in-the-mirror & @livingforthewhump

CW: captivity, blood mention, drug mention, cheesy dancing at the end.

------------------------------

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX: THREE LITTLE BIRDS

Remember: Matter. How tiny your share of it. Time. How brief and fleeting your allotment of it. Fate. How small a role you play in it.

                              - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.

         Shining white, pristine walls lined the hall. It didn’t take long for Hekate to catch up. Paimon didn’t know why he expected anything less. Now his arms were held behind his back by a cosmic force, unknown even to him, and the inorganic urge to continue walking by her side pushed him forward. He spoke little, and listened even less to what the old hag was saying.

         “I cannot promise you will be happy here, but at least you will not be alone in your imprisonment,” Hekate said.

         They turned around a corner through the maze of halls and landed upon a wide set of sliding doors. The whole realm was practically space-age. Hekate was clever to disguise the entryway to her realm as his own Labyrinth.

         He should never have jumped through. That was a rookie mistake. The moment Apollo was released, he should have known something was amiss. Lyrem certainly didn’t have the talents to perform such a feat.

         “This is best for you, Pan,” Hekate continued. “I know that with a little more helpful guidance, you can return to your true nature, and your true glory.”

         “Paimon.”

         Hekate paused. “No, no, no, my dear. You are Pan. You always have been Pan. You will always be Pan.”

         The sliding doors opened. Inside this room there was yet another hallway, but instead of previous areas, this one was lined with clear walls. Perfect for seeing through into the cells that would hold a chosen prisoner.

         Many of them were empty. Hekate continued toward the end, until Paimon reached the last of the cells. There was a simple bed and some books on a nightstand that had been left untouched. The room was covered in a white rubber. The bed, made of wood.

         “I am not going in there,” Paimon said, his brows furrowed.

         Hekate agreed with a nod of her head.

         “You are correct. You are going into this one.”

         The cell door across from the one that had taken Paimon’s attention opened with a whirring noise. Unable to stop himself, Paimon stepped through the threshold. The door whirred shut behind him and he was released, finally, from whatever command Hekate had over him.

         “This is an abuse of power!”

         “An abuse of power is what you had for many, many years on Earth my darling dear. And quite frankly, I have had enough of your games,” Hekate observed calmly. “You will have much in common with your cellmate. Let me put it simply, Pan. The sooner you behave, the sooner you will be released.”

         Pan- no! Paimon looked around his new home as new objects formed around him out of nothingness. A simple bed, nightstand, all as white as snow on Christmas day and one thing in the corner that stood out among everything else because of its red mahogany sheen- a Pan flute.

         “If you wish to have anything more, then you will need to earn it,” Hekate stated.

         Darkly, Paimon turned around, meeting his great aunt’s eyes.

         “I will destroy you for this. I will ruin you. I will make sure no one ever knows of you. I will turn you into a forgotten relic! Just as you deserve to be!”

         Hekate raised a brow to show how meaningless Paimon’s threats truly were to her.

         “I would think it something to be admired, if you could do any one of those things, darling dear. Certainly, if even your own father could not do those things, then it would be worth true congratulation.”

         Paimon charged the clear wall and then stole a glance to the cell across from him, where someone had returned from using a restroom. The mysterious person sat on the edge of his bed. Someone vaguely familiar, with light eyes and a trimmed white beard, looking drastically different than he remembered. Paimon blinked.

         “Dad?”

 ---------------------------------

         “Have you ever heard the tale of Sisyphus?”

         “It may shock you to learn I haven’t ever quite finished the Iliad, but yes, I have.” Lyrem replied to Hades’ question. “So, you’ll have repeat a meaningless, trivial task for all eternity in my afterlife as a punishment for imprisoning you as per Pan’s command. How very original. Did you think of that all on your own, or did you need your brother’s help?”

         “My brother Zeus has not been heard from for a millennia. While he had given me some inspiration, I thought it better to put my own ironic flair into your suffering.”

         Persephone interrupted with a short squeak.

         “No, uncle, please don’t be so ruthless. He’s lost so much already!”

         Artemis had switched back into her cat-like form, comforting her brother Apollo in his lap and purring. She had let out a protest of her own in Lyrem’s favour as well.

         Apollo translated. “Arty agrees. We should be kind to him. Truly uncle, I have to imagine that Pan had quite the psychological hold on this man. Perhaps it would be wise to show him a tad bit of mercy?”

         Hades looked to the naïve children and back to the human-mortal-man with growing disinterest. Then a light crossed his face, as though an idea dawned on him. He allowed himself to smile, ever so gently.

         “Well, I can see that you have created quite the positive rapport with my nieces and nephew already. I don’t know why I am so surprised.”

         Lyrem shot a quick wink to Persephone as a thank you.

         “Which is why, I shall grant you eternal life.” Hades continued.

         Lyrem looked back to him, and stammered.

         “What- what did… Did you just say what I think you said?"

         Hades nodded. Everyone looked joyful. Excited even. Lyrem could last forever- very nearly be one of them. Yes, everyone thought this to be a grand idea, except for obviously, Lyrem.

         “When you die, I will refuse to take your soul. Every time without fail. You will forever grow old, then older… then older. And you will never die.”

         “No.”

         “Welcome to a lifetime of arthritis and aching legs and never-ending cataract surgery,” Hades said. “Oh, yes, that is right, Thomas. I know how old you are, and how much older you will get before your cells no longer hold you together. Consider this a gift.”

         “No, please, God Hades. I need to find Ros-”

         “Goodbye ‘Lyrem’. Have yourself a wonderful life.”

         He was gone. All the mortals had left the Underworld, finally. Now, Hades could return to restoring his realm to its proper state.

         Persephone perked up, realizing she was free to create and grow everything back to the way it was in the Underworld.

         “My pond!” She cried, running out the dining room doors towards the Depths of Despair. “I swear, if Pan killed my koi, I am going to be furious!”

-----------------------------

         “Why the hell are there empty bins in the hall?! Where are all my photos?! What on earth happened to my stereo?!”

         Arch groaned, sitting up from the floor of the living room. Their mother was already back to her old self, standing and shouting and asking questions that no one would care to answer for her.

         “I don’t know, and I don’t care,” Arthur answered. He stood to his feet and limped slowly down the hall. “I’m pouring myself a bath.”

         Charlotte rushed past her brother and her child, throwing herself through the house in a frenzy. Arch stood with their back against the wall, arms crossed. It wasn’t anything defiant. They just wanted to be held.

         “Where are all my clothes?!”

         DING DONG

         “Arch, I swear to God, you will tell me what happened while I was away, and where all my f-” ding dong “stuff is!”

         Arch removed their bloody apron from their body, moved a short few steps to the kitchen sink and rinsed their hands that were still stained red.

         DING DING DING DING DING DONG!

         Arch rubbed their temple with their hands and out of instinct, walked to the front door.

         It was Benji. Through the screen door, Arch saw him standing on the sidewalk in front of their house. He had just pressed play on his Bluetooth speaker sitting in the grass. It started playing a bizarre melody.

         “Hey! You answered! I was hoping you would! You have no idea how many texts I’ve sent!”

         Arch stepped out onto the top of the stairs, still puzzled to know what was happening. The summer heat still lingered in the air.

         “Look, I don’t know what I did to deserve the cold-shoulder, but I thought you deserved a visit at least on your birthday, okay? So, sue me.”

         “My birthday?” Arch said. “It’s… It’s August? Thirteenth?”

‘Me, my, oh, what a life So lean on my people, gon' be stepping in time��

         “Yeah, dude! Did you seriously forget?!” Benji exclaimed, bobbing his head from side to side.

‘So, thank you!

For coming to my birthday party!

I am one minute old today

And everything is going great-’

Arch sputtered a reflexive, well-needed laugh. Benji had started dancing like an absolute fool on their front lawn. He pulled out a birthday candle from the recesses of his pocket and held it forward.

“Look, I’ve been wanting you to show me that magic trick again, I can’t stop thinking about it.”

Arch placed their hands in their pockets, trying to work past their tears of both exhaustion and entertainment. They shook their head. They really didn’t want to know if they could still perform that trick.

“I… forgot how.”

Benji stared back up, crestfallen. He checked his phone and lowered the volume on his music player.

“Fine, okay. Whatever. You don’t want me around. That’s cool. I get it. I’m a big shot. Not really your type to hang with-”

“What?”

Benji swallowed back his pain, and shrugged.

“It’s cool Arch. School’s over and we gotta go our separate ways. I understand.”

He started backing away. Arch leapt forward, and caught him by the elbow before he turned away completely.

“I want you to stay!” Arch admitted. “It’s totally cool if you want to hang out. Please stay... I… Honestly, I have been so lonely...”

How did the air get so thick?

“And I have missed you… so much.”

Benji’s sad, soulful eyes skeptically narrowed, and then widened with a realization.

“Dude… Have you been struggling? This whole time…? All summer? You gotta come to me with your shit! Don’t bottle it up, bud.” Benji wrapped them in a tight hug and rocked them to and fro. “Oh, I had no idea... You’re my main enby, Arch… I’ll be your Rick Astley forever… The Bernie to your Elton… Okay? Always. No doubt. No doubt.”

Arch took a moment to sob grossly into his shoulder. They pulled away before it got too squishy for their liking. If allowed, they knew Benji would let them cry on him until the end of time.

Arch took a deep breath of relief.

“Sorry, I’ve just been really stressed.”

“Yeah, hey. No kidding.” Benji said. “Look, here’s the plan, Shazia said that if I could reach you today that she’d meet us at the park with some of that fancy hash we like so that we can smoke up cakes.”

Arch scrunched their face.

“Cupcakes. Shazia would meet us in the park with cupcakes. Hey, Charlotte,” Benji cleared his throat, seeing the dark haired woman, who seemed to be hanging by a very fine thread from behind the screen door. “How are you?”

“I’m fine, Benji. Arch, just go.”

“Wait. Really?” Arch turned around, wondering how she could be serious.

“You’re eighteen now, aren’t you?” Charlotte asked. 

Arch nodded.

“Then get out.”

There wasn’t anything warm about the way Charlotte said those words. Instead of lingering too long on the nuance, Arch only nodded, watching the door to the house shut its inhabitants in.

Benji bent over to pick up his speaker. He didn’t miss a beat cutting the music.

“What was that all about?” He asked. Like Arch, he looked up at the closed door.

Arch wiped the wetness away from their face with a couple fingers.

“I… I think I was just kicked out.”

Arch cleared their throat. They turned back to Benji as the summer sun beat down on them both. 

Oh Benji. He was the most welcome sight in this world. The only good thing left that Arch had yet to ruin. Shazia would soon await them both in the park. Their life with Paimon, Lyrem, and hell, was now in the past. A future containing Arthur and Charlotte filled with shame and regret awaited them.

That didn’t matter yet. All that mattered was what was right in front of them.

And Arch really, really, really wanted to get high.

“Anyways, you said something about smoking up?”

[littlesparklight]

About headcanons: Zeus' and Hera's relationship with their children (wedlock + Hephaestus)

Oh, this is interesting! Okay, let’s go in reverse order (I’m going to count Enyo as well as Angelos, but not Eris, among the kids):

Hebe is basically the apple of her parents’ eye. Both because she’s the youngest, but also for her shy, sweet nature. She’s very indulged, and it’s an easy relationship - mostly because she doesn’t have many or any expectations put on her, which means her ambivalence about getting married to Heracles hit both Zeus and Hera and neither really had a good idea how to deal with it. Not that Hebe got very obviously angry or confrontational about it, but the fact that she didn’t go easily along with it sort of rubbed both of them wrong (on the other hand, strange chance for Zeus and Hera to bond over it, haha). They got through that, even before Hebe relaxed and felt more positive about her new husband, though.

Angelos isn’t exactly a trouble-maker as such, but she deeply resents her mother for the fact that nymphs fostered her (not fully Hera’s fault; I am definitely into @a-gnosis idea that Hera suffers from postpartum depression to various degrees), and they never really get past that. Angelos acting out is what lands her in the Underworld, with Zeus basically putting his daughter in his brother’s care for safety’s sake. (Poseidon would’ve been the less radical option, but, uh, I don’t think Zeus would do that just for how Poseidon might latch onto it as a sign of weakness or something.)

Eileithyia has an okay relationship with Zeus, if a little distant - she is definitely mommy’s girl, so to speak, and she nearly always takes Hera’s side during arguments and similar issues.

Ares and Enyo were born as twins, and the problem here when it comes to Zeus with both of them, but especially Ares, before his honours and sphere was obvious, is probably because these two were Hera and Zeus’ first children and first son. There was a lot of expectations and desires here, and neither twin was actually very well-suited to dealing with that on top of that they’re both rabble-rousers and Ares has a temper. Ares is still (despite everything) the one who’s more attached both to family and his relationship with his parents, which means he’s the one who stays when Enyo finally has Had Enough, has a big, angry flounce and leaves Olympus (and stays away, though she stays in contact with Ares). Generally Ares’ relationship with his mother is better than with his father, but that doesn’t mean its perfect - Hera has no compunction about showing her displeasure if Ares goes against her. Something which probably makes those moments worse than Zeus’ constant low-level disapproval-disappointment that sometimes spills over into more obviously expressed dislike.

Hephaestus... okay, so I am absolutely on the version that he’s Hera’s alone, but like with Hera quickly accepting Athena (after her whole protest-pregnancy with Hephaestus was done with), Zeus would have accepted him eventually, I think. He was definitely rather appalled when Hera’s post-partum depression issues got deep with Hephaestus and resulted in the, uh, chucking incident. That Hephaestus’ chosen method to making himself known is by getting revenge on his mother doesn’t actually endear him to Zeus (despite what you might think), and their relationship when he does end up on Olympus is not so much strained, I think, as strictly professional. It probably works out better for them than having a more intimate and personal relationship would. His relationship with Hera is a mess. Like, yes, they clearly make up after the enchanted throne incident, but he must know that his mother has no problem at all shit-talking him when she feels like it (as she does in the Iliad). At some level Hera is probably still embarrassed that she bore a disabled son, which gets away from her sometimes, but she still tries - hence why Hephaestus does have a reasonably close relationship with her, despite lapses (and those can get very chilly indeed, considering both mother and son).

[elriell]

Answer to my LONG ask friend, posting it like this because I imagine it would be way to long or else! 

hi i hope you dont mind me asking, but perhaps any elriel meta will be willing to cover the whole berons alliance with the queen? because i think thats our winning argument in favor of elriels endgame. and i wish im not reaching or overthinking this lol.

why it will be our winning argument? becaue the whole beron pledged alliance to the queen dont mean anything just yet, it hasnt been flushed out yet (sarah left it open ended), and it will definitely be the main conflict in the next book just to set up the final book and war where all the sides has been established whos with who.

because in my perspective, elriels story really will trigger that conflict and rhysands warning in az pov is literally the set up for that conflict.

when i read acosf, i was thinking there is literally no point of beron making alliance with the queen aside him wanting to be the high king, more power, why would he do that when the queen is in the continent and him in prythian, other high lords will surely oppose him being the high king. thus its two (if the queen indeed would help him) versus six since koschei is still trapped in the lake. plus, his alliance is still a secret, surely other courts will learn of it, wont they?

now however possible consequences from elriel, beron perhaps will use the rejecting mating bond—the blood duel—as a reason to declare a war and have other courts against the night court or eris will finally dethrone his father and be the high lord. and with eris being the high lord, isnt that going to be one of the key topic for morrigans book? sarah also confirms morrigan book and she admits that she doesnt know what the novella is going to be, so its same to assume that mor will get a full novel.

fyi, i cant see lucien will challenge azriel though, he is decent and will respect elains choice, but beron as cruel as he is will surely do something sinister.

and i stumbled across an account on twitter and they compare elriels story to helen of troy and the set up of the trojan war is literally the same as elriel. also, beron reminds me of agamemnon in troy movie (2004), both of them want more power. there are a lot of similarities, imo, between elriel and the set up of iliad. in iliad there is also a duel between hector and achilles (this is me reaching lol).

thus, aside from elains connection to the dread trove, elriels conflict also has the logical conflict that tied to the whole overarching plot for the plot of the series to move forward toward the end, because like i said the whole berons alliance need to be addressed and in acosf it hasnt been addressed yet, at least not enough.

im really sorry if i come off as rude by asking this. i would do it honestly, but i dont have the confidence to post anything online (hence, im anonymous) and im not as convincing as the others in terms of flushing the arguments.

also, you are literally keeping me sane when all of elain antis trying their hardest to discredit elriels.

thank you❤️❤️❤️

Hi! I’m that anon who said that Elriel’s conflict with Beron could be the winning argument for our ship since they are tied closely with each other based on Rhysand’s warning in Azriel POV. If you decide to answer that question, would you mind if you answer this one instead? As I’m pretty much still stand on that point however I’d like to add and correct some statements that I think I don’t express clearly in my previous question:)

If you don’t mind, I’d like to post my theory here, anonymously, since I’m not confident enough to post my thoughts online yet as I’m afraid I’ll be judged harshly lol. And perhaps other metas such as you would like to elaborate more on the matter since I think it is a vital plot for Elriel’s book. It’s quite long, I do apologize for that:)

Like I said, Beron allegiance with Briallyn didn’t make any sense to me and it also took me by surprise when I read ACOSF. Why?

A. Briallyn lived on the continent and Beron is in Prythian. Wouldn’t it be better for him to seek an ally that is closer to him instead? We know that Beron wants to be an ally with her because he heard about her ambition. And I suspect that Beron wants to be the High King or kill Feyre since he knows that she has his power. But one thing for sure is that he wants more power.

B. If he indeed wants to be High King or kill Feyre then I don’t believe that the other high lords would comply with him. Therefore, Beron wouldn’t stand a chance against the other high lords and lady in Prythian since it is two (before the queen was killed by Nesta) versus six. Plus, Briallyin lived in the continent thus her allegiance was not something that he could hold on to, imo.

So obviously we know that Briallyn is dead and her allegiance doesn’t mean anything anymore. However, from her allegiance with Beron we now know that Beron for sure set to be the other villain of this new overarching plot alongside Koschei. And I also think that Beron would be the main villain for the next book because a villain as big as Koschei would likely be dealt in the last book.

Now, why is it tied with Elriel? I think Rhysand’s warning in Az’s POV explains it plainly, and I can’t help but think that it is a set up, a foreshadowing, of what would happen in the next book, especially since Koschei’s plotline is not foreshadowed enough in ACOSF and we only know of his onyx box which we get from ACOWAR.

If we acknowledge that Elriel is endgame and their story is next, then Beron surely comes to play in the next book. Their relationship will push the overarching plot one step closer to its climax.

FYI, I can’t see Lucien invoke the Blood Duel himself, he is a decent person so he will respect and understand Elain’s choice to be with Azriel since it is definitely where we are going in the matter of endgame. But, Beron, as cruel as he is, will surely make use of the situation to profit himself, to reach his ambition that is momentarily squashed with Briallyn dead.

These are possible results of what could happen with Blood Duel plotline:

1. Beron would ally himself with Koschei as Briallyn did before because he knows he is outnumbered if he declared a war against the Night Court.

2. Beron could convince other high lords in Prythian to go against the Night Court if Lucien was killed in the Blood Duel, I pray that it will not happen though Lucien deserve some peace and happiness with the woman who wants and loves him voluntarily.

3. Eris would rebel against his father's order for Lucien to invoke the duel, and Beron would be dethroned by Eris and he would be the next high lord of Autumn Court.

I personally lean more on number three, because with Eris being the high lord wouldn’t it be one of the key topics for Mor’s book? It is already confirmed that Sarah pitched Mor’s story as one of the books and she admits that she doesn’t know what the novella is going to be. So, it’s safe to assume that Mor will get a full novel, not a novella one. Seeing her sparse appearance and development we’ve seen of her in ACOSF, then it is also logical to assume that Mor will not be the next book main character.

In conclusion, Elriel needs to happen to address Beron's situation and bring the overall plot of the series a bit higher before it reaches climax in the final book. Is it also possible that Beron’s scenario still can be addressed without it being tied to Elain and Azriel? Yes, but, I will say it again, Rhysand’s warning is a clue, a foreshadowing, of what conflict will be covered in the next book. For an author to drop something as big as that but not happening is a lazy writing in my opinion.

In the previous question I also mentioned that Elriel’s story is kinda similar to Iliad. Their set up is pretty much similar to me, however, I don’t think Elriel’s story will end in tragedy since Sarah doesn’t like to read, write, sad endings.

I’m sorry if I come off as ordering you around, but I really appreciate it if you and other metas also put your thought in the whole Beron/Elriel situation since I’m 95% sure Elain book is next and Azriel will be her LI seeing there is no progress with her and Lucien yet.

And I still stand by my point, you and other Elriel metas keep me sane when all of Elriel antis trying their hardest to discredit all of Elriel’s interaction and feeling in order to make their ship endgame. Thank you so much❤️❤️❤️

Wowza! This has got to be one of the longest asks I have ever received, hahah, congratulations and thank you for taking the time to write it to me! 

I would definitely consider doing such a meta, I am working on my Elriel debunking one currently, chipping away at it slowly! It’s a big boy.

I definitely agree that it is a very important and key point because like you said Elriel will be the trigger that pushes this story forward, giving Beron the push he needs, and also it will give or potential for Eris to step in and also Lucien by proxy. It would as you said accelerate the whole plot.

I have said before and I will say it again, Elriel brings so much plot to the story and ties in so many different characters, that say Gwynriel for arguments sake, doesn’t. I have no doubts at all who are the next POVs.

Agree with literally every ounce of your first ask, they have all the ties. There is no point mentioning The blood Duel if it is never going to come in to play, whether they actually do it or get close too it has to happen now. And if that is the case then Elriel clearly has to happen to get there! I don’t think Lucien would participate because I think he would respect Elains decision but who knows...

I feel like their is potential for his hand to be forced by say Beron or someone else, like you said though all ties roll back to Elain. And her ARC. 

I am so sorry you don’t feel like you can post it yourself, because you clearly have some great well thought out perspective, and you are well spoken. I am sure the fandom would love to hear your thoughts from you, when you are ready of course. Until then you are always welcome to come here and share with me!!

Going to answer your second one separately because I didn’t read the second one first and now I see you said to answer the other one ahhhahaha

[timothypines]

The Fire of Achilles (Essay)

“He was like a flame himself. He glittered, drew eyes.” (pg. 43, Miller) Throughout the novel The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller and the epic poem The Iliad, Achilles is often compared to fire. In The Iliad he is referred to as “brilliant Achilles”—meaning to sparkle with light or luster; however, this comparison is not always positive, as the destructive side of fire is not forgotten when describing his unstoppable rage. The double-sided nature of fire perfectly encapsulates Achilles. The brightness and openness he emulates, much like the welcoming of a controlled fire, attracts the soldiers to him, while uncontrolled his rage can destroy armies like a forest fire pushed by rushing wind. But while most people can only see the war in him, the rage in him, he would never have gotten as far as he had without his gentle warmth.

The Song of Achilles shows much more of the softer side of Achilles’ flame, however, I do not think this makes Madeline Miller’s interpretation any more or less correct in the characterization of Achilles; rather, it deepens what is shown to us in The Iliad. In the early moments of the book (The Song of Achilles), it is shown that just as Achilles speaks his mind freely and absolutely, he expects the same from all others; this leads to him being overly trusting in many ways. “He said what he meant; he was puzzled if you did not. Some people might have mistaken this for simplicity. But is it not a sort of genius to cut always to the heart?” (pg. 44, Miller). This is seen in The Iliad also, in his rage against Agamemnon when the king refused to return the priest’s daughter after the priest offered ransom. Most would never speak such things against a king, but he did not fear a thing, no, he was completely honest with Agamemnon, reminding the king that it was he who was needed, he who was asked to fight, “It wasn’t the Trojan spearmen who brought me here to fight. The Trojans never did me damage… we all followed you, to please you, to fight for you, to win your honor back from the Trojans.” (pg. 82, Book 1: The Rage of Achilles, Homer). Yes, the dishonoring of him is what causes this great rage, but his honesty is part of that too. But even though this rage appears to come from unbreakable pride, I feel that it came not from a place of pride, but rather rage at Agamemnon for not being at all reasonable. While he keeps his honor close to him, he is not prideful of his abilities. “‘I will be the best warrior of my generation.’ It sounded like something a child would claim, in make-believe. But he said it as simply as if he were giving his name.” (pg. 38, Miller). In this sense, I agree with Miller’s interpretation of Achilles’ feeling in this moment and how even though his honor is important to him, he is not particularly prideful. This rage, I feel, comes more from a great feeling of unfairness, which Achilles seems to value more than anyone else in the army. Agamemnon made the mistake of not returning the priest’s daughter, out of his unyielding pride, and now he is unwilling to admit to his mistake and is instead punishing Achilles, who was the only one trying to end the great plague. I am in no way saying that Achilles’ actions to call the gods to punish the entire army so relentlessly were justified, however, his feelings of rage toward Agamemnon cannot be blamed on just himself, and therefore, neither can the punishment that falls upon the army.

It seems silly to try to talk about Achilles and leave out what he loves most. Now, in The Iliad, before we get to the aftermath of the death of Patroclus, it could be fair to assume that what Achilles loves most is his honor; damage to his honor is what caused him to call for the army’s suffering and destruction, the very army he had been fighting with for nine years. However, it is very clear that after the death of Patroclus that it is he whom he loves most. Once Patroclus has died, Achilles does not care to act honorably, he does not care if Agamemnon apologizes, he simply wants the person who took his love from him to suffer. Even his own life does not seem precious to him anymore. For the brief moments that Patroclus is shown in the epic, his character is made very clear. He appears to be kind, gentle, to carry himself with a strong grace. No one has ill-will towards him; he is a good man universally in the eyes of the kings and soldiers. This is what makes his death so impactful. This version of Patroclus that we see in The Iliad I feel is lacking when reading The Song of Achilles. In the epic, Patroclus can fight, he is quite good at it and it does not feel a surprise, “And then and there the Achaeans might have taken Troy, her towering gates toppling under Patroclus’ power heading the vanguard, storming on with his spear.” (pg. 435, Book 16: Patroclus Fights and Dies, Homer). The Patroclus we find in The Song of Achilles is awkward, unwilling to fight, even just before this moment at Troy, “The wheels gave a little lurch, and I staggered, my spears rattling. ‘Balance them,’ he told me. ‘It will be easier.’ Everyone waited as I awkwardly transferred one spear to my left hand, swiping my helmet askew as I did so.” (pg. 327, Miller) When reading The Iliad, I felt none of this from Patroclus. While it may have been surprising that he ended up at the wall of Troy, it certainly wasn’t surprising that he had fought and fought well.  I will say that both works made it heart-wrenching to see Patroclus slaughtering people, however, the epic held more integrity than the novel had. This can especially be seen when Patroclus and Hector meet on the battlefield. This is the interaction we get from The Iliad, “‘Hector! Now is your time to glory to the skies… now the victory is yours. A gift of the son of Cronus, Zeus—Apollo too—they brought me down with all their deathless ease, they are the ones who tore the armor off my back… You came third, and all you could do was finish off my life…” (pg. 440, Book 16: Patroclus Fights and Dies, Homer). And this is what we get from The Song of Achilles, “He is coming to kill me. Hector… He must live because his life, I think as I scrape backwards over the grass, is the final dam before Achilles’ own blood will flow. Desperately, I turn to the men around me and scrabble at their knees. Please, I croak. Please.” (pg. 334-335, Miller). Although Achilles’ stubbornness killed both versions of Patroclus, at least in The Iliad Patroclus died strong in himself, while the Patroclus from The Song of Achilles died a shell, lacking any self, just filled with thoughts of the fire that is Achilles.

One thing that no version of the story could ever take away is how much Achilles loves Patroclus (even if they decide to make them simply cousins for some reason). It is devastating to read Achilles discover that his lover is dead; this is not lacking in either version of the war. Something I especially enjoyed from The Song of Achilles is how much more deeply Miller built the relationship. While reading I could really tell that Patroclus was Achilles’ heart; he was the only one who was immune to Achilles’ rage and the only one who had a chance of getting through to him. “I had found a way through the endless corridors of his pride and fury. I would save the men; I would save him from himself.” (pg. 325, Miller). The building of their relationship before this moment where Patroclus begs for Achilles to fight made for a deeper understanding as to why, after so long, after so much suffering of the Achaeans, Achilles was willing to do something to help, no matter what that was. In The Iliad we are given a mention of how close they are and that is supposed to reason Achilles’ willingness to bend slightly. This deeper understanding of their relationship also makes Achilles’ reaction to Patroclus’ death all the more painful to watch happen and his actions during the beginning of his morning also make more sense to the reader.

Achilles’ relationship with the war of Troy is somehow both extremely complicated and overly simple. It is complicated in terms of what he should bring into the war, what he owes Menelaus and Agamemnon, and how fate plays into it all. It is simple, however, when it comes to him having to perform the act of war itself. I feel that what Miller added to the story regarding this area really deepened and strengthened Achilles’ character; she really tried to show the struggle in Achilles when he was dealing with all of these complexities that came with the politics of the war, between both the mortals and gods. This is the war he was fated to have such a large part of; he was to kill the Trojan’s greatest hero, Hector. But fate isn’t the only thing forcing him to back and fight in the war against Troy, the Achaean kings he fights along side with also feel entitled to him and his abilities. In the end, however, Achilles does not feel attached to the war in actuality. “‘The Trojans never did me damage.’” (pg. 82, Book 1: The Rage of Achilles, Homer). He doesn’t hold any rage toward the Trojans, that is until Hector kills Patroclus, and even then, his true rage is only toward Hector, it is only the magnitude of it that takes down the mountains of Trojans he slaughters. He is in a war he was expected to be in simply because of that fact, he was expected to fight. When discussing the war with Patroclus, Patroclus asks if he is afraid to fight, Achilles answers, “‘No… This is what I was born for.’” (pg. 220, Miller). So, if he was fated to be in the war, the Achaeans can only win if he fights, and every Greek kingdom expects him to fight, then what does he owe to his fellow Greeks? To Menelaus and Agamemnon? Simply put, in reality he owes them nothing, his father doesn’t even force him to go, telling him it’s his choice (The Song of Achilles), however,  the issue and complexity doesn’t come from what he actually owes the kings, but from what they believe he owes them. Here are two interactions between Achilles and Agamemnon from both works. “Agamemnon stepped forward. He opened his hands in a gesture of welcome and stood regally expectant, waiting for the bows, obeisance, and oaths of loyalty he was owed. It was Achilles’ place to kneel and offer them. He did not kneel. He did not call out a greeting to the great king, or incline his head or offer a gift. He did nothing but stand straight, chin proudly lifted, before them all. Agamemnon’s jaw tightened.” (pg. 194, Miller). “‘This soldier wants to tower over the armies, he wants to rule over all, to lord it over all, give out orders to every man in sight. Well, there’s one, I trust, who will never yield to him! What if the everlasting gods have made a spearman of him? Have they entitled him to hurl abuse at me?’

‘Yes!’—blazing Achilles broke in quickly— ‘What a worthless, burnt-out coward I’d be called if I would submit to you and all your orders, whatever you blurt out.’” (pg. 87, Book 1: The Rage of Achilles, Homer). It doesn’t just matter what Achilles feels he owes Agamemnon because the king feels he is owed not only Achilles’ spear, but his total loyalty and an oath of such.

Despite this complexity with his motivations and responsibility to fight, when it comes to the fighting itself, it is as simple as breathing for him. As told in The Song of Achilles, “What he lived for were the charges, a cohort of men thundering towards him. There, amidst twenty stabbing swords he could finally, truly fight… With a fevered impossible grace he fought off ten, fifteen, twenty-five men. This, at last, is what I can really do.” (pg. 240, Miller). The war wasn’t truly a conflict for him, the true war was in the politics of men and gods; this notion agrees with what is shown in the epic.

While the men in power may not particularly like Achilles, the soldiers of the Achaean army do indeed, from the very beginning (at least in the interpretation that is The Song of Achilles). Here is the moment he introduces himself to the entire army, “‘I am Achilles, son of Peleus, god-born, best of the Greeks,’ he said. ‘I have come to bring you victory.’ A second startled silence, then the men roared their approval. Pride became us—heroes were never modest.” (pg. 194, Miller). Miller choosing to have the soldiers have these types of feelings towards Achilles makes sense. Up until the moment he declares he will no longer fight for the Achaeans, he is their hero, the one they look to and follow; in a society that values glory and heroes above almost all else, second only to the gods, he most-likely would have been viewed that way by the general public, those uninvolved in politics. An example of how deep this goes is shown just before the war begins, as the Phthians are sailing towards Troy’s beaches, “We stood at the prow with Phoinix and Automedon, watching the shore draw closer. Idly, Achilles tossed and caught his spear. The oarsmen had begun to set their strokes by it, the steady, repetitive slap of wood against his palm.” (pg. 212, Miller). Even subconsciously the men are following Achilles’ spear.

Achilles isn’t the only person for whom Miller develops a good relationship with the common soldiers—this  is done for Patroclus as well. I also agree with her decision to do this; it helps solidify the emotions the people feel toward Patroclus which are only mentioned and implied in The Iliad. Miller decided to make Patroclus a healer, “I developed a reputation, a standing in the camp. I was asked for, known for my quick hands and how little pain I caused… I began to surprise Achilles, calling out to these men as we walked through the camp. I was always gratified at how they would raise a hand in return, point to a scar that had healed over well.” (pg. 261, Miller). This use of his character makes sense in my mind when regarding the character shown to us in the epic; being a gentle and kind man. It also makes his motivations when trying to convince Achilles to fight all the more authentic, “All around me are men carrying fallen comrades, limping on makeshift crutches, or crawling through the sand, dragging broken limbs behind them. I know them—their torsos full of scars my ointments have packed and sealed.” (pg. 319, Miller). So, even though I do disapprove of Miller’s decision to make Patroclus seem too awkward and weak to fight, I cannot say her making a healer of Patroclus is without any merit. 

“What has Hector ever done to me?” This phrase is echoed throughout The Song of Achilles, creating a sort of foreshadowing sprinkled throughout the novel. This sentiment rings familiar from The Iliad where he expresses that he holds no feelings of hatred nor resentment towards the Trojans. The role that Hector plays in The Song of Achilles is slightly different than seen in the epic, though this is unsurprising as the novel is from the perspective of Patroclus and therefore cannot show much of Hector. Despite the lack of Hector, however, Miller included moments that are reminiscent of what we saw of Hector in The Iliad. Here is a domestic moment shared between Hector and his family when he returns from fighting, “shining Hector reached down for his son—but the boy recoiled, cringing against his nurse’s full breast, screaming out at the sight of his own father, terrified by the flashing bronze, the horsehair crest, the great ridge of the helmet nodding, bristling terror—so it struck his eyes. And his loving father laughed, his mother laughed as well, and glorious Hector, quickly lifting the helmet from his head, set it down on the ground, fiery in the sunlight, and raising his son he kissed him,” (pg. 211, Book 6: Hector Returns to Troy, Homer). Now here is a moment between Achilles and Patroclus when Achilles is coming back from battle, “I woke to his nose on mine, pressing insistently against me as I struggled from the webbing of my dreams. He smelled sharp and strange, and for a moment I was almost revolted at this creature that clung to me and shoved its face against mine. But then he sat back on his heels and was Achilles again.” (pg. 222, Miller). These are two moments of domesticity between warriors, great heroes, and the loved ones they returned to. In these moments war is more real, and it is harder to separate the men on the field and the men that return home. 

None the less, the phrase “what has Hector ever done to me?” is also meant to show Achilles’ active struggle against his fate that came with the war. He wants glory but is unwilling to make sacrifices to gain it. It is only once Hector does personally harm him by killing Patroclus that he does not care to avoid fate, in fact he does not care about glory or honor after this. In a way, it is Patroclus’ sacrifice that gives Achilles glory, which is ironic seeing as he does not fight for glory anymore, but revenge. This can be best seen in how he treats Hector’s body after he defeats him. “He rises at dawn to drag Hector’s body around the walls of the city for all of Troy to see. He does it again at midday, and again at evening. He does not see the Greeks begin to avert their eyes from him. He does not see the lips thinning in disapproval as he passes.” (pg. 346, Miller).  “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. But Apollo pitied Hector—dead man though he was—and warded all corruption off from Hector’s corpse…” (pg. 589, Book 24: Achilles and Priam, Homer). In The Song of Achilles the Greeks, and gods, are not pleased. In The Iliad the gods see this as a disgrace. 

Where Achilles redeems himself greatly in The Iliad is not as significant in The Song of Achilles which left me extremely disappointed. The moment when Achilles is meant to show what a great character he is and how willing he is to forgive, even after such a significant loss, is in Book 24: Achilles and Priam. It is here when Priam and Achilles share a very vulnerable moment with each other in which they hold no contempt towards one another and the people they have taken from each other, but they cry, together, for the horrible losses they have endured in this long war. Miller makes this moment so much less vulnerable and emotional, making it feel significantly less important and character defining as it had been in the epic. Here is the moment as shared in The Iliad, “‘I put to my lips the hands of the man who killed my son.’ Those words stirred withing Achilles a deep desire to grieve for his own father. Taking the old man’s hand he gently moved him back. And overpowered by memory both men gave way to grief. Priam wept freely for man-killing Hector, throbbing, crouching before Achilles’ feet as Achilles wept himself, now for his father, now for Patroclus once again, and their sobbing rose and fell throughout the house.” (pg. 605, Book 24: Achilles and Priam, Homer). And this is the very same interaction as written in The Song of Achilles, “‘…it is worth my life, if there is a chance my son’s soul may be at rest.’ Achilles’ eyes fill; he looks away so the old man will not see.” (pg. 350, Miller). In Miller’s version there is not even a mention of the agreement that is come to in the epic that allows Priam to host a full funeral for Hector. This left Achilles feeling cold and unfeeling, which goes completely against his entire characterization in both the novel and the epic. For me, the watering down and diminishing of the conversation between Achilles and Priam was the biggest misstep in Miller’s novel and was a major disappointment especially since I felt she characterized Achilles so well for the majority of the novel.  

“His anger was incandescent, a fire under his skin.” (pg. 283, Miller) The comparing of Achilles to flame and fire strikes most true. He is never an emotionless man, never achieving a moment of utter stillness, instead he is always flickering under the surface. Even in times of calm he radiates warmth, and in times of great anger he rages in a great blaze. It is fire that is the perfect essence of Achilles. But this is what also makes him so controversial in the eyes of modern men. Some today still find themselves drawn to his wild flame and the brilliance of it, while others see the ash trails of his destruction and feel he is no good man, no hero. Achilles himself, I think, would agree with the sentiment that he isn’t a hero. In the end with Priam he felt shame for how he treated Hector’s body, his greatest love died because he couldn’t let go of his honor. In class people questioned why Achilles is remembered the hero and not Hector or Diomedes. I think Achilles achieved the fame he has because he is a good man who let his emotions drive him to do bad things, things looked down upon even in times of war. However, in the end, he redeems himself. He is a brilliant, shining character with intense emotions who manages to redeem himself—of course he has become the main hero of the story. Madeline Miller, in my opinion, did a very good job with the interpretation of his character, however, there were a few missteps with him and other things that were very important to his development. But despite these missteps, she has managed to bring Achilles’ light back into the lives of modern people, which is a wonderful thing. “As if he heard me, he smiled, and his face was like the sun.” (pg. 47, Miller)

[betawithablog]

Headcanons for the greek gods as omegas?

(I assume you mean as Omegaverse and not for them all to be Omegas cus there’s no way Ares is Omega lol)

This is gonna be the 12(.5) Olympians and the royal couple of the underworld

Zeus: Alpha, a very obvious Alpha. Leader of the Olympian pack. If we're going with the personality he has in the myths then he's the kind of douchebag Alpha who thinks it's his right to go around knotting whoever he fancies; I imagine his pheromones are pretty powerful too. Like, send-you-into-an-surprise-heat kind of powerful. If we're going with how the ancient Greeks actually saw Zeus though he's the absolute best provider. Big dad vibes towards everyone who's even a little bit younger than him (which... y’know, given that he's a god is almost everyone).

Hera: Omega. The kind of Omega that has a dominant, leader's streak; the kind born to be the leader's mate. She has that Omega's need for love and attention (which Zeus really needs to work on giving her smh) and likes to pamper her body (see: pool that she bathes in every night that somehow magically makes her not a virgin anymore... yeah idk either, blame the ancient Greeks). She does, however, lack a natural maternal instinct (see: yeeting baby Hephaestus off of mt. Olympus), so I feel like she could potentially also be a Beta.

Poseidon: Alpha. Originally he was actually the leader of the Olympian pack (no that's not a headcanon - the Macedonians actually considered Poseidon to be the head of the Olympians). I imagine him to be a kind of rugged-looking Alpha - like an strong old fisherman with rough palms and speckled grey hair - with an air of calm and control that can switch to chaotic and aggressive in an instant's notice - like the ocean itself.

Hestia: Omega. Absolutely 100% Omega. The kind of Omega who's very presence makes you feel soothed, her hugs are warm and soft (not just because she always wears fluffy cardigans), her nest is absolute perfection - beautiful, calming to be in, and cosy - and she's always got something divine (if you'll excuse the pun) in the oven. Always purring kin the kitchen. Absolute biggest mama vibes. She smells like a bakery; chocolate and pastry. Holy shit I love Hestia.

Demeter: Alpha. Considered her, perhaps, as an Omega on account of her being a fertility agriculture goddess but she just doesn't strike me as the placating, gentle type. Quite the opposite. She fought stubbornly for her daughter to remain at her side, and she's the goddess of law too - she's not the rolling-over-showing-her-neck type at all. I picture her as an absolute Unit; muscles for days from all the years harvesting crops. The no-nonsense kind of Alpha.

Aphrodite: Omega. The hypersexual kind of Omega. I believe I've seen them called 'Pack Omegas' - the type that do best when they're in a relationship with lots of people, practically (or literally) a whole pack. Also the beauty-obsessed kind of Omega. Takes ten hours to get her clothes, hair, and makeup done yet somehow she turns the whole process into a mesmerising dance. She turns everything into a mesmerising dance. Another I imagine with knock-out strong pheromones that have Alphas falling to their knees for her. She smells like roses.

Athena: Alpha. Another leader-type Alpha - literally has Athens named after her, and she's very proud of her people... despite some of the absolute nonsense she's had to witness from them throughout the ancient years. A very adept and skilled fighter and strategist - likes to know everything about a situation before rushing in. She's an incredibly supportive and wise lead Alpha, the kind that the pack feels they can go to with whatever problem they might have. I feel like she could also easily be a Beta, but she's got such a strong sense of being dominant and in charge it's hard to see her as anything but an Alpha.

Ares: Alpha. Less of a leader-type Alpha, lbr, more of a team player. The kind of Alpha that runs into things without thinking, relying on instinct and, on the battlefield, pure rage. Your average Aggressive Type Alpha who's ready to kill for anyone in his pack. Can come across as a bit of a meat head... and can be a bit of a meat head at times... Yet I imagine him as a really loving, doting mate, which initially surprises a lot of people; seeing this big burly 6ft< Alpha who smells like fire and blood smiling dopily as picks out the perfect dainty jewellery for Aphrodite.

Hephaestus: Beta. My poor poor bastard boy. Very crafty and creative (see: trapping his mother in a beautiful trick throne he built as revenge for yeeting him off the mountain as a baby). Likes to think his creations through and plan genius contraptions. He could very easily also be an Alpha, what with the fact he's a blacksmith, which is a rather Alpha job. But I guess I lean towards Beta because, even though he's a bit of a social outcast on account of his leg and general appearance, he's clearly desperate to be more socially involved with the pack and doesn't want to be a lone wolf.

Artemis: Alpha. Surprisingly nonsexual for an Alpha. Very much a lone wolf. Loves spending her days out in the forest. You wouldn't think she's an Alpha to look at her, but she'd surprise you with how strong she is. Also very good at using her opponent's strength against them. Because of her build, she's considered the protector of Omegas; most Omegas would feel very safe in her presence. She's got this mysterious edge to her that just uncontrollably draws you in... like the moon.

Apollo: Omega. Ah, sweet darling disaster bisexual... I just imagine him being very soft and sensitive (not that he can't kick ass on a battlefield, see: his involvement in the battles of the Iliad). He has an artist's soul and an angel's voice. His serenades are totally his courting gifts. I imagine him revelling in being doted on, and always eager for fuss and attention. He has a beautiful Omegan frame, and he loves decorating himself in luxurious garb and crowns of flowers and leaves. He smells like laurel and somehow also sunshine. No one knows how this is possible but he does.

Hermes: Beta. And nooo I'm not just saying that because he's my favourite and that's the dynamic I best identify with (>_>) He really is such a Beta though. I've a headcanon that Beta's love travelling and exploring and he's literally the God of that so y'know. He's also so quick thinking and witty: represented himself in a what was basically a godly court case where he was guilty of thievery and won when he was literally a baby. He's hardly ever submissive to anyone but he hardly ever uses aggression or physical force to get his way/get out of trouble. He smells like ripe strawberries and the metallic tinge of coins.

Dionysus: Beta. The eccentric, outgoing, party type Beta; wants to be surrounded by friends having a good time all the time. He smells like booze; in the morning it's a little off-putting, but in the evening its literally intoxicating. I imagine his mortal Maenads needing only his scent to drive them into a frenzy. Not the kind of Beta you'd expect to also have the Supportive Beta streak, but he absolutely does; he lives to support his friends and gives the kind of advice you don't realise is advice at first and later hits you like an epiphany, and it was exactly what you needed to hear.

Persephone: Beta. Difficult one, but I had to go with Beta because she strikes me as a very gentle, delicate goddess of spring that could easily have her classified as Omega, but in winter she's the no-nonsense, dominant queen of the underworld that could have her classified as an Alpha. Overall, I think this shows her adaptability, which is a very Beta trait. Also, she's not really as needy and dependent as an Omega traditionally is. Things might have happened to her beyond her control, but she very much took back control and has both Hades and Demeter wrapped around her little finger. Of course, she smells like pomegranates, and spring blossom.

Hades: Omega. I have such a soft spot for soft!Hades. But he's kind of the reverse of Artemis in that you would not think to look at him that he's an Omega, you'd assume he's an Alpha, especially considering his position as ruler of the underworld. But he's a softy at heart, and adores material possessions (which I consider a bit of an Omegan trait). He mopes all the way through spring and summer at the lack of Persephone's presence, cooped up in his nest the whole time until autumn rolls around and she comes back into his life. He has a very earthy scent.

bonus:

Hermaphrodite: All three! Thought I'd include Hermaphrodite because they flashed through my mind and I wondered what might be classified as intersex in a/b/o. Of course, that depends on how you hc biology for the dynamics but I thought what would perhaps make Hermaphrodite an outcast/outlier could be their body, scent, and instincts being a mix of all three dynamics.

thanks for the ask 💞

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: Who are some women in history that would be comparable to Napoleon or Alexander? Women who rose to power because they sought greatness and not because they used the feminine form to seduce for an easier life? How can the feminine mind come out of the mentality of being “the weaker sex”?

The short answer is that there are no women in history comparable to Napoleon or Alexander but equally I would quickly add that there are no other men in history either. These two contrasting men are unique. Alexander and Napoleon share similarities in their warfare, and how they used it to conquer and establish new lands. Both left legacies in which their very name has been equally loathed and loved down the ages. But they were unique.

Both were outsiders whose personal qualities rose above obstacles. Alexander was Macedonian and the Greeks looked down upon him as uncultured barbarian in the same way Napoleon was Corsican nobility and the old French aristocracy pulled up their noses in snobbish superiority. And yet able to rise through the grit of discipline and learning, luck and skill.  

Both were great battle field commanders with a greater understanding of how to use one’s forces at hand to the terrain. Both were not quite true innovators as many might imagine. Alexander's military brilliance is beyond dispute but the groundwork for his superior tactics and strategies were laid by his father Philip of Macedon. Much of Napoleon’s greatness relied on the conscription model that the French revolutionary wars ushered in.  

Alexander used new technology in new ways, invented new formations, and used his battlefield successes to accomplish his strategic goals with the innovative use of propaganda that was unseen before. Alexander was very unmatched in winning battles against much larger enemy formations as he was often outnumbered 2:1.  He was a tactical  genius in finding the weakness in the enemy’s lines and making the surgical strike necessary to ensure victory. He was quick witted at being able to make quick tactical decisions in the thick of the battle.

He was able to snatch victory from the claws of certain defeat, time and again, always against overwhelming enemy superiority in numbers, always in a terrain that his enemies had carefully chosen to maximise their advantages.

Any city he ever attacked he conquered. His own father the great Philip II failed to take Byzantium, and was defeated by Thracian tribesmen, but not Alexander. He made land out of a sea and conquered the heavily fortified island city of Tyre, and he used rock climbers to take the Sogdian Rock in Bactria/Afghanistan, an impregnable citadel that was compared to an eagle’s nest. Moreover he never lost a battle.

Napoleon was a brilliant general and even in his time earned grudging respect from his enemies. Napoleon was very successful in most of his military campaigns, and that laid the foundation necessary for his political achievements.

He fought 60 battles in his career,  losing only 8 with two being considered “tactical victories” only (Second Bassano and Aspern-Esseling) . Nevertheless in the vast majority of his defeats (as well as victories) he was horrendously outnumbered, logistical suffocated, or betrayed by his allies.

He was exceptionally talented both strategically and tactically. In campaign after campaign he defeated larger armies with a smaller force, through methods like moving boldly and quickly, defeating them in detail, cutting off their lines of retreat, and doing what his enemies least expected.

Less glamorously but even more important he was great at logistics. One of his most famous maxims is that, “An army marches on its stomach.” If troops are not well equipped and well fed, they can not be expected to fight well. Napoleon had his armies live off the land, and marched faster than his enemies. While Napoleon still had supply lines, much of the food, clothing, and pay for his men was looted from conquered territory. This allowed him to march faster, and he often did forced marches where his men would march twice as far each day as the enemy predicted.

His opponents were often shocked at how quickly he outmanoeuvred them. At Ulm he surrounded an enormous Austrian army and forced them to surrender - while they thought he was over a hundred miles to the west and were waiting for reinforcements. Again, another thing that got him into trouble in Russia: the Russians retreated even faster, and burned everything in their wake, so there was nothing to loot.

He was innovative too in his use of light horse artillery - smaller cannons were pulled by fast horses, ridden by their crew - who could get into position rapidly and move into a new area when required. Napoleon loved these guys and used them in combination with his slower artillery to great effect often in support of heavy artillery.

Both were inspirational leaders of men in battle. In Alexander’s case he almost killed himself jumping into the Indian city of the Malians alone, a wound which weakened his body and eventually probably contributed to his death. He was simply fearless. Like the Carthagenian Hannibal, and all ancient Greek military leaders, Miltiades, Epameinondas, Philipos II, etc, and Romans, like Caesar, Alexander was always leading from the front line. In Napoleon’s case he too was fearless At Arcole he tried to inspire his men to attack, by grabbing a flag and stood in the open on the dike about 55 paces from the bridge. Both were loved by their men and their very presence on the battlefield was an inspiration to their fighting men.

Both were superb political strategists who were able to build on military gains with statecraft skills. Alexander the Great’s strong perseverance and incredible battle strategies led to increase his power over his empire. Napoleon used his intelligence and skill of manipulation to earn respect and support from the French people, which gained him great power.

For all this, they were both losers in the end. Both lost because they failed the most valuable lesson history can give: success is a bad teacher. Their military victories made them increasingly cocky and their political gains made them overreach. In the end their own personal qualities that brought them so much unprecedented success was the harbinger of their downfall.

So we are left with the question: what is greatness? The judgement of history seems to suggest that glory is fleeting but true greatness lasts the test of time.

There are simply too many women to list that would be worthy of anyone’s attention to show that women have achieved greatness throughout history.

Here is a good basic list of warrior women in recorded history https://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat

Indeed one doesn’t have to stray too far from antiquity to show that women as warriors did make an impact.

I shall just focus on a few from antiquity that stand out for me and and a few more modern choices that are very personal to me.

Penthesilea

I had heard of Penthesilea and the Amazons before as a small girl. But the first time I really understand just how impressive and unusual it was in the ancient world to be a woman who “fights with men” was when I was taking Latin at my English girls’ boarding school.   Contrary to popular belief, Penthesilea’s story isn’t actually told in the Iliad (which ends with Hector’s funeral, before the Amazons arrive), but in a lost ancient epic called  Aethiopis.  This poem continued the story of Achilles’ great deeds, which included the killing of several famous warriors—Memnon, King of Aethiopia, and Penthesilea most prominent among them.

The Amazons had a number of famous Queens, but Penthesilea is perhaps the most storied. She was a daughter of the war-god Ares, and Pliny credits her with the invention of the battle-ax.  She was also sister to Hippolyta, who married the hero Theseus, after being defeated by him in battle.  Penthesilea ruled the Amazons during the years of the Trojan war—and for most of that time stayed away from the conflict.  However, after Achilles killed Hector, Penthesilea decided it was time for her Amazons to intervene, and the group rode to the rescue of the Trojans—who were, after all, fellow Anatolians.  Fearless, she blazed through the Greek ranks, laying waste to their soldiers.  

During the battles, Penthesilea was not a queen who sat by and watched the men fight. She was a warrior in the truest sense.  It is said that she blazed through the Greeks like lightning, killing many.  It is written that she was swift and brave, and fought as valiantly and successfully as the men. She wanted to prove that the Amazons were great warriors. She wanted to kill Achilles to avenge the death of Hector, and she wanted to die in battle. I love Vergil’s glorious description of her in battle: “The ferocious Penthesilea, gold belt fastened beneath her exposed breast, leads her battle-lines of Amazons with their crescent light-shields…a warrioress, a maiden who dares to fight with men.”

Although Penthesilea was a ferocious warrior, her life came to an end, at the hands of Achilles. Achilles had seen her battling others, and was enamored with her ferocity and strength.  As he fought, he worked his way towards her, like a moth drawn to a flame. While he was drawn to her with the intention of facing her as an opponent, he fell in love with her upon facing her. However, it was too late.

Achilles defeated Penthesilea, catching her as she fell to the ground. Greek warrior Thersites mocked Achilles for his treatment of Penthesilea’s body after her death. It is also said that Thersites removed Penthesilea’s eyes with his sword. This enraged Achilles, and he slaughtered Thersites. Upon Thersites’ death, a sacred feud was fought.  Diomedes, Thersite’s cousin, retrieved Penthesilea’s corpse, dragged it behind his chariot, and cast it into the river. Achilles retrieved the body, and gave her a proper burial. In some stories, Achilles is accused of engaging in necrophilia with her body. In other legends, it is said that Penthesilea bore Achilles a son after her death. Yes, I agree, that does feel creepy.

Penthesilea’s life and death were tragic. She is portrayed as a brave and fierce warrior who was deeply affected by the accidental death of her sister. This grief, compounded with her desire to be a strong warrior who would die an honourable death on the battlefield, led her to Troy, where her tragic death weakened Troy, but also led to unrest in the Greek camps due to her death’s impact on Achilles and his revengeful acts. In the end, she died the ‘honorable’ death on the battlefield that she had longed for, at the hands of the legendary Achilles, no less.

The heroines of Greek mythology tend towards thoughtfulness, fidelity and modesty (Andromache, Penelope), while the daring and headstrong personalities generally go to the antagonists–Medea, Clytemnestra, Hera.  But Penthesilea is something else entirely: a woman who meets men on her own terms, as their equal.  Perhaps in honour of this, Virgil doesn’t give her the standard heroine epithet of “beautiful.”  For him, it is her majesty and obvious power that make her notable, not her looks.

By the way, the word that Virgil uses for warrioress is bellatrix, the inspiration for Bellatrix Lestrange’s name in the Harry Potter books. So she lives on in immortality through our modern day Virgil, J.K. Rowling (just kidding)

Cynane (c. 358 – 323 BC)

Cynane was the daughter of King Philip II of Macedon and his first wife, the Illyrian Princess Audata. She was also the half-sister of Alexander the Great. Audata raised Cynane in the Illyrian tradition, training her in the arts of war and turning her into an exceptional fighter – so much so that her skill on the battlefield became famed throughout the land. Cynane accompanied the Macedonian army on campaign alongside Alexander the Great and according to the historian Polyaenus, she once slew an Illyrian queen and masterminded the slaughter of her army. Such was her military prowess. Following Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC, Cynane attempted an audacious power play. In the ensuing chaos, she championed her daughter, Adea, to marry Philip Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother who the Macedonian generals had installed as a puppet king. Yet Alexander’s former generals – and especially the new regent, Perdiccas – had no intention of accepting this, seeing Cynane as a threat to their own power. Undeterred, Cynane gathered a powerful army and marched into Asia to place her daughter on the throne by force.

As she and her army were marching through Asia towards Babylon, Cynane was confronted by another army commanded by Alcetas, the brother of Perdiccas and a former companion of Cynane. However, desiring to keep his brother in power Alcetas slew Cynane when they met – a sad end to one of history’s most remarkable female warriors. Although Cynane never reached Babylon, her power play proved successful. The Macedonian soldiers were angered at Alcetas’ killing of Cynane, especially as she was directly related to their beloved Alexander. Thus they demanded Cynane’s wish be fulfilled. Perdiccas relented, Adea and Philip Arrhidaeus were married, and Adea adopted the title Queen Adea Eurydice.

Olympias and Eurydice

The mother of Alexander the Great, Olympias was one of the most remarkable women in antiquity. She was a princess of the most powerful tribe in Epirus (a region now divided between northwest Greece and southern Albania) and her family claimed descent from Achilles. Despite this impressive claim, many Greeks considered her home kingdom to be semi-barbarous  – a realm tainted with vice because of its proximity to raiding Illyrians in the north. Thus the surviving texts often perceive her as a somewhat exotic character.

In 358 BC Olympias’ uncle, the Molossian King Arrybas, married Olympias to King Philip II of Macedonia to secure the strongest possible alliance. She gave birth to Alexander the Great two years later in 356 BC. Further conflict was added to an already tempestuous relationship when Philip married again, this time a Macedonian noblewoman called Cleopatra Eurydice.

Olympias began to fear this new marriage might threaten the possibility of Alexander inheriting Philip’s throne. Her Molossian heritage was starting to make some Macedonian nobles question Alexander’s legitimacy. Thus there is a strong possibility that Olympias was involved in the subsequent murders of Philip II, Cleopatra Eurydice and her infant children. She is often portrayed as a woman who stopped at nothing to ensure Alexander ascended the throne. Following Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC, she became a major player in the early Wars of the Successors in Macedonia. In 317 BC, she led an army into Macedonia and was confronted by an army led by another queen: none other than Cynane’s daughter, Adea Eurydice.

This clash was the first time in Greek history that two armies faced each other commanded by women. However, the battle ended before a sword blow was exchanged. As soon as they saw the mother of their beloved Alexander the Great facing them, Eurydice’s army deserted to Olympias. Upon capturing Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus, Eurydice’s husband, Olympias had them imprisoned in squalid conditions. Soon after she had Philip stabbed to death while his wife watched on.

On Christmas Day 317, Olympias sent Eurydice a sword, a noose, and some hemlock, and ordered her to choose which way she wanted to die. After cursing Olympias’ name that she might suffer a similarly sad end, Eurydice chose the noose. Olympias herself did not live long to cherish this victory. The following year Olympias’ control of Macedonia was overthrown by Cassander, another of the Successors. Upon capturing Olympias, Cassander sent two hundred soldiers to her house to slay her.

However, after being overawed by the sight of Alexander the Great’s mother, the hired killers did not go through with the task. Yet this only temporarily prolonged Olympias’ life as relatives of her past victims soon murdered her in revenge.

Artemisia I of Caria (5th Century BC)

Named after the Goddess of the Hunt (Artemis), Artemisia was the 5th century BCE Queen of Halicarnassus, a kingdom that exists in modern-day Turkey. However, she was best known as a naval commander and ally of Xerxes, the King of Persia, in his invasion of the Greek city-states. (Yes, like in the action movie 300: Rise of an Empire.) She made her mark on history in the Battle of Salamis, where the fleet she commanded was deemed the best against the Greeks. Greek historian Herodotus wrote of her heroics on this battlefield of the sea, painting her as a warrior who was decisive and incredibly intelligent in her strategies. This included a ruthless sense of self-preservation. With a Greek vessel bearing down on her ship, Artemisia intentionally steered into another Persian vessel to trick the Greeks into believing she was one of them. It worked. The Greeks left her be. The Persian ship sank. Watching from the shore, Xerxes saw the collision and believed Artemisia had sunk a Greek enemy, not one of his own.

For all of this, her death was not one recorded in a great battle, but in legends written by the victors, the Greeks - so one must obviously be skeptical of accepting what they said as 100% truth. It's said that Artemisia fell hard for a Greek man, who ignored her to his detriment. Blinded by love, she blinded him in his sleep. Yet even with him disfigured, her passion for him burned. To cure herself, she set to leap from a tall rock in Leucas, Greece, which was believed to break the bonds of love. Instead, it broke Artemisia's neck. She's said to be buried nearby.

But much like Penthesilea, she lives on in our modern culture, but arguably more dubiously through Hollywood in the sub-par action movie 300: Rise of an Empire. Now I forever think of Artemisia as the beautiful and sultry French actress, Eva Green.

Boadicea (also written as Boudica)

Boadicea was a Celtic queen who led a revolt against Roman rule in ancient Britain in A.D. 60 or 61. As all of the existing information about her comes from Roman scholars, particularly Tacitus and Cassius Dio, little is known about her early life; it’s believed she was born into an elite family in Camulodunum (now Colchester) around A.D. 30.

At the age of 18, Boudica married Prasutagas, king of the Iceni tribe of modern-day East Anglia. When the Romans conquered southern England in A.D. 43, most Celtic tribes were forced to submit, but the Romans let Prasutagas continue in power as a forced ally of the Empire. When he died without a male heir in A.D. 60, the Romans annexed his kingdom and confiscated his family’s land and property. As a further humiliation, they publicly flogged Boadicea and raped her two daughters. Tacitus recorded Boudicca’s promise of vengeance after this last violation: “Nothing is safe from Roman pride and arrogance. They will deface the sacred and will deflower our virgins. Win the battle or perish, that is what I, a woman, will do.”

Like other ancient Celtic women, Boadicea had trained as a warrior, including fighting techniques and the use of weapons. With the Roman provincial governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus leading a military campaign in Wales, Boadicea led a rebellion of the Iceni and members of other tribes resentful of Roman rule. After defeating the Roman Ninth Legion, the queen’s forces destroyed Camulodunum, then the captain of Roman Britain, and massacred its inhabitants. They went on to give similar treatment to London and Verulamium (modern St. Albans). By that time, Suetonius had returned from Wales and marshaled his army to confront the rebels. In the clash that followed–the exact battle site is unknown, but possibilities range from London to Northamptonshire–the Romans managed to defeat the Britons despite inferior numbers, and Boadicea and her daughters apparently killed themselves by taking poison in order to avoid capture.

In all, Tacitus claimed, Boadicea’s forces had massacred some 70,000 Romans and pro-Roman Britons. Though her rebellion failed, and the Romans would continue to control Britain until A.D. 410, Bouadicea is celebrated today as a British national heroine and an embodiment of the struggle for justice and independence.

Queen Zenobia

In the 3rd century AD, Queen Zenobia, natively know as Bath Zabbai, was a fierce ruler of Palmyra, a region in modern day Syria.  Throughout her life, Zenobia became known as the ‘warrior queen’. She expanded Palmyra from Iraq to Turkey, conquered Egypt and challenged the dominance of Rome.

“Zenobia was esteemed the most lovely as well as the most heroic of her sex,” Gibbon wrote in an awestruck account of her brief reign. “She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, equaled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valour.” The only contemporary representation we have of Zenobia is on a coin, which makes her look rather witchlike, but Gibbon’s description of her pearly-white teeth and large black eyes, which “sparkled with uncommon fire,” cast a spell over future historians, both in the West and in the Arab world, who quarrel over nearly everything having to do with Zenobia and her confounding legacy.

Many legends have arisen about Zenobia’s identity, but it seems she was born into a family of great nobility who claimed the notorious Queen Dido of Carthage and Cleopatra VII of Egypt as ancestors. She was given a Hellenistic education, learning Latin, Greek, the Syriac and Egyptian languages. According to the Historia Augusta her favourite childhood hobby was hunting, and she proved to be a brave and brilliant horsewoman.

Despite this, many ancient sources seem to gravitate to one quality – that she was an exceptional beauty who captivated men across the whole of Syria with her ravishing looks and irresistible charm.

She was probably in her twenties when she took the throne, upon the death of her husband, King Odenathus, in 267 or 268. Acting as regent for her young son, she then led the army in a revolt against the Romans, conquering Egypt and parts of Asia Minor. By 271, she had gained control of a third of the Roman Empire. Gibbon sometimes portrays the warrior queen as a kind of well-schooled Roman society matron. “She was not ignorant of the Latin tongue,” he writes, “but possessed in equal perfection the Greek, the Syriac, and the Egyptian languages.” Palmyra’s abundant wall inscriptions are in Latin, Greek, and an Aramaic dialect, not Arabic. But to Arab historians, such as the ninth-century al-Tabari, Zenobia was a tribal queen of Arab, rather than Greek, descent, whose original name was Zaynab, or al-Zabba. Among Muslims, she is seen as a herald of the Islamic conquests that came four centuries later.

This view, popular within the current Syrian regime, which boasts Zenobia on its currency, also resonates within radical Islamic circles. Isis radical fighters have believed Palmyra to be somehow a distinctively Arab place, where Zenobia stood up to the Roman emperor.” Indeed, Isis fighters, after seizing Palmyra, released a video showing the temples and colonnades at the ruins, a unesco World Heritage site, intact. “Concerning the historical city, we will preserve it,” an Isis commander, Abu Laith al-Saudi, told a Syrian radio station. “What we will do is pulverise the statues the miscreants used to pray to.” Fighters then set about sledgehammering statues and shrines.

Zenobia’s nemesis was the Roman emperor Aurelian, who led his legions through Asia Minor, reclaiming parts of the empire she had taken. Near Antioch, she met him with an army of seventy thousand men, but the Roman forces chased them back to their desert stronghold. During the siege of the city, Aurelian wrote to Zenobia, “I bid you surrender, promising that your lives shall be spared.” She replied, “You demand my surrender as though you were not aware that Cleopatra preferred to die a queen rather than remain alive.” Zenobia attempted to escape to Persia, but was captured before she could cross the Euphrates. Palmyra was sacked after a second revolt. Aurelian lamented in a letter to one of his lieutenants, “We have not spared the women, we have slain the children, we have butchered the old men.”

Some Arab sources adhere to the theory that Zenobia committed suicide before she could be caught. Gibbon follows Roman accounts that place her in Rome as the showpiece of Aurelian’s triumphal procession. “The beauteous figure of Zenobia was confined by fetters of gold; a slave supported the gold chain which encircled her neck, and she almost fainted under the intolerable weight of jewels,” he writes. The grand homecoming apparently elicited a snarky response from the commentariat. According to the “Historia Augustus,” Aurelian complained, “Nor would those who criticise me, praise me sufficiently, if they knew what sort of woman she was.” Instead of beheading her in front of the Temple of Jupiter, once a common fate of renegades, he awarded her a villa in Tivoli. The historian Syncellus reported that she married a Roman senator; their descendants were listed into the fifth century. She is said to have died in 274 AD in Rome.

Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122-1204)

Eleanor was a formidable Queen twice over – first as Queen of France, then of England! Her father William X died in 1137, leaving Eleanor to inherit his titles, lands and enormous wealth at just 15. Suddenly one of France’s most eligible bachelorettes, she married Louis, son of the French King, and not long after became Queen of France, still in her teens.

Famously fierce and tenacious, Eleanor exerted considerable influence over Louis, and accompanied him on the Second Crusade of 1147-49. After their marriage was annulled in 1152, she stayed single for just two months before marrying the heir to the English throne Henry Plantagenet, and in 1154 they were crowned King and Queen of England. Eleanor took a leading role in running the country, directing church and state affairs when Henry was away, and travelling extensively to consolidate their power across England. This was all while raising eight children, and finding time to be a great patron of courtly love poetry!

Eleanor and Henry separated in 1167, and after Eleanor sided with her children over Henry during a revolt, she became Henry’s prisoner. She was held under house arrest for over a decade, and it was only in 1189 after Henry died and her son Richard the Lionheart became king that Eleanor was freed.

By now a widow in her 70s, instead of retiring to a quiet life away from court politics, Eleanor became more badass than ever. While Richard was away on crusade she took a leading role once again in running the realm and fending off threats of attack, and when he was taken hostage by the Duke of Austria she personally collected his ransom money and travelled to Austria to deliver it and ensure his safe return to England.

After spending many of her final years criss-crossing France and Spain on diplomatic and military missions, Eleanor died in 1204 at a monastery in Anjou. The nuns there described her as a queen ‘who surpassed almost all the queens of the world’.

Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603)

Elizabeth I is one of my favourite Queens of all time. She reigned for 45 years and is well remembered for her defeat of the Spanish Armada, her progresses, her economic policies, and her patronage of the arts – as well as her virginity. The history books talk much of her make-up and spinsterhood, but there is no doubt that she was one of the most badass monarchs England ever had.

Elizabeth’s early life did not start well. By the age of three, her father had had her mother executed, and Elizabeth had been deemed illegitimate. Nonetheless she was given a rigorous education. One tutor even noted that her mind showed “no womanly weakness”. She excelled at Greek, Latin, French and Italian, as well as theology – knowledge that would equip her for diplomatic leadership so necessary in later life.

In 1554, under the reign of her devout Catholic sister Mary, Elizabeth became the focus of a Protestant rebellion. She was arrested and sent to the Tower of London, but was found innocent and escaped with her life a few months later. Her true commitment to the reformed church was only openly revealed upon her accession to the throne.

Indeed, as Queen Elizabeth promptly expressed her support for the Protestant church, and yet her reign is celebrated for bringing relative religious stability to the country. She adopted a policy to not “make windows into men’s souls”, which allowed for a margin of freedom beyond that of the monarchs before her. Her astute appointment of ministers and officials along with careful housekeeping also led to a period of relative economic stability, which in turn allowed for the arts to flourish during this time. Elizabeth attended the first performance of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and appointed the acclaimed miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard as a court painter.

Elizabeth’s choice not to marry was radical (and wholly understandable given her monster for a father and abusive step-father.) Yet, throughout her reign the expectation remained that she would find a husband and give birth to an heir. Instead, the Queen used her ‘eligible bachelor’ position as a political tool, while creating an image of herself as married to the nation. Her popularity with her subjects and her own self-styled image as Gloriana made Good Queen Bess into a legendary figure; today, she has been portrayed in more films and television shows than any other British monarch.

Her most amazing achievement is the fact that her name defined a chapter of Western history so that even today we talk of Elizabethan era. A feat matched only by Queen Victoria to define the 19th Century.

Tomoe Gozen

When I was living in Japan as a child I began to appreciate Japanese history. I also took an interest in the Japanese martial arts as well as being thrown in at the deep end to struggle to learn the language. So as an outsider I was happy to discover that Japanese women were not always demure and subservient or even passive witnesses to history. Some even made it. Outsiders don’t truly know how some Japanese women had shaped their own destiny as well as their country’s within the constraints of the rigid social structures of Japanese society. Contrary to what many think there were indeed female samurai. Not many but one or two who became the stuff of legend and lore.

The most famous onna-bugeisha (female samurai) in Japanese history was Tomoe Gozen. Gozen was a title of respect bestowed on her by her master, shogun Minamoto no Yoshinaka. She fought alongside male samurais in the Genpei War, which lasted from 1180 to 1185. While a woman fighting among men was highly unusual, it seems Yoshinaka's high esteem for Tomoe and her fighting skills overcame prejudice.

In the history tome The Tale of Heike, Tomoe was described as "a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot." She was also said to be beautiful, fearless, and respected.

Her hobbies included riding wild horses down intimidatingly steep hills. She regularly led men into battle and to victory. Her last was the Battle of Awazu, where Minamoto no Yoshinaka was killed. Tomoe escaped her enemies there, and gave up her sword and bowed to retirement. From there, some say she married. Years later, when her husband died, it's believed Tomoe became a nun.

Nakano Takeko

The other known onna-bugeisha (female samurais) in Japan's history, Takeko was educated in literary and martial arts before distinguishing herself in the Boshin War, a Japanese civil war that lasted from January 3rd May 1868 to 18th May 1869.

In the Battle of Aizu in the fall of 1868, she and other females who chose to fight were not recognised as an official part of the Aizu army. Nonetheless, Takeko led her peers in a unit that was later dubbed Jōshitai, which translates to the "Women's Army." Her weapon of choice was the naginta, a Japanese pole arm. But while it helped her earn glory, it would not safeguard her through the war.

Takeko was shot in the chest while leading a charge against the Imperial Japanese Army of the Ogaki domain. Fearing that her enemies would defile her body and make her head a gruesome war trophy, she asked her sister to cut it off and bury it. This was her final wish, and her head was subsequently buried beneath a pine tree at the Hōkai-ji Temple in modern-day Fukushima. Today, a monument to her stands nearby, where girls come each year to honour her and her Women's Army during the Aizu Autumn Festival.

Laxmibai, the Rani of Jhansi (1828-1858)

Laxmibai would have made any of warrior women of Classical antiquity proud. She was the last of the true warrior queens. The fact she was Indian and bitterly fought the British to the death doesn’t deter me from admiring her hugely in the same way the British still admire Joan of Arc.

Like many other families scattered across the British Empire, my family lost brave relatives who died during the tragic Indian Mutiny of 1857 (the Indians call it the First War for Independence). But however ugly and bloody that chapter of British imperial history was, I find myself in awe of the life of Laxmibai, the Rani of Jhansi.

When as a family we moved to India I learned a little about her from Indian school friends. I learned a lot more from a couple of Indian officer cadets at Sandhurst (Sandhurst takes in officer cadets from the Commonwealth and other countries) with whom I struck an affable friendship because I could speak Hindi and we used to watch Bollywood movies with our platoon mates. Laxmibai is every bit as remarkable as Jeanne d’Arc and much more. I can say I am humbled when I try to retrace her steps of her life when I visit India from time to time.

By the time Laxmibai (or Lakshmibai) was a teenager, she had already violated many of the expectations for women in India’s patriarchal society. She could read and write. She had learned to ride a horse and wield a sword. She talked back to anyone who tried to tell her to live her life differently. But where those spirited ways might have been scorned in another young Indian woman, they would prove to serve her well as she went on to leave an indelible mark on Indian history.

In the mid-19th century, what became the modern nation of India was dotted with hundreds of princely states, one of which, Jhansi, in the north, was ruled by Queen Laxmibai. Her reign came at a pivotal time: The British, who were expanding their presence in India, had annexed her realm and stripped her of power. Laxmibai tried to regain control of Jhansi through negotiations, but when her efforts failed she joined the Indian Rebellion of 1857, an uprising of soldiers, landowners, townspeople and others against the British in what is now known as India’s first battle for independence. It would be 90 years before the country would finally uproot the British, in 1947.

The queen, or rani, went on to train and lead her own army, composed of both men and women, only to perish on the battlefield in June 1858. In the decades that followed, her life became a subject of competing narratives. Indians hailed her as a heroine, the British as a wicked, Jezebel-like figure. But somewhere between these portrayals she emerged as a symbol not just of resistance but of the complexities associated with being a powerful woman in India.

Laxmibai wasn’t of royal blood. Manakarnika, as she was named at birth, is widely believed to have been born in 1827 in Varanasi, a city in northeast India on the banks of the Ganges River. She was raised among the Brahmin priests and scholars who sat atop India’s caste system. Her father worked in royal courts as an adviser, giving her access to an education, as well as horses. In 1842, Manakarnika married Maharaja Gangadar Rao, the ruler of Jhansi, and took on the name Laxmibai. (It was — and, in some parts of the country, still is — a common practice for women to change their names after marriage.)

By most accounts she was an unconventional queen, and a compassionate one. She refused to abide by the norms of the purdah system, under which women were concealed from public view by veils or curtains. She insisted on speaking with her advisers and British officials face to face. She wore a turban, an accessory more common among men. And she is said to have trained women in her circle to ride and fight. She attended to the poor, regardless of their caste, a practice that even today would be considered bold in parts of India. While she was queen, the powerful British East India Company was beginning to seize more land and resources. In 1848, Lord Dalhousie, India’s governor general, declared that princely states with leaders lacking natural born heirs would be annexed by the British under a policy called the ‘Doctrine of Lapse’.

Laxmibai’s only child had died, and her husband’s health was starting to deteriorate. The couple decided to adopt a 5 year-old boy to groom as successor to the throne, and hoped that the British would recognize his authority despite the declaration. “I trust that in consideration of the fidelity I have evinced toward government, favour may be shown to this child and that my widow during her lifetime may be considered the Regent,” her husband, the maharaja, wrote in a letter, as quoted in Rainer Jerosch's book,  “The Rani of Jhansi: Rebel Against Will” (2007). His pleas were ignored. Soon after he died, in 1853, the East India Company offered the queen a pension if she agreed to cede control. She refused, exclaiming: “Meri Jhansi nahin dungee” (“I will not give up my Jhansi”) - a Hindi phrase that to this day is etched into India’s memory, stirring up feelings of pride and patriotism.

Beyond Jhansi’s borders, a rebellion was brewing as the British imposed their social and Christian practices and banned Indian customs. The uprising spread from town to town, reaching Jhansi in June 1857. Dozens of British were killed in the ensuing massacre by the rebels. The British turned on Laxmibai, accusing her of conspiring with the rebels to seek revenge over their refusal to recognize her heir. Whether or not she did remains disputed. Some accounts insist that she was wary of the rebels and that she had even offered to protect British women and children during the violence.

Tensions escalated, and in early 1858 the British stormed Jhansi’s fortress.

“Street fighting was going on in every quarter,” Dr. Thomas Lowe, the army’s field surgeon, wrote in his 1860 book “Central India During the Rebellion of 1857 and 1858.” “Heaps of dead lay all along the rampart and in the streets below….Those who could not escape,” he added, “threw their women and babies down wells and then jumped down themselves.” As the town burned, the queen escaped on horseback with her son, Damodar, tied to her back.

Historians have not reached a consensus on how she managed to pull this off. Some contend that her closest aide, Jhalkaribai, disguised herself as the queen to distract the British and buy time for her to get away.

In the end, the British took the town, leaving 3,000 to 5,000 people dead, and hoisted the British flag atop the palace. Left with no other options, Laxmibai decided to join the rebel forces and began training an army in the nearby state of Gwalior.

The British troops, close on her heels, attacked Gwalior on a scorching summer morning in June 1858. She led a countercharge — “clad in the attire of a man and mounted on horseback,” the British historians John Kaye and George Malleson wrote in “History of the Indian Mutiny” (1890) — and was killed. However accounts differ on whether she was stabbed with a saber or struck by a bullet. It was the last battle in the Indian Rebellion.

“The Indian Mutiny had produced but one man,” Sir Hugh Rose, the leader of the British troops, reportedly said when fighting ended, “and that man was a woman.”

The violence left thousands dead on both sides. The British government dissolved the East India Company over concerns about its aggressive rule and brought India under the control of the Crown. It then reversed Lord Dalhousie’s policy of annexing kingdoms without heirs.

Today, Queen Laxmibai of Jhansi has been immortalised in India’s nationalist narrative. There are movies, TV shows, books and even nursery rhymes about her. Streets, colleges and universities are named after her. Young girls dress up in her likeness, wearing pants, turbans and swords. Statues of her on horseback, with her son tied to her back, have been erected in many cities throughout India.

And, almost a century after her death, the Indian National Army formed an all-female unit that aided the country in its battle for independence in the 1940s. It was called the Rani of Jhansi regiment.

There are plenty of other women that one could write about of great women leaders who while not on the front line of battle did lead their countries to greatness or skilfully pulled the strings from behind the throne. History is littered with many examples.

What metrics we determine to define ‘greatness” is very much in the eye of the beholder. It’s not a matter of masculine or feminine virtues - although they are important in their own way. Above all I would say what makes a leader great is character.

There is no ‘weaker sex’ - that would be a terribly unfair slur on our men.

I’m joking of course. But my point stands. I don’t believe it’s about who is the weaker sex. But let’s talk of character instead.

Character defines the essence of leadership. I say this because I often encounter a perception among women that they need to become more like men to be considered equal to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. What makes you uniquely who you are as a woman is highly important.

We are all called to become the best versions of ourselves, and as women, we don’t do that by trying to be more like men. It would be a mistake to put one’s heroines on a pedestal because they are all flawed and have feet of clay - just like men. Character knows no gender. Character is virtuous. Character is rising to greatness despite one’s flaws.

As early as the 1300s, Catherine of Sienna wisely said, “Be who you were created to be, and you will set the world on fire.” More than 500 years later, Oscar Wilde reiterated that notion: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”

So be the best version of yourself.

Thanks for your question.

[anothermcytblog]

Of Hades, Of Achilles (Of Apollo)

Style: One Shot Word Count: 1202 CW: Ranboo hallucinates Dream again! 

Summary: You look at the door you watched Techno walk out of and you wonder how many of the stories are true, and how many are made up from fear.  // ... Picturing Dream in his armor and shield, the river Styx flowing behind him. // Apollo, who walks next to you in a green hoodie and white mask, humming the anthem of a home he destroyed.

The snow stung as you work on building your little shack. Dream (No, no not Dream. Just your imagination again, you’re safe you’re safe youresafeyou resafeyoursafe) sits on one of the ledges, feet dangling off the edge. In the back of your mind, you wonder when you started seeing him with a halo made of sunlight with a crown made of black and white feathers on his head. You place another spruce plank on the roof, careful to make it secure but easily removable just in case. (“Just in case of what? You get kicked out?” Dream asks you, resting his chin on the palm of his hand as he leans down to watch you work, “Betray them like you betrayed Theseus and Echo, like you betrayed-” You tune him out quickly, hands tightening around the pieces of the wood as you try and remember how to breathe.)

The army of dogs bark in the background as you tie the planks down with some rope, “Cerberus…es,” You mutter to yourself, making a tight knot as you think of flames amidst the snow.

--

“For me?” You quietly ask, gently taking the old book Techno holds out to you. He doesn’t verbally respond- looking a bit bashful- rather he just nods and once you have the book, he heads out on one of his journeys. Looking at the book, you run your fingers over the cover. ‘Myths of Old for beginners’ is written in golden cursive against a darker red. Quietly, you sit next to Edward with your back against the chests, giving a small chitter as a greeting to him before you open the book up to read what you land on- Hades.

“Being given the Underworld after his father, Cronus was defeated, Hades is the God of the dead. While he does supervise the trial and punishment of the dead, he normally isn’t one of the judges nor did he personally torture the guilty. More often than not, his personality is stern and aloof, unmoved by prayer or sacrifice.

Spotting Persephone in a garden, Hades had fallen in love. In some stories, Zeus gave consent to Hades abducting Persephone- even lying as to where Hades had taken Persephone, saying it was either Sicily or Asia. More commonly, however, is Hades just kidnapping and bringing Persephone down to the Underworld.

Demeter, Persephones mother, and goddess of the harvest, began to search the Overworld for her. Eventually, Demeter arrived in Eleusis and disguised herself as an old woman, and began taking care of Demophon, the prince of Eleusis. In exchange for the kindness the family had given her, she began making Demophon immortal by placing him in fire each night. When Metaneira, his mother, saw this, she raised alarm. This is when Demeter revealed her true identity and demanded the kingdom make a temple be built in her honor. When it was completed, Demeter left the Overworld to live in the temple, bringing a great drought to the land to force the other gods to make Hades release Persephone.

As the drought claimed more victims, Zeus had no choice but to send Hermes to try and persuade Hades to release Persephone. It gets murky here, however, regardless of how it happened, Persephone had eaten at least a single pomegranate seed which trapped her in the underworld. A compromise was made, however, that for half a year Persephone would spend in the overworld- the other half in the underworld.

In some myths, Persephone and Hades genuinely loved one another, in others, it was one sided. Myths and stories get muddled when people speak them.”

You blink, fingers tracing over the letters of the page. Hm… You look at the image of Hades on the last page, Cerberus behind him. Tall, dark, brooding- terrifying with a crown on his head- but you look at his myth and you wonder what part you’re supposed to be scared of. Hades is the god of the dead, he isn’t the god of death. You wonder if there is more to his story you’ll never learn, his title and appearance leading people to presume things that are untrue.

You look at the door you watched Techno walk out of and you wonder how many of the stories are true, and how many are made up from fear.

--

“I’m surprised you chose Hades,” Apollo- No, Dream - tells you, floating next to you as you finish up the shack, “People tend to point out that Hades is the God of The Dead, not The God of death .”

“Shut up,” You mumble, shaking your head to try and get him to leave (He’s not real, but… it’s less lonely with him here at least) “Hades is often mistaken as the god of death and people tend to assume things about him and- You’re not even real! Why am I arguing this?!”

He laughs for a moment, it sounds more human than anyone you heard in L’manberg, but then he’s suddenly next to you and you are vividly aware of how fake he is, “So, Hades Techno. What about me, hm?”

You hesitate, “Dream is Achilles,” You tell him, trying to make that separation more visible in your brain, “Appearing invincible, though very mortal- unless you believe the myths were he is immortal everywhere except his heel- with very powerful armor and a powerful shield, Achilles is a powerhouse in the Greek army. Achilles is petty, believing in taking two eyes for every one eye you take. Of course, he has his reasons for it but he didn’t need to humiliate Hector even in death. He does relent, however it takes a while. The original Iliad ends there, however, in later stories Paris, Hectors' brother, kills Achilles with an arrow guided by Apollo right to his heel- his one weakness.”

You pause for a moment, trying to collect your thoughts as you jump off the roof of the shack, wincing a little when you land, “Dream is powerful, appearing invincible but… but I want to believe he has a weakness. Sisyphus reminds us that no one can escape death.”

You walk in the snow quietly on your way back to Techno and Phils cottage to get the rest of your things, picturing Dream in his armor and shield, the river Styx flowing behind him.

--

You walk quietly in the snow next to Halo Dream, thinking of Apollo. Apollo isn’t a perfect fit for Dream, not like Achilles, but you can’t help but think of Apollo interfering with mortals in so many myths. Apollo, being the one to guide the arrow that kills Achilles. Apollo, who speaks of prophecies that lead to people's end (Is Apollo any better than you? Who are you trying to prove yourself to?). Apollo, who can’t let people have happy endings. Apollo, blessing Cassandra at first but cursing her as soon as he couldn't get what he wanted from her.

Apollo, who walks next to you in a green hoodie and white mask, humming the anthem of a home he destroyed.

[edelwoodsouls]

maybe in another universe - ch. 1 [fic]

Jon isn’t expecting anything good when he’s evacuated to the countryside. Living with his crush rival he can just about handle. The secret magical world in the upstairs wardrobe, on the other hand, might just break him.

AKA: Narnia AU

Word Count: 2,707 | Also on Ao3 | Other Chapters: 2,

chapter one: the train to everywhere

As the train leaves the station, Jon doesn't look back.

The corridors outside his carriage are filled with other kids, craning their necks out of the windows to wave at their parents, tears streaming down their faces. It's a mess of loud noise and emotion that makes Jon wholly uncomfortable.

There's no one for him to look back to, no one to share tears with. No one to yell at him, you'll be home before you know it! and have fun, dear! it's okay!

He curls his arms around his suitcase and stares out the opposite window, at the vanishing buildings. Smoke shimmers over the horizon, mixing with the clouds, and Jon tries to imagine the view from above. When the planes fly overhead, do they recognise the smothered lights flickering below? Do they spare a thought for the bodies on the other side of the flames?

The corners of his suitcase begin to dig painfully into his skin.

Before he can spiral any further, the door to the compartment rattles open with a sudden gunshot sound that sets every nerve in his body alight.

He flinches and turns to see a girl roughly his own age, head swathed in a dark blue hijab, pressing her lips in an apologetic line.

"Sorry," she shrugs noncommittally, inclining her head. "Is that seat taken?"

"Uh, no."

"So I can take it?"

"Yes?"

"Thanks." She shoulders her way into the room, heaving her own suitcase up onto the rack above their heads with an easy movement. Jon grips his own sheepishly - several blows to the head have taught him that he is nowhere near strong enough to haul it up that high.

The girl settles into the seat opposite him, retrieves a book from the recesses of her thick navy trench coat. It's a weathered copy of The Iliad, well-thumbed and annotated.

He's leaning forward curiously before he can help himself.

The girl looks up with raised eyebrows. "Nosy much?"

"Sorry," he shrinks back behind the large bulk in his lap. "I just- I used to have that same copy. Before..."

The girl's face softens, infinitessimly. "It's one of my favourites," she offers, almost apologetically. "I started keeping all my books in the shelter a few months ago. It's the only reason this survived."

Jon says nothing - there's nothing he can really say. In this moment, they are just two strangers, sharing a burning world.

"I'm Basira," the girl says, with a decisive look. "I'm from Finchley, being evacuated to Dorset. You?"

"Uh- same," Jon blinks, surprised. "I'm Jon. I've- I've never seen you before?"

"I mean, I imagine you go to the boys' school."

"Not until last year."

"Oh."

Jon glances down at his hands, hoping Basira can't see the way his fingers are white-knuckled against his suitcase.

"Well, I was new before-" she waves her arms vaguely, "all this. Home-schooled. So not really surprising."

"Oh." Slowly, one by one, Jon allows his muscles to relax. "That must've been nice. Quiet."

"That's one word for it," Basira mutters in a way that implies a hundred other meanings than nice. "I was really looking forward to actually getting to know people, y'know? New people, my own age."

"Well, you know me now?"

"Yeah. Yeah, I guess I do."

Jon tries for a smile, but it comes out as something more of a grimace. All the same, Basira seems to get the sentiment, and returns it.

~/~/~/~

Martin hates trains.

In theory, they're the perfect vessel. Hours of uninterrupted time, the world moving beneath your feet as you curl into a seat with a hot cup of tea and your favourite paperback.

But he hasn't been on a train since his mother sent him away to London, and that sort of memory tends to leave one with a distaste by association.

Now here he is, only a few years later, being sent away again.

He's just glad his mother refused to take him in. He's not sure he could bear going back to that house, potentially indefintiely.

All the same, he's trying to make the best out of the journey that he can. He's heard horror stories of other evacuees, forced to work on farms or taken in only to be used for their ration cards. If that's the sort of fate he's headed for, he'll take the luxury of a nice cuppa and the drafting of a few poems whilst it's still there.

And he really is in the perfect place for it. The smouldering London skyline behind him, the fathomless countryside ahead. A world in flux and chaos, defined in fire and water.

He notes that down in his journal.

"Any good thoughts?" Melanie asks through a mouthful of sandwich.

Martin blinks up at the girl sharing his compartment, an embodiment of chaos if ever he's seen one. She's lying across the seats opposite him, her suitcase open and contents strewn everywhere - she'd been digging through it to find something inane which turned out to be in her pocket the whole time, and hasn't bothered to pack it up again.

Martin's hands itch to tidy the space - instead he grips his pen a little too hard and settles for a quzzical smile.

"Your writing," she points with the corner of her sandwich. "You look very deep in concentration and dramatic. Any good thoughts?"

"I suppose," he shrugs, retreating somewhat under Melanie's energetic gaze. "Something about dichotomies. Peace and war, fire and water. City and country."

"Men and women, nurse and soldier. Alive and dead."

Martin raises an eyebrow. "I guess."

"Hey- if there's any time to be morbid, it's during a war, dontcha think?"

"True. Do you write?"

"Nope. I do photography, though."

Martin can feel himself getting interested despite himself. "Really? Do you have a camera?"

Melanie nudges at the pile of clothes somehow still heaped in the boundaries of her suitcase, revealing the packaging of a beautiful, sleek camera piece that makes Martin fall a little in love with this stranger instantly.

"Is that a Retina I?" he asks, unable to quite keep the awe out of his voice.

"You really know your tech," Melanie says approvingly. "Yeah, it is. I'm going to be a supernaturalist."

"A what?"

"A supernaturalist, Martin. I'm going to be the first person to prove that ghosts exist. I'm going to get one on film."

"Huh."

Martin deliberately avoids Melanie's eyes. To believe in the supernatural is not generally approved of, let alone to talk about it with the sudden reverence and conviction that have crept into Melanie's voice.

He's gotten very used to pretending he's never seen anything out of the ordinary. The smoke that follows him around like a shadow, the spiders that seem to understand him just a little too intelligently - they all have mundane explanations.

He's never met someone so open about such things.

He lasts a matter of seconds before his tongue gets the better of him. "What've you seen?"

Melanie grins, as if she's been waiting from the moment they met just for him to ask. "I got shot by a ghost."

Martin almost knocks over his tea. "I'm sorry?"

"I got shot by a ghost."

"Yeah, you said that already. What I meant to say was, what the fuck?"

Melanie looks delighted to have his attention. She reaches down and rolls her sock to her ankle, revealing a garish red scar screaming across her leg. "London's full of ghosts, if you hadn't noticed. They just love the chaos that's going on right now, always wandering all over the place when the streets are empty and everyone's hidden in their shelters."

"I'm guessing you're not one for shelters," Martin says dryly, attempting to smother the sheer confusion and excitement doing battle in his brain.

"Of course not," Melanie scoffs. "They won't let me enlist because I'm a girl, but, I mean, have you seen some of the boys in charge of Finchley's bomb clearance?"

"A lot of them were in the year above me at school," Martin nods. He could say far more bitter things, but he keeps his mouth shut.

"They're kids, just like us," Melanie nods, a furious look in her eyes. "I wouldn't trust them to protect me from a particularly vicious duck, let alone the end of days raining from the sky."

Martin grins in agreement. Despite initial perceptions, he's starting to like Melanie a lot.

A shame they'll only get to know each other for this one train ride, likely never to hear from each other again. Unless Melanie does actually become famous for photographing ghosts, and he becomes famous for his poetry, and maybe they'll meet at a gala sixty years from now and not recognise each other at all.

Martin mentally kicks himself out of that particular spiral. He's always had a problem with melancholy, and the world being on fire has hardly done anything to improve him.

He's convinced it's what makes him a good poet.

"Hey," he says, to distract himself. "Where are you being sent to?"

"Some professor," Melanie shrugs. "Probably a stuffy old bat who'll put you to work if she finds a single fingerprint in the dust. Academics are all the same, from what I've seen."

Martin looks down at his own tag, brown paper tied with fraying string, looped around his neck by a disinterested attendant at the posting office. He hasn't actually had the nerve to read the name yet.

His heart picks up. "Melanie... it's not Professor Gertrude Robinson, is it?"

~/~/~/~/~

"...But Patroclus called to his comrades with a loud shout: “Myrmidons, ye comrades of Achilles, son of Peleus, be men, my friends, and bethink you of furious valour, to the end that we may win honour for the son of Peleus, that is far the best of the Argives by the ships, himself and his squires that fight in close combat; and that the son of Atreus, wide-ruling Agamemnon, may know his blindness in that he honoured not at all the best of the Achaeans-"

"Achilles is such an idiot," Basira interrupts, rolling her eyes and flipping the coin in her palm in absent, distracted movements.

Jon raises an eyebrow and lowers the book. "I can stop, if you'd prefer."

"No, no, you're okay. You've got a surprisingly good voice for this stuff. I'm glad you suggested it."

They've been taking turns reading aloud, switching out every few pages to pass the time, since Jon has no books of his own. But Basira seems to have quickly decided that Jon is a born narrator and delegated all further reading to him.

He's been glowing faintly from the praise ever since.

The journey has flown by - as time often does when Jon's hyperfixations make an appearance - but for once he doesn't feel guilty about indulging it. Basira seems just as fascinated, somehow, and he greatly enjoys her interruptions.

"You don't think Achilles is an idiot?" she asks, crossing her legs and leaning forward intently.

"No, I definitely do- he sends his boyfriend out to fight a war he isn't prepared for just because of a grudge and then throws a tantrum when that hubris gets him killed. He's definitely an idiot."

"Oh good," Basira says, visibly relieved. "For a moment there I thought we were going to have to argue."

Jon laughs, and the sound comes easier than it has in a while. This realisation crawls under his skin, cutting the sound short. He looks out of the window for some semblance of escape-

"Hey! Look!" He points out at the approaching train station, a quaint thing, barely more than a slab of stone emerging from a field. But the sign, rusted as it is, reads the same as the looping handwriting on the label around his neck does.

"Oh joy," Basira sighs. "Countryside air and a new family who'll probably hate me."

"Where are you being sent?" Jon asks, more hopeful than he's willing to admit. "Maybe we'll be neighbours."

"The household of Professor Gertrude Robinson," she reads from her own label.

"So am I!" Jon's heart leaps high in his chest despite himself. "You know, if we're with a professor, she might- I mean, she probably isn't a rough work kind of person- so maybe... this won't be so awful after all?"

Of course, Jon has always had a habit of speaking too soon.

~/~/~/~/~

Gathering Melanie's discarded belongings is a predictably chaotic affair, but she executes it with the practiced air of someone who lives that way every day.

Martin can't decide whether he's excited or dreading living with this girl.

As soon as they sprawl out onto the platform with seconds to spare, Martin realises that Melanie's mess is the least of his worries.

Because perched on the station's only bench, face knitted into his iconic perpetual frown, eyes squinting against the sun, is Jonathan fucking Sims.

Next to his suitcase, and wearing a knitted jumper several sizes too big, he looks tiny. The tall hijabi girl standing on top of the bench, looking searchingly into the distant fields, only serves to exaggerate this.

Melanie notices the sudden drain in his skin immediately, and follows his gaze. "For fucks sake."

"You know him?" Martin asks faintly, resisting the urge to brush his hands through his hair, or smooth his clothes. Jon doesn't care what he looks like, doesn't care about him. He should've learnt back in primary school that being rivals isn't something to be romanticised.

But his heart doesn't seem to get the message as a stray gust of wind dances in Jon's dark hair, and it skips a beat.

"Do I know Jonathan fucking Sims?" Melanie grits out, heaving her suitcase roughly over one shoulder. "That guy is such a wanker. 'Ghosts are for idiots, Melanie. Just a romantic ideal made up by delusional people afraid of the dark.'"

"He's not that bad," Martin begins to protest before he can stop himself, "he's just been through a lot."

"Doesn't excuse him being a dick," Melanie grumbles. "Not to mention he used to date my girlfriend. Always having a disaster and blazing back into her life. What I wouldn't give for five minutes one on one, I'd teach him..."

Melanie goes on muttering under her breath, but Martin barely hears, because Jon has just met his eyes and nothing else in the world matters. There's surprise, then panic, before his expression settles back into a frown.

Martin sighs. It's not as if he should've expected anything else.

"Come on," he says to Melanie, picking up his suitcase. "We'd better get it over with."

The walk to close their distance seems to take hours, and somehow no time at all.

"Martin," Jon greets him with a clipped, emotionless tone.

"Hey, Jon," Martin smiles, refusing to let the other boy's walls get him down. "And you are?"

"Basira," the girl nods, still standing high above them and glancing distractedly towards the dirt path, likely looking for whoever will be along to pick up evacuees. "I guess you guys already know each other?"

"They go to school together," Melanie brushes off the explanation, before introducing herself, too. "Now we're all acquainted, how long before we never have to see each other again?"

Basira's eyes flick silently between the three of them, clearly noting the tension, but saying nothing.

"We're in the same house," Jon says stiffly. "I don't know about you two. I'm sure there are other benches you can loiter at."

"Well we're in the same house," Melanie shoots back, linking her arm with Martin and holding tight. She's a lot stronger than she looks.

An awful thought dawns on Martin, quickly encompassing and eclipsing anything else. "Where..." he swallows around his dry throat, "who are you guys with?"

Martin watches as Jon's eyes widen. Glance down at his own label, across at theirs, and back.

"You've got to be kidding me."

Martin wants to burrow into the ground and hide somewhere his blushing cheeks could never be seen. He shouldn't be surprised, really. This summer was already looking down, being far from London, living with strangers, adjusting to pretending to be whatever fit in most.

Living with the crush who hates his guts is somehow the only escalation that makes sense.

[kashuan]

Helen's whole story is very ambiguous... I always believed she did not want to be with Paris but instead returned to Melanus. But some say she did love him??? What's your opinion??

Agreed, there’s a lot of ambiguity in what canon we have to work with, but my take has always been that there’s a few major points that need to be made to agree

1) Helen was allowed to choose who she wanted to marry in one popular variation of the myth, and she chose Menelaus

2) Given how the Trojans, namely Hector and Priam, are essentially written as noble characters, it seems unlikely they would support Paris kidnapping a woman against her will who actively wanted to return home

3) Paris’ characterization to me always came off as dumb but well meaning. I can’t picture him as the type to cruelly hold a woman against her will especially given how high a price his family and people pay (that honor is later given to Deiphobus, btw)

4) Yet Helen also scolds Paris after his fight with Menelaus in the Iliad while praising her former husband. Earlier, she also expresses how much she misses her home and daughter. So we know that at least by year 9 she is Done with being married to Paris, but who knows about year 1-8.

5) In the Odyssey, there isn’t a sense Helen or Menelaus’ marriage is unhappy. Certainly we can tell Menelaus himself is unhappy due to some very obvious PTSD, but it doesn’t seem directed at their marriage or Helen herself. At the same time, Helen never speaks of the Trojans like they were her heartless captors, in fact Menelaus even recalls the story of Helen trying to aid the Trojans and lure the Greeks out of the horse. Which to me doesn’t really paint her as not wanting to leave so much as not wanting the people who sheltered her for the past ten years to die horribly in a surprise attack? Menelaus must get that since there’s no tone in his story that he resents Helen for it. Nor is there any hint from Helen as it’s told that she secretly wishes the Greeks had been the ones to die and saved her from the misery of being Trapped in Sparta (modern adaptions really want to convince us this is true though).

Thus, to make these fairly consistent details agree, to me the only explanation is that it couldn’t have been as black and white as either Sad Captive Helen or Romeo and Juliet Helen/Paris. I’ve talked about this a little before, but I personally headcanon that it’s a demi-god thing (bc it’s most certainly a god thing) that loving multiple people is in their nature. Because all of their feelings are Bigger feelings than their mortal counterparts— rage, love, etc. That’s how I see Achilles w/ Pat, Iphigenia, Deidamia, Penthesilea, how some of those relationships could exist concurrently… so it makes equal sense to me that Helen could have had strong feelings for both Menelaus and Paris (and maybe someday soon I’ll go into my own Theseus hcs :^))

That said, I also hc that she never loved Paris the way she did Menelaus, after all she only knew him for a short time before they left for Troy. That’s where I imagine Aphrodite came in. Like, we know that since she promised Helen to Paris, one way or another there had to be some manipulation on Aphrodite’s end. If Helen was always just gonna fall in love with him naturally then what’s the point of the whole apple story. So I imagine Aphrodite basically played up those already existing feelings of infatuation and that caused Helen to agree to leave with him etc. I imagine she didn’t know Aphrodite’s role for awhile which explains why she blames herself so heavily, though by the Iliad time period she and Aphrodite have that interaction, and Helen’s anger with her is obviously proof the whole star crossed lovers H/P vs Menelaus the evil tyrant husband doesn’t work. Btw I wonder why so many modern adaptions fail to include Aphrodite’s role….hm……

So yea, that’s my take. The alternative is that Helen was either trapped in a miserable marriage most of her life, had a bittersweet ten years of happiness then went back to her miserable marriage, or she spent ten years cruelly imprisoned, and it actually would be nearly twenty years before she returned home. I mean you could pick one of those versions but as I see it, if you like her character, why would you… It takes some of the tragedy away from the story if you take out the complexity of her feelings imo and just turns into something outright bleak/depressing.