#greek-mythology-lover | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

babyrdie · 11 hours ago

Note

What does your version of Achilles do to Troilus?

It took me ages to answer, sorry! But, well, here's the answer! And not for you, but for some person who decides to read this… I'm not an academic lol take this as purely a reader's opinion.

GREEK TEXTUAL SOURCES

The oldest textual source we have on the subject is Homer, who honestly doesn't give many details. In Book 24 of The Iliad, Troilus is counted among Priam's dead sons. He is still killed by Achilles, but we don't have details of how, although in this version Troilus is a warrior. Here, he isn’t Apollo's son and there is also no mention of a sexual context. In Caroline Alexander's translation, Priam says:

He spoke, and drove the men off with his staff; and they went out before the old man’s urgency. And to his own sons he shouted rebuke, railing at Helenos and Paris and brilliant Agathon and Pammon and Antiphonos and Polites of the war cry and Deïphobos and Hippothoös, too, and noble Dios. To these nine, the old man, shouting his threats, gave orders: “Make haste, worthless children, my disgraces. I would the pack of you together had been slain by the swift ship instead of Hector. Woe is me, fated utterly, since I sired the best sons in broad Troy, but I say not one of them is left, Mestor the godlike and Troilos the chariot fighter and Hector, who was a god among men, nor did he seem to be the son of mortal man, but of a god. War destroyed these men, and all these things of shame are left, the liars and dancers, and heroes of the dance floor, snatchers of lambs and kids in their own land. Will you all not prepare a wagon for me at once, and place all these things in it, so that we can go upon our way?”

The Homeric scholia, written many years later and so the commentator probably knew more versions than Homer, gave more details about this death. It’s mentioned that Sophocles presented a version in which Troilus was ambushed by Achilles while exercising his horses near Thymbraion and was murdered (he’s talking about the lost play Troilus). Furthermore, the scholiast commented on the tendency of later authors to present Troilus as a boy (about age), but the scholiast interprets that Homer didn’t write Troilus as a boy. In Alan Sommerstein's translation:

Scholia to Iliad 24.257: (T) On the basis of this passage Sophocles in Troilus says that he [Troilus] was ambushed by Achilles when exercising his horses near the Thymbraion, and killed. One may infer [from the Homeric text] that … Troilus was more than a boy, since he is listed among the leading warriors. (A) “Troilus the chariot-fighter”: note that on the basis of his being called a “chariot-fighter” later authors had him pursued [by Achilles] when riding a horse. And they [or some] suppose him to be a boy, but Homer by means of this epithet presents him as a grown man, since no one who is not is called a horse-fighter.

In The Cypria, attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus, Achilles apparently kills Troilus before taking Briseis as a prize, something that happened in the early years of the Trojan War. Although what we have of The Cypria are fragments from other authors and not the entire epic, it still doesn't change the fact that the author who tells of Troilus' death at no point felt the need to specify that Troilus was sexually assaulted. Without sufficient evidence to prove otherwise at this point, I’ll assume that in The Cypria he was murdered, but not sexually assaulted. In H.G. Evelyn-White's translation:

The Achaeans next desire to return home, but are restrained by Achilles, who afterwards drives off the cattle of Aeneas, and sacks Lyrnessus and Pedasus and many of the neighbouring cities, and kills Troilus. Patroclus carries away Lycaon to Lemnos and sells him as a slave, and out of the spoils Achilles receives Briseis as a prize, and Agamemnon Chryseis.

In the “Epic Cycle Fragments” edition, which includes The Cypria, The Aethiopis, The Little Iliad, The Sack of Illium, Nostoi and The Telegony, only The Cypria mentions Troilus and, unfortunately, his parentage isn’t mentioned. I don’t know if his father is Priam or Apollo here. Since he doesn’t appear in the summaries/fragments of any of the other epics, I also don’t know if his parentage was mentioned in any of them. This is kind of sad because I think it would be interesting to know.

By the way, to make this clear, I've seen some people question where this idea that Achilles had sexual interest in Troilus came from. Well, in terms of written sources, I think the one that is mainly used for this argument is Lycophron's Alexandra. This poem tells the prophecies of the Trojan princess Cassandra, who is in a prophetic trance and describes the fate of all those involved in the Trojan War while alluding to previous events. At one point, in A.W. Mair's translation, Cassandra laments:

Ay! me, for they fair-fostered flower, too, I groan, O lion whelp, sweet darling of thy kindred, who didst smite with fiery charm of shafts the fierce dragon and seize for a little loveless while in unescapable noose him that was smitten, thyself unwounded by thy victim: thou shalt forfeit thy head and stain thy father’s altar-tomb with thy blood.

It’s a somewhat enigmatic passage, although it’s easy to identify that it’s in fact Troilus because of the last part. Apollo, in some versions (but not all and not even the oldest), is the father of Troilus. Troilus, in many visual representations, is shown as having been decapitated by Achilles, who holds his head in his hands. Furthermore, Alexandra is also, if I’m not mistaken, the oldest source on record to link the death of Achilles by Apollo with the death of Troilus by Achilles. This text received a scholia from the Byzantine Ioannis Tzetzes, who explained:

Alas, alas, I groan, alas, alas, I groan" and your fresh and well-nurtured age, my brother Troilus, "O cub" and most royal offspring, delightful entanglement of the brothers who, having wounded Achilles with the erotic arrow of your beauty, that is, having attracted him so as to fall in love with you, you not having fallen in love with him "beheaded" and your head cut off in the tomb and temple of Apollo by Achilles who fell in love with you and in the beheading "you will stain" the temple with blood. For they say that "alas, alas, I groan" Achilles, having fallen in love with Troilus, the son of Priam, and pursuing him was about to catch him, but he took refuge in the temple of Thymbraean Apollo. But Achilles, forcing him to come out since he did not obey, approached and killed him on the altar. Whom, they say, Apollo also avenged there and prepared for Achilles to be killed. Troilus was said to be by nature the son of Apollo, but by law of Priam. And "wild dragon" Achilles. And these indeed so babble about Troilus but I know this Troilus and having a deep voice and dark-skinned. I do not know, however, if the Thessalian Achilles was so erotic as to even fall in love with those of deeper voice and much older than this; for Troilus was young and beautiful but dark-skinned and deep-voiced and unworthy of Achilles' love. But after the killing of Memnon, having left Troy, he encounters Achilles and is killed by him and there was great mourning in Troy for him like for Hector. "Fire-bearing" but erotic because such passion is hot by nature. The mind; whoever wounded Achilles with your love "the one who was struck" that is, Achilles. But "O cub" "delightful" or dearest of the brothers: for they say that Troilus and Cassandra were twins.

Although there is a comment about Troilus being “unworthy of Achilles’s love” this is clearly Tzetzes’s personal opinion. In the end, it doesn’t change the fact that Tzetzes, as a schoalist, was clearly familiar with the version in which Troilus was attacked in part for sexual reasons. The name of the scholia, if you want to look it up, is Ad Lycophronem. The poem Alexandra subverts the character of Achilles, as it’s intended to emphasize the sympathetic aspects of the Trojans since it happens from Cassandra’s point of view. Achilles, being an very famous Achaean symbol, is the main target of subversions such as the way Lycophron tells the Skyros episode, a version that doesn’t match any other. However, Achilles’ interest in Troilus doesn’t seem to be a subversion of Lycophron. This is because there are other older sources, more specifically visual sources, that are often ignored. I’ll discuss these later. Tzetzes also seems to know versions in which Troilus was a warrior, as in other part he says that he was better than Deiphobus in war.

In Fabulae, attributed to the Roman Hyginus, there are Greek myths being presented to a Roman audience. The author lists Troilus among the sons of Priam, but there is no further comment on this and there is no mention of Apollo's involvement. There is therefore no reason to suppose that Fabulae sees Troilus as a son of Apollo; here he is the son of Priam. He is also listed among the dead princes, with Achilles being named as his murderer/killer. However, there are no details. So all we know is that Achilles at some point murdered/killed Troilus, one of Priam's sons. Again, there is no mention of sexual violence. In Mary Grant's translation:

SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF PRIAM TO THE NUMBER OF LV: Hector, Deiphobus, Cebriones, Polydorus, Helenus, Alexander, Hipposidus, Antinous, Agathon, Dius, Mestor, Lysides, Polymedon, Ascanius, Chirodamas, Evagoras, Dryops, Astynomus, Polymelus, Laodice, Ethionome, Phegea, Henicea, Demnosia, Cassandra, Philomela, Polites, Troilus, Palaemon, Brissonius, Gorgythion, Protodamas, Aretus, Dolon, Chromius, Eresus, Chrysolaus, Demosthea, Doryclus, Hippasus, Hyperochus, Lysianassa, Iliona, Nereis, Evander, Proneos, Archemachus, Ilagus, Axion, Binates, Hippothous, Deiopites, Medusa, Hero, Creusa.

THOSE WHO KILLED PRINCES: Apollo [killed] Achilles under the guise of Alexander. Hector, Protesilaus, and likewise Antilochus. Agenor, Elephenor, and likewise Clonius. Deiphobus, Ascalaphus, and likewise Antonous. Ajax [killed] Hippodamus, and likewise Chromius. Agamemnon, Iphidamas, and likewise Glaucus. Locrian Ajax, Gargasus, and likewise Gavius. Diomedes, Dolon and likewise Rhesus. Eurypylus [killed] Nireus, and likewise Machaon. Sarpedon, Tlepolemus, and likewise Antiphus. Achilles, Troilus. Menelaus, Deiphobus. Achilles [killed] Astynomus, and likewise Pylaemenes. Neoptolemus, Priam.

Pseudo-Apollodorus, in Book 3 of Library, lists Troilus as one of Hecuba's sons, adding that some say Troilus is the son of Apollo. Therefore, Pseudo-Apollodorus seems to have been aware of both versions, Troilus as the son of Priam and as the son of Apollo. In J.G. Frazer's translation:

After him Hecuba gave birth to daughters, Creusa, Laodice, Polyxena, and Cassandra. Wishing to gain Cassandra's favours, Apollo promised to teach her the art of prophecy; she learned the art but refused her favours; hence Apollo deprived her prophecy of power to persuade. Afterwards Hecuba bore sons, Deiphobus, Helenus, Pammon, Polites, Antiphus, Hipponous, Polydorus, and Troilus: this last she is said to have had by Apollo.

In the Epitome, he tries to create a sort of chronological timeline. He describes the Greeks arriving at Troy and Protesilaus being the first of them to disembark, and also being the first to die after being killed by Hector. After the death of Protesilaus, Achilles led the Myrmidons and made them disembark and continue the attack, which caused the Trojans to flee out of fear. As the Trojans fled, Achilles took advantage of this to ambush Troilus and murdered him in the temple of Apollo. At night, he captured the Trojan Lycaon. He then attacked Aeneas, who was probably unaware since the Greeks hadn’t arrived long ago, but Aeneas escaped. All this, as can be seen, happened in a short period of time. Troilus' death is said to have been at the very beginning of the war.

Of the Greeks the first to land from his ship was Protesilaus, and having slain not a few of the barbarians, he fell by the hand of Hector. His wife Laodamia loved him even after his death, and she made an image of him and consorted with it. The gods had pity on her, and Hermes brought up Protesilaus from Hades. On seeing him, Laodamia thought it was himself returned from Troy, and she was glad; but when he was carried back to Hades, she stabbed herself to death. On the death of Protesilaus, Achilles landed with the Myrmidons, and throwing a stone at the head of Cycnus, killed him. When the barbarians saw him dead, they fled to the city, and the Greeks, leaping from their ships, filled the plain with bodies. and having shut up the Trojans, they besieged them; and they drew up the ships. The barbarians showing no courage, Achilles waylaid Troilus and slaughtered him in the sanctuary of Thymbraean Apollo, and coming by night to the city he captured Lycaon. Moreover, taking some of the chiefs with him, Achilles laid waste the country, and made his way to Ida to lift the kine of Aeneas. But Aeneas fled, and Achilles killed the neatherds and Nestor, son of Priam, and drove away the kine.

Again, no mention of a sexual element, although Pseudo-Apollodorus has addressed non-consensual cases before. All we know is that Troilus was the son of Hecuba and Priam or Apollo and was murdered in Apollo's temple, ambushed by Achilles.

In Dictys Cretensis, a source that is best known for its Latin translation but has a Greek original, Troilus also appears. In Book 4,Troilus and Lycaon are captured by the Greeks as hostages after the Trojans retreat during a battle, but both are killed on the orders of Achilles who is angry with Priam. Although Troilus's beauty is emphasized, there is no sexual aspect to his death. Achilles' intention is to affect Priam, knowing that Troilus is dear to him. Unlike the other versions, the death doesn’t occur in a temple and Lycaon is killed upon his capture (in the others, he is enslaved and later freed. Only later is he killed by Achilles after Patroclus has died). In R.M. Frazer's translation:

After a few days the Greeks took up arms and, having gone onto the field, challenged the Trojans to come out and fight, if they dared. Alexander and his brothers, in answer to this challenge, set their army in order and led it forth. But before the battle lines could meet or spears be thrown, the barbarians broke formation and took to flight. We rushed upon them, from this side and that, slaughtering great numbers, or hurling them headlong into the river; they had no way to escape. And two of Priam’s sons were captured, Lycaon and Troilus, the throats of whom, when they had been brought forth into the center, were cut, by order of Achilles, who was angry with Priam for not having seen to that business they had discussed. The Trojans raised a cry of grief and, mourning loudly, bewailed the fact that Troilus had met so grievous ad death, for they remembered how young he was, who, being in the early years of his manhood, was the people’s favorite, their darling, not only because of his modesty and honesty, but more especially because of his handsome appearance.

Troilus is never mentioned again. There is also no connection between him and Apollo, he’s here exclusively indicated as the son of Priam. Personally, I interpreted Troilus here as being supposed to be a warrior, although this isn’t explicitly stated. After all, why else would he be on the battlefield? Lycaon, who was captured with him, was a warrior,

In Posthomerica, Troilus was the son of Priam and was immensely young when he was killed by Achilles. However, he entered the battle as a warrior of his own free will, presumably motivated by his great courage. There is no sexual context. The armor Troilus was wearing when he was killed by Achilles became a prize at the funeral games in honor of Achilles, offered by Thetis. In A.S. Way's translation:

Then Peleus' bride gave unto him the arms of godlike Troilus, the goodliest of all fair sons whom Hecuba had borne in hallowed Troy; yet of his goodlihead no joy she had; the prowess and the spear of fell Achilles reft his life from him. As when a gardener with new-whetted scythe mows down, ere it may seed, a blade of corn or poppy, in a garden dewy-fresh and blossom-flushed, which by a water-course crowdeth its blooms -- mows it ere it may reach its goal of bringing offspring to the birth, and with his scythe-sweep makes its life-work vain and barren of all issue, nevermore now to be fostered by the dews of spring; so did Peleides cut down Priam's son the god-like beautiful, the beardless yet and virgin of a bride, almost a child! Yet the Destroyer Fate had lured him on to war, upon the threshold of glad youth, when youth is bold, and the heart feels no void.

Fun fact: the Byzantine Syrian Ioannis Malalas offers a similar version, saying that Troilus is the son of Priam, is in the army and was killed by Achilles like Lycaon. Again, no sexual context and no Apollo.

In the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopedia, it’s said that a Greek named Strattis wrote a play inspired by Troilus with the same name. However, the play hasn’t survived. It’s in the Suda entry sigma 1178, for those interested. From what I have researched, the Greek Phrynichus supposedly also wrote a play, also lost. Furthermore, there is a surviving Epigram of Callimachus that says “For truly Troilus wept less than Priam” in a clear allusion to Troilus’ death, although there are no details. Considering, however, that Priam’s grief is the focus here, I wouldn't be surprised if he was Troilus’ father in this version. Usually when Apollo is the father, the mourning is focused on him. This is G.R. Mair’s translation, by the way.

Another lost play about Troilus was written by Sophocles and was called… Troilus! The plot was about Achilles ambushing Troilus and Polyxena and it’s possible to deduce that Troilus was also killed and mutilated (there is a term that specifically refers to mutilation, but I’ll return to that) in a temple. However, the details of the plot are lost. In Alan Sommerstein's translation, some fragments:

A (620) - “For the queen, cutting off my testicles with a knife…” = This line is said to be from Troilus's eunuch paidagogos, that is, the slave who was responsible for educating him. It’s theorized that it’s part of the prologue and that the eunuch is telling his own story, hence the reference to cutting off testicles.

B (629) - “Unbarbaric” = This line was again attributed to the eunuch. In Sommerstein's interpretation, he was perhaps praising Troilus and the use of this word perhaps meant that the slave is Greek.

C (618) - “He married as he married, a marriage in which there was no talking, when he eventually got a wrestling hold on Thetis as she changed into every shape.” = Clearly someone is talking about Peleus. Considering that Achilles is an important character in this story, Sommerstein interprets that the eunuch is telling information about Achilles.

D (trag. adesp. 561 = Strattis Fr. 42.1 K-A) - “Never come together with her, child of Zeus!” = The most relevant child of Zeus from the Trojan War is certainly Sarpedon, which led Sommerstein to theorize that perhaps Troilus was warning Sarpedon about Polyxena in an attempt to ward off possible romantic interest. However, it’s unclear who said this, who they said it to, and which woman they were talking about.

E (619) - “I have lost my adolescent master” = A servant is giving news about Troilus' fate. Perhaps it’s the eunuch, perhaps it’s another servant.

F (621) - “We were making for the flowing springs of drinking water” = The servant is telling what happened to his master, beginning the story by claiming that they were going to get water.

G (634) - “bodyguard” | H (626) - “bows without their leather cases” | J (630) - “defences” (in sense of armour) = Sommerstein suggests that it may refer to the Trojans trying to save Troilus, something that has been depicted in certain visual representations.

K (625) - “he will mow down” (in sense of slaughter) = A very likely reference to what Achilles will do, although it isn’t known who said it.

L (623) - “full of cut-off body parts” = This is a description of a type of mutilation called maschalismos (I'll explain more later). Considering the visual depictions of Achilles with Troilus mutilated, this is probably the same case here.

M (624) - “(his) hair is oiled” = Sommerstein theorizes that it is a description of Troilus dead.

N (631) - “iai!” | O (632) - “of wailing” = Someone is mourning Troilus, for these are typical laments.

There are other passages, but they’re difficult to understand in context. The general idea, then, is that Troilus, Polyxena and a servant went to fetch water, but at some point Achilles attacked them. Upon learning of this, the Trojans tried to save Troilus, but were too late. After Achilles killed Troilus, he mutilated him. Because of the extremely fragmented state of the play, it isn’t possible to know who Troilus' father is, whether he was killed in the temple (although elements of this play are consistent with visual representations that show him dead in the temple) or whether there was sexual context on Achilles' part. Honestly, in my opinion the most mysterious fragment is the one about Zeus' son. If it were “child of Thetis”, I would assume that it’s Troilus trying to ward off Achilles' interest in Polyxena, who isn’t explicitly mentioned in any fragment but there are visual representations of her going to fetch water with Troilus and so it’s generally assumed that the unnamed woman is her. However, Achilles isn’t the son of Zeus, something that is made quite clear considering that one of the fragments is about Peleus and Thetis. Therefore, it isn’t even possible to know if in this version Achilles has an interest in Polyxena. Like Sommerstein, I can only think of Sarpedon, although I’m not sure how he would be involved in this. Sommerstein theorizes that Sarpedon had a marital interest in Polyxena and that Troilus wanted to prevent this because he had incestuous feelings for his sister, something that Sommerstein believes would be possible because it could be that the play represents the Trojans as a barbarian stereotype, although possibly the Greek eunuch praises Troilus as not being barbaric. While I can understand where he's coming from, I don't think I have much faith in that argument. Either way, it's still Sarpedon's possible involvement that intrigues me the most, since he's not usually part of this myth.

Sommerstein also mentions fragments and scholias concerning Ibycus, in which he says:

Dictys is evidently blending elements from the “battle” and “murder” versions of the story. Our first literary evidence for the latter – and the only written source for it that gives any direct indication of Polyxene’s involvement – comes from a papyrus fragment that gives us six or seven words of a poem by the sixth-century lyricist Ibycus (SLG 224 = GL 282B [v]) and a few tattered lines from its scholia. The scholia make it clear that the passage related to Troilus, and the surviving words of text speak of him as a boy “like the gods” and as being killed “outside the citadel of Troy”, the scholia also refer to a sister (adelphē), and an isolated word surviving from a slightly later part of the text appears to be kasis “sibling” and to be glossed as adel[phos] “brother” or adel[phē] “sister”. In Ibycus’ poem, then, Troilus was killed somewhere outside the city, and a sister of his (surely, in view of the artistic evidence, Polyxene) was somehow involved in the episode; furthermore, the scholia speak of someone, evidently Achilles, “watching out” (epitērēsās) evidently for Troilus’ approach, and of a “murder” (phonos) committed in the sanctuary of Apollo Thymbraios. These details could in principle have been derived by the scholiast from later texts rather than from that of Ibycus; but they fit so exactly with the evidence of artistic representations from Ibycus’ own time, which are most unlikely to have been known to the scholiast, that it is hard to resist the inference that Ibycus was narrating – perhaps at length, perhaps allusively – a version of the story essentially identical to that which underlies these representations.

Thus, Ibycus' text is the oldest written version on record that has the typical elements of visual records (I’ll address this later), that is, the presence of Polyxena and the murder of Troilus in a temple of Apollo.

So, to recap, the written sources analyzed here are:

The Iliad by Homer

The Cypria attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus

Troilus by Sophocles

Alexandra by Lycophron

Fabulae attributed to Hyginus

Library attributed to Pseudo-Apollodorus

Dictys Cretensis by anonymous

Ad Lycophronem by Ioannis Tzetzes

Posthomerica by Quintus of Smyrna

Fragments by Ibycus

ROMAN TEXTUAL SOURCES

There are Roman mythology versions of Troilus, of course! Hyginus isn’t the only one (Fabulae, by the way, which is a Greco-Roman source). I usually don't consider the Roman versions for the simple reason that I don't feel that I'm familiar enough with Roman mythology, but in some cases I feel that it's interesting to consider the Roman versions. For example, in cases where I feel that the surviving Greek versions are too fragmented or summarized and sometimes doing a post on Greco-Roman mythology instead of Greek mythology sounds a little less incomplete. I do something similar when I talk about Achilles at Skyros, because unfortunately the surviving Greek sources mention the moment and don't show it per se, unlike some of the Roman sources. The Roman frescoes of the Skyros episode are also an interesting source. With Troilus, I particularly find it interesting to see it from a Greco-Roman perspective rather than just a Greek perspective because, as seen, in the surviving Greek versions he is mostly mentioned.

In Virgil's Aeneid, Troilus is a warrior, but he is young and Achilles isn’t exactly a fair match for him. He was killed by Achilles while in his chariot, apparently. There is no sexual context. Considering that the events are being recorded in chronological order, it’s likely that Troilus' death occurred in the early years of the war. From what I understand, he is Priam's son since the situation is earlier described as "the sons of Atreus, of Priam, and Achilles angered with both". In A.S. Kline's translation:

[...] While, waiting for the queen, in the vast temple, he looks at each thing: while he marvels at the city's wealth, the skill of their artistry, and the products of their labours, he sees the battles at Troy in their correct order, the War, known through its fame to the whole world, the sons of Atreus, of Priam, and Achilles angered with both. He halted, and said, with tears: 'What place is there, Achates, what region of earth not full of our hardships? See, Priam! Here too virtue has its rewards, here too there are tears for events, and mortal things touch the heart. Lose your fears: this fame will bring you benefit.' So he speaks, and feeds his spirit with the insubstantial frieze, sighing often, and his face wet with the streaming tears. For he saw how, here, the Greeks fled, as they fought round Troy, chased by the Trojan youth, and, there, the Trojans fled, with plumed Achilles pressing them close in his chariot. Not far away, through his tears, he recognises Rhesus's white-canvassed tents, that blood-stained Diomedes, Tydeus's son, laid waste with great slaughter, betrayed in their first sleep, diverting the fiery horses to his camp, before they could eat Trojan fodder, or drink from the river Xanthus. Elsewhere Troilus, his weapons discarded in flight, unhappy boy, unequally matched in his battle with Achilles, is dragged by his horses, clinging face-up to the empty chariot, still clutching the reins: his neck and hair trailing on the ground, and his spear reversed furrowing the dust. [...]

In a scholia of the Aeneid, Servius gives more details. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it translated, so I won't include excerpts here. However, I'll try to give a general idea of what he says. Basically, he says that in one version Achilles used doves to lure Troilus, who was enchanted by the animals and wanted to hold them. Taking advantage of Troilus's distraction, Achilles killed him. According to Servius, Virgil changed this because it wouldn't be typical of a heroic epic (the hero here being Troilus, who in Aeneid died fighting), although this is Servius's theory of what Virgil may have meant. The doves suggest a possible sexual context, since they were considered a kind of courtship gift (this isn’t said by Servius, it is an interpretation of modern academics. Doves were indeed common gifts). Also according to Servius, an oracle said that three things were relevant to the fate of Troy: the life of Troilus, the Palladium (the statue of Athena) and the tomb of Laomedon (a previous Trojan king). Therefore, it’s possible that the version known to Servius includes Achilles deciding to kill Troilus because of the prophecy. Furthermore, Servius also mentions the presence of the temple.

Horace alludes to the Trojans mourning Troilus, but not excessively (something he compares to Nestor's mourning of Antilochus). He doesn't give any details, however. But, well, we know he's dead, and considering Achilles is almost always the killer, I imagine it must have been him here too. That’s in “Stop Weeping,” a poem that was apparently about not letting yourself be overcome by grief. It says "Troilus’s Trojan parents and sisters", so I imagine Troilus' father here is Priam. In Kline's translation:

[...] Yet Nestor, who lived for three generations, didn’t mourn his beloved Antilochus, every moment, nor were the youthful Troilus’s Trojan parents and sisters, always weeping. [...]

Statius, in Silvae, says that Troilus was killed by Achilles when he was struck by his spear while running around Troy. There is no mention of a temple, and it’s also not possible to be certain who his father is here. Statius is comparing someone else to the beauty of characters like Achilles and Troilus, claiming that this person is more handsome than them, but there isn’t really a sexual context to Troilus' death necessarily. In A.S. Kline's translation:

[...] I saw him, and see him still, a fairer shape than Achilles when Thetis hid him on the maiden-haunted shore, that he might beware of battle; or Troilus, when the lance from the hand of Achilles overtook him as he sped round the walled town of merciless Phoebus. [...]

Also, there is this: “and so would Troilus sweep round in a nimbler ring and baulk the menacing chargers of the foe”. Maybe Troilus was a warrior here too?

Seneca the Younger wrote Agamemnon, which tells the story of Agamemnon's return to Mycenae. At one point, Cassandra prophesies her own death, to which she says, "thee, Troilus, I follow, to early with Achilles met" in Frank Miller's translation. Although there are no further details, it is clear that Troilus was killed by Achilles. However, whether the "to early" refers to Troilus being young (a typical Troilus trait) or to his death early in the war (as is the case in some of the versions here), I’m not sure. It isn’t clear who Troilus' father is, and the sexual context isn’t stated, although some have theorized that the "met" may imply something sexual.

Asonius wrote epitaphs, one of which was for Troilus. In Evelyn-White's translation:

THOUGH Hector was laid low, and though in strength of arm and heavenly aid ill-matched, I, Troilus, met the fierce son of Aeacus face to face, and, dragged to death by my own steeds, am linked in glory with my brother, whose example made my sufferings light.

Similar to the Aeneid, here Troilus died trapped in his own chariot. He didn't run away from Achilles or try to hide from him, but directly confronted him, eventually being defeated. There is no way of knowing the location of his death or who Troilus' father is. Considering that Troilus confronted Achilles, there is a chance that this isn’t the version in which Troilus seeks protection from Apollo.

There is also Dares Phyrigius. It has been theorized that it may actually be a Latin translation of a Greek original, similar to what happened with Dictys Cretensis. However, as no concrete evidence has been found for this, I’ll assume that it’s a Roman source. Troilus is described as the youngest of Priam's sons, but still a warrior and someone who is brave. Furthermore, he had a great position in the army hierarchy. In R.M. Frazer's translation:

When news was brought to Priam [...] He returned to Troy, along with his wife, Hecuba, and his children [...] Troilus [...]

But Troilus, who, though youngest of Priam’s sons, equalled Hector in bravery, urged them to war and told them not to be frightened by Helenus’ fearful words.

Troilus, a large and handsome boy, was strong for his age, brave, and eager for glory.

[...] Priam made Hector commander-in-chief of these leaders and their armies. Second-in-command were Deiphobus, Alexander, Troilus, Aeneas, and Memnon.

On the next day the Trojans led forth their army. And the forces of Agamemnon came opposite. A horrible slaughter arose. Both armies fought fiercely; Troilus slaughtered many Greek leaders, as the battle lasted seven days.

[...] Diomedes and Ulysses answered that Troilus was the bravest of men and the equal of Hector. [...]

When the time for fighting returned, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Ajax led forth the army. The Trojans came opposite. A great slaughter arose, a fierce and raging battle on both sides. Troilus, having wounded Menelaus, pressed on, killing many of the enemy and harrying the others. Night brought an end to the battle.

On the next day Troilus and Alexander led forth the Trojans. And all the Greeks came opposite. The battle was fierce. Troilus wounded Diomedes and, in the course of his slaughter, attacked and wounded Agamemnon himself.

And there are several other examples. Troilus is repeatedly described as one of the leaders of the Trojan army and as being a threat to the Greeks. However, he is eventually killed by Achilles in a battle against the Myrmidons. Achilles kills him because Troilus had killed a lot of his Myrmidons.

On the seventh, the battle still raging, Achilles (who until then had stayed out of action because of his wound) drew up his Myrmidons and urged them bravely to make an attack against Troilus. Toward the end of the day Troilus advanced on horseback, exulting, and caused the Greeks to flee with loud cries. The Myrmidons, however, came to their rescue and made an attack against Troilus. Troilus slew many men, but, in the midst of the terrible fighting, his horse was wounded and fell, entangling and throwing him off; and swiftly Achilles was there to dispatch him. Then Achilles tried to drag off the body. But Memnon maintained a successful defense, wounding Achilles and making him yield. When, however, Memnon and his followers began to pursue Achilles, the latter, merely by turning around, brought them to halt. After Achilles’ wound had been dressed and he had fought for some time, he slew Memnon, dealing him many a blow; and then, having been wounded himself, yielded from combat again. The rest of the Trojan forces, knowing that the king of the Persians was dead, fled to the city and bolted the gates. Night brought an end to the battle.

As you can see, this is a... very different version. In fact, there are numerous differences here besides Troilus. Achilles, for example, doesn’t get to face Penthesilea and Neoptolemus is the one who does so. Andromache sails away with Helenus, rather than them being enslaved by Neoptolemus. Protesilaus dies late, although he's usually the first Greek to die. Patroclus is pretty useless most of the time, honestly. Castor and Polydeuces tried to go after Helen, but were thrown off course by a storm. Etc. Etc. Dares Phyrigius is a generally ignored source precisely because it has so many changes that many people consider common themes of the Trojan War myth to have been somewhat lost, but I've included it here for the sake of completeness.

Plautus mentions three conditions for the fall of Troy in the play Bacchides, in which one of the characters says: “I have heard that there were three destinies attending Troy, which were fatal to it; if the statue should be lost from citadel, whereas the second was the death of Troilus; the third was when the upper lintel of the Phrygian gate should be demolished”. Again, the death of Troilus is a condition for Troy to be destroyed. There are no other details, no hint of sexual context, no mention of who Troilus' father is, etc.

Finally, Cicero in Tusculan Disputations says “Though Callimachus does not speak amiss in saying that more tears had flowed from Priam than his son”, referring to the Epigram of Callimachus in which he says that Troilus wept less than Priam. Translated by C.D. Yonge.

So, to recap, the written sources analyzed here are: (+Fabulae, anteriormente analisada) são:

Fabulae attributed to Hyginus

Aeneid by Virgil

Scholia of Aeneid by Servius

Odes by Horace

Silvae by Statius

Epitaphs by Asonius

Dares Phrygius by anonymous

Bacchides by Plautus

Tusculan Disputation by Cicero

GENERAL IDEA OF THE TEXTUAL SOURCES

Finally, I’ll add another written source that I didn’t add before because it isn’t exactly Greek or Roman. However, it seems that whoever wrote it had contact with at least Greek scholia and some Latin texts (like Aeneid), so I’ll consider it as a Greco-Roman mythology source, although I don’t know exactly the nationality of the writer. I’m referring to the so-called First Vatican Mythographer. Surprisingly, I found a Brazilian translation more easily than an English translation, so I’ll use that. I won’t include excerpts because… well, it’s in Portuguese. But I’ll summarize!

In the third book attributed to this person, there is a section on genealogy in which Troilus is explicitly stated to be the son of Priam and Hecuba along with other characters such as Helenus, Cassandra, Hector, etc. In a section specifically about Troilus, it’s said that he led the horses out of Troy, but was ambushed by Achilles. Troilus returned to Troy tied to the horse. It’s then said that there was a prophecy that Troilus would not be able to reach the age of 20, or else Troy wouldn’t be destroyed, which was the motivation for his death. The translator of the text, Ana Paula Silva Santos, mentions the similarity of the death scene to the Aeneid and also mentions the scholia of Servius in the section referring to the prophecy. Notably, Troilus isn’t the son of Apollo, there is no mention of him dying in a temple and there is no sexual context.

Therefore, in a more or less chronological order (because it isn’t possible to be 100% sure of all the dates), we have that in the written sources of Greek mythology:

The Iliad by Homer (8th century BC) - Troilus is the son of Priam, probably a warrior (more specifically, a “chariot fighter”), and he was killed by Achilles. We don’t know his age or when he died, although scholia argue that he wasn’t a boy to Homer. There is no sexual context.

The Cypria, attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus (possibly 7th century BC, but some suggest 6th century BC) - Troilus was killed by Achilles early in the war. There are no further details, not even certain of his parentage or age. There is no sexual context. The reason for the lack of details is that the original text of the epic is lost.

Troilus by Sophocles (5th century BC) - Extremely fragmentary, making it difficult to be certain of the details. It’s certain that Troilus is young here, as one of the surviving descriptions refers to him as young. He was killed by Achilles and most likely mutilated. It isn’t possible to be certain of the motive for the murder.

Epigrams by Callimachus (3rd century BC) - Troilus is dead and Priam mourns him. There are no other details.

Alexandra by Lycophron (possibly 2nd century BC) - Troilus is the biological son of Apollo and the “adopted” son of Priam. Because he was described as a "cub" he appears to be young. He was killed by Achilles in the temple of Apollo, who was angry with Achilles for this death. It’s very possible to interpret a sexual context.

Fabulae, attributed to Hyginus (1st century) - Troilus is the son of Priam and was killed by Achilles. We don’t know anything else, not even his age or the place of the murder. There is no sexual context.

Library, attributed to Pseudo-Apollodorus (1st/2nd century AD) - There is a version in which he is the son of Priam and a version in which he is the son of Apollo, but in both he is the son of Hecuba. He was killed by Achilles at the beginning of the war inside a temple of Apollo. By the birth order of Hecuba's sons, he was one of the youngest. There is no sexual context.

Dictys Cretensis, author unknown (date uncertain, but fragments of the original Greek have led some to theorize that it may have been from the 1st or 2nd century AD) - Troilus is the son of Priam and fought on the battlefield, but was captured by the Greeks. He then had his throat slit on Achilles' orders as a way of retaliating against Priam. He was young and there is no mention of Apollo in his parentage. There is no sexual context.

Posthomerica by Quintus of Smyrna (4th century AD) - Troilus was killed by Achilles in battle, since Troilus was a warrior. He was the son of Priam and there is no sexual context.

Ad Lycophronem by Ioannis Tzetzes (12th century AD) - Tzetzes says that Troilus was second best in war after Hector, not Deiphobus. He also says that Lycophorn's version is that Achilles fell in love with Troilus, who did not reciprocate the feeling. This angered Achilles, causing Troilus to flee and take refuge inside the temple of Apollo. Achilles tried to persuade him to leave, but Troilus obviously didn’t want to comply. So Achilles killed him inside the temple, later beheading him. In Lycophorn's version, Troilus was the son of Apollo. Tzetzes, however, doesn’t seem to believe this version very much, because in his opinion Troilus wasn’t worth of Achilles’ love (yes, that is the argument). He then goes on to mention a version in which, after Achilles killed Memnon, he killed Troilus.

Scholia of The Iliad by various authors (various centuries) - There is no sexual context. The scholia says that he wasn’t a boy in Homeric poetry, but became a boy in later depictions. It is said that in Sophocles' version Troilus was exercising the horses when he was ambushed.

We have that in the written sources of Roman mythology:

Bacchides by Plautus (1st century BC) - The death of Troilus was one of the requirements for the fall of Troy. No further details.

Tusculan Disputations by Cicero (1st century BC) - Just a reference to Callimachus.

Aeneid by Virgil (1st century BC) - Troilus was killed by Achilles while trying to escape from him in his chariot, probably very early in the war. He was young and probably the son of Priam. There is no sexual context.

Odes by Horace (1st century BC) - Troilus was killed. His killer isn’t named, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Achilles. No details, but he was young. There is no association of kinship with Apollo, although there is an association with the Trojans. Most likely the son of Priam here. There is no sexual context.

Agamemnon by Seneca the Younger (1st century) - Troilus was killed by Achilles very early in the war. There is no detail as to who the father is and no mention of sexual context.

Silvae by Statius (1st century AD) - Troilus was outside the walls of Troy when he was pursued by Achilles. He tried to escape, but Achilles struck him with his spear. There is no sexual context and it isn’t possible to be certain who his father is.

Epitaphs by Asonius (4th century AD) - Troilus was killed by Achilles in battle. There is no sexual context, it isn’t possible to know the location, it isn’t known who Troilus' father is.

Scholia of the Aeneid by Servius (4th/5th century AD) - Troilus was killed by Achilles in the temple. Although the sexual context isn’t stated, it’s quite likely that there is such a context because of the nature of the gifts (doves, often associated with gifts with erotic intentions). It isn’t possible to know who Troilus' father is. Troilus' death was prophesied to be the fall of Troy.

Dares Phrygius by ? (? AD. Perhaps 5th century AD) - Troilus was a young but talented and strong son of Priam. He wasn't killed at the beginning of the war, but considerably later. He died in a battle against the Myrmidons after his horse was wounded, which allowed Achilles to kill him more easily. There is no sexual context or association with Apollo.

So, here I have taken into consideration, in alphabetical order, the following written sources:

Alexandra (Lycophron)

Ad Lycophronem (Ioannis Tzetzes)

Aeneid (Virgil)

Agamemnon (Seneca the Younger)

Bacchides (Plautus)

Dares Prygius (?)

Dictys Crentesis (?)

Epigrams (Callimachus)

Epitaphs (Asonius)

Fabulae (Hyginus or Pseudo-Hyginus)

First Vatican Mythographer (?)

Library (Pseudo-Apollodorus)

Odes (Horace)

Posthomerica (Quintus of Smyrna)

The Cypria (Stasinus of Cyprus)

The Iliad (Homer)

Troilus (Sophocles)

Tusculan Disputations (Cicero)

Scholia of Aeneid (Servius)

Scholia of The Iliad (vários autores)

Silvae (Statius)

Fragments of Ibycus (Ibycus)

So, let's look at the general details of the written sources of Greco-Roman mythology:

Of 22 sources, 11 indicate/suggest Priam as Troilus’ father (The Iliad, Epigrams, Tusculan Disputations, Fabulae, Aeneid, Library, Dictys Cretensis, Dares Phrygius, Posthomerica, scholia of The Iliad, First Vatican Mythographer), 3 indicate/suggest Apollo as Troilus’ father (Alexandra, Ad Lycophronem, Library) and in 8 it isn’t possible to know/deduce (The Cypria, Horace’s Ode, Seneca’s Agamemnon, Epitaphs, Silvae, Bacchides, Ibycus’ fragments, Troilus)

Of 22 sources, 5 explicitly state that there is a temple in the scene (Alexandra, Ad Lycophronem, Library, Servius’ scholia, Ibycus’ fragments), 16 either don’t place the location in a temple or don’t state the location explicitly (Aeneid, Silvae, Dictys Cretensis, Dares Phrygius, scholia of The Iliad, First Vatican Mythographer, The Iliad, The Cypria, Callimachus, Tusculan Disputations, Fabulae, Horace’s Ode, Epitaph, Seneca’s Agamemnon, Posthomerica, Bacchides) and 1 is very possibly in the temple but is uncertain (Troilus). In any case, it’s obviously outside Troy.

Of 22 sources, 3 indicate/suggest sexual context (Alexandra, Ad Lycophronem, Servius' scholia), 18 don’t indicate/suggest sexual context (Ibycus' fragments, The Iliad, The Cypria, Fabulae, Epigrams, Tusculan Disputations, Library, Dictys Cretensis , Aeneid, Horace's Ode, Seneca's Agamemnon, Epitaphs, Silvae, Dares Phrygius, scholia of The Iliad, Posthomerica, First Vatican Mythographer, Bacchides) and 1 is very uncertain (Troilus).

Of 22 sources, 3 indicate a prophecy (Servius’ scholia, First Vatican Mythographer, Bacchides)

Troilus is always young, although the age itself varies (sometimes a child, sometimes a teenager. In the case of Homer and his scholia, possibly a young adult). Most of the time, it isn’t possible to know at what point he was killed, although the time is commonly placed at the beginning of the war in sources that mention some chronology. He wasn’t infrequently portrayed as a warrior, although he was also emphasized as more weaker than Achilles in the vast majority of cases, making any idea of fighting doomed to Troilus' defeat. In Sophocles, it’s possible to learn that Troilus was mutilated after his death. The vast majority of written versions don’t mention the presence of Polyxena (Ibycus and possibly Sophocles, yes, though), although it was a recurring theme in visual art. Troilus is also associated with horses, something present since the earliest written source (The Iliad) and in some versions his corpse is still tied to the horses/chariot (for example, Aeneid).

NOTE: I chose to say “indicate/suggest” because in some cases it isn’t possible to say for sure. For example, we don’t have the epic The Cypria to be sure of its content.

VISUAL SOURCES

Another very important aspect is the visual sources. I won't list all the ones I know, just enough to cover the general themes and possibilities. To start, I'll bring here what is probably the artistic representation that I see most being shared.

Here we have a reconstruction of a 5th century BC Greek artwork that shows Achilles forcibly pulling Troilus from his horses and preparing to kill him on an altar, which suggests that this artwork depicts Troilus being murdered in the temple of Apollo. Note that Troilus is depicted here as a child, and not as a teenager as is sometimes the case. In general, Troilus isn’t an adult, although whether he is a child or a teenager varies. This particular artwork is on a cup, which is interesting. While researching this, I found this:

Why was this image of Achilles killing a Trojan boy depicted on the inside of a drinking cup? Ancient symposia were usually organized by wealthy men, who would drink, engage in discussions on a variety of serious and not-so-serious topics, sing songs, engage in sexual behaviour, and so forth. Wine flowed freely, so things could naturally get rowdy. The kylix dates from the early fifth century BC, when practices such as pederasty were commonplace, at least in ancient Athens, where this cup was made. Among the Greeks, the image of Troilus could have been used as the starting off point to celebrate youthful beauty in a general sense or to sing the praises of a living youth in particular. But while the cup was produced in Greece, it was consumed by Etruscans. Pederasty isn’t clearly attested in Etruria, so the image may have had a different meaning to them. Joshua Hall suggested to me that the Troilus scene appealed to the Etruscans because it shows Achilles carrying out a divine commandment with physical force, a popular theme in Etruscan myth.

Achilles’ slaying of Troilus by Josho Brouwers.

Here, Brouwers suggested a possible sexual context because of the kylix's date of production and also because it was a kylix that was likely used in symposia. He didn't mention this, but another characteristic that I've seen pointed out as supporting this interpretation is the way Achilles drags Troilus by his hair in a manner similar to how Ajax the Lesser's attack on Cassandra is often depicted, and we know that Ajax was sexually motivated. However, it seems that this particular kylix was more likely made with the Etruscans in mind, and the Etruscans didn’t have the same pederastic culture as Classical Greece as far as we can tell, which makes it more likely that this art had another meaning for them. Hall suggested that they simply liked the idea of Achilles carrying out a divine order through violence, a common theme among the Etruscans. But the idea that the Etruscans saw it this way implies the existence of the myth of Troilus' prophecy as early as the 5th century BC, something that we cannot confirm from the surviving written sources and we can only theorize. After all, the version in which Achilles kills Troilus to fulfill something greater is related to the prophecy.

However, the idea of grabbing someone by the hair isn’t inherently sexual. In fact, it’s probably less about sexual interest and more about subjugation. This subjugation, of course, can be sexually motivated, as is the case with the times when Ajax the Lesser is depicted pulling Cassandra by her hair, but not necessarily. Regarding this, a profile called Academic Writing shared:

Consider an early 5th century kylix depicting Achilles leading Troilus to the altar (Fig. 8). The Greek hero drags the Trojan prince by the hair, a dehumanizing act of domination. We find the same subject on the interior of the kylix, though now the two have reached the altar as Achilles raises his sword in a killing gesture (Fig 9). Again, however, we may note that the hero holds Troilus by the hair, a significant and dehumanizing act given the presence of the altar in both the mythological and artistic tradition. In her study of a 7th century relief pithos depicting the murder of an equine Medusa, Kathryn Topper notes the sacrificial implications of holding a human victim by the hair. Thus, far from being a pose associated exclusively with human victims of war, Troilus’s death (as depicted in the red-figure kylix) might be said to recall the practice of animal sacrifice, an association that becomes even stronger when we consider the presence of the altar of Apollo in the scene. Once again, we find Troilus effectively dehumanized, for here Achilles’s murder degrades the Trojan prince to the level of an animal killed for a ritualistic purpose.

Killing the Helpless: The Objectification of Troilus.

They also consider the connection between Troilus representing a sacrificial victim and the act of maschalismos itself, but as I said before, I’ll comment on that later. Well, with this one I wanted to explore the following possibilities suggested in interpretations of the arts related to Troilus: the sexual context, the subjugation/dehumanization not necessarily sexual, the possibility of divine involvement, the temple.

Having already discussed the probably best-known representation, I would like to comment on one of the oldest images related to Troilus. Dating from the 6th century BC, this art is on an aryballos, an item that was often used to preserve bath oils. This is a scene from the typical ambush version, where Troilus is accompanied by Polyxena, who is drawing water from a spring, and neither of them realizes that Achilles is hiding and about to attack them. The difference is that here we have Príamo in the scene, something unusual. Troilus is certainly young, but it isn’t possible to know how old he was. This art may have been contemporary with Ibycus, the author who wrote the oldest recorded written source for the ambush version of the myth. Here, I simply wanted to give a visual indication of this most famous version of the myth.

Now, let's get into the topic of mutilation and the possible role of the gods. Here in this amphora dated to the 6th century BC we have a post-mortem representation of Troilus. The Trojan soldiers have arrived, but it’s too late and Troilus is already dead, as is quite evident by the body lying at Achilles' feet and by the fact that Achilles is showing Troilus' decapitated head to the Trojans, in what is generally interpreted as an attitude of triumph or as a way of threatening/intimidating. In the middle of the soldiers and Achilles, there is an item that appears to be an omphalos, which in Greece was a typical temple piece. And look! Behind Achilles, there is Athena with what appears to be a laurel!

The presence of Athena with a laurel is interesting, as it could potentially indicate the goddess's support for Achilles' attitude:

Due to the lack of an original mythological source, speculation about the role of the gods and goddesses in such depictions remains open to interpretation, but an interesting detail with regards to this particular amphora is the object in Athena’s hands, which appears to be a laurel crown. As evident in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the laurel crown was a symbol of Apollo and, more importantly, conquest. It may not be a stretch to project such a meaning onto the crown held by Athena in this amphora, given the fact that some have interpreted her presence as indicating her encouragement with regards to Achilles’s actions. While conjectural, such an interpretation echoes the overarching mood of depictions of Achilles in the Troilus myth, in which the hero almost always appears to revel in his triumph over the Trojan prince.

Killing the Helpless: The Objectification of Troilus.

Here, I wanted to present other recurring elements in the visual representation of Troilus' death: the mutilation, Achilles facing Trojan soldiers, the divine presence and possible divine support.

Another very famous representation is the one named François Vase and this one includes deities (Athena, Thetis, Hermes and Apollo). I won't include the image because unfortunately I couldn't find a decent enough one, just several photos that together give a good idea, and Tumblr has an image limit. But if you search for François Vase, you can find it on the internet. Anyway, let talk about the interpretations about the deities presence:

Athena is generally assumed to be there because she is the guide of the Achaean side and, consequently, protector of Achilles. There are those who interpret this as a sign that the version that Troilus was prophesied to die so that Troy would fall is an older one, and Athena's presence would represent her supporting Achilles precisely because she wants Troy to fall. This wouldn’t be the first time that Athena has been willing to support a sacrilege; remember that in Book 24 of The Iliad Athena, Poseidon and Hera are described as not wanting to stop Achilles from dishonoring Hector's corpse. Another element sometimes used to argue for this theory that the myth of the prophecy is older and simply didn’t have earlier written sources surviving is the etymology of Troilus' name, which is theorized to mean "little Troy", and therefore the death of Troilus ("little Troy") would represent the death of Troy itself. Troilus also appears to be inspired by earlier Trojan names, such as Tros. Finally, sometimes the murder of Troilus by Achilles in the temple of Apollo is depicted as parallel to the murder of Priam by Neoptolemus in the temple of Zeus in iconography, which can be interpreted as the father initiating the beginning of the fall of Troy and the son completing the fall. Regardless of whether Athena is there simply because she is the patroness of the Achaeans and therefore protects Achilles, or whether she is there because she is actively encouraging and protecting Achilles because she wants Troilus killed so that Troy can be destroyed, the point is that Athena is on Achilles' side.

Hermes is often portrayed as a neutral deity, an observer who is there only to gather information and then report it to Zeus, the god responsible for the “balance” in this Trojan War. This is consistent with his role as messenger from Olympus, and furthermore, Hermes does indeed appear to be in the Trojan War without having strong feelings for either side. In The Iliad, it’s suggested that Hermes steal Hector’s corpse in the same way that he is ordered to speak directly to Achilles (in the end, he speaks to Achilles, as this is Zeus' order). I really get the impression that Hermes is neutral, especially since he doesn’t really have a motivator for either side.

Apollo is moving as if he is running to get to the scene in time, which is clearly a way of reminding us that Troilus was killed in his temple. Since he was Apollo's supplicant, the god was expected to protect Troilus, so Apollo is often interpreted as trying to stop Achilles.

Thetis stands behind Achilles, similar to Athena. Some interpret that she is, along with Athena, encouraging Achilles to kill Troilus and others interpret that Thetis is actually worried about the arrival of Apollo, sensing that her son's disrespect will cause his death. Either interpretation would make sense with Thetis, comparing the recorded written sources. Thetis doesn’t seem to particularly care about Achilles' cruelty and is more concerned that her son has the desired glory, as seen in how she doesn’t care about the harm to the Achaeans and the Trojans, so her encouraging him wouldn’t be absurdly unrealistic. If we consider the theory that Athena's presence symbolizes the possible prior existence of the myth of the prophecy, then Thetis could also be aware of this prophecy and, therefore, she wouldn’t be encouraging only the death of Troilus, but the fall of Troy because this will “immortalize” her son. In the Tenes myth, however, Thetis is aware of the danger Apollo poses to Achilles, and in Plato's Apology she partly blames Achilles's recklessness in killing Hector for her son's death, so it wouldn’t be unrealistic for her to be concerned about Apollo's arrival either.

You could argue that perhaps Athena’s position in the narrative isn’t very explicit, but there is also a surviving visual representation in which Athena clearly points the way to Achilles. Troilus, represented as a teenager, stands next to his horse while Achilles approaches already armed and Athena, seated, indicates Troilus to him. On this pottery, dated to 300 BC, Athena’s role is quite obvious. Because the Greek texts don’t indicate a reason why Athena would support this, it’s mostly theorized that the version of the prophecy existed among the Greeks even before the Romans, although this isn’t explicitly reported in the surviving Greek texts.

Finally, according to Boitani (who also believes that the passage in The Iliad about Troilus implies that he’s a warrior, being a charioteer and not just someone who likes horses and is on par with the warrior sons of Priam who are mentioned in the passage), there is a visual representation in which Troilus is depicted as a warrior. It’s also a representation of his death, as Troilus on the vase is depicted as a falling warrior. This is apparently the only visual representation of this version that is attested in some ancient sources. Although I couldn’t find the image available online, I wanted to mention it here to cover the versions of the Troilus myth.

So here we saw that the following elements were present in the visual representations:

Ambush scene with Polyxena present

Murder in a temple

Youth of Troilus

Dehumanization of Troilus

Mutilation of Troilus' body

Confrontation between Achilles and Trojan soldiers

Divine presence, in which Athena is usually interpreted as encouraging Achilles, Thetis may be encouraging or concerned, Apollo certainly does not approve, and Hermes is neutral.

Possible interpretation of a sexual context

Warrior Troilus (only one visual source)

MY PREFERENCE

First, let's get to the father thing. Well, back in the day I preferred Apollo as the father because I had a very simplistic "demigod = more interesting" mindset (for the love of god, I'm not saying that's the reason most people prefer this version. I'm saying that was MY reason). However, nowadays I prefer Priam to be the father. I feel like if Apollo is the father, then I'll have to think more about Apollo and honestly, I'm not interested in that simply because I'm not interested in exploring gods’ minds in general. So yeah, my preferred version right now is Troilus as Priam's son, without any Apollo’s involvement in the paternity. Also, the vast majority of sources, including the oldest one (The Iliad), suggest/say that Priam is the father, so it's not an weird choice.

I, however, still prefer the version where he is killed in the temple of Apollo, and therefore Apollo has some involvement in the death itself. I feel that the temple version has more potential for symbolism, which is why I prefer it. For example, the parallel between the deaths of Troilus and Priam, both of whom were killed inside a temple (in Priam's case, in a temple of Zeus). Since I use the chronology where Troilus dies in the first year of the war and Priam obviously dies in the last year of the war, I think this represents an interesting cycle where the fall of Troy is initiated with Troilus and finally confirmed completely with the death of Priam, the king. So first the representation of Troy (Troilus) dies, then the ruler of Troy dies. It also provides an interesting parallel between Achilles and Neoptolemus, both of whom committed the same kind of sacrilege by killing a supplicant inside the temple of a god. This connection between the two deaths was already visually suggested, since the scenes could appear on the same pottery with similar visual elements. Although the vast majority of sources don’t explicitly establish that Troilus is the motivation for Apollo to kill Achilles (when I say explicitly, I mean something like Lycophron), I’ll consider this to be the case. Not because Troilus is his son, but because Achilles disrespected him immensely by thinking that he could simply do something like this inside his temple. In a way, this also creates a parallel with the way Neoptolemus also disrespects Apollo in his temple (not because of a murder, though).

For the motivation of the attack, I’ll consider the version of the prophecy (present, for example, in Servius). Although it isn’t explicit in the written Greek sources, I agree with the interpretations that the Greek visual sources suggest that it was possibly a thing before Roman mythology. So here one of the requirements is still to kill Troilus and Athena, wanting the downfall of Troilus, directly guides Achilles to kill him, something Achilles does because well…Achilles wants glory and the fall of Troy would help increase his glory. It isn’t unrealistic to give this role to Athena because, again, that is what she does in the visual sources. I prefer the version without sexual context simply because I have always preferred the version without sexual violence when it is possible to have it without damaging the potential of the myth, which is the case here. I, however, still maintain the mutilation present in the Sophocles fragments and in the Greek visual representations and I’ll explain why further. That is, although I use the version in which Athena guides Achilles, Achilles isn’t reluctant and in fact goes overboard (by mutilating Troilus). In terms of age, I imagine Troilus to be a teenager and already have some talent in fighting, but obviously Achilles isn’t a fair opponent. I maintain his interest in horses, after all it’s a emphasized element of Troilus that seems to be common in the vast majority of sources.

As for Polyxena, I consider her to be present at the time because I used the ambush version, in which she is usually present. However, as I said in another post, since I don’t use the later version of Achilles' death in which he has a fake marriage with Polyxena, my Achilles has no romantic interest in Polyxena (I use Homer's version combined with Quintus' version, with Paris and Apollo alone responsible for his death and the death having occurred while Achilles was on the battlefield and Paris was aiming at him with Apollo's help). He still demands Polyxena's sacrifice, as is common, but the sacrifice isn’t motivated by a desire to be with her. I use Euripides' version in the play Hecuba, in which Achilles does indeed demand Polyxena, but does so because he sees it as a sign of the Achaeans' recognition of his role in the Trojan War and not because he wants to get involved with her. I prefer this version, because in my opinion it is even more cruel that Polyxena is sacrificed without having any connection to Achilles. Like, she wasn’t sacrificed because Achilles is angry about the fake marriage plot or because he is demanding the marriage, she was sacrificed simply because he wanted some kind of prize and decided it would be her. Also, I prefer the version where, after his death, Achilles goes to Leuke/White Island (first attested in The Aethiopians, but there are other sources) and, in this version, Polyxena is never present. As for the woman Achilles is involved with, it is usually Helen (for example, in Description of Greece and Heroica) or Iphigenia (Antoninus Liberalis).

Finally, let’s talk about mutilation. Although I have used visual references to justify this detail, I will not go with the version usually present in ceramics, in which the mutilation is more specifically a decapitation. Instead, I’ll go with the version present in Sophocles’ fragments of the play Troilus, in which the mutilation is maschalismos (μασχαλισμός). It isn’t only present in this myth, but it’s also present in a myth related to the death of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus and the death of Apsyrtus by Jason and Medea. See below for a detailed description of Jason:

[...] And the hero, Aeson's son, cut off the extremities of the dead man, and thrice licked up some blood and thrice spat the pollution from his teeth, as it is right for the slayer to do, to atone for a treacherous murder. And the clammy corpse he hid in the ground where even now those bones lie among the Apsyrtians.

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

In the case of the Argonautica, the text seems to state that the motivation for this action is a desire to avoid punishment. Jason in the Argonautica also has no violent tendencies and in fact most of the time he doesn't use force or get angry or proud, so it wouldn't be fitting for the character to do this just for some sick pleasure. The academic debate is less about the general idea (avoiding punishment) and more about how the punishment was avoided by doing it. Like, why exactly does mutilating Apsyrtus keep the Erinyes away? Unfortunately, there's no definitive answer, but there are theories.

The first possible explanation is that by hanging the extremities around the corpse, the killer tries to evoke the impression that the victim himself has done harm to his own person. He then mutilates the deceased in order to deprive him of the possibility of revenge. At the basis of this ritual lies the Greeks’ fundamental belief that a dead person arrives in the underworld in exactly the same condition as on the moment of his death. The primitive idea that the person comes back in his full corporality also seems to play a part. According to this view, when one mutilates the body the deceased will be unable to retaliate. In that way, the mutilation is a security measure against the ‘living corpse’ that returns to haunt and punish the murderer. The mutilation of the body is assumed to effect a corresponding mutilation of the ψυχή [soul] so that the ghost, deprived of his extremities, would be powerless to take vengeance on the murderer. (For the sake of convenience, from now on this motive will be referred to as the ‘vengeance motive’.) The second explanation is, according to some, under discussion in the passage from the Argonautica. The description of the μασχαλίσματα [machalismos] as ἐξάργματα [the first pieces cut from the victim’s flesh] is of crucial importance. This word, a hapax created by Apollonius, seems to denote the same as the terms ἄργματα [something with sacrificial sense] or ἀπάργματα [firstlings at a sacrifice or feast] meaning the ἀπαρχαί, the firstlings of the sacrificial animal that is offered to the gods. More specifically, this seems to mean that the μασχαλίσματα [machalismos] are the firstlings of the murdered victim. This term, in combination with the presence of the verb ἱλάεσθαι, has led various scholars to (wrongly – cf. infra) conclude that the whole act is meant to sacrifice the murdered person as some sort of averting sacrifice or ἀποτροπίασμα. Without any doubt, these scholars are inspired by the explanations presented by the scholion on the Argonautica and other ancient sources (cf. supra n. 7). As they stated, the μασχαλισμός [machalismos] would then be a sacrifice intended to avert evil, or a cathartic sacrifice, which practically amounts to the same idea. The prevailing idea is that while one appeases the gods, one passes the defilement onto the victim himself. (This motive is referred to from now on as the ‘appeasement motive’.)

A third possible reason for the μασχαλισμός [machalismos] is easier to find: the more ordinary desire to humiliate the victim post mortem and make him look like a fool. This motive is not explicitly mentioned in any of the lexicons or scholia, but it is reasonable to assume that it was often present in the background. One can assume that in the references of Sophocles and Aeschylus to the death of Agamemnon the motive of humiliation plays along: the mutilation of the Mycenaean king was exactly the opposite of actual funerary rites. It is very probable that this motive also was latently present in the writing of Apollonius. By mutilating Apsyrtus, Jason deprives him of his καλὸς θάνατος [something like good death] because “in losing its formal unity, the human body is reduced to the condition of a thing along with its disfigurement”. Emily Kearns compares the μασχαλισμός to the cruel, humiliating treatment of the goatherd Melanthius in the Odyssey (XXII, 474-477). It appears that the third motive could be combined with one of the first two, which seem incompatible with each other. Either Jason is motivated by vengeance or by appeasement, but not both. The final objectives of both motives are rather similar, as in both cases it is the intention of the murderer to escape the consequences of the crime. But according to one motive he wants to escape the revenge of his victim, and according to the other the defilement, the blood guilt (τὸ ἄγος) which clings to him after the murder. The origin of the vengeance theory is Aristophanes, while Apollonius initiated the appeasement theory.

There is no consensus in modern scholarly research on the question which of these two motives is actually intended in this passage (IV, 477-479). A large number of scholars who reflect on the Argonautica or on aspects of Greek religion related to those of the μασχαλισμός [maschalismos] do not mention the strange mutilation at all. Other authors in the same area briefly mention the μασχαλίζειν, but do not comment or reflect on the motive that is actually involved. Another group leaves the question open, but carefully suggests either the appeasement motive or the vengeance motive. Still other scholars do not hesitate to answer the question and support either the appeasement or the vengeance motive. Thus, while both of the motives have lived on in scholarly explanations, a univocal decisive answer has yet to be provided.

Ritual mutilation in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica: A contextual analysis of IV, 477-479 in search of the motive of the μασχαλισμός* by Reinhart Ceulemans. Read here. [I recommend checking the original website to see the explanatory notes, at least.Also, the words in brackets are my additions to make what is being said more understandable].

On the other hand, it has also been interpreted that Jason's ritualistic mutilation doesn’t actually prevent the criminal, since as shown he is still forced to go to Circe to REALLY be atoned for the crime. This is, for example, the interpretation of Francis M. Dunn. In fact, for Dunn the idea of this ritual does not have enough evidence, since it is likely that such explanations vary from a single source: Aristophanes. Considering a single source and its variations as certain proof for such a practice is not reliable for him. Still, the explanation usually most accepted in academia is that this specific type of mutilation is a ritual.

All the evidence considered so far suggests that the verb μασχαλίζειν in Aeschylus and Sophocles was adopted from sacrificial vocabulary to denote a familiar if brutal form of mutilation elsewhere termed ἀκρωτηριάζειν. It is now time to consider a widely accepted alternative explanation. The scholiast to Sophocles’ Electra describes an elaborate practice and explains how it was named: εἰώθεσαν οἱ δρῶντες ἐμφύλιον φόνον ἀκρωτηριάζειν τοὺς ἀναιρεθέντας ἐκ παντὸς μέρους τοῦ σώματος ἀποτεμνόμενοι <καὶ> περιάπτειν αὐτοῖς14 τὰ ἄκρα συνείραντες, διὰ τούτων ὥσπερ τὴν δύναμιν ἐκείνων ἀφαιρούμενοι, διὰ τὸ μὴ παθεῖν εἰς ὕστερόν τι παρ’ ἐκείνων δεινόν. ἐφόρουν δὲ εἰς τὰς μασχάλας τὰ ἄκρα, ὃ καὶ μασχαλίσαι ἔλεγον. (Σ S. El. 445a1 Xenis) Those performing kin-murder were accustomed to cut off the extremities from every part of the victim’s body, and after stringing them together hang the extremities on them, in this way removing their power so as not to suffer harm from them in the future. And they would run the extremities through the arm-pits, which the accordingly called ‘arm-pitting’. Modern scholars gloss this first explanation by observing that if you cut off a victim’s hands and feet then presumably it, or its shade, cannot come after you. We find similar descriptions of the procedure, with the same ritual explanation, in the lexicographers (Paus. Gr. μ.8 Erbse, Hsch. μ.379 Latte, Phot.μ.140 Theodoridis, Suid. μ.274, μ.275 Adler)

A second possible reason for the procedure precedes a similar description of it in the Etymologicum Magnum: ἦν γάρ τι νόμιμον, τοῖς δολοφονήσασιν ἀφοσιῶσαι τὸν φόνον διὰ τοῦ δολοφονηθέντος ἀκρωτηριασμοῦ. (EM 118.25-27 Gaisford) It was customary for those who murdered by treachery to expiate the murder by removal of the victim’s extremities. This second reason is more obscure than the first, and is usually explained by taking the extremities to be some kind of offering in appeasement. Lexicographers likewise repeat the second explanation, along with similar descriptions of the practice (Paus. Gr. ε.34 Erbse, Phot. ε.681 Theodoridis, Suid. ε.928 Adler, Apostol. 11.4 Leutsch, Et. Gen. α970.9-11 Lasserre/Livadaras). A further source, the scholiast to Apollonius, describes the same operation without offering an explanation (Σ A.R. p. 286 Wendel, ad 4.477-479). Modern scholars are divided over which of these two reasons is more plausible, but are virtually unanimous in accepting these sources’ description of the practice. Before examining the content of these accounts, it is worth commenting on their provenance. Three sources (Paus. Gr. μ.8 Erbse, Phot. μ.140 Theodoridis, Suid. μ.275 Adler) report that their accounts of μασχαλίζειν derive from Aristophanes of Byzantium:

μασχαλίσματα. Ἀριστοφάνης. παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Ἠλέκτρᾳ κεῖσθαι τὴν λέξιν ἔθος σημαίνουσαν. οἱ γὰρ φονεύσαντες ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς τινας ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὴν μῆνιν ἐκκλίνειν ἀκρωτηριάσαντες μόρια τούτου καὶ ὁρμαθίσαντες ἐξεκρέμασαν τοῦ τραχήλου διὰ τῶν μασχαλῶν διείραντες καὶ μασχαλίσματα προσηγόρευσαν. (Ar. Byz. fr. 412 Slater) μασχαλίσματα. Aristophanes. The word occurs in Sophocles’ Electra and indicates a custom: those who killed some one by treachery, to avert anger, after cutting parts from the victim and stringing them together hung them from the neck after threading them through the arm-pits; and they named (the parts) maschalismata. All these sources, both those which cite Aristophanes and those which do not, describe the cutting off and stringing of extremities in language so consistent that, as William Slater concludes, “[a]ll the testimonia seem so closely inte- grated that they must derive from Aristophanes”. In other words, despite the frequency of mention, the notion that μασχαλίζειν involved anything more than mutilation of a corpse derives from one, single account

The Mutilation of Agamemnon: (A. Ch. 439 and S. El. 445) by Francis M. Dunn, pg 202-203. Read here.

Erwin Rohde argued that there was no reason to suspect that Aristophanes had not been correct and therefore maschalismos should still be considered

There is no valid reason for rejecting the statement of Aristophanes; and there must be very good reason indeed for so doing before we may discredit such an authority. He gives his information with no uncertain voice and no suggestion of hesitation, and it must be regarded as the simple account of well-established facts. It would receive additional confirmation—if it needed any—from the very meaning and conception of the word μασχάλισμα. [...]

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks by Erwin Rohde.

It makes no sense to include Rohde’s excerpts here because, in addition to being very long, most of them contain Greek phrases and words. Instead, I’ll summarize the general idea of the conclusion. Rohde concludes that the description seems to indicate the cutting off of the extremities of the body rather than the dismemberment itself. Furthermore, he believes that the expressions used indicate that the procedure was intended to offer the victim as a sacrifice to apotropaei, that is, deities that warded off danger. In this context, maschalismos would be like the primordial offering of the sacrificial victim. It would therefore be an offering intended to ward off evil or a cathartic offering. By incapacitating the victim’s arms, you prevent him from holding, for example, a spear.

In the case of Achilles, the mutilation can be attested in the fragments of the lost play by Sophocles that dealt with the episode of the tragic death of Troilus.

L (623) full of cut-off body parts Referring to the maschalismos of Troilus’ corpse by Achilles (see comm. on Polyxene fr. G [528]); probably said at the time when the body is nrought back to Troy.

Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays by A.H Sommerstein and Thomas Talboy, pg 75.

Because of this fragment, it’s academically assumed that Achilles, in addition to mutilating Troilus, did so in a way that was included in the maschalismos ritual.

Greek literature contains several references to the custom (sometimes called maschalismos) of cutting off the extremities (hands and feet, sometimes also nose and ears) of a person one has murdered, stringing them together and tying them around his neck and under his armpits (maschalai) with a view inter alia to disabling his ghost from pursuit and vengeance; see E. Rohde, Psyche (tr. W.B. Hillis, London, 1925) 582–6, and R.C. Jebb, Sophocles …: The Electra (Cambridge, 1894) 211–2. In some accounts the corpse of Agamemnon was so treated by Clytaemestra (Aesch. Cho. 439, Soph. El. 445) and that of Apsyrtus, brother of Medea, by Jason (Ap.Rh. 4.477); Atreus’ mutilation of the children of Thyestes (Aesch. Ag. 1594–7, Sen. Thy. 1004–34, [Apoll.] Epit. 2.13; cf. Hdt. 1.119) may once have been imagined as having had this apotropaic function as well as that of concealing from their father what it was that he was eating. See also Pausanias Att. µ8, Hesychius µ379, Suda ε928, µ275, Et.Mag. 118.22–36, 574.202–217, Apostolius 11.4. The amputation of extremities is also referred to as an (atrocious and barbaric) punishment (e.g. Odyssey 22.474–7, Aesch. Eum. 188, Hdt. 3.69.5, 3.118.2, 3.154–5, 9.112.1, Xen. An. 1.9.13). Thus when Demosthenes in his speech On the Crown (18.296) spoke of the pro-Macedonian politicians in the various Greek states as having “amputated the extremities of their own native cities” he was accusing them of one of the most horrendous crimes imaginable. Sophocles’ Troilus (q.v.), which dealt with the killing of Troilus by Achilles, contained the phrase “full of maschalismata” (Troilus fr. L [623]), so it is likely that in that play Achilles not only beheaded Troilus’ corpse (see Introduction, p. 45) but “maschalized” it also. It is thus possible in principle, as was suggested by Calder (1966) 50, that Harpocration’s reference to Sophocles’ Polyxene is an error and that the mutilation was mentioned only in Troilus (perhaps in a speech by Polyxene); but there is no reason why it should not have been mentioned in Polyxene too, whether by Polyxene herself (as one of the miseries of her life, or as a reason she has for hating Achilles) or by the ghost of Achilles (perhaps in a retrospective narrative in the prologue of the play). Another possibility is that the reference is to the future mutilation of Agamemnon’s corpse, as part of the prophecy of his murder to which fr. E (526) also belongs (so Bardel [2005] 97).

Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays by A.H Sommerstein and Thomas Talboy, pg 83.

Furthermore, a character's performance of maschalismos doesn’t mean that their only possible motivation is to avoid the spirit's revenge. Clytemnestra, for example, does this to Agamemnon because she despises him. Furthermore, Achilles' attitude towards Troilus seems too horrible to have been a purely ritualistic motivation, as was Jason's case with Apsyrtus.

This is most strikingly shown by the third salient feature, his systematic mutilation (maschalismos) of the corpse of Troilus (fr. L [623]). Our sources (discussed in the Commentary on Polyxene fr. G [528]) associate this procedure sometimes with the murder of kindred, sometimes with plotted or treacherous murders. Other than Troilus, the only individual who is stated in any pre-Hellenistic text to have been subjected to this treatment is Agamemnon, at the hands of Clytaemestra (Aesch. Cho. 439, Soph. El. 445), and it surely implies in Achilles either a very great hatred of Troilus or a very great fear of his vengeful spirit – or both. We do not know whether in Sophocles, as in the artistic tradition and as in Lycophron, Achilles also cut off Troilus’ head; all one can say is that Sophocles’ apparent addition of maschalismos to the story suggests that he was concerned to increase the atrociousness of Achilles’ actions, so it may be thought unlikely that he would simultaneously diminish it by omitting the decapitation. In principle maschalismos could be viewed as a rational precaution against revenge – though that is not how Aeschylus invites us to view it in the case of Clytaemestra, whose son is told by the chorus of Choephori (439–442) that his mother’s objective had been “to make [Agamemnon’s] death something worse than your life could endure”, in other words that her treatment of the corpse was an act of degradation. Decapitation can be nothing but an act of hatred or rage. It was certainly out of hatred and rage that Achilles vowed to bring to Patroclus the head of Hector; Euphorbus hoped to take the head of Menelaus home to his parents to assuage their grief over his brother Hyperenor whom Menelaus had killed (Iliad 17.34– 40); and the only person actually to decapitate a corpse in the Iliad, Ajax son of Oileus, did so because he was “angry over [the death of] Amphimachus” (Iliad 13.203). We must therefore seek a reason for Achilles to feel hatred and rage against Troilus. The motives for the killing that are to be found in the rest of the literary tradition do not furnish him with such a reason. If Troilus is treacherously killed because his death is necessary if Troy is to be captured, that might well give Achilles cause to fear the wrath of his ghost, but it does not require there to be the least personal hostility between the two. And if he is killed for rejecting Achilles’ amorous advances, that would indeed be a killing in anger, but one would expect that anger to be quickly followed by remorse as Achilles contemplated the corpse of one who had been, as Patroclus was to be, both his beloved and his victim.

Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays by A.H Sommerstein and Thomas Talboy, pg 75. [There was a note here where the author also used Penthesilea's situation in comparison to Troilus. Penthesilea, the Amazon queen, was killed by Achilles. He, however, regretted killing her because he had fallen in love with her.]

That is, while Jason is often interpreted as doing it simply out of fear of retribution as a “rational” way of avoiding retribution, and Clytemnestra seems to do it out of contempt rather than a “rational” motive, Achilles seems to be somewhere in between. There is nothing to suggest that the reason for the mutilation is purely a negative feeling, as is the case with Clytemnestra where this is made explicit in the play. However, visual representations of the event sometimes show Achilles with Troilus’ head, which isn’t part of the machalismo ritual and seems to have another motivation. I have seen the following motivations suggested:

Achilles needed to kill Troilus in order for Troy to fall. Wanting victory, Achilles was determined to accomplish this task at any cost, even if it meant sacrilege. The textual source we have for this is late, as the oldest is Roman. However, depictions that show Athena in the scene sometimes lead academics to theorize that this idea may be older. Athena is the patron goddess of the Achaeans in the Trojan War, as she wants the city destroyed, and often appears in scenes to indicate divine assistance. Why would Athena randomly be in the scene of Troilus and Achilles, if not as Achilles' helper? And why would she randomly want to help Achilles in this task if not because it would help her in her goal of destroying Troy? Achilles, having completed his mission, then mutilated Troilus' corpse as a protective ritual. The etymology of Troilus' name also suggests a possible link between his death and the destruction of Troy. Even those who don’t theorize that there was a prophecy generally interpret Athena as still encouraging Achilles. Hermes, sometimes present, is usually interpreted as neutral. Another deity who sometimes appears is Thetis, who is interpreted as either concerned about the punishment Achilles will suffer at the hands of Apollo or as encouraging him as Athena did.

Some visual depictions contain elements that indicate a sexual overtone to the ambush, which may indicate that Achilles had sexual interest in Troilus and was angered by Troilus' rejection. Thus the mutilation may have been motivated by anger at the rejection rather than as a ritual. Or at least, it was both a ritual and a way of taking revenge for the rejection.

One interpretation of Sophocles' lost play is that Achilles was interested in Troilus' sister Polyxena, although there aren’t enough fragments to say for sure (Polyxena isn’t even named). In Sommerstein's interpretation, Troilus tried to make Achilles not want to marry her by describing her in a dismissive way, hoping that Achilles would believe that Polyxena was really like that and would no longer want to be with her. However, Achilles realized what Troilus was trying to do and, angered by Troilus's attempt to deceive him, mutilated Troilus after killing him. Again, even if the mutilation had a ritualistic function, that function is also mixed with anger.

Personally, I'm going with the first option since I don't consider Achilles' interest in Troilus (purely personal preference) nor Achilles' interest in Polyxena (because I chose a different chronology of his death and a different idea of Polyxena's sacrifice). Therefore, for the sake of logical cohesion, the first option is the one that makes the most sense with what I'm following. However, I still want to keep the characteristic of Achilles being at least partially influenced by anger (as is the case with the other two theories) to place him somewhere between Clytemnestra and Jason. For this reason, the mutilation here also appears as a kind of dehumanization of Troilus on Achilles' part. It’s still very much a brutal act. I think it's important to emphasize that it was an atrocious act, which is why I maintain the mutilation.

#Ask #greek-mythology-lover #Achilles #Troilus #tw: SA #tw: mutilation #Birdie.txt

3 notes · View notes