Talk:Achilles and Patroclus

message: I removed a link to Classical definition of effeminacy which Dbachmann had added.  I'm not sure how it's directly relevant to the discussion of Achilles and Patroclus — I don't recall Achilles or Patroclus being described as an example of ἀνανδρία or μαλακία.  Obviously the Homeric and modern sections need work, and if either word is used with reference to these two in Homer the link should be restored, I suppose; but it's not a quality I tend to associate with either of these two.  Of course, differing opinions are welcome; I don't own this page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effeminacy

message: "It is not possible to designate the roles found in the Iliad between Achilles and Patroclus along pederastic lines. Achilles is the most dominant"
If something is unclear to ascertain and how can this declarative statement be made? I'm just a bit confused by this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.212.85.194 (talk • contribs) 15:14, April 23, 2006  (UTC)
:What is confusing? Haiduc 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is unclear. I'm pretty sure it means something like "The relationship of Achilles and Patroclus does not conform to the pederastic erastes/eromenos relationship familar to us from classical Athens," which would be clearer. It might be helpful to mention that the Iliad portrays Achilles as younger than Patroclus, and if their relationship were a pederastic one, that would make Achilles the eromenos, the more passive partner. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be simpler to say that their relationship is seen as an example of warrior same-sex love in the style of Gilgamesh and Enkidu (if I can find a source I'll post it) and that it probably predates the formal adoption of pederastic practices. Haiduc 10:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One good source for that comparison is David Halperin's article, "Heroes and their Pals," in his book, "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" (Halperin, David M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and Other Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge, 1990. London: Routledge, 1990.). You can find a scholarly review of this book here: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1991/02.01.07.html  Halperin's article also compares the David/Jonathan relationship from the Biblical Books of Samuel and Kings. All three stories definitely pre-date the 6th-5th century pederastic practices of Athens; I added a note about Halperin's argument in the article.108.1.108.196 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear declaration 

message: In disagreement with one line of the article, there were homosexual relationships that were particularly famous of Sparta. Therefore to say that homosexuality did not exist in Greece is simply incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.159.0 (talk • contribs) 22:51, September 7, 2006  (UTC)
:Perhaps the sentence was unclear or misleading.  Homosexual relationships certainly existed in ancient Greece; however, the Greeks did not, as a rule, categorize sexual relationships by the gender of their participants, so the concept of homosexuality did not exist.  There's a detailed discussion at Homosexuality in ancient Greece.  I've reworded the sentence to make the distinction clearer here, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I seem to recall that Achilles' wrath was against Agamemnon (because of the stolen slave), not Hector. But I wait for more competent opinions before changing the article. Elvetico 08:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Agamemnon takes Briseis, Akhilles sulks in his tent.  When Hektor kills Patroclus, he goes on a killing spree.  The latter is μηνις (wrath); the former is more like saying "if you're going to be like that, I'm taking my ball home." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but "Sing, O goddess, the rage of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans." This rage is the one against Agamemnon, isn't it? Elvetico 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Achilles' rage/wrath/anger (mēnis) is caused by Agamemnon's theft of Briseis. Achilles is obviously quite upset when Patroclus is killed, but his anger at Hector is never called mēnis, as far as I know. Nevertheless, at least a few people who write about the Iliad say that Achilles has a second mēnis after Patroclus is killed. At any rate, I agree that the article is in error when it says "the death of Patroclus is the prime motivation of Achilles' wrath, the subject of the poem." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Akhilleus (the Wikipedian) is right. This article is out of line. Probably a result of its being tagged as a part of "LGBT studies" rather than "classical studies", which gives us "LGBT students" looking at classical literature, rather than classical philologists evaluating homoerotic aspects of the Iliad. The claim that "knowing whether Achilles was erastes and Patroclus eromenos, whether the opposite was true, or whether their love was egalitarian, is crucial to the thematic makeup of the Iliad" is just preposterous. All you need to know to understand the "thematic makeup of the Iliad" is that there was love between Achilleus and Patroclus. If this love had an erotic aspect, and if so who was on top, is really not the most urgent question the reader needs to consider. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Dbachmann and Akhilleus the Wikipedian. If I may be blunt, the article seems to exist only as a battleground between those who want to claim Achilles as a gay icon, and homophobes with a preconception of what makes a 'manly man' and without any understanding of ancient Greek homosexuality. In addition to a sad lack of sources for most claims, the article seems to operate on the assumption that there is a reality that can be uncovered, as if the true sexuality of Achilles and Patroclus can be determined through historical methods. In fact the sexuality of Achilles and Patroclus exists for us only in the various fictional portrayals. The Homeric version is no more "real" than an Alexandrian version: they are all just expressions of the artists and culture that produced them. And sheesh, until a couple of minutes ago, the article used the verb 'blossomed' of the relationship. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrath of Achilles

message: There used to be a link to an .ogg file of a spoken-word version of the myth on this page. It was removed a while back, but the following box remained:
The Achilles and Patroclus myth as told by story tellers
Bibliography of reconstruction: Homer Iliad, 9.308, 16.2, 11.780, 23.54 (700 BC); Pindar Olympian Odes, IX (476 BC); Aeschylus Myrmidons, F135-36 (495 BC); Euripides Iphigenia in Aulis, (405 BC); Plato Symposium, 179e (388 BC-367 BC); Statius Achilleid, 161, 174, 182 (96 CE)
As far as I can tell, this box was just a list of sources used by whoever compiled the spoken-word version of the myth; since that's been deleted, the box is superfluous. However, it does seem to be a decent partial listing of the ancient sources which refer to Achilles and Patroclus, so I'm leaving it here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed spoken word sources 

message: "He dreams that all Greeks would die so that he and Patroclus might gain the fame of conquering Troy alone[citation needed]."
It's a quote from Achilles from the Iliad. So one can debate if he dreams about it, but why does it have the tag it has? Someone just create an Ilaid footnote to the proper section. It may be one of the oddest comments Achilles makes in all the Iliad, wishing all his other friends to die. He received Ajax and Odysseus as friends at his ship, making it clear his anger was for Agamemnon and Agamemnon only. --77.175.157.191 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [citation needed]