Introduction
None of the Greek mythological figures, both during the ancient and modern days, has elicited the level of controversy marring Achilles the Thessalian warrior. His relationship with Patroclus, in particular, has been a subject of debate for many scholars from time immemorial. A comprehensive internalization of the controversy and other aspects associated with it would necessitate a prerequisite discussion of the person of Achilles. According to Osborne (1), Achilles was greatly revered as an emblem of both male virtue and excellence. Later in the Roman Empire, however, his name became associated with barbarism and anger. Regardless, Alexander the Great still held Achilles with the highest of esteems. Just like his motives and personality, Achilles love life aroused a great deal of controversy. In fact, scholars are still struggling to draw meaning from Achilles’ romantic relationship with Patroclus. The love narration forms a central part of stories and literature during the Trojan War epoch.
In Homer’s Iliad, Achilles and Patroclus are portrayed as much more than just comrades in the Trojan War. The relationship begins when Achilles feels greatly dishonoured by Agamemnon, thus, fails to be part of the battle. However, as the wind of the war blows towards the Achaeans, Patroclus beseeches Achilles to let him take charge of the Myrmidon Army cladded in Achilles’ armour. Patroclus successfully repels the Trojan forces, but fails to make it out alive as he is murdered by Hector in the battle. When Antilochus relays the sad message to Achilles, he is overwhelmed by grief which, for the first time, breaks him down. The previously steadfast and powerful warrior openly shows his emotions and agonizes while touching the dead body of Patroclus. He smears himself with ash and fasts as an indication of how much the death has affected him. The fury and pique from this incidence leads Achilles back to the battlefield in a bid to avenge for the death of Patroclus. Regardless of warnings that returning to the battlefield may cost Achilles his life, he seems to be on a sacrificial mission to kill Hector even if doing so would lead to his death. Fortunately, Achilles defeats Hector and mutilates his body by dragging it behind his chariot. The great deal of sacrifice that Achilles makes in this case is an indication of the strong interpersonal bond he had with Patroclus. The bond between Achilles and Patroclus is not one of a kind, there are some other notable archetypal male bonds spread throughout the Greek culture. The following discussion argues that while the nature of Achilles and Patroclus relationship remains disputed, it is an intricate one which leans more towards intimacy and eroticism rather than mere friendship and comradeship.
Background of Greek Homosexuality: Underpinning Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship
Homosexuality is deeply rooted in the Greek history. It features prominently alongside other forms of pederasty in Greek mythologies. Holmen (1) and Hubbard (4-7) define pederasty as a kind of social interaction in which same sex parties engaged in intellectual pleasures or sexual relationships as part of the societal norms. Unlike in the modern times, an ideal Greek pederasty involved an older male (erastes) and a younger male not older than 18 years (eromenos) (Dover, 16). The age difference between the partners was considered to be the primary determinant of idealness of such relationships. Expectedly, the erastes headed the relationship while he mentored the eromenos to become not only a fully functioning partner in the arrangement, but also an upright member of the Greek society. It was prescribed that people in such forms of relationships should not overindulge, but instead uphold high levels of sophrosyne. Whereas the erastes was required to exercise restraint in his pursuit of the boy, the eromenos had to exercise the same restraint by not quickly giving into the sexual advances of the older male.
Scholars are convinced that pederasty draws its roots from the Dorian initiation rites. Dover (16) explains that the Dorians were the last immigrant to Greece. They had conspicuously masculine traditions. Their masculinity made them to be widely known as the real he-men. Scholars, therefore, hypothesize that pederasty originated from the Dorian island Crete where older men normally kidnapped consenting adolescents for sexual escapades. The tradition gradually spread into the Greek mainland. Even during the wars, it was a common scenario for older warriors to couple up with younger recruits and would fiercely protect each other from the enemy. There are numerous Greek artefacts that lend credibility to any claim of pederasty. These artefacts, mostly drawings on vases, show the process of courting between the erastes and eromenos. In the drawings, the erastes has beards while the seemingly passive adolescent has no beards. The drawings depict the younger boy as timid, lacking of enthusiasm and is less excited in the ongoing activity. Scholars like Holmen (2) record that as soon as the boy grew beards, the pederasty had to be ended as both separated to find legible eromenos. It was a shame for a man with a beard to submit to another bearded man for penetration. As a deviation from the norm, such people (kinaidoi) were highly disregarded and ridiculed by the society. This is because ideal pederasty was not only based on sexual favours between the two parties, but was also meant to benefit the society, thus, it became a societal affair. The erastes, as the older male, was charged with a responsibility of inducting the eromenos into Greek politics as well as the military, therefore, contributing directly to the development of the society.
Apart from the drawings and artefacts, there are numerous prominent examples of pederasty throughout the Greek history that can be used to contextualize and ground Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship. It is noteworthy that most of the people involved in these examples are Greek heroes. For instance, Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great) had a strong emotional bond with Hephaestion. Hephaestion, the cavalry commander, was not only Alexander’s close companion but also a childhood friend. The relationship begins when Alexander reaches Troy where the two honour two different heroes. Alexander honoured Achilles while Hephaestion honoured Patroclus (Green, 153). While there is no overt sign that the two were lovers, Aristotle describes the relationship between the two as ‘one soul abiding two bodies’ (Green, 153). Alexander was overcome by grief following the death of Hephaestion and fasted for days. He the arranged an elaborate funeral ceremony for Hephaestion at Babylon in addition to asking the shrine of Ammon to grant Hephaestion divine honours. The priest at the shrine declined the request but still agreed to offer Hephaestion a divine hero status. It has been hypothesized that the grief made Alexander ignore his health which gradually deteriorated to the point of his death. Another ideal exemplification of pederasty was the partnership between Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Harmodius, an Athenian youth, was Aristogeiton’s (a Greek middle class citizen) eromenos. Initially, Hipparchus, the Athenian tyrant Hippias’ brother, was making advances towards Harmodius who declined the advances. Aristogeiton discovered this and plotted to ruin the tyranny. Harmodius and Aristogeiton colluded with a band of men who attacked and murdered Hipparchus (Hubbard, 153; Dover, 27). Unfortunately, both Harmodius and Aristogeiton were killed in the melee, with the former dying instantly. Other examples of ideal pederastic relationships were partnerships between Zeus and Ganymede as well as Agathon and Pausanias. Agathon was a poet and the eromenos of Pausanias. One common thing about all these relationships, apart from age difference, is the fact that the couple united and supported each other for the benefit of the society. Harmodius and Aristogeiton gathered a legion and charged towards a tyranny. In as much as both lost their lives, their initiative restored democracy in Athens and completely destroyed bad leadership. On this note, some scholars have argued that these pederastic relationships were necessary, rather than being seen simply as unions where people exchanged sexual favours. Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship, as will be seen below, also depicts the exact nature as in the above examples, and fulfilled similar goals.
Achilles and Patroclus in Homer’s Iliad
It is critical to note that Homer’s Iliad does not, without equivocation, explain the nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. However, Gregory (2) proposes that readers should understand the relationship as one of intimacy and eroticism as well as surrogacy and doubling. The following discussion will adopt Amanda Gregory’s view in the analysis of the sexual or romantic partnership between Achilles and Patroclus. Patroclus is introduced in book 9 where he sits with Achilles as Agamemnon’s embassy gets to Achilles’ tent. Patroclus is keenly listening to Achilles’ lyre playing while mimicking the actions. He is less focused on the arrival of the guests. This shows that much of his attention and concentration is on Achilles. Gregory (3) further reports that Patroclus takes the role of a wife as he performs the duties of a wife including preparation of drinks at Achilles’ request. All these domestic chores cumulatively spell a more intricate connection and romantic bond characteristic of typical heterosexual relationships. Achilles was a great warrior whose absence in the battle would be greatly detrimental to his troops, therefore, Agamemnon’s envoys came to beseech him to lead them in the war. He declined to take part in the battle and never wanted to be associated with it in any way after Agamemnon disappointed him. Even then, he allows Patroclus to take his armour and lead the troop on his behalf. In as much as this can be seen as a normal gesture, it indicates the close connection and trust the two shared. It is the unwavering faith that Achilles had in Patroclus that let him allow Patroclus to take his armour (and figuratively his reputation) to a battle whose weight no one understood better than Achilles. Achilles understood that the battle was of high importance and if Patroclus was defeated wearing his armour then he would take all the blame, and his reputation as a great warrior would be ruined. Allowing Patroclus to represent him in the battle is perhaps the greatest indicator of the type of reciprocation and trust that can only be found in the strongest of romantic or erotic bonds.
The above discussion reveals a deep friendship between Achilles and Patroclus, therefore, leading to an understanding of events that follow as the battle begins with Patroclus as the leader. The specific events during and after the battle are the actual indicators of the eroticism and intimacy that characterized the Achilles-Patroclus relationship. This begins with the appearance of Patroclus’ ghost in book 23 of the Iliad. Patroclus’ ghost scolds Achilles for having forgotten him in death while Achilles never ignored him when he was alive.
“You sleep, Achilles, but you have forgotten me,
you did not disregard me living, but having died.
Bury me as quickly as possible so that I might pass through the gates of Hades.
The souls, the images of the dead, hold me at a distance,
they will not yet allow me to mingle across the river,
but, just as I am, by the broad-gated house of Hades.
Give to me your hand; I lament. No longer will I
return from Hades, when you grant me the right of a funeral fire.
We, living, sitting far away from dear companions
will not deliberate on plans, but hateful fate
gaped, which fell upon me when I was born.
And there is a fate for you yourself, Achilles, resembling a god,
to be killed under the walls of the prospering Trojans.
I will say to you another thing, and I will ask you, if you will persuaded:
Achilles, do not set my bones far from yours,
but together” (Homer, 23. 68-84).
The fact that the ghost appeared specifically to Achilles grounds the relationship and further proves their closeness. Clearly, the ghost makes a list of requests and demands on how he wants to be buried. First, Patroclus’ ghost asks Achilles to bury their bones not too far from each other before making a direct request that the bones be buried together. The togetherness and the probability of sharing a vessel directly communicates the level of intimacy and the nature of the relationship. The tone of the above passage reveals deep emotional attachment enjoining parties in the relationship.
Achilles response to the ghost also reveals that there was a strong intimacy between the two. We can, however, not clearly find any indication of eroticism from this response as it can easily be construed for mere companionship. Achilles, for example, asks the ghost to abide with him even if just for the moment so they can enjoy fatal weeping (Homer, 23.97-98). Paradoxical as ‘enjoy fatal weeping’ may sound, a strong sense of love lies beneath the paradox. The phrase indicates that Achilles deeply longed for an enjoyable last moment with a person who had been his among his closest companion. He is reluctant to let go and believe that Patroclus is no more, thus, nostalgically attempts to recall the past wishing that the last fatal moment would be as enjoyable as the past that both have shared. There is, however, a line that clearly indicate that the relationship was romantic in nature. According to Homer (23.99-100), Achilles reached out his hand to his ‘beloved’ but failed to take him. This is the first time an indicator of romance has been used in reference to the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. The line additionally implies the existence of a direct physical intimacy between the two. It is during the sombre moment when intimacy and eroticism that characterizes the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus comes out clearly. Achilles’ grief, however, peaks after Patroclus’ funeral games when Achilles weeps uncontrollably in longing for Patroclus deep in the dead of the night. He lacks sleep and is reported tossing from one side to the other. Achilles specifically longs for both Patroclus’ manliness and courage. A description of this scene overlies a sexual tone which attaches eroticism to this relationship.
The love Achilles had for Patroclus goes on to manifest itself in the anger and the subsequent revenge mission. Enraged and seething, Achilles sets out on a sacrificial mission to avenge the death of his beloved. The risk of defeat and a likelihood of losing his life do not stop him from returning to Troy. Osborne (4), however, notes that the motive of Achilles’ return to Troy is contentious and cannot be solely pegged on his love for Patroclus. Two primary factors that may have motivated Achilles to take on the Trojans include a request by Agamemnon and the materials rewards promised, and the need for revenge of Patroclus’ death. Achilles was cognizant of the fact that returning to Troy meant the highest possibility of losing his life which would, however, bestow upon him an external glory. During the classical times, choosing eternal glory (kleos aphthiton) was the ultimate show of heroism. Therefore, ruling out the first possible motive (embassy request and rewards), leaves the love for Patroclus as the sole motive. Even then, Achilles was known to be obsessed with honour (Osborne, 4), thus, he could have returned to Troy as a means of killing two birds with one stone. That is, avenging for the death of Patroclus, and using that to gain the much-valued eternal glory. From this perspective, Achilles’ quest for eternal glory and honour may overshadow the need to avenge for the death of Patroclus. However, to understand the ultimate reason, one needs to examine the events that leads to Achilles’ decision to return to Troy and the events that take place in the battlefield.
A scene in the Iliad provides a plausible answer. When Agamemnon sends an envoy to Achilles to convince him to lead them to battle, Achilles unequivocally states that he no longer feels he should sacrifice his life for mere recognition as a hero. He says, “The same honour waits for the coward and the brave. They both go down to Death, the fighter who shirks, the one who works to exhaustion” (Homer, IX 386-388). Clearly, he knew that he still had ‘honour’ whether he chose the battlefield or staying away. On this note, he rejects Agamemnon’s envoy request together with the rewards. Precisely, as can be seen in the above passage, he also rejects the belief that eternal glory is worth his life. Even when his mentor phoenix reminds him that he will be completely forgotten if he fails to fight, he says he does not value remembrance anymore. The value he attaches to his life, therefore, outweighs the value he attaches to recognition and opinion of others. Later, Achilles puts the life he valued more than anything on the line and returns to Troy. The sudden shift of priorities is mysterious yet explicable given the preceding events, specifically, the death of Patroclus. According to Osborne (5), Achilles’ deepest desire was that everyone else should perish but him and Patroclus. Homers (XVI 115-119) records Achilles praying to Father Zeus, Athena, and Lord Apollo to grant him this wish. Therefore, Achilles yearns for a world with nobody else but him and Patroclus. Eventually, when Patroclus is killed in the battle, Achilles’ ideal world is no longer a reality and this throws him into complete exasperation. He lets anger overcome his rationality, and he unconditionally returns to Troy with one mission-vengeance. He ravages the plains of Troy and kills Hector. He then ties Hector’s body to his chariot and mutilates it while dragging it around the walls of the city. This action shows the animalistic rage and bad temperament that characterized Achilles’ emotions after the death of Patroclus. The resolve, vigour, sacrifice, and animalistic aggravation that Achilles show following the death of Patroclus supports the claim that the relationship between the two was more than just mere companionship or comradeship. In a nutshell, Achilles’ returned to Troy because of the sexual love he had for Patroclus and not because he wanted to gain eternal glory.
Sexual love between comrades: Is love compatible with war?
Castro (1) projects that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was more than just friendship; and, as can be seen from the discussion above, the relationship was sexual in nature. Seemingly, love between comrades during war is a necessary evil. At least with reference to Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship. On one hand, it is a recipe for confusion and chaos, while on the other hand, it facilitates victory. At first, Achilles refuses to go to war, thus, endangering his camp. The confusion escalates when he relinquishes his armour to his eromenos Patroclus. One would easily foresee the defeat of Achilles campo since Patroclus was younger and less experienced than him. Verily, despite managing to repel the Trojans, Patroclus dies in what may be construed as the defeat of Achilles’ war camp. The confusion may have led to their defeat, but the death of Patroclus motivates Achilles to take charge and bring victory home. Briggs (14) adds that the gods only honoured people who sacrificed their lives for their lovers even if the lovers are dead. In this case, however, the sacrifice not only brings honour, but also victory as Achilles kill Hector and wins the war. Evidently, love between comrades can work for, or against the troop. Despite this probability, Briggs (48) strongly feel that love between comrades is incompatible with war. Ideally, war is a serious issue which should be devoid of sexual and emotional attachments. Achilles eventually dies, and his camp loses a prominent warrior, which translates to a communal loss.
In conclusion, Homers equivocally portrays the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, thus, leaving a big room for speculation on the nature of the relationship. While others can argue that the relationship was mere friendship and companionship, others may adopt the view that the two were indeed lovers. In light of the above discussion, the numerous instances of display of intimacy and eroticism, however, this essay has proved that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. The fact that Achilles was ready to sacrifice his life in the wake of Patroclus’ death is enough indication of the deeper emotional attachment he shared with Patroclus. This is characteristic of the kind of sacrifice in normal romantic relationships.