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.