Talk:Achilles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA Achilles is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Achilles as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Portal:Mythology
 Mythology Portal
This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
{{{{{importance}}}-importance}} This article is on a subject of {{{importance}}}-importance within classical antiquity.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.

Contents

[edit] Aeschylus' Achilles

This sentence is inaccurate: "Also, the lost play Achilles by Aeschylus was rediscovered in 2003." Achilles was originally a trilogy, not a single play. A restored version was staged in Greece in 2003, not discovered. The restored version was put together out of fragments of the trilogy to form a single play. MOst of those fragments have been extant for decades, not recently discovered. Part of it was discovered wrapping a mummy in Egypt, but I have not been able to find out which part. Unfortunately, I don't know enough details to rewrite the sentence myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.190.242.110 (talk • contribs) .

The badly titled article Achilles (play) is now accurate enough to serve as a guide here. --Wetman 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

It should be noted that I think the proper pronounciation of achilles is actually something like A-SHEEL. The westernized version is A-KILL-EES, but I'm rather confident that the european roots of this name are somewhat influenced by French pronounciation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.226.150 (talk • contribs) .

How so? Greek consonants have changed pronunciation over the centuries. In particular it looks like chi, now pronounced somewhat like "sh", used to be pronounced "kh", which is why the Romans wrote it as "ch". The rest of the westernized version is just a matter of using the English values for the vowels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh Grosse (talk • contribs).

My two cents' worth to this pronunciation business: the chi (χ) will be pronounced 'k' by Anglophones and Italians, 'sh' by the French, 'kh' (guttural voiceless fricative, same as the -j- in Spanish 'Juan') by the Dutch, the Germans, and indeed the (modern) Greek. The original value of the consonant is believed to be /k//h/, that is, k + plosive als in English 'cut'.
Cwoyte 13:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Penthesilea Achilles.

Suggestion for input: As Achilles kills Penthesilea she makes a beautiful statement to him, before he removes her mask and falls in love. If anyone recalls this passage, please input.

[edit] Suggest 1 possible wiki link for Achilles.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Achilles article:

  • Can link central character: ...'') was the greatest warrior in the [[Trojan War]], and the central character of [[Homer]]'s ''[[Iliad]]''....

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Achilles' name

I'm not familiar with these topics but I wish to point out the new section about the meaning of Achilles' name. Besides having an all-caps title and being all boldfaced, it feels rather unclear, possibly POV and possibly lifted verbatim from another website (including the underlying HTML code). It needs cleanup, thanks in advance. Lawrence Lavigne 09:58, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify everyone about the pronounciation of the name i can give you an example of the correspondence of each letter to english. The real name that we (Greeks) are saying is "Αχχιλεύς" which is getting to "Αχχιλέας" when it comes to contemporary greek language. Thus if i can say that the syllabus "χχι" equals to chi like Chania or Chalkida the greek cities. It is more accurate therefore to write it "Achileas". The problem with that is the pronounciation. Being in UK now I can realise how difficult for other people is to pronounce greek related words.

I edited out the “lipless” etymology, which is to be found in Apollodorus (III, 13, 6). The proposed explanation (alpha privative and χεῖλος / kheilos, “lip”) is pure folk etymology. 62.4.18.245 15:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Achilles and Patroclus

The sexual nature of the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles is by no means definite. It cannot be understood as sexual in nature when a variety of scholars do not agree. To say it is so absolutely is not correct. Please read the original greek. Or take a look at a variety of sources, the wikipedia entry for the Iliad being one of them. It is an embarrassment to the objectivity of Wikipedia to be so conclusive about a subject where there is no proof. I understand there is a homosexual agenda in the modern world but it has no place in the encyclopedia that is Wikopedia. -- 69.163.43.56 (talk • contribs)

Homosexual agenda, eh? What exactly would that be, aside from a wish to live free and unmolested? As for your "embarrassment" over this article, you really should review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Just because something is contentious does not mean it should be dismissed. To say that it "cannot be understood as sexual in nature" would imply that scholars who do understand it to be sexual are definitely incorrect, which makes no sense. You'll note that only your deleteriously POV edits have been reverted. -- Hadal 1 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
It is clear the majority of ancient Greeks regarded them as homosexual lovers. The idea that it was platonic is a modern invention. 67.41.236.211 4 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. It's a mistake to think they either were or weren't lovers - as mythical characters, they don't have to be consistent. In the Iliad, there's no reference of a sexual connection, and I think the idea appeared relatively late as far as the mythology goes. It was definitely common by the time of Alexander, though. Josh

The majority of ancient Greeks from the time it appeared all the way until Christian times regarded them as homosexual. However it is true it does not state it in graphic details within the work itself. At the same time many Greek felt there was no need because it was so common that educated persons would read between the lines. See the discussion at the Illiad article, it contains direct quotes. 67.41.236.211 4 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

The page really should say something more about the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles. The NPOV thing to do is to present the evidence of both sides. Homer can be read either way (although Thetis does remind the grieving Achilles that the love of women is a good thing too). Aeschylus's lost play The Myrmidons apparently had the two in a "lover-beloved" relationship of the type that was typical of 5th century Athens, with Patroclus as the (younger) beloved; Plato refers to this as an error in his Symposium, saying that Achilles was the beloved. Xenophon disagrees with both Aeschylus and Plato, saying the two were not lovers at all. As Josh says, at the time of Alexander it was pretty universally accepted that the two were lovers. It's an important part of the myth in many aspects, and even though some don't like it it's POV-pushing to exclude it completely.
Would it be better to include this information in the narrative, before the death of Patroclus, or in a separate section? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me but WHAT does it matter what their relationship was "generally regarded in ancient Greece". It's a myth, Achilles is defined BY and within the myth, not by a general perception, and within the text of this myth, the Iliad, there is NO proof of homosexuality. ONLY the text itself should be considered in defining this relationship. Any conclusion on Achilles' sexuality should be removed immediately, only a neutral mention of the ancient Greek perception stated. This is common sense, please do your job of furthering truth and knowledge with a clear, objective mind, without influence from agenda or preconception.

And to the user who is being self righteous about living free and unmolested... nobody will be sympathetic for you if you disregard truth and scholarship. Your time would be better spent reading Greek philosophy drawing from it such axioms as Know Thyself that will help you in your life's struggles, whatever they may be, and leaving Achilles alone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.42.109 (talk • contribs) 03:14, March 8, 2006 (UTC)

Er... the article as it stands does mention the post-Homeric view, neutrally, and says nothing one way or the other about homosexuality in Homer. Exactly what are you objecting to? Is this about anything in the article, or are you just upset that any homosexual associations are sullying the reputation of Achilles, even here on the talk page?
The thing about a myth is that it isn't static. Different generations bring different perspectives on it. Homer wasn't the first to tell the story of Achilles, just the first whose work survives to the present. The presentation of the character in Homer is the most important, of course, but not the only one worth mentioning. The view of Achilles in the Classical era (5th century BCE) is significant, and deserves the mention it currently has in the article. Indeed, it would be "denying truth and scholarship" to exclude it.
As I said above, the Iliad can be read multiple ways. You're right that there is no "proof of homosexuality" — but neither is there proof of its absence. The subject is controversial, but not the be-all and end-all of the character; that's why I've created the sub-article Achilles and Patroclus to discuss it. (It's still a work in progress, and the Homer section needs attention. If you would like to add to it, you are welcome.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


My comments were a reaction to previous posting. I have changed "The homosexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is something much explored in post-Homeric literature." to "Post-Homeric literature explores a homosexual interpretation of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus", there is an implicit assumption when using "the".

No other complaints for now, however, your statement that there is no proof of the absence of homosexuality shows a flawed reasoning in my opinion. Knowledge is attained via proof not via... lack of disproof. While you keep up the good work, please keep that in mind.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.42.109 (talk • contribs) 20:52, March 8, 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should perhaps have said that there is evidence which can be read as supporting a homosexual interpretation, although not definitively. Above, I mentioned Thetis' otherwise odd comment to her grieving son about the love of women; there's also the bit when Achilles wishes all the other Greeks dead so that "we two alone" might share the victory over Troy. As I say, not proof, but suggestion. The post-Homeric writers weren't creating a love affair out of whole cloth — Homer did give them material to work with.
I hope to have a neutral and balanced account up on Achilles and Patroclus in a week or two. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

which books of the Iliad are these references made in? I'm going to look over the passages in Greek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.42.109 (talk • contribs) 03:13, March 9, 2006 (UTC)

Achilles' wish for all the Trojans and Greeks to be killed, excepting himself and Patroclus, is in Book 16, lines 114-119 in Fagles' translation. Thetis' comment about the love of women is in Book 24, line 158. By the way, you can sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was never Achilles intention to allow Patroclus to go out of the camp, he was only to push the trojans back by rallying the Myrmidons and the rest of the Greeks. Patroclus just gets carried away, there was never any sort of plan for a proper assault.

[edit] is this guy real?

i just watched "troy". so is this guy achilles a real guy or just a fictional character? and was the trojan war real history or fictional as well?

*sigh*. You just watched "Troy". Aargh. If you just read the Iliad as well. The movie "Troy" is inspired in its very basics from the Homeric epic poem called "Iliad".
As for whether he was a "real guy or just a fictional character", he's a mythological character. So, you'll have to define "fictional". You'll have to define "real". Achilles is supposed to be the son of the goddess Thetis, so if that deity never existed does that automatically make him fictional? What if there was once some guy who was named Achilles but never shared any of the famous qualities of Achilles at all? Point is we don't know how much of what Homer wrote are fictionalized stories based on actual facts -- same as we don't know how many of the other myths and epic poems may be based on some shadow and rumour of real events. We know that the city of Troy itself existed. We know very little else.
I'm sorry if you were hoping for a clear-cut answer. Where mythologies and traditions are involved there are no clear-cut answers. Aris Katsaris 16:31, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
As for the Trojan War, the most accepted theory is that it did happen, but no one's sure why (i.e., Helen probably wasn't the reason) or what really happened (i.e. Achilles likely didn't go on a massive rampage destroying scores of Trojans and drag Hector's body around Troy). Troy is likewise real, and most believe it is located at Troy VIIa on a hill called Hisarlik in modern-day Turkey. James 21:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aspetos

Not sure where to include this in the article, but Plutarch, in his biography of Pyrrhus, records that in the language (>John Dryden translation) of Epirus, Achilles was known as Aspetos. From the context, I assume the Mollosians and Thesprotians and other such tribes used this name for Achilles. ----Alexander 007 13:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who are "They"?

Under one of the pictures, there is a caption that says "The vast majority of ancient Greek artifacts indicate they were regarded as homosexual lovers". How are we supposed to know who "they" refers to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.193.6.2 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Which Romans?

I'm trying to disambiguate links to [[Roman]]. Could somebody who understands the "Name" paragraph please visit the [[Roman]] page and suggest which specific link would be the most appropriate? --LesleyW 12:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This problem appears to have been fixed so I have killed the links to the "Roman" dab page in the above paragraph. Just another step in dabbing that very page. --Iggle 06:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cult of Achilles

I was really happy to see this added to the article--because I want cult honors. give me a hecatomb! There are more modern references than Densuşianu, though; I've added one (Hedreen 1990) to the references. It's worth mentioning that ancient sources say that Achilles was given immortality after dying at Troy, and lived on Leuke (in one source, along with Medea). It also looks like Leuke starts off as a mythical place, which is then localized as the black sea island. I'll make some changes once I have access to the Hedreen article, and whatever other references he cites. --Akhilleus 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "sulking like Achilles in his tent"

I've heard this phrase a few times (sulking like Achilles in his tent) and have no idea where it comes from or what the reference is. I skimmed the article and couldn't find the reference here either. Perhaps someone could research it and add it?

To show that it is a commonly used phrase - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22achilles+in+his+tent 67.102.10.101 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

you might want to try reading the Iliad sometime. As for why everyone describes Achilles' withdrawal as "sulking" I'm not sure--maybe there's a famous bit of (modern) poetry that lies behind the choice of this specific word. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

sry but im not going to sign this but i think the phrase comes from the part in the book of after his debate with aggememnom (sp?) he left the battle and withdrawled his men this could be interpeted as him withdrawing into his tent and sulking over the fight and the dessicion. (watch out for spelling and some one please edit

[edit] Category: Pederastic heroes and deities

Achilles belongs here first because he was interpreted that way by the ancient Greeks (post-Homeric) - who might not have been able to decide wether Achilles or Patroclus was the eromenos, but were sure that one of them had to be, and also because of his "fling" with Troilus. Haiduc 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of Achilles

I've modified the translation of the opening of the Iliad and eliminated the following paragraph about Achilles' name:

In these lines, we see the name Akhilleus Peleides, which is a praenomen and a patronymic, the latter being formed from Peleus with the suffix -ides producing Achilles the son of Peleus.

Here's why: Achilles' name is Achilles. Greeks, archaic and classical, only had one name; the patronymic is simply an epithet (a descriptive adjective), no more part of Achilles' name than "swift-footed".

The lines from the Iliad don't seem to belong in the "name" section to me; it seems good to have them in the article, but perhaps in the "Achilles in the Trojan War" section (which should really have an Iliad subsection). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the opening paragraph, Achilles' name should appear in the Roman alphabet, with the Greek given in parentheses, just like all the other Wikipedia articles about Greek heroes and gods. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the Iliad lines--is it really necessary to quote them in the Greek alphabet and in the Roman alphabet? I'm not sure how many people understand ancient Greek but don't know the Greek alphabet. Nareek 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if they don't know the Greek alphabet, there's a perfectly good article to look at. So sure, let's get rid of the transliteration. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Iliad

Is there any reason this article should give a plot summary of the Iliad, when there's already an article about that poem? Seems to me a link would do just fine. There's plenty of extra-Iliadic material for this article to cover. Also, at the moment the "Trojan War" section is a bit confusing--it's not clear which parts are told in the Iliad and which aren't. Reducing the space given to the Iliad might help solve that problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Haiduc 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Caption: "Patroclus and Achilles. Achilles bandages the arm of his friend Patroclus. The latter turns his head aside to avoid the sight of blood and of Achilles grimacing at his pain. The scene has been interpreted as an act of welfare and comradeship, or as a scene with sexual overtones. Ancient Greek culture often held the two to be lovers.". Is there any valid reason for asserting that 'the latter turns his head aside to avoid the sight of blood and of Achilles grimacing at his pain', that can be referenced from a primary source, or is this just an assumption? 216.93.228.86 04:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interpretation, and probably shouldn't be used in the caption without a reference from a reliable source. I'll remove it for now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity of Achilles

I removed this bit from the intro: "He was a prince of the ruling house of Phthia in southwest Thessaly, the northernmost part of Homeric Hellas, an ally of the Achaeans, but he was not of Mediterranean stock: in the tradition that Homer was drawing upon, Achilles was blond ("Athene stood behind him and seized him by his golden locks", Iliad i) and hairy-chested ("In his shaggy breast..." ibid)."

It's a bit ridiculous to determine the ethnicity of a mythological figure. These physical traits also characterize other Homeric heroes, e.g. Menelaus, who is described as xanthos. The idea that Achilles is "not of Mediterranean stock" has no scholarly support as far as I know --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This text got inserted again. I'm removing it again, for the reasons I've already stated. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achilles loves Briseis?

I think the assertion that Achilles "loves" Briseis is problematic. It makes it sound as if the the Iliad is some sort of love story, and there's little evidence that Achilles has any romantic feelings for Briseis. At Iliad 9.341-343 Achilles says: "Do they then alone of mortal men love their wives (alokhoi), these sons of Atreus? Nay, for whoso is a true man and sound of mind, loveth his own and cherisheth her, even as I too loved her with all my heart, though she was but the captive of my spear." Hainsworth comments: "This is all that we hear from his own lips of Akhilleus' finer feelings for Briseis; it is a pity that he should make this declaration, emphatic though it is, only in a context where his rhetoric requires her to be raised to the status of the alokhoi of the Atreidai so that his loss may be equated with that of Menelaos..." (The Iliad: a Commentary, v. 3, p. 108) There's considerable room here to doubt what Achilles' feelings are towards Briseis, and to see this passage only as an argument to equate the theft of Briseis with the theft of Helen. See, for instance, Donna Wilson's analysis of this passage in her Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad, pp. 87-89, which concludes: "Achilleus' conflict is over status; the woman is represented merely as the occasion."

Some other passages are worth considering. At 9.394-7, Achilles says that Peleus will find him a wife if he returns to Phthia; apparently Achilles isn't too romantically attached to Briseis. At 19.54-64, Achilles wishes that Briseis had died before he and Agamemnon quarreled; has Achilles forgotten that he loves Briseis, perhaps because he is so affected by Patroclus' death? Or did he not love Briseis in the first place? Also, Achilles doesn't say that he loves Briseis in Book 1, nor does he call her a "wife" (alokhos) there, even though she is a subject of discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

These are very interesting points, and potentially add lots of nuances, but the nuances don't change the fact that (as you yourself quote) Achilles says he "loved her with all my heart". To conceal that statement is to censor Homer, it seems to me. We may wish the Iliad was all about honour, but it's more complicated than that. Andrew Dalby 09:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could find a wording that acknowledges both Achilles' claim of love during the embassy and the other, more equivocal evidence. How about saying, "Angry at the dishonor (and as he says later, because he loved Briseis), Achilles refused to fight..."? That recognizes the statement at 9.341–343, but also keeps the question of honor at the forefront, which is appropriate since that's what the vast majority of Achilles' rhetoric focuses on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Josiah's proposed wording is fine with me, but I'll say that I would prefer to remove the mention of 9.341-343 entirely. The question is not whether Achilles says he loves Briseis, but whether his words can be taken at face value. The quotes I've provided show that some scholars don't think Achilles' claim is evidence of a romantic attachment. To deal properly with different views of what Achilles' claim means would take a paragraph or two, at least; it's been discussed in a few articles and books. At some point, I'd like to add that discussion, but I'm not sure whether it belongs in Achilles, Briseis, or Iliad. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a paragraph or two investigating the nature of the relationship is probably worthwhile, I think here at Achilles. Perhaps some of the content of "Other stories about Achilles" could be reworked into a section on "The loves of Achilles" (or a better title, if you can think of one)? That could include the Achilles and Patroclus summary, as well as the equivocal evidence about Briseis and the more romantic interpretations of Achilles' unions with Deidamia and Penthesileia (not to mention Antilochus, in a few stories). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the current rewording, which is fine with me. I agree that much more could be said, and that it would probably go better in a separate section than in the heat of the story. Andrew Dalby 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting to know that the Illiad was the world's first Brokeback mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.110.8 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Achilles Heel?

Shouldn't this be mentioned? It is a very popular phrase, one would think that it's origin would be described in this article, or at least linked to. Harley peters 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added this to the beginning. Achilles heel, regardless of historic prominence, is the most famous thing about him, It definitelly deserves it's own paragraph. I can imagine plenty of people looking up this article for that reason, probably more than would look at the article from the context of other mythology.75.82.135.167 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Loganfs 2/23/07 11:58

[edit] Suppressing Homer!

Can the following be worked into the article in some way that will satisfy even the editor who boldly cut a Homeric reference to Achilles: "In the tradition that Homer was drawing upon, Achilles was blond ("Athene stood behind him and seized him by his golden locks", Iliad i) and hairy-chested ("In his shaggy breast..." ibid)". --Wetman 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If Homer is quoted to show what Greeks thought Achilles looked like, that's a good thing. However, if Homer's quoted in support of the dubious notion that Achilles was "not of Greek stock", as the article used to assert, that's a bad thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Greeks had an odd penchant for curly blond hair (unlike us moderns). Thus their paragons of beauty (male beauty, anyway) had ... curly blond hair. Ganymede did (Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 202f), so did Hylas (Theocritus, Idyll XIII "Ilas o xanthos"). Thus Achilles. More examples could probably be found. 67.101.249.170 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That, too, is germane and should be represented in the article. The combination of blondness and hairiness is not widespread in the human genome: simply mentioning it here, as it is in Homer, will be a sufficient word to the informed. --Wetman 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, the Greek language is an Indo-European one, suggesting that the ancestors of at least some of the Greeks came from somewhere other than the Mediterranean. Whether those "Indo-Europeans" were the blue-eyed blonds of Aryan fantasy, who knows, but one need not assume that Greeks have always been "Mediterranean" looking. I hope the "informed" don't read too much into this genome trivia. Nareek 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The word Wetman is translating as "golden" in Homer is ξανθος (xanthos). There's some disagreement among translators about how best to convey that word in English when it refers to human hair; it's often used of horses, and in that context means "bay" or "chestnut". Menelaos' standard epithet is "καρη ξανθος Μενελαος", which is often translated as "red-headed Menelaos". It appears to be used for any light-colored hair. Robert Fagles translates the passage Wetman refers to as "Rearing behind him, Pallas siezed his fiery hair". Robert Fitzgerald says "red-gold hair", and G.S. Kirk's Cambridge commentary on the Iliad even translates the passage as "Athene took him by his brown hair".

Since the meaning of the word is unclear, it's a bit tenuous to base an entire ethnographic theory on it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for the "xanthos" edit - I was just not signed in at the time. As for the meaning of the word, I stand corrected, despite the fact that Liddell and Scott give "golden-haired," and "bay" and "chestnut" only of horses (and presumably centaurs). Haiduc 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that "golden-haired" is probably fairly accurate, if you stop to think about the actual color of gold. Gold can vary quite a bit in color, and is often closer to bronze than true yellow in hue — it's really only in comparison to other metals that it looks yellow. We have a cultural association of "gold" with blonde hair, but I tend to doubt that Achilles looked like he used peroxide (Brad Pitt notwithstanding). The old-fashioned word "fair" may be the most accurate; the point is that Achilles (and Menelaos) had hair that was lighter in shade than most Achaeans. We can't really be more specific than that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The river Scamander is called Xanthos by the gods, and a river in Lycia is also named Xanthos; it's been suggested that these names spring from the rivers' muddy brownish color. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read that right now.
However, Nagy (Best of the Achaeans 209-210) notes that in Homer xanthos describes either heroes who are immortalized (Rhadamanthys, Menelaos) or divine beings--Achilles' horse Xanthos is the offspring of Zephyr (the west wind) and a harpy, the river Scamander is the offspring of Zeus. Being xanthos would then have less to do with physical appearance or ethnic origin, but is a marker of divinity or divine favor. The Iliad and Odyssey, of course, insist that Achilles does not become immortal, but outside of Homer Achilles enjoys a blessed afterlife on the White Island, sometimes with his wife Medea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 24, 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The divine association for xanthos might account for Fagles' rather poetic "fiery". As for the Achilles/Medea pairing on the White Island: I usually think of that (and the White Island story in general) as sort of the ancient equivalent of slash fiction, pairing up random characters because someone thought "that would be hot". (Surely Medea would be a bit old for Achilles, since his father was an Argonaut?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps one of you would like to return the gist of this to the article, and make us all honest once more. About xanthos signifying "brown" and all... --Wetman 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're trying to imply something, Wetman (probably with an arched eyebrow), but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. Care to spell it out for us? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever Wetman is trying to imply, there's nothing wrong with putting a physical description based on Homer in the article, as long as we account for the ambiguity of translation. I was going to do it myself just so that Wetman would stop making vague insinuations about "suppression" and "indoctrination" and the like, but couldn't decide where the best place was; a description of the adult Achilles seems out-of-place under "Birth", random anywhere in the "Trojan War" section, and it's not a significant enough detail to go in the lead. I don't think it really deserves a section of its own either. Any thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we don't have Wetman to kick around anymore. This is one of the stranger things to develop a persecution complex about, but whatever. Anyway, what I'd really like to see is a discussion of artistic representations of Achilles: there are a bunch of vase paintings of him, and there must be sculpture. Textual descriptions of his appearance would fit well in such a section. However, I know that I won't have time to get to this any time soon, so for the time being, maybe we should just create an "Appearance" or "Physical description" section and add the visual evidence later. If anyone gets to the visual evidence before I do, I think LIMC (the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae) would be a good source to start from. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevent info

Should the line "this is an example of sympathetic magic be omitted?

[edit] Neoptolemus

Shouldn't Achilles' son be named at least once in this article?

[edit] Cutting Homer

One of our cheekiest editors has deleted this reference to Homer's description, because he doesn't like it: "In the tradition that Homer was drawing upon, Achilles was blond ("Athene stood behind him and seized him by his golden locks", Iliad i) and hairy-chested ("In his shaggy breast..." ibid). I won't struggle to return it to the article. Quite disgraceful behavior. --Wetman 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to this edit? As I understand it, Akhilleus removed that not because he "didn't like it" but because saying Achilles was "not of Mediterranean stock" constitutes original research (and dubious research at that). Homer says Achilles' hair was xanthos — he doesn't say anything about his "stock" (at least not in the sense you seem to be implying). If you want to reinsert the description without the questionable ethnography, you can do so; however, we should probably note the ambiguity of the meaning of xanthos. (See above.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peleion

This is supposedly another name for Achilles (and now redirects here) but I can't find any reference to it in the article. exolon 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't another name, it just means "son of Peleo"

[edit] Sources

I just wanted to point out that this page does not cite its sources. (i.e book and chapter.) I had to write an essay about Achilles, but this article was useless to me because I had to cite mythological text I got my statement from. I know it would be alot of work to footnote this article, but I think that would make it more useful to the other students who use this site. --Ecyd girl 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. "A lot of work" is true, but, you're right, it's got to be done. Perhaps in time for the next essay-writer, even if it won't be in time for you. Andrew Dalby 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Ecyd girl's comment is one of the most useful pieces of feedback I've seen on Wikipedia. I've taken an initial stab at adding some sources, but as you both say, it's a lot of work. If anyone else is doing the same thing, Timothy Gantz's Early Greek Myth is an immensely useful place to find references for the original sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Ettore; I added some sources in the chapter "Birth". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.235.193 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Achilles and Aeneas

How do Achilles and Aeneas compare and contrast from each other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.18.204 (talk • contribs) 01:23, February 27, 2007 (UTC)

To answer that question, you should read the Iliad and the Aenead. Wikipedia is not going to write your essay for you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/h/Talk%7EAchilles_dc97.html"