Talk:Penthesilea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Quotes by Penthesiliea 2 Necrophilia rape by Achilles 3 Wetman's edits - March 07 4 Amazonian names

[edit] Quotes by Penthesiliea

I am looking for the quote by Penthesilea in the Iliad as she is killed by Achilles. Does anyone out there know this? I am trying to avoid thumbing through an entire book.

kodlozil@comcast.net

iliad only goes up to the part when Hector is bury. since Pethensilea arrived later in the war, the iliad will have nothing about her, nevertheless quotes by her.

There are no direct references available. The ancient sources have been lost. No doubt copies might have existed in the pagan libraries pre the Christian destruction of them. Tashkop 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necrophilia rape by Achilles

I see that unsourced additions to this article concerning the possibility of Achilles raping her dead corpus have been removed. I believe that these are fair comment and should be added, especially since they are not new and date from ancient times. So I have added them back in with a source to Graves.Tashkop 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wetman's edits - March 07

Wetman. Your edits have tidied up the article markedly. It would be presumptuous of me to thank you for them but they are certainly welcome.

One question I have though -

You have added text as follows " a reading that was certainly not supported by the motif carved on the throne of Zeus."

This comment has the effect of diluting the plausibility of Eustathius' interpretation.

If it is to remain in should not the following context also be noted some way or another.

1. Pausanias was travelling in the 2nd century CE.

2. The carving on the throne (I have not read Pausanias so do not know of what he literally speaks) was presumably carved sometime between 1200 BCE and 200 CE.

3. As such the carving represents an interpretation of events, i.e. a point of view, with no means of determining how long after the fact it was created.

4. If the prevalent view in Antiquity was to bowlderise Achilles's (alleged) shameful behaviour then it may simply represent what we would term today as a reconstruction, similar to what Alexander is alleged to have undertaken with respect to the Granicus battle.

5. Presumably in the 12th century CE Eustathius would have been aware of Pausanias and taken that into account?

In those terms - does it have any validity to mention it at all as a dilution of Eustathius' view or has it crossed the line into critique? Tashkop 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear, so many difficulties! What if it were edited to read The reading was certainly not supported by Pausanias' description of the motif he saw carved on the throne of Zeus in the second century CE. Would that satisfy your POV? Is "certainly" unpleasantly emphatic? Now, what the article does not say, is that "a necrophilic rape of Penthesilea by Achilles could not possibly have been carved on the very throne of Zeus at Olympia. The reading by Eustathius of Thessalonica cannot actually be other than a grotesque travesty, perhaps intentional." That would be most scholars' interpretation. You are using this single, highly eccentric medieval Christian gloss as a lens to view Antiquity, for you say, "If the prevalent view in Antiquity was to bowdlerise Achilles's (alleged) shameful behaviour..." What do you mean by "Achilles's shameful behaviour?" You seem to accept it as mainstream: have you no critical reservations in your reading of Eustathius' gloss? Have you ever heard of a necrophilic rape in any other instance in European mythology? Anywhere? Surely you don't actually mean to read Antiquity guilelessly through the eyes of a Byzantine archivist of the twelfth century CE? ...And why haven't you read Pausanias' brief account of the sculpture by Phidias at Olympia? What encourages you to presume— you say "presumably"— that Eustathius had Pausanias' description of the sculpture firmly in mind when he made the gloss on Penthesilea? The sculpture had been lost for centuries. Your real issue here is revealed in this: "This comment has the effect of diluting the plausibility of Eustathius' interpretation." That's your problem here, am I right?. Christians are not invariably the most dependable sources for interpreting Greek and Roman myth: look at Arnobius if you doubt me! Now, imagine if you took Heinrich von Kleist's Romantic drama Penthesilea (written in 1808 but also based on Greek sources) and insisted on interpreting the mythic sources through that lens! As a general rule, begin with the standard early texts and images and work your way forward chronologically. --Wetman 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding me Wetman. Wiki procedure is to cite sources, not to interpret them but your comment does indeed have the effect of diluting the source. Your opinion (or mine) is not relevant to the article. it is meant to report, not to interpret. You are completely correct when you state that my problem is that your comment has an effect of diluting the source.

As to your statement that the statue was lost for centuries - presumably Pausanias' work was however extant and there is no reason to make the assumption that Eustathius did not know of it. Even if he did not, he must have been aware that the mainstream view, even at his time, was that Achilles fell in love with a dead body. That being the case - what I am saying is that should his view (which is what is being cited) simply not stand - without your own 'gloss' being added to it.

As to whether or not I have abandoned my critical faculties in assessing the source, can I remind you that i used the word 'IF' and the word 'Alleged'. I could as well argue that you have abandoned your own critical facility in 'guilessly accepting the mainstream view just because it is mainstream.' (please note that I am not accusing you of that.)

The point is that your comment introduces your own interpretation and viewpoint, and as such it is not NPOV.

By re-including the section on the alleged rape I have been trying to address NPOV, not press my own POV. If I had been trying to press my own POV I would be adding comments, as you have, that affect the readers understanding of the cited sources. I beleive that I have done the opposite.

One last thing. You ask me if I have ever heard of necrophiliac rape in European Mythologhy. No I haven't - But I've heard of it in real life. Have you ever heard of Ted Bundy? On the other hand I have never heard of one other instance in european mythology of anyone falling suddenly in love with a dead body either - have you? Similarly I have never heard of a real life instance of it happening.

It seems to me that the 'critical reservations' must abide on the mainstream view as well as Eustathius' don't you think? Tashkop 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement

"Twelfth-century Byzantine scholar Eustathius of Thessalonica postulated a more brutal and literalist reading of the term loved, however, maintaining that Achilles actually committed necrophilia on her corpse as a final insult to her.

was given a footnote that implied that Eustathius' aberrant reading was supported elsewhere, viz.: Eustathius on Homer, 1696, Pseudo-Apollodorus Epitome v.1-2, and the medieval Rawlinson Excidium Troie, were noted in this context by Robert Graves, The Greek Myths section 164, London: Penguin, (1955) 1960; Baltimore: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-001026-2. I'm sure this was inadvertent and have corrected the footnote, while adding supported detail to the article.

--Wetman 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazonian names

The "reference" for the expanded list of Amazonian names, contributed by User:EldoraLuthiena at 15:18, 19 January 2007, links to this enthusiastic amateur's on-line alphabetized but wholly undocumented list. The commonplace statement that the multiplied names are "poetic invention" was challenged by the argument from ignorance ("we can't know for sure") and suppressed at the article Amazons: [[see Talk:Amazons#Amazon names. What is one to do? --Wetman 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)