Brokeback Mount Olympus: Being Gay in the Iliad
|November 21, 2012|
Achilles Lamenting the Death of Patroclus, Gavin Hamilton, 1760 – 1763
by Gregory Jusdanis
Did they or didn’t they? Only Homer knows for sure. But readers of the Iliad have wondered for centuries about the love between Achilles and Patroclus. The topic was so disturbing to Wolfgang Petersen that he turned the two heroes into cousins in his 2004 Hollywood epic.
But the ancients took it for granted that the erotic had a place in male relations. Although we don’t have the extant work, evidence suggests that Aeschylus had written a play called “The Myrmidons” in which he represented a sexual bond between Achilles and Patroclus. We know of this from Plato’s Symposium where Phaedrus criticizes Aeschylus for misrepresenting the attachment between the two heroes. The issue for Phaedrus was not whether Achilles and Patroclus were sexually involved but who was the lover or erastes (older and active) and who the beloved or eromenos (younger and passive).
Neither Aeschylus, nor Plato, nor Xenophon could have imagined Achilles and Patroclus as gay. Madeline Miller, however, in her recent novel The Song of Achilles, recasts the Iliad as a coming of age tale in which the boys discover their sexuality. They realize, for instance, that they are different from other teenagers who can’t wait to take servant or slave girls to bed. When Achilles’ father, Peleus, suggests that he spend the night with a beautiful maid, the superhero Achilles, who on the plain of Iliad turns into a human tank, wimps out, saying that he was “tired.”
Miller describes with some delicacy the development of their relationship, the brush of their first kiss, and their inaugural sexual encounter in a cave on Mount Pelion. These moments seem magical and constitute the best parts of the novel.
(The writing is uneven. For every exquisite sentence such as the definition of hubris as “arrogance that scrapes the stars” or the comparison of Patroclus’ lyre playing to bright lemons, we get hurried lines such as “time passed quickly on Mount Pelion” or “Thetis hissed like a snake,” or the day was “oppressively warm.” Contrast this with the lyric splendor of David Malouf’s Ransom, which deals with the confrontation between Achilles and Priam over Hector’s corpse.)
What is strange here is less the sexual relationship per se than the contemporaneous take on it. Patroclus, for instance, experiences “shame” in masturbating — a Christian imposition upon the Bronze Age. He also seems to feel guilty about his relationship with Achilles and wonders if his friend’s mentor, Chiron, suspects that they are lovers. Should they tell, he asks, Peleus or even Thetis, Achilles’ vindictive mother who despises Patroclus? Patroclus’ self-doubts show that his (gay) sexuality is trapped in a modern tension between concealment and revelation.
Unlike Wolfgang Petersen, Peleus and Thetis would not have been disturbed by the erotic turn of their son’s friendship. Petersen and Miller fail to capture what seems to us a contradictory conception of human relations — that it was possible for Achilles to love both Patroclus and the captured woman, Briseis, at the same time.
A similar “strangeness” is operant in the Epic of Gilgamesh in which the super-stud Gilgamesh falls in love with Encidu and “caresses him like a woman.” Similarly in the Hebrew Bible David breaks into a lament upon learning of Jonathan’s death with whom he had sworn a covenant of friendship: “I am distressed for thee my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
To make Achilles and Patroclus gay is not historically false in the way it would be if they were given Facebook accounts or were discussing multiculturalism over cappuccino. Making them homosexual imposes upon them a fixed identity, like a heavy armor, an ontological essence foreign to antiquity and one that constrains behavior. In this way modern readers miss the opportunity to apprehend a different conceptions of human practice.
The question here is not historical accuracy. Obviously a work of fiction has to follow neither the laws of history nor of gravity. Consider Gilgamesh, the contemporary reworking of the Epic of Gilgamesh by Derrek Hines, a Canadian poet living in Britain. The first four lines give us a taste of the modern street idiom Hines uses to make Gilgamesh exciting and strange to modern readers:
Here is Gilgamesh, king of Uruk:
two-thirds divine, a mummy’s boy
zeppelin ego, cock like a trip-hammer,
and solid chrome, no-prisoners arrogance.
Pulls women like beer rings.
Grunts when puzzled.
A bully. A jock. Perfecto. But in Love?
Alice Oswald’s poem, Memorial. An Excavation of the Iliad, is another innovative re-imagining of an ancient text. She “translates” the atmosphere of the Iliad by creating an antiphonal structure, or what she calls bipolar, that alternates between biographies of the dead heroes and similes, between lament and pastoral lyric.
So the appearance of writing on the tomb of Achilles does not jar in Miller’s novel. It does not matter to us that this would not have been possible in Homeric society. We are yearning less for historical accuracy than to be transported to the awesomeness of the Bronze Age – an unknown and unknowable world.
When we look for antiquity in this novel, we don’t see the Other staring back at us. Instead of contradiction and paradox, we find a familiar love story told in romantic discourse: My sexuality is my truth and by loving me you discover who I am. You can’t get more contemporary than this.
Piece originally published at Arcade |
Inherent Vice’s Two Directions
The jokes certainly strike one as sophomoric and the latter one as clichéd, further below Pynchon’s intelligence than one would like to think he would stoop, at least in print. Discounting them and moving on, or throwing the book across the room as Parker half implies we should do, however, would be to lose sight of “that high magic to low puns”.
Auden, Larkin and Love
I was prompted to revisit these ancient questions anew by a long footnote about a single line in the new Complete Poems edition of Philip Larkin’s poetry. The footnote refers to “An Arundel Tomb” contains a provocative remark about that the poem’s celebrated, controversial, closing line, the one about the true nature of immortality: “What will survive of us is love.”
Plato, Our Comrade?
Not surprisingly, there have already been critics of Badiou’s translation. The first is that his translation breaks the formal rules of translation to such a degree that the original meaning of the text has lost its significance. But this critique is inadequate at face value because Badiou’s hyper-translation is forthright in its intention of taking Plato’s concepts and modifying them into his own lexicon.
You may also like :
Today because I am sufficiently connected here in my book-glutted home in Boston I have decided to make my little room an everywhere. As it so happens, I am hovering now above an area of greater London known as Mitcham that four-hundred years ago was an outlying village backwater away from the teeming intrigue and bustle of King James’ city and his court.
To read George Eliot attentively is to become aware how little one knows about her. It is also to become aware of the credulity, not very creditable to one's insight, with which, half consciously and partly maliciously, one had accepted the late Victorian version of a deluded woman who held phantom sway over subjects even more deluded than herself.
Although Charles Kenneth Scott Moncrieff’s translation of À la recherche du temps perdu is considered by many journalists and writers to be the best translation of any foreign work into the English language, his choice of Remembrance of Things Past as the general title alarmed the seriously ill Proust and misled generations of readers as to the novelist’s true intent.