Latest Posts by yararts-stash - Page 8

Fantasia (1940) dir. David D. Hand, Hamilton Luske and Wilfred Jackson

Alien Covenant (behind the scenes)

Cats Stealing Food in Paintings

Still Life with Cat (1705) by Desportes, It's no use crying over spilt milk (1880) by Frank Paton, Still Life of the Remnants of a Meal with a Lunging Cat (18th Century) by Alexandre-François Desportes, Fish Still Life with Two Cats (1781) by Martin Ferdinand Quadal, Still Life with a Cat and a Mackerel on a Table Top (18th Century) by Giovanni Rivalta, The Collared Thief (1860) by William James Webbe, Cat Stealing a String of Sausages (17th Century) by Abraham van Beyeren, Still Life with a Cat (1760) by Sebastiano Lazzari, Kitchen Still Life with Fish and Cat (ca. 1650) by Sebastian Stoskopff, An Oyster Supper (1882) by Horatio Henry Couldery, Still Life with an Ebony Chest (17th Century) by Frans Snyders, Still Life with a Cat (1724) by Alexandre-Francois Desportes, A Cat Attacking Dead Game (18th Century) by Alexandre-François Desportes, Still Life of Fresh-Water Fish with a Cat (1656) by Pieter Claesz, Still Life with Fruits and Ham with a Cat and a Parrot (18th Century) by Alexandre-Francois Desportes, A Cat Holding a Fish in Its Mouth (18th Century) by Sebastiano Lazzari, Still Life with a Cat and a Hare (18th Century) by Desportes, Still Life with Cat and Rayfish (1728) by Jean-Siméon Chardin, A Cat with Dead Game (1711) by Alexandre-Francois Desportes, Still Life with Cat and Fish (1728) by Jean Baptiste Siméon Chardin

Via James Lucas on X/Twitter

Sequences from my finished animation. Inspired by a dog named Teacake.

Definitely a fashionista!! I'm sure Athena secretly (or maybe not so secretly) just likes to give people makeovers, and she was delighted to have the opportunity to put her hobby into practice 😂 Your translation is so clear and interesting as always! Oinment used by Aphrodite's herself must be a great honor! And the physical attributes are interesting as well! Her looking taller and the comparison to elephant's ivory!

The actress is definitely fitting choice for the role! I also like how she appears mature, as a woman who was waiting for her husband for decades, yet she's stunning indeed, definitely someone a number of suiters would be after hehehe awesome stuff girl✨

Athena and her makeovers! Or as my friend @artsofmetamoor said "a fashionista"

First she cleansed her face with a divine ointment, similar to the one the Kythereia (Aphrodite=lady of Kythera or the one born in Kythera) uses when she desires to join the dances with the Charites and he made her look taller and stouter/more majestic and he made her look whiter than the elephant's tusk ivory

(Translation by me)

Man Athena surely loves to give her two lovebirds makeovers doesn't she?! And yay for some partial Penelope description! She is probably tall for a woman (we do not know her actual height of course) and stoutly or regarly built and has ivory-white skin! And all of the above are toned up by Athena!

Makes me feel even more how amazing the casting of the phenomenal Greek actress Irene Papas was as Penelope in the Italian-German-French co-production of the Odyssey in 1968! (my favorite live action adaptation to this day!) I mean...look at this beauty!

The face, the eyes...even her age is great choice and yet she remains a beauty! And such commanding presence and intense look too! She was just perfect for this role!

Animation art from DreamWorks’ THE PRINCE OF EGYPT (1998).

More later!

🌙 Moonlight Greatsword - Free wallpaper available

support me | commission me | buy a print | buy a sticker

DFA's disney gif meme | [1/10] Songs = Firebird Suite

“Walt Disney described the art of animation as a voyage of discovery into the realms of color, sound and motion. The music from Igor Stravinsky’s ballet The Firebird inspires such a voyage.” “And so we conclude this version of Fantasia with a mythical story of life, death and renewal.” - Angela Lansbury

Wow, this analysis is seriously impressive girl ✨✨ You've done an incredible job diving deep into the complexities of Achilles and Patroclus's relationship, exploring it from all angles with such detail and insight. I love how you break down the different perspectives of their bond, from the historical context in ancient Greek literature to the modern perspectives that have emerged.

It's fascinating to see how words can convey different layers of meaning and affection, which Homer masterfully uses . The comparison of Achilles’s lament to the laments of other mythological figures like Apollo adds such depth to their potential romantic undertones! Yet I love how you also mention the importance of their friendship bond, because as I've said before I think platonic loves deserves to be explored in narrative as well❤️

The section on co-burial traditions adds an awesome layer to your analysis! You present a well-rounded view by considering both possibilities supported by historical evidence with the Mycenaean burial practices. This really highlights the depth of their relationship and how it might have been perceived in different cultural contexts. Plus exploring such details really pulls my inner nerd curiosity!

Your research on the evolving interpretations throughout history is also awesome! By examining different perspectives and points of view like Aeschines, Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon you shed light on the diverse ways their relationship has been understood. It's interesting to see how translations and cultural changes have influenced these interpretations over time!

I think you described the duality of their relationship beautifully in this analysis. The idea that Homer intentionally crafted a narrative that allows for multiple interpretations is such a compelling perspective. In a way this really shows how art, and literature can be timeless and adaptable to different audiences and eras!

Thank you for writing this girl and for sharing such a thorough and thought-provoking analysis! The thought and effort you put into this really shines through, and it's a pleasure to read 💖💖

And of course this is also so inspiring for our other projects and characters! It's funny and awesome how the romantic aspect of course makes me think of Diego and Viriato, and the friendship and brotherhood are so Diego and Caleb even in all their complex aspects! ✨✨

Achilles and Patroclus: Friends Lovers or both? (An analysis based on Homeric Epics and some ancient sources)

Yet another analysis requested by my dearest friend @artsofmetamoor while we two explore the complexity of human relationships in our own projects including romantic relationships of various kinds, including homosexual and homoerotic material as well as more traditional notions of family and kinship along with the complexity of values such as companionship and friendship, which we hold in the same regard as in the above so here's one of the most discussed relationships in greek literature. Buckle up with me because it is gonna be a looooong ride!

Achilles and Patroclus are two figures of greek literature and mythology that sparked discussions and analysis from the very first time they were introoduced as characters in the homeric poems in 8th century BC and not for their heroics in Trojan War but rather the nature of their relationship. Not to mention in modern day times we also start the rather overused and kinda ridiculous joke of "Historians say" around. But there might be some truth in some concerns in regards to their relationship.

A small history of their family

Achilles and Patroclus were related by a distant ancestor, Aigina. Aigina had a son with Zeus named Aeacus who in turn got married and had Peleus, who has the father of Achilles. Patroclus comes from the same line for Aigina later marries Actor and has Menoetius with him. Menoetius marries his cousin Damocratea, also possible daughter of Zeus and had a son named Opus who in turn had Patroclus, making Patroclus and Achilles de facto first cousins by the line of Aegina

(Yes...sorry "Troy" haters out there...hahaha Patroclus really WAS Achilles's cousin! ^^; Not that it ever stopped anyone in greek mythology!)

Patroclus was ellegedly exiled from his homeland when he accidentally killed his playmate and he fled to the court of Peleus where he got adopted by him thus the two characters lived most of their childhood together. Patroclus by most accounts is quite older than Achilles so in a way he was also assigned not only as his playmate but also as his "squire" or protector in various occasions. Needless to say that of course the two of them developed a very strong bond together.

Greek Text

To be honest, every time some person who does support the theory of them being lovers is being asked on it and that person claims that "the greek text is quite simple really". Allow me to disagree though. It is not. Quite frankly if it were, it wouldn't have sparked the conversation even to ancient greeks themselves of their time!

Arguably Homer never explicitly describes them as lovers in his poems (as opposing to other figures in the text that are undoubtedly sharing sexual relationships in the Iliad such as Hera and Zeus, Paris and Helen or even, ironically Achilles with Briseis once she is returned to him). However one would be a liar if they denied certain insinuations of a romantic involvement betwen the heroes.

Φιλέω-ώ= to love < > φίλος=friend, companion (Substantive), beloved (epithet)

Quite frankly Homer as we said before he a master of words and none of his words is picked at random. And the term φίλος is no exception. The word is being explicitly used in Homer by various of characters. The term can be translated interchangably from either "friend" to "beloved" depending the context. One of the most infamous and touching moments this word is being used is at the lament of Achilles when his mother asks him to speak up on why he laments so hard:

With heavy groans, fast in feet Achilles responded to her: "Oh, my mother! The Olympians have done what they had predicted for me! But what joy remains for me, for my beloved comrade Patroclus is gone! I lost him! The one that I valued most among my other companions, equally to my own life!"

(Translation by me)

In here the concept of "φίλος" is clearly an epithet or plays the role of one since the actual word that we are looking for as a substantive is the word "ἑταῖρος" which stands for "companion" or "comrade" (a term used generally throughout the poems to indicate bonds in army or of friendship or even husband and wife at some cases). In here it clearly means "beloved" by the general text for the word "φίλος" is not used as a substantive. Other cases such as this appear in other parts of the poem even with the fullest form φίλτατος which means "the most beloved"

However it needs to be noted that the term φίλος as the essence of "friend" comes directly from this term "to love" which means someone "you are close with" someone "of your own kin" someone "dear to you". The ancient greeks do not seem to be making a distinction between love as in lovers and love as in family or relatives when using this verb and the words coming from it (one good example is Thetis referring to Achilles as "φίλον υἱὸν" which means "beloved son" and here has no romantic implications at all). The term is being used interchangably throughout Homer to speak about characters with close relations of kinship that are not linked to romantic essences at all. For example the way Menelaus adresses Odysseus as such in the Odyssey:

Oh, how strange! That has come to my house the son of a man much beloved to me; who for my sake has suffered so many ordeals!

(Translation by me)

In here Menelaus again is usingthe term φίλος but he doesn't speak out of romantic intentions at all. He speaks with the warmest words but in here it is the most intimate form of friendship and kinship and is followed by the implication of gratefulness, how he adds up how Odysseus suffered "for his sake" aka to fight the war and be lost afterwards. And before someone says "it is not the same amount of warmth" one must think again because before Menelaus speaks about how because of the agony he feels for his friend he does not eat or sleep properly and given that it has been 10 years already since the last time they saw each other that is a damn long time.

But all of them I do not grieve as much, even if I mourn for them, as much as I do for one man, because of which I both detest sleep and neglect to eat, for there is no one of the Achaeans that suffered more than what Odysseus suffered and endured

(Translation by me)

So not only Menelaus feels like Odysseus suffered the most out of them (and strictly speaking one can look at fates of other heroes like Diomedes to see they are not far behind in suffering) but that the way he constantly wonders about his well-being makes him unable to sleep or eat and that seems to be happening for years and years which shows the true depth of their friendship.

So no, strictly speaking the word "to love" is not used by the greeks to imply only romantic love and it can be used pretty intimately even if it is not referring to romance. And the difference can be perceived by the same writer as well not just some play that was written several centuries later in which, inevitably, we could talk about some alterations of meaning to the words over the course of time

However there seems to be another phrase used to express intense feelings of love which is κεχαρισμένε θυμῷ which means "dear to my heart" and in Iliad ironically that phrase is spoken by no other than Briseis herself!

Oh, Patruclus! Dearest to my wretched heart!

(Translation by me)

This interesting shout of love coming from Briseis is also interesting for it could be implying both emotions of romantic love but also of affection in general. Which is another phrase that researchers have looked upon in search for hidden meanings of romance but once again it was often used either as such or with the term "φίλος" instead to speak of relationships of family or kinship. But grieving scenes such as the one of Briseis might also be indicator of romance although not exclusively referring to that.

The Lament

Quite frankly speaking, Achilles's lament is one of the most infamous and well-known in greek literature exactly because of its explicit nature. We do see characters lament in plays before but it is not as frequent to see lament SO strong coming from a male character and so openly (see for example in the Odyssey how Odysseus tries to hide his own tears many times or how his men are wrapped up in veils in lament for their own lives and their fallen comrades' but by n large the male lament is more subtle, more silent). Achilles is different. For example when he is first told about the news of Patroclus's death the result is nothing less but the ultimate emotional collapse:

So they spoke and black mist of distress covered him: With both his hands he gathered smoky sand and he poured it over his head and disfigured his face: his nectarous chiton turned black with ashes. And he himself dropped in the dirt and stretched over his lying (here: the corpse) friend/beloved pulling out his hair in lament. The slaves given as war price to Achilles and Patroclus, released a great cry of sadness and they approached all to the sides of mourning Achilles, beating their chests with their hands, and their knees each. Also Antilochus with them was lamenting and pouring tears holding the hands of Achilles: for he was moaning with his noble heart: worried that he would cut his throat with iron (here: a knife).

(Translation by me)

There is no words to express such an intense display of pain given by Achilles from second one when he receives the news of the death of Patroclus. He immediately pours ash over his head (quite a common trope for mourning done by many characters before.) and "disfiguring his face" which means he was digging his nails down his cheeks which was again a trope of mourning in greek literature. The intensity of his lament is so great that Antilochus feels the need to hold his hands just in case he would want to comit suicide in his pain!

Ironically for most part in this lament does it mention that Achilles was making any sound at all during the process, which somehow makes it even more disturbing to think that Achilles simply drops to his knees, covers himself in ashes and scratches his cheeks while lamenting over the body of Patroclus hardly making any sound at all. It is the slave women who arrive later that release the cries that undoubtedly are within the soul of Achilles. Somehow his lament is extreme and yet no audible hint exists for most part of the text EXCEPT the final one where it says "moaning with his noble heart". It almost seems that his body does most of the talking till the women arrive and cry out like he so much wants to and then his mouth also makes sounds. It is not a scream; it is a moan. It is possible of course that the clip refers to Achilles constantly moaning but I do like this as a possible food for thought that if Achilles was firstly responding to pain with his actions and then with his voice and in a way the moment he actually made a sound was the moment Antilochus truly began to worry!

There is a certain theatricality to this scene of lament and drama which of course as many analytics before me would say, it seems to be hinting to some other infamous laments of mythological characters and more specific the laments of Apollo. Apollo is one of those figures for whom we have no doubt he was lamenting his lovers and some classical examples are Hyakinthus and Cyparissus both of them transformed into a flower and a tree respectably. The associations of Achilles and the grieving god seem to be more than just a possibility here. Which of course enforces even further the idea of them being lovers. It is also the amount of time that Achilles mourns plus the intense way that he refuses to let go of the body of Patroclus to which he seems to be holding on from the 18th rhapsody when he first finds out of his death till the moment that she arrived with his armor one rhapsody later. Quite a gruesome scene is when she enters the tent and finds Achilles crying while clasping Patroclus onto him:

And she found her dearest son still lay there, clasping Patroclus and crying woefully and his comrades around him mourning

(Translation by me)

And at this point Thetis hasn't yet given nectar and ambrosia to the body of Patroclus to prevent the sepsis from happening, which happens a few lyrics later. So Achilles was holding the dead body for the entire day even after it was cleaned and prepared showing the intense pain Achilles was expressing and going through. And he seems unwilling to part from him till Patroclus's spirit itself arrives in his sleep and requests a burial so he can rest.

Of course it needs to be noted that intense lament is not exlusive to lovers in greek mythology. To name a few Athena grieves intensely the loss of her friend Pallas and by some accounts she does take her name as her epithet post-mortem. Antigone intensely mourns her dead brother and laments his disgrace when she finds that the ritual burial she performed had been disturbed. And the acting of killing oneself out of sorrow again is not strictly remaining to the love affairs. For example Ismene killing herself after learning the deaths of her family members in general and Antigone in particular. Another most prominient example is king Aegeus who throws himself into the sea when he sees the black sails of the ship coming from Crete, thinking his son was dead.

So the exessive expression of grief are not just dedicated to lovers or husbands and wives in greek literature but rather it is expanded to all people who mourn someone dear to them regardless of the nature of the bond between them. In the case of Achilles of course he does seem to be having a specially strong mental breakdown every time some important person in his life that is said to be romantically involved with him dies or is taken from him starting with Briseis for whom he expresses his emotions many times in the Iliad and she is the first reason of his anger, of course Patroclus and Penthesilea for whom he apparently has feelings for a few monets after he sees her face after she dies. In Posthomerica it is even said that his lamentover her dead body is "the same as the one over Patroclus" and of course Antilochus later according to the Epic Cycle when he died protecting his father, caused another explosion of anger to Achilles which was fated to be his last one.

It is possible since his love is clearly stated in the cases of Briseis and Penthesilea that the same can have occured for Antilochus and of course Patroclus which was the most heartbreaking of them all and for good reason. In fact the case of Patroclus seems to be that he plays every role in the life of Achilles. He is his friend, his companion, his squire, his advisor so why not his lover too.

The Same Urn

Now of course where people surely think they have a clear case of romantic bond seems to be the request of Patroclus to be burnt but his bones to be kept in the same urn that is to be used for Achilles as well. The passage happens in the 23rd rhapsody:

And one more thing I ask for you to excecute; do not place my bones apart from yours, Achilles, but together just like we were raised in your chambers, when I was brought to your land by Menetoios as a little boy from Opois because of the grievous manslaughter, for when I was a child I was foolish and killed the son of Amphidamas without wanting to, for I was mad over a game of dice: there I was accepted to the chambers of the horseman of Peleus who kindly took care of me and named me your squire. And the same way I want for my bones to be together with yours in the same golden box, the one your divine mother prepared for you.

(Translation by me)

So apart from the fact that it is a highly emotional scene, seeing your dead companion arriving at you and begging to be let go (this is literally Patroclus saying "Let me go, Achilles...just let me go" for Achilles literally refuses to give up his body not even for a burial) it is also the scene that seems to be winking to the fans of the idea of them being lovers as a proof that they are together. And quite frankly I can absolutely see why and it would be foolish to ignore this possibility especially given how tenderly Achilles calls him "my beloved" (or "as loved as my own life") after the whole request is done from the spirit of Patroclus which is more than clear indication for many accounts and that makes perfect sense.

The custom of co-burial was known in Greece from the earliest times of its civilization till the end. We often find urns contain bones of multiple individuals and yes more often whatnot they are maritable partners and the obsession of words that mean "together" in this passage such as; "μή (...) ἀπάνευθε" (not apart), "ὁμοῦ" (at the same place, together) or "ἀμφικαλύπτω" (cover each other) seems to be pointing to the direction of a romantic relationship and it won't be the only time someone is co-relating the mingling of ashes and bones with "marriage" (and example is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where Victor Hugo describes the way Quasimodo and Esmeralda's skeletons turn into inseparable dust as "Quasimodo's Marriage")

However on the counter-talk, co-burials were also common among family members (which is exactly what Achilles and Patroclus are). Ironically from the excavations to Mycenae several co-burials were discovered that were not related by blood but they were theorized to be connected to some relations of adoption (which again seems to fit the case of Achilles and Patroclus from the time Patroclus was brought in and ellegedly adopted by Peleus)

I am also convinced that the fact Patroclus gives us some good portion of his background story here was not just a random thing. It seems that Patroclus places emphasis on why he wants to be in the same urn as Achilles; because they were raised together, they were together all their lives and he wants them to be together in death as well. It absolutely could be a romantic insinuation on Patroclus's part however it seems equally possible that the background story serves as a lever to make the public understand how the two of them were raised together and wished to remain together. It almost feels like Homoer wants either to stimulate the idea that the past is an extra point towards their romantic relationship or yet another point of the closeness of their kinship or both (to me it seems the latter)

However another factor to this urn seems to be Antilochus. Antilochus who was close to the age of Achilles, the one who was in charge to bring the news of Patroclus's death to Achilles and the one that we saw consoling him and trying to prevent him from doing something foolish seems to be added to this circle. In fact in some future sources he is featured as the reason Achilles died, for he was driven in yet another furious attack against the Trojans, forcing them to fall back when he saw him fall dead protecting his father from the Ethiopian king Memnon. In some accounts, even possibly Homer included, is insinuated that Antilochus was also included in the funerary urn with Achilles and Patroclus although in the Odyssey it is clearly stated that his bones are not in it:

Your mother gave me this golden amphora (here an urn with two handles); a gift from Dionysus she said to me, made by the renounced Hephestus, in which lie your white bones, radiant Achilles, mixed with the ones of dead Patroclus son of Menoetius, but without Antilochus, whom he honored above all his comrades after Patroclus died.

(Translation by me)

So in the Odyssey it doesn't seem like they were indeed in the same urn (unless somehow Nestor could tell the bones apart and took them out? hehe) but they all thee of them are joined in one tomb and worshipped as heroes. So in a way Antilochus seems to join them just not in the same box. However the three of them are indeed seen together in the underworld as one trio literally. They are apparently joined after death according to what Odysseus saw in the underworld.

Once again seems like the romantic as well as the kinship theories could be true interchangably or even at the same time.

Ancient Greeks on their relationship:

As I mentioned above many ancient writers and not just the infamous "historians" everyone mocks on the internet, seem to have placed their own guesses and opinions on the relationships of the two heroes.

Aeschines seems to be contemplating the idea they are lovers (aka he says that Homer "hides their love") and he even reads Patroclus's story as "an intercourse they had once". He names their relationship έρως aka romantic love (eros). Aristotle in Nicomachian Ethics and Rethoric he uses the term "comrade" to talk of them, choosing to focus more on their friendship. His teacher Plato though was a different story. He was convinced that they were not only lovers but he had also figured their roles in their relationship as presented in his Symposium, naming Patroclus as ἐραστής aka "the one who gives love" and mentions how Achilles is in love with Patroclus. Plato remains one of the most...great "shippers" of the two having no doubt about their love affair. To the other end is Xenophon who is adamant that they are not lovers, in his own Symposium. A large number of greek writers seem also to comment on both possibilities, it seems to me quite interesting how many different readings the homeric poems provide.

More mordern readings:

While it is true that there is a certain confusion to the public since a large number of texts either were deliberately modified or genuinely mistranslated (given again how terms like φιλώ means "to love" in general in ancient greek and not just romantically or that the term ερώ does mean "to love as a lover" in some contexts but it also means "to desire very much" and it was used in various of contexts) and these double-meanings were taken advantage of to translate the texts differently and that is because when someone in modern times says "my beloved" by n large they refer to a lover which was something that was greatly hushed up in public

Of course as we stated above for ancient greece that was not the case since the term "beloved" could be used in various contexts and it showed intense emotions of kinship between two people regardless of the nature of their relationship.

However in some accounts the obsession upon trying not to show intense potentual homoerotic material made many of these translations unreliable. There were exceptions to the rule of course but the real breakthrough wouldn't really happen till later in the 19th century where we also have more samples of printed work. Translations like Butler at the end of 19th century are far reliable to the text and seem to follow the spirit of Homer. Quite frankly there was already a breakthrough to homoerotic material thanks to not only the neo-classisim but also gothic literature such as the vampire novelle Carmilla so many writers became more bold into translating the tender words of love as they were and leave the public decide upon their nature.

However this effort to hush up the tender words spoken in Homer out of fear that they might be interpreted as homoerotic created of course this modern uprage in which we have the other way round; that people are afraid to talk about friendhsip and kinship because they will be hushed up by the readings of the text as homoerotic

(see my other post for this)

This, in my opinion simply removes all the abive context; that love can be expressed between family members or friends or people who have been through a lot. Quite frankly as you can see not only I am not denying their energy as lovers, I like to believe I am also supporting this theory a lot because there is a lot of possibility in it just like there is on the direction of tenderness and affection. I do think today people are afraid to speak up on the other side exactly bcause nowadays the most famous way to see them is as lovers as opposed to the previous periods that did the other way round

Conclusions:

I have no doubts that Homer, even though not clearly speaking about it (for example referring to sexual acts) he seems to be insinuating that the two of them were sharing romantic bond or feelings for each other (it needs to be noted that it is not entirely clear that if there WERE romantic feelings that they were confessed or known by both parties, which could potentially mean the two of them loved each other romantically but did not fulfill their love which could be another tragic note to their story) Homer seems to be sending several hints to his viewers/readers that one could interpret them as lovers given the tender dictionary they use between each other and for each other, allowing his...fans to decide for themselves. It is also highly possible that he too saw them as star-crossed lovers, for he gives them all the elements of various other stories that involve homoerotic romance, even the tragic end to their story.

However I am equally sure that he also wanted to say that their friendship was of equal importance. There is no doubt that Homer considered them close friends (for he gives us a small hint of their backstory, how they grew together) and their story is being projected like many other duos and characters in the Trojan war that are linked together with bonds of kinship and companionship; stories that flourish at war. He might not straight out tell us that they are the case of story "from friends to lovers" but he absolutely seems to be letting us know that their kinship is there!

And I am grateful to Homer for his writing because it seems to me he wanted both sides to equally enjoy the story; whether they are those who do think their closeness is romance and those who think it is close kinship, strong family bonds or friendship. I am almost convinced that Homer deliberately used that as a way to please both sides of the audience or to give a more tragic aftertaste to their story since closeness is much more impactful to the face of separation.

I like them both and in fact I support them simoultaneously for honestly there is no best lover than your best friend; someone you can trust with everything you have. If I had to support one form of love, this would be it but at the same time I do support the idea that friendship is already a powerful bond of two people and that romantic love in this case would come as a bonus. Somehow Homer does seem to entertain this idea in his writing given again the extreme tenderness and the tragedy of these two while at the same time leaving the door open for his audience to speculate, make interpretations and enjoy the story in their own perspective.

If that is not art I dunno what is.

Okay guys this is only but scrapping the surface of this relationship that lasted for 3000 years now! Hahaha but I hope you like this! It took me several hours to synthesize but I hope you like it.

These face paints are truly fascinating and beautiful, I love the example of this head with the striking contrast created by the red paint against the skin and how it complements the color of the lips, it's a lovely piece! The practice of painting suns on specific parts of the face is particularly intriguing, does it represent a connection to celestial themes?

And Helen using her beauty mark as the center of her forehead makeup is such an interesting idea to think about! It’s like she was born for it and is just showing it off to the world! ✨✨

According to Dares the Phrygian Helen has a beauty mark between her brows! What do you know? Greeks possibly considered moles attractive from that time hehe 😜 but now I remember this amazing mycenaean female head from around 1300 BC

And now I imagine Helen when doing her makeup instead of painting the usual sun on her forehead she just draws the dots around her beauty mark instead! 🤔

lonely knight

Follow me on Instagram and X

-Portrait of a Man with a Golden Helmet-

The Water Nymph by Herbert James Draper (1909)

My Lady Passeth By, Edmund Leighton, 1914

Oil on canvas 67 x 43 ½ in. (170.2 x 110.5 cm)

Leitfaden für den zoologischen Unterricht in den unteren und mittleren Klassen der höheren Schulen - Karl Kraepelin - 1921 - via e-rara

Oooh, this is so intriguing! 😮 It’s one of those “wait a minute” moments that makes you stop and think while reading.

It really adds to the wild twists and turns of Homer’s narrative! What might seem like a hiccup in reliability could actually be hinting at something deeper and more complex! Your two theories are both compelling and shed a lot of light on the narrative’s depth.

Odysseus assuming his crew’s motives is again such a human reaction (I know I keep saying this but man) especially given everything he’s been through! The way he projects his own assumptions onto his men adds a whole new layer of psychological depth to his story. It’s like his personal turmoil seeps into his retelling.

And the second option, where Odysseus stays semi-conscious due to his constant alertness, paints such a vivid picture of someone on the brink of exhaustion and vigilance. It’s poetic to imagine him in that half-sleep state, catching snippets of his crew’s conversations and being jolted awake by the winds’ release if that makes sense!

I’m leaning toward the second theory too. It fits the tension and fatigue Odysseus is under, and it makes sense that he’d be in a kind of liminal state between sleep and wakefulness. It’s so fitting with the dramatic intensity of his journey!

I bet that scene would be incredible if you wrote it girl, just like all your other pieces! 😍 It’d be fascinating to dive into Odysseus’s internal experience in such a moment through your perspective. Your take on this is brilliant and would totally make for a captivating addition to your stories!

A small "inconsistency" in Homer and my explanation for it (an Analysis based on Rhapsody/Book 10 of Odyssey)

As we know Odysseus's narration of his past misadventures begins at Rhapsody/Book 9 when he reveals himself to his hosts and we already have a wild ride. In Book 10 we have also the misadventure of Aeolus island (see also my other analysis on this) in which Odysseus guards the sack for 9 days and finally in the 10th he is overcome by fatigue and falls asleep, thus giving his men he opportunity to open the sack. However here's an interesting idea while reading the passage:

"And so, all the same, we sailed for 9 nights and 9 days and on the 10th our homeland already came to sight; we could see the fields and the fires kept lit, for we were so close: then sweet sleep came over me and I fell asleep, for I was all the time at the stern of the ship, for I couldn't give it (here: the sack of Aeolus or the steer) to my comrades, so we would get to our native land faster. However my comrades began talking to each other and believed I had gold and silver bringing home with me as gifts from Aeolus, the great-hearted son of Hippotas, and they spoke thus while looking at one another:"

(Translation by me)

So...what's wrong here, one might ask? Well, Odysseus claims he fell asleep and THEN his comrades began to talk one another (Odysseus even proceeds to give us a sample of their dialog before they open the bag). So...what happens here? How was Odysseus able to tell what was happening if he was asleep? How could he hear what they were saying if he was asleep?

That seems like an interesting inconsistency on Homer's part and, sure enough rises several questions. So, in my opinion we have two possible explanations for this small "plot hole":

Odysseus either lies or asumes on the reason his comrades opened the bag

Odysseus was exhausted and asleep and wakes up in his terror when the winds are released from the sack. He has no idea why his men opened it in the first place which is why when he has to narrate his story to the Phaeacaeans, he has to come up with a reason why they did it and why they denied his authority or why they would get tempted in the first place. The first thing that comes to his mind is curiosity and greed. Seems a possible motive for him so he ASSUMES his men were believing he had gold and silver thus opening the bag to see. He even adds a piece of dialog he ASSUMES they spoke to each other so he might as well lie that he heard them with his own ears but rather he is adding the words to their mouths based on what he wholeheartedly believes happened while he was asleep.

He was always on his guard even after falling asleep from fatigue

The second explanation is that Odysseus was always on his guard; sleeping with always one eye open. He fell asleep from fatigue but his brain kept fighting off the sleep. Probably he got to close his eyes for a few minutes and truly be out of the world for a little but then the whispers that came to his ears, made him half-awake. He was already on the edge all those days so it would make sense that his brain was still alert and adrenaline-injected even if fatigue overcame him for a little. So his men are the ones to ASSUME he is asleep totally so they begin to talk. Perhaps their arguement becomes all the more heated while they believe Odysseus cannot hear. So if Odysseus can hear why not jump off immediately to stop them? I would assume in this scenario he is still half-asleep. He WANTS desperately to wake up but his body is still resisting due to fatigue. He is still dizzy and drowsy but all the more aware. Another possible scenario is that in his drowsy state he thinks he is dreaming. Many times over we believe we are dreaming because we are still between sleep and wake. Odysseus sees from afar a blury image of his men talking and holding the bag but his brain is still trying to wake up and he truly does only when the winds are released from it!

My thoughts:

I believe anyone can pick any of these that suit them best. Both seem equally plausible to my mind. If I were to pick which one I would lean more to (but not completely rejecting the first either) that would be the second.

Odysseus did comment on his companions many times in the poem, including their "bad thoughts" but he doesn't name them "greedy" before (at least not to that extend). He names them careless or unthoughtful but not straight out greedy. Of course he could also be self-projecting since he also is naturally curious but to say that his men would try to rob him in his sleep because they thought he wasn't sharing with them, somehow seems farfetched to assume without the slightest bit of evidence if he truly was out of the world asleep.

However given the state he was in before he fell asleep, himself coming in and out of sleep because of his adrenaline overdose, his worry and his guard being constantly up somehow makes sense. I could imagine while he was totally asleep, his men removed him from the steer and took the bag off him. At that point Odysseus probably didn't understand a thing. However I imagine him slowly waking up, feeling at his side where the bag USED TO BE and still his mind trying to comprehend what's happening. His ears get some distant voices and he tries to force himself to wake up to see more but he cannot. Only to jump fully awake in terrible realization.

I would surely take the dialog he gives to the Phaeacaeans with a small pinch of salt because even if I do support the second scenario more, I would assume Odysseus wouldn't be able to distinguish with undoubtful precision all the words they spoke to each other but he definitely caught the core of them so he fills in the gaps based on what he believes on them.

But what do you guys think? Let me know in the comments and reblogs! ^_^ (also am thinking of writing this scene in the future. Shall I?)

Visual development by Dan Cooper for Treasure Planet (2002)

Visual development and story sketches for Tarzan by Paul Felix

can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

Visual development by Paul Felix for Tarzan (1999)

Color keys by David Goetz from the Art of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Concept art for The Jungle Book (1967) by Al Dempster and Art Riley

Visual development for The Little Mermaid (1989)

Peter Pan (1953) story sketches by David Hall

Concept art for “The Firebird” sequence in Fantasia 2000 by Paul and Gaëtan Brizzi

Hahaha that character being there for good measurements and comparisons 😆

Yeah I think it's s fantastic how Odysseus has all the ingredients to easily fall into the Mary Sue category, and yet he's so well thought out and balanced with both strengths and weaknesses that he becomes engaging, he is very human and the perfect character to symbolize the human will to survive even while facing great odds and suffering! For sure he breaks with extreme sorrow, anger and guilt which is such a raw realistic reaction, his faith can also falter in the worst moments, and no matter how formidable he is, he is still at danger of being hurt and killed which makes the risks he faces very real and scary threats! And the fact that he can get over himself with his talents shows the downside of his confidence and yet it's that same confidence and determination that ensures his survival! (Yeah I also think that could be a a bit a stretch hehe)

Yeah even in the way Odysseus can be an actor which fits Diego a lot too hahaha oh man Caleb sure is! And that's probably why he fits so well living in the middle of the Tribal Galhots 😂 but gosh yes his honesty and his boldness jumping to danger hahaha yes the young old man haha oh man he is which makes it tragic how Caleb went through more suffering in his youth than in his older years!

Gosh the parallels are so good they just write themselves 😂

Hahahaha don't you love it when characters in the homeric poems go like;

Agamemnon the warrior and king and Menelaus who has loud war cry we have Ajax who is huge and freaking strong we have Nestor the amazing peace maker and diplomat and so on and so forth and while we have kings and mariners hither thither and finally we get Achilles, the one known being fast, best in war, great with spear and sword and somehow surpassing almost everyone at almost everything (usually war related) and a capable musician...

And then we have Odysseus 😂

Like wits that rival the gods, master mariner, expert with the spear and great archer fast and fierce despite his age, ultimate survivor, master of disguise a diplomat and a speaker, hunter, carpenter and builder schemer and actor master tactician and a freaking goddess magnet

Like...Homer my dude...leave some talents for the rest of the crew will ya??

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Poor Priam 😅 All you could do at this point is cross your arms and be like "Well. Shit."

Imagine being Priam and just having received your son with his new spouse and be like "Okay...the worst has happened. Now we expect retaliation from Sparta coming at any moment"

A while later when Troy was minding their own business like every day and suddenly the retaliation you expected finally arrives. However is not just Sparta...

You see over 1000 ships arriving from afar with their colorful sails carrying all major kings of all major cities of Greece under the banners of the previous suitors of Helen's including the richest of all, Agamemnon, the offended husband Menelaus from yet another rich city, a freaking demigod Achilles known for his strength in battle and rumored to be invulnerable by weapons and the infamous Odysseus known for his cunning and indirect ways.

You know you are up for a wild ride. Potentially you already know you are screwed.

And now the music called "Pines of Rome" from the version of Fantasia 2000 plays rentfree in my head!

YouTube

Fantasia 2000 Pines of Rome

Awesome analysis as always girl!! ✨✨

This is a very worthy subject to discuss let alone in such epic pieces. Once again it shows how both the Iliad and the Odyssey portray the Gods as symbolism not only of nature's forces, but also of the struggles and disasters humans must go through, in this case in the form of diseases brought forward in a form of punishment from certain actions.

It's also quite a tragic mix with war and post war situations since fighters are exposed to rough, many times unsanitary, and overcrowded environments which become a breeding ground for such desieses, and if they are already weakened by wounds and other problems, the possibilities for death grows.

Very good observation in the type of bacteria and plagues! In the mythological sense this is also quite the low and efficient blow from Apollo, to first strip them of their guard and transportation animals, and then strike the people themselves, it's scary how his attacks are described in the form of his arrows! And realistically this is indeed a good point to how such diseases affect humans and spread, becoming airborne from the animals to the people.

Those are a scary combination of symptoms as well especially as they progressively get worse, it must be pure suffering and agony to die like this! It must have felt like hell for the soldiers. Also interesting connection with Palamedes and how a good cardio system is valuable to survive the disease.

Again a very good observation, the losses from diseases should definitely be counted as losses of the war because even if they didn't die in the battle itself it was still a very direct result of it, especially since it hit the Greek side in this context. Also curious indeed that they were the most affected!

And for real I can imagine even the highest ranking and some kings were not spared at least some effects of the illnesses. Especially if they were less vigorous or weakened by some other factors. That analysis of Helen and Menelaus is awesome as well ✨ and it certainly explains how certain demographics were safer from it.

Oh gosh this is definitely a great reference and inspiration for our story and the narrative regarding the war and the rebels (and even the enemy soldiers) and surrounding people dealing with the illnesses in war camps and their very harsh conditions! Definitely the dark reality of how the fighters are not safe after the battles are over, and can still pretty much succumb to such horrible situations of plagues and diseases! Man now I feel like drawing something about this! 👀✨

The Iliad Plague

Honestly I am disappointed at how little we talk about the Iliad plague that was sent by Apollo in the first rhapsody of the Iliad to the Greeks after Chryses, Apollo's priest, begged for justice for the disrespect Agamemnon showed him plus the fact that his daughter was not returned to him.

"First he stroke the mules and the swift dogs but then he shot his shafts to the humans themselves and the funeral pyres were burning non-stop and crowded and for nine days the army was being assaulted by the God's arrows"

(Translation by me)

So we basically get that the plague spread to animals first and then swiftly passed to humans and it became deadly very quickly.

It seems like a classic case of an assault of the bacteria Yersina which is responsible for three major plagues; the bubonic, septisemic and pneumonic plagues. All three seem to be associated with transmission from animals to humans. In this case my random guess would be that this would be the case or a pneumonic plague. It transmits from the breathing of fumes and it is much easier transmittable from one person to another given that both other plagues require the mix of bodily fluids. Since the disease seems to strike animals commonly not associated with food like mules or dogs it seems more probable the disease was of a lung nature.

The main symptoms of a pneumonic plague are:

Fever

Headaches

Shortness of breath

Chest pain

Intense coughing

Hemoptysis (aka "coughing out blood")

It seems indeed highly probable that the plague was of such nature which would lead to a large number of soldiers suffer from headaches and fever which gradually got worse and added coughing chest pain and coughing out blood (the other plagues have also intense vomiting-boubonic- and blood infection -septisemic-). Various post-homeric and mainly early Roman sources speak on the contributing of Palamedes suggesting better diet and exercise countering the effects of the plague or preventing it. Although traditionally we know plagues can be effectively cured with the use of antibiotics it is probable that the mention of cardio exercise could be a wink that a good cardio system can defend itself against lung diseases.

Either way it surprises me that the losses of war when studied rarely mention the results of this plague since many people count only the deaths in battle and not this which is ironically the only set of deaths seemingly affecting only the Greek side. It is interesting given how many times cities being surrounded by armies are the first to suffer from diseases rather than the people outside (although both sides suffer eventually from diseases). Realistically speaking we do understand why we see so many mentions of diseases.

And again when it comes to the sequel Odyssey as well, very few people consider not only the losses Odysseus undoubtedly suffered in battle but also one should expect he lost a man or two from the plague as well (mind you I can easily imagine some kings also being affected by it at least at early stage especially the less vigorous such as Nestor because of age or Menelaus if we take my headcannon that he probably was a bit frail of health later as I mentioned to the post tagging @thehelplessmortals which could indeed back up more how careful Helen was with him since plagues do affect massively the health of lungs or heart permanently

More vigorous and fighting fit characters like Achilles or Diomedes or Odysseus and Agamemnon seemed less likely to have been stroke by the plague. Achilles is also the one who calls upon council of kings to find a solution.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

During my collaboration with @artsofmetamoor I always entertain the thought of disease to the various war camps. Disease would often be the most common way soldiers died instead of battles.

In our stories our characters suffer a lot of many things but this also makes me do a note to self to refer more on plagues or diseases

I was about to question exactly the same thing in the messages you sent me hahahaha yup it just doesn't add up! Odysseus and his men can be cunning in their own way, but come on they are still human! The fact that they escape in the original was already a crazy feat, and here he makes the sirens beg them for mercy?? What the hell is this joke haha

Yeah, when in reality if you follow the actually original logic of the story, if Odysseus faced Sirens head on screaming stuff like "I'm a monster" they would laugh and eat his head XD This is not even drunk Caleb level of stupid hahaha Yeah somehow I already don't have a good feeling about that part lol

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit hahaha but damn that's the only thing that makes sense in my head with that "let them drown" phrase! Otherwise yeah it's just stupid XD Yes the creatures who outsmarted and killed thousands of sailors, who didn't even need to get close to them to do it, who made the original Odysseus and his men decide they would be better off passing past them as quickly as possible than face them! And now they are suddenly helpless useless little girls lool

Epic the Musical:

Sirens: We shall sing right in front of your face and make idiotic mistakes so you will know what it is! Because we are obviously fake

Odysseus: I shall test you back because you make idiotic mistakes and I am fucking Odysseus of Ithaca who just sang a dramatic song before.

Them: We caught them captain! Because they were right in front of our faces now what?

Odysseus: Oh we have free time and we are not damaged enough so sure let us continue from that dramatic "monster" concept because we also have time to save other sailors (and we are sure we caught them all apparently?). Cut their tails and let them drown in the sea! (Because I am a monster rawr rawr!)

The Odyssey:

Sirens: We sing alluringly calling you to us giving you exact details on who you are and where you come from because we know your soul. Abandon your ship and come to us

Odysseus: *gets brainfucked and drugged and begs like a madman to be released from his binds (but still intelligent as fuck since his brain is still alert and he is fully conscious throughout the process)*

Eurylochus: Oh shit he is too strong the damn ropes are not holding! *signs to Perimedes to bring more ropes and tie the motherfucker harder*

Them: Oh we have no time to stop...row for your lives to get the hell out of here!

Sirens: out of sight through the whole process probably sitting at the highest of rocks since they are fucking birds

Odysseus: *the incantation wears off* Oh shit that was a wild ride! Thank gods it's over and I received the knowledge I was looking for... Okay guys you can untie me now...