What Makes a Man: An exploration into the changing face of masculinity from Homer’s Iliad to the modern day
A major component of a ‘masculine’ identity in both antiquity and the modern era is one’s sexuality, including both sexual virility and sexual orientation. There has been controversy and debate over the exact nature of Achilles and Patroclus’ relationship ever since the first reception of the Iliad. The poem itself makes nothing explicit — the two are close, but not necessarily in a romantic or sexual way — but readers since Plato and Aeschylus have seen signs of something beyond friendship. In the Iliad, Patroclus is referred to by Achilles as “φίλτατος ἑταῖρος” (the comrade who is most loved), but this is not alone indicative of a romantic relationship as φίλος can refer to familial or platonic love as well as romantic. It could be suggested that Patroclus takes the traditionally ‘wifely’ role in the relationship (as he deals with cooking and cleaning), but this also cannot be taken as evidence for a homosexual relationship. For Halperin, however, the idea of such a connection between the two is strengthened by a number of other instances in the poem: he argues that similarities between the names of Patroclus and Cleopatra (a hero’s wife) are also evidence of his traditionally feminine role. Halperin also sees Achilles taking on the role of a wife as he cradles Patroclus’ head at his funeral just as Andromache does to Hector, leading him to comment that “each, in a sense, is wife to each”. The ambiguous nature of their relationship has given later interpretations of the Iliad scope to portray the two heroes in a variety of contexts. In the classical period, their relationship was often viewed as pederastic, as seen in Plato’s Symposium and various fragments of Aeschylus’ Myrmidons among other works. Of course, this results in an anachronism, overlaying as it does the values and customs of 5th and 4th century BCE Greece onto Homeric heroes. Graziosi emphasises that it is essential to keep these ancient receptions in mind when considering modern reception, because of the ways in which they may have affected modern readings. Martindale makes the same point, stating that we must remember that “we are not the direct inheritors of antiquity” when examining modern reception. Troy, The Song of Achilles and The Silence of the Girls have been created in a world where Plato and Aeschylus’ adaptations exist, and are therefore influenced by them, albeit possibly unconsciously.
In Troy, any hint of a romantic or sexual relationship between the two men is utterly abandoned. Patroclus’ status as Achilles’ cousin is emphasised and re-emphasised so that the possibility of a sexual relationship is negated, and their age gap is extended so that Achilles appears as a father-figure to Patroclus. (This is particularly interesting to consider in comparison to the classical authors who interpret a pederastic relationship). This straightwashing of the heroes has been widely mocked by film reviewers; Robey even comments that “they’re so anxious not to be misconstrued that they spend most of the movie avoiding each other’s gaze”. Certainly Patroclus has become a much less important character in Troy when compared to his vital role in the Iliad, and barely interacts with Achilles throughout. Bradshaw rightly states that this “downplaying” of his role “leaves his re-entry into the battle sadly unmotivated”. Of course, just as the pederastic portrayals of Achilles and Patroclus from Plato and Aeschylus are presented through the lens of classical Greece, the heroes of Petersen’s Troy exist in the heteronormative society that is 2004 Hollywood. On this point, Nisbet comments that Hollywood has always been uncomfortable with Ancient Greece’s associations with homosexuality, which, for him, explains why Ancient Rome is a more popular setting among filmmakers. It is therefore interesting to consider the reception of the Iliad in a different modern medium — the novel. Miller’s coming-of-age story The Song of Achilles explores the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in great detail with unambiguous homosexuality. In fact, it is by far the most significant theme of the novel, dominating the wartime setting and the role of Briseis, who holds much more importance in Troy. However, Miller has been criticised by reviewers for her “swoony soft-porn” portrayal of their gay relationship and for forcing heteronormative roles onto the characters. Jordison even comments that “Patroclus seemed more like a wife than a gay man” but perhaps Miller was drawing on the roles that Halperin saw the heroes adopt in the Iliad itself (explored above), rather than imposing her modern ideals onto them. It is impossible to state for certain — in fact, Miller’s interpretation is a combination of the source material and the context she was writing in, as is of course the case with all works of classical reception. Miller’s focus on Achilles and Patroclus’ homosexual relationship is in stark contrast to Barker’s. Though they are in the same medium, Barker’s novel The Silence of the Girls was written in the context of the ‘me-too’ era and focuses on the plight of Briseis and other female war victims. The relationship of Achilles and Patroclus is not fundamental to Barker’s point, but equally it is not absent as it is in Troy. Instead, Barker further strengthens her portrayal of toxic masculinity by displaying laddish homophobic mockery among the soldiers.
It can therefore be seen that the interpretation of Achilles’ sexuality changes due to the medium of reception. In Troy, a Hollywood-produced ‘macho’ action film, Achilles and Patroclus are reduced to just cousins; in Miller and Barker’s novels, the two have a romantic and sexual relationship — implied or explicit.
Do you have a suggestion for a future topic? Do you have an idea to share with your friends? Send us a message and follow the Durham University Classics Society on Twitter (@DUClassSoc) and Facebook (@DUClassics Society) to keep up with this blog and our other adventures!
