#throw everything away for a woman (Briseis)

[46ten]

AH: marriage and military service should not mix

The summary of this post: A lot of historians have noted how important AH’s marriage to EH was to his future, a true before and after marker in his life. But the strangeness of it has gotten less attention - AH married while the war was going on, and even wrote of not hanging around the army at all in order to setup for his life with his new wife. Once one sees the oddity of that, a lot of other things fall into place in his 1780/81 letters.  

For the past few years, I’ve wanted to work more on the theory that although marriage was generally expected of the 18th century Anglo-American colonial man (see prior posts here and here), the elite in AH’s circle did not marry until their military obligations and other duties were complete. From their examples and a few phrases here and there, getting married seemed to have been frowned upon, perhaps because of the uncomfortable examples of general’s wives and this idea that romantic love with a woman was a weakness that interfered with duty and hindered one’s commitment to military glory. (I am familiar with the challenges faced by Martha Washington, Catharine Greene, and Lucy Knox; Philip Schuyler refused a return to military assignment and presidency of the Continental Congress after the death of a newborn, among other things, in 1778). AH is an exception among his circle, with Meade, in getting married during the war itself - nearly everyone else who is unmarried waits until after their military service is complete (and sometimes well after) to marry. Not enough is made of the oddity of his courtship and marriage, within his circle, while the war is ongoing.

Now to modern thought, the title of this post makes a lot of sense - relationships are often strained when one partner is in military service, and the hows and whys are very familiar to us. But for the 18th century, when adult manhood was tied to matrimony, avoiding matrimony seems odd, as does the length of some of the courtships of AH’s friends: two years for William Jackson, about the same for Tilghman, four years of flirtation for McHenry. At a time when engagements lasted a matter of weeks (and AH notes that his own is unusually long - it’s lasting “an age” in one of his letters to ES), the delay in taking the next step is notable. Even in the prior generation, although Philip Schuyler was sexually intimate with Catharine Van Rensselaer, he continued his military service and did not marry her until it became unavoidable by decency standards (CVR was 4 months pregnant). 

So what’s with AH and ES wanting to get married in such a hurry, comparatively, besides the obvious emotional ones? Maybe he really was 26-27 years old and time was running out! Another obvious possibility, noted then and noted by biographers since, was the benefits of their marriage on a personal and political dynastic level. @aswithasunbeam has noted a contemporary article (sourced from Mitchell) about what Philip Schuyler had to gain through the new attachment between himself and Washington’s aide-de-camp. (And look how quickly P. Schuyler had AH working to get GW to visit them.) The advantages for AH were obvious to, as the Marquis de Fleury stated outright to AH: “ I congratulate you heartyly on that conquest; for many Reasons: the first that you will get all that familly’s interest, & that a man of your abilities wants a Little influence to do good to his country. The second that you, will be in a very easy situation, & happin’s is not to be found without a Large estate.”

I also suspect part of AH’s decision to hurriedly marry was tied to getting a command and spending the rest of his time studying the law.* I agree with most biographers that he never takes the steps of leaving Washington’s family and asking for (Nov 1780) and then demanding (June 1781) a command without being Philip Schuyler’s son-in-law. (I also think the break with GW doesn’t happen without AH feeling VERY confident in his relationship with his new wife. EH should have been a better patriot - as in other times - and seemed less happy in her marriage, or at least not let AH read her letter to her sister.) I think that’s what Laurens knew while on parole in Phil. and causes the minor flurry of letters in late August/September 1780, when P. Schuyler was briefly at HQ and then sending lots of letters about Congress to GW, AH was going on about his planned six month leave, McHenry was writing a love poem about AH and ES and trying to get AH to get P. Schuyler’s help in getting him a command, etc . AH and ES likely intended to marry in October/early November, but both Meade and Harrison took leave instead, and AH had to stay, though he would leave in late November before their return (in fact, Harrison and Meade never returned.)

Take Laurens (left wife and daughter he’d never see in England) and Lafayette (absent from France from March 1777 to Feb 1779 and March 1780 to early 1782). Both of them left wife and child(ren) behind, and here AH was planning a long absence from military service and telling his fiancee that he’ll leave it entirely if that’s her wish. AND Meade is discussing doing exactly that! [So Laurens presumably wrote to AH - we don’t have that letter - that he hopes AH will get over this quickly, and AH wrote back that he won’t, but I’m getting ahead of myself.]

I offered to make a comparison of AH’s letters to Laurens vs Elizabeth Schuyler - while revealing of personal feelings, in content and expression they are more different than they are similar - but I think I first need to set up that major transition that’s occurring in AH’s life in 1780/81. To the extent Laurens may have objected to AH’s excitement about ES and their impending nuptials (and there’s only one phrase in one letter, and that from AH to Laurens, from which it can be interpreted that those were Laurens’ feelings), and AH felt embarrassed about conveying the news of his engagement, it was because it interfered with a (believed to be mutual) sense of military obligation and public duty and dismissal of marriage and its attendant obligations. I touch on it in a response here; I’ll try to elaborate on it in upcoming posts. [I will get into why this makes the most sense, and why claims of AH trying to spare any romantic feelings JL may have felt, quite frankly, do not make sense in a later post. Spoiler: AH wrote absurdly callous stuff re ES and his relationship with her in his letters to JL if he was hoping to spare JL’s feelings.]

I already put some of my thoughts on this in old posts that may have some helpful content and may spare me having to repeat myself too much, and then I’ll also provide some quotes from letters to get started, limited to 1777-1782 and then probably the most famous quote from 1799. 

Hamilton on marriage part 1 (overview)

Hamilton on marriage part 2 (feelings on marriage 1777-early 1780)

Hamilton-Schuyler engagement (early 1780-mid 1780)

Hamilton on marriage part 3 (my breakdown of the July-Oct 1780 letters to ES)

Hamilton on marriage part 4

Reynolds Pamphlet, part 2

And a post (not my own) about how much AH’s military involvement as Inspector General was affecting his family financially. 

Letter quotes [my emphases]: 

You and I, as well as our neighbours, are deeply interested to pray for victory, and its necessary attendant peace; as, among other good effects, they would remove those obstacles, which now lie in the way of that most delectable thing, called matrimony;—a state, which, with a kind of magnetic force, attracts every breast to it, in which sensibility has a place, in spite of the resistance it encounters in the dull admonitions of prudence, which is so prudish and perverse a dame, as to be at perpetual variance with it. AH to Catharine “Kitty” Livingston 11Apr1777

Do I want a wife? No—I have plagues enough without desiring to add to the number that greatest of all; and if I were silly enough to do it, I should take care how I employ a proxy. AH to John Laurens 1779 [likely from mid-April up to July - this letter is actually undated, and the April date is based on other mentions in the letter; both JCH and Lodge dated it December 1779]

The most determined adversaries of Hymen can find in [ES] no pretext for their hostility, and there are several of my friends, philosophers who railed at love as a weakness, men of the world who laughed at it as a phantasie, whom she has presumptuously and daringly compelled to acknowlege its power and surrender at discretion. I can the better assert the truth of this, as I am myself of the number. She has had the address to overset all the wise resolutions I had been framing for more than four years past, and from a rational sort of being and a professed contemner of Cupid has in a trice metamorphosed me into the veriest inamorato you perhaps ever saw. AH to Margarita Schuyler, Feb1780

I would add to this by way of consolation, or rather of countinance, that the family since your departure have given hourly proofs of a growing weakness. Example I verily believe is infectious. For such a predominancy is beauty establishing over their hearts, that should things continue to wear as sweet an aspect as they are now beheld in, I shall be the only person left, of the whole household, to support the dignity of human nature. But in good earnest, God bless both you, and your weakness, and preserve me your sincere friend James McHenry to AH, 18March1780 [this was during the time of AH’s courtship of ES]

Here we are my love in a house of great hospitality—in a country of plenty—a buxom girl under the same roof—pleasing ⟨expect⟩ations of a successful campaign—and every thing to make a soldier happy, who is not in love and absent from his mistress. ... Assure yourself my love that you are seldom a moment absent from my mind, that I think of you constantly and talk of you frequently, I am never happier than when I can engage Meade in some solitary walk to join me in reciprocating the praises of his widow and my betsey. AH to ES, 6July1780  

I hope for a decisive campaign. No one will desire it more than me; for a military life is now grown insupportable to me because it keeps me from all my soul holds dear. Adieu My love. Write to me often I entreat you, and do not suffer any part of my treasure, your sweet love, to be lost or stolen from me. AH to ES, 20Jul1780

Impatiently My Dearest have I been expecting the return of your father to bring me a letter from my charmer with the answers you have been good enough to promise me to the little questions asked in mine by him. ... Meade2 just comes in and interrupts me by sending his love to you. He tells you he has written a long letter to his widow asking her opinion of the propriety of quitting the service; and that if she does not disapprove it, he will certainly take his final leave after the campaign. You see what a fine opportunity she has to be enrolled in the catalogue of heroines, and I dare say she will set you an example of fortitude and patriotism. I know too you have so much of the Portia in you, that you will not be out done in this line by any of your sex, and that if you saw me inclined to quit the service of your country, you would dissuade me from it. I have promised you, you recollect, to conform to your wishes, and I persist in this intention. It remains with you to show whether you are a Roman or an American wife. AH to ES, Aug1780

But now my love to speak of the practicability of complying with both our wishes in this article—There is none, I am obliged to sacrifice my inclination to ⟨my public⟩ ch⟨aracter.⟩ Even though my presence shou⟨ld n⟩ot be essential here, yet my love I could not with decency or honor leave the army during the campaign. This is a military prejudice which while I am in a military station I must comply with. No person has been more severe than I have been in condemning other officers for deviating from it. I have admitted no excuse as sufficient, and I must not now evince to the army, that the moment my circumstances have changed, my maxims have changed also. This would be an inconsistency, and my Betsey would not have me guilty of an inconsistency. Besides this my Betsey, The General is peculiarly averse to the practice in question. If this campaign is to end my military services, ’tis an additional reason for a constant and punctual attendance, if it is not my leaving the army during the campaign would make it less proper to be away all the winter ’till late in the spring. In one case, my honor bids me stay, in the other my love. AH to ES, 31Aug1780

Pardon me my love for talking politics to you. What have we to do with any thing but love? Go the world as it will, in each others arms we cannot but be happy. ...I was once determined to let my existence and American liberty end together. My Betsey has given me a motive to outlive my pride, I had almost said my honor; but America must not be witness to my disgrace. AH to ES, 6Sept1780

I have told you, and I told you truly that I love you too much. You engross my thoughts too intirely to allow me to think of any thing else—you not only employ my mind all day; but you intrude upon my sleep. I meet you in every dream—and when I wake I cannot close my eyes again for ruminating on your sweetness. ‘Tis a pretty story indeed that I am to be thus monopolized, by a little nut-brown maid like you—and from a statesman and a soldier metamorphosed into a puny lover. I believe in my soul you are an inchantress; but I have tried in vain, if not to break, at least, to weaken the charm—you maintain your empire in spite of all my efforts—and after every new one, I make to withdraw myself from my allegiance my partial heart still returns and clings to you with increased attachment. To drop figure my lovely girl you become dearer to me every moment. I am more and more unhappy and impatient under the hard necessity that keeps me from you, and yet the prospect lengthens as I advance. AH to ES, 5Oct1780

I would not have you imagine Miss that I write to you so often either to gratify your wishes or to please your vanity; but merely to indulge myself and to comply with that restless propensity of my mind, which will not allow me to be happy when I am not doing something in which you are concerned. This may seem a very idle disposition in a philosopher and a soldier; but I can plead illustrious examples in my justification. Achilles had liked to have sacrificed Greece and his glory to his passion for a female captive; and Anthony lost the world for a woman. I am sorry the times are so changed as to oblige me to summon antiquity for my apology, but I confess, to the disgrace of the present age, that I have not been able to find many who are as far gone as myself in such laudable zeal for the fair sex. AH to ES, 13Oct1780

How often have I with Eloisa exclaimed against those forms which I now revere as calculated to knit our union together by new and stronger bands...Meade already begins to recant. I have received a letter from him on the Journey2 in which he tells me he finds he must return to the army. This will be a new proof to you that I cannot leave it, as we both so ardently desire. AH to ES, 27Oct1780

You possess a heart that can feel for me; you have a female too that you love. I was reduced at one period to entreat, threat, kiss, but all to no purpose; her fears were for my safety, mine for hers. You must imagine to make out the tragedy all that I am incapable for want of words to express. After placing her with at least Twenty other females & children at a safe distance I immediately returned, & joined the Baron about the time the Enemy left Richmond in order to render him all the aid I could being intimately acquainted with the Country for many miles in the vicinity of the Enemy & on their return down the river I left him to go in pursuit of a residence for a favorite Brother who was driven from his home & obliged to attend to his Wife & a family of little children. Was it not cruel my dear fellow that my matrimonial enjoyments should have been interrupted thus soon; not more than one month had passed when the damned invasion seperated us, & we have yet to meet again, for 60 miles divides us. You know I am a Philosoper my dr fd & prepared to meet much more serious disappointments. This gives me an opening to speak of my return to the army. I have been long wishing your advice in full on the occasion; you are acquainted with the arguments I have used in favor of my stay here. I have now but one to add to them, the experience of that happiness I ever expected to enjoy with the best of Women. She loves not less than your Betsy, & I fear could not bear a seperation. I have not however as yet thrown off the uniform, but I am inclined to believe that it must be the case. Meade to AH, 13Jan1781

I was cherishing the melancholy pleasure of thinking of the sweets I had left behind and was so long to be deprived of, when a servant from Head Quarters presented me with your letters. I feasted for some time on the sweet effusions of tenderness they contained, and my heart returned every sensation of yours. Alas my Betsey you have divested it of every other pretender and placed your image there as the sole proprietor. I struggle with an excess which I cannot but deem a weakness and endeavour to bring myself back to reason and duty. I remonstrate with my heart on the impropriety of suffering itself to be engrossed by an individual of the human race when so many millions ought to participate in its affections and in its cares. But it constantly presents you under such amiable forms as seem too well to justify its meditated desertion of the cause of country humanity, and of glory I would say, if there were not something in the sound insipid and ridiculous when compared with the sacrifices by which it is to be attained.

Indeed Betsey, I am intirely changed—changed for the worse I confess—lost to all the public and splendid passions and absorbed in you. Amiable woman! nature has given you a right to be esteemed to be cherished, to be beloved; but she has given you no right to monopolize a man, whom, to you I may say, she has endowed with qualities to be extensively useful to society. Yes my Betsey, I will encourage my reason to dispute your empire and restrain it within proper bounds, to restore me to myself and to the community. Assist me in this; reproach me for an unmanly surrender of that to love and teach me that your esteem will be the price of my acting well my part as a member of society. AH to EH, 13Jul1781

Don’t think me unkind for not talking of your making a journey to the Southward. It would put us to a thousand inconveniences and would in fact be of no avail; for while there I must be engrossed in my military duties. Heaven knows how much it costs me to make the sacrifice I do. It is too much to be torn away from the wife of my bosom from a woman I love to weakness, and who feels the same ardent passion for me. I relinquish a heaven in your arms; but let me have the happiness to reflect that they ever impatiently wait my return sacred to love and me. Give your Mama, your sisters and the whole family every assurance of the warmest affection on my part. Indeed I love them all.

Yrs. with unalterable tenderness and fidelity AH to EH,  25Aug1781

Early in November, as I promised you, we shall certainly meet. Cheer yourself with this idea, and with the assurance of never more being separated. Every day confirms me in the intention of renouncing public life, and devoting myself wholly to you. AH to EH, 6Sept1781

My heart disposed to gayety is at once melted into tenderness. The idea of a smiling infant in my Betseys arms calls up all the father in it. In imagination I embrace the mother and embrace the child a thousand times. I can scarce refrain from shedding tears of joy. But I must not indulge these sensations; they are unfit for the boisterous scenes of war and whenever they intrude themselves make me but half a soldier. AH to EH, 12Oct1781

You cannot imagine how entirely domestic I am growing. I lose all taste for the pursuits of ambition, I sigh for nothing but the company of my wife and my baby. The ties of duty alone or imagined duty keep me from renouncing public life altogether. It is however probable I may not be any longer actively engaged in it.

I have explained to you the difficulties which I met with in obtaining a command last campaign. I thought it incompatible with the delicacy due to myself to make any application this campaign. I have expressed this Sentiment in a letter to the General and retaining my rank only, have relinquished the emoluments of my commission, declaring myself notwithstanding ready at all times to obey the calls of the Public.4 I do not expect to hear any of these unless the State of our Affairs, should change for the worse and lest by any unforeseen accident that should happen, I choose to keep myself in a situation again to contribute my aid. This prevents a total resignation.

You were right in supposing I neglected to prepare what I promised you at Philadelphia. The truth is, I was in such a hurry to get home that I could think of nothing else. AH to Meade, March 1782 (from a JCH transcription)

You were right, My dear General, in saying that a Soldier should have no Other wife than the service...William North to AH, 12Nov1799

AND just for amusement:

I thank you My Dear Sir for the military figures you have sent me. Tactics you know are literally or figuratively of very comprehensive signification. As people grow old they decline in some arts though they may improve in others. I will try to get Mrs. Hamilton to accompany in games of Tactics new to her. Perhaps she may get a taste for them & become better reconciled to my connection with the Trade-Militant. AH to McHenry, 21June1799

__________________________________________

*I broke this down in a prior post too, but I’ll repeat it here again: I think the clearest statement of his plan left to us is from the draft of the letter he sent to Philip Schuyler explaining why he wants to break with GW (18Feb1781): 

As I cannot think of quitting the army during the war, I have a project of re-entering into the artillery, by taking Lieutenant-Colonel Forrest’s10 place, who is⟩ desirous of retiring on half pay. I have not however made up my mind upon this , Start insertion,head, End,, as I should be obliged to come in the youngest Lt Col instead of the eldest, which I , Start deletion,should, End, , Start insertion,ought to, End, have been by natural succession had I remained in the corps; and , Start insertion,at the same time, End, to resume studies relative to the profession which, to avoid inferiority, must be laborious.

If a handsome command for the campaign in the , Start insertion,light, End, infantry should offer itself, I shall ballance between this and the artillery. My situation ⟨in the latter⟩ would be more , Start deletion,substantial, End, , Start insertion,solid, End, ⟨and permanent;⟩ but as I hope ⟨the war will not last long enough to make it progressive, this consideration has the less force. A command for the campaign would leave me the winter to prosecute studies relative to my future career in life. With⟩ respect to the former, I have been materially the worse for going into his family.11

I have written to you on this subject with all the freedom and confidence to which you have a right and with an assurance of the interest you take in , Start deletion,what, End, , Start insertion,all that, End, concerns me.

This letter implies 1) he had a plan post-military; 2) he had discussed with PS what that plan was, and possibly that six month leave (that never happened because of illness and unavailability) was tied to undertaking some of those studies to be a lawyer, to put himself in better shape to support a family. Being able to do so was important to AH - Philip Hamilton was born Jan 1782, and Angelica would not be born until Sept 1784.

[toomanystacksofbooks]

Achilles Was More Than A Weapon

by @toomanystacksofbooks

Achilles, in my own understanding of his tale, has been horribly misrepresented by history. Born of heaven and earth, he was told to live a certain way- to be a certain way. He is, today, viewed as a warrior of the greatest kind, which he was, of course, but I’ve noticed a great number of people who seem to believe that his entire character is diluted by that fact- to war and blood and violence. To do such, one erases every other part of him, everything else- good and bad and gray.

First, we must understand his origins. His mother was Thetis, an ocean nymph, a goddess. She had fallen victim to the will of higher gods, forced into an unwilling marriage with Peleus, who was a king. And so Achilles came, breathed his first years on Phthia, a prince. He was greatly admired from a young age and known to be light on his feet, swift, and graceful.

Here we have our first example of something that was key to his character that was not his status as a warrior. Yes, his speed and grace and precision were all what made him a great warrior, but that is not why he had such talents. He was, first and foremost, a child. Before he ever was a fighter, a soldier, a killer- he was a kid who wanted to play.

We know that Thetis was not so fond of Peleus- at least in many interpretations- but she loved her son dearly, and wished for him to be divine some day. She visited him, and told him as much, and he listened and walked away when their meetings were over. She knew that heroes such as her Achilles would be fated to, one day, make a choice. A short, glorious life- gone down in history, adored- or a long, forgetful life- a man who would be forgotten, lost in the winds of time. Achilles, I think, never wanted more than to have fun when Thetis began thinking about this. He was a child, and what child would choose a war and grief and death, simply to be remembered and revered, over a full and happy life, all for oneself? I believe that he was taught, pressured, into thinking that he desired honor. At some point, he must have lost much of his childhood confidence, and began craving other people’s approval.

I can understand, honestly, what was going through Achilles’ mind as he made such decisions. There comes a point where you’ve covered up so many layers of yourself that you simply cannot remember who you are. Not truly. It is because of this that I sympathise with Achilles. I think his tale would have ended very differently had the social and peer pressure been lifted, had his mother understood what a child needs.

And a child needs nurturing. His nature was not to fight.

Another example of his skills and character outside of war is the lyre. He was known to have played it, to have marveled at the sounds it could make. It was a hobby, but he was Achilles so he mastered it quickly. Perhaps had he not been taken to war, he would’ve picked up his lyre and written and sung the tale of those who did. Perhaps Troy would not have fallen.

He was also, supposedly, honest. He was empathetic and caring, especially to those he was close to. He did not want to fight, I don’t think, but he knew- or thought- he was supposed to. He enjoyed the fighting, but not for the pain and hurt and blood, but for the rush of adrenaline, for the way he could run and dance, the way he could throw a spear. He never once stated that he enjoyed the killing.

Patroclus, lastly. Patroclus was his mortality, that half of his soul. I do not believe in soulmates, generally, but somehow Achilles and Patroclus have me sold. Patroclus was compassionate where Achilles was emotionally confused and distant, Patroclus was a healer where Achilles was a fighter, Patroclus was a little clumsy where Achilles was sure-footed. Patroclus was mortal where Achilles was divine. It was he who kept Achilles sane, who kept his mind from spiraling to true selfishness and cruelty. Patroclus gave Achilles a reason.

When he died, Achilles snapped. In The Iliad, it is said that Achilles sobbed so loudly that the gods at the bottom of the sea could hear it. He first wanted to kill himself, but he had no weapons. He wept by Patroclus’ body for days, and when the best of the Greeks, the greatest warrior who ever lived, died, they had their ashes mingled together (The Iliad, Homer: “There is nothing alive more agonized than man / of all that breathe and crawl across the earth,”).

Achilles killed, yes. He raided and fought and ran through a war he would not see won. But so did Hector. So did Patroclus. So did Odysseus, and Agamemnon, and Paris, and the Amazons. They were all fighting, because a woman was taken, or went, because she had no choice as to what was to happen to her. Achilles should never have had to fight. None of them should have. There is no “right side to this war” because both the Greeks and the Trojans did terrible things. And both of them paid the price.

“We men are wretched things,” is stated by Homer in The Iliad. And so that includes us all- men like Achilles, Patroclus, and Hector. Women like Briseis, Helen, and Hecabe. We humans are so diverse, yet we are so similar. Is it not wrong of everyone to go to war? Or just one side, the attacker? The defender? Or those which are both?

In The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller, Odysseus says to Patroclus: “He is a weapon, a killer. Do not forget it. You can use a spear as a walking stick, but that will not change its nature.”

But he is not a weapon. There is so much more to the tale of Achilles than the Trojan War, than when he fought a river god and killed Hector of Troy and was killed by Paris. He was a child, free and bright as the day. He ran on the beaches of Phthia, trained with Chiron on Pelion. He was Achilles, a golden boy with a golden lyre under a golden sun. He did not exist to assist Meneleus in his nonsense, he did not exist to sail a thousand ships. He did not exist to fight, for we know he could have changed the Fates when his grief was as great. He was shaped by all of this. He was sharpened by all that he experienced, by those who he met. Patroclus and Briseis and Odysseus and Diomedes and Agamemnon and, eventually, Thanatos, who led him down to Hades to rest.

A spear is a stick before it is a weapon. Achilles is no different.

[frickengreenfrickyeah]

An Irreverent Intro to the Iliad

A/N:I’ve taken the introduction to the Lombardo translation and condensed it. Any time I says something to the effect of “don’t quote me on this” that means I’ve added my own analysis or thoughts that I cannot back up in any way, so don’t, like, put it in an essay if you don’t plan on doing your own research.

Anyway, you don’t care about that stuff, you came here to read about the Iliad.

It’s really fricken long, so, for the sake of mobile users, everything’s under the cut except for this:

“Rage. Bitch, lemme tell you about the time that Achilles fucked over the entire Greek army by Rage-quitting.”

Timeline for the Noobs 

Ten years ago:

Aphrodite bribes Paris so she can win a beauty contest between herself, Athena, and Hera. Paris’ reward for his ‘heroics’ is Helen

(There’s probably an essay’s worth of symbolism you could dig into here, what with the goddesses all representing different priorities: erotic love, wisdom/justice, and familial duty. I wonder what Paris’ choice reveals about his character?)

There’s some disagreement about whether or not Helen when with Paris willingly

Seeing as literally no other woman in the Iliad (and maybe the entire Cycle? Don’t quote me on that) willingly went with her kidnapper, I’m calling bull on that. Do with that what you will.

Menelaus gets really mad that Paris stole his wife, so he rounds up the Greek army, and they go to war. (It’s worth noting that Athena and Hera are both on his side here.)

Present day:

Agamemnon(Boo), Menelaus’ brother kidnaps a girl. Then he has the balls to get upset that the girl’s father called Apollo’s plague down upon the Greeks until she’s returned

Achilles points out that Agamemnon’s being a dick and people are literally dying because he won’t let go of one girl. Agamemnon says, “Fine. If I have to give up my lady-war-prize, I’m taking yours as recompense.”

Achilles allows Agamemnon to take his girl, then Rage-quits. As consequence, people die.

Hypocrites. Hypocrites everywhere. If you wanna analyze that for an essay, I think there’s plenty to talk about. 

The Theme Worth Giving a Shit About (Because it Drives the Narrative)

Heroes risk their lives on the battlefield in exchange for Prizes

Ie. riches, bitches, and clout

Honor <--> Shame is how they judge the value of others and themselves. Honor wins Prizes, Shame loses Prizes

3 Characters Worth Giving a Shit About (Because They Explore the Aforementioned Theme)

Achilles: Main character. Rage is his thing. Also, pouting. 

His honor is insulted by Agamemnon(Boo) taking away Briseis, his lady war prize. Since war prizes are how their society rewards heroes for risking their lives, Agamemnon is basically saying he doesn’t care of Achilles dies or not.

And that hurts Achilles’ feelings because he knows he’s gonna die. There’s a prophecy about it. 

The only reason he’s fighting is because society conditioned him to believe that Prizes and eternal glory were worth dying for.

Now that he doubts everything he knows, he refuses to fight for the Greeks.

The entire poem is the consequences of his Rage-quit

Agamemnon: fuck this guy

He loses his lady war prize, so he takes Achilles’. Because short-sighted spite is the best motivator.

He and Achilles start the poem in the same place, believing that material goods should equally compensate a loss. Achilles is the one who learns that that’s not how that works.

Agamemnon starts as a dick and ends as a dick. Google Iphigenia if you want to learn more. And that shit he pulls with Cassandra? Major dickbag. Fuck this guy. 

Hector: The Trojan hero, and honestly the only likable guy here. 

He is Achilles’ foil. 

Just like Achilles, he’s separated from society - but, unlike Achilles, it’s not because he rejects their values. It’s because he never questions them.

He’s basically the perfect hero, and he suffers for it:

His son is scared of his war helmet

He can’t stay closer to home to fight defensively because that’s ‘shameful’

And he can’t even stay in the city that long on his breaks because wine and women are too tempting. 

Side Characters to Maybe Give a Fuck About

Patroclus: The most important of the supporting cast, and he’s only in it for, like, maybe a book

Achilles’ BFF and probably more

(Read: Definitely more. If you listen carefully, you can hear me chanting OTP OTP OTP every time you open your book.)

He is Achilles’ double

He never doubts society but supports his bestie’s midlife crisis anyway

His death at the hands of Hector symbolizes Achilles’ death because he was wearing Achilles’ armor at the time

Achilles causes Patroclus’ death btw

When he Rage-quits, he asks Zeus to help the Trojans (because short-sighted spite is the best motivator). Patroclus goes to help the Greeks wearing Achilles’ very recognizable armor, causing Hector to target and kill him

His death redirects Achilles’ Rage at the Trojans instead of the Greeks

Diomedes: a badass fighter

Greater Ajax: a badass fighter

and (I think) the guy who talks sense into Achilles at some point

Ajax the Lesser: a badass fighter (are you sensing a theme in these characters?)

Odysseus: the only smart guy here

The Odyssey is about him btw

The Trojan horse was his idea, according to the Aeneid (and maybe other places? But definitely the Aeneid.)

WTF is an Epic Poem Anyway?

Epic Poem: recounts events with far-reaching historical consequences, sums up the values and achievements of an entire culture, and documents the full variety of the war

Basically, if “’Murica, Fuck Yeah” sums up America, then the Iliad sums up Ancient Greece

(Actually, Hamilton is a better comparison, but I needed to make a joke. Fite me.)

That “full variety” thing is why Book 2 and a couple other places just list off a bunch of ships or leaders and their dads. That shit is boring. Skip it. 

But also, that ‘full variety’ thing is what makes other parts of the story so interesting. Homer will sum up a dude’s life story right before he kills them or some shit. It magnifies the scale of the narrative by showing how insignificant one person’s experience is - no one person can stop the war.

That’s what makes Achilles’ story even more powerful --> because his impact on the war is significant. His Rage controls the ebb and flow of it. 

He can’t stop the war though. No one can. 

The Gods are Petty as Fuck

Homeric gods look/act like humans, but they’re different mainly because of two things:

1. They can’t die.

That means they treat the events of the war less seriously than the mortals do.

2. The gods know about fate

To the modern reader, it seems like the humans have no agency, but that’s not really the case

Knowing fate is a bit like knowing the plot of a movie. It gives insight into a character’s actions that would otherwise seem random.

By reading this poem, you’re basically a god. Don’t let it go to your head. (But, hey, there’s a reason I’m majoring in this shit)

Bards like Homer would more directly be gods because they changed and adapted the story as they told it, just like the gods influence human actions in the story.

Don't quote me on that tho

Character choices are usually doubly motivated - by the human, and by the gods

Ex: Achilles chooses not to kill Agamemnon because Athena tells him not to.

This is personifying the literal thought process he had so that the reader understands what’s going through his head.

Fate doesn’t force anyone to act out of character --> fate is the consequence of their life choices

The gods not caring about death and his own lack of foresight is what Achilles messes up on

He asks Zeus to help him get revenge on the Greeks because he assumes Zeus cares about that sort of thing, but Zeus is bigger than that.

That leads Patroclus’ death, btw.

The “Enduring Heart” Shit

Achilles is really butthurt that Agamemnon wronged him

The lesson he has to learn is that even if material goods can’t make up for losses, there’s no other option --> you can’t bring people back from the dead, so you have to move on

That’s the Enduring Heart shit

also, if you abstract that concept it sounds kinda like entropy to me (Don’t quote me on that tho)

He learns that lesson by feeling pity for Priam (Hector’s dad) instead of perpetuating the Rage Train

And, hey, that Enduring Heart shit is a lesson that all of us could take to heart. None of us want to die, but it’s gonna happen. Maybe that’s not fair, but throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to change anything. Really, the only way to avoid being miserable is to embrace our mortality so we can appreciate life while we have it

don’t quote me on that tho

In a nutshell, Achilles has to accept his mortal-ness. Otherwise there’s a lot of unnecessary suffering. 

That’s why we don’t need to see him die in the Iliad even though everyone makes such a big deal about the prophecy about his death. His journey was completed as soon as he found pity in himself instead of Rage - essentially rejecting the godly side of himself (oh yeah, I forgot to mention. His mom is a goddess) and embracing his mortality. 

because gods don’t have to deal with death, they can Rage all they want, remember?

Also, if he never dies, he can’t be reunited with Patroclus. 

OTP OTP OTP

You could probably write an essay about how Achilles died as soon as Patroclus did.

Honestly Boring Historical Context (That might be interesting if you’re a nerd like me?

The poem was basically historical fantasy even when it was first written. There are gods and super strength and shit

Greek History Over-Simplified: The Mycanaean Period was prosperous but ended suddenly. The Dark Ages of Greece followed, and we don’t know much about what happened during that because they forgot the written word was a thin. 

The events of the poem probably take place during the Mycanaean Period because they use bronze weapons. 

But warfare is described from more of a Dark Ages perspective. Like, they don’t use chariots the right way

Which suggests that chariots were part of the source material, then the Dark Ages made people forget how they were supposed to be sued, so the bards just kinda made shit up to explain their presence. (Don’t quote me on that tho)

The Oral Tradition of the poem means that this story was told thousands of times over hundreds (thousands?) of years. So the narrative is hones at shit.

it has the sculpted body of an Olympic athlete. Each muscle toned to do a specific job and everything works perfectly together to accomplish the sporty feat of interest. Every verse is packed with character, setting, plot, and cultural significance

Except for that Catologue of Ships shit. Boooo boring ships.

There were probably lots of other versions of the poem, but Homer told it best. His version was written down as soon as the written word was (re)invented

Side Note that wasn’t in Lombardo’s Intro

The Iliad and Odyssey are both parts of a larger body of work known as the Epic Cycle 

(The Aeneid is basically Caesar Augustus-insert fanfiction at that, btw. Virgil was a satirical fanboy and I’m living for it.)

Characters and events are introduced with the assumptions that the reader already knows their importance

But we only have fragments of the rest of the Cycle today because it was either never written down or the manuscripts were lost

I’m looking at you, Burned Library of Alexandria

*sad fiddle music plays in the background

Videos That I Learned Shit From (Only, like, the first two links are relevant to the topic at hand, btw)

Basic Plot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faSrRHw6eZ8

More about the Epic Cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bn0eKt4Rw 

Iphigenia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFsKCrH3GM 

Oresteia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kpGhivh05k             

The Odyssey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3rHQ70Pag&index=4&list=PLDb22nlVXGgfwG1qbOtNgu897E_ky_8To (Also, this story is my favorite of the Epic Cycle)

The Aeneid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRruBVFXjnY&list=PLDb22nlVXGgfwG1qbOtNgu897E_ky_8To&index=5  

Ancient Greek History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzGVpkYiJ9w&index=2&list=PLDb22nlVXGgexsbafIwirG6Tk9uww9dSW    

And, yeah, these videos are all from the same channel. I’m a basic bitch and a ho for not leaving my comfort zone. Fite me. 

Honestly, if anyone has other sources, let me know. Youtube history/video essays are my shit.

I hope this was helpful.

[abitscripturient]

March

1. What games did your character play as a child?

Dress Up, Singing in a microphone, Barbies, riding bikes, pretend with makeup

2. What does your character do for recreation?

Reading, cooking, scrapbooking, hanging with friends, having dinner parties

3. It's the first day of truly good weather that your character has seen this year. What does she do?

She grabs a good book and goes to a park to read it under a tree.

4. Your character is enjoying an outdoor activity away from civilization when a particularly bad storm hits. There are others with her, including children, and there is no man-made shelter nearby. What does she do?

She keeps them in the car to see if the storm lessens if it doesn’t she calls for help

5. A doctor tells your character that she has been fatally injured and that there is no hope for her. How does she handle the situation?

She would most likely cry and then ask to see all of her family before she goes.

6. Your character is alone in the middle of nowhere. A snake bites her, and she's pretty sure it's a poisonous one. What does she do?

Panic.

7. How does your character feel about growing old?

She is fine with getting old; she is just a bit concerned with how it would make her look.

8. How does your character feel about her own mortality?

She knows it can happen and hopes that it’s peaceful.

9. What sort of diet does your character eat? Is she a vegetarian? Does she like meat? Does she prefer fresh foods, restaurant meals or instant meals?

Aija eats all kinds of foods, but she loves eating food that is fresh and full of flavor. Because of that, she likes to make her own recipes at home to make sure it’s just to her liking.

10. What kind of physical condition is your character in?

She is physically fit. She believes a lady takes good care of her body.

11. How easily does your character get bored? How does she respond to boredom?

She doesn’t get bored that easily; she always tries to find something to do whether it’s at work or at home.

12. Write numbers down the side of a sheet of paper and list everything that is most important to your character, including abstract principles such as freedom, physical things such as her home, and emotional things such as her daughter. Go back and circle the things she'd be willing to fight or die for.

This question will always be skipped. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

13. What was your character's last nightmare?

Her mother left her because she wasn’t good enough to be her daughter.

14. What was your character's last pleasant dream?

A marriage to Hikaru with a beautiful wedding.

15. When your character daydreams, what does she dream about?

Either how cute Hikaru is or what do to do next on her agenda

16. What's the worst nightmare your character remembers ever having?

The thugs her mother got beat by throwing her mother off the patio

17. Does your character typically remember her dreams?

Yes, vividly

18. Does your character typically dream in color, or in black and white?

Color

19. What, if any, chronic medical conditions does your character have, and how does she handle and treat them?

She has a bit of PTSD. Enough to affect her dreams.

20. Your character gets up one morning in the usual fashion, but the sun never rises. What does she do?

Tries to watch the news to see what’s going on.

21. What is the first thing your character does when she gets up in the morning?

Stretch

22. What is the last thing your character does before going to bed at night?

Before Hikaru, it was reading a book in bed. After him, it’s talking on the phone with him.

23. Whom does your character most love in all the world?

Hikaru, by a landslide.

24. What is your character's most traumatic memory?

Her mother being beaten up by thugs for drug money

25. What scars, birthmarks, tattoos, or other identifying marks does your character have?

A small rose tattoo on her left ankle

26. How would your character's parents describe her?

Derrick in the early days would say Aija was a persistent child, always trying to get what she wanted. Now it’s a woman who is respectful of herself and others.

27. What is your character's relationship with her family like?

Aija doesn’t really know her real family, but she loves her adopted family so much. Especially her aunt Evelyn.

 28. Who is your character's worst enemy?

Ryutaro

29. Who is your character's best friend?

It was Nakiah at first but as their relationship dwindled, Shae became her new bestie.

30. What one person does your character most wish she didn't have to put up with, but feels she has to?

Ryutaro

31. If your character developed a handicap or debilitating illness, how would she handle it?

She would think it was bad…but it wouldn’t stop her from living life to the fullest.

365 Mar:  Honorée | Seren | Amila | Briseis | Phoenix  | Anouhea

[olympivnshq]

congratulations   tilda !  BRISEIS is one of those hit-or-miss characters. there is so little we know about her, so there’s plenty of room for development. on the other hand, it’s very easy to simplify her story and make her a mere footnote in the story of the trojan war. you, however, gave us a wonderfully complex woman who definitely will not stand in the shadows of men. your briseis is kind, stubborn, raw, and refined — she is very real and human, and we are absolutely delighted to accept you with your first faceclaim choice: MEDALION RAHIMI.

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ  OOC INFO.

tilda, 25, she/her, GMT.. u know the drill.

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ  DEITY  —  GENDER. AGE RANGE.

BRISEIS — FEMALE , 21-25

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ MORTAL NAME. JOB/OCCUPATION. BOROUGH/NEIGHBORHOOD.

BRIE MILLER —  librarian of nyc central library ( she also part time volunteers at homeless shelters, owns a cat named biscuits in her apartment in lower manhattan (the cat is NOT allowed in her apartment, but that’s not gonna stop her from keeping him).

☆ﾟ*・ﾟ FACE-CLAIM.

medalion rahimi, madeleine madden, aisha dee, sibylla deen,

☆ﾟ*・ HOW WOULD YOU PLAY THEM?

briseis had been born into ordinary circumstances on an ordinary day. there was no prophet, no omen, no sign that she’d outlive her full brothers nor would her arrival mean anything other than the fact that she’d make a natural wife, perhaps a mother, and finally a timid lover worthy of someone normal. a proud young girl who only ever wanted to live her life to the fullest, she was married off to mynes, a son of the king of lyrnessus - her brothers came with her, acting as soldiers and protectors to the city; though it was not their fault that their master’s took troy’s side in the war for helen; the most beautiful woman in all of greece. at first, the city had been hopeful of their victory as there was no sign of achilles, thus meaning that if they stood their ground all would be well. briseis, the wife and meek leader of women and children watched from the safety of a tower as she overlooked the progress of the war. yes, nothing of note was ever supposed to have happened to the girl who wasn’t spectacularly good looking, smart or charming. with an empty womb and a sense of hubris that would mark her for the rest of her life, briseis had to look on as her brothers were slain by the sudden appearance of achilles; she watched as they brought out her meek husband, executing him on the steps of the palace. for briseis thought this was to be her end and thus would mean nothing to the cornerstones of history ( and would certainly never appear in the stories of the great homer ).

the city sacked, fallen to the greeks with the help of the all-mighty achilles, briseis was presented as his war prize and had to battle with her sense of pride to not have her head ripped from her tender neck. she walked hand-in-hand with the friends she had made in lyrnessus and promised to keep them safe; though how can a war-torn slave make such cherished promises? she had been a fool to whisper them in the tents that were soaked in blood, fluids and shit.. yet still; briseis was one of the lucky ones - she was presented to achilles, the slayer of her brothers, her husband and other familiar faces. with one turn of the sun, she goes from queen to captive, lying in tents with women who were given as prizes to the famous heroes who fought for helen - a woman whom briseis had met as a young girl, many moons ago. but the story is well-known and many see briseis as a footnote in the tale of achilles, alongside his partner patroclus. she was a proud woman and did anything to not fall humble to the normal life of a slave woman, she was desperate to live a life belonging to someone who wasn’t a slave of warfare - and though achilles may have killed her family he still lead her to believe that she was wanted, or in some kind of way, needed. to her, achilles and patroclus were two different sides of the same coin. patroclus was a soul briseis could adore, to explore her own sensuality with. whilst the other played a game of tug and war; briseis wondering if she was coming or going when face to face with achilles himself. though she ultimately fell for the pair of them in different ways, you could say that she was forced to do so - after all, the key to her survival was the pair of them. being linked to the two great warriors meant that they couldn’t throw her to the side, and so to love and cherish became a survival technique that several captive women would adopt to sleep beneath the stars during troy’s siege. before the war, she may have been proud but the war itself shaped briseis into a meaningful, strong and intelligent woman. her true self was created; it is this strength that kept her afloat when her memories came surging back.

for before the memories of her past came back to life, briseis was blissfully unaware of whom she actually was. she lived the life of brie miller, a librarian at new york central library where she spent many an hour sorting out the books or going through digital archives for her mentors. she helped present lessons for incoming students and took the train back home, to an apartment she shared with her dear cat whom she had named biscuits. her life in new york city was so different to the life spent in the dirt of troy that you can barely compare them but we must try. for brie miller was a softer folk, unburdened by the state of war or the tug on life. everything had been easy for her, a soft-upbringing by parents who loved her but lived in california, a house with white picket fences. yes, brie miller was living her perfectly normal and satisfactory life till the nightmares came. such nightmares poured into her mind like thunderbolts, the father of fathers and the king of kings waking the mortal from her slumber to flashing images of screams, fire, smoke and the clash of heavy armour. for a softened soul was quickly morphed into a woman tired from life itself, with a lost son who may or may not be a figment of her imagination. brie, the facade and simple version of a woman who was meant to live an ordinary life, couldn’t handle the visions and spent her holiday weeks stuck in her so-called parent’s house on the coast. but nothing could prepare her, nothing could soothe her head as she prayed to zeus for a release. let me forget, she pleaded - let me pretend.

but no one escaped zeus’ wavering hand, and so briseis was brought forward to the light unwillingly, her eyes squinting as if she awoke from a long and deep slumber. far away from the sandpit of troy and the coast in which she spent the longest time, briseis was forced to play the god’s game of make-believe. she went back to the city with a new perspective, though found it soothing to have a pet, hands reaching out to embrace the cat who soon became a companion to a woman who had always felt so alone. even with the love of achilles and patroclus, briseis was doomed to never love as the poets describe, even if she begged for it. for now, a new question arrives. when in troy her love for the warriors was bred within the pits of submission and survival, but now? briseis, or brie, had a certain amount of independence that one couldn’t have imagined when held as captive and slave in one turn. would her love till reign free? can briseis whip up a new life or will she still live beneath the shadow of her male ‘owners’? for she never slept alone, and how can she face to return to a one-bedroom apartment with only a cat for a companion? she straddles the line of a girl who saw history and a girl who has seen nothing. only exploring the world can answer questions only she herself can ask.

1. are they more likely to stand with the pantheon or against it?  ( if you are choosing a god they may endeavour to dismantle it for whatever reason )

as neither god or impressive mortal, briseis is a god-fearing human and wouldn’t think of standing against it in public nor behind closed doors. within the sandpits of greece briseis would openly pray and keep sacrifices, she’d even offer gifts to achilles’ mother who nurtures a power of her own. though in this new land, this grey landscape with long-tall towers, briseis isn’t sure what the god’s purpose is. it seems the mortals have got along just fine without the gods’ interaction.

2. what is their stand on mortals?

a mortal herself, she likes them though has a sour note on everyone due to the lack of happiness that followed her throughout her life. she sees mortals as scheming as the gods, and trusts next to no one, she even doubts patroclus whom she had grown to adore with such pure affection.

☆ﾟ*・ GIVE US A SAMPLE OF YOUR WRITING!

REPLYING TO THIS.

there were few similarities between ancient greece and twenty-first century new york city. briseis, once awoken from a dream where everything was black or white, struggled to find roots to cling onto. to find something of solid form to soothe her raging mind. the waves of her thoughts crash against the crumbling walls of her sanity, fingers running against brickwork that seemed hidden between artificial grass and the squelch of mud beneath a travelling visitor to the city. in her dream, in the world in which she was known simply as brie miller the librarian, she had walked the same path and felt nothing but ease within the city.

but in that moment, whilst trying to breathe in the polluted air of the concrete jungles, the only thing she could hold onto was the dull chirp of a bird stuck within the land it had been born into. for a bird who sung such softness should’ve been living within the confines of its ancestors - a far cry away from the city that choked its small throat. briseis, who longed to find something in which comfort flowed, found a companion in the soft chirp of the bird and it’s song. between america and greece lay few similarities that was right, but at least she found one in the form of nature. in the screech of the wind, in the small flecks of early snowfall and finally, in the song of the very bird briseis came to fall for.

so entranced she was, briseis almost misses the shrill bark of a mother lost and the soft weight of a child who could barely carry her own skeleton. the mortals were odd folk, for in the land of greece children would run freely with scars and bruises as evidence to their bawdy nature and longevity. briseis, of such proud temperament, takes a step backwards and muffles a gasp once her eyes are set upon her. there are two things that tear her mind in two - for the ache of a child was something that always made her feel inadequate or lost beyond comprehension. secondly, to see anyone from her past glory was a shock - to see clytemnestra whom she had heard within the river of hades’ eye had her entire body ache. for wasn’t she the woman who carved the king agamemnon’s head in two? with her throat tight, choking briseis of any air, she stumbles forward and tries her best to make balance against the city’s humble park. “i am…” though the words do not part between lips, for her pride stops her from whispering such an apology worthy of a protective mother.

“your child is a fast one, she would make a good athlete… wouldn’t she?”

☆ﾟ*・ ANYTHING ELSE?

i’m fine with it all being posted!

[moviegroovies]

oof. in the last few days, i’ve watched five (5) new movies, at least three of which i have opinions on i’d like to share. for convenience’s sake, i’m going to start with the most recent, and work back from there. 

so: troy (2004) 

as someone who was coerced into studying the iliad at a liberal arts college, this movie enraged me. as someone who likes to enjoy himself while watching movies, this movie horrified me. all around, i’m going to rate it a solid 3/10, and that might be generous, but there WERE a few things i liked, which i’m going to talk about, because what else do i do here, anyway.

i’m not even going to get into all the ways this was an unfaithful adaptation of the source material, because there just is not the fucking time, and i’m sure other people before me have done it, so let’s just say that the moment they cast brad pitt as achilles, all hope was lost. i will comment that they of course no-homo’d achilles and patroclus, but had i gone in expecting to see any representation in this movie, i would have been an even bigger masochist than i am. that does not mean i wasn’t still a little disappointed, though.

troy takes into account much more than the actual span of the iliad, beginning (long) before the start of the epic and ending after it finished. in this way, we see the full span of the story, which i suppose is a good thing, although it did stretch this painfully milquetoast adaptation into an agonizing three hours. we see everything from agamemnon’s quest to unite all the kingdoms of greece together underneath his rule to the sacking of troy, meaning we also get to see paris seducing helen, achilles’ death, and the sacking of troy with the trojan horse, all of which the iliad does not include. being that the actual content of the iliad isn’t quite so battle-focused as the general public might think, these things are all probably good for the telling of an actual story. i can forgive most of the changes to the story that we did see, because i think that, given that you don’t know the source material, it makes for a cohesive and satisfying narrative, all in all. menelaus’s character being changed to make helen’s choice to leave with paris more sympathetic made the choice to have hector kill him a cathartic one. even better was briseis getting to take her revenge on agamemnon for his treatment toward her and, more generally, the fact that he was the one who brought war and soldiers to her front door. sure, that totally ruins the play orestes, but that was never going to be the sequel we were waiting for, anyway. 

side note, i think of the actors, agamemnon (played by brain cox) was the best. he just had a really good love-to-hate-him thing going, and played up his part pretty excellently. orlando bloom also felt like a good choice for paris (i would for sure leave menelaus for him, for instance), and vincent regan as eudoros was sort of a dark horse in the cast for me; i’d never heard of him before, and his character was small, but there was something striking about him. maybe it was just his eyes. 

in the movie, the siege of troy went from spanning ten years to like... maybe a couple of weeks? that was the one change from the source material that i really couldn’t abide, but What Ever I Guess. if they had just begun in the 9th year of the siege, it might have made the casting of then 40 year old brad pitt as achilles make a little more sense. as it stands.... whatever. sure. do whatever the fuck you want. i can’t stop you. 

generally, i like brad pitt in things (one of the other movies of the five that i watched, for instance, was se7en, although i don’t really have any particular comments on that other than, it was good, i liked it, i probably won’t choose to watch it again just on a whim), but i really could not get behind this particular performance. it had some of the same problems as him at the start of interview with the vampire; i think he kind of warmed to the role with that one, but the scene with him as a dissociating human felt... off, in terms of acting, but maybe that’s just me. either way, i’m not sure he ever really warmed to being achilles. 

and that sucked, because achilles could have been such a good character. 

obviously my personal bias is being taken into account here (yes, i read TSoA, yes i am letting it influence my perception of the dude), but if troy’s achilles had been prepared to put the raw emotion latent in the iliad’s achilles into the role, i think the character would have hit harder than he did. i personally didn’t love the expanded romance with briseis that they shoved in, but there was potential to see some tenderness there, and that could have been played up more, especially since she acted as the catalyst, here, for achilles to consider accepting the happy but unremarkable life he could have lived, instead of dying for glory in troy. failing that, i think patroclus’ role should have been more pronounced, and i’m not even saying that as a proponent of the patroclus/achilles relationship; even if they kept the two of them as cousins as they did in this setting, i think we needed to see a lot more interactions than the ones we did (although there was a fair amount, and given how long the movie turned out, i understand why it wasn’t fleshed out better) to really justify how hard achilles took the death of patroclus. there WERE some times that achilles got to exhibit emotions other than like emotionally stunted badass soldier either brooding or being pissed off--and that’s one of the highlights of the film, i’ll get back to that in a second--but the emotional climax between achilles and hector didn’t live up to my expectations. for one thing, in that scene in the poem, achilles didn’t just fight hector in retribution for the death of patroclus. he fought EVERYONE, up to and including hector, and more than that, a fucking RIVER DEITY. it was wild, unabashed grief that made him do horrible things. i would have personally loved to see an unhinged rampage, and instead, it got boiled down to one single fight between achilles and hector that lasted, i think, far longer than it should have. achilles was more powerful than hector, no matter how good hector was. i think it might have been more to my taste, at least, if we were shown that achilles had the strength to kill hector in a second, hardly taking him on to fight, and simply hadn’t before this because he was never given a reason to. 

all i’m saying is, movies are more interesting when characters are allowed to fully break, fully snap, just go buck fucking wild. but that’s just my onion.

i said i was going to come back to the “more emotions than emotional constipation” thing, and let’s do that now. one thing i DID like about the choices made in this film was that achilles was allowed to cry on screen, and he did, several times. i don’t know how to express how refreshing it was to see the archetypal badass soldier, the best of the greeks, break down into tears, especially when you consider how few movies really show men crying, much less movies of this particular genre. it’s kind of one of those “don’t give them props for scraping the bottom of the barrel” things, but i liked it, and since there were so few things i really did like about this movie, i’m going to give them props there. not just that, either--i also liked the way that paris could not face his death in his fight with menelaus, and crawled, terrified, back to his older brother. i liked that, while he degraded himself for the act later, the narrative and other characters never treated this like the wrong decision. sometimes, it’s impossible or incorrect to be noble at the price of yourself, especially in something like the fight over the hand of a woman who made her decision on where to go. paris did not win the fight, but he had a brother who loved him, and menelaus couldn’t understand that. and he died.

interestingly enough, paris also loses that fight in the epic, but rather than going to hector for protection, he’s whisked away by aphrodite before he can be killed. this was changed, naturally, because at no point in troy do the gods, who play by all accounts very important parts in the trojan war as told by the iliad, actually appear in the movie. they’re discussed throughout, and achilles’ mother, a goddess in the epic, appears to speak to him before he leaves for war, but it’s never affirmed whether or not she is divine, whether apollo is truly taking revenge for achilles’ desecration of his temple, whether godhood can be trusted or not. this is a theme that’s discussed and subverted many times, bringing in a type of ancient agnosticism to both the characters of achilles and hector, but ultimately it’s left unsolved. since they went the route of not being including the gods as characters, i’m happy with that conclusion. one of the more powerful bits of screentime between achilles and briseis was when he confided that he believed the gods were jealous of humans for their mortality, so ultimately, it was fitting that this story was told about the humans and the heroes, a celebration and examination of humanity, rather than throwing in divine intervention and cheapening the plot. 

there was a theme of love in the movie which i liked pretty well, especially for the fact that it wasn’t focused entirely on romantic love. the war began because helen ran back with paris, but not really: agamemnon was itching for a war anyway, and was happy to use his brother’s missing wife as a reason to begin the fight with troy he had been craving. menelaus clearly had no problem being cruel and unfaithful to helen, so her leaving him is not framed as a slutty and frivolous choice as it has been in other media. she goes off with someone willing to give away everything (up to and including his family and his palace) for her, and it’s honestly hard to blame her for that. plus, the war could have also been averted by hector turning around the ship and returning helen to her husband, which he very nearly does, except that if he did, he knows paris will try to fight menelaus for her and die, and he cannot bear the death of his brother. therefore, the war begins with two sets of brothers and two sets of lovers: helen chooses paris because he genuinely loves her, hector allows it because he loves his brother, and agamemnon profits off his brother’s loss because he loves nothing more than power, and the loss is a chance for that. achilles nearly costs agamemnon the war because he’s ready to leave and live his full life thanks to the love of briseis, until his love of patroclus and his grief at his death take that option away. priam gets a speech toward the beginning about there being worse reasons to fight a war than for love. i think this is honestly kind of simplistic and missing the point of what war is in general, but it was a nice scene to play into the theme.

outside of that, other things i enjoyed were odysseus’s narration book-ending the action, because he’s my favorite character of homer’s, if not in troy (i honestly don’t like sean penn in the role, but that’s my own personal cross to bear), the scene around patroclus’ death where eudoros looks on in horror when he thinks it’s achilles and then gives a visible sigh of relief, even as it’s mixed with the horror of patroclus’ death when the helmet is removed and he sees it’s not, the part where agamemnon looks on at patroclus’ funeral and comments how “that boy just won [him] the war,” which was such an asshole thing to say but also honestly what i was thinking, and that one little scene with paris giving the sword of troy to aeneas as a fun little shoutout to the aeneid. i could go into other things i DIDN’T like, but after watching that movie for three fucking hours, i think i’ve put enough time into that as it is. 

coming soon: pointless commentary on the first back to the future and fright night (1985)! get hype!!!