Talk:Patroclus

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Military history: Biography / Classical C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grenadine13 (article contribs).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjdgzd. Peer reviewers: Eewaggoner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"After retrieving his body, which had been protected on the field by Odysseus and Ajax (Telamonian Aias)..."

Wait, what? Isn't it Menelaus and Ajax? Odysseus was still injured and didn't take part in that battle. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I changed it and added a reference. Lophostrix (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Greek heroes had attained a level of divinity which set them apart from ordinary mortals - even though the Greeks saw them also as historical personages. I am sure that you are aware that at times these heroes, formally known as "divine heroes" were even referred to as "gods" in a casual use of the word. Since to us they are even less historical then they were to the Greeks, what would you call them if not deities (a term which encompasses supernatural personages of ranks below that of the gods)?! Haiduc 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "deity" is a significantly wider concept than "god". There certainly isn't a meaningful distinction here. (I'd also be interested to see an example of a hero — besides figures like Heracles and Asclepius, who were actually considered as both heroes and gods — being described as θεός.)

As for the specifics of the Greek divine heroes, I think that incorporating them into the term "deity" muddies the waters unnecessarily. Although heroes were widely worshipped in hero cults, there's still a distinction drawn between heroes and gods, both in ancient writings (Homer) and contemporary scholarship (for example, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which says in its hero-cult entry, "Heroes... were a class of beings worshipped by the Greeks, generally conceived of as the powerful dead, and often forming a class intermediate between gods and men"). I think that incorporating gods and heroes into a single category of "deities" isn't really very useful for Wikipedia's purposes. If, as seems to be the case, the scholars regard gods and heroes as different categories, we should do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point here - I have modified the name of the category to accomodate this understanding of the definitions. Haiduc 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is right? According to the movie "troy" Patroclus was Achilles cousin and not his friend, and that Patroclus was younger than Achilles. So I'm wondering about what is the correct information about Patroclus?.(Bader=21:47 , 9/4/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.179.101 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good advice to ignore everything in the Troy movie. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user added the redlinked word "therapon" to the introduction. I wasn't familiar with this word in English, and I couldn't find it in an English-language dictionary, the Oxford Classical Dictionary or even in Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. I eventually found it in a Homeric lexicon (meaning "squire", roughly). It's apparently also used in koine to mean "servant" or "attendant" (so used in the New Testament, in the letter to the Hebrews), but I'm not familiar with the word's meaning in a Homeric or classical sense. I assume it's derived from ϑέρὰπεία ("service, attendance, medical treatment or cure"). Is this a term that should be recognized? I don't think that a casual reader should have to hunt for the meaning as I did. If it's not a widely known word, and the link remains red, it's not very helpful to have it in the description of Patroclus. Anyone object to removal? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of "therapon" from the article, but it may be interesting to know a bit more about the significance of the word: it seems to derive from an Anatolian word that meant "ritual substitute". By calling Patroklos the therapon of Achilles, the Iliad indicates that Patroklos' death is a substitute for Achilles' death, and a foreshadowing of it. A good place to look for the significance of the word is Ch. 2, section 8 of Gregory Nagy's The Best of the Achaeans, conveniently placed online by the Johns Hopkins University Press.

This is a bit specialized for a general encyclopedic article, however. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah, I got your message. Yes, therapon means "ritual substitute". I actually like including specifics in the encyclopedia - I think that's what's exciting about Wikipedia, that with continual updating you can (theorhetically) find information that is always up to date or being improved. Anyway, no biggie. 131.194.232.14 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)131.194.232.14[reply]

Thanks to both of you. I think that if a therapon article is created, we can mention it here, or we can add a bit to the article about Homer's use of the word and its applicability to Patroclus. I was just worried about the addition of the word without any context or explanation readily available to the lay reader. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the name of the article be Patroklos? It's the direct transliteration of the Greek spelling. 70.128.46.25 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Menoetius was a member of the Argonauts in his youth. He had several marriages, and in different versions of the tale four different women are named as the mother of Patroclus."

What are the sources for the different versions?

2. "The death of Achilles is given in sources other than the Iliad."

What are these sources then?

ICE77 (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well? The sources are this site and related ones! Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Well, the vowels are kind of important. The root of Patroclus is pater, "father", while Peter is petros, a rock. I suppose you could say the meaning of "Patroclus" ("glory of the father") could be a way to describe Jesus, but otherwise, what are the similarities? Sticking -cles (or -clus) on the end of a noun was a common way of forming names in Greek (Heracles, Androcles, Megacles, and so on). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the "Missing sources" section above, dating to 2011, to start, to understand that the perspective I am about to state is not new, and not singular or isolated. I merely extend the examination that this previous editor did, to the whole of the article.

I will begin with my conclusion, and then justify it: The article is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, in its flouting the stated WP rules regarding sourcing and original research by editors. The article is a student essay (and poor for want of sourcing), with only sporadically appearing citations to primary sources, often vague at that. Most sentences and paragraphs have in fact no sources cited, despite their non-common knowledge content (most of article). On the few occasions that a citation appears, only primary sources are cited, and incompletely, and without standard links as can be offered to classical sources (most of remainder of article). There is a single exception, to the book of Martin; hence, a single quality secondary source appears in the whole of the article, as of this date.

Finally, in addition to its failure to allow for the verification of its factual content, the article repeated states interpretive conclusions regarding historical events, stating matters as fact without the required expert attribution (secondary sources), and so disconnects this article from published expert opinion, making it a mere pose of encyclopedic writing. In short, in its reliance on unsourced material or primary sources, and so on editor expertise, the the article is near to unverifiable, and almost entirely original research, in violation of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction tag added, as best available (though not exactly needed) message, to call attention to the fact that the article fails, in its choice of language at times, to properly distinguish between history and mythology. Note, with regard to Patroclus and Achilles, the (historically presented) description of their being sent of to grow up among the centaurs. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patroclus is a mythological character. It should be understood that every biographical statement in this article pertains to the legends surrounding the character as delineated in the Iliad, not as an historical personage. As such, I find it rather a nuisance to see all the big boxes complaining about the article. In addition, the frequent "non-primary source needed" notes also seem ill-placed considering that nigh everything that has ever been written about Patroclus is derived from the Iliad, a primary source as it were. Complaining that the article is derived from a single source seems rather pointless considering that there is only one source (besides the occasional and mostly insignificant references to him in other works of antiquity, as well as the Odyssey); it seems no different than whining that everything that is known about Chandler Bing is derived from a single source: Friends, who doesn't exist outside of that universe. Likewise, Patroclus exists only within the universe of the Homeric epics: any secondary/tertiary sources would invariably be interpretations of that one source. In my mind it is pointless to insist on something more. Philologick (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to focus on this article, specifically Patroclus' relationship with Achilles, for a class I am currently taking. I have compiled a few possible references. Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

Ledbetter, Grace M.. “Achilles' Self-address: Iliad 16.7-19”. The American Journal of Philology 114.4 (1993): 481–491. Percy, William Armstrong. “Reconsiderations About Greek Homosexualities.” Journal of Homosexuality 49.3-4 (2005): 13-61. Rabel, Robert J. “Cebriones the Diver: Iliad 16.733-76.” The American Journal of Philology 114.3 (1993): 339-41. Dowden, Ken. The Uses of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Jjdgzd (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After making some additions to the page (including clarifying information and updating proper citations), I also corrected both Patroklos' and Achilleus' names to the spelling used by Homer in the Iliad. However, I am unable to figure out how to change the title to the correct spelling.

Jjdgzd (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The spellings "Patroclus" and "Achilles" are the most common spellings and are used throughout Wikipedia. Please stop changing them. Paul August ☎ 01:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I'm a student editor working on Achilles and Patroclus for a class assignment. I'll be editing the Relationship with Achilles section here for continuity across both articles. I'll likely edit down and move over any information that is specifically related to their relationship, as that is the purpose of the Achilles and Patroclus page! Grenadine13 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cherryfly (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cherryfly (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I'm working on a project about adding references to mythological Wikipedia pages-- I've included four so far. Please feel free to edit or delete if they don't seem necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryfly (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No ancient source says that Patroclus disguised himself as Achilles, everyone, including Hector (according to Homer's Illiad) knew it was him wearing Achilles' armor. I challenge anyone to find an ancient source saying he disguised himself as Achilles. I changed this in the text (and explained why I did it), but User:Golikom reverted it without giving any explanation. I doubt he checked this information, and just followed the (wrong) common sense on the subject. --Fábio Aquiles (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone knows. Agamemnon certainly doesn't. Hector only knows because Apollo tells him. Patroclus is clearly disguised even if the Iliad doesn't explicitly use the word. I guess we couldgo with "impersonating Achilles" as a compromise, but visual impersonation requires a disguise, so it's not really necessary Golikom (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some edit warring, over the addition of the phrase "possible love" to this sentence in the lead: "There, he was raised alongside Peleus' son, Achilles, a childhood friend, who became a close wartime companion." I would like to see a discussion on this possible addition here. As ever, the criteria for adding it or leaving it out of the lead ought to be whether or not this would more accurately reflect the body of the article, specifically the section "Relationship with Achilles". Please discuss. Paul August ☎ 13:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Patroclus was Achilles' "possible lover" certainly seems true, consistent with the sourced statements in the section on their relationship, and is a reasonably significant fact concerning Patroclus. Can anyone please give arguments or point to previous discussion where this has been discussed. If not then I'm inclined to add this (or something like this) back to the lead (@Favonian:?). Paul August ☎ 14:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored "possible lover" to the lead. If any one objects, please discuss here. I'm open to discuss other wording. Paul August ☎ 11:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This interpretation does not seem so correct to me. Achilles felt guilty for the death of Patroclus and had to avenge his honor. I consider the argument for the desire to mix bones to be brotherly, because it says we grew up together and Peleus made Patroclus Achilles' companion. Achilles performed the burial of Patroclus and when Patroclus' bones were burned, Achilles' grief is described as the grief of a father.46.198.248.149 (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Achiles' grief could be well explained by platonic love alone. But that's not the issue here. We have here an article with a large section titled "Relationship with Achilles". The issue is here is how best to make the lead reflect that section (see WP:LEAD). Paul August ☎ 14:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the original Epic Greek Poem by Homer, there is no real debate about it. Patroclus and Achillies are NOT gay lovers and this is not so much as even hinted at in the original story. There is nothing alluding to this and anyone arguing otherwise has clearly never read The Illiad. For reference I've read the Robert Fagles and Caroline Alexander translations of the story. They are actually cousins, but treat each other as sort of brothers, and this is very evident from the way they treat each other in the text. I will remove this "possible lovers" section from the heading paragraph because it misleads the reader into thinking this was part of the original story when it wasnt.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Robert Fagles' introduction to his 1990 translation of The Illiad, he calls Patroclus a great friend of Achillies and on page 53 writes: "Clearly what he [Achillies] really wishes for is a world containing nothing but himself and his own glory, for Patroclus. whom he now sends out in his own armor, he regards as a part of himself. This solipsistic dream of glory-"everybody dead but us two," as a scandalized ancient commentator summarized it-so offended the great Alexandrian scholar Zenodotus that he condemned the lines as the work of an interpolator who wished to inject into the Iliad the later Greek idea (for which the text gives no warrant) that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers."

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Fagles says is correct, as far as it goes. However, as our article states:

Although there is no explicit sexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in the Homeric tradition, a few later Greek authors wrote about what they saw as implied in the text regarding their relationship. Aeschylus and Phaedrus, for example, state there was a clear relationship between them. Aeschylus refers to Achilles as the erastes, while Phaedrus refers to Achilles as the eromenos of the relationship.^[1][2] Morales and Mariscal state, "There is a polemical tradition concerning the nature of the relationship between the two heroes."^[2]

Paul August ☎ 16:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My specific contention is that the first sentence of the article is that Patroclus "was a Greek hero of the Trojan War and close companion and possible lover to the hero Achilles. Patroclus is an important character in Homer's Iliad."

It makes it seem as if he is a definite gay lover of Achillies in the original story and this is misleading to readers who are unfamiliar with the source material. I've never come across any serious source on this material suggest otherwise either. The "and possible lovers" should be removed. What you are references should be in the specific section about his relationship with Achillies.

Friedbyrd (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article saying that he was a "possible lover" of Achilles makes it seem to you that the article is saying that it is "definite" that he was.

In any case, the lede is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so given the amount of text in the article devoted to the possibility of a sexual relationship, whether implicitly in the Homeric tradition, or explicitly in other traditions, there needs to be something about this in the lede. However perhaps it should not be in the first sentence of the lede, and perhaps should include the clarification that there is no explicit sexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in the Homeric tradition. Paul August ☎ 22:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, remove "possible lovers" from the intro paragraph entirely and discuss all of this in the "relationship with Achillies" section. For someone completely unfamiliar with The Iliad, it seems like its implying that Homer made these characters as possible lovers when all the scholars are sort of unanimous in saying this isnt the case. I think it causes too much confusion.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If, by remove "possible lovers" from the intro paragraph entirely and discuss all of this in the "relationship with Achillies" section, you mean that we should remove the information from the lead altogether, I don't think Paul was suggesting we do that. Even if "all the scholars are sort of unanimous", it's quite relevant that later ancient authors interpreted their relationship in this way. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right Paul August ☎ 23:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't suggest he was a "definite" lover of Achilles, as it uses the word "possible". But sure, I understand your concern that the reader could come away with the impression that this information was explicitly present in the Iliad. My preference would be to omit "possible lover" from the lead's first sentence, and add a sentence there along the lines of this statement in Brill's New Pauly: Although there is nowhere in the Iliad any explicit reference to homosexuality, despite their close friendship [...], their relationship was later interpreted in that sense (this is largely the same as the sentence at the top of the "Relationship with Achilles" section). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this hasn't elicited any opposition, I've gone ahead and made this change. Happy to discuss if others disagree. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a definite improvement. I do think, however, that it would be better to start the sentence with "Although" as does BNP, which makes the sentence less surprising. Also I'm not sure the "at any point" is needed. Paul August ☎ 13:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yep: not my finest phrasing. Those are of course both improvements. Done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Paul August ☎ 02:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best possible change. I would change it to say "some ancient authors" instead though. Friedbyrd (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've used "often", which I think might be most accurate. Reading a few sources on the matter, the interpretation as lovers seems to have been the majority viewpoint (or at least a really quite common one) among later ancient authors. (See, for example, Morales and Mariscal's "The Relationship between Achilles and Patroclus according to Chariton of Aphrodisias": This uncertainty brought about the controversy, but the view that they were lovers prevailed. Or Fantuzzi's Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies: Classical reworkings of their story, which at least from Aeschylus' Myrmidons onwards widely presupposed an erotic dimension, led classical and post-classical Greeks to project this erotic bond back through time into Homeric poetry. Or Warwick's "We Two Alone: Conjugal Bonds and Homoerotic Subtext in the Iliad": Beginning with Aeschylus in the early fifth century BCE, Achilles and Patroclus were frequently depicted as lovers in ancient Greek literature.) The use of "often" makes clear that this interpretation was common, while avoiding the implication of unanimity (which I think was your concern). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Paul August ☎ 02:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]