Classics Chronicles

Welcome to the Classics Chronicles!!

If you’re reading this it’s probably because you’ve an interest in the acient world, or you’ve stumbled upon this by accident (in which case please do stay a while!).

I study Classics at university and love to yap about it in my free time, and so I created this blog as a space to share all the cool things I find out in the hopes that someone else finds them equally as cool :).

I will try to add a new post every weekend but sometimes they may be a bit more sporadic or a bit more frequent depending on my workload.

If anyone wants to get in touch with me feel free to message me or drop me an email at [email protected]

Hope everyone enjoys!!

I don’t even know how to start this because since my last entry I have managed to complete another year at university, become unforgivably more pretentious, and also more sleep deprived than I thought humanly possible. I hope you’ve all been well though!

In all honesty I had no intention of posting this today, but recently I wrote a review of one of my absolute favourite transitions/ iterations of the Iliad (more specifically the Patrocleia) and I thought it might be worth sharing if it encourages any of you to read it. It is the translation by Christopher Logue and it is visceral and raw and erotic in all the ways I think Homer meant it to be. Seriously, I cannot recommend reading it strongly enough.

“War Music- Christopher Logue

Patrocleia

There are many reasons I regard this translation of Homer’s Iliad, more specifically the excerpt of the Patrocleia, to be one of my favourite. When I purchased this book (translations of B16-19) the young lady who sold it to me had read Classics at Oxford and RHUL and, it being the day before my first Greek midterm exam, was trying to boost my morale. Before reading this translation the only thing I knew of Logue (courtesy of the book-seller) was that he had authored many pornographic novels- a writing style that is echoed subtly and seamlessly in this translation.

The idea of him being an erotic author contributes heavily to the- still ongoing- debate over whether Homer sought to glorify war or demonstrate its horrors. Although modern scholarship frequently debated over this, it seems to me that whatever the correct answer Homer deliberately writes his heroes in a way that shows them as lustful for war. Perhaps then there is no better author than Logue to write this.

I want to dispel any such notions or retaliation that for Logue to write about war in such a lustful way suggests that Homer sought to glorify it. I think the fact that we have this argument at all is due, mostly, to the linguistic choices of individual translators. Before discussing Logues own context and choices further I would like firstly to explore his translation with the only preconception before reading (that of his previous erotic works).

Constantly Logue is deliberation and tender with his words- referring constantly to each half of our famed duo as ‘love’ and ‘darling’. He writes about conflict with a fluidity that can only be born of intimacy. Whether that is his intimacy with the text or his perceived intimacy between characters is to be discussed.

There are certain word choices that stood out to me as immediately erotic and seductive- ‘pink smoke’, ‘lolling tongues’, ‘begging’- the list goes on and in truth I think it is different for each reader. However, the clear lust for blood and war describes in such a way gives way to the aforementioned moral argument- is this Homer’s pacifism or bloodlust?

I think, though it might come as a disappointment, we really cannot say. But that is the beauty of this translation. Undoubtedly the erotic undertones illustrate a desire in the loins of men for war and sweat and the sickly sweet saccharine of blood and hormones- intoxicating in the Trojan heat. But there is a tenderness and aching for brotherhood and companionship and a clear warning against lust and intoxication that shows war as only the harbinger of an eternal death.

In demonstrating the deliberate nature of this choice, there are two lines in particular that stand out to me and the way that they contrast with the first translation I ever read (that of E.V. Rieu)— “And so he begged for death”, and “O love// I am so gutted with resentment that I ache”. Rieu translates these lines with far less gusto, not giving them the space to breathe on their own. He writes, “he was simple invoking his own own destiny and a dreadful death”, and “that really hurts me”.

Whilst Rieu’s translations are undoubtedly fantastic in their own right, it lacks the tender intimacy of two souls at war, faced with the inevitability of a separating death.

I said that I wanted to talk about whatI learnt about Logue and his own context after reading War Music. Logue himself was a pacifist and war stationed in Palestine before spending 16 months in a military prison. Is is then no wonder that he should write in such a a way, having a deeply profound understanding of the bloodlust, and indeed lust, of men in heat and war, but perhaps an even more profound understanding of the tenderness of the two-soul intimacy of war and the act of taking a life.

The other thing about Logue I find utterly fascinating was that he had no knowledge of Greek. Although, there is certainly room to argue that his translation (being pieced together from readings of other Classicists) does not understand Homer’s intentions. I, however, rather think it is the opposite. It shows that for Logue to be able to write such a vivid and tedner account, one that places the reader in a series of odds about the nature of war, shows that one does not need an understanding of Greek to have an understanding of Homer. Homer’s Iliad is profound and age-defying and is no less a diary of common humanity and universal feeling today than it was 3000 years ago.

I think therefore, that Logue’s translation is a testament to both his and Homer’s linguistic genius and understanding of war and grief and emotion.

Perhaps my new favourite translation.”

This was just one of my random mid afternoon ramblings and is completely unrefined, but I hope that my unfiltered thoughts might convince at least one person to read War Music. I would love to say see you next week, but lets be honest my track record of updating this thing at university has proven to be abysmal thus far. Instead I shall wish you all the best and see you the next time I randomly remember my password! Until then, all my love

~Z

Okay so it’s the Olympics. No brainier what I’m going to be talking about today!

Just before I get into it, I want it to be known that I do not support the way that France is running the Olympics this year. The modern-day Olympics are done in the name of cooperation and community building, it’s a chance for athletes to compete with each other in the things that they love and have dedicated their whole lives to becoming the best at. The fact that the French government won't allow French Hijabi athletes to compete with their hijabs on is foul and undermines the entire purpose of the games. Athletes like Australias’ Tina Rahimi (boxing featherweight division) prove that a headscarf does not get in the way of your performance or your ability to win. Also whilst I am so so so over the moon for the 8 Palestinian Athletes who are competing this year, please don’t forget than since October over 69 Palestinian Olympic Athletes have been killed, and that Russia Belarus, and South Africa have all been banned from competing at some point for acts of war and apartheid, and the same should absolutely go for Israel, and the fact that they are allowed to compete again undermines the point of the games. Last thing before I start, Waled has reached out asking for donations to help his family in Gaza , if anyone is able to donate then there is a link here https://buymeacoffee.com/waledps - whatever you feel you can give.

Honestly hate the way that the Olympics are being run this year. That being said, here is the history of the Ancient Olympics.

So, if the name ‘Olympics’ sounds vaguely familiar to you and you cannot figure out why, it is probably because it comes from the name “Olympia” (i.e. Mount Olympus, home of the Gods, center of Greek religion and civilisation). At its core, the Ancient Olympics were a religious festival, held on religious land for the purpose of honouring the Gods (namely Zeus). If you want to know why the Greeks tied physical fitness, religion, and worship so closely together I wrote a little something about it here.

When the games originally started, they took place inside the sanctuary of Zeus, on the same site as the sacred olive tree of Zeus. This tree is also what the victory wreaths were made from. The tree also served as the finishing line for the race that took place as well. Also just to note because there seems to be a lot of misconceptions around this, Mount Olympia and the sanctuary of Zeus and the first Olympic stadiums were not in Athens, ancient Greece existed outside of Athens and Sparta. The games were held in the city state of Elis, which had been conquered by the Eleans in the 13th century BC.

By the end of the 6th century BC there were at least four different sporting festivals- the Olympic Games, the Isthmian Games, the Pythian Games and the Nemean Games. However, the Olympics remained consistently the most famous. They were held (much like today) every four years. Cool fun fact, but we actually still have a record of the first Olympic champion- his name was Coroebus of Elis, he was a cook and he won in 776 BC.

At the first recorded game in 776 BC it seems that there was only one event- a foot race across the entire length of the track. More events were added in later decades- including more races, wrestling, a pentathlon, long jump, javelin amongst other things.

As demonstrated by Coroebus, at the start of the games, the people who competed were not specially trained athletes. However, by the 6th century BCE athletes would spend months training and win large sums of money at the preliminary Olympic Games (the only prize in the actual Olympics was the wreath from the tree of Zeus).

When Greece lost its independence to Rome the Olympic Games began to decline (around the 2nd century BC). The romans did not agree with the notion of the nude competition at these games and saw it as degrading.

After the games full decline, they were reinstated in 1896 and the first modern Olympic Games was held in Greece. Also I’ve seen a lot of people online ask why Greece is always first in the parade of nations and doesn’t stick to alphabetical order, this is actually to honour Greece as the birthplace of the Olympics, with the host country going last and the host country for the next Olympics going second to last.

I hope you all enjoyed learning about the Olympics and any events you tune in to- I’ll be watching the weightlifting, archery and boxing most likely and maybe the waterpolo as well- very excited! Also guys I just wanna be in the Olympic Village, it seems like one huge sleepover and the whole event just seems like the best thing ever, the parade of nations and the boat entries and the cooperation and it’s just so lovely. Hope you all have a lovely week <33

I feel like I’ve just returned from ‘buying the milk’. I’m sorry I disappeared for *checks notes* 11 months, but it’s been a hectic year. I feel like if I get into it I’ll sound like an AO3 author, so here are some very quick highlights- I have just finished my first year studying Classics at university, I qualified as a fitness instructor (which is a side quest nobody asked for), I’ve become a theatre kid again, and I finally watched Game of Thrones. Studying Classics at uni is basically telling everyone that you study Classics at uni and then getting one of two reactions- “What is that? What kind of job are you going to et with that?”. To which I have no response, because honestly I’m not sure. Or the ever famous- “Oh like The Secret History?”. To which I cry inside because it is nothing like The Secret History. It is actually reading so much Thucydides that he becomes your sleep paralysis demon, and having to translate so much Caesar and Cicero that your daydreams become wishing you were in the Theatre of Pompey on March 15th 44 BC… for no particular reason. And also crying at 3am whilst you try to delude yourself into thinking that this is so dark academia core (spoiler- it’s not). All that being said- this has actually been one of the best years of my life and I am so happy I get to study what I love.

Anyways, I feel like we’re missing the most important part- and that is of course Game of Thrones. Guys. I have a crush on Jaime Lannister. HEAR ME OUT! I can fix him! I promise. I just need one chance. But also, I would fight him because why did he do my girl Brienne like that. Anyone who makes her cry can fight me fr. You know what made me cry though- Shireen Baratheon. What the fuck was that. And Ser Davaos’ finding out and his whole “I loved that girl like she was my own”. BAWLED. Anyways, it might surprise you to know that her death was actually based on a very famous greek myth- the myth of Iphigenia. So that’s what we’re going to talk about today.

Iphigenia’s story finds its beginnings in another myth entirely- the myth of Agamemnon and the Deer. Quick fun fact- the movie ‘Killing of A Sacred Deer’ is actually based loosely on this. The story goes that Agamemnon, out hunting one day, killed a deer belonging to the Goddess Artemis. This angered Artemis, not least because the deer was pregnant and Agamemnon’s little hunting accident killed both the mother and the baby.

Fast forward to some time later, Agamemnon launches a thousand ships to save his sister-in-law Helen from the Trojans at the behest of his brother Menelaus, and also the whole blood oath situation. The Spartans and the Mycenaeans make camp at the island of Aulis whilst they wait for the rest of the fleet to arrive, only to find that when they are ready to set sail once more, they cannot leave the island. There is not wind to push their ships, the air hot and heavy and remarkably still. This goes on for quite some time. Eventually Agamemnon consults the priest Calchas who tells him that the Gods (Artemis) are angry with him and demand a sacrifice. More specifically, the sacrifice of a virgin. This is also where some accounts differ- some claim that it could be any female virgin, some say that it had to be Agamemnon’s eldest daughter. In all honesty, I think the latter is probably more accurate because of the level of hesitation he shows before he makes his final decision. If he could sacrifice any virgin I don’t really think he would care.

Anyways, he obviously cant just write to his wife and say “hey babe can you please ship our eldest daughter over, I want to sacrifice her xoxo”. So he instead he comes out with an altogether more devious plan, and that is to tell his wife that the Prince Achilles wishes to marry Iphigenia before they sail for Troy. Both Iphigenia and Clytemnestra are of course overjoyed that she should marry ‘the best of the Greeks’ and she comes to Aulis where the army wait for her.

This is where it starts to break my heart a bit. On the morning of Iphigenia’s wedding day, Clytemnestra dresses her daughter and prepares her. She, of course, does not know that she is preparing her child for death. Her fathers men come to her tent and escort her and her mother to the alter. However, she never gets to say her vows because as soon as she steps onto the platform, they cut her throat and spill her blood as an offering to Artemis. Her mother is of course beside herself with shock and grief, but her husband does little to comfort her, telling her only that Artemis is appeased, and with the return of the wind he is leaving for Troy.

Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis, differs from this account and tells the story that on the morning of her supposed wedding, Iphigenia was aware of her fathers plan to sacrifice her and accepts with stoicism and all the bravery of a child put in an impossible position. He writes the following, heartbreaking, lines:

Iphigenia- “If only I could sing like Orpheus, father! Orpheus, who could charm even the heartless rocks into following him! If I could use such a voice and have everyone charmed, have them convinced to agree with me and follow me, then I would use that voice. But I have no such skill. The only voice I have, father, my only skill, is in my tears and, here, father, I’m giving them to you! I’m giving you my tears! I’m giving you all I have! She leans before him and embraces his knees Here, father, here is the body of a suppliant! Here is the body that your wife has given birth to. I wrap its limbs around your knees and beg you: Please father, do not cut off my life short. Let me enjoy the sweet light of day and do not force me to enter the world beneath the earth. I’m your first one, father! The first one to call you father, the first one you called daughter. Me, father! I was the first to play on your knees, the first one of your children to enjoy your love and the first one to give you a child’s love. Remember, father? You used to ask me, “I wonder, my darling, will I get to see you married one day, married and settled happily in your husband’s home, your life ever blossoming, making me proud of you?” And I’d touch your chin, my father, hang from your beard, father, like I’m doing now and say, “and what about you, father, will I get to see you, father, an old man, visiting me at my house, ready for me to repay you for your hard work in raising me?” No, you don’t remember these words, father. I do but you don’t! You’ve forgotten them and so, now, you want to kill me. Please, father! Please, in the name of Pelops and of Atreus who is your father, I beg you! Please don’t do it! And I beg you also for my mother’s sake, the woman who laboured to bring me to life, the woman who is being tortured even now. I beg you, father! What does my life have to do with the marriage of Paris and Helen father? Why has their marriage brought about my death, father? Agamemnon turns away. She continues despondently. Come, then, father, turn to me and give me a final kiss. A kiss to remember you by in the underworld, since my words have not convinced you. Agamemnon does not move. She goes over to her mother and takes baby Orestes in her arms. She swings him, sadly, gently back and forth and leans over him as she speaks to him What a weak little helper you are, my tiny brother! Won’t you cry with me, Orestes? Come on, won’t you beg your father not to kill your big sister? Come on, Orestes, even babies know when there’s trouble around! Ha! See, father? Orestes is begging you, too! Begging you by his silence. Do you not care about me any more? Spare my young life, father. Spare me! Here! Look here, father! Here are the two of us, one’s a baby, the other a grown up girl, a brother and a sister, both your children, begging you, by your beard, pleading with you… She turns and looks sadly around her, then up at the sun. That! Up there is my final argument. That light, this light all around us, will cut all other arguments to pieces. This light is the sweetest thing that can fill the eyes! The world beneath the earth is a world of nothing. Only fools would pray to go down there. I’d rather live a life full of misery than die a hero’s death!

If that doesn’t make you cry I don’t know what will. And then to top it off he follows it up 200 lines later this this tear jerker:

“C- What report shall I give to your sisters?

I-Do not dress them either in black garments.

C-Is there any word of love from you I should give the girls?

I-Bid them farewell; and make sure you bring up Orestes as a man!

C-You look at him for the last time- hold him tight!

I-(holding Orestes close): Darling boy, you helped you dear sister as much as you could!

…

I-Who will come to take me there before they drag me by the hair?

C-I will be at your side…

I-No, not you- that would not be right!

C-…holding on to your clothes!

I-Mother, oblige me in this: stay here! This is the nobler course for me and for you. Let one of my father’s attendants here escort to Artemis’ meadow where I shall be sacrificed.

(Iphigenia begins to move away from a crying Clytemnestra)

C-O my child, are you going?

I-Yes, and never shall I come back.

C-You will leave your mother?

I-Yes, as you see, we do not deserve this.

C-Wait- don’t abandon me!

I-I forbid you to shed tears. (C sinks to the ground)”.

In every version you read, however, sacrificing his daughter is not a choice that Agamemnon takes lightly. He is torn between sacrificing his daughter and angering his wife- but winning glory for the Greeks, or saving his daughter, but abandoning his men. As a father, he made the wrong choice, but as a king some would argue that he did what was expected of him.

I do like, however, in Euripides’ version the character of Achilles. He is adamant that he will not be privy to the murder of Iphigenia. He tries so very hard to save her and to offer comfort to Clytemnestra and genuinely I think that this might be one of the loveliest most favourable depictions of him.

This myth then gives way to part of the Oresteia trilogy and many many retellings of her Iphigenia’s story- every single one of which always make me want to cry. I can’t explain what it is- I know that the whole point of tragedy is that build up and release of emotion but no tragedy has every made me actually sad other than Iphigenia at Aulis.

Anyways, you can imagine my absolute horror when I watched S5 EP9 and saw Shireen tied to the alter, literally gave myself whiplash with how quickly I tried to look away from the screen.

I would say I hope you enjoyed reading about Iphigenia, but if you did you’re an absolute psycho! The two translations I used are from PoetryInTranlsation and Penguin’s 2005 edition “The Bacchae and Other Plays”. Hopefully, now that I’ve posted again I’ll try and be more regular with it and I hope you all have a lovely lovely week <33

So, every couple of months to a year I reread my favourite book of all time- Hanya Yanigahara’s ‘A Little Life’. Honestly, if I could get a book tattooed on my brain, it would be this one. I reread it every time I’m particularly stressed and with results day coming up, well, I just finished my little reread. On a real note, I would not recommend it to anyone my age, and if you do choose to read it, please please check the trigger warnings very thoroughly.

One of the main characters in ‘A Little Life’ is an actor named Willem and one of the characters that he gets cast as is Odysseus. From this comes one of my favourite quotes in the whole book- “And tell me this: I must be absolutely sure. This place I’ve reached, is it truly Ithaca?”- as all around him, the apartment filled with light.” Leading off of that, I thought I would tell you all a little bit about the Greek Island of Ithaca.

Ithaca is, of course, known primarily for being the home of the hero Odysseus, and therefore, the plot of the Odyssey revolves around him trying to reach Ithaca again. Theories on the exact location of Homer’s Ithaca began to formulate around the 2nd century BC, but as is common with ancient epic and mythology, there is no singular agreement on where it really is. However, most people now a days accept that the contemporary island of Ithaca (one of the seven Ionian islands) is the Ithaca that Homer refers to.

The first traces of history on the Island can be traced back to prehistoric times. Remnants of houses and walls have been found, however, there isn’t enough evidence to provide a clear idea of what life would have looked like at the time. The actual kingdom of Ithaca (as suggested by Homer as well) allegedly reached its peak during the Mycenaean era (1500-1100 BC). The only problem with this information is that it is given to us through works of fiction and not archaeological excavation, and therefore its reliability can be seriously questioned.

Homer’s Ithaca presents itself as a place of high standards of living, rigid social structure, and a strong regional identity. The economy was based primarily off of agricultural life (most notably goat farming- as is mentioned several times in the Odyssey). Some historians also believe that the Mycenaean kingdom of Ithaca also encompassed some local neighbouring islands, but again there is no sound archaeological evidence to support this.

After the Dorian invasion of the 11th century BC, Ithaca declined and was absorbed by other Greek towns who were growing in power. Just a quick bit of extra history- the ‘Dorian Invasion’ is a concept created by historians to explain the collapse of pre-classical cultures and dialects, and their replacement by cultures and dialects that flourished in ‘Classical Greece’. It was named the ‘Dorian Invasion’ by ancient Greek writers at the time, as the Dorian was one of the four major ethnic groups into which the Greeks divided themselves (the other three were the Aeolians, the Achaeans, and the Ionians).

The most important town that arose from where Ithaca had previously been, was the town of Alacomenae (founded in Hellenistic times) and, in this town, coins were found with the name of Ithaca engraved on them as well as the supposed image of Odysseus. The ancient town of Ithaca is also mentioned by other ancient writers like Plutarch and, of course, modern writers like Yanigahara.

Anyways, I hope you all enjoyed learning a little bit about Ithaca. I’m going to go cry about results day again, but I hope you all have a lovely rest of your weekend <3

Okay so I am in Greece at the moment, which is so so so so cool because I’ve wanted to come since I was like five. But it was a last minute trip (literally we booked it 24 hours before the flight) and so I know literally nothing about where I am staying. It’s a very cool city called Thessaloniki and has some pretty dope connections to the ancient world, which I thought we could explore together.

The history of Thessaloniki dates back to ancient Macedonia and was a town founded around 315 BC by King Cassander of Macedon. Cassender named the new city after his wife Thessalonike (the half sister of Alexander the Great). Some cool etymology about her name is that it means Victory of the Thessalians (i.e. Thessaly and also form the Greek goddess of victory ‘Nike’). Her name commemorated her being born on the day her father (Phillip II) won a battle with the hero of horsemen from Thessaly. Thessaloniki developed rapidly and by as early as the 2nd century BC it began to build walls which enclosed the city. The city also become a self governing state in the Macedonian Kingdom.

After the fall of the Kingdom of Macedon, Thessaloniki (as the Latin name for it is) became part of the Roman Empire, and became a very important trade hub which connected Byzantium and Dyrrhachium (basically Constantinople and Albania) and facilitated trade between europe and Asia. The city became the capital one of the four roman districts of Macedonia and although it kept its sovereign privileges it did have a praetor overseeing it.

In the 1st century AD, Thessaloniki had a thriving jewish community. Later on, the apostle Paul was sent to preach in the Jewish synagogue and establish and Christian church and write two letter to the Christian community of the city. These became known as the Epistles and Thessalonians.

Modern day Thessaloniki has a very very cool Archaeological Museum which holds and interprets artefacts from the Prehistoric, Archaic, Classical and roman periods from all over Macedonia. I’m literally here for three days but I already don’t want to leave, and I would recommend coming if you ever get the chance. I hope you all have a lovely weekend :)

You would think that when you finished school you would have an unimaginable amount of free time, it turns out that’s not true. I would know because I’m supposed to be getting ready for prom but i thought i would have time to write an article, and I was very much incorrect. Anyways, instead, I’m going to share a poem by one of my favourite classical poets- Propertius. This is from his works ‘The Elegies’.

Book II.3:1-54

You who said that nothing could touch you now, you’re caught: that pride of yours is fallen! You can hardly find rest for a single month, poor thing, and now there’ll be another disgraceful book about you.

I tried whether a fish could live on dry sand it has never known before, or a savage wild boar in the sea, or whether I could keep stern studies’ watch by night: love is deferred but never destroyed.

It was not her face, bright as it is, that won me (lilies are not more white than my lady; as if Maeotic snows contended with the reds of Spain, or rose-petals swam in purest milk) nor her hair, ordered, flowing down her smooth neck, nor her eyes, twin fires, that are my starlight, nor the girl shining in Arabian silk (I am no lover flattering for nothing): but how beautifully she dances when the wine is set aside, like Ariadnetaking the lead among the ecstatic cries of the Maenads, and how when she sets herself to sing in the Sapphic style, she plays with the skill of Aganippe’s lyre, and joins her verse to that of ancient Corinna, and thinks Erinna’s songs inferior to her own.

When you were born, mea vita, did Love, dressed in white, not sneeze a clear omen for you, in your first hours of daylight? The gods granted you these heavenly gifts: in case you think your mother gave them to you: such gifts beyond the human are not inborn: these graces were not a nine-month creation. You are born to be the unique glory of Roman girls: you’ll be the first Roman girl to sleep with Jove, and never visit mortal beds amongst us. The beauty of Helen returns a second time to Earth.

Why should I marvel now that our youths are on fire with her? It would have been more glorious for you, Troy, to have perished because of this. I used to marvel a girl could have caused so mighty a war, Asia versus Europe at Pergama. But Paris, and Menelaus, you were wise, Menelaus demanding her return, Paris slow to reply. That face was something: that even Achilles died for: even to Priam a proven cause for war. If any man wants to outdo the fame of ancient paintings, let him take my lady as model for his art: If he shows her to the East, to the West, he’ll inflame the West, and inflame the East.

At least let me keep within bounds! Or if it should be a further love comes to me, let it be fiercer and let me die. Just as the ox at first rejects the plough, but later accepts the yoke and goes quiet to the fields, so spirited youth frets at first, in love, but takes the rough with the smooth later, tamed. Melampus the prophet, accepted shame in chains, convicted of stealing Iphiclus’s cattle, but Pero’s great beauty drove him not profit, she his bride to be in Amythaons’ house.

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I did, and I hope you all have a lovely week <3

Okay so you know when you can’t stop thinking about something but you can’t quite name it. That has been me for the last week with this story board they made us draw in year 7 classics and I literally could not think about the name of the legend. BUT! I saw a tweet about it the other day and literally I was so happy. Naturally, I’m going to torment you all and tell you about said legend, and that is the story of Procrustes.

Okay so Procrustes, also known as Polypemon or Damastes, is like a Greek legend about a robber who allegedly dwelled somewhere in Attica, and in some retellings he lived in Eleusis (if it sounds familiar it is probably because of the Eleusinian mysteries). Some retellings of the legend even have him down as the son of Poseidon.

Anyways, one of the only things that is most definitely known about Procrustes is that he owned an iron bed in which he would force his victims to lie down in. If the victims was too short to ft in the bed he would stretch them by hammering or racking the body to fit (basically pulling it by the limbs so its gets longer, kind of like medieval torture). On the other hand, if the body was too long he would cut off their legs so they would fit in the bed. In either circumstance, the victim would, of course, die.

As all great myths and legends do, this one involves a famous hero. As a young man, Theseus, would kill any robbers and monsters that he encountered while travelling form Trozen to Athens. In the end, Procrustes was killed by his own method by the hero Theseus.

Most of you have probably heard of the legend of Procrustes because of the proverb ‘the bed of Procrustes’ or the ‘Procrustean bed’ which basically in used to describe trying to force someone or something to fit into an unnatural scheme or box.

Anyways, there you have it! The short, albeit fascinating, story of Procrustes. I hope you all enjoy your week <3

Okay so my dad is going through a mid life crisis and has, I shit you not, brought a parrot. The parrots name is Juno, which is fitting because much like the goddess, it does not shut up. Anyways that being said I thought I would share a quick history of Parrots as pets, because, as so many things do, it finds it self rooted in the classical world.

Parrots were first domesticated by the ancient Romans and kept as pets as far back as up to 5000 years ago in Brazil, which we can gather from cave paintings of macaws. Interestingly enough, there are also ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics from 4000 years ago that depict what appear to be parrot pets. It is widely accepted that the parrots the ancient Egyptians kept were African Greys, which is what Juno is.

The first written reference to parrots was found in the ‘Ringveda’ (a piece of Indian literature) written more than 3000 years ago. By the 300 A.D., Chinese poetry described the idea of birds in cafes and birds housed in elaborate structured rimmed with jewels. Quick fun fact! The Kama Sutra (10th-13th century A.D.) states that one of the 64 requirements of a man was to teach a parrot to speak. Oh also another fun fact, but in ancient Indian civilisations, parrots were actually considered birds of love.

The first recorded presence of parrots in Europe was in 327 B.C. when Alexander the Great conquered India an took a rose-ringed parrot back to Greece. In true Alexandrian fashion he named the parrot and its family the Alexandrine Parrot (which we now class as a parakeet). In Ancient Greece, parrots soon became a symbol of wealth amongst the aristocracy. The philosopher Aristotle also had a parrot which he called Psittacae. This actually is the reason why the scientific name for the parrot family is Pscittacine. The earliest known reference to Parrots in European literature is also from around this time, where a description of a bird we now call a plum-headed parakeet is described as being able to ‘speak an Indian language’.

During the first millennium B.C. royalty and upper class families kept parrots in Asia and Africa. And as the Roman Empire came to prominence Psittacula parrots (talking parrots) became a huge deal amongst the upper classes, where professional parrot teachers were hired to teach the parrots latin. Which actually is quite impressive because genuinely you couldn’t teach me latin if you tried (again). But to be honest, the way they taught the poor parrots latin was brutal because Pliny the Elder says they used to hit the parrots on the head with iron bars.

Anyways, as the Roman Empire began to decline, so did peoples interests in parrots. The general curiosity surrounding them rise again in the Middle Ages when crusaders, merchants and explorers brought them across the seas. And once again, the were owned by the upper classes as a symbol of wealth.

Currently I am listening to my dad try to teach Juno Kutchi, which is actually quite entertaining. Anyways, parrots have always had a long and colourful (pun intended) history, and I think they’re another cool example of how almost everything finds it links back in the classical world.

I hope you’re all doing well. Today’s entry is a bit different in that, rather than me rambling away, I thought I would share one of my favourite snippets of ancient literature. This is taken from Book IV of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and is the story of Pyramus and Thisbe. In summary, it is the story of two Babylonian lovers, forbidden to marry. They arranged to meet someplace private but when Thisbe arrived she couldn’t see her lover. She saw a lioness with blood pouring from its mouth and so she ran, dropping her scarf on the way. The lioness took up the scarf and ripped it to shreds but when Pyramus arrived and saw the torn scarf, he assumed the worst, took out his sword, and stabbed himself. When Thisbe returned and saw her that her lover had taken his own life, thinking that in turn his love was dead, she took the sword form his hands and stabbed herself. The blood of the two lovers fell upon the berries of a mulberry tree, turning the white berries red. If this story sounds eerily similarly to a certain Shakespeare play, it’s because he ripped it off. Anyways, here is the (much more eloquently told than mine) story, as narrated by Ovid.

The story of Pyramus and Thisbe

Pyramus and Thisbe, he the loveliest youth, and she the most sought after girl, the East held, lived in neighbouring houses, in the towering city of Babylon, that Semiramis is said to have enclosed with walls of brick. Their nearness and their first childhood steps made them acquainted and in time love appeared. They would have agreed to swear the marriage oath as well, but their parents prevented it. They were both on fire, with hearts equally captivated, something no parent can prevent. They had no one to confide all this to: nods and signs were their speech, and the more they kept the fire hidden, the more it burned.

There was a fissure, a thin split, in the shared wall between their houses, which traced back to when it was built. No one had discovered the flaw in all those years – but what can love not detect? – You lovers saw it first, and made it a path for your voices. Your endearments passed that way, in safety, in the gentlest of murmurs. Often, when they were in place, Thisbe here, and Pyramus there, and they had each caught the sound of the other’s breath, they said “Unfriendly wall, why do you hinder lovers? How hard would it be for you to let our whole bodies meet, or if that is too much perhaps, to open to the kisses we give each other? Not that we are not grateful. We confess that we owe it to you that words are allowed to pass to loving ears.” So they talked, hopelessly, sitting opposite, saying, as night fell, “Farewell”, each touching the wall with kisses that could not reach the other side.

The death of Pyramus

One morning when Aurora had quenched the fires of night, and the sun’s rays had thawed the frosty grass, they came to their usual places. Then they decided, first with a little murmur of their great sorrows, to try, in the silence of night, to deceive the guards, and vanish outside. Once out of the house they would leave the city as well, and they agreed, in case they went astray crossing the open country, to meet by the grave of Ninus, and hide in the shelter of a tree. There was a tall mulberry tree there, dense with white berries, bordering a cool fountain. They were satisfied with their plan, and the light, slow to lose its strength, was drowned in the waters, and out of the same waters the night emerged.’

‘Carefully opening the door, Thisbe, slipped out, deceiving her people, and came to the tomb, her face veiled, and seated herself under the tree they had agreed on. Love made her brave. But a lioness fresh from the kill, her jaws foaming, smeared with the blood of cattle, came to slake her thirst at the nearby spring. In the moonlight, Babylonian Thisbe sees her some way off, and flees in fear to a dark cave, and as she flees, she leaves behind her fallen veil. When the fierce lioness has drunk deeply, returning towards the trees, she chances to find the flimsy fabric, without its owner, and rips it in her bloodstained jaws. Leaving the city a little later, Pyramus sees the creature’s tracks in the thick dust, and his face is drained of colour. When he also discovers the veil stained with blood, he cries, “Two lovers will be lost in one night. She was the more deserving of a long life. I am the guilty spirit. I have killed you, poor girl, who told you to come by night to this place filled with danger, and did not reach it first. O, all you lions, that live amongst these rocks, tear my body to pieces, and devour my sinful flesh in your fierce jaws! Though it is cowardly to ask for death”

He picks up Thisbe’s veil, and carries it with him to the shadow of the tree they had chosen. Kissing the token, and wetting it with tears, he cries, “Now, be soaked in my blood too.” Having spoken he drove the sword he had been wearing into his groin, and, dying, pulled it, warm, from the wound. As he lay back again on the ground, the blood spurted out, like a pipe fracturing at a weak spot in the lead, and sending long bursts of water hissing through the split, cutting through the air, beat by beat. Sprinkled with blood, the tree’s fruit turned a deep blackish-red, and the roots, soaked through, also imbued the same overhanging mulberries with the dark purplish colour.’

The death of Thisbe

‘Now Thisbe returns, not yet free of fear, lest she disappoint her lover, and she calls for him with her eyes and in her mind, eager to tell him about the great danger she has escaped. Though she recognises the place and the shape of the familiar tree, the colour of the berries puzzles her. She waits there: perhaps this is it. Hesitating, she sees quivering limbs writhing on the bloodstained earth, and starts back, terrified, like the sea, that trembles when the slightest breeze touches its surface, her face showing whiter than boxwood. But when, staying a moment longer, she recognises her lover, she cries out loud with grief, striking at her innocent arms, and tearing at her hair. Cradling the beloved body, she bathes his wounds with tears, mingling their drops with blood. Planting kisses on his cold face, she cries out ‘Pyramus, what misfortune has robbed me of you? Pyramus, answer me! Your dearest Thisbe calls to you: obey me, lift your fallen head!’ At Thisbe’s name, Pyramus raised his eyes, darkening with death, and having looked at her, buried them again in darkness.’

‘When she recognised her veil and saw the ivory scabbard without its sword, she said, “Unhappy boy, your own hand, and your love, have destroyed you! I too have a firm enough hand for once, and I, too, love. It will give me strength in my misfortune. I will follow you to destruction, and they will say I was a most pitiful friend and companion to you. He, who could only be removed from me by death, death cannot remove. Nevertheless I ask this for both of us, in uttering these words, O our poor parents, mine and his, do not deny us the right to be laid in one tomb, we whom certain love, and the strangest hour have joined. And you, the tree, that now covers the one poor body with your branches, and soon will cover two, retain the emblems of our death, and always carry your fruit darkened in mourning, a remembrance of the blood of us both.”

Saying this, and placing the point under her heart, she fell forward onto the blade, still warm with his blood. Then her prayer moved the gods, and stirred her parents’ feelings, for the colour of the berry is blackish-red, when fully ripened, and what was left from the funeral pyres rests in a single urn.’

This translation is taken from PoetryInTranslation

Hopefully you can all see why this is one of my favourite bits of ancient literature, and I hope you all enjoy it as much as I do! Hope you all have a lovely week <3

Guys. This blog. Is one years old today! Woah. Icl I’m really bad at sticking to things so the fact that we managed to get a post every week for a year is pretty cool, so thank you all :)

As it’s pride month (happy pride!!) I’ve been seeing a lot of things on Twitter celebrating queer figures from classical antiquity, and whilst there were definitely queer figures to be celebrated, I think there is a lot of misconceptions about sexuality in the ancient world (especially Greece and Rome). So today I thought it would be cool to talk about male and female sexuality in the Ancient Greece and Rome. Quick trigger warning, there are mentions of pro5tituti0n, r4pe, and sl4v3ry, so read at your own risk and please stay safe <3

Okay so just some quick things to understand. The term ‘homosexual’ wasn’t coined until the the late 19th century, and the word bisexual until 1892. In regards to Ancient Greece, it was a largely homosocial, if not ‘homosexual’.

So starting off with Ancient Greece. Potential sexual partners for men included other free men (in the realms of pederastic relationships), wives, pro5titut3s, and both male and female slaves. Pederastic relationships were the main form of homosexual relationships and it was basically a socially acceptable, educative and erotic relationship between an adult male (mid-20s to 30s) and a younger male (mid-to-late teens to early-twenties). The older lover was called the erastes (lover) and the younger was called the eromenos (beloved). The erastes had to pursue the eromenos (usually at the gym) and it was his role to provide education for the younger in the areas of politics, philosophy, rhetoric, and social customs (basically how to be a good citizen). In return, the eromenos would provide the erastes with sexual pleasure, but key point it wasn’t penetrative pleasure because (oh no) that would be too gay. Stupid I know, but basically penetrative s3x would, to them, make one of them ‘feminine’ and in a highly highly misogynistic society that just wasn’t the done thing. But there is evidence to suggest that quite a few men ignored this social convention. For example, in Aristophanes Frogs, they mention a politicians called Cliesthenes who has broken this tradition and in Plato’s Symposium, Pausanias and Agathon. Anyways! The erastes was chosen for his beauty, so the more beautiful you were the better erastes, and therefore education, you would receive. It is really important to note that for the erastes, this wasn’t allowed to be his primary sexual relationship, in that it was expected of him to be married and that his primary relationship was for the purpose of childbirth. Another partner for men in Ancient Greece was was pro5titut3s, and there were two levels of this. The first was the pornoi, who were ‘street workers’ and were slaves (male or female) owned by br0th3l owners. The second levels was the hetairai who were highly educated female courtesans, a mix of free women and slaves, and were primarily seen at drinking parties.

There is little that is know about the sexual partners of women in Ancient Greece but its largely agreed that women could only have male/female relations with their husbands, but as long as it didn’t get in the way of having children, they could also engage in relations with other women. Sappho’s works suggest that this was often the case before marriage.

In Ancient Rome, the potential sexual partners for men included their wives, infames (male or female), slaves (male or female) and extra marital affairs. So starting off with infames, this was a person- that because of their profession) had no legal status in Rome (so actors, gladiators etc…). Because of the focus on the active and passive members of the relationships, the free man always had to be the ‘active’ and the infames the ‘passive’. Generally when it came to homosexuality, romans did not have pederasty and if a roman man wanted to have sex with another man they could as long as they weren’t the passive one, because if a freeman was the passive one it would damage his virtus. Again, like in Ancient Greece, this wasn’t a mans primary relationship and he is still expected to have a wife for the purpose of childbirth. Because of this, relations with male slaves became popular and the term ‘puer delicatus’ (delicate boy) was often applied to slave boys brought specifically for this purpose. Similarly to Ancient Greece, it was encouraged for men to have relations with pro5titut3s and exploit household slaves. Adultery was, however, outlawed but the Lex Julia. BUT, this was hugely hugely unpopular and historian Gaius Suetonius described the reaction as ‘open revolt’. This suggests that extramarital affairs were accepted and popular. Ovid literally has a whole book about pursuing married women and succeeding, which tells you all that it needs to.

In regards to women in Ancient rome, there again isn’t a lot that is known. But Ars Amortia book 3 suggests that women did have extramarital affairs and some form of sexual liberty.

In all, heteronormativity wasn’t as enforced in the ancient world because, in all honesty, they cared more about who took on the ‘feminine’ role, and so their sexual liberty didn’t come from acceptance, but straight up misogyny. Also I read this really fascinating thing that basically said that in todays world where we enforce heteronormativity, we can’t assume that everyone who says they’re straight, is in fact straight. In the same way, to the ancient world where (and forgive my use of modern terminology) homosexuality was expected, you can’t assume that everyone who said they were ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual’ actually was. Sexuality has, and always will be, flexible and diverse and deeply fascinating and so you can’t enforce labels on the ancient, or indeed modern, world. It’s fluid and whatever you want it to be, but either way, I hope you all found this interesting!

Thanks for sticking with my awful ramblings for the last year, I love you all loads, and I hope you all have a lovely rest of your weekend <33

So I’ve been taking a break from revision and I decided to read Jennifer Saint’s ‘Elektra’, which you you should all read because the writing style is just so beautiful. Anyways, the story being told focuses on Elektra, Clytemnestra, and Cassandra and features heavily on the Curse of the Atreides. Said curse is mentioned in a lot of different mythological texts, like Aeschylus’ ‘Aegisthus’ and I think it’s a really fascinating story. So today, let’s talk about the curse of the Atreides.

Also side note, the name ‘Atreides’ is technically singular for one son of Atreus, but when translated people largely accepted it to be the plural form, instead of ‘Atreidai’, but autocorrect wont let me use the latter so for the purpose of this entry, I am going to use ‘Atreides’ as the plural.

The curse on the house of Atreus, interestingly enough, did not start with Atreus, it started with his grandfather Tantalus, king of Lydia. King Tantalus was most beloved by the gods, so much so that he was often welcome at their table. One day they came down to earth to dine with him in his home, but Tantalus harboured a secret hatred for the Gods. Wanting to test their omnipotence, Tantalus murdered his son (Pelops) and offered his cooked flesh as a meal to the gods. The gods were not fooled and did not take a bite of the food. However, Demeter (still possessed with grief for her daughter in Hades), did not see through Tantalus’ trick and took a bite of the boys shoulder. Enraged at the actions of Tantalus, the Gods restored the boy back to life and carved him a new shoulder out of ivory. They placed Tantalus in Tartarus, cursing him with eternal thirst and hunger. At his feet lay a pool of water that evaporated every time he tried to take a sip, and above his head a branch of fruits that would forever remain just out of reach. Fun little bit of etymology, the name ‘Tantalus’ is the root word for the English word ‘tantalise’.

Tainted by his fathers impiety, Pelops only made things worse. Pelops ascended to the throne of Arcadia, and he sought a bride and plotted murder to win her from a suitor. He bribed the suitor’s servant to replace his chariot pins with wax and so the chariot crashed and the suitor died. Rather than reward the servant like he had promised, Pelops threw him from a cliff and as he fell, the servant prayed to the gods that they would punish the sons of Pelops forevermore. Pelops and his bride had three sons, Chrysippus, Atreus and Thyestes. The younger brothers grew to hate Chrysippus, favourite of their father, and fuelled by the same faithlessness that plagued their father, and his father before that, they plotted to kill Chrysippus. When they did so, they fled and arrived in Mycenae, where is was agreed that Atreus would rule.

Thyestes later betrayed Atreus by seducing his wife and Atreus sought bitter retaliation. He murdered Thyestes’ children and invited his brother to a feast. Thyestes was arrogant enough to see this as a peace between the two, and nothing more. When Thyestes had finished his meal, Atreus ordered that the lids be taken off the remaining plates, and on them sat the heads of Thyestes’ children. Thyestes was enraged and killed Atreus, taking the Mycenaean throne for himself.

The two sons of Atreus were not so quick to forget the apparent injustice that had begotten their father. The Atreides, more famously known as Agamemnon and Menelaus, wished to reclaim the throne that was their birthright and so they returned from exile to kill Thyestes, and as an act of mercy allowed his son (their cousin) Aegisthus to flee. Agamemnon became king of Mycenae, whilst Menelaus married Helen of Sparta, and inherited her throne.

When Helen was stolen by Paris and the Atreides summoned all the Greek armies to win her back, they thought their cause a just one, but when there were no winds to set a sail their ships, the blood curse re-emerged. Agamemnon summoned his daughter, Iphigenia, to Aulis under the pretence of a marriage to Achilles, and whilst she stood at the altar, slit her throat, leaving her blood on the sands, and sailing for Troy.

Upon his return from the war a decade later, Agamemnon greeted his wife, Clytemnestra, but much like his uncle Thyestes, he was arrogant and assumed that Clytemnestra had forgiven the murder of her oldest child. He did not know that whilst he fought in Troy, the cousin that he had spared returned to Mycenae and together, his angered wife and vengeful cousin plotted his demise. When he entered the palace after his rerun from war, he was killed in his bathtub, and his wife and her lover, Aegisthus, took the throne for themselves.

However, there was one in Mycenae who remained loyal to Agamemnon, and that was his daughter Elektra. She goaded her younger brother (Orestes), who had never met his father, into sharing her hatred for Clytemnestra. When he grew to be older and upon his return from hiding, he fulfilled what he saw as his filial duty to his father and killed his mother and her lover, the usurpers to his father throne.

Yet, another murder in Tantalus’ bloodline awoke the Furies, bringers of justice. They followed Orestes all the way to Athens where he stood trial for his sins, with Apollo and Athena presiding over the trail. Eventually, Orestes was acquitted for his crime, and the Curse of the Atreides finally died.

So there you have it, the Curse of the Atreides. Sorry that was so grim, but I thought it a rather fascinating bit of mythology, and hopefully you all agree to! I hope you have a lovely lovely rest of your weekend <3

First of all, whoever decided A-levels were sensible. Run. I will find you. Secondly, whoever put the Classics, Politics and History papers in the space of TWO DAYS. Don’t even bother running, it’s on sight.

Anyways, so on Tuesday I have my Greek Theatre exam and I’ve been so wrapped up in History and Politics that I’ve done no Classics revision, so today I’m going to try and summarise all the context to the component. Don’t know if it’ll work but here goes nothing.

Okay so a quick introduction to Greek theatre. It started in Athens in the late 6th century BC and there’s varying arguments over whether or not it developed from the performance of Epic or as a religious ritual to Dionysus. The tragedies written at the time are still hugely popular today because they concern themselves with aspects of human life that don’t change (i.e. happiness and suffering, the relation between the individual and the state, or just general human relationships). It is really important to understand that drama in the Ancient world was not for the purpose of entertainment, but rather it was your civic and religious duty to attend.

The biggest festival in the dramatic scene was the city Dionysia, which would take place in late March/ early April in Athens. The festival was a way of honouring Dionysus and in total eight playwrights would take part (5 tragedians, and 3 comedians), and the whole event was organised by the leading political figures in Athens. In fact, if one wanted to gain public favour for the next election he would fund or pay for either all, or parts of, the Dionysia. Anyone who contributed to the production of the plays was called the Choregos, and there was a liturgy on the super rich which required them to contribute to the festival as part of the functioning of Athens. The Dionysia was attended, it is thought, by the male population of Athens, and in demonstrating its importance, some seats were reserved for slaves and convicts, who could afford to attend thanks to a state fund. It being in spring meant it was the perfect time of year for foreign dignitaries and allies to attend as well. At the Dionysia it is highly unlikely that women attended at all, apart from a high priestess. Before the actual ‘Dionysia’ there would be a Komos in the streets, which was basically like a loosely organised revel in honour of Dionysus.

There were two other notable dramatic festivals that also took place and they were the Lenea and the Rural Dionysia. The Lenea was held in late January and it was competition creation in 440 BC. The rural Dionysia was held mid i winter and it was celebrated by the rural, more far flung, areas of Athens. Its thought by some scholars that the plays performed at the Rural Dionysia were like ‘tour’ versions of the plays that had been successful at the Dionysia.

Okay so when it comes to Greek theatre, there are a few key features that were shared between both comedy and tragedy. These features included costumes, masks, chorus, actors, messenger speeches, and an agon. Okay so starting with costume, they were key for a playwright to give information o the audience, because there was a set archetype of costume used for a god, or to depict a woman, or a soldier etc…. Masks were a hugely hugely important part of plays because of the depth they added to the performance. Tragic masks often had solemn faces and comedic ones were farcical in nature, but in any case they were all used to depict emotion and even stage effects (so for example when Oedipus blinds himself, a mask covered in red paint would be used by the actor). The next feature was the chorus, absolutely not in any sense of the word to be underestimated. The chorus was made up of 15 ordinary citizens (initially 4, then 12, then 15). There is not record of how chorus members were chosen but due to the competitive nature of festivals, those who were chosen were excused from military service during their practice time. There is no surviving information on how the music accompanying the chorus would’ve sounded, but safe to say it would’ve added to the vibes of whatever the chorus were doing. The chorus were often used to provide sublime political and social commentary in their roles (for example the chorus of initiates in the Frogs). The next, and most obvious part, was of course the actual actors. Actors, unlike the chorus, were trained professionals and in tragedy it was the same three actors that played all the leading roles, they would just hide behind the skene (backdrop) and change masks and costumes. The next feature was the messenger speeches. Due to its religious nature, and also just tradition, violence did not happen on stage in theatre. Messengers are the ones who report this violence and the messengers are usually chorus members. The last feature was thing called an agon. An agon was a dialogue at times of high tension between two different actors culminating in a debate (for example Euripides and Aeschylus in the Frogs).

Okay so tragedy! Tragedies were performed in open air theatres and as a consequence of being part of the serious matter of Greek religion, they were very serious, dealing with moral wrongs and rights. Violence was not permitted on stage and its important to note that tragedians weren’t technically allowed to make political commentary, that had to wait to the comedians. In very early tragedy, there would only be one actor who would perform in a costume and mask. The actor would often speak to the chorus (up to 15 people) who sang and danced but did not speak. After a time, the number of actors grew to three (but it was capped here so that were wa a level of equality in competition). Tragedy was meant to be cathartic for the male audience of Athens, approaching topics that they wouldn’t discuss in every day life (for example the treatment of women as discussed in Medea). Plays like Oedipus may have been cathartic through their demonstration of tragic heroism. There are three main tragedians- Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Aeschylus often had a theme between plays- creating trilogies like the Oresteia. Sophocles was known for adding the third actor, and also for his complicated plots, and changes of scenery in plays. The last of the famed tragedians was Euripides. He was particularly known for having opening speeches to set the theme, using simpler language so that his plays were more accessible, and for posing unsettling themes to make the audience question things.

Comedy time! The word comedy comes from ‘komodia’ meaning the ‘song of Komos’. Aristophanes is the only comic writer who’s plays have survived (11 of the 40 he wrote). He was a very satirical writer and make a lot a lot of political comments, particularly about the Peloponnesian war. In comedy, 4 actors were allowed, and 24 chorus members who were divided into 2 semi-choruses. The chorus often broke the fourth wall and would talk directly to the audience themselves. For example, in Aristophanes Frogs they offer to buy the priest wine after the show. Actors in comedy would wear ridiculous costumes, like comically short tunics and tights stuffed with padding, fake phallus’ and grotesque masks. There was also this thing called a parabasis which was like a little interval in which the chorus would deliberately break the fourth wall and talk about literally anything, including any scandals of the day, politics, or even why that play deserved to win.

Okay, last thing! The layout of a greek theatre. Greek theatre was always performed outdoors. Early theatres were probably just open areas in city centres or next to the hillside where the audience would just stand and watch. From the last 6th to 4th century BC there was a gradual development towards more elaborate theatre structure, consisting of an orchestra, skene, parados, and Theatron. The orchestra was normally a level circle space where the chorus would sing, dance, and interact with the actors. The Theatron (which translate to ‘viewing place’) was where the audience sat. It was usually just larger than a semicircle (which was great for acoustics). It was usually part of larger hillside and made of stone seats. The skene was a building directly behind he stage which worked as a backdrop as it was usually decorated as a palace or temple etc…. The skene also had a set of doors which actors could enter in and out of. The parados were a set of a passageways that the chorus and messengers could make entrances through. There were also two main mechanisms used for dramatic effect. There were the ekkyklema and a crane. The ekkyklema was a like a platform on wheels that was brought on stage to depict the violence that had happened off stage. For example, in Euripides’ Bacchae the body of Pentheus is wheeled on stage using an ekkyklema. The crane was, literally, as it sounds. A crane used to show characters from above, usually reserved only for gods.

Anyways, there you have it. A whistle stop introduction into greek theatre. Guys I promise not long left of me bullying you with revision. I hope you all have a lovely weekend <3

Okay so my first A-level is on Tuesday and it is the World of the Hero paper, basically the Iliad and the Aeneid. I was getting on with my Aeneid revision when I realised that, other than the fact that I am in love with him, I actually don’t know that much about Turnus. So today I’m going to try and write about Turnus in the hopes that it forces me to go and read up on him. (Also I need to revise my Homeric allusion and the comparisons between the Greek and Roman hero so imma throw that in too).

Okay so to start off with some basic info, Turnus is the Prince of the Rutilian Tribe and the leader of the antagonistic forces against the Trojans. Like all main heroes, he is a great warrior and superior to everyone else in combat. Now despite all of this, it is important to note that Turnus doesn’t actually want to fight. Let me explain.

Turnus is engaged to Lavinia, the princess of Latium, a neighbouring Italian tribe. Aeneas arrives and to cut a long story short her dad changes his mind and says “nah you’re gonna marry Aeneas instead”. Also random but Turnus is also meant to be the best looking of all the Italians, so smash ig. But anyways, when Aeneas steals his fiancé, Turnus doesn’t really care, he lets him have her and makes his peace with it because he knows there is nothing he can do against fate. However, surprise surprise, enter Juno. She’s all like “nawh come on I need someone to fight the Trojans bc I hate peace”, so she sends the Fury Alecto to infect Turnus with a lust for war. So anyways, he wakes up the next day and he’s like “hey that’s my fiancé” and proceeds to start the second Trojan war to win her back. If this sounds oddly familiar, it should.

The purpose of Turnus’ character in the second half of the Aeneid is very similar to Dido’s character in the first half. Like Dido, is an individual who has been corrupted by the gods- more specially Juno- and lacks any autonomy. Therefore, he follows what he thinks is his will to the point of excess. Much like Dido’s furor for lust, Turnus’ furor is militant. It is Turnus who then goes on to raise the flag of war and instigate chaos. When Alecto burns him with a desire for war he begins to exhibit multiple character flaws, such as disorder. His individualism is diametrically opposed to Aeneas who is dutiful and embodies pietas, supposedly.

Book 9 is truly the point where we get a sense of just how deep Alecto’s influence on Turnus is, as he becomes depraved and thirsty for blood. Any sense of the moral compass he demonstrated in book 7 is gone as he flaunts the death of his Trojan enemies by raising their heads on spears for all the Trojans to see. Aeneas, by the way, is missing for all of book 9 so Turnus has no equal and therefore becomes the most deadly man in the war. As soon as Turnus learns of Aeneas’ absence he leads his army towards the Trojan camp and when he can’t find a way in, he sets fire to their ships (the ships are immortal or some shit tho so they’re fine). Night then descends, and the Latins attack the Trojan fortresses. Turnus then sees a high tower standing just outside the main gate which he sets on fire and then they get in and kill a bunch of Trojans. The Trojans then chase the Latins away but when they seal the gates they accidentally lock Turnus inside with them. A Trojan is then like “you can’t win in the camp of your enemies”. To which Turnus then says this really arrogantly hot thing, ssshhhh I know he’s red flag but it’s like one of my favourite colours. Virgil writes, “Turnus replied, smiling calmly: ‘If there is any courage in you, then come and fight. You will soon be able to tell Priam that here too you found an Achilles!’”. Eventually he does realise that he is outnumbered and he escaped.

In book 10, Turnus carries on with his slaughter spree. Turnus spots Aeneas’ returning ships and leads his troops towards the beach so that he can confront them, battle commences. Pallas fights a little too well and attracts the attention of Turnus. Turnus challenges Pallas to a duel and Pallas, desperate to prove himself, agrees. There’s this really funny bit where he’s fighting Turnus but stops to ogle him (“Pallas marvelled at these proud commands and stood amazed at the sight of Turnus, running his eyes all over that mighty body,”- me too bro). There is then this great Homeric smilie about Turnus as a lion and Pallas a bull. Turnus kills Pallas and steals his sword belt, which is actually Aenas, as a prize. The stealing of the sword belt is the action that later seals his death. Again, if this is sounding a little familiar, it should. Aeneas hears about what Turnus has done and goes berserk, but Juno asks that Jupiter spare Turnus (he can’t do this but he does agree to prolong his life a little). Anyways, Juno created a phantom Aeneas and so Turnus goes chasing after it and follows it onto some ships which then set sail and send him away from Aeneas. This is that classic argument of are the gods self seeking? In this instance yes, Juno humiliates Turnus by making his follow a phantom Aeneas so that when he escapes he looks like a coward. She protects his physically, yes, but his honour is shot to pieces. Also she doesn’t actually care for Turnus, she just cares that he can keep fighting the Trojans.

So then book 11 rolls around. Messengers arrive from the Latin camp and ask for a 12 says truce so that both sides and can bury their dead. The Latins all think that Turnus should fight for Lavinia in single combat against Aeneas rather than risk any more deaths. A man called Drances blames the whole war on Turnus arrogance, at which point I wanna point out that Turnus is a baby girl and that non of this is his fault, but actually Juno and Alecto’s. Turnus, however, says that if the Latins want single combat then he will fight Aenas without fear. The way he says this, though, is very sarcastic and arrogant and exemplified how reckless he can be. But at this point, Trojans start marching towards the city so the Latins have to fight again.

Now the dreaded book 12. Turnus decides that he has to fight Aeneas in single combat, and when urged to surrender by Lavinia’s father he declines (again sound familiar?). Juno worries about Turnus because she thinks Aeneas might outmatch him and so she calls Juturna (Turnus’ divine sister) to watch out for her brothers safety. Juturna, however, doesn’t want her brother to fight in the duel and so she disguises herself as a Latin officer in order to break the truce and start all out war. Some stuff happens, Aeneas gets shot in the leg and has to leave and it gives Turnus some renewed hope. Aeneas returns to battle and both he and Turnus kill a lot of men. Turnus then hears cries of suffering from his fellow Italians and calls for the Trojan siege of Latium to end, and for the duel to commence. Okay so quick play by play, Aeneas and Turnus toss sears, Turnus sword breaks at the hilt, Turnus runs from Aeneas, Juturna gives him a real sword. Aeneas then casts a spear which hits Turnus in the leg and Turnus tumbles to the ground. He begs Aeneas for mercy in the name of his father. Aeneas is prepared to show mercy, but remember that sword belt I mentioned earlier. Well Aeneas sees the sword belt and then goes batshit insane and kills Turnus on his knees whilst he begs for mercy.

Okay so now some quick analysis, because apparently I have to be able to do that. The characterisation of Turnus is interesting in that is mirrors Dido. We as readers admire both leaders in the few pages that we see them before they are plagued by the gods. The branding of Turnus with lust for war strips his of any autonomy and from that point in book 7 onwards he looses any semblance of his own characteristics. He goes from being clement and diplomatic to being bloodthirsty and arrogant. And yet, the reader is never truly able to hate him. Much like Dido, we may tire of him sometimes but we always keep a trace of admiration and at times, awe or pity. For example, whilst me may not agree with his actions in the Trojan camp, one cannot deny that they were impressive. But the relief one usually feels when reading about the death of Turnus was not present in Turnus’ death. At that moment in time we feel sorrow for him and admiration that, despite knowing he would not win, he still fought Aeneas. There is one suggestion that Turnus is the anti-hero. The villain we cannot hate, and often find ourselves liking more than the actual hero. That is certainly true for Turnus as there are times that the reader cannot stand Aeneas, for example his human sacrifice and murder of Mezentius in book 10.

The other thing that is really interesting about Turnus is trying to decipher the Homeric allusions that Virgil was trying to demonstrate. Every time I say ‘sounds familiar’ it’s because it is Virgil’s way of making throwbacks to the Iliad. So for example, Turnus (Hector) taking Pallas (Patroclus) sword belt/ armour that belonged to Aeneas (Achilles). But the thing that I find really interesting is the way that Virgil does it. When we read the Iliad, sure there are times when he winds us up, but we don’t hate Achilles at any point. We understand his rampage against the Trojans, we understand (although we might not agree with it) why he did what he did to Hector. But when it comes to Aeneas, do we really even find him that likeable? To be honest, I don’t think so, although your opinion might be different. But a lot of the reason I think for my point of view is because of the characterisation of both Pallas and Turnus as parallels of Patroclus and Hector respectively. What I mean by that is when we read about the death of Pallas it is not nearly as emotional as the death of Patroclus. We see the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus, even in death, we spend 16 books of the epic getting to know Patroclus. Whereas, when it comes to Pallas, we know him for about 2 books before he is killed. His character is not developed in the same way. And that’s not to say that Virgil isn’t capable of creating the same level of sorrow, I mean think of the deaths of Nisus and Euryalus who were mentioned all of twice. In all honesty, I think Virgil did this deliberately.

Then there is the question of Turnus and Hector. We feel an immense amount of sympathy for both, but even still we understand Achilles actions far more than Aeneas. Hector stripped Patroclus of his armour, tried to keep the body for the Trojans, flaunts the armour of Achilles, and he does this all of his won accord, not because he is being used by the gods. Turnus, on the other hand, whilst he does take a prize, he doesn’t strip Pallas bare, he simply takes a sword belt. Turnus returns the body to Pallas’ father, he allows 12 days for burial, and on top of that, non of this was of his own will.

I think ultimately, a lot of it comes down to the characterisation of Greek and Roman heroes. Where a Greek hero fights for personal fame and glory and honour, the Roman hero is not as equally motivated by the spoils of war, but rather pietas (duty to the gods, family, and country). And therefore, when Turnus fights we see him as fighting for his people and giving life for his people (roman word- devotio).

Basically, Turnus big slay I love him and icl it is too late for me to say anything more intelligent than that. If you’re still here I hope you learned something new or at least enjoyed my ramblings. Hope you all have a lovely rest of your weekend <3

Once again I am swamped with revision (god I can’t wait for this to be over) and so instead of writing something today, I thought I would share one of my favourite scenes in the Iliad. It’s from Book 23 where the ghost of Patroclus visits Achilles in a dream and asks that he buries him so that he can find peace in Hades. I hope you enjoy, and I hope you all have a lovely week. :)

He stood there, above Achilles’ head, body covered
with the same clothes he used to wear over his skin. The ghost spoke to Achilles, saying:

“You’re asleep, Achilles.                                   
You’ve forgotten me. While I was alive,                                                
you never did neglect me. But now I’m dead.
So bury me as quickly as you can.
Then I can pass through the gates of Hades.
The spirits, ghosts of the dead, keep me away.
They don’t let me join them past the river.
So I wander aimlessly round Hades’ home
by its wide gates. Give me your hand, I beg you,
for I’ll never come again from Hades,         
once you’ve given me what’s due, my funeral fire.                        
We’ll no more sit together making plans,
separated from our dear companions.
The jaws of dreadful Fate are gaping for me,
ready to consume me—my destiny
from the day that I was born. You, too,
godlike Achilles, you have your own fate,                                             
to die under the walls of wealthy Troy.
I’ll say one more thing, one last request,
if you will listen. Achilles, don’t lay your bones
apart from mine. Let them remain together,                                 
just as they were when we grew up in your home,
once Menoetius brought me as a youngster
into your land from Opoeis, for I’d done
a dreadful murder on that day I killed
Amphidamas’ son, in my foolishness.
I didn’t mean to, but I was enraged
over some game of dice. Horseman Peleus
welcomed me into his home, raised me
with love, then made me your attendant.                                             
So let the same container hold our bones,                                    
that gold two-handled jar your mother gave you.”

Swift-footed Achilles then said in reply:

“Dear friend, why have you come to me here,
telling me everything I need to do?
I’ll carry out all these things for you,
attend to your request. But come closer.
Let’s hold each other one short moment more,
enjoying a shared lament together.”

Saying this, Achilles reached out with his arms,                                          
but he grasped nothing. The spirit had departed,                                
going underground like vapour, muttering faintly.
Achilles jumped up in amazement, clapped his hands,
and then spoke out in sorrow:

“How sad!
It seems that even in Hades’ house,
some spirit or ghost remains, but our being
is not there at all. For this entire night
the ghost of poor Patroclus stood beside me,
weeping, lamenting, asking me to do things,
in every detail amazingly like him.”

Achilles’ words stirred the desire to keep mourning                             
in all of them. When rose-fingered Dawn appeared,
they were still lamenting by that cheerless corpse.  

Anyways, there you have it, one of my favourite Iliad extracts. I hope you all enjoyed it :))

Okay so on account of me having a very a gifted kid (turned burn out) childhood, I read the Iliad at age 11 and so I could probably recite that thing in my sleep. The Aeneid, however, I do not know nearly as well, on account of Aeneas being the most boring hero ever. Anyways I was checking out the World of the Hero spec for my A-levels and there is a huge chunk on Augustus’ reasons for commissioning the Aeneid and the political context behind the epic, and so today I am going to try and explain the reforms made by Augustus- also known as the Pax Augusta.

Okay so some general context. When Virgil wrote the Aeneid Rome had just finished a period of 100 years of civil war and was dealing with its new found peace at the hands of Aeneas, and the concept of single leadership. At the time of the Roman Republic it was massively important that no one man had all the power, and so power sharing took place. Some things happened and this all went to shit, hence the emergence of a civil war. Towards the end of the civil war, there were two powerful individuals vying for power- Mark Antony and Octavian (aka Augustus). Augustus defeated Antony at the battle of Actium (31 BC) and became the leader of the new Roman Empire. As the first emperor, Augustus has to be incredibly careful about how he plays his power, not wanting to risk rekindling another set of wars, and the way that he enforces his power is through a series of new laws and, frankly genius, propaganda victories- these were known as the Pax Augusta.

Quick note, the Pax Augusta are sometimes referred to as the Pax Romana and also refer to a 200 year period of peace and military expansion, starting with the rule of Augustus, but his propaganda, politics, and constitutional reform are also known as the Pax Augusta because of the major role they played in this 200 year peace.

After the demise of the Second Triumvirate, Augustus restored a sort of mask of a free Republic with the majority of governmental and political power belonging with the Senate, the magistrates, and the Tribunes. However, what he actually did was get the Senate to agree that, by law, Augustus had the power granted to him by the Senate for life, this included military command. He passed a series of laws from 30- 2 BC that transformed the framework of the Republic into the constitution of the Empire. Some of these reforms included a new system of taxation, a standing army, and an official police guard. His reforms are split up into the First and Second Settlement.

During the first Settlement, Augustus modified the Roman political system to make it more palatable to the senatorial, rather than the plebeian, classes. In 28 BC, he got rid of the emergency powers he had as a dictator and returned all power to the Senate and Roman people. But this is not the democratic win you think it is. So in the time of the Republic, a sure fire way to guarantee someone’s assassination was to refer to them as ‘king’, because of the fear of single leadership. Now, if Augustus calls himself a King he is sure to get overthrown, so if he wants to be a single leader, he needs to be clever about it. So instead, he has himself called Principes Civis (first citizen). Clever. He also has another title ‘Imperator Caesar divi fillies Augustus’. This is genius, because, it links him to Caesar who was still very popular amongst the lower classes, and also calls him ‘son of the divine’ which just gives him a whole new level of legitimacy. Sort of like the medieval concept of the divine right of kings. By the end of the first settlement he finds himself in an ideal political situation where unofficially the Senate have granted him all the powers of a dictator, and he has an identity of such influence, that, if he says something, people naturally just agree.

During the Second Settlement, he takes on the role of Tribunica Potestas, which means that he act of the guardian of Roman citizens. This comes with a stupid amount of benefits because he can now propose laws to the Senate whenever he feels like it, and also veto laws. This basically gave him legislative supremacy.

Surely you’re asking the same question I did when I first learnt all of this. If Augustus has effectively established himself as a single leader, how come no one has challenged him? The reason for that is basically because the last 100 years of the Republic was technically single leadership during the time of the civil war, and whilst the single leadership was constantly changing, it was still there, and so when Augustus establishes himself as Emperor, it isn’t as shocking because that’s effectively what its been for the last century.

Okay that’s a brief overview of the political, so now the propaganda. In Rome there is something called the Gates of Janus. When the gates are open, Rome is at war, and when they are closed, Rome is at peace. So for the last 100 years, the gates have been open. Augustus makes this huge show of closing the gates, symbolising an era of peace, and indicating that the peace is because of him. Seriously this guys PR team worked overtime. Another genius example of propaganda was the Aeneid.

The greatest propaganda achievement, arguably, was the Ara Pacis, or Altar of Augustan Peace. It was commissioned by the Senate in 13 BC to honour the peace established by Augustus. The theme of peace is shown on the east and west sides of the altar. It shows a goddess (probably Venus or Peace) with a symbol of prosperity and fertility. Twin sit on the lap of the goddess along with a cornucopia of fruits. Bene that the goddess sits a bull and lamb- both animals used for sacrifice. On each side of the goddess are two women, depicting the sea and wind (one riding a bird and the other a sea monster). Basically, its him saying looking at the peace and prosperity I have brought you, and also while I was at it, I conquered the sea and sky as well.

Anyways listen, dictatorship is bad, but the guy was a genius about it. That was a whistle stop tour of Augustan propaganda and I hope you all enjoyed reading about the Pax Augusta. Enjoy your weeks xx

You know what time of the week it is? A-level revision time!! (For me anyways, you can all sit here sigh and judge me). Now obviously you are all sitting at the edge of you sears desperate to know what todays topic is, and yay it’s the background to the Aeneid. Also this is actually kinda cool because the second ever post I did on here was also in introduction to the Aeneid but I feel like I know it a lot better know so I am going to try again!

So the Aeneid is an epic poem written by the Roman poet Virgil between 29 and 19 BC. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan prince who escapes the destruction of Troy and goes on to found what will become Rome. The Aeneid follows on from about seven to ten years after the events of the Iliad and to cut a long story scholars argue if this was Homer fanfic or Homer slander, depends how you read it in all honesty.

So the Aeneid is divided into 12 books, in the first half, Aeneas travels from Troy to Italy, making dozens of stops along the way and facing a whole hot of obstacles (including storms, sirens, and a love affair with Queen Dido of Carthage). The second half of the books are about Aeneas’ arrival in Italy and the war he fights with the local tribe to have control of Latium (the precursor to Rome). One reason that some scholars call this Homer fanfic is because there is a very distinct pattern to the Aeneid in that the first 6 books follow, loosely, the plot and themes of the Odyssey and are called the Odyssean, and the last 6 books follow, loosely, the plot and themes of the Iliad and are called the Iliadic. Much of the epic, besides this, includes takes heavy influence from Greek mythology and literature, which was actually a very common thing Roman authors did as a way to demonstrate their literary skill.

In books 1-6 some of the things that emulate the Aeneid include the heroes journey (Odysseus to Ithaca and Aeneas to Rome), the journey to the Underworld (Odyssey 11, Aeneid 6), and also the likeness in similes (so in whilst similes in the Iliad and quote violent, similes in the earlier parts of Aeneid are very focused on the natural world like in the Odyssey). Things that emulate the Iliad include theme of war and conflict (Trojan war, the War in Latium), the night raid (Iliad 10, Aeneid 9), a god rescuing the anti-hero from the battle (Aphrodite and Paris, Juno and Turnus), and also the loss of a lover as a catalyst for violence (Achilles and Patroclus, Aeneas and Pallas).

Now you might be wondering why it took Aeneas about ten years to sail from Troy (modern day Hisarlik, Turkey) to Latium (modern day Lazio, Italy) because really its not a long journey. The answer to that is the stupid amount of wrong turns they make. They literally land in Italy in like year three, misinterpret an oracle and leave. They end up in Africa at one point as well. They basically circumnavigate the globe. The second reason for the delay is surprise surprise- the gods.

In the first book, enter Juno. Have to warn you by saying Juno is the ultimate mean girl bitch throughout the Aeneid. We have angry debates almost every lesson about whether or not she is justified with what she does, but I’ll leave that up to you to decide. Anyways, enter Juno, and also the storm she has brought to shipwreck the Trojan fleet. Her reasons for hating the Trojans are very important to understand and explain why she is the way she is. Reason number one, in my introduction to the Iliad I mentioned the Judgement of Paris. Juno has a grudge against in the Trojan Prince Paris because he didn’t choose her as the ‘Fairest’ in his judgment, and therefore has a grudge against all of Troy. Reason number two, Juno’s favourite city is the city of Carthage and it has been decreed by fate that the future Rome will defeat Carthage in a series of battles (what Virgil would have known as the Punic wars). Reason number three, is the story of the Trojan Prince Ganymede, who Zeus chose as lover and cupbearer. Again, a grudge against a Trojan prince means a grudge with all of Troy. She spends the rest of the epic messing with the Trojans in every way, even when Zeus tells her that she cant stop the Roman destiny she basically says “okay but I can delay it so bite me”. Other gods that fuck with the Trojans include Aphrodite, Zeus, Cupid, the list goes on tbh.

The main difference in Virgil’s epic compared to other epics is that this one have a precise purpose- political propaganda. So at the time Virgil was writing, it was at the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire and so the first emperor, Augustus, commissioned the Aeneid to provide this grand history to Rome. So the character of Aeneas is meant to mirror the apparent character of Augustus. Other sublime political messages include Dido, the queen on the shore of North Africa, as Cleopatra- hence the significance of her death. Or the headless body of Priam on the shore of a once great land mirroring the death of Pompey. However, Augusts (genius he was) didn’t actually read the full book, he read like 50 pages, so he missed out just how critical Virgil is of Aeneas, and therefore critical of the emperor. Literally no one who has ever read the Aeneid has been a fan of Aeneas, he is literally a human wet wipe- which says a lot about Augustus tbh.

Okay as far as context goes, that’s the main stuff. There is honestly so so so much more but genuinely I feel like I could write for pages so I’m gonna stop here. I hope you all learnt something, and bear with me I’m so sorry but 7 more weeks and no more revision!!! Hoping you all have a lovely week <3