Troy

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by MarkG
you missed my point, re-read m post i was actually arguing that Homer didnt have any secret homosexual meaning in the Achilles/Patroclos friendship.

Homer wanted to give his audience a hero, and what better story to tell than a great warrior dieing to avenge the death of his co-warrior? If Achilles dies for his lover that would make Iliad a love story, which is not. There is no big love in Iliad, even the Paris-Helen romance is a game of the Gods. Menelaos doesnt demand a war cause he cant sleep alone in his bed, he does so cause his honor is hurt.

Why we have to bring sex into everything from the back door escapes me....

The relationship WASN'T SECRET. It was obvious and well-known, until it was "translatedited" out by Catholic scholars.

[Bereta_Eder]

thats why he refers to patroklos as achilles "friend". thats philos for you. has nothing to do with homophilophilos or paedohile, but means just that friend.


gays will try to make mao tse tung to be gay in a while

[Bereta_Eder]

he meaning homer oviously

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

LOTM - we were talking about issues where america is villified from contradictory points of view. America may be villified for raciism, but it has that in common with most of the Western world.


LOTM - Congo. Rhodesia. South West Africa. West Indies - English, French, Dutch. This was NO US monopoly.


LOTM - to show you that religious bigotry was WIDESPREAD in the Western World in the late 17th century, and that New England was not outside the norm at all. The edict of Nantes was the first thing that came to mind - Id have to do some more research on say, persecution of Quakers in England, of Amish in various parts of Germany,etc.

If when presented with a stick, do you consistently take hold of the wrong end of it?

Because that's what you seem to be doing with my posts.

At no point have I suggested that America or the Puritans (who weren't American, but English) has or had a monopoly on racism, or religious discrimination, or that it or they have been shown to discriminate more, or worse than, any European state. Or colony. Or in the case of the Belgian Congo, private fiefdom of the Belgian king.

Again, I'm not sure what you think the Belgian Congo in the 19th Century has to do with English immigrants to the New World in the 17th , but there you are.

As for showing me that religious bigotry was widespread in the 17th Century, well, thanks, but I had sort of become aware of that in school, in the 1970s, when I first studied English history in depth. After you've read excerpts from debates during the Parliaments of James I and VI and Charles I, the notion that not everyone could 'just get along' with people of different confessions does tend to sink in, even without being aware of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the executions of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, the Marian Exiles and the Elizabethan persecutions.

Perhaps you imagine I think the Thirty Years' War was to do with football, or sumptuary laws, who knows....

'btw you also seem to think that because not all Puritans were Presbyterians, they were therefore not all Calvinists. I fail to see the logic behind that - the dispute over Presbyterianism was over church governance, and was only one of the issues of the time'

I'm not sure, but I have the feeling I was writing in English, and I looked at my post, and nowhere do I say or imply, that 'because not all Puritans were Presbyterians, therefore they were not Calvinists.'

As I pointed out to Imran, who stated that the Puritans (not the Pilgrims of Plimouth Settlement) were members of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, the Puritans were members of the Anglican Church, who wished to purge, or purify it, of what they saw as the Romish tendencies or remnants, left after the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI.

It's that simple.

Some Puritans wanted moderate reforms, some wanted root and branch reforms, and some wanted 'no bishop, no king'. It's a fairly important aspect of English social and religious history in the later 16th and early 17th centuries (the link to the Martin Marprelate controversy) giving rise to stock Puritan figures such as Malvolio in Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night' and Zeal of the Land Busy, in Ben Jonson's 'Bartholomew Fair'.

If you're going to criticise me, I'd prefer you actually criticise me for what I have put, rather than what you think I've put:

'The failure of Presbyterian attempts to reshape the Church of England led to some Puritans opting out altogether. These Separatists argued that the godly should leave the Church and set up their own pure assemblies to which only "saints" should be admitted and whose worship and doctrine would be purged of all "superstition".'

'Not all English puritans were Presbyterians. The moderate puritan tradition in the Church of England:

emphasized sermons (the preaching of God's word)

was extremely anti-papist (they saw the pope as the Antichrist foretold in the Book of Revelation)

disapproved of clerical vestments, traditional ceremonies, and stress on the efficacy of the sacraments (all - in their view - a hangover of popish superstition) etc....'

From my previous post.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22



thats why he refers to patroklos as achilles "friend". thats philos for you. has nothing to do with homophilophilos or paedohile, but means just that friend.


gays will try to make mao tse tung to be gay in a while

Did 'Homer' invent Achilles?

Do you think there possibly, just might have been, previous poems or traditions relating to Achilles?

" …And great was the reward of the true love of Achilles towards his lover Patroclus - his lover and not his love (the notion that Patroclus was the beloved one is a foolish error into which Aeschylus has fallen, for Achilles was surely the fairer of the two, fairer also than all the other heroes; and, as Homer informs us, he was still beardless, and younger far). And greatly as the gods honour the virtue of love, still the return of love on the part of the beloved to the lover is more admired and valued and rewarded by them, for the lover has a nature more divine and worthy of worship. Now Achilles was quite aware, for he had been told by his mother, that he might avoid death and return home, and live to a good old age, if he abstained from slaying Hector. Nevertheless he gave his life to revenge his friend, and dared to die, not only on his behalf, but after his death. Wherefore the gods honoured him even above Alcestis, and sent him to the Islands of the Blest."

Plato: 'The Symposium'

So that would be Plato, the well known 21st Century gay activist, I suppose, and Aeschylus, the well known 21st Century gay playwright.

In the 'Symposium', Plato has Phaedrus object to Aeschylus's play ' The Myrmidons', because Aeschylus makes Achilles the 'erastes' rather than as Phaedrus believes he should have been, the 'eromenos', in his sexual relationship with Patroclus.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Let's try Theocritus, 'Idyll 13', dedicated to Hylas (one of Herakles's non-existent male lovers....):

finally after several pages an actual ancient author's quote

[Bereta_Eder]

Having read symposium I see you suffer from problems with translation. Philos erotas and what have you are friendship, love translated exactly as that. nothing to do with gay business nomatter how desperate gays want it to.

and speaking about symposium go and read how gays were slaughtered in sparta (yes, sparta) and how athenians simply tolerated them albeit with not so thin disgust.

it's good to have the texts, just reading them is enough

[Qilue]

Perhaps Homer and others are referring to brotherly love, rather than homosexual love. In the movie, Achilles when wrapping Hector, kisses him and refers to him as "my brother". Odysseus says the same thing during Achilles' funeral.