Talk:Achilles/Archives/2012/September

'the most handsome of the heroes'

I have chosen to delete the following sentence:

'The Iliad named Achilles the most handsome of the heroes assembled against Troy, an assessment repeated by Plato.'

The reason for this is mainly based on translation.

Iliad 2.673-4 sees another warrior compared to Achilles, with the latter judged as the most 'beautiful'. The adjective used in the Greek: kallistos, is nuanced, something not reflected in the article as it stands. kallistos refers not only to physical beauty but a type of warrior nobility, e.g., fine, honourable, virtuous.

As such, handsome is misleading.

Even more so when considered alongside Achilles' most famous Homeric epithet, aristos Akhaiôn or 'best of the Achaeans', which encompasses both his physical and moral/noble excellence.

Furthermore, Plato's discussion of Achilles' beauty is already referred to in the section 'Achilles and Patroclus'. I do not think this source for Achilles and its assessment of the hero warrants mentioning twice.

--Polly Toney (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with trimming out the reference to Achilles' appearance; it struck me as an odd statement for the lead. But just to be clear: the comparison between Nireus and Achilles in Iliad 2 does concern physical appearance, as LSJ takes it and as is the most common Homeric connotation of καλός, especially its superlative.  ^davidiad_.: 15:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of Achilles' beauty should not be in the Patroclus section. I'd suggest sticking it in its own section. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A section based upon reliable modern sources treating Achilles' characteristics would be warranted, given that he is both the most exceptional hero and the totem/sounding-board by which the heroic ideal is most extensively explored. He's pretty, he's savage, he's fast, strong and skilled in battle, he's idiosyncratically eloquent, he's a force of nature, and he plays a mean lyre.  ^davidiad_.: 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to Iliad 2 does cover Achilles' beauty but found it a strange lead statement, especially when aristos Akhaiôn is his more well-known epithet. Having it in the lead, and phrased as 'handsome', rather than 'beautiful' or 'fine' gives the wrong impression.

I completely agree with the statement that: He's pretty, he's savage, he's fast, strong and skilled in battle, he's idiosyncratically eloquent, he's a force of nature, and he plays a mean lyre and it is because of this that I don't think that 'handsome' covers it. Or that the reference used in the lead Iliad 2.673-4, does Achilles' characterisation in the Iliad justice.

--Polly Toney (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally wish we could use Davidiad's description. Doesn't some secondary source have a description of Achilles that we could pass this off as paraphrasing? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

... and he pouts like the dickens. Point taken re Polly's noble beauty: the Theognidea and its elegiac company can attest to the proto-eugenic tendencies of the late Archaic period poets. There has to be an article, chapter, section to an introduction to a commentary or something that treats the uniqueness of Achilles, but none come to mind. Adam Parry's "The Language of Achilles" is a classic, but in my morning haze I can think of nothing else. (I've never read the Edwards book in the bibliography here.) It would be nice if we had one mythology article that was written head to foot in a unified and at least semi-academic way. Accretive reportage and synthesis seems the best we ever do. Maybe Polly has the patience we've all lacked.  ^davidiad_.: 13:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)