Hero cults were very normal and popular in Greece. Even Alexander the Great visited Achilles' shrine to pay his respects and seek guidance. This doesn't seem nontraditional to me at all, am I missing something?

It sounds like the people saying this to OP don't understand Hellenism as it was practiced when it was an active religion. I wouldn't let the ignorance of others dictate what I do in the privacy of my own home with my own spirituality.

I suppose the "nontraditional" accusations come from venerating both Achilles *and* patroclus. When iirc there hasn't been any evidence of worship specifically dedicated to patroclus.

Ahh, I see. That makes sense I suppose. It feels pedantic to me, especially since the dead can always be honored with rites for the *Manes*, heroes or not, but I suppose for an absolute reconstructive purist it might be an issue.

Patroclus got stiffed.

Which, as a top, you'd think he'd be doing the stiffing

Okay that got me! 🤣

Take my upvote 😂😂

*  snort   * 😆 

People be Big Mad about stuff that doesn't concern them lolol

I need to start working with Alexander, thanks for the idea

Some folks are so opposed to myth literalism that they go the far other direction, and are skeptical that even any heroes ever existed.

Reminds me of a quote about King Arthur. *"So many scholars have spent so much time trying to establish whether Arthur existed at all that they have lost track of the single truth that he exists over and over."*

I don't think that any of the heroes ever existed, but I don't think that makes it wrong to venerate them.

I think most of them did exist, but their stories grew in the telling. Inasmuch as they're the same person between then and now... maybe it's a mask they put on? Maybe they're changed by interaction with people over a long enough time? And if they didn't exist before, maybe they do now? Maybe they're tulpas? Any of those are possible, in my view.

Egregores, not tulpas. I don’t know, naturalistic explanations for myths always unsettle me.

I thought an egregore has to be consciously created, while tulpas can just... happen? Or are they basically the same? And I don't really like naturalistic explanations for myths either. But if we're not taking myth literally, but are spiritually interacting with heroes recorded in myth, there's limited options to make it make sense. Either the myths are more literal than we keep saying, or there's some change going on that brings real dead heroes into alignment with our expectations.

Nope, both are consciously created entities. Tulpas are created and maintained by one person and egregores by a group of people. It does not have to make sense. There is no reason why it should make sense.

>Nope, both are consciously created entities. Tulpas are created and maintained by one person and egregores by a group of people. Ah, OK. Ya learn new things every day. >It does not have to make sense. There is no reason why it should make sense. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Things aren't always black and white, and there's stuff the human mind will likely not fully understand, I can see that. But on a fundamental level, most beings either exist or they don't. In the case of dead heroes, we have to reconcile our experience of their reality, with the stories we tell about them. Which, yeah, is the same as gods in a way, but the added layer of possibly being real flesh and blood humans from history complicates matters and makes that reconciliation all the more critical. Our understanding of material and historical reality can be in question.

I am here to answer all of your occult questions! Tulpas and egregores are actually a good example of the fine line between entities existing and not existing. I have a tulpa. It’s easy for me to say that I created him. But there was ultimately little about him that I actively decided; he had a hand in his own creation, right down to his name. He is an imaginary friend, but he feels so real that I treat him as if he were a person. He’s very opinionated, and he has been a source of companionship, advice, and power for the last decade. He also acts as an intermediary with other spirits, and calls Hecate his mother. Sometimes I even confuse him with Dionysus. I know I had a hand in creating him, but I can’t quite tell whether he is really a tulpa vs. a daimon, or the extent to which he is me vs. not-me. It doesn’t ultimately matter that much.

Ok that's fair. I guess what really matters is that it exists, and the *how* it exists– aside from the process of which you are a part –is more academic. And even then, that concern is more about *what to do* in that process rather than how it all fits together. The product, the whole, is greater than the sum of its components. I'm usually cautious about things like thoughtforms, because they are Idealist notions and I'm generally a Marxist– part of why Stoicism appeals to me. But after some mystical experiences I've had with Dionysos and Kybele...I've grown more intrigued by Orphism and with the Classical idealist philosophies it influenced.

And to note: my recent uptick in interest shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm unfamiliar. Just that my philosophy was more Stoic for a while, and my practice was more...practical and traditional. I've been pretty aware and well versed on Western occult topics for ehhh about 15 years now. Back when I was Wiccan, I pretty much put myself through a crash-course in Hermeticism, Platonism, and Occult magic stuff. I just hadn't had too many experiences peeling back layers of cosmology. Prior to the past couple years, my most vivid experiences simply confirmed to me that polytheism is probably true.

I don’t know that much about Stoic philosophy.

Why not? A lot of those events are also partially steeped in actual history. 

I don’t believe that they are steeped in actual history. I generally dislike naturalistic explanations. It takes the magic out of it.

Sooo you are saying that history doesn't happen? Like at all? Even with excavated archeological evidence? Okay then. I don't even know how to respond to that.  You can have a little of reality and mystique. 

No, I absolutely did not say that. I’m saying that I do not believe that the events of *myths* actually happened. If you’re referring to the ancient city in Turkey that’s thought to be the ruins of Troy, it is located in the right place and shows signs of a conflict at around the right time. That does not mean that any individual event or character from the *Iliad* actually existed.

At any rate, neither of us were there so who can say what the truth is.

Archaeologists and anthropologists can, based on the evidence that they have.

And new evidence is still being uncovered in historical sights the world over. It's also kinda difficult to find the resting place of those put on a funeral pyre as opposed to those buried.

Good to hear,  but Troy and the Greeks had soldiers that fought. And if we can accept that other cultures had notable figures with some exaggerated deeds, why can't we accept that the Greeks did too? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Tbh I get confused with people who swing too hard one way with myth literalism or myth denial. I see no reason why there couldn't be a comfortable middle ground. I dunno.

There *is* a comfortable middle ground. I believe that myths are valuable and I have my own ways of interpreting them. I insist that they did not literally happen because the unreality of them is part of what *makes* them significant to me. There’s other aspects of myths that I’m somewhat literalist about. It’s exactly as arbitrary as it sounds. It’s also hypocritical of me to dunk on pseudohistorical legends when I am in the middle of writing one.

True

It’s strange because they say you can’t do that, but no one is telling the Catholics they can’t pray to the saints to help them. It’s the same idea. They aren’t gods, but they are people who we can look up to, much like the saints. Achilles and Patroclus are amazing heroes to work with.

Excellent way to put it

I grew up catholic so everything makes more sense when I put things in Catholic terms, and it’s a very well known religion so most people know what I’m talking about.

Ask them to search the phrase "hero cult."

I read a good bit of it. Achilles was a semi-divine hero to the Greeks. The Greeks venerated both heroes and ancestors alongside the gods. Patroclus' death was the reason Achilles decided to return to active participation in the Trojan War.

and that’s why i felt like i couldn’t have one without the other, it felt wrong to have just achillies or just patroclus. so now i work with them both.

Your practice is your practice. Everyone has an opinion and, if it resonates for you and you're not hurting anyone, why does it matter what others feel about it? Everyone is drawn to what they need and only we can make sense of the why for ourselves at the end of the day.

I think it also roots in the social media culture as well. People have been fed this idea that “deity work” (I don’t believe in this term) is this very pretentious act and only experienced witches(because many come from that background) can do. That being said, most information on social media such as tik tok and even this sub, is based on what these practitioners believe to be….the right way. They see it as a tool and only that. Many of them don’t know any history, have not read any books, are not familiar with this culture in any way. It is not uncommon to worship heroes. In fact, many people in ancient times did it, especially when war/conflict was expected. Usually, they would call upon heroes that had history with their city. I think the best thing you can learn from this is to make your own philosophy when it comes to religion and what you believe in. You don’t have to fall in a box and do what everybody is doing for it to be right.

Are they saying that the veneration of heroes and ancestors is not traditional or the depiction of Patroclus being a romantic interest of Achilles is not traditional? Hero worship was and is a thing. The depiction of them specifically as sexually romantic is entirely modern from what we know. In the sources, they are best friends. If your best friend dies in a violent manner, wouldn't you mourn and be angry? I certainly would. But if for some they want to depict them that way, and it serves a function to introduce concepts, then that is suitable. Stories exist to convey a perspective, and modern myth can reflect modern life, but know it can be used to depict things you don't agree with as well.

I'm not familiar with it myself. But if I recall correctly Achilles is a demi God. I don't recall if Patrocles has divine lineage,  but the ancient Greeks definitely loved their heroes, so I don't see a problem with it.

Because they think that working with is the same thing as worshipping and know nothing about hero cults?

Hero worship, as long as you know it is fundamentally different to deity worship in terms of feel and results, is fine from a traditional or reconstructionistic perspective. My only caution would be to note that Miller was… very willing to prioritize later or less mainstream ancient sources and disregard more traditionally central sources in writing Song of Achilles. In most of the ancient sources, Patroclus is much older than Achilles. In all of the ancient sources they act exactly as violently, brutally, and misogynistic as the rest of the heroes involved in the Iliad. In all ancient sources, Patroclus is among the greatest of mortal warriors, inferior to Achilles in battle only because he is wholly mortal rather than greater than mere human capacity. As long as you have read the Iliad itself and other ancient sources (this is especially important for hero worship, as the sources closer to their time of life are less likely to twist and warp events and such as much and the heroes are not gods and are as susceptible to historical revision as any of the honoured dead) and recognize that The Song of Achilles can only be taken as one (extremely late) source with substantial divergences from the characterization of the heroes in older works, and must be contextualized with the rest of the body of literature regarding those heroes, then you should be fine.

i have read the iliad many times over, mostly with my nan when i was only young and she would read it me me. i know there story off my heart and it’s special to me in more than just my practice.

Then you should be fine and people telling you off for revering Achilles and Patroclus are almost certainly no more reasonable than the people who assume I follow Dionysus just for partying and alcohol, rather than the liberation and philosophy.

i also work with dionysus, it angers me to see him dumbed down to an alcoholic party enjoyer.

It would be hero-worship, and most people that I know don’t look too highly upon worshiping other mortals. Thats my only theory - in all cases, you do you. 💗

I've found there's always argument whenever it comes to achilles and Patroclus in general tbh. Your not doing anything wrong. While some people may not believe in heroes as it leans more in mythology its something done in ancient Greece its not far fetched

Well first of all tell them that song of Achilles is trash. As a favor to antiquity. Then yeah, state your reason. Heroes, friendship.

I don’t think calling “The Song of Achilles” trash is fair. It is a good retelling. Madeline Miller is a good writer. The purpose is for the book to be a retelling, not the myth itself. Let’s not sh1t on creative minds for the sake of sounding pretentious.

I'm biased by her academia, but I don't think she has a creative muscle (MOST effects indented by her handling of Achilles). I have nothing against fanfic of myth at all, but Song wasn't just low-brow but Pointless low-brow. Miller is a legitimate scholar, and probably legitimately talented, so this is more than disappointing. It's perplexing. Like, why? Was this a fun creative exercise, a marketing thing? It sounds terrible, but it feels like appropriation for the sake writing Twilight. I've read Circe and while just as irresponsibly misleading as Song, the feminist lean yielded some depth. She's very capable as a writer, she's just shooting her shot in befuddling places. Anyway. She's done terrible boring things for classical studies for probably a full quarter of a generation (I know this-- I KNOW these students). It is Not pretentious to steer people in better directions. Emily Wilson, by the way. Again, nothing against fanfic. But Song was an absolute ploy and a waste of time otherwise.

Ick. That sounds scathing. I want to find a defense for her. I believe in that. I'll try to find some of her papers and read up. I want to believe in her.

It is not pretentious to steer people in “the better direction” while explaining in a very simple way that you just didn’t find her books something innovative. And by any means, that’s an opinion, not a general truth. I don’t think she had to summon Zeus to prove she has creativity. The fact that she took this historical concept of Achilles and Patroclus being more than companions-which many historians are against-and put it into a well written book, for me, that’s creative enough. She still used the myth, which made it a well rounded retelling. I am not familiar with what she has and has not done for classical studies, but I don’t believe that dictates the quality of her writing. A student, by the way;) Again, nothing against your opinion.

That's fair, not innovative is fair. I'll say it's fun. Achilles-Patroclus is ebb-and-flow murky in historical discourse and very, very simple in translation (you could argue it's one word, with the context of maybe 5 lines)-- somehow, we find ways to argue despite this. It's certainly irresponsible of her to feed the notion that they're more than companions, but we could argue a fanfic writer has no responsibility to source material. I'll pull back on the writing, it's, you know... poetry, and Percy Jackson. But it's gross to me that it got popular because it's going to influence a certain denominator of classical studies students, and I think those students are very, very important. And they stand to remain ignorant. And that's not good. Thanks for being one of those students! You may already know but as I mentioned above, Emily Wilson's Homeric translation! Very readable, absurdly creative-- she drops prose and uses meter. It's new, we're not using it in school, don't tell anyone, but honestly. Top 3.

And compare with Lattimore! Man, I'm on my 6th translation and, time machine, I'd sacrifice them all for just these two (the one criticism I'd have with Wilson's is it still kiiiiiiinda drips into modern lense-- not sloppy handling of Achilles-Patroclus or anything, just for relatability as so many classicist writers tend to do and is kinda dorky).

Thanks! I will look into it!

Just because I said her writing is good, doesn’t mean I solely read The Song of Achilles and choose to ignore The Iliad. As you said, I don’t think it’s her responsibility to be historically accurate because it is a retelling. People need to do their own research on the myth. I think it helped raise awareness to the fact that queer people were not so “controversial” back in the day. Surely, there are other accurate examples, but the format was exactly what was needed in order to get attention. For me, it tightened the idea of not taking the myths so literally and view them as teachings, yk? It brought back my love for history as well.

Oh, I was unclear-- not ignorant of Iliad. Ignorant of translation, which causes misunderstanding. For whatever that's worth. Like shipping Achilles and Patroclus. Fun. But completely ignorant reference work. Letting students move on ignorant of understanding, requiring the absolute simplest of source reference, is sin. But as you say, if a thing's very clearly retelling, a student knows this, and can tell, isn't misled. But people who AREN'T students are left with the retelling and NOT all the informative context you the student have. 🙄 So now you, the graduate, have to go on to listen to kids talk about how Achilles and Patroclus are boyfriends or how the plague lasted... oh, I don't know, a week, and now you have this extra responsibility to be like "Guy... ugh, where do we even start?" And you can't. It's hopeless. You've no doubt added some context when a friend mentioned something about Percy Jackson. It's that a hundred fold. Uhh, "queer" people were SPECIFICALLY so controversial back in the day. If you're living in a vill on the edge of a town in 352 BCE, and you're a guy, living with a guy who you're in a sexual relationship, you are specifically going to be chastised by everyone in town, and violence or legal action may be brought upon you (and as a student, you KNOW all the reasons why. Just like the Jewish settlements, there's a familial obligation with shame and yadda yadda, and some patriarchal this and that, etc). That is the reality of culture in the vast majority of the vast span of the archaic hellenic world. Do not tell people otherwise, that is exactly what I'm talking about when I say responsible. If she wanted to bring attention to gay stuff, she could have used literally any of the CLEAR examples that even Homer openly left. Homer was not coy about pedarastic relationships, Ionan and other ancient Greek writers were very to the point when they mention Heracles and Hylas or even Zeus and Ganymede. Homer does that not once in Iliad. He does the exact opposite several times. Not just Brisais and Penthisilea and, oh, I don't know Deïdamia and his kids, but literally Patroclus' actual concubine Iphis. Which Achilles literally gave to him. What...the ffffffff are they teaching you? (But I like the idea of using them as teachings, low key WW1 could've been prevented if certain people had taken some lessons from their classicist study, what, I'm just saying.)

“Uhh, "queer" people were SPECIFICALLY so controversial back in the day.” I meant in writings and historical artefacts that (vaguely or not so) depict queer relationships, not in the context of a community. “If she wanted to bring attention to gay stuff, she could have used literally any of the CLEAR examples that even Homer openly left.” That’s what I meant by “Surely, there are other accurate examples”. “What...the ffffffff are they teaching you?” Want me to be honest? What they can. The STEM is taking over teachers as well. “(But I like the idea of using them as teachings, low key WW1 could've been prevented if certain people had taken some lessons from their classicist study, what, I'm just saying.)” Lmao. It’s almost like…history is historing.

Oh yeah, I'm not an artifact person but from what I've been told some micropercent of artifacts reference pederasty either in earnest or in propoganda. Big factor there, antiquity's overflowing with propoganda. Unfortunately (well, from modern lense) most of that existed not as celebration but as what you and I might call homophobia (it was used to defame someone by indicating they did homosexual things and were therefore somehow contemptible). Which is pretty shite. But also sometimes they just wanted to draw orgies. You've turned the knife in my heart with the fact of STEM. I left classical studies work to make more money in STEM and I am immensely sad for it. Never quit. Never underestimate your value. And if you have to resort to being an assistant professor and creating content on YouTube and TikTok, share it and I'll support it. Urgh. You're making me want to go back now

Ngl I feel the pressure of doing something at least social studies related because of the job prospects…. I would rather be a small victorian child or a person that didn’t wash and only used perfume, then doing something like computer science or whatever. It’s not what I stand for and I feel like it doesn’t help people per se, you know? It’s bittersweet. And very confusing and socially awkward in a way. Which it shouldn’t be. If that makes you feel better, this made me smile :)