On the whole, the Greeks were not really concerned with giving names to specific colors. Their color terms were vague, often had more to do with shade than color difference, and drew in a sort of dynamic physicality that is honestly incredibly interesting.
μέλας and λευκός, which were commonly used to refer to black and white respectively, were still more involved with shade than the particular colors that we perceive as black and white. μέλας also meant dark, murky, and swarthy. λευκός was light, bright and clear, referred to any white color from a pure white to a light grey, and could also refer to someone with lighter skin.
χλωρός meant pale green or greenish yellow, but also commonly meant pale or pallid when referring to people and fresh or blooming when referring to plants and liquids (including blood and tears).
πορφύρεος is where we get the color term purple. And when it was referring to clothes or things, it did mean purple. But when it was describing people, especially their complexions, it meant bright red or flushed. This definition originates from the basic meaning of the word: heaving, surging, gushing, coming from the verb πορφύρω.
ξανθός and ἐρυθρός are perhaps the only straightforward terms, meaning yellow or golden and red respectively. ξανθός was typically used to describe blonde (ish) people; Achilles is described as having ξανθή κόμη (golden hair).
γλαυκός was commonly used to refer to the color grey, or simply to describe something as gleaming. When it refers to eyes, it usually describes the color; the most famous example being Athena and her epithet of γλαυκῶπις or grey-eyed (or gleaming eyed).
And now let's talk about κυάνεος. We get the color term cyan from it, and the word is popularly considered to refer to a dark blue. But that isn't exactly accurate. If we look at what this word typically described: hair, people, etc., it is clear that the concept of blue that we have nowadays wasn’t really coming into play. In fact, the more general translation is dark or black, conveying a shade rather than a color, like μέλας. If I were to attribute a color term to this word at all, I would probably say blue-black, or a cool black, to convey the depth of that shade, which is probably what the Greeks were describing.
αἲ γάρ πως αὐτόν με μένος καὶ θυμὸς ἀνήη
ὤμ᾽ ἀποταμνόμενον κρέα ἔδμεναι, οἷα ἔοργας
If only my spirit and mind allowed me
to devour your raw cut off flesh, for the things you have done
~ Achilles, Iliad 22. 346-7
τοῦ ἐγὼ μέσον ἧπαρ ἔχοιμι
ἐσθέμεναι προσφῦσα: τότ᾽ ἄντιτα ἔργα γένοιτο
παιδὸς ἐμοῦ
I wish I could sink my teeth into the midst of his liver
and devour it, then might vengeful deeds be done for my son
~ Hecuba, Iliad 24. 212-4
I think Leroux’s Erik is strangely both more and less terrifying than ALW’s.
There is a more clear sense with Leroux’s Erik that he is capable of so many insane things: he built his world beneath the opera house, his voice is fantastical both in quality and the fact he can ventriloquize off of anything, he is the trap door king- lurking anywhere at any time, he can kill anyone almost instantly with his lasso. And then his appearance is rather otherworldly- he is not a disfigured man, but more of a living corpse. He is vaguely omnipotent, the reader sees it, and the characters feel it. It’s why Christine and Raoul are driven so close to madness over the course of the story, they can’t find a way out of this involvement, they can’t escape.
So in all that Leroux’s Erik is more terrifying, more intimidating, more fantastic.
But I also find his motives overall to be less menacing. He feels more innocent in his pursuit of Christine, not wanting to corrupt and consume her (like how ALW’s Erik seems to do), but to use her to gain a sense of normalcy. He still is being rather selfish, but his pathetic desperation concerning her, his grief, makes his motives feel more innocent. He wants to be loved, to live like a normal human being, and she inspires that in him. She is his inspiration as much as he is hers. Additionally, this end goal of some sense of normalcy seems to justify his rather questionable means better in my opinion. Of course, he does terrorize Christine's psyche and that is not great, but I think his last conversation with the daroga does a lot to redeem him. He just wanted to feel alive and normal, and Christine's compassion helps him reach that, and he wants nothing else from her.
what do you mean the word πάλλω (sway) is used both to describe Hector brandishing his spear and rocking his son in his arms. what do you mean the same word is used
[πάλλων δ᾽ ὀξέα δοῦρα (6.104) brandishing his sharp spears and ὃν φίλον υἱὸν ἐπεὶ κύσε πῆλέ τε χερσὶν (6.474) after he kissed his dear son and rocked him in his arms]
The parallels between Hector and Patroclus, and between Achilles and Andromache, in the last books of the Iliad:
As I was reading through the Iliad, I was struck by how strongly Hector and Patroclus parallel each other in their last moments.
I'm not exactly making an argument that they parallel each other throughout the Iliad, or saying that Hector does not act like a foil for Achilles throughout the narrative too, but I did find it extremely interesting, especially in association with the parallels between Achilles and Andromache.
They are both first given a grave disadvantage by a god, Athena in Hector's case and Apollo in Patroclus'. Athena interferes with Hector by appearing as Deiphobus and then disappearing when he is in need of assistance. Apollo interferes with Patroclus by striking the breath out of him and knocking off all of his armor, so he stands on the battlefield defenseless.
They bear a similar reaction to the loss of their weapons. Both stand still in shock for a moment, and both of these phrases are at the beginning of a line and are immediately followed by a caesura: 16. 806- στῆ δὲ ταφών: ὄπιθεν δὲ μετάφρενον ὀξέϊ δουρὶ 'he stood dazed. But from behind on his back with a sharp spear...' and 22. 293- στῆ δὲ κατηφήσας, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔχε μείλινον ἔγχος. 'he stood mute in horror, as he did not have his ashen spear.'
There is a repeated structure of 'three times and on the fourth,' something changes.
16. 784-789:
τρὶς μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπόρουσε θοῷ ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ
σμερδαλέα ἰάχων, τρὶς δ᾽ ἐννέα φῶτας ἔπεφνεν.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος,
ἔνθ᾽ ἄρα τοι Πάτροκλε φάνη βιότοιο τελευτή:
ἤντετο γάρ τοι Φοῖβος ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ
δεινός:
Three times did he spring at them, equal to swift Ares,
shouting terribly, and three times did he slay nine men.
But when he charged the fourth time, like to a god,
then, Patroclus, did the end of your life appear.
For Phoebus, terrifying, met you in that fierce combat.
22. 165-6, 208-13:
ὣς τὼ τρὶς Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρι δινηθήτην
καρπαλίμοισι πόδεσσι: θεοὶ δ᾽ ἐς πάντες ὁρῶντο:
Thus three times did they circle around the city of Priam,
with their swift feet, and all the gods were watching them.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπὶ κρουνοὺς ἀφίκοντο,
καὶ τότε δὴ χρύσεια πατὴρ ἐτίταινε τάλαντα,
ἐν δ᾽ ἐτίθει δύο κῆρε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο,
τὴν μὲν Ἀχιλλῆος, τὴν δ᾽ Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο,
ἕλκε δὲ μέσσα λαβών: ῥέπε δ᾽ Ἕκτορος αἴσιμον ἦμαρ,
ᾤχετο δ᾽ εἰς Ἀΐδαο, λίπεν δέ ἑ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων.
But when they arrived at the springs for the fourth time,
then the father held out his golden scales,
and placed on them two fates of woeful death,
one for Achilles, the other for horse-taming Hector,
and having seized the middle of these, he lifted them, and the destined day of Hector sank,
and went to Hades, and Phoebus Apollo left him.
4. The final pieces of dialogue between Patroclus and Hector and then Hector and Achilles follow a very similar formula: the winner lords over the loser, calling him νήπιε (16. 833 & 22. 333), and then the loser as they die, gives a prophecy concerning the winner’s death (16. 851-854 & 22. 359-360) which the winner doesn’t take well. This parallel also clearly functions as one between Hector and Achilles.
5. And what is perhaps the strangest parallel- their final death descriptions are exactly the same.
Achilles and Andromache have decidedly less parallels that can be clearly seen, but I think the fact they play the same role of 'the one left behind' is still deeply interesting.
They are both completely ignorant of the fate of their loved one, and did not even expect it to occur.
17.401- 407:
οὐδ᾽ ἄρα πώ τι
ᾔδεε Πάτροκλον τεθνηότα δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς:
πολλὸν γὰρ ῥ᾽ ἀπάνευθε νεῶν μάρναντο θοάων
τείχει ὕπο Τρώων: τό μιν οὔ ποτε ἔλπετο θυμῷ
τεθνάμεν, ἀλλὰ ζωὸν ἐνιχριμφθέντα πύλῃσιν
ἂψ ἀπονοστήσειν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὸ ἔλπετο πάμπαν
ἐκπέρσειν πτολίεθρον ἄνευ ἕθεν, οὐδὲ σὺν αὐτῷ:
πολλάκι γὰρ τό γε μητρὸς ἐπεύθετο νόσφιν ἀκούων,
ἥ οἱ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε Διὸς μεγάλοιο νόημα.
Not yet did noble Achilles know that Patroclus was dead,
for they were battling very far from the swift ships
under the wall of the Trojans: he never expected in his heart
that he was dead, but that he would return back again alive
having reached the gates, since he did not at all expect him
to sack the citadel without him, nor even with him,
for often did he hear things from his mother,
who secretly reported the intentions of great Zeus to him.
22. 437-446:
ἄλοχος δ᾽ οὔ πώ τι πέπυστο
Ἕκτορος: οὐ γάρ οἵ τις ἐτήτυμος ἄγγελος ἐλθὼν
ἤγγειλ᾽ ὅττί ῥά οἱ πόσις ἔκτοθι μίμνε πυλάων,
ἀλλ᾽ ἥ γ᾽ ἱστὸν ὕφαινε μυχῷ δόμου ὑψηλοῖο
δίπλακα πορφυρέην, ἐν δὲ θρόνα ποικίλ᾽ ἔπασσε.
κέκλετο δ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισιν ἐϋπλοκάμοις κατὰ δῶμα
ἀμφὶ πυρὶ στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν, ὄφρα πέλοιτο
Ἕκτορι θερμὰ λοετρὰ μάχης ἐκ νοστήσαντι
νηπίη, οὐδ᾽ ἐνόησεν ὅ μιν μάλα τῆλε λοετρῶν
χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος δάμασε γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη.
But Hector’s wife had not heard about him yet,
for no messenger, a true friend, had come
to report to her that her husband remained outside the gates,
but she was weaving in a corner of the tall home,
a double-folded, purple web, upon which she had added many-colored flowers,
and had called to her fair haired attendants in the house
to set a great tripod over the fire, so that there would be
a hot bath ready for Hector when he returned from battle.
Blind to everything, she did not know that far from any bath
grey eyed Athena by the hand of Achilles had killed him.
2. Upon hearing that their loved one has perished, they mourn bitterly and both express a desire to never have been born.
18. 86-7:
αἴθ᾽ ὄφελες σὺ μὲν αὖθι μετ᾽ ἀθανάτῃς ἁλίῃσι
ναίειν, Πηλεὺς δὲ θνητὴν ἀγαγέσθαι ἄκοιτιν.
If only you had stayed there among the immortal sea nymphs,
and Peleus had married a mortal.
22. 479-81:
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ Θήβῃσιν ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ ὑληέσσῃ
ἐν δόμῳ Ἠετίωνος, ὅ μ᾽ ἔτρεφε τυτθὸν ἐοῦσαν
δύσμορος αἰνόμορον: ὡς μὴ ὤφελλε τεκέσθαι.
But I was in Thebes below wooded Placus
in the home of Eetion, who brought me up when I was young,
an ill fated father to a doomed child; I wish he had not begotten me.
just read the parts of book 17 of the Iliad where Menelaus and Ajax are described as animals guarding their young as they try to keep Patroclus' corpse from the Trojans and no, I am not ok
the 'abduction as romance' trope and heyer's devil's cub
A while ago I watched a video discussing the ‘abduction as romance' trope, and it obviously got me thinking about Devil’s Cub because despite the fact that it looks like it fits within this trope, I actually think it circumvents it in interesting ways.
Sure, Vidal is very much a scoundrel, and exhibits all the questionable behavior that many of the men within these narratives also exhibit, but the rest of the story departs drastically from the expected set up and I think that makes all the difference.
First is the woman. I love Mary so deeply and sincerely. She is not a damsel in distress, but she is not the overly feisty, 'demanding to be put in her place' character that is so commonly present in these narratives. She is cool, calm, collected, very rational and logical.
And it is through this characterization that she actually retains a sense of power throughout the majority of the story. Yes, Vidal is awful to her after she reveals herself and parades in the farce, but that sense of overweening power is short lived, because as soon as they have another moment alone together, she fully incapacitates him, which is also something that is not typically present in similar narratives.
Mary shows through her actions and thought processes that even though she may be thrown off by Vidal’s responses, and may occasionally underestimate his anger, she is never completely thrown off balance, and is never without a sense of personal agency for long. She dictates what’s going on much more than she is dictated to, and that’s the first interesting subversion of this type of narrative.
Plus, she is already head over heels with Vidal when this happens, and actually is familiar with who he is, having seen past the façade very early in their ‘relationship.’ I find it so funny that she just sees him as a spoiled child and acts like she’s just steamrolling over a child’s tantrum and not being threatened by a grown man. I'm not sure whether to call her mindset delusional or brilliant. Honestly, it's perhaps both (which is relatable).
Second is the situation/ environment. Vidal does not intend to abduct Mary. He was intending on taking her sister, who was accompanying him willingly, and Mary tricked him out of this, and it is only when she enrages him during the reveal that it truly becomes an abduction.
And that’s pretty much the last time Vidal has any bit of power in the story, because he has it in the beginning, but his personal power is very much deposed by his father’s overwhelming sense of control. He does get it back for a bit but when they land in France, Mary shoots him and completely incapacitates him, and simultaneously he realizes the crux of the matter, which throws him further off balance as it shoves him into a worse situation, as abducting a straight-laced middle class woman who has no intention of becoming his mistress is not a good situation for either of them.
But she is not as obviously thrown off by this situation as he is. She persists in her desire to not marry him, and she does not willingly fall in line with any of his ideas. And so he has to beg her, beg her, to listen to him. And she still persists, to his utter aggravation.
In addition, when they reach France, she is no longer alone with him. She is deliberately placed into the care of others by him and then is much less dictated by what he judges to be the right thing to do.
So, even though this narrative is an abduction that leads to a romance between the two, Mary being who she is, does not allow herself to lose control and that removes Vidal as a true threat to her safety.
Also the story and the romance relies entirely on Mary’s perception of things. Vidal is capable of bad things, that is clear to the reader, but Mary is not really afraid of him. She honestly seems to be more afraid that she’ll just give in because she’s besotted with him and she does not want to give in, for his sake not hers.
ταῦτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός: αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
τήκετο, δάκρυ δ᾽ ἔδευεν ὑπὸ βλεφάροισι παρειάς.
ὡς δὲ γυνὴ κλαίῃσι φίλον πόσιν ἀμφιπεσοῦσα,
ὅς τε ἑῆς πρόσθεν πόλιος λαῶν τε πέσῃσιν,
ἄστεϊ καὶ τεκέεσσιν ἀμύνων νηλεὲς ἦμαρ:
ἡ μὲν τὸν θνήσκοντα καὶ ἀσπαίροντα ἰδοῦσα
ἀμφ᾽ αὐτῷ χυμένη λίγα κωκύει: οἱ δέ τ᾽ ὄπισθε
κόπτοντες δούρεσσι μετάφρενον ἠδὲ καὶ ὤμους
εἴρερον εἰσανάγουσι, πόνον τ᾽ ἐχέμεν καὶ ὀιζύν:
τῆς δ᾽ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ ἄχεϊ φθινύθουσι παρειαί:
ὣς Ὀδυσεὺς ἐλεεινὸν ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον εἶβεν.
These things the renowned bard was singing. But Odysseus
was deeply moved, and tears wet the cheeks below his eyes.
Just as a wife cries out, falling upon her beloved husband,
who has fallen before his people and soldiers,
striving to keep away a ruthless day from his town and children.
Seeing him dying, gasping out life,
she wraps herself around him and wails loudly, but from behind,
striking her with their spears on her back and shoulders,
they lead her into servitude to bear toil and misery,
and with most pitiful grief her cheeks are withered,
so did Odysseus let fall pitiful tears from below his brow.
