I get that the whole Achilles and Patroclus being lovers thing is in right now, but there's really not textual evidence to support it, it's just 21st Century people revising the past to fit into our own cultural norms. Someone had to say something, I guess, so I'll prepare to be downvoted.
This is wrong.
Even if we want to make the case that the original text does not support it, we have plenty of ancient text to support that this was a very common interpretation of the myth even within ancient greco-roman culture. Plato's Symposium, for example, takes for granted that they were lovers.
This has been a pretty hot topic amongst scholars for a while. Despite the fact our understanding of sexuality within greco-roman culture has advanced, the consensus has not changed that although their relationship was not made explicitly physical in the text, it was pretty clear the two were meant to be in love with each other. And even if we want to even be hesitant about granting that much: at the very least, Homer very deliberately made it open to interpretation, and it was very common for Greeks to view it that way.
Even if we want to make the case that the original text does not support it, we have plenty of ancient text to support that this was a very common interpretation of the myth even within ancient greco-roman culture. Plato's Symposium, for example, takes for granted that they were lovers.
While yes, this idea is rooted in Ancient Greek culture, as your example of the Symposium demonstrates, your claim that:
the consensus has not changed that although their relationship was not made explicitly physical in the text, it was pretty clear the two were meant to be in love with each other. And even if we want to even be hesitant about granting that much: at the very least, Homer very deliberately made it open to interpretation, and it was very common for Greeks to view it that way.
gives too much. It is impossible to say whether it was very common for Greeks to view it that way; Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato, explicitly rejects the notion that they were erotic lovers. We may only say, at most, that Greeks were divided on the issue (as long as both Plato and Xenophon are taken to be representative of Greeks in general). This is, of course, an opinion held centuries after the writing of the original texts, and therefore we struggle to extend this to the actual contemporary opinion at the time of Homer. Though, we can be certain based on other ancient greek sources that there was no shyness about pedarasty, and homosexual relationships, and so it seems unlikely that were such a relationship to be present in the text that the author would not have indicated it for whatever reason.
Though, my main point still stands; not only is it an attempt at reviving an ancient debate which was not even settled during the sources which you cite to claim that it was a common idea, but it is also a topic which has been clearly taken up as a cause not unlike the Black Athena movement of the 90s -- both of which sacrifice historical method and standards for the sake of populist appeals to cultural moments.
The idea that it wasn't a common interpretation is going to need far more than the singular account of an ancient scholar disagreeing to disprove.
It's not just plato who interpreted the relationship this way. We also saw it from Aeschines, we saw it from Aeschlyus, we saw it in several writings in Athens, Plutarch, Theocritus, etc.
But if we want to go further into Xenophon's Socrates, then we have to really examine what was said. Specifically, arguing in the same turn that Zeus kidnapped Ganymede not because Ganymede was beautiful, but because his mind was attractive. This is pretty much completely absurd. Even Cicero, who in his Tusculan Disputations specifically has a passage being very critical against homosexual love and Plato himself admits that nobody can deny why Zeus kidnapped Ganymede. If anything, it's pretty clear that Xenophon's opinion here was very much the dissenting one, and he was willing to defend that view point tooth and nail. It's hard to say there was no bias when he's specifically arguing the difference of a compound word which completely changes the meaning.
No matter how you look at it, it was a very common interpretation, FAR before modern times.
And yet, the same Plato who you are using to justify your position was well aware of the same story of Ganymede and Zeus, and in his Laws stated through the mouth of an "athenian stranger" that the myth was conjured up by the Cretans to justify their "unnatural relations" of men lying with men (his words, not mine). Even if I concede that there was love between them, and my contention has never been that they did not, it is far from the actual practice of male on male sexual relations which Plato seems to be disgusted with. Therefore, perhaps Xenophon and Plato are not in contention at all, but rather the concept of "love" which is being discussed here. Indeed, in the Symposium, while Plato uses the term ὁ ἐρων to describe Patroclus, he goes to pains to explain how his concept of ἐρων is not physical, but rather, platonic.
And yet, the same Plato who you are using to justify your position was well aware of the same story of Ganymede and Zeus, and in his Laws stated through the mouth of an "athenian stranger" that the myth was conjured up by the Cretans to justify their "unnatural relations" of men lying with men (his words, not mine).
Which is markedly different from implying that Zeus wasn't attracted to Ganymede within the story. A rejection of the myth itself is not a rejection of an interpretation of said myth.
But you keep coming back to Plato and Xenophon. Plato was just one example of many. Xenophon is one example of... well, not many at all that we've recovered so far. And even of those we have, usually they're acquiescing somehow.
Again, it's pretty clear if you read a lot of classic poets and philosophers that this was a common interpretation, and the assertion that it comes from specifically modern scholars is completely false. We may not know if it was absolute intent of the original writing. But we absolutely can say that the interpretation was common throughout history, and within ancient greece/rome as well.
It's not lost on me that when we're talking about greco-roman culture we're talking about a culture that spans a very long period of time, and would have seen several cultural shifts. But I don't think that's really relevant. In the end, it's an interpretation that was absolutely common as far as we are able to ascertain, and it has persisted throughout history into the modern era. You can't just pretend like there is no basis for the change in-game.
devtrackers.gg