We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2016
Mutilation, along with all forms of maltreatment of the dead, was widely condemned by Greek authors of the Classical period. In a culture where the obligation to bury and respect the dead was seen as one of the strongest moral compulsions universal to all men, mistreating the dead was considered to be the most outrageous and unholy of actions, more suitable, as Herodotus states, for barbarians than for Greeks, ‘and even in them we find it loathsome’. The importance of the theme of mutilating the dead in the Iliad, where one can find numerous and surprisingly detailed descriptions of warriors maltreating the corpses of their enemies, is therefore puzzling, to say the least.
I would like to thank Hans van Wees, Josho Brouwers, Caroline Musgrove, Andrew Morrison and the anonymous CQ reader for their helpful comments on the early version of this paper. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, entirely my own.
2 For more on the mutilation of the dead in ancient Greece, see Tritle, L.A., ‘Hector's body: mutilation of the dead in ancient Greece and Vietnam’, AHB 11 (1997), 123–36Google Scholar; id., ‘Men at war’, in Campbell, B. and Tritle, L.A. (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World (Oxford, 2013), 279–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 288–9; van Wees, H., Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (London, 2004), 135–6Google Scholar; Muller, Y., ‘La mutilation de l'ennemi en Grèce classique: pratique barbare ou préjugé grec?’, in Allély, A. (ed.), Corps au supplice et violence de guerre dans l'Antiquité (Bordeaux, 2014), 41–72 Google Scholar.
3 Hdt. 9.79: τὰ πρέπει μᾶλλον βαρβάροισι ποιέειν ἤ περ Ἕλλησι‧ καὶ ἐκείνοισι δὲ ἐπιφθονέομεν. See also Soph. Ant. 1029–30. The proper burial of the dead formed the basis of many Athenian plays, most notably Sophocles’ Antigone and Ajax, and Euripides’ Suppliants and Trojan Women. Not burying the dead was both a serious crime and an offence against the gods. For more, see Rosivach, V.J., ‘On Creon, Antigone and not burying the dead’, RhM 126 (1983), 193–211 Google Scholar.
4 For a commentary on Platonic texts on poetry, see Murray, P. (ed.), Plato on Poetry: Ion; Republic 376e-398b9; Republic 595–608b10 (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar.
5 For a summary of the disagreements between the Homeric scholiasts, see Bassett, S.E., ‘Achilles’ treatment of Hector's body’, TAPhA 64 (1933), 41–65 Google Scholar, at 44.
6 Segal, C., The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Mnemosyne Supplements, 17) (Leiden, 1971), 13Google Scholar.
7 Lendon, J.E., ‘Homeric vengeance and the outbreak of Greek wars’, in van Wees, H. (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece (Swansea, 2000), 1–30 Google Scholar, at 9.
8 Krentz, P., ‘War’, in Sabin, P., van Wees, H. and Whitby, M. (edd.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, volume 1: Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge, 2007), 147–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 174.
9 This interpretation has been proposed by Bassett (n. 5), and later by van Wees, H., Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History (Amsterdam, 1992), 129–30Google Scholar; id., ‘Heroes, knights and nutters: warrior mentality in Homer’, in Lloyd, A.B. (ed.), Battle in Antiquity (Swansea, 1996), 1–86 Google Scholar, at 51–4. As recent scholarship shows, however, their view is still that of a minority.
10 The standard modern work on the mutilation of the dead in the Iliad is Segal (n. 6), which argues that the mutilation theme was consistently developed to mark the rising tide of brutality, articulating ‘the rhythm of the poem's movement from intense violence to calm finale’ (72). van Wees (n. 9 [1996]), 78 n. 138 has challenged this interpretation, noting that most instances of mutilation take place in the early part of the battle; later examples, therefore, do not increase the general level of brutality. Other works dealing with the mutilation of the dead in the Iliad include Bassett (n. 5); Vermeule, E., Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry (Berkeley, 1979), 94–108 Google Scholar; Vernant, J.-P., ‘A “beautiful death” and the disfigured corpse in Homeric epic’, in Zeitlin, F.I. (ed.), Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays (Princeton, 1991), 50–74 Google Scholar; van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 129–30; id. (n. 9 [1996]), 51–4; id. (n. 2), 162; Lendon (n. 7), 3–11.
11 Vermeule (n. 10), 96. Throughout this article I use Richmond Lattimore's translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey. I am grateful to the University of Chicago Press for granting me permission to use Lattimore's translations of the Iliad (© 1951, 2011 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved).
12 Rosivach (n. 3), 206; Vernant (n. 10), 74; van Wees (n. 9 [1996]), 51–3; Lendon (n. 7), 3–11.
13 There are some examples of bodily mutilations in the Odyssey, including Polyphemus cutting Odysseus’ companions ‘limb by limb’ (μελεϊστί) before eating them (9.288–91); King Echetus, who ‘with the pitiless bronze will cut off your nose and ears, and tear off your privates and give them raw for the dogs to feed on’ (ὅς κ᾽ ἀπὸ ῥῖνα τάμῃσι καὶ οὔατα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ, | μήδεά τ᾽ ἐξερύσας δώῃ κυσὶν ὠμὰ δάσασθαι, 18.86-7); Telemachus and his companions also mutilate Melanthius: ‘They cut off, with pitiless bronze, his nose and his ears, tore off his private parts and gave them to the dogs to feed on raw, and lopped off his hands and feet, in fury of anger’ (τοῦ δ᾽ ἀπὸ μὲν ῥῖνάς τε καὶ οὔατα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ | τάμνον, μήδεά τ᾽ ἐξέρυσαν, κυσὶν ὠμὰ δάσασθαι, | χεῖράς τ᾽ ἠδὲ πόδας κόπτον κεκοτηότι θυμῷ, 22.475-7). The latter two, however, are not post-mortem mutilations.
14 Segal (n. 6), 31 suggests that Achilles’ slaying of the Paeonians along the banks of the river Scamander was also accompanied by mutilation, as the phrase αἴσυλα ῥέζεις (Il. 21.214) ‘is used of especially violent acts which flout accepted limits and norms’. I disagree with this interpretation for reasons listed in the second half of this article. Segal (n. 6), 10, 20, along with Garland, R., ‘ Geras thanonton: an investigation into the claims of the Homeric dead’, BICS 29 (1982), 69–80 Google Scholar, at 78 n. 13 treats the decapitation of Dolon (Il. 10.455-7) as another instance of a mutilation of the corpse. Dolon, however, is killed by decapitation, which is not similar to an act of post-mortem mutilation, as observed by van Wees (n. 9 [1996]), 78 n. 138.
15 On Homeric vengeance, see Lendon (n. 7), 3–11.
16 The eagerness of Patroclus to dishonour Sarpedon, and of Hector to decapitate Patroclus, was most likely due to similar reasons, as both Patroclus and Sarpedon were extremely efficient killers.
17 The motivation behind Agamemnon's decision to mutilate Coön is slightly more problematic, but, as van Wees (n. 9 [1996]), 78 n. 138 noted, the fact that Coön ‘had succeeded in wounding Agamemnon may supply one’.
18 Lendon (n. 7), 5.
19 The revenge motif is especially visible in the many instances of warriors vaunting over the slain: Il. 13.445-7, 14.470-4, 14.482-5. On the concepts of status, honour and violence in the Homeric society, see van Wees (n. 9 [1992]).
20 It is a striking fact that all successful mutilations of the dead in Homer are committed only by the Achaeans. The ultimate shaming involved in the practice of αἰκία seems, therefore, to have been reserved only for the non-Greek Trojans (Hippolochus, Coön, Ilioneus, Hector) and their allies (Imbrius).
21 Lendon (n. 7), 5.
22 See also van Wees (n. 9 [1996]), 78 n. 138; id. (n. 2), 136.
23 Bassett (n. 5), 54. Bassett, S.E., The Poetry of Homer (Berkeley, 1938), 203–4Google Scholar also argued that it was ‘the most solemn duty incumbent on a warrior not only to avenge the blood of a kinsman or friend by the death of the slayer and of others bound to him by the ties of blood or friendship, but also to outrage the bodies of these and to prevent their burial’.
24 As Yamagata, N., Homeric Morality (Mnemosyne Supplements, 131) (Leiden, 1994), 144Google Scholar observed, ‘avengers demand not just getting lost τιμή back, but full emotional satisfaction—often even by risking their own lives or τιμή—, and this is normally accepted in the Homeric morality … the dark passion of vengeance is shared by the gods, too. There is no universal principle to check cruelty in the name of vengeance’.
25 Rosivach (n. 3), 197. I count at least thirty-six instances in the Iliad, and ten in the Odyssey. The most common involve dogs (Il. 11.817, 13.234, 15.351, 17.127, 17.153, 17.255, 17.273, 17.557, 18.179, 18.283, 22.66-75, 22.89, 22.339, 22.348, 23.21, 23.183, 24.211, 24.409; Od. 21.363, 22.475), dogs and birds (Il. 1.5, 8.379, 13.831, 17.241, 22.354, 24.411-12; Od. 3.259-60, 14.133), and dogs and vultures (Il. 2.393, 18.271-2, 22.42, 22.335); others include vultures (Il. 4.237, 11.162, 16.836; Od. 22.30), birds (Il. 11.395, 11.454; Od. 3.271), fish (Il. 21.122-7; Od. 14.135, 24.291), fish and eels (Il. 21.203), fish and seals (Od. 15.480-1), worms and dogs (Il. 22.509), and birds and wild beasts (Od. 24.292). For more on animal mutilation in Homer, see Bassett (n. 5), 47–50; Redfield, J.M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago, 1975), 168–9Google Scholar, 183–200; Vermeule (n. 10), 103–9; Vernant (n. 10), 71–2.
26 On the concept of ‘beautiful death’ (καλὸς θάνατος) and the mutilation of the dead in Homer, see Vernant (n. 10), who argued that the everlasting fame and glory (κλέος ἄφθιτον) to which every Homeric hero aspired required him to receive a full funeral after his death on the battlefield. Exposure and bodily mutilation were therefore the ‘sinister obverse’ of the ‘beautiful death’, or using the expression suggested by Redfield ([n. 25], 169), the ‘antifuneral’.
27 The ever-present nature of animal mutilation is conveyed in the opening lines of the Iliad; more detailed descriptions of actual animal mutilations include eels and fish ‘busy tearing’ and ‘nibbling’ the kidney fat of the dead Asteropaios (ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες ἀμφεπένοντο, | δημὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι ἐπινεφρίδιον κείροντες, Il. 21.203-4), and dogs feeding on Melanthius’ genitals, pulled out by Telemachus and his companions (μήδεά τ᾽ ἐξέρυσαν, κυσὶν ὠμὰ δάσασθαι, Od. 22.476). Apart from the mass burials conducted after the first day of fighting (Il. 7.423-32), there appear to be no regular procedures or protocols for retrieving and disposing of the dead in the Iliad. The leading Homeric men are normally rescued during the fighting (to be given individual and often heroic burials later), but otherwise we are led to believe that the majority of the fallen warriors are simply left unburied and may lie on the battlefield for days. This impression is reinforced consistently throughout the poem, for instance at 8.491, 10.199 or 10.349-50, as noticed also by Garland (n. 14), 70. Furthermore, the passages describing the mass burials in Book 7 are believed by some scholars to be a late post-Homeric addition to the Iliad. According to D. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 19632), 315–24, the latter part of Book 7, which includes Nestor's speech, the burial truce and the building of the Achaean wall, was most likely a fourth-century b.c. Athenian insertion. This, in turn, helps to explain the contrast between the single mass burial scene and the rest of the poem, giving further support to the theory that there are no regular procedures for the disposal of the common soldiers in the Iliad. For a summary of the debate concerning the burial scene of Book 7, see Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, Part IV (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985), 100–2Google Scholar.
28 See n. 5.
29 See Bowra, C.M., Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford, 1930), 20–1Google Scholar; Segal (n. 6), 15. Segal suggests that ‘the verb which describes the action of mutilation, ἀεικίζειν, in itself offers a clue: it is related to the adjective ἀεικής which often carries a moral connotation of excessive, unsanctioned violence’ (15). Adkins, A.W.H., Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford, 1960), 43Google Scholar maintains that in most actions described with the terms derived from the noun αἶσχος the shame of the act falls on the victim (41–3); in exceptional cases, however, ‘where ergon aeikes refers to a defeat, military or social, it is the person who “performed” the ergon aeikes who is discredited’ (43). Achilles’ ἀεικέα ἔργα to the corpse of Hector is, according to him, one of such exceptions.
30 See Bassett (n. 5), 44–6; Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death (Oxford, 1980), 85 Google Scholar n. 9; van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 129, 367 n. 132; Yamagata (n. 24), 234–5 n. 12. For a fuller bibliography on this debate, see van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 367 n. 132. Yamagata (n. 24), 235 n. 12 suggests that ἀεικέα should also be seen as shameful for outside observers to see: ‘Certainly whether Achilles’ behaviour is justifiable or not is not an issue, but there is no doubt that the third party does not enjoy the sight of Hector's body being dragged around.’ The third party here, however, must surely refer only to Hector's family and the Trojans; one would think that the Achaeans would hardly not enjoy the sight of Hector's body being maltreated.
31 Bassett (n. 5), 45. Bassett provides a short survey of the relevant phrases at 44–6.
32 Interestingly, the last two instances (Il. 14.13, 19.133) are also mentioned by Adkins (n. 29), 43 n. d as examples of ἀεικέα ἔργα being shameful to the performer. I find it hard to understand, none the less, how driving the Achaeans to flight can be seen as shameful to the Trojans, and how the unseemly tasks enforced on Heracles were shameful to Eurystheus. On the contrary, it was shameful for the Achaeans to retreat, and shameful for Heracles to be Eurystheus’ subordinate.
33 Bassett (n. 5), 45–6.
34 See nn. 26 and 27.
35 While escorting Priam to the Achaean camp, Hermes tells him that it is the twelfth dawn since Hector's body has lain (δυωδεκάτη δέ οἱ ἠὼς | κειμένῳ) beside Achilles’ shelter (24.413-14). The council of the gods took place the day before and so the nine days mentioned by Zeus take us back to the day of Patroclus’ funeral. This detail, as far as I am aware, has not been noticed by any previous scholars working on the subject.
36 As also argued by Bassett (n. 5), 60.
37 Yamagata (n. 24), 149. For more on νέμεσις in the Homeric poems, see ead. (n. 24), 149–56; Scott, M., ‘Aidos and nemesis in the works of Homer, and their relevance to social and co-operative values’, Acta Classica 23 (1980), 13–35 Google Scholar, at 25–31.
38 Suggested also by van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 367 n. 131; id. (n. 9 [1996]), 78 n. 138; id. (n. 2), 288 n. 22.
39 See also Long, A.A., ‘Morals and values in Homer’, JHS 90 (1970), 121–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 128; van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 130, 144. On the other hand, Hera accepts, according to van Wees (n. 9 [1992]), 130, ‘that the gods ought to have been indignant at Akhilleus’ behaviour if they had held both men in equal honour’ (original emphasis). This further suggests that any mutilations of the dead committed by the Homeric ἀγαθοί on common warriors were morally justifiable in the eyes of the gods.
40 See Adkins, A.W.H., ‘Homeric gods and the values of Homeric society’, JHS 92 (1972), 1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 14–15; Yamagata (n. 24), 16.
41 The Homeric gods, in any case, rarely exhibit any interest in morality or justice in the human world. In most cases, they are presented as either morally indifferent or divided in their support for different groups of men. The prime focus of the gods’ morality in the Homeric poems is usually based on μοῖρα. As Yamagata (n. 24), 101 observes, ‘unless what μοῖρα bids coincides with the moral virtue of men, the gods do not behave as, or rather do not appear to be, defenders of human morality’. Achilles, in his continuous maltreatment and denial of burial to Hector, was challenging μοῖρα, which, therefore, required a divine intervention. For more on morality of the Homeric gods, see Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971)Google Scholar; Adkins (n. 40); Yamagata (n. 24), 3–101; Finley, M.I., The World of Odysseus (London, 1991 2), 133–41Google Scholar.
42 The Epic Cycle poems included some mutilation stories, such as Menelaus’ mutilation of Paris (Little Iliad, Arg. 2d) and Amphiaraus’ decapitation of Melanippus (Thebaid, fr. 9 West; Pherecydes, fr. 97 Fowler). For a short commentary on these, see West, M.L., The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics (Oxford, 2013), 187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fowler, R.L., Early Greek Mythography, Volume 2: Commentary (Oxford, 2013), 412Google Scholar. For mutilation scenes in early Greek art, see Vermeule, E., ‘The vengeance of Achilles’, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 63 (1965), 34–52 Google Scholar; ead. (n. 10), 107; van Wees (n. 2), 136–7. It has also been suggested that a fragment of poetry by Tyrtaeus (10.21-5 West) contains a post-mortem mutilation detail; for more, see Tritle, L.A., From Melos to My Lai: War and Survival (London, 2000), 40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Vermeule (n. 42), 40, 51 n. 8 counts eighteen depictions of Achilles dragging the body of Hector in the Attic black-figure art but no surviving representations in red-figure. The new attitude towards the war dead is especially conspicuous in Euripides’ Suppliants, where rules regarding the proper treatment of the dead are described as ‘the laws of the gods’ (νόμιμ᾽ θεῶν, 19), the ‘laws of all Greece’ (νόμιμα πάσης Ἑλλάδος, 311) and the ‘laws of all Greeks’ (τὸν Πανελλήνων νόμον, 526, 671).
