Mutilation, along with all forms of maltreatment of the dead, was widely condemned by Greek authors of the Classical period.Footnote 2 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’.Footnote 3 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.
This stark contrast between the Homeric poem and the standards of Classical Greece was highlighted by Plato, who, in his Republic, expresses his moral indignation and disbelief at Achilles’ mutilation of Hector. As part of the discussion on the education system in the ideal city-state, Socrates suggests that a number of stories in Homer should be eliminated or censored, being unsuitable for children and citizens of a just city (3.391b-c):
τάς τε αὖ Ἕκτορος ἕλξεις περὶ τὸ σῆμα τὸ Πατρόκλου καὶ τὰς τῶν ζωγρηθέντων σφαγὰς εἰς τὴν πυράν, σύμπαντα ταῦτα οὐ φήσομεν ἀληθῆ εἰρῆσθαι, οὐδ᾽ ἐάσομεν πείθεσθαι τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὡς Ἀχιλλεύς, θεᾶς ὢν παῖς καὶ Πηλέως, σωφρονεστάτου τε καὶ τρίτου ἀπὸ Διός, καὶ ὑπὸ τῷ σοφωτάτῳ Χείρωνι τεθραμμένος, τοσαύτης ἦν ταραχῆς πλέως, ὥστ᾽ ἔχειν ἐν αὑτῷ νοσήματε δύο ἐναντίω ἀλλήλοιν, | ἀνελευθερίαν μετὰ φιλοχρηματίας καὶ αὖ ὑπερηφανίαν θεῶν τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων.
Then again there is the dragging of Hector around the grave mound of Patroclus and the slaughter of the captives at the pyre: we shall say that none of these stories is true and we shall not allow our people to believe that Achilles, son of a goddess and Peleus, the most temperate of men and grandson of Zeus, and brought up under the eye of the most wise Chiron, was so fully distraught as to have within him two opposing afflictions: meanness with his greed for possessions, and, on the other hand, contempt for gods and men.
(trans. C. Emlyn-Jones and W. Preddy, Loeb Classical Library)Socrates’ ultimate aim is, in fact, to eliminate all stories depicting immoral and impious acts from traditional Greek art (μουσική), and especially those committed or partaken of by the gods.Footnote 4 His disbelief and critique of some of the actions of the Homeric gods is particularly strong, reflecting what we can already see in the late archaic writings of Xenophanes, who famously blamed Homer and Hesiod for ‘ascribing to the gods all things that are shame and disgrace among mortals’ (πάντα θεοῖσ’ ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρός θ’ Ἡσίοδός τε ὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστίν, 21 B11 DK).
The attitude of Homer, as well as of the Homeric gods, towards the mutilation of the dead, and especially Achilles’ maltreatment of Hector, has been the subject of a long scholarly debate, dating back already to the Homeric scholiasts.Footnote 5 Charles Segal, the author of the standard modern work on The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad, asserts that ‘the exposure and mutilation of a dead warrior's corpse does indeed arouse in Homer repugnance and even some measure of moral outrage’.Footnote 6 This view is taken up in some of the more recent articles of military historians: J.E. Lendon claims that Homeric mutilation ‘crosses the line of proper behaviour and offends the gods’;Footnote 7 Peter Krentz simply states that ‘the gods disapprove’ of the mutilation episodes in the Iliad.Footnote 8 In this paper, I will show that, contrary to the view of these scholars, the practice of maltreating the dead was perfectly acceptable by the moral and ethical standards of the society depicted in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and as such is not condemned or disapproved of by the Homeric gods.Footnote 9
MUTILATION OF THE DEAD IN HOMER
The theme of the mutilation of the corpse was well embedded in the Homeric epics, with numerous instances in the Iliad and a few mentions in the Odyssey.Footnote 10 The detailed and often spectacular descriptions of heads thrown ‘spinning like a ball through the throng of fighters’ (ἧκε δέ μιν σφαιρηδὸν ἑλιξάμενος δι᾽ ὁμίλου, Il. 13.204), armless torsos sent ‘spinning like a log down the battle’ (ὅλμον δ᾽ ὣς ἔσσευε κυλίνδεσθαι δι᾽ ὁμίλου, Il. 11.147), and bodies being dragged in the dust (Il. 22.401) contribute to what Emily Vermeule referred to as the ‘baroque magnificence in the physical ruin of Homer's heroes’.Footnote 11 The episodes mentioning successful mutilations usually appear at the end of a fighting sequence between small groups of warriors, and are always explicitly motivated by a desire for personal revenge. Far from being a mindless act of savagery, the practice of mutilating the enemy's corpse, known in Greek as αἰκία, provided an extreme way to exact revenge and has been explained by modern scholars as a product of the agonistic culture and the competitive ethic of Homeric warriors.Footnote 12
Homeric mutilations of the dead can be grouped into three main categories: (a) mutilations carried out successfully; (b) mutilations intended but not carried out; and (c) mutilations caused by intentional exposure to animals, such as dogs, birds, fish and worms. Beginning with the first group, there are altogether six examples of successful mutilation, all of them from the Iliad.Footnote 13 The first is committed by Agamemnon, who kills Hippolochus and cuts away his arms, sending his body ‘spinning like a log down the battle’ (ὅλμον δ᾽ ὣς ἔσσευε κυλίνδεσθαι δι᾽ ὁμίλου, 11.145-7). This, as the Achaean leader explains, is done in revenge for the actions of Hippolochus’ father, Antimachus, who advised the Trojans to kill Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother, during his embassy to Troy before the war started. A few moments later, Agamemnon is stabbed by Coön, whose brother Iphidamas was killed and despoiled by the Achaean leader. Despite being wounded, Agamemnon manages to thrust his spear fatally underneath Coön's shield, and then decapitates him (11.259-61). Later, during the Trojan assault on the Achaean ships, the two Aiantes decapitate the corpse of Imbrius, whose head they throw ‘spinning like a ball through the throng of fighters’ (ἧκε δέ μιν σφαιρηδὸν ἑλιξάμενος δι᾽ ὁμίλου, 13.204); Imbrius’ head lands at the feet of Hector, who moments earlier killed their companion Amphimachus. In Book 14, Peneleos, stirred in anger by the vaunting of the Trojan Acamas, stabs Ilioneus in his eye and hews away the head at the neck, ‘lifting it high like the head of a poppy’ (φὴ κώδειαν ἀνασχὼν) and displaying it boastfully to the terrified Trojans (14.499-500). Finally, the last two instances of mutilation concern the body of Hector. After his death at the hands of Achilles, Hector's corpse is first stabbed by a number of the Achaean warriors, who mockingly joke about the ‘softness’ of his body (22.369-75). Then, Achilles begins his infamous mutilation of Hector, dragging his body behind his chariot at random over the next twelve days around the tomb of Patroclus (22.395-404; 23.21; 24.14-18; 24.416-17).Footnote 14
Warriors intending to mutilate the body of their enemy include: Patroclus, urging the Aiantes to dishonour (ἀεικισσαίμεθ᾽) and strip the body of Sarpedon (16.559-60); Euphorbus, wishing to decapitate Menelaus in revenge for the death of his brother Hyperenor (17.39); Hector, who drags away the body of Patroclus ‘meaning to cut his head from his shoulders’ (ἀπ᾽ ὤμοιιν κεφαλὴν τάμοι ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ, 17.126) and set it on sharp stakes (18.177); and Achilles, who promises the now dead Patroclus the armour and the head of Hector as funeral gifts, as well as to decapitate twelve Trojan youths (18.334-7), a promise which he does eventually fulfil (23.175-6). Finally, although Odysseus does not strictly intend to mutilate Penelope's arrogant maid Melantho in the Odyssey, he does threaten her with saying that Telemachus ‘will cut you to pieces’ (μελεϊστὶ τάμῃσιν, Od. 18.339).
The driving motive behind all instances of mutilation depicted in the Iliad is vengeance.Footnote 15 Achilles’ treatment of Hector in revenge for the death of Patroclus provides an immediate example; it seems also natural to assume that the eagerness of the Achaean soldiers to stab the body of Hector was treated as ‘payback’ for the countless brothers, relatives and friends that the Trojan prince slew during the many years of the war.Footnote 16 Agamemnon explicitly states that Hippolochus’ mutilation ‘shall punish the shame of your father’ (νῦν μὲν δὴ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀεικέα τίσετε λώβην, 11.142).Footnote 17 The Aiantes behead Imbrius ‘in anger’ (κεχολωμένος) for the death of their companion Amphimachus, and throw his head intentionally at the feet of his slayer Hector (13.202-5). Peneleos’ grisly act of mutilation is also carried out in anger at the death of Promachus and the vaunting speech of his killer Acamas (14.486-9). The intention is similarly clear in Euphorbus’ wish to decapitate Menelaus, whose head might apparently soothe the mourning of his parents (17.34-40):
Then, lordly Menelaus, you must now pay the penalty for my brother, whom you killed, and boast that you did it, and made his wife a widow in the depth of a young bride-chamber and left his parents the curse of lamentation and sorrow. Yet, I might stop the mourning of these unhappy people if I could carry back to them your head, and your armour, and toss them into Panthoös’ hands, and to Phrontis the lovely.
Acts of mutilation undoubtedly terrified enemy warriors, as is made clear in the case of Peneleos, but it is unlikely that that was their only aim. Homeric mutilations, as Lendon observed, are rarely driven by ‘the desire to demonstrate or advertise performance per se’, nor by any sense of audience.Footnote 18 Instead, it is the anger and lust for vengeance which provided the spur to maltreat the bodies of the enemy. The ability to exact revenge when offended or wronged is something which was widely expected of Homeric men, and especially of the wealthy heroes (ἀγαθοί); successful retaliation contributed to their status and honour (τιμή), and, in the cases when the offensive behaviour involved the killing of one's friend or relative, it also restored the τιμή of the slain.Footnote 19 Vengeance killings were therefore a necessary requirement imposed by the society on Homeric heroes, and mutilating one's enemy provided the ultimate means to retaliate and shame the victim in the strongest possible way.Footnote 20 As Lendon observed, simple ‘conventional’ killings on the Homeric battlefield never result in the mutilation of the dead, only vengeance killings do.Footnote 21 Maltreating the enemy corpse was, therefore, deeply rooted in the ideals of vengeance in Homeric society, and, as such, cannot be seen as random acts of brutality.
More importantly, however, successful acts of mutilation, apart from Achilles’ treatment of Hector that we will consider later, are never criticized or condemned in the poem. The gods make no moral comments about them and Homer's detailed and casual descriptions of the scenes involving mutilations suggest that they formed an acceptable, if slightly unusual, feature of heroic battles.Footnote 22 Mutilating the dead, therefore, appears to have been a perfectly justifiable form of revenge, which belonged to what Samuel Elliot Bassett referred to as the ‘Homeric code of honour’.Footnote 23 In fact, the general impression which the poem gives is that acts of mutilation, far from being morally or ethically wrong, were in most cases not only necessary to restore and reinforce the balance of τιμή but also right within the moral system of Homeric ἀγαθοί.Footnote 24 Agamemnon certainly believes so when he proclaims that Hippolochus’ mutilation will ‘punish the shame’ (τείσετε λώβην) of Antimachus, who denied Menelaus and Odysseus the sacred rights of hospitality when they came to Troy as envoys (Il. 11.138-42). Odysseus’ threat of ‘cutting to pieces’ (μελεϊστὶ τάμῃσιν) issued to Melantho, the serving maid who scolded him in his own household, must also have been entirely justifiable to Homeric audiences (Od. 18.337-9). Finally, the promise to behead Hector, which Achilles makes to the dead Patroclus, seems similarly ‘justifiable’, considering that Hector wished to do exactly the same to Achilles’ dearest companion in the first place. All in all, therefore, the overwhelming majority of the intended and successful mutilations are morally acceptable by Homer and the Homeric gods; they are presented as part of the vengeance system of heroic society and as such constitute a consistent and significant part of Homeric warfare.
The third group of mutilations depicted by Homer includes the numerous mentions of animals feeding on the corpses of dead warriors. The theme of animal mutilation is by far the most popular of all mutilation themes in the poems and already receives a mention in the very first sentence of the Iliad (1.1-7):
Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaeans, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished since that time when first there stood in division of conflict Atreus’ son the lord of men and brilliant Achilles.
Animal mutilation receives no fewer than forty-six mentions in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, and constitutes a regular part of the Homeric description of warfare, being, according to Vincent Rosivach, ‘a stereotyped expression related to death in battle’.Footnote 25 There are a number of ways in which the theme is brought up in the poems of which the most popular include: vaunting over the enemy (‘you will glut the dogs and the birds of the Trojans with fat and flesh’, Τρώων κορέεις κύνας ἠδ᾽ οἰωνοὺς | δημῷ καὶ σάρκεσσι, Il. 13.831-2); threatening and urging on insubordinate soldiers (‘any man whom I find trying, apart from the battle, to hang back by the curved ships, for him no longer will there be means to escape the dogs and the vultures’, ὃν δέ κ᾽ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης ἐθέλοντα νοήσω | μιμνάζειν παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσιν, οὔ οἱ ἔπειτα | ἄρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδ᾽ οἰωνούς, Il. 2.391-3); or lamenting about one's future (‘my dogs in front of my doorway will rip me raw’, με κύνες πρώτῃσι θύρῃσιν | ὠμησταὶ ἐρύουσιν, Il. 22.66-7), or the fate of one's relatives (‘the dogs and the flying birds must by now have worried the skin away from his bones’, τοῦ δ᾽ ἤδη μέλλουσι κύνες ταχέες τ᾽ οἰωνοὶ | ῥινὸν ἀπ᾽ ὀστεόφιν ἐρύσαι, Od. 14.133-4).
The prospect of being left unburied and outraged by animals was certainly a terrifying one for Homeric heroes, whose status demanded a glorious funeral, intended to confirm and cement their fame for future generations.Footnote 26 Hector's dying words, for instance, were to beg Achilles not to let the dogs feed on him, but to return his body to his parents for the rite of burning (Il. 22.338-43). And although the prospect of animal mutilation is rarely actually fulfilled in the poems, we are led to believe that it was a silent and ever-present feature of the Homeric battlefield, which was, for most of the time, littered with unburied corpses of common soldiers.Footnote 27 Threats of animal mutilations are therefore aimed to disturb and frighten the Homeric ἀγαθοί, and form an important part of the battle formalities and heroic etiquette.
As in the case of human mutilations, the motif of animal mutilation receives no divine or human condemnation in the Homeric poems. As we already saw, the first lines of the Iliad speak of the unburied bodies feasted on by dogs and birds, all being part of Zeus's will. Far from being morally outraged, some Homeric gods in fact appear to take active part in the etiquette concerning animal mutilations: Athena, speaking to Hera, wonders whether Hector ‘will feel joy to see us apparent on the outworks of battle, or see if some Trojan gives the dogs and the birds their desire with fat and flesh’ (γηθήσει προφανέντε ἀνὰ πτολέμοιο γεφύρας, | ἦ τις καὶ Τρώων κορέει κύνας ἠδ᾽ οἰωνοὺς | δημῷ καὶ σάρκεσσι, 8.378-80); while Poseidon, likening himself to Thoas, urges Idomeneus: ‘may that man who this day wilfully hangs back from the fighting never win home again out of Troy land, but stay here and be made dogs’ delight for their feasting’ (μὴ κεῖνος ἀνὴρ ἔτι νοστήσειεν | ἐκ Τροίης, ἀλλ᾽ αὖθι κυνῶν μέλπηθρα γένοιτο, | ὅς τις ἐπ᾽ ἤματι τῷδε ἑκὼν μεθίῃσι μάχεσθαι, 13.232-4). It seems clear, therefore, that the gods do not disapprove of the mutilation practices depicted in the Iliad, and, in the case of animal mutilations, appear to be actively involved themselves.
ACHILLES’ MALTREATMENT OF HECTOR
The scholarly assumption that the mutilation of the dead was morally and divinely condemned in the Homeric poems is based primarily on Achilles’ maltreatment of Hector. Achilles, as already mentioned, drags the corpse of Hector behind his chariot repeatedly over twelve days until the gods order him to return the body to Priam for a ransom. His maltreatment of Hector is twice described in the poem as ‘shameful treatment’, or ἀεικέα ἔργα (Il. 22.395, 23.24), and is also condemned in a speech by Apollo who accuses Achilles of having lost pity and shame (24.44-54). Apollo concludes by stating (24.50-4):
But this man, now he has torn the heart of life from great Hector, ties him to his horses and drags him around his beloved companion's tomb; and nothing is gained thereby for his good, or his honour. Great as he is, let him take care not to make us angry; for see, he does dishonour to the dumb earth in his fury.
The meaning of the term ἀεικέα ἔργα, which is commonly translated as ‘shameful’ or ‘unseemly’ deeds, has been the subject of a scholarly debate ever since antiquity.Footnote 28 One side of the debate maintains that the actions described as ἀεικέα ἔργα carry ‘a moral connotation of excessive, unsanctioned violence’; the shame of such action falls entirely on the performer who is thus severely condemned on a moral level.Footnote 29 Other examples of ἀεικέα ἔργα in the Homeric poems, according to the proponents of this theory, confirm this interpretation and include the ‘act of shame’ (ἔργον ἀεικές) of Clytemnestra (Od. 3.265, 11.429); the ‘shameful’ (ἀεικέα) thoughts of Aegisthus (Od. 4.533), who plotted against Agamemnon; and the ‘shameful activities’ (ἀεικέα ἔργ᾽) of the suitors in the Odyssey (16.107, 20.317). Achilles’ maltreatment of the body of Hector, therefore, falls into the same category of shameful actions morally condemned in the poems.
On the other hand, a number of scholars have questioned this understanding of the term ἀεικέα ἔργα, suggesting instead that the action did not shame the performer in any way, but rather dishonoured the object of the action.Footnote 30 Bassett, the most vocal proponent of this interpretation, argued that, although some actions described as shameful by the poet do carry the moral condemnation of the doer, as in the cases of Clytemnestra and Penelope's suitors, they are ‘far outnumbered’ by those actions in which the adjective ἀεικές ‘impl[ies] solely the harm to the object of the action, and not the injustice of the actor’.Footnote 31 These actions include the ‘shameful’ (ἀεικέσσι) blows with which Odysseus threatens Thersites (Il. 2.264); the ‘shameful action’ (ἔργον ἀεικές) of warriors driven to flight (Il. 14.13); and the ‘shameful work’ (ἔργον ἀεικές) imposed on Heracles by Eurystheus (Il. 19.133).Footnote 32 In a similar way, therefore, the ἀεικέα ἔργα of Achilles’ mutilation of Hector shamed only the latter and as such allow Homer to state emphatically ‘the fullness of the retribution which Achilles exacted for the slaying of his friend’, with no moral condemnation whatsoever.Footnote 33
If one considers the ἀεικέα ἔργα of Achilles from a broader perspective of the mutilation theme in the Homeric poems, the view that holds his maltreatment of Hector as immoral and shameful to the leader of the Myrmidons becomes very problematic, if not altogether untenable. Mutilating the corpse of one's enemy, as we established, provided a perfectly acceptable, and often necessary, way for a Homeric hero to exact revenge and to shame the victim. Achilles’ maltreatment of Hector, therefore, falls clearly within the pattern of all other Homeric mutilations motivated by vengeance. Neither of the successful or intended mutilations in the Iliad is described with any morally weighted terms and thus there are no reasons to assume that Achilles’ actions were an exception. Animal mutilations can be accompanied by the derivatives of the term ἀεικές—Achilles tells Hector of the dogs and vultures that ‘shall feed and foully (ἀϊκῶς) rip you’ (22.336); similarly, flies and worms can ‘make foul (ἀεικίσσωσι)’ the unburied body of Patroclus (19.26). We can hardly assume, however, that the foul actions of the dogs, birds and flies are immoral in the eyes of the poet; instead, they are dishonourable and shameful to the person who suffers them. Moreover, of the two passages mentioning Achilles’ ἀεικέα ἔργα, one does not even include the act of mutilation. At the beginning of Book 23 we are told that Achilles ‘thought of shameful treatment for glorious Hector. He laid him on his face in the dust by the bier of Menoitios’ son’ (Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα, | πρηνέα πὰρ λεχέεσσι Μενοιτιάδαο τανύσσας | ἐν κονίῃς, 23.24-6). This action, again, hardly merits moral condemnation by the poet, as unburied bodies are a constant feature of Homeric battlefields, and must be seen instead as being shameful to Hector; unburied and unlamented, exposed to dogs and vultures, the Trojan prince is denied his ‘imperishable glory’ and suffers the fate which all Homeric ἀγαθοί fear most.Footnote 34 Achilles’ vengeance is, therefore, complete and it is only after the funeral of Patroclus that we get the first impression of his actions being morally wrong.
Following the funeral of Patroclus in Book 23, Achilles continues to maltreat the body of Hector for nine days, which sparks a quarrel among the Homeric gods, as most of them, filled with compassion and pity, want Hermes to steal the body and return it to Priam, while others, including Hera, Poseidon and Athena, disagree (24.23-6, 24.107-9). This leads to the famous speech of Apollo (24.33-54), who accuses Achilles of having no sense of justice, no pity and no shame; his mutilation of Hector angers the gods and does nothing to his own good nor honour, as he ‘dishonours the dumb earth in his fury’ (κωφὴν γὰρ δὴ γαῖαν ἀεικίζει μενεαίνων, 24.54). The majority of the gods agree and Zeus summons Thetis to give her son a message: ‘tell him that the gods frown upon him, that beyond all other immortals I myself am angered that in his heart's madness he holds Hector beside the curved ships and did not give him back. Perhaps in fear of me he will give back Hector’ (σκύζεσθαί οἱ εἰπὲ θεούς, ἐμὲ δ᾽ ἔξοχα πάντων | ἀθανάτων κεχολῶσθαι, ὅτι φρεσὶ μαινομένῃσιν | Ἕκτορ᾽ ἔχει παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσιν οὐδ᾽ ἀπέλυσεν, | αἴ κέν πως ἐμέ τε δείσῃ ἀπό θ᾽ Ἕκτορα λύσῃ, 24.113-16).
The divine condemnation of Achilles’ actions is therefore almost unanimous. It is very revealing, however, that in Zeus's speech to Thetis we are specifically told that the disagreement among the gods concerning Achilles’ maltreatment of Hector began nine days ago (ἐννῆμαρ), or, in other words, on the day of Patroclus’ funeral (24.107).Footnote 35 This clearly implies that the two days of Achilles’ ἀεικέα ἔργα before the funeral did not cause any anger or disapproval on Olympus. Achilles’ fault, therefore, lay not in mutilating Hector's body in the first place, which was an accepted and legitimate part of his vengeance, but rather in his excessive maltreatment of the Trojan prince after Patroclus’ funeral.Footnote 36 The main complaint of Apollo is that Achilles is unable to restrain his anger and vengeance, which will lead to the gods’ feeling of νέμεσις towards him (24.53), which Naoko Yamagata translates as ‘“public disapproval” … caused when one sees someone “going beyond one's lot”’.Footnote 37 His vengeance at Hector for the death of Patroclus was thus justified until the latter was buried and, by normal Homeric standards, fully avenged; it was the persistence with which Achilles continued to drag the body of Hector afterwards, going beyond the accepted norms of vengeance, which caused the gods to disapprove.Footnote 38
Another factor that contributed to the condemnation of Achilles’ actions by the gods was the social standing of Hector. In her immediate reply to the speech of Apollo, Hera responds by saying that his words could be true ‘only if you give Hector such pride of place as you give to Achilles. But Hector was mortal, and suckled at the breast of a woman, while Achilles is the child of a goddess’ (εἰ δὴ ὁμὴν Ἀχιλλῆϊ καὶ Ἕκτορι θήσετε τιμήν. | Ἕκτωρ μὲν θνητός τε γυναῖκά τε θήσατο μαζόν‧ | αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς ἐστι θεᾶς γόνος, 24.57-9). The implication is, therefore, that Achilles should be allowed to do as he pleases, as his honour is greater among the gods than that of Hector's.Footnote 39 Zeus, however, reminds his wife that Hector was ‘also loved by the gods’; he is a true Homeric ἁγαθός, the ‘best of all mortals in Ilion’ (φίλτατος ἔσκε θεοῖσι βροτῶν οἳ ἐν Ἰλίῳ εἰσίν, 24.67), who never failed to offer sacrifices to the gods, and as such it is his rightful due to receive a glorious and heroic funeral which is wrongfully denied him by Achilles (24.66-70). As demonstrated by the case of Sarpedon, whose body the gods rescue from the battlefield and carry to Lycia, ‘where his brothers and countrymen shall give him due burial with tomb and gravestones’ for ‘such is the privilege of those who have perished’ (ἔνθά ἑ ταρχύσουσι κασίγνητοί τε ἔται τε | τύμβῳ τε στήλῃ τε‧ τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ θανόντων, 16.674-5), the Homeric gods are very intent on ensuring that their favourite mortal ἀγαθοί are provided with a full burial ceremony.Footnote 40 Hector's body is, therefore, protected continuously by Aphrodite and Apollo during the many days of Achilles’ maltreatment (23.185-7, 24.18-21); the gods drive the dogs and birds away from his body ‘day and night’ and anoint him with ‘rosy immortal oil’, until Achilles finally ends his vengeance and gives the body back to Priam, following the order from Zeus.
To summarize, the initial maltreatment of Hector by Achilles was not disapproved by the Homeric gods nor by the poet.Footnote 41 Achilles’ actions were entirely justifiable within the heroic code of vengeance, and, as such, fall within the pattern of all other Homeric mutilations, successful and intended, described in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The use of the phrase ἀεικέα ἔργα emphasized the fullness of Achilles’ vengeance, as well as the shame imposed on Hector, putting no moral blame on Achilles himself. The consistent maltreatment of Hector after Patroclus’ funeral, on the other hand, was condemned by the gods as an excessive form of vengeance, based both on the moral norms of Homeric society and on the social standing of Hector. The disapproval of the gods, however, did not apply to the act per se, which in most circumstances was regarded as a legitimate way to exact revenge ‘within reason’, by both men and gods.
EPILOGUE
Plato's condemnation of Achilles’ dragging of Hector, and the behaviour of the Homeric gods in general, which he expresses in the Republic, is hardly surprising when one considers the general attitude of the Greeks towards the proper treatment of the dead in the Classical period. His criticism of such episodes depicted in the Iliad indicates, however, that it was precisely because of the lack of any moral or divine condemnation within the Homeric poems that he wished to eliminate them from the curriculum of his ideal city-state in the first place. The practice of mutilating the corpse of one's enemy is entirely acceptable within the honour-driven society of the Homeric ἀγαθοί, being deeply embedded within the heroic ideals of vengeance and shame. Throughout the poems, the mutilation of the dead is consistently presented as the ultimate means to exact revenge on one's enemies, and far from being morally criticized, the practice is entirely justifiable and often even necessary in the eyes of the poet and the gods.
The radical contrast between the Homeric poems and the ideals of the authors of the Classical period is more difficult to explain. Depictions of the mutilations of the dead were certainly not limited to the Iliad and the Odyssey, and were a recurring feature in early Greek mythology and art.Footnote 42 These depictions, however, disappear gradually from our record around the end of the Archaic period, being replaced by the new sentiment of universal respect towards the dead championed in the works of the Athenian tragedians and Herodotus.Footnote 43 Herodotus’ account of the aftermath of the battle of Plataea provides perhaps the best example of this transition and the new attitude of Classical Greeks towards mutilation. Following the Greek victory over the Persians, Lampon, one of the leading men of Aegina, suggested that the Spartan general Pausanias should decapitate the corpse of Mardonius in revenge for the latter's similar treatment of Pausanias’ uncle Leonidas (9.78). Although Pausanias refuses, on the grounds that such practices ‘befit barbarians rather than Greeks’ (9.79), the mere fact that Lampon suggested it in the first place indicates that the practice of mutilation was still regarded by some as a viable way of exacting revenge. Despite its anecdotal nature, Herodotus’ account is one of the first to condemn the mutilation of the dead in such strong terms. And so it is perhaps most revealing that the practice considered by him as befitting only the barbarians is, in the Iliad, successfully committed only by the Greeks.
