The Iliad opens with the image of abandoned corpses, left as prey to the wild beasts. It closes with the hard-won and respectful funeral of Hector, during which his maimed body is finally laid to rest. In-between these passages, death and the fate of dead bodies are often part of the epic's subject matter. The audience is treated to a wide selection of images concerning the fallen and their remains, ranging from those taken gently away from the battlefield to be buried to those who are posthumously mutilated where they lie. Instances of corpse mutilation are rare elsewhere in Greek historical and literary writing, but occur in the Iliad at a regular rate. The gruesomeness of these acts makes for shocking and violent scenes, and represents a radical departure from the normal funeral ritual with lasting repercussions for the relatives of the deceased and the fate of the dead person in the afterlife.
The phenomenon of corpse mutilation in the Iliad has been most extensively studied by Segal, who looked at changes in this theme throughout Books 16–24, as well as at how the narrator manipulates his language and formulas to contrast and parallel scenes containing corpse mutilation.Footnote 1 He concludes that the theme of corpse mutilation has three stages (Books 18–22, Book 23 and Book 24 respectively), which take the poem from ‘intense violence to calm finale’, with the greatest climax during Hector's death scene and the abating of violence throughout the next two books.Footnote 2 Segal claims that the references to mutilation in the first two-thirds of the Iliad are ‘scattered and not grouped into a specific pattern’.Footnote 3 I will, on the contrary, argue that every mutilation scene is carefully placed to contribute to the eventual climax, and that the escalation and the progression of the theme can best be seen by considering each instance of mutilation. Rather than using Segal's approach of focussing on the language and on Homeric formulas, I will focus on the details of the act itself to determine how this theme changes throughout the narrative. There is a deliberate progression in the violence and the impact of corpse mutilation in the Iliad. It is not a static and unchanging act but something that intensifies and becomes more widespread. The mutilations do not occur at random, but are part of a carefully constructed narrative line throughout the story, culminating in the final mutilation of Hector. To demonstrate this, I will look at which characters perform mutilations, at what moments, with which motives and to what effect. My hypothesis is that the manner in which these mutilations take place influences their impact and effect on the story. To aid in distinguishing between the nuances of different acts of corpse mutilation, I will make use of a modern forensic classification of corpse mutilation, designed to classify such acts by the motive of the perpetrator. Mine will be a narratological approach, in the neoanalytical tradition, and my aim, by classifying corpse mutilation in this way, is to show how its purpose changes throughout the narrative.
CLASSIFICATION OF CORPSE MUTILATION
Corpse mutilation can be active (a person purposefully mutilates a dead body) or passive (a body is left unburied and becomes mutilated by exposure to the elements or various animals).Footnote 4 Forensic science classifies active corpse mutilation in four categories: defensive, aggressive, offensive and necromantic.Footnote 5 Defensive mutilation is used to prevent identification of the victim or to ease transportation or disposal of the body. It is the most prevalent form of mutilation in modern society, although we have little evidence of its occurrence in ancient Greece.Footnote 6 Aggressive mutilation is when the aggression and strong emotions that led to the killing also lead to the mutilation after death, as a kind of ‘overkill’. Most of the mutilations performed in the Iliad belong in this category. In these acts, merely killing the victim does not appease the rage of the killer, who continues to perpetrate violence even after death. In offensive mutilation, the killing is secondary to the mutilation, meaning that the killer kills someone with the primary motive of subsequently mutilating the corpse.Footnote 7 Necromantic mutilation occurs when the murderer decides to take a body part as a trophy or symbol after having committed the murder, as a reminder of the victim or of the act itself.Footnote 8 Which form of mutilation is performed is related to the setting of the killing and to the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.
THE ILIAD
The threats of passive corpse mutilation are clearly present in the first ten books of the Iliad, but it is not until Book 11 that the first active corpse mutilation is performed.Footnote 9 The perpetrator is Agamemnon, who encounters the brothers Peisander and Hippolochus in battle. Both beg to be taken hostage, an entreaty ignored by Agamemnon (11.131–42). He slays Peisander in his chariot and then turns on Hippolochus (11.145–7):
Agamemnon slays Hippolochus, and what remains of his body is thrown into the fighting in the shape of a ὅλμος.Footnote 11 Hippolochus’ mutilation (the removal of his arms and head) occurs close to the moment of his death, and it is not entirely clear whether it is an intravital mutilation or a true corpse mutilation.Footnote 12 It is, however, an extraordinarily violent killing that leaves the body mutilated and in four separate pieces. It paves the way for later, true corpse mutilations that occur clearly after death.
The circumstances of Hippolochus’ killing are significant. Agamemnon has not encountered just any warriors, but recognizes Antimachus’ sons, who had been especially opposed to returning Helen to Menelaus out of greed (11.123–5) and who had even proposed that Menelaus and Odysseus be killed when they came on an embassy to the Trojans (11.138–42). This is Agamemnon's chance for payback: Menelaus was shamed by Antimachus and now Agamemnon shames Antimachus’ son (and thereby his father) by this humiliating death.Footnote 13 He tells the brothers how their father treated Menelaus, thereby letting them know why they cannot expect mercy. Then he takes his revenge by an aggressive mutilation: his anger at Antimachus makes him deny Hippolochus’ plea as suppliant (a plea that was μειλίχιος [‘kind’], but received a reply that was ἀμείλικτος [‘unkind’]) and that same anger makes him mutilate the body.Footnote 14 It is an action inspired by rage, happening in the midst of battle without prior planning or threatening. Agamemnon does not keep any part of Hippolochus as trophy, but throws his torso in the midst of the warring soldiers, demonstrating what happens to those who enrage him. This is characteristic of the aggressive type of corpse mutilation. This first mutilation—whether it be a true corpse mutilation or not—thus shows that such extraordinarily violent killings are motivated by specific personal circumstances.
Shortly after the killing of Hippolochus, Agamemnon kills and mutilates the next Trojan. Again, the circumstances lead to the mutilation. Agamemnon kills Iphidamas (11.238–40), and Iphidamas’ brother Coön witnesses his death and sees Agamemnon stripping Iphidamas of his armour. When Agamemnon carries the armour away from the body, Coön strikes him on the arm with his spear, wounding Agamemnon (11.250–4). While Coön is attempting to take his brother's body back, Agamemnon kills him (11.259–61):
Coön is killed from some distance with a spear and Agamemnon approaches to decapitate him.Footnote 15 His head lands on the brother whose body he was trying to recover, a detail that adds to the horror of this passage. Like the killing of Hippolochus, Coön's mutilation is also provoked by specific events, this time by his wounding of Agamemnon.
These two aggressive mutilations by Agamemnon serve several purposes. They demonstrate that the war intensifies from this point onwards and that dismemberment on the battlefield becomes an option.Footnote 16 This opens the door for the mutilations in later books. Although the mutilations are gruesome, there is room for escalation. What the mutilations by Agamemnon also show is that they occur at special moments when particular vengeance is called for.
The next mutilation occurs in Book 13, after a complicated battle sequence. Teucer kills the Trojan Imbrius (13.172–3). As Teucer attempts to strip Imbrius’ corpse of its armour, Hector tries to avenge his death by attempting to kill Teucer (13.183). Teucer, however, dodges the spear and it slays Amphimachus, another Greek (13.184). As Hector tries to remove Amphimachus’ helmet, he is attacked by Ajax and is forced to withdraw. The Greeks seize this opportunity to take the corpses of both Amphimachus and the Trojan Imbrius back to their side of the line (13.194–5). The two Aiantes strip the Trojan of his armour (13.202–5):
This mutilation also falls in the aggressive category and is performed by another Greek, like all the instances that have occurred earlier. Its motive is clearly provided as well: the lesser Ajax wanted to avenge Amphimachus. A significant aspect of corpse mutilation is again illuminated here: it happens at times of extreme emotion, which is explicitly signalled in the text. The lesser Ajax was angry (κεχολωμένος) and this rage makes him cut off Imbrius’ head. However, this mutilation differs from those in Book 11 in several ways. For one, the mutilator is not actually the killer. The mutilation is not a matter of overkill but a separate act entirely, which does not occur instantaneously. There is some time between Imbrius’ death and his post-mortem decapitation by the lesser Ajax. The mutilations of Hippolochus and Coön could not have been prevented: they were mutilated immediately after death. However, if the Trojans had successfully recovered Imbrius’ corpse, his body would have remained intact. Furthermore, Imbrius had nothing to do with Amphimachus’ death. Amphimachus died when Imbrius was already dead. His body is an instrument to get to Hector.Footnote 18 His mutilation by the lesser Ajax therefore represents an escalation: corpses can now be mutilated on the battlefield not only by the killers but also by other warriors, even if the deceased did not directly offend or harm them. Quickly recovering corpses becomes of the utmost importance. After decapitating Imbrius, the lesser Ajax hurls his head towards the Trojans, much like Agamemnon did with Hippolochus’ trunk. Ajax, however, specifically aims the head towards the warrior on whom he was actually exacting his revenge: it lands in the dust at Hector's feet.
The next mutilation, in Book 14, continues this pattern of escalation. It is part of a chaotic series of killings.Footnote 19 The Greek Peneleus is angered by the death of comrade Promachus and performs the most gruesome mutilation yet. He chases Acamas, who escapes him, but then turns on Ilioneus (14.489–505):
The set-up for the mutilation is dramatic and elaborate. We are first made to think about Ilioneus’ father, loved by Hermes, among his flocks. Then we picture his mother, about to lose her only child. The next image is that of Peneleus’ spear piercing Ilioneus’ eyeball, a vivid and horrible notion.Footnote 20 The rest of the scene is full of details: the spear exiting Ilioneus’ neck, Ilioneus stretching out his arms as he falls, his head being sliced off while still wearing its helmet. Rather than throwing the head away, Peneleus chooses to display it like a κώδεια (‘poppy-head’).Footnote 21 Although we are not told what Peneleus does with the head afterwards, his actions have moved from a purely aggressive mutilation somewhat in the direction of a necromantic mutilation, with the head as a grisly trophy.Footnote 22 Peneleus then speaks, drawing the attention of more Trojans. The mutilation is a message that needs to be passed on to Ilioneus’ now childless mother and father: they will not see their son again, like Promachus’ wife will not welcome her husband home. Like Imbrius, Ilioneus is a victim not directly involved in the preceding fighting. His fate is grotesque and, for the first time, the narrator shows us the effect on others (14.506–7):Footnote 23
While the previous mutilations were only witnessed by those who happened to be close by (whose reactions were not described), Ilioneus’ mutilated head on the spear is seen by multiple Trojan warriors. Widespread physical fear takes hold of them. However, as we know from modern historical examples, the awareness of their comrades being mutilated can inspire soldiers to do the same.Footnote 24 From this point onwards, the threat of mutilation becomes much more prominent, on both sides of the war.Footnote 25 Up until now, both the contemplation and the performance of corpse mutilation was solely in Greek minds and hands. After this public display of Ilioneus’ head, this changes.
In Book 16, it becomes apparent that soldiers now fear mutilation on the battlefield. After Sarpedon's death, Glaucus reproaches Hector for not paying attention to his allies. He urges Hector to protect Sarpedon's corpse (16.544–7):
Mutilation is no longer imagined as performed solely under special circumstances that require extreme vengeance, but Glaucus now fears it as a general punishment for Trojans killing the Greeks. Glaucus recognizes that mutilation is fuelled by emotion: their state of anger (κεχολωμένοι) could induce the Greeks to mutilate Trojan corpses.
Thus far, mutilations have been performed by Agamemnon, the lesser Ajax and Peneleus, all of them Greeks. In Books 16 and 17, other major characters are starting to take part as well. It is Patroclus, often characterized by his gentle nature, who subsequently expresses the desire to mutilate the corpse of another major hero, justifying Glaucus’ fears (16.558–61):
We never learn what Patroclus intended to do exactly with Sarpedon's body. In the fighting, the corpse does become passively mutilated and defiled by ‘weapons and blood and dust’ (16.638–40). Before any of the Greeks can purposefully harm the body, however, Zeus orders Apollo to take Sarpedon home to Lycia. Apollo will wash and anoint his corpse, dress him in immortal clothing and ensure his full burial (16.667–75): τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ θανόντων (‘for such is the right of the dead’, 16.675).Footnote 27 The mutilation theme progresses slowly throughout these scenes, from the mutilation of minor characters to the near mutilation of major characters, to the eventual mutilation of Hector.
Soon after Sarpedon's death, Hector kills Patroclus. He extracts his spear from the corpse and then rejoins the fighting without mutilating him (16.862–5). The first threat of mutilation after Patroclus’ death comes from Euphorbus, who encounters Menelaus trying to protect Patroclus’ body. It is notable, because he is the first Trojan to consider corpse mutilation.Footnote 28 Up to this point, all threats and acts of mutilation have been Greek. First, Euphorbus threatens Menelaus with death, but Menelaus responds by telling him how he has killed his brother Hyperenor (17.12–32). This enrages Euphorbus and he goes beyond promising Menelaus death (17.38–40):
Euphorbus threatens the first purely necromantic mutilation. He wants Menelaus’ head as a trophy with a specific purpose: to end his parents’ grief for their fallen son. Decapitation is put on the same level as stripping someone of his armour: this as well as the fact that the Trojans are now also considering corpse mutilation are signs that the mutilation theme is becoming more widespread. Yet, Euphorbus never gets to take his trophy. It is Menelaus’ spear that pierces his neck (17.47–50).
The death of Euphorbus draws Hector back to the corpse of Patroclus (17.125–7):
Hector intends to decapitate Patroclus and deny him burial. Patroclus’ death is important in multiple ways: it removes a great warrior from the side of the Greeks, it avenges Sarpedon's death and it will pain Achilles. All of these are reasons for Hector to want to take credit. Mutilation has become a strategic and psychological weapon instead of an impulsive act. In this passage, Hector is never described as angry. Mutilation is more planned now than in Books 11 and 14, which is why there can be an interval between death and mutilation.
Hector is forced back by Ajax before he can decapitate Patroclus. A long battle over the corpse ensues. Before Hector can get hold of Patroclus, however, Achilles is urged into the battle by Iris, who inspires him to hurry to protect his friend's body (18.175–7):
It is the necromantic mutilation suggested by Euphorbus. However, it exists only in Iris’ words and we cannot know whether Hector actually intended this or whether Iris is just using the scenario that will most enrage Achilles. Whatever the case, the effect of these words on Achilles are clear. He joins the battle and will have Hector's alleged threat of mutilation in mind. Segal states that ‘Homer's refusal to localize the savagery on one side only expresses the comprehensiveness of his vision of war’.Footnote 29 However, the mutilation theme is actually strictly divided. The Trojan involvement stays limited again and again, present only in intention or wish but not in action. Every Trojan attempt to accomplish a mutilation is thwarted, and mutilation remains always the terrain of the Greeks. Theirs is the greater power on the battlefield as well as the greater rage.
As Achilles rejoins the battle, the amount of violence and aggression continues to build. Achilles kills many Trojans and leaves their bodies in the river to be passively mutilated by eels and fish (21.200–4).Footnote 30 He exults in it and displays no restraint, until he is eventually almost killed by the river Scamander.
When Hector meets Achilles on the battlefield for their final fight, he attempts to prevent future corpse mutilation by trying to make a deal with Achilles: the victor should return the body of the slain to his people (22.256–9). By refusing to return Hector's body even before their fight has started, Achilles suggests that his mistreatment of Hector's corpse is planned. When Achilles has mortally wounded Hector, Hector reiterates his request to have his body returned to his parents (22.338–44). Again Achilles refuses, addressing Hector as κύον (22.345), showing that, to him, he is subhuman.Footnote 31 Patroclus is the one who will be buried (22.335–6); Hector will be left for the dogs.Footnote 32
The start of Hector's mutilation belongs not only to Achilles but to many Greeks. It is a communal ritual. They gather around the body and each inflicts a wound (22.371). Only when they are finished does Achilles get involved.Footnote 33 His mutilation of Hector is not accomplished in the heat of the moment. First he waits, then he speaks to the Greeks and declares that they will take the body back to their camp (22.391–2). Afterwards, he pierces Hector's ankles, threads rope through the holes and binds him to his chariot (22.399–404):
The method of mutilation here is very different from the earlier mutilations. It is still aggressive in nature, but there is no decapitation or dismemberment. Achilles does not hack or slice at the corpse, but carefully pierces the ankles. The text explicitly signals in line 395 that the mutilation was planned: ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα (‘So he spoke, and devised shameful treatment for godlike Hector’). The next lines describe in detail what he does with the body. Achilles does not take Hector's head to put it on a spike, as Hector allegedly intended to do with Patroclus. He does not seem interested in preserving Hector's identity: in the passage above, references are made to the dust that now effaces Hector's former beauty when he is dragged behind the chariot (22.403). Back at the camp, Achilles leaves Hector lying prone (πρηνής) on the ground (23.25), a perversion of funeral rites, as the body was normally laid out on its back.Footnote 34 It looks like he tries to erase Hector. Patroclus will get a funeral and will be remembered, while Hector becomes a rotting corpse that is no longer recognizable, with no tomb to remember him. There is also a necromantic element in the mutilation of Hector. His body is not simply discarded, as is usually the case after an aggressive mutilation. Instead, the corpse is taken back to the camp and later on dragged around the mound, as if to demonstrate to the dead Patroclus that he has been avenged. As other combatants have taken armour from the dead as trophies, Achilles has taken the entire body for this purpose.
Up to this point, the social effect of corpse mutilation has not been represented at length by the narrator. Apart from two verses about the fear which Ilioneus’ decapitation caused among the Trojans, we have not been exposed to the impact and the aftermath of corpse mutilation. Books 23 and 24 change this.
In Troy, Priam, Hecuba, Andromache and other Trojans react to Hector's death, his denial of burial and his mutilation. Other than at the Greek camp, where a communal funeral for Patroclus is in progress, the Trojans have no body to bury. Their grief is individual and disparate, not centred around a ritual. Priam has to be held back from leaving the city immediately to supplicate Achilles. There is no closure for him and Hecuba as long as Hector's body is not with them (22.426–8). When Andromache hears the news of her husband's death and sees the body dragged behind the chariot, she faints (22.466–7).Footnote 35 Hector's fate produces a physical reaction in her. She also keenly feels the need for a funeral and devises an alternative ceremony by burning Hector's clothes (22.513–14). As days pass without an opportunity to get Hector's body back, the Trojans grow more desperate. The chances of Hector's remains being devoured by dogs and of there being nothing left to bury are continually increasing. Urged by the gods, Priam sets out for the Greek camp. Hector's death and the remoteness of his body are largely responsible for his sorrow, but the mutilation intensifies his fears for Hector's condition. What the Trojans imagine is more horrible than the reality. Andromache pictures wriggling worms and dogs feeding on the naked body of her husband (22.509–11) and Priam asks Hermes whether Achilles has dismembered his son and fed the pieces to his dogs (24.406–9).
In the Greek camp, Hector's death and mutilation appear to bring the army together, first in their joint stabbing of him, then in their mourning for Patroclus. Achilles believes that by having brought Hector's corpse to Patroclus’ bier he has fulfilled a promise to him (23.20–1):
Achilles expects that killing and mutilating Hector will bring closure to him and Patroclus. He has avenged his friend and can finally sleep. However, in his dream Patroclus’ ghost appears, rebuking him for not having buried him yet (23.69–74). Patroclus does not speak about Hector or about his gratitude for being avenged. The only thing that matters to him is to be buried so that he can enter the gates of Hades. Achilles obeys and organizes an elaborate funeral for Patroclus. He emphasizes once more how different Hector's fate is from Patroclus’: Hector will be given not to the fire but to the dogs (23.182–3). This is another promise that goes unfulfilled. Aphrodite keeps the dogs away and Apollo prevents decomposition (23.184–91). The mutilation has failed in its two main purposes: it has not brought closure to Achilles and Patroclus, and it has not succeeded in destroying Hector's body.
When Patroclus’ funeral is accomplished, the funeral games have ended and the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon has been resolved, Achilles still does not find peace. He does not eat or sleep, he wanders along the shore and drags Hector's corpse around Patroclus’ mound (24.15–18). This accomplishes nothing. Any satisfaction or gain the mutilator may experience from mutilating an enemy in a combat situation is not replicated outside of battle. Most mutilators avenged an insult (the dishonouring of Menelaus, an injury, the death of a comrade) and were then able to continue fighting; Peneleus succeeded in frightening the Trojans by his mutilation of Ilioneus. Within battle, the act of corpse mutilation does not disrupt the life of the mutilator. It is part of the sequence of violence and aggression that fits this setting. Outside of battle, corpse mutilation becomes an anomaly and a disruption to normal life.Footnote 36 Achilles mutilates Hector, but keeps his body instead of moving on. He does not rejoin the battle or ordinary life in the camp. The presence of Hector's corpse becomes a wrong and stands in the way of any closure. The gods also know this and speak out against the mutilation (24.33–54), addressing its futility: Achilles is abusing ‘dumb earth’ (24.55). Thetis is called to relate to Achilles that Hector's corpse has to be returned. His acquiescence is swift (24.139–40):Footnote 37
It is no longer ‘Hector’ who is lying outside his tent, it is a νεκρός and Achilles can now let go. The ransom ensures that he loses no honour in doing so. The remainder of the narrative is taken up with the undoing of the mutilation theme. Priam and Achilles talk. They eat and mourn together.Footnote 38 The ransom is brought into Achilles’ hut and Achilles uses part of it to wrap Hector's body before placing him on the bier (24.578–81), thus undertaking funeral preparations normally performed by family members (24.589). It is as if he wants to reverse the process of mutilation: after abusing Hector's corpse, he now shows it honour and makes it fit to display. He even allows a ceasefire for Hector's burial (24.656–8).Footnote 39 His hospitality goes beyond what would be required to obtain the ransom for the body. Achilles is able to rejoin Greek life (of which eating, mourning and burying the dead are an integral part) by this observance of funeral rites rather than by mutilating his enemy.
Priam takes the body back to the city and the Trojan people come together to receive them: οὐδέ τις αὐτόθ᾽ ἐνὶ πτόλεϊ λίπετ᾽ ἀνὴρ | οὐδὲ γυνή (24.707–8). The corpse appears πρόσφατος, as if the mutilation never occurred (24.757). In the outpouring of grief at Hector's death among the Trojans, that, at least, is a comfort.
CONCLUSION
Within the Iliad there is a clear escalation of violence that culminates in the death of Hector, as has been illustrated by Segal in the past. The exact nature of this escalation can be analysed and exposed by closely looking at the details of every act of corpse mutilation. Modern forensic terminology is effective in showing how the mutilation theme changes and develops.
Throughout the Iliad, purely aggressive, instantaneous mutilations performed for direct revenge on the victim make way for (the threat of) delayed necromantic or aggressive mutilations performed for strategic reasons to exact a more general vengeance on the enemy as a whole. The first mutilations humiliate the victim, potentially damage his shade in the afterlife and presumably provide some gratification to the mutilator who mutilates his victim during a moment of extreme emotion. As the narrative progresses, mutilation still does all these things, but is also used to shock or frighten the enemy (Peneleus showing the head of Ilioneus to the Trojans) and to serve as a communal ritual (the Greeks mutilate Hector together) or the fulfilment of a promise to a dead comrade (Achilles’ mutilation of Hector to avenge Patroclus). Noteworthy is the fact that only Greeks perform corpse mutilation. The Trojans plan and attempt to mutilate corpses several times, but fail in every instance (even when they have the upper hand in battle), while the Greeks continue to demonstrate ever-increasing violence and rage, of which corpse abuse becomes an important part. The Greeks and the Trojans are portrayed differently in this matter, and this raises the question whether they inhabit a disparate moral universe when it comes to perpetrating violence and committing corpse mutilation.
The mutilation theme illustrates the escalation of violence present in the Iliad. It also shows that this kind of violence is unsustainable. Keeping and dishonouring Hector's body does not comfort Achilles. On the battlefield, mutilation briefly provides a gain that ranges from the presumed short-lived satisfaction of the mutilator to the momentary terror of the enemy. Back at the camp, however, the mutilated corpse ceases to fulfil any function. It becomes a barrier to Achilles, who becomes stuck in his grieving process, renewing his fast after Patroclus’ funeral and abstaining from sex. Only through restoring the body to Priam—thereby reversing the mutilation process—can he begin to attain closure.
Active corpse mutilation is notably absent in the first half of the Iliad. Only when the fighting intensifies in the second half of the poem do mutilations start occurring at a regular rate. From Book 11 onwards, the placement and the details of each mutilation appear to have been carefully chosen and positioned—not because the epic tradition thought in or distinguished the modern categories of mutilation we now recognize, but because it is intuitive that a planned mutilation is different and (morally) worse than a mutilation committed in the heat of the moment, and because a long, public, drawn-out mutilation represents an escalation when compared to a rapid decapitation. The narrator increases the severity and frequency of corpse mutilation throughout the second half of the Iliad. Such an observation is significant, because it potentially tells us something about how the Iliad was created. Narrative lines throughout the poem such as the mutilation theme point to careful planning and construction. This makes corpse mutilation, despite its gruesome nature, a subject worthy of consideration.
