%DWWOHILHOG6XSSOLFDWLRQLQWKH,OLDG
*RUGRQ3.HOO\
Classical World, Volume 107, Number 2, Winter 2014, pp. 147-167 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/clw.2013.0132
For additional information about this article
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/clw/summary/v107/107.2.kelly.html
Access provided by Lawrence Technological University (25 Mar 2015 20:53 GMT)
Articles
Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
GORDON P. Kelly
ABSTRACT: In the Iliad, defeated foes plead for mercy on six occa-
sions. Since these appeals are all unsuccessful, many modern scholars believe this lack of quarter indicates that the protracted Trojan
War grew more brutal over time. Nowhere, however, does the text
suggest a preexisting custom of mercy that has lapsed, or that the
refusal to spare a surrendering enemy was ever considered unethical. Rather, the scenes of battlefield supplication have a literary
function and serve to characterize the supplicated warriors, since
the decision to grant or refuse mercy was at the whim of the victor.
Six times in the Iliad vanquished warriors beg their conquerors for
mercy.1 All such scenes of battlefield supplication end the same: with
the rejection of the plea and the death of the suppliant. Since these
passages all resolve alike, their purpose in the story is clearly not to
provide suspense at their outcome. The futility of appeals for quarter
on the battlefields of the Iliad is striking, and raises the question of
the narrative purpose of these scenes. Often scholars see this lack of
mercy as an indication that the Trojan War grew more bitter and brutal
by its tenth year.2 According to this view, references in the Iliad to the
* I dedicate this article to Mabel L. Lang (1917–2010), from whose graduate seminars at Bryn Mawr College I profited greatly.
1
The six episodes of battlefield supplication in the Iliad are: 6.37–65 (Adrestos surrenders to Menelaos, but Agamemnon intervenes); 10.376–464 (Dolon begs to be spared
by Diomedes and Odysseus); 11.122–147 (the Trojan brothers Peisandros and Hippolochos supplicate Agamemnon); 20.463–472 (Tros seeks mercy from Achilleus); 21.34–127
(Lykaon asks Achilleus to spare him); 22.337–343 (a mortally wounded Hektor requests
that Achilleus ransom his body to the Trojans for burial).
2
Those advocating some form of this interpretation include: J. M. Redfield, Nature
and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago 1975) 167–68; V. Pedrick, “Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey,” TAPA 112 (1982) 140; E. Robbins, “Achilles to
Thetis: Iliad 1.365–412,” EMC 34 n.s. 9 (1990) 12–14; B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. III, G.S. Kirk, ed. (Cambridge 1993) 192, 197, 239; G. Zanker, The Heart of
Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad (Ann Arbor 1994) 47–49; D. F.
Classical World, vol. 107, no. 2 (2014) Pp.147–167
148
Classical World
capture of prisoners prior to the narrative’s action are designed to show
that “at an earlier time the war was less violent and harsh than it has
become.”3 Two major points contradict this position, however. First, the
comments about the capture of enemies before the main events of the
Iliad are actually examples of noncombatants seized as booty, and not
opposing fighters taken as prisoners of war. Additionally, the text nowhere suggests that there was a custom of sparing battlefield suppliants
that fell into desuetude, or that the refusal to show quarter was ever
considered base or immoral. Indeed, the killing of helpless warriors in
the Iliad seems perfectly proper in the context of heroic-age combat as
depicted in the poem. Rather than showing some sort of degeneration
in the ethics of warfare, the scenes of denied supplication perform a
literary function, allowing Homer to characterize the heroes involved.
Since the decision to grant mercy was based on the whim of the conqueror, the manner in which the supplicated warrior considers pleas for
mercy helps reveal his personality. An analysis of the surrender scenes
in the Iliad will highlight their primary role in defining the character of
some of the epic’s major figures.
The first occasion of battlefield supplication sets the tone for those
that follow (6.37–65). As the Achaians rout their enemies, the fleeing
Trojan charioteer Adrestos falls from his vehicle and sprawls helplessly
on the ground. Menelaos, brandishing his spear, stands over the defenseless man. Adrestos then begs to be spared in customary fashion by grasping Menelaos’ knees and offering his captor a worthy ransom (ἄποινα).4
To strengthen his case, the Trojan names the precious metals that his
father would give to Menelaos if he learned that his son was a living
captive of the enemy. Menelaos, persuaded by Adrestos’ words, is about
to hand him over to the custody of an attendant when Agamemnon intervenes. Reminding his brother of the humiliation he has endured at
the hands of the Trojans, Agamemnon exhorts him to show no mercy to
the enemy:
Wilson, Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad (Cambridge 2002) 31–32. Cf.
C. Segal, The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Leiden 1971) 18, 38–39.
3
Redfield (above, n.2) 167–68.
4
For the ritual gestures of supplication and their meaning, see J. Gould, “Hiketeia,”
JHS 93 (1973) 75–78; F. S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication (Oxford 2006) 43–62. Defeated
warriors offer ransom on behalf of their fathers, who actually provide the payment: Wilson
(above, n.2) 29–30. ἄποινα is rarely offered by suppliants outside of epic poetry: Naiden, 82.
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
149
. . . τῶν μή τις ὑπεκφύγοι αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον
χεῖράς θ ͗ ἡμετέρας, μηδ ͗ ὅν τινα γαστέρι μήτηρ
κοῦρον ἐόντα φέροι, μηδ ͗ ὅς φύγοι, ἀλλ͗ ἅμα πάντες
Ἰλίου ἐξαπολοίατ ͗ ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι.
(6.57–60)
. . . let not one of them go free of sudden
death and our hands; not the young man-child that the mother carries
still in her body, not even he, but let all of Ilion’s
people perish, utterly blotted out and unmourned for.5
Persuaded by Agamemon’s advice, Menelaos changes his mind and
pushes away the suppliant. The Mycenaean king then promptly spears
Adrestos.
The Adrestos scene serves as an effective vehicle to characterize
the Atreides; the two brothers’ respective reactions to the supplication
masterfully reveal their essential personalities. Menelaos, irresolute and
softhearted, is the only character in the Iliad whose purpose is deflected
by a battlefield entreaty.6 The ease with which he is swayed by Adrestos’
pleas recalls how he was duped by Paris in the abduction of Helen. Even
after Agamemnon reminds his brother of how the Trojans abused him
in his own house, Menelaos merely shoves the suppliant away, and it is
left to Agamemnon to dispatch Adrestos. While in this passage Menelaos shows his temperate nature, Agamemnon displays his mettle as the
ruthless avenger of Trojan crimes. Significantly, although Menelaos was
the most immediate victim of Paris’s treachery, Agamemnon’s thirst for
vengeance far exceeds that of his aggrieved brother.7 His statement that
even Trojan boys still in their mothers’ wombs should not be spared
aptly illustrates his extreme hatred of the enemy. Additionally, the scene
vividly depicts the relationship between the brothers, with Agamemnon
5
The Greek text quoted above and elsewhere comes from the Oxford Classical Text
of D. B. Munro and T. W. Allen (Oxford, 1920) 3rd. edition. English translations of all
passages in this article are from R. Lattimore’s The Iliad of Homer (Chicago 1951).
6
For a similar assessment of Menelaos’ character in this incident, see M. M. Willcock, The Iliad of Homer, Vol. I Books I–XII (Hong Kong 1978) 242; N. Postlethwaite,
Homer’s Iliad, (Exeter 2000) 98.
7
As noted by R. Blondell, “Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad,” TAPA 140
(2010) 5; G. Strasburger, Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias (Ph.D. diss., Frankfurt 1954) 70;
B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad (Wiesbaden, 1968) 83–84.
150
Classical World
stepping in to chide his guileless younger sibling.8 These elements all
highlight Homer’s use of battlefield supplication incidents to “flesh out”
his characters.
The failure of Adrestos’ supplication brings up some issues pertinent to the other combat entreaties in the Iliad. In an influential article, Gould postulates that in the Greek world, supplication exerted a
compelling cultural and religious motive to accept a suppliant’s pleas.
He characterizes Adrestos’ death as the “most direct affront to the rite
of supplication,” since the defeated Trojan had employed the required
gestures (taking hold of Menelaos’ knees) and was protected by the full
ritual force of supplication.9 Recent work by Naiden, however, effectively refutes many of Gould’s theories about supplication as applied to
the Iliad. Gould’s approach fails to account for the persuasiveness of
the suppliant’s words or the context of the supplication as factors in the
success or failure of the request.10 Indeed, Gould treats without distinction such varied examples as a warrior begging an enemy to be spared
in the heat of battle and a stranger supplicating his host for a friendly
reception. On the battlefield, however, the ritual force of supplication
is apparently weak and must be stiffened by the offer of a rich ransom.
Thus, the defeated warrior needs to convince his conqueror that it is
worthwhile to be merciful. Pragmatism, not principle, generally forms
the basis of appeals for mercy in the Iliad.
Despite the added inducement of a ransom, the opposing fighter’s
status as an enemy and recent active combatant weigh against the acceptance of his plea, whatever ritual gestures the helpless man might make.11
In our current example of Adrestos, his entreaty may be sufficient to persuade the gullible Menelaos, but the words have no effect on his implacable brother. Agamemnon’s reasons for rejecting the entreaty—that all
Trojans share a communal guilt for their crimes—highlights the moral
and legal dimensions of supplication. In Naiden’s view, supplication has
8
Note also 7.106–119, where Agamemnon dissuades an overmatched Menelaos
from fighting Hektor.
9
Gould (above, n.4) 80; 75–82.
10
Naiden (above, n.4) 8–10. Pedrick (above, n.2) 129 similarly criticizes Gould’s
position. For Gould, the proper ritual gestures and physical contact between the suppliant
and the supplicated compel the acceptance of the plea; see Naiden’s convincing refutation of this idea: 129. K. Crotty (The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey
[Ithaca 1994] 18) discusses the importance of speech as well as gestures in supplication.
11
As observed by Naiden (above, n.4) 135–36,160.
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
151
a quasi-legal character, wherein the beseeched man assumes the role
of judge in evaluating the suppliant’s pleas. Suppliants deemed guilty
of crimes rarely have their entreaties accepted, while the innocent are
generally successful.12 Thus Agamemnon’s harsh rejection of Adrestos’
offer is not arbitrary, but based on the concept that the Trojans are all
guilty “accessories after the fact” for harboring Paris after his abduction
of Helen.13
While Agamemnon articulates an extreme rationale to justify the
killing of Adrestos, nothing in the Iliad indicates that the slaughter of
battlefield suppliants is considered wrong. Indeed, contrary to Gould’s
idea that properly performed supplications have a binding force endorsed by the gods (especially Zeus Hikesios, “the protector of suppliants”), those begging for mercy receive no divine support whatsoever
in the Iliad. None of the battlefield suppliants in the poem invoke the
gods to strengthen their appeals. Had there been a divine sanction to aid
suppliants, one would expect surrendering warriors to call upon such
powerful help in their desperate situation.14 In the Iliad, the fate of battlefield suppliants rests solely in the hands of their mortal captors, and
nothing in the text suggests that the gods concern themselves with the
execution of pleading warriors.
Not only can we say that no character in the Iliad condemns the
killing of surrendering foes, but an authorial comment in the Adrestos
passage implies that Homer actually approves of Agamemnon’s rejection of mercy to captive Trojans. When Agamemnon dissuades Menelaos
from sparing Adrestos, Homer describes the older brother as αἴσιμα
παρειπών (6.62). A precise translation of this phrase is vexed, as it could
12
Naiden (above, n.4) 160–62.
Thus Naiden (above, n.4) 142–43. Trojan guilt would be compounded by their
failure to return Helen after Menelaos defeated Paris in a duel to settle their dispute over
her (Il 3.86–100).
14
Priam is the only suppliant in the Iliad to invoke the gods, but his case is special,
as he actually has been sent by them to recover Hektor’s body from Achilleus (24.503). In
Homer’s Odyssey, however, suppliants often claim the protection of Zeus Hikesios: 6.207;
7.163–165; 9.270–271; 13.213; 14.283 and 402; 16.421. Note that only 14.283 involves
battlefield supplication (Odysseus’ fabricated account of his surrender to an Egyptian
king). R. Parker (Miasma [Oxford 1983] 181–82) distinguishes between “help me” supplication (such as a stranger begging for a favorable reception) and “spare me” appeals for
mercy in battle, as only “help me” suppliants are protected by Zeus. For a discussion of
the differences between supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey, see Pedrick (above, n.2)
132–33; G. K. Whitefield, The Restored Relation: The Supplication Theme in the Iliad
(Ph.D. diss., Columbia University 1967) 61–63.
13
152
Classical World
mean “urging with proper or just advice” or “urging with fateful advice.” The former version strongly suggests the author’s endorsement of
killing Adrestos, while the second alternative is morally neutral. Several
scholars have advocated this second interpretation as it eliminates authorial approval for Agamemnon’s actions.15 While αἴσιμος often does
mean “destined,” particularly in the expression αἴσιμον ἦμαρ (“the fated
day”), the poem includes two further examples of the word in the context of evaluating someone’s advice. Interestingly, one instance occurs
when Agamemnon gives advice to his brother on a different occasion,
and the poet then uses the exact same phrase (αἴσιμα παρειπών) to comment on his counsel (7.120–121). A brief examination of this second
passage will provide the clearest guide for our interpretation of this key
expression.
In book 7, Menelaos is on the point of accepting a challenge for
single combat from Hektor, before Agamemnon, αἴσιμα παρειπών, persuades him to desist. In a striking apostrophe, Homer comments that
Menelaos certainly would have died if he had dueled Hektor (7.101–
105). While one could argue that Agamemnon’s advice was “fateful,”
his suggestion was certainly appropriate, as it saved his younger brother
from a fatal encounter with an obviously stronger foe.16 In the Hektor
scene, the use of αἴσιμα παρειπών is thus less ambiguous and gives us a
clearer sense of its meaning. Since both passages involve parallel situations (Agamemnon giving guidance to his hapless younger brother) we
should interpret the expression in a similar fashion in each case, namely
that Agamemnon’s advice is fitting.17
15
See S. Goldhill, “Supplication and Authorial Comment in the Iliad: Iliad Z 61–2”
Hermes 118 (1990) 373–76. For other views on this expression, see Wilson (above, n.2)
166–67 (the phrase demonstrates Agamemnon’s view is in accord with conventional ethics, which Homer questions); N. Yamagata, “ΑΙΣΙΜΑ ΠΑΡΕΙΠΩΝ: A Moral Judgment by
the Poet?” La Parola del Passato 45 (1990) 420–30 (who translates the phrase as “persuading by a well-measured argument”); B. Fenik, Homer and the Nibelungenlied (London
1986) 22–27 (who sees αἴσιμα παρειπών as a stock phrase used carelessly by the poet in
the Adrestos passage). While modern scholars tend to diminish αἴσιμα παρειπών as an
evaluative comment, the ancient scholia interpreted the passage as unambiguous praise for
Agamemnon’s words. Cf. Goldhill 374.
16
For the argument that αἴσιμα παρειπών represents narrative focalization (how the
narrator wants a character in the text to interpret a situation), see I. de Jong, Narrators
and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad, 2nd edition, (London 2004)
204–205; Wilson (above, n.2) 166–67.
17
Naiden (above, n.4) 143–44 combines the meanings of “proper” and “fateful” in
his interpretation of the Adrestos scene. His assertion that Agamemnon’s advice is fateful
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
153
Another passage in the Iliad provides further clues to the meaning
of αἴσιμα in evaluating a character’s advice. In book 15, the messenger
Iris dissuades Poseidon from sending a hostile reply to Zeus. The sea god
then praises her for her fitting words:
Ἶρι θεά, μάλα τοῦτο ἔπος κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπες·
ἐσθλὸν καὶ τὸ τέτυκται, ὅτ ͗ ἄγγελος αἴσιμα εἰδῇ.
(15.206–207)
Now this, divine Iris, was a word quite properly spoken.
It is a fine thing when a messenger is conscious of justice.
Clearly, Poseidon lauds Iris’ good judgment in his use of the phrase
αἴσιμα εἰδῇ. She gives quality advice to him since she knows what is
proper. Based on these passages, the most direct interpretation of Homer’s use of αἴσιμα to evaluate a character’s counsel indicates that the
advice is appropriate. While the advice may be in accordance with fate,
it is also obviously good advice. To conclude that this adjective merely
means “fated” ignores the actual content of the scenes in question.18 In
the Adrestos passage, the poet implies that Menelaos’ rejection of the
supplication is appropriate, perhaps because he was victimized by the
Trojans and should not be so clement with such treacherous enemies. In
describing Adrestos’ failed supplication in this fashion, Homer’s words
undercut any notion that refusal to heed a call for quarter on the battlefield was somehow immoral.19
The Trojan spy Dolon appears as the next fighter seeking mercy from
his enemies (10.376–464). While attempting to reconnoiter the Achaian
encampment, he is captured by Odysseus and Diomedes. Dolon’s entreaty is similar to Adrestos’, as he offers the same formulaic ransom of
because it deals with the fall of Troy overreaches somewhat, as everything in the Iliad
could be thus characterized. His treatment of supplication in the Iliad and Odyssey as
a coherent whole is also problematic, as the two epics often display a different attitude
towards this phenomenon.
18
Goldhill (above, n.15) 376 claims that Agamemnon’s warning to Menelaos not to
fight Hektor cannot “be called in a straightforward way ‘proper.’” Despite his detailed lexical discussion, Goldhill misses the obvious value of Agamemnon’s opinion in this instance.
19
Kirk (The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. II, G. S. Kirk, ed. [Cambridge 1990] 161)
provides an interesting discussion of αἴσιμα παρειπών. He downplays the possible authorial judgment in the phrase, but maintains that “the poet is simply noting that Agamemnon’s words, as extreme as they are, reflect the regular heroic view that Paris’ treachery,
condoned by all Trojans, spares none of them the normal consequences of defeat.”
154
Classical World
bronze, gold, and iron; the only significant difference between the two
supplications is that Dolon cannot embrace his captors’ knees since they
have pinned his arms. The personalities of the players in this scene come
to the forefront as the action progresses, again demonstrating the literary function of combat supplication. The Trojan Dolon reveals himself
as cowardly, despite his earlier bravado in accepting the mission to spy
on the Achaians.20 Weeping and racked by fear, he proceeds to betray
the Trojan deployment to his captors in order to be spared. Odysseus
truly earns his epithet πολύμητις during this incident, for in order to get
information from the prisoner, he seemingly accepts Dolon’s plea for
mercy and assures him that he will not be killed. He even smiles at the
Trojan in order to put him at ease and encourage him to reveal what he
knows. All of this is a mere interrogation tactic and part of Odysseus’
coldly manipulative questioning. Once the captive divulges the desired
information, he requests to be taken to the Achaian camp or at least
bound and left on the battlefield until the Greeks can verify that his
confession was true (10.442–445). The previously silent Diomedes then
steps in, and Odysseus allows him to kill Dolon. Thus Odysseus adheres
to the strict letter of his promise to the prisoner since he himself does
not take Dolon’s life. Few other incidents in the Iliad depict Odysseus’
devious and clever character as effectively as his exploitation of Dolon.
In contrast to his sly comrade, Diomedes is strongly characterized in this
scene as a straightforward and efficient warrior. Before striking the fatal
blow, he states his pragmatic rationale to the helpless Dolon:
εἰ μὲν γάρ κέ σε νῦν ἀπολύσομεν ἠὲ μεθῶμεν,
ἦ τε καὶ ὕστερον εἶσθα θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν,
ἠὲ διοπτεύσων ἢ ἐναντίβιον πολεμίξων·
εἰ δὲ κ ͗ ἐμῇς ὑπὸ χερσὶ δαμεὶς ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσῃς,
οὐκέτ ͗ ἔπειτα σὺ πῆμά ποτ ͗ ἔσσεαι Ἀργείοισιν.
(10.449–453)
For if we let you get away now, or set you free, later
you will come back again to the fast ships of the Achaians
either to spy on us once more, or to fight strongly with us.
But if, beaten down under my hands, you lose your life now,
then you will nevermore be an affliction upon the Achaians.
20
Dolon’s unheroic nature is also suggested by the fact that he was the only son
raised among five daughters. His humble origin (his father was a herald) and unattractive
appearance also mark him as ignoble (10.316–317).
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
155
Dolon attempts to reach Diomedes’ chin in a further gesture of supplication, but is beheaded before he can do so.21
Agamemnon becomes involved in another battlefield supplication
when he encounters Peisandros and Hippolochos, the sons of Antimachos, in a further scene that effectively encapsulates his personality
(11.122–147). After the reins slip out of these two brothers’ hands, Agamemnon attacks their “stalled” chariot. The two Trojans appeal to the
Mycenaean king for mercy in the same terms as the previous two supplications and offer an identical ransom, but they add the name of their
father who will provide the payment. The merciless Agamemnon replies
that they should be killed immediately since their father had plotted to
kill Menelaos when he came to Troy as an envoy to demand Helen’s return.22 Agamemnon’s killing of the two brothers reinforces his characterization as one of the most brutal heroes in the Iliad. His savagery reveals
itself not in the slaying of supplicating enemies per se (not unusual by
itself), but in his manner of killing. He viciously hacks off Hippolochos’
arms and rolls his mutilated corpse down the battlefield like a log, a
shockingly violent image even by Iliadic standards.23 As in his earlier
rejection of Adrestos’ supplication, here Agamemnon is once again cast
as the harsh avenger of Trojan wrongs done to his brother Menelaos. His
execution of Antimachos’ sons also contains an ironic twist: as Homer
introduces the two brothers, he relates that their father had been bribed
by Paris to oppose the return of Helen to Menelaos (11.122–125). Thus
the sons perish in the war that the father helped to start.
The Iliad’s next example of battlefield supplication occurs when
Achilleus routs the Trojans following his return to battle, and the enemy
soldier Tros tries to beg him to spare his life. Achilleus does not even give
the man a chance to speak, however, as he cuts him down before Tros can
perform the ritual clasping of the knees (20.463–472). Following shortly
21
Segal (above n.2) 20 states that the text depicts the decapitation of a foe as an
extraordinarily brutal method of killing. Such a gruesome death for Dolon, however, may
be appropriate for a cowardly character in a heroic epic. For the view that beheading is
“Homeric” and not necessarily a sign of brutality, see C. Dué and M. Ebbott, Iliad 10 and
the Poetics of Ambush (Cambridge, Mass., 2010) 356–57.
22
Robbins (above, n.2) 13 believes that Agamemnon invents this accusation as an
excuse for killing the brothers. As we have seen from the Adrestos passage, Agamemnon
has no need to fabricate such pretexts: in his eyes, all Trojans are guilty and can be justly
killed. See also Wilson (above, n.2) 169 and Hainsworth (above, n.2) 239–40.
23
Fenik (above, n.7) 84 observes that Agamemnon tends toward such grisly kills.
See also Segal (above, n.2) 11, 20.
156
Classical World
after Apollo’s rescue of Hektor from Achilleus’ vengeance (20.443–454),
this encounter with Tros strongly depicts the Myrmidon’s fury as he seeks
to repay the Trojans for the death of Patroklos. The poet comments on
the futility of seeking quarter from a raging Achilleus:
Τρῶα δ ͗ Ἀλαστορίδην,— ὁ μὲν ἀντίος ἤλυθε γούνων
εἴ πώς εὑ πεφίδοιτο λαβὼν καὶ ζωὸν ἀφείη,
μηδὲ κατακτείνειεν ὁμηλικίην ἐλεήσας,
νήπιος, οὐδὲ τὸ ᾔδη, ὃ οὐ πείσεσθαι ἔμελλεν·
οὐ γάρ τι γλυκύθυμος ἀνὴρ ἦν οὐδ ͗ ἀγανόφρων,
ἀλλὰ μάλ ͗ ἐμμεμαώς. . . .
(20.463–468)
Now Tros, Alastor’s son: he had come up against Achilleus’
knees, to catch them and be spared and his life given to him
if Achilleus might take pity upon his youth and not kill him;
fool, and did not see there would be no way to persuade him,
since he was a man with no sweetness in his heart, and not kindly
but in a strong fury. . . .
This unsuccessful supplication clearly underscores the usefulness of such
scenes to portray disposition of character. Achilleus’ drive for vengeance
is so strong that he does not even allow his adversary the formality of
making a plea. The name of his victim in this passage intensifies the idea
that no enemy could expect mercy from Achilleus, since Tros was also
the name of the eponymous ancestor of the Trojan race.24 Furthermore,
in a typical Homeric technique, this brief scene anticipates a more fully
developed one of similar content that follows closely.25 The short scene
of Tros’s death sets the stage for the thematically more important supplications in the subsequent books of the Iliad.
The confrontation of Lykaon and Achilleus is the longest and most
detailed incident of battlefield supplication in the Iliad (21.34–127).
As Achilleus slaughters the Trojans on the banks of the river Xanthos,
he notices a son of Priam, Lykaon, whom he had earlier captured and
sold into slavery. Lykaon’s prior seizure had not been in battle; he was
taken by Achilleus during a night raid on Priam’s gardens while he was
trimming branches to make chariot rails (21.34–41). Thus, despite the
24
Cf. 20.230–231.
Thus Fenik (above, n.7) 213–14; M. W. Edwards, The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol.
V, G. S. Kirk, ed. (Cambridge 1991) 340.
25
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
157
claims of some scholars, Lykaon’s earlier capture does not indicate that
the battlefields of the Trojan War were more merciful before the action
of the Iliad.26 Rather, in this first instance, Lykaon was an unarmed person taken as booty in the same manner that women were seized as spoils
when an enemy stronghold fell.
Unfortunately for Lykaon, after his redemption from slavery, his
subsequent encounter with Achilleus is as an enemy warrior in combat. When the Myrmidon finds Lykaon exhausted by his flight from the
Trojan rout, he marvels that his former captive has reappeared on the
battlefield. Since foreign slavery did not prevent Lykaon from returning,
Achilleus ironically muses that he must kill him to see if even death can
hold him back permanently (21.54–63). Achilleus’ reaction reveals an
important aspect of his previous dealings with Lykaon: he sold the Trojan abroad to a third party in part to ensure that he would not return to
fight again. Although ransoming Lykaon back to his father Priam could
have been far more profitable, it would not have prevented any future return of the former captive to battle.27 In his dealings with male captives
taken unarmed, Achilleus may have followed the same general principle
that Diomedes articulated before he slew Dolon: to be sure that the prisoner could never come back as an active enemy.28
After Achilleus recognizes him struggling to flee, Lykaon determines
to approach his adversary and beg for his life. Lykaon would have met
the same fate as Tros, cut down before he could make his plea, but the
Myrmidon’s spear thrust passes harmlessly over him as he bends down
into the suppliant’s position (21.64–73). Lykaon’s ensuing appeal differs
from all the others in the poem, since he does not utter the formulaic
lines that promise a rich ransom if he is spared. Although he subtly hints
at the ransom he could fetch by mentioning the cost a friend paid to
redeem him from slavery, Lykaon relies on a different approach to soften
Achilleus’ heart:
26
Contra Zanker (above, n.2) 9, 103; M. Mueller, The Iliad (London 1984) 70; O.
Taplin, Homeric Soundings (Oxford 1992) 222; Gould (above, n.4) 80 n.38.
27
When a friend of Priam’s redeemed Lykaon from servitude, the price was three
times as great as Achilleus had received for selling him in the first place (21.79–81). For
the economics of the slave trade in Homeric epic, see H. Van Wees, Status Warriors: War,
Violence, and Society in Homer and History (Amsterdam 1992) 238–41.
28
Lykaon was not the only Trojan Achilleus sold into slavery: 22.44–45; 24.750–
753. This practice was not universal for Achilleus, however, as he did release Isos and
Antiphos for ransom (11.104–106).
158
Classical World
γουνοῦμαί σ ͗ , Ἀχιλεῦ· σὺ δὲ μ ͗ αἴδεο καί μ ͗ ἐλέησον·
ἀντί τοί εἰμ ͗ ἱκέταο, διοτρεφές, αἰδοίοιο·
πὰρ γὰρ σοὶ πρώτῳ πασάμην ∆ημήτερος ἀκτήν,
ἤματι τῷ ὅτε μ ͗ εἷλες ἐϋκτιμένῃ ἐν ἀλωῇ,
καί με πέρασσας ἄνευθεν ἄγων πατρός τε φίλων τε
Λῆμνον ἐς ἠγαθέην, ἑκατόμβοιον δέ τοι ἦλφον.
(21.74–79)
I am at your knees. Respect my position, have mercy upon me.
I am in the place, illustrious, of a suppliant who must be honored,
for you were the first beside whom I tasted the yield of Demeter
on that day you captured me in the strong-laid garden
and took me away from my father and those near me, and sold me
away into sacred Lemnos, and a hundred oxen I fetched you.
This passage reveals the first of Lykaon’s two strategies to make his
appeal more persuasive to Achilleus: he claims to be αἰδοῖος, or having
a status that demands special treatment.29 Lykaon bases this assertion
upon having shared a meal with Achilleus, which creates a bond of hospitality between them. Lykaon’s description of the bread they broke as
“the yield of Demeter” suggests the religious aura surrounding such a
relationship.30 While his claim to a special status seems tenuous since
his prior association with Achilleus was as a prisoner, and not as a guestfriend, the language of Lykaon’s request is unique. He uses the term
ἱκέτης to describe himself, which denotes a suppliant with recognized
rights over the man beseeched. Priam, when he is directed by the gods
to supplicate Achilleus for the ransom of Hektor’s body, is the only other
character to whom this word is applied (24.158 and 570). But Lykaon
claims to be “in the place of a suppliant” or “as good as a suppliant”
(ἀντί τοί εἰμ ͗ ἱκέταο), implying that his current entreaty does not entitle
him to full consideration as ἱκέτης.31 Presumably his words mean that
he already has a suppliant’s claim on Achilleus due to their preexisting
29
For a discussion of this term and its cognates, see Gould (above, n.4) 85–90;
Pedrick (above, n.2) 132–33. See also the detailed analysis of D. L. Cairns, Aidos: the
Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford 1993)
48–146 (with regard to Homer).
30
As suggested by Gould (above, n.4) 79; N. Richardson, The Iliad: A Commentary,
Vol. VI, G. S. Kirk, ed. (Cambridge 1993) 60.
31
Thus Cairns (above, n.29) 116–17; Pedrick (above, n.2) 131; Richardson (above,
n.30) 60. For the implications of ἱκέτης, see also Gould (above, n.4) 75; 90–94; A. H.
Adkins, “Friendship and Self-Sufficiency in Homer and Aristotle,” CQ 13 (1963) 34–35.
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
159
bond. Note that Lykaon does not invoke his current position as a battlefield suppliant as having any persuasive force, but rather he appeals
to a past meal-sharing with his captor. His reliance on the feeble pretext of guest-friendship with Achilleus demonstrates that Lykaon has a
weak hand to play in his situation as a battlefield suppliant. If there were
some societal norm or divine sanction to spare surrendering warriors, he
doubtlessly would mention this fact to strengthen his desperate case. His
silence on this front belies any such merciful ethic in the Iliad.
Lykaon’s second strategy to win over Achilleus involves creating
sympathy for himself. He is the sole battlefield suppliant in the Iliad who
seeks mercy by evoking pity in his captor. Lykaon recounts his difficult
escape from slavery, the death of his brother Polydoros in battle, and his
own apparent destiny to die (21.80–93). In calling himself “short-lived,”
Lykaon is the only character in the Iliad aside from Achilleus to describe
himself in such terms.32 Lykaon also depicts himself as being driven by
destiny to a tragic outcome. Both of these sentiments mirror Achilleus’
ruminations about his own impending death. While Lykaon’s speech astutely stresses such commonalities with Achilleus, his final point tackles
the main issue that separates them and the greatest obstacle to his own
survival—Achilleus’ rage at Hektor’s killing of Patroklos:
μή με κτεῖν ͗ , ἐπεὶ οὐχ ὁμογάστριος Ἕκτορός εἰμι,
ὅς τοι ἑταῖρον ἔπεφνεν ἐνηέα τε κρατερόν τε.
(21.95–96)
Do not kill me. I am not from the same womb as Hektor,
who killed your powerful and kindly companion.33
In its avoidance of the stock ransom formula, Lykaon’s supplication
is far more moving and personal than the previous examples in the Iliad.
His words also display a degree of wisdom and insight as he reflects
upon his tragic fate.34 The unique and emotional nature of this passage
32
M. Lynn-George, Epos, Word, Narrative and the Iliad (Atlantic Highlands, N. J.
1988) 204.
33
In the Iliad, family and friends are held liable for the deeds of their kin. Lykaon thus
tries to distance himself from his half-brother Hektor. See Wilson (above, n.2) 171–72.
34
Lykaon’s death is in character with his plea, and further distinguishes him from
the prior battlefield suppliants. Unlike Dolon continuing to supplicate his captor, or Hippolochos attempting to flee, or Peisandros’ and Adrestos’ inaction, Lykaon realizes his fate
when his entreaty fails. Resigned to death, he spreads his arms and awaits the fatal blow.
160
Classical World
commands the reader’s attention. With this added emphasis on Lykaon’s
supplication, Achilleus’ response provides an important window on his
current state of mind. Not even Lykaon’s compelling entreaty can diminish the Myrmidon’s fury. With pitiless words, Achilleus rejects the
suppliant’s appeal and states that although he used to be inclined to capture Trojans alive, Patroklos’ death makes this impossible now.35 While
Achilleus initially addressed Lykaon as “fool” (νήπιε), he seems to soften
his words as his speech progresses:
ἀλλά, φίλος, φάνε καὶ σύ· τίη ὀλοφύρεαι οὕτως;
κάτθανε καὶ Πάτροκλος, ὅ περ σέο πολλὸν ἀμείνων,
οὐχ ὁράᾳς οἷος καὶ ἑγὼ καλός τε μέγας τε;
πατρὸς δ ͗ εἴμ ͗ ἀγαθοῖο, θεὰ δέ με γείνατο μήτηρ·
ἀλλ ͗ ἔπι τοι καὶ ἐμοὶ θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα κραταιή·
ἔσσεται ἢ ἠὼς ἢ δείλη ἢ μέσον ἦμαρ,
ὁππότε τις καὶ ἐμεῖο Ἄρῃ ἐκ θυμὸν ἕληται,
ἢ ὅ γε δουρὶ βαλὼν ἢ ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ὀϊστῷ.
(21.106–113)
So, friend, you die also. Why all this clamor about it?
Patroklos also is dead, who was better by far than you are.
Do you not see what a man I am, how huge, how splendid
and born of a great father, and the mother who bore me immortal?
Yet even I have also my death and strong destiny,
and there shall be a dawn or an afternoon or a noontime
when some man in the fighting will take the life from me also
either with a spearcast or an arrow flown from the bowstring.
Achilleus’ sentiments in this passage mix contempt with a sort
of sympathy, symbolized by his address of Lykaon as both “fool” and
“friend.”36 By comparing Lykaon’s doom to his own impending death,
Achilleus acknowledges their shared bond of mortality and common
For different views on Lykaon’s final gesture, see Zanker (above, n.2 ) 104 (who regards
this as a further attempt to beg for mercy); Taplin (above, n.26) 224 (a sign of acceptance
of Achilleus’ words); Richardson (above, n.30) 63 (an indication of Lykaon’s despair);
Gould (above, n.4) 81 (shows he is no longer a suppliant).
35
21.100–104. See below for a full discussion of Achilleus’ sparing of captives before Patroklos’ death.
36
Lynn-George, (above, n.32) 205 and E. T. Owen (The Story of the Iliad [Toronto
1946] 207) both advance this interpretation. On the implications of Achilleus’ use of the
word φίλος (friend), see Taplin (above, n.26) 223; S. L. Schein, The Mortal Hero (Berkeley
1984) 98–99; Naiden (above, n.4) 86; Gould (above, n.4) 79; Richardson (above, n.30) 61.
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
161
humanity. This compassion for his victim, however, is laced with scorn;
he also implies that Lykaon’s demise is insignificant compared to the
deaths of great heroes like Patroklos and himself. A dissonant brew of
disdain and empathy, Achilleus’ speech perfectly illustrates how battlefield supplication scenes can bring out the character of a supplicated
warrior. Unlike Agamemnon in his killing of combat suppliants, Achilleus is tempered by a reflective nature that the Mycenaean king lacks.
Passionate rage fuels Achilleus’ battlefield rampage, not simple savagery.37 The cruelty and compassion in his rejection of Lykaon’s appeal foreshadows his near-bestial ferocity in the encounter with Hektor in book
22, as well as his reconciliation with Priam at the poem’s conclusion.38
We should not, as some scholars do, exaggerate the depth of Achilleus’ regard for his defeated foe or minimize his anger toward him. Willcock’s comment on Achilleus’ words misses the mark when he asserts
that the Myrmidon “has no particular hatred for his enemy” because
he associates his victim with Patroklos and himself and even calls him
“friend.”39 Such exclusive focus on the sympathetic aspects of Achilleus’
speech should be dispelled by the victor’s brutal treatment of his dead
enemy. After flinging Lykaon’s body by the foot into the River Skamandros, Achilleus bids the fish to feed upon it (21.120–125). The image that
Achilleus evokes—of fish nibbling on the “shining fat” of the corpse—is
a particularly macabre deviation from the formulaic mutilation by dogs
and birds that the unburied dead normally experience.40 His actions also
deny the possibility of funeral rites for Lykaon’s body. Achilleus’ ardent
desire for vengeance comes to the fore in his encounter with Lykaon, as
he seeks to punish even the dead for the death of Patroklos. Achilleus’
shocking behavior towards Lykaon’s body effectively prefigures his later
abuse of Hektor’s corpse. It is noteworthy that immediately before this
supplication scene, Achilleus has captured twelve Trojan youths to sacrifice later at Patroklos’ funeral. In a sense, Lykaon is a also a sacrifice
to Patroklos’ shade: like a sacrificial animal, he is killed by a blow to the
neck, the ground is stained with his blood, and his body will be eaten
37
Here I follow the observations of J. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death (Oxford
1980) 55.
38
Mueller (above, n.26) 71 thus links these passages.
39
Willcock (above, n.6) 286. Similarly, W. Leaf (The Iliad, Vol. II [London, 1902]
303 n.106) claims that Achilleus shows “a real pity for his victim.”
40
As noted by Segal (above, n.2) 30–31 and Richardson (above, n.30) 64. The corpse
of Achilleus’ next victim, Asteropaios, is actually eaten by fish and eels: 21.203–204.
162
Classical World
(by fish in Lykaon’s case).41 Thus for Achilleus, enemies have become
animals fit for sacrifice. All these elements of Lykaon’s death underscore
Achilleus’ irresistible rage as he searches the battlefield for Hektor.
The final example of battlefield supplication occurs after Achilleus
encounters Hektor and mortally wounds him. On the point of death, Hektor begs his foe to ransom his body so that he can be buried by his people
(22.337–343). Although Hektor does not request to be spared like the
other combat suppliants in the text, he employs the familiar elements of
battlefield entreaty. While he does not perform the ritual grasping of the
knees (presumably his wounded condition prevents this), he beseeches
Achilleus by his life, his knees, and his parents not to allow his corpse to
be consumed by scavenging dogs. The dying man also mentions the gold
that the Trojans will offer for the recovery of his body. Achilleus’ vicious
rejection of Hektor’s plea unmistakably demonstrates that his anger has
not been satiated by the imminent death of Patroklos’ killer.
μή με, κύον, γούνων γουνάζεο μηδὲ τοκήων·
αἲ γάρ πως αὐτόν με μένος καὶ θυμὸς ἀνείη
ὤμ ͗ ἀποταμνόμενον κρέα ἔδμεναι, οἷα ἔοργας. . . .
(22.345–347)
No more entreating of me, you dog, by knees or parents.
I wish only that my spirit and fury would drive me
to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that
you have done to me.
The victor then states that no ransom is sufficient and consigns Hektor to the birds and dogs. Gone are any traces of sympathy for his victim
that we saw in his speech to Lykaon. His tirade against Hektor “is one of
the most savage utterances in the poem. Whatever restraint there was in
Achilles’ earlier refusals of entreaties is here completely swept away.”42
Achilleus’ words are all the more shocking since Hektor does not beg
for his life, but only that his corpse be accorded customary funeral rites.
Hektor’s plea to Achilleus, the last scene of battlefield supplication,
epitomizes the lack of quarter in the Iliad. Some modern scholars point
41
T. Neal (The Wounded Hero: Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad [Bern 2006] 249–
51) also points out other ritualistic elements in this scene, including Achilles’ taunt that
fish will lick Lykaon’s wounds as a mocking allusion to the ceremonial washing of gore
from a corpse before burial. Cf. Zanker (above, n.2) 105.
42
Segal (above, n.2) 38.
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
163
to a handful of references in the text that describe Trojans taken prisoner
before the action of the poem as evidence that combat in the early Trojan
War was then more merciful than it became by the conflict’s last year.
These passages, however, do not support such an interpretation. We
have already seen the example of Lykaon, who was captured unawares
(and presumably unarmed) in a surprise raid on his father’s gardens
and taken as plunder. The other passages mentioning the pre-Iliadic capture of Trojans follow the pattern of Lykaon’s abduction. In his speech
to the assembled Achaian warriors, Thersites comments on the ransom
that Agamemnon received from Trojan fathers for their captured sons
(22.229–230). Since this remark is sandwiched between statements
about plunder taken from enemy citadels (bronze, gold, women), it likely
alludes to civilian males seized along with the other spoils of war. Achilleus also took some Trojans prisoner prior to Patroklos’ death, including
Priam’s sons Isos and Antiphos (11.104–106). Their capture, like Lykaon’s, was not on the battlefield: Achilleus seized them as they were tending sheep on the slopes of Mt. Ida, and later released them for ransom.
Nor were they the only children of Priam captured by Achilleus; both
Priam and Hekabe lament that the Myrmidon sold some of their other
sons into foreign slavery (22.44–45; 24.750–753). The circumstances
surrounding their capture are ambiguous, as the parents do not specify
if they were warriors taken in combat or unarmed prisoners seized in a
raid. One passage does suggest that it was possible for defeated warriors
to find quarter sometimes. When Priam searches for his sons Lykaon and
Polydoros, who have not returned from combat, he hopes that they have
been taken alive by the Achaians so he can redeem them with a suitable
ransom (24.46–49). Priam’s comment would make no sense if prisoners were never taken in combat, but it does not prove that quarter was
customary or even common in the past.43 Rather, Priam’s words reflect
the desperate and vain hope of a grieving father, whose sons already lay
dead on the battlefield. While this passage demonstrates that prisoners
could be captured in combat, nothing in the poem implies that helpless
enemies should be taken alive.
In his rejection of Lykaon’s supplication, Achilleus mentions that
before the death of Patroklos, he tended to spare Trojans. Indeed, all the
43
Menelaos’ initial acceptance of Adrestos’ supplication also indicates that surrender was possible. Cf. Odysseus’ fictional battlefield surrender to an Egyptian king: Hom.
Od. 14.274–284.
164
Classical World
male characters who were captured sometime before the main action of
the poem were prisoners of Achilleus (Lykaon, Isos, Antiphos, and Priam’s other unnamed sons). Thus the text itself depicts pre-Iliadic mercy
not as a communal ethic, but rather as something unique to Achilleus.
Had the poet wished to show that prior battlefield ethics had deteriorated over the course of the ten-year war, it is curious that the only
examples of successful captures are attributed to just one man. Even
Achilleus’ change of heart by his own admission was not caused by the
long-term effects of the drawn-out conflict, but rather by a single recent
event: the killing of Patroklos.
We should not, however, exaggerate the scope of Achilleus’ capacity
for clemency towards prisoners. Scholars who posit that mercy towards
the enemy was the norm earlier in the war (either for Achilleus or any
of the combatants) ignore an important passage. Andromache’s speech
to Hektor provides an interesting comment on Achilleus’ ethics of warfare before the battles described in the Iliad (6.414–428). She refers to
her seven brothers whom Achilleus slew on the same day as they were
tending sheep and oxen.44 Her mother was also taken captive in this raid,
but was later ransomed. Achilleus’ slaughter of Andromache’s brothers,
while they were engaged in peaceful pursuits and unequipped for combat, dispels any notion that the earlier Trojan War was a less savage affair. While Achilleus might spare some Trojans, his mercy was subject to
his personal whims, and even unarmed enemies could die at his hands.
Although he had been merciful to Lykaon, Isos, and Antiphos when he
encountered them unprepared for battle during surprise raids, under
similar circumstances he was ill-disposed to spare Andromache’s brothers. Their massacre demonstrates that the war was always bitter and
brutal, with mercy rarely shown. The only pre-Iliadic act of “kindness”
to a defeated combatant can be found in Andromache’s speech as well.
After Achilleus killed her father Eetion, he did not despoil the body,
but cremated him with his armor intact and buried his remains out of
respect. This hardly shows that the war was milder in the past, a notion
that the corpses of Andromache’s brothers clearly contradict. It does
show, however, that Achilleus was capable of some humane gestures
44
Dué and Ebbott (above, n.21) 76 place this raid in the context of other ambush narratives in the Iliad. They equate the ambush of Andromache’s brothers with the
scene on Achilleus’ shield where warriors attack shepherds as they relax playing pipes
(18.526–527).
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
165
towards his enemies when he was so inclined.45 In short, Achilleus was
always passionate and treated his enemies as his emotions dictated. He
was kind to Eetion, but butchered his unarmed sons.46 Patroklos’ death,
however, tipped this previous balance and made any further mercy towards the enemy impossible.
After examining the examples of battlefield surrender in the Iliad,
we can see how nothing in the text implies that the failure of combat
supplication reflects an erosion of the prior ethics of warfare during
the protracted Trojan War. Although Achilleus’ conduct does change
in the narrative, Homer attributes his growing brutality to a specific
recent event (the death of Patroklos), and not to the cumulative effects
of the long war. The conflict was ever vicious, and no evidence supports
the idea that Agamemnon, Diomedes, or Odysseus would have spared
helpless enemy warriors at some earlier stage of the war. While Achilleus may have been merciful to some captives prior to Patroklos’ death,
his capricious clemency was qualified by desire for economic gain, as
he sold them into foreign slavery or held them for ransom.47 In effect,
Achilleus’ obsession to avenge Patroklos causes him to abandon his normal modus operandi of selling prisoners (if he took them) for material
advantage. Achilleus’ statement to Lykaon (21.100–102) that he used
to be inclined to spare Trojans before Patroklos’ death stresses that the
decision to grant or reject a captive’s supplication was a personal one
unconstrained by any higher ethics.48 Since battlefield mercy was entirely an individual’s choice, the literary function of combat supplication
scenes in the Iliad, as we have seen, is to bring out the personalities of
45
His respect towards Eetion’s corpse highlights the change in Achilleus’ behavior
after the death of Patroklos, when his fury will drive him to treat Hektor’s body in an
opposite manner.
46
J. Zarker (“King Eetion and Thebe as Symbols in the Iliad,” CJ 61 [1965] 111,113)
inflates Achilleus’ generous behavior towards Eetion by describing the Myrmidon as noble,
kind, and merciful, and does not put Achilleus’ act of kindness in context with his killing
of Eetion’s helpless sons in the same raid.
47
C. Alexander (The War That Killed Achilles [New York 2009] 168) characterizes
the pre-Iliadic Achilleus as “once gallant and chivalrous,” but exaggerates his merciful
nature and fails to account for his killing of Andromache’s unarmed brothers. For a similar
overstatement of Achilleus’ benevolence, see T. McFarland, “Lykaon and Achilles,” Yale
Review 45 (1956) 191–213.
48
πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Πάτροκλον ἐπισπεῖν αἴσιμον ἢμαρ, τόφρα τί μοι πεφιδέσθαι ἐνὶ φρεσὶ
φίλτερον ἦεν Τρώων, καὶ πολλοὺς ζωοὺς ἕλον ἠδὲ πέρασσα . . . . (“In the time before Patroklos came to the day of his destiny then it was the way of my heart’s choice to be sparing
of the Trojans, and many I took alive and disposed of them. . . .”).
166
Classical World
characters in the poem. Significantly, six of the seven battlefield suppliants in the Iliad encounter either the hard-liner Agamemnon or an enraged Achilleus, two warriors unlikely to spare captives.49 While Homer
uses the supplication scenes sparingly, he employs them to great effect.50
The poet’s compelling characterization of Agamemnon’s and Achilleus’
ruthlessness relies much on the manner in which the two men reject
pleas for mercy on the battlefield. The simple fact that they deny supplication does not mark them as particularly brutal, however. Although
Odysseus and Diomedes slay the suppliant Dolon, their relatively restrained behavior and pragmatic rationale contrasts with the viciousness
of Agamemon and Achilleus in similar circumstances.
Despite the persistent claims of modern scholars, nothing in the
Iliad depicts the killing of battlefield suppliants as unethical. Why then
have such assertions been so common in the scholarly community despite the lack of supporting evidence? Conceivably, our own societal
norms that value mercy have colored the views of recent commentators.
No doubt, many contemporary readers have found the slaughter of surrendering foes in the Iliad shocking, and seek to identify some reason
for such seemingly aberrant behavior. Indeed, in our world, there are
international conventions that condemn similar actions as war crimes.
Thus, it makes sense to us that some extraordinary circumstance must
be causing the characters in the Iliad to reject pleas for mercy. Such an
approach, however appealing to our values, is anachronistic and reflects
our ethics rather than those of the society described in the text.
Appendix
The narrative use of combat supplication was not unique to Homer’s
Iliad, but plays a role in the Odyssey as well. One final example of a
plea for mercy on the battlefield underscores the usefulness of these
scenes in depicting character traits. During his battle with the suitors,
Odysseus encounters two suppliants who beg for their lives (22.310–
377). The first, the diviner Leodes, meets the same fate as his Iliadic
counterparts. Although Leodes had disliked the arrogance of his fellow
49
Pedrick (above, n.2) 139.
The surrender scenes also imply the overall superiority of the Achaians despite
their battlefield reverses, since only Trojans beg for quarter; see Kirk (above, n.19) 160.
50
Kelly | Battlefield Supplication in the Iliad
167
suitors, he nonetheless participated in their activities, and was the first
man to attempt to string Odysseus’ bow in the contest for Penelope’s
hand (21.143–149). After the death of Leodes, the bard Phemios clasps
Odysseus’ knees and asks for mercy. Phemios claims he had been forced
by the suitors to sing for them, and calls upon Telemachos to vouch for
his innocence. Telemachos not only confirms Phemios’ assertion, but
also informs his father that the herald Medon—cowering under a nearby
chair—is also blameless. Odysseus heeds his son’s advice and spares
the two men. Phemios’ successful battlefield supplication stands out in
the Iliad and Odyssey, and merits a closer look. I believe the success of
his plea has the same literary function as the failed attempts in the Iliad
in that it reveals the nature of the victorious heroes. In this instance,
Telemachos’ intervention is another indication of his growing maturation; not only has he become a proficient warrior in the battle with the
suitors, but he also displays wisdom and justice in the aftermath of combat. Odysseus’ acceptance of his son’s counsel serves as an acknowledgment of Telemachos’ prudence and emphasizes his own sound judgment,
as he does not kill innocent men in his quest for vengeance against the
suitors. The uniqueness of Phemios’ survival highlights Homer’s use of
battlefield supplication episodes for breathing life into his characters.
LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE
[email protected]