untitledClassical World, Volume 107, Number 2, Winter 2014, pp. 147-167 (Article)
DOI: 10.1353/clw.2013.0132
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Lawrence Technological University (25 Mar 2015 20:53 GMT)
Battlefi eld 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 schol- ars 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 uneth- ical. Rather, the scenes of battlefi eld 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 battlefi eld 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 battlefi elds 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 semi- nars at Bryn Mawr College I profi ted greatly.
1 The six episodes of battlefi eld supplication in the Iliad are: 6.37–65 (Adrestos sur- renders 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 Hippolo- chos 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. Redfi eld, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago 1975) 167–68; V. Pedrick, “Sup- plication 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 Com- mentary, 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.
Articles
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 fi ghters taken as prisoners of war. Additionally, the text no- where suggests that there was a custom of sparing battlefi eld 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 con- queror, 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 defi ning the character of some of the epic’s major fi gures.
The fi rst occasion of battlefi eld supplication sets the tone for those that follow (6.37–65). As the Achaians rout their enemies, the fl eeing Trojan charioteer Adrestos falls from his vehicle and sprawls helplessly on the ground. Menelaos, brandishing his spear, stands over the defense- less man. Adrestos then begs to be spared in customary fashion by grasp- ing Menelaos’ knees and offering his captor a worthy ransom (ποινα).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 in- tervenes. 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 Redfi eld (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. ποινα is rarely offered by suppliants outside of epic poetry: Naiden, 82.
Kelly | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 149
. . . τν μ τις πεκφγοι απν λεθρον χερς θ μετρας, μηδ ν τινα γαστρι μτηρ κορον ντα φροι, μηδ ς φγοι, λλ μα πντες λου ξαπολοατ κδεστοι κα φαντοι.
(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 defl ected by a battlefi eld 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 Mene- laos shows his temperate nature, Agamemnon displays his mettle as the ruthless avenger of Trojan crimes. Signifi cantly, 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. Will- cock, 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 battlefi eld supplication incidents to “fl esh out” his characters.
The failure of Adrestos’ supplication brings up some issues perti- nent to the other combat entreaties in the Iliad. In an infl uential arti- cle, 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, effec- tively 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 distinc- tion 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 battlefi eld, 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 fi ghter’s status as an enemy and recent active combatant weigh against the accep- tance of his plea, whatever ritual gestures the helpless man might make.11 In our current example of Adrestos, his entreaty may be suffi cient to per- suade the gullible Menelaos, but the words have no effect on his impla- cable 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 fi ghting 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 refuta- tion 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 | Battlefi eld 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 battlefi eld suppliants is considered wrong. Indeed, contrary to Gould’s idea that properly performed supplications have a binding force en- dorsed by the gods (especially Zeus Hikesios, “the protector of suppli- ants”), those begging for mercy receive no divine support whatsoever in the Iliad. None of the battlefi eld 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 bat- tlefi eld 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 rejec- tion of mercy to captive Trojans. When Agamemnon dissuades Menelaos from sparing Adrestos, Homer describes the older brother as ασιμα παρειπν (6.62). A precise translation of this phrase is vexed, as it could
12 Naiden (above, n.4) 160–62. 13 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 battlefi eld supplication (Odysseus’ fabricated account of his surrender to an Egyptian king). R. Parker (Miasma [Oxford 1983] 181–82) distinguishes between “help me” sup- plication (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. Whitefi eld, The Restored Relation: The Supplication Theme in the Iliad (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University 1967) 61–63.
152 Classical World
mean “urging with proper or just advice” or “urging with fateful ad- vice.” 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 au- thorial approval for Agamemnon’s actions.15 While ασιμος often does mean “destined,” particularly in the expression ασιμον μαρ (“the fated day”), the poem includes two further examples of the word in the con- text 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 (ασιμα παρειπν) to com- ment 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, ασιμα παρειπν, per- suades 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 ασιμα παρειπν is thus less ambiguous and gives us a clearer sense of its meaning. Since both passages involve parallel situa- tions (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 fi tting.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 eth- ics, 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 “per- suading by a well-measured argument”); B. Fenik, Homer and the Nibelungenlied (London 1986) 22–27 (who sees ασιμα παρειπν as a stock phrase used carelessly by the poet in the Adrestos passage). While modern scholars tend to diminish ασιμα παρειπν 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 ασιμα παρειπν 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 | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 153
Another passage in the Iliad provides further clues to the meaning of ασιμα 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 fi tting words:
ρι θε, μλα τοτο πος κατ μοραν ειπες σθλν κα τ ττυκται, τ γγελος ασιμα εδ .
(15.206–207)
Now this, divine Iris, was a word quite properly spoken. It is a fi ne thing when a messenger is conscious of justice.
Clearly, Poseidon lauds Iris’ good judgment in his use of the phrase ασιμα εδ . She gives quality advice to him since she knows what is proper. Based on these passages, the most direct interpretation of Ho- mer’s use of ασιμα 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 battle- fi eld was somehow immoral.19
The Trojan spy Dolon appears as the next fi ghter seeking mercy from his enemies (10.376–464). While attempting to reconnoiter the Achaian encampment, he is captured by Odysseus and Diomedes. Dolon’s en- treaty 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 fi ght Hektor cannot “be called in a straightforward way ‘proper.’” Despite his detailed lexi- cal 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 ασιμα παρειπν. He downplays the possible autho- rial judgment in the phrase, but maintains that “the poet is simply noting that Agamem- non’s words, as extreme as they are, refl ect 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 signifi cant 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 liter- ary 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 πολμητις 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 battlefi eld 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 effi cient warrior. Before striking the fatal blow, he states his pragmatic rationale to the helpless Dolon:
ε μν γρ κ σε νν πολσομεν μεθμεν, τε κα στερον εσθα θος π νας χαιν, διοπτεσων ναντβιον πολεμξων ε δ κ μ ς π χερσ δαμες π θυμν λσσ ς, οκτ πειτα σ πμ ποτ σσεαι ργεοισιν.
(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 fi ght strongly with us. But if, beaten down under my hands, you lose your life now, then you will nevermore be an affl iction upon the Achaians.
20 Dolon’s unheroic nature is also suggested by the fact that he was the only son raised among fi ve daughters. His humble origin (his father was a herald) and unattractive appearance also mark him as ignoble (10.316–317).
Kelly | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 155
Dolon attempts to reach Diomedes’ chin in a further gesture of suppli- cation, but is beheaded before he can do so.21
Agamemnon becomes involved in another battlefi eld supplication when he encounters Peisandros and Hippolochos, the sons of Antim- achos, in a further scene that effectively encapsulates his personality (11.122–147). After the reins slip out of these two brothers’ hands, Ag- amemnon attacks their “stalled” chariot. The two Trojans appeal to the Mycenaean king for mercy in the same terms as the previous two sup- plications 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 re- turn.22 Agamemnon’s killing of the two brothers reinforces his character- ization 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 battlefi eld 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 battlefi eld 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:
Τρα δ λαστορδην,— μν ντος λυθε γονων ε πς ε πεφδοιτο λαβν κα ζων φεη, μηδ κατακτενειεν μηλικην λεσας, νπιος, οδ τ δη, ο πεσεσθαι μελλεν ο γρ τι γλυκθυμος νρ ν οδ γανφρων, λλ μλ μμεμας. . . .
(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 intensifi es 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 suppli- cations in the subsequent books of the Iliad.
The confrontation of Lykaon and Achilleus is the longest and most detailed incident of battlefi eld 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. 25 Thus Fenik (above, n.7) 213–14; M. W. Edwards, The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol.
V, G. S. Kirk, ed. (Cambridge 1991) 340.
Kelly | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 157
claims of some scholars, Lykaon’s earlier capture does not indicate that the battlefi elds of the Trojan War were more merciful before the action of the Iliad.26 Rather, in this fi rst instance, Lykaon was an unarmed per- son 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 com- bat. When the Myrmidon fi nds Lykaon exhausted by his fl ight from the Trojan rout, he marvels that his former captive has reappeared on the battlefi eld. 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 Tro- jan abroad to a third party in part to ensure that he would not return to fi ght again. Although ransoming Lykaon back to his father Priam could have been far more profi table, it would not have prevented any future re- turn 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 pris- oner could never come back as an active enemy.28
After Achilleus recognizes him struggling to fl ee, 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 fi rst 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
γουνομα σ , χιλε σ δ μ αδεο κα μ λησον ντ το εμ κταο, διοτρεφς, αδοοιο πρ γρ σο πρτ πασμην ημτερος κτν, ματι τ τε μ ελες κτιμν ν λω , κα με πρασσας νευθεν γων πατρς τε φλων τε Λμνον ς γαθην, κατμβοιον δ τοι λφον.
(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 fi rst 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 fi rst of Lykaon’s two strategies to make his appeal more persuasive to Achilleus: he claims to be αδοος, 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 hos- pitality 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 guest- friend, the language of Lykaon’s request is unique. He uses the term κτης 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” (ντ το εμ κταο), implying that his current entreaty does not entitle him to full consideration as κτης.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 κτης, see also Gould (above, n.4) 75; 90–94; A. H. Adkins, “Friendship and Self-Suffi ciency in Homer and Aristotle,” CQ 13 (1963) 34–35.
Kelly | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 159
bond. Note that Lykaon does not invoke his current position as a bat- tlefi eld suppliant as having any persuasive force, but rather he appeals to a past meal-sharing with his captor. His reliance on the feeble pre- text of guest-friendship with Achilleus demonstrates that Lykaon has a weak hand to play in his situation as a battlefi eld 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 battlefi eld suppliant in the Iliad who seeks mercy by evoking pity in his captor. Lykaon recounts his diffi cult 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 as- tutely stresses such commonalities with Achilleus, his fi nal point tackles the main issue that separates them and the greatest obstacle to his own survival—Achilleus’ rage at Hektor’s killing of Patroklos:
μ με κτεν , πε οχ μογστριος κτορς εμι, ς τοι ταρον πεφνεν νηα τε κρατερν 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 refl ects 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 battlefi eld suppliants. Unlike Dolon continuing to supplicate his captor, or Hip- polochos attempting to fl ee, 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 di- minish the Myrmidon’s fury. With pitiless words, Achilleus rejects the suppliant’s appeal and states that although he used to be inclined to cap- ture Trojans alive, Patroklos’ death makes this impossible now.35 While Achilleus initially addressed Lykaon as “fool” (νπιε), he seems to soften his words as his speech progresses:
λλ, φλος, φνε κα σ τη λοφρεαι οτως; κτθανε κα Πτροκλος, περ σο πολλν μενων, οχ ρ ς οος κα γ καλς τε μγας τε; πατρς δ εμ γαθοο, θε δ με γενατο μτηρ λλ πι τοι κα μο θνατος κα μορα κραται σσεται ς δελη μσον μαρ, ππτε τις κα μεο ρ κ θυμν ληται, γε δουρ βαλν π νευρφιν στ .
(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 fi ghting will take the life from me also either with a spearcast or an arrow fl own 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 fi nal 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 be- fore 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 φλος (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 | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 161
humanity. This compassion for his victim, however, is laced with scorn; he also implies that Lykaon’s demise is insignifi cant compared to the deaths of great heroes like Patroklos and himself. A dissonant brew of disdain and empathy, Achilleus’ speech perfectly illustrates how battle- fi eld supplication scenes can bring out the character of a supplicated warrior. Unlike Agamemnon in his killing of combat suppliants, Achil- leus is tempered by a refl ective nature that the Mycenaean king lacks. Passionate rage fuels Achilleus’ battlefi eld rampage, not simple savage- ry.37 The cruelty and compassion in his rejection of Lykaon’s appeal fore- shadows 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 Achil- leus’ regard for his defeated foe or minimize his anger toward him. Will- cock’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 fl inging Lykaon’s body by the foot into the River Skaman- dros, Achilleus bids the fi sh to feed upon it (21.120–125). The image that Achilleus evokes—of fi sh 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 prefi gures his later abuse of Hektor’s corpse. It is noteworthy that immediately before this supplication scene, Achilleus has captured twelve Trojan youths to sac- rifi ce later at Patroklos’ funeral. In a sense, Lykaon is a also a sacrifi ce to Patroklos’ shade: like a sacrifi cial 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. Griffi n, 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 fi sh and eels: 21.203–204.
162 Classical World
(by fi sh in Lykaon’s case).41 Thus for Achilleus, enemies have become animals fi t for sacrifi ce. All these elements of Lykaon’s death underscore Achilleus’ irresistible rage as he searches the battlefi eld for Hektor.
The fi nal example of battlefi eld supplication occurs after Achilleus encounters Hektor and mortally wounds him. On the point of death, Hek- tor 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 battlefi eld 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.
μ με, κον, γονων γουνζεο μηδ τοκων α γρ πως ατν με μνος κα θυμς νεη μ ποταμνμενον κρα δμεναι, οα οργας. . . .
(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 suffi cient and consigns Hek- tor 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 battlefi eld 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 fi sh 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 | Battlefi eld 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 confl ict’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 cap- ture 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. Achil- leus also took some Trojans prisoner prior to Patroklos’ death, including Priam’s sons Isos and Antiphos (11.104–106). Their capture, like Lyka- on’s, was not on the battlefi eld: Achilleus seized them as they were tend- ing 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 fi nd 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 prison- ers 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 refl ect the desperate and vain hope of a grieving father, whose sons already lay dead on the battlefi eld. 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 surren- der was possible. Cf. Odysseus’ fi ctional battlefi eld 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 Pri- am’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 battlefi eld ethics had deteri- orated 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 confl ict, 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 war- fare 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 com- bat, dispels any notion that the earlier Trojan War was a less savage af- fair. 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 broth- ers. 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 am- bush 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 | Battlefi eld 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 to- wards the enemy impossible.
After examining the examples of battlefi eld surrender in the Iliad, we can see how nothing in the text implies that the failure of combat supplication refl ects 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 specifi c recent event (the death of Patroklos), and not to the cumulative effects of the long war. The confl ict 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 Achil- leus may have been merciful to some captives prior to Patroklos’ death, his capricious clemency was qualifi ed 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 nor- mal 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 battlefi eld mercy was en- tirely 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) infl ates 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 πρν μν γρ Πτροκλον πισπεν ασιμον μαρ, τφρα τ μοι πεφιδσθαι ν φρεσ φλτερον εν Τρων, κα πολλος ζωος λον δ πρασσα . . . . (“In the time before Pa- troklos 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. Signifi cantly, six of the seven battlefi eld suppli- ants in the Iliad encounter either the hard-liner Agamemnon or an en- raged 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 battlefi eld. The simple fact that they deny sup- plication does not mark them as particularly brutal, however. Although Odysseus and Diomedes slay the suppliant Dolon, their relatively re- strained 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 battlefi eld suppliants as unethical. Why then have such assertions been so common in the scholarly community de- spite 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 sur- rendering 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 refl ects 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 fi nal example of a plea for mercy on the battlefi eld 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 fi rst, 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. 50 The surrender scenes also imply the overall superiority of the Achaians despite
their battlefi eld reverses, since only Trojans beg for quarter; see Kirk (above, n.19) 160.
Kelly | Battlefi eld Supplication in the Iliad 167
suitors, he nonetheless participated in their activities, and was the fi rst 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 confi rms 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 battlefi eld 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 matura- tion; not only has he become a profi cient warrior in the battle with the suitors, but he also displays wisdom and justice in the aftermath of com- bat. Odysseus’ acceptance of his son’s counsel serves as an acknowledg- ment 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 battlefi eld supplication episodes for breathing life into his characters.
LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE gkelly@lclark.edu