Achilleus’ threat to Hektor and the pretext to Andromakhes’ fear for her

husband’s body pivots around Hektor’s appeal to Achilles not ‘to let dogs

…. devour’ him (Iliad 22. 339) and Achilles’ response to feast personally

on his enemy’s corpse is the real point for consideration (umm, it’s not a

case of ‘Guess who’s coming to dinner, but guess what’s for dinner’).The

use of καταδαψαί (to bite apart) threatened by Achilles, which according

to Segal (1971) is a compound verb that occurs only once in the Iliad

and that’s here in the Iliad noting the poignancy of the expression, with a

stark instance of defilement and brutality towards the corpse by a fellow

human being, considered usually to be perfunctory to animals.

But Homer has deviated from the formulaic language of ‘feasting on the

corpse’. Without doubt, book 22.345 shows Homeric ingenuity to

surprise: ‘Homeric art of composition’ as argued by Segal (1971) is a

‘manipulation of standard motifs’. Instead of animal metaphor and

imagery: the language utilised against Hektor is cannibalistic, and this is

not what – us the reader – have been prepared for albeit we re-consider

instances in Bk 11. 479 and 16.157. Iliad 22.345 explicitly refers to

Achilles’ wish to ‘consume’ Hektor’s body raw. The eating of raw flesh

has not been documented in the Iliad until this point not even in

sacrificial contexts. Whilst we can concede, as agreed by Taplin (1995)

‘outrage’ (άεικιζειν) towards the enemy’s corpse is prevalent in battle

scene exchanges, such occurrences tend to be a more basic threat

involving wild prey. In contest with Bassett’s acceptance of Achilles’

verbal and physical defilement of Hektor, the ‘eating’ of raw flesh is

unacceptable and will be a source of reproach by the gods (Iliad

22.346ff). The image of animals devouring the corpse is difficult enough

to swallow - as expressed by Andromache and Hecuba - let alone living

feasting on raw death.

But, such an extreme threat of violence is often propagated by a highly

emotive state invariably associated with the reality of death and

bereavement. And such emotions may stimulate anti-cultural impulses

that put people off their ‘grain’ (so to speak) in favour of anti-social

feasting. Later on, Hecuba, like Achilles towards Patroklus, in grief for

the loss of her son wishes to overcome the cause of her pain through

savage consumption of Achilles’ organs (cf. Iliad 24.207 ώμητης). This

latter scene is even more horrific as it is not delivered by the agency of

death (i.e. a warrior), but by a women and mother symbolic of generative

qualities. The cannibalistic (omophagia) mutilation of the corpse

threatened by both Achilles and Hekuba manifests the suspension of the

natural order: instead the image of such consumption sees humankind

being its own agency of defilement and death, that results in the total

breakdown in cultural boundaries.

But help is at hand! Despite the total dismantling and marginalisation of

religious practices up until this point in Bk. 23, indicated by violent

defilement of the corpse and refusal of proper burial rites, (and for the

latter we ought to include also Patroklus), there is an attempt to re-

establish religious obligations: namely to bury the dead. And this comes

from the gods. Although Patroklus’ eidolon appeals to Achilles for burial,

it is the inhumane treatment of Hektor’s that provokes divine

intervention. Zeus, assisted by Aphrodite and Apollo (24.19ff), facilitate

to save Hektor’s body to allow appropriate burial rites to be performed as

well as to restore a sense of cosmic balance (Cf. 23.58 – absence of

dawn). Thetis is sent to have ‘pep-talk’ with her son (24.128-137) where

she more or less states ‘life’ too short!’. The outcome is that Patroklus

receives burial and Priam sets forth for Achaian camp.

While Segal (1971) sees this intervention as the ‘gods stabilising

civilisation’. Taplin takes it a step further claiming that ‘humanity is

restored’ by the exchange between Priam and Achilles (24.507-526). But

neither is strictly the case: stablise perhaps, restore certainly not.

Cultural stability can only be fully realised by the adherence to

customary religious practices, and as noted by Rohde’s this meant the

necessity (xpn) to bury the dead after 1 day of mourning (Iliad 19.228).

Indeed, references to mourning in the Iliad (ie. 19.295) support the

requirement for burial with all rituals intact and in order (i.e. presumably

with prosthesis, ekphora etc….).

But in an attempt to apply some cultural framework, the gods actual do

the opposite, instead they contribute towards the inversion of generic

funerary ritual.

Whilst, as argued by Garland (1982), Homeric burial rituals may be

flexible; this does not refer to the entire process but that some features –

such as libation – may be slightly out of sequence. Although, Garland

concluded that ‘flexibility’ an ambivalence on how the Greeks treated

their dead, the funeral of Patroklus (Iliad.23.171ff) provides us with a

ways in which we may identify funerary ‘norms’ as follows:

 Washing and anointing of the corpse (by a close kin – women)

 Ritual lamentation for the dead

 Cutting of hair

 Encircling of the corpse

 Animal / human sacrificial offerings

 Offering of honey and oil

 Wine (on the pyre)

 Cremation

 Remains placed in an urn (golden)

  Banquet

 Funeral games

On death Hektor receives no immediate cleansing, instead it dragged

thrice around the walls of Troy, wailing and lamentation may heard from

the city walls. At this juncture, we know that Troy has now met its own

fate, the fall of Hektor (22.401-3) is the death of his city and the

encircling of the city with Hektor’s corpse is demarcating that reality.

Simultaneously, Hektor has become the sacrificial object for Troy,

subject to defilement by the Greeks and the ‘feasting’ of Achilles.

Although, it has been argued (Rohde) that funerary transposition starts

to take place here, the more poignant example is later on with the divine

beautification of the corpse. Aphrodite and Apollo anointment and adorn

the body of Hektor.

This is then followed by a secondary ‘purification’ rite. Although, on initial

reading of the text it appears that Achilles orders the cleansing of the

corpse, so to prevent further violence: which seems unusual seeing the

gods have already completed this task. But from this point, we see a

sense of humanity returning; culminating in the re-instatement of some

kind of religious customary practice with the human realm. The whole

scene between Priam and Achilles is to remember the dead, seeing the
acceptance of the futility of defilement and acceptance of the inevitability

of death (cf. 22.186ff – Priam). Despite man’s attempts to overcome

death, brutal mutilation simply feeds in to the destructive process –

whereas, burial brings closure and re-establishes the importance of life

(Achilles sleeps with Briseis). The secondary purification of the corpse is

symbolic acceptance of this realisation process.

The initial pseudo-burial ritual and the adorning of the corpse with Trojan

robes is part enactment of the funerary process. The body of Hektor is

ready to be carried-out (ekphora) back to Troy to be cremated. The meal

here, forms part of a greater lament for humankind.

Treatment of the Hektor’s corpse led to the peripheral status of Achilles

(Cf. the games and Patroklus’ funeral for further examples), and for a

while the marginalisation of the deities and the denial of religious

performances, which of course, determine the relationship between both

humankind with each other and the gods.