“Bulls cut down bellowing”

Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 20 | 2007 Varia “Bulls cut down bellowing” Ritual leitmotifs and poetic pressures in Iliad XXIII Margo Kitts Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/169 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.169 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2007 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference Margo Kitts, ““Bulls cut down bellowing””, Kernos [Online], 20 | 2007, Online since 24 May 2011, connection on 26 February 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/169 ; DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4000/kernos.169 Kernos Kernos
20
(2007),
p.
17-41.


“Bulls cut down bellowing”: Ritual leitmotifs and poetic pressures in Iliad XXIII


Abstract:
Using
Rappaport’s
notion
of
liturgical
orders,
the
essay
argues
that
the
fixity
of
features
in
some
ritual
scenes
in
the
Iliad
may
denote
a
high
communicational
register
and
level
of
sanctity.
The
features
of
commensal
and
oath-sacrificing
scenes
are
compared
and
contrasted
–
death
is
highlighted
in
oath-sacrifice,
muffled
in
commensal
sacrifice.
There
is
a
relative
paucity
of
figurative
language
in
ritual
scenes,
except
in
the
case
of
the
“pitiless
bronze”
which
takes
the
life
of
the
lambs
and
boar
in
the
oath-sacrifices
of
Books
III
and
XIX.
This
figurative
paucity
is
to
be
contrasted
to
the
plenum
of
such
language
in
scenes
which
depict
battlefield
killings.
Finally
the
features
of
the
cremation
sacrifices
of
Iliad
XXIII
are
examined
against
those
of
commensal
and
oath-sacrifices.
The
focalization
on
the
“bulls
cut
down
bellowing”
in
the
precremation
feast
is
startling
because
it
jars
with
typical
commensal
sacrifices,
but
may
be
explained
by
the
broken
nature
of
the
narrative
and
its
punctuation
by
an
oath-making
ritual
leitmotif.
In
contrast,
the
actual
cremation
sacrifices
are
situated
within
a
strongly
formalized
liturgical
order
which
does
not
permit
focalization
on
dying
victims,
despite
the
references
to
poine– which
introduce
and
conclude
the
funeral
sacrifices.
Résumé
:
« Des bœufs mugissants égorgés ». Leitmotive rituels et pressions poétiques au chant XXIII de l’Iliade.
En
utilisant
la
notion
d’ordres
liturgiques
de
Rappaport,
l’étude
affirme
que
la
fixité
des
traits
de
certaines
scènes
rituelles
de
l’Iliade
pourrait
refléter
un
registre
communicationnel
élevé,
ainsi
qu’un
niveau
de
sacralité.
Les
traits
des
scènes
de
sacrifice
alimentaire
et
de
sacrifice
juratoire
sont
comparés
et
mis
en
contraste
–
la
mort
est
soulignée
dans
le
sacrifice
juratoire,
dissimulée
dans
le
sacrifice
alimentaire.
La
rareté
relative
de
langage
figuré
caractérise
les
scènes
rituelles,
à
l’exception
du
«
bronze
sans
pitié
»
qui
prend
la
vie
des
agneaux
et
de
l’ours
dans
les
sacrifices
juratoires
des
chants
III
et
XIX.
Une
telle
rareté
s’oppose
au
foisonnement
de
ce
type
de
langage
dans
les
scènes
qui
décrivent
les
tueries
sur
le
champ
de
bataille.
Enfin,
les
traits
des
sacrifices
de
crémation
du
chant
XXIII
sont
examinés
en
regard
de
ceux
des
sacrifices
alimentaires
et
juratoires.
La
mise
en
perspective
des
«
bœufs
mugissants
égorgés
»
dans
la
célébration
qui
précède
la
crémation
est
frappante,
dans
la
mesure
où
elle
détonne
par
rapport
aux
sacrifices
alimentaires
typiques,
mais
peut
s’expliquer
par
la
nature
décousue
de
la
narration
et
l’insertion
ponctuelle
du
leitmotiv
d’un
rituel
juratoire.
Par
contraste,
les
véritables
sacrifices
de
crémation
s’insèrent
dans
un
ordre
liturgique
fortement
formalisé
qui
ne
permet
pas
la
mise
en
perspective
des
victimes
mourantes,
en
dépit
des
références
à
la
poine–
qui
introduit
et
referme
les
sacrifices
funèbres.
18
M.
KITTS
Different
moods,
behaviors,
and
also
vocabularies
characterize
commensal
sacrifices
and
oath-sacrifices
in
Homer’s
Iliad.
The
first
is
presented
as
an
elaborate
feast
that
soothes
spirits
and
sates
appetites,
while
the
second
is
rendered
as
a
somber
killing
ritual
that
elicits
dread
in
anticipation
of
oathviolation.1
It
is
against
these
two
clearly
demarcated
ritual
paradigms
that
I
will
examine
the
phrase,
“bulls
cut
down
bellowing,”
which
occurs
twice
in
Book
XXIII
of
the
Iliad.
The
first
occurrence
is
during
a
seemingly
commensal
event,
the
feast
which
precedes
the
cremation
sacrifices
for
Patroklos;
the
second
is
later,
when
Ajax
Oileus
slips
in
the
dung
of
the
sacrificed
bulls
during
the
funeral
games.
Although
the
killing
and
bellowing
of
the
bulls
is
referenced
in
two
different
ways
(ὀρέχθεον…
σφαζόµενοι
[XXIII,
30-31]
and
ἀποκταµένων
ἐριµύκων
[XXIII,
775]),
the
reference
is
to
the
same
event,
the
sacrifices
which
precede
the
feast
before
the
cremation
sacrifice
for
Patroklos.
My
purpose
here
is
to
try
to
understand
where
in
the
wide
scheme
between
Homeric
commensal
and
oath-sacrifices,
and
against
the
lone
scene
of
funeral
sacrifice
in
Book
XXIII,
we
are
to
locate
this
focalization
on
the
bulls’
bellowing,
given
the
silence
of
victims
in
commensal
sacrifice,
the
silence
of
victims
in
the
cremation
sacrifice,
but
the
close
focus
on
the
victims’
gasping
and
dying
during
oathsacrifice.
This
quest
hinges
upon
the
pressures
these
different
sacrificial
type
scenes,
reflective
of
“liturgical
orders,”2
exerted
on
the
poetic
composition
of
the
funeral
feast.
It
also
hinges
on
the
compositional
pressures
of
“ritual
leitmotifs.”
I
shall
argue
that
the
funeral
feast
is
a
weakly
instantiated
commensal
liturgical
order
penetrated
by
an
oath-making
ritual
leitmotif.
I
shall
also
argue
that
the
cremation
sacrifices,
in
contrast,
represent
a
strongly
instantiated
liturgical
order
which
suppresses
all
but
a
whisper
of
poine–,
another
ritual
leitmotif
which
happens
to
introduce
the
sacrifice
of
Trojan
boys.
The
tension
between
ritual
pressures
and
narrative
pressures
is
front
and
center
in
this
essay.
Commensal and oath-sacrificing typical scenes To
appreciate
the
pressures
that
liturgical
orders
and
ritual
leitmotifs
may
exert
on
poetic
composition,
one
first
must
appreciate
the
relatively
fixed
configuration
of
verses
which
comprise
commensal
and
oath-sacrificing
typical
scenes
in
the
Iliad.
As
Leonard
Muellner
pointed
out
decades
ago,
ritual
scenes
in
the
Iliad
constitute
a
special
epic
genre
characterized
by
precise
detail,
ritually
significant
vocabulary,
and
a
series
of
finite
action
verbs
signifying
a
series
of






















































1
A
contrast
I
have
argued
in
Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society, Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2005,
and
in
“Sacrificial
Violence
in
the
Iliad,”
Journal of Ritual Studies
16:1
(January
2002),
p.
19-39.

2
An
item
discussed
by
Roy
A.
RAPPAPORT,
most
exhaustively
in
Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
1999,
with
slight
variation
in
his
“The
Obvious
Aspects
of
Ritual,”
from
Ecology, Meaning and Religion,
Berkeley,
CA,
North
Atlantic,
1979,
p.
175-180,
reprinted
in
Ronald
GRIMES
(ed.),
Readings in Ritual Studies, Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ,
Prentice
Hall,
1996,
p.
427-440.

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 19
finite
acts.
This
series
of
finite
action
verbs
and
details
represents
a
series
of
behavioral
microadjustments,
a
ritual
feature
whose
significance
Muellner
draws
from
Levi-Strauss.3
Both
the
commensal
sacrifices
of
Iliad
Books
I,
II,
VII,
IX
and
XXIV
and
the
oath-sacrifices
of
Books
III
and
XIX
may
be
characterized
in
this
way.

First
let
us
consider
commensal
sacrifices.
It
should
be
noted
immediately
that
there
are
feasting
scenes
in
the
Iliad
which
make
no
mention
whatsoever
of
the
sacrificial
killing
and
butchering
of
animals
(for
instance,
the
feast
of
divinities
at
I,
597-604,
and
also
of
humans
at
VIII,
502-549
and
XIX,
345)
and
there
is
also
at
least
one
rather
abbreviated
sacrifice
which
makes
no
mention
of
feasting,
funerals,
or
oaths
(VIII,
250-252).4
Of
the
commensal
scenes
which
do
combine
sacrificing
and
feasting,
the
death
of
the
victim
is
entirely
ignored,
apparently
eclipsed
by
the
formulaic
phrases
and
microadjusting
finite
action
verbs
which
describe
the
throat-slitting
(sphadzo–
–
usually
a
culinary
verb
in
Homer),
flaying,
butchering,
skewering,
roasting
and
finally
dining
on
the
animal
(i.e.,
I,
446-474;
II,
410-432).
There
is
a
dearth
of
figurative
language,
and
a
plenum
of
ritual
details
and
whole
line
formulae.
The
most
complete
sequence
of
steps
is
given
in
Book
Ι
and
will
stand
as
a
paradigm.
Identical
comparisons
from
other
scenes
are
given
in
parentheses;
slight
differences
are
given
in
notes.

()) I, 447-8 τοὶ
δ᾿
ὦκα
θεῷ
ἱερὴν
ἑκατόµβην

They
swiftly
set
in
order
the
sacred
hecatomb
ἑξείης
ἔστησαν
ἐΰδµητον
περὶ
βωµόν,
for
the
god
around
the
well-built
altar.
(2) Ι, 449 χερνίψαντο
δ᾿
ἔπειτα
καὶ
οὐλοχύτας
ἀνέλοντο.
They
washed
their
hands
and
took
up
barley
(3) Ι, 4505 τοῖσιν
δὲ
Χρύσης
µεγάλ᾿
εὔχετο
χεῖρας
ἀνασχών·...

On
their
behalf,
Chryses
held
up
his
hands
and
prayed.
(4) Ι, 458 αὐτὰρ
ἐπεί
ῥ᾿
εὔξαντο
καὶ
οὐλοχύτας
προβάλοντο,
But
after
they
prayed
and
threw
(ditto
ΙΙ,
422)
barley,
(5) Ι, 459 αὐέρυσαν
µὲν
πρῶτα
καὶ
ἔσφαξαν
καὶ
ἔδειραν,
They
held
up
the
[victims’]
heads
first,

and
then
cut
the
throats
and
flayed
(ditto
at
ΙΙ,
422;
cf.
ΧΧΙV,
622)6
them,






















































3
Leonard
MUELLNER,
The Meaning of Homeric
εὔχοµαι Through Its Formulas,
Innsbruck,
Institut
fur
Sprachwissenschaft
der
Universitat
Innsbruck,
1976,
p.
32-33.
4
Compare
and
contrast
Marcel
DETIENNE
on
“the
absolute
coincidence
of
meat-eating
and
sacrificial
practice,”
in
“Culinary
Practices
and
the
Spirit
of
Sacrifice,” Marcel
DETIENNE
and
Jean-Pierre
VERNANT,
The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks,
transl.
Paul
Wissing,
Chicago,
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1989,
p.
3.
5
Compare
Agamemnon’s
prayer
for
Priam’s
total
destruction,
which
initiates
the
commensal
sacrifice
at
II,
410-418.
The
response
of
the
deity
is
noted
in
both
prayers
(a
positive
response
in
Book
I,
a
negative
in
Book
II)
.
6
There
is
slight
variation
in
Achilles’
sacrifice
at
XXIV,
622:
σφάξ᾿·
ἕταροι
δ᾿
ἔδερόν
τε
καὶ
ἄµφεπον
εὖ
κατὰ
κόσµον.
20
M.
KITTS
(6) Ι, 460-) µηρούς
τ᾿
ἐξέταµον
κατά
τε
κνίσῃ
ἐκάλυψαν

δίπτυχα
ποιήσαντες,



(ditto
at
ΙΙ,
423-4)
They
cut
out
the
thigh
pieces
and
hid
them
under
the
fat
making
two
folds
(7) ...
ἐπ᾿
αὐτῶν
δ᾿
ὠµοθέτησαν·
They
placed
raw
strips
of
flesh
over
[the
thighs];
Ι, 46) (ditto
at
ΙΙ,
434)
(8) καῖε
δ᾿
ἐπὶ
σχίζῃς
ὁ
γέρων,
ἐπὶ
δ᾿
αἴθοπα
The
old
man
burned
them
over
split
Ι, 462-37 οἶνον
λεῖβε
wood,
and
libated
with
shining
wine;
(9) Ι, 463 ()0) Ι, 464 ...νέοι
δὲ
παρ᾿
αὐτὸν
ἔχον
πεµπώβολα
χερσίν.
Young
men
held
forks
in
their
hands.
())) I, 465 µίστυλλόν
τ᾿
ἄρα
τἆλλα
καὶ
ἀµφ᾿
ὀβελοῖσιν
ἔπειραν,
(ditto
at
ΙΙ,
428;
cf.
VII,
317,
IX,
210,
XXIV,
623)
()2) I, 466 ὤπτησάν
τε
περιφραδέως,
ἐρύσαντό
τε
πάντα.
They
roasted
it
expertly,
and
drew
(ditto
II,
429
and
XXIV,
624;
cf.
VII,
318)
it
all
off
[the
spits].
()3) I, 467 αὐτὰρ
ἐπεὶ
παύσαντο
πόνου
τετύκοντό
τε
δαῖτα,
But
when
they
had
ceased
their
(ditto
II,
430,
VII,
319)
labor
and
prepared
the
feast,
()4) I, 468 δαίνυντ᾿,
οὐδέ
τι
θυµὸς
ἐδεύετο
δαιτὸς
ἐΐσης.

they
feasted,
and
no
spirit
went
lacking
(ditto
II,
431,
VII,
320)
the
equally
divided
feast.
()5) I, 469 αὐτὰρ
ἐπεὶ
πόσιος
καὶ
ἐδητύος
ἐξ
ἔρον
ἕντο,
But
when
they
had
sated
their
desire
(ditto
II,
432,
VII,
323,
IX,
222,
XXIV,
628)
for
food
and
drink,
αὐτὰρ
ἐπεὶ
κατὰ
µῆρε
κάη
καὶ
σπλάγχνα
πάσαντο,
But
when
they
had
burned
the
(ditto
at
ΙΙ,
427)
thighs
and
tasted
the
innards,
they
cut
the
rest
into
bits
and
pierced
it
with
spits,
Note
the
repeated
whole
verse
formulae,
the
concrete
ritual
precision
denoted
by
the
series
of
action
verbs,
and
the
paucity
of
figurative
language,
with
the
exception
of
the
last
verse,
which
is
well-known
to
be
symbolic
of
fulfillment.
Between
steps
13
and
15
may
come
a
few
other
verses
and
ritual
steps,
describing
bread
being
laid
out
in
baskets
and
meat
being
served
(IX,
216-217;
XXIV,
625-626)
and/or
hands
being
stretched
out
to
the
refreshments
(IX,
221;
XXIV,
627),
each
act
quite
formulaically
rendered
when
rendered
at
all.
Notably,
in
all
five
commensal
scenes
the
victim’s
blood,
intrinsic
to
battle
scenes
and
an
emphasized
element
in
several
major
theories
of
sacrifice,
is
never
mentioned,
nor
are
the
animal’s
last
gasps
and
collapse.
Instead
there
are
detailed
actions
connoting
the
bustling
preparations
for
a
meal.

The
oath-sacrificing
rituals
of
Books
III
and
XIX
too
feature
a
fixed
cluster
of
action
verbs
and
precise
detail,
but
their
net
effect
is
to
highlight,
not
to
suppress,
the
death
of
the
victim.
The
ritual
sequence
begins
with
the
assembling
of
participants
(III,
114-115;
XIX,
255-256),
the
presenting
of
victims
(III,
268-269;
XIX,
259-251),
and
the
washing
of
hands
(III,
270).
Then
we
find
the
following
steps
in
common,
which
are
drawn
for
illustration
from
the
fuller






















































7
Compare
the
slight
variation
in
Book
II,
425:
καὶ
τὰ
µὲν
ἂρ
σχίζῃσιν
ἀφύλλοισιν
κατέκαιον.

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 21
ritual
scene
in
Book
III.
Slight
differences
between
the
two
oath-sacrifices
are
given
in
notes.


()) ΙΙΙ, 27)-72 (2) ΙΙΙ, 2738 ᾿Ατρεΐδης
δὲ
ἐρυσσάµενος
χείρεσσι
µάχαιραν,
Atreides,
drawing
with
his
ἥ
οἱ
πὰρ
ξίφεος
µέγα
κουλεὸν
αἰὲν
ἄωρτο,
hands
the
machaira,
which
(ditto
ΧΙΧ,
252-53)
always
hung
by
the
great
sheath
of
his
sword,
ἀρνῶν
ἐκ
κεφαλέων
τάµνε
τρίχας·
αὐτὰρ
ἔπειτα

κήρυκες
Τρώων
καὶ
᾿Αχαιῶν
νεῖµαν
ἀρίστοις.
he
cut
hairs
from
the
heads
of
the
lambs,
and
then
the
heralds
distributed
them
to
the
best
of
the
Trojans
and
Achaians.
(3) τοῖσιν
δ᾿
᾿Ατρεΐδης
µεγάλ᾿
εὔχετο
χεῖρας
ἀνασχών·
Before
them
Atreides
prayed, holding
up
his
hands.
ΙΙΙ, 2759 (4) “Ζεῦ
πάτερ,
῎Ιδηθεν
µεδέων,
κύδιστε
µέγιστε,

“Zeus
Father,
counselor
from
ΙΙΙ, 276-8010 ᾿Ηέλιός
θ᾿,
ὃς
πάντ᾿
ἐφορᾷς
καὶ
πάντ᾿
ἐπακούεις,

Ida,
best
and
greatest
and
καὶ
ποταµοὶ
καὶ
γαῖα,
καὶ
οἳ
ὑπένερθε
καµόντας

Helios,
you
who
see
all
and
ἀνθρώπους
τίνυσθον,
ὅτις
κ᾿
ἐπίορκον
ὀµόσσῃ,

hear
all,
and
the
rivers
and
ὑµεῖς
µάρτυροι
ἔστε,
φυλάσσετε
δ᾿
ὅρκια
πιστά·
earth,
and
those
who
toil
...
”
underneath
and
punish
men,
whosoever
swears
a
false
oath,
you
be
witnesses,
and
protect
the
trusty
oaths...”
(5) ΙΙΙ, 292 ῏Η,
καὶ
ἀπὸ
στοµάχους
ἀρνῶν
τάµε
νηλέϊ
χαλκῷ·
So
he
said,
and
he
cut
the
neck

of
the
lambs
with
the
pitiless
(ditto
ΧΙΧ,
266)
bronze.
(6) καὶ
τοὺς
µὲν
κατέθηκεν
ἐπὶ
χθονὸς
ἀσπαίροντας,

ΙΙΙ, 293-9411 θυµοῦ
δευοµένους·
ἀπὸ
γὰρ
µένος
εἵλετο
χαλκός.

(7) ΙΙΙ, 295-97 ἔκχεον,
ἠδ᾿
εὔχοντο
θεοῖς
αἰειγενέτῃσιν·
οἶον
δ’
ἐκ
κρητῆρος
ἀφυσσόµενοι
δεπάεσσιν
ὧδε
δέ
τις
εἴπεσκεν
᾿Αχαιῶν
τε
Τρώων
τε·
And
he
put
them
on
the
ground,
gasping,
depleted
of
thumos,
for
the
bronze
had
taken
away
their
strength.
Drawing
wine
from
bowls
with
cups,
they
poured
it
out,
and
prayed
to
the
gods
who
always
are,
and
this
is
how
each
one
of
the
Achaians
and
Trojans
prayed,






















































8
Cf.
XIX,
254,
which
has
simply
“cutting
hairs
from
the
boar”
(κάπρου
ἀπὸ
τρίχας
ἀρξάµενος). 9
Cf.
XIX,
254-255,
which
has
simply
“raising
his
hands
to
Zeus
|
he
prayed”
(∆ιὶ
χεῖρας
ἀνασχὼν
|
εὔχετο).
10
Cf.
XIX,
258-260,
which
has
“Let
Zeus
see
first,
who
is
highest
and
best
of
the
gods,
|
and
then
Ge,
and
Helios
and
the
Erinyes,
who
from
under
earth
|
punish
men,
whosoever
should
swear
a
false
oath”
(ἴστω
νῦν
Ζεὺς
πρῶτα
θεῶν,
ὕπατος
καὶ
ἄριστος,
|
Γῆ
τε
καὶ
᾿Ηέλιος
καὶ
᾿Ερινύες,
αἵ
θ᾿
ὑπὸ
γαῖαν
|
ἀνθρώπους
τίνυνται,
ὅτις
κ᾿
ἐπίορκον
ὀµόσσῃ).

11
Cf.
XIX,
267-268:
And
Talthybios
hurled
him,
whirling,
into
the
great
abyss
|
of
the
grey
sea,
as
food
for
fish
(τὸν
µὲν
Ταλθύβιος
πολιῆς
ἁλὸς
ἐς
µέγα
λαῖτµα
|
ῥῖψ᾿
ἐπιδινήσας
βόσιν
ἰχθύσιν).
22
(8) ΙΙΙ, 29830)12 M.
KITTS
“Ζεῦ
κύδιστε
µέγιστε
καὶ
ἀθάνατοι
θεοὶ
ἄλλοι,

“Zeus
best
and
greatest,
and
all
ὁππότεροι
πρότεροι
ὑπὲρ
ὅρκια
πηµήνειαν,

the
other
immortal
gods
whoὧδέ
σφ᾿
ἐγκέφαλος
χαµάδις
ῥέοι
ὡς
ὅδε
οἶνος,

soever
should
first
violate
the
αὐτῶν
καὶ
τεκέων,
ἄλοχοι
δ᾿
ἄλλοισι
δαµεῖεν.”
oaths,
so
let
their
brains
run
to
the
ground
like
this
wine,
and
of
their
children,
and
let
their
wives
become
the
spoil
of
others.”
Note
the
focus
on
the
killing
and
dying
of
the
victims
and
the
concluding
curses
stressing
the
analogy
between
the
perjurer’s
brains
and
the
wine
(again
at
IV,
158-162).
The
theme
of
Trojan
punishment
for
oath-violation
is
continued
into
the
next
book
(at
IV,
67;
72;
234-239;
269-271).

Both
ritual
scenes
may
be
characterized
as
relatively
fixed
sequences
of
verses
that
feature
precise
narrative
detail
and
an
abundance
of
verbs
representing
a
series
of
finite,
ritualized
steps,
as
Muellner
would
see
it.
In
addition,
both
types
of
ritual
scenes
include
whole
verse
formulae,
and
are
notable
for
a
relative
dearth
of
figurative
language.
The
fixity
of
poetic
form
and
the
emphasis
on
precise
detail
and
ritual
acts
(denoted
by
sequences
of
verbs)
mirror,
I
think,
the
sacrosanct
quality
of
the
ritual
performance
itself,
within
and
without
the
text.
That
is,
the
fixity
does
not
represent
a
poet’s
memorization
of
standard
verses
for
ritual
scenes,
but
rather
at
some
point
must
have
represented
a
constellation
of
actions
associated
with
a
formal
performance
conducted
in
a
highly
sanctified
ritual
register.

Liturgical orders and ritual leitmotifs My
emphasis
on
a
high
performance
register
as
permeating
ritual
scenes
is
an
attempt
to
merge
ritual
studies
and
oral
poetic
studies.
The
argument
relies
on,
for
one
thing,
the
anthropological
theory
of
ritual
performance
as
communication.13
I
have
argued
elsewhere
that
oral
poetic
performances
narrating
ritual
performances
produce
a
kind
of
intertextuality,
based
on
the
notion
that
the
ritual
performance
communicates
a
kind
of
text,
and
so
does
the
Homeric
ritual
scene,
which
communicates
a
ritual
performance
via
its
poetic
text.14
This
argument
about
the
intertextuality
of
the
Homeric
ritual
scene
relies
in
part
on
Stanley
Tambiah’s
notion
of
ritual
performances
as
communicating
iconic
analogues
of
primordial
events
to
an
audience
or
to






















































12
Cf.
XIX,
264-265:
“But
if
I
have
sworn
these
things
falsely,
then
let
the
gods
give
to
me
pains
|
very
many,
as
many
as
they
give
to
anyone
who
transgresses
in
swearing”
(εἰ
δέ
τι
τῶνδ᾿
ἐπίορκον
ἐµοὶ
θεοὶ
ἄλγεα
δοῖεν
|
πολλὰ
µάλ᾿,
ὅσσα
διδοῦσιν
ὅτίς
σφ᾿
ἀλίτηται
ὀµόσσας).
13
An
interpretive
model
proposed
by,
for
instance,
Catherine
BELL,
Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, New
York,
Oxford
University
Press,
1992,
Stanley
J.
TAMBIAH,
“A
Performative
Approach
to
Ritual,”
Proceedings of the British Academy,
Vol.
65,
Oxford,
Oxford
University
Press,
1979,
Valerio
VALERI,
Kingship and Sacrifice,
transl.
Paula
Wissing,
Chicago,
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1985,
and
RAPPAPORT,
o.c.
(n.
2).

14
See
Chapter
1
of
my
Sanctified Violence,
o.c.
(n.
1).

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 23
performers,
who
recognize
the
primordial
event
in
its
new
hypostasis,
much
the
way
a
viewer
might
recognize
an
underlying
figure
in
an
abstract
work
of
art.15
It
also
relies
on
Roy
Rappaport’s
analysis
of
highly
formalized
ritual
performances
as
liturgical
orders,
whose
formality
and
compulsion
are
often
attributed
to
canonical
encoding
by
supernatural
or
primordial
forces.
For
our
purposes
here,
liturgical
orders
may
be
characterized
by,
first,
their
punctilious
and
sacrosanct
qualities,
and,
second,
by
the
way
their
performances
instantiate
the
conventions
the
rituals
represent.16
The
punctilious
and
sacrosanct
qualities
of
the
Iliad’s
commensal
and
oath-sacrificing
rituals
may
be
discerned
in
the
attention
to
minute
detail
and
the
relatively
fixed
sequence
of
ritual
acts
represented
in
the
ritual
scenes
–
the
fixity,
says
Rappaport,
is
a
measure
of
compulsion
and
formality.
As
for
the
conventions
these
rituals
instantiate,
those
conventions
are
to
some
degree
obvious:
hospitality
is
instantiated
with
commensal
sacrifice,
and
new
commitments
and
social
relationships
are
instantiated
with
oath-sacrifice.

But
there
are
more
complex
dimensions
to
liturgical
orders,
and
understanding
those
dimensions
may
help
to
understand
the
relatively
fixed
sequences
of
verses
which
comprise
ritual
scenes..
First
of
all,
the
fixity
of
the
features
which
constitute
a
liturgical
order
is
seen
by
Rappaport
to
be
proportional
to
the
precariousness
of
the
convention
the
ritual
instantiates.17
This
proportionality
is
evident
in
the
elaborate
commensal
sacrifice
of
Book
I,
which
mends
the
costly
rift
between
the
priest
of
Apollo
and
the
Achaian
troops
–
recently
the
victims
of
Apollo’s
punishing
plague
–
and
in
the
very
formal
oath-sacrifice
of
Book
III,
which
creates
a
temporary
alliance
between
the
Trojans
and
Achaians
after
many
years
of
costly
war.
Clearly,
both
rituals
are
responses
to
precarious
situations.

On
the
same
note,
Rappaport
sees
the
degree
of
formality
as
a
measure
of
the
degree
of
constraint
required
for
the
individual
entering
into
the
social
contract
established
by
the
ritual.
This
means
that
the
more
likely
people
are
to
violate
the
institution
instantiated
by
the
ritual,
the
more
fixed
will
be
the
ritual
form.
This
constraint
and
the
likelihood
for
violation
is
evident
in
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
commensal
sacrifice
in
Book
I:
Agamemnon
has
just
proven
himself
most
inhospitable
and
ungracious
to
Achilles,
in
contrast
to
which
the
commensal
ritual
he
leads
in
Book
I
is
a
veritable
study
in
ceremonial
form,
and
seemingly
compensatory,
given
his
earlier
misdeed
also
against
Apollo’s
priest,
whose
daughter
Agamemnon
had
abducted.
The
priest
and
the






















































15
TAMBIAH,
l.c.
(n.
13).

16
RAPPAPORT,
1999,
o.c. (n.
2),
p.
24
and
1979,
l.c.
(n.
2),
p.
428.
17
RAPPAPORT,
1999,
o.c.
(n.
2),
p.
128:
“[I]t
may
further
be
suggested
that
the
more
highly
motivated
people
are
to
violate
a
convention,
or
the
more
consequential
its
violation
is
deemed
to
be,
the
more
likely
it
is
to
be
established
in
liturgy
than
in
daily
practice,
or
the
more
closely
and
strongly
will
it
be
associated
with
the
conventional
understandings
that
are
so
represented.”
24
M.
KITTS
Achaians
(and
the
audience)
all
know
that
Agamemnon’s
misdeed
has
precipitated
a
plague
and
consequent
deaths.
In
the
case
of
the
oath-sacrifice
between
the
Trojans
and
Achaians
in
Book
III,
the
likelihood
that
the
convention
will
be
betrayed
is
made
apparent
by
references
to
Priam’s
sons
as
unreliable
in
regard
to
oaths
(i.e.,
at
III,
105-110),18
and
by
the
remembered
Trojan
trespass
against
the
convention
of
hospitality
perpetrated
by
Paris
against
Menelaos,
when
Paris
abducted
Menelaos’
wife.
And
of
course
the
audience
would
know
that
the
Trojans
indeed
will
violate
the
oath,
albeit
with
divine
instigation.

Lastly,
Rappaport
informs
us
that
violating
oaths
is
the
one
universal
proscription
across
cultures,
whereas
proscriptions
against
murder,
rape,
and
mayhem
may
vary
considerably.19
This
proscription
against
oath-violation
is
apparent
in
the
fixed
sequence
(and
hence
formality)
of
the
Iliad’s
oathsacrifices,
and
is
also
visible
in
a
handful
of
dire
predictions
for
the
fate
of
oathbreakers,
such
as
“Whoever
is
first
to
violate
the
oaths,
so
may
their
brains
pour
onto
the
ground
as
does
the
wine,
and
the
brains
of
their
children,
and
may
their
wives
be
subdued
by
others”
(III,
300-301).

The
fixity
and
formality
of
ritual
scenes
must
be
appreciated
as
contrasting
to
scenes
describing,
say,
killings
on
the
battlefield.
The
latter
scenes,
as
noted
by
proponents
of
the
composition-in-single-words
theory,20
appear
to
be
fluidly
composed
with
an
ear
for
most
important
words
(the
semantic
nucleus)
to
be
steadfast
in
the
line,
and
less
semantically
weighty
words
and
often
figurative
phrases
(peripheral
elements)
to
be
built
around
them,
usually
at
the
end
of
the
line.
Typically,
for
instance,
battlefield
killing
scenes
go
something
like
this:
X
killed
Y
with
a
(adjectival)
spear,
say,
a
shining
spear,
or
a
sharp
bronze.
The
spear
or
figuratively
rendered
expression
for
it
at
the
end
of
the
line
is
semantically
redundant,
since
most
killings
in
the
Iliad
are
by
spear,
and
the
semantic
nucleus,
X
killed
Y,
is
set
towards
the
beginning
of
the
verse.
Phrases
historicizing
the
identities
of
X
and
Y
and
the
way
they
die
are
less
semantically
essential
and
thus
more
flexible,
enjoying
a
range
of
metrically
adaptive
expressions
and
figurability.
The
implication,
according
to
Bakker
and
Visser,
among
others,
is
that
the
poet
composed
these
verses
in
single
words,
with
a
full
array
of
lexical
choices
and
a
storytelling
intention.
Although
there
are
metrical
constraints
in
Homeric
hexameter,
they
do
not
constrain
creativity
beyond
the






















































18
“And
bring
the
strength
(Bie)
of
Priam,
so
he
may
cut
the
oaths
(horkia)
|
himself,
since
his
children
are
overbearing
and
untrustworthy,
|
lest
someone
by
overstepping
|
violence
destroy
the
oath
of
Zeus.
|
For
the
phrenes
of
younger
men
always
flutter.
|
An
old
man
goes
among
them,
and
considers
both
the
past
|
and
the
future,
whatever
may
be
the
best,
by
far,
for
both
sides”
(III,
105-110).

19
RAPPAPORT,
1999,
o.c.
(n.
2),
p.
132.
20
See,
for
instance,
Egbert
BAKKER
and
Florence
FABBRICOTTI,
“Peripheral
and
Nuclear
Semantics
in
Homeric
Diction,”
Mnemosyne
44
(1991),
p.
63-84,
and
Edzard
VISSER,
“Formulae
or
Single
Words?” Warzburger Jahrbucker fur die Altertumswissenschaft
14
(1988),
p.
21-37.

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 25
forms
which
constrain
other
poetic
genres,
and
the
oral
poet
composes
with
an
ear
for
the
semantics
of
his
message
first,
not
primarily
for
conjoining
formulaic
word
blocks
to
fit
metrical
constraints.21
The
composition
process
in
battlefield
killing
scenes
must
be
decidedly
fluid
in
order
to
suit
the
pace
of
the
rapidly
unfolding
drama.
This
means
that
the
compositional
process
in
killing
scenes
differs
significantly
from
the
compositional
process
in
ritual
scenes,
which
reflect
primordial
paradigms
remolded
to
fit
new
narrative
situations.
One
feature
of
this
difference
is
that
for
ritual
scenes,
each
element
of
a
verse,
no
matter
where
localized,
may
be
a
semantically
significant
component
of
a
primordial
ideal,
although
each
scene
may
represent
that
ideal
in
a
slightly
different
hypostasis.
This
does
not
mean
that
the
various
elements
of
the
sacrificial
scenes
do
not
enlist
for
a
Homeric
audience
a
whole
tapestry
of
related
conventions
and
cultural
themes,
because
surely
they
do,
and
in
a
way
which
enriches
the
narrative.
Rather,
it
means
that
on
the
surface
of
the
text
ritual
scenes
are
remarkable
for
their
fixity
of
features
and
their
relative
paucity
of
figurative
expressions,
denoting
a
performance
core
which
must
have
exerted
pressure
on
the
process
of
composition.
The
audience
would
understand
this
core
to
be
established
primordially,
or
at
least
to
preexist
the
particular
ritual
performance.
Hence
the
rituals
described
above
demonstrate
a
tendency
for
inclusive
semantics
and
consistent
verse
localization
patterns,
which
refer
ultimately
to
performance
patterns.
Further,
unlike
in
battle
scenes,
in
ritual
scenes
we
have
whole
line
formulae
which
are
indispensable
to
the
sense
of
the
oath-making
ritual,
such
as
“and
he
cut
the
throats
of
the
[lambs,
boar]
with
the
pitiless
bronze.”

In
addition,
figurative
expressions
are
rare
in
ritual
scenes
–
unlike
in
battlefield
scenes,
where
they
are
common
enough.
Let
us
consider
the
single
figurative
expression
in
oath-sacrificing
scenes,
“with
the
pitiless
bronze.”
The
phrase
is
located
at
the
end
of
nearly
identical
killing
verses,
“and
he
cut
the
throat[s]
of
the
boar
[lambs]
with
the
pitiless
bronze.”
Because
killing
is
central
to
oath-sacrifice,
this
verse
arguably
conveys
the
apex
of
the
whole
ritual.
Thus,
the
end
of
line
figuration
describing
the
machaira
as
killing
tool
is
not
a
semantically
weak
addendum,
in
the
way
of
battlefield
spears,
but
rather
conveys
a
deadliness
indispensable
to
the
ritual
performance.
Particularly
in
Book
III,
the
relatively
slow
dying
of
the
lambs,
represented
by
a
vivid
triad
of
verbs
–
gasping,
being
deprived
of
thumos,
robbed
of
menos
–
seems
to
amplify
the
killing
and
certainly
highlights
the
effects
of
the
machaira’s
work.
Notwithstanding
its
position
at
the
end
of
the
line,
then,
the
figurative
expression
for
the
machaira
–
the
pitiless
bronze
–
is
semantically
essential
and
in
fact
a
veritable
flag
for
the
highly
somber
oath-sacrificing
scene.
It
is
further
conspicuous






















































21
On
this
point
see
Paul
KIPARSKY,
“Oral
Poetry:
Some
Linguistic
and
Typological
Considerations,”
Oral Literature and the Formula,
Ann
Arbor,
MI,
Center
for
the
Coordination
of
Ancient
and
Modern
Studies,
1976,
p.
73-105.
26
M.
KITTS
because
of
the
very
unfigurative
description
which
surrounds
it
–
concrete
detail
and
a
plenum
of
verbs
denoting
precise
ritual
acts.
Just
by
examining
this
one
phrase,
we
can
see
that
localization
patterns
and
figurative
phrases
may
bear
a
different
significance
in
ritual
scenes
than
they
do
in
battlefield
scenes.
This
is
because
ritual
scenes
are
seen
to
represent
liturgical
orders
established
by
forces
prior
to
and
other
than
the
immediate
ritual
participants,
and
because
each
element
of
that
liturgical
order
counts
toward
a
primordial
ideal.

So,
although
the
different
elements
of
the
sacrificial
scenes
may
enlist
for
a
Homeric
audience
a
whole
tapestry
of
related
conventions
and
cultural
themes,
the
actual
ritual
scenes
in
the
poem
are
remarkable
for
their
fixity
of
features
and
their
relative
paucity
of
figurative
expressions,
denoting,
as
I
said,
a
ritual
formalism
and
actual
performance
parameters,
albeit
of
very
different
natures
for
commensal
vis
a
vis
oath-sacrifices.
Soon
I
shall
argue
that
the
formalized
constraints
of
oath-sacrifices,
in
particular,
must
have
exerted
pressure
on
the
composition
process
which
eventuated
in
the
funeral
feast
of
Iliad
XXIII.

A
similar
pressure
on
composition
may
be
understood
as
due
to
ritual
leitmotifs.
The
notion
of
ritual
leitmotifs
I
have
embellished
from
James
Fernandez’s
theory
of
ritual
as
promoting
metaphorical
transformation.
The
term
“ritual
leitmotif”
is
not
precisely
defined
by
Fernandez,
but
I
interpret
it
as
a
ritual
shape
impressed
upon
human
events
or
in
this
case
narrative
events
which
are
not
on
the
surface
rituals.
By
a
kind
of
metaphorical
transference,
ritual
leitmotifs
effectively
thicken
and
transform
narrative
events,
connecting
them
to
primordial
patterns
or
canonical
ideals.
As
Fernandez
sees
it,
ritual
leitmotifs
may
be
penetrated
by
religious
symbols,
which
are
especially
“volatile
to
interpretation”
and
which
“fill
out
this
universe
of
religious
experience
giving
it
resonance,
a
thick
complexity
and
potency,
which
the
discussion
of
the
paradigm
of
metaphors
–
however
basic
–
does
not
fully
capture.”22
Audiences
familiar
with
the
ritual
performances
from
which
the
leitmotifs
are
drawn
will
appreciate
this
“thickening”
in
the
narratives
on
which
the
leitmotifs
are
impressed,
a
thickening
which
might
escape
the
perception
of
readers
who
lack
the
ritual
experiences
of
audiences
in
Greek
antiquity.
On
the
other
hand,
the
leitmotifs
derived
from
ritual
performances
with
the
relatively
fixed
characteristics
of
liturgical
orders
may
be
easier
for
us
to
recognize
virtue
of
their
predictability.
As
I
shall
show,
an
important
ritual
leitmotif
may
be
discerned
in
Iliad
XXIII,
where
the
oath-making
liturgical
order
has
exerted
compositional
pressure
on
the
narrative
shape
of
the
funeral
feast.























































22
James
W.
FERNANDEZ,
“The
Performance
of
Ritual
Metaphors,”
in
J.
David
SAPIR
and
J.
Christopher
CROCKER
(eds.),
The Social Use of Metaphor,
Philadelphia,
University
of
Pennsylvania
Press,
1977,
p.
126.

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 27
Ritual killing in oath-sacrifices versus commensal sacrifices To
appreciate
the
pressures
of
oath-sacrificing
ritual
leitmotifs
versus
commensal
ones
in
Book
XXIII,
we
must
review
now
a
key
difference
between
oath
and
commensal
sacrifices.
Based
on
the
sequences
of
finite
ritual
acts,
the
paradigm
of
commensal
sacrifice
consists
of
between
nine
and
fifteen
basic
steps,
minimally
including
throat-cutting,
flaying,
thigh-cutting,
fat-wrapping,
wine-braising,
tasting,
then
skewering,
roasting,
and
finally
dining
upon
the
rest
of
the
sacrificial
victim.
The
scenes
conclude
with
a
cheery
and
telltale
formula,
either,
“and
no
single
spirit
was
deprived
an
equal
feast”
(e.g.
VII,
320;
XXIII,
56),
and/or
the
verse
which
bridges
the
feast
and
the
next
point
of
interest,
“but
when
they
had
sated
their
desire
for
food
and
drink”
(e.g.
VII,
333;
IX,
222;
XXIII,
57).
Oath-sacrifice
is
comprised,
all
told,
of
ten
basic
steps:
assembling
participants,
presenting
victims,
drawing
the machaira,
cutting
and
distributing
hairs
from
the
victim,
praying
to
Zeus
and
other
deities
as
witnesses,
invoking
the
Erinyes
to
punish
oath-breakers,
giving
the
terms
of
the
oath,
cursing
oath-violators,
libating
with
wine,
cutting
the
throats
of
victims,
concluding
with
the
victim’s
gasping
and
conspicuous
death
or
the
disposal
of
its
corpse.
As
our
earlier
review
showed,
there
is
a
limited
variability
in
the
order
of
the
steps,
but
the
two
most
lethal
verses,
those
for
drawing
the machaira (a
knife
never
mentioned
in
commensal
sacrifices)
and
for
killing
the
victim,
are
identically
or
nearly
identically
rendered.
Those
for
praying
to
gods
and
invoking
the
Erinyes,
also
profound
acts,
differ
only
minimally
in
word
order
and
in
one
substitution
of
an
eponym
for
the
Erinyes.
Unlike
in
commensal
sacrifice,
in
oath-sacrifice
the
death
of
the
victim
is
central,
and
the
animal
is
never
eaten.
Hence,
rather
than
conclude
with
the
sating
of
appetites,
the
killing
ritual
and
its
curses
in
Book
III
reverberate
ominously
into
the
successive
battles,
infusing
the
story
with
anticipation
of
divine
punishment,
because
the
oaths
are
indeed
violated.

The
killing
and
dying
of
the
victim,
then,
is
key.
In
commensal
sacrifices,
the
verb
for
killing
is
sphadzo–,
ostensibly
“to
cut
the
throat”
(Liddell
&
Scott),
yet
the
animal’s
throat,
collapse,
death,
and
even
its
blood
go
completely
unmentioned.
This
is
surprising
considering
the
attention
to
ritual
detail
in
the
scene,
as
well
as
considering
the
emphasis
on
draining
the
blood
in
Classical
Greek
thysia.
Why
should
the
blood
here
be
left
out?
In
contrast,
oathsacrificing
scenes
feature
the
simple
but
ominous
verb
tamno–,
“to
cut,”
the
throat,
stomachon,
“with
the
pitiless
bronze,”
nelei chalko–,
this
being
the
single
figurative
expression
in
the
entire
ritual
scene.
Although
no
blood
is
mentioned
during
the
actual
oath-sacrifices
either,
“the
blood
of
lambs”
is
one
of
a
few
tropes
used
to
represent
the
power
of
the
oath,
as
we
see
in
this
ominous
warning
by
Agamemnon,
“In
no
way
barren
is
the
oath,
the
blood
of
lambs,
the
unmixed
libations,
and
the
right
hands
in
which
we
trusted,
for
if
the
Olympian
does
not
fulfill
it
at
once,
he
will
fulfill
it
later,
and
with
might
he
will
avenge
it,
28
M.
KITTS
with
their
heads
and
their
wives
and
their
children”
(IV,
158-162).
Except
for
the
one
use
of
sphadzo–
in
the
funeral
feast
in
Book
XXIII,
the
difference
between
dying
scenes
with
sphadzo–
–
the
death
being
ignored
–
and
dying
scenes
with
tamno– –
the
death
being
conspicuous
–
is
absolute.
The funeral feast How
startling,
then,
that
both
the
blood
and
the
bellowing
of
sacrificial
victims
is
mentioned
during
the
funeral
feast
the
night
before
Patroklos
is
cremated.
Yet
this
is
not
a
straightforward
feasting
scene
because
the
feast
is
broken,
interrupted
by
the
summoning
of
Achilles
to
Agamemnon’s
tent
and
by
Achilles’
oath
not
to
bathe
before
he
buries
Patroklos.
Let
us
review
the
details.

First,
the
feast
begins
among
the
Myrmidons
after
they
have
lamented,
in
full
armor,
the
death
of
fellow
warrior
Patroklos.
Then
the
abundance
of
the
feast
is
described:
…
οἳ
δ᾿
ἔντε᾿
ἀφοπλίζοντο
ἕκαστος

χάλκεα
µαρµαίροντα,
λύον
δ᾿
ὑψηχέας
ἵππους,

κὰδ
δ᾿
ἷζον
παρὰ
νηῒ
ποδώκεος
Αἰακίδαο

µυρίοι·
αὐτὰρ
ὃ
τοῖσι
τάφον
µενοεικέα
δαίνυ.

πολλοὶ
µὲν
βόες
ἀργοὶ
ὀρέχθεον
ἀµφὶ
σιδήρῳ

σφαζόµενοι,
πολλοὶ
δ᾿
ὄϊες
καὶ
µηκάδες
αἶγες·

πολλοὶ
δ᾿
ἀργιόδοντες
ὕες,
θαλέθοντες
ἀλοιφῇ,

εὑόµενοι
τανύοντο
διὰ
φλογὸς
῾Ηφαίστοιο·

πάντῃ
δ᾿
ἀµφὶ
νέκυν
κοτυλήρυτον
ἔρρεεν
αἷµα.
…
Then
they
each
removed
their
armor,
bronze
and
shining,
and
released
the
high
necked
horses,
and
sat
alongside
the
ship
of
swift-footed
Aiakides,
the
myriad
of
them.
But
then
he
prepared
a
spirit
soothing
funeral
feast
for
them.
Many
white
oxen
bellowed,
being
sacrificed
around
the
iron,
and
many
bleating
sheep
and
goats,
and
many
white-toothed
swine,
teeming
with
fat,
being
singed,
were
stretched
out
across
the
flame
of
Hephaestos.
All
around
the
corpse
ran
blood
that
could
be
caught
in
cups.
(XXIII,
26-34)
It
is
notable
that
here
in
this
“spirit-soothing
feast”
we
have
the
single
reference
in
the
Iliad
to
“blood
that
could
be
caught
in
cups,”23
the
single
(and
odd)
reference
to
blood
running
around
the
corpse,
and
the
first
of
two
references
to
the
bellowing
commensal
victims,
the
second
occurring
the
next
day
when
Ajax
slips
in
the
dung
of
bulls
cut
down
bellowing.
Further,
the
verb






















































23
We
have
no
Greek
comparata
for
catching
blood
in
cups
during
a
sacrifice.
Aristarchus
sees
“blood
that
could
be
caught
in
cups”
as
a
reference
to
the
amount
of
blood.
See
the
comment
by
Nicholas
RICHARDSON,
in The Iliad: A Commentary, Volume VI, Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
1993.
I
have
pondered
this
blood
against
the
procedures
of
a
Hittite
funeral
ritual
in
“Funeral
sacrifices
and
ritual
leitmotifs,”
forthcoming
in
Sacrificial Rituals,
a
conference
volume
edited
by
Eftychia
Stavrianopoulou,
Lit-Verlag,
2007.


Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 29
for
killing
in
this
graphic
sacrifice
is
none
other
than
sphadzo–,
normally
associated
with
culinary
practices
and
never
with
a
focalization
on
death.
The
victims’
blood
and
cries
of
distress
in
the
preparation
for
the
funeral
feast
here
are
particularly
odd
considering
that
some
100
lines
later
a
number
of
different
kinds
of
sacrificial
victim
will
be
thrown
to
burn
upon
the
pyre
of
Patroklos
–
a
complicated
sacrifice
indeed
–
and
not
one
is
noted
to
make
a
sound.
Nor
in
that
sacrifice
on
the
pyre
is
there
any
mention
of
blood,
of
which
there
must
have
been
very
much.
Further
complicating
matters,
despite
this
reference
to
the
agony
of
sacrificed
victims
in
the
funeral
feast,
the
feast
eventually
will
conclude
with
both
formulaic
closing
verses,
“no
thumos
went
lacking
for
an
equal
share”
and
the
transitional
verse,
“But
when
they
had
sated
their
desire
for
food
and
drink”
(XXIII,
56-57).
These
verses,
I
have
suggested,
are
emblematic
of
fulfillment
and
the
closure
of
the
commensal
feast.

So
why
does
this
one
sacrificial
narrative,
built
around
the
verb
sphadzo–,
convey
the
distress
of
the
victims?
One
clue
to
the
answer
may
be
found
in
the
fact
that
the
feasting
scene
is
not
a
complete
and
closed
event,
because
right
in
the
middle
of
it
Achilles
is
called
away.
Still
troubled
over
the
death
of
Patroklos,
he
is
led
by
the
other
Achaian
leaders
to
the
tent
of
Agamemnon
to
make
plans
for
gathering
wood
for
the
cremation
the
following
day.
After
his
discussion
with
Agamemnon,
Achilles
then
announces
that
it
is
time
to
return
to
the
“hateful
feast”
(ἀλλ᾿
ἤτοι
νῦν
µὲν
στυγερῇ
πειθώµεθα
δαιτί
[XXIII,
48]).
At
that
point
everyone
rushingly
prepares
food,
for
which
“no
spirit
went
lacking
for
the
equal
feast,”
followed
by
“once
they
were
sated
of
their
desire
for
food
and
drink”
(XXIII,
56-57).
Then
they
each
go
back
to
their
huts
to
sleep
(XXIII,
58).
As
an
aside,
we
might
note
that
the
circle
of
feasters
appears
to
have
broadened
from
just
the
Myrmidons
before
the
trip
to
Agamemnon’s
tent
(inferred
from
XXIII,
6-16),
to
include
all
the
Achaians
(οἳ
µὲν…
ἕκαστος
[XXIII,
58]),
and
that
any
marks
differentiating
the
funeral
feast
from
any
other
kind
of
feast
have
virtually
disappeared
by
the
time
of
the
concluding
formulae.
Thus,
what
appears
to
be
a
unique
feasting
event
at
the
start,
has
lost
not
only
its
narrative
thread
but
any
form
which
might
have
distinguished
funeral
from
ordinary
commensal
feasts.

Another
clue
is
to
be
found
in
the
oath
which
disrupts
the
funeral
feast.
That
is
Achilles’
oath
in
response
to
the
urging
of
the
leaders
that
Achilles
bathe
in
warm
water
to
wash
away
the
bloody
battle
gore
which
still
clings
to
him.
But
he
refuses,
swearing
as
follows:

“οὐ
µὰ
Ζῆν᾿,
ὅς
τίς
τε
θεῶν
ὕπατος
καὶ
ἄριστος,
οὐ
θέµις
ἐστὶ
λοετρὰ
καρήατος
ἆσσον
ἱκέσθαι,

πρίν
γ᾿
ἐνὶ
Πάτροκλον
θέµεναι
πυρὶ
σῆµά
τε
χεῦαι

κείρασθαί
τε
κόµην,
ἐπεὶ
οὔ
µ᾿
ἔτι
δεύτερον
ὧδε

ἵξετ᾿
ἄχος
κραδίην
ὄφρα
ζωοῖσι
µετείω.

ἀλλ᾿
ἤτοι
νῦν
µὲν
στυγερῇ
πειθώµεθα
δαιτί·”

30
M.
KITTS
No,
by
Zeus
who
is
greatest
and
best
among
the
gods,
It
is
not
the
custom
for
a
bath
to
come
near
to
my
head,
before
I
shall
put
Patroklos
in
the
fire
and
pour
a
funeral
mound,
and
cut
my
hair,
since
such
a
grief
shall
not
come
upon
me
a
second
time,
while
I
go
among
the
living.
But
now
let
us
be
persuaded
to
the
hateful
feast.
(XXIII,
43-48)
This
oath
explains
both
Achilles’
mind
and
a
significant
theme
in
this
book,
as
well
as
in
the
last
five
books
of
the
Iliad.
Oaths,
as
noted
already,
are
compelling
liturgical
orders
in
the
Iliad,
and
oath-sacrifices
involve
the
most
fixed
of
ritual
scenes,
the
fixity
a
reflection
of
the
ritual’s
formality
and
compulsion
for
the
individuals
involved.
This
abbreviated
oath
is
not
a
sacrifice,
of
course,
and
is
not
even
named
as
a
horkos.
But
these
features
are
lacking
also
in
many
other
oaths
in
the
Iliad,
including
the
very
consequential
“greatest
pledge”
(µέγιστον
τέκµωρ,
I,
525-526)
that
Zeus
swears
in
Book
I,
when
he
promises
Thetis
to
direct
the
course
of
war
so
as
to
highlight
the
absence
of
Achilles.
Achilles’
abbreviated
oath
here
has
several
features
of
oathsacrifices,
nonetheless:
Zeus
is
invoked
as
witness,
as
he
is
in
the
bulk
of
oaths
in
the
Iliad
(i.e.,
at
II,
412;
III,
276;
298;
320;
XIX,
258;
and
at
III,
107;
VII,
69;
411
are
references
to
“oaths
of
Zeus”).
Then
the
terms
of
the
oath
are
given.
Although
there
is
no
animal
victim
to
pose
as
evidence
of
the
self-curse
in
case
of
oath-violation,
there
is
instead
Achilles’
battle
filth,
still
clinging
to
him
as
evidence
of
his
vow
not
to
bathe
before
he
cuts
his
hair
and
buries
Patroklos.
Another
feature
of
oath-making
rituals
is
that
they
impress
a
distinctly
somber
mood
on
a
narrative
and
that
mood
tends
to
permeate
the
narratives
which
surround
the
oath.
Achilles’
vow
here
is
somber
enough.
In
fact,
perhaps
anticipation
of
this
somber
mood
is
enough
to
explain
the
seepage
into
the
feasting
scene
of
expressions
of
the
sacrificial
victims’
dying
anguish
just
lines
before.
But
there
is
more
to
it,
as
the
oath-making
theme
has
penetrated
the
Iliad
since
at
least
Book
XIX.

The
last
overt
oath-making
scene
also
involved
Achilles;
in
Book
XIX,
Agamemnon
sacrificed
a
boar
and
swore
that
he
had
not
touched
Achilles’
girlfriend,
in
an
effort
to
pacify
Achilles
and
get
him
to
rejoin
the
war
effort.
That
oath
is
much
diminished
from
the
earlier
offer
made
by
Agamemnon
to
pacify
Achilles
(IX,
120-161),
an
offer
that
Achilles
has
rejected
(IX,
403ff).
Achilles
in
fact
would
prefer
to
do
without
this
oath
too,
claiming
to
prefer
charme–
(XIX,
147-149)
and
the
hard
groaning
of
men
(XIX,
214).
He
refuses
also
to
partake
in
the
feast
which
follows
the
oath
and
begs
the
other
men
to
refuse
to
partake
of
it
too
(XIX,
198-214;
304-308;
314-321;
cf.
XIX,
345-354).
In
fact,
it
is
in
that
book
that
Achilles
vows
to
fast
until
vengeance
is
paid
(XIX,
203-214).24
Up
unto
the
point
of
the
funeral
feast,
he
has
eaten
nothing
ever
since
learning
of
Patroklos’
death
in
Book
XVIII.
It
is
perhaps
implied
that
he






















































24
Possibly
a
pan-Mediterranean
convention,
given
Saul’s
promise
at
1
Samuel
14.24: “A
curse
be
on
the
man
who
eats
any
food
before
nightfall,
until
I
have
taken
vengeance
on
my
enemies.”

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 31
eats
at
the
funeral
feast,
because
of
his
statement,
“let
us
now
be
persuaded
to
the
hateful
feast,”
but
his
reluctance
is
clear.
And
of
course
his
participation
may
be
implied
also
in
the
formulaic
lines
which
will
follow
the
feast,
to
the
effect
that
“no
spirit
went
without
an
equal
share”
(XXIII,
56).
It
is
notable,
nonetheless,
that
the
poem
gives
no
explicit
evidence
of
Achilles’
taking
of
food
until
Achilles
invites
Priam
to
dine
with
him
in
the
last
book,
where
he
reminds
Priam
that
even
Niobe
in
her
terrible
mother’s
grief
did
take
food
(XXIV,
601-602).
This
scene,
of
course,
marks
the
reconciliation
of
Achilles
to
his
mortality
and
humanity,
especially
when
he
weeps
with
Priam
over
their
respective
losses
(XXIV,
507-513).
Their
commensal
meal
is
a
tremendous
symbol
of
this
reconciliation.

It
is
interesting
that
between
Book
XVIII,
when
he
learns
of
Patroklos’
death,
and
Book
XXIII,
when
he
buries
Patroklos,
Achilles
is
reluctant
to
participate
in
any
compassionate
human
convention
–
not
oaths,
not
feasts,
not
pity
for
suppliants
–
with
one
rather
oblique
exception.
That
is
his
skewed
oath-sacrifice
of
Lykaon
in
Iliad
XXI.
I
have
argued
elsewhere
that
Achilles’s
killing
of
Lykaon
borrows
a
number
of
features
from
the
oath-sacrifices
of
Books
III
and
XIX,
and
impresses
on
the
opening
125
lines
of
Book
XXI
an
oath-making
ritual
leitmotif.25
The
narrative
features
which
convey
this
ritual
leitmotif
consist
of
the
following:
(1)
Lykaon
anticipates
his
death
as
a
deirotomia, a
throat-cutting,
based
on
tamno,– to
cut,
and
deire, neck;
(2)
like
a
defenseless
lamb
or
boar,
Lykaon
is
cast
as
a
pitiable
and
unarmed
victim,
clutching
the
knees
of
Achilles,
begging
for
compassion
based
on
pity
for
himself
and
for
his
mother
and
based
on
his
former
history
as
Achilles’
suppliant
and
hostage,
then
finally
dropping
his
hands
and
hanging
his
head
to
the
side;
(3)
his
actual
death
occurs
when
Achilles
plunges
his
sword
down
into
his
neck
by
the
collarbone
–
a
deirotomia
by
verisimilitude,
surely
–
and
Lykaon
falls
prone
on
the
ground;
(4)
the
boy’s
blood
then
seeps
into
earth,
often
deemed
a
common
feature
of
chthonic
sacrifices26
and
a
match
with
the
wine
libation
in
Book
III;
(5)
the
disposal
of
Lykaon’s
corpse
by
hurling
into
the
“wide
bosom
of
the
sea”
is
similar
to
the
fate
of
the
boar
in
Book
XIX;
it
is
hurled,
whirling,
into
the
“great
abyss
of
the
sea.”
The
two
expressions
are
matches
for
verse
position
and
meter;
(6)
the
stated
fate
of
both
corpses
is
to
become
food
for
fish
(XIX,
268;
XXI,
126-127);
and
(7)
the
conclusion
of
the
killing
of
Lykaon
is
a
prayer-curse
based
on
euchomai,
not
with
the
dative
of
god,
as
in
the
Homeric
praying
formula
in
oath-sacrifices,27
but
with
the
ep-prefix
and
the
dative
of
Lykaon,
surely
a
perversion.
Then
Achilles
vows
that






















































25
Most
recently
in
Chapter
3
of
Sanctified Violence,
o.c.
(n.
1).
Greeks and Their Gods, Boston,
Beacon
Press,
1955,
and
Louise
BRUIT
ZAIDMAN
and
Pauline
SCHMITT
PANTEL,
Religion in the Ancient Greek City,
Cambridge,
GB,
Cambridge
University
Press,
1989,
1992.
27
See
MUELLNER,
o.c.
(n.
3)
and
KITTS,
o.c.
(n.
1).
26
See
W.K.C.
GUTHRIE,
The 32
M.
KITTS
Lykaon’s
mother
will
not
lay
him
on
a
bier
and
weep
for
him
and
extends
his
curse
of
vengeance
to
all
the
other
Trojans:
φθείρεσθ᾿,
εἰς
ὅ
κεν
ἄστυ
κιχείοµεν
᾿Ιλίου
ἱρῆς,

ὑµεῖς
µὲν
φεύγοντες,
ἐγὼ
δ᾿
ὄπιθεν
κεραΐζων.

(…)

ἀλλὰ
καὶ
ὧς
ὀλέεσθε
κακὸν
µόρον,
εἰς
ὅ
κε
πάντες

τείσετε
Πατρόκλοιο
φόνον
καὶ
λοιγὸν
᾿Αχαιῶν,

οὓς
ἐπὶ
νηυσὶ
θοῇσιν
ἐπέφνετε
νόσφιν
ἐµεῖο.

Perish!
Until
we
overtake
the
city
of
sacred
Ilion,
you
fleeing,
and
I
destroying
you
from
behind.
.
.
Even
so,
you
shall
meet
your
evil
fate,
when
you
all
shall
pay
for
the
death
of
Patroklos
and
the
ruin
of
the
Achaians
whom
you
killed
while
I
was
away
by
the
swift
ships.
(XXI,
128-135)
In
my
view
this
narrative
is
stamped
by
a
clear
oath-making
ritual
leitmotif,
recognizable
in
part
because
the
features
that
mark
the
oath-sacrificing
liturgical
order
are
so
predictable:
presentation
of
a
defenseless
victim
(here
marked
by
Lykaon’s
weaponless
suppliance
and
anticipation
of
deirotomia),
announcement
of
the
oath’s
terms
(no
one
shall
escape
retribution
[ΧΧΙ,
99-103;
128-135]),
cursing
oath-violators
(“Your
mother
shall
not
lay
you
on
a
bier
and
weep
for
you,
but
…”
[ΧΧΙ,
123-125],
and
“you
all
shall
pay
…”
[ΧΧΙ,
128-135]),
libating
with
wine
(the
seepage
of
Lykaon’s
blood
into
the
earth
[ΧΧΙ,
119]),
cutting
the
throats
of
victims
(plunging
the
spear
into
Lykaon’s
neck
by
his
collar
bone
[ΧΧΙ,
116-117]),
followed
by
a
vivid
account
of
the
victim’s
death
(Lykaon
falls
prone
on
the
earth,
lies
there,
his
blood
runs
out
and
wets
the
earth
[ΧΧΙ,
118-119])
and
disposal
of
its
corpse
(hurled
by
his
foot
into
the
river
[ΧΧΙ,
120],
as
the
boar
is
hurled
into
the
ocean
in
Book
ΧΙΧ),
and
finally
with
the
prayer,
signified
by
the
ep-euchomai
Achilles
makes
after
disposing
Lykaon’s
body
to
become
food
for
fish
(ΧΧΙ,
121-125).
The
imposition
of
the
features
of
the
oath-sacrificing
liturgical
order
serves
to
impress
an
oathsacrificing
ritual
leitmotif
onto
the
slaughter
of
an
unarmed
boy,
represented
as
a
pitiable
victim
of
oath-sacrifice.
Also,
by
virtue
of
Achilles’
promise
to
serve
poine–,
or
vengeance
–
denoted
by
the
verb
tino–,
to
pay
back
–
on
the
Trojans,
the
narrative
adds
a
punishing
nuance
to
battlefield
slaughter.
All
the
Trojans
shall
become
victims
and
shall
pay
back
(τείσετε)
for
the
deaths
of
Achilles’
companions.
But
the
skewed
oath-sacrifice
of
Book
ΧΧΙ
and
the
actual
one
of
Book
ΧΙΧ
are
not
the
only
instances
of
oath-making
in
those
later
books.
The
oathmaking
theme
begins
somewhat
conspicuously
with
the
oath-sacrifice
in
Book
ΧΙΧ,
but
also
extends
through
Achilles’
vow
to
fast
until
vengeance
is
paid,
also
in
Book
ΧΙΧ,
reappears
in
the
deirotomia
of
Lykaon
in
Book
ΧΧΙ
(itself
anticipated
by
the
back-stabbing
of
Lykaon’s
brother
in
Book
XΧ),
appears
again
in
Hector’s
contemplation
in
Book
ΧΧΙΙ
of
an
oath
before
senators
to
renew
the
oath
of
Book
ΙΙΙ
–
a
plan
he
discards
as
unlikely
to
dissuade
Achilles

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 33
–
appears
yet
again
when
he
urges
Achilles
to
swear
an
oath
with
him
by
each
other’s
deities
that
the
victor
respect
the
loser’s
corpse,
and
continues
right
into
Achilles’
vow
not
to
bathe
before
he
has
cut
his
hair
and
buried
Patroklos,
the
vow
which
interrupts
the
funeral
feast
of
Book
ΧΧΙΙΙ.
The
oath-making
theme
which
permeates
these
books
will
resurface
in
a
minor
way
when
Antilochus
will
deflect
Menelaos’
challenge
to
swear
an
oath
he
has
not
cheated
during
the
funeral
games,
and
finally
will
culminate
in
the
last
book
when
Achilles
promises
Priam
that
he
will
withhold
the
raid
of
Troy
until
Hector
can
be
buried.
By
these
repeated
oath-making
references
we
can
see
that
oath-making
is
an
overwhelming
theme
in
Books
ΧVIII
through
XXIV.

This
recurrent
theme
explains
compositional
pressure
on
the
poetic
construction
of
the
funeral
feast
in
Book
XXIII:
In
the
funeral
feast
the
slaughtered
bulls
bellow
conspicuously
while
dying
similarly
to
the
way
the
lambs
gasp
conspicuously
in
oath-sacrifice,
because
the
oath-sacrificing
ritual
leitmotif
has
been
impressed
on
the
funeral
feast,
and
a
marked
feature
of
the
oathsacrificing
liturgical
order,
reflected
through
the
ritual
leitmotif,
is
the
victim’s
painful
death.
The
impressing
of
this
defining
feature
of
oath-sacrifice
could
occur
because
the
funeral
feast,
presumably
a
liturgical
order
with
commensal
features,
was
weakened
by
a
narrative
interruption
when
Achilles
departed,
and
also
weakened
by
the
oath
Achilles
made
before
the
feast’s
conclusion.
As
a
liturgical
order,
the
funeral
feast
therefore
suffered
from
a
loss
of
thematic
cohesion,
a
loss
of
formality,
and
a
disruption
of
narrative
force.
By
impressing
this
defining
feature
of
the
oath-sacrifice
on
the
funeral
feast,
the
poet
has
implied,
inadvertently
or
intentionally,
a
connection
to
oath-sacrifice.
The
victims’
anguish,
usually
eclipsed
in
commensal
scenes
by
the
bustling
action
verbs
for
preparing
a
meal,
has
surfaced
to
promote
an
oath-sacrificing
ritual
“tenor,”
if
I
may,
right
through
the
funeral
feast.
That
this
tenor
had
resonance
with
the
poet(s)
is
apparent
because
the
bulls
are
referred
to
later
not
as
the
silent
victims
of
the
culinary
verb
sphadzo–,
but
as
noisy
victims
of
the
more
ominous
verb
tamno–,
when
Ajax
slips
in
the
dung
of
the
bulls
apoktameno–n erimucho–n (XXIII,
775),
“cut
down
bellowing.”

Poine–– as a ritual leitmotif in Iliad XXIII But
to
fully
appreciate
a
claim
about
the
penetration
of
the
oath-making
ritual
leitmotif
into
this
feast,
we
must
address
also
the
theme
of
poine–,
particularly
as
poine–
intertwines
with
oaths
in
the
context
of
Achilles’
vow
to
pay
back
the
Trojans
for
the
death
of
Patroklos
and
his
other
dead
companions,
and,
more
particularly,
as
poine–
permeates
his
vow
to
apodeirotomeo–
twelve
Trojan
youths
at
the
funeral
of
Patroklos,
in
Book
XVIII.
The
latter
vow
and
its
fulfillment
frame
all
the
oaths
from
Book
XIX
through
the
funeral
of
Patroklos
in
Book
XXIII.
The
funeral
feast
is
also
framed
by
the
unseemly
deeds
Achilles
plans
and
conducts
for
Hector.
All
three
vows
instantiate
the
convention
of
34
M.
KITTS
poine–
and
may
be
influential
in
the
construction
of
Achilles’
“hateful
feast”
before
the
cremation
of
Patroklos.
Yet,
unlike
the
funeral
feast,
the
actual
funeral
sacrifices
appear
to
constitute
a
pronounced
liturgical
order,
which
explains
why
poine–
all
but
disappears
during
the
cremation
ritual
over
the
pyre
of
Patroklos.

The
notion
of
paying
back
for
harm
and
in
fact
the
epic
vocabulary
for
it
(such
as τίνω,
ἐπιτίνω,
τίνοµαι,
ἀποτίνοµαι,
and
τιµή)
have
been
demonstrated
by
Donna
Wilson
to
be
linked
to
poine–,
the
verbs
being
in
many
cases
synonymous
with
the
conventional
expression
of
poine–.28
In
the
Iliad,
the
harms
which
invite
poine
are
of
several
types,
most
conspicuous
being
insult
to
family
integrity
(III,
288-291)
and
death
of
a
family
member
or
close
friend
(implicit
at
IX,
632-638;
XVI,
398;
XVIII,
498-502;
XXI,
28;
XXI,
134-135).
Pay-back
for
such
grievances
extends
from
legally
sanctioned
homicide
(an
implied
option
given
on
the
shield
of
Achilles
at
XVIII,
498-502)
to
apoina,
or
reparation
in
the
form
of
payment.
In
fact,
sometimes
poine–
is
virtually
a
synonym
for
bartering,
as
when
Zeus
gives
immortal
horses
to
Tros
in
poine– for
the
company
of
his
son
Gannymede
(V,
265-266).29
Similarly,
oath-violation
is
linked
to
poine,– precisely
the poine–
which
the
gods
are
said
to
“pay
back”
or
avenge
on
oath-violators.
Poine–
is
thus
somewhat
paradoxical
in
the
Iliad
in
that,
as
part
of
its
range
of
expressions,
it
can
invoke
an
established
institution
with
seemingly
religious
sanction
–
exactly
as
Zeus
“avenges”
the
violation
of
oaths
(i.e.
ἀπέτεισαν
at
IV,
161);
yet
it
can
also
stand
for
the
most
unrestrained
of
human
passions,
as
it
apparently
does
when
Achilles
mutilates
the
corpse
of
Hector,
who
shall
pay
back
(ἀποτείσεις)
for
the
crowds
of
Achilles’
dead
companions
(XXII,
271-272),
when
Akamas
exacts
poine–
on
a
man
who
was
not
his
brother’s
killer
(XIV,
483484),
or
when
Patroklos
mows
down
the
first
Trojan
phalanxes,
“paying
back
poine– for
many”
(XVI,
398).
As
Donna
Wilson
points
out,
in
the
Iliad
poine–
may
be
used
to
justify
recompense
in
the
form
of
material
capital
or
symbolic
capital,
often
pertaining
to
material
gain
and
lethal
vengeance,
respectively.

While
poine–
may
embrace
material
gain
and
lethal
vengeance
as
its
institutional
expressions,
from
the
poetic
perspective
it
also
may
be
viewed
as
a
ritual
leitmotif,
offering
the
barest
of
ritualized
configurations
to
battlefield
slaughter,30
as
the
above-referenced
poine–
of
Achilles,
Akamas,
and
Patroklos
suggest.
That
is,
by
investing
battlefield
slaughters
with
poine,– the
poet/narrator
would
appear
to
stamp
ritual
form
on
behavior
which
doesn’t
materially
need
it,
behavior
which
is
tantamount
to
killing
in
war.
The
attribution
of
poine– to
certain
indiscriminate
killings
on
the
battlefield
seems
to
express
the
poetic






















































28
Donna
WILSON,
Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2002.
29
See
a
more
complicated
example
at
XVII,
206-208.
30
For
a
discussion,
see
Chapter
2
of
my Sanctified Violence, o.c.
(n.
1).

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 35
intuition
that
a
ritual
leitmotif
may
distinguish
and
formalize
behavior,
cast
it
within
an
primordial
mold,
and
thereby
elevate
or
even
sanctify
it.
Poine–
is
conspicuously
the
paradigm
invoked
when
Achilles
vows
to
sacrifice
the
twelve
Trojan
boys
on
the
pyre
of
Patroklos.
In
this
case, poine– is
apparently
a
formalized
expression
of
cholos,
of
hot
rage,
given
his
declared
vow
to
cut
the
throats,
apodeirotomeo–,
of
Trojan
youths
in
rage,
cholo–theis,
for
the
death
of
Patroklos
(XVIII,
337),
and
the
narrator’s
apparent
equation
of
these
same
“evil”
intentions
–
kaka de phresi me–deto erga
(XXI,
19)
–
with
poine– for
Patroklos
(XXI,
26-28).31
This
equation
makes
Achilles’
poine virtually
a
performance
of
cholos.
Any
ritualized
shape
to
Achilles’
poine– is
inchoate
before
the
funeral
sacrifices,
however,
especially
when
Achilles’
poine– against
“you
all
[who]
shall
pay
[τείσετε]
for
the
death
of
Patroklos
and
the
ruin
of
the
Achaians”
(XXI,
134)
culminates
in
the
theomachia-like
struggle
among
Achilles,
his
Trojan
victims,
the
River
Scamandros,
and
eventually
Hephaestos,
who
puts
an
end
to
it.
This
mini-theomachia
as
a
consequence
of
unleashed
poine– is
significant
because
it
is
similar
to
the
consequence
checked
by
Athene
when
she
stops
Ares
from
exacting
payment
–
teisasthai –
for
the
battlefield
death
of
his
son
(XV,
116)32:
Ares’
vengeance
is
anticipated
to
be
so
violent
as
to
arouse
me–nis
and
cholos
among
the
gods
(XV,
122).
Unlike
the
institutionalized
renderings
of
poine–
as
legal
retaliation
or
as
punishment
for
oath-violation,
then,
these
wilder
instances
make
poine–
and
its
family
of
tino–
verbs
signify
barely
constrained
expressions
of
rage.
These
renderings
of
poine– and
the
link
to
cholos
suggest
an
underlying
codification
of
anger
which
embraces
even
the
heaven-shaking
rage
of
Ares.

To
understand
how
the
themes
of
poine–
and
oath-sacrifice
might
overlap
in
the
sacrifices
of
Iliad
XXIII,
we
must
consider
a
few
facts
about
oath-sacrifice.
First,
like
poine–,
oath-sacrifice
is
one
of
the
few
cultural
conventions
which
prescribe
ritual
killing
–
the
death
of
the
victim
is
central
to
the
ritual
experience,
as
we
have
seen.
Second,
oath-sacrifice
imposes
a
hallowed
sanction
on
killing
not
just
animal
victims,
but
those
who
violate
oaths
–
the
oathsacrificing
ritual
performance
of
Book
III
is
arguably
a
symbolic
enactment
of
the
consequences
invited
upon
perjurers,
which
explains
the
graphic
description
of
the
lambs’
dying.
Third,
oath-sacrifice’s
sanction
on
killing
perjurers
overlaps
with
poine–
in
the
Iliad, considering
that
Zeus
and
the
Erinyes
are
expected
precisely
to
pay-back
(i.e.,
Zeus’
ἀπέτεισαν at
IV,
161; the
Erinyes’ τίνυσθον
at
III,
279)
oath-breakers,
just
as
relatives
of
homicidal
and
other
kinds
of
victims
might
pay-back
offenders
in
poine– (i.e.
Agamemnon’s
threat
to
make
the
Trojans
ἀποτινέµεν
him
for
his
family’s
dishonor
and
to
fight
for
the
sake
of






















































31
…
ὃ
δ᾿
ἐπεὶ
κάµε
χεῖρας
ἐναίρων,
|
ζωοὺς
ἐκ
ποταµοῖο
δυώδεκα
λέξατο
κούρους
|
ποινὴν
Πατρόκλοιο
Μενοιτιάδαο
θανόντος
(XXI,
26-28).
32
On
tino– with
the
direct
object,
see
Alfred
HEUBECK,
“Erinus
in
der
archaischen
Epik,”
Glotta
64
(1986),
p.
145-165.
36
M.
KITTS
ποινῆς
if
they
don’t
[at
III,
286-290]).
Lastly,
poine–
and
oath-making
share
an
important
feature
in
that
they
both
articulate
profound
levels
of
cultural
response
to
aspects
of
social
existence
which
are
felt
to
be
precarious
and
difficult
to
control.
In
particular,
they
allow
and
shape
responses
to
significant
feelings
of
violation,
in
the
one
case
a
violation
of
life
and
family
integrity,
in
the
other
a
violation
of
promises
–
the
latter
seen
by
Rappaport
to
be
virtually
the
basis
for
the
stability
of
societies.33
In
oath-sacrificing
Lykaon,
in
vowing
to
sacrifice
the
twelve
Trojan
youths,
and
in
actually
sacrificing
them,
Achilles
unites
these
powerful
cultural
institutions.
Poine–
and
oath-making
are
palpable
ritual
“tenors”
which
penetrate
Books
XVIII
through
XXIII.
But
to
fully
appreciate
the
sacrifice
of
the
boys
on
the
pyre
of
Patroklos,
we
need
to
examine
also
the
larger
cremation
sacrifice.
We
first
should
observe
that
the
sacrificial
victims,
although
not
bellowing
and
in
fact
altogether
silent,
are
of
many
types:
ἐν
δὲ
πυρῇ
ὑπάτῃ
νεκρὸν
θέσαν
ἀχνύµενοι
κῆρ.
Grieving
at
heart
they
put
the
corpse
on
the
top
of
the
pyre.
πολλὰ
δὲ
ἴφια
µῆλα
καὶ
εἰλίποδας
ἕλικας
βοῦς
Many
fat
sheep
and
curved
horned
cattle
πρόσθε
πυρῆς
ἔδερόν
τε
καὶ
ἄµφεπον·
ἐκ
δ᾿
ἄρα
they
flayed
and
prepared
in
front
of
the
pyre;

[πάντων

and
from
all
greathearted
Achilles
took
the
fat
δηµὸν
ἑλὼν
ἐκάλυψε
νέκυν
µεγάθυµος
᾿Αχιλλεὺς
and
hid
the
corpse
ἐς
πόδας
ἐκ
κεφαλῆς,
περὶ
δὲ
δρατὰ
σώµατα
νήει.
from
the
head
to
the
toes,
and
around
it
he
piled
up
the
flayed
bodies.
ἐν
δ᾿
ἐτίθει
µέλιτος
καὶ
ἀλείφατος
ἀµφιφορῆας,

πρὸς
λέχεα
κλίνων·
He
put
in
double
handled
amphoras
of
honey
and
oil
leaning
them
against
the
bed.
................πίσυρας
δ᾿
ἐριαύχενας
ἵππους

ἐσσυµένως
ἐνέβαλλε
πυρῇ
µεγάλα
στεναχίζων.
Four
curved
necked
horses
he
rushingly
threw
on
the
pyre,
groaning
greatly.
ἐννέα
τῷ
γε
ἄνακτι
τραπεζῆες
κύνες
ἦσαν,

καὶ
µὲν
τῶν
ἐνέβαλλε
πυρῇ
δύο
δειροτοµήσας,
Nine
table
dogs
there
were
to
the
lord,
and
he
threw
two
of
them
on
the
pyre,
cutting
their
throats,
δώδεκα
δὲ
Τρώων
µεγαθύµων
υἱέας
ἐσθλοὺς

χαλκῷ
δηϊόων·
κακὰ
δὲ
φρεσὶ
µήδετο
ἔργα·
and
twelve
good
sons
of
the
greathearted
Trojans,
destroying
them
with
the
bronze;
and
evil
were
the
deeds
he
planned
in
his
mind.
ἐν
δὲ
πυρὸς
µένος
ἧκε
σιδήρεον,
ὄφρα
νέµοιτο.

into
the
pyre
he
hurled
the
strength
of
iron,
ᾤµωξέν
τ᾿
ἄρ᾿
ἔπειτα,
φίλον
δ᾿
ὀνόµηνεν
ἑταῖρον·
that
it
might
be
consumed;
he
cried
out
loud
then,
and
named
his
dear
companion,
“χαῖρέ
µοι,
ὦ
Πάτροκλε,
καὶ
εἰν
᾿Αΐδαο
δόµοισι·

“Greeting
from
me,
oh
Patroklos,
even
in
the
πάντα
γὰρ
ἤδη
τοι
τελέω
τὰ
πάροιθεν
ὑπέστην.
house
of
Hades;
I
have
brought
to
pass
everything
that
I
promised
to
you
before.






















































33
RAPPAPORT,
1999,
o.c.
(n.
2),
p.
132.

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 37
δώδεκα
µὲν
Τρώων
µεγαθύµων
υἱέας
ἐσθλοὺς

twelve
good
sons
of
the
greathearted
Trojans,
τοὺς
ἅµα
σοὶ
πάντας
πῦρ
ἐσθίει·
῞Εκτορα
δ᾿
οὔ
τι

the
fire
will
eat
them
all
along
with
you;
and
I
δώσω
Πριαµίδην
πυρὶ
δαπτέµεν,
ἀλλὰ
κύνεσσιν.”
shall
not
give
Hector
son
of
Priam
to
the
fire
to
devour,
but
to
the
dogs.”
(XXIII,
165-183)
Many
unresolvable
mysteries
surround
this
profuse
slaughter,
but
three
conflicting
theories
demand
a
cursory
glance
before
we
discuss
how
poine–
might
play
into
the
scene.
One
common
suggestion
is
that
the
offerings
of
amphoras
of
honey
and
oil,
sheep,
cattle,
horses,
dogs,
and
twelve
Trojan
boys
were
meant
to
serve
Patroklos
in
the
underworld,34
although
we
have
no
comparable
Iliadic
funeral
narratives
which
list
this
as
a
clear
end,
not
the
funerals
of
Book
VII,
nor
the
funeral
of
Hector
in
the
last
book.
The
otherwise
baffling
amphoras
of
honey
and
oil
make
this
explanation
appealing,
as
may
Achilles’
report
to
Patroklos
that
he
has
given
the
boys
“along
with
you”
to
the
fire
to
consume.
It
is
notable
that
the
shades
of
the
Odyssey
are
attracted
to
similar
fluids,
if
not
bodies,
when
Odysseus
lures
the
shades
halfway
out
of
the
underworld
by
sacrificial
blood,
honey,
oil,
and
wine
libations
in
Book
XI.
Yet
in
the
Odyssey
the
direction
of
travel
for
the
shades
seems
to
be
reversed35
and
there
is
no
blood
at
all
in
the
Iliad’s
funeral
sacrifice,
unlike
in
the
funeral
feast.
This
argument
ultimately
relies
on
comparative
archeological
evidence,
which
goes
outside
the
text.

Another
common
theory
is
that
these
sacrifices
belong
to
the
pattern
of
hero-cult
and
are
therefore
similar
to
offerings
to
chthonic
deities.
First,
it
should
be
pointed
out
that
the
formal
distinction
between
chthonic
and
olympian
gods
and
also
sacrifices
has
been
questioned
vigorously
by
Gunnel
Ekroth
on
the
basis
of
their
victims
and
styles
of
slaughter,
which
apparently
differ
rarely
in
inscriptions
and
sacrificial
calendars.36
She
shows
that
hero-cults
in
our
surviving
evidence
tend
to
treat
the
heroes
as
akin
to
the
deathless
gods
rather
than
to
the
ordinary
dead
in
the
earth,
in
any
case.37
Further,
her






















































34
For
an
overview,
see
Dennis
HUGHES,
Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece,
London,
Routledge,
1991.
35
For
one
theory
on
these
fluids
as
representing
a
kind
of
dietary
ontology,
see
my
“Two
Expressions
for
Human
Mortality
in
the
Epics
of
Homer,”
History of Religion
34
(1994),
p. 132151.

36
See
Gunnel
Ekroth,
The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods,
Liege,
2002
(Kernos,
suppl.
12).
On
the
misapplied
distinction
between
Olympian
and
chthonic
deities,
see,
for
instance,
her
summary
at
page
325,
and
for
an
overall
summary
see
pages
303-341.
On
the
porous
line
between
celestial,
chthonic,
and
heroic
cults,
see
also
Arthur
Darby
NOCK,
“The
Cult
of
Heroes,”
in
Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, New
York/
Oxford,
Clarendon
Press
1972,
1986,
p.
576-601,
n.b.
577-578.
37
This
contravenes
the
widely
held
opinion,
such
as
that
offered
by
Richard
Seaford,
that
hero-cults
emerged
at
the
gravesites
of
important
clan
members
or
legendary
warriors
and
eventually
became
cultic
occasions
for
strengthening
civic
ties.
Seaford
sees
the
socially
integrative
power
of
the
death
rituals
and
hero-cults
as
emanating
from
Homeric
recitations
at
the
Panathenaic
festivals
of
the
archaic
city-state.
The
hero-cult
would
have
featured
an
38
M.
KITTS
exhaustive
exploration
of
archaic
through
Hellenistic
hero-cults,
based
on
calendars
and
inscriptions,
reveals
for
hero-cult
generally
a
varied
pattern
of
thusia
occasionally
punctuated
by
“powerful
acts.”38
Perhaps
this
would
seem
descriptive
of
the
funeral
feast
followed
by
the
cremation
ritual
here,
but
on
the
other
hand,
the
two
rituals
are
separated
in
Book
XXIII
by
the
visit
to
Agamemnon’s
tent,
by
a
night-time
visitation
by
the
shade
of
Patroklos,
and
by
the
collection
of
wood
for
the
pyre
the
next
morning.
The
cremation
ritual
itself
includes
no
thysia.
On
top
of
that,
Ekroth
has
pointed
out
that
we
have
virtually
no
bronze
age
evidence
for
hero-cult,39
which
again
elicits
all
the
obvious
problems
with
looking
for
realia
in
the
Homeric
poems
in
the
first
place:
i.e.,
do
all
funeral
references
reflect
ritual
practices
of
the
same
period
and
were
they
composed
with
the
same
ritual
paradigm
in
mind?40
We
do
have
occasional
references
to
Trojan
gatherings
at
the
semata
for
eponymous
ancestors
or
heroes
(Ilos
at
X,
415,
nimble
Myrine
at
II,
814),
and
it
has
been
argued
that
Athenian
hero-cult
has
been
impressed
onto
Nestor’s
proposal
that
the
bones
of
the
war
dead
be
brought
back
to
their
homeland
(VII,
332-335).41
Yet
these
tidbits
do
not
in
themselves
describe
a
full-blown
hero-cult
with
features
similar
to
the
cremation
sacrifices
of
Book
XXIII.
The
hero-cult
hypothesis
is
unprovable
because
it
too
goes
outside
the
text.
A
third
theory
is
that
the
whole
thing
is
derived
from
the
Anatolian
therapon/tarpanalli
ritual,
whereby
not
only
Patroklos
but
the
boys,
animals
and
even
the
iron
are
offered
in
substitution
for
king
Achilles,
who
soon
is
to
follow
them.
Steven
Lowenstam
has
mined
the
text
of
the
Iliad
to
support
the
Anatolian
hypothesis,
stressing,
among
other
things,
the
double
layers
of
fat
which
surround
the
bones
of
Patroklos
in
the
funeral
urn
as
reminiscent
of
the
gods’
portion
at
Mycenae,
in
Hesiod,
and
the
sacrificial
themes
which
surround
the
figure
of
Patroklos
throughout
the
epic.42.
However,
the
formality
of
the






















































aetiological
theme
of
an
unjustly
dishonored
hero
whose
anger
precipitates
a
calamity
and
must
be
appeased
to
restore
communal
stability,
which
would
resonate
with
the
Homeric
theme
of
Achilles’
anger
and
eventual
reconciliation.
The
argument
hinges
on
similar
narrative
structures
and
the
appeal
of
the
socially
integrative
theme
in
the
late
8th,
early
7th
centuries,
not
on
a
direct
root
of
hero-cult
in
the
motif
of
Achilles’
anger.
See,
for
instance,
his
Chapter
4,
entitled
“Collective
Death
Ritual,”
and
subchapter
5g,
“The
Iliad
and
Hero-Cult,”
in
Reciprocity and Ritual, Oxford,
Clarendon
Press,
1994,
1999,
p.
106-143,
180-190.
Both
his
and
Ekroth’s
hypotheses
bring
to
mind
the
odd
appellation
of
wanax
for
dead
Patroklos
at
verse
173.

38 O.c.
(n.
36),
p.
303-341.

39
This
is
despite
later
hero-cults
situated
at
bronze
age
tombs.
40
This
strengthens
the
appeal
of
Seaford’s
argument.
See
note
37.
41
See
SEAFORD,
o.c.
(n.
37),
p.
183.
42
For
instance,
he
notes
that
the
collocation
of
“white
bones”
(ostea leuka)
and
“double
layer
of
fat”
(diplaka de–mon)
and
“hidden”
(kaluptein)
in
the
description
of
what
is
to
be
done
with
the
bones
is
reminiscent
of
Hesiod’s
description
of
the
prototypical
sacrifice
of
an
ox
at
Mekone,
where
the
white
bones
(ostea leuka)
of
an
ox
are
hidden
in
double
layers
of
fat
(diplaka de–mon ... kalupsan)
to
become
the
gods’
portion
(Th.,
540-541).
These
sacrificial
features,
plus
the
intimate
bond
implied
in
the
common
funeral
urn
for
the
bones
of
Patroklos
and
Achilles,
are
part
of
the

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 39
ritual
performance
would
appear
to
suppress
the
outright
expression
of
this
theme,
which
remains
oblique
in
the
Iliad.

A
fourth
possibility
is
the
one
the
poet
gives
three
times
prior
to
the
funeral
sacrifice
to
explain
the
sacrifice
of
the
boys.
This
is
Achilles’
vow
to
apodeirotomeo–,
to
cut
the
throats
clear
through,
of
twelve
Trojans
youths
as
an
act
of
anger
–
cholo–theis
–
for
the
death
of
Patroklos
(XVIII,
336-337),
mentioned
again
when
Achilles
tells
the
shade
of
Patroklos
that
he
has
the
twelve
Trojan
boys
ready
to
sacrifice
before
his
pyre,
in
anger
–
cholo–theis
–
for
his
death
(XXIII,
22-23),
and
insinuated
earlier
when
he
collects
the
twelve
Trojan
youths,
“stunned
like
fawns”
(XXI,
29)
to
be
living
poine– for
Patroklos
(XXI,
28).
Another
possible
reference
to
this
motive
is
when
he
actually
does
sacrifice
the
dogs
and
presumably,
given
the
order
of
verses,
also
the
boys
with
the
verb
deirotomeo–:
“deirotome–sas
them
[cutting
their
throats]
he
threw
two
[dogs]
on
the
fire/
and
twelve
good
sons
of
the
greathearted
Trojans,
/destroying
them
with
the
bronze”
(XXIII,
173-175),
which
is
followed
by
a
statement
of
his
mood:
“evil
were
the
deeds
he
devised
in
his
mind”
(XXIII,
176).
Lastly,
although
not
explicitly
identified
as
poine–,
the
motive
of
poine–
is
imputed
in
Achilles’
last
speech
to
Patroklos,
when
he
reports
during
the
funeral
that
he
has
fulfilled
his
earlier
promises
to
give
the
twelve
good
sons
of
the
greathearted
Trojans
all
to
the
fire
to
eat,
and
that
Hector
should
be
devoured
not
by
fire
but
by
dogs.
It
seems
clear,
then,
that
the
poetic
understanding
of
the
reason
for
the
gathering
and
burning
of
the
boys
on
the
pyre
of
Patroklos
is
attributable
to
poine,– as
is
the
reserving
of
Hector’s
body
for
dogs.43


But
how
much
actual
funeral
slaughter
does
poine–
explain?
It
has
been
suggested
by
Dennis
Hughes
that
the
sacrificial
victims
here,
being
of
different
types,
may
have
been
killed
for
different
purposes.44
Oxen
and
sheep
are
the
usual
victims
of
sacrifices,
including
those
for
food,
and
are
reputed
to
be
the
same
victims
slaughtered
at
the
funeral
of
Achilles,
according
to
Odyssey
book
XXIV.
In
Patroklos’
funeral,
further,
the
oxen
and
sheep
are
treated
differently
than
the
other
victims,
since
they
are
cut
up
so
that
their
fat
may
encase
the
body
of
Patroklos,
possibly
to
help
in
the
burning.
Similar
fat,
in
fact
a
double
layer
of
it,
will
be
used
by
Achilles
later
to
wrap
the
bones
of
Patroklos,
when
he
deposits
them
in
an
urn
to
await
the
addition
of
Achilles’
own
bones
(XXIII,
243-244).45
During
the
cremation,
the
bodies,
denuded
of
fat,
are
apparently
stacked
to
the
side
of
the
corpse
of
Patroklos
(XXIII,
169;
240-241).























































array
of
clues
he
sees
as
supporting
the
hypothesis
of
the
funeral
of
Patroklos
as
a
tarpanalli
sacrifice.
Steven
LOWENSTAM,
The Death of Patroklos, A Study in Typology, Konigstein,
Ts:
Verlag
Anton
Hain,
1981.
43
For
a
digest
of
some
anthropological
data
for
angry
funerals,
see
Richard
Seaford,
“The
Aggressive
Funeral:
A
Comparative
Perspective,”
in
Reciprocity and Ritual, o.c. (n.
37),
p.
86-92.
44
HUGHES,
o.c.
(n.
34).
45
LOWENSTAM,
o.c.
(n.
42),
discusses
this
theme.
40
M.
KITTS

As
for
the
horses
and
dogs,
they
are
sacrificed
only
here.
Why?
It
has
been
suggested
that
horses
and
dogs
tend
to
enjoy
a
closer
bond
with
humans,
so
their
sacrifices
may
be
intended
to
provide
companionship
for
the
dead
in
the
underworld.
Yet
Achilles’
reference
to
Trojan
horses
being
sacrificed
to
the
river
Sperchios
(XXI,
132)
does
not
seem
to
rely
on
this
logic.
The
dogs
and
horses
of
Book
XXIII
probably
belonged
to
Patroklos,
however.46
We
know
he
had
a
close
rapport
with
at
least
the
immortal
horses
Achilles
brought
to
the
war,
since,
once
Patroklos
dies,
those
horses
are
overcome
with
grief
and
longing
for
their
gentle
master
(XVII,
426-428;
XXIII,
280-284).
But
if
the
horses
and
dogs
are
friendly
sacrifices
for
the
underworld
journey,
then
why
are
the
boys,
ostensibly
living
poine–
for
Patroklos
(XXI,
26-30),
killed
in
sequence
with
the
dogs
and
by
the
same
deadly
verb, deirotomeo– ?
Doesn’t
this
suggest
that
the
dogs
and
boys
are
on
a
par?
Further,
it
is
not
the
boys
and
dogs,
but
the
horses
and
men
which
are
mentioned
in
the
same
breath
later,
when
Achilles
reports
that
the
bones
of
Patroklos
are
located
away
from
the
mix
of
bones
for
horses
and
men
(XXIII,
242).
Are
the
horses
and
men
somehow
on
a
par?

In
fairly
considering
what,
if
anything,
the
animal
and
human
victims
might
have
in
common,
it
must
be
pointed
out
that
there
are
at
least
three
similes
in
the
Iliad
where
men
who
die
in
battle
are
compared
to
sacrificial
victims,
once
straightforwardly
(XX,
402-406)
and
twice
obliquely
(XIII,
567-575;
XVII,
520524).
There
are
also
a
number
of
other
dying
scenes
wherein
men
–
pitiable
victims
each
one
–
die
with
language
similar
to
that
of
the
lambs
who
die
gasping
and
panting
and
deprived
of
menos
in
the
oath-sacrifice
of
Book
III
(gasping
and
panting:
Thracians
[ἀσπαίροντας]
at
X,
521;
Asteropaios
[ἀσθµαίνοντ᾿]
at
XXI,
182;
Hippodamas
[ἄϊσθε]
at
X,
403;
Medon
[ἀσθµαίνων]
at
V,
585;
the
Thracian
king
[ἀσθµαίνοντα]
at
X,
496;
and
Asios’
charioteer
[ἀσθηµαίνων]
at
XIII,
399;
gasping
and
also
deprived
of
µένος
[Adamas
at
XIII,
567-575]).
And
of
course
there
are
famous
similes
which
compare
dying
men
to
dying
animal
victims
(e.g.,
stunned
fawns
[XXI,
29],
belching
bulls
[XX,
402406],
fish
fleeing
a
voracious
dolphin
[XXI,
22-26],
a
gasping
ox
[XIII,
568575]).
Yet
all
of
these
similes
occur
in
the
thick
of
battle,
wherein
the
poet
would
have
a
full
array
of
storytelling
devices
to
enrich
the
narrative.
Remembering
that
battle
narratives
are
less
constrained
than
ritual
narratives,
it
is
perhaps
not
surprising
that
analogies
between
dying
animals
and
dying
warriors
are
plentiful
in
these
scenes.

Not
so
with
ritual
scenes.
Ritual
scenes,
as
argued
already,
are
constrained
by
formal
parameters
and
nearly
bereft
of
figurative
language.
Although
we
have
no
Homeric
narratives
of
cremation
sacrifice
quite
comparable
to
this
one,
this
narrative
obviously
depicts
an
elaborate
ritual,
with
a
handful
of
features
presumed
by
the
poet
to
need
little
explanation
–
hence
none
is
given
–






















































46
HUGHES,
o.c.
(n.
34).

Ritual
leitmotifs
and
poetic
pressures
in
Iliad
XXIII 41
presumably
because
they
were
considered
standard
at
some
point
or
to
some
audience.
The
fact
that
the
boys,
dogs
and
horses,
and
for
that
matter
sheep
and
cattle,
are
given
no
voice
in
these
sacrifices
suggests
that
their
presences
must
be
symbolic
components
of
a
formal
cremation
ritual,
which
permits
little
differentiation
between
them
and
little
focalization
on
their
plights.
Thus,
ritual formalization is simply the most compelling reason for the silent deaths of the horses, dogs, and boys,
and
explains
the
odd
coupling
of
victims
which
otherwise
might
die
for
different
ritual
reasons.
Thus
I
understand
the
sacrificial
deaths
as
indexical
components
of
a
crematory
liturgical
order:
the
ritual
is
formalized
to
communicate
in
a
high
performance
register
which
overwhelms
the
place
of
the
funeral
in
the
larger
narrative,
and
suppresses
any
specificity
one
might
imagine
to
apply
to
particular
animal
victims.

In
short,
ritualization
is
determinative
on
composition
here;
the
larger
story
is
not.
Not
only
is
the
victims’
anguish
muted
in
the
cremation
ritual,
but
so
is,
at
least
to
some
degree,
the
expression
of
poine– –
Achilles’
stated
motive
for
collecting
and
killing
the
boys
by
deirotomeo–
in
the
first
place.
This
is
evident
because,
despite
the
verse
which
follows
the
slaughter
of
the
boys
and
dogs
–
“evil
were
the
deeds
he
devised
in
his
mind”
(XXIII,
176)
–
and
despite
the
intention
to
give
Hector’s
body
to
dogs
to
devour,
there
is
no
focalization
on
the
suffering
of
the
victims,
human
or
otherwise,
which
might
bear
out
the
punishing
motive.
The
focalization
on
the
victims
has
been
eclipsed
by
the
formalism
of
the
liturgical
order
for
cremation
sacrifice.

So
why
are
we
made
aware
of
the
bellowing
of
victims
in
the
funeral
feast
and
not
in
the
cremation
sacrifice
on
the
pyre
of
Patroklos?
Remembering
that
oath-sacrifices
are
very
constraining
liturgical
orders
in
the
Iliad,
we
might
speculate
that
the
bellowing
of
the
bulls
permeated
the
funeral
feast
and
not
the
cremation
sacrifice
because
that
feast,
broken
by
the
departure
of
Achilles
and
by
his
swearing
not
to
bathe
before
cremating
Patroklos,
was
a
weakly
instantiated
liturgical
order,
not
strong
enough
to
resist
the
compositional
pressure
of
the
surrounding
themes
of
oath-sacrifice
and
even
of poine–.
The
converse
applies
to
the
cremation
sacrifice,
which
is
too
liturgically
formalized
to
permit
the
emergence
of
more
than
a
whisper
of
poine–.
Poine–,
so
conspicuous
a
theme
in
the
planning
for
the
human
sacrifices,
all
but
disappears
from
the
cremating
narrative,
suppressed
by
the
formalism
of
the
liturgical
order.

In
conclusion,
I
hope
to
have
shown
that
liturgical
orders
and
ritual
leitmotifs
are
important
considerations
for
understanding
poetic
pressures
in
the
Iliad,
and
more
particularly
for
understanding
the
ritual
scenes
tied
to
the
funeral
in
Iliad
XXIII.
Margo
KITTS
Hawaii
Pacific
University
1188
Fort
Street
Mall HONOLULU,
HI
96813-2882
E-mail: [email protected]