Hitch, Sarah. 2009. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies Series 25. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_HitchS.King_of_Sacrifice.2009.
3. The Gift of Sacrifice
Μηκώνῃ, τότ’ ἔπειτα μέγαν βοῦν πρόφρονι θυμῷ
δασσάμενος προύθηκε, Διὸς νόον ἐξαπαφίσκων.
τοῖς μὲν γὰρ σάρκας τε καὶ ἔγκατα πίονα δημῷ
ἐν ῥινῷ κατέθηκε καλύψας γαστρὶ βοείῃ,
τοῖς δ’ αὖτ’ ὀστέα λευκὰ βοὸς δολίῃ ἐπὶ τέχνῃ
εὐθετίσας κατέθηκε καλύψας ἀργέτι δημῷ.
δὴ τότε μιν προσέειπε πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε·
“ Ἰαπετιονίδη, πάντων ἀριδείκετ’ ἀνάκτων,
ὦ πέπον, ὡς ἑτεροζήλως διεδάσσαο μοίρας.”
at Mekone, [Prometheus] acting in a spirit of kindness,
divided and dished up a great ox, deceiving the mind of Zeus.
On the one side he put the flesh and the rich and fat inner parts
hidden under the skin, concealed in the paunch of the ox;
on the other side he put the ox’s white bones, arranging them
well with skillful deception, concealed in silvery fat.
Then the Father of Gods and Men addressed him as follows: {93|94}
“Son of Iapetos, lord surpassing all others in glory,
ah my good fellow, how very unfairly you make this division!” [2]
Prometheus invites Zeus to choose one of the portions, and the king of the gods deliberately takes the bones, which is cited as the reason mortals offer the thigh bones of sacrificial victims to the gods (Hesiod Theogony 545–560).
3.1 The Reciprocity of Sacrifice
πίονα πενταέτηρον ὑπερμενέϊ Κρονίωνι.
five years old and fat, to the son of mighty Kronos, Zeus.
In this introduction to a lengthy description of sacrifice (Iliad II 403–432), the primary narrator highlights the physical act of killing the ox with a finite verb (ἱέρευσε), prioritizes the sacrificer (ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων), and specifies the divinity to whom the sacrifice is directed (ὑπερμενέϊ Κρονίωνι). The honorific gift of the ox to Zeus is enhanced by the description of its age and plumpness (πίονα πενταέτηρον), and Agamemnon’s slaughter of the beast (ὁ βοῦν ἱέρευσε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων) signals to the audience his power and authority. However, the embedded sacrifice in Agamemnon’s memory of previous sacrifices in his lengthy prayer to Zeus demonstrates a shift in emphasis:
νηῒ πολυκλήϊδι παρελθέμεν ἐνθάδε ἔρρων,
ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βοῶν δημὸν καὶ μηρί’ ἔκηα,
ἱέμενος Τροίην εὐτείχεον ἐξαλαπάξαι.
sailing my oar-swept ship on our fatal voyage here,
but on each I burned the fat and thigh bones of oxen,
longing to raze Troy’s sturdy walls to the roots.
Agamemnon’s memory defines the reciprocal relationship between mortals and immortals through sacrifice; he sacrifices often to Zeus in the hope of sacking Troy, yet the outcome of these efforts remains in doubt. The sacrifice is described not in terms of the ‘kill’ central to all primary narrative descriptions, {97|98} but by the burnt offering of fat and thigh bones to the god (δημὸν καὶ μηρί’ ἔκηα). One of the distinctive features of animal sacrifice is the “play” between sacrificer, victim, and divinity, or, more precisely, the relationship between the sacrificer and deity created by the slaughter of the victim. [12] However, in embedded sacrifices, the slaughter of the victim is almost completely elided, and a more idealistic depiction of gift-offerings summarizes the entire ceremony. Agamemnon elaborates his memory of the gift-offering with a reference to altars, which are almost never described in enacted scenes. Altars and special portions emphasize the gift-exchange aspect of sacrifice, the reason most speakers refer to sacrifice, while the shared feast that often follows sacrifices is hardly described at all. Typical of embedded sacrifices, Agamemnon’s description of sacrifice on his journey to Troy underscores the element most important to him: his anxiety that help owed him in return for his piety will not be given.
θῆκ’ Ὀδυσεύς, ὄφρ’ ἱρὸν ἑτοιμασσαίατ’ Ἀθήνῃ.
so that they could prepare an offering for Athena.
Although the offering is not an animal but the arms of Dolon, which are never given to Athena within the poem, this complex narrative summary of Odysseus’ intention shows the focus on the act of offering implied in the term ἱρόν. [16] In embedded references to sacrifice, ἱερός means ‘sacrificial offering’, either standing alone as the object of the verbs ῥέζειν or ἔρδειν ‘to make’ or as an adjective further qualifying victims or altars as belonging to the divinity. [17] The phrase “to make sacrificial offerings” (ἱερὰ ῥέζειν/ἔρδειν) is used exclusively in character speech, as opposed to the finite verbs favored in the primary narrative-text for enacted sacrifices. For example, a character may refer to the consecration of “sacred hecatombs” (ῥέξειν θ’ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην, Iliad XXIII 147), or ἱερά itself may indicate the sacrificial offering. Nestor remembers two different sacrifices, first in Pylos (“we offered victims to the gods,” ἔρδομεν ἱρὰ θεοῖς, Iliad XI 707), then at the banks of the river Alpheios (“offering splendid victims to mighty Zeus,” Διὶ ῥέξαντες ὑπερμενεῖ ἱερὰ καλά, Iliad XI 727). These verbs underscore the activity of making an offering (ἱερὰ καλά) to the divinity. Akhilleus speaks of future sacrifices (“tomorrow at daybreak, once I have sacrificed to Zeus,” αὔριον ἱρὰ Διὶ ῥέξας, Iliad IX 357), and vows ἱερὰ καλά to the Winds (Iliad XXIII 195), repeated to the Winds by Iris (Iliad XXIII 209). Here ἱερά represents the god’s portion and perhaps reflects the semantic meaning of divine power.
λοιβῆς τε κνίσης τε· τὸ γὰρ λάχομεν γέρας ἡμεῖς.
libations and the sacrificial smoke. These are our gifts of honor. {102|103}
From Zeus’ perspective, sacrifice is contextualized entirely in terms of the relations between mortals and immortals. Zeus’ description of libations and knisê as his geras echoes the issue of reciprocity among mortals. Knisê is the gift that Zeus remembers never lacking, thanks to Trojan piety. The other well-received gift to the gods is the burning thigh bones mentioned by Zeus and Apollo in illustration of Hektor’s piety (Iliad XXII 169–172; XXIV 33–34). [25] Both refer to the entire sacrificial process as a gift of thigh bones, a method of describing sacrifice characteristic of the focus on divine reception in embedded sacrifices. Not only do gods focus on this gift, but Khruses (Iliad I 40), Agamemnon (Iliad VIII 240), and Nestor (Iliad XI 773, XV 373) also encapsulate sacrifices in the act of giving thigh bones.
δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ’ αὐτῶν δ’ ὠμοθέτησαν·
καῖε δ᾿ ἐπὶ σχίζῃς ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾿ αἴθοπα οἶνον
λεῖβε· νέοι δὲ παρ᾿ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν.
in a double layer of fat, and topped them with strips of raw flesh.
And the old man burned these on cleft sticks and poured out glistening wine
while young men at his side held five-pronged forks.
μηρούς τ’ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν
δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ’ αὐτῶν δ’ ὠμοθέτησαν·
καὶ τὰ μὲν ἂρ σχίζῃσιν ἀφύλλοισιν κατέκαιον,
σπλάγχνα δ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἀμπείραντες ὑπείρεχον Ἡφαίστοιο.
in a double layer of fat, and topped them with strips of raw flesh.
And they burned these on cleft sticks, peeled and dry,
spitted the vitals, held them over Hephaistos’ flames.
Both of these enacted sacrifices in Iliad I and II also offer to the gods the action ὠμοθετεῖν. This verb seems to describe the placement of bits of meat on top of the thigh bones, which have been wrapped in a double layer of knisê ‘fat’. [29] As discussed in section 1.2, the description of Khruses pouring libations over the burning thigh bones and the account of the splankhna in Iliad II are the only dissimilar verses in a block of repeated text (Iliad I 458–461 = II 421–424; I 464–469 = II 427–432). The sacrifice in Iliad II creates an image of the group roasting the thigh bones and splankhna together in order to highlight their group solidarity in the face of Akhilleus’ withdrawal. Khruses’ libation over the thigh bones is unique in an enacted sacrifice, despite the emphasis that {104|105} Zeus places on this rite as part of the honor given to the gods by men; here is another example of the narrow focus of the primary narrator. Elsewhere, Nestor remembers Peleus pouring libations over the burning thigh bones (Iliad XI 774–775), and a different sort of libation is poured out to accompany the prayer after the victims are killed in the oath sacrifice in Iliad III (295–296).
μίστυλλόν τ᾿ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾿ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν,
ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα,
δαίνυντ᾿, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο
they cut the rest into pieces, pierced them with spits,
roasted them to a turn and pulled them off the spits.
The work done, the feast laid out, they ate well
and no man’s hunger lacked an appropriate share of the feast
When they had put aside desire for food and drink … {105|106}
τὸν δέρον ἀμφί θ᾿ ἕπον, καί μιν διέχευαν ἅπαντα,
μίστυλλόν τ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἐπισταμένως πεῖράν τ᾿ ὀβελοῖσιν,
ὄπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα,
δαίνυντ᾿, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης·
νώτοισιν δ᾿ Αἴαντα διηνεκέεσσι γέραιρεν
ἥρως Ἀτρεΐδης, εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο
expertly sliced the meat into pieces, pierced them with spits,
roasted them to a turn and pulled them off the spits.
The work done, the feast laid out, they ate well
and no man’s hunger lacked an appropriate share of the feast
But the lord of far-flung kingdoms, hero Agamemnon,
honored Ajax with the long savory cuts that line the backbone.
And when they had put aside desire for food and drink …
The Iliad VII sacrifice differs from the earlier scenes in its focus on the preparations for cooking. [31] The thigh bones are not roasted, nor are the splankhna described. Descriptions of cutting up the meat in the earlier commensal sacrifices have been altered by the replacement of τ᾿ ἄρα τἆλλα ‘the remaining bits of the animal’ (Iliad I 465 = II 428) with the adverb τ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἐπισταμένως ‘expertly’ (Iliad VII 317). Τἆλλα extends the description of the roasted splankhna: the participants divide up “the rest” of the meat, apart from the innards and thigh bones, which have been dedicated to the gods via having been consumed and burned, respectively. Since the splankhna and thigh bones are not consumed at Iliad VII, ‘the remaining bits’ is inappropriate in this context. Instead, the adverb ‘expertly’ emphasizes the proper division of meat in anticipation of the honorary portion for Ajax. [32]
“Ἀτρεΐδη κύδιστε, ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον”
“Most glorious son of Atreus, lord of men Agamemnon … ”
Νέστωρ, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή·
ὅ σφιν ἐὺ φρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν·
Nestor, whose earlier plan had appeared best.
With good will to the lords he addressed them and spoke.
In enacted sacrifices, the sacrificial feast completes the lengthy description of the pre-kill and kill phases, creating the social harmony necessary for planning and decision-making. In Iliad II, the first day of combat in the poem, Nestor’s speech urges the councilors to marshal the army and start battle. In Iliad VII, he recommends gathering the dead, burning the corpses, and building the wall. Although there is no shared feast, the oath sacrifice in Iliad XIX leads to Akhilleus’ important speech and the end of the quarrel:
τὸν μὲν Ταλθύβιος πολιῆς ἁλὸς ἐς μέγα λαῖτμα
ῥῖψ᾿ ἐπιδινήσας, βόσιν ἰχθύσιν· αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς {110|111}
ἀνστὰς Ἀργείοισι φιλοπτολέμοισι μετηύδα.
Talthubios whirled it round and slung it into the yawning gulf of the gray sea
for swarming fish to eat. Then Akhilleus
stood and addressed the Argives keen for battle.
The description of Akhilleus’ authoritative act of standing (αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀνστάς) to exhort the troops to battle concludes the enacted sacrifice begun by Agamemnon standing up (ἂν δ’ Ἀγαμέμνων ἵστατο, XIX 249–250). The heroes’ physical stances reflect their individual spheres of authority: war and sacrifice, respectively. The positive emphasis that sacrifice places on Agamemnon’s leadership is one of its important thematic functions. Sacrifice is perhaps the only activity in which Agamemnon has an obvious authority: he is certainly deficient in persuasive speechmaking, and, although he enacts all of the above sacrifices, others take advantage of the opportunity for speechmaking offered by the communal meal. [43] These speeches propose important paths of action for the plot. Nestor tells Agamemnon to start the day of battle; Nestor proposes the burial of the dead and construction of the wall; and, finally, Akhilleus suggests that they eat so that they can then rejoin battle on the last day of combat in the poem.
3.2 The Pattern of Embedded Sacrifices
Κίλλαν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις,
Σμινθεῦ, εἴ ποτέ τοι χαρίεντ’ ἐπὶ νηὸν ἔρεψα,
ἢ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ πίονα μηρί’ ἔκηα
ταύρων ἠδ’ αἰγῶν, τόδέ μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ·
and Killa sacrosanct—lord in power of Tenedos—
Smintheus, if ever I roofed a shrine to please your heart,
ever burned for you the fat thigh bones
of bulls and goats, now, now bring my prayer to pass.
Khruses desires revenge on the Akhaians, so, asking Apollo for his attention, he honors him with epithets, a catalog of places special to the god, and reminders of his past sacrifices and honorific deeds. As a spoken description of sacrifices, this prayer is one of the ‘embedded sacrifices’ that occasionally refer to past sacrifices to enhance a request, in contrast to prayers accompanying the performance of sacrifice in the Iliad, which neither mention past sacrifices nor refer to the current offering. Khruses’ prayer is successful—Apollo hears him and unleashes the plague upon the Akhaians (Iliad I 43–52). But this demonstration of a reciprocal relationship with the god only comes at a moment of crisis, and it creates an even greater crisis among the Akhaian army. After the Akhaians return his daughter, Khruses officiates at a sacrifice to Apollo and revokes this original request with an address almost identical to his first, which includes even the same wish formula (μοι τόδ᾿ ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ). The only difference is the much-debated epithet Smintheus, which may evoke Apollo’s capacity to cause a plague or have a special function in the psychology of Khruses’ ‘personal’ relationship with the god, appropriate when he is alone on the beach but not in front of the Akhaians. [47] During the public {113|114} performance of sacrifice, Khruses gestures more generally to Apollo’s role in the maintenance of their reciprocal relationship:
Κίλλαν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις·
ἠμὲν δή ποτ᾿ ἐμεῦ πάρος ἔκλυες εὐξαμένοιο,
τίμησας μὲν ἐμέ, μέγα δ᾿ ἴψαο λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν·
ἠδ᾿ ἔτι καὶ νῦν μοι τόδ᾿ ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ
and Killa sacrosanct—lord in power of Tenedos!
If you honored me last time and heard my prayer
and rained destruction down on all Akhaia’s ranks,
now bring my prayer to pass once more …
Although Khruses still draws on a relationship with Apollo, in this prayer accompanying sacrifice, he repeats neither his past gifts to the god nor the current offering, and he makes no mention of sacrifice. [48] Perhaps the present offering may require no spoken elaboration, but we might expect him to bolster his request, or at least emphasize the honor for the god, by referring to the hecatomb he is about to consecrate. Just as before, the god hears Khruses’ prayer in a typical verse describing the reception of a prayer (ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος, τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων, Iliad I 43 = 457), which is apparently unaffected by the lack of reference to sacrifice. [49] The gods hear most prayers, and many are ‘granted’, but only two other prayers even mention past sacrifices. [50] This inconsistent representation of the importance of sacrifice in the creation of reciprocity between gods and men, and the subsequently unpredictable capability of mortals to influence the gods in the Iliad, creates a tension between narratives. While enacted sacrifices are painstakingly performed in the primary narrative, characters themselves neither explicitly {114|115} associate sacrifice with prayer, often omitting it from requests, nor do they feel confident that sacrifice is working in their favor. Khruses does not associate Apollo’s favor with sacrifice in the second prayer; he is confident that Apollo has heard him, but this ability to influence Apollo with his prayers only creates false expectations for future reciprocity. In the next sacrifice scene, performed by Agamemnon for his ‘councilors’, the prayer is denied by Zeus, who is bound to honor Thetis’ request on behalf of Akhilleus. The expectations raised by Khruses’ successful relationship with Apollo intensifies the disruption of reciprocity by Akhilleus’ influence on divine activity. Khruses’ initial prayer to Apollo on the beach may form an ideal model of reciprocity, but it is an ideal that is repeatedly revealed to be out of reach.
“κλῦθί μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος, ἥ τέ μοι αἰεὶ
ἐν πάντεσσι πόνοισι παρίστασαι, οὐδέ σε λήθω
κινύμενος· νῦν αὖτε μάλιστά με φῖλαι, Ἀθήνη,
δὸς δὲ πάλιν ἐπὶ νῆας ἐϋκλεῖας ἀφικέσθαι,
ῥέξαντας μέγα ἔργον, ὅ κε Τρώεσσι μελήσῃ.”
“Hear me, daughter of aegis-bearing Zeus, standing by me always,
in every combat mission—no maneuver of mine slips by you—
now, again, give me your best support, Athena, comrade!
Grant our return in glory back to the warships
once we’ve done some feat that brings the Trojans pain!”
Odysseus describes an established and long-standing relationship with the goddess, who is “always” attentive to his actions. Unlike Khruses’ first prayer to Apollo, Odysseus does not cite any reasons why the goddess favors him. Without relying on an unpredictable sacrifice as a method of gaining her favor, he is serenely confident in his patroness’s support. Others also seem confident in her protection of Odysseus; in fact, Diomedes cites her love for Odysseus as the reason he chooses Odysseus to accompany him on the raid (Iliad X 245). At no point in the entire poem does Odysseus or Athena refer to sacrifice as part {115|116} of the maintenance of their relationship, although his pious performance of sacrifices at Troy is cited in the Odyssey, along with his superior wisdom, as a reason for the divine favor shown to him there. [51]
σπεῖό μοι ὡς ὅτε πατρὶ ἅμ᾿ ἕσπεο Τυδέϊ δίῳ
ἐς Θήβας, ὅτε τε πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν ἄγγελος ᾔει.
τοὺς δ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἐπ᾿ Ἀσωπῷ λίπε χαλκοχίτωνας Ἀχαιούς,
αὐτὰρ ὁ μειλίχιον μῦθον φέρε Καδμείοισι
κεῖσ᾿· ἀτὰρ ἂψ ἀπιὼν μάλα μέρμερα μήσατο ἔργα
σὺν σοί, δῖα θεά, ὅτε οἱ πρόφρασσα παρέστης.
ὣς νῦν μοι ἐθέλουσα παρίσταο καί με φύλασσε.
σοὶ δ᾿ αὖ ἐγὼ ῥέξω βοῦν ἦνιν εὐρυμέτωπον
ἀδμήτην, ἣν οὔ πω ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ἤγαγεν ἀνήρ·
τήν τοι ἐγὼ ῥέξω χρυσὸν κέρασιν περιχεύας.
Be with me now, just as you went with father, noble Tydeus,
into Thebes that day he ran ahead of the Akhaians as a messenger.
He left his armored Akhaians along the Aisopos’ banks
and carried a peaceful word to Theban cohorts.
But turning back he devised some grand and grisly works
with you, noble Goddess, and you stood by him, a steadfast ally.
So come, stand by me now, protect me now!
I will make you a sacrifice, a yearling heifer broad in the brow,
unbroken, which has never been led under the yoke by men.
I’ll sacrifice it to you—I’ll sheathe its horns in gold! {116|117}
Although Athena has directly and openly intervened in the aristeia of Diomedes in Iliad V, he mentions neither this nor any other past occasions, focusing rather on her relationship with his father. He at least assumes that he does not have a reciprocal relationship with Athena, so he seems to rely upon a vow in an attempt to get Athena’s attention. The elaborate details of the victim to be sacrificed add emphasis to his desire to cultivate the same type of relationship with Athena that his father had, while the lengthy prayer, following immediately upon Odysseus’ request, reflects his anxiety in anticipation of the night raid into the Trojan camp. Athena hears both prayers (“So they spoke in prayer, and Pallas Athena heard them,” ὧς ἔφαν εὐχόμενοι, τῶν δ’ ἔκλυε Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη, Iliad X 295), and her reception does not suggest any distinction, despite the differences in content.
πίονα μηρία καῖε βοὸς Διὶ τερπικεραύνῳ
αὐλῆς ἐν χόρτῳ· ἔχε δὲ χρύσειον ἄλεισον,
σπένδων αἴθοπα οἶνον ἐπ’ αἰθομένοις ἱεροῖσι. {120|121}
σφῶϊ μὲν ἀμφὶ βοὸς ἕπετον κρέα, νῶϊ δ’ ἔπειτα
στῆμεν ἐνὶ προθύροισι· ταφὼν δ’ ἀνόρουσεν Ἀχιλλεύς,
ἐς δ’ ἄγε χειρὸς ἑλών, κατὰ δ’ ἑδριάασθαι ἄνωγε,
ξείνιά τ’ εὖ παρέθηκεν, ἅ τε ξείνοις θέμις ἐστίν.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ τάρπημεν ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος
burned the fat thigh bones of an ox to thundering Zeus,
deep in the walled enclosure of his court. He was lifting a golden cup
and pouring glistening wine to go with the glowing victims.
You two were busy over the flesh of the ox when we both
stood at the broad doors. Akhilleus sprang to his feet, he seemed startled,
clasped the two of us by the hand and led us in—He pressed us to take a seat
and set before us sumptuous stranger’s fare, the stranger’s right.
And once we had our fill of food and drink …
The arrival of guests during the performance of sacrifice, while typical in the Odyssey, is not found elsewhere in the Iliad. [59] The image of Peleus as Opferherr, the only sacrificer specified in the three embedded scenes in this speech, while Akhilleus and Patroklos dismember the carcass, draws a poignant contrast between the harmonious social context of Peleus’ household and the current isolation of the two young heroes, which comprises the ‘argument function’ of Nestor’s digression. Shifting the focus away from the sacrifice to Zeus, the meal is then described as the customary honor given to guests (ἅ τε ξείνοις θέμις ἐστίν), so that the sacrificial meal serves as an example of both offerings to the gods and collective reciprocity among mortals. Using descriptions of the sacrifice and meal, Nestor again demonstrates the correct reciprocal relations between mortals and immortals and among men, this time in an effort to convince Patroklos to aid the Akhaian army. Of course, neither Patroklos nor Akhilleus will return to the home of Peleus. Their deaths in battle will prevent them from experiencing this kind of happy commensal sacrifice; again, Nestor’s positive depiction of sacrifice only heightens an awareness of the contrast between these happy occasions and the crises of reciprocity in the poem. {121|122}
Ἕκτορος, ὅς μοι πολλὰ βοῶν ἐπὶ μηρί’ ἔκηεν
Ἴδης ἐν κορυφῇσι πολυπτύχου, ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτε
ἐν πόλει ἀκροτάτῃ.
who burned so many thigh bones of oxen for me,
on the rugged peaks of Ida, and at other times
at the highest point of the city.
This memory and the subsequent suggestion that Hektor be spared is immediately rebuffed by Athena (Iliad XXII 174–181). Several scholars have argued that the Iliad stresses Zeus’ love for mortals to generate pathos in the sad depiction of his powerlessness to protect them. [60] Sacrifice is an important part of this pattern: sacrifice, and the reciprocity it is supposed to entail, is not sufficient to protect Hektor, and the sadness this notion conveys is intensified by the impression of a long-standing relationship between Zeus and Hektor, who has burnt many offerings (πολλά) in different places sacred to the god. Altars feature prominently in Zeus’ fond descriptions of Trojan worship (Iliad IV 48, XXIV 69) and are also described in the primary narrator’s description of his sanctuary on Mount Ida (Iliad VIII 48). This suggestion of a permanent, {122|123} ongoing reciprocal relationship between Zeus and the Trojans, as expressed by altars that are full of sacrifices, is undermined by the imminent destruction of Troy. Even when the gods are thankful for sacrifices, the ritual is still described negatively as unable to obligate the divine recipient to help the sacrificer.
μὴ πρὶν ἐπ᾿ ἠέλιον δῦναι καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἐλθεῖν,
πρίν με κατὰ πρηνὲς βαλέειν Πριάμοιο μέλαθρον
αἰθαλόεν, πρῆσαι δὲ πυρὸς δηΐοιο θύρετρα,
Ἑκτόρεον δὲ χιτῶνα περὶ στήθεσσι δαΐξαι
χαλκῷ ῥωγαλέον· πολέες δ᾿ ἀμφ᾿ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι
πρηνέες ἐν κονίῃσιν ὀδὰξ λαζοίατο γαῖαν.”
Ὣς ἔφατ᾿, οὐδ᾿ ἄρα πώ οἱ ἐπεκραίαινε Κρονίων,
ἀλλ᾿ ὅ γε δέκτο μὲν ἱρά, πόνον δ᾿ ἀμέγαρτον ὄφελλεν.
don’t let the sun go down or the night descend on us!
Not till I hurl the smoke black halls of Priam headlong—
torch his gates to blazing rubble—
rip the tunic of Hektor and slash his heroic chest to ribbons
with my bronze—and a ruck of comrades around him,
groveling facedown in the dust, gnaw on their own earth!”
And so he spoke, but the son of Kronos would not yet grant him fulfillment,
but he accepted the sacrifices, and increased the unenviable toil.
Agamemnon’s request is stated at some length, yet any honorific titles for Zeus or argumentation based on past reciprocity is absent. He does not include any reasons why Zeus should honor his request, nor conditions for the likelihood of its fulfillment, such as found in Khruses’ ‘if-ever’ appeal to end the plague. Zeus denies Agamemnon’s prayer, presumably because of his promise to Thetis, but he does receive the sacrifice. The request is not bolstered by refer- {123|124} ence to the sacrifice, nor does the god feel obliged to honor it even if he receives the offering; the two aspects of the ceremony are seemingly disengaged. The recollection of the sacrifice in Iliad I overseen by Khruses, and the positive reaction of Apollo to that sacrifice, increase the negative impression created by the failure of this prayer. Although, because the request is denied, the enacted sacrifice is a failure, Agamemnon does not know this, and the primary narrative description of the social interaction following the feast is positive. The way in which sacrifice refrains from bringing mortals closer to gods or allowing them privileged access to or influence over divine intentions is reflected in the mismatched conviviality of the mortal feast versus the ominous knowledge given to the audience about Zeus’ plans. Agamemnon makes two other prayers in conjunction with the enacted oath sacrifices, intending to invoke the gods in their capacity as witnesses and avengers. [61] These two oaths are described purely from an eyewitness perspective, without reference to their divine reception (Iliad III 275–291; XIX 254–265). However, Zeus denies the subsequent prayer made by Akhaians and Trojans (Iliad III 301), again because of his promise to Thetis to honor Akhilleus.
τῇδ᾿ ἄτῃ ἄασας καί μιν μέγα κῦδος ἀπηύρας;
οὐ μὲν δή ποτέ φημι τεὸν περικαλλέα βωμὸν
νηῒ πολυκλήϊδι παρελθέμεν ἐνθάδε ἔρρων,
ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βοῶν δημὸν καὶ μηρί᾿ ἔκηα,
ἱέμενος Τροίην εὐτείχεον ἐξαλαπάξαι.
ἀλλά, Ζεῦ, τόδε πέρ μοι ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ·
αὐτοὺς δή περ ἔασον ὑπεκφυγέειν καὶ ἀλύξαι,
μηδ᾿ οὕτω Τρώεσσιν ἔα δάμνασθαι Ἀχαιούς.
with such mad blindness—then tear away his glory? {126|127}
Not once, I swear, did I pass a handsome altar of yours,
sailing my oar-swept ship on our fatal voyage here,
but on each I burned the fat and thigh bones of oxen,
longing to raze Troy’s sturdy walls to the roots.
So, Zeus, at least fulfill this prayer for me:
Let the men escape with their lives if nothing else—
Don’t let the Trojans mow us down in droves.
Agamemnon addresses Zeus directly (Ζεῦ πάτερ), but replaces the standard positive remembrance of sacrifice exhibited in Khruses’ argument (the ‘if-ever’ formula) with his worry that Zeus did not care about these sacrifices. He uses the same wish formula as Khruses (μοι ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ), linking his prayer with that ideal model of reciprocity, but the anxiety that he does not have this kind of reciprocal relationship with Zeus replaces the more optimistic tone of Khruses’ requests. Agamemnon asks the god to “at least” let the Trojans flee, an expansion to the wish formula twice used by Khruses (ἀλλὰ Ζεῦ τόδε πέρ μοι ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ). His rather pathetic request signals the Akhaian army’s imminent crisis in the face of Hektor’s onslaught, and he thinks that his earlier sacrifices and prayers had no effect, since conquering Troy was the request expressed while sacrificing on every altar en route (ἐπὶ πᾶσι βοῶν δημὸν καὶ μηρί᾿ ἔκηα / ἱέμενος Τροίην εὐτείχεον ἐξαλαπάξαι). As discussed in Chapter Two, Agamemnon gets a seemingly positive response to this prayer, the army is cheered by Zeus’ omen, but he does not seem to have the individualized reciprocal relationship shared between Khruses and Apollo, and he does not get a personal response, such as feeling stronger or faster. We can compare Athena’s more obvious response to Diomedes’ prayer, in which he relies on her relationship with his father and does not make reference to sacrifice: she hears him and makes his limbs light, and then she directly appears to him (Iliad V 115–123). The breakdown of reciprocity between Agamemnon and Zeus is a reflection of the disruption of society Agamemnon himself has caused. The audience knows that Zeus is favoring Hektor to honor the request of Thetis. Just as Agamemnon upset the balance of reciprocity within the army, Akhilleus has upset the balance of reciprocity between men and gods.
ἢ βοὸς ἢ οἰὸς κατὰ πίονα μηρία καίων
εὔχετο νοστῆσαι, σὺ δ᾿ ὑπέσχεο καὶ κατένευσας,
τῶν μνῆσαι καὶ ἄμυνον, Ὀλύμπιε, νηλεὲς ἦμαρ,
μηδ᾿ οὕτω Τρώεσσιν ἔα δάμνασθαι Ἀχαιούς.
burned the fat thigh bones of a sheep or ox
and prayed for a homecoming and you promised with a nod—
remember it now, Olympian, save us from this ruthless day!
Don’t let these Trojans mow us down in droves!
Nestor’s prayer includes an ‘if-ever’ argument, but replaces the personal reciprocal relationship between the person making the prayer and the deity, as expressed in Khruses’ prayer to Apollo, with the general hope that any past sacrifices were pleasing enough. Nestor’s prayer is heard by Zeus (ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος, μέγα δ’ ἔκτυπε μητίετα Ζεύς, Iliad XV 377), a variation on the formulaic verse describing divine reception of Khruses’ and Agamemnon’s prayers. Zeus thunders in response, but it inspires the Trojan army, whose refreshed onslaught, likened to a stormy sea, is described at length (Iliad XV 379–386). Nestor’s prayer seems to have the opposite of its intended effect; the embedded sacrifice and request provoke a response from Zeus, but this response is actually harmful to the current Akhaian cause.
αἴ κέν πως ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν τε τελείων
βούλεται ἀντιάσας ἡμῖν ἀπὸ λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι.
If only he would share the sacrificial smoke of lambs and full-grown goats,
he might be willing to save us from this plague.
Kalkhas explains the true cause of the plague, the abduction of Khruseis, which can be appeased by her return and the sacrifice of a hecatomb (Iliad I 93–100). Akhilleus’ worry that a sacrifice could provoke Apollo’s anger initiates a pattern of references to the anger of the gods throughout the poem. His worry about a vow, however, is not consistently maintained in the poem, since no vows made in the Iliad are fulfilled within the poem. The anger of the gods over vows is recalled only near the end of the poem, when the complex narrator describes a vow to Apollo by Meriones in contrast to Teukros’ neglect: [68] {129|130}
ἧκεν ἐπικρατέως, οὐδ᾿ ἠπείλησεν ἄνακτι
ἀρνῶν πρωτογόνων ῥέξειν κλειτὴν ἑκατόμβην.
ὄρνιθος μὲν ἅμαρτε· μέγηρε γάρ οἱ τό γ᾿ Ἀπόλλων·
loosed an arrow, full-draw force but never swore to the Lord
he’d slaughter a splendid hecatomb of victims, newborn lambs,
so he missed the bird—Apollo grudged him that.”
σπερχόμενος δ᾿ ἄρα Μηριόνης ἐξείρυσε χειρὸς
τόξον· ἀτὰρ δὴ ὀϊστὸν ἔχεν πάλαι, ὡς ἴθυνεν.
αὐτίκα δ᾿ ἠπείλησεν ἑκηβόλῳ Ἀπόλλωνι
ἀρνῶν πρωτογόνων ῥέξειν κλειτὴν ἑκατόμβην.
already clutching a shaft while Teukros aimed,
and quickly swore to the Far-Shooter Apollo
he’d slaughter a splendid hecatomb of victims, newborn lambs—
κερδαλέης, ἥ τίς κεν ἐρύσσεται ἠδὲ σαώσει {130|131}
Ἀργείους καὶ νῆας, ἐπεὶ Διὸς ἐτράπετο φρήν.
Ἑκτορέοις ἄρα μᾶλλον ἐπὶ φρένα θῆχ’ ἱεροῖσιν·
and cunning tactics too. Something to shield and save
our men and ships since Zeus’ heart has turned—
his mighty heart is set on Hektor’s offerings more than ours.
In a contrast typical of the tragic pathos that colors the poem, the audience knows that Zeus is not swayed by Hektor’s sacrifices, but by Thetis’ request that the Akhaians suffer for dishonoring Akhilleus. Hektor’s sacrifices do not help him, and this irony, created by character misconceptions about the power of sacrifice and the will of the gods, is one of the most prominent aspects of embedded sacrifices. Embedded sacrifices express frustration over the failure of sacrifice to create reciprocity between gods and mortals, but when such reciprocity is imagined to exist, misunderstandings or the inapplicability of the speaker’s view on sacrifice to the situation convey the same frustration to the audience: Agamemnon imagines Hektor’s sacrifices are persuasive, while Zeus has already conceded to Hera that Troy will be destroyed despite their sacrifices (Iliad IV 48–49). In Zeus’ opinion, Hektor’s sacrifices are not successful in precisely the way that Agamemnon imagines them to be.
Αἰθιόπων ἐς γαῖαν, ὅθι ῥέζουσ’ ἑκατόμβας
ἀθανάτοις, ἵνα δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ μεταδαίσομαι ἱρῶν.
ἀλλ’ Ἀχιλεὺς Βορέην ἠδὲ Ζέφυρον κελαδεινὸν
ἐλθεῖν ἀρᾶται, καὶ ὑπίσχεται ἱερὰ καλά.
the Aithiopes’ land, where they are sacrificing hecatombs
to the gods so that I will have my share of the offerings.
But, Boreas, blustering Zephyr, Akhilleus
begs you to come, and he promises splendid victims.”
Iris’ message illustrates two aspects of the negative pattern of embedded sacrifices. The negative presentation of reciprocity often found in embedded sacrifices is here alluded to in Iris’ haste, in case she should miss her share, to rejoin the banquet. There is also a worry, frequently attested in votive offerings and inscriptions in the Classical period, that the gods will be too preoccupied to heed prayers. Without the intervention of Iris, the messenger of the gods, the Winds would also be too preoccupied with their dinner to notice Akhilleus’ request for help, even though he promises ‘fair offerings’ (ὑπίσχετο ἱερὰ καλά, Iliad XXIII 159) and pours libations. [69] Akhilleus’ special status attracts the messenger of the gods, but not even he is assured the success of his requests through the mortal method of prayer.
Although this notion of divine commensality is largely elided in representations of sacrifice in the Iliad, this memory of shared meals between men and gods, when evoked, shapes in part the negative connotations given to sacrifice in character speech: gods worry or are angry that they have missed their share of the feast.
τῶν περ καὶ μείζων ἀρετὴ τιμή τε βίη τε.
καὶ μὲν τοὺς θυέεσσι καὶ εὐχωλῇς ἀγανῇσι
λοιβῇ τε κνίσῃ τε παρατρωπῶσ’ ἄνθρωποι
λισσόμενοι, ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ.
and theirs is the greater power, honor, strength.
Even they, with incense and soothing vows,
with libations and sacrificial smoke, men can bring them round,
begging for pardon when one oversteps the mark, does something wrong.
In this context, sacrifice is a method of soothing angry gods rather than establishing reciprocity with them. Phoinix describes divinities as able to change {133|134} their minds in favor of forgiveness when men offer incense, vows, libations, and sacrificial smoke, a description he expands with the personification of Prayers (Litai) and Blindness (Atê), who work either for or against mortals by heeding or denying supplication (Iliad IX 496–512). However, this depiction of the gods is incompatible with that presented elsewhere in the poem: sacrifices do not succeed in changing the will of the gods, as we have seen already with the scant use of sacrifices embedded in prayers. Nor have sacrifices been used elsewhere in the poem to soothe the wrath of the gods. For example, Kalkhas makes clear that Apollo is not angry about sacrifices in Iliad I, and Athena rejects the vow of the Trojan women. Kalkhas does recommend that the return of Khruseis and a sacrifice will assuage Apollo, who is pleased by the sacrifice, but the emphasis seems to rest more on Khruses’ ability to call off the god. Finally, Phoinix’s analogy of the soothing sacrifices fails to convince its listener; Akhilleus is neither mollified nor persuaded to accept gifts. This failure calls into question not only Phoinix’s methodology, but also his representation of the gods, who elsewhere in the poem are not swayed by sacrifices.
ὅς τις ἔτ’ ἀθανάτοισι νόον καὶ μῆτιν ἐνίψει;
οὐχ ὁράᾳς ὅτι δὴ αὖτε κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ
τεῖχος ἐτειχίσσαντο νεῶν ὕπερ, ἀμφὶ δὲ τάφρον
ἤλασαν, οὐδὲ θεοῖσι δόσαν κλειτὰς ἑκατόμβας;
τοῦ δ’ ἤτοι κλέος ἔσται ὅσον τ’ ἐπικίδναται ἠώς·
τοῦ δ’ ἐπιλήσονται τὸ ἐγὼ καὶ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων
ἥρῳ Λαομέδοντι πολίσσαμεν ἀθλήσαντε.
who still informs the gods of all his plans, his schemes?
Don’t you see that the long-haired Akhaians
have flung that rampart up against their ships, around it
they have dug a trench and never offered the gods splendid hecatombs,
but its fame will spread as far as the light of dawn!
And men will forget those ramparts I and Phoibos Apollo
reared for the hero Laomedon with great struggle.
Again, sacrifice is described in terms of problems or failure. Poseidon implies that the neglected hecatombs call into question the hierarchical relationship between mankind and gods. Zeus replies that Poseidon need not fear for his kleos ‘glory’, and he tells Poseidon to destroy the wall after the Akhaians have left (Iliad VII 454–463). However, though Poseidon will have his vengeance, the Akhaians will never know that they have erred. The wall is brought up again in the events predicted outside of the action at Troy, in one of the two external prolepses in the complex narrative-text. In Iliad XII, the complex narrator describes the destruction of the Akhaian wall, which, again, is said to be motivated by the lack of sacrifice and the will of the gods (Iliad XII 6–33). [75] The destruction of the wall by Apollo and Poseidon is supernaturally violent and definitive: after the Akhaians leave Troy, Apollo turns the courses of rivers, Zeus supplies constant rains, and Poseidon sweeps the wall down with the waves of the ocean. Ruth Scodel, in her discussion of the allusions in this passage to Near Eastern destruction myths otherwise suppressed in the Iliad, {136|137} finds the lack of sacrifice a flimsy excuse for such cosmic upheaval. [76] Although the cosmological destruction of the wall is certainly unanticipated in Zeus’ original reply to Poseidon, the emphasis on sacrifice in this context can be better appreciated as part of a pattern, throughout the poem, of embedded sacrifice as an expression for disjunction between men and gods. The mention of the lack of sacrifice as the cause for divine wrath in both Iliad VII and XII ties the destruction of the wall to the association of sacrifice with the inability to create reciprocity between men and gods, either through mistakes, such as Oineus’ in Phoinix’s digression, or because of superior bonds between gods, such as Zeus’ acquiescence to Thetis’ request or Hera’s desire to destroy Troy. Like that of Artemis, Poseidon’s anger implies that the gods want sacrifices, but that the relationship between gods and men has broken down or is dysfunctional. Further, the Akhaians remain blissfully unaware of their error; the conversation between Poseidon and Zeus and the reference in the complex narrative ‘pause’ call attention to the ignorance of men regarding the motivations and intentions of gods.
ἤρυγεν ἑλκόμενος Ἑλικώνιον ἀμφὶ ἄνακτα
κούρων ἑλκόντων· γάνυται δέ τε τοῖς ἐνοσίχθων·
bellows being dragged round for the Helikonian lord
by young boys and the earthquake god delights in these things.
Poseidon’s attention to his sacrifices contrasts with Akhilleus’ lack of attention to the death of Hippodamas (“And the proud man’s spirit left his bones behind but [Akhilleus] rushed with his spear against noble Poludoros,” ὣς ἄρα τόν γ’ ἐρυγόντα λίπ’ ὀστέα θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ / αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ σὺν δουρὶ μετ’ ἀντίθεον Πολύδωρον, Iliad XX 406–407). The comparison of a man’s death to the delight Poseidon takes in watching a sacrifice, similar to the importance that Artemis in Phoinix’s digression and Poseidon in Iliad VII attach to sacrifices, implies that the god appreciates his sacrifices. In this example, despite the delight in sacrifice exhibited by the gods, the gruesome context reiterates the gap between men and gods expressed througth embedded sacrifices. At the end of his rampage, Akhilleus’ pursuit of Hektor is negatively compared to a foot race for which the prize is a sacrificial victim or oxhide (οὐχ ἱερήϊον οὐδὲ βοείην, Iliad XXII 159). Immediately following this, another lengthy simile compares Akhilleus’ chase to a horse race at funeral games (Iliad XXII 162–166). In these cases, the similes present the actions on the battlefield from the perspective of the gods: they watch Akhilleus and Hektor race as if they were a spectacle, a horse race for prizes. [80] With the deaths of Hippodamas and Hektor, sacrificial ritual becomes an expression of the helplessness of man in his very attempt to influence the course of events. As de Jong has observed, “The net result is that the mortality of man is placed against the background of the immortality of the gods, for whom human misery is like a tragic play, which they watch, but in which they themselves are not directly involved.” [81] Although the gods insist on sacrifices and become angry if they are ignored, the benefit to mankind for offering sacrifices is made ambiguous at best and is, at times, called directly into question. {138|139}
In this context of divine omnipotence and human weakness, descriptions of sacrifice embedded in character speech create a pattern of frustration and helplessness representative of this unbridgeable gap between the blessed immortals and the struggling heroes, made more tragic by the dual representation of events. Dieter Lohmann has recognized that a character’s given perception of reality, as expressed in a speech, is often at odds with the reality depicted in the primary narrative-text, a tendency marked in embedded sacrifices by precisely this dual representation of divine and mortal perspectives. [86] For example, on the divine plane, we see the gods reflecting sadly on their inability to save Hektor despite his sacrifices (Iliad XXIV 33–76), while on the human level, Agamemnon imagines that the gods favor the sacrifices of Hektor (Iliad X 46), and worries that his own sacrifices are unsuccessful, as he states in his prayer to Zeus (Iliad VIII 238–241).
Footnotes