BMCR 2009.03.44, Chiara Aceti, Eroi nell'Iliade: personaggi e strutture

Chiara Aceti, Daniela Leuzzi, Lara Pagani, Eroi nell'Iliade: personaggi
e strutture narrative. Pleiadi 8.  Roma:  Edizioni di storia e
letteratura, 2008.  Pp. xiii, 496.  ISBN 9788884984982.  EUR 64.00
(pb).

Reviewed by Maria Serena Mirto, Universita\ di Pisa
([email protected])
Word count:  4478 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-03-44.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/03/20090344.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents
(http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/casalini07/08646368.pdf)

This volume includes contributions by Chiara Aceti, Daniela Leuzzi and
Lara Pagani, and is the result of the research that has enriched and
amplified their respective degree theses, presented at the University
of Genoa between 1999 and 2001, under the supervision of Franco
Montanari (who wrote the preface). Besides their affinity, the common
theme, method and critical perspective -- with particular attention to
the instruments of narratology used to underline the mechanisms of
traditional oral poetry -- give the three essays the necessary cohesion
for them to be collected together; however, that of Aceti, which is
much longer than the other two, could have been presented as an
autonomous publication.

Aceti (Sarpedone fra mito e poesia, pp. 1-269)  combines the analysis
of Sarpedon as a character of the Iliad with a study on the figure of
this Lycian hero in myths outside the Trojan saga and on the links of
his cult with southwestern Anatolia. The aim of this wide-ranging,
well-documented investigation is to pinpoint what the Homeric text
selected and re-elaborated, distinguishing in the profile of the hero
of the Iliad the characteristics that are linked with a mythical and
religious tradition foreign to epic poetry, and those that are
functional for narrative requirements, i.e., for the fact that the poem
has made him the illustrious victim of Patroclus. The essays by Leuzzi
(La morte dell'eroe nell'Iliade: scene e sequenze narrative, pp.
271-325) and Pagani (Il codice eroico e il guerriero di fronte alla
morte, pp. 327-418) are focused on the theme of the death of the hero.
Leuzzi studies the formal symmetries and the echoes between the
narrative sequences of the death of Patroclus and that of Hector, in an
ideal continuation of the preceding essay on Sarpedon (pp. 123-128, pp.
276, 280, 320 f.). The combat between Patroclus and Sarpedon
inaugurates the series of mortal duels between great heroes, slayings
in which also the gods are involved, emotionally or actively, but which
also prefigure the death of Achilles, the event which, though it is not
included in the narrative panorama of the Iliad, marks the special
quality of the protagonist: he is the only one among the warriors of
the poem who knows his own destiny in advance, and resolutely faces up
to it. Pagani then offers an interesting study on the relationship
between death in battle and the heroic code of behavior, describing a
much more varied and complex situation than is suggested by the popular
stereotype, according to which the true ideal of the heroic enterprise,
the only way to acquire glory, is the "belle mort" to which real heroes
devote their existence.[[1]] The volume is completed by a list of
abbreviations and several indexes (of passages quoted; of ancient
names; of noteworthy facts).

The first part of Aceti's essay (Sarpedone nell'Iliade, pp. 3-154) is
an accurate analysis of the episodes in the poem where Sarpedon
gradually reveals his peculiar character and assumes a leading role.
Sarpedon first appears in a concise presentation at the end of the list
of Trojan forces in Book II, as the commander of the Lycians, their
main allied contingent. Already in book V he expresses a different
point of view compared with Hector and the other defenders of the
besieged city: as an exponent of the claims of troops who are fighting
far away from their homeland for wealth and glory, without the urgency
of defending their own possessions and families, Sarpedon sharply
criticizes the Trojan prince, reminding him what the duties of a
commander are, and accusing him of leaving the most onerous task to his
allies, without adequately recognizing their merits ( V 471-492). His
physiognomy thus acquires distinctive qualities, in status and pathetic
potential; these emerge long before his death, both in the
autobiographical details, and in the considerations that he expresses
about honor, bravery and glory: the responsibilities of a ruler toward
his community, in exchange for the privileges that he is granted, force
him to be brave in war, but apart from the material tokens of honor, it
is the ephemeral condition of man that makes glory desirable, even at
the price of one's life. This concept of heroic behavior is thus at
first based on social obligations (deserving honors during one's
lifetime), but then it gives way to the awareness that only by handing
down to posterity the memory of an exemplary life is it possible to
compensate ideally for the limited existence granted to man (XII
310-328). The narratological analysis is the privileged way to
underline, together with the thematic and structural affinities with
other passages in the poem, the variation in the typical patterns,
revealing original adaptations, or at least the narrator's controlled
strategy. Several observations are perspicacious and convincing, and I
will limit myself here to pointing out a few cases in which I believe
that the relationship with a narrative model does not receive an
adequate evaluation. I would like to repeat, however, that apart from
the occasional disagreement about the interpretation of single
episodes, I share the general approach and the results of the essay,
which should not be ignored by future studies on the figure of
Sarpedon.

The narrative sequence of the clash between Sarpedon and Tlepolemus,
respectively son and grandson of Zeus, is analyzed in all its formal
elements (V 628-654; pp. 22-33), but too much space is dedicated to the
comparison (already suggested by Fenik) with the exhortation to fight
addressed by Agamemnon to Diomedes (IV 370-410).[[2]] However, the
hypothesis that the same compositional model (rebuke pattern) is so
versatile as to be adapted to antithetic situations (the exhortation of
an ally and the challenge launched to an enemy), forcing the poet to
introduce complicated variations, does not offer any advantages with
respect to the more modest probability of minor conventional segments,
freely used in the various contexts: a poetic work with such a high
degree of formalization requires prudence on the part of the
interpreter. Tlepolemus indeed insinuates that his adversary does not
possess the courage that one would expect from his lineage, but the
correspondence between the two scenes is limited to the recurrence of
this motif (the chart on p. 28 presents a few inaccuracies), and the
only specific analogy is the initial unjust accusation of cowardice. It
may be noted that in the comparison, element (2) is represented in one
case by the example of Tydeus' bravery, pointed out to his son,
Diomedes, by his commander; in the other, the exemplary hero is the
father of Tlepolemus, and the boast has the function of casting doubt
on the paternity of Sarpedon (with threatening overtones: the
destruction of Troy accomplished by Heracles has an ominous sound for
an ally of the Trojans!). Element (3) consists, on the one hand, of the
comparison between the courage of Tydeus and the inertia of Diomedes,
and on the other, in an outright insult to the adversary, who would not
be worthy of true sons of Zeus like Heracles, the father of Tlepolemus.
Lastly, element (4) has a completely different aspect and function: in
the episode in Book IV, a third person takes part (while Diomedes keeps
quiet, and decides not to react, in contrast with what is written on p.
28), namely Sthenelus, who rejects the accusation of Agamemnon,
defending the bravery of the sons, compared with the generation of
their fathers; in Book V, Sarpedon replies directly, as the addressee
of the offence, but instead of rejecting it, he agrees as regards the
bravery of Heracles, pointing out that the punitive expedition against
the king of Troy, Laomedon, was revenge for a wrong that had been
suffered (therefore the warning of Tlepolemus is out of place);  after
these words, Sarpedon immediately kills his adversary, thus proving
that he, in turn, is a son of Zeus. This confirms the traditional idea
on which Agamemnon based his rebuke of Diomedes: the greater distance
that separates Tlepolemus, who is destined to die in the duel, from
Zeus indicates a tendential decline in bravery from each heroic
generation to the next one (as well as the reduced sentimental
involvement for Zeus, who, for the moment, avoids death for his son:
cf. V 662). I do not believe, therefore, that the episode of the clash
between Sarpedon and Tlepolemus is skillfully constructed in accordance
with the structure of the rebuke pattern: even if a typical element of
exhortations to an ally is included in the challenge, the dominant
model is not the rebuke, but rather the genealogical boast of
intimidation between enemies, which is varied in this particular
circumstance of two blood relatives, who decide by armed conflict which
of them has more right to call himself a descendant of Zeus. In the
famous scene of VI 119-236, it is sufficient for Diomedes and Glaucus
to recognize the bond of xenia that links their respective families in
order to put aside their hostility, interrupt the preliminaries of the
challenge, and avoid clashing in future;  as for Sarpedon and
Tlepolemus, their common divine descent gives an uncommon aspect to
their rivalry, but does not extinguish it: it serves for their verbal
skirmishes without avoiding the clash.

On p. 59, comparing the attack of Asius (XII 110-172) and that of
Sarpedon (XII 290-412) on the wall built by the Greeks, Aceti affirms
that the repetition of certain motifs at a short distance serves to
emphasize the feat of the Lycian hero, and not only for the customary
technique of intensifying the elaboration in the progression of the
story. One of the two similes with a blizzard (XII 156-161 and
278-289), which  frame the transition from the failure of Asius' attack
to the balance subsequently reached between the two fronts,
immediately before Sarpedon's assault, is, however, misunderstood. It
is not true that the snowflakes represent, in the first case, a term of
comparison for the Trojans who are hit, and drop to the ground
(indicating the clear superiority of the Greeks!): the snowstorm in
both cases illustrates the dense shower of stones flung on both sides,
and the difference lies rather in the development of the illustrans,
which is much more elaborate in the second simile (the longest one in
the whole poem), with the result that the image acquires autonomy with
respect to the term of comparison, and expands, to describe the calm of
the snow-covered landscape.

On pp. 87-88, Aceti examines the episode in which Sarpedon and Glaucus
take part in the action in order to come to the aid of Hector, who is
seriously wounded (XIV 421-432). As regards the presence of Glaucus,
who had given up his attack on the wall because he had been hit by an
arrow shot by Teucer (XII 387-391), I believe that a narrative motif
may justify the fact that his wound is ignored here, while subsequently
it is mentioned, on the occasion of the death of Sarpedon (XVI 508
ff.). Glaucus still seems to be able to take the field, although his
wounded arm did not allow him to climb the wall, and he succeeds in
ignoring the seriousness of it, up to the moment when he is exhausted
by the pain, and has to invoke Apollo, who heals him miraculously (also
Agamemnon goes on killing his enemies, in spite of a similar wound,
until the excruciating pain forces him to retreat:  XI 251-274). In
this way, the narrator keeps him on the scene, so that the dying
Sarpedon can address his last words to him; if, on the contrary, he had
been completely helpless, Glaucus would have had to remain behind the
lines, at a distance from the place of the duel. Thus, precisely
because the agony of Sarpedon decidedly transforms the model
subsequently used for Patroclus and Hector, who both address their last
speech to their adversaries ( pp. 122-128, and Leuzzi, p. 320), it
reveals a careful preparation. I believe that the requirement of the
plot is more plausible, in this circumstance, than a compositional
accident and the hypothesis that "il poeta si sia qui semplicemente
dimenticato della ferita" (p. 88).

The second part of the essay by Aceti (Fra mito e storia, pp. 155-224)
is a meticulous survey of the testimonies that connect the character of
Sarpedon and his deeds with a vast geographical area: from Crete to
Thrace in the Greek world, the regions of south-west Asia Minor in the
Anatolian world (Lycia, but also Caria and Cilicia). The complex route
involves intricate questions: the two genealogies with the different
chronology that they imply (according to the Homeric one, he is the son
of Zeus and Laodameia; outside the Iliad Sarpedon is the son of Zeus
and Europa, and precedes the war of Troy by about three generations);
the royalty strangely inherited by Sarpedon by the maternal line (while
his cousin, Glaucus, who is subordinate to him, descends from the male
branch of the lineage of Bellerophon), and the myth of Lycian
matriarchy, which started in Greece in the V century B.C. and was then
revived at the end of the XIX century by Bachofen. The links with an
ancient religious background and the hypothesis that before entering
archaic Greek poetry, Sarpedon was an Anatolian divinity are
significant for the origin of the heroic cult: in the Iliad, there is
never any mention of this sphere of Greek religious thought, but the
almost divine honors that are rendered to the only son of Zeus who
fights and dies at Troy, and the special treatment reserved for his
body, his funeral and his grave in his faraway homeland, where he is
magically transported by divine will, seem to be a veiled allusion to
the existence of a cult-like orbit. It would be useful, in this
connection, to enquire whether the Homeric adaptation of the character
in a new genealogy contributed, by severing his link with Minos and
Rhadamanthys, to the dispersion of indications of an extraordinary
other-worldly destiny ( pp. 194 ff., 225-228); also the Cretan
sovereigns -- the sons of Europa and Zeus, and consequently his
brothers in the traditional genealogy -- enjoy a privileged condition,
according to the narration of the Odyssey: the first, as the judge of
the dead in Hades (XI 568), and the second because he was made immortal
and was destined to live for ever in the Elysian Field (IV 564).[[3]]

Aceti writes in a simple, generally agreeable style; the only
observation to be made regards the insistent use of quotation marks to
stress all the terms used with a difference, however slight, with
respect to the most common meaning (ironic choice, specialized
vocabulary, or other reasons, not all clear): this recurring emphasis
proves to be bothersome, and sometimes creates confusion with respect
to normal quotations. Perhaps a greater capacity for synthesis would
have made her contribution more lively, but there is at least one
occasion where it proves to be fruitful to explain all the details of a
critical theory: the Appendice (Sarpedone e Memnone, pp. 231-262),
dedicated to a refutation of the theory of Neo-Analysis, according to
which the epic character of Sarpedon does not possess an independent
physiognomy, because his deeds are modeled on those of Memnon. Aceti
convincingly demonstrates the circular logic that invalidates the
theory, and her discussion of studies which still support it is
particularly effective.

The contribution of Leuzzi is the shortest one, and although the
symmetries between the narrative sequences of the death of Patroclus
and that of Hector are well-known and have been pointed out in studies
and comments, she is successful in her description of the poet's
strategy, distinguishing the various forms, and explaining the
mechanisms. The way of presenting the story and the system of control
of listeners' expectations make use, in both scenes, of various devices
of prolepsis, analepsis, false starts of the fatal duel (in a
non-decisive clash with the future killer), anticipations and delays,
repeated sequences and amplifications; the analysis of the technique by
which the traditional structures are re-elaborated and the typical
material undergoes a continuous procedure of variatio, makes it
possible to focus attention on the exclusive link between the death of
Patroclus and that of Hector, distinguishing them from all the other
deaths of the minor heroes. The presentation is very clear and concise,
and the aims are also regularly announced in advance, and then
recapitulated for the benefit of the reader.

It would have been useful to mention the motif of the impenetrability
of the arms of Achilles already on p. 294, when it is pointed out that
in the case of Patroclus, the stripping of the body precedes his death
instead of following it, as is the case in the traditional pattern.
Leuzzi subsequently returns to the subject on p. 308, on the occasion
of the death of Hector, and there we find a retrospective reference to
the scene in which the same armor had been worn by Patroclus. But in
the analysis dedicated to his killing, there is no explanation of the
concrete reason why Apollo must strip him, after stunning him by
hitting him on the back with the palm of his hand (XVI 791 f.). The
poem does not emphasize magical elements, but in the need to strip
Patroclus of the single pieces of armor that Achilles had lent him
(helmet, shield and cuirass), there is not only a symbolic, pathetic
meaning. Unlike Hector, Patroclus is left completely defenseless at the
mercy of his enemies: it would not have been simple to ignore the
miraculous protection of the armor when he received two separate blows,
one from Euphorbus between his shoulders, and the fatal blow from
Hector in his belly.

Pagani presents a straightforward contribution, which is useful  for
reflecting on the relationship between the acceptance of the risk of
death in wartime and the code of norms and behavior dictated by heroic
honor. The precepts and the prohibitions imposed by social control (the
system that Dodds calls "shame culture", in line with an
anthropological typology) essentially emerge from the speeches of the
characters, because the primary narrator never expresses clear moral
judgments; thus the study starts with a classification of the various
forms of direct speech, bearing in mind the uniformity of the values
shared by the two armies. After determining a grid of categories (
table on p. 333), the standard characteristics, patterns and recurrent
formulae are described for each type. There then follows a panorama of
the most significant episodes in which the desired attitudes are
praised, or those considered to be unacceptable are criticized, thus
emphasizing the role of the single speakers and the contexts in which
they speak (conclusions are presented on pp. 351 f.). Lastly, the
reasons given for choosing a courageous kind of behavior in battle are
classified (they are first of all social; but also existential, as in
the case of fatalistic resignation to a destiny of death; pragmatic;
or, lastly, an explicit desire for glory).

In her second chapter (pp. 365-378), Pagani discusses cases which
present explicit deviations from the heroic imperatives of self-denial
and courage, when flight or retreat in battle are considered possible
options, and not disgraceful, in the course of the fighting. It is a
pity that the protest of Menelaus (XIII 631-639) has not been taken
into consideration, in the framework of a heroic code which is supposed
to enforce fighting incessantly and resolutely. The accusation brought
against Zeus, for not punishing the arrogant obstinacy with which the
Trojans continue to resist the just attacks of the Greeks, is the
pretext for an unexpected affirmation: in the end, one gets tired of
everything, even of the pleasures of life, which are undoubtedly more
to be desired than war, "but the Trojans are insatiate of battle".
Here, the war is not the place where courage and bravery are tested,
the way to gain eternal glory, but rather a testimony to the hybris of
the enemy. In the last chapter (pp. 378-418), Pagani analyzes the
phenomenology of kinds of behavior which denote the violation of the
heroic code, reviewing the recurrent characteristics of descriptions of
flight, the wounds that are the cause of flight, the ways in which
individuals find safety, and various other stylistic and structural
details that accompany these scenes. Out of twenty-eight cases of
successful flight examined, only ten seem to represent a certain
violation of the heroic model, while most of them present attenuating
circumstances and are not negatively marked (p. 395).

A particular case of behavior in contrast with the heroic code is the
one represented by five scenes of supplication, all involving Trojan
warriors, who in vain adopt this expedient in order to be spared by the
enemy (pp. 407-415). Pagani does not take any position in the debate
about the ritual meaning of this gesture, but I would like to point out
the balanced judgment expressed by Robert Parker (quoted on p. 410 n.
231 for the episode of Lycaon):[[4]] the suppliants can place their
hopes in the coercive power of the rite only if they are far away from
the war context. Killing a warrior while he implores "spare me",
assuming the ritual pose, evidently does not arouse moral problems, or
divine vengeance, and thus the hapless Trojans of these episodes repeat
a desperate gesture, with a strong emotional impact, but they may be
spared only if the winner is in the right mood, and chooses to obtain
some advantage from showing mercy (a ransom, the price of slavery).
Only this hypothesis can explain why impiety is never mentioned in
connection with the rejection of supplications in battle. Indeed, in VI
62, the cruel words with which Agamemnon dissuades Menelaus, who seems
to be willing to spare his enemy, are defined by the narrator as
"sensible", that is to say, "reasonable", "in conformity with the norm"
(<greek>ai)/sima pareipw/n</greek>, an unusual comment, for which cf.
p. 413 and n. 240: the interpretation proposed by Goldhill, "swaying
him with fateful words" seems to me somewhat unlikely). Not even the
supplication of the dying Hector is accepted (XXII 338-343; cf. Leuzzi
pp. 316-319), when he implores Achilles at least to give his body back
to the Trojans: but the wrath of the gods, to which his last prophetic
words refer, does not derive from the arrogant rejection of his
supplication, but rather from the following events, when Achilles
ill-treats his dead body. I am thus convinced that these scenes are
linked with a convention of epic poetry (no wartime code would have
deprived the winner of the right to dispose of the life of his
adversary), created in order to offer the narrator the opportunity to
color even the least heroic behavior with intensely pathetic tones.

The variety of the universe of war that can be inferred from this study
should not come as a surprise. In my opinion, direct contact with the
text, freeing it from the rhetoric of commonplaces, opens up original
perspectives, even for a theme that has been widely studied. In the
heroic world, "e\ sempre presente e gioca un ruolo di primo piano
l'angoscia dell'uomo davanti alla morte" (p. 418), and this is true
even for the greatest heroes; and if "l'aspirazione all'onore conferito
dalla morte in battaglia, caposaldo dell'etica eroica iliadica, si
confronta con il naturale desiderio di continuare a vivere e proprio da
tale confronto acquisisce il suo significato piu\ pieno e complesso",
the very idea that exclusively links heroic glory with sacrifice in war
in the story of the Iliad is undermined.

Altogether, this volume represents, albeit to a different extent in the
single contributions, a significant stimulus for the contemporary
debate on Homeric studies. The approach of these studies, painstakingly
conducted in order to "comprendere e definire i termini della
dialettica fra tradizione recepita e innovazione voluta" (p. xiii),
undoubtedly rewards readers who have the patience to follow the pathway
traced out and to verify the method.

The following is a list of corrections and observations referring to
the misprints or oversights that I have noted:

[Aceti] p. 28 l. 13: <greek>ti/s toi a)na/gkh</greek> instead of
<greek>ti\ toi a)na/gkh</greek>; p. 51 n. 124 (cf. also p. 182 n. 470):
Thesprotia is not a city, but a region of north-western Greece; p. 71
n. 155: "verso 311... XII 311" instead of "verso 312... XII 312"; p.
112 n. 256: the passages from Pindar, Ol. II 25 and Hesiod, Th. 942, do
not refer to the end of Heracles, but to that of Semele (and Nagy
correctly quotes them as such); p. 114: (XVI 463)
<greek>Qrasu/mhlon</greek> is not the reading of the vulgate to which
the comment on the passage refers (pp. 115 f.:
<greek>Qrasu/dhmon</greek>); p. 136 n. 325: "XIV libro" instead of "XV
libro"; p. 156 n. 381, l. 9 f., "cfr. Kirk 1990" instead of "cfr. Janko
1992"; p. 161 n. 394: the trilingual stele discovered in 1973 in the
area of the Letoon of Xanthos is "greco-licia-aramaica", not
"greco-licia-armena"; p. 172 with n. 438 and p. 196 with n. 514: the
Euripidean paternity of the Reso, already doubted in antiquity, is
taken for granted, although nowadays the tragedy is almost unanimously
considered to be spurious, and is dated to the IV century B.C.; p. 185
n. 479: the oversight attributed to Janko in the quotation of Valeton
does not, in reality, exist (Janko correctly refers to p. 126); p. 207
n. 553: "XVI 317-329" instead of "XV 317-329"; p. 209 n. 562: "V
580-589" instead of "vv. 580-589"; p. 218 l. 4 (cf. also p. 269): the
text, which can be reconstructed from the mosaic found at Xanthos, must
be <greek>*Luki/wn a)[go/s], w(s t[o\] pa/ros per</greek> instead of
<greek>*Lu=ki/wn a)[go/s], w)=s t[o\] pa/ros per</greek>; pp. 232, 235,
237, 238, 245, 246 etc.: the use of the adjective "etiopide" attributed
to Memnon is strange, instead of the ethnic "etiope" (in Italian, as
"Etiopide" derives from the feminine form <greek>*Ai)qiopi/s</greek>,
it exclusively translates the title of the poem of the Epic Cycle).

[Leuzzi] p. 281, fourth line from the bottom: "cinghiale ucciso da un
leone" instead of "leone ucciso da un cinghiale"; p. 291 n.51:
<greek>bouluto/nde</greek> instead of <greek>bouloto/nde</greek>; p.
295, l. 5: "guerrieri colpiti a morte" instead of "guerrieri defunti";
p. 314 l. 2: <greek>pare/sthken</greek> instead of <greek>
pare/shken</greek>; p. 316 n. 141: "colpo al petto" instead of "colpo
alla gola"; p. 319 n. 153: <greek>o(\</greek> instead of
<greek>o(/</greek>; p. 322, fifth line from the bottom:
<greek>o)/leqron</greek> instead of <greek>o)/leqro/n</greek>.

[Pagani] p. 342 l. 5: <greek>ou)de/ se</greek> instead of <greek>ou)de\
se\</greek>; p. 345 fifth line from the bottom:
<greek>prw/toisi</greek> instead of <greek>prw/toisin</greek>; p. 404
l. 7: <greek>po/lemo/nde</greek> instead of <greek>po/lemonde</greek>;
p. 405 n. 211: "Edwards 1991" instead of "Janko 1992"; p. 408, third
line from the bottom: <greek>a)kaxme/non</greek> instead of
<greek>a)ka/xmenon</greek>; p. 410 n. 231: "Parker 1983, p. 182 n. 207"
instead of "Parker 1983, p. 182 n. 107".


------------------
Notes:


1.   The definition of the concept, with which scholars frequently
express their agreement, was provided by J.-P. Vernant: see, in
particular, Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays, ed. by Froma I.
Zeitlin, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1991, (chap. 2) "A
"Beautiful Death" and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric Epic", pp.
50-74.

2.   B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the
Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description, Hermes
Einzelschriften, 21, Wiesbaden 1968, pp. 66-67, who prudently
concludes: "in the present passage a type of exchange that normally
appears in one situation has been transferred into another".

3.   It is significant that the status of Sarpedon is at the center of
the reflections of Ch. Delattre, "Entre mortalite/ et immortalite/:
l'exemple de Sarpe/don dans l'Iliade", Revue de Philologie, 80, 2006,
pp. 259-271 (cf. also Id., "Hemitheos en question: l'homme, le he/ros
et le demi-dieu", Revue des Etudes Grecques, 120, 2007, pp. 481-510,
contributions which are too recent for Aceti to have been able to
consider them), to try to define more adequately the classes of
characters who descend from mortal stock on one side and from divine on
the other, distinguishing between the sphere of cults and that of
mythology, and focusing on the inconsistencies of these two systems
when they interfere with epic narrative logic.

4.   R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek
Religion, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1983, pp. 181 f.: "'Supplication'
here is a term of convenience, because, although 'help me' and 'spare
me' supplications exploit the same ritual gestures, the second would
perhaps not have been described by Homer as hiketeia".