Early Greek Grave Epigrammes | Poetry | Sculpture

Journalof HellenicStudiescix (I989) I6-28

THEgoal of this paper is to increase our understanding of what archaic verse epitaphs meant to contemporary readers. Section I suggests their fundamental message was praise of the deceased, expressed in forms characteristic of poetic encomium in its broad, rhetorical sense, i.e., praise poetry. In section II, the conventions of encomium in the epitaphs are compared to the iconographic conventions of funerary art. I conclude that verse inscriptions and grave markers, not only communicate the same message of praise, but do so in a formally parallel manner. Section III, drawing on Pindar as a preserver of archaic thinking, attributes the parallelism between verse epitaph and grave marker to their common debt to funerary ritual. The epigrams will be seen to share with their monuments the goal of memorializing this ritual. Sceptics will ask how we can interpret grave epigrams as we do poetry of more impeccable literary pedigree. While an undeniably wide variety of verbal and metrical parallels link the early inscribed epigram with epic and elegy, no consensus exists about its aesthetic quality or the depth of its meaning.' The epigrammatists' creativity was limited by the need to include the name of the deceased and other essential information in a very brief text, and by the demands of the prevailing meter for inscriptions in a given place and time. Not surprisingly, many epitaphs seem to be utterly uninspired versions of standard formulas. Still, within its severe constraints, the verse epitaph offered considerable opportunity for expansion and variety.2 A limited number of unusually full, often older inscriptions, as well as several later ones with interesting variations on conventional wording, will necessarily bear most of the weight of the present interpretation. Nevertheless, simpler, later, and less adept examples contain fossilized echoes of earlier usage. If we know a formula's original intent, we can better understand the associations a reader might typically have made to fill out the brief text's message.3

In archaic Greece, grave mounds, built tombs, stone or terracotta markers, and other features of conspicuous burials served primarily to bear public witness before the living to the
I am most grateful to all who have commented on earlierdraftsof this article,especiallyA. E. Raubitschek, P. A. Hansen, M. B. Flory, M. B. Wallace, L. P. Day, L. V. Kurke,J. E. Fischer,and the Journal's referees.They have improved the paper enormously and are not at all responsiblefor remaining flaws. Audiences at Wabash College (1986) and meetings of CAMWS (1986) and the APA (1987) commented helpfully on oral versions.I also acknowledge institutions for support and cooperation: the National Endowment for the Humanities, Wabash College, the American Philosophical Society, the College of Wooster, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Greek Archaeological Service (esp. D. Peppas-Delmousou), and the German Archaeological Institute in Athens (esp. U. Knigge). 1 For parallels,cf. P. Friedlander with H. B. Hoffleit, Greek inscriptions verse (Berkeley and in Epigrammata: Los Angeles 1948), and B. Gentili, 'Epigramma ed elegia', Fondation Hardt xiv (1968) 39-go. Broad thematicstudiesof epigrammatictraditionoffer little on the archaicmaterial;cf. R. Lattimore, Themesin Greek and Latin epitaphs (Urbana 1942); A.-M. Verilhac, 'A8Oivcov (Athens 1978); and various xli 'AKa6rTIias issuesof Commentationes As aenipontanae. a corrective,cf.
aTiocES&copot: poesie funeraire i,
rTpaypareial TrlS

S. C. Humphreys, 'Family tombs and tomb cult in ancient Athens: tradition or traditionalism', JHS c (1980) 96-126. For the lack of consensus,contrastM. B. Wallace, 'The metres of early Greek epigrams',in D. E. Gerber(ed.), EarlyGreekpoetryandphilosophy: studies in honourof LeonardWoodbury (Chico I984) 303-17, esp. Studien 307 f., with M. Lausberg, Das Einzeldistichon: zum antikenEpigramm, Studia et testimonia antiquaxix P. A. Hansen, 'DAA 374-5 and the early elegiac epigram', Glotta lvi (1978) 200 notes that the extant corpus lacks standardlines. 3 P. A. Hansen, Carmina epigraphica graecasaeculorum vii-v a. Chr. n., Texte und Kommentarexii (Berlin and New-York 1983), hereafter CEG with his numbers, provides the corpus for this study. For addenda and corrigenda, cf. P. A. Hansen, A list of Greek verse c. inscriptions, 400-300B.C., Opusculagraecolatinaxxviii (Copenhagen 1985) II-I3. On CEG's comprehensiveness, cf. Wallace (n. I) 303 with n. I, 316 f., andJ. W. Day, AJPh cvi (I985) 374-6. I occasionally augment CEG from D. L. Page, FurtherGreekepigrams (Cambridge Univ. 198 ), hereafterFGE with his runningline numbers.

(Munich I982), esp.


epitaphs could also be construed in meter. cf. xii 958e. e. whether a citizen or foreigner coming from elsewhere. 27. 9 The Romans with their prose laudatiofunebris 456 f. 'Doubts about material offers a few additional formulas.4 Epitaphsin prose began to appearin the mid-seventh century. xxi 316-23. Vermeule. on his tomb. D. CEG 13): [ErTE Xa(vos | a&oOev eAO6v &crr6]s TIS &vEp EITre TETIXOV avSp' &yac6v rrapiTo. L. Midas' epitaph learnedverse epitaphsfrom the Greeks. 'I am the memorial of Alexos the Delian'. where our information is fullest. the traditional medium for honoring ayacoi. e. 'The inscribedgravestonesof archaic Attica'. Peisistratos and his followers established the habit so firmly that epitaphs for people with any pretentions to greatness were predominantly in elegiac distichs. 10 Cf. AJPh cviii (I987) 4I-55. Morris. Their command of this material was amateur. J. xvi 44 verse epitaphs and 25 in prose. 575-550. Leg. I979) 6o f. while incorporating much that would be equally at home in prose.Jeffery (n.g. H. ABSA lvii (I962). no. etc. Bundy. Gentili (n. i). [Ivjhopa 'AXXa7o ei'ii T. vii 85-9I. c. Burial and ancientsociety (Cambridge Univ. (Doric capital. for the lack of a tomb. E. Once you have lamented this.g.6 With remarkably few exceptions.5 which is often joined by a patronymic and sometimes an ethnic. it seems that verse was considered especially appropriate for the most important burials. xviii (I962) remains essentialon . 575-550. Publ. I am the column of Xenwares. W. Greek burial customs (Ithaca 1971) 2i8. I) 54-6. I987) passim..). Phil.8 The association of metrical epitaphs with the graves of ayaeoi was no accident. From the beginning.AeAio. Commentators reinforce these feelings by citing I. Let each man. Lyc.9 They had as their model the old tradition of praise poetry with its treasury of ready-made.10 The earliest surviving grave epigram from Attica provides a full paradigm (block from a stele base. however. Class. their efforts normally very humble and derivative. substantiallydifferent. Pal. (A. The modern reader focuses on the pathos of the young man's destruction in war and responds readily to the calls for pity and lamentation. Friedlinder (n. W. C. but nothing Pindaric interpretation'. Hom. The name might also be incorporatedinto one of a few formulas. who perished in war and lost his fresh youthfulness. 540-530. such patterns exhaust the scope of the prose epitaph.. cf. TaOT' aTrO6vpaU&EVOI VeCOE w-rri Trpayp' ayaO6v. a good man.EARLY GREEK GRAVE EPIGRAMS AND MONUMENTS I7 status of the deceased as an ayaeoS. reflects archaic feeling. one who had satisfied aristocraticsociety's highest standards. Wallace (n. The hexameter ends with a Homeric echo. Cf. 6) 115-53 catalogues (Berkeley. Od. xxiii 245-8. OiKT'rpals Ev TroA?EPoil I|qpiJEvov. and. 5 For the name alone as a signal honor at Sparta.cf. son of Meixis. Aspects of death in early Greek art and poetry 4 7 For the echo. Their composers. not Simonides'sardoniccomment 'The elogiaof the Cornelii Scipiones and the origin of on it (PMG 58i). i). The simplest examples consist only in the name. but rarelyany other biographicaldetail. regularly succeeded in converting it into poetic encomium. P1. Kurtz and J.7 Still. cTraAa EVF'apEoSToU MhEilt6S eipl' rri TrU|JPI. veapav hEp3ev 6oA-avjra. c.CJ lxxii (I977) 193-208. move on to a good deed. the epigram at Rome'. but many seem hardly more than versified prose. U. c. Griechische i Vers-Inschriften(Berlin 1955) summarizes the formula: pvijpa (capia) To68'cTiv (epi) TOi SeTvos. xxiv 24-34.. xxiv 80-4. calls 6 L. but what they did was formally parallel to Pindar's conversion of a victor's vital statistics into an epinician ode.cf. II. easily as recognizable verbal strategies for presenting a laudandus worthy of praise and emulation. Non-Attic encomiastic form. vii 153. II. E. 260 f. but its adherence to a prose recipe leaves us feeling the echo has been grafted on mechanically to supply an elegant flourish. etc. Plut. Certainly in Attica. Cal. Sepolia. 6. epitaphs iyKcbAla piou.J. CEG I46). Boardman. pass by only after pitying Tettichos. Peek. Slater. and the prominence they give to the dead person's name confirms that the memorialization of an important individual was the monument's central function. Corcyra. Jeffery. 8 Cf.. Van Sickle. i. no. Od. Studia pindarica.

epitaph effectgivesthe name to Tettichos theanonymous heroof Tyrtaeus' dead It doesnotpresent Tettichos' military elegy. elegiac model in military epitaphs. 285-7. seeit in themanyepitaphs warriors. (1963) 118-21. The 170. Skiadas. 58..13 Theepigram no information aboutTettichos besides name.'5 details deathawayfromhome andyouthfuldeatharethe only biographical not exceptions. D. first.17 eava-roS exerted so strong may itself carry encomiastic force. of in The avip &yae6sandthe formulas the secondhexameter.4.certainfeatures syntaxcan biographical acquire implicit encomiastic force from frequent occurrence in praising contexts.. Vernant. i). D'Onofrio. 60 below. 10-12 19 Cf Lausberg (n. Tyrt.-P. I30. C. myth and exempla. Lausberg(n. an epitaph (CEG 27. I51. 08. obviously belonging while the extremely commonmotif of youthfuldeath of a personburiedin a foreignland. N.g. and Bacch. I94). iv (I982) 164. the KaAoS forever This that of death. etc. xv (Leiden and the poetic epistle'. The invention Athens(Harvard of 1986) acknowledges the dominance of praisein CEG 3 (366 n. rather than a 'Korai e physiological.but rather Tettichos is capturedin this ideal state of QavcaroS. 17 CEG II. 104. In Pindar and elsewhere. J. category. I) II6 perceives much in it that others imply. said of a wrraTs. Pindar Isthmian C. yet a contemporary reader probably perceived this demand as more important thanthat for sorrowor pity. p. is thekindof'biography' liesattheheart archaic brief formulaicexpressions which causethe subjectto conformto an encomium. D. with n. I suspect the concept of the KaOAS an influence that virtually any formula of youthful death conferred praise on the deceased. 136. C. 14 W. 13 Wallace (n. A. since it only occurs in military epitaphs. COAeaev qprlv by association. 46 comparesa military death in Pindarwith esp. types: physician. deathas a particular eventin a particular makesit conformto the archetypal battle. 1982) nen.18 J. in G. third. M.second. 41 and Wallace (n. cf. I) 312 emphasizes the exceptional quality of CEG I3. 77. 6. alsoin thosefor otherpraiseworthy victorious Someepitaphs backon even fall maiden. I43. Mortality and the anthropology and archaeology death 1981) 28. For the Kao6S IO.les auf und Athleten:eine Studiezu griechischen Wertpradikatio. 'La belle mort et le cadavre cf. 25. but she emphasizes more than I the epigrams' calls for pity and thus their character as lament rather than encomium (42-56). For an epic rather than cf. employing presenting by language and formsof directargumentation. 1981) 269. by implication. Stecher.12The epigramworksits persuasion. Inschriftliche Grabgedichte Krieger outrage'. Richter. sez. it wasonly possible was of but because the could rely on the readerto recognizevariousabbreviated conventions literary of composer archaic encomium. I66.La mort. etc.by usingcertain Fittingall thisinto two distichs a greatachievement the artof brevitas. Young. praiseworthy traits or actions so often appear in a relative clause we describing the laudandus. archaic gravestones Attica (London 1961) 58. whetheror not he diedin battleor was even literally young. 12) 98-118.Second Seriesxiv (Athens I967) 36-40. AION. CEG 4.1 We too easily overlook the tone of emotional restraint in which the epitaph attempts to persuade us that Tettichos requires our praise.. For a parent conducting a child's funeral.18 As is the casewith apparently neutral of motifs. AthMittlviii CEG 37. Many formulas for youthful death are encomiastic in their own right. 6I. Elsewhere I shall argue that CXEarEvE-rr' &yOei'v (CEG 5I).63. I) 311. respected proxenos. I32. no. v &XAArqVlKv pprilvEiac T-r 15 Kr CEG 34. 'Erri rTVJicp: cavpoAh EiS TTV immortality: of CT. for example. A. Bundy (n. also is encomiastic. youngandbeautiful.'EAArviKtlK 'AvepcoTrrilor 'ETrapEia.15.V TrilTUi1piCovE rTpcov (London. Commentationes aenipontanae xxvii (Innsbruck 45-76. cf. W. I. Arch. Others are crude specimens: F.by A. Cf. Loraux (n. cf. 19 This 11 A. 25. 'Pindar Pythians 2 and 3: inscriptional Tro-r 7. I) 16 with 534 n. 171. eavacroS. Vernant (eds). Humphreys and H.-P. kouroi funerari attici'.. quoted below).16 to an encomiastic The formeroftensimplyidentifies nationality the type. can consider the usage a distinct linguistic trait of encomium. pE.. 1) 35 f. Sheridan.namely. I73. Young.by Tettichos' deathasarchetypically thatpraises noble. 80. I3. but Lausberg (n.14 patternof the warrior'sdeath. M. Gnoli andJ. Willemsen. Loraux. e. 'ArchaischeGrabmalbasen'. HSCPh lxxxvii (1983) 31-48. We for but archetype. 36. 47. . Guarducci in G. Io) 8. his supplies specific biographical Evenhisyouthfulness deathin battlearecouched conventional and in viz. theepithet language. 58.b. A. more generalcategoriesof praiselike &yaeOS acbppcov but with very few Kai (avp. 1971) 24 f. cf. 4I with n. lrrTypaqopv. 30. King. of 12 Cf. M. 18 For 'youth' as a social and moral.kE16 CEG Tra KaiEpvwat. 2. 52. 49. 8. e Stor. 5.whichin factappear throughout epitaphs. trans. Mnemosyne suppl. CEG 145 with Friedlander(n. 82. D. 66. DAY literary and inscriptional parallels for the pathetic combination of youth and death. athlete.mortsdans les societesanciennes (Cambridge. N. S. Pind. O. I55. below.

IO. 91. Friedlander(n. Often Tro-r. Cf Cf Bundy (n.* Examplesmarkedwith an asterisk privatimthat Tettichos' monument. no. praising the deceased. even subordinated to. On the imperative expressing the Xp?os motif. n.29 Literary encomium frequently contains such rhetorically astute exhortations.5. and cf. and at least sixteen explicitly justify the rendering of praise. Friedlander(n. provides a striking example (Phoinikia in Attica. io). 24 i). possibly cf. extends the force of the imperatives to every possible passer-by. 82. 136. 26). rraplTco. . I27. 24 (below. Dr. ii 46. presenting arguments to convince the audience to render praise.27 They might. 58. 22.20 The relative would subliminally reinforce a contemporary reader's feeling that the epitaph was encomium.EARLY GREEK GRAVE EPIGRAMS AND MONUMENTS I9 laudatoryrelativeoccursvery frequentlyin epitaphs. IO) 24. i) 103 translates. 87. 12*. The impression that Kroisos has found a place in such poetry would be slightly reinforced by the prominent relative. 30 However. and go on your way with good fortune'. 1536 f..142.30 orrrE). 786 ff. and below. no. p. Bundy (n.26 (3) The epitaph hints at a potential hindrance to the fulfilment of this requirement. (Evos. TrapiTco) without stopping to read or respond to the epitaph. and 148. subordination of lament. aTrolupapEVOl v. 14) passim. therefore. 24.23 laning uage. Slater (above. Encomium regularly universalizes the demand for praise with such motifs.. Although pity and lamentation rather than praise seem to be all that are required. 47. cf. 135. 20 CEG 4*. p. might have stood beside a road leading north out of 21 Athens. c. with Loraux (n. also 42 and 46. TrapiTCo. J. Slater (n. C. 26 68. 219. Binder suggested i. Weshouldadd I03.. P. cf. they argue that anyone striving to attain society's highest moral standard should honor the laudandusfor having achieved it. For the motif in Pindar. found at Sepolia. 540-530): arpa eav6v-ro CTeretKai oK'rtpov Kpoioo I wrrapa O6EaE O6pos "ApEs. Cf Young (n. . CEG 29 N. Humphreys (n.. cf. the repetition of d&yaov. Thuc. 4. IO) 40 f 23 Cf. For the 114. enhances this feeling.It increases the value of the praise and therefore the glory of the laudandus.veTaeE)lamenting Tettichos. 12) 368 n. a reasonable before 4Aecov) (cf.123. 10) 197. have passed by (cf. aAAoQev expectation given the frequent siting of monuments beside roads.ahOe) make direct demands on the reader in the manner of literary encomium. Readers are envisaged as moving along both and after (cf. five odesof Pindar(New York 1981) 96.28(4) The last line urges readers to pursue the same apvri Tettichos did. an encomiastic poet Apart from simply describing the laudandus in praising l assumed a conventional role of advocate. p. 112*.25 (2) The conventional doublet.3 (=I3-3). h6v ITrrr' Evi TrpopaXoils I Halt and show pity beside the marker of dead Kroisos.CEG containstwenty-five relativeclauses with the deceased as the antecedent. cf. FGE 702 Cf below. cf.2 ('ro?7o9pup&- . The third line of Tettichos' epitaph creates a similar effect. (i) The two imperatives and their accompanying participles (oiKTipas . 25 Cf below. 19).93.24 Four well-attested motifs of argumentation appear in the elaborate addresses to the passer-by in Tettichos' epitaph. and thus that the dead had become the subject of praise poetry. 2iii.*. 83. also FGE 776 f. which separates the introductory hexameter from the pentameter. '.22 while ETOTE the mention of Ares give Kroisos' death the timeless value Pindar confers on his victor's successes by associating them with mythical exempla taken from traditional praise poetry. CEG IIo. Cf Bundy (n. (aToS. 10) 55. which reflects the viewpoint of commemorative poetry about a hero of the distant past. cf also 148 and 431. The idea is comparable to the literary motif of reciting hindrances faced and overcome by the laudator. 69. Carey. 27. A commentaryon 43 and 6i. p.3.b. I8). and The phrase Evi rrpopaxXois belongs to the language of the military archetype. on the base block associated with the Anavyssos kouros. and in fact the participial construction used twice there may be a variant of the laudatory relative. in funerary contexts such expressions of emotion are closely associated with. In effect. 51 (cf n. . and conversely that whoever does not honor the laudandusfails to uphold social norms. Furtherexamples i). 70 (=CEG 112). contain ro-Ti (see below). 27 may have existed in 33. whom raging Ares once destroyed in the front rank of battle. .21 CEG 27.. ii8.I1. if the erection of a monument implies praise. peVOi . 27*. 22 28 Young (n.

Horos iv (I986) 31-4 restores (e. viz. CEG 34 and 28 (with Skiadas 161.) r-TTIT\rJpiEs Kai a newly found fragment. appear in CEG 112 and 123. 24. II] 28).35The many epigrams which casually mention the monument or the road beside it reflect the motif implicitly. W. cf below. c.36 but such extensions of the idea as that in CEG 18 are more truly parallel to Pindar's idiom (kore base. isv. Finally. motif ('we all die'). CEG I9. Attica. in CEG 5I. and we see how poem and statue communicated the same message: 'this valuable statue. THE EPITAPH AND ITS MONUMENT Attempts to discover a regular correlation between epitaphs and grave markers have not met with notable success. the kore praises herself and thus articulates a viewer's admiration for what must have been a fine statue. Hansen. . cf. 68. Segal. the assumption that readers would be strangers to the connotes the offering of a valuable prize of honor (yipas) in exchange for the dead person's excellence. FGE 31 CEG 27.. we must turn to the monuments themselves. though not Tettichos'. D.g. (c& iTv'. 28. 550-540):37 [. Matthaiou. for his/her dear child. 33 211. 174. M. 36 For the road. 3I. i) I03 f. You there. Cfi below. P. cf.. halt and pity. citizen'. P. 148. An imperative of oiKTipco or some other verb of grieving features prominently in several epitaphs. 32 . requires praise of this young woman for her value'.)-] [. 'Bowie on elegy: a footnote'. . in effect. 540-530):33 aveporrEh6c-TEiXE[t]sKac'6866v ppariv aXa Pevoivov. To appreciate more fully this kind of parallelism between epitaph and portrait.cf.). 37 Cf. the poets' praising their own songs. A. 776 f. otKTipo<v>. aopa. 34.C. me (the marker) beautiful to behold. cf. II7. CEG 28. i8) 157-63 argues that KacraTriOrl . [arTE0 OiK]Tip[ov.38 Add to this the natural feeling that a kore's value reflects that of the deceased. Io) 197. epitaphs are implicitly prescriptive. sculpted by a famous maker of statues. and in 117 a simple 'everyone' replaces the formula but keeps its essential meaning. . as is praise poetry generally. IKa-rTEEKEV a parent] set up. The conventional first-person pronoun makes the epigram literally the voice of the kore.. Lewis. 22) explains another hindrancemotif in epitaphs. acfiES'.. but the pentameter transforms this apparently ordinary hexametric formula. 27. In. we expect the presentation of moral archetypes to be edifying. AJPh cvi (1985) 35 E.uipi Tpaypaal 6fpIV gXEIv.. When. Slater(n. n.20 J. discussion is limited to superficial similarities between deceased. For my emphasis on value. 26.32 The occurrence of crrTt in CEG 27 and 28 suggests the motif of hindrance. M. 'Messages to the underworld'. By calling herself KaXov i5Tiv and naming her famous sculptor. Kerameikos. p.cf. 34 For a public Athenian commemorative epigram Lewis apud A. although no explicit exhortation reappears in CEG. echo a fifth poetic motif of argumentation. cf.. II. DAY Parallels for these motifs occur widely in CEG. . p&XC6v TnS rTa6' IScv Kai hTrecraopevcov eEhAriE1I &. as often. he equates his own qualities as laudatorwith those of his laudandus.and for Pindar.Pindar often enlivens the motif by portraying his ode's performance figuratively as an athletic contest. . 70. below. apud D. namely.31 Variant forms of the doublet.The first- person &vl8ait in the other new piece weakens Willemsen's emendation. . And Phaidimos fashioned (me). a-rie I Kai OiKTlpOV arpa OpdaoovoS i86v. 'Avo &ppXaiK<s drnTTIK of the 470's that is explicit on the point. After all. &yyAAhEv . 38 D' Onofrio (n.. FGE 85 f: I59. having looked on the marker of Thrason. who move along the road with mind intent on other matters. Humphreys (n. and the latter expressly mentions the preoccupations that could prevent a wayfarer from stopping to observe a marker (stele base. i) 310 with n. The siting of monuments (cf. p. cf. TTEPi WuvoTs In general. The underlying argument is that an encomium which itself deserves praise reflects additional honor onto the laudandus. E | I? piAEs Tral6S vvvvv(v) KaAov 618v I caFuTap c(ai[lSpos EpycaalTro. 'foreigner . c.34 Many epitaphs.. For the memento mori as a similar universalizing Wallace (n.g. JHS cvii (I987) I88.^V-] * I * [(.

'Trraora Cf Jeffery (n. or a chariot scene. and they and the other idealized characteristics have clear parallels in the avqp ayaQos of epic and elegy. The archaic liefs. youthfulness. These are features of heroic youthfulness. youths and warriors. Stelai essentially depict the right profiles of kouroi. i Simonide'. or the right with the left leg advanced. The ancient 1970) 39 C. G. Hausle. with its wide surface (c. Above this. are idealizations. Cf. sharing with them a canon of proportions for the body and the use of conventional schemataand patterns for rendering hair. striding pace. for more comparanda. itself normally used as a gravestone in Attica.44 types appropriateto Tettichos. Discussion here is limited to . Armor. sometimes at odds with strict verisimilitude. 36 with fig. esp. S. Theartandculture earlyGreece. little evidence of meaningful correlation comes to light. Commentationes aenipontanae J. J. of xxv (Innsbruck 1979) 89-05 A.a. 8) 65. 253-5.42 and below his feet there might be a roughly square panel portraying in paint or relief a gorgon.43 It is not clear to what extent artists worked this way because they were incapable of realistic portraiture or were attempting mass production. hair.-P. Too often. xvii-xviii concludes: 'in the majority of the far the most common types in any case. the economy and directness of its message. 42 Richter monuments there is little or no correlation of epigram (n. The images' most striking characteristics. The inscribed block probably rested atop two or three steps.. Schmaltz.EARLY GREEKGRAVE EPIGRAMSAND MONUMENTS 21 portraits on classical relief stelai and specific biographical data in the epigrams. perhaps i oo m high.40 They have demonstrated that epigrams were integral parts of their monuments. D'Onofrio (n. 44 Cf Ho . Ridgway. no. Ridgway (n. The typologies of Attic gravestones are well enough established to allow us to reconstruct the monument's general appearance. We can achieve better results by comparing epigrams and monuments at a still deeper level. Hurwit. 36 assumes a lyre-shaped and figured scene'.capital with a sphinx. The regularity of canonical Attic stelai from which we can reconstruct Tettichos' marker also provides a key to their meaning. Soc. i. who retains his youth and beauty even in death. Pollitt. JHS xcii (I972) f 236 Homf. however. 'Das BC (Ithaca and London 1985) 197-202. Schmaltz (n. It is certain that they intended to portray the deceased as the embodiment of a well-established type.41 On this surface a roughly life-sized male figure representing Tettichos would be painted or more likely sculpted in low relief. i) 104. Humphreys (n. i n 4. 64 f.Ertrageder Forschungcxcii (Darmstadt1983) I I9. thus capping a steep. Above Tettichos' head a finial would cap the stele. warriors would not have worn their hair so long or gone naked. Marker and epitaph could convey the same message in much the same way. E. B. Class. 0o40 m at the base) facing the same direction as the inscription and tapering inwardly a bit toward the top. Einfache und fruihe Formen des has especiallyinfluencedmy thinking with his emphasis religions antiques'.39 Students of the archaic material have probed more deeply into the appearance of the inscription and its location on the monument. Richter (n. Kaca d' Homere a 423-43. motion. Vernant. a stele would stand 2-00 to 3o00 m high. BCH xcvi (Princeton 1977) 12 f. 40 Cf. Woodhead. (n. (Budapest 1984) 167-73. iI). H. 436-41. three. etc. Annuairedu Collegede France lxxvii 41 (I977) on epigrams as texts meant to be performed orally. J. xxii 52-76 (with Tyrt. Clairmont. W. a horse with rider. He would appear either as a naked.. J. o0W). and. M. above.or four-tiered base. ii). Proc. no. no. 39) 149-89. beardless youth holding a lance. and the figure's undecorated background would be brightly painted. 203. 6). Griechische Grabre. Gravestone epigram and (Mainz view of Greek art (Yale 1974) 12-23. Fondation (1972) 505 f. and its oral character as a text meant to be read aloud by passersby.. as CEG 18 illustrates clearly. 218-28. some parts of the body. Daux. 43 B. 'Etude comparee des Hardtxiv (1968) 1-26 Denkmal-Epigramm'.viithcongr. but A. The portraits of the dead are generic images that belong to the same category as the kouros. style in Greeksculpture G. beauty. 34 with pl. St. Tettichos' marker can again serve as a paradigm. such observations remain so vague and superficial they can be applied to prose as well as verse inscriptions. 38.e. strength. even though the inscribed stone is the only surviving fragment of a complex piece and shows no artistic embellishment beyond the inscription itself. 00-480 11 griechischen Epigramms. For example. long-haired. anatomical detail. 'Steles fun6raireset epigrammes'. Fed. 43) 49-59. Internat. The conventional iconography of funerary art and the conventions of encomium in the inscriptions can be shown to exhibit a high degree of formal parallelism. Raubitschek. etc. in which viewers could recognize a visualization of the ethical archetypes found in literary encomium.

The man was dead and gone. 46 For horseson stelai. but ratherevidence for the importance of funeraryritual in the 45 Ridgway (n. p.an avnp ayoxOs. would recalltypical pursuitsof &yacoi and suggest the dead man in had participated them. or even the creationof a living man's image at all. U. 'New Greek grave epigrams'. For the main image as comparee'. 24. III. DAY Stele portraits. Willemsen (n.Still.However. cf. M. armor). 45). However.45 Although they are perhaps more truly biographical. 44). 'ttude However. Moreover. Some of a monument'ssecondarydecorationwould explicitly reinforcethe portrayalof the deceasedas a praiseworthytype.49By a kind of visualassertiveness. with the warningsofD'Onofrio (n. und Privatgrabmal klassischen im Athen (Diss. differentiated the presenceor absenceof a beardand perhapsalso by clothing. 44) 23. I8) 148-57. 6). Schilardi. cf. 47 For ornamentation as a 51 Exceptions in art would be the Hoplite relief in prized quality in archaic artas in poetry.47 The same can be saidof a monument'ssiting. 48 Cf Jeffery (n. The aristocrats'desire for ostentation triggered legal limits [Malibu 1984]). grave marker as substitute. lxxviii (1978) equestrian. cf. below. they nearly all belong to either an athlete (discus.and in the Attic countrysidesepulchral kouroi and koraiproliferated the road east and south from Athens to Sounion.. A.48Markerslined the roadsin cemeteries outsidethe gatesof Athens. THE EPITAPH AND THE FUNERAL The parallelismbetween grave monuments and epitaphs would not be considered an accident in archaicthought..and lxxvi (1976) 367-76. Mastrokostas. a monument'ssiting and decorationcould presentthe deceasedas an ayaeos. and the Getty relief (.g.50 This state of idealized death could not be portrayed as a biographicalmoment like actualdeathin battle. evidence about the hoplite relief'. 451-66. but the markerand epitaphprovided a substitute for him. CEG 50. chiton.).sphinxes. unlike kouroi. 159 f. e. as an aristocraticmanifesto. seemsonly to have createdan ostentatiousframework for the portrait.. while various attributes might point to the dead man's achievements. 23.. This did not involve the depiction of Tettichos as he had been in life. Stupperich. W. Richter (n. one of their ideal dead. B.. 50 For art as substitution. hoplites and athletes). no. on bases. R. E. shield. D'Onofrio (n. 43) 167.viz. D'Onofrio.Hurwit (n. lions.cf. floral crown) or a warrior (spear. and assertedhis right to that status. Westfilische Wilhelms-Universitit 1977) 71-86. elaborate all finials. 18) 136-8. oil flask. if it is genuine. I.46 Much of a grave marker'sdecoration. Wallace. cf. artificially created by verbal and visual motifs any contemporary would recognize from with literaryencomium and commemorativeart. ABSA lxxxii [1987] 266 f. armor. Kroisos'monument.. then. Hurwit (n. 18) 167 distinguisheskouroi (images of epic heroism) from stelai (civic virtues. I) 99 f. only two ages are represented..bulls. Staatsbegribnis and figs 68. AION. e Stor. monumental form that representedto the community of the living what he had now become. For the monument the unlikely event it portrays a wounded warrior (cf. these abstractfloraldesigns. II) 33 (no. on funerary display. Phoenix xxiv (1970) 98. cf. 'Eis oXltnrr6vrcov &va3rlntaiv eEAEcov irrruvplicov&pXaiKcov Xrlv 'AvayAvrrTc'v wrrapa puacrov'. permanent.e. 44) 69.51It was a stateof moralandphysicalperfection. 198 f. and other beasts. Gombrich. contemporpreviousacquaintance arieswould also bring to the monumentsa senseof socialoccasionto which we must now turn. For the arcaico'.and unusuallycomplex arrangements betraya desire to capture the eyes of wayfarersand overawe them with an impressionof wealth and power. Arch.then. for example. i. . M. 154. Ridgway (n.stood along besidethis route. 163 f. To return to Tettichos' monument and summarizeour results:both the gravestone and epitaphdescribedhim as an ideal warrior. exhibit indications of age and achievement that seem genuinely biographical. that is. sword. boxing thong. Vernant (n. ibid. for instance. viii (1986) I75-93. the prime of life and youth. overlooking it from an elevatedposition at the edge of a tumulus.AAA vii (I974) 215-28. M.however. they reduced the complexity of a man to a simple. 'Early Ridgway [n. cf. stelai also representthe deceasedas a type. 43) 167-9 notes that depictions of activity on a few stelaialso fall into types. 126 and 128. cf. Death of a hero Humphreys (n. D. 43] 166 n. D'Onofrio (n. sez. by and hairstyle. Horsemenand chariotson the lower panelof a stele or the faces of a base block. 49 E.22 J. Frel. II) I05-9. 'Un 'Programma' figurativo tardo Meditations a hobby on horse(London I963) i-i I.

cf.First. etc. Humphreys (n. yEpaipFTE ptV. 44).55 the in praise ways poets. 54 E. Cf. Hym. 57 On the significanceof this expression. For the poorly attested genre of funerarypraisepoetry. I2) 43-6.52 could echofunerary for Thus.27-32 W. However. L. e. ceremony poetry might and at of theepivos and. driving them into confusion with inescapablehand. So the gods too thought it right to give a good mortal (i. Thebestof the Achaeans (Baltimoreand London I979) I75-7 compares Hom. 8.to the goddesses'songs.. 12.cf. Kurke. elaborateprocessof the funeralfirstdefinedin the public's the and also that for Physically. Achilles).. By means of a metaphor.the pilingup of a tumulus erectingof a marker. .but for strangers of in cult. The Greekway of death(Ithaca I985). 26) 199-202..Theirsong is imagined in Achilles' lifetime arereproduced the thepraises whichwerefirstsungduring and perpetuating linesof the ode (46-56). preceding partly to establisha precedentfor his correspondingpraiseof Nikokles.even afterdeath. 146-55 and Pindar's sense of an For social events as ode's performance as KcOuOS.the funeral had so powerful of as wereoften conceived imaginatively archaic mind. For stelai treatedas corpses. xxiii and Od. 1028. Kurke (n. For the mound and marker. Garland.g. M. Loraux (n. I4) 262-70. could had of as and mightbe bathed annointedjust thecorpse been. Od.Homonecans. thought and either a narrative as of their associated workwithritual social Poetsfrequently occasions. who won the Dorian parsleyin the Isthmian valley. G. Princeton 1987) 45-5I. as the Muses'chariotrushesto sing the pvapa of Nikokles the boxer. Nagy. repetitions. AncSoc xv-xvii (I984-6) 5-22. qeOipEvov TO Kai VUVqp6peI Aoyov. For the exclusion of 'Kaxoi' from elaborate burial. Tyrt. s5 Cf..EARLY GREEKGRAVE EPIGRAMS AND MONUMENTS 23 The commemorationof dead&yaOoi. EaAO'V yE coTa Kai upvois e0av 5i861pV. Vernant I977 (n.57 ECauTai -TE MoiaaCov pva&a TTuypaxOu KeAaS'cYaai. Od. chapter 7. deadwereheldupassocial aspart include boththe singingof praise The and status achievements.cf. xxiv. II. II.54 of and sinceit wasconsidered dueonly of &yaeoi a guarantor KXoS.Carey (n.g. 53) 6 f.e.. appa NIKOKXAOS 6s ilcapiOV v va&vro Eri CrEXivcov' TEplKTiovas AcopicovEAaXEV ?VIKaae 85 TwOTE Kai KE1VOS &avpas acpUKTaXEpi K\OVEcoV. Ap. for in the past the man defeated local competitors.cf. a dead relative of the poem'smainlaudandus (59-65): e8o0' jpa KaiaOavaTrois. Burkert. W. this holds true. R. cf.anencomium thedeadmightliterally praise poetry.by P. The rituallament in theGreektradition (CambridgeUniv.56 Pindar dirge praising gives us the text of this mythical. Pindar's OIKONOMIA: the houseas organizingmetaphor the in odesof Pindar(Diss. S. xxiv 58-64 and suggests Pindar reflectsepic tradition'sself-consciousnessof the Iliad'sorigin in the Muses' lament for Achilles. conventional analogies for poetry. it Pindar's of Forexample. it and its restored beauty thepyrereduced to a permanent and cleansing layingout of thecorpse their that the state. I974) I I f.andofferings foodanddrink werelikewise structured I be givenasin thefuneral. 56 Cf. Do honor to him. cf. and R. 26) 202. however. In the presenttime as well..in literature least. V.53shallarguebelowthatepitaphs regularly who had not been presentand would not the to memorialize funeral. xxiii. eye thesubstitute thedeceased existed in themonument epitaph. Alexiou.we mustlook ata virtual compendium archaic participate thefamily's in and on thesematters Pindar thenbrieflyat the monuments.thatotherformsof commemoration a or continuations it. Carey (n.anda marker a hold on the also of serveas a memorial the funeral.Pindarexpressesthe archaicidea that encomium for a dead man 52 Cf.'repas 0av6vTcov:an investigation into the claims of the Homeric dead'. 285 f.J. 53 Cf. trans. i) 99-104. Morris (n. Humphreys and King (n. 4) passim. shapes conception the lastthirdof Isthmian The ode'smythends over as with the Musessinginga dirge(epFivov) the pyreof Achilles. through obsequies advertised paradigms Morally. The cult of the deadis an obviousexample: stele of records. I983) 56-8. cf. Bing (Berkeley. For such rites too as analogies for praise poetry. in ritualoften appears these them or an imaginary Funerary scriptof the songsperformed. Garland. xxiv.

33. while horsemen and chariots on other stelai or bases may represent the ekphora or funeral games.Trp6y6cv 86 pv&o-ris. 55. above.13-16 (with 46-50) and Bacch. yepas Oavovrcov). in T. it would perform a dramatic mimesis of his dirge. 63 D. 58 For Pindar as a gauge of archaictraditions. are our main concern.). a relative clause narrating great achievement. AE-ro. 6 cop6s 8' 6 TC-ros.cf. 5. 4) 83 with pi.. AncientGreekart and P.g. PMG 531. In this context. Bacch.3: as an epitaph.. a more ostentatious monument would betoken a more impressive funeral. would not simply narrate Nikokles' funeral. the OpifvoS. Ford. cf.61 he would in fact be reflecting the reality of the archaic milieu. selection. is his grave marker. just as it had earlier for Achilles. If Pindar were thinking of epigrams here. n. 62 Cf above. A. However. 6' OKTrOSNagy (eds). built this tomb of his brother [---]. Loraux (n. Greekandrelatedpottery. Figueira and G. 18-9.86 f. this poetic 'monument' contains encomiastic forms commonly found in epitaphs.24 J. however. a public calamity Praximenes. even reiterating. But in the sea he perished. above. 8. N. 625-600): huloO TxAaaiaFo MEVEKpaTEos rO6E Oa&lta Oicaveos yEvEaV. but cf. Moon (ed. 4. For a similar juxtaposition of concepts.62 Thus. CEG 143 is an early example of the narrative type (circular built-tomb. A. cf. Hom. . c. a song of praise'. aesthetic'. 46. but cf.3. The people made it for him. Besides its brevity and content. BICS xxii 60 (Heidelberg 1969) I40. Some are stylized narratives of funerary ritual. 86aouv Yi\Aos' AA''vi Tr6v-ro yS yap Trpo6. 59) takes uvavla literally as a grave marker. n.). 151-4. cf. epitaphs could provide them with a poetic voice that perpetuates it verbally just as Pindar does in giving Nikokles' marker a voice in his song. E. for equestrianscenes.Richter (n. Ancient dam 1984) 314-28. B. the due of dead ayaOoi. This is the tomb of Menekrates.4. 'Vases for the dead. singing this passage. 44-54. N. Io. 3. G. DAY and his grave monument are analogous means of recording. A reader could envisage the builders also as dirge singers. Fowler. for the capital. 0. AllardPiersonseriesv (Amster- ments that memorialize ritual support Thummer. Although monuments could themselves recall the funeral. cf. Enc. For dedications.. 7. C. e.. -rT6E 8' acUrTi 8apoS Erroiei.II. Theognisof Megara(Baltimore and London I rTralvos. with many men struggling to raise a huge mound over a hero's grave. but many markers were also decorated with explicitly funerary motifs. set off as a discrete unit in Pindar's ode. Kurtz and Boardman (n. pp.73 f. Tlasias' son. 750-400 BC'. which in the first plae involved a funeral. G.64 The epitaphs.58 The compact epinician ode for Nikokles (lines 62-5) is presented as his dirge. J. an Oianthean by birth. fig. coming here from his fatherland. and passim.60 Furthermore. Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte ii Thummer (n.59 A chorus.a. one notes an imperative commanding praise (yEpaipeTE. Kurtz. Grave monuments supplied visible evidence of the full execution of the y?paS eavovTo)v.181-4. 4) I86. 30.interpretthe last phrase. Morris (n. Corcyra. his funeral. N. together with the people. 5. (I975) 36 n. and for the sphinx as a perpetualmourner.I3.79-88 contains a grave monument. Vermeule (n. 7 f. for he was revered proxenos of the people. 8 f.'their rituallament is 1985) 89-95. A. Pindarquotes an epigram at in W. The emphasis on the monument's construction does justice to its impressive architecture. Other metaphors of songs as monu- 64 For the plaques. an Attic 59 Cf. Significantly. 1. Brijder (ed. Kohnken. but it also calls to mind a Homeric funeral. in H. 1. W. I2) 44 with 366 n. 20 B 5. 'Gods and descendantsof Aiakos in Pindar's eighth Isthmian ode'. 66 f. Pindar calls the dirge a pva. For Theognis' poetry as a pvilIa meant to be read iconography (Wisconsin 1983) 159-70. II. 'The centaur'ssmile: Pindarand the archaic Cf.EvFOS SapCoaov 6E KaOCOV po[() v--]. Such mourners also appear on the sides of a stele capital. (cf. cf. cf. the two central verses take on the character of the more restrained part of ritual lament. I ). xvi 456 f.. mourners with their hands raised to their heads in grief. L.63 Athenians of Tettichos' time might attach to a built-tomb plaques depicting mourners gesturing in this way and lamenting. Nikokles' eulogy. cf. Thummer. 8' a'-rTi y[aia]s acrro TraTpisoS EvO6v lrpatp1EvEs a\v 86Pa[o]i Tr68E orapa KaoiyvE-rolo TrovEOE. and TrOT-. and others are a kind of script of funerary lament or eulogy. 4) 205. CEG 2) and envisages an inscription at 0. 61 H. Simonides.

Attica. Richter sea in consolationscf. which is in effect an abbreviated narrative of one aspect of the funeral (base with painted stele. I. but it also describes ritual lament. 68 Cf I. viz.EARLY GREEKGRAVE EPIGRAMS AND MONUMENTS 25 praising Menekrates' public service and lamenting his loss at sea. Similarly.69 Chairedemos is praised for his goodness and youthfulness. n. An earlier elegiac version of the formula makes its original funerary connotation even clearer (base for stele or kouros. 5io-500):66 Auvocxal vOaE ai|pa T raTrp iEoV eITrEwEKEV. xvi 132. CEG I14 (O]pgvovWIeKa). 38. c. . Thessaly. cf. lamenting greatly that he died prematurely. and the erection of a marker. 17. These epitaphs achieved the effect produced by. this or me as a) marker. c. For (n. fig. Attica. 56) 95. but reduced to its bare essentials. possibly 457.. Just as the monument symbolizes the rendering of the yEpaSeavovrcov to a deserving man. 8-13 W. For the connotation of KTcrrairl-ll. no. the inscription records Semon's performance of a vital part of the yipas for Lyseas. | [-rT]TO '8 ETaipoi I apa XEavpapEa aTEvaXOVTES ay[a]eov KETrap?pov I E|ETAEECaa[V]. KT?.. moaning heavily. it contains a fossilized echo of the funeral. For Kq6os. which the addition of a Homeric tag in CEG 40 brings back to life (stele base. typical scenes of prothesis and funeral games. xxiv 59 (compare Pind. CEG 117 records a mother's lament (base. Whoever reads it narrates the funeral Amphichares performed for Chairedemos. and they completed it in one day. cf. Od.. 12. seems to quote a praising dirge. 66 Peek summarizes the type: pvflpa (aofila) Eurip. FGE 484-7. lamentation.CEG (n. 8. an epitaph. Tyrt. 7) 65 Tr6' like. c. in epitaphs. I20. 26 with 29. cf.67 Even if the composer copied the formula mechanically from other epitaphs.27 W. c. and his companions piled up this mound. mourning his good boy. Rh.. below... Nagy (n. 480-450): ' Tr]6' &aaIrTp A1OKAal eTaa-raC 'EXEvaTsI [pva&pxa OE [TroAAa& yo]6oaa OT' av6pos 6 rov &yao6s. p Here (over) Lyseas his father Semon set up (sc. 530-520):68 TOTrIKAEOS iTCralbS Aapaa|IaIcTpaTo MVd&8E gLa | C rEloaivaXS KCaTE0EKE'T-O yap yepas crrTi Oav6vTo[s]. 26-7. Attica. Archil. depicts Lyseas'special status. CEG 14): I XalpE8'po TO8E acpa Tra-rEp TEr[TE[oE ]av6vTos ayacxv TraTSa 'AvqlXap<(E>S 6J|oqpup6pEvo[s. or the wrrhvostaken similarly. in exchange for his good deeds. i66. Peisianax set down here the marker of Epikles' son Damasistratos. For death at (n. for this is the due of (him) dead.. CEG 53 illustrates the most common of all formulas. acrTlaEv (caTrlca) 6 8Giva T-rC 8ivt (epof). I ). a good man. His father Amphichares set up this marker of the dead Chairedemos. an early dipylon vase with its sketchy. above. cf.cf. encomium. not in historical detail of course. 6Aopu'popatmay mean 'mourn' in general. the epigram recalls the three typical features of funerals found in CEG I39 and I43. For a passageascribedto Anacreon.57 f. then. With its careful choice of words. 896..). pp. c. say. 69 Hom.. 500): . which also describes a civic funeral and cf.65 CEG 139 from Troezen offers a parallel (column for ?statue. His mother Echenais put up this monument for Diokleas. Fipyov &vvT' . CEG 9. 560-550. 67 The stele Cf Friedlander i). 159 f.

78.. the more it can reflect funerary song. Kai y6vcov &pcbTrcov. D'Onofrio (n. 'An Olympic victor by the name of Phrasikleia's worth.71 Elsewhere. xi 76. it and the first persons that are definitely anonymous may echo threnodic elegy. and CEG ii6. Kerameikos.26 J. 'Early Greek -rat). . or . 5 (I955) viii 580o) a grave monument (Od. youthful marriageability is a woman's most valuable quality.. and in aristocratic thought. . a The firstpersontransforms narrativeinto a dramatictext: a readerassumesKosina'srole as she recalls the funeral she performed and seems to quote the praises sung in the dirge. 40). a memorial for many even in the future. cf. The formula i &aoE'voias 22-7. however. c.. Cf. The words ovola and KEKAi'aoiiai show that Phrasikleia's worth and her lament are preserved for the future in oral as praise poetry (KAeos) they are in her statue. I shall always be called a maiden. IKopEKEKAeaolai Icaii. L. W. . Raubitschek (n. elegy... i68-72. c. the anonymous first person is now confirmed by avic-xai in a new piece and by CEG5I (stele base. but in others firstMerenda in Attica. 525-500): h-rroSpo6olo ea6ya [Tr]|Aash 9ooiva huoa-raTav &v8pa a|[ya]e[6]v. the readeris allowed to speakthe dirge in propriapersona. having received this name instead of marriage as my lot from the gods. Argos. cf Od. symposium.-] ... Death in exchange for marriage is a motif of ritual lament. 52) 120-2. . c. for K?MOS. and public festival'.g. 142 (TrO6 a&aa 74 Lewis (n. vii 87. rvOaOaO be used of epic poetry (II. . 'The can F classificationof Greek lyric poetry'. ad loc. who denies the existence of threnodic elegy. 6[O] I lament as I behold this marker of the dead youth Smikythos. with n. the tomb or marker is the complement of Eilil or referent of !P. notes 8 and 31. 525):72 --- ? -Tro-T' 'OAUvTrVIKOS ]KAEs TOr6 h6 E aE'TEp [. e. I Once considered impossible in an inscribed epitaph. whoever readsone aloud plays the role of a praise poet. In the simplest... Harvey. | avri personverbshelp createan echo of funerarysong. lament because before his time. GE85). below. i) 65-70. Kosina.s. ya?lo Trapa 0eov TOOUTO I| ax5a' ovopa. buried Hysematas. 540-530): oai[pa Qpaa'lKXeiaS. a good man. 3I).JHS cvi (1986) Kai 71 Cf. Readers play the role of Phrasikleia.. paceE. once an Olympic victor . Hansen. I.. DAY All praisingepitaphsare in a sense mimetic. II... E. Bowie.-kles.. Cf. Alexiou (n.. in CEG 136 (Doric capital. Kai rroAoiS pvaa&pa | [Ea]oplevols. emphasize this mimetic quality with first-personforms.] Cf. i8) i66 f. CQ n. A. 73 I Above. aEKEK? Thgn. brought to life in the kore that seems to utter her own lament and eulogy. Some.6Ao]u popat h6vEK' &ho [pos] . P.c. The farther a first-person form moves from the primitive objetparlant. CEG 24 may be an example (basewith kore. who destroyed his friends' good hope. cf. whose [marker] here his mother [erected] . CEG 43 is clearlyan example. (I am or this is the) marker ofPhrasikleia. A. CEG 64 and 13 4.. Even if the mother is the subject of Xopu'popai in CEG 43. "-kles" '.although only the endsof the hexametersremainof threedistichs(basefor columnsandstele. CEG 356.. beside the race track.74 Certainly the content and emotional 70 72 for For lament.xxii 305. 5IO ):73 o iKTipO TrpOoOpo[v] I TOral8oT568 apa I Oav6vTOS ZI1KU I hos TE(qiAov6AE|aEIv EATr' ayaOev. with io6 (if Homeric parallels [CEG. Kadmos xiii (1974) i6o. suggest ajpxa riTvCratis equally assertive). 245 f.. Kerameikos.70 Her epitaph is that poetry. also Friedlinder (n.

most critics interpret these epitaphs as straightforward expressions of rr6oos for the deceased. but the warnings of R. 89 f. '6v6SpO6SV -r6OE 6v TrOT' pxoSiaIOS "EKrcop. 52).. might say .. significant encomiastic motifs.80The idea has merit but is unlikely to be literallytrue. they become the praise song which the uninscribed aoila evokes spontaneously in Homer. 78 For II. 175-7. 40). Verbs of grieving more often appear as second-person commands like oiKTlpov in CEG 27 and 28. Kassel. vuv p' 6[Xo]|pvup6a7eco pv['Ip]|a86 TnXEIp[a6ve]JoS. aoipa TrraXaKaTaTorEvrlcaroS. above. in a tone of emotional restraint. and Nagy (n. sorrow. I . just as Pindar's chorus did as it sang the epfivoi for Achilles and Nikokles in Isthmian8. perhaps because an audience rather than a speaker is envisaged. Nothing external to the text of the epigram is demanded. even of a later generation.78 If Isthmian 8 is any indication. CONCLUSION In Homer. 44). Friedlinder (n. 4) Gentili (n. 34.let him now lament me. s. cf.. with Lausberg (n. . 4) passim. Many epitaphs are miniature encomia that do the same. 77 At Od. II) 27 ff. 4.' &ptiarEvovTa KOTEKTavE Thus sometime a person. shining Hector slew'. xxiv seems to 59 oTicrp' 6Ao<pvp6vFvai but apply to those singing the emotional yo6os. a tomb the Achaeans build for a fallen comrade might stir passers-by to recite his praises (II. lamentation. 74).75 The hearer is invited to join in that Tr6oos. Passers-by are asked to reiterate 75 Cf. 27. vit. 2. The vocal aspect of funerary ritual is thus imagined as continuing into the future as oral praise poetry for the deceased. a consciousness of their praising function remained alive.belongs to the past. 80 Cf. Whoever was not presentwhen they carriedme out in death. even after encomiastic motifs in private epitaphs tended to fossilize as the inscribing of gravestones in verse spread beyond the aristocracy from the later sixth century. for the confusion of terms for lament.g.EARLY GREEKGRAVE EPIGRAMS AND MONUMENTS 27 restraint of the epitaphs are appropriate to eOpivos. cf. Anyone reading them aloud plays the role of praise singer. and so a mimesis of funerary ritual is performed. Since pity. vii 89 f. n. and Young (n.79 The fact that epitaphs also recall funerary ritual suggests some of them might contain quotationsof genuine threnody. as CEG 159 seems to indicate (Thasos. 12) 42-56.215. When read aloud. I977 (n. .-Plut. etc. but . are requested. cf. CEG 13. cf. 84. Loraux (n. as an epigram. (This is or I am the) memorial of Telephanes.. but Raubitschek(n. Skiadas(n. Homer's association of the tomb of an ayaeos with oral encomium reflects the way both memorialized the dead by creating archetypal substitutes for them. c. as he fought heroically. Morris (n. Raubitschek (n.Anyone reading these inscriptions takes on the role of one singing the dirge. 19) 39 n. et poes. I). The funeral. I48. Horn. only that it be heard and repeated.above. 76 For this as a prototype of the dialogue epigram (e. 68. I) 54-6. i) 532 n. Alexiou (n. 79 For the democratization of burial practices in Athens. 22. ZPE li (i983) IO f.. They seem to create an especially strong impression of the epigram as a mimesis of song. no. 24. Harvey (n. 340-2.but presumably only with some seems more reasonable to interpret oiKTIpov and the rest with reference to the epfvos. Vernant 1976 (n.77 Each of these epitaphs presents. vii 87. 40) 5 f. 28. 'Dialoge mit Statuen'. 50o): [6]cTis OT [[Xoa]j|pEp6vME rrap[E|T]u'vXav' O[av] 6vTa. Vermeule (n..: 'This is the tomb of a man who died of old. CEG I20).v.): Kai TTOTE EiTrrI-aKai 6oly6vcov -TS avOpcb rcov . Ps. 56) 28. whom once. here represented by the ekphora. 50).

DAY WabashCollege Indiana 47933 Crawfordsville . W.Tettichos'epitaphlikewise substitutes a dirge.not of recreatingsomething in detail. These are not factualreportsof funeralsor quotationsof threnodies.Narration and mimesis are processes. JOSEPHW. DAY the ritual lament in the present. Isthmian imitates a dirge but remainsan epinician. but did not destroy the integrity of the thing it shaped. it adoptsthe elegiac form that was alreadybecoming entrenchedas the meter for monuments in Attica. however. but it remainsvery much for an epigram.28 J. read an epitaphthat narrates aspectsof funeraryritualor one that becomes a mimesis of funeralsong.Forexample. but of substitutingfor it a selection of typical featuresof the class to which it belongs. but they cannot fulfill their obligation literally. They can. These epigrams are the artificial creationsof an archaicway of thinking that shapedmemorializations dead ayaooi as funerary of 8 ritual.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful