Andrej Petrovic

Archaic Funerary Epigram and

Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia*
From its very beginnings Greek epigram displays literary features associated with
epic language, metre and motifs. A glance through some 460 verse inscriptions
from the period between the eighth and fifth century BC reveals a wealth of lexe-
mic, morphological, dialectal, syntactical and even narrative elements, which
early Greek epigram shares with the Iliad and the Odyssey: b epigram, whose lit-

* I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of the conference, the beacons of Greek
filoxenia, dear friends and editors of this volume, Ioanna Karamanou and Athanasios Efstathiou
for their support, criticism and patience, as well as my thanks to the audience at the Ionian
University in Corfu for their suggestions and observations. As always, I am deeply grateful to
Ivana Petrovic for her critique, encouragement and the many insightful remarks which she
provided on several drafts of this paper. My earlier Durham colleague, Don Lavigne, contributed
greatly to this paper in many ways, in particular concerning the form of the argument. The
anonymous reviewers have both corroborated this paper and have helpfully suggested several
improvements and clarifications: I am indebted to all of them, but I should like to highlight in
particular an Italian reader’s knowledgeable contribution to my comments on scholia.
Finally, I owe much to serendipity: a chance encounter of Jenny Strauss Clay and Ivana
Petrovic at a Berlin conference made the author of these lines realize that Jenny and I were
working on exactly the same Iliadic material simultaneously. Even if we relied on different
approaches, the findings of our papers agree and complement each other to a great extent: I am
deeply indebted to the generosity of Jenny Strauss Clay, who shared her persuasive and refined
paper (‘Homer’s Epigraph: Iliad 7.87– 91’, forthcoming in Philologus) with me in advance of its
publication and suggested several improvements to mine; I acknowledge my debt to this cha-
riessa amoibē in the main text and the footnotes.
� Abbreviations of epigraphic corpora follow the guidelines of SEG. The standard edition of
verse inscriptions of this period is CEG �; DAA, FH, GV and LSAG (with Poinikastas: http://
poinikastas.csad.ox.ac.uk) remain useful resources for the study of early Greek verse in-
scriptions. Much work remains to be done on the intersection and interaction between epos and
epigram; here I am pointing out a selection of the most influential and useful studies: Bowie
���� discusses narrative traits in early Greek epigram and their similarities with epos; Gutz-
willer ���� discusses Homeric echoes in heroic epitaphs of the classical age; Skiadas ����
analyzed the influence of Homer on later literary epigram; Harder ���� is concerned with epic
legacy and the appropriations of Trojan myths within Hellenistic epigrams; Trümpy ���� in-
vestigates the language and dialect of early dedicatory and sepulchral verse inscriptions; Tsa-
galis (����a, �� – ���) explores the imagery of Attic sepulchral epigram of the fourth century
BC, also in the light of epic influences; Muth/Petrovic ���� investigate the impact of Homeric
ideology on archaic monumental representations and epigrams.
46 Andrej Petrovic

erary history starts in the last quarter of the eighth century BC,_ and epos, the
oldest orally transmitted genre, seem to have been closely connected in multiple
ways during the first three centuries of Greek literary history.`
In this paper I shall explore the early traces of intertextual references be-
tween the two genres and collect remnants of epigrammatic language explicitly
recognized as such by the ancient commentators of the epics. Then, I shall inves-
tigate aspects of the appropriation of epic passages in the funerary epigrams of
the archaic period. Did passages from the Homeric epics which were understood
in antiquity as ‘epigrammatic’ leave traces on the inscriptional material of the
archaic period? My aim is, therefore, to look into the surviving epigrammatic ma-
terial of the archaic period, with the purpose of throwing more light on elements
of distinctly Homeric (as opposed to the more general, and infinitely more elusive
epic) tradition identifiable in early Greek sepulchral epigram.
However, there are several underlying methodological issues which impose
limits to the scope of the conclusions one can reach: if two entities, clearly dis-
cernible as separate (as epigram and the Homeric epics are), demonstrate the
same properties at the same time (e. g. formulas), and possess the same features
(e. g. hexameter), need we analyze their notional influence or their notional con-
currence? Did they impinge on each-other or did they both draw from the same
reservoir, an epic reservoir once fresh and luscious, now dry and dusty? The like-
liest answer seems to be that both possibilities may have occurred, even if com-
plex difficulties associated with contingencies of early Greek literature hinder
any simple solution – especially so, when it comes to the relationship between
lost epic traditions, Homeric epics, and archaic sepulchral epigram.
Therefore, I shall investigate their marked, that is, distinctive features, by fo-
cusing first on Homeric passages with traits of verse inscriptions and then on
verse inscriptions, in particular sepulchral, with distinctive Homeric features,

� Häusle (����, �� ��) labelled it for that reason as ‘the oldest literary genre of European history’.
� Allusions to the epics occur as early as in eighth-century BC verse inscriptions; see CEG ���
(‘Dipylon vase’), CEG ��� (‘Ischia cup’) and the discussion in Fantuzzi/Hunter ����, ��� – ��.
� On the genesis, fixation and transformations of Homeric texts in the archaic period, see Nagy
����, �� – ��. On the alleged formulaic character of early Greek epigram, see Baumbach/A. Pet-
rovic/ I. Petrovic ����, � – �; on methodological approaches in the study of epigrammatic recep-
tion, see Fantuzzi/Hunter ����, ch. � and Hunter ����, ���.
� The situation is as complex in the case of the reception of Homer in non-inscriptional early
Greek poetry: for a discussion, see the bibliographical survey in Giangrande ����. In a recent
talk at Oxford (Stesichorus conference, March ����), Adrian Kelly argued that it is only with Ste-
sichorus that we find the first unambiguous case of literary reception of the Iliad and the Odys-
sey, whilst epic traits identifiable in earlier authors stem from a shared pool of epic traditions.
For an insightful discussion, see Scodel ����.
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 47

as far as these can be found. The reason for the focus on sepulchral epigram as
object of the present investigation is first and foremost the nature of genres rec-
ognized in epics as ‘epigrammatic’ and the corresponding epigrammatic material
surviving from the archaic period, as ought to become immediately obvious.

a. Epigrams in Homer
The history of Greek epigram is inextricably intertwined with epic, also because
both the Iliad and the Odyssey contain passages, six in number, which were read
in antiquity with epigrammatic conventions and functions in mind. In 1975 Onofrio
Vox gathered and analyzed five such passages from the Iliad. Ancient commentators
explicitly labelled all five as ‘epigrammatic’, identifying them variously as ‘epi-
grams’ and ‘epigrammatic’ or even using the generic term ‘epikedeia’ sometimes
used of funerary epigrams. In 2005 David Elmer added to the material assembled
by Vox an Odyssean passage relating Ich-Rede of Athena disguised as Mentes,
which was also labelled as an ‘epigram’ by a scholiast (1.180 – 81).
Of the six epic ‘epigrams’ three come from teichoskopia scenes (Il. 3.156 – 58;
3.178 – 80; 3.200 – 02). These textual segments, along with the newcomer, ‘the
epigram’ of Athena/Mentes, are in form and function closely reminiscent of epi-

� For explicit references in the scholia, see below. See also Scodel ����; Dinter (����, ��� – ��)
discusses further ‘epitaphic gestures’ in the Iliad and points out that the portrayal of Iphion’s
death adheres to epigraphic conventions (Il. ��.��� – ��).
� See Elmer ����: ‘Helen’s epigrams’ followed by ancient labels in square brackets: (a)
Il. �.��� – �: ο� ν��εσις Τρ�ας κα� �ϋκν��ιδας �Aχαιο�ς/ τοι�δ� ��φ� γυναικ� πολ�ν χρ�νον
�λγεα πάσχειν· / α�ν�ς �θαν�τ�σι θε�ς ε�ς �πα �οικεν· [τρ�γωνον �π�γρα��α πρ�τος ��ηρος
γ�γραφε τ� “ο� ν��εσις Τρ�ας”· �φ’ ο�ου γ�ρ τ�ν τρι�ν στ�χων �ρξ��εθα, �δι�φορον. Scholia
AT]; (b) Il. �.��� – ��: ο�τ�ς γ� �Aτρεΐδης ε�ρ� κρε�ων �Aγα���νων,/ ��φ�τερον βασιλε�ς τ� �γαθ�ς
κρατερ�ς τ� α�χ�ητ�ς·/δα�ρ α�τ� ���ς �σκε κυν�πιδος, ε� ποτ� �ην γε. [�ς �ν� λ�γ� �πιγρα��ατικ�ς
α�τ�ν δηλο�. Scholium T]; (c) Il. �.��� – ��: ο�τος δ� α� Λαερτι�δης πολ��ητις �δυσσε�ς, / �ς
τρ�φη �ν δ��� �θ�κης κρανα�ς περ �ο�ση /ε�δ�ς παντο�ους τε δ�λους κα� ��δεα πυκν�. [�ν βραχε�
τ� �π�γρα��α π�ντα �χει. �ετ� �πα�νων δ� περ� �κ�στου �κτ�θεται δι� τ� προσπεπονθ�ναι τ�
�λληνικ�. Scholia AbT]. Three passages relating to Helen are found in the third book of the
Iliad, gathered within some �� lines and displaying characteristics which are shared, to an ex-
tent, by both early inscriptional and later literary epigram. These are the features due to which
Vox (����, ��) believed that the poems cannot function as epigrams qua epigrams: (i) in two of
the cases [(a) �.��� – � and (c) �.��� – ��], the epigrams were understood by critics, ancient and
modern, as ‘trigōna epigrammata’, that is, ‘three angled epigrams’: such three-liners whose po-
etic architecture allows for verses to be read in any sequence (be it a-b-c, or a-c-b, or any of the
other four possibilities, and (ii) all three have descriptive features unattested in the epigraphic
context of the early period. For a critique of these views, see Elmer ����, �� – ��.
48 Andrej Petrovic

grammatic Beischriften, as Elmer persuasively demonstrated. Such epigrams are

explanatory (this is to avoid the anachronistic use of the term ‘ekphrastic’) in na-
ture and used to accompany works of art from the archaic period onwards. I
shall leave aside the Beischriften because they were recently the subject of El-
mer’s detailed investigation and because both the epigraphic and the literary
material of the archaic period furnish only limited comparanda for this epigram-
matic subgenre.
Instead, I shall focus on the remaining two Homeric passages, both of which
can be read as funerary epigrams stemming from Hector’s imagination. These
are an epitaphion for a fallen warrior envisaged by Hector (Il. 7.89 – 90), and
an epitaphion imagined both for Hector and, as I suggest, for his widow
(Il. 6.460 – 61). I shall suggest that they both employ generic features that we rec-
ognize in archaic sepulchral epigrams for fallen warriors and ladies of high birth
respectively. Furthermore, I shall argue that certain archaic epigrams may well
have been composed with Hector’s imaginary epigrams in mind.

b. Hector as composer of a sepulchral epigram

I shall start with the most famous of the epic ‘epigrams’, an Iliadic passage in
which Hector challenges the Greeks to select the best and strongest among
them to fight a duel with him. Even though his opponent is only yet to be select-
ed and Hector’s victory uncertain, he already envisages his victory and a tomb
with a monument, which will preserve the kleos of this duel (7.84– 91):b

τ�ν δ� ν�κυν �π� ν�ας �ϋσσ�λ�ους �ποδ�σω,/ �φρα � ταρχ�σωσι κ�ρη κο��ωντες �Aχαιο� /
σ��� τ� ο� χε�ωσιν �π� πλατε� �λλησπ�ντωι./ κα� ποτ� τις ε�πησι κα� �ψιγ�νων �νθρ�πων, /
νη� πολυκλ�ϊδι πλ�ων �π� ο�νοπα π�ντον·
‘�νδρ�ς ��ν τ�δε σ��α π�λαι κατατεθνη�τος,
�ν ποτ’ �ριστε�οντα κατ�κτανε φα�δι�ος �κτωρ.’
�ς ποτ� τις �ρ�ει, τ� δ’ ���ν κλ�ος ο� ποτ’ �λε�ται.

� See Elmer ����; the closest parallels for such epigrams are those from the chest of Kypselos
(allegedly coming from the sixth century BC) quoted by Pausanias. For a recent analysis, also in
respect to their relationship to epics, see Borg ���� (with further literature). To the functional
parallels adduced by Elmer one could add interesting cases of sepulchral epigrams used as Bei-
schriften on vases of the classical period (see Gutzwiller ����, ��� – ��).
� See Elmer ����, �: ‘An overtly sepulchral character distinguishes the two epigrams of the “Hec-
torad”’.
�� For an analysis of graves (and material objects) as transmitters of historical memory (‘ar-
chaeology of the past’) in the epics, see Grethlein ����, �� – ��, with �� – �� on graves as
‘time-marks’ and spatial marks.
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 49

But his corpse I shall give back among the strong-benched vessels,/ so that the flowing-haired
Achaeans may give him due burial/ and heap up a mound upon him beside the broad passage
of Hellespont./ And some day one of the men to come will say, as he sees it,/one who in his
benched ship sails on the wine-blue water:
‘This is the mound of a man who died long ago in battle,
who was one of the bravest, and glorious Hector killed him’.
So will he speak some day, and my glory will not be forgotten.
(trans. based on Lattimore 1951)

Do these lines refer to inscribed texts? The epigrammatic character of Hector’s

words projected onto the sēma of a fallen warrior was recognized as such by an-
cient scholiasts, possibly already in the Hellenistic period: the bT scholia on the
Iliad, parts of which are of Alexandrian and parts of late antique origin, state
that Hector, as if he has already won the duel, is writing (epigraphei) his praises
on the grave. This praise, the scholiast remarks, is self-praise rather than praise
of the fallen and takes the form of an epikēdeion even before there is a corpse (τ�
�πικ�δειον πρ� το� θαν�του διατιθε�ς).bb Since epikēdeion is a term used of se-
pulchral epigrams and sepulchral elegies and dirges alikeb_ and given that the
scholiast associates it with Hector’s act of writing on the grave, it follows that
the scholiast’s contemporaries envisaged it as an actual inscribed funerary text.
Scholium T, on the other hand, picking up the first words of the ‘epigram’
(�νδρ�ς ��ν τ�δε σ��α), asserts that these words are uttered ‘in contrast to the
discovery of the script’,b` which would imply that vv. 89 – 90 do not designate
an actual inscription. However, this statement ought not to be taken at face
value, as what the scholiast is apparently attempting to do is to correct the (wide-
spread?) view that the passage indeed was a reference to an inscribed monu-

�� Cf. Dickey ����, �� – �� on the date and origin of the bT scholia; b(BCE�E�)T (ad Il. ��):
�νδρ�ς ��ν τ�δε σ��α: �ς �δη νενικηκ�ς �πιγρ�φει τ� τ�φ� †τ�ν† �πιν�κιον, ο�κ �π� τεθνηκ�τι,
�λλ’ ο�δ� γιγνωσκο��ν� τ� ��λλοντι �ονο�αχε�ν τ� �πικ�δειον πρ� το� θαν�του διατιθε�ς. See
also scholia b and T ad v. �� for a criticism of Hector’s behaviour and his characterization as
vain, boastful and barbarian.
�� See LSJ s.v., Plu. Mor. ����a � and IMEGR ��.
�� T ad ��: �νδρ�ς ��ν τ�δε σ��α: πρ�ς τ�ν τ�ν γρα���των ε�ρεσιν. I need to stress here my
debt to the anonymous reader, who pointed out deficiencies in my original (and, as I came to
realize, unlikely) interpretation of the preposition πρ�ς: ‘Credo che si debba mantenere il signi-
ficato letterale contro / in contrasto con l’invenzione della scrittura e, seguendo le indicazioni di
H. Erbse nell’ed. e nell’apparato, mettere questo scolio in rapporto con lo schol. Ariston. Il. �.
���a, relativo alle famose tavolette incise affidate da Preto a Bellerofonte (Aristonico [Aristarco]
interpreta grapsai come xesai, encharaxai, “incidere”, “intagliare”). D’altra parte, la conclusione
di Petrovic resta valida: lo schol. T Il. �.�� conferma e contrario l’esistenza dell’altra interpreta-
zione antica (secondo la quale Ettore ha in mente un vero e proprio epitymbion inciso).’
50 Andrej Petrovic

ment, as scholia bT clearly state: there would have been no need for the scholiast
to state that Hector’s epigram was composed ‘πρ�ς τ�ν τ�ν γρα���των ε�ρεσιν’,
had it not been believed, at least by some, that Hector envisaged an actual in-
scription. Hence, this remark, together with the use of the verb epigraphei in
the bT scholia, confirms that the scholiasts’ contemporaries could well conceive
Hector’s words as an actual sepulchral inscription.b
Modern scholars, too, have recognized the epigrammatic character of Hec-
tor’s utterance, conducting studies in terms of the function of the passage within
the Iliadic narrative, the origin of epigrammatic intimations in epics and genre-
specific characteristics of the passage.b In a forthcoming essay Jenny Strauss
Clay investigates epic’s awareness of writing, revisits previous scholarship and
tackles the vexed issues of literacy in Homer. Her persuasive conclusion is
that ‘[Hector’s epitaph] attests not only to the existence of writing, but also to
a sophisticated understanding of its potential: how writing can be exploited,
and even subverted and manipulated in shaping a narrative. In addition, its
goal coincides with the aim of the Iliad itself: the conferring of kleos on the he-
roes of long ago.’ If Hector’s epitaph attests the existence of an epitaphic tradi-
tion known to Homer and bears testimony to Hector’s particular spin (Strauss
Clay’s exploitation, subversion, and manipulation), then, like in a game of
ping-pong, let us take a look at its possible impact on the epigrammatic habit
of the archaic period: if Hector’s words were understood in antiquity as an epi-
kēdeion, did they leave any trace in the early epigrammatic material?
The reasons for the ancient conceptualization of 7.89 – 90 as a sepulchral
epigram are transparent: the form of a hexametric two-liner for an inscribed e-
pitymbion is very common in the archaic period, and this will change only in
mid-sixth century BC under the influence of elegy (and the emergence of Pana-
thenaea), when elegiac distichon will become a prevalent form.b In terms of con-

�� Ivana Petrovic points out to me that scholia T might also be implying here that Homer knew
about epigram as a genre, but since he is referring to a time when script was not yet invented,
this would render Hector’s statement an anachronism. Furthermore, the scholium might be im-
plying that Homer composed epigrams before they were even invented, according to the tradi-
tion that viewed Homer as the originator of all literary genres.
�� I can offer only a selection of relevant literature here: on these issues in general, see Scodel ����
and Elmer ���� (with observations on the relative chronology of the Homeric passages viz. the
emergence of sepulchral epigram in the archaic period). On its function in the Iliadic narrative:
Bing ����, ��� – ��; Nagy ����, �� – �� and ����, ��; epitymbic language appropriated by the
epics from the Near East along with the script: FH ����, �; generic characteristics: Thomas
����, ���.
�� On the formal characteristics of archaic and classical epigram, see Petrovic ����, � –�. On the
circumstances of the change to elegiac disticha as a dominant form, see Wallace ����, ��� – ��.
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 51

tent, the Iliadic passage contains a master-model of early epitymbic expression:

line one contains the statement that X is dead and line two denotes the circum-
stances under which X died. The formulas and the language employed by Hector
correspond closely to inscriptions on tombs of warriors of the archaic and clas-
sical period: name of the deceased in the genitive, followed or preceded by τ�δε
σ��α, praise of the heroic death (�ριστε�οντα) and an outline of the circumstan-
ces of his death.b
For these reasons, several scholars pointed to one particular inscriptional
epigram that seems to be picking up on Hector’s words. Hans-Martin Lumpp
was, as far as I can see, the first one to argue that the late seventh-century BC
sepulchral epigram from Corcyra, the well-known Arniadas epigram, contains
a direct allusion to the Iliadic passage (CEG 145 = FH 25):

�
σ��α τ�δε �Aρνι�δα· χαροπ�ς τ�νδ’ �λε|σεν �ρες
βαρν��ενον παρ� ναυσ|�ν �π’ �Aρ�θθοιο �οFα�σι
πολλ�|ν �ριστε�<F>οντα κατ� στον�Fεσσαν �Fυτ�ν

This is the marker of Arniadas. This man fierce-eyed Ares destroyed

battling by the ships beside the streams of the Aratthos
achieving great excellence and the battle-roar that brings mourning.
(trans. Bowie 2010, 356 – 57)

Is this a direct allusion to Hector’s words or is this epigram indebted, more gen-
erally, to the epic tradition? Taking a cue from Lumpp, Anthony Raubitschek de-
scribes the epigrams as being ‘extraordinary similar’ to Hector’s words, and con-
cisely states that a comparison provides a ‘general overlap’ between the texts.b
The views of Paul Friedländer and Herbert B. Hoffleit that the epigram ‘is the
masterpiece among … sepulchral [epigrams] in epic manner’ appear more appro-
priate and are confirmed by the findings which Ewen Bowie advanced in his
analysis of epic elements in the poem.b
As it happens, χαροπ�ς is never used as an epithet of Ares in the epics, and
as Christos Tsagalis points out, it is in direct contrast with the usual epithets
known from the epics and early Greek poetry more generally._ The general over-
lap between the poems seems to be exhausted in the generic marker σ��α τ�δε,

�� See Thomas ����, ���; on the narrative technique in early epigram, Bowie ����.
�� Lumpp ����; Raubitschek ����, � – � (‘ausserordentliche Ähnlichkeit’; ‘ein Vergleich [zeigt]
weitgehende Übereinstimmungen’).
�� FH: �� (who consider possible influences of Eumelos); Bowie ����: ��� – ��: ‘it is hard not
to see here some impact of performed battle poetry, whether hexameter epic or hortatory elegy’.
�� Tsagalis ����a, �� – ��. See also Hunter ����, ��� – ��, with n. �� for a refutation of
Lumpp’s views.
52 Andrej Petrovic

the mention of Ares as a slayer_b and �ριστε�<F>οντα, thus rendering any close
association of this epigram with the Iliadic passage somewhat fragile.
There is, however, another famous epigram adduced as a parallel, but not fur-
ther discussed by Raubitschek,__ which may indeed provide a very close comparison
to Hector’s words. This epigram, both when considered on its own and in its mon-
umental context, is strongly influenced by the Iliadic ideology, as Muth/ Petrovic
recently argued._` In my view, it shows particular resemblance to the passage
from the seventh book of the Iliad. This is the grave-complex of Croesus, which con-
sists of an over-life-sized representation of a naked warrior, placed on a basis on
which two verses of the epigram are inscribed in four lines. I print the text in met-
rical transcription, followed by representation of the text as inscribed on the basis
(Athens, ca. 530 BC [CEG 27 = IG I` 1240, GV I, 1224, SEG 24 70]):

στε�θι κα� ο�κτιρον Κρο�σο παρ� σε��α θαν�ντος

h�ν ποτ’ �ν� προ��χοις �λεσε θο�ρος �ρες.

Halt and show pity beside the monument of dead Croesus,

whom raging Ares once destroyed in the front rank of the battle.
(trans. Baumbach/ A. Petrovic/ I. Petrovic 2010, 14)

στε�θι κα� ο�κτιρον Κρο�σο

παρ� σε��α θαν�ντος ��ν
ποτ’ �ν� προ��χοις �λεσε
θο�ρος �ρες.

It is worth exploring the texts in isolation, before we move on to a comparison of the

Croesus epigram in its monumental setting with the epic passage. The parallels be-
tween Hector’s imagined epitymbion for the anonymous opponent and the inscrip-
tion from the grave of Croesus are striking: the structure of the second line of each
epigram is identical. The first two words which dislocate death into a timeless di-
mension (h�ν ποτ’),_ are followed by praise of the heroic death of the warrior
(�ν� προ��χοις vs. �ριστε�οντα). After these the verb denoting killing follows
(�λεσε vs. κατ�κτανε), and both lines end with the names of the slayers with iden-
tical grammatical disposition in the verse, i.e. as grammatical subjects θο�ρος �ρες
and φα�δι�ος �κτωρ). Furthermore, in terms of diction, every single word from the

�� On the epic parallels for this technique, see below.

�� Raubitschek ����, � regards it as ‘eng verbunden’ with the Iliadic passage.
�� Muth/Petrovic ����, see below.
�� On this, see Young ����, �� – ��; Day ����, �� – ��.
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 53

Croesus epigram is attested in the epics, together with the epithet of Ares (θο�ρος),
which predominantly appears in the same sedes in Homeric verses._
But this is not where the similarities end. One of the reasons Hector’s words
attracted the interest of ancient readers and modern critics is that he composed a
sepulchral epigram for the opponent he was about to kill as a monument (sēma)
to himself, rather than the deceased. Thus, he is modifying the most elementary
function of an epitymbion. A focus on the slayer, rather than the slain, is also
present in the case of the Croesus epigram, and not only because of the marked
position of the name of the slayer at the end of the verse. Susanne Muth und
Ivana Petrovic have recently argued that the Croesus monument, together with
the inscription on its base, intentionally incites an interpretative ambiguity in
its reception:_ The supra-human representation of a naked muscular body cap-
tured mid-motion is placed on a base on which the name of the god, θο�ρος
�ρες, appears in a single line, separated from the rest of the poem. Its legibility
is further facilitated through use of interpunction, separating the epithet from
the name of the god. As Muth/Petrovic stress, for a recipient, ancient as well
as modern, the first impulse may well be to interpret the statue as a representa-
tion of the divinity, rather than of the fallen warrior._ By this token the statue
with its inscription might be taken to reflect, at first glance, the functional mod-
ification attested also in Hector’s epigram: instead of being a geras thanontōn, as
a recipient would infer from its position and original surrounding, the monu-
ment appears, initially, to be a representation of the war-god.
Upon reading the epigram, however, although the recipient will be prompted
to adjust his understanding of the monument, some similarities will persist: the
identity of the representation might become less puzzling, but the extraordinary
emphasis on the slayer remains. Being killed by Hector, like being killed by Ares,
is understood on its own as a source and verification of the virtue of the fallen.
In such a constellation, Muth/Petrovic argue, Croesus appears himself as a Ho-
meric hero – as a man similar or equal to divinities, who, correspondingly, could
be conquered and felled only through divine agency.
If the Croesus epigram reflects both epic ideology and language to the point
that it is modeled upon Hector’s imagined epitymbion, as seems likely in my
view, then the substitution of Hector with Ares is a logical and appropriate

�� Ares accompanied with the epithet θο�ρος appears eleven times in the Iliad (not attested in
the Odyssey), of which it is found seven times at the end of the hexameter (�.��; �.��; �.���;
�.���; �.���; ��.���; ��.���).
�� Muth/Petrovic ����.
�� Muth/Petrovic ����, ��� – ���. On idealized representations of fallen warriors in archaic Attic,
see Day ����, �� – �� and on the reception of the Croesus epigram, Lorenz ����, ��� – ��.
54 Andrej Petrovic

one. Ares as a slayer of Croesus provides a convenient and appropriate metaphor

for the death of a warrior on the battlefield, which is well attested in the Iliadic
narrative: when a warrior is felled by a human enemy, he is described as having
been killed by Ares himself._ Furthermore, Hector is represented as a (literal) in-
carnation of Ares, since Ares is described as entering Hector’s body – the only
mortal whose body the god of war entered in the Iliad: �κτορι δ� �ρ�οσε
τε�χε� �π� χροΐ, δ� δ� �ιν �ρης / δειν�ς �νυ�λιος, πλ�σθεν δ� �ρα ο� ��λε� �ντ�ς /
�λκ�ς κα� σθ�νεος. _ Hence, Croesus’ appropriation of Hector’s epigram can ren-
der Hector as Ares, not just for the sake of appropriate epic convention, but also
because Hector was, at least temporarily, the embodiment of Ares.`

c. Andromache as a sepulchral epigram and

Andromache’s own sepulchral epigram
In a moving scene towards the end of the sixth book of the Iliad, Hector sinisterly
predicts the fall of Troy, the deaths of its defenders, and the subsequent enslave-
ment of his wife, addressing Andromache directly with the following words
(Il. 6.459 – 65):

κα� ποτ� τις ε�π�σιν �δ�ν κατ� δ�κρυ χ�ουσαν

‘�κτορος �δε γυν� �ς �ριστε�εσκε ��χεσθαι
Τρ�ων �πποδ��ων �τε �λιον ��φε��χοντο’.
�ς ποτ� τις �ρ�ει· σο� δ’ α� ν�ον �σσεται �λγος / χ�τεϊ τοιο�δ’ �νδρ�ς ���νειν δο�λιον ��αρ.
�λλ� �ε τεθνη�τα χυτ� κατ� γα�α καλ�πτοι/ πρ�ν γ� τι σ�ς τε βο�ς σο� θ� �λκηθ�ο�ο
πυθ�σθαι.

and once, someone is to say having seen you weeping:

‘This is the wife of Hector, who kept excelling in battle

�� See Il. ��.���, ��� and Redfield �����, ��� – ��. Cf. also Il. �.���, where Diomedes states
that lussa enters Hector’s body. Note that the Arniadas epigram discussed above (CEG ���) ap-
propriates the same technique.
�� Il. ��.��� – ��.
�� There is a further possibility: in her forthcoming paper, Jenny Strauss Clay takes into account my
suggestion and remarks: ‘However – although all such matters are speculative – the presence of Ares
attested also in the Arniades’ epitaph, as well as the Iliad’s façon de parler, might allow for the pos-
sibility that Hector has inserted his name in the place traditionally reserved for Ares. Such a possi-
bility would, I think, strengthen the claim for the need for a written label whereby Hector identifies
himself as the slayer of the Greek whom his epigraph has consigned to anonymity.’
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 55

among the horse-taming Trojans, when they fought about Ilion’.

so will one say once, and grief will beset you anew, lacking this man here to avert the day of
slavery. But let the heaped up soil cover my corpse, before I should hear your shrieks as they
carry you off.
(trans. based on Lattimore 1951)

Ruth Scodel, as well as several scholars afterwards, has observed that in this
scene Andromache is assigned the function of a living memorial of Hector’s vir-
tue, and that she represents, in a way, a living female mnēma, an encapsulation
of the memory of the fallen hero.`b When analyzed in the context of the Iliadic
narrative, this is indeed likely to be the case: Hector imagines for himself only
a sepulchral mound, there is no mention of a sēma he envisaged for his oppo-
nent in the epigram from book seven, and it is only his wife who is hoped to pre-
serve the memory of his virtue.
Commenting on the words �κτορος �δε γυν� �ς �ριστε�εσκε ��χεσθαι, scho-
lia bT remark cursorily that the line displays epigrammatic features or epigram-
matic character: �πιγρα��ατικ�ν �χει τ�πον � στ�χος. `_ This comment may well be
motivated by the use of the deictic following a genitive and could be interpreted
as a variation on the formulaic expression we might expect on Hector’s monu-
ment, such as �κτορος τ�δε σ��α or similar, as Scodel remarks.``
Nevertheless, when observed in isolation and outside the Iliadic context, the
lines uttered by Hector could also be conceptualized as an epitymbion not nec-
essarily only for himself, but also for Andromache: Hector does mention his own
envisaged death, but only after he has composed the ‘epigram’ – an epigram that
he introduced with a vivid depiction of Andromache’s enslavement and a gloomy
vision of her future toils.` Given that enslavement in Homeric ideology corre-
sponds closely to social death and enslavement of aristocratic women to ‘blame-

�� See the discussion in Scodel ���� and Elmer ����, � and esp. ��: ‘Hector’s auto-epitaph at
�.��� – ��, by which he transforms Andromache into his funeral monument –a stēlē, that is, the
place of writing’; Graziosi/Haubold ����, commentary ad loc.
�� See b(BCE�)T ad v. �.��� (Erbse). Here too, I would like to acknowledge the encouragement
of the anonymous reviewer, and simultaneously express my regret that the scope of the contri-
bution does not allow me to pursue her/ his suggestion further: ‘Potrebbe essere utile analizzare
anche lo schol. ex. ���a (che, nei manoscritti, è direttamente congiunto al ���b: cf. Erbse, ap-
parato), dove, se capisco bene, si commenta lo stile del verso omerico facendo riferimento pro-
prio alla concisione e all’allusività tipiche dello stile epigrammatico’.
�� On this, see Scodel ����, �� – ��; Elmer ����, ��.
�� Il. �.��� – ��: �σσον σε�, �τε κ�ν τις �Aχαι�ν χαλκοχιτ�νων / δακρυ�εσσαν �γηται �λε�θερον
��αρ �πούρας· / κα� κεν �ν �ργει �ο�σα πρ�ς �λλης �στ�ν �φα�νοις,/ κα� κεν �δωρ φορ�οις Μεσ-
σηΐδος � �περε�ης· / π�λλ� �εκαζο��νη, κρατερ� δ� �πικε�σετ� �ν�γκη.
56 Andrej Petrovic

less catastrophe’,` it is in my view possible that the scholiast had in mind some
of the famous epitymbia for ladies of noble birth, when he remarked on the epi-
grammatic character of the first line of Hector’s utterance.
The fact that Andromache’s life would be characterized entirely through her
relationship to her husband is no obstacle to this interpretation. I adduce two
striking examples of such depiction of queens and aristocratic women in se-
pulchral epigrams. The first case involves one of the most famous epitymbia of
the archaic period. This is the epigram composed for Archedike of Lampsakos,
daughter of Peisistratus’ son Hippias, the last tyrant of Athens, and wife of the
tyrant of Lampsakos, Aiantides. As a noble-woman, she is praised for having
been a daughter, a wife and a mother of tyrants (in the neutral rather than pe-
jorative sense). The epigram was quoted by both Thucydides and Aristotle and
was hence available and, very likely, familiar to Hellenistic (and later) scholiasts
(EG Sim. 26a = Petrovic 2007 Ep. 12):`

�νδρ�ς �ριστε�σαντος �ν �λλ�δι τ�ν �φ� �αυτο�

�ππ�ου �Aρχεδ�κην �δε κ�κευθε κ�νις,
� πατρ�ς τε κα� �νδρ�ς �δελφ�ν τ� ο�σα τυρ�ννων
πα�δων τ� ο�κ �ρθη νο�ν �ς �τασθαλ�ην.

Archedike, daughter of the man who excelled in Hellas of his day,

of Hippias, is covered by this soil.
She, who was a daughter, wife, sister and mother of tyrants,
did not raise her mind to arrogance.

The second example is the sepulchral epigram for no lesser a figure than Olympias,
wife of Philip II and mother of Alexander the Great, quoted only by Plutarch without
any further remarks regarding the queen in Mor. 747 f– 748a (Quaest. Conv.):

τ�σδε πατ�ρ κα� �ν�ρ κα� πα�ς βασιλε�ς, κα� �δελφο�,

κα� πρ�γονοι. κλ�ζει δ’ �λλ�ς �λυ�πι�δα.

Her father and husband and son were kings, as were her brothers
and ancestors. Hellas calls her Olympias. `

It is difficult to determine whether this epigram was a genuine inscription or a

later literary composition.` The deictic τ�σδε would certainly favour the former

�� On female enslavement in Homer, see the overview in Hunt ����, �� – ��.

�� Th. �.��.�; Arist. Rh. �.�.�� (=����b); see also Isid. Pelus. �.��� and Petrovic ����: com-
mentary on epigram no. ��.
�� For a discussion of this epigram, see Fantuzzi ����, ��� – ��.
�� On issues of authenticity of the couplet, see Carney ����, ��� and ��� (Olympias).
 Archaic Funerary Epigram and Hector’s Imagined Epitymbia 57

possibility. Furthermore, given that Plutarch had a keen epigraphic interest, firm-
ly believing in the reliability of inscriptional evidence, and extensively praised
the virtues of epigraphy in the very work from which the sepulchral epigram de-
rives, there is little that might stand in the way of its authenticity.`
Yet, what most matters here is that in this epigram, too, we encounter the
portrayal of queens conveyed through their relationship to the excellence of
the men who surround them: the sepulchral inscriptions of Archedike and Olym-
pias do not encapsulate their own achievements or virtues, but rather commem-
orate the virtue of their closest male kin, as in the case of Andromache’s com-
memoration through Hector. Thucydides famously quipped that women’s
greatest virtue was not to be talked about by men, neither for good nor ill
(2.45.2), and these sepulchral epigrams show that this was the case in death
as well – women are not to be talked about, save as a reason to talk about
their men.

Concluding remarks

Alexandrian and later scholiasts, who labelled and analyzed passages from the
Iliad as epigrammatic or sepulchral in nature, are very likely to have had solid
knowledge of epigrammatic collections and anthologies with their developed ge-
neric typologies. This may have prompted their use of terminology, such as
�πικ�δειον and �πιγρα��ατικ�ς τ�πος, and epigrammatic extrapolations of Ho-
meric passages – sepulchral epigrams were for them, of course, both inscription-
al and literary artifacts with clearly defined generic conventions and forms.
However, I hope to have highlighted the possible early impact of these pas-
sages on Greek archaic sepulchral epigrams: the Croesus and Archedike epi-
grams seem to closely resemble Hector’s ‘epigrams’: the epigrams for Croesus
and Archedike do not seem to be simply drawing from the linguistic and literary
pool of general ‘epic’ traditions, but rather appear to be ideologically and for-
mally chiselled after respective Homeric passages. Therefore, in my view, the an-
swer to the question of whether the Croesus and Archedike epigrams mirror
anonymous authors’ awareness of Hector’s epigrams ought to be a blunt yes.

�� On Plutarch’s use of inscriptions generally and in the Quaestiones Convivales, see Liddel
����, ��� – ��. I wonder if Plutarch, who in the Quaestiones Convivales explicitly acknowledges
familiarity with the work of Polemon Periegetes, derived the sepulchral epigram for Olympias
from Polemon’s On the epigrams according to a city (FHG III, T�� – ��).
58 Andrej Petrovic

How early does emulation of Hector’s epigrams in verse inscriptions start? We

cannot know for certain whether epigrammatic sections in the Iliad entered the epic
narrative during the later period of its fixation, when sepulchral epigrams were no
longer a novelty, or whether they belonged to the earlier stages in the evolution and
fixation of the epics. The epitaphia for Archedike and Croesus (coming from late
sixth century) postdate the Peisistratid redaction of the epics and are thus more
likely to reflect epic passages, than to have provided models for them.
Were there any earlier models that did? We cannot know this. In Madeline
Miller’s beautiful novel The Song of Achilles, the shadowy soul of Patroclus
finds no peace until a sepulchral inscription is set up on his tomb. Homer’s
Iliad, on the other hand, provides us only with shadows of sepulchral inscrip-
tions, yet the epic echoes, attested in the language and form of sepulchral epi-
gram, are resounding.

�� See Nagy ����, �� – �� and �� – ��� on possible modi and chronologies of textualization.