Dictionnaire des images métapoétiques anciennes, eds.

Jean-Philippe Guez, Florence Klein,

Jocelyne Peigney and Évelyne Prioux, Classiques Garnier (forthcoming)

Épitaphes (Epitaphs)

Book 7 of the Greek Anthology contains several (fictional) Hellenistic sepulchral

epigrams on poets of the literary past (e.g. Homer, Hesiod, Anacreon, Sappho, Archilochus,
and Hipponax). As P. Bing has argued, these sepulchral epigrams, along with (fictional)
inscriptions for statues of the literary greats, concretise the remoteness that the Hellenistic
epigrammatists felt for their literary models as well as their desire to bridge this gap (Bing,
1988; cf. the term ‘memorializing impulse’ in Bing, 1993, p. 620). In addition, few sepulchral
epigrams of the Greek Anthology are devoted to poets of the more recent past and
contemporaries (e.g. Erinna (AP 7, 11-13), Sositheus (Diosc. AP 7, 707), and Antipater of
Sidon (Mel. AP 7, 428)), while Nossis (AP 7, 718), Callimachus (AP 7, 415), Leonidas of
Tarentum (AP 7, 715), and Meleager (AP 7, 417-19 & 421, and perhaps the anon. AP 7, 416)
composed self-epitaphs. This type of fictitious funerary poems was further developed by the
Romans: for instance, one recalls the self-epitaphs attributed to Naevius, Plautus, and
Pacuvius (Gell. NA 1, 24, 3), and the ones ascribed to Virgil (Suet. Vita Virgili 36) and
Ennius (Cic. Tusc. 1, 34 = Varia 15-18 Vahlen). In addition, they have influenced the
formation of the Roman sphragis («closing authorial statement») which draws from epitaphic
modes of expression and may even take the form of a fictional self-epitaph: see e.g. Tib. 1, 3,
53-56, a self-epitaph commemorating Tibullus’ loyalty to Messalla; Ov. Tr. 3, 3, 71-76,
which includes a self-composed epitaph to be carved on Ovid’s tomb; Hor. Carm. 3, 30, 1-5,
where the poet’s book is a «monument» that lasts longer than bronze, is taller than the
pyramids, cannot be destroyed by bad weather nor time; its adaptation in Prop. 3, 2, 19-26
(cf. Ov. Tr. 3, 3, 77-80; on the topic, see e.g. Ramsby, 2007; Houghton, 2013; Peirano, 2014).
This entry analyses selected case studies to exemplify well-known metapoetic features
of this subgroup of sepulchral epigrams: a) the encapsulation of a poet’s fundamental
preoccupations, skills, and/or basic features of his/her literary production in a narrow
compass (AP 7, 664 ascribed to Theocritus); b) the programmatic function of self-epitaphs,
which miniaturise a poet’s principal themes, literary qualities, and aesthetic principles: Nossis
AP 7, 718 condenses the dynamics of poetic imitation and competition between her and

1
Sappho; Leonidas AP 7, 715 discloses the epigrammatist’s poetic principles through a set of
intertextual allusions, and praises the monumentalising function of poetry.

I. Epitaphs on Poets – Case Study: Theocritus AP 7, 664

Imaginary sepulchral epigrams on poets of the archaic and classical eras form
frameworks enclosing interrelated metapoetic symbols that the reader, presented as the
passerby, is invited to decipher. In the way that inscriptional epigrams offer an abbreviated
record of the deceased’s life, these poems summarise the essential elements of a poet’s work
through the combination of crystal clear praises and metapoetic symbols. An interesting
example is Theoc. AP 7, 664:

Ἀρχίλοχον καὶ στᾶθι καὶ εἴσιδε τὸν πάλαι ποιητὰν

τὸν τῶν ἰάμβων, οὗ τὸ μυρίον κλέος
διῆλθε κἠπὶ νύκτα καὶ ποτ’ ἀῶ.
ἦ ῥά νιν αἱ Μοῖσαι καὶ ὁ Δάλιος ἠγάπευν Ἀπόλλων.
ὡς ἐμμελής τ’ ἐγένετο κἠπιδέξιος
ἔπεά τε ποιεῖν πρὸς λύραν τ’ ἀείδειν.

Stop and admire Archilochus the old-time poet of

iambics, whose infinite fame
has spread east and west.
Indeed, the Muses and Delian Apollo loved him.
How musical he became and skilled
at fashioning verses, and singing to the lyre!

On a literal level, the imperative εἴσιδε (v. 1) calls the viewer’s attention to ‘behold’
and/or ‘admire’ a relief or statue presumably on Antipater’s tomb (it has been argued that the
epigram started its life on stone, though there are good arguments to take it as fictitious (see
Rossi 2001, p. 329-330)). On a metapoetic level, since εἰσοράω can also mean ‘perceive’, the
imperative invites the reader to recognise principal features of Archilochus’ poetic and
musical skills as exhibited in the epigram (cf. Acosta-Hughes, 2002, p. 283). The first stanza
focuses on Archilochus’ iambics and attributes to him μυρίον κλέος, an expression most

2
probably varying the Homeric phrase κλέος ἄφθιτον «undying fame» in Il. 9, 413 (there is no
mention of the notoriety that Archilochus gained in antiquity as a poet of psogos «censure»).
The second stanza draws our attention to his skills as a musician (see Ps.-Plutarch De Mus.
1134d and 1140f-1141b with Rotstein, 2010, p. 230-234), and his metrical experimentations.
The metre of the epigram – two stanzas formed by an Archilochian and followed by an
acatalectic and a catalectic iambic trimeter (Gow & Page, 1965 II, p. 532) – reminds us of
Archilochus’ metrical innovations. The term ἔπεα (v. 6) is ambiguous: it can stand, generally,
for poetry, or it may point specifically to the hexameter (see Lavigne, 2016, p. 79). In either
case, verses 5-6 most probably praise Archilochus’ metrical experimentations, and if ἔπεα is a
reference to the hexameter, we can think of its various combinations with other metrical units
in Archilochus’ epodes (cf. Rossi, 2001, p. 325-326).
The decisive statement that «indeed, the Muses and Delian Apollo loved him» (v. 4)
is intriguing. The emphatic use of the lyre as the poem’s pointe suggests the possibility that
the epigram alludes to Archilochus’ poetic «birth» as described in the Mnesiepes inscription,
found in the valley of the river Elita in Paros and most probably belonging to the Parian
Archilocheion (SEG 15.517, 3rd cent. BCE). In other words, the second stanza suggests that
Theocritus might draw inspiration from the Parian heroisation of Archilochus and local
biographical tales about him which found expression in the Mnesiepes inscription (see Rossi,
2001, p. 326-328; Clay, 2004, p. 104-110). As is narrated there, the poet, while carrying a
cow, met some women (the Muses); after trading jokes, they disappeared with the cow,
leaving him a lyre: τὴν λύραν αὐτῷ δωρησαμένας «they had given the lyre to him» (E1
col.II.37-38; the tale might date back to the 5th cent. BCE, if an Attic pyxis dating from 460-
450 BCE depicts Archilochus’ poetic initiation (Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, no. 98.887):
see Kontoleon, 1963, p. 37-86; Clay, 2004, p. 55-57; Corso, 2007, p. 14-15). Interestingly,
δωρησαμένας indicates that the inscription draws from Archilochus’ metapoetic self-
portrayal in fr.1, 2W where he describes himself as «skilled in the Muses’ lovely gift (i.e.
poetry)» (καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος). So, this is possibly an exemplar of a
metapoetic device, the type-scene of poetic initiation (→ RELIGION), which survived on
stone and was miniaturised in the epigram into just two key-words: αἱ Μοῖσαι and λύραν. In
Archil. fr. 120W, the speaker states that he knows how to be the exarkhōn «leader» of the
dithyramb. If the fragment is self-referential, it gives us an idea of the poet’s involvement
with musical performance (cf. E1 col.III 12 & 14-15, where the terms ἀοιδ...λ̣ύραν...Ἀρχιλο[χ
are attested in the context of an Archilochean improvisation of a song to Dionysus at a Parian
3
festival; for E1 col.III see Clay, 2001; cf. the first-century BCE silver cup that depicts
Archilochus’ skeleton holding a chelys lyre (Louvre no. Bj 1923); see Clay, 2004, p. 61-62;
Corso, 2007, p. 17-19, 27-28).
In addition, here, Theocritus varies a long-established metapoetic topos used for the
expression of poetic excellence. From Homer and Hesiod onwards, the Muses and Apollo are
used together – sometimes even in the same line as in our epigram – in their inspirational
role: see e.g. Hes. Theog. 94-5; Hom. Od. 8, 488; Posidipp. SH 705; Callim. Ia. 13, 1 Pf., his
poetic initiation in Aet. fr.1 Pf., cf. AP 7, 525.5-6; the humorous adaptation of the motif in Ar.
Ran. 229-234; Hor. Carm. 3, 30, 14-16; with e.g. Lanata, 1963, passim, cited by Acosta-
Hughes, 2002, p. 44. In sepulchral epigrams on poets, the Muses’ patronage is a topos and
our epigram reuses this metapoetic device. One can compare Gaet. AP 7, 71, 1-3, where the
motifs of the Muse as a patroness and Helicon as a locus of poetic inspiration are adapted to
emphasize the ferocity of Archilochus’ vituperative iambics (cf. ‘Mel.’ ΑP 7, 352, 5-8, an
amalgam of praise of his poetic skill and blame for its iambic content). In such a context, the
characterisation of Apollo as Delian adds to the metapoetic connotations. So far, the use of
Apollo has been connected to the oracle which predicted Archilochus’ immortality and was
given to his father at Delphi (see Rossi, 2001, p. 327-328). However, since the epigram refers
explicitly to Delian – not Pythian – Apollo, Theocritus might be discreetly alluding to Apollo
as the inventor of the lyre, an idea found in Callim. Hymn to Delos 249-254. All key
ingredients that open and close the epigram’s second stanza, that is, the Muses, Apollo, and
the lyre, are found there: Apollo was born in Delos and he strung the lyre with seven strings,
since the swans, the Muses’ birds, seven times sang over the pains of his birth. The hymn can
be considered an intertext or both sources may use an older variation of the principal myth of
Hermes as the creator of the lyre. The allusion accentuates the praise of Archilochus’ musical
skills: he is the protégée of the god who invented the instrument to which he sings.

II. Self-Epitaphs – Τhe Case Studies of Nossis AP 7, 718 and Leonidas AP 7, 715

Turning our attention to self-epitaphs, it should first be underlined that they constitute
metapoetic loci condensing primary themes and capturing fundamental qualities of a poet’s
work; they, therefore, concluded the epigrammatists’ collections or sections of them (see e.g.
Reitzenstein, 1893, p. 139; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1913, p. 298-299 and 1924 I, p. 135,
140; Gabathuler, 1937, p. 67-68; Gutzwiller, 1998, p. 85 and 108). Nossis AP 7, 718 and

4
Leonidas AP 7, 715 are here used as our case studies. For Callimachus’ self-epitaph AP 7,
415, which should be read in connection with the epitaph for his father (AP 7, 525), see e.g.
Gutzwiller, 1998, p. 212-213; → VIN, IVRESSE; for Meleager’s set of self-epitaphs (AP 7,
417-19 & 421, and perhaps the anon. AP 7, 416) → ÉROS, VÉNUS, CUPIDON.
Nossis, from the Epizephyrian Locri in southern Italy, composed the following self-
epitaph (AP 7, 718):

ὦ ξεῖν’, εἰ τύ γε πλεῖς ποτὶ καλλίχορον Μιτυλήναν

τᾶν Σαπφοῦς χαρίτων ἄνθος ἐναυσόμενος,
εἰπεῖν ὡς Μούσαισι φίλαν τήνᾳ τε Λοκρὶς γᾶ
τίκτεν∙ ἴσαις δ’ ὅτι μοι τοὔνομα Νοσσίς, ἴθι.

O stranger, if you sail to Mytilene with the fair dancing-ground,

to draw inspiration from the blossom of Sappho’s graces,
say that the Locrian land bore one dear to the Muses and to her.
Having known that my name is Nossis, go.

[The second distich includes several textual uncertainties. For the reasons why Brunck’s emendation Λοκρὶς γᾶ
is preferable to Λόκρισσα «a Locrian woman» see Kanellou, forthcoming. The form ἴσαις is taken to be the
Doric masculine present participle of οἶδα «I know» (see Coughlan, 2016, p. 206).]

The poem uses conventions of the so-called «message epitaph» (see Livingstone & Nisbet
2010, p. 96-98, with further bibliography; Tarán, 1979, p. 146-148). While the address to the
stranger forms a typical feature of sepulchral epigrams, its combination with εἰπεῖν echoes the
structure of the famous Thermopylae epitaph, that is, ‘Sim.’ FGE 22b (cf. Tarán, 1979,
p. 146; Tueller, 2008, p. 64), and underlines through the allusion the deceased’s merit –
obviously in poetry, not war – and the importance of the message to be delivered in Sappho’s
homeland. On a metapoetic level, the message is the medium for shaping and securing
Nossis’ posthumous fame: the poetess tells us how she desires her epigrams to be read and
remembered. There is, however, a prerequisite for the passerby in order to become an
appropriate herald: s/he should be on his/her way to Mytilene to be inspired by Sappho’s
«flower», a common metapoetic symbol for poetry (see e.g. Tull. AP 7, 17, 6, → FLEURS;
for the motif of travelling to a poetic model’s homeland cf. Callim. Ia. 13, 12-13 and 65-66).
Nossis does not travel to Mytilene, and the idea expresses indirectly poetic competition
5
towards Sappho, which goes hand in hand with poetic debt (cf. e.g. Tarán, 1979, p. 147;
Fantuzzi & Hunter, 2004, p. 15-16; Klooster, 2009, p. 187-188). Τhe use of the masculine
endings in verses 1-2 is appropriate, since it indicates that Sappho became a model for both
male and female poets. The phrases χαρίτων ἄνθος alluding to the Graces (for Sappho) and
Μούσαις φίλαν (for Nossis) adapt the standard use of the deities as metapoetic vehicles for
praising the high quality of a poet’s work (in epigrams cf. e.g. Alc. Mess. AP 7, 1, 8 on
Homer; Sim. AP 7, 22, 6 on Sophocles; ‘Sim.’ AP 7, 25, 3 on Anacreon). The content of the
message is clear: Nossis states that she was dear to the Muses, and whether we take her
second assertion to be that she was «dear to her (i.e. Sappho)» or «equal to her» – if we
follow Brunck’s emendation (τίκτεν ἴσαν ὅτι θ’ οἱ) – Nossis expresses her desire to be
considered a worthy successor of Sappho, herself a poetic model for those who seek to
compose poetry in the footsteps of the archaic lyric poetess. As Acosta-Hughes (2010, p. 86)
notes, the names of the two poetesses are placed in opposing half-lines, and the structure
mirrors the poetic lineage from Sappho to Nossis.
Nossis’ desire that her literary legacy be strongly linked to Sappho and that she be
recognised as her worthy successor, is evident. Sappho’s influence on Nossis’ poetry is
apparent from the woman-centred nature of the majority of the surviving epigrams, the
beautiful women, and the sensual appeal of the objects in her verses (Gutzwiller, 1998, p. 80).
In addition, we should not exclude the possibility that apart from AP 5, 170 with its strong
erotic elements (e.g. it opens with the declaration that «nothing is sweeter than love»), Nossis
composed erotic epigrams that are now lost. Nossis AP 9, 332, on a statue of Aphrodite
dedicated by the hetaera Polyarchis, has strong erotic nuances. Meleager underscores the
erotic nature of her poetry in AP 4, 9-10 as he says that Eros melted wax on her writing-
tablets (…ἧς δέλτοις κηρὸν ἔτηξεν Ἔρως). The Muse(s) are substituted by the god of love
and ἔτηξε has strong erotic connotations (cf. Gow & Page, 1965, II, p. 434; Skinner, 1989,
p. 14-15; Klooster, 2009, p. 183-184; → ÉROS, VÉNUS, CUPIDON). Definitely, the
Sapphic influences on Nossis’ poetry are associated with and explain the woman-centred
aspect of her surviving œuvre (see Gutzwiller, 1998, p. 74-88). At the same time, another
epigram composed by Nossis, AP 6, 132, explores a topic outside the confines of a purely
woman-oriented poetry, that is, the value of aretê («bravery») as displayed in the battlefield.
This epigram indicates that Nossis in her self-epitaph (and Meleager in his prooemium)
focused on that aspect of her poetry, the erotic/woman-oriented element, which was a new
development in the sphere of epigram, not an established mode (see Kanellou, forthcoming).
6
 Let us now move on to Leon. AP 7, 715, which has a programmatic significance as
well: apart from the adaptation of the topos of immortality bestowed by poetry (v. 5-6), as is
suggested here, Leonidas tactfully discloses his debt to both Homer and Hesiod through the
embedded allusions to the Odyssey and the Theogony:

πολλὸν ἀπ’ Ἰταλίης κεῖμαι χθονὸς ἔκ τε Τάραντος

πάτρης∙ τοῦτο δέ μοι πικρότερον θανάτου.
τοιοῦτος πλανίων ἄβιος βίος, ἀλλά με Μοῦσαι
ἔστερξαν, λυγρῶν δ’ ἀντὶ μελιχρὸν ἔχω,
οὔνομα δ’ οὐκ ἤμυσε Λεωνίδου· αὐτά με δῶρα
κηρύσσει Μουσέων πάντας ἐπ’ ἠελίους.

I lie far off from Italy and from Tarentum,

my fatherland, and this is to me bitterer than death.
Such a life of wandering is no life, but the Muses
loved me, and I have honey-sweetness instead of miseries,
and the name of Leonidas has not fallen; the gifts by themselves
from the Muses proclaim it for all time.

The epigrammatist «speaking» from his tomb presents himself as having died far away from
his homeland having lived an itinerant life (v. 1-3; cf. Leon. AP 7, 736, where he warns
against a vagabond life, with Gutzwiller 1998, p. 107-108 for influences from the Cynics).
Here, Leonidas alludes to Odysseus’ toilsome nostos («journey home») through the
alliteration of π- (v. 1-3), which tactfully hints at the opening four verses of the Odyssey that
have a similar pattern (see Campbell, 2013, p. 51 and 2019, p. 111-112; Gutzwiller, 2012,
p. 106). The poet also adapts the formula of the type πολλὰ παθών/πάθον/παθόντα/πέπονθα
etc., often used by Odysseus to emphasize his suffering and toils through the alliteration of π-
. Πολλὸν underlines this intertextual linkage as it echoes a basic ingredient of the formula,
and stresses the reason behind the emotional torture that Leonidas (supposedly) undergoes in
death: he is buried far away from Tarentum. In contrast to Odysseus, he never returns to his
fatherland.
In the second half of the epigram, the tone changes since Leonidas turns our attention
to the Muses’ favour towards him (v. 3-6). Τhe emphatic use of πάντας contrasts his troubles
7
(see the reverse order in the prepositional phrase), and highlights the idea that poetry
triumphs over death and misery. More importantly, the Muses’ love should be linked not only
with the idea of poetic immortality (v. 5-6), but also with the concept of honey-sweetness
(v. 4): the deities offer consolation to Leonidas as they help him to overcome his miseries
through honey-sweetness, meaning divinely-inspired poetry (v. 3-4). Here, Leonidas most
probably adapts Theog. 96-103, where it is said that the poet who is inspired by the Muses
and from whose mouth sweet speech flows, helps the one in distress to forget his sorrows:
«and happy is he whom the Muses love (ὅν τινα Μοῦσαι φίλωνται): sweet voice flows from
his mouth…right away such a man forgets his troubled thoughts and he does not remember
any of his cares; but the gifts of the goddesses (δῶρα θεάων) quickly turn him away from
these». The δῶρα Μουσέων, a crystal clear metapoetic symbol for Leonidas’ epigrams,
echoes the δῶρα θεάων in Theog. 103; the Muses’ love is also underscored in both passages
(ἔστερξαν and φίλωνται). Based on this analysis, the honey-sweetness in v. 4 does not denote
«immortality» or «the Muses’ love» (Gow & Page, 1965, II, p. 391), and it does not
constitute a simple reference to personal satisfaction despite a difficult life. It is a metapoetic
symbol that extols Leonidas’ poetry, stressed through the repetition of -oν in the contrasting
pair πικρότερον and μελιχρόν (cf. e.g. AP 7, 13, 1-2, where Leonidas praises Erinna as the
maiden bee who plucked the Muses’ flowers; → ABEILLES, MIEL). In programmatic terms,
μελιχρὸν affiliates Leonidas with Hesiod since in the Theogony the divinely-inspired poet is
sweet-voiced; the honey-sweetness bestowed by the Muses indicates the use of Hesiod as one
of his models (cf. Theog. 39-40, 96-7, 83-4; Alc. Mess. AP 7, 55, 4-5, where the libation of
goat’s milk mixed with honey on Hesiod’s tomb is openly said to mirror qualities of his
poetry; Callim. AP 9, 507 on Hesiod and Aratus and the use of μελιχρότατον there, with rich
bibliography (a good starting point is Hunter, 2014, p. 292-301)). In sum, by combining
allusions to and adaptations of both Homeric and Hesiodic material, Leonidas expresses his
poetic lineage to both archaic poets.
These select case studies exhibit the metapoetic character of the epitaphs on poets and
self-epitaphs included in Book 7 of the Greek Anthology. Several other such epigrams exist,
equally intriguing as, for instance, Meleager’s enigmatic epitaph on Antipater of Sidon (AP 7,
428). To say a few words: In this riddle poem, a passerby tries to decode the enigmatic
symbols of a tomb: a rooster bearing a sceptre under its wing and grasping in his claws a
palm-branch, and a fallen dice lying at the edge of the tomb’s base. Οnly in the last verse is
the deceased’s name revealed: τὸ δ’ οὔνομα πέτρος ἀείδει, / Ἀντίπατρον, προγόνων φύντ’ ἀπ’
8
ἐρισθενέων, «but the stone signs of his name, Antipater, the offspring of powerful ancestors»,
v. 19-20. The poem combines and varies motifs and symbols that are used in the preceding
epigrams of the series of enigmatic epitaphs to which AP 7, 428 itself belongs (AP 7, 421 -
427). After three rejected interpretations, the speaker concludes that the rooster indicates that
the deceased was a versatile poet, one of sonorous words, and a great lover (v. 15-16). The
palm-branch stands for the Phoenician Tyre, a detail that links Meleager and Anacreon
together since Meleager stresses in his self-epitaphs (AP 7.417-419) that he spent part of his
life in that Phoenician city, and so Tyre could point to the poets’ «common intellectual
origin» (Neger, 2018, 185; for other interpretations see Campbell, 2013, 163). The sceptre
symbolises eloquence (v. 17), and the tossed dice suggests that Antipater died of a fall caused
by excess consumption of wine (v. 17-18; for this explanation which works only through the
intertextual allusion to Leon. AP 7, 422 see e.g. Gow & Page, 1965 II, 673; it, though,
contradicts the story in other sources about Antipater’s death, according to which he died of a
fever (see e.g. Cicero’s De fato 5; Neger, 2018, 185 for further sources).
Such an interpretation of the tomb’s symbols attribute two characteristics to the
deceased poet, that is, success in love and love for wine (intertwined with the theme of
poetry, v. 16), which recall, as scholars have noted, the portrayal of another poet, meaning
Anacreon, within the genre. Anacreon’s fondness for wine and love for boys was a favourite
topic for Antipater himself (he devoted five epigrams to it): for instance, in one poem, the
speaker says that not even death quenched Anacreon’s erotic fire (AP 7, 30, 5-6) and in
another one Anacreon, from the grave, asks the passerby to pour drops of wine on his ashes
so that his bones may rejoice (AP 7, 26, 3-4). Such humorous and hyperbolic descriptions of
Anacreon focus and evoke in their playfulness an essential part of Anacreon’s poetry - the
symposium, drinking, and love - and could further point to the transmission and survival of
his sympotic-erotic poetry that broke the boundaries of death. Meleager’s description of
Antipater as a great lover and his (alleged) fatal drunken fall, in other words, his description
as a kind of «new Anacreon» (to use Campbell’s words, 2013, 162), most probably alludes to
the sympotic-erotic quality of Antipater’s poetry, and may further indicate that Antipater
composed erotic-sympotic epigrams (influenced by Anacreon’s work), which however have
not survived (only one erotic-skoptic epigram, that is, AP 12, 97, is attributed to an Antipater
(probably the one from Sidon, and not his namesake from Thessalonica); cf. Gutzwiller,
1998, 275 n. 91); both features attributed to Antipater imply that the use of Anacreon in the
Hellenistic poet’s work extended beyond the mere creation of the surviving five fictitious
9
epitaphs devoted to his poetic archaic model. In several of Antipater’s epigrams (though they
have not been categorised as erotic or homoerotic ones) one can discern a connection with the
erotic ___domain: for example, AP 6, 47 is about a woman who decides to become a hetaera; AP
7, 218 is about the famous hetaera Lais; AP 6, 206 is a dedication of female ornaments to
Aphrodite; APl 167 is on Aphrodite of Cnidus of Praxiteles and APl 178 is on Aphrodite
Anadyomene of Apelles; AP 9.567 is on the theatrical artist Antiodemis who is characterised
as «Paphia’s nestling» (composed probably by Antipater of Sidon, and not by Antipater of
Thessalonica). In addition, Antipater’s AP 7, 353 is linked to the symposium since it concerns
bibulous Maronis. What is more, while no epigram directly presents Anacreon’s drinking as
the cause of his death, Meleager makes such a connection explicit when it comes to
Antipater. This rather playful and slightly ironic twist (if we accept that Antipater died of a
fever) indicates the bond between the poet Antipater and Anacreon as his model, with a
principal feature of the former’s representation in literature, that is, drinking and intoxication,
extending to the latter’s death (οἰνοβρεχῆ («wine-soaked») could vary οἰνοπότης («wine-
drinker») attributed to Anacreon in the anon. AP 7, 28.2). Antipater definitely belongs to
Antipater’s «powerful ancestors», that is, his poetic models, with which the epigram closes;
such a closure turning the focus away from the poet (whose name has just been revealed) and
directing it to his «powerful ancestors» adds to the sense of underhand irony.
By creating an enigmatic imaginary epitaph for Antipater (as well as one for himself),
Meleager pays tribute to his predecessor, while simultaneously stressing his own originality
through the variation and amalgamation of material drawn from his predecessors’ epitaphs
(i.e. Leonidas and Antipater) and his own interpretive choices for the tomb’s symbols. The
fact that this series of enigmatic epitaphs (AP 7, 421 - 428) opens and closes with elaborate
epigrams composed by Meleager adds to the sense of poetic competition between the poet-
editor and his Hellenistic predecessor (on enigmatic epitaphs see Goldhill, 1994, p. 197-223;
for a detailed analysis of this epigrammatic cluster see Prioux, 2007, p. 244-290; for this
epigram see also Gutzwiller, 1998, 273-276; Campbell, 2013, 158-163).
For epitaphs and self-epitaphs in the Greek Anthology, one can further consult the
following studies: Gabathuler, 1937; Rossi, 2001, p. 81-106; Klooster, 2009, p. 165-196;
Kimmel-Clauzet, 2013, p. 163-184; on epitaphs on Archilochus and Hipponax, see Rosen,
2007; on Anacreon, see Chirico, 1980-1981; Acosta-Hughes & Barbantani, 2007, p. 442-445;
Gutzwiller, 2014; on Erinna, see Sens, 2003; on Ibycus, Stesichorus, and Simonides, see
Barbantani, 2010; on Homer, see Bolmarcich, 2002; Guichard, forthcoming; on the canon of
10
the nine lyric poets in epigrams, see Barbantani, 1993; Goldschmidt & Graziosi, 2018 is a
most recent publication on the topic of (real and imaginary) tombs of ancient poets).

Bibliography:

Acosta-Hughes Benjamin, 2002, Polyeideia. The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic
Iambic Tradition, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London, University of California Press.
Acosta-Hughes Benjamin & Barbantani Silvia, 2007, «Inscribing Lyric», in: Bing Peter &
Bruss Jon Steffen (éd.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Down to Philip,
Leiden & Boston, Brill, p. 429-458.
Acosta-Hughes Benjamin, 2010, Arion’s Lyre. Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry,
Princeton & Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Barbantani Silvia, 1993, «I poeti lirici del canone alessandrino nell’ epigrammistica»,
Aevum(ant), vol. 6, p. 5-97.
Barbantani Silvia, 2010, Three Burials (Ibycus, Stesichorus, Simonides). Facts and Fiction
about Lyric Poets in Magna Graecia in the Epigrams of the Greek Anthology,
Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso.
Bing Peter, 1988, «Theocritus’ Epigrams on the Statues of Ancient Poets», A&A, vol. 34, p.
117-123.
Bing Peter, 1993, «The Bios-Tradition and Poets’ Lives in Hellenistic Poetry», in: Rosen
Ralph & Farrell Joseph (éd.), Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald,
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, p. 619-631.
Bolmarcich Sarah, 2002, «Hellenistic Sepulchral Epigrams on Homer», in: Harder Annette,
Regtuit Remco & Walker Gerry (éd.), Hellenistic Epigrams, Hellenistica Groningana 6,
Leuven, Peeters Publishers, p. 67-83.
Campbell Charles, 2013, Poets and Poetics in Greek Literary Epigram, thèse, University of
Cincinnati.
Campbell Charles, 2019, «Variations on Simplicity. Callimachus and Leonidas of Tarentum
in Philip’s Garland», in: Kanellou Maria, Petrovic Ivana & Carey Chris (éd.), Greek
Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine Era, p. 102-118.
Chirico Maria Luisa, 1980-1981, «Antipatro Sidonio interprete di Anacreonte», AFLN, vol.
23, p. 43-57.
Clay Diskin, 2001, «The Scandal of Dionysos on Paros (The Mnesiepes Inscription E1 III)»,
11
 Prometheus, vol. 27, p. 97-112.
Clay Diskin, 2004, Archilochos Heros. The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis, Cambridge
(MA) & London, Harvard University Press.
Corso Antonio, 2007, «The Portraiture of Archilochus», Hyperboreus, vol. 13, p.11-30.
Coughlan Taylor, 2016, The Aesthetics of Dialect in Hellenistic Epigram, thèse, University of
Cincinnati.
Fantuzzi Marco & Hunter Richard, 2004, Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gabathuler Mathäus, 1937, Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter, thèse, University of St.
Gallen.
Goldhill Simon, 1994, «The Naive and Knowing Eye. Ecphrasis and the Culture of Viewing
in the Hellenistic World», in: Goldhill Simon & Osborne Robin (éd.), Art and Text in
Ancient Greek Culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 197-223.
Goldschmidt Nora & Graziosi Barbara, 2018, Tombs of the Ancient Poets. Between Literary
Reception and Material Culture, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press.
Gow Andrew Sydenham Farrar & Page Denys Lionel, 1965, The Greek Anthology.
Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Guichard Luis Arturo, forthcoming, «Homer in the Greek Epigram of the 1st to 4th
Centuries», in: Manolea Christina Panagiota (éd.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception
of Homer from Hellenistic age to Late Antiquity, Leiden & Boston, Brill.
Gutzwiller Kathryn, 1998, Poetic Garlands. Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley, Los
Angeles & London, University of California Press.
Gutzwiller Kathryn, 2012, «Catullus and the Garland of Meleager», in: Du Quesnay Ian &
Woodman Tony (éd.), Catullus. Poems, Books, Readers, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, p. 79-111.
Gutzwiller Kathryn, 2014, «Anacreon, Hellenistic Epigram and the Anacreontic Poet», in:
Baumbach Manuel & Dümmler Nicola (éd.), Imitate Anacreon! Mimesis, Poiesis and
the Poetic Inspiration in the Carmina Anacreontea, Berlin & Boston, De Gruyter, p.
47-66.
Houghton Luke, 2013, «Epitome and Eternity. Some Epitaphs and Votive Inscriptions in the
Latin Love Elegists», in: Liddel Peter & Low Polly (éd.), Inscriptions and their Uses in
Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 349-364.

12
Hunter Richard, 2014, Hesiodic Voices. Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works
and Days, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.
Johnston Ian, 2005, «Essay Five. Arms and the Men», in Essays on Homer’s Iliad, internet
source: http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/homer/iliadessay5html.html.
Kanellou Maria, 2012, Erotic Epigram. A Study of Motifs, thèse, University of London.
Kanellou Maria, forthcoming, «Revisiting Nossis. Beyond the Sapphic Influence».
Kimmel-Clauzet Flore, 2013, Morts, tombeaux et cultes des poètes grecs. Étude de la survie
des grands poètes des époques archaïque et classique en Grèce ancienne, Scripta
Antiqua 51, Bordeaux, Ausonius Éditions.
Klooster Jacqueline, 2009, Poetry as Window and Mirror. Hellenistic Poets on Predecessors,
Contemporaries and Themselves, thèse, University of Amsterdam [published revised
version 2011, Poetry as Window and Mirror. Positioning the Poet in Hellenistic Poetry,
Leiden, Brill].
Kontoleon Nicholas, 1963, «Archilochos und Paros», Pouilloux et al. (éd.), Archiloque,
Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 10, Vandoeuvres – Geneva, Fondation Hardt.
Lanata Giuliana, 1963, Poetica Pre-Platonica. Testimonianze e Frammenti. Testo, traduzione
e commento, Florence, La Nuova Italia Editrice.
Lavigne Donald, 2016, «Archilochus and Homer in the Rhapsodic Context», in: Carey Chris
& Swift Laura (éd.), Iambus and Elegy. New Approaches, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, p. 74-98.
Livingstone Niall & Nisbet Gideon, 2010, Epigram, Greece and Rome, New Surveys in the
Classics 38, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Neger Margot, 2018, «Immanent Genre Theory in Greek and Roman Epigram», in:
Henriksén Christer (éd.), A Companion to Ancient Epigram, p. 179-194, Hoboken, NJ,
Wiley-Blackwell.
Peirano Irene, 2014, ««Sealing» the Book. The Sphragis as Paratext», in Jansen Laura (éd.),
The Roman Paratext. Frame, Texts, Readers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
p. 224-242.
Prioux Évelyne, 2007, Regards Alexandrins. Histoire et théorie des arts dans l’épigramme
hellénistique, Leuven, Paris & Dudley (MA), Peeters Publishers.
Ramsby Teresa, 2007, Textual Permanence. Roman Elegists and the Epigraphic Tradition,
London, Duckworth.

13
Reitzenstein Richard, 1893, Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
alexandrinischen Dichtung, Giessen, J. Richer’sche Buchhandlung.
Rosen Ralph, 2007, «The Hellenistic Epigrams on Archilochus and Hipponax», in: Bing
Peter & Bruss Jon Steffen (éd.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Down to
Phillip, Leiden, Boston, p. 459-476.
Rossi Laura, 2001, The Εpigrams Αscribed to Theocritus. Α Μethod of Αpproach,
Hellenistica Groningana 5, Leuven, Paris & Sterling, Peeters Publishers.
Rotstein Andrea, 2010, The Idea of Iambos, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sens Alexander, 2003, «Asclepiades, Erinna, and the Poetics of Labor», in: Thibodeau Philip
& Haskell Harry (éd.), Being There Together. Essays in Honor of Michael C. J. Putnam
on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Afton, Minnesota, Afton Historical Society
Press, p. 78-87.
Skinner Marilyn, 1989, «Sapphic Nossis», Arethusa, vol. 22, p. 5-18.
Skinner Marylin, 2005, «Nossis Thêlyglôssos. The Private Text and the Public Book», in:
Greene Ellen (éd.), Women Poets in Ancient Greece and Rome, Norman, OK,
University of Oklahoma, p. 112-138.
Tarán Sonya Lida, 1979, The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden, Brill.
Tueller Michael, 2008, Look Who’s Talking. Innovations in Voice and Identity in Hellenistic
Epigram, Hellenistica Groningana 13, Leuven, Paris & Dudley (Mass.), Peeters
Publishers.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von, 1913, Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen über
griechische Lyriker, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von, 1924, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des
Kallimachos, 2 vols., Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

14