16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



way peculiarly his own. On the other hand, 11, 17, 23, 43, 46 differ 

 from the verses just quoted in that the writers have somehow managed 

 to make their own the familiar expressions. 43 will illustrate — 



Ae^o Fdva^ KpoviSa Zev '0\vvTTie Kokov aya\fj.a 

 IXtjFco 6vfi<ji) Tco AaKedaLfjiovia). 



But in spite of the simplicity of these early epigrams, their variety 

 is remarkable. The same ideas are expressed, the same words used, in 

 a number of constructions, e. g. the name of the dead and of the divinity 

 appear each in four cases,®^ that of the dedicator in three. Now it is 

 the tomb or statue that speaks — now the buried man or the dedicator ; 

 now the god, now the passer-by is addressed. 



We possess a few early epigrams which show greater poetic power, 

 poems where art and elegance seemed to the authors as important as 

 utility. An example is the well-known 25 — 



Edfea Botcorwii kcu XaX/c/Secoi/ hnfiacravres 

 TTal8(i ' Adrjvaioiv, ipyjiaaiv iv itoK(jj.ov, 



roiv tTTTTOvs BeKUTTjv IlaXXtiSt rdcrS e'deaau — 



an epigram which approaches more nearly those of the next century, 



because phrases like fdvea 8ap.d(TavTei, tpyfiaa-iv iv TToXffjiOV, ecr^faav v^piv 



give to the whole poem a poetic coloring. 



Appended to this paper are tables showing the elements which appear 

 more or less constantly in the inscriptional epigrams. It is remarkable 

 liow definitely they speak, how consistently they keep the reason for 

 their existence before our eyes. In the sepulchral inscriptions we find 

 always the name of the dead (but it is in the verses themselves, never 

 extra metrum) ;*3 always some word meaning "tomb," except in the 



«2 See Tables I, II. 



*' Koehler thinks that in 10 the name of the dead was omitted in the verses and 

 inscribed above them. His restoration, however, is by no means ceitaiu and it seems 

 to me more reasonable to suppose it faulty than to accej)t on conjeeture a reading 

 which would make the inscription an exception, not only in the sixth but in the 

 fifth century, at least as far as we can tell fiom the eviilence at our command. Tlie 

 only inscription that could possibly support Koehler's view is 12. 



Tjv 'y'\ap a.irA(Tr)% 



vovv re koL avol^pilfiv f^oxos rjXiKlas 

 'Eir]i(TT'^/i(ov t65' fTToet 'l7r(7r)o(r[rpdr]ou ffTJfia. 



This is, however, not a parallel, for the name almost certainly ajipeared in the 

 itiissiii<,' part of the hexameter and it njipears below, not as part of the epitaph, re- 

 jieating extra mrtriun information already ^iven in verse, but as pait of a second and 

 separate inscription with (piite a dill'erent function. 



