Penalties in Lycian Epitaphs of Hellenistic and Roman Times

Author(s): W. Arkwright
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 31 (1911), pp. 269-275
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/624775
Accessed: 29-11-2016 10:43 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press, The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PENALTIES IN LYCIAN EPITAPHS OF HELLENISTIC AND

ROMAN TIMES.

IT is well known that a large proportion of the Greek epitaphs of

contain a clause by which any person making any burial unauthorised
founder of the tomb becomes liable to pay a named sum to some corp
whether public (as the 8yLos, the rdXt9, or the imperial treasury) or
(as the temple of some god), or a powerful association (as the ryepovoThis liability was not (as might be supposed) a fine imposed by th
in punishment of a criminal offence. Illegal burial was indeed (at leas
the Roman government)3 a crime at law, and was punishable by a fi
this fine is expressly distinguished from the sum due to the vroXt

8Lto?o.4 The penalty in question does not, in fact, represent a fine at

damages to be recovered by a civil action. This explains the wide var
in the sums specified,' and the otherwise unaccountable fact that the
is fixed by the builder of the tomb.6 It stands for the value which h
1 The standard authority may be said to be

oELhXErEL 7r KvavEcroE6Y w4dh (8Grvdpca ,rperHirschfeld's essay, 'Ueber die griechischen

LXLra), K.'.X. EO'EwOev is 'besides,' i.e. a dis-

Grabinschriften welche Geldstrafen anordnen,'

tinct payment. The 8ara'rdis are the imperial
Kinigsberger Historisch-philologischen Studien,
enactments.
Also C.I.G. 4290, 6 ,vOdaas
i. 1887. A most full and careful analysis
of all
bre'Ouvvos
EraOTa &epela[s] KaraXOoviois Oeo-s ical
inscriptions of the kind frrom Lycia,
which ro-s 8iareraraydE'vois K[al ]wOeP
vroTofE'lraL
were then known, is given in Treuber's Beitrdige
'Ar7p[X]ErrW- 7ro r8ctuw (8-qvpta 8aop'tpia). This
zur Geschichte der Lykier, Part ii. Tiibingen,
explains C. G. 4207, 6 GOEs rva &aeBs$s gorw

1881. Great numbers have been published

OEors KcaraxOoVIOLS, Kal d~Krbs 3pElXE'W 7r@ TeX-

since. I have used this work so freely

that 8hWl
a
/.oaEdwv
( nvcipLa 7riEvraKL-XI'Ala), and
C.. G.
4224, d.
general acknowledgment of obligation
must

serve instead of incessant citation. If any

Thereand
is unvarying
then a ypaip
aE.Betas
involving
similar work dealing especially with this province
known
amount
of fine
which
has been published in recent years, I must
needapolonot be named ; cf. C.I.G. 4292, pOEthAEI
vise to its author for not being able to refer to it.
r-oLs KaaraxOoVioLs GOLs 81ficaLa.

2 The system is common to most countries

Thereof
is also a variable penalty to varying
Asia Minor, but the evidence in the case of
corporations.
Lycia is both earlier and more complete. For 5 They vary from 250 to 10,000 and even
Phrygia, see Ramsey, Cities and Bishoprics, 20,000 denarii. There is no indication of any
fixed scale.
vol. i. p. 98.
3 There does not appear to be any distinct 6 Anyman committing to others not his perallusion earlier than A.D. 43 to any law against sonal heirs the duty of bringing, after his death,

a private action for damages against anyone

" J.H.S. xv. p. 112, No. 25. &AXo 8E obVlE making a wrongful use of the property be-

hoE~fELa or 01ru~BVwpuXa.

E''O-'L dJ'T7racpvaL ? d rrpEiaL E'Ti7pw, 4 bromKEIE-

Tat TOZs 6K TV aLa'Era E'W Er7L[TEELAi]OLS, Kal ~wo0ev

queathed by him, would be compelled to name

in his lifetime the damages to be claimed, and

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

270

W.

ARKWRIGHT

on the possession of the

damages which the court

tomb,
was lik

Why, then, were these damages

The object was to ensure the pros
The right of bringing a private a
use of private property is in its
the tomb is the absolute propert
his lifetime, but after his death. It is his house, which he continues to
inhabit, ruled by his orders, just like the house of a living man.8 For obvious
reasons, these orders must be recorded before his death in the form of a will,

the provisions of which, so far as they deal with the disposal of the tomb, are

often engraved upon it in the form of an epitaph. He has the power to

dispose of it, or any part of it, in any way he chooses,9 but as a general rule
he bequeaths it to his personal descendants as an hereditary family property.10

Naturally the right and duty of bringing actions for the protection of this
property would devolve upon his heirs, who would of course receive the
consequent damages. Several inscriptions, to be quoted later, indicate that
this was in fact originally the custom."1 But experience seems to have shewn
that they were apt through supineness, timidity, or possibly corruption, to

neglect their duty. The remedy suggested itself of deputing this duty

either to anyone who would undertake the office, or (probably by a later

development) to some corporation, the damages claimed serving as an induce-

ment or bribe.

9 This is abundantly proved by the variety

market-value of the property. Otherwise he and precision of the bequests, permissions, and
could not be sure that the damages would be restrictions found at all peiods.
1o According to the established formula, a
deterrent, or guard against collusive actions, or

he would alrmost certainly name more than the

fictitious sales under the pretext of claims for man builds the tomb for himself, his wife, and
damages.
his children ('iKVOLS). That this includes descendants is proved by Heberdey and Kalinka,
7 It is not improbable that the court could
Bcricht, etc., i. No. 59, where Semonis builds
only award the full sum claimed, just as
Blackstone held that in an action of debt the
for herself Kail ois r'KVoLs a tomb which Lalla
plaintiff must prove the whole debt he claims,daughter of Lysimachus describes in a later
inscription as her own rpoyovLrcbv /v7O71eLov.
or recover nothing at all (Book V. ch. 9).
the formula is more explicit, as rE'KvoLs
8 Lycian rocktombs, as everyone knows, areOften
a
Kai Evyo'voLs, or ial r(v irKYWx vireVOLS or rots E5
reproduction of the living-house. The native

ablrv, or (as in C.I. G. 4208, c.) Kal 7i dr,

word prfinawa, a tomb, probably means simply
a house, and in the neighbouring Cibyra sarco-ro'rcWv . raoEd'vp yEEve. On the other hand
tombs (especially those previously uninscribed)
phagi are several times called olcos, Reisen, ii.
are often spoken of in secondary inscriptions as
pp. 191, 192. In Phrygia the dead man is 'con-

rpoyov~dc4. Compare Reisen, ii. 32. AbpijAos

ceived as living on as a god,' and the tomb 'is
the temple, i.e. the home of the god,' Ramsay,
"ApraAos ~is, b [pl]r, d?nv ( = took over) K ,rpoydCities andBishoprics of Phrygia, i. p. 100. ComvwV ,ov u VElEOYv dlre'ypaaJa avr^, K.r.A . It may
pare '~evrh Tb a6ro0Ecvw vaL T'obs 7rpo0781ouVLiYvous

at Aphrodisias in Caria, C.IG. 2831. In Lycia

the adoration of the heroified dead is represented

at a very early period in reliefs of sepulchral

banquets (A. H. Smith, Catalogue of Greek

Sculpture, i. 298), and often later. These are
sculptured on the tomb, and probably are

probably be inferred that all tombs were by cus-

tom hereditary in the absence of any clause to

the contrary effect in the founder's will.

1 Here again the duty very likely continued

to devolve on the heirs in the numerous cases

where no express clause is inserted delegating

it to others, or where there is no epitaph at all.

supposed to take place within it.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PENALTIES IN LYCIAN EPITAPHS 271

The earliest Greek inscription from Lycia whic

definite penalty is that of Telesias at Pinara,'2 whic

third century B.c. Here the sum of a talent is n

indication to whom it is to be paid.

It seems hardly possible not to take 7rpooaro-reo

two distinct payments were to be made. This is ce

formula found in Roman times at Aphrodisias in C

7r rort,7a, erTat aae ( r Icat w'dpa-ro rcat orvoawpr
el Tb iepcTraTov Taletov, .7.T..13 Offenders were l
daeYe3ta which involved a fine, and were to pay d
well. In one inscription there we find evoxo bgorra

is therefore identical with such late Lycian phr

aoeepeta9 lca-rax(Oovlot9 0eoF ,ca, V TroIcelerETat T 'o ttaTeTary}/eLvot9, Kal e4 oOev

'AWrepXetrWo
6^j8W."15
Early Greek7r,^T
epitaphs
from Lycia, such as the present example, always
employ the word iaiapToX9d, which in itself refers entirely to moral or
ceremonial guilt, not to criminality punishable by the law. The oldest
formulae seem to be 'let him be held a sinner against Leto and the other
gods,' 16 or more generally, 'against all the gods and goddesses.' 1 Later the
regular phrase is Ap1apTrXwv oTOO Beov Kca-raxfloviote, Kc.T.X.18 It would
certainly appear throughout that this is merely a curse.
In the epitaph of Telesias the explanation seems to be that the religious
offence could be purged by atonement in money to the offended gods, but this

was a matter between them or their priests and the sinner. The talent is a
distinct sum to be recovered in a civil suit by some unnamed person. The
reason why no particular person or corporation is appointed, as was the custom
in later times, is I believe because it is taken for granted that the duty of
dySucdeoaelat or bringing a private action (&c'K7) lies with the children and
grandchildren who are the heirs: they would therefore receive the damages.
Failing them, the damages go to any one who is willing to bring the action.'9

12 TEAEto-as TLAo/a ALeAtr'rV y'Vouvs rb r )p&tov

KaTrEOKEdaCEP advrcP, Cai 7rL YUvaLKI, Kai rols

TrVYOLS al yydvois abroi. 'AAAoiL 0B LEL'~BE

dTerw dravo7aa T jpb 7pOY l?7 T?8 poaordlai
e7epwL. 'EaV 84 rs raph raGra 7rolto7), &lAapcrwAbs o-rw Bw O1Ev 7rvrwY tKal Airro is Ka ~rc-v

TrivwV, Kal irpotaaroTreao-drw raAav'rov apyvptov,

Ka d~E'ErTw rw BovAo/.Lu4'PC '-y8IcdeoaOat repi

local custom as loosely equivalent to faorw

aontjYs, i.e. blrE,5Ovos aoEdetas.
16 C. 1. G. 4303. This epitaph is very ancient.

17 C.I.G. 4303, e.3; J.lf.S. xv. p. 114, No.

31; ibid. p. 104, No. 9; Reisen, ii. 58.

8s This first appears in the first century B.C.

and is commonly used until A.D. 43. It is

generally combined with a penalty to the 5^0uos.

9 This stage in the development of Lycian

law is therefore the same as that reached by
1 3C. I. G. 2839, and in several other epitaphs.Roman law under the republic, as quoted by
See Treuber, op. cit. p. 12.
Treuber, op. cit. p. 33. Cujus dolo malo sepul1 Le as-Waddington 1639.
chrumi violatum esse dicetur, in eum in factum
15 C.L. . 4290. Compare the other passages
judicium dabo, ut ei ad quem pertinet quanti ob
already quoted, p. 269, note 4. A variant ofearn rem aequum videbitur condemnetur. Si

torw'wv. C.L G. 4259, and Reisen in Lykien

und Karien, i. 29.

the usual formula at Aphrodisias, go-rw irdpaTrosnemo erit, ad quem pertineat, sive agere nolet :

iKai rpoo-aro-Ero-i'rw (C.LC. 2824), must be in-quicumque agere volet, ei sestertium centum

terpreted in conformity with contemporarymilium nummorum actionem dabo.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

272

W.

The

ARKWRIGHT

failure

shewn

by

of

this

the

heirs

alone

inscription.

Th

private persons does not seem to

not a mere coincidence that the
with that of Telesias,20 and for a
at

all

for

the

future

protection

of

The extraordinarily small numb

the beginning of the third cent

evidence rather insufficient.23

It is possibly not until the first century in an epitaph at Tristomo

(Reisen, ii. 108),24 that we find another mention of damages.25 Here they are
to be paid to one of the two builders and to his descendants.26
The sarcophagus of Hermoas at Assarjik (Aloanda ?) may be somewhat
later in date.27 In any case this seems to be the oldest published inscription
in which any part of the damages is assigned to a named public body, and
even here the right belongs in the first place to the heir. The 8i4)ol only has
the share which is commonly given to the informer, as in the next example.
The earliest epitaph in which the recovery of damages is entirely handed

over to a public body, to the complete exclusion of the heirs, is on the

20 I omit in this paper all discussion of two pended at the end of the inscription, which is

epitaphs much older than Telesias', that of therefore

to be read thus :

Perpenenis at Cyaneae (Reisen, ii. 27), and that Tb V7i'Pov wKaTErebevioaV'rao (erasure) 'Hy-las
of Moschion at Telmessus (first printed by M. SeSarkeheLos Eav'rwL Kai 7rl UyvvaLKL a'TOOi (erasure
Imbert, Memoires de la Sccidtd de linguistique, seq. 1. 6) Kai Opaor'uaXos 'ApXlov arlvrt Kal 7TrL

vol. x. p. 216). Their interpretation dependsyvvacKl ab'roV No[oa]o'l[a] MeveKpd'ov Ial K roiTs
entirely on the meaning of a Lycian word,TEIYOLS aiTrrKv Kaid [To]Zs ToV[w]v dydyvoLs (1. 3)

mindis, and they cannot be treated apart from &NAWLS ea g1e 4E'r4EWL Oa'aL, 4 opetlXieL 6 7raph
the Lycian inscriptions, with which they are, I

anything to do with legal penalties. In the

'a-'a Odaas w7rriLTlLO KaOadrep dy &IKc)s OpacruWdgXwL

T 4roTs
ab'roI
apaXla's
XAhlas.
The alteration
was c'-yydOLs
made at the
moment
of en-

22 As Reisen, ii. 58; CI.G. 4303; J.H.S.

xv. p. 114.

gehort wohl noch in das letzte vorchristliche

Jahrhundert' (Petersen). There seems no de-

believe, contemporary. Neither seems to have

first, there is probably only a question of a finegraving : lines 6 and 7 are not a later addition.
imposed by a corporation on its members (Ver- In 1. 3 Kal To7s E'Kvots abi'ro were probably the
words erased.
tragsmult), in the second of a fee, not a fine.
21 As Reisen, ii. 52, and 94.
'5 4Die Inschrift ist gut geschrieben und

23 There are perhaps not more than about 15 finite

in
indication that it may not l)e even somewhat earlier.
all older than the latter date, and of these some

26 If there had been only one builder, the

after. Before 300, over 150 Lycian and Greek
damages would probably have gone to his
descendants by ordinary right, and not have
epitaphs are known. The new wealth created

half-dozen are to be dated before 300 or little

been mentioned in the epitaph.

under Roman protection (from B.c. 168 onward)
required new family tombs ; in the bad times27
ofFor himself, wife, and children. 'AAXwL

Greek rule the old were sufficient.

Se .L7)OEVL ELf'TW Ta7ipVaL EV 'TWL 7rpoyeypa/.L/EYWL

TaPLm, a'7rOTLrT 6 040a' S T L VLWIVL 1AoO

24 In this inscription two erasures appear to
have been made, in the first and third lines, so'EptoXA'wi 8paXhs p pLaXLXL'as KaOdwrep K 81'is,

as to remove the name of the first of the two

Kai rTW@ 84I WL rb 2oov rxhOos, ial Ka&ap'roAbs

original builders, and remove also the mention

E-TW not
K.r...
J.H.S.
xv. p.
restorations,
here
marked,
are104.
due The
to Mr.
Davies
of the heirs of the second original builder,
and are certain. No reward is offered to a
Hegias. Instead of these the name of Thrasymachus and the mention of his heirs are private
approsecutor or to an informer.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PENALTIES IN LYCIAN EPITAPHS 273

sarcophagus of Serisalus8s at Simena, which is pro

Hegias and Thrasymachus.
That of Archedemus at Tristomo is apparently s
is the first epitaph in which the builder, having per
he bequeaths the right of burying others in his tom
right of recovering damages to a public body or to

of to his heirs.29

The three inscriptions last quoted, with another unf

give the only published examples of penalties payab

the period in which the iota adscript was still

generally speaking to the very end of that period.

afterwards the system must have become very com
more than twenty epitaphs earlier than A.D. 43, b
formulae employed are very uniform, and very si
inscriptions of Serisalus and Archedemus.
The evidence, so far as it goes, tends to shew tha

right of prosecution to a specially named publ

expedient in the early part of the first century B

common until the end of that century. It appears
the popular action found in the much earlier epita
causes which deterred the heirs from prosecuting
private individual: in the case of a powerful offend
less open to intimidation. The change may have bee
of the legal procedure.

It has been already observed that the epitaph

machus,32 and likewise the two inscriptions neares

Hermoas33 and of Serisalus,34 all contain the words

are not found on any other tomb, whether earlier or
28 C(..G. 4300, v. line 9. r v The
a' inscription
8rs lraph
belongs 'ar
to the first century
later than

B.C. ; the form

&aTe indicates
a date
1rpo-yypacqqeva 7rpda477 Tr, Aap'rwLXbs
" ErWL
OorosS
B.C. 70.
XOoviors, ical o7ro'LoEd'rwS IWrL'r4ov
7rwL pmhlWL

30so .I.G. 4300, otohrls

s, in which the end of the
paXlIhs a atcrXetXias, 7T's irpooayyeAias

7raV'rl T7rl $OVAhoEYwV ir1 7 T1/A'l7Er c KaOdrwep bK

~LIC77S.

The founder seems to have left no descend-

ants, for the use of the tomb is only given to

his wife, and parents, and a OpEr'n (OpEWrTol
and &reev'Oepoi in the bro'doprov). The delega-

tion to the 8ijlos is probably due to the in-

capacity of some to plead, and the improbability

that the others would survive him.

last line should be restored, ] [ElA3E L 'A]rEp-

[A]EL['4cI
,paXj'?s.
?].
3' During',cL
this~,OLw,
period in
three-fourths
of the
examples the damages are payable to the 8^os.
Permission to prosecute still continued to be
given to private persons, who receive one-half
of the penalty. After A.D. 43, the penalty is

stated in denarii instead of drachmae, and onethird is generally promised to the informer, or
29 Reisen, ii. 108a (= C.].G. 4303 c). Tbv the witness who secures a conviction.

Tdcpov ca'reO-cudcraro 'ApXE'8?lOS Epyawiov 4EaTrwL,

32 'fLAfIio-'irTLTiUIOV KaO 'rep e4y CK7s Opa-

Kai TIj yvVaIK ac'roi Mayca Ovajuapov, al ro-Is oauvdXwL, K.T.A.

TEICVOSS, Kad i7ii' T IKWV cVwyTe'Iv. 'AAxwl 8

IA r78oi w 6a4EaL* O &v -' TLs 64"V8 r, "a ElAf'TwI Mvpf'wi' v 7i L WL (Spaxy's TPLOXiAicCS),

T? rS pcvs ofkrS -rqaVT T@ 138UovAoLE'PWc z7T T@l

171AIO-EL.

a &iro'r'drw--rTt ulwvci olo-8paXy's ,rplIXItas34TS

Koa',rep
4K 8i 77S.
7rpOoarYE-ias
ou'aK.T.A.
7s ra aYT@ T BouAoMuevwL ~e7r 7wWl 7IlLEL KaOd7arEp Y LKrS.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

274

W.

ARKWRIGHT

certainly

to

be,

'as

if

in

conse

action had taken place,' 6 with

was not to take place, at least in

that the substitution of a criminal action is not intended.36

The nature of the change is very probably indicated by the wording of

the formula which is found in the nearly contemporary epitaph of Archedemus,

and again repeatedly almost without variation until A.D. 43: O Oet (A

Mivpbov f N(lp8'xao (aXp4epuo''.2s t ) T rpdwEW OVU17So 7flfl'T TOt

/OVXO6,MwVW E TL ThTC O7C LOTEC.

fIpaiiv?, which is found at least ten times during this period, is properly
'the recovery of a debt'; 37 the habitual use of such a term can hardly be
accidental. The procedure in cases of claims for the wrongful use of a tomb
had probably been assimilated to that in cases of debt, no doubt with the
object of making it cheaper and more expeditious. The meaning would in
that case be that proceedings were to be taken against offenders by a 7rpa&~sv 38

instead
a &,xy,
but the damages
and
the accuser's
share were to be assigned
as
in theof
case
of an ordinary
civil action
(mKaOdirep
6e 6bE1c).
The series of epitaphs hitherto discussed extends from early Hellenistic
down to late Roman times. Throughout this period, the objects, as well as
the rights and powers, of the tomb-builder remain in general unaltered. The

trespasses against which he seeks to protect his property are defined in

formulae which hardly vary from first to last. The remedies, on the contrary,

to which he has recourse are of two entirely different kinds derived from
entirely different orders of ideas. Each of them, moreover, seems to pass
through more than one stage of evolution during the period.
In the first case usurpation of a tomb is regarded as a sin. The remedy

is an appeal to the vengeance of the offended gods. In times and places

where religious influence was powerful, a substantial atonement was probably
enforced. Later, under the Roman empire, the state intervenes with penal
statutes against sacrilege and tomb-breaking. The sin has developed into a

crime.

In the second case the usurpation is neither a sin nor a crime, but a tort.

It is an injury to private property, and the remedy is a civil action for

damages. This (it seems likely) was at first to be brought by the builder
31 Treuber (p. 19) translates 'ganz wie auf
Grund eines durchgefiihrten Privatprozesses.'

He compares an inscription at Aphrodisias

(Lebas-Waddington 1639) where offenders have

to pay to the Imperial fiscus 10,000 denarii, cs E' C

Ka-ra8lniCs, 6v rb rpirov 7-rai 'rov audoarros.

He suggests that 'bei dem Gerichtsverfahren,

das dlurch eine derartige Anzeige veran]asst

wurde, die litis aestimatio sowie die actio judicati und vielleicht noch anderes von vornheein
wegfiel, und dazu, dass die Busse verwirkt war
und rechtskrdiftig wurde, es geniigte, wenn der

Richter sich dahin ausprach, dass die gegen

die Bestimmungen verstossende That von der

bezeichneten Person begangen war.' He knew

only the last of the three epitaphs.
36 See above, p. 269.

37 Also the recovery (f arrears of taxation,

etc.

38 It is not probable that the actual recovery

of damages which had already been awarded by

a court could have been left to any private

person. More probably all necessity for such
an award was eliminated by something analogous to a justices' warrant. The public registration of the damages claimed, as well as the
title to the tomb (C. I. G. 4274), would facilitate
a summary jurisdiction.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PENALTIES IN LYCIAN EPITAPHS 275

and his heirs; then later by them, or failing

undertake the office; finally by some corporati

Throughout the period both sets of ideas

both remedies are commonly invoked in th

system is certainly more in accordance with pr

more characteristic of the native races of Asia Minor, so far as we know

anything of them. It also appears to prevail over the other the more, the
further we go back.39 It is possible that the second system is the result of
the imposition by the Macedonian conquest of Greek ideas on Asiatic, an
application of Greek legal theories about private property and Greek habits
of litigation to native conceptions of the absolute ownership of the tomb by
the dead.

In any case it is unsafe, when employing these Greek epitaphs as a

means for the translation of the older Lycian inscriptions, to assume an exact
correspondence throughout, or to expect confidently on native tombs of the
fourth century to find the identical system of penalties to the 7r6vTs, the
G8)Lovl, and the 7epovala which is found 300 years later. The continuity of

custom and even of wording is no doubt remarkable. The very same

formulae are used to define the trespass during the Lycian as during the
Greek period. It by no means follows that the remedies are identical. On

some future occasion I may perhaps endeavour to show that the Lycian
formulae which have generally been supposed to refer to penalties have really
a totally different meaning.40

I regret that the article by Keil in Hermes, xiv. pp. 552 f., only came to
my notice after the above was already in type. Interesting as it is, it does not
appear to me to make any essential modification of my position necessary.
W. ARKWRIGHT.

40 With the Lycian are to be classed, not

39 Only one of the oldest epitaphs (that of
Telesias) comes under the second class, and only the bilingual, but also a few very early
there the curse precedes the penalty. Two Greek epitaphs, such as the two mentioned on

others (U.I.G. 4303 and J.H.S. xv. p. 114) p. 272, note 20.

have the curse only.

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:43:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms