Although the people of Troy participate in Flector’s funeral and although the army of the Greeks at times acts as a com munity of sorts, these are not political societies. The polis has only a shadowy existence, and developed institutions of law and government are still to com e7. Th e intense interactions of the poem are ac
cordingly not political but personal - between Gods and their heroes, heroes and one another, and, at the end of the poem, between the greatest Greek hero and the Trojan king. The emergence in the 6th and 5th centuries, however, of self-con
scious polis identities and polis institutions interjected another interest into the burial o f members of the community, now citizens o f the polis. The citizen fu
7 F o r d isc u s sio n o f the c h a r a c t e r o f th e early pol is, and p articu larly th e F l o m e r i c pol is, see Kurt Rttaflaub, H o m e r to S o l o n : T h e R i s e o f the P olis, in: T h e A n c i e n t G r e e k C i t y - S t a t e (C o p e n h a g e n 1993).
T h e P o l i s an d the C o r p s e 97
neral, like other aspects of social and family experience with clear public signifi
cance, became the focus of legal regulation as well as political ideology, and the proper place o f burial became a contested issue. I turn now from epic paradigm to the historical engagement of that paradigm by democratic Athens.
N o t surprisingly, the classical Athenians attributed their burial n om oi to their lawgiver Solon, and in this case it may well in part be true. That Solon in the early 6th century did articulate specific rules for the manner, time, place, and personnel of funerals seems likely8. Explicit testimony comes from the fourth century text of [Demosthenes] 43 and from Plutarch’s even later L ife of Solon; the two accounts are essentially consistent but are embedded in significantly different contexts and reflect different purposes. Th e author of the speech “Against M akaratatos” argues an inheritance claim for one relative who seems to be an adopted first cousin of the deceased once removed against another who (as I read it) is a second cousin once removed, and supports his argument by bringing out all the laws he can find that prescribe the responsibilities and identity of kin9. O ne of these is a law of “the lawgiver S o lo n ” giving responsibilities as well as property to the relatives of the dead. Th e speaker discusses portions of the law, which is inserted in full into the text of the speech10.
“Th e deceased”, reads the inserted law
shall b e laid o u t in the h ous e (en d on) in a n y w a y o n e c h o o s e s , and th ey shall c a rry o u t th e d e ceased o n the day aft er that on w h i c h th e y lay h im out , b e f o r e the su n rises. A n d th e men shall w a l k in f r o n t w h e n t h e y c a r r y h im o u t and th e w o m e n b eh ind. A n d n o w o m a n less than si xty y e a rs o f age shall be p e r m it te d to e n te r the c h a m b e r o f the de ce as ed , or to f o l l o w the d e ceased w h e n he is c arr ie d to the t o m b , e x c e p t t h o s e w h o are w ithin the de gree o f c h ild r en of co u s i n s ; n o r shall a n y w o m a n be p e r m it te d t o e n te r the c h a m b e r o f the de ce as ed w h e n the b o d y is c arr ie d ou t, exc ept th o se w h o are w i t h i n the de gree o f ch ildren o f co usi n s. (6 2 )
Plutarch provides some more details relating to w o m en’s participation, and to the character of the funeral in general, in a section of the L ife of Solon about the
“going o u t” of women. After noting that:
w h e n [ w o m e n ] w e n t ou t, th ey w e re n o t to w e ar m o r e than th ree ga rm ents, th e y w e re n o t to c a rry m o r e th an an o b o l ’s w o r t h o f f o o d o r d r i n k , n o r a b a sk e t m o r e than a eigh te en inch es hig h, an d th e y w e r e n o t to travel a b o u t b y n ig h t un less th e y r o d e in a w a g o n with a lam p to light th eir way,
8 F o r the c h a r a c t e r and c o n t e n t of th e law c o d e o f the his torical S o l o n see E. Ruschenbusch, S o l o n o s N o m o i (W i e sb a d e n 1 9 66); M. G argarin, E a r l y G r e e k L a w ( B e r k e l e y 198 6) . W i th o n ly a fe w e x c e p t i o n s , all o u r k n o w l e d g e o f S o l o n ia n law c o m e s f r o m s u c h later q u o t a ti o n s .
9 See D a v id C o h en, Law , V i o l e n c e , and c o m m u n i t y in Cl ass ical A t h e n s ( C a m b r i d g e 1995), c h a p te r 8 fo r th e flex ib ility and m a n ip u la b il ity o f A t h e n i a n “ r u l e s ” o f ki n sh ip as illu str ated in this an d o t h e r fam ily lawsuits.
10 T h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f this and o t h e r s u c h i n s ert io n s is a p r o b l e m . In ge ne ral, it s e e m s that each cas e need s to be c o n sid e re d on its o w n m er its; here, th e lang uage and c h a r a c t e r o f the law s ee m g e n u in ely arc h ai c - even th o u g h as P l u t a r c h ’s c o m m e n t s (see next n o t e ) indicat e, later p o s t -c la s s ic a l G r e e k lawg ivers c o n t i n u e d o r revived this s o r t o f social legislation.
9 8 C y n t h i a P a tte r s o n
Plutarch goes on to say that Solon
f o r b a d e th e lac er ation o f the flesh o f th e m o u r n e r s , and the use o f set l a m e n ta tio n s, and the b ew ail in g o f a n y o n e at the fu nera l c e r e m o n i e s o f an oth er. T h e sacrific e o f an o x at th e grave wa s n o t p e r m it te d , n o r the bur ial w ith th e dead o f m o r e th an th re e chan ges o f c l o t h in g , n o r the visitin g o f o t h e r s ’ t o m b s [allotria m n em a ta] e x c e p t at the tim e o f bur ial (Solon 2 1 ) 11.
It has been customary to follow Plutarch’s lead and see these regulations as pri
marily concerned with limiting the authority of the family and with controlling the behavior of women, whose freedom of movement and “status” were signifi
cantly curtailed by the emergence of the democratic polis12. B u t when these pas
sages are set against the Hom eric paradigm, they clearly reflect an interest in the delineation of a boundary between the private and the public spheres and a move towards what might be called the privatization of the ordinary citizen burial. As many have observed, Solon’s regulations deny - in as much as it was possible - the public character of the funeral which was so prominent in Homer. Th e funeral, the lawgiver says, ought not as a rule be a publicly visible or contested event.
T h e point is made simply with the single word “inside” (en don ): the prothesis must be held “inside” - within the house itself or its courtyard limits. This setting of the prothesis “inside” identifies the ritual as a private matter. Similarly, the requirement that the ek p h ora take place at night “ before the sun rises” reinforces the idea that the funeral was not a part of public, daylight business. (The activity of the courts, for example, was limited to daylight hours13.) Th e restriction of the female mourners (apart from those over the age of 60) to those within the degree of children of cousins is particularly interesting in that it draws upon the legal definition in Athens (known also from D ra k o n ’s law on homicide and from in
heritance law) of the kindred, called the anchisteia tou genous or “closest in birth”, an ego-focused web of relatives extending first to paternal and then to maternal relatives, with male preceding female in each degree of relationship. It is interest
ing to note here that a man’s wife was not part of his anchisteia and so technically 11L o e b tr ansla tio n, m od ifi ed . P lu ta r c h th e n adds the i nteresti n g c o m m e n t th at s u c h pra c tic es w e r e also f o r b id d e n b y “ o u r l a w s ” [i.e. th o s e o f C h a e r o n e a in the early 2 n d c e n t u r y c.e.] and th at o ff en d er s w e re pu n ish ed b y g u n aik on om o i b ec ause th ey had s h o w n u n m a n l y and ef fe m i n a te b e h a v i o r in th eir e x p re ssi o n o f grief.
E a r l ie r in the sa m e Life, P lu ta r c h a tt rib u t e s th e S o l o n ia n re g u latio n o f fu nera ls to the i n f lu en c e o f th e C r e t a n E p im e n i d e s : “ W h e n he [E p i m e n i d e s ] arr ived in A t h e n s , he fo r m e d a fr ie n d sh ip w i t h S o l o n , gave h im help in m a n y way s and pr e pare d th e w a y f o r his l e g i s l a t io n ” (12). A m o n g o t h e r things, E p im e n i d e s w as r e s p o n s ib l e f o r “ a b o lish in g t he h arsh and b arb ar ic p rac tic es in w h i c h A t h e n i a n w o m e n had indulge d up to that t i m e ” (ibid. ) [S ee b e l o w f o r the s t o r y o f b a n is h m e n t o f the fa m i l y o f M e g a c l e s - de ad and alive w h i c h P lu ta r c h tells in this sam e chap te r].
12 See, f o r exam p le, M. A lexiou, T h e R i tu a l L a m e n t in G r e e k T r a d i t o n ( C a m b r i d g e 1 9 74) 2 0 2 2. T h i s is a k e y fe at ure o f w h a t I have e l s e w h e r e called th e “ e v o l u t i o n a r y p a r a d i g m ” o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r e e k polis, a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h th e tw o m ai n “ v i c t i m ” o f the rise o f the p o liti c al state are th e fa m ily an d w o m e n . See T h e F a m i l y in G r e e k F l i s t o r y ( H a r v a r d U n i v e r sity P re ss 199 8) .
13 P l a t o ’s ins ti tu ti o n o f a n o c t u rn a l c o u n c i l in th e Law s w o u l d s ee m to be o n e his radical n o n - d e m o c r a t i c in n o v a ti o n s , w i t h i n a te x t th at is o f t e n q u ite tr ad iti o n a lly A t h e n i a n .
T h e P olis and the C o r p s e 9 9
at least may have been excluded from attending his funeral (unless she was over 60). Perhaps that was simply a technicality and did not in fact hold in the defini
tion of female mourners - to exclude the wife would indeed be a major change in burial tradition. B u t it may be possible that the wife’s natal family was excluded from her husband’s funeral in order to keep the ritual as narrowly private as pos
sible14. This restriction, plus the rule noted by Plutarch forbidding the “bewailing of anyone at the funeral ceremonies of another” seem to show a concern that the ordinary citizen funeral not be political or extend into the public sphere. Th e or
dinary funeral should not be the occasion for political competition or public dis
play. To sacrifice an ox, it hardly need to noted, at the funeral of a family member would certainly create the possibility of a larger than “family size” funeral feast and would be a grand display.
In addition to, or in conjunction with, the Solonian creation of a conceptual pri
vate sphere to which the ordinary citizen funeral was limited, early Athenian law allowed for the public honoring of heroes in burial and the total exclusion of traitors and certain criminals from any burial at all within the polis. I will return later to the public funeral ceremony described by Thucydides and termed by him
“p atrios n o/n os”; here it is enough to recall the story o f Tellus who was buried where he fell in battle and also received publicly visible - and publicly paid for - funeral rites. A t the other end of the spectrum was the denial of any burial ritual at all or the exclusion of the corpse from burial within the limits of the polis.
According to Thucydides, the relatives of Themistocles (who had been declared a traitor in the turbulent decade after the Persian wars) brought his bones home from Asia and secretly buried them “since it is against the law to bury in Attica the bones of one who has been exiled for treason” (1.117); and X enophon, in his co n tinuation of Thucydides, specifically cites the law forbidding the burial of traitor and temple ro bber within Attica (ITellenika 1.7.33)15. Perhaps Plato’s imposition of a similar punishment for those who murder a family member reflects not only his conservatism but his knowledge of archaic Athenian law:
14 I t is interesti n g that the the c i ty - s ta te o f F l o r e n c e also legislated h ig h ly s p e cifi c ru les o n the p u b lic p e r f o r m a n c e o f citi zen fu ne rals and o n fa m i l y p a rticip a tio n in th o s e fu ne rals; see Sha
ron Strocchia in: D e a t h and R i tu a l in R e n a i s s a n c e F l o r e n c e (B a l t i m o r e 1 9 92) c h a p te r 1.
13 C f . A t th e b e g in n in g o f his ex c u r su s o n T h e m i s t o c l e s , Thucydides relates the s t o r y o f the a ttem p te d c o u p b y C y l o n in c .6 3 0 an d th e i m p i o u s killing o f his su p p o rte rs w h o h ad taken re fuge at th e altar o n the A c r o p o l i s . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , the fam ily o f M e g a cle s, the p e r p e t r a tor o f thi s c rim e, was at k e y m o m e n t s in A t h e n i a n h is t o r y expelled f r o m A t h e n s - th e dead as well as th e living. T h u c y d i d e s says th at this was d o n e w h e n C l e o m e n e s invade d A t h e n s at the end o f the 6 th c e n t u r y ( “ th ey exiled th e living an d du g up and cast o u t the b o n e s o f the d e a d ” 1. 126). I n his S o l o n , Plutarch says that this h ap p e n e d earlier as we ll du ri n g th e crisis th at led to S o l o n ’s a p p o i n t m e n t as la w -giv er : “T h o s e m e m b e r s w h o w e re still alive w e re b a n is h e d and the b o d ies o f th o se w h o had died w e re du g up and cast o u t b e y o n d the f r o n t ie rs o f A t t i c a ” (12) . N o n e t h e l e s s , as T h u c y d i d e s says, “ th e y c a m e b a c k later, and their de sce n d an ts still live in A t h e n s . ” In d eed , a m o n g th eir n u m b e r s w e re P eri cles an d Alc ib iad es. F o r d i s c u s s io n o f this e x t re m e pen alty , see R. Parker, M i a s m a ( O x f o r d 1983) 4 5 - 4 8 .
100 C y n t h i a P a tte r s o n
“ I f a m an be fo u n d gu ilty o f s u c h h o m i c i d e , the off ic er s o f th e c o u r t w i t h the m agist rat es shall p ut h im to de ath and cast h im o u t n ake d, o u tsid e the c ity at an a p p o in te d place w h e r e three w ay s meet. T h e r e , all th e m ag istrates , in th e n am e o f the state, shall tak e each m an his st on e and cast it on the head o f the c o r p s e as in ex p ia t io n fo r th e state. T h e c o r p s e shall then be c a r ried to th e f r o n t i e r and cast o u t b y legal se n te n c e w i t h o u t b u r ia l . ” ( L a w s 8 7 3 b - c ) .
Finally, the same sort of articulation of private, public, and extra-polis space is evi
dent in the early Athenian law on homicide that drew a distinction not only be
tween intentional and unintentional homicide but between homicides committed in space outside or inside the polis and outside or inside the oikos. As quoted by Demosthenes (23.53), the law stated that if a man committed homicide in an ath
letic contest, in a fight on the road or in battle, or when he found another man
“upon” his wife, mother, sister, daughter or concubine, in these specific cases he should not go into exile as a murderer16. It is striking that the law envisions both an exterior and an interior sphere in which a man could kill with impunity.
Legal rules and boundaries, however, provide only a sort of conceptual map of archaic Athenian society; the public/private distinction in particular was hardly a real fence at the courtyard gate. This point becomes particularly clear when we consider not the burial rites themselves, but the burial monument, which was afterward set up over the tomb. Although often called “private” grave monu
ments, they are of course aimed at a public audience. O n e particularly interesting such monument is a late 6th century black-figure pinax, most likely used to de
corate an earth-built tomb, which shows a remarkable self-consciousness about the proper carrying out of private funeral ritual17. In the representation of the prothesis each member of the deceased’s family is carefully and precisely ident
ified - and apart from the nurse all are within the proper degree of “private”
family relationship. T h e production of such pinakes did not continue into the fifth century, and the commemoration of the dead with stone monuments also came to a temporary end in the early fifth century. This apparent scaling back of private funeral monuments in Athens has been attributed to a specific law or to a general democratic mood of restraint or to a natural swing in style or popular taste18. T he discussion is a long-standing one. I do not want to enter into that debate here, but rather turn to the public sphere - to the important testimony of Thucydides on the Athenian public funeral for the war dead and finally to the dramatic discussion of burial ritual carried out in the Athenian public theater.
16 D e m o s t h e n e s att ri b utes th e law to D r a k o n . T h a t th e law is ar ch aic in origin is s u p p o rte d b y the use o f the te rm “ p a l l a k e ” fo r c o n c u b i n e . See m y c o m m e n t s o n this te rm and th e status it im plies in M. G argarin (ed.), S y m p o s i u m ( 1 9 9 0 ) 2 8 1 - 2 8 7 .
17 O n the fu n e r a r y pin akes, s e e /. B oardm an , P ain te d F u n e r a r y P la q u es an d S o m e R e m a r k s o n P r o th e s i s , in: B S A 5 0 (1 9 5 5 ) 5 1 - 6 6 and, briefly, D. K urtz a n dJ. B oardm an , G r e e k Bu ria l C u s t o m s ( L o n d o n 19 71) 83, 1 4 8 - 4 9 . See also H. A. Shapiro, T h e I c o n o g r a p h y o f M o u r n i n g in A t h e n i a n A rt , in: A J A 9 5 (199 1 ) 6 2 9 - 6 5 6 , fo r disc u s sio n o f th e pin akes w it h in th e la rger c o n t e x t o f A t h e n i a n fu n e ra ry ic o n o g r ap h y .
IS See Shapiro (p rev iou s n o te ) f o r d i sc u s sio n and re fe r enc es to earlier literature.
T h e P o lis an d the C o r p s e 101