32 KATHLEEN M. COLEMAN
Lysippus’, I thought it was ‘by Phidias’ ”).^35 Statius, on the other
hand, completely effaces this inscription from the record of Vindex’
statuette, leaving the identification of the artist as Lysippus to appear
in the text as a natural property of this treasure, rather than ascribing it
to a source as mundane as an inscription, and thereby reinforcing his
compliment to Vindex on his ability to provide attributions for
anonymous works.
The reference to Vindex aside, however, Statius in the Silvae
scarcely mentions inscriptions. He imagines a local resident abroad
saying epideictically to Crispinus, cernis adhuc titulos (Silv. 5.2.148),
“you still see the inscriptions”, when pointing out weapons that
Crispinus’ father dedicated to the god of war; but such a fleeting ref-
erence is more or less the extent of direct epigraphic allusion. In par-
ticular, it seems very odd that in eight epicedia—the most frequently
attested type of poem in the collection, testifying to the importance of
marking bereavement in a suitable manner—there is no whisper of an
epitaph. The poem to Melior lamenting the death of his parrot (Silv.
2.4) is thick with reminiscences of Ovid’s poem about Corinna’s
bird.^36 The ‘cock-robin’ motif is present in both, with all the other
birds mourning the respective parrots, but, whereas Ovid’s poem ends
with the parrot’s grave and a witty epitaph, there is no epitaph in Sta-
tius’ poem; instead, it ends with a description of the lavish funeral that
Melior (by implication) laid on, and an allusion to the consolatory
motif of “eternal youth”:
at non inglorius umbris
mittitur: Assyrio cineres adolentur amomo
et tenues Arabum respirant gramine plumae
Sicaniisque crocis, senio nec fessus inerti
scandet odoratos phoenix felicior ignes.
(Silv. 2.4.33–7)35 Printing Λυσίππου (editio Aldina) for the Lysippum of the manuscripts. The
Greek form emphasizes the epigraphic register, and the paired genitives reflect the
different cognitive functions of reading and thinking: Martial can read Greek, but he
thinks in Latin. For the textual problem, see Henriksén 1998, 213–4 (who, however,
favours Lysippum).
36 The structure of both poems can be compared as follows (after van Dam 1984,
338–9): Am. 2.6: statement of death and exhortation of birds to mourn (1–16); praise
of bird (17–42); illness, death, obiter dicta (43–8); consolatio (49–60); grave and
epitaph (61–2). Silv. 2.4: lamentatio (1–15); exhortation to birds to mourn (16–23);
laudatio (24–33); descriptio funeris (33–6); consolatio (37–8).