Athenian Lettering of the Fifth Century B.C.: The Rise of the Professional Letter Cutter 9783110407594, 9783110401424

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
Abbreviations
Preface
Introduction and Methodology
Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned
Part I: General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C
The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C
Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400
The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus (IG I3 259–280)
The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’ (IG I3 421–430)
Part II: Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390
The Cutter of IG I3 263, 454/3–450/49
The Cutter of IG I3 270, 448–ca. 438
The Cutter of IG I3 35, 440/39–432/1
The Cutter of IG I3 364, 434/3–433/2
The Cutter of IG I3 392, ca. a. 425 a
The Cutter of IG I3 50, 424/3
The Cutter of IG II2 1386, 423/2–394/3
The Cutter of IG I3 80, 421/0
The Cutter of IG II2 17, 414/3–386/5
The Cutter of IG I3 102, 413/2–410/09
The Cutter of IG I3 316, ca. 408/7
The Cutter of IG II2 1401, ca. 395
Summation
Appendix One: Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions (reprint of Studies Dow 277–282)
Appendix Two: The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai (Antiphon 5.69–71) and The Lapis Primus (reprint of CP 109, 2014, 1–10)
Appendix Three: Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach (reprint of ZPE 190, 2014, 105–115)
Index of Passages Cited
General Index

Citation preview

Stephen V. Tracy Athenian Lettering of the Fifth Century B. C.

Stephen V. Tracy

Athenian Lettering of the Fifth Century B. C. The Rise of the Professional Letter Cutter

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-040142-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040759-4 e-ISBN (EPub) 978-3-11-040763-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

For June Allison and Christian Habicht with gratitude In memory of Sterling Dow and Eugene Vanderpool

Contents List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV Introduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Part I: General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C. The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus (IG I3 259–280) . . . . . .

41

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’ (IG I3 421–430) . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

Part II: Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390 The Cutter of IG I3 263, 454/3–450/49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

The Cutter of IG I3 270, 448–ca. 438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

The Cutter of IG I3 35, 440/39–432/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

The Cutter of IG I3 364, 434/3–433/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 The Cutter of IG I3 392, ca. a. 425 a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 The Cutter of IG I3 50, 424/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The Cutter of IG II2 1386, 423/2–394/3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

VIII

Contents

The Cutter of IG I3 80, 421/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 The Cutter of IG II2 17, 414/3–386/5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 The Cutter of IG I3 102, 413/2–410/09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 The Cutter of IG I3 316, ca. 408/7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 The Cutter of IG II2 1401, ca. 395 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Summation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Appendix One: Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions (reprint of Studies Dow 277–282) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Appendix Two: The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai (Antiphon 5.69–71) and The Lapis Primus (reprint of CP 109, 2014, 1–10) . . . . 207 Appendix Three: Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach (reprint of ZPE 190, 2014, 105–115) . . . . . . . . . . 217 Index of Passages Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

List of Figures Introduction 1. IG I3 23 5–13 2. IG I3 24 The First Decrees and Laws 1. IG I3 230 2. IG I3 1 3. IG I3 231 1–14 4. IG I3 2 5–13 5. IG I3 3 6–12 6. IG I3 5 7. IG I3 4B 10–18 (right part) (Courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens) 8. IG I3 243 8–16 9. IG I3 9 10. IG I3 10 1–13 11. IG I3 13a 12. IG I3 13b Unique Examples of Writing 1. IG I3 29 1–8 2. IG I3 40 63–74 3. IG I3 46 7–16 4. IG I3 21a 1–10 5. IG I3 21b 7–15 6. IG I3 68 23–34 7. IG I3 36 1–6 8. IG I3 85 9. IG I3 313 72–82 The Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus 1. Schematic drawing of the Lapis Primus 2. IG I3 260 V–VII 3–19 (Archive IG) 3. IG I3 261 I 2–16 (Archive IG) 4. IG I3 261 IV 7–15, V 2–15 (Archive IG) 5. IG I3 265 I 39–44, II 39–46 (Archive IG)

6. IG I3 265 I 90–113, II 100–113 7. IG I3 265 I–II close up of 102–110 The So-Called Attic Stelai 1. BA 598 (courtesy of A. P. Matthaiou) 2. IG I3 421 29–49 3. IG I3 421 119–140 (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies) 4. IG I3 422 frg. i (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies) 5. IG I3 422 cols. I–II bottom 6. IG I3 422 frg. d (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies) 7. IG I3 423 8. Backs of IG I3 421 frg. g and I3 423 9. IG I3 424 1–24 10. IG I3 425 102–109 11. IG I3 426 1–16 12. IG I3 427 86–100 13. IG I3 428 14. IG I3 429 15. IG I3 430 26–39 16. IG I3 422 bottom left corner 17. IG I3 422 in reconstruction (Meritt archive, Institute for Advanced Study) The Cutter of IG I3 263 1. IG I3 263 II 7–16 2. IG I3 263 III 9–18 3. IG I3 263 V 15–27 (Archive IG) 4. IG I3 259 IV–V 7–19 (Archive IG) 5. IG I3 260 I 12–19 (Archive IG) 6. IG I3 262 IV 1–11 (Archive IG)

X

List of Figures

The Cutter of IG I3 270 1. IG I3 270 I 29–37 2. IG I3 270 III 19–27 3. IG I3 146 4. IG I3 264 1, II 2–8 5. IG I3 264 III 9–17 6. IG I3 264 IV 20–39 (Courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens) 7. IG I3 266 II 22–34 (Archive IG) 8. IG I3 267 I 16–32, II 15–27 (Archive IG) 9. IG I3 268 V 27–34; 269 1, V 2–4 10. IG I3 269 I 28–36, II 24–36; 270 1–2 11. IG I3 271 I 65–83 (Archive IG) 12. IG I3 461 25–38 (Archive IG) The Cutter of IG I3 35 1. IG I3 35 2. IG I3 35 6–17 3. IG I3 272 26–36 4. IG I3 272 I 39–44 5. IG I3 272 II 55–65 6. IG I3 276 V–VI 20–29 (Archive IG) 7. IG I3 277 V–VI 2–14 (Archive IG) 8. IG I3 278 IV 2–12 (Archive IG) 9. IG I3 279 I–II 72–87 (Archive IG) 10. IG I3 280 I 40–57, II 40–57 11. IG I3 280 II 3–18 (Archive IG) 12. IG I3 435 74–85 13. IG I3 435 111–122 The Cutter of IG I3 364 1. IG I3 364 1–10 2. IG I3 292 1–10 3. IG I3 317–318 1–9 4. IG I3 318 9–13 5. IG I3 343 1–6 (Archive IG) 6. IG I3 343–344 12–18 (Archive IG) The Cutter of IG I3 392 1. IG I3 392 2. IG I3 394a 3. IG I3 394b 11–24 4. IG I3 393a

The Cutter of IG I3 50 1. IG I3 50a 2. IG I3 50b 3. IG I3 43a+b 4. IG I3 43c 5. IG I3 78b 6. IG I3 78a 48–56 7. IG I3 105 45–54 8. IG I3 105 53–60 9. IG I3 131 5–12 10. IG I3 187 11. IG I3 302 28–36 12. IG I3 1330 The Cutter of IG II2 1386 1. IG II2 1386 (right part) 2. IG II2 1386 (left) 3. IG I3 11 19–20, IG I3 12 4. IG I3 58 13–27 5. IG I3 76 15–20 6. IG I3 77 V 27–36 7. IG I3 89 54–66 8. IG I3 90 6–21 9. IG I3 110 1–14 10. IG I3 139a 11. IG I3 159b 12. IG I3 178 13. IG I3 255A 5–18 14. IG I3 255B 13–22 15. IG I3 303 40–49 16. IG I3 353 55–65 17. IG I3 386 52–64 18. IG I3 387 1–17, 63–70 19. IG I3 389A 4–19 20. IG I3 390 21. IG I3 426 58–76 22. IG I3 467 23. IG I3 473 4–9 24. IG I3 482 25. IG II2 20 26. IG II2 92 27. IG II2 94 28. EM 13409 (part of IG II2 1372 and 1402) 29. IG II2 1379 30. IG II2 1403 31. IG II2 1391 32. IG II2 1396b 24–30

XI

List of Figures

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

IG II2 1409 3–13 IG II2 1417 IG II2 4909 IG II2 5222 IG II2 5222 Agora I 7028 EM 12766 IG I3 93d 41–50

The Cutter of I3 80 1. IG I3 80 1–11 2. IG I3 80 9–20 3. IG I3 82 33–40 4. IG I3 83 1–11 The Cutter of IG II2 17 1. IG II2 17 left side 22–35 2. IG II2 17 right side 22–35 3. IG I3 74 4. IG I3 117 4–19 5. IG I3 125c 8–17 6. IG I3 179 7. IG I3 237 8. IG I3 314 9–22 9. IG I3 315 38–47 10. IG I3 333 5–15 11. IG I3 339 8–17 12. IG I3 341 13. IG I3 342 14. IG I3 355 1–12 (Archive IG) 15. IG I3 362 16. IG I3 379 88–101 17. IG I3 381 18. IG I3 406 faces A and B 19. IG I3 410 faces A and B 20. IG I3 422 144–161 21. IG I3 425 17–30 22. IG I3 470 23. IG II2 2a 24. IG II2 10B II–III 1–11 25. IG II2 15 26. IG II2 18 1–8 27. IG II2 24c 28. IG II2 31 1–9 29. IG II2 50 30. IG II2 51a 31. IG II2 52 32. IG II2 54

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

IG II2 61 3–9 IG II2 70 13–20 IG II2 80 4–13 IG II2 85 IG II2 91 IG II2 168 IG II2 186 IG II2 1376 1–11 IG II2 1378 1–8 IG II2 1380 IG II2 1400 42–54 IG II2 1688 IG II2 1952b 30–44 IG II2 1952c IG II2 4960 9–17 IG II2 10435 IG II2 12963 middle AE 1963 151–153 Agora I 5410 9–14 Agora I 6877a Agora I 7344 EM 12932 IG II2 10593 left side IG II2 10593 right side

The Cutter of IG I3 102 1. IG I3 102 1–9 2. IG I3 102 29–35 3. IG I3 136 27–39 The Cutter of IG I3 316 1. IG I3 316 2. IG I3162 (Archive IG) 3. IG I3 164 2–13 4. IG I3 359 5. IG I3 360 6. IG I3 405b 7. IG I3 469 24–36 8. IG I3 488 The Cutter of IG II2 1401 1. IG II2 1401 27–38 2. IG II2 1404 3. Agora I 5325 4. Agora I 5789

Abbreviations AER Agora

ALC Athens and Macedon ATL

Austin, Stoichedon Style Bradeen-McGregor Cavanaugh, Eleusis CEG Eleusis

Gestures

Harris, Treasures Imagines2 Immerwahr, Script Lawton, Reliefs LGPN II Ma et al., Empire Matthaiou, Empire

H. B. Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored (Ann Arbor 1996). The Athenian Agora Inscriptions: XV The Athenian Councillors by B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill (Princeton 1974); XVI The Decrees by A. G. Woodhead (Princeton 1997); XVII The Funerary Monuments by D. W. Bradeen (Princeton 1974); XIX Horoi, Poletai Records, and Leases of Public Land by G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon, and M. B. Walbank (Princeton 1991). S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B. C. (Berkeley 1990) S. V. Tracy, Athens and Macedon: Attic Letter-Cutters of 300 to 229 B. C. (Berkeley 2003). B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists I (Cambridge, MA 1939), II (Princeton 1949), III (Princeton 1950). R. P. Austin, The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions (Oxford 1938). D. Bradeen and M. McGregor, Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy (Norman 1973). M. B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B. C. (Atlanta 1996). P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca I–II (Berlin 1983 and 1989). K. M. Clinton, Eleusis, The Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, I text and plates, II commentary (Athens 2005, 2008). Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold, eds. G. W. Bakewell and J. P. Sickinger (Oxford 2003). D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford 1995). J. Kirchner, Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, 2nd ed. G. Klaffenbach (Berlin 1948). H. R. Immerwahr, Attic Script: A Survey (Oxford 1990). C. L. Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs (Oxford 1995). M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica (Oxford 1994). J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, and R. Parker eds., Interpreting the Athenian Empire (London 2009). A. P. Matthaiou, The Athenian Empire on Stone Revisited (Athens 2010).

XIV Meiggs-Lewis Meyer Osborne, Naturalization Peçirka, Enktesis

Abbreviations

R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford 1969). E. A. Meyer, “Inscriptions as Honors and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit,” Historia 62, 2013, 453–505. M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens I–IV (Brussels 1981–83).

J. Peçirka, The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966). Raubitschek, DAA A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (Cambridge, MA 1949). Rhodes-Osborne P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 BC (Oxford 2003). Samons, Owl L. J. Samons, Empire of the Owl, Historia Einzelschriften 142 (Stuttgart 2000). Stroud, Empire R. S. Stroud, The Athenian Empire on Stone (Athens 2006). Studies Dow Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, GRBS Monograph 10, ed. K. Rigsby (Durham, NC 1984). Studies Mattingly ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΣ: Studies in honour of H. B. Mattingly, A. P. Matthaiou and R. K. Pitt eds. (Athens 2014). Studies Tracy Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy, G. Reger, F. X. Ryan, T. F. Winters eds. (Ausonius Éditions, Études 26, Bordeaux 2010). Threatte, GAI I L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I Phonology (Berlin 1980). Tracy, Lettering S. V. Tracy, The Lettering of an Athenian Mason, Hesperia Suppl. 15 (Princeton 1975). Tréheux, “Études” J. Tréheux, “Études sur les inventoires attiques,” Études d’Archéologie Classique 3, 1965, 1–89. Walbank, Proxenies M. B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B. C. (Toronto 1978).

Preface The present effort continues my work on the letter cutters of Athens and Attica. This study focuses on workmen of the fifth century B. C. and goes far beyond the scope of my 1984 article “Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions” published in Studies Dow 277–282 and reprinted below as appendix one. Without the generous cooperation of The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, The Aleshire Center at the University of California in Berkeley, The Center for Epigraphical and Paleographical Studies at The Ohio State University, The Houghton Library at Harvard University, and the Department of Classics at Princeton University, this study would not have been possible. These institutions made long-term loans of squeezes of fifth-century inscriptions in their collections. Previous to these loans, I had not been able to gain access for an extended period of time to a sufficient quantity of the primary evidence to pursue this project. Of course, most of the stones are stored in the museums in Athens and Attica; but, permits to study them all for months on end are understandably not granted. In addition, almost complete collections of fifth-century squeezes do exist in the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas in Austin and at the offices of the IG in Berlin. I have made short research visits to both places. Margaret Tenney at the Ransom Center and Dr. Klaus Hallof at IG and their staffs were unfailingly helpful in facilitating my work and I am glad to record my thanks to them here. Access adequate for this kind of in depth study, then, has been a problem of longstanding; see further the present writer’s comments on these matters at Athens and Macedon xviii–xix. Furthermore, the careful observation of details of the lettering that is required to recognize hands and differentiate them can only be done, I can attest from long experience, from the actual stones or from good squeezes. Photographs and scans offer no substitute, for they can be quite misleading about the precise shapes of letters because they capture the lettering as lit at the moment when the image was made. Stones and squeezes by contrast can be rotated or viewed with the light coming from different directions to bring out all the details; they also allow one to work with the lettering at full size, without the need for a scale. And, too often no scale is present in images. I have, in consequence, worked very sparingly from photographs and scans and have made almost no attributions based solely on such evidence. Photographs, of course, are helpful to illustrate lettering and are used for this purpose throughout the following pages. Moreover, they can quite often make it possible to see that such and such a fragment reveals too many differences in the writing to be the work of a particular cutter; i.e. they can help eliminate possibilities but rarely can they be used to make a positive assignment to a hand. Let me underline here both the need for and the importance of squeezes. The squeeze is an indispensable tool for serious scholars in their study of inscriptions. Taking a squeeze does no damage to the stone, provided it is done by an experienced epigrapher. Still, there is always some risk of damage and squeezes should not be made casually. It may be in fact that there was too much squeeze making in the past. But the pendulum has now swung the other way to the point that squeezes are virtually not allowed in many places, in par-

XVI

Preface

ticular, Athens. This makes no sense. A great deal of expense has been incurred in the discovery, preservation and display of inscriptions. Surely the reason is that they are priceless primary ancient documents; it is thus vital that the scholarly community be able to study them and learn as much as possible from them. Squeezes are necessary to their study; they are portable, easy to handle, and almost indestructible. From a good squeeze a scholar can, indeed, accomplish most of what is needed to constitute a good text. Of course, no one would want to edit a text in final form without working from the stone. However, most scholars are not preparing new editions; they simply want to check readings, matters of spacing, and so on. If there were complete libraries of good squeezes available at select locations, Berlin for example and The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton – there should also be one, it goes without saying, in Athens –, those interested could get what they need from study of them and from good photographs without having to gain access to the stones. This would in fact protect the inscriptions by reducing their handling to a minimum and thus eliminating the damage that inevitably occurs from such handling. Edge breaks, as all know who work with inscriptions, are especially common. As always, there are many debts to acknowledge. First and foremost, the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton honored me with successive appointments as a long-term visitor. Most of the work was done there in the comfortable confines of the seminar/squeeze room in Building B. I owe particular thanks for this to Professors of the Institute Christian Habicht, Angelos Chaniotis, Heinrich von Staden and Glen Bowersock. I am also deeply indebted for their co-operation in making squeezes available to Professors Nikolaos Papazarkadas and Ronald Stroud of the Aleshire Center at the University of California at Berkeley, Wendy Watkins, MA, and the staff at the Center for Epigraphical Studies at Ohio State University, Dr. William Stoneman and his staff at the Houghton Library at Harvard, and Professor Edward Champlin of the Department of Classics at Princeton University. Angelos Matthaiou in Athens and Klaus Hallof in Berlin have been unstinting in their willingness to check matters and answer queries; June Allison has helped greatly to bring a dense manuscript into final form. Finally, it is impossible to put into words the benefits of my daily discussions with my colleague and dear friend Christian Habicht, who has read and commented on early drafts of much of this work. His knowledge and generosity are beyond measure.

Introduction and Methodology The stone inscriptions of Athens and Attica that are dated to the fifth century B. C. have been studied thoroughly by many eminent scholars, foremost among them the editors of the second and third editions of the first volume of the Attic volumes of IG, namely Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen and David M. Lewis and Lilian Jeffery. The second edition appeared in 1924 and the third in three fascicles in 1981, 1994, and 1998. The bibliography on these texts is enormous and one may well wonder whether there is anything new that can be said, especially about matters related to the Athenian Empire. But, in fact, much awaits to be done.1 Above all, since archon dates were not included in the preambles of inscriptions until the 420’s, few can be securely dated. Up until quite recently, the field of fifth-century Athenian epigraphy was dominated by B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. McGregor, R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis. These scholars strongly believed that they could date the inscriptions with a high degree of accuracy from the style of their lettering. Moreover, based on the evidence of the first tribute quota stele, they were convinced that three-bar sigma was not used in public documents from the year 446/5 on.2 They also regarded tailed rho as a sure sign of an early date, say 440 or earlier. Consequently, they dated inscriptions with these shapes to the 440’s and earlier. Their dates did not go unchallenged. H. B. Mattingly (at first almost alone) argued for later dates based largely on historical arguments, but he also made use of the language and spelling on the inscriptions to support his positions.3 Recently incontrovertible evidence has appeared to reveal that three-bar sigma was used in a public document long after 446. This is a casualty list that the initial editor assigned to 412 B. C. Whether the exact year is correct or not, the crucial point is that the upper part of the list has four-bar sigmas and the additional names in the lower part have three-bar ones.4 Moreover, the reading of Antiphon, the archon of 418/7 in IG I3 11, the Segesta treaty, appears to be certain.5 This text not only has three-bar sigmas but rho with a round loop and a tail. Clearly, in the light of this evidence the dates of many of the inscriptions need to be re-assessed.6 If nothing else the historical reconstructions based on the early dates should at least be ques-

1

2

3 4

As Stroud in Empire has eloquently pointed out; Matthaiou, Empire, offers further examples of areas that need study and underlines the need for careful study of the language of the inscriptions. See 86–87 below where I point out that it was the activity of one inscriber who preferred four-bar sigma that led to this erroneous conclusion. For his collected essays, AER. I. Tsirigoti-Drakotou, “Νέα στήλη πεσόντων από το Δημόσιον Σήμα,” ArchDelt 55 A, 2000 [2004], 87–112.

5

6

A. P. Matthaiou, Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B. C. (Athens 2011) 57–70. lmmerwahr in Script, his 1990 survey of Attic writing on vases and ostraca, discusses stone inscriptions sparingly; see especially pages 76– 79, 93–97, 106–108 and 121–125. He largely accepts the views of Meritt and his colleagues about the dating implications of three-bar sigma and tailed rho.

2

Introduction and Methodology

tioned as Mattingly did for so long. R. Stroud, A. Matthaiou and N. Papazarkardas are among those currently undertaking aspects of this challenging task.7 The aim of the present study is to identify some of the inscribers of these inscriptions, to collect their work, and, by so doing, to aid in the interpretation of these very important primary texts. However, as my studies of letter cutters in later periods have shown, inscribers often enjoyed rather long working careers; so, even though we may assign two inscriptions to a particular workman, this may not be a significant help in the crucial area of dating because the texts in question could still be separated in time by 20 years or more. The method used, which I have carefully refined over forty years, is essentially a descriptive one that assumes that the lettering on these ancient inscriptions can be treated as a type of handwriting and that it is possible to isolate in any given sample of lettering a cluster of individual idiosyncrasies in shape, spacing and so on that are likely to characterize the work of one and only one cutter. The goal is to train one’s eye to recognize these individual peculiarities. This is not an easy task. It takes a great deal of time and patience. One example of writing often looks very much like another. Some inscribers indeed cut so much alike that it is nearly impossible to distinguish them. Moreover, the undertaking is made more difficult because the evidence from this early period is so very fragmentary. In the last several years it has finally been possible for me to have access for an extended period of time to a significant number of squeezes of Athenian inscriptions from the fifth century. After repeated study, I have become familiar with the range of lettering and, more importantly, come to know what is likely to constitute an individual idiosyncrasy in this period and what is not. The procedure is as follows.8 Ideally one chooses a firmly dated, reasonably large and well-preserved inscription that has an adequate sample of the writing. Several hundred letters are normally the minimum needed.9 This is the exemplar. One then studies this lettering in every detail, drawing it, measuring it, noting carefully the variations in shape and spacing that the cutter allows himself and so on. The goal is to isolate multiple idiosyncrasies in the writing such that if they occur on another piece, the chances are very high that that piece will be by the same workman. What happens ideally, after protracted study, taking weeks or months, is that one learns the hand and comes to know it in the same 7

8

Stroud and Matthaiou (n. 1 above); N. Papazarkadas, “Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire: Reshuffling the Chronological Cards,” 67–88 in Ma et al., Empire. See also P. J. Rhodes, “After the Three-Bar Sigma Controversy: The History of Athenian Imperialism Reassessed,” CQ 58, 2008, 501–506; the essays of A. Moroo, N. Papazarkadas, and P. Rhodes in Studies Mattingly and S. Tracy, “Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with ThreeBar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach,” ZPE 190, 2014, 105–115 (appendix three below). Of course, others have challenged some of the early dates of particular texts; see, for example, Cavanaugh, Eleusis 19–27, esp. 26–27, on the date of I3 32 and Samons, Owl 189–193, on the date of I3 34. I have described it elsewhere on a number of occasions: “Identifying Epigraphical Hands,” GRBS 11, 1970, 321–328; Lettering 1–11,

9

90–95; Studies Dow 279 (below 200–201); “Hands in Samian Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Period,” Chiron 20, 1990, 60; ALC 2–4; “Hands in Greek Epigraphy – Demetrios of Phaleron,” Boeotia Antiqua IV, ed, J. M. Fossey, 1994, 151–161; “Dating Athenian Inscriptions: A New Approach,” PAPS 144, 2000, 67–76. See, for the first application of computerization to the study, “The Study of Hands on Greek Inscriptions: The Need for a Digital Approach” (with C. Papaodysseus), AJA 113, 2009, 99–102. It is impossible, clearly, to mandate sound methodology; but it is necessary to point out that many discussions and claims of assignments to hands ignore this basic requirement and are, in fact, virtually useless because they are based on inadequate samples of lettering. See also my strong comments on this point at ALC 3–4 with n. 6.

Introduction and Methodology

3

way one recognizes the writing of a close friend or relative. Once one has come to know a hand in this way, it is in practice possible to recognize the writing on other fragments, even in some cases very small ones. Sameness of writing then is the basic criterion for the assignment of two or more inscriptions to the same workman. The final step is to search in the collections of inscriptions for other samples of this writing in order to constitute a dossier of the man’s work. While over the years attributions to fifth-century hands have occurred fairly frequently,10 only H. T. Wade-Gery explicitly stated the method that he used.11 He relied on the measurement of the straight strokes of the letters to determine the number and size of the chisels used and the pattern of usage of each chisel. D. M. Lewis following his lead, i.e. using the same method, attempted to identify another hand.12 The reliance on measurable criteria gave this approach a reassuring aura of scientific precision. Unfortunately, this method does not work and cannot work.13 Above all, it requires the assumption that inscribers used the same set of chisels, or an exactly similar one, over a long period of time. But chisels will have been hand forged one-by-one and not mass produced. Although very similar they can hardly be expected to be exactly the same. Moreover, a cutter did not use just one set when inscribing, but surely had a number of more or less interchangeable chisels handy so that when one became dull in the course of the work he could pick up another. In addition, chisels must have been sharpened frequently and, depending on their design, this could change significantly the length of the cutting surface. Finally, since the lettering on decrees is quite uniform in size, the chisels, at least the longest, must all have been about the same size, leaving very little room for individual variation. So, even if sound on other grounds, this method could not be very useful for isolating the work of individuals. However, in addition to measuring the chisel strokes, Wade-Gery was sensitive to the shapes of the letters. He identified a group of four inscriptions (IG I3 58, 131, 158, 159) as by the same hand. Meritt and Wade-Gery in 1963 also attributed I3 49 and 50 to this hand.14 The writing on all six is indeed very similar. I initially judged Wade-Gery’s group of four to be by the same man;15 now, after several years of close study of the writing of the period, I see the hands of two cutters in this group of six inscriptions. I3 49, 58, 158, and 159 were inscribed by the Cutter of IG II2 1386, but I3 131 is by the Cutter of IG I3 50, as is, of course, his name piece, I3 50 (see infra on these workmen).16 Not infrequently scholars state that two inscriptions are by the same hand with no statement of method. Such attributions are no more than someone’s affirmation that two inscriptions have very similar lettering. In point of fact, lots of inscriptions that are roughly 10

11

12 13

14 15 16

Detailed by H. B. Mattingly, “Some FifthCentury Attic Epigraphic Hands,” ZPE 83, 1990, 110–112 [AER 505–507]. “A Distinctive Attic Hand,” BSA 33, 1932–33, 122–135. BSA 55, 1960, 190. See my essay in Studies Dow 277–279 (below 199–200). JHS 83, 1963, 105 with n. 35. Studies Dow 277 n. 4 (below 199 n. 4). Lewis’ identification (BSA 55, 1960, 190) of a cutter who used, he claimed, just two chisels 0.006 and 0.01 m. in length is a much less successful effort. He started with I3 130

and asserted that the short strokes and those of sigma and upsilon were all made with the 0.006 m. chisel. Most of the short strokes are this length; but the central horizontal of epsilon is often 0.005 and the slanting strokes of sigma and lambda are 0.008 m. So it appears that this inscriber may have been using as many as four chisels. In any case, Lewis judged that I3 54 1–15 and 60 were also by this cutter. He also thought I3 67 very close. I do not think any of these are identical in writing with I3 130 or with any of the others and I have so far not been able to assign any to the hands I have managed to identify.

4

Introduction and Methodology

Fig. 1. IG I3 23 5–13

contemporary have similar lettering. Such identifications should be taken magno cum grano salis. Lewis in IG made such attributions from time to time. No reason is given; the brevitas imposed by the corpus format did not allow it, but often the date assigned derives from the attribution. IG I3 9 and 10 are one example; see below 24 n. 16 for a discussion. It appears that Lewis thought he saw in this case on both a very unusually shaped phi. He also asserted that I3 23 and 24 were the work of the same cutter, perhaps a foreign one based on the possible omission of the aspirate in both. It is certainly omitted only in I3 24. Both texts do have rather tall lettering, viz. 0.018–22 and ca. 0.02 m. respectively; but the similarity stops there. The line lengths differ considerably, specifically 24–25 as opposed to 15 letters per line. Moreover, the second is inscribed in a stoichedon pattern and the first is not. Most significantly, the shapes of the letters on the two are very different. I3 23 has, for examples (fig. 1), upright or just slightly forward leaning lambdas, mu’s whose central part extends down to, or very close to, the base of the letter, forward leaning nu’s, rho’s with an oblong loop that covers more than half the height of the letter, and v-shaped upsilons made with curving strokes. In contrast, I3 24 (fig. 2) has sharply forward leaning lambdas, mu’s with a central part that extends down halfway or less, nu’s that lean only slightly, rho’s with rounded loops that cover half the height of the letter, and upsilons that are not v-shaped but are made from curving strokes that meet a vertical that is a third to half the height of the letter. Indeed, the shapes of the letters on these two pieces differ quite radically and in my opinion they are not the work of the same man.17 In brief, I do not understand how D. M. Lewis, a formidable scholar whose work I admire immensely, could ignore these significant differences to write in IG ad loc.: “Discrepantiae sane patent, sed lapicidam eundem esse qui n. 23 inciderit pro certo habemus, unde titulum eisdem fere annis tribuimus.”

17

For more photographs, Walbank, Proxenies pls. 4 (I3 23) and 12 (I3 24).

Introduction and Methodology

5

Fig. 2. IG I3 24

Now, of course, although I think it all but impossible the same inscriber cut these two texts, I readily acknowledge that I cannot prove it. One has to admit that the same individual might have inscribed them employing two very different styles of writing. But if we ignore the clear differences in the shapes of the letters and allow this attribution to stand, then it follows that we must give up the basic criterion of sameness of writing and be willing to accept any identification made by an experienced scholar for whatever reasons. This strikes me not only as inadvisable but totally lacking in methodological rigor. Lewis’ puzzling attribution of these two texts to the same man brings us back to the main issue, which plainly stated is: is it possible to discern hands reliably in these inscriptions and how can one do it? It is my contention, based on many years of experience, that one must approach the lettering on them as a form of handwriting. This involves the assumption that cutters wrote basically the same way from inscription to inscription and that they did not radically alter their writing. This is the case in later periods and it is demonstrably true for the several cutters studied in the pages that follow and especially true of the Cutters of IG II2 1386 and of IG II2 17, the two major cutters working in the last quarter of the fifth century and into the fourth. However, there are, it must be admitted, the added complicating factors in this period of the change of alphabet from Attic to Ionic18 and, in dealing with some cutters, the change from three-bar to four-bar sigmas. It 18

Far the best discussion of this change in inscriptions on stone appears in Threatte, GAI I 19–38.

6

Introduction and Methodology

is also an observable fact that some inscribers use a wider variety of shapes than one sees in inscriptions of later periods. This may be because they did not letter inscriptions very often and were experimenting some with their letter shapes when they did. These factors do pose problems but progress can be made. It is painfully slow and much patience is required. One must, I strongly maintain, adhere to the criterion of sameness of writing. However, when there is doubt or the evidence is meager, it is best to refrain from making attributions to hands. As incomplete as it must be because of circumstances beyond my control, the present study does make significant advances. Above all, it demonstrates that the writing on the stone decrees and laws of Athens was from the beginning highly individual. It then studies eleven individual inscribers of the second half of the fifth century and brings together their work. In the process, it clears the deck from a methodological point of view and pinpoints a number of casual or faulty assignments. These are important steps in providing a way forward. Painstaking study of the writing on these stones in tandem with others on their language and spelling may yet offer more reliable dates than we now have and thus enable a better understanding of these texts and the history that they bear witness to. Other disciplines, especially numismatics, also promise to help with our understanding of the finances of the Athenian state and with questions of dating.19 But, the best hope of substantially improving our knowledge is that new inscriptions that can be reliably dated will be found and promptly published. In the meantime, scholars will continue to weave and reweave the historical scenarios into which they fit these fascinating inscriptions.

19

On the role of numismatics with a good bibliography, J. Kroll, “What about Coinage?” 195–209 in Ma et al., Empire. Among other things, Kroll argues (201–203) that IG I3 1453, the very important Athenian coinage and standards decree, should be dated close in time to the spring of the year 414. This inscription

has usually been dated to mid-century. In addition, A. Meadows (personal communication) informs me that up to now there has been little scientific analysis of the metallurgical content of Athenian coins and that this is an area ripe for study with potentially great significance for dating.

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned Inscr. Number IG I3 1 I3 2 I3 3 I3 4 I3 5 I3 9 I3 10 I3 11 I3 12 I3 13 I3 17 I3 18 I3 19 I3 20 I3 21 I3 22 I3 23 5–13 I3 24 I3 27 I3 29 I3 30 I3 31 I3 32 I3 33 I3 35 I3 36 1–6 I3 37 I3 38 I3 40 I3 42 I3 43 I3 44 I3 46 I3 49 I3 50 I3 58 I3 65 I3 68

Assignment (if applicable), page references 18–19 19–21 19–21 22–23, 27–28, 195 n. 1, 196 22 4, 24–25 4, 24 n. 16, 26 1, 31 n. 5, 125 and n. 2, 219, 221 II2 1386 Cutter, 123, 129, 219 and nn. 13–14 25, 27 220–221, 222 n. 25 221, 222 n. 25 221 222 and n. 25 32–34, 38, 218 n. 5, 222–224 224 4–5 4–5 224–225 29–30 226 222 n. 25, 226 226 226–227 I3 35 Cutter, 37, 93–96, 203 36–37, 95–96 228 222 n. 25, 228 30–31, 197 115, 222 n. 25, 230 I3 50 Cutter, 115, 116, 230 n. 38 230–231 31–32 II2 1386 Cutter, 3, 121, 123, 129 and n. 8, 202 I3 50 Cutter, 3, 113–115 II2 1386 Cutter, 3, 123, 129 202 35–36

8 I3 74 I3 76 I3 77 I3 78a,b I3 80 I3 82 I3 83 I3 85 I3 89 I3 90 I3 93 I3 102 I3 105 I3 106 I3 110 I3 117 I3 125 I3 131 I3 136 I3 139 I3 146 I3 158 I3 159 I3 162 I3 164 I3 178 I3 179 I3 180 I3 187 I3 230 I3 231 I3 237 I3 243 I3 255A, B I3 259 I3 260 I I3 260 II-X I3 261 I3 262 I3 263 I3 264 I3 265 I3 266 I3 267 I3 268 I3 269

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

II2 17 Cutter, 151 II2 1386 Cutter, 124, 129 and n. 8 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 and n. 4 I3 50 Cutter, 115, 116 I3 80 Cutter, 145–147 I3 80 Cutter, 147 I3 80 Cutter, 147 37 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 and n. 4, 129 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 and n. 4, 129 127, 203–204 I3 102 Cutter, 181–183 I3 50 Cutter, 115, 116 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 157, 158 II2 1386 Cutter, 121, 124 and n. 4, 127, 129 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 157, 158 I3 50 Cutter, 3, 115, 116 I3 102 Cutter, 183 II2 1386 Cutter, 124, 129 I3 270 Cutter, 85, 86, 203 II2 1386 Cutter, 3, 124, 129 II2 1386 Cutter, 3, 124, 129 I3 316 Cutter, 187 I3 316 Cutter, 187 II2 1386 Cutter, 124, 127, 129, 204 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 157 n. 12, 158 183 n. 1 I3 50 Cutter, 115 17–18 19, 197 II2 17 Cutter, 151 23–24 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 I3 263 Cutter, 43, 44, 79, 80, 207 n. 2, 209, 210 I3 263 Cutter, 43, 79, 87 n. 5 44, 45, 79, 209, 210 44–45, 209, 210 I3 263 Cutter, 44, 80, 82, 210 I3 263 Cutter, 44, 45, 77–79, 80–81, 201, 210, 212, 213 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 48, 50–52 and n. 16, 85–87, 209, 210–213, 214 44, 45, 48, 50 and n. 16, 51–53, 209, 210–213, 214 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 48 and n. 14, 50, 51, 85, 86–87, 210, 212 and n. 22, 213 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 203, 212 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 203 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 203, 210

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

I3 270 I3 271 I3 272 I3 273–275 I3 276 I3 277 I3 278 I3 279 I3 280 I3 285 I3 289 I3 292 I3 293 I3 302 I3 303 I3 313 I3 314 I3 315 I3 316 I3 317 I3 318 I3 325 I3 326 I3 327 I3 328 I3 333 I3 339 I3 341 I3 342 I3 343 I3 344 I3 352 33–36 I3 353 54–71 I3 355 I3 359 I3 360 I3 362 I3 364 I3 379 I3 380 I3 381 I3 382 I3 386 I3 387 I3 389A, B I3 390 I3 392 I3 393

I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 83–87, 203, 210 I3 270 Cutter, 44, 45, 86–87, 203, 209 I3 35 Cutter, 41, 44, 45, 95, 96, 209 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 I3 35 Cutter, 41–43, 44, 45, 95, 96 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 II2 1386 Cutter, 125 I3 364 Cutter, 104 105 I3 50 Cutter, 115, 116 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 38–39, 221 n. 21 II2 17 Cutter, 38, 105, 151, 157, 187 II2 17 Cutter, 38, 105, 151, 157, 187 I3 316 Cutter, 105, 185–187, 221 n. 21 I3 364 Cutter, 104–105 I3 364 Cutter, 104–105 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 151, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 151, 157, 158 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 151, 157, 158 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 152, 157, 158 I3 364 Cutter, 104–105 I3 364 Cutter, 104–105 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 1386 Cutter, 105, 125 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 152, 157 I3 316 Cutter, 105, 187 I3 316 Cutter, 105, 187 II2 17 Cutter, 105, 152, 157, 187 n. 3 I3 364 Cutter, 103–105, 221 n. 21 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157, 158 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157, 158 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157, 158 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 127, 129 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 127, 129 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 129 and n. 8 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 129 I3 392 Cutter, 109–110 110

9

10

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

I3 394a I3 394b I3 405b 20–28 I3 406 I3 410B I3 421 I3 422 1–60, 116–19, 130–207,

I3 392 Cutter, 110 I3 392 Cutter, 110 I3 316 Cutter, 187 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157 55, 57, 58–59, 61, 62, 71 II2 17 Cutter, 55, 57, 60–61, 71–72, 73, 152, 157

209–47, 302–10

I3 423 I3 424 I3 425 1–82 I3 426 40–112, 144–156 I3 427 I3 428 I3 429 I3 430 I3 435 I3 461 I3 467 I3 469 I3 470 I3 473 I3 482 I3 488 I3 490 I3 515 1–26, 30–32 I3 892 I3 970 I3 1047 I3 1048 I3 1330 II2 2 II2 10B 1–63 II2 15 II2 17 II2 18 II2 20+ II2 24 II2 29 II2 31 II2 50 II2 51 II2 52 II2 54 II2 61 II2 70 II2 80+

57, 62–64, 71 57, 65, 71 II2 17 Cutter, 57, 65, 66, 71, 73, 152, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 55, 57, 66–67, 125, 129 57, 67–68 57, 68, 71, 221 n. 21 57, 68–69, 71 55, 56, 57, 69–70, 71 I3 35 Cutter, 95, 96 and n. 4, 197, 203 and n. 15, 222 n. 25 I3 270 Cutter, 86 II2 1386 Cutter, 124 n. 4, 125 and n. 6, 129 n. 8 I3 316 Cutter, 187 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157, 158 II2 1386 Cutter, 125 II2 1386 Cutter, 125 I3 316 Cutter, 187 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 127 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157, 158 I3 364 Cutter, 104–105 II2 17 Cutter, 152 71 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 129 I3 50 Cutter, 115–116 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 158 II2 17 Cutter, 152, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 149–151, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 139 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 153, 156, 157

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

II2 85 II2 90 II2 91 II2 92 II2 94 II2 153 II2 168 II2 186 II2 1149 II2 1370 + 1371 + 1384 II2 1372 & 1402 II2 1373 II2 1376 II2 1378 + 1398 II2 1379 II2 1380 II2 1381 II2 1382 II2 1383 II2 1384 II2 1386 II2 1388A, B II2 1391 3–4 II2 1391 5–10 II2 1392 II2 1396b II2 1398 II2 1399 II2 1400 II2 1401 II2 1402 II2 1403 II2 1404 II2 1405 II2 1408a, b II2 1409 II2 1417 II2 1502 II2 1687a II2 1688 II2 1693+ II2 1743 II2 1952b, c II2 2311 II2 4909 II2 4960 a, b, c II2 4961 II2 5221

II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 129 II2 1386 Cutter, 125, 129 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 153 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 153, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 126 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 and n. 12 II2 17 Cutter, 153, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 153, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 129 n. 9 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 157 part of II2 1386 now I3 342 now I3 341 joins II2 1370 II2 1386 Cutter, 121–123, 125 n. 6, 126 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 156, 157 and n. 12 II2 1386 Cutter, 121, 126, 128, 129 n. 9 128 II2 1386 Cutter, 126 joins II2 1378 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 155, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 157 II2 1401 Cutter, 191–193 part of II2 1372 part of II2 1388 II2 1401 Cutter, 192–193 II2 1386 Cutter, 126 part of II2 1388 II2 1386 Cutter, 126 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128, 129 and n. 9 now I3 470 now I3 382 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 154, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 151, 154, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 157 II2 17 Cutter, 154 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128, 129 II2 17 Cutter, 154 and n. 6 II2 17 Cutter, 154 and n. 6 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128, 129

11

12

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

II2 5222 II2 6217 II2 10435 II2 10593 II2 12963

II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128, 129 128 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 157 and n. 12 II2 17 Cutter, 154, 156–157 II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157

AE 1963 151–3

II2 17 Cutter, 155 and n. 8

Agora XV 1 Agora XV 7

See I3 515 See II2 1743

Agora XVI 3 Agora XVI 7 Agora XVI 9 Agora XVI 12 Agora XVI 13 Agora XVI 17 Agora XVI 28A Agora XVI 36 Agora XVI 50 Agora XVI 56Bb Agora XVI 106B

See I3 29 See I3 46 See I3 50 See I3 139 See I3 187 See I3 90 See I3 125 See II2 17 See Agora I 5410 See Agora I 6877a See II2 20

Agora XVII 697

See II2 10593

Agora XIX LA1

See I3 243

Agora I 727 (reverse) Agora I 4508 Agora I 5325 Agora I 5410 Agora I 5789 Agora I 6877a Agora I 7028 Agora I 7344

II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157 II2 1386 Cutter, 126 II2 1401 Cutter, 193 II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157 II2 1401 Cutter, 193 II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157 n. 12 II2 1386 Cutter, 126, 128 II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157

BA 598

55–56, 57, 73

Eleusis 7 Eleusis 28b Eleusis 31 Eleusis 34 Eleusis 35 Eleusis 36 Eleusis 37 Eleusis 46 Eleusis 49 Eleusis 50

See I3 231 See I3 78b See I3 58 See I3 392 See I3 394a See I3 394b See I3 393 See I3 390 See I3 1048 See I3 389A, B

Inscriptions Discussed and/or Assigned

Eleusis 52 Eleusis 53 Eleusis 63 Eleusis 136

See I3 386 and 387 See I3 970 See II2 1149 See II2 1693

EM 2512 EM 6790 EM 12766 (H 4, 1935, 166) EM 12932 (H 7, 1938, 272–4) EM 12951 + 13410

See II2 1401 part of II2 1388 II2 1386 Cutter, 127, 129 n. 9 II2 17 Cutter, 155, 157 part of II2 1375

MA 7847 ΠΛ 332

II2 17 Cutter, 155 156 n. 9

Decree proposed by Alcibiades

II2 17 Cutter, 155–156, 158

13

Part I General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C. Not many Attic inscriptions other than gravestones, boundary stones, and dedications can be dated prior to 450 B. C. Yet it is the lettering of the earliest decrees and laws that we need to examine, for, if there were in this early period men who specialized in lettering texts on stone, their work will appear on these types of documents.1 Indeed, the present writer’s extensive studies of the letter cutters of Athens in later periods have shown that the engravers of long texts were highly skilled specialists who rarely cut short texts, such as gravestones.2 After all, almost anyone experienced in working marble with hammer and chisel – surely a rather large number of workmen active in Athens and Attica – could do a passable job of lettering a short text. Thus we will focus in this chapter on the earliest decrees and sacred laws and not on gravestones, boundary stones and dedications. The lettering on these decrees and laws varies markedly from inscription to inscription, suggesting that almost from the beginning those who inscribed them used their own style of writing. So, there is at least the possibility that we might come across more than one example of the same writing. Even so, the small number of surviving inscriptions makes this at best a long shot. There are also the complicating factors that very probably these earliest letter cutters not only experimented some with varying shapes but that inscribing letters was new enough to them that they may not yet have become habituated to inscribing them in just one way. Still, as we shall presently see, the individuality of much of this early lettering is notable. That is to say, if it is not yet the equivalent of handwriting, it seems to be very close. IG I3 230 (fig. 1) is part of a sacred law that D. M. Lewis in IG dates to about the year 515 BC.3 The preserved letters and four-dot punctuation marks, it is to be noted, maintain a careful stoichedon arrangement.4 The round letters are made with a drill or compass of some kind that left a point in the middle of the letter, so that on first glance they all appear to be thetas with a dot in the center. Alpha is a wide letter; the straight crossbar is placed slightly above the midpoint of the left diagonal and slants downward sharply so that it joins the right at the bottom or close to it. Nu is made with a long vertical first stroke to which are attached two slanting strokes of the same length, the first slanting down and the next up. Nu is turned into mu by attaching a fourth shorter stroke slanting back down. Upsilon is expressed by u. The letter height of Ε is 0.021 m. The three diagonal strokes 1

The decrees and laws dated prior to 450 B. C. are published in IG I3 as nos. 1–11, 13–22, 24–27, 29–31, 230–235, 242–247 and 259–262. For a count and breakdown of types of inscriptions down to the year 403/2, J. Sickinger, “Literacy, Documents, and Archives in the Ancient Athenian Democracy,” American Archivist 62, 1999, 242 and n. 45.

2

3

4

On Athenian inscribing in general in the sixth and fifth centuries, Meyer 463–473. On this point, ALC 1 and n. 1, 161 and n. 15, 227 and n. 8, 237. Immerwahr, Script 76 no. 452 and fig. 169 for a good photograph. On the stoichedon style in early Athenian inscriptions, Threatte, GAI I 60–62.

18

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 1. IG I3 230

of this letter vary a bit in length; they are attached to and extend diagonally down rather sharply from the vertical. The lowest is placed up from the bottom of the vertical so that it terminates at the base of the letter. IG I3 1 (fig. 2), the earliest decree of the Athenian people, is dated 510–500, that is, about a decade later than I3 230; it apparently deals with Athenian cleruchs on the island of Salamis.5 The lines were inscribed vertically from the top down on a slightly tapering marble stele. The letters in the first six lines have a stoichedon arrangement except that in the 12th letter space of lines 3–6 the letters are centered under the mu of line 2 instead of under the epsilon of line 1; thus, they are offset to the right slightly. The letter epsilon is usually made with three short horizontals that, when they are not the same length, vary a bit with the topmost often being the shortest. Theta has the shape Θ. Mu is squat and very wide; it is made from four diagonal strokes and is quite symmetrical, although the initial slanting stroke tends to be definitely longer, as in line 1. Nu leans forward sharply and is composed of three diagonal strokes; the first is longer than the other two.

5

Meiggs-Lewis no. 14; Immerwahr, Script 76 no. 453. For good photographs, Austin, Stoichedon Style pl. 4; Imagines2 no. 13.

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C.

19

Fig. 2. IG I3 1

Rho has a short tail and a large pennant-shaped loop. The letter height of Ε, Ι, K and T is 0.014–0.016 m.6 IG I3 231 = Eleusis 7 (fig. 3), a fragmentary boustrophedon sacred law dealing with the Mysteries, dates to about the same time, i.e. 510–500. The round letters vary in size and some are not perfectly round; this indicates that they were cut freehand and not with a special tool. The letters show quite a lot of variety in shape. The horizontals of epsilon sometimes slant downwards sharply and sometimes are nearly horizontal. The four strokes that compose mu vary in length and positioning from example to example; the central part extends down to the base of the letter. The pennant-shaped rho can have a tail or not. Upsilon either has a short vertical or none at all. The height of epsilon, tau and rho ranges from 0.018 to 0.022 m. A marble pillar found in the plain of Marathon was inscribed at the top front and at the back with two laws; these are published as IG I3 2 and 3 and are there dated “c. a. 500” and “a. 490–480”.7 This pillar has been heavily reworked for reuse as a building block. I3 2, the inscription on the obverse, is inscribed vertically downwards from the top; I3 3 on the reverse is inscribed horizontally. Although rather worn, the lettering of both

6

“Lapicida idem n. 702 incidit” (Lewis ad loc. in IG). In my judgment there are not enough letters preserved on I3 702 to allow a certain attribution; see the good photo at JÖAI 31, 1938–39, beiblatt 42. In general the shapes of the letters on this base are indeed very similar to those on I3 1 but the diagonal strokes of the

7

single kappa are too short and the horizontals of the epsilons appear to be too uniform in length to be his work. On these two inscriptions, see A. Missiou, Literacy and Democracy in Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge 2011) 94–96.

20

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 3. IG I3 231 1–14

is well enough preserved that one can assess its quality.8 The writing of I3 2 (fig. 4) is not stoichedon and seems crudely made: the horizontals of epsilon usually slant downwards and vary in length; the clearly preserved nu’s show a remarkable variety in degree of lean and length of strokes; the two upsilons are crudely V shaped and differ in height. Rho has a large angular pennant loop to which is attached a tail that extends almost to the bottom of the letter. This workman frequently employed three dots placed in a vertical line to separate clauses. The lettering of I3 3 (fig. 5), although more worn, appears to be more carefully made. This inscriber did not use dots of punctuation, but he did dispose his letters in a stoichedon

8

See Hesperia 11, 1942, 331 and 334 for excellent photographs. E. Vanderpool, “Regulations for the Herakleian Games at Marathon,” Studies Dow 295–296 gives an improved text of I3 3 with on pl. 17 a facsimile and photograph. He is correct to read in the third space

of l. 2 Γ, i.e. Ionic gamma, and points out that the three other preserved gammas are Attic ones of the shape Λ. This is an early and important example of an inscriber employing two different letter forms for the same letter.

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C.

Fig. 4. IG I3 2 5–13

Fig. 5. IG I3 3 6–12

21

22

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 6. IG I3 5

pattern. The horizontals of epsilon are about the same length and do not slant. Nu is composed of three slanting strokes of approximately the same length; although not exactly the same, each is quite similar to the next. Rho has a large curving loop and no tail. The separation in date and these differences in the writing reveal that these texts were inscribed by two different workmen. The letter height of E and I on I3 2 is 0.017–9 m. and on I3 3 0.014–5 m. A base found at Eleusis inscribed with a decree (IG I3 5 = Eleusis 13 and pl. 3) concerning sacrifices to be made at the festival in Eleusis is dated by Lewis in IG c. 500.9 Although not stoichedon, the lettering is very regular and carefully made (fig. 6). Note the epsilon with horizontal strokes of the same length, symmetrical mu with a central V that extends down just half way and pennant-shaped rho with a short tail. Forward leaning nu exhibits some variety in width and in the degree of lean. The letter height of epsilon and iota is 0.021 m. The so-called Hekatompedon inscription, IG I3 4 (fig. 7), provides guidelines for sacrifices and for the conduct of worshippers;10 it is usually dated to the archonship of Ph[ilokr]a[t]es (485/4), but the restoration of the archon’s name and thus the date is not completely certain.11 This is very beautiful writing with the letters laid out in a stoichedon arrangement. Theta is made with a punkt in the middle, not the wagon wheel theta of

9

10

Lewis wrongly describes this as a mensa sacra. In his text volume (Eleusis IA) Clinton indicates the date as “ca. a. 500 a.?”; but in the commentary volume (Eleusis II) he observes “… the form of the letters, in my view, does not preclude a date ca. 480 or even in the 470’s.” Immerwahr (Script 95 no. 627) concurs with the later date. Immerwahr, Script 94 no. 616. W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr. (The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis I: The Predecessors [Princeton 1980] 24–31) has demonstrated that the attractive suggestion for

11

the original location of the two slabs of this inscription in the forecourt of the Propylaea at the western entrance to the Acropolis can not be correct. On this, G. Németh, “HekatompedonProbleme,” ZPE 101, 1994, 215–218 and, for a defense of the traditional date, R. S. Stroud, “Adolf Wilhelm and the Date of the Hekatompedon Decrees” 85–97 in A. P. Matthaiou, ed., ττικα πιγραφαί· Πρακτικ Συμποσίου ες Μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm (Athens 2004).

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C.

23

Fig. 7. IG I3 4B 10–18 (right part) (Courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens)

I3 1, and rho is pennant shaped but with no tail.12 Epsilon has three short horizontals of the same length that slant downward slightly; the bottommost is often placed up from the end of the vertical a very small amount. Mu is shorter than the other letters; it is symmetrical with the two outer slanting strokes the same length; the central V comes down about halfway in the letter or slightly less. Nu leans forward markedly; the initial slanting stroke is long; the other two slanting strokes that make a V are about half the length of the first stroke. Three-bar sigma is tall and thin. The letter height of E, I, Ρ, and T is 0.021 m.13 IG I3 243 (= Agora XIX LA1) is a fragmentary sacred law composed of 17 pieces found in the area of the city Eleusinion; it was published by B. D. Meritt in Hesperia for 1967.14 The date is before the year 450 and after the Persian destruction of 480. Many of the letters of this text have suffered badly from water damage. The letters of lines 8–16 (fig. 8) are well preserved and are characteristic of the lettering on all the fragments. The strokes of the round letters are deeper and wider than the other strokes and were clearly

12

13

On the writing, P. Butz, The Art of the Hekatompedon Inscription and the Birth of the Stoikhedon Style (Leiden 2010). Butz provides photographs of all the fragments of metope A in appendix 1 and of metope B in pl. 1 on p. x; see also for metope B Imagines2 fig. 20. “lapicida idem nn. 242. 503 I. 646 incidit” (Lewis [following Raubitschek, DAA pp. 60, 450] ad loc. in IG). Not enough letters are preserved on any of these pieces to enable an attribution that is certain. It is true that I3 242 and 503 I have the same triple interpunct of 9 small circles with a dot in the center of each that appears in line 8 of face B. And the lettering of

14

I3 503 I is quite similar (phot.: Imagines2 fig. 19). But, the epsilons of I3 242 with horizontals that slant down differ somewhat (phot.: Πολέμων 3, 1947, pl. α΄). As for I3 646, mu, epsilon and lambda (phot.: Austin, Stoichedon Style pl. 2b) differ to such a degree from the writing of I3 4 that I think they can not be his work. Hesperia 36, 1967, 72–84. There are not enough clearly preserved letters to support Meritt’s belief (p. 75) that a different hand is present on side D. See also Immerwahr, Script 95 no. 628. For a new fragment, G. V. Lalonde, “Agora I 6656: A Fragment of IG I3, 243,” Horos 13, 1999, 9–16.

24

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 8. IG I3 243 8–16

made with the help of a special instrument. Rho has a large pennant-shaped loop with a tail. Mu and nu with very elongated initial strokes are especially idiosyncratic. For photographs of all the fragments, Hesperia 36, 1967, pls. 24–25. The height of the tall letters (delta, epsilon, iota, kappa, mu) is 0.018–0.02 m.; the cutter approximated a stoichedon arrangement but some letters are not placed precisely under the letters above. Note that the three-dot interpuncts are not allotted a letter space. Meritt and McGregor in IG date I3 9 (fig. 9), the alliance with the Amphiktyons, to about the year 458.15 This text is laid out stoichedon. The round letters are a bit smaller and sit on the baseline; they were inscribed with a tool that made the groove of the letter substantially thicker than the strokes of the other letters. Phi (ll. 7, 13, 16) has an especially strange appearance; it is round with a prominent dot in the middle through which the vertical passes; the vertical extends just slightly above and below the round part. It resembles the cowl of a WW I spad fighter plane (as seen from the front) with a very short propeller. Upsilon is essentially a V; the strokes are straight. Mu is tall and reasonably symmetrical with a central part that extends down but does not reach the base of the letter. Nu has a slight forward lean and varies in width. The height of E, I, and T is 0.011 m.16

15

16

On this inscription, P. Sanchez, L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes (Stuttgart 2000) 109– 111. There is a good photograph published as pl. 37 in AJA 55, 1951. “Lapicida idem n. 10 incidit” (MerittMcGregor in IG ad loc.). I3 10 (fig. 10) is extremely worn, so worn in fact that it is hard to make out the shapes of the letters. It is pure Ionic with four-bar sigmas and omegas;

but it also has short wide mu’s, round letters of ordinary thickness and upsilon made with curving strokes – shapes quite different from the present lettering. Lewis in IG records a phi very similar to those in I3 9 in his facsimile of the letters of I3 10 but no phi is visible in the photographs (ArchEph 1922 p. 63; Horos 14–16, 2000–03, pl. 3) or on a good squeeze. A. Matthaiou, who kindly shared his tran-

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C.

25

Fig. 9. IG I3 9

The two pieces of the very fragmentary stoichedon inscription published as IG I3 13 (figs. 11–12) appear to be part of a public measure and are dated by Lewis in IG “a. 465–450.” The lettering is quite tall (0.022–23 m.) and carefully made. The strokes, which are rather thick and deeply inscribed, meet one another precisely; the crossbars of alpha, delta and eta are more lightly cut. The large, perfectly circular round letters suggest that they were inscribed mechanically. Forward leaning nu with a curving initial stroke and the short rather symmetrical mu are notable.

scription of I3 10 with me, recorded the phi’s in lines 15 and 17 as Φ, that is, with no central dot and with a vertical that stops at the circumference of the round part of the letter. It appears very doubtful that the assignment of these two inscriptions to the same workman

is correct. M. Jameson in a discussion of the date of I3 10 (“Athens and Phaselis, IG I3 10 (EM 6918),” Horos 14–16, 2000–03, 23–29, esp. 25) came to the same conclusion. For a text and helpful discussion of I3 10, MeiggsLewis no. 31.

26

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 10. IG I3 10 1–13

Very early Athenian texts, particularly the dedications, and their lettering have been the object of intensive study by L. H. Jeffery in The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 66–78 and by A. E. Raubitschek in Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (Cambridge, MA 1949).17 The lettering of the early decrees and laws that we have just presented has not received the same attention. The writing on all of them is quite tall, viz. 0.011–0.022 m. and shares certain notable similarities – the alpha’s almost all have crossbars that slant downwards from left to right and most have rather large round letters that were made with special tools.18 However, the basic shapes of epsilon, mu, nu, rho, sigma and upsilon vary greatly from inscription to inscription. Clearly these stones were engraved at different times and places by different workmen. A number of these texts were quite long and most have lettering that is a centimeter and a half or more in height. Such large letters must be inscribed rather deeply; thus care needs to be taken in their execution because a wrongly inscribed letter can not easily be corrected.

17

Immerwahr, Script surveys the early development of writing on Attic vases; he provides a chart of letter forms on vases on pp. xxii–xxiii and discusses the shapes of letters on pp. 131– 168.

18

See on these, A. E. Raubitschek, “The Mechanical Engraving of Circular Letters,” AJA 55, 1951, 343–344; U. K. Duncan, “Notes on Lettering by Some Attic Masons in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B. C.,” BSA 56, 1961, 185–188. In general, on inscribing round letters, Tracy, Lettering 5 and n. 12.

The First Decrees and Laws of ca. 515 to ca. 450 B. C.

27

Fig. 11. IG I3 13a

Fig. 12. IG I3 13b

In consequence, it has seemed likely that at least some of these texts were laid out carefully letter-by-letter on the stone in advance of the actual cutting. If that were often the case, it would raise the further significant questions. Who did the layout? How careful and complete was it? Were the letters drawn on exactly as they were to be inscribed or were they only roughed out and the exact final shape and spacing left to the engraver? If they were carefully drawn on by someone other than the inscriber, then the shape of the letters and thus the style of writing, in short, the hand, could well be that of the person doing the layout. But there is compelling evidence that in most, if not all, cases involving long texts the letters were not drawn on the surface to be inscribed in advance of the cutting. For example, there occurs on what is universally considered the most beautiful and most carefully engraved of all these early Athenian texts, viz. IG I3 4, the Hekatompedon inscription, an inscribing error that has not received adequate discussion. On metope B in the latter part of line 15 (fig. 7) the cutter intended to inscribe ν δ τις τ]οτον τι δρι ⋮ εθ, but mistakenly wrote initially Τ]ΟΥΤΙΔ for Τ]ΟΥΤΟΝΤΙΔ.19 This is, in point of fact, a classic example of haplography, writing once what should have been written twice. As the cutter was in the act of copying, that is, looking back and forth from the stone to the text that he was inscribing, his eye jumped ahead from the second tau of τ]οτον to the tau of τι, thus omitting initially ον. He corrected by inscribing ΟΝ on top of ΙΔ. The error does 19

Lewis records the error ad loc. in the commentary of IG and refers to Austin, Stoichedon Style 41. Austin simply describes the error and notes that the correction was made immediately without erasure. Lolling had already noted this in his editio princeps; P. A. Butz repeats this fact on p. 64 of “H. G. Lolling and the editio princeps of the ‘Hekatompedon Inscription’,” pp. 59–76 in Historische Landeskunde und

Epigraphik in Griechenland, ed. K. Fittschen (Münster 2007) and admires the solution: “the omicron set directly over the iota, giving the impression of a phi, and the nu built on the two diagonals of the delta.” This is accurate, if a bit fuzzy in logic. Since incorrect strokes were never painted, if a viewer got “the impression of a phi,” it will have been in spite of the inscriber’s efforts to minimize its visual impact.

28

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

not extend beyond these two letter spaces and there is no erasure. This reveals that the inscriber caught his mistake at once, otherwise he would have had to erase or crowd in the letters and break the strictly stoichedon pattern of this text. How could this have happened? It is impossible that the letters, in this case, were drawn on the surface to be inscribed beforehand. Surely, if that had been done, this (easily corrected) preliminary text would have been checked carefully for errors before the cutting began. Moreover, if this mistake stood in the laid out text, that text from this point on would have been incorrect and not only no help, but positively confusing to the inscriber. The conclusion must be that this text was not laid out letter-by-letter,20 but rather that the cutter inscribed these large, beautiful letters freehand looking back and forth to a working copy. He clearly engraved them with great care and checked the work as he progressed word-by-word, thus he caught the error immediately. So, it is apparent from almost the beginning of the inscribing of decrees in Athens that some of the best inscribers were literate and cut using guidelines or a drawn on grid, but without the aid of a letter-by-letter layout.21 Thus there can be little doubt that the cutters inscribed letter shapes of their own choosing.

20

Raubitschek, DAA 452–453, lists errors on early dedications. Though he does not draw the conclusion, they reveal that even many of these short texts were not carefully drawn on the stone prior to the inscribing. Tracy, Lettering 109–114, discusses the errors and

21

corrections of one inscriber at work about 100 B. C. On these first decrees and what they tell us about literacy, Missiou (above n. 7) 90–100. For the procedure of a master letter cutter of about 100 B. C., Tracy, Lettering 115–122.

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400 While it was theoretically possible that the lettering of the years 450 BC and after could have been so uniform as to be devoid of individual idiosyncrasy, painstaking study reveals that this is not the case. The writing on the inscriptions of these years, just as the lettering on those of the years prior to 450, clearly exhibits peculiarities of the sort that suggest the possibility of recognizing the work of individual inscribers. In this chapter, then, descriptions and illustrations are presented of lettering that is in each case quite idiosyncratic; these necessarily constitute a selection and are in no way meant as a complete or exhaustive collection. Despite the marked individuality of each sample of writing, and thus the potential ease for finding other examples of it, thus far no matches have been found. These should, then, be categorized as discrete examples of lettering and should not be designated as hands; rather, the designation ‘hand’ is to be restricted to cases where at least two separate texts can be identified as in the same writing and thus assigned to the same man or hand. If we do not make this distinction, we have potentially as many hands as inscriptions.

IG I3 29 (fig. 1) This measure praising an allied city is dated by A. G. Woodhead in IG I3 “c. a. 450.”1 The lettering is solid and well-made; the arrangement of the letters is stoichedon and their height is 0.011–12 m. Alpha is quite wide; the crossbar is straight, placed quite low in the letter, and slants upward from left to right. The horizontals of epsilon are all of the same medium length; the top one is often placed just down from the top of the vertical. Mu is wide and symmetrical with a central V that extends down about half way. The round letters are slightly smaller and often placed near or on the base line. The loop of rho is round and takes up about half the height of the letter. Three-bar sigma is the same height as the surrounding letters with a top stroke that is slightly longer than the others. Upsilon is composed of three strokes, a vertical that covers about half the height of the letter surmounted by a V made with straight strokes. This cutter’s most idiosyncratic letters are wide nu with a short raised second vertical and a drastically forward leaning lambda (ll. 2, 6) composed of two long slanting strokes of the same length. The date of about 450 is based, it appears, primarily on the occurrence of three-bar sigma and has generally been accepted. In the present writer’s judgment, this lettering could also date quite a bit later than 450, i.e. to the 420’s or even later.

1

The most recent edition is Agora XVI 3. For good photographs, Hesperia 14, 1945, 85 and Bradeen-McGregor pl. XVI.

30

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 1. IG I3 29 1–8

IG I3 40 (fig. 2) This complete stele recording dealings with the people of Chalkis on the island of Euboea was found on the Acropolis2; it is generally dated to the year 446/5, although H. Mattingly has argued persuasively for a date of 424/3.3 The height of the letters is 0.008–0.01 m. Like the previous workman, this man makes a rather peculiar lambda; the vertical usually leans forward somewhat as at the ends of ll. 70–71, though it can be upright as in l. 72. The second stroke slanting up from the base of the vertical is long (more than half as long as the vertical)4 and angled up very sharply. Mu is wide with a central V that comes down half way or a bit more. Nu too is wide with a first vertical that extends down and the second up. Omikron tends to be small, sometimes very small. In addition, this cutter sometimes adds a noticeable tail to rho (ll. 69, 74). His sigma is composed of four long slanting strokes; it shows little variation from example to example. He makes upsilon with three straight strokes.

2

3

See Meiggs-Lewis no. 52 and, for a photograph of the whole stele, ATL II pl. X. JHS 81, 1961, 124–132 [AER 53–67]; Perikles und seine Zeit, ed. G. Wirth (Darmstadt 1979), 322–323 [AER 161–162], Studies Tracy 102–

4

104, and now Studies Mattingly 11–17. For a recent discussion of these dates, Papazarkadas, 73–74 in Ma et al., Empire. The vertical measures 0.009–0.01, the diagonal 0.006–7.

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400

31

Fig. 2. IG I3 40 63–74

IG I3 46 (fig. 3) The lettering of this inscription about the establishment of a colony in Thrace at Brea perhaps dates to about the year 445.5 The writing is almost makeshift, with letters made rather awkwardly; yet, they maintain a stoichedon arrangement. The letter height is round about 0.01 m. Mu especially is short and wide with a central part that usually comes down to the base of the letter. It rather jounces around in the letter space; the second one in line 15, for example, has all but leapt up into the interline. Nu leans forward slightly; the second vertical begins well above the base line and often extends markedly up into the interline. Four-bar sigma is noticeably taller than the other letters. Alpha, gamma and mu at times seem to lean forward because the slanting stroke on the left is raised up slightly. Other quite idiosyncratic letter shapes are rho with a large rounded loop and a short tail placed just at the point where the loop meets the vertical or with just a tiny gap left in

5

On this inscription, Meiggs-Lewis no. 49 and Agora XVI 7. Tailed rho is the main criterion for the date (Meiggs-Lewis p. 132), but that criterion is more than a little precarious since tailed rho occurs in I3 11, which dates almost certainly to 418/7 (above 1). Mattingly,

Historia 12, 1963, 258–261 [AER 88–92], has proposed the year 426/5 as the date for this inscription. S. Psoma, “Thucydide I, 61, 4: Béroia et la nouvelle localisation de Bréa,” REG 122, 2009, 263–280, esp. 270–274, argues for a date ca. 434–432.

32

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 3. IG I3 46 7–16

between; upsilon made from three strokes (a short vertical surmounted by a V) or from two (a long stroke that begins at the base of the letter and curves up to form the left part joined by a shorter straight stroke on the right).

IG I3 21 (figs. 4–5) This fragmentary decree dealing with the Milesians has been the subject of intensive discussion.6 The archon Euthynos attested in ll. 61 and 86 is known from l. 5 of I3 369, an account that is firmly dated to the year 426/5; thus, I follow H. Mattingly and R. S. Stroud in preferring this date to the date of 450/49 adopted by the editors of IG I3.7 The script is Old Attic; the height of the tall letters (excepting the first line) is ca. 0.01 m. The letters of this workman on close inspection vary in shape and spacing a great deal. The three strokes of the sigma provide an excellent example. They differ in length from example to example with the top stroke being the longest and the lower two about the same length 6

See the bibliography in IG ad loc. See also the edition of S. Cataldi in G. Nenci ed., Studi sui rapporti interstatali nel mondo antico (Pisa 1981) 161–233. For photographs, ATL II pl. IV and Bradeen-McGregor pls. IV–VII.

7

On this whole matter with recent bibliography, Stroud, Empire 17 n. 10.

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400

Fig. 4. IG I3 21a 1–10

Fig. 5. IG I3 21b 7–15

33

34

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

(fig. 4. l. 3, fig. 5. ll. 10, 14), to ones where all three strokes are roughly of equal length (fig. 5. ll. 13, 15), to others where the top and bottom strokes are longer than the central one (fig. 4. l. 8). There are even examples in which the middle stroke is somewhat shorter and the bottom stroke the shortest (fig. 4. ll. 7, 9). Note too that the angles of the strokes differ from example to example. The verticals of nu vary from being the same height to the first extending slightly down and the second up. The loop of rho is usually large and nicely rounded, but it can also at times have some straight segments. Upsilon too shows variation; it can be made of curving strokes that meet so near the bottom that there is virtually no vertical or it can have a distinct vertical topped by a V (for both types, see fig. 5. l. 12). The width of letters such as alpha, epsilon and pi also can differ quite a bit.8 Meritt and McGregor in IG I3 restore this text as stoichedon with 58 letters per line, but there are many irregularities of horizontal spacing, which are accurately marked in their text. These include spacing out, crowding, and leaving puzzling blank spaces (ll. 63, 64). Noting that a majority of the examples of crowding involve eta as a rough breathing sign, Bradeen-McGregor (30–33) in their useful edition imaginatively hypothesized that the original text was in Ionic script. Their further hypothesis of a complete layout (31) on the stone of this Ionic text into which the inscriber then inserted the daseia is most unlikely because such detailed layout was never normal practice. Observing that some texts of state decrees in Attic script consistently avoid the daseia Η, Threatte (GAI I 63, 494) similarly posited that there was in this case a last minute decision to insert it. This too implies a stoichedon layout in advance either on the stone or in the copy the inscriber was working from. I do not think that this is likely to be correct. Moreover, these explanations do not account for the other peculiarities of spacing. Rather it is better to describe this text as ‘near stoichedon’ and to recognize that the cutter was not exact in placing his letters on the horizontal; at times he spaced letters out as in ll. 28–30, 38, 56 and at other times crowded them. He was not at all consistent. Specifically, he was not entirely comfortable with the daseia. He omitted it in ll. 5 and 12, crowded it in in ll. 14, 16, 19, 27, 33, 42, 45, 46, 54, 57, 71, 84, and allotted it a full space in ll. 46, 51, 58, 61, 65, 67, 73 (bis), 74, 78, 81, 82. Allotting a full space to iota clearly also troubled him at times; thus, a number of the cases of crowding involve iota (ll. 15, 29, 36, 42, 45, 51, 54, 57, 70, 71), although the majority of his iotas occupy a full space.9 And even when he allots iota a full space, quite often he does not center it, but places it in the left side of the stoichos. The crowding in line 62 of 30 letters into 22 spaces is extreme and has no explanation; there is no evidence of erasure here and later crowding. Still, the inscriber’s overall tendency in this inscription was to place letters under one another more or less carefully for groups of lines and then to drop the stoichedon arrangement for some lines. The variation in spacing of letters on the horizontal is of a piece with the variations in the shapes of his letters. He was not consistent and strict stoichedon was clearly not all that important to him.

8

The editors in IG judge “ob discrepantias leves” that a second similar hand took over the work in l. 32. These ‘discrepancies’ are merely the normal variations of the shapes that this man allows himself. The writing is the same throughout. For more on this letter-

9

ing, Tracy, ZPE 190, 2014, 110–111 (below 222–224). I include in this listing only examples that are certainly preserved and ignore the restored ones.

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400

35

Fig. 6. IG I3 68 23–34

IG I3 68 (fig. 6) The lettering of this long decree concerning tribute is well made and regular; that is to say, the shapes of letters do not vary much from example to example.10 Sigma is extremely idiosyncratic: it is unusually tall and thin. In fact, it seems to be derived from 󰉥, i.e., a three-bar sigma composed of a long top stroke and two shorter strokes that essentially reach to the base of the letters. A fourth bar (usually long) is attached below these and extends down into the interline to create the four-bar sigma. It ranges in height from 0.012 to 0.014 m. while the other letters such as iota, tau and upsilon are 0.009 m. tall. Alpha is relatively wide with a horizontal crossbar placed below the midpoint of the letter. The horizontals of epsilon slant upwards. Mu is a wide letter and asymmetrical with the

10

See ATL I figs. 178–182 for good photographs of frgs. a-f, g, i, j.

36

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 7. IG I3 36 1–6

left part larger than the right. The central V comes down half the height of the letter or slightly less. The second vertical of nu extends up. Pi is wide, wider than epsilon and tau for example. The loop of rho is slightly oblong though nicely rounded. This text is usually dated to the year 426/5.11

IG I3 36 (fig. 7)12 There are two samples of writing on this text. Here I treat only the first, that is the writing of the man who inscribed using the Old Attic script the first five lines and the first three letters of line 6. Meritt and McGregor well describe the change of letter cutter and change of script to Ionic in their commentary in IG.13 The lettering of these initial lines is quite tall (0.014 m.) with minimal interlines. Beta, rho and lambda are quite thin; iota is accorded a full space and is usually well-centered except for line 5 where the second iota comes in the interspace between the eta indicating the rough breathing and the epsilon. Epsilon is wide with horizontals that are all the same length. More than half of the time the central one is placed slightly closer to the top than the bottom. Mu is wide and symmetrical; the central part does not quite extend down to the base of the letter. Round letters are quite round and placed so that they sit on, or very close to, the baseline of the letters. Lambda is very idiosyncratic; the vertical stroke is 0.014 m. long and does not lean, but is perfectly vertical. The diagonal stroke is 0.01 m. in length, thickens at the end, and is angled up so sharply that the letter is thin (l. 4). The date of this lettering is 424/3; this measure proposed by a certain Kallias instructs the kolakretai to pay the priestess of Athena Nike “the

11

12

On this inscription and its date, Samons, Owl 184–189; see also Meiggs-Lewis no. 68. On this inscription, Meiggs-Lewis no. 71 and I. S. Mark, The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens, Hesperia Suppl. 26 (Princeton 1993) 107–108.

13

See on the script change, Threatte, GAI I 27– 28. Not only is there a change of hand and change of script in line 6, but, as Threatte has also noted, beginning with the new workman the stoichedon pattern is offset to the right just slightly.

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400

37

Fig. 8. IG I3 85

50 drachmas specified on the stele,” scil. I3 35 10, the text that is inscribed on the obverse face of this same stele.14

IG I3 85 (fig. 8) The lettering of this rider put forward by Hyperbolos is dated (l. 12) to the archonship of Antiphon (418/7). It is 0.011 m. tall and, though quite workmanlike, indeed, in fact, quite ordinary, it reveals on close inspection a number of small idiosyncrasies that set it apart. The bottom stroke of delta usually slants upward slightly from left to right. The central stroke of epsilon is rarely well centered; rather it tends to be placed nearer the top. The bottom stroke of lambda is definitely angled up from the horizontal, but only a little; i.e. it is close to L-shaped. Mu is asymmetrical with left half slightly larger than the right; the central part comes down less than halfway. Round letters bounce around in the letter space, sometimes near or at the top, at other times on the base line. The horizontal of pi overlaps the verticals just slightly. The loop of rho is round and unusually large, occupying more than half the height of the letter. The vertical of upsilon is quite long, more than half the height of the letter, and is topped by a shallow V. 14

For I3 35 93–96 below.

38

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

IG I3 313 (fig. 9) The letters of this workman vary in size and in placement; in fact, they jostle around, as it were, in the letter space. Phi, rho, sigma, and upsilon tend to be quite tall, while tau is often rather short. On average the letter height of the tall letters is 0.008 m. Round letters vary in size but are never very large and often quite small. In general the long strokes of this inscriber tend to curve a bit. Alpha is very wide with a straight crossbar placed below the mid-point of the letter. Nu too is rather wide with a short second vertical that usually stops at the top of the letter. Unusually for this period, the central horizontal of epsilon is frequently somewhat shorter than the other two. Upsilon is made so that the upper V curves, especially the right part; the vertical is half the height of the letter or a bit more. Finally, and most peculiarly, lambda has the shape L with the bottom stroke horizontal or nearly so. This lettering of this Pronaos account dates to the year 412/1. The accounts that precede, I3 310–311, are in a different writing and not by this inscriber.15 Those that come next in the series, I3 314–315, are the work of the Cutter of IG II2 17. With the exception of the last, which is an official account of the Pronaos by the treasurers of Athena, these are all decrees of the city, that is, relatively significant public records. They are all stoichedon texts, except for the account and for I3 21, the alliance with the Milesians, which is ‘near stoichedon.’16 Presumably those entrusted to inscribe them were experienced workers on marble. It seems surprising, then, that no other examples of their handiwork have as yet come to light. Or does it? With the exception of some building accounts and quota lists, it is clear that there was not a great deal of inscribing of measures on stone until the last quarter of the fifth century;17 hence, most of those who lettered texts were unlikely to have been specialists who cut large numbers of inscriptions, for there was simply not enough work for them to make a livelihood from it. Rather, they must have done all sorts of work involving chisel and marble, from shaping blocks for buildings to fluting columns to sculpting. Perhaps these factors largely account for the fact that no certain matches have thus far been found for the rather distinctive lettering on the foregoing measures (and for many others).18 It could also be the case that those who engraved a text only now and then did not develop a consistent repertoire of shapes, but cut lettering that differed fairly radically in shape from one text to the next. If so, it would not be possible by the method employed in this study to recognize them as the work of the same man.

15

16

The few letters that remain of I3 312, the account of 411, are probably also his work; but there are simply not enough to make a positive assignment. Threatte, GAI I 62, observes: “It is in the public documents of the fifth and fourth centuries that the strict stoichedon, with complete disregard of syllabic division at the ends of lines, is almost universal.” The inscriber of I3 313 in not arranging his letters stoichedon is exceptional as is The Cutter of IG I3 364 (infra 103) who, although he inscribed stoichedon,

17

18

also achieved syllabification by leaving blank spaces at the ends of his lines. See Meyer for the interesting and persuasive argument that the impetus behind the inscribing of measures at Athens may be traced to a very developed habit of paying honors to the gods. Thus it is that many of our texts are sacred laws or accounts and records of sacred property. See also the present writer Studies Dow 280– 281 (below 202).

Unique Examples of Writing of ca. 450 to ca. 400

39

Fig. 9. IG I3 313 72–82

Nevertheless, it is at the same time quite obvious, based on the lettering of the inscriptions discussed and illustrated in the chapters above, that from the beginning the writing on Attic inscriptions varies in shape a great deal from inscription to inscription. The inscribers in each instance wrote in their own style, so in fact this lettering is indeed handwriting, admittedly done with hammer and chisel, and thus, perhaps, lacking the fluidity of writing done in other media, but still lettering done by hand all the same. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that final elaborate letter-by-letter layout was common. So, however careful, the inscribing was done freehand with only some drawing of guidelines and rough blocking out. Hence, it is not difficult to discern individuality in the letter shapes. And some workmen undoubtedly did specialize in lettering texts on stone. The present study has isolated three early ones who inscribed extensive parts of the tribute quota lists (The Cutters of I3 263, I3 270 and I3 35), two others from the last decades of the fifth century who inscribed a great many documents (The Cutters of II2 1386 and II2 17), and three others (The Cutters of I3 364, I3 50 and I3 316) who clearly did a significant amount of inscribing of public documents. Like their later counterparts, these workmen cut in their own style of writing over a significant period of time. In general, all of the inscribers presented below laid out their letters in stoichedon fashion and used the Old Attic alphabet for most public documents before the year 403/2. They employed the Ionic alphabet before that year mainly in texts honoring non-Athenians.19 Eta, representing in Old

19

For a discussion of the early decrees in Ionic, A. P. Matthaiou, “Attic Public Inscriptions of the Fifth Century BC in Ionic Script,” 201–212

in L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes (Swansea 2009).

40

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Attic the rough breathing sign, the daseia, was occasionally omitted in state decrees after 450 B. C.20 These general guidelines apply to the cutters presented below; where there are significant variations, I have noted them. These workmen and their habits of inscribing clearly reflect their times; whether they were exceptional, or to what degree they were exceptional, in being professional letterers of inscriptions remain questions to ponder.

20

On this, Threatte, GAI I 494.

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus (IG I3 259–280) The Lapis Primus is the largest freestanding Athenian inscription ever created and is imposing even in its fragmentary reconstructed state in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens. It was originally set up on the Acropolis and undoubtedly positioned so as to demand the visual attention of visitors to the sanctuary. Indeed, in its final inscribed form this huge monolith asserted in an ‘in your face’ manner (as it were) Athena’s power. The stele has been painstakingly re-assembled from 184 fragments.1 Its original dimensions were ca. 4 m. in height, 1.15 m. wide, and 0.39 m. thick.2 The lists of the Lapis Primus, although rather fragmentary, can be reconstructed with reasonable accuracy.3 Still, several puzzles present themselves; these include (fig. 1) a list that is not numbered and fairly lengthy empty spaces at the bottom of the right lateral face and perhaps at the top of the reverse face. Above all, the last list, IG I3 272, is numbered the 15th and is securely dated to the year 440/39; but, we have surviving fragments of not fifteen, but just fourteen lists.4 Impressive and important, then, as this great inscription is for the study of the Athenian empire, it is also clear that some serious problems hampered its orderly creation. The Lapis Secundus was at least 2.2 m. tall, 1.47 m. wide and 0.34 m. thick. It originally had eight complete lists inscribed on it. They do not proceed, as the texts on the first stele did, around the stone from the obverse face, to the right lateral face, to the reverse face and finally to the left lateral face. Rather those in charge of the second stele placed the first three lists (I3 273–275) on the front and the next three (I3 276–278) on the back; they then put the 7th (I3 279), on the left lateral face and the 8th (I3 280) on the right. Thus the placement of these annual lists on these two large blocks is very different in conception. The Lapis Secundus at some point was cut through vertically to make two large blocks of almost equal size. Much of the inscribed face on the front and back was scraped down during the reuse effectively obliterating the text. Only the inscribed lateral faces and por-

1

2

This was largely the work of B. D. Meritt and A. B. West; see “The Reconstruction of I.G. I2, 193, 194, and 201,” TAPA 56, 1925, 252–267; “The Reconstruction of I.G. I2, 191,” AJP 47, 1926, 171–176; “A Revision of Athenian Tribute Lists,” HSCP 37, 1926, 55–98; “Correspondences in I.G., I2, 196 and 198,” AJA 32, 1928, 281–297. The thickness of the block (0.39 m.) is preserved and known; the width can be accurately estimated from the preserved widths of the columns. The height is not preserved and can only be roughly estimated.

3 4

See the drawings of it on plates I–II of ATL I. There have been numerous discussions and disagreements about whether or not a list is missing and, if so, which one, as well as related matters. Two of the earliest and most balanced treatments are by A. W. Gomme, “Two Notes on Athenian Tribute,” CR 54, 1940, 65–67 and by H. T. Wade-Gery, “The Question of Tribute in 449/8 B. C.,” Hesperia 14, 1945, 212–215. Meiggs-Lewis, pp. 133–135, provide a good summary of these problems.

42

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of the Lapis Primus

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

43

tions of the reverse face survive to any extent. As a result, the lists on the sides, namely I3 279 and 280, are quite well preserved. I3 276 has a small bit of cols. V–VI, I3 277–278 substantial parts of cols. IV–VI, while I3 273–275 are lost either completely or have only a few letters surviving. The lists on the front and back were laid out in six columns that ranged in length from 27 to 35 lines and those on the sides in two columns of more than 90 lines. On these two very large marble blocks were inscribed, then, the first 23 years of the so-called tribute lists, the annual accounts of the 60th quota of tribute paid to Athena by the member states of the Athenian empire. The first payments recorded are for the year 454/3. In fact, these are the first substantial annual accounts that the Athenians created; they were followed six years later by the Parthenon building accounts.5 The decision to have these elaborate long annual records inscribed provided cutters for the first time with enough work that some of them could follow inscribing as a profession, that is, devote themselves to lettering texts on stone more or less full time. It is thus the case that the two earliest major inscribers I have so far been able to identify, the I3 270 Cutter and the I3 35 Cutter, gained their livelihoods inscribing substantial parts of these quota records. And it is quite notable that temple inventories and accounts of various kinds continued for the rest of the century to provide inscribers with a large percentage of their work.6 A considerable amount of planning must have gone into the creation of these lists. Indeed, the modest size of the letters in the lists (0.01 m. on the first stele, 0.01–0.012 on the second) proves that from the beginning many annual records of tribute quotas were envisioned. Remarkably, just six inscribers engraved the 22 lists preserved on these two large stelai. And, so far as the fragmentary state of the evidence allows us to see, the record of each year is in the same writing, that is, it is the work of one individual. The only exceptions of note are the first column of I3 260, engraved by the inscriber of the first list (below 79–80), and the final ten lines of I3 264, engraved by a man whose lettering is unknown elsewhere. This last is the exception that proves the rule; it is the only instance that an inscriber, call him inscriber x, who otherwise was not involved in making entries on this stele, added a small number of late contributions at the end of a list.7 This constitutes a marked contrast to Athenian inscriptions of later periods, where, especially in long lists, changes of hand, corrections and additions are common. The breakdown of the inscriptions by inscriber is: Lapis Primus inscriber 1 I3 259 inscriber 1 I3 260 col. I

5

See IG I3 436–451. Lewis comments: “Ut nos monent Meiggs et Shear, anni I–VI ab eodem lapicida fortasse uno tempore exarati, VI. VII. VIII a lapicidis diversis; lapicida alius annos IX–XII; de anno XIII non constat; lapicida iam alius annos XIV–XV.” I have not had adequate access to these inscriptions. I can only comment that there is clearly evidence of more than one cutter at work on these accounts and none, so far as I can determine from the few squeezes available to me, is the work of any of the cutters of the present study.

6

7

On the purpose of the tribute lists and other inventories as honoring the gods by displaying their wealth, Meyer 468–469. Meritt and West, AJA 32, 1928, 291, first pointed out that these lines were by a different inscriber. Meritt and McGregor at IG I3 264 comment: “Col. IV 31–39 manu secunda incisi sunt.” See now on these lines Tracy, ZPE 187, 2013, 192–194.

44

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

I3 260 cols. IV–X8 I3 261 I3 262 I3 263 I3 264 I3 265 I3 266 I3 267 I3 268 I3 269 I3 270 I3 271 I3 272

inscriber 2 inscriber 3 inscriber 1 inscriber 1 inscriber 4 (minus the final ten lines by inscriber x) inscriber 5 inscriber 4 inscriber 4 inscriber 4 inscriber 4 inscriber 4 inscriber 4 inscriber 6

Lapis Secundus I3 273 I3 274 I3 275 I3 276 I3 277 I3 278 I3 279 I3 280

inscriber 6 inscriber 6 [inscriber 6] inscriber 6 inscriber 6 inscriber 6 inscriber 6 inscriber 6

Inscribers 1, 4 and 6 – labeled below The Cutter of IG I3 263, The Cutter of IG I3 270, and The Cutter of IG I3 35 – are presented and studied in detail in the first three sections of part two. Each cut multiple lists, respectively 3 + 1 column, 7 and, most probably, 9. It appears from the start that those charged with the task of having the lists inscribed contracted with one cutter to inscribe the tribute quota for a given year. Presumably they could only do this when the quotas owed to Athena had been handed over and the list readied for inscribing. When they could, they naturally turned to the same inscriber from year to year. One of the reasons for this may be that there were not many men in the years before 430 B. C. who specialized in lettering stones. Thus the available pool of competent workmen may not have been very large. Surprising though it may be, it is quite clear that those in charge had not determined in advance of inscribing the general format that the lists were to have. Rather, initially the lay out for the account of each year was designed separately. The first is set out in six columns of 25 lines with the payments placed after the names of the contributors; this list continues on the right lateral face with a summary postscript. The second list has seven columns on the front and three on the right lateral face; nine of these have 18 lines and the last 10.9 Here in this list the payments come first before the names. The third list is laid

8

9

So little remains from cols. II–III that it is impossible to say anything about the inscriber, but presumably they are the work of the main inscriber, i.e. inscriber 2. It is a notable fact that most columns of these lists have nearly the same number of lines.

Clearly the inscribers knew in advance the total number of lines needed and thus were able to create columns of about equal length. See below 79 for a probable explanation of the unusual lack of symmetry in this list.

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

45

out in five columns of 30 or 31 lines with the payment figures to the left of the names; in contrast to the first two lists, it does not continue onto the right lateral face. With this list, those in charge apparently hit upon a format that suited them. From this point on, lists were confined to a single face, numerals were placed before the names of the contributors, and there were normally five columns of contributors on the wide faces and two on the lateral faces. It appears, in short, that in these initial lists those in charge were seeking out the right workman and the right format. Following I3 263 of the year 450/49, the first year of the second assessment period, the tendency to have the same inscriber do the work became almost absolute. For the records of the 17 years from 448/7 to 432/1, inscriptions numbered I3 264 to 280, those responsible for having the records inscribed relied on just two successive workmen, the I3 270 Cutter (inscriber 4) and the I3 35 Cutter (inscriber 6), for the engraving of all but one of these lists. The only list that they did not inscribe was I3 265, the long list on the right lateral face. The I3 35 Cutter, indeed, inscribed the last list on the Lapis Primus and, it appears, the entirety of the Lapis Secundus. The writing of inscribers 2, 3 and 5 each appears in just one list. I characterize their lettering briefly here. Each of these workmen favored a three-bar sigma. Inscriber 2 (fig. 2) cut cols. IV–X of I3 260 and most probably also the lost cols. II–III. See also Hesperia 45, 1976, pls. 64–65 for good photographs of his lettering. The horizontals of his epsilons tend to slant downwards. His lambda is not L shaped but the horizontally slanting diagonal is usually not angled up very much. Mu is not quite symmetrical, for the right half is a bit larger than the left. The central V extends down to the base of the letter. Nu definitely leans forward with the first stroke extending down and the third up. Omikron is large and deeply inscribed. Pi is relatively thin; the top horizontal slants perceptibly downwards. The loop of rho covers about half the height of the letter or a bit more; it has a rounded pennant shape and is not made with straight strokes. Three-bar sigma is tall and relatively thin. The crossbar of tau is relatively wide and slants downwards from left to right. Upsilon has a definite vertical about half the height of the letter; the surmounting V usually curves but can be composed of two straight strokes. Inscriber 3 (figs. 3–4) engraved I3 261. See also ATL I p. 11 fig. 8, p. 13, and p. 17 figs. 14–15 for photographs of his writing. This man makes his alpha quite wide with a crossbar placed at the midpoint or lower in the letter. He angles up quite sharply the diagonal of his lambdas. Mu is wide and asymmetrical with a central part that extends down not more than halfway. Nu is rather wide and leans forward; the first stroke always leans but the third at times is vertical or leans only a little. The loop of rho is large and round. Upsilon is a curving V shape with little or no vertical. Inscriber 5 was responsible for I3 265, the very long text on the right lateral face. See figs. 5–6 and ATL I p. 26, p. 29 and p. 39 fig. 50 for his writing. The crossbar of alpha is placed at the midpoint or lower in the letter; it is sometimes horizontal but more often it slants, at times upwards, at others downwards from left to right. Mu is somewhat shorter than the other letters; it is asymmetrical and the central part extends almost to the base of the letter. Nu leans forward consistently and quite sharply; the lower part of the initial stroke often curves. The loop of rho is large with a rounded pennant shape, though at times it is almost angular and formed of straight strokes. The lowest stroke of the three-bar sigma extends down below the letters. The top two strokes extend back in the letter space farther than the bottom one, thus the letter often seems to lean backwards. Upsilon is a wide letter composed of two curving strokes that meet to form a small vertical just above the base of the letter. The present writer has recently demonstrated that there was a major disruption in the

46

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 2. IG I3 260 V–VII 3–19 (Archive IG)

collecting and recording of the tribute payments for three consecutive years from 449/8 to 447/6 and plausibly connected this with the wrongful execution of a board of Hellenotamiai mentioned in Antiphon V (69–71).10 This, if correct, places the discussion of the lists of the Lapis Primus on a new footing by showing that, instead of external political causes, as previous scholars have argued, the problems reflected in the lists were of a serious internal nature involving the Hellenotamiai, those in charge of collecting the money. The members of the board who were unjustly executed were almost certainly those who served during the year 449/8 and, whatever happened, the quota owed to Athena was irretrievably lost.11

10

11

“The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai (Antiphon 5.69–71) and The Lapis Primus,” CP 109, 2014, 1–10 (see appendix two below). Cf. Antiphon V.70 %πωλώλει τ χρήματα. The money that went missing must be Athena’s quota, that is a 60th of the whole. I think it is impossible to suppose that the entire trib-

ute was lost, for it is very unlikely that it was all collected together in one place. By contrast, the quota was calculated and deducted from each payment and then put aside. Presumably, near the end of the collection period the quotas were gathered together for delivery to the auditors, the logistai. At this point and while

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

Fig. 3. IG I3 261 I 2–16 (Archive IG)

Fig. 4. IG I3 261 IV 7–15, V 2–15 (Archive IG)

47

48

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 5. IG I3 265 I 39–44, II 39–46 (Archive IG)

In the aftermath of this terrible miscarriage of justice, it appears likely that there occurred an interruption in the smooth operation of the annual boards of Hellenotamiai for several years. Thus the quota list of 449/8 is entirely missing and those of the next two years have quite serious irregularities. To be specific the first, I3 264, has a prescript with no number and is unusually short;12 the next, I3 265, is unusually long with a confusing amalgam of late payments, partial and complementary payments of the years 448/7 and 447/6.13 The state of the evidence presents a number of puzzles or questions that beg for an explanation. Specifically, why are I3 264 and 265 so irregular? Why did a cutter (inscriber x) who otherwise did not work on this stele add the nine late entries at the end of I3 264? Why did inscriber 4 (the I3 270 Cutter) who engraved I3 264 and I3 266–271 not also inscribe I3 265? And, most puzzlingly, why did this same cutter almost certainly place I3 266, the first list of the third assessment period and the first on the reverse face, nearly 20 cm. down from the top of the stele.14 However, since no fragments survive from the top of the reverse face, we cannot know for certain whether this space was inscribed or left blank.15

12 13 14

Athena’s money was still in the hands of the Hellenotamiai, something happened that caused the money to be lost. See also ATL III 36–39. See also ATL III 39–52. Meritt and West measured the space and found that the first preserved line, which they thought was part of the prescript, came 0.246 m. below the top of the stele (HSCP 37, 1926, 78). Lewis and Valerie French Allen, based on meticulous measurements, demonstrated that these letters were not from a prescript but rather part of

15

the name of a contributing member (Lewis, “Notes on Attic Inscriptions,” BSA 49, 1954, 25–29; French Allen, “The First Tribute Stele and the Athenian Empire, 455–445 B. C.,” unpublished PhD diss. in history, UCLA 1971, 22–38). They calculated that this list had two more entries in each column. With these plus the heading the space above was about 0.195 m. For an improved text of the opening lines of I3 266 with the space indicated, Tracy, ZPE 187, 2013, 195–196. Tracy, ZPE 187, 2013, 197.

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

49

Fig. 6. IG I3 265 I 90–113, II 100–113

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to know exactly what transpired, but a scenario such as the following accounts for the evidence that we have and may be of some use merely as an exempli gratia illustration. The unjust condemnations and executions of all but one of the members of the board of Hellenotamiai of the year 449/8 were not only calamitous for those unlucky men, but these terrible miscarriages of justice surely exercised a chilling affect on the whole process of collecting and recording payments. At the very least, we may imagine that leading citizens may have had some qualms about serving as Hellenotamias. It seems probable indeed this tragedy completely interrupted the smooth succession of boards. Of course, some payments continued to come in and lower level officials received them. Scattered records of some sort must have been kept, but no inscribed lists were made. Various annual secretaries must have continued to be appointed. There were, however, in all probability no fully functional boards of Helleno-

50

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

tamiai for the years 448/7 and 447/6 to organize the orderly collection and recording of the tribute.16 The evidence shows that by the beginning of the third assessment period (446/5 to 443/2) things had returned to normal, for the first list of this period, I3 266, has a clear arrangement by geographical districts and contained a normal number of contributors.17 Indeed, it appears likely that the board of 446/5 was the first normally functioning one since the year 449/8. This board retained early in their tenure inscriber 4, the I3 270 Cutter, to once again take up entering accounts on the stele. This was necessary; otherwise the uninscribed spaces on this massive block, far from impressing anyone, would have clearly exposed the problems that the Athenians were encountering in the collection and recording of the annual tribute quotas. So there was some urgency both to fill in the large gap in the record after 450/49 and to make the lists look as regular as possible. The quota list of 449/8 was a total loss; so this workman was given the records they had to hand of the contributions for the year 448/7 to inscribe as the last panel on the obverse face. This list, I3 264, was quite incomplete and unusually short with just 141 contributors, so the I3 270 Cutter (inscriber 4) arranged it in four columns instead of the normal five. Even so, as though to disguise the fact that a list is missing at this point, he left no space between it and the previous list, not even a vacat of a single line. After he finished his work on this list, nine more contributors were added at a later time at the end of this list in column IV by inscriber x, a man who otherwise did not work on this stele. Why did the I3 270 Cutter not add them? It may be that during the hiatus in the inscribing of the quota lists caused by the turmoil he was unavailable because he had taken on other work and so inscriber x was retained by a subordinate official to inscribe these few entries that had come in late as a group. Eventually, be it noted, eleven much later payments from this year were included in the record of the next year. However, that list, the list of 447/6 (I3 265), was not yet ready because there had been no organized effort to collect the monies owed from the allied states. Indeed, the collection process was in disarray and only at a rather late stage was an effort mounted to collect back payments of 448/7 and the payments for 447/6. Thus the I3 270 Cutter (inscriber 4) was next given the task of inscribing the account of 446/5 (I3 266), the first year of the new assessment period, on the reverse face. This list was ready when the Hellenotamiai of that year closed their books; so it was decided to proceed with it and not wait for the records of the previous years to be readied. Thus, he was instructed to leave the right lateral face and some space at the top of the reverse face blank for the records that were still being compiled. It was, it seems, not known at this point how much space would be needed for the late payments of 448/7 and the many partial and installment payments of 447/6. There may even have still been some hope of recovering some of the lost funds of 449/8.18 Since it was soon realized that a com-

16

17

The archai referred to in the first lines of I3 264 and 265 are then on this argument in great part fictions to give the inscribed lists the appearance of regularity. The omission of the number of the arche in I3 264 is both unique and indicative of the interruptions in the smooth succession of officials. See also on the omission, Tracy, CP 109, 2014, 8–9 (below 214). On the geographical arrangement, B. Paarmann, “Geographically Grouped Ethnics in the

18

Athenian Tribute Lists” in Once Again: Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. T. H. Nielsen, Historia Einzelschriften 180 (2004) 84–85 and, on the number of entries, Lewis, “Notes on Attic Inscriptions,” BSA 49, 1954, 26–27. In the event, that did not happen and the space on the right lateral face turned out to be more than ample.

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

51

prehensive consolidated list of the scattered payments from the gap years could not be realized, the decision was made not much later to proceed with inscribing the first part of the long list (I3 265) on the right lateral face. Inscriber 5 was retained because inscriber 4 (the I3 270 Cutter) was now at work inscribing I3 266 on the upper part of the reverse face. Now, dropping the speculation, I3 265 deserves further consideration. Although it is the longest list on the stele with (as restored in IG I3) 220 contributions, it is in its essentials the list of a single year with a total of 162 contributors for 447/6. It is, however, a most confusing record with many contributors listed twice or more.19 It was inscribed in two main phases. The first phase (I3 265 I4–86, II4–73) repeated completely and in almost the same order the list of contributors from I3 264;20 only the quota amounts differ. The second phase comprised what the editors of the ATL have termed an appendix of 67 lines that includes, on their interpretation, eleven late whole payments from the previous year plus quite a few arrears for that year as well as late and installment payments from the current year.21 For the first phase inscriber 5 copied with only minor transpositions exactly the text 3 of I 264 one column at a time.22 And not only was he able to incorporate the nine additions at the end of the fourth column (I3 264 IV31–39), it is instructive to observe exactly how he did it. He did not, as might be expected, place them all at the end or keep them all together as a group. Rather, when in the copying he reached the last entry in each of the first three columns of I3 264, he inserted three of the nine additions from column IV. To clarify, I3 265 I40 is the same as I3 264 I38, the final line of that column; the cutter then inscribed in the next lines of I3 265 I41–48 entries from the beginning of column II of I3 264 and the first three of the additions in column IV as follows: I3 265 I41 = I3 264 II3 I3 265 I42 = I3 264 IV[31] I3 265 I43 = I3 264 II2 I3 265 I44 = I3 264 IV[32] I3 265 I45 = I3 264 II4 I3 265 I46 = I3 264 II5 I3 265 I47 = I3 264 IV33 I3 265 I48 = I3 264 II6 He then continued to copy column II of I3 264 in this first column to line 55 (= I3 264 II[13]) and then began again at the top with his second column.23 Line 28 of the second column of I3 265 is identical with line 38 of column II of I3 264, the last line of that column. And thus it was to be followed by the next three entries from column IV. A schematic of these lines of column II of I3 265 will make the situation clear: I3 265 II28 = I3 264 II[38] I3 265 II29 = I3 264 IV34 I3 265 II30 = I3 264 IV35 19

20

21

On this list, Tracy, CP 109, 2014, 5–8 (below 210–213). First detailed by Meritt and West, AJA 32, 1928, 281–297 and discussed at ATL I 176, III 39. For this complex state of affairs, Wade-Gery, Hesperia 14, 1945, 227–228 and, in greater detail, ATL III 39–52.

22

23

Presumably, if he did not copy it from the bottom of the obverse face of the stele, he had at his disposal a nearly exact column-by-column copy of it. Clearly he was working on a scaffold, so he inscribed down as far as comfortable and then began again at the top. This order of cutting is well recognized; cf. ATL III 39.

52

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 7. IG I3 265 I–II close up of 102–110

I3 265 II31 = I3 264 IV36 I3 265 II32 = I3 264 III2 I3 265 II33 = I3 264 III3 At line 55 of his second column (I3 265 II55 = I3 264 III25), the cutter stopped to lower the platform of the scaffolding on which he was working and then took up work again on the first column at line 56 (= I3 264 III26). At line 72 he reached the final line of the third column of I3 264 (I3 265 I72 = I3 264 III38). He inscribed one more line in this column and then went back to continue his work on the second column at line 56. Again a layout will clarify better than words can how he inserted the last three contributors from column IV: I3 265 I72 = I3 264 III38 I3 265 I73 = I3 264 IV37 I3 265 II56 = I3 264 IV38 I3 265 II57 = I3 264 IV39 I3 265 II58 = I3 264 IV2 I3 265 II59 = I3 264 IV3 In this manner inscriber 5 carefully inserted in the inscribed list the last nine entries of I3 264.24 The preceding narrative appears to suggest that this was done as the work proceeded. To sum up, it is clear that there was no new consolidated and updated list for this year. Rather, whoever prepared it for the inscriber simply took over wholesale for the first part the entire list of the previous year. After doing this, an approach that can only be described as a drastic bookkeeping shortcut, at some subsequent time, perhaps much later, he cobbled together in unsystematic fashion a hotchpotch of additional records of separate payments for what is called the appendix. Most puzzling among these entries are what appear to be dittographies (fig. 7), that is, names repeated in successive lines, namely Byzantioi (col. I103–104) and Tenedos (col. II108–109). The ATL editors regard the pay-

24

Whatever the heading/rubric was at I3 264 IV30, it is very notable that he did not include it. For a discussion of the reading and resto-

ration of this rubric, Tracy ZPE 187, 2013, 192–194.

The Inscribers of the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus

53

ments recorded here as complements to partial payments recorded earlier in the list, Byzantioi at I79, Tenedos at I5.25 This seems to be correct. But, why are they listed separately in successive lines, a matter which the ATL editors do not address? Apparently we are dealing here with a record that details each discrete payment. In short, the repetitions are not mistakes. Rather now in the aftermath of the tragic executions of the Hellenotamiai it was felt necessary to collect and record the quota on each payment as it was received. Perhaps too the payments came in piecemeal over an extended enough period of time that no single official was in place to consolidate and total them. In sum, the state of the lower part of I3 265 in particular is eloquent evidence of the disarray into which the collection and record keeping had fallen during the last three years of the second assessment period. ******* The texts of the tribute quota lists in general use today are those published in 1981 by B. D. Meritt and M. F. McGregor in the third edition of the first volume of IG. These scholars along with H. T. Wade-Gery had previously edited these texts in ATL I published in 1939 and again in ATL II published ten years later. The texts of IG I3 largely go back to the versions presented in ATL II. The reconstruction of the Lapis Primus is primarily the work of Meritt and West done in the 1920’s.26 No doubt improvements could be made if the stele were to be dismantled and reassembled, but there seems little doubt that in the main the placement of fragments is correct. However, the edition presented in the IG is a maximalist one. It is over restored, does not indicate clearly with underlinings letters on thirty fragments that are now lost,27 and provides no adequate account of the blank spaces. Moreover, it gives at crucial places a false impression of certainty, where none is possible.28 A new more accurate, more conservative edition of these lists is definitely needed.

25 26 27

ATL III 50–51. Note 1 above. For a list of these fragments, B. Paarmann, “Aparchai and Phoroi: A New Commented Edition of the Athenian Tribute Quota Lists and Assessment Decrees,” unpublished PhD dissertation Université de Fribourg (Suisse)

28

2007, part II A, 7–8. I owe a significant debt of thanks to Dr. Paarmann for sharing his dissertation with me. On a number of these matters, Tracy, “IG I3 259–272: The Lapis Primus – Corrigenda Selecta,” ZPE 187, 2013, 191–198.

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’ (IG I3 421–430)1 The phrase “Attic Stelai” first occurs in Pollux2 and refers in the present day to a group of about 75 fragments of inscribed marbles that have been discovered in and around the ancient agora at Athens.3 The great majority have been found at the south east corner of the square in the area of the Eleusinion where, it seems clear, the stelai were originally located.4 All are of white marble. W. K. Pritchett and his colleague D. A. Amyx published this complex group of fragments in masterful fashion in Hesperia under the title “The Attic Stelai.” Pritchett published part I, the texts and epigraphical commentary, in Hesperia 22, 1953, 225–299 and pls. 67–84. In part II (Hesperia 25, 1956, 178–317) he discussed all the items sold except the vases and other containers which Amyx treated in part III (Hesperia 27, 1958, 163–310). A. Pippin contributed an appendix to part II (Hesperia 25, 1956, 318–328) on “The Demioprata of Pollux X.” In sorting out the numerous fragments and assigning them to the separate stelai, particular attention was paid to the geological structure of the marble (Hesperia 22, 1953, 235–236),5 as well as to the treatment of the back surfaces where they are preserved. Pritchett does not mention the shape of the lettering as a criterion, but it seems clear that he also used it in assigning fragments. Since Pritchett’s publication of the texts in 1953, new fragments have been added by Pritchett to I3 421 (Hesperia 30, 1961, 23–25), I3 422 (Ibid. 25–28) and I3 426 (Ibid. 28–29), by B. D. Meritt to I3 430 (Hesperia 36, 1967, 84–86) and by J. Camp to I3 422 (Hesperia 43, 1974, 319–321). IG I3 published in 1981 is now the authoritative edition of these texts6 and its editor D. M. Lewis made many improvements, but essentially followed the earlier publications.7 V. Bardani has recently recognized yet another small fragment of these stelai

1

2 3

4

5

This chapter is a revised version of “The Hands of IG I3 421–430, the so-called ‘Attic Stelai’” 259–284 in Studies Mattingly. ν δ( τα)ς *ττικα)ς στήλαις … (X.97) A number of the fragments of these texts unfortunately have too few letters or are too worn to allow meaningful study of the writing. See M. M. Miles, The Athenian Agora XXXI: The City Eleusinion (Princeton 1998) 203–205 for a useful conspectus of the fragments and their find spots and fig.1 on page 7 for a plan of the find spots. She discusses the inscriptions briefly on pages 8–9, 65–66. For this Pritchett relied on the expertise of the distinguished geologist Dr. N. Herz of the United States Geological Survey.

6

7

M. K. Langdon in re-editing the poletai records in Agora XIX 52–143 offered a brief discussion of these inscriptions on page 70 but sensibly referred his readers to IG I3 for the texts. Lewis discussed these stelai in an interesting article entitled “After the Profanation of the Mysteries” in Ancient Society and Institutions, Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (Oxford 1966) 177–191; see especially his helpful summary of their contents on pp. 184–186. He and R. Meiggs also published excerpts of two of the stelai (IG I3 421 ll. 7–49 and 426 ll. 40–112) with helpful commentary as no. 79 of Meiggs-Lewis.

56

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 1. BA 598 (courtesy of A. P. Matthaiou)

among marbles found in the south peristyle of the Library of Hadrian. It has the inventory number BA 598. She kindly made known this fragment to A. P. Matthaiou who studied it in his 2009 dissertation.8 It is not possible to associate it certainly with any of the stelai; it has textual similarities to I3 430, but as Matthaiou points out, its thickness (0.115 m.) precludes it from I3 430, which is 0.095–6 m. thick. The writing on this fragment in the photograph kindly provided by Dr. Matthaiou (fig. 1) is not, so far as our small sample allows a judgment, identical with the writing on any of the others. According to Philochoros (FgrH 328 fr. 134) the Hermokopidai were condemned to death and their names inscribed in the archonship of Chabrias. Chabrias, as F. Jacoby notes ad loc. “richtiger Χαρίου,” is surely a mistake for Charias (415/4). The confiscation, sale and inscribing of the stelai was completed not more than a year or two later.9 For the work on so large a dossier of inscriptions recording the sale to be done in so short a time, 8

See pp. 200–204 of “Studies in Attic Inscriptions and the History of the Fifth Century B. C.” (PhD diss. La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia 2009).

9

See Pritchett’s discussion of the date at Hesperia 22, 1953, 232–234.

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

57

it was necessary that more than one letter cutter be employed. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to the inscribers of these stelai. This study seeks to isolate and describe the writing on these fragments in order to differentiate, so far as the evidence allows, the workmen who produced this important dossier of texts. Pritchett judged that the stelai he numbered I–IV (I3 421–424) were “probably inscribed by the same stonemason” (Hesperia 22, 1953, 264). “Sloping lambda, nu with a short right hasta, a narrow beta, and a kappa with short diagonal strokes are characteristic of the script of all four stelai” (Ibid.). Although this description is not entirely accurate – the lambda’s do not all ‘slope’ (i.e. lean forward) nor are the right hastae of the nu’s all short – the lettering is generally similar. Lewis agreed that stelai I–III and IV have the same lettering.10 Indeed, the lettering of these four stelai is quite similar; but it is the case that stelai V–VI and X also exhibit lettering that is quite close to these in general style. Careful study of the lettering on these fragments reveals that the blanket assertion that numbers of these stelai are the work of one man is a simplification; the situation is more complicated than this. There is evidence that multiple cutters worked on these inscriptions and that not infrequently more than one man engraved parts of the same stele. (I exclude from this discussion entirely the numerals recording the tax and sale price because they have a very limited variety of shape and so are not very helpful in distinguishing hands. Furthermore, they are sometimes inscribed in somewhat smaller letters and it may be that many were added later.11 If this is correct, it suggests that the lists of items in some instances were inscribed prior to the actual sale.)12 Just as the writing varies, as described below, from stele to stele and sometimes within the same inscription, so the height of the lettering varies from ca. 0.005 to ca. 0.01 m. For convenience, multiple measurements of the vertical strokes of epsilon, iota, rho and tau were used to arrive at the usual letter height. Round letters are often smaller and sigma often taller. The letter height on these inscriptions is normally as follows: BA 598 0.007 0.008 I3 421 0.009 I3 422 0.008–9 I3 423 0.008–9 I3 424 3 0.008–9 I 425 0.009 (col. I), 0.008–9 (col. II) I3 426 0.006 I3 427 ca. 0.007 I3 428 0.006 I3 429 3 0.008 I 430 As is at once obvious, except for BA 598 and I3 427–429, the lettering of these texts was apparently quite uniform in height, usually 0.008–9 m. Still, we must not discount the possibility that, if these stelai had survived whole instead of in the woefully fragmentary state before us, we might well find some sections of text or later additions, if there were any, inscribed in different sized lettering. In short, it may not be safe to assume that the letter-height on any given stele was uniform, or nearly so, throughout.

10 11

Studies Ehrenberg (above n. 7) 180. See fig. 2 and Hesperia 22, 1953, pls. 70, 74.

12

The lack of sale prices in ll. 196–197 of I3 422 supports this conclusion.

58

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 2. IG I3 421 29–49

IG I3 421 (stele I) The writing of the primary cutter of IG I3 421 may be characterized as follows (fig. 2; see also pp. 47, 49 of Hesperia 3; pls. 67, 68, 72 of Hesperia 22 and pl. 5 of Hesperia 30). Alpha is relatively wide and quite often the left slanting stroke begins up from the baseline giving the letter a slightly forward tilt. The crossbar usually comes below the midpoint of the letter and slants slightly. The vertical stroke of the lambda leans forward, sometimes quite a bit; occasionally it is all but vertical. The second vertical of nu is usually the same length as the first and does not extend appreciably above it. Omicron varies in size, but tends to be smaller than the other letters and placed up in the letter-space. Rho is tall with a small loop that is usually somewhat pointed or verging toward pennant-shaped. Phi is the same height as the other letters. The central part is made by placing two small sepa-

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

59

Fig. 3. IG I3 421 119–140 (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies)

rate arcs, which do not quite line up on each side of the vertical. This workman inscribed, where there are enough letters to make a judgment, all of I3 421 except the fragments at the bottom of col. III (ll. 108–140). These lines (fig. 3; Hesperia 22 pl. 67 frg. e) have rho’s with large rounded loops, phi’s with a large central oval, wide nu’s with a raised up second vertical, and large omicrons. This writing is not closely similar to any other surviving on these texts.

60

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

IG I3 422 (stele II) There are at least two main inscribers at work on I3 422. Much of it was engraved by the Cutter of IG II2 17 (below 152 and fig. 20). He inscribed the upper half of col. I (ll. 1–60), all of col. II except frg. d (ll. 120–127), the upper half of col. III (ll. 209–247), and ll. 302–310 of col. IV, the only lines from this column that have enough letters preserved to enable one to speak with reasonable certainty. The forward leaning lambdas show that the letters of col. V preserved on frg. i (fig. 4; Hesperia 22 pl. 75), though similar in style, are not his work.

Fig. 4. IG I3 422 frg. i (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies)

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

61

Fig. 5. IG I3 422 cols. I–II bottom

The principal cutter of IG I3 421 also worked on I3 422 as the loop of the rho’s tending toward pennant-shaped, the forward leaning lambdas and the phi’s reveal. He inscribed ll. 70–112, the lower part of col. I (fig. 5; see also Hesperia 22 pl. 70, Hesperia 30 pl. 6, Hesperia 43 pl. 64a) and ll. 257–297, the lower part of column III. His hand is also almost certainly in evidence on frg. d (ll. 120–127) – see the pennant shaped rho’s of this fragment (fig. 6). Pritchett, who was unsure of its position (Hesperia 22, 1953, 236), assigned it to this place in stele II and he was followed in this by Lewis in IG I3. However, it most probably does not belong to this stele, since it is embedded in a column that otherwise was inscribed by the Cutter of IG II2 17. The writing suggests rather that it is part of I3 421. Moreover, since it lists at least 7 mantles (tribones), it probably should be placed in proximity to frgs. g, i, and j (ll. 222–249) of that stele, fragments of uncertain location that list a number of cloaks (himatia). Finally, not enough letters survive on frg. i of col. V (fig. 4) to ascertain whether they are the work of the inscriber of IG I3 421 or not.

62

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 6. IG I3 422 frg. d (courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies)

IG I3 423 (stele III) The writing of IG I3 423 is similar, probably identical, with that of the Cutter of IG I3 421. The small sample of lettering, however, makes it impossible to be certain, but the single beta in l. 11 with small pointy loops (fig. 7, Hesperia 22 pl. 74) matches the pointy loops of this cutter’s rho’s. The forward leaning lambdas are also characteristic of his writing as are the wide alphas with raised up left hasta. However, Pritchett (Hesperia 22, 1953, 262) concluded from the marble, the depth of incising, and treatment of the back that this fragment was not connected with any of the others. Figure 8 shows the back of I3 423 on the right and on the left the back of frg. g of I3 421. Both reveal rough pick marks of about 2 cm. in length that slant downwards from left to right; but they run at different angles. Those of I3 423 are more vertical than those of frg. g of I3 421. This makes it unlikely that they should be placed close to each other, but there is no reason why they could not come from different parts of a stele whose back was picked from different angles as the workman moved around the block as he dressed it. The depth of the inscribing and the marble do not in my judgment appreciably differ. Moreover, when this fragment is placed at the right side of frg. b of I3 421 at ll. 44 ff., the tax and price numerals appear to align quite well with those in the upper part of col. II of I3 421. The items listed too are kitchen accoutrements, that is, quite similar to the kitchen utensils recorded in col. II of I3 421. A join between these pieces should at least be tried at a time when the fragments of I3 421 are not set in plaster.

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

Fig. 7. IG I3 423

63

64

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 8. Backs of IG I3 421 frg. g and I3 423

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

65

IG I3 424 (stele IV) The small sample of writing on this piece is illustrated by fig. 9 and pl. 75 of Hesperia 22. Epsilon is comparatively thin, but it is lambda, nu and rho that distinguish the writing of this inscriber. Lambda almost has the shape of a Roman capital L with a horizontal that bends up just slightly. The loop of rho occupies more than a third to nearly half the height of the letter. It is not rounded but compressed in width and occasionally is composed of straightish segments. Nu tends to be relatively wide with the second vertical shorter than the first, definitely raised up above the base line of the letters and at times leaning out slightly. This writing, especially the distinctive lambda and nu, is also visible in ll. 102–109 (col. III) of I3 425 (fig. 10, Hesperia 22 pl. 76 frg. c).

Fig. 10. IG I3 425 102–109

Fig. 9. IG I3 424 1–24

66

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

IG I3 425 (stele V) Cols. I and II (Hesperia 22 pls. 76–77) are the work of “The Cutter of IG II2 17” (below 152 and fig. 21). For this workman, see also above under IG I3 422. Col. III is, as just pointed out, in the same writing as that of IG I3 424.

IG I3 426 (stele VI) As reconstructed by Pritchett, stele VI is composed of 17 fragments. Two joining fragments comprise col. I (Hesperia 22 pl. 77) and eight make up col. II (Hesperia 8 pp. 70–71, Hesperia 22 pl. 78). It should be noted that there is no textual overlap between these columns. In addition six fragments (a, k-o [phots. Hesperia 22 pl. 79]) are of uncertain location and p (Hesperia 30, 1961, 28–29) has been assigned to the bottom of the columns. If correctly placed – the arguments are mainly geological –, this last fragment gives a minimal overlap between the two columns. However, there is not much text and the inscribed surface is much damaged (see Hesperia 30 pl. 5). To limit our discussion for the moment to the ten fragments that make up cols. I and II, we may observe that the lettering of two different workmen is in evidence. The inscriber of col. I (ll. 1–39 [fig. 11; see also pl. 77 in Hesperia 22]) makes sigma that is taller than the other letters with the upper angle at times more open and with a

Fig. 11. IG I3 426 1–16

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

67

central part that does not extend to the front of the letter. The lowest stroke is often the longest and extends down below the base line. The crossbar of alpha comes low in the letter, usually well below the midpoint. His kappa is unusually small and the vertical of lambda at times leans back. The diagonal is angled up only slightly. The second vertical of nu begins at the baseline and sometimes is longer than the first vertical. Rho has a large loop covering half the height of the letter or a bit more; phi likewise has a large round central part. Lastly, upsilon is quite tall with a V that is not very wide. The inscriber of col. II (ll. 40–112) is the Cutter of IG II2 1386 (below 125 and fig. 21). Of the fragments of uncertain location, a is certainly the work of the inscriber of col. I; n and o are probably also his handiwork. Frags. l and m (ll. 144–156) are in the writing of the II2 1386 Cutter. Neither k nor p have enough well-preserved letters to allow a judgment as to the inscriber.

IG I3 427 (stele VII) The writing on this stele is unusual in this dossier for its small size (ca. 0.006 m.) and is easily recognized (fig. 12; see also the photograph on p. 81 in Hesperia 7 and pls. 80–82 in Hesperia 22). The letters are in places lightly incised. The horizontals of epsilon vary

Fig. 12. IG I3 427 86–100

68

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 13. IG I3 428

slightly in length with the topmost at times being the shortest. The omicrons are all quite small. The lowest slanting stroke of sigma often extends down into the interline and sometimes curves a bit. Mu is very wide with a central part that extends nearly to the bottom of the letter.

IG I3 428 and 429 (stelai VIII and IX) Only one rather small fragment survives of each of these stelai. See fig. 13 and Hesperia 22 pl. 83 for stele VIII; fig. 14 and Kerameikos III (Berlin 1941) taf. 2, 3 for IX. There are not enough letters in each case to allow meaningful study of the hand. The inscriber of I3 428 makes an unusually thin epsilon with a central horizontal that is sometimes shorter than the others. The horizontals often taper at their ends to points. This writing is not closely similar to any other in this dossier of inscriptions. The lettering of I3 429 is similar in size and general shape to that of I3 427 (fig. 12) but is clearly not identical. The round letters vary in size but most are quite large and have straight segments. W. Peek, Kerameikos III 13, comments “Die Schrift ist der von IG I2 331 [= I3 427] sehr ähnlich …, doch gehören beide Stücke kaum zu derselben Inschrift …” A close look at the photographs will reveal that the sigma’s differ radically in shape.

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

69

Fig. 14. IG I3 429

IG I3 430 (stele X) The letters of this text (fig. 15; see also Hesperia 22 pls. 83–84, Hesperia 35 pl. 30e) are generally similar in shape to those of IG I3 421 to 426 but not identical with any of them. This inscriber makes a wide epsilon with the middle horizontal placed about half of the time slightly closer to the bottom, a wide kappa, lambda that is vertical or leans back just slightly, mu that is wide with a central part that extends down very close to the bottom of the letter, nu’s the second vertical of which joins the diagonal just above the bottom of the first and extends up above the height of the first vertical, and phi’s that are slightly taller than the other letters with a central part fashioned from two small semicircles placed on each side of the vertical at about midpoint. ******

70

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 15. IG I3 430 26–39

The present study has succeeded in distinguishing eleven separate inscribers at work on these texts.13 These distinctions should be of substantial aid in placing any fragments found in the future.14 The rather large number of cutters present in this dossier sharply contrasts with the first 22 tribute quota lists discussed in the previous chapter, which were inscribed by just six workmen. And, for the most part, these tribute lists were inscribed 13

14

The new fragment (fig. 1) presented in Matthaiou’s dissertation appears to provide evidence of a twelfth workman. It is to be expected that more fragments of these

texts will be found, especially should there be further excavation of the city Eleusinion. For the publication of what has been excavated to date, Miles, The City Eleusinion (above n. 4).

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

71

annually in year panels by a single cutter with almost no changes of inscribers. In addition, three of those workmen cut multiple lists. That situation is in all probability reflective of the fact that in the 450’s and 440’s there were not many experienced letter cutters available. In contrast, by the year 413, the approximate date of the Attic stelai, there were many competent cutters at work in Athens; thus at least eleven engraved parts of this dossier of ten inscriptions with fairly frequent changes of cutter within these inscriptions. Pritchett’s study of these fragments brought order to them and his publication has in the main stood the test of time. However, the evidence of the inscribers presented above does raise the possibility that some of the fragments are not in their correct places. It appears very likely, for example, that frg. d (ll. 120–27) of I3 422 (fig. 6) really belongs in I3 421 and it may also be the case that the single fragment published as I3 423 is part of I3 421. Pritchett naturally accepted geologist Herz’s judgments about the marble. But, the distinctions that Herz made may be less persuasive, as Pritchett himself rightly pointed out (Hesperia 22, 1953, 236), when we reflect that these stelai, or the majority of them, were likely to have been produced in one shop and the marble employed likely to have come in one batch from the same quarry. Pritchett also seems to have assumed that each of these stelai had uniform lettering, thickness and treatment of the back. Not one of these assumptions is in point of fact true. The variation in lettering on these stelai has just been described. Let us consider the backs of some of the fragments of IG I3 421 (see Hesperia 22 pl. 69 for the ensemble of fragments). The back of frg. a from the top left has a smooth band and, below that, it is roughly picked in short gashes that are roughly horizontal; the back of frg. c has gashes of the same size that slant down slightly from left to right and frg. e from the bottom of col. III, though worn, is more roughly worked. And here is Lewis’ description of the back of I3 422: “… at the edges and for some way in, the back is fairly tidy and only 0.075 m. thick, whereas the centre remains thicker and hardly touched.”15 Fragments belonging to this stele clearly could differ both in thickness and in the treatment of the back. In short, some of the main criteria that Pritchett employed for deciding whether fragments might go together or not may not in fact have been very reliable. Pritchett assigned the fragments to eleven stelai. The eleventh (Hesperia 22, 1953, 291–292 and pl. 84) has not been accepted and is most probably a list of slaves; it is now published as IG I3 1047. Moreover, six of the other ten are represented by just a few fragments: three (I3 423, 428, 429) by just one fragment, one (I3 430) by three, and two (I3 424, 425) by four. It seems surprising that so few fragments survive from what must have been in each case rather large inscribed monuments. It appears likely, then, that some of these, instead of being independent stelai, might belong to the same stele or to one of the other stelai. The fragments assigned to the first two stelai have been put in plaster in their approximate positions (see pls. 68 and 70 in Hesperia 22). Pritchett calculated the dimensions of I3 421 as about 1.5 m. tall, 1 m. wide and 0.114 m. thick (Hesperia 22, 1953, 239–240). But in fact there are no contiguous pieces from top to bottom or from side to side. Of I3 422 we have the left side, fragments from the top and bottom, and the original thickness of some of these fragments. The thickness at its thickest known point is 0.114 m. We know neither the height nor the width. The possibility, therefore, exists that one or both of these stelai were significantly wider and taller than scholars presently imagine.

15

Studies Ehrenberg (above n. 7) 180.

72

General Studies of the Writing of the Fifth Century B. C.

Fig. 16. IG I3 422 bottom left corner

Moreover, in the case of the second stele (IG I3 422), Pritchett was unsure whether frg. i (col. V, ll. 368–78) belonged (Hesperia 22 236, 255–256) and Lewis suspected, based on its content, that it did not.16 This fragment (fig. 4) has a small ridge 0.045 m. above the bottom; the surface below that ridge is slightly recessed. The new joining fragment of this stele published by J. Camp (frg. k; see Hesperia 43 pl. 64) preserves the bottom left corner and has a worn area (fig. 16).17 Careful examination of the surface at the bottom where it is not damaged reveals that it is smooth with no trace of the ridge and recessed area preserved on frg. i. Consequently i should be dissociated from this stele. With it removed, there exists a large gap at the right part of this stele. Furthermore, neither frg. g (ll. 298–310, 356–67) nor h (ll. 347–355), the sole fragments assigned to cols IV and V, are anchored either by text or by a physical join to the other fragments. The photograph in fig. 17 shows the fragments as placed before being plastered in. Frg. i is at the left foreground, above it and to the right is small frg. h mended from two small pieces, and frg. g is in the foreground at the top right. They are all floating pieces and make no join with 16

17

Studies Ehrenberg (above n. 7) 185. See also IG I3 p. 408 where he writes “De fr. i (vv. 368– 378) dubitatio manet.” Camp (Hesperia 43, 1974, 320) describes it “as an area where the original surface of the

stone has been damaged. As this strip is confined to the bottom, it seems likely that the damage occurred during the removal of the stele from its base.”

The Inscribers of the So-called ‘Attic Stelai’

73

Fig. 17. IG I3 422 in reconstruction (Meritt archive, Institute for Advanced Study)

any of the others. Hence the entire right part of this stele is potentially open. Could the fragments published as I3 425 be placed here? There appears to be room and, indeed, the hand suggests that it might be the case, for the same workman who inscribed much of I3 422, “The Cutter of IG II2 17,” also inscribed the first two columns of IG I3 425. Even though a centimeter thicker, these pieces might be from the right part of I3 422.18 Where frg. i of I3 422 and the new fragment included in Matthaiou’s dissertation are to be placed in this dossier of texts must remain, for the time being, uncertain. Our evidence, it bears repeating, is very fragmentary, with many missing pieces and holes. Quite a number of the fragments can not be placed with any accuracy. Perhaps, in the end there will prove to have been more than ten stelai, although it seems probable, based on current evidence, that there were fewer than that number.

18

Note Lewis’ description above of the back of this stele becoming thicker and less worked towards the middle. If the stele was even wider

than previously thought, who can say that it was not also a bit thicker in the area under discussion?

Part II Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

The Cutter of IG I3 263 Dates: 454/3–450/49

Fig. 1. IG I3 263 II 7–16

General character of the Lettering (fig. 1) This inscriber’s writing is generally neat with the strokes of letters meeting precisely. The round letters can vary a bit in size but they tend to be reasonably large and quite round; they are usually placed in the center or lower part of the letter space. His lettering reveals a rather large amount of variety in the basic shapes of certain letters, viz. nu, upsilon and phi. For the details, see just below.

78

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 263 III 9–18

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 2–3) Alpha This letter varies in width from normal to quite wide. The crossbar is always straight and placed below the mid-point of the letter. It can be nearly horizontal but usually it slants downward sharply from left to right. Beta

The loops are pointed, that is, triangular or pennant-shaped.

Epsilon The three horizontals in each discrete example are all the same length; they vary some in length from example to example and are often quite short. The letter thus varies in width from thin to medium. The central horizontal, if it is not centered, is placed nearer the bottom. Kappa This letter is similar in width to epsilon, i.e. it varies from thin to medium. The diagonals do not extend to the top and bottom of the letter, but are rather short and angled up or down quite sharply. Occasionally they curve. Lambda The vertical is quite vertical or occasionally it can even lean back slightly; the diagonal can vary but is usually about half as long as the vertical and angled up. Occasionally it is shorter and less sharply angled.

The Cutter of IG I3 263

79

Mu This letter is wide and usually as tall as the surrounding letters. The central V varies in how far it extends down, from less than half the height of the letter to more than half; it never reaches the base of the letter. The outer long diagonals often curve just slightly. Nu The first stroke is the longest; the diagonal does not reach down to the base of the letter. The second vertical is shorter than the first and usually does not rise much, if at all, above it. The letter often leans forward, but it can on occasion be nearly upright. Rho The loop is made with straight segments and is triangular; it varies in size but is normally slightly more than half the height of the letter. Sigma The three-bar sigma that this inscriber makes is very regular in shape; it is made from three strokes of about the same length. It is quite thin and upright. Upsilon This letter is quite wide with a lot of variety in the length and placement of strokes. The vertical can be more than half the height of the letter with a surmounting wide V; the strokes of the V can sometimes curve a bit. The vertical can also be half the height of the letter or even a bit less. Phi This is basically a large round letter with a vertical bisecting it. The vertical either terminates at the circumference of the circle or breaks through it just a little.

List of inscriptions IG I3 259 Aris[ton] archon (454/3). Fig. 4. Phots.: Hesperia 41, 1972, pl. 100 (1–4, III–IV 5–23, V 5–21); ATL I p. 8 (1–3, III 22–29, IV 5–29, V 5–21), p. 9 fig. 6 (1–3, VI 5–21). IG I3 260 I 12–19 (453/2). Fig. 5. Phot.: ATL I p. 11 fig. 8 (I 12–19). The writing of cols. IV–X with rounded rho’s and phi’s with a central flattened oval is not his (above 45 for a description of this lettering). Not enough survives of the lettering in cols. II–III to make any judgment about the inscriber; but they are probably the work of the main inscriber of list 2. That the present cutter, the cutter of the first list, also inscribed the first column of the second list nicely, though curiously, coincides with the conclusion of the ATL authors that the entries in this column are actually a list of late payments from the previous year. “We have, therefore, in column I of List 2 a kind of appendix to List 1” (ATL III p. 7). Why he inscribed this column is not immediately apparent. Perhaps the payments came in shortly after he completed the summary postscript of list 1, which made it impossible to add them to list 1, so it was decided to have him begin list 2. In order to space the entries of the first column properly it is likely that the present cutter also inscribed the heading for list two; but there are not enough letters surviving to establish this one way or the other. It is, however, most interesting to note that the only fully preserved sigma from this heading has four bars. Whatever the case, this man inscribed these contributions but this time, in contrast to what he did in the first list, he placed the numerals before the contributors. Probably those in charge directed him to do this. He inscribed these 18 contributors using slightly smaller letters, 0.008 m., than he had in list one, where the letters are 0.01 m. in height. Perhaps he intended these smaller letters to mark the entries as a kind of appendix. If so, his intention of marking them as different was unsuccessful because his successor, the main inscriber of I3 260, kept this column length and small letter size; thus, in contrast to all of the other lists, which were planned so as to have columns of nearly the same length, the tenth and last column of this list contains just 10 entries.

80

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG I3 262 (451/0). Fig. 6. Phots.: Imagines2 fig. 33 (I 29–33, II 27–31); ATL I p. 17 fig. 15 (1, I 2–12, II 2–15), p. 19 fig. 17 (1, IV 2–11). IG I3 2631 (450/49). Figs. 1–3. Phots.: Imagines2 fig. 33 (1, I 2–14, II 2–16); ATL I p. 28 (III 9–27, IV 8–34, V 10–29). This workman received the commission to inscribe the record of the first year on this very large stele. He arranged it in six columns of 25 lines that extend across the entire width of the obverse face and placed the summary postscript on the right lateral face. He entered the payments to the right after the contributor. In all subsequent lists, by contrast, the payments come first to the left of the cities. He also, as described just above, inscribed the first column of the second year. After a hiatus of roughly two years, he next inscribed the complete records of the fourth and fifth years, i.e. he completed the accounts of the first assessment period and began the second. It is notable that he left a space vacant below I3 262 of about 7½ lines, thus visually setting off the first and second assessment periods. The photograph in Imagines2 fig. 33 shows this space very clearly. Generally this cutter and the others who inscribed this stele had a strong tendency when space allowed to place letters under one another in a stoichedon pattern. Thus, to take the first list, I3 259, the three partially preserved lines of the preamble are arranged stoichedon2 as are the lines of the postscript on the right lateral face. The names of contributors too in the columns of lists are, for the most part, aligned vertically. Numerals, often in slightly smaller letters and squeezed in, could not be aligned to any great degree.

1

A peculiarity of this list is that there exists a lightly incised vertical guideline separating the numerals from the names of the contributors in columns III–V. Presumably it aided the cut-

2

ter in placing and aligning the numerals and letters. But note that in line 1 two lambdas were crowded into one stoichos.

The Cutter of IG I3 263

Fig. 3. IG I3 263 V 15–27 (Archive IG)

Fig. 4. IG I3 259 IV–V 7–19 (Archive IG)

81

82

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 5. IG I3 260 I 12–19 (Archive IG)

Fig. 6. IG I3 262 IV 1–11 (Archive IG)

The Cutter of IG I3 270 Dates: 448 – ca. 438

Fig. 1. IG I3 270 I 29–37

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 1) The present writer on p. 281 and pl. 15 in Studies Dow (below 203 and. fig. 1) offered a preliminary description of this cutter’s writing and assigned several inscriptions to him. This workman makes lightly inscribed lettering that is quite uniform in height, except for sigma, which is decidedly taller, nu that extends up and mu that tends to be shorter. The round letters stand out and were apparently inscribed more deeply.

84

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 270 III 19–27

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha The straight crossbar normally comes below the mid-point of the letter and often slants downward from left to right. Epsilon This letter is rather thin. The horizontals tend to be roughly the same length, but the central one reveals some variation; it can be placed just slightly closer to the top and/or slant upward slightly. Lambda The upright is usually quite vertical; occasionally it leans back slightly. The diagonal is more than half the length of the vertical and slants upward quite sharply. Mu This letter tends to be somewhat shorter than the other letters. The apices are at times squished, so to speak, rather close together, giving the letter a most idiosyncratic

The Cutter of IG I3 270

85

look; the central part usually extends down almost to the base of the letter. The outer diagonals sometimes curve a bit. Nu The second vertical begins well above the baseline and extends up above the line of letters. The diagonal joining them often does not meet precisely at their ends. The letter tends to lean forward just a little, but it can also be upright. Omikron

This letter is large and round.

Rho The loop covers about half the height of the letter; it is sometimes fairly round but more often it is oblong or pointy revealing the influence of pennant-shaped rho. Sigma This is basically Σ, a standard three-bar sigma, to which a curving lower stroke has been added to create the four-bar sigma; this stroke usually extends down slightly below the base line of the letters. Occasionally it does not curve and can verge on being horizontal. The strokes are long and the upper one is at times angled up to such a degree that it does not reach the front of the letter. When this is the case, the whole letter seems to lean, as it were, backwards. Upsilon This letter is quite wide; it is usually made from two strokes, the left rising up in a curve to the height of the letter, the right also often curving joins it about a third of the way up from the bottom of the letter. Sometimes the strokes meet so close to the bottom of the letter that there is virtually no vertical. Occasionally the letter is composed of three distinct hastae. Phi The letter is of normal height with a fairly large and wide central oval; it seems sometimes to have been made in two parts that do not line up perfectly.

List of inscriptions IG I3 146

Fig. 3. Phot.: Studies Dow (below 205 fig. 2) pl. 15B.

IG I3 264 (448/7?). Figs. 4–5. Phots.: ATL I p. 30 (II 1–11), p. 37 figs. 45 (III 26–39) and 46 (III 8–17), p. 38 figs. 47 (IV 14–28) and 48 (IV 34–39). The present workman inscribed all the entries in this list except, as Meritt and McGregor noted (IG ad loc), those at the bottom of the fourth column (IV 30–39).1 A different man (cutter x) added them. The writing of these final lines (fig. 6) is characterized by a very thin and tall epsilon, by a thin four-bar sigma, by a sharply forward leaning nu and by tailed rho. It appears only here on the stele. (446/5). Fig. 7. Phots.: ATL I p. 16 (I 2–28, II 1–20), p. 45 (II 22–34), p. 47 fig. IG I3 266 60 (V 7–25). (445/4). Fig. 8. Phots.: ATL I p. 40 (I 15–33, II 14–23), p. 45 (II 1–7), p. 49 IG I3 267 (II–III 20–33), p. 50 figs. 63 (IV 25–33) and 64 (V 17–31). (444/3). Fig. 9. Phots.: ATL I p. 41 fig. 53 (I 25–32), p. 49 (II–III 1–19), p. 52 IG I3 268 fig. 69 (II 20–31, III 24–26), p. 53 fig. 71 (IV 24–34), p. 54 (V 22–32)

1

On these lines, Tracy, ZPE 187, 2013, 192– 194 and above 43, 48.

86

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG I3 269 (443/2). Figs. 9–10. Phots.: Studies Dow pl. 15A (below 205 fig. 1) (I 28–36, II 33–36), ATL I p. 43 (I 28–36, II 31–36), p. 53 fig. 71 (IV 1–6), p. 54 (V 1–8), p. 55 (II– III 1–13), p. 56 fig. 75 (IV 7–23), p. 57 (II–III 19–32), p. 58 figs. 77 (IV 19–24) and 78 (V 23–36). IG I3 2702 (442/1). Figs. 1–2, 10. Phots.: Studies Dow pl. 15A (below 205 fig. 1) (I 1–6), ATL I p. 43 (I 1–17, II 1–12), p. 44 fig. 56 (I–II 28–38), p. 59 (III–IV 1–12), p. 61 (III–IV 15–37), p. 62 (V 19–37). IG I3 271 (441/0). Fig. 11. Phots.: ATL I p. 18 (II 65–82), p. 22 (I 98–101, II 89–100), p. 47 fig. 61 (I 13–42), p. 51 fig. 65 (I 63–88), p. 52 fig. 67 (I 88–97), p. 66 (II 84–87). Fig. 12. Lewis in IG identifies these fragments as parts of the Parthenon IG I3 461 accounts and dates them to the year 438. In addition to a very fragmentary decree for a foreigner (I3 146) and a Parthenon account (I3 461), this man inscribed seven of the fourteen lists of the first tribute stele. His hand first appears in I3 264, almost certainly the account of the year 448/7. That is, he began work right in the troubled period of the last three years of the second assessment, at a time when there was a serious disruption in the lists with one list entirely lost and two showing marked irregularities.3 Indeed, I3 264, his first list, has no number in its prescript and is the shortest on the stele. He placed it at the bottom of the obverse face directly below I3 263 of 450/49 leaving no vertical space, not even a vacat of a single line. He also laid this list out in four columns rather than the usual five, apparently (since this was to be the last list on this face) as a way to use a reasonable amount of the remaining vertical space. The next list he inscribed was I3 266 of the year 446/5; it is the first on the reverse face. Most puzzling, it is quite certain that he did not place it at the top but almost 20 centimeters down from the top of the reverse face.4 See above 48–51 for more on these matters and a possible scenario to account for the state of lists of the years 449/8 to 447/6 and the inscribers on them. In the placement of letters this workman follows the usage of the time. That is to say, he inscribed I3 146 and I3 461 stoichedon and tended to align vertically the letters of contributors in the quota lists. He also happened to prefer four-bar sigma. Not only did he inscribe the list of the year 446/5 (I3 266), the first list on the reverse face, he subsequently filled that entire face with the records of the years 445/4 to 442/1 (I3 267, 268, 269, 270). He also engraved the record of 441/0 (I3 271) at the top of the left lateral face and arranged it in two columns. He thus cut the records of the six consecutive years from 446/5 to 441/0 and it is he to whom we owe the dogma that in public documents the three-bar sigma was abandoned for the four-bar in 446/5. The following chart shows the occurrence of three-bar and four-bar sigmas in the lists of the Lapis Primus. (The lines mark the end of one assessment period and the beginning of the next.)

2

For a newly discovered fragment that belongs in column II 29–33, Matthaiou, Empire 16–17 and fig. 7.

3

4

Tracy, CP 109, 2014, 3–8 (below 210–213) and above 48. On the space above the first preserved line, above 48 and Tracy, ZPE 187, 2013, 195–197.

87

The Cutter of IG I3 270

I3 259 of 454/3 I3 260 of 453/2 I3 261 of 452/1 I3 262 of 451/0 I3 263 of 450/49 I3 264 of 448/7? I3 265 of 447/6? I3 266 of 446/5 I3 267 of 445/4 I3 268 of 444/3 I3 269 of 443/2 I3 270 of 442/1 I3 271 of 441/0 I3 272 of 440/39

Σ Σ5 Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ

This pattern of usage does appear to indicate that there was a change over to four-bar sigma after 447/6, the end of the second assessment period. Indeed, the first to suggest this idea was A. R. Rangabé in his study of the fragments of the Lapis Primus in the 1840’s.6 But when we realize that one individual, the present workman, inscribed I3 264 and I3 266 to 271 (highlighted by bold italics in the list above), what looked (with a certain amount of reason) as though it reflected an official policy, we can now see was in reality the preference of this one inscriber. Had the cutter of I3 265 or some other (who preferred the three-bar sigma) inscribed one of the lists soon after 446/5, the apparent change from three-bar to four-bar sigma would not have appeared to scholars as so sudden, complete and official.

5

However, it is to be noted that the first and only completely preserved sigma in the heading (line 1) of I3 260 has four bars.

6

Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques I (Athens 1842) 282–285.

88

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. IG I3 146 Fig. 4. IG I3 264 1, II 2–8

Fig. 5. IG I3 264 III 9–17

Fig. 6. IG I3 264 IV 20–39 (Courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens)

The Cutter of IG I3 270

Fig. 7. IG I3 266 II 22–34 (Archive IG)

Fig. 8. IG I3 267 I 16–32, II 15–27 (Archive IG)

89

90

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 9. IG I3 268 V 27–34; 269 1, V 2–4

Fig. 10. IG I3 269 I 28–36, II 24–36; 270 1–2

91

The Cutter of IG I3 270

Fig. 12. IG I3 461 25–38 (Archive IG)

Fig. 11. IG I3 271 I 65–83 (Archive IG)

The Cutter of IG I3 35 Dates: 440/39–432/1

Fig. 1. IG I3 35

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 1) The present writer on pp. 281–282 and pl. 16A in Studies Dow (below 203 and fig. 3) offered a preliminary description of this cutter’s writing. His lettering conveys an impression of care and consistency; letters do vary in shape but not very much. Strokes meet one another precisely. Beta, epsilon, eta, kappa, lambda and rho tend to be thinner and taller than the other letters. Iota too is often very tall. By contrast, the round letters vary in size, but are usually shorter than the other letters. In general one of the hallmarks of his writing is that his letters vary somewhat in height from example to example. In addition, a number of horizontal strokes are not horizontal but slant a bit from left to right, sometimes upwards, but more often downwards; they are: the crossbar of alpha, the bottom stroke of delta, the horizontals of epsilon, and the crossbars of pi and tau.

94

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 35 6–17

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha This letter is usually quite wide and leans forward at times just slightly. The straight crossbar comes about at the mid-point and frequently slants downward from left to right. Lambda The vertical leans at times back slightly; the short diagonal stroke makes a somewhat open angle. Mu The central V comes down about halfway. When the letter is not symmetrical, the initial left slanting stroke varies in length but is usually shorter than the right slanting stroke. Nu This letter is upright; that is, it has little or no forward lean. The first vertical begins at the base of the letter, sometimes curves just slightly, and is usually longer than the second. The second begins up from the base and sometimes extends up and sometimes stops at the height of the first vertical. Pi Rho

This letter is quite thin; the second vertical is about half the length of the first. The loop is nicely rounded and takes up about half of the height of the letter.

Upsilon The right stroke begins at the bottom and curves up to the height of the letter. The left, usually curving, joins the vertical slightly below the midpoint of the letter. Occasionally the letter appears to be composed of three distinct strokes.

The Cutter of IG I3 35

95

Phi The well-made oval of medium size is sometimes centered on the vertical but more often is just slightly off-center to the right.

List of inscriptions IG I3 35 Figs. 1–2. For a new edition and translation, I. S. Mark, The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens, Hesperia Suppl. 26 (Princeton 1993) 104–107. Phots.: M. Guarducci, Epigrafia greca I (Rome 1967) 141; Studies Dow pl. 16A (below 206 fig. 3); Hesperia 61, 1992, pl. 61 b, c. (440/39). Figs. 3–5. Phots.: ATL I p. 22 (I–II 1–15), p. 32 (I–II 19–51), p. 35 fig. IG I3 272 41 (I 65–80, II 75–84); Imagines2 pl. 15 no. 34 (I–II 19–51). IG I3 273 (439/8). Phots.: ATL I p. 70 fig. 91 (I 13–33), p. 71 fig. 93 (I–II 16–26), p. 71 fig. 94 (III 18–21). IG I3 274

(438/7). ATL I p. 70 fig. 91 (1–3).

IG I3 276 p. 80).

(436/5). Fig. 6. Only small parts of columns V–VI survive (phot.: ATL I

IG I3 277 (435/4). Fig. 7. Phots.: ATL I p. 81 (1–2, V 3–20), p. 82 fig. 110 (1, VI 3–15), p. 85 fig. 115 (IV 23–31), p. 86 fig. 117 (V 23–31, VI 25–31). (434/3). Fig. 8. Phots.: ATL I p. 85 fig. 115 (1–2, IV 3–13), p. 86 fig. 117 (1–2, IG I3 278 VI 3–9), p. 87 fig. 120 (V 6–19, VI 11–15), p. 88 fig. 121 (VI 17–37). IG I3 279 (433/2). Fig. 9. Phots.: ATL I p. 70 fig. 92 (1–7, I 8–34, II 31–39), p. 76 fig. 101 (II 46–77), p. 77 fig. 103 (I 67–87, II 74–88), p. 82 fig. 111 (I 42–57), p. 88 fig. 122 (I 102–106). IG I3 280 (432/1). Figs. 10–11. Phots.: ATL I p. 72 fig. 96 (1–7, II 8–21), p. 74 (I–II 29–61), p. 78 fig. 106 (I–II 54–82). IG I3 435 Figs. 12–13. Phots.: AJA 36, 1932, 474; Hesperia 5, 1936, 363–364; 7, 1938, 266; 12, 1943, 14. The decree concerning the priestess of Athena Nike (I3 35) is inscribed stoichedon; the letters of the quota lists and the account are not true stoichedon but tend to be aligned vertically. I3 35 and I3 435 have three-bar sigmas; the records of the tribute quota lists (I3 272–280) all have sigmas with four bars. The dates of I3 35 and I3 435 have been a matter of some discussion. Lewis relied largely on the three-bar sigmas for his dating in IG of ‘c. a. 448’ for I3 35 and ‘c. a. 450’ for I3 435; Mattingly dated I3 35 about the year 430, very plausibly reasoning that it should not be chronologically very far removed from its sister inscription, I3 36, which dates to 424/3 (above 36 and fig. 7).1 Gill discusses both inscriptions and suggests possible dates in the 430’s for both.2 We are now in a position

1

“The Athenian Coinage Decree,” Historia 10, 1961, 169–171 [AER 30–32]. Recently (see CQ 50, 2000, 604–606; ZPE 162, 2007, 107– 110) he advocates 425/4 or 424/3.

2

D. Gill, “The Decision to Build the Temple of Athena Nike (IG I3 35),” Historia 50, 2001, 257–278.

96

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

to know that three-bar sigmas are no guarantee of an early date. The hand of the cutter, however, does not provide much help for dating these inscriptions, since he could have been active a decade or more before or after the year 435, or both before and after, if the year 435 came near the middle of his working career.3 Concerning the very fragmentary I3 435, until we have a better understanding of the accounts that it contains, it is not possible to say more of a worthwhile nature about its date.4 Mattingly’s arguments for dating I3 35 rather close to I3 36 are in my view persuasive. This cutter was entrusted with the task of inscribing I3 272, the final series of entries on the Lapis Primus, in the only vacant space left on that huge block, namely the lower half of the left lateral face. It is not hard to imagine that putting the finishing touches on this great stele was more than just an ordinary assignment. He certainly gave it considerable care and employed larger letters than normal for the headings (ca. 0.018) and for the list (0.011 m).5 He also used for it the four bar-sigma; perhaps he was influenced in that choice by his colleague, the I3 270 Cutter, who had inscribed the records of the previous six tribute years. Where the Lapis Secundus is well preserved, the writing too is his.6 He certainly inscribed the reverse face (I3 276–278), the left lateral face (I3 279) and the right lateral face (I3 280). These texts vary somewhat in spacing and letter-height, suggesting that he inscribed them year-by-year and not all at one time. From the obverse face nothing of I3 275 and only small parts of I3 273 and I3 274 are legible, but the surviving lettering is entirely characteristic of his writing. It seems, then, most probable that he was responsible for inscribing all of the quota lists of the years 440/39 to 432/1, that is, the last list of the Lapis Primus and all of the Lapis Secundus. That he was retained to work on the Lapis Secundus is not surprising in view of the professional way in which he finished the Lapis Primus. It also seems worth noting that all of his inscriptions appear to have been rather closely connected with Athena and her cults as though he had a special arrangement with cult officials.

3 4

For a similar argument, Mattingly, AER 522. Scholars have traditionally identified I3 435 as the accounts for the bronze statue of the Athena Promachos; Stroud, Empire 27–32, has offered good reasons to doubt this and calls for further study of all the fragments. See now pp. 119–20 of O. Palagia, “Not from the Spoils of Marathon: Pheidias’ Bronze Athena on the Acropolis” 117–37 in K. Buraselis and E. Koulakiotis (eds.), Marathon, The Day After (Athens 2013), who throws doubt on

5

6

both the early date and the identification with the Promachos. The normal size for the headings is ca. 0.015 and ca. 0.01 for the lists. This once great stele has suffered grievously; cf. ATL I p. 67. It was cut vertically into two almost equal parts for building purposes. Much of the inscribed face on the front and back was scraped down during the reuse obliterating the text.

The Cutter of IG I3 35

Fig. 3. IG I3 272 26–36

Fig. 4. IG I3 272 I 39–44

97

98

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 5. IG I3 272 II 55–65

Fig. 6. IG I3 276 V–VI 20–29 (Archive IG)

The Cutter of IG I3 35

Fig. 7. IG I3 277 V–VI 2–14 (Archive IG)

Fig. 8. IG I3 278 IV 2–12 (Archive IG)

99

100

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 9. IG I3 279 I–II 72–87 (Archive IG)

Fig. 10. IG I3 280 I 40–57, II 40–57

101

The Cutter of IG I3 35

Fig. 11. IG I3 280 II 3–18 (Archive IG)

Fig. 13. IG I3 435 111–122

Fig. 12. IG I3 435 74–85

The Cutter of IG I3 364 Dates: 434/3–433/2

Fig. 1. IG I3 364 1–10

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 1) This cutter’s lettering is very neat and regular with little variation in the shapes of letters, in all fine, professional writing. A decided and very unusual mannerism of his work is that, although he inscribed his texts in a stoichedon pattern, he preserved syllabification at line end by in I3 364 putting two letters in a single stoichos and in the inventories by leaving blank spaces.

104

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Peculiarities of individual letters Alpha This is a relatively thin letter with the crossbar placed below the mid-point of the letter, indeed sometimes very low; when the latter is the case the crossbar slants upward slightly from left to right. Epsilon The central horizontal is frequently just slightly shorter than the top and bottom ones; this is unusual in this period. Lambda The vertical stroke does not lean; the slanting stroke extends up at a sharp angle and is long, about ¾ the length of the vertical. Mu Symmetrical and not excessively wide, the central part of this letter extends down more than half way and on occasion nearly to the base of the letter. Nu The second vertical often leans out just a bit; it does not usually extend up perceptibly above the height of the first vertical. Omikron This letter and theta are quite round and large; they are often placed up slightly in the letter-space. Rho The loop covers about half the height of the letter; it is somewhat oblong in shape, not pennant-shaped but preserving, as it were, a memory of it. Sigma This is a carefully and consistently made letter; the central part extends to the front of the letter and the top and bottom strokes sometimes curve slightly. Upsilon This letter is made of three strokes; the vertical is approximately half the height of the letter; the surmounting V is quite wide and often made with strokes that curve slightly.

List of inscriptions IG I3 292

(434/3). Fig. 2.

IG I3 317

(434/3). Fig. 3.

IG I3 318

(433/2). Figs. 3–4. Phot.: Arch.Delt. 23B 1 pl. 8.

IG I3 343

(434/3). Fig. 5.

IG I3 344

(433/2). Fig. 6.

IG I3 364 Archon [Apseudes] (433/2). Fig. 1. Meiggs-Lewis no. 61. Phots.: AJA 33, 1929, p. 399; B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents (Ann Arbor 1932) p. 70; Stele: tomos eis mnemen Nikolaou Kontoleontos, N. Zapheiropoulos, B. Lambrinoudakis, L. Marangou, A. Kalogeropoulou, M. Prouni-Philip, eds. (Athens 1980) pl. 8. IG I3 892 Raubitschek, DAA no. 138. Though few, the letters on this dedication are his writing; note particularly the lambda with its sharply upturned diagonal and epsilon with the shorter central horizontal. L. H. Jeffery, Stele: tomos eis mnemen Nikolaou Kontoleontos 51 and pl. 9, remarked on the strong resemblance of this lettering to that of I3 364.

The Cutter of IG I3 364

105

This man’s work is known to us primarily from accounts of the treasurers of Athena; he inscribed the initial year panels in the records of the Pronaos (I3 292), of the Hekatompedon (I3 317–318), and of the Parthenon (I3 343–344).1 He also cut the account of the monies lent from Athena’s treasury to underwrite the expedition to Corcyra (I3 364). All of these texts belong to the years 434 to 432 and all feature the same treasurers and secretaries. Thus we know that he was quite active for a brief time just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Probably I3 892, the single dedication that we have from his hand, should also be dated to these years or shortly before. Our records of these accounts of Athena are rather lacunose, i.e. only very small parts, or nothing, survive of many of these annual records. Thus, it is not possible to study the inscribers of many of them simply because too little is available to us. It seems, for example, very likely that the present cutter inscribed the records of the first two years of all three of these inventories, that is, that he also engraved I3 293, but the few surviving letters do not allow a positive identification. However, the apparent preservation of syllabification at line end with blank spaces strongly suggests it. Moreover, a pattern of these treasurers hiring the same cutter does seem evident from considering the work of three other identifiable cutters whose handiwork appears among these inventories. The Cutter of II2 1386 (infra 121–144) inscribed I3 303, the Pronaos account of 423/2,2 I3 325–328, the Hekatompedon accounts of 422/1–419/8,3 and I3 352–353, the Parthenon accounts of 421/0–420/19.4 He did not inscribe the Parthenon account of 422/1 (I3 351) nor that of 419/8 (I3 354). Still, he was actively being employed by the treasurers for inscribing a substantial portion of these inventories of the years 423/2 to 419/8. The Cutter of II2 17 (infra 149–180) engraved I3 314–315, the Pronaos accounts of 409/8–408/7; I3 333, 339, 341–342, Hekatompedon accounts dated 414/3, 409/8 and 406/5–405/4?; and I3 355 and 362, Parthenon accounts of 414/3 and 406/5 or 405/4. The Pronaos account of 414/3 (I3 309) survives; it is not his work. The Cutter of I3 316 (infra 185–190) inscribed the Pronaos account of 407/6? (I3 316) and the Parthenon accounts of 409/8? and 408/7? (I3 359–360). The treasurers, or whoever hired the cutters, while they employed the same inscriber some years for multiple accounts, also spread the work around some and did not (as they apparently did in the first two years) uniformly employ the same cutter to do all three inventories of a given year or years.

1

2

See also on the inscribing of these Hekatompedon and Parthenon records, W. Thompson in Hesperia 39, 1970, 57–58, who wrongly ascribed them to two different men. The Pronaos accounts of the next three years 422/1, 421/0 and 420/19 have not survived.

3

4

The Hekatompedon accounts of 426/5 to 423/2 do not survive. The Parthenon accounts of 426/5 to 423/2 are not extant.

106

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 292 1–10

Fig. 3. IG I3 317–318 1–9

The Cutter of IG I3 364

Fig. 4. IG I3 318 9–13

Fig. 5. IG I3 343 1–6 (Archive IG)

107

108

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 6. IG I3 343–344 12–18 (Archive IG)

The Cutter of IG I3 392 Date: ca. a. 425 a.

Fig. 1. IG I3 392

General characteristics of the writing (fig. 1). This is neat, carefully cut lettering. The round letters are large and for the most part very well made, i.e. very round. This man employed a rather peculiar double-box interpunct that takes up a full letter-space as a way to set off parts of his accounts; see ll. 1, 4, 15 of I3 392.

110

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Peculiarities of individual letters Alpha This letter can vary in width but usually it is wider than most of the other letters with a straight crossbar placed below the midpoint. The crossbar often slants, sometimes downward from left to right, sometimes upward. Eta

This letter is tall and thin.

Mu

This letter is very wide; the central part comes down about halfway in the letter.

Nu The second vertical of this letter sometimes leans forward slightly; it is decidedly shorter than the first, is placed well above the base of the letter and extends up to the top and occasionally above it into the interline. Sigma Taller than the other letters and thin, the topmost stroke intrudes into the interlinear space. The central part reaches the front of the letter. The angles of the strokes vary from example to example. Tau

This is a tall letter; the vertical stroke is longer than the horizontal.

Upsilon This letter, formed by three strokes, varies in width from normal to rather narrow. The lower vertical covers about half the height of the letter; the surmounting V is not wide.

List of inscriptions IG I3 392 Fig. 1. Eleusis 34 and pl. 15. Phot.: J. Hondius, Novae Inscriptiones Atticae (1925) pl. VII. IG I3 394 a

Fig. 2. Eleusis 35 and pl. 14. Phot.: Hesperia 12, 1943, p. 34.

IG I3 394 b Fig. 3. Eleusis 36 and pl. 15. On Styra and Kythnos in this account, see also N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford 2011) 31–32. Phot.: Hesperia 12, 1943, p. 35. This man appears to have been a local cutter who inscribed accounts for officials at Eleusis. I3 392 was found in Athens suggesting that he either went there to work in the city Eleusinion or that some stones that he inscribed were taken to Athens to be set up there. Lewis in IG dates these three inscriptions “c.a. 420”; Clinton places them “ca. 430–425?”. In addition, Clinton, Eleusis II p. 59, judged based on the peculiar double-box interpunct that I3 393 (Eleusis 37 and pl. 15) was also the work of this cutter. The shapes of nu, sigma and upsilon, however, differ (fig. 4) and suggest that I3 393 is the work of another cutter; it appears, then, that the double-box interpunct (attested only in these texts) was used by more than one of these local workmen.

The Cutter of IG I3 392

Fig. 2. IG I3 394a

Fig. 3. IG I3 394b 11–24

111

112

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 4. IG I3 393a

The Cutter of IG I3 50 Date: 424/3

Fig. 1. IG I3 50a

General characteristics of the writing (fig. 1) Like much of the lettering of the second half of the fifth century B. C., this is solid wellmade lettering. The strokes are relatively thick and placed with precision in relation to one another. The appearance is neat and professional.

114

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 50b

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha The crossbar is straight, horizontal and placed a little below the mid-point of the letter. The left stroke just slightly overlaps the right at the apex. Epsilon The three horizontal strokes are the same length (about 2/3 the length of the vertical) and are placed quite carefully at top, middle and bottom of the letter. Sometimes the central stroke is placed slightly closer to the top. Lambda ward.

The long stroke of the one preserved example is vertical; it does not lean for-

Nu The first vertical begins at the baseline and the second above the baseline; it extends to a point above the first vertical. The diagonal meets the verticals fairly precisely. Omicron, theta These letters are not as tall as the others, are quite round and vary in their placement in the letter-space. There is a definite punkt in the center of theta. Rho The loop curves nicely and is a bit more than half the height of the letter; this letter and beta tend to be somewhat less wide than epsilon and nu; that is, they are rather thin in appearance. Sigma Made of four long strokes of about the same length, sigma tends to be taller than surrounding letters. The apex formed by the two central strokes extends just slightly out in front of the other strokes, thus giving the letter a rather splayed or swaybacked appearance, which is in fact rather idiosyncratic.

The Cutter of IG I3 50

115

Tau When not centered, more than half of the horizontal comes to the right of the vertical. Upsilon This letter is taller than the others and appears to be made from two strokes. The right slants or bends to the height of the letter. The left joins it at mid-point or slightly below. The surmounting V is less wide than most cutters make at this time. Phi This single (partially) preserved example in line 9 is the same height as the others with a very nicely rounded small oval.

List of inscriptions IG I3 43 Although weathered, the lettering can be made out quite clearly on fragments a+b (fig. 3) and c (fig. 4). Lewis in IG dates this treaty “c. a. 435–427.” Fragments a+b are opisthographic; on the other side is IG I3 42, a text that is dated in IG on the basis of three-bar sigma to “c. a. 445–442”, but it is probably quite a bit later in date than that, to be more precise, after 430.1 Phots.: Bradeen-McGregor pls. XVIII–XIX. Figs. 1–2. Agora XVI 9. Lewis dates this ca. 435. Phots.: Hesperia 14, 1945, IG I3 50 90–91. Scholars have ascribed this wrongly to Wade-Gery’s three chisel cutter; see above 3. IG I3 78b Fig. 5. Eleusis 28b and pl. 8. Meiggs-Lewis no. 73. Lewis in IG gives a date of ca. 422?, Clinton ca. 435.2 I3 78a (fig. 6), the Eleusis copy of this same measure, seems to be by the same hand, but as Clinton (p. 39) observes: “The surface of the stone has suffered from the effect of water, so that the lettering lacks its original sharpness.” See Eleusis pls. 9–11. IG I3 105

Figs. 7–8. Dated ca. 409 by Lewis in IG.3 Phot.: BSA 33, 1932–33, pl. 15.

IG I3 131 Fig. 9. “Ca. 440–432?”, Jameson in IG ad loc. See M. J. Osborne, ZPE 41, 1981, 164–165, for a suggested restoration of lines 18–21. Phot: BSA 33, 1932–33, p. 124 fig. 11. IG I3 187 Fig. 10. Agora XVI 13. Dated by Lewis ca. 430. Phot.: Hesperia 44, 1975, pl. 85 no. 1. IG I3 302

424/3. Fig. 11.

IG I3 1330 Fig. 12. CEG 93. For a discussion and translation, J. Lougovaya-Ast, “Myrrhine, the First Priestess of Athena Nike,” Phoenix 60, 2006, 211–225, esp. 211–218; she dates the epitaph on balance to the last decade of the fifth century. The hand appears

1 2

Tracy, ZPE 190, 2014, 114–115 (below 230). Cavanaugh, Eleusis reviews at length the scholarship on I3 78 (29–72) and dates it ca. 435 based on a study of Eleusinian financial officials (73–95, esp. 92–93). Clinton follows her in this dating. See now Clinton, “The Eleusinian Sanctuary during the Peloponnesian War” 55–58 in O. Palagia ed., Art in Athens during the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge

3

2009) for further arguments supporting this date. For a discussion of the measures in this text limiting the powers of the boule, M. Ostwald, “Popular Sovereignty and the Problem of Equality,” Scripta Classica Israelica 19, 2000, 1–13, esp. 6–8.

116

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

to suggest a date closer to the year 425 than to 400. Lewis in IG gives a range of dates from 430 to 400.4 Those who identify this Myrrhine with the Myrrhine in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata date it after 411 (cf. SEG 36 50 and 44 22). See also J. B. Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess (Princeton 2007) 227–229. Phots.: /φ’ 1948–49 147; Lewis, Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History 189 pl. 2; Connelly, Portrait 228 fig. 8.1. This man’s oeuvre, where enough survives that we can determine the subject matter, consists mainly of decrees dealing with significant matters, such as a treaty with Colophon (I3 43), ‘first fruits’ for Demeter and Kore (I3 78), rules for the Boule (I3 105) and feeding in the Prytaneion (I3 131). He inscribed in our evidence otherwise an account of the Pronaos (I3 302) and a grave monument (I3 1330). Unfortunately, except for the account, which dates to the year 424/3, none of these texts can be accurately dated.5 His texts are all stoichedon and in Attic script except for the grave monument. The letters on it are basically Ionic, but with some inconsistency, and perhaps also confusion, in the use of eta. The first ten letters of line 9 read ΡΙΝΕΗΚΛΗΘΗ; editors have rightly transposed the epsilon and first eta so that it becomes Μυρ|ρίν⟨η ⟩κλήθη.6 In lines 11–12 Attic epsilon is used instead of eta in the words πρώτε and Νίκες but eta appears in these same words in lines 3–4. In addition, since the lines scan as elegiac couplets, it is certain that the words τόδ’ στίν have fallen out after μν7μα in the third line. It appears unlikely that the inscriber did more than copy what was in front of him; that is, these mistakes and confusions should not be imputed to him, but were most probably in the copy from which he was inscribing.

4

He thought in 1955 that the gravestone ought to be close to 400 “from the style of its lettering and the transition to Ionic” in “Notes on Attic Inscriptions (II) XXIII. Who Was Lysistrata?” BSA 50, 1955, 1–12, esp. 1–2 (reprinted as “Who Was Lysistrata?”, chapter 22, 187–202 in D. M. Lewis, Selected

5

6

Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History ed. P. J. Rhodes [Cambridge 1997]). The Hekatompedon and Parthenon accounts of the year 424/3 do not survive, so we can not know whether he inscribed more than one of these accounts as other cutters did (supra 105). So also Lewis, above n. 4, 1.

117

The Cutter of IG I3 50

Fig. 3. IG I3 43a+b

Fig. 4. IG I3 43c

Fig. 5. IG I3 78b

118

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 6. IG I3 78a 48–56

Fig. 7. IG I3 105 45–54

The Cutter of IG I3 50

119

Fig. 8. IG I3 105 53–60

Fig. 10. IG I3 187

Fig. 9. IG I3 131 5–12

120

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 11. IG I3 302 28–36

Fig. 12. IG I3 1330

The Cutter of IG II2 1386 Dates: 423/2–394/3

Fig. 1. IG II2 1386 (right part)

General characteristics of the writing (fig. 1) The lettering of this cutter is neat and professional in appearance.1 The letter strokes are relatively thick and placed precisely. The letters do not vary appreciably from example to example. Indeed, his writing at times can be quite beautiful; see I3 49 (Imagines2 no. 35), 110 (fig. 9) and II2 13915–10 (fig. 31) for especially well-preserved examples.

1

Wade-Gery assigned three of this man’s inscriptions, IG I3 58, 158, and 159, to his “Distinctive Attic Hand” (BSA 33, 1932–33, 122–135); see above 3.

122

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG II2 1386 (left)

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha, delta, lambda These letters are for the time they were inscribed relatively narrow; that is, they are about as tall as they are wide. Occasionally the left slanting stroke overlaps at the apex just slightly. The crossbar of the alpha is usually placed below the midpoint of the letter. It is always straight and usually horizontal, although occasionally it slants downward slightly from left to right. Epsilon The three horizontal strokes are the same length (about 2/3 the length of the vertical) and are placed at top, bottom and middle of the letter. Occasionally the central one is positioned slightly nearer the top. Eta About the same width as epsilon; sometimes the left vertical is slightly shorter than the right one. Mu The mu is symmetrical as well as quite narrow and tall with the angles closed in. (Most contemporary cutters make a mu that is wider and shorter than the other letters.) The central V comes down more than half way but does not reach the bottom of the letter. Nu The first vertical extends down and the second up, sometimes very markedly. The diagonal precisely joins these strokes.

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

123

Omicron, theta These letters are not as tall as the others, are quite round and vary in placement in the letter space; they are more often centered or near the top than at the bottom. There is a definite punkt in the center of the latter. Sigma Made of four long strokes of about the same length, sigma is taller than the surrounding letters. The lower angle tends to be slightly more open making the letter extend noticeably and consistently below the base line. Tau The vertical often comes down below the baseline making this letter rather tall. The crossbar not infrequently is slightly off center, more often to the right, but sometimes to the left. Upsilon This letter is taller than the others and is made with three strokes. The surmounting V that occupies approximately half the height of the letter is quite wide and symmetrical. Phi This letter is the same height as the others with a rounded small oval placed just slightly above the mid-point and, quite often, off center to the right. Omega This letter is very distinctive; it is rather thin with straightish sides and is placed slightly up in the letter-space. The finials extending to right and left are small. It resembles a small brimmed derby hat in silhouette.

List of inscriptions (A plus sign beside an inscription number indicates that there is further discussion below.) IG I3 12 Fig. 3. The known dates of this man’s work strengthen the lower date of 418/7 proposed by Matthaiou (Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B. C. [Athens 2011] 67), Mattingly and others. Indeed, it is inscribed on the lower part of the same stele as the Segesta decree, I3 11, of 418/72 and is surely contemporaneous with it. Phot.: Matthaiou pl. 11.1 IG I3 49 Lewis dates this in IG to the years 440–432. This date is perhaps a decade too early.3 Phots.: Imagines2 no. 35; ATL II pl. XIV. IG I3 58 Fig. 4. Eleusis 31 and pl. 13. Clinton dates this “ca. a. 430 a.” as does Lewis in IG. Mattingly (AER 202) suggests “c. 423 B. C.” Kourouniotis (:λληνικά 2, 1928, 5–10), Kougeas (Ibid. 116–118) and Kahrstedt (NachrGöttingen 1932 77–84) thought it belonged to 403–401, the time of the rule of the Thirty at Eleusis. Considering the dated work of this cutter, a date around the year 430 is perhaps a bit too early.

2

The date of I3 11 of course is disputed. Lewis dated it in IG “ante med. s. V.” Using laser photography M. H. Chambers, R. Gallucci and P. Spanos, “Athens’ Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon,” ZPE 83, 1990, 38–63, concluded that the name of the archon in line 3 was [Ant]iphon. The most recent editor A. P. Matthaiou, Six Greek Historical Inscriptions 57–70, esp. 59–60, after minute

3

study of the stone, was able to read [*ν]τιφo9ν in this line. I believe that this is correct· and that this inscription dates to the year 418/7. See further the present author in ZPE 190, 2014, 106–107 (below 219–220). The omission in line 14 of the rough breathing H should be noted, for it is quite unusual in his work.

124

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG I3 76 Fig. 5. Phot.: h Hesperia 7, 1938, p. 80. I can not subscribe to the claim in IG that this same man cut I3 197; the shapes of sigma and nu in the latter are uncharacteristic. 422/1. Fig. 6. L. Kallet (Hesperia 73, 2004, 466–468) provides a critical disIG I3 77 cussion of this assessment decree and points out that the date 422/1 is not at all certain. Phot.: ATL I p. 119 fig. 173. Fig. 7. For a discussion of the fragments assigned to I3 89 (I2 71), R. J. HoffIG I3 89 man, “Epigraphic Notes on IG I2 71,” CSCA 8, 1975, 89–104 and pls. 1–4. On the date and prosopography, N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia II (Oxford 1979) 134–136. IG I3 90 Fig. 8. Agora XVI 17 and pl. 3. Woodhead in Agora XVI offers a conservative text with virtually no restorations and very reasonably concludes on p. 23 “… this text remains without firm date or context, and it is advisable not to build theoretical reconstructions upon such insecure foundations unless or until better evidence is forthcoming.” See also his summary at the same place with references to previous discussions of this measure, which some have called ‘the second coinage decree’. The original back also appears to be preserved (smooth) and the thickness is notable at 0.25 m.; this suggests that we are dealing with a fragment of an unusually large and imposing inscription. +IG I3 110 Archon Euktemon (408/7). Fig. 9. Meiggs-Lewis no. 90.4 This text alone of his inscriptions that certainly predate 403/2 has the Ionic script. Phots.: A. G. Woodhead, The Study of Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge 1981) pl. 2; Imagines2 no. 41; Walbank, Proxenies pl. 60. IG I3 139

Fig. 10. Agora XVI 12. Phot.: Hesperia 14, 1945, 127.

IG I3 158

Phot.: BSA 33, 1932–33, 132.

IG I3 159

Fig. 11. Phots.: BSA 33, 1932–33, 133; Walbank, Proxenies pl. 18 a-c.

+IG I3 178

Fig. 12. Phot.: Walbank, Proxenies pl. 42b.

Figs. 13–14. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cites grecques (Paris 1969) IG I3 255 A, B no. 11.5 Lewis dates this ca. 430; Sokolowski places it towards 421. Phots.: ArchEph 1902 29–30. IG I3 285 Archon Aristion (421/0). The present cutter inscribed all of the lettering on the three fragments assigned to this list, including the letters on the reverse face of frg. 1 (phot.: ATL I 102), which seem to have been more or less centered at the top of that face. Kallet (Hesperia 73, 2004, 470–474) calls attention to the treatment of the backs of these fragments to question whether frgs. 2 and 3 belong with frg. 1. Phots.: ATL I 101 fig. 135, 103 figs. 137–138.

4

H. B. Mattingly briefly discussed this cutter and recognized as his work I3 89, 90, 467 at BCH 92, 1968, 467 [AER 235] and added I3 77 and 110 at BSA 65, 1970, 141–142 [AER 302–303].

5

For some new readings and restorations, S. D. Lambert, ZPE 180, 2000, 71–75.

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

125

IG I3 289 Meritt and McGregor date this to the year 416/5 in IG. Frg. 1 is so worn that one can say nothing about the hand; frg. 3 has too few letters to say anything and frg. 4 is lost. This man certainly inscribed only frg. 2. Kallet (Hesperia 73, 2004, 480–487) questions the association of frgs. 1 and 2 and considers the assignment of the fragments to the year 416/5 very uncertain. Phots.: Hesperia 73, 2004, p. 481 figs. 7–8. IG I3 303

423/2. Fig. 15.

IG I3 325–328 422/1–419/8. These accounts of the Hekatompedon are very worn and battered, but the writing where clearly preserved is his throughout. IG I3 352 33–36 421/0. Only frag. f is available to me, but presumably he inscribed all of this panel and the next. Different lettering shows that he did not inscribe I3 351 or 354. IG I3 353 54–71

420/19. Fig. 16.

+IG I3 386 & 387 Archon Euktem[on] (408/7). Figs. 17–18. Eleusis 52A & B and pls. 21–24. See also Cavanaugh, Eleusis 99–216 with following plates, for a text and full study. IG I3 389 A, B Fig. 19. Eleusis 50 and pl. 20. For the date “ca. a. 413 a.?”, see Clinton’s discussion in vol. II p. 71. IG I3 390 Fig. 20. Eleusis 46 and pl. 18. See Clinton’s discussion of the date “ca. 418” in vol. II p. 66. IG I3 426 40–112, 144–156 Date: ca. 413. Fig. 21. See also above 67 and Studies Mattingly 265–266. Phots.: Hesperia 8, 1939, 70–71; Hesperia 22, 1953, pl. 78. IG I3 467

Fig. 22. Phot.: Hesperia 9, 1940, 309.6

IG I3 473

420/19. Fig. 23.

Fig. 24. P. Schultz (“The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike,” Hesperia IG I3 482 70, 2001, 18–21 with phot.) discusses this building account and provides a text. +IG I3 490

Phot.: Hesperia 44, 1975, pl. 86 no. 11.

IG I3 1048

Eleusis 49 and pl. 19. “ca. 415–410” (Clinton), “a. 425–405” (Lewis).

IG II2 20 Fig. 25. D. M. Lewis and R. S. Stroud (“Athens Honors King Euagoras of Salamis,” Hesperia 48, 1979, 180–193 and pls. 60–61) attributed to this two new non-joining fragments, frgs. a (Agora I 7121) and b (Brit. Mus. 1959.4–14.4), and provided a new text and extensive commentary. Rhodes-Osborne no. 11. See also Agora XVI 106B and Lawton, Reliefs no. 84 and pl. 44. Lawton dates it “early 4th c. (394/3?).” IG II2 92

Fig. 26.

IG II2 94

Fig. 27.

6

E. Schweigert in his editio princeps in Hesperia commented: “The letter forms of the new fragment belong approximately in the period 430–425 B. C.” Lewis accepted this and gave a date “c. a. 430/29.” The spacing of the let-

tering and the shapes are very similar to IG II2 1386 of about the year 400. I3 467 appears to date nearer the year 405 than 430. Mattingly (GRBS 38, 1997, 120–122) argues for the year 422/1 as the date.

126

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG II2 1372 & 1402 Archon [Xenainetos] (401/0). Fig. 28. These two inscriptions were brought together by A. M. Woodward in the addenda to IG on p. 799. Woodward, ArchEph 1953–54 pt. 2 108–109, added a joining piece found in 1939 by O. Broneer in his excavations on the north slope of the Acropolis. This fragment has the inventory number EM 13409. See Tréheux, “Études” 44–62 and pl. II, for a new text of the whole. IG II2 1379 and addenda p. 798 IG II2 1381

Fig. 29.

See II2 1386.

IG II2 1386 & 1381 Figs. 1–2. A. M. Woodward (IG addenda p. 798) demonstrated that these belong to the same account. E. Schweigert (Hesperia 9, 1940, 310–311 no. 28) also attributed Agora I 4508 to this stele. Archon Souniades (397/6). A. M. Woodward (JHS 51, 1931, 139– +IG II2 1388 A, B 163 and figs. 1–2) joined EM 6790 providing ll. 48–67 of face A and 45–54 of face B; he also identified II2 1408a, b as giving the last 22 lines of face B. Tréheux, “Études” 71–78 and figs. 4–7, subsequently joined II2 1403 (fig. 30) to II2 1408b; it provides the lowest 12 lines on face A. Archon [Euthykles] (398/7). Fig. 31. Lines 3–4 are by the Cutter of IG II2 1391 5–10 2 IG II 17 (below 154). In these lines alone, which are arranged in a stoichedon pattern, the present inscriber used vacant spaces at line end to contrive it so that complete words ended the lines. Otherwise, in his other inscriptions he exhibits little interest in syllabification. IG II2 1396b7

Fig. 32.

IG II2 1402

See II2 1372.

IG II2 1403

See II2 1388 A, B.

IG II2 1405

Perhaps a part of II2 1388 A?

IG II2 1408

See II2 1388 B.

IG II2 1409 Fig. 33. J. Kirchner (IG ad loc.) observed that II2 1409 3–12 repeated almost verbatim II2 1408 9–22. Since II2 1409 contains additional items in ll. 13 ff., he dated it somewhat later. Harris, Treasures p. 254, dates it to the year 395/4. +IG II2 1417

Fig. 34. Harris, Treasures p. 254, dates this to 396/5.

+IG II2 4909

Fig. 35. The date in IG “med. s. IV a.” is roughly a half century too late.

+IG II2 5221 and pl. 2.

394/3. C. W. Clairmont, Patrios Nomos (Oxford 1983) 209–212 no. 68a

394/3. Figs. 36–37. Ibid. 212–214 no. 68b and pl. 3a. Clairmont noted +IG II2 5222 (214) that “the inscriptions on the respective monuments [viz. II2 5221 and 5222] are by the same hand.” M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions II (Oxford 1948) no. 104; Rhodes-Osborne no. 7A. Agora I 4508 +Agora I 7028 7

See IG II2 1386 & 1381. Fig. 38. Hesperia 63, 1994, 171 no. 3 and pl. 38.

IG II2 1396a is apparently lost.

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

EM 6790

127

See II2 1388 A, B.

EM 12766 Fig. 39. O. Broneer discovered this small “fragment of bluish marble” in his excavations on the north slope of the Acropolis and published it with a text in capitals in Hesperia 4, 1935, 166 no. 27. It has lettering similar in size and spacing to II2 1372 & 1402 and appears to be part of an inventory. The second line is perhaps to be restored [%κινά]κִ ης κεχρ[υσωμένος].

Adnotatiunculae IG I3 110 Line 5. The vacat at the end of this line is notable and left so that the speaker’s name could begin the next line. The vacat in line 26 also gives emphasis to the speaker’s name. Line 21. The final letters are ΤΟΓΓ, not (as IG I3) ΤΟΝΓ. IG I2 has the correct reading. IG I3 178 On p. 282 of Studies Dow (below 204) I attributed this rather small fragment (I now know) erroneously to the inscriber of IG I3 93. The workman of I3 93 (fig. 40) makes a mu with a central part that extends down all the way to the bottom of the letter. His nu is tall with a diagonal that extends to the base of the letter where it meets the second vertical, which rises to the height of the letter or a bit above. Note that the nu and mu on I3 178 (fig. 12) do not have these shapes. The mu is thin and the central part does not reach the base of the letter; the diagonal of nu meets the second vertical well above the base of the letter, while the second vertical extends up markedly into the interline. This small piece is not after all the work of the man who cut I3 93 but rather of the present cutter. IG I3 386 & 387 Clinton, following the work of M. B. Cavanaugh, concludes that these two texts are both accounts of the epistatai of 408/7. I3 386 lists what they received from their predecessors and I3 387 what they passed on to their successors. Lewis incorrectly assigned them to successive years. Clinton’s text (Eleusis 52) has improvements in readings and restorations; it also represents more accurately the disposition of the letters on the stone than does the text in IG. The IG text represents the shape of the numerals more accurately and has the paragraph marks clearly and accurately indicated. Clinton’s text omits a few of these marks and others resemble underlinings of letters. IG I3 490 Although this fragment preserves only a few letters, the sigma with the bottom stroke extending down, epsilon with the central horizontal slightly nearer the top, the relatively thin mu with the central part not quite extending down to the base of the letter, the small omicron raised up a bit in the letter-space and the tall tau all strongly suggest that this piece is the work of this man. The iota at the end of the second line should be dotted. The letter could, in fact, be tau. There is not enough space after the rho in the last line to be certain that a vacat followed.

128

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG II2 1388 The tamiai of the sacred treasures of Athena and the other gods of Euthykles’ year (398/7) rendered three separate accounts that have survived at least in part. They are an inventory of the Hekatompedon (II2 1388), one of the Opisthodomos (II2 1392) and one apparently of the Parthenon (II2 1391). The first and parts of the third were inscribed by the present cutter. The second (II2 1392) has precisely the same layout (vertical spacing, stoichedon pattern and number of letters per line) as II2 1388A and was in fact apparently nearly an exact twin of it. This indicates that it was done in the same shop and probably at the same time as II2 1388. The writing is very similar to that of the present cutter but it is not in my opinion his work. Sigma differs slightly, mu is too wide and the second vertical of nu does not extend up consistently enough. See Imagines2 no. 45 for a good photograph of the opening 11 lines. Rather, II2 1392 seems to be the handiwork of a protégé of the present cutter. IG II2 1417 This text is unique in this cutter’s surviving work because the letters are not arranged in a stoichedon pattern. Line 4. The first preserved letter has a crossbar just visible at the worn area along the break; read and restore [σ]ταθ[μόν]. IG II2 4909 This appears to make a join with the right side of Acropolis inv. no. 13783 (Horos 8–9, 1990–91, 16 no. 2 and pl. 5) to give the text: vacat Κλε[αγ]όρ[α . . . . . . . ] stoich. 1. Μελ[ιτ]έω[ς θυγάτηρ] %νέ[θ]ηκε τ[ . . . . . . . ] 3. δε[κ]άτην τ[7ι *θηνι] vacat to bottom Either the stoichedon arrangement was broken at the end of the last line or one of the iotas was crowded in. IG II2 5221 and 5222 These casualty lists of the year 394/3 record the fallen at Corinth and in Boeotia. The cavalry man Dexileos is listed as the ninth name in the latter. His private funerary monument has survived and is published as IG II2 6217 (phot.: Imagines2 no. 46). The letters on II2 6217 are very large (4 cm. in height) and, given their size, quite lightly inscribed. Although they are similar in general style to the lettering of the state monuments, they are the work of a different man. The central horizontal of epsilon is consistently a bit shorter, the second vertical of nu does not extent up above the letter and the strokes that form the V of upsilon curve. These are not shapes that the present cutter makes. Agora I 7028 Although the letters preserved are few, the sigmas, the nu and the small raised up omicron are all very characteristic of this man’s writing. I can discern no trace of the sigma read in line 1. The delta in line 7 should be dotted. ***

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

129

This workman has notable links with Eleusis; he inscribed a number of texts found there: I3 58 concerning the public affairs of Eleusis, several lengthy accounts of the epistatai (namely I3 386 & 387, 389 A, B, 390), and I3 1048, a list of names on what was probably the base of a dedication. In addition he inscribed substantial parts of I3 426, the record of the sale of the property of the Hermokopidai that was set up in the city Eleusinion. With the exception of II2 1417 (noted above), he arranged his texts in a stoichedon pattern and, for measures that are dated before the year 403/2, he consistently employed the old Attic alphabet with infrequent omission of the rough breathing mark.8 Ionic appears only in I3 110 of 408/7 honoring Oiniades the Old Skiathian and in I3 1048, a dedication from Eleusis of ca. 415. Like his slightly younger contemporary, the II2 17 Cutter, the bulk of the II2 1386 Cutter’s surviving work consists of accounts and inventories. Depending on how one counts, something over 57 % of his extant inscriptions (27 of 47) are this type of text, but in fact the length and complexity of these documents are such that they comprise far more than half of his output of lettering. In addition, he cut a number of decrees: the tantalizingly fragmentary I3 49 concerning the water supply, the treaties with the Halykiaoi (I3 12), Bottiaioi (I3 76) and with Perdiccas (I3 89), a puzzling measure dealing with money (I3 90), another dealing with sacred matters (I3 139), honors for unknown foreigners (I3 158, 159, 178), for Oiniades of Old Skiathos (I3 110) and for King Evagoras (II2 20), plus several decrees so fragmentary that we can not say what they dealt with (II2 92, 94).9 In addition to the probable dedication from Eleusis, we have one from the Acropolis (II2 4909+) and, at the end of his career, he did the lettering on two public gravestones for the dead in the Corinthian war (II2 5221, 5222).

8

9

It is omitted at I3 49 14, 76 16, 21, 33, 389 18, and 467 3, 4. So far as I can determine – I am dependent on the reports of others – the present cutter has

a definite preference for white marble for his inscriptions. Only some of the accounts and inventories were inscribed on gray or dark marble, viz. II2 1379, 1391, 1417 and EM 12766.

130

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. IG I3 11 19–20, IG I3 12

Fig. 4. IG I3 58 13–27

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 5. IG I3 76 15–20

Fig. 6. IG I3 77 V 27–36

131

132

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 7. IG I3 89 54–66

Fig. 8. IG I3 90 6–21

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 9. IG I3 110 1–14

Fig. 10. IG I3 139a

133

134

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 11. IG I3 159b

Fig. 12. IG I3 178

Fig. 13. IG I3 255A 5–18

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 14. IG I3 255B 13–22

Fig. 15. IG I3 303 40–49

135

136

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 16. IG I3 353 55–65

Fig. 17. IG I3 386 52–64

137

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 18. IG I3 387 1–17, 63–70

Fig. 19. IG I3 389A 4–19

Fig. 20. IG I3 390

138

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 21. IG I3 426 58–76

Fig. 22. IG I3 467

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 24. IG I3 482

Fig. 23. IG I3 473 4–9

Fig. 25. IG II2 20

139

140

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 26. IG II2 92

Fig. 27. IG II2 94

Fig. 28. EM 13409 (part of IG II2 1372 and 1402)

141

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 30. IG II2 1403

Fig. 29. IG II2 1379

Fig. 31. IG II2 1391

142

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 32. IG II2 1396b 24–30

Fig. 33. IG II2 1409 3–13

The Cutter of IG II2 1386

Fig. 34. IG II2 1417

Fig. 36. IG II2 5222

Fig. 35. IG II2 4909

Fig. 37. IG II2 5222

143

144

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 39. EM 12766

Fig. 38. Agora I 7028

Fig. 40. IG I3 93d 41–50

The Cutter of IG I3 80 Date: 421/0

Fig. 1. IG I3 80 1–11

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 1) This is competent, though rather run-of-the-mill, lettering. Letters vary quite a lot both in height and in width: round letters can be rather large or rather small; sigma is tall; rho and epsilon can be quite thin while nu is large both in height and width. Double cutting is frequently evident, giving some of the letters a scratched appearance.

146

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 80 9–20

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha This is a wide letter. The crossbar is straight and placed below the mid-point of the letter; it usually slants upwards from left to right. Eta Rather than being narrow as is often the case at this time, this letter is of normal width. Mu This is a wide letter that is usually shorter than the others; the central V extends down to the bottom of the letter or even a bit below that. The whole is often slightly asymmetrical and placed up a bit in the letter-space. Nu The second vertical can extend up just slightly and often leans out a bit; it begins at, or close to, the base of the letter. Pi This letter, which many cutters at this time make rather thin, is rather wide, almost as wide as nu. Rho The loop varies in size but is usually rather small, even though it covers about half the height of the letter; it is fairly often oblong or pennant-shaped with some straight segments.

The Cutter of IG I3 80

147

Sigma Composed of four long strokes whose angles vary, the lowest stroke usually extends down below the line of the letters just a little. Tau

The crossbar is wide and frequently off center to the left.

Upsilon This letter is composed of three strokes. The vertical is half the height of the letter or a bit more; the surmounting V is quite large with a tendency for the left hasta to be just slightly longer than the right.

List of inscriptions IG I3 80 archon Aristion (421/0). Figs. 1–2. The height of the letters is 0.01 m. The first two lines are not stoichedon; they act as a heading and are more spaced out than the text of the decree, which is “ΣΤΟΙΧ. 21.” Note too that there is a space not quite one line in height left vacant (not indicated in IG I3) between lines 2 and 3 that sets off the heading from the decree. Phot.: Walbank, Proxenies pl. 29. IG I3 82 archon Aristion (421/0). Fig. 3. Although worn, the lettering of this measure, which is usually taken to be dealing with the festival of the Hephaestia, is this man’s writing. Mattingly (CQ 47, 1997, 353–354) links this decree with the Pseudo-Xenophon, Constitution of the Athenians and offers a new restoration of lines 31–33. See A. Makres in Studies Mattingly 185–202 for a new text and discussion arguing that this inscription refers to a different festival, probably the Theseia. IG I3 83

Fig. 4.

Most inscriptions of the fifth century are difficult to date and few can be attached with certainty to known events. The texts inscribed by this man are exceptions; indeed, two intersect, as is well known, with events recounted in Thucydides. Thrasykles, the speaker of I3 80 (l. 7), is none other than the Thrasykles who was among the ambassadors dispatched to Sparta to ratify the peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.19.2) and shortly afterwards took the oath supporting the formal alliance that ensued (Thuc. 5.24.2). Asteas of Alea, who lived on the overland route from Athens to Lacedaemon, surely entertained the Athenians on their journey and in recompense Thrasykles proposed this decree honoring him as proxenos and euergetes of the Athenians. I3 83 records the alliance that the Athenians concluded with the Argives, Mantineans and Eleians in retaliation after the Spartans refused the demand of the Athenians to drop their alliance with the Boeotians (Thuc. 5.46–48).

148

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. IG I3 82 33–40

Fig. 4. IG I3 83 1–11

The Cutter of IG II2 17 Dates: 414/3–386/5

Fig. 1. IG II2 17 left side 22–35

This man is the most prolific of the inscribers thus far known of the fifth and early fourth centuries BC. He produced lettering that is neat and solid appearing (figs. 1–2). The letters quite frequently have very slight thickenings at their ends. These are not, I think, nascent serifs so much as the natural result of the action of the chisel as the inscriber began or terminated a stroke. The long slanting strokes of alpha, delta, lambda, mu and sigma

150

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG II2 17 right side 22–35

often curve slightly. Quite idiosyncratically, the left slanting stroke of alpha, delta, lambda and mu tends to be raised up from the baseline of the letters slightly, thus imparting to these letters a forward lean or tilt. In addition, mu is usually wide and short with a central part that does not quite extend down to the base of the letter. The central part of sigma correspondingly often does not extend to the front of the letter; the upper slanting stroke extends slightly above the line of the letters while the lower can extend down or verge toward being horizontal. It is also noticeable that the vertical of Attic lambda sometimes leans forward slightly; the slanting stroke is just slightly shorter than the vertical and not sharply angled up. Round letters, including rho, are quite round and vary in size, but are never really small and frequently quite large. Tau is often somewhat shorter than the other tall letters and its crossbar is frequently a bit off center, sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left. Upsilon is composed of three strokes, a vertical that is half the height of the letter or a bit more topped by a wide V, the left stroke of which is slightly longer than the right. Phi tends to be the same height as the other letters and has a nicely rounded oval that is well centered over the vertical. Occasionally, the vertical does not pass through the oval, but is expressed by two short verticals placed above and below the oval.

The Cutter of IG II2 17

151

This cutter inscribed most of his texts stoichedon, which involves the corollary that there can be little or no attention to syllabification at line end. In just one of his stoichedon texts, II2 80, he used blank spaces at the ends of the lines to have them end in complete words and in another, II2 1378+1398, he made some use of spaces at line end to achieve syllabification, but not consistently. By contrast, the texts of I3 339, 362, II2 1370+1371+1384, 1688, and 1693 reveal a non-stoichedon arrangement. Only enough survives of II2 1370+ to allow us to see that in this case, he sought syllabification at line end. A description of this workman’s lettering and list of inscriptions was published with copious notes and illustrations by the present writer as “A Major Athenian Letter-Cutter of the Late 5th and Early 4th Centuries B. C.: The Cutter of IG II2 17” in Gestures 351–363. A. P. Matthaiou attributed four further fragments to the cutter in “The Cutter of IG, II2, 17: Addenda”, Studies Tracy 73–81.

List of Inscriptions (Asterisks mark inscriptions that are new to the dossier; plus signs indicate that more discussion is to be found below.) *IG I3 74 Fig. 3. Lawton, Reliefs no. 72 and pl. 38 who dates it “ca. 410.” Lewis’ date in IG “a. 424/3” is too early. Phots.: A. Lambrechts, De Atheense Proxeniedecreten (Brussels 1958) pl. III; Walbank, Proxenies pl. 26. IG I3 106

Peçirka, Enktesis 13–17. Phot.: Walbank, Proxenies pl. 57.

Archon [Antigenes] (407/6). Fig. 4. Meiggs-Lewis no. 91.1 Phot.: Walbank, IG I3 117 Proxenies pl. 62. IG I3 125 Archon Alexias (405/4). Fig. 5. D. M. MacDowell, “Epikerdes of Kyrene and the Athenian Privilege of Ateleia,” ZPE 150, 2004, 127–133, reprints the text with a discussion of the restorations and historical background of these honors for Epikerdes. Cf. Peçirka, Enktesis 39–41 and pl. 8; Lawton, Reliefs no. 10 and pl. 6; Agora XVI 28A. Phot.: Hesperia 39, 1970, pl. 31. IG I3 179

Fig. 6. Phot.: Walbank, Proxenies pl. 64a.

IG I3 237

Fig. 7.2

IG I3 314

Dated 409/8. Fig. 8. Phot.: Tréheux, “Études” pl. I.

IG I3 315

Dated 408/7. Fig. 9. Phot.: Ibid.

*IG I3 333

Dated 414/3. Fig. 10.

*IG I3 339

Dated 409/8. Fig. 11.

IG I3 341 1

2

Fig. 12. Phot.: Gestures 356 fig. 3.

On the provisions for trireme building in this measure, Samons, Owl 279–281. “Lapicida idem n. 237 bis incidit” (Lewis ad loc.). For a photograph of this small piece, see Hesperia 37, 1968, pl. 80 no. 19. Though very

similar in general style, this lettering is not this man’s work. There are no suggestions of small serifs, the strokes of mu do not curve, and the alphas do not lean forward.

152 IG I3 342

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 13. Phot.: Ibid. fig. 4.

*IG I3 355

414/3. Fig. 14

*IG I3 362

Fig. 15.

IG I3 3793 Fig. 16. Phots.: Hesperia 4, 1935, 166; 11, 1942, 275–277; 25, 1956, pl. 33. IG I3 380 A, B Archon [Pythodoros] (404/3). For another restoration of face A, see P. E. Krentz, “SEG XXI, 80 and the Rule of the Thirty,” Hesperia 48, 1979, 54–63, esp. 59–61. Phots.: Hesperia 32, 1963, pl. 55 no. 1. *IG I3 381 Fig. 17. This is a very small fragment, perhaps an edge break, that may well, as Lewis observes ad loc., be part of I3 379. IG I3 382

Phot.: Hesperia 25, 1956, pl. 33.

IG I3 406

Fig. 18. Phot.: Hesperia 25, 1956, pl. 31 no. 2.

IG I3 410B

Fig. 19. Phot.: Hesperia 25, 1956, pl. 33 no. 10.

*IG I3 422 1–60, 116–119, 130–207, 209–247, 302–310 peria 22, 1953, pls. 70, 73.

Above 60–61. Fig. 20. Phots: Hes-

Above 66. Fig. 21. Phots.: Hesperia 22, 1953, pls. 76–77. *IG I3 425 1–82 I3 422 and 425 compose part of the dossier of inscriptions recording the sale of the property of the profaners of the Mysteries and the mutilators of the Herms (above 55–73).4 This dossier dates to about the year 413 B. C. These inscriptions and I3 333 are now the earliest known by this cutter. IG I3 470

Fig. 22. Phot.: Gestures 357 fig. 5.

IG I3 515 1–26, 30–32 DAA p. 188.

Archon Euktemon (408/7). Agora XV 1. Phot.: Raubitschek,

*IG I3 970 New edition, Eleusis 53 and pl. 25; on the date “ca. fin. s. V. a.”, see Eleusis II pp. 82–83. Archon Eu[kleides] (403/2). Fig. 23. Lawton, Reliefs no. 79 IG II2 2 and add. p. 6555 and pl. 42. Phot. of II2 2b: Gestures 357 fig. 6. Archon [Xenainet]os (401/0). Osborne, Naturalization no. D6; Rho*IG II2 10B 1–63 des-Osborne no. 4. This text is composed of a number of badly worn fragments. However, where the letters are clear on face B, they are the writing of this cutter (fig. 24); the lettering on face A is not by this hand. *IG II2 15 no. 224. 3

4

5

Fig. 25. H. Bengtson, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums II2 (Munich 1975)

On the loans of this document, Samons, Owl 289–290. See also on I3 422 and 425 Studies Mattingly 263–265. Apparently without knowledge of the present writer’s work on the cutter of this text (Gestures 351–363) and judgement (353) that these two pieces associated by Wilhelm be-

long together, P. Wilson and A. Hartwig, ZPE 169, 2009, 23–26, have restudied these pieces, agree that the date of the first is 403/2, remain agnostic about whether the pieces belong together, and suggest some supplements that differ from those of Wilhelm in lines 10–12 of the second fragment.

The Cutter of IG II2 17

153

IG II2 17 Figs. 1–2. Archon [Eu]bo(u)lides (394/3). Agora XVI 36; Osborne, Naturalization no. D8; Walbank, Proxenies no. 78 and pls. 51–54a. Phots.: BSA 65, 1970, pl. 42; Gestures 355 figs. 1–2. *IG II2 18 Archon Euboulides (394/3). Fig. 26. Rhodes-Osborne no. 10 and pl. 2; Lawton, Reliefs no. 16 and pl. 9. The height of the lettering has not been accurately reported; lines 1–4 are ca. 0.014, lines 5–9 ca. 0.01 m. tall. Fig. 27. Re-edited by Osborne, Naturalization II pp. 48–49. Lawton, Reliefs IG II2 24 no. 86 and pl. 45. Phot. of frag. c: Gestures 357 fig. 7. *IG II2 29 New text and discussion, E. C. Gastaldi, Le prossenie ateniesi del IV secolo a.C. (2004) 90–101 with photograph; Rhodes-Osborne no. 19. A. P. Matthaiou, Horos 17–21, 2004–9, 673–674, first made the attribution. IG II2 31

Archon Mystichides (386/5). Fig. 28. Lawton, Reliefs no. 18 and pl. 10.

Fig. 29. Re-edited by D. M. Lewis, BSA 49, 1954, 32 (SEG 14 no. 38). Phot.: IG II2 50 Gestures 358 fig. 8. IG II2 51

Fig. 30. Phot.: Ibid. fig. 9.

IG II2 52

Fig. 31. Walbank, Proxenies pp. 334–336 and pl. 38b.

IG II2 54

Fig. 32. Phot.: Gestures 358 fig. 10.

Fig. 33. For an improved reading and restoration of the opening lines, D. M. *IG II2 61 Lewis, BSA 49, 1954, 34. *IG II2 70

Fig. 34. For improved readings and restoration of lines 1–5, Lewis, Ibid.

Fig. 35. Matthaiou, Studies Tracy 79–81 and figs. 4–6, joins a new fragment +IG II2 80 found in 1988 (ΠΛ 153) and provides an improved text of the whole. IG II2 85 131.

Fig. 36. A. Wilhelm, “Attische Urkunden. V. Teil,” SB Wien 220, 1942, 129–

*IG II2 90 IG II2 91

Lawton, Reliefs no. 109 and pl. 57. Fig. 37.

IG II2 153

Lawton, Reliefs no. 113 and pl. 59.

IG II2 168

Fig. 38.

IG II2 186

Fig. 39.

*IG II2 1149 med. s. IV.”

Eleusis 63 and pl. 27. Init. s. IV is preferable to the received date “ante

Archon Eukleides (403/2). For the text, IG II2 addenda p. 797 IG II2 1370+1371+1384 and Woodward, ArchEph 1937 164. Phot.: JHS 58, 1938, pl. VI. IG II2 1373

Phot.: JHS 58, 1938, 71.

IG II2 1376

Fig. 40.

*IG II2 1378+1398 Archon [Aristok]rates (399/8). Fig. 41. For the join and combined text, IG II2 addenda pp. 797–798.

154

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

IG II2 1380 and addenda p. 798. IG II2 1382

now I3 342.

IG II2 1383

now I3 341.

Fig. 42.

Not enough remains of ll. 1–2 to determine the cutter. The writing of +*IG II2 1391 3–4 ll. 5–10 is by the Cutter of IG II2 1386 (above 126 fig. 31). IG II2 1399

Phot.: JHS 58, 1938, 71.

IG II2 1400

Archon [Demostratos] (390/89). Fig. 43.

IG II2 1502

now I3 470.

IG II2 1687a

now I3 382.

IG II2 1688 Fig. 44. This fragment of white marble is now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York City; the inventory number is 26.60.6. IG II2 1693

Join of new fragment (E 1099) and new text, Eleusis 136 and pl. 54.

IG II2 1743

Agora XV 7; Lawton, Reliefs no. 97 and pl. 51.

IG II2 1952b, c Figs. 45–46. For the join of a new fragment, Hesperia 4, 1935, 175. Frag. a has different writing and is not this cutter’s work. IG II2 2311 Phots.: Imagines2 no. 58; J. Neils, Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (Princeton 1992) 16 fig. 1. *IG II2 4960 a, b, c Fig. 47. L. Beschi, ASAtene n.s. 29–30, 1967/8, 410, 416, 428–429 argues that fragment c derives from a second copy of this text. *IG II2 4961 Beschi, Ibid. 381–436 makes this fragment, despite the smaller size of its lettering, part of II2 4960; see 411–416 for his combined text and reconstruction. For a different reconstruction of the monument, E. Mitropoulou, A New Interpretation of the Telemachos Monument (Athens 1975). She agrees with Beschi that II2 4961 belongs with 4960a-b and that 4960c is from a second monument, a contemporary copy of the first (p. 63).6 *IG II2 10435 Fig. 48. CEG 487. For a discussion of the epigram and a photograph, C. W. Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram (Mainz 1970) 122–123 no. 44 and pl. 21. +*IG II2 10593 CEG 474; Agora XVII 697; Clairmont, Ibid. 76–77 no. 12 and pl. 6; Meritt, Agora Excavations Picture Book 10: Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora (Princeton 1966) no. 34 with photograph. Phots: AJA 40, 1936, 197; ArchAnz 1936 106 abb. 4.

6

The reconstruction of this monument remains problematic. Neither Beschi nor Mitropoulou discusses the fairly significant difference in letter size and spacing between II2 4960 and 4961. The letter height of epsilon and nu on II2 4960 is 0.013–4 m. and on II2 4961 0.012 and the vertical space occupied by 2 lines,

including the interline and the space above, is 0.033–35 m. on II2 4960 and 0.03 on II2 4961. These differences are at least unusual and make it rather unlikely that these fragments belong together. See also C. L. Lawton, “Sculptural and Epigraphical Restorations to Attic Documents,” Hesperia 61, 1992, 243.

The Cutter of IG II2 17

155

+*IG II2 12963 Fig. 49. CEG 516; Clairmont, Ibid. 128–129 no. 51 and pl. 24. Kirchner’s date “init. s. IV a.” is more accurate than Clairmont’s “about 380–370.” *AE 1963 151–153 and fig. 1.7 a new edition and discussion.8

Fig. 50. Matthaiou, Studies Tracy 74–77 and fig. 2, for

Agora I 727 (reverse) Hesperia 4, 1935, 19–29; F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cites grecques, supplement (Paris 1962) no. 10A; S. D. Lambert, BSA 97, 2002, 363–364, 374–380.9 Phots.: Hesperia 30, 1961, pl. 10; Gestures 358 fig. 11. Agora I 5410 Fig. 51. Bengtson, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums II2 (Munich 1975) no. 294; Lawton, Reliefs no. 99 and pl. 52; Agora XVI 50. See now on this text, A. P. Matthaiou, “A Treaty of Athens with Siphnos Revisited,” 45–54 in A. Tamis, C. J. Mackie, S. G Byrne (eds.), Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne (Athens 2010). Phot.: Hesperia 26, 1957, pl. 59. *Agora I 6877a Fig. 52. Agora XVI 56Bb. This piece was originally published by B. D. Meritt (Hesperia 32, 1963, 2 and pl. 1 no. 2) and later associated by C. M. Edmonson in K. M. Clinton (Hesperia 49, 1980 258 ff. and pl. 72 [where the frag. is mislabeled I 6877 b]) with a large number of fragments concerning the mysteries. The hand differs from that on the other fragments and suggests that it does not belong with them, but rather is an earlier text dealing with the mysteries. The stoichedon arrangement of the letters also points to this conclusion. +*Agora I 7344 Archon Philokles (392/1). Fig. 53. Hesperia 51, 1982, 42–43 no. 2 and pl. 19. Phot. in J. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (New Haven 2001) 139 fig. 134. *EM 12932 Fig. 54. Hesperia 7, 1938, 272–274 no. 7 and fig. 8 (note that by a misprint the fragment is there labeled as EM 12392). E. Schweigert in publishing this for the first time recognized that it was inscribed by the same hand as IG II2 1399 but that it could not be part of it. Harris, Treasures p. 254, dates this to 402/1 or 401/0. *MA 7847 Editio princeps and ascription to this cutter by Matthaiou, Studies Tracy 77–79 and fig. 3. *Decree in Honor of Polypeithes from Siphnos IG I3 addenda 227 bis. Archon Alkaios (422/1). Editio princeps by A. P. Matthaiou, Πρακτικά Α’ Διεθνούς Σιφναικού Συμποσίου, Σίφνος, 25–28 Ιουνίου 1998 (Athens 2000) 239–248, phot. p. 240 (SEG 50 45). See Matthaiou, Studies Tracy 73–74 and fig. 1, for the ascription to this cutter. Matthaiou com-

7

8

I am indebted to Angelos Matthaiou for bringing this fragment to my attention and suggesting that it was the work of this cutter. Matthaiou does a service in republishing this decree praising ambassadors of a foreign state, but Koumanoudes’ text can still be consulted with profit, for it represents more accurately than Matthaiou’s the layout of the inscription – namely, the fact that one line is left blank after line 11, so that the list of ambassadors is

9

set off. The heading too in line 12 adds emphasis by beginning one space to the left in the margin. Note also that a typographical error in Matthaiou’s text has caused the omission in line 10 of the second epsilon of πρέσβεων. Lambert, “The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens,” BSA 97, 2002, 353–399, publishes 13 fragments as parts of this calendar. Agora I 727 is fragment 3 and is the only one in the writing of this cutter.

156

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

ments (74) “The decree was reinscribed, probably just after the overthrow of the Thirty and the restoration of democracy in Athens (404/3).”10

Adnotatiunculae IG II2 80 Line 15. There is an erasure here at the end in the final word of this measure. Read πάνα 〚γκε〛ς. The three letters in erasure are crowded into two stoichoi (see Matthaiou’s fig. 5 on p. 79); either the gamma or kappa was initially omitted. It is interesting to note that instead of erasing the last three letters and reinscribing the four correct letters under the ones above, our cutter preferred to erase as few letters as possible, i.e. just two, and squeeze in the letter originally omitted. Clearly he did not much mind violating the stoichedon pattern. IG II2 1391 Line 4 should read [γραμμ]άτευεν vacat. IG II2 10593 Clairmont (p. 77) justly describes the sculpture of this grave monument as “a fair work from about 400.” Given this, the quality of the lettering is somewhat surprising. The first half of both lines (fig. 55) is competently engraved with double cutting liberally in evidence. Towards their ends (fig. 56), however, the lettering becomes very scrappy with the letters either incompletely inscribed or just roughed out. But for the fact that the second alpha has no crossbar, line one is well inscribed through the epsilon of Cργοις. After that many strokes are lightly incised. In addition, the loop of the rho of Cργοις is incompletely made; omicron is composed of two half circles that do not meet precisely. Only the top and bottom strokes of the sigma were inscribed and the final alpha has no crossbar. The end of line two similarly from the theta of νθάδε on is just roughed out. The thetas have no dot, the alphas no crossbar, the eta no horizontal and the round letters are not closed completely.11 I see no evidence that a different cutter took over or that the ends of these lines have been partially erased or effaced. It is rather as though the cutter hurried at the ends of the lines for some reason and depended on the paint to obscure the slipshod rendition of these letters. Clairmont notes (p. 76) that “the epigram is inscribed on the slightly sunken surface of the architrave.” More accurately, this is a carefully erased rectangle in the center of the architrave that apparently removed a previous inscription. No traces of the first inscription survive. All this is puzzling. One doubts that this is the second use of so fine a gravestone, especially since the sculpture and the lettering are almost exactly contemporary with each 10

A. P. Matthaiou, “Τρία *ττικ Ψηφίσματα” 83–87 in A. Themos and N. Papazarkadas (eds.), ΑΤΤΙΚΑ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΙΚΑ: Μελέτες πρ'ς τιμ(ν το) Christian Habicht (Athens 2009) has published the editio princeps of inv. no. ΠΛ 332, a fragment stored in the Library of Hadrian, and assigned it to this cutter. Although the general style of the lettering is very close (see the photograph on p. 84), I

11

do not think it is the handiwork of this man. Alpha does not have the characteristic forward lean that is one of the hallmarks of this cutter’s work and the crossbar is at times just a bit too high in the letter. Finally and, in my opinion, decisively, epsilon with a shorter central horizontal is not a shape that this inscriber makes. Not one of the published texts indicates these broken or incomplete letters.

The Cutter of IG II2 17

157

other. Perhaps Athenokles’ family had second thoughts about what was to be inscribed on the monument and had a new inscription substituted for the first one. The scrappy nature of the letters at the ends of the lines could then be put down to the necessity to re-inscribe the monument after it was set up and when it was in a position that made it awkward to inscribe the right halves of these lines. IG II2 12963 The right part of the pediment and surface below on which the lines are inscribed have been damaged. Nevertheless, the final nu of the second line is legible (as Clairmont saw and recorded in his text). Above and to the right of this nu appears an omicron not heretofore read by any editor, the final letter of the father’s name. About 8 letters are missing before it. Agora I 7344 Lines 1 and 4. The letters printed in pointed brackets should be placed in parentheses. These are deliberate abbreviations by the cutter and not mistakes. Lines 2–3. The final nu has been squeezed in at the end of line 2 on the beveled edge and epsilon has been added in the left margin at the beginning of line 3. The cutter committed an haplography by initially inscribing παρε|νκοσι. Line 3. There is a vacat of 1 letter-space after the fourth drachma sign. Line 4. The delta should be dotted. *** The thirty texts added to this inscriber’s dossier bring his total known output to 73 inscriptions making him the second most prolific cutter known.12 Only the Cutter of IG II2 1706 who inscribed over 75 texts produced more.13 The present cutter was clearly entrusted with inscribing a number of significant public documents. Nearly forty per cent of his texts are accounts and inventories: IG I3 333, 339, 341, 342, II2 1400 (of the Hekatompedon); I3 314, 315 (of the Pronaos); II2 1378+1398, 1399, EM 12932 (of the Opisthodomos); I3 355, 362, II2 1373, 1376, 1380, 1391 (of the Parthenon); I3 379, 380, 381, 382 (of the treasurers of Athena); I3 470, II2 1370+1371+1384 (of the Golden Nikai); II2 1688 (of a collegium ?); Agora I 7344 (of teichopoioi); I3 406, 410B (fragmentary, from the Agora) and II2 1693 (fragmentary, from Eleusis). He also inscribed the well-known list of prizes awarded at the Panathenaia (II2 2311), large parts of the so-called Attic stelai (I3 422, 425), a calendar of state sacrifices (Agora I 727), treaties with the Siphnians (Agora I 5410) and with the Locrians (II2 15), two prytany dedications (I3 515, II2 1743), and a significant number of decrees honoring important foreigners (I3 106, 117, 125; II2 2, 17, 18, 24, 29, 31, 50, 51, 52, 54, 61, 80). Expert as he clearly was in inscribing long measures for the state, it is interesting to find his hand on three rather fine private grave monuments, one from Piraeus (II2 10435), one from the city center (II2 10593), and one from the suburb of Psychiko (II2 12963). 12

It is notable that only a handful of these texts are not inscribed on white marble, but on gray or dark gray marble; they are IG I3 179 (an honorary decree), II2 1373, 1391 (Parthenon inventories), 10435 (a private grave monu-

13

ment) and Agora I 6877a (a text dealing with the Mysteries). For the list, ALC 46–49; to this list are to be added IG II/III3 1162 and 1190.

158

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

This man’s career spans the tumultuous years from the loss of the Sicilian expedition through the gradual recovery of Athenian power. Indeed, he was one of those who recorded on stone probably in the year 401/0 the privileges granted to foreigners who had joined Thrasyboulos in the years 404 to 403 in restoring the democracy; these are the so-called heroes of Phyle (II2 10B). His securely dated texts cover almost 30 years from 414/3 to 386/5. By the time he began his inscribing career, Ionic letters had already started to appear in public measures even before the official adoption of Ionic in the year 403/2. His work reflects this trend. In I3 106 a proxeny decree in Old Attic of 409/8 he uses Ξ twice (ll. 18, 19) for ΧΣ, but he has in the same text (l. 20) Old Attic ΦΣ and not Ionic Ψ. Ionic was used fairly often in decrees honoring foreigners prior to 403/2 and it duly appears in three of his decrees, one for the Siphnian Polypeithes (Matthaiou, Πρακτικά Α’ Διεθνούς Σιφναικού Συμποσίου, Σίφνος, 25–28 Ιουνίου 1998 [Athens 2000] 239–248) and proxeny decrees for Epikerdes of Cyrene (I3 125 of 405/4) and for a foreigner whose name is lost (I3 179 of ca. 410).14 Ionic script also appears in his work in several inventories of the treasuries of Athena dated after 410 and before 403/2, specifically I3 339 (409/8), 341 (406/5?), 342 (405/4), 379 (405/4), 380 (404/3), 382 (?), 470 (ca. 406) and in I3 515, a dedication to Athena of the year 408/7 by the prytaneis of Erechtheis. These uses do not, I think, reflect the cutter’s choice but rather the usage of the texts that he was given to inscribe.

14

On this, see further Threatte, GAI I 28–29.

159

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 3. IG I3 74

Fig. 5. IG I3 125c 8–17

Fig. 4. IG I3 117 4–19

Fig. 6. IG I3 179

160

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 7. IG I3 237

Fig. 8. IG I3 314 9–22

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 9. IG I3 315 38–47

Fig. 10. IG I3 333 5–15

161

162

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 11. IG I3 339 8–17

Fig. 12. IG I3 341

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 13. IG I3 342

163

164

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 14. IG I3 355 1–12 (Archive IG)

Fig. 15. IG I3 362

The Cutter of IG II2 17

165

Fig. 17. IG I3 381

Fig. 16. IG I3 379 88–101

Fig. 18. IG I3 406 faces A and B

166

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 19. IG I3 410 faces A and B

Fig. 20. IG I3 422 144–161

Fig. 21. IG I3 425 17–30

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 22. IG I3 470

Fig. 23. IG II2 2a

167

168

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 24. IG II2 10B II–III 1–11

Fig. 25. IG II2 15

169

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 26. IG II2 18 1–8

Fig. 27. IG II2 24c

Fig. 28. IG II2 31 1–9

Fig. 29. IG II2 50

170

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 30. IG II2 51a

Fig. 31. IG II2 52

Fig. 33. IG II2 61 3–9

Fig. 32. IG II2 54

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 34. IG II2 70 13–20

Fig. 35. IG II2 80 4–13

171

172

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 37. IG II2 91

Fig. 36. IG II2 85

Fig. 38. IG II2 168

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 39. IG II2 186

Fig. 40. IG II2 1376 1–11

173

174

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 41. IG II2 1378 1–8

Fig. 42. IG II2 1380

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 43. IG II2 1400 42–54

Fig. 44. IG II2 1688

175

176

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 45. IG II2 1952b 30–44

Fig. 46. IG II2 1952c

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 47. IG II2 4960 9–17

Fig. 48. IG II2 10435

Fig. 49. IG II2 12963 middle

177

178

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 50. AE 1963 151–153

Fig. 51. Agora I 5410 9–14

The Cutter of IG II2 17

Fig. 52. Agora I 6877a

Fig. 53. Agora I 7344

179

180

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 54. EM 12932

Fig. 55. IG II2 10593 left side

Fig. 56. IG II2 10593 right side

The Cutter of IG I3 102 Dates: 413/2–410/09

Fig. 1. IG I3 102 1–9

General character of the lettering (fig. 1) This lettering is quite carefully made; strokes are lightly incised and double cutting is often in evidence.

Peculiarities of individual letters (figs. 1–2) Alpha This letter varies in width, although it is usually fairly wide. The crossbar comes at the midpoint or lower and, if it is not horizontal, slants sometimes upward and sometimes downward from left to right. Epsilon The three horizontals are the same length. Since they are rather long, the letter is quite wide.

182

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3 102 29–35

Kappa The slanting strokes vary in length but are usually quite long making this a rather wide letter. Lambda The vertical does not lean; the diagonal is rather open, so that occasionally the shape verges on L. Mu Symmetrically shaped and wide, the central part extends down half to three quarters but does not reach the base of the letter. Nu This is the canonical nu of ordinary width with the verticals extending down and up, but just slightly. Omikron

This letter and theta are up in the letter-space and usually at the top.

Rho The loop takes up half the height of the letter and often has some straight or almost straight segments. Sigma This letter is taller than the surrounding letters; it has four long strokes of about the same length; the upper segment is usually wider than the lower. Upsilon Made up of three strokes, the vertical is more than half the height of the letter. The surmounting V, which is rather wide, is fairly shallow with the right slanting stroke cut more deeply. Phi Same height as the other letters, the oval is somewhat wide and often not well rounded.

The Cutter of IG I3 102

183

List of inscriptions IG I3 102 Archon Glaukippos (410/09).1 Figs. 1–2. Meiggs-Lewis no. 85; Osborne, Naturalization no. D2. See also Peçirka, Enktesis 18–21. A. C. Scafuro, “Eudikos’ rider (IG I3 102.38–47),” 47–66 in A. Themos and N. Papazarkadas (eds.), ΑΤΤΙΚΑ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΙΚΑ: Μελέτες πρ'ς τιμ(ν το) Christian Habicht (Athens 2009) and P. Wilson, “Tragic Honours and Democracy: Neglected Evidence for the Politics of the Athenian Dionysia,” CQ 59, 2009, 8–29, esp. 10–16, provide excellent accounts of the political setting of this decree. Archon Kle[okritos] (413/2). Fig. 3. For a good discussion of this text and IG I3 136 the voluminous bibliography on it, Peçirka, Enktesis 126–130. Phots.: Hesperia Suppl. 8 pl. 17. On the date of this inscription and on the cults of Bendis, M. Sakurai in Studies Mattingly 203–211. These measures have quite different subjects. The first, apparently set up on the Acropolis, confers citizenship and other honors on Thrasyboulos of Kalydon for his role in the assassination of Phrynichos (cf. Lysias 13.71). The second found in Munychia deals with regulations for the cult of Bendis. Both are in the Old Attic script with some omission of the daseia h2; the first is stoichedon and the second not.

1

“Lapicida idem n. 180 incidit” (Lewis ad loc. in IG). The lettering of I3 180 is indeed extremely similar to the writing on I3 102; see the good photographs of I3 180 in Walbank, Proxenies pl. 61a (1–3). I can not say with certainty whether it is or not the work of this cutter. However, by the strict criterion of sameness of lettering that I use, I am unable to include I3 180 in the dossier of his work. The inscriber of I3 180 extends the central part of mu down to the base of the letter and his sigmas

2

uniformly splay out at top and bottom with the back part at the center placed rather close together. Sigmas of this type are what I term sway backed. These shapes are uncharacteristic of the I3 102 Cutter. In I3 102 it is omitted on the relative pronoun only here and there (ll. 6, 8, 40); in I3 136 it was, it appears, consistently omitted except for the words hiereus (l. 29) and hieropoios (l. 34). On the omission of h, Threatte, GAI I 494.

184

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. IG I3 136 27–39

The Cutter of IG I3 316 Date: ca. 408/7

Fig. 1. IG I3 316

General characteristics of the lettering (fig. 1) This cutter makes letters that are solid and regular in appearance. His most characteristic letters are mu, sigma and upsilon.

Peculiarities of individual letters (fig. 1) Alpha This letter is usually rather wide with a straight crossbar that varies in placement from about the midpoint to rather low in the letter. The crossbar usually slants upwards from left to right. Delta This is a wide letter similar to alpha; the bottom horizontal slants upward from left to right. Epsilon The horizontals thicken slightly at the ends so that they have the appearance of nascent serifs. The central one is often shorter and is occasionally placed closer to the bottom.

186

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG I3162 (Archive IG)

Mu Wide, quite symmetrical, and not as tall as the other letters, mu appears to hang from the top of the letter-space. The central part extends down but does not quite reach the base of the letter. Nu Rho

The first vertical extends down below the baseline and the second extends up. The loop is large and quite round; it covers more than half the height of the letter.

Sigma Made up of four strokes of about the same length, the letter is tall, intruding into one or both interlines, and rather thin. The top part of the letter frequently does not extend as far forward as the lower part, thus the letter appears to lean backwards. Upsilon The vertical is more than half the height of the letter and is surmounted by a wide and unusually shallow V.

The Cutter of IG I3 316

187

List of inscriptions IG I3 162 Fig. 2. Lewis’ date in IG is “a. 440–415.” The cutter’s known work points to a slightly later date.1 For the restoration by D. Rendic-Miocevic of the names in lines 1–6, see SEG 32, 1982, 5.2 Phot.: Walbank, Proxenies pl. 22b. IG I3 164 Fig. 3. “a. 440–425” is Lewis’ date in IG; the hand suggests that this is too early. Phots.: a Walbank, Proxenies pl. 46a; b Wilhelm, Att. Urk. IV pl. III, Walbank, Proxenies pl. 33b. 407/6? Fig. 1. On the date, Lewis ad loc. Note that I3 314 and 315, on the IG I3 316 upper parts of this stone, are not his work but were inscribed by The Cutter of IG II2 17. IG I3 359

“? a. 410/9 vel 409/8” (Lewis in IG). Fig. 4.

IG I3 360

“? a. 408/7” (Lewis in IG).3 Fig. 5.

Archon [Kal]lias (412/1 or 406/5). Fig. 6. This cutter’s writing appears IG I3 405b 20–28 only in these lines of this inscription. Phot.: Hesperia 32, 1963, pl. 55 no. 2b. IG I3 469 “c. a. 407/6” (Lewis in IG). Fig. 7. The two non-joining fragments that compose this text were brought together by A. M. Woodward in ArchEph 1937 pt. 1 159–163 (phot.: 160).4 IG I3 488 Fig. 8. This is a mere scrap from an account; it has very few letters but upsilon and the upward slant from left to right of the crossbars of alpha and delta are so characteristic that in my opinion it is this man’s work. As is characteristic of cutters of this period, six of this man’s eight known inscriptions are accounts or inventories of sacred properties: I3 316 of the Pronaos, I3 359–360 of the Parthenon, I3 405b of Poseidon Hippias, I3 469 of the Golden Nikai, and I3 488 (unknown). I3 162 and 164 are proxeny decrees, the latter for two men who were, it seems, doctors.5 His texts are all arranged stoichedon and inscribed in the Attic alphabet. In his accounts this man uses punctuation in quite an idiosyncratic way. He employs two types – three dots placed vertically between stoichoi (they are not accorded a letter space) to set off some proper names and a deep wide cut that does take up a stoichos to articulate separate parts of inventories. Both appear in I3 316 and 469; the dots appear in I3 405b and the cut in the third line of I3 360.6 I3 359 and 488 are fragmentary enough that neither appears in the parts preserved.

1

2

3

Note the omissions of the rough breathing H in lines 7 and 10. The claim in IG that this man also inscribed I3 163 is not correct as the dissimilar shapes of mu and sigma reveal; see for a phot. Walbank, Proxenies pl. 34a. Although part of the same series as I3 359 and 360, I3 361 is not the work of this cutter and I3 362 is by the II2 17 Cutter. For more on the inscribers of the Pronaos and Parthenon inventories, see the I3 364 Cutter (supra 105).

4 5

6

The rough breathing is omitted once in line 24. See L. Cohn-Haft, The Public Physicians of Ancient Greece (Northampton, MA 1956) 10–11, 77 on the force of δεμοσιεύεν in line 13 of this text. On this cut interpunct, see Lewis in the apparatus criticus at l. 67 of I3 316; Threatte, GAI I 76, wrongly interprets it as an erasure.

188

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. IG I3 164 2–13

Fig. 4. IG I3 359

The Cutter of IG I3 316

Fig. 5. IG I3 360

Fig. 6. IG I3 405b

189

190

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 7. IG I3 469 24–36

Fig. 8. IG I3 488

The Cutter of IG II2 1401 Date: ca. 395

Fig. 1. IG II2 1401 27–38

General character of the lettering (fig. 1) This is at first glance neat, well-made lettering; however, despite the appearance of regularity, letters reveal quite a lot of variation from one letter to the next. Omikron, for example, varies in size and placement; sigma too varies in height and the angling of the bottom stroke.

192

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 2. IG II2 1404

Peculiarities of individual letters (fig. 1) Alpha, delta and lambda These letters are rather wide; the crossbar of alpha is straight and placed usually below the mid-point of the letter. Epsilon The three horizontals are not as long as the vertical. Sometimes all three are about the same length, but the central one more often is somewhat shorter than the others. Mu This letter is usually quite wide, short, and often does not sit on the baseline, but is raised up a bit in the letter-space. The central part comes down in the letter about halfway or a bit more. Nu This letter is wide. The diagonal does not reach the base but joins the second vertical distinctly above it. The second vertical, often short, usually rises to the height of the letter or just slightly above; but, occasionally it is so short that it does not reach the top of the letter. Rho The loop varies in size but is usually about half the height of the letter. Occasionally it is very small. It is sometimes composed of straight segments. Sigma The top and bottom strokes slant and vary in angle from example to example. The central segment does not extend to the front of the letter. Upsilon The vertical stroke is quite tall, more than half the height of the letter. The surmounting V is relatively small with the right stroke usually being a bit longer than the left. Phi Slightly taller than the other letters, the oval varies in size greatly from very large to quite small. Omega This letter does not touch the baseline; it is open at the bottom with the left finial larger than the right. One of the sides is often made of a straight segment.

The Cutter of IG II2 1401

193

List of inscriptions IG II2 1401 Fig. 1. Dated to 394/3 by A. B. West and A. W. Woodward, JHS 58, 1938, 73; they note also that EM 2512 is part of this text. This fragment joins, but is, as yet, unpublished.1 See K. Clinton, Studies Dow 55–57, for a fuller restoration of ll. 19–28. IG II2 1404

Fig. 2.

Agora I 5325 Fig. 3. Hesperia 9, 1940, 324–325 no. 34 with phot. This fragmentary prescript of the treasurers of Athena should be dated in the 390’s rather than to the midfourth century as E. Schweigert, the initial editor, thought. Agora I 5789

Fig. 4. Unpublished.2

Like a number of his contemporaries this man seems to have specialized in inscribing accounts of the treasurers of Athena in the stoichedon style on white marble stelai.

1

2

I owe this information to the kindness of the staff at the Epigraphical Museum in Athens. This is a sliver of white marble that preserves only the inscribed face. There are the remains

of 9 letters preserved whole or in part; they are arranged in a stoichedon pattern. The letter size and vertical spacing are similar to II2 1401, but there is no obvious join.

194

Attic Letter Cutters of ca. 450 to ca. 390

Fig. 3. Agora I 5325

Fig. 4. Agora I 5789

Summation The evidence presented in the first part of this study reveals that from the beginning the lettering on Athenian inscriptions differs in shape from example to example. Moreover, although the letters were carved with hammer and chisel on stone, one can discern small and consistent peculiarities in the shaping of the letters such that they suggest personal idiosyncrasy. In addition, despite the opinions of previous scholars, there is little positive evidence that the inscribed texts were laid out carefully on the surface of the stone in advance of the cutting. Indeed, significant examples reveal that such a layout was not usually done.1 Rather the inscribers, after some planning and blocking out – they certainly drew horizontal lines or a grid to guide them in placing their letters –, got on with the work. They thus inscribed freehand and without the aid of letters drawn on in advance. We are justified then in the claim that we are encountering the writing of different individuals as we proceed from one inscription to the next. Next, in the case of most Athenian documents inscribed prior to the year 435 we are dealing with the handiwork of men who, in all likelihood, did not make their living solely by cutting letters on stone. There was simply not enough demand for inscribing. These workmen must have shaped blocks, fluted columns, sculpted reliefs and so on. Thus, in all probability, many had not become habituated to a single way of making all of their letters. Their lettering as a result exhibits more variation than the lettering of many later inscribers who had sufficient work to be full time letter cutters. But, in the second half of the fifth century, we have to deal with the very gradual phasing out of tailed rho and three-bar sigma and, in the last decades of the century, with the change from the Old Attic alphabet to the Ionic. Despite the difficulties posed by these varying letter shapes, as in all handwriting analysis, in the end sameness of writing must be the basic criterion used to determine whether or not two different samples of lettering are the work of the same person. The application of this, as we may call it, handwriting approach in the present study has given very positive results with the identification of a number of major and lesser letter cutters who were active in the late 450s and after. Furthermore, I have had enough access to the great majority of the inscriptions to affirm that the dossiers of the cutters I have been able to isolate are reasonably complete. This does not mean that other examples of their work will not be found – I hope they will – but I think that I have not missed much in the evidence available to me. Of course, had I been able to have access to squeezes of all the inscriptions of the period for several years running, the work of more cutters could have been isolated and some of the above dossiers increased. This study has also shown that many samples of writing of the period are apparently unique. Indeed, in my initial study of fifth century letter cutters in Studies Dow 1

Decisive is the evidence of line 15 of IG I3 4B (above 27–28). The mistakes in Raubitschek, DAA nos. 53 (= I3 718) and 248 (= I3 705)

reveal that even the letters of these very short texts were not drawn on prior to the inscribing.

196

Summation

277–282 (appendix one below), I observed that while it was comparatively easy to discern individual idiosyncrasies in the lettering, learning the hand on a particular fragment and searching for other examples of the writing yielded few matches. This was the dominant impression based on the evidence that I had to hand at that time. We were, I speculated, almost at the point of diminishing returns. The most probable reasons for this, I thought then, were two: first, very probably most men who were proficient with chiseling marble did not specialize in lettering texts; second, the number of inscriptions surviving from the fifth century was, and is, fewer than from later periods, thus making the chances of finding multiple examples of the same writing fairly small. This was not wrong, but it was certainly overly pessimistic. The careers of the inscribers illustrated and studied above give us a reasonably clear picture of the development of inscribing in Athens and Attica during the fifth century. Many inscribed dedications and numerous gravestones have been found that date prior to 450 B. C. but only a few scattered religious laws and even fewer state decrees are extant that belong prior to mid-century. It seems clear that in the years before 450 not many of the latter were deemed worthy to be engraved on stone. The inscribers from the beginning, however, were more than competent. That is, they successfully engraved the texts given to them legibly and with few obvious mistakes; some indeed, such as the inscriber of IG I3 4, the so-called Hekatompedon inscription (22–23 and fig. 7 above), produced very beautiful lettering. Assignments to hands in a few cases have been assayed among these early documents, but the evidence (the number of surviving letters) is in most cases insufficient to sustain such claims. The decision to have the annual records of the tribute quota payments to Athena engraved on a great marble slab (the Lapis Primus) changed all this, for it gave some inscribers, apparently for the first time, the opportunity to do large amounts of lettering. Thus it is that beginning with the year 454/3, the date of the first tribute quota list, we have a body of surviving evidence sufficiently large to enable fruitful study of the writing of individual inscribers. We find over the twenty-three years covered by the texts on the Lapis Primus and Lapis Secundus just six primary cutters at work, of whom three engraved multiple lists and two of those also are known to have inscribed texts other than tribute quota lists. During these years there do not appear to have been a great number of full-time letter cutters at work in any given year. By the mid to late 430s, as troubles with the Lacedaemonians again loomed large and the finances of the state came under pressure, more and more measures, particularly financial accounts, were committed to stone. The city also found it expedient in these years to pass treaties and honors for prominent foreigners, which they deemed worthy to have commemorated with lasting stone monuments. Thus there came to be more inscribers at work who specialized in the fairly exacting skill of lettering long texts on stone. Indeed, by about the year 413, we have evidence of at least twelve different men at work in a one or two-year period inscribing I3 421 to 430, the slabs that record the sale of the property of those convicted of profaning the Mysteries and mutilating the Herms. In addition, the present study has isolated two major (The Cutters of IG II2 1386 and of II2 17) and two lesser cutters (The Cutters of IG I3 50 and of I3 316) who inscribed a large number of the inscriptions that belong to the last quarter of the century. As they had from the beginning, accounts, particularly those of Athena’s treasuries, provided the staple of work for the majority of the important cutters. Only the I3 50 Cutter may be the exception that proves the rule; he inscribed just one account that we know of but, of course, others that he inscribed may well have not survived.

Summation

197

Piecing together this picture and the dossiers of the cutters presented above has been very challenging because the evidence is so extremely fragmentary. It is above all to be remembered that that there are a great many very small and worn fragments that barely preserve enough legible letters to allow study. See for some examples the isolated small fragments of decrees published as IG I3 184–222. In addition a majority of the inscriptions are preserved in fragments with the consequence that the texts are highly lacunose as, for examples, a treaty with the Argives (I3 86), a tribute assessment (I3 100), regulations (?) for the Herakleion (I3 134). The Lapis Primus itself has been reconstructed from 184 fragments and these fragments preserve only about 30 % of the original text. The preserved portions of the so-called Athena Promachos accounts, IG I3 435, are so meager that we can not be sure what they are about. Other accounts such as the building accounts of the Propylaea (IG I3 462–466) are similarly fragmentary. The early leges sacrae (I3 230– 235) preserve little continuous text. Still previous scholars, especially the editors of the Attic volumes of the IG, have acquitted themselves well in bringing disparate fragments together to reconstruct and edit many of these inscriptions. They have created an edifice worthy for present and future generations to build on. The principal need is for a thorough reconsideration of the dates of many inscriptions, particularly those that are dated early based on the appearance in them of three-bar sigma and/or tailed rho. This is the case because the editors of the ATL and of IG I3 believed that measures with these shapes could be reliably dated to the mid-440’s or earlier. This has been shown by new discoveries to be mistaken. These shapes were not abandoned in the 440’s, but continued in use by some inscribers down nearly to the end of the century. They went out of use gradually. Thus far, we know of only one inscriber who certainly used both the three and four-bar sigma, but not in the same inscription. This is the Cutter of IG I3 35. Why he employed three-bar sigma in some texts and four-bar in others is not immediately clear. No doubt in time other inscribers will be found who did the same. By contrast, inscribers used rho both with a tail and lacking one in a number of inscriptions, in no clear pattern. See I3 40 and 231 for examples. In any case, the inscriptions assigned early dates based upon these letter shapes need further study. Mattingly for many years has advocated later dates for many of them.2 They are, of course, not all later, but many could be.3 Indeed, the trends of inscribing limned above suggest that later dates are likely in many instances to be more probable.

2

See AER for his important collected papers.

3

Tracy, ZPE 190, 2014, 105–115 (appendix three below).

Appendix One: Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions (reprint of Studies Dow 277–282) Despite the tremendous attention given inscriptions of fifth-century Athens, no systematic (published) study has yet been devoted to identifying hands in the period.1 Nor do the present remarks seek to offer more than guidelines toward such a study. Attributions of inscriptions to cutters, however, continue unabated.2 But the only published account of a fifth-century hand remains that of H. T. Wade-Gery in BSA 33 (1932–33) 122–35. In that article, written fifty years ago, Wade-Gery credited Sterling Dow: “Dow indeed taught me to distinguish hands” (101). The present writer acknowledges the same debt and much more.3 I take, therefore, especial pleasure in offering this study of fifth-century hands to S. Dow in a volume paying tribute to his wide-ranging contributions to classical studies for more than half a century. Although Wade-Gery did indeed isolate four inscriptions by one cutter and identify him,4 he was less successful in his main concern, which was to “distinguish the hand, and to try to formulate a method whereby hands can be, securely, distinguished” (101). The method formulated by Wade-Gery had at its basis measurement of the straight strokes to determine the blade lengths of the chisels employed and the pattern of use of each chisel. He also used extensively, and this has been less recognized because he did not himself emphasize it, criteria other than measurable ones. For example, he recognized that irregularities of lettering can themselves constitute a distinguishing feature: “such irregularities as there are (horizontals not quite horizontal, letters off centre, etc.) are very regularly repeated” (123). And he was very sensitive to idiosyncrasies of shape: “in this extremely regular hand, the tail of ϒ comes lower than the tail of I” (125); “notice how the A and cognate letters always lean forward; how the lowest angle of Σ is always a little more open than the others” (134–35). But the measurement of letter-strokes constituted the stated criterion in “The Three Chisels,” section I of his study (122–23). The problems of a methodology which relies primarily on measurement of letter-strokes are manifold. I present them here in full because students of fifth-century Attic inscriptions

1

2

A small grant from the Graduate School of the Ohio State University supported the initial phase of this study. The actual writing was done in Athens during my tenure as Special Research Fellow at the American School of Classical Studies. Ohio State University made possible that tenure by the grant of a sabbatical year. The editors of IG I3 sparingly offer such attributions. Less cautious is M. B. Walbank,

3

4

Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B. C. (Toronto 1978). See in particular The Lettering of an Athenian Mason (Hesperia Suppl. 15 [1975]: hereafter Lettering) iv, and IG II2 2336: Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythaïs (Meisenheim am Glan 1982) 4–6. I have independently studied the inscriptions and am of the opinion that they are by one cutter.

200

Appendix One

appear unaware of the difficulties and continue to employ this method. Indeed, a doctrine once well presented by a distinguished scholar is notoriously difficult to lay to rest. The problems are largely theoretical: (1) That cutters inscribed using a vertical or stem cutting technique, so that the width of the blade determined the length of the stroke, is an assumption and must be recognized as such. It appears to be a good one, at least for the small lettering common on Attic decrees of all periods.5 (2) To have a hope of success, this methodology must assume that a cutter used the same set, or an exactly similar set, of chisels over many years.6 This is highly unlikely since techniques of mass production were not widespread in the ancient world. Each chisel would be hand forged, probably by eye, and could not be expected to have exactly the same dimensions – close, but not the same. Furthermore, when working on an inscription a cutter did not, in all probability, have just one set of three chisels as Wade-Gery’s remarks imply, but several sets in the event a blade broke or became dull. He may well have used these sets interchangeably or on a rotating basis. None of us, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves, has seen an ancient cutter at work.7 (3) Chisels need to be sharpened frequently. But frequent sharpening would, depending on the design of the chisel blade, affect the length of the cutting surface and thus the length of the resulting letter-strokes.8 (4) Common sense tells us that almost all cutters used a finite number of chisels of different sizes. For any one inscription the minimum is two, a long one and a short one; the practical maximum was probably four. Most cutters, like Wade-Gery’s, appear to have used three – long, medium, and short. Since the lettering on Attic inscriptions is remarkably uniform in height, the chisels, at least the longest, must all have been of about the same size. The room for individual variation is thus very small. In short, this method, even if it were sound on other grounds, could not be very productive in distinguishing cutters. (5) Lastly, I mention a small but not insignificant practical problem. To measure the exact length of a stroke at points where letter-strokes join is difficult, if not impossible. Yet everything rests on measuring differences which are 0.002 m. or less. I do not think that it is possible to do this reliably in most cases. I say this as one who has measured with the best possible calipers thousands upon thousands of letter-strokes. It is a difficulty which cannot be dismissed or glossed over. These problems are in my opinion fatal to a method which relies solely or largely on measurement of letter-strokes and patterns of chisel use. I hasten to add that this is not intended, nor is it to be interpreted, as an attack on Wade-Gery. He made an important start and showed that something could be done. Most of all, good scholar that he was, he recognized the need to state his method. This is fundamentally important. Ex cathedra statements that two inscriptions are by the same hand are not very helpful; nor are they, in themselves, very harmful. The method and criteria employed, however, must be stated whenever the attribution is used to support the cause of a particular date, line of argument, etc. If not, it becomes a case of obscura per obscuriora and ought to be condemned by all who wish to advance our discipline. 5 6

See Lettering 86–88. C. G. Higgins and W. K. Pritchett, “Engraving Techniques in Attic Epigraphy,” AJA 69 (1965) 367 n.2, and Tracy, Lettering 9, have already pointed out this difficulty.

7

8

For the procedure of one modern cutter and reference to the work of others see Lettering 125–26. See also Higgins and Pritchett (supra n.6) 367.

Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions

201

In what follows, I repeat briefly the method I have developed for studying hands on Attic inscriptions in the Hellenistic period and then recount what success I have had in applying it to Attic inscriptions of the fifth century B. C.9 The conclusions I offer about the fifth-century texts at this stage are preliminary and not the result of a scrutiny of every known inscription. I have, however, been able to examine, primarily from squeezes, about 50 % of the inscriptions and have devoted some years to the study. I publish at this time primarily because I cannot foresee conditions soon under which I will have the opportunity to study in a systematic manner all of the extant evidence. My method is founded on the assumptions that the lettering on Attic inscriptions may be treated as a type of handwriting and that cutters customarily inscribed their own particular lettering.10 The method is a descriptive one which seeks to isolate pecularities of lettering sufficiently numerous and idiosyncratic that, taken as a group, they may reasonably be expected to characterize the work of that one individual. It is a matter of training one’s eye to recognize peculiarities in the disposition of letters and letter-strokes. The subjective element present in all studies which involve stylistic attribution is freely admitted, but the dangers of too much subjectivity can be minimized, in my view, by rigorous application of the stated criteria and by providing adequate illustration, i.e. good photographs, as a control. The procedure in studying any hand is to choose a large, well-preserved, and, if possible, securely dated fragment. The lettering on this fragment will then be the standard against which all others will be compared. The challenge is to study this lettering, to ‘learn’ the hand. I shall not minimize the difficulty of this step. It is essential to draw every letter painstakingly, to observe every variation, to take careful note of the general qualities of the writing, and finally to describe in detail and illustrate the peculiarities of the lettering in question. To do this usually requires many hours or days of concentrated study and, thereafter, frequent restudy of the lettering as reinforcement. Once one has ‘learned’ a hand, then, ideally, he searches thoroughly the epigraphical collections looking for other inscriptions which reveal the same set of peculiarities. These and only these may be considered the work of the same cutter. Now let us turn to fifth-century Attic inscriptions. First and foremost their lettering does reveal individuality. At the same time, it is generally true that the variations are not so pronounced as in later times when it is possible to find, for example, very plain lettering coexisting with highly florid, serifed letters. Still it takes no great talent to see that individual differences in lettering are readily perceptible on inscriptions of the fifth century. I take as my illustrations examples of lettering provided by J. Kirchner and G. Klaffenbach in Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum2 (Berlin 1948). Consider plate 13 no. 32.41–45:11 the ‘pennant’ shaped rho, the ‘double pennant’ shaped, thin beta, the forward tilted nu, and, above all, the upsilon with its graceful curves are very idiosyncratic. Now compare plate 14 no. 33 (IG I2 195, I3 263): ‘pennant’ shaped rho and beta are similar to the lettering just considered, but nu tilted only slightly and upsilon made with three straight strokes differ markedly. Furthermore, this cutter’s alpha is quite idiosyncratic. Note that he places the

9

10

I gratefully acknowledge here the help of S. Dow and A. G. Woodhead, who put at my disposal their extensive squeeze collections. For full statements of method and the reasoning which lies behind these assumptions, see my “Identifying Epigraphical Hands,” GRBS

11

11 (1970) 321–28, and Lettering, esp. 1–11 and 90–95. IG I2 928; D. W. Bradeen, The Athenian Agora XVII The Funerary Monuments (Princeton 1974) 1.

202

Appendix One

crossbar very near the bottom of the letter and always slants it, sometimes very noticeably, downwards from the left to the right. Next let us compare two fragments dated to about 430 B. C., namely Kirchner/Klaffenbach plates 13 no. 35 (IG I2 54, I3 49) and 16 no. 36 (I2 59, I3 65). One need only examine epsilon closely to perceive a meaningful difference. The first cutter consistently places the central horizontal closer to the topmost horizontal; the second usually centers this stroke, but, when he fails to do so, he often positions it closer to the bottom horizontal (see for example the first two in line 19). In addition the cutter of IG I3 49 makes sigma with different angles, the lower angle more open than the upper. Furthermore, the verticals of his nu extend markedly below and above the diagonal. By contrast the cutter uf IG I3 65 makes nu taller and thinner, with the extension of the verticals above and below the diagonal less pronounced. His sigma usually has the same angle (to the eye) above and below. His alpha is quite unusual, very wide (as wide as mu) with the crossbar placed slightly above the mid-point of the letter. In summary, there can be no question that these four fragments exhibit the work of four different cutters. Although individual idiosyncrasies are comparatively easy to perceive, the identification of hands in the fifth-century material, i.e. the assignment of two or more inscriptions to one workman, is not correspondingly an easy or certain matter. Without going into the details, which would be impossible here, I have applied this methodology to twenty-eight fifth-century texts, that is I have ‘learned’ the hand, and then searched in the evidence available to me for other inscriptions which exhibited the same lettering and could be with certainty assigned to the same hand. The results are, I think, significant and suggest that the assignment of large numbers of inscriptions to a given hand in the fifth century is unlikely. Seventeen of the examples studied gave no matches, eight gave one match, two gave two, and one gave three. This contrasts sharply with studies of hands on hellenistic inscriptions where there are usually no fewer than ten matches for any one hand and sometimes as many as fifty.12 In fact, it is worth ‘learning’ the hand on any decree of Hellenistic Athens from the point of view of finding other examples of the lettering. With fifth-century inscriptions it appears to be quite a different matter. Why is this so? I think two factors at least are operative: first there were fewer texts inscribed in the fifth century than in later times and their survival rate is lower. Thus, to use a term from our scientific colleagues, we perhaps lack a ‘critical mass’ of evidence. Second, it is quite possible that fifth-century letter-cutters were not specialists as were their later counterparts who cut nothing but long texts on stone.13 The fifth-century cutter may well have been a mason in the more general sense of someone who carved blocks for buildings, fluted columns, even sculpted statues as well as inscribing texts. In short, it may be that few fifth-century cutters inscribed large numbers of texts. The results of the present study probably reflect a combination of these two factors. The study of fifth-century epigraphical hands, then, is an enterprise almost at the point of diminishing returns; but something can be accomplished and that should be stressed. I describe and illustrate here three distinctive fifth-century hands and list the inscriptions that I have been able to assign to them thus far.

12

See the lists which I have published in GRBS 11 (1970) 329–33, 14 (1973) 191–95, and Hesperia 47 (1978) 248–50, 256–57, 262–63.

13

See Lettering 122.

Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions

203

Cutter of I3 270 (ATL 13) (Fig. 1 and ATL I fig. 55) The most distinctive letters of this cutter are rho, sigma, and upsilon. The loop of rho is not nicely rounded; rather, it is ovoid and betrays the influence of angular, ‘pennant’ shaped rho. The lower angle of sigma tends to be more open than the upper; the top and bottom strokes are often curved, particularly the bottom. Upsilon appears to have been made in two segments, the left extending to the height of the letter and curved. The right stroke is shorter and attached to it; it is sometimes straight and sometimes curved. This cutter inscribed most, and perhaps all, of I3 267 (ATL 10), 268 (ATL 11), 269 (ATL 12), and 271 (ATL 14).14 I3 146 (I2 138) may also be assigned to him; see Fig. 2.

Cutter of I3 35 (I2 24) (Fig. 3 and Guarducci, Epigrafia greca I 141) Alpha is a rather wide letter; the crossbar occurs at about the mid-point and slants downward from left to right. Beta, epsilon, eta, and lambda are rather thin letters. Mu is most idiosyncratic; about fifty per cent of the time the left half of the letter is noticeably smaller than the right, which gives it a rather peculiar appearance. See for example the second mu in line 12. The verticals of nu extend below and rise above the diagonal. The strokes of upsilon regularly curve. The central part of phi is a graceful oval which is quite well centered on the vertical. When not centered (about one-third to one-half of the time) it is off to the right slightly. I3 435 (I2 338) is by this cutter;15 for photographs of various parts of this inscription see AJA 36 (1932) 474, Hesperia 5 (1936) 363–64, 7 (1938) 266, 12 (1943) 14.

Cutter of I3 93 (I2 98) Fig. 4 This is a very neat hand; the letter-strokes are relatively thick and precisely placed. Alpha and delta are rather wide letters; the crossbar of alpha is consistently placed below the mid-point of the letter. The central horizontal of epsilon is sometimes centered, sometimes nearer the top, and sometimes nearer the bottom; there is no consistency. Eta and pi are relatively narrow letters. Mu is not as tall as the surrounding letters. The second vertical of nu usually extends up above the letters a bit. Sigma is made so that it is distinctly taller than the other letters. The vertical of tau penetrates slightly beyond the horizontal about half of the time. The short slanting strokes of kappa reveal the greatest amount of variety and idiosyncrasy. These strokes usually meet the vertical at the mid-point of the letter or a

14

The hands on the tribute lists constitute a large and challenging study. There are clearly changes of hand in some of the lists, and I am not yet in a position to affirm positively that every line in lists 10–14 is by this hand or that his hand appears only in these lists. In fact, I

15

think I see evidence of his work elsewhere in the tribute lists, but this must await further study. M. B. Walbank (apud IG I3) has assigned IG I3 434 and 435 to the same cutter. I have not had access to IG I3 434.

204

Appendix One

little below; the angles at which they are placed and their lengths vary. Note the difference between the two in *κκλησίαν in line 17. I3 178 (I2 159) may be assigned to this hand; see plate 42B in Walbank (supra n.2) for a photograph of this fragment. Ohio State University

Hands in Fifth-Century B. C. Attic Inscriptions

Fig. 1. IG I3 270

Fig. 2. IG I3 146

205

206

Appendix One

Fig. 3. IG I3 35

Fig. 4. IG I3 93

Appendix Two: The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai (Antiphon 5.69–71) and The Lapis Primus (reprint of CP 109, 2014, 1–10) Antiphon and the Hellenotamiai The Hellenotamiai, the treasurers of the Athenian empire, were a board of ten citizens chosen annually, one from each tribe, to receive the tribute paid by the members of the empire.1 They were trusted senior officials with some financial expertise, who received payments each year that totaled in the neighborhood of 350 talents and were charged with overseeing the funds and with keeping accurate accounts. This was necessarily a complex process because there were many members of the empire spread out across a wide geographical region and payments did not come in all at one time. In addition, there were frequently partial payments and late payments. Member states, moreover, were not always ready or able to meet their assessed amounts in a timely fashion. Once the money was collected, the Hellenotamiai calculated the aparchai, the sixtieth part of the tribute that was an offering to Athena, deducted it and turned it over to the logistai for auditing. It is probable that they did this all at one time near or at the end of the process. These monies were then passed on to the treasurers of Athena.2 It is the records of these payments of aparchai that survive on stone as the tribute lists. Whatever their exact duties, the Hellenotamiai were surely among the most important officials of the state;3 the money in their charge was crucial to maintaining Athenian power. The removal from office of an entire board of Hellenotamiai, followed by the trial and execution of all but one must have been one of the most notorious events ever in the internal affairs of the Athenians. Incredibly, there is scarcely any mention of it in the evidence

1

2

I owe deepest thanks to my colleague Christian Habicht for his keen interest and advice during the preparation of this study. I am also indebted to Professor Dr. Klaus Hallof, the head of the IG in Berlin, for putting squeezes of the Lapis Primus at my disposal at the end of August 2012 and to the anonymous readers for Classical Philology for useful suggestions. On the Hellenotamiai, see Swoboda 1913 and Woodhead 1959; for the known holders of the office and their assistants, ATL I 567–70 and II 125–26. From the rather compressed phrasing of the prescript of the first list (IG I3 259.1–2) we learn that the Hellenotamiai, the thirty (logistai) and the goddess, presumably her

3

treasurers, the treasurers of Athena, were all involved. The aparchai were turned over to the thirty for accounting and then given to the goddess. The (much restored) initial lines of the prescript of the first list are: [%παρχαG hαίδε χορGς χ]σ ύμ[πασαι παρ] το9ν hελλ[ενοτ]αμιο9ν h[ο)ς . . ·. ·. · . . . . . . . . . . γραμμάτευ]ε πρ[ο9]τ[αι το)σι] τριάκο[ντα %π]εφάνθεσαν [τε9ι θεο9ι]. (“All the following separate offerings for the goddess were the first ones handed over for accounting to the thirty from the Hellenotamiai for whom so and so was secretary.” [author’s trans.]) On the various treasuries and treasurers of Athens in this period, Samons 2000, 28–83, esp. 36–37.

208

Appendix Two

that comes down to us. Antiphon is our sole source; he was a grown man at the time it happened.4 In the speech he wrote for the defendant in the case of the murder of Herodes (5.69–71) he has him bring it up as follows: … οH :λληνοταμίαι οH Iμέτεροι, κε)νοι μ(ν Kπαντες %πέθανον Lργ7ι μλλον M γνώμηι, πλNν Oνός, τP δ( πργμα Qστερον καταφαν(ς γένετο. ΤοS δ’ OνPς τούτου – Σωσίαν Tνομά φασιν ατUι εVναι – κατέγνωστο μ(ν Wδη θάνατος, τεθνήκει δ( οXπω· καG ν τούτωι δηλώθη τUι τρόπωι %πωλώλει τ χρήματα, καG Y %νNρ %πήχθη IπP τοS δήμου τοS Iμετέρου παραδεδομένος Wδη το)ς Zνδεκα, οH δ’ [λλοι τέθνασαν οδ(ν α\τιοι Tντες.

… your own Hellenotamiai, they all perished out of anger rather than sound judgment, except one, because the facts of the matter became clear too late. This one – his name, they report, was Sosias – had already been condemned to be executed, but had not yet died. And just in time it was revealed how the money had been lost and the man, even though he had already been delivered to the Eleven, was forcibly rescued by the people, but the others had already died although quite innocent.5 This chilling tragedy must have had wide repercussions. Of course, we cannot be sure that the account as presented at the trial is totally accurate. We probably have to allow for some forensic exaggeration. The speaker after all is drawing a parallel between himself and the hapless Hellenotamiai. He is making the case that the jurors should not condemn and kill him in the heat of the moment only to find out later, as happened in the case of the Hellenotamiai, that he is innocent. While Antiphon surely did not make the incident up out of whole cloth – that, after all, would have been counterproductive to his case – the emphatic statement τέθνασαν οδ(ν α\τιοι Tντες may well be an overstatement. For instance, it could have been the case that the members of the board were inexcusably careless, but not, as it turned out, guilty of crimes that deserved the death penalty. Whatever happened, the language that Antiphon adopts, %πωλώλει τ χρήματα, suggests that the money at least was irretrievably lost. Did their accounts also suffer this same fate? The whole affair surely caused serious, widespread upheavals in the entire collection and bookkeeping apparatus for a considerable time. Indeed, when the Hellenotamiai were tried and convicted, it can not be imagined that others involved in the process, including the thirty logistai and the treasurers of Athena, were unaffected.6 It also seems probable in the immediate aftermath that leading citizens would have been reluctant to serve on the board. Unfortunately, this episode can not be dated precisely but it probably occurred in the 440’s.7 That is, it is likely to be contemporary with the quota lists preserved on the Lapis

4

5 6

7

On Antiphon’s life and works, see Gagarin 1997, 3–9 and Ostwald 1986, 359–64. Translation by author. Meiggs (1975, 246) saw the probable impact. “Such an alarming miscarriage of justice might have led to a reorganization and redefinition of financial responsibilities. But at this point guesswork becomes irresponsible.” Gagarin (1997, 209) concludes: “This episode, which is not mentioned in any other source, must have occurred in the 450s or 440s.” Meiggs-Lewis (85–86) date the incident “at

some time in or near the forties”. Samons (2000, 80) writes: “If the speech was delivered about 415, this would probably place the executions well before 440, and perhaps before the transfer of the treasury to Athens.” In addition he speculates further in note 246 on the same page about other contexts for this terrible event, namely the reorganization of 443/2 or the empty space on the right lateral face reflecting the year 447/6, which might have been left “as a kind of memorial to the debacle resulting in the Hellenotamiai’s execution.”

The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai and The Lapis Primus

209

Primus (IG I3 259–272), which span the years 454/3 to 440/39. If so, there should be reflections of it in our texts, specifically a list or lists missing and irregularities in some of the preserved lists.

The Lapis Primus The Lapis Primus is the largest free-standing inscription ever created at Athens and is imposing even in its fragmentary reconstructed state in the museum. Its original dimensions are estimated to have been approximately 4 m. in height, about 1.15 m. wide, and 0.39 m. thick. It has recently been argued that this unusually large block was originally designed as an architrave for the Older Parthenon.8 This huge block with the lists of quota payments to Athena set up on the Acropolis constituted an impressive physical display. The letters, however, are not very large; the headings vary in height from 0.012–0.018 m. and the city entries all have letters in the range of 0.01 m. Even when the letters were painted, an observer, even one with very sharp eyes, will scarcely have been able to read such small lettering from any distance. It hardly mattered; the cumulative visual affect of this vast list on the viewer will have been overwhelming. A considerable amount of planning clearly went into the conception of the whole. Moreover, the modest size of the letters proves that the original plan envisioned many annual records of tribute quotas. From the beginning, the year panels were laid out with care, as is obvious from even a cursory examination. The lettering of each panel is quite uniform; there are not many obvious later additions. However the lists to be inscribed came to the cutters, they were complete enough that in most cases the year’s record could be laid out and inscribed all at one time. Clearly the treasurers of the empire for the most part provided each year a more or less complete list to those responsible for inscribing the stele. The lists reveal some development in their arrangement on the stone. The first two (IG I3 259 and 260) cover the front of the stele and continue on to the right side. The first has a four-line heading and six columns of 25 lines across the front and a postscript on the right side. It is unique in having the payment listed after the city. The second, after a simple one-line heading, has the payments lined up vertically to the left of the cities; the first letters of city/place names are aligned vertically taking into account the longest numeral so that no name is indented. This required careful planning. The list itself is arranged in ten columns, seven on the front and three on the right side. Nine of these have eighteen lines and the last ten. Beginning with the third list (I3 261) a basic format seems to have been adopted. The decision was made to confine each list to a single face of the stele. After a heading of one line the contributors were to be arranged in five columns of approximately equal length, ranging from 30 to 40 lines. Numerals are placed to the left of the city names. The lists on the narrower sides, namely I3 265 on the right, I3 271 and 272 on the left, were to be disposed in two columns. The single exception to this arrangement is I3 264, the last panel on the obverse face. It has just 4 columns with 37 or 38 entries per column. Presumably this arrangement was chosen so that the panel would satisfactorily fill the space left for it at the bottom of this face. Five columns of 29 entries would apparently have resulted in

8

Miles 2011.

210

Appendix Two

rather a lot of blank surface left below the list, but not enough for the next list, which was then placed on the right side. From a practical standpoint, the inscribers surely exercised some discretionary role in determining, for example, the exact number of lines in each column. Unquestionably, however, the order of listing was decided by others and the cutters merely inscribed what was handed over to them. The contributors in the first seven lists (I2 259–265) – those inscribed on the obverse and right lateral faces – are arranged in no clear pattern. Noting this, Benjamin D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and Malcolm F. McGregor thought (ATL III 4) that “the payments were recorded as the carriers of tribute arrived in Athens.” This seems improbable, but the lack of any observable order, at the very least, must have made it all but impossible to find a particular contributor in a given list. This may be one of the reasons that in 446/5 (I3 266), the first year of the third assessment, there is a definite change. Now the cities are grouped into districts and beginning with the year 443/2 (I3 269), the last year of the third assessment and a year of the Great Panathenaia, district headings in larger letters were added.9 These headings, ]ονικPς φόρος, hελλεσπόντιος φόρος for examples, clearly demarcating the various parts of the empire made the lists more intelligible visually to those looking at them. In addition, another change was introduced in this last year of the third assessment period. The name of the chairman of the board of Hellenotamiai was now to be included. Thus it is that we have the precious information that Sophocles of Kolonos was head of the board in this year (I3 269.36). Moreover, one Satyros from Leukonoion served as assistant secretary in this year and the next (I3 269.36, 270.2), that is, the last year of the third assessment period and the first of the fourth. This official appears only on these two quota lists and may have been charged with overseeing the transition from one assessment period to the next. Clearly, the more organized way of listing the contributors on the reverse and left lateral faces indicates that a significant reorganization of some sort was adopted at the opening of the third assessment period (446/5 to 443/2). Obviously something occurred in the second assessment period (450/49 to 447/6) to prompt this change. Indeed, the last two lists of this period, I3 264 and 265, are each in its way unusual. I3 264, at the bottom of the obverse face, has the lowest number of entries among the lists on the stele with (as restored in IG) 150 contributors.10 It thus has four columns of contributors instead of the more normal five. And the next list, I3 265 inscribed on the right lateral face, is the longest with space for 220 entries.11 It is also unique in having what the editors of the ATL have termed an appendix of 67 lines that includes, on their interpretation, eleven late whole payments from the previous year plus quite a few arrears for that year as well as late and installment payments from the current year.12

9 10 11

Paarmann 2004, 84–85. On this list, see ATL III 36–39. To explain the difference in numbers, WadeGery (1945, 216–17, 226–28) adduced the evidence of the tightening up of the tribute payments contained in the Kleinias decree (I3 34) and dated it to the year 447 between I3 264 and 265. Facing recalcitrance, if not downright refusal to pay, hence the comparatively few payments in I3 264, the new measures put forward by Kleinias resulted, he reasoned, in the increased payments reflected in I3 265. He con-

12

cluded (228) that I3 265 reveals a remarkable effort to follow the provisions of the Kleinias decree against arrears and defaults. Lewis too (1992, 129–30) leans toward this explanation. However, the Kleinias decree can not be closely dated. Samons (2000, 188–93), for instance, dates it to ca. 424. And Mattingly (1961, 151– 69) long ago argued for a date around 425. For this complex state of affairs, Wade-Gery 1945, 227–28 and, in greater detail, ATL III 39–52.

The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai and The Lapis Primus

211

With (in a number of instances) multiple entries for the same contributors, anyone trying to consult this list confronts a rather confusing record. The Koans, for example, and Thasians apparently each appeared three times, the former at col. I.92, II.37, 102, the latter at col. I.94, 107, col. II.66. Quite a few others occur in two places; some examples are the inhabitants of Tenedos (col. I.5, 102), of Torone (col. II.71, 101), the Erythraioi (col. I.58, II.110), the Elaiousioi (col. I.63, 100), the Myrinaioi (col. I.11, II.111).13 And perhaps most confusing for anyone inexpert in the intricacies of the categories of payment are what appear to be dittographies, that is, names repeated in successive lines, namely Byzantioi (col. I.103–104) and Tenedos (col. II.108–109).14 This all suggests that severe problems were encountered. Otherwise, one would expect the records to have been consolidated before inscribing so as to eliminate most of the duplication. Then, too, the inscriber did not manage to dispose the list into two columns very successfully.15 The actual layout as it appears on the stone can best be appreciated from the drawing of this list on plate VIII of ATL I. The initial letters of the names of the contributors in column I are aligned vertically and the numerals are placed in (sometimes squeezed into) the margin at the left. They seem to begin, as it were, at the name and extend to the left. Or, to put it another way, the initial letters of the numerals do not align vertically above one another. And, when the numeral had many components, the ones that could not be fit in on the left were placed after the name of the contributor with three vertical dots of punctuation added to separate it from the contribution to its right in column II. This happened in lines 5, 103, 104, and 106.16 Long names too intruded into the vertical space of column II. This is true of lines 10, 12, 37, 38, 48, 60, 105. As if to balance this, where the names in column I were short and the numeral plus name of column II long, the cutter extended them to the left into the space of column I. See lines 19, 32, 53, 55, 101, 113. Near the bottom (from line 90 down) the lines slant downward slightly from left to right and appear to be more crowded as though these lines of the so-called appendix were a later addition. The hand is the same throughout.17 It is notable too from a procedural point of view that the list of contributors of I3 265 col. I.4–86, II.4–73 is identical and virtually in the same order as the entire list of I3 264.18 There can thus be little doubt that these are texts from consecutive years.19 The payment 13

14

15 16

17

I leave out of consideration the restorations, which, if included, would give many more names occurring in two places. For the sake of accuracy these are not perfect duplicates; the numerals differ in the first case and in the second the preposition in line 109 is by scribal error EΒ𐌔 not E𐌔𐌔. See also on this ATL III 40–41. In the printed texts of IG I3 and ATL these numerals are, quite misleadingly, placed in their entirety to the left. The drawing in ATL I pl. VIII and Hiller’s text of the last three in IG I2 198 show them accurately. The editors of the ATL in their printed text and in their explication have done an admirable job of imposing order on a list that verges on chaos. One suspects, indeed, that the rather untidy appearance of the list as it appears on the stele accurately reflects the state of the records supplied to the inscriber.

18

19

First detailed by Meritt and West 1928, 281– 97 and discussed at ATL I 176, III 39. I3 264 preceded I3 265; indeed, the latter was copied from the former. I3 264 comes at the bottom of the obverse face and I3 265 is on the right lateral face. They were inscribed by two different men, so it is not impossible that the identical parts of these lists were inscribed fairly close together in time. Wade-Gery (1932/33, 112) curiously observed (without further explanation) “it is possible (and I personally think it probable) that S.E.G. V 6 [= I3 264] (with Σ) is later than S.E.G. V 8 [= I3 265] (with Σ).” As his note 2 ad loc. reveals, he was influenced in his thinking here by his beliefs about the dating implications of three-bar and four-bar sigmas.

212

Appendix Two

amounts too in the few cases where they are not restored and thus can be compared are mostly identical, as would be expected, since the assessments remained the same. Nevertheless, the people of Lampsakos pay different amounts in the two lists, 86 dr. 4 obols in I3 264 col. IV.3 and 60 dr. in I3 265 col. II.59.20 This reveals that the numbers reflect actual payments and were not simply copied rote. I3 264 was inscribed, clearly, well before the record of the contributions was complete. In fact, the last entries in the fourth column (IV.32–39), as Meritt and Alan B. West correctly noted, are in a different hand from those in the rest of the list.21 These lines then are a later addition by a different inscriber. In addition, it is apparent that the secretary of I3 265 (or whoever did it) prepared the text for inscribing in two installments. For the first installment he took over wholesale I3 264, the list of the previous year, and assigned the inscriber the task of copying it. This was done late enough that the nine entries at the end of the fourth column could be included. Installment two, the appendix as the ATL editors refer to it, was added at a later time, perhaps much later; it contained a confusing amalgam of payments arranged in no systematic way including eleven from the previous year.22 Moreover, it is just before I3 264 that many have posited that a list is missing. Of course, up to the year 1935, there was no issue of a missing list. In that year Wade-Gery published a new joining fragment of list 1 and demonstrated that the preserved letters on the upper part of the right lateral face were not a separate list of year 7 (as IG I2 197), but rather a continuation on the right side of lists 1 and 2.23 With this discovery came willy nilly the issue of whether or not there was a list missing. And, over this, there has been great disagreement. The ATL editors from the beginning stated categorically: “Since no tribute was collected in 449/8 there is no list 6.”24 Silvio Accame argued that 447/6 was the year missing because growing difficulties with the allies combined with the defeat at Coronea and the revolt of Euboea forced Pericles to remit tribute for this year.25 Raphael Sealey thought that reference to the failure to collect tribute for 447/6 was inscribed in the lacuna at the top of the reverse face.26 Others were not convinced that a list was missing, but realized, given the fact that I3 264 and I3 265 belong to consecutive years, that another list, if it once existed, can only have come in between I3 265, on the right lateral face, and I3 266, near the top of the reverse face. These matters have been well (and often) rehearsed by others;27 there is nothing to be gained from repeating the arguments here. In point of fact there is clear evidence that a list is missing. Specifically, between the lists published as I3 263 and I3 267, securely numbered in their prescripts as the fifth and tenth respectively, we have the remains of just three lists.28 No fragments of a fourth survive. Usually arguments based on lack of evidence are to be avoided, but it has been truly 20

21

22

Whatever the exact amounts (some numerals are lost and some restored), the residents of Tenedos too certainly paid different amounts; compare I3 264 col. I.3 with I3 265 col. I.5. Meritt and West 1928, 291; see also on these lines Meritt and McGregor at I3 264 (“Col. IV 31–39 manu secunda incisi sunt.”) and Tracy 2013, 192–94. It appears quite conceivable that I3 266 was inscribed near the top of the reverse face before the assembling of the disorganized payments that made up installment two of I3 265 was finished and inscribed on the lower part of the right lateral face.

23

24 25 26 27

28

Wade-Gery 1932/3 [1935], 101–13. See Meritt 1937, 61–65 and figs. 11–12 for further discussion of this fragment. ATL I 133. Accame 1938, 412–14. Sealey 1954/55, 328. Two of the earliest and most balanced discussions are by Gomme (1940, 65–67) and by Wade-Gery (1945, 212–15). See also MeiggsLewis 133–35 for a good summary. The first line of I3 263 begins πG τεˆ ς %ρχεˆ ς τεˆ [ς] πέμπτες and that of I3 267 [πG τεˆ ς %ρχ]εˆ ς τεˆ ς δε[κάτ]ες.

The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai and The Lapis Primus

213

observed that inscribed fragments of these lists are easily recognized. That no fragment of a fourth list has appeared is, in this case, quite a weighty argument that there never was one.29 The first of the three lists, IG I3 264, is for some reason unnumbered and the number of the next, whether Lγδόες or hεβδόμες, is uncertain.30 It appears safe to assume that I3 266, the list that immediately precedes the tenth, had the number nine.31 But, could we have at this point, instead of a missing list, a composite list with enough contributors that in fact no list is totally missing? The unusually long list, I3 265, is the only possible candidate for a composite list. It had, the analysis in ATL III 39–52 has shown, late payments and arrears from the previous year, plus a number of complementary payments, that is, two partial payments that amount to a whole payment. But it had in total 162 separate contributors, which is the normal number for a single list. However jumbled it may be, it is in its essentials the record of one year with arrears from another. It is not a composite list that covered two entire years. We may add in support of this that the total number of contributors recorded on I3 264 (150) and I3 265 (162) amounts to 312. But, with the eleven late payments missing from I3 264, but (according to the arguments of ATL III 36–37) recorded on I3 265 at col. I.108–113 and at col. II.103–107, the total for I3 264 was actually 161. The combined total of the two lists then comes to 323 contributors. There should be in a normal three-year period about 480 to 490. So, the numbers reveal that we are missing about 160 to 170 payments, the usual number for a whole year. Thus it seems inescapable that an entire list of contributors is indeed missing. Without more evidence, however, it does not seem possible to know for certain whether the missing list is that of the year 449/8 or of 447/6. Moreover, previous studies have not emphasized enough the evidence for a serious disruption during the second assessment period.32 It is quite clear that after the first year, that is, after list 5 (I3 263) of the year 450/49, things went very wrong. For the years 449/8 to 447/6, the evidence shows that one list is totally lost and that the other two reveal surprising irregularities. Whatever the problems were, they have either passed or moderated by the time of the next assessment period, because I3 266 of 446/5, the first list of the third period, has a clear arrangement by districts and contained, following Lewis’ arguments, a normal number of entries.33 Explanations generally have been inadequate, for they were designed to account only for the single missing year. In any case, scarcely anyone now believes what the editors of the ATL argued, namely that the Athenians were so ill advised as to remit the tribute even for a single year.34 And the suggestions that Athena’s quota was withheld for one year for political reasons or that the entire tribute for a year went to Athena as a block grant have the same problem; they do not account for a three-year period of irregularities.35 More29 30

31

32

Meritt 1943, 238 and Wade-Gery 1945, 213. Meritt and McGregor in IG restored Lγδόες and presented a text laid out stoichedon with 20 letters per line; Dow (1942, 382–83) judged a 22 letter line certain and restored hεβδόμες. It is impossible to know which is correct (Tracy 2013, 194–95). See Tracy 2013, 195–96 on the initial lines of this list. In his discussion of the missing year, Lewis (1992, 125) does note: “At a minimum there seems to be some considerable dislocation of the system of receiving and recording tribute in these years …”

33

34

35

On the arrangement by districts, Paarmann 2004, 84–85 and, on the number of entries, Lewis 1954, 26–27. See on this point, among many, Meiggs 1975, 154 and Hornblower 2002, 36. Gomme (1940, 67) opined that Thucydides, the son of Melesias, might in 449/8 have carried a measure in the assembly that prevented the quota from the tribute being paid to Athena for that year. Meiggs (1975, 154) writes: “The reason why no quotas were recorded for 44[9]/8 might be that the whole tribute of the year had been given to some other purpose. A block grant, for example, to Athena Nike …”

214

Appendix Two

over, since there is little evidence of serious external difficulties, namely extensive opposition from members of the alliance,36 and since there was no change in the assessments, it might have been better all along to suspect that there was an internal problem in the collecting and recording of the payments. The puzzling prescript of I3 264 provided an important clue; it reads simply [π]G τε9[ς %ρχε9ς h]ε9ι Μενέτ[ιμο]ς ⁝ γρα[μμάτ]ευε Λαμ[πτρεύς] and this seems certain.37 Strikingly, it is the only arche listed on the stele that has no number. Why? It is unlikely that it was omitted by carelessness. Meritt somewhat lamely suggested embarrassment on the inscriber’s part.38 However, it was Sealey followed by Valerie French Allen who perspicaciously saw what must be the correct answer, namely that the omission was indicative of a serious problem involving the board of Hellenotamiai. Sealey pointed to the mention in Antiphon (5.69–71) of the wrongful condemnation and execution of all but one member of a board as a parallel for a board being dismissed before their term of office was over.39 He imagined that the Hellenotamiai of I3 265 took over early from those of I3 264, early enough that they were the ones who took the responsibility for the inscribing of I3 264; “hence they might hesitate to put in the serial number.” French Allen thought that it was the actual incident mentioned in Antiphon that caused the omission and concluded that the secretary of the board did not know which number was correct.40 In pointing to the passage in Antiphon, they were on the right track, although they did not appreciate the full extent of the problems.

Conclusion We have found clear evidence in the quota lists of disruptions for three consecutive years in the smooth operation of the collection and recording of the tribute. For the last three years of the second assessment period, the years 449/8 to 447/6, one list is totally lost and the other two reveal significant ongoing irregularities. In addition, as a further repercussion, there was a complete overhaul in the organization of the lists that took effect with the third assessment period (446/5–443/2). Surely this is exactly what we would expect as the fallout from the conviction and wrongful execution of the ill-fated board of Hellenotamiai mentioned by Antiphon. We can, thus, with confidence date the series of events involving their removal, trials and executions to the years 449/8 to 447/6.41 The board that mishandled the money and was removed is almost certainly that of 449/8. Thus this is the year of the missing list.42 The upheaval surrounding what happened affected the col-

36

37

38

But see Piérart’s suggestion (1987, 295–300) that crises in the empire led to a large number of cities not paying at the Dionysia of 446. The line was first read in this way by Meritt and West (1926, 88, 92) who did not discuss other possibilities for the name or comment on why the numeral might have been omitted. The name Μενετέλης (IG I3 97.5) is also possible, as ATL I 176 notes. Meritt 1943, 234: “The omission is easier to explain if the list was the seventh, not sixth, and if it is assumed that the intention of the mason was to avoid the embarrassment of hav-

39 40

41

42

ing a list numbered 7 follow immediately after a list numbered 5.” Sealey 1954/55, 327–28. French Allen (1971, 56–63, esp. 56–59) theorized that two boards, numbers 6 and 7, served in one year and that the secretary left the number out because he was unsure which one to use. Antiphon’s account proves that the executions were not carried out all at once. The conclusion appears to be inescapable that the list could not be inscribed because either the money or the records of that year (or both) were lost and could not be recovered.

The Wrongful Execution of the Hellenotamiai and The Lapis Primus

215

lection of the tribute and the record keeping for the next two years. Perhaps, in fact, there occurred not just significant disruption, but actual cessation, of the effective activities of the Hellenotamiai for a year or more. The Institute for Advanced Study

Literature Cited Accame, Silvio. 1938. Review of B. D. Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute. Rivista di filologia 66: 409–16. ATL = Meritt, Benjamin D., H. T. Wade-Gery, and Malcom F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists I–IV. Cambridge, MA. 1939 – Princeton 1953. Dow, Sterling. 1942. Studies in the Athenian Tribute Lists, I. CP 37: 371–84. French Allen, Valerie. 1971. The First Tribute Stele and the Athenian Empire, 455–445 B. C., unpublished PhD diss. in history, UCLA. Gagarin, Michael. 1997. Antiphon. The Speeches. Cambridge. Gomme, A. W. 1940. Two Notes on Athenian Tribute. CR 54: 65–69. Hornblower, Simon. 2002. The Greek World 479–323 B. C.3 London. Lewis, David M. 1954. Notes on Attic Inscriptions. BSA 49: 25–29. –. 1992. The Thirty Years’ Peace. The Cambridge Ancient History V2. Cambridge: 121–46. Mattingly, Harold B. 1961. The Athenian Coinage Decree. Historia 10: 148–88. Meiggs, Russell. 1975. The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Meiggs-Lewis = Meiggs, Russell and David M. Lewis, Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford 1969. Meritt, Benjamin D. 1937. Documents on Athenian Tribute. Cambridge, MA. –. 1943. The Early Athenian Tribute Lists. CP 38: 223–39 Meritt, Benjamin D. and A. B. West. 1926. A Revision of Athenian Tribute Lists. HSCP 37: 55–98. –. 1928. Correspondences in I.G. I2, 196 and 198. AJA 32: 281–97. Miles, Margaret M. 2011. The Lapis Primus and the Older Parthenon. Hesperia 80: 657–75. Ostwald, Martin. 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law. Berkeley. Paarmann, Bjorn. 2004. Geographically Grouped Ethnics in the Athenian Tribute Lists. Historia Einzelschriften 180: 77–109. Piérart, Marcel. 1987. Athènes et la crise de 447–445. Stemmata: Mélanges offerts à J. Labarbe, edd. Jean Servais, Tony Hackens, Brigitte Servais-Soyez, 291–303. Liège. Samons, Loren J. 2000. Empire of the Owl, Historia Einzelschrift 142. Sealey, Raphael. 1954/55. The Peace of Kallias Once More. Historia 3: 325–33. Swoboda, Heinrich. 1913. Hellenotamiai. RE 8: 177–81. Tracy, Stephen V. 2013. IG I3 259–272: The Lapis Primus – Corrigenda Selecta. ZPE 187: 191–98. Wade-Gery, H. T. 1932/33. Studies in Attic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B. C. BSA 33: 101–35. –. 1945. The Question of Tribute in 449/8 B. C. Hesperia 14: 212–29. Woodhead, A. Geoffrey. 1959. The Institution of the Hellenotamiae. JHS 79:149–52.

Appendix Three: Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach (reprint of ZPE 190, 2014, 105–115) This article treats a number of Athenian decrees that have been dated ca. 450 based primarily on the appearance in them of three-bar sigma. The letters on these texts are, for the most part, carefully inscribed and quite uniform in shape. They tend to be of medium width, symmetrical, and upright, that is, with almost no forward lean. The round letters are nicely rounded. In short, their lettering gives a neat, regular appearance. Such lettering, I suggest, is properly at home in the latter part of the century and texts that have it, threebar sigma notwithstanding, should most probably be dated to the last thirty years of the fifth century. Let us call this ‘the late fine plain style with three-bar sigma.’ A few words of background seem necessary here. Most inscriptions that survive from antiquity do so in a very fragmentary state. Many have nothing in the parts preserved that gives a good indication of the date, such as the name of an eponymous magistrate or of a known person or a clear reference to a known historical event. The style of the writing on the piece in question is very often the only evidence that remains for assigning a date. Thus, dating by letter forms is of necessity the most common means that scholars use to date ancient inscriptions. By nature, however, dating in this manner is inexact and can only provide an approximate guide to the date of any particular inscription.1 In the case of Athens and Attica, the great number of surviving inscriptions has made it possible to develop a canon of general styles for the Hellenistic period that helps with dating.2 In addition, for the earliest inscriptions, W. Larfeld and L. H. Jeffery have studied the lettering and provided tables of letter shapes; A. E. Raubitschek too offered a discussion of the letter forms on early Attic dedications.3 These provide helpful guides and no one doubts that Ε, Θ, Μ, 𐌍 and Φ, for examples, point to a date earlier than 450. Round letters made with special tools too indicate a date no later than 450. Useful as such guidelines may be, even so experts can disagree about the dates of particular inscriptions, sometimes by many years. Moreover, the most influential group of scholars studying Athenian inscriptions of the 1

2

On the pitfalls of dating by lettering, S. Tracy, “Dating by Lettering in Greek Epigraphy: General Styles and Individual Hands” 105–110 in A. Martinez Fernandez (ed.), Estudios de Epigrafia Griega (La Laguna 2009) and “Dating by Letter Forms in Greek Epigraphy” forthcoming in N. Papazarkadas (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Greek Epigraphy. S. Dow, “Hellenistic Athenian Lettering”

3

in S. V. Tracy, The Lettering of an Athenian Mason. Hesperia Suppl. 15 (Princeton 1975) xvi–xviii. Larfeld, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik II (Leipzig 1902) 389–444; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 66–78; Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (Cambridge, MA 1949) 448–452.

218

Appendix Three

fifth-century BC, namely B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F. McGregor, D. M. Lewis and R. Meiggs believed that they could date the inscriptions of the period quite accurately based on the shapes of their letters. In particular, they thought that three-bar sigma was not used on official documents after 445. These scholars were responsible for publishing the definitive editions of most of the inscriptions that relate to the Athenian empire, first in The Athenian Tribute Lists I–IV and then in IG I3. In the process, they in essence wrote the history of this period. But their reliance on three-bar sigma for dating purposes, while it did not go unchallenged,4 has recently been shown by new discoveries to be mistaken.5 We now know that three-bar sigma continued in use by some inscribers down to nearly the last decade of the century. Thus the inscriptions dated early on this basis need further study.6 What follows is an attempt to do this that is deliberately circumscribed as follows. I have considered only decrees that have three-bar sigmas and argue, based solely on the criterion of letter shape, that certain of them have in common a style of writing that points to a date for them in the last thirty years of the century. Naturally, there have been voluminous discussions in the secondary literature of the historical circumstances and dates of most of the decrees treated below. For these and the bibliographical references up to the time of its publication in 1981, see the appropriate lemma for each inscription in IG I3. More recently, N. Papazarkadas and P. J. Rhodes in light of the new evidence about three-bar sigma have discussed the dates and probable historical contexts of a number of these inscriptions.7 There is then, as adumbrated above, a late fine plain style of lettering that deserves to be recognized. The workmen who inscribed in this style used three-bar sigmas that are not elongated and thin but are of normal width and approximately the same height as the surrounding letters. In addition, they sometimes made a tailed rho, but the loop is always rounded. The letters are usually carefully inscribed, evenly spaced, and consistent in shape. They have little or no forward lean. Alpha has a straight crossbar that is placed at the midpoint of the letter or slightly lower; it is horizontal or has a moderate slant. Mu tends to be symmetrical and the verticals of nu are usually quite upright; the second can be nearly the same length or raised up and shorter than the first. Round letters have nicely rounded shapes. Upsilon tends to be made from three strokes with a vertical about half the height of the letter surmounted by a moderately sized V. The vertical of phi extends above 4

5

See R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1969) 81: “We know of no dated Σ after 445, and no Ρ after 438/7.” H. B. Mattingly early on doubted this strict canon of letter shape and used many different arguments to advocate the case for later dates for many inscriptions. See his collected essays in Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored (Ann Arbor 1996). I. Tsirigoti-Drakotou, “Νέα στήλη πεσόντων από το Δημόσιον Σήμα,” ArchDelt 55 A, 2000 [2004], 87–112. This important article publishes a casualty list that the author assigned to 412 B. C. Whether the exact year is correct or not, the crucial point is that the upper part of the list has four-bar sigmas and the additional names in the lower part three-bar ones. Of course, line 61 of I3 21 had all along provided evidence that three-bar sigma was in use when

6

7

Euthynos was archon in 426/5; but Meritt et al. accepted the argument that Diodoros (12.3) meant Euthynos when he recorded Euthydemos as the archon 450/49. On this, see Mattingly, “The Athenian Coinage Decree,” Historia 10, 1961, 174–175 and R. S. Stroud, The Athenian Empire on Stone (Athens 2006) 17 n. 10. On this, see also E. A. Meyer, “Inscriptions as Honors and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit,” Historia 62, 2013, 471 and n. 84. Papazarkadas, “Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire: Re-shuffling the Chronological Cards,” 67–88 in J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, R. Parker eds., Interpreting the Athenian Empire (London 2009); Rhodes, “After the Three-Bar Sigma Controversy: The History of Athenian Imperialism Reassessed,” CQ 58, 2008, 501– 506.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

219

and below the oval, which is usually of moderate size. The letters, particularly epsilon, beta, lambda, nu, pi, rho, and sigma, are mostly of medium width. (When these letters are consistently quite thin, an early date is likely.) A good example of this style is the lettering on IG I3 11, the much-discussed renewal of oaths of alliance between the Athenians and the citizens of Segesta. The date assigned in IG I3 is “ante med. s. V.” The reading and restoration of the archon’s name in line 3 has long been disputed. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, following H. G. Lolling,8 restored in IG I2 19 [*ρίστ]ον (454/3); A. E. Raubitschek and G. Klaffenbach read [Ha]bron (458/7)9; H. B. Mattingly proposed [*ντ]ιφο9ν (418/7).10 Using laser photography M. H. Chambers, ·· R. Gallucci and P. Spanos concluded that the name was [Ant]iphon.11 And the most recent editor A. P. Matthaiou, after minute study of the stone, was able to read [*ν]τιφο9ν.12 I · believe that Antiphon is correct and that this inscription dates to the year 418/7. Note also that IG I3 12, a very fragmentary treaty with the Halikyaioi, citizens of a neighboring city in Sicily, is inscribed with a space of just a single line left blank below this inscription on this same stele.13 It has usually been ascribed to the year 433/2. This appears to be too early, since it was inscribed by a workman whose known activity spans the years 423/2 to 394/3.14 In point of fact, the two inscriptions are clearly related and most probably belong close together in time, if they do not, in fact, come from the same year.15 The pre-450 date for IG I3 11 should certainly be abandoned and 418/7 recognized as the correct date of this measure.16 Indeed, the writing typifies this late fine plain style. Note in fig. 1 upright nu and lambda, symmetrical mu, the nicely rounded round letters, and upsilon made from three strokes. In spite of the heavy wear to the inscribed face, one can see that the lettering is well made and regular.17 Notably, this workman made sigma with three bars; but the letter is quite wide and about the same height as the others. His rho has a tail, but a round loop. ****** There are a small number of other Athenian decrees that reveal this style of lettering and should, in my estimation, be down dated accordingly.18 Let it be noted that there is no 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Δελτ. *ρχ. 1891 105–108. Raubitschek in TAPA 75, 1944, 10–12 and n. 3; Klaffenbach at SEG 10 7. “The Growth of Athenian Imperialism,” Historia 12, 1963, 268–269 and n. 60. “Athens’ Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon,” ZPE 83, 1990, 38–63. Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B. C. (Athens 2011) 57–70, esp. 59– 60. For a new text of I3 12, S. Cataldi, Seconde Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’ Area Elima (Pisa 1997) 330, also included in SEG 48 55. “The Cutter of IG II2 1386,” above 121–144. For a photograph of the final lines of I3 11 and all of I3 12, Matthaiou, Six Greek Historical Inscriptions pl. 11.1. See on the historical context Papazarkadas, “Re-Shuffling” 75–76.

16

17

18

See now Mattingly (“Methodology in FifthCentury Epigraphy,” 97–99 in G. Reger, F. X. Ryan and T. Winters, eds., Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy [Bordeaux 2010]), who reaffirms this date with further arguments based on formulaic language. See also the excellent photograph reproduced on pl. 7 of Matthaiou, Six Greek Historical Inscriptions. This research has been done in the congenial atmosphere of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. I thank my colleagues there, particularly Christian Habicht and Angelos Chaniotis, for their ongoing support. The loans of squeezes from the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard University and Ohio State University have substantially aided this effort. I owe deepest thanks to the generosity of these institutions and to colleagues

220

Appendix Three

Fig. 1. IG I3 11 8–17

implication intended that any of these are by the same hand; I do not in fact think that any of them are. I list each below with an illustration or with reference to a good published photograph and describe briefly some idiosyncrasies of the lettering. Lewis and his colleagues in the third edition of the first volume of IG dated them all round about the year 450 B. C.19 Where applicable, I mention with references the dates suggested by others.

IG I3 17 (fig. 2) An[tidotos], the archon of 451/0, is restored in line 5 of the IG text, but Mattingly advocated An[tiphon] (418/7) and Papazarkadas An[tigenes] (407/6).20 A. G. Woodhead, who has published the most recent text of this inscription as no. 1 in Agora XVI (Princeton 1997), retained the date of 451/0 and restoration of An[tidotos]. But, the lettering (fig. 2) displays all the characteristics of the late fine plain style with well-made, relatively wide, upright letters. Note especially wide epsilon, quite symmetrical mu, the rounded loops of the tailed rho, upright nu, upsilon made from three strokes, and phi with a small oval.

19

at them. Owing to the practical difficulties of gaining access to all of the inscriptions, it would be rash to assert that this is an exhaustive list of all the decrees with three-bar sigma in this style, but it is, I hope, all but exhaustive. I note here in passing, but do not illustrate or

20

discuss either, that I3 247, a tribal or phratry decree from Spata, and I3 395, a building account from Eleusis, also exemplify this style. Mattingly, Historia 12, 1963, 267–270; AJP 95, 1974, 282–284; Papazarkadas, “Reshuffling” 77.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

221

Fig. 2. IG I3 17b 11–16

This lettering is very similar to the writing on I3 11 except that the lower two strokes of the sigma are shorter than the top stroke. The height of the lettering is 0.01 m.

IG I3 18 (fig. 3) This text has very finely inscribed regular lettering. Note especially the symmetrical mu and nu with a shorter second stroke that does not rise up into the interlinear space. The three-bar sigma is quite distinctive with a very long top stroke and slightly downward dipping lowest short stroke; yet, even so, the inscriber made it the same height as the other letters. Very strikingly this man has a slight tendency to make the central horizontal of his epsilon at times a bit shorter than the top and bottom horizontal strokes. This is quite unusual and not characteristic of any lettering known to me that dates much earlier than 430.21 Mattingly suggested 418/7 as a date for this text.22 H. A. Reiter placed it in the year 406/5.23 The height of the letters in lines 1–5 is 0.019, in lines 6 ff. 0.009 m.

IG I3 19 (fig. 4) Except for nu that has a slight forward lean and a second vertical that extends up into the interlinear space, this lettering is in the style, though a less careful example of it. The letters are 0.008 m. in height. Strokes do not meet precisely and the horizontal crossbars of alpha, pi and tau at times slant. The central horizontal of epsilon is sometimes shorter. Mu is symmetrical and rho round. The three-bar sigma is of medium width and just slightly taller than the surrounding letters. Mattingly suggested a date of 426/5, Rhodes the late 420’s.24

21

22

Some quite firmly dated examples are I3 113 (c. 410), 284 (a. 427/6 aut 426/5), 313 (411/0), 316 (407/6?), 364 (433/2), 428 (c. 413). Phoenix 29, 1975, 284–286. Rhodes (“Controversy” 501, 504) now concurs.

23

24

Athen und die Poleis des Delisch-Attischen Seebundes: Theorie und Forschung 163 (Regensburg 1991) 34–35. Mattingly, Historia 12, 1963, 264–265; Rhodes, “Controversy” 501, 503–504.

222

Appendix Three

Fig. 3. IG I3 18a 1–10

Fig. 4. IG I3 19

IG I3 20 (fig. 5.) The lettering on this small fragment is solid and well cut; the letter-height is 0.008 m. Every legible letter is characteristic of this style: note especially epsilon, lambda, mu, nu and upsilon. Three-bar sigma has a longer top stroke but the letter is of medium width and about the same height as the others. Perhaps because it has so little text, there has been no discussion of its date beyond the style of its lettering.25

IG I3 21 (figs. 6–8)26 This inscription has been assigned to the year 450/49 based on three-bar sigma when, in fact, it is dated by the archon Euthynos to the year 426/5.27 It is indeed an excellent dated example of the late fine plain style. See in figs. 6–8 the straight crossbar of alpha, upright lambda, symmetrical mu, upright nu, rho with a round loop and sigma that is quite often about the same height and width as the other letters. Also note phi that has a small oval and is the same height as the surrounding letters. At the same time the writing of this 25

M. B. Walbank (Hesperia 42, 1973, 334) in a piece on IG I3 18 used the similarity of lettering of this text and of IG I3 17, 18, 31 and 42 to argue for a date of about 450 for all of them. The same author in Athenian Proxenies (Toronto 1978) 97 expanded this list of those that “may all be by the same or closely related hand” to include I3 38 and 435. Mattingly turns this around (Historia 49, 2000, 132–140) and uses the hand plus arguments from idiom to date I3 17, 18, 20, 31, 38 and 42 to the year

26

27

425/4 and after. Note that Walbank hedges his claim with the word ‘may.’ I repeat my opinion that although these inscriptions are all in the same style, none preserves enough lettering to sustain the claim of sameness of hand. See also the edition of S. Cataldi in G. Nenci ed., Studi sui rapporti interstatali nel mondo antico (Pisa 1981) 161–233. See n. 5 above. For historical arguments favoring the date of 426/5, see Mattingly, Studies Tracy (above n. 16) 99–102.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

Fig. 5. IG I3 20

Fig. 6. IG I3 21a 1–10

Fig. 7. IG I3 21b 7–15

Fig. 8. IG I3 21e–f 72–84

223

224

Appendix Three

particular inscriber illustrates the variety of shape that can appear in the lettering of some cutters. These workmen did not use stencils; rather they were cutting freehand and also probably fairly quickly, thus perfect consistency in making the letters cannot be expected. Some examples in this cutter’s writing are the following. The alphas can vary in width from wide to rather thin and the letter can occasionally seem to lean back. This is caused by the fact that the right slanting stroke does not extend down quite as far as the left one. The horizontals of the epsilons vary in length and placement. Quite idiosyncratically, the central horizontal can at times be longer than the top and bottom strokes. Occasionally it is placed closer to the bottom. Mu varies in width and the outer strokes can curve slightly. The second vertical of nu sometimes extends up slightly and other times it does not. The loops of rho vary in size and can have some straight segments. Pi often varies in width. Most strikingly, the length and angle of the three strokes that compose sigma vary greatly from example to example. Upsilon is usually composed of three strokes, a vertical slightly longer than half the height of the letter topped by a v that varies some in size and shape. Occasionally it can be composed of two curving strokes that make a V; for the two types in the same line see fig. 7.28

IG I3 2229 (fig. 9) The lettering on this small fragment of a decree is solidly made. The round letters are large and round as is the loop of the rho. The second vertical of nu leans forward slightly and extends up into the interline. The three-bar sigma is wide and a bit taller than the surrounding letters. B. D. Meritt in his editio princeps (Hesperia 29, 1960, 50–51 no. 63) assigned the date “ca. a. 450 a.” There has been no further discussion.

IG I3 27 (fig. 10) This lettering is carefully engraved with nicely cut thick strokes; the letters are tall (0.017 m.) and liberally spaced out on the horizontal. Lambda leans forward slightly and nu varies in width a bit with a second stroke that is shorter; otherwise the letters exactly

28

The hand is the same throughout; the “discrepantiae leves” that made Meritt and McGregor (IG I3 ad loc.) suspect that there might be a second hand at work beginning about line 32 are simply the variety of letter shapes that this cutter employs. In this, they were following D. W. Bradeen and McGregor (Studies in FifthCentury Attic Epigraphy [Norman, Oklahoma 1973]) who claim that “after about line 32 there are striking changes in the forms of zeta, nu, pi and upsilon” (31 n. 8). They do not describe these changes, but I see none that are really significant. Zeta varies a bit in height and placement but is essentially the same throughout. Pi tends to be wider in the lower lines, while nu with the second vertical extending up and

29

upsilon made from three strokes already occur in the first 31 lines. Figs. 6–7 illustrate letters from the top of this inscription and fig. 8 from the bottom. (See also plate IV in ATL II for a photograph of the ensemble of fragments.) In my judgment, the writing is the same. The consecutive numbers in IG, i.e. IG I3 17– 22, should come as no surprise to those conversant with the volumes of the IG. The editors from the beginning tended to group together inscriptions that they judged had closely similar lettering. Kirchner did this very frequently in the second edition of the Attic volumes and Lewis did likewise in the third edition. That is to say, Lewis too noted the similarity in lettering of these texts.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

225

Fig. 9. IG I3 22

Fig. 10. IG I3 27 1–14

conform to the late fine plain style. Rho is round, sometimes with a tail and sometimes lacking one. Three-bar sigma is well proportioned, of medium width, and the same height as the other letters. Phi that is the same height as the other letters with two small circles on each side of the vertical is an unusual shape for this time. It may be that the larger format of the letters allowed this shape. Mattingly has suggested a date for this honorary decree of 422/1.30

30

BCH 92, 1968, 480–482. He earlier regarded the year 426/5 as likely (Historia 12, 1963, 263–266). See now ZPE 62, 2007, 107–108 where he reiterates and reinforces his argu-

ment for a date in the 420’s. Reiter, Athen und die Poleis (above n. 23) 43, argues for the early date.

226

Appendix Three

IG I3 30 (fig. 11) The lettering of this decree is quite distinctive. The top stroke of three-bar sigma extends up slightly into the interline. Alpha is wide with a straight crossbar that slants down slightly from left to right. The vertical of lambda leans forward; the horizontal of the first slants downward almost awkwardly. The single example of nu is wide with a short raised up second vertical; this stroke does not extend up into the interline. The loops of rho and beta are round. Most striking is epsilon with a consistently short central horizontal. J. Morgan has suggested a date and context “soon after the Peloponnesian War began”; Rhodes judged that it was not possible to decide whether this measure was early or late.31

IG I3 31 (fig. 12) See Hesperia 2, 1933, 494 for an excellent photograph of the whole. Except for upsilon which at times is v-shaped, the letter shapes conform to this style. Rho has a round loop, nu is upright, mu is symmetrical and alpha has a straight, horizontal crossbar. The epsilon is quite wide with the top stroke at times just slightly longer than the other two. Threebar sigma is of medium width and about the same height as the other letters. M. Jameson made an excellent case for a date of 425; but Rhodes thought it was not possible to make a decision about whether the inscription was early or late.32

IG I3 32 (fig. 13) Although the inscribed surface of this text is very worn, the shapes of the letters can be discerned clearly. Alpha with a straight, slightly slanting crossbar, symmetrical mu, upright nu, sigma the same height and width as the other letters, and upsilon composed of three strokes all conform to this style. Note also the round loop of rho and the nicely made phi. The date suggested in IG I3 is “ca. a. 449–447.” K. M. Clinton, Eleusis 30 and pl. 12, gives the date as “ca. 432/1.” See on this date, the thorough discussion of M. B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens. Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B. C. (Atlanta 1996) 19–27.33

IG I3 33 (fig. 14) This lettering, although in this style, is somewhat sloppy in appearance. Mu is shorter than the surrounding letters and the outer strokes curve sometimes. The right side of the v of the single preserved upsilon has a definite curve. The crossbar of alpha varies; it slants

31

32

Morgan, “IG 13. 30: An Unknown ΘΗΡΑΙΟΣ and a Known ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΣ,” AJA 105, 2001, 260–261; Rhodes, “Controversy” 501, 505. Jameson, Horos 14–16, 2000–03, 27–28; Rhodes, “Controversy” 501 (“non liquet”),

33

505. See also for the later date Papzarkadas, “Reshuffling” 70 and Mattingly, Studies Tracy 100–101. Papzarkadas (“Resuffling” 69) too suggests a date in the late 430’s.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

Fig. 11. IG I3 30 2–7

Fig. 12. IG I3 31 right part

Fig. 13. IG I3 32 24–31

Fig. 14. IG I3 33

227

228

Appendix Three

upwards from left to right sometimes and downward at other times. The horizontals of epsilon vary in length and placement. In addition they often slant upwards. Clinton, Eleusis 21 and pl. 7, indicates a date of ca. 450.

IG I3 37 (figs. 15–16) As presented by Meritt and McGregor in IG, this text dealing with persons from Kolophon has been reconstituted from four rather worn fragments that are labeled a–d. Fragments b and c join. Fragment d, providing (if it has been deciphered accurately) the opening lines, was added by Wade-Gery (SEG 10 17). It is extremely worn and difficult to read.34 There are good photographs of all the fragments on plate VIII of ATL II. Fragment a preserving ll. 11–34 is in the late fine plain style (fig. 15). Note alpha with a horizontal crossbar that is placed at about the mid-point of the letter, upright nu with the second vertical shorter and extending up slightly and upsilon made from three straight strokes; the vertical is half the height of the letter or slightly more. The phi with a vertical that is taller than the other letters and with a smallish compressed oval is also notable. Fragments b+c (fig. 16) have rather different vertical spacing. The lettering too is quite different and surely by a different cutter.35 The crossbar of alpha comes low in the letter and slants. Lambda leans forward and its lower stroke is either horizontal or slants downwards. Nu is wide and forward leaning consistently. Upsilon is v-shaped and phi is the same height as the other letters with a large oval. This lettering strikes me as early and, although no one has suggested it, I wonder if these fragments should not be separated. Mattingly places this measure in the year 427/6; Rhodes opts for an early date.36

IG I3 38 The initial editor of this text J. J. E. Hondius, Novae Inscriptiones Atticae (Lugduni Batavorum, 1925, 3–6) dated it to 457/6 and provided a good photograph as his figure 1. This is an excellent example of the style. Note upright lambda, symmetrical mu, upright nu and upsilon made from three straight strokes. Lewis in IG gave the date as “a. 457–445” and commented “Idem lapicida n. 31 incidit.” Mattingly has argued for the year 432 as the date, while Rhodes thinks the early date likely.37 As for Lewis’ judgment about the cutter, clearly the writing is very similar, since both share this same general style. However, there are not enough surviving letters on either text to enable serious study of the hand. I doubt that they are the same, but I see nothing that clearly rules it out.

34

35

The readings of this battered fragment by Bradeen and McGregor (Studies in FifthCentury Attic Epigraphy 94–96 and pl. XIV) have been adopted in IG. Meritt and McGregor note the important differences in shape in the lemma of IG where they correctly observe “manus secunda (vv. 35–56).”

36

37

Mattingly, Historia 10, 1961, 175; 12, 1963, 266 and Studies Tracy 100; Rhodes, “Controversy” 501, 505. Papazarkadas (“Reshuffling” 70) also dates it to 427/6. Mattingly, Historia 16, 1967, 1–5; Rhodes, “Controversy” 501, 505.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

Fig. 15. IG I3 37a 12–24

Fig. 16. IG I3 37b+c 43–54

229

230

Appendix Three

Fig. 17. IG I3 44a 2–10

IG I3 42 For an excellent photograph of the two joining pieces of this inscription, see Bradeen and McGregor, Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy pl. XVII.38 The three-bar sigma is the same height as the other letters but with a long top stroke. The central horizontal of alpha is placed at times so low in the letter that it can be mistaken for a delta. The central horizontal of epsilon is not well centered but is usually slightly closer to the bottom stroke. Note also upright nu with the second vertical raised up and upsilon made from three straight strokes. The date assigned in IG is “c. a. 445–442.” Mattingly dates it about the year 425; Rhodes opts for an early date.39

IG I3 44 (fig. 17) The inscribed surface of this text is frightfully worn, nevertheless the letter shapes visible in fig. 17 conform perfectly to this style. The letters are carefully made. Rho has a round loop and nu is upright. Three-bar sigma is the same height as the other letters and about

38

These pieces are opisthographic. IG I3 43 is inscribed on the other side, a treaty that D. M. Lewis ad loc. dates “c. a. 435–427.” It is the work of “The Cutter of IG I3 50” who is known to have been active around the year 424/3 (above 113–120).

39

Mattingly, Historia 12, 1963, 267 and Ancient Societies and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (New York 1967) 212; Rhodes, “Controversy” 502.

Down Dating Some Athenian Decrees with Three-Bar Sigma: A Palaeographic Approach

231

the same width as rho and epsilon. Meritt in his editio princeps (Hesperia 14, 1945, 85–86 no. 4) gave a date of “ca. 450 B. C.”; Lewis in IG “a. 450–445.” There has been no further discussion. ****** I have deliberately eschewed in this short paper arguments/criteria other than the style of the writing. I hasten to reiterate at this point that, although dating by letter style is useful, it is necessarily both inexact and inherently subjective. What is fine, neatly inscribed lettering to one person may not, after all, seem so to another. Nevertheless, I think it likely based on the writing that the specific texts discussed above all, despite the appearance in them of three-bar sigma, date to the last thirty years of the fifth century.40 But, in the final analysis, I am in complete agreement with Angelos Matthaiou’s dictum that “historical context, prosopography, phraseology, language and grammar should have priority as criteria for the dating of epigraphic documents.”41 Still and all, in the absence of definitive evidence to pin down dates, there is bound to be disagreement. This is as it should be. Scholars will continue to weave, unravel, and reweave the arguments about the chronology of the extant inscriptions in attempts to construct accounts of the history of Athens during the second half of the fifth century. Stephen V. Tracy, School of Historical Studies, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540 [email protected]

40

Let it be clearly understood that I neither imply nor intend to imply anything about the dates of other inscriptions with three-bar sigmas.

41

Matthaiou, Six Greek Historical Inscriptions 67.

Index of Passages Cited Authors Antiphon V.69–71: 46 and n. 11, 207–208, 214 Diodoros 12.3: 218 n. 5 Lysias 13.71: 183 Philochoros (FgrH 324 fr. 134): 56 Pollux X.97: 55 and n. 2 Thucydides 5.19.2: 147 5.24.2: 147 5.46–48: 147 [Xenophon] Constitution of the Athenians: 147

Inscriptions Mentioned (For inscriptions discussed/assigned, see pages 7–13.) IG I2 928 (= I3 1144): 201 n. 11 IG I3 32: 2 n. 7 34: 2 n. 7, 210 n. 11 38: 222 n. 25 54 1–15: 3 n. 16 60: 3 n. 16 67: 3 n. 16 86: 197 97: 214 n. 37 100: 197

113: 221 n. 21 130: 3 n. 16 134: 197 163: 187 n. 2 184–222: 197 197: 124 230–235: 197 237 bis: 151 n. 2 242: 23 n. 13 247: 220 n. 19 284: 221 n. 21 309: 105 310–311: 38 312: 38 n. 15 351: 105 354: 105 361: 187 n. 3 369: 32 395: 220 n. 19 434: 203 n. 15 436–451: 43 n. 5 462–466: 197 503 I: 23 n. 13 646: 23 n. 13 702: 19 n. 6 705: 195 n. 1 718: 195 n. 1 1047: 71 1144: see I2 928 1453: 6 n. 19 IG II3 1162: 157 n. 13 1190: 157 n. 13

General Index Accame, S. 212 Accounts of sacred monies – inscribing of, mainstay for cutters of V B.C. Athens 43, 105, 129, 157, 187, 193, 196 – of the Hekatompedon 105, 116 n. 5, 125, 129, 157 – of Hekatompedon, Pronaos and Parthenon 105, 116 n. 5 – of the Opisthodomos 129, 157 – of the Parthenon 116 n. 5, 129, 157, 187 – of the Pronaos 38, 116, 157, 187 – purpose of 43 n. 6. See also Parthenon building accounts Acropolis, Athenian 41, 129, 183, 209 Agora, Athenian 55 Allen, V. F. See French, V. Alphabet – change from Attic to Ionic 5, 36, 39–40, 129, 158 – mixing of Attic and Ionic 20 n. 8, 116, 158 Amphiktyons, alliance with 24 Amyx, D. A. 55 Antidotos, Athenian archon (451/0) 220 Antigenes, Athenian archon (407/6) 220 Antiphon, Athenian archon (418/7) 1, 37, 123 n. 2, 219, 220 Archon dates, lack of in preambles until 420’s 1 Ariston, Athenian archon (454/3) 219 Aspirate See Rough breathing mark Asteas of Alea 147 Athena – cult officials of 96 – treasurers of 38, 105, 193, 207 and n. 2 Athena and the other gods, treasures of 128 Athena Nike, priestess of 36–37, 95, 115 Athenian alliances – with Amphiktyons 24 – with the Argives, Mantineans and Eleians 147 – with the Boeotians 147 – with the Bottiaioi 129 – with the Halykiaioi 129 – with the Locrians 157 – with the Milesians 38 – with the Siphnians 157 Athenian Empire 1, 43, 207 Attic script 5, 32, 36, 39–40, 116, 129, 158, 183, 187

Attic Stelai – criteria for assignment to the separate stelai 55, 71 – date of 56, 71 – dimensions of first two stelai 71 – discovery of fragments of 55 – fragments misplaced or uncertainly placed 61, 62, 67, 71, 72–73 – frequent changes of inscriber on 70–71, 196 – height of letters on 57 – inscribers of 57–71, 125, 129, 152, 157 – lettering of, discussed by Pritchett and Lewis 57 – marble for 71 – multiple inscribers at work on 56–57, 70–71, 196 – numbers of stelai 71, 73 – numerals on 57 – original location of 55 – original publication of 55–56 – produced (probably) in one shop 71 – treatment of backs of 62, 71 Austin, R. P. 27 n. 19 Bardani, V. 55–56 Bendis, cult of 183 Beschi, L. 154 and n. 6 Blank spaces left in inscriptions 34, 127, 147, 155 n. 8, 157 Boeotia 128 Bottiaioi 129 Boule 116 Boustrophedon 19 Bradeen, D. 34 Brea, colony in Thrace 31 Broneer, O. 126, 127 Butz, P. A. 23 n. 12, 27 n. 19 Byzantioi 52, 211 Camp, J. McK. III 55, 72 and n. 17 Cavanaugh, M. B. 2 n. 7, 115 n. 2, 127, 226 Chalkis 30 Chambers, M. H. 123 n. 2, 219 Charias, Athenian archon (415/4) 56 Clairmont, Ch. W. 126, 155, 156, 157 Clinton, K. M. 22 n. 9, 110, 115, 123, 125, 127, 193, 226 Colophon 116

236

General Index

Corcyra 105 Corinth 128 Corrections 27–28, 155–156, 195 and n. 1. See also Erasures Cutters – copy the text supplied to them 116, 158 – cut freehand 27–28, 39, 195, 224 – cut their own style of lettering over decades 5, 39 – do not radically alter their writing 5 – first full time 39, 43, 196 – lettering of the equivalent of handwriting 2–3, 5, 17, 28, 39 – limited number of in the years 450–430 43–44, 70–71, 196 – literate 28 – long careers of 2, 5, 39 – major ones 117, 196 – many inscribe very similar lettering 2 – more after the year 430, 71, 196 – most early ones not specialists 38, 195–196, 202 – of long texts, highly skilled specialists 17, 39 – part time 38, 195 – probable experimentation with letter shapes 5–6, 17, 195 – professional 39–40, 43 – range of variation in letter shapes important to note 2, 32–34 and n. 8 – tribute quota lists instrumental in providing significant work for 39, 43–44, 196 – used minimal layout 27–28, 39, 195 Cutters, individual mentioned: – I3 35 Cutter 39, 43, 44, 197 – I3 50 Cutter 3, 39, 196 – I3 263 Cutter 39, 44 – I3 270 Cutter 39, 43, 44, 50–51 – I3 316 Cutter 39, 105, 196 – I3 364 Cutter 39 – II2 17 Cutter 5, 38, 39, 60, 61, 66, 73, 105, 129, 187 n. 3, 196 – II2 1386 Cutter 3, 5, 39, 67, 105, 196, 219 n. 14 – II2 1706 Cutter 157 Daseia. See Rough breathing mark Dating – by letter style/letter forms 1, 217–231 passim – by three-bar sigma 1, 86–87, 217–231 passim – new and better criteria needed 6, 231 Decrees and laws prior to 450 B.C. – few 17 and n. 1 – notable individuality of lettering 6, 17 – share some similarities of letter shape 26 Dedications – from Eleusis 129 – from the Acropolis 129 – of prytaneis 157 – very early 26, 196

Demeter and Kore 116 Dexileos, funerary monument of 128 Dinsmoor, W. B. jr. 22 n. 10 Doctors, honors for 187 and n. 5 Dow, Sterling 199, 217 n. 2 Edmonson, C. M. 155 Elaiousioi 211 Eleusinion, city 23, 55, 70 n. 14, 110, 129 Eleusis, cutters working at 22, 110, 115, 129 Engravers See Cutters Epigraphical Museum in Athens 41, 193 n. 1 Epsilon, with short central horizontal 38, 128, 156 n. 10, 185, 192, 221 and n. 21 Erasures 34, 156–157, 187 n. 6. See also Corrections Erythraioi 211 Euthykles, Athenian archon (398/7) 129 Euthynos, Athenian archon (426/5) 32, 218 n. 5 Evagoras, King 129 French, V. 48 n. 14, 214 and n. 40 Gagarin, M. 208 n. 7 Gallucci, R. 123 n. 2, 219 Gill, D. 95 Gomme, A. W. 41 n. 4, 213 n. 35 Grave monuments – for the dead of the Corinthian War 129 – for private citizens 116, 156–157 – many before the year 450 196 Habron, Athenian archon (458/7) 219 Halykiaioi 129 Hands, identifying – access a problem XV, 2, 195 – adequate sample of lettering necessary for study 2 and n. 9, 196, 201 – assignments by K. M. Clinton 110 – by D. M. Lewis 3 and n. 16, 4–5, 19 n. 6, 22 n. 9, 23 n. 13, 151 n. 2, 183 n. 1, 187 n. 2, 228 – by H. Mattingly 124 n. 4 – by B. D. Meritt and M. F. McGregor 24 n. 16 – by B. D. Meritt and H. T. Wade-Gery 3 – by H. T. Wade-Gery 3, 121 n. 1, 199 – casual attributions 3–4, 196, 199 and n. 2, 200 – fragmentary nature of evidence a problem for 197 – methodology for 2–3 and n. 9, 201 – restriction on definition of identified 29 – sameness of lettering the principal criterion for 2–3, 5, 6, 195, 201 – use of computers in 2 n. 8 – varying letter shapes a problem 17, 195 – Wade-Gery’s methodology, problems with 3, 199–200 Handwriting method 2, 5, 195

General Index Haplography 27, 157 Harris, D. 126, 155 Hartwig, A. 152 n. 5 Hellenotamiai – board of, wrongfully executed 46–48 and n. 11, 207–208, 214 – possible activity of 49–51, 53 – smooth operation of annual boards interrupted 49–50, 214–215 Hephaestia 147 Hermokopidai 56, 129, 152 Herz, N. 55 n. 5, 71 Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1, 219 Hondius, J. J. E. 228 Hyperbolos, rider proposed by 37 Immerwahr, H. 1 n. 6, 26 n. 17 Inscribers See Cutters Inscribing – development of 195–196 – limited demand for 38, 196 Inscribing mistakes 27–28 and nn. 19–20, 80 n. 2, 116, 156–157. See also Corrections and Erasures Interpuncts – double box 109–110 – dots 17, 20, 23 n. 13, 187 – scooped out wide cut 187 and n. 6 Inventories See Accounts of sacred monies Ionic alphabet – confusions in 116 – use of before the year 403/2 39 and n. 19, 124, 129, 158 Iota, crowding of 34, 36, 128 Jacoby, F. 56 Jameson, M. 24–25 n. 16, 115, 226 Jeffery, L. H. 1, 26, 104, 217 Kahrstedt, U. 123 Kallet, L. 124, 125 Kirchner, J. 126, 155, 224 n. 29 Klaffenbach, G. 219 Koans 211 Kolakretai 36 Kougeas, S. B. 123 Kourouniotis, K. 123 Krentz, P. E. 152 Kroll, J. 6 n. 19 Kythnos 110 Lambert, S. D. 155 n. 9 Langdon, M. K. 55 n. 6 Lapis Primus – dimensions 41 and n. 2, 209 – disruption in inscribing of 41, 45–51, 86, 213–214

237

– final list, inscribing of 96 – first provided significant inscribing work 43, 196 – inscribers of, limited number 43–44, 196 – placement of lists on 41 – placement of numbers in lists on 45, 79, 80 – problems/puzzles of 41, 48–51, 210–212 – question of missing list 41 and n. 4, 48, 212– 214 – reconstruction of 41 and n. 1, 53, 197 – reverse face of at top 48, 86 – seven lists by a single inscriber 86–87 – spaces between lists on 80, 86 – three-bar and four-bar sigma, occurrence on 1 and n. 2, 79, 86–87 – visual embodiment of Athena’s power 41, 43 n. 6 Lapis Secundus – dimensions 41 – inscribed by one cutter 44–45, 96 – placement of lists on 41 – texts obliterated during reuse 41–43, 96 n. 6 Larfeld, W. 217 Large lettering 26–27 Lawton, C. L. 125, 151 Layout – complete posited 26–27, 34 – limited extent of 28, 39, 195 – no evidence for complete 39, 195 Letter cutters See Cutters Letterers See Cutters Lettering – individuality of 6, 17, 29, 39, 195 – large, inscribed deeply 26 – many examples of, unique 17–26, 29–39, 195–196 Lewis, D. M. 1, 3 and n. 16, 4–5, 17, 22 and n. 9, 23 n. 13, 25, 27 n. 19, 43 n. 5, 48 n. 14, 55 and n. 7, 57, 61, 71, 72 and n. 16, 86, 95, 110, 115, 116 and nn. 4 & 6, 123 and n. 2, 124, 125 and n. 6, 151 and n. 2, 152, 153, 187 and n. 6, 210 n. 11, 213 and n. 32, 218, 224 n. 29, 228, 230 n. 38 Logistai 46 n. 11, 207 and n. 2 Lougovaya-Ast, J. 115 Lysistrata of Aristophanes 116 McGregor, M. F. 1, 24 and n. 16, 34, 36, 43 n. 7, 53, 85, 125, 210, 218, 224 n. 28, 228 and n. 35 Makres, A. 147 Marathon 19 Marble, use of white vs. gray 129 n. 9, 157 n. 12, 193 Matthaiou, A. P. 1 n. 1, 2, 24 n. 16, 39 n. 19, 56, 73, 123 and n. 2, 151, 153, 155 nn. 7 & 8, 156 n. 10, 219, 231

238

General Index

Mattingly, H. B. 1, 30, 31 n. 5, 32, 95–96, 123, 124 n. 4, 125 n. 6, 147, 197, 210 n. 11, 218 n. 4, 219 and n. 16, 220, 221, 225 and n. 30, 228, 230 Meadows, A. 6 n. 19 Meiggs, R. 1, 55 n. 7, 208 n. 6, 213 n. 35, 218 Meritt, B. D. 1, 3, 23 and n. 14, 24 and n. 16, 34, 36, 41 n. 1, 43 n. 7, 48 n. 14, 51 n. 20, 53, 55, 85, 125, 210, 212, 214 and n. 38, 218, 224 n. 28, 228 and n. 35, 231 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 154 Meyer, E. A. 38 n. 17, 43 n. 6 Miles, M. M. 55 n. 4 Milesians 32, 38 Mitropoulou, E. 154 and n. 6 Morgan, J. 226 Munychia 183 Myrinaioi 211 Myrrhine, first priestess of Athena Nike, epitaph of 115–116 Mysteries at Eleusis 19, 152 Numismatics 6 n. 19 Oiniades, the Old Skiathian 129 Ostwald, M. 115 n. 3 Paarmann, B. 53 n. 27 Palagia, O. 96 n. 4 Panathenaia, list of prizes for 157 Papazarkadas, N. 2, 30 n. 3, 218, 220 Paragraph marks 127 Parthenon building accounts 43 and n. 5 Peace of Nikias 147 Peçirka, J. 183 Peek, W. 68 Peloponnesian War 105, 147 Perdiccas 129 Philokrates, Athenian archon (485/4) 22 and n. 11 Photographs, of limited use for the study of hands XV Phrynichos 183 Phyle, heroes of 158 Pippin, A. 55 Polypeithes of Siphnos, decree honoring 155–156, 158 Poseidon Hippias, inventory of 187 Professional letter cutter See Cutters Propylaea, building accounts of 197 Psoma, S. 31 n. 5 Pritchett, W. K. 55–71 passim Prytaneion 116 Punctuation See Interpuncts Quota lists See Tribute quota lists

Rangabé, A. R. 87 Raubitschek, A. 26 and n. 18, 28 n. 20, 217, 219 Reiter, H. A. 221, 225 n. 30 Rho – tailed and without a tail 1, 19, 20, 22, 23–24, 30, 31, 197, 218 n. 4 – tailed, phasing out of 195, 197 Rhodes, P. J. 218, 226, 228, 230 Rough breathing mark, omission of/avoidance of 4, 34, 36, 39–40, 123 n. 3, 129 and n. 8, 183 and n. 2, 187 nn. 1 & 4 Round letters, mechanical engraving of 26 and n. 18, 217 Salamis, Athenian cleruchs on 18 Samons, L. 2 n. 7, 208 n. 7, 210 n. 11 Satyros of Leukonoion 210 Scafuro, A. C. 183 Schweigert, E. 125 n. 6, 126, 155, 193 Sealey, R. 212, 214 Sicilian expedition 158 Sigma – four-bar in heading of list of the year 453/2 87 n. 5 – phasing out of three-bar 195, 197 – three-bar as a criterion for dating 1, 29, 87, 95–96, 211 n. 19, 217–231 passim – three-bar/four-bar 1–2, 5, 86–87, 95, 197 Sokolowski, F. 124 Sophocles of Kolonos 210 Spanos, P. 123 n. 2, 219 Sparta 147 Squeezes – libraries of, needed XVI – loans of XV – use of indispensable to epigraphists XV–XVI Stoichedon arrangement 4, 17 and n. 4, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 34, 36 n. 13, 38 and n. 16, 39, 80, 86, 95, 103, 116, 126, 128, 129, 147, 151, 155, 156, 187, 193 Stroud, R. S. 1 n. 1, 2, 32, 96 n. 4, 125 Styra 110 Syllabification 38 n. 16, 103, 105, 126, 151 Tenedos 52, 211 Thasians 211 Theseia 147 The Thirty See Logistai Thompson, W. 105 n. 1 Thrasyboulos 158 Thrasyboulos of Kalydon 183 Thrasykles 147 Threatte, L. L. jr. 5 n. 18, 34, 36 n. 13, 38 n. 16, 187 n. 6 Thucydides 147 Thucydides, son of Melesias 213 n. 35

General Index Tools for inscribing – chisels, hand forged, not mass produced 3, 200 – multiple sets used 3, 200 – need for frequent sharpening 3, 200 – special for making round letters 17, 19, 23–24, 217 Torone 211 Tracy, S. V. 28, 48 n. 14 Tréheux, J. 126 Tribute quota – collection of 45–50, 52–53, 208, 214–215 – late payments of 43, 48, 50, 52–53, 79, 207, 210, 213 – of 449/8 irretrievably lost 46 and n. 11, 50, 208 – partial payments 48, 53, 207, 210, 213 Tribute quota lists – additions to, rare 43, 209 – column lengths nearly equal 44 and n. 9, 79, 209 – critical for the development of full-time letter cutters 39, 43, 196 – first substantial annual accounts created by the Athenians 43 – format of not at first fixed 44–45, 209–210 – geographical arrangement of 50, 210 – important source of work for inscribers 43

239

– inscribing of 43–45, 86–87 – irregular 48–50, 52–53, 86–87 – many planned 43, 209 – missing 41 and n. 4, 48, 212–214 – modern published editions, problems of 53 – modest size of lettering of 43, 96 and n. 5, 209 – multiple lists by one inscriber 43–45, 86–87, 96 – number of contributors in 50–51, 210, 213 – purpose of 43 n. 6 – record of each year by a single inscriber 43, 86–87, 96 – repetitions in 52–53, 211 – two inscribers dominate the early lists 45 Vacats See Blank spaces Vanderpool, E. 20 n. 8 Wade-Gery, H. T. 1, 3, 41 n. 4, 53, 121 n. 1, 199, 210 and n. 11, 211 n. 19, 212, 218 Walbank, M. B. 199 n. 2, 222 n. 25 West, A. B. 41 n. 1, 43 n. 7, 48 n. 14, 53, 193, 212 Wilhelm, A. 152 n. 5 Wilson, P. 152 n. 5, 183 Woodhead, A. G. 29, 124, 220 Woodward, A. M. 126, 187, 193 Writing See Lettering