The Lettering of an Athenian Mason

HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XV

THE

LETTERING

OF

ATHENIAN

AN

MASON

BY

STEPHEN V. TRACY WITH AN INTRODUCTION

THE STUDY OF LETTERING BY STERLING DOW

AMERICAN

SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

PRINCETON,

NEW JERSEY 1975

PUBLISHED

WITH THE AID OF A GRANT OF THE CLASSICS, HARVARD

ALL RIGHTS

FROM THE DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY

RESERVED

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Tracy, Stephen V 1941The lettering of an Athenian mason. (Hesperia. Supplement 15) Revision of the author's thesis, Harvard University, 1967. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Inscriptions, Greek-Athens. 2. Stone-cuttersAthens. I. Title. II. Series: Hesperia; journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Supplement 15. 74-8130 481'.7 CN384.T7 1974 ISBN 0-87661-515-9 PRINTED

IN

GREAT

BRITAIN

LONDON,

BY

BECCLES

WILLIAM AND

CLOWES COLCHESTER

& SONS,

LIMITED

To my father Edward Tracy and to the memory of my mother Patti Atwood Tracy MVLTAS PER GENTES ET MVLTA PER AEQVORA VECTVS

PREFACE This book is the result of an effort to collect and study all of the inscriptions of a single ancient letter-cutter. In original form it was presented as a doctoral dissertation at Harvard University in the fall of 1967. Although I have revised the study thoroughly, it remains identifiably the same work. In it, I have two goals: first to find a viable method for identifying the work of individual cutters and second to establish one

cutter's mode of inscribing through detailed study of his extant work. Naturally, full realization of these goals, if possible at all, can only come about gradually from much comparative study. This is the first such effort, and it may well have the defects natural in a first attempt. I have tried, however, to avoid or minimize them. In all studies involving attributions, a subjective element is involved; my hope is

that subjectivity can be reduced to a minimum by full presentation of the evidence. Thus, after the collection was made, it seemed wise to explore every clerical detail so as to do the utmost to perceive the cutter's procedures. Future studies should not need, I hope, to concern themselves to the same extent with these clerical details, which are

minor when considered by themselves. Another danger in a first effort to collect the inscriptions by one cutter is that, even if successful, the success may be due to chance. Of course, the cutter selected had to be one whose work seemed reasonably easy to

recognize. Many inscriptions have letters by no means so easy to identify so that the danger was real that this one cutter might be the onlyone whose work was so highly distinctive. I have therefore delayed publication until the attempt could be made to study further cutters with the method developed in the present study. I have now collected the extant work of five further cutters, the earliest of whom lived in the first half of the third century B.C., and it appears likely that a large number of ancient cutters can eventually be identified. Professor Sterling Dow not only suggested the topic, he prepared much of the groundwork for it. In addition, at every point in the course of my work he has unfailingly given advice and encouragement. Thanks are not adequate. From his earliest work on the lettering of Greek inscriptions, Dow realized that it was possible to recog-

nize individual hands and in some cases to assign two or more inscriptions to a cutter with some confidence. In characteristic fashion, he perceived the potential importance of pursuing the implications and eventually inspired me to attempt what most other experienced epigraphists considered impossible, the study of a single ancient lettercutter. Only in retrospect do I perceive how he directed the early stages of my work so that, by the time I encountered the doubts of respected scholars, I had done enough to retain a confidence in the essential viability of the project. All gifted teachers have the ability to ask the right questions and to inspire their students. I am hopeful not that this rather limited study itself but that some of its implications and ramifications may be a worthy testament to Mr. Dow's surpassing gift as a teacher and scholar. This study is divided into three principal sections. The first recounts the initial

PREFACE

v

steps taken to collect the inscriptions of a single cutter, gives a summary of the procedural method developed in the course of the work, and analyses the lettering of the cutter selected for study. The second presents a new text and line-by-line commentary

of each inscription. The commentary is restricted to discussion of readings and of clerical details, such as spelling and spacing. In the third section, I have attempted to draw together the details of the second section into as full an account as possible of the cutter and his procedures. In a separate introductory chapter, S. Dow outlines the

development in epigraphical studies which led to this first attempt systematically to collect and study the inscriptions of a single cutter. Section one forms a unit which may be read by itself, though its validity ultimately rests on the coherence of the study as a whole. To a lesser degree, the third section may also be read independently. It is written with numerous cross references to the second section so that someone may read it and understand it without first having to read all

of section two. I have adopted this mode of presentation because, although the evidence collected in the second section is needed, much of it is raw data, interesting only in aggregate or to those dealing especially with the inscriptions studied. Nevertheless, the importance I attach to section two is reflected by its central position; the texts and the commentaries are quite literally the substance of the study, from which all else

emanates. During the course of my work on various specific problems, I have benefited from

the generosity of many persons. I have acknowledged this help in the footnotes. In addition, after my work in its essentials was completed, I received no little encouragement from the discovery (thanks to the kindness of Mrs. A. E. Gordon) that E. M. Catich, an expert calligraphist, letter-cutter, and student of Roman lettering, had arrived independently, and with no possible ulterior motive regarding the study of Greek inscriptions, at several points which are fundamental to my argument. I have

added referencesto his study, The Originof theSerif; BrushWritingandRomanLetters,at the appropriate places. Grants from the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the American Council of Learned Societies have made it possible to undertake this study and to revise it for publication. In addition to the members of the Greek Archaeological Service and of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens to whom I am indebted in general, I wish to thank in particular Eugene Vanderpool, Gerald Quinn, D. Peppas-Delmouzou, Markellos Mitsos, Georges Daux, Benjamin D. Meritt, Mark Morford, Colin Edmondson, Daniel Geagan, Michael Maal3, Spyridon Spyropoulos, and, most of all, my wife Karin, for their active interest and very significant help in making this study a reality. COLUMBUS, OHIO DECEMBER, 1971

STEPHEN

V.

TRACY

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ...........................................................

iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS................................................

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................

xi

INTRODUCTION: THE STUDY OF LETTERING, BY STERLING Dow

Styles Local Archaic Alphabets and Styles ............................ The Recognition of Period Styles ............................... Collections of Drawings and Photographs ................... The Study of Hellenistic Athenian Lettering ..................... Successive Styles Typified.................................

xiii xiii xv

xvi xvii

Masons

The Study of Individual Masons: Some General Factors ........... Previous Identifications of the Work of Individual Masons ......... The Beginning of the Study of Individual Masons ................ The Systematic Study of One Mason ...........................

xviii xix xxi xxii

I. METHODOLOGY

Establishment of the First Dossier of Inscriptions by One Cutter ........ General Statement of Procedure ................................... The Cutter of II2 1028 ...........................................

1

3 5

BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER II. THE INSCRIPTIONS

12 13 14

Forew ord ......................................................

Alphabetical-Numerical List of the Inscriptions ...................... Chronological List of the Inscriptions . . . . . . . . .* *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

II2 1227 ..................... II2 1228 ..................... II2 1136 ..................... II2 989 ...................... II2 2336 ..................... II2 1028 ..................... Record of the Pythais of 98/7 ....

a b c d e

FD III 2, no. 6............ FD III 2, nos. 10 and 2..... and 17 .... FDIII2,nos.31 FD III 2, no. 26 ........... FD III 2, no. 32...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

* . . . . . .

* . . . . . . . ..

* . . . . . .

.

*

.

..

.

.

.

.

oo.....

.

?.....

..

...**

... * o .o .

* ....

. . .

.*.

15 18

.

.

.

. . . . . . . .

oooo

.

.

.

.

.

.

* . . . . .. * . . . . . . . .. .

* . . . . ..

* . . . . . . . ..

* . . . . ..

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

. .

..

.

* o.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

. ..

.

oooo

* . . . . ..

*

.

.

.

.. . . . .

..

.

..

..

.o..

.. . *.....

20 23 26 32 48 48 49 53 56 58

utnIu9ypV rIO sa)u.qaaluI su!~aiAI

001WfcISVVO O0...................................................

66 66

.................................................. ...................................................

66 .................................sQwedS paq!ai)suiufl aqi jo azis 8 6................................................. 86.uidxj suoildaa)x5 L6 ............................g Iuoidix3sul aqi jo iuamaSumav 96 .......................................... U2!sa(I IDaJaadaq& 96 ..............................................sa)3edS pa)qlisuiufl ........................... .a' 2uiaaia ?6 001 u! jo KJiWfnp!A!PUI

..................................................... s .SJiJilg ~ 6. !-a

uo !uapuadj(i adqI$S i jo sisdouAS

.....................................IzIS g6 06 .....................................SdetS

-Ialla"I ................................................a3detqs ............................................. u -a a -Ia.I 68 ............................................... 88 10 !aH -1a!la-I .................................... 88 10 !aH ~alq pue adetqSaa3iaQ........................................ dlnD tualS io/pue moaanA 98 ...... ..iaai.eD .... .. ...... .. .. .... .... .. .... ........ .. .......... g8 a~v -ua~uvD:-'a:LLinD aOszIIaVH 8i50Izll 'III -OxItIllIOSNI

06

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ' .8 ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .q III S'q ?lzautwa)I Og .................................................... 08 16617z,II 61 .................................................... 6/ 6f761 zl B 91 .................................................... L/L Ii El l LII., .................................................... ug0! II 9I tTL 18c2cWuI 9 f/L ....................................................[ IAI~A Wu , EL ....................................................8iic ..................................................... 6]79 WUI El gL Im?J ................................................ 6 16g ~-V i[I IL ............................................... e' 2V II q lI S 1m? IL OL ............................................... .eIL I e SV 0 ................................................ 69 gf76ZI mo0~V6 . ............................................... 69 egLLI1 m?2V B O' ou 'z III a/d ( 89 .....................................0 ..................................... L9 Ei 'ou 'gIII a/ (E-i L 9............................/0 aql o!suo!!!ppv! -opoat ' t ou'z iii aqdt 09 ..........................................~ 'ou'gIIIad ~t 65 ..........................................9I ' f ou 'zIIIad i 65 ..........................................5i IIA

SIMAIIO9

10 AO

?[uVI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii

Crowns ........................................................ Catalogue of Crowns Mentioned and/or Depicted in B's Work ......101 Did the Same Cutter Engrave the Lettering and the Crowns? ......107 W hen were the Crowns Engraved? ............................. Were the Crowns Engraved in any particular Order? .............107 How were Crowns Inscribed? ................................. Size of the Crowns ........................................... . .. ............... Types ........................... of the Olive Crown .............................. Development What is the Intent of the Inscribed Crown? ...................... Error and Correction ............................................ T able of E rrors . ............................................ The Process of Inscribing ......................................... Was the Text Written out on the Stone before Inscribing? .........115 T he T ext . ................................................. To what Degree did B Adhere to the Details of the Text? ..........117 T h e S tele .................................................. Preparation for Inscribing- Guidelines ......................... Preparation for Inscribing- Layout ............................ Engraving the Letters ........................................ Painting the Letters .......................................... Erection of the Stele and Payment ............................. Conclusion ..................................................... B as an Individual ........................................... B as Representative of the Letter-cutters of his Day ...............122 APPENDIX I: Editing Erasures

.........................................

APPENDIXII: A Modern Master Letter-cutter............................

101

107 107 108 108 108 109 109 112 115 116 117 118 118 119 119 120 12 1 121 123

125

INDEXES

Inscriptions Cited ............................................... Inscriptions Studied or Emended .................................. G eneral Index ..................................................

127 128 130

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE

1 a No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 102-107 b No. 6 c Letters from No. 6 2 a No. 5 (II2 2336), lines 51-61 b No. 5, lines 83-88 3 a Agora Excavations I 3804a b I.G., II2 959

4 a No. 1 (II2 1227) b No. 1, lines 4-15 5 a No. 2 (II2 1228) b No. 2, lines 4-7 6 a EM 13164 b No. 3 (II2 1136) 7 a No. 3, lines 10-15 b No. 3, lines 24-28 8 No. 4 (II2 989), fragments A, B, D, E, F 9 a No. 4, fragments C and G b No. 4, lines 18-21 10 a No. 5 (II2 2336), lines 46-93 b No. 5, lines 120-128 11 a No. 5, lines 148-149 b No. 5, lines 155-164 c No. 5, lines 178-184 12 No. 5 (II2 2336), lines 237-270 13 a b c d

No. No. No. No.

5, lines 268-271 6 (II2 1028), lines 16-19 6, lines 23-26 6, lines 52-55

17 a No. 6, lines b No. 6, lines c No. 6, lines d No. 6, lines

106-109 (center) 113-118 121-128 (right side) 123-129 (left side)

18 a No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 152-157 (left side) b No. 6, lines 154-157 (right side) c No. 6, lines 182-185 d No. 6, lines 189-192 e No. 6, lines 194-196 19 a No. 6, lines 212-217 (right side) b No. 6, lines 213-215 (center) c No. 6, lines 241-244 (right side) 20 a No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 242-245 (center) b No. 6, crowns 6-13 21 a No. 6, lines 246-249 (crown 6) b No. 6, lines 295-298 c No. 6, lines 315-317 22 a No. 7a (FD III 2, no. 6), lines 17-21 b No. 7b (FD III 2, nos. 10 and 2), lines 13-26 c No. 7b, line 42 23 a No. 7b, lines 47-57 b No. 7b, lines 58-65 24 a No. 7c (FD III 2, nos. 31 and 17), lines 1-26 b No. 7c, line 11 c Delphi Museum inv. no. 4744 25 a No. 7c, lines 43-58 b Delphi Museum inv. no. 4685=No. 7c, lines 59-65

15 a No. 6, lines 72-76 (crown 3) b No. 6, lines 79-84 (crown 4)

26 a No. 7d (FD III 2, no. 26), lines 1-14, 25-35 b No. 7d, lines 63-65 c No. 7c (FD III 2, nos. 31 and 17), lines 37-42, above, and No. 7f(FD III 2, no. 45), below 27 a No. 7g (FD III2, no. 16) b No. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 2-3 c No. 7h, lines 4-6

16 a No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 91-99 (left side) b No. 6, lines 91-100 (center) c No. 6, lines 104-110 (left side)

28 a No. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 6-10 b No. 7h, lines 10-12 c No. 7h, lines 15-18

14 a No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 58-65 (crown 1) b No. 6, lines 66-69 (crown 2)

x

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE

29 a No. 7h, lines 19-23 b No. 7h, lines 24-26 c No. 7h, lines 51-53 30 a No. 7i (FD III 2, no. 13), lines 3-20 b No. 7i (FD III 2, no. 30), lines 9-14 31 a No. 8 (Agora Excavations I 1773a) b No. 9 (Agora Excavations I 2945) c No. 10 (Agora Excavations I 3871a) d No. 11 (Agora Excavations I 3871b +I 4026) 32 a No. 12 (Agora Excavations I 5919) b No. 12, lines 2-3 c No. 13 (EM 649) 33 a No. 14 (EM 5228) b No. 15 (EM 5581) 34 a No. 16 (EM 2745= II2 1023a) b No. 16 (Agora Excavations I 5225) c No. 16 (EM 8743= II2 1023b)

35 a No. 18 (II2 1942) b No. 19 (II2 4991) 36 a b c d

No. No. No. No.

17 (II2 1341) 20 (Kerameikos, III, A5) 20, lines 19-21 20, lines 28-30

37 The Alphabet Inscribed by Hand B 38 a b c d e

No. No. No. No. No.

6 (II2 1028), line 131 6, line 131 6, line 131 6, lines 85-90 (crown 5) 7f (FD III 2, no. 45), in reverse, from squeeze

39 a No. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 37-58 b LG., II2 1357b

c I.G., II2 1357b 40 a The Tools of a Modern Letter-cutter b Cutting a Straight Stroke c Cutting a Curving Stroke

Much effort and expense have been taken to illustrate this study adequately. Note onthePhotographs. The photographs are not intended to be decorative; rather, they comprise an integral part of the study and should be consulted often. With the exception of those listed below, the photographs were taken by the author with a standard Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. A 0.05 m. scale has been included wherever possible because it provides a valuable relative gauge of the size of the piece in question. Credits.Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Plates 8, 9, a; 31, 32, a. Epigraphical Museum, Athens. Plates 4, a; 6, a; 34, a, c. Michael MaaB. Plates 1, b; 2, a; 3, a; 9, b; 11, b, c; 13, a, c, d; 14, b; 15, a; 16, a, b; 18, c, d; 20, a; 21, a, b; 32, c; 33, b; 35, a; 36, a; 38, c.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

B, Hand B EM

The Letter-cutter of I.G., II2, 1028. Epigraphical Museum, Athens. II2 I.G., II2, see below. nomen The Greek name is composed of three elements, nomen,patronymic, and demotic, e.g. Bv'TraKoS Hv'ppov AafJrrpELvs. An intentional cut made by a mason. In addition, this term is used to indicate the stroke components of a letter. For example, I is composed of one stroke, F of two strokes,I of three strokes, E of four, etc. terminal stroke A letter stroke as defined above which comes to a complete termination, that is, does not connect to another main stroke of the letter. The horizontal of tau, for example, is terminal at both ends, but the vertical is terminal only at the bottom. Similarly, the vertical of gamma is terminal only at the bottom, the horizontal only at the right.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF ANCIENT

LETTER-CUTTING

Casson, S., "Early Greek Inscriptions on Metal," A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935, pp. 510-517. Duncan, U. K., "Notes on Lettering by Some Attic Masons in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.," B.S.A., LVI, 1961, pp. 179-188. "Engraving Techniques"=Higgins, C. G. and Pritchett, W. K., "Engraving Techniques in Attic Epigraphy," A.J.A., LXIX, 1965, pp. 367-371. Raubitschek, A. E., "The Mechanical Engraving of Circular Letters," A.J.A., LV, 1951, pp. 343-344.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL ON LETTER-CUTTING

Dow, S., "Demonstration of Letter-Cutting by Rebecca C. W. Robinson," 2 August 1963 and revised version 24 January 1967; mimeographed, 3 pages. , "Visit to Mastores' Marble Workshop," arranged by Rebecca C. W. Robinson, 6 March 1967; mimeographed, 3 pages.

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broneer, O., "The Isthmian Victory Crown," A.J.A., LXVI, 1962, pp. 259-263. Catich = Catich, E., The Originof theSerif; Brush WritingandRomanLetters,Davenport, Iowa, 1968. C.I.G.= A. Boeckh, CorpusInscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828-1877. Colin, Culte=G. Colin, Le Culted'ApollonPythiena Athenes,Paris, 1905. = Sammlungdergriechischen ed. H. Collitz, Gottingen, 1884-1915. Collitz, Sammlung dialektinschriften, Contributions= to thePalaeography Gordon, J. and A., Contributions of Latin Inscriptions, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1957. Daux, G., Delphesau IF et au pl Siecle,Paris, 1936.

xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dinsmoor, W. B., TheArchonsof Athensin theHellenisticAge, Cambridge, Mass., 1931. Dow, S., "Design in Preambles of Decrees," A.J.A., XL, 1936, pp. 62-66. ,"The Purported Decree of Themistokles: Stele and Inscription," A.J.A., LXVI, 1962, pp. 353-368. ,"The Egyptian Cults in Athens," Harv. Th. Rev., XXX, 1937, pp. 208-212. ,"The First Enneeteric Delian Pythais: IG II2 2336," Harv.St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 111-124. 'Trrypabat avE'K8oroL,I-III, Athens, 1851-1853. 'Eb. 'Apx. = 'ErtLeps ApXatoAoyLKrj, Athens. 1837-1860. = de Fouilles FD III 2 Colin, G., Delphes,III, Epigraphie,fascicule 2, Paris, 1909-1913. Ferguson, W. S., AthenianTribalCyclesin theHellenisticAge, Cambridge, Mass., 1932. , "The Attic Orgeones," Harv. Th. Rev., XXXVII, 1944, pp. 61-140. , "The Oligarchic Revolution at Athens of the Year 103/2 B.C.," Klio, IV, 1905, pp. 1-17. Henry, A. S., "Some Observations on Final Clauses in Hellenistic Attic Inscriptions," Cl. Quart.,LX, 1966, pp. 291-297. I.G., II = Inscriptiones Graecae,II, ed. U. Koehler, Berlin, 1877-1893. I.G., II2 = Inscriptiones Graecae,II-III, editio minor, ed. J. Kirchner, Berlin, 1913-1940. III, Inschriften,Ostraka,Fluchtafeln, Kerameikos,III=W. Peek, Kerameikos, Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungen, Berlin, 1941. Klaffenbach, G., Griechische Epigraphik,Gottingen, 1957. artificumbacchiorum , Symbolaead historiamcollegiorum (Diss. Berlin), 1914. Larfeld, W., Handbuchdergriechischen Epigraphik,I, Leipzig, 1907. derAttischenInschriften,ed. 3, Berlin, 1900. Meisterhans, K., Grammatik Attica (Martin Classical Lectures, IX), Cambridge, Mass., 1940. Meritt, B. D., Epigraphica Michel, C., Recueild'inscriptions grecques,Brussels, 1900. Greek Stonecutting," A.J.A., LXIX, 1965, pp. 49-55. Persian and "Old C., Nylander, PA =J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica,Berlin, 1901 and 1903. Pelekidis, C., Histoirede l'tphebieAttiquedes Originesa 31 avantJesus-Christ,Paris, 1962. Hesperia,Suppl. I, HonoringtheAthenianCouncillors, Prytaneis= Dow, S., Prytaneis:A Studyof theInscriptions Athens, 1937. of theSixth and Raubitschek, A. E., DedicationsfromtheAthenianAkropolis:A Catalogueof the Inscriptions 1949. Centuries Mass., B.C., Cambridge, Fifth Athens, 1842-1855. Rangabe, A. R., Antiquiteshelleniques, I Reinmuth, O. W., "Agora 286," Hesperia,XXIV, 1955, pp. 220-239. Robert, L., Comp.Rend.Acad.Insc., 1955, pp. 210-219. ed. Dittenberger, Leipzig, 1883. S.I.G.3 = SyllogeInscriptionum Graecarum, "A Series of S. EpigraphicalJoins," A.J.A., LXXV, 1971, pp. 189-190. Tracy, V., "Identifying Epigraphical Hands," Gr. Rom.Byz. St., XI, 1970, pp. 321-333. Wade-Gery, H. T., "A Distinctive Attic Hand," B.S.A., XXXIII, 1935, pp. 122-135. Wien, 1909. Inschriftenkunde, Wilhelm, A., Beitrdgezurgriechischen

INTRODUCTION THE STUDY OF LETTERING by STERLING DOW

STYLES

LocalArchaicAlphabetsandStyles.In the Archaic period, a large number of variant alphabets were used locally by Greeks. The present study is not concerned with these, but solely with the post-Archaic period, when one set of letter shapes had come to

prevail universally, with only minor variations. These post-Archaic letters grew out of the Archaic alphabets, however, and the study of the styles of lettering used for the one (later) alphabet is enough related to the study of the earlier alphabets so that the principal book should at least be mentioned. Altogether a superior work, L. H. Jeffery's book has facsimiles of all the epichoric alphabets, and a host of photographs.1 Despite the differences of alphabet, styles of Archaic lettering can be made out, and Jeffery did so. There appear to have been four main styles. Seeking to bring into

chronological regularity the three outstanding alleged exceptions, R. Carpenter characterized the four successive styles as follows:2 (1) The spidery long-legged symbols of unequal height which distinguish seventhcentury writing; (2) the more uniformly sized and spaced but still rather crowded sixth-century letter forms; (3) the consciously decorative large-lettered late sixth-century manner; and finally (4) the evenly spaced and symmetrically aligned fifth-century usage. In general, I suppose this is correct. The Salamis Epigram, however, may not fit.3 The Recognition of Period Styles. Similarly, in the ca. 800-year history of the one Greek alphabet, successive epigraphical styles have long been recognized, however vaguely.

The great central and unmistakable division is that between letters without serifs (" apices") and letters with serifs. In Athens, there are a few exceptions, but the period without serifs lasts until ca. 166 B.C.: in Athens earlier than that, the exceptions are of little significance; it was only when prosperity had begun to revive after Macedonian domination, after wars and the destruction of the countryside by Philip V, and after 1 L. H. Jeffery, TheLocalScriptsof ArchaicGreece,Oxford, 1961; on forms of letters as chronological evidence, pp. 63-65, 74, 75, etc. 2 Review ofJeffery, A.J.P., LXXXIV, 1963, p. 79. 3 A. L. Boegehold, Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies,VI, 1965, pp. 179-186.

xiv

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

the general Greek depression, that serifs were introduced. Serifs made lettering more ornate, and in general they prevailed throughout the Roman Empire until the end. Outside Athens, serifs had been in use much earlier than 166 B.C., and it is significant

that we have no published (modern) statement, indeed not much knowledge, to tell us in just what period(s) the change to serifs occurred outside Athens. Even for Athens, although we have some fairly exact knowledge, we have had as yet no full and exact published statement. These facts about present knowledge of the major division, non-serifs/serifs,will serve to illustrate the present state of the study of letter styles in Greek epigraphy.

But some work has been done. The first, and still today the most ambitious attempt, was that ofW. Larfeld, who made up elaborate tables intended to give typical forms of letters in all of 18 periods, from the ei cent B.. . to the fifth century after Christ.4 eighth century Most of the terminal dates of his periods are "round" an nd arbitrary; he could not do better. But the tables still have value as a starting point. To an extent which is not known precisely, styles were international under the Roman Empire. For the inscriptions of Gerasa, C. B. Welles made up a set of nine tables, not by period but by style, "The Square Alphabet," etc.5 The period involved is from the first century after Christ to the beginning of the seventh. In each table the

inscriptions are arranged chronologically, the letters are admirably drawn, the whole conception is intelligent. There were also more limited attempts to deal with style. As early as 1900, 0. Kern wrote a first-rate history of letter styles,6 with some identifications of the work of individual masons in one city, and he made interesting comparisons with styles elsewhere. In 1906, A. Wilhelm singled out the style characteristic of the end of the third century B.C. in Athens.7 This is the style which I have called the Disjointed Style, because of M, Lx, /\: we still do not know whether one mason or several cut the (fairly numerous) inscriptions in this style.8 Indeed Wilhelm was continually aware of letter shapes.9 Far the most extensive use of letter styles for dating inscriptions was that of J. Kirchner in the successive fascicules of I.G., II2. Of course dating by letter styles is used frequently in other volumes ofI.G. and I.G.2, and generally wherever other criteria are lacking. In Kirchner's earlier fascicules (1913, 1916), there are otherwise undated fragments of decrees which he dated by lettering; in the last fascicule (1940) there are W. Larfeld, Handbuchdergriechischen Epigraphik, II, 1902, pp. 389-506. C. H. Kraeling, ed., Gerasa,Cityof theDecapolis,New Haven, 1938, pp. 358-367, figs. 8-16. 6 0. Kern, Die Inschriftenvon Magnesia am Maeander, Berlin, 1900, pp. xxix-xxxvii. dramatischer 7 Urkunden (SonderschriftenOest. Arch. Inst. Wien, VI), pp. 63-64, where Auffiihrungen he collects seven examples, and p. 95. 8 A.J.A., XL, 1936, pp. 58-62 (list, p. 60). 9 Beitrdge(I) zur gr. Inschriftenkunde (Sonderschriften Oest. Arch. Wien, VII), 1907, p. 35 and passim;Jahresh.,V, 1902, pp. 135-136; Ath. Mitt., XXXIX, 1914, pp. 264-266; Sitz. Wien.Akad., 1925 (=Attische Urkunden III), pp. 50-51. 4

5

INTRODUCTION

xv

thousands of grave monuments also datable only by lettering. Kirchner used a sort of rule of thumb-that is, criteria, which, I am sure, were never formulated in writing. Working with him to a limited extent (the datings in I.G., II2 however are all his own), I got the impression that the criteria, though few and simple, were fairly definite in his mind; on the other hand, he simply could not take the time for elaborate comparisons in order to date any single inscription. Even if we had a written version of his criteria, it would not, I imagine, tell us much that is not known. Collectionsof Drawings and Photographs.Meantime volumes of facsimiles had begun to appear, and presently of photographs: H. Roehl, Imagines inscriptionumgraecarumantiquissimarum,ed. 3, 1907. O. Kern, Inscriptionesgraecae (Tabulae in usum scholarum 7), 1913. P. Graindor, Album d'inscriptionsattiquesd'epoqueimperiale, 1924. J. Kirchner, Imaginesinscriptionumatticarum(1935), now ed. 2, by G. Klaffenbach, 1948. Here may be mentioned also, especially since they should prove valuable in studies of individual masons, the works on sculptors' signatures. The old E. Loewy, Inschriften griechischerBildhauer (1885) had only drawings, but a great many, and valuable. Of a newer work, wholly photographic, sad to say we have only two fascicules, a fine beginning: J. Marcade, Recueil des signaturesde sculpteursgrecs, I (1953), II (1957). Increasingly the custom has spread of illustrating every inscription: almost from its beginning, Hesperiahas led the way, but it is a pity that scales are often not inserted. B.C.H. and Ath. Mitt. have especially excellent reproductions of the photographs. Thus a basis adequate for extensive studies has existed for some time. In general, however, not much has been accomplished and still less has been appreciated. Even in the 1950's, two "introductions " to epigraphy laid no stress on letter styles and recognized no great accomplishment: G. Klaffenbach, GriechischeEpigraphik, 1957, pp. 41-43, and A. G. Woodhead, The Study of GreekInscriptions, 1959, pp. 62-66, 91. B. D. Meritt did mention some work on letter styles and on some individual masons,10 but he found no new fact to add about the style of any inscription, he overemphasized the dangers, and he oversimplified the situation about atypical instances (p. 103). Often very brief inscriptions have too little style for anything to be said about them. Most troublesome of all, in many instances there are single-letter or double-letter masons' marks, sometimes fewer than a half dozen for one building or other structure, which if they could only be dated would fix the time when the structure was movedyet at present they cannot. But all inscriptions with more than a few letters do have style, and on the whole it is remarkable, not that efforts have been made to date styles 10 B. D. Meritt, Epigraphica Attica, pp. 94-105.

xvi

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

and (infra) to identify the work of individual masons, but rather that so many epigraphical studies have proceeded with indifference to letter styles, not to mention when such studies would be useful. Whatever its other individual masons-even faults, A. E. Raubitschek's Dedicationsfrom The AthenianAkropolisis fully aware of styles and hands; and whatever its epigraphical meticulousness, W. K. Pritchett's "Attic Stelai""1 needs matter on hands, as does, of course, the A. T.L.'2 But the ability to recognize styles is not universal, and perhaps epigraphy should not demand, in addition to all else, sensitivity to letter shapes (or, for that matter, knowledge of marble geology, understanding of masons' tools, and training in design involving letters). The Study of Hellenistic Athenian Lettering. A more systematic study of Athenian letter styles began in 1931 with the purpose of developing a new instrument for dating Hellenistic Athenian inscriptions. Outside Athens, materials are in any case more scanty; and the interest was in Athens. For the Classical period, down to 301/0 B.C., the list ofArchons was known and stable. For the Hellenistic period W. B. Dinsmoor, Sr. had just published Archonsof Athens (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), which surveyed the whole period down to Augustus, and W. S. Ferguson was busy on the studies which led to his Athenian Tribal Cyclesin the Hellenistic Age.'3 At that time many inscriptions could hardly be dated to a century. Ferguson assigned the subject of Hellenistic Athenian letter styles to S. Dow as a subject for a doctoral dissertation. It was to be a study of styles; the identification of the work of individual masons was another stage, but although it was remote, some thought was given to it. In preparation for the task, it occurred to me to learn something of how letters are inscribed. I acquired chisels, a hammer, and a block of marble; had a very few lessons; and found it was not difficult to make smallish letters which resembled some of the inferior Hellenistic styles, ante-166 B.C., although, due to lack of practice, my letters had an irregular and uncertain appearance. Except for the round shapes, they were made not with a point digging a furrow, but with the whole edge of the chisel, the chisel being held at an angle from the vertical. Three angles for holding the chisel, and the resulting cuts, are simply illustrated by S. Casson. 4 An angle near 45 degrees is I think about right. Practical studies were continued by groups in Athens later, with help from Rebecca C. W. Robinson; reports of this work were prepared and mimeographed in August 1963 (revised January 1967) and in March 1967. Exploration presently revealed that the study of letter styles was easy in one sense, difficult in another. The easy aspect was the general one: a succession of prevailing "

Hesperia,XXII, 1953, pp. 225-299; XXV, 1956, pp. 178-317. Meritt, Wade-Gery, McGregor, The AthenianTributeLists, Cambridge (Mass.) and Princeton, 1939-1953. 13 Cambridge (Mass.), 1932. 14 S. Casson, Technique of EarlyGreekSculpture,Oxford, 1933, p. 238. 12

xvii

INTRODUCTION

styles was made out, each lasting about one generation, from the middle of the fourth century down into the first century B.C. On the other hand, a varying number of inscriptions differ more or less from the ones that seemed to make up the principal series. With regard to them, the element of "subjectivity," i.e. the temptation to give judgments on inadequate evidence, can be overcome only by amassing adequate evidence. Even then, some have remained puzzling. This is the difficult aspect of such studies. The general history then ascertained was as follows. Athenian inscriptions reveal strict and sober canons of the craft down to the Lykourgan period of minute lettering (much of it for accounts), and on until the time (ca. 317 B.C.) when Demetrios of Phaleron ended the series of fine grave monuments, and with them, evidently, the traditional good work by stone masons in lettering. At any rate the bounteous publications on stone which began after he left Athens in 307 B.C. (as well as the few of 317307 B.C.) show a decline in style: strokes tend to be thick at one end, pointed at the other, a sort of approach to cuneiform, but shallow (unlike good cuneiform work) and ugly. There was some recovery in the variety of lettering in the early third century, when the stoichedonarrangement (never strictly universal) begins to be violated. Small fine letters, tending to replace all round shapes by straight lines and angles, dominate the middle of the century. In the 240's and 230's this style in turn degenerated, with here and there a letter carelessly split; never consistently, and thus unlike the style of 230-ca. 200 B.C. With lettering, the stoichedon arrangement deteriorated also, to disappear soon after 230 B.C. The lettering of the period 230-200 is in fact worse than that of any period preceding, and what followed was little better. For some time after 200 B.C. there seems to have been no norm whatever: each mason (luckily for us) went his own way. Serifs (ornamental terminations of strokes, wrongly known as "apices") appear first, as has been noted supra, in the 160's B.C., and the grandiose style-large letters with elaborate serifs, cut on monumental stelai-flourished thereafter. Even in the period between Sulla and Augustus, Athenian lettering is not merely respectable, it is often excellent; despite some poor work in the first century after Christ, in the main Athenian lettering was large, decorative, and careful, down to the end of Classical times, viz. to Diocletian. SuccessiveStyles Typified.If a list of examples would be useful, it may be noted that the series of styles down into the reign of Augustus can be illustrated by turning to J. Kirchner-G. Klaffenbach, Imagines inscriptionum atticarum, ed. 2, inscriptions numbered as follows 15 337/6 B.C. Small Lykourgan letters Common style of s. IV a. deteriorated 303/2 278/7 Improved, usually large 15 See

p. xv.

no. 62 70 80

XV111

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

250/49 B.C. Small, squared shapes 220's Disjointed alphas, etc. 188/7 Irregular, uncertain 153/2 Early serifs, heavy, irregular: alpha with broken bar 131/0 Regular letters with serifs Smaller letters with serifs 106/5 52/1 Regular, ample shapes 14/3 Typical Augustan

no. 89 93 99 104 107 110 114 119

This succession of Hellenistic Athenian letter styles was soon worked out well enough so that when Agora inscriptions began to appear in some numbers, many of them could be assigned to generations. MASONS

The Studyof IndividualMasons: SomeGeneralFactors. Any given period-style as such, where scores, or in many periods hundreds, of inscriptions have to be taken into account, is not neat and satisfactory to work on: as we have seen, there are bound to be exceptions and oddities. Instead of a whole period-style, potentially it would be more satisfying to work on one, or a few, individual masons. At the outset there is one discouraging observation. J. D. Beazley writes: "The small thick commonplace red letters in which most inscriptions on red-figured vases are written do not vary much."'16 If Beazley, the master of stylistic attribution, found no more to say than that, we can be sure that this particular field is not promising. Nevertheless, until a detailed and concentrated effort is made, we can hope that where the letters are numerous enough, something in the way of styles and individual hands may be discerned. Certainly handwriting with a liquid (ink) and a more-or-less flexible quill (or other pen point) on a smooth, almost resistance-less surface, such as that of papyrus, vellum, or paper, can be so free that multiple individual differences will show themselves. Chinese calligraphy, with the brush, apparently is even more free and individual. And so in mediaeval palaeography and no less in ancient papyrology, "hands " have often proved to be readily recognizable. Incising of signs in clay, when a stiff point is used but the clay is soft, also produces individual variations, and recognizable hands, as in the Linear B tablets. Incising of letters in marble is almost altogether a different matter. The tools are chisels of inflexible iron. The surface to be inscribed, usually marble, is by no means the hardest rock in existence-it can easily be scratched but it is firm enough so that the chisel must be driven into it by a hammer. Moreover the costs of quarrying the block and finishing its surfaces-one surface so smoothly that it can be inscribed-are 16J. D. Beazley, "Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens," Proc.Brit. Acad.,XXX, 1944, p. 41.

INTRODUCTION

xix

so great that practically all masons who do lettering professionallyare made to undergo years of training, scil. years of imitating other (master) masons, before they are trusted to do letters themselves. All of these factors work against individual freedom. As in the

case of the small letters painted on the vases, the smaller the letters, the less individuality usually will show itself. It is a fact that down to the Empire most Greek inscriptions consist of small letters. The extreme was the Lykourgan period, when Athenian inscriptions attained something like the absolute minimum in size. Still, even so, hammer and chisel are not entirely refractoryto human personality. In this connection, different letters provide varying opportunities. One iota is likely to be absolutely indistinguishable from another iota made by a different mason, when both used the whole (length-determining)

edge of the same chisel, and no serifs. At

the other extreme, letters with curves-though small, or even because small viz. BOOPOQ

-are

difficult enough to prompt individual efforts to solve the difficulties.

The curved strokesare usually made with the point of the chisel. A letter not so made, a rectangular phi, 4', for instance, is quickly recognizable, though the shape may characterize a whole style (mid-third century B.C.) and not just one single mason. At present, therefore, it seems that the task of distinguishing individual masons will prove to be a middling sort of task. In some periods, e.g. beginning of the fourth century B.C., it is very difficult. In other periods, perhaps in most, the task is easier but is likely to be surrounded with a margin of doubt, since two or more masons might have almost the same distinctive style. PreviousIdentificationsof the Work of Individual Masons. The finding that two pieces of marble were inscribed by the same mason is however common enough. Any excavator, coming upon two fragments near each other that look alike, will glance at the lettering and will enter them in his notebook as probably being from the same inscription. Later the excavation's technician will clean and study the pieces, and often will help to confirm or reject the association; he will make any possible join. Finally the epigraphist also will seek for joins, partly through study of the content as well, and he will decide whether the fragments are to be catalogued as parts of one inscription. Even for an epigraphist, however, it is the look of the inscription, I mean the lettering, which usually first leads to the notion that two fragments are to be associated. Thus, if I may mention the first largely unpublished inscription which I published, it was the lettering chiefly that helped to unite with the various Agora fragments, as all parts of one stele, the scattered fragments published as I.G., II2, 1032, 991, 1960, 2453.17 The associating of two entirely distinct inscriptions, i.e. which were parts of different stelai, as being the work of one mason is less easy and less sure. Not only is it frequent that they were found in different times and places, and published quite 17

Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 71-81.

xx

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

separately, it is also possible that the content may give no help. The dates also may be uncertain. More often than not, the lettering is the sole bass for the association. Except for H. T. Wade-Gery (infra), no scholar had attempted, so far as I know, to study a mason through his works, as e.g. Sir John Beazley has studied so remarkably the work of vase-painters. But in many instances, doubtless in scores of instances more than I happen to know about, scholars have claimed to identify two or more inscriptions as the work of one mason-without studying his lettering in and for itself: i.e. the purpose of such identifications has always been an ulterior purpose. I mention here the more notable instances known to me. G. Colin determined that with one exception each of the Pythais records (on the outer south wall of the Athenian Treasury) was inscribed by a different mason.18 On p. 15, note 1 he characterizes briefly the work of each mason and gives references to photographs. He succeeded in assigning the fragments to the various Pythaides, sometimes with no evidence other than that of the lettering: e.g. no. 45 on p. 44, no. 53 on p. 58, and even some of the smaller fragments, pp. 275-278. Having studied the record for the Pythais in the year of Argeios (98/7 B.C.), S. V. Tracy, to whom I owe the account supra, notes only that Colin did not perceive that Hand X worked with Hand B. Tracy considers that on the whole Colin's achievement was remarkable. A. Wilhelm assigned to one mason I.G., I2, 106, I.G., I2, 398, and I.G., II2, 73.19 H. T. Wade-Gery identified a group of fifth-century B.C. inscriptions, in all of which the straight strokes of the letters are cut with the whole blade of the chisels.20 The mason used blades of lengths which he kept in standard sizes, viz. 0.011 m., 0.009 m., and 0.007 m. In making any given letter, he always used a chisel of the same length for any given (straight) stroke. The effect is elegant, despite slight irregularities in horizontality and in spacing, which are several times repeated, and some other interesting mannerisms (pp. 134-135). With one exception (I.G., I2, 77), the checker unit is always the same, 0.013 m. x 0.018 m. Four inscriptions by this hand are identified; the date of all seemed to be in the 430's. Similar hands are markedly inferior (p. 135). B. D. Meritt, agreeing with the date, corrected the measurements for khi.21 I have made no independent examination, but certainly Wade-Gery's is the most methodical study hitherto published. A. E. Raubitschek22 suggested that the base dedicated in the Ptoan sanctuary in Boiotia was by the same mason as the famous Peisistratid dedication in Athens I.G., I2, 761 (Meiggs and Lewis support the identity of mason, but advocate different persons and put the date earlier23). 18 FD III 2, Paris, 1909-1913. 19 Jahresh.,XXI-XXII, 1922-1924, add. p. 657. 20 H. T. Wade-Gery,"A DistinctiveAttic-Hand," B.S.A., XXXIII, 1935,pp. 122-135. 21 EpigraphicaAttica,pp. 100-102. 22 In B. D. Meritt, Hesperia,VIII, 1939, p. 65, note 1. 23 R. Meiggs-D. (M.) Lewis, GreekHistoricalInscriptions,1969, no. 11.

INTRODUCTION

xxi

Scratching letters on potsherds with a point, though it is an action quite different from chiseling letters in marble with a straight-edged chisel, is difficult enough to produce individual peculiarities. When O. Broneer found a deposit of 190 ostraka, all made out against OEM I OOKILEf (thus in all but two, which have tau) in the 480's B.c., he sought to distinguish the hands that inscribed them.24 Broneer distinguished a total of 14 hands. Whether or not the attributions, especially those of the smaller numbers ofostraka, after say Hand K, can be considered certain, still the photographs bear out the attributions of the major part. The hands were comparatively few. This is an important fact, as R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis have seen.25 There will be more to be said. A. E. Raubitschek claimed that another, much earlier, group of five inscriptions should all be put down as being by one hand.26 They come from the period 497/6-post 480 B.C. The only particular letter which he cites as evidence is a peculiar theta. This however may suffice; and the mason may be, as Raubitschek infers (I have not studied the matter), Antenor. Other groups passim, e.gg. nos. 93, 94; and I.G., I2, 1; nos. 53, 106, 107. Raubitschek also assigned no. 58 to the hand of the Hekatompedon inscriptions and of the Marathon epigram. L. H. Jeffery was alert to the possibilities of identifying masons, and mentioned some, e.g. for Attika.27 An inscription notable for its flaring serifs, as well as for the alphabetic order of the items, is part of the collection of Bowdoin College, provenience not recorded. A. G. Woodhead was able to identify an inscription in the Rijksmuseum, in Leyden, which came from Smyrna, as being by the same hand, and there is a third there; the Bowdoin alphabetic list is doubtless also from Smyrna.28 More limited, but not essentially different, are the attempts to distinguish hands within one inscription-like Colin's achievement but on a smaller scale. Thus A. Wilhelm, 29 distinguished most of the hands in the great Didaskaliai List I.G., II, 975, later published as I.G., II2, 2323. This is now re-edited by C. A. P. Ruck, with a brief discussion of the masons.30 There are four masons; each inscribed continuous blocks of lines. The Beginning of the Studyof Individual Masons. Having acquired what proved to be a more or less adequate working knowledge of Hellenistic Athenian lettering, and 24

0. Broneer, "Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis," Hesperia,VII, 1938, pp. 228-

25

Op. cit., p. 43. Dedications from theAthenianAkropolis,1949, p. 116. LocalScriptsof ArchaicGreece,p. 73. S. Dow, A.J.A., LXVII, 1963, pp. 258-260. Op. cit., supranote 7, pp. 63-65. C. A. P. Ruck, I.G. II2 2323, TheList of Victorsin Comedies at theDionysia,Leiden, 1967, pp. 1-2.

243. 26 27

28 29 30

xxii

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

being engaged in other studies, I did not pursue the study of lettering to the point of attempting the difficult (infra) task of a rounded history. But in the period of writing Prytaneis and thereafter, I did begin to collect the works of individual masons. One and bottom mason, of the beginning of the second century B.C., who made the tetop strokes of his sigmas curl, was represented by several inscriptions in Athens, and I found he had worked also in Delos. From the mid-third on to mid-first century B.C., there appered to be several others who were easily recognizable. For the later period, the focus of these efforts was I.G., II2, 2336, which is a 275-line list of subscribers. The subscriptions were inscribed in lots, some entries with several titles-plus-name-plusamount. Various masons, acting at various times, did the inscribing, and I undertook to identify the hands throughout. There seemed to be at least nine masons, and it was not difficult to recognize the work of most if not all of them, because nearly all made highly distinctive letters.31 Most of the entries for the first year (the list covers several years) were by one mason, whom I called Hand A, and most of the second-year entries were by Hand B, and so on. The lettering of Hand B was the most distinctive of all; it could be recognized anywhere, both the lettering and certain idiosyncrasies of spacing. In the course of some years, noting inscriptions by him whenever I saw any, I found I had 18 inscriptions by him. It was interesting that he went to Delphoi with the Pythais of 98/7 B.C. in order to inscribe the list of the Athenian Pythaides; then he returned to Athens, presumably with them, and resumed work there. The SystematicStudy of One Mason. It had become clear enough that any attempt to do the sort of job W. Larfeld had attempted to do, even if the field included only a few of the periods like his 18 periods, would be vague, difficult, unsatisfactory. The possibility suggested itself of beginning, as it were, at the other end, with individual masons. Some few masons had already in fact shown themselves clearly enough; in a limited way, they were already personalities. A full-length study of one of them looked far more promising than a best-that-can-be-done study of any whole period(s) full of masons. "Hand B" of ca. 100 B.C. was the inevitable choice, and I suggested the project to S. V. Tracy. Although what might be called the epigraphical personality of the mason was already fairly clear merely from casual observation, no systematic work had been done. There had been no single-minded attempt to gather all the inscriptions by this one mason (or any other mason) ; no study of his work, letter by letter; hardly any recording of his epigraphical traits. Thus the field was clear. Being far the longest text inscribed by this mason, the lengthy Ephebic inscription I.G., II2, 1028 was the logical point of attack, and the minute examination of itcertainly one of the most detailed and meticulous epigraphical examinations ever 31

S. Dow, Harv.St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 111-124, esp. p. 116.

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

made of any lengthy inscription-made up a section of Tracy's doctoral dissertation of 1968. Tracy also followed the mason to Delphoi, and made a thorough study of his work there. Recognition of the lettering made it possible to add some joining fragments. Some other mason, presumably an assistant, took part in the inscribing of some of the texts. There are many new readings.32 It is of course for Tracy to discuss his procedures, but to show the validity of such work, I mention here two episodes. Consulted about a reading at Delphoi, where a line of an Athenian Pythais inscription had been erased and re-inscribed, Tracy was able to recognize that the mason who inscribed the entry in rasura as a correction, although only a few faint letters of this second (correcting) version survive, was Hand B. The mason had been given corrections to make in Pythais records inscribed by others, long before 98/7, the year when he was there. At another time, in the Epigraphikon Mouseion in Athens, Tracy was looking over some chips which had been saved by the staff from edge-breaks years ago. He found one chip which, although it is so small that only two letters are preserved complete, he declared was by Hand B. He thought it might come from I.G., II2, 1028, and he invited me to join in the effort to prove it. Within a quarter of an hour he had found where it actually joined. Making all due allowances for the fact that the mason ("Hand B") .made fairly distinctive letters, still these episodes are proof enough that the study of a mason can be profitable. But there is no implication that all epigraphists should attempt to do the same, or that the mason of every inscription published should be identified and studied. Far from it. On the other hand, there are old-style epigraphists who disdain any attention to physical details. For their benefit, I should like to note that one of the chips joined by Tracy to I.G., II2, 1028 (in all he added five) supplied the letters missing in lines D145-D148. In I.G., II2, 1028, line D147 the ethnikon was said "no doubt" to be K[ap0ep]ev's or K[copov] Evs (O. W. Reinmuth), as if either five or four letters could be restored; as between them, no preference is indicated. The new fragment, however, makes it KATPEY:: every letter is now indubitable, and the gap is seen to have been of three letters. This is not merely an improved text, it is the ethnikon of, apparently, a wholly new Greek city. STERLINGDow BOSTON COLLEGE

32 S. V.

Tracy, "Notes on the Inscriptionsof the Pythaisof 98/7 B.C.,"B.C.H.,XCIII, 1969,pp. 371-395, with 24 photographs.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON I. METHODOLOGY ESTABLISHMENT

OF THE FIRST DOSSIER

OF INSCRIPTIONS

BY ONE LETTER-CUTTER

In the foregoing, S. Dow has described the work which preceded the first systematic attempt to collect and study all of the extant inscriptions by one cutter. Dow himself took the essential step, i.e. the one which showed the way. In Prytaneis he assigned inscriptions to a number of different cutters and in his edition of II2 2336 (Harv. St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 111-124) he distinguished the numerous individual hands, in more than one case assigning widely separated lines to a single hand. The step which he took was really a leap from studying general styles to identifying individual cutters on a rather widespread scale. The attempt to study one cutter thoroughly followed as a logical consequence of his work. The first need was to find, if possible, some viable means for accurately identifying and collecting the work of a cutter. It was a case of" learning by doing" and so I offer here without further apology a brief account of my initial work. I began with a list compiled by Dow of 18 inscriptions.1 Under his guidance, I studied for some months exhaustively, i.e. letter-by-letter, only one inscription, II2 1028, which was the longest of those in the list. I then studied from Dow's squeezes all of the remaining inscriptions in order to satisfy myself (if possible) that they were all by the same hand. Unpracticed as my eye then was, I found it relatively easy after the months of work studying II2 1028 to separate the list into three categories: "definitely by the same hand," "definitely not," and "maybe." From the beginning, my principal criterion, however rough, was the overall appearance of the lettering. I did not attempt at that point to reach a final decision concerning any of the fragments, but retained all in the dossier for further study from the actual stones in Athens. The considerable number of texts which had been published in Hesperiasubsequent to Dow's work on his list (done in the late 1930's and early 1940's) offered an easily accessible source for the possible discovery of additional inscriptions. Although photographs are more difficult to use than squeezes because their quality varies greatly, in most cases the Hesperiaphotographs were adequate to enable at least a tentative judgment concerning the hand. With the aid of these published photographs, I compiled 1 This list (those asteriskedproved to be by the cutter) included II2 959, 986b, 989*, 1023*, 1028*, 1030, 1032, 1034, 1132, 1228*, 1341*, 1942*, 2336 (parts)*, 2458, Agora I 851, I 1773a*, EM 649*,

5581*, and, lastly, the bare notation "Delphoi." This notation eventually led me to Delphi and to the

discovery that this cutter had inscribed texts on the wall of the Athenian Treasury.

2

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

a further list of 13 fragments which I thought might have been inscribed by the cutter.2 This was the extent of my work in preparation for research in Greece. In Athens, progress slowed considerably and even seemed to stop. I had reached the point of having to arrive at a reasonably final decision concerning the fragments thus far selected for study. The problem of the "maybe" fragments seemed insoluble and I found no comfort in the fact that it was possible in most cases to reach a final yes or no decision at once. What bothered was that the final decision for these questionable fragments would not remain final. The more I studied them the more uncertain I became about my decision regarding each one. Determined to try once more, I returned to II2 1028. For several weeks, I did nothing but pore over the surface with the aid of raking lights in an attempt to double check readings and to solve the few remaining obstacles to a reasonably final text. At this stage, I also attempted in rigorous fashion to dissect the letters into their component parts, to measure the separate strokes, to draw the letters trying to reproduce them accurately, and to verbalize in much greater detail than before the peculiarities of the lettering. It was during this work that the breakthrough occurred. It consisted of the disappearance of the "maybe " category almost overnight, accompanied by a realization that I now knew the hand of this cutter in much the same way that one knows the handwriting of a close friend. In retrospect, I realize that in the period preceding this breakthrough I had been training my eye by imperceptible degrees to see in a new way, until I reached a point where I could distinguish the real, as opposed to the imagined, peculiarities of the cutter's lettering. In short, I began with a rough criterion "general appearance of the lettering," went through a long transitional stage of studying the lettering in greater and greater detail (always hoping to find measurable criteria), and arrived at a point which can best be expressed as true familiarity with the Gestaltof the cutter's lettering. The last step in the formation of the dossier consisted of systematic searches of the epigraphical collections in Attica and environs, on Delos, and at Delphi. The complete dossier numbered originally 28 items plus the work done on the wall of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi:3 II2 989, 1023, 1028, 1136, 1227, 1228, 1341, 1942, 2336 (parts), record of the Pythais of 98/7, Delphi Mus. inv. nos. 4689,4 4744,5 1 unnumbered 2

The list compiled from Hesperiaphotographs (those asterisked proved to be by the cutter): Agora I 286 (Hesperia,III, 1934, pp. 36-37), EM 12765 (IV, 1935, pp. 171-172), Agora I 1250 (VII, 1938, pp. 127-131), Agora I 642 (XV, 1946, p. 225), Agora I 717* (ibid., pp. 225-226), Agora I 989 (XVI, 1947, pp. 169-170), Agora I 3804a (XXIII, 1954, pp. 241-242), Agora I 3668 (ibid., p. 242), Agora I 3939 (XXVI, 1957, pp. 77-78), II2 1033 (XXVIII, 1959, pp. 200-201), Agora I 5238 (XXX, 1961, p. 260), Agora I 6471 (XXXII, 1963, p. 22), Agora I 5919* (XXXIII, 1964, pp. 193-194). 3 From subsequent museum searches carried out in my work on other cutters, I have added two further fragments to the dossier: Agora I 5225 (which, though it does not join, is part of II2 1023) and II2 4991, lines 1-4. 4 Joined

FD III 2, no. 6.

5 Joined

FD III 2, no. 31.

METHODOLOGY

3

fragment,6 additions to the record of 106/5, Agora I 717,7 I 1773a, I 2945, I 3810,7 I 3871a, I 3871b, I 5045,8 I 5919, EM 344,8 649, 5228, 5581, 8035,7 unnumbered fragments x7 and y,7 and Kerameikos,III, A5. It was at this point that I made the first in a series of positive, physical joins between fragments already assigned to the mason. These joins (10 in all) gave proof in concrete fashion that I could indeed recognize this cutter's hand. Several of these joining fragments are very small (5-10 letters or parts of

letters) and show that a very few strokes are enough to enable recognition once one has come to know the hand of a cutter.9 The establishment of the first dossier was necessarily exploratory. Theory and method did not neatly precede practice; rather, they emerged gradually along with

the results. The following definition of the problem and statement of procedural method are made on the basis of experience gained from this initial study and also from the subsequent formation of dossiers for five other cutters. As in all studies which involve handwriting, the crucial element for anyone who wishes to work on epigraphical hands will be, I suspect, the ability to train one's eye. Some people, no doubt, will find this easy; others, like the present writer, will have to work at it; and still others (quite probably there are persons in this category) simply will not have the eye for it. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE10

The study of hands is to be equated with the identification of the work of individual cutters. To avoid the case of there being as many cutters as there are inscriptions, it is useful for purposes of study to define a letter-cutter as "identified" only when two or more inscriptions can be assigned to him. If we cannot accomplish this, then we cannot (by this definition) study a cutter but only isolated examples of lettering or general styles. The essential problem, therefore, comes to finding a way for assigning in a convincing manner two or more separate inscriptions to a given cutter. In his introductory essay,.S. Dow has reviewed previous work done on letter styles and individual cutters. Of those who have assigned inscriptions to individual hands,

only H. T. Wade-Gery set forth in detail the criteria which he employed in attributing four different inscriptions to one cutter (supra, p. xx). Others appear to have employed the shape of the lettering as their principal criterion. My researches have led me to the conclusion that measurable criteria (such as Wade-Gery adduced in the one

instance), which are also dependable and widely applicable, cannot be found. I rely instead primarily on a careful study of the cutter's lettering and employ uniformity of 6Joined FD III 2, no. 48. 7 Joined II2 1028. 8 Joined II2 2336. 9 See S. V. "A Series of 189-190. 10 I have Tracy, a condensedEpigraphical Joins," A.J.A., LXXV, 1971, pp. account of this in Gr. Rom.Byz. St., XI, 1970, pp. 321-333. published

4

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

letter shape as the principal criterion for assigning two separate inscriptions to a given hand. The primary tasks are to identify the peculiarities which distinguish the individual and to describe them accurately. If accompanied by adequate illustration (drawings, always in danger of being to some extent subjective, should be supplemented by detailed photographs), a rigidly descriptive approach has the advantage of minimizing subjectivity. The data available to the epigraphist are the marks left on the marble by the cutter. Any attempt at assigning two or more inscriptions to a particular cutter must look for peculiarities in these marks sufficiently distinctive that, when they appear on more than one fragment, it may be assumed that all were cut by the same workman. 1 The objection will doubtless be voiced that marble is such an intractable medium that it will be impossible to distinguish cutters with certainty. Critics may assert that forgeries, archaisms, or cutters (if any) who cut several letter styles will make the study impractical. The validity of these and similar statements remains to be tested. A moment's thought will convince even the most skeptical that, despite the undeniable difficulties and the objections which immediately come to mind, the possibility of identifying the work of single letter-cutters deserves extended examination because of the potential benefits to be gained. If one can successfully bring together all of the extant fragments of an individual cutter, some joins and identifications impossible, or very difficult, on any other basis are likely to result. In addition, a collection of known cutters could be of inestimable aid in dealing with the thousands of small, and, in themselves, often inconsequential fragments stored in eoigraphical collections. Any dated letter-cutter will, for example, provide at least vague chronological limits for the fragments inscribed by him. In one case studied below (p. 65), facts concerning the career of the cutter result in a precise and certain date for an important inscription; prior to this, one could not establish the date "with certainty." As a paradigm of what several years of experimentation have shown to be a useful working procedure, I outline here the four principal steps employed to collect dossiers of inscriptions for the cutters studied subsequent to the first. 1. Selection of an inscription to serve as the standard. A particular fragment might be studied for many reasons; common sense requires only that it be large enough to provide a reasonable sample of the lettering (several hundred letters) and have letters which are clearly legible. Beyond this, it is advantageous to choose, if possible, a fragment which is securely dated. In attempting a beginning, I also considered it advisable to select lettering which seemed easy to recognize and to avoid periods beset with historical controversy. " Higgins and Pritchett ("Engraving Techniques") have well illustrated some of the details observable.

METHODOLOGY

5

2. Study of the lettering of the standard. The basic problem is to distinguish the lettering of the individual from the general style to which it belongs. By drawing the letters on graph paper in an attempt to reproduce them exactly, I learned the basic shape and possible latitude of variation for each letter. Then, as many idiosyncrasies as possible were isolated which, taken as a group, could reasonably be hoped to characterize only the lettering of the cutter in question. Certain letters, for example, reveal distinguishing peculiarities more often than others. These may be classed as follows: a) Letters composed of several strokes which may be disposed in varying relation to one another. Epsilon, eta, kappa, mu, nu, xi, pi, sigma, upsilon, and psi belong to this group. b) Certain strokes of some letters invite idiosyncratic solutions, in particular the crossbar of alpha, the strokes which differentiate omega from omikron, and the vertical of phi (both its relative height and relation to the circular part or parts). c) Round letters, which are difficult to inscribe freehand and thus inspired individual solutions. 12 3. Search for other inscriptions which reveal the same lettering as the standard. Although study of the standard reveals a combination of peculiarities, it is helpful in museum searches to select three or four characteristic letters to serve as keys. With the aid of these, it is possible to examine quickly a large collection of fragments, efficiently selecting the few which require detailed study. 4. Decision to include or exclude a fragment from the final collection of inscriptions attributable to the cutter. The lettering on each fragment provisionally selected is then subjected to a detailed scrutiny and only those with lettering which matches that of the standard may be admitted to the final dossier. Uniformity of lettering is the criterion; the difficult question, to which we shall shortly return, is how much uniformity can be expected. THE CUTTER OF II2 1028

The cutter who inscribed II2 1028, an almost complete ephebic decree of 101/0, is the subject of this study and his lettering, as it appears on II2 1028, serves as the stand12

Curving strokes and round letters caused special difficulties, for it was necessary to cut the curving stroke with straight or pointed tools. S. Casson in A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 516, pl. 5 illustrates how one early letter-cutter solved the problem by making a series of dots with a vertical punch to form the circle. Another way of meeting the difficulty is to develop special tools. A. E. Raubitschek, "The Mechanical Engraving of Circular Letters," A.J.A., LV, 1951, pp. 343-344 and U. K. Duncan, "Notes on Lettering by Some Attic Masons in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.," B.S.A., LVI, 1961, pp. 185188 discuss them. These methods are exceptional; most cutters simply cut round letters as best they could with the usual tools. When a cutter was hurried he sometimes made one or more segments of the round letter straight. Thus a diamond-shaped, or nearly diamond-shaped, omikron appears occasionally on many inscriptions.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

6

ard against which all others have been judged. The inscriptions collected in Part Two reveal the same lettering and, therefore, by the definition of this study, were cut by the same man. 13 Dow, supra pp. xxi-xxii, has outlined the manner in which he originally came to notice this cutter's work. Before describing his lettering, we require a label or "name " for the cutter, since we have no way of recovering his given name. Indeed, some generally applicable system is needed for designating cutters. If one is to be guided by example, J. D. Beazley's labels for vase-painters should be our guide. He chose names designed to indicate to the cognoscenti a specific vase, e.g. names which conveyed the principal subject matter of the vase, "the Achilles Master " (J.H.S., XXXIV, 1914, pp. 179ff.), its geographical location, "the Master of the Berlin amphora" (J.H.S., XXXI, 1911, pp. 276ff.), or the name of its owner, "the Master of the Dutuit oinochoe" (J.H.S., XXXIII, 1913, pp. 106ff.). The natural, if less aesthetically satisfying, alternative in epigraphy is to employ where possible the I.G. number. Thus the cutter of this study becomes " the II2 1028 cutter." The advantage of this system is that the label indicates the inscription which serves as the standard; this seems preferable to coining rather arbitrary and meaningless (except to the name-giver) descriptive names such as, to make one up, " the Broken-Bar Alpha Cutter. " In the present study, however, because it will be necessary to refer to the cutter again and again, we require something more convenient than "the cutter of II2 1028" and various periphrases, such as, "our cutter" or "the present cutter." I shall, therefore, use the label "Hand B" or more simply "B," the origin of which Dow has explained, supra, p. xxii. Dow first identified B and, as early as 1937, had assigned six inscriptions to him.14 His brief description of B's hand, therefore, provides an appropriate beginning. He formed his letters proper by thin strokes, ornamenting the ends of strokes by heavy serifs; and more freely than any other mason he made use of blank spaces to separate clauses and even words.15

More specifically, the following details characterize B's lettering. Prominent serifs are the chief feature. He made two types, an inverted "v" (^) and a straight-line serif (_). The inverted "v " serif appears only at the ends of terminal vertical and vertically slanting strokes, the straight-line only on horizontal and horizontally slanting strokes. Very often, as though from habit, he began the straight-line serif at the horizontal and 13 It is well not to forget that this is a hypothesis which the evidence thus far supports. It is impossible, however, to prove it absolutely; rather it can only be modified or discarded on the basis of empirical testing. The same measure should be applied to Professor Meritt's statement ". .. similarities need not imply an identity of hands .. ." (Hesperia, XIII, 1944, p. 250). His principal point in his writing on the subject of hands is that caution and further study are needed (cf. especially Epigraphica Attica, pp. 102105). 14 InHarv. Th. Rev., XXX, 1937, p. 209, where he assigned to B EM 649, II2 989, 1023, 1028, 1228,

and parts of 2336. 15

Ibid.

METHODOLOGY

7

extended it upward, thus giving very distinctive shapes to epsilon, sigma, and tau: viz. E (P1. 1, a, line 102) ;16 < (P1. 1, a, line 103); Y (P1. 1, b, line 293). In addition, alpha, omikron, sigma, upsilon, phi, and omega reveal peculiarities

sufficiently distinctive to allow them to serve as key letters (P1. 1, c). Alpha: normally has such large serifs that it seems to "walk" on them crablike. The crossbarvaries, being either a curve or a straight, but slanting, line; it is never sharply broken and never perfectly horizontal. Omikron: smaller than the other letters, it is usually composed of two semicircles; occasionally it approximates a diamond in shape. the top and bottom strokesslant; they are never parallel. Serifs are usual; Sigma: occasionally the upper stroke lacks the serif; very rarely does no serifoccur. consists of two principal strokes-the right beginning at the bottom and Upsilon: slanting or curving upward to the height of the letter, the left (a shorter straight stroke) meeting the right at the bottom of the letter or just slightly above it. Often it is the left stroke which is the longer and is joined by the right. Phi: relatively taller than the other letters, it consists of a long vertical stroke to which two small, complete circles adhere at about mid-point. never a complete circle, it has at the bottom two horizontal strokes, Omega: usually with serifs, which extend to the left and right, making the letter substantially wider than the others. II2 1028 also contains a number of blank spaces in the decrees, left not at random, but regularly before a clause which has 3E as the second member or at the boundaries of sense units.17 These spaces function as a type of visual punctuation and, as such,

are a distinctive element of B's lettering. In comparing the lettering of one text with another, general uniformity must be the criterion for identification; absolute uniformity cannot be demanded, for the cutter did not have fonts of type or stencils and so could not cut exactly the same way in every

respect. Dow, as has already been mentioned, assigned II2 2336, lines 48-9118 to B.

Is the identification to be accepted? The thin letter strokes and the prominent serifs (P1. 2) give the lettering the same general appearance as the lettering of II2 1028.

More fundamental, close examination of all of the letters reveals no basic letter shape

which does not conform to those of II2 1028. Consistently the shapes I (rather than Z), (not X), s (not (D), Y (not Y), and Q (not fl) appear, to select only a few letters

i

likely to reveal significant variation from the standard, were these lines the work of a cutter other than B. Furthermore, the small details which, taken together, characterize 16

These line numbers are those of the new edition presented infra.

17 Most of these blank spaces are not indicated in the text of I.G.

18

These line numbers are those of my new edition of this text to be published in the near future.

8

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

B's lettering occur in the lines in question: 1) serif differentiation, i.e. inverted "v" serifs on vertical strokes and straight-line serifs on horizontal strokes; 2) the shapes . (P1. 2, b, line 84), C (P1. 2, b, line 84), r (P1. 2, b, line 87), and a (P1. 2, a, line 56); 3) the treatment of the crossbar of alpha, i.e. curved (P1. 2, b, line 87), or straight but slanting (P1. 2, a, line 58). In short, the lettering of II2 2336, lines 48-91 is so similar to that of II2 1028 in every respect that the identification may be regarded as certain. The decree recorded by II2 1028 was enacted on the ninth of Boedromion in the archonship of Medeios, i.e. about September 101 B.C., and was probably inscribed shortly thereafter. The second-year panel of II2 2336 records the offerings made to Apollo during the archonship of Echekrates, 102/1. Since each of the panels for the first three years was inscribed by a different cutter, one for each year, it seems reasonable to assume that there was no great lapse of time between the contributions for one year and the permanent record of that year. Hence B inscribed this panel most probably in the period August to November of 101; he may in fact have worked on II2 1028 and 2336 concurrently, certainly within a half year of each other. The proximity of date, the identity of hand, and the fact that two separate stelai are involved provide an ideal opportunity to examine the problem of how much uniformity of lettering can be expected in two different texts inscribed by the same letterer at almost the same time. Small variations in the shapes of the letters occur on the two stelai; first, however, let us examine the range of variation within each stele taken separately, so that we may have a control for comparing the differences of lettering between the two. As examples, one may note in II2 2336 the tau's of Bv'TaKos in line 87 (P1. 2, b); the first has serifs at both ends of the horizontal, the second only at the right. The eta's of E1rt/xLEA)T/7 in line 86 also show variation. The horizontal stroke of the first eta is slightly longer than the space left between the two verticals; hence it bisects the left vertical. This is not the case in the second eta. In addition, the first eta has serifs at the bottom of both verticals, while the second has a serif only on the left. The size of omikron and theta is not uniform. The horizontal of pi, like tau, sometimes has serifs at both ends, sometimes only at the right, e.g. those in lines 51 and 61 (P1. 2, a); occasionally the horizontal curves slightly, as in lines 51 (P1. 2, a) and 83 (P1. 2, b). II2 1028 reveals differences of the same sort: the first tau of Tapavrl(vos) in line 289 (P1. 1, b) has serifs on both ends of the horizontal, the second only on the right; the same is true of the pi's in lines 244 and 291. The upsilons in lines 206-207 have respectively no serifs and two serifs at the top. The nu of e'vot (line 288) has two serifs, that of 'I77rTOVtKOV (line 291) one. That the same type of variation, viz. primarily of serif occurrence, appears independently in the lettering on both inscriptions is a further point of similarity. The principal differences in the letter shapes between the two inscriptions appear in mu, nu, and sigma. The v formed by the central strokes of mu in II2 2336 consistently does not extend down to the base line, e.g. the mu's in lines 54 and 61 (P1. 2, a).

METHODOLOGY By contrast, in II2 1028, TeptLEoa(oreS)

9

line 290 (P1. 1, b), the v firmly reaches down

to the base of the letter. This is the dominant tendency, as is clear from the photograph, though absolute consistency is not maintained, as the initial mu in line 308 shows. The nu's of II2 2336 have diagonals which usually do not reach to the base line (P1. 2, a, line 60, e.g.); but there is some variation, as in 'AXapvEv' in line 58. The nu's of II2 1028 have a square shape, for both vertical strokes sit firmly on the base line; again the tendency is clear, but one nu similar to those of II2 2336 appears in line 290 (P1. 1, b). The sigma's, inasmuch as they are virtually mu's turned on one side, reveal differences paralleling the mu's in the respective inscriptions. These differences, are in minor with the for similarities, though significant, comparison they involve in essence only one type of stroke, i.e. the long diagonal. Are these differences the result of whim? Probably not, for they appear to be fairly regular in the respective inscriptions. At the same time, however, it is difficult to perceive any marked change in the aesthetic quality of the letters as a result of the variation. The differences can probably be explained, simply, by the lack of a widebladed chisel. Although the letter height in both inscriptions is identical, ca. 0.008 m., in II2 2336 the verticals of epsilon, eta, iota, kappa, and tau and the slanting verticals of alpha, lambda, and mu measure ca. 0.006 m.;19 in II2 1028 these strokes measure ca. 0.008 m. It appears likely, therefore, that in cutting II2 2336 B inscribed letters rather larger than the available tools naturally allowed by spreading the angles of the strokes in order to achieve the necessary letter height and breadth. The result was letters which have a rather stubby appearance relative to the lettering of II2 1028. This illustrates the principal difficulty of the method employed by H. T. WadeGery, "A Distinctive Attic Hand," B.S.A., XXXIII, 1935, pp. 122-135, where, howhe does four one hand on the basis of width of ever, successfully identify inscriptions by chisel blade and pattern of usage of each chisel.20 To be widely applicable, his method requires the assumption that cutters used the same or perfectly identical sets of tools over long periods of time.2 19 When letter strokes have serifs or join other letter strokes, it is impossible to measure the length of the stroke with perfect accuracy. 20 Although Wade-Gery followed his criteria rigorously, his wording indicates that he also relied on letter shape to some degree: e.g. (on EM 5205 published by Hondius) ". . . but a glance at Hondius' photograph will shew that the hand is altogether much more irregular, much less beautiful" (p. 135). 21 The difficulty had, of course, been perceived before principally, in print at least, by Higgins and Pritchett ("Engraving Techniques," p. 367, note 2): Hence, unless Attic engravers were exceptionally idiosyncratic and individualistic regarding the sizes of the chisels they selected or had made for their work, periodic replacement of worn-out tools would alter the purely metric criteria by which one might hope to recognize a particular engraver. Moreover, it is conceivable that masons may have borrowed each other's tools on occasion. Elsewhere Pritchett (B.C.H., LXXXVIII, 1964, p. 457) has shown that two different men apparently used the same set of tools to make a financial document of the fifth century. This discovery is based on linguistic evidence and technique, and would have eluded epigraphists concerned solely with the length of chisel strokes.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

10

In summary, the uniformity of lettering on two different inscriptions by the same cutter can be expected to be very high. It is particularly notable that small details, e.g. serifs, the crossbar of alpha, or the relative size of phi remain constant. We may, therefore, establish the following rule of thumb for deciding whether or not lettering conforms to the standard closely enough to be considered to be by the same hand: examining each letter individually and comparing it with the examples of that letter on the standard, the strokes which form each and thus give each its shape must conform to or, at least, reveal no variation that does not also appear in the letters of the standard. As further illustration, let us consider two additional fragments in this same general style of lettering in order to decide whether or not Hand B inscribed them. These two fragments belonged to the original "maybe" category (supra, p. 1) and, because of their general similarity to B's lettering, were among those which caused the most difficulty. Agora I 3804a contains parts of 5 lines (P1. 3, a).22 Alpha with a broken crossbar, a shape consistent on this fragment, and xi made with three horizontal strokes but no central vertical, in contrast to the xi's of II2 1028 which always have the vertical, as in line 288 (PI. 1, b), alone ae sufficient to exclude it. In addition, the mason of this fragment employs serifs with absolute consistency. They all have the shape of an inverted v and occur at the end of everyterminal stroke. The neat regularity of the letters, the nearly circular shape of omikron, theta, and omega, and the relative width (rather thick) of the strokes, all contrast sharply with B's lettering. These fundamental differences in basic shapes and use of serifs provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion that B did not inscribe Agora I 3804a. The lettering of II2 959 (P1. 3, b) poses a more difficult problem. Both the specific to a high degree. In addition, and general shapes of the letters conform to B's letterttering the placement of the serifs on epsilon, sigma, and tau is very characteristic. Three details, however, consistently differ from B's lettering. The upsilons are relatively wider than those cut by B and often are composed of three distinct strokes (B very rarely made an upsilon in this way). The cutter of II2 959 inscribed neatly circular omikrons and tended to place them in the upper part of the letter space. B's omikrons are almost never circular and they appear in the middle of the letter space. Lastly, although the position of the serifs on the horizontals is indeed characteristic of B's lettering, the general impression they give is very uncharacteristic. Due to their small size, they do not have the prominence of B's serifs, and they occur with almost perfect regularity at the end of every terminal stroke. As we have seen above, a striking feature of B's lettering is the frequent omission of serifs. These differences are consistent and require the exclusion of this fragment from the dossier of inscriptions attributable to B. In the foregoing I have tried to set forth, insofar as it can be set forth, the approach employed in attempting this first study of one ancient letter-cutter. My intent is to 22

Published in Hesperia,XXIII, 1954, p. 241 and pl. 51, no. 13.

METHODOLOGY

11

provide others who may wish to work on epigraphical hands with some foundation on which to build. I claim no more for what follows than that it is internally consistent and can leave little doubt in its cumulative effect that the work of one cutter has been identified.

II. THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER FOREWORD The following are all the inscriptions by B which are known to me. The collection is the result of painstaking searches of the epigraphical collections.in Attica, on Delos, and at Delphi. In Attica and its environs, with the exception of the storeroom of the Piraeus Museum, which has been inaccessible due to construction of the new museum, I have examined the inscriptions on the Acropolis, on Aigina, in the Agora, in the Amphiaraion, in Eleusis, in the Epigraphical Museum, in the Kerameikos, in Piraeus, and on Salamis. New texts of all the inscriptions are offered, both for the convenience of the reader and because it has been found in the course of the work that each needed some improvement, however minor. Significant changes or additions have been made in the texts of numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, a-d and h, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19. 14 and 15 are here published for the first time with the kind permission of the Greek Ministry of Antiquities and the directress of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, Dr. D. Peppas-Delmouzou. My primary object is not restoration or interpretation of the texts, but rather thorough examination of the strokes actually preserved on the stones. The notes are devoted to details related to the act of inscribing, such as spelling and spacing; mistakes, erasures primarily, receive special attention because they occur with some frequency and indicate places where the cutter experienced problems of some sort. Thus, cumulatively, they provide much information concerning his procedures. Note on Sigla. The Leiden System, as reformulated by S. Dow in Conventionsin Editing (Gr. Rom. Byz. St., Scholarly Aids 2; Duke University, 1969), pp. 3-13, is followed, except in one detail relating to erasures-see Appendix I for a discussion of the problems involved. In the following, double square brackets indicate a change made by the original cutter or a contemporary to alter the originally inscribed text. This alteration normally took the form of an erasure, i.e. a cutting away of the surface of the stone on which the unwanted letters were inscribed, followed (usually) by the inscribing of other letters. The letters enclosed in double square brackets represent the final text, i.e. after the change. Thus, for example, 7b, line 25 K:pv flovAs .. .6. . .] 7r?S E ApeIov I7ayov indicates that six letters were erased after fovA-s and that nothing further was inscribed. 6, line 243 'AOrvt'wv[A'ArjvlovosT TvpLELtirs signifies that the patronymic stands in rasura, inscribed as the second text replacing (presumably) a faulty patronymic. All areas included in double square brackets are discussed in the commentary. The signs ?- and ]? indicate that the exact point where the erasure begins or terminates is uncertain.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

13

The Orderof Presentation.The securely dated inscriptions are placed first in chronological order; the others follow in alphabetical-numerical order. For the reader's convenience, two reference lists of the inscriptions are appended here, one arranged in alphabetical-numerical order, the other arranged chronologically. LIST OF THE INSCRIPTIONS ALPHABETICAL-NUMERICAL

No. in this vol.

Inscription

Date

Subject

AGORA I 1773a

ca. 105

Honors prytaneis

8

I 2945

110-96

Prytany register (Leontis)

9

I 3871a I 3871b I 5919

110-96 110-96 104-96

Honorary decree Honorary decree Prytany register

10 11 12

EM 649 5228 5581

110-96 ca. 110 104-96

Dedication to Egyptian gods Crown of Dionysios Eupyrides Honorary decree

13 14 15

98/7

Record of the Pythais Athenian archontes Leaders of the Pythais Theoroi, pythaists of noble families Pythaists chosen by lot Pythaists, child pythaists Ephebes, knights Kanephoroi Honors the bearer of the tripod Crown of a knight Honors the Dionysiac Artists

7 7b 7a 7b

Honors prytaneis (Erechtheis) Honors Sosandros Sypalettios Honors the ephebes of 102/1 Delphi honors Chrysis Niketou, priestess of Athena The demos of Salamis honors its gymnasiarch

4 16 6

FD no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no.

III 2 2 6 10 16 17 26 31 32 45 48

IG II2 989 II2 1023 II2 1028 II2 1136 II2 1227

104/3 110-96 101/0 106/5 131/0

7g 7c 7d 7c 7e 7f 7h

3 1

14

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

No. in

this vol.

Inscription

Date

Subject

II2 1228

116/5

II2 1341

101/0 or 98/7 104-96 103/297/6 110-96

Provisions of the demos of Salamis for repair of the exedra and other sacred buildings Decree of Dionysiac Artists

II2 1942 II2 2336 II2 4991

KERAMEIKOS, III A5 104-96

2 17

Ergastinai register Annual contributions of Athenian and Delian officials for the Pythais Catalogue of Erysichthonidai

18

Honors prytaneis

20

CHRONOLOGICAL

5 19

LIST OF THE INSCRIPTIONS

Vo. in

thisvol.

Date B.C.

Inscription

131/0 116/5 ca. 110

II2 1227 II2 1228 EM 5228 II2 1136 Agora I 1773a II2 989 II2 2336 II2 1028 II2 1341 Record of the Pythais

1 2 14 3 8 4 5 6 17 7

Agora I 2945 Agora I 3871a Agora I 3871b EM 649 II2 1023 II2 4991

10 11 13 16 19

Agora I 5919

12

106/5 ca. 105 104/3 103/2-97/6 101/0 101/0 or 98/7 98/7 110-96

104-96

9

15

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

No. in Date

B.C.

this vol.

Inscription

15 18 20

EM 5581 II2 1942 Kerameikos,III, A5 1 (P1. 4). II2 1227 (EM 7750). Archon Epikles, 131/0 B.C. C.I.G., I, 108; Rangabe, no. 675; I.G., II, 594; Michel, no. 159.

The bottom and much of the top have been broken away; otherwise this white marble stele is intact. The molding is preserved and, on the right, part of the akroterion and original rough-picked surface of the top remain. The stele is 0.90 m. high and tapers, being 0.405 m. wide at the bottom and 0.38 m. wide at the top (just under the molding). The back is original and has an unusual shape. It is neither roughly flat nor bulging in the middle, but slants inward from right to left (r. and 1. to one looking at the stele from the front); the stele is 0.105 m. thick on the right and 0.07 m. on the left. The height of the letters is ca. 0.006 m. The remains of two circular shapes, one beside the other, in the upper part of the stele (P1. 4, a) and the general unevenness of the inscribed surface indicate that the surface was pared down and re-used for this text. Except for the distinct outlines of the circles, which are ca. 0.09 m. in diameter, nothing of the original text survives. The position of these original circles and the general dimensions of the stele suggest that the stone is a re-used grave monument of the type illustrated in Plate 6, a. Although the serifs at the bottom of vertical strokes are not as prominent as in II2 1028, every other detail of the lettering corresponds to the standard: note, for example, in Plate 4, b, the epsilon with the characteristic positioning of the serifs (line 5), the upsilon (line 7), the tau with a serif only at the right end of the horizontal (line 8), the diamond-shaped omikron (line 11), the omega (line 10), the phi (line 12) and the sigmas (line 6). In addition, the occurrence of blank spaces accords with the practice of II2 1028.

a.

131/0 'Ent

a. 'EnLxX<>>ous

McTayctTVLLvos 3

pIXou Aeuxovocbs

NON-ETOIX. 37-49 aPXOVToS Ev 3aTEL, TCTpc6t

cTrev

peCT' ctxas6as

uu

)v EaXapTvt 6 )

eoylvnS

A 'Av6povCx[ou]

KaXXL-

CeXCL6 0Ced6oTos EvaTpopou

16

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON x<es>t OTovn8cts

IIlepatcos rTv ext

6

9

'EpyoxXcous

XidVaS'

64aTo

xadvTa'

6

6axdvnra<e>

u

TBv ?6i'v'

eis

xaat wpbs

Tb pep aotv

&vO9nxev 6t

XrinpdTras

u

6t

iavryayev

xat

?jpev

6t

xat u

xaT<

'rT>obSvdpous

txwv'

vu

21

6ooCw

ipo[ac]XaLov cx

xaSnxodoaaLs

Tob[S]

Totb T' xava

ip'pais*

?v TotS XOLotgS 6.LXa?s

xa[t]

oOtEv EXXe[C]apyuPLOV

6t xat Tbv ToTxoV EX Trv ;6i'v

T'S

aTo([S]

ept TOtro)rwv ndvTrw[v]

axoXeXdytota'

T'T BouAt

T&s eCd0vas'

oiws EpdaiAXXov?it xaaL Tots BouXopc[voLs]

xcat T'tW 6TIWjL,

cE660aLv OTL xaTraEC?s

tLXo6oetcv

UU ayaeC

TeT gouXet

ecS T?rv tn Looavv tx-

xXnoCav XpnPaTLaaL RCept TOQTWV,yVwUpni 6t 0alXXCaOaL T's '* uu XcT

BouXls

aLvaat

T'v Tbv cxt

ets

6c6uwxe 6([

TtnrL1JnovTaL. T'[v]

TX'rSX 6c6dXOaL

XaXdvTas xpoc6pous

TV

[eC]-

xaO' ?xa[a]-

ipb5 vdTov,

Trot

27

6t xat

ThSg tavaywy&S

xa

3[ie]-

xalt avypa[(e]v

avnX(oaasig Xov

u

u

Tb

ets

at'T5L

watl]

Tbv BXeXovTa

euepyeaLiv.

24

Tr 'Eppata

qtLXotiuC'as xat aioou6's

CtS TairTa ctvTa

iwxo6dnoaev 18

TobS a&Xcpo-

5oXa 6xT'

xat

xat

Th?v apXhv

Cua;CaS :0ouOTrnoev

TaTara o Ax OXCov'

avaXcSaas

Tov piva Xoioodpevos ev tas

15

TC

U OuVCTcXCaeC 6t xat

veCVLnxdTcra Tobs p6pdUoug' 12

ard

apxovros

axdaas T&S xa0nxoJdaa xat Vire6eacro pvouVS

eCS Tbv CVLauTbv

yuivaaocapxos

SUp-

Tel

6ooxet 68pov oTt.

Tav yupvaaapaPXTravTa

'EpyoxXEous &pXOVTOS ecd6oT'ov

'rv

Bou-

evLau-

Ecarpd-

xat]

17

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER Tou IIEcpaLda xat

(pLXOTLpL;asEvexev

VWL xaT& Tbv vdpov 30

pov

Tbv

Itprov

33

e taTnXas

yupvaac

36

o L

lCav 6~

[d]a

'

[6]vo tv

T'LC,

u

ToO 6r4-

t'S

L(pavT?aTc

Lv

ev

ayo-

6? &VayOpcE6aCWSOt aTepcdvou

pepic'aa

:l tIvcXnfvaL

TbV TaoiLav t

6t

Cx TWv CLS T& xaTa T, npiapaTa

vacat

m.

0.02

in

corona

6 cd6oTov EUaTp (cpou IIeLpaLea

yupvaai-

apXnoaaVTaCn yoxXcouS

ap-

XOVTOS.

TObS

XoxX,v

ICl paL-

&vaXLcaxopEvwv

'O 6npoS 6 EaXapivLvwv

45

TbV 6j-

STav

tS,

aTCnaiL piav

6Mpa)i [Ta]t

42

ets

TlWL YUpvILXwL aywvL.

xat

T%S &vaCeaCWS Trv aTnX'v

C1tiLUXnflTa,

pay6o

AitavTCEoLs

XLiAvaC

aTecpa-

arcTcpavov

(ln(toapaj T v ypalipaTEa

Tb

uu PaS TdXtWL TS xat

39

T66C

xat

Tis

TV

&avCLete

v EaXap'tvl

T'rv

u

yivrTac

&vaypd?(ta iou

xat

'v [EcEaaptiwvi

TOtTOV ALovuaCLwv

auTbv XpuoL

aTTeaavCaa

'Ep -

Tai

18

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

B left a gap of 0.018 m. between the lower edge of the molding and the first line. Line 1. The third epsilon lacks the middle horizontal stroke. Line 2. Vacat0.017 m. Line 3. Vacat0.011 m. Line 4. The third epsilon lacks the two upper horizontal strokes. Line 7. Vacat0.007 m. Line 8. The rather colloquial oAtov, in place of oAXyov,seems a little surprising in the formal phrasing

of a decree; it may well be a slip by the cutter or the secretary. Vacat0.013 m. Line 9. The middle horizontal is missing from the first epsilon. Line 10. Vacat0.008 m. Line 11. Vacat0.01 m. Line 12. Vacat0.011 m. Line 15. The letters KATOYEbegin the line. B committed a haplography either by looking back at the second alpha of Kara in his working copy after inscribing the first or at the tau of Tovs after inscribing tau of Kara. It is also possible, therefore, to read Ka(
Line 30. No traces of the original letters remain. Line 32. Vacat0.012 m. Line 34. Vacat0.012 m. Line 35. Vacat0.009 m. Line 36. Vacat0.022 m. FOYappears on the stone instead of TOY. Line 38. Vacat0.012 m. The crown is slightly to the left of center: the space to the edge on the right is 0.113 m., on the left

0.098 m. The uninscribed space to the (present) bottom of the stele measures 0.15 m.1

2 (P1. 5). II2 1228 (Piraeus Museum inv. no. 1620).2 Archon Sarapion, 116/5 B.C. Rangabe, no. 676; I.G., II, 595. Said to have been found in Piraeus, this large fragment of white marble is broken at top and bottom; the left side (claw-chiseled) and, in places, the back (rough picked) are preserved; the right side has been cut away slightly and reworked. Height, 0.44 m.; width, at bottom 0.405 m., at top 0.38 m.; thickness, 0.12 m. Height of letters, 0.006-0.007 m. A graffito appears here, written vertically from bottom to top; it reads 1803 | MAZTPOZ OTYPIEand appears to be the date and signature of a certain builder or mason named Sotiris. The lettering, sure and professional, suggests that the stele may have served as a marker or corner stone for some building on Salamis. I owe thanks to my colleague D. N. Skiotis for help in deciphering this graffito. 2 I wish to thank the Ephor of Attica, Mr. Demetrios I. Lazaridis, and the staff of the Piraeus Museum for making the stone available for study.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

19

For attribution, note especially the use of blank spaces and in Plate 5, b the tau and epsilon in line 4 and the epsilon in line 5. a. 116/5 a.

NON-ZTOIX.

ca. 53

uncertain number of lines missing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]Y8 t [--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -E LE[- ca. 5 -]ELt 7rotEla0[at .... ]v 3. [v -ca- 9 - K]aTa TOVS 7TEp TOVTJWV KELEVOVS VO/LOVS " KarTaaAEo3ACW[lav 8e

6.

7TpOOaSt Ka av7ACOcTcortv E[v] Ao'yovs cv re av Aa wcoVT ELrpo T-otL peTra gvavotiLvi Zapa7rrlTva vTrro0eT(roav SE Kal [/q7/vL] adpXovTa E'vat E ros av8pa[6o' a]. TTpOELUEVEyKi)(oatSv 8tado'pov ElS T' Eapa [aLv ETrL]LeArelait.tv KaAS)S Kat StKatcoS3r 7 KaraaKeVSj T_V7TrpoyEKat]

[ypatL]Jv]Evv

E'pyCov

7Tratve.Orvat

Kal arocavoJo.vat

[ut]

rov

rrvT 7v^ V

9. [Trov^ a]AaCItvcL)v EKaoCTov OaAAov acrTEfdvavct evaeQetlaS EVEKEV Kat Kaa 3E TO'3ETO rb7qtLoLa r'v Tr'S TTpos rovS Oeov)s Ao[K]ayaOtas dvaypadat ( r v opela Kal ov rrjrT (cT7(rat elS 77jv EEoSpav y.pat/la-rEa LAtlv7wv

12. [To] SE6yVOLEVOV els avrr?v avrjA^cLa VEplhat TOVS rl T7V E7TLTKEUv)V i S els a'vTrv Kal Tr&v errLSeSOWKO'TCrV rd ovoiaTra Kal 7To'ov [dv]aypabat viva TOV7Cov avvTEAOVE`VCO)v KaAC)^ EXr(t) Kat evaEr/cs aAatutvov t'a TrTposrovs OEov's v'r' SE' 7tLaLa 7dT3a

E7TE8OCKEV

15. (rflco)t rL Tt

Tr)v 7TEL1q7 E(JTlV 7TEpl LEpW)J ?7TL(JKEUvS Katl T7S VE7TKO jLL7oECEWS 6 Kat Ka l ol] E7TrL/EAr/Tat aUvva7Troq.alvovTat, aTpaT7ryos E7TELtSrj

18.

Trot

[E]-

KOt[v)V ], arrav Er[Tco]

ra tEpa Kat Trjv Ee'Spav v ot KaTraK[E]]vUwTEr KaTa TO v Ol'E EltpepO/qrav o OOeTdSoroS ELtpatEVS A'aIXpWov AlC)VE[V'S] KA AEVKOVOEVS. [X]apjLKS

Els

>vAaKr'v

4[?7]-

(Lt/)a

21.

one line left blank [6]

7jios

o6 ZaAaitivdwv

06 ...1S'O 6 ZaAaLivtl)v

in corona EOedo-

24.

o6 Sr7ios 6

in corona 27.

rov

A'crXpwva

Alwcve`-

netpaLea 30.

a

'aAaLtvlwc)v

in corona 33.

XaplKA:jv A1EVKOVOca

vacat to bottom The inscribed surface is heavily worn; the letters have practically no depth, with the result that a paper squeeze at certain points is not of decisive help. In addition, the surface seems too friable for the application of latex or charcoal without serious damage. After much experimentation, it was found that a bright light shining directly on the surface from a distance

of about a third of a meter brought out the discoloration

left

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

20

by the letters most clearly. It often proved easier to perceive the letter shapes by maintaining a visual distance of about half a meter. Since Koehler constituted his text, a rather large fragment has been broken away at the top right; the letters now missing, at the ends of lines 1-15, are underlined. Line 2. E - only the two lower horizontals are visible; dotted sigma is read on the basis of a very faint slanting stroke which appears above the kappa of KELJE/VOVS. Line 3. A. Wilhelm, "Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts," Ipayuarelat rTgs'AKaSqtclasg

AOqrlvjv,XVII, 1951, pp. 77-78, correctly restoredthe firstfour words. Vacat0.006 m. The occurrence of the space assures the restoration of 3S Kal at the beginning of line 4. Line 4. Koehler printed E[t']sg[rov] at the end of this line. What he read as sigma must have been part of tau, for the reading of the month in the next line virtually assures the restoration of Ev TrL at

the end of this line. Line 5. T- the horizontal alone is visible; A- the crossbaris not at all clear; vacat0.008 m. Line 6. Vacat0.009 m. Line 10. Vacat0.012 m. Line 14. The space is ca. 0.01 m. Line 15. Vacat0.014 m. Line 18. Vacat0.011 m. Line 19. Vacat0.006 m. and 0.01 m.

3 (Pls. 6, b; 7). II2 1136 (EM 7667). Archon at Delphi Xenokrates, Pittakis, 'Er. A4pX., no. 1301; Rangabe, no. 2685; Colin, Culte, p. 91; S.I.G.3, 711K.

106/5 B.C.3

no. 2276; I.G., II, 550; Collitz, Sammlung,

Broken only at the top and bottom, this fragment of white marble is 0.52 m. tall, 0.09 m. thick, preserves the back, which is rough picked, and tapers in width from 0.33 m. at the bottom to 0.305 m. at the now preserved top. The height of the letters is ca. 0.006 m. For attribution, note in Plate 7, a the upsilon in line 11, the first epsilon in line 13, and the phi and omega in line 14.

a.

106/5

NON-ETOIX.ca.

a. uncertain

[ca. [5lX]S 3

6 'A0]niaCwL

number of lines T~t[Lt

po]Cvw

t T r[

33

missing a vtCypawpov]

Et6rTC*. UU ppWare. ,UU 'Eic L6? TOD 6da[ou]

Xenokrates was archon at Delphi at the same time as Agathokles in Athens; cf. FD III 2, no. 5,

lines 2-4.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER 3

TOD 'ASnvactowv aycyodvTOS

rA T ['A]1tdXXwvL

6

lepeLa

TC e1tl6api`av

xaX&v xat pou

ToT

qpv,

xat

6

tpoSEvLav

xaL

oidXLs T CLnTL, TaAXa

Ti1'pa

voLS xat 21

itavTa

os.

T'V

ACX-

NLXnTOu A'Anvacou a6T&v

T'5L TOB A X(poT *

ExyOVOLS

tCa tp

yas

xat oLxLas

oaa xat Ta5

TOts

T5S

6[e]-

tdX[ioS]

NLtxo6dpou TOD ETpaTcjvos, "Apxovo

a&

SyXTatYLV xat 5XXotLS

rpoSe-

udAiOS Un6aPXel' uu 5pxo[v]-

dctpnvov TipoXecovos

ovTOS 6E aouXas

toXLcos

apETepaS

ToO 'AyncfLXaou,

TOS EevoxpaTnr

v?6a,

CEoiLTaaTO

7X&al TO-TS acyWVOLS os

cuepyrToaLS

T&V 6CuTepav

24

xat

Ta[v]

lpo6LXLcav aVauXAav

1popavTreav

; pa aTXEAcLav Xpo6pLtaV 18

OuyarTnp xat

XiL aTpaTvPLVOTV

auToL

& TaS 'A-

xat

T'rL noXet

aTepcavBaac

OEO0 oT?tdvWL oI 60aoatl

Ta

Xpuaic6a

a.aiveaal

luyaTcEpa

15

xat

&apTa[s]

&aeav TOD TC 6ac-

e?aXTvOVa xat

'AnTvaiwv

U

a Sa6os

avaaTpoq&v

TdXaL 6C6doX9a

&yac&l 12

xat

xat a[]-

T<&>S a6ToaauToD

NtXiTOU

XpualS

T[iL]

pEyaXopecpS

PcT&T'S nt

[x]japCyevn0rl etvaS

9

IIuoiL

TroI TC 0eou xat

[wS]

T&V'r IIua6a

SOVuAcuVTWV TOD 'EppCE]-

? ypappaTe[u]-

TO5 KaXXuxpdTe-

21

22

THE LETTERING

T... .AcXp

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

il v a io X s

in corona 27

Xpuao6a NLXHTTOU

'AOnva -

30

ou OuyaTepa.

vacat

By analogy

to bottom

with other documents

from Delphi,

Pomtow

(S.I.G.3,

II, p. 357)

plausibly restored the preamble. If his restoration is correct, only four lines are lost. Line 2. Vacat0.02 m. The third epsilon lacks the middle horizontal. Vacat0.025 m. Line 5. The second alpha has no crossbar. Line 12. Vacat0.011 m. Line 14. Vacat0.007 m. Line 20. Vacat0.018 m. Line 23. Vacat0.01 m. Line 26. The lettersof this title average 0.01 m. in height. Previous texts have indicated a dittography. Careful examination reveals that, although the depression in the surface of the marble characteristic

of erasure is not present and all the letters are easily legible, this is in fact a correction with minimal erasure and not a dittography. The second delta has a very peculiar shape, viz.: A (P1. 7, b); this shape comes from the fact that it has been superimposed on a partially erased omega A. In addition, a crossbar appears in the second lambda, indicating that B had reached at least A before realizing that correction was necessary. He did not cut away the letters in the usual way, but employed some abrading agent to rub away the surface slightly; thus, most of the erased letters, although fainter than those intended to be seen, are clearly legible. B at first inscribed the title; he began at the left margin probably out of habit-one normally begins at the margin-and certainly without thinking. He then perceived that this was unsatisfactory, because the crown had to be centered, and relocated the title, erasing minimally. This shows that the crown had not been inscribed or drawn in beforehand.

23

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

4 (Pls. 8, 9). II2 989 (EM 7586). Archon Herakleides, 104/3 B.C. Pittakis and Eustratiadis, 'ErtLypaqaL 'AVEK8OTrot, I, 1851, no. 13; Rangabe, 454. no. 468; I.G., II, Since 1935 six fragments of this stele of white marble have been uncovered during the excavations in the Athenian Agora. Dow, Prytaneis, pp. 163-164, added Agora fragments I 1773c (Fr. A) and I 1773b (Fr. C). M. L. Lethen, Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, pp. 25-28, added fragments I 6169 (Fr. D), I 6171 (Fr. E), I 6648 (Fr. F), and I 4176 (Fr. G). The dimensions of the individual fragments are given in the original publications and so are not repeated here. The width of the stele is ca. 0.375 m.; several fragments preserve the back (rough picked) and reveal that the stele was 0.12 m. thick. The roughly equivalent dimensions of II2 1227 enable us to estimate the original height as 0.85-1.10 m. The height of the letters is ca. 0.006 m. For attribution, note in particular in Plate 9, b the epsilons in lines 18 and 19 and sigma in line 19.

a. 104/3

['Entt

a,

NON-ETOIX. ca.

'HpaxXe]6[ou

&pXOVTOSExn TnS nIav6Lovi6os

[vC(xSg ?L] 8paoBo[uXoS

3

6cdvos

OCO6OTO6 "EPEppJLOS cypaplcTCueCV,

?[dtTpWL, Tv

ipof6pWv

ZEt[aXnrTTLOS xa\

'AvTLxtapou ?6o0e[v

Tnt

BouX?i

XouoLv ol Iv 98uov

n[puTaTves

Tns

oautpde6poL

ebrEv

nooL]-

KdXXwv]

vacat

]

vacat

]

Uictp iv &xayyTX]-

'EpexOeX 6os

oinp

Trv OuatLv]

[TN 1pb T'~v exxXnaLotv T'rL Te 'AcdXXAvt

nIpooaTa[TnprpL xait T~L 'ApT4l6[L [(waqdpwo

ce:it4irEev

xMa TSt& 6n[Wt

8e0d6oTo AiL[o6Spou Zouviebs

9

ipuTa]-

Ev6cxd[TnL, cv6exadTnl T?rS npUTavCCaS, cxxXnrla]

xupCa iv tSL

6

sxTnS

xat

Tots

XAot,s Ocot

TtL]

TL

BouXaCaL xat

TijL]

OTs

?v EdTrptoVv

aya9]t,L

T-

48

24 12

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON [Xrit 6e6odXaLc T'iL SOUXLAn [Thv

xtLOoaav exxAnaX'av XPrnllaTcaat

[pnv 6:t 15

[xct

Tin BouX?l. Tr&pv CSuov ip'

'A5nrvacCv

[Tro

21

[ctaLveoaa

6t

xat TobS

&yac.

nacza6wvxat ipUTCdveCi

xa'r& Trv vdpov

aTe(pavw.

[xat

Te p,XoTt,pCa TAS ct

[6e

[1

trS TC BouX([ni xat toO 64pou xat

TSV pi,X[w]v

xat

Evexcv

in corona

T'r[s]

v

Tb] 6& yevdoeuo[v

of 33

treasurer]

Sct 'ECit HpaxkXc6ou &pXovTog [ht] 42

OpaodaouXoS

CeoC

6t Td-

avaypdcLai [e]v

aTnAnL Xt.;C-

cet] a'T[(]]v

avcTAXwua n BouXrl

[6 6]iUog

in corona

in corona

'A[roX]36

and demotic

aup.dxwv'

CpC<S> Tots

[Name

27

xat

[a]Teqav&5aaL Xp[u]-

xaT& ntpuTav[?Ca]v

?iL

;e-

ToTs

V oTpaT'L]rTLxBv.

30

ouXr]

T]6v

oTI 6o-

6?i]lov

'Epexset6os

8ouX]hvv x t

o5 av cExaLpov

'r Ta Ca Taav

[lepioaa

yuval.x]Mv

e6a]e1Cas

Tr (nirqpLa Tbv ypapaTra

[vnt xat aT'oal

24

'rv

yvS-

Tr&yey[ovdT]a Cv

oawtnpcat]

T'l]s

eCt

poeo6pou]s

TOJT]WV,

[T'v

6Xea]%at

UyLteCa xcat

[aoL

ept

etS

TrS BouvA]I

)upB8AXacaL

[pot'S ots

18

TObS ,aXdVT;as

xo[

[To]s

vn[v]

[Xpu]Ta-

ncpya39

[v]esL Ths HavL6ov6ogs

?'T

O0o6dTOU ["E]ppCE0oS EypaaidTuCv, n

anoc[v]

ntpu[Tavceas] IoaL66eSv[oS 4

?v6e]-

xv TTGxxXrnaiaC xUpa [X]d[TnL, Ev6cxd[Tnb T]ns ip[u]TaveCas, E[c[dTpwL6, [tpo]d6pwv eaEanpuEv

[6poL]

vacat

d]-

[K]dXXAwv AvTuLtrTpo

S6o(ev Tri BouXnL xat

uaXntrTT[Lo]s

T&t 6r?)L

vacat

T5v] xat

[auiipoe]-

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER 45

[Tns]

48

TCeux]wvau

&aitcoa T&S xaOnxovaat

TrS aouXVqsxat

TO 6Siiou'

[x1VoXoav

exx]XnaCav

[oaLt TS

BouXils Cs

[_--ca.l6__ --]

o5v xat

xat

xPnVaT`oaxL

- xat

spt

60

[xat

of 50 prytaneis

u]-

Trv &XXWva&dv](pa,vnTacL TroL uio]1taLvov] npo~6pougs

sS

lines

lost ]nv KA[ -

6t Tr66 T8]

avaypa'aL

Cv oTn'Xnt XLvnL

LU c'S 6& Tuv cazvaypar[v

and at least

-

-

xai

xat arTn]-

TnsV va0eauv6

T[O avaWXwcpa.]

five

citations

have been lost.

[n BouXi] in corona

reliquiae

[- - -]

63

coronae

[- [--

] -

-

-la

T?V]

TOv 6&pov O STU 6ox[Ct T1L BOUXULCnaLV&aaLT8v TaciCav] c Tv pa[uiaTra 'A^oXXopdvnv nepyaonacv xat]

Trv-

o5 av cexaupov

Tdc, 'E]

[TOdTWv, YVSUnv 62 [UUBdXXe]-

[aTnAXns Tapitav T'r&v epioaa TO}V OTpaTUrTL']5xn yOvoTEvov

List

6t

n aouX[?

[4Ti(pLapaTbV ypapUaTea ToV xaT& np]uTav[CEav [aat

Vu]I1]

xpuTavcaL

u TObS [XaxVrTas

TUL 8ouXnL

several [ -

v T[?n

T&S] XeLTOupyCia &aovpUouva T[bV xaT{ixovTa

[&yaSn,U TidXn]t 6c6dxOau

57

ax[oaic

cUTrv O[Ca

tivXepCeXoc0ax

xat] qAXoTpwt1*Wu 0n7s

[TU(wv aXXs

[p1vouat

54

atcpavwaavTCS

T[p]u[TdveCL]

xat t]bv ypapuaTra 'AnoXXocpdvnvnIcpyaa[nev

[(uoaCa

51

CeCL6t oi

Tbv Tapuav ov ECXovTo V

T?L BouX] n

[[__ca.8

[icp

xat

ctaLuvaaVTCS

'EpcXEOc[6oS]

[vouaLv

AapTrpCsb eCServ

Ilau[a]aviou

[flau]aaviasc

25

2 crowns

lost

Tns]

26

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

n ouXn 3 citations 66

lost

O8e6oTOV

E0oUV1,?a EouvCa Line 6. Vacat0.054 m. before the ESOeEV clause. Line 19. The sigma in pointed brackets was entirely omitted. Line 20. KAI is inscribed partly in a noticeable gouge (P1. 9, b); this gouge was present, therefore,

before B inscribed. Vacat0.01 m. Line therefore, Line Line

23. This line and line 34 are placed on the same horizontal line (P1. 8); the crowns as a group, are not aligned horizontally. The space before '7 fovA-r measures 0.05 m. 40. The third eta has no crossbar. 41. The fifth epsilon lacks a middle horizontal.

Line 44. Vacat0.09 m. before the eSo?EV clause and 0.05 m. after it. Line 45. Vacat0.016 m. Line 47. The second alpha has no crossbar. Just above the break appears an arc, i.e. the top of a

round letter; B, 0, O, P, and Q are possible. Line 51. Vacat0.007 m. Line 53. Vacat0.006 m.

5 (Pls. 2, 10-12,

13, a). II2 2336 (EM 10398).4

Eustratiadis, 'ErrLypaat' AvEKorotL, III, 1855, no. 67; I.G., II 985; Dow, Harv. St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 111-124. This large stele of white marble records contributions made for the Pythais over a period of seven years from 103/2 to 97/6 B.C. With some exceptions and confusions it is arranged in panels, one for each year. B inscribed the second panel and made additions frequently thereafter. The present text and comments are limited to his entries. For a new text, full commentary and study of the document as a whole, see the present writer's I.G., II2 2336 scheduled for publication in the near future.

4 The complete stele has this number. It also includes the following EM and Agora fragments: EM 344, 2725, 5260, 8074, 12799 and Agora I 3320, I 3321, I 3323, I 3456, I 5734, I 5044, I 5045, I 3318, and I 4037. The last four are recent joins made as a result of studying the hands; cf. Hesperia,

XXXVI,

1967, pp. 245-248 and XXXIX,

1970, pp. 311-312.

THE INSCRIPTIONS

27

BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

Year II (102/1 B.c.), lines 48-91 (47-93)5 (Pls. 2, 10, a).

Height of letters, 0.008 m. 48. [ot']Se [d7TrrESoKav T]as dcrrapXas [Erl EXEKpdaT]VS a'pXovTos E7rr T- orrAa [u]r]par-[yos]

51. Zaparrlo[v M]eALhevs v eev apXwv 'EXEKPa.T[S TpLvEl]

HH H

vacat 54. TroAEiapXos[ZlOT'LtLoS MapaOlvlos

H

OEU/IOOE'TCL

H H

'ApLaTcrvvlos 'EAevcrivLto 57. O@'cv 'EpXtev) BaKXLOSAXCapvevs Va noroTaLos ['A]AKLl,8,S 60. IavraKAjs D BEPEVLKit1Sr

[H] [H] H

KE c[aA70] E[v] [O]E 07rTO/7TOS

H

vacat vacat

63.

[ETt/EAr/7,sT' ZlrAov @Ed6o]Tos ZoVVlEVS [eqrTLLEA-r'qTr ElTropiovl] E'V'ZAot 66. [ca.1-6---]

[ayopavoudxo els AiAov

ca.

72.

ca. 19 -

-

-]S

oUvtEIV

ElS rT Ev 'jAclw y]vvaoutov

less than ca. 22

_

75. [LEPEs MA7ro'AAcovos ev 'Ach [EK Kepat]e.cov

V0 [vacat 6

HH

H

&Eo8OT[OS

H

- - - -] r'r -v

Tpar7TE[av vrr)v rEv yA l] [8.r,oala]v 78. KaAAX[as] V 'AQpov[EVs lEpEVPES Al[Vv']aov

HH

H

ca. 20-----]eo

[yvplvacrapXos

HH

5 ]os Mapa0cvtos

Ca. 16_____--]o [_____ 69. [E'7T7T')v XvAaKtirv T-v LE]cPV XPriLaCd[Trv] _ l--]^ ] o oKPLToS 'AXap[VEV]s [- - - - ca.21

[- [ -

HH

- - - -

H] HH] F]

5 The line numbers are those of the new edition; Dow's line numbers are given in parentheses. In the margin of his text Dow labeled with letters of the Roman alphabet the various cutters who inscribed the text. In the pages which follow these labels are referred to at several points. The reader may well find it helpful to consult Dow's text.

28

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON LEpEvSg'Avio [v

2]apa7r(wV Aly[tAtLEl%S E'vv iiKW<>[t]

81.

LEpEVs

H]

84.

9EOELV?7cYTO9 [KU&a]0,9vatEvaLEUS tEpEVS l?apa'rTSosc A[ Ca4 ]jcS O9plK[tOs fEPEfS aYV7S 9EOU 9Ea[-c ---6 -] l4y)yEA'16EV ?EpEVs

ZJLo9Kvv0Uov zlJ7p [pLos' - - - E7TtlEAT7 sc -rov0q/ HEtpa[LEL AqdE'Vog]

H]

Bv'TTaKOS v AaqLITTPE[iiS9

H]

87.

AprE'/48o]Sr

rpai7YcdS'> [7]r)T [r apauT[KEl)]v 7i9 Tv Ttpoixosc vcPapvov'aL[OSo] 90. vay'apXosg H'Ovwv MEALtE1)S Hand X K7)pl4 ELS gliAAov (ItAwv IatavtEis

II

H)

aurEt

H

Line 54 (53). No legible traces of the original text remain. The correction was made, as is readily apparent from Plate 2, a, by a different cutter and, therefore, subsequent to B's work on this panel. Diotimos, the correct name, was shorter by one letter than the incorrect name. Line 55 (54). This word is indented 0.067 m. Line 59 (58). Vacat0.013 m. Line 60 (59). Vacat0.009 m. Lines 76-84 (78-86). Agora I 5045, after having been attributed to B on the basis of letter shape, was found to join here. Cf. Hesperia,XXXVI, 1967, pp. 245-247. Line 76 (78). The organization of this line, i.e. divided between two separate entries, is unparalleled in the other parts inscribed by B; he probably compensated for it by leaving a large uninscribed space to articulate them visually, thus the restored blank. Vacat0.014 m. Line 78 (80). Vacat0.03 m. Line 81 (83). B omitted the left horizontal of the omega. Line 87 (89). Vacat0.012 m. Line 88 (90). The bottom stroke of the sigma was never inscribed (P1. 2, b). Line 89 (91). Vacat0.013 m. Line 90 (92). Vacat0.007 m. The gouge of recent origin visible in this and the following line (P1. 10, a) is due, the ephor Dr. Mitsos recalled, to damage in the fighting at the end of the Second World War. At that time the stele was set up in the courtyard outside the museum. Line 91 (93). A glance at Plate 10, a will reveal that a different cutter inscribed this last entry in a space originally left blank between this panel and the next.

Year III (101/0 B.c.), lines 123-126 (125-128) (P1. 10, b). Height of letters, 0.01 m. For attribution, note alpha in line 123 and sigma in line 125.

123.jtPEE1

!AP4T/t0os

[ELVYjUw

[(1]LAoKA-9[KoAwv'6]E)

126 EAUKA7J tLa[VVOTrAa] EP] 126.

AUKA'ql7ta'[C~[8qg

AAat]lV%5

l

H

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

29

Year VI? (98/7), lines 147-149 (149-151) (P1. 11, a). Height of letters, 0.013 m. For attribution, note tau in line 148 and alpha and phi in line 149. Ev zlAwto 147. Lepevs AroAAwtcov[oS] Ar71Tprptos

Ar[7jrpl]ov

'Av]]awAroa[Ttos

H]

Line 149 (151). Under the first vertical of nu appears a small omikron (P1. 11, a). In shape, size, and location it corresponds to one of the round elements of phi. No traces of erasure appear. This indicates that B, after inscribing the initial alpha, took his eye from the stone to his working copy where it fell on the letter following the second alpha, viz., phi, which he then began to inscribe. He perceived his mistake at once and inscribed nu over the small portion of the phi without troubling to erase.

The large size of these letters, compared with those of the second-year panel, is due, in part, to the large lettering preceding. Thisdoes not appear to be the principal reason for them, however, for Hand E, who made the entry immediately preceding, was not deterred from making small letters (ca. 0.007 m.) according to his usual practice. B, rather, clearly intended to make thi entry fill the space at the bottom of the first column; he achieved his purpose by making large letters and by including the patronymic (usually omitted in this column) thus extending the entry to three lines. This shows that when he inscribed these lines he knew that this was to be the last entry of the first column; it also suggests that entries had already been made in column two.

Year V (99/8 B.C.), lines 162-163 (164-165) (P1. 11, b). Height of letters, ca. 0.011 m. For attribution, note the epsilons in line 162 and tau in line 163. 162. otsE

Tas a7rapXas (rm HpoKAXov[s a]pXovTos d7TErCOKav

Since the cutter who inscribed the first entries of a given year usually inscribed the heading at the same time, the fact that B cut the heading for this year rather than E (who made the first entries) suggests that B inscribed it in advance, at a time when he made another entry. Most probably, he cut it when he made the addition in lines 147-149. Since the second column was begun by Hand D, who inscribed continuously to 160 (line 161 is left blank), B's addition at the end of column I appears to have been the last (speaking chronologically) made in the first column. He was instructed, it to inscribe both this last appears, entry and the heading for the record of the fifth year.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

30

Year V (continued), lines 178-179 (180-181) (P1. 11, c). Height of letters: line 178, 0.012 m.; line 179, 0.01 m. For attribution, note upsilon and sigma in line 179. 178. arparrqyos

7Tr' [r)v 7TapaaKKEv7v]

Aiovvatos zrtr,[Trpiov A]f]woV[EVS l

]

Year VII (97/6 B.C.), lines 237-238 (241-242) (P1. 12). Height of letters, 0.012 m. For attribution, note epsilon in line 237 and alpha in line 238. 237.

lEpEv[S

d aIyvgs 'Abpo86trb]f evljvAcot

rat[os raIov 'AXapvev]s

H

Incised guidelines with an interval of 0.012 m. occur here; they commence at line 228, where Hand G began, and end at line 238. Since B did not usually incise guidelines, it is probable that G, who inscribed to line 236, also cut the guidelines in preparation for this entry.

Year VII (continued), lines 243-244 (247-248) (P1. 12). Height of letters: line 243, ca. 0.015 m.; line 244, 0.013 m. For attribution, noteTE in line 243 and YA in 244. 243. lepevs

4APTE'Lt[o]s

E'Vvr'act

Mapavas Mapavo[v Me]AtLrevs

[H]

The letter height corresponds to the interval between the guidelines which are drawn here. The guidelines begin here and continue to line 256 (i.e. to the end of Hand F's lettering); except for the first line they all have the same interval, 0.013 m. The identical interval and the knowledge that it was not B's practice to incise them indicate that Hand F incised them in order that he might correctly place the entries he was to inscribe; he left the first two lines uninscribed, and inscribed to line 256. F thus inscribed lines 245-256 before B inscribed 243-244. From this it appears likely that B inscribed lines 243-244 and 257 at the same time. It is even possible that he inscribed lines 237-238 at this same time. Lines 241-242 by Hand H do not have guidelines; H therefore cut before F. In addition, Hand X (lines 239-240) probably preceded H, for it is difficult to believe that H could have left space knowingly for X's entry, the tardy contribution of the

31

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

priest of Apollo. There are thus two possible cutting sequences in lines 228-257 depending on whether one assumes that B cut lines 237-238 after X cut 239-240 (Assumption I) or before (Assumption II):

II

I 1. G lines 228-236 and guidelines for 237-238 2. X lines 239-240 (influenced not to use 237-238 by the guidelines which signified an anticipated entry) 3. H lines 241-242 4. F lines 245-256 and guidelines for 243-244 (which he left blank) 5. B lines 237-238, 243-244, and 257

1. same as in I 2. B lines 237-238 3. X lines 239-240 4. same as step 3 in I 5. same as step 4 in I 6. B lines 243-244 and 257

Year VII (continued), line 257 (261) (P1. 12). Height of letters, ca. 0.011 m. For attribution, note upsilons and alpha.

arparlyog ?ri [rd oirTA]a Hvppos Hnppov AatLrrrpEvs

HH

The underlining in this line and in lines 256, 258, and 259 is now removed, for fragment q1 of Koehler's text (I.G., II, 985 published in 1883) containing the underlined letters was rediscovered during my searches in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens (cf. A.J.A., LXXV, 1971, p. 189, no. 7, pl. 47, figs. 1-2). The attribution, which was made on the basis of the letter shapes, preceded the join.

Year VII (continued), lines 262-263 (266-267) (P1. 12). Height of letters, ca. 0.01 m. For attribution, note sigma, tau, and alpha in line 262. 262. arpa-rryo' 7rrv ev aorTEt [Er77 Trv 7Ta]]paKEvr'v :AyaoKAhrs Zw3X[a]LKpd[ro]v Qtvatosg

l

Guidelines begin at line 262 and continue to line 267. They were incised by G and reveal that B cut this entry and the last one at the same time, i.e. after G had completed his work.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

32

Year VII (continued), lines 270-271 (274-275) (Pls. 12, 13, a). Height of letters, 0.012 m. For attribution, note in Plate 13, a epsilon, zeta, and tau in line 270. 270. [oj ?.r[bT7jV r)v]poo( iav TpaTrecav Trv [-3[Ev zdrAcotB'TTaK]oS HIvppov AaJLtrrTpevS

HH

Spatially and temporally this seems to have been the last regular entry on the stele. Line 270 (274). The reason for the first erasure is not apparent. B began to inscribe ev LJ7 at the end of this line, but only proceeded as far as the leading vertical of eta before deciding to put the entire phrase in the next line in order (apparently) to isolate the numeral in the margin; see Plate 13, a.

6 (Pls. 1, a, b; 13, b-21). II2 1028 (EM 10336).6 Archon Medeios, 101/0 B.C. Pittakis, 'E+b.4ApX., 4104; I.G., II, 467; Michel, no. 610; S.I.G.3, 717. This stele of white marble is 2.40 m. high, 0.615 m. wide at the top, 0.652 m. wide at the bottom, and ca. 0.135 m. thick; the height of the letters in the decree proper is 0.008 m., in the register of names 0.006 m.

The stele is listed under this inventory number; EM 2514, 7598, 7599, 7600, 7601, 8035 and Agora I 717 and I 3810 also belong to it. 6

33

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

C7~~~~~~~CSI

1<

A

-

IA

3cS

-
-

O

L -0 9-

> -*

S0

O X< a a

a 7C

LA

-

o aLa

oA

a'CS

'L A K 7a

'0-

3

0 L

CS

0CS 0

>L C aC

K

< a 'C 7 S A

1:3 L 7 a

a0

... O1 oH

ed

CS a 0

a

'La C 0

K C3Sx CS K K

L

a

3 -*

'

K 7

0K

a 'LAI

7*X

a Q

-

7S

C

-<-* -

3LA

-'a

a

0

LA

a- LA --UkX 7A' CS 7 -

0

0

L

f

'

a-'< '

a

A

C

0

CS

'

B

L

LA LA aW C ;

A

- LAa a

0

Z Cs

A) X K

K L

K

37

CW 13

0LA

a7 CsC 3

'CS K D K CL a7B3 3 Kb W aW

CS

LAP 13 ., 3

CS

a dCS 'LA

A) 7 0 L

7aCS t-

a

S

CS

K C

LA

L

a

3

0

S

C 0

C K

'C

K

7

W

B

LACS 7

C

W 7

W

L

< 'C

C a

a0

LA -'

L

C

L

KLX D

C

3 C

LA

7K -S

a 7 CS CS 7 'C aLAW

W

-

v?K 7 'S

0?3

Ct

0

S 00

K :C

C a a

CS W

CS K

7

S Cs L7 C ae 7 CS K

A CA L K

a a W

CS

C

-

W LA

'LA LA

LA

a

-

LA

L

a-

LA

u@3 ,-I

CS A

* aO -

a

LA CS

7 CS

C

LA a 7

' A

K

<

W CW L

C DU.)CS 0 a0 LS K a'ISP W C a-CS

CS O

CS
W

*(J WBIC,

C C K

1-'

I7

x C

0Ct

7 C

LA

-'

x

K A' CCS K

I-' A' - CS KA

a

7C 7'

7 0

W C K

LA

' a'

LA

3K

"

C

W K

CS

B

<

LA a-

3 -

*s

K W W a

'L 3

'

*Ca-c

S a

aCS" C

CS K-

CS L

aCs

CS

CS

L

Cs

W 7

3 a

-L

a30 W -

O CS C L

K -L

C -

a

a7

'LA K

0

C

W

7

0W C LA

CO

H-I

-

C

0O C

W

1> W

K

a

CS L

.-

B

A'-

CS

C

7a

A' C a

a-

C

7

7

aCS C 0

' C

7 LAI O CLA 0W

-'

3

K 0 -L ;>L

C

aa

,-

0

C a

a-

a C

a-

C K

L

C

K LA

a-

A

aX

L-

a

a

*3 K

O/

a7 L

L 13

C 3

'

; I aK

7>

L

:t Ol4

7

L

K a-

Ci

C

W-B ' Ct

37 ' L0 A'

e-

-

'a

3

a

3

OI

,-C t' LA

I7<

-

x

-'

)

C ?B K a 7

a

a

0

d<)

CS

CS C

K 0 09-L -4

L C

0 * 0K7

K

LA

LLa K

0

C

S u, 0

aa

7B CS 3

'7 7 O

t0 a

-

0

3-'

CS XCS -

< C

CS

a-

L3

CS

0

C *

B x K

LA

L

"Ca

o 0 a-

W0

-

*

-<

3 -

CS <

d S

a :>

a0 I'7

,-

7 -

-

P

aX

7

3

7

w

A

>

Il C

A

-'

CS K

L4

>

C

a

0

aIW

-LA

C

0 C

17 CS

S

C

L 0

xSa

a

C

WL

I K,

>-

a-

B.,?U

a'7

C-S

CS aa-

7- a LCS C

LA -'

0

K

CS 1<

?< 0

KW

0

C

I

0w?

oa

r-4

*) s

3

-,

?'C

a

7

CS L

0,

O

-3S? 74

* d:

i?

C B

.

A< 7a

r -3

-

3a'C

a

L -'

7W a

a.O

CS

I _, <

13

Zs

S

a-

P.

13

ox

CS

3 a-

0 0 S C CS AaC K0

aaC

'*1

O7

I-

-A

W

K

7X

3

CS CS a

KoI 7'CS 0

K CS K

a C a-

-~

7 o

C

CS

W

KW

41 C

W

LA

0' < a-

LA

CS

a- A0

7-

3-

(I)

;X

0 n

-

0

-

W

a'

W K C1)

0

a3- aaCs-'

K

7

7 C xC

C

a

-' 7 K s 13 a-O

CS 7 CS a - L-

a-

W-A

0

3

LA

7CS

W

.. 7

LA 17 L 7

/ K

0

9CS

-LA

? 7aCS

7<

-' K L C % A

a-W

.*

W CS

CS

7

7 CS a C

3W

3 3 L W

t3

7 C

17 0 A L3 . O --

ts

LA CS K

?

7

W

a

CS 0

W 7W W

3

7a

3 0

d

S -. LA W a0

C

CS K -L 17

H

a a-

a 0

L

'

KK

CS3 L?A

7

-< a'S

0W

7

-

I CS X

CS o

I

I

0

<:0 'C?K LA

KX -' Z

CS

-,

0

aW

'L

co0 \

a-

<

. _, 'CS KrB _

-

a C

t -? 3

13 -

o

oo

34

o

?

.

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

6

,.J '3

0 '-

I

Q.C X

*: 6

W I

'6 6

x -W ?J 0 '0

ra 7 P

3 co 'IO rt~ 6 .i 0

I

'0

1-1

'3

6 -7

0

'6

.Cs C7 W

-to 6

0

*o t-

d?) '7 lkh

?J I'

Cs!

Ai 1O

1l to

*,o

0

I.,)

o to

I5

IZs

l< t)

I

10

0

Q-9 '3

P, I'3

to ?-0

5o o 1o

x to ^-W

06 ;X 7

c<

W

U) W

'7

~o

'LI) Cs

,W

C-

x .W

3

;x o lo c6 3 W a 7 10

l<

W W

15

t;I

1-

?<

1, 0

0

l6

1-1

oI.,

Ai

Ai 1O

"?o -

7

to C7

17 ;:7 0

7

00

17 :0 C'7

i

'3

10

x 0

', 0 x ;<

to .-, 0

W '69-

as C3 17 X7

7-i 0

Cs

l3

. 7-L

~o

-6Id

0 07

0

^0

I~

I

6

i3 10 x3

7 tt0 C5 C7 7 -6 x C' Pr

7

7

cAi

.Cs

a

co lo to674

C5

(

L0

L>

W

r-7

o0 0 6L

g,)

ea 6

'3 0

6 6

7 Ca

0

?oo

,_., 6. 6

o

?Co 3 ?0

C5

106

0*0 0

'a

:x

3

0

7

'W

0 C.0

;:L

'r-

LJ ts

*0

Zs

77

-

o6 7

40

^

67

6

7

77'

06

7

5-

70

0

-

7

d;>

'....7

N

76 0

r-W

0a c3 'A

^

K S

0

40

610 .-1-_5

s

O 6< ^3 ts

0

7

7

6. u7

1-' 60 0

^0 6 -<J

x7

c0

ICK '3

doI 17

0? '6a

x 17

X L/? /? 0 60

a

N

LI

7

7

0

do w6 7 0

6

X

6 7

6

i~ a

17

7

C

> 3

'.

10

(J

,? R

0

P,'

;>

_? 7

3

6 <

,- o 6

a 7

'3 17

77

0

Cs? |

P .to6

7. '3 -. 6 6

:x ;3

K to

v65

0

6 ^

x7 0.

0

-

QN

:3K

07

6

6

7< 0

6

7

5-

7

U) 9W t) x1

,-

L

LI 0

7

7

56c

'0 7-

6-

A) K0

6

0 13 >

7 d)

K

B

10 .,, 7

I

6

3-

Ai510

4

0

3

7

76

,W

,

-^ 0

7 6

6

W

16

to

15 Ka >LI

C.W

7l 56 oKT 10

7

.W

, I %a

6

o.

'0

L

XD .-, 0 do

6

10 X76

~:3 7

Is

6

-7, x(

-9

.07

0

d:> D

K

-

CIL

-<6

Q5 7

L4 f> 10 . 6

'a ~o

0

7 7 5-

1c-o

oo

r7

a.

C' P

7-

P

0

02

V

to

9- -W 3

J0

-.

3l.

6 Z5 L3

-s

0

P

00

.W

CO'7~o

0

0

,2C

<

P

'3 5-

W t.

d; ,W

LA 17

I.06 7

7 10

a

mo

X

W

I-

'0

6 I.' 0 /O

:-

'3

tJ

.,to c'

0.

7

6

7

7

X 1. k,-,

:1= W *a

Q.,

0a W ot

to,

6,6 77

1

;)

OL 0

0

5<

7 ;x 0

aI C.

3

ID

L'

0 .B

<0 J-.

.W>

l< v?o 13 >X

P

13

W L,

*0

*O .o be

*U) ukt

0

0.C '6

.I

7

7

tp

1-a

l< ?B SZ5

6

|"

t1

9-

8>

LA
76

0

'~o o '0

S.

'0 ?3

0

t31-1

tfl

II.

.W

00

I x x

Q. <0 ?cr

C7 x

3x

.10 x

a o

c" Is6 O3

II

/-? Zs x

*a o

1C7 6

It, '6

tC7

17

I

10

l< *C7 7

07 17

17 0 x6 c'

56 IJ

I.-

7 6

10 t) 60

x

Zs -t 6

:7

^5< 2<

6 :6

(-0

'7

0 3

x

0 u0 Ca

1-

6.

X

'B

6 7

I6

7

'0

17

'0t0

Cs

?0

IW

5-

I

*a

a3

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

-,

o

o

0 0. 0

r-7 C ,

e

, I

gC -

7

;> o

7C -

0 3 : *-

I 7 0 aQ

F '0

o

:

O a.

g:0 o

IF

0CTo

L4

0 4O

,<

o

4 -W

h5

0 O

0 ico

0

u

X

oC3 ;> 3

C

0

L

0

I

a

:

?-<

0n

.a-

-O I

u0

O 0>

o '(

07 U

7 3

7 0

7

1o

Ca

XC 0}

0I

o

LA

'0

9-'4

0

-

[- o t

*C

r0 '-

O

o

o

-

-0

o C~ O'

*

0

t0 0A

t0 0

tO 0

.0

0

D

X

;> C'

'0

3

'0

0F

35

36

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

.,

0 I

0. t

L> 5

w

30 0a

0

,-7

l 0 0> *I

-

0

0

0

>0 B I

.

, '0

1-w-

-=

9

, IA

IA

0.

A

')0

t

'- 3'

C).IA I-' L> I44 70 > wIA 4 0'--' <) -' 9 1' O

)a 0 0.<. '0 '-

0-.

^

10,

0

I

-

o0 7x 0.

0

l '0

LI110 ma.

CA -

-,

r-I x0 I-ts1 m

-.

-4 IA

7 IA

X~~~~' ~~~( ~' 0>

o' IA

x t0 x0 9

~~~~~~-' 44~~~~~~ ~~~ 9

4~~~~~C

IA

F

7 > F ii 1-' ti h-4I

x

t,i-

> iA

LA I 0 ...A 7L-Ax ig -5 0 '0 L '4 0

a.

3

9-, IF > I" -I 1 7

3

-'0 7 F 0 IA <

>

-IQ 0s 7 -' 10 u LX0

'0 'I 0

j-

C. L

t1

' -

1,P 0 '0 tIA

H

4

4)

' 13

)0

4

*

0 A' 0

IA

B

01 'F

I

9 I

F '0 0 4

-E -7.3

0 -11

A

0 0 d;) 06 w ' * 0 0,o>* 0< I 0 0 -, 1 13 13 'F 0 -00 < I'0 1

0 4 0

< 0- Io

C u'o7

IC

'g

0

'Fa.y 0 7 0 IA

'0

0 0> C , H 0- 9 -IA 9

'O I

IA A '0IA^ k-. 0:7s 0

3

I

S~A

9 w -I 7

0 0

0

:r 7 I

a. 3

7 3

'C'

t73 I

3

IA 0 0

'

-'0

0

IA

0

7

9a

'0

7 4X.

7 7

0

t0

j

a -

.

i


4-

IA B '0

0> 0 -IA

IA

-' H. 0 o

;

4 AJ

s

9-

O

'

0

7 I-W

>

'0

?

005

1

x F 0 ::

0

I

0

' 0

0 0 0.--I o'o0 '-

0

4"

L,-

3 0

9

d7 13

IA .$ 0 Ca 'F o 9-

'0

I'

'F3

0 'I IA

*H70

?

i

4o -

i

71 wI

0 0 s

-I -IZ-s 7 VIA 100

'

a.

'0

0

'-?

"0 C *0 '^ F xa P 0) 10 0 7 13 93 ?3 aI-' 0t? a 9

IA -

?

1 '10 - 9I >. 1<

13

'

e-

00

-

~-

IA

'00

a

0 e'0 -) '0 to

7''

7

-

f-IA) 0 < ' '0.o

1-

-

: 07

o

7 3> 0

a

'0

0 a.L

-'0 IA 0

7, IA

0

os

I I

0

IC: ZF I-

0 13

0

'

0

')

0s 0) 'F IC 0

0 '0?

10--

A

-

405 I

Id

IA I3 -< -( A

7 0-

0

Oa

Ca xe-

0 ;I 0

0

' 4IH

I0l3

7 0 a

0a,P h7

0

I

0

4-*'0

7 -

IA ' 0 <

Cs0 9

-

9

-

-IA -'-

7

>

IA

0> -0 -IA

7A '-

4IA

'0 II

0

mur

d7 I
a.

>

LA 0 P h-03

Its

0 3

?-,0 .4 7

7

IA

13

F,

0 "1-,

IA 9. 0

LA o4 0 oF 1 0 O. '0C 0J,

'0

IA 7 I3 0 -, a

0 *- 7 -0

A

wI

-4

IA 7

0A 0 I '0

-13

1 0 -I$A)

0

07

I .

4 -'

0 Cs0

-0

7

0

-Ia

>0 -< 0 9

40 7

H u 4) 4

0

9

-

>o9-

-

I

33 IA

-'

o .'0

.?

0'

-

u

?

.-*

.3 410 0s I,3 7

-,0

I-

0I0

7 7

3

A 0* iF 4-u

7

o0 0 0 -

0 $-4 0s 9

. 10

'

a3 '7'0 9

~

0

9 0I

>

-O F I7 I

3

9

o 00

0

09 0 7, I -1

99 -9-7

'-' IA 7 0

IC' <' 3 0 0 '0

'o 40 IA 0

'

LA

IA 1-' 0 I'

a X

-

1-) A0 O IA

Io-A .19 '0-7W' . -I

Qe Al

7

0 < 0 ? 0

Ps 1a

a

'0 I

3-1

I

0A

-'0

0

F 0

0 4

t

13 '0

~

A

1

44 0$ 9

x

0

7 0

IA

0ea
k-4 C%

IA 0 IAw

0

IA

;I71'

>

0I

1-

IA

B-' 0 9

-

0

9

0

'0s

'0

9

9

0

do

Cs

iF

F

0 Id0

a.

00)

iO t0 >

0i,A 0 - '0I9

)

-

7 F40

0 7

0 7o C ^a-Q a

0 :0 '0 0>

A.)

La 0 0-

9 'o-'~~~~~-" '0> IA IA

4--

J IA iF

-

IA 9 40 0

IA

I-

9

13

0 7< 1--'

1 00 Ul o -'.)

'

CsCI *

-0

^

0a

0 7 0

0I '' ;I ''0 7

A 0 -4 < 0

F 9 IA

%A0 IA -0?

o -4 I

AA? 0 0

7Q

0 '-1 ae0F IA-44 0o -39 5 7 -3 % IA C" ^ts02

0 0')

^-

7

03

LA '0 I ?3

IA~4 '0I Ia L 'F ? IA) c.--' IA 9K -I -IA 1'-' IA IA 7 0 7 0
'

0

7

IA

10S

ts a. fr-

~~ ~~ ~a.

la01

7

13

a-'0

(a0 -' to

O

-I

0

9

^ --.< '0

-

'r

I

s000

'~~~~~ ~ ~~0 0

0

7 .44 -

-' 'IA

s B 9-

I

I

80'

0

C 07 7 '0 C' r0* a-^ 75 ?3 I^X U ir~. '-' 0i-

^0 --Iu 7^*S~ d-

0 4-~

*j

0

'

0 =0 0 . ' 3

0 o* -

E-'

7

9 7 IA u 0> 7 IA 13 7?*>S-(4?t- *' 9 '0 -IA 0: _> 0 IA 0s IA 30 ao a 1 4"-

>

t-0

L 'F '0

0

IAo F 4

00 i<

3

'-0

L4 a 9 0 tA

c

0

0

I ;>

x

" "0

03A o

.

I 13 en '

-0 0

0 o-' -9

13 -

0 9 0

3

'*

e IA

0

I

' IA

3

X

'0 .4 '

I-' -.

iF 7-v 0> 0 I3 4

0

^ '0

07 1F

0o 'F -4 9 9

I 0

a

9 le 0

A 0 0s

a.

4 0) 1'0

0

>Z

9

6,,) H

'IA0

x.

I o0 -L

4

'0^^sss^

-'0

)

04

9 4-

4-

-34-

a0)

73

^9

0 9

'a 0s -< 0

IA H

a.

I 00? IC4-

'0

'0

7

0

IA

-

-'0 3 'J IA

3

4)L

'F 0

a. IA 0

70

13

40 'F

.

0

-

9

7

0'

'0

a.

- 4

13

ax 'F 0

13 7

-0C 0

07

-

Ai '0 s

IA 9

7 -o 0 IA 0) F

0

'0

10

'IA

13AA IA I' tF '0 9

0 IA .0X

I

H0 07 0 X 9 'IA

4IA

~

0

0

inO

'0

13

a. 14

a. '0>

i.a 0

4

9

9

4A

..-I

4-) C 9 "

IA *0

0 4 "0 0

0

-7

0

;

IA

' 0 .1d 0 '0I 0

co

0

7 '-

l

3 >0

loo -IA

a. 0

-I

7IU)

h-P

9

:I 0 4 0

9

00

0

'0I

0

0 -I

F

'0 9 -0

9

-'

4" '0 I >-

H

H

13 4

0

a.

I

'0

0

L

a.L

0 0

'F I

0 F '0

7

-'

'0 0

0s

-

H

x

7

I-

a -0 -

t

IC

X4

0

9

IA 0 -

7 3,,

0 >-

a.

-

-

r-

H

0 (I

9

I0 9

0 0 '0

-4 Do

-C

'0

i

-o

7 I

0

C>

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

,0 _

'-S * 0

> C X FX

L 0

o )

?<

0 >

I-

<

3 '-

a.

1 1C

0 1

7

<

'0

0

K

K

_0

7 0

0 d0

7 3 '-* C >

'0*. S. L P

, LA

r5'1 '7 o

,X 6P

0 O ---

'tS

0--?

o0 8 Qt 0 >7 00

-'

Zs

p

C

X

**

B

0 X0

X O

>

>7

-

0d;0 O

0

0

-? -

x

W0

W

1-

IW O. *0

C X '7

3 3.

7

hlC d

'-? 7

0

3

*B

tC

P

>

0

9-

t0C>

'

7> >-

C3 0

X

-

3

13

7

0

0

0

'0

*0 >

13 I '7 0

'

,-

)

-(

A) '0

'F 9 -0) d:) 0 I-

Zs-'

t-

7 0

-;

IC 0

b

53 13 W 5-

7

L 7

:)0-

*

00?

_ a0

0

0 f tf

1-' w LA 0 ;

C" > d0 -

Oa A-

C-

-4

7 -0

*8

-'

-t

7

0

7-t

*0 LA -'* 0

* LA -O

0

.3

'0s

> -*

-

s

'W

A

LA 5?B

LA '-W

A

3

0 L -Q t-

LA 00

7> 0do

d JO 5-

A

0o

K L 9

7 0

ea

x O

w3
3

0 fC

W

I-l-

i-

0

>

L S

*0- o

4

'-0

K 3 W

0.

tO IF

-p

0 tF

0

*C

W' 0

*>

IC

3 =

SW 0-

X ,<

>> * QL A

Q

'

-

0

I-

0

O

-W

'0

0o7

F

O

<

F,9

'0

v?

?< ,C

LA O 7 0

K X 0

D

a

-I

37

line

one

130

uninscribed HBE

E [

01 I

] Y

E

[ EE

ANT

EXE

I

] KPATOY

132

135

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

EWTa

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-_-

'HUd66W[Pos

-

-

-

---

]

NouunvL.o[s

-

--

---

]

[A] LodoLOS 138

[AL]ovuoa[ou

[KA]cpaT[o]s [Mn]yvd6pos

[?L]Xoo0evns ['Hp]d6Lxos 'HpaxAcei6ns

144

-

-

-

-

-

174

-evov

._

[

-

-_

[

.

.

--

ca.22

-

-

-[ 177

-

O [6]po?wv

_

ca.21-

-

-

8powvoS

210 ]i

MupLvoU'TT[ns]

216

[ca.6 186

[ ca'.6

]as

Ap[ IaolToyvou

219

AwaC?eos TAouTadpXou Pauv[oJS

MevuXXoS EwaLXHpdaTouPaVv[oS Mvace!as AnUpou 'PacvotSoL[os] 222

Nouupvtoos 'Appo6Loaou

Mapa[(

Z?vwv 'Ap 'TrwvoS Mapa9[(jvtos]

KLxuVVCXS

BdxxLos

'ApLCTopavou XoXapYeus 09[tv]et6oS

AnLopdvTou ETpLxop

ALovdOaos 'Ayao0oxXAous toaXn

Cx Kcpapewv

EuOuuAXou ?x Kepauwvi ]s

Xap xXeous * aXn[pe]I

ZwoeviDS Ewo[Ly1e'vou MapaO[( Eu6upevns

ev

6eo6,wpou X[o]Xapyedi

[-?-:-]pos

nooeli6L'1tiwou Ou

ACavTI'6os

9eo6wpos XoAa]pyctSs

'EaLOSo[(Lo]

AL6TIO.O[S ZrJ]vCwvos MapaO9J

Auus

Ke(pa[A].

[ALOV]SOtOgS 'Epyoxcpou

XottpCwv $at6p'ou

ex K[o

KcpL ta6ns

'ApLOTOcEvoS nlLv6dpou IIcLpa[

213

_

'APLoTwvOS

E6uoevou

nIooe'6tnxo5

'APLCT6VOUE[l ] TTLo

[(e]o'6wpos

'IwvL'6ns

'AAfEcav6pos 'APXL6cauou 'EXLEc[Is]

-

[ 'Axapav TC6os]

[ i ] X6evos

183

8pdoawv KaXALpdQvou'OTpuved

. ca, 22_

['A]pL.oTrwv Mvrnoa'tnou E$tjc[aT]os 180

HpaxAEC6ou ex K.n6Mv

Oeo6Mpou [ex]

-

ca. [ 16

nooeCi6uwvou AapxTr[pcUs]

'Eppaydpou

ELXavbs

-

ca22-

- -ca. 20-

'EXaLVe'T[o]u ex Kn6Eav

XacpL6npou K(qpoLC5S;

- -]

_-ca.21

ca.21

'AoxXn1rtLa6rs MvnaCou [Knp] LotCe5S

ecd6wpos

[

AciapT]pei5s

A[yET6o&

147

171

AowVuaoo[u Acau]xTpetUS MnvoU6po[u n]aP6awTCd6ns

[cSS4 a]v6pos 141

EuoouvX6ns

'EpeX[(et6os] -3KA

Z

APXONT0

ca.22

225

'AioXMwvCou Mapo[aw1

LXoTr6ns

LAXLGTC'6oU 'P[au]v

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE

%A

LA

6

a7 - :<'

?

u^o *3 ob u-? ^ Q. X LA I3 '7> .,3,f '7 ' -'-s~~ -> 0

'7

U)

6

%f) < o-0

L

' ?0 0

)

'-'

-*6 LA

'6

7? 7 6 0

'6

-.

a

6

-

A

L

a'

6

'0 7>

I>*

60

x

-

6

-' 7 7

'

7

,6

0.

6

L--) 0

LA

*?W X<

LA. o

I 6i

I63

)-

x

6

-*

-

'0

7 0

I 7 y= LA

<

-* -' < <*<' 60 '0

-

-

f

IA < -

LA C '6

LA '7 LA

~ LA

L '

< >

'

K

6

k'

A 0 W La'6 .0 3 -- < LA '. . 7 A LA

'

a

?

'L L -' -0.

LA

'6

07

3 ,~ . i ui Oi

l -7| *l al vC I a 0 I 0 01

Lsd

7

a0 00 C

LA 0 '6 O

S

7

*3 <

P.7

'6

.. '6

W w L a

V

k=

'6

LA

'7

-<

--? 'L '6

W

3

6

-

o3 0 7 3

00L

7-

a

L

E-

'

-< <3Q 0x 6

LAa 0-C `1 LA '6 '

A

'

0<

0

07 7

K3' LA

L 0

a LA E-

LA -,, o

L7

- C*

'-*

6 LA,7

L4

<-

0

LA

0

:,

~

o

-.

^

*

> ^ LA 0 P3. 3 < Q <

0

7"

0

t-I

WA

-0LA

C7

3 0 7

0 -<

LA LA <,

'*1 6

,

'->0

6

'0

x

'LA

I-'

6l3-

0 '

0

0

o

'0

LA

>-l>7-

6~

:I?= 33A 7

MC

0 ;>*-

--<--'

-< 1.. d

<

7-< '-'

LA '7 LA

-

-

; ' A-?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ '6

LA '6 0 30

0 <]

/

*

/*-?

LA

3

- 6 a 0I'

L4

3

0

LA

. '7a -<

C'

0 ~~~~~~~a~~~c

7

3 a

-

,6

0710-* t)

a .-

-,A 3r-.

< 6

a

7

6 B0 73

'LA ,-

x

0 K I -,

0

* '- 1SA

0

?-'U LA

L0 Q, )

0? " ?A

6

6 t.A LA*

'

~~LA

-

-? ?-/ 0

L

1028 CUTTER

112

CL

L

7

7

' L LA

a

3

6 '3

0

~~~~~~'7 <'

014

('4

LA

'7n

04

LA

I-

LA

W

t1

'0 7

'6

7C 0 o7 A '67

7a 3?

6

LA

3 at

7

ta IC'

-Xg 3 -,00 'o 30 K

'C7L' 7

LA

LA o

0 6

< 3

co ,

C-<-61

7<

xC

'33

X

'1a

7

3 '

0LA 7 0,g

>

'6

4.,

6

^

0)

'60

>7

E-

7 2CIL 3

L

I '6 L 00 W LAP 6 Xo K 0 o0 a

I

i ~>o - o3 "-

i-~ : o0

--

7

o:-

6 ' s a 0L

0 B )C 00'-? LA7L

0

LA

a'? x> '6

I'

7:LA 6

<6 LA 9-

a

'

LA 7

. a

7 7 '00 X

0 0 -K

o LA

6

;3 .

'6 0 .

0

LA

L

LA' a '6 tsl

' ; 0 'C LA

'6

g3 ooenr

W 0

LA

C)

L LA

6

a-

17

0

I

a

K

'

0 7

d'6 0

6 7 X '6

7

3

LA

O

clr%

'30<

-K

3K

3

0

W

<0

7

LA

H 0

6) H

-

L

6

-

LA

3. ' .

W

M 0 K

.:)

)

LA

3

.

0

a

?-? 0 7

<0

=..

~CD ^

LA

?

3

L LA .

CY)

7

LA

W a

LA

Li'6 -

--.<>^ ~

'o

'6

N K

>

I

a)

LA

L A 06

0

.~ 0W

0.

3

'

0

0

a '-

0 o '6

L

l7 -< L 7 a

a

O

o)

'-4I.-~

,

-.

K 0 *? K 'o

t<

~UL2

~6)

CD H-<

c X

LA'3

r Cie

t

) 3,' K

7L '6A : -j a-

O~

(,4

W

? ^

-

'7

<0:) 0 ?0

C 0

3

K

6

t [~

CA 6)

6)

C> 6)

LAA' LA 7 7

LA

'6 a t7a -< 0

<

0

6 K 6 CA -

0 '

i-'

6

LA

L.

a*

'L 7 'LA -C

LA LA7

L I LA I I' LA 7'

<

L a

.

' 1 a

0

37

'L 6

3

0

W -f

^ 'a

LA;> LA 'LA 'LA ., 3d LA 4-

a a0

-

a '6

'67' o -

LACI '73 HI 71

0 K 7W'LA'

K

LO

I3

6) n

H

tA

0 6

7 L .a a

0 07

7) 3:?

7

LA 0

ol

7

'6 0 o

a

7 0 Kx

6 -

IC

60 'C '6

LA

6

6 7-

0 7 7

o

0?

LA '' LA >

7

al .

LA

al at 3

7 3

*0 09 L0L

0

7

'LA

3a-C)0

, a-.' o~ 7

.

a

-

3 '

^

K3 a L

L' a' i < '

~

7

L> '6LA ')

' 10 H

7 0 a

0

'

A

'

'0

'6 -4

3

7' '0 .

7^ K -

7 0.

7

'6

a

LA a. .'6 '6

3

LA a' '6

ca =7 6

LA LA *< l< 0 7<

K' LA 7 0

6s a LA L

>A LA 0

7

7

3

7<

7

-

0

0

'

a?a C'oe'6

LA

a

3

C

7

'

7

LA

'6

6L?

'6 0 6

I-6

LA

LA a '6

6'-'

3

A0L'Aq LA a C.L

'

6 M a 7

6

LA a '6

'

7

LA 0 LA

< -

'

7

3 ea < :L

'6 9-

LAW 7 0 I'LA 7

7 LA 0 .' L

6

?

K

0 a,

3 '6 0

7

'

'6 6 L

-

O

7

LA

7-

'LA -W

9 -a 3 6 LA' .

6) &O H

LA I1 '6

'n H

a

ao

7 6 '77TO)

LA

'

CD to H

39

v

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

40

1A

o

3

6

.

LA W

LA 0

J0

.

LA

_ 0N1e 'F=

.

I

-

A

1-

'

* 3a

0

-

I

:> <0 -

3

::

0

K

'0S

,

* '.

QQ

'F A

co

'3

-.

0

<WA

'o

0

L

<

0

I

97 o

3

O O

0

3

.<

6

AC

0

'0

-

9

3

0

W

I

E-

0

' 6

-

Vt

7

'0

o W

o'

.

F.

0 A I

0

00

3

L0

& .1"

*

'

0

'

-

I

o

-I

4 K t3, Zx

0

:0

7

0

.3

0

w

0

0

*0 1

7

It

^

7 3. o

' O. F

,.o L

I,

u.

W

,

Cz

W

LA I-

Q.

0

'

C"

-

_s

_

7 'LA

KA I< 0

Ulz

*0 '1I1 &

'6 ?'

La

1.I,

K x x

0 0

C

co

<

C

U

H

0

.1 c-

COC

0g A 1

(

C4 <0

CO

0

U

I

LA 1=4

0

60 1-'

6

W

:> 7

7

> -

<

C 1-1

3 '<

0

-

c-

U).

I

0

,<

60 'F

L:

0 a:

o 0. t.r-

'6

a

LA

I

,W

6

o

I-

I

A 1

,

w 0? l<

I

L

6

C

K o

Ll

AC 0 o

K

I

0

'7

6

-

I F \ 0

06 x

6,

.o '

8

H 69

006 06

H

ai a

C

d-

o

\0 -

i7 '0

!i1

:L

W

,<

1-

0

'0 :

I

0 '6I

x

o

0

I

Q

0

0 I--

3

x'

'3 0 s,

<

o

1-,

I

I

tD X

0.

o

6t FR

-0

UA

v~ 7CM

o

(0

<0

I. 44 +4

I

I

0JI

C

>,

0 I

6 C8L

o C ?5 cn

0 0 C)

c3 r-.1

)37 '0

C '6

I

I

1-

CL LA

a6$

-a

6 W |

>

0 I

a

0 x *?s

0

>

F' 0

I4

IC

.F

rE;

61 '6

I

-

-'

7

7 0

F

,

t
a3

CM4

U

CM

WN CMM

(N

Un

C9-

I

r-

T-l

0o' X la ,<

U) CM co

7

IS ' w

!...

t_

a

X7

C)

o

0

IC

0 a

C)

.< .<

7-

61

V4

'C C OO

I

0

'C

0

n

-1

I

6)

0 U'

-'*

CM coO

0 0'6 WN

- cl

(

0 0 ' 6L

'O U FP F-

el*

7

I

_-'

I

a

-' A<

>

0

0

tF

0 c

x

o

> '3

0

3

-1

A'

?'6

CM

tO

C"

CM

"?

'

o C' -C t0

in CM4

CO CM

6

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

41

Line 1. The line is inscribed on the curving surface at the bottom of the molding. This is the first of many indications that the stele was not quite large enough to accommodate easily the text of the inscription. Line 4. The clause eo:ev rrc f3ovAL,Kat rou Sn/cot, the regular formula in decrees of this period and in B's other work, has been abbreviated and is set off by large blank spaces (0.042 m. before and 0.047 m. after). The abbreviation did not materially affect the provisions of the decree, for, in probouleutic decrees, a statement that a measure has been approved by the demos automatically includes the approval of the boule. Although the abbreviation is short, its purpose, like the more drastic abbreviation rovs Aaxo'vTas(lines 44-45), was to conserve space. Line 5. Vacat0.011 m. Line 6. The uppermost horizontal of the initial epsilon was never inscribed. Curiously enough, its serif appears in the usual position. Line 10. No blank space occurs before 'Jpavro 8E'. This is one of two places (the other occurs in line 32) where no indication of a space appears before a clause beginning with a verb and be or Se KaL. Doubtless B simply neglected to leave space, for this is the first opportunity which he had in this text to leave such a space. Line 14. Vacat0.011 m. Line 15. Vacat 0.012 m.

Line 17. Beta is enclosed in pointed brackets because kappa appears on the stone (PI. 13, b); Koehler printed KOYNin his majuscule text. B began to inscribe KAI;after cutting erepov his eye either fell back on the ON of ravpov or ahead to 8v Kat in line 18. He perceived the error at once but did not erase or even superscribe. Line 19. Vacat0.02 m. Line 20. Vacat0.022 m. Line 21. Vacat0.015 m. Line 23. Vacat0.01 m. Line 24 (PI. 13, c). After 4JOyEVetOtS B inscribed originally tau plus seven (?) other letters. He then left a space and continued. When he discovered that these seven letters were incorrect and that it was necessary to replace them with nine, he erased and moved the original epsilon, pi, and lambda (each visible to the left of the respective letter in Plate 13, c) to the right to make more room, inserted the correct letters, and left a small space (0.007 m.). In addition to tau, only one letter of the first text is clear, viz. an omikron (theta?) directly under sigma. The original text was T .....0. Line 29. Vacat0.016 m. Lines 34-40. A small fragment containing the ends of these lines is now incorporated in the stele. When it was discovered and by whom is not known. Line 35. Vacat 0.016 m.

Line 36. Vacat0.011 m. Line 37. Vacat 0.012 m. Line 40. Vacat 0.011 m.

Line 41. Vacat0.016 m. Line 42. Vacat 0.011 m.

Lines 44-45. The words 'rovS AaXo'vTarepresent an unparalleled shortening of the formula TroV AaXOVTraS irpoeSpovS e' 'rrv Er'LOVav EKKAratlav XPr7/.aTtaL rept yvT,w, v 8e {vaAA TOvrwv, aOat 10V 'rt 8OKeL Trt fgovA^tL.This abbreviation is repeated in line 121- "unde rT9 fovAs eL' TOrV qov Dittenb. recte concludit, non quadratarii incuria id esse factum, sed consulto, ne scilicet nimius fuerit tituli ambitus" (Kirchner, I.G., II2).

42

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

Line 44. Vacat0.021 m. and 0.012 m. Line 45. Vacat0.022 m. Line 49. Vacat0.014 m. Lines 51-53. EM 8035, originally attributed to B on the basis of hand, joins here; we may now remove the underlining in lines 51-52 and read eta and nu of roorTjv in line 53 (cf. A.J.A., LXXV, 1971,

p. 190 and pl. 47). Line 51. Vacat0.014 m. Line 52. Vacat0.011 m. Line 53. Four letters of the first text can be discerned (P1. 13, d): alpha to the right of xi, tau between

epsilon and alpha, and epsilon and alpha in the space. In addition, since the initial alpha is not in rasura, it has been re-used. The incorrect word was, then, A[ 1]A... TEA. 'Apaeavrea alone suits the requirements; B inscribed it for Alwvea probably as a consequence of careless reading of his copy. The two demotics have enough letters in common, especially xi, to be easily confused. A blank space of 0.021 m. resulted because the shorter demotic did not fill the place of the longer. This, in turn, indicates that B

had proceeded far enough before perceiving the error that he preferred to leave an unwanted space rather than make an extensive erasure. Line 54. The second kappa lacks the lower diagonal stroke (P1. 13, d). I.G., II2 gives 4A4v[tea]

for A'r77v[Ea]. Line 55. Vacat0.024 m. Line 57. Vacat0.014 m. Lines 59-64. Erasure in corona(P1. 14, a). Line 59. Sigma and epsilon are spread out slightly in the erasure. B probably first intended to include more of esqflovu on this line, then changed his mind and erased in order to space out the sigma and epsilon. Line 60. The alpha is elongated and iota almost merges with the edge of the crown. The erasure preceding was probably motivated by the necessity to squeeze KAIinto this line. Line 64. It is likely that B first attempted to inscribe Bovrd I 8'rv but was forced by the lack of space in line 65 to erase and crowd all but the final letter into line 64. The crown surrounding lines 66-69, the first plain gold crown, reveals an arc in the lower left side (P1. 14, b). It seems probable that B first intended to inscribe an inner line to form a band from which

the gold leaves were to be suspended similar to the crown in 1 (P1.4, a). Line 71. Vacat0.021 m. Lines 72-76. Erasures in corona(P1. 15, a). Although B failed to center the letters within the crown,

the first two erasureswere clearly made to improve the symmetry. Line 74. The alpha was erased and relocated to the right with the result that it falls under the final letter

of the rows above. Line 75. Beta has been erasedand moved to the right with the resultthat Bovrd is centered under Ttotwva. The alpha does not seem to have been relocated, for the erasureis small and the A falls in the center of it; this erasure may have been made to correct a defective alpha. Line 78. Vacat0.016 m. Line 83. Erasure in corona (P1. 15, b). The original letters, beta to the left of beta, upsilon under

omikron, tau under upsilon, and alpha under and slightly to the left of tau, attest that B first tried to inscribe BovrTdSrvall on this line. He was apparently motivated by a wish to begin and end the lines of this crown on the same horizontal line as the first and last lines of the crowns on either side. This, in any case, would have been the result but he misjudged the space and was forced to erase and place the demotic on two lines.

THE INSCRIPTIONS

BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

43

Line 91. No trace of the originally inscribed letter remains. Line 92 (P1. 16, a). Although no letters of the erased words are discernible, a comparison of the layout of this preamble with its counterpart (line Iff.) reveals that the second line here contains 76 letters (the second of the first preamble has 63). Crowding occurs only in the erasure and indicates that there was an error of omission in the first part of the line of such magnitude that the cutter was forced to erase two thirds of the line. The thirteen-letter discrepancy points to the omission of either Eyparv/aTEVEv or Bor8poiJuitvos. When B corrected, he committed a dittography and got the day wrong. Ey{y}pac adrTevEv and E,KT- were left unchanged probably because B, having corrected this line

once, did not check it again. Line 93 (PI. 16, a). Two letters of the original text are legible. In the space between kappa and lambda appears the left slanting stroke of alpha, delta, or lambda; an omega is discernible between omega and iota. By laying the text out carefully on graph paper and using the omega of the original text as a fixed reference, it is possible to arrive at a reasonably certain explanation of the error. Letting the omega of the first text be in succession that of 0eacdTpWl, Twr)V, and -npoeSpwv and laying the text out backwards to the beginning of the line, upsilon of Kvpsa, alpha of Kvp'a, and alpha of 0edrTpcwLsuccessively fell at the place where the alpha, delta, or lambda of the first text appears. The last two suit the remains. If the omega t not likely isisthat of the theat B inscribed iomeganis T9l. If, however, it is that of Trv, alpha oofEKKApaita began the line. B therefore appears to TpVaV7VEl have inscribed Irpvravet and, in changing from the end of one line to the beginning of the next, lost his place and resumed a Kvpta, by looking at IA of EKKA'rt'a instead of rpvTaveLas. Line 94. Vacat 0.105 m. Although there was room for the full E'So(ev clause plus blank spaces on either side, the abbreviated form used in decree I was retained and spaced out slightly. Vacat 0.215 m. Line 95 (P1. 16, b). The erasure is comparatively deep; a few vertical lines resulting from the cutting away of the stone remain in the blank space. Although none of the erased letters are visible, the purpose of the erasure seems clear. It produced a space exactly where B intended one (see line 5). It is likely therefore that he forgot to leave a space here and continued on for two words before realizing his mistake. He then erased and left a space of 0.017 m. This shows that he attached some importance to this blank space as marking off one of the important sections of the decree. Line 96 (P1. 16, b). The phi is inscribed over a pi; between upsilon and sigma appear the upper and lower slanting strokes of a sigma; under and to the right of the first sigma an epsilon is discernible and ouvsbefore phi appears under and to the right of epsilon. B repeated em7rTovsn and added the word a he discovered his error. Line 99. Vacat 0.015 m. Line 100. Vacat 0.015 m. Line 102. Vacat 0.01 m. Line 103. Vacat 0.017 m. Line 104 (P1. 1, a). Under the epsilon appears a psi and to the left of psi the slanting stroke of an alpha is discernible; rho was at first omitted. Line 105 (P1. 16, c). Traces of sigma appear under epsilon indicating that B committed a haplography by looking back in his copy at the QN of E'qPcov after inscribing To)V;he inscribed sigma and upsilon before perceiving his error. Vacat 0.017 m. Line 106. Only one letter of the original text is discernible, viz. omikron under the left side of mu (P1. 16, c). Its position indicates that B, by haplography of QN, originally omitted ytvoJEvwv. The separation ovI K is unique; B normally adheres to the rule of syllabification. Line 107 (P1. 17, a). An alpha appears under omikron; it appears that B first inscribed 8taopav. Vacat 0.02 m.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

44

Line 108. The alpha is in a large square erasure; there is no trace of the original letter (P1. 16, c). Line 110. I.G., II2 erroneously prints the initial letter of line 110 in square brackets at the end of line 109. Vacat0.016 m. Line 113. Vacat0.015 m. Line 114 (P1. 17, b). The following erased letters or parts of letters are clearly visible: pi under epsilon, the leading stroke of alpha with serif slightly to the left of the first nu, the diagonal of nu under pi, and the crossbarof tau in the interspace between pi and alpha. B anticipated himself and inscribed 7rdvras without finishing the preceding word. Vacat0.018 m. Line 116 (PI. 17, b).Just following nu of v appears an (erased) iota; an erased tau is visible in the space between omega and iota. B first inscribed EvtavrTL instead of Ev rnL evCavrTL by a haplography of EN. Line 118. Vacat0.145 m. No other blank space of comparable size occurs in the body of a decree by B. Since he never spaces casually, he apparently meant the unusually large blank to signify something. To judge from the extant decrees, Agora I 286 (Hesperia,XXIV, 1955, pp. 220-239) (127/6), 112 1006 (122/1), 1008 (118/7), 1009 (116/5), 1011 (106/5), the kosmetes customarily was honored with a crown anda statue in this period and underwent an audit. Only in the decree of 127/6 B.C. is mention not made of an ELKWVand the audit. Doubtless, therefore, this blank space both signalizes the omission of the formulae Kal 7rpoatpovpFevot dvaarj7aat avTov ELKOva 7rapaKaAovaTLv E7TrXWp7aaLtTroTOV ELs Trv avaOEetv (II2 101 , line 43), SWOKEVS Kal Tads evOvvas (II2 1009, line 45), and acts as a substitute for them. W. S. Ferguson, "The Oligarchic Revolution," p. 5, noting the omission of the audit incorrectly supposed this to be evidence that it was given up in 103/2 B.c. as part of an abrupt constitutional change. Although he later realized that his theory of a revolution in 103/2 could not be maintained (Ferguson, AthenianTribalCycles,p. 147), he continued to suppose that the omission in II2 1028 marked " a change of serious import" (ibid.). The evidence instead indicates that the omissions were made because of lack of space. Line 119. The reading of I.G., IIz Kal y[lv'qraL
aTreaVWL,

and epsilon in the space

between kappa and alpha of Kara. These traces indicate that 2QI:1TEDANQIoriginally began this line and, therefore, that Kaf was omitted in the previous line. The length of the erasure indicates that this was not the only error, for, by crowding a little, B could easily have made up the three-letter displacement without the necessity to erase three-quartersof the line. The erased epsilon reveals that this additional mistake occurredjust after are0davto, but I am unable to determine what it was. Line 124 (P1. 17, c). The re was omitted in the text of I.LG.,II2. There is no trace of the erased letter. Line 125 (P1. 17, c, d). None of the original letters can be discerned with certainty. A haplography of QN generated by the line change is the probable source of the error. Line 126. Vacat0.011 m. See A. S. Henry, The ClassicalQuarterly,LX, 1966, pp. 291-297 for a convenient collection of examples. 7

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

45

Line 127 (P1. 17, c). Vacat0.01 m. No clear traces of the erased letters are visible. The mistake here is doubtless connected with that in the next line. Line 128 (P1. 17, c, d). Vacat0.008 m. Traces of four of the erased letters are visible a small circle (B, P, ( ?) in the upper half of the second iota of Elvat, an alpha partially under and partially to the right of the first mu of ypa,LqarE'a,an epsilon under and slightly to the right of the nu of TpvTraveL. Despite these indications, it does not seem possible to ascertain the exact nature of the error. Very probably, however, confusion caused it, confusion which arose from the necessity of making some last minute abbreviations in order not to encroach on the space required for the register. As the text stands, B abbreviated the phrase Elvatbe av7ruL Kal El' v AolTro TOV XpOvOV a7To8ElKVVJLEVWl TY?VITP' .r7as EwVOlav EVpE`caOL Kat aAAoaya06v rrcapa(T AO7vaiovs TO Sov orov Kal o v atos flovACA7 bOKiJ etvat (16, lines 23-26) by omitting the underlined words8 and left out completely the canonical formula of Tov Taflav TU)v rTpaTlWTLK&V (line 57) which payment To be yevo6Evov els avTq%vavaAcAla ieppWaaL he could have included had he been willing to use line 130. Line 129. A small unnumbered fragment preserving the last letters in this line has been joined to the stele by M. Mitsos, 'Apx. 'E+., 1972, p. 68. Line 130. As the preceding indicates, B went to some trouble to leave this line blank; thus, it was important to him as a visual demarcation on the surface of the stele. Line 131 (P1. 38, a-c). Letter height 0.017-0.02 m.; the letters are spaced out across the stele. The register follows immediately with no lines left blank; in other ephebic decrees of this period, a space equal to one or more lines is left beneath the title. Line 133. A-an apex appears directly beneath the second epsilon of line 132. Lines 134-139. Agora I 717, first recognized by me on the basis of hand, joins here (Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 244-245). Line 141. A slanting stroke appears just to the right of the break and supports the restoration made by A. N. Oikonomides, Ta 'A0tvaiKa, XXI, 1962, p. 33, on the basis of a columella [PtLA]oa0E'vqs in the Roman Agora which reads 7HoaEl8[cVtoS] I 0IA[oa0E'vov3] | Aaprr[rpevs]. Line 142. Xaplrf8qoso 'HpooSKov 'ErrTK~1toirtog,tamias of the boule in ca. 63 B.C. (112 3503, lines 10-13), is doubtless a blood relation. The eta in pointed brackets has no crossbar. Line 150. This nomenwas first deciphered by Dow (Prytaneis,p. 100, note 1). Dinsmoor, TheArchons of Athens,p. 447, accepts the view that 'AypvAijOevis a scribal error for [AyKVArjOev.Dow, Prytaneis, p. 100, note 1, opined that such an error would be unlikely for an Athenian cutter, implying that he would know the respective tribes and demotics and hence be unlikely to enter a deme in the wrong tribe. He would of course know them; but Dow's opinion assumes that cutters worked in sense units rather than letter-by-letter or word-by-word. A misreading of this type is very probable in and of itself (cf. line 53); in addition, it seems doubtful that a cutter would or could keep strictly in mind at any given

moment that he was cutting the list of e.g. Alyets or Hav$tov[s.

Line 154 (P1. 18, a). A- the right slanting stroke alone is visible. None of the originally inscribed letters are discernible. Line 155 (P1. 18, b). The last two letters of the erased demotic, YE, are visible; if it belonged to Pandionis, it must have been Kv3aOrqvatev's.

Line 156 (P1. 18, a). None of the erased letters are discernible. Line 157 (P1. 18, b). Traces of eta and sigma appear under omikron and upsilon; B originally committed a dittography. 8 Ch.

Pelekidis, Histoirede l'EphebieAttique,p. 208 notes the vagueness of the wording here.

46

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

Line 158 was left vacant, certainly (as the concern to conserve space in the rest of the inscription shows) for an expected entry. Line 185. The alpha inscribed in erasure is made slightly wider than usual to fill the space left by two erased letters (P1. 18, c). The original letters, iota and sigma, are discernible beneath the alpha; thus, it is clear that B began to inscribe Aptaro. Rather than erase all the letters after rho, he removed only those which would not fit the correct patronymic, namely iota and sigma. The occurrence of this error indicates that B's working copy was a columnar list by tribes, for he made this error by looking back at the same relative position horizontally but down one line vertically. Line 192 (P1. 18, d). The sigma was originally inscribed, but then erased so that the alpha of 'Avrl'rarpos (line 230) might be placed directly under and in line with the first letters of the names in its column. This erasure reveals that B inscribed this part of the stele vertically by columns, for had he been working horizontally across the face of the stele, by the time he had reached this name the line of demarcation for the beginning of the third column would have been so well established that he would not have run part of a letter over into it. Line 195 (P1. 18, e). This is a deep, egg-shaped erasure which infringes slightly on the space of the sigma following. The erasure, therefore, preceded the sigma; its width suggests that B lost his place in evidence indicating the working copy and inscribed chi of the patronymic in the line above-further that the working copy was arranged in columns. Lines 208-210. Unnumbered fragment x discovered in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens joins here (A.J.A., LXXV, 1971, p. 190, no. 9). Line 212 (P1. 19, a). None of the erased letters are discernible. Line 214 (P1. 19, b). B began to inscribe the patronymic before he had completed the nomen.The remains of zeta (a vertical stroke under sigma), eta (a horizontal in the zeta) and nu (the diagonal appears under eta) reveal that sigma was omitted originally. The correct letters were superimposed with no perceptible erasure. Line 217 (P1. 19, a). None of the first text is legible. Line 219. AoauEosg, the reading of I.G., is incorrect. Line 224. There is sufficient room after the final iota to accommodate 02 but B did not inscribe them. Line 242 (P1. 19, c). An erased rho appears very clearly under the right half of mu. This indicates that B began to inscribe Tvpdet, his eye falling on the demotic of the name above or below. Line 243 (P1. 20, a). The patronymic shows slight crowding, indicating that the erased name was shorter by about two letters than the name now inscribed. None of the erased letters are discernible. B did not inscribe this patronymic: alpha with a straight crossbar, omega with serifless horizontals, and sigma with parallel top and bottom strokes are shapes which do not occur in B's lettering. These are the only letters on the stele which were not cut by B; they are probably the work of a cutter who made the or some member of his family after the stele had been put up. correction at the instigation of AO1qvlowv Line 244 (P1. 19, c). A appears on the stone instead of A. Line 245. This name appears last in the list of Athenian citizens and, as F. 0. Bates (The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes, Cornell Studies in Class. Phil., 1898, p. 52) first suggested, was probably left out of its proper place and had to be added here at the end. In support of this, we have already had evidence, i.e. line 158, to indicate that the cutter's working copy was not final, but subject to last minute additions. Line 246 (Pls. 20, b; 21, a). Both the title and the crown as a whole are inscribed in rasura. A gold crown was inscribed originally; note in Plate 21, a the series of gold leaves just to the right of the olive crown. The erasures in the title are probably due to misspacing; B could scarcely have misspelled or

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

47

cut the wrong title. See infra pp. 104-105, for a discussion of the unique number, sequence, and arrange-

ment of these crowns. Line 250 (PI. 20, b). The tie of the crown obtrudes into the area of this line and, at the same time, the letters as they now appear on the stele, i.e. in erasure, are spaced exactly so as to take account of the intrusion; thus, the erasure was made inthe order to accommodate in this position. This, in turn, shows that the headings (lines 246 and 250) were originally inscribed before the crownswere incised into the stone. The other headings, in contrast, were cut after the crowns and in relation to them. The spatial relationship between lines 272 and 278 illustrates this: had B cut the headings first, he would have lined them up neatly with one another across the stone; istone;instead, line 278 is placed half a space above 272, quite clearly placed in relation to its crown and not in relation to line 272.

Line 256 (PI. 20, b). A space of 0.008 m. has been left between upsilon and lambda, allowing the top of the crown to intrude. Lines 278-279 (Pl. 20, b). Agora I 3810, first recognized by the hand, joins here and enables the determination

that the word adErT7v was inscribed on two lines and not centered over the crown

(Hesperia,XXXVI, 1967, p. 245). Line 288 (PI. 1, b). Xi was originally inscribed, then erased and relocated to the left when B realized that he not only wanted to space out the letters of this title but also that he had to put a name in the space to the right because of lack of room. This list of foreigners is significantly longer than any other preserved from this period. The usual number was between 15 and 25. See 0. W. Reinmuth, Foreignersin the AthenianEphebeia,Lincoln (Nebraska), 1929, p. 18, and Pelekidis, Histoirede phbie Attique,p. 184 who both list 36 foreignersin this inscription in spite of the fact that 37 entries are recorded in the text of I.G., II2. There are, as the present text indicates, 40 names now preserved in whole or in part, i.e. all that were ever inscribed. This list of foreigners was thus too numerous simply to be added at the end of the list of citizens as was usually done. B instead gave them their own segment othe stele, separate and subordinate to the list of citizens.

Line 296 (PI. 21, b). The erased letter, A, is legible. The erasure was made to avoid encroaching on the space reserved for the second column of names and to preserve the space between the columns. Line 304. This name was omitted from the text of I.G. Lines 305-307. M. Mitsos, 'ApX. 'E+., 1972, p. 69, had added a small fragment numbered EM 8026 which preserves the letters in these lines. Mitsos interpreted the letters in lines 306 and 307 as ethnics. The spacing, however, reveals that they must be parts of the names. Cleaning away of the plaster has now revealed the mu at the beginning of line 307. Lines 309-312. Unnumbered fragment y from the Epigraphical Museum in Athens joins here; the ethnic KaTpEVS (line 311) derived from the Cretan city KaTp-q is new to Attic epigraphy (A.J.A., LXXV, 1971, p. 190, no. 10). Line 316 (PI. 21, c). Traces of an erased sigma are visible under upsilon and reveal that B originally made a dittography of the nomen. The fact that the mu is not in erasure makes it probable that the disruption involved in erasing sigma and inscribing upsilon caused him to lose his place in the working copy with the result that he looked back at the OY of the preceding name and, thus, proceeded to cut MtLA4at.

A notable feature of this text is that in its original form it was too long to fit on the stele. The inscription, therefore, has more than usual interest from a clerical point of view, for it presented a difficult series of problems for B and required him to adopt some drastic solutions. It is clear from the position of line one on the curve of the molding

48

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

and the consistency of abbreviation that he recognized the problem at once and carefully organized the text before inscribing in order to solve it. By abbreviating where possible, crowding, making the letters of the register slightly smaller than the text of the decrees, and adopting a unique organization at the bottom of the stele (infra, pp. 104-105), he succeeded in fitting the text on the stone-not without, however, some problems which are most clearly manifest in the large number of errors made at the end of the second decree. Despite the lack of space, B retained his habit of using uninscribed spaces to articulate different parts of the text (infra, pp. 95-100), thus revealing the importance which he attached to this visual punctuation. 7 (Pls. 22-30). Record of the Pythais of 98/7 B.C.9 Archon Argeios. Colin, Culte, pp. 35-90; S.I.G.3, 728. In inscribing these texts B had a single assistant, hereafter referred to as Hand X; there are a number of indications that X was B's subordinate, the clearest being that he cut no inscription entire. B inscribed nos. 6, 10, 2, 31, 45, and 16 and received assistance from X in the work on nos. 17, 26, and 48. Detailed comment is offered only on the parts cut by B; X is, therefore, discussed merely as he relates to B. He cut very plain letters with no serifs; his most distinctive letters are alpha (A), zeta (Z), and omega (n).10 7a (P1. 22, a). FD III 2, no. 6. For attribution, note alpha and sigma in line 18. AyaQ[it rv'x7i rrs fovArs Kat r]ov Srijtov 4A[0rqva']uv. ['0 XEL]poTrov7OEt0s 'TTLrTv ?a7roaToA[r1)v] 3.

T-rs HIvOal8os Katl ras a7rapXas Trov 0Eov l'y[a]MEvT IvOaHaa, <e>TrlatpXovTOS Ev ZeAc[o]ls yev T'v Topos, ev be 'AO6rvatslApyetov, Zapa7Trov Zapa,

6.

7rtlvOS0. Trt ra o'TrAa ZapLa7rTlov 'TpaTTy0s Lepevs A7rro'AAwvo

Zapa7Tovos

9 The texts will be discussedin the orderin which they appearon the wall of the Treasury,beginningat the top left and proceedingfromleft to right. Texts which are inscribedas a unit will be treatedtogether.With the generousassistanceof M. GeorgesDaux, Directorof the FrenchSchoolat Athens,and MissYvonneNikopoulou,Epimeletriaof Antiquitiesat Delphi,it was possibleto workon the inscriptionsin situ. 10I havepublishedelsewhere(B.C.H.,XCIII, 1969,pp. 371-395) noteson all of the textsof 98/7. I repeathere (oftenin substantiallyexpandedform) only what pertainsto the purposesof the present volume and, conversely,have added much, primarilyconcerningthe masons'procedures,which did not fall withinthe scopeof the article.

THE INSCRIPTIONS

9.

BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

49

Avaoias 'AprE'tovoS [E']

-yyrTT')g7rv06)Xpr(rTros

ParSpos AarrdAov 12.

15.

[E]f,)y7rT~N v7r TOV Sriiov [K]aAAtas EvKrITlovos

KaOearapEvoS

[le] poLvijLCOvKrrLatKA?s JAlrtore'Aov [Lac]vTtsXaptv'Aos Xaptv'Aov AOvo'roAtgs ZlJlkTrrpiov [av]]ArrTNrovi Oeoov^ [Ki][jp]JV[

TOV 6OEO^v 19EatoS

18.

[Ol 7]i as7rpooEo[fv] [TeA]EorLaS TtLodaxov [Tqito] KA[T S DljL TpoKAEtSov

21.

[ca.--]

AE'oVroS'

o^xog

1 (?) line missing Lines 1-2. Delphi Museum inv. no. 4689 joins here (B.C.H., XCIII, 1969, p. 373 and fig. 1); it was originally selected on the basis of hand from among the many fragments housed in the museum storerooms. Line 4. The epsilon in pointed brackets was omitted altogether. Line 7. The alpha and pi in erasure are inscribed over what appears to be the remains of an omega. Line 17. The shape of epsilon is discernible under rho and of sigma under xi (P1. 22, a), indicating that B originally inscribed lepevs for KC?pv6. In addition, the upsilon of 0cov3 has been squeezed in, the theta of 9eaZtoS being erased and moved slightly to the right in order to accommodate it. Line 18. The upsilon is inscribed over a sigma (P1. 22, a). B, therefore, initially inscribed 7rpoaoSos; when he discovered the error (which was, from his point of view, the omission of upsilon), he inserted the upsilon where it belonged, but neglected to reinscribe sigma. Colin's disbelief in the possibility of the genitive (FD III 2, ad loc.) is correct therefore, but otiose in light of the correction. Line 20. Traces of epsilon under the first eta and iota under the sigma, plus a clear sigma slightly before and under mu (P1. 22, a) indicate that B, influenced perhaps by the patronymic, originally inscribed TtqLOKAE[tbS3. He perceived the mistake at once and corrected in the way which required the least work, namely by altering epsilon to eta and squeezing the sigma (superimposed on iota) in before delta so that he might re-use the delta and eta for the patronymic without erasing or relocating them. Line 21. The title KAEt3ouXos is probably to be restored; cf. G. Daux, Delphes, p. 722. With the exception of the epsilon omitted in line 4, all errors were corrected. It seems probable, therefore, that this omission escaped notice.

7b (Pls. 22, b, c; 23). FD III 2, nos. 10 and 2. For attribution, note in line 15 (Pl. 22, b) sigma, epsilon, and omega. These two texts were conceived and inscribed as a unit, for they occupy one block in width and a small portion of the block below on the right side. No. 2 is centered, flanked by the two parts of no. 10 (cf. FD III 2, pl. II, 1).

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

50

t3 '0

3 0

r< 0 5A 0

0 '-,

o

0

p 0o '0

0 3 :: O o ao '0 '3 -0 0

o

<

.-

<3

<

Z;

X

0

s4

-4 ., '(

o 3

d;-0

4o

ci

(d

to

0

3

0 9-

<

Q F

Lo 0

4O

3

X

to

%C7

0

<

O

to

t 0o

0

0

X


4< x

> '6

N

-

X

0 p 0 40 '0

I

0

xa -4

f-,

.

()

>

%'w 3 CD 'F 1) N X X N

o 0l

0

0

oo 0 0

.toa

oo t> <

i

'- -

0

'_

0 ::

'0

4-

3

40.

C)

C (4

> 13 '0

3

-

COV) CO

7

X -

0o 0

0

o

a

o V

<;1

(-

o

Q) w 6

tor

7

X

ar

o Q.

CL

3 N

a,

0

A

0

O

3 0 ( X a

7 -O

3

CD

CM

(o

LA

0 0

0 0o

(4, *

CM

0 u

*0

o7

3 :a C) :

tto

-6?

.0

to33

0 d(4

:>

6

a

0

>-

X

.

0

X

7 '0

z K

-3

0

O P

,,,<

*

(na

'

3 to

:~

0

0 p

>

* 0

0

o

H

4, p

6 C)

40 -

(A) -

7 0 a '3

'o 0

'-4 0 0 ,(2.

3a

00

X 3 '-

N

C)

6s

' K

K

00 ,-H

O

a

*<

<

<

X

-

-j

3

o

4 X

C

:

t

X c

CN

H--I

to 0 40

.a 00 (. to a '0

0L'L Xa

a

0

X

K

7

,._,

_.

i

C4 H-4

0

(

o CY)

4o 40 0

t-4 6 C) 6

.J

a'K

dCM

r-i

m

a)

3 o

%-, C

N_

CO)

+3 4o

4,

l

'0

Ut

3.2 '>

0O

00

0

'6

o *

C

WK 90

o

P

*Cs

-4

3

;P

7L

3kc

0

;>

6

c)

a

4:

X

a 4<

0 P

U 0

0

0

7

'-4

to

Q ?

.4.,

N 0> :'

4: 0

0

Q

?.r 0 0

6a

.Ln

'-4

4-

6t '0

d?

0

X< '7

4:

'-4

<

3 CD

C)

o cd

0 4,

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

o

51

0

0

10 *d

'

0<

x

0 < *

:> z0O

;> 'W

:3. X -

;

-'

?, -
LA

;> ?

3

0

%X ^

'. i0

X9F

0

Q >e

L

> C

0o '%-

O

(

~'^ C S

,<

X

Ct

'-

;>

0

w

<

J

>

-.

13

>

.<

Q

W >

<

* -;

C'

x

0

0 O

-<

o i-

?e!-g

O

1$

u LA

l :

s

'<

X 0 0

X

0 ;> 0

cto '

fa3 <

-*J

t0 to

c

d

L X LA*

) 0

o >

0

Oa

x &

3

--

W

0

LA

X?

'.3

to

0 % a

0 x 0 J

-

Z c 'x

V

LA LO X0 +_

a ) 0

X t)

0 o

r

0 4-

4'

Cd

C

0

J

')0

(D

The organization of the left margin in no. 2 is representative of the careful layout of all the inscriptions (PI. 22, b). Two vertical guidelines, 0.015 m. apart, serve as he margin. the c at with outer one, exception Titles the indicator ofbegin of yEaoOE'rTa which is centered, and names at the inner, effectively indenting them. In lines 15 and each case letter at 31, B began the title itirst(inthe waseach linner the casealpha) margin, cut the leading singslanting stroke, then put the letter in the correct position. He did not erase in either case: this misstroke appears just to the right n the of thealpha i line 15 and under the initial rho in line 31. Line 12. The restoration of the nomen,suggested by G. Klaffenbach, Symbolae,p. 56, is confirmed by the position (easily determined) of the left vertical margin of the column ca. 4 letter-spaces to the left of nu. [Ev]ve?8r- (Colin) is too short. H7o/Lav6p38r/ 'E7r[JULEV]Et'8ov,kitharist in 128/7 (FD III 2,

no. 47, line 22), is probably his father. Line 16. As Colin noted, the correct patronymic is NavKpaTov (cf. 5, line 193). The incorrect patronymic almost certainly appeared in the text supplied to B, for the corrections in these inscriptions show that he carefully checked his inscribed text against the written copy. Line 25. Colin observes "BOYAHE est repete par erreur." This implies a simple dittography; whereas, B has proceeded a step further. He committed the dittography and completed the line without noticing it, otherwise the spacing of the line would not remain as it is. When the mistake was perceived, he erased the repeated word, removing as little of the stone as possible; hence, although the erasure is clear, so are the erased letters (PI. 22, b).

This erasure-correction is puzzling, for it appears to have accomplished nothing except to make the mistake more obvious. B doubtless intended at first to erase the line from this point on and reinscribe. It seems probable that he was prevented from doing so by whatever rules existed to guide the cutters who inscribed on the Treasury.

52

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

Indeed, there are clear indications that special provisions existed. Incised guidelines were required of all cutters. (B did not incise them elsewhere.) In addition, erasure, i.e. actual cutting away of the surface of the stone to remove incorrect letters, is comparatively rare in the record of this Pythais; simple superscription is the usual means of correction. In his other work, B normally corrected by cutting away the stone and reinscribing. The unusual procedure here seems dictated by a desire to avoid the unsightly gashes which are often the by-product of extensive erasure and correction (P1. 16, a, b). Line 27. No official seems to be omitted; thus, it appears likely that the blank line here, along with line 30, is intended to set off, and thus subordinate, the minor dignitaries in lines 28 and 29 from the more important officials who precede and follow. III. The entries of the Marathonian Tetrapolis are set off by vacant lines: the title, I7v6aalUrrs EK TETpaToAE'cov(line 44), shows that line 46 was not left Column

vacant for an expected late entry. This suggests that line 37 was meant from the start to be blank as well, thus providing an interesting bit of evidence to indicate that the Tetrapolis enjoyed a special position within the framework of the Athenian Pythais. This is not surprising since the Marathonians had sent their own Pythaids to Delphi in the years when the Athenians had suspended the practice. 1 Line 42. The tau is superimposed on a mu (P1. 22, c). B can only have made this error by looking

back on his working copy at the first eta after inscribing the second. Line 47. The second rho is inscribed over an alpha (initial haplography of rho). Line 50. The first letter of this name begins at the outer margin and not the inner as the other names (PI. 23, a). The upper slanting stroke of an erased sigma with a serif appears at the top right side of the omega. It appears that B originally inscribed 2'wKpa'T7-S and, by beginning the name a letter space to the left in violation of his margin, corrected with a minimum of erasing and reinscribing. The source of this error was probably misreading. Line 51 (P1. 23, a). The omission of omikron, not theta (Colin), is due to problems of spacing. The end of this line, even with the omission and much crowding, violates the margin of no. 31 by one letter. Anxious to squeeze this entry in, B omitted the letter and, in correcting, seems to have preferred to let the error stand (the evidence of the other corrections indicates that he checked over the text closely and so it is unlikely that this omission escaped him) rather than erase and further encroach on the space of

no. 31. Line 57 (P1. 23, a). The word frvOatarai is crowded in. Since the phrase EK Krqpv'Kwv is centered in the column, it is certain that 7TrvOatara[was originally omitted and later squeezed in when the need for it was perceived (Oewpo[ from line 53 would otherwise be understood). The likelihood that so long a word could be overlooked is small; this omission doubtless originated in the copy given to B. Line 64 (PI. 23, b). These letters are noticeably larger than those of the rest of this inscription, viz. 0.012-0.015 m. as compared with 0.01 m. The large size and their relation to the surrounding lines indicate that line 64 was the last inscribed. The position of line 65 gives a clue to the probable sequence

1 On them, see A. Boethius, Die Pythais(Diss. Uppsala), 1918, pp. 34ff. and Daux, Delphes,pp. 533ff.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

53

of events. The interval left between it and line 63 is too large for a single entry and too small for two entries. It appears to represent a compromise designed to accommodate either eventuality, while (as is the case with most compromises) suiting neither very well. Unsure apparently whether there would be one or two more entries, B established the lower limit of this column with line 65 and placed it as close to line 63 as the circumstances then allowed. This indicates a desire to use as little space as possible on the lower block. Perhaps the original design of the inscriptions called for its use for one of the other texts; it was never so used.

This inscription overall is quite wasteful in its use of space, for the left column is nearly blank, the middle a nice unit, while the right column is so full that it exceeded the incised guidelines prepared for it (they do not appear after line 58). B clearly expected more entries to fill out the left column as the plural OE0poL'in line 2 suggests. He apparently had to organize and begin inscribing this text on the basis of a rather incomplete working copy. 7c (Pls. 24, 25, 26, c). FD III 2, nos. 31 and 17. For attribution, note sigma, tau, and omega in line 13 (P1. 24, a). For Greek text see following page.

54

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

No. 31 1

Exi' 'ApyeCo

No. 17 p[xo]vTos

3

uu 15

[ Kav]JnqdpoL [ 'Ax]oXo6iSpa

Eapax[](C]vos

c6ou [An]pi& MIAXTi

18

21

Ildpi ov 'AxaLo0

Atovuaod6pos

24

51

'ApxeTOu

KXeovevns xcat ALd66wpos]

'ApxeaC,aos

xat Ttya[UaJ6]S

[o;

o;

57

60

'Ex yovos Mevveou 36

=evox0Xs

39

eoCpaoT ?6ou

ALq?Xou

O4pwv Z/4vwvos S Otvo?'XAou KaAXXoTpaTop ' A6e CiavTos Mvaoaydpou

42

AtovSoaos vacat

Mvaoaydpou

to bottom

ZWx[pad]TnS'Ex!Xdpou

KAe[LT]6paos

KAeLTolpcf(xou)

LX[o]xpaT'rs OpaCoucIxou ETd6'ns ' EppoxAeCTOU

ZSxupos Mevviou ecoPpaaTr6ns

ot Alovuacou

[hnapl] vns At,OT' ou

AXns

'AAcEav6pou

AMoElxA.....

B.i[TTaxo] S ISp[po]u

'I]oaPCX[ou]

NLxaydpas xat IaoLTO

'Hpd6oTOT ATinprTpCou Zi,vwv xal

H1pacLa[T'CTWv]o<s>

'Ioip[tAX]os

AnpTnTpOU

ZrnvL?V AnWrTpL'OU

54

KAeovevou

IoXuxXeCTou

'AuudvtLoS Z$nvwvos lap)llvng

AuxCaxos AuxCaxou

33

oXuxXeC..1J

flavucevns Z4vwovos

ot

30

['A]X,eav6pos

xat6es

Ad66wpo[s] Ocoqpl'ou

'Exe6nvos 27

LOTOVCXOU

'Alp

HIuva cOTat

48

'AawxoxA?i

Ntxaydpas

M[i]aca t[o]v

to bottom

xat

'Ap LoTopevns BodXwavos

'ACxAnxC6nS , LcXdvou

'ApCboTvos

ot nluptxxeous

[c--t]vos [ot

Atovuo?Co[v]

M[v]aLgs 'Apdxou

vacat

45

ALOvuoCou

ALovd5OLOS

vacat Gtraces of letters]

]oas

[- t5lns

KaXXLCevos KaXXLCevou

o: Mapcadou

M[E]YCaTTn Z[[v]WvoS

.2

------

apca[xC?vos] ,

Z4vwv xat AtaVTC6ns

vacat

9

xu.aLThSo 6 6' aG[tbS xat -

MnvoqiAXosXpuaoydvou

co CL']Xfo]u p[

['ApL]oTCxXn

xu0[aLtTa1t or6e]

iLoxXS Zj

[ec]o6c5pa EapaxCwvos

6

MASON

63

LX1Apwv'EppCou 'ApyeTos 'Apyeou E?\dv6poposOetwpLxoO vacat

to bottom

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

55

Line 2. The interspace between lines 1 and 2 is 0.012 m. A solitary slanting letter stroke appears 0.01 m. to the right of iota (PI. 24, a), indicating that B began to inscribe Apollodora on this line but

thought better of it at once. Line 6. "Le second 0 de &9eo)i'Aov est en surcharge sur un H (Colin)." B started to inscribe, it

seems, a feminine ending and realized his error immediately. Lines 10-13. Delphi Museum inv. no. 4744 (PI. 24, c) joins here. Line 11. An entire entry was inscribed here and then erased. Numerous remains of the erased name can . The shape of the omega, in particular, is very clear be discerned: ///// /// 90 k4iT;NrO' (PI. 24, b) and reveals that X inscribed this line. The line was, therefore, a later addition; due to some

confusion it appears to have duplicated line 13.

Not only do these two inscriptions share a title (the pi of line 15 falls under the in line 1) they have common guidelines from line 6 and space between nu and tau in were clearly cut in relation to one another, neither being inscribed completely first. The pattern of appearance of Hand X leads to the conclusion that B did not finish no. 31 before beginning no. 17 because he wished to establish the right margin of no. 17 as quickly as possible so that X might begin work on the inscription to be placed next to it, the longest of these lists, no. 26. The following is an attempt to reconstruct some of the steps by which B put an excellent idea into practice in a rather ad hoc manner. In his haste to set X to work, B apparently inscribed the opening lines of these two texts without giving sufficient thought to their layout. With reference to Plate 24, note aa, nothatthat thethe vertical guideline establishing the left of no. 17 is in incised relation to, and just to the right of, the last letter of margin (line 3). Since the spacing of wapa7Tovosk is normal, the vertical guidecapacdvosl line must have been drawn after it was inscribed. B first inscribed the title (line 1) and the next three lines (2, 3, and 4) of no. 31 as the uniform interlinear spacing of these lines suggests. Then, in all probability, he began to inscribe no. 17. He cut line 15 0.007 m. below line 14 out of line with line 2 which was placed 0.012 m. below line 1. The letters at the end of this line, A2, established roughly the left margin for no. 26. In order to determine the margin with certainty, however, it was necessary to establish the limit of the first column in no. 17 and inscribe several names of the second. B therefore inscribed next the third line (line 16), which (see commentary) continued over into the vertical area of the second column, then the fourth, the first real entry of the column proper. By this point he had become aware of the lack of alignment between nos. 31 and 17, for he brought the fifth line (line 18) into alignment with the fifth line of no. 31 by leaving an interlinear space of 0.011 m. This interline was then maintained and alignment was achieved from this point on. With this fifth line he also established securely the limit of the first column and had reached the point where X could begin work. B then returned to work on no. 31; X proceeded to establish the right hand limit of no. 17 by inscribing the first four lines in column II (lines 43-46) and then he began work on no. 26, of which he inscribed the heading, the first column of names, and the first seven entries in the second column.

56

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON Line 1. Vacat0.018 m. after tapXovros.

Line 16. This line and the preceding one extend across the inscription as a heading. Although the end of the line is lost, measurement indicates that it extended about four letter spaces over column II. The remains of the following erased letters are clear (PI. 24, a): sigma before and partly under delta i, alpha before and partly under iota I4, alpha under kappa, pi under lambda A, and omega under and

in the interspace between eta and sigma. "Le premier nom est recul6 a droite, simplement parce que le graveur avait d'abord commence la ligne par un TT,qu'il a ensuite insuffisamment efface." The second part of this statement by Colin is mistaken. The dark mark above and to the left of delta which does bear some resemblance to a pi is, in reality, a grain of color in the stone and not a letter stroke. B initially inscribed Zaparritv Zapafrtivos.

Lines 24-26, 29, and 30 were inscribed by Hand X (Pl. 24, a). Line 24. Sigma is inscribed over theta. X began the patronymic before completing the nomen. Line 30. The stone is preserved after the second omikron; X failed to inscribe the final sigma. Line 33. The epsilon is superimposed on eta; B anticipated himself. Line 37. B crowded this name somewhat, yet it was so long that he was obliged to inscribe the upsilon

in the first letter space of column II. The entry in column II is correspondingly indented. Lines 39-42 (PI. 26, c). The incised guidelines end at the top of line 39. The letters of these names are slightly larger than those of the preceding names; they are inscribed more boldly and encroach freely, i.e. with no sign of crowding to avoid it, upon column II. B, therefore, inscribed them last, when

he knew where column II ended. Column II. X inscribed the first four lines (PI. 25, a); see supra,p. 55 for a probable reason. Line 48. The erased letters OYZare clearly legible (Pl. 25, a). B first inscribed H1oAvKAEovsthen erased because I7oAvKAEtrov was (apparently) wanted. The correct letters were never inscribed. Line 49 (PI. 25, a). The last three letters of the patronymic were inscribed by B, the rest by X.

This provides a valuable indication of X's status as assistant. He inscribed the entry but stopped short, apparently because he was not to go beyond the vertical line which marked the boundary of the column. B added the letters later and placed Y on the further side of the vertical guideline delimiting the column. Line 55. The first letter was cut by B. X cut zetas which have the shape Z; the zeta here is the more common I and reveals serifs (PI. 25, a). The remainder of this line originally and the beginning of the

next were inscribed by X; B resumed at nu of line 56 or perhaps the letter before. In the erasure the (erased) letters IO are visible after lambda. X originally inscribed Aitovvaitos,a common mistake as the parallel in 9 attests. B began to correct-he erased, inscribed KA, and then stopped. Some doubt was the correct nomen. must remain, therefore, whether iJLoKAigs Line 61. The chi and omikron are squeezed in at the end of this line and upsilon was added in the interline (PI. 25, b). This interlinear addition is unique in B's work.

7d (P1. 26, a, b). FD III 2, no. 26.

For attribution, note the sigmas, the omegas, and the epsilon in line 65 (P1.26, b).

57

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER ::) I

I

I _-i

I

I

, I

oX

t0

0 <

_ 'I

,

,

o

d I

L-I I

<

0

0 .< -J

7

%-

0jI

I

"'-

7

-

1I ?

H

I

'0

a) QutLA

..

0

E7

;> 3 Q

o< o

'7a >

? O

SO

.0so

0 0<

IO

5

Ul

JC7

0

.

%Z3 ?I O:

~ rgo

-?4.s

m, ''IU

a

t-

-

A

la

'00

d

W CO

0

-

0 .?0 f.

LA

0

:

:

O 00 .F-W

1

3

> 0 0

00

3

I I 1b

c

t0

co

co

0 :0

0

7 0

7 0

0 X

oO

3. 0

6.

Q 0

7

0

a

D

<% >0

*O 0 > A

0

0

0

o

D

7

> 0

E-

'W

0 -<

7L 0

D E-

LA

A

0

v

-0 0 '6

x0 t)

07

O

0 01 3

X

'0 }

0o

3 < CD

6

b3

a

a

'(a) AEa

'6

E-

0

40

%-.

0

0 0.j '0 K

0

0 X 'C

0t

0o

L: a-C

'0 0 to

0

a

3

-0

a

oA

'-

n

0

3-

3:

0

U

s,

o

0D DW

*

^=H

O

a 0

0 Cs

A

K. la

1<

K

0

LA

3

Q0 .0

&-a

v N

03Q1

o0 o. w

LA

0

0

Z

3 01 t3 a

4

0 0

'>

3

0

4'

oO

X

a-

0

O

~ 3-

w>

%-_

CD

Z2;

7

a '30

Cs

0

0 O _-

Q X

3

(W) 7 (

0 '7& '03

a '0 t '0

II ur) w (I 6I< '0J.< '0-a ^'0 C'?l aI-

A 01

?La *

o0

9

3,.

A)

LA ?a

0

a

6 0 4p

%a

t0

4

S

LA

0

'3 -W

>

a)

3

'0

&Ta

N

:

tS

32:

3 3to 0,

co

0 C0

CM

c-

c0

CO

CO

'F o

tLA 0

t-

0

0 0

3

0a

0

O

Q.

-C4

'0

B6

'0

O 0

K.

,<4

;a

F0

c39z

0 <-0

3 7

X a7

7 30

Q

P

0

o 3

6 X

o

X

'3 0O 00

0o V7

;1

O* X

0 3 I-

' a

'0

0

0a

"

*3

LA

0

O0 0

-0 o<

o Qa t0

7

O ^ X

3

E O

-P O

%a

3, a-C

o

LA K

LA O

>

6 Ns

9q_

3 X 9*

0O

O

7

-

3

C X

')07

3:

<

<

L X 0G %O 7 LA 'CO

CDS0

QL

P7 7 0

0X 3

0 X

aL

H 33

L 0

lO

:

-I

N

N

,-Z

33t

C(

0

1 0

W

-0

da)

30

3O

'.OI

0

3L

X S

IrO

0-

0 Q

uL

H-l

0

00H-I

H

a

LA 0

o> ^

'0

4 0

d ot) X 0 X > B mQ

aS

>

aC

LA 0

a) 0 x a-o

0 O '07> %O

4 O

4

6

CO

(0(

0

r-== ,<

'3

0

0 LA

0

0

LA

>*7 Z;

W0

0O> <W

LA

X

3

'6 L4

0

'0

'0

3

7< X

O

'0 -

0

.7

'<

0W

0 1<

z

Ul

3

x 0

0

3: 7

'0

0o 3

o

I=

I-3

o o

0<

LA

0O0

O

o

3

1<

C

C)

V

3 I-

K

' S '

r-1 U, LO A o0

L4

w*a

w *

co -?

0

* K

x

LA LA

(0-

.

rl-lD

Cd C)

58

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

Hand X inscribed the heading, all of column I with three slight exceptions, and the first seven entries of column II; B cut the remainder. The conclusion that X began this list while B was engaged in something else seems inescapable; cf. supra,pp. 55-56. Line 4. By haplography X originally omitted a mu. Line 5 (P1. 26, a). B inscribed the last four letters of the nomen. Line 6 (P1. 26, a). B inscribed the nomenand the first letter of the patronymic. Some confusion occurred, for this entry is repeated in line 33. Line 7 (P1. 26, a). B added the last four letters of the patronymic. Line 17. The originally inscribed letters are not legible. Line 19. Sigma is inscribed over tau; X originally committed a dittography. Line 24. The second kappa is a remade chi; X originally omitted the kappa. Line 35. 'tcutftos appears on the stone (P1. 26, a). Line 41. SEvoit'Aov SEvoqltAov was inscribed and went unnoticed. Lines 52, 56. The letters in pointed brackets were completely omitted. These represent the only examples of names with letters omitted in B's work. was added by X. Line 58. Bdacraros Line 63. The second iota is inscribed over an omikron (P1. 26, b), a vowel transpositioncommon in pronunciation. Lines 83-84. If Colin was correct in thinking that inv. no. 277 (not seen by me) joins here (FD III 2, no. 257 on p. 276), then line 84 was blank and line 83 should read SE[vCo]vArP[rpLo]v.

The work on this list appears to have been accomplished with reasonable care, for the errors are few in comparison with the other lists despite the fact that this is the longest. In contrast to the others, there was no careful correction of the work to judge from the incorrect letters which remain in lines 27, 35, and 41 and the omissions in lines 52 and 56. It is apparent from the layout of the list that all the names were known before the work was begun and that three even columns of names were planned, the names of the others to be relegated to a fourth shorter column. 12 An error of alignment by X at the top of column II spoiled the symmetry and caused an extra name to be entered in column III. 7e. FD III 2, no. 32. The exact whereabouts of this inscription is unknown. Pomtow, S.I.G.3, II, 389, parieti non immissus iacet in campis inter museum et rE'/1evos; " gave this information-" 12

Pomtow, S.I.G.3, II, 388, considered it scarcely credible that only four knights were sent,

pointed out that Lysias son ofArtemon (awarded a crown in FD III 2, no. 45) does not appear among the four names preserved, and so postulated the existence of a fifth and perhaps a sixth column in this inscription. His logic is impeccable; however, the fact is that the stone is preserved to the right on a line with line 78 for 0.30 m. (enough to reveal 1 column and the initial letters of another) and it is blank. There was thus no sixth column. If a fifth column existed, it contained at the most 10 names. It is also possible, perhaps even probable, that the reconstructors of the Treasury incorrectly placed the block holding nos. 16 and 65 in position below the fourth column of no. 26 and that the block belonging there (now lost) contained the lower part of a long fourth column. Whatever the case, it is primafacie probable from the fact that the knights are appended to the list of ephebes, instead of listed separately, that comparatively few participated in this Pythais.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

59

I was, however, unable to find it. In addition, it did not turn up during a thorough search of the storerooms. The situation is compliRated by the fact that neither of the inventory numbers assigned to it in FD III 2 appears to be correct: no. 216 listed in the Table de Concordance on page 305 is the number of an inscribed relief in the museum and no. 266 (corrected to 216 on page 303 in the Additions et Corrections), listed in red on plate XVI at the end of the volume, is an inventory number which refers to the Siphnian Treasury. 7f (PI. 26, c). FD III 2, no. 45. For attribution, note the epsilons and omegas in line 1. EK TrV

lT7rreCtV

aKaLt7trLO,

L7r7rTWL

aSavAov o Avacas 'ApreiCo'vos Kat dpIaTlt

E`ylif3l a TWV.

corona This inscription is located directly under the first column of no. 17 (PI. 26, c). Line 2. Vacat0.009 m. Line 3. B, it seems, originally omitted Kat'.If we leave it out of consideration, lines 2 and 3, evenly indented with respect to line 1, present a symmetrical margin. The addition of Kai was ruinous to the symmetry, but necessary for the sense.

7g (PI. 27, a). FD III 2, no. 16. For attribution, note the phi in line 6 and the sigma and omega in line 7. APXEO[Eo] pos TrvOata-r"v

L'apa[7ril)v] Zapa7rrtvos

3. MHvOat[aralK]AqpcoTroL 9paav[KA] r7 APXEAadov Ne'ov 'AptorofovAov 6. 0tAo'8fboso Aitovvao8copov ZaUrtyev7rs

AEtvlov

Ai ovv'GtOsA tovvat[ov] 9. Jliovva08[[w]pos~ iAo8i,t0ov 0tA0i o [sc 'HAto3cl]pov ca.4

[-ca5a.

vacat to bottom Colin's statement "Le graveur ne suit pas le reglage trace a l'avance" is simply incorrect.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

60

7h (Pls. 27, b-29, 39, a). FD III 2, no. 48. For attribution, note sigma, tau, alpha, and epsilon in line 6 (PI. 28, a). x

'o

'0 .0

;> 0

0

0%

o

~~~0

t , -

0 %A

.3

0

0 .

:

0

H-:

0

3 t3

0

E-

<0 1..4

4

'0

'0 ..0

X 0

<*) d0

0

3

a 4.

3 .-

7 ;> 00

' ; > .3 " 43 V3

7 <3

..'

.0 4-

'0 '.00

C'

0L :>

'.)

0

0

<>

-

w

X

-:

4+

5

'

<

>

0 '-

4n

3

>

A

*U .4

^:0)4.. o8

0

0

4.

5

/0

4..

0

7>

t0

3

)

3

0@ 0 '0

o<

43 --

00

*-0

4x

C

A 4-

0

,

o

>

0

0

4

0o

4 X

0< t0 40

mj

to

,<

-

. '0

F :4

?- .

00

) 0.t 0

tA

-7

0o

0

7 *O -o

3 d) 4

0

'0 c9

ot9

4

d 0 4-Ou

'O 7 0 C] X

3

L 9 B

0

:

s

> 3

ca x

7

U) 40

x

X 0

;

V

40

do 4':) 0* 0)

34 0

3

0 4, t:

X

0

'0

;-

04, 4-

>

0

IO

.4

.4 0

73

0

0 4

0 7 0 a0

x .-

'0 Q

4

LA>

3

7 0

0

3

0

0

w a

0

03

' 0

4 >

.4

3 0 t

?

0 7

0

.

0 4

1

7

0a

4.-.

-

?0

0

o7

'Fa C

0

U4)

01:

4'D

'0 X0

00

0 4,

0>

'

0 4-

0 0x

.0

4,5

O

'O

4,

'0

0 X

0

0 0 34

0 0

?-

0

9

t)

F

>

0

X

F:9 >

40 '_

0 < 0

'rs

>

'

7.

.-> Q.

<-

*

0

0. 7 C

7

> '0

C:

?0

a

'0 I. >

0 w '

t0

a '3 '0

CZ

-* 7 3 >

3

:

4C

3

.

'0

7 X

7

7?1

3.

.0

^

. >

0-

C:

0

0

'0

0

Q '0Io

'0?

3

o 4-

0 *o4

o'

-. Q

J CL

d X

t3 0

_P> ? 0 4 J 0 '0

0

7

-

Ai 40 0 -4

<

>

0 4

> a0 o4j

>

'w 1< <

-. 0

4w*

X 0

'W 0 0

0

30

a0 X 0

>

00

-4.

'40

0 7= 0 7

-.

0

X

P

7

X

l3

>

. U-0 o

-<

7 >

3 'O .<

7> O

:

30

-

4, <

0 o0

*t -

> 3 I t: 0 0

>

7

-<

0

> 0

-< 0 X

-

*

0

'0' 0

)

*

10 . '

-C

>

'

0

C:

O

.

: ' 0 -'

< 0

0)s

X

*

.<

X 0 Qa

"-

B

>

X

7 40

'

4

0

^

0 a

<

-

0

0

4-

.-

0 0

0

^7 '0B

u -<

B

Cs

-' 0

*

'0 W47>

0

>

=-

a

3-' a 3

'

7

4

'0

*

.

r->-'IN

N

X

0

-<

0 <'

0

Q<

0) -

a

*'

4-B> ,

'CE

0

. 4-

> 7

'0 F-

-

4

0 -B

a4-

7o .

,

X

'

X

W O -'

'. 7 0 <

0

-0 aL -

0

4>

aI

C

7

*'

0

u

0

>

'0

*0

T0'

4-

'w 0

0

0 .,

0

43

X

3

7>

:.

'0

40

0

00

Cs

&'lB 0

.

0

. 43

4-

0

3

0

0

F

0

W)

'0

)

> 'W

<

t

C

I-

0

?

0

iO '0

0'

a

X0

.

3

VL 0

3

7

0

4, t.0 0

01

.4

4

7.g

0

-

-4

-

0

5

0 4-

f

3

0

10

73

0

0

4-

344-

U

O0

0 '0X

0 *3

'C: w

IO

'0

0

37

40

7

0

< 4CI

X

0

0 '< -

o

7>

3

'0

7>

t. 0

)

7

;

0-x

'A ' 4.

'0

4

V

0 0

'.4>

0

4 4-A

Ca 4

0

4 '

0

'

. 0

X

_.

0

4-

d0

IO 43a

a

0 o0 0

0-

4 >

.)

0

3

:4

'

a

0

A $Cs

3a 7

^7

^

X (

3

,

X

7 '0

E

> ' 0

5

oA 0 .

X0

0

<

4-o

' -1> 0

. 0

5

< '0 :S

x 0

7 3

0 4-

^7 m ';>0

O0

ts

0

X

0

>

73 -P

a

0

-* C

04

X P

^7

B

7

a

X

0 -

I

Ai --

'.I

0

I0

-

'0

dL

X

7 3

0 <

Q

(i

r.. > ;Ca<x < X

7>

0

> 0

X

'.

'0

-

43 0

0

04i

0 .4 U0 o0 0

:>

v . *,

t? o9 .3

0

3

I I

1-

I

7

;> CF Z : 0 4-

a

U 4 HI *1

'0

;

7 F < 40

>

'0

>

.

~

5;

7

?

F

1'

Zs

0 0

X '0

:

X

3u F '0

-3 -D

3

O

7

>< 0u 3

40

'

X

3

a *'

0

_..,

a4 4-

3

:3 M

iC:

X

'0

o

0

<

40 < x .4 '>-

Q

0

#.4 B

3

0

>

0 4

4

7 1

it

3 50:

* 0

. 0

0

7

0 4C-

1

.4

O ;>

U0 ) 0X 4-

O

C0 -4

> X

.'

t)

;> : 0

X '0 40 A1 - ;3 0 0 0 ,0 d C:( 7 . > ).< . *a 0

X ^

O

-0

3 ;

*3

a <

t

0

0 -0

o

4 7

Cs

0-

'.

0

,C tl

0

'.

0a< 0

'I4

0

x

O .09-

0

'--

-

X

4.

.3

0<

F-'0

-

a

Q

'0

0 0 z

3 '0* 0 0 x Q

W

3

X

*

(

0 Ca

0

II

'_

Q-0-

'.4*

3-'

C C-4 H-

0

a

in -4 H-

a

>

0 -

3

0

co COH-

3

0-

21

T[o]u,

8Od6wpov

E5vo[ilov

'Hpax)A]?e6av KaXtao~evcosG,

[xXc'6a, [---a

'EpnTupvou,

---

o]U,

'AvOeEoT4pLov

Nx[oQ6p]Jpou, ApLaTo[T]ouevnv

'Ave[aJoTnp'ou,

AeovTT[

AOOVTOS, xat

'ApLarope'vou,

6cd6oTrov

IlpaCdou,

ToOs oopevous

ToUs

[Te

xat Tb

watavaj

Aya oxAlv Ewxpd[(T]ou, AdXnTXa AAlpou, KaAtXXpdvnvK 'HcaLaoT'?W[va] 24

*Ap'aTwva

'EarTial.ou,

]eedicxolnov

[-=5-]Jvlo[u;D

MevcXdou,

NixoxpCdTou,

OALovuao]6JSpou,

A]iLovdaoov

[vCou,

27

J

AuaCav

[3=1o]u,

8c66wpov 8co6ajpou, OtXAdevov

[xp]crTnv

KaXALxpdTou,

1PpacTeXnv

ALo

AlovdoTL

AuoC

iAXoC

ecojYyevou,

IooiCL 6WVLOU, KdA)XwvQos, OcpiCa0wva

AwVCLva EdX

&ewva EwaLo8Cou, Maapxov MaEdaO]pxou, Mevo'rav 30

tLXdvLxov 'Epliwvos,

aTpcdrou, vuod66po

AIovuo0o6S5pou,

uorxov AapCou, 33

[vos,

36

ArnvdooXLv bAninTrpCou,IleXoxa

T']papXov TipdpXou, EopoxXlv Eoq.oxlXou

[v]eo,av 6i?uou,

KnqLad6wpov 'Aie

$ LAOXpcTT[Irjv >LXoxp

[-.^.]aoT[---c OL,XoxX([a

rAnl4TPLov AnunTpiou,

:l5--

NLxo]64pou,

]H[(

4 3o0..A.PE-

E'TUp[ov--c--8-,]

Mevexp'rTnv

'HpaxX[e ....],

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

62

g w a) '0 7 0

:0

;.

-0

;> -

-

o


7 00<0 -, 0

K.

7

0

*

7

Cs

* ;X7O,e

--, ?3 CX-,

00 K 0

0-.,

<

u~

a o -* 7 06 d'

od3-< ?0

0

'3'I 3:~~~~~

~

7

-a.

7

-' 3-

6 o3

B

W

> ?3 6

0

0

'U '3

6

LaPCIL

'"3

Xa <

-

0:

00

70

007

37

-1

x-'

A-?7

6

U Ots

o-. 6. N3

0

'A

'It

4-

-,

a<

'6

?a-a-

^

7O 7

7X ::rt97, 7 -

7

o (-1, C,

'

=-

o

90

'7P

7

0

'AoL 00 77

*

3

7>

0 7-

o. 0o

0 "a

'A 0

(? 10

a

0

?

3

0

0

QL

*-a O

6

'aW

7

3:

a--a>

< *I* 7

3

' :N

'0 LA

-'

7 0

a

')

3X? * a -7

6? 0 '' W

A

CD

0

o7

v0

7

6 10

0

*0

6-

0 l -

Ne * i,~ ? 6 O?-? '

I

'7 ?-' 0N7 O0 *-<

7 0 U 3 a U 'H 0)1 I a-'0~ 3?

7 L &0 to ' 0CS UaP -U -o

7

a-

0 9 O 0

<

00 6

0 a -

K 6 0 > oo,

Q X

a

3L < a'0 e W0

0

a?

07' -'

0' '

0

0

---,13

3

o

a<

6

0

K

7

;>

0 K'

a-

'A

3

H W 'Ia 7 -

i

17 0

OC1

' ?o O

Wi

37 7

W

6

07-

X 3o

7

a<

~

'Uj L 7 6-

<

?0

j

D 7

0W) '0 ' L. o0

& '3-

a

-> ~07 6 -

0D* -

-

-6 Zs0

0

6 0 -? '-? 37 0 '00~~~~~~<-' -P I~~~~~~~

W :

6If

<7 -<

^

.a t a0 6 ZC"

-

0 C) 3

d0K Q:

a

3

'-.

? 0 7

7 7 Ia:O C.. 000U > * <30 .7' ~o* *0< '0 t0 I?)0 a a-

0

30

,. ,~, 7 .-, 6 0 0I

I-

o?

a

0

7 0 <0 _ AU?

a O t= 0?~ tiCd 6

I w~~~ 7 v

~

0 3 . 6' '< WL D > 0aO

-3

'A

*o

6

.< X 0 W Ia)

-W 07 *0 7 K. 0 < cx~~r',XK 300-* a

0 a<

-< 0 3 6O ' ,-2 7

6 A* I., 7 ? -< fw

7

7

3

3

^

0 (6

O

Ia e< X'A

'0 W La ID

*> x

' 0 00. CD a

K 7

6s K 0

7 d 0 6-1

a< < '6

'A 43:

9-

aa 0 -

x *?D u D x?< ^a < '-^ c- O a--0

0I

K

- A-

CO)

.:r

-)

'A? 'A -3,

'a

7

0

K

6-

o 0

'0 -'

=

4

7 X

t0

PC

0'

>

g 'A

->

X

' A >-'

O

:

3 -

0

0 1<

-O

>a

0

,

3

6?

6a '6

Ai

?

0

id

a6-

0

-6

6

7s03 7. - *17-) 06s -0 0 0 60)

D a> 'A

4>

a

0

'A.

60 ?

7

t CL 6-a

'7

a'

6

C

7 0

6 67 W0a >6

-

6

>7

7 3

0

e

<

0 SiS

3

0

-a 'A

0

?

'A X O i*-

,

W

0N

KX

o

0 h#

7

0 '~9-6 '

7

0

-

a 37t71-0'0 17 "'-, 0:; X 0 '6 t 'A a

0

'3a

0

3gw 0

0?

u-* F>

'

4a

K 7 a

'a

67 0

'

0

- U

K '0 0

0 a

13 S-

a

^ 0

Ea 6 0

^>

t3 (t) -< 00 K

-< l<

F

?

""

t-1 in

f

7>

0

0

0

0

A0

7 iL

0

>

P

-

0 W 0 1

3-* --

6

3-a 7

'0 0

9U

*0

0X

0

-t in

.

.

1-3

0 7 4

f 13

1- 7

o>?

'U .

*0

-U

0

o

>o

7 3 o6

-

>

61 &

X a< I ~

0 0

7 ' 0

-

7 (0 3

0 X 0 6

'6

-~

6 0 04

7. 6s O'A

'A

0

0

7

0 7 '1* 0

3

IA

0

7

7

U

t

0

t-

*3

'

7

' 3

a

o Z 3< '> ? Ra7> 3 a) '0

*3

6

>

0 W:%.a

i -a

Vs

7 0

?0 0 P0

3

a-

6

0

* t-

0 ? 7.

'0 W a)C 0

=L

L

0

7

'-*701 Ai l

a-

-

'

7 0 *-6-1

0

^a 0 '...P7 ts

0

l

7

-

&p

0 < KW

7

--

7

r

' d?'0 7 0

ii

I-

7

'go

)

a

7

cr

v

t) D

.

0 t

7

(D

?a

xo D

:

0 . # -,

0

'7

~-v ~~~ 6

*< / o4 a^~ atl ,,? ? ^<3, - o "a< 0 K 0

<

aa t

37

a) U

a-

r7 ,

03X W-- 5 1? 0

3a6s X 7

P4 a

0

w <

r-.* i=;o.~ ? a o ~ ' -K -* * '-< -> ? U 3 O *0 *> L y> 0~?

ULN 0

0

0 '-0

0 ^j 0a~a^> -07 G

0a00

7

> 0

0 e-


060

6l

_

X

'

a
6-

-

*3

o

0

'6

4

a-?

6

7.

3

'U ?

>

Z

-

*U

s

13-'

-' 0

'O0t

a,0 -,

0

7 LO o

7

a<

'7 a< %, ~- a

t *<3 ::>O 6s ~, O (.O 3?-?Q.
03 '0

<

06 6-

X a< o

6<

-- 0 X:i

CL

0

o

K a

7C 0 -'

>

0

-

r--7

$ 90

N0

a<

A

77

a<

0

W I3NI

N

w

v aL

3< W

'0 0 o<7>

0)7 -0

* iO 0o 06

'6 II 7 -

3

I 3'6

<

7

a <

C7 ~'

0

a3-O

a

It0'

0

<>a0 sao ~

1., 70 'a

Q 6

0

3

06

'6

--0P

'

'K

06

'A 0

?

6*

0

3

'-' <

8-': 0 W

-a

a<

0

e

0

0

>7 'W

o

00 '000 0a ' 3

0

r- o - J^
7

o3

~

-'

P

-U) UX

O. Ia

K *

>

-0

W7.

'

U

6 a

o~, Cad> * 6*

W 7

0^6-

o

Q.

K.

'

6

a.

W 3

6-<6

. 0 0 00a<

<

-'

6-?

0

CA a-'

() W 0 1It]

001-, '-a,

0

6'70*:

7

* '-a 7>

6-

A 3 00 6

e-

-0

OD <<

7O

Q.

I07 0 0

07

'U

K

-*

7

W

*0

X

0Uo

?6

7 0 C05 *6 Q

<

t-

6

I

o

?? -< Nj O0 7

*'37

0* 0

6-1

3

7

n

0 % 0

s

^

6

A

6

-

6

X

0

U

'7

'A

0

0 "W

0 7

17

X

-

63

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

0

10

Q

-

I-.

K0 w

3

.

8

IA

13

A

7

.a

,

7

7

3

-8 A

l3

X

I-

;>

-w

I

I-

7

"X

t3

a

7>

O o>

I-

13

I

,

13 9-

Q

?0 s3

0

>

^

Fr-

K

0 46 ,

-

7

o i7

X0

7 7 t> I>

0 3? 0

t>

73 13

0

7

7

0

I'O

'

73

~

.<

W v<*10

7>

-.

7A

*0

I3 >

CK 8<

0 . UL

0

K

.0

13

>

C

d

I0

F > O 30

K W K dX x-.

0 El

37

',-.-*

-.0 '0 tS 7 35--

X

7 '8

0 ,

Q

-

'

IA

xK

|

-o 8S

o

,o

I

9-

I

W

<:

t K-

o

8 x

3

8

0

0 :1

O

x

8

I-

x

o

0 0

0XX

-

0

ej

C-

K o

7-

^

Q. 13 ,-

10

0

l3 >

3

> 0-

*F?

3

0

Q-

3

>-

, ,

C 9-

-I

t5

IA

'

7

X

7

> 13 o0

7 -7^

3 -> 7-

IAu0

0

x

CQ

-

p0-

o Of 0d

0

0

7

0 0

o7 d?

0

f

-8

17

7

K

0 .W

0


0 to

X

I. 1-?

Q

tLO

0

8

0

.

to

%0

P,

o XI?

>

7

O

<

--x

w

'

O

.0

0

L

,w 00

C d?

0

7

< L^

I

0

W 7

< A0 0

-

3

13 -8

o

7

o

o0 Fj

13

IA

0 7

X

1 > 13 13 -

x

0

7

-

0

C

'0

i

0

au

8

3

-

7

-j

0

75

K-

3<

d

cM t-

.0

d0

64

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

The date of this inscription has created some discussion; Colin (FD III 2, pp. 5455) and Daux (Delphes, p. 724) assigned it to 98/7 B.C. (the year of Argeios), Klaffenbach (Symbolae,p. 68) to the year 94, and Pomtow (S.LG.3, II, 358) to 106/5 "nullo dubio." In spite of a lack of absolutely certain textual-prosopographical evidence to indicate the year, we may on the basis of hand assign this text to 98/7. Except for four additions to the record of 106/5, B's hand is seen only in the record of 98/7. X, too, is known (at Delphi) only in inscriptions of 98/7. B arranged the opening lines so as to set off the heading and greeting from the wording of the decree proper. A vertical guideline, ca. 0.011 m. in from the edge of the block, is incised as a left margin. All of the lines begin at this margin with the exception of the first and the third which are set out one letter space to the left, creating a margin effect. The large blank space in line 2 sets off the greeting; the third line begins with the first word of the decree. Line 1. The space is sufficient for a blank of about 10 letter spaces in length. Line 2 (P1. 27, b). Under the iota and omikron at the end of the first word appear epsilon (the iota is the vertical stroke of the epsilon, the three horizontals of the epsilon just reach the omikron) and iota (at the right side of omikron; the upper third and the serif at the bottom are especially clear). B first This provides direct linguistic evidence that he was Athenian or at least spoke inscribed a7roKpkaEts. of this clause are ras SoOelaas, genitives in the Phocian dialect, but to an The first words Attic Greek. context out of Attic speaker they would naturally be taken as accusative plural. B initially inscribed the at the end of the accusative plural in agreement. Only when he reached the accusative To dvriypa,ov sentence did he perceive the construction and correct. Vacatca. 0.32 m. Line 4. The participle E'xo'VTe was probably lost through a haplography of sigma, B looking back in his copy at the sigma of eXOVTes after inscribing evae/t3WS.

Line 5. There appear the remains of pi under the first tau (note in Plate 27, c the vertical stroke extending down from the right end of the horizontal of tau), of rho under the first omikron, of a round letter (omega?) under the first vertical of pi; also, in between rho and omega a round letter (omikron?) is visible and a slanting stroke (alpha?) appears under the right half of tau. B appears to have omitted TO and proceeded for several letters before perceiving his mistake. The inscribing of evepyETra for evperas is probably due to misreading and is exactly paralleled by A4fxa4avreafor Altovea in 6, line 53. Line 6 (P1. 28, a). The alpha of TAN is inscribed over an epsilon (original haplography of tau). Line 7. Vacat 0.016 m.

Line 9. KAI was omitted. The tau in double square brackets has the shape of pi (P1. 28, a). This probably resultsfrom an incipient dittography-i.e. B started to repeat yvvatKW3vand inscribed gamma; he then inscribed tau slightly to the right, obscuring the horizontal but not the vertical of the gamma. Line 11 (P1.28, b). The firstomikron is a remade omega and sigma is inscribed over nu. B originally inscribed auvrwv.This mistake results from looking back to the working copy at the second AYT after inscribing the first and was no doubt facilitated by the dialect word. Line 12. Vacat 0.012 m.

Line 14. Tau is enclosed in pointed brackets because delta appears on the stone. Line 16. B had unusual difficulties with the name 'AptcrTodevqvAptarotueveos. A dittography now appears on the stone; in addition, the second epsilon of the patronymic is a crudely remade eta and the second omikron is inscribed over a nu (P1. 28, c). This reveals that B originally committed a trip-

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE 112 1028 CUTTER

65

lography of the nomen.There also appears above and to the left of the second sigma of the patronymic an (erased) interlinear sigma. B clearly inscribed it to change the third 'AptuarouEvtvto the genitive with the least amount of work. Obviously he thought that he could still use the letters of the next word (which he had already begun when he perceived that something was amiss). He had, of course, begun the patronymic. When he realized that these letters could not be used either, he erased and, in the process, removed the interlinear sigma. Through all this it seems clear that he never perceived the full extent of his error, i.e. that even after his correcting a dittography still remained. Lines 18-21. A small unnumbered fragmentjoins here (B.C.H., XCIII, 1969, p. 387 and fig. 17) and gives the letters at the beginning of these lines. Line 18. Vacat0.01 m. Line 20. An alpha appears under the second omikron of @?o8&pov (P1. 29, a). B appears to have begun the nomenfollowing prematurely. He perceived his error at once. Line 21. Nu appears under the mu of Evvo/xov; by haplography of omikron B initially omitted the mu. The alpha of Ae'ovra is inscribed over an omikron, indicating that B first began to inscribe the patronymic. In the third erasure a number of the erased letters are legible (P1.29, a): alpha under tau, sigma under epsilon, epsilon between alpha and iota and partially under iota, nu under the second alpha, omikron under nu, and sigma partly under alpha and partly between alpha and sigma. B repeated a4uopEvovsby looking back in his copy at the first TOYEafter inscribing the second. Line 23. All of the erased letters are discernible (P1. 29, a): alpha under tau, xi between iota and alpha, and epsilon between alpha and iota; less easy to discern are the round part of rho in the upper right section of sigma and the remains of pi under epsilon. B inscribed the patronymic of the name just preceding, Hpa~eov, and corrected with a minimum of erasure. Lines 24-36.J. Bousquet, B.C.H., LXII, 1938, pp. 362-368, has shown that Delphi Museum inv. no. 6346 joined to FD III 2, no. 53 belongs here, adding these 13 lines of text. Line 24. Omikron is inscribed over an eta (cf. B. C. H., XCIII, 1969, pp. 387f.); B apparently committed a dittography of the nomen.Atoy'vov is thus a very probable restoration. Line 25. The remains of the erased letters are clear (P1. 29, b): pi under delta, sigma under nu, epsilon under and a little to the right of upsilon, and iota under the middle of sigma. B began to inscribe the patronymic of the Aitovv'atos just previous, namely HToaEtSwv{ov,as a result of looking back on his copy at the wrong AIONYZION.He perceived the mistake about halfway through, erased pi and inscribed delta, retained the omikron and squeezed iota in before it, then proceeded to correct the other letters. Line 27. The gamma is inscribed over a xi (as Bousquet noted). The source of this error must be that B had the ending ENOY in mind and looked back in his copy at OEENOYof the name above (line 26). This suggests that his copy at this point roughly coincided with the final inscribed text, for he looked back at the same place relatively in the horizontal line but up one line. Line 28. Bousquet called attention to the fact that the first omikron is inscribed over an alpha (dittography of the nomen). Line 29. The second alpha of MaapKov is inscribed over a rho (haplography of alpha). Line 31. The nu is enclosed in pointed bracketsbecause sigma appearson the stone. The eta is a remade nu. Except for five lines, X inscribed lines 37-74, i.e. the entire second half of the text. B inscribed from AA7roAA|Ivtov in line 51 to iKcare'pasin line 56. Despite my stated object of discussing only the parts inscribed by B, I consider it necessary to make the following descriptive comments, clarifying my text of lines 37-74. Line 39. Colin read [O]tA[ ... ]arrqv.The sigma of Av3pwvos falls under the interspace of epsilon

66

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

and nu of Sevo?'avrov in the line above; the alpha of -arUnvfalls under the second nu of the same word. Thus, approximately four letters are lost. I can discern no trace of Colin's iota, lambda. Line 41. The third epsilon was entirely omitted. Klaffenbach, Symbolae,p. 51, suggested (correctly, I believe) that 'ptaro'8,Stv is a dittography arising from the preceding patronymic. In any case, X completely omitted the second omikron. Line 43. The second kappa is inscribed in the interline. Line 44. The second iota is inscribed in the interline. Line 45. Nu is enclosed in pointed brackets because sigma appears on the stone. Line 48. The erased letters iota sigma are discernible under omikron upsilon. X committed a dittography. Line 50. The fifth alpha was never inscribed. Nu is enclosed in pointed brackets because sigma appears on the stone. Line 51. Mu is inscribed over a sigma. Line 52. "le commencement de KAAAIZTPATOYest en surcharge sur un autre nom efface" (Colin). Of the erased letters, an alpha appears before kappa (P1. 29, c), an omikron under the first alpha, an omega between iota and sigma, a nu between sigma and tau, and an upsilon just to the left of the second alpha. B originally inscribed 'A47roAAcovtou, influenced perhaps by the nomen.By leaving a blank, i.e. the space where the erased alpha appears, he re-used the lambdas. Vacat0.012 m. and 0.02 m. Line 53. Vacat0.015 m. Line 54. Vacat0.012 m. Line 56. The fourth tau is inscribedover a delta. B started to repeat &Sdtov but correctedimmediately. Line 57. The eta in pointed brackets and epsilon in pointed brackets were never inscribed. Line 61. The second kappa is inscribed in the interline. Line 65. The nu in pointed brackets was never inscribed.

In finished form this inscription was composed of two symmetrical halves, the first half inscribed by B, the second by X. It required planning to produce this B

X [B

|X

I

arrangement, not necessarily elaborate planning however. The errors in the text (lines 1 1, 16, 21, 23, e.g.) show that the letters were not laid out on the stone. The space available on the Treasury wall (two adjacent blocks) 13 naturally suggested an arrangement in two halves, which could have been, and I think probably was, achieved simply by inscribing as many lines as necessary on the left until the approximate mid-point of the text was reached and then inscribing the rest on the right. This suggests consecutive rather than simultaneous inscribing by the masons. The determination of the layout 13

B.C.H., LXII, 1938, pl. XXXIX, 2 shows this clearly.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

67

on paper, however, could have been precise enough to allow them to work simultaneously. Complete layout ofthis sort is uncommon and, considering the work involved, highly unlikely when it was not absolutely necessary. The most reasonable interpretation of all the observable evidence is that B began with no. 48 (7h); X was called in to cut the second half, freeing B to proceed with the work on the other texts. When X finished with no. 48, he began on no. 26 (7d)(supra, pp. 55-56). An estimate of letters inscribed supports this reconstruction. The second half of no. 48 (minus the five lines cut by B) contained ca. 2,250 letters; the texts (hypothetically) inscribed by B while X was working on no. 48 (i.e. nos. 6 [7a]; 10 [7b]; 2 [7b]; 31 [7c], lines 1-5; 17 [7c], lines 1-5) contained approximately 1,600 letters. Some of the difference may be accounted for by the time B spent on layout.

7i (P1. 30). Additions to the record of the Pythais of Agathokles (106/5 B.C.). (1) FD III 2, no. 13, col. I, lines 7-8 (P1. 30, a). For attribution, note epsilon in line 8. E(K

Alvetas

vppaKL8&v 'HpaKAEXSov

This addition is the only entry in column I; in reality, it extends to the left into the space occupied by FD III 2, no. 9 and bridges the space originally left blank between the two texts. (2) FD III 2, no. 13, col. II, line 8 (PI. 30, a). For attribution, note alphas and the use of serifs. tJlavrtsXappvdAof.

XaptwvAov

B took advantage of a blank space at this point to add the name and title of the mantis; this man also held this position in the Pythais of 98/7 B.C. (7a, line 15). La mention du tcavrTs, en particulier, aurait du etre gravee plus haut, vers la fin du no. 5; on I'aura sans doute ajoutee la, parce que XaplJvAos appartenait a la famille des Eupatrides (Colin).

The reason is incorrect, for as Boethius observes (Die Pythais, p. 101, note 4) "Fouilles 10, Z. 20 zeigt, dass er zu der Familie der Erysichtoniden gehorte." B, indeed, knew this and has indicated the independence of this entry by beginning it out almost at the outer guideline. His reason for not placing it at the outer guideline seems to be that he wished to indicate its independence without achieving the visual result that the title pJavTs should supersede Trv0ataiTat. The entry was made here because this was

68

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

the first line blank after the usual position (nos. 5 and 13 are inscribed as a unit as Boethius has shown on pages 132ff.).14 The second sigma is inscribed over an upsilon (initially a haplography of XAPMYAO).

(3) FD III 2, no. 13, col. II, line 15 (PI. 30, a). For attribution, note sigma and upsilon. A toaKovpL3

This man was also a Pythaist in 98/7

A LOK [o] vpt8ov i B.C.;

cf. 7b, line 63.

(4) FD III 2, no. 30, line 14 (P1. 30, b). For attribution, note alpha and use of serifs. 'ApxLTr-TrApoJLOKAE0ovS

This, the last entry, was clearly added by B at a later time. Both the physical positions of these entries and the hand reveal that they are later additions, made when B inscribed the record of 98/7. It is of some interest to note that an entry could be filled in after the passage of 8 years. Two of the additions are names of persons who actually participated in both Pythaids, indicating that personal initiative often lies behind such additions. The most interesting fact which emerges from the foregoing is the obvious trouble which those in charge took to ensure careful work. They brought in Athenian lettercutters for the job15 and established rules to govern the inscribing. For example, they required incised guidelines, thus forcing the cutters to plan out their texts in advance with some exactness.16 Almost all mistakes were perceived and corrected at once; thus, the work was done carefully with frequent checking. Study of these inscriptions has also shown that this tendency toward careful work was balanced and, in some cases, offset by the need or desire to complete the work quickly. Proportionately, almost as many mistakes occur in these inscriptions as in 6 (infra, p. 113); they are primarily minor errors and were probably generated by haste. The glare of the sun on the wall of the Treasury was, doubtless, also a factor. 17 Another bit of evidence indicating that the work was done with some haste is that serifs were omitted with greater frequency here than in the other inscriptions. 14

Daux, Delphes,pp. 710-716, discusses the relation of these texts in detail. X was also from Athens. I have noted thus far, however, only one example of his work, II2 995. 16 Indirectly, this provides a rather meaningful comment on cutters' normal procedures, at least as those in charge of the Treasury perceived them. 17 Inscribing is not physically taxing, but it is hard on the eyes (see App. II). Unless B worked with an exceptionally good shading device, the sun, which shines directly on the wall of the Treasury for most of the day, would have caused great eyestrain. Cf. also p. 120 infra. 5

69

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

8 (P1. 31, a). Agora I 1773a. Dow, Prytaneis, pp. 161-162. Fragment of white marble, broken all around. Height, 0.15 m.; width (inscribed face), 0.028 m.; thickness, 0.048 m. Height of letters, 0.005-0.006 m. For attribution, note especially the epsilons in lines 3-4. Shortly before 101/3 i.c.

[oEn [ [eICt)l

ca_

- - -]

eyOTEe

v T(i)Y 11;Q]0O(5Q[WV

?7E^fl(/;V

i - -t i--]-d--_:]

_ _ _

_ _

-

ca. 28

- - - - - - ><-

- -----

TQ ravela g,----

v

-/.at

vo

fl jovviri]

aJVyJreOseQOI

v

&#o$EV]

- a'a} EIELdilol nrvrdaug zXjg ----][rel flovht -c? tl rvP] TO a2,ula d7rocilovatlv x'at ?2_ [ot dehauiro]t 7ra[LriYaavrn offrsctvffavTe - a -2 - - - - 'dig re Ovalag z eOvzvat 6fdaalg Cta 0C [rizovrcaag gv] [yQactua]lTra V a xat r&v &a).ov t&] o TOV 3Jiuov T1 b'Er lE^ovfvfiaOat [uct 7rqt,]'rare[aat .j flovUi Xag ]c vc

5

--]oV I[QovTo"

ca..

ca. 67

Trace of olive crown

s-irev, E[- -----------

c ov zat t tUg flovZii (pa rirat TOIg rag )ITOteQ] 2 w '/.o cptTotlwg vv v el t TIV't v [ylag acrc]orE[Eotvaa Tii,'veoay.oat'av xao 6o'yct ~joveZE izraivdaait] ya;Oc,El -] xai TOv yQoat,pasEa ['rov T-atd]av [-------------[17irdvrv Yza]6i)( [al

10

W. B. Dinsmoor suggested (The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries,New York, 1939, p. 201) that this fragment belonged to the archonship of Herakleides; II2 989, now known to belong to the year of Herakleides, voids this suggestion. Dow, who originally published the fragment (Prytaneis, pp. 161-162), dated it shortly before 104/3 B.C. This date seems accurate: the execution of the crown shows that it was inscribed before 101/0 (infra, pp. 108-109). Line 4. Vacat 0.014 m. Line 6. Enough of the circumference and center of the letter remains to reveal that the letter is not omega and, probably, not theta. If it were a theta, some trace of the central dot should appear in the part preserved. Line 11. Lambda and mu are also possible. The preserved slanting stroke has a serif; therefore, the letter was not delta.

9 (P1. 31, b). Agora I 2945. Meritt, Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 235-236. Fragment of white marble, broken all around. Height, 0.083 m.; width, 0.051 m.; thickness, 0.034 m. Height of letters, ca. 0.007 m. For attribution, note in particular the epsilon in line 2 and the omega in line 3. uncertain number of lines missing [pE]

appEo[t]

[A] Eovr[--]

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

70

3.

A to'[S [poo s] NLKOKK[--]

'Aptar[--] TtLo[---]

6.

'E

[- - -]

uncertain number of lines missing The list was organized so that the names under each demotic were indented two letter spaces. Line 3. Meritt observed that the mason firstinscribed all or part of the name Dionysios. The vertical strokesof the erased nu appear under delta (P1. 31, b) and the left slanting stroke of upsilon is visible to the left of omega. Line 4. The initial kappa is inscribed in a gouge, which was present therefore before the mason inscribed this name. Nikokles and Nikokleides are the possible names: Nikokrates seems to be excluded, for the upper part of rho should appear on the portion of the stone preserved to the right of the final kappa, had it been inscribed there.

10 (P1. 31, c). Agora I 3871a. Tracy, Hesperia,XXXVI, 1967, pp. 242-243. Fragment of white marble, broken all around. Height, 0.165 m.; width, 0.125 m.; thickness, 0.06 m. Height of letters, 0.007 m. For attribution, note epsilon in line 5 and alpha in line 14.

fin. saec. II a.

NON-ITOIX.

uncertainnumberof linesmissing ] vX7,KEpcpaLK[-------]

[--------

[[

----]

[ [__

10

?

----

[? [-?---

-]

[----

] V

-----? ?^j-] _

]

]p6Kav xiX,La [ ?]--_] o Tep -xo[ ---

___-?]

[?_I---] [ c

[-

rejtaKara rTV

___--]

[--------^-[

15

ToST T

?]__------]-K?V

[

) [---

7 p, tr

-]

-]

--]---] [V vpo vo? o,. [-rpo

]

a.Oeav [------] --------]

y_a

ovaLe[ ?-----]

a]

[_ ---?

----i

T1Xv?L -

[-----?

uncertainnumberof lines missing Line 10. Vacat 0.01 m. No traces of the original text are discernible.

.-]

--]

71

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

11 (P1. 31, d). Agora I 3871b+ I 4026. Tracy, Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, p. 244. Two joined fragments of white marble, right side preserved. Height, 0.222m.; width, 0.055m.; thickness, 0.07 m. Height of letters, 0.007 m. For attribution, note the sigma in line 9 and the epsilon in line 11. fin. saec. II a.

NON-ZTOIX.

uncertain number of lines missing B

--------------] vacat

[?__?--

vacat

vacat 5

[-------------------] []

opta

---]

----]ov

rrpo

[?..-.......____]Tr[..]iE 10

] ovo

[--------------------

] ? 8]E [- - - r]oLs vro] r]aTOV ] 'oT _J _ --.-

[_______....-

[-----[[_-_-_-15

[

-------? _

?

__-__------_---

-

...

?

.

[-^_-^^^^.^.?_^^.^^^^^^]^

[----

]Xq

]XP

uncertain number of lines missing Line 12. None of the erased letters can be clearly read. There appear, however, to be traces of an

epsilon under the upsilon.

12 (P1. 32, a, b). Agora I 5919. Meritt, Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 193-194. Fragment of white marble, broken all around. Height, 0.24 m.; width, 0.17 m.; thickness, 0.10 m. Height of letters, ca. 0.008 m. For attribution, note epsilon and alpha in line 2 and sigma and tau in line 3 (P1. 32, b).

72

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

uncertain number of lines missing 5. [-------] [-------] ]

['A]AXfav8p[os]

[------]

[A]ptarTo'ovAo[s]

[------]

4. ['ETr].tKAt s 9. ['1] 3ovAX

8. Jtod[-15. fovAr P Otvo-

MrSSEtov

14.

XtAov

nHE-

Acti-

patE-

[va] -

a

20.

ov

vacat to bottom Line 2. In his original edition of this fragment, B. D. Meritt read Mevav3p[os]. Lambda, not mu, is the first preserved letter. What appears to be a stroke, slanting in approximately the right position to form the central part of mu, in the Hesperia photograph is a shadow, not a letter stroke (P1. 32, b). In addition, though quite worn, the three horizontal strokes of xi are discernible. This fragment can be

excluded from 4, for there the list of names is followed by a row of incised crowns.

13 (P1. 32, c). EM 649. Keil, Rh. Mus., XIX, 1864, pp. 255-256; Roussel, Les cultesegyptiensa Delos, Paris, 1915-16, p. 268; Dow, Harv. Th. Rev., XXX, 1937, pp. 208-212. Fragment of gray marble, broken at top and bottom. Height, 0.37 m.; width, 0.18 m.; thickness, 0.21 m. Height of letters, ca. 0.011 m. For attribution, note upsilon, pi, epsilon, tau, and sigma in line 5.

'"7IotStv 'aparrtSt 4Avovft8tA4p7ToKpatrq[t] 3. MeyaAAIsMaya Mapawoviov OvyaT7)p V7rTpTS 6. TpoS AJ/iaplov TV

)

V

v] VV]

OvyaKal_ Ka-ra

E7r t errpoaray/tLa, 9. p'wcos Mevavbpov TOV-4Apre'lcvos

4AAcoTreKjOev,KAE[L]12. 8ov_ovroVo AcruW-

xroKAeovsAveocs, 27oLaKOpEVOVTOSo

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER 15. aLKparov

73

Aao&3Ke-

C)S, KplvovroS

ra 6-

[p],p ara ziOVVr(lOV

18. Avrtoox'cw). The origin of this inscription has been surrounded with doubt. Its absence from the Attic volumes of I.G. and Kirchner's affirmation "von Delos stammend . .. ohne zweifel" (Berl. Phil. Woch., XXVIII, 1908, p. 884) are due to its resemblance to Delian dedications. P. Roussel, Les cultes egyptiensa Delos, p. 268, note 2, stressed its Athenian provenience and suggested that the Athenian mint official Magas, P.A. 9650, was the father of Megallis. Dow "The Egyptian Cults in Athens," p. 209, emphasized the place of discovery, which was not far from the site of the Sarapeion in Athens, and the cutter, whom he knew to be Athenian. We may now add that no fragment by this cutter appears among the inscriptions extant on Delos. The Athenian place of discovery and letter-cutter make it certain, therefore, that the inscription is Attic and not Delian. Line 1. These letters are slightly larger than the others; they range in height from 0.012 to 0.015 m. Vacat 0-008 and 0-0065 m. Cf. infra p. 98 for a discussion of the spacing of this line. Line 7. Dow, ibid., p. 211, reconstructed the original text as [rov v]o[v Ma]ya; this seems entirely correct. In addition to the clearly legible omikron between nu and upsilon and rA in the blank space, the bottom serif of the second erased upsilon appears at the bottom center of the first nu and at the same position in the second nu appears a serif belonging to the right slanting stroke of alpha. The extent of the erasure can be determined more exactly. Touch reveals a ridge at the beginning of the space occupied by the first omega. Although the edge is flaked away to the left, the ridge indicates that the erasure did not include the (now almost completely lost) tau. Vacat 0.028 m.

14 (PI. 33, a). EM 5228. Fragment of white marble; the bottom alone is preserved (smooth) and a trace of the molding in the upper left, directly above the space between the rosette and the first crown. The original height of the piece was, thus, little higher than the now preserved height. Height,

0.27 m.; width, 0.33 m.; thickness, 0.108 m.

Height of letters, ca. 0.009 m. For attribution, note sigma in line 3 and epsilon in line 4. fin. saec. II a. 6 Srjijos

rosa

in corona i lOVV3.

utOV

EvirVp[i] Srv

6.

o A[rjuos]

reliquiae coronae

74

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

The lines of text are not quite parallel to the bottom. This probably indicates carelessness or hurried workmanship. Other details point in the same direction: 1) The right part of the tie is unfinished. 2) The serif is omitted on the right bottom of mu (the only instance in B's work). 3) The strokes of the delta's in the crown do not meet; thus, the delta in line 5, especially, has a sloppy appearance. The rosette, by contrast, seems to be a careful, beautiful piece of workmanship in sculptured high relief. The man honored is probably identical with Aiovv'otos AO6rjvofiovEv&rvpbSrqs (J. Sundwall, Nachtrdgezur ProsopographiaAttica, Helsingfors, 1910, p. 59) who was a pythaist in 128/7 B.C. and Ert/xEA,T1- EfL4rToplovon Delos in 98/7. 15 (P1. 33, b). EM 5581. Fragment of white (Pentelic) marble, left side preserved, found on the Acropolis. Height, 0.125 m.; width, 0.10 m.; thickness, 0.08 m. Height of letters, ca. 0.007 m. For attribution, note alpha, epsilon, and xi in line 2.

fin. saec.II a.

NON-'TOIX. - - -]

[ ca4 ]-[.

]E[-

3. aVELv [a _E] vv V7TEpTrV [------

Kal roV 7[6.

&mLwt

"

]

------]

v7T[--

- - --]

uav adv' 5J[v - - XpvotL

] -] [rTEavvcLu

9. Kal oVroT [- - - - - -] VOfLeVOS[ -------]

Line 1. Just above the serif at the end of the upper horizontal of the epsilon in line 2 appears an inverted-v serif. E-a vertical stroke and a horizontal stroke with a serif appear over the second alpha in line 2. Line 2. An inverted-v serif appears directly above the upsilon in line 3. The space to the left is sufficient for 1 letters. Line 3. Vacat 0.018 m. Line 6. Vacat 0.007 m.

16 (PI. 34). II2 1023 (fragment a-EM 2745; fragment b-EM 8743). I.G., II, 5, 1352 e. Two non-joining fragments of white marble; fragment a preserves both sides (claw-chiseled) and the back (rough picked); fragment b is broken on all sides. a: height, 0.42 m.; width, 0.53 m.; thickness, 0.13 m. b: height, 0.44 m.; width, 0.22 m.; thickness, 0.115 m.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

Height of letters, 0.011-0.013 m. For attribution, note tau, phi, and omega in line 8 (P1. 34, a). NON-2TOIX, fin. saec.II a. uncertain number of lines missing

__

[_ _ __ _

3.

_ __

^

_

_^

--

_a] -

evaes3E3s .K[a]i [v]earpdac[rq 8e Kat E]v rols [aAAoLs] rrart KaAXcs Kal adlWos [Trs EY]YKEXELptLtL[EvrV7]S 7TriT7EWs Eavu VrIrio rov

8rjlIov Kal rJAAa Trdvra ErSpaev 8oopEav TrpoaKaprEE'rrI rrAElova' vDo Kal ev rais SE Aoiralst AELparas 6. rovpyiaLS a7rrcrTaLa 7alS -ES r TpOs Tnv ELKo'IVqraLv7rTv yvlvaalcov EavTov

a7TpoOaalatrTs

TE Kal

LEPC(v E7rLStS(o)>atv aorrovOrjS Kal pLAOTt7LI-

9. as ov0Ev EAAErt7Tr. vacat 7vXEL TE dayaOei SeSO6xOa r7tl fovArjti vD roVS AaXOVTas 7TpOESpovS Els rT7v ETrovaoav EKKrA--

12. alav Xpr]7qJlaTraLTrepl yvr TOVTC)V, YVpoV

15.

SE

7 aL Tmjs fovAjis els rov r1iTov oTL V/CLaAAEoXX SOKELrT7L ovAX, L, Dv ErTatveratL ZaorVavSpov 0tAuLr7ovZV7raA7-r7ov V Kal (are(avUcaat Xpvauct 7arE)Cdv)o

EVeUE/elacS E'VKEV Kal (iAOTEXvlas

T77S 7TEpl T7 LEpOV Kal

7j7S ElS 7TV (S77Lov

Evvolas

v"" SE 7o68 To'L07,(taoa A4r7val)uv. avaypadat arTe(avov Kal 7rv els aTrr77Av ALXOvr1vTovs KEXELporovr77lVOVs 7TV KaTaaKEV71V advSpas E7TL TOV vaov 7rSl AOrvaLS vvKoal a7rToral Ev aKpor7TeL's TE 7rV aT-7AcE' UDO7 8SEiadEYVOV avaCAoa

18. 7rv

21.

ev Tols AdaveveyKelv AXqvKal 7rTv avaypaqfv 24. yots Dv" EvvaL be avrT7L Kal Els 7dv AoL7TrrvXpoT7v 7TpoSs7TavTrag vOV aCTToSELtKVVIuJevcoL )AOvalovs Evvotav eVpEaeat Kal aAAo ayaOov rrapa rT7s

27. fovArs

Kal T7OV 8(-7ov

'070

v SoK<80K(>(L) aftOS ElvaL.

vacat in corona

ZLoravSpov PLAlaTov

30. SvrraAr7rLine 5. Vacat0.04 m. Line 7. The bottom right horizontal stroke of the fourth omega is missing.

75

ca.38

76

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

Line 9. Vacat 0.29 m. Line 10. The collocation, rTXEt TEL dyaeit, is a stylistic nicety, without parallel in other Attic decrees of this period; it is arresting by the very fact that it is a rearrangement of a timeworn expression. Vacat 0.04 m. Line 12. Vacat0.035 m. Line 14. Vacat 0.045 m. Line 15. Vacat 0.023 m. Line 18. Vacat 0.04 m. Line 21. Vacat 0.032 m. Line 22. Vacat 0.045 m. Line 24. Vacat 0.053 m. Line 27. The second eta has no crossbar. This line is neither crowded nor spaced out, yet it covers,

apparently by design, the entire width of the stele. Line 31. None of the original text is legible.

All of the clerical details support Wilhelm's characterization of this monument as "stattlich" (Jahresh., I, 1898, Beibl. 45). The lettering is monumental in concept (infra, p. 89f.), the blank spaces are unusually large and frequent, and the crown is in high relief and rather elaborate. The stylistic detail in line 10 and the unusual fact that the final line extends across the width of the stele provide further evidence of the care which went into the planning of every detail of this monument. The large lettering and blank spaces, in particular, show that no expense was spared. Despite the obvious concern that the stele should be exemplary in appearance, it is notable that the two faulty letters were never completed; almost certainly, however, the missing strokes were added in paint when the finishing touches were given to the stele. In view of the relatively lavish appearance of this inscription, it would be especially interesting to know the exact nature of Sosandros' beneficence and tLAorEXvlaand how it affected the Parthenon. 18 The letter shapes deserve further comment because, as the most important functional element, they inevitably contribute much to the appearance of the stele. In this case B clearly has striven (successfully) to create a monument of unusually fine appearance. How has he modified his lettering to achieve this result? Apart from size, the most striking change appears in his treatment of the serifs. They occur regularly at the ends of all terminal strokes (the only place where they are omitted with some frequency is at the top of vertical strokes); inverted-v serifs tend to appear on horizontal as well as vertical strokes. That is, in many cases he has elaborated the single-line serif to a serif which requires two strokes and rather exacting judgment in positioning the angle. In addition, the letter strokes are somewhat thicker and deeper than usual, 18 W. B. Dinsmoor ("The Repair of the Athena Parthenos," A.J.A., XXXVIII, 1934, p. 102, note infer that the repair at this later date was a minor one, or, more probably must either we ". . . wrote: 4) (since the word is KaraaKEV7?v and not E7TiLKEVrnv),that it was the temporary decoration of the temple on some special occasion."

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

77

and round letters quite noticeably are nicely rounded. B obviously has elaborated

his usual lettering by inscribing more deliberately; he has taken the time here, in short, to finish off his strokes.The care taken in execution gives these letters their fine appearance; size alone does not account for it (see the lettering of the Pythais inscriptions,

comparable in size but not in aesthetic effect). A small, hitherto unpublished fragment from the Athenian Agora (Agora I 5225) belongs to this stele but does not join. The height of the letters, their elaboration, and

the interlinear spacing coincide with 16 and suggest the association. Fragment of white marble, right side preserved (P1. 34, b), found in a Byzantine

context west of the Panathenaic Way (S 19) on February 16, 1938. Height, 0.049 m.; width, 0.076 m.; thickness, 0.074 m. For attribution, note the alphas and tau in line 2. [ _ _-_ _ _ca. 33___-]ONTI[ ca. 34 - - - - -]ATAI[.] [___ [

-ca.3

_ _ _ _ r[_ L---- - - --

4-

ca. 36

--

-----

]EAE2

1_L ---J

I am unable to suggest any probable restorations. 17 (P1. 36, a). II2 1341 (EM 7770-3). Pittakis, 'E+. A4px.,nos. 954, 1391; Rangabe, no. 570; I.G., II, 629. Fourjoined fragments of gray marble (not, as I. G., II2, Pentelic), left side (smooth)

and top preserved (claw-chisel marksvisible, but quite smooth), found on the Acropolis. Dimensions as joined: Height, 0.417 m.; width, 0.193 m.; thickness, 0.172 m. Height of letters, 0.008 m. For attribution, note omega and epsilon in line 16. fin. saec.II a. [7rc--

[_ ca.4 3.

3 ca- ?ov_apX-ov-----------------] ]E[iOV PXovO

[ca-2]

_]av[ atvrov

--]

-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [--------------

-]

[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]] [A43jo'AAwv[['Ar]oxv Ka0' [E]Kaarov [-c -]at [----3 o -]O pxov [-------------] ca'

el]

6. [

? [rrpo]aoov

[ca.-2-_]

avTr4v

aaav [- - - - - - - -

ytvEar[at

8------

-] ]

78

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON 9. [a-ca.] ov Kat [ . ]?Aov avrv

12.

o[v - - -----] atpE[ara--t--

8oaOaL E'v Tr'(L) rrpoye[ypatLxEv7rt ]ovs lOVOts TOV7t[-------------] avTirV

K[a]

Ev T'17(L) ro

]-

? -------]

[------------]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -] - - - - - - - - ---] 15. [rT]Ct E[VrIqK]al veat Ka[----elv aAAwv[ a[-] -------] AovJLev-v[3 voevoT.

18.

21.

?

or(lt)

Kat (V

7T[--

-

- ------] Aa Kal rT Fta [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] v o a[t8E- - - - -------------] dvaaypd - - - - - - - - - - -] coV avaypa TOV AEV'KLOVKa rov [-------] Acovos Kal 'r)v

Mo[vav

adro86oEt

[a]vvoaov avayEypa[4 avvoos' 24. reliquiae coronae

--

-------------] -

--]--------

Line 1. The character of the lettering indicates a date after 106/5 B.C. (infra,pp. 92ff.). The eponymous archon was therefore either Medeios (101/0) or Argeios (98/7). Line 6. 1-at the break occurs a vertical stroke with a serif at the bottom; eta or pi is also possible. Line 7. The remains of a lambda (delta, alpha?) appear under and partially to the right of the first omikron, and, emanating from the right bottom of the second omikron, a horizontal stroke with a serif at the end is visible. It represents, perhaps, part of an original omega. The nature of the error is unclear. Line 8. Vacat0.01 m. Line 12. The epsilon is inscribed over what appears to be an eta. Line 16. N-the lower part of the leading stroke alone is visible. Line 20. Vacat0.01 1 m. The letters in square brackets and underlined appear in the text of I.G., II2. Koehler did not record them in his majuscule text; hence, it is very probable that the square brackets were omitted by some error from I.G., II2. Line 24. The shapes EY, unknown to B's lettering, and the small, unobtrusive serifsindicate either that these letters were inscribed afterwardsby another cutter to make it clear who awarded the crown or, more probably, that a cutter other than B inscribed the title and crown (infra,p. 106). The letters range in height from 0.008 to 0.01 m. The space between line 23 and 24 is 0.028 m., between line 24 and the crown, 0.025 m. The preserved thickness (0.172 m.) and the carefully dressed nature of the surfacesimply a monument designed to be viewed from more than one side, such as a statue base. Line 22 may refer to part of the complex associated with the guild of the Dionysiac artists, e.g. statues of Apollo and the Muses. Cf. R. E. Wycherley, The AthenianAgora, III, Literaryand EpigraphicalTestimonia,Princeton, 1957, pp. 20-21, no. 2.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

79

18 (P1. 35, a). II2 1942 (EM 8057). Pittakis, 'E+. ApX., no. 3495; I.G., II, 957. Fragment of white marble, traces of the original back (rough picked) appear in two places. Height,

0.25 m.; width, 0.24 m.; thickness, 0.12 m.

Height of letters, 0.008 m. For attribution, note epsilon, sigma, and phi in line 3. fin. saec. II a. ['AKaLLavrlSos]

uncertain number of lines missing traces_

[_

_ _ _

[ILEOLc] "Epxowvos Z[1rTTr0ov] '

3. [

ca4

ca- 6]a [- ca-5 -]a

6.

[-ca.--]T7 ca. 6

[-

9.

fl[[rrTTov]

'Hp]aKAELov

[-

TqwLOKpdrovEK KEp[aldEWv]

ov KLKVVVE'[ws] 'ArTTdAovEIre[aiov] ] A7ToAAo&'pov2(fr1[TT1ioU]

[OEapIsg Er]at ptwvos KtKVvv[Ews]

[O I] v e t

os

[-- ca. -]C ratov 'AXapv'[wsc] MLArad8ovAaK[Ldaov] [MtKKLO]V

12. [Hapto]v AXatov lAXap[vEWs] vacat to bottom Line 1. Over the space between rho and mu (line 2) appears a horizontal stroke; an inverted-v

serif is visible above and slightly to the left of the central axis of omega. Line 2. The restorations by Koehler in lines 2, 8, 11, and 12 from II2 1034 seem correct and enable

a rough determination of the left margin. Line 5. The first preserved letters of this line are given as NA in I.G., II2; KA is the correct reading. The serif on the lower diagonal stroke is elongated to the extent that lighting from certain directions

could make the letter appear to be nu. Line 9. The space between letters varies from 0.011 to 0.016 m.19 Line 10. Q-a short horizontal stroke with a small serif appears just to the right of the break. A very light curved line, almost certainly (hence the dot) a letter stroke, comes down to meet it. The patronymic is spaced out (0.008-0.009 m. interspaces); taking this into account and the length of the other restorations, at most 5 letters are lost. Koehler's restoration [NLKOToAL]Sseems improbable, therefore, both on grounds of spacing and the reading of omega. Line 12. The patronymic is spaced out; the letters are 0.01-0.012 m. apart. The spacing of the 19 B is usually quite regular in spacing between letters. In this inscription, however, because he had wide columns to fill with rather short names, he varied the interspaces according to the length of the name. I indicate them only when they exceed 0.008 m. consistently.

80

THE LETTERING

OF AN ATHENIAN

MASON

demotic is normal. This woman is also known from 7c, line 9 as a kanephoros in the Pythais ofArgeios (98/7 B.C.). This line marks the end of this column. Vacat to the now preserved bottom 0.085 m.

The preserved width of this column (at the inscribed surface) is 0.18 m.; the original width may be estimated from the restorations as ca. 0.30 m. In addition, the column ends with entries of Olvets, the seventh tribe in the regular order, indicating that this represents the halfway point in the list.20 The list was therefore in two columns and the stele was ca. 0.60 m. wide (the width of 6). The present fragment comes from the bottom of the left side. The size of the stele and organization of the register suggest that this is part of a decree honoring the maidens who wove the peplos for Athena (similar to II2 1034 and 1036). The left edge of the stele can be determined almost precisely. Measuring on the basis of the spacing of the preserved letters to determine how far to the left ltinscribed the surface extended (accepting the restorations in lines 2, 8, 11, and 12), the edge of the column was ca. 0.075 m. to the left of a vertical line drawn through the upright of the epsilon in line 2. Measuring from this vertical line (i.e. from the upright of the epsilon) to the left 0.08 m. (adding 0.005 m. for a margin at the left edge) brings one to a point almost directly over the preserved edge of the fragment. In Plate 35, a this edge appears to be reasonably straight and represents, I think, a trace of the original left side. It was chipped away, however, front and back, to form a wedge so that the piece might be fitted into place in a wall or wherever it was re-used. 19 (P1. 35, b). II2 4991 (EM 7972). Ziebarth, Ath. Mitt., XXIII,

1898, pp. 25-27.

Opisthographic fragment of white marble, right side and top preserved. The text of the other side was inscribed ca. 388 B.C. and is published as II2 1634. Height, 0.55 m.; width, 0.24 m.; thickness, 0.09 m. Height of letters: lines 1-3, 0.01-0.012

m.; lines 12-21, ca. 0.011 m.; lines 24-26,

0.008-0.009 m. For attribution, note omega and first epsilon in line 2, and upsilon and sigma in line 3. ca. a. 100 a. Hand B. [@ e o] i s 3. [- - ca. 15_ --'EpvGrt]X(ovti(v ot'3E yE7o[/voES [e'ws

-Ca. 13-

S

T

LE[p]-

17, at maximum _ _]

vacat 20 In the three-column list of 6, column one ends with the first two names of the fifth tribe, Ptolemaiis, column two with the first half of the ninth tribe, Hippothontis, and column three, naturally, with the last, Attalis.

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER

6.

Column I is entirely lost.

81

(8 lines)

9.

12.

Hand T.

[r7rl] Mr7Selov ro 8evvacat Tepov v Vc,LckLaA

15.

iPALhvosPLAtvov EvwovvELv's. E7rTMrv8elov

18.

21.

"dvr7t

TOv d/A-

bt0aAov^s vacat NKldas KaAAXtdxov ALpa68LT[sT]

[ [ 24.

] ] Hand Z.

[KaAAXi]axos /ietpa[StAr)Ts] aduo)bOaAXrs

[Ato7rE]]Orls rPtAcdvov ['AAate's]

uncertain number of lines missing E. Ziebarth, who first edited this text, published it as three distinct parts and made no connection between them. Kirchner did not take into account the evidence for the width of the stele; thus his text gives an inadequate representation of the inscription. The original width of the stele can be determined in two ways, both of which give roughly the same result. In line 1 the interspace between iota and sigma is 0.065 m., between

sigma and the edge 0.07 m. Assuming

that

OEOtgs

was spaced out

fairly regularly across the width of the stele, calculation shows that ca. 0.23 m. of inscribed surface is lost to the left. It is also possible to arrive at an approximation of the original width by considering the text of II2 1634. Line 1, restored with certainty, has 281 letter spaces in the preserved part; 42 letter spaces are required for the restoration (Koehler's). This restoration, full and unambiguous, gives the nomenand demotic of the archon to distinguish him from the archon of three years earlier. This text, with its two sets of archons (Athenian and Delian) and list of officials who customarily held office for a single year, offered little room for confusion and did not require the inclusion of the demotic. If it was not included, and normal idiom (Eirt so and so apXovTos) suggests that it was not, then the restoration requires 32 letter spaces. In any case, the stele was approximately twice as wide, or a little more, than the now preserved width.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

82

The inscription seems to have been a list in two columns (each ca. 0.24 m. wide) of young boys who acted as J4L6taAE-Stin the ceremonies of their genos.2 1 B inscribed the heading for the whole and (presumably) the first entry or entries in column I. The first entry in column II belongs to the year 91/0 B.C. B's entries are not likely to have preceded by more than a decade. (Comparing the lettering of lines 12 21 with lines 1-3, Ziebarth described it as "in grdsseren, viel spateren Buchstaben.") Line 4. " infra vocem TOYversus 3 legitur = X" (Kirchner). I can discern no letter strokesin this area. Lines 12-26. Measurement of the restorations in lines 12, 24, and 26 reveals that all began at a common left margin and thus belong to the same column. Line 15. This boy was an ephebe in 80/79 B.C. (112 1039, line 82); he was thus six or seven years old when he was a'/iL6taAr/'sx Line 26. Of previous editors, Ziebarth read only the sigma; Kirchner omitted the line entirely. The restorations exactly suit the spacing. This boy too was an ephebe in 80/79 B.C. (112 1039, line 87).

20 (P1. 36, b-d). Kerameikos,III, A5 (Kerameikos Mus. inv. no. I 54). Two joined fragments of white marble, left side preserved (claw-chiseled). Height, 0.34 i.; width, 0.17 i.; thickness, 0.125 m. Height of letters, ca. 0.006 m. For attribution, note sigma, upsilon, and tau in line 5 (P1. 36, b). ca.

NON-ETOIX. ca.

a. 100 a. number of lines

uncertain

ELJCV

F-

-

)(axLIO[t

(qpa&,]ouoLv tetC

3

ca.19 ,,

Ht.

[XIWVOSTO- laaprL(0U u ___ _ca.19____ (aC]ct& iaaag

txlct Mat

XPTdvctLS

i'Xep tC [T7%

LCP eOQ

&nol-

pUTrCvCeSI

0AitA .

TECUXCV'VL T&S O)I-

0ouX?%Xazt toD 6Triiou, U

w xaX TIWV?,XXwV &ICdV[TWV

r $0U)XY Xa4 0 6?iIO9k

TOV

I

Ttl

T Mtcx awpctvtWoavTeC

s OV O o(uXet xCTt Tint 6?W11 rTv TC,xirav,

leC]ovroVTO tE C'aVT ,,,,c,BV

6

missing

CRCtL6? 01

L cIccLvEaaVTE&

&C'aLTo

48

Tc t

xatL)Xo0TLJwL'

qaVWVTaL

c't,ov6povTeC

CXLUCUTXna0a 6c] nwS av

o0v]

tbV ipooAXovtc]

" For their specific function, see L. Robert, AMPI19AAH2'," Harv.St.Cl.Phil., Supplementary 519. 509 vol. 1, 1940, pp. 21

THE INSCRIPTIONS BY THE II2 1028 CUTTER 9

aczwvovtoTs )aX)[S ya9eC

t TeCXOuOL xat qPLXOTpiUs lW TaSZ XsiToupyCaOs]

TdXeL 6e6dX(a TX[ al

xat

TO1 6ripou xal

'AyaOoxX?v [ ov Erniax['6nv

oat.

[xat

EoAS

epea

-

-

-

--

Trv :b-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

rv

-

]

.naLvecal

6t]

bv -

--

--

-

-

xa---

-x_at -

-

uncertain

-

-

-

-

number of lines

v ypal]-

na li

-----

-

'Ep]-

--]-

----

TbVaV[XnT^v

TgS aouXis]

xat rTv UiaoypappiaTea(?)]

[&]ix6pprnTov Aio [ -

[__-6_]nNeA [

]-

vexca TrS te]

eoCeCas a

- xat

-

epe[a

xa

-

- -

[IjiaTa TLpoaAXnvli? -

x]at

-

T]bv TapCav rT[(S fouXAis Name xat T6v ypa1ppat1a (?)

xat

- ]

xat ate:av)]-

---

(pLXOTL'CaS TnS CeS TObS (PUXCTa;- u

x([al

oxX?TvIlaXXnv[ea

[...

'Ea]-

.aXXoU aorTeavV

c_._.C. paTda TOv xaT[S XipuTCaveCav

30

'rv

'A]-

-.

Trol exwv5pou --

TOO 6tpiou ACav[a

27

v

'AcdX]-

rbv xat TbV-

xat ToD 6rjpou Ov(

xt.a

xa Tc

- xat Tv

cXa[oTo v auTv

[Tobs]

24

TbV iepea

xat

crupadxwv,]

.-

xat tbv lepaa

ca__I.....

-

I.Xal Tb'v Lep]]?[a 21

xa

18 .....

.--

--

-

T'Cas Mapao[av

18

ou

[IlaTpc

(p'Xwv xat

ca .28

Xwvos ToO nIpoa[TaTnp ou .--. ..c__a_... dAXXwvos 'To

'v

xat

n[aC6wuv xaat yJvaLt.xv

a xat TbV Ypapva[T~a ....._._

61]-

CV OTSE'OOV U1tp T?is BouXnS]

nxaLvVoaL 6? T'v T[apCav

15

u 'r p yv ayala

xat T)L 64p(i .

BouXc

XcO6aL, a a&ayYEX[XouaLyEyov!vaL 12

83

-

T'ra nqC?]-

-

-

-

I]

-

]

] missing

84

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

W. Peek, who originally published this inscription in Kerameikos,III, pp. 4-10, recognized that it was by the same hand as 4, i.e. B. Line 20 (P1. 36, c). The entire preserved line is inscribed inin rasura. Many traces of the erased letters are legible: the horizontal of tau appears above kappa; nu is discernible the leading vertical appears in the right part of alpha, the iota is the second vertical, and the diagonal is very faint but clearly present. Just to the left of tau at the bottom appears an inverted-v serif (iota?). An epsilon may be seen between tau and omikron. A curving stroke at the upper left of the nu and a serif at the bottom right of omikron reveal that rho was originally inscribed there. A second epsilon is discernible partly under and partly to the right of nu. TONIEPEA originally began the line; KAI, perhaps, was omitted in the shift from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. Line 24. N-the leading vertical alone is visible at the edge of the break. Line 29 (P1. 36, d). " Von TtLLoc0dArv stehen die letzten vier Buchstaben in Korrektur" (Peek). The entire line is in erasure. The correct nomenhas been crowded in. The initial mu placed to the left partly in the margin, an erased alpha under and to the right of the first alpha and an alpha under the second tau, reveal that the letters MATA have been relocated to the left and crowded in order to make way for the correct name. An erased tau is discernible under the second mu. Several additional traces of the erased nomen remain-a round letter under the third alpha, a round letter between lambda and eta, and a horizontal stroke (eta?) between eta and nu. B appears to have omitted AA, i.e. inscribed TIMOOHN, and crowded so that he might add them with a minimum of erasure.

Olvo'!tAos '4Ajt[va]ios is honored with a crown in 12, line 15ff. In line 24 of the present text, a certain Otv[_ _], who was probably secretary of the boule and demos, is praised and crowned. Names beginning OIN are sufficiently infrequent that there seems some probability that 12 is part of this inscription. If so and if the citations appeared in the usual order,22 the left side of 12 was only a little to the left of the present edge, Medeios of Piraeus was priest of the eponymos, and the decree honored (probably) the prytaneis of Hippothontis.

22 Cf. Prytaneis, p. 4. This text, however, falls in a time when the honors paid to the prytaneis and their officers were being revised and expanded (as Peek demonstrated in his original publication). We have no evidence for the order of the citations in this period.

III. II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING CAREER Inscriptions, whole or fragmentary, tell little about te man who inscribed them. Since almost 35 years separate the earliest example of B's work, 1 (131/0), from the latest, 5, lines 270-271 (97/6), we may assume that these are, within a few years, his earliest and latest pieces of work. We will not be far wrong, therefore, in placing the year of his birth about 155 B.C. and the end of his working career about 95 B.C. His two earliest known inscriptions, decrees of the cleruchy of the Salaminians, 1 (131/0) and 2 (116/5), are separated by a period of 15 years. Since both deal with affairs on Salamis, the one -ra onfwith the local gymnasiarchos, the other with repair tEpa Kaltrjv cte'pav, it appears likely that B was a native Salaminian, who learned his trade and established his distinctive style inscribing decrees for the local demos.' Sometime after 115 B.C. and before 106, the date of 3, B left Salamis to work in Athens. After that, the record reveals that he was kept very busy; the major documents which he inscribed, such as 4 and 6 (certainly one of the largest stelai inscribed in 101/0), attest that he had achieved a certain pre-eminence. The frequency with which he made entries in 5, in contrast to most of the others, who inscribed only one time,2 is another indication of his prominence. In 98/7 he travelled to Delphi to inscribe the record of the Pythais on the side of the Athenian Treasury. The careful rules which governed engraving on the Treasury (supra, p. 69) imply that the choice of the cutter was deliberate. The importation of an Athenian letter-cutter, in itself, indicates that special care was taken; this should cause no surprise when one reflects that the building was the prize possession of the Athenians at Delphi and that it was nearly four centuries old in 98/7. After completing his work at Delphi, he returned to Athens, for he cut the final entries of 5 during the summer or fall of 96 B.C.After that nothing further is known. The most notable fact about the surviving fragments of B's work is that no grave monuments and only one document commissioned by a private individual, 13, appear among them.3 This probably signifies merely a certain professionalism in that one able to lay out and inscribe a long, complicated set of texts such as the record of the Pythais may have been loath to devote his talents to inscribing a columella.On the other hand, 1 The

economy apparent in inscribing the text of 1 on a used piece of marble (supra, p. 15) also to local (and, therefore, relatively cheap) labor. points 2 See Dow's text in Harv. St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 11 1-124 for a clear indication of the hands. 3 Early in the course of investigation for this study, it was realized that the evidence indicated a man who inscribed primarily public documents. Efforts were made, therefore, to seek out private documents from among the most numerous class viz., grave monuments. Special searches in the Kerameikos, Agora, and Epigraphical Museum failed to turn up even one. Granting that we do not have many from this period, still it appears that he cut none or very few.

86

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

only the state and a few quasi-official organizations, e.g. the Dionysiac artists, had need for long inscriptions, the specialized type of work which B and a limited number of his contemporaries could supply.4 Hence they were naturally employed again and again. Some evidence exists to indicate that a special relationship obtained in some cases between a cutter and a certain group. B, for example, appears to have been closely associated with officials in charge of the Pythais, for a rather high percentage of his extant work is connected in some way with the Pythais.5 Another example may be cited; of 11 known inscriptions by the cutter who inscribed Agora I 286 (Hesperia, XXIV, 1955, pp. 220-239), four definitely and perhaps five relate to the Dionysiac artists.6 This relationship, in all likelihood, reflects (whatever else) the basic phenomenon known as consumer loyalty; i.e. the tendency, once one has found a craftsman who does satisfactory work, to do business with him on a regular basis. Given the preeminence which he achieved, B probably owned his own workshop (the prevailing economic conditions make anything else unlikely7) and inscribed primarily long texts on a piecework basis for those who required them. FURROW AND/OR STEM CUT?

This title refers to an important point concerning the method of inscribing. Did ancient Attic cutters employ the same technique as modern, who inscribe by driving the pointed corner of the straight-edged chisel along, cutting a furrow as long as the letter segment desired (cf. Appendix II); or did they in some cases, as Wade-Gery has supposed, cut with the blade of the chisel held nearly perpendicular to the surface of the stone, so that when driven into the stone, the width of the blade determined the length of the letter stem or stroke? Many in fact doubt that stem cutting in this way can be employed at all, explaining that it would cause frequent chipping and splitting of the surface of the marble. This factor is the primary reason why modern Athenian letter-cutters and staff members of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, experienced in handling marble and using chisels, find this method of inscribing letters unthinkable. If they are correct, the work of Wade-Gery in B.S.A., XXXIII, 1935, pp. 122-135, of Ursula Duncan in B.S.A., LVI, 1961, pp. 179-188, and of all those who draw conclusions from measuring letter strokes with the underlying assumption that they were made with stem cuts is rendered null and void. 4

5 reveals at least 8 others at work in the years 103-97 B.C. 3, 5, and the inscriptions at Delphi. 6 II2 1133, 1134 (on these see Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, pp. 309-311), 1332, Kerameikos,III, A6, and Agora I 4547? (ibid., p. 311). See Gr. Rom. Byz. St., XI, 1970, p. 331 for a list of the inscriptions by this cutter. 7 See A. W. Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Literature, Oxford, 1937, pp. 50-66, especially pp. 50-51 and pp. 62-64. 5

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

87

Abundant evidence of both a theoretical and practical nature proves that they are, in fact, not correct. Recently a geologist, C. G. Higgins, in collaboration with W. K. Pritchett, has explained that marble can be inscribed in this way, provided that the lettering is small and lightly incised ("Engraving Techniques")8; they have demonstrated furthermore that Attic letterers actually employed this method of cutting.9 E. M. Catich, a master calligrapher and letter-cutter, describes this as an alternate method of cutting, which he himself has never used, but which he "knows" Greek cutters used for small letters and which he has seen Italian and French cutters using;10 thus there can be no doubt that it is a useful, practical, and possible method of cutting letters. It is rarely employed and seems impractical to some who cut inscriptions now because modern cutters have little or no experience with small (less than a centimeter high), lightly inscribed letters; instead, tombstones and other marbles inscribed today are invariably monumental in concept and have large, deeply incised letters, i.e. lettering which cannot be inscribed effectively with the stem-cutting technique. The ancient Greek cutter often had to inscribe very long texts. Texts several thousands of letters in length present a number of difficulties, the primary one being that they must be inscribed in a way which is both practical and economical. Very large lettering cannot be employed, for the resulting inscriptions would be too large and expensive. In addition, the longer the texts, the greater is the need to employ methods which expedite the work. Stem cutting enables the cutter both to inscribe faster" and, without the need to draw the letters beforehand, to create a simple alphabet composed of letters conceived primarily as single lines (similar to stick figures).12 With this technique, therefore, the Attic cutter had an ideal means for inscribing quickly the small letters which he required with a minimum of preparation. 13 The prevalence of this method of cutting letters among ancient Attic letterers may be gauged by the influence it can be seen to have had on the shape of their lettering. 8

"Where vertically-directed blade chisels are used, the strokes must be light and the resulting cannot be very deep" (p. 368). engraving 9 Ibid., especially pp. 369-370 and pl. 97 A, B. 10 Catich, pp. 88-89 and fig. 85; see also Contributions, pp. 70 and 219, note 15. " The speed factor is the specific reason given by the Italian cutters for employing it: They illustrated both of the methods of cutting, as well as a combination of the two, in which they first made the straight strokes by method one [the stem-cut method] and then the serifsand curves by method two [the furrow method]. This, they said, was a way to save time in certain kinds of lettering (Contributions, p. 219, note 15). 12 The reason that the crossbars of alpha and eta and middle horizontal of epsilon are at times omitted is that the cutter first inscribed a series of letters or parts of letters with a wide-bladed chisel and then went back filling in the omitted strokes with a narrower one; sometimes he failed to fill them all in or forgot them altogether. See infra,pp. 113-114 for a tabulation of B's incomplete letters. 13 The stem-cutting technique, especially its geological limitations, is probably an important factor in operative explaining why the lettering of many decrees is 0.006-0.009 m. high.

88

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

Study of Kirchner-Klaffenbach, Imagines InscriptionumAtticarum, 1948 reveals that letters conceived as a series of single lines form the mainstay of all lettering on Attic inscriptions in all periods, even when the letters are large. The lettering of Attic cutters thus contrasts sharply with the block lettering of the modern cutter and the shaded, calligraphic lettering common in Roman inscriptions and must be a result in large part of the dominance of the stem-cutting method. Naturally Attic cutters also employed the furrow technique where the situation called for it, namely in making large letters, serifs, and curving strokes. LETTER SHAPE AND LETTER HEIGHT

It is generally true that letter shape depends to a great degree on letter height. Within the range of 0.005 m.-0.013 m., B's letters are almost exactly identical from one inscription to the next, with the generalization that serifs become more pronounced in letters over 0.008 m. high. No letters by him under 0.005 m. in height have come to light. The only very large letters known appear in line 131 of 6 as a heading for the roster of ephebes; their height is 0.017-0.02 m. Although they reveal characteristics of the smaller letters, their overall appearance (discussed below) is surprisingly different. the Letter Height. The height of the letters depended on many conditions-e.g. the size of location, the purpose, the wish of the person commissioning the work, or the stele available. A tabulation of the height of the letters in the inscriptions by B follows. 14 Height of Letters 0.005 m.-0.006 m. 0.006 m.-0.007 m.

Inscription 8 (Agora I 1773a) 1 (II2 1227) 2 (II2 1228) 3 (II2 1136) 4 (II2 989)

6 (II2 1028), lines 132-328 10 (Agora I 387 la) 11 (Agora I 387 lb) 20 (Kerameikos,III, A5) 14 It is very difficult, especially in the case of letters with serifs, to obtain exact measurements. Nor do cutters make every letter the same size every time; hence, any figure stating the height of letters in an inscription must represent the average letter height. Multiple measurements were used to obtain the figures; they represent the average height of all letters except omikron, which tends to be smaller, and phi, which tends to be larger than the others.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

0.007 m.-0.008 m.

0.008 m.-0.009 m. 0.01 m.-0.013 m.

0.017 m.-0.02 m.

5 6 9 12 15

89

(II2 2336), year II (112 1028), lines 1-130

(Agora I 2945) (Agora I 5919) (EM 5581)

17 (II2 1341) 18 (II2 1942) 14 (EM 5228) 5 (II2 2336), B's remaining entries 7 (All the inscriptionsby B on the Athenian Treasury)

13 16 19 6

(EM 649) (II2 1023) (II2 4991), lines 1-3 (II2 1028), line 131

The usual letter height for decrees and official documents cut by B was 0.0060.008 m. Such letters are a very practical size-not so small as to be difficult to read, nor so large as to require much space. B seems to have followed the usual practice of the day, for a survey of contemporary ephebic and prytany inscriptions (as recorded in I.G., II2 and Prytaneis) reveals that most inscriptions had letters of this size. None have letters smaller than 0.005 m. The letter height tends to remain constant within a given inscription, but it is not unusual to find larger letters in headings, titles, and crowns. In addition, different parts of a stele may have different size letters. In 6, the letters of the register are uniformly smaller than those of the decrees preceding. This is the result of the crowding which was necessary to fit all of the text on the stele. The more spacious registers of prytany decrees by contrast might well have larger letters; hence, letter height alone does not make it impossible for 9 or 12 to belong to the same stele as 8. Large Lettering. Letters of a centimeter or more in height always seem to have a special reason for being.15 The inscriptions on the wall of the Athenian Treasury all have letters 0.01 m. or more high because they had to be read at a greater distance 15

The small letters common in Greek epigraphy are often taken for granted, when, in fact, they are rather unique. On Roman inscriptions, letters of 0.01 m. are small (Contributions,pp. 89-90); modern masons do not cut such small letters (App. II). Larfeld's discussion (Handbuch, I, pp. 228-229) fails to make this essential point clear; he does however cite the lettering on the seats of the theater of Dionysos as exemplifying the habit of varying ages with regard to letter height and quotes Dittenberger (C.I.A., III, p. 84f.) "Quamvis magna sit inconstantia etiam in eiusdem aetatis titulis, tamen si in universum spectaveris, multae grandiores litterae sunt in eis qui Hadriani aetate incisi sunt, quam in antiquioribus." Catich (pp. 38-39) considered the small lettering and the length of the texts to be the most striking initial impression of Greek inscriptions.

90

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

than the ordinary stele. The large letters of 16 are due to, and contribute to, the specially sumptuous appearance of the monument. In his frequent additions to 5, B generally followed the size of the lettering in the part of the stele where he made the addition. Without hazarding further details, it seems probable that the lettering in 5 was increased in size after the panels of the first two years were cut, because of a realization that, at the rate of the first two panels, unless there were some adjustments, much of the lower part of the second column would be blank after all contributions had been made. The large letters of the private monument, 13, undoubtedly reflect the desire of the dedicator for a visually prominent dedication. The very large letters of 6, line 131 are functional; they label the entire stele, enabling anyone particularly interested in olt Ertig3EVaclaTES rE 'EXEKpdO

acpXovros to find them easily. The heading

of 19

serves as a label in a similar way. Letter Shapes. With the exception of serifs infra), B's lettering remained nearly uniform throughout his career. No particular shape or peculiarity is given up at one period in favor of another. Hence it is impossible to establish any exact chronological pattern for his lettering. Even in 1, the earliest inscription, most of the shapes which appear also appear in his later work and vice-versa. Except for the serifs which are slightly different, sigma, epsilon, tau, upsilon, xi, kappa, phi, omega, rho, and gamma, to name characteristic letters, already reveal the shape which obtains in the rest of his work (cf. supra, p. 15 and P1. 4, b). Alpha, however, in this inscription rather often has a nearly straight or slanting crossbar; in later inscriptions the curved crossbar is more usual. Nu and pi (see the synopsis which follows) also reveal slight variations which rarely appear in his later work.

Alpha:

Beta: Gamma: Delta: Epsilon: Zeta:

Synopsisof LetterShapes (PI. 37) variation occurs only in the crossbar. Usually it is curved, not sharply broken; sometimes it is straight, but slanting (i.e. never horizontal). Inverted-v serifs almost invariably appear at the bottom of both vertically slanting strokes. no discernible variation; the lower loop is perceptibly larger than the upper. the serif at the end of the horizontal is often omitted. no discernible variation. the middle horizontal occasionally lacks its serif. usually all four serifs appear; occasionally one, but not both, of the serifs on the left side is omitted.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

Eta:

Theta: Iota: Kappa:

Lambda: Mu:

Nu:

Xi:

Omikron:

Pi:

Rho: Sigma:

91

the right vertical is sometimes shorter than the left.16 Of possible serif variation, these occur-1) H 2) H- 3) H (variation one is the most common). usually smaller than the surrounding letters (cf. omikron infra). occasionally a serif appears at the top as well as the bottom. usually the slanting strokes are shorter than the vertical; occasionally all of the strokes are the same size, which gives the letter an extra wide, elongated appearance. Of possible serif variation, 1) K 2) K 3) K occur. One and two are about equally common; three is rare. no variation. the only variation occurs in the depth of the v formed by the central strokes; sometimes it reaches to the baseline at the bottom of the letter, sometimes not. Cf. sigma infra. the variation si appears in the two earliest inscriptions, 1 and 2. In the others, there occurs variation only in the number of serifs viz., 1) N 2) N; the first is more common. a long vertical stroke bisecting the three horizontals always appears. Serifs usually occur at the ends of the horizontals. Occasionally one or more are omitted from the left side. normally ca. 0.005-0.0055 m. in height. It is usually composed of two semicircles, indicating that the ancient cutter inscribed the round letter in much the same way as the modern who, after cutting a semicircle, rotated the block through 180? in order to cut the other half. Occasionally it has a diamond shape (P1. 35, a), indicating that he preferred in some cases to make the round letter with the stem-cut technique. many variations of the basic shape, i, appear. Occasionally the vertical strokes are the same length. In the two earliest inscriptions, the horizontal sometimes begins at the left vertical; this occurs rarely in the later inscriptions. Variation in the occurrence of serifs is limited to the horizontal which may have none, one (on the right end), or two. no perceptible variation. the top and bottom strokes are never parallel. Mu and sigma tend to be cut with the same chisels, hence the v formed by their central strokes is proportionally the same in a given inscription; when mu has the shape M, sigma has the shape E and, conversely, 1\ and ?. Serifs are usual; occasionally the upper stroke lacks the serif, very rarely, both.

The probable reason is that the mason employed two chisels to make the letter: a wide-bladed one for the verticals, one with a narrower blade for the horizontal. If, as appears likely, he made the strokes from left to right, it would be easier to change chisels only once and use the narrower one for the horizontal and the right vertical. 16

92

Tau: Upsilon:

Phi:

Chi: Psi: Omega:

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

serif variation alone occurs; there appears either one (on the right side) or two. The frequency is about equal. this letter normally consists of two strokes, viz. Y, sometimes three-a short vertical topped by a v, viz. Y. The latter is the usual shape only when letter size exceeds 0.01 m. Of possible serif variation, 1) Y 2) Y 3) Y occur; the first is the most frequent. this letter is usually taller than the others and consists of two spheres which are attached to the vertical. The error in line 149 of 5 (supra, p. 29) suggests that the different parts of the letter were cut in order from left to right. variation only in the serifs; 1) X 2) X 3) X occur, of which one and two are normal. serif variations 1) Y 2) Y occur. occasionally the serif on the left side is omitted.

ShapeDependenton Size. The exceedingly large letters (0.01 7-0.02 m.) of 6, line 131, unique in B's work, provide an interesting object lesson concerning the effect which letter height and technique of inscribing have on letter shape (PI. 38, a-c). These letters are, in conception, simply single-line letters widened and deepened. Except for the sharply broken crossbar of alpha, the general shapes conform to B's usual lettering and support the natural assumption that he inscribed them. The serifs are all of the inverted-v type and occur at the end of every terminal stroke. The strokes are quite deep and wide, tending to flare in width at the extremities; note in particular tau, upsilon, and sigma. The lines left at the bottom of the strokes meander slightly (see, e.g., the diagonal of nu in Plate 38, a and the leading stroke of alpha in Plate 38, b); the edges of the cuts are likewise uneven and irregular. These letters were made by furrowing. Their unevenness suggests perhaps that B was not entirely at home making large letters. These letters, moreover, are sufficiently different in character from B's small letters to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to assign them to him if they were isolated and not in the context of the rest of the letters on this inscription. Thus we must recognize that the possibility exists that he cut other monuments, e.g. gravestones, with large and consequently uncharacteristic letters which we are unable to recognize as his.17 Serifs. They constitute B's most distinctive idiosyncrasy; their large size and the irregularity of their occurrence contribute to this in large measure. Definite development can be seen in them. In 1, the serifs are normally short straight lines. Here 17 This is not to say that these particular letters are completely unrecognizable, only to stress that they provide some indication of how very different much larger letters (e.g. 0.03-0.05 m.) are likely to have been.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

93

and there, however, at the base of vertical strokes the " dovetail " effect of the inverted-v

serif appears, especially in rho and upsilon. The extreme wear to the surface of 2 makes it impossible to determine with precision how far B had proceeded toward his developed practice of placing inverted-v serifsat the bottom of every vertical/vertically slanting stroke and the simple line serif at the ends of horizontal/horizontally slanting strokes. The valid observation seems to be that the serifs are still rather small and lack the prominence which they have in his later lettering. By 106/5 B.C., the date of 3, the positional dichotomy of the two types of serifs is fully developed, but the overall effect has not yet reached its peak. Although many of the serifs are quite large in pro-

portion to the letters, they are consistently less bold and striking than those of 4, inscribed two years later. The serifs of the larger letters in the title and crown provide a decisive indication (PI. 7, b). They are approximately the same size as those of the

smaller letters and therefore have little prominence. This seems to provide useful evidence

for dating.

Of the undated

fragments

which

have letters 0.006-0.008

m.

high, 15, 17, 18, and 20 reveal such large serifs that they may be dated after 106/5 with some degree of assurance. The peculiar position of the serifs on horizontal strokes is one of the principal features which makes B's hand distinctive; it is especially noteworthy in the case of

epsilon, sigma, and tau (supra, p. 7). The serifs extend upwards (not downwards, except incidentally) from the horizontal and taper towards the end. In the case of tau,

the result often resembles a television antenna (T). Another hallmark of his hand is that he did not usually place serifs at the top of the verticals of eta, iota, and kappa.

Whatever the reason, the aversion seems clear. Occasionally,

on letters larger than 0.008 m. an inverted-v

serif appears at the

end of a horizontal stroke. This is very often the case in 16, on which, all evidence indicates, B expended more than usual care. The appearance of the v-shaped serif on the horizontal is a mark of elaboration because this serif requires an additional stroke and more exacting placement than the straight-line serif. On the largest letters the "cv" serif occurs at the extremity of every terminal stroke; this regularity is due to the time and care required to execute each letter and suggests, conversely, that the irregu-

larity of occurrence in the smaller letters depends on the speed with which B was working. Serifs require a number of additional strokes for each letter. B did not always make them and varies in his practice from letter to letter in the same inscription (supra, p. 8f.).18 The essential point is not that he varies in his practice, but that it was his habit to employ serifs. In one case (6, line 6), he even placed a serifin its normal position despite the fact that he had omitted the letter stroke proper completely. This suggests that he normally cut all the strokes of a letter first and then added the serifs. Whether he added them all or only some seems due to whim; however, where serifs 18

As a further example, note that AN and AN begin lines 128-129 of 6 (PI. 17, d).

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

94

are omitted from usual positions, B was working hurriedly. The last letter of 7i (4), line 14 (P1. 30, b), sigma, has no serifs; a sigma without serifs is very unusual in B's work. There is no reason, however, to assume that B added this line, but omitted the last letter. Rather the omission of the serifs should be ascribed to haste.19 The letters on the side of the Treasury in general show fewer serifs; Y and C appear more regularly here than elsewhere, probably as a result of hasty work and the difficulty of inscribing the blocks in situ. To summarize, the general shapes of the letters reveal almost no development. The serifs, by contrast, receive increasing emphasis and reveal a clear distribution into two types viz., straight-line and v-shaped serifs, the former occurring at the end of horizontal strokes, the latter at the end of vertical strokes. With very few exceptions, serifs appear at the bottom of vertical/vertically slanting strokes and at the right end of horizontals.20 The serif itself represents a conscious effort at elaboration and decoration of the lettering and stems, the best modern authority has shown,21 from the influence of brush and pen writing. Natural on very large letters because of the time and care expended in carving each one, serifs are by nature alien to small lettering. As suggested above (Furrow and/or Stem Cut?), small lettering and the vertical chisel or stemcutting technique were adopted primarily in response to the need to cut very long texts with some degree of speed. The serif, as I have just indicated, goes counter to this, for it requires additional work and time. This probably is the reason why the serif was slow to appear in Attic lettering22 and never, prior to Imperial times, completely dominates. We may, therefore, assume that any cutter who adopted a style with serifs in his small lettering did so in a conscious way, being willing to sacrifice some speed for decorative effect. It is probable also that only particularly dexterous cutters could inscribe such fancy letters fast enough to make it worthwhile. B's lettering in this light takes on a new dimension. One can only conclude, in view of the staggering number of extra strokes involved, that the demand for letters with serifs was good in 100 B.C. and that some of B's prominence was due to the rather fancy, calligraphic alphabet which was his stock in trade.

19 These comments also apply to the last 4 letters of rrvOaLaratin line 57 of 7b (P1. 23, a).

This may indicate that B finished the right end of horizontal strokes first; the other end, if he were working hurriedly, would frequently not be finished off because of the necessity to go back and do it rather than proceed to the next letter. 20

21 22

Catich, pp. 172ff. Catich (p. 39) similarly observes: "... the time needed to add serifs to small letters would be proportionally greater than the time required making serifsfor larger letters and, considering the length of many Greek inscriptions and the vast amount of letter-cutting, would mean a proportionately greater overall time expended. Hence, the preference (until better reasons are assigned) in the classic Greek age for serif-lessletters."

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

95

Individuality of Lettering in 100 B.C. There is no evidence that B attempted to cut in a style other than his own. Even in the single-line entries of 5, where one might expect him to show a tendency to emulate the style of the surrounding letters for the sake of uniformity, he simply inscribed his usual lettering each time; nor is there any evidence in the inscriptions on the Athenian Treasury of an attempt at uniformity, in spite of the fact that X and B have very different letter styles. Individuality of lettering characterizes the cutters of this period.23 UNINSCRIBED SPACES

One of the considerations naturally at the discretion of the cutter, at least in the details, was the spacing of the text, since it was he who had to deal finally with the problem of placing the letters on the stone. 7h confirms this. The fact that the cutters were able to determine the mid-point of this text (supra, p. 67) indicates that their copy was complete before they began inscribing. It seems a safe assumption that the copy from which they worked was prepared by a single individual and, thus, that it was reasonably uniform with regard to spacing. The variation of practice in leaving blank spaces in this inscription, therefore, seems significant. Hand X left just one blank space, in line 42; it marks a major break in the list of names. By contrast, B left space vacant in lines 7, 12, 18, 52 (twice), 53, and 54. His penchant for leaving blank spaces is obvious, though the single one left by X indicates that the secretary articulated the major sections of the text with gaps, paragraphs, or a similar device. The many notations in Part Two, "vacat 0.01 m.," e.g., provide ample evidence of the frequency with which B left blank spaces; he did not, however, space at random. Within the body of a decree, he left blanks before clauses which have 1e or SE Kal as the second member and before words which mark a change in construction and sense, such as orcos ovv or ayaOrJL rTVX7L.24 These spaces rprpesent one of the hallmarks of B's work and it is abundantly clear that he took pains to leave them. In 6 he left them regularly despite his obvious anxiety about fitting the text on the stone. In one instance, it even seems probable that he took the trouble to erase in order to leave the blank space (6, line 95). The evidence suggests that he intended to leave a space in every 23

The variety of lettering in 5 ought to be fully appreciated by anyone who thinks or is prone to

think that one particular style of lettering dominated in this period. Plates 10, b-12 illustrate some of the letter shapes being inscribed in Athens in 100 B.C. The very plain letters of lines 180-181 (P1. 11, c), for example, contrast sharply with B's lettering in lines 178-179. See further the author's comments in Gr. Rom. Byz. St., XI, 1970, p. 325. 24 In this practice he was something of an innovator, but far from unique, for the masonsof II2 1009 (plus Hesperia, XVI, 1947, p. 170, no. 67), II2 1030, and Agora I 3394 (Hesperia, VII, 1938, pp. 9ff.) leave blank spaces in similar circumstances. These masons are distinct from one another and from B. On spaces left within decrees, also see S. Dow, "The Purported Decree of Themistokles," A.J.A., LXVI, 1962, pp. 365-367.

96

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

such instance,

though he forgot occasionally.

There follows a list of places where a

blank space would normally be expected but does not occur. (The numeral in parenthesis gives the number of blanks preserved in each of these texts.) 1, line 20. 4, line 50. 6, lines 10, 7h, line 56.

(17) (6) 32. (41) (9)

Blank spaces within the body of a decree are, therefore, the work of the cutter and did not appear in his copy. By contrast, blank spaces which occur in preambles were probably indicated in the copy given to the cutter since they appear in all decrees of the period. Preambles of decrees reveal a continuity of development in spacing which culminates in the mid-third century B.C. in the so-called "perfect design."25 The regularity

and persistence

of this design indicate

that it became a feature which every

cutter by custom was required to include. The Perfect Design. By 100 B.C. the perfect design was no longer in general use,

probably for economic reasons. Dinsmoor noted, however, that 4 and 6 reveal a "semi-perfect " design in their second decrees.26 On the basis of new Agora fragments we now know that the perfect design appeared in the first decree of 4.27 Why did B not repeat this design in the second preamble? Dow provided the answer essentially there were only a few letters in the line below on page 65 of his discussion-"when which

'0So5evwould fall in the new scheme [viz., the perfect design],

the E'8o0ev clause

would be moved up into the line which otherwise would be nearly blank." The first preamble and '6oSev clause in 4 occupy six lines; the interspaces in these lines are more liberal than in the rest of the inscription. Even so, lines 3 and 4 were somewhat short and line 5 had a blank space at the end large enough for about 15 letters. Apparently out of concern for space,28 B accommodated the second preamble, an exact repetition of the first, to five lines. The number of letters in the lines preceding

the 1'So0Ev clause in each reveals his procedure:

Preamble 1 line 1 48

Preamble 2 line 1 53

25

In the simplest terms, the perfect design is achieved when the ESOSev clause is placed in a line itself. See S. Dow, A.J.A., XL, 1936, pp. 62-66 and W. B. Dinsmoor, TheAthenianArchonList in the by Light of RecentDiscoveries, New York, 1939, pp. 14-17. 26 Ibid., p. 17, note 117. 27 28

It also appears in both decrees of Agora I 6053 (Hesperia,XVII, 1948, pp. 25-28) dated to 95/4. The omission of the patronymics (Prytaneis,p. 14), the crowding at the bottom of the crowns (infra,p. 103), and the minimum interline (infra,p. 100) reveal that this was the reason.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

line line line line

2 3 4 5

49 45 44 35

line 2 line 3 line 4

97

54 55 55

By crowding the lines of the second preamble slightly, he was able to come within three and one-half letter spaces of achieving the perfect design in it as well. B thus preferred the perfect design where he could achieve it, but considerations of spacing and economy took precedence. The preambles of 6 provide further evidence of B's predisposition for the perfect design. The first preamble reveals no attempt to approximate it; B, however, achieved the maximum possible articulation between the preamble, E'SOSevclause, and speaker by setting off the E'sogEv clause with large blank spaces which he created by abbreviating the clause (line 4). In the second preamble, the original omission of the long word in the second line (line 92) led him to think (erroneously) that, by crowding slightly (six letters) the following line (line 93) and placing the speaker at the beginning of line 95, he could approximate the perfect design (only KatloviLTrptpopot intrudes on line 94, which is otherwise reserved for the 'SOeev clause).29 These adjustments reveal that the cutter controlled the exact details of spacing in conformity with the requirements of the stele and economy; in this case they also reveal the importance which B attached to the perfect design.

Arrangementof the Inscription-13. The basic intention which underlies B's use of blank spaces is an extension of the principle of articulation and emphasis inherent in the perfect design. B employed uninscribed spaces to set off the different parts of a text. The arrangement of 13 provides a concise illustration of the general practice. Leaving aside the blanks in line 1 which are the result of extra space accruing from the five iotas, B has employed blank spaces and initial positions to separate the text into four parts. 1) The gods to whom the dedication was made occupy the first two lines. 2) The third line begins with the name of the dedicator, emphasized by position similar to that of the speaker in the perfect design. The dedicator and beneficiaries occupy lines 3-7. 3) The phrase citing the authority for the dedication, Ka7a -Trpo'T-ayla, is isolated by blank spaces. 4) The blank after this phrase sets off the final part of the text, the indication of date and the presiding officials. The arrangement is neat and

The abbreviation of the clause in this second preamble must be dictated either by a desire for uniformity of wording or by some agreement on wording reached before he began to inscribe, for it serves no functional purpose here. 29

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

98

intentional,30 and probably also natural for B, who from the beginning paid careful attention to the spacing and arrangement of his texts.31 The arrangement of a long decree follows the same pattern. Each distinct unit is separated from every other by a blank space. Thus, in 6, a blank occurs after ElT7EV and marks the beginning of the actual wording of the resolution. The conclusion of the resolution (the T0'rws oVv clause) is preceded by a blank space and the provisions within the resolution are also separated by spaces. Most of these provisions have the particle Se as the second member. This particle very often coincides with the occurrence

of a blank, for both serve to separate sense units; E'in itself, however, is not the determining factor as the spacing of the rovs Aaxovras clause reveals. Blank spaces always 32 but one does not usually occur in the middle sepaprecede and follow the clause, rating the two parts of the clause, although the second begins yv,cLrqv E'.The reason for this is that the clause composed a unit by itself; this is made clear by the abbreviation rovs Aaxo'vTaS which stands for the entire clause in 6, lines 44 and 121. All of the inscriptions

follow this pattern;

the blank spaces serve as a type of visual punctuation

over and above the particles. In addition

to articulating

the elements

of a text, B sometimes

employed

spaces

to give emphasis to proper names. In line 19 of 2, he placed blank spaces before the names of the honorees; in 5 he tended to leave a space between the nomenand the demotic (lines 59, 60, 78, 87, 89, and 90). Exceptions.Blank spaces do not normally occur before Kal, since it marks a simple continuation of a sense unit. Only one example occurs in B's mature work-line 52 of 6.33 16, distinguished

for its unusually

large letters (supra, p. 76), has blank spaces

which are larger and more frequent than normal. In addition to the blanks predictable from the other inscriptions, a blank space occurs before yv4tL-qv E'of the rovs AaXodvra B went to some pains to arrange the first two lines so that two gods would appear in each. The blank spaces in line 1 result from his attempt to space out the two names across the stone. The difficulty was that he had about thirteen letter spaces to fill and, although the names "IotSt ZaparTSttcontain thirteen letters, normally spaced they would occupy about 10 letter spaces, if one allots a half space for each iota. B adopted two measures to meet this difficulty: he increased the size of the letters slightly and spaced them out somewhat. His awareness that iota was the problem caused him to space ineptly after the first one, leaving 0.008 m., which indeed resulted in an unwanted blank space on the stone (P1. 32, c). The result was not so bad that he felt obliged to erase, but he adjusted accordingly in the others, spacing 0.006 m. between sigma and iota and 0.004 m. each between iota-delta and delta-iota, clearly having determined to consume any extra space by leaving the blank between the names. He crowded the eighteen letters of the second line slightly to fit the other two names in there. 31 Spacing and arrangement must have been part of the training of every letter-cutter. Dow, A.J.A., LXVI, 1962, p. 365f. emphasizes the stable tradition of Athenian letter-cutting, especially with regard to spacing. 32 In 4 blank spaces are to be restored in lines 15 and 55. 33 The blank space before Kal in line 53 results from the subsequent erasure and correction. 30

99

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

clause and before Kat in lines 15 and 21. These unusually large and frequent spaces add to the lavish impression of the monument and that is precisely their raison d'etre. They are, therefore, not really exceptions to B's regular practice, but extensions of it. 1 alone reveals some uncertainty about precisely where to leave a space. The and preamble and speaker are separated by a space. There is a blank after Et7TEV blanks occur in the body of the decree regularly in conjunction with S', indicating that B had already settled his practice of spacing in general. No blank space, however, appears before O'Trwsovv, while what seem to be random spaces occur before Kat in line 18 and line 32. The blank spaces in lines 34 and 35 are apparently intended to articulate the LEv-S' opposition. In his later work B did not space between Je'v-Se clauses, but treated them as a unit; cf. e.g. 7h, lines 12-15. Size of the UninscribedSpaces. Large spaces were reserved for preambles, headings, and greetings. Within the body of a decree blanks normally range from 0.007 m. to 0.02 m.34 The utter lack of uniformity in size indicates that they were left by eye rather than measured. Margins. Only two of B's surviving inscriptions are preserved up to the molding, 1 and 6. In the former, he left a blank space before beginning the text; in the latter, he began the text on the curving surface of the molding. Since 6 is atypically crowded, it seems probable that 1 represents his usual practice. B normally left a margin of ca. 0.01 m. on the left side of the stele, probably as a precaution against chipping away the edge by cutting too close to it. He made no attempt to establish a perfectly even margin on the right side, but crowded or left space as the spacing and rule of syllabification dictated (cf. infra, p. 121). Interlines.The figures in the following list were obtained by multiple measurement at different points in the text. Exact measurement was rendered impossible by the serifs which very often intrude into the interlinear space.

1 2 3 4

Inscription

Average Interline

(II2 (II2 (II2 (II2

0.005 0.004 0.004 0.002

34

1227) 1228) 1136) 989)

m. m. m. m.

Inscription

5 6 *7a *7b

(II2 (II2 (FD (FD

2336) 1028) III 2, no. 6) III 2, nos. 10, 2)

Average Interline 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.005

m. m. m. m.

With this knowledge, the uniquely large blank space (0.145 m.) before SnTwoSav oSv in 6, line

118 assumes significance.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

100

Inscription

Average Interline

*7c (FD III 2, no. 17)

0.009 m.35

*7d (FD III 2, no. 26)

0.009 m.

*7g (FD III 2, no. 16) *7h (FD III 2, no. 48) 8 (Agora I 1773a)

0.006 m. 0.007 m. 0.002 m.

Inscription

Average Interline

12 (Agora I 5919)

0.003 m.

*13 (EM 649)

0.005 m.

15 (EM 5581) *16 (II2 1023) 17 (II2 1341)

0.004 m. 0.005 m. 0.004 m.

9 (Agora I 2945)

0.003 m.

18 (II2 1942)

0.003 m.

10 (Agora I 3871a)

0.003 m.

20 (Kerameikos,III, A5)

0.002 m.

11 (Agora I 3871b)

0.003 m.

There is no standard interlinear space; the norm is ca. 0.003-0.004 m. The interlinear space is related to the size of the lettering in the sense that inscriptions with large letters (asterisked in the table) have a correspondingly large interline. Beyond this, the specific interline chosen for an inscription depends clearly on consideration of the space available. In 6, for example, the minimum interval was employed because of lack of space. In the case ofFD III 2, nos. 10 (col. II) and 17 (7b, c), B lessened the interval slightly towards the bottom of the columns in order to conserve vertical space. IOTAADSCRIPTUM

Iota adscript normally appears in inscriptions cut by B when it forms part of the dative case, otherwise it is omitted. Its regular appearance is notable, for it had probably ceased to be pronounced a century or so prior to 100 B.C.36 The reason for this must be that the iota marked case, that is, served as a visual sign of the dative case. In other collocations, it had no functional purpose and, since it no longer retained a phonetic value, it fell into disuse. Exceptions.

1) 1, line 20: 7t. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

6, line 8: Tr7L'Apre'tiS 7jt7Ayporepa(t). 6, lines 1 and 91: '(t). 6, lines 2 (bis) and 92: Evdrri(t). 7h, line 9: E' ' vyLEla(t). 7h, lines 53-54: Xpvact(L) arTEdtvc (t)) TLt TOV0EOV.

This figure refers to lines 21-37. As discussed supra,p. 55, the interlines in the upper part are irregular, while those at the bottom are somewhat compressed. 14-20) (lines 36 derAttischenInschriften(ed. 3, Berlin, 1900), p. 67, 21. 13. K. Meisterhans, Grammatik 35

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

101

7) 7h, line 56: Ev r[at] rovOAtovv'aov aAa().37

8) 16, line 3: cavtrc(t). 9) 17, line 11: ev rT7(t) Trpoye[ypaxLtEvI __]. 10) 17, lines 13-14:

'v rI(t)

tro

[___] T.rt

f8. xr3o(t).

The exceptions are very few; a significant number of them involve expressions of date or time (nos. 3, 4, 9, 10), suggesting that the "dativeness" of such expressions was no longer clearly felt. In nos. 5, 7, 9, 10, the preposition itself clearly marked the syntactic relation of the words and thus may have engendered the loss of iota. A survey of the inscriptions in I.G., II2 dating from this period (nos. 1006-1038) shows that the adscript normally appears in the spelling of the dative singular (II2 1011 is the single exception). The only frequent exceptions in these inscriptions occur in the case of 7(t), the day (II2 1006, 1008, 1012), and the cult title r7(t) 'Apre'pt8 r7(L) 'Aypor'epa (II2 1006, 1029). Thus B's practice is not idiosyncratic, but follows that of the period. CROWNS

Crowns occur frequently on all honorary decrees. 0. Broneer's recent study, "The Isthmian Victory Crown," demonstrates that they represent a rich source of information and a factor of potential importance in dating. Catalogueof CrownsMentionedand/or Depicted in B's Work. 1. 1 (II2 1227), line 28. Gold. Diameter: inside, 0.121 m.; outside, 0.186 m. The gold leaves are suspended from a wire or band which is set slightly in relief (PI. 4, a). The effect of relief was achieved by cutting away the surface of the stone a little on the inside and outside of the outline of the crown. The letters are nicely arranged in the crown; the crown itself is off-center to the left (supra, p. 18). 2. 2 (II2 1228), lines 7-8. Thallos. Diameter: ca. 0.10 m.38 A crown of aAAo'sis normally an olive crown; cf. Herodotos 7, 19: EcarTEavWUaOa The three crowns are identical in overall shape (P1. 5, a). Crowns 2 EAalrl7OaAAch. and 3 are simply outlined;39 crown 1 is in relief. Small details suggest that the work 37

The same irregularity

appears

in the part inscribed

by X-line

58: ev rTyt

YUVLKVC()

dayVLt.

The practice belonged to the working copy, therefore, and not to the individual mason. 8 The uneven contour of a crown of this type makes measurement difficult. A vertical and a horizontal measurement are taken in order to establish the diameter of the circle in reference to which the crown was drawn. It is this diameter which is given. 39 For convenient reference, the crowns in each inscription are numbered in order from top left to bottom right.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

102

on them was hurried. Three olives are depicted in the first, two in the second, and none in the third. In the second crown, once, and in the third, twice, a three-segmented ff instead of a three-pointed leaf Q appears. The right central cluster of leaves in the second crown is unfinished. The third crown is carelessly made, especially the right side which is rather awkward and misshapen. The fact that the first is the most complete suggests that it was finished first and that the need for haste caused B to incise the other two only in outline. The crowns and the lettering in them are aligned horizontally. 3. 3 (II2 1136), lines 13-14. Traditional crown of the god at Delphi. Diameter: ca. 0.13 m. B set the crown in relief by cutting away the stone rather abruptly around its outline (PI. 6, b); these cuttings are rather wide and uneven on the left side. The asymmetrical appearance of the tie at the top bespeaks some difficulty or uncertainty in execution. It may be that the top of the crown was too close to the title to allow its full articulation. The original misplacement of the title (line 26) proves that the crown was not in place when the title was inscribed. The crown is off-center to the left; the gap between its edge and the edge of the stele is 0.072 m. on the left and 0.077 m. on the right. The crown of Apollo is laurel (laurus nobilis, sweet bay,40 8a(fvr41); in addition, at Sagavas crrEca the parallel wording of FD III 2, no. 20, lines 11-12 (178/7), KCalt aTrdrptv Eoar ZEA,oSr, shows that this UTEavjcoL Tr[ut ,r]apa [r]ov E0ov1, Ka06Js B has laurel. is crown distinguished it in design from the olive and sought to particular approximate the long, elliptical shape characteristic of bay leaves. 4. 4 (II2 989), lines 18-19. Gold. The clause specifying the crown is lost in the second decree. Diameter: of crowns 1, 3, 4, 5 ca. 0.075 m.; of crown 2, 0.075 m. (inside), 0.095 m. (outside). The gold crown (no. 2)-and for that matter, all of the preserved crownsreveals a very simple outline design. B lightly incised a guideline with a compass (a segment of the light circle made by this guideline is visible at the bottom of the crown in Plate 8) along which he inscribed, at regular intervals, a series of small gold leaves which, in themselves, form the crown. There is no attempt to suggest a band. The other crowns have shapes identical with the olive crowns in 2, except that there is no decorative triangle at the bottom in crown 3 and no olives are represented. Spacing shows that B placed four crowns across the stele in line with lines 61-64. This and the fact that the last preserved citation is placed at the extreme left suggest that there were also four citations in the last (preserved) row. How many others, if 40 41

Cf. 0. Polunin and A. Huxley, Flowers of the Mediterranean,London, 1965, pp. 73-74 and pl. 31. Liddell, Scott, Jones, s.v.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

103

any, are lost is impossible to say. 4 thus belongs to the transitional period when the number of officials honored was increased from the 8 (or 9) usual in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.42 B did not incise the crowns at the bottom below the first row,43 thus indicating both by position and lack of elaboration the inferior status of these officials.44 B failed to align crowns 1-3, probably because of problems of spacing. The headings over crowns 1 and 2 were placed the usual interline down from line 23; line 40, the first line of the second decree, is crowded up directly under the bottom of the two crowns. Indeed the contours and proportions of their lowest leaves were adjusted slightly to accommodate the line, indicating that they were inscribed after line 40, or at a time when B had determined its exact position (PI. 8). In any case, the concern for space is evident. Since line 23 extends only halfway across the stele, he was free, in the case of the third crown, either to align it with the other two and crowd it at the bottom, or move it up slightly and avoid the crowding. He chose the latter. The choice caused a problem when it came to lining up the lettering in the crowns. The first line of the third crown had to be placed so high that it was impossible to line up the first lines; he, therefore, aligned the last lines. Aligning the lettering on a horizontal line drawn across the crowns was apparently more important than centering the letters well within the individual crown, for the lower half of crown 2 and apparently also crown I (no letter strokes are visible because of wear) was left blank as a result of this alignment. 5. 6 (II2 1028), line 45. Gold. Line 55. Thallos. Lines 122-123. Gold. Diameter: of crowns 1, 5, 0.085 m.; of crowns 2-4, 0.085 m. (inside), ca. 0.125 m. (outside); of crown 6, 0.071 m.; of crown 7, 0.075 m.; of crowns 8-13, ca. 0.062 m.

A lightly incised circle (still visible in all but the first crown) with a diameter of 0.085 m. was drawn with a compass in preparation for crowns 1-5 (Pls. 14, 15, 38, d). The crowns are set in relief. The olive crown (no. 5) is composed of leaves articulated into three segments. In contrast to 4, these crowns are not compressed along the bottom despite the problem of spacing in this inscription. The first line of the second decree is, however, placed as close to the line of crowns as possible. The crowns are aligned perfectly; the lettering, however, from one crown to the next is not. Lines 1 and 2 of crown 2 are aligned with lines 3 and 4 of crown 1. At this point, B perceived that alignment on the basis of the lettering in crown 1 could not work, for crown 1 is crowded and the lettering is abnormally small.45 He began anew in crown 3 and lined 42 As M. L. Lethen, Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, p. 28 recognized. Peek, Kerameikos, III, pp. 6-7, discusses this and shows that 20 also belongs to this transitional group. 43 They were undoubtedly painted. Dow, Prytaneis, p. 20, has pointed out that painted (i.e. not incised) crowns were normal on prytany decrees until ca. 125 B.C. 44 Dow, ibid., p. 4, has established that the order of mention and citations is not random but a clear order of precedence, mirroring the relative importance of the officials. 45 The inclusion in crown 2 of those awarding the crown with those honored is unique in B's work and may be due to this attempt to align with crown 1.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

104

up the first lines of the last three crowns (see commentary on 6, line 83). Within the crowns the lettering was well centered in nos. 1, 2, and 5. For the partial improvement of the spacing in crown 3, see page 42 supra. The variation of crowns 1 to 5 is interesting. Crown 1 (P1. 14, a) has spade-shaped leaves and is an ivy crown.46 It must have been golden, however, for the honorees were crowned with a gold crown. Kallixeinos of Rhodes, a writer of the mid-second century B.C., mentions just such a crown: a,EO'ovs hXavpotL eaoapaKovTa EaTEXpvaoLS arTEdavoLt (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist., 3C, no. 627, p. 168, lines KatuvoLS 0>avcoILEvoL to 4 represent canonical gold crowns; the fifth crown is in shape Crowns 2 21-22). olive, but its position here indicates that it too was golden. Of these five crowns, only 2 and 3 were awarded as a direct result of the decrees on the stele. In crown 1, the boule and the demos honor the epheboi and their kosmetes. No such joint crown is explicitly mentioned in the stele though it is implied by the two decrees. Crown 4 is most interesting; it was awarded to the epheboi and the kosmetes by the demos of Salamis. This crown is mentioned only obliquely in line 26-e'os oLs Kat erTtrf7lOl av V7TroToV 8rjiov rov ZaAapatviov. Crown 5 receives

more specific

mention

in line

118--aroTEvcoovav

aVrov

ev T7rL fSovXACt.

The stele thus commemorates all the crowns voted to the epheboi and their kosmetes, not just those awarded by the decrees on it, and the first row of citations is reserved for their crowns. There is a demonstrable order of precedence from left to right of those awarding the crowns; the boule and the demos of the Athenians take first place in the first three. Next follows the demos of Salamis and last, the ephebes. Similarly, an order is maintained among those honored; the epheboi are consistently awarded first place ahead of the kosmetes in the crowns. This reflects the order of the decrees and shows that the principal purpose of the stele is to honor the ephebes and secondarily, i.e. as a consequence, their teachers. Crowns 6 to 13 are crowded together in the bottom left half of the stele in three horizontal rows of two, three, and three (P1. 20, b). The right half is occupied by the list of evot. This arrangement is unique among preserved ephebic decrees, which always have crowns in rows across the entire stele; sometimes the crowns are located between decrees I and II and after the list of names (Agora I 286 [Hesperia, XXIV, 1955, pp. 220-239], II2 1008-also in middle of list) and sometimes preceding, in the middle, and at the end of the register of names (II2 1006, 1009, 1011). An unusually long list of 40 foreigners (see commentary on line 288 of 6) led to this unusual arrangement. By considerable squeezing and abbreviation, this list was arranged into two columns, each one three-quarters as wide as the columns of the citizens, and placed in the lower right part of the stele. The space thus remaining for the crowns of the UrkundenDramatischer Auffihrungen in Athen, Wien, 1906, pp. 229-230, illustrates in a discussion of I.G., II, 1356 (II2 3111). two similar crowns 46 A. Wilhelm,

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

105

teachers, normally seven in number, was a rectangle higher than it was wide. 6 is the only ephebic text known which has thirteen crowns; all others have twelve, clearly the

usual number. The extra crown was added purely out of considerations of geometry. Seven round crowns cannot easily be accommodated to a rectangular space which is higher than it is wide, if one wishes to place them in horizontal rows (this habitual arrangement B apparently did not consider abandoning). It was not possible to arrange them in two horizontal rows, the one having three crowns, the other four, which could fill the vertical space. An arrangement of one, three, and three would leave the single crown in the first row uncomfortably isolated because it could not be very large. By adding one crown (no. 6, P1. 21, a) B made three rows of two, three, and three-this was the only spatial solution open to him. He made no. 6 an exact repetition of crown 2 at first, i.e. in shape a standard gold crown (see commentary on 6, line 246). This reveals its status as an addition and also indicates that the gold crown was the only one voted. The change was probably made so that all these crowns would be uniform

in shape. All are olive crowns, incised in outline with leaves articulated into three parts. No olives are depicted. The erasure and respacing of the title in crown 7 to take account of the tie indicate that the title originally preceded the crown (cf. commentary

on 6, line 250). The crowns were aligned horizontally on a guideline drawn along their bases; the lettering also seems to be aligned (the imperfect setting of the fragments in

plaster thwarts certainty). The lack of alignment of the titles in the third row (cf. commentary on 6, line 250) indicates that the ties of the crowns were not all exactly

uniform and that B, after finding it necessary to erase the titles of the first row of crowns, completed all the other crowns before putting in the titles. Aside from the extra crown, this group of crowns reveals another curious feature. A strict order of precedence for the teachers, paralleling the order noted by Dow (Prytaneis, pp. 4, 14, 21) in the crowns of prytany decrees, appears in all ephebic decrees of this period. The order is: TraLSoTrplr's, o7TAotaXos, aKovrtLrT7rs, TOeoTr7S, a ETr7s, ypaUxarTevs, and vwr7rpe7r-s. Here, the secretary has crown no. 7, the second

position (really first of the teachers), despite the fact that he was listed in regular order, i.e. next to last, in lines 51ff. The elevation cannot be accidental, but the reason for it seems unknowable (the factors involved are so remote from us that even an educated

guess would be idle speculation). 6. 7f (FD III 2, no. 45) (P1. 38, e). Diameter: 0.11 m. The crown is olive in shape; the leaves are separated into three segments and five olives are represented. Instead of three rather large clusters of leaves on each side

like those in 2, this crown has four smaller clusters on each side. The crown is incised

only. Its position is rather curious, considerably off center and to the right of the text above it.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

106

7. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 53-54. Ltovvaov TEXVLtrav) xpvUd(tL) Line TOVS ItlOVS EvepyEras. AJtOKA[rV]

Kal t'rS

OEpOVS W

TOV aTebcavJaat (rd KOLVOV T-v TTEpl Tiot TOV OEOV WLot Eoart arTEavovv 7TaTptov r?TEaCVC)(tL) 61. orTEbavCoaatL S Kat Xop[o0S]tdaoKaAov avrwv

TL

T ov EovE o)TE[Sa]VLt.

No crowns were carved below this inscription, probably because there was not sufficient room to accommodate them. 8. 8 (Agora I 1773a). Traces of an incised olive crown appear similar to crowns 1 and 3 in 4 (P1. 8). 9. 11 (Agora I 3871b). Line 17, Xpv, may refer to a gold crown. 10. 12 (Agora I 5919). the The names are arranged for wreaths, but none were incised-presumably of the below the list In none citations of this crowns were painted. prytany decree, names received incised crowns. 11. 14 (EM 5228). Diameter: ca. 0.12 m. The two-pointed leaves show that these are laurel crowns. The crown is incised in outline (P1. 33, a). The leaves are somewhat awkwardly made and fail to achieve the symmetry seen in crown 5 of 6 (P1. 38, d) and in the crown of 7f (P1. 38, e); they recall, rather, the olive crowns of 2 (infra, p. 108). t _ _]. 12. 15 (EM 5581), line 8. Xpvorct a[reaEb 13. 16 (II2 1023), lines 14-15. Gold. Diameter: ca. 0.185 m. This crown is the largest and most elaborate one cut by B, and, therefore, complements the already impressive appearance of the monument (supra, p. 76). It is not merely given the effect of relief by a slight cutting away of the surface around its

outline, but it is in full relief, i.e. higher than the inscribed surface (P1. 34, c). Therefore, its position was predetermined so that, when the surface was prepared for inscribing, the part reserved for the crown could be left at a higher level. This crown depicts olive leaves which have a realistic central stem dividing each leaf into two halves. The triangle which is used to join the two halves of such a crown is also employed. B has placed the nomenas high up in the crown as possible at the first place where he could fit it in on one line. Apparently he wished to avoid dividing it between two lines. No title was inscribed above the crown. 14. 17 (II2 1341). The tie of this crown (P1. 36, a) differs from the type generally cut by B; all of the crowns which have ties, except for No. 3 (3), the tie of which is abbreviated,

have one

exactly like that of No. 13 (16). This provides a fairly certain indication that the crown is not by B, but by the cutter who inscribed the title (cf. commentary on 17, line 24). It is of the incised outline variety.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

107

Did the Same CutterEngravethe Letteringand the Crowns?The crown represents something of a different order from inscribing letters: the easily perceived development in

the olive crowns (infra) suggests that they required a certain artistic skill-they certainly demanded many more curving lines than an alphabet. That crowns were not incised at all in some instances (4, the last row of citations, and 12) indicates that it was a time-consuming process to make one. There is, however, no evidence for a specialist. The interplay between the placing of the titles and crowns in the eight small crowns of 6 (lines 246-256) proves that they are all the work of one man. The uniformity among the crowns also leads to the same conclusion. In the one case where it is a priori probable that B did not engrave the crown (17), the remains differ in shape

from the others.

When, in Relative Terms, were the CrownsEngraved? The evidence is not absolutely in agreement, but the suggestion is that the work on a stele was done consecutively from top to bottom. In 6, the erasures in the titles for crowns 6 and 7 to accommodate

the tie prove that the text up to and including the title was inscribed before the crown. The evidence leads to the same conclusion in 3. In 4, however, the slight distortion at the bottom of crowns 1-2 nay result from their being inscribed in their final form after the second decree had been finished. The position for the crown in 16 had to be prepared, at the very least, before the final surface was readied for the letters. The lettering within the crowns came last, for the placement of the letters can be observed to take into account very precisely the final contours of the crown. WeretheCrownsEngravedin anyparticularOrder?One would expect a cutter out of habit to cut the crowns from left to right, since this was the way he cut the letters. The order of precedence demonstrates that the degree of importance of the crowns was conceived in this order. The workmanship of B's crowns also supports this natural assumption. For example, the first crown of 2 received more work than the others; the normal spacing of the third crown of 4 apparently results from a dissatisfaction with the crowding necessary in the first two. But most convincing is the line alignment of crowns 1-5 in 6, where the lines of crown 2 depend on crown 1, and crowns 4 and 5 on crown 3. How were CrownsInscribed?An incised guideline was always drawn with a compass and the crown was inscribed in reference to it. The relative complexity involved in inscribing the contours of the leaves symmetrically over this guideline makes it likely that the crowns were at least drawn in outline before they were cut. After this, they were incised, and, if desired, the stone was then pared down along the inside and outside of this outline to obtain a relief effect. Single crowns are always set in semi-relief in this fashion; groups of crowns are rarely accorded this elaboration, probably because

108

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

of the extra work involved. When a series of crowns was involved, they were aligned horizontally at the bottom (4, crowns 1-3, represents the only exception). The lettering in them was placed along horizontal guidelines which were drawn through the crowns, and an attempt was made either to begin or end the lettering of all on the same line. The perfect alignment desired could not always be attained under crowded conditions (6, crowns 1-5). Size of the Crowns.Since the primary purpose of a crown is to call visual attention to the person honored, the crown will be as large as the space allows. Where space is unlimited, as, apparently, in 16, overall proportion is the governing factor. It is the elaboration of the crown, as this inscription reveals, which is the ultimate honor, and not the size. Types. Four types appear: gold (1), olive (2), laurel (3), and ivy (6, crown 1). Gold and olive are the most frequent, but it is certain that B could inscribe any shape which he (or his assistants?) could draw. Of these, all can be golden, and it is probable that most inscribed crowns were decorated with gold paint. In any case, all crowns were normally painted. Developmentof the Olive Crown.Only in the case of the olive-leaf crown can a development be perceived in B's ability to render it successfully. The earliest examples, in 2 (116/5 B.C.), are rather heavy and awkward; the angles and size of the leaves are not uniform. The leaf on the lower right in crown 2 (P1. 5, a) is particularly unsuccessful. The stems which support the olives are disproportionately thick. A single, threepointed (') leaf predominates, though a three-segment leaf (f) occurs occasionally. The crown is made up of six leaf clusters, three on each side. In 7f appears the latest dated example (98/7 B.C.), an olive crown of almost exactly the same size as those in 2 (P1. 38, e). The proportion of the leaves is much better; the upper leaves are uniformly slightly larger than the lower. B has avoided the heaviness of those of 2 by making everything smaller-the tie at the top, e.g. He has made the leaves smaller, thus employing eight clusters instead of six. The thick stem of the olives has become a single incised line. The leaves are now all in three segments; the middle segments were centered over the incised guideline and then the outer leaves were drawn. This and the small size provide a control not seen in the earlier inscription. By 104/3 B.C. (4) B seems to have developed a surer sense of proportion in rendering olive crowns; the leaves, however, are all three pointed. He had adopted the threesegmented leaf by 101/0 B.C. (6) and seems to have used this style regularly after that. Since few of the undated fragments (only 8, 14, 16, and 17) have crowns, this is of limited chronological help. The crown of 8 has a single three-pointed leaf which supports

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

109

Dow's "shortly before 104/3" date. The awkward rendition of the olive-like laurel leaves in 14 suggests an early date, ca. 110 e.g. The elaboration of the crown in 16 excludes it from consideration as a normal olive crown, hence this canon of shape of leaf cannot be applied. What is theIntentof theInscribedCrown? It is primarily a mark of honor. The number and type do not necessarily reflect in detail the crowns actually voted (6, crown 6 especially). As a stele was primarily commemorative, so the crowns were primarily decorative in intent and, therefore, could be added to fill space and enhance the appearance of the stele when it seemed desirable.47 The crowns are not haphazard, however, and surely do reflect, in general, the crowns voted. The wording in 1 and 16 is the same (i.e. Xpva^lt a(TTEaavcL));the difference in shape must be due to the fact that different types of gold crowns were actually awarded. In addition, the order of precedence observed in the crowns of prytany and ephebic decrees clearly indicates that careful planning lay behind the number and order of the crowns in almost every 48 instance.4 ERROR AND CORRECTION

The discussion of clerical details in Part Two has shown that B made frequent mistakes. Of the inscriptions treated in this study, only eight reveal no errors in the parts preserved. The sole relatively complete document which shows none is 7g, and it is only eleven lines in length. There existed, obviously, no horrorerratiwhich prompted letter-perfect work, and we may fairly assume that in this period it was a rare occurrence for an inscription of any length to be completed absolutely free from error.49 The mistakes are normally short and the evidence shows that they were corrected at once. Errors of omission or addition, caused by haste and by looking back at the wrong place in the working copy, account for the majority of mistakes. Infelicitous spacing and mistakes in the working copy itself account for most of the others. Except for minor errors of omission (letter strokes in particular), mistakes are, as a general rule, corrected. When a serious mistake remains uncorrected, a reason other than 47 48

W. S. Ferguson,"The Attic Orgeones,"pp. 138-139notesan example. It is scarcely accidental, e.g., that Oeo98Oos o IEtpatEvs who was honored 15 years earlier in 1,

was accorded crown no. 1 in 2. 49 Personal observation assures me that this statement is accurate, although it is impossible to substantiate by reference to I.G., II2 (cf. Appendix I). Larfeld (Handbuch, I, p. 230) takes the position that comparatively few errors occur and deduces from this that there was careful checking ofpre-drawn letters. He also imagines the possibility of another careful correction after inscribing. It is unclear precisely to what period he means his remarks to refer; they are certainly not applicable to the years 150100 B.C. Further, I think it open to question whether they represent the facts for any period in Attic epigraphy prior to the time of the Roman empire.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

110

pure oversight probably lies behind it, as in the case of the errors in line 92 of 6 and

line 16 of 7h. In the long-lasting medium of marble, a mistake in inscribing naturally caused the letter-cutter serious problems, for he could not merely pick up an eraser and rub out the incorrect letters. The most frequent method of correction was to cut them

away; no matter how carefully the cutter performed this operation, it inevitably left a depressionin the inscribed surfaceand often an unsightly gash (P1. 16, a). It must also have been laborious and time-consuming, for where the error was small enough (7d, line 63; P1.26, b), or where the letter shapes allowed it (6, line 114; P. 17, b), B simply inscribed the correct letters on top of the incorrect ones with little or no actual erasing. Occasionally, instead of cutting away the letters with a chisel, B employed an abrasive substance to remove the surface more evenly, the way sandpaper is used on wood. To my knowledge, this mode of correction is here noted for the first time; it has the advantage of leaving practically no mark of erasure, but is relatively inefficient in removing the letters. In addition, it is limited in its use to places where there is blank space

above and below the words to be erased, that is, where there is room enough to apply the abrasion effectively. Only two clear examples of this type of erasure appear in B's work: 3, line 26 (PI. 7, b) and 7b, line 25 (Pl. 22, b). When a cutter has simply omitted a letter or two, and spacing or a desire to avoid extensive erasure make it seem advantageous, the omitted letters may be added in the margin or superscriptin the interline.50 B took advantage of the latter expedient once (7h, line 16), but did not let it stand when

he perceived that further correction was necessary. He apparently did not like this

means of correction.

In dealing with erasures, two general principles can be established. 1) A canon of least work operates: the erasure will not be longer than necessary and, a corollary of this, as many letters as possible of the original text will be re-used. See, e.g., 7a, line 20; 7h, line 52; and 6, line 185. 2) A crowding or a spreading out of the letters in

an erasure provides positive indication that the correction was not made immediately,

but later in checking or even after the work was completed. 13, line 7 and 6, line 92 provide clear examples. The interpretation of erasures depends entirely on the remains of the original text. These are often extensive due to the cutter's effort to make the erasure as inconspicuous as possible. With the aid of the two principles set forth above, and the knowledge that the cutter did not lay the text out on the stone before inscribing (infra, pp. 115ff.), it is often possible to reach a probable or even certain conclusion

regarding the nature of the mistake. It is well to remember, however, that some mistakes are not susceptible to logical reasoning. 50 Larfeld (Handbuch,I, pp. 233-234) gives some examples.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

111

The following list provides references to examples of the most frequent types of mistakes; the table at the end of this section attempts to classify all of B's errors.5' Dittography.52 6, line 92

7b, line 25 7b, line 42 Haplography. 1, line 15 5, line 149

7h, line 21 Omissionor addition (resulting from looking back to the working copy at the wrong

place). 6, line 17 6, line 242

7h, line 23 Omission, anticipatory.53 4, line 19 6, line 114

7h, line 20 Misspacing. 3, line 26 5, line 270 6, lines 74-75 51 Cf. A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications, p. 452f., for a list of errors on early dedications; Larfeld, Handbuch, I, pp. 231-234 and S. Reinach, Traite d'tpigraphie Grecque, Paris, 1885, pp. 325-330 give general lists. 52 Classifying errors is somewhat arbitrary, for the categories overlap. Dittography and haplography both result, in most cases, from looking back at the wrong place in the working copy. Not all examples of looking back to the wrong place, however, fall clearly into the categories dittography and haplography. I have sought to assign what seemed the most probable interpretation to each mistake, with some inconsistency perhaps. The table at the end of this discussion attempts to compensate for this by beginning with two large categories, namely, Omissions and Additions, which are then subdivided. The reader may not agree with the placement of an error in a subdivision but the overall picture given by the principal categories is, I believe, accurate. 53 I define this error as the omission of a few letters and apply it to places where B simply appears to get ahead of himself for no observable reason.

TABLE OF ERRORS

5. Err

3. Misspacing

2. Addition

1. Omission

4. Misreading

in Wr copy

Inscription no.

a. Haplography

b. Wrong Place

c. Anticipatory

a. Dittography

b. c. Wrong Other Place

2 5

3

81 88

149 5 93 105 106 116 125?

6

17? 185

47

51

and no. 17)

92 122

92 96 157 316

18 17

195 242? 316

244

33

59 60 64 74 75 83

95 53 192 92 246 107 250 150 288 296

155 243

17

20 15 29

16 50

42 11

(no.31

54

270

25

7b (FD 11I2, no. 2 and no. 10)

6 54 142

104 114 214

7 4

7a

26

40 47 41

19

4

7c

e. Other

1 26 4 36 9

15

1

d. Incomplete Letter

2

57

6? 55

16 48

TABLE OF ERRORS

1. Omission

2. Addition

3. Misspacing

Inscription no. a. Haplography

b. Wrong Place

c. Anticipatory

7d

52 56

7f

3

7h

4 29 6 11 21 (bis)

7i

8(II)

d. Incomplete Letter

e. Other

a. Dittography

b. Wrong Place

9

9 16 21 24

5. Error in Workin copy

c. Other

41

5 20 31

4. Misreading

35 63

28 56

23 25 27

2 52? 5 14? 31

9

3?

10 11 13

7 7 27

16

17 20

Total

20

29

55

22

17

15

9

ExplanatoryComments 1. The numbers, except for the totals, are line numbers. A Roman numeral in parentheses represents the column number. A about the classification. "Wrong place" stands for looking back in the working copy at the wrong place. 2. 2, 18, 19, 7g, 8, 12, 14, and 15 reveal no errors.

114

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

Another type of omission occurs frequently enough that mention ought to be made of it; this is the omission of letter strokes. Epsilon (seven times), eta (three times), alpha (twice), omega (twice), kappa, sigma, and tau (all once) lack a stroke. The occurrence is so infrequent in proportion to the total number of letters inscribed that simple oversight seems to explain it adequately.54 A high frequency of error signifies unusual problems in inscribing, for the cutter normally worked carefully (he surely did not get paid to do otherwise) and could inscribe for long stretches with a minimum of error. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 16 provide the norm. The higher incidence of error in the inscriptions on the wall of the Athenian Treasury is probably due to the difficulty of inscribing the blocks in situ and to the necessity for haste. The frequency of gross mistakes which required lengthy erasure in 6 doubtless reflects to a great extent B's preoccupation with the problem of too little space. Errors provide an opportunity for learning about the difficulties of inscribing; for this reason much emphasis has been placed upon discussing them. It would be an injustice, however, to think of 6 as typical of B's work or, pending study of other cutters, of B as unusually prone to committing errors. It is to be remembered that most of the lines which he inscribed are error free.

Table of Errors (pp. 112-113). One figure in this table deserves some comment. Errors of omission occur about two and a half times as often as errors of addition. That is to say, B had a much stronger tendency to omit something, and, therefore, to save himself some work, than vice versa. This seems true to human nature; it also reflects very probably an ingrained tendency (born of necessity?) to hurry the work to completion. 54 Larfeld, Handbuch, I, p. 205, offers the following explanation for strokes and letters omitted: "Alsdann wurden die Buchstaben mit dem Pinsel in Farbe vorgemalt, wie man noch deutlich aus fluchtig gearbeiteten Grabschriften ersehen kann, auf denen der Steinschreiber aus Nachlassigkeit es nicht selten unterliess, den einen oder anderen der vorgemalten Buchstaben auch wirklich auszumeissen .. ." His statement, of course, hinges on the assumption of a pre-painted text.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING THE

115

PROCESS OF INSCRIBING

Was the Text Written out on the Stone beforeInscribing? The answer to this question provides the key to synthesizing the evidence presented above into a coherent, though fragmentary, account of the procedure which B actually followed in making an inscription. The many errors discussed in Part Two demonstrate that B did not draw the letters on the stone with paint or graphite before cutting, for, had he done so, most of the mistakes could not have occurred. To clarify the point, a second consideration of three errors seems useful. 1) In line 149 of 5 (P1. 11, a), B could only have begun to inscribe AcO for ANAO if he had made the mistake in the graphite copy (supposing for the moment that he made such a copy) and not corrected it before beginning work with the chisel. 2) Only someone who has never watched a sign-painter improve on the spacing of his roughly sketched first copy when painting in the letters55 could imagine that B was able to misspace in lines 74-75 of 6 as he did (P1. 15, a), having already drawn the letters on the stone. It is obvious that the corrections represent his improvement of a rather inept first attempt. 3) In the case of the triplography in 7h, line 16 (P1. 28, c), one could scarcely admit such a monstrosity in a pre-drawn text and still maintain that a cutter derived any benefit from it, for the drawn-on letters, from the error on, would not only be no help but actually would be a hindrance. If a cutter took the trouble to lay out the text to the last detail on the stone, he would surely have checked over this (easily corrected) text before cutting. B, therefore, did not draw the letters on the stone prior to cutting. It was scarcely economical to do'so, for the few small errors, in most cases, which he would thereby avoid could stand unnoticed in a long decree, or be changed with a minimum of erasure or with simple superscription.

The position taken in the preceding paragraph flies in the face of all accepted opinion.56 Epigraphists seem agreed that the stonecutter did not produce direct freehand lettering with his chisel, but followed lines drawn or written beforehand. A letterer whom we have consulted in a near-by city clearly finds any other process, now or ever, unthinkable. (Contributions,p. 70.)

55

Raubitschek, Dedications, p. 242, cites an example from ca. 500 B.C. of a cutter who made a preliminary engraving which he improved upon in the final version. Note, moreover, that the mistakes in Dedications, nos. 6, 210, 246, and 248 indicate that the letters were not drawn beforehand. 56

With regard to Greek cutters, both Larfeld (Handbuch,I, p. 230) and G. Klaffenbach (Gr.

Epig., p. 46) state that the letters were first painted on; in treating Roman letterers, the Gordons (Contributions,p. 70 and passim) have reached a similar conclusion. Note, however, that Larfeld also granted "Da jedoch, wie schon S. 205 bemerkt wurde, die vielen Verstosse, namentlichin nichtoffiziellen

Inschriften(my italics), die Annahme einer vorherigen Aufzeichnung und Priifung dieser Texte vor der

Niederschrift ausschliessen ..." (ibid.). The Gordons too were influenced by observation of certain errors to have some second thoughts; see Contributions,p. 218, note 10.

116

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

As this passage indicates, modern students of both Greek and Roman epigraphy have been prone to infer the practice of ancient cutters from modern practice. In the process Greek epigraphists have failed, it seems, to appreciate adequately that the nature of the task facing the Attic cutter, no matter how similar, was qualitatively different from that of his modern counterpart in one important respect, namely length.57 It is one thing to inscribe a tombstone or cornerstone with 50 or so large letters and quite another to cover large surfaces with thousands of small letters. Modern cutters58 usually lay out the letters in chalk or pencil or crayon with elaborate care before cutting. The purpose is to avoid errors, for a single incorrectly inscribed stroke, if it is deep and large, can make it necessary to discard the block of marble and begin again. Ancient letterers, when inscribing small letters, did not have the same need to avoid mistakes, and so did not expend unnecessary time on letter-by-letter layout. Ancient Greek cutters did not center their texts or even sometimes, as noted above, single crowns. Indirectly, this corroborates the above, for symmetry around a central axis is characteristic of short texts which are laid out letter-by-letter. In place of centering, Greek cutters traditionally employed blank spaces and beginnings of lines (in the "perfect design" e.g. supra, pp. 96-97) to give their texts some visual articulation. Except for this, they simply inscribed the text as given to them from left to right from first letter to last, with the result that the last line, which is normally short, is not centered but begins at the left margin.59 The Text. The text to be inscribed was provided by the secretary in accordance with the formula, regular in prytany and ephebic decrees, avaypcdaat 8e roSE ro 'r4qtaaLarov ypaltLarea rov KaTa Trpvraavetav ela'rrXrv AtOivrjv. This formula officially places on the secretary KaTa rrpvravetav the responsibility for seeing to the production of the inscription. This included contracting with the cutter for the work, providing him with a text, and the follow-up responsibility of supervising the erection of the stele. In certain cases these tasks could be delegated naturally to officials already elected; cf., for example, 16, lines 18-21: dvaypcdat 6e r7oe rTO fr4otala Kal rov arerqavov ets arr7X7rv ALOvrqvrovs KEXetLPporovrl7,evO avS pas ETrtTr7vKaraaKevr7v rov vaov r71s AOr1vas. I assume that in most cases the text provided was written in capital letters60 and that often the cutter could inscribe from it directly. The text was normally complete, 57 There may be a lesson here for oral theorists who assume (as it is natural to do) a more or less one-to-one relationship between their Serbo-Croatian poets and Homer. 58 See Appendix II for a brief description of one cutter at work. 59 The last line of 16, which extends across the width of the stele, is the only exception in B's work as well as the only one known to me. 60 Of the many errors considered in Part Two, none requires for its explication the existence of a cursive text. L. Robert, Comp. Rend. Acad. Insc., 1955, pp. 214-219, forcefully refutes the assumption of a cursive text.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

117

except when a list of names was involved; then it might be necessary for the cutter to

leave a blank space for an entry (e.g. 6, line 158) or to make room for an unexpected addition (6, line 245). In the case of 7b, the text was so incomplete that B could not successfully arrange it to effect an economic use of the space available. Lists of persons caused special problems because the copy did not originate with the secretary but had

to be procured (by the secretary?) from still other officials. To what Degreedid B Adhereto theDetails of the Text whichhe was Given? The alternate spellings,

dyaOrlt Tv^XrL, ayacelt

TvXEL and r7-L /ovAjt,

TeL JPovAel,

provide

some

indicative evidence. Spelling is uniform within a given inscription; that is TV?XEL and rvXrqtdo not both occur in the same text nor govArtj and fovAEi,61 but the spelling of all the inscriptions

is not consistent.

Spellings

in -Lqt predominate;

-EL spellings

occur only in 1, in line 10 of 16, and in 20. The consistency of the individual inscriptions in conjunction with the lack of overall regularity suggests that the consistency is that of individual secretaries, while the minor variety results from B reproducing the texts of different secretaries exactly as they were given to him. It therefore seems likely that B usually reproduced the letter of the text given him (see the discussion of Iota Adscriptum,supra, pp. 100-101, for further evidence) and this ought to be assumed unless very good reason can be brought to doubt it.62 The abbreviations in 6 of the Trov AaxovTas clause (lines 44, 121) and the E'SoeEv clause (lines 4, 94) are unique and, for that reason, cannot originally have stood in the copy provided to B. Should we imagine, therefore, that, since he alone had to fit the text on the stele, he took it upon himself to abbreviate when he found that only in this manner could the text be accommodated to the stone? It appears unlikely that he could exercise such freedom with the wording of the text. In all probability he obtained authorization to make the abbreviations (cf. supra, p. 97, note 29). The erasures and

omissions at the end of decree II, however, suggest last-minute changes (cf. 6, line 128), which he made either on his own initiative or, more probably, under a blanket "do what you have to" authorization. The Stele. Exactly

how B procured

the stones on which he inscribed

the texts is

unknown. Economic considerations appear to have been one of the controlling factors, for used (1, 19) or damaged (4, 9) material sometimes served.63 Only conditions bordering on requiring it could have influenced B to crowd the text of 6 onto a stele which was too small for it. At the same time, however, 61

a definite preference for white

In 16 alone, the spellings T1VXEtand flovAitiappear together. B. D. Meritt, Hesperia,XV, 1946, pp. 211-212, notes a clear instance of a cutter who has reproduced two different systems of spelling in a single inscription by following to the letter the practice, which happened to vary, of his sources. 63 Larfeld, Handbuch,I, p. 204, cites other examples of damaged stones. 62

118

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

(Pentelic) marble appears 64 which, if not accidental,65 suggests that he had some control over the choice. Preparationfor Inscribing-Guidelines. When the cutter had secured the stone, he

determined the layout (discussed below) and, in order that he might inscribe his lines parallel to one another, drew horizontal guidelines sufficient for the text. The length of the text, size of the stele available, and independent factors influencing letter height (supra, p. 88) dictated both the size of the lettering and the interlinear interval. Guidelines were then drawn at the desired intervals. B incised them only on the Athenian Treasury (apparently he was required to); hence, in the record of the Pythais alone is some exact measurement possible. If a meter stick is laid across the guidelines,

their exact regularity is at once apparent. The intervals are not perfectly uniform, but vary so little that they must have been measured.66 Although absolute measured precision never appears,67 measurement was probably the normal procedure. w no major difficulties of spacing Inscribing Layout.When there were Preparationfor (as, for example, in 1 or 3), a rough estimate of the number of lines required and ruling of guidelines were probably the only steps necessary prior to inscribing. In other cases,

the situation clearly required more and the evidence indicates that B calculated,

sometimes very precisely, the layout of the text before cutting. The symmetry apparent in 7h is the result of conscious planning. In the case of 6, B had determined the final layout carefully enough before inscribing to know that abbreviation was necessary and that he had to begin the text as high up on the stele as possible. Doubtless he had worked out the limits of the major sections of the text with some care (line 131 almost

certainly became a fixed point at some stage prior to cutting).68 In addition, the errors in the list of names reveal that he was copying from a columnar list (cf. the commentary on lines 185, 195, 242, and 316), i.e. a working copy which approximated the final

arrangement on the stone.69 It seems surprising in this case that the letters were not 64 Only 13 and 17 are inscribed on gray (Hymettian) marble. 65 The breakdown for the Agora I 286 cutter (Gr.Rom.Byz. St., XI, 1970, pp. 330-331) is 5 white, 6 gray and for the II2 912 cutter (ibid., pp. 328-330) 9 white, 8 gray, 3 mixed (e.g. "bluish white," "white with gray streaks"). 66 In 7b, e.g., they vary ?0.0005 m.; for letter spaces the variation is 0.01-0.0105 m. and for interlines 0.0045-0.0055 m. 67 Probably it cannot appear due to the inherent error in calibration of measuring instruments used by the mason and by the present writer. Note that the vertical space occupied by 10 lines does not remain constant; 6, lines 1-10 (measuring from the top of line 1 to the top of line 11) occupy 0.097 m., lines 48-57, 0.11 m. 68 See the commentary on lines 128 and 130. It is highly probable that these large letters were blocked out and thus given a fixed position during this preparation. 69 See also 7h, line 27. Robert, op.cit. (note 60), p. 218, note 2, notes several examples and R. Stroud, Hesperia,XL, 1971, p. 199, calls attention to a particularly clear instance.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

119

laid out; the reason may be that so much calculation had to be done on paper before the guidelines were drawn that it did not seem necessary or profitable to transfer the letters to the stone. In any event, not even all of the details of spacing had been decided beforehand as the problems involved in placing the small crowns and titles prove (supra, p. 47). The necessity for getting on with inscribing appears to have allowed B, even under the most demanding circumstances, only limited time to work out the layout. Engraving the Letters. B seems to have worked in sequence from the top to bottom of an inscription, leaving the final details to be met as he came to them. The rate of work had to be slow even when he was hurrying, for it is not possible to cut letters at more than a certain number per hour.70 The necessarily slow progress of the work encouraged frequent checking, probably at the end of each day's work, if not more often; thus, most mistakes were perceived and corrected almost immediately. Since B had to produce a finished product which would meet with the approval of the person commissioning the work, he naturally took pains to avoid errors; the work might have to undergo minute scrutiny.71 It is a mistake, however, to think (with Larfeld, Handbuch, I, p. 230, and Klaffenbach, Gr. Epigr., p. 46) in terms of final correction of the inscribed text by the cutter himself or some official corrector. In most cases, correcting was done only during the course of the work. The mistakes which appear in the final inscribed version of 6, line 92 demonstrate this conclusively.72 In addition, the frequent small omissions are proof that no stroke-for-stroke correction was made by anyone. Painting the Letters.The final step was the painting of the letters so that they could be read in direct sunlight. In spite of the fact that the passage of time has left us little direct evidence, namely, paint in the letters, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough that the primary purpose of the incised letter is to act as a receptacle for paint.73 The 70 A modern cutter cuts slightly less than a letter a minute on the average (cf. App. II); 300 letters is considered a good day's work for a modern master Italian letter-cutter (Contributions,p. 219, note 15). Taking into account the difference in letter size and technique of cutting, one could probably estimate B's rate of work as between 70 and 100 letters an hour. In one instance we may well have his output for a single workday. His addition in lines 51-56 of 7h totals 422 letters, which is 6 hours of work at the slower rate, almost 4^ hours at the faster. It seems, therefore, very likely that 422 letters represent the output, or the bulk of the output, of one day's work. 71 Cf. Robert, op. cit., p. 212; he describes the secretary's role as one of actively and conscientiously overseeing the work of the cutter. Essentially, the evidence of the present study suggests that in this period in Athens a competent job on the part of the cutter was assumed and, therefore, that there was no active supervision of his work. 72 Extreme examples of uncorrected errors appear in lines 4, 39, 41, 49, and 132-133 of a prytany decree of 220/19 (Agora I 7042, published by J. S. Traill, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 425-431). 73 Catich, pp. 63-67, surprisingly draws the same conclusion concerning large Roman lettering, i.e. that essentially the inscribed letters exist only because they protect and preserve the painted text.

120

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

necessity for paint in the exceedingly bright sunlight of Greece should be obvious.74 In modern times, even at close range, it is impossible

to read any of the lettering on

the south wall of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi during most of the day because of the glare.75 Paint was the essential item for legibility. In addition to the traces of red paint in the letters on the upper part of 20 (cf. Peek, Kerameikos,III, A5), there are unmistakable indications that B cut his letters with painting in mind. In 3, line 26, he depended on lack of paint to render the incompletely erased letters in effect illegible; he relied on paint to make the kappa a beta in line 17 of 6, and, in fact,, it is likely as Klaffenbach,

Gr. Epigr., p. 46, has more generally suggested, that many inadvertently

omitted letter strokes were added in paint.76 The usual assumption is that the painting was done all at once at the end; it is entirely possible, however (and I lean more and more to it), that, like correcting, painting was done at intervals as the work progressed. A day's work would then consist of cutting, correcting, and painting X number of letters. Erectionof theSteleandPayment.One assumes that B usually worked in his own shop. 7 the place where it was to be set up and be transported Thus the finished stele had to beto as to whether the secretary, who had This affords no evidence set in position. study conev responsibility for erecting the stele by the formula Kal acrrjaa, r.X., eayopa, make it decrees The of else. B this or with someone for tracted with plain provisions the Kara at a was a of there division that level; secretary higher responsibility only took care of getting the stele inscribed and set up, the bursar (-ratdias TCv paid for it. B, therefore, had dealings with both of these officials. The rT7parTtWTLKwv) various guilds and associations doubtless had similar officials who handled these TpvTraveLav

matters.

74 Larfeld, Handbuch,I, pp. 206-207, asserts that the letters were painted and cites inscriptions from the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. He also interprets Thucydides' reference to I.G., I2, 761 aplv8pols ypa4LJuaaL(VI,54,7) as indicating that the paint had faded or been worn away. A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentaryon Thucydides,ad loc. and R. Meiggs and D. (M.) Lewis, A Selectionof GreekHistorical Inscriptions,no. 11 offer similar explanations. 7 The photographs on Plates 22-30 were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. during the first week of February, 1967; this was the only time of day when the lighting was sufficiently oblique that the shadows made the letters stand out. 76 Robert, op. cit. (note 60), p. 211, observes ". . la peinture pouvait etre une occasion et un moyen de corriger des fautes; " he cites a specific case from Delos and gives in note 3 references to other examples. 77 At least twice, however, he packed up his tools and took them to blocks already set up in order to do rather extensive work (5, lines 48-91 and 7, the record of the Pythais). In these cases, he clearly did not supply the marble.

II2 1028 CUTTER: CAREER AND HABITS OF INSCRIBING

121

CONCLUSION

B as an Individual. The fragments which survive constitute a small remnant of B's total output. Two inscriptions alone, 1 and 2, belong to the period of his work on Salamis. In fact, we have significant evidence only for the last decade of his career, presumably when he was at his height. Despite the loss of the greater part of his work, the extant fragments do give an invaluable impression of him as a craftsman. Making a move from Salamis to Athens at age 35-40, B came to be one of the leading practitioners of his craft. From this alone, we may infer that he possessed a certain amount of ambition comined with sufficient intelligence and talent to realize his ambition. Serifs provide very convincing evidence of his superior talent for cutting letters. Only a man who had developed truly remarkable chisel technique could cut economically the vast number of extra strokes required for letters with serifs. Although the internal evidence of the texts can give no real idea of intelligence, it is apparent that B was a thinking letter-cutter and not simply a rote copier. We have seen him on one occasion, for example, second-guess a secretary (7h, line 2) rather than accept as unquestionably correct the text which he was given. Similarly and more significantly, the large number of errors which he made do not simply condemn him as careless, rather they indicatethate at times he had difficulty in concentrating on the task of copying. Doubtless, his mind wandered. Clearly, he was not someone who, being a dullard, could mechanically reproduce whatever was put in front of him without suffering the effects of tedium. B's individuality is most clearly revealed by the way he placed the text on the stone. He created careful margins, striving for a reasonably even right margin78 and employing the converse of indentation as a means of giving visual clarity to left margins (supra,pp. 49ff.). Most striking of all, he used frequent blank spaces as a means of articulating visually the interior area of the texts (supra, pp. 95-99). In addition, he scrupulously avoided placing letters in the interline (supra, p. 110). His intent obviously was to aid his reader's eye by minimizing distracting clutter and by creating helpful visual articulation. He was, therefore, more than ordinarily sensitive to the visual impact of the inscribed text upon the onlooker and was prepared to go to some trouble to achieve the desired result. On the basis of present evidence, it would be idle, and probably counter-productive, to make further inferences concerning B as an individual. Although we still 78 7h provides some indicative comparative evidence. Hand X left a very uneven right margin in lines 37-50 (P1. 39, a), apparently because he was unwilling or unable to divide a word between two lines. Thus, if he could not fit an entire word onto a line, he began a new line. In lines 51-56, B inscribed much closer to the edge, creating a more regular margin and utilizing as much of the space as possible (P1. 39, a). He was, it seems apparent, inclined to leave blank space when it enhanced the appearance of the inscription and gave it clarity; by the same token, he was not ready to allow uneven marginal spacing which wasted space and detracted from the appearance of the inscription.

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

122

know comparatively little about him, we can perceive that he exercised some demonstrable, however modest, intelligence and creativity in the course of his work. These are not insignificant traits to identify in a man so far removed from us. B as Representativeof the Letter-cuttersof his Day. Although the present study deals only with B, the results have, I think, a wider application. The strong tradition of Athenian lettering, evidenced especially in the design of preambles, combined with the inevitably conservative influence of an apprentice system, renders it highly probable that B is representative of the master cutters of his day. Greek letter-cutting, as seen through the study of his work, has emerged as unique in many ways when contrasted with the practice of Roman79 and of modern cutters. In the process, we have also been able to establish the truth of Wilhelm Larfeld's observation: "Sehr interessant und von grosster Wichtigkeit fur die Epigraphik ware angesichts der Steine eine Untersuchung der Frage, ob ... in einer bestimmten Periode die Niederschrift der amtlichen Attischen Urkunden durch einen und denselben Schreiber erfolgt sei" (Handbuch,I, p. 192). The practices which set Attic cutters apart, although they interact dynamically, may conveniently be summarized under two headings: 1. Technique of cutting: a) the stem-cutting technique with a vertically directed chisel predominated; b) the letters were usually small and, in design, conceived as a series of straight lines (supra, pp. 86-88). 2. Layout: a) complete and final layout before inscribing was rare, perhaps unheard of; b) the letters were not pre-drawn on the surface to be inscribed; c) centering played no important part (supra, pp. 115-116, 118-119). These practices were evolved, it appears, to enable Attic cutters to inscribe their very long texts in the most efficient way possible. The Greek cutter such as B, who was trained to engrave public decrees, had to be master letter-cutter who was experienced in solving the complete letter-cutter-the all the problems associated with producing the finished inscription. He was more than a mere letter-cutter, for it was he who received the text and cut from it, following his ownjudgment, notsimply cutting along the lines of a prepared drawing as in the modern and Roman shops. The skill and training necessary to inscribe long decrees in this manner are rather considerable. It is not surprising, therefore, that a man, once he had mastered the trade, cut many inscriptions. B, in short, represents one of a small, but highly skilled, class of Greek artisans.

79

As known to us through the Gordons' Contributions.

APPENDIX I EDITING ERASURES

The system generally employed is that proposed by the Leiden convention. Although the aim of that convention, largely successful with regard to epigraphy, was to establish a generally recognized system ofsigla for editing ancient texts, it could not fail to have certain drawbacks. In editing inscriptions, the most serious difficulty has been in dealing with erasures. The source of the problem is that the system as developed was primarily for writing which has two dimensions, but has been applied to epigraphical texts, which have three. The Leiden system proposed that original texts which had been erased and not re-inscribed should be enclosed in double square brackets. Second texts inscribed in rasura were not to be indicated with sigla in the text but were to be discussed in the commentary. The main problem is at once obvious. Most extensive epigraphical publications follow the example of I.G. in publishing the texts with a minimum of commentary. The result has been that second texts inscribed in erasures have been noted neitherin the texts nor in the commentaries. A few scholars, recognizing that it was not always feasible to include a commentary, reverted to the pre-Leiden box for indicating second texts inscribed in rasura. S. Dow's text of 5 in Harv. St. Cl. Phil., LI, 1940, pp. 111-124 is one example. In addition to the problem of the second text, what is to be done when some letters of the original text are discernible under, as it were, the second text? S. Dow has suggested a system for handling these problems on pages 8-9 of his Conventionsin Editing, Durham (North Carolina), 1969; it may be summarized as follows. Double square brackets will be used to indicate all erasures. Unless otherwise marked, the matter in these brackets is to be construed as the remains of the originally inscribed text. When the first text is obliterated entirely and a second text is inscribed in rasura,it shall be indicated with double square brackets and the superscript notation "Second Text". When parts of both texts are legible, he proposes that the originally inscribed letters be printed in the text in double square brackets with the superscript notation "First Text" and that the altered version be printed in the margin or commentary with the label "Second Text ". Although cumbersome, this system would be satisfactory, if it were not for the fact that most erasures, as the present study amply demonstrates, are not suppressions, damnatiomemoriaeand the like, but corrections made by the mason in the course of his work. Thus, if Dow's system were adopted, very often it would have the unfortunate result of presenting in our printed texts letters 1 This assumes that the editors perceived the erasures but had no space to discuss them in the commentary.

124

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

which the mason considered incorrect and wished to suppress, and of relegating to a subsidiary position the letters which he wished to be read. This does not seem desirable; our texts should reproduce as accurately as possible the text in the form intended to

be read by those who passed by. With this in mind, I suggest that Dow's system be simplified as follows. Let double

square brackets be used to indicate a change made by the mason himself, or a coeval, in the originally inscribed text;2 let the matter enclosed in these brackets be the final version, i.e. as changed, and let all areas enclosed in double square bracketsbe discussed fully in commentary accompanying the text. The Detection of Erasures. The most efficient method of detecting erasures which

were made by cutting away the stone is to use a bright light held nearly on the same plane as the inscribed surface. This immediately throws a shadow across any depression

in the surface of the stone. The effectivenessof this technique is illustrated by Plate 39, b, c. In the first, the light was on the left side and several feet in front of the inscribed surface; in the second, it was moved above and back until it was almost parallel with

the surface. Touch is useful for determining the exact limits of an erasure, for where the erasure begins and ends there is usually a definite ridge which, very often, can be felt more

easily than seen.

2

This change will usually be an erasure made by cutting away or abrading the stone; occasionally, it will not be, technically speaking, an erasure, but simply superscriptionof one text upon another.

APPENDIX II A MODERN MASTER LETTER-CUTTER1

Before cutting, the letter-cutter carefully laid out the text by drawing in pencil with the aid of a rule horizontal guidelines and a vertical line in the center so that the text might be centered on it. Asked to cut some letters, his impulse was to lay out block letters 0.03 m. high. He drew the letters in with a pencil by eye, freehand, relying on the aid of a five drachma piece to make the omikron round. He employed two basic tools: a short-handled, rather heavy, metal-headed hammer and a long-handled, all metal chisel with a blade ca. 0.008 m. wide (P1. 40, a). In cutting the letters, he drove the chisel along in a furrow by a series of short even taps with the hammer. No attempt was made to complete the furrow in one cutting, but instead the chisel was driven over the surface three or four times (P1. 40, b). An even, deep furrow resulted, the ends of which were trimmed off last to their final shape. Similarly, the omikron was cut by driving the chisel in an even curve (P1. 40, c). The mason rotated the block 180 degrees after he had finished half of the letter.2 Asked whether letters were ever cuit without being pre-drawn, he asked in turn, "Would you make a house or a pair of shoes without a pattern? " He emphasized that the layout and writing of the letters on the stone beforehand is more difficult and timeconsuming than the actual cutting. He alone did this work in the stone yard, but many were competent to cut once the letters had been laid out. Asked how errors were minimized, he said that the pre-drawn copy was checked over meticulously, one person reading to another, before cutting was done. And this appeared, with problems of layout, to be the primary purpose of the letter-by-letter layout. In reply to a question concerning the physical exertion involved in letter-cutting, he said that one could cut eight hours a day without physical strain though the eyes became tired. A good workman, he said, could do fifty letters an hour. What bearing does this have on ancient letter-cutting? Theodoros Mastores himself gave some indication when asked to cut small letters patterned after a squeeze of Hand B in 5. At first he said that he could not, that he did not really have proper tools and, although he then drew some letters with his pencil and cut them with the pointed corner of his straight-edged chisel, they did not have the same appearance, despite his 1 This

appendix is based on observations made during a visit to the Mastores Marble Workshop, Nea Ionia, Athens. The cutter was Theodoros Mastores, part-owner of the yard. Rebecca C. W. Robinson and Professor Sterling Dow organized the demonstration. In addition, S. Dow has read over an early draft of this and kindly allowed me to consult his written notes made during the demonstration. 2 The reader may wish to consult an experienced letterer's description of his own cutting procedure; see Catich, pp. 75-89.

126

THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON

professional touch, which the ancient letters have. The strokes of the letters for one thing were not perfectly straight. A suggestion that such letters were cut with vertically directed stem cuts was met with a stout denial that it was possible to cut letters in this manner; but, in the same to inscribe breath, he added that modern letter-cutters are not able (Sc'v 1JTropovI,E) small letters comparable to the ancient ones. He also stated emphatically (thinking that we had misunderstood, we asked him to repeat) that ancient letter-cutters used superior tools and cited an ancient capital in the Agora-he had done much work on had a garnet embedded in it. The the reconstruction of the Stoa of Attalos-which ancient cutter had cut right through it with apparently no trouble; in a comparable situation he was helpless and only dulled his tools. It seems clear from this that, although Theodoros Mastores performs approximately the same task, with nearly the same tools and in the same medium, and, thus, faces many of the same problems as his ancient counterpart, it does not necessarily follow that he produces the same product or employs the same technique. The preceding sections of this study indicate the contrary.

INSCRIPTIONS CITED (References are to pages) ATHENIAN

AGORA INVENTORY

NUMBER

I 286

(Hesperia,XXIV, 1955, 220-239) 2 note 2, 44, 86, 104 I 642 (Hesperia,XV, 1946, 225) 2 note 2 1 note 1 I 851 I 989 (Hesperia,XVI, 1947, 169-170) 2 note 2 I 1250 (Hesperia,VII, 1938, 127-131) 2 note 2 I 3394 (Hesperia,VII, 1938, 9ff.) 95 note 24 I 3668 (Hesperia,XXIII, 1954, 242) 2 note 2 I 3804a (Hesperia,XXIII, 1954, 241-242) 2 note 2, 10 I 3939 (Hesperia,XXVI, 1957, 77-78) 2 note 2 I 4547 (Hesperia,XXXIX, 1970, 311) 86 note 6 I 5238 (Hesperia,XXX, 1961, 260) 2 note 2 I 6053 (Hesperia,XVII, 1948, 25-28) 96 note 27 I 6471 (Hesperia,XXXII, 1963, 22) 2 note 2 I 7042 (Hesperia,XXXVIII, 1969, 425-431) 119 note 72

EPIGRAPHICAL

MUSEUM INVENTORY

NUMBER

12675 (Hesperia,IV, 1935, 171-172) 2 note 2

FOUILLESDE DELPHES, III, 2

20

102

INSCRIPTIONES GRAECAE,

1 77 106 398 761

12

xxi xx xx xx xx, 120 note 74

INSCRIPTIONES II2 GRAECAE,

73 959 986b 991 995 1006 1008 1009 1011 1012 1029 1030 1032 1033 10341 1036 1039 11321 1133 1134 1332 1634 1960

xx 1 note 1,10 1 note 1 xix 68 note 15 44, 101, 104 44, 101, 104 95 note 24, 104 44, 101, 104 101 101 1 note 1, 95 note 24 xix, 1 note 1 2 note 2 note 1, 79, 80 80 82 note 1 86 note6 86 note 6 86 note 6 81 xix

2323

xxi

2453 xix 2458 1 note 1 3503 45 III KERAMEIKOS, A6 86 note 6

INSCRIPTIONS

STUDIED

OR EMENDED

The principal discussion(s) of each inscriptionwill be found on the pages indicated by bold-face type.

ATHENIANAGORAINVENTORY NUMBER I 717 (joins 112 1028) 2 note 2, 3, 32 note 6, 45

I 1773a 1 note 1, 3 69, 88, 89, 106, 108 I 1773b (part of II 989) 23 I 1773c (part ofII2 989) 23 I2945 3,56,69-70,88, 117 I 3318

(part of II2 2336) 26 note 4

I 3320

(part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4

I 3321 I 3323 I 3456 I 3810

(joins II2 1028)

3, 32 note 6, 47 I 3871a 3, 70 I 3871b 3, 71, 106 I 4026 (joins Agora I 3871b) 71 I 4037

I4176 I 5044 I 5045 15225 I 5734 I 5919 I 6169 I6171 I 6648

(part of II2 2336)

26 note 4 (part of II2 989) 23 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 (joins II2 2336) 3, 26 note 4, 28 (part ofII2 1023) 2 note 3, 77 (part of I 2336) 26 note 4 2 note 2, 3 71-72, 84, 89, 106, 107 (part of II 989) 23 (part of II2 989) 23 (part of II2 989)

23

DELPHI MUSEUM INVENTORY NUMBER

4689

(joins FD III 2, no. 6)

4744

2,49 (joins FD III 2, no. 31) 2,55

EPIGRAPHICAL MUSEUM INVENTORY NUMBER

344 649 2514 2725

5228 5260 5581 7598 7599 7600 7601 8035

8074

(joins II2 2336) 3, 31 1 note 1, 3, 6 note 14, 72-73, 89-90, 97-98, 110, 118 note 64 (part of II2 1028) 32 note 6 (part of II2 2336)

26 note 4 3, 73-74, 106, 108 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 1 note 1, 3 74, 89,93, 100, 106 (part of II 1028) 32 note 6 (part ofII2 1028) 32 note 6 (part of II2 1028) 32 note 6 (part of II2 1028) 32 note 6 (joins II2 1028)

3, 32 note 6, 42 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4

12799 (part of II2 2336) 26 note 4 FOUILLESDE DELPHES, III, 2

6 48-49, 110 10 and 2 49-53, 67, 94 note 19, 100, 110, 111, 117 13, col. I, 7-8 67 13, col. II, 8 67-68 13, col. II, 15 68 16 59, 109 26 56-58, 110 30, 14 68, 94 31 and 17 52, 53-56, 79, 100 32 58-59 45 58 note 12, 59 48 60-67, 95, 96, 100, 101, 105-106, 110-111, 115, 118, 119 note 70, 121 257 58 I12 INSCRIPTIONES GRAECAE,

989

1 note 1, 2, 6 note 14, 23-26, 69, 72, 84, 85, 88, 93, 96-97, 98 note 32, 99, 102-103, 106, 107, 108, 111, 114, 117

129

INSCRIPTIONS STUDIED OR EMENDED 1023 1028

1136 1227 1228

1 note 1, 2, 6 note 14, 45, 74-77, 8990,93,98, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 114, 116, 117 xxii-xxiii, 1-2, 5-9,12, 15,32-48, 64, 80, 85, 88-89, 90, 92, 93 note 18, 95-97, 98, 99, 100, 103-105, 107. 108, 109, 110 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120 2, 20-22, 85, 86 note 5, 93, 99, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110-111, 114, 118, 120 2, 15-18, 85, 88, 90-91, 92, 96, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109, 111, 114, 117, 118 1 note 1, 2, 6 note 14, 12, 18-20, 85,

1341 1942 2336

4991

88, 90, 93, 98, 99, 101-102, 105, 107, 108, 109 note 48 1 note 1, 2, 77-78, 93, 100, 101, 106, 108, 118 note 64 1 note 1, 2, 12, 79 80, 89, 93, 100 xxii, 1, 2, 6 note 14, 7-9, 12, 26-32, 85, 86 notes 4 and 5, 89, 90 92, 95, 98, 99, 111, 114, 115, 120 note 77, 123, 125 2 note 3, 12, 80-82, 89, 90, 117

ICERAMEIKOS,III

AS 3, 82-84, 88,93, 120

100,

103note42, 117,

GENERAL A ABBREVIATION:

in II2 1028, 47-48, of formulaic

phrases in, 41, 43, 45, 97, 117 Abrasion, as a means of correction, 22, 110. See also Erasure(s), Mistakes Additions. SeeLate additions Alphabet(s): archaic Greek, xiii; epichoric, xiii; of Hand B, 90-92, 95. SeealsoLetter(s), Letter shape Andrewes, A., 120 note 74 Antenor, sculptor, cutter of a group of inscriptions, xxi Apprentice system, influence on Attic cutters, xix, 122 Archaism(s), a possible problem for the study of epigraphical hands, 4 Argeios, Athenian archon, 78 Arrangement: of whole inscriptions, 97-98; of preambles, 96-97. See also Layout, Perfect design, "Vacats" Athena, decree honoring the maidens who wove the peplos for, 79-80 Augustus, i.e. Imp. Caesar Augustus, xvii B B. SeeHand B Bates, F. 0., 46 Beazley, J. D., xviii, xx, 6 Blank line(s), 28, 45, 46, 52. Seealso "Vacats" Blank spaces. See"Vacats" Boegehold, A. L., xiii note 3 Boethius, A., 52 note 11, 67 Bousquet, J., 65 Brackets,double square, used to indicate erasures, 12, 123-124. Seealso Sigla Broneer, 0., xxi, 101 C

R., xiii Casson, S., xvi note 14, 5 note 12 Catich, E. M., v, 87, 89 note 15, 94 notes 21 and 22; 119 note 73 Centering, not characteristic of Greek inscriptions, 116, 122. Seealso Symmetry Chinese calligraphy, individuality of, xviii Colin, G., xx, xxi, 49, 51,55-56, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67 Columella(ae), 85. Seealso Grave monuments Correction: done during course of work, not at end of, 119; erasure the most common method of, 110; general discussion of, 109-114; in the interline, 65, 66, 110; in the margin, 110; lack of meaningful, 109-110; methods of, CARPENTER,

INDEX 110; reveals careful work and checking, 51, 52, 58, 68. Seealso Erasure(s), Mistakes Crowding, in an erasure,indication of (relatively) late correction, 110 Crown(s): alignment of, 26, 108; awarded to kosmetes, 44; development of, 108-109; engraving of, 107-108; erasures in, 42; erasure of, 46, 105; general discussion of, 101-109; guidelines, 102, 103, 107; headings of, 46-47, 78; in relief, 76,106, 107-108; not centered, 18, 101, 102, 105, 116; not drawn in prior to cutting, 22, 107; on prytany decrees, 72, 102103, 106; order of precedence of, 103 note 44, 104-105, 109; painted, 103 note 43, 106, 108; provide evidence for dating, 69, 108-109; size of, 108; ties of, 47, 74, 105; types of, 108; unique number and organization in II2 1028, 103-105 Cutter, a modern master: mode of inscribing of, 86, 125-126; relation to ancient cutters, 125126; tools of, 125 Cutters: ancient Attic, characteristicpractices of, 122; French, 87; Italian, 87; modern, technique of cutting, 86-87, 125-126 Cutters, individual ancient: associated with particular organizations, 86; difficulties involved in studying, xviii-xix; criteria for identifying the work of, 1-2, 3-4; individuality of lettering of, 95; labeling or naming, 6; study of, xviiixxiii, previous, xix-xxi, procedure for, 3-5, systematic, xxii-xxiii, 1-3; usefulnessof studying, 4; work of S. Dow on, xxi-xxii, 1 Cutting. See Inscribing D DAMNATIOMEMORIAE,not, statistically, a frequent

cause for erasure, 123. See also Erasure(s), Mistakes Daux, G., 48 note 9, 49, 52 note 11, 64, 68 note 14 Delmouzou, D. P., 12 Delos: no inscription by B known from, 73; search of epigraphical collection on, 2, 12 Delphi: Pythais to, xxii, 26, 52, 58 note 12; Siphnian Treasury at, 59; Treasury of the Athenians at, xx, 85, 120, erasure rare on, 52, inscriptions on, xxiii, 48-68, 89, 95, 120, special rules for inscribing on, 52, 68, 118 Demetrios of Phaleron, xvii Dinsmoor, W. B., Sr., xvi, 45, 69, 76 note 18, 96 note 25 Diocletian, Roman emperor, xvii

131

GENERAL INDEX Dionysiac artists: buildings connected with, 78; cutter associated with, 86; organization which required the work of skilled cutters, 86 Dittenberger, W., 41, 89 note 15 Dittography: may occur when the cutter looks back at the wrong place in his working copy, 111 note 52; specific examples of, 22, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 58, 64-65, 66, 111; tabulation of occurrences of, 112-113. See also Erasure(s), Mistakes Dossier of inscriptions by Hand B: establishment of, 1-3; composition of, 2-3. See also Cutters, individual ancient Dover, K.J., 120 note 74 Dow, S.: Introduction on The Study of Lettering, xiii-xxiii; edition of Agora I 1773a (Prytaneis 161-162), 69, ofII2 989, 23, ofII2 2336, 26, 27 note 5, 85 note 2; on Bowdoin College alphabetic list from Smyrna, xxi; on painted crowns, 103 note 43; on sigla for erasures, 123; on the order of precedence in the citations of Prytany decrees, 103 note 44, 105; on the perfect design, 96 note 25; on "vacats," 95 note 24; reading and comment of on II2 1028, 45; study of EM 649, 72-73; work of, on Hand B, xxii, 6, on Hellenistic Athenian letter styles, xvi-xvii, on individual cutters, xxi-xxii, 1, 3 Drawings: liable to subjectivity, 4; useful for studying hands, 5 Duncan, U. K., 5 note 12, 86 E Athenian archon, 8 ECHEKRATES,

Engraving. See Inscribing Ephebic decrees: letter height, 89; crowns of, 104-105; order of officials listed on, 105 Epheboi, crowns awarded to, 104 Erasure(s): detection of, 124; disadvantages of, 52, 110; editing, 123-124; sigla employed to indicate, 12; specific examples of, 22, 28, 29, 32,41,42,43,44,45,46-47, 49, 51,52, 55, 56, 58, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 84, 115; study and interpretation of, 109-110; unusual on the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, 52; valuable evidence of cutter's procedures, 12, 114. See also Mistakes Errors. See Erasure(s), Mistakes Eyestrain, a significant factor in cutting, 68 note 17, 125 F

FERGUSON, W. S., xvi, 44, 109 note 47

Foreigners, listed on ephebic decrees, 47 Forgeries, a possible problem for the study of epigraphical hands, 4

Formulae, in II2 1028: abbreviation of, 41, 43, 45; omission of, 44, 45. Seealso Abbreviation Furrow cutting: used by ancient Attic cutters for curving strokes and large letters, 88, 92; used by modern cutters, 86, 125-126. See also Stem cutting G xiv GERASA, Gomme, A. W., 86 note 7, 120 note 74 Gordon, A. E. andJ. S., v, 115 note 56, 122 note 79 Graindor, P., xv Grave monuments, none (apparently) cut by Hand B, 85, 92 Guidelines: drawn as part of preparation for inscribing, 118; incised, required of cutters who worked on the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, 52, 68; examples of, circular (for crowns), 102, 103, horizontal, 30, 31, 53, 56, intervals measured, 118, vertical (to serve as margins), 51, 55, 56, 64, 67 H HAND B: associated with officials in charge of the

Pythais, 86; career of, 85-86, 121-122; concern of for appearance of his inscriptions, 121; lettering of, 6-9; origin of name, xxii, 6; representative of the master cutters of his day, 122; specialist, 85-86; talent for cutting, 121; work of S. Dow on, xxii, 6 Hand X: assistant to Hand B at Delphi, 48, 5556, 58, 65-67; from Athens, 68 note 15; lettering of, 48, different in style from lettering of Hand B, 95; use of "vacats," 95 Hands: epigraphical, the study of to be equated with the identification of the work of individual cutters, 3-5 in palaeography and papyrology, xviii; of II: 2323, xxi; of II2 2336, work of S. Dow on, xxii, 1; on ostraka, xxi. See also Cutters Haplography: occasion for, 111 note 52; specific examples of, 18, 29, 43, 44, 52, 58, 64, 65, 67, 111, 115; tabulation of occurrences, 112-113. Seealso Erasure(s), Mistakes Hekatompedon inscriptions, xxi Henry, A. S., 44 note 7 Higgins, C. G., 4 note 11, 9 note 21, 87 Huxley, A., 102 note 40

I INSCRIBING: correctionduring, 119; general mode of, 115-120; physical exertion involved in, 68 note 17, 125; preliminaries to, 115-118; rate of, 119, 125. See also Cutters, Furrow cutting, Stem cutting

132

GENERAL INDEX

Interline: correction in, 110, avoided by B, 110, 121; letters in, 56, 64-65, 66; size related to size of lettering, 99-100 Iota adscript, B's practice regarding, 100-101 Ivy, crown of, 104. Seealso Crown(s) J

JEFFERY,L. H., xiii, xxi

Joins: proof that B's hand could be recognized, 3; similarity of lettering an aid to finding, xix; specific examples of, 26 note 4, 28, 31, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 55, 65 K KERN,O., xiv, xv Kirchner, J., xiv-xv, xvii, 73, 81, 82, 88 Klaffenbach, G., xv, xvii, 51, 64, 66, 88, 115 note 56, 119, 120 Koehler, U., 20, 31, 41, 78, 79, 81 Kosmetes of ephebes, 44, 104 L LARFELD,W., xiv, xxii, 89 note 15, 109 note 49, 110 note 50, 111note 51, 112 note 54, 115 note 56, 117 note 63, 119, 120 note 74, 122 Late additions: in lists, 46; to the texts of the Pythais inscriptions, 55, 67-68 Laurel, crown of, 102. Seealso Crown(s) Layout: general discussionof, 118-119; letter-byletter not necessary or economical for most Attic inscriptions, 115-116, 122; of FD III 2, nos. 31 and 17, insufficient thought given to, 55; of FD III 2, no. 48, 66-67. Seealso Guidelines, Inscribing Lazaridis, D. I., 18 note 2 Leiden convention, for editing ancient texts, 12, 123. Seealso Erasure(s), Sigla Lethen, M. L., 23, 103 note 42. Letter(s) (of the alphabet): broken, 112; elaborated, 76-77; key, 5, 7; large, 76,88, 89-90, 92; round, xix, 5; small, common on ancient Greek inscriptions,xix, 87-88,89-90,122, uncommon on modern inscriptions, 87; synopsis of B's, 90-93; which tend to reveal distinguishing peculiarities xix, 5. See also Cutters, Letter height, Letter shape, Letter strokes, Stem cutting Letter-cutters. See Cutters Letter cutting, Roman: large letters common to, 89 note 15; substantially different from Attic, 88, 89 note 15, 122 Letter height: determined to a large degree by the technique of cutting, 87-88; may vary within a single inscription, 89; survey of, 8889. Seealso Letter shape

Letter shape: dependent to some degree on Letter height, 88, 92; general discussion of, 90-94; letters conceived as a series of single lines the mainstay of Attic cutters due to stemcutting technique, 87-88; principal criterion for assigning inscriptions to individual cutters, 3-4; uniformity of, 7-10, 90-93. See also Cutters, Letter(s), Letter height, Stem cutting, Style(s) of lettering Letter strokes, omission of, 87 note 12, 109, 114 Letter styles. SeeStyle(s) of Lettering Lettering. See Inscribing, Letter shape Lewis, D. M., xx, 120 note 74 Linear B tablets, xviii Lists of names, on inscriptions, 47, 70, 104, 116117, 118 Loewy, E., xv Lykourgan lettering, very small, xvii, xix M MARATHON,epigram, xxi

Marble: easily scratched and chipped, xviii, 86; types of, 117-118. Seealso Stele(ai) Marcade, J., xv Margin (s): B's general treatment of, 121; general discussion of, 99; in the Pythais inscriptions, 51, 55, 64 Masons. See Cutters Masons' marks, difficult to discern style of, xv. Seealso Cutters, Letter(s) Medeios: Athenian archon (101/0 B.c.), 8, 78; priest of the eponymos, 84 Meiggs, R., xx, 120 note 74 Meisterhans, K., 100 note 36 Meritt, B. D., xv, xx, 6 note 13, 70, 72, 117 note 62 Misreading: relatively common cause of cutting mistakes, 112-113; specific examples of, 42, 45, 52, 64. Seealso Erasure(s), Mistakes Misspacing: common error, 109; examples of, 22,32, 42, 46, 47,55, 111, 115 Mistakes: general discussion of, 109-114; generated by haste, 68, 112; high frequency of significant, 109-110, 114; provide evidence of cutter's procedures, 12, 114; table of B's, 112113; types of, 110-114. See also Correction, Erasure(s) Mitsos, M., 28 N NIKOPOULOU, Y., 48 note 9

0 A. N., 45 OIKONOMIDES,

Olive, crown of, development, 108-109. See also Crown(s) Omission, in II2 1028, 118 Ostraka, hands on, xxi

133

GENERAL INDEX p PAINT:for crowns, 103 note 43, 106, 108; general

discussion of role in process of inscribing, 119120; need for in bright light of Greece, 120; used to correct mistakes, 76, 120. See also Correction, Crown(s), Erasure(s), Prepainted text Parthenon, 76 Peek, W., 84, 103 note 42, 120 Pelekidis, Ch:, 45 note 8, 47 Perfect design, in preambles, 96-97. See also Preambles, "Vacats" Phocian dialect, source of two mistakesin FD III 2, no. 48, 64 Photographs: usefulness in the study of hands, xv, 1-2, 4; volumes of, xv Polunin, O., 102 note 40 Pomtow, H., 22, 58 note 12, 64 Preambles: arrangement of, 96-97; "vacats " in, 96. Seealso Perfect Design, "Vacats" Precedence, order of: in crowns, 107, 109, of ephebic decrees, 104-105, of prytany decrees, 103 note 44, 105 Prepainted text: hypothesized to explain missing letter strokes, 112 note 54; mistakesreveal nonexistent, 115-116. SeealsoLayout, Paint, Texts Pritchett, W. K., xvi, 4 note 11, 9 note 21, 87 Prytany decrees: letter height, 89; crowns of, 103 Ptoan sanctuary, xx Pythais. SeeDelphi, Pythais to R 111 note 51, 115 note 55 Reinach, S., 111 note 51 Reinmuth, O. W., xxiii, 47 Robert, L., 82 note 21, 116 note 60, 118 note 69, 119 note 71, 120 note 76 Robinson, R. C. W., xvi Roehl, H., xv Roman lettering. SeeLetter cutting, Roman Roussel, P., 73 Ruck, C. A. P., xxi RAUBITSCHEK, A. E., xvi, xx, 5,

S SALAMIS:B a native of, 85, 121; crown awarded

by demos of, 104; decrees of cleruchy of, 15-20, 85 Sarapeion in Athens, 13 (EM 649) found near, 73 Serifs: alien to small letters, 94; B's use of, 6-7, 8, 10, 15, 67, 76, 90-94; difficulty of measuring letters with, 88 note 14, 99; distinctive, xxi, 6-8, 78, 92; general discussion of, 92-94; natural on large letters, 94; omission of, 68,

74, 93-94; origin of, 94; peculiar position on horizontal strokes, 6-7, 93; require significant additional work, 93-94; slow to appear in Attic lettering, xiii-xiv, xvii, 94; use of as a means of dating, 92-93 Sigla, 12, 123-124 Skiotis, D. N., 18 note 1 Smyrna, xxi Standard, inscription chosen as: definition of, 4-5; II2 1028 as, 5-6 Stele(ai): damaged, 26, 70, 117; erection of, 120; types of marble used for, 117-118 Stem cutting: advantages of, 87; definition of, 86; results of, 87-88, 94; not used or deemed possible by one modern cutter, 126; used by ancient Attic cutters as the principal means of inscribing, xix, 86-88, 122; used in some cases by modern cutters, xvi, 87. See also Cutter(s), Inscribing Stoichedon, disappearance of, xvii Stroud, R., 118 note 69 Style(s) of lettering: archaic, xiii; as a criterion fordating, xiv-xv, xvi-xviii; Hellenistic Athenian, xvi-xviii, list of, xvii-xviii; period styles, xiii-xv; unsatisfactory as a unit for study, xviii, xxii. Seealso Letter(s), Letter shape Sulla, xvii Sundwall, J., 74 Superscription: common mode of correction, 52, 110, 115, 124 note 2; examples of, 29, 46, 52, 56, 58. SeealsoCorrection, Erasure(s), Mistakes Syllabification, rule of, 43 Symmetry: characteristic of short texts laid out letter-by-letter, 116; in 7d (FD III 2, no. 26), 58; in 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), 66-67. See also Centering T TECHNIQUEof cutting. See Furrow cutting, Stem

cutting Technitai. SeeDionysiac artists Tetrapolis, Marathonian, special position in Athenian Pythais, 52 Texts, to be inscribed: long, common to Attic epigraphy, special problems in cutting, 87, 115-116; not written out on the stone prior to inscribing, 66-67, 115-116; written in capital letters, 116 Theater of Dionysos, lettering on seats of, 89 note 15 Themistokles, name of on hoard of ostraka, xxi Tools for inscribing, xvi, xx, 5 note 12, 9, 91 note 16, 125-126. Seealso Stem cutting Tracy, S. V., xx, xxii-xxiii, 3 note 9 Traill, J. S., 119 note 72

134

GENERAL INDEX V

"VACATS," in epigraphical

texts: as a type of

punctuation, 7, 64, 98; B's use of, 6-7, 19, 43, 47-48, 76, 95-100, 121; emphasizing proper names, 98; indicating an abbreviation or omission, 41, 44; left by the cutter at his own discretion, 95-96, 97; size of, 99. SeealsoBlank line(s), Margin(s), Preambles, Perfect design

Welles, C. B., xiv Wilhelm, A., xiv, xx, xxi, 20, 76, 104 note 46 Woodhead, A. G., xv, xxi Working copy: evidence for nature of, 46, 53, 65, 95-96, 101 note 37, 116-117, 118; mistakes in, 51, 52, 109. Seealso Cutters, Inscribing Wreaths. See Crown(s) Wycherley, R. E., 78

W

z

WADE-GERY, H. T., work of on one cutter, xx,

3, 9, 86

ZIEBARTH,

E., 81-82

No.

?'

\ijst~..c

6

,:5xsiLA4

' .~

~:-??

.

:' ':~ "' "~ ~~~~~~~~~~~.A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 r*L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'' ;- ~r~ . : '"'?* 'Ir.:~''~'i'c? iow C~~~~~~2?. 1

-*

0,A+

~:!~'!51

:r;i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

' ~~~~~~~ ~ :J~, ';'

t

~ *'~..71I~I...~.,2 :. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-4

~41

,ti iiSr;? :~i ::~?

:.~:~?-:x4i "::,i t

~~~

A

-eI~O

~~~ i~?, ~~i

No. lines 6 (12 1028), a.I~

102

10~

~

.

?rr *' '~i~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~. ~~~~ ..

. ....

~~~~

.":: "~'

i:? ".'liiC~i

.....

. .-

.

b.

288 t3

290

' ~

..

:.

c.Lettersfrom

;

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;"'~ ~ ~ ~

;~ i,,2 "!:"i

I ~~ .... .1-:. 292~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .i i? 71::. XN M

i: .~~~~~~~~~~1

207

"9

. ;._.~...

" ..'":''' ~:'":""';':''" ?.:...P "i:'

'9 i?

? a. No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 102-107

*kjiib

"?.~ :.:

.i, ?

,,..

244

~.

No.

310~~

b. No. 6

c. Letters from

PLATE 2

a. No. 5 (II2 2336), lines 51-61

b. No. 5, lines 83-88

PLATE 3

a. Agora Excavations I 3804a

.

b'i

..

:

9 IIr b.I.G.,L 't _..

~*<^ ~ ~

I'

?td

c>

b. I.G., 112 959

W

'^.*^f

::

IA

^l

_???i

:'i

PLATE 4

C.)

r. 6 dz Z

CM CM

-

PLATE 5

a. No. 2 (II2 1228)

Fis^^^^

cp

cr

.

C.o 00 O.0-4 -) C>0

B*

B

"

I-

PLATE 7

_-_

C,-

,.

a

4

_

i

,. -;

cn~~~~~~~~~

co

6~~~~~~~~~

0

4

6D U,

zl

U,

.

z

PLATE 8

Fr. E

Fr. FI

EM 7586 'Fr. B)

No. 4 (II2 989), fragments A, B, D, E, F

a. No S;ti...

;.

4s ,=

l.

fragmfi$S , p . ~w e~~~~~~~ ent# s C an G

.

PLATE 9

:-'..:*iamn'.....': ;.C and .G w: .'':, !~ a.No.4II

K1,.~

f.

..

...

:....

~~~~; ~ ~ 'a~ 4, ..... 4. fragment C? an

L

17

rr

.fX

V v"?-t*rs..............

jBj

W ..?? eSt}

*

X

~

/y

: " ? aK6agr i'~

t'l..Me

<

r_~Sbi

% wgyR

*"-

S

f i-. jlE

ts

?4-

r~~~~*a :

t^o

sgi;-

c;

:I.

j5

^tiat

X

.l

W. F

C;

::

2t

:'. .......... .$~"" .............. :S,St'. ?sj >j,,

2.

,., #t ,,Fi.t ;?

VfXF

s

y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

;

.^rSJA.:

s

....W

j

t5~

b. No. 4, lines 18-21

r.j>,>

s.i

v

.~- ~*SI t; WC

Z >1 a

"

i

_

*@'s

'i:

"slf+

.t

t

. #

.,.isWX

"

....S;d0

:" -

.s sS

;

ws.XA

PLATE 10 NI~L~C

'

*i1

4-.- s

\

s....

r

_t

V1-s

a- V-

^->. --ew

P N

a. *P. atAl s

,,,i ?,

...'... ^ ^.-w

K.,

* ''t'i^ 'r\
ri

b

A *m

w*.a

b.

s

.,oS -^rS

'rs'.'v

s

PsSl~_i~

-

~Xt

4t; . < ~".i "At?'"."

.' - *

Xt

^

..<

i? *p _.3

t\

P

&'-rt

t *."

..........-

^

t ,$

S

4e

.._A

o t

,

r

1f

.

'4.t25r

^^^^
'"

zJ .:

_\

"D

* ,

*

:.

'.

-

~

'

OiA,tt*id,., **

? .i"I?;

tr ilw

:r

.2.i.

:.

i

,,..t,, .._

.

.~ ~:% . ...

^

t:si-^?;3

??r

^

a,4

.

t

lSs t r _

!t*,

.

<s'

Ni

' .

'_

^ ,

.: ..* ,, . ..

.^-.,,

' ;Tt.

-

t.s.4

1'.r

'

.,-:

.% ; . ;,, -~.?

... <'*,, *:

*Iso r '*0.*'

*.

.

r

*<* +'-*.o

'--*

.

's^^.'^--C-3^.^ -i ^

P^F

.-~

^

,,

i

.

,HY

\*z?;

<*';S: 5-

ai

x '-.

,.ZI1

:-

.

?

^

..' -

, .;-.

-

\,;

....

s, '.*, 'v *^ * : *'

t

_;

. 4t''

a. No. 5 (II2 2336.) lines 46-93

H-

C)

s-

LO LD v,

6

zd

cr Qr Z

.

PLATE

.

.....

12

44.... -Rh _:. 4. ....... *s ....?- i ".

Hand B (237) :

Hand X

:

'*

*T

Hand H *:':. .-....?:;.:s. FH cHani?d ?if HX: | ;;'w .....i ,....

Hamd B l243s)

I

-

w

L,

if

s. _ . .. ...

'.: . " .. . . :

:S.

:/,:

.."'. ....,... ' T?. ?

.

i'1').r.

..."

_ *-4 fs

,. A

???

",.&.

*i!~t:

.-'.. :'

i,

~, ??E

,

.... ?

"

?'.:,?

. ... ,... ..., ,':'.r"':: .:;. ..'' . ". ,'.bL :,,.*.,., '.

Han

. .............

r'::,. 4| .i?.;. ,,, ,.-X,,,,,

U *.if

?' .':::

.

.t

?ii

" . ' . ..

._^?WR ?..

^; '........

_i:*

^

.' X

s

_.,.. iie

:, S;

4, 5S,$?e ?to

'.. :

j

:':,:-..

s^ ..

"Nt- *

Hand

.4l11

:

......ss,

:

',...:'

'

e

#

..:.. :i.w......!:'.

?

*Hand....... G

d:.X ~~~~~Hai-in~d~ . . .e I If

* .

k

|s

.

.

Hand B (262) Hand (C .:aEEi I!:i

?t:?:.-: :P ?r:?:: :%::. .L:

? IE:"u*k;u...,. %: r: Tbt:: ar:?iii. C .b :5 iii*.... .::

*?

i4

'*

.

:

z:

Hand B (270) No. 5 (II2 2336), lines 237-270

.s.

'

?bipj,ii? l:li!?? w ai??i? ?t:g'?.?:x I ii? :il. ::?:. ijyg ?:;!:?

PLATE

a. No. 5, lines 268-271

b. No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 16-19

c. No. 6, lines 23-26 * _

t"1a?^

X^A

:s

&r ,t.^:,..<M '

.

13

PLATE

14

a.o. :: ('I2 6

1028),lines58-65 (crown1)

a. No. 6 (12 1028), lines 58-65 (crown 1)

b. No. 6, lines 66-69 (crown 2)

PLATE " t

XKi_*'.....

..

,.'

;

.

.

s-* r

4

4%::

Ij,>i^" l

E

-,:,,

:.

,

'''

s

w?

.

:,,.

^

.

.

?,I

s .cE~~*l AN. '_v

^.S

.?

_^t~~: r:

,s,, .^

:

a. No. 6, lines 72-76 (crown 3)

?:::n "`b.

iliii ::jy

r'

7( .'Cr: ?-"?: ;:

*:

IEi?P:

'*:`

9;i

1

".:isLe:" .,plir

b. No. 6, lines 79-84 (crown 4)

,.

15

'

PLATE

16

.

CEe;;~P,d

Y

???-

~~~~ [f: b*11

?

-T -a a.

q

k>

_

_

..},,n

~~~~~~~~~ I,

4

'-4'

X- A

"-:

-

. :s t s't'

-

44r~ ~~~~ ~ 4-+

I~

R

3&l-q.*if `:1

77

4

AJ: :4~iLy;ii, Fi;3i

i

;

Ot

?3

7A

_

..s,/ .... .....

a. No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 91-99 (left side) ??

* t

?-

,h

?cit: \L B.

i-?

,i irg;a?: ?31C, :r

3*1 .,.,..

1 fs $x ?': ,-sr O ''

P

I,a r C?

?I ? p I;iY r

'?

a: ;? LP.S6ier i. ' . :c:i? ?jpiII:,

. qa ..

b. No. 6, lines 91-100 (center)

:ci '3ci

'F"

-??"r,

z ?rrrlyC r,

??

:::,:;

'444"

*va. ::??

*fc? 'Ji

a **)IISr

IIL; * lr3"Cll*,

"5? -

;; :rrr,M?;i? ;21e

1"81i;fJii%ltlSY*c*%. .jr Ilp*LL .;*C.' , ?I? ncsikc ."

ig:. t?::

iEi

atc4,

c.

???? -Cryt -

ze

`"L

iio

*^

fi:i? ??:i>k lf9 .?F "??;i .?:i:'F%anU:uRC1* ?.??::: iuL b? " L L ?al*"

.CY; ?

.lu

.J?

,x. '''

'tYa*rQ

*

-

-??U? ?I"a

.a?

4)

ug;,trS

BT:?,.;9?

*? *,

t.

..* lu;.T*

I '" -$ clC

?s:X. x? :

I

r? : 'SL-

r: ;E:

c r-J

r

?

.r

PLATE 17

a. No. 6, lines 106-109 (center)

b. No. 6, lines 113-118

c. No. 6, lines 121-128 (right side)

PLATE

18

a. No. 6 (II2 1028), lines 152-157 (left side) ?-

.

., t

-

,..

.,' .

I ?. ,

s

b. No. 6, lines 154-157 (right side)

c. No. 6, lines 182-185

1 .

~

-

? _

PLATE . Y... K

.'.x:: A

:

]

*

: *:,'.:t

,,* .

.

*;

:,::..

L

9i 4

,:

I

a. No. 6, lines 212-217 (right side)

-i`t

;-ti$ *Irr. *;? ? ;t ''1Z;? it*;if? ?* a

t,

..*

:.2?: rr.x

?, ::.??.YL;.'?"r

a13'

?F . 'L:lt.

s::%:?:l?

??*

.

i ??" ;a

??,.

'*?? -II; .?:.1 r?L"?*l

b. No. 6, lines 213-215 (center)

k:'

19

PLATE 20

.

No.

6

(2

1028),

lines

242-245

(center)

a. No. 6 (112 1028), lines 242-245 (center)

PLATE 21

a. No. 6, lines 246-249 (crown 6)

b. No. 6, lines 295-298

'5

r ,.

;k

r

" ?:

'i. _.

f. i.

.4,

PLATE 22

. ...I... . .. .i

: .?8p

a.

No. 7a (FD III 2, no. 6), lines 17-21

b. No. 7b (FD III 2, nos. 10 and 2), lines 13-26

PLATE 23

,

' gii

.

......

t .::..:.:.

eye*t. a. No. 7b, lines 47-57

b. No. 7b, lines 58-65

a. No. 7c (IFD III 2, nos. 31 and 17), lines 1-26

b. No. 7c, line 11

c. Delphi Museum inv. no. 4744

PLATE 25

II 0

LO

~LO

~0E

Q)~~~~

in -EF

E~~~~~~~~~~~ C1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

'R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C.

0.

PLATE 26

a. No. 7d (FD III 2, no. 26), lines 1-14, 25-35

b No. 7d, lines 63-65

PLATE 27

a. No. 7g (FD III 2, no. 16)

b. No. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 2-3

PLATE 28

"........

~~~~~ril ~ ~

A

... ......

...(

:;:;~~~~~~~~~??:?i

:d

7X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::. -O~ ~~~ ?s:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;:: 'Ir:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... ..

:

......

.

.........

...

..

.

:::::1:a.;::.

a. No. 7h (FD III 2, no. 48), lines 6-10

b. No. 7h, lines 10-12

*t;

* *'i**:;?: . ;:5 Sir ' pF ;dt};r;

.,, :*;

;:,** .. .: *.

*> *

,' ,

* r

......

..

^'

. ,' | '

r -i'

*

,,

'

:. *,,: 3'

.

il -

== 1 ===' ,j:?'Yf'ft == ;=;== ==: .,,== =<-=,=,.==,===== ...' *:Gt== .:::5, ::::* . . .. is., ...

?l

4iC

.. ::i!:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLATE 29

a. No. 7h, lines 19-23

.. .:.. .

b. No. 7h, lines 24-26

......

PLATE 30

a. No. 7i (FD III 2, no. 13), lines 3-20

b. No. 7i (FD III 2, no. 30), lines 9-14

PLATE 31

a. No. 8 (Agora Excavations I 1773a)

..:

r ?

J

~:~

~..

.~.

~....

:.,..~::r.~ B

?

.~Er: 1

:t4

1::4~

-*ZB

??I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i.

d:

*? .B.. ..

X

b. No. 9 (Agora Excavations I 2945)

?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...

~

~

~

ia*~ ~i2 :~""i"i?:it::i~~l~~e"~iI~?~~~ rlE~?~.iit

-*".:*

a.

.~':.

:,

~...' ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:? :::;.:::5i~?: .::%.

a.No. 12(Agora Excava~~~~~~~L''ltf?iions L~~~I 519

c. No. 13 (EM 649

b. No. 12, lines 2-3

PLATE 33

a. No. 14 (EM 5228)

a. No. 16 (EM 2745= II2 1023a)

b. No. 16 (Agora Excavations I 5225)

c. No. 16 (EM 8743 = II2 1023b)

PLATE 35 !*;_ 1 IE.:

Imol.

..... ...

-

~

"' ,

c^~~~~a

J.. !

T ILA Mg

a

I in

CM

o

z

PLATE 36

a. No. 17 (II2 1341)

c. No. 20, lines 19-21

b. No. 20 (Kerameikos. III. A5)

PLATE 37

si:

-o

0. W.x

i~~~~W

wI

Ca .LESjy

t='~'F"

-,

'!

I- ' , i

"0

.4,

ri2

:T

;,,gon,;,~~~~~I

zV >1 -0 Hd -0 V c'n 0

..i.'':

Cld

I

I

jY

r

:!L

a. No. 6 (II2 1028), line 131

b. No. 6, line 131

d. No. 6, lines 85-90 (crown 5)

c. No. 6, line 131

e. No. 7f (FD III 2, no. 45), in revers

PLATE 39

LO

?

'"~

t~~. f~i ?:I ?. t

:

,

,,.

??,

I;??.*,

IN'

L'

......

.

i?.

?

i

?,

.

.o

Z~'.,;

1*

..

:

f,,M.. i

cc ~'~

'

,,,.

.. ... ..

+*;r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! i~~~~~~:~"

,'i.

:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L

Mt

CQ

;1

rt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f ?

uT~u

sk:r

'2

"41~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.e

.:?~~iiii?

;:iiit~~~~ai?il;;~~~;;FcftPtEe~~~~~EYiiiii~~~~i~~ ~ ~ ???:...::.....':ii," ""~~~'art?'rcu~~~~~~~~eg~~?~ L_n*~~?~~ E~E~~ s~~Zj ~~~i!I;~ :r:-:i::i::?:::--ll?: ?:::.::.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !??% :.::::::::::1~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11, ~~~

~ ~~IT::r)::il;:i~t~ii;!;.:"i:~:..~. ' ?:-;l~:( i( /: ii::-:~:a-;rr: ,ii::::::::n:::?:iiiitf:

??:::i::ll;?:..:::::.:::

.....~

,2.:

?? '

/??? ....... :iil :,

??.....:ii ;:?: ??~~~~~ iii:?(YI r ??.iii!i~!1:~

?

i:::i:~:'I

???;:~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;

liiiiti:icit:j:'P?"c":::'rr,! ,lie~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:?i:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;.: .!i: .:~?? Modern etter-cutteri .... TheO Tools ofa a.~~~~~~~~~::

c. Cutting a Curving Stroke