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
C

W K

CS

B




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


LA