7
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
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 ex- pected 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 respec- tively 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 con- sistently does not extend down to the base line, e.g. the mu's in lines 54 and 61 (P1. 2, a).
8
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
METHODOLOGY
By contrast, in II2 1028, TeptLEoa(oreS) 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, though significant, are minor in comparison with the similarities, for 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 wide- bladed 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. Wade- Gery, "A Distinctive Attic Hand," B.S.A., XXXIII, 1935, pp. 122-135, where, how- ever, he does successfully identify four inscriptions by one hand on the basis of width of 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. Else- where 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.
9
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
THE LETTERING OF AN ATHENIAN MASON
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 every terminal 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 and general shapes of the letters conform to B's letterttering to a high degree. In addition, 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.
10
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
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.