INTRODUCTION
This study is divided into two major parts. The first begins with an historical overview, followed by chapters devoted to the Lamian War, the food supply, and Demetrios of Phaleron. The major findings during the course of the work on this study have dictated these last three subjects. This entire section is written with a focus on the primary evidence, particularly the epigraphical texts. It is, after all, from the epigraphical evidence that we learn not only a great deal about Lykourgos' activities, but also (with virtual certainty) the identity of Leosthenes, the Athenian general, hero of the Lamian War. Although the importance of the Thessalian cavalry in that war is well known, it is from the present study that we can discern the continued concern of the Athenians for their ally even in defeat. Inscriptions also provide much of the detailed evidence for food shortages in Athens. The present study indeed enables better dates to be established for several of these texts. Lastly, a radical redating of an important statue base from Eleusis enables a new assessment of Demetrios of Phaleron and his regime. Pains have been taken in these chapters to highlight those inscriptions which are studied in Part II. This first part, then, provides an essential framework for the second, detailed studies of fourteen individual cutters and one prevalent letter-style.
Part II continues this writer's efforts to arrange, so far as the evidence allows, the inscriptions of Attica by individual letter-cutter. The major goal of the present inquiry has been to examine the inscriptions of the latter part of the fourth century B.C. , inasmuch as they are very numerous and very fragmentary. The study of hands can help materially in the task of dating and sorting out the inscribed evidence. A primary further aim has been to assess the effect that the ten-year control of Athens by Demetrios of Phaleron (317-307) had on the production of inscriptions. Was it in fact the case that very few inscriptions were inscribed during this decade?
For this study, which has taken from its inception more than six years to complete, I have systematically examined squeezes of most Attic de-
crees, lists, and inventories datable to the years 340-290.[1] The work has not been easy, for many of these cutters inscribed letters which are very much alike. Patient and repeated study has enabled me to isolate a number of cutters, including, I estimate, most of the major ones at work in the period. Because of the brevity of human existence, however, I have not tried to assign all of the inscriptions of the period. That is a longer task than I have time for, and one that towards its end offers ever-diminishing returns. I hope, however, that what I have been able to achieve will be of use to others as they approach the inscriptional evidence that pertains to this fascinating period of Athenian history.
I have been able to assign quite a large number of the known inscriptions to the cutters included in this study. As always I have been conservative in my assignments and hope, in consequence, to have fashioned in the following pages a work of reference that is both trustworthy and helpful. I have stated my method and criteria numerous times, so I do not repeat those statements here.[2] The inscriptions of the late fourth century offer some special problems. Though individual idiosyncrasies abound and many cutters are easy to identify, these cutters are, in general, more difficult to distinguish than their counterparts in the third and second centuries. Moreover, the accounts, inventories, and leases which constitute a large percentage of the inscriptions extant from the second half of the fourth century are inscribed in the tiniest letters possible, i.e., 0.003-0.004 m. Such lettering allows very little room for individual variation. Indeed, I do not think that it is possible to discern with accuracy individual hands on most of these texts.[3]
Obviously there are few periods in history that can be isolated as naturally constituting a closed body of evidence. This is certainly true of the years 340-290. Although these years saw sharp political divisions in Athens, they are primarily marked by the increasing dominance of the
[1] I have in addition examined most of the dedications and quite a number of the gravestones. As is my habit I have browsed widely in the evidence, so as to minimize the chance of missing an inscription of one of the cutters studied. I kept no accurate record of these forays among the squeezes housed at the Institute for Advanced Study. I have been through the entire run of squeezes from the Athenian Agora excavations at least a half-dozen times; this is also true for Attic decrees numbered in IG II 1 to 1695. Appendix Two lists the decrees to which I did not have access through a squeeze or an adequate photograph.
[2] See "Identifying Epigraphical Hands," GRBS 11 (1970) 321-328; The Lettering of an Athenian Mason , Hesperia Suppl. 15 (1975) 1-11, 90-95; Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monograph 10 (1984) 277-279; "Hands in Samian Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Period," Chiron 20 (1990) 60; ALC 2-4.
[3] This constitutes an analog of the problem of discerning hands in inscriptions which have letters with a height greater than ca . 0.012 m. On this matter see ALC 5-6.
rulers of Macedonia and, after Alexander's death, of his successors. The Athenian defeat in the Lamian War in 322 B.C. , particularly the destruction of the fleet, rendered Athens' ability to play an independent role in world affairs virtually nil. However, the breaks in the epigraphical evidence are not clear-cut, except for the apparent dearth of evidence during the rule of Demetrios of Phaleron.
The careers of workmen overlap the primary period of concern at both ends. I therefore have carefully studied the inscriptions for approximately twenty years before and after so as not to miss any odd pieces by the cutters who were the primary focus of my study. In the course of this undertaking I identified two major cutters who in fact did most of their work outside the primary temporal parameters of this study: one, the Cutter of IG II2 105, was at work almost exclusively before 340; and the other, the Cutter of Agora I 4266, largely after 300. I have thought it worth including them in this study.
The dates assigned to each cutter are, for the most part, the archon dates of his earliest and latest inscription. These dates are convenient and not intended in any way as fixed termini . Clearly chance is not likely to have granted us a dated text from a man's first and last year of work. Rather these dates in most cases provide an approximate floruit . In the case of the undated fragments by each cutter, I have tended to assign a date midway between his first and last dated piece. This again should be understood as a convenient shorthand.
In what follows, I have tried to provide up-to-date bibliographic references to the inscriptions and to note the major contributions of others. I have not included every casual reference or minor discussion. Occasionally I have had to disagree with the reading or attribution of a colleague. I have sought, I hope successfully, to do this in a factual way. One colleague in particular I must mention by name here because I have found that I refer rather frequently to his work, often to disagree, in the pages which follow. This is M. B. Walbank, who has regularly included in his studies of particular texts the claim that X inscription or inscriptions is or are by the same hand.[4] I regret that I have so often had to register doubt about his assignments. This disagreement should not obscure the fact that I have had little occasion to fault his readings.
In summary, the study of epigraphical hands can be a very useful tool to the epigraphist and historian. It is potentially of particular value in dating fragments and determining whether they can be part of the same
[4] This differs from his single article in which he attempts to set forth the work of two fourth-century cutters; I discuss this article below in detail (148-149).
inscription. Hands, however, fall into that category of human endeavor known as stylistic attribution and inevitably involve subjectivity. That subjectivity can be controlled and the value realized if studies are founded on sound methodological procedures.[5] Casual or sloppy work in this area should not be countenanced, for it produces nothing positive—quite the opposite. Unfortunately it is not possible to mandate good practice. Each interested party must therefore critically examine in each case the basis on which an attribution is made.[6]Caveat lector must needs be our motto.[7]
[5] See the first part of my article "Hands in Greek Epigraphy—Demetrios of Phaleron" in Boeotia Antiqua IV, ed. J. M. Fossey (Amsterdam 1994), 151-161 for a further statement of what in my view this entails.
[6] If there is no clearly stated method—there is not, usually—and if there are no adequate photographs to support the assignment, one should feel relatively free, despite the specialized expertise of the epigraphist involved, to ignore the assignment or to take it with a large grain of salt.
[7] When that is done in the present case, it is my fond hope, good reader, that the present effort will pass muster.