The Postscript of the First Attic Quota-List McGregor, Malcolm F Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1967; 8, 2; ProQuest pg. 103 The Postscript of the First Attic Quota-List Malcolm F. McGregor I N RECENT years Professor W. K. Pritchett has devoted considerable attention to the lapis primus of the Attic quota-lists as reconstruc­ ted, restored and interpreted by B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor.1 His initial essay appeared in 1964;2 he argues that evidence of anathyrosis and a "ridge" may be seen on the tops of fragments 1, 3 and 4, that the stele bore a large crowning member or finial, possibly a sculptured panel, that fifteen lists were inscribed in order on the stone, and that List 8 was cut on the reverse surface of the now missing finiata In his scheme our Lists 7 and 8 become Lists 6 and 7. Pritchett returned to the subject in the following year in a study devoted primarily to "The Koan Fragment of the Monetary Decree." 4 The latest exposition of his views, however, was published in this journaP Here Pritchett reiterates his belief that the first stele was capped by a superimposed piece of marble, "possibly containing a sculptured panel," weighing perhaps more than half a ton; CC ••• aes­ thetically speaking, a sculptured block above might have added a 1 The Athenian Tribute Lists I (Cambridge [Mass.] 1939); II, III (Princeton 1949-1950). 2 "The Height of the Lapis Primus," Historia 13 (1964) 129-34. 3 Pritchett of course denies that line 1 of the present List 9 is the prescript. He extends the list higher on the stone. For this problem see my discussion in Phoenix 16 (1962) 267-75 with the bibliography. In Pritchett's investigation of the prescript of List 8 there is an error in the Greek (130); on 133 he puts Lists 8-13 on the obverse rather than the reverse. 4 BCH 89 (1965) 423-40, especially 437-9. Wade-Gery, Hesperia 14 (1945) 213 n.4, noting that the mason of List 9 began to cut well below the top of the stele and so left a sub­ stantial uninscribed surface, cited IG 12 304B as a parallel. " ... we now recognize that this parallel, too, was false; see BCH 88 (1964), pp. 455-81" (Pritchett, 437 n.3). I make two ob­ servations: (1) Pritchett has misinterpreted the inscribing of IG J2 304B, as Meritt has proved in TAPA 95 (1964) 204-12, and the document remains a true parallel; (2) Pritchett's own theory about a crowning member and an inscription on its reverse creates a parallel (which, I assume, he does not want) in the uninscribed area that would appear above List 14 on the left lateral surface. 6 "The Top of the Lapis Primus," GRBS 7 (1966) 123-9. 103 104 THE POSTSCRIPT OF THE FIRST ATTIC QUOTA-LIST great deal to the appearance"-although the monument is already some twelve feet high. He withdraws the term anathyrosis but he again urges that List 8 was inscribed on the reverse of the finial.6 Pritchett's theories about the top of the lapis primus have already been refuted by Meritt.7 I have nothing to add to what I have already written concerning. the prescript of List 9 and the missing list.s What does concern me now is Pritchett's attack on the readings of fragments 4 (IG 12 197, formerly thought to be the prescript of List 7) and 5 (EM 6742a), now recognized together as part of the postscript of List 1 on the right lateral surface, as published in ATL I and II. I have a particular interest in fragment 5. In the summer of 1934 I went to Athens as the emissary of Allen West to read the quota-lists in preparation for what emerged as ATL 1. My notebook shows the following entry, dictated by West: "IG 1. 550, Rangabe 248. Does 197 go with 192? Does EM 6742a join top frag. of 197?" In the Epigraphic Museum I met Wade-Cery, who had identical ideas. We worked together, removing the plaster from the vidnity of fragment 4. Under his direction my hands set fragment 5 in its proper home alongside fragment 4. This was the join that transformed our conception of the first two assessment-periods; it explained why IG 12 197 (the supposed List 7) seemed so short, it revealed that List 1 had as a postscript a summation of the quotas, and it led inevitably to the conclusion that in one year no list had been inscribed (the missing list). Fragments 4 and 5, in their new context, were not, and are not, easy to read. Wade-Cery's version, in his publication of the discoveries of 1934 and their implications, was as follows:9 5 . . . . . . . ~ • • • • • ~ • E •••• 1TLOV:K •• • pyVpLO: .. XXHHl:f6.6. 10 .pVULO{1Vp,. f}'9!'·P. EUKV ~hEX 6 On 127 he calls it the obverse. 7 "The Top of the First Tribute Stele," Hesperia 35 (1966) 134-40 with plate 42. 8 "The Ninth Prescript of the Attic Quota-Lists," Phoenix 16 (1962) 267-75. 9 BSA 33 (1935) 101-13 with plate 14. I number the lines as in ATL I and II, List 1. MALCOLM F. McGREGOR 105 "The reading of line 11 is very uncertain: the other readings of the original fragment are pretty sure .... I do not attempt to transcribe the very dubious letter before 7T£OV in line 7." The placement of frag­ ment 5 facilitated the reading of fragment 4, which up to that time had been difficult.lO Wade-Gery at once concluded that we have here a summation, first of silver, then of gold, of List 1. Meritt examined the fragments in Athens and published his text, with which Wade-Gery agreed, in 1937:11 6 10 ••• E 9 P E ••• pLOV:K • f!.PYVPLO: .XXHHHAA .pVULOUVI!­ EVO:~.cpf!. EUKV f!.hE~ This is the text adopted in A TL I and II, with the significant dots of punctuation in line 11; the three authors were in full agreement and share responsibility for the text and restorations. Pritchett asserts (I use his order of treatment) that (1) the circular letter in the sixth stoichos of line 11 is not a phi because "the original surface is preserved in the center of the deeply eroded area, and there can have been no vertical bisecting the letter"; (2) in the next stoichos nothing can be read, "the triangular depression at the very bottom ... the basis for the alpha . .. is much too deep to afford any evidence"; (3) in the fourth stoichos of line 11 there is no suggestion of nu (Wade­ Gery) or kappa (Meritt) and "~[EJcp~[A(XLOVJ must be regarded merely as a restoration and one that contradicts the traces"; (4) in the second stoichos (Pritchett misleadingly writes "third") of line 11 "there is no suggestion of a nu ... there are broken markings on the unweathered surface which might suggest anyone of a number of letters, including a nu"; (5) he cannot see the epsilon read in the first stoichos of line 11, "unless the circular hole above but to the right of the epsilon in the line below is regarded as evidence" ; (6) he is sceptical of the chi read in the fourth stoichos of line 13 because the alleged upper left-hand tip begins O.068m. from the left edge whereas the corresponding distance for the 10 See, e.g., SEG V (1931) 7. 11 Documents on Athenian Tribute (Cambridge [Mass.] 1937) 61-6, with drawings and restoration. West also had studied the squeezes. 106 THE POSTSCRIPT OF THE FIRST ATTIC QUOTA-LIST chi in the fourth stoichos of line 9 is 0.064; (7) there is no trace of a cross­ bar to the reported H in the eroded seventh stoichos of line 9 and "the sign for fifty drachmai might have eroded in the same way," thus we cannot be sure what the numeral was; (8) the same applies to the fifth and sixth stoichoi of the same line. Pritchett's conclusion is that "the reading KEcPuAaLov in line 11 cannot stand, and there is sufficient doubt about some of the other letters and numerals ... the text ... the problem of the collection of 454/3 B.C. need restudy." In a note he expresses misgivings about the recording of staters in words rather than in acrophonic numerals. 1 consolidate these objections and examine them in their textual order.12 (1) LINE 9. The numerals HHH were read by Wade-Gery, by Meritt and by me, all from the stone, and have not been questioned until now. The surface of the marble where the chisel has cut is deeply eroded, though the surface is preserved between the sixth and seventh stoic hoi and the seventh and eighth. The first two numerals may be easily identified within the erosion in the photographs in Wade-Gery and in ATL I fig. 7 (p.9). The second is not so obvious in Pritchett's photograph. Still, this is the surest of all. No one doubts XX ... At::. and no one believes that a third chi was inscribed or that a delta preceded the two certain deltas; the middle one of the questionable trio must therefore be H. My squeezes leave no doubt whatever: on the first two numerals the cross-bars are quite clear, the four verticals actually stop at the proper level at the base of the stoic hoi, and the right hasta of the first shows a clean join with the horizontal; this first symbol is affected comparatively little by erosion and is unmistakably H. The third figure is also H. The photograph in ATL I certainly fails to sup­ port a horizontal (1 should hesitate to make this statement on the basis of Pritchett's photograph). "The erosion begins much higher in the stoichos and takes the form of two deep valleys" (Pritchett, 129). Yes; but what Pritchett fails to notice is that the right-hand valley stops precisely at the foot of the stoichos, i.e., where the chisel ceased to cut (my squeezes are striking confirmation); and that precisely at the top of the stoichos there is a significant break in the left-hand valley, i.e., where the chisel ceased or began to cut. So we have two deep 12 I use the photographs of ATL I as well as Pritchett's, two squeezes of fragments 4 and 5 made in 1934, a squeeze of fragment 5 produced by my student Michael Walbank in 1965, and my notes written in Athens in 1934. The squeezes are good ones. MALCOLM F. McGREGOR 107 valleys, the right-hand one narrowing for about three-quarters of the stoichos as far as the foot. The symbol for fifty drachmai is thus out of the question. We now have XXHH .AA, i.e., H is certain, whether or not the horizontal was cut. I must remark that, if we are to be dis­ turbed by the absence of a cross-bar, we should be twice disturbed by the absence of two of them. if we are to contem.plate reading the symbol for fifty drachmai. My squeezes in fact hint that the horizontal was indeed cut, perhaps faintly. But I am willing to forego dogmatism until I see the stone again and in the meantime read H, undotted, with absolute confidence.13 (2) LINE 11. Of the first letter my squeezes reveal a horizontal, with a slight upward slope, along the base of the stoichos, ca O.009m. in length at the bottom; this is about the same length as the middle horizontal of the epsilon in line 12 (but measurement is a hazardous undertaking). There also survives not much more than a suggestion of the right-hand end of a middle horizontal. Both traces are correctly located for epsilon, which Wade-Gery read in 1934. My squeezes leave me without confidence in Pritchett's" circular hole" and in his photo­ graph. All epigraphists know that photographs can deceive; compare, e.g., ATL I fig. 7 with Pritchett's plates 8 and 9. The squeeze, on the other hand, is not dependent on the vagaries of light and shadow and focus. Of the letter in the second stoichos I identify on my squeezes most of the left-hand sloping hasta; the top perhaps disappears in erosion. A diagonal stroke, as in nu, is all but complete and the top at least of the right-hand stroke is present. The slopes are exactly right for nu (I use the undisputed nu of line 7 for comparison). The width of the letter is correct, the join of the diagonal and the right-hand hasta is appropriately high in the stoichos, and the right hasta is also charac­ teristically high. Again, the photographs help little if at all. I leap to the fourth stoichos, where I detect on my squeezes the bot­ tom half of an upright on the left side of the letter-space and a diagonal running up to meet it at mid-point or perhaps a little higher (in the stoichos) from the lower right; that is, the traces fit kappa. But the erosion is severe and gives a distorted impression of the area where the join should take place. 13 I cannot overemphasise the evidence of the squeezes, which remove all doubt from the reading HHH; I do not dot anyone of these numerals. I have been unsuccessful in persuading the camera to reproduce what the squeezes show so unequivocally. 108 THE POSTSCRIPT OF THE FIRST ATTIC QUOTA-LIST A ruler connecting the horizontal of the first letter with the verti­ cal of the fourth just about touches the left-hand stroke of the second. I return to the third letter, study of which I postponed because the reader of stone or squeeze will be well advised to employ a straight­ edge to locate the surviving traces of the chisel. Once the outlines of the stoichos have been identified, there is no difficulty in reading omicron. Just below and to the left (on the stone), a freak of weathering has left on the squeezes another circle, interlinked with the true omicron, which is high in the stoichos, not touching the base (compare the omicron of line 8). We have now reached the sixth stoichos, where Wade-Gery read a dotted rho and Meritt a phi. My notes remind me that I had trouble with this letter and at different times in 1934 contemplated pi, rho and omicron (this was before any attempt to restore and interpret frag­ ments 4 and 5).14 Pritchett concedes a circular letter. I find uncon­ vincing his argument that the bisecting vertical cannot have been present when I view the faint verticals in the phis of E'Tp€cpaa'io" raMcpaw" and tPaa€A'i'Ta, of List 1.15 The squeezes allow the top of a circular letter, no more. Epigraphically, I think, this letter is omicron or phi. The "triangular depression" in the next stoichos is at the correct height for the top of a letter. It is slightly to the right of centre (as is the first delta of line 9). The erosion, to be sure, is deep; but in its out­ line it is nonetheless just what we should expect to find of the badly eroded apex of alpha or gamma or delta. Epigraphically, we are justi­ fied in reading anyone, with a dot.16 With some hesitation I report that there is on the squeezes just a suspicion of the top of a vertical on the left side of the next stoichos. I suspend judgement until I see the stone. (3) LINE 13. The fourth letter was read as a dotted chi by Wade-Gery, by me and by Meritt; in 1934 I noted that, epigraphically, the letter might be upsilon. What survives is the upper left-hand tip of a diagonal. Pritchett sees this but calls it a "small nick in the marble" and com­ plains that it lies O.004m. further to the right than the chi in the fourth 14 The top of a badly weathered circular letter (rho, omicron, phi) may easily be mistaken for pi. There is no doubt about the rho of line 7, which both Wade-Gery and I first read as pi. 15 Column 4, lines 14, 15, 24. See the photograph in A TL I p.8. 16 Pritchett's photograph (plate 8) is of no value for this stoichos, as my squeezes prove; compare also the photograph in ATL I. MALCOLM F. McGREGOR 109 stoichos of line 9 above. It is far more than a nick; it is the tip of a diagonal, approximately parallel to the corresponding diagonal of chi above it in line 9. A straight-edge run down the stoichoi will demon­ strate that the letters of this postscript are not perfectly spaced or centred. If we ignore the "nick," we must assume that whatever letter was incised in this stoichos was inaccurately sitedY I do not hesitate to read a dotted chi (epigraphically, a dotted upsilon is possible). The length of line in this prescript has been established by Meritt as twenty letters18 and Wade-Gery and I agreed. In line 7 we must restore [&pyvlpLOv. The genitive [TO] 4pyvplo in the next line and the numerals in line 9 lead inexorably to the restoration of lines 6-9: [xop~s 'T6 'TE] [&pyvlpLov :K[ cx~ 'TO xpvalov J ['ToJ q.pyvplo: [KEcpa'AcxLOv ~v] [ .. ]XXHHH.il.il[ .... ~~ ..... ] Obviously, we have before us a summary of silver and gold. The total of silver begins in line 8. We now look for the total in gold and, not surprisingly, we find parts of the anticipated formula at once: [xJpvalo aVI!-. To restore [x]pvaLo aVI!-[ 7TCXV'TOS •• ~ •. ] in line 10 is auto­ matic. Since line 11 begins fVO: and we have EaKV in line 12, then surely we can complete line 10 to give [xJpvalo aVI!-[7TCXV'TOS KV~LKJfVO, fol­ lowed by the punctuation (compare the similar punctuation in line 8: qpyvplo:[ KEcpa'AcxLOv h J). I am driven to believe that KECPd.'AcxLOV is now inevitable. We have the total in silver, here is the total in gold. The kappa, I think, is largely on the stone; we must therefore interpret the circular letter in the sixth stoichos as phi rather than omicron and the next letter as alpha rather than gamma or delta: [x]pvalo aVI!-[7TcxVTOS KV~LK] fVO: K[EJ~4['ACXLOV ~ •.• 6 ••• J If no trace whatever of KECPd.'ACXLOV survived, we should be compelled to restore the word. What shall we say now of [ .. ~ . . ]WKV in lines 11-12? How can 17 The only possible letters that might not show some traces in the preserved surface are alpha, gamma, delta and iota. 18 DAT 61-2. Mathematically, twenty-one letters are possible, but we allow for sym­ metrical margins. 110 THE POSTSCRIPT OF THE FIRST ATTIC QUOTA-LIST [UT