DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0151
140 The Archaic Artemisia of Ephesus.
ways, perhaps by Temple fees, or the proceeds of collections in the Temple (by
the <f}id\r) ?). Unless iyivovro k.t.\. be interpreted in a sense in which I do
not believe, there is nothing in the document which seems to me to recall the
well-known fact that the Artemision acted as a bank. Dr. Keil suggested to
me that this fact was implied in the clause beginning <Lv 8' epya£d/xe#a; but it
seems to me that the verb has a more general sense in this passage, and refers to
all that has gone before—to the sums of which avvew is used, as well as to the
small addition recorded in the clause lylvovro k.t.X. It should be observed
that, before the Hov S' Ipyatp^tQa. clause, two and a half lines are left blank. This
fact seems to indicate that this face of the plate was intended to record more
items than were eventually engraved upon it : perhaps even the items which are
actually recorded thereon were engraved, not all at once, but at short intervals,
as they happened to accrue. The space left for further items was not needed,
either because income did not accrue, as was expected, or further funds were not
found necessary. But the final statement, which, if icrToiOrjcrav is rightly read,
and has here the proleptic significance suggested for it in text A., is a statement
of expenditure in its first part, had been engraved already, as not likely to be
affected by any further items anticipated.
Text B. then, like text A., is a record both of income and expenditure'..
Sums are gathered in from various sources more miscellaneous than in text A.,
and certain of these, from the mention of fractional values, and, perhaps, from the
use of avveiv and ^iaA.17, one would suppose the result rather of collection than of
such revenue payments in round sums as are recorded in text A. Certain
sums also are, perhaps, " weighed out" for some purpose of expenditure. The
whole text seems a more desultory and piecemeal document than text A ,
made up of items entered at intervals, as occasion required : a record of income,
a record of expenditure, a record of small sums collected, another record of
expenditure resuming previous items of income, and finally another record of
revenue. It is just such a document as might have been supplementary to
that on face A., stating the results of additional efforts to raise funds, after the
first gross appropriations, made by Temple and City, had proved insufficient.
New sources of revenue were perhaps tapped—collections from worshippers,
fees, the surrounding district. That text B. was, however, engraved in the
same period as text A. seems assured by the close epigraphic similarity of the
two inscriptions. Were we dealing with manuscripts, we should say both
texts were by the same hand working at different times. It is a natural
inference, therefore, that it probably has a similar reference, and that, it
text A. records the raising of funds for, and their appropriation to, the buildiii"
ways, perhaps by Temple fees, or the proceeds of collections in the Temple (by
the <f}id\r) ?). Unless iyivovro k.t.\. be interpreted in a sense in which I do
not believe, there is nothing in the document which seems to me to recall the
well-known fact that the Artemision acted as a bank. Dr. Keil suggested to
me that this fact was implied in the clause beginning <Lv 8' epya£d/xe#a; but it
seems to me that the verb has a more general sense in this passage, and refers to
all that has gone before—to the sums of which avvew is used, as well as to the
small addition recorded in the clause lylvovro k.t.X. It should be observed
that, before the Hov S' Ipyatp^tQa. clause, two and a half lines are left blank. This
fact seems to indicate that this face of the plate was intended to record more
items than were eventually engraved upon it : perhaps even the items which are
actually recorded thereon were engraved, not all at once, but at short intervals,
as they happened to accrue. The space left for further items was not needed,
either because income did not accrue, as was expected, or further funds were not
found necessary. But the final statement, which, if icrToiOrjcrav is rightly read,
and has here the proleptic significance suggested for it in text A., is a statement
of expenditure in its first part, had been engraved already, as not likely to be
affected by any further items anticipated.
Text B. then, like text A., is a record both of income and expenditure'..
Sums are gathered in from various sources more miscellaneous than in text A.,
and certain of these, from the mention of fractional values, and, perhaps, from the
use of avveiv and ^iaA.17, one would suppose the result rather of collection than of
such revenue payments in round sums as are recorded in text A. Certain
sums also are, perhaps, " weighed out" for some purpose of expenditure. The
whole text seems a more desultory and piecemeal document than text A ,
made up of items entered at intervals, as occasion required : a record of income,
a record of expenditure, a record of small sums collected, another record of
expenditure resuming previous items of income, and finally another record of
revenue. It is just such a document as might have been supplementary to
that on face A., stating the results of additional efforts to raise funds, after the
first gross appropriations, made by Temple and City, had proved insufficient.
New sources of revenue were perhaps tapped—collections from worshippers,
fees, the surrounding district. That text B. was, however, engraved in the
same period as text A. seems assured by the close epigraphic similarity of the
two inscriptions. Were we dealing with manuscripts, we should say both
texts were by the same hand working at different times. It is a natural
inference, therefore, that it probably has a similar reference, and that, it
text A. records the raising of funds for, and their appropriation to, the buildiii"