2 Charles E. Bennett, 



6. The two inscriptions published by Deecke in Bezzen- 

 berger s Beitrdge, xi., p. 315 f. 



7. The reading of Collitz 134 as published by Prellwitz 

 in Bezzenbergers Beitrdge, ix., p. 172. 



The inscriptions discovered in Cyprus during the last year 

 have not as yet been published. It is to be hoped that they 

 may add to our knowledge of the dialect. 



As regards the inscriptions published by Deecke in Col- 

 litz's Saninilung, I have been compelled to doubt the general 

 correctness of one or two of the longer ones, and mention this 

 here that more weight may attach to what is urged below 

 against particular forms occurring in these inscriptions. The 

 inscriptions are Nos. 6'^, 69, and 126. • 



No. 68 is the longest of the inscriptions in the Cesnola 

 collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 

 The characters are quite clear in the main, to judge from 

 Hall's fac-simile {yonrnal of the American Oriental Soeiety, 

 X., Plate iv., 13). The divisors are also plain. But unmis- 

 takable as several of the words of the inscription seem to be, 

 e.g. yaipere, line i ; ^eot?, line 2 ; a{v)6p(0'Tre and ^ewi, line 3 ; 

 ird{v)Ta and a{v)6p(t)'7TOt, line 4, yet there are other words 

 exceedingly doubtful, especially ttotl, f)]^^, ipeia'r]<; in line i ; 

 epepa/xeva and 'Tra{v)raKQpacno<i in line 2 ; ov, i'TnaTal'^, aX(X)' 

 eruT^' a K)']p in line 3 ; and KVfieprjvai and ^poveool in line 4. 

 These words are doubtful not only from the uncertainty of 

 some of the characters contained in them, but more espe- 

 cially in view of their peculiar and irregular formation (see 

 below for the separate cases). Furthermore the interpreta- 

 tion which Deecke seeks to estabhsh for the whole inscrip- 

 tion (see Bezz. Beitr., vi., p. 78 ff.) is so forced and far-fetched, 

 that I cannot believe the reading which yields such a sense 

 to be correct. Several words as ttotl and ermaTat'i, even if 

 formally correct, cannot have the signification which Deecke 

 attributes to them. Even the metrical structure of the verses 

 (Deecke claims four hexameters) to which Deecke appeals 

 for the confirmation of his results, is extremely harsh, involv- 

 ing the lengthening of the final i of ttotl, the lengthening of 



132 



