14 Charles E. Bennett, 



probable. According to him the old formula Iv 'KoXkyiOL koX 

 iv Ipdvai (Coll. 1233, 5) represents the proper use of ev and 

 Iv respectively in Arcadian. [Cf. the similar relation of e? and 

 ei9 in Attic, the former of which was originally used before 

 an initial consonant, the latter before an initial vowel.) At 

 the same time. Arcadian Iv has already begun to encroach 

 upon the legitimate territory of ev ; e.g. Iv afitpaL<; Coll. 

 1222, 4; Ivajovrw 1222, 19. 



In Cyprian, l{v), when used alone as a preposition, occurs 

 only before initial consonants, never before a vowel, rejecting 

 Iv ^A/xu{v)tq), Coll. 41, in view of Deecke, Bes.'y. Beitr., xi., p. 

 317. In composition we have probably one instance of Iv- 

 before a vowel, viz. IvaXaXiaixeva Coll. 60, 26. Ivitrd Coll. 

 126, 3, is too doubtful to admit. Deecke now {Bezz. Beitr., xi., 

 p. 3 19) reads ta ' i ' ne ' ta ' li ' o ' i ', i.e. rd Iv 'HSaXicot, in Coll. 

 62, in place of his previous reading ta ' i '\e' ta • li ' o ' i ', i.e. rai 

 'HSaXtot (locative). This would give an instance of Iv before 

 a vowel. But the character which Deecke now wishes to 

 take as ne ', while perhaps not a perfect e \ is certainly entirely 

 different from the ordinary character for ne ', as seen not 

 only in Idalian inscriptions, but others as well, and the mark 

 after ta' i' as given in Schmidt [Sammlnng KypriscJier In- 

 schriftcn in Epichorischer Schrift, vii., 2) which Deecke wishes 

 to join with the character in question bears every evidence 

 of being a divisor. I can hardly believe therefore that 

 Deecke is right in this new reading, whatever may be the 

 difficulties of the old one. 



The form ev has not as yet been brought to light in any 

 Cyprian inscription, but, under the circumstances, this must 

 not be regarded as conclusive evidence that it did not exist 

 side by side with Iv just as in Arcadian. The only place in 

 which ev might fairly be expected to occur would be before 

 an initial vowel (assuming Spitzer's theory to be correct), and 

 but a single instance (itself not perfectly certain) of this sort 

 can be cited {viz. IvaXaXicrixeva Coll. 60, 26), which of course 

 so far as it goes contradicts Spitzer's theory when applied to 

 the Cyprian. 



144 



