Page images

fainter portion of the inscription was extremely difficult to make out. The following is my reading; smooth mutes being used in the romanizing, for the sake of uniformity, and the numerals denoting the number of the lines:

(1) to.o. [na?] | pa. (or to?) na. * | | to? a (2) te.o.i? | | i.tu.ka.i.|||

In line (1) where I have put [na ?], it is doubtful whether a character ever existed. If one did, na is the present reading, but it may have been pa or to. The place marked by a is * cut away by a deep channeled gouge, as it were. The character put as to? might be nothing more than a perpendicular mark, with subsequent scratches, or it may have been originally ta. I think, however, that to is correct. In line (2) the third character i?; if i is correct, the horizontal mark beneath must be (as I think it is) a scratch; otherwise the character is not known. The horizontal mark appearing beneath the character ia is beyond doubt a mere scratch. The following is all that I feel sure of as transliteration:


(1) το [* ?] * * TODε * * [* * ?] ove9nue * * * * * * * * (2) 9ε * * * * * * * * ¿(v) teμɛvos i(v) tvxa III. That is: "This laid up as a votive offering to the god (dess?) at the sacred enclosure in [good] fortune, III." The room for conjecture in the other parts is very wide. The group after 98 I think is an adjective word or phrase agreeing with 98 which last word is of common gender in Cypriote. It is needless to record other, as yet fruitless conjectures.

PLATE I., No. 2. (No. 536 in collection.)-On a heavy soft stone block whose horizontal section is square, its sides tapering inward from the top down. The stone is 11 inches high and 15 inches square at the top. In front where the inscription occurs, and on the two sides, are cut out panels 3 inches wide and 1 inch deep. Below the panel is cut out another like space that extends quite to the bottom of the stone. Between the top and the panel is the inscription, on a space about 2 inches wide. The use of the stone, or whence it came, I do not know. Another stone, uninscribed, has similar spaces cut in it, in one of which is carved a basin with a little nose or spout, for holy-water or the like. The reading is the following: | Or, in Greek, τιμωτατι πα(ν)των) τιμαω Παφια τα τιμώοις. "Most honored of all, I honor, O Paphia, the things that thou wouldst honor." If this be correct, the dialectic peculiarities are remarkable.

PLATE I., No. 3. (No. 539 in the collection.)-A bi-lingual, or quasi bi-lingual of two lines in Cypriote, and three in the

other character, on a very large slab of soft stone, which is broken by a crack across the middle, as indicated by a line on the plate. The linear scale of the plate is just one half the original. Of the Cypriote, line (1) reads, which may answer to the API beginning the second line of the Greek. Line (2) is ta.o? The Cypriote portion breaks off with the stone. It is of course too fragmentary for further attempt. The three Greek lines present a strange combination of letters, and they are as easily read from the plate as if inserted here in type. The fifth character in line (1) is a plain 4, the line over it being a scratch. The ninth letter appears to be a Cypriote se in place of the Greek Z. Lines (2) and (3) I leave to others for the present; with the remark that the first letter in line (2) is certainly on the stone. The stone extends much beyond the inscription, to the right.

PLATE I., No. 4. (No. 530 in the collection.)-Another real or quasi bi-lingual, on a large slab of soft stone. The Cypriote breaks off with the stone; the other portion does not extend to the edge of the stone. The scale of this inscription, like the last, is one half the original in lineal dimensions. The Greek, I think, reads OEMIAT, as Brandis has it, p. 663, 35; and not OEMIN, as Schmidt thinks possible, Insch. von Idal., p. 85. The reading of the Cypriote is as follows: Line (1) ne.a.te. ro.ti.o. (2) ti.o. (3) (or a?)ta. In Greek (1) NeαTEрo 9 (2) 91; which I take to be in the genitive, and most likely meaning the same as the Arcadian genitive OEμav: (1) "of the younger god "-" of Themias," (2) "of the Θεμιαν: God." Line (3) I do not attempt. The horizontal mark in the character ro, I think nothing more than a scratch; and therefore disagree with Brandis, p. 663, 35, who makes it a separate character. The four marks to the right in line (3), that look like scratches, are pretty certainly nothing but scratches; but I

dared not omit them.

PLATE II., No. 5. (No. 260 in the collection.)-A fragment of soft stone, much defaced, and defective, but quite legible. The reading is: | te.o., or ['A]ño(\)\wvi dɛw; “To the god Apollo."

PLATE II., No. 6. (No. 253 in the collection.)-On the lobe of a terra cotta votive ear. The reading is: [?]. The last (apparent) character may be only cracks in the clay. If the inscription is not a proper name, it is difficult to transliterate it satisfactorily. It may be: To Пlo9on.


PLATE II., No. 7. (No. 237 in the collection.)-On the lobe of another, smaller terra cotta ear. The reading is: If this is not a proper name, I cannot satisfactorily transliterate it. The most evident transliteration would be: i(v) TO(V) Tapo(v)-"To the tomb;" which seems hardly appropriate.

PLATE II., No. 8. (No. 321 in the collection.)-On the three sides, (a) right, (b) front, (c) left, of a little marble pedestal, which is about twice as high as the width of the strip in the figure. Whatever may have been on the pedestal, it is broken off and out, so as to leave a hollow in the top. The inscription is exceedingly obscure. Some of the characters are plain, but most are doubtful, though subjected to long and repeated scrutiny with a strong lens. The following is the best reading I can give: (a) (or ti?) a? te? ta. (b) (c) te. ta? (or to?)pi? po. |||

I have not confidence enough in the reading to attempt a transliteration. The possible reading at the end of (a) and beginning of (b) well describes my ideas: aera na(=nas) πα(V)τ(V) άлopos. It will be observed that the numeral at the end is divided into groups of threes, after the style observed on the Bronze Tablet. The three parts are doubtless one inscription running around the three sides of the stone.

PLATE II., No. 9. (No. 249 in the collection.)-A very sharp and clear inscription on soft stone. Above the inscription is sculptured a sitting figure, to the right, with its upper part broken off. To the left is an object said to be common in sculptures throughout Syria, like a double cylinder surmounted with an ornamental band and spheroido-conical tops. At the left of the inscription, below the above-described sculpture, are two figures engaged in moving some heavy object. Between them a sledge-hammer, or similar tool, rests with its head on the ground and handle sticking up. At the right of them is a large block. The sculpture appears to represent a stone-cutter's yard. The inscription is rather imperfectly figured by Schmidt; and in the last character in the first word, the perpendicular mark appears to be nothing more than a break in the stone. The reading is: (1) ti.ia.i.te.mi. to.i.te.o. | (2) to.a.po.lo. ni. | | u.tu.ka. | -(1) Διαιεμι τῷ Θεω (2) τω Απολλωνι όνεθηκε (3) ύ τυχα." Diaithem to the god Apollo laid it up as a votive offering. Good luck."

PLATE II, No. 10. (Not numbered in the collection.)-On a soft four-sided stone, base 6 in. by 5, 8 inches high, roughly shaped and carved. From the base the sides taper upward with a curve till they meet a raised, rounded border, above which they flare suddenly out to the top. The top is 6 inches square. In front, above the inscription, on the left, is a tall standing figure with long hair and beard, and long robe, holding a long, thick, slightly bent staff or rod. On the right another figure is leading a long-tailed ram by the horns. On the side next the front to the left is another carving: an adult figure at the top, sitting or reclining, holding or dancing on its knees a younger figure. Underneath is a nondescript quadruped, or perhaps a

man; and still underneath a quadruped-either a horned animal that has just tossed the former, or an ass with its ears thrown back. The inscription I think is retrograde. At all events it makes for me no sense in the ordinary direction. The reading thus is: -donvai δοθήναι i(ν) χωρω πα(ν)τιλω: “To be given in the place entirely." Yet this leaves much to be desired, both in the transliteration and in the rendering. Perhaps the character given as ko is po, but I think not.

PLATE III., No. 11. (No. 271 in the collection.)-On a soft stone 12 inches high by 10 inches wide. This is figured by Doell. On the stone is sculptured a larged coiled serpent, some of whose scales are still visible. The serpent has a crest much like that of a peacock. The inscription is perhaps hopelessly defaced. The letters that are decipherable are generally very distinct. The best reading I can give is the following: (1) (2) e. i? *** (3) * * **a? * to.i. (4) se.ti.i. (or a?) te? ne? ro? ke? (5) te? (or ni?) *** se. * * to.

PLATE III., No. 12. (No. 263 in the collection)-A square tube, or box without bottom or cover, of a single piece of soft stone, 4 inches high, broken out a little at the top, as shown in the plate, though the inscription is intact. The inscription is on the top or end. The first and last characters are unknown to me. Possibly the first is a syllable ending in i. The last character on the inscription occurs also on Plate IV., No. 14; but I see no certain ground for the determination of either. I am not satisfied with any conjecture I can make. The reading is: *

PLATE IV., No. 13. (No. 242 in the collection.)-This, the most important of the Cesnola inscriptions, and ranking next to the Bi-linguals and the Bronze Tablet, is on a piece of soft stone, a trifle longer than the inscription. Above, near the center, is a sitting figure, 6 inches high, on a throne, with scepter and thunderbolt; Zeus, to all appearance. Above the back of the throne is a broken, winged figure, probably the eagle, but somewhat suggestive of a sphinx. To the left, behind the throne is a standing figure, 4 inches high; to the right another standing figure, 6 inches high, with indications of another, where the stone is worn and broken. The characters are all entirely legible, except two in the second line, which I cannot yet make out. The plate represents the imperfect place admirably. The reading is as follows: (1) ka. | ti. | | ka.po.ti. | | me.po.te.we.i.

[blocks in formation]

(2) |** | | pa. ta.ko |

[blocks in formation]

(3) | | | te.o.i. | |

(4) po. o.i. |

Brandis, p. 655, 8, and p. 660, 22, gives the false reading po. le.po.o. for | o. (I refer to his Cypriote type-not noticing his Roman syllables.) Although even the photographs lately published by the Metropolitan Museum look as if the reading were le, there can be no doubt that it is ro. Brandis did not notice the division mark, and wrongly attached the following to this group. Brandis also gives the false reading for, p. 664, 36. Schmidt repeats this error, p. 39. Schmidt's remark on p. 8, near the bottom, is also erroneous. The inscription is clearly not in hexameters (though the first part of the first line appears to be an elegiac pentameter), and the inscription ends, as well as begins, with xaipere, not xaipe. Also, pp. 39, 40, 51, Schmidt gives the false reading for, of line (4). The second character in the second group of line (2) is partially obliterated, but the remnants of a red color which formerly filled the characters (and perhaps covered the surface of the stone), give the outline on the broken part, and show the character to have been ro.

The transliteration and interpretation present several unique difficulties, though some parts are clear enough. The following is by no means satisfactory, but I prefer to give the conjectures, as they may help others, even where I may be wrong. (1) χαιρετε, χραστι αναξ, κα ποτι επομέγα, μήποτε Εεισης,

(2) θεοις προ * * νατοις ήρηραμενα, πα(ν)ταχωρατος, (3) όσο χαρετι, ἐπιστατης ανθρώπω, θεοι 'Αλη, Τύχα, Κήρ, (4) θεοι κυμερεναι πα(ν)τα τα α(ν)θρωπῳ πο(ρ)ρω πω

ω, χαιρετε.

According to this transliteration, χραστι= χρηστε, κα ποτι =иαs (иα) прos, the latter used adverbially. Εεπόμεγα would be an awkward compound of Fεn, or FETOS, with μεγας; ἠρηραμενα from άρω (ἀραρίσκω); but the reading may be ἠρ' ήραμενα; πανταχωραιτος = πανταχωρητος; χαρετι= χαριτι. 'Αλη, Τυχα, Κηρ, is as good a conjecture as I can make, for a(1)An does not seem to fit; though I know of no other deification of 'An-Wandering or Distraction. The three are feminine, as required by the participle or adjec tive κ μερεναι (or κυμέρναι), which latter appears to me to be allied to ußɛpraw. The apposition 980 is of common gender in Cypriote. The group I can do no better with, though compounds of προς and προ, and ideas of πορος and the like, naturally suggest themselves, some of which

« PreviousContinue »