ON GREEK VERSIFICATION IN INSCRIPTIONS. IO3
The resolution of -tm of the genitive singular is perhaps unknown to
the literature of Hellenic times. The epigrammatists of the Anthol-
ogy have tetrasyllabic 'AtSew and the like ; Meleager in Anth. Palat.
iv, 1, affording eight examples in fifty verses. But I do not know of
any instance which antedates the Roman period. Our inscriptions
show two cases :
Aa/xi//ayop£oj, end of a trimeter, lvi (Amorg. vi).1
5 G
Ae<oWSea>, pent., xxxvi (Att. iii-ii).
5 0
The first ought perhaps not to count, as the other name in the
inscription is unmetrical: see p. 47. The second example is certain,
but the epitaph is pretty late, and possibly belongs in the Roman
epoch. Compare Anth. Pal. vi, 190, 191. The restoration 7ratS[a
MevleKparew in 492b "prf. (Theb. iv) is not to be trusted; indeed
2 3
something like ttoiSFos T^jAeKparew would conform better to Fou-
123'
cart's copy.
aA(A.)eW, liv (Delos Nax. vi) : HO is written,
c w
wkeW, pent., 768 (Xanth. iv).
1 ~
al/x[a]mio)v, pent., 782 (Halic. iii-ii).
Resolved in :
BovraSeW, 852 (Att. ii) ;
1 2
as occasionally in literature (H 1, <j> 191, etc.).
irapa 6iu>v, pent., 6 (Att. vi).
(te-o-i), lxxiv (Cypriote).
a\(\)' {te-o-i), same; -eon shortened? See p. 55.
[«oo-/x]eW, pent., 489 (Theb. iv).
a"
'HpaxAemi', 859 (Tichiussa iv-ii).
4
[<e'ot]i to xp£Jw]> pent., 519 (Thessalon. Mac).
Kpewv, troch. tetr., 783 (Cnid. iv-ii).
Xcuxfiopov, pent., lx (Chios v).
Not Aap.i,ay6peu>, as assumed by Usener, Altgr. Verskunst, p. 39, note 22.
The resolution of -tm of the genitive singular is perhaps unknown to
the literature of Hellenic times. The epigrammatists of the Anthol-
ogy have tetrasyllabic 'AtSew and the like ; Meleager in Anth. Palat.
iv, 1, affording eight examples in fifty verses. But I do not know of
any instance which antedates the Roman period. Our inscriptions
show two cases :
Aa/xi//ayop£oj, end of a trimeter, lvi (Amorg. vi).1
5 G
Ae<oWSea>, pent., xxxvi (Att. iii-ii).
5 0
The first ought perhaps not to count, as the other name in the
inscription is unmetrical: see p. 47. The second example is certain,
but the epitaph is pretty late, and possibly belongs in the Roman
epoch. Compare Anth. Pal. vi, 190, 191. The restoration 7ratS[a
MevleKparew in 492b "prf. (Theb. iv) is not to be trusted; indeed
2 3
something like ttoiSFos T^jAeKparew would conform better to Fou-
123'
cart's copy.
aA(A.)eW, liv (Delos Nax. vi) : HO is written,
c w
wkeW, pent., 768 (Xanth. iv).
1 ~
al/x[a]mio)v, pent., 782 (Halic. iii-ii).
Resolved in :
BovraSeW, 852 (Att. ii) ;
1 2
as occasionally in literature (H 1, <j> 191, etc.).
irapa 6iu>v, pent., 6 (Att. vi).
(te-o-i), lxxiv (Cypriote).
a\(\)' {te-o-i), same; -eon shortened? See p. 55.
[«oo-/x]eW, pent., 489 (Theb. iv).
a"
'HpaxAemi', 859 (Tichiussa iv-ii).
4
[<e'ot]i to xp£Jw]> pent., 519 (Thessalon. Mac).
Kpewv, troch. tetr., 783 (Cnid. iv-ii).
Xcuxfiopov, pent., lx (Chios v).
Not Aap.i,ay6peu>, as assumed by Usener, Altgr. Verskunst, p. 39, note 22.