DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0135
124 The Archaic Artemisia oe Ephesus.
letters are lost. On the same supposition, there will not be room for more
than two on the right of 1. 2, which continues 1. 1, boustrophedon. The
broken letter to right of a in 1. 1 is a round vowel, and, to judge by the
curvature of the fragment remaining, rather n than o.
Note the double punctuation mark between iardOrjcrav and 4k. It is
certainly, like the similar one in the middle of 1. 2, a prima m inu, and not
due, as Dr. Keil suggests of another example (B. 4), to correction. More
will be said presently about the significance of these punctuation marks.
1. 2. The supplements suggested are all obvious. For the r before 6 in
r)peLx[T0^r)crav cp. 1. 3, and for the form see Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. iii. p. 261.
At the end occurs what is clearly an engraver's error, the omission of the
final 1 of etfoa(L). This is the only certainly uncorrected error in either
text. The restoration, in itself obvious, of the end of this line and the
beginning of the next depends again on my supposition as to the left-
hand margin.
1. 3. Elv for iv is, possibly, an engraver's error. See Hoffmann, op. cit. iii.
391 ffi, for dialectic rules, which do not, however, justify this particular form.
Similarly the el which begins (tyveLxrdrjcrav is perhaps an error. Dr. Keil
thinks the engraver has here actually corrected £i to h, and certainly
the 1 is unusually near to the s, and the two uprights and the middle cross-
stroke of the latter are more decisively engraved than its upper and lower
obliques.
For the form Sdparos where, after loss of digamma, Souparo? was to be
expected, see Hoffmann, iii. 408. The complementary a survives in e£s as
late as a Chian text of the fifth century (Sa>n>nliiug Gr. Dial, Inschr. 3^53).
I take the end of this line and the beginning and end of the next to he
complete, the right-hand margin being only slightly chipped at this point.
If anything is lost at the end of 1. 3, it might be a punctuation mark.
1. 4. The detection of the punctuation mark after yjdvcto I owe to Dr. Keil.
The uppermost point is clear. T/des for r/jel? is again perhaps not dialectic,
but an engraver's error.
1. 5. The restoration of the beginning is obvious. In the latter half, after the
letters |>r* which appear on a chip, obscured in the photograph, there is a
partial breakage of two letters, and then a corroded space on which I read
characters as in the facsimile above. Dr. Keil, however, sees hk where
I see am, and suggests d(veO)r)K[ev. But this restoration is in any case
impossible, the p after the initial a being as clear as any character on the
plate, though not visible in the photograph.
letters are lost. On the same supposition, there will not be room for more
than two on the right of 1. 2, which continues 1. 1, boustrophedon. The
broken letter to right of a in 1. 1 is a round vowel, and, to judge by the
curvature of the fragment remaining, rather n than o.
Note the double punctuation mark between iardOrjcrav and 4k. It is
certainly, like the similar one in the middle of 1. 2, a prima m inu, and not
due, as Dr. Keil suggests of another example (B. 4), to correction. More
will be said presently about the significance of these punctuation marks.
1. 2. The supplements suggested are all obvious. For the r before 6 in
r)peLx[T0^r)crav cp. 1. 3, and for the form see Hoffmann, Gr. Dial. iii. p. 261.
At the end occurs what is clearly an engraver's error, the omission of the
final 1 of etfoa(L). This is the only certainly uncorrected error in either
text. The restoration, in itself obvious, of the end of this line and the
beginning of the next depends again on my supposition as to the left-
hand margin.
1. 3. Elv for iv is, possibly, an engraver's error. See Hoffmann, op. cit. iii.
391 ffi, for dialectic rules, which do not, however, justify this particular form.
Similarly the el which begins (tyveLxrdrjcrav is perhaps an error. Dr. Keil
thinks the engraver has here actually corrected £i to h, and certainly
the 1 is unusually near to the s, and the two uprights and the middle cross-
stroke of the latter are more decisively engraved than its upper and lower
obliques.
For the form Sdparos where, after loss of digamma, Souparo? was to be
expected, see Hoffmann, iii. 408. The complementary a survives in e£s as
late as a Chian text of the fifth century (Sa>n>nliiug Gr. Dial, Inschr. 3^53).
I take the end of this line and the beginning and end of the next to he
complete, the right-hand margin being only slightly chipped at this point.
If anything is lost at the end of 1. 3, it might be a punctuation mark.
1. 4. The detection of the punctuation mark after yjdvcto I owe to Dr. Keil.
The uppermost point is clear. T/des for r/jel? is again perhaps not dialectic,
but an engraver's error.
1. 5. The restoration of the beginning is obvious. In the latter half, after the
letters |>r* which appear on a chip, obscured in the photograph, there is a
partial breakage of two letters, and then a corroded space on which I read
characters as in the facsimile above. Dr. Keil, however, sees hk where
I see am, and suggests d(veO)r)K[ev. But this restoration is in any case
impossible, the p after the initial a being as clear as any character on the
plate, though not visible in the photograph.