month Δελφίνιος (Olus) corresponds with two of which the reading is doubtful,—ἀρ[a trace of ἄρχοντος?]ωβιαρίω (Lato), and Καρ[ώ?]νιος (Cnossus). This last was certainly not Κάρνειος. As to dialect, we have the dat. πόλι—whereas πόλει had been noted by Böckh as the constant Cretan form: ἔντων as 3rd plur. imperative of εἰμί: μέστα κα, with subjunct., as = μέχρι ἄν, "until": genitive Διοκλεῖος = Διοκλέους: κριθένσι = κριθεῖσι: ποτρὶ in compos. (πορτιγράψαι): αὐτοσαυτοῖς for ἑαυτοῖς (in sense of ἀλλήλοις). So in the former inscription we find τὸν αὐτὸς αὐτῶ μαθέταν = τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μ. In v. 19 there is a difficulty. The passage runs thus:—ἀποσρηλάντων [sic] οἵ τε Κνώσιοι καὶ οἱ Λάτιοι καὶ οἱ Ὀλόντιοι πορτὶ τὸν ἐπιμελητὰν [the Athenian governor of Delos] πρειγείαν [=πρεσβείαν] καὶ γράμματα ἐν ἁμέραις τριάκοντα ὥστε στᾶσαι στάλαν ἐς ἃν ἀναγραφησ . . τὰ δεδογμένα. M. Homolle thinks (and I agree with him) that after ΑΝΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ there is not room for the four letters ΕΤΑΙ before ΤΑ. He says that there is room for two letters only.
Now I can suggest a restoration which gives the sense required, and which is satisfied by the insertion of just two letters, viz.: ΦΙ. I would read, ἐς ἃν ἀναγραφῇ σφι τὰ δεδογμένα, "on which they may have their resolutions recorded[1]." If the iota
- ↑ The epic σφι would not be at variance with the general complexion of the Cretan dialect. For the subjunct. after the relative, cp. Isocrates Pan. § 44, ὥστε...ἑκατέρους ἔχειν ἐφ' οἷς φιλοτιμηθῶσιν: and ll. cc. in Goodwin, Moods § 65, I. n. 3. The Greek ἔχομεν ὅ τι εἴπωμεν seems to have been developed out of the negative form (where the subj. is deliberative), οὐκ ἔχομεν ὅ τι εἴπωμεν.
