THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 305

obscure the incompatibility of their arrangement with their material by

referring to Plautus and Terence as 'spoken verse' or 'Roman drama'. One re-
sult of this is that Seneca's iambic trimeters entirely escape mention. Sometimes
they show awareness of the difficulties in which they have involved themselves.
Thus, on p. 106, Ostwald begins the section headed 'The Cantica of Plautus
and Seneca' with the statement that it is 'more convenient to treat the two
dramatists separately'.
In the passages quoted from comedy stresses should have been marked and
a distinctive sign used for shorts produced by iambic shortening. Also, explana-
tions of scansions peculiar to comedy (e.g. institui, p. 87 and errata) would
have been useful. I am not qualified to comment on controversial points of
Plautine and Terentian scansion, but it should be noted that the errata con-
tain some important second thoughts on Ostwald's sections. Remaining errors
and misprints are: p. 64: Aen. iii. 606 is not an example of hiatus at caesura or
diaeresis, but of hiatus at rhetorical pause; p. 69: the caesura in Georg. i. 257
is not marked; p. 92: amb{u)lare per tabernas is called an anaclast, while five
lines lower, quorum cruenta maenas in a similar context is called 2 ia ^ |;
p. m : Rudens 191, hunc is scanned — w; also p. 111: it is stated that choriambs
' "rise" i.e. the breve or brevia precede the longa'; p. 113: Seneca, Tro. 408
is aeolic base, one choriamb ( x X — "-"->—), and should not be called a hemiepes
(— w \j — \j \j —).

There is a glossary of metrical terms, a 'List of Meters', and an index locorum,

but it is not possible to trace references which (like those to Martial and
Petronius on p. 85) are not to specific passages.
University of Newcastle upon Tyne L. P. E. PARKER

CYPRIOT SYLLABIC INSCRIPTIONS

OLIVIER MASSON : Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Recueil critique
et commente. (ficole Francaise d'Athenes, Etudes Chypriotes, 1.)
Pp. 452; 72 plates. Paris: de Boccard, 1961. Cloth.
M. MASSON presents in his doctoral dissertation the first major collection of
Cypriot syllabic inscriptions since Hoffmann's Die Griechischen Dialekte i in
1891. He has included all the major texts in Cypriot Greek and in 'Eteo-
cyprian' and also the principal coin-legends. Since, however, a quantity of
fragmentary or illegible documents are omitted, the book stops short of be-
coming a corpus.
The author has planned and produced his work in exemplary fashion. A
seventy-two page Introduction sketches the history of archaeological exploration
in Cyprus to i960, and discusses the origins of the syllabary, its development
in the archaic, classical, and Hellenistic periods, the process of decipherment,
principles of orthography, and similar questions. In the second and main part
of the book, the texts are presented by regions; there are six sections for the
chief towns of Cyprus, another on objects of uncertain origin and another on
inscriptions from Egypt and Nubia, and finally there is an assortment of doubt-
ful or spurious documents. The good maps, not only of the whole island but
also of individual districts, deserve mention. At the end of the volume excellent
indexes and also a concordance table are provided. The first four plates contain

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bournemouth University, on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:50:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00260502
 306 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
views of the best-known archaeological sites; the remaining sixty-eight provide
photographs, for the most part excellent in quality, of the principal inscrip-
tions. A considerable number of documents for which there is no photograph
are represented by facsimile drawings in the text of the book.
Although each inscription is accompanied by a detailed discussion of epi-
graphical and linguistic matters, there is no general account of the Cypriot
dialect. The author explains in his preface, however, that he intends to produce
a linguistic study as a supplement to the present work.
It is hardly necessary to say that Masson's collection is an important one or
that it will long be essential to any discussion either of the syllabary or of
Cypriot speech. Apart from presenting the material in handy form, it indicates
clearly and tidily in the numbered paragraphs of its Introduction the nature of
problems that remain and the limitations of present-day knowledge.
For the earliest period, these limitations are indeed oppressive. Masson
appears to believe that Gypro-Minoan writing is in some sense derived from
the Cretan Linear A script and that it is ultimately the ancestor of the Cypriot
syllabary. On the other hand he admits that the question of origins is insoluble
while both Linear A and Cypro-Minoan remain undeciphered and while the
internal development of Cypro-Minoan writing cannot be traced satisfactorily.
One might add that there is as yet no proof that Linear A is syllabic, even in
part. If it is not, then the question of its relationship with Cypro-Minoan and
the later syllabary may be even harder to explain than Masson supposes.
In the first words of his preface the author proclaims his faith in the Ventris
decipherment and in the course of his chapters on the origins of the Cypriot
syllabary he again refers to the decipherment as if it were something of cardinal
importance to his argument. Yet he has nothing to say on this matter beyond
the now common-place observation that Cypriot ta, lo, na, pa, po, se, ti are
'more or less identical' with the Linear B signs which Ventris rendered da, ro,
na, pa, po, se, ti. For the far more numerous divergences between the syllabary
and Ventris's decipherment he offers no explanation. Elsewhere, he makes no
use of the decipherment except to identify ti-pa-se- in 296 with 'Mycenaean'
di-pa; and this by no means solves all the difficulties of 296.
Masson's account of the syllabary in the archaic, classical, and post-classical
periods follows conventional lines, and one would merely object that he oc-
casionally conveys the impression that spelling is more regular than he himself
postulates in his treatment of particular texts. For example, it is not enough to
say that 'diphthongs are regularly written, whether by means of two vowel-
signs or by a combination of consonant-and-vowel signs with a vowel-sign'.
Final diphthongs are less predictable than this. Again, the rules concerning the
vocalism of signs that represent consonantal groups tend to be stated too
dogmatically. 'Exceptions' such as pi-ki-re-wo (for pi-ke-re-wo) or ka-ra-si-ti (for
ka-ra-sa-ti) are too numerous to be regarded as curiosities. Considerable
elasticity should be allowed to the Cypriot rules of spelling.
Although Masson is laudably accurate in reporting the texts as he finds them,
he seems to be at fault in not considering how Cypriot engravers may have gone
wrong from time to time. It is plain that this is rarely a chancery script. Its
nature and use are such that engravers and readers alike may be thought to
have somewhat inconstant notions of orthography. One has to consider which
signs might be interchangeable because of outward similarity on the one hand
and because of uncertain spelling conventions on the other. A likely example of

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bournemouth University, on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:50:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00260502
 T H E CLASSICAL R E V I E W 307
the difficulties involved is to be found in the Nicagoras stele (165a), which
reads ni-ka-ko-ra-se-o-?-?-a?lro-se-e-pe-se-ta-i-ti-ri. T h e signs on 1. 2 are perfectly
clear and Masson adopts, albeit with hesitation, Mitford's NiKayopas o . . .)
-pos eneoe ral Sipi, 'Nicagoras son o f . . . fell in the battle'. This is suspect, not
merely because hfjpis (with e or I) is an unlikely word but also because the un-
qualified expression 'fell in the battle' is unparalleled in stelae of this type.
A glance at other inscriptions from Marion suggests first that eWorao-e is
a likely verb here, and secondly, that TCH fiarpi might appropriately represent
the object of the dedication. That is to say, the signs e-pe-se-ta-i-ti-ri might be
thought to stand for the normal expression eVeorao-e rat [xarpi through a con-
traction of eveuraae to £77e(7 and omission of ma, a sign which is not unlike i in
appearance. We should also ask whether abnormalities of this kind may be due
to deliberate contraction or to error or both.
Similarly, at 245 (a fragment of a stone coffer) Masson reads e-we-xe as
Ijrefe and calls it 'the only known example of the aorist of the verb f e^oj,
"carry", "bring" '. It seems at least as likely to be a miswriting of e-we-re-xe,
Ifeple, an aorist which occurs at 261, in e-we-re-xa.
Until Masson has produced his systematic account of the Cypriot dialect,
one perhaps ought not to complain either that he is too conservative in his
interpretations when he has authorities such as Ahrens and Hoffmann to
follow, or too high-handed when he has not. Yet his commentary on the famous
Idalion decree (217), while it is an excellent summary of established doctrine,
includes improbabilities such as i/cfidai or'lyp.afx.1'wound', v^ais ( = v-alp?) 'for
ever', 'for life', and vxupos ( = emxeipos) 'gratuity', and contributes nothing
new. These identifications, although hallowed by repetition, need revision and
this should be plainly stated. Despite Masson's reluctance to accept a change
of e to i except before a nasal, it may be worth considering whether i-ki-ma-me-
no-se may not represent a perfect participle passive of Kafwco, with Attic re-
duplication, in the sense of 'wounded' or 'sick'.
Masson's interpretation of 264 repeats most of what was said long ago by
Hoffmann, Meister, and others without adding much that is new or convincing.
In 1. 1 he clings to Hoffmann's idea that the aorist subjunctive peiar/s is con-
nected with fUfuax; this is virtually impossible. I am properly rebuked for
changing po-ro in 1. 2, and improperly, I think, for having doubted the usual
readings e-re-ra-me-na and pa-ta-ko-ra-sa-to-se. Others, from Hall onwards, have
questioned these; and the traditional ipepafiiva and navr' aKopdorws, apart
from being morphologically dubious, do not make sense. Since po-ro must
stand, it is perhaps most likely to stand for irpo to be lengthened before adavd-
TOIS and construed with the perfect passive participle following. The line still
seems more likely to mean 'all things have been previously ordained by the
immortal gods' than anything else. In 1. 3 Masson persists in reading ov yap
n (?) emarals avdpcovco deuti, which can be made to mean 'for man has no
power over God'. But who would either say this or say it in this way ? And who,
even in Cyprus, would compose such an unmetrical line? Masson's revision is
not likely to be the last and it is at least doubtful whether it is even now the best.
Of his views on the Aristomachos inscription, no. 306, where again he takes
issue with me, I shall say only that his rendering appears to be no more plausible
than any other that has been published. Here again, and even more than in the
case of 264, he seems not to concern himself overmuch with what the content of
the document is likely to be.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bournemouth University, on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:50:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00260502
 308 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
Although there are many other cases where I find Masson's interpretations
unconvincing, I am bound to say that he often shows wise restraint, e.g. in 167,
where he refuses to comment on the strange concatenations pi-la-ki-te-se, and
to-pa-la-ne, and in 327 (the Bulwer tablet), where he recognizes lacunae and
dubious readings for what they are.
University of Edinburgh A. J. BEATTIE

2JHMATA AYFPA
On the Knossos Tablets. L. R. PALMER : The Find-places of the Knossos
Tablets. Pp. xxviii+251; 7 text-figs., 4 plans, 31 pis. JOHN BOARDMAN:
The Date of the Knossos Tablets. Pp. xii+101; 17 text-figs., 17 pis.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Cloth, 84J. net.
T H E origins of this volume will not be wholly unfamiliar to those who read this
review. The close similarity between the Linear B tablets from Pylos (dated by
their excavator Professor Blegen to the end of Late Helladic I I I B , C. 1200 B.C.)
and those from Knossos (dated by their excavator Sir Arthur Evans to the end
of Late Minoan II, c. 1400 B.C.) led both Blegen and Palmer to question
whether the chronological gap between them could really be so great. Surely,
it was argued, a space of 200 years would have produced more change in both
script and language, and in administrative methods, than was apparent
between the two sets of tablets? No one has adduced any reason for doubting
the Pylos dating. Might there be reason to doubt the Knossos dating? Such
a suggestion could only be tested by a thorough re-examination of all evidence
available for the circumstances of discovery of the tablets. Here it must be
noted, since the contrary has sometimes been assumed, that such a re-examina-
tion need not involve any suspicion against the bonafidesof Sir Arthur Evans,
though it does inevitably raise the question whether he or his assistants mis-
understood or misinterpreted the evidence they brought to light. It should be
noted too that by no means all philologists consider that conspicuous linguistic
change is inevitable in a space of 200 years; nor do they share Professor Pal-
mer's view that certain forms at Knossos are 'later' or more 'advanced' than
those at Pylos. Nor are many archaeologists troubled (as Professor Palmer was)
if there is evidence for imported Cretan objects in Mainland Greece in Late
Minoan I I I B , when Crete is alleged to have been unimportant in the Aegean
world. Even insignificant countries may have some export trade. Again, the
inscribed stirrup-jars from the Mainland, 'dated by Evans himself to the
period following the destruction of Knossos', and bearing 'place-names which
recur only in the Knossos tablets', do not raise the sort of problem that Palmer
alleges if we note that experienced archaeologists date them very shortly after
the Late Minoan II destruction of Knossos. Further, Palmer alleges that
'artefacts depicted on the Knossos tablets evoke consistently echoes from the
Mainland of the period post-dating the destruction of Knossos', and that an
identical type of armour is shown at Knossos and Pylos; but both allegations
are unacceptable to other no less careful observers.
In short, Professor Palmer's reasons for his original doubts about Evans's
chronological conclusions have to some of us always seemed inadequate. But
once the doubt had been expressed it was best the matter should be put to the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bournemouth University, on 31 Dec 2019 at 20:50:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00260502