they discover a distinction, will
give the palm of a less degree of incoherency to the first. The first is
our own; the second is Betham's--being his literal version of the first
three sentences of the second table, and in no material respect different
from his version of any other three sentences of any of the rest of the
series.[8] The other is our own literal version, on the same principle, of
a sentence of his own, marked in italics in the following extracts, in
which he defends his arbitrary division of the Etruscan text into
monosyllables, though the punctuation of the original plainly divides it
into many-syllabled words.

In defence of this unjustifiable corruption of the original, he alleges
these excuses--

"In the chapter on language, p. 52, &c., are a few remarks upon the
division of the words in these inscriptions, in answer to the
criticism of the learned Committee of the Royal Irish Academy, who
charged me with 'having made alterations' in the text unwarrantably,
'especially in the division of the words.' The charge of having made
any alterations is altogether groundless, I might add unjust,
uncourteous, and uncalled for. I have not altered a single letter. I
have added a letter here and there in the Irish, when, by the genius
and character of that language, it was justifiable, as (when) the
addition of a word was required to make sense, and when in the
original the sound did not require it to be expressed; but this is
fully answered and explained in the chapter alluded to. The 'division
of the words' requires a few brief observations here.

"It will be observed that in the first five tables there are
divisions marked with colons, thus (:); in the sixth and seventh
tables, and in the Perugian inscription, the divisions are marked
with a single period (.)

"In the first few lines of the first table it appears, that, although
these divisions generally include perfect syllables and words, yet
the same words are differently divided. In the fifth line, the second
division contains JUBEBATREBUMPERACNE, and in the fourth division
PERAKNE stands alone. The first division of this fifth line contains
SAKRE:--in the next line it is worded thus, UNUERIETUSAKRE; this same
variation of division pervades all the tables, and indeed almost
every line of each table; the same may be observed on th