Honours for a Ptolemaic officer
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: Late second century to 96 BC
language: ar; en; fr; de; grc; grc-Latn; el; he
availability: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain a link back to DOI: https://doi.org/10.60760/unibo/igcyrgvcyr2 and the filename (IGCyr000000 or GVCyr000), as well as the year of consultation. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

[...], p. 118, n. 10, pl. XIII, 10, whence [...], 18.736; [...] 063500.

[...] [...] ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας τᾶς ἐς βασιλῆ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ βασίλισσαν Κλευπάτραν [...] [...].

τᾶς ἐς[^a1]

[^a1: τᾶς ἐς | ἃς ἔχων διατελεῖ ἐς]

La statue de [...] a été consacrée par [...] en raison de sa valeur et de son dévouement à l'égard du roi Ptolémée et de la reine Cléopatre [...].

The statue of [...] was dedicated by [...] on account of his valour and his goodwilling towards king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra [...].

La statua di [...] è stata dedicata da [...] in considerazione del suo valore e della sua dedizione nei confronti del re Tolemeo e della regina Cleopatra [...].

(تمثال) [---] (أُهْدِيَّ) [---] لأفضاله [ونواياه الحسنة تجاه الملك] بتوليميوس (بطليموس) [والملكة كليوباترا] [---]

Fragment of the dedication of a statue in honour of some dignitary having served under a Ptolemy, similar in formulation with IGCyr063300, IGCyr063100 and IGCyr063200 and probably the latest of the series, to judge from the lettering. Hence the name Cleopatra restored at line 4. But which Ptolemy and which Cleopatra can not be decided.

The parallels in formulation allow to consider either that the remaining piece was a part of a very wide base, bearing in the lost part a personal name and patronymic or that the stone was recut and some preceding lines thus lost. The latter seems more plausible because there is no hole for attachment on the present upper face. However, in case the former should be right, the longer restoration proposed by Fraser would be preferable at l. 3.

The parallels in monument-type would probably lead to admit only one line missing on top and one below. But this should not be pushed forward.

The inventory number shows that the stone was already part of the epigraphic collection at the time of the reorganization of the Cyrenaean antiquities after World War II care of Goodchild (from 1956 on) and before Fraser observed it. It may well have been found already during the last years of the Italian period.