Private honours after a telesphoria
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: End of third or first half of second century 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/)

Not published before [...] 126600.

Cf. [...], p. 197.

[...] [...]ίππω [...] [...]δώρω [...] τελεσφορήσαντας [...] ρ[...] [...]

[...] fils de [...]ippos, [...] fils de [...]dôros, ayant accompli la telesphoria [...].

[...] son of [...]ippos, [...] son of [...]doros, having accomplished the telesphoria [...].

[...] figlio di [...]ippos, [...] figlio di [...]doros, avendo compiuto la telesphoria [...].

This fragmentary inscription is clearly one of the dedications made by or in honour of men who had accomplished the telesphoria. The aorist participle at line 3 lacks an ending that would help to choose between two analyses: we restored an accusative, but a nominative would also be possible. Anyhow, the letters are closely pressed together at that line, so that the participle was probably preceded by the name of a feast, either Artamitia (so IGCyr016100) or Karneia (so IGCyr016400).

The fragmentary character at line 4 is probably a rho and the spacement between letters is larger than at any other line. As the verb of dedication contains no rho, we probably have here the person(s) responsible for the dedication (thus the restored accusative at line 3). The name of the Cyrenaeans is impossible in view of the placement of the rho and also because that sort of dedication is never made by the city. The most plausible guess is the naming formula of the dedicant at the nominative, made of a rather short name and father's name.

If so, lines 1 and 2 would mention at the accusative the two persons honoured by the dedication of their images. As both father's names are compounds with very common second members, no further restoration can be proposed.

Additional note for [...]: [...] is dubious about the display suggested at [...] because, in his view, a restored accusative plural at line 3 would be too long for the space available. Opposite arguments are given above. Rosamilia would prefer one dedicant and one honoured person. This leaves no explanation for line 4 and possible further lines.