Dedication of a telesterion ?
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: Perhaps first half of first 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 [...] 132000.

Cf. [...], p. 109.

[...] [...]ο[...] [...]ολ[...] Κλήσιππος [...] τὸ τελε[...]

Intraduisible (voir commentaire).

Not usefully translatable (see commentary).

Intraducibile (vedi commento).

غير قابل للترجمة بشكل جيد (انظر التعليق على النقش)

What is clear in this fragment is ΚΛΗΣ at line 3, which should be the first or second member of a compound personal name. It might thus be tempting to restore at line 4 the genitive of the name Aristoteles. However, the space before the first letter at line 4 forbids to accept a linebreak inside a name. For the name at line 3 Klesippos seems to be the most probable. For the word at line 4, two restorations seem possible: one would be τελεστήριον, which is attested at Delphi and Thebai for 'offering after a good accomplishment'; the other is τελεστικόν, a word only known from Ptolemaic Egypt for a sort of tax. We would slightly prefer the former but it is better to leave the question open.

At line 2, the first preserved letter may be a dotted theta or an omicron with a marked compass-hole. The first would fit into a personal name Νίκαθλος, but this would exceed the space available. A reading Ἀπόλλωνι, 'for Apollo', seems better, but the word order in the sentence would be somewhat surprising.

[...] is surely right in dating this inscription from its lettering in the middle of the first century, hence in the Roman period. This leads him to identify the man mentioned here at line 3 with the eponymous priest mentioned in an ephebic list IRCyr2020 C.701. This is perhaps hazardous because the name is restored by us in the present fragment. A further family link suggested by Rosamilia seems also quite questionable.