P Bagnall

PAPYROLOGICAL TEXTS IN HONOR OF
ROGER S. BAGNALL
AMERICAN STUDIES IN
PAPYROLOGY
Series Editors
James G. Keenan (chair), Kathleen McNamee, and Arthur Verhoogt
Volume 53
PAPYROLOGICAL TEXTS IN HONOR OF ROGER S. BAGNALL
Edited by
Rodney Ast, Hélène Cuvigny,
Todd M. Hickey, and Julia Lougovaya
PAPYROLOGICAL TEXTS IN HONOR OF
ROGER S. BAGNALL
Edited by
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PAPYROLOGISTS

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Papyrological Texts in Honor of Roger S. Bagnall
Edited by
© 2012
The American Society of Papyrologists
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Papyrological texts in honor of Roger S. Bagnall / edited by Rodney Ast, Hélène Cuvigny, Todd M.
Hickey, and Julia Lougovaya.
pages cm. -- (American Studies in Papyrology ; volume 53)
ISBN 978-0-9799758-6-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-9799758-6-7 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Manuscripts, Classical (Papyri) 2. Classical literature--Criticism, Textual. 3. Classical
languages--Texts. I. Ast, Rodney. II. Cuvigny, Hélène. III. Hickey, Todd Michael. IV. Lougovaya,
Julia. V. Bagnall, Roger S.
PA3339.P37 2012
930--dc23
2012038169
EDITORS’ PREFACE
This is not a traditional Festschrift. It is rather an attempt on the part of Roger Bagnall’s friends and
colleagues to demonstrate that we too are capable of being productive when given a suitable source
of inspiration. For many years Roger has encouraged us to pose tougher questions, to entertain new
perspectives, and, above all, to finish in timely fashion the projects that we start. (In fact, the last of these
lessons has at times been the principal driving force behind completion of this volume). Thus it is with
a spirit of gratitude that we offer this small gift, which commemorates not a milestone represented by
a birthday but a model of excellence that, try as we might, we are hard put to match.
Early on in our planning, we decided to limit contributions to editions of new or substantially
revised texts. As a result, this is truly a papyrological volume. Allowing it to serve as a platform for
general studies relevant to the diverse topics that Roger has explored over the course of his career would
have enlarged its scope well beyond what a single volume could contain. The texts presented here span
a period of more than one thousand years and are written in nearly a half dozen languages, although most
texts are in Greek. We believe that this chronological and cultural breadth is a fitting tribute to someone
whose own interests are extraordinarily diverse.
In the process of completing the volume we have relied on the help of numerous individuals. In
addition to the various people at institutions around the world who answered our requests for images and
permissions, we wish to thank the following scholars for their expert assistance: Adam Bülow-Jacobsen,
Andrea Jördens, Andreas Kaplony, Joachim Quack, Georg Schmelz and Joshua Sosin. We are also grateful
to Michael Zellmann-Rohrer for compiling the index on very short notice and to the Center for the Tebtunis
Papyri at the University of California, Berkeley, for providing funds to cover his work. Finally, we thank
Michael Bronstein for his invaluable help formatting the volume.
Papyrological citations are in accordance with those in J. D. Sosin et al. (eds.), Checklist of Editions
of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/
scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist.html); for Arabic papyri, P. M. Sijpesteijn et al. (eds.), The Checklist of
Arabic Documents (http://www.ori.uzh.ch/isap/isapchecklist.html). While we have tried to achieve some
degree of uniformity in the volume, the reader will more likely notice the heterogeneity. No attempt has
been made to impose a single set of standards on all contributions, and preference has been given to clarity
over consistency. All dates found in the text headers are CE unless otherwise specified.
Urbeis, 3 August 2012

APPRECIATION
By Deborah W. Hobson
Having known Roger Bagnall for many decades, I am hardly surprised by his current level of distinction.
I first met him in the fall of 1965, when he was starting his second year at Yale University. He looked
much younger than his 18 years, and he has retained that extraordinarily youthful appearance ever since.
He seems almost impervious to the aging process. Doubtless this is partly a result of a lifetime of healthy
eating habits, something shared by his wife Whitney. In fact, the two of them connected when they both
attended a papyrology summer seminar in 1968 at which they were the only participants who got up in
time to have a good breakfast.
Roger (who was called Rusty in those days, to distinguish him from his father Roger) was by
then already a living legend in Yale’s Classics Department. At a stage of life when most undergraduates
are casting around aimlessly for an academic focus, Roger already had a sense of purpose and direction
far beyond his years. He not only knew what he wanted to study, but he also had thoroughly researched
the people he was going to study with. Roger never did anything halfway.
After graduation from Yale in 1968, Roger moved to Toronto to do a PhD under the supervision
of Alan Samuel, to whom I was then married. By this time he had already published his first two articles
and was well on his way. For the next few years Roger (and subsequently Whitney as well) became part
of our lives. While others will naturally marvel at Roger’s academic achievements, I will always think of
him in terms of his endearing personal qualities. He is a person of immense loyalty. One would think he
might have no time for a personal life because of the scope of his professional activities. But in fact he has
had a significant family life. A devoted son, sibling, spouse, father and most recently, grandfather, Roger
has always been there for members of his family. When I knew him there always seemed to be a family
member who was moving. All the siblings would rally around to assist. The Bagnalls were always a team.
Roger’s parents, Peggy and Roger (well known to American classicists for the years they ran
the American Philological Association job placement operation at the annual meetings), were both teachers.
They set very high expectations for their children, but they also gave them unconditional love and support.
Their family life was characterized by a great deal of mutual respect which is perhaps all too unusual
between parents and children. This dynamic laid the groundwork for Roger’s career: his support for
colleagues and mentoring of students have been a hallmark of his professional contribution.
Roger Bagnall is a man of truly incredible energy. He maintains a prodigious output of scholarship
while at the same time constantly organizing collaborative projects, running organizations, and germi-
nating new enterprises. The academic world is rightly in awe of the magnitude of his accomplishments—
and he bakes his own bread! In fact, he taught me to bake bread back in his graduate school days, using
a family recipe that I still have, scrawled on a tattered piece of letterhead from the American Society
of Papyrologists. Roger is a person who makes the most of every moment—he is seemingly incapable of
wasting time. A hearing loss sustained after an airplane ride in his childhood makes it difficult for Roger
to hear idle banter, but he would be temperamentally inclined to ignore it in any case. His focus is always
on productive activity.
Roger has a well-known capacity for detail. He has edited countless papyri and ostraka from
various collections around the world and at the same time has been able to draw broad conclusions
about life in Greco-Roman Egypt. He is an outstanding example of how familiarity with primary sources
ultimately provides the most authentic basis for sound historical work. Papyrologists should feel indebted
to him for the role he has played in demonstrating to a wider audience the relevance of their work to an
understanding of life in the ancient world.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDITORS’ PREFACE v
APPRECIATION (by Deborah W. Hobson) vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF PAPYRI xii
1 Frammento medico con elenco di sintomi 1

Isabella Andorlini
2 Schedule of Work Days 9
Rodney Ast
3 Remains of an agnitio bonorum possessionis: P.Duk. inv. 466 17
Jean-Jacques Aubert
4 Gemellos and His Animal Farm: Full Edition of P.Fay. 253 descr. 21
Giuseppina Azzarello and Fabian Reiter
5 Versione in greco di un testamento romano 31
Guido Bastianini
6 Récupération d’outils de briquetiers 37
Jean Bingen †
7 Letter about Court Proceedings and Agricultural Matters 41
Alan K. Bowman
8 Translation of a Letter of the praefectus Aegypti 47
Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
9 A Ptolemaic Register of Unused Land in the Arsinoite Nome 53
Willy Clarysse
10 A List of Words of Christian Origin from the Kelsey Museum 61
Raffaella Cribiore
11–12 Conductor praesidii 67
Hélène Cuvigny
13 P.Qasr Ibrim inv. 80/1: A Testimony to Zenodotos’ Edition of the Iliad? 75
Tomasz Derda and Adam Łajtar
14–25 Neue Dokumente zur Salzsteuer in Elephantine 79
Ruth Duttenhöfer
26 Le poète Dioscore d’Aphrodité à l’œuvre : une première version
de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, enkômion d’adventus du duc Kallinikos 97
Jean-Luc Fournet
27 Plainte au praeses Simplicius 107
Jean Gascou
28 Register of Requisitions 115
Nikolaos Gonis
29–31 Drei dokumentarische Papyri aus der Hamburger Sammlung 119
Dieter Hagedorn und Bärbel Kramer
Table of Contents
32 Report under Oath to Apollonios the Strategos: P.CtYBR inv. 4079 133
Ann Ellis Hanson
33 A Labor Contract for a pronoētēs (P.Lond. inv. 2219) 141
Todd M. Hickey and James G. Keenan
34 Maternal Division of Housed Property near the Temples of Memphis 149
Francisca A. J. Hoogendijk
35 P.Cornell inv. 69 Revisited: A Collection of Geometrical Problems 159
Alexander Jones
36 Beeidete Erklärung über die Umbuchung adärierter Naubien 177
Andrea Jördens
37 New Epigrams 187
Julia Lougovaya
38 Copy of a Census Declaration from Oxyrhynchus 191
AnneMarie Luijendijk
39 Coptic Letter 197
Leslie S. B. MacCoull
40 Invocation 201
Alain Martin
41 Grammatical Text: A Treatise on the Declension of Nouns 203
Kathleen McNamee
42 Rules of an Association of Soknebtunis 209
Andrew Monson
43 A Fourth-Century Inventory of Columns and the Late Roman Building Industry 215
Arietta Papaconstantinou
44 Brief über kirchliche Angelegenheiten 233
Amphilochios Papathomas
45 Rapporto allo stratego (MS 1802/38) 241
Rosario Pintaudi
46 A Reconstructed Land Survey from Kerkeosiris 243
Dominic Rathbone, Dorothy J. Thompson, and Arthur Verhoogt
47 A Draft of a Rider to a Cession Contract 267
David M. Ratzan
48 A New Fragment of a Techne grammatike (P.Mich. inv. 30) 277
Timothy Renner
49 O.BM EA 20300: In Search of the Latest Dated Demotic Ostrakon 285
Tonio Sebastian Richter
50 Letter from Philotas to His Brother Dioscourides:
Philotas, a Black Sheep in a High-Class Family? 291
Cornelia Römer
51 List of the Parts of the Forearm and Hand 295
Paul Schubert
52 Order for Delivery of Wheat and Lentils 299
Jennifer Sheridan Moss
x
Table of Contents
53 An Arabic Land Lease from Ṭuṭun̅ 301

Petra M. Sijpesteijn
54 Payment Record 307
Timothy Teeter
55 Letter from Theophanes to Anysios 311
J. David Thomas
56 A Census Return from Hermopolis from AD 189 317
Peter van Minnen
57 A Saite Book of the Dead Fragment in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 325
Terry G. Wilfong
58–69 Greek Ostraka from the Mut Precinct, South Karnak 331
Klaas A. Worp, with a preface by Richard Fazzini
70 P.Col. inv. 33r and the Processing of Data in Early Roman Egypt 349
Uri Yiftach-Firanko
INDICES
A. Greek Non-Documentary Texts 355
B. Greek Documentary Texts 360
I. Rulers
II. Consuls
III. Indictions and Eras
IV. Months and Days
V. Dates
VI. Personal Names
VII. Geographical
VIII. Religion
IX. Official and Military Terms and Titles
Χ. Professions, Trades and Occupations
XI. Measures and Money
XII. Taxes
XIII. General Index of Words
C. Latin Documentary Text 378
I. Personal Names
II. Geographical
III. Official and Military Terms and Titles
IV. General Index of Words
xi
*
LIST OF TEXTS
Non-Documentary
57 Saite Book of the Dead T. G. Wilfong ca. 630 BCE Western Thebes 325
37 Epigrams J. Lougovaya mid II BCE Arsinoites (?) 187
13 Homeric Quotation T. Derda and A. Łajtar 22–21 BCE (?) Qasr Ibrim 75
64 School Text (?) K. A. Worp late I–early II Thebes (South 341
Karnak)
1 Frammento medico I. Andorlini I–II ignota 1
35 Geometrical Problems A. Jones II unknown 159
41 Grammatical Text K. McNamee II unknown 203
51 Lexicographical Text P. Schubert III unknown 295
48 Grammatical Text T. Renner III–IV unknown 277
10 School Text R. Cribiore IV Thebes (?) 61
26 Enkômion d’adventus du J.-L. Fournet 567 ou 568 Aphrodité 97
duc Kallinikos
Documentary
14–25 Quittungen für Salzsteuer, R. Duttenhöfer 18.6.251 (14); Elephantine 85
Myropsike und Syeniton 11.7.251 (15);
logeia 2.12.247 (16);
21.12.245 (17);
5.7.223 (18);
14.3.222 (19);
18.3.222 (20);
8.5.221 (21);
15.4.–14.5.219 (22);
1.7.217 (23);
4.3.211 (24);
212–211 (25)
(sämtlich v.Chr.)
42 Rules of an Association A. Monson ca. 250–210 BCE Tebtunis 209
9 Register of Unproductive W. Clarysse early II BCE Arsinoite 53
Land
46 Land Survey D. Rathbone, 119 BCE, September Kerkeosiris 243
D. J. Thompson,
A. Verhoogt
50 Private Letter C. Römer II BCE, July–early unknown 291
September
67 Contract (?) K. A. Worp ca. 10/11 Thebes (South 346
Karnak)
*
All dates are CE unless otherwise indicated.
List of Texts
58–63, Tax Receipts (for Bath, K. A. Worp 22.8.29 (58); Thebes (South 334
65–66 Dyke and Poll Taxes) 1.6.34 (59); late Karnak)
I BCE–early I (60);
1.5.22 (61);
9.4.23 (62);
23/24 (63);
19 or 20 or 23.2.127
(65); 130–150 (66);
6 Récupération d’outils de J. Bingen† vers la 2e m. du Ier s. Arsinoïte (?) 37
briquetiers
11 Reçu pour des marsippoi H. Cuvigny 24 juillet 96 Xèron 68
68–69 Descripta K. A. Worp I (?) Thebes (South 347
Karnak)
4 Account of Oxen G. Azzarello and late I–early II Fayum 21
F. Reiter
47 Rider to a Cession Contract D. M. Ratzan I–II Oxyrhynchite 267
49 Acknowledgements of Debt T. S. Richter I–II Theban area (?) 285
34 Property Division F. A. J. Hoogendijk I–II Memphis 149
12 Lettre d’une femme H. Cuvigny 115–130 Xèron 70
32 Report to the strategos A. E. Hanson ca. 116/117 Apollonopolite 133
Heptakomias
31 Auszug aus einem D. Hagedorn and nach 138 Ptolemais 128
diastroma B. Kramer Euergetis
30 Penthemeros-Quittung D. Hagedorn and 26. Juni 158 Theadelphia 126
B. Kramer
38 Census Declaration A. Luijendijk 174 (?) Oxyrhynchus 191
8 Translation of a Letter of A. Bülow-Jacobsen 186–187 Mons 47
the praefectus Aegypti Claudianus
56 Census Return P. van Minnen 189 Hermopolis 317
29 Bericht über einen D. Hagedorn and Ende II. / Anf. III. Jh. Diopolites 119
Gefangenentransport B. Kramer (vor 212) parvus (Thebais)
7 Private Letter about Court A. K. Bowman II/III (?) Arsinoite 41
Proceedings Nome (?)
3 Agnitio bonorum J.-J. Aubert 212 or later (perhaps Oxyrhynchus 17
possessionis 239)
5 Frammento di testamento G. Bastianini 28.9.213 Ossirinco 31
45 Rapporto allo stratego R. Pintaudi 27/28 nov.–26/27 Ossirinco 241
dic., 229–234
70 Register of Letters U. Yiftach-Firanko 6.–25.5.232 Arsinoitês 349
55 Letter from the Theophanes J. D. Thomas early IV Hermopolis 311
Archive
xiii
List of Texts
43 Inventory of Columns A. Papaconstantinou second quarter of IV Arsinoe or 215

or later Oxyrhynchus
36 Beeidete Erklärung über A. Jördens 347 Oxyrhynchos 177
die Umbuchung adärierter
Naubien
27 Plainte au praeses J. Gascou vers 397–398 Hermopolis 107
52 Order for Delivery J. Sheridan Moss late IV unknown 299
2 Work Schedule R. Ast IV (?) Oxyrhynchite 9
33 Labor Contract for T. M. Hickey and June 11, 496 Oxyrhynchus 141
a pronoētēs J. G. Keenan
54 Record of Payment T. Teeter VI–VII unknown 307
44 Brief über kirchliche A. Papathomas VI–VII unbekannt 233
Angelegenheiten
39 Coptic Letter L. S. B. MacCoull VII (?) Middle Egypt (?) 197
e e
40 Invocation A. Martin 2 m. du VII s. ou Fayoum 201
début du VIIIe s.
28 Register of Requisitions N. Gonis early VIII Aphrodito 115
53 Arabic Lease of Land P. M. Sijpesteijn 24.7–23.8.860 Fayum 301
xiv
1. Frammento medico con elenco di sintomi
Isabella Andorlini
P.Lund. inv. 111r 6 x 6,3 cm I–II

prov. ignota
Piccolo frammento papiraceo di colore marrone scuro, con resti di concrezioni terrose sulla superficie
del recto, mutilo su ogni lato e scritto sul recto lungo le fibre; il verso, di colore più chiaro e meglio
conservato, è bianco1. La grafia è una libraria connotata da asse diritto, modulo verticaleggiante e
tratteggio lievemente chiaroscurale, che si apprezza nelle diagonali di alpha, kappa, lambda e my2.
Ingrossamenti marcati ornano le estremità di aste e diagonali di kappa, ny, rho, hypsilon. Peculiarità che
avvicinano la grafia alle librarie del I secolo d.C. inoltrato, imparentate con le coeve latine3, sono alpha
con barra centrale orizzontale, diagonale destra prominente nella cuspide del delta, epsilon col trattino
mediano staccato e inclinato a destra, my con le linee esterne divaricate e i tratti centrali convergenti ad
angolo, tau con traversa spezzata ed hypsilon in tre tempi, col calice appoggiato su un gambo pronunciato,
mentre omega ad anse strette ha l’attacco della seconda, di curvatura ogivale, nettamente a sinistra.
Analoghe tendenze grafiche ricorrono in PSI X 1174, Tav. I (Corinna, I d.C.) = G. Cavallo et al., Scrivere
libri, n° 15, P.Oxy. VI 878 (Thuc. II, tardo I d.C. = M. Wittek, Album de Paléographie grecque, Pl. 2;
G. Cavallo—H. Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands, n° 67), P.Oxy. XIX 2221 (Ad Nic. Ther., I d.C.), P.Tebt.
II 678 (= GMP II 2, ‘Medical Treatise On Prognosis’, I–II d.C.) e consigliano una datazione al tornante
del I–II d.C., un arco cronologico coerente con la produzione di altri libri ‘medici’ da Tebtunis (e.g. PSI
X 1180; PSI inv. 3054, con addenda in GMP II 1, ‘Trattato medico’, I–II d.C.). L’originario volumen
presentava un’impaginazione serrata ottenuta con spazio interlineare esiguo e con un numero alto di lettere
per rigo che conserva fino a 24 caratteri nell’ampiezza di soli cm 6 (rr. 7, 9, 10), una capienza comune
a trattati e manuali di medicina del primo periodo romano recuperati dai papiri (GMP I 1, p. 8).
Una corrispondente densità di contenuto caratterizza il testo superstite ove in poche righi si
affollano termini di sedi anatomiche e di sintomi, questi ultimi registrati al nominativo (rr. 7, 8, 9, 11,
12). Sebbene non sia possibile colmare con buona approssimazione le lacune tra i righi mutili a sinistra
e a destra, risalendo all’ampiezza originaria della colonna, alcune ricostruzioni plausibili e proposte
exempli gratia nelle note (rr. 5–6, 10–12, 12–15) confortano l’impressione che non molto testo sia perduto
(una certa riduzione di spaziatura e dimensione delle lettere vicino al margine destro pare segnalare
la prossima fine del rigo). L’esemplare, privo di segni di lettura, è elegante nella grafia e corretto nella
copia, come evidenzia una correzione sopralineare dovuta allo stesso scriba (r. 8). Non ricorre iota mutum
ascritto (per es. r. 2).
1
Il papiro appartiene al fondo acquisito nel 1933 da Carl Schmidt, che contiene, tra l’altro, materiale originariamente da
Tebtynis (cfr. I. Andorlini, Scavi e acquisti di papiri negli anni ’30: il caso dei P.Lund, in Comunicazioni, Firenze, Istituto
Papirologico G. Vitelli 1995, 45–50; bibliografia sulla cosiddetta ‘temple library’ di Tebtynis in GMP II 1,3–4 nn. 2–3).
Ringrazio la Lund University Library, e Karin Kulneff che ha curato il catalogo per APIS (lund.apis 118), per aver concesso
il papiro per la pubblicazione, Todd Hickey che me ne ha segnalata l’esistenza ed Eva Nylander che ha messo a disposizione
il pezzo durante l’ispezione autoptica che ho condotto nel Maggio 2011.
2
Sui rapporti tra scritture greche e latine del periodo vedi M. Norsa, Analogie e coincidenze tra scritture greche e latine nei
papiri, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, VI, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1946 (Studi e Testi 126) 105–121 (spec. 120–
121) = Omaggio a Medea Norsa, a c. di M. Capasso, Napoli 1993 (Syngrammata 2) 137–156.
3
Cfr. W. Lameere, Aperçus de paléographie homérique, Bruxelles-Amsterdam 1960, n° 3 (Hom. Il.; Pl. 2, I d.C.) 68–69
(con n. 2) per l’influsso della capitale rustica latina. Specimina di scritture d’influsso latino interessanti per il contesto sono
– oltre al noto P.Oxy. VIII 1083 (+ P.Oxy. XXVII 2453, Sophocles?, II d.C.) = Turner, GMAW 2 n° 28 ed al PSI Iliade 1
(in. II d.C.) – quelle di P.Oxy. XXXIII 2660, Pl. VII (Greek–Latin Glossary, I–II d.C.), e del datato P.Fay. 110, Pl. V =
Roberts, GLH, Pl. 11b (Lettera di Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, 94 d.C., forse opera di uno scriba professionale, cfr. G.
Azzarello, Alla ricerca della „mano“ di Epagathos, in APF 54 [2008] 181 n. 14).
2 Isabella Andorlini
Il frammento conserva un brano di testo medico anonimo con un quadro diagnostico articolato in una
fitta serie di sintomi, casistica (r. 3 ἂν εἴη) e prognosi (rr. 13–15 ὡϲ τὸ πολὺ ... δὲ μᾶλλον ... ἕωϲ τῆϲ ... -
καιδεκάτηϲ ἡ[μέραϲ), secondo moduli di tendenza propri dei trattati del Corpus Hippocraticum. Difficile
è riconoscere la patologia specifica cui si applicava il complesso dei sintomi, tutti coerenti con episodi
convulsivi che colpiscono volto e collo e ricorrenti nelle malattie acute tra cui febbre (Hipp. Acut.(Sp.) 4 =
7 p. 268, 4–6 Potter ὀμμάτων ϲτάϲιεϲ, χειρῶν διαϲτάϲιεϲ, ὀδόντων τριϲμοί, ϲφυγμοί, ϲιηγόνων ξυναγωγή),
soffocazione (Sor. Gyn. III 26,3 infra n. 11), spasmo o tetano (Anon.Med. MAC 7,1–2 infra n. 11), frenite
(Hipp. Epid. III 3,17 infra n. 9). Lo stile espositivo, privo di forme personali del verbo almeno nella parte
conservata, è compatto e aforistico, denso di giustapposizioni di sintomi come nelle casistiche dei trattati
ippocratici (e.g. Epid., Morb. I–II, Coac.Praen.)4. Sintomi legati alle sedi affette (ὀμμάτων r. 8, ὀδόντων
r. 11), anche con indicazione d’intensità (πυκνή r. 12), compaiono al nominativo, in forma asindetica, senza
l’articolo che invece accompagna il nome dell’organo affetto nelle locuzioni accessorie (ἐπ]ὶ̣ τοῦ βρέγματοϲ
r. 9, καὶ τοῦ τραχήλου r. 10). Notevoli alcune peculiarità lessicali come il raro ϲπάργηϲιϲ (usato solo
da Dioscoride e Sorano, infra n. 7) e il quasi hapax ἐρειϲμόϲ (equivalente al tecnico ϲυνέρειϲιϲ ὀδόντων
di Sor. Gyn. III 26,3), affinità che si segnalano insieme ad altre consonanze di stile con l’opera, in gran
parte perduta5, del medico Sorano d’Efeso (e.g. παρέπομαι per i segni “concorrenti”, r. 4), un autore la cui
cronologia concorda con quella della trattazione medica di ottimo livello copiata nella prima età romana
e casualmente sottratta da P.Lund. inv. 111 al naufragio della letteratura medica antica6.
→ ________________ ________________
] ̣[ ] ̣[
] ̣ ̣ρωη̣ ̣ ̣[ ἰϲ]χ̣υρ̣ ῷ ἢ̣ ὁ̣μ̣[
] ̣ϲτιϲανειηκα̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ν]ῆ̣ϲτιϲ ἂν εἴη κα̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[
4 ]ϲ̣ ̣[ ] ̣ ̣ν[ ̣]πα̣ρ̣ε̣πομενα̣τ̣υ̣γ̣χ̣α̣[ 4 ]ϲ̣ῳ̣ τ̣ι̣ν[ ̣] πα̣ρ̣ε̣πόμενα̣ τ̣υ̣γ̣χ̣ά[̣ νουϲι
]τ̣ου̣α̣νω̣επερχομενωνμεν ̣[ ] τ̣οῦ ἄνω· ἐπερχομένων μὲν δ̣[ιὰ
] ̣καιπαριϲθμιωνκαιδυϲχ ̣[ ]ν̣̣ καὶ παριϲθμίων, καὶ δυϲχε̣[ρ-
]ι̣ϲκαιχει̣ ̣ω̣[ ̣]ϲ̣παργηϲιϲ ̣ρ̣οα̣[ ]ι̣ϲ καὶ χει̣ρ̣ῶ̣[ν] ϲπάργηϲιϲ π̣ροα[
υ̣[ υ̣[
8 ] ̣ιλοτη̣ϲομματωνκαιτ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣⟦ν̣⟧[̣ 8 κ]ο̣ιλότηϲ ὀμμάτων καὶ το̣ϲ̣ο⟦̣ ν̣⟧[
]ι̣τουβ̣ρ̣ε̣γ̣μ̣α̣τοϲβαρυτηϲϲκλη[ ἐπ]ὶ̣ τοῦ β̣ρ̣έ̣γ̣μ̣α̣τοϲ· βαρύτηϲ, ϲκλη[ρία
] ̣πουκαιτουτραχηλουκαιτηϲ[ μετ]ώ̣που καὶ τοῦ τραχήλου καὶ τῆϲ [
] ̣ωνε̣ρ̣ειϲμοϲοδοντων ̣[ ϲπαϲ]μ̣ῶν, ἐ̣ρ̣ειϲμὸϲ ὀδόντων κ̣[αὶ
12 ]ο̣νιοϲοτ̣ε̣δεπυκνηειϲτ̣[ 12 -χρ]ό̣νιοϲ, ὅτε δὲ πυκνὴ εἰϲ τ̣[ὴν
] ̣ν̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ν̣ω̣ϲωϲ̣τ̣ο̣πολ̣υ[̣ ]α̣ν̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ν̣ω̣ϲ ὡϲ τὸ πολ̣ὺ̣ [
] ̣δεμαλλονεωϲτηϲε[ ἔτ]ι̣̣ δὲ μᾶλλον ἕωϲ τῆϲ ἐ[νάτηϲ
] ̣τ̣εκαιδεκατηϲη[ πε]ν̣τ̣εκαιδεκάτηϲ ἡ[μέραϲ
16 ] ̣[ 16 ] ̣[
________________ ________________
4
Per lo schema d’esposizione della semiologia attraverso proposizioni brevi e coordinate (καί), tutte sullo stesso piano
e prive di sintassi subordinata, vedi l’analisi di J. Jouanna, Hippocrate. Maladies II, Paris 2003, 15–23.
5
Su Sorano (fl. ca. 100 d.C.) e la sua tradizione cfr. M. Green—A. E. Hanson, Soranus of Ephesus: Methodicorum princeps,
in ANRW II.37.2, Berlin—New York 1994, 968–1075; I. Andorlini, Riconsiderazione di PSI II 117: Sorani Gynaecia,
in La science médicale antique: nouveaux regards, Etudes réunies par V. Boudon-Millot, A. Guardasole et C. Magdelaine
en l’honneur de J. Jouanna, Paris 2007 [st. 2008] 41–71.
6
Per Cataloghi di papiri medici online vedi CEDOPAL-Liège (MP3) [http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/index.htm]
e Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB) [http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/]. Frammenti di una trattazione ‘progno-
stica’ sono conservati da un reperto da Tebtynis del I–II d.C., P.Tebt. II 678 = GMP II 1 (MP3 2368; LDAB 4617).
1. Frammento medico con elenco di sintomi 3
... violento o (uniforme?) ... a digiuno potrebbe(ro) essere ... (sintomi) che accompagnano (un morbo) ...
della parte superiore. Sopraggiungendo invero (per l’infiammazione?) anche le tonsille, e con gran pena,
e (granulosità) e gonfiore delle mani (crescente?) ... e occhi infossati e tanto (? in profondità quanto) nella
‘fontanella bregmatica’, pesantezza, indurimento ... della fronte e del collo e della (testa?) (con) spasmi,
accavallamento dei denti e ... (respirazione) corta talora invece fitta entro il (settimo) giorno (?) ... per
lo più ..., ma ancora di più fino al nono (?) ... quindicesimo giorno...
1 Traccia di verticale ripiegata in basso (? β). 2 Prima di ρ lettera con discendente angolata (? υ), preceduta da due tracce
sul rigo di base coerenti con χ (? λ, α) per distanza e inclinazione. Segue η meglio di ν. Dopo η base curvilinea chiusa con
un leggero sbaffo come omicron in questa grafia e diagonale bassa sul rigo, forse μ (? α, λ). 3 Sul bordo sinistro traccia
verticale (]η̣ϲτιϲ opp. ]ι̣ϲ τιϲ, non ]ο̣ϲτιϲ); a destra tre punti sul rigo di base, forse ]α̣ι̣[ (opp. ] ̣α̣[ ). 4 Dopo ϲ traccia
circolare e spazio compatibili con una lettera larga (? ω) o con due lettere, quindi una barra che interseca una discendente
ornata alla base (un τ come in τραχηλου, r. 10, opp. π, meno probabile γι), un’asta con uncino sinistrorso (ι, η), un ν e lacuna
di una lettera stretta (ι, α, η), forse ]ϲ̣ω̣τ̣ι̣ν[ ̣], ma anche ]ϲ̣ε̣ι̣τ̣ι̣ν[ ̣]. 5 Sul bordo destro traccia corposa a media altezza
(? δ). 6 Ad inizio attacco di verticale (ν meglio di ι, η), alla fine lettera tondeggiante (ε, ω, ο). 7 Dopo χει̣, nel
punto di frattura, una discendente (ρ, λ ?); alla fine prima di ρ̣οα̣ due tracce basse delle discendenti di una o due lettere
(? π, η, υ ̣). 8 Ad inizio curva di chiusura delle due metà di ο. In fine rigo dopo και il supporto deve essere disteso e
sussistono forse tracce di 4–5 lettere con parte della traversa di un τ, con base ornata, due tracce circolari (? ο, ω, se non οϲ)
seguite da ν, forse cancellato e corretto supra lineam (υ, χ ?) in το̣ϲ̣ο̣⟦ν̣⟧`υ´. 10 Parte destra di lettera sull’orlo di frattura
compatibile con ω. 11 Prima di ων tracce evanide di una discendente arcuata (? μ); in fine traccia verticale. 12 Lettera
iniziale tondeggiante, poss. ]ο̣νιοϲ. 13 Tracce iniziali confuse (? ]α̣ν)̣ , poi parte superiore di una curva (ο, ω ?) e spazio
per un’altra lettera, quindi alcune discendenti di cui le ultime forse riconducibili ad un ν con uncino sinistrorso nella seconda
verticale (poss. anche η e α); poi ωϲ (con ω tagliato dalla frattura). 15 Lettera incerta dopo la frattura (ν, η ?), seguita da
quello che appare un τ con traversa incavata (simile a υ). 16 Debole traccia diagonale che traspare sullo strato sottostante
di fibre verticali (? α, μ).
No. 1
2 Se è corretto ]χ̣υ̣ρωη̣ο̣μ̣[, possibili ἰϲ]χ̣υ̣ρῷ ἢ̣ ὁ̣μ̣[οίωϲ oppure ἢ̣ ὁ̣μ̣[αλ-. Gli aggettivi ἰϲχυρόϲ
e ὁμαλόϲ denotano il grado ‘alterato, violento’ e quello ‘uniforme’ di un fatto fisiologico, come
il polso (Hipp. Aph. VII 21 Ἐπὶ ἰϲχυρῷ ϲφυγμῷ, Gal. Diff.Puls. I 9 = VIII 518,11–12 K ὁμαλὸϲ
ἁπλῶϲ ὁ τοιοῦτοϲ καλεῖται ϲφυγμόϲ), o morboso (Hipp. VM 9 p. 28,13–14 Jones μεγάλῳ τε καὶ
ἰϲχυρῷ καὶ ἐπιϲφαλεῖ νουϲήματι, Gal. Caus.Symp. II 5 = VII 176,3–4 K ὁμαλὴ δυϲκραϲία). Meno
convincente ]α̣κ̣ρω (poss. μ]α̣κ̣ρῷ ἢ̣ ὁ̣μ[̣ -).
3 All’inizio forse ]η̣ϲτιϲ ἂν εἴη κα̣[ con ν]ῆ̣ϲτιϲ riferito al digiuno del paziente, e.g. Hipp. Prorrh.II 4
p. 228,10 Potter καὶ νῆϲτιϲ ἂν ἔτι ἐϲτί. In alternativa ] ̣ϲ τιϲ ἂν εἴη κα̣[, per es. διάθεϲ]ί̣ϲ τιϲ che
richiamerebbe una ‘condizione’ o malattia (e.g. Gal. MM I 7 = X 52,4–6 K εἰ δ’ ἤτοι διάθεϲίϲ
τιϲ ἢ καταϲκευὴ κατὰ φύϲιν ἡ ὑγίειά ἐϲτι, καὶ ἡ νόϲοϲ ἐξ ἀνάγκηϲ ἔϲται διάθεϲίϲ τιϲ ἢ καταϲκευὴ
παρὰ φύϲιν). Non è escluso il nome di un morbo con terminazione -]ι̣ϲ, e neppure ] ἥ̣τιϲ ἂν εἴη.
Poi κα̣[τ- opp. κα̣[ί. L’ottativo ἂν εἴη esprime la condizione desiderativa quale ‘aspettativa’ di
un’ipotesi precedente, secondo il meccanismo congetturale proprio della prognosi (e.g. Hipp.
Prorrh. II 4 p. 230,17–18 Potter εἰ δὲ μεθυϲθείη, ... , καὶ δύϲπνοοϲ ἂν εἴη, καὶ βαρύτεροϲ “se uno
si ubriaca ... avrà anche difficoltà respiratorie e si sentirà assai appesantito”). Cfr. D. Fausti,
Modelli espositivi relativi alla prognosi nel Corpus Hippocraticum (Prorrhetico 2, Malattie 1–3,
Affezioni, Affezioni Interne, Prognosi di Cos), in Ph. van der Eijk, ed., Hippocrates in Context.
Papers Read at the XI t h International Hippocrates Colloquium (University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, 28–30 August 2002), Leiden—Boston 2005 (SAM 31) 101–117 (spec. 106).
4 La lettura ad inizio rigo è problematica, sebbene il participio παρεπόμενα costruito con τυγχάνω
suggerisca un precedente dativo retto dal verbo stesso (e.g. νό]ϲ̣ῳ̣ τ̣ι̣ν[ὶ] πα̣ρ̣ε̣πόμενα̣ τ̣υ̣γ̣χ̣ά[̣ νουϲι
vel διαθέ]ϲ̣ε̣[ι] τ̣ι̣ν[ὶ] vel ϲτά]ϲ̣ε̣[ι] τ̣ι̣ν[ὶ] vel sim.), oppure un termine con esso concordato (e.g.
τ̣ι̣ν[ὰ]). Cfr. Erasistr. Febr. = Fr. 206,8 Garofalo [ap. Marcell. Puls. p. 462 Schöne] καὶ αὐτὸϲ δὲ
Ἐραϲίϲτρατοϲ ἀεὶ παρεπόμενον οἴεται τῷ πυρετῷ <...> τυγχάνειν (“ed Erasistrato stesso ritiene
che spesso capiti che [il segno, ἡ ϲτάϲιϲ] sia associato alla febbre”), Sor. Gyn. I 36 = I 12 p. 34
Burg.-Gour. παρεπομένηϲ αἱμορραγίαϲ (“quando concorre un’emorragia”), Gyn. I 42 = I 13 p. 39
Burg.-Gour. πολλὰ μὲν δυϲχερῆ παρέπεται ταῖϲ κυοφορούϲαιϲ βαρουμέναιϲ (“molti fastidi però
accompagnano le donne in gravidanza”). τὰ παρεπόμενα sono i segni ‘concorrenti’ e ‘conseguenti’
ad uno stato di natura o di malattia (Ruf. Syn. 4 p. 223,13–14 Dar.-Rue. = Fr. 177 [Herophilus]
von Staden ἐροῦμεν πρῶτον τὰϲ διαφορὰϲ τῶν φυϲικῶϲ ἑκάϲτῃ ἡλικίᾳ παρεπομένων ϲφυγμῶν
“dirò innanzitutto di quelle differenze di pulsazioni che per natura si accompagnano ad ogni età
della vita”, Gal. Caus.Sympt. III 8 = VII 250,8 K διὰ τὰ παρεπόμενα ϲυμπτώματα, Aët. Gyn. XVI
106 Zervos τὰ δὲ παρεπόμενα τῇ παϲχούϲῃ μήτρᾳ ϲημεῖα). La formulazine è tecnica e introduce
il quadro semeiotico secondo lo stile delle enunciazioni prognostiche.
5 L’espressione ] τ̣οῦ ἄνω· (retta o meno da ἀπό, ἐκ, ἐπί, κατά, περί) è conclusiva per il μέν posposto
al participio ἐπερχομένων. Può sottintendere un generico μέρουϲ, χωρίου (e.g. Gal. AA I 11 =
I 166 Garofalo = II 277,3 K ἐκ τοῦ ἡμίϲεωϲ ϲχεδὸν αὐτῆϲ [sc. πλευρᾶϲ] μέρουϲ τοῦ ἄνω “più o
meno dalla metà superiore di essa [la scapola]”) ed indicare la ‘parte superiore’ della sede colpita
da malattia (e.g. Hipp. Acut. 49 p. 104,10 Jones ἀτὰρ καὶ φυϲώδηϲ τοῦ ἐντέρου τοῦ ἄνω “ed è
inoltre causa di flatulenza nella parte superiore dell’addome”). Per un probabile riferimento alla
sommità della testa cfr. Orib. Coll. VII 7,1 = CMG VI 1,1 p. 208,2–3 Raeder κατὰ τὰ ἄνω μέρη
τοῦ μετώπου καὶ πρὸϲ τῷ βρέγματι.
L’incipit ἐπερχομένων μέν introduce la progressione dei fenomeni (cfr. Index Hippocraticus,
J.-H. Kühn—U. Fleischer, edd., Gottingae 1989, 295 s.v. ἐπέρχομαι II.1. invado [plerumque de
signis morborum]) localizzati presso le ‘tonsille’ (παριϲθμίων r. 6). Si tratta di segni che “soprag-
giungono” a peggiorare il quadro (e.g. Hipp. Mul. II 115 = VIII 248,4–5 Littré καὶ ὀδύνη ἐκ τῆϲ
ὀϲφύοϲ καὶ τῶν βουβώνων, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα πολλά “[nell’infiammazione uterina] si ha dolore
ai lombi, all’inguine, e molti sintomi che sopraggiungono”).
5–6 Considerati il genitivo assoluto esteso a παριϲθμίων, e la traccia in fine rigo, si può proporre
ἐπερχομένων μὲν δ̣[ιὰ | τὴν φλεγμονὴ]ν̣ καὶ παριϲθμίων. Possibile anche un endiadico ἀντιάδω]ν̣
καὶ παριϲθμίων, preceduto da un diverso costrutto (e.g. δ̣[ιὰ τοῦτο vel sim.).
6 Una definizione dei παρίϲθμια – una metafora della lingua medica alternativa ad ἀντιάδεϲ –
è data da Ps.Gal. Intr. IX 5 p. 34 Petit = XIV 713,9–11 K λέγονται δὲ αὗται (i.e. αἱ ἀντιάδεϲ) καὶ
παρίϲθμια, διὰ τὸ ἐοικέναι τὸ χωρίον ἰϲθμῷ εἰϲ ὃ παράκεινται, μάλιϲτα δὲ ὅταν φλεγμαίνωϲιν, dove
è illustrata la simmetrica disposizione delle ghiandole presso la faringe (i.e. ἰϲθμόϲ). L’equivalenza
παρίϲθμιον/ἀδήν è in Hipp. Gland. 7 pp. 70–71, 111 Craik = VIII 21–22 Littré τράχηλοϲ τὰ μέρεα
αὐτοῦ ἑκάτερα ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ἀδέναϲ ἔχει, καὶ παρίϲθμια καλέονται αἱ ἀδένεϲ αὗται, mentre
Sorano parla delle tonsille infiammate nei neonati (Gyn. II 50 Περὶ φλεγμονῆϲ παριϲθμίων = II 19
pp. 59, 114 Burg.-Gour.). I medici antichi percepivano le ghiandole tonsillari come tumefazioni
e infiammazioni tra capo e collo usando lo stesso termine per l’organo e per la relativa affezione
(le ‘tonsille infiammate’), cfr. Hipp. Morb. II 30 ἢν ἀντιάδεϲ γένωνται, ϲυνοιδέει ὑπὸ τὴν γνάθον
ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν “quando insorgono le antiades, si forma un gonfiore sotto la mascella da entrambi
i lati” (= Maladies II, p. 165 n. 2 Jouanna), Cels. med. VII 12,2 Tonsillas autem, quae post inflam-
mationes induruerunt, ἀντιάδεϲ autem a Graecis appellantur, Gal. Tum.Pr.Nat. 17 = VII 731,12–
14 K αἱ ϲταφυλαὶ καὶ τὰ παρίϲθμια καὶ αἱ ἀντιάδεϲ οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ φλεγμοναί εἰϲιν. Le tonsille
sono formazioni distinte (palatine [antiades], faringee [adenes], linguali [paristhmia]), e già la
lingua latina variava tra amygdala, isthmus, tonsilla e il calco antias, cfr. J. André, Le Vocabulaire
latin de l’anatomie, Paris 1991, 66–68, 245, U. Capitani, A. C. Celso e la terminologia tecnica
greca, in ASNP s. III.V.2 (1975) 511. Rufo ne distingueva ‘sei’ in rapporto alla sede (Ruf. Part. 22
p. 173,11–174,2 Dar.-Rue. Ἐνδοτέρω δὲ τῆϲ γλώττηϲ ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρουϲ κεῖται προϲτυπῆ [τὰ]
παρίϲθμια, ἓξ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντα, ..., ὧν τὰ μὲν τέϲϲαρα ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρουϲ θεωρεῖται· τὰ δὲ δύο
ἐϲτὶν ἀφανέϲτερα). La frequenza di tonsilliti nell’antichità è attestata non solo dallo spazio ad
esse dedicato nelle trattazione mediche, come mostra la definizione conservata da PSI XV 1510,3
(MP3 2364.01, Catechismo, III d.C., ποῦ κεῖται τὰ [παρίϲθμια;), ma anche dal lessico quotidiano
di due missive nelle quali, per fronteggiare i παρίϲθμια (anche qui nell’accezione pregnante di
‘tonsille ammalate’), si richiedono un farmaco, in O.Claud. II 222,5, e un amuleto terapeutico in
P.Oxy. XLII 3068,1.
La traccia in fine rigo ammette sia δυϲχε̣[- (che qualifica un malanno “penoso, fastidioso”) sia
δυϲχω̣[ρ- (“non districabile, impervio”): forse καὶ παριϲθμίων, καὶ δυϲχε̣[ρῶϲ (“e con sofferenza”),
ma sono possibili un aggettivo concordato (e.g. δυϲχε̣[ρεϲτέρων, δυϲχε̣[ρῶν) oppure un termine
coordinato, ma generico, come δυϲχε̣[ρειῶν.
7 La verticale ad inizio rigo, con uncino sinistrorso in alto e destrorso in basso, corrisponde a ι
in questa grafia, per cui si tratterà della terminazione, assai comune, del nome di un altro segno
morboso nella sequenza ]ι̣ϲ καὶ χει̣ ̣ω[ν] ϲπάργηϲιϲ (poss. χει̣ρ̣ῶ[ν] “mani”, vel χει̣λ̣ῶ[ν] “labbra,
lembi di una parte”). Un parallelismo con ϲπάργηϲιϲ (“tumefazione, gonfiore”) ricorre in Sor.
Gyn. II 7 e, tra le possibili integrazioni, favorisce χόνδρωϲ]ι̣ϲ (“grumosità cartilaginea, mastite”),
cfr. χονδρώδηϲ in Hipp. Coac. 4,501 = V 698,18–19 Littré Αἱ ϲύριγγεϲ χαλεπώταταί εἰϲιν, ὅϲαι
ἐν τοῖϲι χονδρώδεϲί τε καὶ ἀϲάρκοιϲι τόποιϲι πεφύκαϲιν, sulla pericolosità delle fistole “nei tessuti
cartilaginei e scarniti”, e il raro composto ϲυγχόνδρωϲιϲ per la giuntura cartilaginea in Gal. Oss. 21
p. 44 n. 1 Garofalo = II 738,15–16 K καλεῖν ἔξεϲτι ϲυγχόνδρωϲιν μὲν τὴν διὰ χόνδρου ϲύμφυϲιν.
In alternativa περίταϲ]ι̣ϲ (“tensione, contrazione”, spec. mammaria e.g. Dsc. MM III 34,2 ἐπιτεθὲν
τῷ μετώπῳ μαϲτῶν τε περίταϲιν καὶ ϲπάργηϲιν πραΰνει).
Notevole è il termine raro ϲπάργηϲιϲ, eccezionalmente legato alla tumefazione delle mani (se
precede χει̣ρ̣ῶν), laddove i medici lo usano sempre nell’accezione di “distensione della mammella
da eccesso di latte”. La parola ha 4 occorrenze in Dioscoride (MM II 107,3 πρὸϲ δὲ χονδριῶνταϲ
μαϲτοὺϲ καὶ ϲπαργήϲειϲ, MM III 34,2 cit. supra, MM V III, 2 πρὸϲ φλεγμονὰϲ καὶ ϲκληρίαν καὶ
ϲπάργηϲιν μαϲτῶν, Eup. I 126,1 τὰϲ δὲ ϲπαργήϲειϲ τῶν μαϲτῶν), ed 1 in Sorano (Gyn. II 7,2). Nel
capitolo sulla “congestione mammaria post partum (Περὶ ϲπαργήϲεωϲ μαϲτῶν)”, Sorano distingue
la fase in cui i seni si gonfiano appesantiti e granulosi (χόνδρωϲιϲ), dalla successiva (ϲπάργηϲιϲ) in
cui sono dolenti e infiammati per la distensione mammaria (κατὰ γὰρ τὴν ἐπιφορὰν τοῦ γάλακτοϲ
διογκούμενοι ϲυντόνωϲ οἱ μαϲτοὶ βαροῦνται τὸ πρῶτον, ὅπερ λέγεται χόνδρωϲιϲ· [χόνδρωϲιϲ
Rose, Ilberg, χονδρίαϲιϲ Burg.-Gour. p. 14: cfr. pp. 81–83 nn. 79–81] εἶτα καὶ ἀλγοῦϲιν καὶ
διατεινόμενοι πυροῦνται, καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον καλεῖται ϲπάργηϲιϲ). Coerente è il quesito su spargesis
posto dai Gynaecia Muscionis (e Graecis Sorani in Latinum translata sermonem) 72 (p. 26,19–21
Rose) Quid est spargesis post partum? lactis ad mamillas confluxio cum tensione et gravedine,
dolore etiam et fervore. Comune nel lessico medico è ϲπαργάω (“essere turgido, gonfio”), e.g.
Hipp. Epid. II 6,21 ove indica il gonfiore dovuto a concentrazione umorale nelle parti superiori
del corpo (testa) Ἢν τὰ ἄνω χωρία ϲπαργᾷ, τὰ περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν, ἑλκέων κάθαρϲιϲ, ἔμετοϲ, ἱδρώϲ.
Difficile è congetturare la parola in fine rigo, compromessa dalla lacuna che interessa la lettera
iniziale: l’eventuale lettura π̣ροα[, per es. come inizio di participio (π̣ροά[γουϲα ? i.e. ϲπάργηϲιϲ),
indicherebbe “eccesso, prominenza” o “progresso” del fenomeno (Sor. Gyn. II 23 = II 9,69 p. 35,2
Burg.-Gour. διὰ τὴν προάγουϲαν κακοδιαιτηϲίαν “per la crescente cattiva alimentazione”). Più
semplice π̣ρὸ α[ὐτ- (poco plausibile per il senso ἢ̣ ῥοα[-“melograno” ?).
8 Intendi κ]ο̣ιλότηϲ ὀμμάτων, “occhi infossati”. L’espressione è ippocratica e compare tra segni
“cattivi” di debolezza visiva (Coac. 8.214 = V 632,2–3 Littré πονηρὸν δὲ καὶ κοιλότηϲ ὀμμάτων,
καὶ ἔκθλιψιϲ ἔξω ϲφοδρή). L’occhio incavato è reso dal termine aggettivale in Hipp. Steril. 215 =
VIII 416,9 Littré ὁρῶνται οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ εἱλκυϲμένοι καὶ κοιλότεροι. Interessante un passo di Sorano
sulla febbre da calore (ϲειριάϲεωϲ δὲ γενομένηϲ, Gyn. II 55 = II 23 pp. 63, 120 Burg.-Gour.),
dove l’incavarsi delle orbite – paragonato alla fossetta bregmatica – è sintomo di disidratazione
grave, insieme all’infiammazione di encefalo e meninge, secchezza e anoressia (φλεγμονὴ τῶν
περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον καὶ τὰϲ μήνιγγαϲ μερῶν, ὥϲτε κοιλότητα τοῦ βρέγματοϲ καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν
παρακολουθεῖν μετ’ ὠχριάϲεωϲ καὶ ξηραϲίαϲ τοῦ ϲώματοϲ καὶ ἀνορεξίαϲ).
8–9 Alla fine del r. 8 è decifrabile con molta incertezza το̣ϲο̣ `υ̣´[ (corr. ex το̣ϲ̣ο⟦ν̣⟧[, con υ supra lineam)
che suggerisce un καὶ το̣ϲ̣οῦ̣[τον xx|xx ... ἐπ]ὶ̣ τοῦ β̣ρ̣έ̣γ̣μ̣α̣τοϲ. Nella lacuna c’è spazio per una
correlazione tra la concavità delle orbite e quella del βρέγμα, e.g. διὰ | βάθουϲ ὡϲ (καὶ) ἐπ]ὶ̣ τοῦ
β̣ρ̣έ̣γ̣μ̣α̣τοϲ “e tanto in profondità quanto nella fontanella bregmatica”, oppure το̣ϲ̣ο̣ῦ̣[τόν ἐϲτιν
ὅϲον κατὰ / ἐπ]ί̣, o ancora το̣ϲ̣ο̣ῦ[̣ τον τὸ κοῖλον ὡϲ (καὶ) ἐπ]ί̣). Cfr. Sor. Gyn. II 55 = II 23 p. 63,10
Burg.-Gour. ἀπὸ τῆϲ τοῦ βρέγματοϲ κοιλότητοϲ per l’affossamento nel punto di sutura.
9 ἐπ]ὶ̣ τοῦ β̣ρ̣έ̣γ̣μ̣α̣τοϲ· In analogia con la “concavità” oculare (κοιλότηϲ) il termine βρέγμα definisce
qui la cosiddetta “fontanella bregmatica”, il punto d’articolazione dell’osso frontale con le ossa
parietali: la regione alla nascita non è ossificata e si presenta come un piccolo avallamento di
tessuto connettivo a forma di losanga, fino a chiudersi dopo poco più di un anno di vita. Cfr. Gal.
Oss. 14 p. 48–49 Garofalo n. 2 = II 744,2–5 K ἓξ ὀϲτᾶ γίγνεται τῆϲ ὅληϲ κεφαλῆϲ τὰ πάντα χωρὶϲ
τοῦ ϲφηνοειδοῦϲ· δύο μὲν κατὰ τὸ βρέγμα, κοινὴν ἔχοντα ῥαφήν, τὴν κατὰ τὸ μῆκοϲ εὐθεῖαν
(“le ossa della testa sono sei in tutto, sfenoide escluso; due nel parietale con una sutura in comune
che va diritta in lunghezza”).
βαρύτηϲ, ϲκλη[ρία (oppure ϲκλη[ρότηϲ). Per βαρύτηϲ, associata all’opposta κουφότηϲ (“legge-
rezza”), cfr. Anonymus Londiniensis, De med. 31 βαρύτηϲ καὶ κ(ατὰ) π(ρόϲ)θεϲιν κουφ̣ό̣τηϲ
(p. 72,5 Manetti). Sorano avverte il “peso” come cerebrale (Gyn. III 8 = III 2,48 Burg.-Gour.
κεφαλῆϲ βάροϲ), mentre la “durezza” è genericamente corporea (Gyn. IV 7 = IV 4,6–7 Burg.-
Gour. διὰ ϲκληρίαν τοῦ ϲώματοϲ). La βαρύτηϲ che colpisce gli organi motori è un segno nefasto
in Hipp. Coac. 27,483 = V 692,17–18 Littré βαρύτηϲ δὲ ὅλου τοῦ ϲώματοϲ καὶ χειρῶν καὶ ποδῶν,
πονηρόν. Nella definizione di ‘scirro’, duritia e pondus caratterizzano la formazione tumorale
(Ps.Gal. Def.med. 385 = XIX 442,6–7 K ϲκίρροϲ ἐϲτὶν ὄγκοϲ ϲωμάτων μετὰ ϲκληρίαϲ καὶ βάρουϲ
καὶ δυϲκινηϲίαϲ τε καὶ δυϲαιϲθηϲίαϲ). I sintomi di “pesantezza” e di “rigidità, indurimento”

accompagnano dolori al volto e al collo, definendo una patologia facciale complessa (Sor. Gyn.
III 17 = III 4,21–22 Burg.-Gour. ἀλγήματα τραχήλου καὶ ϲιαγόνων καὶ βρέγματοϲ καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν).
Tale quadro è relativo a malattie acute (respiratorie, cerebrali, cardiache), come angina, soffo-
cazione, spasmo, frenite (e.g. Epid. III 3,17 Ὁ φρενιτικὸϲ ... κεφαλῆϲ καὶ τραχήλου βάροϲ μετ'
ὀδύνηϲ).
9–10 Forse κατὰ (ἐπὶ) τοῦ μετ]ώ̣που καὶ τοῦ τραχήλου come sedi collegate dai sintomi (ma προϲ]ώ̣που
non è escluso) e.g. Paul. III 32,1 = CMG IX 1 p. 216,29 Heiberg κατὰ τοῦ μετώπου καὶ τοῦ
τραχήλου περιιδρώϲειϲ γίνονται (“sudori abbondanti” aggravano il quadro di una sindrome
polmonare).
10 Poss. καὶ τῆϲ [ῥινὸϲ (della “narice”) oppure καὶ τῆϲ [κεφαλῆϲ essendo la “testa” sempre associata
al “collo” nella sintomatologia.
11 La traccia all’inizio del r. 10 è arcuata come la diagonale destra di un μ (μετὰ ϲπαϲ]μ̣ῶν è da pre-
ferire per il senso ad un eventuale ϲφυγ]μ̣ῶν). Altre sedi del volto non ancora elencate sarebbero
“orecchie” (] ὤ̣τ̣ων) e “guance” (ϲιαγό]ν̣ων). Il quadro aggrava la sindrome spastica della musco-
latura facciale come nella frenite (e.g. Hipp. Epid. I 12 p. 164,16–18 Jones Τὰ περὶ κεφαλὴν καὶ
τράχηλον ἀλγήματα, καὶ βάρεα ... φρενιτικοῖϲι μὲν ϲπαϲμοί) e nel tetano (Anon.Med. MAC 7,2
p. 50,15–18 Garofalo ϲπαϲμοῦ ϲημεῖα. Τετάνῳ δὲ παρέπεται ὀδύνη ὑπερβάλλουϲα ταχεῖα καὶ τῶν
χαλινῶν τάϲιϲ πολλή ... ϲυνέρειϲιϲ ὀδόντων).
L’ἐρειϲμὸϲ ὀδόντων è una contrattura facciale affine al ‘trisma tetanico’ (ὀδόντων τριϲμοί in Hipp.
Acut.(Sp.) 4 = 7 p. 268,5 Potter [complicanza del ‘causo’] e Archig. p. 15,31 Brescia καὶ τριϲμὸϲ
ὀδόντων γίγνεται καὶ τὰ ὄμματα μύουϲι). Le fauci serrate e l’incapacità di aprire la bocca per
paralisi spastica figurano in Sorano nella soffocazione isterica, con differenziazione tra ϲυνέρειϲιϲ
e τριϲμόϲ ed uso del ricercato composto di ἐρείδω per rendere l’effetto del “serrare, accavallare
insieme” i denti (Gyn. III 26,3 = III 5 Burg.-Gour. p. 26,18–19, 85 n. 173 ϲυνέρειϲιϲ ὀδόντων καὶ
τριϲμὸϲ ϲπαϲμώδηϲ ϲυνολκή τε τῶν ἄκρων ποτὲ δὲ πάρεϲιϲ μόνον, e III 17,4 ϲυνέρειϲιϲ ὀδόντων
<καὶ> ϲπαϲμόϲ). È uno dei sintomi di epilessia in Hipp. Morb.Sacr. VII 1 p. 14,24–16,1, 81
Jouanna (οἱ ὁδόντεϲ ϲυνηρείκαϲι), del tetano in Anon.Med. MAC 7,16; 44; 79. La caratteristica
contrattura dei denti unita a spasmo tetanico è definita ‘riso sardonico’ in Paul. III 20,1 = CMG
IX 1 p. 168,7–9 Heiberg (καί ποτε καὶ γέλωϲ αὐτοῖϲ ϲαρδόνιοϲ ἐπιγίνεται καὶ ἔρευθοϲ ἐπὶ τῷ
προϲώπῳ, καὶ τὰ ὄμματα αὐτοῖϲ ἐν ὄγκῳ μείζονι φαίνεται).
Notevole l’insolito conio ἐρειϲμόϲ, quasi un hapax. Comune è invece il corradicale ἔρειϲμα nel
senso di “fulcro, sostegno”, ma anche “contusione” (Index Hippocraticus s.v. 318). La forma
ἐρειϲμόϲ è attestata in greco solo dal Commento ad Isaia di Eusebio, ove è riportata una esegesi di
Aquila, uno dei traduttori della Bibbia dei LXX vissuto sotto Traiano, che aveva usato il termine
per rendere la parola “sostegno” nella frase (Is. III 1) “Ecco, il Signore toglie a Gerusalemme e a
Giuda ogni genere di sostegno” (Eus. Comm.Is. I 29 διὸ ἀφελεῖ φηϲι κύριοϲ ἀπὸ Ἰερουϲαλὴμ καὶ
ἀπὸ τῆϲ Ἰουδαίαϲ ἰϲχύοντα καὶ ἰϲχύουϲαν, ἢ κατὰ τὸν Ἀκύλαν ἔρειϲμα καὶ ἐρειϲμόν, cui attinge
Procop. Comm.Is. = PG 87 p. 1893,28 Migne). Cfr. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum.
Vol. XIV. Isaias, ed. J. Ziegler, Göttingen 19833, 131 app. ad l., 106 ss.; J. Reider—N. Turner, An
Index to Aquila, Leiden 1966, 96 s.v. *ἐρειϲμόϲ (SVT 12); per biografia, attività esegetica e fonti
a disposizione di Aquila cfr. G. Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts, Leiden—
Boston 2006, 163 ss. (SJSJ 109). Questa singolare coincidenza lascia intuire una più ampia
diffusione del vocabolo ἐρειϲμόϲ tra I e II secolo d.C. anche nel Greco comune, lingua alla
quale attinsero sia l’autore del testo medico su papiro sia Aquila, o una delle sue fonti, per la
traduzione dei LXX che avrebbe utilizzato Eusebio.
11–12 Nella lacuna forse il nome di un nuovo sintomo definito poco dopo πυκνή (r. 12, “fitto” nel ritmo).
L’aggettivo πυκνή può qualificare, tra l’altro, il battito del polso (κίνηϲιϲ, Gal. Symp.Caus.
II 2 = VII 164,6 K), la respirazione (ἀναπνοή, δύϲπνοια, e.g. Gal. Diff.Resp. I 8 = VII 763,4–5
ἡ ἀναπνοὴ πᾶϲα μεγάλη καὶ ταχεῖα καὶ πυκνὴ φαίνεται γιγνομένη), la tosse (ἡ βὴξ πυκνὴ καὶ
ἰϲχυρή, Hipp. Morb. I 13). All’inizio del r. 12 forse un composto in -χρονιοϲ, e.g. κ̣[αὶ ἀναπνοὴ
(κίνηϲιϲ) | βραχυχρ]ό̣νιοϲ ὅτε δὲ πυκνή, espressione relativa allo scarto tra un ritmo “lento”
(βραχυχρόνιοϲ) ed uno “fitto, serrato” (πυκνή) provocato dagli spasmi.
12–13 Poss. εἰϲ τ̣[ὴν xx|xx ἡμέρ]α̣ν̣ ὡϲ τὸ πολ̣ύ̣ (poi forse κρίνεται vel λύεται). Il sintomo definito πυκνή,
oppure la malattia nel suo complesso, si manifesta o raggiunge il “punto critico”, oppure “si
risolve”, entro un dato giorno (e.g. Hipp. Coac. 20,381 = V 664,16–666,1 Littré πλευρίτιδεϲ, ὡϲ
ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ κρίνονται ἐναταῖαι, ἢ ἑνδεκαταῖαι, Gal. Di.Dec. II 4 = IX 854,9–10 K ἔκρινε δὲ
τουτέοιϲιν ὡϲ τὸ πολὺ ἑνδεκαταίοιϲιν, ἔϲτι δὲ οἷϲιν εἰκοϲταίοιϲιν). Il periodo entro cui di norma si
ha una svolta nel decorso è la prima settimana di malattia (i.e. εἰϲ τ̣[ὴν ἑβδό|μην ἡμέρ]α̣ν̣). Scrive
Ippocrate che le malattie acute si risolvono in due settimane (Aph. II 23 Τὰ ὀξέα τῶν νουϲημάτων
κρίνεται ἐν τεϲϲαρεϲκαίδεκα ἡμέρῃϲιν), una previsione condivisa dai medici successivi, pur tra
molteplici casistiche intermedie (e.g. Paul. II 6,1 = CMG IX 1 p. 77,26–78,6 Heiberg ἀρίϲτη μὲν
παϲῶν ἡ ἑβδόμη τε καὶ τεϲϲαρεϲκαιδεκάτη, πληϲίον δὲ τούτων ἐνάτη καὶ ἑνδεκάτη καὶ εἰκοϲτή ...
μεταξὺ δὲ τούτων ἐϲτὶν ἡ τριϲκαιδεκάτη). Il decorso favorevole può manifestarsi entro i 7 giorni,
come teorizza Galeno nel trattato sui ‘giorni critici’ (Gal. Di.Dec. I 11 = IX 828,6–7 K ἀγαθὴ τὰ
πάντα κρίϲιϲ εἰϲ τὴν ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν προδηλοῦται). Anche i “15 giorni”, poco più di 2 settimane,
sono un periodo critico utile (e.g. Hipp. Epid. II 2,23 Ἱέρωνι ἐκρίθη πεντεκαιδεκαταίῳ). Se è
plausibile ricostruire πε]ν̣τεκαιδεκάτηϲ ἡ[μέραϲ al r. 15, risalendo alle fasi precedenti potremmo
supporre ai rr. 12–13, e nella lacuna dei rr. 14–15, delle indicazioni temporali inferiori a 15 giorni,
il periodo entro cui appare compiersi la previsione prognostica del nostro caso (r. 15). Illustrativa
in generale la trattazione di Galeno nel De Diebus Decretoriis (IX 769 ss. K: per es. IX 851 K)
circa le fasi calcolate sulla base dei 3, 4 o 7 giorni.
13 La probabile lettura -ωϲ prima di ὡϲ τὸ πολύ suggerisce un avverbio che precisi la modalità
del decorso (e.g. τὸ δ’ ἀθρόωϲ ὡϲ τὸ πολὺ γίνεται, Gal. Caus.Puls. 9 = IX 139,15 K). Tuttavia
nessuna delle parole plausibili considerate (tra cui ἀθρόωϲ “improvvisamente”, πυκνῶϲ, ϲυχνῶϲ
“frequentemente”, πράωϲ “con misura, tranquillamente”) pare adattarsi alle tracce in modo
convincente.
13–15 Una ricostruzione compatibile con la lacuna è ἔτ]ι̣̣ δὲ μᾶλλον ἕωϲ τῆϲ ἐ[νάτηϲ ἢ τριϲκαι|δεκάτηϲ
ἢ πε]ν̣τ̣εκαιδεκάτηϲ ἡ[μέραϲ. L’autore fornisce un’indicazione prognostica con una doppia
espressione avverbiale, (1) a livello di generalizzazione del caso, che varia dal “per lo più, nella
maggior parte” (ὡϲ τὸ πολ̣ύ)̣ , (2) a quello, correttivo della regola, di “ancora di più, però,” (ἔτ]ι̣ δὲ
μᾶλλον), ed infine (3) a livello di previsione temporale contenuta ai rr. 14–15 e conclusa con (?)
πε]ν̣τ̣εκαιδεκάτηϲ ἡ[μέραϲ. Tali moduli espositivi servivano all’autore per constatare l’evoluzione
del quadro morboso. Sul loro uso e significato nei trattati ipppocratici cfr. V. Di Benedetto,
Tendenza e probabilità nell’antica medicina greca, in Critica storica 5 (1966) 315–368 (rist. in
Il richiamo del testo, Pisa 2007, IV, 1657–1711) e H. von Staden, ὡϲ ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. ‘Hippocrates’
between generalization and individualization, in A. Thivel—A. Zucker, edd., Le normal et le
pathologique dans la Collection hippocratique. Actes du Xè me Colloque International Hippo-
cratique (Nice, 6–8 octobre 1999), Nice 2002, 23–43.
Università degli Studi di Parma

2. Schedule of Work Days
Rodney Ast
P.Col. inv. 75 6.7 x 6.9 cm IV (?)

Oxyrhynchite (?)
P.Col. inv. 75 is a square papyrus sheet containing six lines of Greek written along the fibers. Columbia
University purchased it from M. Nahman through H. I. Bell in 1924.1 The script is slightly abraded in parts
and the papyrus is damaged in the upper right corner, yet the damage is not enough to affect legibility.
Top, right and left margins are clearly extant, but it is unclear whether the papyrus is broken at the bottom.
The script is an unremarkable but practiced semi-cursive hand at home in the late 3rd through 4th c.2
The designation of Sunday as κυριακή or “the Lord’s Day” in line 3 (scil. ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα) points rather
to a 4th-century date.3 The back of the papyrus is blank.
The text concerns the appointment of two groups of assistants (ὑπηρέται) for non-consecutive days
of work over an unknown period. The assistants are not named and it is unknown exactly how many were
involved. Only their places of origin are given: one group is said to come from Thmoinepsobthis (οἱ ἀπὸ
Θμοινεψώβθεως) while the other is described as “those from Kolobe” (οἱ ἀπὸ Κολόβης). The two villages
are attested elsewhere and were previously believed to be located in separate nomes, Thmoinepsobthis
in the Oxyrhynchite and Kolobe in the Hermopolite. The evidence for the two different nomes, however,
is tenuous. That Thmoinepsobthis was situated in the Oxyrhynchite is beyond doubt, but the precise
location of Kolobe is unclear. It is mentioned in two other papyri, SPP X 25 (mid-7th c.) and P.Oxy.
XIV 1726 (early 3rd c.), and in the latter it appears alongside the two known Oxyrhynchite localities
of Senopotheos in the middle toparchy and Chysis in the upper.4 Despite this Oxyrhynchite connection
the editors of P.Oxy. XIV 1726 state that Kolobe is a Hermopolite locality citing as evidence a reference
to the place in SPP X 25, a mid-7th-century list of place names in the Hermopolite nome. M. Drew-Bear
accepts the assignment of Kolobe to the Hermopolite and suggests that it was in the north of the nome
because of the fact that it appears alongside Chysis in P.Oxy. XIV 1726, which was situated near the
Hermopolite border.5 I find it equally possible that at the time our papyrus was written the village belonged
to the Oxyrhynchite. It is well known that borders of the two nomes shifted over the course of several
centuries, so that some villages belonged to both territories at different points in their histories. This is true
in fact of Chysis, and may have been the same for Kolobe, but we do not have sufficient evidence to know
for sure.6
The exact location of the villages mentioned in this papyrus is ultimately of little consequence
for our analysis. The document’s most interesting feature is its identification of the days Sunday, Monday,
Thursday and Saturday by their planetary and Judaeo-Christian names. While papyri are often dated very
1
Information about the papyrus is available at the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS),
http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/apis/item?mode=item&key=columbia.apis.p477.
2
Some paleographical similarity can be seen in a text like P.Oxy. LXVII 4611 (July–August 363; image available via HGV).
3
The earliest securely attested use of the word in this sense is found in a document dated Oct. 2, 325 (P.Oxy. LIV 3759.38).
4
For brief description of these Oxyrhynchite places, see A. Benaissa, Rural Settlements of the Oxyrhynchite Nome.
A Papyrological Survey, Trismegistos Online Publications IV, Version 1.0 [http://www.trismegistos.org/top.php, October
2009] (Köln—Leuven 2009), ad loc.; P. Pruneti, I centri abitati dell’Ossirinchite (Florence 1981), ad loc.
5
M. Drew-Bear, Le nome Hermopolite: toponymes et sites (Missoula 1979), ad loc.
6
About Chysis, Benaissa says, “Land in its vicinity (but not the village itself) was sometimes subsumed under the Pasko
toparchy of the Hermopolite nome (cf. C.Pap.Gr. II App. 1, P.Oxy. XIV 1724, XXXIII 2673). At some point in the fourth
century the village itself appears to have switched to the Hermopolite nome (P.Lips. 99), but it probably reverted to the
territory of Oxyrhynchus by the sixth century (cf. P.Oxy. XVI 2032),” (above n. 4) 365; see too F. Mitthof, “Topographie
und Grenzverlauf des nördlichen Hermopolites in spätrömischer Zeit: Ein neues Papyruszeugnis,” APF 49 (2003) 214–215.
10 Rodney Ast
precisely by reference to year, month and day of the month, they seldom bear the name of the day of the
week and those documents that do are generally of a particular type (see discussion below). Our papyrus
does not adhere to any of the known types, and this contributes to the general obscurity of its purpose.
I present the text here.
→ ἐτυπώθησαν ὑπη̣ρ(έται)
οὕτως·
κυριακῇ καὶ Διός,
4 οἱ ἀπὸ Θμοινεψώβθ(εως),
Σελήνης καὶ Σαμβᾶ,
οἱ ἀπὸ Κολόβης.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (?)
The assistants (hyperetai) were appointed thus: on Sunday and

Thursday, those from Thmoinepsobthis; on Monday and Saturday,
those from Kolobe.
No. 2
1 For τυπόω in the sense of “order” or “appoint,” see LSJ, s.v. III; P.NYU II 34.3; Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon, s.v. E.
At first glance it looks as if ἡ̣μέ̣ρ(αι) might also be an acceptable alternative to ὑπη̣ρ(έται). Closer
examination, however, reveals that the first letter of the word is too short and curved for eta, and
epsilon is impossible before rho.
The functions of ὑπηρέται varied but one of the best attested is the delivery of summonses
from government and municipal officials; see P.Oxy. LXIII 4363.8–9n.; cf. H. Kupiszewski and
J. Modrzejewski, “ΥΠΗΡΕΤΑΙ,” JJP 11–12 (1957–1958) 141–166, and more recently S. Strassi,
Le funzioni degli ὑπηρέται nell’Egitto greco e romano (Heidelberg 1997). Whether our papyrus
contains a schedule of days on which ὑπηρέται were to deliver summonses cannot be determined.
3 Scil. τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Διός. Substantival use of κυριακή is found already in P.Oxy.
LIV 3759.38 from the year 325 (see below p. 12); contrast however another 4th-century papyrus,
P.Oxy. XLVIII 3407.15–16 (see comm. ad loc.).
5 Scil. τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Σελήνης καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σαββάτου (or σαββάτων). Σαμβᾶς, which is found here
for the first time as a designation of the “Sabbath,” is a well-known hypocoristic personal name
deriving from Σαμβαθίων and is related, along with similar names, to the word “Sabbath.” On such
names, see CPJ III, p. 43–56; for the interchange of ββ with μβ, see p. 44. Detailed treatment of
the word σάββατα can be found in A. Pelletier, “Σαββατα. Transcription grecque de l’araméen,”
Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972) 436–477.
The Days of the Week in Greek Documentary Sources

Weekdays are found in both inscriptional and papyrological Greek documents. They can be designated by
numbers, as in the so-called ordinal week,7 or by names, whether planetary or religious. The seven-day week
is well attested in Greco-Roman sources, although it was not the only cycle operative in antiquity. The
ancient Greeks and Egyptians had a ten-day week, and the Romans observed, in addition to the seven-day
7
The use of numerals to identify days of the week is seen especially in late inscriptions, e.g. SGLIBulg 97 (Saturday, Oct.
20, 557), cf. K. A. Worp, “Remarks on Weekdays in Late Antiquity Occurring in Documentary Sources,” Tyche 6 (1991)
223n. 12; SEG XXX 1687 (Monday, Dec. 5, 662). This practice is found today in modern Greek and other languages.
2. Schedule of Work Days 11
week, an eight-day cycle that was based on the schedule of market days and is known as the nundinal
week. Nevertheless, it was the seven-day astrological week that prevailed and has persisted in most cultures
to the present, despite occasional attempts to abolish it.8 Given its long history, we might reasonably assume
that this cycle was important for structuring ancients’ lives, as it does our own, but it is remarkably absent
from certain kinds of documentation that we would expect to preserve references to it: private letters
and bureaucratic memoranda, for example, do not typically mention days of the week. This relative dearth
of references in our sources has prompted the following survey of Greek documentary evidence, with
particular attention paid to the contexts in which days appear.9
Greek speakers at some point probably before the 1st c. CE began identifying each of the seven
days with the theophoric names of the planetary bodies observable to them:10
Sunday = ἡμέρα Ἡλίου

Monday = " Σελήνης
Tuesday = " Ἄρεως
Wednesday = " Ἑρμοῦ
Thursday = " Διός
Friday = " Ἀφροδίτης
Saturday = " Κρόνου
The way in which the planets were ordered depended on their perceived order of astrological dominance
and not on their presumed distance from earth.11 This arrangement was informed by the belief that a planet
exerted influence over each hour, and the planet that governed the first hour of a 24-hour cycle ruled
that entire day. Saturn, the planet farthest from earth, ruled the first hour, and so Saturday began the week;
the 25th hour was governed by the sun, so Sunday marked the second day, and so on. Dio Cassius
attributed the introduction of the planetary week to the Egyptians, although he acknowledged that the
custom was observed elsewhere, too.12 When exactly the practice was adopted in the Greco-Roman world
8
Such attempts are exemplified by the brief life of the French Republican Calendar and by Soviet experiments with five- and
six-day weeks. For a general survey of different calendars, see E. G. Richards, Mapping Time. The Calendar and its History
(Oxford 1998), esp. 153–160 and 257–284. See too D. Lehoux, Astronomy, Weather, and Calendars in the Ancient World:
Parapegmata and Related Texts in Classical and Near-Eastern Societies (Cambridge 2007); W. and H. Gundel,
“Planeten,” RE XX.2 (1950) cols. 2143–2147; E. Schürer, “Die siebentägige Woche im Gebrauche der christlichen Kirche
der ersten Jahrhunderte,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1905) 1–66, a classic treatment of the
seven-day week. Treatment of Sunday can be found in W. Rordorf, Der Sonntag (Zurich) 26–40, and S. R. Llewelyn (ed.),
New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol. 9 (Grand Rapids—Cambridge 2002) 113–118.
9
For a detailed study of the reliability of references to days for verifying the precise dates of texts, see Worp (above n. 7)
221–230.
10
In addition to the planetary names we also encounter Judaeo-Christian identifiers for three of the days: Saturday =
σάββατα (or σάββατον); Sunday = ἡμέρα κυριακή, first attested in the 4th c.; Friday = ἡμέρα παρασκευῆς. Friday is also
referred to as προσάββατον; see e.g. the 3rd-century lead curse tablet from Corinth published in D. Jordan, “Inscribed Lead
Tablets from the Games in the Sanctuary of Poseidon,” Hesperia 63 (1994) 116–119. In Jewish sources written in Greek,
the Sabbath can refer to either the day of rest or the entire week. Jewish culture observed a seven-day week in which all days
except Friday, the day of preparation (cf. Greek ἡμέρα παρασκευῆς), and Saturday were identified by numbers; see Rordorf
(above n. 8) 12–26.
11
The planets were believed to be situated thus (in reverse order of proximity to earth): Saturn (Kronos), Jupiter (Zeus),
Mars (Ares), the sun (Helios), Venus (Aphrodite), Mercury (Hermes), and the moon (Selene).
12
τὸ δὲ δὴ ἐς τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἑπτὰ τοὺς πλάνητας ὠνομασμένους τὰς ἡμέρας ἀνακεῖσθαι κατέστη μὲν ὑπ’ Αἰγυπτίων,
πάρεστι δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους, οὐ πάλαι ποτὲ ὡς λόγῳ εἰπεῖν ἀρξάμενον (xxxvii.18). “The assignment of the days
to the seven stars that are called the planets was introduced by the Egyptians, but is a custom present also among all people,
although it began not long ago, relatively speaking.” On the possible Babylonian origin of the practice, see Schürer (above
n. 8) 13–15.
12 Rodney Ast
is uncertain. We find the first clear evidence in 1st-century CE graffiti from Pompei in which the planets
are listed in the order of the planetary week.13 Earlier references to days, such as several well-known
examples found in Latin poetry from the 1st century BCE, attest some preoccupation with a belief in the
astrological significance of planets for human affairs, but they do not prove observance of a seven-day
week.14 Similarly, in a small number of Hellenistic and Augustan-period texts we encounter references
to the Jewish Sabbath, but these again do not prove that the seven-day week was widely recognized
throughout the Greco-Roman world, as it was in Jewish society where days other than Friday and
Saturday were numbered.15 All we can say therefore is that by the 1st c. CE the custom had been
established in at least parts of the Greco-Roman world.16 More abundant evidence for it is to be found
in later periods.
Two types of documents dominate extant witnesses to days of the week. The first comprises
Byzantine contracts that have surety clauses exempting individuals from honoring their commitments on
Sundays, and the second are epitaphs, particularly Christian inscriptions from late antiquity. The promotion
of Sunday to a holiday free of work involved a process that began in the 4th century. In 321 Constantine
decreed Sunday a day of rest (Code Just. III.12.2) although he made an exception for people engaged
in agricultural work.17 The first dated text we have that shows evidence of the impact of this decree
is an Oxyrhynchus papyrus from the year 325 in which hearings are adjourned from Saturday evening
until Monday in order to give a break for Sunday.18 This papyrus is also the earliest dated witness to
the substantival use of κυριακή for “Sunday” and illustrates that only four years after Constantine’s decree
the term was already in employment.19 The text has some bearing on the Columbia papyrus as well: if
the document edited above dates before 321, which it might since it shows people apparently working on
Sunday, then it demonstrates that already before that time κυριακή had entered the everyday vocabulary
of Greek-speakers in Egypt. If it dates to after 321, then one might ask how strict and widespread the
prohibition on Sunday labor actually was. Evidence suggests that at least in this early period it was of
limited force: a mid-4th-century private letter in a Christian archive from Oxyrhynchus attests people
13
In AE 1928, 115, the days of the week, dies / Sat(urni) / Sol(is) / Lun(ae) / Mar(tis) / Mer(curii) / Iov(is) / Ven(eris),
are presented alongside the nundinal week’s 8 market places; cf. Lehoux (above n. 8) 42, and Richards (above n. 8) 270. In
another graffito from Pompei we find the planets arranged according to the planetary week under the heading, θεῶν ἡμέρας /
Κρόνου / Ἡλίου / Σελήνης / Ἄρεως / Ἑ[ρ]μοῦ / Διός / [Ἀφρ]οδείτης, A. Mau, Bulletino dell’instituto di corrispondenza
archeologica per l’anno 1881, No. II (1881) 30. See Schürer (above n. 8) 27–28.
14
See especially Tibullus 1.3.17–18 (together with Schürer [above n. 8] 25) where the poet speaks of the delays he contrived
prior to a voyage, aut ego sum causatus aves aut omina dira / Saturnive sacram me tenuisse diem, “I gave the excuse of birds
or terrible omens, that the hallowed day of Saturn kept me back;” cf. also Prop. 4.1.81–84.
15
See, for example, P.Cair.Zen. IV 59762.6 (mid 3rd c. BCE), an account of bricks in which the 7th of Epeiph is identified
as the Sabbath and thus a day on which no deliveries were made; PSI Congr. VII 22.25 (after Jan. 19, 114 BCE or after
Jan. 10, 78 BCE), an account that again records no activity on the Sabbath; CPJ III 457a = P.Ryl. IV 603 Intro (ca. 7 BCE;
Oxyrhynchus), a fragment of a letter mentioning the Sabbath.
16
Whether the Greeks and Romans borrowed the custom directly from the Jews is also unclear, but is certainly a possibility;
see Rordorf (above n. 8) 32–37.
17
Omnes iudices urbanaeque plebes et artium officia cunctarum venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum
culturae libere licenterque inserviant, quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non alio aptius die frumenta sulcis aut vineae scrobibus
commendentur. . . . “Let all judges and city-dwellers and workshops rest on the holy day of Sunday. But those in the country
overseeing the cultivation of fields, let them work freely and lawfully, because it often happens that there is no more fitting
day for crops to be entrusted to the furrows or vines to the trenches . . . .”
18
P.Oxy. LIV 3759.36–40: ὁ λογ(ιστὴς) εἶ(πεν)· ἐπειδὴ ἑσπέρας ἐγ̣ έν̣ετο πρόκριμα̣ οὐδὲν / ἔσται τῆς κυρίας μήπω
ἐνστάσης. ἐπείπερ μέρος τ̣ι̣ / τῆς ἐπιούσης κυριακῆς ἱερᾶς ἐπέκυψεν, ὑπ̣ε̣[ρ]/τεθ̣ήσεται μετὰ τὴν κυριακὴν ἡ δίκη μέχ̣ρ̣ι̣
[οὗ ἀμ]φ̣ό̣τ̣ε̣ρ̣α̣ / τὰ μέρη παρέσεται πρὸς δικαιολογίαν. “The logistes said, ‘since evening has passed there will be
no prejudgment, for the appointed day has not begun. Since part of the holy day of Sunday has introduced itself, the case
will be postponed until after Sunday when both sides will be present for the judgment.’” See also Llewelyn (above n. 8)
106–113.
19
See P.Oxy. LIV 3759.38n.
engaged in labor (the hauling of stones) on Sunday.20 Moreover, as we have seen, the decree made
exception for agricultural labor. The overall intent of the 4th-century legislation seems in fact to have
been to curtail litigation.21 Thus I do not believe that we should postulate a date before Constantine's
edict of 321 in order to explain how people could be working on Sunday. If the papyrus post-dates 321,
perhaps the ὑπηρέται had some agricultural function, but that too seems like an unnecessary assumption.
Constantine’s edict simply does not define very precisely the exact kinds of work that people were to
refrain from.
By the late 6th century the situation appears to have changed. The prohibition against work becomes
a formal feature of surety clauses in which one or more guarantors promises to fulfill surety obligations
on any day except Sunday, which is always designated ἡ κυριακή.22 There are over twenty such examples
of this clause preserved in the papyri and they constitute a very large proportion of all extant references
to the day.23 In related contexts we also see attempts to enforce the ban on Sunday labor; for example,
a 5th-century supplemental contract between a guild of weavers and some of its members seems to state
that the weavers (ταπητάριοι) would be made to pay a one-solidus fine for working on Sundays.24
What motivated the apparent closer adherence to the ban is a question that lies outside the scope of this
investigation. For our purposes it suffices to say that documents from late antiquity mention Sunday more
than any other day, and they do so normally in the context of the prohibition of working on Sunday.
Another abundant source of references to days of the week is inscriptional epitaphs. Interestingly,
the days most commonly referred to in them are Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In fact, out of a sample of
50 epitaphs attesting weekdays, a full 40 concern these three days, and only 10 mention the days Monday
through Thursday. One reason for this uneven distribution could be that in some places the practice of
employing planetary names for days had already been abandoned in favor of numeric indicators for all
days except Friday through Sunday. Two 6th-century Christian inscriptions from Palestine offer evidence
of this. In the first, an epitaph for a woman named Azonaine, we learn that the woman died on Sunday,
ἡμέ(ρᾳ) κυριακῇ, in the ninth hour and was buried on the second day, ἡμέ(ρᾳ) β′ (that is, Monday), also
in the ninth hour.25 In a similar epitaph, again from Palestine, the deceased is said to have passed away on
a Sunday, ἡμήρᾳ [sic] κυριακῇ, and to have been buried on the third day of Sabbath, i.e. on Monday.26 But
there are a number of late epitaphs, some clearly Christian, that still retain the planetary name for Sunday
(ἡμέρα Ἡλίου) suggesting that in these places the planetary week was still operative.27 The same can be
deduced from Christian epitaphs where ἡμέρα Ἀφροδίτης is chosen over the overtly Judaeo-Christian
20
P.Oxy. XLVIII 3407.13–17: συν/έθεντο βαστάξαι ἐν τῇ / κυριακῇ{ν} ἡμέρᾳ, τουτ/έστιν αὔριον ια̅, “they agreed to carry
them [scil. the stones] on Sunday, that is tomorrow the 11th.” See too R. S. Bagnall and R. Cribiore, Women’s Letters from
Ancient Egypt (Ann Arbor 2006) 211–216.
21
See Llewelyn (above n. 8) 118.
22
See e.g. P.Cair.Masp. III 67296.8–10: καὶ ὁπόταν ζητούμενον [εἴη] / [πρὸς ἡμᾶ]ς περὶ τούτους, ἑτοίμως ἔχωμεν οἱ
προγεγραμμένοι ἐγγυηταὶ ἐξ ἀλλεληγγύης (l. ἀλληλεγγύης) παρενεγκεῖν κ(αὶ) παρα̣[δώσομεν] / [ἐκτὸς ἁγ]ίων̣ [π]εριβόλων
κα̣ὶ [θ]είων χαρακ̣[τ]ή̣ρων καὶ τῆς [ἁ]γ̣ίας κυριακῆ̣ς. “And should we be approached about them, we the aforementioned
guarantors are ready upon mutual security to deliver and hand them over outside sacred grounds, away from imperial
portraits and not on the holy day of Sunday.” For discussion of the expression ἐκτὸς ἁγίων περιβόλων καὶ θείων χαρακτήρων,
see P.Oxy. LV 3791.3n.
23
These include the following 6th-century deeds of surety: BGU I 255.8; P.Cair.Masp. III 67296.10; 67297.10; 67328, p. I,
15; II, 14–15; III, 19; IV, 20; V, 18; VI, 17; VIII, 14; X, 18–19, XI, 19; XII, 18–19; 67334.11; P.Flor. III 284.11; PSI VIII
932.12; P.Stras. I 46.21; 47.22–23, 46; 48.17–18; 49.26; 50.5.
24
SB XX 15134.8–9 (483; Oxyrhynchus).
25
SEG XXVIII 1395 = I.Negev 19 (Dec. 20, 577).
26
SEG XXVIII 1396 = I.Negev 18 (June 29, 581). Counting inclusively from the beginning of Sabbath (= Saturday), we get
a burial on Monday, within 24 hours of the person’s passing. Here we see an instance of the word “Sabbath” designating the
entire week.
27
SEG XXXI 830 = IGCVO 1042 (epitaph for a child who was born on a Saturday, ἡμέρᾳ Κρόνου, and died on a Sunday);
IG XIV 142; IGCVO 125; 1043; 1044. All of these inscriptions are dated to the Christian period and come from Sicily.
14 Rodney Ast
ἡμέρα παρασκευῆς.28 Thus, the predominance of references to these three days cannot be attributed simply
to the fact that the other days were designated numerically. There seems to have been a genuine preference
for noting the names of the days for births, deaths and burials if they happened on a weekend, probably
because of the religious coloring with which the days could be imbued. One example of this is seen in
IGCVO 819.13–17 = IG XIV 2492 (Feb. 7, 441) where, in what might be interpreted as an implicit allusion
to the death of Christ, the deceased is said to have been buried on Friday, the seventh day of the week, “and
will rise up on the day of Christ’s coming.”29 More explicitly, an epitaph from Antaiopolis emphasizes
the fact that the commemorated person died on Easter weekend, “the servant of the Lord died on the holy
Sabbath of Easter, in the 10th hour at the dawning of the Lord’s Day and the resurrection of Christ.”30
If we set aside the evidence found in inscriptional epitaphs and surety clauses (and other papyri
concerned with the prohibition on Sunday labor) and concentrate on the remaining instances, we find a more
even distribution of texts. Aside from one papyrus containing a calendar of good and bad days, which cites
all the days of the week,31 four documents mention Sunday, one Monday, one Tuesday, three Wednesday,
two Thursday, two Friday and five Saturday, the latter including references to the Sabbath.32 What is
most striking about this picture is the overall infrequency with which planetary days are mentioned in our
sources. Less surprising, however, is the mundane nature of the texts that do refer to them. Among extant
witnesses we find a few astrological texts.33 A couple of defixiones specify the day on which a curse
should take effect.34 The occasional school exercise records the day on which the text was written.35
And a couple Oxyrhynchite papyri from the late 3rd and early 4th centuries suggest that in some offices
28
There survive three epitaphs from Italy, IGCVO 1050 = IG XIV 696, IGCVO 1051, SEG XL 860 (450) and one from
Egypt, IGChrEg 391 (4th–6th c.; Hermonthis). Despite this, it would seem that ἡμέρα παρασκευῆς was the more common
designator of Fridays in inscriptions, see, e.g., IG X 2, 2 153 = RIChrM 270; IGCVO 479 = IG XIV 524.
29
Lines 13–17 read, καὶ τῇ ἑβ̣<δ>όμῃ ἐτό/φη (l. ἐτάφη) ἡμέρᾳ Παρασ/κευ<ῇ> καὶ ἀναστ<ή>[σεται] / ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Χριστοῦ
ἐ<ρ>χαμένου (l. ἐρχομένου).
30
ἐκυμέθη αἱ δούλε (l. ἐκοιμήθη ἡ δούλη) τοῦ / θ(εο)ῦ ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ σαμβά̣[το(υ)(?)] / τοῦ Πάσχα, ὥρᾳ δεκάτ̣[ῃ] / διαφαούσαις
(l. διαφαυούσης) κυριακῆ(ς) / ταῖς (l. τῆς) ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ (SB V 7564; March 25, 601).
31
P.Kellis I 82 (4th c.) (see too F. A. J. Hoogendijk, “A Note on P.Kellis I 82,” ZPE 113 [1996] 216–218); all days except
Sunday (κυριακή) are designated by their planetary names. The context of the papyrus is clearly astrological.
32
Sunday: R. Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta 1996) no. 146 (= Pack2 2731)
(April 24, 327; Egypt); P.Oxy. XI 1357.3, 5, 7, 21, 23, 28, 35, 57 (535–536); XLVIII 3407.15–16 (4th c.); SB VI 9589.15
(2nd half 6th c.; Arsinoiton Polis?). Monday: Neugebauer—van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia 1959) no. 219 I
(219; Dura). Tuesday: A. Audollent, Defixionum Tabellae, (Paris 1904) no. 163, l. 71. Wednesday: P.Oxy. XLII 3026.8(?)
(after May 5, 166), though the reading is very uncertain; XLIV 3174v.17 (March 8, 243) = Cribiore no. 210; PSI VII
843.13 (5th–6th c.; Oxyrhynchus). Not included among the texts attesting Wednesday are a number of customs receipts that
designate days of inactivity with the word Ἑρμῆς, see e.g. P.Wisc. II 80.72, 83, 164 (Oct. 1, 114); P.Oslo III 121.5, 7, 9, 13,
15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 (after 131–132); and P.Lond. III 964.5 (p. 211) (late 2nd–3rd c.). The name does not appear in 7-day
intervals (in P.Oslo III 121 it is found every 2 days) and therefore cannot have referred to the planetary day; cf. P.Oxy.
XLIV 3174.17n. Thursday: P.Oxy. XXII 2343.8–9 = SB XVIII 13932 (Dec. 31, 287; see R. Coles, “P.Oxy. XXII 2343
Revised,” ZPE 61 [1985] 113); LIV 3741v.13, 18, 36, 44 (Sept. 2–Oct. 7, 313). Friday: D. Jordan, “Defixiones from a Well
Near the Southwest Corner of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54 (1985) 215 (mid 3rd c.; Athens); Jordan (1994, above n. 10)
116–117, col. II 1.9. Saturday: Neugebauer—van Hoesen (above) no. 219, I (b).2 (219; Dura); P.Genova I 38.6, 9 (6th–7th c.;
prov. unknown); P.Oxy. VI 903.19 (BL XIII 133) = CPJ III 457d (4th c.); SB 14.11541.4(?) (6th–7th c.; prov. unknown);
SEG XXVI 1813.31 (4th–5th c.; Nubia).
33
Neugebauer—van Hoesen (above n. 33) no. 219 I.3 and I (b).2 (219; Dura); P.Kellis I 82 (4th c.). I do not include here
three references (1 to Monday, 2 to Saturday) found in literary sources, Neugebauer—van Hoesen (above n. 33) nos. L479,
L486, L487.
34
καὶ ἀπολέσῃς καὶ τὴν πάλην, ἣν μέλλει παλαίειν ἐν τῷ δη̣/ ̣ ̣ ε̣ι̣ ἐν τῇ μελλούσῃ παρασκευῇ, “and destroy the wrestling as
well that he is going to do in the . . . this coming Friday” (Jordan [1985, above n. 33] 214, l. 5–7); μ̣[ὴ] ἰσχύσοισαν (l. ἰχύσω-
σιν) δραμεῖν προσάββατον, “let them not have the strength to run on Friday.” Cf. also Audollent (above n. 33) no. 163, l. 71.
35
See the humorous critique of the wealthy (perhaps a clever student’s remark?) on the back of a tax report in P.Oxy. XLIV
3174v.17 (with BL VII 157 and comm. ad loc.), said to have been written on Wednesday March 8, 243—cf. P. Parsons,
City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish (London 2007) 145. An additional school exercise referencing a day is Cribiore (above n. 33)
no. 146 (= Pack2 2731).
Thursday was a holiday.36 Finally, I have identified five private letters that mention day names; they
all apparently occur in Christian contexts and only one records a planetary name (ἡμέρα Ἑρμοῦ), while
three others mention the Sabbath and the fifth refers to the Lord’s day.37 The latter document, which we
have seen already, is illustrative. In it two men are said to have agreed to haul away stones on Sunday,
and, interestingly, the author feels the need to explain which Sunday she is talking about, even though it
was the next day, συνέθεντο βαστάξαι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ{ν} ἡμέρᾳ, τουτέστιν αὔριον ια̅, “They agreed to haul
[stones] on Sunday, that is tomorrow the 11th.” The writer obviously wanted to be clear about what day
she meant,38 but the statement also suggests that the day of the month was the more common designator,
which is consistent with what we observe elsewhere. When writers of private letters are not referring to
“tomorrow” (αὔριον) or “today” (σήμερον), they frequently identify the day of the month. For example,
in P.Lips. I 106 (March 26, 99; Arsinoite?), a letter composed on the 30th of Phamenoth, the author asks
for a donkey to be sent on the third so that he can travel on the fourth, Φαμ̣ε̣(νὼθ) λ̅, π̣έ̣μψον δέ μο[ι] τ̣ῇ
τρίτῃ ὀνάριον ἵνα κατέλθωι ε39 τῇ τετράδι πρὸς σέ (see with BL I 214).40 The corresponding days of
the week are not named, even though the period between the date of the letter and the speaker’s planned
departure was only a few days. The best explanation for this is that days of the week were simply not
common reference points in everyday communications.
How long exactly planetary names remained in use is impossible to ascertain, and probably differed
by region. As indicated above, a small number of Christian epitaphs give the planetary days for Monday
through Thursday.41 Furthermore, a late copticizing Greek ostracon from Egypt, P.Rain.UnterrichtCopt.
252.9, 18 (= P.Mon.Epiph. 618), which contains an apparent school text with a list of numeric-based
days and their planetary equivalents, demonstrates that by the 6th–8th c. the planetary names were still
known and studied, even if numeric identifiers had largely supplanted them in everyday life.
[ⲥ]ⲁⲙⲃⲁ̣[ⲧⲟⲛ]
ⲕ̣ⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲏ̣
ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲧⲉⲣⲁ
ⲧⲣⲉⲧⲏ
5 ⲧⲉⲧⲣⲁⲥ
ⲡⲉⲙⲧⲏ
ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲥⲕⲉⲛⲏ
__________
36
P.Oxy. XXII 13932.8–9 = SB XVIII 13932 (Dec. 31, 287), see R. Coles, “P.Oxy. XXII 2343 Revised,” ZPE 61 (1985) 113;
P.Oxy. LIV 3741 with intro (September 2–October 7, 313).
37
The Sabbath appears in the following three Christian letters, P.Genova I 38.6, 9 (6th–7th c.; prov. unknown) (with
BL VII 275), SB V 7872.15 = M. Naldini, Il Cristianesimo in Egitto (Florence 1968) no. 75 (306–337?; prov. unknown),
SB XIV 11541.4(?) (6th–7th c.; prov. unknown); Wednesday appears in a letter requesting logs, PSI VII 843.13 (5th–6th c.;
Oxyrhynchus); Sunday comes up in P.Oxy. XLVIII 3407.15–16 (4th c.).
38
In some cases, different calendars could be operative and this too required explanation; cf. for example P.Lond. III
893 = P.Ryl. p. 381 where the author, writing on the 28th, says to his addressee: καὶ ἐλθὲ εἰς Βουβάστον τῇ δ … ἥ ἐστι(ν)
Αἰγυπ(τίων) κ, “and come to Boubastos on the 4th, which is the 20th by the Egyptian calendar.”
39
At the beginning of the line the papyrus has a lone epsilon which could be understood as ἐ(πὶ) (Olsson), ἐ(γὼ) (Preisigke),
or ἐ(ν).
40
Other examples of this practice are found in BGU II 531.8, 10 (75–85; Arsinoite); P.Fay. 113.12 (before Dec. 14, 100;
Euhemeria); 116.13 (Dec. 2, 104); 117.12 (Jan. 7, 108; see correction recorded in the DDbDP).
41
I find no instances of Tuesday, only of Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: Monday (ἡμέρα Σελήνης), IGLSyr XXI
4 105.6 = I.Jordanie IV 105 (Sept. 27, 387; Arabia); IGLSyr III, 1 727 (4th–6th c.?; Syria); IGCVO 354 = IG XIV 444
(October 13, 409—cf. Worp [above n. 7], 224; Sicily); IGCVO 1045 (4th–6th c.?; Sicily); 359 (4th–6th c.?; Rome); Wednesday
(ἡμέρα Ἑρμοῦ), IGCVO 1046 = IG XIV 251 (4th–6th c.?; Sicily); 1047 (4th–6th c.; Sicily); SB I 1564 (6th–7th c.?; Antinopolis);
Thursday (ἡμέρα Διός), IGCVO 1048 = IG XIV 249 (4th–6th c.?; Sicily); 1049 = CIG 9621 (4th–6th c.; Rome).
16 Rodney Ast
ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲧⲉⲣⲁ
ⲥⲉⲗⲏⲛ̣ⲏⲥ
10 ⲧⲣⲉⲧⲏ
ⲁⲣ{ⲉⲣ}ⲉⲟⲥ
ⲧⲉⲧⲣⲁⲥ
[ⲉⲣ]ⲙ̣ⲟⲩ
ⲡⲉⲙⲧⲏ
15 ⲍⲓⲟⲥ
[ⲡ]ⲁⲣⲁⲥⲕⲏⲛⲏ
[ⲁ]ⲫⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲇⲓⲇⲏ
Verso ⲥⲉⲗⲏⲛⲏ⟨ⲥ⟩
ⲁⲣⲉⲟⲥ
20 ⲉⲣⲙⲟⲩ
ⲍⲓⲟⲥ
ⲁⲫⲣⲟⲇⲓⲧⲏ⟨ⲥ⟩
It is worth noting that the planetary names for Saturday and Sunday are entirely absent from the list and
may well not have been in use anymore in this area.
Institut für Papyrologie, Heidelberg

3. Remains of an agnitio bonorum possessionis: P.Duk. inv. 466*
Jean-Jacques Aubert
P.Duk. inv. 466 3.6 x 13.6 cm (a) 212 or later (perhaps 239)
Oxyrhynchus 0.5 x 1.5 cm (b)
This document is a Latin papyrus in two fragments kept at Duke University and formerly registered as
P.Miss. 32. The upper margin is ca. 0.5 cm. The lower part of the document is lost, but traces of letters
in the middle and right parts of line 7 are still visible. How much is missing on the left and/or the right
of the text is unclear, although some parallels suggest that several words (the tria nomina and title of the
addressee in line 1, a likely juristic formula in lines 3 and 5), namely between 15 and 18 letters altogether,
have been lost on the left. The text is written across the fibers in an old Roman cursive. An independent
fragment contains traces of ca. 5 letters.
The document dates to AD 212 or later, as is clear from the recurrence of the nomen gentilicium
Aurelius/Aurelia, an obvious reference to Caracalla’s grant of Roman citizenship to nearly all peregrines
within the empire. Such a dating would be consistent with the writing, an old Roman cursive comparable
to P.Diog. 10 (= P.Coll.Youtie I 64 = ChLA XLVII 1403, from Philadelphia), dated to June 3, 211, or
P.Thomas 20 (Oxyrhynchus, 269–270), or ChLA XLV 1324, dated to the late 3rd–early 4th c. Most, if not
all, parallels belong to the same period (cf. below). If the proposed reading of the consul’s name in line 6
is correct, then we would want to date the papyrus to AD 239.
The papyrus likely comes from Oxyrhynchus. One or, possibly, two of the individuals are recorded
as inhabitants of the city. One may be an Antinoite. Most, if not all, parallels come from Oxyrhynchus.
It is possible that the traces in lines 6 and 7, and on the second fragment, are Greek. Parallels are often
bilingual (cf. below).
→
Fr. a [ ca. 15? pr]ạef(ecto) · Aeg(ypti) · ab Aurelio Dionusio q(ui) · e(t) · Pausanio
[·?] pupill(o) · [ ?]
[ ca. 15? ]ụsani q(ui) · e(t) · Artemidori [·] Didumi ab Oxurugch(itarum) ·
civit[a]t[e ? ]
[rogo, domine, des mihi] bonorum possessionem Aurelia(e) Aṣ[c]ḷạtario(u) q(uae) · [et
· ] Ạṭḥeṇ [̣ ? ]
4 [ ca. 15? ]e q(ua/uae) · e(t) · Sinthoni⸌de⸍ Antinoide matris · meae
int(estatae) · def̣[unctae ?]
[ex ea parte edicti qua] legitimis herediḅ[us] ḍạtụ ̣ṛ[um] ṭe polliceris. Da[tum - - - ]
[ ca15 ? ]eta ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣c̣ο[̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ - - - ] traces
] ̣ ̣[ ] traces [
--------------------
--------------------
Fr. b ] traces [
--------------------
*
APIS record: duke.apis.30563431. Thanks to Prof. Joshua D. Sosin and the Duke University Library for permission
to publish this document, to Mrs Lynn Eaton, reference archivist, for providing the photograph, to my colleagues Livia
Migliardi, Jean-Daniel Morerod, Paul Schubert, and the editors Hélène Cuvigny and Rodney Ast for their help in reading it,
and to the staff of the Geneva public library for giving me access to their resources.
18 Jean-Jacques Aubert
No. 3
To NN, prefect of Egypt, from Aurelius Dionysius, also known as Pausanias, ward of [NN -]usanus, also
known as Artemidorus Didymus [or: Artemidorus, son of Didymus], from the city of the Oxyrhynchites.
[I ask, lord, that you grant me] possession of the property of Aurelia As[k]latarion, also known as Athen-
[daughter of NN] also known as Sinthonis of Antinoe, my mother, who has died intestate [according to
the part of the edict whereby] you promise to grant (it) to legitimate heirs. Given on [date].
1 The function of the prefect of Egypt was preceded by his name and, possibly, its title viro perfect-
issimo (or in an abbreviated form), which would then imply a larger lacuna in the left part of
the text. If the dating of the papyrus in AD 239 is correct (cf. below), then the missing name is
L. Lucretius Annianus. Cf. A. Jördens, Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit:
Studien zum praefectus Aegypti (Historia Einzelschriften 175) (Stuttgart 2009) 530.
q(ui) e(t): it is possible that et is either ligatured or abbreviated, which would explain why e is
shaped differently from—i.e. less cursively than—other e’s in the text.
Aurelius Dionysius, also known as Pausanias, is otherwise unknown, although each single name
is fairly common in the third century.
The last sign of the line is more likely to be an inter-punctuation than a small o (as ending of
pupillo).
2 The sequence ]usani can only be part of the proper name Pausanias and relatives, or, a less likely
possibility in this document, Lusanias or Lusanios, which name is applied to a neighborhood
(amphodos) located in the Arsinoite nome (P.Fay. 30, Theadelphia, 171).
3 Aṣ[c]ḷạtario(u). The name Ἀσκλατάριον is very common in Roman Oxyrhynchite. However, as
Rodney Ast pointed out to me, the available space might call for a shorter name; he suggests
Aḷịtario(u) as a possibility.
The final letter of Aṣ[c]ḷạtario(u) may have been written above the line where traces of ink are
visible, in which case one should read Aṣ[c]ḷaṭ ario⸌u⸍.
The alias of Aurelia Asklatarion is a name deriving from Athena (if not Athena itself, then perhaps
Athenodora, Athenais, Athenarion, Athenarous, or Tathenturis).
4 Sinthonis is a common female name in Greek papyri dated from the first to the fourth century, but
occurs here for the first time in Latin. The word de is clearly written above the line, as an addition,
between Sinthoni and Antinoide. It could be the ending (ablative case?, perhaps connected with
the final -e occurring as the first visible letter of line 4) or the preposition de (Gr. ἀπό). The case
of either word and the relationship between Sinthonis and Aurelia Asklatarion are uncertain.
3. Remains of an agnitio bonorum possessionis: P.Duk. inv. 466 19
In P.Thomas 20 (Oxyrhynchus, 270), a very close parallel, a filiation is expressed with ex +

ablative (line 4–5: … ex eode(m) / [patre qui supra, matre Hieraciain]e, reconstructed in Latin
from the better preserved Greek translation. Another solution is suggested by CPL 216 (= SB I
1010 = ChLA XI 486 = FIRA III2 61, Antinoopolis, Sept. 15, 249), lines 2–3, in the form of
an absolute ablative: t(utore) a(uctore) patre / [suo] M. Aurelio Chaeremone q(ui) e(t) Zoilo
hieronica / [An]tinoense. Cf. below.
int(estatae) de(functae) is certain, by comparison with P.Thomas 20.6: [sororis nostrae con-
sanguineae sine pu]eris et intestatae defunctae, again confirmed in the Greek translation that
follows. It is possible that defunctae was written def(unctae).
5 The incomplete text can be reconstructed on the basis of parallels in both Latin and Greek.
Cf. below.
5–6 The consular date, expected after polliceris is difficult to reconstruct on the basis of extant traces.
The only group of letters, eta, would point to (Publius Septimius) Geta, consul (named in second
position) in 203, 205, and 208, which does not fit the likely terminus post quem in 212. Following
Hélène Cuvigny’s clever and compelling suggestion, we can take et as the conjunction, and read
et Aṿịọlạ ̣ c̣ο[̣ (n)s(ulibus)], giving us a date of 239. The other consul for that year was Imp. Caesar
M. Antonius Gordianus Augustus (= Gordian III, emperor from 238 to 244, then consul for the
first time).
The document records a petition addressed to a prefect of Egypt whose name is not preserved. A very
close parallel is found in CPL 216 (= SB I 1010 = ChLA XI 486 = FIRA III2 61, Antinoopolis, Sept. 15,
249), a so-called agnitio bonorum possessionis addressed to Aurelius Appius Sabinus, prefect of Egypt,
by one Marcus Aurelius Chaeremon, also known as Didymus, a minor acting with the permission of his
father and guardian, Marcus Aurelius Chaeremon, also known as Zoilus. The Latin text reads: [Au]relio
Appio Sabino v(iro) p(erfectissimo) praef(ecto) Aegypti / [a M.] Aurelio Chaeremone q(ui) e(t) Didymo
inpub(ere) t(utore) a(uctore) patre / [suo] M. Aurelio Chaeremone q(ui) e(t) Zoilo hieronica / [An]tinoense.
Rogo, domine, des mihi bonorum possessi/[o]nem matris meae Aureliae Hammonillae Heracla / [fil(iae)]
civitatis Oxyrhynchitarum ex ea parte edicti qua<e> / [legi]timis heredibus b(onorum) p(ossessionem)
daturum te polliceris. Dat(um) XVIII kal(endas) / [Oct(obres)] Aemiliano II et Aquilino cos. (“To Aurelius
Appius Sabinus, most perfect person, prefect of Egypt, from Marcus Aurelius Chaeremon, also known as
Didymus, a minor whose father, Marcus Aurelius Chaeremon, also known as Zoilus, victor at the games,
from Antinoopolis, acts as guardian and guarantor. I ask, Lord, that you give me possession of the estate of
my mother, Aurelia Hammonilla, daughter of Heracla(s), from the city of the Oxyrhynchites, on the basis
of the edict whereby you promise to grant possession of property to legitimate heirs. Given on the 18th day
before the kalends of October, under the consulship of Aemilianus, for the second time, and Aquilinus”.)
An exact Greek translation of the latter document is provided in P.Iand. inv. 253 (= SB VI 9298,
Oxyrhynchus, Sept. 14, 249), with an inversion of the sender’s name and alias (Aurelius Didymus, also
known as Chaeremon). Cf. also P.Oxy. IX 1201 (= CPL 218 = ChLA IV 233, Oxyrhynchus, Sept. 24,
258). For a bilingual parallel, cf. P.Thomas 20 (Oxyrhynchus, 269–270), with the Latin text and a Greek
subscription in the first column, and a Greek translation in the second column; and possibly ChLA XLVI
1385b (= P.Mur. II 158, 1st c., with the word [h]eredibus). For parallels in Greek only, cf. P.Oxy. I 35r (223);
PSI X 1101 (Oxyrhynchus, Jan.–Febr. 271); and possibly P.Oxf. 7 (256–257).
An agnitio bonorum possessionis (Marcellus [9 dig.] Dig. 38.15.5 pr.; CIust. 6.9.7 (305); CTh.
4.1.1 and the interpretatio in Brev. Alar. 4.1.1) is a formal request addressed to a magistrate, the praetor
in Rome, or the governor in the provinces, to obtain possession of an inheritance as a successor according
to praetorian law. The petitioner had to prove his kinship to the deceased, to make—in Latin—a declara-
tion of acceptance of the inheritance (cretio), and to pay the inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatium).
Cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D.
20 Jean-Jacques Aubert
(2nd ed., Warsaw 1955) 42, 183, and 211–217; T. Gagos and P. Heilporn, “A New agnitio bonorum
possessionis”, in P.Thomas, p. 175–185, with a list of parallels; D. M. Santos, “La fórmula de la ‘agnitio
bonorum possessionis’ en el siglo III”, Revista de Estudios Históricos-Juridicos 31 (2009) 159–168,
esp. 161, n. 7, where P.Duk. inv. 466 is mentioned; and Ruey-Lin Chang, “Papyrus bilingue: requête pour
agnitio bonorum possessionis, de provenance oxyrhynchite, datée de septembre 258 apr. J.-C.”, in IFAO,
Une image, un commentaire…, http://www.ifao.egnet.net/image/7/ (consulted on Sept. 13, 2011). On
the law of succession in the papyri, cf. L. Migliardi Zingale, I testamenti romani nei papiri e nelle tavolette
d’Egitto: silloge di documenti dal I al IV secolo d.C. (2nd ed., Torino 1991). On bonorum possessio
intestati, cf. M. Käser, Das römische Privatrecht (2nd ed., Munich 1971), vol. 1, 695–701.
Université de Neuchâtel
4. Gemellos and His Animal Farm: Full Edition of P.Fay. 253 descr.
Giuseppina Azzarello and Fabian Reiter
The papyrus, written on the recto side only, bears a day-by-day account of oxen and money and belongs
to the archive of Gemellos.1 He was a former Roman legionary soldier who, between the end of the first
and the beginning of the second century, lived in Aphrodites Berenikes polis in the Herakleidou meris
of the Arsinoite nome and engaged in correspondence with his administrator Epagathos and his son
Sabinos. The letters, along with other texts like accounts and contracts, were found by B. P. Grenfell and
A. S. Hunt in a house in Euhemereia at the end of the 19th century. They mainly concern the administration
of Gemellos’s properties, mostly consisting of olive yards and grain land. Most papyri belonging to the
archive were either published in full or, like our text, simply described in P.Fay.2
According to Grenfell and Hunt’s description, the papyrus contains “parts of three columns of
an account of expenditure on a farm, chiefly in connection with ταυρικά and βοικά.” The images kindly
provided by the University of Pennsylvania Museum show that it consists of four fragments mounted in
three frames, which are marked as 2777A, 2777B and 2777. The first one includes a large fragment with a
simple trace from a first column, probably belonging to a number of drachmas, and the second half (lower
margins preserved) of two further columns. The trace of col. i is situated at the height of col. ii.2, the first
line of col. ii at the height of col. iii.6. Columns ii and iii concern two unknown months: the first one
begins maybe with day 15 (cf. col. ii.1 comm.) and ends with day 24; the last column concerns days 1
(partially) until maybe 11 (cf. col. iii.14 comm.) of another month and ends—much before the height
of the last line of the preceding column, at the height of col. ii.11—with a grand total. It seems therefore
very probable that no further days of the same month were reported in the account.
The lost upper part of col. ii probably contained the entries concerning the first 14 days of the
month, as in col. iii the corresponding surface also bore, besides the first 5 preserved lines of the column
(col. iii.1–5), the lost entries of 6 days (the missing days 25–30) of the month reported in col. ii and
probably a grand total for the month.
Frame 2777B holds a larger fragment containing the lower half of a column, as the presence
of the lower margin demonstrates, and a small detached fragment, which on the old plate appears to be
mounted upside down, and only contains the mention of an amount of drachmas: the fact that it was put
into the same frame as the larger fragment suggests that it probably belongs to the same column, although
there is no proof for that. Finally, the third frame (2777) contains one single fragment which preserves an
inside part of a column, as no margins are visible. It is possible that 2777 and 2777B belong to the same
column, although they do not seem to join directly. In fact, they both refer to bulls. Moreover, 2777 might
contain a reference to a day 21 (cf. col. i fr. a 1 comm.) and in 2777B a day 29 is very probably mentioned
(cf. col. i fr. c 6 comm.). Another hint might be the fact that both 2777 and the larger fragment of 2777B
show a rather uneven kollesis in about the same portion of the surface, which is situated about 3.5–4.5 cm
from the presumed line beginnings. If this hypothesis is correct, the three fragments (the one of 2777 and
the two of 2777B) could be part of the same column: 2777—which we call therefore fr. a—ought to be
1
We thank Dieter Hagedorn for reading the manuscript. The following abbreviated bibliographical references are used
throughout the article: Ast—Azzarello (2012) = R. Ast and G. Azzarello, “A Roman Veteran and his Skillful Administrator:
Gemellus and Epagathus in Light of Unpublished Papyri,” in P. Schubert (ed.), Proceedings of the XXVIth Congress of
Papyrology, Geneva 2012 (in press); Azzarello (2008) = G. Azzarello, “Alla ricerca della „mano“ di Epagathos,” APF 54
(2008) 179–202; Azzarello (2009–2010) = G. Azzarello, “Olives and More in P.Fay. 102: Complete Edition of an Account
from the Gemellos’ Archive,” (Pap.Lup. XVIII–XIX) (2009–2010) 5–36; Drexhage (1991) = H.-J. Drexhage, Preise,
Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians, St. Katherinen 1991;
Schnebel (1925) = M. Schnebel, Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Ägypten (Münch. Beitr. 7), München 1925.
2
On this archive, see most recently Ast—Azzarello (2012) with literature.
22 Giuseppina Azzarello and Fabian Reiter
placed at the top of the larger fragment of 2777B, which we choose to call fr. c; as for the small detached
fragment of 2777B (= fr. b), its location cannot be determined with certainty.
As 2777A seems to contain the end of the account, the column designated 2777 (fr. a) + 2777B
(fr. b and c) should have preceded 2777A. The fact that the column found in 2777 + 2777B concerns the
end of a month suggests that it may even belong to col. i of 2777A, as col. ii probably begins with entries
of a new month. Considering that col. i is written in bigger letters than col. ii and that the first preserved
line of col. i might begin with day 21 (cf. col. i fr. a 1 comm.), it is probable that another column preceded
our col. i: in such a column the account concerning the month reported in col. i would have begun. Our
hypothetical reconstruction of the columns is shown by the photomontage.
As for the content of the account, its meaning is not easy to determine with certainty because the
entries are not homogeneous. Moreover, in light of several incomplete (maybe col. i fr. c 2, 7; col. ii.1,
maybe 9, 10, 20, cf. comm.) or laconic (col. i fr. a 1, 2, maybe 3; fr. c 3 and 5–6; col. ii.2, 11; col. iii
passim) entries, later insertion of a line (col. ii.15) and corrections (col. ii.11 and 14) the assumption arises
that the account was a draft. This renders the interpretation of the text even more difficult.
Most entries mention, apart from the day of the month, a quantity of ταυρικά and βοϊκά, which
undoubtedly refer to oxen: theoretically ζεύγη or κτήνη could be understood, but the latter appears
with ταυρικά and βοϊκά exclusively in more general mentions of oxen3 (rarely numbered, as in P.Oxy.
L 3586.9, 5th c.) and never in the singular form, while in agricultural accounts the attributes ταυρικά and
βοϊκά are regularly linked to ζεύγη, teams of working animals.4 Probably the ταυρικὰ ζεύγη consist of
male oxen, the βοϊκά of female ones, cf. P.Cair. II 59215.4–5 (before Sept. 14, 254 BCE): ζεύγη ιβ,
τούτων | ταυρικὰ ζ, θέλει〚ι〛α (l. θήλεια) ε. We can assume that the incomplete or laconic entries of col. i
fr. a 1, maybe fr. c 2 and 5–7; col. ii.2, 10, 19, as well as τὰ ἄ̣λλ̣ α in l. 12; col. iii.11–13, maybe 2–3 and 5,
also refer to teams of oxen; in col. ii.20 there could be a reference to a single bull, cf. comm.
In col. i and ii the mentions of the animals are sometimes accompanied by εἰς + toponyms
vel sim. which probably refer to places where the animals have been sent to work, cf. col. i fr. c 5; maybe
col. ii.1 and 3, 5–7, 12–13 and 18; maybe col. iii.4–5. Among the places mentioned in the account—τὰ
[2–3] π̣εριχ̣ώ(ματα) (col. i fr. c 5), which could either refer to specific embankments or be a toponym
(cf. comm.), Disero- (col. ii.5); Kolkal- (col. ii.6–7, 13, 18); Psinachis (col. ii.12) and Argias (col. iii.4–5)—
only Psinachis and Argias are known. Particularly Psinachis, situated in the Themistou meris of the
Arsinoite nome (cf. Calderini-Daris, Diz. geogr., Suppl. 4, s.v.) hosted some of Gemellos’s properties
(cf. col. ii.12 comm.), in particular a vegetable-ground, λάχανον, to which Gemellos had animals sent
to carry manure, cf. P.Fay. 119.33 (ca. 103, cf. BL IX 81): πέμσις τὰ κτήνη κοπρηγεῖν εἰς τὸ λάχανον
τῆς Ψινάχεως. The fact that Gemellos employed animals (κτήνη or ἐργατικὰ κτήνη) on his own fields is
testified also by other papyri like P.Fay. 118 (Nov. 6, 110), where Gemellos informs Epagathos or Sabinos
(cf. Ast—Azzarello [2012], n. 22) that the animals are about to carry manure to Psennophris (cf. lines
18–20). Bulls are specifically mentioned in P.Fay. 112.8 (May 21, 99), where they appear to be employed
in agricultural activities inside olive-yards such as digging, ploughing and hoeing.5 All this demonstrates
that Gemellos owned animals and employed them in agricultural work. It is therefore probable that in our
account the entries containing a reference to animals sent to some places concern works carried out by
Gemellos’s own animals on his fields. This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the references
to the animals’ destinations are usually not accompanied by amounts of money (cf. especially col. i fr. c 5;
col. ii.5–7, 12–13 and 18).
3
Cf. e.g. PSI X 1119.7–8 (with BL III 228), 12–13, 41, 43–44 (March 27, 156); Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v. βοϊκός.
4
Cf. P.Cair. II 59215.4–5 (before Sept. 14, 254 BCE); P.Corn. 25r.19–20; v.3, 7, 12 (28–23 BCE); SB XX 14632 (May
26–June 24, 39 or 40); P.Coll.Youtie I 24.23 (121/2); P.Lond. III 1177.360–365 and 367–369 (131/2). In contrast to the
ταυρικὰ ζεύγη, a single bull is called ταῦρος in the last mentioned account (l. 366). Cf. also Schnebel (1925) 107 n. 1; LSJ
s.v. ταυρικός 2.
5
For the use of oxen in agriculture in general, see Schnebel (1925) 321, and 107 (ploughing) and 172–180 (threshing).
4. Gemellos and His Animal Farm: Full Edition of P.Fay. 253 descr. 23
Some entries in the first two columns mention a μισθός (cf. col. i fr. a 1; fr. c 6; col. ii.2, 4, 9, 10,
17, cf. also 14, where the word seems to have been deleted), only sometimes explicitly connected with
the animals (col. ii.4 and 9). At the end of these entries there are usually amounts in drachmas, while the
exceptions (col. ii.10; maybe also 9, cf. comm.) might be due to the fact that the account probably
was a draft. The connection between μισθός and the amounts of money suggests that also in the entries
containing a reference to drachmas, a μισθός is to be understood even if the word is not explicitly used,
cf. col. i fr. a 1–2, maybe 3; fr. c maybe 2, 4, maybe 7; col. ii.11, 19–20; and col. iii maybe 1–3 and 5,
6–14 (on which see below).
Particularly important for the understanding of the account are the three days’ entries for the 16th,
18 and 20th which mention both animals sent to a place to work (without amount of money) and animals
th
connected (albeit not explicitly, cf. above) to a μισθός in money, cf. col. ii maybe 3–4, 7–9, 11–12, 13–14,
and 16–18. This leads us to the hypothesis that one group of animals was employed by Gemellos on his
own fields, while another was lent to other farmers.
Col. iii is more laconic than the preceding columns. A certain haste can be observed in the struc-
ture of the entries. Firstly, the rents from ταυρικά and βοϊκά lent out on the same day are not added up as
in col. ii (cf. col. iii.6–9); secondly in lines 11 and 12 the author does not specify the kind of animal as it
was the same as in line 10. On the other hand, col. iii allows us to calculate precise rents for one ταυρικόν
(4 dr., cf. ll. 9, 10–12, and 14, maybe differently l. 13)6 and for one βοϊκόν (3 dr., cf. l. 8), while in col. ii
the rents seem to be more flexible. The rent amounts may have depended on the kind of work to be carried
out, cf. Drexhage (1991) 317, who reports quite different day rents for oxen. The most similar ones occur
in P.Lond. I 131r = SB VIII 9699.324 and 330 (Hermoupolis; May 10, 79) with 5 dr. 3 ob. and 4 dr. 4 ob.
for a team—in the second papyrus a βοῶ(ν) ζε(ῦγος)—for ploughing, while for threshing a team is paid
only 1 dr. 4 ob. in this account, cf. e.g. l. 576.
The aim of the whole account might therefore have been on the one hand to register where
Gemellos’s animals were sent to work, and on the other hand to render an account of the incoming rents
for working animals. The differences between col. i–ii and col. iii may lead to further speculation. The
lower profit,7 the diminished accuracy of the writer visible in col. iii, and the abrupt ending of the account
around the 10th of the month might suggest that the whole account stems from the very last months of
a certain working period (e.g. the time of ploughing).
The text is a welcome addition to the few accounts known from the Gemellos archive.8 As the
hand is similar to the signature of Epagathos in P.Fay. 91.48–51 (Oct. 16, 99)—cf. the shape of the letters,
the ligatures, the abbreviations (superscription of the last written letter), and the symbols9—it seems
probable that P.Fay. 253, as with all the accounts of the archive, was written by Gemellos’s administrator,
cf. Azzarello (2008). Taking into consideration the probable mention of Orsenouphis (cf. col. ii.14 with
comm.), we could date the text back to the end of the first or beginning of the second century.
Furthermore, the papyrus adds precious information to our knowledge of Gemellos’s economic
activities. In fact it shows that one of them consisted in lending out working animals. According to our
interpretation, Gemellos owned at least four teams of bulls (cf. col. ii.3–6) and four teams of cows (cf. col.
ii.3–4). The business of lending them out brought him a high profit, as is shown by the total of 536 dr.
for one month in col. i fr. c 8. Apparently, the cost of feeding an animal was less than one drachma a day,
cf. Drexhage (1991) 320–326.
6
A price of 4 dr. per ταυρικὸν ζεῦγος a day is documented as well in the water account P.Lond. III 1177.360–365 and 367–
369 (Ptolemais Euergetis; 131/2), while the loan of a single ταῦρος costs 2 dr. per day (l. 366).
7
109 drachmas from at least 10 days (col. iii.15) versus 536 drachmas for a whole month (col. i fr. c 8).
8
Among the published ones, some refer to olive yards (SB XVIII 13144 [maybe before Sept. 11, 94, cf. Azzarello (2008)
185]; P.Fay. 102 [103/4, cf. the complete edition in Azzarello (2009–2010)]); loans of money (SB XVIII 13145 [maybe after
110, cf. Azzarello (2008) 186]), and grain (cf. the already mentioned P.Fay. 102).
9
Cf. esp. < for drachmas, while (γίνονται) in col. iii.15 is rendered as an oblique stroke (⁄) and not as ΓΙ as in other Gemellos
accounts.
→
col. i
fr. a
----------
1 α̅ μισ̣θ̣(οῦ) γ (δρ.) ς
[ ταυ]ρ̣ι̣κ̣(ῶν) γ̣ [(δρ.)]
[ ]vacat (δρ.) ιβ
----------
fr. b
----------
1 [ ] (δρ.) κδ̣
----------
fr. c
----------
[ ] (?) vacat καὶ τα[υρικ(-) ] (?)
[ ] vacat [ ] (?)
[] ̅ ταυρικ(ῶν) β
4 καὶ βοϊκ(ῶν) β [ ]
καὶ εἰς τὰ [2–3] π̣εριχ̣ώ(ματα) α
[κ]θ̅ μισθ(οῦ) [ ]
[ ] (?) vacat [ ] (?)
8 [(γίνονται)] τ̣οῦ μηνὸ(ς) (δρ.) φ̣λϛ
col. ii
----------
[ ] (?)[][][] τ̣[α]υρι[κ(ὸν)] α καὶ
καὶ μισθ(οῦ) (δρ.) ιϛ̣
ιϛ̅ αμ̣η̣ς̣ ταυρικ(ῶν) β καὶ βοϊκ(ῶν) γ
4 μισθ(οῦ) ταυρικ(ῶν) β καὶ βοϊκ(οῦ) α (δρ.) ι
ιζ̅ εἰς τὸ Δισερο(-) βοϊκ(ὰ) δ καὶ ταυρικ(ὰ) β
καὶ εἰς τὸν Κολκαλ(-) ταυρικ(ὰ) β
ιη̅ εἰς τὸν Κολκ(αλ-) εἰς τὰς γ̅
8 ταυρικ(ὰ) β καὶ βοϊκ(ὰ) γ
καὶ μισθ(οῦ) ταυρικ(ῶν) γ̣ καὶ βοϊκ(ῶν) [ ] (?)
ιθ̅ μισθ(οῦ)
κ̅ ταυρικ(ῶν) β καὶ βοϊκ(οῦ) α (δρ.) ι̣γ̣
12 τὰ ἄ̣λ̣λα εἰς Ψίναχ(ιν)
κα̅ εἰς τὸν Κολκαλ(-) ταυρικ(ὰ) γ
καὶ βοϊκ(ὰ) 〚μισ̣θ̣(οῦ)〛 β σ̣ὺν Ὀρσ̣ε̣ν̣(ούφει) 〚(δρ.) 〛
ἀντὶ τῶν δύο̣ ̣
16 κ̣β̣̅ τ̣[α]υ̣[ρι]κ(-) ̣ ἀντὶ τοῦ̣ ἑν̣ό̣ς
 [?]λ̣ μισθ(οῦ) (δρ.) ϛ

κ̣α̣ὶ̣ β̣ο[̣ ϊ]κ̣(ὰ) εἰς τὸν Κολκ(αλ- )
κ̣γ̣̅ κ̣(-)  Πα̣νη (δρ.) κ
20 κ̣δ̣̅ vacat (δρ.) β
11 α corr. ex β?
col. iii
-----------
κ[αί (?) ] (?)
β̅ α̣(-) [ ] (?)
γ̅ α̣ (-) [ ] (?)
4 Ἀργ̣ι̣(άδος) ταυρι[κ](οῦ) α
δ̇ Ἀργ̣ι̣(άδος) Πα̣να̣ω(-) [ ] (?)
ε̅ βοϊκ(οῦ) α (δρ.) [γ]
ταυρικ(ῶν) β (δρ.) η
8 ϛ̅ βοϊκ(ῶν) β (δρ.) ϛ
τα̣υρικ(ῶν) β (δρ.) η
ζ̅ ταυρικ(οῦ) α (δρ.) δ
η̣̅ vacat α (δρ.) δ
12 θ̅ vacat α (δρ.) δ
[ ] ̅ κ̣(-) δ (δρ.) ιβ
[ ] ̅ καὶ τα[υ]ρικ(ῶν) β (δρ.) η
(γίνονται) (δρ.) ρθ
col. i fr. a
1 α̅ μισ̣θ̣(οῦ): The date at the beginning seems to be the first of a month, as the α is not combined
with the preceding letter, as is the case in κα̅ in col. ii.13. But such a reading would not fit fr. c 7,
where the sum for a whole month is given, so that fr. a should then belong to another column. On
the other hand it might in this case not be easy to find a solution for the word preceding α̅, whose
round bending looks like that of a ς. Therefore we would not exclude the possibility of reading κ̣̅α̅
in spite of the missing ligature between the letters. That would permit the inclusion of the fragment
in the same column as fr. c. The number 3 (γ) probably refers to teams of animals, which were
here understood, maybe because they were mentioned in the preceding entry, cf. intro.
2–3 The mention of rents shows that the oxen were lent out, but there seems to be no space for the
word μισθ(ός) at the lost beginning of lines 2 and 3. At the very beginning of both lines there
was probably a date (22nd and 23rd?).
fr. b The fragment’s position is uncertain, cf. intro.
fr. c
1 The vacat before καί suggests that nothing is lost at the beginning of the line. Therefore the entry
must have begun on a preceding line; however, the strong eisthesis is strange. It is uncertain,
whether an amount of drachmas followed at the end of the line.
2 The size of the empty space visible between lines 1 and 3 suggests that another line is missing
here. It is uncertain whether there was a date (27th?) at the beginning of the line. In this case the
entry was an incomplete one, cf. e.g. l. 7 in the same fragment. At the end of the line an amount of
drachmas could have been lost, so that a μισθός was probably understood.
3 [ ] ̅: As ll. 3–5 seem to be related to one and the same day, the 28th comes to mind as a possible
date here.
3–4 Probably we are dealing with a loan of animals, although the word μισθός is omitted, cf. intro.
According to the structure in col. ii, where the incomes for the different teams of oxen are added
tacitly every day, we should expect a sum at the end of l. 4. In col. iii however the single revenues
in the entries are not added up daily, cf. intro.
5 εἰς τὰ [2–3] π̣εριχ̣ώ(ματα) α: Above the abraded letters there are black horizontal traces above the
line on the photo, but they seem to be only shadows. The sense of the entry seems to be that one
team of cows—βοϊκά (cf. l. 4) was probably understood—was sent to a place where there were
embankments; τὰ [2–3] π̣εριχ̣ώ(ματα) could even be a toponym, cf. e.g. SB XIV 12171.4–5
(Dec. 30, 191), ἐν τόπῳ Περιχώ|ματος.
6 [κ]θ̅ μισθ(οῦ) [ ]: As in l. 8 the month’s total is given, the date must be from the end of the
month. It is probable that the lacuna contained an amount of money (maybe fr. b?). The μισθός
refers to teams of working animals, which were here understood, cf. intro.
7 Maybe there was a date (30th) at the beginning and an amount at the end of the line; the entry was
not complete, cf. intro.
8 [(γίνονται)] τ̣οῦ μηνό(ς): For the reading τ̣οῦ, cf. col. ii.16. For the supplement, cf. e.g. BGU II 567
col. i.11, 24; col. ii.10, 24 (revenues of a notary’s office; 2nd c.) or P.Wisc. I 38.26, 36, 54, 67, 82
(revenues of a praktoreia, 54–67 with BL X 284).
col. ii
1 [ ] (?)[][][] τ̣[α]υρι[κ(ὸν)] α καί: It is not certain whether something (a date, maybe
the 15th?) was missing at the beginning of the line. Since in l. 2 a μισθός is mentioned, we might
expect here a reference to a place, cf. the structure of ll. 7–9. The surface not being abraded at
the end of the line, the entry is obviously incomplete. One expects a continuation with βοϊκ(-) +
number.
2 The mention of the kind of animals lent out is missing, cf. intro.
3 αμ̣η̣ς:̣ According to lines 5 and 7 the destination of the animals might be expected here: the
missing εἰς finds an exact parallel in col. iii.4–5. Unfortunately we did not manage a convincing
reading of the traces.
5 εἰς τὸ Δισερο(-): The field name seems to be unknown. A similar name occurs in P.Stras. VII
686.18 with BL VIII 429 (Arsinoite; 2nd c.): ἐν κ(λήρῳ) Δισιερου (l. Διὸς ἱεροῦ and cf. P.Graux
IV 31 col. iii.3 with comm. [Theadelphia; ca. 161–180]), but a connection cannot be established.
6 καὶ εἰς τὸν Κολκαλ(-): The field name Kolkal- may have a relationship with the personal names
Kolkalos and Kolkaleus, cf. P.Mich. IV 224.2681 (after Nov. 16, 173) and SB XX 14635.6 (July 1,
127). The toponym is mentioned also in ll. 7, 13, and 18.
7 εἰς τὰς γ̅: Maybe scil. ἀρούρας. “The three (arourai)” might be the name of a field which was part
of Kolkal-.
9 βοϊκ(ῶν) [ ] (?): It is difficult to say from the photo if the number of the oxen had ever been
written. The surface does not seem particularly abraded. The same question arises for the amount.
If there was one, it might have disappeared in the small lacuna, but we doubt that it was ever
written, cf. intro.
10 As neither animals nor an amount are mentioned, we may assume that the entry is incomplete,
cf. intro.
11 ταυρικ(ῶν) β καὶ βοϊκ(οῦ) α (δρ.) ι̣γ̣: The presence of drachmas indicates that a μισθός should
be understood here. Palaeographically one could also read the amount as (δρ.) ι̣ϛ̣. In l. 4, however,
10 drachmas are given for the same group of working animals, and from the sums in col. iii
one would expect 2 x 4 + 3 = 11 dr. Maybe the amount of 13 drachmas refers to the number of
the animals before the correction, cf. apparatus.
12 Ψίναχ(ιν): The place contained a vegetable-ground (cf. intro.) and grain land (cf. P.Fay. 257, ca.
100). Moreover, in P.Fay. 248 (ca. 100), a letter from Gemellos to Epagathos, farms in Psinachis
and Dionysias are mentioned.
14 βοϊκ(ὰ) 〚μισ̣θ̣(οῦ)〛 β σ̣ὺν Ὀρσ̣ε̣ν̣(ούφει) 〚(δρ.) 〛: A part of the abbreviating θ̣ of 〚μισ̣θ̣(οῦ)〛
seems to be visible at the top of β. The amount of drachmas was probably cancelled when the
scribe deleted 〚μισ̣θ̣(οῦ)〛. An Orsenouphis is known as belonging to the household of Epagathos,
cf. P.Fay. 112.23 (May 21, 99) and 115.10–11 (Aug. 21, 101). Apparently, he had to convey the
oxen to their place of work (Kolkal-).
15 After ο̣ there is a letter which could be read as α̣ and probably refers to the number of oxen,
“instead of two, 1.” The line seems to be inserted afterwards as a correction to the entry in ll. 16–
17, cf. below.
16–17 The number of bulls is only partially preserved: an oblique stroke descending to the right suggests
that it could be α. The following remark ἀντὶ τοῦ̣ ἑν̣ό̣ς (“instead of one”) is unclear. It probably
is a correction to the number of bulls given immediately before. In that case, the correct number,
probably 2, might have been written in l. 17 (cf. the structure of l. 15). The first visible trace could
indeed be a β. If that is right, the correction must have been corrected again through the remark
in l. 15, cf. above. However, it is difficult to understand why the scribe chose to write such long
remarks as corrections instead of simply replacing the number of the bulls.
The letter after λ̣ is written above the line. A form of ἄλλος (cf. l. 12) is a possibility. The bulls
referred to in ll. 16–17 were probably lent out, cf. μισθός and the amount of drachmas at the
end of l. 17. For the mention of the animals before the kind of employment, cf. lines 12 and 18.
19 κ̣(-)  Πα̣νη: Considering the space before κ̣, a possible reading would be β̣ο̣ϊ̣κ̣(ῶν), followed by
a number. The meaning of Πα̣νη—maybe a proper name, cf. e.g. Πανῆς; cf. also 14 and col. iii.2–3
and 5—is unclear. The drachmas at the end of the line suggest that μισθός was understood.
20 The entry is incomplete. The mention of drachmas at the end of the line suggests that it refers to
a μισθός, cf. intro. Considering the amount, it could concern a single bull, cf. also above, n. 3.
col. iii
1–5 The revenues of the first four days of the month should add up to the difference between the
month’s total of 109 drachmas and the rents of the period from the fifth onwards (57 drachmas),
that is 52 drachmas.
2–3 α̣(-): The entries seem to report the same information, which, however, is unclear. The two
traces after α̣ could be read as a flat μ̣ followed by a η̣ written above the line: the personal name
Ἀμῆς would be a possibility and could refer to a person who borrowed the oxen from Gemellos
or worked for him, cf. col. ii.14, 19 and col. iii.5. In this case, we would expect an amount of
drachmas at the end of the lines.
4–5 Ἀργ̣ι̣(άδος): This village was not far away from Theadelphia, cf. Calderini-Daris, Diz. geogr.,
Suppl. 4, s.v. Its presence in the account implies that Gemellos probably owned land in Argias
where he sent his animals to work: that would not be surprising since his economic activities in
Theadelphia are well attested, cf. e.g. P.Oxf. 10 (98–102), cf. Azzarello (2008) 182, n. 20. If both
the reading and the interpretation are right, we would not expect any amount of drachmas at the
end of the line. As in l. 4 bulls are mentioned, it would be possible that they are referred to also in
l. 5. Alternatively one could think of ἀργ̣ί̣(α), i.e. “holiday,” but the specific reference to one team
of bulls in l. 4 contradicts this hypothesis.
5 Πα̣να̣ω(-): We cannot exclude ε̣ instead of α̣. It could be a name (cf. e.g. col. ii.14 and 19; col. iii.1–3)
of a person who borrowed animals from Gemellos. In this case, we would expect an amount of
drachmas at the end of the line.
6–14 The mention of drachmas at the end of the lines implies that μισθός was understood.
6 (δρ.) [γ]: The amount was supplemented according to l. 8.
11–12 The numbers refer to teams of bulls as in l. 10.
13 The date at the beginning could be the 10th.
κ̣(-): Paleographically, [τ]α̣υ̣ρ̣ι̣κ̣(ῶν) would be a more attractive reading than β̣ο̣ϊ̣κ̣(ῶν), but
one would wonder about the amount of 12 dr. which is more appropriate for four teams of cows
than four bulls (cf. intro.), and why the scribe did not omit the kind of animal, as he did in lines 11
and 12.
14 [ ] ̅καὶ τα[υ]ρικ(ῶν): The slightly rounded trace at the beginning can hardly be interpreted except
as a sign for a day number (11th ?), although a καί at the beginning of an entry is difficult to
understand.
Università degli Studi di Udine

Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin
No. 4, col. i fr. a (2777)
No. 4, col. ii–iii (2777A)

No. 4, col. i fr. b + c (2777B)
No. 4, photomontage
5. Versione in greco di un testamento romano
Guido Bastianini
PSI inv. 1686 verso 11,5 x 20,4 cm 28.9.213

Ossirinco
Questo frammento di foglio papiraceo fu rinvenuto da Evaristo Breccia durante l’ultima campagna di
scavo a Ossirinco: una nota manoscritta sul nastro che chiude i vetri tra cui è conservato il papiro specifica
che il ritrovamento avvenne il 4 gennaio 1934 nel kôm Abu Teir [= K23 nella pianta di Grenfell e Hunt,
riprodotta in P.Oxy. L, p. 7]; cfr. A. Ciampi, I kimân di Ossirinco: Abu Teir e Ali el-Gammân, in Comuni-
cazioni 8 (Firenze 2009) 122–154: 124–130.
Il foglio reca scrittura su entrambe le facce. Sul recto, che è riconoscibile con certezza per la
presenza di una kollesis a circa 11 cm dal limite sinistro, è scritto in latino secondo le fibre un ‘ordine di
servizio’ militare. Ampi margini rimangono a sinistra e a destra, e anche in alto rimane uno spazio bianco
interpretabile come margine superiore. Sotto un’intestazione (r. 1) missi ad tutelam loci (seguono altre
parole verosimilmente abbreviate, non intellegibili, fino al r. 2) si legge, in forma di elenco (rr. 3–6): 
Antonius Ammonianus | t(urmae) Uictor( ) | Aur( ) Po | t(urmae) Iu( ) . Il resto è perduto.
Sul verso, capovolto rispetto al testo del recto, si legge contro le fibre la parte conclusiva della
versione greca di un testamentum per aes et libram. È possibile che il rigo più in basso, visibile per poche
tracce proprio sul bordo inferiore di frattura, sia effettivamente l’ultimo del testo: ma in ogni caso è andato
perduto almeno tutto il margine inferiore (il corrispondente margine superiore del recto doveva quindi
essere più ampio di quanto risulti ora). Sulla sinistra il testo del verso è lacunoso per tutta la sua altezza:
nel punto dove la lacuna è minore, al r. 11, manca almeno una lettera con tutto il margine sinistro (eviden-
temente, sul recto, anche il margine sinistro era originariamente ancora più ampio); sulla destra, invece,
il foglio sembra presentare (sul verso come sul recto) il taglio originario.
Sul verso, nella parte inferiore destra del foglio, un originario difetto di fabbricazione ha reso
la superficie non adatta alla scrittura, per cui lo scriba, ai rr. 10–12, nella seconda metà di ogni rigo
ha lasciato non scritta (anche a metà di una parola) un’estensione di spazio, che al r. 10 è di 5 mm
(οξυρ υγχων), al r. 11 di 3 cm (οκτωμβριων αυτοκρατορι) e al r. 12 di 2 cm (cεβα̣c τω).
Sui testamenti redatti secondo le norme del diritto romano (per aes et libram) si veda in generale
FIRA III, p. 129 ss.; M. Amelotti, Il testamento romano attraverso la prassi documentale, I. Le forme
classiche di testamento, Firenze 1966. Una raccolta di tutti gli atti testamentari romani provenienti
dall’Egitto si trova ora in L. Migliardi Zingale, I testamenti romani nei papiri e nelle tavolette d’Egitto.
Silloge di documenti dal I al IV secolo d.C., Torino 19973.
Il nostro frammento si affianca ad altri testi noti, che presentano il testamento non nella forma
originaria latina, su tavolette cerate, bensì in greco su papiro: si tratta, per lo più, della traduzione in
greco dei verbali di apertura di un testamento, nei quali è riportato appunto in greco anche il testamento
stesso; cfr. per es. BGU I 326 = FIRA III 50 = Migliardi, n° 12. Nel nostro caso, tuttavia, data la forma
estremamente provvisoria del documento, che è stato redatto su un foglio di recupero (per di più difettoso)
e contiene varie cancellazioni e ripensamenti, sarei propenso a ritenere che si tratti piuttosto di una stesura
in greco effettuata in vista o in occasione della confezione definitiva del testamento in latino, allo scopo
di rendere edotto il testatore ellenofono di ciò che era necessario fosse formulato in latino; una situazione
affine la si può con sicurezza riconoscere nel caso di P.Oxy . XXXVIII 2857 = Migliardi, n° 4: in
quest’ultimo testo, la versione in greco è preceduta a sinistra da una colonna contenente la stesura
in latino; la medesima situazione potrebbe ricorrere anche nel nostro frammento, in cui il testo greco
del verso, mutilo a sinistra, potrebbe essere stato preceduto da un’altra colonna con la stesura in latino
(e il testo del recto potrebbe essere stato ugualmente preceduto da un’altra colonna sulla sinistra).
32 Guido Bastianini
Del nostro testamento è perduta tutta la prima parte, col nome del testatore, la heredis institutio,
la formula della cretio; delle disposizioni sostanziali rimane solo la parte conclusiva, comprendente la
conferma di futuri codicilli, in una formulazione che non trova esatti paralleli altrove (rr. 1–6); seguono
poi le clausole formali: è assente la formula del dolus malus, ma si leggono quasi al completo la clausola
della mancipatio (rr. 7–10) e le indicazioni di luogo e data della confezione dell’atto (rr. 10–13). Appren-
diamo così che il testamento è redatto in Ossirinco, il quarto giorno prima delle Calende di ottobre (28
settembre), in un anno in cui è console per la quarta volta un Imperator di nome Antoninus Pius
Augustus (è perduto il nome del console collega): se, come sembra (cfr. nota ai rr. 11–12), si tratta
di Caracalla, la datazione consolare si riferisce all’anno 213p (saremmo dunque in un momento di poco
successivo alla promulgazione della Constitutio Antoniniana). Tra i documenti testamentari superstiti,
quelli più vicini nel tempo al nostro testo sono P.Coll.Youtie 64 = P.Diog. 10 = Migliardi, n° 20 (proto-
collo in latino del 3 giugno 211p, relativo all’apertura di un testamento redatto in Arsinoe il 3 marzo 210p)
e P.Oxy. XXII 2348 = Migliardi, n° 21 (protocollo in greco del 14 settembre 224p, relativo all’apertura di
un testamento redatto in Ossirinco il 21 luglio di quello stesso anno).
↓ ------------------------
]c̣η[
]δ[ ][ ]ν̣, το̣ῦ̣τ̣ο̣ 
δέδωκα
[][] θέλω· εἴ̣ τι [ ± 22 ]ου ⟦π⟧, κύριον
⟦αν⟧
4 [ἔcτω· εἴ τ]ι̣ ⟦ε̣λ̣ευθερο̣ν̣ τε̣ ε̣ι̣να̣ι⟧[ ± 13 , ἄκ]υ̣ρον ἔcτω· εἴ τινα ἐλεύ-
[θερο]ν̣ ἐλευθέραν τε εἶναι [ἐκ]έλευ̣c̣[α, ἐλεύ]θεροc ἐλευθέρα τε ἔcτω·
[εἴ τινα] ἐκώλυcα ἐλεύθερον, ἐλεύθεροc ἐλευθέρα μὴ ἔcτω.
[οἰκετ]είαν χρήματά τε τῆc διαθήκηc γεινομένηc ἐπρίατο Λούκιοc
8 []ι̣οc Τείρων cηcτερτίῳ νούμμῳ ἑνί, ζυγοcτατοῦντοc
[Μάρ]κου Αὐρηλίου Λολλιανοῦ· ἀντεμαρ⟦⟧τύρατ[ο] Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον
[]ν̣ τὸν καὶ Θέωνα. ἡ διαθήκη ἐγένετο ἐν Ὀξυρύγχων πόλει
[π]ρ̣ὸ̣ τ̣ε̣c̣cάρων Καλανδῶν Ὀκτωμβρίων Αὐτοκράτορι
12 [κυρ]ί̣ῳ̣ ἡ̣μῶ ̣ ν Ἀντω[ν]ε̣[ί]νῳ Εὐc[ε]βεῖ Cεβα̣c̣τ̣ῷ τὸ τέταρτ̣ο̣ν
][ ] [
------------------------
7 l. γινομένηc 8 l. Τίρων 11 l. Ὀκτωβρίων 12 l. Ἀντωνίνῳ
… ] questo voglio [che sia valido]: se qualcosa [ … … ] avrò dato, [abbia] valore; se [ … … ], non abbia
valore; se avrò disposto che qualcuno sia libero o libera, sia libero o libera; se avrò vietato che [qualcuno]
(sia) libero, non sia libero o libera. Il patrimonio familiare, nell’occasione del testamento, lo ha acquistato
Lucio […]io Tirone per una moneta da un sesterzio essendo portatore di bilancia Marco Aurelio Lolliano;
(il testatore) ha chiamato a testimoniare per primo Marco Aurelio [ … ] detto anche Teone. Il testamento
è stato fatto nella città degli Ossirinchi, il quarto giorno prima delle Calende di ottobre, [essendo
consoli] l’Imperatore signore nostro Antonino Pio Augusto per la quarta volta [ …
2–6 Questi righi sembrano contenere le clausole confirmatorie di futuri codicilli. Anche se mancano
esatti paralleli, formule di questo tipo si ritrovano in altri documenti testamentari, sia in greco sia
in latino: cfr., in greco, P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2857.21–26 = Migliardi, n° 4: ἐὰν δέ τι μετὰ ταύτην
μου | [τὴ]ν̣ διαθήκην πιν̣[α]κ̣είcι κωδικίλλοιc χ[ά]ρτῃ ἢ ἄλλῳ τινὶ | [γέ]ν̣ει ( []ει ed. pr.) ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ
5. Versione in greco di un testamento romano 33
γεγραμμένον ἢ ὑπογεγραμμένον ἐcφρα|[γιc]μένον τε καταλε̣[ί]πω, δι᾿ οὗ δοθῆναί τι ἢ γενέcθαι

παρέ̣|χειν τε ἐπιτρέψω κωλύcω τε, ἐν ἴcῳ βέβαιον εἶναι θέλω | ὡc καὶ ταύτην μου τὴν διαθήκην
(14.5.134p); BGU I 326 II 2–3 = FIRA III 50 = Migliardi, n° 12: εἴ τι ἐὰν ἐγὼ μετὰ | ταῦτα
γεγραμμένον καταλίπω τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ γεγραμμένον | οἱῳδή[π]οτε τρόπῳ, βέβα[ιό]ν μοι εἶναι θέλω
(17.10.189p), cfr. anche oltre, r. 9; P.Hamb. I 73.9–11 = Migliardi, n° 13: εἰ δέ τι ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα
γεγραμμένον καταλίπω τῇ] | ἐμῇ χιρὶ γραφό[μενον οἱῳδήποτε τρόπῳ, βέβαιόν μοι εἶναι θέλω
ἀκολούθωc ταύτῃ μου τῇ] | βουλήcει (IIp); P.Oxy. XXII 2348 II 9–10 = Migliardi, n° 21: εἴ τι ἐὰν
μετὰ ταῦτα | οἱῳδήποτε τρόπῳ ἀcφαλίcωμαι, τοῦτο ἰcχύειν θέλω (21.7.224p); in latino, cfr. P.Hamb.
I 72.9–16 = Ch.L.A XI 496 = Migliardi, n° 1 (si tratta di un modello di formulario): si quid ego
pọst h[o]c ṭestamentum meum nuncupatu[m] | codicillis charta membrana alioue quo generẹ |
scrịp[̣ tum signatumque re]lị[quero, quo non recto tes]|tameṇ[ti iure l]ẹgụ m[u]ẹ ḍari quid aut fieri
iu[sse]|ro, ạụṭ [si quid] uel ui[u]us ḍeḍi donaui deder[o] | doṇaueṛ[o uel li]ḅẹṛum liberamue esse
uetueṛ[o] | seṛ[uum s]ẹ[ruam]ụẹ, ratum esto ac si in hoc t[es]|t[am]eṇṭọ cau[tum] c̣ọnp̣ rehensumue
esset (II/IIIp, cfr. Ch.L.A IX 399.1–4 [P.CtYBR inv. 1547] = Migliardi, n° 2.1–4, 91p); P.Mich.
VII 439.12–17 = Ch.L.A. V 301 = Migliardi, n° 6: si qu[id post hoc | testame]ntum pugillạṛịbus
codic[ibus uel alio | quo gene]ṛe scriptum uel subscri[ptum manu | mea sit], per quot dari aut fieri
iuṣ[sero, id | ratum es]se uolo ac si hoc testa[mento scri|ptum esset] (147p).
2 το̣ῦ̣τ̣ο̣  : la penultima traccia presenta sulla sinistra un elemento verticale con un ingrossamento
in basso verso destra; dell’ultima lettera sopravvive un tratto orizzontale molto prolungato a destra
nella parte medio-alta del rigo (possibile epsilon oppure sigma). Potremmo pensare a una ricostru-
zione (rr. 2–3) το̣ῦ̣τ̣ο̣ β̣έ̣|[βαιόν] μ̣[οι] θέλω: cfr. βέβα[ιό]ν μοι εἶναι θέλω (Migliardi, n° 12 II 3)
e τοῦτο ἰcχύειν θέλω (Migliardi, n° 21 II 10).
3 εἴ̣ τι κτλ : quello che segue (fino a tutto il r. 5) sembra proseguire quanto detto subito prima; si veda
la formulazione (latina) di Migliardi, n° 1, citata sopra. Una precisa ricostruzione delle lacune ai
rr. 3 e 4 sembra tuttavia azzardata.
]ου : la traccia è un tratto arcuato nella parte bassa del rigo, in legatura col successivo omicron
(plausibile lambda).
⟦π⟧ : sembra di vedere ⟦υ̣πο̣ ̣⟧. Non comprendo tuttavia la ratio dell’errore. Le lettere, cancel-
late con tratti di penna, sono sostituite nell’interlinea da δέδωκα.
4 Sembra che lo scriba, dopo εἴ τ]ι̣, avesse anticipato in questo rigo la sequenza ἐλευθέραν τε εἶναι,
che compare poi al r. 5; e l’aveva per di più scritta con un errore (-ρον invece di -ραν), corretto
nell’interlinea. Poi tutta la sequenza è stata cancellata con tratti di penna.
5 [ἐκ]έλευ̣c̣[α : rispetto a un pur possibile [κ]ελεύ̣c̣[ω, ho preferito ricostruire la forma verbale in
aoristo, per il parallelismo con ἐκώλυcα (r. 6).
7–12 Come negli altri testamenti romani da questo periodo in poi, anche qui, prima della mancipatio
familiae, è assente la formula di esclusione del dolo (huic testamento dolus malus abesto, ταύτῃ
τῇ διαθήκῃ δόλοc πονηρὸc ἀπέcτω): cfr. Migliardi, n° 20, p. 89 nota 1.
La successiva serie delle clausole formali è facilmente ricostruibile nella sua verosimile formula-
zione latina: familiam pecuniamque testamenti faciendi causa emit Lucius […]ius Tiro sestertio
nummo uno, libripende Marco Aurelio Lolliano; antestatus est Marcum Aurelium […] qui
et Theonem. Testamentum factum Oxyrhyncho ante diem IV Kalendas Octobres, Imperatore
domino nostro Antonino Pio Augusto IV [ … . Sulla forma del nome di Ossirinco in latino,
cfr. J. D. Thomas in CdÉ 73 (1998) 127–128; T. Gagos—P. Heilporn, P.Thomas 20 I 2 e nota.
7 γεινομένηc (l. γινομένηc) : la formula testamenti faciendi causa è sempre resa in greco con un
genitivo assoluto in cui il participio è al presente (γινομένηc, come qui); unica eccezione parrebbe
BGU I 326 = FIRA III 50 = Migliardi, n° 12, dove a col. II 4 è usato l’aoristo γενομένηc: ma si
tratta verosimilmente di un errore (cfr. FIRA III 50, p. 150 nota 4).
34 Guido Bastianini
7–10 Λούκιοc | []ι̣οc Τείρων … [Μάρ]κου Αὐρηλίου Λολλιανοῦ … Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον | []ν̣
τὸν καὶ Θέωνα : di questi tre cives romani (il primo è il familiae emptor, il secondo è il libripens,
l’altro è il primo dei cinque testes/signatores richiesti nella mancipatio) nessuno sembra noto
da altre attestazioni. Si può forse osservare che, per quanto alla data di questo documento l’editto
di Caracalla doveva già essere stato promulgato, la cittadinanza romana, che i tre mostrano di
possedere, è verosimilmente anteriore e indipendente dall’editto stesso; cfr. D. Hagedorn, BASP
16 (1979) 47–59.
11–12 Nella datazione consolare è leggibile soltanto il nome del primo dei due consoli, cioè un Imperator
di nome Antoninus Pius Augustus, cos. IV: in teoria, potrebbe trattarsi di Antonino Pio (145p),
di Caracalla (213p) o di Elagabalo (222p). Si può escludere il primo, per ragioni paleografiche
(la scrittura del recto e quella del verso rimandano decisamente al IIIp) e contenutistiche (per es.,
l’assenza della formula di esclusione del dolo); tra gli altri due, si può considerare il fatto che
Elagabalo morì appunto nel suo quarto consolato, l’11 marzo 222p, essendogli collega Severo
Alessandro: alla data del nostro papiro (28 settembre) erano già passati più di sei mesi, e il
consolato era tenuto dal solo Severo Alessandro (cfr. PIR2 A 1610, p. 328), già ormai al suo
2° anno di regno (28 settembre = 1° Phaophi). Non resterebbe quindi che considerare l’anno 213p,
in cui Caracalla era console per la quarta volta. Alla data del 28 settembre, sarebbe già nel suo
22° anno di regno secondo il computo egiziano.
13 Se coglie nel segno quanto detto sopra (nota ai rr. 11–12), qui dovrebbe figurare il nome del
secondo console dell’anno 213p, D. Caelius Calvinus Balbinus, cos. II (è il futuro imperatore
del 238p). Purtroppo, le tracce scarse e confuse non offrono nessun appiglio valido per la lettura:
si può dire soltanto che, dopo i resti di scrittura sottostanti alla sequenza βει del r. 12, in questo
r. 13 sembra ci sia un certo spazio bianco, di cui non si può valutare l’estensione a causa della
lacuna che interessa la parte restante del rigo; le ultime due tracce visibili prima dello spazio
bianco sono la parte superiore di un’alta asta verticale e un tratto curvo concavo verso il basso.
Se davvero qui termina la datazione consolare, dovremmo riconoscervi i resti della parola ὑπάτοιc,
per cui nella parte precedente del rigo resterebbe spazio soltanto per una ventina di lettere: dunque,
Βαλβείνῳ τὸ δεύτερον ὑπάτοιc? Una data consolare in latino del medesimo anno 213p, purtroppo
lacunosa, figura in P.Dura 70.3 = Rom.Mil.Rec. 104: Antonino] Ạug̣ (usto) ỊỊ[II] ẹt B[a]ḷbiṇ[o II
co(n)s(ulibus).
Nella seconda parte del rigo (e in un ipotetico rigo ulteriore) poteva essere indicata la datazione
secondo l’uso egiziano: anno 22°, 1° Phaophi: cfr. sopra, nota ai rr. 11–12.
Università degli Studi di Firenze

5. Versione in greco di un testamento romano 35
No. 5
6. Récupération d’outils de briquetiers
Jean Bingen†
Le formulaire de ce reçu (ἀπέχομεν) serait banal s’il sanctionnait une transaction en argent. Étrangement,
il s’applique ici à un lot de bêches (ἄμαι) et de houes à deux pointes (δίκελλαι). En fait, le document
révèle des relations de travail assez particulières. L’une des parties, les deux associés qui rédigent le reçu,
présente des noms et patronymes bien grecs et semble être de gros utilisateurs de briques, probablement
des entrepreneurs du bâtiment. L’autre partie, un Ammônios à qui le reçu est remis (on ne cite même pas
son patronyme), est à la tête d’un groupe de tâcherons comme le suggère le fait que les outils concernés
dans cette affaire sont mentionnés au pluriel.
Les deux parties ont convenu l’année précédente qu’Ammônios fabriquerait des briques pour les
dits entrepreneurs. Ammônios n’est pas appelé πλινθευτής et ses gens ne sont pas des ouvriers spécialisés
dans ce travail, puisque les entrepreneurs ont dû fournir les bêches et les houes nécessaires à leur activité.
Mais ce ne sont pas des salariés des entrepreneurs, puisque, pour les rétribuer, on ne prévoyait pas un
μίσθος ou des ὀψώνια, comme fréquemment dans les papyrus. Le reçu utilise un terme technique, nouveau
mais parfaitement grec, des πόητρα, des « frais de fabrication » (sur ce mot nouveau, voir comm. l. 5).
Ammônios est d’ailleurs payé globalement pour la fourniture des briques.
À lire certaines clauses du reçu, on devine que les choses ne se sont pas passées facilement.
Le καί de la ligne 4 est particulièrement édifiant à cet égard. Pendant un certain temps non précisé
(à l’intérieur d’une année 13), Ammônios et ses gens ont fourni des briques, beaucoup probablement
(dans notre documentation, les briques sont le plus souvent comptées en milliers ou dizaines de milliers).
Mais nous apprenons ensuite qu’en l’an 14, la fabrication des briques a été arrêtée assez longtemps pour
que cette période de non-activité soit bizarrement mentionnée dans le présent document. Il a donc fallu
un certain temps pour qu’on arrive à l’accord que le reçu sanctionne. Les entrepreneurs ont alors payé
le « coût des fournitures » et, en échange, Ammônios a restitué les outils, qu’il avait probablement gardés
en garantie d’un paiement qui ne venait pas.
Le bas du coupon de papyrus, comprenant au moins la date, est perdu. L’écriture, petite et serrée,
n’a que peu de traits de la cursive et présente une grande instabilité dans la forme des lettres ; elle est
difficilement datable avec précision, mais se situe vraisemblablement vers la seconde moitié du Ier siècle
de notre ère.
Accompagné d’une note : « papyrus from under Roman tower tomb 1–20 », le document était
conservé à l’Ashmolean Museum dans une boîte dite « B », qui contient des papyrus de provenances
diverses, généralement inconnues, ayant appartenu à Flinders Petrie. Cette mention pourrait suggérer
que le document provient d’Oxyrhynchus comme quelques autres fragments de ces boîtes. Flinders Petrie
y a fouillé plus de 50 tombes dont quelques-unes sont sommairement décrites dans Tombs of the Courtiers
and Oxyrhynkhos (Londres 1925), p. 12–19. Cependant c’est de l’Arsinoïte que proviennent celles des
occurrences de la formule ἔγραψα τὰ πλεῖστα (voir comm. l. 10) dont on peut préciser l’origine du docu-
ment. C’est aussi le cas pour la formule parallèle ἔγραψα τὰ ὅλα. Notre reçu pourrait donc en provenir,
et l’on songe particulièrement à Hawara où Flinders Petrie a travaillé.
P.Ashm. inv. 10 5,9 x 9,4 cm vers la 2e m. du Ier s.

Arsinoïte (?)
La marge est conservée en haut et à gauche. L’écriture est parallèle aux fibres. Le verso est vierge.
→ Μά̣ρ̣ω̣ν Σωκράτους καὶ Διονύσιος

Ἡρακλείδου ἀπέχωμεν πα̣[ρ]ὰ̣ Ἀμ-
38 Jean Bingen
μωνίου ἃ⸌ς⸍ εἶχε ἡμῶν ἄμας καὶ δι-

4 κέλλας διὰ τὼ καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπεσ-
χηκέναι τὰ πόητρα ἧς ⟦πλ⟧ ἐπ̣λίνθευ-
σε ἡμῖν πλίνθου τῷ διεληλοιθώ-
τι τρισκαδεκάτῳ ἔτι κ̣α̣ὶ οὐδεμ̣[ί]-
8 αν τῷ [παρόντ]ι μέχρι τῆς ἐνεστώ-
σης ἡμέρας. Μάρων ἔγραψα τὰ
πλ̣ε̣ῖ̣σ̣τ̣α {ι}. (2e main) Διονύσιος συναπέ-
[σ]χ̣[ηκα τὰς ἄμας καὶ δικέλλας (?) - - -]
----------------------------
2 l. ἀπέχoμεν 4 l. τὸ 6–7 l. διεληλυθότι 7 l. τρισκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει
Marôn fils de Sôkratès et Dionysios fils d’Hèrakleidès avons reçu en retour d’Ammônios les
bêches et houes qu’il détenait de nous, en raison du fait que lui aussi a reçu le coût de fabrication des
briques qu’il a produites pour nous en l’an 13 passé et (qu’il n’en a confectionné) aucune pour l’année
courante jusqu’au jour d’aujourd’hui. Moi, Marôn, ai écrit la plus grande partie. Moi, Dionysios, j’ai reçu
conjointement [les bêches et les houes (?) (date)].
5 τὰ πόητρα. Apparaissant ici pour la première fois, le mot s’ajoute à toute une série de neutres
pluriels en -τρα qui désignent le coût d’une opération. On trouve, par exemple, dans le compte
P.Oxy . IV 739 (vers l’an 1), ἄλεστρα, « coût du broyage du grain » et le seul emploi connu
du composé σιτοπόητρα, « coût de la confection des pains » (relevé dans LSJ sous le lemme
σιτοποίητρον, où le -πο- me semble diphtongué à tort et où le singulier de ce tantum plurale est
simplement conventionnel pour la lemmatisation de l’article).
7–8 La construction rend probablement un (διὰ τὸ) οὐδεμ̣ίαν αὐτὸν πλινθεύειν ou οὐδεμ̣ίαν (πλίνθον)
ἐπλίνθευσε.
10 Le premier mot est mutilé et réduit en grande partie à des traces. J’en dois la lecture à Hélène
Cuvigny, qui a ainsi retrouvé une formule connue : ἔγραψα τὰ πλεῖστα (voir introduction). Celle-
ci figure sur des documents comme le nôtre où l’une des parties concernées compte deux ou
plusieurs personnes et où celui qui a rédigé l’essentiel du document fait connaître la chose en
guise de signature et de garantie de la valeur du texte. Quelquefois l’autre membre du couple
impliqué par la garantie signe à son tour en utilisant l’un ou l’autre verbe commençant par le
préverbe συν-. C’est ce qu’a fait notre Dionysios fils d’Hèrakleidès.
Bruxelles
6. Récupération d’outils de briquetiers 39
No. 6
7. Letter about Court Proceedings and Agricultural Matters
Alan K. Bowman
P.Rylands inv. Greek Add. 144 + 116 24.3 x 10.8 cm II/III (?)
Arsinoite Nome (?)
The papyrus is incomplete at the top and bottom and consists of two joining fragments1. There are very
abraded or washed out traces of several lines of writing on the back of the lower fragment which cannot be
read or connected with the text on the recto. There is no sign of an address on the verso, but it might have
stood in the lost portion at the top or bottom. The main body of the letter is written across the fibres, which
suggests re-use of an earlier discarded document. The text is clearly a private letter, whose content is of
more than routine interest, although the loss of the beginning and the conclusion, as well as some obscurity
in the references, leave the exact message unclear in places. There was obviously not room to complete
the letter at the bottom since the writer continues in the left margin with two lines written from top to
bottom. The hand is a clear but inelegant cursive, with few ligatures and a number of deletions. It is best
assigned to the second century AD, and at any rate not later than the early third, which is supported by
the presence of a clear iota adscript in line 32 (τούτωι). There is no record of provenance but the reference
to the village of Herakleia (line 24) and to αἰγιαλῷ (line 35) indicate a clear connection with the Arsinoite,
which is therefore assumed as the location of the addressee and the provenance.
The interest of the first part of the letter (as far as line 19) lies in the fact that it describes in
some detail legal proceedings in which the writer has been involved. References to various locations and
buildings (the βῆμα, the Lageion, the praetorium) and to the archidikastes point to the conclusion that
these court proceedings took place in Alexandria. The second part of the letter concerns local business
matters, certainly in the Arsinoite Nome (Fayum), so it is probable that the letter was sent to someone
in the Arsinoite by a correspondent who was involved in a court case in Alexandria. There are good
comparable accounts of court proceedings of this sort in Alexandria in P.Oxy. LV 3813 and LVIII 3917.
↓ --------------------
̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[
̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ επε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
4 ̣ ̣ ̣υ̣ ̣ ̣α̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[
[ ̣] ̣τα ταῦτα ἐντευχθεὶς ὑ-
π’ ἐμοῦ ἐπὶ παρόντι τ̣ῷ̣ π̣ρ̣[
τῇ κ̅α̅ ἐν τῷ Λαγείῳ ἐ̣π̣έ̣τ̣ρ̣ε̣-
8 ψέν μοι ἐντυχεῖν αὐτῷ̣̣ πρὸ βή̣-
ματοϲ. ὡ̣ς̣ ⸌μὴ⸍ ἀρκεσθεὶς ο ̣[ ̣] ̣τ̣η⟦̣ ̣⟧
ἐντυχίᾳ⟦ς⟧ τῆς κ̅α̅ καὶ τῇ κ̅β̣̅
ὁμοίως ἐνέτυχον ἐν τῷ πραι-
12 τωρίῳ ἐπὶ παρόντι πά̣λιν τῷ
1
Permission to publish is by courtesy of the University Librarian and Director, The John Rylands University Library, The
University of Manchester. I am grateful to Dr Roberta Mazza for helping to facilitate this, as well for checking the physical
details of the papyrus. I also thank David Thomas, Peter Parsons, Amin Benaissa, Nikolaos Gonis, Roland Färber, the par-
ticipants in various seminars in Oxford, Munich, Berkeley and Manchester and the editors of this volume, especially Hélène
Cuvigny, for helpful suggestions and comments.
42 Alan K. Bowman
προσωστη. καὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος

ἔχειν κριτὴν τὸν ἀρχιδικ̣α̣στὴν
ἠπείλησεν αὐτῷ εἰπὼν ‘δαρ⟦ ̣ ̣⟧ ⸌ή⸍-
16 σῃ. ἐγὼ τοῦ πράγματος ὡς̣ επα ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣?]
ἀκούω.’ τὰ οὖν ἡμεῖν πραχθέντα
ταῦτά ἐστι. καὶ ὅτι ἡγεμὼν ἡ-
μῶν ἀκούει ἴσθι. περὶ τῶν τοῦ
20 Σύρου ὑπαρχόντων μηδὲν πρά̣-
ξας ἄχρι νῦν μηκέτι μη̣δὲν ἐ-
νέργει. περὶ μέντοι τῶν ἄλλων
πράσσ⟦αι⟧⸌ε⸍ ὅ τι ἂν δυνηθῇς ἐξαιρέτω̣[ς]
24 περὶ τοῦ ἐν ῾Ηρακλείᾳ ἐποικίου.
ἐπίστα μέντοι ⸌ὡς⸍ ἐὰν δυ̣ν̣ηθῇ[ς]
ὅπως ἐκπρα⟦κ⟧χθῇ τὴν τει-
μὴν ὁ Σύρος. οὐ γὰρ δεῖ το̣ὺς τοι-
28 ούτους ἐλεᾶν. ὁ ἐ{α}ν Βερκυθι οἶ-
νος εἰς κεράμια ν̅ ἦλ̣θ̣ε̣ν̣
ἀντὶ τριακοσίων. ὅρα̣ πόσα
σοι ἡμάρτηται τω̣ ̣ι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν̣ ̣-
32 νωι τούτωι καὶ γένοιτο ἵνα ⸌ ̣⸍ ̣[ ̣?]
̣ ̣απρο ̣ ̣ ̣η̣ ̣ι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
Left margin
→ ]c.4 [c.4 ]δ̣εν τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀσπορήσῃ τοιούτῳ ε[ ̣]αυτω vac. ̣τ[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ατα [̣ c. 6 ]̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[
] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣αι ἐντειλαμεν ̣ ̣ αἰγιαλῷ
… after that, having been petitioned by me in the presence of (the prosostes?) … on the 21st in the Lageion
he instructed me to petition him before the tribunal. And therefore (?) since I received no satisfaction from
my petition of the 21st, I likewise petitioned him also on the 22nd in the praetorium, again in the presence
of the prosostes (?), and when he (sc. the prosostes) said he had the archidikastes as judge, he threatened
him saying ‘You will be flogged. It is I who am hearing the matter as … (?)’ That is what has happened
to us and know that the prefect is listening to us. About the property of Syros, having done nothing till
now, do not take any action as yet. About the rest, however, do whatever you can (or: act in whatever way
you can), especially in regard to the hamlet in Herakleia. Take care, however, that if you can do it, Syros
should be made to pay the price. For one must not pity such people. The wine in Berkuthi went into 50 jars
instead of three hundred. See how many you have lost …
1–4 Exiguous traces only survive, not enough to make any sense. The narrative which follows would
seem to require that the lost portion contained a reference to the official being petitioned and that
this must have been the prefect, in view of the references to the βῆμα (8–9) and the ἡγέμων (18).
See R. Haensch, ‘Die bearbeitungsweisen von Petitionen in der Provinz Aegyptus’, ZPE 100
(1994) 487–546. In line 4, the letters between υ and α might be κρ, suggesting the possibility of
a reference to the prefect (τοῦ κρατίστου ?).
5 Only a trace at the broken left edge and room for one lost letter; [μ]ετὰ ταῦτα seems probable.
6–7 There is a problem at the end of line 6. The reference in lines 12–13 requires that we have the same
word, προσωστη, here. But the numeral in line 7 has a bar over it and must be a date; we therefore
7. Letter about Court Proceedings and Agricultural Matters 43
need the definite article before it. There is some loss at the end of line 6 but it is uncertain whether
there is really room for the whole of the word προσωστη (whatever it means, see note to line 13),
since this would give us 25 letters in the line and the maximum elsewhere is 24 (line 17). The
alternative would be to suppose haplography and read προσω[σ]/τη {τη} κ̅α̅; there is an ink mark
of unclear significance above and to the left of tau at the beginning of line 7. For a different
suggestion see note to line 13, below.
7 This is most naturally taken as a reference to the hippodrome at Alexandria, called the Lageion,
see J. S. McKenzie et al. ‘Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria’, JRS 94 (2004) 101–104,
also referred to in SB III 6222 (new edition by S. Remijsen, ‘Pammachon, a new sport’, BASP 47
(2010) 185–204) and probably P.Oxy. XXXI 2553.7, 10, 13 (despite the editors’ inclination to
locate it in Oxyrhynchus). The only other occurrences of the term Lag(e)ion in the papyri are
in BGU IV 1087 and W.Chr. 293 (cf. BGU XIII 2280), where it is clearly a toponym of a quarter
or a street in Arsinoe. There is abundant evidence for the presentation of petitions to emperors
and officials in public places of this sort (see F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World [2nd ed.
London 1992] 36–38, and it makes sense to suppose that the writer attempted to present his
petition to the prefect in the hippodrome and was instructed to do it at the formal tribunal (see
the reference to the praetorium in lines 11–12).
8–9 The reference to the βῆμα, the formal tribunal, points strongly towards Alexandria rather than one
of the conventus centres, see G. F. Talamanca, Ricerche sul processo nell’Egitto Greco-romano II,
L’introduzione del giudizio 2 (Napoli 1984) 20–25.
9 There is some fibre damage and a fair amount of correction. μη is written above the line. What is
below it is unclear but the traces are compatible with ω. Following ἀρκεσθεὶς, οὖ[ν] τῆ[[ς]] is just
about compatible with the traces, though upsilon is not easy, and the connective would be rather
late in the sentence (perhaps written before the negative was inserted above the line?) (I owe this
point to Dr Benaissa). If the last trace is a sigma, it is impossible to be sure whether it was crossed
out to match the correction to the noun in the following line, but it seems likely that it was.
10–12 The praetorium must here surely be the prefect’s residence and headquarters in Alexandria (men-
tioned in P.Oxy. XXXI 2581.ii.23, LV 3813.58 etc), though the term is also used of headquarters
buildings in the metropoleis, see P.Oxy. LIΧ 3917.3 note, with further bibliography, to which
add R. Haensch, Capita Provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen
Kaiserzeit (Mainz am Rhein 1997) 209–212.
13 προσωστη: the word, which must also be restored in lines 6–7 in view of πάλιν in 12, is a hapax
and a puzzle—what can be intended? Hardly προστάτῃ or προεστῶτι, both terms used for the
president of a guild or association, and the official known as πρωτοστάτης is attested only for
a very short period at the end of the third century, displacing the nome strategos (see JRS 66 (1976)
166). I note that LSJ cites the formation of a noun προώστης, from the verb προωθέω and
προώσις and I wonder whether προσωστης can be an analogous formation from προσωθέω, ‘to
push towards’, hence perhaps ‘opponent’, which may seem rather recondite. Another possibility,
suggested to me by Hélène Cuvigny, is that this is an unattested personal name, cf. Προσωστίλλα
in P.Ross.Georg. V 58.10 (IV AD). In that case we should perhaps read ἐπὶ παρόντι Π̣ρ̣ο̣σ̣ώ̣[στῃ
in line 6 (though the surviving top of the first doubtful letter looks much more like tau) and
understand that the definite article is used in line 13 because the name has already been mentioned.
14 The mention of the archidikastes, the chief judicial officer ranking directly below the prefect again
points strongly to Alexandria as the location of these events. αὐτοῦ is presumably the προσωστης,
who is saying that he has the archidikastes to judge the case, which provokes the threat from
the prefect. See A. Calabi, ‘L’ἀρχιδικαστής nei primi tre secoli di dominazione romana’, Aegyptus
32 (1952) 408–424.
44 Alan K. Bowman
15–16 δαρήσῃ: at the end there is a supralinear insertion of η over an erasure (probably ση) and ση is
again written in ekthesis at the left in line 16. I assume that he wrote the erroneous version in 15
and then continued with ἐγώ κτλ in 16 before realising that he needed to make the correction,
which he then had to insert in the margin to the left of ἐγώ. On the sigmatic middle form as future
passive of δέρω see B. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athens, 1973) 359
(P.Oxy. III 653.26). For the threat of flogging compare P.Oxy. XXII 2339.7, ἵνα εἰδῇς ὅτι ἐὰν
δαρῇς …; P.Oxy. ΙΙΙ 653b, οὐ μόνον κατακριθήσει ἀλλὰ καὶ δαρήσ[ει. For some evidence on
other forms of corporal punishment cf. P.Oxy. LXXIII 4960.6n. The reading of the word or words
at the end of the line remains unsolved. On the assumption that the quotation of direct speech ends
at ἀκούω in line 16, ἐπάνω(θεν) would make good sense (‘it is I who am hearing the case, as
before’) but it seems impossible to fit this to the traces, which are best read as επατης; something
like ὡς ἐπάθην/-θης (for ηπαθ-), ‘how I was/you were deceived’ is difficult to defend.
24 Herakleia. For this well-known Arsinoite village, probably modern Abshay, on the south shore
of the lake, see the comprehensive collection of evidence in the Fayum Gazetteer (Leuven),
www.trismegistos.org/fayum, including citations of various ἐποίκια in its territory. Herakleia
itself is a κώμη, so it seems likely that the writer is here referring to an ἐποίκιον known to himself
and the addressee which he did not need to name.
23–27 The syntax here becomes somewhat contorted. ⸌ὡς⸍ ἐὰν δυ̣ν̣ηθῇ[ς in 25 appears to be repeating
pleonastically the phrase from line 23; ὅπως will depend on ἐπίστα (aorist imperative of ἐφίστημι);
ἐκπραχθῇ is then correctly subjunctive, although it looks as though part of it has been corrected
with chi written over kappa. According to LSJ the verb has two accusatives in the active, which
would justify this construction with the passive.
28 Berku is a village located at various times in the Oxyrhynchite or the Hermopolite Nome, see
Calderini, Diz. geogr. II.1, 44, but Βερκυθι is apparently not attested.
29 ἦλθεν fits the traces and should be understood in the general sense of ‘motion into’, see LSJ
ἔρχομαι, s.v. V.
31 ἡμάρτηται makes good sense, cf. διημαρτῆσθαι, P.Cair.Zen. II.11–12 59147 (beans). It is impos-
sible to recover any connected sense hereafter.
34 Possibly μή]δεν τῶν ἡμετέρων, followed by a reference to unsown land. For ἀσπορήσῃ cf.
ἀσπορῖσαι, ἀσπορήσειν, P.Tebt. I 61b.34, WChr. 11 A.8); because of the insertion in ekthesis at
line 16 (see note), the writer has broken the word between ασπορη and ση. The penultimate letter,
in suspension, may be a mu.
35 ἐντειλαμεν ̣ ̣ : this is difficult to explain or understand. The second of the dotted traces seems to be
a clear pi, rather than nu (and it is hard to see how ἐντειλάμενον would make sense), but one can
hardly read the first as epsilon (ἐπ’ αἰγιαλῷ) or, for that matter, as omicron. αἰγιαλός is a term
used only to refer to agricultural land on the shore of Lake Moeris and guarantees that the
reference here is to property in the Fayum.
Brasenose College, Oxford

7. Letter about Court Proceedings and Agricultural Matters 45
No. 7
8. Translation of a Letter of the praefectus Aegypti
Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
O.Claud. inv. 7218 8.5 x 20.5 cm 186–187

FW1 room 1 SE 7
The ostracon appears to be complete, but the letter which it carries is not, since there is no final greeting.
The handwriting is inelegant but legible. There are very few ligatures and letters are mostly contained
between two imaginary lines. It is clearly the same type of hand as the one that writes the draft letters to
the ἔπαρχοϲ Antonius Flavianus (O.Claud. IV 849–852), but small details in the ductus prevent me from
stating that it is the same scribe.
The text purports to be a translation of a prefectural letter1 concerning two soldiers who have
abandoned their comrades under attack, but does not contain the actual verdict, only the accompanying
letter ordering the translation to be made, copied and posted in the praesidia. The letter is addressed
to Probus, the procurator Caesaris, whom we know well from O.Claud. IV 853–857. The translation is
of a certain interest and seems to have been made by a Latin speaker whose Greek was less than perfect.
The translator is reasonably at ease with the formulas and the vocabulary, but has difficulties with the
phonetics and the syntax. Not only do iotacisms abound, but he also confuses ε/αι and η, i.e. long and
short e. There are also a number of forgotten letters. The question is whether such a translation was
made locally on Mons Claudianus or more centrally. Do these errors originate with the translator or with
a copyist? The prefect was presumably in Alexandria, since it appears that criminal justice was rendered
there only.2 Probus, we must assume, was normally to be found closer to the quarries, either in Coptos or
in Qena. In any case, he was not permanently stationed at Mons Claudianus since the letters addressed to
him (see above) are drafts. But the text is written on an ostracon and has hardly been sent from the valley
in that form, so the translation is probably a local product, made on Mons Claudianus.
The crime for which the two soldiers have been condemned is ἐγκαταλελοιπέναι, ‘to have left
in the lurch’ their fellow soldiers. ‘Desertion’ or ‘cowardice in the face of the enemy’ I suppose it could
be called in more modern language. That part is clear, but the second half of the charge less so. We are
at a period when the ‘Barbarians’, in other words nomads, Bedouins if you wish, began to exert pressure
on the Roman enterprises in the Eastern Desert. We see this in the ostraca, first of all in the important
O.Krok. 87 (A.D. 118). φόβοϲ τῶν βαρβάρων is found in O.Claud. IV 851 (contemporary with the present
text) and in several other, as yet unpublished, ostraca from Mons Claudianus. It is never quite clear what
these ‘Barbarians’ were after nor how numerous they were, but there were few soldiers in the quarries,
and the workers were only protected when they retired inside the praesidium, so even a dozen nomads,
determined to take food, water, clothing, iron and whatever else they wanted that the Romans had, could
easily disrupt the work and had to be kept at bay. Even at the peak of activity on Mons Claudianus, in the
first decennium of the second century, there were no more than 60 soldiers present there, or 6.5% of the
total population at the time.3 The incident treated here did not necessarily take place at Mons Claudianus,
and certainly at a later time when the level of activity was much lower than during the construction of
the forum of Trajan. In the middle of the second century the curator of the small quarry Tiberiane had only
1
The most recent treatment of prefects’ letters is R. Haensch, ‘Quelques observations générales concernant la correspon-
dance conservée des préfets d’Égypte’, in L’étude des correspondances dans le monde romain de l’Antiquité classique à
l’Antiquité tardive : permanences et mutations. Textes réunis par J. Desmulliez, Chr. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe et J.-Chr.
Jolivet (Lille 2011) 95–113, with a list of all edicts and letters.
2
See note 6.
3
See H. Cuvigny, ‘L’organigramme du personnel d’une carrière impériale d’après un ostracon du Mons Claudianus’,
Chiron 35 (2005) 309–353, p. 334.
48 Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
three soldiers at his disposal and we understand that there were not enough soldiers at Mons Claudianus
either.4 We cannot know how many soldiers and ‘Barbarians’ were involved in the present episode, but
for two soldiers to have deserted their fellow soldiers there must have been at least four soldiers involved.
The number of ‘Barbarians’ is unknown, except that they were ‘few and unarmed’. But what happened
after Iulius Serenus and Crepereius Donatus had deserted their comrades? Some of the soldiers had had to
cede ground to the ‘Barbarians’, but I am not quite sure whether it was the two deserters or their comrades.
See note ad 5–7 below.
The reason that the matter has been judged by the praefectus Aegypti and not by the praefectus
alae in Coptos who, at this time, was probably also praefectus montis Berenicidis5 must be that it was
a capital crime, and as such had to be judged by the praefectus Aegypti who by special imperial grant held
the ius gladii 6 and was commander in chief of the army in Egypt.7 We shall never know whether the two
were actually executed, since clemency and mitigating circumstances were not unknown.8
ἀντίγραφον ἐπιϲτολῆϲ ῥωμαϊκῆϲ καὶ ἀποφάϲεωϲ

μεθερμηνμθ κατὰ δυνατόν. Πω⟦π⟧μπώνιοϲ Φαυϲτιαν⟨ὸ⟩ϲ
Πρώβ⟨ω⟩ι τῷ ἰδίῳ χαίρειν. ⟨ἐ⟩πέϲτηϲα κατὰ Ἰουλίου Ϲερήνου
4a ⸌α ̣ο ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ο̣υ⸍̣
4 ϲτρατιώτου ϲπίρηϲ τῆϲ αὐτῆϲ καὶ Κρεπερηίου Δον⟨ά⟩του
ϲτρατιώτου ϲπίρηϲ τῆϲ αὐτῆϲ διὰ τὸ ἐνκαταλελοιπ-
έναι αὐτοὺϲ τοὺϲ ϲυνϲτρατιώτα{ι}ϲ, αὐτοὺϲ ὀλίγουϲ τε
βαρβάρουϲ ἀδυνάμουϲ καὶ ἀνόπλουϲ ὑποτα-
8 γναι· διὰ τοῦτο ϲὺν τͅ ἀποφάϲει μου ἐκέλευ-
ϲα ὧν ἀντιγραφαῖναι ἐν τοῖϲ πραιϲιδίοιϲ
τῶν μετάλλων προτηθέναι ἵνα τοῖϲ λοι-
ποῖϲ ⟨ϲ⟩υνϲτρατιώταιϲ ᾖ ὑπομνηϲτέον.
12 {ϲε}ἡγη⟨ϲ⟩άμεν τοῦτό ϲε ποιῆϲ⟨αι⟩.
1 ρωμαϊκηϲ ostr. 2 π in μ corr. 3 l. Πρόβωι 7–8 l. ὑποτα|γῆναι 8 l. τῇ

9 l. ἀντιγραφῆναι 10 l. προτιθέναι 12 l. ἡγηϲάμην
Copy of a letter in Latin and a judgment, translated as well as possible. Pomponius Faustianus to his
friend Probus, greetings. I have passed judgement on Iulius Serenus, soldier of the same cohort, and
Crepereius Donatus, soldier of the same cohort, because they have left their fellow soldiers behind (so that?)
they (i.e. the fellow soldiers) were subjected by some weak and unarmed barbarians. Therefore, along with
my verdict, I have ordered that copies be displayed in the praesidia of the quarries, so that it is brought to
the attention of the rest of the soldiers. I order you to do this.
4
O.Claud. IV 889.
5
See A. Bülow-Jacobsen and H. Cuvigny ‘Sulpicius Serenus, procurator Augusti, et la titulature des préfets de Bérénice’,
Chiron 37 (2007) 11–33, p. 26 with note 40. It is, however, far from certain that Mons Claudianus was administratively
a part of Mons Berenicidis.
6
See O. W. Reinmuth, The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Leipzig 1935) 115, where it also said that
criminal justice was rendered in Alexandria only, not in the provincial towns. See also J. H. Jung, ‘Die Rechsstellung des
römischen Soldaten’, in ANRW II 14 (1974) 882–1013, p. 1002: ‘Die Kapitalverurteilung beruhte auf den leges imperatoris.
Das ist jedoch so zu verstehen, daß der Militärrichter nur aufgrund kaiserlicher Ermächtigung Kapitalstrafen verhängen
durfte.’
7
See Reinmuth 119.
8
See G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (Cornell 1969) 120–121.
8. Translation of a Letter of the praefectus Aegypti 49
No.8 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)
1 After ἀντίγραφον the photograph shows a possible letter before ἐπιϲτολῆϲ. Nothing was noted
there when the transcription from the original was made, and it is probably a false impression.
2 μεθερμηνμθ κατὰ δυνατόν similar expression in e.g. P.Diog 9, SB I 5231 or SB I 5275.2 (from
Egyptian to Greek). μεθερμηνμθ cannot stand as read. Either our scribe meant (μεθ)ερμηνευθείϲηϲ
as in P.Diog. 9 or μεθηρμηνευμένηϲ as in SB I 5231.
Pomponius Faustianus is attested as prefect from December 185 to September 187, cf. Bastianini,
ZPE 17 (1975) 301–302 and ZPE 38 (1980) 84. Bastianini gives the name of this prefect as
Pomponius Faustinianus, as in PIR2, since he is so called in BGU III 842 (not 482!), but notes
that everywhere else he is called, as here, Pomponius Faustianus. Unfortunately no illustration
of BGU III 842 seems to exist.
3 Probus was ἐπίτροποϲ τοῦ κυρίου Καίϲαροϲ, procurator Caesaris, according to letters addressed
to him (O.Claud IV 853–857), so surely an imperial freedman without military command. See
A. Bülow-Jacobsen and H. Cuvigny, ‘Sulpicius Serenus, procurator Augusti, et la titulature des
préfets de Bérénice’, Chiron 37 (2007) 11–33, p. 22 note 24.
Iulius Serenus is a very common name.
πέϲτηϲα, the writer probably meant ἐπέϲτηϲα from ἐφίϲτημι ‘stop’, and wanted to translate Latin
statui (poenam) in aliquem. Latin ‘statuo’ is sometimes translated by ἵϲτημι, without a prefix,
cf. LSJ s.v. A III 5.
4a The insertion between lines 3 and 4 remains mysterious. Since it seems to end in -ου it might be
an adjective qualifying ϲτρατιώτου.
4 Crepereius Donatus is not known. One Donatus, probably a soldier, is known from O.Claud. I 84,
but cannot be the same for chronological reasons.
5 ϲπίρηϲ τῆϲ αὐτῆϲ. We are never told which cohort, but it is uncertain whether this error was
already in the original, Latin document or was committed by the translator or a later copyist. It is
possible that the addition between lines 3 and 4 contained the name of the unit, but I cannot make
it out.
50 Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
5–7 διὰ τὸ ἐνκαταλελοιπέναι κτλ. Dig. 49.16.6.8: Qui praepositum suum non protexit, cum posset,
in pari causa factori habendus est: si resistere non potuit, parcendum ei concerns not defending
a superior officer, but the present case, of abandoning fellow soldiers, is not exactly covered.
It seems, however, that the qualification of the barbarians as weak and unarmed is important here
in order to show that resistere non potuit does not apply. The sentence was most likely death by
decapitation, as for nearly all crimes of defection and desertion in the Roman army, see J. H. Jung,
‘Die Rechsstellung des römischen Soldaten’, in ANRW II 14 (1974) 882–1013, p. 992–994.
I wonder if the publication of the verdict in the praesidia was related to the spectantibus militibus
(Dig. 49.16.6.3) in view of the fact that there were so few soldiers at the praesidia to watch
the execution or even more likely, because the two would hardly have been brought back from
Alexandria to wherever their crime had been committed in order to be executed.
Something is wrong with the whole phrase. We should like a καί vel sim. between ϲυνϲτρατιώ-
τα{ι}ϲ and αὐτούϲ. The first half, διὰ τό – ϲυνϲτρατιώτα{ι}ϲ is fine, but then follows an accu-
sative w. inf. and it is uncertain which of the two accusatives is the subject of ὑποταγῆναι. Since
the infinitive is a passive, the other accusative, presumably ὀλίγουϲ – ἀνόπλουϲ cannot be the
object, but must be a malformed agens, presumably the Latin original had per with the accusative.
It would seem that the translator got into accusatives and infinitives because he had thought of the
good διὰ τό and then could not handle the necessary second acc. inf. in the more complex second
half of the phrase.
8 ϲὺν τͅ ἀποφάϲει, or did he mean ϲύν τε ἀποφάϲει, forgetting the definite article, as might happen
when translating from Latin? There are no οther examples of forgotten definite article in the text,
but three others of ε/αι for η.
9 ὧν ἀντιγραφαῖναι ἐν τοῖϲ πραιϲιδίοιϲ The phrase cannot stand uncorrected. Either we must insert
a καί after ἀντιγραφαῖναι (read -φῆναι), or we must read ἀντίγραφα {⟨ε⟩ἶναι}. In both cases, ων
must be changed into ταῦτα or τούτων, or perhaps οὖν.
9–10 ἐν τοῖϲ πραιϲιδίοιϲ τῶν μετάλλων. Which would be the operational quarry-praesidia under Probus’
responsibility in AD 186–187? The most important, of course, were Mons Porphyrites and Mons
Claudianus. There is evidence that Τιβεριανὴ λατομία (Wadi Barud) was operated in the late 130s
and in 150–154, but otherwise we do not know.9 Καινὴ λατομία (Umm Balad, close to Mons
Porphyrites) was no longer in operation at this time, nor is there any reason to believe that the
short-lived exploitation at Umm Towat (Γερμανικὴ λατομία?) took place at this time rather than
earlier. In any case there is no trace of a praesidium there. Mons Ophiates (Wadi Semna)10 was
operative in the 150s, but we do not know with certainty if it was at the time of the present text.
Diagnostic pottery from Wadi Semna indicates ‘first through second or early third centuries AD’.11
The quarries in Wadi Hammamat do not seem to have been exploited as late as this.
12 The scribe/translator was clearly in doubt where to put the accusative ϲε and ended by forgetting
the homophonous -ϲαι of ποιῆϲαι.
The Language of the Translation

In the present case there is no need to renew the discussion whether the prefect of Egypt expressed himself
in Greek or Latin,12 since it is clearly stated that he wrote in Latin. This is what we would expect in any
9
See O.Claud. II 243–254 and 378–380 and O.Claud. IV 727.7; 876.3; 889.1; 890.2.
10
See H. Cuvigny, ‘Ulpius Himerus, procurateur impérial. I. Pan 53’, BIFAO 96 (1996) 91–101.
11
S. E. Sidebotham, H. Barnard, J. A. Harrell, and R. S. Tomber, ‘The Roman Quarry and Installations in Wadi Umm
Wikala and Wadi Semna’, JEA 87 (2001) 135–170, p. 159.
12
See N. Lewis, ‘The Process of Promulgation in Rome’s Eastern Provinces’, in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of
A. Arthur Schiller (Leiden 1986) 127–137, p. 127.
8. Translation of a Letter of the praefectus Aegypti 51
case, since the letter concerns the army.13 As stated above, I believe that the translator was a Latin speaker
with a reasonable, but not perfect, knowledge of Greek, rather than the contrary.
In his brilliant analysis of the Latin behind the Greek in SB XIV 12144, N. Lewis14 sets out a series
of errors and concludes that the document was probably dictated to a group of scribes, since some of the
errors, to his mind, are phonetical rather than visual. He quotes H. I. Bell’s introduction to P.Lond. VI 1912
(p. 3): ‘Such mistakes, which represent the pronunciation but not the orthography, suggest a scribe writing
from dictation, but there are others which seem to be due to copying from a written source. … It is quite
possible that the texts passed through two stages: it may have been read from the exhibited scroll … to
an amanuensis, from whose hasty manuscript it was subsequently copied out.’ ‘In other words’, Lewis goes
on, ‘it should occasion no surprise if a document exhibits errors of both kinds, aural and visual.’ I do
not think it is necessary to assume two kinds of copying in documents that show both visual and phonetical
errors and I seriously doubt that the present text was copied by dictation to several scribes at Mons
Claudianus. It is rather that a scribe who copies a text, reads a phrase, and then dictates it to himself as he
writes it, the so-called dictée intérieure, and this procedure is subject to all the usual phonetical errors.15
In the present document there are errors of all types, including some rather unusual ones. In lines
2–4 we have several forgotten letters: Φαυϲτιαν⟨ό⟩ϲ, Πρόβ⟨ω⟩ι, ⟨ἐ⟩πέϲτηϲα, and Δον⟨ά⟩του. Such errors are
not phonetical, but typically committed by a scribe whose mind is not properly concentrated on the writing,
perhaps because he is translating the document as he writes.
There are no real consonant-errors in the piece, but vowel-errors abound. The banal ι for ει is found
in ϲπίρηϲ in lines 4 and 5. More interesting is the unusual confusion of ε (or αι) with η, or η with ι. While
η=ι (l. 10 προτηθέναι) is on the path towards Modern Greek pronunciation, and so unsurprising, αι/ε=η
(l. 8 ὑποταγναι, τͅ; l. 9 ἀντιγραφαῖναι; l. 12 ἡγη⟨ϲ⟩άμεν) is an error by someone who somehow knows
that there are two e’s in Greek but cannot distinguish between them, since long and short vowels were
no longer differentiated in the pronunciation.
Paris
13
See J. Kaimio, ‘Latin in Roman Egypt’, Pap. Brux. 18 (1979) 27.
14
Op. cit. (note 12), p. 138f.
15
See A. Dain, Les manuscrits (Paris 1964) 44–46.
9. A Ptolemaic Register of Unused Land in the Arsinoite Nome
Willy Clarysse
P.Duk. inv. 100 32 x 28.5 cm Early II BCE

Arsinoite
The present text came to my attention thanks to the online catalogue of the Duke papyri, where a very
accurate description is given.1 It is written along the fibres on the recto. Though there is a vertical kollesis
between col. i and ii, there is no reason to consider it a tomos synkollesimos (pace the description of Duke).
The verso is a grain account of which only figures of wheat and barley are preserved (no date and no place
or personal names).
The register lists unproductive land in five villages of the Arsinoite nome (Kerkesoucha, Psenaryo,
Tanchoiris, Ptolemais Hormou and Haueris), all in the meris of Herakleides and all situated 400 years later
within the kômogrammateia of Petaus (see P.Petaus, pp. 22–33). In the Duke online catalogue the text
is dated to the second half of the third century, but an early second century date seems preferable from
a palaeographical point of view. It is probably part of a longer register, but how many villages were
originally listed remains unclear. Kerkesoucha stands at the top of col. i, but so does Ptolemais in col. ii
and the writer may have intentionally started his columns with a new village. If Kerkesoucha would be the
first village some kind of introductory paragraph would be expected.
The subsections present the same order throughout: name of the village in the genitive, ἀπό
followed by a number of arourae ranging between 80+ and 264. This land, which is “not fit to be worked”
is divided into several categories indicating for what reasons it is unfit for cultivation, each followed by a
number of arourae. At the end the total figure is repeated. Because of the fragmentary state of the papyrus,
the figures can only be checked for Psenaryo (ll. 8–15, where the numbers do not add up) and Tanchoiris
(ll.16–22). An unusual feature of this text is that most (or all?) figures are surmounted by a dot or tick
(a checkmark?). This is especially clear in lines 12–14, but also visible in lines 4–6 and 20–21.
The slightly different wording of the entries for the different villages suggests that the composite
record was formed by copying out the individual declarations passed on to some central authority,
probably the royal scribe of the nome, by different village scribes as part of the regular operation of
the land survey.2 Since no mention is made of lost rents, this is a “survey of land usage” not a “survey
of agricultural production,” in the terminology of A. Verhoogt.3 The record offers an unparalleled view
of the natural features of the landscape at the south-eastern edge of the Fayum, with its irrigation works,
reed beds, thorny brakes, rocks and rising hills with sandy dunes.
Though the administration was of course interested to keep as much land as possible productive
and many land surveys include information concerning land on which for some reason no tax was paid,
separate lists of unproductive land are rare. There are a few examples in the Menches archive (P.Teb. I 74;
75; IV 1127), where, however, land used for infrastructure (dykes, waterways etc.) is separated from land
that is not well irrigated (dry, flooded, salinated).4 The closest parallels to our text are SB XX 14179
(Argeas; 184 BCE) and P.Zen.Pestm. 38, a letter in which Onnophris reports for Zenon the results of a land
survey of nearly 500 arourae of cleruchic plots, which contain more than 10 percent (62 arourae) of salt
land, canals, trenches and dykes (ἁλμυρίδος, διωρύγων, σκαμμάτων καὶ χωμάτων).
1
An image is also available alongside the catalogue record at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/records/100r.html.
2
Cf. W. Clarysse—D. J. Thompson, Counting the people in Hellenistic Egypt II (Cambridge 2006) 66–67, for this
kind of discrepancies.
3
Menches komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris (Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXIX) (Leiden 1998) 131–136
4
See A. Verhoogt, Menches komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris (Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXIX) (Leiden 1998) 107–113 and 202–204.
54 Willy Clarysse
→
col. i
Κερκεσούχων ἀπὸ ἀρου(ρῶν) σξδ ∠ η´ λ´β´
ταύτας μὴ δυνατὰς εἶναι κατεργασθῆναι
εἰς σῖτον μήτ᾿ εἰς ἄλλην χρείαν· τούτων ἐστίν·
4 διωρύγων ιη δ´ η´ λ´β´ χωμάτων ̣ ∠ δ´
ὁ̣δοῦ δ δ´ ίς´ πέτρας ̣ ̣ ̣ ου ̣η
βουνῶν [ ̣ ̣] ̣ χέρσου κ ̣ ´̣ ´̣
ἐμβρόχου σ̣ ̣δ´ (γίν.) σξδ ∠ η´ λ´β´
8 Ψεναρύω ἀπὸ ἀρου(ρῶν) ρϙη̣ η̣´ ίς´ λ´β´

ταύτας μὴ δυνατὰς εἶναι κατεργασθῆναι
εἰς σῖτον μήτ᾿ εἰς ἀμπέλων φυτείαν μήτ ᾿ εἰς
παράδεισον μήτ ᾿ εἰς ἄλλην χρείαν · τούτων ἐστίν·
12 πέτρας ξ ἁλμυρίδος κς η´ λ´β´
χωμάτων ιε δ´ ίς´ κυ̣αμῶνος ἐγλελιμμένου ε δ´ ίς´
χέρσου σπο̣ρα[δ]είω̣ν λ ∠ δ´ η´ ίς´ βουνῶν λδ ∠ η´
σκαμμάτων ιη η´ ίς´ (γίν.) ρϙη̣ η´ ίς´ λ´β´
16 Ταγχοίρεως ἀπὸ ἀ[ρο]υ(ρῶν) [ρη η´ λ´β´]

ταύτ[ας μὴ δ]υνατὰς εἶναι κατεργα̣σ̣[θῆναι μήτε]
εἰς σῖτ̣ο̣ν̣ μήτ᾿ εἰς ἀμπέλων μήτε εἰς παραδεί[σων]
φυτείαν · τούτων ἐστίν· χωμάτων ιγ ∠ δ´
20 ὑδραγωγῶν β ∠ δ´ σκαμμάτων με
διωρύγων καὶ ἀκανθώνων ιη ∠ η´ χέρσου κη λ´β´
(γίν.) ρη η´ λ´β´
col. ii
Πτολεμαΐδος Ὅ̣ρμ̣ου̣ ἀπὸ ἀρου(ρῶν) ρ̣πδ[

24 ταύτας μὴ δυνατὰς εἶναι κατερ[γασθῆναι]
εἰς σῖτον μήδ ᾿ εἰς ἄλλην χρείαν· τ̣[ούτων ἐστίν ·]
· ὑδραγωγῶν ̣ ̣ [ἐ]μβρόχου̣ ̣ ̣ [
· πλ[ινθο]υλκίων ̣ ̣ [
28 · ἁλμυρίδος κβ [ (γίν.) ρπδ ]
Αὑήρεως ἀπὸ ἀ̣ρ̣ο̣υ(̣ ρῶν) [ ̣ ̣ ιη ∠ η´ ´̣ ´̣´]

ταύτας μὴ δυνατὰς εἶναι κατεργασ[θῆναι]
εἰ̣ς σ̣[ῖτον] μηδ ᾿ εἰς ἄ[λλην]
32 χρεί[αν] τούτω[ν ἐστίν ·]
διωρύγων [
ἐ̣μβ̣ρ̣όχ̣ου [
9. A Ptolemaic Register of Unused Land in the Arsinoite Nome 55
ἀβ̣̣ρ̣ό̣[χο]υ ὑψηλῆς [
36 ἄμ̣μ̣ο̣υ Ἀρ ̣ ̣[
ἁλμυρίδος καὶ βουν[ῶ]ν ̣ ̣[
χέρσου ἀφόρου [ ] ̣ ̣ ∠ δ´ η´
[(γίν.) ̣ ̣] ̣ι̣η ∠ η´ ´̣ ´̣´
col. i
For Kerkesoucha : out of 264 1⁄2 1⁄8 1⁄32 arourae

These are unfit to be cultivated
for cereal crops nor for any other purpose. Of these are:
4 canals 18 1⁄4 1⁄8 1⁄32 dykes . 1⁄2 1⁄4
1 1
road 4 ⁄4 ⁄16 rocky outcrop . .
hills ... dry land 20+ . .
waterlogged land 200+ ¼ (total) : 264 1⁄2 1⁄8 1⁄32
8 For Psenaryo : out of 198 1⁄8 1⁄16 1⁄32 arourae

These are unfit to be cultivated
for cereal crops nor for planting vines nor for
garden land nor for any other purpose. Of these are :
12 rocky outcrop 60 salt land 26 1⁄8 1⁄32
dykes 15 1⁄4 1⁄16 deserted bean-field 5 1⁄4 1⁄16
dry land (with?) scattered (trees?) 30 1⁄2 1⁄4 1⁄8 1⁄16 hills 34 1⁄2 1⁄8
trenches 18 1⁄8 1⁄16 (total) : 198 1⁄8 1⁄16 1⁄32
16 For Tanchoiris: out of [108 1⁄8 1⁄32] arourae

These are not fit to be cultivated
for cereal crops nor for planting vines
or garden land. Of these are: dykes 13 1⁄2 1⁄4
1 1
20 water channels 2 ⁄2 ⁄4 trenches 45
canals and thorny land 18 1⁄2 1⁄8 dry land 28 1⁄32
total: 108 1⁄8 1⁄32
col. ii
For Ptolemais Hormou : out of 184 [. . arourae]

24 These are not fit to be cultivated
. for wheat nor for any other use. [Of these are: ]
. water-channels . . waterlogged land [. .
. brickworks . . [
28 salt land 22 [ (total) 184 . .]
For Haueris : out of [. 18 1⁄2 1⁄8] arourae

These are not fit to be cultivated
[for wheat] nor for [any other ]
32 use. Of these are:
canals [
waterlogged land [
56 Willy Clarysse
unwatered high land [

36 sand (?) [ ]11[00+
saline land and hills [ ]. .[
dry unproductive land [ ] . . 1⁄2 1⁄4 1⁄8
1 1
[(total) . . ]18 ⁄2 ⁄8
1–7 Since all villages are in the meris of Herakleides, Kerkesoucha is either Kerkesoucha Orous in
the south (well attested in the Petaus archive) or the later Kerkesoucha Agoras in the north, near
Karanis. The former village is the more likely candidate, because the other villages are all in the
south of the meris and Kerkesoucha was especially close to Psenaryo, which here also follows;
see I. Uytterhoeven, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period (OLA 174) (Leuven 2009) 306–307.
The data for this village may be summarized as follows (if my reading in l. 7 is exact, then
the main problem of the village was waterlogged land):
canals 18 1⁄4 1⁄8 1⁄32
dykes . 1⁄2 1⁄4
unknown 4 1⁄4 1⁄16
rocky outcrop .8
hills ...
dry land 20+
waterlogged land 200+ (?)
total 264 1⁄2 1⁄8 1⁄32
The reading 200 (σ) for waterlogged land is uncertain and the first figure for the rocky outcrop,
which is also damaged, could also fit the reading σ (200). As a result the individual figures for this
village are doubtful.
2–3 The land cannot be used for agricultural purposes. Here and in ll. 24–25, 30–31 this is expressed
by μὴ δυνατὰς εἶναι κατεργασθῆναι εἰς σῖτον μήτ᾿ εἰς ἄλλην χρείαν, whereas in ll. 10–11 and
18–19 a reference to vineyards and gardens is added (in two different ways). A similar situation
is expressed by the adjective ἀκατέργαστος in P.Tebt. I 61b.32 (125–100 BCE) and P.Congr.XV
15.16 (χερσὸς ἀκατέργαστος).
5 A road is similarly deducted from the cultivated land in SB XX 14179.14, 21, and 25.
6 In BGU VI 1216.19 (110 BCE) bounoi are also listed as unproductive land, alongside canals, dykes,
lakes and wells. The few other papyrological examples mention a bounos as neighbour of a plot
of land : P.Amh. II 68.29; BGU IV 1129.14, 16; SB XVIII 13168.15 (bounoi of the village in
Pathyris). In UPZ II 218 (131 BCE) a bounos is publicly put up for sale in the dromos of the
Karnak temple. This text provides us with the only detailed description of this topographical
feature. The bounos measures 8 square cubits (220 m2), it is unfit for agriculture (as in our text)
but can be used to build a watch-tower.
8–15 Psenharyo was situated in the exô topoi, an area along the western side of the Fayum. Like
Kerkesoucha and Ptolemais, it is often mentioned in the Petaus archive in its Roman form
Psinharyo; cf. most recently I. Uytterhoeven, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period (OLA 174)
(Leuven 2009) 307. This is the only village where the figures are completely preserved, but there
is something wrong with the addition. The seven individual figures of the different categories
of unproductive land add up to 190 1⁄2 1⁄32, which is 7 1⁄2 1⁄8 1⁄16 short of what is needed. Perhaps
the scribe forgot one category of land in his list? The only figure which is not clearly legible is
the symbol for 1⁄2 after σπο̣ρα[δ]είω̣ν in l. 14, but even that is not really in doubt.
rocky outcrop 60
salt land 26 1⁄8 1⁄32
dykes 15 1⁄4 1⁄16
deserted bean-field 5 1⁄4 1⁄16

dry land with scattered trees 30 1⁄2 1⁄4 1⁄8 1⁄16
hills 34 1⁄2 1⁄8
trenches 18 1⁄8 1⁄16
total 198 1⁄8 1⁄16 1⁄32
10–11 Vineyards and orchards are often mentioned side by side since both categories of land pay the
apomoira, a tax in money and not in kind, cf. most recently W. Clarysse—D. J. Thompson, “An
early Ptolemaic Bank Register from the Arsinoite Nome,” AfP 55 (2009) 259. The expression εἰς
ἀμπέλων φυτείαν καὶ εἰς παράδεισον and εἰς ἀμπέλων καὶ εἰς παραδείσων φυτείαν (ll. 18–19) is
also attested in BGU IV 1185.21–22 (61 BCE), a royal amnesty decree dealing with unproductive
land.
13 I hesitated between the reading proposed in the Duke online catalogue κυ̣αμών and καλ̣α̣μών, but
reading upsilon is preferable. The only instances for κυαμών in the Duke databank are BGU IV
1119.11, 19–20 (6 BCE) and P.Oxy. XLIV 3205.38, 73 (297–308 CE). The klêros of Kyamon in
Theadelpheia (P.Lond. III 1170.20–35 passim) and the epoikion of Kyamon in Oxyrhynchites
(P.Oxy. XIX 2244.9; P.Oxy. LXX 4791.9, 19) are no doubt named after a person Κυάμων and do
not refer to a bean-field
14 The reading σπο̣ρα[δ]είω̣ν is due to H. Cuvigny. Sporades are also associated with chersos land
in SB XVIII 13240.11 (σποράδες φοίνικες, “scattered date-palms”; the same combination is
found in P.Cornell 10.6–7), whereas ἄμπελοι σποράδιοι are attested for Psinaryo in P.Petaus
17.4 and 14. The other two occurrences, P.Aberd. 57.6 ([σπ]οραδιε̣ις) and P.Stras. IX 864.4
(ἀμπ(έλου) σποράδ(ες) (ἄρουραι) α 𐅵 η´) also date from the Roman period. In our text, which is
the only Ptolemaic attestation, the word seems to be used as a substantive.
20 σκάμμα: this word is also rare in the papyri and found only in P.Zen.Pestm. 38, BGU XVI 2598.11
(9–7 BCE; τὰ σκάμματα τῶν χωμάτων) and SB XVIII 13735.15–16 (2nd c. BCE; τὰ σκάμματα
καὶ τὴν στέγνωσιν τῶν χωμάτων).
20, 22 The unit of the figure 45 is corrected in a second hand (?) and so is the total of 108. It has not
been possible to read the original figure, but clearly the correction in l. 20 led to an adaptation of
the total in l. 22.
21 The only non-papyrological reference to ἀκανθών in the Diccionario griego-español of
F. R. Adrados (vol. I, 1980), p. 108 is to the grammarian Herodianus, listing place names ending
in -ών. In the papyri the word is thus far not attested before the Roman period. I have listed
the following examples, many of which are abbreviated and therefore less suitable for reference in
a dictionary. The word is also attested as a toponym Ἀκανθών, for which see J. Yoyotte, “Etudes
géographiques. I. La ‘cité des acacias’,” Rev.d’Ég. 13 (1961) 74–76 (with erroneous accent
Ἀκανθῶν). Though editors usually identify the same word in the expression epoikion, klêros and
chôrion Akanthônos (see e.g. Calderini, Diz. geogr. I.1, pp. 41–42 and CPR 30, p. 131), there
the identifier is no doubt a personal name and should be accentuated Ἀκάνθωνος. Since it is
not easy to distinguish references to the personal name, the toponym and the genitive plural of
the nouns ἄκανθος and ἄκανθα from the noun ἀκανθών a short list of references for the latter is
given below. Again our text provides by far the earliest papyrological attestation.
SB XX 14314. 8–9 (26 CE) (sale of the harvest of the fruits of an akanthôn)
P.Mich. II 123r col. vii.45 (45–47 CE) (abbreviated; corrected in BL X, 123)
BGU IX 1896.76, 135, 252, 323 (166 CE) (abbreviated)
BGU IX 1899.14, 116, 129 (172 CE) (abbreviated)
P.Vind.Pher. 1.150, 155 (192–193 CE) (abbreviated)
P.Gen. I2 39 (201 CE) (lease of an akanthôn)
P.Flor. I 50.72 (268 CE) (uncertain reading)
58 Willy Clarysse
BGU XII 2182. 8 (510 CE) (sale of the harvest of the fruits of the akanthônes)
P.Vat.Aphrod. l.39 (598 CE) (corrected in BL X, 282)
16–22 The village Tanchoiris is attested thus far in four texts only, often side by side with Psenharyo
(P.Gen. I2 81.9; Stud.Pal. X 113 passim; SB XII 11067.23). It probably belonged to the adminis-
trative area headed by the village scribe Petaus in the south-west of the Fayum (near Ptolemais
Hormou) (see P.Petaus, p. 31). There was temple land and catoecic land in the village.
The data for this village may be summarized as follows :
dykes 13 1⁄2 1⁄4
water channels 2 1⁄2 1⁄4
trenches 45
canals and thorny land 18 1⁄2 1⁄8
dry land 28 1⁄32
total 108 1⁄8 1⁄32
23–28 For Ptolemais Hormou/Illahun, see P.Petaus, pp. 22–25 and D. Bonneau, CdÉ 54 (1979) 310–326.
In I. Uytterhoeven, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period (OLA 174) (Leuven 2009) 461, I have
wrongly suggested reading Ptolemais Ara(bôn). Of the figures only the total and that for saline
land are preserved.
water-channels ..
waterlogged land
brickworks
saline land 22 [
(total) 184
27 The reading πλ[ινθο]υλκίων, suggested already in the online description of Duke (“tile factories”)
shows that an area in the agricultural land of Ptolemais was used for extracting Nile silt and
making mud bricks. The word was thus far only attested in P.Vind.Pher. 1.261–262, 299
(πλινθούλκιον τῆς κώμης as a neighbour; 195 CE). The neuter indicates a topographical feature
(like πλινθούργιον) and is not simply a synonym of πλινθουλκία, which is an abstract word
indicating “brickmaking.”
29–39 The figures for Haueris, modern Hawara, with its prestigious cemetery near the pyramid of Pra-
marres, the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhat III, are all lost. The present text is briefly
discussed by I. Uytterhoeven, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period (OLA 174) (Leuven 2009) 461.
29 Two minimal traces of descending letters to the far right of the fragment have not been taken
into account.
35 The first word has largely disappeared in the lacuna, but the reading is supported by P.Tebt. IV
1117.133 and by SB XX 14179. 16 and 27 (185 BCE), where the combination occurs in a similar
context with ὑδραγωγός, ὁδός and ἁλμυρίς.
36–39 The figures at the end of l. 36 and on l. 39 are on a detached fragment. In l. 37 the final ν of
βουν[ῶ]ν can probably be read and this suggests that the fragment is indeed rightly placed, but the
appearance of a thousand symbol in l. 36 is unexpected. Could there be more than 1,000 arourae
of sandy land in Hawara?
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

No. 9 (courtesy Duke University Library)

10. A List of Words of Christian Origin from the Kelsey Museum
Raffaella Cribiore
KM inv. 25152 8.4 x 10 cm IV

Thebes (?)
This clay ostrakon, KM inv. 25152, was part of a group of nearly 300 ostraka, mostly Coptic, which were
purchased in Cairo by the Copticist Carl Schmidt on behalf of the Kelsey Museum in 1936–1937.1 The
majority of these ostraka are Theban, and Thebes is likely to be the provenance of this, too. Some of these
ostraka were published in the volume of the O.Mich.Copt. This ostrakon, however, is Greek and contains
a school exercise—a list of words from a Christian milieu. Christian education continued on the same
path to literacy that was followed in non-Christian schools with exercises from alphabets, lists of words,
passages, and preliminary rhetorical exercises but adapted them to its needs, thus choosing words from
the Scriptures rather than from classical mythology, and making Caïn and Abel speak in lieu of Achilles
in exercises of ethopoiia.2 The Kelsey ostrakon preserves a list of such words and resembles others in the
corpus of school exercises that I compiled many years ago under the guidance of Roger Bagnall. This time
of course I could not ask him directly for advice in reading some obscure words, though I have to admit
that I felt the temptation to do that more than once.
This ostrakon, moreover, is similar to another that was part of the collection of ostraka of Naphtali
Lewis, which Roger, Jim Keenan, and I edited together (P.Worp 53). That ostrakon belonged to the fourth
century and contained a list of words starting with κ, λ, and μ written in three columns, distinguished
by vertical lines. The words were often divided into syllables by spaces and were mostly taken from
the Old and New Testament and other Christian texts. Though the Lewis ostrakon and the one edited
here are similar in many respects and originated from a scholastic environment, the Michigan ostrakon
is the product of a higher educational level in which syllabic divisions were not emphasized and lists
of words were longer and more complicated. The hand is also more proficient than that of the Lewis
ostrakon: the final stroke of σ is stretched out showing some confidence with the pen, and the apparent
irregularities are mostly caused by the roughness of the surface. All together in its general features this is
a hand not dissimilar from that of P.Bour. 1 and the Chester Beatty papyrus published by W. Clarysse and
A. Wouters3 which show more uniformity because of the smoother writing material. Like those exercises,
this one too should be dated to the fourth century.4 The hand belongs to the type that I have called “rapid,”
and it was the hand of someone who had been exposed to a good amount of writing before, a student
probably since the text was corrected (see below).
The ostrakon is broken on the top and on both sides so that it is impossible to determine whether
the exercise was extensive or included only some sets of letters. The two existing columns are defined by
a long vertical line. A large blank space appears before the column of words in ξ but it seems unlikely
that the writer, who sometimes crams words together, left such space unwritten without a purpose. The
blank spaces were probably supposed to be filled with other words in ξ (or less likely with words at the
end of the preceding set supposedly starting with ν). Whereas some lists of words, like those in P.Bour. 1,
were compiled with great uniformity and a fixed number of entries for each letter, other lists, as in the
Chester Beatty papyrus, exhibit not only great variation in the number of entries but also show that some
1
I thank the Kelsey Museum and the University of Michigan for permission to publish the ostrakon.
2
See R. Cribiore, Writing, Teachers and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta 1996) nos. 124 and 302; cf. J.-L. Fournet,
“Une éthopée de Caïn dans le Codex des Visions de la Fondation Bodmer,” ZPE 92 (1992) 253–266. On this type of exercise,
see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton 2001) 228–230.
3
Anc.Soc. 1 (1970) 201–235 (= LDAB 5508).
4
See Cribiore 1996, no. 393, for which cf. the re-edition and commentary by M. Huys and N. Baplu in ZPE 169 (2009)
29–57, and no. 390.
62 Raffaella Cribiore
sets (e.g., words in ζ and ξ) were left incomplete, probably because the writer found it difficult to produce
many words starting with those letters. In the Chester Beatty papyrus, the writer originally left space for
ten words starting with ξ (and wrote only the initial letter of each entry) but ended up filling in only four
entries and left the rest of the lines blank. This was probably the case too with the Kelsey ostrakon.
One wonders what happened to the series of words starting with ο, which is not extant. It is con-
ceivable that they were written in the missing space after the ξ set and maybe continued in the broken part
at the top of the ostrakon. We should not rule out, however, the possibility that the writer omitted that set.
Another school ostrakon (O.Crum 525) that belongs roughly in the same period shows that completeness
was sometimes overlooked. In it some sets of letters were probably skipped (η, χ, and ω).5 Then the scribe
added a second incomplete list, where he partly compensated for his omissions by adding words in η and χ.
The words written on the Kelsey ostrakon all occur in Christian texts (though some not only in
them). A few entries, as for example the first word of the ξ set, are puzzling and warrant some tentative
explanations. It should be taken into account that lists of words sometimes include non-existent terms that
are forced into a slot. The most extreme case is that of P.Genova II 53 where many entries appear to have
been made up for the occasion, but non-attested words and terms mangled beyond recognition can be
found in other lists. The Lewis ostrakon has one such word, the Chester Beatty papyrus shows a few,
and a later Christian word-list from the sixth century also contains some words that cannot be identified
even though they are written clearly.6 The first word-lists from the Ptolemaic period did not observe
an alphabetical order, but later exercises maintained it, at least according to the first letter of every term.
This system of ordering the list is obvious in the Michigan ostrakon but one correction above line 7 in the
second column might suggest that the writer attempted to observe another kind of alphabetical ordering
according to which ποδαγρός was supposed to precede the term ποταμός. The word πρῶτος, which was
inserted between these two words in smaller, cramped letters, cannot belong properly to the list, since
consonants had to be followed by vowels. Due to the fact that the inserted word is not completely visible,
it is impossible to determine with any certainty whether the correction represented the direct intervention
of someone else (a teacher, maybe), or whether the writer of the list introduced it. In any case, since
that system of alphabetical ordering appears disrupted further down the column, it is also possible that the
correction referred to the fact that the writer had copied the word ποταμός too soon, disregarding the order
maintained in a model.
col. i col. ii
------- -------
]ξιππηϲ πα̣[
Ξα]νθίππη πατ̣α̣ ̣[
ξ]ηρανθη Παμαν̣ ̣[
4 ἐ̣ξ̣[αδέ]λ̣φου 4 πεδευτέ̣ρια
] ̣η ποταμόϲ
------- ⸌πρῶτ̣ο̣ϲ⸍̣
ποδαγ̣ρόϲ
8 πονηρόϲ
πιρασμόϲ
5
See Cribiore 1996, no. 113; cf. the re-edition of M. Huys and T. Schmidt, “The Syllabic Name-Lists on O.Crum 525
(UC inv. 32222). Re-edition and Commentary,” ZPE 134 (2001) 145–162. This list included only mythological names and
was written quite proficiently.
6
P.Genova II 53 = Cribiore 1996, no. 100; see P.Worp 53 col. II.2; Clarysse-Wouters, Anc.Soc. 1 (1970) 212–217, lines 62,
121, 138, 139, and 211. See also H. Seldeslachts and A. Wouters, “A Christian Word-List on a Papyrus of the Bibliothèque
Royale at Brussels (MS. Brux. IV 590),” ZPE 96 (1993) 141–152, especially 145–146 (= LDAB 6237).
10. A List of Words of Christian Origin from the Kelsey Museum 63
πόλεμοϲ
παγανόϲ
12 Πόντιοϲ
Πιλᾶτοϲ
Πατροβᾶ
Παθου-
16 ρηϲ
No. 10
col. i
1 This term is puzzling and unattested as it stands. Since words starting with ξ are not common,
the writer may have encountered some problems in making a list of them. He may have written
only part of a word and omitted the first syllable of a proper name such as Ζευξίππη, Διωξίππη,
or Εὐξίππη. These are all names that occur in literary texts, but Ζευξίππη is the only one that
is mentioned by a Christian writer, Clemens of Alexandria in Protrepticus 2.32.3. Another
possibility, however, is that even though the space before the first letter does not show traces of
writing, some ink may have disappeared or the student left a bit of space between two characters
and the word started in the broken part of the ostrakon. The fact that the other terms in the column
started at far left in the part of the ostrakon that broke off would seem to indicate that ξιππης
might have been the ending of a word such as ξερξιππη. The feminine of this name is unattested
but the masculine Ξέρξιππος (also otherwise unattested) appears in two lists of words as one of
the frequent names in -ιππος, see Anc.Soc. 1 (1970) 215, line 121, and the re-edition of P.Bour.
1.94 (= ZPE 169, p. 33, l. 171). In the latter case, there was a lacuna after ξερξι and the editors
assumed that the name was masculine on analogy with the Chester Beatty papyrus’s Ξέρξιππος
but now the supposed feminine version in this ostrakon makes that assumption less sure. It is
impossible to know, in any case, why the genitive case was used.
2 The name Ξανθίππη occurs very frequently in classical literature almost universally as the name
of Socrates’ wife. In Acta Petri 34.5, a Christian text from the second century, it appears as the
name of a beautiful woman of high standing who followed Peter.
3 The verb ξηραίνω in the passive form means “to be or become parched.” The aorist passive
ἐξηράνθη was used once by Homer, Iliad 21.348, but later appears very frequently in the New
Testament with respect to dried fig trees, the harvest, or springs, e.g., Ev.Matt. 21.19.4. Since the
writer presumably needed a word starting with ξ, he must have used the subjunctive ξηρανθῇ
which appears for example in Origen in the Commentary to the Gospel of Matthew 16.28.6. It is
possible, however, that he also wrote the augment if it was acceptable to write words that did not
start with ξ but only contained the letter.
4 This entry is unclear because so much is missing. It is conceivable that here too the writer did not
use a word starting with ξ but one that contained the letter. The term ἐξάδελφος is the only one
compatible with the ink traces. It occurs once in the papyri, in P.Petra I 1.35 but appears frequently
in literary texts. It means “cousin” or “nephew” and occurs four times in the Septuaginta, Tobias,
e.g., 1.22.5 (Codex Sinaiticus). The reason for using the genitive is unclear since among extant texts
there is only one unlikely source that includes it, the Parthika of Flavius Arrianus (FGrH 156 F49a).
5 Only a letter (likely to be η) and the ligature with the preceding one are visible. The rest of the
writing on the left is destroyed because the surface is very abraded and part of the ostrakon was
broken at this point.
col. ii
1 The letter after π consists only of a slightly oblique stroke. On the analogy of the first words in
the list and of the correction in line 7 it is reasonable to suggest an α.
2 The word in this line is not easy to identify and it is necessary to make more than one hypothesis.
The letters could be πατα but one more stroke appears after the first α. It might be that the writer
started to write a τ a little too low and rewrote the letter higher. It is also possible that on second
thought he wanted to insert another τ thinking of a double consonant. The verb πατάσσειν, “to
strike,” is very common in the Septuaginta (e.g., Genesis 37.21.3 and Exodus 9.15.2) and also
occurs occasionally in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 26.31.3). The letter the writer inserted
might also be ι, and it is conceivable that the diphthong αι could stand for ε, a very frequent
mistake of phonetic spelling, an instance of which is seen in line 4. In this case, possible words
might be πέταλον and forms of the verb πετάννυμι, “to fly,” and both occur in Christian writers
such as Gregory of Nazianzus. The fourth letter, however, might be ω and so it is necessary to
contemplate a completely different scenario. I will consider first the possibility that ι was inserted
between α and τ as an afterthought. In this case Παῖτος could be the Roman name Paetus which
often appears in the Roman Histories of Cassius Dio, but this is an unlikely hypothesis. Dio
mentions several men by this name, among which are Lucius Caesennius Paetus (e.g., 62.20.4.5,
also cited by Flavius Josephus) or Thrasea Paetus (e.g., 61.15.2.2), the Roman Stoic senator who
committed suicide under Nero. All these figures lived in the first century and most of them were
generals. A second hypothesis takes αι as equal to ε. In this case πετω might come from the verb
πετάννυμι that becomes πετάω in later times. Forms of this verb (πετῶ, πετώμενος) appear quite
frequently in John Chrysostom (e.g. of birds spreading their wings, In natale domini nostri Jesu
Christi, vol. 61, 763.49) and in other fourth-century Christian writers. Lastly we should consider
10. A List of Words of Christian Origin from the Kelsey Museum 65
the possibility that what appears to be inserted between α and τ is not a letter but a mark of some
kind or the remains of preexisting text. In this case the reading should be πατῶ = to tread, a verb
that appears very frequently in writers such as Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, and John
Chrysostom (e.g., Expositiones in Psalmos, vol. 55, 185.45) also in a metaphorical sense.
3 The name Παμᾶνος occurs sometimes in documentary papyri e.g. in P.Oxy. XXII 2338.54 (late
third century) and also in later times. The presence in this list of a personal name is not surprising
because in other lists names that enjoyed wide circulation are mixed with Biblical names, e.g.,
in Brux. IV 590 (cited in n. 6). In the Chester Beatty papyrus (e.g., lines 18 and 212) Egyptian
names appear together with generic names and mythological and historical terms.
4 πεδευτέ̣ρια = παιδευτήρια. The word παιδευτήριον means “school.” There are a few attestations
of it in the early Roman period, but it occurs especially in the fourth century and later. The
Cappadocian Fathers use it often and so does John Chrysostom. The term could refer to every
level of education from primary to rhetorical and philosophical. Gregory of Nyssa in the Life of
Macrina 4.17 wrote that Basil learned the λόγοι in a παιδευτήριον before leaving Caesarea, that
is, he probably studied literature there rather than rhetoric. Gregory of Nazianzus in the funeral
oration for Basil 13.1.5 also called παιδευτήρια the schools Basil attended in Caesarea. Gregory,
however, in the funeral oration for his brother (6.2.3) indicated with this term schools of rhetoric.
John Chrysostom mentioned in Acta Apostolorum (vol. 60, 111.16) παιδευτήρια φιλοσοφίας
confirming that the word could refer to any level of education including the learning of divine
doctrine (as in Basil’s Homiliae in hexaemeron 1.6.14).
6 This line was inserted later in smaller letters between the line above and below. The word πρῶτος
also starts with π but it is unlikely that this could be another entry in the list because all the
other words present a vowel after the initial letter. This π stands exactly on top of the one below.
The word likely represented a correction and indicated that the following (or the two following)
words were supposed to come before ποταμόϲ if some alphabetical order had to be maintained.
The order, in any case, is disrupted below. Not enough is visible to determine if a teacher or the
student added the correction.
7 ποδάγρα, “gout,” and related words appear rarely in documentary papyri (see, e.g., ποδαγρικοί
in a private letter, P.Ryl. IV 555) but is often mentioned by medical writers and authors such as
Lucian. In Christian texts, there is one occurrence in 4 Macc. 11.10.2, in Eusebius, and in the Acta
Petri 31.
8 πονηρός is an adjective that appears often in Christian texts, e.g., in Epiphanius’s Panarion I,
p. 223.22.
9 Read πειρασμός. This word, which means “trial, temptation,” often occurs in the Septuaginta, e.g.
Exodus 17.7.2, and in the New Testament. If we take it together with the previous πονηρός one
may surmise that the writer had in mind the Pater noster in Ev.Matt. 6.13.1 (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς
ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, “Lead us not into temptation but deliver
us from evil”).
10 The term πόλεμος, which occurs in the New Testament, Apoc. 12.7.1, is very frequent in the
Septuaginta (e.g., Job 22.10.2) and in Christian writers of the fourth century, such as Gregory of
Nazianzus and John Chrysostom.
11 παγανός occurs several times in the papyri with the meaning “civilian” or “private person,” e.g.,
in BGU IV 1043.25 from the third century. In the following century, the term appears in the sense
of worshipper of the old gods several times in the Panarion (e.g., II, p. 516.26) of Epiphanius,
who lived in Egypt and founded a monastery in the fourth century. “Pagan” was a Christian term
to designate polytheists.
12–13 Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος was the prefect of Judaea at the time of Jesus who as a judge authorized his
crucifixion. He appears extensively in all the Gospels, where he is mostly presented as reluctant
to execute Jesus. He is mentioned by the Cappadocian Fathers and often by Epiphanius in the
Panarion, e.g., I, p. 311.2.
14 Πατροβᾶς is the name of a Christian in Rome to whom St. Paul sent greetings in the Epistle to
the Romans 16.14. The name is missing the final ς.
15̓–16 The word Παθουρηϲ is written in two successive lines. It is an Egyptian toponym that occurs
several times in the Septuaginta, e.g. Jeremiah 51.5.14 and in some Christian writers such as
Athanasius. Cf. also P.Tor.Choach. 3, 112/1 BCE.
I hope that this new list of words is a suitable gift for Roger who knows the fourth century so well and in
all its nuances. This is a good example of how Christians adapted traditional school exercises by changing
the content. Since relatively few exercises from Christian schools are extant, each one of them is all the
more precious.
New York University

11–12. Conductor praesidii
Hélène Cuvigny
L’implantation de garnisons le long des routes de Myos Hormos et de Bérénice posait des problèmes
logistiques particuliers : les occupants de ces fortins dépendaient uniquement, pour leur approvision-
nement et celui de leurs bêtes, de caravanes venues de la vallée ; ces occupants n’étaient pas tous des
militaires : des civils vivaient avec eux ; enfin, les garnisons étaient aussi des dépôts de vivres : hommes
et bêtes des caravanes du ravitaillement, qui parcouraient toute la route dans les deux sens, avaient eux-
mêmes besoin d’être nourris aux étapes. La nourriture consommée dans les praesidia avait donc au moins
trois statuts possibles : rations militaires, dont le prix était en principe déduit de la solde et qui étaient
gérées par le curator praesidii ; nourriture pour les caravanes de passage ; aliments vendus aux occupants
civils ainsi qu’aux militaires désireux d'améliorer leur ordinaire. Malgré de nombreuses allusions dans les
ostraca des praesidia, la manière dont ces provisions étaient acheminées jusqu’aux fortins nous échappe.
Les mécanismes de l’approvisionnement de l’armée romaine sont notoirement mal connus pour
le Haut-Empire, même en Égypte 1. Parmi les agents du ravitaillement aux armées, on évoque souvent
les conductores, attestés dans un petit nombre de papyrus et d’inscriptions qui ne sont guère éclairants sur
leur fonction. Le plus explicite de ces documents est Rom.Mil.Rec. 80 (130p), reçu dressé en latin par
le cavalier Serenus 2 au profit de conductores fenarii. Serenus y accuse réception du contingent de foin
mensuel destiné à ses camarades de turme et ajoute qu’il a réglé lui-même le prix du transport (naulum).
Les ostraca du désert de Bérénice offrent une trentaine d’attestations du mot conductor 3. Le catalogue
dressé par A. Bülow-Jacobsen en 2003 4 s’est étoffé depuis ; il m’a paru utile de refaire le point sur
la question à l’occasion de la découverte, lors de la campagne de l’hiver 2010–2011 à Xèron Pelagos,
de deux nouvelles occurrences 5.
En 2003, A. Bülow-Jacobsen avait, non sans audace, défendu l’idée que les conductores du désert
de Bérénice étaient des conducteurs de chars. Il était influencé par le fait que la plupart des attestations
du terme dont nous disposions alors montraient les conductores circulant d’un praesidium à l’autre et
rendant aux particuliers, à l’instar des cavaliers de la poste officielle, le service de transporter de petits
colis (souvent des légumes, mais aussi des objets tels qu’une paire de ciseaux) à destination des fortins
voisins. Des ostraca trouvés ultérieurement nous ont fait renoncer à cette idée et nous sommes revenus
à l’interprétation traditionnelle, juridique, du terme : un conductor est une des parties dans un contrat de
locatio-conductio. Ainsi, l’interprétation la plus probable des conductores fenarii de Rom.Mil.Rec. 80 est
qu’il s’agit de concessionnaires ayant obtenu pour une certaine durée le monopole de la fourniture du foin
à l’ala veterana Gallica : nous ignorons s’ils s’occupaient eux-mêmes de se procurer le foin, mais il est
certain qu’il leur incombait au moins d’assurer son transport jusqu’aux attributaires.
1
Fr. Mitthof, Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungs- und Heeres-
geschichte des Römischen Reiches im 3. bis 6. Jh. n. Chr., Florence 2001 (Pap.Flor. XXII), p. 37–40.
2
Serenus se qualifie de procurator, terme qui a été beaucoup discuté (Mitthof, o.l., p. 305 sq.). Je pense pour ma part qu’il faut
le comprendre au sens qu’il a en droit privé : « mandataire ». Serenus a reçu pouvoir de ses camarades pour réceptionner
le foin à leur place et en leur nom.
3
En revanche, les ostraca des carrières du Mons Claudianus et de Domitianè/Kainè Latomia ne mentionnent jamais de
conductor. On connaît seulement dans cette zone du désert Oriental, que je crois distincte du désert de Bérénice, le μισθωτὴς
τῶν μετάλλων Epaphroditos, un esclave impérial, dédicant des Sarapieia du Mons Claudianus et du Mons Porphyritès au
début du règne d’Hadrien. On ne sait rien de ses responsabilités, ni en quoi elles se différenciaient de celles de l’affranchi
impérial qui était au même moment ἐπίτροπος τῶν μετάλλων.
4
H. Cuvigny (éd.) et al., La Route de Myos Hormos, Le Caire 2003, p. 410–412.
5
Xèron Pelagos (24°55’40 N/34°15’50 E), sur la route de Bérénice, est le véritable nom de l’étape nommée Aristonis dans
l’Itinéraire Antonin. Sa fouille s’inscrit dans le programme Praesidia romains du désert Oriental, financé par le Ministère
des Affaires étrangères et européennes et par l’IFAO. Les deux ostraca publiés ici ont été trouvés en décembre 2010 dans
le dépotoir extérieur fouillé par Emmanuel Botte (École française de Rome).
68 Hélène Cuvigny
Le dépotoir extérieur du praesidium de Didymoi, sur la route de Bérénice, a livré un ordre de

livraison dont le prescrit est ainsi formulé : Ψενθώτης κονδούκτωρι Διδύμου Ὑδρεύματος χ(αίρειν),
« Psenthôtès au conductor du Puits de Didymos, salut » (O.Did. 54). Le conductor est prié de remettre
quatre matia d’orge et huit couples (ζεύγη) de pains à deux individus nommés Κάλβου (= Calvus ?) et
Siouès. Le document a été daté, d’après la stratigraphie du dépotoir établie par Jean-Pierre Brun, de 96p
ou peu après. La nature des stocks gérés par le conductor invite à écarter l’idée, suggérée par son titre,
qu’il aurait obtenu la concession de l’hydreuma proprement dit (entretien du puits et de la machinerie,
remplissage des citernes) : Διδύμου Ὕδρευμα doit être considéré comme un toponyme, forgé sur le
modèle d’ Ἀπόλλωνος Ὕδρευμα, autre praesidium de la route de Bérénice 6.
Le titre de conductor de tel praesidium était resté sans parallèle jusqu’à la deuxième campagne
de fouille à Xèron Pelagos. Dans le désert de Bérénice, en effet, conductor n’est normalement pas précisé
au moyen d’un complément de nom (ou d’un adjectif, comme les conductores fenarii déjà évoqués).
11
O.Xer. inv. 246 18,5 x 16,5 cm 24 juillet 96
US 306-33 tesson d’AE3
Conductor, au lieu d’être rendu comme d’habitude par le métaplasme κονδούκτωρ, est ici remplacé
par son calque sémantique μισθωτής.
→ Πανεχάτης Διοδότωι μισθωτῆι Ξηροῦ

Πελάγους χα(ίρειν). ἀπέσχον παρὰ σοῦ
μαρσίππους διπλοῦς δέκα καὶ
4 ἁπλοῦν ἕνα, (γίνονται) μάρσιπ(ποι) ι̅α̅. (ἔτους) ιε Αὐτοκράτορο(ς)
Καίσαρος Δομιτιανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ,
Ἐπειφ λ̅.
2 χα 4 / μαρσιπ 
Panechatès à Diodotos, concessionnaire de Xèron Pelagos, salut. J’ai reçu de toi dix sacs doubles et un
simple, soit 11 sacs. L’an 15 de l’Empereur César Domitien Auguste vainqueur des Germains, le 30 Epeiph.
Panechatès et Diodotos ne sont pas identifiables avec d’autres personnes connues sur la route de
Bérénice. Le premier, avec son nom vernaculaire, a des chances d’appartenir au milieu des transporteurs
égyptiens organisés en décanies. Il en va de même pour le Psenthôtès d’O.Did. 54, qui pourrait être le
dekanos Psenthôtès connu par un ostracon issu de la même unité stratigraphique ; en O.Did. 54, Psenthôtès
demanderait au conductor de ravitailler deux transporteurs de sa décanie lors de leur passage à Didymoi.
Les conductores du désert de Bérénice n’ont en revanche jamais de noms vernaculaires : leurs noms sont
grecs, gréco-égyptiens et le plus souvent latins 7.
Les objets réceptionnés par Panechatès sont des sacs (marsippoi) qualifiés de « doubles » et de
« simple », sans contenu spécifié. Ces qualificatifs pour des marsippoi sont sans attestation dans toute la
littérature ou la documentation grecque, sauf dans quatre ostraca de Bérénice, O. Berenike II 163, 165, 166
et 177 (il s’agit chaque fois de sacs « doubles »). Ces textes appartiennent à un ensemble de laissez-passer
émanant d’un certain Sarapiôn fils de Kasios (O.Berenike II 153–183, datés de c. 50–75p). Les-uns
6
Les ostraca de Didymoi trahissent en effet un certain flottement dans l’appellation du praesidium, dont le nom est parfois
au singulier.
7
Gréco-égyptien : Ammônios ; grecs : Diodotos, Hèrakleidès ; latins : Arianus, Cassius, Maximus, Saturninus, peut-être
Domitius Longinus.
11–12. Conductor praesidii 69
concernent des amphores de vin et sont adressés à Andouros. Les autres concernent des marsipp ( ) 8
dont le contenu n’est pas non plus mentionné et sont adressés à un nommé Pakoibis. Andouros et Pakoibis
sont connus par ailleurs comme quintanenses (O.Berenike II, p. 63). Les quintanenses postés à la barrière
douanière de Bérénice sont des agents de la ferme de la quintana, taxe sur les transactions commerciales
dans la zone militaire que constitue le désert de Bérénice. La formulation des laissez-passer de Sarapiôn
fils de Kasios est invariablement : διαπόστειλον τῷ δεῖνι + complément d’objet à l’accusatif. Lorsque les
dates sont conservées ou mentionnées, il s’agit du 11 Epeiph pour le vin et du 24 Sebastos (Thôth) pour
les sacs. Dans ce dossier, les sacs qui ne sont pas « doubles » sont sans spécification ; ce sont sans aucun
doute des sacs « simples ». Dans la plupart de ces ostraca, le nombre de sacs est élevé, avec un maximum
de 235 en O.Berenike 162.
Les sacs (vides) ne sont pas connus comme un article d’exportation vers le monde érythréen.
Néanmoins, on pourrait envisager qu’il s’agisse de sacs en lin, qui dès lors entreraient dans la catégorie
λέντια des marchandises exportées en Éthiopie, destination pour laquelle, justement, on appareillait de
préférence en Thôth (Peripl. M. Rubr. 6). Bien que marsippoi et marsippia soient réputés être normalement
en cuir 9, le lin est un matériau attesté pour leur confection : cf. les 54 marsippoi fournis au monople du lin
en BGU XIV 2427 et la définition que donne Galien de la κρησέρα 10. Les 82 marsippoi transportés par un
batelier sur le Bahr Yussuf et pour lesquels il perçoit un phoretron de 1 obole par sac 11 sont aussi des
articles de commerce (P.Petrie III 107, fr. D, 9). Mais une autre hypothèse a été avancée par Dario Nappo :
les μαρσιπ( ) des O.Berenike seraient des bourses en cuir scellées contenant des quantités standard de
monnaies romaines (deniers et aurei) 12, les sacs « doubles » pesant exactement deux fois plus que les autres ;
ces espèces serviraient à acheter des denrées exotiques, comme le montre bien le Périple de la mer Érythrée,
qui préconise d’emporter des liquidités pour faire des affaires dans certaines places de commerce 13.
D. Nappo observe à juste titre que les pièces de monnaie sont le contenu le plus fréquemment attesté,
à toutes les époques, pour les marsippia. Il invoque comme parallèle le « tesoretto di Rimigliano »
récemment découvert et dont il donne la description suivante : « The ‘tesoretto’ comes from a wreck and
it is supposed to represent the standard way the coins were circulating on the commercial ships around
the Mediterranean. It is in fact a block of ca. 3,600 coins originally contained in small leather bags of circular
shape and then put together into a larger basket. The small bags contain a standard amount of silver coins,
split in groups of ten units, in order to facilitate the process of counting them. A similar organisation to
the one attested in the ‘tesoretto di Rimigliano’ can be postulated for the Eastern Desert as well, and this
is the situation to which the μαρσίππια refer. »
On ne voit pas très bien cependant par quel concours de circonstances le conductor de Xèron
Pelagos aurait pu détenir des sacs de monnaies impériales à exporter (même s’il se trouve qu’Epeiph, juillet,
est le mois auquel les bateaux appareillent pour l’Inde). Pourrait-il s’agir simplement de ses recettes, confiées
à Panechatès pour que celui-ci les emporte dans la vallée ? Recettes du mois, puisque le reçu date du
30 du mois ? Mais comme ses recettes devaient être en pièces alexandrines disparates, cette supposition
ne s’accorde pas avec la notion, essentielle pour l’hypothèse de D. Nappo, que les bourses doubles
représentaient exactement le double du poids et de la valeur des bourses simples.
8
Les éditeurs ont pris le parti de résoudre le mot, toujours abrégé, μαρσίππ(ια). L’ostracon de Xèron montre que la forme
diminutive ne s’impose pas.
9
Paola Radici Colace, « Lexicon Vasorum Graecorum » dans ead., Atti del II Seminario Internazionale di studi sui
lessici tecnici greci e latini, Messina–Napoli 1997, p. 323.
10
Galien définit la κρησέρα (tamis à farine) comme un μάρσιππος λινοῦς (Linguarum seu dictionum exoletarum Hippocratis
explicatio, XIX 115.1 K).
11
Dont il reverse la moitié au roi.
12
D. Nappo, A. Zerbini, « On the Fringe: Trade and Taxation in the Egyptian Eastern Desert » dans O. Hekster, T. Kaizer
(eds.), Frontiers in the Roman World. Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire,
Leiden 2011 (in print). Je remercie vivement les auteurs de m’avoir communiqué leur manuscrit.
13
L. Casson (ed.), The Periplus Maris Erythraei, Princeton 1989, p. 29–31.
70 Hélène Cuvigny
En outre, le fait que Panechatès prenne livraison de μάρσιπποι et non de μαρσίππια s’oppose
à l’idée de sachets de monnaie : lorsque le mot désigne une bourse, il présente presque toujours, s’il est
en scriptio plena, la forme diminutive – la seule exception apparente est P.Stras. V 401bis, mais comme
l’auteur de cette plainte transportait dans le marsippos dont il a été détroussé le produit d’une collecte
d’impôts, il s’agit peut-être plutôt d’une sacoche que d’une bourse 14. Peut-être Diodotos a-t-il simplement
remis au transporteur des sacs contenant des articles hétéroclites à vendre dans un autre praesidium. La
diversité du contenu en aurait rendu le détail fastidieux, aussi s’est-on contenté d’indiquer le nombre et
la forme des sacs, qui étaient éventuellement scellés. Les marsippoi diploi sont peut-être des sacs doubles,
des bissacs, faciles à arrimer sur une bête de somme.
Somme toute, cet ostracon est loin d’éclairer la nature des sacs qui franchissent la barrière
douanière de Bérénice et il ne corrobore pas non plus l’hypothèse de D. Nappo. Tout ce qu’on peut dire,
c’est qu’il s’agit vraisemblablement du même type d’objets, et qu’il vaut mieux par conséquent résoudre
μάρσιπποι et non μαρσίππια dans les laissez-passer de Bérénice.
L’ordre de paiement de Didymoi a été daté, d’après la stratigraphie, de « 96 ou peu après ». Le
reçu de Xèron date de 96. On pourrait dès lors se demander si la rareté des attestations du conductor
praesidii ne tient pas au fait que cette organisation serait propre à cette période, qui n’est pas la mieux
représentée dans les ostraca du désert Oriental. Néanmoins, un autre ostracon de Xèron plus tardif suggère
l’existence de conductores attachés à un praesidium et procure un indice important sur leur fonction.
12
O.Xer. inv. 473 12 x 12,5 cm c. 115–130P 15
US 807-13 tesson d’AE3
C’est une des quatre lettres d’Aphroditous à Boubas trouvées à Xèron. Deux d’entre elles com-
portent un proscynème devant Zeus, ce qui montre que l’épistolière résidait alors à Dios, praesidium fondé
en 114/115 16 ; son nom n’étant pas courant dans le désert Oriental, il y a des chances pour qu’elle soit la
femme du même nom destinataire d’une lettre trouvée à Dios dans une couche profonde (O. Dios inv. 1551,
fin du règne de Trajan ou règne d’Hadrien d’après la stratigraphie).
↓ Ἀφρω̣διτοῦς Βουβᾶτι τῶι

ἀδελ(φῷ) χα(ίρειν). καθὼς ἠρώτη-
κά σε περὶ τῶν γραμματί-
4 ω̣ν̣, σπουδάσῃς μοι πέμ-
ψε, κύριε, ἀσφαλῶς. παρα-
κληθεὶς δέ, ὅ τι ἐὰν εὕρῃς
παρὰ σοί, ἀγόρασόν μοι καὶ
8 πέμψον διὰ τὼ̣ θλείβεσ-
θαι ἡμᾶς ἐνθάδε · οὐ
γὰρ ἔστιν κονδούκ-
τορ. ἀσπάζου Κόμω̣-
12 να πολλ(ὰ) καὶ μετά-
δος αὐτῷ̣ μή
14
Il existe cependant de grands sacs contenant des espèces monétaires et appelés μάρσιπποι : P.Ryl. IV 591, 26 (IIIa).
15
D’après la stratigraphie. Je remercie E. Botte et J.-P. Brun pour cette information.
16
H. Cuvigny, « The Shrine in the Praesidium of Dios (Eastern Desert of Egypt): Graffiti and Oracles in Context », Chiron 40,
2010, p. 246.
μου ἐπιλα-
θέσθαι.
16 ἔρρωσο.
1 l. Ἀφροδιτοῦς 2 αδελ χα 4 ωνσπ post corr. 4–5 l. πέμψαι

λ
6 l. ἂν 8 l. τὸ θλίβεσθαι 10–11 l. κονδούκτωρ 12 πολ
Aphroditous à Boubas, son frère, salut. Comme je te l’ai déjà demandé à propos des documents,
dépêche-toi, maître, de me les envoyer par un moyen sûr. Et puis, je t’en prie, tout ce que tu trouveras chez
toi, achète-le moi et envoie-le, parce que nous sommes en pleine détresse, ici. En effet, il n’y a pas de
concessionnaire. Salue bien Komôn et dis-lui de ma part de ne pas m’oublier. Porte-toi bien.
1 Il n’est pas exclu de lire Ἀφροδιτοῦς. La graphie du phonème /o/ pose problème à ce scripteur : on
dirait que, chaque fois qu’il a un doute, il écrit une lettre ambiguë, interprétable aussi bien comme
un omikron large et ouvert que comme un omega à une seule panse un peu étroit. On remarque en
revanche que, dans le cas des diphtongues οι et ου, ses omikron sont toujours très clairs.
Βουβᾶτι. Addendum onomasticis. Hypocoristique de Βούβαλος ?
3–4 Dans les papyrus, γραμματεῖον/γραμμάτιον est principalement employé au sens de document
de droit privé, ce surtout à l’époque byzantine. Les attestations antérieures au IVe s. sont peu
nombreuses. Dans le cas présent, il peut s’agir de documents relatifs à des prêts (opérations
fréquentes dans le monde des praesidia) ou à la prostitution, activité à laquelle Aphroditous n’est
peut-être pas étrangère : en O.Did. 390, le proxénète Philoklès mentionne une symphônèsis qui est
peut-être un document écrit ; en O.Krok. inv. 544, l’agent d’un proxénète demande à ce dernier
une epitropikè, c’est-à-dire une procuration lui donnant pouvoir pour négocier avec la clientèle
(H. Cuvigny [éd.] et al., La Route de Myos Hormos, II, Le Caire 2003, p. 384).
Le principal intérêt de la lettre d’Aphroditous réside dans le lien de causalité qu’elle établit entre
l’absence de conductor à Dios et le fait qu’il n’y a rien à acheter sur place. Il est tentant d’en déduire qu’une
des fonctions du conductor praesidii consistait à ravitailler le praesidium en biens de consommation qui
étaient revendus aux occupants, civils ou militaires. Si, pour une raison ou une autre, un praesidium reste
sans conductor, comme c’est le cas à Dios au moment où écrit Aphroditous, il est plus difficile de s’y
procurer des denrées. C’est en ce sens qu’il faut sans doute comprendre O.Max. inv. 869, lettre dont
l’auteur s’excuse de n’envoyer à ses deux correspondants qu’une botte de seutlon. Et encore, souligne-t-il,
l’avait-il achetée pour sa consommation personnelle. Il ajoute : ἠὰν δὲ γένηται κονδούκτωρ, ἐμοὶ μελήσι
πῶς ἀκόλαστοι γένηστε (l. ἐὰν, μελήσει, γένησθε), « mais quand il y aura 17 un concessionnaire, je
veillerai à ce que vous ne manquiez de rien 18 ». Néanmoins, la présence d’un conductor ne facilitait pas
toujours l’acquisition de légumes. Dans une langue très fautive, l’auteur de O.Dios inv. 1202 s’excuse,
lui aussi, de n’avoir pas joint de légumes à la lettre qu’il adresse à ses camarades : μὴ μέμψατέ με ὅτι οὐκ
ἔπεμψα ἡμῖν λάχανα · ὁ κοντούκτωρ οἷς θέλι διδῦ οὐδὲ ἡμῖ⟨ν⟩ ὅτε ἔσθωμεν λάχανα, « ne me reprochez
pas de ne pas vous avoir envoyé de légumes ; le conductor en donne à ceux qu’il veut et pas à nous (…) 19 ».
Les deux ostraca que nous venons d’évoquer posent la question du rapport entre le conductor et la culture de
17
Influencé par l’idée, désormais écartée, que conductor signifiait conducteur de char, A. Bülow-Jacobsen avait compris
ἠὰν δὲ γένηται κονδούκτωρ « if a conductor comes by » (H. Cuvigny [éd.] et al., La Route de Myos Hormos, II, Le Caire
2003, p. 410).
18
Cette acception de ἀκόλαστος n’est pas répertoriée dans les lexiques. Elle dérive du sens affaibli que prend souvent
κολάζομαι à l’époque romaine, « manquer de ».
19
Je ne comprends pas la dernière proposition. Y a-t-il ellipse et l’auteur veut-il dire : « lorsque nous aurons des légumes
à manger (je vous en enverrai) » ?
72 Hélène Cuvigny
jardins potagers aux abords de certains praesidia du désert dont le puits était suffisamment productif :
le maraîchage faisait-il partie des activités pratiquées dans le désert et faisant l’objet d’un contrat d’entre-
prise conclu avec l’autorité publique ?
No. 11 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)

No. 12 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)
Conclusion
Dans le désert de Bérénice, le conductor apparaît tantôt comme un voyageur (huit cas certains), tantôt
comme un sédentaire établi dans un praesidium (cinq cas certains 20), éventuellement avec de la famille 21.
Tous nos conductores sont-ils conductores d’un praesidium ? Si c’était le cas, on comprend mal pourquoi
nous les voyons si souvent en déplacement. Certains d’entre eux ont-ils la concession de plusieurs praesidia
à la fois, ce qui les obligerait à se déplacer de l’un à l’autre ? Ou certains conductores sont-ils seulement
des colporteurs, allant de praesidium en praesidium avec leur marchandise ?
Le terme est exceptionnellement au pluriel 22, voire au féminin, sous trois formes : ἡ κονδούκτωρ,
κονδουκτρία, κονδούκτριξ. Les « conductrices », lorsque le contexte permet d’en juger, résident dans un
praesidium ; on ne sait rien de leurs fonctions. O.Did. 405 suggère qu’elles encadrent peut-être la prosti-
tution : l’auteur de cette lettre acéphale raconte comment il a fait avouer à une femme (une prostituée ?)
qu’elle avait perdu une tunique. Il est allé au praesidium où elle était et l’a fait appeler par la kondouktria
(εὕρηκα αὐτὴν φωνουμένην ὑπὸ τῆς κονδουκτρίας).
Le masculin conductor est aussi associé à la prostitution : deux ostraca montrent clairement le
conductor comme collecteur de la taxe sur la location mensuelle de prostituée, appelée indifféremment
quintana et τὸ τοῦ κονδούκτορος 23. En O.Did. 390, au moment de partir rejoindre la garnison qui a loué
20
Il s’agit des lettres dans lesquelles un conductor est destinataire ou objet de salutations.
21
O.Did. 355 : ἄσπασαι (…) Οὐ[. . . . . . . . κ]ο⟨ν⟩δούκτορα καὶ [τὴν ἀδελ]φὴν αὐτοῦ.
22
O.Max. inv. 362 ; O.Krok. inv. 524.
23
O.Did. 390 et 430. Voir H. Cuvigny, « Femmes tournantes : remarques sur la prostitution dans les garnisons romaines du
désert de Bérénice », ZPE 172, 2010, p. 159–166.
74 Hélène Cuvigny
ses services, une prostituée remet au conductor non seulement la quintana, mais aussi le prix de son
transport (φόρετρον). Si les conductores ont la charge du ravitaillement des fortins, il n’est pas étonnant
qu’ils disposent aussi de moyens de transport : de fait, on rencontre les expressions ] ὀνηλατῶν τοῦ
κον[δούκτορος (O.Did. 445, contexte mutilé) et ὄνοι τοῦ κονδούκτορος (O.Xer. inv. 452 : μή με μέμφου,
ἄδελ[φ]ε, ὅτι οὐδέν σοι ἀπέσταλκα [1–2 ἕ]ως ἀναβῶσιν οἱ ὄνοι τοῦ [κο]νδούκτορος, « ne me reproche
pas, frère, de ne t’avoir rien envoyé, dans l’attente que montent les ânes du concessionnaire »). Ce
conductor réside-t-il dans le praesidium d’où écrit l’auteur de la lettre, attendant avec le reste de la
garnison que ses ânes le ravitaillent ?
Comme si souvent, la documentation papyrologique apporte plus de questions qu’elle n’en résout.
L’image qui ressort du conductor est tellement contrastée qu’on se demande si tous ces concessionnaires
avaient conclu le même type de contrat public, ou si, dans le désert de Bérénice, le contrat d’un conductor
comportait l’exécution de plusieurs tâches très différentes :
– la distribution de nourriture aux âniers et chameliers ainsi qu’à leurs bêtes (O.Did. 54).
– la vente d’articles, alimentaires ou non, aux occupants militaires et civils des praesidia. Pour les militaires,
il s’agit de denrées non comprises dans la ration réglementaire, et qu’ils payaient de leur poche 24.
– la collecte de la taxe sur la location de prostituées.
– le transport de ravitaillement. Mais nous ne savons pas si tous les types de ravitaillement (rations mili-
taires d’une part, denrées vendues aux habitants des praesidia et des ports d’autre part) étaient concernés,
si, par exemple, l’organisation des caravanes du ravitaillement appelées poreiai étaient sous-traitée à des
conductores par la préfecture de Bérénice : la mise sur pied de telles caravanes nécessitait en effet non
seulement de réunir les bêtes de somme et le personnel les accompagnant, mais aussi de prévoir le moyen
de les nourrir en route.
CNRS, Paris
24
Tandis qu’ils retiraient auprès du curateur leur ration réglementaire (couverte par la retenue sur solde in victum) contre
paiement d’une somme d’argent appelée publica (H. Cuvigny, dans K. Lembke [éd.] et al., Tradition and Transformation:
Egypt under Roman Rule, Leiden/Boston 2010, p. 37–51).
13. P.Qasr Ibrim inv. 80/11:
A Testimony to Zenodotos’ Edition of the Iliad?
Tomasz Derda and Adam Łajtar
P.Qasr Ibrim inv. 80/11 4.4 x 4.6 cm 22–21 BCE (?)

Qasr Ibrim (ancient Primis or Prima) is a site in Egyptian Nubia, ca. 200 kilometres south of Aswan.
In terms of ancient geography, it was located on the southern border of Triakontaschoinos, “The Land of
Thirty Schoinoi,” extending to the south of the first Nile cataract. Qasr Ibrim was the seat of a Roman
military post guarding the southern border of the state for a period of ca. one year in 22–21 BCE, before
the border was withdrawn to Hiera Sykaminos (modern Maharraqa) on the southern border of Dodeka-
schoinos, “The Land of Twelve Schoinoi,” as a result of the Samos treaty of 23 BCE between Rome and
the Meroitic Kingdom.1 Roman occupation of the site left rather scanty remains in the archaeological
record. The only substantial find connected with the presence of Roman soldiers is a lot of Greek and
Latin papyri. They were found by a mission of the Egypt Exploration Society excavating the site in three
consecutive seasons of work: 1976, 1978, and 1980. The papyri were discovered in a loose layer of debris
that had accumulated outside the defensive wall of the Qasr Ibrim citadel. Now most of them are believed
to be stored in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo or in one of the storage houses used by the Museum.
Only the finds of the 1976 season have been published so far. Among them is the famous papyrus
with elegiacs in Latin attributed to Cornelius Gallus, friend of Augustus, poet and statesman, and the first
prefect of Roman Egypt.2 Beyond this text, the 1976 group includes fragments of Homeric papyri and 36
documentary texts in Greek and Latin, mostly very fragmentarily preserved.3 Recently, the present authors
were granted permission by the Egypt Exploration Society to publish the finds from the 1978 and the 1980
seasons.4 These lots consist of ca. 300 papyri and fragments of papyri in Greek and Latin, mostly of
documentary character. A prominent group among them are the private and business letters addressed
to the soldiers of the Qasr Ibrim garrison. There are also lists of various kinds (names and provisions).
Literary papyri are very few and seem to represent exercises and reminiscences from the reading rather than
actual books. This last category includes a papyrus that we would like to present here in greater detail.
The papyrus in question was found in the 1980 season in the dump outside the northwest bastion
of the Qasr Ibrim citadel. It bears the register number 80.2.16/2, inventory number 80/11, inventory of
inscriptions GI 86. It is now kept in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo under the number of Journal d’entrée
95213. Only a small scrap of the papyrus, measuring 4.4 x 4.6 cm, is preserved; it is complete at the top.
It bears fragments of five lines of script and, at the bottom, the remains of letters of another line. The text
is written along the fibres.
1
For the Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim, see W. Y. Adams, “Primis and the ‘Aethiopian’ Frontier,” JARCE 20 (1983)
93–104; idem, “Ptolemaic and Roman Occupation at Qasr Ibrim,” in F. Gues and F. Thili (eds.), Mélanges offerts à Jean
Vercoutter (Paris 1988) 9–17; J. Locher, “Die Anfänge der römischen Herrschaft in Nubien und der Konflikt zwischen Rom
und Meroe,” Anc.Soc. 32 (2002) 73–134.
2
Ed. pr. R. D. Anderson, P. J. Parsons, and R. G. M. Nisbet, “Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrim,” JRS 69 (1979) 125–
155. Since its ed. pr., the papyrus has been the subject of a vivid discussion; for an overview of the scholarly opinions, see
M. Capasso, Il ritorno di Cornelio Gallo. Il papiro di Qasr Ibrim venticinque anni dopo (Gli album del Centro di Studi
Papirologici dell’Università degli Studi di Lecce 5) (Napoli 2003).
3
M. E. Weinstein and E. G. Turner, “Greek and Latin Papyri from Qasr Ibrim,” JEA 62 (1976) 115–130.
4
For an overview of the material, see T. Derda and A. Łajtar, “Roman Occupation of Qasr Ibrim as Reflected in Greek
Papyri of the Site,” in J. Hagen and J. van der Vliet (eds.), Qasr Ibrim Between Egypt and Africa: A Case Study of Cultural
Exchange. Acts of a Conference Held in Leiden, 11–12 December 2009 (forthcoming); iidem, “Greek and Latin Papyri from
the Egypt Exploration Society Excavations at Qasr Ibrim: A Testimony to the Roman Army in Upper Egypt and Lower
Nubia in the First Years of Augustus,” in P. Schubert (ed.), Proceedings of the XXVIth International Congress of
Papyrology (Geneva 2010) (forthcoming).
76 Tomasz Derda and Adam Łajtar
The papyrus is written in a bookhand, which may be described as a round, upright capital. Ver-
tical strokes (tau and iota) and oblique ones (chi) are provided with serifs at their feet. The crossbar of
epsilon is very short, even contracted to a dot. For analogous hands, see especially Turner, GMAW 2 no.
21 (Pindar, Partheneia, BM Pap. 1533, 1st c. BCE). Note also no. 12 (Homer, Iliad II, University of
California 2390, mid 2nd c. BCE) and no. 56 (Septuagint, Deuteronomy, P.Fouad inv. 266 = G. Cavallo,
H. Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands [Berlin—New York 2008] no. 76, mid 1st c. BCE), and compare further
P.Mert. II 52 (Homer, Odyssey II, late 1st c. BCE, before 5 BCE). The closest parallel, however, comes from
Qasr Ibrim itself. These are fragments of a roll containing Book V of the Odyssey, found in 1976 and
published by M. E. Weinstein and E. G. Turner. A similar hand is to be seen on another Homeric papyrus
from Qasr Ibrim, containing fragments of the Odyssey, Book II.5 If we assume that the papyrus
published in this paper was written in Qasr Ibrim during the short occupation of the place by the Roman
soldiers in 22–21 BCE (see below), the text offers a rare possibility of obtaining the exact date of a
bookhand.
The text is written continuously, with just one place (in line 1) where the scribe used a space to
mark word division.
No. 13
The papyrus can be transcribed as follows:
→ [- - -]ν̣ε τειχεσιβ[- - -]
[- - -]ε̣τειχεσιβλητα[- - -]
[- - -]ε̣τ̣ε̣ι̣χ̣ε̣σ̣ι̣βλητ̣α̣[- - -]
4 [- - -]ν̣ετειχεσιβλη̣[- - -]
[- - -]νετειχεσιβλ̣[- - -]
[- - -]ν̣ε̣τ̣ε̣ι̣χ̣ε̣σ̣ι̣β̣λ̣η[̣ - - -]
-----------
5
Weinstein—Turner, “Greek and Latin Papyri” (supra, n. 3), nos. 3 (p. 118–119) and 2 (p. 116–118), respectively, with
photographs on plates XVII and XVI; see also E. Crisci, Scrivere greco fuori d’Egitto (Pap.Flor. XXVII) (Firenze 1996)
111–113 and plates XCIV–XCV.
13. P.Qasr Ibrim inv. 80/11: A Testimony to Zenodotos’ Edition of the Iliad? 77
It is easy to observe that each line of the papyrus has the same text. One recognizes the Homeric epithet
τειχεσιπλήτης in the vocative, obvious in lines 2 and 3, which, according to lines 1, 5, and apparently also
6, is preceded by ]νε, probably the end of another vocative. These two elements (the Homeric vocabulary
and the exclamatory style) strongly suggest that what we have before us is probably the exclamation Ἆρες
Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφόνε τειχεσιπλῆτα, which is found twice in Book V of the Iliad (verses 31 and 455).
If so, one has to read:
[Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφό]ν̣ε τειχεσιβ[λῆτα]

[Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφόν]ε̣ τειχεσιβλῆτα
[Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφόν]ε̣ τ̣ε̣ι̣χ̣ε̣σ̣ι̣βλῆτ̣α̣
4 [Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφό]ν̣ε τειχεσιβλῆ̣[τα
[Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφό]νε τειχεσιβλ̣[ῆτα]
[Ἆρες Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφό]ν̣ε̣ τ̣ε̣ι̣χ̣ε̣σ̣ι̣β̣λ̣ῆ[̣ τα]
------------
Interestingly, τειχεσιπλῆτα is written here with a beta instead of pi: τειχεσιβλῆτα. Although pi and beta
are frequently interchanged,6 one can suggest that τειχεσιβλῆτα is not a mere phonetic writing here but
a true variant reading. The repetition of τειχεσιβλῆτα supports this proposal. It is known that τειχεσιβλῆτα
was the reading accepted for the places in question by Zenodotos in his edition of the Iliad, as is testified
by Scholia in Iliadem (Erbse), 5.31d: ⟨τειχεσιπλῆτα⟩ ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος γράφει ‘τειχεσιβλῆτα’, ὁ τείχη
καταβάλλων. We are unaware if Zenodotos invented this reading himself or chose it from among existing
variants, but it is probably the second possibility that is correct.7 Whatever the case, the grammarian’s
rationale was probably of a semantic nature. He might have been of the opinion that τειχεσιβλήτης is
a more impressive epithet for Ares than τειχεσιπλήτης, “stormer of walls.”8 He probably understood it
to mean “the one who causes the walls to lay down,” as is suggested by the scholion quoted above and
by Eustathius in his commentary to this very place in the Iliad: ἔστι γὰρ τειχεσιπλήτης μέν, ὡς ἄν τις εἴπῃ,
πολιορκητής, ὁ τοῖς τείχεσι πλησιάζων ἐπὶ πορθήσει, τειχεσιβλήτης δὲ ὁ καταβάλλων τὰ τείχη.9 We can
assume, however, that both the scholiast and Eustathius were wrong as far as the meaning of the word
τειχεσιβλήτης is concerned. It might have been derived from the verb βάλλω and not καταβάλλω, in
which case its meaning would have been “the one who throws [the weapons] towards the walls.” If so,
the reading chosen by Zenodotos would have been anachronistic—the epithet τειχεσιβλήτης could have
come into existence only after the invention of artillery.
In any case, the papyrus from Qasr Ibrim gives testimony for the Iliad in the recension of Zeno-
dotos, or at least an edition adopting some of his corrections and/or suggestions. It shows that such
editions of the Iliad circulated at the turn of the era, one of which gave rise to our papyrus.
Outside of our papyrus, the variant τειχεσιβλῆτα appears only rarely in the tradition of the Homeric
text. It occurs, but only as a variant, in one major manuscript of the Iliad (designated as C), namely Laur.
32.3 (11th–12th c.). It is found in Macrobius, Saturnalia I 12.9, who quotes the Homeric passage Ἆρες
Ἆρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφόνε τειχεσιβλῆτα. A testimony to it is also P.Oxy. II 223, which contains all of
Book V of the Iliad and dates to the beginning of the 3rd c. CE. In verse 31 of this papyrus, the scribe wrote
τειχεσιπλητα, but later another hand added a beta over the pi without deleting the original letter, which
6
For that see Gignac, Gram. I 83–84.
7
For Zenodotos and his philological method, see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to
the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968) 105–122.
8
See P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (Paris 1984) 873, s.v. πέλας.
9
Ed. M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, II (Leiden
1976) 16.
78 Tomasz Derda and Adam Łajtar
seems to suggest that the reader(?) of the roll was uncertain as to which variant was the correct one. Our
papyrus provides the oldest attestation of the variant τειχεσιβλῆτα.
The papyrus edited here belongs to the category customarily labeled “school exercises.” But it is
not a school exercise in the proper sense of the term. The hand is a specialized one, an elegant bookhand,
and as such it cannot be the hand of a pupil. Another objection to classifying the papyrus as a school
exercise is of a contextual nature. It is difficult to imagine that among soldiers of the Roman frontier
garrison at Qasr Ibrim there were people who were learning to write in Greek. Those who knew Greek
letters in Qasr Ibrim must have arrived with this knowledge. A clue to understanding the character of the
papyrus is probably furnished by the resemblance of its hand to that of another papyrus from Qasr Ibrim,
the one with fragments of the Odyssey Book V (mentioned above). There is no doubt that those fragments
come from a book roll. It is difficult to imagine that this book roll was copied in Qasr Ibrim; rather, it was
brought there in the luggage of an officer. For obvious reasons, the fragment published here could not
have belonged to this book, but it was probably written by someone who had access to it and who used it
as a model for writing down Homeric verse.
One has to observe that the acclamation of Ares from Iliad V 31 and 455 is very appropriate in
a military context like the one at Qasr Ibrim. It is employed in the same sense in a heading on the side of
the monument that describes the military achievements of Ptolemaios Agrios (Panopolis in Upper Egypt,
1st c. CE?).10
Department of Papyrology, University of Warsaw

Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw
10
É. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en
Égypte (Paris 1969) no. 114, III.
14–25. Neue Dokumente zur Salzsteuer in Elephantine
Ruth Duttenhöfer
Eine prominente Figur bei der Erhebung der Salzsteuer des 3. Jh.s in Elephantine ist ein gewisser Doros,
von dem man annimmt, dass er ein Steuerpächter des Salzmonopols war. Dieser Mann ist wesentlich öfter
bezeugt als alle anderen bekannten griechischen Steuererheber in Elephantine aus dieser Zeit, darum hängt
von der Datierung der Belege zu seiner Person die Chronologie der Salzsteuer und der ganzen Steuer-
verwaltung ab. Die bekannten Belege für den Namen Doros stammen nach revidierter Datierung durch
W. Clarysse und D. Thompson aus zwei Belegclustern, einem vom Ende des Ptol. II. Philadelphus (251–
250 v.Chr.) und einem zweiten von den letzten Jahren Ptol. III. Euergetes bis in die Anfangsjahre des
Ptol. IV. Philopator hinein (223–219 v.Chr.), so dass die Autoren vermuteten, es könne sich gar um zwei
Personen gleichen Namens handeln1. Unter den griechischen Ostraka des Louvre (OGL) haben sich etliche
neue Belege für Doros gefunden, die es lohnend erscheinen lassen, die Frage erneut zu untersuchen.
Durch die neuen Dokumente lassen sich zunächst die beiden Tätigkeitsperioden von Doros,
wie sie von Clarysse—Thompson festgestellt wurden, klar bestätigen und erweitern; eine Gruppe von
neuen Dokumenten jedoch fällt nicht in dieses Schema und daher wirft ihre chronologische Einordnung
Probleme auf, auf die ich später zu sprechen komme. Ich gebe hier zunächst eine chronologische Liste2 der
Belege der ersten und zweiten Tätigkeitsperiode des Doros, erweitert um die im Anhang neu publizierten
Stücke (14–22) aus der Ostraka-Sammlung des Louvre:
I Jahr 35 Ptol. II. Philadelphus bis J. 3 Ptol. III. Euergetes
O.Vleem. 17 J. 35 Salz B ἔχει Δῶρος gr. Q. / gr. U.: διὰ Πετεπίφιος

14 (OGL 132) J. 35 Salz B ἔχει Δῶρος gr. Q. / gr. + dem. U.
15 (OGL 1834) J. 35 Salz B ἔχει Δῶρος gr. Q. / gr. + dem. U.
O.Vleem. 18 J. 35 Salz B ἔχει Δῶρος gr. Q. / dem. U.: Petepiphe
O.Mattha 132 J. 36? Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου dem. Q. / gr. U.
O.Louvre 68 J. 36 Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου dem. Q. / gr. U.
O.Louvre 900 J. 36 Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου dem. Q. / gr. U.
O.Vleem. 19 J. 36 Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου dem. Q. / gr. U.
O.Vleem. 20 J. 36 Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου dem. Q. / gr. U.
16 (OGL 1851) J. 39 Salz B U. διὰ Δώρου gr. Bankquittung: πέπτωκεν / gr. U.
O.Vleem. 11A J. 2?3 ζύθου τιμή U. ἔγραψεν Δῶρος gr. Q.: πέπτωκεν / gr. U.
17 (OGL 100) J. 3 μυροψική ἔχει Δῶρος gr. Q. / dem. U.
In seiner ersten Tätigkeitsperiode befasst sich Doros zunächst in den Jahren 35, 36 und 39 des
Philadelphus mit dem Einzug der Salzsteuer der Rate B (1 Dr. für Männer, 3 Ob. für Frauen), in den ersten
Jahren des Euergetes zieht er verschiedene Monopolsteuern ein (Bier und Parfüm/Duftsalben).
Auffällig ist, dass Doros in dieser Periode mit verschiedenen Quittungsformularen arbeitet: Zuerst
benutzt er das griechische ἔχει-Formular, das von anderen Schreibern griechisch und/oder demotisch
unterschrieben wird. Im folgenden Jahr hingegen unterzeichnet Doros selbst von verschiedenen anderen
Schreibern ausgestellte demotische Quittungen in der Form ‘διὰ Δώρου’. In 16 setzt Doros eine ebensolche
Unterschrift unter eine griechische Bankquittung. Einmal signiert Doros in der Form ‘Δῶρος ἔγραψεν’
eine griechische Quittung für Bier-Steuer. Zuletzt stellt er noch einmal im 3. Jahr des Euergetes (245) mit
1
Siehe W. Clarysse und D. Thompson, ‘The Salt-Tax Rate Once Again’, CdÉ 70, 1995, 223–229.
2
Abkürzungen in der letzten Spalte: Q. = Quittung; U. = Unterschrift; dem. = demotisch; gr. = griechisch.
3
Vgl. für die Datierung dieses Ostrakons zu 17, 2–3.
80 Ruth Duttenhöfer
dem ἔχει-Formular eine Quittung für Parfüm-Steuer aus. Demgegenüber erscheint die zweite Tätigkeits-
periode vollkommen gleichförmig:
II Jahr 25 Ptol. III. Euergetes bis Jahr 4 Ptol. IV. Philopator
18 (OGL 1182) J. 25 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.

19 (OGL 1835) J. 25 Salz C τέτακται gr. Q./ dem.U.
O.Vleem. 28 J. 25 Salz C τέτακται διὰ [Δώρου] gr. Q./ dem.U.
O.Vleem. 29 J. 25 Salz C τέτακται gr. Q./ dem.U.
20 (OGL 117) J. 26 Sy(eniton) log(eia) τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.
O.Vleem. 22 J. 1 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.
O.Vleem. 23 J. 1 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q.
21 (OGL 103) J. 2 Sy. log. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q.
O.Vleem. 24 J. 3 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.
O.Vleem. 25 J. 4 Salz C + Sy. log. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.
22 (OGL 129) J. 4 Sy. log. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. Q./ dem.U.
Alle diese Quittungen betreffen die Salzsteuer der Rate C (4 Ob. für Männer, 1,5 Ob. für Frauen)
und eine weitere Kopfsteuer nur für Männer in Höhe von 2 Drachmen, Συηνιτῶν λογεία, die in Syene als
das griechische Äquivalent der demotischen orß -Steuer bekannt ist, siehe Komm. zu 20, 2–3. Die auffällig
einförmige Stilisierung der Quittungen durch das griechische τέτακται-Formular, dem meistens noch eine
demotische Unterschrift folgt, ist allein in Verbindung mit dem Namen Doros bezeugt; daher ordne ich
auch die Quittungen ohne Angabe des Namens (19 und O.Vleem. 28 und 29) ihm zu.
Die Quittungen der Jahre 1 bis 4 wurden von Clarysse—Thompson vom Anfang der Regierungs-
zeit des Euergetes auf die Zeit des Philopator umdatiert, einerseits aufgrund des τέτακται-Formulars,
welches allgemein als eine spätere Entwicklung angesehen wird4, andererseits aufgrund der Identifizierung
der beteiligten demotischen Schreiber5. Diese Umdatierung wird durch die neuen Louvre-Ostraka 20,
21 und 22 bestätigt, insofern wir mit prosopographischen Argumenten die Datierung dieser Stücke um
den Regierungswechsel von Euergetes zu Philopator befestigen können, vgl. den Kommentar zu 20, 2.
Nach der Umdatierung der Doros-Stücke der Jahre 1–4 (O.Vleem. 22–25) durch Clarysse—
Thompson ist die C-Rate der Salzsteuer landesweit erstmals im 5. Jahr des Euergetes gleichzeitig mit der
immer noch gültigen B-Rate nachzuweisen, welche ihrerseits zum letzten Mal im 16. Jahr des Euergetes
belegt ist.6 Allerdings führte die Umdatierung der Dorosstücke für Elephantine/Syene beinahe unbemerkt
zu dem Ergebnis, dass es zwischen dem 1. und dem 16. Jahr des Euergetes überhaupt keine Salzsteuer-
quittungen der C-Rate mehr gibt; alle bekannten Quittungen zeigen ausschließlich die B-Rate, vgl. die
folgende Tabelle aller Salzsteuerquittungen aus Elephantine/Syene. Die in Theben und anderswo belegte
Gleichzeitigkeit zweier Salzsteuerraten vor dem 16. Jahr des Euergetes wurde so in Elephantine/Syene
komplett eliminiert. Stattdessen sind hier jetzt die Salzsteuerraten A-B-C nacheinander nachzuweisen,
der Wechsel zwischen den Raten B und C findet im 16. Jahr des Euergetes statt.
Weil es bei der Salzsteuer – im Gegensatz zu allen übrigen Steuerarten des 3. Jh. – mehr bilingue
Quittungen mit griechischer Beteiligung als rein demotische Belege gibt, habe ich versucht, dieses
Verhältnis auch optisch deutlich zu machen. Ich habe daher die rein demotischen Belege in einer separaten
Spalte links aufgelistet, während die überwiegend bilinguen, nur selten rein griechischen Belege von rechts
4
Siehe Clarysse—Thompson, ‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 225 mit Literatur in Anm. 8.
5
Siehe Clarysse—Thompson, ‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 226–228.
6
Siehe Clarysse—Thompson, ‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 223; W. Clarysse, D.-J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic
Egypt II, Cambridge 2006, 44ff.; vgl. auch die Tabellen zur Salzsteuer in Theben bei B. Muhs, Tax Receipts, Taxpayers and
Taxes in Early Ptolemaic Thebes, Chicago 2005, 41–51.
14–25. Neue Dokumente zur Salzsteuer in Elephantine 81
her in die Liste einfließen; in den mittleren Spalten treffen sich jeweils Angaben zur Datierung und zur
Steuerrate, die äußerst rechte Spalte gibt die Details der griechischen Subskriptionen. Das Regierungs-
jahr wird in den demotischen Belegen in ägyptischer Zählung, in den griechischen Quittungen und
Unterschriften nach dem Finanzjahr (F) angegeben.
Demotische und griechische Salzsteuerquittungen7 aus Elephantine/Syene
demot. Belege Datum Jahr Rate8 bilingue Belege Formular, Erheber
Philadelphus
29.9.263 22 A O.El.DAIK 2859 U. ἐχρημάτισεν Πρώταρχος
8.3.262 23 A O.El.DAIK 27910 U. ἔχομεν (dem. Protarchos)
10.3.262 23 A O.El.DAIK 28011 U. ἔχομεν...
O.Louvre 5112 20.9.261 24 A
O.Vleem. 3013 30.7.260 25 A
28.8.260 25/26F A O.Eleph. 4458 ined.14 U. ἁλικῆς J. 26, Epeiph 6
O.Louvre 297v 11.6.258 27 A
O.Louvre 913 25.8.257 28 A
13.11.257 29 A15 O.Louvre 935 U. διὰ Πετεπίφιος, ἁλικῆς ---
21.2.256 29 A O.Eleph. 4457 ined. U. διὰ Πετεπίφιος. J. 29,
Choiak 29. τέτακται ...
11.10.256 29 A O.Eleph.DAIK 28216 U. διὰ Πετεπίφιος
17
O.Louvre 575 15.8. 255 30 A
7
Ich habe hier auch die Quittungen für Syeniton logeia mitaufgeführt, weil sie manchmal zusammen mit der Salzsteuer
eingezogen wurde und weil sie auch eine Art Kopfsteuer auf die männliche Bevölkerung zu sein scheint.
8
Wir registrieren in Elephantine für die A-Rate der Salzsteuer für Männer Zahlungen von 3 Obolen und 4,5 Ob., d.h. es
sind Zahlungen für ein Drittel oder die Hälfte des Jahressteuersatzes. Für Frauen sind Zahlungen von 1,5 Ob. und 3 Ob.
bezeugt, also für ein Viertel oder die Hälfte des Jahressteuersatzes. Die Frauensätze werden leicht verwechselt mit Werten
der Jahresrate B (3 Ob.) oder der Jahresrate C (1,5 Ob.). In keinem Falle läßt sich die volle Jahresrate von 1,5 Drachmen
für Männer und 1 Drachme für Frauen nachweisen.
9
Nach freundlicher Auskunft von F. Hoffmann verzeichnet der demotische Text die Zahlung einer Frau namens Mr-ib-ptH
im 22. Jahr eine Zahlung von 3 Obolen. Dieser Betrag muss dementsprechend zur A-Rate der Salzsteuer gehören und daher
unter Philadelphus datiert werden. Die griechische Unterschrift gibt nicht den Zahler an, sondern den Erheber: Ἐχρημάτισεν
Πρώταρχος bedeutet ‘Protarchos hat (die Zahlung) registriert’.
10
Die Quittung stammt vom 8. März 262 v. Chr. Die Zahlung von 2,25 Oboloi entspricht nicht den üblichen Raten, sie muss
als Teilzahlung erklärt werden, die in der Periode der A-Rate der Salzsteuer noch erlaubt war, siehe Clarysse—Thompson,
Counting the People, 47; B. Muhs, Tax Receipts, 42.
11
Der Name der Zahlerin ist Meribtios, das demotischem Mr-ib-ptH entspricht, wie mir F. Hoffmann bestätigt. Der Text in
Z. 3 lautet: ἔχομεν παρὰ Μεριβτίου. Die Steuerbetrag von 1, 5 Obolen könnte in einem 23. Jahr sowohl zu Rate A, als auch
zu Rate C gehören. Der Text wurde von derselben Hand geschrieben wie O.Eleph. DAIK 279 und beide wurden aufgrund
der Paläographie vom Herausgeber zu Recht unter Philadelphus datiert. Für eine Frühdatierung spricht auch der Gebrauch
des Verbs ἔχομεν, das als eine Variante des alten ἔχει-Formulars begriffen werden muss.
12
O.Louvre 51, S. 106, aus einem 24. Jahr, bezeugt die Salzsteuerzahlung einer Frau in Höhe von 3 Obolen. Der Betrag passt
nur zu der A- oder B-Rate der Salzsteuer: Das 24. Jahr muss demnach unter Philadelphus gehören, weil unter Euergetes im
24. Jahr schon die C-Rate gilt. O.Louvre 51 stammt vom 20. 9. 261 v. Chr.
13
Datum korrigiert v. B. Muhs, BASP 33, 1996, 180; s.a. Demotic BL, vol. B, App. § 10, n. 2.
14
Die griechischen Ostraka der Ausgrabungen des DAI Kairo in Elephantine (O.Eleph.) bis einschließlich 2009 sowie
die griechischen Ostraka des Louvre (OGL) aus Elephantine werden in Fortsetzung zu G. Wagners O.Eleph. DAIK von mir
veröffentlicht werden.
15
Die Lesung des Steuerbetrags wurde korrigiert zu 4, 5 Oboloi, siehe O.Vleem., S. 35, n. 75.
16
Nach Auskunft von F. Hoffmann verzeichnet der demotische Text die Zahlung einer Frau in Höhe von 3 Obolen am
21. Mesore des 29. Jahres des Philadelphus.
256–255 30 A O.Eleph. 4231 ined. U. διὰ Πετεπῖφι

256–255 30? A OGL 1454 ined. U. διὰ Πετεπῖφι
8.11.255 30? A O.Eleph.DAIK 28118 U. διὰ Πετεπίφιος
11.10.254 31 A O.Eleph.DAIK 28319 U. διὰ Πετεπ[ ]
O.Louvre 57 255–254 31 A
254–253 32 B O.Louvre 1389 U. ἁλικῆς 3 O.

17.5.253 32 B O.Vleem. 14 U. ἁλικῆς J.32. dem. Petepiphe
24.8.253 32/33F? B O.Louvre 893 U. J. 33?20 διὰ [ ]ρευ?
7.11.253 33 B O.Louvre 61 U. ἁλικῆς 3 O.
1.8.252 33/34F B O.Vleem. 15 U. ἁλικῆς d. 34. J.
14.11.252 34 B O.Brookl. 33 U. ἁλικῆς d. 34. J.
17.6.251 35F ? O.Vleem. 16 gr. πέπτωκεν Ἀλέξει
18.6.251 35F B O.Vleem. 17 gr. ἔχει Δῶρος + U. διὰ Πετεπίφιος
18.6.251 35F B 14 (OGL 132) gr. ἔχει Δῶρος + U.gr. + dem.
11.7.251 34/35F B 15 (OGL 1834) gr. ἔχει Δῶρος + U.gr. + dem.
31.7.251 35F B O.Vleem. 18 gr. ἔχει Δῶρος + U.dem. Petepiphe
27.6.250 35 B O.Mattha 132 U. διὰ Δώρου 1D. 3O.
20.1.249 36 B O.Louvre 900 U. διὰ Δώρου 3 O.
O.Louvre 268 29.5.249 36 B
18.6.249 36 B O.Louvre 68 U. διὰ Δώρου 3 O.
22.6.249 36 B O.Vleem. 19 U. διὰ Δώρου 3 O.
4.7.249 36 B O.Vleem. 20 U. διὰ Δώρου 3 O.
4.2.248 37F B O.Vleem. 21 gr. πέπτωκεν Ἀσκληπιάδει + dem.U.
O.Louvre 264 17.9.248 37 B
O.Louvre 784 249–248 37 B
248–247 38 ? O.Louvre 60 U. διὰ Ψενῦρ ἁλικῆς ---
O.Louvre 271 248–247 38 ?
O.Louvre 278 16.11.247 39 B
22.12.247 39 B 16 (OGL 1851) gr. πέπτωκεν + U. διὰ Δώρου 1D.
O.Louvre 871 Ptol. II 32–39? B
Euergetes
O.Louvre 1404 Ptol II/III ? B
O.Louvre 53 11.9.245 2 B
O.Louvre 46 11.10.245 2 B
17
Der Herausgeber D. Devauchelle zögerte, O.Louvre 575 als Salzsteuerquittung zu klassifizieren, weil der Steuertitel nicht
sicher gelesen war und der Betrag von 4 Oboloi nicht zur A-Rate passte, siehe S. 196, Komm. zu Z. 2. Man sollte jedoch nach
Auskunft von S. Vleeming genau wie in O.Louvre 935 (siehe Fußnote 15) den Betrag als 4,5 Oboloi lesen.
18
Der demotische Text gibt nach Auskunft von F. Hoffmann das Datum: J. 31, 14. Thoth, für Salzsteuer(?) d. J. 30. Die
Zahlung stammt von einem Mann.
19
Nach Auskunft von F. Hoffmann enthält der demotische Text eine Zahlung eines Mannes vom 21. Mesore des 31. Jahres.
Der Betrag ist nicht vollständig erhalten, aus der Lücke ragt ½ Ob.; dies könnte nach O.Louvre 935 und möglicherweise
O.Louvre 575 zu 4, 5 Ob. ergänzt werden, siehe Fußnote 15. Dies ist der spätestdatierte Beleg für die A-Rate der Salzsteuer.
20
O.Louvre 893 gibt in der griechischen Unterschrift Z. 4 ein unsicher gelesenes 32. Jahr. Weil die demotische Quittung
das Datum 4. Epeiph des 32. Jahres trägt, müsste aber in der griechischen Unterschrift das 33. Finanzjahr erscheinen. Die
verwirrenden Spuren der Zeichnung Pl. 67 könnten mit dieser Lesung erklärt werden.
O.Louvre 63 1.5.244 3 B
O.Louvre 307 244–243 4 B
O.Louvre 55 20.11.242 6 B
O.Louvre 266 30.7.241 6 B
O.Vleem. 26 23.4.239 8 B
O.Louvre 65 22.8.235 12 B
O.Louvre 317 III 2–16? B
16.3.231 16 C+Sy.lo. O.Vleem. 27 gr. (ohne Verb) + dem.U.
O.Louvre 47 9.8.231 16 B
26.8.231 16 C O.Louvre 141 U. ἔγραψεν Ἀσκληπιάδης
27.7. 230 17/18F C O.Louvre 661 U. δι᾿ Ἀπολλωνίου Πανεχᾶτις...
230–229 18 C O.Louvre 66 U. διὰ Πραξιάδου
O.Louvre 54 229–228 18/19 C
O.Louvre 169 10.8.227 20 C
O.Louvre 56 225–224 23 C + Sy.lo.21
O.Louvre 48 225–224 23 C
O.Louvre 49 III ? C
20.4.223 25F C O.Vleem. 28 gr. τέτακται διὰ [ ] + dem.U.
5.7.223 25F C 18 (OGL 1182) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου
13.3.222 25 C O.Vleem. 29 gr. τέτακται + dem.U.
14.3.222 25 C 19 (OGL 1835) gr. τέτακται + dem.U.
18.3.222 26F Sy.lo. 20 (OGL 117) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
Philopator
22.3.221 1 C O.Vleem. 22 gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
27.3.221 1 C O.Vleem. 23 gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου
8.5.220 2F Sy.lo. 21 (OGL. 103) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου
5.6.220 2/3F C O.Vleem. 24 gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
4/5 219 4F Sy.lo. 22 (OGL 129) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
21.5.219 4F C+Sy.lo. O.Vleem. 25 gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
1.7. 217 6F C 23 (OGL 150) gr. τέ(τακται) διὰ Δώρου
27.6.216 7F C O.El.DAIK 284 gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
4.3. 211 11 C 24 (OGL 1836) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου + dem.U.
212–211 11 ? 25 (OGL 1360) gr. τέτακται διὰ Δώρου
Wie im ganzen Land, liegt der Steuereinzug auch in Elephantine zu Anfang der griechischen
Herrschaft überwiegend in ägyptischen Händen22, und die Ptolemäer haben zunächst bestehende Struk-
turen im Steuereinzug und damit auch das bewährte Personal23 weitgehend übernommen. Die griechische
21
Die zusätzliche Steuer wird mit ihrem demotischen Namen HD orß bezeichnet, die in Elephantine/Syene das Äquivalent
der griechischen Συηνιτῶν λογεία ist, vgl. auch zu 20, 2–3.
22
Eine Übersicht über sämtliche (d.h. demotische und griechische) Steuerquittungen der Zeit bei J. Locher, Topographie
und Geschichte der Region am ersten Nilkatarakt in griechisch-römischer Zeit (APF Beiheft V), Stuttgart 1999, Anhang I:
Steuerquittungen, 297–300, macht die Verhältnisse deutlich: Im 3. Jh. stehen ca. 150 demotische Belege ca. 30 Belegen mit
griechischer Beteiligung gegenüber; vgl. auch R. Bogaert, Trapezitica aegyptiaca: recueil de recherches sur la banque en
Égypte gréco-romaine (Pap.Flor. XXV), Firenze 1994, 279. Zum Vergleich der Thebanischen Verhältnisse haben wir jetzt
B. Muhs wertvolle Aufarbeitung des demotischen und griechischen Materials in seinen Tax Receipts, und in O.Taxes 2
(= B. Muhs, Receipts, Scribes, and Collectors in Early Ptolemaic Thebes [Stud. Demotica VIII] Leuven 2011).
23
Der bekannte Petepiphis, der in mehreren Salzsteuerquittungen eine griechische Unterschrift anbringt, ist schon vor dem
22. Jahr als Schreiber in demotischen Quittungen für andere Steuern bezeugt, vgl. B. Muhs, ‘The Chronology of the Reign
Verwaltung macht sich zum ersten Mal beim Einzug der Salzsteuer bemerkbar, die eine Neuschöpfung der
Ptolemäer im 22. Jahr von Philadelphus war und die ältere (nur demotisch belegte) Jochsteuer ersetzte24.
Doch selbst bei der “griechischen” Salzsteuer wurde der praktische Steuereinzug zu einem großen Teil
durch ägyptische Schreiber bewerkstelligt, die griechische Seite manifestiert sich an mehr oder weniger
umfänglichen Unterschriften der Erheber, die zunächst keinem gefestigten Formular folgen. Angesichts
der überwältigenden Überzahl an demotischen Quittungen in anderen Steuerarten gegenüber Belegen mit
griechischer Beteiligung im 3. Jh. entsteht der Eindruck, dass die Ptolemäer nur allmählich und punktuell
Anpassungen an die griechischen Bedürfnisse durchführten. Die Salzsteuer bleibt zunächst bis gegen Ende
des 3. Jh. die einzige Steuerart in Elephantine/Syene, an der die Griechen ein deutlich greifbares Interesse
zeigen. Dies mag seinen Grund darin haben, dass sie als Kopfsteuer dazu geeignet war, die gesamte
Bevölkerung steuerlich zu erfassen. Mit der aktiven Teilnahme am Einzug dieser Steuer erhielt die
griechische Verwaltung Zugriff auf die Rohdaten, die dann in detaillierte Steuerlisten eingingen, wie
sie in P.Count. versammelt sind.
Vom Jahr der Einführung bis zum Ende der Regierungszeit des Philadelphus ist die griechisch-
sprachige Beteiligung an den Salzsteuerquittungen sehr hoch, im 35. Jahr kann durch die Aktivität des
Doros, der in diesem Jahr erstmals eine rein griechische Quittungsform einführt, vielleicht eine stärkere
Gräzisierung des Steuereinzugs konstatiert werden; dazu passen die ersten griechischen Bankquittungen
aus den Jahren 35–39 des Philadelphus, vgl. auch unten zu 16, 1. Beide Formen setzen sich aber nicht
durch, eher im Gegenteil: Zu Beginn der Regierung Euergetes sind für etliche Jahre wiederum nur rein
demotische Quittungen zu greifen. Griechische Unterschriften zu demotischen Quittungen tauchen erst
wieder sporadisch ab dem Jahr 16 auf.
Eine deutliche Veränderung ergibt sich erst mit der zweiten Tätigkeitsperiode von Doros. Ab dem
25. Jahr des Euergetes setzt sich mit dem neuen τέτακται-Formular die griechische Quittungsform durch,
die nun mit demotischen Unterschriften versehen werden. Die Verhältnisse haben sich verkehrt, eine
aktivere Rolle der griechischen Steuerverwaltung scheint sich bei der Salzsteuer damit zu manifestieren.
Für vier neue Belege der Salzsteuer der C-Rate aus den Jahren 6, 7 und 11, von denen wir drei
neue Belege aus dem Louvre (10–12) hier vorstellen und zu denen außerdem auch O.Eleph. DAIK 284
gehört, ergibt sich daher die Schwierigkeit, ob sie unter Euergetes oder unter Philopator zu datieren sind.
23 OGL 150 J. 6 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr.

O.Eleph. DAIK 284 J. 7 Salz C τέτακται διὰ Δώρου gr. / dem U.
Nach den Tabellen von Clarysse—Thompson könnten diese Quittungen zwar ohne weiteres unter
Euergetes zu plazieren sein, weil ab dessen 5. Jahr die C-Rate der Salzsteuer nachgewiesen ist, womit sich
wiederum das bekannte Nebeneinander zweier Steuerraten (B + C) einstellen würde25. Jedoch erscheint
merkwürdig, dass die Belege der C-Rate nur von einem einzigen griechischen Erheber, nämlich Doros
stammten, während die rein demotischen Quittungen verschiedener Schreiber zwischen den Jahren 1
und 16 stets die B-Rate verzeichnen. Stärker noch wiegt der Gebrauch des τέτακται-Formulars, das nur
von Doros in seiner zweiten Tätigkeitsperiode um den Regierungswechsel von Euergetes zu Philopator
gebraucht wird; er zwingt förmlich dazu, die vier neuen Belege an diese späte Periode anschließen zu
lassen und sie unter Philopator zu datieren. Dementsprechend habe ich sie oben in der Tabelle als die vier
of Ptolemy II Reconsidered: The Evidence of the Nhb and Nht Tax Receipts’, in A. M. F. W. Verhoogt und S. P. Vleeming
(hrsg.), The Two Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to
P.W. Pestman (Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXX), Leiden 1998, 74.
24
Vgl. Clarysse—Thompson, Counting the People, II, 39f.
25
Clarysse—Thompson, Counting the People, II, 44ff.
letzten eingefügt. Damit wäre die Salzsteuer nun später als bisher unter Philopator nachzuweisen und ließe
sich bis in das Jahr 211 v. Chr. verfolgen.
Wollte man die neuen Belege aus dem 6., 7. und 11. Jahr dennoch unter Euergetes plazieren,
würde die τέτακται-Formel sehr früh und vereinzelt von Doros als einzigem Griechen verwendet26,
während andere griechische Erheber noch im alten Stil ihre Unterschriften ‘διὰ NN’ anbrachten oder gar
die seltene ἔγραψεν-Formel gebrauchten, vgl. oben die Tabelle. Im Übrigen würde durch die Ansetzung
dieser neuen Belege unter Euergetes die Trennung in zwei Tätigkeits-Perioden in Frage gestellt, man
könnte geradezu im Gegenteil die Kontinuität der Belege behaupten und wieder für die Karriere einer
einzigen Person namens Doros votieren.27 Damit wäre auch die Umdatierung der Belege der Jahre 1–4
angesichts der neuen Belege in den Jahren 6, 7 und 11 in Zweifel zu ziehen und gleichzeitig die Argu-
mentation zum Einführungstermin der Salzsteuerrate C in Frage zu stellen, um derentwillen Clarysse—
Thompson zuerst die Belege zu Doros untersuchten. Ist also alles wieder offen? Möglicherweise. Ich
votiere jedoch einstweilen – bis neue Zeugnisse erscheinen – für eine Spätdatierung der fraglichen Texte in
die Regierungszeit des Philopator. Das Nebeneinander der B- und C-Rate scheint demnach in Elephantine
nicht vorgekommen zu sein. Vielleicht müssen auch in anderen Regionen die Datierungen und Steuerraten
erneut überprüft werden.
Griechische Ostraka aus der Sammlung des Louvre

[Die demotischen Unterschriften wurden bearbeitet von S. P. Vleeming]
14. Quittung für Salzsteuer

OGL inv. 132 7,2 x 9,7 cm 18. Juni 251 v.Chr. (Finanzjahr)
(ἔτους) λε Φαρμοῦθι κζ. ἔχει
Δῶρος παρὰ Σμῆτ Ψα-
μητίχου ἁλικῆς τοῦ
4 λε (ἔτους) (δραχμὴν) α.
(2.Η.) ἁλικῆς (δραχμὴ) α.
(3.Η.) cx – – – – – s# P#-Sr-t#-iH.t.
1 4 𐅵 5𐅵
Jahr 35, Pharmuthi 27. Empfangen hat Doros von Smet, S. d. Psametichos, für Salzsteuer des 35. Jahres 1
(Drachme). 2.Η. Für Salzsteuer 1 (Drachme). 3.Η. (dem.) Es hat geschrieben - - - - - - -, S. d. Psentaes.
1 Alle griechischen Steuerquittungen dieser Zeit sind üblicherweise nach dem Finanzjahr datiert,
das am 1. Mechir des laufenden ägyptischen Jahres beginnt, vgl. auch zu 20, 2 und O.Vleem.,
S. 38f. Vom selben Tag stammt O.Vleem. 17.
26
Es gibt unter den unveröffentlichten Ostraka der Ausgrabungen des DAI Kairo auf Elephantine eine einzige zwei-
sprachige Quittung des Petepiphis aus dem 29. Jahr des Philadelphus (257–256), Ο.Eleph.DAIK inv. 4457, wo in der
griechischen Unterschrift zur demotischen Quittung das Verb τέτακται verwendet wird: Τέτακται Βούβαλος ἁλικῆς (3 Ob.).
Vielleicht darf man annehmen, dass das Verb τέτακται eine spontane Wiedergabe des demotischen in (bringen, bezahlen)
darstellt, wenn es der zweisprachige Petepiphis hier in der griechischen Unterschrift benutzt. Das Verb hat sich aber noch
nicht zum signifikanten Formularbestandteil der griechischen Quittungen entwickelt, vgl. auch die Bemerkungen von
Clarysse—Thompson, ‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 225f. mit Bewertung weiterer Belege aus dem Fayum.
27
Die Frage, ob es sich um eine oder zwei Personen namens Doros handelt, ist letztlich nicht zu beantworten: Es erscheint
zwar unwahrscheinlich, dass derselbe Mann über fast vierzig Jahre (250–245 und 223–211) in der Steuererhebung gewirkt
haben soll, es ist aber nicht unmöglich.
Das ἔχει-Formular benutzt in Elephantine nur Doros; vgl. die Beispiele aus dem thebanischen
Bereich bei B. Muhs, O.Taxes 2, S. 252–254, und F. Uebel, ‘Ostraka aus frühptolemäischer Zeit’,
APF 19, 1969, 69–73.
2–3 Der Name des Zahlers erscheint hier endungslos und undekliniert, wie auch sonst noch öfter im
3. Jh. v. Chr., vgl. z.B. auch Imout in 23, 2. Die Silbe smet- kehrt auch an anderer Stelle als Bilde-
silbe elephantinischer Namen häufig wieder, vgl. H. de Meulenaere, ‘L’Enseigne sacrée du dieu
Khnoum dans l’onomastique gréco-égyptienne’, CdÉ 75, 2000, 235–240; vgl. auch zu 15, 2–3.
5 Die erste griechische Unterschrift läßt sich durch die eigentümliche Schrift dem Petepiphis zuord-
nen, der in O.Vleem. 17 und wahrscheinlich auch in 15 eine Unterschrift anbringt. In O.Vleem. 18
unterschreibt derselbe Petepiphis in demotisch. Auch die Unterschriften zu den demotischen
Quittungen O.Vleem. 14 und 15 gehören derselben Hand, obwohl der Name des Petepiphis dort
nicht erscheint.
No. 14

OGL 1834 7,7 x 5,8 cm 11. Juli 251 v.Chr. (Finanzjahr)
(ἔτους) λε Παχὼ̣[νς κ. ἔχει Δῶρος]
παρὰ Σ̣μή̣[θιος? ἁλικῆς]
τοῦ λε (ἔτους) [(δραχμὴν) α]
4 (2.Η.) ἁλικῆς (δραχμὴ) α̣ [ ]
(3.Η.) [cx H#.t-sp 34] ?ibd-1 Smw? sw 20.
1 3 5𐅵
Jahr 35, Pachon [20. Empfangen hat Doros] von Sme[this? für Salzsteuer] des 35. Jahres [1 Dr.] 2.H. Für
Salzsteuer 1 Dr.[ ] 3.H. (dem.) [Geschrieben im J. 34], ?1. M. Smw-Saison?, Tag 20.
1 Das Tagesdatum, das hier nicht erhalten ist, läßt sich durch die demotische Unterschrift in Z. 5
ergänzen.
2 Ich schlage exempli gratia Smethis als Ergänzung vor, weil der Name sehr häufig in Elephantine
vorkommt, vgl. auch 14, 2–3 Smet(is), S. d. Psametichos, und O.Vleem. 17, 2, Smetbelles.
4 Ich vermute einen Schreiberwechsel in Z. 4 wie in den Vergleichsstücken 14, 5 und O.Vleem. 17,
4. Die Spuren sind zwar schwach, aber das wiederholte ἁλικῆς, das in Z. 2 formulargemäß ergänzt
werden muss, spricht dafür.
No. 15
16. Bankquittung für Salzsteuer

OGL 1851 10 x 6,2 cm 22. Dezember 247 v.Chr.
(ἔτους) λθ Φαῶφι λ. διὰ Πτο-
λεμαίου πέπτωκεν ἐπ̣[ὶ]
τὴν ἐν Συήνηι τράπεζαν̣
4 Φί̣λωνι τραπεζίτηι ἁλι-
κ̣ῶ̣ν εἰς τὸ λθ (ἔτους) παρὰ
Πραξιάδου ⸌ὑπὲρ Βότρυος⸍ χαλκοῦ
(δραχμὴν) μίαν, ἐπ̣α̣λλαγ̣[ὴ] (ἡμιωβέλιον).
8 (2.Η.) διὰ Δώρου (δραχμὴ) α.
1 5 7ͱ  8𐅵
Jahr 39, Phaophi 30. Durch Ptolemaios wurde eingezahlt bei der Bank in Syene dem Bankier Philon für
Salzsteuer für das 39. Jahr von Praxiades für Botrys Kupfer(drachme) eine, Agio 0,5 Obol. 2.H. Durch
Doros 1 Dr.
1 Diese Quittung wurde als einzige von allen hier vorgestellten Texten eindeutig mit einem Kalamos
geschrieben, dem typischen Schreibgerät der griechischen Schreiber der Bankquittungen von
Syene, vgl. O.Vleem. 13 und 21, 31A. Dagegen wurden die Erheberquittungen 14–15 und
17–25, einerlei ob zweisprachig oder griechisch, mit einer Binse, dem Schreibgerät der
demotischen Schreiber, geschrieben, vgl. dazu O.Vleem., S. 36–38; daran zeigt sich das
durch und durch ägyptische Milieu des Steuereinzugsgeschäfts des 3. Jh.
1–4 Der durch διά eingeführte Mann namens Ptolemaios dürfte als Assistent oder Vertreter des
Bankiers Philon in Z. 4 betrachtet werden, denn es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass er identisch ist
mit dem gleichnamigen Gehilfen des Bankiers Apollonios aus der Bankquittung O.Vleem. 21
vom Vorjahr. Die Vorstände der Bank wechseln oft, möglicherweise jährlich, wie aus der Tabelle
hervorgeht, und immer handelt es sich um Griechen.
J. 35: Alexis O.Vleem. 16
J. 37: Asklepiades O.Vleem. 21
J. 38: Apollonios O.Vleem. 13
J. 39: Philon 16 (OGL 1851)
4 Die Lesung des Namens verdanke ich W.Clarysse; vom ι ist nur der obere Ansatz zu sehen, der am
φ hängt. Der Rest ist möglicherweise abgerieben oder abgeplatzt.
6 Der Name Praxiades ist aus einer griechischen Unterschrift zu der demotischen Salzsteuerquittung
O.Louvre 66 aus dem 18. Jahr des Euergetes, 230–229 v.Chr. bekannt, d.h. dort übt jener Praxiades
eine offizielle Funktion bei der Steuererhebung aus, sei es als Steuerpächter oder als staatlicher
Steuererheber. In unserer Quittung tätigt Praxiades für einen gewissen Botrys (Lesung von
W. Clarysse) die Zahlung, daher kann man entweder an eine private Vertretung oder auch an eine
offizielle Vermittlung denken. Wenn wir aufgrund des seltenen Namens eine Identifikation
erwägen wollten, dürften wir ihm auch hier eine offizielle Funktion unterstellen. Der eigentliche
Zahler müßte dann Botrys sein.
7 Zur epallage, einem Agio, d.h. einer Wechselgebühr von Silber- in Kupfergeld, vgl. O.Vleem. 13,
mit Komm. (gg), S. 34. R. Bogaert, Trapezitica
Aegyptiaca, 59ff. mit Literatur und Diskussion.
Siehe auch K. Maresch, Bronze und Silber (Pap.
Colon. XXV), Opladen 1996., 2, 18 und 89–95.
8 In welcher Funktion Doros hier unterschreibt,
bleibt undeutlich. Es scheint mir jedoch klar,
dass er ausserhalb des Bankapparates steht, sonst
wäre er innerhalb der Quittung genannt. Da
aber womöglich auch Praxiades eine offizielle
Stellung bei der Steuererhebung einnimmt, wäre
die Beziehung zwischen ihm und Doros näher zu
bestimmen. Entweder ist Doros der Steuerpächter
und Praxiades sein ausführender Gehilfe, oder
aber Praxiades ist der Steuerpächter und Doros
ein kontrollierender staatlicher Beamter, wie
er manchmal in den thebanischen Ostraka vor-
kommt und dort als Logeutes bezeichnet wird,
vgl. B. Muhs, O.Taxes 2, S. 252–255. Da in den
elephantinischen Ostraka an keiner Stelle ein
Titel genannt wird, ist es bisher nicht möglich,
eine sichere Bestimmung der Funktion der
beteiligten Akteure zu leisten.
No. 16
17. Quittung für Myropsike

OGL 100 6,1 x 7,4 cm 21. Dezember 245 v.Chr.
(ἔτους) γ Φαῶφι γ. ἔχει
Δῶρος παρὰ Ὀ̣σ̣ορο-
ήριος μυροψ̣ικ̣ ῆς
4 (δραχμὴν) μίαν.
(2.Η.) [Ibd-2(?)] #X.t sw 3.
1 3 l. μυρεψικῆς 4𐅵
Jahr 3, Phaophi 3. Empfangen hat Doros von Osoroeris für myropsike eine (Drachme). 2.H. (dem.)
[Pha]ophi 3.
1 Da die Quittung in dem altertümlichen ἔχει-Formular abgefasst ist, das Doros auch schon im 35.
Jahr des Philadelphus gebraucht, dürfte die Zuweisung des dritten Jahres zur Regierungszeit des
Nachfolgers Euergetes als gesichert gelten. Auch die prosopographische Verbindung zu O.Vleem.
11A spricht für diese Ansetzung, vgl. zu 2–3.
2–3 Der Zahler Osoroeris dürfte identisch sein mit dem Zahler gleichen Namens in O.Vleem. 11A,
einer Quittung für eine Biermonopolsteuer, ζύθου τιμή, die ebenfalls von Doros unterschrieben
wurde. O.Vleem. 11A bezeugt eine Zahlung von 2 Drachmen für die Monate Mechir und Phame-
noth: τοῦ Μεχὶρ καὶ Φαμενὼθ (δρ.) β. Bei näherer Betrachtung des Drachmen-Zeichens scheint
mir jedoch die Deutung als ἔτους-Zeichen wahrscheinlicher, woraus sich die Lesart τοῦ Μεχὶρ καὶ
Φαμενὼθ (ἔτους) β ergibt. Wir erhalten dann statt des Steuerbetrags die Angabe des Steuerjahrs
und können daher die Quittung auf das 2. Jahr des Euergetes datieren. Damit fügt sich diese
Quittung in die oben angegebene erste Tätigkeitsperiode des Doros ein und datiert aus dem Jahr
vor der vorliegenden Quittung.
3 Die Steuer μυροψική , bzw. μυρεψική, wie es in den Lexika erscheint, ist noch nicht belegt. Wir
kennen aus den Papyri Belege für μυρεψεῖν (P.Lond. VII 2192 = SB X 10296, 7) und μυρεψός
(SB XXIV, 16000, 588 und 595). Jedoch ist gleichermaßen die Form μυρoψός (P.Naqlun I, 9, 2.
12. 23. 27. 28. 29. 36 und P.Oxy LXII 4349, 5 μυλοψοῦ, l. μυροψοῦ / μυρεψοῦ) und μυροψία in
dem elephantinischen O.Bodl. II 1701, 7 bezeugt. Es handelt sich daher vielleicht nicht um einen
Schreibfehler, sondern um eine Nebenform, die als falsche Analogbildung zu Komposita wie
μυροπώλης aufgefasst werden kann, siehe
dazu T. Derda, P. Naqlun I, 9, Komm. zu Z. 2.
Die Steuer gehört in den Bereich der Parfüm-
bzw. (Duft-) Salbenherstellung, den wir durch
den Steuertitel μύρου τετάρτη aus den theba-
nischen Ostraka kennen, siehe O.Cairo 20
und SB VI 9416. Vgl. die Erstedition durch
Cl. Preaux in CdÉ 28, 109–112, und dieselbe,
L’ Economie royale des Lagides, Brussels
1939, 366–368. Die myropsike/myrepsike
muss sich auf die Herstellung von Salben
beziehen und könnte demnach eine Art
Gewerbesteuer sein.
No. 17

(ἔτους) κε Παχὼνς κα̣. τ̣έ-
τ̣ακται Ταμεηοκ
ἁλικῆς διὰ Δώρου̣
4 (ὀβολὸν) (ἡμιωβέλιον).
(2.Η.) cx Csbß n H#.t-sp 25 ibd-1 Smw (sw) 21.
1 4 𐅼
Jahr 25, Pachon 21. Es hat gezahlt Tameeok(?) für Salzsteuer durch Doros 1,5 Oboloi. 2.H. (dem.) Es hat
geschrieben Shasbat, Jahr 25, 1. Monat d. Smw-Saison, Tag 21.
2 Der Name der Zahlerin ist rätselhaft, die

Lesung scheint aber sicher genug.
5 Dieser Schreiber ist zu identifizieren mit
dem Shasbat aus Ostr. Varia 22, 24, und
28–29, dessen Lesung von W. Clarysse
angezweifelt wurde (Clarysse—Thompson,
‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 227: ‘.sbt’).
No. 18

OGL1835 4,8 x 7,9 cm 14. März 222 v.Chr.
(ἔτους) κ̣ε̣ Τῦβι κη.
τέτακται Πᾶτις
ἁλικῆς (τετρώβολον), Τιλοῦς
4 μήτηρ (ὀβολὸν) (ἡμιωβέλιον) (τέταρτον).
(2.Η.) cx Csbß (n) H#.t-sp 25 ibd-1 pr.t (sw) 28.
1 3𐅿 4𐅼𐅵
Jahr 25, Tybi 28. Es hat gezahlt Patis für Salzsteuer 4 Ob., (und) Tilus, seine Mutter, 1,75 Oboloi.
2.H. (dem.) Es hat geschrieben Shasbat, J. 25, 1. Monat der Peret-Saison, Tag 28.
2 Der Zahler Patis erscheint gleichfalls ohne Vaternamen in 24 (OGL 1836) aus dem 11. Jahr des
Philopator, wo er für sich und seine Mutter Tilus die Salzsteuer entrichtet; dort gehört inzwischen
aber noch eine Ehefrau zur Familie. Ob er mit dem Patis, S. d. Imuthes, aus 20, 21 und 22 gleich-
zusetzen ist, wage ich ohne Filiation nicht zu entscheiden.
4 Nach dem erwarteten Steuerbetrag der C-Rate von 1,5 Oboloi für die Mutter folgt noch deutlich
sichtbar ein weiteres Zeichen, das beinahe aussieht wie ein Drachmen-Zeichen. W. Clarysse
identifiziert es eindeutig als Zeichen für (τέταρτον) = ¼ Obolos, wie es beispielsweise auch
in P.Count. 17, frg.b, rto. 35 oder P.Count. 24, 2–5 und öfter erscheint. Dieser zusätzliche Betrag
ist mir unerklärlich; es gibt keine Parallele für eine derartige Abweichung zur Zeit der C-Rate.
No. 19
20. Quittung für Syeniton logeia

OGL 117 7 x 12,2 cm 18. März 222 v.Chr. (Finanzjahr)
(ἔτους) κς Μεχὶρ β. τέτακται
Πᾶτις Ἰμούθου Συηνιτῶν
λογείαν διὰ Δώρου (δραχμὰς) β.
4 (2.H.) cx P#-wD#-mtw=f (s#) P#-Sr-vwtw
1 4𐅵
Jahr 26, Mechir 2. Es hat gezahlt Patis, S. d. Imuthes, für die Abgabe der Syeniten, durch Doros,
2 (Drachmen). 2.H. (dem.) Es hat geschrieben P#-wD#-mtw=f, S. d. Psentotοes.
1 Diese Datierung ist ein klares Beispiel für die Praxis der griechischen Schreiber, Steuerquittungen
nach dem Finanzjahr zu datieren, auch wenn dies nirgends ausdrücklich gesagt wird. Die Regie-
rung des Ptol. III. Euergetes endet im seinem 26. Regierungsjahr zwischen 21. Choiak und 2. Tybi.
Ein Quittungsdatum vom 2. Mechir im 26. Jahr des ägyptischen Zivilkalenders kann es daher
nicht mehr geben, weil es etwa um einen Monat nach dem tatsächlichen Herrschaftwechsel läge.
Das Finanzjahr beginnt im laufenden 25. ägyptischen Jahr, ab dem 1. Mechir schreibt man schon
das neue 26. Finanzjahr, vgl. dazu O.Vleem, S. 38f. Die Quittung stammt daher vom 2. Mechir
des 25. Regierungsjahres (= 26. Finanzjahres), also vom 18. März 222 v.Chr.
2 Der Zahler Patis, S. d. Imuthes, ist ohne Zweifel derselbe, der in den beiden folgenden Quittungen
21 und 22 ebenfalls die Abgabe der Syeniten bei Doros bezahlt. Aus den drei Quittungen 20, 21
und 22 aus dem 25. (= 26. Finanz-)Jahr, bzw. aus dem 2. und 4. (Finanz-)Jahr, die offensichtlich in
engem Abstand um den Regierungswechsel von Euergetes zu Philopator anzusetzen sind, läßt sich
daher auch durch die Identifizierung des Zahlers die zeitliche Anbindung der Doros-Quittungen
in der τέτακται-Form an diesen Regierungswechsel bestätigen, wie sie durch Clarysse—Thompson
schon aus anderen Gründen gefordert wurde, vgl. ‘The Salt-Tax Rate’, 224–228.
2–3 Syeniton logeia, die Abgabe der Syeniten, ist in Elephantine das griechische Äquivalent zu
demotischem HD orß, einer Ersatzzahlung für liturgische Arbeiten, die in Theben unter dem Namen
leitourgikon bekannt ist, siehe O.Vleem. 25, S. 59, note (pp). B. Muhs hat zuletzt sämtliche Belege
und den Zusammenhang zwischen staatlicher Zwangsarbeit, Abgaben für (statt) Zwangsarbeit und
den Deichsteuer-Quittungen aufgearbeitet, siehe Tax Receipts, 57–60. Die gesamte männliche
Bevölkerung war zur liturgischen Arbeit oder zu einer Ersatzzahlung in Höhe von 2 Drachmen
verpflichtet; dementsprechend lässt sich diese ‘Abgabe der Syeniten’ als eine Art Kopfsteuer
betrachten, die gelegentlich zusammen mit der Salzsteuer bezahlt wird.
4 Der Schreiber P#-wD#-mtw=f, S. d. Psentotοes, ist auch bezeugt in O.Louvre 56 (S. 32) vom
23. Jahr des Euergetes. Die Lesung des Namens verdanken wir F. Hoffmann.
No. 20

OGL 103 7,4 x 7,7 cm 8. Mai 221 v.Chr. (Finanzjahr)
(ἔτους) β Παμενὼθ κδ. τέτακ-
τ̣αι Πᾶτις Ἰμούθου
Συηνιτῶν λογείαν διὰ
4 Δώρου (δραχμὰς) β.
1 l. Φαμενὼθ 4𐅵
Jahr 2, Phamenoth 24. Es hat gezahlt Patis, S. d. Imuthes, für die Abgabe der Syeniten, durch Doros,
2 (Drachmen).
2 Zum Zahler vgl. die Bemerkungen zu 20, 2.

3 Zur Steuer vgl. die Bemerkungen zu 20, 2–3.
No. 21

OGL 129 6,3 x 8,5 cm 15. April–14. Mai 219 v.Chr. (Finanzjahr)
(ἔτους) δ̣ Φαμενὼθ ̣ ̣ [τέτακται]
Πᾶτις Ἰμούθ[ου] Σ̣υ̣η̣ν[̣ ιτῶν]
λογείαν δ̣ι̣ὰ̣ Δ̣[ώρου] (δ̣ρ̣α̣χ̣μ̣ὰ̣ς̣) β̣.
4 cx dem. Spuren
dem. Spuren
1 3𐅵
Jahr 4, Phamenoth ?[ Es hat gezahlt] Patis,

S. d. Imuthes, für die Abgabe der Syeniten,
durch Doros, 2 (Drachmen). 2.H. (dem.)
Geschrieben ---
2 Zum Zahler vgl. die Bemerkungen

zu 20, 2.
2–3 Zur Steuer vgl. die Bemerkungen
zu 20, 2–3.
4–5 Die demotische Unterschrift ist
stark abgerieben und schwerlich
zu entziffern.
No. 22

(ἔτους) ς̣ Παχὼνς ιθ. τέ̣(τακται)
Ἰμουτ Ἁύγχιος διὰ
Δώρου (τετρώβολον), Ταω̣ρ̣ γ[υ(νὴ) (ὀβολὸν) (ἡμιωβέλιον).]
1 3𐅿 𐅼
Jahr 6, Pachons 19. Es hat gezahlt Imut, S. d. Haunchis, durch Doros, 4 Oboloi, Tahor?, [seine Frau, 1,5 Ob.]
2 Der Name des Zahlers Imut erscheint

ohne Flexionsendung; Haynchis ist ein
Frauenname. Demnach scheint Imut sich
nach seiner Mutter zu benennen.
3 Der Name der Frau ist unsicher gelesen;
am Ende der Zeile sind kaum noch ver-
wertbare Spuren zu sehen.
No. 23

OGL 1836 7,1 x 11,8 cm 4. März 211 v.Chr.
(ἔτους) ια Τῦβι κα. τέτακται Πᾶτις
ἁλικῆς διὰ Δώρου (τετρώβολον), Τιμασι
γυ(νὴ) (ὀβολὸν) (ἡμιωβέλιον), Τιλοῦς μή(τηρ) (ὀβολὸν) (ἡμιωβέλιον).
4 (2.Η.) cx Ns-p#-mt(?) (s#) P#-di-Pp(.t)(?) p#(?) rd(?)
(n) Pa-$nm (s#) P#-Sr-Imn.
1 2𐅿 3 𐅼
Jahr 11, Tybi 21. Es hat gezahlt Patis für Salzsteuer, durch Doros, 4 Oboloi, Timasi, seine Frau 1,5 Ob.,
Tilus, seine Mutter 1,5 Ob. 2.H. (dem.) Geschrieben von Espmetis(?), Sohn des Petepiphis(?), dem (?)
Vertreter(?) des(?) Pachnumis, Sohn des Psenamunis.
1 Derselbe Zahler namens Patis erscheint mit seiner Mutter auch in 19 (OGL 1835) aus dem 25.
Jahr d. Euergetes.
No. 24

OGL 1360 4,9 x 3,9 cm 212–211 v.Chr.
(ἔτους) ια ̣ [Monat, Tag]
τέτακται Σ[ διὰ]
Δώρ̣ο̣υ ἁλι̣κ̣[ῆς ]
1
Jahr 11--- . Es hat gezahlt S--- durch Doros für Salzsteuer ---.
No. 25
Brauneberg
26. Le poète Dioscore d’Aphrodité à l’œuvre :
une première version de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18,
enkômion d’adventus du duc Kallinikos ∗
Jean-Luc Fournet
« On a beau le souhaiter : on n’est jamais sûr de publier le dernier poème de Dioscoros » écrivait P. Collart
en 1940 pour introduire l’édition d’un nouveau poème de Dioscore d’Aphrodité 1. Aussi pourrait-on douter
que l’édition d’un poème de Dioscore que j’ai le plaisir d’offrir à Roger soit vraiment un cadeau! Mais
depuis 1940, le regard porté sur Dioscore a bien changé à la faveur d’une meilleure compréhension de
la période protobyzantine, à laquelle le récipiendaire n’a pas peu contribué. Une fois appréhendée comme
un document, l’œuvre poétique de Dioscore s’est mise à révéler bien des surprises et à apporter des infor-
mations inédites, montrant ainsi combien les auteurs mineurs pouvaient améliorer notre connaissance de
la culture protobyzantine 2. Ce nouveau papyrus, qui vient enrichir le corpus que j’ai (ré)édité il y a main-
tenant douze ans, P.Aphrod.Lit. IV, ne livre pas à proprement parler un nouveau poème, mais il constitue
une autre version d’un poème déjà connu : c’est là que réside son intérêt 3.
∗
Ce papyrus a été présenté à mon séminaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études en 2009 (voir Annuaire de l’École
Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences historiques et philologiques, 141e année, 2008–2009, Paris 2010, p. 86–87)
et je remercie les auditeurs présents de leurs suggestions. Je suis reconnaissant à Rodney Ast et à Hélène Cuvigny de leurs
remarques. Je remercie enfin le Dr. Sayyed Hassan, conservateur des papyrus du Musée du Caire, de m’avoir autorisé
à étudier ce papyrus et d’avoir permis sa numérisation.
1
P.Rein. II 82 (la citation est p. 19).
2
Cf. G. Agosti, « Sul ruolo e la valutazione dei “minori” nella poesia greca tardoantica », dans L. Cristante (éd.), Incontri
triestini di Filologia classica 5, 2005–2006 (Polymnia. Studi di Filologia classica 7), Trieste 2006, p. 209–223 et l’article du
même auteur cité à la note suivante, p. 34–37.
3
Depuis les P.Aphrod.Lit. IV, aucun nouveau poème de Dioscore n’avait été édité. Son œuvre n’a pas pour autant cessé
d’intéresser les papyrologues, historiens et philologues. Ajoutons à la bibliographie des P.Aphrod.Lit. les études suivantes :
E. Livrea, « Una crux dioscorea », ZPE 137, 2001, p. 22–23 ; L. S. B. MacCoull, « Uniformis Trinitas : Once More
the Theopaschite Trinitarianism of Dioscorus of Aphrodito », GRBS 42, 2001, p. 83–96 ; J.-L. Fournet, « Dans le cabinet
d’un homme de lettres. Pratiques lettrées dans l’Égypte byzantine d’après le dossier de Dioscore d’Aphrodité » dans Chr.
Jacob (éd.), Des Alexandries II. Les Métamorphoses du Lecteur, Paris 2003, p. 59–85 ; id., « Between Literary Tradition
and Cultural Change. The Poetic and Documentary Production of Dioscorus of Aphrodite » dans A. A. MacDonald,
M. W. Twomey et G. J. Reinink (éd.), Learned Antiquity. Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman
World, and the Early Medieval West, Leuven 2003, p. 101–114 ; L. S. B. MacCoull, « Nonnus (and Dioscorus) at the Feast:
Late Antiquity and After », dans D. Accorinti et P. Chuvin (éd.), Des Géants à Dionysos. Mélanges de mythologie et de
poésie grecques offerts à Francis Vian (Hellenica. Testi e strumenti di letteratura greca antica, medievale e umanistica 10),
Alessandria 2003, p. 489–500 ; ead., « Phaëthon in Dioscorus of Aphrodito », GRBS 44, 2004, p. 93–106 ; ead., « Two
Loves I Have : Dioscorus, Apollo, Daphne, Hyacinth », Byzantion 77, 2007, p. 1–10 ; R. Cribiore, « Menander the Poet
or Menander Rhetor? An Encomium of Dioscoros Again », GRBS 48, 2008, p. 95–109 ; G. Agosti, « Il ruolo di Dioscoro
nella storia della poesia tardoantica », dans J.-L. Fournet (éd.), Les Archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur
découverte. Histoire et culture dans l’Égypte byzantine (Études d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne), Paris 2008, p. 33–54 ;
G. Schwendner, « An Applied Linguistics Approach to Dioscorus’ Homeric Glossary & Poetic Corpus », ibid., p. 55–66 ;
B. Palme, « Dioskoros und die staalichen Autoritäten », ibid., p. 203–222 ; F. Morelli, « Zwischen Poesie und Geschichte :
die “Flagornerie” des Dioskoros und der dreifache Dux Athanasios », ibid., p. 223–245 (tous deux s’appuyant sur
les poèmes de Dioscore). Dans les mêmes actes, p. 307–343, j’ai donné une « Liste des papyrus édités de l’Aphrodité
byzantine » qui recense les papyrus littéraires de Dioscore (p. 309–310). Les images des poèmes sont maintenant accessibles
(avec celles des documents) sur le site Les Archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité en images : La Banque des images des
papyrus de l’Aphrodité byzantine (BIPAb) que j’ai récemment mis en ligne (<www.misha.fr/papyrus_bipab/>). Enfin,
je signale le site de Cl. Kuehn Dioscorus of Aphrodito (<www.byzantineegypt.com/>) qui envisage de mettre en ligne
progressivement une édition critique avec traduction des poèmes de Dioscore ; pour le moment seul P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 17
est disponible (notons que l’auteur y voit, en dépit de tous les précédents éditeurs et commentateurs et contre toute
vraisemblance, un éloge de saint Théodose, mais ce n’est pas ici le lieu d’en discuter).
98 Jean-Luc Fournet
P.Cair. SR 3733 (20) 25 x 15,5 cm 567 ou 568

Aphrodité
Le présent feuillet de papyrus conserve encore les bords gauche et inférieur d’origine. Le texte du verso
incite à évaluer la hauteur d’origine à un peu moins de 30 cm, ce qui correspond à la hauteur d’un rouleau,
tandis que la largeur initiale du feuillet ne peut être reconstituée avec certitude. Les deux faces sont écrites
dans un ordre qui n'est pas facile à déterminer et sur lequel je reviendrai (j’emploie, dans l’édition, les
termes recto et verso dans leur sens matériel, eu égard aux caractéristiques physiques du rouleau de
papyrus). L’écriture est sur les deux côtés perfibrale. C’est le premier exemple d’une telle disposition
du texte dans le corpus des poèmes de Dioscore : les autres cas de poèmes écrits continûment sur les deux
faces du coupon montrent que Dioscore s’arrange toujours pour commencer à écrire transfibralement puis,
une fois le coupon retourné, perfibralement 4. La présence d’un document dans la partie supérieure du
recto explique peut-être cette anomalie.
Après au moins 13 lignes d’un document mal conservé (qui pourrait être le brouillon partiel d’un
contrat de location de terrain 5), écrit par Dioscore dans sa cursive documentaire penchée, et un vacat
d’un centimètre, se lisent, au recto, 18 hexamètres et, au verso, 17 trimètres iambiques, cette fois-ci écrits
en une capitale penchée typique de la production poétique de Dioscore 6. Les deux ensembles forment un
même poème, constitué, selon l’usage en vogue à l’époque protobyzantine, d’un « prologue » en trimètres
iambiques et d’un corps en hexamètres dactyliques 7.
Ce poème, à l’état de brouillon comme l’attestent les corrections et ajouts 8, est une nouvelle
version d’une pièce déjà connue, P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, un enkômion d’adventus du duc de Thébaïde
Kallinikos, datable de 567 ou 568 9. Outre qu’il permet de corriger ou de compléter l’édition de ce
dernier 10, notre papyrus présente, par rapport à celui-ci, des différences qui illustrent le travail de compo-
sition du poète. Comparons vers à vers les deux textes :
26 P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18
r° 1 25
↓ = ↓
18 42
------------------------
v° 19 = 11
20 = 12
21 = 13
22 = 1
23 = 2
24 = 3
25 = 4
26 = 5
27 = 6
28 = 7
4
Cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 243.
5
Voici le texte : [- - -]|[- - -]| π[- - -]| α[- - -]| [- - -]|5 αὐθ[α]ι[ρέτως - - -]| τῆς μ[- - -]| [- - -]| [ὅσω]ν? ἐστὶν̣ [- - -]|
 δ̣ε̣ξαμένῃ [- - -]|10 ὀ̣ρ̣γ̣άν̣ οις καὶ φ[ύτοις - - -]| κ̣τηματ[1/2] με̣[- - -]| πεδιάδι κ[ώμης - - -]| καὶ ϲπ̣αρ̣ ± 12 [.
6
Sur les mains de Dioscore, voir maintenant L. Del Corso, « Le scritture di Dioscoro », dans J.-L. Fournet (éd.), o.c. (n. 3),
p. 89–115.
7
Cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 278–283, où il est montré, par ailleurs, que Dioscore, comme d’autres poètes du VIe s., a tendance
à traiter le prologue comme une partie à part entière, miroir de la partie hexamétrique (ce qui explique sa longueur).
8
Cf. ci-après.
9
Pour la date d’entrée en fonction de ce duc, cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 332–336. Au sujet du genre poétique, cf. ibid., p. 264–269.
10
Pour les compléments, cf., ci-dessous, v. 19–21, 24, 29–30 n. Pour les corrections, cf. v. 15, 24, 25 n.
26. Le poète Dioscore d’Aphrodité à l’œuvre : une première version de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 99
29 = 8
30 = 9?
31 = 10?
32 = 15
33 = 16
34 = 17
35 = 18
On remarquera que les v. 23 et 24 de 26 ont été ajoutés postérieurement, respectivement dans la marge de
droite et dans l’interligne, alors qu’ils sont écrits dans la continuité en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 2–3. On a là
un indice de ce que 26 constitue une version antérieure à P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18.
Notre papyrus offre par ailleurs trois différences avec P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 :
(1) La partie hexamétrique s’arrête avec le vers 18 et il manque les vers 43–64 de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18,
qui constituent la fin du poème. On pourrait penser que les vers 44–64, qui forment à eux seuls une partie
bien mise en évidence par la paragraphos en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 44, n’ont pas été repris ici et que Dios-
core s’en est occupé ailleurs, à un autre moment. Mais le vers 43 (οὐ χρυσὸν ποθέων, ἀδίκων κρίσιν,
ἀλλὰ θέμιστας) appartient à la partie présente sur le recto, il prolonge le vers 18 (= P.Aphrod.Lit. IV
18, 43), ο̣ὕτως ἄμ̣μιν̣ ἵκανες κα̣λ̣λ̣[ίνικος στρατιάρχης] : il aurait dû se trouver dans la présente version.
Trois solutions sont envisageables : a) le vers est en lacune, au bas du feuillet 11 ; cela semble cependant
improbable étant donné que nous avons le bord inférieur d’origine du coupon (comme l’atteste la présence
de fins de mots juste devant le bord droit du verso) ; b) le vers n’existait pas dans cette version et aurait
été ajouté dans la version du P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, introduisant le thème de l’intégrité du récipiendaire ;
c) la fin de la partie hexamétrique a été écrite sur un autre feuillet. Les deux dernières solutions sont
également plausibles (elles ne s’excluent d’ailleurs pas). La troisième impliquerait que le recto ait été écrit
après le verso : Dioscore, réutilisant un feuillet partiellement écrit sur le recto (esquisse de contrat de
location), aurait d’abord rédigé sur le verso le préambule en trimètres, puis, retournant le feuillet, aurait
commencé à écrire sous le document du recto la partie hexamétrique, qu’il aurait achevée sur un autre
feuillet, aujourd’hui perdu. La deuxième solution est compatible avec l’ordre inverse : Dioscore aurait
écrit tout d’abord la première partie du corps hexamétrique du poème (recto), puis serait passé à la partie
iambique (verso). On pourrait s’étonner que les hexamètres soient écrits avant les trimètres qui sont
censés constituer le prologue, mais c’est pourtant l’ordre observé par le P.Cair.Masp. III 67315 qui
conserve P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 : le prologue est écrit sous le corps hexamétrique, sur le même feuillet.
C’est d’ailleurs l’ordre que suivent d’autres brouillons poétiques de Dioscore (P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 10 et 50)
et que j’ai essayé d’expliquer par la nécessité de commencer la rédaction par la partie la plus délicate, dont
le prologue ne fait que reprendre les thèmes 12. Bref, il serait tentant de conclure que Dioscore a bien écrit
le recto avant le verso. Mais rien ne le garantit.
On remarquera par ailleurs que les hexamètres du recto ne montrent aucune correction ou modi-
fication contrairement aux trimètres du verso. Dioscore se serait-il contenté de recopier ici une partie
hexamétrique esquissée ailleurs, concentrant son travail sur la rédaction du prologue iambique ? Il est en
fait difficile d’interpréter cette constatation.
(2) La partie hexamétrique commence avec trois vers (19–21) dont la place est différente en P.Aphrod.Lit.
IV 18 : dans ce dernier, ils sont placés après le vers 31 de la présente version, ce qui permet à Dioscore
de débuter sur un vocatif bien plus adapté à un début de poème encomiastique, suivant l’exemple d’un
autre de ses éloges en vers adressé au duc Iôannês, P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 11, 1–3 13. Cette modification donne
à penser là encore que 26 est une version antérieure.
11
Il ne peut l’être au début du verso.
12
P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 315.
13
Si tant est que ce poème soit antérieur à l’éloge de Kallinikos. Sur l’ordre de succession des duc Iôannês et Kallinikos,
voir P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 332–336.
100 Jean-Luc Fournet
(3) Le vers 14 de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 est absent : il a été ajouté dans la marge de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18,
ce qui montre bien que ce dernier est la version finale de notre poème.
26 est le premier exemple d’une esquisse antérieure à un poème connu de Dioscore. C’est plus
généralement le seul cas, à ma connaissance, d’un second brouillon autographe littéraire (phénomène que
la papyrologie documentaire, elle, connaît bien 14). Il montre que les poèmes de Dioscore, avant d’en
arriver à l’état de version définitive, destinée à être présentée ou envoyée à son récipiendaire 15, faisaient
l’objet d’une élaboration, plus lente qu’on ne pourrait le penser, nécessitant plusieurs états, rédigés sur
plusieurs coupons.
On retrouve en 26 les diverses formes de corrections que Dioscore adoptait dans ses brouillons 16 :
(1) corrections par effacement, probablement au fil du calame (ainsi v. 20 : σημῖον écrit sur un mot effacé ;
v. 29 : σοφοῦ στρατηλάτ(ου) écrit après une quinzaine de lettres effacées) ; (2) corrections ajoutées après
coup dans l’interligne et destinées à se substituer aux mots qu’elles surmontent 17 (v. 30 : πόρο̣ς sur
τέρψις) ; (3) corrections ajoutées dans la marge de droite (v. 31 ; cette correction a été finalement
effacée) ; (4) ajouts de vers, insérés dans l’interligne (v. 24) ou dans la marge de droite (v. 23). Ces
corrections ont toutes été prises en compte dans la version postérieure que livre P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 18
sans compter les erreurs qui ont été corrigées dans celle-ci (v. 15 : τυθός → P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 39 :
τυτθ[ός]). Cette dernière n’offre qu’une seule correction (ajout du vers 14), ce qui montre qu’elle était
proche de l’état final. Le prologue n’est malgré tout pas à sa place : c’est dans la copie finale que Dioscore
destinait au laudandus que l’ordre attendu était rétabli.
On observe enfin dans cette version le recours à des signes diacritiques auquel Dioscore nous
avait habitués dans ses autres brouillons 19 : tréma marquant la diérèse ou tréma organique (v. 6 : ομοιϊο̣ϲ)̣ ,
tréma non organique sur l’initiale d’un mot (v. 14 : ϊλλαθι ; v. 17 : ϊκανεϲ) ou sur la voyelle initiale du
deuxième élément d’un composé (v. 7 : π̣ροϊαλλεν 20 ; v. 12 : ανϊκανε̣τ̣οϲ), apostrophe diastolique (v. 13 :
ουκ᾿ ; v. 19 : πρατ᾿τον), macron (v. 20 : ε̣υαγγελῑηϲ 21). Tous ces diacritiques se retrouvent sur les mêmes
mots dans P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 (sauf le macron, mais le papyrus est assez abîmé dans ce secteur). Il est
en revanche deux signes que Dioscore emploie en 26 et qu’il n’utilisera pas dans P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 :
la surligne marquant le ν en fin de vers (v. 23 : προϲτατω̅ pour προστατῶν) et la marque d’abréviation
(v. 29 : ϲτρατηλατ pour στρατηλάτ(ου)). Ces deux types d’abréviations qui se rencontrent aussi dans
les papyrus documentaires sont normalement absents des copies les plus soignées 22, comme l’est
P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, proche de la version finale.
14
Pour les autographes littéraires, cf. T. Dorandi, « Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut. Arbeitsweise und Autographie
bei den antiken Schriftstellern », ZPE 87, 1991, p. 11–33 (liste des autographes p. 19–21 reprise dans id., Le Stylet et
la tablette. Dans le secret des auteurs antiques, Paris 2000, p. 53–60 = Nell’officina dei classici. Come lavoravano gli autori
antichi, Rome 2007, p. 48–51). On a de nombreux exemples de documents en plusieurs versions de la main de Dioscore
ou d’autres mains dans ses archives : ils mériteraient une étude. On trouvera une liste des documents en double dans
B. E. Nielsen, « A Catalog of Duplicate Papyri », ZPE 129, 2000, p. 187–214. Sur le sujet, voir aussi R. Yuen-Collingridge
et M. Choat, « The Copyist at Work: Scribal Practice in Duplicate Documents », in P. Schubert (ed.), Proceedings of the
XXVIth Congress of Papyrology (Geneva 2012) 827–834.
15
Comme P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 38 : cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 242 et 244.
16
P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 293.
17
P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 291–293.
18
Celle du v. 30 est en lacune dans P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 et on ne peut donc vérifier qu’elle a bien été intégrée.
19
Cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 252–254.
20
Le tréma est ici également organique.
21
Il surmonte une voyelle normalement brève mais que Dioscore allonge pour les besoins de la métrique. Sur ce phénomène,
cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 254. Loin de résulter d’une ignorance de Dioscore, ces aberrations quantitatives reflètent le souci de
privilégier le système métrique même aux dépens de la langue, trahissant en cela l’artificialité d’une poésie où le procédé
prend le pas sur l’usage. On en trouve d’autres exemples ailleurs que chez Dioscore : par exemple, un contemporain et
compatriote de Dioscore, Julien l’Égyptien (VIe s.), écrit en AP IX 445, 3 : Τητιανέ où le premier α bref a été allongé, puis
transformé en η, pour les besoins du mètre, malgré la quantité usuelle.
22
Cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 257.
Dans l’édition qui suit, j’utilise les mêmes conventions que dans P.Aphrod.Lit. : les ajouts sont
en corps inférieur. Par ailleurs, mon commentaire s’attache aux particularités de cette version et à sa
comparaison avec P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 sans reprendre le commentaire proprement dit des vers de ce
dernier.
r° → ῞Υ̣μνον ἀναστήσαιμ[ι χοροστασίης σέο δόξης,]

τ̣οῦ πολυκυδ̣ήεν̣τ̣ος Κ̣[αλλινίκου στρατιάρχου.]
Θ̣άλλε μοι, εἰσέ̣τ̣ι̣ θά[λλεις, ἀμοίρατον ἐς χρόνον ἔλθοις,]
4 ὁ κλυτὸς ἐν με̣[ρ]όπεσσ̣ι̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἐ̣ν̣ [χθονὶ παμβασιλῆος.]
῎Εμπλεος εἰς [π]λόον ἦλθον ἀμετρή̣[των ἀρετάων.]
Οὐ πέλεν, ο̣ὐ̣ π̣έλεν ἄλλο̣ς̣ ὁμοίιο̣ς̣ [ὔμμι γενέθλῃ.]
Τοὔνεκά σε π̣ροΐαλλεν ἄναξ σ̣[τ]ρ[ατίαρχον ἀμύμων]
8 πήματ᾿ ἀπ̣οπτύειν ὅσα τ̣έ̣τληκε̣ π̣ό̣[τνια Θήβη.]
Τοὔνεκά μιν καλέω σε παν̣αλ̣́ ̣κ̣[ιμον ῾Ηρακλῆα,]
ὅς ῥα καμὼν πόρε πᾶσιν ἐλε̣υ̣θ[ερίης παναρωγήν.]
Τολμη̣έ ις γενόμην πανε̣π̣[άξιο]ν̣ [ὑμνοπολεύειν·]
12 τοσσατ[ί]ην ἀρετὴν ἀνικάνε̣τ̣ός [ε]ἰ̣μ̣ι̣ [λιγαίνειν.]
Μέτριος ου̣κ̓ ἐνόησα τ̣ό̣σον̣ κλέο̣ς, μ̣[ῆτις ἀνάκτων].
῞Ιλλαθί μοι τρομέοντι τεὸν [μέλ]ο̣ς̣ [ὄ]φ̣[ρα βοήσω].
Τέττιξ τυ⟨τ⟩θὸς [ἔ]ην καὶ ὄρνε[όν ἐστι μελίσσης?·]
16 καὶ Θεὸν α̣[ὐτ]ὸν ἄειδε πα[νάφ]θ̣ι̣[τον α̣τ̣ην]
῾Ως πέλε[ν] ἀ̣γ̣ρ̣ονόμο̣ισι π[αε̣ν̣ο̣το̣κ̣λ- - -]
ο̣ὕτως ἄμ̣μιν̣ ἵκανες κα̣λ̣λ̣[ίνικος στρατιάρχης.]
v° → [Τὸ] σὸν κλέος πανευτυ̣χέστερον πρᾶττον

20 [⟦4/5⟧] ε̣ὐαγγελίης ἐκ Θεοῦ τὸ σημῖον
[φανὲν δ]ικαίως σ̣υμφέ̣ρ̣ουσιν π̣ράξεσιν.
[῏Ω θεῖον ὄντως κἀ]κ̣[ρι]β̣ῶς χρ̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ῦν γένο{υ}ς,
γουνά̣ζ̣ομα̣ί̣ σε προστάτην τῶν προστατῶ(ν)
24 [γουνάζομαι, γέρας?] π̣άντων̣ β̣[ασι]λ̣έ̣ω̣ν.̣
[Εἴ τις δυνήσετα]ι̣ τοὺς ἀ̣σ̣τ̣έ̣ρα̣ς̣ μ̣ετ̣ρεῖν
[ἢ τοῖς κυάθοις τ]ῆς̣ θαλάσσης {τὰ} ῥεύ̣μ̣ατ̣ α,
[ναί που κἀγὼ πά]ντ̣ως δυν̣ήσ ̣ [ο]μ̣α̣ι̣ μ̣ε̣τρεῖν̣
28 [τὰς  ἀρε]τ̣άς σου, δέ̣σ̣π̣ο̣τ̣α̣,
[τοῦ παναρίστου καὶ]⟦ ± 15 ⟧ σοφοῦ στρατηλάτ(ου)
] πόρο̣ς
30 [ ] τέρψις Νείλου
[πάρεστιν? ἡμῖν? - - -]είας τοῦ νε̣[]υ̣. ⟦⟧
32 [Θήβη, πᾶσα χόρευσον, εἰρήνην δέ]χου·
[οὐ γὰρ θεωρήσῃς κακουργικὴν ἔ]τι,
[πάντη δέος πέφυκεν ἀσπίλου] δίκης̣
[τοῦ τατου στρατηγοῦ εὐμ]ενοῦς.
-------------------------------
1 υ ̣ || 6 ομοιϊο̣ ϲ ̣ || 7 π̣ρ οϊαλλεν || 12 ανϊκανε̣ τ ̣ο ϲ || 13 ουκ᾿ || 14 ϊλλαθι || 18 ϊκανεϲ || 19 πρατ᾿τον || 20

ε̣υαγγελῑηϲ || ̣εκ ? || ϲημιον post corr. l. σημεῖον || 23 in margine dextro scriptum || προϲτατω̅ || 24 inter lineas
insertum || 29 ϲτρατηλατ
R° Puissé-je faire retentir un hymne choral à ta gloire, toi Kallinikos, le très renommé stratiarque.
Prospère, oui, puisses-tu encore prospérer et atteindre un âge illimité, 4ô illustre parmi les hommes
sur la terre du roi de l’univers. Je me suis lancé sur la mer de tes innombrables vertus. Nul autre,
non, nul autre ne t’égale par la naissance. C’est pourquoi le noble souverain t’a envoyé comme
stratiarque 8pour écarter les fléaux qu’a endurés l’auguste Thèbes. C’est pourquoi je t’appelle
Héraclès Tout-Puissant, celui-là même dont les travaux ont apporté à tous l’entier secours de la
liberté. Je suis devenu bien audacieux de célébrer un homme digne de toutes les louanges : 12je
suis incapable de chanter tant de vertu. Mon humilité n’avait conçu tant de gloire, ô inspiration
des souverains. Sois indulgent envers moi qui tremble d’entonner ton éloge. La cigale est
minuscule ; or c’est un volatile au chant de miel? 16et il chante Dieu en personne, l’Immortel
[…]. Comme […] pour les paysans, ainsi tu es venu à nous comme stratiarque à la belle
victoire 23.
V° Ta gloire, connaissant en tout domaine une plus heureuse félicité, 20est le signe de la bonne nouvelle
de Dieu qui s’est manifestée en toute justice par des œuvres profitables. Ô descendant d’une
race vraiment divine, sans conteste d’une race d’or, je te supplie, patron d’entre les patrons,
24
je te supplie, honneur? de tous les rois. Quand on parviendra à compter les astres et, mesure
après mesure, les flots de la mer, alors moi aussi je parviendrai à compter 28tes […] vertus, ô mon
maître, très excellent sage stratélate. […] les ressources du Nil 24 sont à notre disposition? […].
32
Thèbes, danse tout entière, reçois la paix, car tu ne verras plus d’œuvres malfaisantes. Partout
règne la peur qu’inspire la justice immaculée du […] et bienveillant stratège.
1 ἀναστήσαιμ[ι : ou ἀναστήσαιμι̣ [ si la trace précédant la lacune n’appartient pas au haut du κ de

la ligne suivante, mais au bas de l’iota.
15 τυ⟨τ⟩θός : Dioscore corrige cette erreur en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 39. Il s’agit d’un lapsus calami
plutôt que d’un phonétisme (d’ailleurs non répertorié par Gignac, Gramm., I).
ὄρνε[όν ἐστι μελίσσης?] : il faut bien lire ὄρ[ν]ε̣ον à la place d’ὄρ[γα]ν̣ον en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18,
39, comme me l’a montré un réexamen de l’original (oublier donc le commentaire ad loc.). On
retrouve le terme employé pour la cigale en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 38, 17. Cf. comm. à P.Aphrod.Lit.
IV 7, 5–7 (où je rapproche l’expression dioscorienne d’un passage de Ménandre le Rhéteur, 391,
10–15, qu’il pourrait permettre de corriger). On est embarrassé par le dernier mot. J. Maspero
lisait en P.Cair.Masp. III 67315 v°, 15 (= P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 39) : μ[ελι]σ̣σ̣η̣ς̣ ; j’avais été plus
affirmatif en éditant με̣[λί]σσης̣. Mais que viendrait faire l’abeille dans un vers où il est question
de la cigale? La question se pose avec d’autant plus de pertinence que les deux insectes ont
été opposés (voir les auteurs cités par F. Morelli, l. c. [n. 3], p. 241, n. 66). Faut-il malgré tout
prendre μέλισσα (qu’emploie ailleurs Dioscore, mais toujours dans des passages obscurs ou
abîmés: P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 20, 2 ; 28, 9 ; 33, 10) au sens de « miel » et voir ici un génitif de
qualité signifiant « au chant doux comme le miel »? L’image serait malvenue dans un vers où,
loin de vanter la cigale, le poète insiste sur sa petitesse, pour ménager un contraste plus fort
avec Dieu qu’elle ose chanter. Il serait peut-être plus prudent d’éditer en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 :
ὄρ[ν]ε̣όν ἐστι μ[] et ici ὄρνε[όν ἐστι μ].
23
Le vers est à double entente : il peut se comprendre aussi « tu es venu à nous, ô stratiarque Kallinikos ».
24
Avant correction : le plaisir que procure le Nil.
16 α̣τ̣ην] : α̣[]τ̣ην en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 40.

17 π[αε̣νοτο̣κ̣λ- - -] : [][][ en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 40 et []α[][]ε̣ν̣ο̣το̣κ̣λ[
en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 11, 45 (je pointe deux lettres supplémentaires).
18 Pour les vers qui suivent celui-ci en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, cf. introd.
19–21 Ce papyrus permet de compléter P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 11–13 et de confirmer la lecture πράξε[σ]ι̣ν̣
(à la place du πράξε[ω]ν̣ de Maspero). On notera néanmoins une divergence dans le troisième
vers : δ]ικαίως contre δίκαιος. La leçon de notre papyrus apparaît bien meilleure et je serais tenté
de penser que δικαιοϲ est un lapsus calami de Dioscore lorsque celui-ci a recopié notre texte pour
le mettre au propre.— Pour la place de ces trois vers et l’absence du vers suivant en P.Aphrod.Lit.
IV 18, 14, cf. introd.
19 πανευτυ̣χέστερον πρᾶττον : d’après l’expression syntaxiquement parallèle de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18,
19 (ἀφθόνω̣ς πράττων), je vois dans πανευτυ̣χέστερον un neutre adverbial se construisant avec
πράττω (« connaître telle ou telle expérience »). Nous avons là affaire à un vrai comparatif qui
met le nouveau duc au-dessus de son prédécesseur (cf. Ménandre le Rhéteur, 376, 31–377, 2
qui recommande de comparer les œuvres du souverain loué à celles de son prédécesseur de façon
à montrer la perfection du premier). Comparer avec P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 11, 15 pour le même
comparatif (εὐτυχέστερον) appliqué au nouveau duc. On pourrait éditer πᾶν εὐτυ̣χέστερον
πρᾶττον, mais le παν̣α̣ρ̣είονες de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 33, 8 (litt. « meilleurs en tout que les autres »)
me semble favoriser πανευτυ̣χέστερον (« plus heureusement en tout »). Sur ce goût pour les
composés en παν-, cf. P.Aphrod.Lit., p. 361, § 105.
20 [⟦4/5⟧] : le vers étant complet, il nous faut bien enfreindre la fameuse lex Youtie, fort de la
garantie qu’offre la métrique et du parallèle que donne P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 12 (εὐ⟦σ̣⟧αγγε̣λίης
ἐκ Θεοῦ τὸ σημῖον), et conclure que Dioscore a biffé un mot dans la lacune initiale.
σημῖον : la faute, banal iotacisme, est reprise dans P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 12. Dioscore la commet
aussi dans les documents qu’il rédige (P.Cair.Masp. II 67164, 12 et probablement 67163, 37 où il
doit falloir lire σημῖα, la barre du ρ de la ligne précédente faisant office d’iota).
23–24 L’ajout de ces deux vers montre que ce papyrus est antérieur à P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 : cf. introd.
23 Le vers est écrit dans la marge de droite sur deux lignes : γουνά̣ζ̣ομα̣ί̣ σε προστάτην est au niveau
du v. 22, tandis que τῶν προστατῶ(ν), rejeté à la ligne suivante par manque de place, est au niveau
du v. 24. Il faut donc l’insérer entre les v. 22 et 23, ce que fait Dioscore en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 2.
24 [γουνάζομαι, γέρας?] π̣άντων̣ β̣[ασι]λ̣έ̣ω̣ν̣ : P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 3 a γουνά̣ζομ̣α̣ί̣ σ[ε]παντ̣[]
βασιλέων̣. Notre papyrus permet de compléter la fin de ce vers : πάντ̣[ω]ν̣ βασιλέων̣ (confirmé par
un réexamen de l’original). La lettre qui suit γουνά̣ζομ̣α̣ι̣ en 18 ressemble à un ϲ. Le parallé-
lisme avec le vers précédent incitait à restituer le pronom σε après γουνάζομαί. Mais cela ne laisse
plus beaucoup de place pour un mot dont πάντων βασιλέων serait le complément. Aussi serait-il
possible que le σ lisible devant la lacune soit le début de ce mot. Aurélien Berra me propose de
lire σέβας, qui conviendrait aussi bien aux traces (de ce papyrus comme de 18) qu’à la longueur
de la lacune, en donnant un sens très acceptable : « je (te) supplie, ô honneur de tous les rois ».
On pourrait aussi penser à σέλας : « je (te) supplie, ô lumière de tous les rois ». Ces deux mots
sont cependant absents du lexique poétique de Dioscore —ce qui n’est pas en soi une objection
suffisante. Une troisième solution permettrait de réconcilier traces et usage dioscorien : γέρας
(« je (te) supplie, ô honneur de tous les rois »). Le mot est employé en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 7, 2 ;
8, 6 et 20, 2 (c’est ce dernier passage qui offre le meilleur parallèle avec le nôtre). Il faudrait
alors lire en P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 3 : γουνά̣ζομ̣α̣ι̣, γ̣[έρα]ς πάντ̣[ω]ν̣ βασιλέων. La trace qui suit
γουνά̣ζομ̣α̣ι — partie supérieure d’une lettre dont le bas est perdu — pourrait en effet être aussi
le haut d’un γ (qui ressemble à celui d’un ϲ).
25 τοὺς ἀ̣σ̣τ̣έ̣ρα̣ς̣ μ̣ετ̣ρεῖν : P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 6 a ἀ̣ρ̣ι̣θ̣[μεῖν ἀστέρας] restitué d’après P.Aphrod.Lit.
IV 10, 10. Mais, plutôt que de penser que Dioscore s’est ravisé pour éviter une répétition avec
le μ̣ε̣τρεῖν̣ de la l. 27, je crois préférable, en réexaminant P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, de lire, dans ce

dernier aussi, τ̣[ο]ὺ̣ς̣ [ἀστέρα]ς̣ [μετρεῖν]. Contrairement à l’éloge d’Athanasios (P.Aphrod.Lit.
IV 10) écrit un ou deux ans plus tôt, Dioscore a préféré accentuer le parallélisme entre la protase
et l’apodose en gardant le même verbe.
26 {τὰ} ῥεύ̣μ̣α̣τα : l’article est de trop et a dû être corrigé dans P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 5, ce que
l’original ne permet plus de contrôler. Notons que la faute n’est pas commise dans le modèle de
ce passage, P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 10, 11.
29 σοφοῦ στρατηλάτ(ου) : P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 8 a [νέ]ου̣ σ[τ]ρατηλάτου. On pourrait songer à cor-
riger ce dernier d’après notre papyrus, mais le réexamen de P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18 a bien confirmé
que σοφοῦ y est très difficile (car trop long) et que [νέ]ου est la restitution la plus probable. —
Στρατηλάτ(ου) : cette abréviation, typique des documents, est absente des autres poèmes de
Dioscore qui, par ailleurs, utilise peu d’abréviations dans sa production littéraire (P.Aphrod.Lit.,
p. 257). Mais elle s’explique ici par la présence du bord du feuillet qui empêchait Dioscore
d’écrire le mot en entier.
30–31 P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 9–10 est trop endommagé pour permettre de garantir qu’il y a équivalence
avec nos v. 30–31 et à plus forte raison de les restituer : [ ± 11 ]ϲι[- - -]| πάρεστιν
ἡμ̣ῖ̣ν̣ [][][- - -]. Peut-être faut-il lire, au v. 9, ϲν̣[ (πόρος Νείλου) à la place de ϲι.
30 τέρψις Νείλου : le substantif τέρψις, « plaisir (procuré par le Nil) », a été remplacé (sans être
biffé) par πόρο̣ς écrit au-dessus. Ce dernier terme est fréquent dans les poèmes de Dioscore,
toujours au sens de « ressources » (P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 5, 25 ; 6, 28 ; 10, 47 ; 15, 6 ; 50, A 19).
Je comprends πόρο̣ς Νείλου, « ressources que procure le Nil », comme sujet de πάρεστιν ἡμῖν
au v. 31. Est développé ici le thème du Nil nourricier qui, pour fêter l’arrivée du nouveau duc,
produit une bonne crue — vieux thème égyptien réactivé par les préceptes des rhétoriciens grecs :
cf. P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 11, 42–43 n.
31 ]είας τοῦ νε̣[]υ̣ : la lacune dans le mot final contenant deux ou, à la rigueur, trois lettres, on
serait tenté de lire Νε̣[ίλο]υ̣, quoique ce nom se trouve déjà au vers précédent. J’ai du mal à voir
comment l’accusatif pluriel qui précède peut se construire avec πάρεστιν au point qu’on peut
douter qu’on ait ici le même vers que P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 10.
35 [τοῦ τατου : P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 18 a τοῦ []τατου. Maspero restitue sans certitude
[ὀβριμω]τάτου, repris par E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiser-
zeit, 2e éd., I, Göttingen 1963, XLII 5, 56, et par L. S. B. MacCoull, Dioscorus of Aphrodito. His
Work and his World, Berkeley 1988, p. 92. Cette restitution est trop longue et non motivée.
La lacune qui suit ce vers contenait P.Aphrod.Lit. IV 18, 19–24, ce qui s’accorde bien avec la
taille de la lacune telle qu’on peut la reconstituer d’après ce qui manque sur le bord droit du recto.
École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris

No. 26, recto

No. 26, verso

27. Plainte au praeses Simplicius
Jean Gascou
P.Strasb. G 1299 25,5 x 34,5 cm vers 397–398

Hermopolis
Cette pétition provient d’Hermopolis 1. Elle est adressée à un praeses (ἡγεμών, l. [1] et 10), probablement
un gouverneur de Thébaïde 2, ..eius Simplicius, inconnu jusqu’à présent 3. Des mutilations, en haut, à droite
et à gauche (environ 25 lettres), obscurcissent le sens. On note deux kolleseis à 15,5 et 31,5 cm du bord
gauche.
Examinons les éléments de datation. La l. 13 conserve la fin d’une formule consulaire au nom
de deux clarissimes, λαμπρότατοι. Comme on le verra, ces restes ont leur utilité. On peut encore faire
fond sur l’écriture, très proche de celle de P.Lips. I 38 (ChLA XII 520), document hermopolitain de 390,
et des données internes. Le prédicat de λαμπρότατος appliqué au praeses (l. 1) se substitue presque sans
exception à celui de διασημότατος entre 363 et 368 4. La désignation d’Hermopolis, (ἡ) τῶν Ἑρμου-
πολειτῶν, (l. 4), nous renvoie à l’extrême fin du IVe siècle 5. Sur le chef de la police locale, le nykto-
stratège (et curiale) Kyros fils de Philammôn (l. 5), on avait déjà un dossier textuel montrant qu’il exerça
cette fonction à Hermopolis (pas nécessairement de manière continue) depuis au moins la fin de 390
jusqu’à la fin de janvier 398 6.
Pour aller plus loin sans trop sortir des limites de la carrière de Kyros, il faudrait exclure du compte
les années pour lesquelles des gouverneurs étaient déjà nommément connus, de même que celles dont les
formules consulaires sont incompatibles avec la nôtre. Il me semble donc que notre texte est antérieur
au 4 juillet 398, car la nyktostratégie est alors aux mains de Petros, frère de Kyros 7. Il doit être postérieur
à mai 391, car depuis la fin de 389 jusqu’à la fin du mois de mai 391 les fastes gouvernoraux sont occupés
par les praesides Eutropius et Hesychius et on ne peut facilement y placer notre Simplicius. À l’intérieur
de cette tranche 391–398, 393/94 est exclu car le praeses est alors Ulpius Dorotheus 8. La formule consulaire
étant au nom de deux personnages de rang clarissime, les années convenables seraient 396 (post-consulat
d’Olybrius et Probinus), 397 (consulat de Caesarius et Atticus) et 398 (post-consulat des mêmes). L’année
1
Je remercie M. Paul Heilporn, directeur de l’Institut de Papyrologie de l’université de Strasbourg, et M. Daniel Bornemann,
conservateur des fonds spéciaux de la BNU de Strasbourg, de m’avoir autorisé à publier ce document. La photographie a été
prise par Ruey-Lin Chang et Pascal Disdier. J’ai eu, au fil des années, l’occasion de discuter de ce texte avec J. D. Thomas.
Je lui suis très reconnaissant de ses avis.
2
On verra, à la n. textuelle 5, pourquoi j’introduis ici une légère réserve sur la juridiction territoriale de Simplicius.
3
Les Simplicii attestés à l’époque par PLRE I et II n’autorisent aucun rapprochement convaincant.
4
Voir J. Lallemand, L’administration civile de l’Égypte (Bruxelles 1964) 249–255, P. J. Sijpesteijn et K. A. Worp,
« Bittschrift an einen praepositus pagi (?) », Tyche 1 (1986) 193, qui permettent de constituer des fastes plus complets que
ceux de PLRE I, paru en 1971. L’exception, difficile à expliquer, concerne Aelius Gessius (376/379), encore perfectissime
dans P.Lips. 54, 12 (W.Chr. 467), mais clarissime dans trois des autres pièces de son dossier (voir M.Chr. 77, 1 ; 78, 1;
P.Mon. III 78).
5
Voir N. Litinas, « Hermou polis of the Thebais. Some Corrections and Notes Concerning its Name and Epithets », APF 41
(1995) 70 et n. 14.
6
Nos collègues de Leipzig, R. Scholl et N. Quenouille, ont délimité et réuni ce dossier qui comprend neuf pièces certaines
publiées. Voir http://www.trismegistos.org/arch/detail.php?tm=333 et http://papyri-leipzig.dl.uni-leipzig.de/content/main/
archiv_aurelios_kyros.xml. Les pièces datées sont P.Lips. 39 [M.Chr. 127] du 23 décembre 390, 65 et 66 de 390 [W.Chr. 404],
P.Strasb. 713 (397), P.Lips. 56 (28 janvier 398). Le 30 juin 399 (P.Giss. 104, 2–3, 14). Philammôn vient de mourir et Kyros
est devenu curateur de la succession. Pour le dossier, voir P.Strasb. 737–738 et les URL cités.
7
P. Herm. 52 et 53 (BL VII). Voir ci-dessous n. textuelle 5.
8
SB X 10568. Ce personnage ne pouvait figurer dans PLRE I, mais il y a lieu de le rapprocher du Dorotheus 7 de PLRE II
connu par la lettre 9 de l’archimandrite Chénouté (un ἡγεμών).
108 Jean Gascou
396 est moins probable que les deux autres, car elle peut coïncider avec le mandat d’un ἡγεμών Alypius 9.
L’année 397 et le début de 398 semblent donc se recommander.
Quant au contenu, voici ce qui paraît sûr : l’auteur de la pétition, Ouiktôr auxiliaire de justice,
quaestionarius (l. [2], 14) 10, envoyé à Hermopolis par l’administration présidiale pour arrêter des prévenus
(κατεντευχθέντα πρόσωπα, l. 6, [8]) 11, en a été empêché. Bien plus, il a été agressé (τὴν τούτου ἔφοδον,
l. 5) et maltraité devant de nombreux témoins (l. 8) 12. En conséquence, le plaignant demande au praeses
d’ordonner à son officium d’envoyer une force armée (βοήθεια, l. 9) à Hermopolis pour se saisir des
coupables et des témoins potentiels.
L’auteur des voies de fait, qui était assisté de son père et de son frère, nous reste inconnu,
mais il semble s’agir du nyktostratège Kyros lui-même 13. En effet, dans le préambule du document,
l’auteur semble s’en prendre à ceux qui, chargés d’un service pour le tribunal provincial, se dérobent à ce
devoir, du moins si on interprète en ce sens la l. 3 : εἰς τὴν ὑπηρεσίαν τοῦ δικαστηρίου καὶ π̣ρ̣ὸς ταύτην
ἀφην̣ι̣α̣ζ̣ό̣[ντ]ων 14. Or, d’après BGU XIX 2773, les nyktostratèges d’Hermopolis étaient eux-mêmes des
auxiliaires de justice aux ordres du praeses. Chargés, comme Ouiktôr, de la παράστασις des prévenus,
ils devaient les livrer aux envoyés de l’officium. Il y avait là matière à conflits de compétences 15. D’autre
part, selon la pétition P.Oxy. VII 1033 (W.Chr. 476 ; SP II 296), les nyktostratèges, faute d’assistants,
avaient parfois du mal à accomplir leur tâche. Autre raison pour Kyros de ne pas coopérer avec Ouiktôr.
Cependant, cette sorte de rébellion s’accorde mal avec le statut social des intéressés, membres d’une
respectable famille de curiales qui eut elle-même à souffrir de violences 16. Une difficulté plus sérieuse est
soulevée par le bas de la requête (l. 11–12). Ouiktôr y donne, peut-être de sa main, la notice des personnes
dont il demandait la citation. D’après la l. 10, cette liste aurait dû comporter au moins cinq noms : le
présumé coupable, ses deux complices et, pour justifier le pluriel, un minimum de deux μάρτυρες, or
ce qui subsiste de la notice n’a trait qu’à deux personnes, un archéphode et un ânier. Même en évaluant
la perte textuelle au plus large, la notice ne peut avoir comporté plus de deux autres noms. D’autre part,
les qualités d’archéphode et d’ânier sont précédées d’une détermination homéotéleute -έριος, de toute
évidence un nom propre. Comme une homonymie est peu probable, on interprétera ces vestiges comme
le génitif d’un nom en -ις, ce qui en ferait un patronyme. En ce cas, les intéressés étaient frères. On pense
dès lors aux coupables : il serait concevable qu’un archéphode, un policier de quartier, s’en soit pris, assisté
de son frère, à un agent de coercition en mission. Manquerait toutefois le père, ainsi que les témoins.
La formule de datation de la l. 13, d’une autre main, a été apposée au moment de la réception du
libelle par l’administration et de la signature du remettant (l. 14). La pièce a donc été acceptée, mais elle
9
Voir PLRE I Alypius 9.
10
Voir P.Oxy. LIX 3986, n. 9–10; M. Christol et Th. Drew Bear, « Le tutor cessionarius de Tralles », Tyche 17 (2002) 36.
Ces agents sont (à l’origine) des principales militaires chargés de missions d’aide pour des actes de justice, habilités aussi,
dans leurs enquêtes, à appliquer les tormenta (Jean Lydus, Mag. I 25 :῞Οθεν καὶ κυιαιστίωνας τὰς τιμωρίας καὶ κυαιστιωνα-
ρίους τοὺς τῶν ποινῶν ὑπηρέτας ῾Ρωμαῖοι ἔγνωσαν καλεῖν). Le mot est connu sous diverses formes grecques, ainsi κυεσ-
σωνάριος (voir le récent P.Sijp. 33r, 7). Un collègue hermopolitain de Ouiktôr est attesté quelques décennies auparavant
dans P.Herm.Landl. I, 147 et II, 366.
11
Voir la n. 6. La l. 6, avec μοι, qui peut être un datif d’agent, suggère que l’accusation émane du pétitionnaire lui-même
et aurait donc un caractère privé, ce qui ne va pas trop bien avec le ἀπ̣ο̣σταλείς de la l. 4. Il est vrai qu’on peut entendre
κατεντευχθέντα μοι comme signifiant « ceux contre lesquels une accusation a été déposée auprès de moi ».
12
Le sujet évoque (parfois in terminis) la plainte oxyrhynchite contemporaine P.Oxy. VII 1033 (W.Chr. 476; SP II 296).
Situation analogue dans la lettre P.Got. 13 : le frère de l’émetteur a été molesté en allant arrêter un artisan parfumeur
à Lycopolis. Il se retourne contre le président de la corporation à qui il confie l’arrestation.
13
Le démonstratif τούτου, l. 5, déterminant ἔφοδον, semble se référer à Kyros. À la date de notre texte, il avait encore
son père Philammôn et deux frères, Petros, successeur de Kyros à la nyktostratégie en 398 (P.Herm. 52–53) et Asynkritios
(P.Strasb. 737–738 intr., p. 57).
14
Il faudrait suppléer dans la lacune de gauche un participe sur le même plan qu’ἀφην̣ι̣α̣ζ̣ό̣[ντ]ων signifiant « ceux qui, alors
qu’ils sont préposés » (au service de la cour, s’y dérobent ).
15
Voir aussi la n. textuelle 5.
16
P.Lips. I 40 (ChLA XII 518).
27. Plainte au praeses Simplicius 109
ne comporte pas de souscription gouvernorale (ὑπογραφή) montrant que le praeses a statué. À cette époque,
les réponses aux pétitions étaient émises sous forme de sentences prononcées en session judiciaire, avec le
concours de l’officium 17. Au reste, Ouiktôr ne demande pas de souscription. Comme le suggère προστάξαι
à la l. 9, il attend du praeses une ordonnance (πρόσταξις) adressée sans doute à son princeps officii.
→
]ε̣ι̣ῳ Σιμ̣π̣λ̣ικίῳ vac. τῷ λ̣̣[̣α]̣μπρο̣̣τά̣̣τ̣[ῳ vac.? ἡγεμόνι
[παρὰ Οὐίκτορος κυεστωναρίου τ]ῆ̣[ς] σ̣ῆς τοῦ ἐμ[οῦ] κυ̣ρ̣ίου τάξεω̣ς̣ vac. Τῶ̣ν̣ ἀπ̣ο ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μ̣έν̣ων
κατὰ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ ν̣ό̣μω
̣ ν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ± 5 ]συ[ ̣]ε̣ρη̣[ 4–5]α̣σ̣επι[
] ̣ εἰς τὴ̣ν ὑπηρεσίαν τοῦ δικασ̣τηρίο̣υ̣ καὶ π̣ρ̣ὸς ταύ̣την ἀφην̣ι̣α̣ζ̣ό[̣ ντ]ων̣ ἐπὶ τῆς τηλικαύτης ἀ̣ρχῆς·
ἐγὼ γὰ̣ρ Οὐί̣κ̣τωρ τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ προ̣σηγορ̣[ίαν
4 ] π̣α̣ρ[ὰ τ]ῆ̣ς̣ τ̣άξεως τῶν κο̣μ̣μέντων ἀπ̣ο̣σταλεὶς ἐπ̣ὶ τὴν τῶν ῾Ερμουπολειτῶν προσώπων τινῶν
τὴν παρ̣ά̣στασιν [ποιήσασθαι?
]μ̣ο̣ι̣ ὑ̣πὸ Κύ̣ρου τοῦ νυκτοστρατήγου τῆς π̣ροειρημένη̣ς̣ π̣ό̣λε̣ως ὥστε ἐμέ, ἐπ᾿ ἀλλοδαπῆς
διάγον⟦ν⟧τα, τὴν τούτ̣ο̣υ ἔφοδο̣ν̣ ο̣[
]τον καταναγκάζειν τὰ κατεντευ̣χθέντα μοι πρόσ̣ωπα π̣α̣ραδ[ο]ῦνα̣ι̣, ἧ[τ]τ̣ον ἐφρόντι̣σεν τοῦ σοῦ
μ̣ε̣γ̣έθους καὶ [τ]ῆ̣ς̣ τ̣άξε̣[ως
κα]ὶ̣ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ὕβρει̣ς συνεχεῖς καὶ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν πληγάς μοι ἐπήνεγκεν ἐπεγγελῶν τοῖς
προστ̣ετ̣α̣γ̣μέν̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ ὑ̣π̣[ὸ τῆς σῆς ἀρετῆς ?
8 κατεντ]ε̣υχθεῖσιν· ἐγὼ τοίνυν πρὸς τ̣ἆλλα τοιαῦτα παθὼν κα̣ὶ̣ ο̣ὐ̣δεμ̣ίαν βοήθειαν ἔχων, πολλοὺς̣ τ̣οὺ̣[ς
π]αρόντας ἐμαρτυράμην ̣[
] ̣γ̣ε[νο]μένη μοι βία ̣ ̣ ̣υ̣[ ̣] ̣ρ̣ε̣τοῦντι̣ τῇ̣ σῇ̣ ἀρετῇ, παρακαλῶν προστάξαι̣ τ̣ῇ αὐτῇ τάξει
βοήθειαν ἀποστεῖλαι ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ τὴν̣ ῾Ερμ̣[ουπολιτῶν
τὸν ταῦ]τ̣α̣ κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ τολμήσαν̣[τα] κ̣αὶ̣ τὸν τούτ̣[ου] π̣ατέρα καὶ τ̣ὸ̣[ν ἀ]δ̣ε̣λφὸν̣ καὶ τοὺς μαρτυ̣[ρ]εῖν
δυναμένους̣, ἡγ̣̣εμὼν κύρ̣ιε.
m2 (?) - - - εἰσὶ δέ · - - -]ε̣ριος ἀρ̣χέφοδ̣ος
12 ] ̣ ̣ε̣ριος ὀνηλ̣άτ̣η̣[ς]
m3 ὑπατείας vel μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Φλ(αουίων) Καισαρίου καὶ Ἀττικοῦ τ]ῶ̣ν̣ λα̣μ̣προ̣τάτων
m4 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ Ο[ὐ]ίκ̣τ̣ωρ κυεστωνάρι̣[ος ± 4 ] ̣ ̣ω κύ̣ριέ̣ μου.
4 l. ῾Ερμοπολιτῶν 9 -μενη η ex οι προσταξαι ξ ex ι
À (…)eius Simplicius, clarissime (gouverneur, de la part de Ouiktôr, quaestionarius) de l’officium qui est
à toi mon Seigneur. Ceux qui (…) contre les lois (…) au service de la cour de justice et qui regimbent
contre lui sous un si grand gouvernement. En effet, moi le nommé Ouiktôr (…) envoyé à Hermopolis
par le bureau des affaires criminelles pour (procéder à) la citation de certaines personnes (…) par Kyros,
nyktostratège de la susdite cité, en sorte que moi, résidant sur une terre étrangère, son agression (… alors
que je voulais le?) contraindre à livrer les personnes accusées auprès de moi, il ne fit aucun cas de ta
17
Après 322 (P.Sakaon 41; voir K. A. Worp, CPR XVIIA, p. 79–80) nous n’avons plus de pétitions originales aux gouver-
neurs munies de souscriptions, et les dernières attestations indirectes de l’ὑπογραφή (copies ou citations) nous renvoient
seulement au milieu du siècle avec CPR V 12,7 (351) et SB XVIII 13769, 22–23 (345–352 [?] ; ChLA XLV 1337). Par
la suite, les sentences gouvernorales semblent avoir été émises d’une autre manière, oralement, en présence de l’officium,
avec rédaction d’un procès-verbal de séance. Pour cette évolution, voir P.Oxy. LXIII 4381 (375 ; ChLA XLVII 1431) ;
J. Gascou, « Une décision de Caesarius, gouverneur militaire de Thébaïde », Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (TravMem 14)
(Paris 2002) 269–277 (= Fiscalité et société en Egypte byzantine [Paris 2008] 431–439).
110 Jean Gascou
Grandeur ni de l’officium (et ayant pour complices son père ?) et son frère il m’infligea des outrages
incessants et des coups de ses mains, se moquant des ordres de (ta Valeur ? ...) les accusés. Moi donc,
ayant en plus du reste souffert si gravement et n’ayant aucune force auxiliaire, j’ai pris à témoin un grand
nombre de gens présents (…) la violence perpétrée contre moi, alors que j’étais au service de ta Valeur,
te priant d’ordonner audit officium d’envoyer une force auxiliaire à Hermopolis (pour qu’elle fasse com-
paraître …) qui a osé me traiter de la sorte, son père, son frère et ceux qui peuvent témoigner, Seigneur
gouverneur.
(Il s’agit de … fils de) -eris, archéphode, de (… fils de) -eris, ânier.
(Consulat/post-consulat des Flavii Caesarius et Atticus) les clarissimes.
(… moi?), Ouiktôr, quaestionarius (…) mon Seigneur.
1 Suppléer dans la lacune initiale un gentilice, à l’époque presque toujours Φλαουίῳ. La désinence
]ε̣ι̣ῳ conserve peut-être la fin d’un précédent cognomen. Le tout est en grandes capitales pour
raisons protocolaires.
2 La restitution du début de la ligne s’appuie sur le formulaire usuel des pétitions et sur nos l. 3
et 14 ; pour τῆς σῆς τοῦ ἐμοῦ κυρίου τάξεως on a des parallèles dans des textes à peu près con-
temporains et de même origine où des fonctionnaires indiquent de la sorte leur appartenance
à l’officium provincial (P.Giss. 116, 2 [SB XX 14515], P.Lips. I 36, 9–10 [M.Chr. 77], M.Chr. 78,
3–4 pour un beneficiarius, et SB XVIII 13251, 12–13 pour des officiales). Le ς de τάξεως̣ semble
prolongé dans le vacat par un « filler ».
Pour un autre sens de τάξις, voir ci-dessous ad l. 4.
Après un vacat, le pétitionnaire entre dans le sujet. Un dérangement des fragments sous le verre
empêche de lire clairement τῶν, nécessaire pourtant à la syntaxe du participe mutilé qui suit.
κατὰ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ ν̣ό̣μ̣ων. Cette expression n’était pas sûrement attestée dans les papyrus, car les trois
ou quatre références procurées par la DDbDP procèdent de restitutions (celle de P.Ness. 30, 6–7
est au reste certainement erronée car elle contrevient au contexte). Elle va avec le participe qui
précède, ce qui donne une vague idée des sens possibles. Si le participe est de forme moyenne,
il peut y avoir allusion à ceux qui se comportent illégalement. S’il est au passif, il s’agirait de gens
qui, d’une manière ou d’une autre sont traités « contre les lois » (et qu’il faut donc protéger ou
venger).
En fin de ligne on pourrait à la rigueur lire ]ς ὑ[π]ε̣ρη̣[φανί]α̣ς̣ ou ὑ[π]ε̣ρη̣[φανεί]α̣ς̣. L’arrogance
peut bien s’associer à l’illégalité.
3 ἀφην̣ι̣α̣ζ[̣ όν]τω̣ν : ce verbe rare, imagé et littéraire, ne détonne pas dans la langue des pétitions de
l’époque comme le montrent P.Ammon I 15, 2 et 16b, 1 (« to become restive ») et II 36, 2 et 40, 42
(« sich zügellos verhalten »). Pour le contexte, voir l’introduction.
ἐπὶ τῆς τηλικαύτης ἀρχῆς : cette formulation flatteuse pour le gouverneur est à sa place dans
un préambule de pétition, l’auteur suggérant que les illégalités ne sauraient être tolérées sous un
gouverneur si éminent ; comparer dans le même contexte de captatio benevolentiae, P.Cair.Masp.
I 67020, 3 : ἐπ⟦ε⟧ὶ τῆς τηληκαύτης ὑμῶν εὐαρχ⸌ε⸍ίας.
4 τάξις signifie ici, non pas officium, services administratifs du gouverneur, comme à la l. 2, mais
section (scrinium) spécialisée de l’officium (voir F. Mitthof, CPR XXIII 32, n. 16), en l’occur-
rence le bureau des κομμέντα. Les attestations papyrologiques des κομμέντα, peu nombreuses et
résultant parfois de développements d’abréviations, sont rassemblées et discutées ad CPR XIV 39,
n. 19. Les plus explicites, concernant un βοηθὸς τῶν κομμέντων 18, nous renvoient à des affaires
judiciaires (P.Oxy. XVI 1837, 2, 5, 12 et 1877, 2 [ChLA XLVII 1407] ; PSI VIII 951, 2) 19.
18
L’attestation de P.Wisc. II 63, 2 n’éclaire pas la fonction.
19
Dans PSI VIII 951, 2 βοηθῷ n’est qu’une restitution vraisemblable. Le titre de βοηθὸς τῶν κομμέντων a été rapproché
par les éditeurs de P.Oxy. XVI 1877 d’un passage d’un procès-verbal de procès gréco-latin , contemporain du texte de
Par ailleurs, un scrinium constantinopolitain des κομμέντα (τῷ σκρινίῳ τῶν κομμέντων) est
attesté par Jean Lydus, Mag. III 19, 1 (cf. III 18, 3–4 ibid.). Chez Lydus κομμέντα est synonyme
de commentarii, ὑπομνήματα, procès-verbaux ou comptes rendus d’actes officiels. Le chef de
ce service était le commentariensis, terme correspondant, selon Lydus, Mag. III, 4, 4 et 8, 2,
à ὑπομνηματογράφος, rédacteur de procès-verbaux 20. Quelles que soient les attributions du
commentariensis en matière de confection ou validation d’actes administratifs en général, ses
compétences le plus clairement attestées au Bas-Empire s’exercent dans le domaine de la justice
pénale : l’enregistrement des plaintes, la saisie des prévenus (Lydus en porte témoignage en III,
16, 2 et 18, 3–4 ; voir pour l’Égypte l’Édit XIII § 17 et 22), les incarcérations et l’exécution des
peines 21. Ces références et le présent contexte invitent donc à voir dans la τάξις τῶν κομμέντων
le « bureau (provincial) des affaires criminelles ».
5 ]μ̣ο̣ι̣ : lire peut-être (οἱ) σὺν ἐ]μοί. Le plaignant aurait été empêché d’accomplir sa mission en
même temps que son escorte. Cette hypothèse semble, il est vrai, démentie par la l. 8 où Ouiktôr
déclare qu’il a échoué faute de βοήθεια.
La définition des fonctions de Kyros suggère qu’il était alors seul nyktostratège. Une lecture
stricte des autres pièces de son dossier le suggérait déjà malgré D. Hennig, « Nyktophylakes,
Nyktostrategen und die παραφυλακὴ τῆς πόλεως », Chiron 32 (2002) 281–295, sp. 290 (le fait
que Petros et Kyros soient attestés sous cette qualité en 398 ne suffit pas à établir leur collégialité
puisque les textes de référence ne sont pas exactement contemporains). La collégialité, ou plutôt
la subdivision de la liturgie selon des circonscriptions urbaines, est en revanche bien connue
à Hermopolis au VIe s., sans être une règle ; voir F. Mitthof, CPR XXIII 33, n. 3 ; elle a dû se
mettre en place au Ve s. (voir BGU XIX 2773).
ἐπ᾿ ἀλλοδαπῆς διάγον⟦ν⟧τα. Le pétitionnaire semble dire que, n’étant pas du pays et donc
dépourvu d’influence, il ne pouvait compter sur personne pour lui prêter main-forte. Mais s’il était
au service du praeses de Thébaïde, on devait bien le connaître dans la région puisque la capitale
du ressort, Antinoopolis, était très proche d’Hermopolis. Etait-il dépêché par une autre admi-
nistration provinciale ? Cela aurait pu en effet le mettre mal avec la police locale qui pouvait
le voir comme un intrus. Mais cela signifierait aussi que le destinataire de la pétition était un autre
gouverneur que celui de Thébaïde et il faudrait en conclure, ce qui très difficile à admettre, qu’un
praeses avait le droit de s’ingérer dans une autre juridiction que la sienne. J’avoue que je ne sais
comment rendre compte de ce passage.
Suppléer peut-être en fin de ligne, après une négation (ο̣[ὐκ?), un verbe à la 1ère personne du sing.
de l’aoriste signifiant « repousser » (sc. l’ἔφοδος), soit une traduction d’ensemble « en sorte que
moi, résidant à l’étranger, je ne pus repousser son agression ».
6 Suppléer au début une formulation telle que καὶ βουλομένου μου τοῦ]τον.
Strasbourg et de même origine, P.Lips. I 40 (ChLA XII 518) iii, 16 : Gennadius adiut(or) e (?) comm(entariensis) d(ixit).
Le rapprochement est d’autant plus fondé que la vraie lecture est Gennadius adiut(or) comm(entorum) / comm(entariorum)
d(ixit) (voir J. Gascou, « Procès-verbal d’audience du juge Ammonius », ZPE 170 [2009] 153, n. 14). Cette lecture a été
vérifiée sur l’original par N. Quenouille et R. Scholl, qui éliminent aussi le e (?) parasitaire en ii 13 Hermaion curat(or)
e(?) d(ixit) et iii, 7 et 13, Senecion superstat(ionarius?) e(?) d(ixit).
20
Voir, sur ces passages transmis de manière peu satisfaisante, D. Feissel, dans une recension-chronique de l’édition Schamp
de Jean Lydus, « Traduire Lydos (…) », AnTard 17 (2009), 347 et 348.
21
Voir encore sur ces passages Feissel, cité n. préc., mêmes pages. Le rôle des commentarienses dans les affaires pénales,
notamment les exécutions capitales, est bien illustré par les actes des martyrs (voir le Martyre de Pionios § 20, avec les
explications de l’éd., L. Robert, p. 115). Pour les incarcérations, voir SB XVI 12949, 27 et P.Aphrod.Reg., p. 139. Sur cette
institution et son évolution, voir R. Haensch, « A commentariis und commentariensis : Geschichte und Aufgaben eines
Amtes im Spiegel seiner Titulaturen », dans Y. Le Bohec (éd.), La Hiérarchie (Rangordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le
Haut-Empire (Paris 1995) 267–284 ; B. Palme, « Die officia der Statthalter in der Spätantike », AnTard 7 (1999) 85–133,
sp. 109; K. Stauner, Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus (27 v. Chr.–268 n. Chr.)
(Bonn 2004) 126–128 (cet auteur dépend de Haensch).
112 Jean Gascou
κατεντευχθέντα : personnes faisant l’objet d’une accusation, d’une plainte ; équivalent de (κατ)-
αἰτιαθέντα. On comparera Théodoret de Cyr, Ep. s. 81, l. 51 : Πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι διετέλεσα ἔτη,
οὔτε κατεντευχθεὶς ὑπό τινος, οὔτε αἰτιασάμενος ἕτερον. Le verbe κατεντυγχάνω est très rare
dans les papyrus, mais le TLG suggère qu’il gagne en popularité à basse époque.
ἧ[τ]τ̣ον ἐφρόντι̣σεν. D’après les parallèles enregistrés par la DDbDP, ἧττον est à l’époque, non
pas l’atténuation, mais la négation pure et simple de φροντίζω. À l’aide de la l. 10 qui reprend
la formulation de la l. 7, on avancerait, en suivant aussi P.Sakaon 48, 10, une restitution telle que
ἀλλὰ συνεργοὺς ἔχων/ἐσχηκὼς (τὸν δεῖνα) τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα κα]ὶ τὸν ἀδελφόν.
8 La dernière lettre peut être un ο, un σ ou un δ.
9 γ̣ε[νο]μένη μοι βία ̣ ̣ ̣. Un nominatif est difficile car une forme personnelle d’un verbe ayant pour
sujet notre quaestionarius, a disparu dans les lacunes des l. 8 et 9 (voir la n. suivante). Un datif
crée aussi des difficultés car la violence subie par Ouiktôr est l’objet et non pas la circonstance
de sa plainte. Toutefois, on a après βία une trace évoquant un ν, ce qui inviterait à lire un accusatif
βίαν. Encore que cette conjecture ne s’accorde pas avec la désinence -μένη du participe qui précède
μοι et va avec βία, il y a lieu de remarquer que cette forme résulte de la surcharge par un η d’une
séquence -μενοι antérieure. Peut-être le scribe a-t-il oublié d’ajouter un ν. La syntaxe des l. 8–9
serait ainsi plus aisée (voir n. suiv.).
On serait ensuite tenté de lire une forme composée ἐ̣ξ̣υ̣[π]η̣ρε̣ τοῦντι, verbe prisé à l’époque
tardive.
8–9 Le participe παρακαλῶν de la l. 9 implique que dans la lacune de la l. 8 ou au début de la l. 9
figurait un verbe à la 1re personne signifiant « porter à la connaissance », « dénoncer » (sc. « la vio-
lence perpétrée contre moi alors que je suis au service de ta Valeur »).
9–10 Suppléer dans les lacunes de ces lignes une forme verbale au participe futur (allant avec βοήθειαν)
signifiant « arrêter » les personnes incriminées ou les « déférer » à la cour.
11–12 Sur cette liste, d’une main fruste qui est peut-être celle du plaignant lui-même, voir l’introduction.
11 Vu le contexte, l’ἀρχέφοδος serait un chef de police de quartier : le cas est déjà établi à Hermopolis
dans le ressort de l’ἄμφοδον Φρουρίου Λιβός par CPR XVIIA,3 ii, 2 de 314. Selon ce texte, les
archéphodes (formant un collège de deux personnes, l. 3–4) dirigeaient les φύλακες du quartier.
Il y avait aussi, d’après iii, 35, des archéphodes de banlieue, προάστεια (voir R. S. Bagnall, Egypt
in Late Antiquity [Princeton 1993] 134–135 et 164 n. 82). Notre texte donnerait la mention la plus
tardive de l’archéphode. Encore faudrait-il montrer que l’archéphode de ville a un rapport avec
son homonyme de l’époque romaine, qui n’est attesté que dans le cadre villageois (S. Torallas
Tovar, « The Police in Byzantine Egypt », Current Research in Egyptology [Oxford 2000] 115–123,
sp. 118 ; noter que l’auteur n’évoque pas l’archéphode de ville).
14 Cette ligne n’est pas lue avec toute la certitude souhaitable. Encore qu’influencée par la l. 3, une
lecture ] ἐ̣γ̣ώ̣ ne contreviendrait pas aux traces. Devant le vocatif κύριέ μου, la seule lettre
certaine est un ω précédé de deux signes délabrés mais qui évoquent successivement un υ et un τ.
Une lecture ἐπὶ το]ύ̣τ̣ῳ (« sur ce sujet », « sur cette matière ») comblerait bien la lacune. En ce
cas, la lacune initiale aurait contenu un verbe ayant Ouiktôr pour sujet et dont ἐπὶ τούτῳ serait
la circonstance. Dans les signatures de pétitionnaires, le verbe usuel est ἐπιδέδωκα, mais je ne
l’ai pas trouvé associé à une locution comme ἐπὶ τούτῳ vel sim. L’interpellation finale κύριέ
μου, d’usage plutôt épistolaire, se rencontre dans les clausules de quelques pétitions, mais pas
à l’extrême fin du texte.
Université Paris IV-Sorbonne (CNRS, IRHT)

No. 27
28. Register of Requisitions
Nikolaos Gonis
P.Princ. inv. GD 7889E 10.4 x 6.6 cm Early VIII

Aphrodito
This is a fragment of a list of items, with their prices, requisitioned from various localities1. These were
destined for the needs of the fleets of the Caliphate, mostly involved with the annual cursus and other
expeditions. Closely comparable documents include SB XXVI 164912 and SPP X 2153, which present
a similar arrangement: name of locality (written in ekthesis), followed by commodities, quantities and
prices; for registrations on a larger scale, see P.Lond. IV 1414. Cf. also P.Brook. 254 or CPR VIII 85,
registers of requisitions of items from various localities but which do not mention prices. The prices
suggest that what was collected were not the items themselves but their monetary value, as specified
by the government (ἀπαργυρισμός), or that the tax payers had to contribute the cost of the items, to be
bought at the given price; see H. I. Bell, P.Lond. IV pp. xxix–xxx. The prices, where extant, are of some
interest: that for δέρματα τράγεια is the first of its kind (see 3 n.), while those for μασζερτ (2) and σχοινία
μικτά (4) are new.
The only toponym that has survived, Ποιμήν, is most probably the same as the hamlet (ἐποίκιον)
of this name known from the tax documentation of Aphrodito; the reference to the intermediary Menas
son of Markos lends further support to this identification (see below, 5 n.). If this is correct, this is one of
the very few stray items of the archive of the pagarchy (or rather dioikesis) of Aphrodito.
The text is written along the fibers. Another text is written on the back, at 90o to that on the
front (along the fibers). Too little survives (parts of four lines) and is intelligible to make a full edition
worthwhile, but that text too is no doubt a fiscal register that concerns goods or people to be sent to
the Suez (l. 1, τω κλυσμ( ), perhaps to be understood as τῶ = τοῦ Κλύσμ(ατος)), and refers to 52 men
(l. 2, γίνο(νται) ὀν(όματα) νβ).
→ --------------------
] ̣λ ̣ ̣( ) ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[
] μ̣[ασ]ζ̣[ε(ρτ)] α̣ νο(μ.) α  ἀγκύ(ρια) γ νο(μ.) [
δέρμ(ατα) τράγ(εια) ε νο(μ.)  γ΄ ἐλαί(ου) μ[έτρα
4 σχοι(νία) μικτ(ὰ) ε νο(μ.) ϛ΄ κδ΄ [
Πο̣[̣ι]μ̣ὴν δ(ιὰ) Μην(ᾶ) Μάρκ(ου) [
(οὕτως)·
1
The papyrus is part of the “Garrett Deposit,” the collection of papyri acquired by Robert Garrett through the British Museum
between 1924 and 1930, and deposited at the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University
Library. I am not aware of any other Garrett papyrus that shares the same provenance and date with this GD 7889E (not
to be confused with those from sixth-century Aphrodite such as P.Princ. II 84 and 89, which come from different finds).
Brief information and links to digital images of the front are available at http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/apis/item?
mode=item&key=princeton.apis.p325/.
I am grateful to the relevant authorities of Princeton University Library, and particularly Dr Don C. Skemer, for permission
to publish the papyrus and reproduce its photographs. I also thank Federico Morelli for reading a version of this paper.
2
Ed. pr. F. Morelli, “Martelli, grasso, senape e altro ancora in un registro dell’VIIIp: P.Heid. inv. G 530 + 2926,” AnPap 12
(2000) 243–256.
3
Re-edited as F. Morelli, “Requisizioni e prezzi in SPP X 215 (Un papiro ‘Ossirinchita’ dell’VIII secolo),” ZPE 138
(2002) 149–153.
4
Re-edited in F. Morelli, “Gonachia e kaunakai nei papiri (con due documenti inediti e uno riedito),” JJP 32 (2002) 79–81.
116 Nikolaos Gonis
ἀγκύ(ρια) β [
--------------------
… cable 1, sol. 1 1⁄2; anchor ropes 3, sol. …

skins of he-goats 5, sol. 1⁄2 1⁄3; metra of oil …
cords of mixed material 5, sol. 1⁄6 1⁄24 …
Poimen, through Menas son of Markos (…),
as follows:
anchor ropes 2, …
1–4 It is unclear whether further commodities were recorded in the lost parts of the lines.
2 μ̣[ασ]ζ̣[ε(ρτ) α]. On this kind of thick cord, see F. Morelli, “Legname, palazzi e moschee. P.Vindob.
G 31 e il contributo dell’Egitto alla prima architettura islamica,” Tyche 13 (1998) 168. The prices
are discussed by Morelli, AnPap 12 (2000) 252; they range from 1 sol. 8 car. to 3 sol. Their price
here, 1 1⁄2 sol., has not been attested otherwise.
ἀγκύ(ρια) γ. Cf. 7. For their prices, which vary according to where they were acquired and the
circumstances, see Morelli, AnPap 12 (2000) 253, and CPR XXII 44.22 n.; they range from 20 car.
to 1 1⁄3 sol.
3 δέρμ(ατα) τράγ(εια). The sum of 1⁄2 1⁄3 sol. indicates a price of 1⁄6 sol. per unit. P.Laur. IV 192.38
gives a price of 1 1⁄2 1⁄4 sol. for an unknown quantity. The only other evidence we have on prices
of skins in this period concerns those colored red (δέρματα ῥούσια), and is inconclusive (3 car.
per piece in one text, 1.7 car. in another); see CPR XXII 44.23 n.
3  γ΄. There is something written and perhaps erased (in part) over these fractions; there is another
trace on the edge at the end of the line.
ἐλαί(ου) μ[έτρα. On supplies of oil to persons in the service of the Arab administration, see
F. Morelli, Olio e retribuzioni nell’Egitto tardo (V–VIII d. C.) (Firenze 1996) 81–122.
4 σχοι(νία) μικτ(ά). The price per unit is 1⁄24 sol. This is low in comparison with P.Lond. IV 1414.47
and SPP X 215.7, 14, which attest prices of 2 carats.
6 Πο̣[̣ι]μ̣ὴν δ(ιὰ) Μην(ᾶ) Μάρκ(ου). P.Lond. IV 1459.33 ἐποικ(ίου) Ποιμὴν δ(ιὰ) Μηνᾶ [ may refer
to the same person as the intermediary here; cf. also P.Lond. IV 1553r.20 Μην(ᾶ) Μαρ̣[, in an
entry that follows immediately after the subheading ἐποικ(ίου) Ποιμήν.
For literature on this hamlet see the relevant entry (Poimen) in Trismegistos.
University College London

28. Register of Requisitions 117
No. 28, recto
No. 28, verso (unpublished)

29–31. Drei dokumentarische Papyri aus der Hamburger Sammlung*
Dieter Hagedorn und Bärbel Kramer
29. Bericht über einen Gefangenentransport

P.Hamb. inv. 458 9,8 x 10,2 cm Ende II. / Anf. III. Jh. (vor 212)
Diopolites parvus (Thebais)
Der auf der Rectoseite mit dem Faserverlauf beschriebene Papyrus besteht im wesentlichen aus drei Frag-
menten, die wir mit a, b und c bezeichnen. Die Fragmente a (ca. 4,6 x 5 cm) und b (ca. 5 x 3,7 cm) sind
nebeneinander anzuordnen, während c (ca. 9,4 x 4,7) unterhalb von a und b ungefähr deren gemeinsame
Breite einnimmt. Ferner gibt es vier kleinere, lose Fragmentchen, die bei der Konservierung rechts von
Fr. b plaziert worden sind; das oberste von ihnen (am Ende von Z. 1) hat, wie die Rekonstruktion der Zeile
beweist, die ihm zukommende Position gefunden, während sich dies für die anderen drei nicht bestätigen
läßt. Der obere Rand ist nur auf Fr. a erhalten, während er oberhalb von b weggebrochen ist; der linke
Freirand schwankt in der Breite zwischen 1,3 und 1,9 cm; rechts und unten ist das Blatt unvollständig, und
darüber hinaus ist es durch zahlreiche Löcher beschädigt, die das Verständnis beeinträchtigen. — Da der
Papyrus auf Papier verglast ist, wissen wir nicht, ob die Rückseite ebenfalls Schrift enthält.
Die Herkunft des Texts ergibt sich unmittelbar aus dem Inhalt. Wir haben es mit dem Bericht
eines Mannes zu tun – Name und Stellung des Berichtenden sind verloren –, der für die Überstellung
einiger Gefangener an den Epistrategen der Thebais Iulius Iulianus verantwortlich war. Empfänger des
Berichts ist Antonius Minor, der Königliche Schreiber des Gaues Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος (womit vermutlich
der Kleinere Diopolites bezeichnet wird, s. den Kommentar zu Z. 1–2) in seiner Funktion als Stellvertreter
des abwesenden Gaustrategen, und folglich dürfte der Kleinere Diopolites auch der Entstehungsort des
Berichts sein. In diesem ist zwar kein Datum erhalten, aber beide Beamte, der Epistratege und der König-
liche Schreiber, sind uns schon aus anderen Papyri bekannt, die sich ins spätere 2. Jh. oder die ersten Jahre
des 3. Jh. n.Chr. (vor 212) haben datieren lassen, ohne daß eine nähere Eingrenzung möglich wäre; in
diese Zeit ist nun also auch P.Hamb. inv. 458 zu setzen. Wenngleich der neue Text wegen der weitgehen-
den Zerstörung nur beschränkten Informationswert hat und z.B. immer noch nicht erlaubt, die Amtszeit
der genannten Funktionsträger zu präzisieren, trägt er dennoch auch zur Klärung offener Fragen bei.
So können wir jetzt mit größerer Sicherheit als zuvor den Zuständigkeitsbereich der beiden Beamten
benennen (zu Einzelheiten verweisen wir auf die Kommentare zu Z. 1–2 und 4–5).
Eine weitere interessante Information bietet der eigentliche Bericht: Dem Antonius Minor wird
nämlich unter Angabe des Namens usw. mitgeteilt, aus welchen Personen die Gruppe der zu überstel-
lenden Gefangenen besteht, wobei eine Unterscheidung in solche getroffen wird, die gefesselt sind (Z. 7:
ἐν δεσμοῖ̣[ς]), und solche in ‘freiem Gewahrsam’ (Z. 12: ἐλευθέρᾳ δὲ τηρήσει). Der letztgenannte Aus-
druck war für den gesamten griechischen Sprachbereich bisher nur einmal in einem Papyrus nachweisbar,
der dem unseren zeitlich sehr nahe steht und ebenfalls die Überstellung von Gefangenen an einen Epistra-
tegen betrifft; die Bedeutung der Wendung läßt sich jetzt besser verstehen, vgl. den Kommentar zu Z. 12.
→ Ἀντω̣[νί]ω̣ι Μίνορι β̣ασιλ̣[ικῷ γραμ(ματεῖ)]

Διοπ̣[ο]λ(ίτου) Θηβ̣(αΐδος) διαδε̣(χομένῳ) [καὶ τὴν στρα(τηγίαν)]
παρ̣ὰ Ζ̣ε̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ηγεν ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣]ι̣ν̣ω̣ ̣[ ἀνα(?)πεμ-]
4 φθ[έ]ν̣των [ἐπ]ὶ̣ τὸν κράτιστον [ἐπι-]
[στρά]τηγον̣ [Ἰού]λ̣ιον Ἰουλιανὸν ἐ̣π̣α̣[κο-]
*
Herrn Dr. Hans-Walter Stork, dem Leiter der Handschriftenabteilung der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg,
danken wir für die Publikationserlaubnis und die Bereitstellung vorzüglicher digitaler Abbildungen.
120 Dieter Hagedorn und Bärbel Kramer
λ̣ο[̣ υ]θοῦντος Διο̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[

ἔστι δέ· ἐν δεσμοῖ̣[ς·]
8 Πετεῆσ⸌ι̣⸍(ς) υἱῷ Τρε̣[ ̣ ̣]ψ̣ισ̣[
μητ(ρὸς) Ἀφροδ̣ε̣ί̣της καὶ ̣[
σαν ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣φ̣ις Ῥόδωνος ̣ ̣ ̣[
κατι ̣ Τ̣οτοέως ο̣ἱ β̣̅
12 ἐλευθέρᾳ δὲ τηρήσει·
Πουῶρι̣[ς] Πουώρ̣ιος [
---------------
No. 29
1–2 Der Königliche Schreiber Antonius Minor ist schon aus P.Mich. VIII 503 bekannt, einem Privat-
brief mit geschäftlichem Inhalt, dessen Präskript in Z. 1 Σαραπίων Ἀντ[ω]νίωι Μίνορι τῶι
φιλτάτωι χαίρειν lautet und dessen Adresse auf der Rückseite in der Edition folgendermaßen
wiedergegeben ist: Ἀντωνίωι Μίνορι × γενομ(ένωι) βασι(λικῶι) γρα(μματεῖ) Διοπ̣(ολίτου)
[μ]ε(γάλου). Der Brief liefert uns also die Information, daß Antonius Minor früher einmal König-
licher Schreiber eines Gaues mit dem Namen Diopolites gewesen ist. Aufgrund ihrer Lesung
bzw. Ergänzung [μ]ε(γάλου), die sie nicht weiter diskutierten, waren die Herausgeber der Meinung,
daß es sich dabei um den Gau mit der Hauptstadt Theben gehandelt habe, deren offizielle grie-
chische Bezeichnung Διὸς πόλις ἡ μεγάλη lautete. Denkbare Alternativen, nämlich der Gau von
Διὸς πόλις ἡ μικρά in der Thebais und ein weiterer Διοπολίτης im Delta, wurden überhaupt nicht
29–31. Drei dokumentarische Papyri aus der Hamburger Sammlung 121
in Erwägung gezogen. Bei seiner Untersuchung über die Bezeichnung des Gaues von Theben
in römischer Zeit ist J. D. Thomas1 jedoch zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, daß es einen Gau namens
Διοπολίτης μέγας nie gegeben habe; er vermutete, daß in P.Mich. VIII 503,26 anstelle von
Διοπ̣(ολίτου) [μ]ε(γάλου) etwas anderes zu lesen ist, etwa Διοπ̣[ολ]ε[ί(του),2 eine Annahme,
die sich nicht hat kontrollieren lassen, weil das Original jetzt in Kairo aufbewahrt wird und keine
Abbildung zur Verfügung steht. Aus diesem Grunde konnte der Königliche Schreiber Antonius
Minor in den einschlägigen prosopographischen Listen keinem Gau eindeutig zugewiesen werden,
sondern nur einem undifferenzierten Diopolites; s. J. Whitehorne, Strategi and Royal Scribes
of Roman Egypt (Str.R.Scr.2) (Pap. Flor. XXXVII), Firenze 2006, 148 und – ausführlicher
begründend – Th. Kruse, Der Königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung (APF Beih. 11),
Bd. II, München – Leipzig 2002, 997 mit Anm. 179. Διοπ̣[ο]λ(ίτου) Θηβ̣(αΐδος) in Z. 2 des
Hamburger Papyrus bringt nun in soweit Klarheit, als wir sicher sein können, das ein Diopolites
in der Thebais und nicht etwa der Delta-Gau betroffen ist.
Aber was ist genau unter Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος zu verstehen? Theoretisch könnte die Bezeichnung
immer noch für zwei oberägyptische Gaue zutreffen, nämlich den Kleinen Diopolites, der sonst
als Διοπολίτης μικρός oder auch Διοπολίτης μικρὸς Θηβαΐδος bezeichnet wurde,3 oder den Gau
des großen Theben, der in unseren Quellen sonst unter der Bezeichnung Περὶ Θήβας bekannt ist.
J. D. Thomas hat allerdings bestritten, daß für letzteren jemals der Name Διοπολίτης verwendet
worden ist, und gerade das Vorkommen der Bezeichnung Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος ohne weitere
Spezifizierung, für die Thomas nur den Beleg in P.Oxy. IV 708,2 (nach 27. Okt. 188): [Ἀντ]ώνιος
Αἰλιανὸς στρα(τηγῷ) Διοπ(ολίτου) Θηβ(αΐδος) χα(ίρειν) kannte,4 nahm er als Beweis dafür, daß
es nur einen einzigen Diopolites in der Thebais gegeben haben könne. Seine Schlußfolgerungen
scheinen uns dadurch gestützt zu werden, daß Περὶ Θήβας, der traditionelle Name des Gaues
von Theben, für den Thomas als spätestes Zeugnis nur O.Bodl. II 2530,1 (9. Mai 141): Ὀνομάστο
(l. Ὀνομάστῳ) στρατηγῷ Περὶ <Θή>βας benennen konnte, jetzt noch deutlich später nachweis-
bar ist: In P.Oxy. LX 4060,69f. (29. Juni 161): Ἀπολλωνίδης στρατηγὸς Περὶ Θήβας Φωκίωνι
στρ(ατηγῷ) Ὀξυρυγχείτου | τῶι φ[ι]λ̣τάτωι χαίρειν und in SB XXII 15470,6 (nach dem 23. Mai
187 n.Chr.): στρ(ατηγῷ) Περὶ̣ Θ̣[ήβ]α̣[ς. Der zuletzt genannte Text steht unserem Hamburger
Papyrus zeitlich sehr nahe (s. unten). Uns erscheint es nun kaum vorstellbar, daß der Gau gleich-
zeitig zwei offizielle Bezeichnungen gehabt hat, Περὶ Θήβας und Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος, und wir
zweifeln daher nicht daran, daß Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος den Kleinen Diopolites meint.5 Die Lesung
der Rückseite von P.Mich. VIII 503 bleibt weiterhin problematisch.
1
J. David Thomas, ‘The Theban Administrative District in the Roman Period’, JEA 50 (1964) 139–143.
2
A.a.O., 143 mit Anm. 4; s. auch BL V 70.
3
Belege aus römischer Zeit: BGU III 981 II 10 (nach 15. Apr. 77): βασ[ιλι]κ(οῦ) γραμμ(ατέως) Διοπ[ο]λ(είτου) μεικροῦ
Θηβαίδ(ος); P.Lond. II 179 (S. XVII), descr. (25. Juni–24. Juli 127): ὁ τοῦ μικροῦ Διοπολείτου τῆς Θηβαίδος στρατηγός;
SB XII 11045 = P.Oxy. XLVII 3362,6f. (2. Hälfte II): Διοπολείτου | [μικρ]οῦ Θηβαΐδος; P.Oxy. LI 3601 (29.? Okt. 202) Z. 4f.:
γε]νο̣μ̣έ̣ν[ο]υ στρα̣[τ]η̣[γοῦ] Δ[ι]οπολ̣ε̣ί̣τ̣[ου Μι]κ̣[ροῦ] | Θηβ[α]ΐδος und Z. 20f.: στρατηγή[σαντος τοῦ]| Διο̣πολ̣[εί]τ̣ου
Μεικροῦ Θηβ[α]ΐ[δος (in Z. 11f. aber bemerkenswerterweise nur στρατηγήσας | τοῦ Διοπολείτου ohne jeglichen Zusatz).
4
Inzwischen sind – abgesehen vom vorliegenden – weitere Zeugnisse hinzugekommen: BGU XV 2465,2f. (1 Juni 108):
Σουλπ(ίκιος) Σίμιλ(ις) Ἑρμαίῳ στρ(ατηγῷ) | Διοπ(ολίτου) Θηβ(αΐδος) χ(αίρειν); P.Cair. C.G. 10685 aus der Zeit von
ca. 222–235 n.Chr., den H. Henne, Liste des stratèges des nomes égyptiens à l’époque gréco-romaine, Le Caire 1935, 14
unter Nennung des Namens Ἰσχυρίων nur erwähnt hatte, ist jetzt vollständig ediert worden: Belal Abou el Ala, ‘Ten Greek
Papyri from Cairo Museum’, BACPS 23 (2006 [2008]) 23–119, hier Nr. X ‘A fragment of a petition to the strategos’, 92–
99, mit Abb. auf S. 117, wo es in Z. 7 heißt: τῶ]ι καὶ Ἰσχυρίωνι στρατηγῶι Θηβ(αΐδος) [. (Dazu zwei kleinere Korrekturen:
In Z. 6 steht nicht ] Ἁθὺρ κε, sondern Φ]α̣ῶφι ε ̅; am Anfang von Z. 8 sollte man ]γενους nicht zu τοῦ] γένους ergänzen,
sondern hier begann vermutlich die Angabe des Autors der Eingabe, z.B.: [παρὰ Διο]γένους Ἀσπιδᾶ κτλ.) Schließlich ist
in P.Nag Hamm. 22c,6 die Gaubezeichnung Διοπολ(ίτου) ? Θ]ηβαίδος von F. Mitthof konjiziert worden; s. BL XII 131.
5
Allerdings ist Thomas’ These, die Bezeichnung Διοπολίτης sei nie für den Gau von Theben in Verwendung gewesen,
jüngst von numismatischer und ägyptologischer Seite abgelehnt worden. Thomas hat nämlich wegen dieser seiner Annahme
Der Brief P.Mich. VIII 503 enthält keine Datierung und ist unbekannter Herkunft. Von den Heraus-
gebern ist er in das späte 2. Jh. n.Chr. gesetzt worden, und mit dieser Zeitstellung erscheint der
Königliche Schreiber Antonius Minor auch in den oben erwähnten Listen von Whitehorne und
Kruse. Die Entscheidung der Herausgeber wurde durch die Identifizierung des Königlichen
Schreibers mit dem Antinoiten Lucius Antonius Minor nahegelegt, der im Jahre 189 n.Chr., wie
wir aus BGU II 578 = M.Chr. 227 = Jur. Pap. 46 wissen, die δημοσίωσις eines Schuldscheins
des im Arsinoites wohnenden Veteranen C. Iulius Martialis durchgeführt hat, vermutlich zum
Zwecke der Vollstreckung des Darlehens. Übersehen worden ist bisher anscheinend, daß derselbe
L. Antonius Minor auch in P.Hamb. I 84 (Arsinoites; unter Commodus) erscheint, einer “Quittung
über die Entrichtung der Umschreibegebühr bei Zession von Katökenland”. Da in beiden Texten
das Amt eines Königlichen Schreibers, welches Antonius Minor bekleidet hat, nicht erwähnt
wird, sind sie für die Datierung des Hamburger Papyrus und des Briefs P.Mich. VIII 503 nur von
beschränkter Hilfe; denn wir erfahren daraus nicht die zeitliche Relation. Sicher ist im Augenblick
nur, daß der Brief nach dem hier edierten Papyrus entstanden sein muß.
Immerhin geben die erwähnten Texte doch ein wenig Auskunft über die privaten Verhältnisse,
in denen Antonius Minor gelebt hat.6 Aus dem Brief erfahren wir, daß er in Memphis ein Landgut
(γεουχία) besessen hat, und die beiden Urkunden beweisen, daß er auch im Arsinoites geschäft-
lich tätig war, wo er laut P.Hamb. I 84 ja durch Zession Katökenland erworben hat. Da der Brief
in Karanis gefunden worden ist und die beiden Urkunden aus dem Arsinoites stammen, liegt die
Vermutung nahe, daß Karanis auch deren Herkunft ist, und vielleicht dürfen wir sogar ernsthaft
in Erwägung ziehen, daß der hier edierte Bericht ebenfalls in Karanis ausgegraben worden ist:
Antonius Minor könnte das amtliche Dokument – vielleicht zusammen mit anderen Papieren –
dorthin verbracht haben.
διαδε̣(χομένῳ) [καὶ τὴν στρα(τηγίαν)]: Daß Antonius Minor vorübergehend auch einmal stell-
vertretend das Strategenamt des Gaues innegehabt hat, erfahren wir jetzt erstmals. Aus Platz-
gründen haben wir zur Ergänzung der Lücke die kürzere Formulierung der häufiger bezeugten
längeren Variante καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν στρα(τηγίαν) vorgezogen. Allgemein zur Vertretung der
Vakanz des Strategenamtes durch den Königlichen Schreiber s. Kruse, Der Königliche Schreiber
II, 843–863.
3–6 Wir erwarten in diesen Zeilen nach παρά (Z. 3) zunächst im Genitiv den Namen (und möglicher-
weise noch weitere Bestimmungen) desjenigen, der den Bericht angefertigt hat; danach – ob
noch in derselben Zeile oder später, bleibt unklar – sollte ein Substantiv im Nominativ mit der
Bedeutung ‘Liste, Aufstellung, usw.’ gefolgt sein, von dem der Genitiv der Partizipialendung
-φθ[έ]ν̣των usw. abhängt; am Ende (Z. 5f.) steht wohl im Genitivus absolutus die Angabe einer
weiteren Person, die an der Erstellung des Berichts mitgewirkt hat. Wegen des schlechten Erhal-
tungszustandes des Papyrus sehen wir uns jedoch nicht in der Lage, den Wortlaut durchgehend
zu rekonstruieren; vgl. auch die Einzelkommentare.
3 Ζ̣ε̣ ̣[: Das Epsilon ist hier ebenso wie im Falle des zweiten Epsilon von ἐλευθέρᾳ in Z. 12 in
einem einzigen Zug gemacht, während es sonst meist zweiteilig ist. An dritter Position scheint
zwei Gaumünzen aus dem Jahre 145/5 n.Chr. mit der Legende ΔΙΟΠΟΛΕΙΤ bzw. ΔΙΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΗϹ dem Kleinen Diopolites
zugewiesen, obwohl letztere ein auch für Διὸς πόλις ἡ μεγάλη belegtes Rückseitenbild trägt; er glaubte diese Zuweisung
mit der Unterstellung rechtfertigen zu können, daß die Prägestätte in Alexandria “issued these coins with little regard
to the correctness of the deities etc. represented for the nomes to which they are attributed” (a.a.O., 142f.). A. Geißen
und M. Weber sind nun in der ersten Lieferung ihrer über mehrere Bände der ZPE verteilten ‘Untersuchungen zu den
ägyptischen Nomenprägungen’ erneut auf die Frage eingegangen: ZPE 144 (2003) 277–300 (s. zu Diospolis Magna 292–
299, zu dem Problem besonders 293, Anm. 110 und 298f.; Beschreibung der fraglichen Münze auf S. 296, Abbildung auf
Taf. II 23); sie sind dabei zu dem Schluß gekommen, die These aus grundsätzlichen Erwägungen ablehnen zu müssen, und
halten folglich den ΔΙΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΗϹ der Münze doch für den Gau von Theben.
6
Vgl. zu dieser Thematik auch ausführlicher Kruse, a.a.O., Bd. II, 913f.
ein Buchstabe zu stehen, der etwas höher als das mutmaßliche Epsilon mit einem kleinen Haken
einsetzt und dann bis zur Lücke waagerecht verläuft; um ein Ny, an welches man bei einem
Namensbeginn mit Ζε- zuerst denken muß, kann es sich u. E. schwerlich handeln, wenngleich
die Lesung nicht völlig auszuschließen ist, und ein waagerechter Strich als Abkürzungsmarkierung
scheidet wohl auch aus, weil die Auflösung für Ζε ̅ kaum zu erraten wäre. Am ehesten könnte der
Buchstabe u. E. ein Ypsilon sein, vgl. den 3. Buchstaben von Z. 5 Ἰουλιανὸν, und nach der Lücke
kommen nur Omikron oder Sigma in Frage. Der einzige Name, der sich danach rekonstruieren
ließe, wäre Ζ̣ε̣ύ̣[διο]ς̣ (vermutlich von dem Nominativ Ζεῦδις), gelesen bisher nur in SB V
7559,16f. Εὔτυχος | Ζεύδιος; doch vgl. ferner PSI X 1117,3f. Ῥοδίνῃ ἀπελ(ευθέρᾳ) | Ζεύσι[ος
τοῦ Ζ]ε̣ύσιος und 25f. τοῦ | ἑαυτῆς πάτρωνος Ζεύσιος, wo nach Ausweis der Abbildung in
ZPE 155 (2006) 196 anstelle von σι jeweils deutlich δι zu lesen ist (das getilgte Ζευσι in Z. 9
läßt sich an der Abbildung nicht verifizieren), sowie P.Tebt. II 336,20 Πτολεμαῒς Ζεύο̣υ̣ς,̣ wo die
Abbildung im Internet ebenfalls die Korrektur Ζεύδιος ermöglicht.
Sollte diese Überlegung zutreffen, könnte auf Ζ̣ε̣ύ̣[διο]ς̣ weder ein Vatersname noch eine weitere
Bestimmung (Amtsbezeichnung usw.) gefolgt sein, weil die sicher zu lesenden Buchstaben ηγεν
dafür keine Perspektive bieten. Die Absenderangabe hätte also nur παρ̣ὰ Ζ̣ε̣ύ̣[διο]ς̣ gelautet, was
für ein amtliches Schreiben äußerst ungewöhnlich wäre7 und sich nur mit der Annahme erklären
ließe, daß es sich hierbei um einen Entwurf oder eine private Abschrift handelt.
Überlegungen hinsichtlich der Ergänzung des Rests der Zeile werden erschwert, weil wir im
Unklaren darüber bleiben, wieviel Platz für die noch zu erwartenden Elemente zur Verfügung
steht und wie er zu verteilen ist. Es kommt die Unsicherheit hinzu, ob zwei kleine lose Fragmente
am Ende der Zeile hier richtig plaziert sind. Die sicher zu ergänzenden Zeilen 4 und 5 waren
unterschiedlich lang: In Z. 4 sind es 25 Buchstaben, in Z. 5 jedoch 30 Buchstaben. Was das über
den Zeilenwechsel 3/4 reichende Partizip betrifft, so ist sicher, daß der Verbalstamm πέμπω
darin steckt. Doch war es das Simplex oder ein Compositum? Am häufigsten und wohl geradezu
terminologisch wird in dem hier interessierenden Zusammenhang das Compositum ἀναπέμπω
verwendet,8 allerdings findet sich auch das Simplex, s. BGU 1 325 = W.Chr. 472,4f. (Soknopaiu
Nesos; 3. Jh. n.Chr.): δ[ε]δ[ε]μένοι πεμφθήσον[τ]αι ἐπὶ τὸν λαμπρότ(ατον) | ἡμῶν ἡγεμόνα (vgl.
auch unten zu Z. 7), und die kürzere Möglichkeit wird man hier aus Platzgründen vorziehen
müssen.
Das gesuchte Substantiv mit der Bedeutung ‘Liste’, von dem der Genitiv abhängt, könnte gut
γραφή gewesen sein,9 doch fällt es schwer, eine Stelle zu finden, wo es im Kontext untergebracht
werden könnte. Die auf παρ̣ὰ Ζ̣ε̣ύ̣[διο]ς̣ folgenden Buchstaben ηγεν ließen sich recht gut zu
ἡ γενο̣μ̣έ̣[ν]η ergänzen, und was darauf folgt, könnte man als τ̣ι̣ν̣ω̣ν̣ lesen, aber mit ἡ γενο̣μ̣έ̣[ν]η
τ̣ι̣ν̣ῶ̣ν̣ [πεμ]|φθ[έ]ν̣των wäre der in Z. 3 zur Verfügung stehende Platz schon erschöpft. Weder
der Gedanke an einen Ausfall des Wortes γραφή am Anfang des Satzes – also etwa <γραφὴ>
ἡ γενο̣μ̣έ̣[ν]η κτλ. oder ἡ γενο̣μ̣έ̣[ν]η <γραφὴ> κτλ. – noch sein Verweis in die Lücke am Ende
7
Zumal sich in vorliegenden Fall ein subalterner Beamter an einen höhergestellten wendet, wie u. a. das Formular τῷ δεῖνι
παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος beweist.
8
Man vergleiche etwa folgende Parallelen: BGU IV 1019,9f. (Alexandria oder Arsinoites; ca. 142–144): ἀνα|πε[μφθεὶ]ς̣
ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοδ[ό]την; P. Berl. Möller 1,8 (Euergetis [Lykopolites]; 300): ἀνεπέμφθη ἐπὶ τὸν πρόεδρον διʼ ὑπογραφῆ[ς τοῦ
ἐπάρχου; P.Mil. Vogl. II 98,2–4 (Tebtynis; 138/9?): τῶν κ̣[ατη]|γορουμένων πραγματικῶν καὶ ἀναπεμφθέν̣[των] | ἐπὶ τὸν
ἡγεμώνα (l. ἡγεμόνα); P.Oxy. XLVII 3339,22–25 (Oxy.; 191): αὐτὸς | δὲ ὑ̣πʼ ἐμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν ἡγεμόνα | ἀναπεμφθήσεται λόγον
ὑφέ|ξων τοῦ τετολμημένου; 3346,20–23 (Oxyrhynchites; 207–211): π̣ά̣ντ̣ ας ἐλευθέ̣|ρᾳ τηρήσει ἀ̣να̣ πεμφθέντας ὑπὸ σοῦ | ἐπὶ
τὸν κράτιστον ἐπιστράτηγον Ἰούλ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣ | Σώπατρον (vgl. dazu auch unten den Kommentar zu Z. 12).
9
Mit diesem Wort beginnen zahlreiche an Strategen oder Basilikoi Grammateis adressierte Berichte; man denke nur an
die bekannten γραφαὶ ἱερέων καὶ χειρισμοῦ in z.B. P.Tebt. II 298,9 (108); SB VI 9319 = P.Bacch. 1,6 (116); SB VI 9336 =
P.Lund. III 5 = P.Bacch. 4,4 (172) usw. oder an die γραφὴ δημοσίων in u.a. P.Petaus 66,3 (185). Mit den Worten γραφὴ
ἀνδρῶν beginnt die einem Strategen übermittelte ‘Liste de personnes’ P.Gen. II 91,5 (50–51), in der es um Liturgen geht.
von Z. 6 führen zu einem befriedigenden Text; es ließe sich dafür keine Parallele aus einem
amtlichen Bericht beibringen,10 und er enthielte sprachliche bzw. sachliche Probleme.11 Wir
können daher nur konstatieren, daß uns die Herstellung nicht gelungen ist.
4–5 Der Epistratege Iulius Iulianus ist bereits aus der an ihn gerichteten Eingabe P.Oxy. III 488 bekannt.
Er hat in der Liste der Inhaber des Epistrategenamtes bei Thomas12 auf S. 187 die Nummer 30 erhal-
ten, wozu man die Diskussion auf S. 198f. vergleiche. Zeitweilig war dieser Iulius Iulianus in der
Literatur mit dem Epistrategen der Heptanomie desselben Namens gleichgesetzt worden, der aus
PSI XII 1248,34f. (Oxyrhynchos; nach 14. Dez. 235) bekannt ist,13 was deswegen vertretbar schien,
weil P.Oxy. III 488 undatiert ist und sein Fundort, Oxyrhynchos, zur Heptanomie gehört hat.
Thomas hat jedoch darauf hingewiesen, daß der Inhalt der Urkunde nicht den Oxyrhynchites, son-
dern den Unteren Apollonopolites und den Antaiopolites betrifft, beides Gaue der Thebais, und
daß das Fehlen des Gentilnamens Aurelius bei den auftretenden Personen auf eine Entstehung
vor dem Erlaß der Constitutio Antoniniana im Jahre 212 n.Chr. schließen läßt. Daher reiht er den
in P.Oxy. III 488 bezeugten Iulius Iulianus in die Epistrategen der Thebais ein und gibt als Zeit
seiner Wirksamkeit nur “undated (before 212)” an. Beide Entscheidungen werden nun durch den
vorliegenden Papyrus als zutreffend bestätigt. Eine Identität mit dem Namensvetter, der mehrere
Jahrzehnte später das Epistrategenamt in der Heptanomie ausgeübt hat, läßt sich bei unserem
augenblicklichen Kenntnisstand nicht ausschließen, ist aber – wie auch schon Thomas ausgeführt
hat – in Anbetracht der Häufigkeit der Namensverbindung14 eher unwahrscheinlich.
5–6 ἐ̣π̣α̣[κο]|λ̣ο[̣ υ]θοῦντος Διο̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[: Statt Διο̣ käme eventuell auch Δια̣ in Betracht, je nachdem wie
man die Reste oberhalb und unterhalb des waagerechten Bruches miteinander verbindet, doch
erscheint uns insgesamt die Lesung Διο̣γ̣έ̣[ν]ο̣υ̣ς̣ oder Διο̣γ̣έ̣ν̣[ο]υ̣ς̣ recht wahrscheinlich. Bedauer-
licherweise ist die Funktion des Mannes nicht erhalten. War er in der Verwaltung angesiedelt,
oder war er ein Wachmann? U. E. ist der genitivus absolutus syntaktisch auf παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος in
Z. 3 zu beziehen, nicht etwa auf ἀνα(?)πεμ]|φθ[έ]ν̣των in Z. 3–4, d. h. es soll nicht gesagt werden,
daß der Mann den Gefangenentransport begleitet hat, sondern daß er an der Erstellung des
vorliegenden Berichts mitgewirkt hat und dafür mitverantwortlich ist. Die Anordnung ist zwei-
fellos ungeschickt, doch vergleiche man etwa P.Wisc. II 80,1–12: Ἀπολ<λ>ονίωι στ̣ρ̣(ατηγῷ)
Ἀρσι(νοίτου) Ἡρακλείδ(ου) μερίδος | παρὰ̣ Χαιρᾶ το(ῦ) Χα[ιρή]μονος ἀπὸ τῆς μητροπ(όλεως) |
ἀναγρ̣(αφομένου) ἐπʼ ἀμφόδου Θ̣αραπίας καθεσταμένου | ὑπὸ σοῦ ἐπιτηρητοῦ πύλης Βακχιάδος
ὑπο̣|πιπτούσης τῷ τῆς Μέμφεως λιμένι. | λόγος τῶν περιγεγονότων ἀπὸ ἐπιτη|ρέσεως τῆς αὐτῆς
πύλης ἀπ̣ὸ α̅ ἕως λ̅ | τοῦ Θὼθ μηνὸς το(ῦ) ἐνεστῶτος ιη (ἔτους) | Τραιανοῦ Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου
κατὰ τὸν | γνώμονα ἐπακολουθοῦντος Κολλούθ(ου) | πραγματε̣υτοῦ Κλαυδίου Ἡρακλείδ(ου)
λιμ<ε>νάρχ(ου). ἔστιν δέ. Zu dieser Bedeutung von ἐπακολουθέω s. die umfangreichen Beleg-
sammlungen in Preisigke, WB I, Sp. 526 und IV, Sp. 836f., s.v. 4).
7 ἐν δεσμοῖ̣[ς]: In dokumentarischen Texten aus Ägypten ist diese Verbindung bislang nur im
“Gnomon des Idioslogos” BGU V 1210,62f. vorgekommen: δούλῳ ἐν δεσμοῖς γενομένῳ
καὶ ὕστερον ἀπελ̣ευθερωθέ̣ντι ἢ καὶ | μηδέπω τριάκοντα ἐτῶν γενομένῳ τὰ δια̣τ̣ ασσόμενα
ἀναλαμβ(άνεται). Man vergleiche jedoch bedeutungsgleiches δεδεμένος in demselben Kontext
wie in dem hier behandelten Text in dem Überstellungsbefehl BGU I 325 = W.Chr. 472,1–6
10
Am nächsten käme noch P.Oxy. XVII 2145,2–5 (Oxy.; 185 n.Chr.): ἀναμέτρησις κονιατικ̣ῶν̣ ̣ | [ἔργ]ων βαλανείου κατα-
σκευασθέντ(ος) ἐν οἴκῳ ̣ ̣|[ ̣ο]υ Σεουήρου ἡ γενομένη ὑφʼ ἡμῶν Τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | [Σαρα]πίωνος καὶ Συρίωνος γεωμετρῶν, ἔστι δέ.
11
ἡ γενομένη ohne eine Ergänzung wie ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ oder eine zeitliche Bestimmung ist überflüssig und entbehrt jedes Sinnes.
Und wieso τ̣ι̣ν̣ῶ̣ν̣ statt eines gegebenenfalls zu erwartenden ἀνδρῶν, wo die Gefangenen doch namentlich aufgeführt werden?
12
J. D. Thomas, The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Part 2: The Roman epistrategos, Opladen 1982.
13
Zu ihm vgl. Thomas (wie Fußn. 12), 191 und 205 unter Nr. 70.
14
Um nur Zeugnisse aus Ägypten zu nennen: Ein Iulius Iulianus war um das Jahr 324 n.Chr. praefectus Aegypti; vgl. zu
ihm zuletzt F. Mitthof in CPR XXIII 23,12 Anm. Ferner kennen wir einen centurio dieses Namens durch die Petitionen
SB I 4284 sowie P.Gen. I2 16 und 17 aus dem Jahre 207 n.Chr.
(Sokn. Nesos; III): κώμης Σοκνοπ[αίου Νήσ]ου. [πα]ραγ’γέλλεται τοῖς ὑπ[ο]|γεγραμμένοις

λῃστοπιασταῖ[ς προσε]λθεῖν τοῖς τῆς κώμης | δημοσίοις καὶ ἀναζητῆσαι τοὺ[ς ἐπ]ιζητουμένους
κακούργους. | ἐὰν δὲ ἀμελήσωσι, δ[ε]δ[ε]μένοι πεμφθήσον[τ]αι ἐπὶ τὸν λαμπρότ(ατον) | ἡμῶν
ἡγεμόνα. | εἰσὶ δέ κτλ. und in dem Präfektenbrief SB XIV 12144, 16–18 (Herk. unbek.; 198/9
n.Chr.): ἐ̣άν τι[ν]α παρὰ τὰ ἀπηγορευμένα | πράσσον<τα> ευρον (l. εὕρῃ), δεδεμ̣[έ]ν̣ο̣ν ἐπὶ τὴν
ἐμὴν διάγνωσιν | πεμψάτω.
8 Das hochgesetzte Iota von Πετεῆσ⸌ι̣⸍(ς) steht nicht hinter, sondern genau über dem Sigma. Statt
υἱῷ ist sicherlich υἱὸς zu verstehen, denn ein Dativ Πετεήσ⸌ι̣⸍ (l. Πετεήσει) υἱῷ wäre an dieser
Stelle absolut unverständlich. Danach ist ein Spatium von ca. 2 Buchstaben Breite gelassen. Mit
Τρε̣[ beginnt vermutlich der Name der Mutter (z.B. ein unbezeugtes Τρέ̣[μ]ψις̣?), danach könnten
deren Vater (verloren) und Mutter (Ἀφροδείτη in Z. 9) genannt gewesen sein.
9 μητ(ρὸς) ist möglicherweise später hinzugefügt worden. Die Verbindung von κα in καὶ ist so
geraten, daß man stattdessen ein Omega zu sehen glaubt.
Ἀφροδ̣ε̣ί̣της: Am Ende des waagerechten Balkens des Tau scheint eine hochreichende senkrechte
Linie zu verlaufen; wir halten diese (sofern es sich wirklich um Tinte handelt) eher für einen
verfrühten Ansatz zu der ersten Senkrechten des folgenden Eta als für die Unterlänge eines Iota
adscriptum von υἱῶι̣ in Z. 8.
10 Mögliche Lesungen wären z.B. Σανε̣φ̣ῶ̣φ̣ις oder Σανσ̣φ̣ῶ̣φ̣ις; kein derartiger Name ist bekannt.
Zu Ῥόδων vergleiche man für die ptolemäische Zeit, in welcher der Name am häufigsten bezeugt
ist, die ausführliche Dokumentation in P.Heid. VIII 417,37 Komm.; hinzu kommt jetzt noch
P.Count 47,164 (Oxy. oder Herakl.; 230 v.Chr.). Belege aus der römischen Zeit waren bislang nur
P.Köln I 54,4 (Ptolemais Euergetis; 4 v.Chr); P.Flor. III 316,7 (Philadelphia; II); PSI XIV 1420,13
(Oxy.; III); P.Oxy. XLVI 3311,3 (Oxy.; ca. 373/4).
11 Am Anfang vielleicht κατις̣; vgl. Πανεκᾶτις in P.Bon. 11 Fr. n, Z. 7 (III v.Chr.; Diopolites parvus).
12 Zur generellen Bedeutung von τήρησις s. S. R. Llewelyn – A. M. Nobbs, ‘P. Grenf. II 73. A Recon-
sideration’, Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (APF, Beih. 3), 1997, 613–630,
hier S. 628. Zu ‘Gewahrsam’ vgl. in den Papyri z.B. BGU II 388 II 7 (ca. 157–159): ἐκέλευσεν
Σμάραγδον καὶ Εὔκαιρον εἰς τὴν τήρησιν παραδοθῆναι.
Die Junktur ἐλευθέρα τήρησις kennen wir im Griechischen bislang ausschließlich aus einem
anderen ägyptischen Papyrus, nämlich P.Oxy. XLVII 3346 (ca. 207–211), einer beeideten Erklä-
rung gegenüber dem Strategen des Oxyrhynchites seitens zweier Einwohner des oxyrhynchi-
tischen Dorfes Chysis, die ihre eigene Position als ἐπὶ ἐλευθέρας τηρήσεως τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ
bezeichnen (Z. 5f., vgl. Z. 30). Die beiden erfüllten ihre Aufgabe also auf Gauebene. Sie tun
in der Deklaration kund, neun Männer in ihre Verantwortung übernommen zu haben, darunter
mehrere liturgische Beamte mit polizeilichen Aufgaben, und zwar (Z. 20–23) π̣ά̣ν̣τας ἐλευθέ̣|ρᾳ
τηρήσει ἀ̣ν̣απεμφθέντας ὑπὸ σοῦ | ἐπὶ τὸν κράτιστον ἐπιστράτηγον Ἰούλ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣ | Σώπατρον. Der Fall
weist mithin eine erstaunliche Übereinstimmung mit der Situation in unserem Text auf. Die in
Gewahrsam Genommenen waren möglicherweise von einer Frau beschuldigt worden (die letzten
Zeilen der Urkunde sind sehr beschädigt), und ihr Fall sollte wahrscheinlich vor dem Epistrategen
verhandelt werden. In seinem Kommentar zu Z. 5–6 erläutert der Herausgeber (R. A. Coles), daß
ἐλευθέρα τήρησις vermutlich das häufigere lateinische libera custodia wiedergebe, wofür man
im Griechischen auch ἐλευθέρα φυλακή finde (laut TLG jetzt fünfmal bei Diodorus Siculus nach-
weisbar, weitere fünfmal bei späteren Autoren). Er findet ‘house-arrest’, womit libera custodia
gewöhnlich übersetzt wird, im Falle von P.Oxy. XLVII 3346 für unpassend und erwägt dort eine
Bedeutung wie ‘a form of remand arrangement’, also etwa ‘Untersuchungshaft’. Im Hamburger
Papyrus wird nun durch den Gegensatz zwischen ἐν δεσμοῖς (Z. 7) und ἐλευθέρα τήρησις deutlich,
daß das Wesentliche an dem ‘freien Gewahrsam’ der Verzicht auf Fesselung war, wodurch
natürlich die Gefahr eines Fluchtversuchs gegeben war. Daß die Flucht eines Gefangenen für
den verantwortlichen Beamten sehr unangenehm sein konnte, zeigt die Formulierung in P.Köln
VI 281,11–15 (Byzantinischer Brief mit Überstellungsbefehl; 6. Jh.): καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βούλομαι
ἢ μετὰ πλήθους αὐτὸ[ν] | ἀνελθεῖν ἤγουν ξύλον ἔχοντα ἐν τοῖς ποσίν, ὥστε | μὴ δυνηθῆναι ἐκ
τοῦ πλοίου λαθεῖν καὶ διαφυγεῖν. | πάνυ γάρ με ἔβλαψεν καὶ ἐζημίωσεν καὶ ἀπώλεσεν | ἡ τοῦ
προτέρου φυγή; weitere Belege dort im Kommentar. — Bei der in ptolemäischer Zeit mehrfach
begegnenden Formulierung μετὰ φυλακῆς, wozu man P.Bingen 34 Einl. vergleiche, bleibt offen,
ob wir an Fesselung der Gefangenen zu denken haben oder nicht.
Gerne wüßten wir, welchem Umstand die ungefesselt Transportierten diese bevorzugte Behand-
lung verdankten. Bestand verringerte Fluchtgefahr, oder geschah es nur aufgrund einer heraus-
gehobenen sozialen Stellung? Überhaupt ist bedauerlich, daß wir nicht erfahren, welches Vergehen
den Männern zur Last gelegt wurde und zu welchem Zweck sie gerade dem Epistrategen überstellt
wurden. Die Vermutung liegt nahe, daß ihnen vor dem Epistrategen der Prozeß gemacht werden
sollte.15
Übersetzung
An Antonius Minor, den Königlichen Schreiber des Diopolites der Thebais, der auch die Strategie vertritt,
von Ze… Die erstellte Liste einiger Männer (?), die zum Epistrategen Iulius Iulianus, vir egregius, überstellt
werden, unter Mitwirkung von Dio-/Dia-…
Es sind: In Fesseln:
Peteësis, Sohn des Tre… und der Aphrodite, und …, Sohn des Rhodon … Toteus, die 2.
Und in freiem Gewahrsam:
Puoris, Sohn des Puoris …
30. Penthemeros-Quittung
P.Hamb. inv. 130 7,8 x 6 cm 26. Juni 158
Theadelphia
Standardwerk zum Urkundentyp der Penthemeros-Quittungen ist die Monographie von P. J. Sijpesteijn,
Penthemeros-Certificates in Greco-Roman Egypt (P. Lugd. Bat. XII), Leiden 1964. Sijpesteijn hat darin
sowohl das System der fünftägigen Arbeitsleistungen beschrieben und analysiert, zu dem im Arsinoites
die Bevölkerung zum Zwecke der Instandhaltung der Kanäle und Deiche verpflichtet war, als auch
eine umfangreiche Liste der ihm damals bekannten Quittungen veröffentlicht. Nachträge dazu sind
verschiedentlich mitgeteilt worden, s. P.Dub. 9 Einl.; P.Louvre I 31 Einl.; P.Lips. II 150 Einl. In jüngerer
Zeit publizierte Beispiele sind P.Sijp. 42 a–h und R. Pintaudi, ‘Certificati di penthemeros da Tebtynis nella
collezione Martin Schøyen (MS 180)’, CE 80 (2005) 215–218 = P.Schøyen II 28. PSI XV 1519 und 1520
sind Neueditionen von PSI Omaggio 6 und 7, PSI XV 1528 ist eine solche von SB XII 11046.
Die Anzahl der aus dem Zeitraum erhaltenen Quittungen, aus dem auch P.Hamb. inv. 130 stammt,
ist recht hoch; einen Ausschnitt aus der Dokumentation für Theadelphia zeigt die folgende Liste:
P.Münch. III 108 (15. Juni 145)
SB XVI 12597 (15. Juni 145)16
SB XVI 12598 (14. Juni 146)
SB XVI 12599 (20. Juni 146)
15
Zu “Trials before the epistrategos” vgl. Thomas (wie Fußn. 12), 129–137.
16
Da P.Münch. III 108 an demselben Tag und an demselben Kanal ausgestellt worden ist wie SB XVI 12597, liegt es nahe,
daß auch derselbe κατασπορεύς die Quittung abgezeichnet hat; man könnte daher vielleicht in der Lücke zu Beginn
von P.Münch. III 108,8 den Namen Νεῖλ(ος) ergänzen; vgl. Ν̣ε̣ι̣λ( ) in SB XVI 12597,8. Neilos hat auch P.Sorb. I 59 und
BGU IV 1075 unterzeichnet sowie P.Hamb. I 75 (26. Juni 149, an demselben Kanal, aber für das Theadelphia benachbarte
Euhemeria); vgl. auch unten Z. 8 Komm.
SB XVI 12318 (6. Sept. 146)

P.Fay. 77 (14. Juli 147)
P.Fay. 78 (1. Aug. 147)
P.Sorb. I 59 (10. Juni 148)
BGU IV 1075 (23. Juni 148)
BGU IV 1076 (10. Juli 148)
BGU XIII 2261 (29. Juli 154)
SB XVI 13056 (19. Mai 157)
P.Strasb. IV 249 d (9. Juni 157)
P.Mich. X 595 (4. Aug. 161).
Der neue Text ist also zwischen P.Strasb. IV 249 d und
P.Mich. X 595 einzufügen.
Von unserem Papyrus ist der linke Rand weg-
gebrochen, ansonsten ist er – abgesehen von zahlreichen
kleineren Löchern – vollständig. Der Text steht auf der
Rectoseite; da das Blatt auf Papier verglast ist, können
wir über das Verso keine Aussage machen. Drei Schrif-
ten sind zu unterscheiden: Eine erste Hand hat nur die
Datierung und die standardmäßigen einleitenden Wörter
geschrieben und damit ein Blankoformular vorgefertigt.
Von der zweiten Hand stammen die konkreten Daten,
nämlich Zeitraum und Ort der Arbeit sowie die Perso-
nenbeschreibung des Liturgen, am Ende steht die eigen-
händige Unterschrift des kontrollierenden Beamten, wohl No. 30
eines κατασπορεύς.
→ (1. Hd.) [ἔτους κα Αὐ]τ̣[ο]κράτορος Καί̣σ̣α̣ρ̣ος
[Τίτου Αἰλίο]υ̣ Ἁδριανοῦ Ἀντ̣ω̣ν̣ε̣ί̣νου
[Σεβαστοῦ] Ε̣ὐ̣σεβοῦς. εἴργ(ασται) ὑ̣π̣ὲ̣ρ̣ χω(ματικῶν)
4 [ἔργ(ων) τοῦ αὐ]τ̣οῦ κα (ἔτους) (2. Hd.) Παῦνι κη ἕ̣ω̣ς Ἐπὶφ β
[ἐν τῇ π]λωτ(ῇ) Θεαδελ(φείας)
[ὁ δεῖνα Πτο]λ̣λᾶ τοῦ Πτολλᾶ
[ vacat ] μ̣η(̣ τρὸς) Εὐ̣δαιμ(ονίδος).
8 [(3. Hd.) Διο]ν̣ύ̣σ̣ιος̣ σ̣ε̣σ̣η(μείωμαι).
5 π]λωτ(ῇ): Wegen der Anbindung des hochgesetzten Tau scheint das Omega einen Bogen zu viel
zu haben. Arbeiten an einem als πλωτή, ‘schiffbar’, bezeichneten Kanal bezeugen auch die
folgenden Penthemeros-Quittungen: P.Aberd. 36b,4f. (Soknopaiu Nesos; Juli–Aug. 146): ἐν] |
πλωτ̣ῇ Σοκνοπ(αίου) [Νή(σου); P.Fay. 290 descr. (Euhemeria; 9. Mai 195) mit BL VI 37: ἐν τ(ῇ)
πρωτ( ) (l. πλωτ(ῇ)) Χάλικος; P.Gen. II 92,3 (Nilopolis; 51/2): ἐν δι(ώρυγι) Πορσιερῇ πλωτῇ; PSI
I 51,2 (Theadelphia; 63/4) mit BL VII 23: ἐν Συρίω(νος) πλω(τῇ); SB VI 9560,2 (Theadelphia;
52/3): ἐν τῇ πλωτῇ; SB XVI 12318,4–5 (Theadelphia; 6. Sept. 146): [ἐν τ]ῇ ̣ω ̣( ) | πλωτῇ
Θεαδελφεί(ας). Unseres Erachtens hat in unserem Text zwischen ἐν τῇ und π]λωτ(ῇ) keine zusätz-
liche Angabe gestanden, obwohl der vorhandene Platz bei der Annahme von Kürzungen dies nicht
ausschließen würde.
6 Der Vater des Liturgen (d. h. Ptollas, der Sohn des Ptollas) könnte schon aus BGU IX 1891 (Thea-
delphia; 133 n.Chr.) bekannt sein, wo in Z. 229 und 540 ein Πτολλᾶς Πτολλᾶ ἀπ(άτορος) μη(τρὸς)
Σαβοῦτος aufgeführt ist. Falls der Liturge selbst ebenfalls Ptollas hieß, was durchaus möglich
ist und zum vorhandenen Platz paßte, wäre auch eine Identifikation mit ihm denkbar; bei dem
in P.Col. V 1 Verso 2, Z. 152 (Theadelphia; ca. 160 n.Chr.) und PSI VII 793,48 (Theadelphia;
ca. 161–180) genannten Πτολλᾶς Πτολλᾶ Ταοννώφρεως muß es sich dagegen um eine andere
Person handeln, wie der divergierende Name der Mutter beweist.
7 μ̣η(̣ τρός) ist mit dem bekannten Kürzel geschrieben, in dem — für μ und ⎠ für η steht; vgl. z.B.
P.Münch. III 108,7 mit Abb. 52; SB XVI 12598,7 mit ZPE 35 (1979) Tafel VII c; P.Sorb. I 59,7
mit Planche XXVI.
8 Die Reste der Unterschrift des κατασπορεύς sind sehr undeutlich; immerhin ist so viel sicher,
daß Νῖλος oder Νεῖλος, was in P.Sorb. I 59,7, BGU IV 1075,8 (s. BL VI 14) und P.Hamb. I 75,9
(Euhemeria; 27.6.149) steht, hier nicht gelesen werden kann; möglich erscheint zwar ]ῳνͅιͅος̣,
vgl. Σαιμπρών ̣ ̣ς in BGU IV 1076,8 (lies vermutlich Σεμπρώνιος, trotz des Kommentars “Zu
Σαιμπρώνιος scheinen die Reste nicht zu passen”), doch halten wir Διο]ν̣ύ̣σ̣ιος̣ für die überzeu-
gendste Lesung.
Übersetzung
(1. Hd.) Im 21. Jahr des Imperator Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius. Es hat
gearbeitet für die Deicharbeiten desselben 21. Jahres (2. Hd.) vom 28. Pauni bis zum 2. Epeiph in dem
schiffbaren (Kanal) für Theadelphia N.N., der Sohn des Ptollas und der Eudaimonis, Enkel des Ptollas.
(3. Hd.) Ich, Dionysios (?), habe unterzeichnet.
31. Auszug aus einem Diastroma

P.Hamb. inv. 92v 14,5 x 9,5 cm nach 138
Ptolemais Euergetis
Das hier publizierte Exzerpt steht, quer zum Faserverlauf geschrieben, auf dem Verso eines Blattes,
welches zum Zwecke der Weiterverwendung der leeren Rückseite aus einer längeren Rolle heraus-
geschnitten worden ist. Von der Rektoseite sind der obere Rand sowie 18 Zeilenenden einer ersten
und 14 Zeilenanfänge einer zweiten Kolumne erhalten, die sich beide nicht zu einem fortlaufenden
Text rekonstruieren lassen. Es handelt sich anscheinend um verschiedene Dokumente, die vielleicht in
Zusammenhang mit einem Rechtsstreit über ein Darlehen stehen.17 In Z. 2 der 2. Kolumne, vor welcher
von späterer Hand der Vermerk κόλ(λημα) να nachgetragen worden ist, beginnt mit κ (ἔτει) Ἀρχίας
στρ̣[ατηγός ein neues Dokument.18 Dieser Archias war in den Jahren 135 und 136 n.Chr. Stratege des
Herakleides-Bezirks des Arsinoites,19 wozu das 20. Jahr (nämlich Hadrians, = 135/6) vorzüglich paßt.
Da aber wegen θεοῦ Ἁδρι̣α̣[νοῦ in Z. 5 derselben Kolumne Hadrian zur Zeit der Niederschrift des Rekto
schon verstorben gewesen sein muß, ist 138 n.Chr. der terminus post quem für die Anfertigung des hier
edierten Auszugs aus einem Diastroma. Der in dem Exzerpt registrierte Vorgang fiel allerdings schon
in die Jahre 97–98 n.Chr. (s. Z. 3 und 7 mit Komm.), was bedeutet, daß man an ihm noch 40 Jahre oder
später ein Interesse hatte, vermutlich weil die Informationen in einem Rechtsstreit von Bedeutung waren.
Die Eigentumsverhältnisse der ägyptischen Bevölkerung wurden in römischer Zeit bekanntlich in
den βιβλιοθῆκαι ἐγκτήσεων (‘Besitzarchiven’) dokumentiert, von denen in jedem Gau eine angesiedelt war.
17
Dies legt das zweimalige Vorkommen des Wortes διαστολικόν in Z. 9 und 17 von Kol. 1 nahe, welches auf ein Mahn-
verfahren schließen läßt.
18
Möglicherweise handelte es sich um eine öffentliche Bekanntmachung des Strategen, wenn man die vorangehende
Z. 1 zu ἐκ π[ρογραμμάτων ergänzen darf; vgl. SB VIII 10203 = P.Leit. 11,1–2 (Nov./Dez. 186; vgl. BL VIII 169): ἐκ
προγρα(μμάτων) Ἱέρακος τοῦ καὶ Ἡρα̣κλα̣πολλωνίου στρα(τηγοῦ) | Ἀρσι(νοίτου) Θ̣ε̣μ̣(ίστου) καὶ Π̣ολ(έμωνος) μερίδω(ν).
19
Vgl. J. Whitehorne, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt (Str.R.Scr.2) (Pap. Flor. XXXVII), Firenze 2006, 16, dazu
jetzt auch P.Gen. IV 161,2.15 (31. Jan. 136).
Hier führte man διάστρωμα genannte Übersichtslisten, die – alphabetisch nach Personen geordnet – unter
dem Namen eines jeden Grundbesitzers die ihm gehörenden Immobilien (und vielleicht auch Sklaven)
verzeichneten; eintretende Änderungen an den Eigentumsrechten konnten in ihnen auf den speziell für
diesen Zweck reservierten breiten Rändern und in großen Zwischenräumen nachgetragen werden.20 Die in
den διαστρώματα enthaltenen Informationen waren für den Nachweis der Rechtmäßigkeit des Besitzes
an den Objekten von großer Bedeutung, und um auf sie z.B. anläßlich der Veräußerung einer Liegenschaft
oder in einem Prozeß zurückgreifen zu können, fertigte man sich Exzerpte aus den Übersichtslisten an,
wie uns auch eines im vorliegenden Papyrus erhalten ist. Ausdrücklich als Auszüge aus einem Diastroma
bezeichnete Parallelen hierzu sind SB XIV 11533 Kol. III (Arsinoites; nach 29. Okt. 104); P.Gen. II 100
(Soknopaiu Nesos; nach Juli./Aug. 128);21 BGU III 959 = M.Chr. 194 = Jur. Pap. 61 (Arsinoites; nach dem
27. Aug. 148); P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2848 (Oxyrhynchos; nach dem 29. Jan. 225) und der zuletzt publizierte
P.Heid. VII 397 (Hermopolis; 158 n.Chr.).22 Zu verweisen ist ferner auf P.Col. X 274 (Arsinoites;
31. März 209), einen Auszug aus den παραθέσεις ἀγοραστῶν Ῥωμαίων der βιβλιοθήκη ἐγκτήσεων
des Arsinoites,23 worunter anscheinend eine Übersichtsliste mit einer speziellen Zweckbestimmung zu
verstehen ist.
_____
↓ [ἐ]κ̣ δ̣ιαστ(ρώματος) ἐνκτ(ήσεων) Διονυσίου τό[πων
Κοτταρίαινα Δείου τοῦ Δι ̣[
β (ἔτει) Νέρουα μηνὶ Σεβαστῶι̣ ια̅ ̅ [
4 κα̣ι̣νὴν ἐπ᾿ ἀμφόδ(ου) Φρεμεὶ ̣[
ο ̣ ̣ ̣( ) παλ( ) (δρ.) φ παρὰ Θαυ̣σεί̣[ρεως
ἀπὸ Ἑλληνείου ἐξ ἧ̣ς ἀπε̣[
Παχὼ̣(ν) κη̅ ̅ ἡ θ̣υ̣γ̣(άτηρ) Διδύμη Εὐ[
8 ἀπὸ Ἀπολ(λωνίου) Ἱερ(ακείου) καὶ ἡ ὁμομήτρ̣[ιος ἀδελφὴ
νεωτ(έρα) Ἡλιοδ(ώρου) ἀπὸ Μακεδόν[ων
τὸ λοιπὸν (τρίτον) μέρος vacat [
̣ ̣ ̣χ( ) πε̣λ( ) κολ(λήματος) κε̅ ̅ vacat [
12 ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ Ἡ̣λιοδώρου τοῦ καὶ Δ̣ιο[
τ̣[ ± 5 ]υ̣ αυ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] τοπ̣( ) ̣ ̣τρ[
---------------
1 l. ἐγκτήσεων 10 γ/ Pap.
1 Es ist nicht undenkbar, daß der waagerechte, nach unten leicht bogenförmige Strich über
dem Zeilenanfang der Rest eines ausgerückten, überdimensionierten Epsilon ist; in diesem Fall
wäre ἐ̣κ̣ zu transkribieren. Zu dem Quartier Διονυσίου τόπων von Ptolemais Euergetis vgl. die
20
Vg. hierzu H. J. Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemaeer und des Prinzipats, II,
München 1978, 232–235. Ein sehr anschauliches Beispiel für ein “Personalfolium” mit Nachträgen bietet P.Oxy. II 274 =
M.Chr. 193 = FIRA III 104 = Jur. Pap. 60 (97 n.Chr.), ein Blatt aus dem διάστρωμα von Oxyrhynchos. Vgl. ferner P.Flor. I 97
(Arsinoites; nach 162/3); SB XXVI 16476 (Arsinoites; 98–117 n.Chr.).
21
In Z. 3 ergibt die Auflösung des im Papyrus stehenden α̅ ̅ ̅ zu (πρότερον) keinen Sinn, wie auch der Herausgber im Kom-
mentar einräumt (“sa résolution par πρότερον demeure incertaine”); eher wäre an (ἀντίγραφον) zu denken, denn an dieser
Stelle beginnt nach der Angabe des Namens, unter dem der Eintrag in dem διάστρωμα steht, das eigentliche Exzerpt. In Z. 9
braucht man in der Lücke ein Medium statt des Aktivs, d. h. ὑπέθετο anstelle von ὑπέθηκε.
22
Vielleicht gehört auch P.Bingen 69 (Arsinoites; 117–138) in diese Textgruppe; vgl. die Diskussion von F. Reiter in ZPE
134 (2001) 208–210.
23
S. Z. 1: [ἐκ βιβλιοθ]ήκ̣η̣ς [ἐ]νκ[τ]ήσεω̣ν Ἀρσινοείτου ἐκ παραθέσεων ἀγοραστῶν Ῥωμαίων.
Literaturangaben bei H. Verreth, A Survey of Toponyms in Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period

(Trismegistos Online Publications 2, 2008), 137.
No. 31
2 Diese Zeile enthält die Angabe des ὄνομα (oder “Personalfolium”), unter welchem der folgende
Eintrag in dem διάστρωμα gefunden werden kann. Auf den Namen des Großvaters folgte wohl
auch noch derjenige der Mutter. Der Name Κοτταρίαινα erscheint hier erstmalig, doch ist er von
der Bildung her das feminine Pendant zu Κοτταρίων, einem Namen, der ausschließlich in Texten
aus der thebanischen Region belegt ist, nämlich in O.Bodl. II 892,1; O.Heid. 210,1; O.Wilck.
572,1 (vgl. BL II.1, S. 65); O.Wilck. 577,1 (vgl. BL II.1, S. 66; Κο̣τααρίω̣ν ist dort Druckfehler);
SB I 2032,1; SB XIV 11704,7; Łajtar, Deir el-Bahari, Nr. 291,2. Vermutlich ist Κοτταρίω̣[νι]
oder Κοτταρίω̣(νι) auch in O.Wilb. 25,1 zu lesen, wo Κοτταρίω̣ (sic, ohne iota subscriptum)
gedruckt ist; denn Κοττάριος ist ansonsten nicht bezeugt.
3 Das Datum entspricht dem 8. Sept. 97 n.Chr. Mit diesem Datum beginnt das eigentliche Exzerpt;
darauf folgte in der Lücke die Beschreibung des Vorgangs, etwa ἐώνηται οἰκίαν.
4 Zum Quartier Phremei vgl. Verreth, a.a.O., 426.
4–5 Eine denkbare Ergänzung und Lesung wäre [καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ α(ὐτοῦ) ἀμφόδ(ου)] | οἰ̣κ̣ί̣(αν) παλ(αιάν).
Vgl. etwa P.Oxy. II 274 = M.Chr. 193 = FIRA III 104 = Jur. Pap. 60, Z. 2: καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ α(ὐτοῦ)
ἀμφόδου ἑτέραν οἰκίαν καὶ αὐλή(ν).
5 Der Kaufpreis von 500 Drachmen liegt durchaus im Rahmen der um diese Zeit für Häuser gezahl-
ten Beträge, selbst wenn hier unklar bleibt, ob es sich um nur ein Haus oder zwei Häuser handelt.
Die Preisangaben der Papyri haben meist nur beschränkte Aussagekraft, weil die Größe, der
Erhaltungszustand usw. der Objekte nicht mitgeteilt werden; vgl. die Liste von Hauspreisen bei
H.-J. Drexhage, Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum
Regierungsantritt Diokletians, St. Katharinen 1991, 79–89.
6 Zum Quartier Helleneiu vgl. Verreth, a.a.O., 188. Wir ziehen ἐξ ἧ̣ς der denkbaren Alternative
ἑξῆ̣ς vor und verstehen dies im Sinne von einfachem ἧς. Danach ist vielleicht zu ergänzen
ἀπε̣[γράψατο (δίμοιρον) μέρος τῷ αὐτῷ (ἔτει)].
7 Falls der 28. Pachon wirklich noch in das 2. Jahr Nervas fiel, entspräche das Datum dem 23. Mai
98 n.Chr. Nach dem mit Εὐ[ beginnenden Vatersnamen der Διδύμη wäre vermutlich noch Platz
für den Namen des Großvaters väterlicherseits.
8 Zum Quartier Apolloniu Hierakeiu vgl. Verreth, a.a.O., 66. Am Ende der Zeile muß noch der
Name der Halbschwester der Didyme gestanden haben.
9 Zum Quartier Makedonon vgl. Verreth, a.a.O., 291. Die Ergänzung der Lücke am Zeilenende ist
problematisch, da sachlich nichts fehlt; möglich wäre vielleicht, daß die Deklaration der zweiten
Tochter an einem anderen Tag vorgenommen wurde.
11–13 Diese Zeilen scheinen zu einem neuen Eintrag zu gehören, dessen Bedeutung sich wegen der
Lückenhaftigkeit nicht erschließt.
11 Am Anfang vielleicht κ̣α̣τ̣ ̣χ( ); die Lesung σ̣τ̣ο̣ι̣χ(είου), woran man wegen BGU III 959,1–2 ἐκ
διαστρώ(ματος) Σοκνοπ(αίου) Νήσου | στοιχ(είου) ε ̅ κολ(λήματος) ιζ ̅ denken könnte, ist ausge-
schlossen; außerdem paßte dazu nicht das folgende πε̣λ( ), wo dann ein Buchstabe als Ordnungs-
kriterium zu erwarten wäre. Anstelle von πε̣λ( ) kommt σελ( ), d.h. eine Abkürzung von σελίς,
keinesfalls als Lesung in Betracht.
13 ]υ̣ αυ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] τοπ̣( ): Vielleicht το]ῦ̣ αὐ̣[τοῦ] τόπ̣(ου).
Übersetzung
Aus der Übersichtsliste des Besitzamtes von Dionysiu Topon:
Kottariaina, Tochter des Deios und Enkelin des Di[---.
Hat im 2. Jahr Nervas am 11. des Monats Sebastos ein neues [Haus (?)] im Quartier Phremei
[gekauft (?) und in demselben Quartier (?)] ein altes Haus (?) für 500 Dr. von Thausiris, [der Tochter des
Name und Enkelin des Name (?)] aus Helleniu, wovon [in demselben Jahr (?)] am 28. Pachon ihre Tochter
Didyme, die Tochter des Eu--- [und Enkelin des Name (?)], aus Apolloniu Hierakeiu [zwei Drittel (?)] und
[Name] die jüngere, deren Schwester von derselben Mutter und Tochter des Heliodoros, aus Makedonon
[am Datum (?)] das restliche Drittel angemeldet haben (?).
---, 25. Kolumne.
--- Heliodoros alias Dio[ ---.
Köln
Trier
32. Report under Oath to Apollonios the Strategos: P.CtYBR inv. 4079∗
Ann Ellis Hanson
Three epimeletai guaranteed the veracity of their report to Apollonios the strategos through an oath
sworn by the Fortune of the Emperor Trajan late in his reign, since Trajan’s titulature ends with Παρθικόϲ
(line 7); after this the papyrus breaks off except for a letter or two at left, or merely a trace, in its final four
lines.1 The hand which wrote the report is a stylish cursive characteristic of the first half of the second
century (description and scans online at the Beinecke Library).2 The back is blank; top and left margins
are intact, while at right the text extends in most lines to the very edge. Noteworthy is the manner in which
the scribe finished off the letter nu with an upward flourish somewhat reminiscent of Ptolemaic forms
for the letter. Ligatures are frequent, and και was writ with a single stroke, whether the conjunction καί
(lines 1, 3), or the first syllable of Καίϲαροϲ (line 5). The report P.CtYBR inv. 4079 was acquisitioned in
1992 and is said to be related to the purchase of 1965a. Two additional papyri belonging to the Apollonios
archive were purchased for the Yale collection by H. I. Bell and W. L. Westermann from M. Nahman in
Cairo late in 1926 and acquisitioned in 1927: P.CtYBR inv. 281, part of a tomos synkollesimos containing
declarations for the census of the year 117 from the Apollonopolite village of Tanyaithis, SB XXIV 16012,
TM 45400; and P.CtYBR inv. 277 (SB XXVI 16804, TM 44705) a petition related to P.Mich. inv. 6629
(SB V 8001, TM 18006) that had also been purchased from Bell for the Michigan collection in 1934.
While the seven initial lines can be read with some confidence, despite their fragmentary condition,
it is also hoped that their publication might facilitate discovery of the missing lower portion.3 Although
some items in the text were jejunely expressed, there can be little doubt that Apollonios strategos (line 1)
to whom the report was addressed referred to the well-known holder of the office, even though he lacked
his usual specification “of the Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia,” for only this Apollonios was certainly
attested in office in the final year or so of Trajan’s reign and into the first years of Hadrian.4
∗
It was a pleasure to prepare this papyrus for inclusion in the volume honoring Roger Bagnall and to be able to thank him
publically—for the tools he had the vision to imagine, for the energy and intelligence he used to bring them into being, and
for his generosity in making these tools available to all who want to use them. See his “Integrating Digital Papyrology,”
available at http://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/29592.
1
The Senate voted Trajan the title “Parthicus” in February of 116, and his titulature in Egypt displayed Παρθικόϲ from
the spring of his 19th regnal year and throughout his 20th regnal year until his death, 9 August 117. Hadrian reckoned his dies
imperii as 11 August 117, which gave him a very short first regnal year in the Egyptian calendar. See P. Kneißl, Siegestitulatur
der römischen Kaiser (Göttingen 1969) 70–74.
2
http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/papyrus/oneSET.asp?pid=4079
3
Such discoveries are not impossible, see U. Wilcken, Introduction to P.Brem. 29: “wir hier den Schluß von P.Ryl. II 82
vor uns haben” (p. 75).
4
For the career and family of this Apollonios, see M. Kortus, Briefe des Apollonios-Archives aus der Sammlung Papyri
Gissenses (Giessen 1999) sections 1.3.1–1.3.3, pp. 4–19; also R. S. Bagnall—R. Cribiore, Women’s letters from ancient
Egypt, 300 BC–AD 800 (ACLS Humanities E-book 2008) paragraphs 426–430, followed by letters from the archive,
nos. 31–55, A7.1–A7.25.
The Apollonios occupying the strategia of Herakleides division, Arsinoite nome, was attested in office during Trajan’s
18th regnal year, from late summer and fall 114 to spring 115 (Whitehorne, Str.R.Scr.2 15); the Apollonios of Themistos
division functioned as strategos in the same regnal year as the Apollonios of Herakleides (following Bastianini—
Whitehorne, Str.R.Scr. 41 with footnotes 1 and 2; cf. also Whitehorne, Str.R.Scr.2 34); the Apollonios of Polemon division
was attested as strategos earlier in Trajan’s reign and did not overlap with the other two Arsinoite ones (Whitehorne,
Str.R.Scr.2 37). The Apollonios occupying the strategia of the Antaiopolite nome was a contemporary not only to our
famous Apollonios, but also to the epistrategos Artorius Priscillus (November/December 115 to 117, Whitehorne,
Str.R.Scr.2 4; “before CE 117,” J. D. Thomas, Roman Epistrategos [Pap.Colon.VI.1] [Cologne 1982] 194, no. 13; also
J. Shelton, “Papyri from the Bonn Collection,” ZPE 25 [1977] 179–183, and T. Kruse, “Κατάκριμα. Strafzahlung oder
Steuer?”ZPE 124 (1999), esp. 161–165, both of which articles concern revision to P.Bonn inv. 2, SB XIV 11381).
134 Ann Ellis Hanson
P.CtYBR inv. 4079 9.3 x 12.5 cm ca. 116/117

Location written: Ἰβιὼν Πανεκτύρεωϲ5
Location of addressee: Apollonopolis?6
Location found: Hermopolis, 1902
Ἀπολλωνίωι ϲτρατηγῶι καὶ Τρύφωνι

παρὰ Φιβι( ) ἀπάτ̣ο̣ροϲ κ[αὶ + 5]οϲ Πετεν-
ούριοϲ καὶ Κ̣ά̣ϲτορ[οϲ + 5]ωτο( ) ἐπιμε-
4 λητῶν τῶν ἀπὸ Ἰ[βιῶνο]ϲ Πανεκτύρεω(ϲ)·
ὀμνύομεν τ[ὴ]ν [Αὐτοκράτ]οροϲ Καίϲαροϲ
Νέ[ρουα Τραιανοῦ Ἀρίϲτου Ϲεβαϲτοῦ Γερμανικ]οῦ Δακικο̣ῦ̣
Παρ̣[θικοῦ τύχην + 15 ]ε̣κ̣[
8 δι[
τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[
μ̣ ̣[
̣[
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
To Apollonios strategos and Tryphon,

from Phibi( ) apator, and NN, s. of Petenouris, and Kastor, s. of [ ]ωϲ, the superintendents from
Ibion Panektyreos. We swear by the Fortune of the Emperor Caesar Nerva [Trajan Optimus Augustus
Germanic]us Dacicus Par[thicus …]
The individuals involved in the matter they validated through the imperial oath no doubt knew the
details—either those not clarified in or otherwise lost from the text, beginning with geographical
designations. In the days of Apollonios the strategos there were two Apollonopolite nomes, but the
addition of (Hepta)komia (ζκωμία) removed the ambiguity. The town-name Apollonopolis, moreover, was
born by at least six geographical localities, although only two were metropoleis of their respective nomes:
Ἀπόλλωνοϲ πόλιϲ ἡ Μεγάλη (modern Edfu, GEO ID 269) and Ἀπόλλωνοϲ πόλιϲ (Ἑπτα)κωμίαϲ (modern
Kom Isfaht, GEO ID 268), the latter also labeled Ἀπόλλωνοϲ πόλιϲ Μικρά in subsequent centuries (P.Köln
III 157, note to line 3, pp. 157–158). Names of villages in the minor Apollonopolite nome appeared with
some frequency in the business papers Apollonios carried home with him to Hermopolis when he left
the strategia. Ibion Panektyreos in line 4 designated the village and surrounding area in which the three
epimeletai exercised their duties—and this was in all likelihood located in the Apollonopolite nome, since
5
As of February, 2012, Trismegistos Geo (http://www.trismegistos.org/geo/index.php) reported 14 attestations of Ἰβιὼν
Πανεκτύρεωϲ from 12 discrete papryi, all claimed for a village in the Hermopolite nome (Geo ID 4584). Both the earliest
attestation in the Geo list (P.Sijp. 30.55, 2nd c. CE) and one of the latest (P.Amh. II 139.2, 350 CE) belong to the Hermopolite
nome on the basis of internal evidence. No such evidence anchors P.Theon. 11.2–3 (157 CE), for the text places a foreman in
Ibion Panektyreos on an estate apparently belonging to the wealthy Oxyrhynchite family of the Iulii Theones, the
remainder of whose known holdings were located in the Oxyrhynchite nome, with perhaps some land also in the
Arsinoite nome (see the comments of the editor of the archive, P.Theon., p. 10 and note 5; p. 50). I shall argue below that
there were at least two villages named Ἰβιὼν Πανεκτύρεωϲ, one located in the Hermopolite nome and another in the
Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia, whence the three epimeletai of P.CtYBR inv. 4079 who were reporting to the strategos
Apollonios about the Nile’s inundation. P.Theon. 11 may suggest that there was a third village with this same name,
perhaps in the Oxyrhynchite.
6
If the Tryphon at the end of line 1 were the same man as the writer of the letter P.Giss. I 72 (= P.Giss.Apoll. 27, TM 19461)
Apollonios himself may have been away from Apollonopolis and Tryphon a place-holder for him, see the note to line 1.
32. Report under Oath to Apollonios the Strategos 135
the three epimeletai addressed their report to the current strategos of that nome. Papyrologists first learned
about a village named Ἰβιὼν Πανεκτύρεωϲ 7 from P.Amh. II 139 (TM 21704) in 1901: Two komarchs
dispatched to the praepositus of the 12th pagus of the Hermopolite nome nominations of fellow-villagers
to serve as komarchs and other local officials, noting that their own Ibion Panektyreos was also located in
the 12th pagus. Some five years later a papyrus in Florence presented a man from Hermopolis (name lost)
leasing out five arouras of land in the vicinity of Ibion Panektyreos in 341 CE (P.Flor. I 17.7–8, TM
23545). These two identifications influenced the placement of subsequent attestations in the Hermopolite
nome. M. Norsa, when preparing P.Flor. III 385 for publication in 1915, was somewhat puzzled as to
the provenance of this papyrus she dated to the second or third century with its two additional references
to Ibion Pantektyreos (lines 31, 37, TM 27872), for although Hermopolite communities were mentioned
in the text, other localities, such as the Arsinoite Magdola in Polemon division (line 1) and the Herakleides
division itself (line 8), also appeared. Ultimately, she decided to affix a question mark to Hermopolites
as provenance for III 385. A question mark might also seem appropriate for the geographical locus
of the Ibion Panektyreos mentioned in the course of the hearing of a petition brought by C. Apolinarius
Niger, a resident of Karanis with Antinoite citizenship, before the epistrategos C. Julius Lucullus in
172/173. According to Niger’s petition, the veteran M. Anthestius Gemellus, also a resident of Karanis,
named Niger in his will as guardian for his minor daughter Valeria Tertia alias Thaisarion, together with
Valerius Comon and also the child’s grandmother Valeria Sempronilla. The guardians were to oversee
the child’s property in the Arsinoite nome, yet Niger was petitioning to be excused on the grounds
that Antinoites were not obliged to act as guardians when the one appointing them was not himself
a citizen of Antinoopolis. Niger introduced as proof of his claim the transcript of a hearing in July 148 CE
whose conclusion was precisely this—that an Antinoite was in the right when refusing the duty of
guardian should the one appointing him not be an Antinoite. The person in the precedent was said to be
a Roman who resided in Ibion Panyktereos, an apparent metathesizing of the second and third syllables
of Panektyreos.8 Τhe correction has become customary, although the geographical locus of this village
is unclear.
It does not appear likely that the epimeletai who were submitting to Apollonios the strategos
were officials serving in the Hermopolite nome; rather, the reference in line 4 indicates that there was, at
the least, a second village of the name located in the minor Apollonopolite nome, in addition to the one
in the Hermopolite nome. The parallel for multiple appearances of a village name occurring in different
nomes of Upper Egypt, is Terythis, with attestations now deriving from five different nomes in Upper
Egypt.9 U. Wilcken, however, discouraged the notion that a village in the minor Apollonopolite identified
in Apollonios’s archive simply as Ἰβιών should be thought identical with Ἰβιὼν Νέβνα.10 Nor is there
evidence that would equate simple Ἰβιών with Ibion Panektyreos, but the equation may some day seem
possible if we learn more.
The superintendents (lines 3–4) also neglected to spell out the civic duties at Ibion Panektyreos
on which they were reporting. N. Lewis offered long lists of the specific taxes and public works epimeletai
were attested as having been involved with.11 Apollonios’s tenure of the strategia was by no means calm
and occupied solely with the usual executive routines. Rather, it was crowded with additional issues, some
difficult and time-consuming, that other strategoi did not necessarily confront: the Jewish uprising which
7
Eight examples listed in 1979 by M. Drew-Bear, Le nome hermopolite (Ann Arbor 1079) 125–126, 129; see also
A. Calderini, Dizionario III, 12, and Supp. I, 152–153; Supp. II, 77, and Supp. III, 53, where two publications of the
same fourth-century papyrus are listed (P.Cair.Cat. 10672.10–11, 14–15 = SB XX 15067, TM 34187); and Supp. V, 45
(P.Sijp. 30.55).
8
SB V 7558.16–17, TM 14029, for which see H. C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae posteriores I (Bonn 1981) 97–104.
9
For Wilcken’s note drawing attention to the various villages named Terythis, see P.Brem. 24.16, pp. 68–69. See now
Trismegistos Geo: http://www.trismegistos.org/geo/list.php?quick=Terythis
10
Note to P.Brem. 24.22 (p. 69, TM 19609).
11
N. Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt 2 (Pap.Flor. XXVIII) (Florence 1997) 25–26.
broke out in 115 and continued into the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, causing Apollonios to gather armor
and lead men into combat, such as did the strategoi in Athens of old; the submission to Apollonios of
appeals resulting from Hadrian’s euergetism early in his reign that offered abatements for peasants who
had leased public lands at higher rates; declarations for the quattuordecennial census of 117, ordered
by Q. Rammius Martialis in Hadrian’s second regnal year, but submitted by the nome’s inhabitants
to Apollonios during Hadrian’s third regnal year. A topic recurrent in Apollonios’s official documents
of a more routine character was water management—the episkepsis following yearly inundations; official
decisions as to whether or not villagers should be forced to irrigate the fields; maintenance of the dikes,
and so forth. The three epimeletai of the Yale papyrus were unlikely to have been supervisors of the vil-
lagers’ penthemeral labors on the canals, for Apollonios’s archive calls these officials chomatepimeletai.12
Rather, three reports similar to what remains of P.CtYBR inv. 4079, which are identified as 1–3 below,
were submitted to Apollonios by epimeletai in charge of the inundation. Juxtaposing the four texts
underscores differences among them, such as variation in the number of epimeletai, from eleven (1),
to two (2 and 3) and three (inv. 4079.2–3), and expansion of the explanatory phrase “in charge of
the inundation” with the addition of “and of the irrigation” in one report (2). Differences of this nature,
however, apparently arose from the fact that the four texts derived from inundations of varying adequacy
for the planting to come and might be reporting as well on different moments in judging the intensity of
the year’s inundation. Attempts to ameliorate inadequate flooding would surely require additional efforts
from epimeletai, as well as from their fellow-villagers. A good Nile meant an easy time for all, heaven’s
answer to prayers, while efforts to enhance an insufficient Nile or mitigate effects of an over-abundant one
could be protracted. Even a village’s location might be a factor for difference: two of the reports derived
from the village of Ibion (1 and 2), one from Ibion Panektyreos (inv. 4079), and one from Naboö (3).
(1) P.Ryl. II 82 + P.Brem. 29, TM 19615: Eleven epimeletai for the inundation at Ibion (ἐπιμεληταὶ
οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ λιμ|ναϲμοῦ ⸌Ἰβιῶνοϲ⸍, lines 7–8) dated to 26 October 113 (82.15). They were presumably
sending the report to Apollonios, although his name is lost from the first line(s).13 Only 55 arouras remain
unflooded in the northern part of their area of responsibility, and they promised to enforce the use of
irrigation should this prove necessary. The first editors of the report assumed that the conditions described
were a sign of ‘evil days’ and water shortages; U. Wilcken, followed by N. Lewis, however, interpreted
this and the later report (3, below) as indications of just how meticulous the monitoring and just how
careful the planning for planting seed were in the period after the inundation had peaked and the fields
were beginning to emerge from the receding Nile.14 The flooding this year at Ibion was perhaps judged by
the entire board of epimeletai to have been within the range of what was thought to be needed for a good
harvest.
(2) P.Brem. 30, TM 19616: Two epimeletai for the inundation and irrigation at the village of Ibion
(ἐπιμεληταὶ [λιμναϲμοῦ καὶ] | ἐπαντλ[ηϲ]μοῦ κ[ώμηϲ Ἰβ[ιῶνοϲ, lines 3–4) addressed their report to Apol-
lonios, strategos of the Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia. The papyrus breaks off after line 4. The names
of the two supervisors recurred among the eleven in 113 CE (text 1, above): Patomtous, s. of Enthieus
(P.Ryl. II 82.5, but he did not append his signature at the close of that text) and Apollonios, s. of Portious
(P.Ryl. II 82.6 and P.Brem. 29.21, the 4th hand to sign). The expansion of their title to include irrigation
may indicate that this pair had been ordered to force fellow-villagers into additional waterings when Nile
flooding that year proved mediocre or poor.
12
παρὰ χωμα|τεπιμελητῶν λό|γον πενθημέ(ρου), P.Giss. I 64.10–12, TM 19452. It seems likely that the plaintiff in
P.Brem. 38, TM 19622 (9 November 118), was protesting impressment as an epimeletes of a single dike on private fields,
and thus his appointment was not a liturgic one.
13
Despite the fact that Apollonios’s name and titulature are lost in lacuna, Whitehorne, Str.R.Scr.2 6, considered this the
earliest papyrus assignable to Apollonios as strategos operative in the Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia.
14
U. Wilcken, P.Brem. 29 introduction, p. 75 and footnote 1; N. Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford 1983) 119.
(3) P.Flor. III 326 + P.Alex.Giss. 25, TM 18234: Two epimeletai for the inundation at Naboö (ἐπιμε-
ληταὶ λιμναϲμοῦ | κώμηϲ Ναβοώι lines 4–5) dated their report to Apollonios, strategos of the Apollono-
polite (Hepta)komia to 11 September 117. This was only weeks into the reign of Hadrian, but was already
calculated as his second regnal year, due to the shortness of his first regnal year in Egypt. This fact
apparently caused titulature from Trajan, Optimus to Parthicus, to be retained in lieu of the alternate not
yet known (lines 6–8, 24–26); see also below, note to inv. 4079.6–7. Nine parcels of land were specified,
listed according to names of the villagers responsible for their cultivation. Because the two epimeletai
promised to compel them to plough the land and ready it for sowing within three days (or the supervisors
would be liable to the consequences of their oath, lines 5–12), one senses not only that this inundation had
proved inadequate, but that the text was documenting supplementary measures now being implemented.
In any case, the names of six of the cultivators recurred in the more extensive list in P.Flor. III 327 (TM
19367, col. ii 14–21) and seven of the nine names were plausibly restored in P.Alex.Giss. 35 (TM 18235,
frag. b, col. i 42–48, after which that fragment breaks off). Not a short and simple process that year for
the epimeletai of Naboö.
D. Bonneau has suggested that Nile inundations during the reign of Trajan were for the most part
normal or good, except for the years 99 and 113 when flooding was weak. After the ascension of Hadrian,
she continued, reports about inundations in the papyri became more numerous, either showing that Nile
flooding had worsened overall, or that the process of reporting had become more complex.15 At the least,
the amount of paperwork increased.
1 καὶ Τρύφωνι: Apollonios’s title is truncated, while Tryphon bore no title whatsoever, despite the
document’s formal appearance. The only other Tryphon in a close relationship with Apollonios
wrote a letter to him, 12 lines of which are preserved in full, addressing the strategos as “brother”
(ἀδελφῷ) in the prescript (P.Giss. I 72.2 = P.Giss.Apoll. 27, TM 19461), and “strategos of the
Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia” in the address on the back. This Tryphon voiced the complaint
common throughout antiquity among writers of letters—“I have written many to you, but you
do not answer even one letter from me.” Tryphon blamed Apollonios’s silence on the fact that
the two had parted after initiating unspecified business matters of interest to them both, yet
Apollonios, for his part, was now not only failing to respond to Tryphon’s letters, but he was
remiss even about bringing matters to a conclusion. Perhaps the three epimeletai of P.CtYBR
inv. 4079 included Tryphon in their address along with Apollonios the strategos, because he was
to receive their report if Apollonios were not on hand to do so. Lacking a title, Tryphon may have
been a private and temporary replacement for the strategos, rather than a government official.16
2 Φιβι( ): The majority of ink that might be mistaken for an extended mark of abbreviation belongs
to the overlong tail of the first iota in Ἀπολλωνίωι (line 1), although some of this ink may have
absorbed the expected mark of abbreviation for Φιβι( ). In both SB XXIV 15920.204 (formerly
P.Flor. III 388), TM 25460, and P.Brem. 47.3, TM 19631, Φίβι is clearly dative case, so it seems
more likely that the ink above Φιβι( ) did include an abbreviation to mark Φίβι(οϲ) as genitive—
and, if not genitive of the commonly appearing name Φῖβιϲ, then genitive of one of the longer
forms, such as Φιβίων, Φιβῖχιϲ.
15
D. Bonneau, Le fisc et le Nil (Paris 1971) 171–176.
16
See, e.g. Besarion, the salaried employee of Apollonios and not a government official, according to U. Wilcken, P.Brem.
17, p. 53, Besarion’s letter to Apollonios. M. Kortus expanded upon U. Wilcken’s view when commenting on the letter
of Papeiris to Apollonios (P.Giss.Apol. 31, pp. 254–256); Besarion was also mentioned in P.Brem. 16.12. As the years
went by, Apollonios no doubt had many reasons, both official and private, for being away from the metropolis of the nome
in which he was serving. When he addressed his appeal to the prefect Q. Rammius Martialis on 28 November 117, asking
for a furlough of 60 days to bring order to his private affairs back home in Hermopolis, he began that petition with
the observation that he had made the same request before and now appended a copy to his present missive (P.Giss. 41,
TM 19437 = W.Chr. 18).
2–3 I have failed to find these three epimeletai (Phibi( ), apator; NN. s. of Petenouris; and Kastor,
s. of ]ωϲ) appearing together elsewhere in other documents of Apollonios’s archive. The Kastor
who dispatched a private letter to Apollonios, addressing him as “brother” (ἀδελφῷ) in both
prescript (P.Brem. 54.2) and address on the back (line 18), is unlikely to be identical with
the epimeletes. The initial letters of Κάϲτοροϲ were carefully articulated; a misplaced fiber
on the upper part of the vertical distorts the appearance of kappa on the scan, but a name, such
as Besarion, cannot be read.
3–4 ἐπιμε|λητῶν: When the three epimeletai authored this report, they made it clear that the geo-
graphical area in which their competence lay was Ibion Panektyreos. The lines following
Trajan’s titulature (6–7) probably continued with a report about the current inundation in ways
similar to the sworn reports from the epimeletai examined above.
4 ἀπὸ Ἰ[βιῶνο]ϲ Πανεκτύρεω(ϲ): There can be no doubt that a village named Ibion Panektyreos
was located in the Hermopolite nome; the village mentioned in inv. 4079, however, was in all
likelihood located in the Apollonopolite (Hepta)komia. There may also have been villages in
other nomes with this same name.
6–7 Because the imperial titulature begins with the name of Nerva and ends with Parthicus, there is no
reason to suppose that the lacuna in lines 6–7 presented another example of Trajan’s titles being
used for Hadrian in the first weeks of the latter’s reign.17 At the same time, Trajan’s imperial name
(where it can be seen on the papyrus) was writ out in full, with no letters slurred, nor abbreviated
(line 5 Αὐτοκράτ]οροϲ Καίϲαροϲ, and line 6 Γερμανικ]οῦ Δακικο̣ῦ)̣ . Nonetheless, the letter-count
in lines 1–5 varies from 29 to 31 letters per line, while the sixth line as restored consists of 46
letters. Removing Ἀρίϲτου would cut the number to 39 letters, but I have not done so, because the
observation P. J. Sijpesteijn made 30 years ago seems still to hold good: “The papyri do not attest
a titulature for Trajan in which Παρθικόϲ appears without Ἄριϲτοϲ.” 18
Yale Univeristy
17
The same titulature in both the oath and the dating formula in P.Flor. III 326.6–8, 24–26 + P.Alex.Giss. 25, 11 September
117 (Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖϲαρ Τραιανὸϲ Ἁδριανὸϲ Ἄριϲτοϲ Ϲεβαϲτὸϲ Γερμανικὸϲ Δακικὸϲ Παρθικόϲ). See also P.Giss. 7 ii
10–12, Sept.–Oct. 117 (ὁ κύριοϲ ἡμῶν Ἁδριανὸϲ Καῖϲαρ Ϲεβαϲτὸϲ Γερμανικὸϲ Δακικὸϲ Παρθικόϲ).
18
“Further Remarks on some Imperial Titles in the Papyri,” ZPE 45 (1982) 179.
No. 32
33. A Labor Contract for a pronoētēs (P.Lond. inv. 2219)*
Todd M. Hickey and James G. Keenan
P.Lond. inv. 2219 23.3 x 42 cm June 11, 496

Oxyrhynchus
The document, the fourth of its kind to be published, is what the editors of the first and still most complete
specimen (P.Oxy. I 136 = W.Chr. 383) called a “contract of a farm steward.” See also P.Oxy. LVIII 3952,
“steward’s work contract,” and the much more fragmentary P.CtYBR inv. 325, published by A.
Benaissa as “an estate overseer’s work contract.”1 The present contract (συνάλλαγμα) is compli-
cated by the existence of an earlier contract, the proteron synallagma mentioned in line 5. This must have
been of the same type as the present one, an agreement between steward and landholder, but for
properties of a different management district (prostasia) closer to Oxyrhynchus (they include the
epoikion Geronta—line 6) than those that are the concern of the present contract (cf. ll. 8, 12–14, 15–
16). It is further complicated by the reference in line 4 to a ius mandatoris that seems to imply the
existence of yet another contract, a mandatum, also distinct from the present contract—unless, that is, as
Boudewijn Sirks has suggested to us, the mandate is embodied in the present document’s “additional
agreement” beginning at line 17 (see below in this introduction and 17n.).
The name of the landowner to whom the present contract is addressed is lost, but his patronymic
(Mousaiou) is extant, as is a title: He is a comes sacri consistorii. His deceased father no doubt reappears
(but alive) among the grandees in the fiscal account SB XXII 15257.7 (before 4892). He is surely not
also the father of Flavia Euphemia (cf. P.Oxy. VII 1038, which dates to July 26, 568), but we cannot
exclude the possibility that he is the Mousaios responsible for the order PSI III 165 (441/2). We suspect
that he is the son of Strategios(?) who appears in the liturgical roster P.Oxy. XVI 2039.3
The steward’s name is likewise lost, but that of his guarantor, his father Aurelios Megas, son
of Philoxenos, does appear; he seems, however, to be otherwise unknown. The prostasia for which the
steward is contracting is of some interest. Not only does it include properties in both the Oxyrhynchite and
Herakleopolite nomes (see 8n.), it also yields two levels of compensation for the steward (cf. ll.14–15).
He receives a “full” salary (opsōnion) for the estate properties (i.e., the epoikia/ktēmata) under his super-
vision, while the two villages (one of them in the Herakleopolite), which the geouchos would not have
owned in their entirety, yield him only half of this. If, as seems likely, his charge in the villages included
the collection of taxes on properties not owned by his geouchos, it is interesting that this landholder’s
fiscal responsibilities extended across administrative (i.e., nome) boundaries.4 It should also be noted that
the London contract enumerates the contents of the opsōnion, while the Apion agreements (P.Oxy. I 136
and LVIII 3952) are vague about them; P.Oxy. I 136, e.g., simply indicates that it is κατὰ μίμησιν τοῦ πρὸ
ἐμοῦ προνοητοῦ (ll. 31–32).
The surviving papyrus preserves the upper right-hand part of the original. It presents eighteen
lines of text plus traces of a nineteenth. The entire first line was dedicated to the dating formula and place
*
We are deeply grateful to Boudewijn Sirks for his patient and helpful counsel on the legal technicalities that are so critical
to an understanding of the document published here. Our greatest appreciation we offer to the recipient of this text, Roger
Bagnall: friend, mentor e il miglior fabbro.
1
A. Benaissa, “An Estate Overseer’s Work Contract and the Meaning of Exotikoi Topoi,” BASP 44 (2007) 75–86.
2
Cf. N. Gonis, “Studies on the Aristocracy of Late Antique Oxyrhynchus,” Tyche 17 (2002) 90.
3
For discussion of this putative Strategios, see G. Azzarello, “P.Oxy. XVI 2039 e la nascita della domus gloriosa degli
Apioni,” ZPE 155 (2006) 225.
4
For the distinction between epoikia and villages, and the nature of the collections in each kind of settlement, see T. M.
Hickey, “An Inconvenient Truth? P.Oxy. 18.2196 verso, the Apion Estate, and fiscalité in the Late Antique Oxyrhynchite,”
BASP 45 (2008) 87–100, and note also the disjunctive construction in l. 16 below.
142 Todd M. Hickey and James G. Keenan
of drafting; lines 2–5 (down to χαίρειν) preserve the address; the remainder is devoted to the body of the
document, consisting of the labor contract proper (lines 5–17, with ὁμολογῶ at line 7), followed by
the above-mentioned supplementary agreement (ll. 17ff., προσομ[ο]λογ[ῶ] κτλ.). The formulation of both
agreements is, as the verbs indicate, subjective. Only the beginning of the latter survives, and that in
increasingly damaged form. In addition, the subscriptions alluded to in line 4 have not survived, nor has
the notarial completio. Interestingly, our contract is the only one of the four to be written with the fibers;
the others are written transversa charta.5 There is a vertical kollēsis 7.5–8 cm from left edge of the papyrus
(ll. 1–12); a second, ca. 17 cm to the right of the first; and a third at the right edge of the sheet (where it
was cut from the roll).6 The papyrus was acquired by the British Museum in 1920 as part of a group of 137
“[m]iscellaneous papyri ranging in date from the late 1st cent. B.C. to the Arab period.” 7 It is mentioned in
the introduction to P.Oxy. XVI 1894.
[† μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Φλαουίου Βεάτορος] τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου Παῦνι ιζ ἰνδικτίονος δ ἀρχ(ῇ) ε ἐν
[Ὀ]ξυρύγχ(ων) πόλει. vacat
[- - - περι]βλέπτῳ κόμε̣τ̣ι̣ τ̣οῦ θείου κο̣[ν]σιστωρίου υἱῷ τοῦ τῆς περιβλέπτου μνήμης
Μ̣ουσαίου γεουχοῦντι ἐνταῦθα τῇ λαμπρᾷ καὶ λαμπροτάτῃ Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλ(ει)
[- - - τ]ῆ̣ς σῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας, συναινοῦντος αὐτῷ καὶ νῦν τοῦ οἰ̣κείου πατρὸς τοῦ
αὐτοῦ Αὐρηλίου Μεγάλου υἱοῦ Φιλοξένου ἅμα καὶ ἀναδεχομένου
4 [αὐτὸν ἀ]π̣ωπληροῦντο̣̣ς ἰ̣δ̣ί̣ῳ τιμήμα̣τ̣ι, ἐνεχομένου αὐτῷ οὐδὲν ἧττον εἰς τὰ
ὑποτεταγμένα κατὰ τὸ τοῦ μανδάτορος δίκαιον, ἀμφότεροι ἑξῆς ὑπογράφοντες
[- - - ὁρμώμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς λα]μπρᾶς καὶ λαμπροτά̣της Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλεως χαίρειν· κυρίου
ὄντος καὶ βεβαίου τοῦ προτέρου συναλλάγματος τοῦ πρώην παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ τοῦ προειρη̣μένου
[- - - ἀναδ]ε̣χθέντος τῇ σῇ μεγαλοπρεπείᾳ ἐπὶ ὑποδοχῇ προσόδων προστασίας
ἐποικίου Γεροντᾶ καὶ ἄλλων τόπων τοῦ καὶ ὄντος παρ᾿ αὐτῇ τῆς
[- - - τῇ (…?) ἐ]ν̣εχομένῃ αὐτῷ δυνάμει, ὁμολογῶ ὡσαύτως ἑκουσίᾳ γνώμῃ
συντεθεῖσθαί με πρὸς τὸ σὸν μέγεθος χώραν προ̣ν̣οη ̣ τ̣ο̣ῦ
8 [- - - Β]ακιν καὶ Σαραλαου καὶ Σεσφθα καὶ Θμοιναχη τῶν ὑμῶν τόπων καὶ τῶν
παρεπομένων τούτοις ἐξωτικῶν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἐνιαυτὸν
[- - - τοῦ] ἐνεστῶτος ἔτους ροβ ρμα̣ τῆς παρούσης τετάρτης ἰνδικτίονος, συλλογῆς
καρπῶν καὶ προσόδων τῆς εὐτυχοῦς
[- - - κατὰ] τ̣ὸ ἐπιδιδόμενόν μοι̣ α̣π̓ αιτήσιμον τὴν μεθοδίαν τρέψαι κατὰ τῶν
ὑπευθύνων γεωργῶν τε καὶ ἄλλων καὶ πάντα τ̣ὰ̣ συν-
[- - - εἰσπράξ]ασθαι καὶ καταβαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν σὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν ἀκολούθως τοῖς
ἐπιστελλομένοις μοι παρ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐπιστάλμασιν
12 [- - - ἑκ]ατοστὰς δέκ[α] ὑπὲρ τοῦ παραλημπτικοῦ μέτρου ἐποικίων Βακιν καὶ
Σαραλ̣αου καὶ τῶν παρεπομένων τούτοις ἐξωτικῶν
[τόπων ] λημματίσω κα̣λ̣[ῶ]ς καὶ παραλαμβ̣άν̣ ω εἰ[ς] πλήρης. δώσ̣ω̣ δὲ τ̣οὺ̣ς̣ λόγους καὶ
τ̣ὰ̣ [ἀ]π[ὸ] τ̣ῶν λογο̣θ̣εσ
̣ ιῶν
5
We suspect that there was a conscious change in format, i.e., that therefore P.CtYBR inv. 325, currently dated V/VI and
assigned more specifically, on palaeographical grounds, “to the late fifth century or the first third of the sixth century,” is
later than the London papyrus.
6
A stray fragment with the letter pi is mounted with the document; we have not been able to place this.
7
Trustees of the British Museum, Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts 1916–1920, London 1933, 373.
33. A Labor Contract for a pronoētēs 143
[- - - ὑπὲρ μὲν προ]σόδων Βακιν [κ]αὶ Σαραλαου τὸ τέλιον ὀψώνιον τοῦτ᾿

ἔστιν σίτου ἀρτάβας εἴκοσι τέσσαρες καὶ
[- - - παραλημπτικ]ῷ̣ μέτρῳ καὶ οἴνο̣υ [δι]πλᾶ δέκα ἕξ, ὑπὲρ δὲ Σεσφθα καὶ
Θμοιναχη τ̣ὸ̣ ἥμισυ μέρος τοῦ προδηλωθέν̣τ̣ο̣ς
16 [ὀψωνίου ] ̣αι μετὰ τὴν ἐνδε[ικ]νυμένην παρ ̓[ἐμ]οῦ σπουδὴ̣ν.̣ ε̣[ἰ] μὲν ἐν̣
τοῖς κτήμασιν ἢ καὶ Θμοιναχη καὶ Σεσφθα
[- - - ἐ]ξωτικοῖς τούτων τ[ό]ποις ἐμὲ εἰς πλήρης λημματίσα̣ι̣.
προσομ[ο]λογ[ῶ] δὲ κἀγὼ ὁ τού[το]υ π̣[ατ]ὴρ καὶ ἐγγ̣[υητὴς]
[- - - πρ]οειρημέν̣ο̣ν̣ [υ]ἱ̣ὸ̣[ν] εἰς ἅπαντα τὰ π̣α[ρʼ αὐτο]ῦ̣
διομολογηθέ[ν]τα καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ̣ συναλλάγματι συ̣μ̣πληροῦ̣ντ[α ±2]
traces
-------------------------------
4 l. ἀποπληροῦντος ϋποτεταγμενα 6 l. τῶν καὶ ὄντων 8 ϋμων 12 ϋπερ (one dot only)
l4 l. τέσσαρας 15 ϋπερ
[After the consulship of Flavius Viator,] vir gloriosissimus, Pauni 17 of the 4th indiction, beginning
of the 5th, in Oxyrhynchus.
[To NN … ] vir spectabilis, comes sacri consistorii, son of Mousaios of spectabilis memory,
landholder here in the brilliant and most brilliant city of Oxyrhynchites
[…] of your magnificence, with his own father, the same Aurelius Megas, son of Philoxenos, now
too agreeing with him and at the same time taking responsibility for
4 [him …,] paying at his own expense, liable no less than he for what has been set forth below in
accordance with the mandator’s right, both signing below
[… (the two of them) originating from the] brilliant and most brilliant city of Oxyrhynchites,
greetings. The earlier agreement being valid and secure that was recently by me the
aforementioned
[…] having been guaranteed to your magnificence for the receipt of the proceeds (prosodoi) of the
prostasia of the hamlet (epoikion) of Gerontas and other places (topoi) that also pertain to
it (the prostasia) of the
[…] power vested in him (or it?), I acknowledge thusly with willing intent that I have undertaken
for your greatness the position of steward
8 […] Bakin and Saralaou and Sesphtha and Thmoinache of your places (topoi) and those outlying
(exōtikoi; sc. topoi) appertaining to these for one year
[… of the] present year 172 = 141 of the present fourth indiction for the collection of the produce
and (money) proceeds of the blessed
[… according to] the rent roll issued to me to exercise proper procedure with respect to the liable
geōrgoi and the others and all the
[ … to exact] and pay (these) to your magnificence in accordance with the orders given to me
by it
12 […] ten percent for the receiving measure of the hamlets Bakin and Saralaou and the outlying
[places] appertaining to these
[…] I shall credit properly and receive in full. And I shall give the accounts and the remainder
from the audits
[… for the] proceeds of Bakin and Saralaou the complete salary (opsōnion), that is, twenty-four
artabas of grain and
[… by the receiving] measure and sixteen dipla of wine, but for Sesphtha and Thmoinache the
half share of the previously specified
16 [salary …] with the zeal displayed by me. If in the estate properties (ktēmata) or Thmoinache
and Sesphtha
[…] outlying places of these, that I credit in full. I, too, agree in addition, namely his father and
guarantor, …
[…] aforementioned son with respect to all the matters agreed upon by him also in this contract,
(with him) fulfilling …
1 For the consular date, see CSBE2, 146, and CLRE, 524–527. Viator (a westerner) was not recog-
nized in the East. Only his postconsulate has been attested in the papyri, and it appears quite late;
the present text is our earliest attestation, cf. P.Oxy. LXXII 4918.1–2n.
For ἀρχ(ῇ), see CSBE2, 30–33. The numeral following it references the “Pachon indiction,” i.e.,
an indiction reckoned on the praedelegatio; see further P.Oxy. LXVIII 4681.9–11n. Our text
(Pauni 17 = June 11) is one of the few with the formula ἰνδικτίονος x ἀρχ(ῇ) x + 1 to date
before July 1.
2 κόμε̣τ̣ι̣ τ̣οῦ θείου κο̣[ν]σιστωρίου (συνεδρίου in earlier texts): See CPR XXIV, pp. 59–61 and
P.Oxy. LXVIII 4696.4n. (end), “At that date [484], the conferral of this comitiva did not entail
effective membership of the senate or the emperor’s consistory, but still carried significant
dignity”; cf. P.Oxy. XVI 1877 (ca. 488), in which a praeses Arcadiae is one. (Here it may be
noted that the comitiva is also attested for a praeses Arcadiae in SB XVI 12584; in ll. 3–4 read
κόμετι τοῦ θείου κο̣νσ̣ι̣σ̣τ̣ω̣ρ̣ί̣[ου] κ̣[α]ὶ̣ [ἡγεμόνι/ἄρχοντι τῆς Ἀρκάδων] | ἐπαρχίας.)
3 τ]ῆ̣ς σῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας: No doubt the end of an indication of the contractor’s existing relation-
ship with the landlord; for a comparable construction, cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XLIV 3204.5–7.
4 κατὰ τὸ τοῦ μανδάτορος δίκαιον: For the phrase, apparently equivalent to the Latin iure man-
datoris, see P.Oxy. LXIII 4395.110, cf. 7 (dotted and restored). See further P.Oxy. LXIII
4394.92–93, τῷ δικαίῳ τῆς ἀλληλεγγύης καὶ τοῦ μανδάτορος, and the same expression at ll. 160–
161, 198, 219–220. In the latter document the two high-class debtors are mutual guarantors and
mandatores for each other (ἀλλήλων ἐγγυηταὶ καὶ ἀλλήλων μανδάτοραις, read μανδάτορες, ll.
25–26 with note ad loc.); but in ours the father is simply guarantor (see l. 17) for his son. Every
guarantor had the right to be sued only after proceedings against his principal had failed. So the
ius mandatoris of the present line presumably refers specifically to the mandator’s right to
renounce his mandate (and thereby his guarantee) as permitted in Dig. 17.1.22.11 (Paulus 32 ad
Edictum). If the present text distinguishes guarantor from mandator (see also 17n.), in P.Oxy.
LXIII 4394, just quoted, the right (or law) of guarantor and the right (or law) of mandator are
lumped together as one, while in P.Oxy. LXIII 4395 the two pertinent nouns, ἐγγυητής and
μανδάτωρ, regularly stand side by side without intervening καί; see esp. l. 52 (ὁ ἐγγυητὴς
μανδάτωρ), cf. ll. 25, 18–19 (restored), 57 (restored). For the direct juxtaposition of the two terms,
see also P.Flor. III 384.16, 33, 44, 58, 61, 75, 109 (οἱ ἐγγυηταὶ μανδάτορες; the addition of καί
in lacunae is unwarranted). In such cases as these (we find) it is hard to decide whether a
substantive legal distinction is being maintained or whether, instead, the terms are being used
pleonastically as synonymous terms of art (P. Tiersma, Legal Language [Chicago 1999]). Of
course it could also be that in these instances guarantor provides the genus and mandator the
species; this is suggested especially by P.Oxy. LXIII 4395.4–5, in which the nouns are separated
by ἤτ̣ο̣ι (cf. P. Sijpesteijn, “The Meanings of ἤτοι in the Papyri,” ZPE 90 [1992] 245–246).
4–5 ὑπογράφοντες is squeezed in at the end of the line, in letters noticeably smaller than those that
precede it. (With one apparent exception [l. 10], our scribe does not split words between lines.)
Space (cf. l. 1) suggests that it was followed by ἰδίοις γράμμασιν vel sim., though this was not
required (cf. P.Oxy. LXII 4349.6).
6 προστασίας: The district overseen by a pronoētēs; cf. R. Mazza, L’archivio degli Apioni: Terra,
lavoro e proprietà senatoria nell’Egitto tardoantico (Munera 17) (Bari 2001) 83, but note that she
considers pronoēsia, which refers to the office, to be an equivalent.
προσόδων: Used more generically, it would seem, than it is below. See n. 9.
ἐποικίου Γεροντᾶ: See A. Benaissa, Rural Settlements of the Oxyrhynchite Nome: A Papyrological
Survey, Trismegistos Online Publications IV, Version 1.0 [http://www.trismegistos.org/top.php]
(Köln—Leuven 2009), ad loc. Probably located in the former eighth pagus, it is otherwise attested
only by P.Oxy. XII 1448.
τοῦ καὶ ὄντος, l. τῶν καὶ ὄντων: No doubt the scribe was thinking of ἐποικίου and forgot the
intervening τόπων.
τῆς: Perhaps followed by a reference to the landowner, i.e., a second-person possessive adjective
or genitive pronoun and an abstract honorific.
7 τῇ (…?) ἐ]ν̣εχομένῃ αὐτῷ δυνάμει: Owing to the lacuna and resulting puzzlement over the syntax
of the dative case of δυνάμει, the exact sense of this phrase eludes us. Given that δύναμις
translates the Latin potestas, perhaps αὐτῷ refers to the contractor’s father.
From ὁμολογῶ onwards, there is a compressed version of what can be found in P.Oxy. I 136.11–15
and LVIII 3952.13–17 (heavily restored), with (among other things) ὡσαύτως (literally, “thusly”)
serving as shorthand for some of what has been dropped from the formula. At the end of the line
the papyrus is seriously abraded, but the clarity of pi and rho and the parallels afforded by P.Oxy.
I 136.15 and VIII 1134.8 (cf. 3952.[17]) justify the reading of what follows, however damaged
and tight this may be.
8 Β]ακιν: Cf. Benaissa 2009 (see 6n. above), ad loc.; our text furnishes the last letter of the toponym.
Σαραλαου: An otherwise unknown locale.
Σεσφθα: Cf. Benaissa 2009 (see 6n. above), ad loc. A village, the northernmost known in the
Oxyrhynchite nome, in the former tenth pagus. Associated with the domus divina before 460
(SB XX 14091), and at that time under the curatorship of another comes sacri consistorii,
Flavius Strategius I, by 540/541 it was being administered by a pronoētēs of the Apiones (P.Oxy.
XVI 2032.18).
Θμοιναχη: A village associated with the Herakleopolite (specifically, the Techtho Nesos toparchy;
cf. M. R. Falivene, The Heracleopolite Nome: A Catalogue of the Toponyms with Introduction
and Commentary [Am.Stud.Pap. 37] [Atlanta 1997] 77), it would not have been too far from
Sesphtha—certainly less than 10 kilometers. Its name reveals that it was near the water, in
this case the Baḥr Iūsef; Egyptian Tꜣ-mꜣy- (Θμοι-) signifies land formed from fluvial deposits
(Falivene, p. 6). Stud. Pal. X 233 indicates that Thmoinache was still part of the Herakleopolite
nome in the fifth century. If, as seems likely, this was also the case when our document was
drafted near the dawn of the sixth, the lack of καί in the expression γεουχοῦντι ἐνταῦθα τῇ
λαμπρᾷ καὶ λαμπροτάτῃ Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλ(ει) in l. 2 requires explanation. Perhaps this is a case
of inconsistent usage, or maybe the landowner’s responsibilities in Thmoinache were purely
fiscal.
τῶν παρεπομένων τούτοις ἐξωτικῶν: Cf. Benaissa 2007 (see n. 1 above) 80–86, against P. Sarris
Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (Cambridge 2006), who claims that these are
“autourgic,” i.e., directly exploited, lands.
ἐπὶ χρόνον ἐνιαυτόν: The same term as in our other exemplars (P.Oxy. I 136.13, LVIII 3952.15).
Benaissa 2007 (see n. 1 above) 80, 9n., suggests that the short duration was intended as an
incentive. For a notion of what would have followed, see P.Oxy. I 140.9–10 (the month and
day would, of course, be different).
9 συλλογῆς καρπῶν καὶ προσόδων: With this phrase the contract addresses the (private and fiscal)
inflows of the prostasia in kind and cash, respectively. πρόσοδος is polysemic even within the
small corpus of pronoetic contracts. Above (l. 6) and below (l. 14), it presumably includes
proceeds in kind, while in P.Oxy. I 136.14 we find καρπῶν καὶ χρυσικῶν καὶ προσόδων; the
second of these—if this is not mere pleonasm—could indicate money rents and the third, money
taxes (for fiscal πρόσοδοι, cf. P.Oxy. I 144.5 and PSI VIII 953.68–69, 78, but note that the
meaning “money rent” appears in P.Oxy. LXIII 4397.23).
ἔτους ροβ ρμα̣ = 495/496. For the Oxyrhynchite era, see CSBE2, 55–62.
εὐτυχοῦς: Surely to be followed by a reference to the fifth indiction, e.g., πέμπτης ἐπινεμήσεως.
10 ἀ̣παιτήσιμον: Cf. J. Rowlandson, “Crop Rotation and Rent Payment in Oxyrhynchite Land Leases:
Social and Economic Interpretations,” (Pap.Congr. XX) (Copenhagen 1994) 499, and A. Jördens,
“Die Agrarverhältnisse im spätantiken Ägypten,” Laverna 10 (1999) 138–139. Though its usual
translation might suggest otherwise, it included land that did not belong to the geouchos; cf., e.g.,
ll. 10, 29, and 31 of the rent roll P.Oxy. XVI 2037.
The term geōrgos applied to men with diverse means and working in a variety of labor relationships
(including independently), so we have avoided its translation; cf. chapter 8 of J. Banaji, Agrarian
Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2007).
συν- : What is the sequel? The parallel contracts provide no assistance: P.Oxy. I 136.19–20 has εἰς
τὸ πάντα εἰσπρᾶξαι καὶ καταβαλεῖν … τοῦτʼ ἔστιν …; LVIII 3952.22, merely π̣ά̣ν̣τα εἰσπρᾶξαι καὶ
καταβαλεῖν. Though the collocation (with πάντα τά) is otherwise unattested, we are inclined to
suggest συν|ήθη; besides the custom inherent to the rent roll, there were customary perquisites
associated with agricultural contracts (note also the “shorthand” employed in l. 7). Still, we take
pause because the scribe could have easily fit -ηθη in the space available to him. Perhaps a longer
word, e.g., συντελούμενα, is required, though this still would not explain the absence of additional
syllables. Might this scribe, otherwise resistant to breaking words between lines, have thought that
a verbal prefix afforded an acceptable exception?
11 ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐπιστελλομένοις μοι παρ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐπιστάλμασιν: Contrast the Apion contracts
P.Oxy. I 136 and LVIII 3952, ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἐνταγίοις τοῖς ἐκδιδομένοις παρʼ ἐμοῦ,
“according to the receipts issued by me” (136.22). For entagia, cf. P.Oxy. LXXV 5067.1n.
12 ἑκ]ατοστὰς δέκ[α] ὑπὲρ τοῦ παραλημπτικοῦ μέτρου: A reference to the landlord’s paramythia,
set higher (at 15%) in the Apion contract P.Oxy. I 136: ὑπὲρ παραμυθείας τοῦ παραλημπτικοῦ
μέτρου τῶν ἀρταβῶν ἑκατὸν ἀρτάβας δέκα πέντε (ll. 28f.). Cf. Benaissa 2007 (see n. 1 above) 79
and refs.
13 παραλαμβ̣άν̣ ω: The present here is unexpected but hardly unclear, given the surrounding futures.
Regarding the substitution of the present for the future in general, see Mandilaras, Verb, 102–107;
his no. 215(a) (p. 103) seems most relevant for the present case. But might the anticipated (and
anomalous) future middle παραλήψομαι have posed difficulties for the scribe?
τ̣ὰ̣ [ἀ]π[ὸ] τ̣ῶν λογο̣θ̣εσ
̣ ιῶν: Undoubtledly the object of a now lost ἀποπληρώσω vel sim.
14–15 τὸ τέλιον ὀψώνιον κτλ.: For the remuneration of the Apiones’ pronoētai, see P.Oxy. LV 3804.154
(where the opsōnion includes 24 cancellus artabai of sitos) and n. The present text adds wine to
the discussion, but note already P.Oxy. XVI 2051r (with analysis in T. M. Hickey, Wine, Wealth
and the State: The House of Apion at Oxyrhynchus [Ann Arbor 2012] 133–135).
16 The protasis here introduces a clause about the eventuality of shortfall or arrears; cf. P.Oxy. I
136.24ff., LVIII 3952.26ff., P.CtYBR inv. 325.3ff.
17 προσομ[ο]λογ[ῶ] δὲ κἀγὼ κτλ. Same incipit, same crasis in P.Oxy. I 136.34, restored in P.Oxy.
LVIII 3952.40. Perhaps provision of a guarantor was a requisite addendum to a work contract
of this type. The additional agreement here is no longer between steward and landholder, but
between the guarantor and the landholder with the guarantor’s son as an obviously interested
third party. Here the guarantor, our steward’s father, formalizes his status as guarantor to the
landholder’s full satisfaction. According to B. Sirks, this amounts technically to a mandatum
credendae pecuniae with the father-guarantor as mandator and the landholder as mandatary. The
father becomes immediately responsible for indemnifying the mandatary in the event of his son’s
non-performance. In the present line ἐγγυητής indicates the father’s legal relationship to his son.
18 διομολογηθέ[ν]τα: The first omicron is written impressively large as if to mark the beginning of
the word if not (mistakenly) a new clause or sentence. The δι-, written thin and small (contrast the
same combination in l. 10, μεθοδίαν), was squeezed in after the fact.
University of California, Berkeley

Loyola University Chicago
No. 33
34. Maternal Division of Housed Property near the Temples of Memphis∗
Francisca A. J. Hoogendijk
P. Vindob. inv. G 24487 34.1 x 12.1 cm I/II

Memphis
Light brown papyrus with the left half broken or cut off, but with most of the original edge preserved at
top, right side and bottom. The height of the papyrus is the original height of the papyrus roll. The right
ends of 33 lines of Greek remain, written in black ink along the fibers. Apart from some wormholes and
the abrasion of ink in ll. 1–3, the text is well preserved. The upper margin measures 2.2 cm, the lower
margin 1.6 cm, to the right the margin varies between 0.4 and 2.0 cm. A kollêsis is visible on the recto,
left over right, at ca. 0.7 cm from the right edge (not executed very neatly: the end of a strip of the upper
layer was folded to the left before being written upon in ll. 4–5 and 10). The text was all written in one
hand: the experienced hand of the notary or notary’s assistant who also signed the contract. Elements
in the hand (like the cursive epsilon) and in the text (e.g. the silver drachmas), point to a date in the Roman
period. There are some arguments for an early dating: in l. 27 the last nu in τέκνων is written as an upward
moving curve, which is reminiscent of the preceding Ptolemaic period, the absence of a subscription to
the text (see n. 3 below) and the use of μ]εμερισμένου (see 1n. below), but the handwriting does not
exclude the 2nd c. CE. The 18th year mentioned in l. 32 may thus refer to the reign of Tiberius (31/32 CE),
or perhaps of Trajan (114/115), Hadrian (133/134), Antoninus (154–155) or Marcus Aurelius (177/178).
Words or word groups are often separated by a space. Towards the end the writing becomes more cursive
and smaller, possibly to make sure the text would fit on the page. Except for the occasional iotacism, the
spelling of the Greek is correct. In dative endings, iota is consequently written adscript (and cf. the hyper-
correct βλάβη{ι} in l. 30). The text is said to have been bought in 1893 and found in Soknopaiou Nesos,
but the contents of the text rather point to the city of Memphis, see below.1 The verso is empty.
This papyrus contains the division of property by a lady named Athinis. On the left, approxi-
mately half of each line is missing,2 and since the text seems well under way in the first line it appears
that at least one other column must have preceded this one. The text must be a notarial deed, because
of the typical signature at the end: κεχρη(μάτικα), “I have dealt with the matter.” The notarial character
of the deed is corroborated by the objective style, by the use of the phrase παρὼν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, “being
present at the notary’s office” (l. 25) and by the lack of subscription and witnesses.3 There is a reference
in the text to the agoranomeion or notary’s office at Memphis where a testament was made (διὰ τοῦ
ἐν Μ̣έμφει ἀγο̣ρα̣ν̣ο[μίου, ll. 3–4). It is very likely that this deed was drawn up in the same Memphite
agoranomeion. Every capital in Egypt was supposed to have one, but this text provides the first attestation
of the agoranomeion for Memphis so far (see further ll. 3–4n.).
∗
With congratulations I contribute this text in honor of Roger Bagnall, who has played such an enormous role in papyrology
world-wide. I thank Hermann Harrauer for allowing me to publish the papyrus a long time ago, and Bernard Palme for
reconfirming this and for providing me with a new digital photo. I also thank Klaas Worp for critically reading an earlier
version of this article.
1
For comparable cases of Vienna texts bought in 1893 but not originating from Soknopaiou Nesos, see footnote 3 to
F. A. J. Hoogendijk, “Athletes and liturgists in a petition to Flavius Olympius, praeses Augustamnicae,” in P. Schubert (ed.),
Proceedings of the XXVIth Congress of Papyrology, Geneva 2010 (forthcoming).
2
I estimate a lacuna of ca. 28–30 letters, counting the probable supplements in ll. 20, 21, 26, 27 and 31.
3
On the state notaries, see H. J. Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens II (München 1978) 9–18, and, for
the period between 145 and 88 BCE, P. W. Pestman, “Agoranomoi et actes agoranomiques,” in Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXIII (1985),
p. 9–44. See also F. Burkhalter, “Archives locales et centrales en Égypte romaine,” Chiron 20 (1990) 191–215, esp. 197–199,
“Statut et obligation des notaires.” Subscriptions were normally absent in Ptolemaic agoranomic texts, but became common
in the Roman period, cf. M.Gr., p. 61. On the inherent superfluousness of witnesses in (Ptolemaic) agoranomic deeds, see
also P. W. Pestman in Pap.Lugd.Bat. XXII, p. 24 and 246.
150 Francisca A. J. Hoogendijk
That this text must contain a division of property is clearly shown by the word μέρος (“part”)
in l. 20, where the following provision is made: “[And if one] of the aforementioned children dies [without
children and intestate,] his share must belong to his surviving [brothers and sisters in even parts].”
A division of property in most cases forms part of a deed of last will.4 In the papyrological evidence,
these come in different forms: on one side the official Greek will or diathêkê (and later the official Roman
testament), on the other side a group of various contracts of division and donation, sometimes embedded
in other deeds like a marriage contract. This last group is regarded as being more “Egyptian,” since in
traditional Egyptian law a real will never existed. Without denying the Egyptian roots, U. Yiftach demon-
strated that the reason for choosing one kind of last will was, at least in the early Roman period, not so
much ethnical, but rather based on region: Greek wills or diathêkai were mainly drawn up at the notary’s
office of the nome capital, while the other documents mainly originate from the villages.5 The latter are
often identified by a term from Roman law, donationes mortis causa (“donation because of death”), but
should, following Yiftach, rather be called meriteia (“division”) as in the papyri themselves.6
In our text, the lady who divides her property between her children appears to be a Memphite
city-dweller from (according to the personal names in the text) the Hellenized layer of society. If she
would have wanted to draw up a deed of last will, she would certainly have chosen the Greek model of
the diathêkê, which was indeed the kind of document by which she inherited part of her property herself
(ll. 3–4). The remains of our text, however, do not conform to that model: written entirely in objective
style, it lacks both the expected subscription and the witnesses, whose attendance was indispensible for
a diathêkê.7 Why did this Hellenized lady from Memphis not choose to make a diathêkê, even if she did
have her deed drawn up at the notary’s office? The only answer can be that she did not intend to make
up a last will to be executed after her death, but rather a deed of division with immediate effect.8
The form of this deed will have been that of a one-sided contract, like most of the preserved
divisions on papyrus, especially those of parents (often mothers) between their children. In the missing
column the text must have started with the formal date and a reference to the notary’s office and city,
followed by ὁμολογεῖ, “N.N. agrees” (cf. l. 31 ὡμο]λ̣ογημένων), the name and family ties of Athinis,
probably acting with her husband as guardian, then probably μεμερικέναι “to have apportioned to” (cf. l. 1
with comm.), followed by the names of all the beneficiaries (her children) and the start of the description
of the divided property. This is continued in the half-preserved second column of text transcribed below.
After this, a horizontal dividing line separates the main text from the special provisions, the husband’s
4
On last wills, see H. Kreller, Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der graeco-aegyptischen Papyrusurkunden
(Leipzig—Berlin 1919); W. Clarysse, “Ptolemaic Wills,” in: M. J. Geller and H. Maehler (ed.), Legal Documents of
the Hellenistic World (London 1995) 88–105; U. Yiftach, “Deeds of Last Will in Graeco-Roman Egypt: A Case Study in
Regionalism,” BASP 39 (2002) 149–164; M. Meerson, “Gifts After Death in Greco-Roman Egypt’, in Proceedings
of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki 2004 (Helsinki 2007) 710–728. A list of wills is found in
R. P. Salomons, “Testamentaria,” ZPE 156 (2006) 217–241 (list 232–236), with additions in P.Scholl 5, introd. On women’s
last wills, see C. Balconi, “Le disposizioni successorie di donne nell’Egitto romano e bizantino,” in Atti de XXII Congresso
Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze 1998 (Firenze 2001) 89–103. To date, the only will originating from Memphis seems
to be P.Lond. VII 2015 from 242 BCE (found in the Zenon archive).
5
Yiftach (see n. 4 above) 152, cf. also Meerson (see n. 4 above) 711–713.
6
On divisions, see Kreller (see n. 4 above) 215–245, “Die erbrechtlichen Verfügungen ohne Testamentsform.” On the
various contracts of division, see also A. Jördens in P.Louvre I 8, introduction with further literature and an updated list
of divisions between equals (not parental divisions). (P.Louvre I 8 is now republished together with its demotic parts as
P.Dime III 38.) A list of meriteiai in the early Roman period may be found in Yiftach (see n. 4 above) 151–152, n. 6 and
in Meerson (see n. 4 above) 710, n. 1; see also U. Yiftach’s online databank Synallagma. Greek Contracts in Context. For
parental divisions see R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt (New York 1944) 155–156.
7
Cf. Yiftach (see n. 4 above) 163–164.
8
That Athinis’ death is mentioned in ll. 15 and 24 does not necessarily contradict this, cf. P.Mich. V 322a where in
a division ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν provisions for burial are taken. Moreover, the phrase μήτε μετὰ τὴν τῆς Ἀθίνιος τελευ|[τήν (ll. 24–25)
rather refers to a situation where the deed also had effect before her death (see also comm. to ll. 22-24). Cf. Meerson (see
n. 4 above) 718, who argues that what he calls “gifts after death” also took effect immediately.
34. Maternal Division of Housed Property near the Temples of Memphis 151
consent, a penalty clause, the validation clause and, at the bottom, the signature of the notary or his
assistant.
The remaining text starts with the description of property to be divided: a plot of a house which
Athinis had inherited (possibly from her father) (ll. 2–9) and a house which formerly belonged to Athinis’
mother (ll. 10–14). This is followed by the condition that the beneficiaries pay for Athinis’ burial after
her death; on this, they will have to spend a total of 420 silver drachmas, evenly divided into amounts of
60 drachmas (ll. 15–17). From this can be deduced the number of beneficiaries involved with the burial:
seven, probably all children of Athinis (cf. l. 19: τῶν] προγεγραμμένων τέκνων). If the interpretation
of the text as given below is right, five of these children were adults (of whom the names of Apollonios,
Polydeukes and Helene are preserved; ll. 21–22 and 27) and two were under age (l. 18). Athinis’ husband,
Hephaistion the younger, was present while the deed was drawn up and gave his official consent to it
(ll. 25–26). He is also mentioned as one against whom no legal proceedings are permitted (ll. 28–29). So he
may have been one of the beneficiaries himself (but then not included in the number of seven persons who
have to take care of the funeral), or may just be involved as guardian of the younger children (cf. ll. 17–18)
and probably of Athinis herself. None of the persons mentioned in this text could be identified. In view of
the number of adult children, Athinis must have been at least nearly fifty years old.9
Noteworthy is the location of the houses in what must be the city of Memphis.10 The first house
is said to be located near a temple of Aphrodite (Ἀφροδισίωι, l. 6) and to the south of the dromos, or
avenue (in Egypt often lined with sphinxes), leading up to it (δρόμος Ἀφροδεί[της, ll. 9–10). A dromos
of Aphrodite appears in one Memphite papyrus of 213 CE.11 Two temples of Aphrodite, often identified
with the goddess Astarte, are known for Memphis. One was located in the large Serapeum complex in
the desert west of Memphis; this cannot be the temple meant in our text.12 But in the city itself there was
another large temple of Aphrodite, also known as the temple of Astarte, situated to the south of the temple
of Ptah. This is probably the Aphrodite-temple near which the first property was located.13
The second house is described as being near “the two avenues of Hephaistos and of ...”, τ]ῶν δύο
δρόμων τοῦ τε Ἡφαίστου καὶ [ - - - (l. 11). This can only refer to the temple of Ptah (mentioned above),
the main god of Memphis who was identified with Hephaistos. A dromos of Hephaistos or Ptah is not
found earlier in Greek papyri, but the Memphite temple of Ptah-Hephaistos is attested many times.14 The
name of the god in the lacuna of line 12 is likely to have been Apis, whose temple was actually situated
within the precinct of the temple of Ptah-Hephaistos. The two temples are even regarded as one in BGU VI
1216, 52–53 and 190–191: τοῦ ἐν Μέμφει ἱεροῦ Φθαιάπιος (or Φθᾶι Ἄπιος, BL II.2, 31) θεῶν μεγίστων
(110 BCE?). In our text the husband’s name Hephaistion is also connected to the cult of Hephaistos.
The temple of Ptah-Hephaistos was famous in antiquity. Herodotus (Hist. II.3) attributes his
knowledge about Egypt to the priests of Hephaistos in Memphis and mentions the temple of Hephaistos
in II.101. Diodorus Siculus also mentions it in Bibliotheca historica I.22 and 57. The temple was still
blooming in the third century CE.15 Strabo, after his visit to Egypt around 25/24 BCE, describes all three
9
If she had her first child at the age of fifteen, and her fifth at twenty-one, she would already be forty-six when this fifth
child became adult.
10
See D. J. Thompson, Memphis Under the Ptolemies (Princeton 1988; a 2nd ed. has just appeared in 2012, non vidi).
11
The petition P.Oxy.Hels. 23.29–31: ἐπὶ τοῦ α ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ δ̣ρό|μου ἐξαγορευτικοῦ Ἀφροδείτης (l. Ἀφροδίτης) | θεᾶς μεγίστης.
12
Under the name of Astartieion this temple is frequently mentioned in the Serapeum archive (2nd c. BCE), cf. Trismegistos
Places s.v. Astartieion, Geo ID 12526.
13
Cf. E. Kießling, “Die Götter von Memphis in griechisch-römischer Zeit,”APF 15 (1953) 7–45, esp. 41. This is probably the
temple meant by Ἀφροδισίου in P.Gur. 22.22 (list of sheep and goats, 3rd c. BCE; Memphis, see BL IX, 98). Cf. Trismegistos
Places s.v. Aphrodisieion, Geo ID 12848.
14
On Ptah and Hephaistos, see J. Quaegebeur, W. Clarysse, and B. van Maele, “The Memphite Triad in Greek Papyri,”
Göttinger Miszellen 88 (1985) 25–37, esp. 26–32, with sources and literature. See also Trismegistos Places s.v. Hephaisteion,
Geo ID 4364.
15
Cf. Thompson (see n. 10 above) 271.
temples of our papyrus: “There is here, then, not only the temple of Apis, which lies near the Hephaesteium,
but also the Hephaesteium itself, which is a costly structure both in the size of its naos and in all other
respects. In front, in the dromus, stands also a colossus made of one stone. . . . And at Memphis there is also
a temple of Aphroditê. . . .” (Geogr. XVII.1.31).16 The temple of Ptah-Hephaistos, with the Apis-stall inside
its walls and the Astarte-temple to the south, can be found on the map in D. J. Thompson’s Memphis
Under the Ptolemies, p. 14. The housed property of Athinis appears to have been located in the very center
of the ancient city of Memphis.
→
[ ca. 21 πλὴν (?) τοῦ μ]εμερισμένου α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῶ̣ι ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀ̣θίν̣ιος
[ ca. 17 τῆς μεμερισμέ]ν̣ης α̣ὐτ̣ ῆι̣ Ἀ̣θ̣ί̣ν̣ε̣[ι] ὑπὸ τοῦ π̣ρ̣[ογε]γ̣ραμ-
[μένου (father?) δι’ ἧς] ἔ̣θ̣ε̣τ̣ο̣ διὰ τοῦ ἐν Μ̣έμφει ἀγο̣ρα̣ν̣ο-
4 [μίου τῷ x (ἔτει) (month, day) ἐπὶ σφραγίδων (?) διαθ]ήκης ἐφ’ ἧς συνευδόκησεν
[ (mother?) ca. 29 -]η̣σας τῆι Ἀθίνει οἰκίας σφραγεῖ⸌δ̣ο̣ς̣⸍
[ ca. 29 ] Ἀφροδισίωι ἀπὸ νότου τοῦ εἰς τὸν
[ - - - δρόμου (name) ] ̣ Kομοάπιος τοῦ Ἁρμάχιος, ἧς
8 [γείτονες· νότου ca. 16 -]ν̣ος υἱῶν, βορρᾶ δρόμος Ἀφροδεί-
[της, λιβὸς ca. 20 Γ]α̣λάτου υἱῶν, ἀπηλιώτου υἱῶν
[ ca. 28 τ]ῆ̣ς μητρικῆς τῆς Ἀθίνιος οἰκίας
[ ca. 28 τ]ῶν δύο δρόμων τοῦ τε Ἡφαίστου καὶ
12 [ ca. 28 -π(?)]ωλῶν, ἧς γείτονες· νότου Νικομάχ(ου)
[ βoρρᾶ λιβὸς -]αι ἀπηλιώτου Λάμπωνος ἱματιο-
[πώλου ca. 24 -]απωνος εἰς οὓς φέρουσιν ἐκ τῆς
[ ca. 29 -]λ̣ω̣τα, ἐφ’ ᾧ τελευτήσασαν τὴν
16 [ ca. 18 οἱ προγεγραμ]μ̣ένοι δαπανήσαντες ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) υκ
[ ca. 29 ] (δραχμαὶ) ξ, τοῦ δὲ Ἡφαιστίωνος νεω-
[τέρου ca. 22 νε]ώτεροι ὦσιν τὰς ἐπιβαλλούσας αὐτοῖς
[________________________________]_______________________
[ ca. 18 ἐὰν δέ τις τῶν] προγεγραμμένων τέκνων τελευ-
20 [τήσῃ ἄτεκνον καὶ ἀδιάθετον, ἔστω τὸ] τούτου μέρος τῶν περιόντων αὐτοῦ
[ἀδελφῶν κοινῶς ἐξ ἴσου καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστ]ι δὲ τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις Ἀ̣πολλω-
[νίῳ (?) καὶ ca. 10 καὶ ca. 10 κα]ὶ Πολυδεύκηι καὶ Ἑλένηι ἐπιπορεύ-
[εσθαι ca. 11 ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς Ἀθίν]ιος ἄνδρα Ἡφαιστίωνα νεώτερον
24 [μήτε ca. 25 ] μήτε μετὰ τὴν τῆς Ἀθίνιος τελευ-
[τὴν ca. 17 κατ’ οὐδένα] τρόπον. παρὼν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς
[ὁ τῆς Ἀθίνιος ἀνὴρ Ἡφαιστίων νεώτ]ερος Ἀπολλωνίο̣υ̣ συνευδοκε̣ῖ
[τῇδε τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ μὴ ἔξεστώ τινι] τῶν τῆς Ἀθίνιος ἐνηλίκων τέκνων
28 [ ca. 22 ἀντιποι]ή̣σεσθαι τῶν προκειμένων ἤ, χωρὶς τοῦ
[τὴν ἐσομένην ἔφοδον ἢ ca. 6 ὑπενα]ντίον τούτοις ἄκυρον ὑπάρχειν, ἔτι καὶ
[ ca. 29 ] τοῖς ἑτέροις τά τε βλάβη{ι} καὶ ὡς ἴδιον
[χρέος ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) x καὶ μηδὲν ἧσσον τῶν ὡμο]λ̣ογημένων κυρίων ὄντων παν̣τ̣α̣χ̣(ῇ).
16
Translation H. L. Jones, Strabo Geography Book XVII (The Loeb Classical Library 267, Cambridge, Mass. 2001) 89.
32 [ ca. 29 ] κ̣θ̅. Χαιρή(μων) κεχρη(μάτικα) (ἔτους) ιη Μεσο(ρὴ) κθ̅.

[ ca. 29 ]μο( )
5 l. σφραγῖδος 8–9 l. Ἀφροδίτης 16 αργ̅𐅻 pap. 17 𐅻 pap. 32 χαιρη pap. κεχρη pap. L pap. μεσο pap.
33. ]μο̅ pap.
(For a better understanding of the text, some purely conjectural supplements from the commentary below
have been added in the translation.)
[- - - except the share which was?] apportioned to him by Athinis [ - - - ; and for each one seventh share?]
of the plot of a house, which was apportioned to Athinis herself by the abovementioned [(father?) - - - ]
by means of the [sealed?] testament which he drew up at the office of the public notary in Memphis
4
[date], to which consented [(mother?) - - - ] for Athinis, [which is situated near the] temple of Aphrodite,
to the south of the [avenue?] in the direction of [ - - - ] son of Komoapis, grandson of Harmachis, of which
the 8[neighbors are: to the south, - - -] of the sons of - -n; to the north, the avenue of Aphrodite; [to the
west, - - - ] of the sons of Galates; to the east, of the sons [- - - ; and for each one seventh share?] of the
house of Athinis formerly belonging to her mother, [situated to the - - - ] of the two avenues of Hephaistos
and 12[Apis? - - - and of the - - - ]-sellers, of which the neighbors are: to the south, [ - - - ] of Nikomachos;
[to the north, - - - ; to the west, - - - ]; to the east, [ - - - ] of Lampon the clothes-seller [and the - - - ]
of -apon, to whom/which lead out of [ - - - ] of -lotas; on the condition that, after her death, 16the above-
mentioned persons [will take care of her burial,] spending 420 silver drachmas [together in even parts
which makes for each] 60 drachmas, with Hephaistion the younger [as their guardian supplying the 60
drachmas?] falling to them [as long as they are (too)] young. ––––––––––––––––
[And if one] of the aforementioned children dies 20[without children and intestate] his share must belong
to his surviving [brothers and sisters in even parts and it must not be permitted] to the aforementioned
Apollonios [and - - - and - - -] and Polydeukes and Helene to proceed [about anything? against the]
husband of Athinis, Hephaistion the younger, 24[nor to Hephaistion against the others?] nor after the death
of Athinis [ - - - in whatever] way. Being present at the notary’s office, [the husband of Athinis,
Ηephaistion] the younger, son of Apollonios, consents to [this agreement and it must not be permitted to
any] of the adult children of Athinis 28[nor to her husband Hephaistion to counteract] what is stated
above or else, apart from the fact that [the future proceedings or - - - ] contradictory with it will be invalid,
on top of that [he will pay as a fine] to the others the damage and as a personal [liability x silver drachmas,
while nonetheless] the terms agreed upon remain binding everywhere. 32[(date) ] 29th. I, Chairemon, have
dealt with this, in the 18th year, on the 29th of Mesore. [ - - - ] (abbreviation).
1 For the possible supplement πλήν, cf. e.g. P.Mich. V 322a.13–14: κατὰ τὸ τρίτον μέρος πλὴν
τοῦ προκιμένου καὶ μεμερισμένου τῷ Ὀννώφρι μόνῳ παστοφορίου (division of property, 46 CE,
Tebtynis).
α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῶ̣ι: one of the beneficiaries, a son or the husband, who on another occasion had already
received a share in Athinis’ property.
μ]εμερισμένου: the term is typically used in meriteiai before the second century CE, when the verb
was replaced by συγκεχωρηκέναι, see Yiftach (see n. 4 above), esp. 152–153, n. 10–11. On the
perfect form see Meerson (see n. 4 above) 713–714.
τῆς Ἀ̣θίν̣ιος: cf. lines 24 and 27. The female name Ἄθινις is an addendum onomasticis papyro-
logicis.17 It possibly is a iotacistic as well as shortened form of a name derived from the goddess
17
Ἀθίνιν (acc.) is further attested only once in Greek literature as the name of an unknown Egyptian man in Polybius
XXII.16.
Athena, such as Ἀθηναΐς which is frequently attested in the papyri, or Ἀθήνιον (with accusative
Ἀθῆνιν in P.Wash.Univ. II 106.9, 18 BCE, Oxyrhynchus). It cannot be excluded that the name is
of Egyptian origin, cf. Παχθίνις and Θινις (Trismegistos People ss.vv.).
2 At the start perhaps [μέρους; there is probably not enough space to first supply a word like [μητρός
followed by a name. Before τῆς μεμερισμέ]ν̣ης, taken with σφραγεῖ⸌δ̣ο̣ς̣⸍ in l. 5, something like
καὶ ἑκάστῳ (ἕβδομον?) μέρος is expected.
2–3 ὑπὸ τοῦ π̣ρ̣[ογε]γ̣ραμ|[μένου: perhaps supply πατρὸς N.N.; this male testator may well have been
Athinis’ father, since a second house in l. 10 is said to have been the former house of Athinis’
mother.
3–4 διὰ τοῦ ἐν Μ̣έμφει ἀγο̣ρα̣ν̣ο|[μίου: first attestation of an agoranomeion for Memphis. We do have
Memphite references to agoranomoi and to an agoranomia-tax in P.Bour. 13.2 and cf. 5 (98 CE);
P.Mich. VIII 511.5–6 (first half of the 3rd c. CE, Memphis?). The supposed reference to a village
agoranomeion in the Memphite nome in P.Ross.Georg. II 23.1 (156 CE) is based on the supplement
of the word for agoranomeion, which is regarded as “kaum richtig” by Wolff (see n. 3 above)
15, n. 33.
δι’ ἧς] ἔ̣θ̣ε̣τ̣ο̣ (...) διαθ]ήκης: for the restoration, cf. e.g. P.Mich. XVIII 789.18–22 (190 CE,
Oxyrhynchus): διʼ ἧς ἔθετο (...) δι(ὰ) το[ῦ] ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει ἀγορα̣ν̣ομ ̣ είου τῷ κζ (ἔτει) Τῦβι | ἐπὶ
σφραγίδων διαθήκης.
5 Perhaps supply [μητρὸς Ν.Ν.: if the testator is Athinis’ father (cf. ll. 2–3n., above), one may
suppose that her mother gave her approval to the testament.
]η̣σας: perhaps end of a participle with μητρὸς N.N. (?). It does not seem possible to read ὑπαρχ]ο̣ύ-̣
σης, “belonging to,” to be taken with τῆι Ἀθίνει.
σφραγεῖ⸌δ̣ο̣ς̣⸍ (l. σφραγῖ-): written on a bad papyrus surface. The word is taken with μεμερισμέ]-
ν̣ης (l. 2), assuming that Athinis inherited a parcel or plot (σφραγίς) of a house. For the combina-
tion of σφραγίς (normally used for plots of land) with a house see, e.g., P.Mich. V 322a.8: ἐν μιᾷ
σφραγῖδει (l. σφραγῖδι) οἰκίας τρῖς (l. τρεῖς); P.Mich. VI 427.11–12: μέρους οἰκίας καὶ αὐλῆς καὶ
τῶν συνκυ|ρόντων πάντων ἐν μιᾷ σφραγῖδι; also P.Mon. III 80.10–12. Σφραγίς can also have
the meaning of “seal” (of a testament) or of “quarter” of the city of Memphis (but then one would
rather expect ἐν σφραγῖδι x).
6 Ἀφροδισίωι: the δ was written with a double upper line (but there is no need to think that δυ was
written instead of δι, cf. ἴδιον in l. 30). Probably the Memphite temple of Aphrodite-Astarte is
meant, see above, introduction. The dative should be dependent on a preposition like ἐν or παρά.
6–7 ἀπὸ νότου τοῦ εἰς τὸν |[ - - - : since it appears from l. 8 that the northern neighbor of the house
is formed by the δρόμος Ἀφροδεί|[της, it seems logical that the house would be described as being
“to the south of” that same δρόμος. The direction of this avenue, expressed by εἰς τὸν [ - - -, could
be the Aphrodite-temple mentioned earlier, but described differently with a masculine word, or
some other building or point of interest.
7 (name)] ̣ Kομοάπιος τοῦ Ἁρμάχιος: for the usual order of name—father’s name without τοῦ—
grandfather’s name with τοῦ, cf. C. W. E. Miller, “Note on the Use of the Article before the
Genitive of the Father’s Name in Greek Papyri,” AJPh 37 (1916) 341–348.
8–14 In the descriptions of the neighbors of Athinis’ houses, one may suspect that in front of the names
in the genitive a word like οἰκία, “house,” was either written or at least understood.
8–9 νότου and λιβός have been restored in the usual order of compass directions: first south—north,
then west—east (or east—west), cf. P.Petrie 2, p. 71–72, and P.Pher., p. 11–13.
9 Γ]α̣λάτου: probably the common name Γαλάτης, but also attested are the names Μαλάτος (P.Hamb.
I 70v.3), Καλάτος (P.Brookl. 19.6) and Σινκαλάτος (Stud.Pal. X 25 B.8).
ἀπηλιώτου υἱῶν: remarkably, a father’s name is not written before υἱῶν like it appears to have
been earlier in ll. 8–9; it must have followed in the lacuna.
10 Before τ]ῆ̣ς, a supplement like καὶ ἑκάστῳ (ἕβδομον?) μέρος, cf. l. 2.

11 τ]ῶν: supply e.g. ἀπὸ (compass direction) τ]ῶν.
11–12 δύο δρόμων τοῦ τε Ἡφαίστου καί, probably supply καὶ | [Ἄπιος: the avenues of the Memphite
temples of Hephaistos-Ptah and Apis, see above, introduction.
12 -π(?)]ωλῶν: perhaps ἱματιοπ]ωλῶν, cf. below, ll. 13–14n.
13 -]αι: supply a word ending (of, e.g., οἰκίαι or αὐλαί), rather than λιβὸς κ]αὶ ἀπηλιώτου, since αι of
καί is elsewhere always written in one continuing curve (ll. 11, 22, 29, 30).
13–14 ἱματιο|[πώλου: Memphis had a long tradition of textile production, cf. Thompson (see n. 10 above)
46–59, 268 with n. 23. Like the clothes-seller of our text, a linen-seller, ὀθονιοπώλης, lived near
the temple of Ptah-Hephaistos according to UPZ I 109.13–14 (98 BCE).
14 εἰς οὓς φέρουσιν ἐκ τῆς: possibly with the meaning “onto which, out of the house, open the
doors/windows etc.”? For φέρω in the meaning of “open onto,” cf. e.g. P.Oxy. I 69.1–2 (190 CE):
(window) φέρουσαν εἰς δημοσίαν ῥύμην; BGU IV 1037.16, 30 (48 CE); CPR I 105.6 (2nd c. CE);
P.IFAO I 22.14 (113 CE); SB XXVI 16666.10–12 (315 CE): (wall of a house) φέρων εἰς τὴν̣ |
δημοσίαν ῥύμη[ν; and with ἐκ: P.Cairo Zen. IV 59764.39–46 (255–254 BCE): ἄλλη φέρουσα
ἐκ τοῦ αἰθρίου | τοῦ κοιτῶνος εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν | τοῦ ἑπτακλίνου δίθυ(ρος) α | καὶ ἡ φέρουσα ἐκ
τῆς ῥύμης | εἰς τὸν κοιτῶνα καὶ τὴν | παραδρομίδα δίθυρος α | καὶ εἰς τὸ συνδείπνιον | ἐκ τῆς
αὐτῆς ῥύμης δίθυρος α.
Alternatively read εἴσους for ἴσους, which is, however, less easy to fit into the supposed context.
15 -]λ̣ω̣τα: probably the genitive form of a personal name like, e.g., Φιλώτα or Ἀπολλωτᾶ.
15–16 Supply e.g. ἐφ’ ᾧ τελευτήσασαν τὴν | [τάφην αὐτῆς ποιήσονται οἱ προγεγραμ]μ̣ένοι, which would
fit neatly into the available space. Provisions for a funeral are often mentioned in various docu-
ments of last will, such as divisions of property that take effect after death (e.g. SB XXII 15705,
90 CE, or P. Sijp. 44, ca. 130 CE), marriage contracts including will (e.g. BGU I 183, 85 CE),
proper wills (e.g. the exhaustive description in PSI XII 1263.6–9, 166/167 CE); but the provision
is also made in a division of property with immediate effect like P.Mich. V 322a (46 CE).
16 δαπανήσαντες ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) υκ: the price of a burial would vary depending on its luxuri-
ousness and cannot give a clue as to the date of a text. Some prices for a ταφή in comparable
texts (but of later date) are: 200 dr. in 117–137 CE (perhaps to be paid each, so 400 in total,
SB VIII 9642.4, 14), 1600 dr. in 166–167 CE (PSI XII 1263.9), 1300 dr. in 168 CE (SB XVIII
13176.102–103, 109–110) and 400 dr. εἰς περ[ιστολὴν κ]αὶ κηδίαν (l. κηδείαν) in 182 CE (BGU
VII 1662.8).
17 Supplement e.g. [κοινῶς ἐξ ἴσου, γίνονται ἑκάστου], cf. BGU I 183.25 (marriage contract with will,
85 CE, Soknopaiou Nesos): εἶναι δὲ αὐτοῖς κοινῶς ἐξ ἴσου τὴν προσηκουσα (l. προσήκουσαν) τῇ
Σαταβουτος (l. Σαταβοῦτι) ταφὴν καὶ κηδίαν.
ἀργ(υρίου)] was probably not written in front of (δραχμάς), or in any case not in the same way
as in l. 16, since there the end of ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμάς) was written in one stroke, combining the
superscript line of αργ̅ with the drachma sign 𐅻, while in this line the drachma sign stands alone.
18–19 Perhaps supplement ἐπιτρόπου χωρηγοῦντος ἕως νε]ώτεροι ὦσιν; there is hardly any other
word conceivable instead of νε]ώτεροι, and in many deeds of last will a guardian is appointed for
the younger children, cf. e.g. P.Vindob.Tandem 27 (will, cf. BL VIII, 507, 1st c. CE, Soknopaiou
Nesos), P.Sijp. 44 (donatio mortis causa, ca. 130 CE, Karanis), P.Oxy. III 491.9 (will, 126 CE) in
which adulthood is stated to start from the age of twenty-five. The same verb χωρηγοῦντος is used
for guardians in BGU I 86.19 (will, 155 CE) and P.Ryl. II 153.29 (will, 169 CE).
Perhaps supply τὰς ἐπιβαλλούσας αὐτοῖς | [δραχμὰς ξ followed by a space of ca. 3 letters.
For the horizontal dividing line cf. e.g. the (shorter) horizontal line or paragraphos separating
the body of the text from the subscription in P.Mich. XV 728, underneath l. 8, referring to
P. J. Sijpesteijn and K. A. Worp, ZPE 29 (1978) 270 on P.Wisc. II 65 (republished P.Mich. XX
Appendix B 7), underneath l. 11 and SB XIV 11552, underneath ll. 52 and 54 (images in APIS).
A long dividing line is found in e.g. Stud.Pal. XX 8, underneath l. 12 (online image through
DDBDP).
19–21 For the supplements fitting neatly into the available space, cf. e.g. P.Sijp. 44.7–8 (donatio mortis
causa, ca. 130 CE, Karanis): ἐὰν δὲ συ̣νβῇ (l. συμβῇ) τινα τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ ἀρσέν⸌ω⸍(ν) | [υ]ἱῶν̣ ἄ̣τ̣εκν̣ος
(l. ἄτεκνον) [καὶ] ἀδιάθ̣ετ̣[ος (l. ἀδιάθετον) τε]λ̣ευτῆσ̣α̣ι̣, ἔστω <τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ> τῶν π[εριόντ]ω̣ν
ἀρ<σ>ένων ἀδελφῶν κτλ.; cf. also P.Oxy. I 105.7 (will, 118–138 CE, cf. BL XII, 134): ἐὰν δὲ
συμβῇ τὴν Ἀμμωνοῦν ἄτεκνον καὶ ἀδιάθετον τελευτῆσαι, ἔσται τὰ μέρη κτλ.; P.Oxy. III 491.10–
11 (will, 126 CE): ἐὰν δέ τινι τῶν τριῶν υἱῶν συμβῇ ἀτέκνῳ τελευτῆσαι ἔστω τὸ το[ύ]του μέρος
τῶν περιόντων αὐτοῦ ἀδελφῶν ἐξ ἴσου κτλ. The provision as to what should happen if one of
the children dies intestate is made to avoid his or her share falling to the fiscus, cf. P.Sijp. 44.8n.
with literature.
21–22 καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστ]ι δὲ τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις κτλ.: ἔξεστ]ι rather then ἐξέστα]ι, since the trace before ι
is less compatible with the usual way αι is written in this text (cf. e.g. καί in the next line). The
lacuna of l. 22 would allow for two more names, so the number of “earlier mentioned” people
who are forbidden to proceed against the husband Hephaistion was probably five. They may have
been the adult children of Athinis who are also forbidden to act against this deed in lines 27–29.
(This means there were two younger children: cf. the plural νε]ώτεροι ὦσιν and αὐτοῖς (l. 18) and
the number of seven children resulting from ll. 16–17). If so, and if the restoration to Ἀ̣πολλω|[νίῳ
(l. 22) is right, the name of the first mentioned, and therefore probably eldest, child Apollonios
would nicely coincide with that of Hephaistion’s father (l. 26) and thus follow the usual practice
of naming the first son after his grandfather. Of all names starting with Ἀπολλω-, Ἀπολλώνιος is
by far the most attested, but not excluded are Ἀπολλωνίδης, Ἀπολλωνόδωρος, Ἀπολλωνιανός, etc.
22–24 After ἐπιπορεύ|[εσθαι probably supply in l. 23 περὶ μηδενός, or perhaps ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν as opposed
to the following μήτε μετὰ τὴν τῆς Ἀθίνιος τελευ|[τήν (ll. 24–25). If this provision was to apply to
all beneficiaries (or their guardian), perhaps supply in l. 24 something like [μήτε τῶι Ἡφαιστίωνι
ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑτέρους]. Alternatively, one could think of supplementing in l. 24 (then not in l. 23) an
expression with a temporal aspect of “now” as against the following “nor after Athinis’ death.”
25 παρὼν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς: ἀρχή here denoting the office of the agoranomos. The same expression,
of course with varying participles, occurs in seven papyri (DDBDP 13 July 2012), which all stem
from the Arsinoite nome (all from Soknopaiou Nesos, except P.Sijp. 44 from Karanis) and which
all are deeds of last will, three of them embedded in a marriage contract, and as far as exactly
dated, stemming from the period between 81 and 155 CE: BGU I 86, 183, 251, 252, SB XXII
15705, P.Sijp. 44, P.Vindob.Tandem 27.
28 Probably supply [μήτε τῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἡφαιστίωνι: because of τοῖς ἑτέροις in l. 30 one expects all
beneficiaries of the division to be included in the penalty clause, cf. A. Berger, Die Strafklauseln
in den Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig—Berlin 1911) 180.
29 [τὴν ἐσομένην ἔφοδον ἢ ca. 6 ὑπενα]ντίον τούτοις ἄκυρον ὑπάρχειν: cf. Berger (see 28n. above)
185. For the word to be supplied after ἔφοδον there are various possibilities. Κακοτέχνησιν
would be attractive in view of P.Flor. I 1.8–9 (loan, 153 CE, Hermopolis): μὴ ἐξέστω [α]ὐτῇ (...)
μηδʼ ἄλλο τι περὶ αὐτῆς κακοτεχνεῖν ὑπεναντίον τούτοις τρόπῳ μηδενὶ ἢ τὰ παρὰ ταῦτα ἄκυρα
εἶναι, but it is too long (unless one leaves out ἐσομένην). One of the shorter words attested
in the formula, like ἔνκλησιν or ἐμποίησιν or κώλυσιν, would fit the lacuna better. Two longer
examples of the expression: SB VI 9109.7–8 (31 CE, Tebtynis): ἣν μὲν ἐὰν πυήσηται (l. ποιήσηται)
ἢ <ἄλλος> ὑπὰρ (l. ὑπὲρ) [BL VII, 202] ἀουτοῦ (l. αὐτοῦ) περὶ τούτων ἔφοδον | [ἢ] ἔνκλησιν
ἢ ἐμπωησιν (l. ἐμποίησιν) ἢ κώλυσιν ἢ κακοτέχνησιν κατὰ πᾶν μέρος ἄκυρος ἔστω καὶ προσ-
αποτισάτωι (l. προσαποτισάτω) κτλ.; P.Coll.Youtie I 19.26–27 (44 CE, Ptolemais Euergetis): ἣν
ἐὰν ποιήσηται (...) περὶ τούτων ἔφοδον ἢ ἔνκλησιν ἢ ἐμποίησιν ἢ κώλυσιν ἢ δ̣ι̣α̣μ̣φι̣σ̣β̣ή̣τησιν
ἢ κ̣[ακοτέχνησιν ἄκυρον εἶναι καὶ προσαποτί|σειν] κτλ.
ὑπενα]ντίον τούτοις: in the papyri ὑπεναντίον is normally followed by a genitive. But dative
is possible, cf. LSJ s.v. 3, and appears to be common in the context of penalty clauses. See P.Flor.
I 1 already cited above; cf. also μηδʼ ἄλλο μηδὲν ὑπεναντίον τούτοις | ἐπιτελεῖν (P.Lond. III
1168.9–10 [p. 135]; 44 CE, Hermopolis); μηδʼ ἄλλο τι περὶ αὐτῆς κακοτεχνεῖν | [ὑπεναντίον]
τού̣[τ]οις (P.Strasb. I 52.10; 151 CE, Hermopolis).18
ὑπάρχειν: also used in e.g. P.Oxy. II 268.17–18 (58 CE): ἢ τὴν | ἐσομένην ἔφ[ο]δον ἄκυρον καὶ
<ἀ>πρόσδεκτον ὑπάρχειν κτλ.
29–30 ἔτι καὶ | [ - - - : common in Oxyrhynchite texts from the early Roman period, then mostly followed
by ἐκτίνειν, cf. P.Oxy. II 271.23–24 (57 CE, cf. BL VII, 129): τὴν δ[ὲ π]αρὰ ταῦτα ἐσομένην |
ἔφοδ[ο]ν ἄκυρον ε[ἶ]ναι, ἔτι καὶ [ἐ]κτίνειν κτλ. In our text a longer supplement is needed, e.g.
[προσεκτίνειν / προσαποτίσειν αὐτόν or the like. Cf. e.g. BGU IV 1113.19–22 (14 BCE, Alexandria)
ἔτι καὶ π̣ρ̣ο̣σεκτί|νειν αὐτὸν κτλ. See also the examples 29n. above.
30–31 ὡς ἴδιον | [χρέος: cf. Berger (see 28n. above) 56.
31 (δραχμὰς) x: there are no comparable amounts for the penalty from Memphis; the amount of
the penalty in Oxyrhynchite wills varies between 500 drachmas (P.Oxy. XLVI 4533, late 1st–early
2nd c.) and 2 talents, cf. P.Oxy. 4533.8n.: it is usually 1000 drachmas in the second century.
καὶ μηδὲν ἧσσον τῶν ὡμο]λ̣ογημένων κυρίων ὄντων παν̣τ̣α̣χ̣(ῇ): cf. M. Hässler, Die Bedeutung
der Kyria-Klausel in den Papyrusurkunden (Berlin 1960). Instead of μηδὲν ἧσσον also possible
μηθὲν ἧσσον; instead of ὡμο]λ̣ογημένων also possible διωμο]λ̣ογημένων; instead of παν̣τ̣α̣χ̣(ῇ)
also possible παν̣τ̣α̣χ̣ (οῦ). The reading of the last word is very uncertain; πα followed by an
incomplete ντ, then small high α followed by a stroke going down and to the right which was
perhaps the first stroke of χ, but not crossed by the small second stroke of χ which is put on top.
Cf. P.Mich. V 323.28 (division of slaves, 47 CE, Tebtynis) where πανταχῇ appears to be written
as παταχ (image in APIS).
32 - - -] κ̣θ̅: this can hardly be anything else but the number of the day, the same number as at the end
of the line. It is not very likely that the deed, which would normally already have started with the
full dating clause, ended with a date again. But why would the notary or his assistant write the date
twice? Or, perhaps, was the deed signed twice, by two different notary’s assistants? In that case,
supply [ (name) κεχρη(μάτικα) (ἔτους) ιη Μεσο(ρὴ)] κ̣θ̅, and assume that this papyrus contained
a copy of the document, if indeed the hand is the same all over. On the possible representation of
notaries see Wolff (see n. 3 above) 16.
Χαιρή(μων): Χαιρήμων is the only likely supplement for the name. Chairemon must have been
the public notary of Memphis himself or rather (see above) one of his representatives.
33 ]μο( ): the reading μο( ) presents itself (rather than again κθ̅, this time with θ and stroke over it
in ligature). It is very tempting to read here the abbreviation of a form of ἀγορανόμος.
Papyrologisch Instituut, Leiden
18
Seeing that [ἀ]πενάντιον in P.Phil. 1.14 is a hapax in the papyri, one might perhaps better restore [ὑ]πεναντίον there as well.
No. 34 (photo courtesy of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek)

35. P.Cornell inv. 69 Revisited:
A Collection of Geometrical Problems
Alexander Jones
In his Exact Sciences in Antiquity Neugebauer published a photograph of the front side of P.Cornell
inv. 69 and referred in passing to one of its diagrams as an example of an instructional papyrus containing
mathematical texts similar to those transmitted in the Heronian corpus, but it was only in 2003 that
an edition and detailed study of the papyrus by Bülow-Jacobsen and Taisbak made this interesting text
accessible.1 Despite the broken state of preservation (no complete line of the text survives), the editors
identified the kinds of problems being dealt with, namely determining the areas of rectilinear quadri-
laterals, substantially reconstructed the problem we will designate Problem 2 and its method of solution,
and pointed to a few other mathematical papyri containing comparable problems. They correctly observed
that the problems, despite their superficial “real-world” appearance, are really artificial exercises whose
solutions depend on the circumstance that their geometrical configurations are built out of perfect “Pytha-
gorean” right triangles with whole-number sides; practical surveying mathematics surely never required
the extraction of square roots. Building on their edition, Friberg succeeded in reconstructing the mathe-
matical contents of Problem 1, and drew attention to the especially close parallels between P.Cornell
inv. 69 and P.Ayer (= P.Chic. 3), situating these—and many other Greek and Demotic mathematical
papyri—as part of a tradition descending ultimately from Old Babylonian mathematics.2 The present
reedition owes a great deal to both these publications.
Bülow-Jacobsen and Taisbak provided a technical description of the papyrus, from which I only
need repeat that the mathematical text is written along the fibers in a round, “unpretentious” second-
century hand, with frequent abbreviations, while the back preserves a fragmentary third-century document.
The fragment’s dimensions are approximately 13.5 cm (width) by 27.5 cm (height), including about 2.5 cm
upper margin, so that it is likely that close to the full height of the roll is preserved. The provenance of the
papyrus is unknown; it was probably one of the 138 papyri that Cornell purchased in 1921–1922.3
My reasons for thinking it worthwhile to offer a reedition of P.Cornell inv. 69 begin with an
abbreviation that recurs frequently in it, and that appears (in one of its clearer instances, ii 8) as follows:
1
A. Bülow-Jacobsen and C. M. Taisbak, “P.Cornell inv. 69. Fragment of a Handbook in Geometry,” in A. Piltz et al.,
For Particular Reasons: Studies in Honour of Jerker Blomqvist (Lund 2003) 55–70 (referred to henceforth as ed. pr.).
O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1st ed. (Acta historica scientiarum naturalium et medicinalium 9)
(Copenhagen 1951, also Princeton 1952) 172 and plate 12; 2nd ed. (Copenhagen—Providence 1957) 179 and plate 12.
Pack2 = MP3 2317 (not in Pack1); LDAB 7092. The papyrus is now part of the papyrus collection of the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. I wish to thank the Michigan papyrus collection, and specifically Arthur Verhoogt and Adam Hyatt,
for providing the excellent photographs of the papyrus and giving permission to publish them. I am also indebted to Hélène
Cuvigny and Rodney Ast for weeding out several errors in my transcription.
2
J. Friberg, Unexpected Links between Egyptian and Babylonian Mathematics (Singapore 2005) 226–233. E. J. Goodspeed,
“The Ayer Papyrus: A Mathematical Fragment,” AJP 19 (1898) 25–39 with unnumbered plate between 24 and 25, and
“The Ayer Papyrus,” American Mathematical Monthly 10 (1903) 133–135 with unnumbered plate between 133 and 134.
The Ayer Papyrus is in the collection of the Field Museum, Chicago.
3
W. Westermann and C. J. Kraemer, Jr., Greek Papyri in the Library of Cornell University (New York 1926), iii; see also
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/cdhist.htm.
160 Alexander Jones
The editors describe this as a “cursive β (κ would also be possible) with a hook above,” and
comment that it “must be an abbreviation for βάϊον, a measuring rod of 6 cubits.” However, a very similar-
looking abbreviation
occurs in a first-century CE astronomical papyrus, P.Oxy.Astr. 4136, lines 6 and 18, in which its resolution
as καταλείπεται is evident from a parallel instance in lines 15–16 where the word is spelled out.4 This verb
has the technical sense in Greek mathematical texts of “the result of the subtraction is,” and it generally
follows a statement that some quantity is to be subtracted from another quantity. The same resolution
fits wherever the abbreviation appears in P.Cornell inv. 69, and wherever it occurs we may infer that
a subtraction has just been performed, even when the preceding text is lost—a significant help in recon-
structing the missing text and its procedures.
In fact a conjectural restoration of a large part of the lost text is possible, taking advantage of the
stylized, even formulaic language, mathematical logic, and the information in the extant text and diagrams.
The exercise yields a clearer understanding of the text’s mathematical procedures and conventions, as well
as helping to confirm some of the less secure readings of the papyrus.
Conventions
Lines are numbered continuously in each column, with a single line number assigned to a diagram or to
the space where a lost diagram is presumed.5 Interlinear insertions are assigned the number of the preced-
ing line followed by the letter “a.” The diagrams have been modelled on tracings of the originals, with no
attempt to make the lengths of the lines proportionate to their dimensions according to the text. Restored
lines or portions of lines are represented by broken lines.
The translation attempts to represent the terminology as literally as is practicable. The expressions
for arithmetical operations and results are as follows:
translation meaning
ποίει make multiply
παράβαλε apply to divide into
πρόσαγε bring add
ἔκβαλε cast out subtract
καταλείπεται there is left behind the difference is
πλευρά side square root
4
A. Jones, Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 233), 2 vols. in 1
(Philadelphia 1999) (= P.Oxy.Astr.), 2.14.
5
It was not possible to retain the line numbering of ed. pr.
35. P.Cornell inv. 69 Revisited: A Collection of Geometrical Problems 161
Text and Translation
→
col. i
[ὡς δεῖ ποιῆσαι. ποίει τὰ λδ̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι νο(τίωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά·] (γίνεται) ͵αρνϛ̅. καὶ τὰ κ̅
[τὰ ἐν τῶι βο(ρείωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) υ̅. ἀπὸ ͵αρνϛ̅· κα(ταλείπεται) ψνϛ̅. ἔκβ]α̣λε τὰ δ̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι
4 [ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) ἀπὸ τῶν μϛ̅ τῶν ἐν τῶι λι(βί)· κα(ταλείπεται) μβ̅. παράβα]λε εἰ̣ς̣ ψνϛ· (γίνεται) ιη̅.
[πρόσαγε ταῖς μβ̅· (γίνεται) ξ̅. τὸ (ἥμισυ), λ̅, ὃ ἀπηλ(ιώτης) ἐστὶ τοῦ π]ρὸς νο(τίωι) τριγώνου.
[τὰ ιη̅ ἀπὸ τῶν λ̅· κα(ταλείπεται) ιβ̅, ὃ ἀπηλ(ιώτης) ἐστὶ τοῦ πρὸς βο(ρείωι) τριγώνου.] ὡς δεῖ̣ ε̣ὑ̣ρεῖ̣ν̣
[τὴν ὀρθὴν βάσιν. ποίει τὰ λδ̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι νο(τίωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑα]τ̣ά· [(γίνεται) ͵α]ρ̅ν̅[ϛ̅.] κ̣[αὶ] τὰ λ̅
8 [τὰ ἐν τῶι ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) τοῦ πρὸς νο(τίωι) τριγώνου ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται)] ϡ̣. ἀπὸ ͵α̣ρν̣ϛ̣·
κα(ταλείπεται) σνϛ.
[πλευρά, ιϛ̅, ἣ ὀρθὴ βάσις ἐστίν. ὁμοίως τὰ κ̅ τ]ὰ̣ ἐν τ̣ῶ̣ι̣ ⟦ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) τοῦ⟧ ⸌βο(ρείωι) ἐφ᾿
ἑατά· (γίνεται) υ̣̅.⸍
9a [⸌καὶ τὰ ιβ̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) τοῦ⸍]
[πρὸς βο(ρείου) τριγώνου ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) ρμδ̅. ἀπὸ υ̅· κ(αταλείπεται) σνϛ̅. πλευρά,] ι̅ϛ̅,
ἣ ὀρθὴ βάσις
[ἐστίν. ]ομενων̣ νο() τριγω()
δ
12 ] ιϛ ιϛ, ἀρουρ() ξδ̅
δ
] τὸ ἐ(μβαδόν), υ̅. τοσαύτ(ας)
]ναι τῶι ἀρουρισμ(ῶι)
] γ̣ένηται ἄλλο σχ̣[ῆ]-
16 [μα ] ̣ ἀρο(ύρας) ψλϛ. τὸ ὑπόδ̣ι̣(γμα)
] vac.
] νο() τρίγωνο̣ν̣
18a ⸌τετρά]γ̣ω̣νον̣ ἔχον̣ σ̣χ̣ῆ̣μ̣α̣ ̅ ̅⸍
τετρ]ά̣γ̣ω̣ν̣ον̣ ἔ̣χ̣ον
20 ] ̣̅ βο() ἐχομεν()
] ̣̅. (γίνεται) ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
] ἀρουρῶ(ν) τλϛ̅
] ἀπὸ τῶν συν-
24 ] vac.
162 Alexander Jones
] ̣ ̣τ̣ο̣ διαφορ̣()
] τ̣ίνα τὰ τμήμ̣(ατα);
]ν ι ̅ ̣̅ ε ̣ ̣[
28 ] ̣[
] ̣[
------------
col. ii
τραπεζοε̣[ιδὴς
̣ ̣ ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣[
ε ̣π̣ειπ[ ] ̣α̣ ̣α̣τ̣[
4 διαφόρου̣ [ἀρου]ρισμός τι̣[ς
σχήματος [τ]ὸ̣ ὑ̣πόδιγμ[α]
ὡς δεῖ ποιῆσαι. ποίει τὰ ιε τὰ ἐν τῶι νο(τίωι) ἐφ᾿ [ἑατά· (γίνεται) σκε̅. καὶ τὰ ιγ̅]
8 τὰ ἐν τῶι βο(ρείωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) ρξ̅θ̅. ἀπὸ σκε· κα(ταλείπεται) [νϛ̅. τὰ δ̅ τὰ ἐν]
τῶι λι(βὶ) ἀπὸ η̣̅ τῶν ἐν τῶι ἀπηλ(ιώτηι)· κα(ταλείπεται) δ. π̣[αράβαλε εἰς νϛ̅·]
(γίνεται) ιδ̅. πρόσαγε ταῖς δ̅· (γίνεται) ι̣η̣̅. τὸ (ἥμισυ) [θ̅, ὃ λί(ψ) ἐστι τοῦ πρὸς νο(τίωι)]
σφραγεῖδο(ς). ἀπὸ ιδ· κα(ταλείπεται) ε̣, ὃ ἀπηλ(ιώτης) ἐστὶ̣ [τοῦ πρὸς βορ(είωι) σφραγεῖδο(ς).]
12 ὡς δεῖ εὑρεῖ̣ν τὴν ὀρθὴ̣ν βάσιν. [ποίει τὰ ιε̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι]
νο(τίωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά. (γίνεται) σκ̅ε̅. καὶ τὰ θ̅ τὰ ἐν [τῶι λι(βὶ) τοῦ πρὸς νο(τίωι) τριγώνου]
ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) πα̅. ἀπὸ σκε· κα(ταλείπεται) ρμδ. [πλ(ευρὰ) ιβ̅, ἣ ὀρθὴ βάσις ἐστίν.]
ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ ιγ̅ τ̣ὰ̣ ἐν τ̣ῶ̣ι βο̣(ρείωι) [ἐ]φ̣᾿ [ἑατά· (γίνεται) ρξθ̅. καὶ τὰ ε̅ τὰ]
16 ἐ̣ν τῶι ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) τοῦ πρὸς βο(ρείωι) τριγών[ου ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) κε̅. ἀπὸ ρξθ̅·]
κα(ταλείπεται) ρμδ. πλ(ευρά), ιβ̅, ἣ ὀρθὴ βάσις ἐστίν. ̣[
ἀναμέτρησις ὅλης τῆς σφραγε̣[ῖδος. τὸ συναμφότερον]
τ̣ῶ̣ν δύο τριγώνων τῶν πρὸς ν[ο(τίωι) καὶ πρὸς βο(ρείωι), πδ̅, ἀπὸ τῶν]
20 [ρ]νϛ· κα(ταλείπεται) οβ̅. τοσαύτας ἀρούρας ἔχε̣[ι
̣ ̣ διαφόρωι̣ ἀρο(υρῶν) πδ̣̅· κα(ταλείπεται) ιβ̅ ̣ ̣[
————
̣ ζ̅ μέθ̣οδο̣ς̣ [
[σφραγὶ]ς̣ ἔ̣χουσα συν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[
24 τί]ς̣ ἡ̣ ὀρθὴ βάσις, τίνα τὰ τ̣μ̣ή̣μ̣α[̣ τα

] διαφόρου ἀρουρισμός̣ τις ̣ ̣[
σχήμ]ατος τὸ ὑπόδιγμα.
28 [ὡς δεῖ ποιῆσα]ι̣. πο[ί]ε̣[ι] τὰ ι̣ε̣̅ τὰ̣ ἐ̣ν τῶι̣ [ἀπ]η̣[λ(ιώτηι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) σκε̅. καὶ τὰ ε̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι]
[βο(ρείωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑα]τά· (γίνεται) κε̅. [σ]ύ̣ν̣θες· (γίνεται) σ̅[ν̅]. ὁ̣μ̣[ο]ίως κα̣[ὶ τὰ ιε̅ τὰ ἐν τῶι νο(τίωι)]
[ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται)] σ̣κ̣ε̣̅. καὶ τὰ ε̅ τ̣ὰ ἐν τῶι λι(βὶ) ἐ̣φ̣᾿ [ἑατά· (γίνεται) κε̅. σύνθες· (γίνεται) σν̅.]
] ̣ ̣ ̣μερος [ ̣] ̣ι λ̅ τω[
32 ] ̣ ̣[ ̣] τοῦ πρὸς β̣ο(ρείωι) [τ]ριγών̣[ου
] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὡς δεῖ̣ εὑ̣ρε[ῖν τὴν ὀρθὴν βάσιν.]
[ποίει τὰ ιε̅ ἐν τ]ῶ̣ι̣ νο(τίωι) ἐφ᾿ ἑατά· (γίνεται) σκε. [καὶ τὰ ιβ̅ τὰ ἐν]
[τῶι τοῦ πρὸς ἀπ]ηλ̣(ιώτηι) [τ]ρ̣ιγ̣ώ̣νου ἐφ᾿ ἑα̣τά̣· (γίνεται) ρ[μδ̅. ἀπὸ σκε̅·]
36 [κα(ταλείπεται) πα̅. πλ(ευρά), θ̅, ἣ ὀρθὴ βάσ]ι̣ς̣ ἐ̣σ̣τ̣ίν̣. ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[
] πρὸς ν̣ο(̣ τίωι) τ̣ρ̣[ιγων
] ̣ ̣ ̣[
] ̣ ̣[
40 ] ̣ ̣[
------------
col. i 2 et passim, l. ἑαυτά, ͵αρνϛ̅κ̅αι̅ pap. 11 τριγω 12 αρουρ 13 τοσαυτ 14 αρουρισμ 16 αρο ϋποδιγ
l. ὑπόδειγμα 21 εχομε ν 22 αρουρ ω -
25 διαφορ̣
col. ii 5 ϋ̣ποδιγμ[α l. ὑπόδειγμα 10 𐅹 11 σφραγειδο l. σφραγῖδος (bis) 1 l. σφραγῖδος 21 αρο 26 ϋποδιγμα
l. ὑπόδειγμα
col. i
[How one should do it. Make the 34 on the south by itself;] there results 1156. And the 20
[on the north by itself; there results 400. From 1156; there is left behind 756. Cas]t out the 4 on the
4 [east from the 46 on the west; there is left behind 42. Appl]y to 756; there results 18.
[Bring it to the 42; there results 60. Half, 30, which is the east of the] triangle to the south.
[The 18 from the 30; there is left behind 12, which is the east of the triangle to the north.]
How one should find
[the upright base. Make the 34 on the south by itse]lf; [there results 1]15[6.] A[nd] the 30
8 [on the east of the triangle to the south by itself; there results] 900. From 115[6]; there is left
behind 256.
164 Alexander Jones
[Side, 16, which is the upright base. Similarly the 20] on the ⟦east of the⟧ ⸌north by itself;
there results 400.⸍
9a [⸌And the 12 on the east of the⸍]
[triangle to the north by itself; there results 144. From 400; there is left behind 256. Side,] 16, …
southerly triangle
4
12 ] 16 16, 64 arouras
4
] the area, 400. So many
] … the determination of arouras
] there should arise another shape
16 ] 736 arouras. The diagram
] vac.
] southerly triangle
18a ]⸌having [quadra]ngular shape⸍
] having [quadr]angular
20 ] … north …
] … there results, by itself
] 336 arouras
] from the …
24 ] vac.
] … different
] What are the segments?
]…[
28 ]…[
]…[
------------
col. ii
trapezoid [
…[
…[
4 A different(?) determination of arouras. [
[The] example of the shape:
How one should do it. Make the 15 on the south by [itself; there results 225. And the 13]
8 on the north by itself; there results 169. From 225; there is left behind [56. The 4 on]
the west from the 8 on the east; there is left behind 4. A[pply to 56;]
there results 14. Bring it to the 4; there results 18. Half, [9, which is the west of the] plot
[to the south.]
From 14; there is left behind 5, which is the east of [the plot to the north.]
12 How one should find the upright base. [Make the 15 on the]
south by itself. There results 225. And the 9 on [the west of the triangle to the south]
by itself; there results 81. From 225; there is left behind 144. [Side, 12, which is the upright base.]
Similarly the 13 on the north by [itself; there results 169. And the 5]
16 on the east of the triangle to the north [by itself; there results 25. From 169;]
there is left behind 144. Side, 12, which is the upright base. … [
Surveying of the entire plot. [The sum]
of the two triangles to the s[outh and to the north, 84, from the]
20 [1]56; there is left behind 72. So many arouras does it have. [
… by(?) difference 84 arouras. There is left behind 12 … [
7(th?) method [
[Plo]t having …[
24 ] What is the upright base? What are the segment[s?

] A different(?) determination of arouras. … [
The example of the [sha]pe:
28 [How one should do] it. Make the 15 on the e[ast by itself; there results 225. And the 5 on the]
[north by itse]lf; there results 25. Add; there results 2[50]. Similarly also [the 15 on the south]
by itself; there results 225. And the 5 on the west by [itself; there results 25. Add; there results 250.]
]…[
32 ] of the triangle to the north [
] … How one should fi[nd the upright base.]
Make the 15 on] the south by itself; there results 225. A[nd the 12 on]
[the …] of the triangle [to the] east by itself; there results 1[44. From 225;]
36 [there is left behind 81. Side, 9, which is the upright ba]se. … [
] tr[iangle] to the south [
]…[
]…[
40 ]…[
------------
166 Alexander Jones
Abbreviations (see also apparatus)
Directions Mathematical
ο
β βορρᾶς, βόρειος | γίνεται
ο 𐅹
ν νότος, νότιος κ καταλείπεται
λ ⏑
απη ἀπηλιώτης ε ἐμβαδόν
λι λίψ λ
π πλευρά
Commentary and Notes
col. i 1–16: Problem 1

The problem concerns a trapezoidal field, i.e. a quadrilateral having one pair of opposite sides parallel,
such that the two remaining sides are unequal and the internal angles that they make with the longer
of the parallel sides are both acute; Heron calls such a figure τραπέζιον ὀξυγώνιον (Metrica 1.12). Linear
dimensions are expressed throughout the papyrus as numbers without units, but since areas are explicitly
stated to be arouras calculated on the assumption that 1 aroura equals 1 square linear unit, the linear units
must implicitly be schoenia. The four sides of the field, though not orthogonal, are nominally designated
by the cardinal directions. In the present instance, the east and west sides, respectively 4 and 46 schoenia,
must be presumed to be parallel, while the north and south sides, respectively 20 and 34 schoenia, form
acute interior angles with the longer of the parallel sides, so that they converge with b tending to the south-
east and d to the northeast. The diagram in the papyrus, which followed the (lost) statement of the problem
and precedes the method of solution, is broken away except for the numeral 20, which however suffices
to show that it was oriented such that north was to the right. The restoration offered here, with west at the
top, assumes that the diagram showed the field as seen from above, like a map; but see the introductions
to Problems 2 and 3 below.
The object of Problem 1 is to find the area of the field, but this is accomplished in stages. The
method can be set out in more general terms as follows.
Fig. 1. Geometrical configuration of Problem 1
We imagine the completed rectangle consisting of the trapezoidal field and two neighboring right trian-
gular plots on the north and south. The first step is to calculate the east sides of these triangles (e and f),
which together with the trapezoid’s east side, c, make up the east side of the rectangle. These may be
found as:
(a − c ) +
(d 2
− b2 )
(a − c )
(1) e=
2
(a − c ) −
(d 2
− b2 )
(2) f =
(a − c )
=e−
(d 2
− b2 )
2 (a − c )
This algorithm works because, by the Pythagorean Theorem,6
(3) d 2 − b 2 = (e 2 + g 2 ) − (f 2 + g 2 )
= e2 − f 2
= (e + f )(e − f )
= (a − c )(e − f )
and we have the identities
(4) e=
(e + f ) + (e − f )
2
(e + f ) − (e − f )
(5) f =
2
Second, we find g, the “upright base,” by applying the Pythagorean Theorem to either of the right triangles:
(6) g = d 2 − e 2 = b2 − f 2
Now, to find the area of the trapezoid, one can proceed in either of two ways. One can calculate the areas
of the two right triangles and subtract them from the area of the complete rectangle:
⎛ ge gf ⎞
(7) A = ga − ⎜ + ⎟
⎝ 2 2⎠
or, taking advantage of the fact that the trapezoid can be decomposed into two right triangles equal to
the neighboring ones flanking a smaller rectangle (shaded in the figure above),
6
Friberg prefers to designate the relation of the sides of a right triangle the “Diagonal Rule,” a more historically accurate if
less recognizable name, since it was known already in Old Babylonian mathematics and outside of the “Euclidean” tradition
of Greek geometry it is primarily an algorithm, not a proved theorem, applied to the diagonals of rectangles at least as often
as to right triangles.
168 Alexander Jones
⎛ ge gf ⎞
(8) A = gc + ⎜ + ⎟
⎝ 2 2⎠
Despite the broken condition of this part of the text (lines 11–16) it is evident that the text gave both
methods, first adding the combined area of the triangles (336 arouras) to the area of the small rectangle
(64 arouras), and then subtracting the 336 arouras from the area of the complete rectangle (736 arouras),
each time obtaining 400 arouras as the area of the trapezoid.
It is interesting to compare Heron’s handling of this kind of quadrilateral in Metrica 1.12. In
accordance with his normal approach in the Metrica, Heron first provides a geometrical “analysis” of
the problem in which each step towards the solution is given a geometrical interpretation and justification,
which he follows with a “synthesis” consisting of just the arithmetical operations on the given data, in
the manner that one encounters in the mathematical papyri. Heron’s algorithm for finding the area of the
τραπέζιον ὀξυγώνιον begins with the calculation of (a – c) and, from this, the "κάθετος" g. The procedure
for calculating g is not stated explicitly, but one is referred back to Metrica 1.5 for an algorithm that reflects
a different line of reasoning from the one underlying the algorithm of P.Cornell inv. 69 and P.Ayer.
Finally, Heron obtains the area of the figure as
⎛a +c ⎞
(9) A = g⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
which is of course much more direct though less intuitively obvious than the procedure of the papyri.
1 Although the numeral in the diagram representing the length of the field’s north side is almost
completely preserved, none of the corresponding line can be seen above or below it; this side must
have been drawn as nearly vertical, or the numeral was written well to the right of it.
2–3 d = 34, b = 20, d 2 = 1156, b 2 = 400, d 2 – b 2 = 756.
2 (γίνεται): represented here and throughout by a simple vertical stroke, a much less common abbre-
viation in mathematical and astronomical papyri than the crossed gamma symbol. Resolved in
ed. pr. as (γίνονται), but the singular is often attested in such contexts.
The elevated horizontal stroke intended to mark ͵αρνϛ̅ as a numeral is sloppily extended over
the following letters. In general, the numerals in the papyrus are typically marked by a sinuous
or straight horizontal stroke either over or above and to the right of the last letter, but the stroke
sometimes begins earlier or is entirely omitted.
3–4 a = 46, c = 4, a – c = 42, (d 2 – b 2 )/(a – c) = 18.
5 (a – c) + 18 = 60, e = 60/2 = 30.
6 An independent computation of f would parallel the computation of e: (a – c) – 18 = 24,
f = 24/2 = 12. Instead the text uses the fact that 18 = (e – f), so that f = e – 18 = 12.
ὡς δεῖ̣ ε̣ὑ̣ρεῖ̣ν̣: ως δὲ υ̣̅ ,αρνϛ ed. pr.
7–9 d 2 = 1156 (repeated from line 2), e2 = 900, g 2 = d 2 – e 2 = 256, g = 16.
8 σνϛ: no horizontal stroke over the numerals as reported in ed. pr.
9–9a The scribe accidentally skipped from one ἐν τῶι to the next. The words ἀπηλ(ιώτηι) τοῦ, which
prematurely follow the first ἐν τῶι in line 9, have been circled, and the first words of the correct
continuation are written in the intercolumnium to the right, in a hand of different appearance though
ἑαυτὰ is spelled ἑατὰ as in the main text. The remainder of the skipped text was presumably
inserted interlinearly.
9a–10 b 2 = 400 (cf. line 3), f 2 = 144, g 2 = b 2 – f 2 = 256, g = 16.
10 ὀρθὴ βάσις: I have not found this exact expression for the altitude of the figure in other mathemati-
cal texts. The counterpart expression in P.Ayer is κάθετος.
11 The statement of the areas of the two right triangles and their sum ought to have been in this line.
The calculation would have been:
south triangle = (eg)/2 = 240 arouras,
north triangle = (fg)/2 = 96 arouras,
sum of triangles = 336 arouras.
Perhaps one should restore [συναγ]ο̣μένων, “added together,” but the syntax appears awkward.
12 This is part of the second method of computing the area of the field (8). The four sides of the small
rectangle with sides c and g are indicated by writing them in a cruciform arrangement around
what seems to be a small square, a notation I have not seen in other papyri. Cf. ii 23. cg = 64;
thus the area of this rectangle is 64 arouras.
13 ἐ(μβαδὸν): β̣ά̣(ϊα) ed. pr., i.e. reading the abbreviation interpreted here as καταλείπεται. If correct,
this would make the area 400 arouras the result of a subtraction, as in the first method of compu-
tation (7), whereas line 12 is evidently using the second method. The symbol appears to me to be
an epsilon, not a kappa, with a superscribed stroke.
Hence the operation in this line was probably:

area of field = 336 arouras + 64 arouras = 400 arouras.
16 736 arouras is ag, the area of the complete rectangle composed of the field and its two neighboring
triangles. The area of the field was likely restated in a lost short line immediately following, as
the result of subtracting the areas of the triangles from 736:
area of field = 736 arouras – 336 arouras = 400 arouras.
col. i 17–27
The remainder of column i is too broken to make much sense of. After a space that presumably accom-
modated a lost diagram, lines 18–23 apparently discuss a configuration similar to that of Problem 1,
if it is not in fact the same configuration, since an area of 336 arouras is mentioned. Then there is a smaller
space, perhaps corresponding to a section break rather than a diagram, and three lines of text (25–27) that
are too fragmentary to interpret.
18a–19 The restoration [τετρ]άγωνον of ed. pr. in 19 (“quadrangle/quadrangular,” or more specifically,

“square”) seems quite plausible, though it is not clear just what is going on in the lines following
the presumed diagram in 17. The interlinear text appears to duplicate this text, perhaps restoring
a passage accidentally omitted through eyeskip. The intention of the elevated horizontal stroke at
the end of 18a is not clear.
22 336 arouras was the area of the two right triangles in Problem 1. The present set of lines pre-
sumably referred to a different diagram, but the geometrical configuration must have been similar
to that of Problem 1 for this area to arise again.
23 A paragraphos appears below this line.
26 Cf. ii 24. τμήματα might mean geometrically defined subdivisions of a field.
27 Ed. pr. reads ]ν̣ι π̣ερι ̣ for this line, but the stroke or strokes read there as π form an inverted U
high above the line, more likely the top of a numeral letter (α or δ?) and the descending curved
superstroke used elsewhere as a mark of a numeral or abbreviation.
170 Alexander Jones
col. ii 1–21: Problem 2

This is similar to problem 1, except that one of the oblique sides of the field makes an obtuse interior angle
with the longer of the two parallel sides; Heron (Metrica 1.13) calls this figure τραπέζιον ἀμβλυγώνιον.
The drawing is again oriented with north to the right, but it is curiously mirror-reversed in the vertical
dimension so that east is at the top, in the direction counterclockwise from north, as if the field was seen
from below. A generalized (and conventionally oriented) version of the diagram is as follows:
The procedure for finding the field’s area is practically identical to that of Problem 1; with the diagram
labelled as above, (3) through (7) remain valid, except that the last step of (3) is different:
(3a) d 2 − b 2 = (e 2 + g 2 ) − (f 2 + g 2 )
= e2 − f 2
= (e + f )(e − f )
= (e + f )(a − c )
and thus while the algorithm (1) works with this configuration, the counterpart of (2) is:
(d− b2 )
2
− (a − c )
(2a) f =
(a − c )
=
(d 2 − b2 )
−e
2 (a − c )
The alternative final derivation of the field’s area (8) is no longer applicable without adjustment. The field
cannot be decomposed into two right triangles equal to the two neighboring triangles plus a small rectangle,
but the field’s area can be calculated as the sum of the areas of the two triangles minus the area of a small
rectangle:
⎛ ge gf ⎞
(10) A =⎜ + ⎟ − g (e − a )
⎝ 2 2 ⎠
It is unclear whether the text employed this second method. Before using it, one has to know that no parts
of the parallel sides of the field face directly opposite each other, which, if not a given fact at the outset,
becomes evident when e is found to be greater than a.
Heron’s treatment of this figure in Metrica 1.13 follows the same lines as for the τραπέζιον
ὀξυγώνιον in 1.12.
1 The line is written in ekthesis, probably indicating the beginning of the statement of a new problem.
4 διαφόρου ἀρουρισμός (cf. also ii 21 and 25): the sense of διαφόρου/διαφόρωι and how it connects
with ἀρουρισμός is unclear.
5 σχήματος ὑ̣π̣όδιγμ[α] ed. pr., but the gap in the papyrus here is much too wide for the trace left of
υ to belong to the final letter of σχήματος. ὑπόδιγμα presumably refers to the actual diagram, and
σχῆμα to the configuration that it portrays.
6 Well to the right of the bottom of the diagram (roughly on a level with the ιε), and close to the edge
of the papyrus, is a vertical stroke, about the height of an iota. It is not clear whether this was text,
and if so, whether it was related to the diagram.
7 The line is written in ekthesis.
7–8 d = 15, b = 13, d 2 = 225, b2 = 169, d 2 – b2 = 56.
8–10 a = 8, c = 4, a – c = 4, (d 2 – b2)/(a – c) = 14.
9 η̣:̅ ι̣̅γ̣̅ ed. pr.
10–11 14 + (a – c) = 18, e = 18/2 = 9, f = 14 – (a – c) = 5.
10 τὸ (ἥμισυ): ο̣ὗ̣ τὸ (ἥ̣μ̣ι̣σ̣υ)̣ ed. pr., but I can see no trace of ο̣ὗ̣ or indeed space for it.
12–14 d 2 = 225 (repeated from line 7), e2 = 81, g 2 = d 2 – e2 = 144, g = 12.
15–17 b 2 = 169 (repeated from 7–8), f 2 = 25, g 2 = b 2 – f 2 = 144, g = 12.
18–20 The calculations of the areas of the triangles and the complete rectangle are not given explicitly:
south triangle = (eg)/2 = 54 arouras,
north triangle = (fg)/2 = 30 arouras,
sum of triangles = 84 arouras;
area of complete rectangle = (a + f)g = 156 arouras. Hence
area of field = 156 arouras – 84 arouras = 72 arouras.
21 ] διαφόρου ἀρουρισμοῦ ν ̣ ̣ ̣[ ed. pr. The figure 84 arouras, which is the sum of the areas of the
two right neighboring right triangles, is stated in the genitive case, and then 12, evidently arouras,
is given as the result of a subtraction. Thus it seems that the area of the field, 72 arouras, has been
subtracted from the area of the two triangles. According to (9) this yields the area of the small
shaded rectangle in the diagram above, but it is not clear why one would want to find the area of
the small rectangle from the field’s area rather than the other way around.
col. ii 22–40: Problem 3

This diagram for this problem shows a kite-shaped quadrilateral having two pairs of equal adjacent sides
and two right angles; moreover, the quadrilateral is decomposed into two right-angled triangles and a rect-
angle. A generalized version of the configuration is as follows, with a = b and c = d:
172 Alexander Jones
Determining the area of a quadrilateral is trivial if it is given that two opposite angles are right (whether or
not it also has pairs of equal adjacent sides as in the present problem), since the figure can be decomposed
into two right-angled triangles by its diagonal h, and the combined area of these triangles is obviously equal
to a rectangle with sides a and d, i.e. ad. Despite the poor state of preservation of the text, we can see
that the treatment of the figure was considerably more complicated, involving finding its “upright base,”
i.e. g, which is the maximum dimension of the field perpendicular to side a, and probably also the areas
of the triangular and rectangular subdivisions that are delineated in the diagram.
It therefore seems likely that the problem only asserted that one of the angles (say the one at the
northeast corner) was right. The first step in solving this more general problem would be to determine
whether the opposite angle is right, by checking whether b2 + c2 = a2 + d 2 , in which case the area is simply
the sum of the areas of the two right triangles composing the quadrilateral. If the two sums of squares
turn out not to be equal, one would have to employ a more complicated algorithm, such as the one Heron
presents in Metrica 1.14. Problem 3 of the papyrus thus was probably followed by a problem dealing with
a similar figure but with dimensions such that the angle opposite the given right angle was not right.
The “upright base” g is apparently found in lines ii 33–36 by means of the Pythagorean Theorem
as the square root of the difference between the squares of b and f, so that by this point f and e have been
determined.7 How this was done is not clear. In lines ii 28–30, the Pythagorean Theorem has been applied
to find the square of the diagonal h (as the sum of a 2 and d 2 as well as of b 2 and c 2 ). One possible recon-
struction of the intervening stages is that the other diagonal j was then found by some relation such as
(11) h 2 j 2 = 4a 2c 2
which follows from Ptolemy’s Theorem since a quadrilateral with two opposite right angles must be cyclic.
Then a procedure similar to that used in Problems 1 and 2 can be used to find e and f:
a−
(h 2
− j2 )
(12) e= a
2
7
Heron, Metrica 1.15, also gives an algorithm for finding this length (which he again calls κάθετος), but his procedure was
certainly not the same as the one of the papyrus since his final result is obtained as the sum of two component line segments.
The diagram for Metrica 1.15 (Seragliensis GI 1, f. 75v) has the same lines dividing the quadrilateral into two right triangles
and a rectangle as the diagram of our papyrus, though their function is to determine certain points and line segments involved
in deriving the κάθετος, not to partition the quadrilateral into constituent areas.
a+
(h 2
− j2 )
(13) f = a
2
If this approach was used, it must have been expressed very compendiously so as to fit in two text lines.
22 The horizontal stroke may be a paragraphos marking the beginning of the new problem. Before
the ζ is a large speck of ink, perhaps just an accidental block. If this line is a heading, as it appears
to be, it suggests an attempt at a systematic structure for the manuscript as a whole. A further
indication that there existed a conventional order for presenting the various quadrilaterals is that
in Heron’s Metrica the quadrilateral with one right angle but no parallel sides is treated in 1.14,
immediately after the two kinds of τραπέζια corresponding to Problems 1 and 2 in the papyrus.
23 Cf. i 12. Here there is no small square surrounded by the numerals.
28–29 a 2 = 225, d 2 = 25, hence h 2 = 250. This is not a perfect square, and presumably whatever
operations followed did not require taking its square root.
29–30 b 2 = 225, c 2 = 25, hence again h 2 = 250.
33–36 b 2 = 225 (repeated from line 29), f 2 = 144, hence g 2 = 81, g = 9.
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University
174 Alexander Jones
No. 35, recto

No. 35, verso (unpublished)

36. Beeidete Erklärung
über die Umbuchung adärierter Naubien
Andrea Jördens
P.Heid. inv. G 1387 12,2 x 12 cm (a) 347
Oxyrhynchos 1,7 x 2 cm (b)
So erfolgreich der Althistoriker und Papyrologe R. S. Bagnall sich seit mehr als vier Jahrzehnten zwischen
Ptolemäern und Spätantike bewegt, galt eine besondere Liebe doch offenbar immer dem IV. Jhdt. n. Chr.,
wie nicht zuletzt die 1993 erschienene, meisterliche Studie Egypt in Late Antiquity bezeugt. So freue ich
mich, Roger Bagnall einen auf den ersten Blick wenig ansehnlichen, auf den zweiten freilich um so inter-
essanteren Papyrus aus eben dieser Zeit dedizieren zu können.
Das stark ramponierte, mittelbraune Fragment wurde schon 1959 durch Ernst Siegmann für die
Heidelberger Papyrussammlung erworben und trägt heute die Inventarnummer P.Heid. inv. G 1387. Seiten-
ränder und oberer Rand sind original, doch sind einige größere Ausbrüche in den Anfangszeilen und ein
deutlicher senkrechter Riß entlang des Mittelfalzes zu vermerken; der auffallend unregelmäßige Abbruch
des unteren Randes könnte sogar an einen erst in neuerer Zeit willkürlich herbeigeführten Verlust der
unteren Partien denken lassen. Vermutlich war das 12 cm breite Papyrusblatt ursprünglich doppelt so
hoch, doch sind nurmehr die oberen 12,2 cm erhalten. Ein weiteres, 2 cm breites und 1,7 cm hohes Bruch-
stück (Frg. b) dürfte dem Freirand zufolge ebenfalls vom linken Rand stammen, ist in seiner Position
jedoch nicht mehr sicher zu bestimmen; ein noch kleineres drittes ist gänzlich unbeschrieben und kann
daher außer Betracht bleiben. Die mit schwarzer Tinte und dünnem Kalamus aufgebrachte Schrift verläuft
parallel zu Fasern und ist zum Zeilenende hin teilweise stärker abgerieben. Die Hand selbst ist eine typische
Geschäftsschrift des IV. Jhdts. mit vereinzelten Iotazismen (Z.8 θῖον, Z. 9 παριλη̣φέναι), das Verso ist frei.
Nach dem eingangs genannten Konsulat des Volcacius Rufinus und Flavius Eusebius stammt
das Dokument aus dem Jahr 347 n. Chr.; Monats- und Tagesdatum gingen mit dem größten Teil von Z. 3
verloren. Aussteller ist der als Bankier und Epimelet tätige Ratsherr von Oxyrhynchos Aurelius Hermias,
Sohn des Theon, Empfänger der oxyrhynchitische Stratege, von dessen Namen wie in dem Schreiben
P.Oxy. IX 1190, das er am 22. Juni 347 an zwei praepositi pagi richtete, nur noch das Gentiliz Flavius
erhalten ist. Ihm gegenüber erklärt Hermias unter Eid, daß er erneut 350+ (?) Myriaden Denare vom Konto
der adärierten Naubien entgegengenommen, also wohl zugunsten der Epimelie umgebucht habe. Alles
weitere ist abgebrochen.
Bei den Epimeleten handelte es sich regelmäßig um Ratsmitglieder, die, gelegentlich auch als
Kollegium, auf liturgischem Wege zur Übernahme bestimmter Sonderaufgaben namentlich im Bereich
der Heeresversorgung verpflichtet wurden. Zu diesem auf Gauebene angesiedelten, “kuriale(n) munus
mit staatlicher Zweckbestimmung” zuletzt eingehend F. Mitthof, Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung
im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungs- und Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Reiches im
3. bis 6. Jh. n. Chr. (Pap. Flor. XXXII), Firenze 2001, bes. 83–99, das Zitat 85. Besonders eindrückliche
Beispiele hierfür bieten die im selben Jahr publizierten und daher dort noch nicht berücksichtigten P.Oxy.
LXVII 4606–4613 vom Beginn der 360er Jahre, vgl. auch die Einl. und bes. den Überblick S. 206. Der
jeweilige Aufgabenbereich wurde dabei üblicherweise noch genauer durch spezifizierende Zusätze ein-
gegrenzt, die Hebegut, Erhebungsbezirk, ggf. auch Bestimmungsort oder Amtsdauer benannten, vgl. nur
Mitthof, Annona, 88 ff. Warum dies hier unterblieb – etwa weil es sich durch die vorausgehende Funk-
tionsbezeichnung als Bankier, die in dieser Kombination hier erstmals begegnet, erübrigen mochte –, ist
kaum mehr zu klären.
Ebenso wenig wie über die Zweckbestimmung der Epimelie ist im Fortgang der Urkunde über die
Hintergründe der hier ebenfalls erstmals belegten Adärierung von Naubien zu erfahren. Nach den – aller-
dings nur schwach erhaltenen – Tintenspuren am Ende von Z. 10, die offenbar als ιγ∫ zu lesen sind, dürften
178 Andrea Jördens
sie noch der 13. Indiktion zuzurechnen sein, so daß die eigentliche Leistungsverpflichtung zum Zeitpunkt
der Ausstellung immerhin schon acht Jahre zurücklag. Zumal es gerade im Fall der Dammarbeiten, wie
unten noch näher darzustellen ist, starke Widerstände gegen jede Form von Ersatzleistungen gab, liegt in
dieser ungewöhnlich langen Frist vielleicht sogar der Schlüssel zum Verständnis der hiesigen Transaktion.
Denn dies könnte die Annahme befördern, daß nach einiger Zeit, als sich mehr und mehr abzeichnete,
daß die Leistungen in der ursprünglichen Form nicht mehr erbracht werden würden, gleichsam zähneknir-
schend doch noch eine Umwandlung in eine Geldzahlung akzeptiert wurde. Ob es sich bei dem auf diese
Weise gespeisten Konto um einen regulären Rechnungsposten handelte, bleibe dahingestellt; möglicher-
weise bildete es eher eine Art Reptilienfonds, aus dem in den Folgejahren je nach Bedarf andernorts ent-
standene Löcher gestopft werden konnten – wie vielleicht auch hier das unserer Epimelie.
Naubien waren, wie das in der ersten Hälfte des III. Jhdts. verfaßte verwaltungstechnische Hand-
buch P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2847 lehrt, typischerweise das Maß, in dem der Erdaushub gemessen wurde und
das einen Umfang von neun Kubikellen besaß: ναύβιον δέ ἐστιν μ̣έτρον̣ [γ]ῆς ὀρυσσόμενον, τρεῖς πήχεις
ἔχ[ο]ν τ̣ο̣ῦ π̣λά[του]ς καὶ μήκους καὶ βάθους (Z. 24 ff.). Wie dort zuvor ausgeführt war, hatte jeder männ-
liche Einwohner Ägyptens jährlich für die Reinigung der Bewässerungskanäle fünf solcher Naubien zu
erbringen, was gegebenenfalls aber auch geringer ausfallen konnte: ἕκαστος τῶν ἐπιχωρ̣ίων ἀνασκάπτι
(l. ἀνασκάπτει) πέντε ναύ̣βια εἰ̣ς ἀ̣σ̣φάλ̣ι̣α̣ν̣ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιβολὴν τῶν χωμάτων, ἐλάττ[ονα δὲ] ὡς ἂ̣ν ἡ χρεία
ἀπαιτῇ (Z. 21 ff., mit D. Bonneau, ‘Recherches sur le Kyriakos logos (Commentaire de P.Oxy. 2847)’,
JJP 19, 1983, 131–153, bes. 142–148). Denselben Namen trug daneben auch eine Geldsteuer, die nach
Ausweis zahlreicher Steuerregister und besonders -quittungen in zwei verschiedenen, wiewohl in beiden
Fällen relativ niedrigen Sätzen auf privaten Grundbesitz zu entrichten war; hierzu zuletzt P. Schubert,
Einl. zu P.Gen. III 140 sowie allgem. schon S. L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian,
Princeton 1938, 59 ff., zu ersterem bes. B. Kramer, Einl. zu P.Heid. IV 320.
Nicht zuletzt in Hinblick auf die zweigeteilten Arbeits- und Steuerleistungen weist dies deutliche
Parallelen zu den weitaus besser bekannten Leistungsverpflichtungen auf, die unter dem Titel χωματικόν
geläufig waren und, wie schon der Name sagt, Arbeiten an den Kanaldämmen betrafen. Die Bemessungs-
grundlagen waren dort jedoch gänzlich andere. Wie auch die Einordnung bei Wallace, Taxation, 140 ff.
unter den capitation taxes zeigt, wurden die Geldsteuern dieses Namens, die üblicherweise 6 Drachmen
4 Obolen betrugen, pro Jahr und Kopf erhoben; die εἰς χωματικὰ ἔργα erbrachten Arbeitsleistungen
hingegen rechneten sich nach Tagen und nicht wie bei den Naubien nach Mengen. Auch hier treffen
wir jedoch erneut die nun schon bekannte Fünfzahl an, woraus auch der Name ‘Penthemeros-Quittung’
für die hierüber ausgestellten Bestätigungen erwuchs. Da χωματικὰ ἔργα und ναύβια bei näherer Betrach-
tung denselben Zweck verfolgten – diente doch das aus den Kanälen ausgehobene Erdreich bekanntlich
zur Aufschüttung der Dämme –, lag die Annahme nahe, daß eine solche Tagesleistung in etwa einem
Naubion entsprach. Bereits früh hat man daher beide Einrichtungen für identisch halten und die Differen-
zen allenfalls als zeitliche oder regionale Varianten deuten wollen; hierzu wie zum System als ganzem
jetzt eingehend Th. Kruse, Der Königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung. Untersuchungen zur Ver-
waltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philippus Arabs (30 v. Chr. – 245 n. Chr.)
(APF Bh. 11), München – Leipzig 2002, 306 ff.
Lebhaften Einspruch hiergegen hatte noch P. J. Sijpesteijn in seiner grundlegenden Abhandlung
Penthemeros-Certificates in Graeco-Roman Egypt (P.Lugd.Bat. XII), Leiden 1964, bes. 18 ff. erhoben,
da zwischen den an den Umfang des Grundbesitzes gebundenen Naubien und der nach Tagen gemessenen
Dienstverpflichtung zur Penthemeros schwerlich eine Beziehung herzustellen sei; auch seien erstere offen-
bar nur fallweise, letztere dagegen regelmäßig zu leisten gewesen. Diese Deutung scheint nach dem wenig
später publizierten P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2847, wie gezeigt, jedoch kaum mehr zu halten. Noch stärker geht die
Verwandtschaft, wie erst M. Peachin und ihm folgend auch R. S. Bagnall in den jeweiligen Einleitungen
herausgearbeitet haben, schließlich aus dem von ersterem in BASP 19, 1982, 159–166 vorgelegten Nau-
bion-Bericht P.Col. X 289 = SB XVI 12335 (3./4. 331 n. Chr.) hervor. Die Daten, die der χωματεπιστάτης
36. Beeidete Erklärung über die Umbuchung adärierter Naubien 179
Aurelius Horos in seinem λό̣γο̣ς πενθημέρων τῶν διʼ ἐ̣[μοῦ] ἀπεργασθέντων ναυβίων [Zahl?] ἐπὶ τοῦδε τοῦ
μηνὸς Φαρμοῦθι (Z. 6 f.) dem oxyrhynchitischen Strategen vorlegt, brechen denn auch in Z. 19 mit dem
Eintrag ἀπὸ α̅ ἕως ε̅ ν(αύβια) ιδ̣´ ‘vom 1. bis zum 5.: 14 Naubien’ ab.
Nach Peachin sei der Unterschied zwischen beiden Einrichtungen daher vielmehr darin zu sehen,
daß die Aufstellungen über die von den Dorfbewohnern erbrachte Penthemeros von den Dorfbehörden
geführt wurden, während über den Umfang der Naubien-Leistungen dem Strategen und also einem Funk-
tionsträger der Gauadministration Bericht zu erstatten sei. Konnte er damals nur P.Oxy. XLIX 3475
(16. 3. 220) sowie XII 1546 (III. Jhdt.) als weitere Parallelen benennen, liegen mit den beiden τόμοι
συγκολλήσιμοι P.Oxy. LXII 4341 (24. 7. 319; in der Einl. ist statt des korrekten P.Oxy. XLIX 3475
fälschlich das Saatgutdarlehen 3474 als Parallele genannt) sowie 4342 col. I–III (26. 3., wohl um 336)
inzwischen insgesamt sieben Belege für solche an die Gaubehörden adressierten Naubion-Berichte vor;
zu dem vermuteten Datum des letzteren jetzt D. Colomo, ‘Proposte di integrazione a P.Laur. IV 167:
frammento di resoconto sulla manutenzione delle dighe’, Aegyptus 88, 2008, 137–141, die auf dieser
Basis zugleich den vorausgegangenen Bericht lokaler Amtsträger zu rekonstruieren sucht.
Da in P.Oxy. XLIX 3475 Name und Funktion des Adressaten verloren sind, steht indes noch zu
fragen, ob hier tatsächlich der Stratege oder, wie zuletzt sehr ansprechend von Kruse, Kgl. Schreiber, 318
f. vermutet, nicht eher der βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς als Empfänger anzusehen ist. Kein Aufschluß hierüber
ist aus dem ebenfalls ohne Adresse überlieferten P.Oxy. XII 1546 zu erlangen, wobei in diesem Fall schon
der zeitliche Ansatz “late third century” eine Zuordnung zum Königlichen Schreiber ausschließen sollte,
da dieses Amt bekanntlich unter den Philippi abgeschafft wurde. Der bemerkenswerte Umstand, daß hier
allem Anschein nach bewußt auf die Nennung des Empfängers verzichtet worden war, könnte freilich die
Annahme begünstigen, daß dies den veränderten Zuständigkeiten der zweiten Jahrhunderthälfte geschuldet
sei. So lagen all diese Aufgaben inzwischen, wie aus P.Oxy. XII 1409 = Sel.Pap. II 225 (1. 4. 278) erhellt,
in der gemeinsamen Verantwortung von Strategen und Dekaproten; zu den letzteren als den eigentlichen
Nachfolgern der Basilikogrammatie jetzt eingehend Kruse, Kgl. Schreiber, 945 ff. Erwähnt sei allerdings
auch die zuletzt von Colomo, Aegyptus 88, 2008, 138 f. im Komm. zu Z. 3–4 erwogene Neudatierung von
P.Oxy. XII 1546 in die Zeit um 336, falls nämlich der dort erwähnte χωμα(τεπείκτης) Aurelius Silvanos
(zur Auflösung ebda. Anm. 1) mit dem gleichnamigen ἐπείκτης δημοσίων χωμάτων aus P.Laur. IV 167,
3 (336) zu identifizieren sei.
Wie auch schon von Peachin als Regel formuliert, sind die restlichen fünf Naubion-Berichte da-
gegen durchweg an den Strategen adressiert. Anders als bei den beiden eben erörterten Fällen ist allerdings
bei ihnen wie auch bei dem hier vorgelegten Papyrus eine Datierung in das IV. Jhdt. gesichert. Dies läßt
an die zahlreichen Neuerungen bei den Kompetenzverteilungen denken, die seit der Jahrhundertwende auf
den unteren Ebenen begegnen und die nach Peachin, BASP 19, 1982, 162 f. am ehesten mit dem diokle-
tianischen Reformwerk zu verbinden seien. Sollte sich in diesen Rahmen auch das neue Format der an
den Strategen adressierten Naubion-Berichte einordnen lassen, wären die so auffälligen Unterschiede in
unserer Evidenz weder regional (Penthemeros nur im Arsinoites, Naubien im restlichen Ägypten) noch
administrativ (Penthemeros auf Dorfebene, Naubien bei den Gaubehörden), sondern im wesentlichen rein
zeitlich begründet.
Denn in der Tat bleibt erklärungsbedürftig, warum aus früherer Zeit keine vergleichbaren Berichte
über abgeleistete Dammarbeiten erhalten sind. H.-C. Dirscherl, Der Gaustratege im römischen Ägypten.
Seine Aufgaben am Beispiel des Archiv-, Finanz- und Bodenwesens und der Liturgien. Entstehung –
Konsolidierung – Niedergang? 30 v. Chr. – 200 n. Chr. (Pharos XVI), St. Katharinen 2004, der bes. 47 ff.
auch die diesbezüglichen Aktivitäten des Strategen behandelt, ist 49 Anm. 219 immerhin der Hinweis
auf den äußerst fragmentarischen BGU XIII 2265 (um 206) zu danken. Besonderes Interesse kann im
vorliegenden Zusammenhang zudem der bereits erwähnte P.Oxy. XII 1409 = Sel.Pap. II 225 (1. 4. 278)
beanspruchen, der ein Rundschreiben des Dioiketen Aurelius Harpokration περ[ὶ τῆς τῶν] χωμάτων
ἀπερ[γασίας καὶ τῆς τῶν διωρύχω]ν̣ ἀνακαθάρσεως (Z. 3) enthält. In dem an das κοινόν der Strategen
180 Andrea Jördens
und Dekaproten der mittleren Epistrategie gerichteten Schreiben, von dem der oxyrhynchitische Stratege
nunmehr die Dekaproten seines Gaues in Kenntnis setzt, wird nicht nur die Notwendigkeit einer pünkt-
lichen Erfüllung der entsprechenden Arbeiten eingeschärft, sondern auch die Ernennung hierfür zustän-
diger Epimeleten aus dem Kreis der städtischen Amtsträger angemahnt und endlich für den Fall, daß
finanzielle statt körperliche Leistungen eingefordert würden, mit massiven Konsequenzen gedroht.
Das ausdrückliche und mit strengsten Strafen bewehrte Verbot von Ersatzleistungen irgendwel-
cher Art könnte nun gerade den gegenteiligen Verdacht aufkommen lassen, daß nämlich ein solcher
Loskauf gang und gäbe war. Sofern die Gelder nicht unmittelbar zur Anwerbung und Bezahlung von
Ersatzkräften verwandt wurden, drohte derlei allerdings rasch zum Schaden der gesamten Landwirtschaft
auszuschlagen. Dies läßt die strikte Ablehnung der Administration vollauf gerechtfertigt erscheinen, vor
allem aber ist kaum mit einem grundlegenden Sinneswandel zu rechnen. Zudem traten selbst im Bereich
der Lebensmittel- und Textillieferungen, wo die Adäration in der Folgezeit eine deutliche Zunahme
erlebte, nach Mitthof, Annona, 280 f. größere Veränderungen erst in der zweiten Jahrhunderthälfte ein.
Nicht zuletzt auch aus diesem Grund wird man das hiesige Verfahren nur bedingt als regulär und schon
gar nicht als üblich ansehen wollen. Andererseits wird das Konto durch einen als Epimelet eingesetzten
Trapeziten verwaltet, was dem gesamten Vorgang einen offiziösen Anstrich verleiht; überdies hatte der
Dioiket gerade τοὺς εἰωθότας εἰ[ς] τοῦτο χειροτονεῖσθα[ι ἐπιμελη]τὰς ἐξ ἀρχόντων (Z. 13 f.) als zuständig
für all diese Belange benannt.
Wie dem auch immer sei, werden wir die hier bezeugte Transaktion zweifellos als außergewöhn-
lich zu betrachten haben, was durch den weitgehenden Mangel an Parallelen noch unterstrichen wird.
Anzuführen wäre allenfalls die als ἔχθεσις ναυβίων überschriebene Namenliste P.Abinn. 74 = P.Gen. I 65,
die ebenfalls aus der Mitte des IV. Jhdts. datiert. Insgesamt 36 Personen wohl aus dem arsinoitischen
Andromachis sind dort Beträge zwischen 2000 Dr. (Z. 6. 7. 30) und mehr als 22 Tal. (Z. 26. 33) zuge-
ordnet, die sich auf fast 240 Talente, also etwa ein Zehntel des hier umgebuchten Betrags summieren. In
diesem Fall könnte also tatsächlich eine Ersatzleistung in Geld akzeptiert worden sein, was zugleich einen
Beleg für ein analoges Verfahren außerhalb des Oxyrhynchites böte.
Frg. a
→ ῾Υπα[τε]ί̣ας Οὐολκακίου Ῥουφίνο̣υ̣ τ̣[ο]ῦ̣ λ̣α̣μ̣(προτάτου) ἐπάρ(χου)
τοῦ ἱεροῦ πραιτωρίου καὶ Φλα̣[ουίου Εὐσ]ε̣βίου̣ το[ῦ]
λαμ(προτάτου) κόμ̣̣ι̣[τ]ο̣ς̣, ̣[Monat, Tag.]
4 Φλ̣[α]ουίωι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ι στ̣ρ̣ατηγῷ Ὀξυ̣ρυγχίτο[υ]
παρὰ Αὐρηλίου Ἑρμίου Θέωνος ἄρξ(αντος) βουλ(ευτοῦ) τῆς λ̣[αμ(πρᾶς)]
καὶ λαμ(προτάτης) Ὀξυ̣ρυγχε̣ιτῶν πόλεως τραπε[ζί-]
του ἤτοι ἐπιμελητοῦ. Ὁμολογῶ ὀμνὺς τ̣ὸ̣ν̣
8 σεβάσμιον θῖον ὅρκ̣ο̣ν τῶν δεσποτῶν ἡμῶν
Αὐγούστων παριλη̣φέναι καὶ νῦν ἀπὸ λόγου
τῶν ἐξαργυρισθέντων ναυβίων τῆς ιγ∫
ἰνδικτίωνος ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ν ἀργυρίου̣ [(δηναρίων μυριάδας)]
12 τριακοσίας πεντ̣[ήκοντα
ἀ̣[ργ]ύριον κα ̣ ̣[
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] καὶ ̣[
[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ν̣υβ[
---------------------------------------------------
1 ϋπα[τε]ιας pap. 4 φλ[α]ουϊωι pap. 6 l. Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν 8 l. θεῖον 9 l. παρειληφέναι
Frg. b
→ -----
π[
επι[
ἢ λα[
-----
Im Konsulat des Vulcacius Rufinus, vir clarissimus, praefectus sacri praetorii, und des Flavius Eusebius,
vir clarissimus, comes, am …
An Flavius …, Strategen des Oxyrhynchites, von Aurelius Hermias, Sohn des Theon, ehemaligem Archon,
Ratsherrn der glänzenden und glänzendsten Stadt der Oxyrhynchiten, Bankier bzw. Epimelet. Ich
anerkenne, indem ich den ehrwürdigen Kaisereid bei unseren Herren Augusti schwöre, empfangen zu
haben auch jetzt vom Konto der adärierten Naubien der 13. Indiktion … an Silber Myriaden Denare
dreihundertundfünfzig … Silber … und …
1 ff. Für den praefectus sacri praetorii Vulcacius Rufinus und den comes Flavius Eusebius, die nach
R. S. Bagnall – A. Cameron – S. R. Schwartz – K. A. Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire,
Atlanta 1987 (CLRE), 228 f. im Jahr 347 als Konsuln amtierten, ist dies bereits der achte Beleg
in den Papyri, vgl. nur R. S. Bagnall – K. A. Worp, Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt.
Second Edition (CSBE²), Leiden – Boston 2004, 185. Obwohl hier zweifelsfrei die vollständige
Formel vorliegt, sind die Buchstabenreste an den stärker beschädigten Stellen, wie auch aus
der Unterpunktung ersichtlich, nicht immer eindeutig zuzuordnen. Am Ende von Z. 1 ließe sich
der Querstrich durch die Unterlänge des ρ statt als Abkürzung auch als Teil des χ deuten, so daß
dann ἐπάρχ̣[ου] zu transkribieren wäre. In Z. 3 gehören die Tintenspuren am oberen Rand des
Ausbruches wohl noch zu κόμ̣̣ι̣[τ]ο̣ς, während von Monats- und Tagesdatum nurmehr ein schräger
Anstrich mit schwungvoller Querhaste direkt unter dem Φλα̣[ von Z. 2 erhalten ist. Angesichts
des geringen Überstands kann es sich dabei kaum um ein π oder gar τ handeln, so daß vielleicht
am ehesten auf ein mißratenes großes ε von Ἐπείφ zu schließen ist. Ein solch kurzer Monatsname
würde auch erklären, warum auf dem relativ breit erhaltenen rechten Rand keine Tinte mehr zu
erkennen ist.
4 Auch in dem eingangs erwähnten Schreiben des Strategen P.Oxy. IX 1190 folgt auf das Gentiliz
Φλάουιο[ς in Z. 1 eine Lücke, wobei für das Cognomen ± 6 Buchstaben angesetzt wurden. Beide
Zeugnisse verweisen demnach auf einen relativ kurzen Namen, nach dem abschließenden -]ι
genauer noch auf einen der konsonantischen Deklination. Damit scheidet der im Jahr 345 amtie-
rende Flavius Iulianus ebenso aus wie der 351 belegte Flavius Paeanius; zu den Fasten dieser
Zeit zuletzt J. Whitehorne, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt (Str.R.Scr.2) (Pap. Flor.
XXXVII), Firenze 2006, 112. Sollte, wie bei diesem Papyrus häufiger, der Anfangsbuchstabe
stark abgerieben sein, könnte man, zumal mit Blick auf eine auffällige Querhaste, mit viel Wohl-
wollen an [Ἀ]π̣ί̣ω̣ν̣ι denken. Zwar wäre am Ende auch -]κ̣ι zu erwägen, doch stehen etwa einer
Lesung Φήλικι die erhaltenen Tintenreste entgegen.
5 Ein Hermias, Sohn des Theon, ist bisher noch nicht aus den Papyri bekannt, erst recht nicht ein
oxyrhynchitischer Ratsherr dieses Namens; vgl. hierzu die bis in die frühen 1970er Jahre geführ-
ten Übersichten von A. K. Bowman, The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (ASP XI), Toronto
1971, 140–147 ([griechisch] alphabetisch) sowie I. F. Fikhman, ‘Die Kurialen von Oxyrhynchos’,
APF 22–23, 1974, 47–87 (russ.) = Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im spätantiken Ägypten. Kleine
Schriften Itzhak F. Fikhman, hrsg. v. A. Jördens (Historia Einzelschr. 192), Stuttgart 2006, 61–98,
bes. 78–98 (chronologisch). Spekulieren mag man immerhin darüber, ob der Aussteller unser
Urkunde in weitestem Sinne zu den Erben der Theonilla zählte, die gegen Ende des III. Jhdts. als
182 Andrea Jördens
Tochter eines Theon und Enkelin eines Hermias in P.Oxy. XXII 2346, 43 f. begegnet. Zumindest
entstammte sie derselben sozialen Schicht, wie bereits ihre ausdrückliche Kennzeichnung als
θυγάτηρ lehrt, vgl. nur die von D. Hagedorn, ‘Zur Verwendung von υἱός und θυγάτηρ vor dem
Vatersnamen in Urkunden römischer Zeit’, ZPE 80, 1990, 277–282, bes. 278 formulierte Regel
“Wenn in Urkunden römischer Zeit bei der Personenbeschreibung die Filiation mit Hilfe des
Wortes υἱός (bzw. θυγάτηρ …) angegeben wird, dann bedeutet das: Der Vater des (oder der)
Betreffenden hatte eine angesehene soziale Stellung inne, in der Regel, weil er ein munizipales
oder sonstiges Amt bekleidete oder bekleidet hatte”.
5 f. Schon früher hatte Hermias wichtige munizipale Ämter übernommen, wie seine Titel ἄρξας ‘ehema-
liger Archon’ – d.h. Inhaber vermutlich mehrerer städtischer Ehrenämter wie der Gymnasiarchie,
Exegetie, Kosmetie usw. – und βουλευτής ‘Ratsherr’ anzeigen. Zu den von 271/72 bis in das
frühe VI. Jhdt. gebräuchlichen Ehrentiteln der Stadt, deren Kennzeichen die auffällige Doppelung
von clarus im Positiv und Superlativ war, immer noch grundlegend D. Hagedorn, ‘Ὀξυρύγχων
πόλις und ἡ Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλις’, ZPE 12, 1973, 277–292, bes. 285 ff.
6 f. Nach seiner am Ende des Präskripts angeführten aktuellen Funktion hat Hermias die Erklärung
gleichzeitig als Trapezit und Epimelet abgegeben; zur entsprechenden Bedeutung des ἤτοι
P. J. Sijpesteijn, ‘The Meanings of ἤτοι in the Papyri’, ZPE 90, 1992, 241–250, bes. 243 ff. Gruppe
B 4) “when an official functions in more than one capacity”. Daß hier auf eine nähere Spezifi-
zierung der Epimelie verzichtet wird, ist ungewöhnlich; Zweifel an der Legalität der hier vorge-
nommenen Transaktion sind allein daraus jedoch kaum abzuleiten.
7 ff. Assertorische Eide waren im gesamten Steuer- und Liturgiewesen der nachdiokletianischen Zeit
verbreitet, wie auch die bereits erwähnten Erklärungen der Epimeleten P.Oxy. LXVII 4606–4613
bestätigen; hierzu allgem. schon E. Seidl, Der Eid im römisch-ägyptischen Provinzialrecht, 2. Teil:
Die Zeit vom Beginn der Regierung Diokletians bis zur Eroberung Ägyptens durch die Araber
(MBPR 24), München 1935, 62 ff., demzufolge gleichwohl “keine Rede davon sein (kann), daß
in allen solchen Fällen Eide verlangt worden sind. Vielmehr wurden hier die Eide wohl von den
Vorgesetzten aus einem besonderen Grunde (besonderer Wichtigkeit des Berichtes oder Mißtrauen
gegen den Untergebenen) gefordert” (76). Wie auch das “wohl” anzeigt, ist gesicherte Kenntnis
hierüber freilich nur schwer zu erlangen, vor allem scheint eine systematische Untersuchung
nach Dokumententypen bislang noch zu fehlen. Allein für die Verbindung ομνυ + παρειληφέναι
erbrachte eine am 8. 6. 2011 durchgeführte Suche in papyri.info <http://www.papyri.info/search>
immerhin 42 Treffer, die – mit einem deutlichen Schwerpunkt im IV. Jhdt. – vom beginnenden
III. Jhdt. (CPR XXIII 7: 201–204) bis in das zweite Viertel des V. Jhdts. (P.Strasb. VII 654:
425–450) reichen. Auf amtliche Vorgaben könnte neben der Fülle der Zeugnisse auch die Regel-
mäßigkeit der Formeln deuten; hierzu bes. K. A. Worp, ‘Byzantine Imperial Titulature in the
Greek Documentary Papyri: The Oath Formulas’, ZPE 45, 1982, 199–223. Worps Beobachtung
“[i]n the Oxyrhynchite Nome, … in the period A.D. 322–373 … all formulas are introduced by
τὸν σεβάσμιον θεῖον ὅρκον” (217) bestätigt sich auch im vorliegenden Fall, wobei der Zeitraum
inzwischen deutlich erweitert wurde. Denn mit P.Oxy. LIV 3746, 26 f. 52 ist diese Eingangs-
formel nunmehr bereits am 24. bzw. 25. 3. 319 belegt; sogar schon von 315 datiert P.Oxy. LXIV
4441 col. IX, 14, bei dem σεβάσμιον allerdings in Lücke steht. Einen späten ‘Ausreißer’ bietet
jetzt die Bürgschaft für eine Salbenhändlerin P.Oxy. LXXV 5064, 6 vom 13. 5. 392, wobei der
Notar, wie im Komm. zu Z. 23 ausgeführt, wohl nicht zufällig auch bereits in den 370er Jahren
aktiv war. Der Verzicht auf die namentliche Nennung der Kaiser zugunsten eines abstrakten
Αὐτοκράτωρ/-τορές τε καὶ Καίσαρες oder auch, wie hier, Αὔγουστοι begegnet in der ersten Hälfte
des IV. Jhdts. häufiger und wurde in der Zeit zwischen dem Tod Constantins I. bis zu Julian sogar
zur Regel; vgl. schon Worp, ZPE 45, 1982, die hiesige Formel bes. 204 unter X c); allgem. auch
F. Mitthof, Einl. zu CPR XXIII 29, bes. S. 174 f. mitsamt den tabellarischen Übersichten im
Anhang S. 178 f. sowie in Tab. 8 S. 243 ff., die oxyrhynchitischen Belege bes. S. 246 f. Zu der
nüchternen Kurzformel vgl. schon Z. M. Packman, ‘Epithets with the Title Despotes in Regnal
Formulas in Document Dates and in the Imperial Oath’, ZPE 90, 1992, 251–257, bes. 252: “In the
majority of cases, several dozen all together, the title appears without epithets or participial
phrases”.
9 ff. Mit dem betonten ἀπὸ λόγου wird der Rechnungstitel bzw. das Konto benannt, von dem der fol-
gende Betrag ab- und umgebucht wurde. Nach dem vorangestellten καὶ νῦν zu schließen, geschah
dies hier keineswegs zum ersten Mal. Da die Gelder schon seit der 13. Indiktion, also nunmehr
acht Jahren, aufgelaufen waren, sollte dies freilich wenig überraschen. Wie bereits in der Einl.
ausgeführt, fungierte als Empfänger offensichtlich der Aussteller selbst, so daß der Betrag der
nicht näher definierten Epimelie zugute gekommen sein dürfte. Gleichwohl bleibt einiges an der
Transaktion rätselhaft, nicht zuletzt das hier erstmals erwähnte Konto adärierter Naubien selbst.
Während das Substantiv ἐξαργυρισμός inzwischen in fast drei Dutzend Zeugnissen aus nach-
diokletianischer Zeit begegnet, ist das Verb ἐξαργυρίζω sehr viel seltener, dafür jedoch über
alle Epochen hinweg in den Papyri belegt. Dabei scheint ein staatlicher Kontext in P.Cair.Zen.
I 59044 = SB III 6787 = C.Ptol.Sklav. II 224 = C.Zen.Palest. 52, 3 f. (vor dem 26. 3. 257 v. Chr.)
schon durch die Kombination von Gefängnis und Verkauf des Besitzes gegeben, selbst wenn
die Begleitumstände undurchsichtig bleiben. Dasselbe dürfte für das als Sanktion verhängte
ἀπαγαγεῖν καὶ ἐξαργυρίσαι in dem – nach BL IX 293 ungefähr gleichzeitigen – Memorandum SB
VIII 9861b, 2 f. 11 gelten. Um einen Verkauf von Staats wegen geht es auch in der in M.Chr. 88
col. IV, 22 ff. (nach dem 26. 8. 142 n. Chr.) referierten Entscheidung des Strategen, den Jahres-
ertrag aus den von der Soldatenwitwe Drusilla beanspruchten Grundstücken zu verkaufen und den
Erlös bis zur endgültigen Klärung der Eigentumsfragen auf einem Konto zu deponieren. Dagegen
hatte noch Wilcken im Komm. zu dem vom 21. 9. 164 v. Chr. datierenden Dioiketenerlaß UPZ
I 110, bes. Z. 136/7 vermerkt: “Endlich habe ich kein Beispiel dafür, daß ἐξαργυρίζειν von einer
amtlichen Konfiskation gesagt wäre”, und vielmehr eine Wiedergabe mit ‘ausplündern’ befür-
wortet. Äußerst negativ ist der Ausdruck auch in dem unstrittig privaten Scheidungsvertrag
P.Kron. 52 = P.Mil.Vogl. II 85, 18 (30. 8. 138 n. Chr.) besetzt, wo vom widerrechtlichen Verkauf
der in die Ehe eingebrachten Schmuckstücke die Rede ist. Diente das Substantiv demnach offen-
kundig als griechisches Äquivalent zu adaeratio, war das Verb deutlich weiter gefaßt und auch im
Sinne eines einfachen, ggf. auch unrechtmäßigen ‘zu Geld machen’, ‘versilbern’ zu verwenden.
Zwar dürften sich unter dem Einfluß des neuen terminus technicus die fiskalischen Implikationen
in nachdiokletianischer Zeit wieder verstärkt haben, doch fallen die wenigen Belege keineswegs
eindeutig aus, vgl. nur PSI VII 767, 45 (7. 11. 331?) mit Komm. (“… debiti in generi, dei quali
si era fatta, non sappiamo in qual modo, la adhaeratio”); SB XX 14674 = CPR VII 26, 5. 34. 38
(nach dem 23. bzw. 22. 1. 492, 507 oder 522), wo Gascou & Worp im Komm. der Neued. in
Tyche 3, 1988, 103–110, bes. 104 auch eine Auflösung zu ἐξαργυρισμοῦ/-ῶν erwogen; vgl. auch
die von Mitthof, Annona, 549 f. im Komm. zu Z. 6 f. vorgeschlagene Ergänzung von SB XXIV
15956 (527/28) = BL XII 238. Zu der Frage, wie weit die ἐξαργυρισθέντα ναύβια gängiger Praxis
oder gar einem regulären Verfahren entsprachen, vermag der Begriff insofern kaum beizutragen.
11 Nach ἰνδικτίωνος und direkt vor dem Ausbruch in Zeilenmitte ist noch ein τ oder π zu erkennen,
das nicht nur leicht abgesetzt, sondern auch deutlich größer als die vorigen Buchstaben ist und
insofern den Beginn eines neuen Wortes, wenn nicht gar Sinnabschnitts markiert. Dies leitet
folglich bereits die Angabe zu den umgebuchten Beträgen ein, wobei üblicherweise zuerst das
Metall, dann die Währungseinheit, ggf. mit Hinweisen auf die Münzprägung, und schließlich
der Wert genannt werden. All dies paßt kaum zu dem hiesigen Befund. In der Lücke dürften
± 4 Buchstaben verloren gegangen sein; es folgen die Reste zweier weiterer, nicht mehr klar zuzu-
ordnender Buchstaben sowie ein ν und darauf ein gut erkennbares ἀργυρίου̣. Da am Ende der
184 Andrea Jördens
Zeile höchstens noch drei Buchstaben zu erwarten sind, war die Währungseinheit ungewöhn-
licherweise als Abkürzung, eher wohl noch als Sigle gegeben. Dem Femininum τριακοσίας
zufolge (Z. 12) kann hier nur [(δηναρίων μυριάδας)] zu ergänzen sein. Gerechnet wurde gleich-
wohl nach wie vor in Drachme und Talent, wobei bekanntlich 4 Drachmen auf einen Denar
kamen und ein Talent aus 6000 Drachmen bestand, so daß eine Myriade Denare 40000 Dr. oder
6⅔ Talenten entsprach; hierzu auch R. S. Bagnall, Currency and Inflation in Fourth Century
Egypt (BASP Suppl. 5), o.O. 1985, bes. 12, zum Kaufwert auch das folgende.
12 Die Ergänzungen πέντ̣[ε oder πεντ̣[εκαίδεκα sind nicht grundsätzlich auszuschließen; für den –
verlorenen – Rest der Zeile ist noch eine Wiedergabe in Ziffern zu erwarten, also (γίνεται) (δην.
μυρ.) τν ̣ (oder auch τε bzw. τιε), darauf möglicherweise ein ὅπερ. Umgerechnet in Drachmen
bzw. Talente wäre demnach ein Betrag zwischen 2033 Tal. (= 305 Myr.) und knapp 2400 Tal.
(= 360 Myr.) umgebucht worden; bei 315 Myr. kämen wir auf runde 2100 Tal., bei 350+ Myr.
auf mehr als 2300 Tal. Dies war zu dieser Zeit keine ganz unbeträchtliche Summe, wie die bei
Bagnall, Currency, 61 ff. zusammengestellten Preisangaben erkennen lassen. So hätte man nach
den in etwa gleichzeitigen Preisen des Abinnaeus-Archivs für 2400 Tal. z.B. 48 Art. Weizen
(P.Abinn. 68; ca. 348–351), 80 Art. Gerste oder 150 Art. Datteln (P.Abinn. 43; ca. 348–351), vier
Kühe (P.Abinn. 60 = P.Gen. I 48; 28. 7. 346) oder zwei Sklaven bekommen können (P.Abinn. 64
= M.Chr. 270 = P.Lond. II 251 [S. 316 ff.]; 337–350?). Zu letzterem auch R. S. Bagnall, ‘Fourth-
Century Prices: New Evidence and Further Thoughts’, ZPE 76, 1989, 69–76, bes. 73 f., während
die “Appendix: Commodity Prices” in ders., The Kellis Agricultural Account Book (P.Kell. IV
Gr. 96), Oxford 1997, S. 225 ff. nur relativ wenige Vergleichswerte aus den 340er Jahren benennt.
13 Das neuerliche ἀ̣[ργ]ύριον, diesmal im Nominativ oder Akkusativ, könnte vermuten lassen, daß
hier doch noch eine nähere Angabe zum Verwendungszweck o.ä. folgte.

No. 36
37. New Epigrams
Julia Lougovaya
P.Duk. inv. 711r 7.1 x 7.8 cm Mid II BCE

Arsinoites (?)
This medium-dark papyrus now in the collection of the Duke University was extracted from mummy
cartonnage along with P.Duk. inv. 712–717, which include documents dated between 150 and 136? BCE.1
The surface of the papyrus is partly abraded and imprints of ink from other fragments are visible. The front
side preserves 8 line beginnings from one column and the end of a line from a column to the left, written
along the fibers. The back has smeared traces of a document written across the fibers and identified in the
Duke catalogue as an account from Arsinoites, presumably because of the provenance of other documents
in the same cartonnage. The fragment is broken to the left, right, and at the bottom, while the upper margin
is preserved to the height of ca. 1 cm.
In Col. II parts of two epigrams survive, composed in dactylic meter, possibly in couplets. The two
epigrams are separated by the heading ἄλλο and what was probably an additional note to the right of
it starting with ἐπ̣[ (see comm. ad loc.). In a set of poems the heading ἄλλο may naturally be expected
to imply either an epigram by the same author or on the same subject as the preceding poem.2 It has been
argued, however, that ἄλλο, at least in the pre-Roman period, was used to join epigrams whose authorship
was unknown or held insignificant.3 The only apparent exception, the so-called P. Firmin-Didot, ca. 160 BCE,
preserving among various literary excerpts two epigrams by Poseidippos (115–116 A—B), proves the
general rule. In this papyrus, the page with the epigrams, which concern the constructions of the lighthouse
on the island of Pharos and the shrine of Arsinoe Aphrodite on Cape Zephyrium, has a title assigning them
to Poseidippos, but it is a later addition. The original title seems to have been formed by centering the first
four words of the first epigram. The end of the first epigram and the beginning of the second are signaled
by a paragraphos and ἄλλο.
The usage of ἄλλο is not confined to sets of epigrams. In a few cases, it separates literary excerpts
or various genres,4 presumably by signaling the end of one passage and beginning of another. In those
cases where ἄλλο joins epigrams, not excerpts, the principle of combining the set are often uncertain
because the content of only one of the epigrams can be determined.5 Yet in two instances the epigrams
may be viewed as relating to a single subject or the same larger theme. SH 977 (P.Cair.Zen. IV
1
I wish to express my gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for supporting my research on Hellenistic
epigrams at the University of Heidelberg. In addition to standard papyrological bibliographical abbreviations, the following
are employed: SH = H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin 1983); A—B = C. Austin
and G. Bastianini (eds.), Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia (Milan 2002).
2
Cf. SH 973 n. 8–11.
3
L. Argentieri, “Epigramma e libro. Morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree,” ZPE 121 (1998) 14.
Cf. also M. Fantuzzi, “La doppia gloria di Menas (e di Filostrato),” in A. Morelli (ed.), Epigramma longum. Da Marziale
alla tarda antichità (Cassino 2008) vol. 2, esp. 614–615 and 621–622, who, on the basis of thorough investigation of two
verse inscriptions, discusses inscriptions and papyri in which either ἄλλο or the name of an author appear.
4
See, e.g., P.Tebt. I 2, dated to ca. 100 BCE, an anthology of widely different literary excerpts; P.Heid. 187, dated to
the second half of the 3rd c. BCE, seems to contain excerpts in trimeters, possibly from a tragedy and a satyr-play.
5
Examples are: SH 981 (P.Harris I 56), a 2nd c. BCE papyrus with fragments of several epigrams, the content of only one
of which—on a painting—can be gleaned; it is followed by ἄλλο (centered), and there probably was another one in fr. 2,
of which only the first letter survives. SH 973b (O.Wilck. 1148), a 2nd c. BCE ostrakon with an epigram on the fatherland of
Homer which also appears in P.Freib. 1.4; on the ostrakon, ἄλλο is written as the heading of the epigram, which presumbaly
had been copied from a collection in which this heading separated poems. SH 986 (P.Petrie inv. O[2], ed. E. Turner, JJP 4
[1950], 235–238, ph.), a 2nd c. BCE papyrus preserving ends of lines of two epigrams of which the first one, apparently an
epitaph for a dog, seems to be headed by [ἄ]λ̣λο ἐπείγραμμα, with a strange space between επει and γραμμα; the heading
of the second one is illegible but quite certainly not ἄλλο, and its content, possibly funerary, is uncertain.
188 Julia Lougovaya
59532), a 3rd c. BCE papyrus, preserves two variants of an epitaph for a dog named Tauron which are
separated by ἄλλο.6 Moreover, in P. Firmin-Didot, the two epigrams concern celebrations of different
undertakings, but the larger theme—foundation and dedication of a significant monument—is similar. It
seems possible that ἄλλο was originally employed to indicate a variant, not necessarily an artistic vari-
ation, perhaps especially important in occasional poetry such as an epitaph, where more than one variant
could have been commissioned. Eventually it was used to indicate simply “another” epigram within a set
with whatever connotation of sequence, but possibly united by some larger theme. If so, the question
arises: what could be the common subject or theme of the two epigrams in the Duke papyrus?
The remnants of the first epigram give little indication of its possible content. The word ἄθραυστος,
“unbroken,” can be used of persons metaphorically (e.g. in Polyb. 2.22.5 of Gauls who sacked the city of
Rome and remained masters of it for seven months until retreating ἄθραυστοι καὶ ἀσινεῖς, “unbroken and
unharmed,” and of things literally (e.g. ἄθραυστον σκάφος of the Argo in Lycophron’s Alexandra, v. 890,
and also of a ship in AP 9.228; of a chariot in Pindaric scholia P. 5.64 where ὅλος δίφρος is explained
as ἄθραυστος and ὑγιής). No word beyond οὕνεκα is discernible in line 2, and the last line speaks of some
“double from double,” ἐγ δισσῶν δισσοί. Perhaps δισσοί can be said of a pair of horses or a two-horse
chariot, or, together with δισσῶν, of two pairs of horses, which would be in accord with the equestrian
references in the second epigram in our papyrus. If so, possibly a driver mounting an unwrecked chariot
could be imagined in line 1.7 On the other hand, if traces in line two could be interpreted as Λ̣ή̣δ̣ας (see
ad lin.), the δισσοί may be the Dioscouroi, horse deities par excellence, and ἐγ δισσῶν might refer to their
double lineage coming from Zeus and Tyndareus, but, besides Leda being far from certain, this leaves the
“unbroken” thing in line 1 hard to account for.
No. 37 (courtesy Duke University Library)
6
Such usage of ἄλλο is also attested in inscriptional verse epitaphs, starting in the 3rd century BCE. An early example is
an epitaph for Menas from Bithynia who probably died in the battle of Kouropedion in 281 (R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber,
Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, vol. 2 [Munich 2001] 09/05/16; it is also possible that the battle in question
is that of 190 BCE near Magnesia ad Sipylum), which is discussed in detail in the article by Fantuzzi cited in n. 3.
7
One would expect the preposition ἐπί rather than ὑπό in this case, but while upsilon is not entirely certain, epsilon is
unlikely to fit the traces on the papyrus.
37. New Epigrams 189
The second epigram speaks of horses and reins, and golden reins and other horse gear are
normally associated with gods.8 In Homer, Artemis (Il. 6.205) and Ares (Od. 8.285) are described as
χρυσήνιος, while Aphrodite asks Ares for his χρυσάμπυκες horses (Il. 5.358) so that she can retire to
Olympos after she is hurt in battle by Diomedes, and she is χρυσάνιος in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus,
v. 693. Poseidon has a golden whip for his golden-haired horses (Il. 13.24–26). In Ovid’s Metamorphoses
Phaethon drives a golden chariot, 2.107, and in an interesting epigram that also deals with Phaethon
and his chariot, P.Tebt. I 3.1–12 (SH 988), which is dated to the 1st c. BCE, we find the description of
a representation of the death of Phaethon, either a sculpture or painting. If the horses with golden reins
in our papyrus imply a deity, the epigram may also have been on a representation of that deity. It is not
impossible that this would have been the theme of the first epigram, too.
→
col. i col. ii
οὗτος ὑ̣π̣’ ἀθραυστο̣[
οὕνεκα θω ̣ ̣ δ̣ασ ̣ ̣[
ἐ̣γ δισσῶν δισσοὶ ̣ ̣ ̣[
4 ἄλλο ἐπ̣[
ἡνία σοι χρύσεια̣ ̣ ̣[
ἵπποι λαιψηρο̣[ὶ
αὐτο[
--- 8 ἡ̣σ̣υ[̣ χ?
1 ]κ̣ε̣ν ------------
---
col. ii
1 οὗτος ὑ̣π̣’: whereas the first four letters seem fairly certain, the following three are less so. Sigma
might be an epsilon, and what I transcribe as an upsilon is far from secure. The vertical stroke
is inclined to the right slightly more than that of any other uspilon’s in the papyrus, and yet it is
conceivable that the letter looked similar to the upsilon in ἀθραυστο̣[
2 The beginning of the line may well be οὕνεκ’ with the alpha belonging to the next word, which
remains obscure. Theta and omega are beyond doubt, but I failed to decipher the two letters that
follow; lambda and eta seem possible. After those, delta, alpha and sigma are almost certain,
which would make Λ̣ή̣δ̣ας a good possibility had it not left the preceding θω unexplained. The
last two letters could be tau and omicron.
3 ε̣ἰ̣ is also a possibility if what appears to be the horizontal stroke of the second letter is actually
an imprint of ink from another papyrus. Dieter Hagedorn tentatively suggests τ̣α̣ξ̣ at the end of
the line.
4 ἄλλο ἐπ̣[ The heading ἄλλο ἐπ[ίγραμμα seems unlikely because it would be positioned too far to
the right and not centered, as headings generally are (unless written in ekthesis). More importantly,
the space after ἄλλο suggests that the word starting with ἐπ̣- was not meant to be taken imme-
diately together with ἄλλο and may even be added later. It is even possible that ἐπ̣[ was written
by a different hand than the rest, or, if by the same hand, with a different reed that left thicker
8
Notably, there is no mention of golden reins (or of anything of gold, for that matter) in the Hippika section of P.Mil.Vogl.
VIII 309 or in Ebert’s collection of epigrams associated with equestrian victories (J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf
Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen [Berlin 1972]).
190 Julia Lougovaya
strokes. For ἐπί in headings of epigrams, cf. SH 985 (= P.Petrie II 49b), 3rd c. BCE, a collection
of epigrams concerned with tragedies with each probably preceded by a title in the form of
ἐπί + gen. of the play + gen. of the author. A later example is furnished by P.Oxy LXVI 4502,
a 1st c. papyrus preserving five epigrams, likely all by the same author, Nicarchus II, of which
the second is entitled ἐπὶ γέροντος παρθένο̣[ν ἀγομένου?], and the fifth ἐπὶ μοιχοῦ. In a yet
unpublished 4th c. CE papyrus from Yale (P.CtYBR inv. 4000) epigrams seem to have several
types of headers: ἄλλο alone; ἄλλο εἰς + accusative; and εἰς + accusative.9
It should be noted, however, that the only heading known so far in the form of ἄλλο
ἐπείγραμμα (l. ἐπίγραμμα) occurs in a papyrus dated, like the Duke piece, to the 2nd c. BCE
and also from the Arsinoite (Hawara, SH 986, see above n. 5). Since in that papyrus it stands
at the top of a new column containing remnants of two epigrams, it is conceivable that the
heading might have introduced a change in genre from the preceding column.10
8 Although little survives, the three letters seem compatible with the traces.
9
For the image and catalogue record of the papyrus, see http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/papyrus/oneSET.asp?pid=4000%20qua.
10
So A. Cameron, The Greek Anthology (Oxford 1993) 8.
38. Copy of a Census Declaration from Oxyrhynchus*
AnneMarie Luijendijk
Bell IX 19a 10.1 x 7.9 cm 174 (?)

Oxyrhynchus
This papyrus preserves the lower left section of a copy of a census declaration from Oxyrhynchus, listing six
women from a large household of ten women and an unknown number of men, concluded by a shortened
imperial oath formula.
Description
The left margin of the document is preserved. There are no traces of writing in the left margin and the back
is empty; therefore, the text was written on a separate sheet and did not belong to a roll. On the top and
right, text is missing, but it remains unclear how much exactly. Of the ten women the scribe counted as
total in line 7, only six are listed in the text, so in the now-lost part, the document must have listed four
more women and probably also several men. Moreover, if, as is to be expected, the imperial oath in lines
8 and 9 contained the (now-lacking) name of the emperor, the papyrus must also have been wider.
Written along the fibers of a caramel-colored papyrus, the text consists of nine lines penned in
a tiny, practiced hand with few ligatures. The letters lean slightly to the right. nu has a flat top; rho is very
small (esp. in ll. 2, 5), or written in the shape of a mirrored Latin s; and tau at the beginning of the line
has a foot (ll. 2, 4, 5). The scribe organized the text so that each line begins with a new entry. The word
θυγάτηρ is written both in full and abbreviated (ll. 1, 6 versus 4).
Paleographically, the hand belongs in the middle or second half of the second century.
Comparanda are P.Col. X 262 (census declaration, Oxyrhynchus, 160 CE); P.Fouad I 36 (fragment of a
power of attorney, Oxyrhynchus, 167 CE); SB XXII 15353 (=P.Oxy. I 171, census declaration, Oxyrhynchus,
146–147 CE); and Stud.Pal. XXII 45 (Heracleia, Arsinoites, 166 CE). Internal evidence confirms this
dating (see below).
Robert Garrett acquired this papyrus in 1924 and donated it to Princeton University in 1942.1
While the archaeological provenance for this piece is unknown, the text contains multiple clues that lead
to Oxyrhynchus, as we shall see next.
Ladies Last
This papyrus caught my attention because it features so many women. Since women often remain below
the radar in documentary texts, the sheer number of them here is striking. As it turned out, this fact provides
the text’s function and provenance. It is a distinctive feature of the Oxyrhynchite census declarations that
they list men together first and women last, instead of by family.2 So here we have the bottom part of
a census declaration from Oxyrhynchus, preserving the section with the women. Although only adult men
from 14 to 62 years had to pay the poll tax, women and children (and older men) still had to be registered.3
*
I offer this with gratitude and admiration to Roger Bagnall, whose work has contributed so much to our understanding
of women’s lives in Egypt and of the demography of Egypt. I thank Rodney Ast, Hélène Cuvigny, and the members of
the New York Papyrological Seminar for their help with this papyrus, and Don Skemer, Curator of Manuscripts, Princeton
University, for permission to publish it. Publication of the photo was granted by Princeton University Collections of Papyri.
Manuscripts Division. Department of Rare Books and Special Collection. Princeton University Library.
1
See Don Skemer, “A Descriptive Inventory of Princeton University Collections of Papyri,” at
http://library.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/papyri/papyri.
2
See R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy, and
Society in Past Time 23) (Cambridge 1994) 24.
3
Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 12.
192 AnneMarie Luijendijk
Compared to fully preserved census returns, this fragmentary document lacks the name of the
declarant, the section with males, the ages of the persons, signatures, and the date formula. Nevertheless,
it grants us a glimpse of what was without doubt a busy and lively household, numbering ten women and
presumably some men. Any fathers, husbands, sons, and other males would have been listed together in
the top section that is now lost.
The women listed here were free persons, not slaves, for slaves are recorded not by their father’s
but by their owner’s name. The phrase θυγάτηρ ἀμφοτέρων (l. 6, and reconstructed in 1 and 4) suggests
that the woman mentioned in the previous line was married and that the name of her husband was in the
lost part of the line (cp. P.Oxy. LXXIII 4957.22). This then gives the following conjugal families:
(woman) x (husband)
daughter ...mis
Thermis x (husband)
daughter Taaphynchis
Taarpaesis x (husband)
daughter Thaesis.
The woman whose name is partly lost in line 1 (another Thermis?) was the daughter of a couple
whose names must have broken off, if ἀμ[φοτέρων] is indeed the correct reconstruction of the line.
We thus encounter a family of at least three couples living together with children. In Roman Egypt,
as in many other past and present societies, such extended households of multiple co-habiting families
were quite common.4 These were either multi-generational families of married children living with their
parents, or several married brothers living together, a so-called frérèche.5 It is unclear whether lodgers
formed part of this household. According to the calculations of Roger Bagnall and Bruce Frier, such
households with multiple families made up 15.3% of the metropolitan households in Egypt, 25.3% in
the villages.6
The average household in Roman Egypt consisted of 4.3 persons, while the average size of a
multiple family household is 10.36 in the metropoleis, 9.38 in the villages.7 If the three husbands we
assumed above were all alive at the time of the census, then the household in our papyrus had at least
thirteen persons, and was therefore larger than average. One text, PSI I 53 (132 CE), introduces a 14-person
strong household from Oxyrhynchus with equal numbers of males and females, the largest Oxyrhynchite
household so far.
Personal Names
This papyrus adds to the prosopography of Roman Egypt five women and two men that were previously
unknown. All names in the papyrus are Egyptian. Several of the women have uncommon names (Tachonsis
and Thermis). With one exception, the name Taaphynchis only occurs in texts from Oxyrhynchus, thus
confirming the Oxyrhynchite provenance.
4
Such living circumstances are also on the rise in the United States, as Elsa Brenner reports: “In 2008, a record 49 million
Americans—about 16 percent of the total population—lived in households with two or more adult generations, up 2.6 million
from 2007, according to the study. As of 2009, the study found that some 6.6 million households had at least three generations,
an increase of 30 percent since 2000.” (“The Nest is Empty no More,” New York Times, October 15, 2010).
5
See Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 59.
6
Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 67.
7
Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 67–68.
38. Copy of a Census Declaration from Oxyrhynchus 193
Tachonsis, Styled after Her Mother

The participle χρηματίζ[ουσα in line 2 indicates that Tachonsis was legally “fatherless,” that is, for legal
purposes, she could only give her mother’s name (editors used to translate this as “bastard” daughter). This
term further anchors the papyrus geographically and chronologically, for as Myrto Malouta has shown,
this is an Oxyrhynchite expression for a second- and third- century Roman bureaucratic practice.8 In the
papyrological record, one stumbles upon many more men designated by only their mother’s name than
women, due to the fact that men figure disproportionately more often in official documents than women
and children.9
Tachonsis was no outcast, though, nor was her mother necessarily a single parent. Rather, as
Malouta explains, this designation “is a legal formality that figures in the documents from Egypt in the
Roman period, a compulsory self-designation for any free individual who could not establish legitimate
paternity and was thus forbidden from using the name of his or her father (a patronymic) for the purposes
of legal self-identification.”10 It carried no social stigma.
The Oath
The oath formula in lines 8–9, despite its fragmentary preservation, divulges important information. Since
it occupied two lines, it is highly unlikely that this document featured the lengthy formula attested in many
census declarations (e.g. P.Oxy. II 255, P.Oxy. XLVII 3336, P.Oxy. LXXIV 4980–4981, PSI I 53).
Moreover, as the accusative Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα makes clear, this oath was sworn by the emperor’s
name, not by his τύχη. This situates the papyrus in the first and second centuries and ties the text again
to Oxyrhynchus.11
SB XVI 13083, an announcement of death from Oxyrhynchus, dated 23 January 174, contains an
oath that matches verbatim the formulation as far as it is preserved on our papyrus (= P.Oxy. I 173 descr.,
C.Pap.Gr. II 54).12 It reads (lines 14–20): καὶ ὀμνύω Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον
Ἀντωνῖνον Σεβαστὸν Ἀρμενιακὸν Μηδικὸν Παρθικὸν Γερμανικὸν Μέγιστον μὴ ἐψεῦσθαι ἢ ἔνοχος εἴην
τῷ ὅρκῳ. Our text would not have space for all the epithets of the emperor listed in this papyrus and
must have read a shorter oath. For Marcus Aurelius, the shorter τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἀντωνίου
Καίσαρος τύχην is attested, but this swears by the τύχη and the shorter formulae with “our lord” occur
normally when followed by a date formula giving full titulature.13 If, however, this were indeed a match,
then our papyrus is the second Oxyrhynchite census declaration for the 173 census under Marcus Aurelius,
next to P.Oxy. LXXIV 4989 (25 February–26 March 175).
The paragraphos following the text, together with the empty space underneath, indicate that this
piece was a copy or extract and therefore lacks the dating formula and hypographe (see, for example,
P.Col. VII 125, Karanis, after 307 CE).
8
M. Malouta, “The Terminology of Fatherlessness in Roman Egypt: ἀπάτωρ and χρηματίζων μητρός,” in J. Frösén,
T. Purola, and E Salmenkivi (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August,
2004 (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 122) (Helsinki 2007) vol. 2, 615–624, esp. 616–619, and M. Malouta,
“Fatherless and Formal Identification in Roman Egypt,” in S. Hübner and D. Ratzan (eds.), Growing up Fatherless in
Antiquity (Cambridge 2009) 120–138 at 132.
9
Malouta, “Fatherless and Formal Identification,” 124.
10
Malouta, “Fatherless and Formal Identification,” 120.
11
See Z. Packman, “Notes on Papyrus Texts with the Roman Imperial Oath,” ZPE 89 (1991) 100.
12
See also P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Some Remarks on Death Certificates,” ZPE 57 (1984) 121–122.
13
See E. Seidl, Der Eid im römisch-ägyptischen Provinzialrecht (Münch.Beitr. XVII) (München 1933) vol. 1, 13.
194 AnneMarie Luijendijk
→ ---------------
[ ̣] ̣ ̣μ̣ι̣ς̣ θυγάτηρ ἀμ̣[φοτέρων
Ταχῶνσις χρηματίζ[ουσα μητ(ρὸς)
Θέρμις Ἀφύγχιος μητ(ρὸς) [
4 Τααφύγχις θυγ(άτηρ) ἀμ[φοτέρων
Τααρπαῆσις Ὀννώφριος μητ(ρὸς) Θαή[σεως
Θαῆσις θυγάτηρ ἀμφο̣τέρων vacat
(γίνoνται) γ(υναῖκες) ι [
8 κ̣αὶ ὀμνύω Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα [
μὴ ἐψεῦσθαι ἢ ἔνοχος εἴην τῷ̣ [ὅρκῳ
paragraphos
vacat
7 γ̅
…mis, daughter of [both?…

Tachonsis, officially described by the name of her mother …
Thermis, daughter of Aphynchis, her mother being …
Taaphynchis, daughter of [both?…
Taarpaesis, daughter of Onnophris, her mother being Thae[sis
Thaesis, daughter of both.
total women 10
And I swear by Imperator Caesar …
that I have not lied or may I be liable to [(the penalties of) the oath.
1 μ̣ι̣ς̣: given that certain names run in families, is this perhaps another woman named Θέρμις
(see l. 3)?
2 Tachonsis: uncommon name, that occurs in six other texts (O.Bodl. II 1893, P.Flor. I 2, P.Oxy.
XL 3172, P.Oxy. LIV 3758, P. Ryl. II 220 and SB VIII 9905).
3 Thermis: uncommon name, attested in only five other texts (P.Aust.Herr. 7, P.Berl.Leihg. I 4 and
6, P.Oxy. LXIV 4440 and P.Ryl. II 124).
4 Taaphynchis: an Oxyrhynchite name; out of 17 occurrences for this name, including this text,
16 derive from Oxyrhynchus.
6 Thaesis: this Thaesis may have been named after her grandmother, listed in the line above. No age
is recorded for Thaesis, although there is space in the line.
7 The line gives the total count of females in the household. For parallels, see P.Oxy. XLVII 3336.21
(γίνεται) ἀνὴ(ρ) α; P.Oxy. II 255.12 (γίνονται) γ(υναῖκες) β;̣ PSI I 53.i.17 (Oxyrhynchus, 132–
133 CE) (γίνoνται) γ(υναῖκες) ζ.
8 kappa at the beginning of the line is smudged. The scribe made a mistake in writing ὀμνύω,
correcting it by writing upsilon over omega.
Princeton University
38. Copy of a Census Declaration from Oxyrhynchus 195
No. 38
(Princeton University Library)
39. Coptic Letter∗
Leslie S. B. MacCoull
P.Freer 08.45g1 12.3 x 14.7 cm VII (?)

Middle Egypt (?)
This papyrus formed part of the lot bought by Charles L. Freer in Cairo in 1908 (T. Lawton and L. Merrill,
Freer: A Legacy of Art [Washington, DC 1993] 66, 74–75, 255, 258) and still kept at the Sackler Library,
Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.1 A preliminary edition appeared in
L. S. B. MacCoull, “Greek and Coptic Papyri in the Freer Gallery of Art” (Ph.D. diss. Catholic University
of America 1973) 90–92 (in limited circulation). It is a pleasure to offer a re-edited version to our honorand,
(proprietor of the Trattoria Bagnalli and the Grande Albergo Bagnalli), who in the over four and a half
decades of work since we first knew each other in New Haven has ranged from Ptolemaic administrators
to Coptic letter-writers.
The main letter text is written along the fibres (→); there are cracks where the papyrus was rolled
up, one of which has widened in part into a fair-size hole causing loss of letters in lines 5 and 6 and
another of which has damaged line 9. The ↓ side bears in the same hand a two-line address in which there
is a space left in the middle of the addressee’s name (ⲛⲁ ϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ), presumably for string fastening and/or a
seal. At the bottom of the → side can be seen traces of perhaps two lines of previous text, now washed off,
and on the rest of the ↓ side can be seen traces of some seven or eight lines of a previous text, now mostly
washed off:2 thus our letter was written using a piece of re-used papyrus, utilizing the greater blank space
on the → side for the main letter text and the blank top of the ↓ side for the short address.
The matter under discussion is a half-portion (ⲡⲁϣⲉ) of some produce of farmland, a commodity
in which both the letter-writer and a certain Zacharias have an interest. Were some or all of the parties
to this letter—the writer, the recipient, and Zacharias—monks? Judging from the nouns ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲥⲟⲛ
(‘brotherhood’ as a term of address) and ⲥⲟⲛ (‘brother’), as well as the religious title ⲁⲡⲁ, they might
have been monastics, but the title itself might not necessarily have been a religious one (cf. below on ↓ 1).
The letter’s recipient is addressed as ‘your honored brotherhood’ which, along with the simple imperatives
and the lack of more explicit honorific formulae, seems to imply more equal status than if he had been
the monastic superior of the writer. While the context of monastic landholding and economic activities
involving estate management including interactions between monks and laypersons, has happily come to
the forefront of research in recent years (cf. P.Clackson) we cannot be completely sure if “Apa” Nahroou
and the “brotherly” persons were monastic or lay. There seems to be some urgency to the interest in the
half-portion of crops mentioned repeatedly by the letter-writer. There is Coptic-language documentation
from late antiquity of how such quantities of produce could become objects of legal quarrels that went so
far as to require arbitration (J.-L. Fournet, “Sur les premiers documents juridiques coptes,” in A. Boud’hors
and C. Louis (eds.), Etudes coptes IX [Paris 2010] 125–137, at 130–132 [P.Berol. inv. 11349 dated
to 534/535 or 549/550]). If there was a relationship among the size of the parcel of tilled land, its amount
of crop yield, and the tax sum that the government would require from the responsible party or parties
(cf. L. S. B. MacCoull, “Why and How was the Aphrodito Cadaster Made?” GRBS 50 [2010] 625–638),
such urgency might be more easily understood. As to why the letter is in Coptic and not Greek, it seems
to belong to the private sphere that had long been the locus of Coptic-language writing within a society
∗
For the Boss of All Bosses, the Frogfather.
1
Photos courtesy of Craig S. Korr, to whom go my thanks over the forty-one years that have passed since the ‘museum
archaeology’ opening of the Freer’s cardboard box that contained the papyri (including the Aphrodito cadaster and
the ‘budgetary table’ of Antaiopolis).
2
On the ↓ side the present writer can discern little beyond ⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ (?). Help from sharper eyes is welcome.
198 Leslie S. B. MacCoull
that more often employed Greek for public documents (J.-L. Fournet, “The Multilingual Environment
of Late Antique Egypt,” in R. S. Bagnall (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, [Oxford 2009] 418–451,
at 434–437).
For the hand, with its markedly three-stroke epsilon, comparable are P.Mon.Epiph. 81, 162, and
198 (Plates XI, VI, III respectively).
→ † ϩⲁⲑⲏ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲙⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲧⲓϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲕ-

ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲥⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓ̈ⲏⲩ ϩⲙ̅ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓ̈ⲥ ⲭⲉⲣⲉ
ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲙⲫⲱⲃ ⲛⲧⲥⲉⲧⲓⲱϩⲉ ⲙ̅ⲡⲕⲟⲩⲓ
4 ⲛⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲧⲁⲕϫⲟⲥ ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁϣⲉ̣ ⲛⲁⲓ̈
ⲉⲣⲏⲥ ⲡⲣⲟⲥ ⲧ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ⲡⲁϩⲓⲁⲙ̅ⲱ ⲁⲓ̈-
ⲣⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲙ[ⲙ]ⲁⲓ̈ ⲙ̅ⲡⲣϭⲱ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲁⲧ̣ϫⲟ-
ⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲙⲟⲛ ⲉⲓ̈ⲥ ϩⲏⲧ ⲧⲓⲛⲏⲩ
8 ⲉϩⲏⲧ ⲛϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲕϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁ-
ϣⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲛ ⲍⲁⲭⲁⲣⲓⲁⲥ ϣ̣ⲁ̣ⲓ̣ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ ⲉ̣ϩ̣ⲏ̣ⲧ̣ ⲁⲓ ̣ ̣
ϭⲛⲧⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥϩⲁⲓ ⲧϣⲉϣⲛⲏ ⲛⲧⲉ-
ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ Ϯ ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϩⲙ̅ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ †
↓ 1 ⳩ ⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲛⲁϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲓⲧⲙ [ⲡⲉϥ-

ⲥⲟⲛ
†Before the discourse I greet your honored brotherhood in the Lord: Greetings. As concerns the matter of
the produce of the measure of cultivated land of the little dwelling-place of which you spoke, send its half
to me southwards, in accordance with (or: for) … … [that X will agree?] with me. Do not stay, indeed,
without sending its half to me. Look, I am going to go northwards, so if you did not send its half to me
with Zacharias, I go north … all the (x); and write the (reply?) of this letter to me. † Farewell in the Lord.
†-- ☧ Give it to Apa Nahroou from his brother [N.].
→
1–2 On ϣⲓⲛⲉ greeting formulae in letters see A. Biedenkopf-Ziehner, Untersuchungen zum kopti-
schen Briefformular (Würzburg 1983) 88–91, 239–242; M. Choat, “Early Coptic Epistolography,”
in A. Papaconstantinou (ed.), The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the
Abbasids (Farnham 2010) 153–178, esp. at 158–161, 168–175. The writer here writes the first-
person-singular subject pronoun (personal prefix; cf. B. Layton, A Coptic Grammar [Wiesbaden
2000] 65 [§78], 244 [§318]) not with the Coptic graph ϯ (ti) but with the two Greek letters ⲧⲓ.
Might this feature possibly give a clue to geographical origin, or is it simply an orthographic
variant without significance? Malcolm Choat and Jennifer Cromwell at Macquarie University
(e-correspondence) have mooted the opinion that this feature might possibly indicate the Middle
Egypt area south of Oxyrhynchus and north of Thebes, although both forms are found at Jeme
in the eighth century. According to P.Bal., p. 148–149, however, the ϯ / ⲧⲓ alternation is not
necessarily linked with place. Another factor in the variation ϯ / ⲧⲓ may have been scribal training,
since epistolary greeting formulae were things that were learned early on by a scribe and became
automatic in his daily practice.
2 For ⲭⲉⲣⲉ (= χαῖρε) and its forms as a frequent loanword see Förster WB 862–863, esp. at 863;
on the form with -ⲉ- see also S. Clackson, “Coptic or Greek? Bilingualism in the Papyri,”
in A. Papaconstantinou (ed.), The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to
39. Coptic Letter 199
the Abbasids (Farnham 2010) 73–104, esp. at 80; and S. Torallas Tovar, “Greek in Egypt,” in
E. J. Bakker, A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (Oxford 2010) 253–266, esp. at 261.
3 For ⲧⲥⲉⲧⲓⲱϩⲉ and how it can mean the crop yield of a portion of worked land, as well as the piece
of land itself (‘field’), cf. Crum, Dict. 89b.
4 ⲟⲩⲟϩ I take to be from ‘dwelling’ (Crum, Dict. 508a). However, if it could be a form of ⲟⲩⲁϩⲉ
‘oasis’ (508b), preceded as it is by ⲕⲟⲩⲓ, then if we were to read the ‘Small Oasis’, linked to
the Oxyrhynchite as it was (R. S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity [Princeton 1993] 146; idem
and D. Rathbone, Egypt from Alexander to the Copts [London 2004] 267–271), that might be
another possible geographical marker or clue.—Having the object of ϫⲟⲟⲩ ‘send’ be a ‘half’
of a place is of course metaphorical: the writer must intend that he be sent half of the produce
or product of the field workplace.
4, 6–7, 8–9 The writer repeats his directive to “send its (the crop’s) half to me.” What sort of arrangement
might have given rise to such a concern? Compare P.Cair.Masp. II 67134 (Aphrodito, 547–548),
an entagion documenting the fact that two parties have divided a harvest by halves. From a later
period comes also O.CrumST 37 = O.Vind.Copt. 42 (Trismegistos 84497, calling it a ‘contrat
de location d’un champ’; Thebes/Hermonthis, VII–VIII), an ⲉⲡⲓⲧⲣⲟⲡⲏ (l. 15; cf. ll. 4–5) (Förster,
WB 290; 289–290 for the verb) authorizing the addressee to sow two portions of clay land in the
fifteenth indiction with expectation of the harvest (ⲕⲁⲡⲣ(ⲟⲥ)) of the first indiction (l. 9). As for
that (D.V.) harvest, the writer instructs the addressee that “half [will be] for me, the other half for
you as well for your trouble” (ll. 13–14).
5 Is Pahiamō a place-name? If one were to read a tau instead of an iota, Timm, 4:1811, lists a
Paht[…] (attested once) but the location is uncertain.
6 The verb ϭⲱ (Crum, Dict. 803–804) can mean (confusingly) either ‘persist’ or ‘desist’; so the
notion is either “don’t just stand there, send it” or “don’t leave off making an effort to send it.”
7 ϩⲏⲧ is found in documentary texts for ϩⲏ(ⲏ)ⲧⲉ in the more normal (literary) ⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ‘Look!’
8 If the kappa is not a second-person part of the verb, it could be simply an imperative, ϫⲟⲟⲩ ‘send
its half’.
9 The crack runs right through the second part of this line, making readings difficult. ϣⲁⲓⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲏⲧ …,
“I go north” (in the aorist), has been suggested.
9–10 I am at a loss to restore the feminine noun that ⲧⲏⲣⲥ agrees with. A suggestion is ϭⲛⲧⲥ, to give
“(when you/he will have) found all of it.”
10 The noun following the imperative ⲥϩⲁⲓ is problematic. One expects something like ‘the reply,
the response, answer [to this letter]’. But a noun from ϣⲱϣ ‘to make equal’ (Crum, Dict. 606a),
so “write me the equivalent [or ‘counterpart’] of this letter”, would be masculine (607a), not
feminine as here (the ⲧ- is clear).
↓1 For the title ⲁⲡⲁ see T. Derda and E. Wipszycka, “L’emploi des titres Abba, Apa et Papas dans
l’Egypte byzantine,” JJP 24 (1994) 23–56, esp. 42–44. For the personal name ⲛⲁϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ (Heuser,
15, 54) in all its forms (corresponding to the Greek Νααραῦ[ς] and variants, as per NB 223–225
and Onomasticon, 202) see M. Hasitzka, “Namen in koptischen dokumentarischen Texten,”
http://www.onb.ac.at/files/kopt_namen.pdf, s.vv. from ⲛⲁⲣⲁⲟ to ⲛⲁϩⲣⲟ(ⲟ)ⲩ, with a geographical
range of attestations from Saqqara to Bawit. For the saint whose name our addressee bore see
E. Lucchesi, “Un feuillet inédit du martyre d’Apa Nahroou,” Analecta Bollandiana 124 (2006)
253–258.
Society for Coptic Archaeology (North America)

200 Leslie S. B. MacCoull
No. 39, recto
No. 39, verso

40. Invocation
Alain Martin
P.Brux. inv. E. 8159 11,7 x 10 cm 2e moitié du VIIe s. ou

Fayoum début du VIIIe s.
Le modeste papyrus dont j’ai le plaisir d’offrir l’édition à Roger Bagnall appartient aux Musées Royaux
d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles. Il a été inscrit à l’inventaire de la collection en 1966, au sein d’une
série (inv. E. 8070-8189) comprenant, selon toute vraisemblance, des reliquats du don Demulling et
du lot Schmidt, tous deux entrés aux Musées plusieurs décennies auparavant (en 1927–1928 et 1936
respectivement) 1. L’analyse du texte plaidera en faveur d’une provenance fayoumique ; on considérera
donc avec une attention particulière l’hypothèse d’une appartenance au lot Schmidt, puisque celui-ci
comportait majoritairement des pièces en provenance du nome Arsinoïte 2.
La marge est conservée en haut et à gauche. L’écriture est perpendiculaire aux fibres. Le verso
est vierge.
↓ 1 ⳨ Ἐν ὀνόματι̣ τ̣[
2 τῆς δεσποίν[ης
3 τῶν ἁγίων [ ̣] ̣[
---------
On reconnaît l’une des formules chré-

tiennes d’invocation placées en tête de divers
types de documents, dont Roger Bagnall, en
collaboration avec Klaas Worp, a dressé un
tableau détaillé, il y a 30 ans 3. La formule
que porte notre papyrus inclut la Vierge, τῆς
δεσποίν[ης], et tous les saints, [πάντων] | τῶν
ἁγίων. Cette combinaison limite le choix à six
formules dans la classification de Bagnall—
Worp : 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C et 4D. Les formu-
les 3C, 4A, 4C et 4D peuvent être écartées
d’emblée, car elles conduiraient à des restitu-
tions déséquilibrées : si on les reportait dans
notre papyrus, la ligne 2 serait beaucoup plus
courte que la ligne 1.
No. 40
1
Sur le don Demulling, le lot Schmidt et la série inventoriée aux Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire en 1966, cf. A. Martin,
« Les collections de papyrus conservées en Belgique », Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze,
23–29 agosto 1998, II (Firenze 2001) 887–905, part. 893–895 ; 897.
2
Cf. Martin, « Les collections de papyrus », 895. — Les papyrus appartenant assurément au don Demulling et déjà publiés
proviennent majoritairement du monastère d’apa Apollô de Baouît (cf. P.Brux.Bawit ; sur le don Demulling, cf. part.
pp. 13–26), subsidiairement du nome oxyrhynchite (cf. P.Bingen 63–65) ; à l’heure actuelle, aucun d’entre eux ne peut être
attribué au Fayoum.
3
R.S. Bagnall—K.A. Worp, « Christian Invocations in the Papyri », CdÉ 56 (1981) 112–133 ; 362–365. Les auteurs ont
mis à jour leur contribution dans Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt 2 (Leiden 2004), 99–109 ; 290–299. Les notes
qui suivent renvoient exclusivement à la version mise à jour.
202 Alain Martin
Le choix se réduit donc aux formules 3B (Trinité, Marie et tous les saints) et 4B (Jésus, Marie
et tous les saints). Dans les exemples répertoriés pour 3B 4, la formule de datation qui suit l’invocation
commence invariablement par le génitif βασιλείας. Il ne semble pas que le trait oblique qui s’observe après
τῶν ἁγίων, sous la ligne, soit compatible avec l’initiale de ce substantif. En revanche, ce trait convient bien
à l’amorce du mot qui se présente immédiatement après πάντων τῶν ἁγίων dans la plupart des exemples
de la formule 4B 5, soit le génitif ἔτους, introduisant une datation par l’ère de Dioclétien : le trait oblique
appartiendrait à la partie inférieure de la lettre τ, selon le tracé que l’on observe notamment dans l’article
τῶν, en tête de la même ligne.
En conséquence, je restitue la formule 4B dans le papyrus, ce qui suppose une perte à droite
d’une cinquantaine de caractères. Compte tenu du module des lettres, on peut estimer à 25 cm l’ampleur
de la lacune ; la largeur totale du coupon s’élevait donc à une trentaine de cm (environ 25 + 10 = 35 cm).
Le format du papyrus, combiné avec l’observation selon laquelle l’écriture est perpendiculaire aux fibres,
indique que nous sommes en présence d’un document copié transversa charta, comme on en trouve tant
à l’époque tardive 6.
1 ⳨ Ἐν ὀνόματι̣ τ̣[οῦ κυρίου καὶ δεσπότου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ]
2 τῆς δεσποίν[ης ἡμῶν τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας καὶ πάντων]
3 τῶν ἁγίων, [ἔ]τ̣[ους Διοκλητιανοῦ … (mois) (jour) (indiction) … ]
---------------------------------------------------------
(Staurogramme) Au nom du Seigneur et Maître Jésus-Christ, Dieu et notre Sauveur, et de Notre-Dame,

la sainte Mère de Dieu et toujours Vierge Marie et de tous les saints, l’an … de Dioclétien, (mois) (jour)
(indiction) …
L’identification de la formule 4B permet non seulement de situer le papyrus dans la 2e moitié

du VII siècle ou dans les premières années du VIIIe siècle 7, mais encore de lui assigner une origine
e
fayoumique. Bagnall—Worp ont déjà relevé que les documents qui recourent à l’une des formules incluant
la Vierge et pour lesquels une localisation est possible proviennent tous de Moyenne-Égypte, particulière-
ment du nome Arsinoïte 8. Rien n’indique toutefois que la dévotion mariale ait connu un succès particulier
dans cette région 9.
Université Libre de Bruxelles
4
Bagnall—Worp, Chronological Systems 2, 291.
5
Bagnall—Worp, Chronological Systems 2, 293. Dans la liste des attestations, corriger P.Grenf. I 110 en P.Grenf. II 100.
6
Sur les rotuli utilisés transversa charta à l’époque byzantine, cf. E. G. Turner, « The Terms Recto and Verso. The Anatomy
of the Papyrus Roll », Actes du XVe Congrès international de Papyrologie, I (Bruxelles 1978) 47–49. L’auteur note que
ce type de support (ré)apparaît avec une grande fréquence (« massively ») au VIe siècle p.C. et qu’il caractérise alors
différentes classes de documents (« wills, leases, contracts, sales etc. »).
7
La datation se fonde sur la fourchette chronologique dans laquelle s’inscrivent les attestations de la formule 4B (soit entre
653 et 702 p.C.). Le document le plus récent au sein de cette série, CPR X 136, fournit un parallèle formel à notre texte : les
similarités concernent le format (35 cm environ de largeur, compte tenu de la lacune à gauche), la mise en page (transversa
charta) et l’écriture (cf. CPR X, pl. 59). Il s’agit d’un acte de cautionnement (ἐγγύη), établi à Arsinoé, le 14 août 702 p.C.
8
Bagnall—Worp, Chronological Systems 2, 109.
9
Cf. A. Papaconstantinou, « Les sanctuaires de la Vierge dans l’Égypte byzantine et omeyyade. L’apport des textes docu-
mentaires », JJP 30 (2000) 81–94. Signalons, parmi les documents publiés après la rédaction de cette étude : A. Delattre,
« Un reçu de loyer d’époque tardive (P.Cair. inv. 10401) », CdÉ 75 (2000) 107–110, où il est question d’une église de
la Sainte-Mère de Dieu [Arsinoé, milieu du VIIe siècle p.C. ; cf. SB XXVI.16623] ; G. Nachtergael, « Dédicace d’un
monument à la Vierge Marie », Ricerche di Egittologia e di Antichità Copte 8 (2006) 11–14 [Ptolémaïs Hormou, VIe–VIIe
siècles ; cf. SEG LVI.1985].
41. Grammatical Text: A Treatise on the Declension of Nouns
Kathleen McNamee
P.Mich. inv. 4199a recto 7.5 x 5.5 cm II

Provenance unknown
The papyrus is a medium-brown, small, squarish fragment.1 Inventory records indicate only that it was
acquired by Professor Boak and Dr Askren from Mahammad Abdullah. Line 1 may be the first line of
a column, although on the fringe of fibers that extends for about 3 cm above it there are a couple of flecks
of ink that possibly represent two or three additional lines. Except at lines 3–4 and at the bottom, about
5 mm of the left intercolumn is preserved. That on the right is lost, and it is impossible to determine the
original length of the lines. The scribe does not appear to have made any significant blunders. Iotacism
is present (ἰϲ, γείνεται) but not universal (κειμένουϲ, διαιρε̣ῖ̣τα̣ι̣, διαχωρ̣ε̣ῖ̣). Punctuation and diacritics
are absent, with the exception of one trema in line 7. Writing is along the fibers and is round, informal,
confident, and clear. Serifs (often just quickly written loops or blobs) are abundant. Ligatures are infre-
quent and are found most commonly linking the top of τ to letters that follow. The top curve of epsilon
is usually above the line of writing, the bottom loop of β below; γ, ρ, and χ are written small; η has the
form of h. The script resembles other informal round scripts of second-century manuscripts, e.g., P.Oxy.
XXVI 2441 (Turner, GMAW 2 no. 22, Pindar), which is similarly round, lightly ligatured, and bilinear,
and in which the top stroke of ε similarly reaches above the line; and P.Oxy. III 473 (Turner, GMAW 2 no.
69, honorary decree of 138–160 CE), in which β drops below the line, ε reaches above it, and κ and ν have
a similar jauntiness. On this basis, I would assign the script of P.Mich. a date in the middle of the 2nd
century. On the back, in a different hand, is an unpublished text that also appears to treat a grammatical
subject.
No continuous sense can be recovered, but the subject is recognizably the declension of nouns.
Forms of ὄνομα occur twice, and several nouns seem to be offered as examples (γόνυ, βάθοϲ; possibly
also ἔγγονοϲ, χήρ, ἀμφορεύϲ). Peculiarities in the formation of the genitive seem to be at issue, particu-
larly in genitives formed by the transposition of syllables, the omission of syllables, and the addition
of a syllable (περιϲϲοϲύλλαβον, line 10). Nouns with distinctive Ionic or Epic forms—γόνυ (γούνατοϲ,
γουνόϲ, γόνυοϲ), βάθοϲ (βαθέοϲ)—and two verbs dealing with analysis of words (διαιρεῖται, διαχωρεῖ)
suggest that discussion may also have touched on dialectal peculiarities, which are a staple in grammatical
treatises on nouns. The phrase οὐχ ὡϲ ἐν (possibly to be read as οὕτωϲ ἐν) in line 1 and the possibility
of a singular, first-person verb in line 6 suggest that the fragment is part of a grammarian’s treatise.
Parallels come chiefly from Choeroboscus, Scholia in Theodosii Canones (9th century CE), where most
of Herodian’s Περὶ κλίϲεωϲ ὀνομάτων (2nd century CE) is preserved, and from other works of Herodian.2
Given the date of the text, it is tempting to assign the work to him, but I leave any decision about this to
those who know him better.
1
It is a pleasure to offer this work to Roger Bagnall, whom I hold in the highest esteem and have always been glad to
count as a friend. His achievements as a scholar and his support of papyrology and classics set a standard that few can
match. In preparing this paper, I have had invaluable help and advice from Rodney Ast, Hélène Cuvigny, Eleanor Dickey,
Adam Hyatt, Joel Itzkowitz, Leyla Lau-Lamb, Nikos Litinas, Philomen Probert, Francesca Schironi, Arthur Verhoogt,
Alfons Wouters, and George Xenis, to whom I am very grateful. They bear, of course, no responsibility for any errors
that remain.
2
A. Dyck, “Aelius Herodian: Recent Studies and Prospects for Future Research,” ANRW II.34.1 772–794. On Herodian
and the various other grammarians mentioned here, along with recent bibliography, see E. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholar-
ship (Oxford 2007).
204 Kathleen McNamee
→ τοῦ γόνα̣τ̣ο̣ϲ̣ οὐχ̣ ὡϲ εν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣χ̣ν̣ ̣[

μεν πρῶτον ὁ δεύτεροϲ τὸν̣ δ[
τ̣οὺϲ κειμένουϲ γείνεται τὸν [
4 βάθοϲ τὸν πρῶτον δεύτερον[
ἐκτόϲ· οὐ [γ]ὰ[ρ] λέγεται ἐγγόνο̣υ[̣
γω ταῦτα γείνεται καὶ ὀνοματ̣[
να διαιρε̣ῖ̣τα̣ι̣ ἰϲ τὰϲ ϲυλλαβ[ὰ]ϲ ̣[
8 ε̣ι̣μενκα̣τ̣ε̣ρα εἰϲ τὴν αὐτῆϲ ̣[
ι διαχωρ̣ε̣ῖ̣ ἑ̣κάϲτου ὀνόματ̣[οϲ
δετ̣ε̣με̣ ̣ ̣ π̣ε̣ρ̣ιϲ̣ϲο̣ ϲύλλαβον̣[
ητ̣α̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ἐ̣ξ ἀμφο ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ι ̣[
12 [ ±8 ]κ̣ω̣ ἐν το̣[ ± 7 ]ο̣[
̣[ ̣ ] ̣ [ 4-6 ]τ̣ωκχ̣ηρο[ ± 7 ]δ[
] ̣ καὶ ἐκ του[ ± 7 ]β̣[
ἐ]ξ̣ ἀρχῆϲ το̣[
16 ] ̣[
-----------------------
_______________________
1 γονα̣τ̣ο̣ϲ̣ doubtful, but γονυοϲ impossible. ουχ̣ ωϲ: After υ, three flecks of ink, the lowest of which suggests a line
oriented diagonally from the lower left to the upper right; it also is close to the left side and about the middle of the letter-
space, and conforms better with the lower left branch of χ than with the vertical of τ: ουτωϲ? Cuvigny Between ν
and χ only a few specks of ink on loose fibers. ̣[: A dot low in the writing space, possibly the serif at the bottom of
the left-hand vertical of η 3 τον [: After ν, blank papyrus for the width of about one letter. 5 εγγονο̣υ̣: In the last
position, only a dot of ink just below the line at the center of the letter space (as in αυτηϲ, line 8), and a fleck of ink at the
top right. 7 ϊϲ pap. ̣[: An upright inclined slightly right of vertical; capping it, the left end of a serif, straightening out
and moving toward the right and slightly downward: ν most probable, but a slightly odd τ or υ (cf. line 14) possible. 8 ε̣ι̣
Ast, Cuvigny: ε wider than usual, but this may be accepted at the beginning of the line; ι, if correct, is written closer than
usual to the preceding letter: θ̣? KM κα̣τ̣ερ̣ α Ast, Cuvigny αυτην? Cuvigny ̣[: In the upper part of the writing space,
a small loop, with a tail descending from it: η? ι?, the deformed beginning of μ? 9 Between ι and δ somewhat more space
than usual. 10 Possibly δετ̣ọμε̣ ̣ ̣ Ast ̣ ̣ Blank papyrus for the space of about one letter and then abraded dots
on a single fiber at the top of the writing space. 11 ] ̣ ̣: Of the first letter, a slightly curved line in the top half of the
writing space: β or ρ, but not θ. Of the second letter, at the top a stroke from the top right toward the bottom left at a steep
angle and at the bottom a dot at the left of it and a dot below, with a shallow stroke drawn from the bottom left upward to
the right (the tail of α?). αμφο ̣[: Following ο, a semicircle the width of a letter, concave side downward: ρ? (τ is ruled
out: the crossbar is always rigidly straight and virtually unserifed). Centered above the writing space, a fleck of ink is
evidently a stray mark, since otherwise we must read β, which gives no sense. ] ̣ι ̣: On a narrow strip of papyrus that
extends below line 10. Here, a small circle at the top of the writing space, probably a serif at the beginning of ν; then ι; then,
at the top of the writing space, a small tight circular serif, the start of η, κ, λ, ν, θ, or χ. 13 ̣[ ̣ ] ̣: In the first position, the
crossbar of τ or π; following the lacuna, two flecks of ink at and above the top of the writing space, which may belong to β,
φ, or ψ. τ̣ωκχ̣ηρο: perhaps τωκληρο Cuvigny 14 ] ̣: At the top, a curve open to the right and written at the right side
of the letter space (υ?).
…“knee,” ?not as in ?the Techne… | … the second first…. | …the existing…is …|4 “depth” the first
second… | ?outside. For one does not say “grandson” | …I ?mean these things. There are also nouns…
(or: …I ?mean…. These are also nouns…)| is divided into the syllables…|8 …?if … into its…|
41. Grammatical Text: A Treatise on the Declension of Nouns 205
…divides… of each noun… | …with an additional syllable…| …from…|12 …| … |…and from the
(this?)… | …from the beginning of the (this?)…
1 τοῦ γόνα̣τ̣ο̣ϲ̣: From the 2nd century CE onward grammarians use γόνυ to illustrate the declen-
sional patterns of neuter nouns ending in υ. Treatments are similar: they consider in particular
transposition or suppression of letters (μετάθεϲιϲ, ὑπέρθεϲιϲ, ϲυγκοπή) involved in forming
the various genitives: so Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd century);3 Choeroboscus (9th century),4 who
drew on Herodian (2nd century?); Theodosius (4th century).5 In the course of time, this discus-
sion found its way into literary commentary, for it is also preserved in the scholia to Hom. Od.
3.180.6 There is no evidence of detailed analysis of γόνυ and related nouns before Apollonius
Dyscolus: the Τέχνη γραμματική of Dionysus Thrax (2nd century BCE) lists only δόρυ as an
example of such words, and the commentators on this work do not address the inflectional
patterns of the word.7
οὐχ ὡϲ ἐν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣χ̣ν̣ ̣: οὐχ ὡϲ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ?: The writer is correcting (or, if οὕτωϲ was written,
affirming) a previous authority. If οὐχ ὡϲ is to be read, the reference is presumably to the Τέχνη
γραμματική of Dionysius Thrax which, with only one exception, is the only work referred to
in this way; cf. Choerob., in Theod. (GG iv.ii) 192.25: ὡϲ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ Διονυϲίου; idem, in Heph.
184.17f.: ὥϲ φηϲιν ὁ Διονύϲιοϲ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ, and the commentaries on Dionysius Thrax, passim;
see also on lines 2–4.
2–4 πρῶτον ὁ δεύτεροϲ, κειμένουϲ, τὸν πρῶτον δεύτερον: The author comments on something
masculine—an argument or explanation (λόγοϲ)? a rule (κανών)?—that occurs in his text in
the reverse of the expected order; cf. Choerob., in Theod. (GG iv.i) 182.12f.: οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τούτῳ
τῷ λόγῳ οὐκ ἀκολουθοῦϲιν, and Theodosius’s Εἰϲαγωγικοὶ κανόνεϲ περὶ κλίϲεωϲ ὀνομάτων.
The inflection of κειμένουϲ (line 3) suggests it is part of the same analysis and that it refers to
the items whose order is disturbed. Discussion of disorder continues in τὸν πρῶτον δεύτερον,
line 4. The point of reference for πρῶτον and δεύτεροϲ, -ον cannot be the tense of verb forms
(ὁ ἀόριϲτοϲ, ὁ μέλλων) since verbs are not the subject here. Similarly we can rule out metrical
terms (ὁ ποῦϲ, ὁ ἴαμβοϲ, etc.) and also chiasmus as scholiastic commentators never in any case
refer to chiasmus with the phrases πρῶτον ὁ δεύτεροϲ or τὸν πρῶτον δεύτερον, but usually as τὸ
δεύτερον πρότερον.
3, 6 γείνεται pap., l. γίνεται: γίνεται between two accusatives is improbable. Either the verb ends its
sentence or it begins a new one. Articulate γίνεται τὸ ν, i.e., “the letter nu is…” or, ignoring the
space after ν, understand it as the beginning of a neuter noun (γίνεται τὸ ν[όημα, e.g., “the sense
is…”?).
4 βάθοϲ τὸν πρῶτον δεύτερον: Choeroboscus, and so possibly Herodian, uses βάθοϲ to illustrate
the declension of neuter nouns in οϲ, a subject in which as usual the genitive receives the most
3
Apollon. Dysc., Synt. (GG ii.ii) 494.3ff.: ἴϲωϲ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τὸ δόρυ ἡ δόρυοϲ γενική, ὅτε φαμὲν δουρόϲ· γόνυοϲ, γουνόϲ.
ἔφην δὲ ἐν διϲταγμῷ, μὴ ἄρα τοῦ γούνατοϲ καὶ δούρατόϲ εἰϲι ϲυγκοπαί.
4
Choerob., in Theod. (GG iv.i) 346.1ff.: εἰ δὲ βραχείᾳ παραλήγονται, διὰ τοῦ υ κλίνονται, τουτέϲτι προϲθέϲει τοῦ οϲ ποιοῦϲι
τὴν γενικὴν καὶ φυλάττουϲι τὸ υ, οἷον γόνυ γόνυοϲ, καὶ ἐν ὑπερθέϲει τοῦ υ γίνεται γουνόϲ …. δύναται δὲ τὸ γουνόϲ … μὴ
μόνον καθ’ ὑπέρθεϲιν τοῦ υ γενέϲθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ γόνυοϲ …, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ γοῦναϲ γούνατοϲ … κατὰ ϲυγκοπὴν γουνόϲ ….
5
Theod., Can. (GG iv.i) 33.18ff.: κανὼν γ΄·…τὸ γόνυ τοῦ γόνυοϲ καὶ γουνόϲ· …τὰ εἰϲ υ οὐδέτερα …εἰ δὲ βραχείᾳ
⟨παραλήγοιτο⟩ διὰ τοῦ υ <κλίνεται>, γόνυοϲ, καὶ ἐν ὑπερθέϲει τοῦ υ γίνεται γουνόϲ…· τὸ γόνυ καὶ τὸ δόρυ ἔχουϲι δὲ τὰϲ
γενικὰϲ εἰϲ τοϲ, τοῦ γόνατοϲ καὶ δόρατοϲ….
6
Sch. in Hom. Od. 3.180: …τέτρατον, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τὸ τέτραϲι. B. μετάθεϲιϲ Ἰωνική. διαφέρει γὰρ μετάθεϲιϲ ὑπερθέϲεωϲ·
ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ϲυλλαβῇ γίνεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπέρθεϲιϲ ἐν ἑτέρᾳ, ὡϲ τὸ ὀθνεῖοϲ. ἦν γὰρ νόθοϲ νοθεῖοϲ καὶ καθ’ ὑπέρθεϲιν
ὀθνεῖοϲ. καὶ πάλιν γόνυ γόνυοϲ καὶ δόρυ δόρυοϲ, καὶ καθ’ ὑπέρθεϲιν γουνόϲ καὶ δουρόϲ. EQ.
7
Dion.Thrax, Τέχνη (GG i.i) 15.1ff. on the endings of neuter nouns: τελικὰ …κατ’ εὐθεῖαν καὶ ἑνικὴν πτῶϲιν ϲτοιχεῖά ἐϲτι
ἕξ· α ι ν ρ ϲ υ, οἷον ἅρμα μέλι δένδρον ὕδωρ δέπαϲ δόρυ.
206 Kathleen McNamee
attention.8 Here we may have a discussion of the genitive ending ουϲ in its uncontracted form εοϲ.
Argument may have gone something like, “The genitive ending ουϲ develops from the fact that
neuters in οϲ become perittosyllabic in the genitive by the internal addition of ε; to decline such
a word, one must find its uncontracted form; this is done by dividing the contracted diphthong into
its constituent vowels.” There is insufficient evidence to tell whether the author also identified
βάθεοϲ as characteristically Ionic (a frequent observation in treatises on the noun); see on lines
5, 7, 10.
5 ἐκτόϲ: Scribal strictness in syllabification (Turner, GMAW2 p. 19) makes ἐκτόϲ prima facie
likelier than, e.g., διάλ|εκτοϲ, παράδ|εκτοϲ, etc., despite the attention that ancient grammatical
treatises on the noun give to dialectal variations. In a passage on genitives of neuter nouns in οϲ,
Choeroboscus uses a Homeric line ending in τείχεοϲ ἐκτόϲ by way of illustration, in Theod.
(GG iv.i) 358.13ff.: ἰϲτέον δὲ ὅτι παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ οὐδέποτε εὑρίϲκεται ἡ γενικὴ τούτων τῶν εἰϲ οϲ
οὐδετέρων εἰϲ ουϲ καταλήγουϲα, ἀλλ’ ἢ εἰϲ ευϲ, … ἢ ἐντελῶϲ ἤγουν διὰ τοῦ εοϲ, οἷον … τείχεοϲ,
λεξάϲθων παρὰ τάφρον ὀρυκτὴν τείχεοϲ ἐκτόϲ…. It is unclear whether the papyrus text included
quotations, however. We may rule out ἐκτόϲ as used in discussions of “outer” and “inner” number
in personal possessive adjectives (Apollon. Dysc. Pron. [GG ii.i] 15.4ff.), a subject with no
connection to the text of the papyrus.
ἐγγόνου̣: Perhaps part of a discussion of εοϲ and its contraction ουϲ, the possible subject of
lines 4–5, where βάθοϲ and perhaps [τείχεοϲ] | ἐκτόϲ occur. The missing link between this topic
and the word ἔγγονοϲ is perhaps ὑϊδοῦϲ, its synonym (cf. [Hdn.], Ἐπιμεριϲμοί 138.10: υἱωνὸϲ,
ὁ ἐκγονόϲ· ὑϊδοῦϲ, τὸ αὐτό). ὑϊδοῦϲ, which ends in the same contraction as the genitive βάθουϲ is,
like βάθουϲ, perittosyllabic in its uncontracted form (see line 10). Herodian uses it as an example
of nouns in discussing accent, Περὶ μονήρουϲ λέξεωϲ (GG iii.ii) 928.8f.: τὰ εἰϲ δουϲ λήγοντα
ὀνόματα ἁπλᾶ περιϲπᾶται, ὑϊδοῦϲ, θυγατριδοῦϲ, τηθαλλαδοῦϲ.
6 γω: Perhaps [λέ]|γω “I mean” or (taking it with ταῦτα) “I call these [ … ]”? Alternatively, possibly
ἐ]γώ, “…I (say, e.g.).” In any case, we are dealing with a word in the first person who (unless this
is part of a quotation) may be identified as the author of the text in the papyrus.
7 The trema over ϊϲ (l. εἰϲ) distinguishes the beginning of this word from the end of διαιρεῖται.
διαιρε̣ῖ̣τα̣ι̣ εἰϲ τὰϲ ϲυλλαβ[ά]ϲ: διαιρέω is a grammatical term for the separation of a diphthong
into two syllables, (as described by Choeroboscus in the passage cited above, on line 4). The
definition offered by Tryphon (1st BCE) explicitly associates it with the Ionic dialect (Περὶ παθῶν
1.15.1ff.: διαίρεϲιϲ δέ ἐϲτι ϲυλλαβῆϲ μακρᾶϲ ἀνάλυϲιϲ…εἰϲ δύο ϲυλλαβάϲ. τὸ δὲ πάθοϲ Ἰωνικόν
ἐϲτι καὶ Θετταλικόν, τὸ δὲ πλέον Ἰωνικόν ἐϲτιν, οἷον κοῖλον κόϊλον).
8 ε̣ι̣μενκα̣τ̣ε̣ρα: A reference to an alternative spelling of a word? (εἰ μὲν κατ’ ερα, “If it is written
with ερα…”). θ̣μεν—if that is to be read instead of ε̣ι̣μεν at the beginning of the line—is apparently
the ending of a first-person athematic verb and may be connected with a discussion of syncope
(see on line 1). This would be a solitary reference to a verb form in this discussion of nouns,
however. On syncope in verbs, see Hdn., Περὶ μονήρουϲ λέξεωϲ (GG iii.ii) 930.10ff.: τὰ εἰϲ μεν
λήγοντα πληθυντικὰ ἀεὶ θέλει καθαρὸν ἔχειν τὸ μ, δίδομεν, τίθεμεν, λέγομεν, νοοῦμεν· εἰ μέντοι
ϲύμφωνον εὑρεθείη, ϲυγκοπὴ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὁρᾶται γινομένη, ἴϲαμεν ἴϲμεν, ἴδομεν ἴδμεν, ἐοίκαμεν
ἔοιγμεν, δέδοιγμεν, ἐπέπιθμεν.9
10 δετ̣ε̣με̣ ̣: -δετε μὲν, δέ τε μὲν. If instead we read δετ̣ọμε̣ with Ast, understand perhaps δὲ τὸ μὲν α
περιϲύλλαβον, “The extra syllable α.” The supposed o, however, will have intruded into the space
above the line of writing, which is characteristic of the scribe’s ε but not of his ο.
8
Choerob., in Theod. (GG iv.i) 357.17ff.: κανὼν η΄: …ἰϲτέον ὅτι τὰ εἰϲ οϲ οὐδέτερα δηλονότι ὀνόματα εἰϲ ουϲ ἔχουϲι τὴν
γενικήν, οἷον …βάθοϲ βάθουϲ…· ἐμάθομεν δὲ ὅτι πᾶϲα γενικὴ εἰϲ ουϲ λήγουϲα ϲυνῃρημένη ἐϲτίν· δεῖ οὖν τὸν κλίνοντα
πρότερον λαμβάνειν τὸ ἐντελὲϲ καὶ οὕτω ποιεῖν τὴν ϲυναίρεϲιν.
9
See also Hdn., Περὶ παθῶν (GG iii.ii) 275.20f.: εἰληλούθαμεν καὶ ἐν ϲυγκοπῇ εἰλήλουθμεν; cf. Choerob., in Heph. 202.19.
41. Grammatical Text: A Treatise on the Declension of Nouns 207
περιϲϲοϲύλλαβον: A standard term describing the presence of an additional syllable as, for
example, in the formation Ionic βάθεοϲ from βάθοϲ, or of the genitive γόνυοϲ from γόνυ. See
above on lines 1 and 4, and cf. Choerob., in Theodos. (GG iv.i) 352.23ff.: οὐδέποτε οὐδέτερον
μονογενὲϲ ἔχει τὴν παραλήγουϲαν τῆϲ περιττοϲυλλάβου γενικῆϲ ἥττονα χρόνον ἔχουϲαν τῆϲ
ληγούϲηϲ τῆϲ ἰδίαϲ εὐθείαϲ, οἷον … γόνυ γόνυοϲ.10
11 ἀμφο ̣[: ἀμφορ̣[?, i.e., a form of ἀμφορεύϲ, a noun
with perittosyllabic forms (ἀμφορέωϲ, ἀμφορέα,
etc.)? Nouns in ευϲ are the subject of Choerob.,
in Theod. (GG iv.i) 212.27ff., treating κανὼν ι΄, but
ἀμφορεύϲ is not given as an example.
13 ]τω κ: “with a kappa”? but how the following letters
fit with this I do not know.
χ̣ηρο[: Possibly χήρ (gen. χηρόϲ), the Aeolic form
of χείρ, offered as an example? Eustath., Comm.
ad Hom. Il. (Van der Valk) 172.21ff., who cites
Herodian regarding variations in the spelling of this
noun: μονῆρεϲ ἐν θηλυκοῖϲ ἡ χείρ, ἣ κλίνεται διχῶϲ
ποτὲ μὲν διὰ τοῦ ε, …ποτὲ διὰ τῆϲ ει διφθόγγου,
ποτὲ δὲ κατὰ Ἡρωδιανὸν καὶ μετατεθείϲηϲ αὐτῆϲ
εἰϲ η, ὡϲ μαρτυρεῖ, φηϲίν, Ἀλκμὰν ἐν τῷ «ἐπ’
ἀριϲτερὰ χηρὸϲ ἔχων» Choerob., Περὶ ὀρθογραφίαϲ,
274.1ff.
If ]τωκ̣λ̣ηρο[ was written instead (and this is a real
possibility) I cannot guess what is being said. Apart
from the Doric κλᾶροϲ, the morphology of κλῆροϲ
is stable by comparison with a noun like γόνυ or
βάθοϲ (or χείρ).
15 ἐ]ξ ἀρχῆϲ: Perhaps explaining the development
of a particular form? cf. Hdn., Περὶ ὀρθογραφίαϲ
250.30: πιθήϲω: ι· ἦν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆϲ πείθω διὰ τῆϲ
ει διφθόγγου.
No. 41
Wayne State University, Detroit
10
Cf. Choerob., in Theodos. (GG iv.i) 345.29ff.
42. Rules of an Association of Soknebtunis*
Andrew Monson
P.Tebt. Suppl. 1578 15 x 18 cm ca. 250–210 BCE

Tebtunis
The papyrus is light brown and contains eight lines of Demotic text written along the fibers on the recto.
On the verso are the remains of two columns, each with sixteen lines of text, of an account written in
Greek. The papyrus itself has been damaged by a number of worm holes. It also looks to have been once
folded or crumpled in a few places. The Demotic text on the recto breaks off at the beginning and the end
of each line. The amount that is missing cannot be ascertained with any confidence. It contains the rules
of an association connected with the cult of Soknebtunis in the village Tebtunis in the Polemon district of
the southern Fayyum. The left edge of the recto is linear, suggesting that the papyrus may have been cut
or torn in antiquity, while the upper and right edges are more irregular with several abraded fibers. At the
bottom is a large blank margin of about 6 cm indicating that it belongs to the end of the document. Parallel
examples suggest the original may have been about 25 lines on a papyrus approximately 70 x 30 cm but
the handwriting and the lower margin are comparatively large.1
This papyrus joined the collection of the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri in Berkeley in 2005 along
with over 1,000 other papyri that had been left in Oxford when the main collection was shipped in the
1930s.2 On the verso, Grenfell and Hunt wrote T130. Insofar as they correspond to the order in which
the papyri were discovered during the 1899/1900 season, the T-numbers provide a clue to the material
context. Yet there are exceptions, which show that any correspondence was at best approximate, and
it remains unclear how and why these numbers were given.3 Most of the texts with T-numbers around
100–160 are Roman-period Greek documents that were presumably found in houses near the temple since
many of them concern priests of Soknebtunis. Among them there are also a few Ptolemaic documents,
including some Demotic ones. The unpublished papyrus labeled T129, for example, is a second century
4
BCE letter to the granary officials, which was reused for a Demotic granary account. Although the text
edited here, T130, comes immediately afterwards in the sequence there is no apparent connection besides
being found in the same general vicinity of the site as the texts T100–160.
The dating of the papyrus to the third century BCE is based on the fines for offences against
the association rules: 6 kite (= 12 drachmas) in line 2 for refusing to be the representative and 1 deben
(= 20 drachmas) in line 3 for opposing the representative. The second of these appears in P.LilleDem.
I 29.22 (223 BCE) where the corresponding fine is 6 kite. The switch from a silver to a bronze currency
standard caused nominal prices in Egypt to jump after 210 BCE, which is also evident in the fines of
associations and thus helps to date this papyrus.5 The earliest published Demotic texts from Tebtunis are
*
I am grateful to Carolin Arlt, Joachim Quack, Günter Vittmann, and Wolfgang Wegner for suggestions and improvements
to the transcription and translation of this papyrus. Moreover, a word of thanks goes to Roger Bagnall, who stimulated my
work on associations with an invitation to speak at his Sather conference in 2005 and who has since proven to be one of my
most supportive senior colleagues at NYU.
1
E.g. P.Cair. II 30606 (157 BCE) and P.Cair. II 30605 (145 BCE).
2
See http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/remarks/Oct1805 (accessed May 12, 2011).
3
A. E. Hanson, “Text and Context for the Illustrated Herbal from Tebtunis,” (Pap.Congr. XXII) (Florence 2001) 585–604;
E. O’Connell, “Recontextualizing Berkeley’s Tebtunis Papyri,” (Pap.Congr. XXIV) (Helsinki 2007) 807–826 at 815–819.
4
P.Tebt. UC 2561+4001. The Demotic account on the recto of the larger fragment (frame 1) seems to report the types of
land, tax rates, and total wheat income for the village. Line 3 gives over 9,982 artabas of wheat, which is perhaps the amount
due from royal land (in the same line 2,276 arouras?).
5
See the table in P.LilleDem. I, p. 76–77, reprinted in F. de Cenival, Les Associations religieuses en Égypte, BiÉtud. 46
(Cairo 1972) 200–201; cf. W. Clarysse and E. Lanciers, “Currency and the Dating of Demotic and Greek Papyri from the
Ptolemaic Period,” AncSoc 20 (1989) 117–132.
210 Andrew Monson
from the end of the reign of Ptolemy III.6 Greek texts of the third century BCE were almost exclusively
found in mummy cartonnage rather than in houses on the site and none are dated before 260 BCE.7 It is
possible but quite unlikely that the text edited here was written before the middle of the third century BCE.
Despite the large and clear writing there are several grammatical mistakes (comm. to lines 2–3) and
several obscure words and orthographies, which defy any satisfactory reading (comm. to lines 5–8).
Variations from the rules typically found in Demotic association texts give this fragment special
significance. The most interesting one that is unattested elsewhere is in line 7, where the representative
of the association seems to be required to submit an account for inspection each month. A number of
Demotic association accounts survive, which most commonly record the members and their monthly
payment to the representative.8 It is noteworthy that the representative is not mentioned in these lists
among the associations’ office holders or magistrates, who contributed larger sums to the associations’
treasury each month. Less common are accounts of expenditure.9 Accounts of associations are also found
in Greek but so far these date no earlier than the second century BCE.10
As line 2 illustrates, being the representative carried burdensome responsibilities and may not
always have been voluntary. There was a fine of 6 kite for refusing to accept the role when nominated.
The representative was entrusted with the authority to collect monthly fees as well as fines for misbehavior
and even to enter a member’s house and seize collateral for missing payments. Line 3 is part of a rule
imposing a fine of 1 deben on any member who opposes him in the discharge of his official duties on
behalf of the association.
The Greek account on the verso of the papyrus is written with a reed brush, which suggests that
the scribe was accustomed to writing Demotic. Each column consists of short entries followed by sums
of drachmas and obols usually after a blank space, so that the numbers are aligned to the right of the
column. The text is broken at the top and on the left side. In column 1, only the ends of a few entries
and the amounts of money are visible. The legible amounts are: 1 dr., 1 dr., 2 ob., and 3 ob. (lines 2–4);
3 ob. and 2 ob. (lines 6–7); 2 ob., 1 dr., 1 dr., 2 ob., and 3 ob. (lines 10–13). In column two, more text
survives but much of the ink has been rubbed away and the rapid cursive brushstrokes are difficult to
decipher even where the writing is mostly intact. Here the amounts vary more, some being much higher:
16 dr. 2 ob., 2 1⁄2 ob., 5 dr., 13 dr., 3 ob., 1 dr., 1 1⁄2 ob. (lines 1–7). Line 8 seems to give a subtotal of 20
dr. 1 ob. for lines 2–7 that is off by 1 ob. Several entries seem to be names or words in the dative case such
as -ει in line 3, -στει in lines 5 and 7, and -τι in lines 4 and 6. In line 15 one could possibly read a
dative name ending in -σιρει such as Petosiris perhaps followed by οἶνος “wine,” which may also appear at
the end of line 14. It is conceivable that the account concerns the association but nothing read so far
establishes any connection.11 Further study of the abraded text may yield more information.12
6
P.Cair. II 30604 (232/231 BCE) = H.-J. Thissen in Fs. Lüddeckens (Würzburg 1984) 235–244; P.Cair. II 30624
(227/226 BCE).
7
Searching the Berkeley CTP database (http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/form) under provenance “house” and latest date “-200”
yields only P.Tebt. II 487 (ca. 247–204 BCE), which has T-number 379 (accessed May 16, 2011). For the earliest Greek text
from mummy cartonnage, see P.Tebt. III.1 702 (ca. 260 BCE) with intr. p. 65.
8
P.Cair. II 31178 (179 BCE), recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 30606 (157 BCE), recto col. 2; P.Hamb.Dem. inv. 1 (151 BCE), recto
col. 2; P.Cair. II 31179 (147 BCE), recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 30605 (145 BCE), recto col. 2; P.Prag.Satzung. (137 BCE), recto
col. 2; P.Cair. II 30619 (137 BCE), recto cols. 2–4, verso col. 1; P.Cair. II 30618 (137 BCE), A recto cols. 1–3 and verso col.
3, B recto cols. 1–3 and verso cols. 1–3; P.Berl.Spieg. 3115 (ca. 110–107 BCE).
9
P.Cair. II 31178 (179 BCE), verso col. 2; P.Cair. II 30618 (137 BCE), A recto col. 4 and verso col. 1, B recto cols. 4–8;
P.Berl.Dem. 13636 verso, ed. W. Erichsen, ZNTW 37 (1938) 51.
10
E.g. P.LilleDem. I 29b = SB III 6319 = C.Ptol.Sklav. I 92 (2nd–1st c. BCE); P.Tebt. I 118 (ca. 112/111 BCE); P.Tebt. III.2
894 (ca. 114 BCE); cf. P.Mich. V 246 (mid 1st c. CE).
11
The closest Demotic parallel would be P.Cair. II 31178 (179 BCE) recto col. 2 and verso cols. 1–7.
12
An image of P.Tebt. Suppl. 1578 verso will be available in the CTP database: http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu.
42. Rules of an Association of Soknebtunis 211
Demotic Association Rules from the Ptolemaic Period

ca. 250–210, Tebtunis P.Tebt. Suppl. 1578.
244/243, Arsinoite P.Mainz 10, ed. G. Vittmann, Fs. Grunert, Göttinger Miszellen Beihefte 10
(Göttingen 2011) 165–179.
223, Qus, Arsinoite P.LilleDem. I 29 = P.Assoc. p. 3–10.
ca. 190–170, Bakchias(?) P.Stan.GreenDem. 21, ed. C. Arlt and A. Monson, Fs. Thissen
(OLA 194) (Leuven 2010) 113–122.
179, Arsinoe, Arsinoite P.Cair. II 31178 = P.Assoc. p. 39–40, 215–218.
178, Tebtunis P.Mil.Vogl.Dem. inv. 77, ed. E. Bresciani, EVO 17 (1994) 49–67.
157, Tebtunis P.Cair. II 30606 = P. Assoc. p. 45–51, 218–219.
151, Tebtunis P.Hamb.Dem. inv. 1, ed. W. Erichsen, Acta Orientalia 26 (1962)
97–107 = P.Assoc. p. 59–61, 219–220.
147, Tebtunis P.Cair. II 31179 = P.Assoc. p. 63–66, 221–222.
145, Tebtunis P.Cair. II 30605 = P.Assoc. p. 73–78, 222–225.
137, Tebtunis P.Prag.Satzung. = P.Assoc. p. 83–91, 225–227.
137, Tebtunis P.Cair. II 30619 = P.Bürgsch. 20 = P.Assoc. p. 93–97, 227–229.
ca. 110–107, Djeme P.Berl.Spieg. 3115 = P.Assoc. p. 103–131.
Transcription
1 ...]⌈...=f ...⌉ t md.t smy (r-)ḏb[(.t)]⌈=s⌉ mtw=f [...
2 ... p rmṯ n-m=n nt-]⌈w=w ḏd n=f⌉ .r rt p ⌈.wy⌉ mtw=f tm r<=f> py=f gns qt 6 p rmṯ n-m=n
nt-w=w {=w} ḏd n=f w ⌈.⌉[...
3 ... p rmṯ n-]⌈m⌉=n nt-w=f tgm n-ḏr.ṱ ⌈p⌉ rt ⌈p⌉ .wy (n) md.t s p .wy py=f gns ḥḏ 1 p [rmṯ n-
m=n nt-w...
4 ... p rmṯ n-]m⌈=n⌉ nt-w{=f} r šr šr.t sn sn.t t mw.t (r) mwt mtw=f ẖn n ssw nt ḥry na .wy [...
5 ...]⌈...(?) ssw⌉ nt ḥry na .wy w sp ny(.t)(?) rm n sḥn.w plg ẖn ⌈.⌉[...
6 ... p rmṯ n-m]⌈=n⌉ nt w=f gm py=f ry ḥr ny(.t) ṯy-n-yr mtw=f wḫ(?) ḏr.ṱ=f ...(?) [...
7 ...] mtw p rt p .wy d.t pḥ p(?) p p .wy -r-ḥr p .wy ẖr bd nb [...
8 ...]⌈...⌉ mtw=w d.t w ṯy(?) n qt 2 ḥr p k(y)(?) hy(?) p mr-mš p mḥ-2 p ⌈ḥm-nṯr⌉ n nṯr.w p š
Sbk-⌈nb⌉-t-⌈tn⌉ [...
Translation
1 ...] the matter of complaint because of it and he [...
2 ...the man among us to whom] they say, “be the representative of the association” and he does not
do it, his fine is 6 kite. The man among us to whom they say, [...
3 ...the man] among us who opposes the representative of the association in any matter pertaining to
the association, his fine his 1 deben. The [man among us who...
4 ...the man] among us by whom a son, daughter, brother, sister, father or mother dies within the time
above, those of the association [...
5 ...] ...(?) time above, those of the association at one time ...(?) with the administrators of the ...(?)
within [...
6 ...the man among] us who finds a companion on a ferry landing and he requests(?) his hand(?)
...(?) [...
7 ...] and the representative of the association will have the account of the association reach the
association every month [...
8 ...] and they will give a provision(?) of 2 kite on the other(?) expense(?) of the president, the
deputy, the [prophet] of the gods, the caller of Soknebtunis [...
212 Andrew Monson
1 The verb smy appears frequently in association rules, usually in the sense of “to make a com-
plaint” about a fellow member to an official or before the association as in P.LilleDem. I 29.7,
P.Cair. II 30606.17–19, 22; P.Cair. II 31179.20–21; P.Cair. II 30605.19–20; P.Prag.Satzung.
17–18; in at least one instance it means “to testify” on behalf of a member involved in a legal
proceeding; P.LilleDem. I 29.23. Abstract nouns formed with md.t are common in Demotic but
to my knowledge the phrase t md.t smy is unattested. Too little of this line is preserved to judge
the context.
2 This rule requiring that one accept the position of representative if nominated or pay a fine is also
attested in P.Cair. II 31178.7; P.Cair. II 30605.24; P.Prag.Satzung. 10. gns is the proper historical
transliteration for what is conventionally transcribed as qns, Erichsen, Glossar 542; see J. Quack
in the forthcoming proceedings of the Demotic congress in Leuven.
w=w seems to be followed by a superfluous vertical stroke, presumably as a repetition of the
plural suffix =w, which was written in ligature with w just like the writings with the singular
suffix =f in lines 4 and 6.
Too little of the last word in the line survives but the high position and angle of the stroke make
⌈f⌉[y... plausible. The rule p rmṯ n-m=n nt-w=w ḏd n=f fy r hrw “the man among us to whom
they say, ‘deliver (one’s contribution) on the (appointed) day’,” is found in P.Hamb.Dem. inv.
1.9; P.Cair. II 31179.11; P.Prag.Satzung. 9–10; P.Mil.Vogl.Dem. inv. 77.8. Unlike the verb r in
the previous clause, however, the imperative of fy should not be preceded by w. Unless something
is missing the traces cannot be read as r, so perhaps this was a grammatical mistake.
3 tgm appears to have no determinative and to be a variant spelling of tkn, “to approach” Erichsen,
Glossar 559–560—the same writing appears in P.Mil.Vogl.Dem. inv. 77.5 and 26 (in the second
case the editor mistakenly transcribes tkn). It probably means “to resist” or “to oppose” in this
context, corresponding to Coptic ⲧⲱⳓⲛ, Crum, Dict. 466a, “to push, repel”; cf. Cenival, Associa-
tions, 36–37, contra Erichsen, Satzungen, 31, Glossar 660. The parallel passage in other texts
concerns fines for resisting the representative when he attempts to collect the monthly dues from
the members or the security for its payment or the fine assessed for a previous offense:
P.LilleDem. 29.22; P.Cair. II 30606.8; P.Hamb.Dem. inv. 1.7; P.Cair. II 31179.8; P.Cair. II
30605. 7–8, 24; P.Cair. II 30619.6; P.Prag.Satzung. 9; P.Mil.Vogl.Dem. inv. 77.5 and 26.
s is a phonetic writing for ns, “belong to,” Erichsen, Glossar 227; see G. Vittmann, Der demotische
Papyrus Rylands 9 (Wiesbaden 1998) II 280–282.
Between gns and ḥḏ at the end of the line is a small dot angling down slightly, which could be
read as a proposition n or r but neither of them is necessary here, so it may just be a filling dot.
4 nt-w=f r NN (r) mwt is a grammatical mistake for what should be a relative future III clause
with nominal subject: nt-.r NN (r) mwt. The same rule is also found in P.LilleDem. 29.19;
P.Cair. II 30606.15–16; P.Cair. II 31179.18–19; P.Cair. II 30605.15; P.Prag.Satzung. 23; P.Cair.
II 30619.7–8. Here the resumptive pronoun appears with the preposition mtw after the main verb.
nt ḥry, here and in line 5, is written as r ḥry and contrasts with the normal writings of nt in lines
2, 3, 4, and 6. Grammatically nt ḥry must be understood and the writing probably stems from the
ligature with ḥry.
5 ...(?) ssw nt ḥry looks to be the product of some sort of scribal error and correction. Perhaps he
originally wrote ẖn n ssw nt ḥry as in line 4.
ny(.t) looks almost the same as ny(.t) in line 6 but has two vertical strokes after the n instead of
one curved stroke, so perhaps it should be transliterated as ney(.t). The word seems to be written
here without determinative (cf. tgm in line 3). The last three vertical strokes, which curve
left at the bottom, are much more like y than writings of the house determinative. Variants of
ny(.t), ny(.t), ny(.t) etc. can mean: either “time, appointment” (Coptic ⲛⲉⲓ) often with the sun
determinative or “stake, landing place, meeting place” (Coptic ⲛⲁⲉⲓⲱ) often with the house
42. Rules of an Association of Soknebtunis 213
determinative: Erichsen, Glossar 205–208; Chicago Demotic Dictionary, Letter-n, s.v. ny and
ny.t (p. 14, 25); Crum, Dict. 219a and 218b; Cenival, Associations, 56–57; M. Smith, The
Mortuary Texts of Papyrus 10507 (London 1987) 65–66. The meaning here is uncertain.
plg written alphabetically with a wood determinative seems to be unattested in Demotic. Phoneti-
cally similar words include: plk “to free” (Coptic ⲡⲱⲗϭ), prq “to tear out,” (Coptic ⲡⲱⲣⲕ), and
prk “cloak” (Coptic ⲡⲱⲣⲕ), Erichsen, Glossar 136–137; Chicago Demotic Dictionary, Letter-p
s.v. prk etc.; cf. Crum, Dict. 269–273. None fits with a wood determinate or yields a satisfactory
meaning for this line. A similar Greek word is πύργος “tower,” which was used for watchtowers
or storage buildings: Vycichl, Dict. 163a; WB II 437a; cf. BGU IV 1194.7–9 (27 BCE; Herakleo-
polis): ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων τοῦ ἱεροῦ πύργου “administrator of the temple storehouse revenues.”
Because the context is so obscure it is best to leave it untranslated.
6 ny(.t) ṯy-n-yr “a ferry landing,” Erichsen, Satzungen, 44; Cenival, Associations, 56-57, 193.
Parallels for the rule include: P.Cair. II 30606.21; P.Cair. II 31179.22; P.Cair. II 30605.22–23;
P.Cair. II 30619.9; P.Prag.Satzung. 21.
mtw=f wḫ(?) ḏr.ṱ=f ...(?) does not appear in any of the other associations texts in connection with
this rule. In the examples just cited, the person found on the landing place asks for money because
of his poverty. E.g. P.Cair. II 31179: mtw=f ḏd my d=w n=y ḥḏ ḏb r yty “and he says give me
money because of my poverty.” The formula here is clearly different. The verb seems to start with
the group at the beginning of wḫ “to request,” Erichsen, Glossar 98, but it is difficult to make
out the rest. In this case ḏr.ṱ=f would presumably be the direct object and one would suppose that
to “request his hand” means something like to “request his assistance.” What follows is a long
descending stroke that clearly differs from the indefinite article w in line 8. Such a writing of r-
is unusual but an example is P.Cair. II 30616 (49 BCE; Tebtunis), A l. 1 and B l. 1. This leads one
to wonder whether the group can be read (n) r-wḫ=f(?) “as/for a loan;” Erichsen, Glossar 98, 242;
Chicago Demotic Dictionary, Letter-r s.v. r (p. 22–23); cf. R. H. Pierce, Three Demotic Papyri
in the Brooklyn Museum (Oslo 1972) 44–50. However, the initial diagonal w-stroke of wḫ=f is
missing, so it cannot be the same as the main verb earlier in the line if this is to be read as wḫ.
7 The horizontal stroke found in normal writings of pḥ is reduced to a small stroke drooping down-
wards. This unusual writing does not appear in Erichsen, Glossar 137–138 but P.Cair. II 31179.8,
and P.Cair. II 30605.13 provide a good example.
The long stroke descending from p is even more peculiar. It starts from the wrong side and is too
straight for the demonstrative py, “this,” which would anyway be unusual in this context. Palaeo-
graphically one could read the group as the suffix pronoun =f and thus construe it as the subject
of pḥ but this leaves p p .wy syntactically adrift. Perhaps this is another scribal error or the stroke
belongs to the doubtfully read word in the line below.
P.Cair. II 31178.6–7, gives the most detailed description of the appointment and duties of the repre-
sentative, including the collection of fees from members and office holders at their meeting
each month (ẖr bd nb); cf. P.Cair. II 30606.7; P.Hamb.Dem. inv. 1.6; P.Cair. II 31179.7–8;
P.Cair. II 30605.6–7; P.Prag.Satzung. 7–8; P.Cair. 30619.5; P.Mil.Vogl.Dem. inv. 77.5. Presum-
ably the requirement here to furnish an account to the association is closely related to this task.
It is not possible to read enough of the Greek account on the verso to determine whether it
pertains to the association.
8 The writing of ṯy(?) is slightly different from ṯy in line 6 and resembles certain writings of rḫ “to
know,” Erichsen, Glossar 252. Erichsen, Satzungen, 48–49, Glossar 668, suggested that the verb
ṯy could render Coptic ϫⲟ “to put forth, spend,” Crum, Dict. 752–753. However, ϫⲟ is derived
from Demotic d-šm; Westendorf, Handwörterbuch 412; Vycichl, Dictionnaire 323. It is unlikely
to be confused with ṯy “to take” (Coptic ϫⲓ). Erichsen’s examples are cases where the asso-
ciations agree to provide rations to a member after a death in his family: P.Cair. II 30606.16:
214 Andrew Monson
mtw=n d.t ṯy=w n=f q 20 “and we will have 20 rations taken to him” (Spiegelberg, “lassen ihm
bringen”; Cenival, “prélever pour lui”); P.Prag.Satzung. 23: w=n r ṯy n=f q nhpy 10 “we will
take him 10 mourning rations” (Erichsen, “für ihn ausgeben”; Cenival, “prélever pour lui”).
Contrary to Erichsen’s suggestion, these seem to fall within the semantic range of ṯy, “to take,”
so it is unnecessary to link them to Coptic ϫⲟ. Nevertheless, the context in these passages seems
to supply the connotation of “to provide.” Hence, if the reading is correct, the nominal use of the
infinitive in this line could perhaps be translated as “a provision.”
ḥr p k(y)(?) hy(?) ought to be a prepositional phrase linked to the previous verb of giving. ḥr is
conceivably to be read instead as wḥ “to lay on, add to,” which occurs in the phrase n wḥ r “in
addition to,” Erichsen, Glossar 76. ky “other, another” lacks the two strokes for the y, though
some scribes greatly minimize them, cf. Chicago Demotic Dictionary, Letter-k, s.v. ky. The
writing of hy “expense” with a horizontal stroke above does not appear in Erichsen, Glossar 266–
267 but is attested elsewhere, K.-Th. Zauzich, Enchoria 15 (1987) 174 note a. To get some sense
out of the line, perhaps one should read (n) wḥ (r) p k(y) hy or more likely ḥr p k(y) hy “on (in
addition to) the other expense of” (the president, the deputy and so on), implying that the
office holders were responsible for the extra provision of two kite.
What follows are the titles of the association’s office holders in the same order as they typically
appear in other association lists and accounts: e.g. P.Cair. II 30606, recto col. 2; P.Hamb.Dem.
inv. 1, recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 31179, recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 30605, recto col. 2; P.Prag.Satzung.,
recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 30619, recto col. 2; P.Cair. II 30619, A recto col. 1, B recto col. 3. Whether
this list of titles has any syntactical relationship to the doubtfully read phrase just before
remains uncertain.
New York University
No. 42
43. A Fourth-Century Inventory of Columns and the Late Roman Building Industry∗
Arietta Papaconstantinou
P.Lond. III 755, p. 221–223 25 x 56.5 cm 2nd quarter of IV or later

Arsinoe or Oxyrhynchus
The document is written on the verso of a papyrus measuring 56.5 x 25 cm in its present state, but originally
longer. The right side of the verso is reasonably well preserved, but the state of the papyrus deteriorates
towards the left of the sheet until it breaks up into fragments. It is also damaged at the top and bottom,
but this only affects the first line of the text in the best-preserved part of the papyrus. The recto contains
the remains of three petitions to the Prefect of Egypt Clodius Culcianus (301–307). The first one, written in
a wide column along the fibres of the best-preserved part of the papyrus, is entirely preserved, with a wide
margin at the bottom; the end of the second one is lost, and of the third one only the beginning of the lines
is preserved. The text on the verso filled the papyrus more fully, and thus the deterioration of the lower
part of the papyrus has affected the text on the verso much more than that on the recto. The original length
of the papyrus and the number of columns it contained are unclear, although internal evidence suggests
that col. i was indeed the first column of this text (see below). This does not exclude the possibility,
however, that the papyrus was originally longer, containing more than three petitions, as it must have
been part of a tomos synkollēsimos, which was later cut up for reuse.
The papyrus was found in Oxyrhynchus. The petitions on the recto, however, were all addressed
to the prefect by citizens of Arsinoe resident in that city, and they concern affairs that are located in
the Arsinoite nome. This means that they were produced in Arsinoe, and that this papyrus contains copies,
kept in the local archives, of the original documents which were handed in at the prefect’s court and
archived in Alexandria. This raises two important questions, namely when the papyrus left the local
archive, and when and how it got to Oxyrhynchus.
Considering the care taken to preserve public archives, one suspects that documents in the archive
would have been kept for several years before they were made available as scrap paper, which would
exclude the years immediately after 303 (date of the petition on the recto) for this document, especially
as the deleted line at the end of col. iv written along the fibres and at a 90 degree angle to our text
(the beginning of a letter from Nike to Dionysios) shows that this was not its first use as scrap paper.
An indication of the possible period of time between an archival document on the recto and its reuse on
the verso is given by the Heroninus archive, mainly dealing with the Appianus estate, which contains
many documents written on reused papyri of the city archive of Arsinoe.1 Many of those documents are
not precisely dated, but six at least were produced over 100 years earlier (in the 140s); others were more
recent, barely more than fifty years old. The most recent public document was a petition dated 253 and
reused in 259—but the petition must have been a private copy kept with the family papers of Alypios,
manager of the Appianus estate, whose brother is mentioned in the petition.2 According to E. G. Turner,
archival documents that were no longer useful were reused after a shorter period than those which retained
their validity. Dominic Rathbone sees in the high presence of archival scrap paper used in the estate
of Appianus a reflection of the fact that several of the estate’s administrators were members of the town
∗
During the preparation of this article I have greatly benefitted from discussions with Simon Barker, Ben Russell, Jean-
Pierre Sodini and Andrew Wilson, to all of whom go my thanks. I owe a special debt to Ruey-Lin Chang for discussing
several difficult passages with me, and to Hélène Cuvigny and Rodney Ast for their suggestions, which have greatly
improved the text of the document presented here.
1
See the analysis in E. G. Turner, “Writing material for businessmen,” BASP 15 (1978) 163–169, and D. Rathbone,
Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt (Cambridge 1991) 10–12.
2
P.Flor. I 88; see R. Pintaudi, “Note di lettura,” ZPE 27 (1977) 118–120.
216 Arietta Papaconstantinou
council of Arsinoe, and he suggests that they “helped themselves pretty indiscriminately to rolls from the
public archives to which they had access and were quick to class official records as obsolete.”3 Whatever
the case, one would probably have to wait a generation or two before getting rid of archival materials,
since the citizens who had filed them had the right to consult them. To return to our document, as the
petitions on the recto concerned ad hoc cases rather than rights to property, their usefulness was indeed
limited in time. Even so, it would be difficult according to known parallels to date P.Lond. III 755 less
than twenty years after the petition on the recto. The early 320s seem like the earliest possible date, with
the likelihood of a date in the second half of the century being much higher.
Because the papyrus was found in Oxyrhynchus it has generally been assumed, albeit with
a question mark, that the buildings it describes were in that city. Yet we do not know why, how or when
the papyrus was transferred from Arsinoe to Oxyrhynchus. There are two possible scenarios: either the
papyrus was reused locally, possibly by an agent of the city itself, to record buildings in Arsinoe, in which
case it will have travelled to Oxyrhynchus at a later date; or it reached Oxyrhynchus through the trade
in second-hand paper, still blank on the verso, and was used to record buildings in Oxyrhynchus. If read
correctly, the name Theonilla in line 37 would rather indicate an origin in the Oxyrhynchite for this text.
The edition presented here differs from the editio princeps in a number of readings, as well as in
the inclusion of col. i, of which only the end remains, and which was simply mentioned in the introduction
to the text in P.Lond. III. Thus the numbering of the columns and lines is different here.
↓
col. i
[ ]ων ̣ ̣
[ ] ̣ ̣ς ∟
[ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ν
4 [ ]ω̣π ̣ ̣λ
[ ] ̣
[ ]⸍
[ ] ̣
8 [ ] ̣[ ]
[ κεφαλί]δας καὶ βάσις
[ ]τ̣⟦οῦ⟧⸌ων⸍ αὐτοῦ ⸌ων⸍ μέτρου ⸌ων⸍
[ ἡμι?]σφέρας ἀπ[η]λιω(τικ- )
12 [ ]δ⸍
[ ]α⸍
[ ]η⸍
[ ] ̣ κεφ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]⸍
16 [ ]ι̣κη
[ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[
[ ] traces of ca. 3 lines
------------------
9 l. βάσεις
3
Rathbone (see n. 1 above) 12. On public archives see W. E. H. Cockle, “State Archives in Graeco-Roman Egypt from
30 BC to the Reign of Septimius Severus,” JEA 70 (1984) 106–122, and especially F. Burkhalter, “Archives locales et archives
centrales en Égypte romaine,” Chiron 20 (1990) 191–216. Neither, however, addresses the question of the declassification
of archival material and its distribution for reuse.
43. A Fourth-Century Inventory of Columns and the Late Roman Building Industry 217
col. ii
ὁμ]οί(ως) ἐν ̣ ̣ [ μαρμα]ρίνη
στῦ]λοι μικ(ροὶ) ⟦ὀρθοὶ⟧ ⸌ἑστῶτες⸍ [ ] ̣ ιϛ⸍
[ στ]ῦ̣λ[(οι)] ξυστρωτοὶ vac. ε⸍
24 [ἑστῶ]τες ἐκ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β⸍ παλ(ασταὶ) β̣⸍
πάχους δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍
καὶ 〚τὰς〛⸌αἱ⸍ τούτων [β]άσις καὶ κεφαλείδας.
καὶ ἐν ⟦τῷ ἄλλῳ⟧ ⸌ὑστερικῶι τόπῳ⸍ τ[ρ]ικλείνῳ ⸌καλουμ(ένῳ)⸍ στῦλ(οι) σαμσύχ(ινοι) β⸍
28 ἐκ μήκους π[ή]χ(εις) ς∟⸍ πάχους δάκ(τυλοι) κ⸍
καὶ αἱ τούτων σπῖραι μόναι∙
αἱ γὰρ κεφαλείδες ἀπ[ὸ] ἐντοπίου λίθου εἰσί.
καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ ⸌τόπῳ⸍ συμ̣π̣ο̣σ̣ίῳ καλουμ(ένῳ)
32 στῦλοι (μαρμά[ριν]οι) [ἑ]στ[ῶ]τες δ⸍
[ἐκ] μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) δ δάκτυλ(οι) η⸍
[π]άχους ⟦ ̣⟧ δάκτυλ(οι) ις⸍
καὶ ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍ τούτων κεφαλ(ίδες) καὶ [σπῖρ]αι ̣⸍
vac.
36 [καὶ ἐν] τῷ βαλι[νί]ῳ̣ τοῦ ̣[ ]⸍
[ ] ̣ μ̣[
[ ] ̣ ρ ̣[ ] ̣⸍
------------------
26 l. βάσεις l. κεφαλίδες 29 l. σπεῖραι 30 l. κεφαλίδες 31 Σ̣υβ̣δ[..]ιῳ ed.pr. 32 (μαρμα[ ̣ ̣ ̣]οι)
35 [σπῖρ]αι corr. from [σπίρ]ας 36 l. βαλανείῳ
col. iii
[κα]ὶ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεω[ς ]⸍
40 [κα]μαρ[( ) το]π̣ίου καλουμέ̣ν̣[ου] τῆ[ς ̣ ] ̣ ̣ Θεω̣ν̣ίλλης
στῦλ(οι) χαμαὶ κείμενοι γ⸍ ὧν ⸌ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ω̣ ̣⸍
β⸍ μὲν ἐκ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) ε⸍ παλ(ασταὶ) β⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ιη⸍
⟦ἄλλ(ος) α̣⸍ ⟧ ⸌εἷς δὲ⸍ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) ε⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ιϛ
44 καὶ κόμματα ὁμοίως δ̣⸍
ὧν
α⸍ ⟦ ̣ ̣⟧ μὲν μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) γ⸍ δάκ(τυλοι) ιϛ̣⸍
⟦ἄλλ(ο) ὁμοί(ως)⟧ ⸌ ̣ ̣ ἕτερον δὲ⸍ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) γ⸍
48 ἄλλ(ο) ὁμοί(ως) μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β⸍ δάκ(τυλοι) κ⸍
ἄλλ(ο) ὁμο(ίως) μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β⸍ π̣[α]λ(ασταὶ) β⸍
̣ ̣ μ[ι]κ(ροὶ) ζ⸍ καὶ καμει[ν]ῃ λε⸍
οἱ πάντες [π]άχους δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍
vac.
52 καὶ ἐν οἰ̣κ̣(ίᾳ) [το]ῦ̣ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ Βάστου καὶ Ἀρσι[νό]η̣ς̣
καὶ Φ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]νου
ἐν ⟦μὲν⟧ τ[ ̣] ̣[ ] Ε̣ὐρίππου στῦλ(οι) ἑστῶτες [ ̣] ⸍
πρ(ὸς) μὲν [ ]ῳ̣ τ̣ρ̣ικλείνῳ̣ [ ] β⸍

traces of 3 lines
------------------
39 [ἐν τόπῳ] ed. pr. 40 Κ̣αρ[ ̣]μ̣ιου ed. pr. Σ̣ε̣λ̣..μ̣ιλλης ed. pr. 50 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μα̣ι̣ ed. pr. καμ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ed. pr. ;
l. καμίνῃ (or καμίνῳ) 52 ο[ἰ]κ̣(ίαις) ed. pr.
col. iv
καὶ πρ(ὸς) τῷ β̣ο̣ρ̣[ι]νῷ μέρι vac. γ [ἐκ μή]κ(ους) πήχ(εις) ϛ∟ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) κ̣⸍ ⟦ ̣
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣⟧
60 καὶ αἱ τούτων σπῖραι καὶ κεφαλ(ίδες) ξε̣ν̣ικ̣α̣ὶ vac. γ(ίνονται) οἱ (πάντες) ι⸍
μικ̣(ροὶ) ὁ̣μοί(ως) ἐν̣ μὲν τῷ λιβικῷ μέρι, ἐν τόπῳ τ̣ρικλείνῳ κα̣λ(ουμένῳ)
στῦλ(οι) μικ(ροὶ) ἑστῶτες ξυστρωτοὶ β ἐ̣κ̣ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β⸍ παλ(ασταὶ) δ⸍
πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍ καὶ αἱ (τούτων) σπῖραι καὶ κεφαλείδ(ες) ξενικα̣ὶ
64 καὶ ἐν ἡμισφερίῳ βορινῷ στῦλ(οι) μικ(ροὶ) ἑστῶτ(ες) ϛ ὧν
δ⸍ μὲν ἐκ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β∟⸍, πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍ καὶ ⟦τὰς⟧⸌αἱ⸍ κεφ(αλίδες) ξενικ(αὶ)
β⸍ δὲ [ἐ]κ̣ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) γ⸍ δάκ(τυλοι) ϛ⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ιβ⸍ κ̣(αὶ) ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍
κεφ(αλίδες) ξενικ(αὶ)∙
αἱ δ[ὲ σ]πῖραι ἀπὸ ἐντοπίου λίθου εἰσί.
68 καὶ ἐν ἡμι̣[σ]φ̣ερίῳ ἀπηλ(ιωτικῷ) β⸍ ἐκ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β∟⸍, πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍
κ̣αὶ̣ ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍ σπῖραι κ(αὶ) κεφαλείδες.
καὶ ἐν ἡμισφερίῳ νοτίνῳ στῦλ(οι) μικ(ροὶ) ἑστῶτ(ες) ϛ⸍ ὧν
δ⸍ μὲν [ἐκ] μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) β∟⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ι⸍ καὶ ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍ (τούτων) σπῖραι καὶ
κεφαλ(ίδες) ξ̣εν[ι]κ(αὶ)∙
72 β⸍ δὲ ἐκ μήκ(ους) πήχ(εις) γ⸍ δάκ(τυλοι) ϛ⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ιβ⸍ κ(αὶ) ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍ (τούτων)
σπῖρ(αι) κ(αὶ) κεφαλ(ίδες) ξενικ(αὶ)∙
vac.
καὶ ἐν μέ[ρει] ἄλ(λῳ) τῆς α(ὐτῆς) οἰκ(ίας), ἐν τῷ ξ̣υστῷ, στῦλ(οι) ὀρθ(οὶ) β⸍
ἐκ μήκ(ους) [πή]χ(εις) ε⸍ δάκ(τυλοι) η⸍ πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ιη⸍ καὶ ⟦τὰς⟧ ⸌αἱ⸍ τούτων
σπῖραι [καὶ] κεφαλ(ίδες), χωρὶς γ⸍ κεφαλ(ίδων) οὐσῶν ἀπὸ ἐντοπίου [λί]θ̣ου.
76 καὶ ἐπάνω [τ]ῆς ψυχροφόρου στῦλ(οι) ὀρ̣θ̣[(οὶ)] β⸍
καὶ ἐπάνω [τῆ]ς εἰσόδ(ου) καὶ ἐξόδου στῦλ(οι) ὀ[ρ]θ̣(οὶ) β⸍
ἐκ μήκ(ους) [π]ήχ(εις) ε πάχ(ους) δάκ(τυλοι) ι̣η̣⸍
vac.
remains of 5 more lines
------------------
59 l. μέρει 60 l. σπεῖραι 61 l. μέρει 63 l. σπεῖραι 64 l. ἡμισφαιρίῳ 67 l. [σ]πεῖραι 69 σπιραι corr. from
σπίρας; l. σπεῖραι 70 l. ἡμισφαιρίῳ 71 l. σπεῖραι 72 l. σπεῖρ(αι) 73 ἐν τῷ α̣ὐτῷ ed. pr. 75 σπιραι corr. from
σπίρας; l. σπεῖραι.
Perpendicular to the text in the right margin:
→ ⟦Νίκη Διονυσίῳ γ̣ε ̣ ̣ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ⟧

col. i
…
… capitals and bases
… with their measurements
… the eastern ?apse
col. ii
similarly, in … of marble …
small columns, standing, … 16
columns, fluted, 5
[standing?] 2 cubits and 2 palms in length,
10 digits in width
and their bases and capitals
And at the back, in the space called triklinos, 2 columns with marjoram design (?)
61⁄2 cubits in length and 20 digits in width
and their bases only,
for their capitals are of local stone.
And in another place called symposion
4 marble columns, standing,
4 cubits and 8 digits in length
16 digits in width
and their capitals and bases.
And in the bath of...
col. iii
And in the city, ....

at the place with the vaults called of Theonille
3 columns lying on the ground, of which
2 are 5 cubits and 2 palms in length, 18 digits in width
one is 5 cubits in length and 16 digits in width
Similarly, 4 fragments,
of which
1 is 3 cubits and 16 digits in length
another is 3 cubits in length
another similarly 2 cubits and 20 digits in length
another similarly 2 cubits and 2 palms in length
and 7 [small ones?], and 35 (?) for the lime-kiln
all 10 digits in width
And in the houses of Achilleus and Bastas and Arsinoe
and Ph...
in . . . . . of the Eurippos (?), [ ] columns, standing
towards the [ ] triklinos (?) [ ] 2
col. iv
And in the northern part 3, 61⁄2 cubits in length and [20?] digits in width,
and their bases and capitals, foreign; (in total?) [.]
Similarly small ones in the western part, in the space called Kleinos,
2 small fluted columns, standing, 2 cubits and 4 palms in length
10 digits in width, and their bases and capitals, foreign
And in the northern apse, 6 small columns, standing, of which
4 are 21⁄2 cubits in length and 10 digits in width, with foreign capitals
2 are 3 cubits and 6 digits in length and 12 digits in width, with foreign capitals;
as for the bases, they are of local stone.
And in the eastern apse, 2, 21⁄2 cubits in length and 10 digits in width
and the bases and capitals
And in the southern apse, 6 small columns, standing, of which
4 are 21⁄2 cubits in length and 10 digits in width; and their bases and capitals, foreign
2 are 3 cubits and 6 digits in length and 12 digits in width; and their bases and
[capitals, foreign
And in another part of the same house, in the colonnade, 2 columns, standing
5 cubits and 8 digits in length, and 18 digits in width, with their
bases and capitals, without 3 capitals which are of local stone.
And above the cold-water pool, 2 columns, standing.
And above the entrance and exit, 2 columns, standing,
5 cubits in length and 18 digits in width
4 The traces are not easy to interpret. The first letter after the lacuna is probably an ω, although
it could conceivably be a ligatured α, followed by either τι, τρ, or π, and then by what looks
like ιο, but could also be ιρ with the hasta lost with the torn fibres. The last letter is probably an α,
although that is difficult to reconcile with what precedes it.
27 σαμσύχ(ινοι) (l. σαμψούχινοι) must refer to a type of marble, but that description, or anything
that might be reminiscent of marjoram, is otherwise unknown. U. Wilcken, APF 4 (1907) 556,
to whom the plant is unknown, tentatively suggests that it could refer to some floral ornament
on the column.
32 (μαρμά[ριν]οι): it is unclear why the scribe has enclosed the word in parentheses. While this can
be a way of marking deletion, elsewhere in this document the scribe simply crosses out words that
he wishes to delete.
36 βαλι[νί]ῳ̣: this spelling is found in O.Max. inv. 730: see H. Cuvigny (ed.), La Route de Myos
Hormos I (Cairo 2003) 218.
39 The restitution ἐν τόπῳ of the ed. pr. is not plausible, as it is followed by / to the right of the lacuna,
which points to an abbreviation or a numeral—possibly one indicating the number of sites to be
surveyed within the town.
40 [κα]μαρ[( ) το]π̣ίου: the ed. pr. had Κ̣αρ[ ̣]μ̣ιου treated as a place name, following on from
the restitution [ ἐν τόπῳ] in the previous line. This must indeed be a topographical indication,
but does not have to be a proper name, as an appellation follows. The letter after the lacuna is
most probably a π, which makes το]π̣ίου a very tempting restitution. The first visible letter is μ
rather than κ, and one would like to see in μαρ a part of [μαρ]μαρ( ), for example a term such as
μαρμαροτοπίον, describing a sort of marble depot/marble yard (see below). This would suppose
a rather acute ekthesis of this line, which is not consistent with the author’s very careful tabulation
hierarchy. The suggestion made here requires less space at the beginning of the line; for use of
the term in a topographical sense see P.Haun. III 63.3.
τῆ[ς ̣ ] ̣ ̣ Θεω̣ν̣ίλλης: Hélène Cuvigny suggests the possibility of τῆ[ς λ]α̣μ̣(προτάτης) Θεω̣ν̣ίλλης,
mentioned in a third-century document from Oxyrhynchus (SB XXII 15361 = P.Oxy. I 189).
Naturally, one would either have to date the latter document in the fourth century, or consider that
we have to do with two different women.
41 ⸌ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ω̣ ̣ ⸍: interlineation of five or six small illegible letters between the ends of lines 37 and 38.
50 μ[ι]κ(ροὶ) ι̣ζ⸍ The ed. pr. has [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]μα̣ι̣, which seems to be excluded by the long descending hasta
of the letter before the lacuna. This line is part of the list of κόμματα begun l. 44, but does not
seem to follow the same pattern. Rather, it seems to mention two supplementary categories of
κόμματα, presumably not worth measuring as the four others above. The suggestion μ[ι]κ(ροὶ)
is based on the word as it appears in l. 62 and offers a consistent meaning, but has the drawback
of a numeral with the its letters written rather far apart.
καμει[ν]ῃ λε⸍: the ed. pr. has καμ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ The traces are consistent with καμει[ or κο̣μμ̣[ , thus
presumably either καμείνῳ (for the kiln) or κόμματα (fragments). The traces that follow the
lacuna must include a numeral, as there is a stroke at the end. The two letters after the lacuna
could be ]ηχ, which immediately evokes π]ή̣χ(εις) ̣ as a possibility. That reading, however,
presents two difficulties: first, there is the trace of an ε or a ς very close to the presumed χ, and
this is very different to the rest of the document, where the numerals are systematically written at
some distance from πηχ( ); secondly, the reading would make little sense, whether with καμείνῳ
or with κόμματα, as one would rather need to give a number of items, not a measurement in cubits.
The suggestion here is that the η is part of the previous word, thus reading καμίνη, a variant
of κάμινος: see LSJ, s.v.; for the spelling καμείνῃ, in the dative, see P.Lond. III 994 (p. 259).
The traces of the following letter are consistent both with χ and, possibly, with λ. This leaves four
possible combinations, χε, χς, λε and λς. I have a slight preference for an ε, and also for λε, as it is
more plausible that one would indicate single units at the scale of 35 than at that of 605.
54 Ε̣ὐρίππου: this could refer to the spina of a hippodrome or to a long ornamental pool, the latter
being a little more likely to have been associated with columns.
73 ἐν τῷ ξ̣υστῷ: this refers to a colonnade space associated with a gymnasium or bathhouse. Here
it is certainly the latter as the following lines make clear (see also P.Oxy. VI 896; XLV 3265;
LXIV 4441).
76 ψυχροφόρου: ψυχροφόρον is the frigidarium. Here we have a feminine noun, attested only
in Aetius med. IX.31: Ῥάμνου χυλοῦ κρᾶσιν συμμέτρου ποτηρίου καὶ γλυκέος κρητικοῦ τὸ
ἴσον μίξας, δίδου πιεῖν ἐν τῇ ἐμβάσει τοῦ βαλανείου, κελεύων ἐπὶ πολὺ καρτερεῖν. Ἐν δὲ τῇ
ψυχροφόρῳ μὴ ἐμβαινέτω (“After concocting a mixture of juice from the buckthorn and Cretan
sweet wine in a cup of modest size, give it to drink at the entrance of the bath, urging much
perseverance. In the frigidarium, however, do not let him enter.”) and possibly also in P.Oxy. VI
896, a report on the cost of repainting the Hadrianic bath (AD 316): τῶν δύο ψυχροφόρων καὶ
ἐμβατικοῦ [θ]όλου ἑνὸς (although technically this need not be a feminine). The association with
ἐμβατικοῦ [θ]όλου clearly connects it with bathing pools (cf. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon,
s.v. ἐμβάτη and also ἐμβάτης for fonts, tubs or cisterns). By the way, in that text, θόλος is not,
as the translation suggests on the basis of LSJ, “vaulted vapour-bath,” but simply “vault”: see
P.Oxy. XVII 2145, of AD 186, where at least five different θόλοι with their dimensions are
mentioned in a private bath; see also Pap.Graec.Mag. 36.74. Thus P.Oxy. VI 896 actually reads
“the two cold-water pools and the pool vault” or “the two frigidaria and the pool vault.” Two
frigidaria are a rare, but attested feature of bathhouses.
77 ἐπάνω [τῆ]ς εἰσόδ(ου) καὶ ἐξόδου: if this refers to the entrance and exit of the people, the expres-
sion is odd, as the two are not separate and one would rather have expected a reference to a door.
This also seems unsatisfactory as we are told that the “entrance and exit” had two columns on
top of it, a rather weird arrangement. The two terms also appear together in connection with
a bathhouse in P.Oxy. VI 896, 10–13: εἰς λόγον ζωγραφίας (...) ἀρδρομηκιαίων ὅλου ξυστοῦ
[εἰ]σόδων καὶ ἐξόδων. The fact that the two functions are separate in conjunction with the bath
context could indicate that the terms refer to the inward and outward flow of the water. In P.Oxy.
VI 896, ἀρδρομηκιαίων could throw light on their meaning if it could be understood correctly. A
photograph of the papyrus in E. Doxiadis, The Mysterious Fayum Portraits: Faces from Ancient
Egypt (London 1995) 89, does not exclude the reading ἀρδομηκιαίων, as the ρ seems to be inside
the δ, so possibly a mistake. This is still a hapax, but can more plausibly be a compound made up
of words related to ἄρδευσις and μῆκος, thus describing some sort of water conduits.
The document is written by someone who is moving between different parts of a house, and then to other
buildings, possibly in other parts of the city, systematically taking down information on the columns he
finds. Despite its fragmentary state, the text of the first column contains an indication that the document
began here: lines 9 and 10 seem to contain a general title for the inventory, describing its contents. It may
have read something like this: “Inventory of the city’s abandoned columns with their capitals and bases,
and their measurements.”
That describes quite accurately, if very briefly, the information that the author notes. He records
information on the size of the columns, noting their length (μῆκος) in cubits, palms and digits and their
diameter (πάχος) in digits. Small columns are put down as such (στύλοι μικροί), while the large ones
are not, which would suggest they were the norm. Fragments (κόμματα) are described separately, which
implies that the shafts not characterised as such were complete. The table below shows the various propor-
tions mentioned for the column-shafts, showing a predictable tendency for smaller columns to be stockier
than larger ones.
length diameter ratio 4

2c 2p 10d 5.6
21⁄2 c 10d 6
2c 4p 10d 6.4
3c 6d 12d 6.5
4c 8d 16d 6.5
5c 16d 7.5
5c 18d 6.67
5c 2p 18d 7.11
5c 8d 18d 7.11
61⁄2 c 20d 7.8
Another element that is always noted is whether the columns are standing (ἑστῶτες) or lying on
the ground (χαμαὶ κείμενοι), which has some bearing on their state of preservation and, more importantly,
on the ease with which they can be removed, since standing columns were probably still sealed and required
more labour. The presence of the capitals and bases of the columns is also noted, as is the presence of
fluting (ξυστρωτοί).
The origin of the stone is always given for capitals and bases, and often also for shafts. The
distinction made is between local stone (ἀπὸ ἐντοπίου λίθου) and “foreign” stone (ξενικός). For some
shafts the local origin of the stone is noted, for others nothing, which could suggest that the norm was
the “foreign” stone. Whether the dichotomy local/foreign actually refers to Egyptian vs non-Egyptian or
4
On the basis of 1 cubit = 6 palms = 24 digits.
to a framework internal to Egypt, such as “from the local quarries” vs “from a different region” cannot be
determined on the basis of the text. Complete columns could be made of a mix of “foreign” stone for basis
and capital and “local” stone for the shaft (ll. 29–30; 64–67; 75). Clearly the person making the list was
more interested in “foreign” stone, repeatedly dismissing the parts that are of local stone (ll. 29–30; 75).
Capitals and bases are always noted in association with shafts (αἱ τούτων βάσεις καὶ κεφαλίδες),
so that columns with a complete order are immediately identified.
In a separate category the compiler of the document has put four “fragments” (κόμματα), for
which he gives the same dimensions, length and diameter (ll. 44–49), arranging them from the longest
to the shortest. Clearly the term refers to broken or incomplete shafts rather than to broken pieces. Those
seem to come collectively in a fifth line at the end of the list, described probably as “small” and “for
the kiln” (l. 50).
As the author of the document moves through space he also names the various buildings in which
the columns are found. First he is in one part of a house, then moves to a triclinium at the back; he then
moves to a room called the symposium. After an empty line, indicating that he has changed buildings,
he mentions “the baths of X.” The next column shows him “in the city,” in a place surnamed Theonillēs,
and after that in the houses of four different people, presumably adjacent as they are lumped together
in one entry. Once again he mentions a triclinium. The final column begins as he is in the northern part
of a house, and then in its western part, again a triclinium. He then describes three apses (north, east and
south), probably still the triclinium. The author then moves to a different part of the same house, clearly
a bath with a palaestra space. The last six columns mentioned are quite big (5 cubits), contrary to the ones
in the apses of the triclinium, which were half their length. There is nothing to indicate whether all those
houses and spaces were adjacent or at what distance from one another they might have been, especially
as some crucial spatial transitions fall within the lacunae. It is clear however that the inventory concerns
a number of different buildings which seem to be affluent private residences, two of which at least included
a bath, and one of which had a dedicated symposium room separate from the dining room, as well as
ornate marble columns.
In 1898, B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt did not consider the text worth publishing along with
P.Oxy. I 71, describing it as “three columns containing a list of buildings with measurements.” Some ten
years later, F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell found it “sufficiently curious to deserve publication,” introducing
it with a mere nineteen lines in P.Lond. III (1907). Although they recognised it as a list of columns
that included their measurements, the type of stone, and information on their state of preservation, they
concluded that “there is nothing to show what its purpose was.”
Only in 1979 did Adam Łukaszewicz relate this document to a question that was beginning to
attract attention: that of the reuse of architectural elements from classical monuments in late antique
buildings, commonly known as spolia.5 The turning point came with Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann’s
Die Spolien in der spätantiken Architektur, published only four years earlier, in 1975.6 Łukaszewicz
related P.Lond. III 755 to the legislation concerning public buildings, and especially the measures taken
by successive fourth-century emperors to protect them against pillage and demolition, later collected
mainly in section 15 of the Theodosian Code.7 Łukaszewicz saw that the columns listed in this document
5
A. Łukaszewicz, “Some remarks on P. Lond. III 755 and the problem of building materials in the fourth century A. D.,”
Archeologia 30 (1979) 115–118.
6
F. W. Deichmann, Die Spolien in der spätantiken Architektur (Munich 1975).
7
Those laws had been presented briefly by C. Kunderewicz, “Ochrona zabytków architektury antycznei w Kodeksie
Teodozjańskim,” Archeologia 17 (1966) 80–87; id., “La Protection des monuments d’architecture antique dans le Code
Théodosien,” in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, IV (Milan 1971) 137–153. Other works, not cited by Łukaszewicz,
attest to a rising interest in that question in the decade preceding his article: Y. Janvier, La Législation du Bas-Empire
romain sur les édifices publics (PhD, Aix-en-Provence 1969); E. J. Phillips, “The Roman Law on the Demolition of
Buildings,” Latomus 32 (1973) 86–95; P. Garnsey, “Urban Property Investment. Appendix : Demolition of Houses and
the Law,” in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Roman property (Cambridge 1976) 133–136.
were intended as building materials and that they were found in “demolished or abandoned structures.”
Unfortunately however, the only source he used to interpret the document was the Theodosian legislation
on public buildings, which he took at face value, giving in to the idea commonly held at the time that
the fourth century brought with it a “plague of demolishing and plundering old buildings” to sustain
an increased building activity, and seeing in the “reaction” of the authorities “one of the main pieces of
evidence showing that a catastrophic situation had been reached.”8 It is however absolutely clear from
this document that the buildings mentioned were not being demolished or destroyed: they were already
in disuse and several of their columns had fallen on the ground, so that the operation it describes could
be referred to as salvaging the materials rather than plundering the buildings.
Since Łukaszewicz’s article P.Lond. III 755 has not attracted much attention, while scholarship
on spolia has boomed. Most of that literature is focused on late antiquity, and largely based on imperial
legislation and imperial building projects, or at least on large-scale public enterprises. It is thus often
understood as a fourth-century phenomenon, linked to Christianity, which allowed the “spoliation” of
pagan buildings. This in turn gave rise to two classic interpretations of the practice of architectural reuse,
one seeing economic recession as the main drive for the use of second-hand materials, and the other seeing
reuse as primarily ideological, a form of symbolic appropriation of the past.9
Although they are often opposed, the two approaches are not necessarily incompatible with each
other, and clearly both factors were at work. The difficulty with both lies elsewhere, namely that for
various reasons, they give a biased image of the practice of architectural reuse. Firstly, they give the false
impression that it was a characteristically late antique phenomenon, while in fact it was a common practice
throughout classical antiquity, even in classical Greece.10 Secondly, the very use of the term spolia, much
more consistently applied to late antique reuse than to that of earlier periods, carries with it the connotation
of destruction and spoliation. This corresponds to some extent to the situation described in Cod.Theod.,
but does not adequately describe more common reuse, resulting from the collection of abandoned materials
which were thus saved rather than stolen.
Undoubtedly in ideological forms of reuse, such as asserting victory, spoliation was part of
the point.11 In the Arch of Constantine, on which much has been written,12 the reuse of sculptures was
certainly thought out and not the result of lack of funds. Much of the industry of reuse, however, had
an economic basis. Despite Beat Brenk’s disbelief (“I do not at all see how it could have been possible
8
Łukaszewicz (see n. 5 above) 116.
9
Deichmann advanced the first view, while the second one builds on Richard Krautheimer’s “The Architecture of Sixtus III:
A Fifth-Century Renascence?” in Studies in Early Christian, Medieval and Renaissance Art (New York 1969) 181–196,
which does not concern reuse as such, but the ideology behind fifth-century classicising architecture in Rome; in this line
of argument, see B. Brenk, “Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
41 (1987) 103–109; H. Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their
Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990) 47–61; M. Greenhalgh, The Survival of Roman
Antiquities in the Middle Ages (London 1989). See the discussions in J. Alchermes, “Spolia in Roman Cities of the Late
Empire: Legislative Rationale and Architectural Reuse,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48 (1994) 167–178; D. Kinney, “Rape or
Restitution of the Past? Interpreting Spolia,” in S. C. Scott (ed.), The Art of Interpreting (University Park 1995) 52–67; id.,
“Spolia: Damnatio and renovatio memoriae,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42 (1997) 117–148.
10
M.-C. Hellmann, “Le Remploi,” in her L’Architecture grecque I: Les Principes de construction (Paris 2002) 118–120;
epigraphic references given by L. Robert, “Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias,” Antiquité classique 35 (1966) 394, n. 1 (NB the
reference to IG XII 1057 should be corrected to IG XII 1097). In fact, Robert’s understanding of the expression ἐκ τῆς ὕλης
in a then unpublished inscription of Aphrodisias does not necessarily refer to building materials, but could describe wood
or woodland, especially as the building in question is a bath-house (I owe this suggestion to Andrew Wilson); the inscription
was later published by J. M. Reynolds, “The Dedication of a Bath-Building at Carian Aphrodisias,” Studia in honorem
Georgii Mihailov (Sofia 1997) 397–402 (= I.Aph. 2007, 5.6), who repeats and expands on Robert’s interpretation.
11
Kinney, “Spolia” (see n. 9 above) 120–122.
12
See the discussion in Kinney, “Rape or Restitution” (see n. 9 above) 56–58.
to save money by using spolia”),13 the fact is that it saved not only money but time. The building industry
was huge, it was not only imperial, and not everyone had Constantine’s funds at their disposal.
Some of the difficulties of earlier work on spolia have been raised and discussed in recent scholar-
ship.14 This is not the place for a historiographical excursus, except to say that despite many interesting
insights gained on the question of architectural reuse, two aspects of it, both highlighted by P.Lond.
III 755, have been almost entirely neglected. One is the role and fate of private buildings in the entire
process, an issue which has been the victim of the overwhelming focus on public buildings, be they
civic or imperial. The other is that of the day-to-day practicalities of architectural reuse, which have
hardly been addressed.15
Private building is understandably understudied, as it is also underrepresented in the sources,
which are much more interested in things public. A number of points made by the fourth-century legisla-
tion, however, concern private building either directly or by implication. In line with previous texts,
those gathered in the Theodosian Code insist primarily on the beauty of the city and aim to prevent
the deterioration of the city’s fabric and in particular to safeguard its ornaments.16 This concern was not
new: it is continuously present in a stream of measures taken from at least the first century AD, as well
as in inscriptions and literary texts.17 Already in the mid-first century, the Senatus Consultum Hosidianum
(AD 44) clearly shows that private houses are seen as contributing to the general image of the city: citizens
should “not introduce an inimical sight in peacetime through the destruction of town and country houses.”18
There is also a clear separation between public and private property, and transferring building materials
from one to the other was not straightforward, but subject to a formalised transaction.
In private construction, materials could be supplied by the builder or by the owner, depending
on the contract.19 There is evidence that such materials were stockpiled in depots from where they were
redistributed for the needs of specific projects.20 The most impressive archaeological evidence comes from
the “marble yards” of Rome, the one known as the Marmorata and another at Portus,21 but such depots
must have existed at a smaller scale in most large port cities. The material collected in those marble yards
included both newly produced architectural elements, some only roughed out at the quarry so as to be
finished in situ at their final destination, and second-hand materials taken from dismantled buildings.22
13
Brenk (see n. 9 above) 104.
14
See Alchermes (see n. 9 above); Kinney, “Spolia” and “Rape or Restitution” (see n. 9 above).
15
With the notable exception of M. Greenhalgh, Marble Past, Monumental Present: Building with Antiquities in the
Mediaeval Mediterranean (The Medieval Mediterranean 80) (Leiden 2008); the recent thesis by Simon Barker (Oxford 2011)
deals with many of those issues in much more detail.
16
See for instance Cod.Theod. 15.1.37.
17
On legislation concerning demolition from the early empire onwards see the references in n. 7 above; on its relation to
the concern for ornament see Y. Thomas, “Les Ornements, la cité, le patrimoine.” in Images romaines. Actes de la table
ronde organisée à l’École normale supérieure, 24–26 octobre 1996 (Études de littérature ancienne 9) (Paris 1998) 263–284;
A. Geyer, “‘Ne ruinis urbs deformetur …’” Ästhetische Kriterien in der spätantiken Baugesetzgebung,” Boreas 16 (1993)
63–77; more generally on the theme of city ornaments, A.-V. Pont, Orner la cité: enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage
urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine (Scripta antiqua 24) (Bordeaux 2010).
18
CIL X 1401 = ILS II 6043: neque inimicissimam pace faciem inducere ruinis domum villarumque; transl. D. C. Braund,
Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 B.C.–A.D. 68 (London 1985) 263, no. 711A.
19
S. D. Martin, The Roman Jurists and the Organization of Private Building in the Late Republic and Early Empire
(Collection Latomus 204) (Brussels 1989) 38–40.
20
Greenhalgh, Marble Past (see n. 15 above) 111–119. See J. DeLaine, The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the Design,
Construction, and Economics of Large-Scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome (JRA Suppl. 25) (Portsmouth, RI 1997),
whose chapter on “man-power and logistics” (Ch. 6, 175–194) shows that such stock management was absolutely essential
to large building projects (see esp. 188).
21
C. J. Fant, “Rome’s Marble Yards,” JRA 14 (2001) 167–198; id., “The Imperial Marble Yard at Portus,” in M. Waelkens,
N. Herz, and L. Moens (eds.), Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance (Acta Archeaologica Lovanensia, Monogr.
4) (Louvain 1992) 115–120.
22
Fant, “Rome’s Marble Yards” (see n. 21 above) 175 and n. 44, on second-hand columns in the Portus yard.
The Portus yard also had a workshop preparing the columns that had arrived rough, or sometimes even
uncut, and repairing pieces that had suffered during travel.23
This practice does not often appear in the textual record. One explicit case of columns originally
prepared for a different building but left unused and stored away is mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis
concerning Pope Sixtus III (432–440), who, we are told, used for the construction of the Lateran baptistery
eight porphyry columns which had been stored by Constantine for future usage, but had remained unused
until his time.24
Perhaps the best-known late antique set of ready-to-use material is the cargo of the sixth-century
shipwreck off the coast of Marzamemi in Sicily, known as the “church-wreck” because it carried archi-
tectural elements that are used in churches, such as the loose parts of an ambo and several types of
columns, bases and capitals. The ship contained some pieces that came directly from the quarry, but
also several broken columns like the ones found at Portus and repaired there for reuse. It is unclear from
the publications whether those broken columns were quarry accidents or second-hand salvaged material,
but they were clearly shipped with the expectation that they would be reshaped for use. The ship could
have been chartered for a one-off operation, as has been generally assumed on the supposition that it was
carrying a single “prefabricated church,”25 but it could also have been carrying material for several
different projects or even for a marble yard.
One can easily imagine the columns listed in our document ending up on just such a ship as
the one wrecked off Marzamemi. One can also ask the same question about the document’s purpose: does
it refer to a collection of columns for stockpiling, or is it the product of a one-off operation? There are
some parallels for the latter, like the transfer of a group of eight columns with their architraves from an old
colonnade to a new one in Aphrodisias, recorded in an inscription honouring their donor.26
If those columns were intended for a marble yard, one can imagine a local depot, either municipal
or belonging to a local contractor, or something more centred on a big city like Alexandria, or even
Jerusalem or Constantinople where vast building programmes were under way. In that case, the interesting
columns— which seem to have been those of “foreign” stone—could have been loaded as a side-cargo
on one of the boats coming up the Nile from the quarries in the south with the same destination.27
The care taken to give the dimensions, however, would rather point in the direction not of
systematic and exhaustive collection for unspecified future use as occasions arose, but of an operation
with a more specific aim closer in time. This could be a private initiative of some sort. Conceivably, when
a donor bought a group of abandoned columns in order to offer them for a new construction, or even when
a private person acquired them for his own use, they would send someone like the author of our document to
make an inventory of the useful elements. The information noted on those columns—length and diameter,
state of preservation, ease of transfer, stone quality—is precisely what one needs to know when classifying
them in view of reuse in a specific project.28
23
Fant, “The Imperial Marble Yard” (see n. 21 above) 116.
24
L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, Introduction et Commentaire I (Paris 1955) 234.
25
G. Kapitän, “The Church Wreck off Marzamemi,” Archaeology 22 (1969) 122–133; id., “Elementi architectonici per una
basilica dal relitto navale del VI secolo di Marzamemi (Siracusa),” Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 27 (1980)
71–136; more generally J.-P. Sodini, “Le Commerce des marbres à l’époque protobyzantine,” in Hommes et richesses dans
l’Empire byzantin, I (IVe–VIIe siècle) (Paris 1989) 163–186, esp. 167–168.
26
MAMA VIII 498 = I.Aphr. 2007, 12.1006; on the meaning of διάστυλον see M. C. Hellmann, Recherches sur le vocabu-
laire de l’architecture grecque d’après les inscriptions de Délos (BEFAR 278) (Athens 1992) 216 n. 15.
27
On stone transport in Egypt see C. Adams, “Who Bore the Burden? The Organisation of Stone Transport in Roman Egypt,”
in D. Mattingly and J. Salmon (eds.), Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World (London 2001) 171–192.
28
An interesting parallel is offered by a letter written by the Marine superintendent of Toulon describing the columns sent
to him in 1688 from Leptis Magna by Consul Claude Le Maire in view of their reuse in various French monuments, most
notably Versailles: see A. Laronde, “Claude Le Maire et l’exportation des marbres de Lepcis Magna,” Bulletin de la Société
nationale des antiquaires de France (1993) 243–244.
More probably however, the document could be the result of a municipal initiative. The repeated
admonitions in Cod.Theod. for cities to repair their old buildings before undertaking the construction
of new ones imply the existence of some form of estates management being carried out at the municipal
level.29 The way this worked has recently been highlighted by the publication of P.Oxy. LXIV 4441,
the unpublished section of a τόμος συγκολλήσιμος, two parts of which had been published earlier as P.Oxy.
I 53 and P.Oxy. VI 983. It contains a series of reports to the city’s logistes by guilds of various building
trades concerning repairs being or to be made to the city’s buildings, dated between January 315 and
February 316. P.Oxy. I 53 mentions ongoing repairs to the public bath, and P.Oxy. LXIV 4441 contains
a report on repairs necessary to a number of buildings, including several private houses (cols. iii–viii),
another report on the materials necessary for given repairs (cols. ix–x), and yet another report with similar
content (cols. xii and xiv). Although the columns after col. viii are very damaged, the overall purpose of
the documents contained in the τόμος is clearly a general survey of damaged buildings and an assessment
of the needs for their repair.
The τόμος offers an admirable potential context for a document such as P.Lond. III 755, which
reads like the pendant to the assessment of the materials needed for repairs to damaged buildings: it could
correspond to the parallel or subsequent operation of making the inventory of all materials available for
the repairs in question. The reports to the logistes mention “all the buildings throughout the city … that
are broken down from hard usage and time” and that “require the necessary restoration” (col. iii, ll. 6–12),
in other words, buildings that are still in use but in a bad state because of time and continuous use;
the buildings in our document, on the other hand, seem to be in total disuse, with their columns fallen
to the ground, and thus available for recovery and reuse. Linking the two documents as representing
two aspects of municipal estate management does not mean, of course, that they were part of the same
initiative. The inventory of columns could but need not be the specific operation of 316 in Oxyrhynchus,
as that date is not impossible, but probably too early for our papyrus; it could be part of a similar
municipal initiative in Arsinoe some time in the fourth century, which would fit well with the fact that
the reused papyrus comes from the municipal archive there.
A final question is why there were so many abandoned buildings in the city in the early fourth
century, whether that city was indeed Oxyrhynchus or not. Time and neglect are less radical in their effects.
They are invoked in P.Oxy. LXIV 4441 for buildings that need serious repair, but are still recoverable,
which does not seem to be the case for the ones described here. The fact that the abandoned houses in
col. iii are named after their owners suggests that they had been abandoned relatively recently, making
a sudden destruction more plausible. The suggestion that comes to mind is an earthquake, and indeed we
know of one that took place in 320 with its epicentre in Alexandria.30 If this is the case, we could be
dealing with a municipal initiative to clean up the city, which could also have provided materials for
the restoration of the buildings that were still standing.
We know from examples mainly from Asia Minor that response to earthquakes could involve
help from the imperial authorities, but also and more importantly from neighbouring cities.31 This might
provide a context for the transfer of the document from Arsinoe to Oxyrhynchus, even though its exact
terms will remain unclear.
29
Cod.Theod. 15.1.14–17 and 20.
30
N. N. Ambraseys, C. P. Melville, and R. D. Adams, The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea: A Historical
Review (Cambridge 1995) 22; later cases show that earthquakes near Alexandria can be felt very far to the south and destroy
buildings in the Cairo region and the Fayyum: see p. 88–89, the description and map of the earthquake of 12 September 1955
north of Alexandria. The famous earthquake of 365 (p. 22) is known to have affected the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, but
little is known about its effects inland.
31
Pont (see n. 17 above) 277–278 and 436ff; 470ff. According to L. Robert, Hellenica IV: Épigrammes du Bas-Empire
(Paris 1948) 116, there was even an official in charge of rebuilding a city after an earthquake, the oikistes. Robert mentions
a study of the term (“J’en traite ailleurs”) which I have been unable to locate.
This long-neglected document raises more questions than it solves, but, especially combined with
the τόμος συγκολλήσιμος mentioned above, it also gives us precious insights into the late Roman building
industry and its management at the level of the municipality. The degree of specialisation in particular
is very striking: in the reports of the τόμος, every guild does part of the work of assessment relevant to
its speciality. This inventory only mentions columns and capitals, even though there were certainly other
architectural elements in the buildings visited by its author, which would presumably have been listed
by someone else. In that sense, the papyrus is an indication that the building industry was still—or
again—operating at a large enough scale in the fourth century to require division of labour and centralised
management.
University of Reading
No. 43
© British Library Board (Pap.Gr. inv. 755v)
Reproduced by kind permission of the British Library
No. 43, col. i–ii

No. 43, col. iii

No. 43, col. iv

44. Brief über kirchliche Angelegenheiten
Amphilochios Papathomas
P.Vindob. G 26135 18,5 x 10,5 cm VI./VII. Jh.

Herkunft unbekannt
Rechts ist der mittel- bis dunkelbraune Papyrus vollständig erhalten, wobei kein Freirand zu sehen ist, weil
der Schreiber bis zum äußeren Rand geschrieben hat. Links und unten ist das Blatt abgebrochen. Dies
könnte auch oben der Fall sein, wo es allerdings einen Freirand von 0,8 cm gibt. Zumal keine Schriftreste
von Unterlängen einer vorangehenden Zeile in diesem Bereich zu finden sind, könnte es sich hierbei um
den originalen oberen Freirand handeln. Da die Briefe dieser Zeit fast immer in medias res beginnen, wäre
das Fehlen eines Präskripts kein Argument gegen diese Annahme. Andererseits könnte der leere Raum von
weniger als 1 cm auch interlinearer Freiraum wie in den Zeilen darunter sein. In diesem Fall könnten vor
dem erhaltenen Fragment noch weitere Zeilen verloren sein. Die Frage muß offen bleiben. Der Brief ist
im sogenannten ‘koptischen’ Stil (‘sloping pointed majuscule’) geschrieben worden. Die Schrift läuft auf
dem Rekto quer zu den Fasern. Auf dem erhaltenen Blatt erkennt man fünf horizontale und mindestens
eine vertikale Faltung. Das Verso des erhaltenen Fragments ist unbeschriftet, woraus zu schließen ist, daß
die Adresse des Briefes im nunmehr verlorenen Teil der Rückseite plaziert war.
↓ [- - - ]π̣[- - -] ε̣ὐαγγελίζεσ̣-
[θαι ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ 4–5 ] ὁσιωτάτων
[- - - ] ̣ασιν καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου
4 [- - - ἁ]γιωτάτη ἐκκλησία διὰ
[- - - ] πολλαῖς μερίμν̣[αις]
[- - - πληρ(?)]ο̣φορησάτω αὐτὴν ἡ α-
[- - - ]ματα. οὐ μετρίως δε-
8 [ομ- - - -] ̣μων ἀποδεδομέ-
[νων (?) - - - ]λῳ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ καὶ
[- - - ]ε̣νου κό̣π̣ον καὶ μηδα-
[μῶς (?) - - - ]ος. οὔτε γὰρ ἀμφιβάλω
12 [- - - ]ιρον οὐδὲν τῶν λυσιτε-
[λούντων - - - ]ε̣ως καθὼς ἐσήμ̣α̣ν̣α̣
[- - - ] ̣ ἐκκλεισιαστικὴν οὕ̣τω̣
[- - - ] τὸν ὀφείλοντα [[.]] μετ̣ὰ̣ ̣ ̣
16 [- - - ] περὶ τοῦ βαλσάμου ὡς
[- - - ]α̣ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
[- - - ]ε̣ται μὴ κατοκνησα-
[- - - ] ̣φους
20 [- - - ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
---------------------
11 l. ἀμφιβάλλω 14 l. ἐκκλησιαστικήν
234 44. Amphilochios Papathomas
… bringt die frohe Nachricht … der hochheiligen … und jedes anderen … die allerheiligste Kirche
durch (?) … vielen Sorgen … möge sie informieren (?) … ich bitte (?) sehr … der gezahlten (bzw.
zurückgegebenen) … dem gloriosissimus und … leeren und auf keine Weise (?) … Denn weder erhebe
ich Einwand, daß … nichts von den Sachen, die vorteilhaft wären, … wie ich mitteilte … die kirchliche
auf diese Art … der Euch … schuldet … über den Balsam, daß / wie … die Kirche … nicht zu zögern …
Erhalten ist die rechte Seite des Briefes. Der an der linken Seite weggebrochene Teil des Blattes
war mindestens so umfangreich wie das erhaltene Fragment, allem Anschein nach aber etwas umfang-
reicher als dieses. Da die Adresse auf dem Verso verloren ist und das Rekto keinerlei Informationen
über die Korrespondenten enthält, bleibt deren Identität und Beziehung zueinander völlig im Dunkeln.
Wegen des Textverlustes bleibt uns auch der Inhalt des Briefes größtenteils verborgen. Der häufigen
Erwähnung von christlichen Ausdrücken bzw. kirchlichen Institutionen (Z. 2, 4, 14, 17) ist auf jeden Fall
zu entnehmen, daß der Brief im christlichen Milieu verankert war.
Der Schreiber berichtet zunächst (Z. 1) über eine frohe Botschaft (εὐαγγελίζεσθαι). Wie die
Parallelen zeigen (s. unten den Komm. zur Stelle), muß es sich dabei vielmehr um eine reale erfreuliche
Nachricht als um eine Anspielung auf das Evangelium handeln. Anschließend (Z. 2) kommt der Begriff
ὁσιώτατος (‘hochheilig’) vor, der unmißverständlich auf ein geistlich-kirchliches Milieu hinweist. In Z. 4
ist von der christlichen Kirche als heilige Institution (ἁ]γιωτάτη ἐκκλησία) die Rede. Anschließend (Z. 5)
redet der Schreiber von vielen Sorgen (πολλαῖς μερίμ[ναις]), wobei es nicht klar ist, ob sich diese auf ihn
selbst oder auf seinen Korrespondenten beziehen (ersteres erscheint mir angesichts der Konventionen der
Briefe dieser Zeit als wahrscheinlicher). In Z. 6 scheint der Adressat bzw. eine dritte Person aufgefordert
zu werden, dafür zu sorgen, daß er bzw. sie jemandem eine uns nicht näher bekannte Information mitteilt
(πληρ(?)]ο̣φορησάτω αὐτὴν ἡ α-). Unmittelbar danach (Z. 7–8) ist von einer eindringlichen Bitte die Rede,
die entweder von dem Absender unseres Briefes oder von einer dritten Person stammt. In Z. 9 ist ein
Mann mit dem Rangprädikat gloriosissimus erwähnt (ein zweites Rangprädikat könnte am Beginn
der Z. 10 verloren sein). In Z. 11 beteuert der Schreiber, daß er keine Zweifel bezüglich einer leider
nicht identifizierbaren Angelegenheit hat. In Z. 13 macht der Absender auf eine frühere Information
aufmerksam, die er dem Adressaten zukommen ließ. Z. 14 ist wieder kirchlichen Angelegenheiten
gewidmet, denn der Schreiber verwendet dort das Adjektiv ἐκκλησιαστική. In Z. 16 ist vom Balsam
(βαλσάμου) und in Z. 17 wieder von einer bzw. der Kirche (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) die Rede. Das erhaltene
Fragment scheint mit einer Aufforderung des Schreibers zu enden, daß der Adressat bzw. eine dritte
Person in Bezug auf irgendetwas nicht zögern möge.
Für die Datierung müssen wir uns auf paläographische Kriterien stützen, deren zufolge der
Papyrus in das 6. oder 7. Jh. n.Chr. zu datieren ist. Zu ähnlichen Händen vgl. z.B. die ebenfalls ins 6./7. Jh.
datierten CPR XXV 17 (Bild auch bei H. Harrauer, Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie, Bibliothek
des Buchwesens 20, Stuttgart 2010, Nr. 262, Abb. 248 [S. 252 des Tafelbandes]); CPR XXV 28 (Bild auch
bei Harrauer, a.a.O., Nr. 263, Abb. 249 [S. 253 des Tafelbandes]) und P.Oxy. LXVII 4629 (Bild auch bei
Harrauer, a.a.O., Nr. 264, Abb. 250 [S. 254 des Tafelbandes]).
1 ]π̣[: Die Positionierung des Fragments ist nicht sicher.

ε̣ὐαγγελίζεσ̣θαι: Für εὐαγγελίζομαι gibt es dreizehn Belege. Die frühesten sind P.Giss.Apoll. 9
(= P.Giss. 27 = W.Chr. 17), 4–7 (Dezember 115 n.Chr.): … συνοδοιπ̣ορηκένα[ι] τιν̣[ὶ] π̣αι|δαρ̣ί̣ῳ̣
τ̣οῦ κυρίου Ἀπολλωνίου ἀπὸ Μέ̣μφ̣ε|ως̣ [ἐ]ρ̣χομένῳ̣ εὐαγγελίζοντι τὰ τῆς νε[ί]κης | αὐ[τ]οῦ καὶ
προ̣κ̣οπῆς und P.Oxy. XLVI 3313, 3–4 (2. Jh. n.Chr.): χαρ[ᾶς ἡμ]ᾶς ἐπλήρωσας εὐαγγελι̣σα ̣ ̣μένη |
τὸν γ[άμον] τοῦ κρατίστου Σαραπίωνος κτλ. Acht Belege sind Briefe aus Mons Claudianus aus
dem späten 2. Jh. n.Chr.; vgl. O.Claud. IV 853, 5–11 (ca. 186–187 n.Chr.): εὐανγελιζόμεθά σοι,
κοίριε, | ἱλαρὰν φάσιν τοῦ Σεράπιδος θέλ[ο]ν̣|τες καὶ τῆς Τύχης τοῦ [Κλαυδιανοῦ] | καὶ τῆς Τύχης
σοῦ συνεπ̣[ισχυσάσης] | ἀπηρτικέναι τὸν πρῶτον [κίονα] | ἄχρι τῆς κϛ τοῦ ἐνεστῶ[τος Ἀθὺρ] |
44. Brief über kirchliche Angelegenheiten 235
μηνὸς Αἰγυπτίοις κύβοις [ca. 4] und ferner O.Claud. IV 849, 3–4 (teilweise ergänzt; spätes 2. Jh.
n.Chr.); 850, 8 (ergänzt; spätes 2. Jh. n.Chr.); 852, 5 (Endung ergänzt; sine dato); 856, 4 (Endung
ergänzt; ca. 186–187 n.Chr.); 857; 9–10 (Endung ergänzt; ca. 186–187 n.Chr.); 859, 6 (Endung
ergänzt; ca. 186–187 n.Chr.) und 860, 6 (teilweise ergänzt; ca. 186–187 n.Chr.). Nach fast vier
Jahrhunderten ohne Zeugnisse erscheint εὐαγγελίζομαι erneut in der Abfassungszeit unseres
Textes: P.Rain.Cent. 125, 1, 3–7 (575 n.Chr.; zur Datierung s. BL VIII 287; BL IX 223; X 165;
XI 185): ε[ὐ]αγγε[λί]ζομαι καὶ νῦν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ | ἐ[ν]δοξότητι τὸν εὐλογημένον | γονιμότατον
(l. -ώτατον) τῆς Αἰγύπτου ποταμὸ(ν) | προσβ[ε]βηκέναι τῇ δυνάμει | τ[οῦ] Χρ(ισ)τ(οῦ) κτλ.; P.Oxy.
XVI 1830, 3–6 mit BL VIII 249 (6. Jh. n.Chr.): εὐαγγελίζομαι καὶ ν̣ῦ̣ν̣ τ̣ῇ ὑμετέρᾳ | εὐδοκίμησιν
(l. -ήσει) τὸν εὐλογιμένον (l. -γημένον) γ̣ό̣ν̣ιμ(ον) | τῆς Αἰγύπτου ποταμὸν προσβεβηκ(έναι) | τῇ
δυνάμει τοῦ Χριστοῦ und SB XX 14626, 28 (2. Hälfte 6. Jh. n.Chr.): … ἀλλ᾿ εὐαγγελ[ιζό]μενοι
πανταχῇ τὸ κλέος ὑμῶν εἰς ἔπ̣αινον ὑμῶ⸌ν⸍ κτλ. Überall ist von einer fröhlichen Botschaft die
Rede, etwa einem Sieg, einem persönlichen Erfolg, einer Hochzeit, einer ertragreichen Nilflut
usw. Ähnliches trifft sicherlich auch für unsere Stelle zu. Der Sprachgebrauch sowohl des
vorliegenden Passus als auch der drei anderen spätgriechischen Parallelen könnte durchaus
vom christlichen Sprachgebrauch beeinflußt sein, in dem εὐαγγελίζομαι und εὐαγγελισμός eine
zentrale Rolle spielen (unser Brief ist generell durch das christliche Vokabular geprägt; vgl. oben
Einleitung). Zu den mit dem Suffix -ίζω endenden Verben in den nachptolemäischen Papyri
s. L. R. Palmer, A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri I.1, Publications of the Philological
Society, London 1946 (Nachdruck 1948), 140–143.
2–3 ὁσιωτάτων | [- - -]: Für die Ergänzung des am Beginn der Z. 3 folgenden Substantivs kommen
verschiedene Möglichkeiten in Betracht, denn ὁσιώτατος begleitet in den Papyri verschiedene
Substantiva, wie etwa ἀββᾶς (z.B. SB VIII 9876, 3 [534 n.Chr.]); ἀδελφός (z.B. P.Berl.Zill. 14,
20–21 [6. Jh. n.Chr.]); ἀνήρ (z.B. P.Oxy. XVI 1848, 6 [6./7. Jh. n.Chr.]); ἐπίσκοπος (z.B. P.Oxy.
XVI 1848, 1 [6./7. Jh. n.Chr.]); πατὴρ πνευματικός (mit Bezug auf einen Bischof; z.B. P.Grenf. II
91, 9 [6./7. Jh. n.Chr.]). In selteneren Fällen wird das Wort auch mit anderen Begriffen kombiniert,
wie z.B. mit πενθερός in SB XVI 12869, 21 (Ende 6. / Anfang 7. Jh. n.Chr.). Ein charakteristi-
sches Beispiel für die Vielfalt der Substantive, die das Adjektiv begleiten, liefert P.Grenf. I 63,
6–7 (6./7. Jh. n.Chr.; zur Datierung s. BL XI 86 und A. Benaissa, ‘Two Bishops Named Senuthes:
Prosopography and New Texts’, ZPE 166 [2008] 179–194): θελήσῃ παρασχεῖν ἀββᾶ Σενουθίῳ
τῷ ὁσιωτ(άτῳ) | μου δεσπότῃ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἐπισκόπῳ Ἀπόλλωνος κτλ. In der großen Mehrheit der
Belege bezieht sich ὁσιώτατος auf das Substantiv ἐπίσκοπος, was auf die Ergänzung ἐπισκόπων
hinweisen würde. Da allerdings in den Papyri nur selten von mehreren Bischöfen die Rede ist,
scheint mir eine Ergänzung wie etwa πατέρων, ἀδελφῶν oder ἀνδρῶν (alle im christlichen Sinne)
wahrscheinlicher.
3 ] ̣ασιν: Zu den erhaltenen Buchstaben bzw. Buchstabenresten würden Wörter wie etwa ἀνα-
λώ]μ̣ασιν, ἅ]π̣ασιν, π̣ᾶσιν, κατάσ]τ̣ασιν passen. Wegen des fehlenden Kontextes ist keine sichere
Rekonstruktion möglich.
3–4 καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου | [- - -]: In den Pachtverträgen dieser Zeit wird παντὸς ἑτέρου immer vom Sub-
stantiv δικαίου gefolgt; vgl. P.Berl.Zill. 7, 16 (574 n.Chr.; s. BL VII 29): … καὶ φυτῶν παντοίων
καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου δικαίου ταύτης κτλ.; SB XXVI 16722 (= P.Oxy. XVI 1968), 3 (spätes 6. Jh.
n.Chr.): [… καὶ μ]η̣χανικῶ[ν] ὀργάνων καὶ φυτῶν παντοίων καὶ παντὸς ἑτέρου δικαίου κτλ.
und P.Oxy. LVIII 3955, 13–14 (611 n.Chr.): … κ̣αὶ φυ̣τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ π̣α̣ν̣τ̣ο̣ί̣[ων] καὶ πα̣ντὸς ἑτέ̣ρ̣ο̣[υ] |
[δικαίου - - -]. Da es sich aber beim vorliegenden Text um keinen Vertrag, sondern um einen
frei formulierten Brief handelt, wäre die Rekonstruktion dieser Formulierung hier zu riskant.
4 ἁ]γιωτάτη ἐκκλησία: Der Kasus des Ausdrucks ist wegen des fehlenden Kontextes nicht zu ermit-
teln. Neben dem Nominativ der Transkription kommt auch der Dativ in Betracht, d.h. ἁ]γιωτάτῃ
ἐκκλησίᾳ (hierzu vgl. z.B. den gleich unten zitierten PSI I 75, 13–15).
διά: Es wäre auch möglich, daß δια der erste Teil eines Kompositums war, das in der nächsten
Zeile fortgesetzt wurde; vgl. die Worttrennungen an mehreren Zeilenenden unseres Briefes.
Mindestens genauso wahrscheinlich scheint mir aber eine Konstruktion wie in PSI I 75, 13–15
(vielleicht 2. Hälfte des 6. Jh. n.Chr.; s. BL XII 249): καὶ | τελέσω τῇ αὐτῇ ἁγίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ διὰ τῆς
σῆς | εὐλαβ(είας) ὑπὲρ ἐνοικίου τούτου κτλ.
5 ] πολλαῖς μερίμν̣[αις]: Anstelle von πολλαῖς wäre auch die Rekonstruktion des Kompositums
πάμ]πολλαις möglich, welches freilich viel seltener als das Simplex bezeugt ist. Bei μέριμνα und
μεριμνάω handelt es sich um Termini, die nicht selten in den Briefen begegnen, um das Interesse
des Absenders für den Adressaten zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Die engste Parallele zu unserer
Stelle bietet, soweit ich sehen kann, P.Amh. II 144, 16–18 (5. Jh. n.Chr.), der allerdings den
Ausdruck im Singular überliefert: … καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ | ἐν πολλῇ μερ‹ί›μνῃ | καὶ θλείψει (l. θλίψει)
ὑπάρχω.
6 πληρ(?)]ο̣φορησάτω: Zum Gebrauch des Verbs in den spätantiken Papyri vgl. P.Erl. 120, 5–6
(546/547 n.Chr.?; zur Datierung s. HGV): … καὶ πληροφορήσῃ ὁ Θεὸς τὴν ὑμετέραν | λαμπρότητα;
SB V 7655 (6. Jh. [1. Hälfte?] n.Chr.), Z. 6–7: … ἐπειδὴ πεπληροφόρημαι, | ὅτι φιλεῖτε ἐμὲ
ὁλοψύχως κτλ. und Z. 18–20: ἐγράψατέ μοι δὲ περὶ Ἀναστασίου | τοῦ μικροῦ, καὶ ἐπειδὴ χρεωστῶ
ὑμᾶς | πληροφορῆσαι, πίστευσον; P.Berl.Zill. 14, 16–17 (6. Jh. n.Chr.): … ἀλλ᾿ ἐλπίδας ἔχω εἰς
τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν καὶ εἰς τὰς εὐχὰ[ς ὑμ]ῶν, ὅτι πληρο|φορ[εῖ] αὐτὸν ὁ Θ(εὸ)ς καὶ μετὰ καλοῦ ἀπολύει
μ[ε κτλ.]; P.Cair.Masp. I 67066, 1 (6. Jh. n.Chr.): ⳨ πληροφορήσῃ ὁ Θεὸς τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀδελφικὴν
διάθεσιν; SB VI 8988, 38–40 (647 n.Chr.): … πληροφορη[θ]εὶς μάλιστα ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως | τῆς
ἐμφαν{ε}ισθείσης τοῖς αὐτοῖς περι[β]λέπτοις δικασταῖς καθαρᾶς | πράσεως κτλ.; P.Lond. III 1075
(S. 281–282), 18–19 (7. Jh. n.Chr.): πεπληροφόρημαι γὰρ σαφῶς ὅτι οὐ θέλετε αὐτὸν | εἶναι ἐπὶ
τοσοῦτον ἀνεγκέφαλον; PSI XIII 1345, 3–5 (2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. n.Chr.; s. BL VIII 410): [- - -]
ἐστιν ὁ δυνάμενος | [π]λ̣η̣ροφορσαι (l. -ῆσαι) τὸν δεσπότην μου ὅτι π̣α̣ρ̣᾿ ἑ̣κ̣ά̣στο(υ) ἀνιόντως
(l. -ος) καὶ κατιόντως (l. -ος) ζητῶ | τὰ περὶ τῆς εὐκταίας ὑμῶν ὑγιείας κτλ.; P.Apoll. 63, 9
(703–715 n.Chr.): [- - - πληρο]φορήσῃ γὰρ τὴν θεοφύλακτον ὑμῶν ἀδελφικὴν δεσποτ‹ε›ίαν κτλ.
und P.Apoll. 28, 13 (ca. 713 n.Chr.): … ἐπληρωφορήθη (l. ἐπληροφορήθη) γραφῆναι τὴν [- - -].
Andere Möglichkeiten, wie z.B. φορησάτω (φορέω im Sinne von ‘Kleidungsstücke tragen’; vgl.
CPR VIII 52,2–5 [4./5. Jh. n.Chr.]: … ἵνα λάβ̣ω̣ | τὰ περισκ̣[ε]λ̣ίδια ἵνα φω̣|ρέσω αὐτὰ τῇ εἱω̣ρτῇ
ἐπ‹ε›ι|δὴ τὰ ἐμὰ ἐκλάσθη), sind freilich nicht auszuschließen, jedoch weniger wahrscheinlich.
Ebenso unwahrscheinlich wäre auch, daß es sich hier um einen ἀφορισμός im Sinne von ‘Ex-
kommunikation’ handelt (hierzu s. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961,
s.v. ἀφορίζω C und s.v. ἀφορισμός 3). Abgesehen davon, daß man dann einen itazistischen
Rechtschreibfehler akzeptieren müßte und daß es im Brief sonst keine Indizien für eine Angele-
genheit gibt, die zu einer Exkommunikation führen könnte, scheint mir der Imperativ für eine
solche Deutung kaum passend zu sein.
6–7 ἡ α|[- - -]: Viele Ergänzungsmöglichkeiten kämen in Betracht. Eine von ihnen, die wegen des
christlichen Tons in dem Brief als attraktiv erscheint, ist ἡ ἁ|[γιότης σου]. In einem solchen Fall
sollte man davon ausgehen, daß der Adressat ein Geistlicher war.
7 ]ματα: Verschiedene Wörter kommen für die Ergänzung in Frage, z.B. πράγ]ματα, γράμ]ματα,
ζημιώ]ματα, ἀδική]ματα, κτή]ματα usw.
7–8 οὐ μετρίως δε|[ομ- κτλ.]: Man kann zwar nicht die Möglichkeit ausschließen, daß am Ende der
Z. 7 die Partikel δέ steht. Die davor stehenden Wörter οὐ μετρίως machen allerdings wahrschein-
licher, daß es sich dabei um den Beginn des Verbs δέομαι handelt. Zu ergänzen wäre hiermit am
ehesten οὐ μετρίως δέ|[ομαι - - -] oder οὐ μετρίως δε|[όμενος (bzw. -ομένη) - - -] (zu δεομένη vgl.
αὐτήν in Z. 6). Zur Konstruktion οὐ μετρίως δέομαι vgl. aus der Entstehungszeit unseres Textes
P.Fouad 88, 10–11 (6. Jh. n.Chr.): ἐπειδὴ οὐ μετρίως δέομαι οὐ μόνον τῶν ὑμετέρων εὐχῶν ἀλλὰ
καὶ | συγκροτήσεως ὑμετέρας οὐκ ὀλίγης. Wie auch den Z. 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 zu entnehmen ist,
pflegte unser Schreiber gerne die Wörter am Zeilenende zu trennen.
8 ] ̣μων: Eine denkbare Lesung wäre ] ἡ̣μῶν.
9 ]λῳ: Hier könnte ein Name auf -λος wie Paulus gestanden haben; vgl. SB I 4694, 4–5 mit BL VIII
313 (arabische Zeit): Φλ(αουίῳ) Παύλῳ τῷ ἐ[νδοξοτάτῳ παγάρχῳ (oder στρατηλάτῃ) ἀπὸ τῆς
Ἀρσινοϊτῶν] | πόλεως κτλ. Andere Möglichkeiten sind jedoch nicht auszuschließen.
τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ: Zu ἐνδοξότατος s. CPR XXV 15, Komm. zu Z. 6, wo die frühere Literatur und
Belege für das Ehrenprädikat zu finden sind. Zur Verwendung von ἐνδοξότατος in den christlich-
literarischen Briefen s. ferner L. Dinneen, Titles of Address in Christian Greek Epistolography
to 527 A. D., The Catholic University of America. Patristic Studies 18, Washington D. C. 1929,
43 und 108 und I. Avotins, On the Greek of the Code of Justinian. A Supplement to Liddell–
Scott–Jones together with Observations on the Influence of Latin on Legal Greek, Hildesheim –
Zürich – New York 1989, 55–57.
10–11 μηδα|[μῶς (?) - - -]: Beinahe alle Papyrusbelege für Wörter, die mit μηδα- beginnen, betreffen das
hier ergänzte Adverb μηδαμῶς (‘auf keine Weise’). Eine — allerdings viel weniger wahrschein-
liche — Alternative wäre das papyrologisch nur zweimal bezeugte Adjektiv μηδαμινός; vgl.
P.Lond. IV 1367, 4 (710 n.Chr.): [- - - ἀνίκανο]ς καὶ μηδαμινὸς κτλ. und P.Lond. IV 1380, 7–8
(ebenfalls 710 n.Chr.; s. BL I 301 und BL VI 64): … ηὕραμεν τὸ ἔργον σο[υ] | ἀνίκανον καὶ
μηδαμινὸν καί σε εἰς τοῦτο κακῶς διαπραττόμενον κτλ. Wenig attraktiv ist ferner das nur einmal
in byzantinischer Zeit bezeugte Adverb μηδαμοῦ (‘nirgends’; s. P.Hamb. III 230, 5 [ca. 565
n.Chr.]) und das ausschließlich in ptolemäischer bzw. frührömischer Zeit bezeugte μηδαμόθεν
(‘von keiner Seite her’).
12 ]ιρον: Mehrere Ergänzungen kommen in Betracht, von denen ἄκα]ιρον und κα]ιρόν die plausi-
belsten wären. Zahlreiche andere (z.B. ἄπε]ιρον, δίμο]ιρον, χο]ῖρον) sind zwar denkbar, scheinen
mir aber im vorliegenden Kontext weniger passend zu sein.
12–13 Zu λυσιτελέω in den spätantiken Papyri vgl. z.B. P.Oxy. LV 3813, 5–10 (3./4. Jh. n.Chr.): … καὶ
ἐχρῆν | σε, κύριέ μου ἄδελφε, εἰδότα ὡς | σοῦ χάριν ἐνθάδε διατρίβω{ν}, | κήδεσθαι καὶ φροντίδειν
(l. -ίζειν) | τοῦ πράγματος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡμ{ε}ῖν | λυσιτελοῦντος; PSI XII 1265, 3 mit BL XII 256
(426 n.Chr.; s. BL VIII 409): … καὶ πρό̣νοιαν ποιούμενοι τῶν λυσιτελούντων τῷ κοινῷ ἡμῶν
συστέματι (l. -ήματι) καὶ αὐτοῖς τῆς (l. τοῖς) δημοσίοις κτλ. und SB V 8028 (= Ch.L.A. X 464),
7 (549/550 n.Chr.; s. BL XI 202): [… ὅστις ἐκ προοιμίων τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀφίξεως ἔδειξε τὸ φύσει
προσὸν τῇ αὐ]τ̣οῦ ἐνδοξότητι πρᾶον, τὸ λυσιτελοῦν ἑκάστῳ διασκοπῶν.
13 καθὼς ἐσήμ̣α̣ν̣α̣: Der Gebrauch von καθώς wird in der Römerzeit und der Spätantike kompli-
zierter, da diese Konjunktion sich bereits im Neuen Testament nicht mehr auf die Einleitung von
Vergleichssätzen beschränkt, sondern auch in kausaler oder temporaler Bedeutung vorkommen
kann (hierzu s. etwa P. Hamb. III 229, Komm. zu Z. 2 mit weiterer Literatur). Die Kombination
mit dem Verb σημαίνω scheint mir für die Deutung der Phrase im Sinne von ‘wie ich (Dir) mit-
teilte’ zu sprechen. Σημαίνω bedeutet hier ‘melden’, ‘berichten’, ‘mitteilen’ (hierzu s. Preisigke,
Wörterbuch II s.v.) und ist im vorliegenden Kontext in den spätantik-byzantinischen Briefen
nicht selten nachweisbar; vgl. z.B. SB XVI 12573, 4–5 (6. Jh. n.Chr.): οὔτε γὰρ ἐβουλήθη Ἰουλία̣
τούτους ἀσφαλείσασθαι μέχρι τ̣[ούτου] | καθὼς ⸌καὶ ἄλλοτε⸍ ἐσήμανα ὑμῖν, δέσ̣[πο]τ̣[α]. Da der
Schreiber unseres Briefes seine Wörter am Ende der Zeile des öfteren trennt, könnte auch eine
Plural-Form zu rekonstruieren sein, etwa ἐσημάνα̣|[μεν - - -], ἐσημάνα̣|[τε - - -] usw. Allerdings
scheint er in dieser Passage in der ersten Person Singular zu sprechen (vgl. Z. 11: ἀμφιβάλω),
was auch hier die erste Person Singular wahrscheinlicher macht.
14 ἐκκλεισιαστικήν: Das Adjektiv ἐκκλησιαστικός kommt in den ägyptischen Papyri nur fünfmal
vor, nämlich in P.Oxy. XVI 1900, 11-13 (528 n.Chr.): χρείας καὶ νῦν γεναμένης | εἰς τὴν ὑφ᾿
(l. ὑπ᾿) ἐμὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὴν μηχανὴν καλουμέ|νην Ἀγροικικοῖς κτλ.; SB VI 8973, 8 (6./7. Jh.
n.Chr.): … ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ὅτι αστ[- - -]; SB XVIII 13762, 9 (6./7. Jh. n.Chr.): ν̣ῦν οὖν Ἰωάννου
τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ σ[υ]μ̣μάχου κατερχομέ(νου) μετὰ γραμμά(των) κτλ.; SB XVI 12869,
28–29 (Ende 6. / Anfang 7. Jh. n.Chr.): οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν οἱανδήποτε καινοτομίαν γενέσθαι | εἰς
οἱονδήποτε πρᾶγμα, μάλιστα εἰς ἐκκλησιαστικά; P.Vindob. G 21218 (ed. von H. Harrauer, ‘Neue
Protokometen-Papyri. Mit einer Dokumentation der Protokometen’, Aegyptus 81 [2001] 47–159,
bes. Nr. 6, S. 60), 9 (7. Jh. n.Chr.): καθάπ]ερ διὰ ἐκκλησιαστι̣κ̣ῆ̣ς κτλ. Außerhalb Ägyptens läßt
sich das Wort papyrologisch in P.Petra III 31, 219 (582–592 n.Chr.) nachweisen: [ ca. 28 ]κα̣
ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς κανόσιν [0–2] (ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ κανόνες sind im Sinne von ‘the rules of the
church’ zu verstehen; so korrekterweise im Zeilenkommentar).
15 Am Ende der Zeile wäre θ̣(εό)ν̣ eine mögliche Lesung.
16 περὶ τοῦ βαλσάμου: Das Wort ist eher selten in den Papyri. Soweit ich sehe, kommt es bislang
siebenmal vor, wobei die Zeitspanne der Belege relativ groß ist: P.Cair.Zen. I 59009 (mit
Add. in P.Cair.Zen. IV, S. 285), Fr. b, Kol. II 6 (Mitte des 3. Jh. v.Chr.): ὀποῦ βαλσ̣ά̣μ̣[ου - - -];
BGU III 953, 6 (3./4. Jh. n.Chr.): ξύλα βαλσάμου οὐνκίαν; BGU I 34, Kol. V 13 mit BL I 10
(1. Hälfte des 4. Jh. n.Chr.; s. BL V 9): τιμ(ῆς) ἀποβαλσάμου (l. ὀποβαλσάμου) [- - -]; P.Oxy.
VII 1052,1 (4. Jh. n.Chr. [nach 362]): Κερκεύρων τι(μῆς) βαρσάμο[υ] (δηναρίων) μ(υριάδες)
υν; O.Bodl. II 2153, 1 (4. Jh. n.Chr.): ἀπὸ βαλσάμου (οὐγκία) α; P.Eleph.DAIK 317, 3 (4./5. Jh.
n.Chr.): [βά]λ̣ζαμων (l. βάλσαμον) καὶ πίπερης (l. πέπερις) und SB XX 14502, 15 (5. Jh. n.Chr.):
βαλσάμ(ο)υ (οὐγκίαι) β̅ ⟦λί(τρα) α̅´⟧ κε(ράτια) ιβ.
18–19 μὴ κατοκνησα|[- - -]: Am wahrscheinlichsten zu ergänzen ist μὴ κατοκνήσα|[τε κτλ.] bzw. μὴ
κατοκνησά|[τω κτλ.] (μὴ κατοκνέω im Sinne von ‘nicht zögern’). In den Papyri ist zwar ὀκνέω
relativ häufig bezeugt; vgl. z.B. P.Cair.Masp. I 67064, 18 (ca. 538–547 n.Chr.; zur Datierung s.
auch HGV): μ̣ὴ̣ [ὀ]κνή̣σ̣α̣τ̣ε̣ δὲ ἐπισκέψασθαι τὸ μικρὸν κ̣τ̣ῆμα κτλ.; das Kompositum κατοκνέω
findet bislang aber, soweit ich sehe, nur eine einzige Parallele in P.Berl.Zill. 13, 9–10 (6. Jh.
n.Chr.): εἴ τινος δὲ χρείαν ἔχεις, | μὴ κατοκνήσῃς γράφειν μοι (Akzentuierung und Interpunktion
von mir; mit εἰ beginnt ein neuer Satz). Diese Parallele weist auf die Möglichkeit hin, daß im
verlorenen Teil der Z. 19 ein Infinitiv wie γράφειν stand.
19 ] ̣φους: Möglicherweise ist ἀδε]λ̣φούς zu ergänzen.
Universität Athen
No. 44
45. Rapporto allo stratego (MS 1802/38)*
Rosario Pintaudi
MS 1802/38 5,8 x 4,7 cm 27/28 nov.–26/27 dic., 229–234

Ossirinco
Un piccolo frammento di papiro ci conserva, sul recto secondo le fibre, la parte iniziale di un rapporto che
lo stratego dell’Oxyrhynchites Aurelius Leonides riceve da parte di Aurelius Sarapion, esattore delle tasse
in denaro afferenti alle entrate dei villaggi della toparchia centrale, distretto di Kerkeüra.
Il P.Oxy. XLIV 3174 è un esatto parallelo (“Taxation report” al medesimo stratego) che, completo,
ci mostra come il nostro papiro conservi un terzo dell’originale documento. Si aggiunga il recente PSI
XV 1547.
Sul verso contro le fibre una mano diversa registra un memorandum a proposito di tasse1.
→
Αὐρηλ(ίῳ) Λεω[ν]ίδῃ στρα(τηγῷ) ᾽Οξ(υρυγχείτου)
παρὰ Αὐρηλ(ίου) Σαραπίωνος
πρ(άκτορος) ἀργ(υρικῶν) κω(μητικῶν) λημμά(των)
4 μέσης τοπ(αρχίας) Κερκεΰρων
τόπ(ων). διαστολ(ὴ) ἀριθμ(ήσεως)
μηνὸς Χοίακ τοῦ
[ἐνεστῶτο]ς ̣  (ἔτους) Μάρκο[υ
8 [Α]ὐρηλί[ου] ̣ ̣ [
– – – – –
Ad Aurelius Leonides, stratego dell’Oxyrhynchites, da parte di Aurelius Sarapion, esattore delle tasse
in denaro afferenti alle entrate dei villaggi della toparchia centrale, distretto di Kerkeüra. Lista specifica
del conteggio per il mese di Choiak del presente anno ... di Marcus Aurelius ...
1 Per lo stratego Aurelius Leonides, attivo tra il 229 e il 236/37 d.C., si veda Whitehorne, Str.R.Scr.2,
p. 104; alle attestazioni ivi citate, oltre a questa, si aggiunga PSI XV 1547 del 29.11.230 d.C.
2 Con molta probabilità Aurelius Sarapion è il medesimo πράκτωρ di PSI XV 1547 (in quel caso
esattore dell’aurum coronarium, afferente alle entrate della metropoli); qui riscuote le tasse
in denaro afferenti alle entrate dei villaggi di una delle sei toparchie dell’Oxyrhynchites, quella
centrale.
4–5 Κερκεΰρων τόπ(ων): per il “distretto di Kerkeüra”, più spesso attestato come “villaggio di Ker-
keüra”, cfr. P. Pruneti, I centri abitati dell’Ossinchite, Firenze 1981, pp. 81–82; è la località per
la quale Sarapion presenta la διαστολή allo stratego.
5 διαστολή: “classified list, summary report”; si veda per tutti H. C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae I, p. 413
e nt. 43 (taxing list); una lista specifica, dettagliata, del conteggio mensile (ἀρίθμησις).
7 Purtroppo non riesco a leggere la cifra dell’anno di regno di Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander
*
Il papiro fa parte della raccolta privata di Martin Schøyen ed era stato già identificato e dettagliatamente descritto da
R. Coles per lo Short Description Catalogue dei papiri del gruppo MS 1802, dove per la provenienza si menzionano
“Mohammed Sah’ar, Cairo; Issa Marogi Collection, Jerusalem (-ca. 1990?); Heirs of Marogi family, Jerusalem (-1993);
Fayez Barakat, Los Angeles, California, March 1994” (data dell’acquisizione da parte di M. Schøyen).
1
Se ne conservano 3 righi (↓φόρου ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | φόρου ὑπολόγ(ου) ̣| λαογραφίας ̣ ̣).
242 Rosario Pintaudi
e quindi la datazione del nostro rapporto, tra il 229 e il 234 d.C., si basa semplicemente sulle
attestazioni dello stratego Leonides.
La tentazione di leggere θ̣ (ἔτους) come in PSI XV 1547 resta solo una proposta relegata in nota!
Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze
No. 45, recto
No. 45, verso

46. A Reconstructed Land Survey from Kerkeosiris
Dominic Rathbone, Dorothy J. Thompson, and Arthur Verhoogt
Roger Bagnall’s research has ranged far and wide but began with Ptolemaic Egypt. Recalling those roots,
we offer him a reconstructed text of Menches, no great novelty in itself but with several implications for
understanding the Kerkeosiris land survey documents, and an example, we hope, of the textual akribeia
which characterises Roger’s work and enables progress in historical research powered by papyrology.
Our text combines and improves two previously published texts, P.Tebt. I 84b and IV 1117c.
It contains most of the second half, written on a separate roll, of the outline cadastral survey carried out
in September 119 BCE of the lands of Kerkeosiris, a village in the Polemon division of the Arsinoite nome
(south-west Fayyum), copied by the village scribe Menches as a guide for a subsequent fiscal register
of crops. For the identification, nature and date of known survey texts relating to Kerkeosiris, see
D. J. Crawford [Thompson], Kerkeosiris. An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge 1971,
pbk 2009), especially 9–28, and A. M. F. W. Verhoogt, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris.
The Doings and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120–110 B.C.) (Leiden 1998),
especially 131–134, 140–148. The survey texts come from a collection of discarded documents of at least
three village scribes of Kerkeosiris in the 120s to after 110 BCE, principally Menches from a few years
before his re-appointment in August 119 to his replacement in 111/10 BCE, which were first reused
for private writings of a family (end of II BCE), and then as wrapping material for sacred crocodiles
mummified for burial in graves at nearby Tebtunis (as summarised by Verhoogt, Menches, 177). For
almost twenty years, on and off, the three of us have been discussing possible improvements to the reading
and interpretation of these survey documents, and this is the first fruit of that collaborative work-in-very-
slow-progress. Major issues of interest to us include the nature, purpose and date of the texts, essential to
allow their exploitation for socio-economic history, and their vital evidence for the location, topography
and hydrology of Kerkeosiris in its regional context. We cannot yet address those complex issues in detail
because we still have to review the other survey texts, both published and unpublished (some forthcoming
in P.Tebt. VI), which may lead to new joins and provide important new information.
The first half of our text consists of two fragments which were joined and published by Grenfell
and Hunt, assisted by Smyly, in 1902 as part (b) of P.Tebt. I 84. In their introduction they noted that
P.Tebt. I 84a and 84b were of different heights and probably not from the same document, but they still
published them under the one number along with 84c, a separate text on the verso of 84a, and applied
a continuous numbering of columns and lines for all three texts. The second half (third fragment) of our
text was published by Shelton in 1976 as P.Tebt. IV 1117c, with column and line numbers continued
from two other fragments (1117a–b), all from the same crocodile 20. Although Shelton saw that the three
fragments were not contiguous, he followed Grenfell and Hunt who had described them (P.Tebt. I 151)
as fragments of the same survey. Our suspicion that 84b and 1117c in fact join arose from compiling
topographical information about the perichomata (irrigation basins) of Kerkeosiris, and is confirmed by
their fit in both physical and textual terms.
The papyrus of our reconstituted text is 159.7 cm wide with a height of around 30 cm. It com-
prises three fragments, the first two (84b; our coll. i–vi) 46.7 and 45 cm wide, the third (1117c, our coll.
vii–xi) 68 cm wide; unfortunately damage to the fibres at the end of 84b and start of 1117c does not allow
a neat join. The first two sheets (kollemata) are around 20 cm wide, the rest around 22 cm. The papyrus
is of good quality. The first two fragments are light brown in colour and clean, so nicely legible; the third
is mostly darkish and discoloured. This doubtless reflects their differing provenance, the first two from
crocodile 27 of grave C, the third from crocodile 20 whose grave is not recorded (Verhoogt, Menches, 19).
There are other cases in this archive of texts split across crocodiles, notably P.Tebt. IV 1107 (intro) which
comprises fragments from four crocodile mummies all from the same grave. The text is on the recto;
244 Dominic Rathbone, Dorothy J. Thompson, and Arthur Verhoogt
the verso is blank except for a docket (see below). It is written throughout in the same practised hand,
that of Menches (or perhaps his usual scribe), with identical spacing of lines and a tendency for them
to curve up as he wrote. The lay-out and content of the entries is consistent throughout the text. Images
of coll. i–vi (84b), including the docket on the verso, and of coll. vii–xi (1117c) are available online at
www.papyri.info and the website of The Center for the Tebtunis Papyri (http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu).
It seems that our text was not the first use of this roll. Faint traces of a previous text on the
papyrus, which had been carefully washed off, lurk under ll. 31–32, 35, 65–66. Also, as Grenfell and Hunt
noted (P.Tebt. I 84 intro), the sheet of papyrus at the start of our text, holding col. i and part of col. ii, has
the recto on the outside, so it seems to have been the protokollon to the roll, that is the initial sheet which,
when the document was rolled up, would have been on the outside to protect it, and was meant to be left
blank. We add that on the outside of this sheet, at the top, there are the remains, mostly erased, of a three-
line docket in a cursive hand different to the hand of our text. The first two lines are tantalisingly illegible,
but the third reads κατ᾿ ἄνδρα κατὰ φύ(λλον), “by man (landholder) by crop.” This filing label clearly does
not refer to our text, which is a cadastral survey and does not record crops. We suggest that it belonged
to the text originally written on this roll, and was erased, somewhat half-heartedly, when that text was
washed off in order to reuse the roll for our text. Probably the original text, whether of Menches or
a predecessor, was a register of the payments due on their crops by holders of royal land (see below).
Our text is a good example of what we now suggest should be called a cadastral survey of the
village territory, that is the type of survey carried out in Thoth (September), the start of the Egyptian civil
and agricultural year. The following discussion draws frequently on the pages of Crawford [Thompson],
Kerkeosiris, and Verhoogt, Menches, cited above. A useful comparison is P.Tebt. I 84a, which preserves
the title of a cadastral survey of this type for September 118: “Year 53, from Menches village scribe of
Kerkeosiris, survey (euthumetria) by man (i.e. landholder) by basin (perichoma) of the whole registered
area around the village.” P.Tebt. I 84a, incidentally, has a docket on the back (verso) of its first column
at the top, that is a label to identify it when the text was rolled up, which reads “year 53, Thoth 9,” that is
30 September 118 (P.Tebt. I, p. 369). In this period Thoth 1, the start of the civil year, was running rather
late compared to the agricultural year, and we suspect that even if September surveys actually had to be
begun in the previous civil year, they were always officially dated to the new year, so that they would bear
the same year as all the subsequent related records for that agricultural and fiscal year.
The entries in the present text are fairly typical of the September cadastral surveys such as P.Tebt. I
84a, 84c, IV 1117b, 1118, 1120 and 1121: each gives the location, holder, fiscal status (mainly cleruchic,
sacred or royal—here including the wheat-tax rate for royal land) and area of each plot of land. Physical
features such as dykes, canals and roads are also noted, although only the area of dykes is given. Location
is by direction from the previously mentioned adjacent plot or feature, representing the wandering progress
of the surveyors around each basin, which could vary from survey to survey. The territory of Kerkeosiris
was normally surveyed in a set order of the ten perichomata into which it was divided (cf. the table
in P.Tebt. IV, p. 141). These texts are outline cadastral surveys in the sense that they do not include
the dimensions of each plot which were usually established by occasional re-surveys, such as that of
131/0 BCE frequently mentioned in this survey (see note to l. 3); for records recording dimensions, see
P.Tebt. IV 1122 and 1123. The extant outline cadastral surveys all seem to be working copies, and can
vary in details of format. For instance this text contains various duplications and errors, some corrected
and some not, gives no figures in its entries for the total area of each basin, and has check marks against
many, but not all, the entries for royal land. P.Tebt. I 84a and IV 1118, by contrast, do not record the rate
of wheat-tax due on each plot of royal land, and do not note the start of a new perichoma by giving its
name or its end by giving its total area.
Our text begins with the Fourth basin, which came fifth in the normal order, and breaks off
towards the end of the penultimate basin, called Kerkeouris East (the last was the Psinara basin). As noted
above, Menches wrote our text on a reused roll, starting from its protocol “page” (the reversed sheet).
46. A Reconstructed Land Survey from Kerkeosiris 245
This implies that he had copied the start of this cadastral survey, covering the first four perichomata,
on a separate roll (or part of a roll). It is quite possible that already published or new fragments will be
shown to belong to this previous roll, such as P.Tebt. IV 1117b, whose lay-out resembles that of our text
and which covers part of the Third North basin. The end of the present text may also emerge: we note
that P.Tebt. IV 1121, which covers the Psinara basin, is a possible candidate, although its height and
form of entries appear to be slightly different. However, such possibilities can only be pursued safely
in the context of a total and detailed review of the Kerkeosiris survey fragments, including those as yet
unpublished.
Although our text is a copy of a cadastral survey, we suspect that it was used to assist in the sub-
sequent compilation by Menches of a register of crops to be taxed. For the surveying and recording of
crops, in addition to the works of Crawford [Thompson] and Verhoogt cited above, see also H. Cuvigny,
L’Arpentage par espèces dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque d’après les papyrus (Brussels 1985). In February
(Tybi-Mecheir) each year Menches had to make a second more time-consuming survey of the territory of
Kerkeosiris to record what crops were actually growing on the plots defined in the September cadastral
survey in order to establish their actual liability for taxation in kind. This procedure eventually generated
a bewildering variety of documentation, including plot-by-plot surveys of crops, registers of fiscal liability
by individual landholder—grouped by type, so separating holders of cleruchic and sacred land from holders
of royal land, various summary reports, and so on. P.Tebt. IV 1117a (undated) and 1119 (c. 115/14), for
instance, seem to be primary reports of this survey, that is copies of the cadastral survey for that year with
crop details added, covering all types of land. At a later stage the data for royal and for other types of land
were extracted and recorded separately. P.Tebt. I 63 and IV 1103, both of 116/15 (i.e. February 115),
are headed respectively “Year 2, from Menches village scribe of Kerkeosiris. By crop (kata phullon) of
sacred and cleruchic land and the other land in release of the same year,” and “Year 2, by man by crop”
(the same phrasing as the docket on the verso of our papyrus). The former records individual holders of
first sacred and then cleruchic land, not in a topographical order but grouped by their status and
combining all their plots (another example of this is P.Tebt. I 62); the latter lists individual holders of
royal land in alphabetic order (by first letter) in sections which may correspond to perichomata. These
texts must have been compiled from crop surveys like P.Tebt. IV 1117a and 1119. The check marks made
in our text against most plots of royal land suggest that it was used as a template to draft a later crop
report specifically on royal land. We suppose that some of the amendments to the locational details
of plots, which are in the same hand as the rest of the text, represent correction of copying errors, but
some seem to imply comparison with another survey record; indeed line 189 (see 189n.) shows that at
least some of these amendments were added after the check marks. The copying and reuse of this
cadastral survey of September 119 may have occurred in the same (Egyptian) year, that is for the
surveying of crops in February 118, but other records of Menches, notably the crop survey text
P.Tebt. I 85 (on which see Verhoogt, Menches, 132 n. 121, 192), show that he sometimes reused survey
records several years later.
Finally, we give our reasons for thinking that this text is a copy of the cadastral survey made in
September 119, that is for year 52 (119/18). P.Tebt. I 84a–b was dated by Grenfell and Hunt to September
118 (year 53) because both the heading and docket to 84a give that date (see above) but, as we have
noted, 84a has differences in its recording practices to this text which suggest it is a cadastral survey
for a different year. P.Tebt. IV 1117a–c was dated to 120/19 (year 51) by Shelton, who took the citation
of that year in l. 166 (our l. 257) to denote the current year, although normally we take such citations
to be retrospective, because he thought the crop information in l. 6 was incompatible with other survey
texts dated to years 52 and 53, while year 54 = 1 (117/16) is apparently covered by P.Tebt. IV 1118.
The problem again is that l. 6 is in the fragment 1117a, part of a separate crop survey and so not relevant
to our text (whether or not Shelton was right on the dating of 1117a). The years most commonly cited
in our text are 39 and 40 (132/1 and 131/0) because of the general re-survey of the latter year (see 3n.
below). Otherwise there is one reference to a plot with revenue set aside in year 49 (l. 207), and five
to waterlogged or salted land out of account in year 51 (ll. 100, 102, 105, 218, 257). The natural conclusion
is that this text represents the cadastral survey carried out at the start of year 52 (119/18 BCE). Indeed
it is very unlikely to be of year 53 (September 118) because P.Tebt. I 84a, the start of Menches’ cadastral
survey for that year, shows slight but distinct variations in recording practice. In theory undated survey
texts can be dated with reference to changes in the tenure of cleruchic holdings; for instance, the holding
of Heliodoros in our ll. 123–124 is recorded in the hands of Athenion by 116/15 (see note below), which
should give a terminus ante quem for our text. However, as is noted in the introduction to P.Tebt. IV 1120,
scribes could be haphazard in recording such changes, so it is risky to rely on individual cases. For our
text, however, we can compare P.Tebt. I 62, Menches’ register of the taxes in kind due from the holders
of cleruchic and sacred land as individuals, which fairly certainly belongs to year 52 (restored in l. 1
by Grenfell and Hunt with reference to l. 27, comparing P.Tebt. I 63.1 and 32), the very year which we
propose for this text. Almost every cleruchic holding in our text recurs exactly in I 62 to the extent that
we only note the few and slight apparent discrepancies in our notes below. This makes us pretty confident
that late September 119 BCE (year 52, early Thoth) is the date of the original compilation of our outline
cadastral survey; probably this copy of the text was made and used for the survey and recording of taxable
crops in February 118.
col. i [= 84 col. iv; see 1118.69 n. for text of ll. 10–22]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ἀπη(λιώτου) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) ἕως τοῦ

προγεγεω(μετρημένου) ἐξα(γωγοῦ)
ἐν τῶι καλουμένωι (τετάρτῳ) περιχώ(ματι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του)
καὶ ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) κατεξυ(σμένου) ⟦α 𐅵⟧ α 𐅵
4 ⟦βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχ(ου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) ε d⟧
⟦ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχο(μένη) ἀρχο(μένη) νό(του) διῶρυξ β⟧
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενα) ⟦βο(ρρᾶ)⟧ ἀρ⟦ε⟧χό(μενα) ⸌νό(του)⸍ τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἰβιῶ(να) τῶν
(Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) πε(δία)
/ βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Πετερμοῦθις Σιφμοῦτος γ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ι´β´
8 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) β
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) ⸌Πετεσούχου θε(οῦ) κροκοδίλου διὰ⸍ Πετοσίρι<ο>ς
Ἀμεννέως ϛ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´
/[νό(του)] ἐχό(μεναι) κ̣λ̣(ήρου) (ἑπτ[αρούρου)] Χ[ο(μήνιος)] Πασῶς μέ(γας) Φανήσιος ς 𐅵
[τοῦ] αὐ(τοῦ) βα(σιλικῆς) α ἀν(ὰ) ε
12 / νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) [(ἑπταρούρου)] Χ̣[ο(μήνιος)] Ὀρσῆς Ἁ[ροννήσιος] ς̣ 𐅵
τοῦ α[ὐ(τοῦ) βα(σιλικῆς) α ἀν(ὰ) ε, (γίν.) ζ 𐅵]
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (τριακοντ[αρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρυώτης Φαεῦτος ε]
⟦ . . . ⟧ τοῦ [αὐ(τοῦ) βα(σιλικῆς) β ἀν(ὰ) ε γ´, (γίν.) ζ]
16 / νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) [Χο(μήνιος) N.N. s. N.N.] ς 𐅵
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ⸌ἀρχό(μεναι) [λι(βὸς)⸍] Κέ[ν]τι[ς ῞Ω]ρ̣[ο]υ̣ β[α(σιλικῆς)] β
/ π[αρα(κείμενον) ἀπη(λιώτου)] ἐχό(μενον) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρφαῆ[σις
Ὥρο]υ τὸ λο(ιπόν)
τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) ⟨βα(σιλικῆς)⟩ β ἀνὰ̣ [ε
20 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) [Ἁ]ρ̣φαῆσις Πετοσίριος βα(σιλικῆς) α 𐅵 δ´
ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
/ νό(του) ἐ[χ]ό(μεναι) [κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Πᾶσις μέ(γας) Κ]α̣λατύτιος ς 𐅵
[τοῦ αὐ(τοῦ) βα(σιλικῆς) β ἀν(ὰ)] ε̣, (γίν.) η 𐅵
col. ii [= 84, col. v]
/νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Πᾶσις μι(κρὸς) Καλατύτιος ϛ 𐅵,

24 τοῦ αὐτοῦ βα(σιλικῆς) α ἀν(ὰ) ε, (γίν.) ζ 𐅵
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) Κέντις Ὥρου βα(σιλικῆς) ιδ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (εἰκοσιαρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Φμέρσις Ὥρου ε
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην)
28 ἱερᾶς γῆς Σοκνεβτύνιος θεοῦ μεγά(λου) μεγά(λου)
διὰ τῶν ἱερέων οε
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (εἰκοσιαρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρμιῦσις Πτολεμαίου ιθ,
τοῦ αὐτοῦ διʼ Ἁρφαήσιος τοῦ
32 Πετοσίριος ε ἀν(ὰ) ε, (γίν.) κδ
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ⸌ἀρχ[ό(μεναι)] νό(του)⸍ κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τὴν κα(τοικίαν)
Πέτρων Θέωνος ἀπὸ ⟦ιγ̅⟧ ιγ̅
/ βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ἀπη(λιώτου) Ἁρμιῦσις Πετενούριος βα(σιλικῆς) δ d ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵
γ´ ιβ´
36 / βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Πᾶσις Πετεσούχου β 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (εἰκοσιαρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Κεφαλᾶς Πετεσούχου ιθ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρμιῦσις
Πετεσούχου ϛ 𐅵
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) Θοτορταῖος Πετοσίριος βα(σιλικῆς) β ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
40 / βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) Μαρρῆς Πετῶτος βα(σιλικῆς) ζ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) Λύκος Ζωπυρίωνος βα(σιλικῆς) ε ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) κλ(ήρου) ἐφό(δου) μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τοὺς κα(τοίκους) ἱπ(πεῖς)
Πέτρων Θέωνος τὸ λο(ιπὸν) τῶν ιε (ἀρουρῶν)
col. iii [= 84, col. vi]
44 / λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) Πᾶσις Πετεσούχου βα(σιλικῆς) ζ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´

νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Πετεσοῦχος
Τοθοείους ϛ 𐅵
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἐγβαῖ(νον) νό(του) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) σχοι(νίον) ὑδρα(γωγοῦ) 𐅵 d
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) Πετεσούχου θεοῦ κροκοδίλου
48 διὰ Πετεσούχου τοῦ Πακύρριος ε ἀν(ὰ) γ d
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τοὺς
κα(τοίκους) ἱπ(πεῖς)
Ἀκουσιλάου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου ϛ
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) κλ(ήρου) φυλακ(ίτου) Μάρων τὸν καὶ
52 Νεκτσάφθιν Πετοσίριος γ
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τὴν
κα(τοικίαν)
Ἀσκληπιάδης Ἀσκληπιάδου ιβ
νό(του) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τοὺς
κα(τοίκους) ἱπ(πεῖς)
56 Ἀκουσιλάου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου τὸ λο(ιπὸν) δ
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) [κλ(ήρου)] (ἑκατονταρούρου) Πολέμωνος τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου ⸌τὸ λο(ιπὸν)⸍ ιγ
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) ἱπ(πέως) Ἀπολλοδώρου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου
ἀπὸ ξ̅ ιη
60 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) νό(του) κλ(ήρου) φυλακίτου Μάρων τὸν καὶ
Νεκτσάφθιν Πετοσίριος τὸ λο(ιπὸν) ζ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ἐγβαῖ(νον) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐξαγωγοῦ d
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχου τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) η
64 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχο(μένου) ἀρχό(μενον) νό(του) ἐξαγωγοῦ d
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) φυλακ(ίτου) Ἀκουσιλάου τ[ο]ῦ
Ἀπολλωνίου ἀπὸ ι γ
col. iv [= 84, col. vii]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχο(μένον) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) ἱπ(πέως) Ἀπολλοδώρου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου

68 τὸ λο(ιπὸν) τῶν ξ̅ μ⟦β⟧
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχου τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) δ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ἐγβαῖ(νον) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) φυλα(κίτου) Ἀκουσιλάου τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου
τὸ λο(ιπὸν) ζ
72 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχο(μένη) ἐγβαί(νουσα) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑδρα(γωγοῦ) ἀρ{α}χο(μένου) ἀπη(λιώτου) α
παρα(κείμεναι) λι(βὸς) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) νό(του) καὶ βο(ρρᾶ) ἐξαγωγοῦ β
(γίν.) τοῦ περιχώ(ματος) vacat
παρα(κείμεναι) λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) νό(του) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην)
σχοι(νίον)
76 ἐν τῶι καλουμένωι Θεμί(στου) περιχώ(ματι)
⟦διώρυγος ἐξαγω(γοῦ) β⟧
νό(του) ἐχο(μένη) ἐγβαί(νουσα) λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχου ⟦ -ca.?- ⟧ α
νό(του) ἐχο(μένη) ἀρχο(μένη) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐξαγωγοῦ ἀπὸ  α
80 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) δ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) τὸ λο(ιπὸν) τῶν  τοῦ ἐξα(γωγοῦ) δ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) χέ(ρσου) τῆς ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) γ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ἐγβαῖ(νον) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐξαγωγοῦ 𐅵
84 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς) κλ(ήρου) (ἑκατονταρούρου) Ἀθηνίων Ἀρχίου ἀπὸ τοῦ
(πρότερον) Χαιρήμονος τοῦ Κρατείνου γ, καὶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ (πρότερον) Ἡλιοδώρου τοῦ Μηνοδώρου ι,
(γίν.) ιγ
88 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τὴν κα(τοικίαν)

Ἀ<σ>κληπιάδου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου κδ
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σούχου θεοῦ μεγά(λου) μεγά(λου)
διὰ Πετειμούθου καὶ Μεστασύ(τμιος) ε 𐅵
col. v [= 84, col. viii]
92 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Μαρρῆς Πετῶτος βα(σιλικῆς) ζ ἀν(ὰ) δ [𐅵 γ´ ιβ´]

βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) (ἑκατονταρούρου) Βακχίου τοῦ
Μουσ[αίου κ]
λι(βὸς) ἐχο(μ.) ἀρχο(μ.) νό(του) ἐγβαί(ν.) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἀπὸ
τ[οῦ μ (ἔτους) ̣ ̣]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχου τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ιβ
96 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) Μαρρῆς Πετῶτος βα(σιλικῆς) δ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ⟦Πετ⟧ Σοκν⟦β⟧εβτύνιος θε(οῦ) διὰ Πετερμούθιος
τοῦ Ἀμεννέως ι ἀν(ὰ) γ 𐅵
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Ἀνεμπεὺς Πετοσίριος βα(σιλικῆς) ϛ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
100 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀ[π]η(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ⟦ε⟧ ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἐν τῷ να (ἔτει) β
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) Φαῆσις Φίβιος καὶ οἱ μέ(τοχοι) ιδ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμ(βρόχου) τοῦ ἐν τῶι να (ἔτει) δ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´
ιβ´
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) ἱπ(πέως) Θέων Θέωνος λ
104 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ψενῆσις Ψεν[ήσιος ϛ] 𐅵
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχο(μ.) ἀρχο(μ.) λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἐν τῶι να (ἔτει) [ ̣ ̣]
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) Ὧρος Πετῶτος βα(σιλικῆς) κ [ -ca.?- ]
β ἀν(ὰ) α
108 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ν̣ό̣(του) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ [- ca.9 -] ε
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τ[οῦ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] η 𐅵
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) κλ(ήρου) (τριακονταρούρου) χερσ<εφ>ίπ[που]
[Παντα]ύχου
τοῦ Πανταύχου ἀπὸ λδ ι´ϛ´ λ´β´ κ
112 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μ.) ἀρχό(μ.) {ἀρχό(μ.)} ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου [Πτ]ολεμαίου
τοῦ Μενίσκου ἀπὸ [ -ca.?- ]
λι(βὸς) ἐχο(μ.) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρόχου τοῦ ἀπ[ὸ τοῦ ̣ ̣ (ἔτους) ̣ ̣]
col. vi [= 84, col. ix]
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) νό(του) παρὰ τὴν [προγεγεω(μετρημένην) σχοι(νίον)]

116 διώρ[υ(γος) ἐξαγωγοῦ] γ
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) βο(ρρᾶ) κλ(ήρου) (τριακονταρούρου) [χε]ρσ⟦.⟧εφίππου
Πανταύχου
τοῦ Πανταύχου τὸ λο(ιπὸν) τῶν λδ ι´ϛ´ λ´β´ ιδ ι´ϛ´ λ´β´

νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σούχου θεοῦ μεγά(λου) μεγά(λου)
120 Ἀπολλώνιου τοῦ Ποσειδωνίου λγ
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σούχου θεοῦ μεγά(λου) μεγά(λου)
Σαρα(πίων) Σαρα(πίωνος) ι
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἐγβαῖ(νον) νό(του) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) διώρυ(γα)
κλ(ήρου) (ἑκατονταρούρου) Ἡλιοδώρου τοῦ Μηνοδώρου τὸ λο(ιπὸν) μ
124 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) νό(του) διώρυ(γος) καλου(μένης) Πολέμω(νος) χῶ(μα) ι⟦ς⟧
ἕως τῶν περὶ Βερε(νικίδα) Θε(σμοφόρου) πε(δίων) λι(βός) vacat
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ἀπη(λιώτου) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) σχοι(νίον)
διῶρυξ ἐξαγωγοῦ γ
128 (γίν.) τοῦ περιχώ(ματος) vacat [
vacat
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) λι(βὸς) ἐν τῶι καλου[μένωι Παω( ) περιχώματι]
βο(ρρᾶ) μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἰβιῶ(να) [τῶν (Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) πεδίων λι(βὸς) δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς]
___
διώρυγος Πολέμω(νος) χῶ(μα) [ -ca.?- ]

132 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μ.) ἀρχό(μ.) νό(του) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) [ -ca.?- ]
ἀπὸ μ̅ [ -ca.?- ]
[βο(ρρᾶ(?)] ἐ̣[χό(μ.)] ἀρχό(μ.) λ̣ι̣(βὸς) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) ̣[ -ca.?- ]
[ ]
136 [ ]
col. vii [=1117, col. iv]
[ -ca.?- ] 𐅵
[ -ca.?- ] ε
[ -ca.?- ]ῶντος ϛ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
140 [ -ca.?- κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρυώτη]ς Ἁρυώτου ϛ 𐅵
[τοῦ α]ὐτοῦ βα(σιλικῆς) α ἀν(ὰ) ε
[νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ἁ]ρμιῦσις Σοκονώπιος ϛ 𐅵
[νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Μα]ρρ[ῆ]ς̣ Μαρρείους βα(σιλικῆς) β 𐅵 d η´ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
144 [νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι)] κλ(ήρου) (ἑπταρούρου) Χο(μήνιος) Ὧρος Ἁρφαήσιος ϛ 𐅵
τοῦ αὐτοῦ βα(σιλικῆς) α ἀν(ὰ) ε, (γίν.) ζ 𐅵
[νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι)] ἀ̣ρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Λέοντος τοῦ
Λεοντίσκου ⸌τὸ λο(ιπὸν) τῶν μ⸍ ιε
[λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρ]χό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) [Δ]ώρου τοῦ Πετάλου ιε
148 [νό(του) ἐχό(μενον)] ἐγβαῖ(νον) ἀπη(λιώτου) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) σχοι(νίον) τὸ
λο(ιπὸν) τῆς διώρυ(γος) ⸌καὶ χώ(ματος)⸍ γ
νό(του) [ἐχό(μενον)] κλ(ήρου) ἐφό(δου) Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Μενίσκου τὸ λο(ιπὸν) δ
[- ca.19 -] ̣ δ̣[ιώρ]υ(γος) β
/ ν[ό(του)] ἐχό(μεναι) ⟦ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς)⟧ Ἀθε̣μμεὺς Πετεσούχο[υ] ⟦β⟧ε 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) γ
152 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ⸌ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς)⸍ Πύρριχος Ἀπύγχιος ⟦ - ca.16 - ⟧

⟦ζ ἀν(ὰ)⟧ ⟦γ⟧ϛ ἀν(ὰ) γ
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ⸌βο(ρρᾶ)⸍ κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Δώρου τοῦ
Πετάλου ι
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) <λι(βὸς)> ἱερᾶς γῆς Σοκνεβτύνις θεοῦ μεγά(λου)
156 διὰ τῶν ἱερέων ιε
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Διοδότου τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου τὸ λο(ιπὸν) κβ
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην)
χώ(ματος) ἐκτὸς μισ(θώσεως) καὶ διώρυ(γος) ϛ
col. viii [=1117, col. v]
160 ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχο(μεν ) ἀρχο(μεν ) β[ο(ρρᾶ)] ἀπὸ τ̣ῶ̣ν περὶ̣ [τὸ]ν Ἰβιῶ(να) τῶν
(Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) πε(δίων)
/ Ὀννῶφρις Πετε̣χῶ̣ν̣τος βα(σιλικῆς) [β ἀν(ὰ) γ ]
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Δώρ̣ο̣[υ] τοῦ
Πετάλου [η]
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Ἀθεμμεὺς Πε̣[τ]ε̣σούχου βα(σιλικῆς) ε ἀν(ὰ) γ
164 / νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) λι(βὸς) Πολίτιος [Ὀν]νώφριος β̣α(̣ σιλικῆς) θ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) γ
νό(του) ἐχό(μενον) ἐξαγωγοῦ 𐅵
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Κ̣αλλικράτους [τ]οῦ Φιλοξένου ν̣α
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἐ̣μ̣βρόχου τ̣[οῦ] ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ζ
168 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐξαγωγ[ο]ῦ β
νό(του) ἐχο(μεν ) ἀρχο(μεν ) λι(βὸς) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ι
ἀ̣π̣[η(λιώτου)] ἐ̣χό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] (ἔτους) δ̣
[βο(ρρᾶ)] ἐχό(μεναι) ὑ[πο]λό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ ἕ̣ω̣ς̣ [τοῦ λθ] (ἔτους) ια
172 β[ο(ρρᾶ)] ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχ[ό(μεναι)] λι(βὸς) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τ̣ο[̣ ῦ ἀ]π̣ὸ̣ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ιβ
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἱερᾶ̣[ς] γῆς Σούχου θεοῦ̣ [με]γά(λου) μεγά(λου) διὰ Σαραπίωνος
τοῦ [Σ]α̣ραπίωνος κ[αὶ] τ̣ῶν με(τόχων) κ
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ⟦ἀρχ̣[ό(μεναι)]⟧ ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἕω[ς] τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) ιβ
176 ἀπ[η(λιώτου)] ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) β̣ο(̣ ρρᾶ) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ̣ (ἔτους) ι
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό̣(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ⸌ὑπολό(γου)⸍ χέρσου τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ε
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ⟦ἀρ⟧ ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) κατεξυ(σμένου) ε
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) β[ο(ρρᾶ) ὑ]π̣ολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀ[πὸ το]ῦ μ (ἔτους) ε
col. ix [=1117, col. vi]
180–184 lost
vacat
ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ λι(βὸς) (ὧν) ἐ[ν τῶι καλουμένωι Κερκεούρει λι(βὸς) πε(ριχώματι)]
ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σοκ̣[νεβτύνιος θεοῦ διὰ τ]ῶν ἱερέων
κοινῆι [ ] ιδ
188 νό(του) ἐχό(μεν ) ἀρχο(μεν ) ἀπη(λιώτου) ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ]

⸌λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ)⸍ ⟦νό(του)⟧ {ἐχό(μεναι)} Παπνεβ̣τ[ῦνις βα(σιλικῆς)] β
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Παπνεβτ[ῦνις -ca.?- βα(σιλικῆς) ̣] ἀ̣ν̣(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
Σοκνεβτύ̣ν̣ι̣[ος θεοῦ διὰ]
192 / νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Πετερμοῦθις Ἀ̣[μεν]ν̣έ[ως ̣] ἀν(ὰ) γ 𐅵
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Πετερμοῦθις Σιεφμοῦτος ζ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Σοκμῆνις Πετεσούχου καὶ οἱ μέ(τοχοι) ζ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Ἁρβῆχις Ἑργέως ι ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
196 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἱερᾶς γῆς ἐλ(άσσονος) ἰβίω(ν) τροφῆς διʼ Ἑργέως καὶ τῶν με(τόχων) β
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Πετοσῖρις Ὥρου βα(σιλικῆς) γ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Πετοσῖρις [Ἁ]ρκοίφιος βα(σιλικῆς) γ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
νό(του) ἐχο(μένη) ἀρχο(μένη) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμ̣υ(̣ ρίδος) [ἀπὸ] τοῦ μ (ἔτους) α 𐅵
200 ⸌λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀ̣ρ̣χ̣ό(μεναι) β̣ο(̣ ρρᾶ)⸍ ⟦νό(του)⟧ {ἐχό(μεναι)} Κέντις Ὥρ[ου] ιδ
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) Μαρρῆς Πακύρριος δ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´
/ νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ⸌ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς)⸍ Ἁρφαῆσις Πετεσούχου η ἀν(ὰ) α
/ ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους)
κατεξυ(σμένου) κ
204 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) ἀπη(λιώτου) τὸ λο(ιπόν) vacat
λι(βὸς) ἐχο(μένη) ἐγβαί(νουσα) βο(ρρᾶ) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) σχοι(νίον) διώρυ(γος) α̣
λι(βὸς) ἐχο(μένη) ἀρχο(μένη) βο(ρρᾶ) ἡ κεχω(ρισμένη) πρό[σ]οδος διὰ γεω(ργοῦ)
Πετεσοκονούριος
τοῦ Κεφάλωνος ἀπὸ τοῦ μθ (ἔτους) vacat
208 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ζ
col. x [1117, col. vii]
[νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγ]β̣αί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ) ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους)

κατεξυ(σμένου) κβ
[νό(του) ἐχο(μένη)] π̣ερίστασις κώ(μης) νό(του)
[(γίν.)] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ περιχώ(ματος) (ἄρουραι) vacat
vacat
212 ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ ἀπη(λιώτου) (ὧν) ἐν τῶι καλουμένωι Κερκεούρει ἀπη(λιώτου) πε(ριχώματι)
ν̣ό̣(του) κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἀ̣π̣η̣(λιώτου) νό(του) μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Θεογο(νίδα) πεδίων
ἀρχό(μενον) ἀπη(λιώτου) ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ ⟦θ⟧ Ταλὶ πε(δίων) διώρυγος Φίλωνος 𐅵 d
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχο(μένη) ἀρχο(μένη) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) α 𐅵
216 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σούχου θε(οῦ) μεγά(λου) μεγά(λου) διὰ
Ἀπολλωνίου Ποσει(δωνίου)
καὶ με(τόχων) δ𐅵
νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἐν τῶι να (ἔτει) δ 𐅵
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ὑδραγωγοῦ d
220 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) δ

λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ) ⸌ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ)⸍ ὑπολό(γου) ἀβρό(χου) ὑψη(λοῦ)
τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) β
νό(του) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀγούσης εἰς Ταλὶ 𐅵
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενον) ἀρχό(μενον) νό(του) Ἰσιείου συ(μπεπτωκότος) d
224 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ι
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) λι(βὸς) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Καλλικράτης
Πτολεμαίου ιϛ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενον) ὑδραγωγοῦ d
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ⟦ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου)⟧ ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) β
228 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους) ζ
λι(βὸς) ἐχο(μένη) ὑπολό(γου) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) α𐅵
/ λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) Πετεῆσις Τεῶτος ε ἀν(ὰ) γ
/ βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Φμούεις Παθήβιος δ 𐅵 ἀν(ὰ) δ
232 βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) β
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) εἰσβαί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ) παρὰ τὴν <προγεγεω(μετρημένην)> ἀβρό(χου)
ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) β
col. xi [1117, col. viii]
234–236 lost
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχο(μεν ) ἀρ̣[χο(μεν ) λι(βὸς) -ca.?- ]
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχό(μεναι) ἱερᾶς γῆς Σοκνεβτύ̣ν̣[ιος θεοῦ]
διὰ τῶν ἱερέων κο̣ι[̣ νῆι -ca.?- ]
240 / ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχο(μεν ) Κατῦτις Κατύτιος [ -ca.?- ]
ἀπη(λιώτου) ἐχο(μεν ) ἀρχο(μεν ) νό(του) Φαῆσις Ἁρυώτου [ -ca.?- ]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχο(μ.) ἐγβαί(ν.) ἀπη(λιώτου) παρὰ τὴν προγεγεω(μετρημένην) ὑ[δραγωγοῦ -ca.?- ]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἐν τῶ[ι ̣ (ἔτει)
-ca.?- θ, (ὧν)]
244 α ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´, η ἀν(ὰ) β 𐅵
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) κλ(ήρου) ἐρη(μο)φύ(λακος) μεταβεβη(κότος) εἰς τὴν
κ̣[α(τοικίαν)]
Νεκτενίβιος τοῦ Ὥρου ι
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) ϛ
248 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενα) τὰ πε[ρὶ] Ταλὶ πεδία. Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ̣
Ἡρακλε̣ί̣δου ἐφόδου μ̣εταβε̣[β]η(κότος) ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ κ̣[α(τοικίαν) -ca.?- ] δ̣
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) κλ(ήρου) ἐφόδου μεταβεβη(κότος) ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ κα(τοικίαν)
Δημητρίου τοῦ Ἡρακλείδου ιβ
252 τοῦ αὐτοῦ βα(σιλικῆς) δ ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´, <(γίν.)> ιϛ
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἁλμυ(ρίδος) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) β
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἐξαγωγοῦ β
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) ἀπη(λιώτου) κλ(ήρου) (ὀγδοηκονταρούρου) Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ
Ἀπολλωνίο̣[υ -ca.?- ]
256 λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ μ (ἔτους) θ̣[ -ca.?- ]
λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ⸌ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του)⸍ ὑπολό(γου) ἐμβρό(χου) τοῦ ἐν τῶι να (ἔτει) ϛ
ἀνὰ δ̣ 𐅵 γ´ ιβ´, κβ[ -ca.?- ]
βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μεναι) Λύκος Ζωπυρίωνος η ἀν(ὰ) δ 𐅵̣ γ´ ιβ´ ̣[ -ca.?- ]
ἕως τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἰβιῶ(να) τῶν (Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων) πε(δίων) βο(ρρᾶ) καὶ λι(βὸς) [ -ca.?- ]
260 ἀπὸ νό(του) καὶ ἀπη(λιώτου) (ὧν) ἀνὰ μέσον ὄντος τοῦ προγεγεω(μετρημένου)
ὑ[δραγωγοῦ -ca.?- ]
ἐξαγωγοῦ vacat
col. i
Lying to the north, extending to the east, alongside the land already surveyed, as far as the
the drainage channel already surveyed,
in the basin called Fourth, starting from the south
and east, eroded land out of account before year 39, [[11⁄2]] 11⁄2 (ar.).
4 [[Lying to the north, starting from the west, waterlogged land out of account before year
39, 51⁄4 (ar.).]]
[[Lying to the east, starting from the south, canal, 2 (ar.).]]
Lying to the west, starting from the south, the fields around Ibion Eikosipentarouron.
/ Lying to the north, Petermouthis son of Siphmous, 31⁄2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 +1⁄12 (= 411⁄12 art.).
8 Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account since year 40, 2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the west, starting from the north, of Petesouchos, crocodile god, through
Petosiris son of Amenneus, 61⁄2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 (= 45⁄6 art.).
/ Lying [to the south] plot [of a 7-aroura man] of Chomenis, Pasos the elder son of
Phanesis, 61⁄2 (ar.);
of the same man, royal land, 1 (ar.) at 5 (art.).
12 / Lying to the south, plot [of a 7-aroura man] of Chomenis, Orses son of [Haronnesis], 61⁄2 (ar.);
of the [same man, royal land, 1 (ar.) at 5 (art.), total 7 1/2 (ar.)].
/ Lying to the south, plot of a 30-aroura man [of Chomenis, Haruotes son of Phaeus, 5 (ar.)];
of the [same man, royal land, 2 (ar.) at 51⁄3 (art.), total 7 (ar.)].
16 / Lying to the south, plot of a 7-aroura [man of Chomenis N.N. son of N.N.], 61⁄2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the south, starting [from the west], Kentis son of Horos, royal land, 2 (ar.).
/ Adjoining, lying [to the east], plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Harphaesis son [of
Horos], the remainder;
of the same man, royal land, 2 (ar.) at [5 (art.)].
20 Lying to the east, starting from the north, Harphaesis son of Petosiris, royal land, 11⁄2 + 1⁄4
(ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the south, [plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Pasis the elder son] of Kalatutis,
61⁄2 (ar.);
1
[of the same man, royal land, 2 (ar.) at] 5 (art.), total 8 ⁄2 (ar.).
col. ii
/ Lying to the south, plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Pasis the younger son of
Kalatutis, 61⁄2 (ar.);
1
24 of the same man, royal land, 1 (ar.) at 5 (art.), total 7 ⁄2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the south, starting from the east, Kentis son of Horos, royal land, 14 (ar.) at
41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the west, plot of a 20-aroura man of Chomenis, Phmersis son of Horos, 5 (ar.).
Lying to the west, extending to the north alongside the land already surveyed,
28 sacred land of the twice great god Soknebtunis,
through the priests, 75 (ar.).
/ Lying to the west, plot of a 20-aroura man of Chomenis, Harmiusis son of Ptolemaios,
19 (ar.);
of the same man through Harphaesis the son of
32 Petosiris, 5 (ar.) at 5 (art.), total 24 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the
category of settlers,
Petron son of Theon, out of [[13]] 13 (ar.).
/ Lying to the north, extending to the east, Harmiusis son of Petenouris, royal land, 41⁄4
(ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
36 / Lying to the north, Pasis son of Petesouchos, 2 ⁄2 (ar.) at 4 ⁄2 + ⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
1 1 1
Lying to the north, plot of a 20-aroura man of Chomenis, Kephalas son of Petesouchos,
19 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the east, plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Harmiusis
son of Petesouchos, 61⁄2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the west, starting from the south, Thotortaios son of Petosiris, royal land, 2 (ar.)
at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
40 / Lying to the north, starting from the east, Marres son of Petos, royal land, 71⁄2 (ar.) at
41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the west, Lukos son of Zopurion, royal land, 5 (ar.) at 4 ⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
1
Lying to the west, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the cavalry settlers,
Petron son of Theon, the remainder of the 15 ar.
col. iii
44 / Lying to the west, starting from the north, Pasis son of Petesouchos, royal land, 7 (ar.) at
41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Petesouchos
son of Tothoes, 61⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the west, extending to the south alongside the land already surveyed for a
schoinion, supply channel, 1⁄2 + 1⁄4 (ar.).
/ Lying to the west, starting from the north, (land) of Petesouchos, crocodile god,
48 through Petesouchos son of Pakurris, 5 (ar.) at 31⁄4 (art.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the cavalry
settlers,
Akousilaos son of Asklepiades, 6 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the north, plot of a policeman, Maron who is also
52 Nektsaphthis son of Petosiris, 3 (ar.).
Lying to the south, extending to the east, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the
Asklepiades son of Asklepiades, 12 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the cavalry
settlers,
56 Akousilaos son of Asklepiades, the remaining 4 (ar.).
Lying to the west, [plot] of a 100-aroura man, Polemon the son of Ammonios, the
remaining 13 (ar.).
Lying to the west, plot of a cavalryman, Apollodoros the son of Ptolemaios,

out of 60 (ar.), 18 (ar.).
60 Lying to the west, starting from the south, plot of a policeman, Maron who is also known as
Nektsaphthis son of Petosiris, the remaining 7 (ar.).
Lying to the north, extending to the east, drainage channel, 1⁄4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the west, waterlogged land out of account since year 40, 8 (ar.).
64 Lying to the east, starting from the south, drainage channel, 1⁄4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, plot of a policeman, Akousilaos the son
of Apollonios, out of 10 (ar.), 3 (ar.).
col. iv
Lying to the north, starting from the east, plot of a cavalryman, Apollodoros the son
of Ptolemaios,
68 the remainder of the 60 (ar.), [[42]] 40 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, waterlogged land out of account since year 40, 4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, extending to the east, plot of a policeman, Akousilaos son of Apollonios,
the remaining 7 (ar.).
72 Lying to the north, extending to the east, drainage channel starting from the east, 1 (ar.).
Adjoining on the west, extending to the south and north, drainage channel, 2 (ar.).
Total for the basin, (space)
Adjoining, lying on the west, extending to the south alongside the land already surveyed
for a schoinion,
76 in the basin called Themistos,
[[drainage channel, 2 (ar.).]]
Lying to the south, extending to the west, waterlogged land out of account, 1 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, drainage channel, out of 5 (ar.), 1 (ar.).
80 Lying to the west, starting from the south, waterlogged land out of account before year 39, 4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, the remainder of the 5 (ar.) of the drainage channel, 4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, dry land out of account before year 39, 3 (ar.).
Lying to the north, extending to the east, drainage channel, 1⁄2 (ar.).
84 Lying to the north, starting from the west, plot of a 100-aroura man, Athenion son of Archias,
from the plot
formerly of Chairemon son of Krateinos, 3 (ar.),
from the plot formerly of Heliodoros son of Menodoros, 10 (ar.),
total 13 (ar.).
88 Lying to the east, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the category of settlers,
Asklepiades son of Ptolemaios, 24 (ar.).
Lying to the east, starting from the south, sacred land of the twice great god Souchos,
through Peteimouthes and Mestasutmis, 51⁄2 (ar.).
col. v
92 Lying to the north, Marres son of Petos, royal land, 7 (ar.) at 4[1⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.)].
Lying to the north, starting from the east, plot of a 100-aroura man, Bakchios son of
Mousaios, [20 (ar.)].
Lying to the west, starting from the south, extending to the east, waterlogged land out of
account [since year 40, (ar.)].
Lying to the north, starting from the west, waterlogged land out of account since year 40,
12 (ar.).
96 Lying to the east, starting from the south, Marres son of Petos, royal land, 4 (ar.) at
41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the north, (land) of the god Soknebtunis through Petermouthis
son of Amenneus, 10 (ar.) at 31⁄2 (art.).
Lying to the north, Anempeus son of Petosiris, royal land, 6 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
100 Lying to the north, starting from the east, waterlogged land out of account in year 51,
2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the west, Phaesis son of Phibis and his partners, 14 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, waterlogged land out of account in year 51,
4 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the north, plot of a cavalryman, Theon son of Theon, 30 (ar.).
104 Lying to the north, plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Psenesis son of Psenesis, [6]1⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the west, land out of account in year 51, [ (ar.)].
Lying to the east, Horos son of Petos, royal land, 20 (ar.), [ ],
2 (ar.) at 1 (art.).
108 Lying to the east, extending to the south, waterlogged land out of account [since year ], 5 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the east, waterlogged land out of account [since year ],
81⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, plot of a 30-aroura desert horse patrolman,
Pantauchos
the son of Pantauchos, out of 341⁄16 + 1⁄32 (ar.), 20 (ar.).
112 Lying to the north starting from the east, plot of a foot patrolman Ptolemaios
son of Meniskos, out of [ (ar.), (ar.)].
Lying to the west, waterlogged land out of account since [year, (ar.)].
col. vi
Lying to the west, extending to the south, alongside the [land already surveyed for a schoinion],
116 [drainage] channel, 3 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the north, plot of a 30-aroura desert horse patrolman,
Pantauchos
son of Pantauchos, the remainder of the 341⁄16 + 1⁄32, 141⁄16 + 1⁄32 (= 143⁄32 ar.).
Lying to the south, sacred land of the twice great god Souchos,
120 Apollonios son of Poseidonios, 33 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, sacred land of the twice great god Souchos, Sarapion
son of Sarapion, 10 (ar.).
Lying to the west, extending to the south alongside the canal already surveyed,
plot of a 100-aroura man Heliodoros son of Menodoros, the remaining 40 (ar.).
124 Lying to the west, starting from the south, dyke of the canal called of Polemon, [[16]] 10 (ar.),
as far as the fields around Berenikis Thesmophorou on the west.
Lying to the north, extending to the east, alongside the land already surveyed for a schoinion,
drainage canal, 3 (ar.).
128 Total for the basin (space)
(space)
Lying to the north, starting from the west, the [basin] called [Pao( )].
On the north from the fields around Ibion [Eikosipentarouron, and then on the west from the]
dyke of the Polemon canal, [ (ar.)].
132 Lying to the east, starting from the south, plot of an 80-aroura man [ . . . . ],
from 40 (ar.), [ (ar.)]
Lying to the [north], starting from the west, plot of a 7-aroura man, [ . . . . , (ar.)].
[line lost]
136 [line lost]
col. vii
[ ] 1⁄2 (ar.).
[ ] 5 (ar.).
[ royal land,] 6 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
140 [ plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Haruotes] son of Haruotes, 61⁄2 (ar.);
[of the] same man, royal land, 1 (ar.) at 5 (art.).
[Lying to the south, plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis], Harmiusis son of Sokonopis,
61⁄2 (ar.).
1 1 1 7
[Lying to the south], Marres son of Marres, royal land, 2 ⁄2 + ⁄4 + ⁄8 (= 2 ⁄8 ar.)
at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
144 [Lying to the south], plot of a 7-aroura man of Chomenis, Horos son of Harphaesis, 61⁄2 (ar.);
of the same man, royal land, 1 (ar.) at 5 (art.), total 71⁄2 (ar.).
[Lying to the south], starting from the east, plot of an 80-aroura man, Leon son of
Leontiskos, the remainder of the 40 (ar.), 15 (ar.).
[Lying to the west], starting from the north, plot of an 80-aroura man, Doros son of Petalos,
15 (ar.).
148 [Lying to the south], extending to the east alongside the land already surveyed for a schoinion,
of the canal and dyke, the remaining 3 (ar.).
[Lying] to the south, plot of a foot patrolman, Ptolemaios son of Meniskos, the remaining
4 (ar.).
[ ] canal, 2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the south [[starting from the west]], Athemmeus son of Petesouchos, [[2]] 51⁄2 (ar.)
at 3 (art.).
152 Lying to the south, starting from the west, Purrhichos son of Apunchis,
[[7 (ar.) at]] [[3]]6 (ar.) at 3 (art.).
Lying to the east, starting from the north, plot of an 80-aroura man, Doros the son of Petalos,
10 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the <west>, sacred land of the great god Soknebtunis,
156 through the priests, 15 (ar.).
Lying to the east, plot of an 80-aroura man, Diodotos the son of Apollonios, the remaining
22 (ar.).
Lying to the east, extending to the north alongside the land already surveyed,
dyke not subject to rent and canal, 6 (ar.).
col. viii
160 Lying to the east, starting from the north, from the fields around Ibion Eikosipentarouron,
/ Onnophris son of Petechon, royal land, [2 (ar.) at 3 (art.)].
Lying to the east, starting from the north, plot of an 80-aroura man, Doros the son of Petalos,
[8 (ar.)].
/ Lying to the south, Athemmeus son of Petesouchos, royal land, 5 (ar.) at 3 (art.).
164 / Lying to the south, extending to the west, Politios son of Onnophris, royal land, 91⁄2 (ar.)
at 3 (art.).
Lying to the south, drainage channel, 1⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the south, plot of an 80-aroura man, Kallikrates son of Philoxenos, 51 (ar.).
Lying to the south, waterlogged land out of account since year 40, 7 (ar.).
168 Lying to the south, extending to the east, a drainage channel, 2 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the west, . . . . . . , 10 (ar.).
Lying to the east, starting from the south, salted land out of account since year [ ], 4 (ar.).
Lying to the [north], waterlogged land out of account before year [39], 11 (ar.).
172 Lying to the north, starting from the west, salted land out of account since year 40, 12 (ar.).
Lying to the east, sacred land of the twice great god Souchos, through Sarapion
son of Sarapion and his partners, 20 (ar.).
Lying to the east, salted land out of account before year 39, 12 (ar.).
176 Lying to the east, starting from the north, waterlogged land out of account before year 39,
10 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, dry land out of account since year 40, 5 (ar.).
Lying to the west, eroded land out of account before year 39, 5 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the north, salted land out of account since year 40, 5 (ar.).
col. ix
[5 lines lost]
(space)
from the north and west, of those in [the basin called Kerkeouris West],
starting from the north, sacred land of the [god] Soknebtunis through the priests
in common, 14 (ar.).
188 Lying to the south, starting from the east . . . . . . [ ].
Lying to the west, starting from the north, Papnebtunis, [royal land], 2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the south, Papnebtunis, [ royal land, (ar.)] at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Of the [god] Soknebtunis [through ].
192 / Lying to the south, Petermouthis son of Amenneus, [royal land, (ar.)] at 31⁄2 (art.).
Lying to the south, Petermouthis son of Siephmous, 71⁄2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12.
Lying to the south, Sokmenis son of Petesouchos and his partners, 71⁄2 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the south, Harbechis son of Hergeus, 10 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
196 Lying to the south, sacred land of the lesser ibis feeding station through Hergeus and his
partners, 2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the south, Petosiris son of Horos, royal land, 3 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the south, Petosiris son of Harkoiphis, royal land, 3 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, salted land out of account since year 40, 1 1/2
(ar.).
200 Lying to the west, starting from the north, Kentis son of Horos, 14 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the south, Marres son of Pakurris, 4 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
/ Lying to the south, starting from the west, Harphaesis son of Petesouchos, 8 (ar.) at 1 (art.).
/ Lying to the east, starting from the north, eroded land out of account before year 39, 20 (ar.).
204 Lying to the west, starting from the east, the remaining (space).
Lying to the west, extending to the north, alongside the land already surveyed for a
schoinion, canal, 1 (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the north, land with revenue set aside through the farmer
Petesokonouris
son of Kephalon since year 49, (space).
208 Lying to the south, salted land out of account since year 40, 7 (ar.).
col. x
Lying to the [south], extending to the north, eroded land out of account before year 39, 22 (ar.).
[Lying to the south], the boundary of the village on the south.
[Total] for the basin, (space) ar.
(space)
212 From the north and east, of those in the basin called Kerkeouris East,
south and east, both south from the fields around Theogonis
(and) starting east from the fields around [[Th]] Tali, the canal of Philon, 1⁄2 + 1⁄4 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account before year 39, 11⁄2 (ar.).
216 Lying to the west, starting from the north, sacred land of the twice great god Souchos,
through Apollonios son of Poseidonios
and partners, 41⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, salted land out of account in year 51, 41⁄2 (ar.).
Lying to the west, supply channel, 1⁄4 (ar.).
220 Lying to the west, salted land out of account since year 40, 4 (ar.).
Lying to the west, extending to the north, starting from the north, high unflooded land
out of account before year 39, 2 (ar.).
Lying to the south, starting from the east, road leading to Tali, 1⁄2 (ar.)
Lying to the west, starting from the south, a collapsed Isis-shrine, 1⁄4 (ar.).
224 Lying to the north, salted land out of account since year 40, 10 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the west, plot of an 80-aroura man, Kallikrates son of
Ptolemaios, 16 (ar.).
Lying to the north, supply channel, 1⁄4 (ar.).
Lying to the north [[starting from the east]], salted land out of account since year 40, 2 (ar.).
228 Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account before year 39, 7 (ar.).
Lying to the west, land out of account since year 40, 11⁄2 (ar.).
/ Lying to the west, starting from the south, Peteesis son of Teos, 5 (ar.) at 3 (art.).
/ Lying to the north, Phmouis son of Pathebis, 41⁄2 (ar.) at 4 (art.).
232 Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account since year 40, 2 (ar.).
Lying to the west, coming in to the north alongside the land <already surveyed>, unflooded
salted land out of account since year 40, 2 (ar.).
col. xi
[3 lines lost]
Lying to the north, starting [from the west ].
Lying to the east, sacred land of the [god] Soknebtunis
through the priests in common, [ ].
240 / Lying to the east, Katutis son of Katutis, [ (ar.)].
Lying to the east, starting from the south, Phaesis son of Haruotes, [ (ar.)].
Lying to the north, extending to the east alongside the land already surveyed, [supply
channel(?), (ar.)].
Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account in [year , 9 (ar.), of
which]
244 1 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.), 8 (ar.) at 21⁄2 (art.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, plot of a desert guard transferred to the category
of settlers,
Nektenibis son of Horos, 10 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the east, salted land out of account since year 40, 6 (ar.).
248 Lying to the west, the fields around Tali. (Plot) of Ammonios the son of
Herakleides, foot patrolman transferred to the [category of settlers,] 4 (?) [(ar.)].
Lying to the west, starting from the south, plot of a foot patrolman transferred to the
Demetrios the son of Herakleides, 12 (ar.);
252 of the same man, royal land, 4 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.), <total>, 16 (ar.).
Lying to the north, salted land out of account since year 40, 2 (ar.).
Lying to the north, drainage channel, 2 (ar.).
Lying to the north, starting from the east, plot of an 80-aroura man, Ammonios son of
Apollonios, [ (ar.)].
256 Lying to the west, waterlogged land out of account since year 40, 9(?) (ar.).
Lying to the west, starting from the south, waterlogged land out of account in year 51, 6 (ar.)
at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 , 22 (art.) [ ].
Lying to the north, Lukos son of Zopurion, 8 (ar.) at 41⁄2 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄12 (art.).
As far as the fields around Ibion Eikosipentarouron on the north and west [ ].
260 From the south and east, of those between which runs the already surveyed supply channel(?),
drainage channel (space)
1–74 This section treats the Fourth basin, which is also recorded in P.Tebt. IV 1118.69–124 (117/6
BCE); 1120.94–134 (after 113/2), incomplete; see P.Tebt. IV 1117 intro.
1 παρά: written παρα. With Grenfell and Hunt (P.Tebt. I 84.32 n.) we take this as the simple
preposition when followed by an accusative as here. (Alternatively one might resolve it as a form
of παράκειμαι). Writing the last letter of a short word above the line is not uncommon in the late
Ptolemaic period, see, for example, P.Dryton 29.16.
3 ὑπολό(γου) out of account or unproductive.
τοῦ ἕως corrected from ρ ̣ ̣ ξ ; ἕως τοῦ λθ (ἔτους), “before year 39” (132/1 BCE), means up
to the outbreak of the civil war in that year between Kleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II
with Kleopatra III. A new survey followed in year 40 (131/0) at the end of the war; land is then
described as “since year 40.”
κατεξυ(σμένου) “eroded” cf. 84.16 with 41⁄2 ar. (P.Tebt. I 61b.424; 72.[431]; 74.52; 84.16). If 72.71
can apply to land described this way (cf. editors, on 74.52), then excessive flooding of water
might account for the degradation of this land.
4–5 Two lines deleted by insertion of surrounding bracket.
6 The scribe first wrote βο(ρρᾶ) ἐχό(μενα), “lying to the north,” then converted it to “lying to
the west, starting from the south” by writing λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μενα) in the margin, cancelling βο(ρρᾶ),
prefacing ἀρ- to ἐχό(μενα), and inserting νό(του) above the line.
9 For this plot of the crocodile god as royal land, see P.Tebt. IV 1118.75n.
10 The laarch Chomenis was responsible for the settlement of both cavalry and infantry in the area,
P.Tebt. IV p. 13.
In P.Tebt. I 62.268–269 the basin of Pasos’ holding is uncertainly read as Second (beta), which
probably should be read as Fourth (delta).
10–22 Lacunae are restored by comparison with P.Tebt. IV 1118.76–85 and 1120.94–102.
14–15 The rest of the kleros of Haruotes son of Phaeus was around Tebtunis, P.Tebt. I 62.161, but
according to P.Tebt. IV 1103 = 1110v.269 he also held 2 arouras of royal land at a rent rate of
51⁄3 art. in 116/5 BCE, as restored here.
16 The ed. pr. supplied [Χο(μήνιος) Ἁρφαῆσις Ὥρου] for this 7-aroura landholder but Harphaesis
son of Horos, not otherwise known as a soldier of Chomenis, is probably recorded in l. 18. Some
other name must have stood here.
18 See 16 n. The 61⁄2 plot of land recorded in the Fourth basin in P.Tebt. I 62.229 (119/8 BCE), cf.
61a.92 (118/7 BCE), probably the same.
23 Both sons of Kalatutis are named Pasis (cf. line [21]); they occur elsewhere.
31–32 Two lines written on top of an earlier text now washed off. Only λι( ) at the start of l. 33 remains.
32 The rent rate here, as elsewhere later in this text, implies royal land.
34 Petron son of Theon was transferred to the katoikia in year 36 (135/4 BCE) when he was allotted
24 ar., of which 15 ar. were in the Third North basin, P.Tebt. I 62.146. For some elasticity along
the border of the Fourth and Third North basins, see P.Tebt. IV 1117 introd. The check mark over
the gamma may arise from the further entry to this landholder in l. 43 below.
35 Line written over traces of erased previous text.
39 ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του) corrected from Θοτ.
40 ζ 𐅵 ἀν(ά) corrected.
43 The remaining 2 ar. of Petron’s 15-aroura plot (cf. l. 34) were not added.
46 For σχοι(νίον) as the measure by which a surveyed item extends beyond, or is inset from, the edge
of the previous item, the clearest explanation is by Kenyon, P.Lond. II 267.8n., 28n. (p. 129),
an Arsinoite survey document of soon after 113/4 CE (former strategos Apion); cf. P.Tebt. IV
1117.65n. The formula recurs here in ll. 75, 115, 126, 148, 205. Not all these “projections” can
have been by one schoinion; either Menches added the precise measurements in his fair copies,
or he wrote the indeterminate σχοι( ) as a fossilised formula, and even that he omitted in ll. 122,
158, 233, 242.
47 For the crocodile god Petesouchos as landholder, cf. l. 9.
50 Akousilaos son of Asklepiades was transferred to the katoikia in year 36 (135/4 BCE), P.Tebt. I
62.148, with a grant of 10 ar. in Third North basin (but see 34n. above); cf. 63.120; 64a.78. See
l. 56, for the remainder of his 10-ar. plot.
51–52 τὸν καὶ Νεκτσάφθιν (τ corrected from σ): read ὁ καὶ Νεκτσάφθις. Μάρων appears mistakenly to
have been taken as an accusative case. For the rest of his 10-aroura plot, see l. 61 below.
53–54 According to P.Tebt. I 62.143, Asklepiades son of Asklepiades was allotted 24 ar. in the Third
North basin (see 50n. above).
56 See l. 50 above. 4 ar. complete the 10 ar. of Akousilaos son of Asklepiades in the Fourth perichoma.
The remainder of his 24-ar. kleros was around Theognis, P.Tebt. I 64a.78–79.
57 In 119/8 BCE Polemon son of Ammonios had 40 ar. of which 27 were in the Pao( ) perichoma,
P.Tebt. I 62.128. The location of the remainder of his 100 ar. is unclear. In 119/8 10 ar. were
transferred to Athenion son of Archias (P.Tebt. I 64.94), and in 117/6 another 10 ar. to Mela-
nippos son of Asklepiades and 10 ar. to Asklepiades son of Asklepiades, P.Tebt. I 63.117; 64.64;
IV 1110.117, 125). 20 ar. of unsown land were recorded under his name in 116/5, P.Tebt. IV
1110.109, which may be the land held in the Third North perichoma the previous year, P.Tebt. IV
1118.59.
59 See l. 68, for a further 40 out of this 60-aroura plot. The figure 40 there was changed from 42
(cf. P.Tebt. I 72.179ff., 40 ar.); the location of a further 2 ar. remains unrecorded.
61 Maron’s other land is recorded in l. 52 above.
63 η at end is corrected from ϛ.
65–66 Lines written over traces of erased previous text.
66 See l. 71, for the remaining 7 ar. of Akousilaos.
68 See note on l. 59 above.
70 Ἀκουσιλάου: corrected from Ἀκουσίλαος. The other 3 ar. of the plot of Akousilaos are mentioned
in l. 66 above.
74 The total for the perichoma has not been filled in. Assuming the start of the Fourth basin (peri-
choma) coincided with the start of the text it will have contained a total of almost 394 (393.91)
arouras. P.Tebt. IV 1118.69–124 records almost 370 (368 3/4) arouras, with some items missing.
75–128 This section treats the Themistos basin, which is also recorded in P.Tebt. IV 1118.125–158
(117/6 BCE); see P.Tebt. IV, p. 141.
77 Line deleted by insertion of surrounding bracket, probably because it repeated the information
of 1. 73.
83 This line is a later insertion.
93 The figure for the holding of Bakchios son of Mousaios is missing where the papyrus is broken off.
According to P.Tebt. I 62.117 he was promoted in year 37 (134/3 BCE). For 20 ar. in the Themistos
basin, see P.Tebt. I 62.120; IV 1110.104; 1114.80; 1115.60.
97–98 Cf. l. 9 above for the same cultivator on land of another crocodile god. Menches has started to
write Petesouchos rather than Soknebtunis here; as in l. 9 (for the god Petesouchos) the rent rate
implies royal land.
100, 102 A record of the (earlier) rent rate for (royal) land now out of account is unusual elsewhere but
recurs in ll. 243–244 and 257 below.
102 δ after (ἔτει) is corrected from ϛ.
103 According to P.Tebt. I 62.118, the rest of Theon’s 100-aroura plot was in the territory of other
villages. Like other cleruchs with land in the Themistos basin, he was promoted to the status of
settler in 134/3 BCE, cf. P.Tebt. I 62.117–137, for a full listing.
110–111 See ll. 117–118 for the rest of Pantauchos’ holding.
112–113 As ephodos, Ptolemaios son of Meniskos took over a plot of 24 ar. granted to his father in year
34 (137/6 BCE) in the Themistos basin, P.Tebt. I 62.151–153, but l. 149 below records 4 ar. in the
Pao( ) basin. It is likely that ἀπὸ [κδ κ], “out of 24, 20 (ar.)” should be supplied where the papyrus
is broken off.
114 “Year 40” should probably be supplied where the text is broken off.
117–118 See ll. 110–111 for the rest of Pantauchos’ holding.
118 There is a line above λδ ι´ϛ´ λ´β´.
121 This line, with details of sacred land of Souchos, was added to the survey at a later stage.
123 Like the 10 ar. of l. 86 above in the same basin, by 116/5 these 40 ar. of Heliodoros son of
Menodoros were also in the hands of Athenion son of Archias, P.Tebt. I 63.106; cf. IV 1108.57
(134–132 BCE?) with intro for discussion of this holding.
124 Unlike the editors of P.Tebt. I and IV, we understand Polemon as the name of the canal rather
than of the dyke which ran beside it.
125 This snippet of topographical information most probably indicates the general direction of the
Polemon canal recorded here.
127 Read διώρυγος.
128 As in l. 74 above, the total for the Themistos basin has not been added. Supplying 20 ar. in l. 93,
the total for this basin comes to more than 3403⁄32 ar.
A gap of 3.5 cm follows before the start of the following basin.
129–179 This section treats the Pao( ) basin, also recorded in P.Tebt. IV 1118.159–184 (117/6 BCE), from
which several lacunae here are supplemented. This was a basin containing much poor land.
143 In P.Tebt. IV 1118.167, 3 ar. royal land are registered for Marres in the Pao( ) basin.
147 See ll. 154 and 162, for more of Doros’ allotment.
149 Πτολεμαίου: π corrected from α. For Ptolemaios see 112–113n. above.
150 Recto layer of papyrus stripped off.
154 See ll. 147 and 162 for more of Doros’ allotment.
155 P.Tebt. IV 1118.176 (117/6 BCE) records this land as cultivated by the priests in common, cf. l. 187
below.
157 Since this is the first time that Diodotos is listed it is clear that the survey preceded the start of
this text. In P.Tebt. IV 1118.178 (117/6 BCE) Diodotos is listed with only 20 ar.
159 For ἐκτὸς μισ(θώσεως) as land not subject to rent, see P.Tebt. IV pp. 2–3.
161–162 Shelton supplied the figures for these two holdings from P.Tebt. IV 1122.40–44. Another 15 and
10 ar. of Doros’ allotment are recorded in ll. 147 and 154. The total of 33 ar. is short of the 40 ar.
ascribed to him by P.Tebt. I 62.76–77, but the missing 7 ar. could have been in another basin.
164 In P.Tebt. IV 1118.182 (117/6 BCE), the same individual is called Politos son of Onnophris,
recorded as holding 10 arouras.
166 The same plot is listed in P.Tebt. IV 1118.183.
179 The total for the Pao( ) basin must have lain in the missing lines; this may well have been followed
by a space in the text. Some entries are missing and a total of only 3081⁄2 arouras is recorded for
this basin; it was probably larger. The comparable section of P.Tebt. IV 1118.159–184 preserves
details of only 2211⁄2 arouras.
185–211 This section treats the Kerkeouris West basin; for the restoration here, see P.Tebt. IV 1117.97n.
This basin was probably also recorded in P.Tebt. IV 1118.195–208 (117/6 BCE); cf. I 94.1.
189 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) was written first, with a checkmark; it was corrected by adding λι(βὸς) ἐχό(με-
ναι) ἀρχό(μεναι) in the margin and altering νο( ) to βο( ), but the scribe forgot to delete ἐχό(μεναι).
See also l. 200.
191 A later insertion, which probably applies to the following item. Cf. ll. 97–98 above for Peter-
mouthis son of Athemmeus cultivating 10 ar. at 31⁄2 art. of (royal) land of Soknebtunis in the
Themistos basin.
193 See note on l. 32 above.
196 P.Tebt. IV 1118.197 (117/6 BCE) probably records this same plot. In 115/4 BCE, P.Tebt. I 88.53–56
Hergeus and his partners were responsible for 4 arouras of an ibis burial shrine and Hermaion
(a shrine of Thoth), possibly part of the same establishment. For second-class temples, see
Crawford [Thompson], Kerkeosiris, 93.
199 This line was inserted later, triggering the correction in l. 200.
200 νό(του) ἐχό(μεναι) was written first; it was corrected by adding λι(βὸς) ἐχό(μεναι) ἀρχό(μεναι)
in the margin and partially over νο( ) and changing it to βο( ), but the scribe forgot to delete
ἐχό(μεναι). See also l. 189.
204 λι(βός): the scribe should have written νό(του).
206 For land originally out of account but brought into cultivation as ἡ κεχωρισμένη πρόσοδος, here
specified as that since 122/1 BCE, see P.Tebt. I Appendix I § 7; IV 1117.118n. Petesokonouris son
of Kephalon is reasonably well-documented but is not otherwise known as cultivating land in this
category.
207 No figure follows this entry.
209 The papyrus currently does not show ἐχό(μεναι) ἐγβαί(νουσαι), but this was read securely by
Keenan and Shelton.
211 Again the total for the basin was left for future insertion. Surviving figures total only 1241⁄2 arouras.
A space of ca. 2 cm. follows before the start of the next basin.
212–261 This section treats the Kerkeouris East basin (cf. P.Tebt. IV 1127.21), which is first located
in respect of the neighbouring villages of Theogonis and Tali. On the implications of ll. 213–214,
see P.Tebt. IV 1117.125n.
213 This line was inserted, giving more precise detail to the location of the basin.
214 ⟦θ⟧: apparently the scribe first wanted to write Θεογο(νίδα) again, as in the previous line.
218 ἁλμυ(ρίδος): α corrected from λ.
220 λι(βός) corrected from νό(του).
221 ἀρχό(μεναι) βο(ρρᾶ) (“starting from the north”) was inserted here.
223 συ(μπεπτωκότος): for the suggested resolution of this abbreviation (“collapsed”), see P.Tebt. IV
1117.135n.
225 Kallikrates son of Ptolemaios was one of the 4,000 soldiers used against the Thebaid during the
great revolt and settled here under Ptolemy V Epiphanes, see Crawford [Thompson], Kerkeosiris,
60. Under the care of his farmer Limnaios this 16-aroura plot later became productive, P.Tebt. IV
1114.22–23 (113/2 BCE); 1115.3 (111/0). Earlier this land was regularly registered as out of
account, P.Tebt. IV 1108.6–7 (124–121); 1109.14 (before 119/8); I 62.45 (119/8); 63.43 (116/5);
IV 1110.48 (116/5).
228 ἕως: ε corrected from α; λθ corrected from μ.
229 λι(βός) corrected from βο(ρρᾶ).
231 The property of Phmoueis is recorded more fully with a sketch in P.Tebt. IV 1123.7–8 (late
2nd c. BCE).
233 εἰσβαί(νουσαι) βο(ρρᾶ): the opposite of “extending alongside,” that is the edge of this item is inset
from that of the previously surveyed item; cf. P.Tebt. IV 1123.9.
243–244 On the rent rate provided for land out of account, see note on l. 100 above.
246 Nektenibis son of Horos (not to be confused with the 7-aroura cleruch of the same name) was
transferred to the settler category in year 34 of Ptolemy VI (148/7), P.Tebt. I 62.97 (119/8).
248–249 Ammonios the son of Herakleides is not otherwise known. Perhaps (so ed. pr.) the surveyor
confused this with the following entry.
251–253 The numbers at the end of the lines are offset.
252 The totalling sign, supplied in the ed. pr., is not present but the papyrus is broken here.
257 ἀρχό(μεναι) νό(του), “starting from the south,” was added to this entry. For the land involved, see
P.Tebt. I 74.38–40, breach of a major dyke near Theogonis and Tali. On the rent rate for land out
of account, see note on l. 100 above.
260 The survey of the Kerkeouris East basin is incomplete, and details of only 158 arouras survive.
King’s College London

Girton College, Cambridge
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
47. A Draft of a Rider to a Cession Contract
David M. Ratzan
P.Col. inv. 175 25.5 x 10 cm I–II

Oxyrhynchite
The document is written on a medium-brown papyrus purchased by Columbia University in 1924 from
M. Nahman through H. I. Bell (XIV 1924 44 in Bell’s inventory).1 The top and left margins are nearly
intact, and we likely have the full extent of the bottom margin. Although the right margin is ragged,
the text is complete, missing only an occasional letter or two. The elongation of certain letters to fill out
the line and the abbreviation of words at the ends of others indicate that the right margin originally did not
extend much beyond the text. The back is blank.
The hand is a competent specimen of the first or early second century, with characteristic εα, εν,
and σο ligatures, angular and pinched theta, and bifurcated tau (cf. P.Oxy. XLI 2970 [62; Oxyrhynchos]
and P.Genova II 62 [98; Oxyrhynchos]). There is also a certain attention to legibility, evident in the
separation of numbers from the rest of the text (e.g., line 4) and the insertion of spaces between sections
or clauses (e.g., line 23).
Bell identified the document as a “draft of an acknowledgement of a conveyance of katoikic
land (without the names of the parties),” and dated it to the first century, presumably on paleographic
grounds. The paleography and various aspects of the phraseology indeed point to such a date, but we
may be more precise with respect to the document’s legal nature: it is in fact a draft of a cheirographic
amendment to a parachōrēsis of katoikic land. The ceded property totals 16 arourai of agricultural land
in two parcels, all but one aroura of which lies in a previously unattested klēros in the village of Ieme.
The chief interest of the document is in the attestation of the klēros and its status as an amendment.
The document begins baldly with χαίρειν, omitting the names of both parties, who are referred
to throughout in the first and second person singulars, a sure sign of this being a draft copy. The drafting
and the format of the document, approximately 25.5 by 10 cm, indicate a cheirograph, which from the
contents obviously related to a parachōrēsis in some fashion.2 It is, however, manifestly not a cession
contract. Not only does it lack most of the details and phraseology typically included in cession contracts,
e.g., description of boundaries, mention of the price or parachōrētikon, and penalty-clauses; but the docu-
ment also refers to the parachōrēsis as having already taken place in lines 1–2 and 29–30. Furthermore,
the form and the direction of the acknowledgment are anomalous for cession documents.
The vast majority of surviving cession contracts from the Roman period before the third century
are public documents drafted as objective homologies by the cedent to the cessionary. Cheirographic
contracts for sale and cession are attested in the first century but become much more common in the
Oxyrhynchite in the last quarter of the second.3 The earliest cheirographic cessions were in fact prelimi-
nary contracts (Vorverträge), as we may see in our earliest witness from the Oxyrhynchite nome, PSI X
1118 (25/26), a draft of a public or notarial document confirming a cession previously recorded in a cheiro-
graph.4 The original cheirograph was thus a contract to contract, or the cedent’s promise to perfect the
1
I would like to thank the editors for several helpful suggestions. All dates are CE unless otherwise indicated.
2
See J. Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants (Oxford 1996) 179–181, for cession in the Roman Oxyrhynchite and
the introduction to P.Louvre II 109 for the most recent general review of parachōrēsis.
3
H. J. Wolff, “Registration of Conveyances in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Aegyptus 28 (1948) 74–75, and id., Das Recht der
griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats II (Munich 1978) 111–112 (hereafter referred
to as Recht II).
4
Cf. Wolff, Recht II, 111 n. 19.
268 David M. Ratzan
cession at a later time in the public document which survived.5 Like the public documents—and
unlike the present document—these cheirographic Vorverträge were drafted by the cedent, who acknow-
ledged the cession.
The present document thus has neither the necessary contents nor the typical form of any kind of
cession contract from any period. There is, therefore, no reason to see its cheirographic form as indicating
a date in the late second or early third centuries. This accords with the other circumstantial evidence,
which together points to a date in the first or early second century: the paleography; the reference to
“12-drachma purchased land” (cf. 4–5n); the attestation of ἐλασσοδαφία (cf. 23n); and the phraseology
of the bebaiōsis-clause (cf. 24–25n, 26–30n). The only potential indicium of a later date is the use of
χερσάμπελος, but this should be understood in a purely descriptive sense, not as a tax category (cf. 15–16n).
Legally, the document is best described as an amendment or rider to an already executed para-
chōrēsis. The contract begins with a long adverbial causal clause, set off by ἐπεί, which states the causa
for the transaction, in this case the fact that a cession had just been made that very day, in view of which
the cessionary acknowledges a particular concession: he will not pursue the cedent should he discover any
elassodaphia in the 16 arourai just ceded to him. The cessionary then confirms his right to pursue those
he finds encroaching on his land, as well as the cedent’s responsibility to guarantee the cession as set out
in the just-executed parachōrēsis contract, which does not survive. The present document thus adds an
exception to the original guarantee, as the cessionary will not hold the cedent responsible for a natural loss
of land, but will expect the cedent to take responsibility for those who encroach on his holding, perhaps
with a particular view to old or inherited dependants, tenants, squatters, or even the other new owners
mentioned in lines 6–10. In assuming the risk of elassodaphia, the cessionary is in effect assuming the risk
of mismeasurement, commonly guarded against in land documents of all sorts (leases, sales, cessions,
declarations, etc.) by the insertion of the qualifying phrase ἢ ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦσι. Whether the present text
merely spells out what was commonly understood as the force of ἢ ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦσι or represents a more
specific qualification is impossible to say.6
We have several examples of contracts of various sorts wherein the causa is established by an
initial ἐπεί-clause, almost all of which are cheirographs of the Roman period. By nature such contracts
are, of course, a heterogenous group, though some common transactions recur (see Appendix below). One
is the need to amend an existing document or agreement. This is not the place for a systematic treatment
of type, but it is worth placing the present document in its proper generic context.
A causal protasis set off by ἐπεί or ἐπείδη is the common way of stating a complicated reason
or justification for a consequent decision, request, or action in a variety of documents besides contracts,
including letters, orders, oaths, applications, petitions, and rulings.7 This pattern of usage in fact explains
the one apparent exception to the rule that cheirographs represented the regular form of contractual
amendments. Whereas other public documents presume a more or less standard set of transactions (loan,
sale, cession, lease, etc.), with the transaction constituting the causa, the Alexandrian synchōrēsis was
5
We have examples of such Vorverträge directly attested in other nomes, e.g., P.Mich. V 266 (38; Tebtynis) and P.Ryl. II
163 (140; Hermopolite), cf. P.Mich. V 276 (47; Tebtynis, not a cheirograph, but a notarial homology serving the same
purpose) and BGU II 543 (27 BCE; Haueris). The last is a cheirographic promise to cede land attended by a cheirographia
or oath (cf. E. Seidl, Der Eid im römischen-ägyptischen Provinzialrecht [Münch. Beitr. 17] [Munich 1933] 91 n. 2). By the
last quarter of the third century sales and cessions were regularly made via cheirographa, which were then published through
dēmosiōsis, with no anticipation of the drafting of a public document, cf. P.Matr. 2 (181/182; Oxyrhynchos, with literature
cited on p. 11 and Wolff, Recht II, 129–135, esp. 131 and n. 117). For all intents and purposes, such cheirographa were
therefore no longer Vorverträge.
6
However, if this cheirograph was simply the equivalent of ἢ ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦσι, one might expect these eleven letters to have
been inserted into the original document supralinearly.
7
Such oaths and orders are often very close to contracts, but differ precisely in the nature of the relationship between
the parties (i.e. whether or not it is one of obligation, and if so, of what sort). Cf., e.g., P.Ups.Frid. 7 (275; unknown; order)
and P.Oxy. XVII 2120 (221; Hermopolis; oath, cf. its contractual analogue in P.Oxy. XVII 2135 [188; Oxyrhynchos]).
47. A Draft of a Rider to a Cession Contract 269
an adaption of a court document,8 and so was capable of describing a complicated history at the basis
of a contractual “agreement.” Hence, we often see synchōrēseis use initial ἐπεί-clauses in a variety
of transactions, many paralleled in cheirographic counterparts from the chōra.9 Public documents from
other parts of Egypt much more rarely state a causa with an intial ἐπεί-clause.10 In other words, if one had
a transaction that originated in a complicated or idiosyncratic set of circumstances, and one wanted those
circumstances recorded, one usually wrote a cheirograph with the causa stated in an initial ἐπεί-clause.11
Some examples are quite remarkable for the detail they provide in these protases.12 Strikingly, this use
of the cheirograph appears even in Alexandria (e.g., BGU IV 1131.33–57 [13 BCE] and 1123 [Augustan]),
where one might naturally have expected amendements to have taken the form of synchōrēseis. The
cheirographic amendment, however, was born of a basic economic calculus, whose rules were more or less
constant throughout Egypt.
The most explicit and illuminating examples of cheirographic amendments are BGU I 50 (115;
Arsinoite) and I 301 (157; Arsinoite). The former is addressed by a seller to a buyer confirming a two-
month grace period negotiated ex post transacto, during which time the seller promises to clear the title
so that the buyer may redraft the already-executed sale as a public document.13 The promise in P.Hamb.
I 70 (145; Arsinoite) to restate its contents in a public document, “if it should prove necessary” (29–32:
ἐὰν δέ τις ἀνάνκη | γέ[ν]ηται, προσφωνήσω τὸ ἴσον {δι}⸌ὥστε γενέσ⸍|θαι δ̣ιὰ δημοσίου χρηματισμοῦ
ἀνυπερ|θέτως) should be read in a similar light, with the cheirograph representing the party’s commitment
to the underlying contract. In a slightly different vein, and closer to our document, BGU I 301 explicitly
states that it is an additional document, made necessary because the title or nature of the security in
the underlying loan just executed was “unclear,” ἐπὶ (l. ἐπεὶ) ἐδανισά|μην παρὰ σοῦ καθʼ ὁμολογίαν τῇ
ἐνεστώ|σῃ ἡμέρᾳ ... οὐκ ἐδηλώθη δὲ διὰ τῆς ὁμολογίας τὰ | περὶ τούτων δίκαια ὡς ὑπάρχι (l. ὑπάρχει)
μοι, ἀναδέ|δωκα δέ σοι αὐτὰς τὰς οἰκονομίας πρὸς | ἀσφάλειαν τοῦ προκειμένου κεφαλαίου | καὶ τόκων
(5–7, 12–16).
In these instances, and in particular the last one, why not just redraft the original agreement? The
simple answer is that cheirographa were cheaper. First, they did not require registration or publication, but
were fully admissible in court: one presumably introduced them along with the underlying document, like
any other cheirograph.14 Second, some amendments could be drafted in just a few lines on a relatively
small strip of papyrus, certainly easier and cheaper than redrafting a long document. We should imagine
that the major factors controlling the decision to redraft or amend included the perceived value of a self-
contained transaction document; the cost of the original, underlying document (which might include
drafting and registration fees); the magnitude of the legal defect to be corrected or the risk associated
with the defect; and the time between the completion of the underlying document and the discovery
8
Cf. Wolff, Recht II, 28, 91–95.
9
E.g., BGU IV 1132 (14 BCE), M.Chr. 254 (13 BCE), BGU IV 1144 (13 BCE), M.Chr. 67 (10 BCE), BGU IV 1114 (5 BCE),
and P.Tebt. II 319 (248; Tebtynis). We find the same structure in non-synchōrēsis mediation agreements, e.g., P.Mich. V
340 (45/46; Tebtynis) and P.Oxy. XXXVI 2768 (before 269; Oxyrhynchos).
10
E.g., SB VIII 9824 (31; Oxyrhynchos) and P.Mich. V 340 (45/46; Tebtynis), cf. P.Oxy. XIV 1644 (63/62 BCE; Oxyrhynchos),
which uses διά.
11
The private protocol, which was closely aligned with the cheirograph, is later found performing a similar function, e.g.,
P.Cair.Isid. 80, 81, 104, 105 (cf. H. J. Wolff, “The So-called Private Protocol,” Proceedings of the XIV International Con-
gress of Papyrologists [London 1975] 349–354, esp. 353–354; and id., Recht II, 122–127, esp. 126–127).
12
E.g., P.Oxy. XIV 1638, XIV 1721, and P.Mich. XVIII 789, all late-second- or third-century settlements of succession
claims, cf. P.Fam.Tebt. 20, a synchōrēsis dealing with a similar matter from 120/121. All have protases between 17 and 28
lines long.
13
Of considerable interest to scholars is the fact that the buyer wishes to do this even though the sale was recorded in
a cheirograph that had been published by dēmosiōsis, technically making a public document redundant (cf. n. 5 above). See
E. Preisigke, Girowesen im griechischen Ägypten (Strassburg 1910, repr. Hildesheim 1971) 442–443, cf. Wolff, Recht II,
179 and n. 35 (NB. The reference to Schwartz, Urk. at the end of Wolff’s note should be to page 247 n. 4, not 152 n. 2).
14
Cf. Wolff, Recht II, 177–179.
270 David M. Ratzan
of its defect. These factors were as salient for parties in Alexandria amending a synchōrēsis as they were
for parties in the chōra amending notarial documents. Both BGU I 301 and the present document leave
the distinct impression of the underlying transactions having been inked only hours, if not moments,
before the amendments themselves were drafted. There is no recovering why our parties (or which one)
felt it worthwhile to draw up the present amendment; but once it was decided that elassodaphia or
encroachment represented something of a risk, one can easily imagine that this cheirograph was the
quickest and least expensive way to mitigate it legally.
vac.
→ χαίρειν. ἐπὶ τῇ ἐνεστώσῃ ἡμέρᾳ
παρακεχώρη(μαι) παρὰ σοῦ περὶ Ἰέμη
τῆς μέση(ς) τοπαρχ(ίας) ἐκ τ̣οῦ Δημη(τρίου) κλή(ρου)
4 ἀπὸ ἀρουρῶν μ̅ καὶ ὠνημέν̣ης
τῆς δεώδεκα δραχ(μῶν) ἀρού(ρης) α,
με⟦θ᾿ ἃς προμε⟧τὰ τὰς πρ[ομε-]
μερισμένας τῇ θυγατ(ρὶ) Λαοδ̣ί̣κ̣[ῃ]
8 Ἀπολλωνίου, ἀπὸ τούτων ἀρ[ού-]
ρας δέκα, καὶ ἃς παρακεχ[ωρη(?)]
Ἡρᾶτι Πασίωνος ἄλλας ἀρού(ρας) ι̣ε̣,
τὰς ἄλλας ἀρούρας τούτων
12 ιε καὶ τὴν τῆς ὠνημέν[ης]
πρότερον Δωρᾶτο(ς) ἄρου(ραν) α, [erasure?]
ὥστ’ εἶναι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀρού(ρας) ιϛ,
ἐν αἷς χερσαμπέλου ἄρου(ραι) η η ι̅ϛ̅
16 καὶ κατοικικῆς ϛ ι̅ϛ̅ καὶ
ἡ προωνομασμένη ὠνημέ(νη)
ἄρου(ρα) α, ὥστ’ ε̣⟦4–5⟧<ἶναι> τὰς
προκιμένας ἀρού(ρας) ιϛ, ὁμολογ(ῶ)
20 μὴ ἐνκαλεῖν σοι μηδὲ το̣ῖς
παρὰ σοῦ περὶ τῆς εὑρ̣ε̣-
θησομένης ἐν ταύταις
ἐλασσοδαφίας, ἀλλὰ με-
24 νεῖ μοι ὁ λόγος πρὸς οὓς
ἐὰν εὑρίσκω ἐπιβηβοκά-
ταις ταύταις, διὰ παντὸς
δὲ ἐξ̣α[κ]ολουθ̣ο̣ύ[̣ σ]ης σοι
28 τῆς τούτων βεβαιώσεως̣
ἀκολού[θ]ω̣ς τῇ ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ ἐ̣μὲ
παραχ[ωρ]ήσι.
1 l. ἐπεὶ 2 παρακεχωρη 3 μεση τοπαρχ δημη κλ η 5 l. δώδεκα δραχ αρου 6 με(θ ας προμε)τα
7 θυγα τ 10 αρου 13 δωρατ ο αρου
ͅ
14 αρου 15 αρου 17 ωνημ ε 18 αρου 19 ομολογ
l. προκειμένας 20 l. ἐγκαλεῖν 25–26 l. ἐπιβεβηκότας 30 l. παραχωρήσει
Greetings. Whereas on the present day I have been ceded from you in the village of Ieme of the Middle
Toparchy out of the klēros of Deme(trios) from the 40 arourai and the 1 purchased “12-drachma” aroura—
after those which had previously been apportioned to Laodike, the daughter of Apollonios, being ten
arourai of these (40), and (after) those which had been ceded to Heras son of Pasion, being another
15 arourai—the remaining 15 arourai of these (40) and the 1 aroura purchased (land), previously Doras’s;
that is all together, 16 arourai, in which 8 3⁄16 are dry vineyard, 613⁄16 are katoikic, and the aforementioned
purchased 1 aroura, making the 16 arourai set out above; I (therefore) agree not to initiate proceedings
against you or your successors with respect to a loss of land henceforth discovered in these (arourai), but
I retain a claim against those whom I find trespassing on these (arourai), while the duty of guaranteeing
these (arourai) for all time rests with you according to the cession made to me.
2 περὶ Ἰέμη: For Ieme see the entries in H. Verreth’s A Survey of Toponyms in Egypt in the Graeco-
Roman Period (v. 1.0, 2008) and A. Benaissa’s Rural Settlements of the Oxyrhynchite Nome:
A Papyrological Survey (v. 1.0, 2009), both available at http://www.trismegistos.org/top.php.
παρακεχώρη(μαι): The verb is regularly found in the first person passive only in subscriptions
to cession contracts, e.g., P.Stras. IV 266.24 (ca. 100; Oxyrhynchos) and SB VI 9618 (192; Ptole-
mais Euergetis). It also appears in P.Coll.Youtie I 65 (= P.Oxy. XLVII 3365; 241; Oxyrhynchos),
a copy of an idiosyncratic letter to a stratēgos evidently related to complications arising from
a sale.
3 ἐκ τ̣οῦ Δημη(τρίου) κλή(ρου): Given the first four letters, the only possible male name for the
klēros is Δημήτριος. This is the first attestation of this particular klēros, and only the second known
in Ieme (the other is ὁ κλῆρος Χάρητος, PSI XIII 1322 [117/118]). For other Oxyrhynchite klēroi
bearing the name Demetrios, see the list in P. Pruneti, “I κλῆροι del nomo Ossirinchite. Ricerca
topografica,” Aegyptus 55 (1975) 172; none is in any village bordering on Ieme.
4–19 The total cession was 16 arourai, with lines 4–10 establishing the disposition of the rest of the ori-
ginal 40-aroura allotment in the klēros. The original 40-aroura holding in the klēros was divided
up thus:
10 “apportioned” (μερίζειν; see 6–7n below) to Laodike daughter of Apollonios (6–9)
15 ceded to Heras son of Pasion (9–10)
15 ceded to the present cessionary
4–5 ὠνημέν̣ης | τῆς δεώδεκα δραχ(μῶν) ἀρού(ρης): Land defined as “bought at 12 drachmai” is
attested only in two other texts: PSI IV 320 and P.Oxy. II 344, now re-edited by A. Benaissa,
“Sixteen Letters to Agoranomi from Late First Century Oxyrhynchus,” ZPE 170 (2009) 167–169.
On the category, see Benaissa’s commentary to lines 24–25. As one of the editors of this volume
noted, the phrase in the two papyri mentioned above is printed as (ἐ)ωνημένης γῆς, whereas
here we clearly have (ἐ)ωνημένης τῆς. However, the online photo of P.Oxy. II 344 which
accompanies Benaissa’s reedition reveals that the reading there should also be τῆς, not γῆς.
6–7 με⟦θ’ ἃς προμε⟧τὰ τὰς προμε|μερισμένας: The drafter apparently first intended to write μεθ’
ἃς (cf. line 9) but realized that this construction demanded a finite verb and that he would
therefore be forced either into the periphrasis for the passive third plural of the perfect (i.e.,
προμεμερισμένας εἰσί) or to name the one who had made the prior division, both of which
he apparently wished to avoid. He then bracketed the construction in order to produce μετὰ τὰς
προμεμερισμένας. The fact that he did not merely cancel the preceding eight letters shows that
he was thinking at the level of the phrase, as he returned to correct the form of μετά (i.e., he did
not proceed thus: μεθασπρομετὰ κτλ.). On this form of cancellation (περιγράφειν vs. διαγράφειν),
see Turner, GMAW 2, p. 16; cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XXII 2342 (102; Oxyrhynchos), LXX 4779 (after
169; Oxyrhynchos), and XL 2927 (ca. 268–271; Oxyrhynchos).
272 David M. Ratzan
Προμερίζειν is attested only once before in P.Mich. V 326.10, a division contract of 48 from
Tebtynis; cf. προσμερισμός in P.Cair.Masp. III 67340 V (ca. 566–573; Antinoöpolis). The use
of a form of μερίζειν points to an intra-familial conveyance of some sort, cf. H. Kreller, Erbrecht-
liche Untersuchungen auf Grund der gräko-ägyptischen Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig 1919) 78–79,
241–242.
7–8 τῇ θυγατ(ρὶ) Λαοδ̣ί̣κ̣[ῃ] | Ἀπολλωνίου: The inclusion of the patronymic instead of σου suggests
that the addressee and cedent is a woman, cf., e.g., P.Oxy. II 268.2–3 (57; Oxyrhynchos), II
273.10–11 (95; Oxyrhynchos), and XIX 2231.18–19 (241; Oxyrhynchos). No doubt the rela-
tionship between the three cessionaries, Laodike, Heras, and the ego of this document, were
clearer in the underlying cession. Laodike is attested only four times in papyri of the Roman
period: BGU IV 1059 (Augustan; Alexandria), P.Oxy. IV 736 (1st c.; Oxyrhynchos), M.Chr. 82
(117; Hermopolis), and PSI XII 1255 (3rd c.; Oxyrhynchos). M.Chr. 82 in fact records a “Laodike
daughter of Apollonios,” but there is nothing to connect that document to the present one.
9 καὶ ἃς παρακεχ[ωρη(?)]: I restore rho and eta on analogy with line 2, though there is no telling
at what point the drafter abbreviated. Also, note the anacolouthon as the drafter appears to
have reverted to the construction he discarded above in line 6. In all likelihood he intended
παρακεχωρη(μένας) here.
11 τὰς ἄλλας ἀρούρας: μετά ... λοιπός is the more customary way of expressing the amount sub-
tracted and the remainder, cf., e.g., P.Oxy. II 270.19–20 (94; Oxyrhynchos), P.Rein. II 98.13–16
(109; Herakleopolite), and C.Pap.Gr. I 34.9–11 (161–163; Arsinoite). However, ἄλλος is well
attested with the meaning of “the rest,” cf. Preisigke, WB, s.v. ἄλλος (3).
15–16 χερσάμπελος: J. Rowlandson, Landowners and Tenants (Oxford 1996) 41–42, notes that private
instruments only begin to echo “the system of [tax] categories found in the more ‘official’ context
of land surveys” in the third century, when there was “a gradual move away from an emphasis
on categorization by origin (katoikike as old Ptolemaic kleruchic assignments, eonemene as land
bought from the State), towards an increasing preoccupation with differences of tax rate; this
explains ... the identification of land as ex-vineland, which, as we know ... was normally taxed
at 1 1⁄2 artabas per aroura.” Earlier uses of chersampelos in private documents from the Oxyrhyn-
chite indeed seem descriptive rather than fiscal in nature, e.g., SB VI 9190.14–15: τῇ δὲ φύσει
κα|[τὰ τὴ]ν̣ μ̣ὲν ἄρουραν μίαν χερσαμπέλου (131) and P.Oxy. III 506.24–25: τρίτου μέ|ρους
τὸ πρὶν ἀμπελικὸν (l. ἀμπελικοῦ) κτήματος νυνεὶ δὲ χερσαμπέλ[ου] (143); cf. PSI III 240 (= PSI
Corr. I), a will from first- or second-century Oxyrhynchos. The same applies to this document,
which may represent the earliest attestation of the word.
18 ὥστ’ ε̣⟦4–5⟧<ἶναι>: The ink is washed out, seemingly by a large drop of water, but nothing was
added and the infinitive is necessary. The drafter obviously redipped the pen before embarking
on ὥστ’, and this may be related to the erasure in some way.
23–24 με|νεῖ μοι ὁ λόγος πρὸς κτλ: Cf. P.Oxy. II 370 (late 1st c.; Oxyrhynchos), P.Freib. II 8.29–30
(144; unknown), and P.Oxy. VI 964 (263; Oxyrhynchos). This phraseology is more familiar from
second- and third-century petitions, e.g., P.Mich. XI 617 (145/146; Theadelphia) and BGU I 2
(209; Arsinoite). Cf. H.-A. Rupprecht, Studien zur Quittung im Recht der Graeco-Ägyptischen
Papyri (Münch. Beitr. 57) (Munich 1971) 33–34, 100 n. 50, and G. Häge, “Die μὴ ἐλαττουμένου-
Klausel in den griechischen Papyri Ägyptens,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress
of Papyrology (Toronto 1970), 200–205, for versions used in credit contracts.
23 ἐλασσοδαφίας: This term is attested previously only in P.Ryl. IV 677, a letter from the reign of
Tiberius concerning land in Senepta, also in the Middle Toparchy. The eds. suggest that it is a
synonym for the more widely attested sixth-century λειψεδαφία (P.Oxy. XVI 1911.98; 1912.129;
LV 3804.171), meaning “loss of soil” (i.e., by washing away). They characterize P.Ryl. IV 677
as official; the legal vocabulary, however, suggests that it it is more likely a private document,
possibly a petition (cf. P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2873 [62; Oxyrhynchos]), or perhaps an example of
the sort of cheirographic contracts discussed in the introduction.
24–25 ἐπιβηβοκά|ταις: In the Ptolemaic period ἐπιβαίνειν was the technical legal word for “encroach-
ment” (Preisigke, WB, s.v.), a meaning the word progressively lost over the Roman period, when
it comes to be a synonym for ἐπέρχεσθαι (“to trespass”). This is another possible indication of
the early date of this document.
26–30 This abbreviated bebaiōsis-clause is common in first- and early second-century documents which
reprise guarantees set out expressly in prior or underlying agreements. See esp. P.Mich. XVIII
784.19–22 (18; Oxyrhynchos); cf. P.Mich. V 232 (36; Tebtynis), P.Mich. V 276 (47; Tebtynis),
P.Mich. V 326 (48; Arsinoite), M.Chr. 344 (83; Oxyrhynchos), P.Hamb. I 97 (104–105; Phila-
delphia), CPR I 188 (106–107; Arsinoite), and M.Chr. 267 (129; Oxyrhynchos). This should not
be confused with the similar bebaiōsis-clause one finds in sales and cessions of the later second
century, of the form τῆς βεβαιώσεως ἐξακολουθούσης πρὸς πᾶσαν βεβαίωσιν διὰ παντός vel
sim. The latter clause seems to be a consequence of guarantees having been made automatic or
inherent in such contracts, thus in part obviating the use of the former clause (cf. H.–A. Rupprecht,
“Die Eviktionshaftung in der Kautelarpraxis der graeco-ägyptischen Papyri,” in F. Pastori and
M. Bianchini (eds.) Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi, III (Milan 1982) 476–477; and idem,
“Die ‘Bebaiosis’: Zur Entwicklung und den räumlich-zeitlichen Varianten einer Urkundsklausel
in den graeco-ägyptischen Papyri,” Studi in onore di Cesare Sanfilippo, III (Milan 1983) 623–624.
27 For the postponement of δέ, cf. Mayser, Gram. II.3 §164.6.2; Kühner—Gerth, II § 528.1; and
Blass—Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, §475.2.
29–30 τῇ ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ ἐ̣μὲ | παραχ[ωρ]ήσι: Both ἐμέ and με are attested after εἰς, and here it is paleographically
difficult to decide between them. Gignac, Gram. II 161–162 suggests that the enclitic is less
popular. For this phraseology in contractual settings, cf. P.Kron. 9 (111; Tebtynis), P.Kron. 12
(135; Tebtynis), P.Ryl. II 163 (Hermopolite; 140), P.Bodl. I 32 (ca. 240; Great Oasis), P.Grenf. II
69 (265; Kysis), and esp. PSI VI 705 (late 3rd c.; Oxyrhynchos).
Appendix
Cheirographic contracts with initial ἐπεί-clauses

Papyrus Date Provenance Homology Transaction
BGU IV 1131.33–57 13 BCE Alexandria Y Agreement to split funeral costs
BGU IV 1123 Augustan Alexandria Y Sub-agreement concerning mutual respon-
sibilities under a lease held in common by
three lessees
P.Mich. V 354 52 Tebtynis Indemnification
P.Oxy. XLI 2970 62 Oxyrhynchos Y Receipt and indemnification
BGU I 50 115 Arsinoite Y Rider establishing a grace period in the
registration of an executed sale
274 David M. Ratzan
P.Mich. XI 603 134 Ptolemais Expansion of duties defined by a prior

Euergetis cheirographic labor contract executed
between 9 scribes and two metropolitan
secretaries
W.Chr. 272 136 Arsinoite Indemnification related to a systasis
BGU I 191 143 Arsinoite Renewal or novation of a prior systatikon
P.Col. X 258 144 Unknown Receipt and indemnification
P.Hamb. I 70 145 Arsinoite Y Indemnification of a co-guardian
nd
P.Oslo III 133 2 c. Theadelphia Loan disguised as a sale with receipt
BGU I 301 157 Arsinoite Y Rider to loan fixing a defective praxis-
clause
M.Chr. 328 168 ? Indemnification of a tutor mulieris
P.Fam.Tebt. 40 173/174 Tebtynis? Y Agreement to produce documentation in
a dispute
BGU III 782 182/183 Arsinoite ? Contract, in part related to the surety, on
the basis of a prior loan
P.Oxy. III 513 184 Oxyrhynchos Y Receipt
P.Oxy. XVII 2135 188 Oxyrhynchos Y Acknowledgment of continued responsibi-
lity in the matter of a debt
P.Diog. 36 2nd–3rd c. Philadelphia? Receipt
P.Mich. XVIII 789 after 190 Oxyrhynchos Y Settlement of claims
P.Ryl. II 181 204 Hermopolis Y Settlement of claims
P.Amh. II 100 198–211 Hermopolis Y Sub-agreement concerning profit-sharing
between a lessee and his sublessee
P.Hamb. IV 279 3rd c. Herakleopolis Y Ekchōrēsis of property as security for a loan
made against dowered items
P.Euphr. 14 241 Appadana Cancellation of a lost loan contract
O.Bodl. II 1987 3rd c. Thebes Y Receipt
rd
P.Oxy. X 1274 3 c. Oxyrhynchos Y systasis
P.Chept. 11 270? Theadelphia Y Acknowledgment of transfer of flock from
lessee by order of owner before the lease
was up
P.Col. X 281 287 Philadelphia Y Agreement to coordinate nominations to
the komarchy
P.Oxy. XII 1562 279–282 Oxyrhynchos Y Settlement of claims
M.Chr. 295 305/306 Great Oasis Y Divorce
P.Nag.Hamm. 1 3rd–4th c. Diospolis Y Continuation and expansion of work to

Parva supply oils for the eutheneia of the nome
capital. Cf. P.Mich. XI 603 above
P.Oxy. VII 1041 381 Oxyrhynchos Y Acknowledgment of continued responsibi-
lity to a guarantor who had taken over the
debtor’s loan (see R. S. Bagnall, “Notes on
Roman and Byzantine Documents” CdÉ
66 [1991] 287–288)
Columbia University, New York
276 David M. Ratzan
No. 47
48. A New Fragment of a Techne grammatike (P.Mich. inv. 30)
Timothy Renner
We present here the first complete edition of this papyrus,1 which is of unknown provenance. It preserves
on the recto 21 lines from the right side of a column containing a discussion of adverbs, while the verso
contains an equal number of lines from the left side of a column in which possessive adjectives and
prepositions are being treated. In some lines on the recto a small portion of space survives to the right
of the text, and the majority of the lines on the verso are just barely intact at their left edges. Tops
of columns appear to be incomplete. Based on the contents, as discussed below, we may assume that
the papyrus is part of a leaf of a codex and that verso (Side A) precedes recto (Side B).2
The fabric is dark brown in color. The writing is rapid and has a practiced but informal quality.
Letters are made separately, but individual characters (e.g. ε, κ, π) can show a wide range of forms from
the capital to the cursive, as well as variations in width. Serifs appear occasionally, especially on κ and υ.
Palaeographical considerations suggest a date in the third or fourth century CE, although because of
its mixed nature the hand is hard to parallel closely.3 Often the writer does not take care to maintain
the straightness of the lines, as can be seen especially in B, which seems the less attractive of the two
pages. Section headings were indented, as can be seen at the beginning of the treatment of prepositions
in A, line 14, where there was also a diple obelismene. The generally utilitarian visual impression of
the piece is accentuated by irregular dipping of the pen, leading periodically to lines that are overly heavy
with ink. This is especially true of B, lines 5 and 16, where the letters are also somewhat above normal
size. Most of the high or middle stops, which are especially used in this text to separate series of adverbs
and prepositions, were probably written along with the main text. In the discussion of adverbs in B, four
supralinear additions, most of them apparently made with a view to adding to the lists of examples of
adverbs of particular types, appear. The writer of the text could be responsible for these, but the letters
have a slightly more deliberate and formal quality, and some of the ink appears blacker. On two occasions
a word or a letter sequence has been crossed out; we cannot be sure who did this, and no additions in the
immediate area appear to have replaced the deleted writing. Paragraphoi are present during the discussion
of the possessives in A at 9–10 and 10–11, the first coinciding with a high stop and new clause but the
purpose of the second not being immediately apparent. “Organic” diaeresis appears once but is otherwise
not written where it could be. Overall, we may conclude that the text received a fair amount of attention,
perhaps by more than one person, during its active lifetime.
The surviving text on both sides includes middle and lower portions of the columns, including
small sections of bottom margin. On the basis of similar texts, it would appear that in terms of width,
a third or a little more of each column is preserved. The best evidence for this is in A, lines 15 and 17,
where 17 letters and 19 letters (cf. commentary on 17–19), respectively, were probably lost in the lacuna.
The height of the column is not certain. However, the beginning of the adverb section that it seems
possible to restore in B, lines 1–3, together with the likelihood that this would have followed directly
on the treatment of prepositions at the end of A, suggests we may be missing only a line or two of text at
the top of the leaf.
1
The text was first presented in a conference paper, “A New Michigan Grammatical Fragment and the Study of Greek
Grammar in III–IV Century Egypt,” at the XXIV International Congress of Papyrology in Helsinki, August 2004. Side B
was discussed as a brief case study by me in R. S. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford 2009)
295–299.
2
Sides A and B are referred to throughout this article simply as A and B.
3
We may compare some of the features of P.Köln VI 244 (Lehrgedicht über Schlangen; 3rd c., assigned), P.Oxy. XXXVIII
2829 (Menander, Epitrepontes; 3rd–4th c., assigned), and B.M. Pap. 1185 = Turner, GMAW 2 no. 65 (list of Olympic victors).
278 Timothy Renner
Comparable texts on papyrus and in manuscript allow us to categorize the text as a grammatical
treatise of the basic type known as Techne grammatike, an important component of which is the definition
and discussion of the parts of speech. The best known example of such a Techne is the treatise by that
name preserved in manuscripts from the tenth century onward (with partial versions in manuscript in
Armenian and Syriac traceable to as early as the fifth century) and attributed to the second century BCE
pupil of Aristarchus, Dionysius Thrax.4 However, the papyri have provided considerably more evidence
for works of this kind. Thus, the term Techne has also come to be used to refer to similar, elementary,
unattributed, relatively brief, but in a certain sense comprehensive treatises represented by a group
of papyrus fragments that are close in character and content to Dionysius’s text, albeit with numerous
individual variations in detail. Most of the papyri of the Techne type were assembled and analyzed
by Alfons Wouters in his important study of Greek and Latin grammatical papyri several decades ago.5
In the section of his work devoted to Techne texts, Wouters discusses 17 papyrus fragments of this type
ranging in date from the first through the sixth centuries CE.6 We will not enter into the controversies
surrounding the nature of Dionysius’s Techne, in particular whether it was written by Dionysius or is
instead a Late Antique product. While the work may contain a Hellenistic basis, as it exists it gives
the impression of having been considerably abbreviated. What should be especially stressed is that
Dionysius’s Techne in the form in which we have it, together with the Techne papyri mentioned above,
all appear to be part of a rather fluid pool of texts on basic Greek grammar that circulated throughout the
Roman period, and that must have served the needs of students and teachers of various kinds. This fluidity
becomes apparent especially as one compares the contents of individual sections from one Techne text
to another.
In Dionysius and in the Techne-type treatises on papyrus, the discussion of the parts of speech
begins with those which are inflected and proceeds to those which are not. Thus, the order is: nouns
and adjectives, verbs, participles, articles, pronouns including possessive adjectives, prepositions, adverbs,
conjunctions. Therefore, on the assumption that the two sides of the Michigan papyrus belong to the same
Techne text written in a codex, we may designate the verso with its treatment of possessive adjectives and
prepositions as A and the recto, dealing with adverbs, as B.
Typically in a Techne text possessive adjectives are classed as pronouns, ἀντωνυμίαι, but are
discussed at the end of that section, as appears to be the case here since the treatment of prepositions
follows immediately afterwards. Given their fragmentary state, it is hard to evaluate the contents
of the poorly preserved lines 1–3. Thus we cannot be sure how extensive the opening treatment of
the possessive adjectives was. In lines 4–13, however, the author is apparently concerned with a specific
aspect of the possessives: the analysis of their forms according to the number of (a) the possessor and (b)
the grammatical ending. There are several similar discussions in other Techne papyri. In this type of
approach, the form ἐμός, for example, would be classified as “singular and singular,” while ἡμέτερος
would be “plural and singular.”7 A systematic account of all nine possible combinations of singular,
dual, and plural analyzed in this fashion is included in lines 49–66 of one of the more detailed Techne
papyri, P.Lond.Lit. 182 (= Wouters no. 2), entitled Τρύφωνος Τέχνη Γραμματική and written in the same
codex, dated to ca. 300 CE, as the “Harris Homer.” We may also compare the extensive discussion in
P.Heid. I 197 (= Wouters no. 6, assigned to the first century CE), lines 1–20. In any case, the surviving
part of the Michigan text appears not to have contained a summary and systematic treatment of the
“numbers” of the possessives of the kind that the extremely straightforward London papyrus does. Rather,
what we have includes some kind of discussion treating at least some of the nine possible combina-
tions, as discussed below in the commentary on lines 4–13. Especially in 5–10, the point being made
4
GG i.i (Uhlig), with online text in the TLG.
5
A. Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt (Brussels 1979) 33–45.
6
Wouters (1979) 47–210.
7
ἑνικὸς καὶ ἑνικός and πληθυντικὸς καὶ ἑνικός, respectively.
48. A New Fragment of a Techne grammatike (P.Mich. inv. 30) 279
about the various combinations cited is elusive, but a point there must have been. Certainly by com-
parison with Dionysius, who hardly mentions possessives, and with all of the Techne-type papyri except
P.Lond.Lit. 182, the Michigan papyrus’s discussion of possessive adjectives represents a relative expansion
in volume.
In lines 14–21 the discussion of prepositions appears to have been quite succinct. A brief
definition is followed by a comment about syntactic use and then the statement that there are 18 prepo-
sitions, a listing of which follows. In general, the papyrus’s discussion of prepositions fits quite well
into the picture presented by Dionysius and by a half-dozen Techne-type papyri, but, to repeat, it is
very simple: nothing more than a heading, definition, and list, as far as we can tell (see commentary
on lines 17–19). Normally the listing of specific examples would conclude the preposition section of
a Techne.
Side B, line 1 as we have it probably begins the definition of adverbs. The definition was
likely preceded by a heading comparable to the one at the head of the preposition section in A, line 14.
If a substantial number of lines have been lost at the beginning of B, they must have been used either
for further discussion of prepositions or for some other purpose which is not paralleled in Techne texts.
The adverb section is normally a somewhat lengthy one in texts of this kind, with a definition followed
by a breakdown into types that vary in title and are accompanied by examples. Typical is the discussion
in the work attributed to Dionysius (72–86), which distinguishes early on simple (ἁπλᾶ) from compound
(σύνθετα) adverbs and then moves on to some 26 categories of adverb, each category being defined
by a general area of meaning—such as time, manner, or locality—some with further subdivisions, and
each illustrated by one to four examples. While it is clear that in the Michigan papyrus lines 5–6 covered
the simple versus compound issue, getting the sense of 7–9, where a discussion that somehow involves
παρονομασία and that does not seem to have a parallel in the Techne texts occupies the author, is not easy.
There follows a series—although apparently not as detailed as Dionysius’s—of different adverb categories
with examples, specifying direction, time, quality, and manner (see commentary on lines 9–19).
To conclude, a comparison of the Michigan text with Dionysius and the other papyri gives
a good sense of the (to us, at least) largely anonymous, fluid tradition of the Techne type of composition,
which within a given sub-topic expands or contracts from text to text and does not always cover exactly
the same ground. Thus, under a particular topic such as one of the parts of speech a single text may
not include all of the possible details that are represented by the totality of the texts. What remains
of our Michigan papyrus seems to show that the author sometimes could be very brief, as can be seen
with the prepositions. In the case of the adverbs, he chose to include a moderate amount of classificatory
complexity and at least one specific discussion that we cannot easily parallel. The possessive adjectives
appear to have led him to include more detail and discussion than we might expect. Why he made
these choices, and how they related to the Techne text(s) that he had available to him and to his own
purpose, must remain open—as must also, for now, the understanding of several problematic sections
of the text.
Finally, it has been possible to reposition a small scrap (designated by me as Scrap X in the critical
apparatus and commentary), which during recent years had been positioned by a restorer so as to appear
to contribute letters to the beginnings of A, lines 3–4 and 6 and to the ends of B, lines 4–5, in what now
appears to be its proper location at A, lines 15–16 and B, lines 15–17.8
8
I would like to thank Rodney Ast for suggesting the correct positioning of X. The image here published has been modified
accordingly from the University of Michigan APIS image which shows the incorrect positioning. During the later years
of the twentieth century Scrap X was in fact still loose in the folder.
280 Timothy Renner
P.Mich. inv. 30 14 x 4.9 cm III–IV

Provenance unknown
Side A
↓ ____________
].[
] ̣ ̣εωρο̣υ̣ ̣[
[ ca. 5 ]ρ̣οτ̣ρ̣αη ̣[
4 [ ̣ ̣ κ]α̣ὶ πληθ̣υντικ[αί
[ ca. 3 ]ω̣ω ̣εμοισο̣[
[ ̣ ̣ ̣κ̣αι ἑνι̣κ̣α̣ὶ ἢ̣ δυ[ικαὶ
ἢ δυικαὶ καὶ πληθυν[τικαί σφω-]
8 ίτερος νωίτερο[ς
σφωίτεροι· ὁμοίω[ς
ἑνικαὶ ἢ πληθυν[τικαί πλη-]
θυντικαὶ καταλ ̣φ[
12 τ̣ερος σφέτερο[ς
σφετέρω ἡμε̣[τέρω
 περὶ προ̣θέ̣[σεως πρόθεσίς ἐστι]
λέξις προτιθ[εμένη πάντων τῶν τοῦ]
16 [λ]όγου με̣ρ̣ῶ̣[ν
[ ̣ ̣] ̣τασσομε̣[
[ ̣ ̣]ν λεγητ̣α̣[ προθέ-]
–
[σε]ι̣ς ιη ἀνά κ̣[
20 [ἀ]μ̣φί ⟦ἐπί⟧ πε̣[ρί
[ἐ]ξ π̣ρός̣ π̣ρ̣ό̣ [
margin
1 ].[: High horizontal 2 ] ̣ ̣: Lower left of rounded letter (ο, ω?), then small bit at base of line ̣[: Sloping left leg
of letter (η, λ, μ, ν, π?) 3 ̣[: Vertical and horizontal intersecting 4 ω̣[: Left half with bottom missing; to the left, a blank
space 5 After 2nd ω, dot at mid-line, poss. a stop 6 ̣ ̣ ̣: Base of loop, low line curving upward, then prob. φ or ψ
7 δυϊκαι pap. 8 Prob. middle stop after ιτερος 9 σφωιτεροι˙ pap. 11 λ.φ[: Left upright of prob. η 15 λε on Scrap X
16 ο on Scrap X 17 ] ̣: Upright, prob. ι or ν 18 ̣[: Vertical sloping to right 19 ̣[: Upright curving right at base
ανα˙ pap. 20 ]μ̣φι˙⟦επι⟧˙πε̣[ pap. 21 ]ξ˙π̣ρoς̣˙π̣ρ̣ο̣[ pap.
2 Perhaps θεωρουν[ or θεωρουμ[. The last two letters are hard to separate visually.
4–13 The supplements printed in the text and suggested in this note are based on, or inspired by,
the comparanda provided by the Techne papyri, as discussed in the introduction, especially
P.Lond.Lit. 182. A reference to plural possessives in 4 is followed in 5 by examples that are
plural in ending: Perhaps ὡς ἐμοί σο[ί. In the terminology of P.Lond.Lit. 182 discussed in the
introduction, these forms would be classified as “singular and plural.” From the latter part of 5
through the middle of 7 the text probably refers to three combinations presented as alternatives
linked by ἤ: “. . . and singular or dual and . . . or dual and plural.” The examples given imme-
diately afterwards, at the end of 7 and the beginning of 8, do not match the last combination
described, for they are “dual and singular,” not “dual and plural.” At the beginning of 9 however
we encounter σφωίτεροι, which may have been preceded by νωίτεροι, and in fact these are “dual
and plural.” A comment signaled by a high stop and paragraphos follows with ὁμοίως, “likewise.”
Soon afterwards a combination of numbers is referred to although we cannot see all of the details:
“. . . and singular” presented as an alternative to (ἤ) “plural and . . .” (9–10). In 10–11 forms that
are plural are referred to; they are apparently followed by an aorist passive participle, perhaps
καταληφ[θέντες (“comprehended”?), and then, in 11–12, by some “plural and singular” exam-
ples—perhaps ἡμέτερος, ὑμέτερος, σφέτερος. What stood in the latter part of 12 is unknown,
but in 13, as the section is about to conclude, we encounter probably at least two “plural and dual”
examples: σφετέρω ἡμε̣[τέρω.
14–16 The definition of the preposition follows standard language.
17–19 Probably [συ]ντασσομέ[νη ταῖς πλαγίαις πτώσεσι]ν. But λεγητ̣α̣[ raises questions. Between
the beginning of the right hand lacuna in 18 and the presumed προθε at line end there would have
been room for around 17 letters.
19–21 E.g. ἀνά κ[ατά διά μετά παρά ἀντί ἐπί ἀ]μ̣φί ⟦ἐπί⟧ πε̣[ρί ἀπό ὑπό ὑπέρ ἐν εἰς [ἐ]ξ π̣ρός̣ π̣ρ̣ό̣ [
Other arrangements in detail would be possible. However, what is clear is that in our papyrus
disyllabic prepositions were listed first, followed by monosyllabic ones, as in P.Yale I 25 =
Wouters no. 2, lines 35–36. This is not always the case in Techne texts, but the distinction
between the two categories is a frequently made one that is often explicitly highlighted by
terminology, not simply by making two lists as apparently is the case here. On the arrangement
and categorization of prepositions in Greek grammatical texts, see Wouters 55 (note on lines 35–36
of P.Yale I 25 = Wouters no. 1) and 81 (note on lines 71–73 of P.Lond.Lit. 182 = Wouters no. 2).
It is an open question as to why ⟦ἐπί⟧ was crossed out. Had it been written already earlier in
the list (my restoration assumes so, although this would push the number of characters missing
in the lacuna to 22, slightly on the high side; see introduction)? Was there a concern to get it in
the right place in a sequence? In any case, unless there was discussion following about topics such
as case usage or the ability of disyllabic prepositions to stand after their objects (ἀναστροφή),
as occurs for example in P.Lond.Lit. 182, π̣ρ̣ό in 21 would normally bring the preposition section
to an end; cf. the introduction for the issues connected with this fact.
Side B
→ ____________
ἐπίρρημά ἐστι] λ̣έξι̣ς̣ [
κατὰ μίαν ἐκφορ]ὰν δηλο̣υμ ̣ [ένη προ-]
τακτικὴ ἢ ὑποτακ]τ̣ικὴ ῥήματ̣[ος
4 τῶν] δὲ ἐπιρημάτ[ων τὰ
μέν ἐστιν ἁπλᾶ, ὡς] α̣ὐτίκα ⸌νῦν⸍. σύν̣[θετα
] ἀσ[ύ]νθετα ⸌α⸍ σά̣φ[̣ α
ο]ν̣τα μὲν παρονο-
8 ] ⟦ 3–4 ⟧ καλῶς ανα
ἐπίρ]ρημα ˋοἷονˊ τη̣νικάδε
]ιν ˋοἷονˊκάτω ἄνω
]α̣των χρόνου
12 ]κα ἐπιρήματα
] τ̣ούτοις ὑπ̣οτακ̣τέ-
π]α̣ραστα̣τικά
] ποιότητος δὲ
282 Timothy Renner
16 ἐπ]ι̣ρ̣ήματα ̣[
] ἀ̣ν̣αιμ̣ωτεί̣
]μας πύξ ̣[
] ̣λιγρυφίς [
20 ] ̣α διχῇ ὧ̣[δε
] ̣ π̣ρόχνυ ̣[
margin
4 Read ἐπιρρημάτ[ων 5 αυτικα· pap. 10 κατω· ανω· pap. 12 Read ἐπιρρήματα; next, possible space-filler ink
15 At end, δ and preceding σ partly on Scrap X; ε entirely on X 16 ἐπι]ρρήματα seems less likely; επ]ιρ̣ηματα· pap.;
see comm. 17 ει̣ on Scrap X 18 μας· pap. ̣[: ν? 19 Read λικριφίς 20 ] ̣α· pap.; first letter λ, κ, μ?
1–3 If the supplement is correct, this definition should form the beginning, or nearly the beginning, of
the discussion of adverbs as a whole. Perhaps a line with a heading preceded, as in A, line 14.
See introduction.
2–3 προτακτικὴ ἢ ὑποτακ]τ̣ικὴ ῥήματ̣[ος: “placed before or after a verb.”
4–6 After the basic definition of an adverb a distinction is made between those that are “simple” or
“uncompounded” (ἁπλᾶ, ἀσύνθετα) and those that are “compounded “ (σύνθετα).
5 νῦν, added above the line, is probably intended as a second example, alongside αὐτίκα, of adverbs
in general.
5–6 E.g. σύν[θετα δὲ ὡς . . ., “and compounded (adverbs), as . . . .”
6 Perhaps τὰ δὲ] ἀσ[ύ]νθετα σάφ[α, “and the uncompounded (adverbs): sapha . . . ,” with σάφα
being the first example cited in this category. The papyrus breaks off immediately after ⸌α⸍.
7–9 In 7–8, perhaps παρονο|[μασθέντα. Somehow παρονομασία or a form of παρονομάζειν, a term
that is not easily paralleled in texts of the Techne type, figured in the earlier part of the discussion.
Then some letters were deleted in 8 (they look somewhat like ρονε), and there followed a discus-
sion involving at least two examples, καλῶς and τηνικάδε. Perhaps the point is that adverbs like
the latter two are “derived.”
9 τη̣νικάδε: Adverbs of time seem to be discussed as a category in 11–12.
10 ]ιν: It does not seem possible to read οἷον, “for example,” as one might expect. κάτω ἄνω should
belong to the category of ἐπιρρήματα τοπικά, or directional adverbs, as seen for example in
Dionysius.
11 ἐπιρρημ]άτων χρόνου? The α, with left missing, seems contorted.
11–12 In 11 the writer apparently turns again to adverbs of time. The word ἐπιρήματα in 12, together
with the preceding fragmentary adjective—perhaps δηλωτι]κά or τοπι]κά or παραστατι]κά
(cf. line 14), “expressive of”—might still be part of this discussion.
13–14 “Under these must be classified . . .” This must refer to the category of adverbs mentioned in 12.
(Dionysius, see above)
14 π]α̣ραστα̣τικά: “expressive of.”
15–21 As demonstrated by ποιότητος δέ in 15, where the lead-in to this discussion must begin, and as the
comparanda show, the examples given in 18–21 belong to a list of adverbs of ποιότης (the term
μεσότης is also used in some texts) indicating manner.
16 ̣[: Following the high stop, which straddles the break between the main fragment and Scrap X
(see intro.), there is on X some blank space followed by part of what could be the left half of ω,
although with a more rounded shape than is usual in this hand. The papyrus breaks off just
beyond; few, if any, additional letters were written to the right of the break, as we must here be
essentially at the edge of the column.
17 ἀναιμωτεί: “without bloodshed.” This example is not used by other Techne-type texts in discus-
sions of adverbs, but it does appear in grammarians of the Roman period, often as part of a list
of adverbs in -ί (e.g. Herodian, De pros. cath. [GG iii.i] 505.6). More generally, the word occurs
four times in Homer and a few dozen times in prose authors of the Empire.
18 Perhaps ν̣[ύξ = γνύξ, “with the knee.”
19 λ̣ι̣γρυφίς = λικριφίς, a rare Homeric adverb meaning “sideways” or “aside.” It appears in
Il. 14.463 and Od. 19.451 and is cited by Herodian four times in discussions of Homeric prosody.
In the Techne papyrus P.Lond.Lit. 182, it is part of a long list of adverbs that are μεσότητος καὶ
ποιότητος δηλωτικά, “expressive of state and quality.” For other examples of γ written for κ,
see Gignac I, 79, where four of the nine examples given involve a following liquid.
Montclair State University
No. 48, Sides A and B

49. O.BM EA 20300: In Search of the Latest Dated Demotic Ostracon
Tonio Sebastian Richter
O.BM EA 20300 6.5 x 7.8 cm I–II

Theban area (?)
The Demotic ostracon British Museum EA 20300 was acquired by Reverend Greville John Chester in
1887.1 As Dr Richard Parkinson kindly informed me, “the [BM] registers reveal no more information,
although two other terracotta ostraca acquired in the same batch from Chester do have a provenance noted:
20061 (Demotic) is said to be from “Medinet Abu” as is 20165 (Coptic). This might suggest that the
majority of ostraca were purchased at Luxor, but one cannot really say much beyond that.”2 In fact,
the provenance of O.BM EA 20300 from the Theban area, generally a likely option for ostraca acquired
during the 19th and early 20th centuries, is supported by the text itself. Its onomasticon provides names
more or less typical for that region, such as Pa-Mnṱ Pamônthês and Pa-Ḏm Pasêmis, the latter being
an almost exclusively Theban choice especially pointing to Medinet Habu.
Concluding from palaeographic features, I believe that O.BM EA 20300 is a relatively late
Demotic text, this is to say, dating to the first or even second century CE. Its late Demotic traits include
the shapes of the sign šr “son” (ll. 1 and 5), of the “man/person” determinative (ll. 2, 4, 6, 8), and of
the determinative of the word sẖ “to write” (l. 9), as well as the use of the “foreign land” determinative
to classify foreign personal names (ll. 4 and 8, cf. below).
O.BM EA 20300 contains two acknowledgements of indebtedness stipulated by two different
debtors, P-šr-Mn son of Ḫnsw-Ḏḥwṱ (lines 1–5) and P-šr-ḥ son of Pa-Ḏm (lines 5–8), in favor of
the same creditor Pa-Mnṱ son of P-my (ll. 1/2 and 5/6). Both of them start with the introductory formula
of legal documents in epistolary form,3 A p nti ḏd n B “It is A who says to B” (ll. 1 and 5), and continue
with exactly the same wording. The debts acknowledged by the issuing parties are probably not of
merely private nature, but seem to be related to the public realm: The term šmw, in Upper Egyptian
Demotic designating the “harvest tax,”4 occurs both times (ll. 3 and 7), and in both cases a third person,
the notorious Flgys who will be dealt with below, is somehow involved (ll. 4 and 8).
Unfortunately, I cannot find exact formulaic parallels to O.BM EA 20300,5 and some details of its
reading and meaning remain elusive, or escape me entirely. Consequently, the edition of the text as given
here cannot claim much authority, and is recommended to the wit and the erudition of demotists.
My decision to present it nevertheless, and to do so in honor of such an eminent scholar has to do
with a particular detail of the text which has been interpreted, even though wrongly as I aim to demon-
strate, in terms of chronology, an issue to which (as to so many others) Roger Bagnall has contributed
1
Reverend G. J. Chester, being on leave from his church for his delicate health’s sake, spent his spare time on extensively
travelling through the Near East. As an amateur archaeologist and collector of antiquities he provided a number of British
museums with objects of amazing diversity. Cf. W. R. Dawson, E. P. Uphill, and M. L. Bierbrier, Who Was Who in
Egyptology? 3 (London 1995) 96–97.
2
E-mail from 12 August 2002. I am most grateful to Dr Parkinson for granting me the permission to publish O.BM EA
20300 and for his steady support via correspondence as well as in the British Museum in the fall of 2002 when I had
the opportunity to collate O.BM EA 20300. I gratefully received further valuable comments and suggestions by Ursula
Kaplony-Heckel, Jan Moje, Robert Ritner, Alexander Schütze, Günter Vittmann, and Sven Vleeming.
3
For this formula used in the internal address of Demotic letters cf. M. Depauw, The Demotic Letter. A Study of Epistolo-
graphic Scribal Traditions Against Their Intra- and Intercultural Background (Dem. Stud. 14) (Sommerhausen 2006)
144–147; its even more frequently attested use as address formula of Demotic legal documents is discussed ibid. 317–320.
4
Erichsen, Glossar, s.v.; H. Felber, Demotische Ackerpachtverträge der Ptolemäerzeit (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 58)
(Wiesbaden 1997) 151, n. 267.
5
Loans are generally far from a typical type of text on Demotic ostraca, rare examples being e.g. O.Theb.Dem. 22 and
O.Mattha 235. The two ostraca O.Medin.HabuDem. 131 and 132, called loans in the edition, are technically leases.
286 Tonio Sebastian Richter
substantially. Although Roger himself occasionally mentioned the unpublished state of O.BM EA 20300
with regret,6 it seemed to me appropriate not to focus on single words of an otherwise unpublished text,
but to give the reader as good an idea of the entire text as I can.
Text
1 P-šr-Mn s Ḫnsw-Ḏḥwṱ ⌈p nti⌉ ḏd n Pa-Mnṱ
2 s P-my wn mtw=k p 1/3 ... r-ḥr=y
3 n ḥ.t-sp 12.t r st (n) t m(.t) (n) p šmw nti-iw=w r-di.t (s)
4 r-tw=k s n ḥ.t-sp 12.t n Flgys
5 p rmt-šn P-šr-ḥ s ⌈Pa⌉-Ḏm p nti ḏd n Pa-Mnṱ
6 s P-my wn mtw=k p 1/3 ... r-ḥr=y
7 n ḥ.t-sp 12.t r st (n) t m(.t) (n) p šmw nti-iw=w r-di.t (s)
8 r-tw=k s n ḥ.t-sp 12.t n Flgys
9 sẖ P-[di-]Wsir s P-msḥ r-ḫrw=[w]
Notes
1 Pa-Mnṱ s P-my: There is a name-sake attested in O.Medin.HabuDem. 150.2; however, as both
components of the name seem to be rather common onomastic choices the coincidence might not
be conclusive for identification.
2 p 1/3 ... : The phrase here and in line 6 expressing the debt value is not clear to me; particularly
the two signs after 1/3 (I doubtfully consider the reading ḥṯ for ḥtr “tax,” an anonymous referee
suggested ḥtr “horse, team of horses”). Instead of the article p also ḥḏ “silver” could be read.
r-ḥr=y: The same signs could be read r-wḥ=y “which I have put”; however, the reading as
construct state of the preposition r- with suffix 1st sg. seems to fit better with the formulaic
conventions of loans. For the indebtedness formula wn mtw=k etc. cf. K. Sethe, Demotische
Urkunden zum ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrechte vorzüglich der Ptolemäerzeit (Leipzig 1920) 23f.
and 211f. The use of the preposition r- therein is a lexical innovation pointing to the Coptic usage
of ⲟⲩⲛⲧⲁ⸗ ... ⲉⲣⲟ⸗, r- replacing earlier r-ir-n= or r-.wi=.
3 r st (n) t m(.t): I follow the suggestion of an anonymous referee to read m(.t) “clay” (Erichsen,
Glossar 60), a type of arable land which, according to its occurrences in Late Egyptian, Demotic
and Coptic documents, was peculiar to the Theban landscape and/or terminology.7 Accordingly
I read the signs after r that could otherwise be read p 1/2 etc. as st “aroura” and the feminine
article.
nti-iw=w r-di.t (s): There seems to be no alternative reading to the relative clause which implies
the following word to be the predicate. The non-identity of its antecedent (p šmw 3rd sg. m.)
and its subject (3rd pl.) would require the presence of a resumptive pronoun. Therefore I consider
interpreting the following sign which looks like n=k or wš, as the preposition r- plus the abbre-
viated form of the infinitive di.t “to give” and (haplographically written) object pronoun s: nti
iw=w r-di.t (s) “which will be given.”
6
R. S. Bagnall, “Notes on ostraka,” Enchoria 8.1 (1978), 148, n. 22.
7
On Late Egyptian m(m)t, cf. e.g. A. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford 1947) vol. I, pp. 10*–12*, and
A. Gasse, Données nouvelles administratives et sacerdotales sur l’organisation du domaine d’Amon, XXe–XXIe dynasties,
à la lumière des papyrus Prachov, Reinhardt et Grundbuch (Bibliothèque d’études 106) (Le Caire 1988) 55; on demotic m(.t)
cf. P. W. Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes (Second Century B.C.). A Survey of Greek Papyri Contained
in the Archive (Stud. Demotica 2) (Leuven 1993) 396, and Pestman in P.L.Bat. 19, 201, n. 4; for some Coptic instances
cf. Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 254.
49. O.BM EA 20300: In Search of the Latest Dated Demotic Ostracon 287
4 r-tw=k s: the grapheme r- representing circumstantial iw- here and in line 9. Another possible
reading would be n=y instead of s (in which case r-tw=k would stand for the regular relative form:
“which you have given me”). However the position of the small stroke at the right side of the sign
seems to indicate the dependent pronoun 3rd sg. -s rather than the construct state of preposition
n plus suffix 1st sg.
Flgys: If this word is a proper name as will be suggested below, the following word p rmt-šn
might be a title referring back to that person rather than to the following debtor P-šr-ḥ son
of Pa-Ḏm.
5 p rmt (nti) šn: “inspector” ἐπιστάτης (cf. T.Bodl. 1460.6; O.Hess. 3.4 [ed. Kaplony-Heckel,
MIO 13, 1967]; P.Heid. 721+745a, 4; P.Oxf.Griffith 44.4) rather than p rmt- plus a toponym
“Inhabitant of …” (but cf. the observation of K.-Th. Zauzich, “Einige unerkannte Ortsnamen,”
Enchoria 15 [1987], 169–179, that toponyms with prefixed rmṯ- often lack the “place” determi-
native).
P-šr-ḥ: Rare Theban instances of this name e.g. in O.Leid.Dem. 247 and 253. Or should one
read P-šr-wr as a variety of P P-šr-p-wr? It is surely not Ms-wr since an initial p is pretty clear.
6 The connection between the sign n (after the sign read 1/3) and the following vertical stroke as
recognizable on the photograph is not of ink but a shadow from an uneven spot in the surface
of the potsherd.
9 r-ḫrw=[w]: The traces of signs at the end of the line seem to fit with this phrase better than with
a further dating formula.
Translation
It is Psemminis son of Chensthôtês who says to Pamônthês son of Pemais:
I owe you the 1/3 (of) … of regnal year 12 concerning an aroura (of) the clay, (as) the harvest tax which is
to be given, while you have given it in regnal year 12 to Flgys the inspector(?).
It is P-šr-ḥ son of Pasêmis who says to Pamônthês son of Pmais:
I owe you the 1/3 of … of regnal year 12 concerning the clay, (as) the harvest tax which is to be given, while
you have given it in regnal year 12 to Flgys.
Petosiris son of Pemsais has written at [their] bidding.
Is O.BM EA 20300 the Latest Dated Demotic Ostracon?

In Pieter Willem Pestman’s Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques, O.BM EA 20300
is recorded for regnal year 12 of Severus Alexander (232/3).8 The preceding entry, O.Theb.Dem. 221,
occurs 30 years earlier under regnal year 11 of Septimius Severus (201/2).9 Since there is no later ostracon
registered, O.BM EA 20300 has been considered to be the latest dated Demotic ostracon so far.
8
Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne (P.L.Bat 15) (Leiden 1967) 106f.; cf. TM 52198.
9
O.Theb.Dem. 221, recently reedited by U. Kaplony-Heckel, “Rund um die thebanischen Tempel (Demotische Ostraka zur
Pfründen-Wirtschaft),” in F. Hoffmann and H.-J. Thissen (eds.), Res severa verum gaudium. Festschrift für Karl-Theodor
Zauzich zum 8. Juni 2004 (Stud. Demotica 6) (Leuven 2004) 316, was called by G. Mattha “the latest [Demotic] ostracon
I know” (O.Mattha, p. 2). Its dating depends on the assumption that the plural pr-.w nti ẖw “the pharaohs who are
venerable (Augusti)” refers to Septimius Severus and Caracalla as “the only joint emperors to whom such a date [year 11]
can apply” (H. Thompson, O.Theb., p. 55). It should be mentioned that also the Augusti Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus, the latter posthumously, have their regnal year 11 attested in Egypt, cf. P. Bureth, Les titulatures impériales dans
les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d’Égypte (30 a.C.–284 p.C.) (Pap. Brux. 2) (Bruxelles 1964) 81; even year 12 is
attested once (Demotic graffito, Philae 185: ntnyns irm wrs), cf. J.-Cl. Grenier, Les titulatures des empereurs romains
dans les documents en langue égyptienne (Pap. Brux. 22) (Bruxelles 1989) 66. However, the bare title σεβαστοί on which
pr-.w nti ḫwi is probably based seems indeed to be attested for Septimius Severus and Caracalla exclusively, cf. Bureth,
Les titulatures impériales, 98, and Grenier, Les titulatures des empereurs, 75.
It was this assumption that once drew my attention to the text, when I tried to trace the con-
nections between Demotic and Coptic legal documents.10 As was pointed out by Karl-Theodor Zauzich
already in 1978,11 and later elaborated on by scholars such as Naphtali Lewis,12 Willy Clarysse,13 Roger
Bagnall,14 Mark Depauw,15 Brian Muhs,16 and the present author,17 the relevance of Demotic as a written
language of day-to-day use was shrinking rapidly during the two first centuries CE. The many late Demotic
documents published during the last decades confirm this conclusion in so far as there are very few among
them dating after the first century CE.18
The dating of O.BM EA 20300 has first been discussed by Jean-Jacques Hess in a miscellany that
runs as follows:19 “Das Ostrakon 20300 des Britischen Museums hat Z. 4 und Z. 8 das Datum … rompe.t
XII n Flgis, was nichts anderes sein kann als anno XII Felicis. Felix ist bekanntlich der Beiname des
Commodus, den dieser im Jahre 185 erhielt.”20 Indeed, Commodus was the first in a long succession of
Roman emperors bearing the Felix title. However when it comes to the question to whom the regnal year
of O.BM EA 20300 refers, Commodus can easily be ruled out: he added his own regnal years to those of
his father Marcus Aurelius. The beginning of his autocratic rule in 179/80 fell in his regnal year 20. The
year 185 when he took the title Felix corresponds to his regnal year 25 in Egypt.21 It may be this reflection
that brought Pestman to re-date O.BM EA 20300. As Septimius Severus did not bear the title Felix, and
only one of his successors up to Gallienus, Severus Alexander, enjoyed his twelfth regnal year, Pestman
assigned the ostracon to Severus Alexander. The crucial point however—the identification of flgys as an
emperor’s title as suggested by Hess, was accepted by Pestman. In fact it is this suggestion that seems
doubtful to me for a number of reasons.
The title Felix, taken the first time by Commodus, was borne by almost all of his followers
during the third and fourth centuries.22 Usually it follows the proper name of the emperor, mostly within
the sequence Pius Felix. However, in the first position of a titulary, or even as its only element, this title
10
Vgl. T. S. Richter, Rechtssemantik und forensische Rhetorik. Untersuchungen zu Wortschatz, Grammatik und Stil
der Sprache koptischer Rechtsurkunden (Kanobos 3) (Leipzig 2002) (2nd revised edition, with a preface by the honorand,
Philippika 20 [Wiesbaden 2008]) 11–57.
11
K.-Th. Zauzich, “Demotische Texte römischer Zeit,” in Das Römisch-Byzantinische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen
Symposions 26. – 30. September 1978 in Trier (Aegypt. Trev. 2) (Mainz 1983) 77–80.
12
N. Lewis, “The Demise of the Demotic Document: When and Why,” JEA 79 (1993) 276–281.
13
W. Clarysse, “Egyptian Scribes writing Greek,” CdÉ 68 (1993) 186–201.
14
The interest in sociolinguistic interrelations between Egyptian and Greek in Graeco-Roman Egypt and the issue
of language change from Demotic to Coptic was, and still is a foremost topic within the amazingly wide range of
the honorand’s research interests, cf. R. S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton 1993) 235–240; R. S. Bagnall,
Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East (Sather Classical Lectures 69) (Berkeley 2011) 75–94, and, most recently,
R. S. Bagnall, “Zones of Interaction Between Greek and Egyptian in Roman Egypt,” in P. Dils, E. Grossman, T. S. Richter,
and W. Schenkelet (eds.), Language Contact and Bilingualism in Antiquity: What Linguistic Borrowing into Coptic Can
Tell Us About. Papers Read on the DDGLC Inaugural Conference, Leipzig, Saxonian Academy of Sciences, April 2010
(Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) (to appear).
15
M. Depauw, “Autograph confirmation in Demotic private contracts,” CdÉ 78 (2003) 66–111.
16
B. Muhs, “The grapheion and the disappearance of Demotic contracts in early Roman Tebtynis and Soknopaiou Nesos,”
in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds.), Tebtynis und Soknopaiou Nesos – Leben im römischen Fayum (Wiesbaden 2005)
93–104.
17
T. S. Richter, “Greek, Coptic, and the ‘Language of the Hijra’. Rise and Decline of the Coptic Language in Late Antique
and Medieval Egypt,” in H. Cotton, R. Hoyland, J. Price, and D. J. Wasserstain (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural
and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East (Cambridge 2009) 401–446.
18
An obvious exception being the Narmouthis ostraca from the mid- to late-2nd c. CE.
19
J.-J. Hess, “Der Kaiser Commodus in einem demotischen Texte,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
39 (1901) 144.
20
G. Goyau, Chronologie de l’empire Romain (Paris 1891) 233.
21
Thompson’s reading of O.Theb.Dem. 31, line 8: “ḥsp 12(?) n Kmyts” “year 12(?) of Commodus” has been corrected by
Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne, 130, n. 60, into “l’an 30.”
22
Cf. D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie 2 (Darmstadt 1996).
49. O.BM EA 20300: In Search of the Latest Dated Demotic Ostracon 289
seems not to be attested elsewhere, and one would hardly expect it to function thus.
In general, titles of Roman emperors are represented in Greek and Demotic by two different
strategies: translation and transcription. A well-known example of a conceptual representation by means
of translation is the title Augustus, in Greek Σεβαστός, and in Demotic nti ḫw (besides transcriptions such
as sbstjs). The untranslatable title Caesar, on the other hand, is a likewise well-known example of phonetic
representation by means of transcription, as the Greek Καῖσαρ and the Demotic gysrs (and many spelling
variations). The sequence Pius Felix never appears in transcription but always translated in Greek
titularies, Εὐσεβὴς Εὐτυχής. This translation, rather than the original Latin Grundform, would, one
should expect, have been the point of departure of a Demotic transcription. It actually was the point
of departure in the case of Pius / Εὐσεβής in Demotic spellings not of the title, but of Antoninus Pius’
name, which is phonetically transcribed iwsbs.23 A hapax instance of a Demotic representation of the title
Felix however follows the other strategy, the translated form, when the Felices Philippus and Philippus
junior are called n rn(t).w “the lucky ones.”24
The determination of the word flgys in O.BM EA 20300, lines 4 and 8, consists of the “foreign
land” and the “person” determinative: a combination otherwise found in non-Egyptian personal names. In
many cases, foreign names are classified graphically by the “foreign land” determinative only. According
to the evidence provided by the Demotisches Namenbuch, one may well consider this classification on
etymological grounds (interesting in itself!) to be a late Demotic phenomenon.25 Also the combination
of both, “foreign land” and “person” determinative, as in the case of flgys, seems to be restricted to late
Demotic writings of personal names. On the contrary, the determination of Roman emperors’ names and
titles, as far as I know, usually consist of a “foreign land,” or of a “god,” or of both “foreign land” plus
“god” determinative. To the best of my knowledge, an emperor’s name or title classified by a common
“person” determinative is not attested so far. Since Felix is a well-attested personal name in Roman
Egypt,26 flgys in O.BM EA 20300 is most likely to be considered as a non-royal proper name (the entire
phrase thus to be understood as “year 12 for, or to, Felix” instead of “year 12 of the Felix”).
To sum up: Common patterns of Latin, Greek and Demotic titularies of Roman emperors as well
as Demotic orthographic conventions and palaeography speak strongly against the interpretation of flgys as
any emperor’s title or name. The regnal year 12 mentioned four times in ostracon BM EA 20300 might be
anonymous, as is often the case in short Demotic business and legal texts.27 Given the late Demotic palaeo-
graphic features of the text, it may actually refer to one of the adoptive emperors of the second century.
In conclusion, O.BM EA 20300 may well belong to the later or even latest Demotic ostraca;
certainly however it cannot be claimed to be the latest dated Demotic ostracon. This title is now to be
awarded to O.Zürich 54 that can be dated to regnal year 3 of Severus Alexander, i.e. year 223/224, as
Roger Bagnall has demonstrated.28
Universität Leipzig
23
Grenier, Les titulatures des empereurs, 62 (D-Type 2) & 64 (G-Type I and I-Type 2).
24
Grenier, Les titulatures des empereurs, 80 with reference to the unpublished P.Leconte 7 (TM 109234).
25
Variant spellings of the name pwlnyts Ἀπολλωνίδης for instance show a limitation of the “foreign land” determinative to
late (Roman) Demotic instances, in contrast to middle (Ptolemaic) Demotic spellings bearing the “person” determinative, cf.
Demotisches Namenbuch, 14.
26
Φῆλιξ (Preisigke, Namenbuch, 459); alternative vocalization patterns of the Demotic spelling, such as Flaccus / Φλάκκος
(Preisigke, Namenbuch, 465) or Φιλοξᾶς (Preisigke, Namenbuch, 464), may also be taken into consideration, however the
occurrence of y actually seems to fit best with Felix.
27
Cf. Depauw, The Demotic letter, 318: “The other main type of document … is fare less formal. The scribe is as a rule no
notary, although there are a few exceptions. The parties are generally identified by A p nty ḏd n B ‘It is A who says to B’,
and the date usually follows at the end without mentioning the name of the ruling pharaoh.”
28
R. S. Bagnall, “Notes on Ostraka,” Enchoria 8.1 (1978) 147–149, the emperor being mentioned here by name: lgsntrs ...
ntj ḫwj.
No. 49
(© by courtesy of The British Museum)
50. Letter from Philotas to His Brother Dioscourides:
Philotas, a Black Sheep in a High-Class Family?∗
Cornelia Römer
P.Köln inv. 6071 12.5 x 10 cm II BCE, July–early September1

Provenance unknown
The text presented here is a letter, unfortunately incomplete, which is remarkable for its unusually high
stylistic level. In it, a certain Philotas admits to have run off (from the police most likely) and to be
a renegade now. Despite its fragmentary condition the letter shows some rhetorical ambition as well as
a pretentious vocabulary. Note, however, that iota adscriptum is omitted once, and iotacism also occurs
once. Correspondences of names and vocabulary with texts from the Heracleopolite nome may result
from the fact that most of our Ptolemaic papyri dating to the 2nd c. BCE come from that part of Egypt.
This should be considered when arguing about the provenance of the piece (but see on l. 4a).
The light brown papyrus preserves 11 nearly complete lines (1–11), along with the left, right and
upper margins. The upper margin was used by the same scribe to add four more lines (1a–4a) with further
information (or questions?) which probably could not be fitted onto the sheet below the main body of the
letter. The writing runs with the fibres on this side, as does the address on the back of the papyrus. There
is a glued join at ca. 3.5 cm from the left margin; from here, the 4 added lines (1a–4a) start. The sheet had
been folded at least twice, at 1.5 cm and 7 cm from the left margin. The hand is fluid, but with strong
cursive elements; epsilon is large and round with a detached horizontal stroke; nu appears, in addition to
its more regular form, in a v-shape with an attached vertical stroke (l. 2 χαίρειν, l. 9 ϲυνηγμένου); and
tau consists of a split horizontal stroke. Comparable are the hands of P.Tebt. I 47 (Menches-Archive) of
113 BCE (Pl. VII) and P.Köln ΧΙΙ 479 from the Heracleopolite, dated to 145–140 BCE (Taf. XX).
→ margin
1a καὶ περὶ τοῦ Μάρωνοϲ ε ̣[
ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τὴν τρυγὴ̣[ν καὶ
περὶ τῶν τοῦ περιδείπνο[υ
4a Διονυϲιάδα ἐγζητήϲαϲ π[
1 Φιλώταϲ Διοϲκουρίδηι τῶι

ἀδελφῶι χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρωμένωι
ζῆν ἀλύ̣πωϲ. Ὡϲ μὲν τὸν
4 περίϲκληρον ἡμῶν ἐπιϲτά(την)
πολλὰ παθὼν διέδρα̣ν ἐπὶ
τρύγητον, ἰκόϲ ἐϲτί ϲε
μετειληφέναι. Ὡϲ δ᾿ ἀναϲ-
8 παϲτὸϲ αἰφνιδίωϲ γέγονα ἔτι
τοῦ Ἀκλέο̣υϲ ϲυνηγμένου μετὰ
∗
I would like to thank Dr. R. W. Daniel for providing this piece from the Cologne collection for publication outside P.Köln.
1
The vintage in the Fayum took place from July to early September at the latest; see M. Schnebel, Die Landwirtschaft
im hellenistischen Ägypten (Münch. Beitr. 7), München 1925, 275–277.
292 Cornelia Römer
[ ] ̣υρ̣ ίου ὄντοϲ ἐν τῇ

[ ] ̣ ̣υ καὶ̣ τὴν
-----------------------
4a l. ἐκζητήϲαϲ 6 l. εἰκόϲ
Verso
→ Διοϲκουρίδηι
(1a–4a) And about Maron, one (?) from those at the vintage, and about those involved with the funeral
feast … (to ?) Dionysias, after having sought out (everything ?) … .
(1–11) Philotas sends greetings to his brother Dioscourides and wishes him a healthy life without sorrows.
That I have escaped from our harsh overseer after I had suffered a lot, to participate in the vintage,
you will have heard in all probability. But that I am now suddenly a renegade, while Acles, who is
together with (our master ?), finds himself in the (city ?) … and … .
Verso
To Dioscourides
1 The name Philotas seems to have been particularly popular in the Heracleopolite nome where
it occurs in BGU XIV 2441 (2nd–1st c. BCE), SB VI 8974 (between 100 and 76 BCE) etc. A certain
Philotas also appears in the archive of the Phrurarchus Dioscourides, part of which is also kept
at Cologne. In P.Diosk. 16, that Philotas was going to submit a complaint to the king about all
the “terrible experiences he had had with Dioscourides in his whole life” (ll. 3–4); the frequency
of both names should prevent us from assuming any connection here, even though the phrasing
in P.Diosk. 16.9 ὅμωϲ γοῦν καὶ ἀδελφοὶ μάχονται is still not understood. The acquisition history
in the Cologne collection does not point to the same source for this piece and the Dioscourides
archive.
2–3 The same greeting formula occurs in P.Bad. IV 51.2–3, a woman’s letter dated to the beginning of
the 2nd c. BCE (cf. BL 2, S. 176); this papyrus comes from Hipponon in the Heracleopolite nome
(with English translation available in R. Bagnall and R. Cribiore, Women’s Letters, electronic
version 2008, A2.4, Nr. 10 [quod.lib.umich.edu]). Heikki Koskenniemi (Studien zur Idee und
Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. [Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae,
Ser. B, tom. 102. 2.] Helsinki 1956, 163) compares this special phrasing with equally non-confor-
mist phrasings used in the letters of famous philosophers, as e. g. ϲπουδαίωϲ ζῆν used by Epicurus
(Diog. Laert. X 14).
3–4 ὡϲ μὲν ... ὡϲ δὲ: the contrast seems to be between 2 pieces of information: (a) You have probably
heard that I ran away, and why; (b) what happened thereafter, while Acles ... was still ..., (you
may not have heard / I want to tell you [or similar]).
4 The word περίϲκληροϲ does not occur elsewhere in the papyri and is very rare in general, being
mostly used in medical contexts as “dense,” “constipated”; ϲκληρόϲ would have been enough to
denominate a “harsh,” “austere,” and “cruel” person (LSJ, s.v.); the sender of the letter shows
here again his ingenuity. περιϲκελήϲ is better attested in the meaning expected here (LSJ, s. v. II).
For περί as a reinforcing addition to an adjective cf. A. Debrunner, Griechische Wortbildungs-
lehre, Heidelberg 1917, § 46, p. 25.
ἐπιϲτάτηϲ: It looks as if this overseer had the power to prevent Philotas from participating in the
vintage. He was most likely the head of police in the village, ἐπιϲτάτηϲ τῶν φυλακιτῶν. The fami-
liarity with the epistates which is expressed by ὁ ἡμῶν ἐπιϲτάτηϲ corroborates this assumption.
50. Letter from Philotas to His Brother Dioscourides 293
5 διέδρα̣ν: The ductus of the hand rather looks like διέδρων which does not make sense. For the
strong aorist form of διδράϲκω in papyri from the Ptolemaic period see B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb
in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri, Athens 1973, § 306 (9), p. 144.
6–7 The same rather elegant phrasing “you will have heard” occurs in the private letter BGU IV 1208.
17–20 from Busiris in the Heracleopolite nome, 27–26 BCE.
7–8 ἀναϲπαϲτόϲ: as with αἰφνιδίωϲ (see below), this word is more commonly used by the historians
than by the orators; it does not occur so far in documentary papyri. The writer seems to see himself
as a renegade or deserter from the village community. Which kind of activity Philotas had fled
(compulsory service?) is not clear.
8 αἰφνιδίωϲ: very rare in the papyri, in the Ptolemaic period only found in P.Diosk. 1.13, a com-
plaint from 154 BCE concerning trespass; the word does not belong to the vocabulary of orators,
but is often found in historians.
9 Ἀκλῆϲ is a very rare name which only occurs once so far in the papyri, in BGU I 144 col. II 6,
3rd c. CE (Arsinoites).
9–10 τοῦ Ἀκλέο̣υϲ ϲυνηγμένου μετὰ ... is eccentric phrasing; ϲυνηγμένοϲ is usually employed in the
singular only with collectives (e. g. ϲτρατόϲ, λαόϲ), rarely with individuals; however, the follow-
ing understanding of the phrase seems to be possible:
τοῦ Ἀκλέουϲ ... ὄντοϲ: I take ϲυνηγμένου μετὰ [ ] ̣υ̣ρίου to be a participium coniunctum
embedded in the genitive absolute τοῦ Ἀκλέουϲ ... ὄντοϲ ἐν ... “while Acles, who is with (our
master?), is still in ... .” Alternatively, one could try ϲυνηγμένου μετὰ [τόκων (?) τοῦ ἀρ]γ̣υ̣ρίου
“the money with ... having been collected,” which would be a genitive absolute within a genitive
absolute (on the extended use of the genitive absolute in Hellenistic prose see E. Mayser, Gram-
matik II 3, 67–70), but the dot before upsilon does not seem compatible with gamma (too low
on the line). The dot on the baseline would rather fit kappa, [τοῦ ἡμετέρου] κ̣υ̣ρίου ?
11 ] ̣ ̣υ, there is a long vertical which may belong to a phi or psi followed by a dot and an upsilon;
ἀδελ]φ̣οῦ̣ is possible.
καὶ written very similar to καὶ in line 1a.
1a Supplements should not exceed 5–6 letters; ἑν̣[̣ὸϲ would be a possibility.

3a περιδείπνο[υ: “a funeral feast,” cf. P.Tebt. I 118.1 (late 2nd c. BCE), and in literature, see e. g.
Menander, Aspis 238 Jacques = 233 Sandbach.
4a It is not clear whether Διονυϲιάϲ is here the name of the place in the Fayum or a woman’s name
(e. g., P.Oxy. IV 715.4). The place name would most likely fit better into a phrase at this point,
and if the place name is meant, the provenance of the papyrus should be the Fayum, and more
likely the Themistou Meris (but see the introduction).
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Kairo

294 Cornelia Römer
No. 50 recto
No. 50 verso
51. List of the Parts of the Forearm and Hand∗
Paul Schubert
P.Gen. inv. 512 8.5 x 7 cm III

Provenance unknown
This fragment was acquired either by the egyptologist Édouard Naville on behalf of the hellenist Jules
Nicole around 1892, or by Jules Nicole himself in Cairo during his visit in 1896–1897.1 We have no
precise record of the purchase. There are some slight remains of a first column of text, followed by
a second column, the left three fifths of which are preserved. The top is missing; at the bottom, a narrow
margin suggests that the text is complete. The writing, a practiced uncial with some cursive elements in it,
in charcoal ink, dates from the third century.2 The extant text is divided into sections which have been
marked with ὀβελοί (i.e. forked παράγραφοι, lines 3/4 and 10). These few lines display a rather high
proportion of spelling mistakes: θ̣αρ̣ϲό̣[ϲ for ταρϲόϲ (3), μεικ̣ρόϲ for μικρόϲ (5), φ̣άλ̣[αγ]|γ̣ε for φάλαγγεϲ
(8–9), ϲκυδαλ[ί]δεϲ for ϲκυταλίδεϲ (9), ἄθρα for ἄρθρα (9), [ῥιζω|ν]υ̣χί̣αιϲ for ῥιζωνυχίαι (9–10). This
must have been a somewhat careless or incompetent copyist. The back of the papyrus is blank.
The preserved portion of the papyrus contains two sections, each clearly marked by an ὀβελόϲ.
In the first section (1–3), the title of which is lost, we find a list of the bones of the forearm. Lines 5–12
consist of a list of fingers and of parts of fingers, made explicit by the presence of a title in line 4
(δά̣κ̣τ̣υ̣λ[̣ οι]). This papyrus fragment was presumably part of a more complete catalogue, which may have
extended to the parts of the whole human body.
This kind of nomenclature can be compared with two parallels from authors who were active
in Egypt in the second century, namely the medical writer Rufus of Ephesus and the grammarian Pollux
(passages provided below, after the text of the papyrus). It is worth underlining the fact that Rufus lists
the parts of the body from a medical perspective: his aim is to teach a prospective student how to treat the
body. Pollux, on the other hand, is collecting the nomenclature of the body parts among many other items
that seem interesting to him as a man of learning and a lover of the Greek language—especially Attic.
There are other papyrus fragments of similar content. Some texts published at an earlier date are
to be found in M.-H. Marganne’s Index analytique des papyrus grecs de médecine (Genève 1981), which
3
is supplemented for the papyri published at a later date by the CEDOPAL database (MP ).3
Date Marganne MP3 Contents

P.Iand. V 82 II/I BCE 95 2345 Treatise on the genital system and kidneys.
P.Genova II 514 I 184 2345.2 On the bones.
PSI XII 1275 II 165 2345.1 List of parts of the body: head.
P.Oxy. LXXIV 4974 II/III --- 2345.21 On the bones: joints.
P.Mich. XVIII 762B III --- 2345.01 Names of the parts of the body.
∗
Many thanks to Rodney Ast and Hélène Cuvigny for their careful reading of a first version of this edition, and for saving
me from some embarrassing blunders.
1
See B. Roth-Lochner (on the basis of a transcript by M. Nicole), “Un voyage en Égypte (1896–1897). Extrait des souvenirs
d’Albert Nicole,” in Voyages en Égypte de l’antiquité au début du XXe siècle (Geneva 2003) 245–258.
2
For stylistic parallels, see e.g. P.Oxy. LXIX 4746 (pl. XIV; AD 244–249); P.Gen. IV 166, 13–15 (pl. XXIX; AD 267);
P.Oxy. LXVI 4543 (pl. XX; late III).
3
www2.ulg.ac.be/facphl/services/cedopal
4
Revised edition by I. Andorlini in V. Boudon-Millot (et alii), Ecdotica e ricezione dei testi medici greci. Atti del V Con-
vegno Internazionale, Napoli, 1-2 ottobre 2004 (Napoli 2006) 83–91.
296 Paul Schubert
Referring to the editor of P.Iand. V 82, Marganne (172) recalls the resemblance between this
papyrus, which dates back to the Ptolemaic period, and Rufus’s treatise On the Parts of the Body, written
in the Roman period. This is consistent with the general idea that Rufus, like many scholars of his time
in other fields of learning, would have drawn much of his knowledge from the work of his predecessors,
who were active under the Ptolemies and whose writings have been for the most part lost. In the case of
our papyrus, on the other hand, much the reverse seems to have happened: either the copyist was following
some digest of Rufus’s treatise, or more probably both he and Rufus (and Pollux) were drawing from
a common background, now lost. We know for instance that Herophilus, who was active in Alexandria in
the first part of the third century BCE, wrote on the nomenclature of the bones (see below, note on line 2).
At a more advanced level of medical training, knowledge of the nomenclature would be implicit,
as for example in the following passage of Galen’s treatise De anatomicis administrationibus (vol. II p. 318
[Kühn]): πολλάκιϲ γὰρ ὁ ἕτεροϲ αὐτῶν μῦϲ τόν θ᾿ οἷον λιχανὸν καὶ τὸν μικρὸν δάκτυλον, ὁ δ᾿ ἕτεροϲ τὸν
μέϲον καὶ τὸν παράμεϲον, ἀμφότεροι δὲ κοιναῖϲ ἀποφύϲεϲιν ἑνωθέντεϲ τὸν μέγαν κινοῦϲιν, “For often one
of the muscles (moves), for example, the index and the little finger, whereas the other moves the middle
and the ring fingers, but both muscles joined together by common apophyses move the thumb.” In order
to understand such a passage, a prospective student of medicine had to learn first the names of the precise
words used to describe the parts of the body.
Diplomatic transcription Text

→
col. i
illegible traces
col. ii col. ii
----------- -----------
κ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ κ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ πῆ-]
χυ̣ϲκ̣ερκ ̣[ ̣]κα̣ρπ̣[ χυϲ, κ̣ερκί̣[ϲ], κα̣ρπ̣[όϲ, μετακάρ-]
πιονοιδεθ̣αρ̣ϲο̣[ πιον, οἱ δὲ θ̣αρ̣ϲό̣[ϲ. ]
>–––––––– >––––––––
4 δα̣κ̣ ̣ ̣λ̣[ 4 δά̣κ̣τ̣υ̣λ̣[οι ]
μεικ̣ροϲπαρα̣μ ̣[ μεικ̣ρόϲ, παρά̣με̣[ϲοϲ, μέϲοϲ,]
[ ̣]ι̣χανοϲμεγαϲ[ [λ]ι̣χανόϲ, μέγαϲ. [τὰ δὲ ϲτοι-]
[ ̣ ̣] ̣καλειταιμ[ ̣ ̣]α̣ ̣[ [χεῖ]α̣ καλεῖται μ[ετ]α̣κ̣[όν-]
8 [ ̣] ̣οικ ̣[ ̣ ̣]υ̣ ̣ο̣ι̣φ̣α ̣[ 8 [δυ]λ̣οι, κό̣[νδ]υ̣λ̣ο̣ι,̣ φ̣άλ̣[αγ-]
̣εϲκυδαλ[ ̣] ̣εϲαθρα[ γ̣ε<ϲ>, ϲκυδαλ[ί]δ̣εϲ, ἄ<ρ>θρα, [ῥιζω-]
[ ̣] ̣χι̣αιϲον̣ ̣ ̣ε̣ϲκορ̣[ [ν]υ̣χί̣αι{ϲ}, ὄν̣υ̣χ̣ε̣ϲ, κορ̣[υφαί.]
[>]–––––––– [>]–––––––
3 l. ταρϲόϲ 5 l. μικρόϲ 9 l. ϲκυταλίδεϲ
(…) forearm [ulna], shuttle [radius], carpus, metakarpion, some (say) the tarsus.
Fingers
Little (finger), next to middle [ring finger], middle finger, licker [index], large [thumb]. The parts are
called back-knuckles, knuckles, phalanges, finger-bones, joints, roots of the nails, nails, finger-tips.
51. List of the Parts of the Forearm and Hand 297
Parallel Texts
Rufus, On the Parts of the Body 80–86
τῶν δὲ ὀϲτῶν τοῦ ἀγκῶνοϲ, τὸ μὲν ὑποτεταγμένον, Among the bones of the forearm, the lower one is
πῆχυϲ, τὸ δὲ ἐπικείμενον, κερκίϲ· περαίνει δὲ the ulna, the upper one is the shuttle [radius]; those
ταῦτα πρὸϲ τὸν καρπόν. τὸ δὲ ἐφεξῆϲ τοῦ καρποῦ two extend to the wrist. The part following the wrist
πλατὺ καὶ ϲυμφυέϲ, μετακάρπιον, καὶ ταρϲόϲ· is broad and compact; (then) the metacarpus and
εἶτα δάκτυλοι. χεὶρ δὲ τὸ ὅλον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὤμου the palm;5 then the fingers. Cheir applies to the
καὶ ᾧ κρατοῦμεν. δακτύλων δὲ ὁ μέν τιϲ μέγαϲ, whole (limb) starting from the shoulder, and by
ἀφεϲτηκὼϲ τῶν ἄλλων· ὁ δὲ λιχανόϲ, ὁ πρῶτοϲ which we hold (things). Among the fingers, one is
τῶν τεϲϲάρων· ὁ δὲ μέϲοϲ, ὁ δὲ παράμεϲοϲ, called the “large one” [thumb], which is separated
ὁ δὲ μικρόϲ. τὰ δὲ ὀϲτᾶ αὐτῶν, ϲκυταλίδεϲ καὶ from the others; then the “licker” [index], the first
φάλαγγεϲ· τὰ δὲ πρῶτα ἄρθρα προκόνδυλοι, of the (remaining) four; then the “middle finger,”
τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆϲ κόνδυλοι, τὰ δὲ τελευταῖα μετα- the “next to middle” [ring finger], the “little finger.”
κόνδυλοι. αἱ δὲ τῶν ὀνύχων ἀρχαί, ῥιζωνύχια· Their bones are the “finger-bones” and “phalanges.”
τὰ δὲ ἔϲωθεν πέρατα τῶν δακτύλων, ῥᾶγεϲ, καὶ The first joints are the “fore-knuckles,” the next ones
κορυφαί. are the “knuckles,” and the last ones are the “back-
knuckles.” The foreparts of the nails are the “roots of
the nails”; the extremities of the fingers from within
are the “grapes” and the “finger-tips.”6
Pollux, Onomasticon 2.142–143 and 145–156

τῶν μέντοι περὶ τῷ πήχει δύο ὀϲτῶν τὸ ϲμικρό- Of the two bones in the forearm, the smaller one
τερον κερκὶϲ ὀνομάζεται καὶ παραπήχειον, ὡϲ is called “shuttle” [radius] and parapechion; for
τοῦ μείζονοϲ ἔχοντοϲ τὴν τοῦ πήχεωϲ προϲηγο- the larger bone bears the name of the forearm [i.e.
ρίαν, ὃ καὶ προπήχειόν τινεϲ καλοῦϲιν. οὗ τὸ pechus], which some call also propechion. The
πέραϲ καρπὸϲ ὀνομάζεται, ϲυγκείμενον ἐξ ὀϲτῶν extremity thereof is called karpos; it consists of
ὀκτώ. καὶ προκάρπιον μὲν καλεῖται τὸ πρὸ τοῦ eight bones. The part before the palm is called pro-
καρποῦ—τῷ δὲ καρπῷ καὶ προβολή τιϲ ἀϲτρα- karpion—attached to the palm, there is a protruding
γάλῳ προϲφερὴϲ ϲυμπέφυκεν—, μετακάρπιον δὲ bone resembling a knucklebone—and metakarpion
τὸ πρὸ τῶν δακτύλων πλατυνόμενον, ἀφ’ οὗ εἰϲ (is the name of) the broad part before the fingers,
ἐκείνουϲ ἡ χεὶρ ϲχίζεται. (…) from which the hand divides into the fingers. (…)
ὀνομάζονται δὲ οἱ δάκτυλοι μικρόϲ, παράμεϲοϲ, The fingers are called the “small one,” the “next
μέϲοϲ, λιχανόϲ, ἀντίχειρ ἢ μέγαϲ. τὰ δ᾿ ἐπὶ τῷ to middle” [ring finger], the “middle,” the “licker”
μετακαρπίῳ πρὸ τῶν κονδύλων μετακόνδυλα, [index], the “opposite hand” or “large one” [thumb].
ὧν τὰ μὲν κάτω ἄρθρα, τὰ δ᾿ ὑπὸ ταῖϲ φάλαγξι The parts at the metacarpal before the knuckles
ῥιζωνυχίαι· ἐξ αὐτῶν γὰρ αἱ τῶν ὀνύχων ἀρχαί. are the “back-knuckles,” of which the lower parts
μεθ᾿ ἃϲ ὄνυχεϲ, ὑφ᾿ οἷϲ τὰ νεῦρα παύεϲθαι are “joints,” whereas the parts under the phalanges
λέγουϲιν· ὧν τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ τῷ ὄνυχι κρυπτά, τὰ δ᾿ are the “roots of the nails”: for it is from them that
ἄνωθεν ἄργεμοι, τὰ δ᾿ ἑκατέρωθεν παρωνυχίαι, the nails start. After those, there are the “nails,”
τὰ δὲ μετ᾿ αὐτὰϲ γωνίαι. τὸ δὲ πρὸϲ ταῖϲ ῥιζωνυ- under which it is said that the nerves end. Belonging
χίαιϲ λευκὸν ἀνατολή. καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐπιφαινόμενα to the nails, what is under the nail (is called) “the
τοῖϲ ὄνυξι νεφέλια, τὰ δ᾿ ἔνδοθεν τῶν δακτύλων hidden part,” the upper part, “the whites,” what is
πέρατα ῥᾶγέϲ τε καὶ κορυφαί. on either side, the “nail-sides,” and what is beyond
5
The word ταρϲόϲ is used both for the hand (bones of the back of the hand), and for the foot (bones between the heel and
the toes).
6
The ῥᾶγεϲ (litt. “grapes”) correspond to the soft part under the distal phalanx, i.e. the last bone of the finger. The κορυφαί
are the tips properly speaking.
298 Paul Schubert
the nails, the “corners.” The white part near the roots
of the nails is called the “rising.” The spots that
appear on the nails are called “little clouds,” whereas
the inner part of the extremities of fingers are called
the “grapes” and the “tips.”
2 κ̣ερκί̣[ϲ]: Herophilus of Alexandria, in the third century BC, is said to have called also the tibia
κερκίϲ. See Herophilus fr. 129 von Staden (= Ruf., De nominatione partium hominis 123 [p. 149
Daremberg—Ruelle]), Ἡρόφιλοϲ δὲ καὶ τὴν κνήμην κερκίδα ὀνομάζει.
3 θ̣αρ̣ϲό̣[ϲ]: a misspelling for ταρϲόϲ, possibly from a confusion with θάρϲοϲ “courage.”
5 μεικ̣ρόϲ: the little finger is also called μύωψ “goad, spur”; see ΣOpp. Hal. 3.254: μύωψ ὁ μικρὸϲ
δάκτυλοϲ.
[μέϲοϲ]: the middle finger is also given the obscene name of καταπύγων “bugger”; see Pollux,
Onomasticon 2.184, as interpreted by LSJ.
6 [λ]ι̣χανόϲ: litt. the “licker,” from λείχω “to lick.” Finger names are often linked to their potential
use, like Lat. index “pointer, accuser,” or French “auriculaire,” from Late Lat. auricula “ear,” for
the little finger, used to clean the ear. See also note on line 5, μεικ̣ρόϲ.
Université de Genève
No. 51
52. Order for Delivery of Wheat and Lentils∗
Jennifer Sheridan Moss
P. Mich. inv. 1507 7.8 x 22.6 cm. Late IV

Provenance unknown
P. Mich. inv. 1507 was acquired by the University of Michigan in 1924; it was purchased with funds from
an archaeological account, but the records do not indicate the source from which it was purchased. There
are no internal indications of its provenance.
This document is written across the fibers on a narrow strip of medium brown papyrus. The text
is broken on the right side, resulting in the loss of some letters, but has a margin on the left of approxi-
mately 2 cm. There are holes and tears throughout. The back is blank.
The text orders the delivery of wheat and lentils as payment of a salary in kind. The ending of
the only verb (line 2), an imperative ending, indicates that it is an order for delivery rather than a receipt.
The lack of identifying data, such as the village or nome of residence of the recipient Heraklas, implies
that this document records a private exchange of goods rather than an official payment. Indeed, one might
expect such a brief private document to be recorded on an ostrakon rather than a papyrus.
↓ Ἀγαθῖνος Βαρβάρῳ ἀδελφῷ χ(αίρειν).

π̣α̣ρ̣α̣μ̣έ̣τ̣ρ̣η̣σον Ἡρακλᾶδι γναφῖ ὑπὲρ ὀψ̣[ωνίων]
σίτου ἀρτάβας τρῖς καὶ φακοῦ ἀρτάβ⟦ην̣⟧ας δύο ̣ ̣ [
4 (γίνονται) σί(του) (ἀρτάβαι) γ⸍ φακοῦ (ἀρτάβαι) β⸍ ⟦α⟧. σαισιμίωμαι σίτ[ου
φακοῦ ⟦ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣⟧
traces
-----------
2 l. Ἡρακλᾶτι κναφεῖ 3 l. τρεῖς 4 l. σεσημείωμαι
Agathinos to Barbarus his brother, greetings.

Measure out for Heraklas the fuller, for salary, three artabas of wheat and two artabas of lentils.
Totals 3 artabas of wheat, 2 artabas of lentils. I have signed for . . . of wheat . . . of lentils.
1 While it is the norm to include the article before ἀδελφῷ in a prescript, it can also be omitted
(e.g. CPR V 20), just as the article is often omitted before κυρίῳ μου ἀδελφῷ in the opening line
of a document.
2 While there are only small traces of the first 6–8 letters of this word, an imperative of a compound
of μετρέω fits the context, and παραμετρέω seems to fit the space. This form is attested in four
third- and fourth-century grain deliver documents: P.Oxy. VII 1056, XII 1571, XX 2286, and
XLVIII 3406. Ὀψώνιον can be paid either in money (e.g. BGU I 14 ) or in kind (e.g. P.Harr. II
231.2, a late-third-century text very similar to this one).
3 A word or abbreviation is written below δύο beginning under the upsilon and continuing into the
lacuna. The first letter appears to be a lambda, kappa, or alpha, followed by two other letters.
∗
First as my Doktorvater, and then as my lifelong advisor, Roger Bagnall has taught me to see both the consequential in
the mundane, and the beauty of synthesis. Would that I could have learned to maintain his energy level. This small text is
dedicated to him.
300 Jennifer Sheridan Moss
5 There appear to be two layers of letters after the word φακοῦ. A number of possibilities present
themselves. One is that δύο has been written atop μίαν, mimicking the correction in line 4. Another
possibility is that one layer contains a date in Hathyr. The faded ink as well as the small break in
the papyrus prevent a resolution of this line.
6 There are a few traces of the tops of letters. The following line could contain a date, or acknowl-
edgement of or receipt for the delivery.1
Wayne State University, Detroit
No. 52
1
My thanks to Nikos Litinas and Adam Hyatt, as well as the editors of this volume, for their assistance in the edition of this
papyrus.
53. An Arabic Land Lease from Ṭuṭūn
Petra M. Sijpesteijn
Although this papyrus is quite badly damaged and much of the text is lost, enough remains to identify it
as a land lease dated Jumādā I 246/24 July–23 August 860 for a piece of land located in Ṭuṭūn, the ancient
Tebtunis, in the southern Fayyūm oasis.1 The lease follows standard formulation but contains some
terminology which so far had been attested only in later documents.
Land Leases
The procedure for concluding an agricultural rental contract in mediaeval Egypt can be reconstructed from
the contents of the leases themselves.2 The would-be lessee opened negotiations, a stage in the process
recorded in the eventual lease itself. Typically, the lessor would then confirm the agreement reached,
composed from the perspective of the lessor in the first person and directed at the lessee in the second
person (“you asked me that I lease to you and I answered you that I lease to you the piece of land . . .”).
The lease published below, however, although written in the first person, records the perspective of
the lessee, rather than the lessor, and is directed in the third person to the lessor (“I asked so-and-so that
he lease to me and he answered that he leased me the piece of land . . .”). The whole document is, in fact,
composed as a report by the lessee to the landowner documenting the transaction that took place between
the lessee and the landowner’s agent, the lessor. After the lessee had requested it, as he himself states, the
owner’s agent responsible for the Fayyūm (wakīluka ʿalā al-fayyūm) rented the lessee the piece of land.
Only one other, slightly later, example following this model has been known so far (CPR XXI 18, dated
266/881).
The land leased in the document edited below had an area of one and a sixteenth faddān and could
be used to grow any crop except “greens” (khuḍar) and sugar cane. The lessee has to pay two and two
thirds dīnārs as rent and taxes for the land. Compared to contemporary leases, the price calculated in this
lease is higher than average, but not the highest recorded for the period.3 In the one other contemporary
lease from the Fayyūm, the price is one dīnār per faddān.4 The taxes are to be paid by the lessee in the year
following that of the lease, a practice occurring in several other land leases and agricultural receipts from
the period. This might be linked to the political instability and unrest surrounding the ʿAbbasid take-over
as a result of which the fisc was unable to assign taxes accurately due to damage suffered by their records
during the fighting.5
There is no scribe mentioned in the document. Nor are there any witnesses for this transaction,
as is also the case in other agricultural leases.6 At the bottom of the papyrus a summary of the contents
of the lease is given stating the number of faddāns leased and for what price, using Greek numerals to
indicate the amounts.7
1
This article was written as part of the project The Formation of Islam: The View from Below, funded by the European
Research Council (2009–2014).
2
A. Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie in ihrer Beziehung zur arabische Urkundenlehre,” in W. Otto and L. Wenger (eds.), Papyri
und Altertumswissenschaft. Vorträge des 3. Internationalen Papyrologentages in Munich vom 4. bis 7. September 1933
(Münch. Beitr. XIX) (Munich 1934) 337–342; CPR XXI, pp. 50–52.
3
P.Cair.Arab. II, pp. 32–33.
4
CPR XXI 18, for the provenance, see below.
5
CPR XXI, p. 159.
6
The only two agricultural leases with a witness clause are CPR XXI 1, a private lease from the Fayyūm dated 169/785,
and 16, a lease from Ushmūn dated 253/867.
7
For this practice, see also P. M. Sijpesteijn, “Seals and Papyri in Early Islamic Egypt,” in K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski,
and P. Verkinderen (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices from Ancient Times until the Present Day. Developments in Admi-
nistration and Magic through Cultures (Leuven 2012), 171–182.
302 Petra M. Sijpesteijn
Regional variation
What could be the reason for the irregular form of this lease and its parallel concluded twenty years later?
In both leases, written in the name of the lessee, an agent (wakīl) is the negotiating partner, but only in
the text presented below is the document directly targeted at the landlord. Although the absence of the
landlord, whose interests are taken care of by a local agent, might seem a convincing explanation for
the form of the lease, there exist in fact other agricultural leases in which an agent is the lessor and which
are written in the name of that agent.8
With more and more systematic work being done on Arabic legal documents9 and letters10 on
papyrus, regional patterns of expression and format are being discovered in contemporary documents,
and one wonders whether we might be dealing in our lease with a local practice. The production of
the document edited in this article should definitely be located in the Fayyūm, where the land was leased
and the lessor (agent) located. CPR XXI 18 does not contain any references to the location of the land
leased. The editor interpreted the name of the town from where the scribe of the document originated
as “al-Tūrah,” locating it in the province of Munufiyya.11 The provenance of this papyrus, however,
cannot be determined with certainty, although a Fayyūmic background is very well possible.12 Are we
dealing then with a local Fayyūmic format distinguishable from that used in other Egyptian districts?
Unfortunately, no other agricultural leases from the period 220–270 can be firmly ascribed to the Fayyūm,
so that we do not know whether these two leases were in fact anomalies within Fayyūmic practice or not.
Some commonalities, however, can be observed in the two leases. The exceptional perspective
of the lessee has already been commented upon. In both leases, moreover, the recommendation “so sow
with God’s blessing and aid” (fa-zraʿ ʿalā barakat allāh wa-ʿawnihi) commonly added after the recording
of the granting of the lease is lacking. Other exceptional expressions concern formulae which were
not attested in agricultural leases or were only known from later documents. The leases stand out for
containing a reference to the lessee inspecting the land. This statement is generally known from much
later sale documents of houses (see below commentary to line 9). In both documents the order of elements
is slightly changed compared to contemporary leases. The condition of general liability which was
introduced in 244/858 appears in these documents much later in the document and using a different
expression from that found in other leases (see below commentary to lines 10–11), while the clause
8
E.g. Chrest.Khoury I 67, dated 212/827–8, provenance Ushmūnayn.
9
For this purpose, see especially P.Steuerquittungen and CPR XXI.
10
E. M. Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus. Form and Function, Content and Context
(Archiv Beih. 29) (Berlin 2010); P. M. Sijpesteijn, Shaping a Muslim State: Papyri Related to an Eighth-Century Egyptian
Official, (PhD dissertation, Princeton University 2004).
11
See CPR XXI 18.6 and commentary on that line where Frantz-Murphy refers to H. Halm, Ägypten nach den mamlukischen
Lehensregistern, 2 vols., (Wiesbaden 1979–1982) II, 389.
12
The papyrus states that the scribe of the document belongs to ‫اهﻞ اﻟٮﻮرﻩ‬. There are several reasons why this does not
lead to a provenance of the papyrus in al-Munufiyya. First, the place name listed in Halm 1979-1982, II, 389 is not ‫اﻟﺘﻮرﻩ‬
as the edition reads, but ‫ ﺗﺮﻋﺔ‬without wāw and with ʿayn. These are two very different towns. Only one town known in
the literature seems to fit the shape of the letters in the papyrus. For Būra, see Halm 1979-1982, II, 773; Timm I, 448-9;
M. Ramzī, al-Qāmūs al-jughrāfī li-l-bilād al-Miṣriyya min ʿahd qudamā’ al-Miṣriyyīn ilā sanat 1945, Cairo 1953-1968,
I, 176-9. But neither the land rented in the contract, nor the persons involved in the transaction have a connection to Būra.
The scribe is said to belong to “the people of Būra,” but there is no reason to assume that that is where the papyrus was
drawn up. As has been remarked geographical identifications are generally added to a person’s name once they have left the
place that they identify themselves with. Finally, no Arabic papyri are so far known to have been found in the Delta where
the circumstances for papyrus preservation were not good. The acquisition history of this papyrus, however, might place
its production in the Fayyūm. The papyrus came to the University of Michigan as part of the Ruthven collection consisting
of some 3300 objects acquired in Egypt in the 1930’s by Peter Ruthven (son of the former University of Michigan president
Alexander Ruthven, 1929-51). The objects do not have a single provenance but some of them seem to originate in the
Fayyūm allowing for a similar background of (some of) the seventy pieces of “Islamic papyri and manuscripts” which were
part of the "Ruthven collection." I would like to thank Arthur Verhoogt, Nikos Litinas and Terry Wilfong for their help
in untangling the acquisition history of this papyrus.
53. An Arabic Land Lease from Ṭuṭūn 303
recording the consent of the lessor appears in these documents much earlier than in other land leases
(see below commentary to line 9). The documents also contain differences: while CPR XXI 18 mentions
the scribe at the beginning of the text, the lease edited below does not mention a scribe at all. Furthermore,
it addresses the landlord in the second person, while CPR XXI 18 reports the transactions between the
lessor and a third party in the first and third person. In spite of these differences, it is tempting to explain
the distinctive format of these two leases compared to other contemporary ones by the place where they
were produced: the Fayyūm.
Text
Leiden Univ. OR 12885–1313 8 x 13 cm Jumādā I 246/24.07–23.08.860
Fayyūm
Light brown, rather fine papyrus. Only on the left bottom side is the original cutting-line preserved. On all
other sides the papyrus fibres are frayed with the vertical top layer of papyrus fibres having gotten lost
entirely on the right side. There is a large hole in the left bottom part. From the top a tear runs down five
lines, but only a few letters have been lost in each line. Other smaller holes in the papyrus are due to fibres
having been worn off. The text is written with a thin pen in black ink. Few diacritical dots appear and the
sīn is written with an oblique stroke over it. At the bottom there are some Greek numerals.14
↓
[‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ[ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟـ]ـﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬ .1
. . .]‫[ وآﻴﻞ ﻋـ‬. . . .‫هﺬا آﺘﺎب ﻣﻦ‬ .2
] . ‫ ن وا‬. [ . . . .3
[ . . . ]‫ [ﺣﺮﺣـ‬. . . .4
‫اﻧﻲ ﺳﺎﻟﺖ [ اﺑﺮهﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻌﻼ وآﻴﻠﻚ ]ﻋـ[ـﻠﻰ اﻟﻔﻴﻮم؟ ان ﻳﻜﺮﻳﻨﻰ ارﺿﺎ ﻣﻦ ارض ﻃﻄﻮن‬ .5
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ان ازر[ع ﻣﺎ اﺣﺒﺒﺖ ﻣﻦ اﺻﻨﺎف ﻏـ]ـﻼ[اﻟﺰرع ﺧﻼ اﻟﺨﻀﺮ وﻗﺼﺐ‬ .6
‫اﻟﺴﻜﺮ [ ﻓﺪان وﻧﺼﻒ ﺛﻤﻦ ﺑﺪﻳﻨﺎ]رﻳـ[ـﻦ وﺛﻠﺜﻲ‬ .7
. . .] . . .‫[و‬. . . . . . . . .] . . . . . . . . . ‫ﻧﻘﺪ ﺑﻴﺖ ا[ﻟﻤﺎل ووزﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ‬ .8
‫ﻓﺎﺟﺎﺑـ[ـﻨﻰ اﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ واآﺮاﻧﻲ هﺬﻩ اﻻرض ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻰ ﻟﻬﺎ وﻣﻌﺎﻳﻨﺘﻰ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻤﺎ‬ .9
‫ﺑﻮرت ﻓﺨﺮا[ج ذﻟﻚ ﻻزم ﻟﻲ وﻣﺎ زﻳﺪت ﻓﺤﺴﺎب ﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺠﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ان اودى ﻟﻚ‬ .10
‫ﺧﺮاﺟﻰ ﻣﻊ[ ﻧﺠﻮم اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن وﻻ ﻣﻮﻧﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ وﻻ آﻠﻔﺔ وﻻ ﻧﺎﻳﺒﺔ وذﻟﻚ‬ .11
‫ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺟﻤﺎد[ى اﻻوﻟﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ وارﺑﻌﻴﻦ وﻣﺎﻳﺘﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﻘﻮﻟﺔ اﻟﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬ .12
[‫وارﺑﻌﻴﻦ وﻣﺎﻳﺘﻴﻦ‬ .13
β\ β β/ α ιϛ̣/ .14
‫ﻣﻦ؟‬ ‫ﻓـ[ـﺪان‬ .15
diacritical dots: ‫( ﻣﻦ‬5
13
I am grateful to the Leiden University Library for its permission to publish this papyrus. I should also like to thank Arnoud
Vrolijk, Karin Scheper and Jan Just Witkam of the University Library for facilitating my study of this papyrus under the best
possible conditions.
14
I would like to thank Alain Delattre, Janneke de Jong and Federico Morelli for their help in identifying the Greek
numerals in line 14. I should also like to thank Werner Diem and Gladys Frantz-Murphy for their comments on the edition.
Any remaining faults are, of course, my own.
1 In the name of God,] the Merciful, the [Compassionate]

2 This is a writing to so-and-so. . . .] agent o[ver . . .
3 ...
4 . . .]
5 I have asked] Ibrāhīm b. al-ʿAlā, your agent over the Fayyūm, to rent me (a piece of) land of the
land of Ṭuṭūn,
6 on condition that I cultivate it with what I want from the kinds of agricultural products except
vegetables and sugar
7 cane] one faddān and half an eighth for two dinars and two thirds
8 of the cash of the trea]sury and its weight standard. [ ] and [
9 And he answered] me concerning that, and he rented me this land after my acknowledgement of it
and my inspection of it. And what
10 I leave lying fallow, the kharā]j of that is incumbent on me and what I increase will be reckoned
according to what is in my register on condition that I pay
11 my kharāj at] the sulṭān’s terms without provision, imposition nor canal and dam assessment. And
this took place
12 In the month Jumād]ā I of the year two hundred and forty-six transferred to the year seven
13 and forty and two hundred]
14 1 1⁄16? 2 2 ⁄3 2 1⁄2
15 faddān rented at?
1 The basmalah can only partially, but with certainty, be read so that we can establish how much is
missing from the document on the right side.
2–4 Judging by the only known parallel of this kind of document (CPR XXI 18, dated 266/881) and
other related ones (cf. CPR XXI 4–7; 9–13; 17; 20–23; 25; 28–30; 34), these lines would certainly
have contained (1) an indication that this is a legal document, more exactly a land lease (in CPR
XXI 18 indicated by hādhā kitāb), and (2) the identification of the lessee (in CPR XXI 18 indicated
by li-fulān; such a phrase implies a switch of person from third to first for the remaining part of
the lease). There seems to be, however, more space at the beginning of the papyrus for additional
information.
5 Ibrāhīm is written with a defective long ā (Hopkins 1984 § 9.c remark). For the shape of lām-alif
in al-ʿAlā, see khalā’ in line 6. For wakīluka ʿalā al-fayyūm, see in a land lease dated 212/827–8:
wakīl Abū ʿAlī ibn Ayyūb ibn Abī Samīt ʿalā ḍiyāʿihi bi-l-Ushmūnayn (Chrest.Khoury I 67.2–3).
For Ṭuṭūn, the ancient Tebtunis, located in the southern Fayyūm, see Timm VI, 2887–2892. More
commonly land leases are written in name of the lessor: “you asked me and requested of me that
I rent to you” (sa’altanī wa-ṭalabta ilayya an ukriyaka). For the formula attested in this document,
see CPR XXI 18.6–7.
6–7 For ʿalā an azraʿa mā ḥababtu min aṣnāf ghalā al-zarʿ khalā al-khuḍar wa-qaṣab [al-sukkar], see “on
condition that you sow it with whatever you like by way of kinds of crops except indigo and sugar
cane” (ʿalā an tazraʿa mā ḥababta min aṣnāf al-ghalā khalā khitr wa-qaṣab al-sukkar) in CPR XXI
11.8, dated 246/860–1, provenance possibly Bahnasā.
7 The way of writing thulthay with an extended back-bending yā’ is commonly attested in other
papyri. Half an eighth also appears in land leases published as CPR XXI 10.9, dating to between
244 and 274/858–888 and Chrest.Khoury II 28.9, 3rd/9th century.
8 In translating naqd bayt al-māl wa-waznahu I do not follow Frantz-Murphy’s reading wa-
wazzanahu “and it was weighed,” (CPR XXI, pp. 130–133) but rather that of P.Steuerquittungen
6.2 and others wa-waznahu, “and its weight.” The second half of this line remains obscure to me.
53. An Arabic Land Lease from Ṭuṭūn 305
9 The clause of consent (fa-ajābanī ilā dhālika wa-akrānī hādhihi al-arḍ) appears in this document
and in its parallel, CPR XXI 18, relatively early on in the document. In parallel leases, the phrase
appears towards the end of the document (Cf. CPR XXI, p. 51). The statement that the lessee
familiarized himself with the object of lease, found in this document (baʿda maʿarifatī wa-
muʿāyanatī) and in CPR XXI 18.11 (read baʿda maʿrifatī lahā), is absent from other agricultural
leases. See in a contract of sale of several houses dated 345/956 wa-dhālika baʿda maʿrifatihimā ]
jamīʿan li-jamīʿ hādhihi al-manāzil wa-muʿāyana minhumā lahā CPR XXVI 8.8–9, with parallels
listed in the commentary all dating from the 4th/10th century and later.
9–10 For the expression fa-mā bawwartu fa-kharāj dhālika lāzim lī wa-mā zayyadtu fa-ḥisāb mā fī
sijillī, see CPR XXI, p. 51 (where the formula appears in the more commonly attested second
person form) and CPR XXI 18.11–12. In all these examples the order of the two elements is
different (i.e. first zayyada then bawwara).
10–11 The expression ʿalā an uʾaddiya laka kharājī maʿa nujūm al-sulṭān generally follows directly upon
the statement in which the lessor agrees to the transaction (CPR XXI, p. 51), which in this docu-
ment appears in line 9. There is also a gap between these two expressions in CPR XXI 18. For
nujūm al-sulṭān, see CPR XXI, pp. 111–112.
11 For muʾna, kulfa and nā’iba, see CPR XXI, pp. 154–156.
12 For the term manqūla, see CPR XXI, p. 159 and P.KölnKauf, pp. 23–28. The word refers to
the practice witnessed during a short period around the time of the ʿAbbasid revolution in which
taxes were paid in the year after the lease was signed, normally at the beginning of the agricultural
cycle. Fiscal receipts too show this practice of taxes being paid a year after they were due.
14 The Greek numerals indicate (1) the number of faddāns, (2) the total of dīnārs paid and (3) the
rate of dīnārs per faddān. These are the categories that one finds also in other land leases. Only
the last number on the line, close to the lacuna is difficult to read, but can be reconstructed on
the basis of the main text.
16 Usually the Arabic titles of the categories appear above the line with the Greek numerals (e.g.
CPR XXI 3, 5, 8, 10, 14–16, 24, 28; P.Cair.Arab. II 77, 79, 82) or on the same line (e.g. CPR XXI
18, 21). While faddān can be restored at the beginning of the line, the second word is harder to
read. Bi-dīnār, the usual expression accompanying the amount of dīnārs cannot be read. Min is
used for the rate at which the land was rented out. Cf. P.Khalili I, p. 72 where examples of this use
of min are listed.
Leiden Institute for Area Studies

No. 53
54. Payment Record∗
Timothy Teeter
P.Lund. inv. 69 7.5 x 7.6 cm VI–VII

Provenance unknown1
The papyrus is dark brown, the ink has faded in spots and there are a few holes, but nothing prevents
a reading or reasonable reconstruction of the preserved text. The top and right borders are complete,
while the left is torn. The bottom is broken. It has been folded once in the center and twice lengthwise.
The hand of the recto is a quick but legible cursive; compare with the hands of P.Col. VIII 244, dated to
the 6th century.2 The writer uses frequent abbreviations signaled by strokes, short oblique marks, overlines
and suspension. Double or triple oblique marks indicate dates. The recto appears to be the beginning
of a list of payments made by τελωνάρχαι through their agents. The text of the recto reaches to the bottom
edge of the papyrus, and the use of the plural in line 1 and a stray letter in line 6 indicate that the list
continued. The verso was evidently written with much greater haste; the hand is even more cursive,
abbreviation is more frequent, and while on the recto numbers for sums are written in full, there are only
numeric symbols on the verso. Moreover, both the text and the space at the bottom of the verso indicate
that this was the only entry. Since the text on the verso is complete and was written almost eight weeks
after the recto, it appears that the papyrus was preserved for the sake of the verso and perhaps kept as
proof of payment, presumably by the same Paul named on both sides.
The principal interest of the papyrus is the mention of τελωνάρχαι. Τελωνάρχης is an obscure
office that appears in only a handful of papyri: SPP III² 82, from the Andreas archive and dated securely
to the beginning of the seventh century; P.Got. 14.2, dated to the 7th century; P.Lond. V 1754, “Arab
Period”; P.Col. VIII 244.20, 6th century; CPR XIX 35.6, 7th century; and an as yet unpublished fragment
in Berlin.3 This text is thus the sixth publication and seventh known instance of this term to date.
LSJ, referring only to the 1904 publication of SPP III 82a, translates τελωνάρχης as “customs
officer,” and so it has been generally understood.4 However, very little can be deduced beyond that.
The author of the letter P.Oxy. XVI 1872 (5th–6th century) instructs the recipient to avoid payment for
a shipment of wine εἰς τὸ τελώνιον, but the editors of SPP III² 82 and CPR XIX 35 believe that the respon-
sibilities of a τελωνάρχης must have extended beyond merely collecting tolls, though how far beyond is
at this point impossible to say. SPP III² 82 is a signed receipt for the delivery of fees for purple dye (τέλος
κριμνῶν) by the τελωνάρχης Kosmas to the grammateus Andreas. CPR XIX 35 lists payments made
for the shipment of textiles, including one to the τελωνάρχης. Our text indicates that agents or assistants,
χειρισταί, could be employed to carry out payments made by τελωνάρχαι, but to whom and for what
is unknown.
∗
I must thank Todd Hickey and his assistant Brendan Haug for the preliminary transcription and for considerable assistance
throughout to one whose access to reference materials is often less than ideal.
1
Purchased in Berlin by Lund University Library in 1933 from Carl Schmidt; see I. Andorlini, “Scavi e acquisti di papiri
negli anni ’30: il caso dei PLund,” Comunicazioni, (Istituto papirologico G. Vitelli, Firenze 1995) 45–50. The inventory
notes that it was initially purchased from the Cairo antiquities dealer Maurice Nahman.
2
P.Col. VIII plate 53; H. Harrauer, Paläographie, Tafelband, Abb. 242; digital image available online through APIS.
3
SPP III² 82 = P.Vindob. G 11082, ed. pr. SPP III 82a, corr. SB 22.15571; see A. Russ, “SPP III 82: Kosmas, τελωνάρχης
und ἀναγνώστης,” Tyche 8 (1993) 228 and H. Buchinger et al., “Beiträge zu SPP III 1–6,” Eirene XXXIV (1998) 87–97.
On the correct reading of P.Lond. V 1754 see P.Col. VIII 244 note on l. 20. The editor of CPR XIX 35 states that the un-
published fragment in Berlin is under preparation by H. Harrauer.
4
See the note to line 20 for P.Col. VIII 244.
308 Timothy Teeter
The term shows up a few times in much later Byzantine writers.5 The closest literary mention
of τελωνάρχαι both chronologically and geographically to the papyri is in a sermon attributed to Cyril of
Alexandria but actually a cento of material taken from Cyril and his uncle and predecessor Theophilus.6
The reference is not flattering, with τελωνάρχαι and λογοθέται listed along with οἱ τοῦ σκότους ἄρχοντες,
οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τῆς πονηρίας, and ὁ ἀνθρωποκτόνος διάβολος. It would be interesting to know just
what Cyril would have made of the Kosmas of SPP III² 82 who was both τελωνάρχης and ἀναγνώστης
(church reader).
→ Χοίακ η π(αρὰ) τῶν αὐτῶν

τε̣λωναρχ(ῶν) ιβ ἰνδικτίο̣(νος)
χιριστῶν διὰ Παύλο̣υ
4 ῥυπα̣ρ̣(ὰ) νομισ<μ>άτια
ὀκτὼ π̣(αρὰ) κερ(άτια) ἑπτά
] traces σ̣[
---------------------
Verso
↓ Τῦβι κε
8 διὰ Παύλο̣υ τελ(ωνάρχου)
χιρ(ιστοῦ) ιβ ἰν̣δ(ικτίονος) νο(μισμάτια) β
vacat κ̣ε̣ρ(άτια)  γ
1 π αυτων 2 τελωναρχ ινδικτ̅ιο̅ 3 l. χειριστῶν δι̅ ̅ παυλου 4 ρυπαρ 5 π κερ

7 ε post corr. υ
8 δι̅ ̅ παυλο τελ 9 χιρ, l. χειρ( ) ινδ̅ 
Choiak 8 from the same customs officers, 12th indiction, (that is, from) the agents represented by Paulus
eight solidi gross minus seven carats . . . Tybi 25 from Paul agent of the customs officer, 12th indiction,
2 solidi 1⁄2 1⁄3 carats.
1 Χοίακ η = 4 December.
2–3 The placement of χειριστῶν after the indiction year suggests that this was an afterthought and
that the scribe better understood with whom he was dealing two weeks later when he wrote on
the verso.
3 The final one or two letters of Παύλο̣υ are little more than a stroke with a slight curve and
an overline.
4 ῥυπα̣ρ̣(ά), in this context “gross,” German brutto, i.e. gross receipt, referring to the total sum
collected and not to the quality or type of metal. See K. Maresch, Nomisma und Nomismatia
(Opladen 1994) 27–28, 63–64 and. e.g. P.Harrauer 60, especially p. 238.
7 Τῦβι κε = 20 January.
8 There is faint ink of a line extending over the subsequent tau that strongly suggests a suspended
upsilon for the end of Παύλο̣υ, as in line 3 of the recto.
5
Georgius Monachus (9th c.) in C. de Boor, Georgii monachi chronicon (Leipzig1904) 680; Constantinus Manasses (12th c.)
in O. Lampsides, Constantini Manassis Breviarium Chronicum (Athens 1996) line 4495; Nicalaus IV Muzalo (12th c.),
Versus de abdicatione in S. I. Doanidou, Ἡ παραίτησις Νικολάου τοῦ Μουζάλωνος ἀπό τῆς Ἀρχιεπισκοπής Κύπρου.
Ἀνέκδοτον ἀπολογητικόν ποιήμα, Ἑλληνικά 7 (1934) 110–141 line 310.
6
Cyril of Alexandria, de exitu animi PG 77.1073.18; see M. Geerard, Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Clavis Patrum Graecorum
vol. 3 (Turnhout 1979) 24 no. 5258.
54. Payment Record 309
10 The space before κ̣ε̣ρ(άτια) would seem to call for something like παρά but I can see no trace
of ink.
Georgia Southern University
No. 54, recto No. 54, verso

55. Letter from Theophanes to Anysios
J. David Thomas
P.Ryl. IV 626 + P.Misc. II 69 26.1 x 24.5 cm (P.Misc. only) Early IV

Hermopolis
The fragment published here for the first time is one of a group of papyri kept in the Sackler Library,
Oxford, together with the Oxyrhynchus papyri but not part of that collection. The papyri belong to the
Egypt Exploration Society and the present text is published with the Society’s permission. For the history,
in so far as it is known, of this group of texts, given the label P.Misc., see the introduction to Papyri from
Hermopolis (P.Herm.), edited by B. R. Rees (EES Graeco-Roman Memoirs 42 [1964]), and the more
detailed account given by Nikolaos Gonis in “Further Letters from the Archive of Apa Ioannes,” BASP 45
(2008) 70–72. A substantial proportion of the texts are from Hermopolis and this is the provenance of
the present papyrus (see below). In lines 6–13 the papyrus is badly frayed in two vertical strips and only
the slightest traces survive on the damaged fibres. It is remarkable that there is no sign of an address on
the back.
Like several of the texts in this group, the papyrus belongs to the so-called Theophanes archive.
Theophanes was an influential member of the community at Hermopolis in the first quarter of the fourth
century. On his archive see John Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes (Yale 2006), especially Chapters
1–2 and the list of documents on pp. xv–xvi. Of earlier articles concerning him the most important for us
is that by A. Moscadi, “Le lettere dell’archivio di Teofane,”Aegyptus 50 (1970) 88–154.1 Not only does
Moscadi give improved readings of some of the papyri, most notably P.Ryl. IV 625, he also provides
the only published photographs, so far as I know, of P.Ryl. IV 625 and 626.2
The unpublished part of the present text (P.Misc. ΙΙ 69), which contains almost the whole of
the letter which survives, does not include the name of the sender. However, it was possible to deduce
that this was Theophanes, since the closing greeting in lines ii.28–29 is in the same hand as the closing
greeting in P.Ryl. IV 625, another letter from Theophanes to Anysios; this will certainly have been added
by the writer in his own hand, as was normal, and so proves that our text too was sent by Theophanes.
In fact this deduction can now be turned into a certainty. Rodney Ast suggested to me that P.Ryl.
626 might form the missing top left corner of P.Misc. ΙΙ 69 and I have no doubt that this acute observation
is correct. As can be seen from the photograph published by Moscadi, the hands of both fragments are
identical and the lines of both align exactly with one another. Furthermore, although the two fragments do
not quite join, it is possible to suggest connected sense when they are placed side by side. I have therefore
included P.Ryl. 626 in the transcript of the text here presented.
No one, I am sure, would want to doubt that Theophanes is the man of the archive mentioned
above. It has, however, been doubted whether the addressee was his son. We know that he had a son
of this name. In CPR XVIIA 16 of 321 (a republication of P.Vindob.Worp 3) we have a complaint
of trespass by animals and a report on this by ἀγροφύλακεϲ, who implicate Ἀνύϲιον υἱὸν Θεοφάνουϲ
ἐξακτορεύϲαντοϲ (lines 21–22). There is very good reason to suppose this is the Theophanes of the
Theophanes archive (see Worp’s introduction to CPR XVIIA 6 and 18.3n.), who would therefore be
proved to have had a son with the name Anysios; cf. also CPR XVIIA 18.3–4. In P.Herm. 5 a certain
Hermodoros writing to Theophanes reports on the good health of his sons (lines 15ff.): εὐθύμει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ
1
See also H. Cadell, “Les archives de Théophanès d’Hermoupolis: Documents pour l’histoire,” in L. Criscuolo and
G. Geraci (eds.), Egitto e Storia Antica (Bologna, 1989) 315–323, and more recently A. Jördens, “Familienfehden in
Hermupolis—Theophanes und Adelphios,” BASP 45 (2008) 101–116.
2
Moscadi nos. 5 and 6.
312 J. David Thomas
τοῖϲ υἱοῖϲ ἡμῶν Ἀνυϲίωι τε καὶ Ἀφθονίωι.3 However, there are other texts from this period in which a man
with this name occurs, notably CPR VIII 36.14, XVIIA 15.9–10, P.Antin. II 93.35, SB XVI 12825.15,
P.Louvre II 120, and P.Landl. G 310 and F 527, of whom the last is certainly not our man since he is
the son of Triadelphos.4 This led Matthews to comment on P.Ryl. 625 (p. 32) “...it is not surprising that
Moscadi took [Anysius] to be the son of Theophanes. The terms in which Theophanes addresses Anysius
do not, however, seem consonant with this, and it is more likely that Anysius was someone else, in some
way a colleague or associate”. The same comment would apply to the content of our letter and my
inclination would have been to agree with Matthews that the recipient is not the son of Theophanes.5
If, however, we accept Moscadi’s revised reading υἱ[ῷ in line 2 of P.Ryl. 626, as we surely must (see
below, line 2n.), the matter is put beyond doubt.6
The editor of P.Ryl. 625 assumed that Theophanes wrote the letter during his journey to Antioch
and back, which is to be dated between 320 and 324 (Matthews, p. 35). This is unlikely to be true of
the present letter. Although the first column is too badly damaged to allow us to make any connected
sense, the few lines of the second column are more promising and would be of some interest if we
had more context. Clearly the writer is giving instructions and they would make good sense as coming
from Theophanes in his capacity as exactor. One would expect an exactor, as the official in charge of
taxation within the nome, to be the man concerned with keeping checks on men in his nome who were
ἐν ἀναχωρήϲει. We know that Theophanes was exactor (no doubt of Hermopolis) at some date earlier
than 321 (see the passage from CPR XVIIA 16 quoted above). In which case the letter will presumably
have been written before Theophanes made his journey.
In editing the text I have had the benefit of being able to use a transcript made by Sir Harold Idris
Bell as well as one made by B. R. Rees. It is a pleasure to be able to include the papyrus in a volume in
honour of a scholar whom I had the privilege of introducing to the study of papyrology at a summer school
in 1968, and who has gone on not only to edit papyrus texts and to examine the information they provide
in innumerable publications, but also to advance the discipline of papyrology enormously in many ways.
→
col. i
Θεοφάνηϲ Ἀνυϲίῳ
υἱ̣[ῷ] χαίρ[ειν].
[Ϲαρ]απάμμωνα τὸν [ ̣ ̣] ̣ο̣υρον ἐγὼ μέχρι ϲήμε-
4 [ρον] κατέϲχον παρ᾿ ἐ[μαυ]τ̣ῷ· ϲήμερον δὲ ἀπέϲτειλα
[πρ]όϲ ϲε [ c.10 ] ̣ν̣ ἀπὸ ᾿Ιβιῶνοϲ̣ τ̣ο̣ὺϲ ἄλλουϲ
]ε̣ ̣ν τῇ ϲή̣μερον ἵν̣α̣ ἐ̣ὰν δόξῃ
] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣δ̣εξαι ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣τ̣αϲτι
8 ] τ̣ῆϲ εὐτυχοῦϲ ̣ ἰ̣νδικ̣τίωνοϲ
]ν τύχην τῆϲ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣υ̣ ̣ ̣ξεωϲ
]ηϲ α̣ ̣ι̣ουτω̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ι̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
]ϲ ϲήμ̣ε̣ρον ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]αι τὴν
3
Cf. Jördens, BASP 45, 106 and n. 16. In the ed.pr. B. R. Rees assumed ἡμῶν was a phonetic error for ὑμῶν (followed by
Moscadi). But G. Bastianini, “Note a P.Herm. Rees 5,”Anagennesis 3 (1983) 161–163, argues that the correction is not only
unnecessary but wrong.
4
Again cf. Jördens, BASP 45, 110 and n. 27.
5
In particular it is surprising that a father should address his son as κύριε in the closing greeting in both P.Ryl. 625 and the
present document.
6
Since we know that Theophanes had a son named Anysios, it would be perverse to suggest that υἱόϲ here was being used
by an older man of a younger, without implying any blood relationship.
55. Letter from Theophanes to Anysios 313
12 ] μεταύριον [ ̣ ̣] ̣ιν
] ̣ ̣ϲ̣ ἐὰν̣ δ̣οκῇ ϲο̣ι π̣ρε̣-
ἀ]πελθεῖν ϲήμ̣ερον ἐπὶ̣ τὸν
] ἡ̣μέραϲ καὶ ̣ [ ̣]γ̣ατυ̣πω
16 ] ̣ν δυνηθῇϲ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣εθέμην
] ̣ π̣ερὶ τῆϲ κατ̣α̣[γ]ωγῆϲ
]ϲ̣εν αὐτοὺϲ βρέ̣[ου]ι̣ον ϲυ
] ̣ον λαβόντεϲ κ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]θω
20 ]ελ̣η ϲπ̣ουδα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν̣
col. ii
ἓξ ἄνδραϲ ἀξίουϲ λόγου, ὧν δύο οὐετρανοὺϲ καὶ τέϲϲαραϲ
[ἀγ]ροίκουϲ ποίη[ϲον] πάντωϲ τῇ [δευ]τέρᾳ ἀνελθ[εῖ]ν̣ πρόϲ με
μ̣ετὰ τοῦ βρεουίου τ̣ῶν ἐν ἀναχωρ̣ήϲει ἵνα λαβόν̣τεϲ τὸν
24 ὀ̣φφικιάλιον ἀποδημήϲωϲιν· καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι δὲ πᾶϲαι κῶμαι
βρέουιον ϲυϲτηϲάϲθωϲαν καὶ ἀποϲτειλάτωϲαν δύο καθ᾿ ἑκά-
ϲτην κώμη⟨ν⟩ ἵ̣να κἀκείνων οἱ ἄνδρεϲ κατειϲαχθῶ-
ϲ̣ι̣ν. (m2) ἐρρῶϲθαί ϲε εὔχομαι
κύριέ μου.
5 ïβιωνοϲ 6 ïνα 8 ïνδικτιωνοϲ 22 ἑξ· ?, see note 23 βρεουïου, ïνα 24 και αι αλλαι
corrected from αλλαι δε 25 βρεουïον 26 ïνα
col. i. 1-5
Theophanes to Anysios his son, greetings.
Up to today I detained Sarapammon the guard(?) here with me; but today I despatched to you …
col. ii
Take every care to see to it that six men of good repute, two of them veterans and four countryfolk, come
up to me on the morrow with the list of those in flight, so that they leave [their ἰδία?] taking (with them)
the officialis; and let all the other villages draw up a list and let them send two for each village so that
the men from those (villages) also may be entered in the registers(?).
(2nd hand) I pray for your good health, my lord.
1 For Anysios see the introduction and below, on lines 21–26.

2 The ed.pr. restored Ἡ[φαιϲτ, presumably because a certain Hephaistion wrote a letter to Theopha-
nes (P.Ryl. IV 624); but the supposed eta is not a correct reading. υἱ[ῷ is the reading proposed by
Moscadi (see his article cited in the introduction) and even if the iota slopes rather unexpectedly,
upsilon is good and in the context this must be the right reading. On its significance see the
introduction. Moscadi also supplies υἱ]ῷ in line 2 of P.Ryl. IV 625 (his no. 5), for τῷ κυρί]ῳ of
the ed.pr. As this too is a letter from Theophanes to Anysios (see the introduction), Moscadi’s
restoration is the more probable.
3 Before ο̣υρον an indeterminate trace. Most attractive is τὸν [φ]ρ̣ο̣υρόν, with a broad phi; cf. the
note to lines 21–26.
3–4 ϲήμερον: the writer is fond of this word which recurs in lines 4, 6 and 14.
4 παρ᾿ ἐ[μαυ]τ̣ῷ was suggested by Ast, as was πρόϲ ϲε in the next line (for ]εϲϲε[of the ed.pr.).
314 J. David Thomas
5 There may be some traces of ink after πρόϲ ϲε and before the break in the papyrus, but it is not
clear if they are part of letters.
Numerous villages in Egypt were called ᾿Ιβιών especially in the Hermopolite nome: see Marie
Drew-Bear, Le Nome Hermopolite: toponymes et sites (Am.Stud.Pap. 21) (Missoula 1979)
122–132.
6 ]ε̣ ̣ν τῇ ϲή̣μερον: possibly just ] ἐ̣ν τῇ ϲή̣μερον.
8 The trace of one or possibly two figures before ἰνδικτίωνοϲ is wholly unclear. The final sigma has
a remarkable flourish, reaching down as far as the end of line 10.
9 The dotted upsilon is far from certain. τῆϲ̣ ϲ̣ῆ̣ϲ̣ τ̣ά̣ξεωϲ may be just possible, but it is hard to see
what it would mean here.
10 After ]ηϲ Bell and Rees read ἁγίου but this is not probable. The line as a whole is unclear: it seems
to end ιγγη or ιγγαι, but neither leads anywhere. Bell read pi for the apparent double gamma; this
is not easy but may be right and would produce a way to read plausible Greek.
12 At the right [ἐϲ]τ̣ιν is possible.
13 If the reading ἐὰν̣ δ̣οκῇ ϲο̣ι is right, the omicron in ϲοι is made rather strangely; perhaps a correc-
tion (from upsilon?). After it another somewhat unusual pi, though much less odd than the one
suggested as a possibility in line 10, followed by epsilon with the final stroke very elongated.
15 At the right the letter before alpha should be gamma, but the meagre traces before it do not support
μέγα. If, despite appearances, we should read this letter as tau, again μετά is unlikely, as is κατά,
and there seems to be insufficient room for πάντα. After it the upsilon in τυπω is the easiest
reading of the broken letter and the other letters are certain. I have considered reading eta instead
of upsilon and taking ἀ̣γατη̣πῷ as metathesis for ἀγαπητῷ (ἀγαπητόϲ occurs in P.Herm. 4); but
one is very reluctant to suggest an error at a point which depends on a doubtful reading.
16 At the start ]ιν is more likely than ]αν. Later either ὑ̣π̣ε̣ρ̣εθέμην or π̣α̣ρ̣εθέμην would suit the slight
traces.
18 There is scarcely room for two letters between βρε and ιον, and the spelling βρέυιον is attested;
but in lines 23 and 25 the spelling is βρέουιον. After it ϲύ seems unlikely; more probable is a form
of ϲυνίϲτημι, as in line 25.
19 At the right, e.g., κ[ατέλ]θω; but the word may not have ended in this line and there may have
been only three letters in the lacuna.
20 Most probably θ]έλῃ at the start, if the odd-shaped lambda is correct. ]ερη was read by Bell and
Rees, but I feel the second surviving letter is less likely to be rho. Then there seems to be too
much room for ϲπουδά[ζει]ν; perhaps ϲπουδά[ζομε]ν.
20–21 Line 20 is certainly the foot of the column, but there is no reason why the sentence should not have
ended here, with a new sentence beginning at the start of the next column.
21 Over ἕξ something like u is written; is this intended as a rough breathing to distinguish the word
from ἐξ? There is a clear medial dot after it.
21–26 These lines are the only part of the letter where we can make sense of the Greek and they would
be of some interest if we were able to set them in a broader context. Clearly the writer is giving
instructions and it would make good sense if the writer were Theophanes in his capacity as
exactor; see the introduction. This would support the reading φ]ρ̣ο̣υρόν in line 3, since we
know that the office of exactor could employ φρουροί, e.g. P.Stras. IV 197.5: δ̣ι̣ὰ φρουροῦ τῆϲ
ἐξακ(τορίαϲ). The person addressed seems to have some control over several villages, which
well suits the office of praepositus pagi. In which case he might be the Anysios who occurs in
P.Louvre II 120.4, in a list of praepositi pagi: Ἀν̣υϲίῳ διαδεχομένῳ γ πάγου. Jördens, in editing
this text, says he is “höchstwahrscheinlich einen Sohn des bekannten scholasticus Theophanes”
(described in the note to line 4 as “Sohn des hermopolitischen Gymnasiarchen und ehemaligen
Exactors Theophanes”); cf. her remarks in BASP 45, 114. On prosopographical grounds this text
55. Letter from Theophanes to Anysios 315
can be assigned with confidence to the Hermopolite nome, but Jördens argues convincingly in the
introduction to P.Louvre II 120 that it is to be dated after 326/7 and most probably as late as about
340. As we saw in the introduction, Theophanes held the office of exactor before 321. If therefore
our text is a letter from him as exactor to Anysios as praepositus pagi, it cannot refer to the latter
serving as acting praepositus pagi as late as c. 340. There is, of course, no compelling reason why
Anysios should not have been a praepositus pagi before 321 and then have served as an acting
praepositus pagi at a later date.
It is noteworthy that the ‘men of good repute’ included veterans as well as non city-dwellers. I do
not know of a parallel for veterans being specifically mentioned in such a connection (although
it is not in itself surprising). It is clear that the instruction must refer in the first instance to one
particular village, but the writer goes on to issue his instruction more widely.
25 δύο: it is not clear whether this means two men or two copies of the list.
26–27 κατειϲαχθῶϲ̣ι̣ν: the verb is new to the papyri and the only meaning offered in LSJ does not suit
the present context. In P.Oxy. XVII 2154.7–8 there is a mention of τοὺϲ κατιϲαγωγῖϲ [sic] τοῦ
πάγου, who Hunt thinks may have been clerks similar to the εἰϲαγωγεῖϲ. εἰϲάγω is attested with
the meaning ‘enter in a register’. An alternative idea, laying stress on the κατά, would be to
translate ‘so that they may be brought back to their ἰδία’.
Durham University
316 J. David Thomas
No. 55 (P.Ryl. IV 626 + P.Misc. II 69)

56. A Census Return from Hermopolis from AD 189
Peter van Minnen
P.Lond. 923 (6) 24 x 12.5 cm 189

Hermopolis
P.Lond. 923 (6) consists of two joining fragments. They are currently separated in their frame, but if
joined the papyrus would be ca. 24 cm high and 12.5 cm wide. The left margin is broken off; the other
margins are preserved in part. P.Lond. 923 (6) is kept with other unpublished papyri from the same
archive, including epikrisis documents for the sons mentioned in the text. These contain excerpts from
P.Lond. 923 (6) (lines 13–21, here indented in part) and help establish the readings. I read the text from
a microfilm and collated my transcription with the original in the British Library, where I also collated
my transcriptions of the epikrisis documents.1
P.Lond. 923 (6) is an original. The main text (lines 1–28) and the subscription of the homeowner
(lines 30–31) consist mainly of individually formed “uncials.” The subscription of the amphodogram-
mateus acknowledging the receipt of another copy (“exemplar”) of the census declaration (lines 30–31)
is much less attractive. The subscription of the declarant, Hermaios alias Pathotes, written for him by
someone else (lines 29–30), is much more cursive. Three census declarations of his children Hermeinos
alias Moros, Theognostos alias Moros, and Dioskorous (P.Lond. III 935 and 936 of AD 217 and 946 of
AD 231) have been known for a long time. Of these only P.Lond. III 946 is subscribed, by Theognostos
alias Moros in his own hand. The archive from which all these documents derive is commonly known
as the archive of Theognostos, the youngest brother. It consists of ca. 15 published and about a dozen
unpublished documents, some of which have already been mentioned in earlier discussions of the archive.2
As two of the other census declarations in the archive, P.Lond. III 935 and 936, this one is
addressed to the amphodogrammateis of one of the four major divisions of Hermopolis, the City East,
where the family lives (lines 8–11) and the declarant, Hermaios alias Pathotes, is registered (line 4). It is
remarkable that the family, six strong, lives in rented living quarters described as one twelfth of a house
(lines 10–11), especially in view of the seemingly more prosperous living arrangements attested by later
documents in the archive. Less remarkable is the fact that the owner of the house subscribes as well,
approving the tenant’s census declaration, which is found more often.
The house in which the family lives is located not just in one of the four major divisions of
Hermopolis, the City East, but more precisely in the 17th amphodon there (line 11). Numbered amphoda
are not quite new, as they are known for other metropoleis in Roman Egypt, but for Hermopolis it has
not always been clearly recognized. It occurs in several texts, from the archive and elsewhere, published
and unpublished. The unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive occasionally expand the number and
the following siglum found in originals unequivocally as amphodon.3 In the Citadel West the amphodon
with the highest number securely attested is the 24th (P.Lond. III 955.6 of AD 261). P.Stras. V 363.9
1
Somewhat belatedly I would like to thank T. S. Pattie for the permission to publish the unpublished papyri from the
Theognostos archive, P.Lond. 923 and 947, each in multiple frames containing multiple papyri.
2
P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Theognostos alias Moros and His Family,” ZPE 76 (1989) 213–218, and P. van Minnen, “Theognostos
en de bokser Hermeinos. Van een broer, een zus en een zwaargewicht,” in P. W. Pestman (ed.), Familiearchieven uit het
land van Pharao (Zutphen 1989) 107–133. Shortly after these discussions were published, I recognized most of the
fragments catalogued as P.Lond. 923 as belonging to the archive as well. I reported the occurrence of rhemboi in the unpub-
lished epikrisis documents as a separate category among the privileged population of Hermopolis in P. van Minnen, “Αἱ ἀπὸ
γυμνασίου: ‘Greek’ Women and the Greek ‘Elite’ in the Metropoleis of Roman Egypt,” in H. Melaerts and L. Mooren
(eds.), Le Rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine (Leuven 2002) 337–353 at 345, n. 19.
3
I pointed this out earlier in P. van Minnen, “Eine Steuerliste aus Hermupolis. Neuedition von SPP XX 40 + 48,” Tyche 6
(1991) 121–129 at 126.
318 Peter van Minnen
of AD 146/7 mentions a 28th amphodon in the City West(?). The 17th amphodon in P.Lond. 923 (6) has
the highest number attested for the City East.
The census data in P.Lond. 923 (6) are included as 187-Hm-1 in Bagnall and Frier’s The Demo-
graphy of Roman Egypt from an earlier transcript of mine.4 Below I have corrected the ages for Hermaios
alias Pathotes (48 instead of 47) and his wife Souerous (52 instead of 51), both in a lacuna, not because of
secure attestations of their age in unpublished excerpts of this census declaration, but to bring them in line
with their ages in unpublished excerpts of earlier census declarations where they are 6(?), 20, and 34 and
[10], 24, and 38 years old respectively.
According to Bagnall and Frier, this and the other census declarations from the archive are
remarkable for several reasons: the one here is the most heavily restored in their database (p. 39, n. 24);
the arguable omission here of a daughter, Dioskorous, who is 30 years old in AD 217 and 44 years old
in AD 231, and who would have been 2 years old in AD 189, the date of this census declaration (p. 41);
the occurrence of the oldest mother on record to have given birth in Roman Egypt (p. 43); and the con-
sistency of the ages reported from census to census (p. 43). The last-mentioned point is not surprising:
the family kept copies of their census declarations, which were used for the next census, where the ages
reported would be automatically increased by 14. With regard to the first point: if this is indeed the most
heavily restored census declaration in Bagnall and Frier’s database, the quality of their data in general
must be very high indeed. As I indicate in the line notes, the restorations are almost all based on attesta-
tions in unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive. The second and third points deserve a more
elaborate discussion.
Bagnall and Frier report the age of the daughter in this census declaration ([ . . . ]dora) as 0. This
will not do. Line 21 clearly states that she was 1 year old in the year preceding the census declaration.
To bring her reported age in line with the ages given for the other family members, we should add, not
subtract, one year: [ . . . ]dora was 2 years old in AD 189, and I have supplied this in the lacuna at the end
of line 21. N. Kruit5 has shown that the ages reported in the census declarations and related documents
are inclusive and that no one (with the exception of the daughter here)6 is reported as being 1 year old
in the census year itself (they are either one year old in the year following the census, when the declaration
was made, or two years old). In the year when this census declaration was made (AD 189), [ . . . ]dora was
“in her 2nd year” in our system.
Unfortunately, Bagnall and Frier mix inclusive ages from the census declarations with ages in our
system throughout their book. For most of it, I suppose, this matters little, but for the youngest children
their data are consistently off.
The daughter here ([ . . . ]dora) is the same age as Dioskorous, a daughter reported in two other
census declarations in the archive, would have been in AD 189. Bagnall and Frier (p. 41, n. 33) provide
two ways to account for this: the daughter here is really the same as Dioskorous, or Dioskorous was born
afterwards but took the other daughter’s place, presumably when that daughter died ([ . . . ]dora is never
mentioned as such in other documents from the archive). The first implies a name change (cf. a similar
case in the note to line 3), but not a mistake in the age reported. The second would make the mother,
Souerous, who is 50 years older than the daughter ([ . . . ]dora) in this census declaration, bear yet another
daughter (Dioskorous) in AD 189/90 at the earliest (assuming two years minimum between births), at
age 52 or rather “in her 52nd year” in our system. Either way, an unpublished declaration of birth from
4
R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge 1994, reprinted with a supplement 2006).
The three other census declarations from the archive are included there as 215-Hm-1, 215-Hm-2, and 229-Hm-1.
5
N. Kruit, “Age Reckoning in Hellenistic Egypt: The Evidence of Declarations of Birth, Excerpts from the Ephebe Registers,
and Census Returns,” in A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming (eds.), The Two Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Greek
and Demotic Texts and Studies Presented to P. W. Pestman (Leiden, Boston, and Köln 1998) 37–58.
6
Kruit (see n. 5 above) 50 mentions the possibility that the daughter actually died in the census year. In that case it would
make no sense to list her at all. It is also incompatible with the reading (see the note to line 21).
56. A Census Return from Hermopolis from AD 189 319
August AD 234 (the unpublished P.Lond. 947 (1) k + m)7 in combination with a wet nursing contract from
AD 234/5 (the unpublished P.Lond. 947 (2) c, together with a copy, the unpublished P.Lond. 947 (1) l)8
suggests that Dioskorous followed in her mother’s footsteps: since the son mentioned in these two texts,
Hermaios, was presumably born in the summer of AD 234, his mother Dioskorous was “in her 47th year”
or alternatively “in her 45th year” when he was born. However this may be, between the birth of Hermaios
and his maternal grandmother Souerous almost a century (96 years to be exact) had lapsed. Such a time
gap is unique in the papyri and most unusual on any count.
→
[ἀμφο]δ̣[ο]γ̣ρα(μματεῦσι) Πόλ(εως) Ἀπη[λ(ιώτου)] vacat
[παρὰ] Ἑ̣ρμαίου το[ῦ καὶ Πα]θ̣ώτ̣ου Ἀχ̣ιλλέω̣[ς]
[τοῦ Ἑρ]μαίου μη[τ(ρὸς) Εὐδαι]μ̣ονίδο̣ς τῆς κ(αὶ) Τισ̣ό̣[ιτος]
4 [Νεάρχ]ου Ἑρμοπ(ολίτου) ἀπὸ γ̣[υ(μνασίου) ἀναγ]ρ̣α̣(φομένου) ἐπὶ Πόλ(εως) Ἀπηλ(ιώτου).
ἀπ̣ο[γρά(φομαι) κα-]
[τὰ τὰ] κ̣ελευσθέντα̣ [ὑπὸ] Α̣ὐ̣ρη̣λ̣ίου Οὐηρι̣α̣[νοῦ]
[τοῦ ἡ]γ̣εμονεύσα[ντο]ς ε̣ἰς τ̣[ὴ]ν κ[α]τ’ οἰ̣κία̣[ν]
[ἀπογρα(φὴν)] τοῦ κη (ἔτους) Αὐρηλ[ίου] Κο̣μμ[ό]δ[ο]υ̣ Ἀντων̣[ίν]ο̣υ
8 [Καίσα]ρ̣ος τοῦ κυρίο[υ] ε̣ἰ̣[ς] στ̣αθμ̣ὸν Ἀ̣μμων̣ί̣[ο]υ
[Ἀνου]β̣ίωνος Πετῆ[το]ς τοῦ̣ Ψ̣εναμούνιος κ̣α̣[ὶ] ὡ̣ς̣
[χρη]μ̣ατείζει ἀναγρ̣α(φομένου) ἐπὶ Π̣[ό]λ(εως) Ἀπηλ(ιώτου) ι̅β̅ μέρου̣ς ο̣ἰ-
[κίας καὶ] αὐλ(ῆς) καὶ ἀνηκ(όντων) ἐπ̣[ὶ] Π̣[ό]λ(εως) Ἀπηλ(ιώτου) ιζ̅ ἀμ(φόδου) παρόντος καὶ ε̣ὐ-
12 [δοκοῦ]ν̣τος τῇδε <τῇ> ἀπο̣[γρα(φῇ) ἐμ]ὲ̣ α̣(ὐτὸν) καὶ τοὺς ἐμ[ούς·]
[Ἑ]ρμαῖον τ̣[ὸν καὶ Πα]θώτ̣ην ἀπὸ γυ(μνασίου) (ἐτῶν) [μη]
Ἑρμεῖνο̣[ν τὸν κα]ὶ̣ Μῶ[ρ]ον υ[ἱ]όν μου ἐκ [μη]τ(ρὸς)
Σο̣υεροῦ[τος Κάσ]τ̣ο̣ρ̣ος ἀπ̣ὸ̣ γυ(μνασίου) (ἐτῶν) [κ]α̣
16 Ἰσίδωρο[ν ἄλλ]ον μ̣[η]τ̣(ρὸς) τῆς α(ὐτῆς) ἀπὸ γυ(μνασίου)
[ἀ(φήλικα) κη] (ἔτει) (ἐτῶν) ιγ
Θεόγ̣[νωστον τ]ὸ̣ν̣ κα̣ὶ̣ Μῶρον ἄλ(λον) μ[ητ(ρὸς) τῆ]ς̣ α̣(ὐτῆς)
ἀπὸ [γυ(μνασίου) ἀ(φήλικα) κη] (ἔτει) (ἐτῶν) [η]
20 [γυ(ναικῶν) Σου]εροῦ[ν Κάστορος] ἀ̣π̣ὸ γυ(μνασίου) γυ̣ναῖκ[α (ἐτῶν) νβ]
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]δώραν [θυγ(ατέρα) ἡμῶν] ἀπὸ̣ γυ(μνασίου) (ἐνιαύσιον) κη (ἔτει) [(ἐτῶν) β]
[καὶ ὀμν]ύω τὴ[ν Αὐρηλίου Κομ]μόδου Ἀ̣[ντωνίνου]
[Καίσαρο]ς̣ τοῦ κυρ̣[ίου τύχ]ην̣ ο̣ὕ̣τ̣ως̣ ἔχειν̣. (ἔ̣̣τ̣ο̣υ̣ς̣) [κθ]
24 [Αὐτοκρ]άτορος Κ̣[αίσαρος] Μ̣άρκ̣ου̣ Αὐρηλίου̣
[Κομμ]όδου Ἀ[ντωνί]ν̣ου̣ Εὐ̣σεβοῦς Εὐτ̣[υχοῦς]
[Σεβασ]τ̣οῦ Ἀρμ[ενιακοῦ] Μ̣η̣δ̣ι̣κοῦ Παρ̣[θικοῦ]
[Σαρμα]τ̣ικο̣ῦ̣ Γ̣ε̣[ρμανικοῦ Μεγί]σ̣του
28 [Βρετ]α̣ννικοῦ Μ[ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ day. (2nd hand) Ἑρμαῖος] ὁ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Π̣[αθώτης]
[Ἀχι]λλέως ἐπιδέ̣δ̣[ωκα κ]α̣ὶ̣ [ὤμοσα τὸν ὅρκ]ο̣ν.̣ Ἀχ[ι]λ̣λ̣ε̣[ὺς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]
7
Sijpesteijn (see n. 2 above) 217–218 listed this text as a and b; readings reported in BL IX, 135.
8
Sijpesteijn (see n. 2 above) 218 listed one of these texts as d and mentioned the other in n. 23; readings reported in BL IX,
135 I intend to publish both of them shortly elsewhere.
[ἔγρα(ψα) ὑπ(ὲρ)] α̣(ὐτοῦ) μὴ εἰδ(ότος) γρά(μματα). (3rd hand) Ἀμ[μώ]νι̣[ος Ἀ]ν[ου]β̣ίωνος ε[ὐδο-]
[κῶ.] (4th hand) Π̣λουτίων ἔσχ[ον] ἴ̣σο̣[ν.] ———
——[——]———————
10 l. χρηματίζει 16 ϊσιδωρον
To the amphodogrammateis of the East City from Hermaios alias Pathotes son of Achilleus grandson
of Hermaios, whose mother is Eudaimonis alias Tisoïs daughter 4of Nearchos, citizen of Hermopolis,
belonging to the gymnasial order, registered in the East City.
I declare, in accordance with the orders of Aurelius Verianus the former prefect for the house-
to-house census of the 28th year of Aurelius Commodus Antoninus 8Caesar the lord, (the occupants)
of living quarters belonging to Ammonios son of Anoubion Petes grandson of Psenamounis or whatever
his official name is, registered in the East City, (the living quarters) consisting of 1⁄12th of a house and court-
yard and appurtenances in the 17th amphodon of the East City, in the presence (of the homeowner) who
also approves 12this declaration, (the occupants being) myself and my family:
–Hermaios alias Pathotes, belonging to the gymnasial class, in my 48th year;
–Hermeinos alias Moros, my son by Souerous daughter of Kastor, belonging to the gymnasial
class, in his 21st year;
16
–Isidoros, another son with the same mother, belonging to the gymnasial class, a minor in the
28th year, in his 13th year;
–Theognostos alias Moros, another son with the same mother, belonging to the gymnasial class,
a minor in the 28th year, in his 8th year;
20
in the category women:
–Souerous daughter of Kastor, belonging to the gymnasial class, my wife, in her 52nd year;
–[ . . . ]dora, our daughter, belonging to the gymnasial class, born in the 28th year, in her 2nd year;
and I swear an oath by the genius of Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Caesar the lord that it is so.
The 29th year of Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus
Armeniacus Medicus Parthicus Sarmaticus Germanicus Maximus 28Britannicus, Me[ . . . . ] (day).
(Subscription of the declarant) I, Hermaios alias Pathotes son of Achilleus, have filed (this census
declaration), and I have sworn the oath. I, Achilleus son of [ . . . . ], wrote for him because he cannot
write.
(Subscription of the homeowner) I, Ammonios son of Anoubion, approve.
(Subscription of the amphodogrammateus) I, Ploution, received a copy.
3 Τισ̣ό̣[ιτος]: the reading is confirmed by the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive. As
often, the double names are related in that both Eudaimonis and Tisoïs refer to Shaï, the Egyptian
god of fate or good fortune. See J. Quaegebeur, Le Dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’ono-
mastique (Leuven 1975), and, e.g., P. van Minnen, “A Change of Names in Roman Egypt after
A.D. 202? A Note on P.Amst. I 72,” ZPE 62 (1986) 87–92 at 91. In excerpts of the earliest census
declarations Eudaimonis alias Tisoïs is just called Tisoïs.
4 [Νεάρχ]ου: the name of the maternal grandfather is supplied from unpublished epikrisis documents
in the archive.
8 στ̣αθμ̣όν: the use of this word in census declarations is rare, but it is also implied by their use of the
word σταθμοῦχος for the homeowner, especially in Memphis, e.g. in P.Rain.Cent. 59 of AD 160
(in less formal contexts the word σταθμοῦχος is on record for Alexandria and Antinoopolis). The
word σταθμός has a distinctly archaic, Hellenistic ring to it. Cf. G. Husson, Oikia. Le Vocabulaire
de la maison privée en Égypte d’après les papyrus grecs (Paris 1983) 256.
The word σταθμός occurs in census declarations from Hermopolis otherwise for rented living
quarters (1⁄6th of a house) only in P.Hamb. I 60 of AD 90, where the homeowner is a woman. It is
used for living quarters owned by various members of the family in two other census declarations
from the archive, P.Lond. III 935 and 936. For an unclear case of σταθμός from the capital of the
Arsinoite nome see BGU XI 2086.30 of AD 234/5. For an occurrence of σταθμός in a declaration
of birth from Oxyrhynchus see P.Oxy. LXV 4489 of AD 297.
8–9 The name of the owner here, Ἀ̣μμων̣ί̣[ο]υ [Ἀνου]β̣ίωνος Πετῆ[το]ς τοῦ̣ Ψ̣εναμούνιος, is consid-
erably longer than the name he gives himself in line 30. If Πετῆ[το]ς is supposed to be the father
of Anoubion, τοῦ should have preceded it, and in that case the mention of the father of Petes
would not be necessary. I suspect that Petes is an alias of Anoubion, and that τοῦ here introduces
the grandfather, as usual in texts from Hermopolis.
9 [Ἀνου]β̣ίωνος: tentatively read with the help of line 30, where the beta is likewise uncertain, but
the second letter is a nu.
Πετῆ[το]ς: I prefer this over Πετή[σιο]ς for reasons of space. Both names occur only once in
papyri from Hermopolis, Petes in AD 109 (P.Amh. II 95: son of Petosiris) and Petesis in AD 381
(P.Lips. I 28: father of Silvanus).
10 κ̣α̣[ὶ] ὡ̣ς̣ [χρη]μ̣ατείζει: on this formula, only attested for the Roman period, see most recently
Y. Broux, S. Coussement, and M. Depauw, “Καὶ ὡς χρηματίζει and the Importance of Naming in
Roman Egypt,” ZPE 174 (2010) 159–166.
ι̅β̅ μέρου̣ς: this seems a rather small fraction of a house for a family to live in, but the size of
the house is unknown. The smallest fractions on record are 1⁄24th and 1⁄36th, both in P.Ryl. II 102.8
and 14 of the second half of the second century AD (where the fractions go with what follows, and
the preceding abbreviations should be read as σταθ(μούχων) and σταθ(μούχου) respectively, in
accordance with P.Stras. V 363.13). In P.Amh. II 75.44, 58, and 64 of AD 161–168 σταθ(μούχου)
should also be read. All three texts referred to in this paragraph are from Hermopolis.
In CPR XV 24.13–14 another 1⁄12th of a house seems to occur, but the fraction was probably pre-
ceded by (an)other(s), e.g. ἥμισυ τέταρτον, a possibility not considered by the editor.
11 ἀνηκ(όντων): the expected πάντων does not follow.
ιζ̅ ἀμ(φόδου): the bar extends over the zeta and the squiggle I take as an alpha (zeta and alpha
were written in one go). It therefore doubles as a marker of the ordinal and the suprascript mu that
marks the abbreviation of ἀμ(φόδου). On numbered amphoda in Hermopolis see the introduction.
11–12 παρόντος καὶ ε̣ὐ[δοκοῦ]ν̣τος τῇδε <τῇ> ἀπο̣[γρα(φῇ): the text here returns to the homeowner,
which is awkward coming after the description of the house in lines 10–11. I supplied <τῇ>,
because the article is rarely left out with demonstratives.
12 ἐμ]ὲ̣ α̣(ὐτὸν) καὶ τοὺς ἐμ[ούς]: the reading, not the sense, is in doubt. Before καί there is no room
for ἐμαυτόν written out in full, which occurs in all other texts of this kind. I can see a squiggle
surmounted by a faint overstroke, which could be the familiar abbreviation of αὐτός, etc. (as most
clearly in line 16 here). It would here be preceded by ἐμέ to make ἐμὲ αὐτόν, a way of writing
ἐμαυτόν not otherwise attested in papyri. Before α̣(ὐτόν) an epsilon is indeed more likely than mu;
mu would combine to ἐ]μ̣α(̣ υτόν), a likewise unattested way of writing ἐμαυτόν.
13 [μη]: the age is not preserved in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive, but according
to excerpts from earlier census declarations included there Hermaios alias Pathotes was 34, 20,
and 6(?) (in the last-mentioned case, the trace fits gamma, epsilon, or stigma, and the number has
to be less than 9, the age of an older brother).
15 [κ]α̣: the age is completely preserved in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive.
17, 19 ἀ(φήλικα) κη] (ἔτει): both Isidoros and Theognostos were minors in the year of the census, but
their older brother Hermeinos was already an adult. For the abbreviation of ἀ(φήλικα), required
by the space, see in a similar context SB XX 14666.14 (AD 161) and its duplicates.
19 [η]: the age is preserved in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive.
20 [γυ(ναικῶν): preserved in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive. In the rare case
where the abbreviation is spelled out in census declarations (P.Oxy.Hels. 10.13 of AD 34) it is
in the genitive plural.
νβ]: the age is not preserved in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive, but according to
excerpts from earlier census declarations included there Souerous was 38, 24, and, presumably, [10].
21 [ ̣ ̣ ̣]δώραν: the name of the daughter could be Isidora or Theodora, both names regularly attested
in Hermopolis in this period (Diodora only appears in the fourth century). The identity of this
daughter is addressed in the introduction.
ἡμῶν]: at this point in the unpublished epikrisis documents in the archive one finds ]ων.
(ἐνιαύσιον) κη (ἔτει) [(ἐτῶν) β]: the symbol I have resolved as (ἐνιαύσιον) is a clear alpha with
a horizontal marker to the top right. In this position we expect the age of the daughter, but instead
we appear to get her age in the preceding year, the official year of the census, the 28th year of
Commodus, first. She was thus one year old or “in her 1st year” (i.e. born) in AD 187/8. In several
other census declarations two ages are given, that in the year of the declaration and that in the
official year of the census (usually in that order, with the latter accompanied by a year date,
as here). It is odd that two ages are given here only for the daughter, but the fact that she was born
in the official year of the census made her a special case.
Kruit (see n. 5 above) 54 adduces only one papyrus, P.Stras. VIII 768.17 of AD 174/5 or later,
where ἐνιαύσιος is spelled out and used in the meaning “yearling” (with the understanding that
the child, a slave, is “in its 1st year” in our system). The adjective ἐνιαύσιος is once used for a calf,
another “yearling” (of less than one year in our system) in SB XVIII 13119 of 255 BC.
There are some less attractive alternatives. In BGU IV 1084.25–26 the age of a son is spelled
out as ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑνός (cf. presumably also PSI VII 777.12), but it is hard to see how this would be
abbreviated to just an alpha with a horizontal marker to the top right. This may, however, be the
way they pronounced an alpha preceded by the year sign, a common way in census declarations
to indicate that a child is 1 year old or “in its 1st year” in our system. In SPP IV, pp. 58–78 of
ca. AD 73, children who are 1 year old occur side-by-side with children who are 2, 3, or even
4 years old. In each case the numeral is used followed by the year sign, another common way
of denoting age. For the children who are 2, 3, or even 4 years old the editor resolves the symbols
as διετής, τριετής, and τετραετής, but for children who are 1 year old he resolves ἑνὸς ἔτους and
the rare ἑνάενος alternatively. Since ἐνιαύσιος occurs at least twice in the papyri in the meaning
“yearling” (rather than the much more common “yearly”) I prefer this over ἑνάενος or even ἑνὸς
ἔτους (for the latter one would expect the year sign, not just a horizontal marker to the top right).
Kruit (see n. 5 above) 50 suggested reading γεννηθεῖσαν τῷ] α(ὐτῷ) κη (ἔτει), but this is ruled out
by what precedes the alpha.
24 Αὐρηλίου̣: after this the scribe left a blank space, presumably because he did not want to break off
the imperial name, Κομμόδου, which would not have fitted.
27 Μεγί]σ̣του: again the scribe left a blank space at the end of the line, presumably because he did
not want to break off the imperial title, Βρεταννικοῦ, which would not have fitted.
28 Μ[ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ : either Μ[εχείρ or Μ[εσορή, rather than μ[ηνός followed by a month name in Greek,
and not another Μ[εγίστου (the titulature of Commodus seems to have had Μεγίστου only once,
usually with Γερμανικοῦ, sometimes with Βρεταννικοῦ).
Ἑρμαῖος] ὁ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Π̣[αθώτης]: again the reading, not the sense, is in doubt. Only κ̣α̣ί̣ seems reason-
ably certain.
29 Ἀχ[ι]λ̣λ̣ε̣[ύς: Achilleus is an extremely common name in Hermopolis, whereas other names starting
in Ἀχ- are all extremely rare. The lacuna following Ἀχ- is rather broad, but at the beginning of the
line [Ἀχι]- also fills a lacuna I would have estimated at 4 letters. Perhaps Ἀχειλλ- was written both
times. The patronymic at the end of the line must have been short or abbreviated. An Acheilleus
son of Ammonios subscribes for others in another contemporary papyrus from Hermopolis, BGU
III 842 II 19–20 from AD 187, but that is a copy, so the hands cannot be compared.
30 α̣(ὐτοῦ): this does not look like the familiar squiggle surmounted by an overstroke, which is
the familiar abbreviation of αὐτός, etc., but rather like a more regularly formed alpha surmounted
by an overstroke.
Ἀμ[μώ]νι̣[ος Ἀ]ν[ου]β̣ίωνος: read with the help of lines 8–9 (see the note there).
31 Π̣λουτίων: the amphodogrammateus is otherwise unknown.
In P.Lond. III 935 and 936 the subscription of the amphodogrammateus is followed by a series
of X’s. Here and below the text horizontal lines are used. A small horizontal line seems to have
been written also at the end of the subscription for the declarant in the previous line.
University of Cincinnati
No. 56
57. A Saite Book of the Dead Fragment in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology∗
Terry G. Wilfong
It is a pleasure to present this small token to Roger Bagnall in honor of his many scholarly accomplish-
ments, in appreciation for his great generosity of encouragement and effort on my behalf over the years,
and in tribute to his intellectual openness to new sources in new languages. On the off-chance that this
piece might tempt him down the paths of Middle Egyptian and hieratic, I would like to note that further
fragments from the same papyrus reside in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, just around
the corner from his office at ISAW.
Kelsey Museum of Archaeology inv. 81.4.25 was donated to the museum in 1981 as part of
the collection of Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit, who had for many years been Professor of Physics at the
University of Michigan before his death in 1978. Dr. Goudsmit acquired his collection of Egyptian
artifacts mostly in his earlier years in Europe, and this particular papyrus fragment was purchased in Paris
from the auction house Feuardent Frères in 1931.1 The piece featured in the 1982 Kelsey Museum
exhibition “A Scientist Views the Past: The Samuel A. Goudsmit Collection of Egyptian Antiquities”
and is currently on display in the museum’s permanent installation of Dynastic Egyptian material.
The papyrus includes part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, specifically a portion of the lengthy
chapter 78, entitled “Taking on the Form of a Divine Falcon.” This chapter is part of a series of transfor-
mational chapters, in which the deceased was given the power to transform into a variety of beings;2 the
text of chapter 78 itself, though, is primarily a dialogue of the deceased with a group of gods. The Kelsey
fragment includes portions of the tops of two columns of text in hieratic, inscribed on the recto only. The
hieratic handwriting is a strong literary hand, consistent with a date to the Saite Period (664–525 BCE).3
The fragment preserves the top margin of the papyrus, with a single horizontal line marking the upper
margin of a top register—blank in the present fragment, but typically used for chapter titles or illustrations.
The upper margin of the lower register containing the hieratic text is marked by a double horizontal line,
while the two columns are separated by a double vertical line. A similar format can be seen in, e.g., the
Saite Period Book of the Dead papyri of Iahtesnakht and Nespasefy.4
∗
I owe thanks to Irmtraut Munro for first pointing out to me the connection between the Kelsey fragment and the other
pieces of Khamhor’s Book of the Dead papyrus (to be published in full by Ursula Verhoeven) and to the anonymous referee
of the present volume for suggestions and references. Thanks also to Janet Richards for letting me publish this piece from
her Kelsey Museum installation and for her helpful comments, and to Andrew W. S. Ferrara for his editorial help.
This papyrus is published courtesy of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan; I would like to thank
Robin Meador-Woodruff and Sebastian Encina, former Kelsey Registrar and current Kelsey Coordinator of Museum
Collections, respectively, for help with access and images.
1
M. C. Root, A Scientist Views the Past: The Samuel A. Goudsmit Collection of Egyptian Antiquities (Ann Arbor 1982) 16,
with a brief description of the papyrus that is the basis for the entry for this papyrus in http://www.trismegistos.org, number
57072.
2
The literature on these chapters of transformation is extensive; note in particular the recent study F. Servajean, Les
Formules des transformations du Livre des morts à la lumière d’une théorie de la performativité, XVIIIe–XXe dynasties,
Bibliothèque d’étude 137 (Cairo 2003).
3
For a detailed examination of hieratic palaeography of this period, with specific reference to fragments relating to this
papyrus, see U. Verhoeven, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 99 (Leuven
2001).
4
U. Verhoeven, Das saitische Totenbuch der Iahtesnacht: P.Colon. Aeg. 10207, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 41
(Bonn 1993) and U. Verhoeven, Das Totenbuch des Monthpriester Nespasefy aus der Zeit Psammetichs I, Handschriften des
Altägyptischen Totenbuches 5 (Wiesbaden 1999), respectively.
326 Terry G. Wilfong
KM inv 81.4.25 9.8 x 9.6 cm ca. 630 BCE

Western Thebes
col. ii col. i
col. i col. ii
... Wsr Ḫꜣm]-Ḥr mꜣꜥ-ḫrw [š]tꜣ sšm.kw r ḏsrw [mn.w ...
... ꜥḥ]ꜣ=sn mꜣꜣn= nt m=f r ḏd= [ ...
... ] ꜣḫ(.w) pw nk Ḥr my ꜣḫw [ ...
... ḫt].w= ḫ d=k ḥr st=f w Ḥr ḥr nst=f w [ ... nwn=]
5 ... ꜥḥꜣ]=sn ꜥrr  ḥr ꜥwy=fy <nwn> Nwt mꜣ[ꜣ=s ...
[.wt=sn ... ] ̣ ] ̣[
col. i
1 The restoration of the name of the owner as Ḫꜣm]-Ḥr is certain, as is his identification as Wsr
“Osiris, the late”; this name is variously rendered Chaemhor, Khaemhor and, as in the present
article, Khamhor.
2 Here and in line 5 are repeated the same phrase ꜥḥꜣ=sn ꜥrrwt=sn, literally “may they beware, their
doors . . .”
3 ꜣḫ.w (plural) in most manuscripts
col. ii
1 The beginning of the first word is certain: štꜣ “secret,” as is the end of the last word mnw “hidden.”
2 In spite of the writing, mꜣꜣn= is the subjunctive sḏm=f (more correctly written mꜣꜣ= or mꜣn=), not
the perfect sḏm.n=f form.5
5
See J. F. Quack, Rev. of C. Leitz, Tagewählerei, in Lingua Aegyptia 5 (1997) 277–287 at 279 and n. 7.
57. A Saite Book of the Dead Fragment in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 327
4 The slightly later (ca. 600 BCE) papyrus of Iahtesnakht gives ḥr st t=f “on the seat of his father”
(36.17), and this is found frequently in later manuscripts, but the slightly earlier (ca. 650 BCE)
papyrus of Nespasefy (B13.2) parallels Khamhor's ḥr st=f “on his seat,” standard in earlier
manuscripts.
5 Restore nwn]=, but the verb nwn “be disheveled” should be repeated before Nut’s name as well
(as it is in both Iahtesnakht and Nespasefy).
A reading of Nwt n mꜣ[ꜣ=s ... also appears possible from the photograph, but examination of the
original shows that the apparent separate horizontal stroke after Nwt is a particularly elongated
flourish on the first stroke of the eye determinative for the verb mꜣꜣ.
A literal translation of the Kelsey Museum fragment will yield only disjointed words and phrases,
so it may be more useful to see the fragment translated in its context of Book of the Dead chapter 78. Even
with the wider context, these passages are often cryptic, but this chapter of transformation into the form of
a divine falcon sees the deceased making requests of the gods, identifying with them, and making allusion
to taking on the form of the falcon-god Horus. Using an eclectic mix of the two closest manuscripts, those
of Nespasefy and Iahtesnakhte mentioned above, I have attempted a reconstruction of the relevant portions
of the papyrus of Khamhor (favoring the earlier papyrus of Nespasefy as being closer to the Khamor text).
Words preserved in the Kelsey Museum papyrus are underlined:
col. i
… the late Kham]hor, the justified [will inquire of Geb, and he will request of the Lord-of-All that
the gods of the Underworld fear him and] their [doors] be[ware of him, when they see what you
have caught for him. I am one of these] effective spirit(s) [existing in sunlight. I have made my
form as his form, so that] my [thing]s [speak to you]. So you should cause [fear of Osiris and
create respect for him so that the gods of the Underworld fear him and] their doo[rs beware of
him ….] ... […
col. ii
... I have seen the] secret [holy place]; I am led to the hi[dden] holy places [so that she may let me
see the birth of the great god. Horus has identified me with his ba] so that I can see what is in it.
If I speak [in the presence of the great one of Shu, they will ward off the striking power. I am he,
the one who will take the possessions of Horus to Osiris in the Underworld. I am he,] I am Horus,
who is in sunlight. [I control the headband, I control the light, I come and go to the limits of
the sky. Horus is] upon his seat, Horus is upon his throne. [My face is that of a divine falcon,
my hindparts are those of a divine falcon. I am one whom his lord equips, so that I may come
forth to Busiris. When I have seen Osiris, ] I [am disheveled] before him, as Nut <is disheveled>.
[She] will see [ me as the gods have seen me …] … [ ...
As a fortuitous fragment, the Kelsey Museum papyrus provides little information beyond what
is given above. But the papyrus is part of a larger “International Book of the Dead Puzzle,” as described
by Ursula Verhoeven: a fragment of a Book of the Dead manuscript now divided among at least four
collections in Europe and the US.6 Verhoeven reconstructed Khamhor’s papyrus from fragments in
Providence, Florence and New York, and to this can now be added the fragment in Ann Arbor published
above. Although the Kelsey Museum fragment does not directly join any of the other known portions
of Khamhor’s papyrus, it does add a new chapter to his copy of the Book of the Dead and permits some
discussion of the papyrus and its context. (A full edition of the known fragments of this papyrus is in
6
U. Verhoeven, “Internationales Totenbuch-Puzzle,” Revue d’Égyptologie 49 (1998) 221–237 at 223–224.
preparation by Ursula Verhoeven, and what follows must be seen as provisional until the full edition is
completed.)
Three of the fragments of Khamhor’s papyrus were, like the Kelsey piece, obtained through the
antiquities market in the twentieth century. Perhaps the earliest of these to come to light is the fragment
in the John Hay Library of Brown University (John Hay Library no. A 18077), said to have been given
“by an anonymous donor at an unrecorded date, possibly at the turn of the century” along with a group of
other Book of the Dead fragments.7 The Kelsey Museum fragment was purchased in Paris in 1931, and
two other fragments were acquired in 1956 for the Museo egizio in Florence from a dealer in Florence.8
The Ann Arbor and Florence pieces may well have been on the market for some years before their acqui-
sition. If Khamhor’s papyrus were known only from the fragments obtained through purchase, one could
posit a common story of the finding of a papyrus in the 19th century, its subsequent division into smaller
pieces for sale and their gradual dispersal through the antiquities market.
But the most substantial portion of the Khamhor papyrus, some four large fragments and many
smaller pieces, was found by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Egyptian Expedition in their 1923–1924
season in Western Thebes, under the direction of H. E. Winlock, and accessioned (via the Rogers Fund)
in 1925 under accession numbers 25.3.212a–f.9 The papyrus fragments were found in Deir el-Bahri tomb
57.10 The New York fragments preserve full sections of the papyrus roll, showing the original height of
the papyrus to have been around 35 cm, and also show more of the overall format of the papyrus: some
columns are like the Ann Arbor fragment, with a narrow upper register for chapter titles or illustrations
above a larger lower register for columns of hieratic texts, but other columns also include a middle register
for illustrations (with correspondingly less room for hieratic text below). The New York fragments reveal
that Khamhor’s Book of the Dead papyrus was left unfinished; although the Florence fragments from
earlier in the roll show illustrations in their upper registers, the upper registers of the New York fragments
are left blank.11 The text of the New York fragments contains further identification of Khamhor that
allows the owner of the papyrus to be identified with a known individual of the Saite Period.12
Khamhor, son of Ramaakheru and Kakaiu,13 was a member of a prominent, high elite Theban
family in the period of the transition from the 25th dynasty and the end of the period of Nubian rule of
Egypt to the 26th dynasty and the return of indigenous Egyptian rule in the Saite Period. Khamhor was
closely related to the well-known Montuemhat, Fourth Prophet of Amun and Mayor of Thebes, who died
around 650 BCE.14 Khamhor was, in his lifetime, Priest of Montu (the falcon-headed god associated with
war and based at Thebes) and held a number of priestly titles and related offices. Khamhor’s father was
7
R. A. Caminos, “Fragments of the Book of the Dead on Linen and Papyrus,” JEA 56 (1970) 117–131 at 130. Mummy
bandages in the John Hay Library have a more definite source (donated in 1903 by a known donor) and the Khamhor
fragment may have been a part of this donation.
8
S. Bosticco, “Due frammenti di un papiro funerario nel Museo egizio di Firenze,” Aegyptus 37 (1957) 71–76.
9
Information from the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s online database, accessed 25 May 2011 at: http://www.metmuseum.
org/works_of_art/collection_database/egyptian_art/listview.aspx?page=1&sort=6&sortdir=asc&keyword=kham-hor&fp=1
&dd1=10&dd2=0&vw=0, although the reference in the database to the findspot of the papyrus as “TT57” is clearly an error
for tomb 57 of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s own excavations at Deir el-Bahri.
10
For the tomb and problems of the find, see J. Elias, Coffin Inscription in Egypt after the New Kingdom: A Study of Text
Production and Use in Elite Mortuary Preparation (Ph.D. Diss. University of Chicago 1993) 251–255.
11
See the color illustration in W. Forman and S. Quirke, Hieroglyphs and the Afterlife (Norman 1996) 155, but incorrectly
identified as being from the contemporary papyrus of Nespasefy.
12
Verhoeven, “Internationales Totenbuch-Puzzle,” 223–224.
13
Designated by modern scholars as “Khamhor C” to distinguish from other like-named relatives and contemporaries; see
K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), 3rd ed. (Warminster 1996) 230–231.
14
The Goudsmit collection also included a funerary cone from the Theban tomb of Montuemhat, KM inv. 81.4.19, published
in J. E. Richards and T. G. Wilfong, Preserving Eternity: Modern Goals, Ancient Intentions. Egyptian Funerary Artifacts
in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology (Ann Arbor 1995) 48–49.
57. A Saite Book of the Dead Fragment in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 329
at one point Mayor of Thebes, and Khamhor himself is given this title in at least one instance, although
this may be in error.15 Khamhor is thought to have died around 630 BCE, hence the date for his papyrus.16
Khamhor was buried with other priestly relatives and associates in one of the mass burials of
Montu priests at Deir el-Bahri excavated by Auguste Mariette in 1858.17 Mariette recovered at least
Khamhor’s coffin lid (now Cairo Museum CG 41068),18 but there is considerable ambiguity as to
precisely where this find was made at Deir el-Bahri. Tomb 57, in which fragments of Khamhor’s papyrus
were found, would seem a logical location, but it is identified as the tomb of a 23rd Dynasty man named
Harwa. The excavator H. E. Winlock was of the opinion that the papyrus fragments had blown there
from a nearby tomb that had been looted, and he also noted another nearby tomb that contained inscribed
mummy bandages relating to Khamhor’s family.19 Winlock’s excavations included a number of tombs
that had previously been excavated by Mariette and often uncovered material that Mariette had overlooked
or left behind. Whether fragments of Khamhor’s papyrus were dispersed into tomb 57 and elsewhere as
a result of an ancient or modern looting, to be found and sold onto the antiquities market, or whether this
happened as a direct or indirect result of Mariette’s 1858 excavation is not clear.
The unfinished state of Khamhor’s papyrus may suggest a premature or unexpected death and a
hasty burial, but may also be a result of its position at an interesting juncture in the history of the Book of
the Dead.20 In the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period the Book of the Dead was a compilation
of chapters chosen from a larger corpus, known as the “Theban Recension,” in which selection and
ordering of chapters varied from manuscript to manuscript. There is a gap in the use of the Book of the
Dead on papyrus (or indeed any funerary text on papyrus) from about 850–700 BCE, a period in which
funerary papyri seem to disappear altogether.21 The Book of the Dead that emerges from this gap period
is a substantially different document from its predecessor: the so-called “Saite Recension” of the Book of
the Dead featured a standardized ordering of chapters (upon which the modern numbering system is based)
and a more standardized and systematic inclusion of chapters from the corpus. Khamhor’s papyrus is part
of the relatively small group of Saite Period Book of the Dead papyri of the seventh century BCE that are
the earliest known instances of the new arrangement.22 As a relative novelty, Khamhor’s papyrus may
have taken longer to copy and illustrate than anticipated, thus leading to its unfinished state at the time
of Khamhor’s burial. Book of the Dead papyri remained relatively scarce in Khamhor’s time, and do
not become common again until the fourth century BCE. The Book of the Dead as a standardized corpus
flourished in the earlier Ptolemaic period, and there are many substantial papyri that rely on the Saite
Recension text. Khamhor’s papyrus thus marks the beginning of a transition in Egyptian funerary
literature that lasts into the Graeco-Roman period. Eventually, though, this Book of the Dead ultimately
15
Khamhor’s titles are summarized in Elias, 251, n. 52, and 540.
16
Verhoeven, “Internationales Totenbuch-Puzzle,” 223.
17
The tombs of the Montu priests at Deir el-Bahri are discussed in C. M. Sheikholeslami, “The Burials of Priests of
Montu at Deir el-Bahari in the Theban Necropolis,” in N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds.), The Theban Necropolis: Past,
Present and Future (London 2003) 131–137 (but here the owner of the Metropolitan Museum of Art fragments is given as
Khamhor A, 235).
18
Described, with references, in Elias, 537–538, 540–542.
19
H. E. Winlock, Excavations at Deir el Bahri 1911–1931 (New York 1942) 98; note the substantial discussion of Winlock’s
statements and the possible location of Khamhor’s tomb in Elias, 251–255.
20
See Forman and Quirke, 154–155, and, more recently, J. F. Quack, “Redaktion und Kodifizierung im spätzeitlichen
Ägypten: Der Fall des Totenbuches,” in J. Schaper (ed.), Die Textualisierung der Religion, Forschungen zum Alten Testa-
ment 62 (Tübingen 2009) 11–34.
21
S. Quirke, Owners of Funerary Papyri in the British Museum, British Museum Occasional Papers 92 (London 1993) 19.
22
Quirke, 21, lists only six papyri from this transitional period, but a few more are known, e.g. the papyrus of Pefiuiu
described in Verhoeven, “Internationales Totenbuch-Puzzle,” 222–223. Note also now the late 25th dynasty papyrus
of Tashepenkhonsu, which appears to be the earliest papyrus of this group: Irmtraut Munro, Der Totenbuch-Papyrus der
Ta-schep-en-Chonsu aus der späten 25. Dynastie, Handscriften des Altägyptischen Totenbuches 10 (Wiesbaden 2009).
gave way to the complex variety of derivatives, related compositions and new works found in funerary
papyri of the later Ptolemaic and Roman periods,23 before indigenous language funerary texts disappeared
altogether from Egypt by ca. 200 CE.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
No. 57
23
For which, see the recent survey M. Smith, Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt
(Oxford 2009).
58–69. Greek Ostraka from the Mut Precinct, South Karnak
K. A. Worp, with a preface by R. Fazzini
I. Preface
by Richard Fazzini
In a quarter century of fieldwork at the Precinct of Mut at South Karnak, the Brooklyn Museum Mut
Expedition has discovered 42 ostraka: 29 written in Demotic and 13 in Greek. The Demotic ostraka were
published in 1988.1 The Greek ostraka, including 2 found since 1988, are the subject of the present article.
In 1977, a group of 17 ostraka was found together in a sealed context, below the floor of a room
in a late Ptolemaic–early Roman building west of the Taharqa Gate. Unfortunately, the remaining ostraka
all come from the upper levels of debris over destroyed buildings, making their findspots somewhat
irrelevant. It can be noted, however, that none were found inside the site’s temples; all came from areas
outside the sacred buildings where secular structures had been built in Ptolemaic and Roman times.
The Brooklyn Museum’s discovery of the northwest corner of the precinct’s Tuthmoside
enclosure wall in 1983, complete with a gate in the west wall with cartouches of Tuthmosis III and
Tuthmosis II (probably replacing erased Hatshepsut cartouches),2 strongly suggests that the northern limit
of the New Kingdom Mut Precinct was most likely on a line with the Mut Temple’s present first pylon.
Temple A, northeast of the Mut Temple, stood outside the precinct in an area called ipet/opet throughout
the New Kingdom.3 Its function during Dynasty 18 is unknown, but by the reign of Ramesses II, who
enlarged the temple, adding a forecourt and a pylon fronted by two colossal statues and two colossal
alabaster stelae, it had become a “Temple of Millions of Years.”4
In Dynasty 25, King Taharqa expanded the precinct to the north to take in Temple A, building
a monumental gateway in the new west wall of the precinct to create a processional way leading directly
to the temple, which by then had become a mammisi.5 As the Brooklyn Museum expedition has recently
confirmed, the south end of the Taharqa Gate enclosure wall abutted the Tuthmoside temenos wall,6 which
seems to have continued in useful existence through at least the early Ptolemaic Period. The massive
enclosure walls that gave the precinct its final trapezoidal shape were probably built either in Dynasty 30
or the early Ptolemaic Period.7 Fig. 1 shows the northern half of the precinct with the major buildings
indicated.
The Mut Temple and Temple A continued to function through the early Roman Period, with eight
stelae from the time of Tiberius attesting to his completion of repairs within the Mut Precinct begun by
1
R. Jasnow, “Demotic Ostraca from the Mut Precinct in Karnak,” Enchoria 16 (1988) 23–48, with a preface by R. Fazzini.
2
For more details, see R. Fazzini, “Report on the 1983 Season of Excavation at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut,” ASAE
70 (1984–1985) 287–307, and R. Fazzini, “Some Aspects of the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom,” in
E. Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen
(Winona Lake, Ind. 2002) 63–76.
3
For a discussion of the identification of Temple A with ipet/opet, see R. Fazzini, “Report on the Brooklyn Museum’s 2008
Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak,” (http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/ features/mut/
uploads/Preliminary_Report_2008.pdf), p. 6.
4
See R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The 1982 Season at Mut,” NARCE 120 (winter 1982) 43–45, and R. Fazzini, ASAE
70 (1984–1985) 306–307, for discussions of Temple A’s development.
5
See R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: A Growing Picture,”
SSEAJ 11 (1981)115–126.
6
R. Fazzini, “The 2010 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of Mut,” ASAE (forthcoming).
7
On the possible construction dates of the enclosure wall, see R. Fazzini, Leaving No Stones Unturned, 70.
332 Klaas A. Worp
Augustus.8 Outside the sacred confines, however, more secular buildings began to encroach on the site.
Beginning perhaps in the 2nd century BCE, a series of buildings grew up west of the Taharqa Gate,
eventually blocking the gateway. In their later phases, at least, these buildings were habitations whose
pottery and small finds suggested a late Ptolemaic–early Roman date. The cache of 17 ostraka discovered
in 1977 came from one of these houses. The expedition record numbers of the Greek ostraka from the
cache are 2M.93 (59), 2M.94 (61), 2M.98 (67), 2M.99 (63), 2M.100 (62) , 2M.108a–b (58). Three
other Greek ostraka were found that same season in the same general area: 2M.3 (60), 2M.12 (64) and
2M.113 (practically illegible and not transcribed). As mentioned earlier, these latter ostraka come from
the disturbed upper levels of debris over the buildings. Two more Demotic ostraka were found in the same
area in 1978, in similar circumstances. The earliest date on the Demotic ostraka from this area is 10/11 CE,
the latest 36/37 CE.9
In 1983 and 1985 the expedition uncovered houses built on the west side of and encroaching on
the Tuthmoside enclosure wall in the area of the gateway uncovered in 1983.10 These structures, too, are
late Ptolemaic–early Roman in date, based on pottery and small finds. Of the 8 Demotic ostraka found in
this area, only 2 could be dated;11 the rest R. Jasnow identified simply as late Ptolemaic to early Roman.12
In 2009 and 2010 the expedition began exploring the area south and west of the Taharqa Gate.
Here, too, was a complex of mud brick buildings whose upper levels were even more badly damaged than
the buildings north and west of the gate.13 The southern buildings are bounded on the east by the west wall
of a corridor leading south from the Taharqa Gate and on the south by a baked brick building (possibly
a bath or a facility for dyeing cloth14) built on top of the remains of the Tuthmoside enclosure wall. Their
purpose and function is unclear, but the little that has been exposed to date suggests they are part of
a single, large complex. Pottery and small finds suggest a date in the Roman Period, possibly as late as
the 2nd century CE. Immediately below the modern surface, two thick layers of ash cover all of the area
south of the Taharqa Gate explored to date. The fire that created the lower layer of ash actually burned
the tops of some of the bricks, so these buildings had been destroyed almost to their foundations by
the time the fire occurred. From this lower ash level came two Greek ostraka: 23MW.20 and 23MW.31
(see 65 and 66).
Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay, who excavated the Mut Temple in 1895–1897, and Maurice
Pillet, who cleared Temple A in the 1920s, make no mention of intrusive mud brick buildings within the
courts of either temple. Given the archaeological standards of their times, that is not surprising. However,
it does mean that we cannot say for certain that such structures did not exist.
In 1978 the Brooklyn Museum expedition uncovered a forecourt to Temple A along whose west
side were discovered the foundations of a mud brick pylon that had been faced with limestone;15 this
is presumably the pylon built by Ramesses II when he enlarged the temple (see above). The presence of
8
The most recent discussion of these stelae is in an unpublished dissertation by D. Klotz, Kneph: the Religion of Roman
Thebes (PhD diss., Yale University 2008) 386–407. He notes (p. 354, n. 183 and p. 386, n. 297) that P. Collombert is
preparing a new publication of all the Tiberius stelae describing his works in Theban temples.
9
R. Jasnow, Enchoria 16 (1988) 27–37.
10
R. Fazzini, ASAE 70 (1984–1985) 287-307.
11
Expedition no. 7M.21 is 23/24 CE; 7M.28 is possibly 2/1 BCE; see R. Jasnow, Enchoria 16 (1988) 39–41.
12
13
See R. Fazzini, “Report on the Brooklyn Museum’s 2009 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at
South Karnak” (http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/uploads/Preliminary_Report_2009.pdf) and “The Brooklyn
Museum’s 2010 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak” (http://www.brooklynmuseum.
org/ uploads/Preliminary_Report__2010.pdf).
14
R. Fazzini, “Report on the Brooklyn Museum’s 2009 Season,” 6–7.
15
While Pillet mentioned both the court and the pylon in his excavation notes, his publication of his work at the site mentions
neither.
58–69. Greek Ostraka from the Mut Precinct, South Karnak 333
drains, a large well and the foundations of a kiln (discovered in 200716) suggests that late in the temple’s
history the forecourt was converted from religious to secular use. Along the south side of the court were
extensive walls of mud brick and baked brick that again appear to be late Ptolemaic or early Roman
in date. From the debris over these walls came one undated Demotic ostrakon (Expedition no. 3M.58),
that R. Jasnow calls “late Ptolemaic/early Roman(?).”17 Within the forecourt itself no mud brick remains
were found.
North of the Mut Temple the situation was different. In 1979, the expedition found mud brick
walls built against the face of the east tower of the Mut Temple’s first pylon. When completely excavated,
beginning in 2006, they proved to be a series of vaulted chambers that may have begun as storage
magazines but seem to have been used as housing in their latest phase. Their use ended with a fire that
destroyed the whole complex. In 1979 two Greek ostraka were found in the debris over the destruction
level at the east end of the buildings: Expedition nos. 4M.94 and 4M.96 (68 and 69). While the excavation
of these buildings turned up no more ostraka, a number of coins were found. The latest dates to the reign
of Antoninus Pius, suggesting a mid-2nd-century date for the destruction of the buildings.18
Fig. 1 View east across the north half of the Mut Precinct (photograph: James Van Rensselaer IV for
the Johns Hopkins University Mut Expedition)
16
R. Fazzini, “The Brooklyn Museum’s 2007 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of Mut, South Karnak,” ASAE 82 (2008)
67–87; also available online (http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/uploads/Preliminary_report_2007.pdf).
17
18
The excavation of these structures is described in the reports on the work of the 2006 to 2009 season. The 2006 and 2007
reports appeared in ASAE 81 (2007) 101–115 and ASAE 82 (2008) 67–87 respectively and are available online at
www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut as well. The 2008 and 2009 reports are available online only at this time.
334 Klaas A. Worp
II. The Texts

by Klaas A. Worp19
58–59. Two Receipts for Poll-Tax and Bath-Tax
The combination of poll- and bath-taxes (λαογραφία, βαλανευτικόν) in these two tax receipts is well
attested in Southern Egypt (in the latest instance, cf. the remarks by P. Heilporn in O.Stras. II, pp. 87ff.):
out of 107 attestations of this combination presented by the DDbDP, 104 such texts come from Thebes
(the other 3 are from Edfou). For parallel texts from the Theban area, see in particular O.Bodl. II 463–466,
O.Stras. I 61, O.Wilck. 367, 370, 373–374, 1549, and SB XVIII 13185 = O.Erem. 7. All of these were
written between 33–35 CE and most of them signed by Πετεμεν(ῶφις) Πικ(ῶτος) (in O.Erem. 7 = SB
XVIII 13185.5 the signature was read originally as Πετεμεν(ῶφις) πρά(κτωρ); in BL II.1, 7 [sub
Archiv 5 (1913) 170–171] it was proposed to change this into either Πετεμεν(ῶφις) τρα(πεζίτης) or
Πετεμεν(ῶφις) Πικ(ῶτος); a check of a photo of the ostrakon kindly provided by R. Ast allows me
to prefer a reading Πετεμ(ενῶφις) τρα(πεζίτης)). On this man, cf. the corrections already proposed in
O.Wilck. (Amsterdam 19702) for nos. 367, 370, 373 and 374; cf. furthermore the remarks by R. Bogaert
in ZPE 57 (1984) 255–256 = idem, Trapezitica (Firenze 1994 = Pap.Flor. XXV) 166–167, and below,
Appendix, 340–341.
58
2M.108a+b (joined) 13.1 x 6.9 cm August 22, 29
Thebes (South Karnak)
[Διέγρα(ψεν) Μιυσε]ως Πετεχενσπ(οχράτου) ὑπ(ὲρ)

λαογ(ραφίας) ιε ἔτους (δρ.) δέκα καὶ βαλ(ανευτικοῦ) μίαν ὀβολ(ὸν) (ἡ̣μ̣ι̣ω̣β̣.),
(γίν.) (δρ.) ια (ὀβ.) (ἡμιωβ.) καὶ τὰ τούτων προσδ(ιαγραφόμενα) ἐξ̣ (ὀ̣β̣.) (ἡ̣μ̣ι̣ω̣β̣.)
4 Ἔτους ιε Τιβερίου Καίσαρος
Σεβασ̣τ̣ο̣ῦ̣, Μ̣ε̣σωρὴ κ̅θ̅.
6–7 Name of signer(s), much faded
2 l. Μιῦσις 6 l. Μεσορή
Miysis, son of Petechenspochrates, has paid for the poll-tax of the 15th year ten dr. and for the bath-tax
one drachma 1.5 obol, in total 11 dr. 1.5 ob. and the surcharges at 1.5 ob. Year 15 of Tiberius Caesar
Augustus, Mesore 29 (Signer’s name).
1 Apparently, Miysis son of Petechenspochrates (also occurring in 59, written five years later) is not
yet attested elsewhere. In other documents, the regular form of the father’s name is Petechespo-
chrates (for this name, cf. most recently the remarks by P. Heilporn in O.Stras. II, p. 117, n. 289).
The genitive form Μιύσεως instead of the nominative Μιῦσις as the subject of the verb διέγρα(ψεν)
may have been caused by other tax receipts which featured a formula ὀνόματος + name of the
taxpayer in the genitive, or by a preposition διά preceding the name of a representative.
19
I am grateful to my colleague R. Demaree (Leiden) for bringing these ostraka to my attention and to Richard Fazzini
(Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn NYC) for inviting me to publish them and for adding a preface on the archaeological context
of these texts (see the first part of this contribution). Moreover, I wish to convey my best wishes to the honorandus of this
Festschrift, Roger S. Bagnall, with whom I worked closely together for most of my own scholarly career and to whom I owe
so much.
4 Year 15 of Tiberius covers the year 28/29; Mesore 29 = August 22, hence the date of the receipt
is August 22, 29.
6 The name of the signer may start in Πετε-, but this man is not likely to be identical with
Πετεμενῶφις son of Πικῶς, because that banker is attested only between the years 33 and 42,
cf. 59.4n.
No. 58
59
2Μ.93 10 x 9.7 cm June 1, 34
Διαγέγρα(φεν) Μιυσεως Πετεχενσπ(οχράτου) ὑπ(ὲρ) λαογ(ραφίας) κ (ἔτους) (δρ.) δέκα

καὶ βαλ(ανευτικοῦ) μίαν ὀβολ(ὸν) (ἡμιωβ.), (γίν.) (δρ.) ια (ὀβ.) (ἡμιωβ.) καὶ τὰ τούτων
προσδ(ιαγρ.)
ἐξ (ὀβ.) (ἡμιωβ.). (Ἔτους) κ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ
4 Παχὼ(ν) λ̅ ζ̅. Πετεμε(νῶφις) Πικ(ῶτος).
1 l. Μιῦσις
Miysis, son of Petechenspochrates, has paid for the poll-tax of the 20th year ten dr. and for the bath-tax
one <drachma> 1 obol, in total 11 dr. 1 ob., and the surcharges at 1.5 ob. Year 20 of Tiberius Caesar
Augustus, Pachon 30, 7. Petemenophis son of Pikos has signed.
1 For the same taxpayer, cf. 58 (written five years earlier), note to line 1.
3 Year 20 of Tiberius covers the year 33/34.
4 In the Theban ostraka in general, continuation of the counting of day numerals beyond 30 is
nothing abnormal, see O.ROM II 84.4n. where Wilcken’s suggestion (cf. O.Wilck. I 813–815)
336 Klaas A. Worp
is repeated that such dates refer to tax payments made in the month that followed after the month
mentioned but credited as of the last day of the earlier month.
Pachon λ̅ ζ̅ (= 30+7) = June 1. A parallel for the day numeral is found in O.Bodl. II 525 (112,
Mecheir 37), 522 (108, Phamenoth 37), O.Leid. 79 (75, Pharmouthi 37), O.Bodl. II 849 (132,
Pachon 37), 823 (106) and O.ROM II 99 (before 107) [both Pauni 37]. A thirty-eighth (λ η) day
occurs in O.Bodl. II 624 (110, Phaophi), 826 (109, Hathyr), 495, 496 (both 79, Mecheir), 516
(101, Phamenoth), 512 (97), O.Leid. 98 (120) [both Pharmouthi], O.Bodl. II 821 (106, Pachon)
and 462 (32, Mesore). The DDbDP produces an attestation of “Pachon 38” also in SPP VIII 809
(Arsinoites, 6th century), but inspection shows that this is an editorial error for “Pachon 28.”
Finally, the day numeral λ θ (= 39) is found in O.Bodl. II 619 (104) and 841 (121) [both Phaophi],
523 (109, Mecheir), 515 (100, Pharmouthi), 1127 (75, Pachon); O.Leid. 85 (1st century, Pauni).
There seem to be no attestations of any day numeral higher than 39.
According to R. Bogaert, ZPE 57 (1984) 255–256 = idem, Trapezitica (Firenze 1994 = Pap.Flor.
XXV) 166–167, a Petemenophis son of Pikos is attested 29 times between the years 33 and 42.
No. 59
60. Receipt for Dyke-Tax and Bath-Tax

2M.3 6 x 3.8 cm Late I BCE–Early I CE
The combination of dyke- and bath-taxes (χωματικόν, βαλανευτικόν) in this tax receipt is also very well
attested in Southern Egypt. Cf. the recent remarks by P. Heilporn in O.Stras. II, pp. 87ff.
Διαγέγραφ̣(ε) [ N.N. ]
Ψεναμ[oύνιος ὑπ(ὲρ) χω(ματικοῦ) n (ἔτους) (δραχμὰς) ἓξ (τετρώβ.)]
καὶ βαλ(ανευτικοῦ) τετρ̣[ώβ(ολον) (ἡμιώβέλιον), (γίν.) (δρ.) ζ = c καὶ]
4 προσδ(ιαγραφόμενα) ἐξ ὀβ[(ολοῦ) (ἡμιώβελίου). (Ἔτους) n Ν.Ν.]

Καίσαρο[ς Σεβαστοῦ]
μ̣ηνὸ[ς name, day]
Has paid N.N. son of Psenamounis for the dyke-tax of the nth year six dr. 4 ob. and for the bath-tax
four and a half ob., in total 7 dr. 2.5 ob. and the surcharges at 1.5 ob. Year n of N.N. Caesar Augustus,
in the month X (on the nth day).
1 Unfortunately, the name of the taxpayer is not fully preserved. All we know is that he was the son
of a certain Psenam[ounis]. Τhe perfect form of the verb, διαγέγραφ̣(ε), occurs throughout the first
century CE, with a number of attestations as late as the
year 107; after that year one finds only a few isolated later
attestations in the years 114, 115, 136, 139 (cf. O.Bodl. II
1152, 882 [?], 896, 814), but the last three instances may
all be taken as uncertain (a misreading δια(γέγραφε)
instead of διέ(γραψε) seems easy enough, cf. the remarks
by P. Heilporn in O.Stras. II, p. 29 with n. 117).
2–3 For the tax restored in l. 2, cf. O.Bodl. II 591–598, 600;
O.Deiss. 36 = SB I 4355; O.Petr. 77, O.ROM I 8; O.Stras.
I 60–61; O.Wilb. 14; O.Wilck. II 378, 386, 1374; SB XVIII
13606 (all written in the period between the years 32 and
50). All of these Theban tax receipts feature a combination
of dyke-tax with bath-tax (another common combination
is that of poll-tax and bath-tax, cf. the two texts published
above). In the case of our text, the total amount of 7 dr.
2.5 ob. speaks in favour of the first option (cf. also O.Wilck.
II 368).
6 It seems reasonable to suppose that the lost month name
was situated between Epeiph and Phaophi, cf. O.Stras. II,
p. 87, n. 110. No. 60
61–62. Two Receipts for Bath-Tax
A search for bath-tax receipts issued between the years 20 and 30 in the Theban area in the DDbDP
produces O.Bodl. II 590, 655–658, 2583, O.Cair. 44, O.Leid. 46, 86, O.Petr. 115, and O.Wilck. II 1263; not
mentioned are O.Stras. I 260 (23 CE)–263 (29 CE), perhaps because they are provenanced “Oberägypten”
rather than “Theben.” For the bath-tax in Egypt in general, the discussion by S. L. Wallace, Taxation in
Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton 1938) 155–159, remains authoritative.
61
2Μ.94 5 x 8.8 cm May 1, 22
Πετεχῶν Ψενχνο̣ύ̣μι̣ ο(ς)

καὶ μετοχων Πετεχεσπ(οχράτει)
Ζμήτι̣ο̣ς χα(ίρειν)· ἀπέχωι ὑπ(ὲρ) βαλ(ανευτικοῦ)
338 Klaas A. Worp
4 (δρ.) β τοῦ η (ἔτους) Τιβερίου Καίσαρος

Σεβαστοῦ, Παχὼν ϛ̅.
2 l. μέτοχοι 3 l. ἀπέχω
Petechon son of Psenchnoumis and colleagues to Petechespochrates son of Zmetis, greetings. I have
received for the bath-tax 2 dr. for the 8th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus (on) Pachon 6.
1 The same collector appears also in O.Bodl. II 656 (July 8, 22) and in O.Cair. 44 (August 23, 23).
Obviously, one of the colleagues of Petechon was a certain Sarapion, cf. the next item.
4 Year 8 of Tiberius = 21/22, Pachon 6 = May 1, hence the date of the text is May 1, 22.
62
2Μ.100 8.3 x 9.5 cm April 9, 23
Σαραπίων καὶ μέτοχ(οι)

Πετεχεσποχ(ράτει) Σμήθιος
χ(αίρειν)· ἀπέχ(ω) βαλ(ανευτικὸν) Κερ(αμείων) τοῦ θ ἔτους
4 Τιβερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ
Φαρμ(οῦθι) ιγ̅.
Sarapion and colleagues to Petechespochrates son of Smethis, greetings. I have received the bath-tax for
the Kerameia for the 9th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, (on) Phamouthi 13.
1 The same tax collector Sarapion is attested thus far only in O.Deiss. 12 (April 25, 22) and in
O.Stras. I 260 (23).
2 The same taxpayer is mentioned in 61.3.
3–5. Year 9 of Tiberius = 22/23, Pharmouthi 13 = April 9, hence the date of the receipt is April 9, 23.
No. 61 No. 62
63. Receipt For Bath(?)-Tax

2M.99 10.2 x 9.2 cm 23/24
Ἀπολλ very faded traces

Σ ̣ ̣ ̣ηο̣υς̣ Πε̣τ̣ε̣ traces χ̣α̣ί-̣
ρ̣ιν· ἔχω(μεν) ὑπὲρ ⸌ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣⸍ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
4 (Ἔτους) ι̅ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος
Σ̣ε̣β̣α(στοῦ) Month β
traces
2–3 l. χ̣αίρειν 3 l. ἔχο(μεν)
Apollodorus and N.N. to N.N. son of Pete--, greetings. We have received for [bath-tax of the nth year
n dr.?]. Year 10 of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, [month] 2.
No. 63
340 Klaas A. Worp
1 Probably this is the same collector Apollodoros as in O.Stras. I 261 (May 7, 25) and O.Petr. 115
(June 7, 25). Of course, one expects the same name for Apollodorus’s colleague (in O.Stras.
a certain Φανεχω̣μ̣( ), versus in O.Petr. a certain Φαιβίω(ν)) and the same formula, cf. ἔχομ(εν)
τὸ βαλ(ανικὸν) ια (ἔτους) in O.Stras. I 261.3 versus ἔχω(μεν) (δραχμὰς) β βαλ(ανευτικὸν) ια
(ἔτους) in O.Petr. 115.3. It is, of course, not much of a problem to resolve βαλ(ανευτικὸν) also
in the O.Stras., but it is a much more drastic change from τὸ to (δραχμὰς) β, or vice versa. The
original ostraka should be checked.
2 One expects here the name of the addressee (in the dative; apparently, a nominative of a name
in -ους has been written instead) + a patronymic starting in Pete-, but I have not been able to
read anything certain.
3 Here, a phrasing like ὑπὲρ βαλ(ανευτικοῦ) (δρ.) β τοῦ n (ἔτους) is expected (cf 61.3–4), but
the writing is faded to such an extent that I cannot really read this.
4–5 Year 10 of Tiberius is 23/24; the alternative might be to read (Ἔτους) γ = 16/17, but that would
create a problem as regards the person of the tax collector (cf. above, l. 1n.). In itself, the normal
regnal formula for Tiberius, i.e. Τιβερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ is expected, but it is true that at
the start of l. 5 the reading of most of Σ̣ε̣β̣α(στοῦ) is very uncertain. After the imperial titulature
one expects a month name. It looks as if the letters οι have been written, but I cannot convince
myself that the month in question reads indeed Χοιάκ or Παοῖνι, the more so as the first letters
after the alpha of Σ̣ε̣β̣α(στοῦ) look like ιυ, with a vague ink trace intervening between ιυ and οι.
A reading of Χοιά(κ) instead of Σ̣ε̣β̣α(στοῦ) seems also most hazardous.
6 I cannot determine whether these traces belong to a Greek subscription or are in fact remains of
a line in Demotic writing.
Appendix: Collectors of Bath-Tax Mentioned in Texts from the Theban Area, 15–35 CE
Date by Name(s) + Function Indication Reference

D/M/Y
6.08.19 Μεσοῆρις Ἀμμωνίου καὶ μέτοχοι O.Petr. 114
28.07.20 Μεσοῆρις Ἀμμωνίου καὶ μέτοχοι O.Bodl. II 738
19/20 Πασῆμις καὶ μέτοχοι βαλανευταί O.Wilck.1263
15.08.21 Ἀσκλᾶς καὶ οἱ μέτοχοι πράκτορες βαλανευτικοῦ O.Bodl. II 655
25.04.22 Σαραπίων καὶ μέτοχοι O.Deiss. 12
1.05.22 Πετεχῶν Ψενχνούμιος καὶ μέτοχοι 61
8.07.22 Πετεχῶν Ψενχνούμιος καὶ μέτοχοι βαλανευταί O.Bodl. II 656
1.08.22 Παμώνθης Πανομιεῦτος καὶ μέτοχοι O.Bodl. II 657
22/23 Πασῆμις Ἀσκλᾶτος O.Leid. 46
9.04.23 Σαραπίων καὶ μέτοχοι 62
23.07.23 Σαραπίων καὶ μέτοχοι O.Stras. I 260
18.08.23 Πετεχῶν Ψενχνούμιος καὶ μέτοχοι O.Cair. 44
23/24 Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ N.N. 63
7.06.25 Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Φαιβίω(ν) O.Petr. 115
7.05.25 Ἀπολλόδωρος καὶ Φανεχω̣μ(̣ ) O.Stras. I 261
19.07.26 Ἀσκλᾶς πράκτωρ θεαγῶν O.Stras. I 262 + ΒL II.1, 29
18.07.29 Ἀσκλᾶς πράκτωρ θεαγῶν O.Bodl. II 739
19.07.29 Ἀσκλᾶς πράκτωρ θεαγῶν O.Stras. I 263 + ΒL II.1, 29
19.08.29 Ἁρφμόις καὶ μέτοχοι O.Bodl. II 658
4.10.32 Πικῶς Κεφάλου (Signer) O.Stras. I 60
26.02.33 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος (Signer) O.Wilck. 367
25.05.33 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος (Signer) O.Bodl. II 463

08–09.33 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος (Signer) O.Deiss. 36
27.09.33 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος (Signer) O.Wilb. 14
1.06.34 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος (Signer) 59
18.04.35 Ἀπο... τρα(πεζίτης) O.Stras. 61 + BL VIII, 531
30.04.35 Πετεμενῶφις τρα(πεζίτης) SB XVIII 13185; see
above, p. 334)
22?.06.35 Πετεμενῶφις πράκτωρ βαλ(ανευτικοῦ) O.Bodl. II 1104
23.08.35 Πτολεμαῖος Ἀσκλᾶτος O.Stras. I 179
23.08.35 Πτολεμαῖος Ἀσκλᾶτος O.Wilck. 1032
6.11.35 Πτολεμαῖος Ἀσκλᾶτος O.Bodl. II 659
1.12.35 Πτολεμαῖος Ἀσκλᾶτος O.Wilck. 1033
35 Πετεμενῶφις Πικῶτος ?(Signer) O.Bodl. II 466
Most tax receipts collected above date from the (summer) months between (approximately) 1 Pharmouthi
(March 27) and 1 Phaophi (September 28/29). This observation should be compared with the findings
of S. L. Wallace (Taxation in Egypt, 156–157) concerning the date of paying the bath-tax (2 dr. per person
per annum), i.e. a first installment at 1 dr. 1.5 ob. paid together with a poll-tax rate at 10 dr. in the months
January–May + a second installment at 4.5 ob. paid together with the dyke-tax (at 6 dr. 4 ob.) between July
and December. P. Heilporn (O.Stras., II, p. 87, n. 110) defines the payment periods as “Mecheir–Pauni”
and “Epeiph–Phaophi.” respectively.
64. School Text (?)

2Μ.12 9.4 x 9.3 cm Late I–Early II
This ostrakon probably holds a school text featuring an explanation of odd words, maybe occurring in
an author whom I have not been able to identify. The text vaguely resembles a type of Scholia Minora vel
sim. Its handwriting, too, deserves further attention. While the preceding six texts date from the period
22–34 CE (cf. the dates of 61 and 59), the handwriting of this ostrakon looks definitely later than the early
first century. One might attribute it to the later first, perhaps even to the early second century of our era.
For school texts in general one should consult, of course, the fundamental study by R. Cribiore, Writing,
Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta, Ga. 1996 = AmStudPap. 36), in particular
pp. 71–72 where it is stated that ostraka tend to disappear when it comes to higher levels of a pupil’s
learning. This observation makes our ostrakon all the more remarkable.
Below, the function of the slash (/) in the text seems to be most often (cf. the beginnings of
lines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) but not always (cf. the second slash in line 1) that of marking a connection between
a lemma and a following scholion, cf. the same phenomenon in the Theocritus scholia published recently
in Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 283–394, esp. 287, and see Turner, GMAW2 67. Lines 5–7 suggest that in
this passage one is dealing with a single fairly long scholion, but it is impossible to determine where it
ends precisely and the bottom part of the ostrakon is not sufficiently readable for transcribing a coherent text.
342 Klaas A. Worp
Ἄλβη / ἐστὶν ἡ καλουμ(ένη) αβαι / μυκων δεομ(ένη?) παλαισ-

τρικῶς / τοῦτ’ ἔστι ὁ φοβερὸ(ς) πάροχος, ἡ ἱκαν̣ή ̣
β̅ο̅ύκ̅ ρανος / ὁ αναιη ̣( ) νενομισ̣μένος ̣ ̣ ̣
4 τ̅ρ̅ι̅σταδε / ὃ ἔστιν εἰπε̣ῖ̣ν ὁ γ̅ νι( ) στεφάνω̣ν̣
π̅έ̅ρ̅δ̅ιξ ποῖόν ἐστιν / θήριόν ἐστιν Αἰθι-
[ό]πω̣ν εὐδώρητον ε̣ὐ̣πλοκή̣μο̣ι[̣ ς]
] ποικίλμασι πο ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣πα̣ι̣μαλκ̅ι̅
8 ] ̣δε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ις παρομοιαζου-
[ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣τιγρω παρα τισ̣ι̣ν̣
]τυλη και ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
2 τουτ’ εστι
No. 64
1 The beginning of this line can be translated as “Albe is the so-called --- that is in need of ---” .
Ἄλβη is the name of a city in Italy (Alba), well known from the earliest Roman history. Alter-
natively, it is the name of a city on Crete.
The meaning of αβαι at this place is unclear. Is it also a toponym (there is a town Ἄβαι in
Phocis, but also a toponym Ἀβαί in Lycia)? The precise relationship between such toponyms
escapes me.
Then, while the participle δεομ(ένη?) may be compared with the preceding resolution ἡ κα-
λουμ(ένη), and while the verb δέομαι = “to be in need of” governs a genitive, the meaning
of μυκων in the present context is also unclear. One may think of a gen. pl. masc. Μύκων
(cf. the explanation in Stephanus Byz., Ethnica p. 460.16, Μύκοι: ἔθνος), respectively the gen. pl.
fem. of μύκη = θήκη (“chest,” in Suidas) or μυκή = μύκησις (“bellowing, any loud noise”).
1–2 παλαισ|τρικῶς = “after the manner of the palaestra”: I owe this reading to the acumen of
H. Cuvigny. The TLG presents only 3 attestations of the adverb, i.e. Comic.Graec.Fragmenta in
Papyris Reperta, Adespota novae Comoediae, Fragm. 239.23; Scholia in Aristoph. Vesp. 1212.1;
and Tzetzes, Chiliades XII 453.931. On the other hand, an adverb παλαιστικῶς (“ín a way that
reflects expertise in wrestling”) is attested in Pollux, Onomasticon, III 149; according to LSJ, in
later Greek reigns confusion between the two word beginnings.
2 φοβερὸ(ς) πάροχος: I cannot convince myself that one should accept here a single new word
φοβεροπάροχος, “intimidating.” φοβερός = (active) “fearful, terrible, formidable, dreaded;
regarded with fear, awe-inspiring, impressive,” resp. (passive) “afraid, timid, troubled.” The
active meaning seems more frequently used.
πάροχος = (Α) “who sits beside in a chariot,” esp. of the groomsman in wedding ceremonies;
(B) “provider.” According to the TLG, the combination of the words φοβερός and πάροχος is
found only in Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos, 23:884.12 (Migne), but I see no reason to link
that text with our ostrakon. On the other hand, I am very uncertain as to how one should construct
ἡ ἱκαν̣ή with the preceding. Maybe it goes with and introduces the following passage?
3 βούκρανος = “bull-headed”: for two early attestations of this word, cf. Empedocles, Fragm. 61
(D.–K.).19, and Sophocles, Trachiniae, the Mss reading of line 13. All other attestations of the
noun in the TLG were written much later than this ostrakon. But what is the real function of
ἡ ἱκανὴ βούκρανος = “the competent bull-headed (woman)”? Is I̔κανή here a woman’s name?
αναιη ̣( ): the only word beginning in αναιη in the TLG is Hesychius, Lexicon, A 4325: ἀναίη·
τροφός. τιθήνη, but this word does not fit. The remains of the letter written in superposition look
like the beginning of a mu (cf. its initial hump with the mu of the participles καλουμ(ένη)
and δεομ(ένη) in l. 1), but there is no word in αναιημ- and even the assumption of word division
between αν and αιημ- does not help further.
At first sight, νενομισμένος (participle perf. pass. of νομίζω = “consider as”) appears to have
been written like νενομιομένος; for the shape of the first sigma, compare various cases of ἐστιν
in lines 2, 4, and 5.
4 τ̅ρ̅ι̅σταδε: the TLG does not contain any such word form; it is possible that one has to separate
the elements τά (article) and δέ (particle) from the preceding element τ̅ρ̅ί̅σ.
ὃ ἔστιν εἰπε̣ῖ̣ν: can this be translated as “what one can call”?, i.e. ἔστιν = ἔξεστιν?
γ̅ represents some form of a numeral “three” or “third” like τρίς = “three times” (cf. the preceding
lemma τ̅ρ̅ι̅σταδε)?
A nu with an iota written through it suggests an abbreviated form of the noun νίκη (= “victory”)
or a related word; cf. N. Lewis, “The symbol N,” in P.Rain.Cent., pp. 121–126.
στεφάνω̣ν̣: again, I owe this reading to the acumen of H. Cuvigny. Of course, garlands fit well
with the concept of victory.
5–7 As the Greek word πέρδιξ refers to a partridge, a first translation of these lines appears to present
a definition or description of this bird, i.e.: “What kind of thing is (ποῖόν ἐστιν) a partridge (πέρδιξ)?
It is an animal (θήριόν ἐστιν) of the Ethiopians well provided / equipped with (εὐδώρητον) fair
haired (εὐπλοκή̣μο̣ι̣ς̣; l. εὐπλοκάμοις) ornaments (ποικίλμασι)”. The latter two Greek words
probably refer to the many-colored feathers of a partridge, esp. the male partridge. Again, I owe
the reading of Αἰθι-|[ό]πω̣ν to H. Cuvigny
6–7 The TLG does not produce an attestation of a combination of εὐδώρητον + ποικίλμασι. According
to the TLG, the adjective εὐδώρητος occurs only in Oppianus, Halieutica, IV 359, together with
a noun φορβή = food.
344 Klaas A. Worp
ε̣ὐ̣πλοκή̣μο̣ι̣ς:̣ an alternative reading might be εὐπλοκα̣ι̣μοις; in both cases one has to correct this
into εὐπλοκάμοις.
According to LSJ the meaning of ποίκιλμα = “embroidery, ornament, variety.” Does it refer here
to the feathers of a partridge?
7 A solution for the incomplete and uncertain reading in the second half of this line, πο ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ πα̣ι̣μαλκ̅ι̅
still has to be found.
8 In the second half of this line one is dealing with either the 3rd pl. (according to the TLG attested
only once, in Damascenius Studites, a 16th-century theological author) or with a form of the fem.
participle of the verb παρομοιάζω = “to be like,” probably preceded by a dative pl. in -οις or -αις
of a noun that escapes a more complete reading.
9 While a reading τιγρω (unattested) may be substituted by the (equally unattested) alternative πιγρω,
I do not think that another alternative, viz. Νιγρω can really be read.
10 Though the writing of the last part of this line does not look very much damaged, the correct
reading escapes me.
65. Tax receipt20

23MW.20 9.7 x 10.1 cm February 19, 20 or 23, 127?
Θ̣έ̣ω̣ν πράκ(τωρ) ἀργ(υρικῶν)

Μιῦσι π(ρεσβυτέρῳ) Πετεχ̣ traces
Πετεχεσπ(οχράτου)· ἔσ̣χ̣(ον) ὑ̣π̣(ὲρ) traces
4 traces γ̣ί̣(νονται) (δ̣ρ̣.) η̣ traces
(Ἔτους) ι̣̅α̅ traces ου Καίσαρ[ος] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ κ̣υρίου
Φαῶφι κ̅ ̣
[Ὁ]μοί(ως) Μεχεὶρ traces
8f. traces of 2 (?) lines
1 A Theban πράκτωρ ἀργυρικῶν Θέων is known, cf. the new list of praktores in O.Stras. II, pp. 342–
343 where two tax collectors of this name are mentioned, both officiating under the emperor
Hadrian (Theon I: 118–119, Theon II: 128–131). Unfortunately, I cannot read the initial letter(s)
of the name in this ostrakon with certainty, but it is clear that the text was written in or after
the year of the introduction of the πράκ(τωρ) ἀργ(υρικῶν), usually assumed to be the year 107 CE
(cf. O.Stras. II, p. 28).
2 The pi of what I have taken as π(ρεσβυτέρῳ) has been written in superposition, as if it is part of
the preceding (abbreviated) personal name (the reading of which is not 100% certain).
4 It seems just possible to read the first part of the traces at the end of the line, coming immediately
after the numeral η (= 8) as ὀ̣β̣(ολοὺς) γ, but then there are still some more traces left. It is
a problem that at the end of line 3 and at the beginning of line 4 I cannot read any part of
the words that are then expected before γ̣ί̣(νονται), i.e. (δραχμὰς) ὀκτὼ (ὀβολοὺς) τρεῖς, and I
cannot be certain even about the text I have tried to read in this line.
5 I cannot read the expected emperor’s name, Ἁδριανοῦ (cf. 1n.). If nevertheless we are in his reign,
regnal year 11 = 126/127, i.e. a year not yet known from a tax collector Theon (cf. 1n.)
20
This text is read with a considerable amount of doubt.
6 The day numeral may be read as either κε̣ (25), κϛ̣ (26) or κθ̣ (29).
7 Here starts the registration of another payment, maybe another installment of the same tax.
No. 65
66. Tax receipt for a merismos

23MW.31 9.2 x 7.3 cm 130–150
] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ Πε ̣ ̣χ( ) ἀπαιτη(τὴς)
] ̣ ̣ώρου· ἔσχο(ν) ὑπ(ὲρ) μερισ(μοῦ)
] many traces Καίσαρο(ς)
4 ] many traces μ̣η̣α̣ ̣ .
5 (2 H.) ] Πετεχεσπο(χράτης)
1, 5 Α search in the DDbDP shows that a signer Petechespochrates is attested between 130 (O.Wilck.
II 539) and ca. 150 (O.Bodl. II 1154). Cf. also O.Stras. I 245 (139; cf. BL ΙΙ.1, 28).1–3: Πετε-
μανώβιος καὶ Πετεχεσπ(οχράτης) ἀπαι|τη(ταί). For the apaitetes, the study by B. Palme, Das Amt
des ἀπαιτητής in Ägypten (Vienna 1989) ( = MPER N.S. XX), remains fundamental.
346 Klaas A. Worp
No. 66
67–69. Descripta
67. 2Μ.98 (14 x 11 cm)

This much faded text, apparently counting 12 lines, is too long for being simply a tax receipt. It is, however,
less easy to determine what its character is because too little legible text has been preserved. The most
natural thing to reckon with is a kind of
contract of lease or rent, cf. l. 3, μεμισθω--,
i.e. the beginning of some form of a perfect
μεμίσθωκα (active) or μεμίσθωμαι (middle
and passive). In ll. 3–4, a reference to μ
(ἔτους) | Καίσαρος brings us to the 40th
regnal year of Caesar (= Augustus), i.e. to
the year 10/11 CE. This may be taken as
the complete term of the lease or as its
beginning. This indication puts the date of
this text at least in the vicinity of the dates
of the other texts belonging to the same
dossier (cf. above). In ll. 7–8, the words
ἑκάστης ἀρούρης and ἀρ|τάβας τρεῖς seem
to refer to the amount of rent to be paid,
i.e. 3 + ? artabas per aroura, in l. 8, κριθ
probably refers to the kind of crop to be
grown, while in l. 11 the word δημοσιων
may refer to the payment of the land tax
imposed upon the plot of land.
No. 67
68. 4M.94 (9.5 x 8.7 cm)

This may be another receipt issued by one or more tax
collectors, but most of the text is practically illegible
and it is even uncertain as to what the correct position
of the sherd for reading its text is. With the visible
writing on the right hand side, at the end of l. 3 it
seems possible to read the beginning of the verb
ἔσχο(ν/-ομεν), in l. 4 ]οβολ( ) δ̣̅
No. 68
69. 4Μ.96 (6.5 x 5.5 cm)

The concave side features faded traces of writing, but the text is
now illegible.
The convex side, inscribed in red ink, reads:
]ιος[
]ε̣σ̣τ̣ι̣ριω̣[
] ̣ιων κολλ̣ ̣ ̣ [
4 ]μων
] ̣ικρονισ̣ν ̣[
] vacat [̣
3 The diagonal (\) first ink trace may come from, e.g.,
the upper part of a delta written in ligature with the iota;
the following omega has been corrected from iota.
5 Or read ] ̣ικρονι ἐ̣ν ̣[ .
No. 69
The nature and purpose of this text is unclear. Perhaps it is a fragment of a name list, cf. l. 3, where one
might interpret the remains of the line as standing for, e.g., “--] ̣δ̣ίων, son of Κολλ̣--.” The two traces at
the right hand side of l. 3 seem to have been written underneath regular line level and I am not certain that
they belong to real letters. The reading of l. 2 is uncertain and the line may have been deleted by a long
horizontal dash.
Papyrologisch Instituut, Leiden

70. P.Col. inv. 33r and the Processing of Data in Early Roman Egypt
Uri Yiftach-Firanko
P.Col. inv. 33r 23 x 15.5 cm May 6–25, 232

Arsinoitês
The present papyrus is a fragment of a register of letters sent to two epitêrêtai with regional competence
in the Polemôn and Themistos merides in the months of Pauni and Pachôn year 11 of Alexander Severus
(May-June 231/2).1 The author of these letters was, in all likelihood, the joint stratêgos of the two merides.
The originals served as cover-letters to written material whose contents were destined for the central
provincial administration in Alexandria. As the first and third entries record the contents of monthly
reports issued by tax collectors and maybe also by officials submitting other types of periodical reports,
the originals were in all probability attached to these reports when they were sent by the stratêgos to the
epitêrêtai. The two entries exhibit, as far as we can tell, complete uniformity both with regard to the types
of categories recorded and to their order. The second entry is a copy of a cover letter accompanying two
letters sent by the stratêgos to the prefect of Egypt, Mevius Honoratianus: the first deals with criminals
apprehended in the nome and sent to the governor for trial; the second discusses some requisitions sent
to Alexandria in response to the governor’s instructions.
The papyrus is of particular interest for its unique specification of the administrative sphere
of oversight (the Polemôn and Themistos merides) of epitêrêtai who were entrusted with forwarding
the contents of reports issued in their respective merides to higher instances, in this period those located in
the city of Alexandria. This type of epitêrêtês is mentioned in one additional text: BGU II 362 (215–216;
Arsinoite), but the function as such is attested in several papyri from the late first century though the
beginning of the fourth.2
The papyrus is 23 cm long and ca. 15.5 cm wide. There is a wide empty space, around 2.5 cm
long, before the first line, and also some space between each entry, about 1 cm between entry 1 and 2 and
1.3 cm between entry 2 and 3. In the area occupied by the first and second entry the left lacuna consists
of ca. 10 letters; the right lacuna is slightly wider (ca. 10–15 letters long). For the third entry, which
was probably written by a different hand, I assume a right lacuna ca. 30 letters wide. There seems to be
a kollêsis 3.5 cm from the right side, and there are three vertical folds, around 3.8 cm apart. On the verso
there is an account of landed property and its proprietors in the village of Isieion Panga in the Oxyrhynchite
nome, possibly composed in connection with a land survey. Its publication is forthcoming.
1
I thank Hélène Cuvigny, Dieter Hagedorn and Thomas Kruse for commenting on my readings and interpretation of
the text. Thanks are also due to Julia Lougovaya for the conservation of the papyrus and to David Ratzan, the present
curator of the papyrus collection at Columbia University, for checking the original and examining some of my readings.
Special thanks are due to the honoree of this volume for entrusting me with the publication of the present papyrus, as well as
other documents in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Columbia University. The papyrus is published in connection
with the project “Synopsis: Data Processing and State Management in Early Roman Egypt (31 BCE–284 CE)”, sponsored
by the German Israel Foundation and conducted in collaboration with the Institut für Papyrologie at the University of
Heidelberg.
2
BGU III 981 (77; Diospolitês Parvus); P.Brem. 16 (117; Hermopolis); P.Bub. I 1–4 (221; Boubastos): very fragmentary;
P.Bub. II 5 (205/6; Boubastos); P.Oxy. XVII 2116 (after 27.9.229; Oxyrhynchos); P.Oxy. LI 3615 (214–248; Oxyrhynchos);
P.Panop.Beatty 1.28–44; 61–64; 90–108 (all from September 298; Panopolis); P.Panop.Beatty 2.11–15; 61–67; 68–75; 86–91
(all from February 300; Panopolis); SB XVIII 13175 = WChr 52 = Sel.Pap. II 301, col. iv (28.10–26.11.194; unknown
provenance). A detailed discussion of this function, as of data processing in Roman Egypt in general, is forthcoming.
350 Uri Yiftach-Firanko
→
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τῷ] καὶ Ἀπολλωνίῳ ἐπιτηρητῇ Πολέμωνο̣ς̣ μερίδ̣ο̣ς̣.
[τὰ ὑπογεγραμ]μένα μην[ι]αῖα βιβλία τοῦ Φαρμοῦθι μηνὸς τοῦ ἐνεστῶτο̣ς̣ ι̣α
(ἔτους) τοῦ̣ [κυρίου ἡμῶν]
[Αὐτοκράτο]ρ̣ος̣ Μάρκου Αὐρηλί[ο]υ Σεουήρ[ο]υ Ἀλεξάνδ̣ρου Εὐ[σ]ε̣β[ο]ῦς
Ε̣ὐ̣τυχ̣[ο]ῦς Σεβασ[τοῦ. ± 7]
4 [ἰδίου λόγου (?)] γ ̅, οὐσιακῶν ὁ̣μο̣ ίως γ̅, κατ᾿ ἄνδρα μετρημά̣των β ̅, λόγ . [ ± 10]
[ ± 10 ]ω̣ν ὁμοίως̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ωνικῶν πόλεως [ ̣], κατ᾿ ἄνδ̣[ρα] εἰσ̣π̣ρ̣[άξεως ± 5]
[ ± 9 σ]τεφανικῶν̣ β ̅ ἅπερ κομισάμενος καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστο̣υ̣ [εἴσπραξιν (?)]
[συστησάμεν]ος εὖ ποιήσεις, φίλτατε, ἀντιγράψας μοι καὶ περὶ τοῦ κατ̣α̣[κομίσαι (?) ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣
8 [ἕως ̣ ̣ τοῦ α]ὐ̣τοῦ μηνός vac.
[ἔτους ια] ̅ Παχὼν ια ̅
vac.
[ ± 6 ἐπιτ]ηρητῇ Θεμίστου μερίδος.
[ἐπιστολὰς] δ̣ύο γραφείσας ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ Μηουίῳ Ὁνωρατι̣ανῷ τῷ [λαμπροτάτῳ]
12 [ἡγεμόνι, τὴν] μὲν περὶ τῶν συλλημφθέν̣των κακούργων ἐ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ε̣ν̣[ ̣ ̣]
[. . . . πεμφθ]έ̣[ν]των ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ μεγαλειότητα, τὴν δὲ περὶ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣τ̣ρων
[ ± 6 πέντ]ε μνῶν τεσσαράκοντα τεσσάρων κα̣τ̣α̣πεμ̣[φθέντων εἰς]
[τὰς τῆς πόλε]ως (?) χρείας ἐκ γραμμάτων [α]ὐ̣τοῦ‧ ἅσπερ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ρ[± 10]
16 [εὖ ποιήσεις] ἀντιγράψας μο̣ι̣.
[ἔτους ια] Παῦνι α ̅
vac.
(h. 2) [τὰ ὑπογεγρ]αμμένα μηνια[ῖ]α βιβλία τοῦ Παχὼν μην[ὸ]ς τ[οῦ ἐνεστῶτος ια (ἔτους) τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν]
[Αὐτοκράτο]ρος Μάρκου Αὐρη[λ]ίου Σεουήρου Ἀλεξάνδρου Εὐσεβ̣[οῦς Εὐτυχοῦς Σεβαστοῦ.
±12 ]
20 [ἰδίου λόγο]υ̣ (?) ϛ̅, οὐσιακῶ̣[ν̣] γ̣̅, κ[α]τ̣᾿ ἄ̣ν̣[δρ]α μετρημά[των ± 30 ]
[ ±10 ] ̣ ̣ ν̣ικῶν πόλεως α̣͞, [κατ᾿ ἄνδρα] εἰσπράξεω̣[ς ± 30 ]
[ ±10 ] τοῦ λαμπροτάτου [ἡγεμόνος ἐ]π̣’ (?) αὐτοῦ κ ̣ ̣ [ ± 30 ]
[ ±10 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ου ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ - - ]
--------------------
11 υπ’ εμου pap.
Lines 1–9: To [ - - ] also called Apollônios, epitêrêtês of the meris Polemôn. (Enclosed are) the monthly
reports listed below of the month of Pharmouthi of the present eleventh year of [our lord Imperator]
Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Pius Felix Augustus. [ - - , relating to the affairs of the idios logos (?)]
3 reports, relating to the ousiai equally 3 reports, relating to taxes collected in grain 2 viritim reports,
relating to [ - - ] equally [ - - ], relating to the city’s annôna (?) [.] reports, relating to revenues collected
[in cash. .] viritim reports, [ - - ], relating to the crown tax 2 reports. Having received these reports and
[put them together] in accordance with the [collection category] of each, you will do well, my friend, if
you inform me also that the [reports] were [sent down (?) no later than - - ] of the same month. [Year 11],
Pachôn 11th.
70. P.Col. inv. 33r and the Processing of Data in Early Roman Egypt 351
Lines 10–17: To [ - - ] the epitêrêtês of the meris Themistos. (Enclosed are) two letters written by me to
Mevius Honoratianus, [the most glorious prefect], one regarding the apprehended criminals, [ - - and] sent
to his greatness, another regarding [ - - ] of [ - - ] and forty-four minae, that were shipped down [in view
of the requirements of the city (?)] in accordance with his letter. [Having received (?) the letters, you will
do well] if you inform me. [Year 11]. Pauni 1.
Lines 18–23 (2nd hand): (Enclosed are) the monthly reports listed below of the month of Pachôn of [the
present eleventh year of our lord Imperator] Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Pius [Felix Augustus.
- - relating to the affairs of the idios logos (?)] 6 reports, relating to the ousiai 3 (?) reports, relating to
taxes collected in grain [ - - ] viritim reports, [ - - ] relating to the city’s annôna (?) 1 (?) report, relating
to the revenues collected in cash [.] viritim reports, [ - - ] of the most glorious prefect [ - - ].
2 [τὰ ὑπογεγραμ]μένα: Because of the restoration at the beginning of line 3, we expect a lacuna of
nine letters. However, the participle ὑπογεγραμμένα (ll. 2 and 18) is normally preceded, in docu-
mentary papyri, by an article, cf., e.g., P.Oxy. XLIV 3197.5 (111 CE; Alexandria ?). Should this
be the case also in the present instance, one notes in the first entry the absence of a finite verb
before the relative clause beginning in line 6, unless such a verb is to be restored at the end of line
3: λαβέ (e.g., SB VI 9089.5 [250 BCE; Philadelphia])? διεπεμψάμην (e.g., P.Panop.Beatty 1.378
[298 CE; Panopolis])? At the same time, no verb is found in the parallel passage in the second
entry, lines 11–15, and in that case I cannot see where it could be restored. Perhaps the omission
of the verb is due to the fact that the letters are copies of a repetitive type?
4 [ἰδίου λόγου]: Tentatively restored after the beginning of line 20, where we see traces of an
upsilon. In view of the general uniformity of the first and third letters, it is likely that the same
category was also registered in the lacuna at the beginning of line 4.
οὐσιακῶν: Taxes collected within the ousiaka are regularly reported by the sitologoi and the
praktores argyrikôn (cf., e.g, SB XIV 11426 = P.Lond. II 194r descr. [late 1st c. CE; Arsinoitês]:
taxes in grain; P.Berl.Leihg. II 37 [142/3 CE; Hêrakleia]: taxes in cash). As these reports are
recorded further down in the list, I tentatively propose that the οὐσιακὰ βιβλία of P.Col. inv. 133r
did not focus on the collection of taxes, but on a variety of issues relating to the management
of the estates that were to be reported to the procurator ousiacus in Alexandria. Parallels can
be drawn, e.g., from P.Heid. IV 310 (117–138 CE; Euhêmeria), whose addressee is lost, and from
P.Sijp. 20 (169/70 CE; Dinnis Onneitôn), which was probably sent to the nome’s eklogistês. That
such reports addressed to the offices of the different procurators in Alexandria were regularly
drawn up by local officials is illustrated by the contemporaneous P.Oxy. XLIII 3133.1–14 (239 CE;
Oxyrhynchitês).
μετρημά̣των: The metrêmata are reports relating to the collection of tax in grain, most likely,
in this period, by the sitologoi, cf., e.g., P.Louvre II 115 (2nd c. CE; Arsinoitês ?): κατ᾿ ἄνδρα;
P.Oxy. XII 1443 (227 CE; Psinomerp( ), Antaiopolitês): ἐν κεφαλαίῳ, i.e. summary reports).
In both the first and the third entry the epitêrêtês receives and is required to recapitulate κατ᾿
ἄνδρα reports, as he does with what I identify as reports issued by the praktores argyrikôn. This
policy makes sense: the stratêgos’s duty is to ensure that the organs in Alexandria get the most
detailed account of the work of these two key tax-collecting organs.
At the end of line 4 (and hence also in the lacuna at the end of line 20) perhaps λόγο̣[υ, “a list”?
This category may refer to the account of some population group (e.g., P.Lond. II 266, p. 233,
ll. 676 [1st–2nd c.; unknown provenance]: π̣λ(ινθουργῶν)), or (which is perhaps more likely in
the present context) to special sources of income. λόγου ἐκφορίων?, cf., e.g., SB XVIII 13287
(187/8 CE; Hermopolitês).
5 In both line 5 and line 21 we read -ν̣ικῶν πόλεως. Prof. Hagedorn kindly proposed to me the
tentative reading ἀ̣ν̣ν̣ωνικῶν. Perhaps books relating to the collection of the annona civica?
Cf. also the μερ(ισμὸς) ἀννώνης πό̣λ̣(εως) of O.Stras. 432.2 (183 or 215; Thebes). Another
possible reading, suggested by Hélène Cuvigny, is τελωνικῶν, cf. P.Stras. IX 836, 8 (2nd c. CE;
Arsinoitês) τελωνικ(ῶν) πο̣λ( ).
κατ᾿ ἄνδ[ρα] εἰσ̣π̣ρ̣[άξεως - - : The term κατ᾿ ἄνδρα εἰσπράξεως is most commonly attested in
connection with taxes collected by the praktores argyrikôn. Cf., e.g., BGU I 199r.7 (18.9.195 CE;
Soknopaiou Nêsos). This is probably the case in this entry as well. Supporting this identifica-
tion is the fact that for this category—as for the other important category of reports issued by
sitologoi—the stratêgos forwards to the epitêrêtai viritim reports, not just summary ones.
6 σ]τεφανικῶν: This is one of many pieces of evidence showing that the crown tax was not abrogated
by Alexander Severus. The tax was probably collected by a praktôr stephanikôn, cf., e.g., P.Heid.
IV 312 (222 CE; unknown provenance).
7 [συστησάμεν]ος: As the related material, especially the documentation of P.Panop.Beatty, shows,
the main task of the administrative organ (be it termed grammateus, boêthos or epitêrêtês)
consisted of extracting data from reports obtained from lower instances into new, synoptic reports
to be sent to higher instances (cf., e.g, P.Panop.Beatty 1.90-108). The verb denoting this action
is frequently the middle voice of the aorist tense of συνίστημι: “bringing together”, “assembling,”
“compiling” data from old reports into new ones. Cf., e.g., BGU IV 1062.17 = WChr 276 (236 CE;
Oxyrhynchos), with A. Ch. Johnson, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome: Roman Egypt to
the Reign of Diocletian (1936) 588, “compiling”. I thus propose the reading συστησάμεν]ο̣ς at
the beginning of line 7. That the reports were arranged according to key tax categories (argyrika,
sitika etc.) is shown by the contemporaneous SB XVIII 13175.13–15 = WChr 52 (194 CE;
unknown provenance) as well as by P.Panop.Beatty 1.64-71, 101-106 (298 CE; Panopolis).
κατ̣α̣[κομίσαι: The noun κατακομιδή and the verb κατακομίζω denote the final stage of the
organ’s activity, the sending down of the reports to higher instances, in the period of our papyrus
to those located in Alexandria; cf., e.g., P.Princ. III 127.3 (161 CE; Theadelphia): κατακομιδή;
SB XII 10883.15 (158 CE; Soknopaiou Nesos): κατακομίζω. Also possible, as it does not convey
the physical act of sending down the material to Alexandria, is the restoration κατ̣α̣[χωρισμοῦ
or κατ̣α̣[χωρίσαι (καταχωρίζειν: “to communicate documents to an office,” often of an archival
nature): cf., e.g., BGU IV 1062.17–18 = WChr 276 (236 CE; Oxyrhynchos); P.Oxy. I 34v.4–6 =
M.Chr. 188. 4–6 (127 CE; Oxyrhynchos); P.Oxy. LI 3615.7–8 (214–248; Oxyrhynchos).
12 ἐ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ε̣ν̣[ ̣ ̣]: perhaps ἐγ[καλου]μέ̣ν[ων] (“being accused,” LSJ, pp. 469 s.v. II). Cf., P.Oslo II
20 (late 3rd c. CE; Karanis) and, in general, B. Anagnostou-Canas, Juge et sentence dans l’Égypte
romaine (Paris 1991) 175–176.
13 [. . . . πεμφθ]έ̣[ν]των: or perhaps ἀναπεμφθ]έ[ν]των. Compare, in particular, SB XX 14662 =
BGU II 372 = WChr 19 col. ii 19–23 (154 CE; Arsinoitês). At the end of the line perhaps ν̣ί̣τρων?
Compare in particular SB XXVI 16611 (mid-3rd c. CE; unknown provenance) and A. Martin,
G. Nachtergael, “Papyrus du Musée du Caire. III,” CdÉ 74 (1999) 301–315, at 311. Should
the reading νίτρων be accepted, the minae of the following line probably denote the weight, not
the value of the commodity.
14 εἰς: πρός is also possible, cf. evidence in the next note.
15 Instead of πόλε]ως, one could think of τάξε]ως (the needs of the office of the governor himself).
For the former option, cf. SB V 7696.87 (after 28.8.249 CE; Ptolemais Euergetis), for the latter
cf., perhaps, P.Lond. II 479 p. 255 ll. 10–12 (3rd c. CE?; unknown provenance).
ἐκ γραμμάτων. Cf., e.g., SB XIV 11547 B.22 (247/8 or 252/3; Oxyrhynchos). The formula is
employed in the third and fourth century. At the end of the line, one would expect κομισάμενος,
as in line 6, but I do not think that this is paleographically possible.
70. P.Col. inv. 33r and the Processing of Data in Early Roman Egypt 353
16 ἀντιγράψας μο̣ι. Contrary to the first letter, according to which the epitêrêtês is to assume a con-
crete action (i.e. to compile a new report on the basis of those presented), in the second entry the
epitêrêtês is merely asked to report back just one action, whose nature is expressed in a participle
at the end of line 15. It is naturally likely that the letters recorded in the second entry were to be
dispatched by the epitêrêtês to Alexandria as well.
20 [ἰδίου λόγο]υ̣. Documentary papyri of the mid-second century CE record a special commission,
οἱ προχειρισθέντες πρὸς παράλημψιν καὶ κατακομιδὴν (or καταγωγὴν) βιβλίων πεμπομένων εἰς
Ἀλεξάνδρειαν τῷ τοῦ νομοῦ ἐκλογιστῇ καὶ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ. Cf., e.g., P.Amh. II 69 = WChr 190 (154;
Autodikê); P.Flor. III 358 (146; Euhêmeria); P.Princ. III 127 (after 7.3.16; Theadelphia); P.Ryl.
II 83 (138–161; Memphitês). If the restoration proposed here is accepted, does it imply that by the
third century reports to the idios logos were no longer processed, and dispatched to Alexandria, by
a special commission, but by the same functionaries who were responsible for processing reports
destined for other Alexandrian organs?
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

No. 70
INDICES
Languages other than Greek and Latin have not been included here. καί is indexed only for non-
documentary texts and the article only for 26. Square brackets indicate where a word has been restored.
A. GREEK NON-DOCUMENTARY TEXTS
a. Dioskoros of Aphrodite (26)

ἀγρονόμος 26.17 ἐλευθερίη 26.10
ἀείδειν 26.16 ἔμπλεος 26.5
ἀκριβής 26.[22] ἐν 26.4 (bis)
ἄλλος 26.6 ἔρχεσθαι 26.[3], 5
ἀμέτρητος 26.5 ἔτι 26.[33]
ἀμοίρατος 26.[3] εὐαγγελία 26.20
ἀμύμων 26.[7] εὐμενής 26.35
ἄναξ 26.7, [13]
ἀνικάνετος 26.12 ἤ 26.[26]
ἀνιστάναι 26.1 ἡμεῖς 26.18, [31?]
ἀποπτύειν 26.8 Ἡρακλῆς 26.[9]
ἀρετή 26.[5], 12, [28]
ἄσπιλος 26.[34] θάλασσα 26.26
ἀστήρ 26.25 θάλλειν 26.3, [3]
αὐτός 26.[16] θεῖος 26.[22]
Θεός 26.16, 20
βασιλεύς 26.[24] θεωρεῖν 26.[33]
βοᾶν 26.[14] Θήβη 26.[8], [32]
γάρ 26.[33] ἱκάνειν 26.18

γενέθλη 26.[6] ἱλ(λ)άναι 26.14
γένος 26.22
γέρας 26.[24] καί 26.4, 15, [29]
γίγνεσθαι 26.11 κακουργικός 26.[33]
γουνάζεσθαι 26.23, [24] καλεῖν 26.9
καλλίνικος 26. [18]
δέος 26.[34] Καλλίνικος 26.[2]
δεσπότης 26.28 κάμνειν 26.10
δέχεσθαι 26.[32] κλέος 26.13, 19
δίκαιος 26.21 κλυτός 26.4
δίκη 26.34 κύαθος 26.[26]
δόξη 26.[1]
δύνασθαι 26.[25], 27 λιγαίνειν 26.[12]
ἐγώ 26.3, 14, [17] μέλισσα 26.[15?]

εἰ 26.[25] μέλος 26.[14]
εἶναι 26.12, 15, [15] μέροψ 26.4
εἰρήνη 26.[32] μετρεῖν 26.25, 27
εἰς (ἐς) 26.[3], 5 μέτριος 26.13
εἰσέτι 26.3 μῆτις 26.[13]
ἐκ 26.20
356 A. Greek Non-Documentary Texts
μιν 26.9 ῥά 26.10

ῥεῦμα 26.26
ναί 26.[27]
Νεῖλος 26.30 σημεῖον 26.20
νοεῖν 26.13 σός 26.19
σοφός 26.29
ὁ 26.2, 4, 19, 20, 23, 25, [26], 26, [28], [29], στρατηγός 26.[35]
[31], [35] στρατηλάτης 26.29
ὁμοίιος 26.6 στρατιάρχης 26.[2], [18]
ὄντως 26.[22] στρατίαρχος 26.[7]
ὄρνεον 26.15 σύ 26.[1], 7, 9, 23, 28
ὅς 26.10 συμφέρειν 26.21
ὅσος 26.8
οὐ(κ) 26.6, 13, [33] τεός 26.14
οὕτως 26.18 τέρψις 26.30
ὄφρα 26.[14] τέττιξ 26.15
τις 26.[25]
παμβασιλεύς 26.[4] τλᾶν 26.8
πανάλκιμος 26.9 τολμήεις 26.11
πανάριστος 26.[29] τόσος 26.13
παναρωγή 26.[10] τοσσάτιος 26.12
πανάφθιτος 26.[16] τοὔνεκα 26.7, 9
πανεπάξιος 26.11 τρομεῖν 26.14
πανευτυχής 26.19 τυτθός 26.15
πάντη 26.[34]
πάντως 26.27 ὑμεῖς 26.[6]
παρεῖναι 26.[31?] ὑμνοπολεύειν 26.[11]
πᾶς 26.10, 24, [32] ὕμνος 26.1
πέλειν 26.6 (bis), 17
πῆμα 26.8 φαίνειν 26.[21]
πλόος 26.5 φύειν 26.[34]
πολυκυδήεις 26.2
πόρειν 26.10 χθών 26.[4]
πόρος 26.30 χορεύειν 26.[32]
πότνια 26.[8] χοροστασίη 26.[1]
που 26.[27] χρόνος 26.[3]
πρᾶξις 26.21 χρυσοῦς 26.22
πράττειν 26.19
προϊάλλειν 26.7 ὦ 26.[22]
προστάτης 26.23 (bis) ὡς 26.17
b. Epigrams (37)
ἄθραυστος 37 ii.1 ἐν 37 ii.3
ἄλλος 37 ii.4
αὐτο[37 ii.7 ἡνία 37 ii.5
ἡσυ[χ 37 ii.8
δισσός 37 ii.3 (bis)
Indices 357
ἵππος 37 ii.6 σύ 37 ii.5
λαιψηρός 37 ii.6 ὑπό 37 ii.1
οὕνεκα 37 ii.2 χρύσειος 37 ii.5

οὗτος 37 ii.1
c. Education and Science (1, 10, 13, 35, 41, 48, 51, 64)
αβαι 64.1 δάκτυλος 51 ii.4
Αἰθίοψ 64.5 δέ 1.12, 14; 48 B.4, 15; 51 ii.3, 6
Ἄλβη 64.1 δεῖν 35 i.[2], 6; ii.7, 12, [28], 33
ἄλλος 35 i.15 δεῖσθαι 64.1
ἀμφί 48 A.[20] δεύτερος 41.2, 4
ἀμφορεύς 41.[11?] δηλοῦν 48 B.2
ἄν 1.3 διά 1.[5]
ἀνά 48 A.19 διαιρεῖν 41.7
αναιη ̣( ) 64.3 διάφορος 35 i.25; ii.4, 21, 25
ἀναιμωτί 48 B.17 διαχωρεῖν 41.9
ἀναμέτρησις 35 ii.18 διχῇ 48 B.20
ἄνω 1.5; 48 B.10 δυϊκός 48 A.[6], 7
ἀπηλιώτης 35 i.[4–6], [8], 9, [9a]; ii.9, 11, 16, δύο 35 ii.19
[28], [35]
ἁπλοῦς 48 B.[5] ἑαυτοῦ 35 i.[2], [3], [7], [8], 9, [10]; ii.[7], 8, 13,
ἀπό 35 i.[3], [4], [6], 8, [10], 23; ii.8, 9, 11, 14, 14, [15], [16], [28], [29], [30 (bis)], 34, 35
16, [19], [35] ἔγγονος 41.5
Ἄρης 13.[1–6 (bis)] εἶναι 1.3; 35 i.[5], [6], [9], 11]; ii.[10], 11, [14],
ἄρθρον 51 ii.9 17, 36; 48 A.[14], B.[1], [5]; 64.1, 2, 4,
ἄρουρα 35 i.12, 16, 22; ii.20, 21 5 (bis)
ἀρουρισμός 35 i.14; ii.[4], 25 εἰπεῖν 64.4
ἀρχή 41.15 εἰς 1.12; 35 i.3; ii.[9]; 41.7, 8
ἀσύνθετος 48 B.6 εἷς 48 B.[2]
αὐτίκα 48 B.5 ἐκ (ἐξ) 41.11, 14, [15]; 48 A.[21]
αὐτός 41.8 ἕκαστος 41.9
ἐκβάλλειν 35 i.[3]
βάθος 41.4 ἐκτός 41.5
βαρύτης 1.9 ἐκφορά 48 B.[2]
βάσις 35 i.[7], [9], 10; ii.12, [14], 17, 24, [33], ἐμβαδόν 35 i.13
[36] ἐν 35 i.[2], [3], 3, [4], [7], [8], 9, [9a]; ii.7, 8, [8],
βρέγμα 1.9 9, [12], 13, 15, 16, 28, [28], [29], 30, [34
βροτολοιγός 13.[1–6] (bis)]; 41.1(?), 12
βόρειος 35 i.[2], [6], 9, [10], 20; ii.8, [11], 15, ἔνατος 1.[14]
16, [19], [29], 32 ἑνικός 48 A.6, 10
βούκρανος 64.3 ἐξάδελφος 10 i.4
ἐπέρχεσθαι 1.5
γάρ 41.[5] ἐπί 1.[9]; 35 i.[2], [3], [7], [8], 9, [10]; ii.7, 8, 13,
γί(γ)νεσθαι 35 i.2, [3], 4, [5], [7], [8], 9, [10], 15, 14, [15], [16], [28–30], 30, 34, 35; 48 A.20
21; ii.[7], 8, 10 (bis), 13, 14, [15], [16], [28], ἐπίρρημα 48 B.[1], 4, [9], [11?], 12, 16
29 (bis), [30 (ter)], 34, 35; 41.3, 6 ἐρεισμός 1.11
γόνυ 41.1
358 A. Greek Non-Documentary Texts
ἔτι 1.[14] νίκη 64.[4?]

εὐδώρητος 64.6 νομίζειν 64.3
εὐπλόκαμος 64.6 νότιος 35 i.[2], 5, [7], [8], 11, 18; ii.[10], 13,
εὑρίσκειν 35 i.6; ii.12, 33 [13], [19], [29], 34, 37
ἔχειν 35 i.18, 19, 20; ii.20, 23 νῦν 48 B.5
ἕως 1.14 νωΐτερος 48 A.8
ἤ 1.2; 48 A.6, 7, 10, B.[3] Ξανθίππη 10 i.[2]

ἡμέρα 1.[15] ξηραίνειν 10 i.3
ἡμέτερος 48 A.[13]
ἥμισυ 35 i.[5]; ii.10 ὀδούς 1.11
οἷος 48 B.9, 10
θήριον 64.5 ὅλος 35 ii.18
ὄμμα 1.8
ἱκανός 64.2 ὅμοιος 35 i.[9]; ii.15, 29; 48 A.9
ἰσχυρός 1.[2] ὄνομα 41.6, 9
ὄνυξ 51 ii.10
καί 1.6 (bis), 7, 8, 10 (bis), [11] ὀρθός 35 i.[7], [9], 10; ii.12, [14], 17, 24,
καλεῖν 51 ii.7; 64.1 [33], [36]
καλός 48 B.8 ὅς 35 i.[6], [9], 10; ii.[10], 11, [14], 17, [36];
καρπός 51 ii.2 64.4
καταλείπειν 35 i.[3], [4], [6], 8, [10]; ii.8, 9, 11, ὅτε 1.12
14, 17, 20, 21, [36]; 48 A.[11?] οὐ (οὐκ, οὐχ) 41.1, 5
κάτω 48 B.10 οὗτος 41.6; 48 B.13; 64.2
κεῖσθαι 41.3
κερκίς 51 ii.2 παγανός 10 ii.11
κοιλότης 1.8 Παθουρης 10 ii.15
κόνδυλος 51 ii.8 παιδευτήριον 10 ii.4
κορυφή 51 ii.[10] παλαιστρικῶς 64.1
Παμπᾶνος 10 ii.3
λέγειν 41.5 παραβάλλειν 35 i.[4]; ii.[9]
λέξις 48 A.15, B.1 παράμεσος 51 ii.5
λιγρυφίς (for λικριφίς) 48 B.19 παραστατικός 48 B.14
λιχανός 51 ii.6 παρέπεσθαι 1.4
λίψ 35 i.[4]; ii.9, [10], [13], 30 παρίσθμιον 1.6
λόγος 48 A.16 παρομοιάζειν 64.8
παρονομάζειν 48 B.[7?]
μᾶλλον 1.14 πάροχος 64.2
μέγας 51 ii.6 πᾶς 48 A.[15]
μέθοδος 35 ii.22 Πατροβᾶς 10 ii.14
μέν 1.5; 48 B.[5], 7 πειρασμός 10 ii.9
μέρος 48 A.16 πεντεκαιδέκατος 1.15
μέσος 51 ii.[5] πέρδιξ 64.5
μετακάρπιον 51 ii.[2] περί 48 A.14, [20]
μετακόνδυλοι 51 ii.[7] περισσοσύλλαβος 41.10
μέτωπον 1.[10] πῆχυς 51 ii.[1]
μιαιφόνος 13.[1– 6] πλευρά 35 i.[9], [10]; ii.[14], 17, [36]
μικρός 51 ii.5 πληθυντικός 48 A.4, [7], [10 (bis)]
μυκων 64.1 ποδαγρός 10 ii.7
ποιεῖν 35 i.[2 (bis)], [7]; ii.7 (bis), [12], [28 (bis)],
νῆστις 1.3 [34]
Indices 359
ποίκιλμα 64.7 συντιθέναι 35 ii.29, [30]

ποῖος 64.5 σφέτερος 48 A.12, 13
ποιότης 48 B.15 σφραγίς 35 ii.11, [11], 18, [23]
πόλεμος 10 ii.10 σφωΐτερος 48 A.[7], 9
πολύς 1.13 σχῆμα 35 i.[15], 18a; ii.5, [26]
πονηρός 10 ii.8
Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος 10 ii.12 ταρσός 51 ii.3
ποταμός 10 ii.5 τειχεσιβλήτης 13.1–6
πρό 48 A.21 τετράγωνον 35 i.[18a], [19]
πρόθεσις 48 A.14, [14], [18] τέχνη 41. [1?]
πρός 35 i.5, [6], [8], [10]; ii.[10], 11, [13], 16, τηνικάδε 48 B.9
19, [19], 32, [35], 37; 48 A.21 τίς 35 i.26; ii.[24], 24
προσάγειν 35 i.[5]; ii.10 τις 1.4; 35 ii.[4], 25
προτακτικός 48 B.[2] τμῆμα 35 i.26; ii.24
προτιθέναι 48 A.15 τοσοῦτος 35 i.13; ii.20
πρόχνυ 48 B.21 τραπεζοειδής 35 ii.[1]
πρῶτος 10 ii.6; 41.2, 4 τράχηλος 1.10
πυκνός 1.12 τρίγωνον 35 i.5, [6], [8], [10], 11, 18; ii.[13], 16,
πύξ 48 B.18 19, 32, 35, [37]
τρισταδε 64.4
ῥῆμα 48 B.3 τυγχάνειν 1.[4]
ῥιζωνυχία 51 ii.[9]
ὑπόδειγμα 35 i.16; ii.5, 26
σάφα 48 B.[6] ὑποτακτέος 48 B.13
σκληρία 1.[9] ὑποτακτικός 48 B.[3]
σκυταλίς 51 ii.9 φάλαγξ 51 ii.8
σπάργησις 1.7 φοβερός 64.2
σπασμός 1.[11]
στέφανος 64.4 χείρ 1.7
στοιχεῖον 51 ii.[6] χρόνος 48 B.11
συλλαβή 41.7 ὧδε 48 B.[20]
συν- 35 i.23; ii.23 ὡς 1.13; 35 i.[2], 6; ii.7, 12, [28], 33; 41.1;
συναμφότερος 35 ii.[18] 48 B.[5]
σύνθετος 48 B.[5]
συντάσσειν 48 A.[17?] ]ξιππης 10 i.1
360
B. GREEK DOCUMENTARY TEXTS
Ι. Rulers
AUGUSTUS
Καίσαρος (year 40) 67.3
TIBERIUS
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ (year 8) 61.4; (year 9) 62.3; (year 10) 63.4; (year 15) 58.4; (year 20) 59.3
DOMITIAN
Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Δομιτιανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ (year 15) 11.4
NERVA
Νέρουα (year 2) 31.3
TRAJAN
τὴν Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Νέρουα Τραιανοῦ Ἀρίστου Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ Δακικοῦ Παρθικοῦ τύχην
(oath) 32.[5]
HADRIAN
Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τίτου Αἰλίου Ἁδριανοῦ Ἀντωνείνου Σεβαστοῦ Εὐσεβοῦς (year 21) 30.1
]ου Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου (year 11) 65.[5?]
ANTONINUS PIUS
see Index II anno 213
COMMODUS
Αὐρηλίου Κομμόδου Ἀντωνίνου Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου (year 28) 56.7
Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου Κομμόδου Ἀντωνίνου Εὐσεβοῦς Εὐτυχοῦς Σεβαστοῦ
Ἀρμενιακοῦ Μηδικοῦ Παρθικοῦ Σαρματικοῦ Γερμανικοῦ Μεγίστου Βρεταννικοῦ (year 29) 56.23
τὴν Αὐρηλίου Κομμόδου Ἀντωνίνου Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου τύχην (oath) 56.[22]
SEVERUS ALEXANDER
Μάρκου Αὐρηλί[ου (regnal year lost) 45.7
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Αὐτοκράτορος Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου Σεουήρου Ἀλεξάνδρου Εὐσεβοῦς Εὐτυχοῦς
Σεβαστοῦ (year 11) 70.2, 18
DIOCLETIAN
Διοκλετιανοῦ (era, date lost) 40.[3]
UNCERTAIN (Marcus Aurelius?)

Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα [ (oath) 38.8
UNCERTAIN
] Καίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ (regnal year lost) 60.4
] Καίσαρος [ (regnal year lost) 66.3
Indices 361
ΙΙ. Consuls
213 Αὐτοκράτορι κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἀντωνείῳ Εὐσεβεῖ Σεβαστῷ τὸ τέταρτον 5.11
347 ὑπατείας Οὐλκακίου Ῥουφίνου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου ἐπάρχου τοῦ ἱεροῦ πραιτωρίου καὶ Φλαουίου
Εὐσεβίου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου κόμιτος 36.1
ca. 397–398 ὑπατείας vel μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Φλαουίων Καισαρίου καὶ Ἀττικοῦ τῶν λαμπροτάτων 27.13
496 μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Φλαουίου Βεάτορος τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου 33.1
ΙΙΙ. Indictions and Eras
(a) Indictions
4th indiction (=495/6) 33.9
4th indiction, beginning of the 5th (=496) 33.1
12th indiction (year unknown) 54.2, 9
13th indiction (339/40) 36.10
[number, year unknown] 55.8
(b) Eras
Oxyrhynchite Diocletianic
172/141=495/6 33.9 (year unknown) 40.[3]
IV. Months and Days
(a) Months
Ἐπείφ 11.6; 30.4 Σεβαστός 31.3
Μεσορή 34.32; 58.5 Τῦβι 19.1; 24.1; 54.7
Μεχείρ 20.1; 65.7 Φαμενώθ 21.1; 22.1
Παῦνι 30.4; 33.1; 70.17 Φαρμοῦθι 14.1; 62.5; 70.2
Παχών 15.1; 18.1; 23.1; 31.7; 59.4; 61.5; Φαῶφι 16.1; 17.1; 65.6
70.9, 18 Χοίακ 45.6; 54.1
(b) Days
Διός (ἡμέρα) 2.3 Σαμβᾶ (ἡμέρα) 2.5
Καλάνδαι 5.11 Σελήνης (ἡμέρα) 2.5
κυριακή (ἡμέρα) 2.3
V. Dates
18 June 251 BCE 14.1 5 July 223 BCE 18.1
11 July 251 BCE 15.[1] 14 March 222 BCE 19.1
22 December 247 BCE 16.1 18 March 222 BCE 20.1
21 December 245 BCE 17.1 8 May 221 BCE 21.1
362 B. Greek Documentary Texts
15 April–14 May 219 BCE 22.1 8 September 97 31.3

1 July 217 BCE 23.1 23 May 98 31.[6?]
4 March 211 BCE 24.1 19, 20, or 23 February 127 65.[5?]
1 May 22 61.4 22–26 June 158 (five-day period) 30.4
9 April 23 62.3 28 September 213 5.11
22 August 29 58.4 6 May 232 70.9
1 June 34 59.3 26 May 232 70.17
24 July 96 11.4 11 June 496 33.1
VI. Personal Names

The following abbreviations are employed:
b. = brother gds. = grandson
d. = daughter h. = husband
f. = father m. = mother
gdd. = granddaughter s. = son
gdf. = grandfather sis. = sister
gdm. = grandmother w. = wife
Ἀγαθῖνος, b. of Barbaros 52.1 Ἀπολλώνιος, f. of Akousilaos 46.66, 70

Ἁδριανός see Index I s.v. Hadrian Ἀπολλώνιος, f. of Ammonios 46.255
Ἀθεμμεύς, s. of Petesoukhos 46.151, 163 Ἀπολλώνιος, f. of Diodotos 46.157
Ἀθηνίων, s. of Arkhias 46.84 Ἀπολλώνιος, f. of Laodike 47.8
Ἄθινις 34.1, 2, 5, 10, 23, 24, [26], 27 Ἀπολλώνιος, s. of Poseidonios 46.120, 216
Αἴλιος see Index I s.v. Hadrian Ἀπολλώνιος, alias NN, epiteretes 70.1
Ἀκλῆς 50.9 Ἄπυγχις, f. of Purrikhos 46.152
Ἀκουσίλαος, s. of Apollonios 46.65, 70 Ἁρβῆχις, s. of Hergeus 46.195
Ἀκουσίλαος, s. of Asklepiades 46.50, 56 Ἅρκοιφις, f. of Petosiris 46.198
Ἀλέξανδρος see Index I s.v. Severus Alexander Ἁρμάχις 34 7
Ἀμεννεύς, f. of Petermouthis 46.98, [192] Ἁρμιῦσις, s. of Petenouris 46.35
Ἀμεννεύς, f. of Petosiris 46.9 Ἁρμιῦσις, s. of Petesoukhos 46.38
Ἀμμώνιος 6.2 Ἁρμιῦσις, s. of Ptolemaios 46.30
Ἀμμώνιος, s. of Anoubion Petes, gds. of Ἁρμιῦσις, s. of Sokonopis 46.142
Psenamounis, homeowner 56.8, [30] Ἁρόννησις, f. of Orses 46.[12]
Ἀμμώνιος, s. of Apollonios 46.255 Ἀρσινόη 43.52
Ἀμμώνιος, s. of Herakleides 46.248 Ἁρυώτης, s. of Haruotes 46.[140]
Ἀμμώνιος, f. of Polemon 46.57 Ἁρυώτης, f. of Haruotes 46.140
Ἀνεμπεύς, s. of Petosiris 46.99 Ἁρυώτης, s. of Phaesis 46.241
Ἀνουβίων Πετῆς, s. of Psenamounis, f. of Ἁρυώτης, s. of Phaeus 46.[14]
Ammonios 56.[9], [30] Ἁρφαῆσις, s. of Horos 46.[18]
Ἀντωνῖνος see Index I s.vv. Hadrian; Commodus Ἁρφαῆσις, f. of Horos 46.144
Ἀντώνιος see Index II anno 213 Ἁρφαῆσις, s. of Petesoukhos 46.202
Ἀντώνιος Μίνωρ, basilikos grammateus 29.1 Ἁρφαῆσις, s. of Petosiris 46.20, 31
Ἀνύσιος, s. of Theophanes 55.1 Ἀρχίας, f. of Athenion 46.84
Ἀπολλόδωρος, tax-collector 63.[1] Ἀσκληπιάδης, f. of Akousilaos 46.50, 56
Ἀπολλόδωρος, s. of Ptolemaios 46.58, 67 Ἀσκληπιάδης, s. of Asklepiades 46.54
Ἀπολλώνιος 34.21, 26 Ἀσκληπιάδης, f. of Asklepiades 46.54
Ἀπολλώνιος, strategos 32 1 Ἀσκληπιάδης, s. of Ptolemaios 46.89
Indices 363
Ἀττικός see Index II anno 397–398 Souerous, f. of Herminos, Isidoros,

Ἅυγχις, m. of Imut 23.2 Theognostos, and -dora, citizen of
Αὐρήλιος see s.vv. Ἑρμίας, Λεωνίδης, Μᾶρκος Hermopolis 56.2, 13, [28]
Αὐρήλιος, Μέγας, Οὐηριανός, Σαραπίων; Ἑρμίας, Aur., s. of Theon, ex-arkhon, bouleutes
Index I s.v. Commodus of Oxyrhynchus, banker and epimeletes,
Ἀφροδίτη, m. of Tre-, gdm. of Peteësis 29.9 36.5
Ἀφροδιτοῦς, sis. of Boubas 12.1 Ἑρμῖνος, alias Moros, s. of Hermaios and
Ἄφρυγχις, f. of Thermis 38.3 Souerous 56.14
Ἀχιλλεύς 43.52 Εὐ[ , f. of Didyme 31.7
Ἀχιλλεύς 56.[29] Εὐδαιμονίς, m. of NN 30.7
Ἀχιλλεύς, s. of Hermaios, f. of Hermaios Εὐδαιμονίς, alias Tisoïs, d. of Nearkhos, m. of
54.2, [28] Hermaios 56.3
Εὐσέβιος see Index II anno 347
Βάκχιος, s. of Mousaios 46.93
Βάρβαρος, b. of Agathinos 40.1 Ζε[ 29.3
Βάστας 43.52 Ζμῆτις (Σμῆθις), f. of Petekhespokrates 61.3;
Βεάτωρ, Fl. see Index II anno 496 62.2
Βότρυς 16.6 Ζωπυρίων, f. of Lukos 46.41, 258
Βουβᾶς, b. of Aphroditous 12.1
Ἡλιόδωρος, s. of Menodoros 46.86, 123
Γαλάτης 34.9 Ἡλιόδωρος, f. of NN 31.9
Γερμανικός see Index I s.vv. Domitian, Trajan, Ἡλιόδωρος, alias Dio- 31.12
Commodus Ἡρακλᾶς, fuller 52.2
Ἡρακλείδης, f. of Ammonios 46.249
Δεῖος, s. of Di-, f. of Kottariaina, 31.2 Ἡρακλείδης, f. of Demetrios 46.251
Δημήτριος, s. of Herakleides 46.251 Ἡρακλείδης, f. of Dionusios 6.1
Δι[ , f. of Deios, gdf. of Kottariaina 31.2 Ἡρᾶς, s. of Pasion 47.10
Διδύμη, d. of Eu- and Kottariaina 31.7 Ἡφαιστίων 34.17, 23, [26]
Διο[ 29.6
Διο[ , alias Heliodoros 31.12 Θαῆσις, m. of Taarpaesis 38.5
Διόδοτος, conductor of Xeron Pelagos 11.1 Θαῆσις, “d. of both” 38.6
Διόδοτος, s. of Apollonios 46.157 Θαυσίρις 31.5
Διοκλετιανός see Index I s.v. Diocletian Θεόγνωστος, alias Moros, s. of Hermaios and
Διονύσιος 30.[8] Souerous 56.[18]
Διονύσιος 43→.1 Θεοφάνης, f. of Anysios 55.1
Διονύσιος, s. of Herakleides 6.1, 10 Θέρμις, d. of Aphynkhis 38.3
Διοσκουρίδης, b. of Philotas 50.1, verso 1 Θέων, praktor 65.1
Δομιτιανός see Index I s.v. Domitian Θέων: Marcus Aurelius …s, alias Theon 5.9
Δονᾶτος: Crepereius Donatus, soldier 8.4 Θέων, f. of Aurelius Hermias 36.5
Δωρᾶς 47.13 Θέων, f. of Petron 46.34, 43
Δῶρος, tax-collector 14.2; 15.[1]; 16.8; 17.2; Θέων, s. of Theon 46.103
18.3; 20.3; 21.4; 22.[3]; 23.3; 24.2; 25.3 Θέων, f. of Theon 46.103
Δῶρος, s. of Petalos 46.147, 154, 162 Θοτορταῖος, s. of Petosiris 46.39
Ἑλένη 34.22 Ἰησοῦς see Index VIII (a)

Ἑργεύς 46.196 Ἰμούθης, f. of Patis 20.2; 21.2; 22.2
Ἑργεύς, f. of Harbekhis 46.195 Ἰμουτ, s. of Haünkhis, h. of Tahor 23.2
Ἑρμαῖος, f. of Akhilleus, gdf. of Hermaios 56.3 Ἰουλιανός: Iulius Iulianus, egregius, epistrategos
Ἑρμαῖος, alias Pathotes, s. of Achilles and 29.5
Eudaimonis, gds. of Hermaios, h. of Ἰούλιος: see s.vv. Ἰουλιανός, Σερῆνος
Ἰσίδωρος, s. of Hermaios and Souerous 56.16 Μέγας, Aur., s. of Philoxenos 33.3

Μενίσκος, f. of Ptolemaios 46.113, 149
Καῖσαρ see Index I s.vv. Augustus, Tiberius, Μεστάσυτμις 46.91
Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Commodus, Μηνᾶς, s. of Markos 28.5
Uncertain Μηνόδωρος, f. of Heliodoros 46.86, 123
Καισάριος see Index II anno 397–398 Μήουιος Ὁνωρατιανός, praefectus Aegypti
Καλάτυτις, f. of Pasis the elder and Pasis the 70.11
younger 46.21, 23 Μιῦσις 65.2
Καλλικράτης, s. of Philoxenos 46.166 Μιῦσις, s. of Petechenspochrates 58.1; 59.1
Καλλικράτης, s. of Ptolemaios 46.225 Μουσαῖος, f. of Bakkhios 46.93
Κάστωρ, f. of Souerous 56.[15], [20] Μουσαῖος, f. of NN, of spectabilis memory 33.2
Κάστωρ, s. of -os, epimeletes, 32.4 Μῶρος, alias Herminos 56.14
Κατῦτις, s. of Katutis 46.240 Μῶρος, alias Theognostos 56.18
Κατῦτις, f. of Katutis 46.240
Κέντις, s. of Horos 46.[17], 25, 200 Νέαρχος, f. of Eudaimonis 56.[4]
Κεφαλᾶς, s. of Petesoukhos 46.37 Νεκτένιβις, s. of Horos 46.246
Κεφάλων, f. of Petesokonouris 46.207 Νέκτσαφθις, alias Maron 46.52, 61
Κόμμοδος see Index I s.v. Commodus Νέρουα see Index I s.vv. Nerva, Trajan
Κομοᾶπις 34.7 Νίκη 43→.1
Κόμων 12.11 Νικόμαχος 34.12
Κοτταρίαινα, d. of Deios, gdd. of Di- 31.2
Κρατεῖνος, f. of Khairemon 46.85 Ὄννωφρις, s. of Petekhon 46.161
Κρεπερήιος see s.v. Δονᾶτος Ὄννωφρις, f. of Politios 46.164
Κῦρος, nyktostrategos 27.5 Ὄννωφρις, f. of Taarpaesis 38.5
Ὀρσένουφις 4 ii.14
Λάμπων 34.13 Ὀρσῆς, s. of Haronnesis 46.12
Λαοδίκη, d. of Apollonios 47.7 Ὀσορόηρις 17.2
Λεοντίσκος, f. of Leon 46.146 Οὐηριανός, Aur., praefectus Aegypti 56.5
Λέων, s. of Leontiskos 46.146 Οὐίκτωρ, quaestionarius 27.2, 3, 14
Λεωνίδης, Aur., strategos of the Oxyrhynchite Οὐλκάκιος see Index II anno 347
45.1
Λολλιανός: Marcus Aurelius Lollianus 5.9 Πάθηβις, f. of Phmoueis 46.231
Λούκιος [.....]ιος Τείρων 5.7 Παθώτης, alias Hermaios 56.2, 13, [28]
Λύκος, s. of Zopurion 46.41, 258 Πάκυρρις, f. of Marres 46.201
Πάκυρρις, f. of Petesoukhos 46.48
Μαρία see Index VIII (a) Παναω( ) 4 iii.5
Μᾶρκος see Index I s.vv. Commodus, Severus Πανεχάτης 11.1
Alexander Πανη (?) 4 ii.19
Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος see s.vv. Θέων, Λολλιανός; Πάνταυχος, s. of Pantaukhos 46.110, 117
Index I s.vv. Commodus, Severus, Πάνταυχος, f. of Pantaukhos 46.111, 118
Alexander Παπνεβτῦνις 46.189, 190
Μᾶρκος, f. of Menas 28.5 Πᾶσις, the elder, s. of Kalatutis 46.[21]
Μαρρῆς, s. of Marres 46.[143] Πᾶσις, the younger, s. of Kalatutis 46.23
Μαρρῆς, f. of Marres 46.143 Πᾶσις, s. of Petesoukhos 46.36, 44
Μαρρῆς, s. of Pakurris 46.201 Πασίων, f. of Heras 47.10
Μαρρῆς, s. of Petos 46.40, 92, 96 Πασῶς, the elder, s. of Phanesis 46.10
Μάρων 50.1a Πᾶτις, s. of Imouthes 20.2; 21.2; 22.2
Μάρων, s. of Sokrates 6.1, 9 Πᾶτις, s. of Tilous, h. of Timasi 19.2; 24.1
Μάρων, alias Nektsaphthis, s. of Petosiris Παῦλος, agent of a telonarkhes 54.3, 8
46.51, 60 Πε[ , 66.1
Indices 365
Πέταλος, f. of Doros 46.147, 154, 162 Πτολεμαῖος, f. of Asklepiades 46.89

Πετε[ , f. of -eous 63.2 Πτολεμαῖος, f. of Harmiusis 46.30
Πετεῆσις, s. of Teos 46.230 Πτολεμαῖος, f. of Kallikrates 46.225
Πετεῆσις, s. of Tre-, gds. of Aphrodite 29.8 Πτολεμαῖος, s. of Meniskos 46.112, 149
Πετειμούθης 46.91 Πτολλᾶς, s. of Ptollas, f. of NN 30.6
Πετεμενῶφις, s. of Pikos 59.4 Πτολλᾶς, f. of Ptollas 30.6
Πετενοῦρις, f. of Harmiusis 46.35 Πύρριχος, s. of Apunkhis 46.152
Πετενοῦρις, f. of NN 32.2 Πωμπώνιος Φαυστιανός, praefectus Aegypti 8.2
Πετερμοῦθις, s. of Amenneus 46.97, 192
Πετερμοῦθις, s. of Siphmous 46.7, 193 Ῥόδων, f. of -phis 29.10
Πετεσοκόνουρις, s. of Kephalon, georgos 46.206 Ῥουφῖνος see Index II anno 347
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Athemmeus 46.151, 163
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Harmiusis 46.38 Σ[ 25 2
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Harphaesis 46.202 Σανε̣φ̣ῶ̣φ̣ις (or Σανσ̣φ̣ῶ̣φ̣ις), s. of Rhodon 29.10n
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Kephalas 46.37 Σαραπάμμων 55.3
Πετεσοῦχος, s. of Pakurris 46.48 Σαραπίων, tax-collector 62.1
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Pasis 46.36, 44 Σαραπίων, Aur., tax-collector 45.2
Πετεσοῦχος, f. of Sokmenis 46.194 Σαραπίων, s. of Sarapion 46.121, 173
Πετεσοῦχος, s. of Tothoeis 46.45 Σαραπίων, f. of Sarapion 46.121, 174
Πετεχ[ 65.2 Σεουῆρος see Index I s.v. Severus Alexander
Πετεχενσποχράτης, f. of Miusis 58.1; 59.1 Σερῆνος: Iulius Serenus, soldier 8.3
Πετεχεσποκράτης, s. of Zmetis (or Smethis) Σι(ε)φμοῦς, f. of Πετερμοῦθις 46.7, 193
61.2; 62.2 Σιμπλίκιος: ]eius Simplicius, praeses 27.1
Πετεχεσποχράτης 65.3; 66.5 Σμῆθις 15 [2?]; see also Ζμῆτις
Πετεχῶν, f. of Onnophris 46.161 Σμῆτ, s. of Psametikhos 14.2
Πετεχῶν, s. of Psenkhnoumis, tax collector 61.1 Σοκμῆνις, s. of Petesoukhos 46.194
Πετόσιρις, s. of Amenneus 46.9 Σοκόνωπις, f. of Harmiusis 46.142
Πετόσιρις, f. of Anempeus 46.99 Σουεροῦς, d. of Kastor, w. of Hermaios, m. of
Πετόσιρις, s. of Harkoiphis 46.198 Herminos, Isidoros, Theognostos, and - dora
Πετόσιρις, f. of Harphaesis 46.20, 32 56.15, [20]
Πετόσιρις, s. of Horos 46.197 Σύρος 7.20, 27
Πετόσιρις, f. of Maron, alias Nektsaphthis Σωκράτης, f. of Maron 6.1
46.52, 61
Πετόσιρις, f. of Thotortaios 46.39 Τααρπαῆσις, d. of Onnophris and Thaesis 38.5
Πέτρων, s. of Theon 46.34, 43 Τααφύγχις, “d. of both” 38.4
Πετῶς, f. of Horos 46.106 Ταμεηοκ 18.2
Πετῶς, f. of Marres 46.40, 92, 96 Ταχῶνσις, apator 38.2
Πικῶς, f. of Petemenophis 59.4 Ταωρ, w. of Imout 23.3
Πλουτίων, amphodogrammateus 56.31 Τείρων: Lucius - -ius Tiro 5.7
Πολέμων, s. of Ammonios 46.57 Τεῶς, f. of Peteesis 46.230
Πολίτιος, s. of Onnophris 46.164 Τιβέριος see Index I s.v. Tiberius
Πολυδεύκης 34.22 Τιλοῦς, m. of Patis 19.3; 24.3
Ποσειδώνιος, f. of Apollonios 46.120, 216 Τιμασι, w. of Patis 24.2
Πουῶρις, s. of Pouoris 29.13 Τίσοϊς, alias Eudaimonis 56.3
Πουῶρις, f. of Pouoris 29.13 Τίτος see Index I s.v. Hadrian
Πραξιάδης 16.6 Τοθόεϊς, f. of Petesoukhos 46.45
Πρόβος, procurator Caesaris 8.3 Τοτοεῦς 29.11
Προσώστης 7.13n Τραιανός see Index I s.v. Trajan
Πτολεμαῖος, agent of the banker Philon 16.1 Τρε[ (Τρέμψις?), d. of Aphrodite, m. of Peteesis
Πτολεμαῖος, f. of Apollodoros 46.58, 67 29.8
Τρύφων 32.1
Φαεῦς, f. of Haruotes 46.[14] Ψενάμουνις, f. of Anoubion Petes, gdf. of

Φαῆσις, s. of Haruotes 46.241 Ammonios 56.9
Φαῆσις, s. of Phibis 46.101 Ψενάμουνις, f. of NN 60.[2]
Φάνησις, f. of Pasos 46.10 Ψενῆσις, s. of Psenesis 46.104
Φιβι[ , apator, epimeletes 32.2 Ψενῆσις, f. of Psenesis 46.104
Φῖβις, f. of Phaesis 46.101 Ψένχνουμις, f. of Petekhon 61.1
Φιλόξενος, f. of Aur. Megas 33.3
Φιλόξενος, f. of Kallikrates 46.166 Ὧρος, s. of Harphaesis 46.144
Φίλων, banker of Syene 16.4 Ὧρος, f. of Harphaesis 46.[18]
Φιλώτας, b. of Dioskourides 50.1 Ὧρος, f. of Kentis 46.[17], 25, 200
Φλάουιος see Index II annis 347, 397–398, 496 Ὧρος, f. of Nektenibis 46.246
Φλάουιος [ , strategos of the Oxyrhynchite 36.4 Ὧρος, s. of Petos 46.106
Φμέρσις, s. of Horos 46.26 Ὧρος, f. of Petosiris 46.197
Φμούεις, s. of Pathebis 46.231 Ὧρος, f. of Phmersis 46.26
Φ[.....]νος 43.53 ]δώρα, d. of Hermaios and Souerous 56.21

]ειος Σιμπλίκιος, praeses 27.1
Χαιρήμων 34.32 ]ερις, f. of NN 27.11
Χαιρήμων, s. of Krateinos 46.85 ]ερις, f. of NN 27.12
]ηους, s. of Pete- 63.2
Ψαμήτιχος, f. of Smet 14.2 ]μις, “d. of both” 38.1
VII. Geographical
Ἀπολλωνίου Ἱερακείου (ἄμφοδον) 31.8 Θεαδέλφεια (κώμη) 30.5
Ἀργιάς (κώμη) 4 iii.4, 5 Θεμίστου μερίς 70.10
Ἀρμενιακός see Index I s.v. Commodus Θεμίστου περίχωμα 46.76
Αὕηρις (κώμη) 9.29 Θεογονίς 46.213
Θεωνίλλης (τόπιον) 43.40
Βακιν (ἐποίκιον) 33.8, 12, 14 Θηβαΐς see s.v. Διοπολίτης Θ.
Βερενικίς Θεσμοφόρου 46.125 Θμοιναχη (ἐποίκιον) 33.8, 15, 16
Βερκυθι 7.28 Θμοινέψωβθις (κώμη) 2.4
Βρεταννικός see Index I s.v. Commodus
Ἰβιών (κώμη) 55.5
Γερμανικός see Index I s.vv. Domitian, Trajan, Ἰβιὼν Πανεκτύρεως (κώμη) 32.[4]
Commodus Ἰβιὼν τῶν Εἰκοσιπενταρούρων (κώμη) 46.6,
Γεροντᾶς (ἐποίκιον) 33.6 [130], 160, 259
Ἰέμη (κώμη) 47.2
Δακικός see Index I s.v. Trajan
Δημητρίου (κλῆρος) 47.3 Κεραμεῖα (κώμη) 62.3
Διονυσίας (κώμη) 4.4a (?) Κερκέουρις ἀπηλιώτου περίχωμα 46.212
Διονυσίου τόπων (ἄμφοδον) 31.1 Κερκέουρις λιβὸς περίχωμα 46.[185]
Διοπολίτης Θηβαΐδος (νομός) 29.2 Κερκέσουχα (κώμη) 9.1
Δισερο( ) (field) 4 ii.5 Κερκεΰρων (τόποι) 45.4
Κολκαλ( ) (κλῆρος) 4 ii.6, 7, 13, 18
Ἑλληνείου (ἄμφοδον) 31.6 Κολόβη (κώμη) 2.6
Ἑρμοπολίτης 56.4
Ἑρμοπολιτῶν (πόλις) 27.4, [9] Λαγεῖον 7.7
Ἡράκλεια (τὸ ἐν Ἡ. ἐποίκιον) 7.24 Μακεδόνων (ἄμφοδον) 31.9

Indices 367
Μέμφις 34.3 Σαρματικός see Index I s.v. Commodus

Μηδικός see Index I s.v. Commodus Σεσφθα (ἐποίκιον) 33.8, 15, 16
Συήνη 16.3
Ξηρὸν Πέλαγος (praesidium) 11.1 Συηνίτης 20.2; 21.3; 22.[2]; see also Index XII
s.v. λογεία
Ὀξυρυγχίτης (νομός) 36.4; 45.1
Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλις (ἡ λαμπρὰ καὶ λαμπροτάτη) Τάγχοιρις (κώμη) 9.16
33.2, 5; 36.5 Ταλί 46.214, 222, 248
Ὀξυρύγχων πόλις 5.10; 33.1 τοπαρχία (μέση) 45.4; 47.3
Παρθικός see Index I s.vv. Trajan, Commodus Φίλωνος (διῶρυξ) 46.214

Παω( ) περίχωμα) 46.[129] Φρεμεί (ἄμφοδον) 31.4
Ποιμήν (ἐποίκιον) 28.5
Πολέμωνος (διῶρυξ) 46.124, 131 Ψεναρύω (κώμη) 9.8
Πολέμωνος μερίς 70.1 Ψίναχις (κώμη) 4 ii.12
Πόλεως Ἀπηλιώτου (ἄμφοδον) 56.1, 4, 10, 11
Πτολεμαῒς Ὅρμου (κώμη) 9.23 δ⸍ (περίχωμα) 46.2
ιβ⸍(ἄμφοδον of Πόλεως Ἀπηλιώτου) 56.10
Σαραλαου (ἐποίκιον) 33.8, 12, 14 ιζ⸍ (ἄμφοδον of Πόλεως Ἀπηλιώτου) 56.11
VIII. Religion
(a) General
ἅγιος 40.[2], 3 ἱερεύς 46.29, 156, 186, 239
ἁγιώτατος 44.4 Ἰησοῦς 40.[1]
ἀειπάρθενος 40.[2]. Ἰσιεῖον 46.223
Ἀφροδίσιον 34.6 κροκόδιλος see s.v. Πετέσουχος
Ἀφροδίτη 34.8 κυριακή see Index IV (b)
δεσποίνη 40.2 κύριος 40.[1]
δεσπότης 40.[1] Μαρία 40.[2]
ἐκκλησία 44.4; 17 Πετέσουχος (Π. θεὸς κροκόδιλος) 46.9, 47
ἐκκλησιαστικός 44.14 Σαμβᾶς see Index IV (b) s.v. Σαμβᾶ
Ζεύς see Index IV (b) s.v. Διός Σελήνη see Index IV (b) s.v. Σελήνης
Ἥφαιστος 34.11 Σοκνέβτυνις 46.28, 97, 155, [186], 191, [238]
θεῖος 33.2; 36.8 Σοῦχος 46.90, 119, 121, 173, 216
Θεός 40.[1] σωτήρ 40.[1]
θεός 46.9, 28, 47, 90, 97, 119, 121, 155, 173, τροφή (ἐλάσσων ἰβίων τροφή) 46.196
[186], 191, 216, [238] τύχη 55 9; see also Index I s.vv. Trajan,
θεοτόκος 40.[2] Commodus
ἶβις 46.196 Χριστός 40.[1]
ἰβίων τροφή 46.196
(b) Invocation
Ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου καὶ δεσπότου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς δεσποίνης
ἡμῶν τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων 40.[1]
IX. Official and Military Terms and Titles

ἀγορανομεῖον 34.3 κονσιστώριον (θεῖον κ.) 33.2
ἀμφοδογραμματεύς 56.[1] κράτιστος 29.4
ἀπαιτητής 66.1 κριτής 7.14
ἀπὸ γυμνασίου 56.4, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 κυεστωνάριος 27.2, 14
ἄρχειν 36.5 κύριος see Index I s.vv. Hadrian, Commodus,
ἀρχέφοδος 27 11 Severus Alexander; Index II anno 213
ἀρχή 27.3 λαμπρότατος 27.1, 13; 36.1, 3; 70. [11], 22
ἀρχιδικαστής 7 14 μεγαλειότης 70.13
Αὔγουστος 36 9 μεγαλοπρέπεια 33.3, 6, 11
Αὐτοκράτωρ see Index I s.vv. Domitian, Trajan, μέγεθος 27.6; 33.7
Hadrian, Commodus, Severus Alexander, Μέγιστος see Index I s.v. Commodus
Uncertain; Index II anno 213 μισθωτής 11.1
βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς 29.1 νυκτοστράτηγος 27.5
βουλευτής 36.5 ὀγδοηκοντάρουρος 46.132, 146, 147, 154, 157,
δεσπότης 36.8 162, 166, 225, 255
εἰκοσιάρουρος 46.26, 30, 37 οὐετρανός 55.21
εἰκοσιπεντάρουρος 46.6, [130], 160, 259 οὐσιακός 70.4, 20
ἑκατοντάρουρος 46.57, 84, 93, 123 ὀφφικιάλιος 55.24
ἐνδοξότατος 33.1; 44.9 περίβλεπτος 33.2 (bis)
ἔπαρχος τοῦ ἱεροῦ πραιτωρίου 36.1 πραιτώριον 7.11; 36.2 (τὸ ἱερὸν π.)
ἐπιμελητής 32.3; 36.7 πράκτωρ ἀργυρικῶν 45.3; 65.1
ἐπιστάτης 50.4 Σεβαστός see Index I s.vv. Tiberius, Domitian,
ἐπιστράτηγος 29.[4] Trajan, Hadrian, Commodus, Severus
ἐπιτηρητής 70.1, [10] Alexander, Uncertain; Index II anno 213
ἑπτάρουρος 46.10, [12], 16, 18, [21], 23, 38, 45, σπεῖρα 8.4, 5
104, 134, [140], [142], [144] στρατηγία 29.[2]
ἐρημοφύλαξ 46.25 στρατηγός 32.1; 36.4; 45.1
ἡγεμονεύειν 56.6 στρατιώτης 8.4, 5
ἡγεμών 7.18; 27.[1], 10; 70.[12], [22] τάξις 27.2, 4, 6, 9
ἴδιος λόγος 70.[4?], [20?] τελωνάρχης 54.2, 8
ἱερός see ἔπαρχος τοῦ ἱεροῦ πραιτωρίου τράπεζα (ἡ ἐν Συήνηι τ.) 16.3
ἱππεύς τραπεζίτης 16.4; 36.6
κάτοικος ἱ. 46.42, 29, 55 τριακοντάρουρος 46.14, 110, 117
κλῆρος ἱππέως 46.58, 67, 103 ὑπατεία see Index II
κάτοικος s.v. ἱππεύς ὑπηρέτης 2.1
κόμης 33.2; 36.3 χειριστής 54.3, 9
κονδούκτωρ 12.10 χερσέφιππος 46.110, 117
X. Professions, Trades, and Occupations

γεωργός 33.10; 46.206 ὀνηλάτης 27.12
κναφεύς 52.2 προνοητής 33.7
Indices 369
XI. Measures and Money
(a) Measures
ἄρουρα 9.1, 8, 16, 23, 29; 46.43, 211; 47.4, 5, 8, κεράμιον 7.29
10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19; 67.7 μέτρον 28.[3]
ἀρτάβη 33.14; 52.3 (bis), 4 (bis); 67.7 ναύβιον see Index XII
δάκτυλος 43 passim παλαστή 43.24, 42, [49], 62
διπλοῦν 33.15 πῆχυς 43 passim
(b) Money
δηνάριον 36.[11] νόμισμα 28.2 (bis), 3, 4
δραχμή 4 passim; 14.4, 5; 15.[3], 4; 16.7, 8; νομισμάτιον 54.4, 9
17.4; 20.3; 21.4; 22.3; 31.5; 34.16, 17, 31; νοῦμμος see s.v. σηστέρτιος
47.5; 58.2, 3; 59.1, 2; 60.[2], [3]; 61.4; 65.4 ὀβολός 18.4; 19.4; 23.[3]; 24.3 (bis); 58.2,
ἡμιωβέλιον 18.4; 19.4; 23.[3]; 24.3 (bis); 58.2, 3 (bis); 59.2, 3; 60.[4]
3 (bis); 59 2 (bis), 3; 60.[3], [4] σηστέρτιος (σ. νοῦμμος) 5.8
κεράτιον 54.5, 10 τετρώβολον 19.3; 23.3; 24.2; 60.[2], [3]
μνᾶ 70.14 ]οβολ( ) 68.4
XII. Taxes
ἁλική 14.3, 5; 15.[2], 4; 16.4; 18.3; 19.3; 24.2; μυροψική (for μυρεψ-) 17.3
25.3 ναύβιον (ἐξαργυρισθέντα ναύβια) 36.10
ἀννωνικὰ πόλεως 70.5n (?) προσδιαγραφόμενα 58.3; 59.3; 60.4
βαλανευτικόν 58.2; 59.2; 60.3; 61.3; 62.3 στεφανικά 70.6
δημόσια 67.11 τελωνικὰ πόλεως 70.5n (?)
λαογραφία 58.2; 59.1 χωματικόν 60.[2]
λογεία (Συηνιτῶν λ.) 20.3; 21.3; 22.2 --ωνικὰ πόλεως 70.5, 21
μερισμός 66.2
XIII. General Index of Words

ἄβροχος 9.35; 46.221, 233 αἰφνιδίως 50.8
ἄγειν 46.222 ἀκανθών 9.21
ἅγιος see Index VIII (a) ἀκολούθως 33.11; 47.29
ἁγιώτατος see Index VIII ἀκούειν 7.17, 19
ἀγκύρια 28.2, 7 ἄκυρος 5.4; 34.29
ἀγοράζειν 12.7 ἁλική see Index XII
ἀγορανομεῖον see Index IX ἀλλά 47.23
ἄγροικος 55.22 ἀλλοδαπός 27.5
ἀδελφή 31.[8] ἄλλος 4 ii.12; 7.22; 9.3, 11, 25, [31]; 27.8; 33.6,
ἀδελφός 12.2; 27.7, 10; 34.[21]; 50.2; 52.1 10; 43.27, 31, 43, 47–49, 73; 47.10, 11; 55.5,
ἀδιάθετος 34.[20] 24; 56.[16], 18
ἀδύναμος 8.7 ἁλμυρίς 9.12, 28, 37; 46 passim
ἀειπάρθενος see Index VIII ἀλύπως 50.3
αἰγιαλός 7.35 ἅμα 33.3
ἁμαρτάνειν 7.31 Ἄριστος see Index I s.v. Trajan

ἄμη 6.3, [11?] ἀρκεῖν 7.9
ἄμμος 9.36 Ἀρμενιακός see Index I s.v. Commodus
ἄμπελος 9.10, 18 ἄρουρα see Index XI (a)
ἀμφιβάλλειν 44.11 ἀρτάβη see Index XI (a)
ἀμφοδογραμματεύς see Index IX ἄρχειν 46 passim (ἀρχόμενος); see also Index IX
ἄμφοδον 31.4; 56.11 ἀρχέφοδος see Index IX
ἀμφότερος 33.4; 38.[1], [4], 6 ἀρχή 33.1; 34.25; see also Index IX
ἄν 7.23; 12.6; 47.25 ἀρχιδικαστής see Index IX
ἀνά 46 passim ἀσπάζεσθαι 12.11
ἀναγράφειν 56.[4], 10 ἀσπορεῖν 7.34
ἀναδέχεσθαι 33.3, [6] ἀσφαλῶς 12.5
ἀναπέμπειν 29.[3?] ἄτεκνος 34.[20]
ἀνασπαστός 50.7 Αὔγουστος see Index IX
ἀναχώρησις 55.23 αὐλή 56.11
ἀνέρχεσθαι 55.22 Αὐτοκράτωρ see Index I s.vv. Domitian, Trajan,
ἀνήκειν 56.11 Hadrian, Commodus, Severus Alexander,
ἀνήρ 34.23, [26]; 55.21, 26; 70.4, [20], [21] Uncertain; Index II anno 213
ἀννωνικός see Index XII s.v. ἀννωνικὰ πόλεως αὐτός 6.4; 7. 8, 13, 15; 8.4, 5, 6 (bis); 12.13;
ἄνοπλος 8.7 27.9; 30.[4]; 33.3 (bis), [4], 4, 6, 7, 11, [18];
ἀντί 4 ii.15, 16; 7.30 34.1, 2, 18, 20; 43.10, 73; 44.6; 46.11, [13],
ἀντιγράφειν 8.9; 70.7, 16 [15], 19, [22], 24, 31, 141, 145, 146, 252;
ἀντίγραφον 8.1 47.14; 54.1, [12], 16, 18, 30; 55.18; 70.[8],
ἀντιμαρτύρεσθαι 5.9 13, 15, 22
ἀντιποιεῖν 34.28 ἀφῆλιξ 56.[17], 19
ἄξιος 55.21 ἀφηνιάζειν 27.3
ἀπαιτήσιμον 33.10 ἄφορος 9.38
ἀπαιτητής see Index IX Ἀφροδίσιον see Index VIII (a)
ἅπας 33.18 ἄχρι 7.21
ἀπάτωρ 32.2
ἀπειλεῖν 7.15 βαλανεῖον 43.36
ἀπέρχεσθαι 55.14 βαλανευτής see Index IX
ἀπέχειν 6.2, 4; 11.2; 61.3; 62.3 βαλανευτικόν see Index XII
ἀπηλιώτης 34.9, 13; 46 passim; see also Index βάλσαμον 44.16
VII s.v. Πόλεως Ἀπηλιώτου βάρβαρος 8.7
ἀπηλιωτικός 43.11, 68 βασιλικός
ἁπλοῦς 11.4 β. γραμματεύς see Index IX
ἀπό 2.4, 6; 9.1, 8, 16, 23, 29; 31.6, 8, 9; 33.5, βασιλική sc. γῆ 46 passim
[13]; 34.6; 36.9; 43.[30], 67, 75; 46 passim; βάσις 43.9, 26
47.4, 8; 50.2a; 55.5; 56.4, 13, 15, 16, 19–21 βέβαιος 33.5
ἀπογράφειν 31.[6?], 56.[4] βεβαίωσις 47.28
ἀπογραφή 56.[7], 12 βῆμα 7.8
ἀποδημεῖν 55.24 βία 27.9
ἀποδιδόναι 44.8 βιβλίον 70.2, 18
ἀποπληροῦν 33.4 βλάβος 34.30
ἀποστέλλειν 27.4, 9; 55.4, 25 βοήθεια 27.8, 9
ἀπόφασις 8.1, 8 βοϊκός 4 i c.4; ii.3–5, 8, 9, 11, 14, [18]; iii.6, 8
ἀργυρικός see Index IX s.v. πράκτωρ ἀργυρικῶν βορεινός 43.59, 64
ἀργύριον 34.16, [31]; 36.11, 12 βορρᾶς 34.8, [13]; 46 passim
ἀρετή 27.7, 9 βουλευτής see Index IX
ἀρίθμησις 45.5 βουνός 9.6, 14, 37
Indices 371
βρέουιον 55.18, 23, 25 δικαστήριον 27.3

Βρεταννικός see Index I s.v. Commodus δίκελλα 6.3, [11?]
διομολογεῖν 33.18
γάρ 7.27; 12.10; 27.3; 43.30; 44.11 διπλοῦν see Index XI (a)
γείτων 34.[8], 12 διπλοῦς 11.3
γεουχεῖν 33.2 διῶρυξ 9.4, 21, 33; 46.5, 77, [116], 122, 124,
Γερμανικός see Index I s.vv. Domitian, Trajan, 127, 131, 148, [150], 159, 205, 214
Commodus δοκεῖν 55.6, 13
γεωργός see Index X δραχμή see Index XI (b)
γῆ 36.2 δρόμος 34.[7], 8, 11
γίνεσθαι 4 i c.[8]; iii.15; 5.7, 10; 7.32; 9.7, 15, δύναμις 33.7
22, 38; 11.4; 27.9; 38.7; 43.60; 46 passim; δύνασθαι 7.23, 25; 27.10; 55.16
50.8; 52.4; 58.3; 59.2; 60.[3]; 65.4 δυνατός 8.2; 9.2, 9, 17, 24, 30
γνώμη 33.7 δύο 4 ii.15; 34.11; 52.3; 55.21, 25; 70.11
γράμμα 56.30; 70.15 δώδεκα 47.5
γραμματεύς see Index IX
γραμμάτιον 12.3 ἐάν 7.25; 34.[19]; 55.6, 13
γράφειν 6.9; 56.[30]; 70.11 ἐγγυητής 33.[17]
γυμνάσιον see Index IX s.v. ἀπὸ γυμνασίου ἐγκαλεῖν 47.20
γυνή 23.[3]; 24.3; 38.7; 56.20, [20] ἐγκαταλείπειν 8.5
ἔγκτησις 31.1
Δακικός see Index I s.v. Trajan ἐγώ 7.6, 8, 16; 8.8; 12.4, 7, 14; 27.3, 5–10, 14;
δάκτυλος see Index XI (a) 33.5, 7, 10, 11, [16], 17 (bis); 47.24, 29;
δαπανᾶν 34.16 55.3, 22, 28; 56.[12], 14; 70.7, 11, 16
δέ 12.6; 27.11; 29.7, 12; 33.13, 15, 17; 34.17, εἰ 5.3, [4], 4, [6]; 33 [16]
[19], 21, 25; 43.43, 47, 66, [67], 72; εἰδέναι 7.19; 56.30
46.[130]; 47.27; 50.7; 55.4; 70.13 εἰκός 50.6
δεῖν 7.27 εἴκοσι 33.14
δεῖσθαι 44.[7] εἰκοσιάρουρος see Index IX
δέκα 11.3; 33.12, 15; 47.9; 58.2; 59.1 εἰκοσιπεντάρουρος see Index IX
δέρειν 7.15 εἶναι 5.[4 (bis)], 4, 5 (bis), 6; 7.18; 8.11; 9.2, 3,
δέρμα 28.3 9, 11, 17, 19, 24, [25], 30, [32]; 12.10;
δεσμός 29.7 27.11; 29.7; 33.5, 6, 14; 34.18, [20], [29],
δεσποίνη see Index VIII (a) 31; 38.9; 43.30, 67, 75; 46.260; 47.14, [18];
δεσπότης see Indices VIII (a) and IX 50.6, 10
δεύτερος 55.[22] εἰς 4 i c.5; ii. 5, 6, 7 (bis), 12, 13, 18; 7.29; 9.3
δημόσιος see Index XII s.v. δημόσια (bis), 10 (ter), 11, 18 (ter), 25 (bis), 31 (bis);
δηνάριον see Index XI (b) 16.5; 27.3; 33.4, 13, 17, 18; 34.6, 14;
διά 6.4; 8.5, 8; 12.8; 16.1, 8; 18.3; 20.3; 21.3; 43.[33]; 46.33, 42, 49, 53, 55, 88, 222, 245,
22.3; 23.2; 24.2; 25.[2]; 27.7; 28.5; 34.[3], 3; 249, 250; 56.6, 8; 70.[14]
46 passim; 47.26; 54.3, 8 εἷς 4 ii.16; 5.8; 11.4; 16.7; 17.4; 43.43; 47.29;
διάγειν 27.5 58.2; 59.2
διαγράφειν 58.[1]; 59.1; 60.1 εἰσβαίνειν 46.233
διαδέχεσθαι 29.2 εἴσοδος 43.77
διαθήκη 5.7, 10; 34.4 εἴσπραξις 70.5, [6?], 21
διαστολή 45.5 εἰσπράσσειν 33.[11]
διάστρωμα 31.1 ἐκ (ἐξ) 31.[1], 6; 34.14, [21]; 43.24, 28, 42, [59],
διδόναι 5.3; 33.13 62, 65, [66], 68, 71, 72, 74, 78; 47.3; 56.14;
διδράσκειν 50.5 58.3; 59.3; 60.4; 70.15
διέρχεσθαι 6.6 ἕκαστος 55.25; 67.7; 70.6
δίκαιος 33.4 ἑκατοντάρουρος see Index IX
ἑκατοστή 33.12 ἔπαρχος see Index IX

ἐκβαίνειν (ἐγβ-) 46 passim ἐπεγγελᾶν 27.7
ἐκεῖνος 55.26 ἐπεί 47.1
ἐκζητεῖν 50.4a ἐπί 7.6, 12; 16.2; 27.3–5, 9; 29.[4]; 31.4; 33.6, 8,
ἐκκλησία see Index VIII (a) 11; 34.[4], 4, 15, [23], 25; 43.39; 47.14;
ἐκκλησιαστικός see Index VIII (a) 50.5; 55.14; 56.4, 10, [11]; 70.13, [22]
ἐκλείπειν 9.13 ἐπιβαίνειν 47.25
ἑκούσιος 33.7 ἐπιβάλλειν 34.18
ἐκπράσσειν 7.26 ἐπιδιδόναι 33.10; 56.29
ἐκτός 46.159 ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι 12.14
ἔλαιον 28.3 ἐπιμελητής see Index IX
ἐλασσοδαφία 47.23 ἐπιπορεύεσθαι 34.22
ἐλάσσων see Index VIII (a) s.v. τροφή ἐπίσταλμα 33.11
ἐλεᾶν 7.28 ἐπιστάτης see Index IX
ἐλεύθερος 5.[4], 4, 5 (ter), 6 (ter); 29.12 ἐπιστέλλειν 33.11
ἐμαυτοῦ 55.[4] ἐπιστολή 8.1; 70.[11]
ἔμβροχος 9.7, 26, 34; 46 passim ἐπιστράτηγος see Index IX
ἐμός 27.[2]; 56.[12] ἐπιτηρητής see Index IX
ἐν 5.10; 7.7, 11, 24, 28; 8.9; 16.3; 29.7; 30.5; ἐπιτρέπειν 7.7
33.1, 16, 18; 34.3; 40.1; 43.21, 27, 31, [36], ἐπιφέρειν 27.7
52, 54, 61 (bis), 64, 68, 70, 73 (bis); 46.76, ἐποίκιον 7.24; 33.6, 12
100, 102, 105, 129, [185], 212, 218, 243, ἑπτά 54.5
257; 47.15, 22; 50.10 ἑπτάρουρος see Index IX
ἐνδεικνύναι 33.16 ἐργάζεσθαι 30.3
ἐνδοξότατος see Index IX ἔργον 30.[4]
ἐνεργεῖν 7.21 ἐρημοφύλαξ see Index IX
ἐνέχειν 33.4, 7 ἔρχεσθαι 7.29
ἐνήλικος 34.27 ἐρωτᾶν 12.2
ἐνθάδε 12.9 ἕτερος 34.30; 43.47; 44.3
ἐνιαύσιος 56.21 ἔτι 34.29; 50.8
ἐνιαυτός 33.8 ἔτος 6.7; 11.4; 14.1, 4; 15.1, 3; 16.1, 5; 17.1;
ἐνιστάναι 6.8; 33.9; 45.[7]; 47.1; 70.2, [18] 18.1; 19.1; 20.1; 21.1; 22.1; 23.1; 24.1; 25.1;
ἔνοχος 38.9 30.[1], 4; 31.3; 33.9; 34.4, 32; 40.[3]; 45.7;
ἐνταῦθα 33.2 46 passim; 56.7, 13, 15, 17 (bis), 19 (bis),
ἐντέλλειν 7.35 [20], 21, [21], 23; 58.2, 4; 59.1, 3; 60.[2], [4];
ἐντόπιος 43.30, 67, 75 61.4; 62.3; 63.4; 65.6; 70.2, [9], [17], [18]
ἐντυγχάνειν 7.5, 8, 11 εὖ 70.7, 16
ἐντυχία 7.10 εὐαγγελίζεσθαι 44.1
ἕξ 33.15; 55.21; 60.[2] εὐδοκεῖν 56.[11], [30]
ἐξαγωγός 46.1, 62, 64, 73, 77, 79, 81, 83, [116], Εὔριππος 43.54
127, 165, 168, 254, 261 εὑρίσκειν 12.6; 47.21, 25
ἐξαιρέτως 7.23 Εὐσεβής see Index I s.vv. Hadrian, Commodus,
ἐξακολουθεῖν 47.27 Severus Alexander; Index II anno 213
ἐξαργυρίζειν 36.10 εὐτυχής 33.9; see also Index I s.vv. Commodus,
ἔξεστι 34.21, [27] Severus Alexander
ἑξῆς 33.4 εὔχεσθαι 55.27
ἔξοδος 43.77 ἐφιστάναι 7.25; 8.[3]
ἐξωτικός 33.8, 12, 17 ἔφοδος 27.5; 34.[29]; 46.33, 42, 49, 53, 55, 88,
ἐπακολουθεῖν 29.5 112, 149, 249, 250
ἐπαλλαγή 16.7 ἔχειν 6.3; 7.14; 14.1; 15.[1]; 17.1; 27.8; 46
ἐπάνω 43.76, 77 passim; 56.23, 31; 63.3; 65.3; 66.2; 68.3
Indices 373
ἕως 46.1, 3, 4, 80, 82, 125, 171, [175], 176, 178, καμίνη 43.50
203, 209, 215, 221, 228, 259; 70.[8] καρπός 33.9
κατά 8.2, 3; 27.2, 10; 33.4, [10], 10; 34.[25];
Ζεύς see Index IV (b) s.v. Διός 55.25; 56.[4], [6]; 70.4–6, [20], [21]
ζῆν 50.3 καταβάλλειν 33.11
ζυγοστατεῖν 5.8 καταγωγή 55.17
κατακομίζειν 70.[7?]
ἤ 33.16; 34.28, [29]; 36b.3; 38.9 καταναγκάζειν 27.6
ἡγεῖσθαι 8.12 καταξύειν 46.3, 178, 203, 209
ἡγεμονεύειν see Index IX καταπέμπειν 70.[14]
ἡγεμών see IndexIX κατεισάγειν 55.26
ἡμεῖς 5.12; 6.3, 6; 7.17, 18; 12.9; 36.8; 40.[1], κατεντυγχάνειν 27.6, [8]
[2]; 50.4; 56.[21]; 70.[2], [18] κατεργάζεσθαι 9.2, 9, 17, [24], 30
ἡμέρα 6.9; 47.1; 55.15 κατέχειν 55.4
ἡμέτερος 7.34 κατοικία 46.33, 53, 88, [245], [249], 250
ἥμισυς 33.15 κατοικικός 47.16
ἡμισφαίριον 43.11 (-σφαῖρα ?), 64, 68, 70 κάτοικος 46.42, 49, 55
ἡμιωβέλιον see Index XI (b) κατοκνεῖν 44.[18]
ἤτοι 36.7 κεῖσθαι 43.41
ἥττων 27.6; 33.4; 34.[31] κελεύειν 5.5; 8.8; 56.5
κεράμιον see Index XI (a)
θεῖος see Index VIII (a) κεράτιον see Index XI (b)
θέλειν 5.3 κεφαλίς 43.[9], 26, 30, 35, 60, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71,
θεός see Index VIII (a) 72, 75 (bis)
θεοτόκος see Index VIII (a) κλῆρος 46 passim; 47.3
θλίβειν 12.8 κναφεύς see Index X
θυγάτηρ 31.7; 38.1, 4, 6; 47.7; 56.[21] κοινός 46.187, [239]
κοινῶς 34.[21]
ἶβις see Index VIII (a) κόλλημα 31.11
ἴδιος 8.3; 33.4; 34.30; see also Index IX κόμης see Index IX
ἱερεύς see Index VIII (a) κομίζειν 70.6, [15]
ἱερός κόμμα 43.44
ἱερὸν πραιτώριον 36.2 κομμέντα 27.4
ἱερὰ γῆ 46.28, 90, 119, 121, 155, 173, 186, κονδούκτωρ see Index IX
196, 216, 238 κονσιστώριον see Index IX
ἱματιοπώλης 34.13 κόπος 44.10
ἵνα 7.32; 8.10; 55.6, 23, 26 κράτιστος see Index IX
ἰνδικτίων see Index III (a) κριθή 67.8
ἱππεύς see Index IX κριτής see Index IX
Ἰσιεῖον see Index VIII (a) κροκόδιλος see Index VIII (a)
ἴσος 34.[21]; 56.31 κτῆμα 33.16
ἱστάναι 43.22, [24], [32], 54, 62, 64, 70 κυαμών 9.13
κυεστωνάριος see Index IX
καθώς 12.2; 44.13 κυριακή see Index IV (b)
καινός 31.4 κύριος 5.3; 33.5; 34.31
κακοῦργος 70 12 κύριος (subst.) 12.5; 27.2, 10, 14; 55.28; see also
Καλάνδαι see Index IV (b) Index I s.vv. Hadrian, Commodus, Severus
καλεῖν 43.27, 31, 40, 61; 46.2, 76, 124, 129, Alexander; Index II anno 213; Index VIII (a)
[185], 212 κωλύειν 5.6
καλός 33.13 κώμη 46.210; 55.24, 26; see also Index VII
καμάρα 43.40 (?) κωμητικός 45.3; see also Index XII
λαμβάνειν 55.19, 23 μέτοχος 46.101, 174, 194, 196, 217; 61.2; 62.1
λαμπρός see Index VII s.v. Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν πόλις μέτρημα 70.4, 20
λαμπρότατος see Index VII s.v. Ὀξυρυγχιτῶν μέτριος 44.7
πόλις; see also Index IX μέτρον 33.12, 15; 43.10; see also Index XI (a)
λαογραφία see Index XII μέχρι 6.8; 55.3
λέγειν 7.13, 15 μή 5.[6]; 7.9; 9.2, 9, [17], 24, 30; 12.13; 38.9;
λῆμμα 45.3 34.[27]; 44.18; 47.20; 56.30
λημματίζειν 33.13, 17 μηδαμῶς 44.[10]
λιβικός 43.61 μηδέ 9. 25, 31; 47.20
λίθος 43.30, 67, [75] μηδείς 7.20, 21; 34.[31]
λίψ 34.[9], [13]; 46 passim Μηδικός see Index I s.v. Commodus
λογεία see Index XII μηκέτι 7.21
λογοθεσία 33.13 μῆκος 43 passim
λόγος 33.13; 36.9; 47.24; 55.21; 70.4; see also μηνιαῖος 70.2, 18
Index IX s.v. ἴδιος λόγος μήτε 9.3, 10 (bis), 11, [17], 18 (bis)
λοιπός 8.10; 31.10; 46 passim μήτηρ 19.4; 24.3; 29.9; 30.7; 34.[24], 24; 38.[2],
λυσιτελεῖν 44.[12] 3; 56.[3], [14], [18]
μητρικός 34.10
μανδάτωρ 33.4 μικρός 43.22, [50], 61, 62, 64, 70; 46.23
μαρμάρινος 43.[21], (32) μικτός 28.4
μάρσιππος 11.3, 4 μισθός 4 i a.1, i c.6; ii.2, 4, 9, 10, [14], 17
μαρτυρεῖν 27.10 μισθοῦν 67.3
μαρτύρεσθαι 27.8 μίσθωσις 46.159
μασζερτ 28.[2] μισθωτής see Index IX
μεγαλειότης see Index IX μνᾶ see Index XI (b)
μεγαλοπρέπεια see Index IX μνήμη 33.2
μέγας 46.28, 90, 119, 121, 155, 173, 216 μόνος 43.29
μέγεθος see Index IX μυριάς 36.[11]
Μέγιστος see Index I s.v. Commodus μυροψική (for μυρεψ-) see Index XII
μεθερμηνεύειν 8.2
μεθοδία 33.10 ναύβιον see Index XII
μείς 4 i c.8; 31.3; 45.6; 60.6; 70.2, 8, 18 νεώτερος 31.9; 34.17, 18, 23, 26
μέν 33.[14], 16; 43.42, 46, 54, 55, 61, 65, 71; νόμισμα see Index XI (b)
46.130, 213; 50.3; 70.12 νομισμάτιον see Index XI (b)
μένειν 47.23 νόμος 27.2
μέντοι 7.22, 25 νότινος 43.70
μερίζειν 34.1, 2 νότος 34.6, [8], 12; 46 passim
μέριμνα 44.5 νοῦμμος see Index XI (b)
μερίς see Index VII s.vv. Θεμίστου μερίς, νυκτοστράτηγος see Index IX
Πολέμωνος μερίς νῦν 7.21; 33.3; 36.9
μερισμός see Index XII
μέρος 31.10; 33.15; 34.20; 43.59, 61, [73]; 56.10 ξενικός 43.60, 63, 65, 66, [71], 72
μέσος 45.4; 46.260; 47.3; see also Index VII ξυστός 43.73
μετά 27.[13?]; 33.[1], 16; 34 24; 44.15; 47.6; ξυστρωτός 43.23, 62
50.9; 55.23
μεταβαίνειν 46.33, 42, 49, 53, 55, 88, 245, 249, ὀβολός see Index XI (b)
250 ὀγδοηκοντάρουρος see Index IX
μεταδιδόναι 12.12 ὅδε 34.[27]; 56.12
μεταλαμβάνειν 50.7 ὁδός 9.5; 46.222
μέταλλον 8.10 οἰκεῖος 33.3
μεταύριον 55.12 οἰκετεία 5.[7]
Indices 375
οἰκία 34.5, 10; 43.52, 73; 56.6, 10 παρακαλεῖν 12.5; 27.9

οἶνος 7.28; 33.15 παρακεῖσθαι 46.[18], 73, 75
ὀκτώ 54.5 παραλαμβάνειν 33.13; 36.9
ὀλίγος 8.6 παραλημπτικός 33.12, [15]
ὀμνύειν 32.5; 36.7; 38.8; 56.22, [29] παραμετρεῖν 52.2
ὅμοιος 7.11; 43.[21], 44, 47, 48, 49, 61; 65.7; παράστασις 27.4
70.4, 5 παραχωρεῖν 47.2, [9]
ὁμολογεῖν 33.7; 34.31; 36.7; 47.19 παραχώρησις 47.30
ὁμολογία 34.[27] παρεῖναι 6.[8]; 7.6, 12; 27.8; 33.9; 34.25; 56.11
ὁμομήτριος 31.8 παρέπεσθαι 33.8, 12
ὀνηλάτης see Index X Παρθικός see Index I s.vv. Trajan, Commodus
ὄνομα 40.2 πᾶς 33.10; 40.[2]; 43.51, 60; 44.3; 47.26; 55.24
ὅπως 7.26 πάσχειν 27.8; 50.5
ὁρᾶν 7.30 πατήρ 27.10; 33.3, [17]
ὀρθός 43.22, 73, [76], [77] πάχος 43 passim
ὅρκος 36.8; 38.[9]; 56.[29] πεδίον 46.125, 213, 214, 248
ὁρμᾶν 33.[5] πέμπειν 12.4, 8; 70.[13]
ὅς 6.3, 5; 8.9; 31.6; 34.[3], 4, 7, 12, 14, 15; πέντε 70.[14]
43.41, 45, 64, 70; 46.185, 212, [243], 260; πεντήκοντα 36.[12]
47.9, 15, 24; 55.21 περί 7.19, 22, 24; 12.3; 44.16; 46.6, 125, 160,
ὁσιώτατος 44.2 213, 214, [248]; 47.2, 21; 50.1a, 2a, 3a;
ὅσπερ 70.6, 15 55.17; 70.7, 12, 13
ὅστις 7.23; 12.6 περίβλεπτος see Index IX
ὅτι 7.18 περίδειπνον 50.3a
οὐ 7.27; 12.9; 34.[21]; 44.7 περιεῖναι 34.20
οὐδείς 6.7; 27.8; 33.4; 34.[25]; 44.12 περίσκληρος 50.4
οὐετρανός see Index IX περίστασις 46.210
οὖν 7.17 περίχωμα 4 i c.5; 46.2, 74, 128, 211; see also
οὐσιακός see Index IX Index VII s.vv. Θεμίστου, Κερκέουρις,
οὔτε 44.11 Παω( )
οὗτος 5.2; 7.5, 18, 32; 8.8, 12; 9.2, 3, 9, 11, 17, πέτρα 9.5, 12
19, 24, [25], 30, 32; 27.3, 5, [10], 10; 33.8, πῆχυς see Index XI (a)
12, 14, 17 (bis), 18; 34.20, 29; 43.[10], 26, πίπτειν 16.2
29, 35, 60, 63, 71, 72, 74; 47.8, 11, 22, 26, πλεῖστος 6.10
27; 58.3; 59.2 πληγή 27.7
οὕτως 2.2; 28.6; 56.23 πλήν 34.[1]
ὀφείλειν 44.15 πλήρης 33.13, 17
ὀφφικιάλιος see Index IX πληροφορεῖν 44.[6]
ὀψώνιον 33.14; 52.[2] πλινθεύειν 6.5
πλίνθος 6.6
παλαστή see Index XI (a) πλινθούλκιον 9.[27]
πάλιν 7.12 πλωτός 30.5
πανταχῇ 34.31 πόητρα 6.5
πάντως 55.22 ποιεῖν 8.12; 27.[4?]; 55.[22]; 70.7, [16]
παρά 6.2; 11.2; 12.7; 14.2; 15.2; 16.5; 17.2; 27.2, πόλις 5.10; 27.5; 33.1, 2, 5; 36.6; 43.39; 70.5,
4; 29.3; 31.5; 32.2; 33.5, 6, 11, 16, [18]; [15?], 21; see also IndexVII
36.5; 45.2; 46.1, 27, 46, 75, 115, 122, 126, πολύς 12.12; 27.8; 44.5; 50.5
148, 158, 205, 233, 242; 47.2, 21; 54.1, 5; πόσος 7.30
55.4; 56.[2] πρᾶγμα 7.16
παράδεισος 9.11, 18 πραισίδιον 8.9
παραδιδόναι 27.6 πραιτώριον see Index IX
πράκτωρ see Index IX σπουδή 33.16

πράσσειν 7.17, 20, 23 σταθμός 56.8
πρεσβύτερος 65.2 (?) στεφανικός see Index XII s.v. στεφανικά
πρίασθαι 5.7 στρατηγία see Index IX
πρό 5.11; 7.8 στρατηγός see Index IX
προγεωμετρεῖν 46.1 (bis), 27, 46, 75, [115], 122, στρατιώτης see Index IX
126, 148, 158, 205, [233], 242, 260 στῦλος 43.[22], [23], 27, 32, 41, 54, 62, 64, 70,
προγράφειν 34.2, 16, 19, 21 73, 76, 77
προδηλοῦν 33.15 σύ 7.31; 8.12; 11.2; 12.3, 7; 47.2, 20, 27; 50.6;
προκεῖσθαι 34.28; 47.19 55.5, 13, 27
προλέγειν 27.5; 33.5, 18 συλλαμβάνειν 70.12
προμερίζειν 47.6 συλλογή 33.9
προνοητής see Index X συμπίπτειν 46.223
προονομάζειν 47.17 συμπληροῦν 33.18
πρός 27.3, 8; 33.7; 43.55, 59; 47.24; 55.[5], 22 συμπόσιον 43.31
προσδιαγράφειν see Index XII s.v. σύν 4 ii.14; 8.8
προσδιαγραφόμενα συνάγειν 50.9
προσηγορία 27.3 συναινεῖν 33.3
πρόσοδος 33.6, 9, [14]; 46.206 συνάλλαγμα 33.5, 18
προσομολογεῖν 33.17 συναπέχειν 6.[10]
προστασία 33.6 συνευδοκεῖν 34.4, 26
προστάσσειν 27.7, 9 συνεχής 27.7
πρόσωπον 27.4, 6 συνιστάναι 55.25; 70.[7]
προσωστης 7.[6], 13 συντιθέναι 33.7
πρότερος 33.5; 46.85, 86; 47.13 συστρατιώτης 8.6, 11
προτιθέναι 8.10 σφραγίς 34.[4], 5
πρώην 33.5 σχοινίον 28.4; 46.46, 75, [115], 126, 148, 205
-πώλης 34.12 σωτήρ see Index VIII (a)
ῥυπαρός 54.4 τάξις see Index IX

ῥωμαϊκός 8.1 τάσσειν 18.1; 19.2; 20.1; 21.1; 22.[1]; 23.1; 24.1;
ῥωννύναι 12.16; 50.2; 55.27 25.2
ταυρικός 4 i a.2, i c.[1], 3; ii.[1], 3–6, 8, 9, 11,
Σαμβᾶς see Index IV (b) s.v. Σαμβᾶ 13, [16]; iii.4, 7, 9, 10, 14
σαμσύχινος 43.27 τε 5.[4], 5 (bis), 7; 8.6; 34.11, 30
Σαρματικός see Index I s.v. Commodus τέκνον 34.19, 27
σεβάσμιος see Index VIII (a) τέλειος 33.14
Σεβαστός see Index I s.vv. Tiberius, Domitian, τελευτᾶν 34.15, 19
Trajan, Hadrian, Commdous, Severus τελευτή 34.24
Alexander, Uncertain; Index II anno 213 τελωνάρχης see Index IX
σημαίνειν 44.13 τεσσαράκοντα 70.14
σημειοῦν 30.8; 52.4 τέσσαρες 5.11; 33.14; 55.21; 70.14
σήμερον 55;[3], 4, 6, 11, 14 τέταρτος 5.12; 19.4; 33.9; 46.2
σηστέρτιος see Index XI (b) τετρώβολον see Index XI (b)
σῖτος 9.3, 10, 18, 25, [31]; 33.14; 52.3, 4, [4] τηλικοῦτος 27.3
σκάμμα 9.15, 20 τήρησις 29.12
σός 27.2, 6, [7?], 9; 33.3, 6, 7, 11 τιθέναι 34.3
σπεῖρα 43.29, [35], 60, 63, 67, 69, 71, (72), 75; τις 5.3, [4], 4, [6]; 27.4; 34.[19], [27]
see also Index IX τιμή 7.26
σποράς 9.14 τίμημα 33.4
σπουδάζειν 12.4; 55.[20] τοίνυν 27.8
Indices 377
τοιοῦτος 7.27, 34; 27.8 ὑπομνηστέον 8.11

τολμᾶν 27.10 ὑποτάσσειν 8.7; 33.4
τοπαρχία see Index VII ὑστερικός 43.27
τόπιον 43.40 ὑψηλός 9.35; 46.221
τόπος 33.6, 6, 13, 17; 43.27, 31, 61; see also
Index VII s.v. Διονυσίου τόπων φακός 52.3, 4, 5
τράγειος 28.3 φέρειν 34.14
τράπεζα see Index IX φίλτατος 70.7
τραπεζίτης see Index IX φροντίζειν 27.6
τρεῖς 52.3; 67.8 φυλακίτης see Index VII
τρέπειν 33.10 φυτεία 9.10, 19
τριακοντάρουρος see Index IX
τριακόσιοι 7.30; 36.12 χαίρειν 8.3; 11.2; 12.2; 33.5; 47.1; 50.2; 52.1;
τρίκλινος 43.27, 55, 61 55.[2]; 61.3; 62.3; 63.2
τρισκαιδέκατος 6.7 χαλκός 16.6
τρίτος 31.10 χαμαί 43.41
τρόπος 34.25 χείρ 27.7
τροφή see Index VIII (a) χειριστής see Index IX
τρύγη 50.2a χερσάμπελος 47.15
τρύγητος 50.6 χερσέφιππος see Index IX
τυποῦν 2.1 χέρσος 9.6, 14, 21, 38; 46.82, 177
τύχη see Index VIII (a) χρεία 9.3, 11, 25, 32; 70.15
χρέος 34.[31]
ὕβρις 27.7 χρῆμα 5.7
ὑδραγωγός 9.20, 26; 46.46, 72, 219, 226, [242], χρηματίζειν 34.32; 38.2; 56.[10]
[260] χρόνος 33.8
υἱός 29.8; 33.2, 3, [18]; 34.8, 9 (bis); 55.[2]; χῶμα 9.4, 13, 19; 46. 124, 131, 148, 159
56.14 χωματικός 30.3; see also Index XII s.v.
ὑμεῖς 33.8 χωματικόν
ὑπάρχειν 7.20; 34.29 χώρα 33.7
ὑπατεία see Index II χωρίζεσθαι 46.206
ὑπεναντίος 34.29 χωρίς 34.28; 43.75
ὑπέρ 30.3; 33.12, [14], 15; 52.2; 56.[30]; 58.1;
59.1; 60.[2]; 61.3; 63.3; 65.3; 66.2 ψεύδεσθαι 38.9
ὑπεύθυνος 33.10 ψυχροφόρος 43.76
ὑπηρεσία 27.3
ὑπηρέτης see Index IX ὠνεῖσθαι 47.4, 12, 17
ὑπό 7.5; 27.5, 7; 34.1, 2; 56.[5]; 70.11 ὡς 7.9, 16, 25; 34 30; 44.16; 50.3, 7; 56.9
ὑπογράφειν 33.4; 70.[2], [18] ὡσαύτως 33.7
ὑποδοχή 33.6 ὥστε 27.5; 47.14, 18
ὑπόλογος 46 passim
378
C. LATIN DOCUMENTARY TEXT
I. Personal Names
Artemidorus see --usan(i)us Dionusius, alias Pausanius (sic) Aur., ward of --
Asclatarion, alias Athen[, Aurelia, 3.3 usan(i)us, alias Artemidorus 3.1
Athen[ see Asclatarion Pausanius (sic) see Dionusius
Aurelia see s.v. Asclatarion Sinthonis 3.4
Aurelius see s.v. Dionusius --usan(i)us, alias Artemidorus, s. of Didumus 3.2
Didumus, f. of --usan(i)us alias Artemidorus 3.2
II. Geographical
Aegyptus 3.1 Oxurugchitarum ciuitas 3 2
Antinois 3.4
III. Official and Military Terms and Titles

praefectus Aegypti 3.1
IV. General Index of Words

ab 3.1, 2 legitimus 3.5
bonum 3.3 mater 3.4
ciuitas see Index II s.v. Oxurugchitarum ciuitas meus 3.4
dare 3.[3], 5 pars 3.[5]
defungi 3.4 polliceri 3.5
dominus 3.[3] possessio 3.3
edictum 3.[5] praefectus see Index III
ego 3.[3] pupillus 3.1
ex 3.[5] qui 3.[5]
heres 3.5 q(ui) e(t) 3.1–4
intestatus 3.4 rogare 3.[3]
is 3.[5] tu 3.5

P Bagnall

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

P Bagnall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P Bagnall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAPYROLOGICAL TEXTS IN HONOR OF

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PAPYROLOGISTS

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Urbeis, 3 August 2012

1 Frammento medico con elenco di sintomi 1

53 An Arabic Land Lease from Ṭuṭun̅ 301

43 Inventory of Columns A. Papaconstantinou second quarter of IV Arsinoe or 215

P.Lund. inv. 111r 6 x 6,3 cm I–II

καὶ δυϲκινηϲίαϲ τε καὶ δυϲαιϲθηϲίαϲ). I sintomi di “pesantezza” e di “rigidità, indurimento”

Università degli Studi di Parma

P.Col. inv. 75 6.7 x 6.9 cm IV (?)

The assistants (hyperetai) were appointed thus: on Sunday and

The Days of the Week in Greek Documentary Sources

Sunday = ἡμέρα Ἡλίου

Institut für Papyrologie, Heidelberg

In P.Thomas 20 (Oxyrhynchus, 270), a very close parallel, a filiation is expressed with ex +

 [?]λ̣ μισθ(οῦ) (δρ.) ϛ

fr. b The fragment’s position is uncertain, cf. intro.

Università degli Studi di Udine

No. 4, col. i fr. a (2777)

No. 4, col. ii–iii (2777A)

No. 4, col. i fr. b + c (2777B)

PSI inv. 1686 verso 11,5 x 20,4 cm 28.9.213

γεγραμμένον ἢ ὑπογεγραμμένον ἐcφρα|[γιc]μένον τε καταλε̣[ί]πω, δι᾿ οὗ δοθῆναί τι ἢ γενέcθαι

Università degli Studi di Firenze

P.Ashm. inv. 10 5,9 x 9,4 cm vers la 2e m. du Ier s.

→ Μά̣ρ̣ω̣ν Σωκράτους καὶ Διονύσιος

μωνίου ἃ⸌ς⸍ εἶχε ἡμῶν ἄμας καὶ δι-

προσωστη. καὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος

Brasenose College, Oxford

O.Claud. inv. 7218 8.5 x 20.5 cm 186–187

ἀντίγραφον ἐπιϲτολῆϲ ῥωμαϊκῆϲ καὶ ἀποφάϲεωϲ

1 ρωμαϊκηϲ ostr. 2 π in μ corr. 3 l. Πρόβωι 7–8 l. ὑποτα|γῆναι 8 l. τῇ

No.8 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)

The Language of the Translation

P.Duk. inv. 100 32 x 28.5 cm Early II BCE

8 Ψεναρύω ἀπὸ ἀρου(ρῶν) ρϙη̣ η̣´ ίς´ λ´β´

16 Ταγχοίρεως ἀπὸ ἀ[ρο]υ(ρῶν) [ρη η´ λ´β´]

Πτολεμαΐδος Ὅ̣ρμ̣ου̣ ἀπὸ ἀρου(ρῶν) ρ̣πδ[

Αὑήρεως ἀπὸ ἀ̣ρ̣ο̣υ(̣ ρῶν) [ ̣ ̣ ιη ∠ η´ ´̣ ´̣´]

For Kerkesoucha : out of 264 1⁄2 1⁄8 1⁄32 arourae

8 For Psenaryo : out of 198 1⁄8 1⁄16 1⁄32 arourae

16 For Tanchoiris: out of [108 1⁄8 1⁄32] arourae

For Ptolemais Hormou : out of 184 [. . arourae]

For Haueris : out of [. 18 1⁄2 1⁄8] arourae

unwatered high land [

deserted bean-field 5 1⁄4 1⁄16

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

No. 9 (courtesy Duke University Library)

KM inv. 25152 8.4 x 10 cm IV

New York University

Le dépotoir extérieur du praesidium de Didymoi, sur la route de Bérénice, a livré un ordre de

→ Πανεχάτης Διοδότωι μισθωτῆι Ξηροῦ

↓ Ἀφρω̣διτοῦς Βουβᾶτι τῶι

1 l. Ἀφροδιτοῦς 2 αδελ χα 4 ωνσπ post corr. 4–5 l. πέμψαι

No. 11 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)

No. 12 (photo A. Bülow-Jacobsen)

P.Qasr Ibrim inv. 80/11 4.4 x 4.6 cm 22–21 BCE (?)