154 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS is otherwise known as royal scribe only from I 171 descr. = II p. 208 = SB XXII 15353: J. Whitehorne, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt2 162. 5–6 κ[ώ]μηϲ Τα̣[ά]̣ωϲ. Tanais was located in the Middle Toparchy, Sepho in the adjacent Thmoisepho Toparchy: P. Pruneti, I centri abitati dell’Ossirinchite s. vv. and map. 14–15 Ἐπιμένουϲ κλήρου. The kleros of Epimenes is otherwise known from PSI X 1118.7; see Pruneti, Aegyptus 55 (1975) 176. 16 (ἀρουρ )̣ ¼. The unread igure might be ̣ or ̣. One might even consider reading ̣ (½), which would correspond to τὸ ἀναγραφόμενον in 10–11. However, it would make no commercial sense for Sarapion to ofer such a large additional payment as 5 artabas (see below, 18 n.) for the right to lease only ¾ aroura. 18, 22, 25 ε̣( ) ἕν. The initial epsilon is deinite, with its tip continuing upwards into a vertical stroke cut through by a horizontal dash above, similar to that which marks the numeral in 16. Its resolution remains uncertain. J. L. Rowlandson, who had not seen the papyrus, pointed out that the standard term for an additional sum ofered as an overbid in ofers to lease or purchase public lands or property is ἐπίθεμα; see P. Ryl. II 97.5 n. for discussion of the term, and cf. III 500 (130, lease of public land), IV 721 and 835 (13/14, sale of crown land), P. Flor. III 368 (Herm., 96). P. Amh. II 85 (Herm., 78), which is an application to the exegetes to lease land held in trust for orphans, stipulates a period of 10 days allowed for the ofer of an ἐπίθεμα. The word would give the required sense for the context and it with the preceding neuter singular τὸ προκείμενον in 22 and 25. But it is questionable whether one could refer to ‘a single additional payment’ without specifying an amount. Nor does it seem possible to take the abbreviation mark as for ἐ(πίθεμα) or ἐπ(ίθεμα). K. A. Worp has suggested that the abbreviation may be the name of a dry measure, the amount of which constituted the overbid. If this is the case, the only likely candidate worthy of consideration here seems to be (πεντ)(αρτάβιον); the word is not attested, but cf. XIV 1760 8–9 (ii), where we ind the adjective πενταρταβιαῖον, used of a sack of this size. Compare also the common term ἡμιαρτάβιον. For its abbreviation cf. XII 1445 3, 11 (ii) or P. Graux II 14.8 (pl. Vii), where the term πενταρταβία, ‘5 art. percentage’, is written as ε followed by the symbol for artaba. An argument in favour may be that 5 artabas are also ofered as the ἐπίθεμα in III 500. The public land applied for there was 20 ¼ arouras, suggesting that 5 artabas as a lump sum may have been a standard amount for such an overbid. ε̣( ) ἕν might accordingly be understood as ‘one (or ‘a single’) 5 art. measure full.’ We should not therefore be looking here for a one-to-one correspondence with the land area of 5 (or 10) ¼ arouras in 16. 19 προεξυλαμηκώϲ. *προξυλαμᾶν is an addendum lexicis. 28 τελέϲμαϲι. Cf. VII 1031 22. J. W H I T E H O R N E 4959. Letter of Ammonius to his Parents 43 5B.66/F(1–2)a 13.5 × 20.5 cm Second century Ammonius, who is or has been a gymnasiarch, wrote this letter to Demetria and Dius, whom he calls his mother and father (very probably but not certainly his parents), concerning his brother Theon. Theon had written to them that he had caught a chill but had recovered. Demetria and Dius, however, were apparently still 6 Documentary Texts.indd 154 23.4.2009 11:30 4959. LET TER OF A MMONIUS TO HIS PAREN TS 155 worried about Theon’s health, and Ammonius tries to reassure them. He swears to the gods that Theon has fully recovered, and no residue of his illness has remained. The letter shows a very good command of Greek. There are no errors, save for a common phonetic spelling (4, 14). Iota adscript is used whenever required. The sophisticated language borders on the literary and has some prominent atticistic elements. On atticism in Greek private letters and letters written by educated individuals, see S. Witkowski, Aegyptus 13 (1933) 529–41, and W. Döllstädt, Griechische Papyrusprivatbriefe in gebildeter Sprache aus den ersten vier Jahrhunderten nach Christus (1934). The two opening lines are spaced out more generously than the rest of the text. The scribe sometimes leaves a space between sentences as if to signify a change in context. In his efort to make the layout as regular as possible, the scribe uses angular iller signs at the ends of some lines (4, 14, 17, 19). In this he is fairly consistent, though there are a couple of lines that are shorter than others and have no iller signs (especially 12). The iller sign is of standard format, found often in literary papyri, similar, for example, to those in GMAW 2 67, but with the lower stroke more elongated. The size of some letters is occasionally exaggerated (even in the middle of words). The main text is written in a distinctive script that can be parallelled in early examples of the ‘chancery’ style; for the main discussion of this style, see G. Cavallo, Aegyptus 45 (1965) 216–49. Cf. in particular P. Brem. 5–6, two formal letters of recommendation addressed to Apollonius, strategus of the Heptanomia in 117–19 (P. Brem. 5, pl. in ed. pr.; P. Brem. 6 is pl. i in Cavallo’s article); P. Giss. Univ. Bibl. III 20, an oicial letter of c.113–17 (see J. D. Thomas, The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: The Roman Epistrategos (1982) 187; pl. i in ed. pr.). P. Rain. Cent. 70, assigned to the late second third or early third century ( J. Chapa, Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri (1998) 87, pl. 5), is also somewhat similar. These parallels are diferent translations of the same principle. They are all inluenced by the chancery script, but are less pretentious versions of the lamboyant oicial documents (see, for example, plates iii–iV in Cavallo’s article). A date for our letter in the early second century seems acceptable. The document seems to have been thoroughly revised and corrected by a second hand, which is cursive and of variable size. Extensive parts of the text have been crossed out, and an alternative version has been added over each of the crossed-out lines. At the end of the main text, four additional lines were penned by the second hand. On the back, below the address, which was written by the irst hand, the second hand added a docket stating the name and capacity of the sender. A big X, starting from all four corners of the sheet, cancels the whole of the text. This is not an unusual feature in documents that have to do with loans, but it is very rare among letters (cf. XLII 3057, where such a letter is possibly mentioned, but the editor thinks that it is more likely that the word κεχιαϲμένην refers to some kind of sign rather than that the letter was crossed out). It is not easy to tell who 6 Documentary Texts.indd 155 23.4.2009 11:30 156 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS made the corrections, or even why, but it is even more diicult to speculate on who drew the X, for, though it is possible, it does not necessarily follow that it was the same person who did both. To return to the corrections, a possible scenario would be that Ammonius, being or having been a gymnasiarch, was a man of above-average literacy, but not necessarily skilled in calligraphy. He hired a scribe, and dictated to him the letter, which the scribe inished and added the address. After that, Ammonius must have looked through the letter and perhaps thought that it was not convincing enough. Thus he took it upon himself to make the corrections in his own hand. It would be plausible to assume that, after he had made the corrections, he gave it back to the scribe to rewrite it, and either of them could have crossed it out. However, the letter seems to have been folded as if about to be sent (there are regular vertical fold marks), and also contains a docket under the address, stating the name of the sender. Maybe Ammonius wrote the docket, giving back the letter to the scribe, for iling purposes. It is not impossible that the letter was sent, despite its state, as Ammonius seemed to think it was urgent. Besides, the main text in 3057 starts with ἐκομιϲάμην τὴν κεχιαϲμένην ἐπιϲτολήν, which, if it means ‘I received the crossed-out letter’, and not ‘the one bearing the sign of the cross’ (see P. J. Parsons in R. Pintaudi (ed.), Miscellanea Papyrologica (1980) 289; G. R. Stanton, ZPE 53 (1983) 50 f.), suggests that, even if not a usual practice, it was conceivable that such letters were to be sent. 5 10 6 Documentary Texts.indd 156 Ἀμμώνιοϲ Δ̣μητρίαι τῆι μητ[ρ]ὶ καὶ Δίωι τῶι πατρὶ χαίρειν. ἐξήρκει μὲν καὶ τὰ Θέωνοϲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γράμματα δι’ ὧν ὑμεῖν ἐδήλου ὅτι ψυγμῶι ληφθεὶϲ ἐκ βάθουϲ καὶ ἐκλ̣ϲει τοῦ ϲώματοϲ 〚κα̣〛 ἐν ἀγωνίαι ποιήϲαϲ πάνταϲ ἡμᾶϲ οὐ τῆι τυχούϲηι, διὰ τοὺϲ θεοὺϲ αὐτῆϲ ὥραϲ ἀνέλαβεν καὶ τέλεον ἀνεκτήϲατο, ὥϲτε καὶ λούϲαϲθαι αὐτῆϲ ἐ̣̣ίνηϲ τῆϲ ἡμέραϲ καὶ μηδὲν ἔτ̣ ̣̣̣ῶι τοῦ ̣̣μβάντοϲ ἐνκατά(m. 2) ἵνα 〚̣̣ι̣λ̣〛λ̣ο̣̣̣π̣̣̣̣̣̣αιτε αὐτοῦ τοῖϲ λειμμα εἶναι. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀληθέϲτατα ταῦτα γρ]ά̣μμαϲιν̣ ὡ̣ϲ ἄρα χαριζ̣ό̣μ̣ενοϲ ὑμεῖν [ἐ]π̣έϲτειλε κἀγὼ γέγραφα 〚ὑμεῖν ἐπιϲτέ̣̣̣μεν〛 τοὺϲ θ̣̣ὺϲ πάνταϲ ἐπόὅπωϲ δ’ ἄν̣ μνυμαι. 〚ἵ̣α〛 δ̣ [̣̣]̣αρ’ ἄλλο̣ `̣[ι]νὸϲ´ ̣̣̣̣̣ενοι τῶν ]̣̣̣[̣̣̣̣]̣̣ω̣̣̣̣ε εἰ̣̣̣̣̣ν `μὴ´ τὰ ἀληθῆ λέγειν ἀ̣[α]̣̣αῖον ἡ̣ηϲά̣η̣ ̣α μεθα φθάϲαντεϲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ̣̣λον ὑμεῖν ποι- 23.4.2009 11:30 4959. LET TER OF A MMONIUS TO HIS PAREN TS 15 20 157 ῆϲαι. 〚δι’ ὅπερ μηδὲν ἐκταρ̣[χθ]ῆτε, ὡϲ κάλλιϲτα ἔχοντοϲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Θέω[νοϲ] καὶ τὰ ϲυνήθη πάντα ποιοῦντο̣.〛 προ̣̣γορεύει ὑμᾶϲ ἡ θυγάτηρ ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἀδελφόϲ μου `ὁ´̣ ̣ώταϲ. Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Ἀντίοχον τοὺϲ ἀδελφοὺϲ ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἀϲπάζεϲθε. (m. 2) ἐρρ̣ῶ̣ϲ̣θ̣αι ὑμᾶϲ εὔχομαι, [τ]ι̣μ̣ιώ̣τατ̣οι, παν[̣ο]ικηϲίᾳ εὐτυχοῦνταϲ κ̣̣̣̣̣̣̣ ἐ̣π̣όμνυμαι ὅτι καλῶϲ π̣ά̣νυ ἔχει 〈ὁ〉 ἀδελφὸϲ Θέων καὶ τὰ ϲυνήθη̣ π̣ράϲϲει. Back, downwards, along the lines: 25 ̣̣̣̣̣̣̣̣ α ̣̣̣̣̣̣̣̣̣̣ (m. 2) πα(ρὰ) Ἀμμωνί(ου) γυμν(αϲιαρχ ) 1 δημητριαΙ 11a l. ὑμῖν 12 ϊνα 4, 14 ϋμειν; l. ὑμῖν 9 l. ἐγκατά17 ϋμαϲ 18 ϋμων 10a ϊνα: ι corr. from ε? ‘From Ammonius to Demetria, his mother, and Dius, his father, greetings. The letter of my brother Theon should have been enough, in which he informed you that, having got a chill deep within and a general weakness of the body, which made us all worry greatly, he immediately recovered, thanks to the gods, and was in perfect form again, so that he even bathed on that very same day, and no residue of his illness still remains. I swear to all the gods that these things that I am sending you are very true. In order that . . . you would . . . that he sent his letter to you just to please you, I have also written. However, in order that you 〈do not〉 hear about this from one of those people who have the habit of not telling the truth, I thought it necessary to let you know of this before they did. . . . Therefore, do not be upset, since Theon, my brother, is in perfect condition and carries out all his usual activities. Your daughter and my brother Sotas send you their greetings. Give my best to Ptolemaeus and Antiochus, my brothers. I wish you good health, my most honoured (parents), and good fortune to the entire household . . . I swear that my bother Theon is very well and doing his usual activities.’ Back: (illegible remains of the address followed by) ‘from Ammonius, (ex-?)gymnasiarch.’ 1 Ἀμμώνιοϲ. Ammonius is called a (former?) gymnasiarch in the docket. There are numerous gymnasiarchs of this name, in Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere, but it is hard to propose an identiication. 3 ἐξήρκει. The use of this verb is one of the examples of accurate choice of wording and ine grammar in this letter. The ϲχῆμα Ἀττικόν is not always used already in the Ptolemaic papyri, and subsequently it is used less and less until it disappears completely (Mayser, Grammatik ii.3 28, §151). The plural is used mostly with neuters indicating persons, while the singular is found with non-personal subjects, as well as abstracts and pronouns (Blass–Debrunner–Rehkopf, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch 110, §133). The imperfect here is potential and expresses something unreal, which is common in Attic Greek; see Kühner–Gerth, Grammatik ii.1 204, §391.5 but they only refer to impersonal verbs or the like. A close parallel is Basil. Epist. 325.1 ἐξήρκει καὶ τὸ γράμμα τῆϲ ϲεμνότητόϲ ϲου πᾶϲαν ἡμῖν ἐξεργάϲαϲθαι εὐφροϲύνην. 6 Documentary Texts.indd 157 23.4.2009 11:30 158 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS 4 ψυγμῶι. This word in the papyri usually refers to a special place in a pottery, where pots are left to cool of after they have been ired (see e.g. L 3595‒7). Here, however, it has the meaning of a ‘cold’ or ‘ague’. There seems to be only one example of this meaning in the papyri, P. Oxy. Hels. 46 (i/ii), a private letter ending οὐ γὰρ ἠδυνήθην ἐπὶ τοῦ | παρόντοϲ γράψαι οὐδενὶ διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ νόϲου ἀν̣λα̣βάνειν καὶ ψυγμοῦ | μεγάλου καὶ μόγιϲ ̣̣υνήθην καὶ ταῦ|τα γράψαι ̣αϲα̣ιζ[ό]με̣̣ϲ (its inventory number, 43 5B.71/G(42–43)b, indicates that the papyrus was found during the same season of excavations as 4959, and arranged in the same box, but that the two papyri were not found together). In the medical writers, the term ψυγμόϲ implies a medical condition, but it is not altogether clear what exactly that is; it can refer to a symptom of a disease, a cause of a disease, or the disease itself. Gal. 11.519 seems to use this term for a condition opposite to fever: τινὰ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ θερμότερον ἐκτετράφθαι ϲώματα . . . , τινὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ ψυχρότερον, ὡϲ ἐν τοῖϲ καλουμένοιϲ ἤδη ϲυνήθωϲ ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ψυγμοῖϲ. On the other hand, Orib. Syn. 1.19.8, takes it as a cause of fever and refers to τοῖϲ ἀπὸ ψυγμοῦ πυρέττουϲιν. The word also appears in Sch. Nic. Ther. 43a, where it seems to refer to a cold in the head, or the sniles: ἔϲτι δὲ καὶ πόα δυναμένη ψυγμὸν ἀπελάϲαι, εἴ τιϲ τρίψαϲ τρὶϲ προϲενέγκῃ τῇ ῥινί. Aët. 2.3, as well as others, connects ψυγμοί with hip diseases (πρὸϲ ἰϲχιάδα καὶ πάνταϲ τοὺϲ περὶ τὰ νευρώδη μόρια ψυγμούϲ), and Dsc. 5.11.2, uses the word in the sense of ‘shiver’: τὰ τῶν θηρίων δήγματα, ὅϲα τρόμουϲ καὶ ψυγμοὺϲ ἐπιφέρει. Paul. Aegin. Epit. 1.100.3, associates ψυγμοί with diseases of the chest: ὅταν δέ τι περὶ τὸν θώρακα μέλλῃ γίγνεϲθαι . . . ἀλγήματα γίγνεϲθαι . . . ψυγμοὶ ϲτήθουϲ καὶ βραχιόνων. 4–5 ἐκ βάθουϲ. In medical writings ἐκ βάθουϲ often has the sense of ‘within the body’ or ‘from deep within’: Aët. 5.7, deines fever as θερμότηϲ παρὰ φύϲιν καρδίαϲ καὶ ἀρτηριῶν . . . ἀναφερομένη τε ἐκ βάθουϲ καὶ δριμεῖα. Sever. Περὶ τῶν κωλικῶν φαρμάκων p. 34 Dietz, in explaining the causes of dysentery, writes: ἡ δὲ αἰτία αὕτη οὐκ ἔξωθεν τὴν βλάβην κινεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὥϲπερ ἐκ βάθουϲ ἀνακύπτει. 5 ἐκλ̣ϲει. Durling, Dictionary of Medical Terms in Galen (1993), explains ἔκλυϲιϲ as ‘feebleness, faintness’. In Galen, the word refers either to a general condition (4.437, καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ ὕπτιον κατακεῖϲθαι ϲημεῖόν ἐϲτιν ἐκλύϲεωϲ) or to speciic parts of the body (7.602, ἐν ἐκλύϲεϲι καρδιακαῖϲ τε καὶ ϲτομαχικαῖϲ). In the Corpus Hippocraticum the word often occurs with ϲῶμα, as it does in 4959. The word is used in Hesychius and the Suda in the context of mental feebleness. 〚κα̣〛. Palaeography, sense, and style suggest that this may be the only correction made by the irst hand, whereas all the others (10a, 11, 12, 15–17) are due to the second hand. 5–6 ἐν ἀγωνίαι ποιήϲαϲ πάνταϲ ἡμᾶϲ οὐ τῆι τυχούϲηι. This postponement of the negative expression / litotes is common enough, but here it has been displaced even more than would be expected. In J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (1952) 50 f., in the discussion of hyperbaton, this case would fall in the category of ‘deliberate separation of logically cohering words’. In this way, ἀγωνίαι features as the main point of the sentence, while τῆι τυχούϲηι is emphasized by the postponement of its attributive position. For a similar construction, cf. P. Ryl. II 136.11–12 (34) ὕβριν μοι ϲυν|εϲτήϲατωι (l. -ατο) οὐ τὴν τυχοῦϲαν. 6–7 διὰ τοὺϲ θεούϲ. Not found elsewhere. According to Mayser, Grammatik ii.2 426, διά with the accusative, apart from its instrumental and causal uses, can also have the sense ‘in the name of ’; as an example, he cites UPZ I 62.6 διά τε τ[ὸν] Ϲάραπιν. 7 ἀνέλαβεν. Although this verb is often attested in the papyri, there are not many passages in which it has a medical sense, ‘to recover’, as it does here: P. Zen. Pestm. 51.3 (257 BC), PSI IV 333.3 (256 BC), P. Bad. II 17.12 (i BC), P. Oxy. Hels. 46.17 (i/ii), XLVI 3313 7 (ii). In classical Greek it can have a medical meaning, but always in the construction ἀναλαμβάνειν ἑαυτόν. What distinguishes later examples is the omission of the accusative. Examples illustrating this meaning are usually followed by an adverbial modiier: in Philo De congressu 39, Legum allegoriarum ii 60, De praemiis et poenis 21, and Dsc. 5.6.16, ἀναλαμβάνειν is followed by the expression ἐκ νόϲου, and in Plu. Pyrrh. 12.6, by ἐξ ἀρρωϲτίαϲ. 6 Documentary Texts.indd 158 23.4.2009 11:30 4959. LET TER OF A MMONIUS TO HIS PAREN TS 159 τέλεον. τέλειοϲ and τέλεοϲ are both attested in the papyri, and the adverbial use of the neuter appears in either form. See Kühner–Gerth, Grammatik i.1 137–8. 7–8 ἀνεκτήϲατο. This verb usually means ‘to re-acquire, ‘to take back’, or ‘to restore’. In this use it is mostly transitive. In the papyri it occurs rather rarely, and refers to land or the working of land, or sums of money changing hands. There are however two cases that are similar to the present one, denoting recovery from some sort of evil, though neither refers speciically to an illness: UPZ I 110.127 (164 BC) τοὺϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ ἐκ . . . καταφθορᾶϲ . . . ἀνακτωμένουϲ; and P. Fay. 106 = W. Chr. 395.18–19 (c.140) ἐμαυτὸν ἀνακτήϲαϲθαι ἀπὸ τῶν καμάτων. In the latter passage, which comes from a letter written by a doctor, καμάτων refers to debts rather than physical exertion. The text also contains the word ἐξηϲθένηϲα, which works in the same motif. In literature, the closer parallels to the present one come from theological writers, who tend to use the verb transitively. A good example is ofered by Jo. Chrys. In Epist. ad Rom. 13.6 (PG 60.516), who uses the two verbs we have here in the same context: πῶϲ ὁ Δαυιδ πεϲών, ἑαυτὸν ἀνεκτήϲατο; πῶϲ ὁ Πέτροϲ ἀρνηϲάμενοϲ, ἑαυτὸν ἀνέλαβε; The Suda (α 2243) explains the one from the other: ἀνεκτηϲάμην· ἀνωρθωϲάμην, ἀνελαβόμην. 8 λούϲαϲθαι. It is doubtful whether this was part of the curing process (some medical writers suggest bathing and then anointing oneself with oil or wine as a cure for ψυγμόϲ; e.g. Hippiatrica Parisina 1082). It is more probable that it is mentioned to show that Theon’s state of health was so good that he was capable of taking a bath (or simply that he would do so: when a doctor’s advice can have the form ‘in November, μὴ λούεϲθαι τὸ ϲύνολον’ (Aët. 12.69), it would be a brave thing to do just after recovering from an illness). This is supported by the fact that, after the assurance that Theon has fully recovered (16), he is reported to be carrying out all his usual activities. Presumably bathing was one of them. 9–10 ἐνκατάλειμμα. The primary meaning of this word is ‘remnant’, ‘residue’ or ‘trace’ (LSJ s.v. 1). It has previously occurred only once in papyri, P. Petr. II 4 (11).2 (255 or 254 BC [HGV]), where it seems to refer to a ‘sediment’ or ‘silting up’ (LSJ s.v. 4; W. Schubart, Ein Jahrtausend am Nil (1912) 18, renders ἐνκατάλειμμα γέγονεν as ‘ist ein Rest unvollendet geblieben’). In a medical context the word usually refers to residual traces of a disease (e.g. Aët. 6.8 εἰ δ’ ἐγκατάλειμμα εἴη τῆϲ διαθέϲεωϲ ἐπὶ τὸν λευκὸν ἐλλέβορον ἐλθέ; Paul. Aegin. Epit. 6.36 ϲτηπτικοῖϲ φαρμάκοιϲ ἐκδαπανᾶν τὸ ἐγκατάλειμμα). The example that best illustrates the particular use of the word in a medical context is in Paul. Aegin. Epit. 3.77.4 ἐγκαταλείμματοϲ τῆϲ νόϲου μείναντοϲ. 10 ἀληθέϲτατα. The superlative has not occurred in any other papyrus. 10a ἵνα 〚̣̣ι̣̣〛̣̣̣̣π̣̣̣̣̣̣αιτε. The text written by the original scribe is ‘Anyway, what we are writing to you is the absolute truth; I swear by all the gods’. Of this, only ὑμεῖν ἐπιϲτέ̣̣̣μεν is deleted, but it would seem more likely that the inserted text is meant to replace the whole of the original text from ὅτι to ἐπόμνυμαι, since this makes better sense. However, since only two words were deleted it is conceivable that the corrector meant to leave in the phrase ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀληθέϲτατα ταῦτα (sc. ἐϲτί) τοὺϲ θ̣̣ὺϲ πάνταϲ ἐπόμνυμαι. The readings of the suprascript material must follow the same pattern of absolute assertion of truthfulness: after ἵνα we expect a verb in the subjunctive, or indeed the optative, in accordance with the letter’s atticistic attributes (Mandilaras, The Verb 272). That may be the word ending in -τε. If the following words αὐτοῦ τοῖϲ [γρ]̣μμαϲι̣ belong to this clause, and they refer to the brother’s letter, then the -τε verb should (i) refer to the parents, (ii) govern a dative, and (iii) describe their reaction to the letter. Since Ammonius thought it necessary to write again, that reaction must have been incredulity. Therefore the missing word should mean ‘believe’ or ‘(not) disbelieve’. If the former, then the obvious verb would be πιϲτεύϲητε/-αιτε; if the latter, there must have been a μή after ἵνα, and the traces belong to a form of either ὑποπτεύω or ὑπονοέω. But none of these verbs can be read in the traces. In any case ἵνα must be followed by a conjunction. 6 Documentary Texts.indd 159 23.4.2009 11:30 160 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS 10–11a τοῖϲ γρ]̣̣̣αϲιν could be the object of the (unread) verb. Otherwise it may be taken as an instrumental dative, i.e., ‘so that you may believe / not disbelieve him by his letters . . .’. 11a ̣ϲ ἄρα χαρι̣̣̣ενοϲ. The assumption is that this is the beginning of a clause dependent on a verb of suspecting or believing in the inserted line above. An alternative would be to take ̣ϲ to mean ‘since’ (causal), but then χαριζόμενοϲ would have to be understood diferently: ‘so that you should believe/not disbelieve his letter, since he sent you a letter out of kindness, I too have written . . .’. 12 ἵ̣α. The word is cancelled by the second hand, who wrote ὅπωϲ over the line. In Classical Greek the two particles express diferent nuances, which in later Greek are more or less ignored. ἵνα introduces an abstract inal expression, whereas ὅπωϲ expresses a psychological preoccupation. Classical authors often use a combination of the two, in the form οὐχ ἵνα . . . ἀλλ’ ὅπωϲ (ἄν), to exclude a presumed intention and conirm the authenticity of another. In Attic Greek, ὅπωϲ replaces ἵνα only when the clause expresses subjectivity, uncertainty, particular circumstances, etc.; see S. Amigues, Les Subordonnées finales par ὅπωϲ en attique classique (1977) 103. The correction appears even more impressive if one considers that in later Greek ἵνα is used increasingly at the expense of ὅπωϲ, since it is overall more straightforward and easy to use (Amigues, Subordonnées finales 105–6). Nevertheless, the writer of the letter knew about it and how to use it, unless he only made the correction in view of the fact that he had just inserted a ἵνα clause a few lines above and did not want to repeat the word. Such corrections are found in two other texts: P. Petr. II 13 (18a).13 (257–249 BC [HGV]), where the correction was made, as in 4959, as part of a general revision of the text; and in P. Got. 12.4 (iii/ iv). The opposite occurs in P. Cair. Zen. II 59256 = SB III 6993 (252/251 BC) γέγρ]̣φα οὖν ϲοι 〚ὅπωϲ〛 `ἵνα´ εἰδῆιϲ, and P. Cair. Zen. III 59375 (c.258–256 BC), with ὅπωϲ ἄν replaced by ἵνα. ̣[ι]νόϲ, written over the line by the irst hand, is an addition rather than a correction, since ἄλλου is not crossed out. Another similar addition is μή in 13. ̣̣̣̣μενοι. The expression πυνθάνομαι παρά τινοϲ does not have many occurrences in the papyri, but this is rather due to the fact that the agent is usually not mentioned than that it is expressed by a diferent construction (the alternative being the verb followed by genitive). It seems worth noting that the usual construction of the agent after forms of the verb based on the aorist stem (πυθ-) is almost always παρά τινοϲ, whereas the construction following verbs based on the present stem (πυνθ-) is almost always the genitive. 13 εἰ̣̣̣̣̣ν. The ultimate meaning of this should be ‘so that you do [not? worry?] by getting news from some other person of the kind who tend not to speak the truth, I have thought it . . .’. If indeed there was a ‘not’ (μή), it could well be what is missing after the ἵ̣α δ̣ of the original text. We also need a verb ἵ̣α δ̣ or ὅπωϲ δ’ ἄ̣; this might have been added by the second hand, and we would expect it (possibly with μή, if it was not written in 12) somewhere in the unread traces over line 13. 15 ἐκταρ̣[χθ]ῆτε. This compound has occurred only in one other papyrus, P. Gen. I 1.12 (213), a letter of a senior Roman functionary. 17 προ̣̣γορεύει. The use of the singular instead of the plural in verbs followed by more than one subject is not uncommon in the papyri; see Mayser, Grammatik ii.3 30–33. 18 `̣´ ̣ώταϲ. The putative omicron is written above ϲω. However, the article is not expected, unless Sotas was mentioned in the corrections over line 13, which have not been read. This would explain why the article was added later. 21 παν[ο]ικηϲίᾳ. This is the Attic equivalent to πανοικί, according to the Atticist Moeris (I. Bekker, Harpocration et Moeris (1833) 207). Döllstädt, Griechische Papyrusprivatbriefe 15, describes the latter as belonging to literary as well as everyday κοινή, and adds a further form, πανοικίᾳ (or -ίῃ), which he classiies as Ionic and poetic. Indeed πανοικίᾳ is only attested in Ptolemaic papyri, unless one includes P. Flor. II 273.25 (260) πανοικηίᾳ, whereas πανοικ(ε)ί, though common enough, does not occur before the Roman period (in BGU II 450.27 (ii/iii), πανοικ(ίᾳ) should probably be resolved diferently). 6 Documentary Texts.indd 160 23.4.2009 11:30 4959. LET TER OF A MMONIUS TO HIS PAREN TS 161 πανοικηϲίᾳ (or -εϲίᾳ) has fewer attestations than πανοικί, ranging in date from the second to the fourth century. All of them occur in documents that show good command of Greek, but as far as one can see, none of them has obvious atticistic ainities. παν[ο]ικηϲίᾳ εὐτυχοῦνταϲ. The two words are often juxtaposed at the close of private letters of the Roman period: see XLII 3084 7, P. Berl. Zill. 11.23–4, P. Flor. II 273.24–5, P. Giss. Univ. III 32.30, P. Iand. II 8.14–15, P. Princ. II 68.15–16, 69.7–8, III 185.15, P. Ryl. II 434.12, PSI XIII 1335.30, SB V 7629.9, etc. 22 This must be a repetition of the oath in line 11, and the beginning of this line would read something along the lines of καὶ θεοὺϲ ἐπόμνυμαι, which suits the space and the sense. M. M A LO U TA 4960. Letter to a S TOLISTES 48 5B.32/E(1–3)b 14 × 16.5 cm Second century This letter concerns a victory in a law court, which resulted in the cudgelling of a man called Petseis, and which would have been a cause for celebrations. The sender, whose identity is uncertain, reports on those proceedings, and gives the date of the hearing and a summary of the outcome. The recipients are a ϲτολιϲτήϲ and a πλῆθοϲ of uncertain composition; the context points to some priestly guild. The legal procedures referred to in lines 6–8 are diicult to understand and interpret fully. The text is evenly spaced, apart from the irst two lines (2–3), which are closer together, and the closing greeting, which is spaced down after one line left blank. In the one remaining line of the prescript the words are divided by large spaces. There is some spacing between words and sentences in the main text, but not done consistently. The hand recalls examples of the chancery script, on which see 4959 introd. The letters are formed separately. They are written with a wide-tipped pen and leftward slant. A date in the second century would suit. It is unclear whether the address on the back is in the same hand as that responsible for the main text; the pen looks diferent, and the script is generally narrower and slants to the right. The text is written along the ibres. The sheet exhibits regular vertical as well as horizontal fold-marks, including a deep horizontal fold. This would indicate that the letter must have irst been rolled and squashed lat in the expected fashion, from right to left (see LIX 3989 introd.), but at some later point, it must have been opened and then folded again at right angles to the previous folding. . . . . ̣̣ [(vac.) π]̣̣θει (vac.) ̣αί̣ειν. πρ̣ μ[ὲν] ̣αντὸϲ εὐχόμεθα ὑμᾶϲ 6 Documentary Texts.indd 161 23.4.2009 11:30 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS 162 5 10 ὑ̣ιαί[νειν]. γεινώϲκειν ὑμᾶϲ θέλ̣μ̣[ν ὅτ]ι τῇ ἕκτῃ διη̣ο̣̣̣̣[μ]̣[ν] ̣αὶ ἐνεικήϲαμεν ̣̣̣ ἐ̣υλοκοπήθη Πετϲεῖϲ ἐπικηρυϲϲομ̣νου “μὴ ϲταϲια̣̣̣ ἀλλ’ ἔνμενε τοῖϲ κεκριμέν̣̣̣”. διὸ ̣ράφομεν ὑμεῖν ὅπω̣ ̣ὐ̣̣ῆ̣̣̣ καὶ εὐφραίνεϲθε καὶ ϲ]τεφανηφορίαν ἄξετε ϲὺν] παν̣ὶ τῷ πλήθει καὶ c.6–7 ]ν καὶ παίδων. (vac.) ἐρρ]ῶϲθαι ̣(μᾶϲ) εὐχ(όμεθα). Θὼθ 4ϛ. Back, downwards along the ibres: 15 (m. 2?) ]̣τ̣̣̣ϲτῆι καὶ τῷ πλή[θει 2 υμαϲ: υ corr. from ϲ? ν corr. from α? 14 Υευχ 3 l. γινώϲκειν 5 l. ἐνικήϲαμεν 9 l. ὑμῖν 12 παντι: ‘. . . the gathering, greetings. First of all we wish you health. We want you to know, that on the sixth our case was heard through, and we won. Petseis was logged, while a herald cried “do not cause trouble, but abide by the judgement (of the court)”. Therefore we write to you, so that you can rejoice and be merry and conduct a wreath-wearing (festival), together with the whole gathering, both of . . . and of children. We(?) pray for your health. Thoth 6.’ Back: ‘. . . the [. . . ?]stolistes and the gathering [. . . ?].’ 1 ̣̣ [π]̣̣θει. Cf. 12, 15. In 12–13 the noun is deined by genitives, -ω]ν καὶ παίδων; in the address it is preceded by ]̣τ̣̣̣ϲτῆι (or a compound), which shows that the letter was addressed to an individual as well as the group. We should allow for two lines lost at the top; there will have stood a proper name or names in the nominative, a name in the dative, and (—)ϲτολιϲτῆι καί. There does not seem to be any other example of πλῆθοϲ as addressee in papyrus letters. The ‘collective address’ is elsewhere expressed in the opening formula in more precise terms, as e.g. in P. Amh. II 40.1–3 (ii BC) Ἠπιόδωροϲ τῶι λεϲώνει καὶ τοῖϲ ἱερεῦϲι τοῦ Ϲοκνοπαίου χαίρειν, and in the closing formula in terms such as ἐρρῶϲθαί ϲε εὔχομαι πανοικεί. Otherwise, as in LV 3809 12–13 ἀϲπάζου τοὺϲ ϲυμμαθητὰϲ πάνταϲ, the internal coherence of the πλῆθοϲ is accurately speciied. The word πλῆθοϲ can have several connotations. In a few cases it can mean ‘crowd’, ‘mob’ in general (e.g. BGU VI 1214.24). More often it refers to a group of things or animals: πλῆθοϲ προβάτων (P. Cair. Zen. III 59394.3–4), βιβλίων (P. Fam. Tebt. 15.89), οἰκιῶν (P. Hib. II 197 i 4), ἀργυρίου (P. Tebt. III 772.6), etc. The cases of human πλήθη usually refer to priests: πλῆθοϲ ἱερέων (CPR XV 17.9; P. Bacch. 24.8; P. Lond. VII 2188 iii 56; P. Mert. II 73.3; P. Tebt. II 310.4), but also there are πλήθη ϲτρατιωτῶν (CPR VII 25.5), γερδίων (P. Mich. II 124 ii 19), ἀνδρῶν ἀτάκτων (L 3581 18), κακούργων (LVIII 3926 5–6), νεανίϲκων (P. Panop. 27.20). All passages in which a πλῆθοϲ ἱερέων occurs suggest that more than a mere crowd is meant. 6 Documentary Texts.indd 162 23.4.2009 11:30 4960. LET TER TO A STOLISTES 163 The expression denotes an organized corporation, which has legal status in itself (cf. esp. P. Tebt. II 310, where Thaubastis surrenders some temple land to the corporation of priests, and P. Lond. VII 2188, where the priests of Pathyris sue for redress as a corporation). It is doubtful whether πλῆθοϲ should be seen as a technical legal term; it would be more convincing to conclude that the word does not have such connotations in itself, but is used to describe a group which has internal coherence. This argument may be supported by P. Bacch. 24.8 διὰ τὸ τοὺϲ ἱερ〈ε〉ῖϲ ἀπὸ πλήθουϲ εἰϲ ὀλίγουϲ κατηντη[κέναι, which uses the same word but in its commoner meaning. 2 ὑμᾶϲ. υ is a correction from ϲ. The error probably occurred because the scribe was more used to writing to a single recipient, that is, ϲε. 4–5 διη̣ο̣̣̣̣[μ]̣[ν]. C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Inscriptions (1934) 235, notes the use of the verb for listening to envoys and judicial hearings, and comments that ‘in both connections, the verb belongs to the koine, but the uses are only a slight extension of the Attic meaning “to hear through”’. The same verb is used of a judicial hearing in NT Acts 23.35 (the arraignment of Paul at Caesarea), and commonly in papyri, e.g. P. Yale I 42.31 ὁ γὰρ βαϲιλεὺϲ αὐτὸϲ καθήμενοϲ διακούει. 6 ἐ̣υλοκοπήθη. The verb occurs in several Ptolemaic documents in the sense of ‘to cut wood’, and refers to a particular agricultural activity; see M. Schnebel, Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Ägypten (1925) 22. Later on the meaning of the word seems to have changed radically, and κόπτω reverts to the deinition ‘to smite, strike’ rather than ‘to cut’. The meaning ‘to cudgel’ or ‘to cudgel to death’ appears in papyri of the Roman period, mostly in reference to illegal use of violence, for which retribution is sought (see the evidence collected by B. Kelly, The Repression of Violence in the Roman Principate (diss. Oxford 2002) 316–29, but note that it excludes military violence). However, in IV 706 = M. Chr. 81.12–13 (73?; see BL IX 181), a report of proceedings before a prefect, we ind ἐάν ϲε μέμψηται . . . ξυλοκοπηθῆναί ϲε κελεύϲω. The practice of beating people with sticks or rods seems to have been a Roman custom, especially in a military context. Castigatio was performed in the form of logging, employed with no distinction of rank or position (cf. Frontinus Strategemata 4.1; C. E. Brand, Roman Military Law (1968) 103–5), and took several forms according to the seriousness of the transgression, as well as the oicial carrying out the punishment. The most brutal form of cudgelling, and one resulting in death, was fustuarium, a punishment for soldiers proven not to have been doing their duty. This is explained in modern literature as the beating of the condemned soldier with clubs, fustes, by his fellow soldiers (for an overview of military punishments see P. Southern, The Roman Army (2007) 146–8). Plb. 6.37, however, describes the procedure of ξυλοκοπία as the accused soldier being touched by an oicial’s club, as a sign of condemnation, and then being stoned to death by his comrades. A similar punishment was whipping with rods, virgae, performed on criminals before their execution, and considered a great disgrace (Brand, Roman Military Law 80). Roman soldiers were also cudgelled by the centurion, who used a vine staf, vitis. It seems that this was a more ‘everyday’ kind of punishment, for less serious crimes and without implications of disgrace (Brand, ibid.). The principal occurrences of the word in Greek literature, mainly in Polybius (6.37.1, 2, 38.1, 3), identify ξυλοκοπία with fustuarium. The word also appears in Epictetus (3.7.32, 4.4.38) applied to the beating of donkeys. Philo In Flaccum 10 gives irst an example of oicial violence and then describes the practice behind it. E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, relates ξυλοκοπία to ξύλοιϲ παίω, citing D. H. Ant. Rom. 9.50.7 ξύλοιϲ παιόμενοι διεφθάρηϲαν. There is little evidence for oicial use of force against private citizens (IV 706; P. Flor. I 61; SB V 7523, on which see below). R. S. Bagnall, BASP 26 (1989) 213, argues that these are cases of threats, and they are recorded but never actually carried out. However, he adds that even though physical abuse of free citizens was forbidden by oicial edicts, oicial violence even against free persons did exist and was to be feared. In the present case it is unlikely that Petseis is a slave: there is evidence that 6 Documentary Texts.indd 163 23.4.2009 11:30 164 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS the transgressions of slaves do not become legal cases, since their masters have the right to discipline them themselves (ibid. 207). It is likely that Petseis falls somewhere between the two extremes: if he is not a slave, he is obviously not a Roman citizen either. As an Egyptian, or ‘Greek’, he could be subjected to corporal punishment. Little is known about penalties inlicted on people by the courts of Roman Egypt. It seems that for slaves and men of low status, the penalty for very serious crimes would be hard labour in an army camp, mine or quarry. Also prisons are mentioned as well as guard duty there (N. Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (1985) 194). There are a few references to beatings ordered for the violation of court orders (ibid.), and based on the contents of the ἐπικήρυξιϲ, one can assume that the document in question is such a case. R. Taubenschlag, Opera minora ii (1959) 737–41, gives several examples of courtordered loggings, and diferentiates between corporal sentences as Erpressungsmittel or Strafe. One interesting case is SB V 7523 (153) where a Roman citizen is being cudgelled on orders of a strategus (on this papyrus see H. Horstkotte, ZPE 111 (1996) 256–8). Πετϲεῖϲ. A Greek transliteration of a Demotic name, likely to mean ‘the one whom the goddess Shay has given’ (suggested by Professor W. J. Tait). This form is unparalleled in the papyri, although one can ind variations of it such as Πετϲέϲιϲ, Πετϲεῦϲ. The common Πετϲεῖριϲ, though similar in Greek, involves Osiris rather than Shay. For such names see E. Lüddeckens, Demotisches Namenbuch (1992) iv 280, 308, 344 (cf. v 298); J. Quaegebeur, Le Dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique (1975). 6–7 ἐπικηρυϲϲομ̣νου. There are several possible ways of articulating the letters within this sentence. In this edition it has been interpreted as an impersonal passive compound in the genitive absolute, of which the subject is the following sentence. Though there is no reason for doubting this construction, two other ways of interpreting it should also be mentioned: ἐπὶ κηρυϲϲομένου (τινόϲ), i.e., in the presence (of someone) who announced, in which case the next sentence would be the object; ἐπικηρύϲϲομεν· “οὐ μὴ ϲταϲια̣̣̣”. The grammar of ἐπὶ κηρυϲϲομένου is not impossible, and ultimately it does not make much diference concerning the sense. Nevertheless, it is more probable that it was meant to be one word, given that in the surviving documents forms of κηρύϲϲειν almost always appear as compounds. The second alternative is even less likely. It does not make good sense, and would create unnecessary and clumsy asyndeta, to have a irst person subject for any form of ἐπικηρύϲϲειν, and certainly not in the present tense. 7 ϲταϲια̣ ̣ ̣ . The second of the unread letters is a rounded one. If there is another letter after it (there is some scattered ink), this would disallow the most obvious guess, ϲταϲίαζε (ϲταϲιάζειν, ϲταϲιάϲῃϲ, or ϲταϲιάϲαι are all palaeographically impossible). Based on palaeography, one might also suggest ϲταϲίαϲον, but μή with the 2nd-person singular aorist imperative would be unexpected. There is only one isolated and uncertain example in the papyri, P. Lond. VI 1915.36 (c.330–40) μὴ ̣̣̣ ̣̣[έ] ̣̣̣[ο]̣ (Mandilaras, The Verb 300, questions the reading, but according to the editor the inal ν seems secure; see BL VII 93). 8 ἔνμενε τοῖϲ κεκριμέν̣̣̣. The easiest conclusion drawn from this phrase is that Petseis has transgressed against a previous court decision; he is being punished now, to learn that he must comply with the ruling of the court the irst time round. Similar phrases occur in P. Mert. III 104.18, of the early Roman period, οὐκ ἐμ̣̣νει τοῖϲ κεκρι̣(ένοιϲ); I 38 = M. Chr. 58.16 (49/50) μὴ βουλομένου ἐνμεῖναι τοῖϲ κεκριμένοιϲ; SB VI 9252.9 (118) ὅπωϲ πείθονται τοῖϲ κεκριμέν̣̣ϲ. It is plausible to assume that in all these cases the process is more or less the same, though none of them contains any indication of physical violence applied or threatened as a means of coercion. 10 ̣ὐ̣̣ῆ̣̣̣ καὶ εὐφραίνεϲθε. εὐφραίνεϲθε occurs most often in the phrase ἐρρῶϲθαί ϲε εὔχομαι καὶ εὐφραίνεϲθαι, as for example in P. Mich. VIII 465.46. Here no form of ῥώννυμι could match the traces, but a form of εὐωχεῖϲθαι suits both the traces and the sense: this verb is associated with feasting and dining, which is very appropriate to the setting of a ϲτεφανηφορία (εὐφραίνομαι does not seem to have this particular sense). 6 Documentary Texts.indd 164 23.4.2009 11:30 4960. LET TER TO A STOLISTES 165 10–11 ̣ὐ̣̣ῆ̣̣̣ . . . εὐφραίνεϲθε . . . ἄξετε. A curious parataxis of three verbs, which seem to be in the present subjunctive, present indicative, and future indicative (or aorist imperative) respectively. The sentence is intended to be a secondary pure inal clause introduced by ὅπωϲ. The normal construction of this kind of clause after a verb in the present tense is with a verb in the subjunctive. The problem is the second verb, since ὅπωϲ is not normally construed with the present indicative. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (1979) 298–9, consider ἵνα with present indicative to be a scribal mistake, but do not mention the possibility of a similar construction with ὅπωϲ. Gignac, Grammar ii 385–9, argues that forms of the indicative frequently substitute those of the subjunctive, and partly attributes this phenomenon to the phonological identiication of several endings (-ειϲ/-ῃϲ, -ει/-ῃ, etc.). He gives many examples in clauses introduced by ἐάν, εἰ, and ἵνα, but he too does not mention ὅπωϲ. One example however can be found in Mayser, Grammatik ii.1 231, from PSI IV 382.17, which has ὅπωϲ followed by a verb in the present indicative, ὅπω〈ϲ〉 δὲ ἐργαζόμεθα; but ἐργαζόμεθα could be a phonetic version of ἐργαζώμεθα. An alternative hypothesis is that εὐφραίνεϲθε is imperative. According to H. Ljungvik, Beiträge zur Syntax der spätgriechischen Volkssprache (1932) 49–50, there are examples in the papyri of the imperative taking the place of the subjunctive, in clauses introduced by ἵνα, ἐφ’ ᾧτε, and ὅπωϲ. As for the third verb, Mandilaras, The Verb 197, argues that the future indicative can sometimes replace the subjunctive in pure inal clauses, but limits the statement by saying that this only occurs with ὡϲ and ἵνα, and that ὅπωϲ with future indicative occurs only in classical Greek. There is, however, one fragmentary example in P. Col. IV 93.9 (mid iii BC [HGV]), ὅπωϲ μοι ὑπάρξει, which possibly is a inal clause. In Blass–Debrunner–Rehkopf, Grammatik 298–9, ὅπωϲ with such a construction in pure inal clauses is considered normal. A inal consideration is the possibility that the third verb is not part of the same sentence. If the restored καί that connects it with the previous line were not there, one could punctuate after εὐφραίνεϲθε and restore τήν; however, this would imply that it was a particular ϲτεφανηφορία being referred to. It is also risky to take a strong position on whether the asyndeton created by this hypothesis is possible or not; though there are no asyndeta elsewhere in the text, the sample is too small to allow judgement on the author’s style. But even if καί were accepted, it would not be impossible that a new sentence started at this point, though admittedly it would be a very inelegant structure. The overall impression that the document gives about the literacy of its author is a very good one. Therefore, the confusion of tenses and moods in this sentence cannot be simply dismissed as a grammatical mistake. 11 ϲ]τεφανηφορίαν. The word or cognates have occurred in VII 1021 15 (54) διὸ πάντεϲ ὀφείλομεν ϲτεφανηφοροῦνταϲ καὶ βουθυτοῦνταϲ θεοῖϲ πᾶϲι εἰδέναι χάριτα; P. Giss. 27 = W. Chr. 17.9 (c.115 [HGV]) καὶ ϲτεφανηφορίαν ἄξω καὶ τοῖϲ θεοῖϲ τὰϲ ὀφειλομέναϲ ϲπονδὰϲ ἀποδῶ; LV 3781 14 (117) εὐχόμ[ενοι] οὖν πᾶϲι θεοῖϲ αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ τὴν δ̣αμονὴν ἡμεῖν φυλα̣̣ῆ̣αι ϲτεφανηφ̣ρήϲομ(εν) ἐφ’ ἡμ(έραϲ) ι´; BGU II 646 = W. Chr. 490.23–4 (193) πανδημεὶ [θ]ύο[ν]ταϲ καὶ εὐχομένουϲ ὑπέρ τε τοῦ διηνεκοῦϲ Αὐτοκρατοῦϲ κ[αὶ το]ῦ ϲύνπαντοϲ οἴκου ϲτεφα[νηφ]ορῆϲαι ἡμέραϲ πεντεκαίδε[κα. Cf. also Dittenberger, OGI I 6.22 (311 BC) τὴν δὲ θυϲίαν κα[ὶ] τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τὴν ϲτεφανηφορίαν, 56.40 (239/8 BC) ἡμέραϲ πέντε μετὰ ϲτεφανηφορίαϲ καὶ θυϲιῶν καὶ ϲπονδῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν προϲηκόντων. In most examples ϲτεφανηφορία is connected with some major political event, and all the documents cited above are oicial announcements: 1021 is a notiication of the accession of Nero; P. Giss. 27 is a private letter in which Aphrodisius proposes to celebrate a victory of the strategus Apollonius (probably against the forces of the Jewish revolt); 3781 is an announcement of the accession of Hadrian; W. Chr. 490 refers to the celebration of the rule of Pertinax; OGI I 6 mentions ϲτεφανηφορία as part of the festivals in honour of Alexander; OGI I 56, the Canopus Decree, is a decree of the Egyptian priests in honour of Ptolemy iii and Berenice. Moreover, or perhaps consequently, in all these texts ϲτεφανηφορία has clear religious connotations. This becomes even clearer 6 Documentary Texts.indd 165 23.4.2009 11:30 166 DOCUMEN TARY TEXTS by the fact that the word is accompanied by a mention of sacriicing to the gods or something similar. Also in some of these cases the number of days that the ‘wreath-wearing’ will last is speciied. In religious festivals wreaths were worn by the people taking part, by the sacriicial animals, and were also used to adorn temples on important occasions (S. Price, Rituals and Power (1984) 108–12). The fact that a ϲτεφανηφορία usually is part of a major event, should not lead to the conclusion that the logging of Πετϲεῖϲ was of such great importance as to be celebrated in a way comparable to the accession or the birthday of an emperor. The most likely interpretation would be that the πλῆθοϲ was preparing a great celebration involving a ϲτεφανηφορία, and Πετϲεῖϲ was for some reason an obstacle. Now that he has been punished for it, the priests can go on performing their duties. A remoter possibility would be that the expression ϲτεφανηφορίαν ἄξετε is meant iguratively; cf. PSI XII 1247.8 f. ἐὰν κομίζωμαι ὑμῶν γράμματα, ἑορτὴν ἄγω. This argument, however, is weakened by the fact that the particular ϲτεφανηφορία is described further: ϲὺν] παντὶ τῷ πλήθει καὶ | [ c.6–7 ]ν καὶ παίδων. This would be exaggerated in the case of a metaphorical expression. 13 c.6–7 ]ν καὶ παίδων. The context seems to be very much connected with priests and temples (cf. the address on the back), so that [ἱερέω]ν would seem appropriate. Besides, a πλῆθοϲ ἱερέων is the most usual form of a πλῆθοϲ in the papyri. In any case, the word to restore depends on what one takes those ‘children’ to be. A tracing, however, does not easily conirm the supplement, unless all the letters in this word were horizontally elongated and spaced out (which is not impossible, but does not seem justiied, especially since all but ω are very narrow letters). [ἀνδρῶ]ν would seem more likely, albeit still too short for the break. On the other hand, if the idea of some kind of a priestly πλῆθοϲ is still to be assumed, it is diicult to see what the actual word was, since ϲτολιϲτῶν or any other speciic priestly rank is too long. The ‘children’ are part of the πλῆθοϲ. It is not clear whether they are children or slaves. If the former, they could be sons and daughters of the priests (assuming that the πλῆθοϲ did consist of priests), living in the temples; they could be pupils at the temple school; or they could themselves be priests. D. J. Thompson in M. Beard, J. North, Pagan Priests (1990) 101, notes that the sons who inherited the priesthood from their fathers were often very young. Such ‘children’ may be mentioned in BGU I 176 = W. Chr. 83.9 ἀποϲπᾶϲθαι τοὺϲ παῖδαϲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερέων. The meaning of the word παῖδαϲ is disputed: sons of priests (Krebs, Wessely) or slaves (Otto, Wilcken)? Wilcken’s argument is that if they were sons of priests, the expression would be τοὺϲ παῖδαϲ ἀπὸ τῶν πατέρων or τοὺϲ υἱοὺϲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερέων. However, even if ultimately Otto and Wilcken could be right, the particular argument does not sound convincing (ἱερῶν, proposed in place of ἱερέων by K. F. W. Schmidt, BL III 9, should be ignored; Wilcken states that he has re-examined the original). It seems probable that the reference is made to an association of priests. Within those associations, the age of becoming a member is not speciied. Some became members together with their sons, and it seems that this was common practice; there are several terms in Demotic which describe those young people or novices who were part of the association (F. de Cenival, Les Associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques (1972) 150). What is more interesting in this case, is that apparently there were formations within the association consisting of some sort of chief and the young members, and there even exists an expression for this, p,’ts n mnh·w, ‘the chief (some sort of chief; the exact meaning of ts is unclear) and the young ones/novices’; see de Cenival, Les Associations 173. 14 Thoth 6 = September 2/3. 15 ]̣τ̣̣̣ϲτῆι. In the papyri there are attestations of ϲτολιϲταί, πρωτοϲτολιϲταί, δευτεροϲτολιϲταί, ἰβιοϲτολιϲταί, ἱεροϲτολιϲταί, or ἱερόϲτολοι. With the exception of the last, each of the other words could be the one in this document. For the rank of ϲτολιϲτήϲ see W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten (1905) 83–4 and J. A. S. Evans, YCS 17 (1961) 188–9. M. M A LO U TA 6 Documentary Texts.indd 166 23.4.2009 11:30