(PDF) Some Notes on PUG IV

GERT BAETENS – WILLY CLARYSSE S OME N OTES ON PUG IV aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 204 (2017) 182–186 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 182 S OM E N OT ES ON PUG IV The recent volume IV of the papyri of Genova contains 31 Ptolemaic papyri from mummy cartonnage. The texts date from the second half of the 3rd and the 2nd century BC and most come from the Fayum. Our new readings in the notes below are based on the excellent photographs at the end of the volume; for the peti- tion PUG IV 141 we were able to use a scan of higher resolution kindly put at our disposal by L. Migliardi Zingale and G. Casanova. PUG IV 133 The editors date this text to the middle of the 3rd century, but the mention of a topogrammateus in l. 1 of frg. A1 rather suggests a date towards the end of the 3rd century BC, since the earliest attestation of toparchies in the Fayum date from 236 BC.1 In l. 3 of frg. A1, the editors read the name Νικόβυλος, which would be an unattested variant of Νικόβουλος, but in fact there is sufficient place for a small omikron in the lacuna between the beta and ypsilon. In l. 7 of the same fragment, ὑφ’ ἣν ὑπε . [ might be supplemented as ὑφ’ ἣν ὑπέγ[ραψα. Further, two corrections can be made in the edition of frg. B1. Instead of ἐγεγρά[φεσθε] τρυγεῖν in l. 3, ἐγεγρα[ . . . . ] γεωργεῖν should be read, perhaps followed by τὸν κ[λῆρον. There is no reason for supplementing an irregular plural middle voice form of γράφω here. In l. 7, ] ἀπομετρῆσαι ἐπιστειλα[ should be read instead of ]πομεν ποιῆσαι ἐπιμέλειαν. PUG IV 135 In l. 5, γενομένων should be read instead of ]πτομένων. PUG IV 137 In l. 3, the editors read σὺ δὲ καλῶς ἂν ποήσαις τὰς ν (ἀρτάβας?) τῶι. π . [ . . . . . . . ]ος Ἑρμοδώρωι. This should be corrected to σὺ δὲ καλῶς ἂν ποήσαις τὰς ν (ἀρτάβας) τῶν πυ[ρῶν . . . . . . . . ]ος Ἑρμοδώρωι, with an aorist participle in the lacuna, e.g. ἀποδόμεν]ος.2 Further, ουκωι μὴν δεινὸν ὅρκο[ν in l. 5 should be read as οὐκ ὤιμην δεῖν ὀλιωρῆ[σαι.3 Possibly, the two fragments of the papyrus are placed a little bit too close to each other on the photograph. If the gap in l. 5 would be somewhat larger than presented there, ἀλλὰ βο]ηθῆσαι τῶι πράγματι could be supplemented after οὐκ ὤιμην δεῖν ὀλιωρῆ[σαι. In l. 6 we prefer γνωστὴρ ἐγενήθη instead of γνωστὴρ ἐτῶν κθ. Though well-written and largely preserved, this text, a letter rather than a petition, remains puzzling and deserves further study. PUG IV 139 ἐτρύγει in l. 4 should be corrected to εὑρήσει, and μενα χειρ[ in l. 5 to μεταχειρ[ιζ-. PUG IV 140 The editors date PUG IV 140 to ca. 253 BC, because a πρὸς τῆι ἐλαικῆι by the name of Asklepiades appears in ll. 4–5 of this text, and a former oil commissioner (πρὸς τῆι ἐλαικῆι γενόμενος) of the same 1 W. Clarysse, Nomarchs and Toparchs in the Third Century Fayum, in: M. Capasso (ed.), Archeologia e papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive. Atti del convegno internazionale, Siracusa, 24–25 maggio 1996, Syra- cuse 1997, pp. 72–76. 2 For the plural τῶν πυρῶν, cf. W. Clarysse, Artabas of Grain or Artabas of Grains?, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 51 (2014), pp. 101–108. 3 For οὐκ ὤιμην δεῖν, see PSI V 494 ll. 4–5. For ὀλιωρῆσαι instead of ὀλιγωρῆσαι, cf. ὀλιωρῶνται in P. Cairo Zen. II 59284 ll.6–7, ὀλιωρίαν in P. Cairo Zen. III 59331 l. 2, and ὀλιώρως in P. Enteux. 75 ll. 10 and 12. Some Notes on PUG IV 183 name is attested in P. Zen. Pestm. 67 from 253 BC (ll. 1–2). The identification of these two officials appears uncertain, however: the handwriting of PUG IV 140 rather suggests a date in the 2nd or late 3rd century BC. Further, ἐφ’ ὧι κομιεῖται πρ[ὸς in l. 2 should be corrected to ἐφ’ ὧι κομιεῖται παρ[ὰ, ἐθαύμασα μ . [ in l. 3 to ἐθαυμάσαμ[εν (because of the plural verb in the next line), and καλῶς ποιήσεις ἐπὶ σὲ π[ in l. 6 to καλῶς ποιήσεις ἐπιστε[ίλας.4 In the commentary, the text is identified as a petition because of its use of the verb κομίζω and the expression ἐπὶ σέ, but neither of these arguments is convincing: κομίζω is a very common verb that is encountered in all kinds of documents, and the editors’ reading ἐπὶ σὲ is clearly incorrect. PUG IV 141 PUG IV 141 is the only text in the volume that can be safely identified as a petition. Since the corrections which we propose are substantial, we have chosen to integrate them in a re-edition: <traces of two lines> 3 τῶν οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ βελτίστ[ου ἀνασ]τρεφομένων ἐν 4 πλείοσιν δὲ αἰτίαις ἐνέχεται ἀξιῶ σε γράψαι 5 Πετεσούχωι τῶι ἀρχ[ιφυλακίτηι] τῶν Ὀξυρύγχων 6 μηδεμίαν ὑπερβολὴν ποησάμ[ενος ἀπ]οκατ[ασ]τῆσαι (?) 7 τὸν Πέτων ἐπὶ σὲ ἵνα διὰ σοῦ ἀπ[οκαταστ]αθέντος (?) 8 αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ Ἡλᾶν τὸν ἐπιστάτην [τῶν φυλακι]τῶν 9 καὶ τῆς ἐπισκέψεως γενομ[ένης -ca.10- ] 10 κομίσωμαι τὰς Ἀφ (δραχμὰς) (?) . . . . [ -ca.5- ] . . . 11 τύχηι [τῶν] προσηκόντω[ν -ca.?- ]. <vacat> 12 <m2> τοῖς . . . [ -ca.?- ] 4. πλείοσιν δὲ α . . . . ἐνέχεται ἀξίως ἔγραψα edd.; 5. Πετεσούχωι τῶι χρ . [ . . . . . . . ] edd.; 6. μηδεμίαν ὑπερβολὴν ποήσασ[θαι? καὶ συντάξ]αι κατ[ασ]τῆσαι edd.; 7. των . . ετων ἐπὶ σὲ ἵνα διὰ σοῦ ἐπ[ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . . . . edd.; 8. ἐφ’ ἡ . . τον ἐπὶ . . . [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . . . edd.; 9. γενομ[ένης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] edd.; 10. τὰς Ἀ φυτέας [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ὅπ]ως (?) edd.; 12. <tracce di 1 rigo> edd. Translation: “[- - -] whose conduct is not of the best, and he is guilty of offenses in multiple matters, I ask you to write to Petesouchos, the archiphylakites of Oxyrhyncha, not to make any delay and to deliver Petos to you, so that, after he has been delivered by you to Helas, the epi- states of the phylakitai, and after the examination has taken place, (…) I may recover the 1500 drachms (…) and he may receive what is fitting (...). <m2> To the (…).” 4 The verb ἐνέχω is combined with αἰτίαις in a similar way in the Ptolemaic amnesty decrees CPR XXVIII 14 (frg. 1 l. 4), C. Ord. Ptol. 34 (l. 3), C. Ord. Ptol. 41 (l. 4) and C. Ord. Ptol. 53 (ll. 6–7) = C. Ord. Ptol. 53 bis (ll. 7–8) = C. Ord. Ptol. 53 ter (ll. 6–7), and in the early Roman period petition BGU IV 1061 (ll. 24–25). The editors read the unparalleled expression ἀξίως ἔγραψα at the end of this line, but obviously this should be corrected to ἀξιῶ σε γράψαι, a common request introduction in Ptolemaic petitions (cf. P. Köln III 140 ll. 29–30, P. Lond. VII 2009 l. 16, P. Petrie III 32 g Ro (b) l. 9 and SB XXIV 16295 l. 33) and Ptolemaic ὑπομνήματα with other functions (cf. PUG III 103 ll. 2–3, PUG III 104 l. 11 and PUG III 105 l. 3). 5 In their commentary, the editors suggest to read Πετεσούχωι τῶι χρη[ματιστῆι], but this title usually appears in the plural form (referring to an entire college of chrematistai) and is never combined with 4 For the expression καλῶς ποιήσεις ἐπιστείλας, see P. Cairo Zen. II 59272 ll. 3–4 and PSI V 523 l. 1. 184 G. Baetens – W. Clarysse the name of a village. It makes much more sense to supplement ἀρχ[ιφυλακίτηι]. This Petesouchos, archiphylakites of Oxyrhyncha, is not known from other sources. The presence of the article τῶν before the village name Ὀξυρύγχων is unparalleled, but seems unavoidable. 6 The editors read this line as follows: μηδεμίαν ὑπερβολὴν ποήσασ[θαι? καὶ συντάξ]αι κατ[ασ]τῆσαι. But there is far too little space for this supplement in the lacuna and the verb συντάξαι appears unnecessary in this context: one does not expect the addressee of the petition to write to Petesouchos in order to ask him to issue an order to a third, unspecified authority; one expects the addressee of the petition to direct a request for action to Petesouchos himself. Further, it can be seen on the image that virtually nothing remains of the final alpha and iota of συντάξ]αι which the editors read, and that the second sigma in ποήσασ[θαι might just as well be a my, resulting in the reading ποησάμ[ενος. Since the next line seems to refer to the delivery of the accused with the verb ἀποκαθίστημι, we pro- pose an aorist infinitive of the same verb in this line. This leaves enough space in the lacuna to read ποησάμ[ενος. Alternatively, μηδεμίαν ὑπερβολὴν ποήσασ[θαι ἀλλ]ὰ κατ[ασ]τῆσαι could be read. 7 At the beginning of this line, the name of the accused can be read: Πέτων, accusative of Πέτως (cf. TM Nam 40163). At the beginning of the final clause introduced by ἵνα, two genitivi absoluti appear to have been inserted, a first one in this and the following line, and a second one in l. 9 (τῆς ἐπισκέψεως γενομ[ένης). The subject of the first genitivus absolutus is expressed by αὐτοῦ at the start of l. 8 (referring to Petos) and its participle should be found in l. 7: διὰ σοῦ [participle] | αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ Ἡλᾶν τὸν ἐπιστάτην [τῶν φυλακι]τῶν. Although it is uncommon for a petition to contain two consecu- tive requests to summon or deliver the accused to an authority, little else can be supplemented here. The traces at the end of this line have not been read by the editors, but might be read as . θέντος. The traces after διὰ σοῦ were read by them as ἐπ[, but might also be read as ἀπ[. We propose to supplement the participle ἀπ[οκαταστ]αθέντος. This would mean that Petos first had to be delivered by the archiphylakites Petesouchos to the addressee of the petition, and next by the addressee of the petition to Helas, the epistates of the phylakitai, who will examine the case. For the use of the verb ἀποκαθίστημι in this context, see P. Cairo Zen. II 59224 l. 8, P. Enteux. 24 l. 8, P. Köln VI 272 l. 14, P. Mich. XVIII 778 l. 36, P. Mich. XVIII 779 l. 36 and SB X 10253 l. 4. 8 Helas (Ἡλᾶς) is an extremely rare name, with only one certain other attestation, in the request of the petition BGU VI 1252 (l. 31–36): προσαγγέλλομέν σοι ὅπως ἀναχθῆι ἐφʼ Ἡλᾶν τὸν ἐπιστάτην τῶν φυλακιτῶν καὶ τύχηι τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπιπλείξεως καὶ πραχθῆι τὰ δηλούμενα [βλάβη]. Undoubtedly, PUG IV 141 and BGU VI 1252 refer to the same police official. PUG IV 141 was dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC on the basis of its handwriting, and BGU VI 1252 to the 2nd century BC. We propose to date both texts to ca. 225–150 BC. 10 The editors read κομίσωμαι τὰς Ἀ φυτέας (for φυτείας, a word never used in the plural elsewhere), but in fact the phi belongs to the same number as the alpha. Possibly, this number (Ἀφ) is followed by the symbol for (δραχμάς). At the end of the line, [ὅπ]ως (?) was read by the editors. This reading is possible, but certainly not necessary: possibly τύχηι in the next line simply continues the final clause ἵνα (…) κομίσωμαι of ll. 7–10. In this case, the final clause may have been constructed as follows: ἵνα (…) [ἐγὼ μὲν] κομίσωμαι τὰς Ἀφ (δραχμὰς) (?) . . . . [ . αὐτὸ]ς δὲ τύχηι [τῶν] προσηκόντω[ν -ca.?- ]. Such expressions are frequently encountered in 2nd and 1st century BC petitions: BGU VIII 1860 ll. 6–8; P. Diosk. 11 ll. 13–17; P. Oxy. XII 1465 ll. 12–15; P. Tebt. I 45 ll. 31–35; P. Tebt. I 46 ll. 28–31; P. Tebt. I 47 ll. 30–32; P. Tebt. IV 1095 ll. 31–33; P. Tebt. IV 1096 ll. 21–25; P. Tebt. IV 1098 ll. 14–16; P. Würzb. 5 ll. 12–14; SB VIII 9792 ll. 25–30. 12 Presumably, this line constitutes a subscription in reaction to the petition. Petition subscriptions often start by identifying the addressee of the subscription in the dative: e.g. τοῖς γραμματεῦσι(ν) in BGU VIII 1841 l. 5, BGU VIII 1844 l. 29, P. Meyer 1 l. 30, UPZ I 14 l. 92, UPZ I 22 l. 28, UPZ I 35 l. 31 = UPZ I 36 l. 27, and UPZ I 43 l. 22. Some Notes on PUG IV 185 PUG IV 142 In l. 3 of frg. A, where the editors read ]συν[ . . . . ] τ∞ς γραφεί[σης ἐπιστολῆς (?), we propose ] συν[έτα]ξας γράψ[α]ι [. It is tempting to read ]ρίδε[ι] χαίρε[ιν in l. 2 of the same fragment, in order to have a date and an epistolary prescript at the beginning of the text, but the preserved traces that can be discerned on the image are not perfect for this. In l. 4 of frg. B, we propose Πάσις Χαιενύριος instead of Πασόσχωι Ἐνύριος. The names Πασόσχος and Ἔνυρις are both unattested (cf. the editor’s commentary), whereas Πάσις is a very common name (TM Nam 760) and Χαιένυρις might be a variant of Χαιέυρις (from Ḫʿy-Ḥr: see TM Nam 110).5 PUG IV 152 At the end of l. 11, λβ (ὀβολὸς) (ὧν) [ should be read: “32 drachms and 1 obol, of which [”. Perhaps, ὡσαύτως can be read instead of ?αἰωρίωι in l. 16. PUG IV 153 In l. 8, the editors read χαλκοῦ σξιϛ, without commenting on the nonsensical σξιϛ. Obviously, this should be read as χαλκοῦ ἕξ (γίν.) ϛ (“total six bronze drachms = 6”). PUG IV 155 On the basis of its handwriting, this text should be dated to the 2nd century BC instead of the mid 3rd cen- tury BC, as proposed by the editors. The editors’ observation that the κάτοικοι ἱππεῖς ἀρχαῖοι mentioned in l. 11 of this text are further only attested in a papyrus from the second half of the 2nd century BC (BGU XIV 2441 l. 135) is also in favour of a later dating. PUG IV 157 ]ρχηι περὶ . . . [ in l. 3 should be read as [ἀ]ρχιφυ(λακίτ.) περὶ Λη(τοῦς) Πό(λεως). The same topo- nym is mentioned in PUG IV 140 l. 5. In both cases the Fayum village of that name [TM Geo 1244] is probably meant, not the Delta city [TM Geo 1245]. If the ypsilon is taken as the top of the abbreviation [ἀ]ρχιφυ(λακίτ.) in l. 3, then ἁλωνοποίας instead of ὑάλων ὁποίας seems unavoidable in l. 2, and instead of an unexpected reference to glass we have here an addendum lexicis for “making a threshing floor”. Cf. ἅλωνα ποήσασθαι in PSI III 173 l. 14. PUG IV 158 In l. 7, the editors read οὐ ταξαμένων δα[νισ]τῶν τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἐν τοῖς ὁρισθεῖσιν [χρόνοις]. The supple- ment δα[νισ]τῶν (instead of δα[νεισ]τῶν because of the limited space in the lacuna) was already proposed in the commentary of the editio princeps of this text,6 but in fact it seems more straightforward to supple- ment δ’ α[ὐ]τῶν: οὐ ταξαμένων δ’ α[ὐ]τῶν τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἐν τοῖς ὁρισθεῖσιν [χρόνοις] (“If they do not pay the installment in due time, …”). In l. 10, we read ξβ (τριώβολον) (γίν.) ρκε (γίν.) τοῦ Φαμενὼθ εἰς κϛ c. There are two installments of 62 drachms and 3 obols, resulting in a total of 125 drachms. For the formula εἰς κϛ c (a bronze tetradrachme is equivalent to 26 1/2 bronze obols instead of 24 bronze obols, with an agio of 10 %), see K. Maresch, Bronze und Silber: Papyrologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Währung im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten bis zum 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Opladen 1996, p. 89 (in particular 5 For the accentuation of these names, see W. Clarysse, Greek Accents on Egyptian Names, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 119 (1997), pp. 177–184. 6 M. Berti, Il kleros di Machatas e la prokeryxis in un papiro inedito di Genova, in: J. Frösén, T. Purola, and E. Salmenkivi (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004, Helsinki 2007, p. 107. 186 G. Baetens – W. Clarysse note 4), and W. Clarysse – D. J. Thompson, An Early Ptolemaic Bank Register from the Arsinoite Nome, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 55 (2009), pp. 232–233. PUG IV 159 PUG IV 159 is written in the ἔντευξις format, characterised by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα.7 The latest documents addressed to individuals other than the king and queen that are written in this format date from the 240s and 230s BC.8 This observation constitutes an additional argument to date the text to the middle of the 3rd century BC, as proposed by the editor. The handwriting of both PUG IV 159 and the text written on the other side of the same papyrus, PUG IV 136, matches this dating. Gert Baetens, KU Leuven / Research Foundation Flanders

Willy Clarysse, KU Leuven

7 Cf. E. Bickermann, Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III. ῎Εντευξις und ὑπόμνημα, Archiv für Papyrusfor- schung 9 (1930), pp. 155–158; F. Ziemann, De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae, Halle 1910, pp. 259–262. 8 The latest examples that can be dated with some precision are P. Petrie III 33 (ca. 242 BC) and SB X 10260 (ca. 238–237 BC).