BEMERKUNGEN ZU PAPYRI XXVII

<Korr. Tyche>

Most of the corrections are based on an examination of the photos in the edition, as well as on checking the originals in Vienna in July 2014.

Recto

      line 2: ϊ Ἰωνί̣νος → ϊ ια ἀπ`ὸ΄ λόγ(ου). The first part is a sequence of numbers as in the sub­sequent lines. A. Papathomas suggests that ἀπ(ὸ) with a supralinear omicron follows, a form at­tested in the 7^th century. Cf. e.g. CPR VII 85 (throughout the text); P.Oxy. XVI 2056.1; P.Bad. IV 97.19.

      line 3: ιβ ἡ δ(ιὰ) τῆ(ς) γαμ(ετῆς) Ἀμελίο(υ) → ιβ η δ(ιὰ) τῆ(ς) γαμε(τῆς) Μέλα. At the be­ginning there is a similar pattern with two numbers as in line 2. Μελα could stand for the geni­tive Μέλα (a variant of Μέλανος, from Μέλας) or even Μελᾶ, a well attested name. What looks like iota between lambda and alpha is of unclear significance but must belong to the line below.

      line 4: Δαὺ̣δ̣ υἱό(ς) → δ α ἀπ`ό΄. The same pattern with two numbers and απο.

      line 5: ζ Γασο( ) λόγ(ου) τοῦ αὐτοῦ → ζ γ ἀπ`ὸ΄ λόγ(ου) τ(οῦ) αὐτοῦ. This again follows the pattern of the previous lines.

Verso

      line 1: Ἀχιλλ̣[ ̣] ̣→ δ(ιά) …… . Δ(ιά) is written in the same manner as in line 3 recto.

      line 2: ̣(symbol) Δαμιανὸς Σ̣αγιανός → δ(ιὰ) Δαμιανὸς Τατιανός. A name Sagianos is not attested in the papyri.

      line 1: πρόσγρ(αφον) ἀνισθέντ[ων: Read ἀνυσθέντων. The term ἀνυσθέντα for amounts ex­acted in favour of the public treasury appears sporadically in the Roman period[1] and becomes very frequent in accounts from the 7^th and the 8^th centuries. Πρόσγραφον is a relatively com­mon word attested since the beginning of the Roman era and could refer to a supplementary report[2], and later in Byzantine times to a list of supplementary payments or, more specifically, a receipt (for embole)[3]. Therefore, P.Pintaudi 47 is not a list of cured soldiers but a list connected with tax collection. Πρόσγραφον ἀνυσθέντων is an expression not attested elsewhere[4]. It is perhaps safer to leave it as πρόσγρ(αφον) ἀνισθέντ[-, in order not to exclude the possibility of an expression such as πρόσγρ(αφον) ἀνισθέντος χρυσίου. If we accept the pattern appearing in CPR XXII 60.24–34, then each entry consisted of the name and patronymic followed by a number of nomismata/keratia paid by each individual.

      line 4: Ἐνώχ → Ἐνόχ.

      line 5: Ἀβραμᾶς Ἑκισίου → Ἀβρὰμ Πεκισίου. This is a variant of the common name Πεκῦσις or just another iotacism of upsilon.

      line 6: Ψελημ̣ά̣(χεως) → Ψελημ̣. P.Neph. 11.19 and 21 has Ψελλ̣εμά[χει and Ψελλεμά̣χιν which refers to the village of Pselemachis in the Herakleopolite nome.

      line 7: Κερεκέου → Κερέκου.

      line 2: ἔστι τ’ ὁπόσον τοῦ ^{(διμοίρου)} δ(ο)θ(έν) σίτου̣ → ἔστι τὸ ποσὸν τ(οῦ) δ(ο)θ(έντος) σίτου̣. What was taken as a symbol of dimoiron is actually the monogram ου written above tau; cf. line 5 where τ(οῦ) is written in a similar way.

      line 3: τὸ ἐξ ἁγί(ου) → το(ῦ) ἐξαγί(ου). The term ἐξάγιον, which in Preisigke’s WB is ex­plained as ‘Zahlung’ ‘Teilzahlung’, occurs mainly in the 8 ^th century[5], with two exceptions: CPR V 26.863 (second half of the 5^th cent.) and P.Oxy LVIII 3955.18 (611).

      line 4: ἐπὶ τῇ σπερ(μαβολίᾳ) → ἐπὶ τῆς παρ(ούσης). Reading proposed by L. Berkes.

      line 5: τοῦ νομ(ίσματος) ,ακ → τοῦ νομ(ίσματος) α (= ἑνὸς) κ. Reading proposed by F. Mitthof.

      line 6: κ(εράτια) ..[ ].. [ → κ(εράτια) ζ η̣΄ […]κ. Reading proposed by F. Mitthof.

Lines 5 and 6 refer to the price of the wheat. First, there is a total of artabai (1686), then, the price of 1 nomisma for 20 artabai, continuing into the next line with the total number of nomismata plus keratia (and fractions of keratia).

      line 4: Π̣άσον(ος) → Π̣άσων (l. Πάσωνος). The absence of the abbreviation mark was recognised by L. Berkes.

      line 6: Γεωργ<ί>ου → Γεωργ̣ίου.

      line 11: Σίων(ος) → Σίων (l. Σίωνος). As in line 4, there is no abbre­viation mark.

      line 13: Βασι̣λ( ) → β̅ β̣ολῆ̣(ς). Above the (first) beta, a dash indicates a number. The correction would point to a second delivery. Βολή is a rather rare word (CPR XIX 61 [through­out the text] and SPP X 152 v.7 and 8).

      line 14: Σίων(ος) → Σίων; see comm. l. 11.

      line 15: Β[α]σι[λ]( ) → possibly Bί̣κ̣[τορος. The traces indicate exactly the same pattern of writing as in Βίκτορος in line 3.

      line 7: τ[έ]ως → τῆ̣ς. After tau there are traces of ink going up in a straight line and on the right side of the lacuna; cf. τῇ σῇ in line 1.

There are traces following παρα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] that are not indicated in the ed. pr. Thus, παρα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] το[ῦ] should be changed to παρα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ το[υ]. My impression is that this could be τ]ο̣ῦ̣ α̣ὐ̣το[ῦ], but it is far from certain.

759. P.Pintaudi 58 Verso

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ νταθαυ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣→ ]τ̣ῷ̣ κ̣[υρί]ῳ μο̣υ̣ τὰ π[ά]ντα θαυ̣μ̣α̣σ̣(ιωτάτῳ). The editor in her commentary proposed reading: ☧ Ἐπίδος τῷ τὰ πάντα θαυμασ(ιωτάτῳ) ἀδελφῷ Ἀνατολίῳ. This is likely, but after an examination of the papyrus I would suggest: [⳨ Ἐπίδος] τ̣ῷ̣ κ̣[υρί]ῳ μο̣υ̣ τὰ π[ά]ντα θαυ̣μ̣α̣σ̣(ιωτάτῳ) ἀδελφῷ Ἀνατολίῳ.[6]

Constantinos BALAMOSHEV

This is a short letter addressed on the back τῷ δε[σπότῃ μο]υ τῷ μακ(αρίῳ) πρε(σβυτέρῳ) κόμ(ετι) [Στεφ]άνῳ. A priest and comes would be truly remarkable, but one also called ‘blessed’ is plainly implausible. Examination of the original, and now of the online image, has shown that instead of μακ(αρίῳ) πρε(σβυτέρῳ) the papyrus has μεγαλοπρε(πεστάτῳ) (there is a small blank space between λ and ο, where the binding string may have been placed).

Who is this Stephanos? The text comes from the Fayum, and the hand suggests a date in the first half of the seventh century (‘VI/VII’ ed. pr.). CPR VIII 71.5–6, addressed [τῷ μεγαλο]π̣ρεπεστάτῳ Παύλῳ υἱῷ τοῦ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς | μνήμης Στε]φάνου Κύρου γενομένου παγάρχου, may be relevant. This text was thought to date from 684 (CPR X p. 156 n. 22 = BL VIII 115), but Dr Sophie Kovarik has kindly pointed out to me that it probably dates from 654, in which case there is no need to associate the deceased pagarch with the stratelates of this name in P.Ross.Georg. III 53.6–7 (673/4 or 674/5)[7]. Finally, Στέφανον τὸν μεγα̣[λ]ο̣­πρεπέστ[α]τ[ο]ν̣ [ in P.Ross.Georg. III 21.1 ( ed. pr. restores κόμητα, but this is not unavoid­able), a seventh-century letter of unknown provenance, may refer to the same person (several Arsinoite documents of this date are edited in that volume).

Two village officials applied to the local amir for a travel permit for three monks, probably in 728. The text is written in Coptic, but the address on the back is in Greek. I reproduce the editor’s reading followed by his interpretation of this highly abbreviated line (I have retained the orthography of ed. pr.):

ιδιῳ αγαθῳ και θεοφιλεστατῳ και μεγαλῳ μου (?) δεσποτῳ και πατρι (?) τιμιοτατῳ (?) αξιῳ και μεγαλῳ προστατῳ και . . . . ευεργετῳ τῳ υπερφυεστατῳ και πανευφημῳ αμιρα + χαηλ και ιωαννου αυτου δουλοι +

This requires correction: besides the soloecistic forms (δεσποτῳ, προστατῳ, ευεργετῳ) and other smaller problems, many of the abbreviations have to be read or interpreted differently; see the plate (VIIb) and the online image[8]. Thus, for θεοφιλ  με γ read θεοφυλκ μ, that is, θεοφυλ(ά)κ(τῳ) μο̣υ (the sinusoids after θεοφυλκ is an additional abbreviation indicator and does not stand for (καί) (sim. the sinus­oid after δεσπο); πα τιμη πρκ stand for πά(σης) τιμῆ(ς) πρ(οσ)κ(υνήσεως); for μελγα I read μτθα, i.e., μ(ε)τὰ Θ(εόν); and there is what looks like alpha over the pi of προστ, which may suggest reading προστά(τῃ), though the position of the suprascript letter would be curious. I am unclear about what follows ἰδίῳ; the expected μ(ου) cannot be confirmed. Thus I propose to read the address as follows:

Nikolaos GONIS

This letter probably comes from the Fayûm and dates from the first century AD. After the pre­script (ll. 1–2), it begins with a common formulaic expression, [πρὸ π]άντων ἀναγκαῖ̣όν | [ἐστι]ν δει (l. δι’) ἐπιστολῆς σε | [ἀσπ]άσεσθαι (ll. 3–5), as read in BL II.2 50. ἐστίν is unparal­leled in this position, and in this context ἀναγκαῖον normally construes with verbs in the aorist: cf. P.Oxy. LV 3806.3 (AD 15) ἀναγκαῖον ἔγνων; P.Köln VI 278.3f. (1^st c. AD) ἀναγκαῖον ἡγη|[σάμην; sim. P.Freib. IV 57.3–4 (1^st/2^nd c.), P.Herm. 4.3 (ca. 317–323). In view of the available space, we should probably restore [ἔγνω]ν. [ἐστι]ν may have been influenced from the infinitive [ἀσπ]άσεσθαι, but this may be an error for ἀσπάσασθαι (cf. BGU II 451.9).

In this letter of 223/222 BC[9] Andron informs Milon that a certain Philon has not received twenty drachmas, because they have not found Pistokles: περὶ δὲ τῶν εἴκοσι δραχμῶν οὔπω ἐκεκόμιστο Φίλων, Πιστοκλης [γ]ὰρ οὐχ εὑρήκειμεν (ll. 4–5). Πιστοκλης was normalized into Πιστοκλέα in ed.pr. and into Πιστοκλῆν in Sel.Pap. I 96. On the online image[10] it appears that what was read as the final sigma of Πιστοκλης is a small right-facing curve, followed by abraded space. This is similar to the left leg of nu, which in this hand is sometimes curved, especially at the end of words; see the final ν of χαίρειν (l. 1), ὑγίαινον (l. 2), ἐκομισάμην (l. 2), οὖν (l. 3). We may thus read Πιστοκλῆν̣; the accusative ending -ῆν instead of -έα is common in the koine (see Mayser, Grammatik I.2, 40–41; Gignac, Grammar I, 71–2).

The body of this first/second century letter starts πάντῃ Παν[σέ]ως ἐπιτυχὼν τοῦ πρὸς | ἡμᾶς γινομ[έ]ν̣ου περὶ τῶν παρὰ σοὶ πρα|χθέντων καὶ πρασσομένων τα|χέως δήλωσον (ll. 3–6). Παν[σέ]ως, a rare name, was presumably introduced into the text on the assumption that the participle that followed needed an antecedent, but this is unnecessary. It would be preferable to read πάν[τ]ως, i.e., the formula πάντῃ πάντως; cf. e.g. P.Oxf. 17.8 (2^nd c. BC), where it is used with the imperative, or SB VI 9026.10 (2^nd c.), with jussive subjunctive. Inspection of the original also allows reading γεινομ[έ]ν̣ου in place of γ̣ινομ[έ]ν̣ου in line 4.

Another correction may be suggested for line 8: instead of Π̣άρ̣ις, on the original one may read the common female name Τα̣απις [11].

This letter, sent from Dionysodoros to Zenon in 257 BC, has an address on the back that was not transcribed in ed.pr. The online image [12] shows that at the lower right edge of the back side of the letter it is possible to read Ζ̣ή̣νωνι.

Only the lower right part of this first/second century letter has survived. In lines 4–6, the sender requests that the addressee do something (δὸς ἐργασίαν) that would probably benefit the person whose name the editors proposed to restore as Σ]αβείνῳ (?). This would have some (positive) effect for the sender himself: ἵνα καὶ | [ ? ]νος γένωμαι (ll. 5–6). I suggest restoring [ἀμέριμ]νος, perhaps preceded by αὐτός (less likely ἐγώ); cf. SB XIV 11372.14–15 (5^th/6^th c.) εἵνα (l. ἵνα) | ἀμέριμνος γένωμε (l. γένωμαι). The ἐργασία that the sender asked the addressee to undertake for the benefit of Sabinos would relieve the sender from his own worries.

Antonia SARRI