A LATIN LETTER FROM OXYRHYNCHUS

b y Virginia Brown

PLATE IV

T h e document with which th i s study is concerned is a L a t i n private le t ter , recovered by excavat ion at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt . I t s suggested d a t e is the reign of Augustus .

T h e letter is written on a rectangular shee t of papyrus; a kol fema can be s e e n in the extrcmc right margin. T h e papyrus is remarkably well preserved and the le t ter , written along the f ibres , is apparently complete except for the farewell and da te . On the back is the address : the shect was originally folded in half once , nearly in half again, and then folded s ideways u i t h the verso uppermost and the addressee’s name vis ible .

A s i s usual in pr ivate documents the c i rcumstances prompting the sender of the letter are unknown and the meaning is obscure. monetary, is the subject of the letter. must have been considerable because at l e a s t f ive persons appear to be involved. writer and the addressee have Greek names but the letter is written in idiomatic La t in and coti- forms to Lat in epis tolary models. Lat in le t te rs addressed to Tiber ianus in which the opening formulas ref lect the Greek epis tolary s tyle . 1

In broad terms a n affair of a dubious charac te r , possibly But whatever the e x a c t nature of the matter, i t s extent

Both the

T h i s is in strong cont ras t to the group of A.D. second century

Contents apar t , therefore, the document is s ignif icant because it is one of the few I-at in le t te rs t o have survived, and because of i t s ‘curs ive capi ta l ’ sc r ip t .2 examples of th i s type of writing so that the le t ter is a l s o palaeographical ly important.

There are re la t ively f c ~ .

T h e t ranscr ipt ion, t ranslat ion, and commentary on the document a re given below in Part 1. In Par t 11, the palaeographical ev idence will b e s e t forth in some de ta i l to show that the reign of Augustus is indeed the most likely period to which the le t ter should be da ted . P a r t s I I 1 and IV t reat points of in te res t in the text of the le t ter ; they may support indirectly the above da te .

* * * * * * * * * * * *

136

I Trariscriptron, Translation and Commentary

Suneros . (‘hio s u o . plur(imam) . sal(uten1) . s(i) . d a l e s ) b(ene) . T h e o adduxsi t . ad . me . Ohapim

regium . mensularium . oxsyrychitem . qui quidein . mecum . e s t . locutus

de . inprobitate . Epaphraes . itaque . nihil . ult ra . loquor . quam [no.!

ne pat iarus . te . propter . i l los . perire . crede . mihi . nimia . bonitas

pernicies . homi?[i]bus e s t ‘ vel . maxsuma ’ . deinde . ipse . tibei . de . mostrabit

quril t . rei . s i t . qum . illum ad te . vocare is . set . perservera

qui . de . tam pus i l la . summa . tam . magnum . lucruni . faci t

dominum . occidere . v o l t . deinde . ego . clamare . debeo . siquod . video

devom . atque . hominuni . [fidem . si . tu . :.I . i s t a . non . c u i b i s ]

tuuin . er i t . vindicare . ne . a l io . l ibeat . facere

On thc i’erso: Chio . C a e s a r i s

1 1. Syneros, adduxi t 2 1. Oxyrynchi te in 3 1. Epaphrae 4 1. p a t i a r i s 5 1. maxima, tihi

6 8 I . vult 9 1. d ivum, q u i h i s

10 1. a l i i

1. quid, cum, v o c a r i s , s ed

“Syneros to h i s friend (’hius, with very many greet ings. to me Ohapim, the public banker of Oxyrhynchus, who spoke with me concerning Epaphras‘ wickedness . account’. e l s e , on men. summoned him to you. sum is wJilling to kill h i s master. ‘heaven and earth!’ to d o i t . ”

I f you are wel l , fine. Theon brought

Therefore I say nothing more than ‘do not le t yourself come to ruin on their Bel ieve me, e x c e s s i v e generosity brings d i s a s t e r , perhaps more than anything

He himself will show you la ter the meaning of the affair when you have But s t ick to it: he who makes so great a profit from so trifling a

Then 1 ought t o cry out , i f my percept ions are to be t rusted, It will be your t ask to exac t punishment les t it prove at t ract ive to another

1 Suncros: P K y l 613, a Lat in fragment of the second century A.D. (cf. Herbert C . Youtie in Essuys i n H o r i o r of C . Bradford M’elles, p. 39). inscription in Egypt. 3249, 3624; 11.2 54851, Pornpeii ( ibid. I V . l 1700. 2252, 2253), Rome (ibid. V1.4’ 27062, 27063), Peltuinum ( ihid. IX 3493), Beneventum (ihid. 1857), Campania (ibrd. X . l 316, 2492, 2929, 4391, 4668, 5355, 5359) , and Umbria (ihid. X1.2 4757, 6705). the s ingle word Syneros or var iants thereof; the more complete inscr ipt ions preserving the name preceded by a Lat in praenomen and nomen indicate freedman s ta tus .

Chio: the documents col lected by Cavenai le in the Corpus papyrorum latinarum th i s is a l s o i t s f i rs t occurrence in Lat in papvri.

the only other occurrence of th i s name in a Greek or La t in papyrus is to be found i n

I t d o e s not appear at all in literature nor upon any Lat in Epigraphical ins tances may be found elsewhere, namely Spain ( C I L 11.1

In some c a s e s there h a s survived only

the name appears here for the f i rs t time in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus. T o judge from

I have not found other evidence linking Syneros and Chius .

13 7

s(i) v(a1es) b(ene): identical abbreviation in Cicero, ad Fam. 7.29.1 and 15.19.1. i ts long-standing use cf. Seneca, Epp. 15.1: “Mos antiquis fuit usque ad meam servatus aetatem, primis epistulae verbis adicere ‘ s i vales bene e s t , ego valeo’.”

Ohapim: Professor Turner has suggested that the scribe actually meant Joachirn. termination and i s historically consistent with what i s known from Philo of Jewish money- lending activities in the early years of Roman rule (cf. Victor A. Tcherikover, Corpus papyrorurn ludaicarum, I , pp. 48-49). Calderini notes that the great majority of bankers from the third century B.C. to the sixth century A . D . have Greek and Latin names (cf. Etudes dkdikes a la mkmoire d’Andre M . Andrkades, p. 70); there seems to be no previous occurrence of Joachim in either Greek or Latin papyri; Ohupim may be an Egyptian name of the same type a s Apis with the accusative ending of -im. The difficulty here appears insoluble until the discovery of further evidence.

bfene) rather than b(enest) after Tyrrell and Purser’s expansion of the For the complete formula and

the name of this otherwise unknown official i s puzzling. This possibility would account for the -im

There are, however, negative arguments against Ohapim = Joachim:

2 regiurn mensularium: cf. below. I have translated this phrase a s “public banker” rather than “royal banker” in accordance with the Oxyrhynchus editors’ translation of paaihiKbS TpanE(iTqs.

3 Epuphraes: the Greek genitive i s ’EnaTpti. Apparently this termination i s a compromise between -ae and -qs. cf. V. VaBnanen, L e latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompbiennes3 (Berlin 19661, p. 83.

It occurs often in vulgar texts, for the most part in the names of slaves:

4 putiurus: the final ending in -ms i s found in inscriptions from Beneventum (CIL 1.1 1220), Venusia (ibid. 1267), and Pompeii (ibid. I V . l 2082) and may be dialectal. op. cit., p. 87; A. Ernout, hlorphologie historique du latin2 (Paris 1935), P. 195.

Cf. VaBnanen,

4-5 crrde mihi. . . vel maxsuma, qui de tam. . . occidere volt: 7-8 these statements which smack of the proverbial.

I have not succeeded in locating

9 fidern. . . cuibis: this passage was cancelled by the scribe who then added siquod video in smaller script at the end of line 8. A lapsus pennae must be responsible for the striking out of f idem a s the exclamation would otherwise be deprived of an integral part (cf. below).

devorn atque hominurn fidem: atque hominum fidem”. For examples of both cf. Plautus (Cu. 694, Ep. 580, Au. 300, Men. 10531, Terence (An. 237, 246, HT 61, E . 943, H . 198, Ad. 746), and Cicero (in Caec. 3.7, in Ver. Sec. 3.60.137, 4.4.7, pro Font. 3.4). again be dialectal: territory of the Marsii. du vocabulaire latin, pp. 56-57.)

(I owe this observation to Professor Turner.)

a slightly shorter version of the common exclamation “pro devom

The spelling of devom with e i passing to Fmay inscriptions with ‘Lebro’, ‘vecos’, e tc . have been found in Picenum and the

(Cf. C / L 1.1 174, 183, 1X 3849; A. Ernout, L e s E l h e n t s dialectaux For the -om ending, cf. below.

I I Palaeographical Evidence

By virtue of i t s staccato-like appearance the script of the letter bears a general resemblance to Pompeian tablets and graffiti. The ‘angle de I’ecriture’ and ductus of individual letter forms correspond exactly to the canon established by Mallon for Latin papyri of the century before and after the beginning of the Christian era. had from the following brief descriptions:

Confirmation of this agreement may be

A The first stroke goes well below the line while the second stroke i s made in an oblique direction from left to right.

138

T h e o ldes t form of this letter i s found here. while the upper I S reduced to a line that gently curves from left to right.

T h e f i rs t stroke curves; the second stroke often leans to the right and i s inclined slightly upwards.

the lower how remains intact

It resembles B to some extent but inav be dis t inguished h y i t s generally fuller bow. than that of B.

T h e oblique stroke from left to right is much l e s s curving

E , T h e uprights are thin and the topmost horizontals are s lanted upwards.

M . T h e f i rs t stroke goes below the line. N to the right.

0 T h e f i rs t stroke h a s the form of a concave curve while the second stroke is st ra ight .

P 'This le t ter differs from C by i t s straight f i rs t stroke which lacks any motion of a curve. and to the right.

Q T h e second and third s t rokes merge into an oblique line from left to right that goes below the l ine. B , D, and Q all lean to the right because the method of making the final stroke is reversed and consequent ly it s lan ts from right to le f t . s

1\1 t ends to lean t o the left and N

The second stroke is a lso different in that i t s l a n t s do\;rn\\arcl

I t should he noted that after the f i rs t century A . D . ,

R T h e ver t ical stroke d e s c e n d s be lon the line. T h e las t t w o s t rokes , a s in the c a s e of Q, are represented by a s ingle curving l ine.

S Two strokes comprise this conspicuously large le t ter : the upright which d e s c e n d s below the line and an oblique inclined upwards and to the right.

T T h e horizontal is placed upwards and to the right, the s lant being very pronounced at the ends of words or l ines where there is space for elongation.

T h e closest palaeographical paral le l to our document is the well-known PRcJui I,ut 139% ,

It has been attributed to the f i r s t century H.C. on the b a s i s o f palaeo- T h e regular use of interpunction in both papyri and in J1I'ER 1A f a group of private

Because this pract ice

also a private letter. graphy.h le t ters addressed to Macedo and written during the period 21-18 or 17-14 B.C.) conforms to S e n e c a ' s observat ion: is not found later than the first century or beginning of the second century A . D . . except for abbrr- viat ions and numerals, there can be little doubt that it is a s ign of antiquity. *

"Nos etiam cum scr ibimus, interpungere adsuevimus." '

T h e letter a l s o s h a r e s with the Berlin papyrus and da ted material of the early period charac- ter is t ic examples of archaic orthography. ( l i n e s 1, 2 , 5) are common in al l per iods9 and of no value for dat ing purposes , hut there are a number o f other ins tances which might be s ignif icant .

Such spe l l ings as set for sed ( l ine 6 ) and ss for .Y

I give the following examples:

trhei for t i b i (line 5 ) . 1 The st!iiplification of the ancient diphthong ei t o o k place during the second century B.C., a s demonstrated by the use of T i n an inscription of th i s period. l o

The change w a s gradual and examples of tihei occur in inscr ipt ions of both the second and f i rs t cen tur ies B.C."

139

2 vocareis for \locaris (line 6 ) . in the second person singular of the future perfect lasted until the beginning of the Augustan period and is reflected in Horace and Virgi1.12 believed the i to be long and so wrote ei.

The uncertainty regarding the quantity of the final i

The writer of the letter evidently (and erroneously)

3 volt for vult (line 8). The retention of o preceded by v and followed by 1 + consonant persisted until the end of republican times. l 3

4 devom for divum (line 9). -om of the second declension genitive plural became -um in the third century B.C. except when preceded by v , in which case -om was then maintained until the end of the republican era. l 4

5 maxsuma for maxima (line 5 ) . Quintilian’s statement (Instit. orat. 1.7.21) that the superlative ending in -imus i s classical and -umus archaic i s supported by epigraphical evi- dence and the ancient grammarians. still found at the beginning of the first century A.D.

Instances of -umus and -imus in the same inscription are

1 1 I Chio Caesaris (verso)

“Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci.” Historians are agreed that this claim of Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum is nothing more than the truth. Consequently the letter cannot be earlier than B.C. 30; and so a terminus post is established for the “Caesar” of the verso.

The palaeographical evidence points strongly to a date in the Augustan period. Tempting though the identification of Augustus as the personage in question may be, there are two con- siderations which sound a note of caution. letters addressed to members of the imperial household; and second, the extent to which indi- vidual taste and habit are important. character, a private letter does not necessarily reflect a fixed formula of address. It i s con- ceivable that, in some cases , only enough information might be given a s to ensure the letter’s reaching i ts destination safely.

F i r s t , the utter lack of Latin papyri containing

Unlike official documents which have a public and solemn

All this by way of warning. The address on the verso does not neatly wrap up the argument for the reign of Augustus a s the suggested date, but i t does provide information not inconsistent with this date. It a l so has something to say concerning the addressee.

The use of the genitive Caesaris indicates that Chius is either a freedman or a slave. might expect Caesaris to be followed by libertus or servus, especially a s there was sufficient space. for Chius should be rejected. tions dating from the end of republican times to the late first and early second century A.D. in which a nominative followed only by a genitive signifies a slave. type makes i t s strongest showing during the Augustan era.

One

Thanks to a recent authoritative work, there can be little doubt that freedman status H. Chantraine has shown that there are a good number of inscrip-

Interestingly enough this

T o turn once more to the problem of Caesaris. Is there any particular reason why the use of the nomen gentilicium alone might refer to Augustus? which demonstrate that the adopted son of Julius Caesar was not unaware of the importance of a name. l 7

Syme has assembled certain arguments

I give those points pertinent to the matter under discussion.

The official name of every Roman citizen consisted of a praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. In the generation of Julius Caesar it was fashionable to drop the praenomen and use either the nomen or cognomen or both together (e.g. ‘Asinius Pollio’). l 8 t h i s trend to substitute the cognomen for the nomen and to introduce a new praenomen.

Octavius took advantage of The

140

resul t was ‘Iniperator Caesar ’ . used in 38 B.C. after h i s defea t by Sextus Pompeius in the invasion of S ic i ly . ’0 effect w a s guaranteed tct enhance Octavius’ image which may have stood in need of refurbishing i f th i s da te is indeed correct. ‘Imperator C a e s a r Augustus’ .

Syme sugges ts that the new appellation may have first been The total

After January of 27 B.C. the Emperor’s name was exparlded to

With the coming of peace the Emperor seems to have fel t the need to minimize emphas is on On coins of the 20’s ‘Caesar ’ and ‘Augustus’ are used sepa-.

Vitruvius begins with the older ‘Imperator Caesar ’ and thcn changes the military a s p e c t of h i s name. rately or in combination. to s imply ‘Caesar ’ .

It is also \\orth noting that the praenomen is employed to signify the s u c c e s s o r s of Augustdh. T h e Emperor Tiber ius C a e s a r appears as merely ‘Tiber ius’ in T a c i t u s , and Velleius Paterculua L I S ~ S jus t ‘Ciaius’. 20

Syme’s survey of thc nomenclature employed by C a e s a r ’ s heir sugges ts that i t would ric,t

be unusual in the l e a s t i f Augustus were to be signified as ‘Caesar’ . T h i s is the nioat that can h e sa id in favour of the argument that lie is to be identified as the ‘C-aesar’ on the verso o f the le t ter . is a private document and not intended for publication. refer to some other ‘Caesar ’ .

Before the hypothesis is taken for a fac t , it should be remembered that the lettcr Hence the possibi l i ty that i t fijight

/\ ’ regium mensularium oxsyrychitem ( l ines 1-2)

T h e ex is tence of an official with the title of regrus mensularins is hitherto unat tes ted in papyrus documents , a h e t h e r Greck or Lat in . no mote than seven l i s t ings for t h i s word i n the Thesaurus lrnguar, ltrtitzae. the ear l ies t of the c i ta t ions i s to be found i n Seneca Rhetor (C’ontr. 9.1.12) where i t is attributed to the Augustan orator Lucius C‘estius Pius.

Even occurrences of mensuluri~t.s are rare. Therc are

T h e meaning of nrertsiiiarius i s nonethe less quite clear; it s ign i f ies a ‘banker‘. 2 1 Another word derived from mensa and with the same s ignif icance is more common. References to men- s u r i i (‘bankers’) and i3irz mensarii (‘bank commissioners’) of the fourth and third centur ies B.C’. are given by I , ivy ,22 anti in the f i rs t century B.C. mention is made by Cicero o f provincial / ? ! ~ ’ i [ -

surii. 2 3 that regrits merrstilariirs I S a Lat in translation of PaaihiKbS TpamSiTqS. la te g l o s s a r i e s , can be brought forth to subs tan t ia te th i s proposal s ince we are deal ing with a specimen unicum. nrensi,lariits = PaaihiKbS rpa.rrE(i-rq$ is acceptable .

T h e etymological similarity between the Greek and Lat in words for this official supgcs ts No proof, other than

T h e following remarks are b a s e d on the supposi t ion that the equat ion r r g i i t s

Preis igke’s study of bankers and banking f i rs t drew attention to a marked change in the Greek nomenclature. In the Ptolemaic period the publ ic banker was cal led PaUihlKbS TpaTrE C ~ T ~ S ; af ter the Roman conquest he became the 8qpOoio~ -rpa-rrE{iTqS. T h i s shift i n termino-- logy coincided with the breaking up of the s t a t e banking monopoly and the extensive growth of private banks. 2 4

T h e s t a t i s t i c s avai lable for Oxyrhynchus a t the present time amply confirm these observa- For the Roman era there are approximately s ixty references to private banks and only t ions.

one third that many to public b a n k d b a n k e r s , with the earliest use of Fquouio~ TpanE<’iiqS occurring in P o s y 721 (A.D. 13/14) and 835 (ca. A.D. 13). banks there are only two c a s e s where the old t i t le of PaurhiKbS Tpam(iTq5 i s used , and both rather la te : P O x y 916 (A.D. 198)2s and 2664 (A.D. 245/8) .26

Among the references to the public

14 I

All things considered, it i s surprising to find s o many instance5 0 1 the new term. !V?x), 721 and 835 show that it w a s definitely in use before the end of -lugustiis' reign. t radi t ional is t a country as Egypt , i t is hardly poss ib le that the change in terminology mould ent i re ly banish the old name. above, together with those in papyri from other s i t e s . 2 7 be rash to assume a definite date after which the former t i t le could r io t have been u s e d .

Y c t , in s o

Witness the isolated ins tances of paaihiKbS ~ p ~ r - r r ~ ( i ~ q s nientioncd These examples s h o w rha t i t would

A modest c la im, however, may n o a be made o n behalf of r c ~ g i i i s niensu1Liriu.s. The scr ibe The usual pract ice of the Roman

Given the early appearance of the scr ipt , rc~':cits t t i c ~ ~ w i / ~ i r / I i s may have been

was undoubtedly following current usage and s ignif icance. period, to judge from the great majority o f c a s e s . was to refer to the public banker ;IS the F q p c ) a105 TpanE(iTi15. used because the new t i t le was not yet firmly established i n the official vocabulary.

To sum up. T h e palaeographical evidence assembled i n Par t 1 1 indicates an ear ly J a t c for the le t te r , in a l l likelihood the reign of Augustus . than the conquest of Egypt by the same Emperor. T w o p i e c e s nt' internal evidence tentat ively sugges t the same date: the address on the verso and the rc,giii.s trjf>ri.\ii/uriii.\ o f tile t e i t . T h c latter is interest ing a s an apparent La t in t ranslat ion o f Greek off ic ia l nomenclature. further d i scover ies the conten ts of the letter must otherwise remain of l i t t le s ignif icance; palaeo- graphically speaking the le t ter may be o f the grea tes t importance a s ;I milestone iii e a r l y [ .a t in writing .

Certainly the letter cannot be earlier

t ' i i t i l

The document here d iscussed was made available t o iiie at the Papyrology Seminar held at the Chiversity of California. Berkeley during the summer o f 1969 under the auspices of the Aiiiei tcan Society of Papyrologists. I mi indebted to the Egypt Exploration Society for perniission t u

publish i t and t o Professors E. (j . Turner and John C . Shelton and hlr P. J . Parsons for their valuable suggestions and corrections. 1'0 hlr E. Hitchcock o f University College I.oiidon is d i ~ c the credit for the excellent photograph of the papyrus. a Serial number in a forthcoming volume 0 1 T h r O.uyr/i),rzchu.s Pupyrl .

The letter w i l l he rcpublislied wlth

2 ' Ihe terminology used by F,. A . 1,ou.e in ( ' o d r c . c . s / . c i t i r i r Antiyiciorc,a I I 249, V11 I 1038, XI l h 4 h is followed here.

5 I h l t l . , p.51.

X Other :ns tanccs of twnsisfc 'ni inierpunction collected h y Cavenaile are to be found i n I'Iuritl 00 ( i century t3.C.). 1 ' 0 ~ ~ 244 (A.D. 2 3 ) , 1'\11t.h 159 (,4.1). 41-68), I'SI 11x3 (A.D. 47 '4X), H ( ; I I 611 (A.1). 41-54), /'Or-) 7088 (Alallon A . D . i century; Grenfell and Hunt A . D . i i c r n t u r y ) , I 'S I 1321 (A.11. i century), I'.Hic.h 167 (A.1>.103), / V h j 30 (Ylallon lw. A . D . 100; (irenfell and Hun t A.D. i i i c e n t u r y ) ; \',S/ 743

142

(A.D. i,’ii century), P[<yl 608 (A.D. i/ii century). namely Pl/arnb 167 (A.D. ii/iii century) and P O x y 871 (A.D. iv/v century). cal declamation in the forin of a dialogue with numerous archaisms, thereby suggesting that the docu- iiient is a consc ious imitation. P O x y 871 IS of a philosophical character and seems t o be a direct address to the reader. The s p o r u d i c use of interpunction occurs in P,\Jrch 430 (ante A.D. 115), POvy 32(A.D. i i century),Phlic,h 453 (A.D. iii century), PBerlLut 11649 (A.D. i i i century), PHor7 5 (A.D. iv ’v century), I’Oxy 884 (A.D. v century).

Two other fragments a re apparently anomalies, The forrner is a rhetori-

9 VXin3nen, op. c i l . , 70, 64.

10 A . Aleillet-J. Vendryes, T r a i t 6 d e grammairc’ compurCcJ d e s larigues classlyues‘ (Pa r i s 1953), 116-1 17.

11 F. Soinnier, I landhuch dcr [ateirirsclicn Luut- und Forrnenlehre (Heldelherg 1914), 149-150.

12 Ernout, Vorphologie, 342-343.

13 31. Niederiiiann, Pr6ci.s d e phon6tiyuc’ h i s t o r i y u e du l a t i n 2 (Pa r i s 1931), 76 .

14 VBaii:inen, O ~ J . ctt., 29.

15 Niederriiann. o p . cit., 36; Sommer, o p . cif., 105.

16 H . Chantraine, Frergelussene und Sklaven rni / l ienst der rornischen Kaiscr (Wiesbaden 1967), 178: “Die Form d.: Cuesar(r .s) . . . ist auch in der Fruhzeit a m starksten vertreten, doch, da zahlreiche Inschriften nicht vorclaudisch se in kiinnen, dazu d ie Formel D i s ,Manihu.s, O.,\f. us&. in 37 sonst nicht z u datierenden Texten vorkommt, durfte ein Grossteil der Zeugnisse dem Ende des I . und Anfang des 2 . Jh . angehoren.” Cf. pp.ix-xiv for the material upon which these observations a re based .

17 R. Syme. “Imperator Caesar : A Study in Nomenclature”, H i s f o r i u 7 (1958) 172-1x8.

18 / b i t / . , p.172.

19 / / > I ( / . . pp. 179-181.

20 / h i d . , p .187. Cf. a l s o the practice in Greek papyri where Augustus is designated as Kaluap and the succeeding emperors by their praenomina o r full t i t les. The evidence has been collected by P. nureth. I.es T i t u l a t u r e s in iphrru/ ( ’s daris /c,s pupl’rits, les oslrucu e l Ies inscriptioiis d ’ / < ~ > ~ p t e (Brusse ls 1964).

21 Cl. the art icle on niensarir in Pauly-Wissowa, XV.l, col.948.

22 7.21.5 ( 3 5 1 R.C.), 13.21.6 (216 R.C.), 24.18.12 (214 R.C.), 26.36.8 (210 R.C.).

23 pro /;/uc,. 19.44

24 F. Preisigke, Ciirowesen rni griechischc,n . J l g y p f e n (Strassbourg 19101, pp.7, 12, 14, 17-18. Cf. also J . Desvernois, “Banques e t Banquiers dans 1’Egypte ancienne”, Bulletin Soc. roy. arch. A l e x a n d r f e 6 (1923) 310, 312, 319.

2 5 This document is a receipt for a s e r i e s of payments. K a i

In line 7 there appears the phrase llauicSvi cIET6xOlS 6r)pou\or~ TpaTrE[iTaiS while in l ines 13 and 16 nau iov s igns himself a s Baulhi~b~

TPaTTE(iTq5.

26 The phrase occurs in the schedule of changes appended to the proclamation of h la rce l l~ is and Salutaris, rationalis and procurator of Egypt during the reign of Philippus Arabs.

27 t.“;i.ss 58.1.16 (A.D. 116, from Heptakomia), 59.111.18-9 (A.D. 119/120); H ( ; U 121.3 ( A . D . 194, from Fayum).

143