Trismegistos Online Publications

Special Series

- V -

A Survey of Petitions and Related Documents from Ptolemaic Egypt

- Gert Baetens -

Department of Ancient History, KU Leuven

Leuven, 2020

Trismegistos Online Publications

Special Series

https://www.trismegistos.org/top

Edited by

W. Clarysse & M. Depauw

Often a PhD thesis for some reason cannot be published immediately. In the years

that follow, the authors do not find the time to revise the manuscript as they

wanted. This in turn causes problems because new literature appears or the

evidence of new sources needs to be incorporated. As a result, the manuscript often

remains unpublished and the valuable insights risk to be inaccessible and thus lost

for scholarship.

To prevent this, Trismegistos Online Publications have decided to open up a new

‘Special Series’, where valuable PhD theses or other scholarly manuscripts can be

published with an ISBN number.

Contributors can send in manuscripts in Word or PDF format to

mark.depauw@kuleuven.be. The editors will consult experts about the quality of

the manuscript without taking into account whether it is abreast of the most recent

scholarly literature or developments.

ISBN: 978-94-9060-410-3

Leuven, December 2020, revised version of a Phd thesis defended in 2017

https://www.trismegistos.org/topmailto:mark.depauw@kuleuven.be

Table of contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................ V

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... VII

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter I: ἐντεύξεις .....................................................................................................................19

Introduction .............................................................................................................................19 1. Royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function ......................................................................22

1.1. List ..................................................................................................................................22 1.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................33 1.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................35 1.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................42

1.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ....................................................................................43 1.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ...........................................................................50 1.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature .....52

2. Non-royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function ..............................................................53 2.1. List ..................................................................................................................................53 2.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................54 2.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................55 2.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................57

2.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ....................................................................................57 2.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ...........................................................................60

3. Non-royal ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function ........................................................60 3.1. List ..................................................................................................................................60 3.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................63 3.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................63 3.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................65

Chapter II: ὑπομνήματα ..............................................................................................................67

Introduction .............................................................................................................................67 1. Early ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function .................................................................71

1.1. List ..................................................................................................................................71 1.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................71 1.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................72 1.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................74

2. Early ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function ...........................................................76 2.1. List ..................................................................................................................................76 2.2. Addressees ....................................................................................................................79 2.3. Form ...............................................................................................................................80 2.4. Content ..........................................................................................................................83

3. Later ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function .................................................................84 3.1. List ..................................................................................................................................84 3.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 108 3.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 110 3.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 115

3.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ................................................................................. 115 3.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ........................................................................ 127

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.4.3. Fragmentary or incompletely published petitions of uncertain nature .. 128 4. Later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function ........................................................ 129

4.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 129 4.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 133 4.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 133 4.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 135

4.4.1. Declarations of property .................................................................................. 136 4.4.2. Offers for immovables and concessions auctioned by the state ................ 137 4.4.3. Notifications of crime without request ......................................................... 138 4.4.4. Other later ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function............................... 139

Chapter III: other fragmentary Greek petitions ................................................................... 143

1. List ...................................................................................................................................... 143 2. Form ................................................................................................................................... 145 3. Content............................................................................................................................... 147

3.1. Dispute-related petitions ......................................................................................... 148 3.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ................................................................................ 150 3.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature ......................................................... 150

Chapter IV: mḳmḳ ...................................................................................................................... 151

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 151 1. mḳmḳ with petitioning function .................................................................................... 154

1.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 154 1.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 156 1.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 157 1.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 161

1.4.1. Dispute-related petitions ................................................................................. 161 1.4.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ........................................................................ 163 1.4.3. Fragmentary petitions of uncertain nature .................................................. 164

2. mḳmḳ without petitioning function............................................................................... 164 2.1. List ............................................................................................................................... 164 2.2. Addressees ................................................................................................................. 165 2.3. Form ............................................................................................................................ 165 2.4. Content ....................................................................................................................... 167

Chapter V: synthesis ................................................................................................................. 169

1. Form ................................................................................................................................... 169 1.1. Structure .................................................................................................................... 169 1.2. Prescript ..................................................................................................................... 172 1.3. Introduction of the body of the text ...................................................................... 173 1.4. Introduction of the request ..................................................................................... 175 1.5. Rhetorical conclusion .............................................................................................. 178 1.6. Closing formula ......................................................................................................... 181

2. Content............................................................................................................................... 182 2.1. Dispute-related petitions ......................................................................................... 183 2.2. Non-dispute-related petitions ................................................................................ 194 2.3. Texts without petitioning function ....................................................................... 194

Chapter VI: capita selecta ........................................................................................................ 197

1. The relation between the ὑπόμνημα and the προσάγγελμα ..................................... 197 1.1. Early προσαγγέλματα versus later προσαγγέλματα ............................................ 197 1.2. Later προσαγγέλματα versus ὑπομνήματα ........................................................... 201 1.3. Previous discussions of the later προσαγγέλματα ............................................... 204

1.3.1. The later προσαγγέλματα according to HOMBERT & PRÉAUX ........................ 204

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.3.2. The later προσαγγέλματα in subsequent studies ......................................... 207 1.4. A reassessment of the later προσαγγέλματα ........................................................ 210

1.4.1. Documents explicitly designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources ........ 210 1.4.2. Documents that are not designated as προσαγγέλματα in the sources but have also been categorised as such by modern scholars ...................................... 215 1.4.3. The later προσαγγέλματα as ὑπομνήματα ..................................................... 217

2. The personal delivery of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ to their addressee .... 219 2.1. Evidence ..................................................................................................................... 219 2.2. Motivation ................................................................................................................. 222

3. The submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the strategos and chrematistai ..................... 224 3.1. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the strategos .......................................................... 225 3.2. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the chrematistai ................................................... 227 3.3. Royal ἐντεύξεις submitted to the rulers themselves .......................................... 231 3.4. Context ....................................................................................................................... 233

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 237

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 241

Sources........................................................................................................................................ 261

Appendix 1: unpublished ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα ........................................................ 289

Appendix 2: newly published ἐντεύξεις and ὑπομνήματα ................................................. 297

Preface

This online publication presents a modified version of my doctoral dissertation I Am

Wronged: Petitions and Related Documents from Ptolemaic Egypt (332-30 BC), written in the

context of my doctoral project Dispute Resolution in Ptolemaic Egypt (2013-2017),

funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), and defended at KU Leuven in

2017, before a jury consisting of Willy Clarysse, Ruth Duttenhöfer, Katelijn

Vandorpe and Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse.

Other projects have prevented me from reworking the dissertation into a more

complete monograph, but I did not want to further postpone the publication,

especially in view of other current research on similar subjects. Anne-Emmanuelle

Veïsse is presently revising her habilitation thesis on petitions from the 3rd century

BC Fayum for publication, Lavinia Ferretti is writing a doctoral dissertation on the

ὑπόμνημα in Graeco-Roman Egypt, and Javier Funes Jiménez is conducting doctoral

research on Ptolemaic petitions related to the priesthood. Every year, new editions

of petitions and other ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are published.

New texts published after the submission of my dissertation (listed in appendix 2)

have not been incorporated anymore, but new addenda and corrigenda to sources

that were already included have been integrated, just like important new literature.

Further, some errors in the original dissertation have been corrected, some

arguments have been reconsidered, and some sections have been rephrased. Most

importantly, thanks to the kind support of Mark Depauw, Yanne Broux, Tom

Gheldof and Frédéric Pietowski, the database of petitions and other ἐντεύξεις,

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ underlying this study can now be accessed online

(https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions), allowing scholars to search and consult

my data in a more easy and versatile way. Individual records can also be reached by

clicking the TM text numbers throughout this study. I will do my best to keep this

database updated with new texts and new addenda and corrigenda.

I hope that this work, despite its limited scope, will give a further stimulus to

research on this fascinating material.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions

Acknowledgements

Writing is often said to be a solitary undertaking, but this work would surely

not have come about if it were not for the support and encouragement of

others. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to all these people.

My supervisor Mark Depauw has been so unfortunate as to have his office

about next to mine, which allowed me to harass him with questions large and

small and problems real and imagined without cessation. I cannot thank him

enough for his continuous and amicable support, listening ear and keen eye

for Demotic.

I am also most grateful to my other colleagues at the department of Ancient

History. Without Willy, I would still have held my Greek papyri upside down.

Without Tom, several digital disasters might have taken place. Without Yanne,

I could very well have starved to death during working hours. Thanks to my

officemates and other colleagues, life at the faculty has always been pleasant

and thought-provoking.

The well-known amicitia papyrologorum has manifested itself across country

borders as well. Several researchers have been so kind to share unpublished

work, images and suggestions. For this, I would like to thank Damien Agut-

Labordère, Carolin Arlt, Charikleia Armoni, Thomas Backhuys, Brigitte

Bakech, Marie-Pierre Chaufray, Frédéric Colin, Christina di Cerbo, Ruth

Duttenhöfer, Claudio Gallazzi, Cassandre Hartenstein, Thomas Kruse, Verena

Lepper, Edward Love, David Martinez, Roberto Mascellari, Brian McGing, Derin

McLeod, Giuditta Mirizio, Joachim Quack, Ilona Regulski, Kim Ryholt, Eleni

Skarsouli, Marcela Trapani, Günter Vittmann, Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse,

Wolfgang Wegner and Andreas Winkler.

Lastly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my family(-in-law) and

friends. I would never have been able to start on this enterprise if it were not

for my parents, who always encouraged me to pursue my interests, however

weird they might be. I would never have been able to finish this enterprise if it

were not for my wife Kris.

Introduction

βασιλεῖ Πτ[ο]λεμαίωι χαίρειν Ἡρακλείδης τῶν ἀπʼ Ἀλε[ξ]ά[νδρου νήσου,

τ]ῶν κατοικού[ντων ἐν Κροκοδίλω]ν πόλει τ[οῦ Ἀρσι]|νοίτου νομοῦ.

ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Ψενοβάστιος ἣ κατοικεῖ Ψυάν, τ[οῦ προγεγρα]μμένου

νομοῦ. [τοῦ γ]ὰρ [ε] (ἔτους) ὡς αἱ πρόσοδ[οι], | Φαμενὼθ κα, ἐπορεύθην

εἰς Ψυάν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομοῦ, πρ[ὸ]ς ἰδίαν χ[ρείαν, πα]ραπορευομέν[ου δέ]

μου ̣ ̣ ̣α α̣̣ιν ̣ ̣επ[ ̣ ]̣ ρ̣̣α | κύψασα Αἰγυπτία τις ἧι λέγεται εἶναι ὄνομα

Ψενοβάστι[ς] κατέχ[ειν κατ]ὰ τῶν ἱματίων μ[ου] οὖρον ὥστε καὶ ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ |

καταρρυῆναι. ἀγανακτήσαντος δέ μου καὶ ἐπιτιμῶντος αὐτῆι,

ἐλ[οιδόρησε]· ἐμοῦ δὲ ἀντιλοιδοροῦντος αὐτῆι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ | Ψενοβάστις τῆι αὑτῆς

δεξιᾶι χειρὶ ἐπισπασαμένη τῆς ἀναβολῆ[ς τοῦ ἱμ]ατίου οὗ περιεβεβλήμην

ἔρηξε καὶ ἐπάρασσεν | ὥστε καὶ ἀπογυμνωθῆναί μου τὸ στῆθος, \καὶ

ἐνέπτυσεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπόν μο[υ]/ παρόντων τινῶν οὗς ἐγὼ

ἐπε[μαρτυρά]μην. ἃ δʼ ἐγκαλῶ ἔπραξεν ὑβρίζουσά με καὶ ἄρχουσα | εἴς με

χερῶν ἀδίκων. ἐπιτιμηθεῖσα δὲ ὑπό τινων τῶν παρόντων ἐφʼ οἷς αι̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣με, οὕτως καταλιποῦσά με ἀπηλλάγη ἔνδον, | ὅθεν τὸ οὖρον

κατέχεέν μου.

δέομαι οὖν σου, βασιλεῦ, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, [μὴ περιιδεῖν με οὕ]τως ἀλόγως ὑπὸ

Αἰγυ[πτίας ὑβρισμέ]νον, Ἕλλην[α ὄν]|τα καὶ ξένον, ἀλλὰ προστάξαι

Διοφάνει τῶι στρατηγῶι, ἐπειδ[ὴ -ca.14-] ̣ ε̣πιδ̣ει ̣ ι̣̣ ὑπὸ̣ α[ὐτῆς (?) -ca.?- ]

| γράψαι Σωγένει τῶι ἐπιστάτηι ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν Ψενοβάστιν ἐφʼ [αὑτὸν

ὅπως διακρι]θῆι πρός [μ]ε περὶ το[ύτων καί, ἐὰν ἦι ἀληθῆ τὰ] | διὰ τῆς

ἐντεύξεως, τύχηι ζημίας ἧς ἂν ὁ στρατηγὸς συνκρ[ίνηι.

τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ, τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]|καίου.

[εὐτύχει.]

“To king Ptolemaios, greetings, Herakleides, of those from Alexandrou

Nesos, of those living in Krokodilopolis in the Arsinoite nome.

I am wronged by Psenobastis, who lives in Psya in the aforementioned

nome. For in year 5 according to the fiscal calendar, on the 21st of

Phamenoth, I went to Psya in the same nome for private business, and

while I was passing by [...], a certain Egyptian woman, said to be named

Psenobastis, leaned out and poured urine over my clothes so that

[...] dripping. When I got angry and reproached her, she railed at me.

When I, in my turn, railed at her [...] Psenobastis grabbed the end of the

cloak I had around me with her right hand, and tore and struck at it so

INTRODUCTION

2

that my chest was laid bare, and she spat in my face, while some people

whom I had called to witness were present. She committed the deeds of

which I accuse her, while she abused me and she laid hands on me first.

Reproached by some of the people who were present for [...] me, she left

me and went inside the house from which she had poured urine over me.

I beg you, king, if it seems good to you, not to overlook me, so

unreasonably abused by an Egyptian woman, myself being a Greek and a

stranger, but to order Diophanes the strategos, since [...], to write to

Sogenes the epistates to send Psenobastis to him so that she may be

judged together with me about these things and, if what is recounted in

this enteuxis is true, receive the punishment upon which the strategos

decides.

For if this occurs, I will obtain justice thanks to you, my king.

Farewell.”1

Many hundreds of petitions to the authorities of Graeco-Roman Egypt have been

preserved in the dry Egyptian climate, for the largest part found on papyrus but

more rarely also on potsherds, wooden tablets and stone. Among the preserved

papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt, petitions constitute one of the best-represented

types of texts. In most cases they relate to conflicts, such as the above-described

chamber pot argument between Herakleides and Psenobastis; more rarely, they

make requests that are not connected with a dispute. Petitions offer a privileged

insight into the daily problems and aspirations of life and the interaction between

private persons and the authorities in Graeco-Roman Egypt.

This study focuses on the petitions from Ptolemaic Egypt (332 - 30 BC). The conquest

by Alexander the Great and the ensuing Ptolemaic rule brought major changes to

Egypt and its governmental and social structure. One of these changes was the

development of a large-scale, advanced petitioning system throughout the region.

During the earlier Pharaonic period, people had also been able to present

complaints and requests to the authorities, but these early petitioning practices are

scantily documented. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant and the Instruction of Rekhmire,

texts dating to the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, respectively, stress the oral

aspect of petitioning.2 Other sources show, however, that complaints and requests

could also be addressed to the authorities through written documents.3 For the Late

1 P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354], Ro. 2 EYRE, The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, p. 63, 257. 3 For written petitioning during the Middle Kingdom, see LIPPERT, Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte,

p. 45-46. With regard to written petitioning during the New Kingdom, the preserved (model-)letters with

complaints and requests to the authorities and the long lists of charges constitute interesting material: cf.

BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 32-33. According to the Duties of the vizier (1111,14 - 1112,2), petitions had to be

presented in writing to the vizier. See also GRANDET, ‘The Ramesside State’, p. 859; LIPPERT, Einführung in die

altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 79-82.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3354

INTRODUCTION

3

period, there is the famous Petition of Petiese, dating from the 6th century BC. This

text can hardly be identified as a genuine petition itself,4 but provides interesting

information on petitioning practices in this period.5

There is no evidence for Macedonian or Greek petitioning practices from the Pre-

Hellenistic period, but in the other Hellenistic kingdoms petitioning systems similar

to that of Ptolemaic Egypt were set up. Plutarch recounts an amusing story about

the petitions that were presented to Demetrios Poliorketes:

“One time, when he was thought to be riding out in a more amiable

mood and not to be ill-disposed to encounters, certain people gathered

around him and gave him written petitions. After he had taken all of

them and put them in his cloak, the men were pleased and escorted him.

But when he came to the bridge over the Axios, he opened his cloak and

threw them all into the river.”6

Flavius Josephus quotes a petition presented to Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his Jewish

Antiquities (XII 258-261). Five more examples can be found in the epigraphical

record: two petitions addressed to Antiochos III the Great (SEG XLI 1574), one to

Philippos V (SEG XIII 403), one to Antiochos V Eupator (SEG XLI 1556) and one to the

Attalid high priest Euthydemos (SEG XLVI 1519).7 Interestingly, all six petitions are

formatted as ὑπόμνημα, one of the most common petition formats encountered in

Ptolemaic Egypt as well. Moreover, certain expressions that appear in these

ὑπομνήματα remind strongly of expressions found in Ptolemaic petitions.8 All of

this suggests that the development of the Ptolemaic petitioning system was part of

a pan-Hellenistic innovation.

Status quaestionis

The petitions from Ptolemaic Egypt constitute an exceptional collection of texts. As

a consequence, they have attracted the attention of numerous scholars. The

4 For a recent assessment of the nature of this text, see JAY, ‘The Petition of Petiese Reconsidered’. 5 EYRE, The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, p. 258-259. 6 PLUTARCH, Life of Demetrios 42: δόξαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ποτε δημοτικώτερον ἐξελαύνειν, καὶ πρὸς ἔντευξιν ἔχειν οὐκ

ἀηδῶς, συνέδραμόν τινες ἐγγράφους ἀξιώσεις ἀναδιδόντες. δεξαμένου δὲ πάσας καὶ τῇ χλαμύδι συλλαβόντος

ἥσθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ παρηκολούθουν· ὡς δὲ ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Ἀξιοῦ γέφυραν, ἀναπτύξας τὴν χλαμύδα

πάσας εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἐξέρριψε. For some context, see ADAMS, ‘Macedonian Kingship and the Right of Petition’;

STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’, p. 124. 7 Cf. MARTIN, ‘Τῷ δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος’, p. 664-666 (with mention of the petitions to Antiochos III, Antiochos IV

and Philippos V); VEÏSSE, unpublished habilitation thesis (adding the petition to Antiochos V and referring to yet

another inscription that may contain the fragmentary beginning of a petition addressed to Philippos V,

published in HATZOPOULOS, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. II, no. 18). 8 See chapter II, p. 69-70 for a more detailed discussion of these texts.

INTRODUCTION

4

following overview lists the most important studies related to Ptolemaic petitioning

practices.9

During the first half of the 20th century, fundamental studies were published on

three types of Greek texts traditionally associated with petitioning. In 1926, COLLOMP

wrote a book on the royal chancellery and the use of ἐντεύξεις in Ptolemaic Egypt.10

Next was the excellent article by BICKERMANN on the Ptolemaic ἔντευξις and

ὑπόμνημα, published in 1930.11 Third, there was the 1931 edition of ἐντεύξεις from

Magdola and Ghoran by GUÉRAUD, accompanied by an extensive commentary.12

Fourth, HOMBERT and PRÉAUX published an article on the Ptolemaic προσάγγελμα in

1942.13 The list of Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα by HOMBERT and PRÉAUX received an

important update by PARCA in 1985.14

In 1955, CAVASSINI greatly improved the accessibility of the Ptolemaic petition

corpus by publishing a list of 432 Ptolemaic petitions, with brief descriptions of

their structure and formulas.15 Her work was further elaborated by DI BITONTO, who

successively published an overview of the Ptolemaic petitions to the sovereign

(1967),16 of the Ptolemaic petitions to state officials (1968),17 and of some remaining

Ptolemaic petitions that had not been included in the previous two articles (1976).18

The lion’s share of the documents included in DI BITONTO’s work (473 texts) had

already been listed by CAVASSINI, but DI BITONTO’s surveys of the structure and

formulas of the texts were far more detailed than CAVASSINI’s, and most importantly

she was the first scholar to give an overview of the large variety of topics and

requests encountered in these documents.19

Petitions have always taken an important place in the study of the Ptolemaic

judicial system. In this context, the works by BERNEKER and WOLFF deserve special

mention. BERNEKER devoted a great deal of attention to the role of petitions in his

dissertation on the initiation of judicial proceedings in Ptolemaic Egypt, published

9 Petitions from later periods can offer interesting points of comparison for Ptolemaic petition research. KELLY

and MASCELLARI have recently examined petitioning practices in Roman Egypt. KELLY (Petitions, Litigation, and

Social Control in Roman Egypt) examines petitioning and litigation in Roman Egypt from a social point of view and

assesses to which extent and in which ways these mechanisms contributed to social control. MASCELLARI’s

unpublished doctoral dissertation (Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano) pays more attention to the formal

characteristics of Roman Egyptian petitions. For petitions from the Byzantine period, see FEISSEL & GASCOU, La

pétition à Byzance. 10 COLLOMP, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides. 11 BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’. 12 GUERAUD, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕIΣ. 13 HOMBERT & PREAUX, ‘Recherches sur le prosangelma à l’époque ptolémaïque’. 14 PARCA, ‘Prosangelmata ptolémaïques’. 15 CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’. 16 DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’. 17 DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico’. 18 DI BITONTO, ‘Frammenti di petizioni del periodo tolemaico’. 19 About contemporary to DI BITONTO’s work but far less thorough is the monograph of WHITE on the formal

aspects of petitions: WHITE, The form and structure of the official petition.

INTRODUCTION

5

in 1930.20 WOLFF’s monograph on the Ptolemaic judiciary, of which a first edition was

published in 1962 and a second revised edition in 1970, radically reshaped our

knowledge of the Ptolemaic judicial system and the place of petitioning within that

system.21 Most importantly, he made a distinction between the judicial activities of

the courts and the judicial activities of the remaining officialdom, the so-called

Beamtenjustiz which was generally invoked by means of petitions.

In more recent years, several additional studies relating to Ptolemaic petitions have

appeared. In 1997, HENGSTL published a general article on the subject.22 JÖRDENS put

forth some interesting ideas regarding the Ptolemaic petitioning system in an

article from 2010.23 In 2012, STAVRIANOPOULOU wrote an article on the Ptolemaic

petitions to the sovereign, examined in the context of Hellenistic kingship. 24

BAUSCHATZ included a long chapter on Ptolemaic petitions in his 2013 book on the

Ptolemaic police.25 Issues of identity and identification in Ptolemaic petitions were

examined in a 2013 article by VEÏSSE.26 The present author recently published on the

often forgotten Demotic petitions from the Ptolemaic period (2014), 27 and on

persuasive self-presentation strategies in Ptolemaic petitions (2019).28 Similarities

between petitions and letters to gods are explored in studies by KOTSIFOU (2016) and

LOVE (forthcoming). 29 Last but not least, ANNE-EMMANUELLE VEÏSSE has recently

finished a habilitation thesis on the petitions from the 3rd century BC Fayum, which

she is currently revising for publication, and GIUDITTA MIRIZIO has recently finished a

doctoral dissertation on copying practices and the transmission of petitions and

other communications between Ptolemaic officials.

The lack of a recent overview of the Ptolemaic petition corpus forms a major

impediment to research in this field. The studies by DI BITONTO have never received

an update, although several hundreds of new petitions have been published since

her time and numerous corrections to earlier published petitions have been made.

The major objective of this study is to fill that gap.

20 BERNEKER, Zur Geschichte der Prozeßeinleitung im ptolemaischen Recht. 21 WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer. 22 HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’. 23 JÖRDENS, ‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges’. 24 STAVRIANOPOULOU, ‘Tοῦ δικαίου τυχεῖν’. 25 BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 160-217. 26 VEÏSSE, ‘L’expression de l’identité dans les pétitions d’époque ptolémaïque’. 27 BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’. 28 BAETENS, ‘Persuasive identities’. 29 KOTSIFOU, ‘Prayers and petitions for justice’; LOVE, ‘Beyond Earthly Justice’.

INTRODUCTION

6

Petitions and petition formats

In many civilisations, both past and present, people have (had) the opportunity to

submit written requests for the redress of wrongs and for other favours to the

authorities.30 In the present day, we designate all these documents as “petitions”,

but to a certain extent this generic concept of petitioning and accompanying

terminology is a modern construction: throughout history, there have been many

different types of petition-like documents, which were not always embedded in an

articulated concept of petitioning or designated with a general term. Still,

documents from many different societies can be found to serve a similar social

“petitioning function” and a generic concept and terminology of petitioning can

help to set these documents apart and stress how much they have in common.31

In Graeco-Roman Egypt, no general term for petitions or well-articulated concept of

petitioning appears to have existed.32 Nevertheless, a large and rather homogenous

group of documents from Graeco-Roman Egypt serves what we today would

intuitively call a “petitioning function” and the term and concept “petition” is

widely used in scientific literature related to these texts. Only a few scholars have

attempted to formulate a definition for this type of texts within the particular

context of Graeco-Roman Egypt. CAVASSINI defines petitions as “illa instrumenta (...)

quae privatus quidam, vel magistratus regi vel eius magistratibus misit ut ius ob

iniuriam et vim expecteret aut gratiam vel tutelam vel beneficium quibusdam

tempestatibus adipisceretur”.33 The definition by MASCELLARI is rather similar to

CAVASSINI’s: “tutti quei documenti ufficiali in cui una persona o un gruppo di persone

richiedeva un intervento delle autorità sia per aver subìto torti e danni da terzi, sia

col fine di ottenere aiuto, assistenza o facilitazioni in situazioni di difficoltà non

cagionate da dolo o colpa di alcuno”.34 BAUSCHATZ defines petitions in a more limited

sense as documents “written by a private citizen (or an official in his capacity as a

private citizen) to a government agent with (perceived) power to see to the righting

of certain alleged wrongs”. 35 All of these definitions combine specifications

concerning the content of petitions, the identity of the people who submit them

and the identity of the people who receive them:

- The word “petition” can be traced back to the Latin verb “peto”, meaning among

other things “to request”, “to beseech”. The request constitutes the heart of a

30 An interesting overview of the use of petitions in different historical contexts can be found in HEERMA VAN

VOSS, Petitions in Social History. China provides a fascinating example of a present-day petitioning system: see for

example GAO & LONG, ‘On the Petition System in China’. 31 HEERMA VAN VOSS, Petitions in Social History, p. 2. 32 Cf. MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 20, 804-806. The word βιβλίδιον, used from the 2nd century AD

onwards and closely related to Latin libellus, comes closest to such a general term. 33 CAVASSINI, ‘Exemplum vocis ἐντεύξεις’, p. 299. 34 MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 19. 35 BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 164.

INTRODUCTION

7

petition, and therefore documents that do not focus on a request can not qualify as

petitions. Moreover, these requests have to be out of the ordinary in some way.

Ordinary business requests like P. Col. Zen. II 86 [TM 1799], for example, in which

two brick-makers ask to provide additional earth for their industry, have never

been interpreted as petitions. Similarly, declarations of property with brief requests

for registration have never been viewed as petitions. Many more examples like this

could be given. But what exactly constitutes the extraordinary nature of petition

requests? In BAUSCHATZ’s view, petitions aim for “the righting of certain alleged

wrongs”, so only dispute-related documents with requests can be regarded as

petitions. CAVASSINI and MASCELLARI suggest that petitions seek to obtain assistance

in difficult situations in general, not only in the context of disputes, but also in the

context of troubles that cannot be directly blamed on others. Most Ptolemaic

petitions are dispute-related, but some exceptions to this rule can hardly be

excluded from a petition corpus, and in this respect the definitions by CAVASSINI and

MASCELLARI seem more appropriate. A good example is SB VI 9302 [TM 6212], in

which a kleruch complains about a drought that ravages agricultural land in the

Thebaid and asks for permission to expound his ideas concerning this problem to

the sovereign. Such texts are included in CAVASSINI’s and MASCELLARI’s definitions,

but not in the one by BAUSCHATZ. Still, even the specifications by CAVASSINI and

MASCELLARI concerning the particular character of petition requests appear narrow,

because some requests seem out of the ordinary without being related to specific

disputes or difficulties. Documents through which temples ask the sovereign to

grant their sanctuary the right of asylia make a fine illustration: some of these

documents refer to the difficult circumstances in which the sanctuary finds itself,

but others do not; difficulties or not, all of them are regarded as petitions because of

the extraordinary character of their request. Lastly, some texts present requests

that seem rather ordinary as if they are not. Here P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297] can serve

as an example: a widow named Nikaia daughter of Nikias addresses this document

to the king in order to have a certain Demetrios registered as her new kyrios.

Despite its trivial purpose, this text is styled with great care, just like other

messages addressed to the sovereign that contain more special requests. The

document concludes with a typical petition phrase that indicates that compliance to

the request would be regarded as an act of benevolence: τούτ[ων] γὰρ γενομένων,

ἔσομαι τετευχυῖα, βασιλεῦ, τῆς παρὰ σοῦ φιλανθρωπίας. All in all, it seems best to

categorise documents like this as petitions as well.

- Today the term “petition” is mainly associated with documents that are signed by

large groups of generally unrelated persons and that draw their credibility and

influence from their number of signees. In Graeco-Roman Egypt, however, petitions

were generally submitted by individuals or small groups of individuals that were

bound to each other by ties of family, occupation or patronage, and shared common

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1799https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/6212https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3297

INTRODUCTION

8

interests as a consequence.36 The definitions by CAVASSINI and BAUSCHATZ explicitly

add that petitions could also be submitted by officials, but BAUSCHATZ rightly notes

that when submitting a petition, officials acted in their “capacity as a private

citizen”, so this observation does not seem essential.

- Concerning the addressees of petitions, the definition by BAUSCHATZ appears the

most narrow: according to him petitions are directed to “government agents”.

CAVASSINI’s definition does not only encompass petitions to state officials, but also

petitions to the sovereign. The definition by MASCELLARI is the least specific, stating

simply that petitions are submitted to the authorities (“autorità”). In fact, such

broad formulation seems to fit the Ptolemaic petition corpus best, as besides the

sovereign and various state officials, certain authorities that were not directly

connected with the state were also approached by petitioners: several Ptolemaic

petitions are addressed to land managers (all but one to Zenon), the leaders of the

Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis, and priests. These documents have received

relatively little attention in petition research: the petitions to Zenon have regularly

been set apart as “private documents” or “aberrations”,37 the Jewish politeuma

petitions have only been published recently (in 2001), and the petitions to priests

have generally escaped attention because they are written in Demotic.

Nevertheless, they form an interesting complement to the petition corpus: several

of these documents are formulated in exactly the same way as petitions addressed

to state authorities; they show that secondary authorities like land managers,

politeuma leaders and priests could be approached with petitions in a very similar

way as the state authorities.38

On the basis of the discussions above, petitions in the particular context of Graeco-

Roman Egypt can be defined as “documents through which individuals or small

groups of interrelated individuals address requests that are out of the ordinary or

presented as such to the authorities”.

Three specific text formats, characterised by specific opening formulas

(henceforward “prescripts”), were commonly used to write petitions in Ptolemaic

Egypt: the Greek ἔντευξις, the Greek ὑπόμνημα and the often overlooked Demotic

36 Cf. KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 210-228. MASCELLARI also refers to groups of

petitioners in his definition. 37 See for example BAUSCHATZ, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, p. 192; HENGSTL, ‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-

ägyptischer Papyri’, p. 276-277. CAVASSINI and DI BITONTO do not include petitions to Zenon in their surveys. 38 JÖRDENS (‘Ehebruch und Sonstiges’, p. 253-256) and WOLFF (Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 174-175,

178-179) have stressed the importance of factual authority and accessibility in the Ptolemaic petitioning system.

JÖRDENS criticises HENGSTL (‘Petita in Petitionen gräko-ägyptischer Papyri’) for putting too much stress on the

official competences of petition addressees and argues that the petitions addressed to Zenon and the leaders of

the Jewish politeuma suggest that factual authority and accessibility were more influential in the petitioners’

choice of addressee: “Als Regel wird man folglich festhalten dürfen, dass man zich mit seinem Anliegen

üblicherweise an denjenigen wandte, von dem man sich im gegebenen Zusammenhang aus welchen Gründen

auch immer aktuell den effektivsten Beistand versprach - vermutlich einfach, weil er da war, weil er mächtig

war und weil man ihm kannte (...) Die Adressaten scheinen dabei ebenso wie die Sachverhalte weitgehend

austauschbar gewesen zu sein” (p. 254).

INTRODUCTION

9

mḳmḳ.39 The petition cited at the beginning of this introduction, for example, is an

ἔντευξις, marked by the characteristic prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα. None of

these three formats was exclusively used for petitions, however: a considerable

portion (ca. 22 %) of the Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ do not

conform to the above-proposed definition of petitions, but served other purposes.

All of these documents are labelled according to their format (ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα

or mḳmḳ) in the sources, regardless of their function. It is the historian who

categorises them on the basis of their content and applies a distinction between

ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ with petitioning function and those without.

Many studies refer to the προσάγγελμα as a third major type of Greek Ptolemaic

petitions (besides the ἔντευξις and the ὑπόμνημα), because several 2nd century BC

petitions are labelled as such in the sources. In this study, it will be argued that the

nature of the Ptolemaic προσαγγέλματα has been largely misunderstood and that

the 2nd century BC petitions labelled as προσάγγελμα actually belong to the

ὑπομνήματα. This makes a separate category of προσάγγελμα petitions redundant.40

Finally, a couple of Ptolemaic letters (Greek: ἐπιστολαί; Demotic: šʿ.t and other

terms) appear to have served a petitioning function, but these letter petitions are

rare and form a marginal subset of the enormous and markedly multifunctional

Ptolemaic letter corpus. 41 Moreover, the petitions written in the more common

formats constitute a rather homogeneous group of texts, from which the letter

petitions seem to be set somewhat apart.42 All in all, the letter does not appear to

have been an important petition format in Ptolemaic Egypt. For these as well as

practical reasons, letter petitions are not discussed in this study.

39 In earlier times, the word mḳmḳ used to be transliterated as mkmk when written with the Demotic group

derived from the old writing for kȝ, but VITTMANN (‘Zum Gebrauch des kȝ-Zeichens im Demotischen’) showed

that this transliteration rests on a faulty understanding of the use of the kȝ group in Demotic. Throughout this

study, the group is consistently transliterated as ḳ and the transliteration mḳmḳ is maintained. See also QUACK,

‘Bemerkungen zur Struktur der demotischen Schrift’, p. 230-231. Evidence for other types of Demotic petitions

is scarce: cf. BAETENS, ‘Demotic petitioning’, p. 43-50; DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 330-332. Recently, ARMONI and

THISSEN (in P. Tarich., p. 116-120) suggested that P. Tarich. 15 [TM 316294] might be a Demotic petition, but they

admit that the nature of this text is not entirely clear. For the ʿn-smy, see chapter VI, p. 200-201. In this study,

only mḳmḳ are taken into account. 40 This issue is examined in further detail in chapter VI, p. 197-218. 41 Good examples are P. Col. Zen. I 18 [TM 1738] and P. Petrie III 35 a [TM 7431], two letters requesting release

from prison. For some additional examples, see BICKERMANN, ‘Beiträge zur antiken Urkundengeschichte. III’, p.

179-181. BICKERMANN argues that these petition letters constitute a typically 3rd century BC phenomenon and that

they were subsequently forbidden. This hypothesis seems attractive, but should be evaluated on the basis of the

current evidence. For a survey of Demotic terms used to refer to letters, see DEPAUW, The Demotic Letter, p. 257-

260. 42 The procedure of conveying a letter also appears to have been radically different from the procedure of

conveying an ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ: see chapter VI, p. 219-223.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/316294https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1738https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7431

INTRODUCTION

10

Study outline

As already stated above, the major objective of this study is to give a state-of-the-art

overview of the Ptolemaic petition corpus. Consequently, the lion’s share of this

study consists of surveys of all petitions written in the three major Ptolemaic

petitioning formats: the ἔντευξις, the ὑπόμνημα and the mḳmḳ. None of these three

formats was exclusively used for petitioning, however, and in Ptolemaic Egypt no

distinction appears to have been made between ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ

with petitioning function and without. The long-standing scholarly practice of

isolating the petitions from the other documents in the same format seems

questionable, and for that reason this study also includes secondary surveys of all

ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ without petitioning function. These closely

related documents have never been collected and examined as a whole before, but

can help to clarify the nature of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in general and

thus lead to a better understanding of the texts with petitioning function as well.

Chapters I-IV consist of surveys of all the material arranged according to type:

chapter I examines the Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις (further divided in royal ἐντεύξεις with

petitioning function, non-royal ἐντεύξεις with petitioning function and non-royal

ἐντεύξεις without petitioning function), chapter II the Ptolemaic ὑπομνήματα

(further divided in early ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function, early ὑπομνήματα

without petitioning function, later ὑπομνήματα with petitioning function and later

ὑπομνήματα without petitioning function), chapter III some fragmentary Greek

petitions that cannot be safely assigned to a specific petition type, and chapter IV

the Ptolemaic mḳmḳ (further divided in mḳmḳ with and without petitioning

function). For every individual group of texts, lists of all examples and compact

overviews of the addressees, form and content of the documents are provided. In

Chapter V, the information gathered in chapters I-IV is brought together in order to

develop a more synthetic view on the form and content of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα

and mḳmḳ. The most detailed information and specific text references can be found

in chapters I-IV; for a broader view on the corpus and additional information

regarding elements that appear in more than one type of texts, the reader can

consult chapter V. Chapter VI, finally, examines a couple of specific issues related to

Ptolemaic petitioning practices and petition formats: (1) the relation between the

ὑπόμνημα and the προσάγγελμα, (2) the personal delivery of ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα

and mḳmḳ to their addressee, and (3) the submission of royal ἐντεύξεις to the

strategos and chrematistai. Other subjects and issues are left unexplored.

A few methodological remarks are in place here:

- The distinction between petitions and texts that serve other purposes maintained

in this study regularly results in classification problems. First, some ἐντεύξεις,

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are too fragmentary or incompletely published to

INTRODUCTION

11

adequately determine their purpose. In this study, such texts are tentatively

assigned to either the category of petitions or the category of texts without

petitioning function on the basis of the other examples of the same document type:

a fragmentary mḳmḳ of which only the prescript is preserved, for example, is

categorised as petition, because most mḳmḳ that are more fully preserved are

petitions. Second, even more fully preserved ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ

cannot always be unequivocally categorised as either petitions or other sorts of

texts. Above, petitions have been defined as “documents through which individuals

or small groups of interrelated individuals address requests that are out of the

ordinary or presented as such to the authorities”. But when exactly is a request “out

of the ordinary or presented as such”? Suggestions concerning the extraordinary

nature of petition requests have been made above, but there are no objective

criteria for distinguishing extraordinary requests from others. Moreover,

judgements concerning this regularly depend on the context and tone of a

document. The personal intuition and interpretative activity of the researcher can

hardly be eliminated. These classification issues constitute an important

disadvantage of distinguishing between petitions and other kinds of texts, but seem

unavoidable for any study of Ptolemaic petitions. At most, the problem is more

visible in this work, because ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ without petitioning

function are discussed as well.

- Ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ are often highly formulaic texts. This study does

not aim to offer an exhaustive overview of all formulaic elements encountered in

these documents (which could form the subject of a lengthy monograph on its own),

but focuses on their essential structural elements: most importantly the prescript,

the introduction of the body of the text, the introduction of the request, and the

closing. Petitions regularly insert rhetorical formulas between the request and the

closing in order to strengthen their appeals; in the petition cited at the beginning of

this introduction, for instance, the formula τούτου γὰρ γε]νομένου, διὰ σέ, βα[σιλεῦ,

τεύξομαι τοῦ δι]καίου is inserted. These “rhetorical conclusions” are also examined

in the petition surveys.43 Finally, some specific expressions and terms found in

petition requests are listed in the petition content surveys. For other petitioning

formulas and expressions, the studies by DI BITONTO, though outdated, are still

informative.

- In order to present the information in a more orderly way, a distinction between

dispute-related and non-dispute-related petitions is maintained in the petition

43 DI BITONTO (‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 50-51) gives a good overview of the various names which have been given to

this petition section. The rhetorical motifs found in these petition conclusions sometimes appear in the

descriptive sections, request introductions or requests themselves as well. Formulas of the last group are

discussed among the “general requests for support” in this study; the other two groups are not taken into

account, although further examinations would be interesting. Only the formulas that appear at the end of the

petition, between the request and the closing, are discussed in the sections about the “rhetorical conclusion”.

INTRODUCTION

12

content surveys in this study, but it has to be stressed that this distinction does not

reflect an actual legal divide.44

- The surveys of the content of the dispute-related petitions in this study are

divided in two parts: “topics” (what is the petition about?) and “requests” (what

does the petition ask?). When petitions relate to multiple topics and/or make

multiple requests, these are all identified individually. This approach radically

differs from that adopted by DI BITONTO: she assigns all dispute-related petitions to

one specific legal category (e.g. ὕβρις, βία, ...) and structures her discussion of the

content of the petitions along these lines.45 For several reasons, this methodology

seems questionable. First, there is no reason to assume that all petitions fit specific

legal categories, and at any rate the authors of petitions do not always appear to

have had the intention of focussing their petitions in such way.46 Second, the

approach forces DI BITONTO to disregard all elements of a petition that do not relate

to the assigned legal category. Third, it is hard to get a grip on the general types of

petition requests when reading the studies by DI BITONTO, because similar requests

(e.g. requests for summons) are not examined together but are divided over

different legal categories.

Corpus collection

This study is the first work to gather all Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and

mḳmḳ. How have all these texts been identified and collected?

Most ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ can be recognised by their prescripts, which

differ according to format:

- Ἐντεύξεις are introduced by the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα (not to be

confused with the epistolary prescripts ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν or τῶι δεῖνι ὁ δεῖνα

χαίρειν).

- For the ὑπομνήματα, a distinction must be made between an early and later type.

The prescripts of the early ὑπομνήματα start with the word ὑπόμνημα, followed by

the identification of the addressee (in the dative) and the submitter (expressed by

παρά + genitive), in various order (most commonly ὑπόμνημα τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ

δεῖνος, but also ὑπόμνημα παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος τῶι δεῖνι). During the second half of the

44 Cf. DI BITONTO, ‘Le petizioni al re’, p. 5-6; WOLFF, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer, 2nd edition, p. 133-134. DI BITONTO

makes a similar (albeit not exactly identical) distinction between “istanze” and “richieste”; for more

information on the use of these two Italian terms, see MASCELLARI, Le petizioni nell’Egitto Romano, p. 23. 45 The legal categories used by DI BITONTO seem largely based on CAVASSINI’s earlier work and The law of Greco-

Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri by TAUBENSCHLAG. 46 Cf. KELLY, Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt, p. 163-164.

INTRODUCTION

13

3rd century BC, this prescript was replaced by a shorter, standardised variant

without the word ὑπόμνημα: τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος.

- The prescripts of mḳmḳ start with wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ, followed by the identification of

the addressee and submitter, in various order (wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ addressee - submitter

or wʿ (bȝk-)mḳmḳ submitter - addressee).

Some documents are labelled as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in the sources

themselves. As explained above, early ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ refer to themselves as

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ in their prescript. Similar self-designations can also be

found in the body of certain texts, e.g. the formula ἐὰν ἦι ἀληθῆ τὰ διὰ τῆς

ἐντεύξεως in the petition cited at the beginning of this introduction. Further, some

texts are labelled as ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα or mḳmḳ in accompanying notes and

messages, e.g. forwarding letters with statements such as τοῦ δεδομένου

ὑπομνήματος παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος ἀντίγραφον ὑπόκειται. These explicit designations

confirm the above-described connection between the ἔντευξις, ὑπόμνημα and mḳmḳ

and specific prescripts, and allow the scholar to categorise several texts that have

lost their prescript as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ as well.

- The following 78 ἐντεύξεις are explicitly designated as such in the sources: BGU X 1903 [TM 8299]; I. Prose 22 l. 19-42 [TM 6331]; I. Prose 37 l. 11-52 [TM 7237]; I. Prose 38 l. 2-28 [TM 7230]; I. Prose

39 l. 2-35 [TM 7231]; I. Prose 42 l. 9-44 [TM 6605]; I. Prose 43 l. 8-42 [TM 8805]; I. Prose 44 l. 8-37 [TM 7232]; P.

Amh. Gr. II 33 [TM 8669]; P. Athen. 5 [TM 77951]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59145 [TM 793]; P. Cairo Zen. II 59236 [TM 881];

P. Cairo Zen. IV 59622 [TM 1254]; P. Col. Zen. II 83 [TM 1796]; P. Dion. 9 [TM 3092]; P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279]; P.

Enteux. 4 [TM 3282]; P. Enteux. 12 [TM 3289]; P. Enteux. 22 [TM 3297]; P. Enteux. 25 [TM 3300]; P. Enteux. 32 [TM

3307]; P. Enteux. 34 [TM 3309]; P. Enteux. 35 [TM 3310]; P. Enteux. 41 [TM 3316]; P. Enteux. 53 [TM 3328]; P.

Enteux. 59 [TM 3334]; P. Enteux. 70 [TM 3345]; P. Enteux. 71 [TM 3346]; P. Enteux. 74 [TM 3349]; P. Enteux. 78 [TM

3353]; P. Enteux. 79 [TM 3354]; P. Enteux. 81 [TM 3356]; P. Enteux. 90 [TM 3382]; P. Enteux. 91 [TM 3381]; P.

Enteux. 92 [TM 3380]; P. Enteux. 100 [TM 3372]; P. Enteux. 102 [TM 3370]; P. Enteux. 104 [TM 3368]; P. Enteux. 107

[TM 3365]; P. Erasm. I 1 [TM 5048]; P. Fay. 11 [TM 8084]; P. Fay. 12 [TM 8334]; P. Frankf. 7 Ro col. i l. 1 - col. ii l. 13

[TM 5101]; P. Hibeh II 201 l. 1-10 [TM 5185]; P. Hibeh II 202 l. 1-6 [TM 5186]; P. Hibeh II 238 [TM 5198]; P. Köln Gr.

XII 479 l. 15-32 [TM 128733]; P. Lond. VII 1955 [TM 1518]; P. Lond. VII 2054 [TM 1616]; P. Lond. VII 2188 l. 22-115

[TM 251]; P. Münch. III 51 [TM 5250]; P. Petrie Kleon 50 [TM 44593]; P. Petrie Kleon 73 l. 4-5 [TM 7662]; P. Sorb. III

108 [TM 2603]; P. Tebt. I 43 [TM 3679]; P. Tebt. III 769 [TM 5362]; P. Tebt. III 770 [TM 5363]; P. Tebt. III 771 (1) [TM

7849]; P. Tebt. III 771 (2) [TM 341742]; P. Tebt. III 933 l. 10-24 [TM 7828]; P. Tor. Choach. 8 a [TM 3571]; P. Tor.

Choach. 8 b [TM 3638]; P. Yale I 57 [TM 5541]; PSI IV 383 l. 7-17 [TM 2067]; PSI VIII 976 [TM 2444]; SB VI 9302 [TM

6212]; SB VI 9556 col. i [TM 5787]; SB XXII 15558 [TM 8350]; UPZ I 10 [TM 3401]; UPZ I 11 [TM 3402]; UPZ I 14 l. 5-

34 [TM 3405]; UPZ I 19 [TM 3410]; UPZ I 20 [TM 3411]; UPZ I 41 [TM 3432]; UPZ I 42 [TM 3433]; UPZ I 106 l. 9-22

[TM 3498]; UPZ I 107 l. 10-26 [TM 3499]; UPZ I 108 l. 8-20 [TM 3500].

- As discussed above, early ὑπομνήματα refer to themselves as ὑπόμνημα in their

prescript. One early ὑπόμνημα that exceptionally uses a different prescript without

this word, P. Petrie Kleon 66 [TM 381302], is explicitly designated as ὑπόμνημα

elsewhere in the text. Additionally, 79 ὑπομνήματα that use the later ὑπόμνημα

prescript or have not preserved their prescript are designated as ὑπόμνημα in the

body of the text or accompanying notes or messages:47 BGU III 1007 [TM 5552]; BGU III 1012 [TM 5553]; BGU VI 1244 [TM 4405]; BGU VI 1256 [TM 4543]; BGU VIII 1756 l. 8-18 [TM 4838]; BGU VIII 1757 l. 9-11

47 The Greek P. Köln VI 272 [TM 3202] is designated as mḳmḳ in its Demotic subscription, but this word was used

as direct Demotic equivalent of the Greek word ὑπόμνημα. Cf. BAETENS, ‘Some corrections to Ptolemaic petitions’,

p. 284-285.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8299https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/6331https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7237https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7230https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7231https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/6605https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8805https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7232https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8669https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/77951https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/793https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/881https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1254https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1796https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3092https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3279https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3282https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3289https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3297https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3300https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3307https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3307https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3309https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3310https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3316https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3328https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3334https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3345https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3346https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3349https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3353https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3353https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3354https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3356https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3382https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3381https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3380https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3372https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3370https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3368https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3365https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5048https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8084https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8334https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5101https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5185https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5186https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5198https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/128733https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1518https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1616https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/251https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5250https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/44593https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7662https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2603https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3679https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5362https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5363https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7849https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7849https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/341742https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7828https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3571https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3638https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5541https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2067https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2444https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/6212https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/6212https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5787https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8350https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3401https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3402https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3405https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3410https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3411https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3432https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3433https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3498https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3499https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3500https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/381302https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5552https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5553https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4405https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4543https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4838https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3202

INTRODUCTION

14

[TM 8295]; BGU VIII 1761 l. 5-16 [TM 4842]; BGU VIII 1772 l. 30-44 [TM 4853]; BGU VIII 1796 l. 7-12 [TM 4876]; BGU

VIII 1825 [TM 4904]; BGU VIII 1828 [TM 4907]; BGU VIII 1829 [TM 4908]; BGU VIII 1847 [TM 4926]; BGU VIII 1856

[TM 4935]; BGU VIII 1859 a [TM 4938]; BGU XVIII 2732 l. 10-24 [TM 69806]; Chrest. Wilck. 304 l. 7-16 [TM 41800];

P. Amh. Gr. II 35 [TM 8621]; P. Cairo Zen. I 59054 [TM 2296]; P. Col. Zen. II 96 [TM 1809]; P. Coll. Youtie I 12 [TM

5038]; P. Dion. 12 l. 6-21 [TM 3095]; P. Diosk. 6 l. 7-50 [TM 44722]; P. Duke inv. 360 [TM 58468]; P. Erasm. I 2 [TM

5049]; P. Erbstreit 16 l. 11-27 [TM 156]; P. Gen. III 126 l. 21-46 [TM 43084]; P. Hamb. IV 238 [TM 43304]; P. Heid. Gr.

IX 422 [TM 89277]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 431 [TM 89286]; P. Heid. Gr. IX 433 [TM 89288]; P. Hels. I 1 [TM 5138]; P. Hels. I

12 [TM 5147]; P. Köln Gr. VI 261 Ro [TM 2486]; P. Köln Gr. VI 272 [TM 3202]; P. Köln VIII 341 l. 1-6 [TM 41533]; P.

Köln Gr. XI 455 [TM 112490]; P. Mich. XV 688 [TM 47503]; P. Mich. XVIII 778 [TM 8772]; P. Petrie III 32 a [TM

7422]; P. Ryl. Gr. II 69 [TM 5287]; P. Sijpesteijn 45 l. 6-32 [TM 7883]; P. Strasb. Gr. II 91 [TM 3918]; P. Tarich. 5 g col.

i l. 1 - col. ii l. 18 [TM 316246]; P. Tebt. I 30 l. 15-21 [TM 3666]; P. Tebt. I 31 l. 15-22 [TM 3667]; P. Tebt. I 41 [TM

78772]; P. Tebt. I 45 [TM 3681]; P. Tebt. I 46 [TM 3682]; P. Tebt. I 47 [TM 3683]; P. Tebt. I 49 [TM 3685]; P. Tebt. I 50

[TM 3686]; P. Tebt. I 53 [TM 3689]; P. Tebt. II 283 [TM 42986]; P. Tebt. III 703 [TM 5315]; P. Tebt. III 741 l. 14-25

[TM 5344]; P. Tebt. III 792 [TM 5378]; P. Tebt. III 793 col. iii l. 19 - col. iv l. 6 [TM 5379]; P. Tebt. III 800 [TM 5383]; P.

Tebt. III 808 [TM 5391]; P. Tebt. IV 1095 [TM 3762]; P. Tebt. IV 1096 [TM 3763]; P. Tebt. IV 1097 [TM 3907]; P. Tebt.

Pad. 10 [TM 412064]; P. Tor. Choach. 5 a [TM 3594]; P. Tor. Choach. 11 bis l. 8-33 [TM 3562]; P. Tor. Choach. 12 col.

i l. 14 - col. iii l. 16 [TM 3563]; P. Yale IV 147 [TM 873587]; PSI XIII 1316 [TM 5582]; PSI XV 1512 [TM 44214]; SB X

10271 Ro [TM 5801]; SB XII 10770 [TM 4345]; SB XIV 11626 [TM 4255]; SB XVI 12524 [TM 14608]; SB XVIII 13735

[TM 2598]; SB XXII 15213 [TM 8511]; SB XXII 15559 [TM 8792]; UPZ II 218 col. i l. 29-36 [TM 3620]; UPZ II 220 col. ii

l. 1-11 [TM 3622].

- As discussed above, mḳmḳ refer to themselves as (bȝk-)mḳmḳ in their prescript. One

mḳmḳ that has lost its prescript (P. Carlsberg Dem. 486 ined. [TM 873618]) and

another one that exceptionally uses an epistolary prescript without the word mḳmḳ

(P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409]) are designated as such elsewhere in the text.

Only in rare cases, the designation of a certain document in the sources does not

match its prescript. The just-mentioned P. BM Siut 10598 [TM 43409], which uses an

epistolary prescript, can nevertheless be categorised as mḳmḳ rather than letter (as

will be argued later on: chapter IV, p. 157-158). In other instances of discrepancy,

the prescript seems a more straightforward criterion than the actual designation.

Three texts are designated as ὑπόμνημα or προσάγγελμα in the sources, though

they use the standard Greek epistolary prescript ὁ δεῖνα τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν and look

like letters in other respects as well: they can best be understood as letters and are

therefore excluded from the corpus.48 Three others are designated as ἐπιστολή or

ὑπόμνημα, although they use the ἔντευξις prescript and conform to the

characteristics of ἐντεύξεις in other respects as well: they are included in the corpus

as ἐντεύξεις.49 Finally, it will be argued further on (chapter VI, p. 197-218) that the

2nd century BC documents that use the ὑπόμνημα prescript τῶι δεῖνι παρὰ τοῦ

δεῖνος but are designated as προσάγγελμα can all be viewed as ὑπομνήματα.

48 P. Gurob 8 l. 2-5 [TM 5871] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 1, if the abbreviation is read correctly); P. Petrie

Kleon 40 l. 6-8 [TM 7444] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 2, 10); P. Tebt. III 936 l. 6-9 [TM 5461] (designated as

προσάγγελμα in l. 2). 49 P. Cairo Zen. III 59443 [TM 1083] (designated as ἐπιστολή in l. 13); PSI IV 423 [TM 2106] (designated as

ὑπόμνημα in l. 37); PSI V 488 l. 10-20 [TM 2119] (designated as ὑπόμνημα in l. 7). P. Cairo Zen. I 59075 l. 9-12 [TM

730], a message written by the Ammonite chief Toubias to Ptolemaios II, constitutes another example of a text

with the prescript τῶι δεῖνι χαίρειν ὁ δεῖνα that is nevertheless designated as ἐπιστολή, but is left out of account

in this study. Except for its prescript, this text shows all characteristics of a letter. Possibly, Toubias based the

form of the prescript on that of Ptolemaic ἐντεύξεις, but essentially this document seems to be a letter.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8295https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4842https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4853https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4876https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4904https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4907https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4908https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4926https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4935https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4938https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/69806https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/41800https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8621https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2296https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1809https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5038https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5038https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3095https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/44722https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/58468https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5049https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5049https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/156https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/43084https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/43304https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/89277https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/89286https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/89288https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5138https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5147https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2486https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3202https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/41533https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/112490https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/47503https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8772https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7422https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7422https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5287https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7883https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3918https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/316246https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3666https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3667https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/78772https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/78772https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3681https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3682https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3683https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3685https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3686https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3689https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/42986https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5315https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5344https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5378https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5379https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5383https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5391https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3762https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3763https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3907https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/412064https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3594https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3562https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3563https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/873587https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5582https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/44214https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5801https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4345https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/4255https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/14608https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2598https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8511https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/8792https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3620https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/3622https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/873618https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/43409https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/43409https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5871https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/7444https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/5461https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/1083https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2106https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/2119https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/730https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/730

INTRODUCTION

15

Several texts that have not preserved their prescript and are not explicitly

designated as ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα or mḳmḳ in the sources either can still be

linked to one of these groups on the basis of other characteristics relating to their

form, content, material properties or archival context. Even a tiny fragment of a

petition to the king, for example, can be identified as belonging to an ἔντευξις,

because all known petitions to the king are formatted as ἐντεύξεις. Of course, there

are also fragmentary Greek documents that can be identified as petitions, but lack

the necessary indications to be assigned to a specific formal type: since they are

petitions, they are most probably either ἐντεύξεις or ὑπομνήματα, but more than

that cannot be safely assumed. These “fragmentary Greek petitions” are examined

separately in chapter III.

With regard to the Greek material, unpublished documents and documents that

have only been briefly described have been left out of account:50 a list of all such

texts known by the author is added in appendix 1. Unpublished mḳmḳ known by the

author, however, have all been included, since examples of this type of texts are

much rarer.

The digital revolution of the past few decades has enabled the historian to conduct

studies of large groups of documents with greater ease than before. All ἐντεύξεις,

ὑπομνήματα and mḳmḳ examined in this study have been collected in a database

integrated into Trismegistos, a digital platform that, among other functionalities,

provides stable identifiers and metadata for texts, people, places and archives from

the ancient world. Several fields in this database are automatically linked to the

Trismegistos texts, people, places and archives databases; further fields have been

added to save supplementary data concerning the texts in the corpus. The database

can be consulted online on Trismegistos (https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions),

and will receive regular updates.

Corpus representativity

In total, the corpus examined in this study consists of 1161 documents, of which 911

petitions and 250 texts without petitioning function. This corresponds to 375

ἐντεύξεις, 697 ὑπομνήματα, 44 fragmentary Greek petitions and 45 mḳmḳ. However

high this number may seem compared to other types of papyri, these 1161

documents only constitute a minuscule portion of all ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα and

50 A couple of the Greek texts included in the corpus are not published yet, but will be published in the near

future: P. Texas inv. 1 [TM 873600] and P. Yale IV 138-151 [TM 79335, 873586-873599]. They could already be

included thanks to the courtesy of, respectively, DAVID MARTINEZ and RUTH DUTTENHÖFER.

https://www.trismegistos.org/petitionshttps://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/873600https://www.trismegistos.org/petitions/text/79335

INTRODUCTION

16

mḳmḳ written throughout the Ptolemaic era. This raises questions concerning the

representativity of the sample.51 A brief assessment of this issue seems in place.

There are no ἐντεύξεις, ὑπομνήματα or mḳmḳ from the very early Ptolemaic period:

the two earliest precisely dated examples are P. Enteux. 1 [TM 3279] and UPZ II 151

[TM 2975], two ἔντευξις petitions addressed to the king from 259 BC. Nevertheless,

the 3rd century BC is the best represented century of the corpus, closely followed by

the 2nd century BC.52 This predominance of 3rd century BC texts is largely due to the

archives of Zenon and the petitions from Magdola, which together constitute more

than one quarter of the material. Focussing only on the texts with petitioning

function, the 2nd century BC becomes the best represented century, followed by the

3rd century BC. The texts from the 1st century BC, for the largest part belonging to

the archive of the officials of the Herakleopolites, constitute the smallest group, in

which there are only a handful of texts without petitioning function. The latest

precisely