Marriage and Marital Arrangements: A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt, 4th Century BCE - 4th Century CE 3406511678, 9783406511677

Citation preview

MUNCHENER BEITRAGE ZUR PAPYRUSFORSCHUNG UND ANTIKEN RECHTSGESCHICHTE 93. HEFT

URI YIFTACH-FIRANKO

MARRIAGE AND MARITAL ARRANGEMENTS A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt. 4th century BCE - 4th century CE

VERLAG C. H. BECK MUNCHEN

Marriage and Marital Arrangements A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt. 4th century BCE - 4th century CE VON URI YIFTACH-FIRANKO

VERLAG C. H. BECK M

TABLEOF CONTENTS rREPACE

X]

1. INTRODUCTION

2. TI-IESOURCES

9

2.1. MarriageDocuments

9

2.2. Related Papyri

32

3. TI-IEACT OF MARRIAGE

41

4. DOUBLE DOCUMENTATION OF MARITALARRANGEMENTS

55

4.1. The Ptolemaic Chora

55

4.2. Augustan Alexandria

72

5. AGRAPHOS GAMOS

81

5.1. Introduction

RI

5.2. CPRI 18 and P.Oxy.II 237

84

5.3. P.Oxy.II 267 5.4. The Duration of Agraphos Syneimti 5.5. Agraphos Gamosand SiblingMarriage 5.6. Conclusions

91 94

6. TI-IEDOWRY

98

102 105

6.1. The Ptolemaic Dowty

105

6.2. The AlexandrianDowty in the Age of Augustus

125

6.3. The Dotal Systemin the Roman Period

129

6.3.1.

1heParaphema

129

6.3.1.1. The Question of Origin

129

6.3.1.2. The First Centuty CE

141 144

6.3.1.3. The Second and Third Centuries CE 6.3.2.

1hePheme in theRommPericd

149

6.3.2.1. The First Centuty CE

149

6.3.2.2. The Second and Third Centuries CE

153

IX

vm 6.3.3. TheProsphora 6.3.3.1.Land 6.3.3.2.Slaves 6.4. The Greek Dowty in Egypt: a Diachronic Overview

164 164

Appendix II: Six Marriage Documents from T ebtynis and Oxyrhynchos: an 325 Edition

7. 1HE TERMS OF JOINT LIFE

173 175 185

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8. 1'HEACT OF DIVORCE

197

Plaws

8.1. The Ptolemaic Period

197 205 208 214

8.2. Augustan Alexandria

8.3.The Roman Gora 8.4. The Normative Function of the Divorce Provision 9. META TEN TELEUTEN

221

10.MODESOF SECURITY 10.1. The PraxisClause

231 231

10.2.The Designation Pe-rses tesEpig:mes

237

10.3.The Death of the Husband

240

10.4.Conclusions

257

11.11-IEROLE OF 1HE MARRIAGEDOCUMENT-AN OVERVIEW

259

Appendix I: Charts and Tables

1.The Formulaic Features of the EkdosisClause

271

2. Age Data in MarriageDocuments

273

3. The Provider of the Dowry

276

4. The Real Value of the Pheme-IVBCE III CE

281

5. The Retrieval of the PherneGold J ewellety- II-III CE 6. The Ek¼fi Provision

294 295 297

7. Jewelleryand Clothing in the Pheme-a Diachronic Overview 8. The Composition of the Parapherna in the First and Second Centuries CE 9. The Parapherna in the Divorce Provision

298 304

10. Clothing under the Title of Phemeand as Paraphema

305

11. The Prosphora

310 312 318

12. The Terms of Joint Life 13. The Divorce Provision 14.The Death Clause 15.Modes of Security- the Death of the Husband (PtolemaicPeriod)

319 323

INDEXLOCORUM SELECTGENERALINDEX

341

357

PREFACE Marriage andMaritalArrangmentsis concerned with legal papyrology; as such, it is based almost entirely on papyrological sources from Egypt. The book studies the provisions of the marriage document. Hence, marriage documents are also the most important source analyzed in its framework. Besides the marriage document itself, the book considers a variety of legal papyri that can shed light on its contents; special attention is given to divorce documents, wills and property arrangements within the family, as well as to petitions, motions to state officials, and minutes of legal hearings, inasmuch as they relate to the provisions of the marriage document. With regard to all these sources, I have aimed to consider papyri available through 2002. In this study, I usually cite Greek papyri, as well as other papyrological instrumenta and corpora, by their conventional abbreviation in the Checklist of Editionsof Grrek,Latin,Denwticand CopticPapyri,Ostracaand Tablets(eds. J.P. Oates et al.) . Periodicals are cited according to the conventions of L 'Annk Phuob;jque. Date and provenance of the papyri are usually those given by the online version of the Heideflx:rwGesamtu!rZeichn der Griahischen Papyrusurkunden Agyptens (eds. D. Hagedorn et al.) . Demotic sources are studied at second-hand, and ;m:cited as they are givt:n in the secondary lirer.nun!. Inscriptions ,u-ecilcd fo!lmving the convcmions of Gmdtide f'Epigmphiste, Gm'.k literary somces according to those of LSJ1.Grt!Ckpersonal and place names, as well as other Greek tenm;, are transliterated according to the conventions of tbe Chicag] M(mualof St;Je(Chkago-Lundon l982°) p. 275; Rom;m names an

Unknow11 Yroveiun c{'( 14) 1.

':.I.

CPRVII 33 (II CE) P.Amst. I 38.9-17 (II CE) P.Amst.I 40 (I CE) P.BodlI 48v(II-IIICE) P.&xll.I 93 (II-IIICE) P.Col.VIII 227 0ate II-early III CE) P.Gen.I 21 = P.MiindJ. III 62 = MChrII 284 (II BCE) P.Hamb.III 223 (113 CE) P.Hib.II 208 (265-250 BCE)

10.

P.LundVI 3 = SB VI 9353 (139 CE)

l l. 12.

P.Ryl.II 262 descriptum (IIBCE) P.Stras.IV 225.1-9 (150-200CE) P.Stras.IV 225.10-24 (150-200 CE) P.Stras.VI 533 (II CE)

1.

"'. ·I.

5. (,. 7. ~-

U. K

TheSources

proceduresinvolvedin Iht~dissolution of !lUr~ag,cll~ P1olemaicand Roman

Egypt.2~ ?n oo.:a~um, ~p'.mses- ':r one ot their family nwm~)l'J"S·~challenge the validity of the mamagc, da,mmg etther tbat the nurnagl' w:is never formed or th,1t it has been dissolved. In such :a case, the pany that wishes w preserve lhc _n:aniage.gi~•c:s,.via petit~om, ,1_detail~d acc,?un~ of the act of marriage. Pctmons ol this ku1d provide a h1ller Vle\V ot tl11s act than the marriagedocumems ,1lonc.?''FspcciaUynotev,•onhy in this regard are peLitions attd minutes of lcg,tlproceedings 111which a fad1trdaims to have exceptional power over his children, occasionallyrelying on the fact he is, or was, living withhis wife in an agraphos gamos.3° Another important group of petitions are those dealing with the implicationsof a divorce. Obstinate spouses would refuse to comply with the intention of their partners to dissolve the marriage.31 The existence of joint children would require one of the spouses to leave some of his or her

(h~_k_M,miagr. Documents from ouu,gi_e_fanI?.lJZ1 l.

2. .'\. 4. 5. 6.

7.

P.Dura30 (232 CE- Qatna, near Dura Europos) P.Hew 69 (130 CE-Aristoboulias) P.Murabbaat115 = SB X 10305 (124 CE- Beit Bassa, Judea) P.Murabbaat 116 = SBX 10306 (II CE- Judea) P.Yadin17 (128 CE- Ma'oza) P.Yadin18 (128 CE-Ma'oza) P.Yadin37= P.Hew65 (131 CE-Ma'oza)

2.2. RelatedPapyri W'hilethe nMrriage doctimem is dearly the mo~t impmtant source for its o,.:vn formulaic devdopm.c11t, the study of other papyrii.sindispensablein su for as they ~ht'dlight on the significanceand application nf its provisions. Pl~titiorts re!Jte 10 every ,1:-.pectof the joim life. Partners chargt· e:1d1 other ,vith 1hc cnntravemion ti m:oiril;1]obligatiom: husband~ at"e,Kcuscd of ahu~in~ therr w!ves,faili.ngto support rhcm, ;i.bandoningrhcm, and committing po!yg.uny; wives of 'h~ving different thmgs in minJ besides the marriage' (aitooi, rb rymbit,5tl1s ph1-vnein), pcrfonning au 'unlawful rfopanure', and of t.1kin~ away fami~, .t~sets. In most cases, Lhe compfainant aim.~ ,lt a favourable divorce settlement. These petitions-in .:iddition to the marriage docrnnent~ themselves-- perm.it a glance at the terms of joim life and the different

2sWife (or her relatives) against her husband (or his relatives): BGU IV 1105 (11/10 BCE-Alexandria); VIII 1820 (after 22.4.55 BCE- Herakleopolites); 1826 (after 15.2.51 BCE-Herakleopolites: based on an Egyptian syngraphe trophitis); 1827 (after 15.7.51 BCEHerakleopolites: based on an Egyptian syngraphetrvphitis);1845 (50-49 BCEHerakleopolites);1848 (ea. 47 BCE-Herakleopolites); P.Enteux.24 (221 BCE-Magd6la); P.Harr.II 218 frag. (350 CE-Senekeleu: Oxyrhynchites); P.Lips. I 41 Qate IV CEHennopolis): affidavit; P.Oxy. II 281 (20-50 CE-Oxyrhynchos); VI 903 (IV CEOxyrhynchos):affidavit; LIV 3770 (334 CE- Oxyrhynchos); P.Princ.II 77 (early IV CEOxyrhynchos);P.Ryl.IV 706' (early IV CE-Antinoopolis); P.Tebt.I 51 (ea. 113 BCEII 334 (200/1 CE- Tebtynis); III.1 776 Kerkeosiris:based on an Egyptian syngraphetrophitis); trvphitis); PSI I 41 (IV CE(early II BCE- Tebtynis: based on an Egyptian syngraphe Antinoopolis); V 463 (158-60 CE-Arsinoites); VIII 944 (364-66 CE (?)- unknown provenance); SB XIV 11392 (I-II CE-Bacchias); XVI 12687 Qate III BCE-Arsinoites: based on an Egyptian syngrttphetrvphitis); XVIII 13838 (224-218 BCE-Mouchis); XX 14592 trvphitis);UPZ I 118 - P.Tor. 13 (76 BCE- Panopolis: based on an Egyptian syngraphe trophitis). Husband against (147/136/83 BCE (?)- Memphis: based on an Egyptian syngraphe his wife: P.Heid III 13(237) (ea. 250 CE-Theadelphia); P.Lond. V 1651 (363 CEHennopolis); P.Oxy. II 282 (29-37 CE-Oxyrhynchos); LXV 4481 (179 CEOxyrhynchos);SB XVI 12505.4-18 (221 CE-Lykopolis). 29 P.Cair.Preis. 2 and 3 (362 CE-Hermopolis); P.Enteux.23 - CPJI 128 (218 BCEMagd6la);P.Lips.I 41 Qate IV CE- Hermopolis); P.Lond.VII 1976 (253 BCE- Philadelphia ~));P.Sakaon38 (312 CE- Theadelphia); 48 (343 CE-Theadelphia); PSI IV 288 (II CEunknownprovenance); VIII 893 (315 CE- Dionysias (?)). 30 BGUVII 1578 (after 212 CE- Philadelphia); CPR I 18 - Stud.Pal.XX 4 = fur.Pap.89 MO»-84 (124 CE-Ptolemais Euergetis (?));P.Mil.Vog,l.IV 229 (ea. 140 CE-Tebtynis); P.Oxy.II 237 (186 CE-Oxyrhynchos). 31 P.Lips. I 39 ~ Mehr 127 (390 CE-Hermopolis); P.Oxy. L 3581 (IV V CEOxyrhynchos).

'/Jx.·Sowrn

property with the spouse who was to raise them.32 Problems could arise about the retrieval of the dowty, especially when the property of the husband was given as security to the state for his public duties.33 In the case of a death of one of the spouses, the existence of joint underage children could allow a surviving spouse to retain and manage the assets of the predeceased on the children's behalf. Problems might arise if the relatives of the predeceased spouse refused to acknowledge this right, or if the existence of common children was denied altogether.34 If there were no joint children, the wife of a predeceased husband might face difficulties in retrieving her dowty from his heirs.JSOne particular petition discusses a hereditaty agreement that was to accord the surviving partner with a full title to the estate of the predeceased}6 Further difficulties might arise between the wife and her co-heirs as a result of her being dowered, since in this case the co-heirs might deny her the right to an additional share of their common inheritance.37 These difficulties are reflected in petitions throughout the period. We may also add other issues relating to the marriage or the dowty, which do not fall under any of the above categories.3B The petitions, particularly those containing charges of

Vi

:rniscondm.1. in the com~e of jo~n life, are especially ~alie!1~ to ?ur st.udy of :1u: rnarirnl .1rrangc.:mcmsot the d11rdand fou11:h centimes Ch; this pcnffi{, which )'ieldsan cxrr~mdy srn.i~Inumber of mamag~ .docun~c.uts(d. ,~l'.ovep. 2.2), pro\~des lt~ wt~l ,1 re~aHve abund,rnce of pet!llons.l'J .l !1ese peunom, ,;vluch. -werediscusscJ m det,ul byJ. lkmc.nnp a decade ago,'' form the backboneoi the smdyof n1an-iagtpr";lcticcsL!ltl1i.~ impon~unphase of rr,msid~)n. . Am.Jther imprnunt grnup oi related papyn are those dealm~ with the material implications of the dissolution of marriage, either by divorce41 or through the death of one of the spouses.42 There are also some documents composed by the 1:Wofo~er spouses or their relatives sometime after_the dissolution of marnage. 43 Divorce documents usually focused on the retneval

provenance): a husband claiming that a relative of the wife stole a bihliontessyngraphes he composedwith his wife. They are said to have done so in order to force him to acknowledge falselyto her mother 'that he received a part of the paternal goods'. 39 Cf. inf. p. 217. 40 Beaucamp (1992). 41 BCV III 975 (44 CE- Soknopaiou Nesos); IV 1102 (13 BCE-Alexandria); 1103.1-30 32 P.Bon.21 (I CE-unknown provenance); P.Ptmop.28 = SB XII 11221 (329 CE(Ll BCE- Ale-x;rndri;i).VI 1284 (ea. 100 BCE- unknown provenance); CPR I 23 Panopolis); SB I 4426 (ea. 274 CE-unknown provenance). (26.lUS8-l61 CE- A.r.~tcioil~);XVIH :I (23l BCE-Samaria); P.Amst. I 38.4-8 (II CE33 BGV VIII 1825 (61/60 BCE (?)-Herakleopolites); 1845 (50-49 BCEunknown provenance); P.&xll..I 46 (299/300 CE- Great Oasis); P.Brook.8 = SB VIII 9740 Herakleopolites); PSI III 166 (118 BCE- Thinites) (?). Cf. also OGJSII 669.25-26 = SB V (177 CE-Ptolemais Euergetis); P.Dura31 (204 CE- Ossa, near Dura-Europos); 32 (254 8444 (68 CE-Alexandria). CE-Dura-Europos); P.FamTebt.13 (113/4 CE-Tebtynis); P.Flor.I 24'.6-7 (III CE34 BGUVIII 1849 (ea. 47 BCE-Herakleopolites: based on an Egyptian syngraphetrophitis); Ptolemais Euergetis); P.Fouad34 (70-79 CE- probably Tebtynis); P.Freib.III 29a (178 SB VI 9065 (50/49 BCE-Herakleopolites (?)); UPZ II 189 = P.Tor.Oxxuh.I 3 (112/1 BCE- Philadelphia);P.GrenfII 76 = MChrII 295 (305/ 6 CE- Kysis: Oasis Magna);P.Krrn.. BCE-Thebai:s) (?). 52 - P.Mil.Vogl II 85 (138 CE-Tebtynis); P.Lips.I 27 - MChr293 = PP 27 (123 CEBGU III 970 = MChr242 (177 CE- Karanis (?)):affidavit;BGU IV 1036 - MChr 118 Tebtynis);P.LondII 178 p. 207-208 (145 CE-unknown provenance); P.Mich.II 121,.2.4(42 (107 CE- Soknopaiou Nesos); P.Cair.Isid. 62 ~ SB VI 9167 (297 CE- Karanis); P.Par.13 = CE- Tebtynis); III 194 (61 CE-Oxyrhynchos); P.Mil.Vogl.III 184 (41-54 (?)-Tebtynis); VPZ I 123 - MChr 280 (157/6 BCE-Memphis); SB XN 12201 (II CE-unknown 185 - SB VI 9381 (139 CE- Tebtynis); P.Ox-j. II 266 = MChr II 292 (96 CEprovenance). Oxyrhynchos); VI 906 (II-early III CE-Oxyrhynchos); XXXVI 2770 (304 CE36 P.Gen. III 126 and 127 (170-156BCE (?)- Herakleopolites). 35 (151 CEOxyrhynchos); XLIII 3139 ~ate III-IV CE-Oxyrhynchos); P.O;,;y.Hels. 37 BGU II 592 (II CE-Arsinoites); P.Enteux.9 (218 BCE- Crococlilopolis);P.Lond II Oxyrhynchos);P.Princ.II 31 (79/80 CE-Arsinoites); P.Stras.III 142 - SB V 8024 (391 177 pp. 167-169 = MChr 57 (ea. 40 CE-Bacchias); P.Muruh. III 77 (III CECE-Arsinoites); P.Tebt. III.1 809 (156 BCE-Tebtynis); P. Vindob. G 10295, Hennopolites (?)); P.Ox-j.XLVI 3274 (99-117 CE-Oxyrhynchos); P.Tebt.II 335 (ea. 165 MesseriSavorelli (1998-1999) 39-41 (II CE-Arsinoites); PSI VIII 921.6-9 (143/4 CECE (?)-Tebtynis). Arsinoites);921.25-31 (143/4 CE-Arsinoites); SB XN 11891 (161/2 CE (?)-Arsinoites 38 E.g., P.O;,;y. XVII 2133 (ea. 308 CE-Oxyrhynchites): an otphan girl complains about (?)). 42 In this group we trace no formulaic uniformity: BGU IV 1104.1-28 (8 BCEher uncle, who was appointed as her guardian but who failed to dower her and to get her married. P.O;,;y. VIII 1102 (146 CE-Oxyrhynchos): Eudaimon is ordered to cede to the city Alexandria); P.Q;/1.YoutieI 24 (121/2 CE-Ptolemais Euergetis); II 67 (260/1of Oxyrhynchos a certain disputed land, with the exception of a part of it that he has already 0xyrhynchos); P.Oxy. II 268 (57 CE-Oxyrhynchos); P.Tebt.II 460descriptum(138-161 given to his daughter as dowiy. P.Ryl.II 119 (62-66 CE-Hermopolis): a plea of debtors CE-Tebtynis). 43 After divorce: P.Giss.30 (140-161 CE-Oxyrhynchos concerning the return of property seized by the creditor; this property may contain a dowry (?)): a divorced couple makes a of one of the plaintiffs. P.R')i,. II 124 (ICE- Euhemeria): a petition concerning the unlawful post-marital arrangement in favour of a joint son. P.Mert. II 59 (154/3 BCEseizure of the petitioner's wife's paraphema by some strangers. P.RyLII 125 - Set.Pap.II 278 Crococlilopolis):a notification of the chronatistai of a settlement reached outside the court - Hengst!, fur.Pap.49 (28/9 CE- Euhemeria): a petition against a mason who stole a box withregard to the wife's dowty. SB XII 10887 (119-138CE-Arsinoites): the wife promises containing the dowiy of the petitioner's mother. PSI XIV 1421 (III CE (?)-unknown her (ex-)husband not to sue him for the dowty that her father has given him through a

3,

3(;

of the dowty by the wife or her relatives. Accordingly, second to the marriage documents they are the most important source on the dowry's value and composition. In addition, if a marriage docwnent had been composed, its name and date were commonly recorded in the divorce docwnent. Since the m,1rriage docuuwnts rherns:dw.~rardy comain their own na.rrtt', divorce it. As w the date, naming in documerns arc thus nf great use in e•m1hlishing the divorce docLm1cmthe marri;lge-documt:nt\ year of compo.sitim1wo1tld provide us with a rerminm,mu·qum1for the hegirmcn!!; of joim life. Whec1the n:fo.tivesoJ the spot.i~es.1re involved in the divorce am1ngcmc1m, this might point w a dept·ndency of dw ~pouses on tlw.~erelative.~in tht! rnune of joint life. Finally, spomes waived by me..ns of tlw divorce docwncm .my mutual claims that wen: grounded in 1heirformer marital .sHtus.+1 'CT1eprovisions of the divorce dot:umemthus rdkct upon the natW-l'of the.se clai1m. A third grmtp of related p,lpyri .ue deeds by which flroperty is tnmsforred within the family,1;1d1erin the lifetirnt'.of the assignor ur after his or her dea[h. Property relationshmvecn tbe .~pome~.1rerevealed hy lfoedsin which 0J1eof them convey,; J piet:e of prope1ty to tln· o! her. The property could be conv,u;hother with ypw~ul yo11tKui. After die d1ild~n\ premature de~th, t.hLAWTL8os EAEU8Ep0S'I EAEV8Epav TTpOG,as 'well as her likely frrnrnci;u indt'pt~ndence,that motivated het to perform her own ac.:tof marriagc;i i this 1uay be lhe case in PG'iss.2 as well.r"The Egypuan source m,ucrialthus k·ads us to cixpectthe ekdosi.s w be performed by either p,1m1L if they are still alive ,md the bride is still ,1 dependem. An increasing ccnJency toward auto-e.,h/os~ might be expected as dw bride grow,~ older ,md gains some fimmcial, 1ntdlenu.tl, and social independence. This alloc.1tionof roles c,rn certainly is performed by·a person explain the relative ranLyof cases in which the ek.dnsis other rhan tl1t.:>se thn.'e 17- ,111 evem that would mmtly occur, I venture, 1fboth p,1rents were absent and the bride was still too young to take c.ire of her o,vn marriage. l willdiscuss this scenario later in rh1schapter.I• also in the Judean P.Her:er 69, as well as in the petitions P.G.ir.Preis. 2+3; P.Oxy.LIV 3770; 2 VPZ I 2 and the will P.Pro-. I 25. Both parents: the marriage documents P.Eleph.1; BGU IV 1100 (a documentation of the act of ekdosisin a dowiy receipt); P.Oxy.XLIX 3491; also in the petition BGUN 1105. l• P.Chss.1 (173 sc:E-Crocodilopolis). Fatht:rs nmmaliy acted as "-'J-'11'.U of the ,heir umnarried (i.iuglnrrs, whether or not lhcy played any sulma111ialrole 111the trami{:lion; d., e-f'.·,P.Flepli. W-:,w)t'/' 1.11-B (241/40 BCE{?}- Eleph~ntint}.Cf. Ruppr~'OTOS'. 50 In contrast to Melas' allegations,it is possible that Saka6n really wanted to procure for ~~elf m~1n~g,:, presents ,md, at least at this ~tai;e, JjJ n04 intf'nd rn dis~olvt' ihe m.uTia1:,e;,t

7heAct ofMarriafff! of the fourth centmy fathers who wished to dissolve their daughters' marriage did so by challenging the validity of the act of marriage, rather than by making use of the aphairesis privilege- possibly because this right had withered away in Egypt in the course of the centmy and a half since P.Oxy.II 237. This degencrnri.on i5 no! surpmmg, as we know that chis right wa~ alrt:ady lJigd)' checked in the various sentences and responses cited in Dionysia's petition.s1 In fact, the above response of Ulpios Dionysodoros could well be explained in terms of P.Sakaon38. By performing the ekdosisof his daughter, a father displayed his consent to the act of marriage and could not, for that reason, later dissolve it. According to this interpretation, the right of the father to dissolve a lawfully created marriage, as attested in Athenian sources, crumbled into a much more modest possibility- namely, to claim that the marriage was not lawfully created. This finding is in accordance with our earlier observations. If the father was present, he was expected to perform the ekdosis, alone or together with his wife- an act that would, under normal circumstances, be accompanied by furnishing his daughter with a dowry.s2If either act was performed by a different person, cause was given to challenge the validity of the marriage. In order to meet this difficulty, whenever a dowiy receipt recorded the delivery of the dowry by an 'outsider', its authors preferred direct reference to the act of ekdosis. To extrapolate the prevailing rule from these exceptional cases: when the ekdosis was performed by a person who would have performed it in the natural course of things- that is, the father, mother, or the wife herself- there were no grounds for challenging the validity of the marriage; the documentation of that act could then be dispensed with. In other words, the ekdosis,as a rule, remained undocumented in dowry receipts not because it did not take place but because the delivery of the dowry by a person who was supposed to perform the ekdosiswas sufficient to give grounds for the presumption of its orderly performance. The incorporation of the ekdosisclause into the Oxyrhynchite documents thus has, according to this explanation, no bearing on the question of the performance or non-performance of the act of ekdosis itself. It does, indeed, as Wolff claims, suggest conservative tendencies in Oxyrhynchos. Not, however, because the ekdaiswas performed in this nome alone, but because it was still felt necessary there to incorporate into the marriage document a clause that solemnly testified to its performance.

51

Regrettably, the precedents brought forward by Chairemon to support his capacity

(P.Oxy. II 237.6.19-20) were not incorporated in Dionysia's petition, thus making it impossible to establish the extent to which this capacity fell into disuse in the later second centuryCE. s2 Cf. sup. p. 42.

7heAct of Marriage The only form of marriage considered in the marriage documents, then, was the one resulting from the handing over of the wife to her husband. If we could ask a Greek in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt how a marriage was created, it is quite unlikely that he could point to any other act. Likewise, Egyptians perceived the act of marriage in the same way, as shown in Demotic documents discussed by Pestman.s3 The marriage documents do not, however, reveal veiy much of the factual settings of the ekdosis.In contrast to the Athenian en~, evidence concerning the exchange of declarations is virtually non-existent.54On the other hand, in the letter UPZ I 66 (153 BCEMemphis), the well-documented second-century BCE kawcfxJsPtolemaios is invited together with Apollonios by their common brother Sarapion to attend the introduction (eisagein) of his prospective wife into his house.ss On the basis of this piece of evidence, we might picture the ekdosis as the physical act of the wife entering the house of her prospective husband. 56 This, indeed, may be the case in virilocal marriages, provided that the spouses had not previously shared the same dwelling. However, it does not account for the case of an uxorilocal marriage,nor for that of spouses who shared the joint household prior to their marriage. How, for example, was the groom to introduce his wife into his house in the common case of sibling marriage, when both spouses frequently continued to live, after the marriage, in the same household in which they had grown up as children?s7 It is highly questionable whether the creation of a siblingmarriage was marked by any formal act at all.If it was not, the marriage 53 E.g., on the statuette Louu-eE 11673 (18th dynasty - 1575-1308 BCE), discussed by Pestman (1961) 7-8, we read, among other things, 'I have given him for a wife the daughter of my sister'. Up to the twenty-sixth dynasty (664-525 BCE), this ekdosisis performed by the parents of the wife and the husband. Later, the marriage is formed by the spouses themselves. Even now, the act of marriage is described in terms of a giving and taking of the bride: 'I have taken you as a wife'. Cf. especially Pestman (1961) 29-30, where the Setnenovel (early Ptolemaic period) is shown to give an account of an act of marriage 'exclusively and solely concluded by taking the girl to the house of her future husband, while presents are sent along with her'. Cf. UPZ I 2 (163 BCE-Memphis). 54 The only papyrus that might point to such a declaration is the petition P.Cair.Masp. I 67092.9-10 (553-Aphrodites Kome), where a husband is reported to have broken his vow 'I am taking you as my wife': Kai. opKOVchro8fo8m I µOL Tfj ELpT]µEVl:J Etptjv1:1 OTL >..aµMvwI [a ]E ELS-yuvatKa {v}. This testimony is, however, too late and too equivocal to prove anything. 55 UPZ I 66.2-3: auyyEypaµµm T11L'EarrEpou 8uyaTp(, µf>..>..wOEtaayELV I EV Tl[l Mrnop~ µ17v(. On the circumstances in which the marriage was formed, cf. Thompson (1988)257-258. 56 Verilhac-Vial (1998:281-370) provide a fascinating description of all the stages of this act in light of the source material from Greece. 57 Cf. Bagnall-Frier (1994) 61. The problems caused by this particular situation ,I.re discussed in connection with the act of divorce by Barker (1997) 60 ff., especially at 66.

1heAct ofMarria~ was probably created through the formation of a marital cohabitation on the of the spouses (or, rather, of the persons who basis of the nudusconsensus arranged for them to be married); this would bring us very close to Wolff's concept of the fonnless formation of marriage. And yet, even in this case, there is no sign that the concept of the fonnless formation of marriage ever underwent a theoretical conceptualization, which seems to be essential to Wolff's theory.

4. DOUBLE DOCUMENATION OF MARITAL ARRANGEMENTS*

4.1. The PtolemaicChara In 157/ 6 BCE Memphis, a certain Ptolemaios appealed to the strategJs against the heirs of his late step-father Isidoros for the return, among other things, of a dowry that his late mother Asklepias had given to Isidoros on the occasion of their marriage (P.Par.13= UPZ I 123=MChr 280). According to Ptolemaios' hormbgjas in account, Isidoros drew up for Asklepias upon marriage a syngraphe which he pledged himself to compose within a year a new document, called a syngraphe synoikesiou.1 It is clear that, for the partners, the two terms signified different types of documents and that the latter term accorded the marriage certain qualities that the former had not. Thus, E. Revillout and L. Mitteis, who interpreted the papyrus after its publication in 1865, viewed the interval between the composition of the two documents as a trial period during which the fertility of the wife would be tested. 2 This view seemed to be corroborated in the last decade of the nineteenth century by the publication of P.Ory. II 267 (37 CE-Oxyrhynchos), where a husband who received from his wife a loan of seventy-two drachms pledged himself to return them within five months. As in P.Par.13, these five months were understood by scholars as a period of probation. Since the document attests that the partners 'live together in an allelois agrapl:x3s), unwritten marriage was assumed to unwritten manner' (syneinai ta:hnicus for a provisional union,3 as well as for any union recorded be a terminus

* The section in this chapter relating to the function of the double documentation in the 5-ynoikisiou - Hanclqja Gamat: a problem Ptolemaic charawas also published as 'Syngraphe reconsidered',JJP 29 (1999) 139-147. 1 This document has been repeatedly discussed by scholars: e.g., Frese (1909) 42-43; Mitteis (1912) I 201, 207-208; Maroi (1915) 116-117; Partsch, P.Freib.III pp. 19-21; Wilcken, UPZI pp. 578££.;Bozza (1934) 224-225; Wolff (1939) 10-11, 18-19; Erdmann (1939) 224227;Hage (1968) 32-33; Vial-Verilhac (1998) 23. 2 Mitteis (1891) 223-224. 3 Contra De Ruggiero (1902:222), who maintained that P. Oxy. II 267 was not connected to the marriage at all, but was a simple loan contract drawn up between a husband and his wife.De Ruggiero later (1908:185) accepted the prevailing view.

Donble/)x1:/Jnettt,1tio11

Douh'c£h,flJ1twtal1i»1 in a document that did not contain the necessary provisions that would tuni the marriage into a 'perfect' one.4 · 1bis interpretation was the starting point for W. Spiegelberg, who in 1906 looked at different types of Demotic marriage documents- the 'contract of: alimentation' (sh n s'nb) and the 'contract of payment' (sh. tb I:td)- as 5 In the decade following Spiegelberg's study, exe1?-pl:1fs~f the agraphos gamos. the inst1tut1on of agrapmgamoswas traced back to the Egyptian legal tradition and every piece of Greek evidence that seemed to relate to it was discussed ~ Egyptian terms. 6 The form of union created in agraphos gmnoswas viewed as a 'loose marriage' (loseEhe), an 'inferior marriage' (Minderehe), or even a concubinage, and was set in contrast to the engraphos gmnos- a 'perfect' marriage carrying all the personal and material benefits a regular marriage held for the partners and their future children. This 'Egyptian' explanation, however, was soon questioned both by Egyptologists and specialists in Greek law. K. Sethe, followed by U. Wilcken, pointed to the difficulty of identifying any particular type of marriage document as recording an agraphos gatmsand suggested, rather, that the term denoted a marriage that was not registered in a special archive/ New papyri also revealed that the double documentation of marriages was practiced in distinctly Greek surroundings, such as the autonomous polisof Alexandria and a militaty settlement of second-century BCE Philadelphia J.Partsch, whose commentary on the documents from Philadelphia (P.Freib. III) was published posthumously in 1927, concluded that the double documentation should be explained in Greek rather than Egyptian terms. In the same year, Wilcken observed that the term agraphos gctm0s does not appear in the source material before the Roman period and advised scholars to avoid it in their discussions of earlier documents.s Following this turning point, double documentation and agraphos gctm0swere studied as two distict lagal institutions- the former dating to the Ptolemaic, the later to the Roman period.9

4 Mitteis, (1901) 345. CPR I 18 (124 CE- Ptolemais Euergetis (?));P.Oxy. II 237 (186 CE-Oxyrhynchos); 267 (37 CE-Oxyrhynchos). Outside Egypt primarily in the LiherSyroRW1d11US L 35; 36; 93; Nav. 74.4.3 (538 CE); 117.3 (542 CE). Cf. Brassloff (1902) 70-92; Wenger (1928) 22-25; Luchetti (1989/90); Falchi (1995). 5Spiegelberg (1906) 192. 6 P.Par.13; P.Oxy.II 267; UPZ I 118. E.g., Frese (1909) 39-44; Mitteis (1912) I 202-203; Meyer (1920) 41, 48. 7 Sethe (1918) 377; Wilcken, UPZ Ip. 580; Meyer (1920) 41. 8 Wilcken, UPZ I p. 580. 9 Including the documents from Alexandria, which were thought, at that stage of the research, to represent the same mechanism of double documentation.

'il

. *-W'ilcken himself still explainedP.Jhr. 13 in terms of the theory of a 'perfect' 10 dw syt~m,r»:ie '1).nd 1oose' nMrri.1gc:_ :~}?~kesiouwas a document of perfect :/ioarrfage, the !i}ngmphe /)(n'Kicgt,ts al .m mknor, non-m;ttnmomal type of urnot1. llViJcken ~so held on to .m?the~· aspect of the former theory:,even though he tdroitedthat du; type .oi un~on formed by the _~)rt~J?l1/1'x?~xmciU/J:lSw;1s .e,ssentially Greek, he atmbuu.'t,\011..Couu [ - • ] rr1:pt 1tiq11,f1s ~:ul f)')"f L'Jla(Jftjv (1913)77; Bozza (1934)240; Winand (1985)404; especially Erdmann (1940)

174: syngraphe pengamouephhierothyton. 104BGUN 1101.20;SB XXIV 16073.58.Syngrapheperi.gamou may be a colloquial term, not in BGU N a technical one, just like 'the document (composed) through the hierothytai', 1098.43:T~[v] 9L' LEpo0uTwvauyypacj>tj[v], In both cases, it seems, everyone knew who the hierothytai were; therefore, once it was said that the second document was supposed to be composed by them, there was no need to mention its exact name. Wolff (1939:34)terms the documentpen gamouor synoikisiou syngraphe. 1osWe know that they were supposed to compose the syngraphe themselves (8LC't Twv lEpo0uTwv:BGU N 1098.43; 1101.20) or, at least, supervise its composition (ETTLTWV BGUN 1050.25). lEp00UTWV: 106 An analogy between the name of the hierothytai as priests and the role of priests as keepers of documents in Egyptian temples led Winand (1985)and Allam (1990)to maintain that this was the case. At the same time, due to the distinct Greek character of political institutions in Alexandria, a connection with an Egyptian institution seems a prioridoubtful. Cf. Meleze-Modrzejewski (1999)267. 101 P.Ftry.22. According to Schubart (1913:76 n. 3), the later date is paleographically likelier. Cf. also Nietzold (1903) 35-40; Plaumann (1910) 13-17; Arangio-Ruiz (1930) 70; Huwardas (1931)20-21;Erdmann (1941)44 n. 1;Winand (1985)404-405. 108 Cf., e.g., Wilcken, UPZIp. 605;Wolff (1978)12.

76 tbe loc,11board of the hirnihyr,1i;it focused, uther,

DouhleDocumentation 011

kccpin~ tbe m:uital

legislation of Ptolem.iis in accord \viLh contcmpor;meou.~ d1;u1ge.5 in the surrounvnod SL"\.'ty days to pn_xluc~smular p1ec:s ol F'::ellel'}';9,l:'

ot

~hem,1yhave had Ltde d1 father and and probably aim her entire family agarnst twr redcle~s sibfutt h1:1~bwd: She had at her dispo.~al.a much ~:1ore~Jfonivemea11;~ than _anykind ol _marn,\J:;t'LkKW1lt'l1t-t~w socia.l ,111dlmanc1al pressure of the lami.lytc wluch botb hdonged:11 · In his 1995 paper on sJblingmarriages,\V/. Scheidelsuggested that in the secood~centurrer~PtolemaisEut'rgelLSsiblingmarriages were a rule, and 11()1:1 ~nerdy an option, if thL~h_ro~herwas ~everalyears oldt·r th;lll his sistn,·11·lv e_Ob · .. - .,. "i'R\/18974,amamage J ~nod locu~t:s on ·- . . . . . ·J 1 , ero,aicP t . 1 I 1·• kl --polit '," ~ ·'c>st ( ii the 1nov1s10ns ii l lt · · t JC ·· era Cl, t.~. i1t1 • . Bous1ls m Frnm the surviving bottom section or.the papynis,d:"'c nt ar~e~st._ he huslxmd recvivi:s from :/.hsios, the lather or ~u,u· ian_ that Ntan:hos t . I . . ·1111t ol fon,,-five brorm: t,tlents-- a Lurlylargt down.r lO t lt' ,tmu .1 • • • • ' • wife, a , ., . , BCF·n The lion's share ol the surv1vmg secuon is forthe hrst centu1)_ , .I, cl . •c·et'· tktt are phICedby Nl',lrchos as , d L . • urnenmn11o 1e a~, • . . I.l p•e 1JY,\11 i:11 f l . . ,-•,'. Jowrv in case ol Ins premature ( c,1t 1, , f01- the .•·ew111 o us \1, lit ~ , I , 1 " lure,n In w-h.nfollo\VS, am wit 1 no , , l • . . h, ~ . ·se ol. a d'1voru.:. , pt .Od'l 1y IJ1 t c U:lUI . 1 . , d' ·huses we find ,1 prov1sum regu auoh ecL1onto t1e prne mg l, ., , . , _. , {SR t conn . d • Ap ]p,.01,~Q•, nupr'i rftls) L'iwPt!fYLCl! Wl)'ssivelvLuge.()ut of tbirtt'Cll auc~tcJ dmvrit·s m LitLs~es _the pmlt!~n

-------ft"Wvrr_hL>_(OJ' ht'-r)prcmu·i1alp.:)sse-Ssiom.Cf. Ile;111c11np {11}9b) 6&,on die 111~.ming, of this cxprcrno11 1nth~ilF~-imi111· P.Pn,11:. III l4S.fl (VICE- 1mlmow11 prnvr-r1J1Ke). n Kllr1Lf1\)(Jau per' UtrTOl 1 l\"llli'i~I Ti;il, irrrapx(lVHll' fJllT(llit apft:,lr\ tu the d_o~wnents Imm. the some ~maic period am! the hrst cenrnry CE. The pl"'nu'ts L'V_alu:1ted! b'ec[Sdefo_eredin_tt are meant LO Sl"IVC the needs the enttre Lmuly,not ) those oi the wtfo; die ltushand disposes of n dunn~ the Ill,Hn~\gcand 1s obliged to return llw objects as delivered; ttw wife can take _them ,1wa)'. her ;It divorc('. The on~' resembbnn· bt't wel'll the 'goods ot a ,vom.:111 'and the rmipl_;\,":l"/1(1 LS_ the ide~11i_ty of some of the components 1_iftlwst· two Ciltegorics. 'f'fus 1denmy pa se 1smadt:\rsinni,es); 27.7 (lwfore 27.10.1H')CE Ptolt'm,,is Euergcm); l' ..--1l!'.'('!'J. X1.14-l 5 (17H/') CE- .1minoi1t•s}; P.Jfil. Vi~{ II 71.7-8 ( 172-175CE- Pwlrrnais Eucrgrti\); P.0.9•. III 6C3&';(.npil(!IJ.5-6 = StrniAtl. IV pp. I I',.l 16 (lliiJ-l76 CE-- O:\.')Tlwnd10,); VI 905.5-6 (170 CE- l\(\hthis; Oxrrlwnchites); XL.IX .H'l!.5-6 (1~7/8 CE- Uxyrb}·7ldloS); P.St.ms.[V 225.U-14 (i'S0-200(:l'.-·11nlmn,~rnpmwn.mcr);PS/(',-o~,,-- XX !Cof the pn::,;Jun•in ~roponion ~'lth 1hr: time th~t hi5 ex-wile spem in !us abode, he scent~ rn have been resprn:1.s1hle for perlmmmg thes~l~sks for .1,Inn~ as 1he m.miagt>bm·d: d. CT'RI 22.24-25,24.32-U; 27.20-21; P.Ri, II 154.30-D.Such~ prnvi.~i,m v;as not alien to mntrmpor.uy Romm jurispruJent:,·:d. T~':>1. 24J.7.l (lllpi.rn cittng P~pini.111);Wolff (1941) 421; Trt~m~i.tri(1991) 355-35(i, Anrnllt'r Sll'Jtl'g;l' to ~~curedut m.unlrnJrn'r- wa~ lU keep thC'~ssc1s i11 ;1s.~iy,nor's lunds for a limited periodof 1irne .rnJ tu rcnul to the L'Ollple their fruics. er Cl'R I 24. 15-20; P.Mid.1.XVJII 789.27-28(190CE-Oxyrhynchos).

168

TheDotalSystem

TheDotalSystem

There are, however, some differences between the Ptolemaic assignment of land and _that fro~ e~ly Roman Oxyrhynchos, on the one hand, and that recorded ill the Arsmo1teP.Ryl.II 154, o~ the other. First, while in the earlier cases the panners were ~upposed t~ cultivate the _landjointly, in P.Ryl.II 154 t~e husband wus to discharge this duty on his own. The cause of thi d1fferen~emay have been t~at the Arsinoite wife was never made ky,ieuousa 0} the family property- a position that would have allowed her to partake with her ~usband o~ the cultivation of the assigned land.274Second, unlike the previous cases, ill P.Ryl.II 154 the partners are not obligated to remit anyi.hin to the assignor of the land. The entire produce is to be assigned to che n,,! family for the course of life together. What, then, is the legal position of the land during the marriage? In P.Ryl.II 154, the husband did not procure the title to the land; he received it solely eis karpcim.The proprietary position of the land thus remained ~affected by _t~e ~xistence of m~age, nor did it change by the act of divorce. In ~tic1pat1on ~f that scenan~, the authors of first-century marriage do~uments sunply reaffrrm the contmued and uninterrupted title of the ass1gn_orto th~ _land.275Yet a divorce could bring some change in the propnetary pos1t10nof the land after all. Accordingly to P.Ryl.II 154 and P.M~. V 340r, if the assignor happens to be dead at divorce, the title goes to t~e wife. The two documents thus establish, if in a roundabout way, the wife's title to the land after the assignor's death.276 Further evidence of the wife's title is provided by P.Mich.V 34Qrand P.Mich. V 34~•from 45/ 6 and 47 CE Tebtynis respectively,which are drafts recording th~ (mtended) conveyance of the same piece of land by the father of the bnde.277 If, on the terms of P.Mich.V 340r, the marriage ends in divorce, the 274 Cf. inf. p. 191. 275P.RyLII 154.24-27: Eav 8E 8wop6.sauToLs- yEva11EVTJS (x]wp((ovrnt cbr' cL\;._tj;._wv, T]TOLTOU Xmptj11ovos- aTTOTTE\lTTOVTOS T(~]v eawaptov ~ KOLQUTfjSEKOUOlW[s]I [ci]rraUacrcro11Ev[TJ]s[a]TT' auTou, forn{t} Toil Tfj[s] 0a[t]crap[(]ou I [o] TTaTpos :faaoLTOS, EClV 9~ [o]UTOS-!l~ TTEptfiL,au[Tfjs] 0[a]wap([ou] aTJ11atv6µEvo[s- KAfjp]os- Twv cipoupwv 8[EKa] ii11(aous TETapTou Ka0w[s] TTpOKELTUL. 276A different view is expressed by Gerner (1954:28),who assumes 'eine Art dinglichen Riickfalles' in the event of divorce. 277 P.Mich. V 34()ris a draft of a document that omits normal persondia of the parties: the ~aphai, pre~~bly writte~ by a grapheim_ official, are later to be copied by the parties in the1: own h:mdwnung. M~y unpo~ant details- such as the date of the composition of two ~arlier ~amage documents it mentions- are absent and were meant to be incorporated only V p. 320), such a final copy is not recorded in m t~e fmal copy. As noted by_Boak (P.Mich. P.M~. II 123', the anagraphe list that covers extensive parts of its year of composition, i.e., the sixth year of Claudius. Nor is the transaction mentioned in the somewhat younger

fif~d

l69

should revert to the father and, only :ifter his death, to the wife.27s

ording to P.MiJJ.V 341, Lycontrast, the wife should recover the land even

r father is still alive at the time she is divorced by her husband.279The title to land was meant'. then, to devolve ~n the wife at divor~e. P.M~. V 34Qr and341 show, in add1uon.that some _,1m:espr~Kun'~ the.?ght to dispose of

lte

theprosp}xmtbnd_even

before the t~rmm.i.uon o~ marnaj:!;e,l he Lwo 1lra~ts hear . v Lo difkrent pmspl.nnjobJeds-slaves and l.md- th:11 were g1veu by teSUl11011 _. • · · • ·· f .vinue he terms_ o { two earlier m.miige document~,_ breek ,~1d[:.gypu,m.-~ 0 deliwiy were ideuucn.,cf. sup; p. 137., 28JP.Oxy.II 237.8.34-36:TTapaTL0ETwcrav 8E KOLat yuvatKES ~BXXIV 16256 {109CE- Pwlcnui~ F.11ergt'Li~}, one nf rbe sbvt·s delivered is six yean o!d, in P.,-\.fl(h. V 1,13the ai;;et5 ftve. ]f,.J QLKJfl'lii'lj lTf/1 h(qK11 bo!i,~n: P.,Hi1.h. II 121•.4.7.4; V ]4:l.7, Cf. SU XX1V !6256.9· 10,.lb.39. The dc•.~1gn,uior1 docs no[ rwcess~ri[y me:~11 that :~he~~·asborn m the !1onseof rlie 1,b11o\'i~t {!~•77},rn) rhnngl1 111 dil' c;m, nf n •,•erv j>(•rmnwho now owm hn (d Bi(•t.ur1:nl ~,1~to every J1sn~ss1n11 1s th~ secu~m. of et of Ti. Julius Alex,u1Jcr {(i8CE) that orders-- m accord wtth ,1 sumlar of Augustm and 'the prefects'- d1,,L,after rnnfiscation nf che of state dthtors hy tht' fiscus, their ,v1ves should be aUowed to that part that originallyfnrllll'.tltheir downes. According co the edict, mr&t.1)-tb,u is, to the wife, 'not dowries'belong to somennt• dse' (al/4itri,1i

e husbands,,vho l'l'Ct'lVt·d them'.11., t was the me:ming of dllotr~iim1:x.1i? Mitkis, de,1ling,vith this question ~1s

as1891, t:nmidered nvo expLmarions. It could imply that the dow1yw.1s owned by the ,.,,jfeduring the joint lifo. It could ;tlso, however, be rstooJ 'mau·ridl-iikooomisch', nwaning tbt Lht·dowry was designated as wife's' um because it was legally ht:r~, bm because dw husband was ··ged to use it for her benefit in the course of marriage. Mitteis preferred the er explanation on account of two documents Oater known as CPR I 22 CPR I 24) in which the wife, and not the husband, was granted some ieces of land from her parents as her dow.ty.318As to the other pans of the wry recorded in these two documents- chattels and cash, which are 0 eclared to be given to the husband by the wife or her mother- Mitteis ·eved that these comprised a 'fictitious' dow.ty, which was actually a donatio · dotonraiacta, a marriage present that the husband handed over to his wife before the marriage and that now reverted to him in her dow.ty.319 Shortly after its publication, Mitteis' theo.ty of the fictitious dow.iy was discarded.J20Eve.ty element of the wife's dow.ty was proven to be real; not only did the objects enumerated in the marriage document really exist, but they also originated from the wife's family, not from the husband.321 The endowment of land attested in CPR I 22 and 24, on the other hand, was recognized to be a unique type of dow.iy-later known as the prosphora.m Nonetheless, Mitteis' old view on the legal position of the dow.ty prevailed for more than half a century, even though the only reason for pref erring the 'legal'

0

317 OGJS II 669.25-26 = SB V 8444 = FIRA I 58: TUS' µe':v yap lTpOLKUS' a.AAOTp(asEKEAEUCTEV KULol ouaas- KQLOU TWVELA~T(lll {it16pt)S' (ft!{'~) (Jl.'Oa!Tt0 ptnJ}tJiliUl r ± ]4 JI fll'Opt'l,:;;t;.(J]t w-ruAJ...ii[t•],rof:, Jtqot noL[17]aELVELS aE, apµaKaCS in the presem tense and refors t.o her exo:/os ('dep.murc') Js ~n act.to be carried out in tht>future.II',Tryphainc\ joint life \Vithher abusive huslxmd, then, is not over by the time she draws up this petition. No doubt, Tryphainc could take the mitiative and leave her lm~bancL UnJik~W. Erdmann, I find no indication in the papyrus dut he was forcibly preveming her from doing ~oY Yet tf she did, he could charge her, as mentioned t'arlier, of leavinghis house withom his comcnt, ,m ,KrnS;ltion that might result in the forfeiture of her dow.ty. For this reason, she probably preferred to endure her husband's abuses a while longer until Protarchos should send one of his assistants 'to cany out her departure as it is proper'.1s -----------------12 MnTE UTTOKOLTOV µ11TEcicptjµEpovy(vrnem 0.TTOTT}..o]y[((E]a0m-with her father in the amoun1 of sixty-six drachms,which is, in that case, more than the originalvalue of the dowiy. 20 Cf. sup. p. 200 n. 15. 21 P.Gen. I 21.3-12 (II BCE-unknown provenance); P.Giss. 2.17-28 (173 BCECrocodilopolis);P.Tebt.I 104.16-30(92 BCE- Kerkeosiris).

202

1heAct ofDiwrce

TheAct ofDrwn:e

'Jhc involvt'memof a Ll1irdperson might_be required on 1:n,myocc.1sious. Sincethe wifore~uin~~dunde: tht: control .ot her ~1usb,md unttl d1t;dowry was pa1,,ii_she expressed her w~sh to delivered, she nu~t !e,u:retnbu~mnon !11S 'divorcehirn; thus, slw might prl'ler one of hc~rlanuly members to dosJfiektl (tp,:1ill1SStnlem,mf,'.w~r~etis); P./.1.xU, [ (,ld. u1) (·)f- tl1. l 'I • . . , a most stgrrny e 11 -m~r1I hered I J· · · b t iis ,:, lusoand anJ tlw wife in'f d . . . . h, . I .;uy ispos1uon y the 1 . ' • ~ [)(l]P ~o [JU t e on·• ,, ( l ' q,i,.,ron o

h

---~~----·· 8 P.Gen.I 21~14 (II-BCE~~own Oxyrhynchos); 497.11 (earlyII CE-r,..,..~h 9

,

p Gen. ·

auTwv

rn;:irn.:igc- are

prhove)nance);P.Oxy. III 496.10 (127 CE-

.....,"'' ync os .

TEAEVT~am:

t: ieu

·=---:---=--:---------

1 ll.1 5. In Roman Oxyrhynchos we find

~vµ~fl

diff

P.Oxy.III 496.10· 49711~12 erent fonnulation: Eav OETLVL

°Cf. mf.p. 319ff.

' · · Kreller (1919) 224-225 and Taubenschl prov1s10nsback to the Egyptian 1 gal t di. ag (1955) 209-210, who trace these 12 Cf Kr 11 e ra tton i:i · e e~ (191:) 33~; Clarysse,P.Petr.2 I~. 36. of the schcm,·o[ ! . d' , • . . . For a oet;uleddis.C tl!lclcrage.2 i The same provision appears in several documents from Roman Oxph~chos. 22 Th~ best preserved provision from this period, however, which 1s embedded m P.Oxy.III 496 (127 CE), considers not the property of the deceased spouse, but rather that of the surviving one (ll.10-11):

f11' bfi'.] 3....1) TI 1/fl

Tt,n• '}·e1µ0Ltm,1[1, rc~n1 njuu1, EX~HJ O ETTL(tjaas TEAE[L]v avJl11lTw~)~ nw, KaTa Twv ~auToD E,t,ov[a(]av q «!:av alpfjTm ETTL K~t ,ots E,av ~ou\~[rnt,J µEpt(EL,[v]. rnv OE µf]8Ev [E]TTLTEAErril:tu&.i:1$, which would allow him to take. po~session of the object. It is quite possible, however, that this

';nt

ml\

o

0

-

latter complication could be avoided also.J06 The mmeinprovisions drew the attention of Wolff in his commentaiy on SB VI 8974.107 The similarities are indeed striking. MEvnv T~v KpClTTJULV ---(1997a)871-873. The praxisbecomes an option only if the creditor cannot satisfy his claims from the secured object. Cf. Rupprecht (1997)294. 102 Schwarz (1911) 116ff.;Tenger (1993) 106-110;Rupprecht (1997)295. 103 Rupprecht (1995a)428. 104 The different types of conveyancesof title as a means of security are dealt with in detail by ~upprecht (1995a) 429-435. For the µEVELVsecurity in particular, cf. Schwarz (1937) passim. 105Wolff (1939) 112. 106 , s.c.hwarz(~937)258; Rupprecht (1995a)435; (1997)292, 300. Rupprecht considers the possibility ~hat.m the _caseof the menein provision the creditor procured possession of the pledged obJectunmediatelyupon the creation of the debt. 107 MEVEL V 1TEPL OE ... avn ' ' TOU - KE't'O/\aLOU .-h ' ' ' TWV ' ,>, KpOTT]CTLV ' l KaL TOKWJJ TqV KOL aoL yEvoµEVT]S' ... EK,\oyfjs-aoL oVGT]S' KUpLE(ovTfjc, ... 8ouh1s- ... WS'Eav TTpctaEWS' µ~ 8LKULOTTpayouµEVCjl Eav olpi;i µETa TOV xp6vov KUpLEUELV Tf\S'8ov,\T]S'... aVTl JOORupprecht 101

l Kl.lPLE'tlJI' in

the menctnprov1~ions rec.tlisthe formula

~L£VE'Hul fTTI ..••

, K]ql n1lplfl(l TTIbEpEl Tii> av6pi [Els cj,E]pvtjv

1rpocr4>EpEL~ alJT~ fK86TtS [ - - ] I y(uva"iKO) •4>• fi fox[~(Kev) (?)] b yaµwv yaµeTtjv, TTposydµov

•tl

\;~;r:r

ripos

yciµou [Kmvwvlav TfKVWV yV17crlwvcr1rop--~

A: Average Age When the Marri;)gi;;Document w;ts( :rnnp\.&(2.1J

0

~

R I 236 (81-96 CE--Soknop aiou Nesos)*

~

J

>11 1

LS••

·t4

Brother of the Wife: 40

4(1 (r')

'" l.W.····· r,,

PMi,h.

.37i~,

J>OJ\)',

Ill

Brother-in-Law:

341**

P.O:,ry.

496

P.O:,ry.

905

1 document

..

Foster-Father

or former Master: 1 document Collection

P.T,bt.

3.1

822

No.

Guarlliill!: i d11cument

PSI~ ··-

The addressee of the declaration appears with her brother as kyn'os.In all likelihood (because of the lack of any other female persons as the provider of the dowry in our source material), it is the wife or her mother.

Volume

1

,_J

~;:ecu_o_n__

v_o-lu_m_c __ :,_o_.---

2

3 A complicated case. Possibly Dionysios Cato, the former master of the bride, pays her dowry.

281)

4. The Real Value of the Pherne-IV BCE III CE· The figures reached in this section are based on an assumed notional value of one artabwheat as follows:

I Notional

Period -··"-"'-

---

Price of an Arlab Wheat

2SD

310-221 BCE 197-168 BCE

150BD

168-130/127 BCE

450 BD

130/127-100 BCE

1,000 BD

100-30 BCE

~

·-

-····

--

-

1,500 BD

30 BCE-60CE

6SD

60-175 CE

9SD

175-270 CE

16 SD

-

In the Roman period, it was common to report in the marriage document the weight of gold and silver items in the dowry, rather than their value in silver (currency) drachms. In light of the extant evidence, I start for the first and most of the second century from a ratio of 1 gold tetarte= 18 silver (i.e. currency) drachms, and 1 silver (holke)drachm = 4 drachms. 1 As for the late second and third centuries CE, I assume a change in the prices of gold and silver similar to that attested in the case of wheat, as presented by D.W. Rathbone (1997:190-198)-i.e., a rise of 77% in their value around 175 CE. This would make for the late second and most of the third century CE a ratio of 1 gold tetarte= 32 billon drachms, and 1 silver (holke)drachm = 7 drachms as currency. Dowries dating to the reign of Diocletian or later are not considered in the following table. ,.\: The Ptolemaic D•JW[}'

rmeo,

Date and Place

Type of Document

Nominal Value

Approximate Real Value of the Dowry Value of a (Months of Maintenance) WheatArtab

BGU 1849

VIII

GPRXVIII 6

2.3 artabs

2.8 artabs

a month

a month

ea. 47BCEHerakleopolites

Petit101L

25 HT

1,500

43

36

231 BCE-Theogenis

Marriage Document

~anSil

2

WI

71

• BD = Bronze drachm(s); BT= Bronze talent(s); SB= Silver drachm(s). t Cf. sup. p. 141 nn. 159, 160.

~

282 Document

21n Date and Place

Type of Document

CPRXVIlI 8

23 I BCE-Samaria

Marriage

Nominal Value

Approximate Real Value of the Dowiy Value of a (Months of Maintenance) WheatArtab

600-690 SD

Nominal Value

Type of Document

Approximate Real Value of the Dowry Value of a (Months of Maintenance) WheatArtab

2.3 artabs

2.8 artabs

2.3 artabs

2.8 artabs

a month

a month

a month

a month

4.6

3.8

27 or 10

22 or 8

l 52

12S

130-150

2

Date and Place

Document

-

107-123--

P.Tebt. I 104

92 BCE-Kerkeosiris

Document

2 BT+ 4,000 1\1.l

Marriage document

1,500

Divorce document

500 SD

CPR XVIII 231 BCE-12 Oxyrhyncha

Marriage

400 SD

450 36 SD + 4 gold telartai = 27,600

CPR XVIlI 17

23 I BCE--

Marriage Document

505 SD

BD 2

CPR XVIlI

232 BCE-PolemOnosMeris

Marriage

1,000 SD

P.El,ph. I

310 BCE-Elephantine

Marriage

P.Ent,NX.23

218 BCE--Magdola

P.Ent,ux. 24

221 BCE--Magdola

U'R XVHI 9

232 BCE-Samaria

- - -- - - - - - - -----

109

P.T,bt. 809

Ill.I

156 BCE-Tebtynis

Divorce document

Document

ur

P.Tebt. Ill 815 frg.4'.1.1-10

Document

1,000 SD

2

Petition

JOOSD

l

Petition

260SD

PSI 1311

in

Document

XIII

223/2BCETebtynis

Marriage

136 BCE-Berenikis

Promissory Note

at least 10 BT

450

at least 58

at least 48

Early!BCE-

Marriage

45 BT

1,500

78

64

Bousiris:

document

Thesmophorou

SB VI 8974

10,320

700 SD

Document

Herakleopolites

-----...,·-----------------..,___-~~---· - ---P.Freib.III 30

I.

1

179/8 BCE-Philadelphia

Marriage

XVIII 13275 = PSI XV 1515 SB

30BT

P.Hib. II 208 '---------

PMert. II 59

173 BCE-Crocodilopolis

65 BT

1,000 Marriage

100 BT

----

--- ------------l 50

Date and Place

Document

than

t.

Marriage Document

mor~

154/43 BCECrocodilopolis

Settlement of legal dispute

46 BT 4,100 BD

157/6 BCEMemphis

Petition

2 BT

~:,t,

2

1,000 SD +

------- -·-

~5[1

over 217

238/7 BCE-Crocodilopolis (?)

at least 230 SD and 2 obols

P.Politj11d. 5

135/ 4 BCE-Herakleopolites

12 BT

Type Document

over 179

1,130

')29

377

}10

1,000 or

1'.i'i.'

1,500

,n

l39 '.)3

of

Value in Silver Approximate Real Value of the Dowry Value of a (Months of Maintenance) drachms WheatArtab

---------

27l BGU

11.5

41 - - --------------1 7(1

IV

1050 BGU

P.Petr.213

150 or 450 or

B: A11ia:;1t~Lm Alexandr1~1 1739

document

265-250 BCE-unknown provenance

- _,_,-- - -

Settlement of legal dispute

document

P.c,:,;;ji2i--.i26-Bc~r;iliyris P.Gi.r,.2

II-I BCE-Tebtynis (?)

1051

IV

12/11 BCEAlexandria

Marriage

Augustan EraAlexandria

Marriage Document

2.3 arlabs

2.8 artabs

a month

a month

196 (?)3

6

14

12

IM,I

(,

ll

II

Document

S7 2 According to Maresch (1996:17), the value of a 'real' silver drachm (apyup(ou 8paxµ~ or cipyup(ou ETTLCJ~µouopaxµ~) was between 183/2 and 130/27 BCE around 600 Rechendrachmen. Maresch also notes, however, that the term cipyup(ou 8paxµ~, which appears in the present document, could designate the nominal silver drachms, whose value is in this period. The value of the 36 silver drachms would therefore be only 120 Rechendrachmen either 21,600 or 4,320 dr. In addition, P.Tebt. III.2 890 (173-128 BCE-Herakleopolites), as discussed by Maresch on pp. 104-106, reveals that the value of a worked piece of gold jewellery of one tetartewas 1,500 bronze drachms. As much as we can decide anything on account of this single piece of evidence, the value of the present dowry would add up to 27,600 or 10,320. 3 Cf. sup. p. 126 n. 92.

1H'i

1

BGU BGU 1099 -----"

BGU 1100

13 BCE-Alexandria

Marriage Document

at least 54

IV

Augustan EraAle>2,000

Marriage Document

200

=/>

121,.2.4

_____

----------:-::----,------------l Divorce

121,.3.1

5-4(1

(1

42 CE-Tebtynis

Marriage Document

60

42 CE--Tebtynis

PMich.

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

I 3.86

4.76/ 3.17

=/>

1_4_4_. 9_/_9_6._6_110.1/79.4 14.5

11.9

39.1

32.1

4.4

3.6

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

A nagraphtE ntry

-------------PMich. II 42 CE-Tebtynis

An agraphi-

121•.7.15

Entry

PMich.

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

II

P.Mich.

42 CE--Tebtynis

II

42 CE--Tebtynis

-------~--II

121•.12.14

PMich. 123,.2.11

Anagraphl-

36

6

2.6

2.1

II

Anagrapht-

1,000

C,

72.5

59.5

40

I,

2.9

2.4

2.3

1.9

2.

1.7

Entry

121•.ll.16

PMich.

50

Entry

121•.l 1.14

PMich.

Anagraphl6LU~'

121•.10.10

42 CE--Tebtynis

----

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagraphiEu11~!

Anagraphi-

32

Entry

123,.2.10

Hundred-twenty in cash and one pair of earring, whose notional value/weight can be set, on Russo's data (1999:25-27), at 3 tetartat~i.e., according to our reckoning, 54 SD. s Cf. sup. p. 126 n. 92.

A nagraphiE ntry

121•.6.2

P.Mich.

4

A nagraphiF.utry

121•.5.12

PMicl,.

AnagraphtEc1~1~•

121•.4.12

P.Mich.

AnagraphiE ntry

121•.3.10

121•.6.9

document

II

II

PMich.

P.Mich.

Document ·

-·-·- - -·- ---·-·- =--=::-:-----------------P.Mich.

0.8

4.8

provenance

P.Mich.

a month

0.8

Document

BGUI252 ___98--C-E---Pt_o_le_m_aJ.S _____ M_am __ a_g_e ___ 1------BGU

w

2.8 artabs

17.9

II

121,.4.1

10

a month

21.7

42 CE--Tebtynis

..

PMich.

{,

2.8 artabs

a month

II

121,.3.12

3.5

300

2.3 artabs Marriage Document

121,.3.7

P.Mich. 60

Real Value of the Dowry Value in Silver Approximate Value of a (Months of Maintenance) dracluns

WheatArtab

PMich. 200

Type of Document

13-18-

12

6

Return of the Dowry after the Death of the Husband

1104.1-28

BGU

300

Divorce document

------·-·~·

.._ - ---- - .-.-..BGU

l6-~:2

6

-Date and Place

- Document

~-

-3.2--

Document

1101

BGU

--·------

N

1052.2-34

II

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapheEntry

28

(,

287

)[,;(;

------·--

Date aad Place

Document

Value in Silver Approximate Real Value of the ~• dracbms Value of a (Months ofMaintenllllcc) WheatArtab

Type of Document

2.3 artabs -

-.~

- - ----

··"

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

PMi,b. II 123•.2.19

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

(,

4.4

3.6

1.7

~

JI

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagraphiEntry

~(I

(,

2.9

2.4

PMi&h. JI 123•.12.17

45/6 CE-Tebty~•

Anagraphi-

108

(1

7.8

6.4

1.2

PMi&h. II 123•.12.19

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapheEntry

,11)

(1

2.9

2.4

11.9

JI PMich. 123•.12.28

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

Anagraph!Entry

200

14.5

11.9

JI PMich. 123•.12.29

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagraphiEntry

200

14.5

11.9

200

AnagraphiEntry

w

(,

1.5

AnagraphiEntry

200

/,

14.5

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagraphiFo1ry

100

PMi,h. II 123•.7.12

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapheEntry

PMi,h. II 123•.7.13 - - -·---•--PMi,h. II 123•.7.15

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

Anagraphel·'.Dtr,·

200

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

Anagraphi-

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

PMi,h. II 123•.2.48

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

----·

PMi,h. II 123•.6.10

-.-

-

-

--

45/6 CE-Tebtynis ---

-·--·--·

- - - - -

------

-

123•.12.12 14.5

11.9

7.3

--

Futr~•

2.9

2.4

JI PMi,h. 123•.13.9

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapheEntry

60

4.4

3.6

(,

14.5

11.9

PMi,h. JI 123•.14.20

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapNEntry

120

8.7

7.1

400

I.,

29

23.8

II PMich. 123•.14.21

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagraphiEntry

1,600

(,

115.9

95.2

100

6

7.3

6

II PMi,h. 123•.14.30

45/6 CE-Tebtynis

AnagrapheEntry

60

1',

4.4

3.6

40

Ful228

=/>11

=/>9.1

243.2

SB V 8010

AnagraphlEntry

300

21.7

17.9

SB

Marriage

11846

Document

Marriage Document

100

Marriage

20

r,

7.25

6

1.45

1.2

2,160

I,

156.S

128.6

XIV 97 CE-° Oxyrbynchos P.Oxy. II 37ld,script11m ____ _

D: ll-lJI

212

75-6 CE--unknown

296.1

Marriage

;?..')

1.oJU'hi

4,086

-

ll 9

Oxyrbynchos

Document

Document

340'.col. 1-2

PMifh.

Anagraphl-

--- - - - --

339

P.Mich.

200 (?)

,

46-47 CE--Tebtynis

•)

Death of the Husband

ty __-~ -· E111

240.51

,-----------·-P.Mich.

3.6

G

Enny

240.37 ,__

PMich.

4.4

60

------------------500

i-:ur,y

P.Mich.

P.Oxy.II 268

14.5/9.7

An agraphi-

46 CE--Tebtynis

1.6

P.Mil.Vogl.

1-:utry

238150.6

>4,096*

>111.3

>91.4

=/>27.3

=/>22.4

s

6.6

=/>3,796

ifl{'r

marriage

6.4

P.Hamb. Ill

- - - ---·.

CPR! 21

=/>572*

I(,

=/>15.6

220

205.6

P.Hamb. Ill

223/4 CE-Ptolemais Euergetis

4,256 434*

168.9 17.2

Dowry Inventory

=/>565

223

113 CB-unknown provenance

P.Hamb. IV

250-300 CE-

If.,

Herakleopolis

Transaction between

>8,269

279

43.2

P.Ha"- I 146

184 CB-unknown

2,000

ll,

_ 101)

Marriage

138 CE--Tebtynis

Divorce document

P.Ups. I 27 = MChr293

123 CE-Tebtynis

Deed

145 CB-unknown provenaoce

Document

---------

800

I(,

21.7

17.9

marital

138-160 CE-Arsinoites

P.IFAO I 30

4.8

Post

P.Kron. 52 = PMi!. Vogl. II

44.6

settlement

1-------provenance

Para/hike

Document

Spouses 1,936*

Document

Marriage

Marriage

(;1

100

Document

36.35

916*

85

Mlln•>,:r Document

=/>300

142 CE--Alexandria or Arsinoites

Sentence

700

142 CE--Alexandria or Arsinoites

Sentence

6,000

109 CE--Hennopolis

Deed of Sale

=/>14.5/ 8.2

'.1

33.8

27.8

P.Lond II 178 p. 207

289.9

238.1

P.Louvrt I 17

of

300

14.5

11.9

48.3

39.7

14.5/8.2

11.9/6.7

25.5

21

Divorce

-----------II CE-Soknopaiou

Return of Part of the Dowry

1,000

Parathikl

300

')

Nesos

178/9 CEArsinoite:5

Marriage

II-III CR-Unknown provenance

Dowry Inventory

late U- early Ill CEunknown provenance

Dowry Receipt

2,500 8,164

120.8 16

221.8

99.2 182.2

Document

' P.L,,11dVI 3

_____

._ Pap.Chaix10

Marriage

139CE(?)unknown provenance

_

Document

162 CE--Tebtynis

Marriage

4.8

100

Document

=/>252/448

-------1,000

9/16

16

=/>

=/>

PMi,h.

12.2/ 6.9

10 / 5.6

442

21.6/146 48.3/27.2

39.7 /22.3

VII

17.8/10

The affidavit dates to 177 CE. 151/2 CE is the year in which the dowry changed hands. Consisting of nine-hundred drachms of the dowry itself and another hundred that the wife pays to a third party as a settlement of the husband's debts. Cf. sup. p. 252. 9 The same dowry is recorded in the marriage document CPR I 22. 8

Date aod Place

Document

Dissolution of

- - -·- - - - --------

1045

7

V.1l11ri11 SJ!vl't

Document

Nesos

1036

BGU

227

Type of

P.Mich. XV

II CE-Karanis

--------143/53 CE-Karanis

700

82 (?)

Marriage Document Latin

Dowry Receipt

9/16

4/2.2

3.3/1.8

in 60 17

lu

P.Mil.Vogl. II

172-175 CE-

Marriage

71

Tebtynis

Document

P.Mi/.Vogl.

139 CE-Tebtynis

Divorce document

IW

')

7.7

6.4

127 CEOxyrhynchos

Marriage

4,10(1

'·'

198.1

162.7

III 185

P.Oxy. 496

III

Document

'.i'H

2•>:~ ---

---- -- - -

Document

---·------

Date and Place

--------.-.-- - ---·- - -

P.Oxy. III 169-176603 dmriptum Oxyrbynchos Stud.Pal. III PP· 115116

Type of Document

Marriage Document

P.Oxy. III early II CE (?)606 d,,criplum Oxyrbynchos

Value in Silver Drachms

>592

l)ocurnent

Date and Place

Type of Document

Value in Silver Drachms

Approximate Real Value of the Dowry Value of a (Months of Maintenance) WheatArtab 2.3 artabsper 2.8 artabsper month month

p,Tebl!I 514

II CE-Tebtynis

Marriage Document

=/>100

9/16

=/>4.8/2.7

=/>4/2.2

PSIV 450 1

II CE-Oxyrhynchos

Marriage Document

1,900'/

9/16

91.8 /51.6

75.4/42.4

VIII PSI 921.10-13

143/4CEArsinoites

Parathekt

300

q

PSIX 1115

152 CE-Tebtynis

Marriage Document

2fl

')

PSIX1117

after 138 CETebtynis

Marriage Document

>90•

")

Cong. PSI xx10,

173/4 CEOxyrhynchos

Marriage Document

362'

SB V 7535

198/9 CEPtolemais Euergetis

Parath!kt

:• 128

273.8

SBVI 9372

II CE-Oxyrbynchos

Marriage Document

119-138 CEArsinoites

Approximate Real Value of the Dow.._ Value of a (Months of Mainten ) ty ance WheatArtab

~·

2.3 artabsper month

2.8 ""'1bspcr month

>28.6

>23.5

>7

>5.7

13.9

11.4

I(,

34.7

28.5

1(1

=/>1,263.5

=/>1,038

Marriage Document

>H·I

Marriage Document

288*

M1unaJi;i:--

1,276'

Arrangement after the death c,f the husband

=/>46,500

P.Oxy. XLIX 157/8 CE-3491 Oxyrbynchos

Marriage Document

6,900

'·'

P.Oxy.Helr. 35

Divorce document

=/>200

9

=/>9.66

=/>7.94

Sil 10887

XII

9

18.6

15.2

Sil 10924

XII 114CE-

P.Oxy. 905

VI 170 CE-Psobthis: Oxyrbynchites

P.Oxy. X 260CE1273 Oxyrbynchos ________ ___ _,. ____--""·-· ___ ,_,_

--------

'J

Document

,

P.Oxy. 1274

X III CE--

--- -- --- - - -

"

Oxyrbynchos

--

151 CEOxyrbynchos

P.Ryl. IV 612 eady II CE-Karanis + P.Mich.VII 434 '-~ ---· ·-· - "- ··-·- ·P.Slrt1J. IV late II CE--unknown 225.10-24 provenance

Marriage Document in Latin

---·--->384'

-----·-· 333.3

Marriage Document

=/>200

9/16

=c/>9.7 /5.4

=/>7.9/4.5

l

11,

--~ .'!i.~

>2.9

Jfl~J

9/16

14.9/8.4

12.3/6.9

Divorce docwnent

SI)

?

i.'.I

l.2

Marriage Document

2L10

4_1{,

'l'",1

Theadelphia 161/2 or 193/4 CE-Arsinoites (?)

Divorce document

=/>24,500

127/8 CEOxyrhynchos

Petition

:!.On

•)

9.7

XVIII SB 13176

168C&Hermopolites

Settlement after Dissolution of

4,032

q

194.8

11,U

109 C&-Ptolemais Euergetis

Marriage Document

=/>327

~

=/>15.8

=/>13

Transaction between Spouses

3,500

Ii,

95.1

78.1

after 225 CEunknown provenance

Petition

3,200

t(,

81

71.4

P.Slrt1J. VII 668

II CE-probably Arsinoites

Marriage Document

100

9/16

4.8/2.7

~/2.2

Marriage Document

·v:-

~

l(,

u

XXIV SB 16256

Petition

5,000

](,

135.9

111.6

StuJPal. XX 227CE-29, Herakleopolites

P.Stra.r. IX 98-117-Theadelphia 807 el

lP.Yehl.II 334 _ 200/1 CE-----Tebtynis

972.2/

XVI

P.StrrJS. IV 275

-- - - ----·- - ----

=/>

1183.6/ 665.8

SB 12627

I

I)'

=/>

XIV

~

- --- -

9/16

SB 11891

,,

--

Ll.3

14.4

72,10

2

11.9

17.~J

Marriage Document

,

131/73.7

14.5

>3.6

142 CE-Ptolemais Euergetis

--- ----- - --------- --

159.4/89.7

>4.3

P.SlrrJS. IV 237

--,-

3,300

546.9

UldHLill)!f'

to Assuming that the two tetartai in line 15 are included in the total of 72 drachms as given in line 14; otherwise the total value of the dowry is 98 drachms (=72 + 2 x 18).

J

t,..:,

5. The Retrieval of the Pherne'Goldjewellery in the Second and Third Centuries CE

·.;6

a.TIOOOTt(o) x(o).Ka) /l oAK(ijs) ) ai-o).as yv11(atKEtos) /l, µto.v) TJ KOL EptUK(ov) (read up[crKov) I \ eu/..,vov PMich. II 121'.3.1.2-3 (42 Evo8(twv) (read ~vwi-([wv)) \ '"~-1.i.u dpy(upii) ~o/..K(fjs) I aKa.q>to(v) x(a/..KOuv) Kol. CE-Tcbnu,:: xp(\JOWV) (E(u-yos) (TETapTWv) ( acn\(µov) (8paxµwv) TJ I E8p(tO"KOS) (read v8p[aKos) · · y KoL µ.!](v[aKtov) xp(vaovv) i x(a;\.Kiis) /l Kal v o{ u }KTW KUL Ka[ T ]OlTTpOV 6, lTTVKOV (read llE Evro1rlou xpucrlou fl'l:.rT,JH µ1JO"Tpov d.p-yupouv OAKijS 6[ lTTVXOV) KaL v6ptaKOS" (read 1ra)\).LO 6EKa crvvµLKTOV (read (read Evwnov) xpuaovv ullptaKas) E~ 1rcfvrn xaAKii auµµ.tKTa) ,-o1s xpoµ.aaL (read (read 6paxµwv) TET(lpTWV TEaaapwv Kal 6paxµov KOL "(VVEKl)Q (read yuvatKELa) xpwµ.aUL) TEaaapov (read TEaaapwv) µ TJVLUKTJV (read C:-•'.EO.Ko µi:v 'Ac),po8E[[T71v- - ) 1 Ka, l;v!..Lva - - 1 .f\V [µ]upo91]Kf\V, Kt!3wTLa 8uo, Ka8E5pav avv imorroo[wL, Kai i Lµcina KLT~[va - - ] ,c6pnov, dim. of µacpopTTJS P. T,bt. II 405.4-5

Ko,vo1rop4>up[ou)voou~pLK01ra/,./,.,ov

P.Tebt. II 405.2

µa6pT!]Saan--'up_a_s ____________ _

79

aou~poKoµac),6pna 6uo I [Ev µ1:v ...... ETEpOVAEUKOV

P_.o_xy.VI905-.7--8-------

CPR! 27.8-9

_ Macp6pn1s. Veil, Head Dress.Cf. Lauffe~ (1971) 278; P.Heid.VII pp. 182-183~ _ ·----_CPR:,_2 , I_;HamhIll 220.6 _ _ _________

·--·-

rrcl>..;>,.,ov xpwµclnvov

lµ.anov AEUK[611

MacpopLOv,dim. of µacp6pTTJS'.

_________

TTOAALa E ouv aujrn'is KOLxpwµ(aTLva)

LOU~pLKOTTaAALOV: OuterC/oak.

lµ.cln,o,v AEOJ/Ttvos

as. III 131.8

----

CPRIZ!.2.17

_

18_?_ ,_CP_!;!}_I._2._

____

J

rrclnw TEOcrapa [ - TTOAALOV AEUKOV

-Pap.Chaix10.19 ---Tou~pLKoµacp6pnov:OuterVeil.

[µ.[a]TLOUOKUp[(]v9v6L[KL TWVOU

___ E

-

PSIX 1115.11 PSIX 1117.13-14

-----

[

-

ncln[,]ov i!v

P.Stras.VI 533.9

1---

Other Types of lµchw

PMil.Vagl. II 71.8 P.T,ht. II 405.6--

l)'OAAL OV xpwµaT( l \IOV) rrcln[,]a TTEVTE

P.Ryl.II 154.8

·------

I EVaUVTLIJ.~OEt I [ev ' ouv,_n)µ_ri_'o_e_, ___

vQ.~Lov

P.Ross.Gmg.III 28.117

in veste aestuma_tjl -+-in-a-es-titru-.o-v_e_slls--'. "---------··-··---·lµ.ana

SBV 7535.1~-------------SB VI 9372.15-16

----~----··· ~-~_:_~:=]

P.Oxy.III 496.4 P.Oxy.XLIX 3491.7

[[µ.),:ir[,a Ev auv)nµ.~a[L)

-------·------

P.T,ht. II 405.7 P.T,ht. II 40-5-. l_l____

pallium Scyrinum

PMich.VII 434.11

---·-------'-~~~~~?

PSIV 450.fi:ag.11-8-9

PAth'1/. 30'.14 I 30.12 .

TTOAALa6fra ouvµLKTOV (read ouµµLKTa) TOLS' xpoµao, (read xpwµaOL)

L---

---.--"-"'-"----------BGU_!V1.0_45_.1_~_ _________ P.Mi,h.VU 434.10 PMich. VU 442.9

P.JFAO

lTOA(ALa) ~

PMich. V 343.6

_··--=--=---=:J

EVauvnµ~OL

'Iµana

P.Mi,h. II 121'.4 1.3

L.-,.--

UTOA]as6LKL Twv(as

ouo.µ(av

ao[ - - ]

. oTo/..fjs I [~uocr](v!]s (?) µovoK(Twvas9

30')

LUV0ECJL8Lov: dim. of sq.

[si;;;i,Pa/. XX 41_~2-________

.

_

_____ _

(,i.,,,w.iJupuJHDL'!i~ h·i:J~ th•vtxcr~•u,u.•)frlpt-ci1.1fE 1cuts:'"I 1 ETE PWTOV EV0"1]µ0v Xl TWVlOVAEUKOV .• .--...n,-

Kt9WvTTp0aLVOS'

Kt0WVlTOp-Aijs-Y\lVOLKOS- :r.iooLot Q1TOK[OlTOV µl]OE ciq,ijµEpOVy[vrnem cirro . - l 1(frag D) [ - - ].[ .. ].[ - - l 1[ - - ]LClSEV . Tijs ITpaELooµ.a OlKLUS-(lVE\l Tijs- flpoftoaµo rij, avT[ - - J I [ - - µl]8E EyJ@qAElV(?) )'VW\J-T)S ±30 l I I1paE,001rn [ - - l 1[ .. ]... .v.[ - LWO"lOU\' [ - - JI [ - - JI [ - - Jyq>.Aqµl].E... [ J (ll. 17-20)

Th6lthis Dml-.•;a-

chites)

- -

l

(ll. 9-14) _______

~

B: The Alexandrian Documents Obligations of the Husband

· Joint Obligations of the Spouses

; Obligations of the Wife

dv Ll.LOVUULOV Cl1TEELVKal I '!,:rtS~,""''