The Office of the Epimeletes: Studies in the Administration of Ptolemaic Egypt: Studies in the Administration of Ptolemaic Egypt 350679468X, 9783506794680

Citation preview

ABHANDLUNGEN DER NORDRHEIN-WESTFÄLISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER KÜNSTE

Sonderreihe

PAPYROLOGICA COLONIENSIA

Herausgegeben von der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste in Verbindung mit der Universität zu Köln Vol. XLIX

PAPYROLOGICA COLONIENSIA · Vol. XLIX

The Office of the Epimeletes Studies in the Administration of Ptolemaic Egypt Haytham Qandeil

In Zusammenarbeit mit der Arbeitsstelle für Papyrusforschung im Institut für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln Leiter: Professor Dr. Jürgen Hammerstaedt

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Dieses Werk sowie einzelne Teile desselben sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen ist ohne vorherige schriftliche Zustimmung des Verlags nicht zulässig.

© 2024 Brill Schöningh, Wollmarktstraße 115, D-33098 Paderborn, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau und V&R unipress. www.brill.com Umschlaggestaltung: Evelyn Ziegler, München Herstellung: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn ISBN 978-3-506-79468-0 (hardback) ISBN 978-3-657-79468-3 (e-book) -book)

TO PROFESSOR CORNELIA EVA RÖMER With profound gratitude and utmost appreciation for her invaluable contributions that spanned over a decade towards the advancement and progress of papyrological studies in Egypt

PREFACE This book is based on my doctoral dissertation, which I submitted to Ain Shams University in 2021. I am deeply grateful to many people who have supported me throughout the journey of researching and writing this book. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Cornelia Römer, whom I have had the privilege of learning from since 2013. Her guidance and support during the courses at Ain Shams University, the seasons of excavations in the Fayum, and our long online discussions during the pandemic have been invaluable in shaping many of the views and conclusions presented in this work. I am particularly grateful to Klaus Maresch who read the monograph and saved me of many mistakes. I thank him for his suggestions and remarks. I also wish to express my deepest gratitude to Charikleia Armoni, whose suggestions were very crucial at the beginning of this study, for drawing my attention to several points and references that were of great importance, and for reading and correcting the monograph. I am grateful to Michael McOsker for his thorough review and correction of the English. I would like to thank Jürgen Hammerstaedt and the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste for making possible my stay in Cologne in Fall 2019 and Winter 2021. I am grateful to Robert Daniel, and many others in the Institut für Altertumskunde, Universität zu Köln for their friendly welcome in Cologne and their assistance. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Wolfgang Dieter Lebek and the Akademie for their acceptance of my study for publication in the current series. I would also like to thank Eleni Skarsouli for making her PhD dissertation available to me. I express my gratitude to Spyridoula Bounta and Mario Paganini. My gratitude also goes to Muṣṭafa Zayed, to whom I am very much indebted since I first met him in 2013. I wish to thank my colleagues in the Faculty of Archaeology, Ain Shams University, Noha Salem, Rasha al-Mofatch, and Eman Selim. I extend my thanks to Reḍa Raslan and Faṭma Ḥammouda. Special thanks are due to my professors and colleagues in the Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Ain Shams University for their continuous support and encouragement, Aḥmed Zakariya, Ṭarek Manṣour, Ḥassan Aḥmed, Khaled Ḥussein, Maḥmoud ʻAbd Allah, Niʻmah al-Bakr, Ṣabaḥ al-Byāʻ,

viii

The Office of the Epimeletes

ʻUmar Ibrahim, Samer Qandeil, Sherif Imam, Hady ʻAṭiya, and Maḥmoud al-Baṭran. My heartfelt appreciation goes out to my family – my beloved and treasured mother, brother and sister-in-law, and delightful nephew and niece – for their unwavering support. I am profoundly grateful to Moḥammed Raḍwan for his many years of friendship and unwavering support. My warmest thanks are also due to ʻAbd al-Naṣir Fikry. I want to extend a special note of gratitude to my beloved wife, Ṣabrein. Her steadfast encouragement and unwavering assistance have been a guiding light throughout my journey. Her presence has been an unwavering source of strength, without which the completion of this book would not have been possible. Last but not least, I would like to express my lifelong gratitude and indebtedness to the memory of Prof. Ibrahim al-Gendy. He was a true father figure who showed me immense kindness since my appointment as a teaching assistant at Ain Shams University. His exemplary character as a scholar and a mentor has always been an inspiration to me, and it deeply saddens me that he did not live to witness the completion of this book. Haytham A. Qandeil

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE........................................................................................................... vii-viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ix-xii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xiii-xiv INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1–4 CHAPTER ONE THE EPIMELETES IN THE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC WORLDS: THE NONPTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES ..................................................................................5–23 1.1 The general usage of the term ‘epimeletes’ .........................................................5 1.2 The usage of the term epimeletes as a job title ....................................................6 1.3 The usage of the term epimeletes with the meaning of ‘governor’ ...................17 1.4 The usage of the term epimeletes in Diodorus .................................................19 CHAPTER TWO

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. .................................................................................................24–45 CHAPTER THREE

ANALYSING THE DOCUMENTS OF THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. ....................46–64 3.1 The functions of the Ptolemaic epimeletes in the 3rd century B.C. ..................46 3.1.1 The function of the epimeletes in supplying the royal farmers with seed loans .................................................................................................................................46 3.1.2 The function of the epimeletes in grain transport .........................................48 3.1.3 The function of the epimeletes in the administration of the cleruchic land...50 3.1.4 The function of the epimeletes in land auctions ............................................51 3.1.5 The function of the epimeletes in tax farming ...............................................51 3.1.6 The function of the epimeletes in the state expenditures ..............................53 3.1.6.1 Payment orders of grain .............................................................................53 3.1.6.2 Payment orders in money ..........................................................................53

x

The Office of the Epimeletes

3.1.6.3 The function of the epimeletes in remunerating the soldiers .....................54 3.1.7 The epimeletes as a responsible official for receiving reports of real estate declarations ..............................................................................................................55 3.1.8 The judicial function of the epimeletes .........................................................56 3.2 The date of the introduction of the office of the epimeletes .............................58 CHAPTER FOUR

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. ...................................................................................... 65–110 CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSING THE DOCUMENTS: THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. ...........................................111–146 5.1 The function of the epimeletes in agriculture ..................................................111 5.1.1 Leasing royal land........................................................................................111 5.1.2 Irrigation ......................................................................................................114 5.1.3 Land survey (geometria), inspection (episkepsis), and guarding the crops (genematophylakia) ...............................................................................................115 5.1.4 Collecting arrears due to the Crown, auditing the bookkeeping of local officials, and issuing orders for payment (διαγραφαί)...........................................117 5.2 The function of the epimeletes in grain transport ............................................118 5.3 The function of the epimeletes in the administration of the cleruchic land.....122 5.4 The function of the epimeletes in tax farming ................................................ 122 5.5 The function of the epimeletes in controlling the royal monopolies ...............124 5.5.1 The Oil Monopoly (ἐλαϊκή) .........................................................................125 5.5.2 Papyrus ........................................................................................................127 5.5.3 Salt (ἁλική) ..................................................................................................128 5.5.4 Tanning (δερµατηρά) ...................................................................................129 5.5.5 Textiles and Garments (ὀθονιηρά) ..............................................................132 5.5.6 Goldsmithery (χρυσοχοϊκή) .........................................................................133 5.6 The function of the epimeletes in state auctions ..............................................133 5.7 The function of the epimeletes in the state expenditures. Remunerating soldiers, government officials, and priests ..........................................................................135 5.8 The term διαγραφή in P. Dryton 31 .................................................................140

Table of Contents

xi

5.9 The function of the epimeletes in receiving declarations concerning apomoira ...............................................................................................................................141 5.10 The judicial function of the epimeletes .........................................................142 5.11 The function of the epimeletes in the financial administration of the temples ...............................................................................................................................145 CHAPTER SIX

THE RELATION OF THE EPIMELETES TO OTHER OFFICIALS ....................147–178 6.1 The relation of the epimeletes to the central administration officials .............147 6.1.1 The dioiketes ................................................................................................147 6.1.2 The hypodioiketes ........................................................................................153 6.1.3 The epistrategos ...........................................................................................155 6.2 The relation of the epimeletes to the nome officials........................................155 6.2.1 The strategos ................................................................................................155 6.2.2 The oikonomos ............................................................................................158 6.2.3 The basilikos grammateus ...........................................................................163 6.2.4 The nome sitologos ......................................................................................167 6.2.5 The trapezites ...............................................................................................167 6.3 The relation of the epimeletes to the district officials .....................................168 6.3.1 The topogrammateus ...................................................................................169 6.3.2 The district sitologos....................................................................................169 6.4 The relation of the epimeletes to the village officials......................................170 6.4.1 The komarches .............................................................................................170 6.4.2 The komogrammateus .................................................................................171 6.4.3 The village sitologos ....................................................................................172 6.5 The relation of the epimeletes to the military officials ....................................173 6.6 The relation of the epimeletes to the police officials .......................................174 6.6.1 The epistates ................................................................................................174 6.6.2 The archiphylakites ......................................................................................175 6.6.3 The phylakitai ..............................................................................................177 6.7 The relation of the epimeletes to the judicial officials (the chrematistai) ..... 177

CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................179–183

xii

The Office of the Epimeletes

APPENDIX I The date and Provenance of P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166, P. Petr. III 36 (a) R, and P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 ............ 184-187

APPENDIX II The epimeletes Spartakos (PP 956) ..............................................................188–191 APPENDIX III

Evidence pointing to the simultaneous existence of epimeletai at different levels .......................................................................................................................192–194

APPENDIX IV

Prosopography of the Ptolemaic epimeletai in the 3rd century B.C. .............195–208 A 4.1 The epimeletai of the 3rd century B.C. .........................................................195 A 4.2 The tenure of the Ptolemaic epimeletai in the 3rd century B.C. ..................197 A 4.2.1 The Arsinoite nome ................................................................................ 197 A 4.2.2 The Saite nome .......................................................................................198 A 4.2.3 The Herakleopolite nome.........................................................................198 A 4.2.4 The Memphite nome ................................................................................199 A 4.3 The epimeletai of the 2nd century B.C. ........................................................199 A 4.4 The tenure of the Ptolemaic epimeletai in the 2nd century B.C. ..................206 A 4.4.1 The Arsinoite nome ................................................................................206 A 4.4.2 The Memphite nome ...............................................................................207 A 4.4.3 The Herakleopolite nome ........................................................................207 A 4.4.4 The Saite nome .......................................................................................207 A 4.4.5 The Lykopolite nome ..............................................................................207 A 4.4.6 The Hermopolite nome ...........................................................................208 A 4.4.7 The Pathyrite nome .................................................................................208 A 4.4.8 The Thebaid nome ..................................................................................208

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................209–224 INDICES .........................................................................................................225–237

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 The different types of non-Ptolemaic epimeletai and their functions ... 21 Table 2.1 The documents of the 3rd century B.C. Ptolemaic epimeletes ............... 24 Table 2.2 Reports of real estate declarations ......................................................... 37 Table 4.1 Documents of the 2nd Century B.C. Ptolemaic epimeletes .................... 65 Table 6.1 The relation of the epimeletes to the dioiketes .................................... 147 Table 6.2 The relation of the epimeletes to the hypodioiketes ............................. 153 Table 6.3 The relation of the epimeletes to the epistrategos ............................... 155 Table 6.4 The relation of the epimeletes to the strategos .................................... 155 Table 6.5 The relation of the epimeletes to the oikonomos ................................. 158 Table 6.6 The relation of the epimeletes to the basilikos grammateus ................ 163 Table 6.7 The relation of the epimeletes to the nome sitologos ........................... 167 Table 6.8 The relation of the epimeletes to the trapezites ................................... 167 Table 6.9 The relation of the epimeletes to the topogrammateus ........................ 169 Table 6.10 The relation of the epimeletes to the district sitologos ...................... 169 Table 6.11 The relation of the epimeletes to the komarches ................................ 170 Table 6.12 The relation of the epimeletes to the komogrammateus .................... 171 Table 6.13 The relation of the epimeletes to the village sitologos ...................... 172 Table 6.14 The relation of the epimeletes to the military officials ...................... 173 Table 6.15 The relation of the epimeletes to the epistates ................................... 174 Table 6.16 The relation of the epimeletes to the archiphylakites ........................ 175 Table 6.17 The relation of the epimeletes to the phylakitai ................................. 177 Table 6.18 The relation of the epimeletes to the chrematistai ............................. 177 Table A 2.1 The documents of the epimeletes Spartakos ..................................... 189 Table A 4.1 The epimeletai of the 3rd century B.C. ............................................. 195 Table A 4.2 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Arsinoites in the 3rd century B.C. ...............................................................................................................................197 Table A 4.3 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Saites in the 3rd century B.C. ... 198 Table A 4.4 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Herakleopolites in the 3rd century B.C. ...................................................................................................................... 198 Table A 4.5 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Memphites in the 3rd century B.C. ...............................................................................................................................199 Table A 4.6 The epimeletai of the 2nd century B.C. ............................................ 199

xiv

The Office of the Epimeletes

Table A 4.7 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Arsinoites in the 2nd century B.C. ...............................................................................................................................206 Table A 4.8 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Memphites in the 2nd century B.C. ...............................................................................................................................207 Table A 4.9 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Herakleopolites in the 2nd century B.C. ...................................................................................................................... 207 Table A 4.10 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Saites in the 2nd century B.C. . 207 Table A 4.11 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Lycopolites in the 2nd century B.C. ...................................................................................................................... 207 Table A 4.12 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Hermopolites in the 2nd century B.C. ...................................................................................................................... 208 Table A 4.13 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Pathyrites in the 2nd century B.C. .............................................................................................................................. 208 Table A 4.14 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Thebais in the 2nd century B.C. ...........................................................................................................................…208

INTRODUCTION Egypt was governed by the Ptolemies from 323 B.C. until the Roman conquest in 30 B.C. The main aim of the Ptolemies, especially the first three kings, was to make extensive use of Egyptian resources to strengthen their position in the Hellenistic world. For this purpose, the Ptolemies developed a well-coordinated administrative and financial system which was divided into the central administration, the nome administration, and the district (toparchy) and village administration. The epimeletes was one of the financial and administrative officials at the nome level, where he had several functions during the third and second centuries B.C., e.g., in agricultural affairs, irrigation, tax farming, controlling monopolies, remunerating the soldiers, etc. A comprehensive study of the Ptolemaic administration in general and the epimeletes in particular does not yet exist. The epimeletes was first discussed very briefly by G. Maspero, Les finances de l'Égypte sous les Lagides (Paris 1905), 220–223. A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, III (Paris 1906), mentions the epimeletes in different contexts of his work in pages 186, 293, 316, 318, 320, and 387. U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Erster Band: Historischer Teil. Erste Hälfte: Grundzüge (Leipzig–Berlin 1912), 149–150, also discussed the epimeletes very briefly, beside some comments on some editions of documents in the early issues of the Archiv für Papyrusforschung. A detailed discussion of this earlier literature on the epimeletes was undertaken by E. Berneker, Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens, mit rechtsvergleichenden Ausblicken (München 1935), 90–94. The common denominator between these works in their dealing with the epimeletes is that they focused on only two functions of the epimeletes: his function in agriculture, and his function in receiving reports of real estate declarations. This is, of course, the effect of the documents available at that time. A. Papathomas in P. Heid. VII, 1996, p.8 stated that ‘Das Amt des Epimeletes ist bislang noch nicht Gegenstand einer speziellen Untersuchung gewesen’. The situation has not changed since this statement of Papathomas, except for an article by B. McGing, ‘Illegal Salt in the Lycopolite Nome’, APF 48 (2002), 42–66. This article is an edition of a document that deals with a case of smuggled salt with an appendix (p.51–

2

The Office of the Epimeletes

64), which is an overview of the functions of the epimeletes as they become visible in some of the documents related to this official. Hence, my study aims to answer the following questions: did the Ptolemaic administration adopt any of the Classical and Hellenistic patterns of the epimeletes? Or did they invent a new position with an old title? What were the functions of the Ptolemaic epimeletes in the third and second centuries B.C.? When exactly did the Ptolemies incorporate the office of the epimeletes into their administrative system? What were the epimeletes’ relationships to other officials and what was his rank in the administrative system? Did the office of the epimeletes disappear at some point in the Ptolemaic history? Or did the epimeletes’ office continue from its institution to the end of Ptolemaic rule? Who could obtain this position? Were there any required qualifications for persons who occupied this position? Was occupying this job confined to Greeks or were Egyptians allowed to occupy it? To answer these questions, I divided this study into six chapters and four appendixes. Moreover, I summarised the results in a conclusion and added a bibliography and indices. In the first chapter, I tried to trace the roots from which the Ptolemies derived the office. I first discussed the general usage of the term epimeletes in the Classical world, and then the usage of the term as a job title, as it is attested in several literary sources. In the second chapter, I collected all documents related to the epimeletes in the third century B.C; there are 31 documents, which are chronologically arranged and followed by a brief description of the content of each document. I commented on the dates of several documents since accurate dating of the documents of the third century Ptolemaic epimeletes is a prerequisite for determining the date of the incorporation of the office into the Ptolemaic administration. Readings of some documents were checked from photos. Some readings were found not to be convincing. In the third chapter, I analysed the documents of the epimeletes in the third century B.C. This chapter is divided into two sections: the functions of the epimeletes in the third century B.C. as they are attested up to now, and the date of the incorporation of the office into the Ptolemaic administration. So far attested in the third century B.C, the epimeletes was involved in supplying the royal farmers with seed loans, grain transport, the administration of the cleruchic land, land auctions, tax farming, controlling

Introduction

3

state expenditures, receiving reports of real estate declarations, and judicial business. The date of creation of the office of the epimeletes is controversial. I dealt with the different views of modern scholars regarding this question and tried to reach a conclusion. We have 113 documents which mention the epimeletes in the second century B.C. The fourth chapter presents these documents. Some of the documents were redated. Some new readings and supplements are proposed. These documents are analysed in the fifth chapter. For this time-period our documents attest functions in agriculture, grain transport, administration of the cleruchic land, controlling the arrears to the state, tax farming, controlling the royal monopolies (oil, papyrus, salt, tanning, textiles and garments, and goldsmithery), state auctions, state expenditures, issuing diagraphai, juridical business, and the financial administration of the temples. In the sixth and last chapter, I tried to tabulate the relation of the epimeletes to other officials according to the three levels of the civic administration, but also to military administrators, the police officials, and the chrematistai. Four appendixes are annexed to this study. In appendix I, I discuss the date and provenance of P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166, P. Petr. III 36 (a) R, and P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5. Appendix II is devoted to the epimeletes Spartakos (PP 956). Appendix III discusses evidence pointing to the simultaneous existence of epimeletai at different levels. Appendix IV is a prosopography of all epimeletai as far as I found them in the documents and their duration of office in each nome. Papyri, ostraca, papyrological corpora, and instrumenta are cited according to the ‘Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets’ which is available at https://papyri.info/docs/checklist and can also be checked at https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist_papyri.ht ml. Inscriptions are cited according to abbreviations found in the Packard Humanities Institute project (PHI) which is available at https://epigraphy.packhum.org/biblio#b172. Literary sources and works of ancient authors are cited according to abbreviations found in the Perseus Digital Library Project which is available at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/. Dates of the documents are recorded according to Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen

4

The Office of the Epimeletes

Papyrusurkunden Ägyptens (HGV) which is available at https://aquila.zaw.uni-heidelberg.de/start, the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri (DDbDP) which is available at https://papyri.info/, and Trismegistos which is available at https://www.trismegistos.org/index.php. All archives are equipped with their Trismegistos numbers as ‘TM Arch’ which can be checked at Trismegistos Archives at https://www.trismegistos.org/arch/; see also K. Vandorpe, W. Clarysse, and H. Verreth, Graeco- Roman Archives from the Fayum (Collectanea Hellenistica 6), (Leuven, Paris, and Bristol 2015). All places are also equipped with their Trismegistos numbers as ‘TM Geo’ which can be checked at https://www.trismegistos.org/geo/index. ‘PP’ refers to the Prosopographia Ptolemaica, now part of Trismegistos People which is available at https://www.trismegistos.org/ref/. All epimeletai in appendix IV are equipped with their PP numbers unless they are not yet included in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica.

CHAPTER ONE THE EPIMELETES IN THE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC WORLDS THE NON-PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES The term ἐπιµελητής in ancient Greek means one who is in charge of something, a manager or a curator1. The term was used in Classical and Hellenistic texts to refer to various types and ranks of state officials or administrative assistants2. In Hellenistic Egypt, the Ptolemies incorporated this position into their administrative system3, where the epimeletes carried out both financial and administrative tasks4. The main aim of this chapter is to answer the following question: did the Ptolemies adopt any of the many Classical and Hellenistic versions of this official? Or did they invent a new position with an old title? To answer this question, we should have a brief look at the nature and the duties of the epimeletes in the Classical and Hellenistic worlds. 1.1 The general usage of the term ‘epimeletes’: The term epimeletes had been used in literary sources in a wide range of meanings, though its original meaning was someone who is in charge of something, not referring to a job title. The first example of this general usage of the term is the executor of a will. Diogenes Laertius, in his book ‘Lives of Eminent Philosophers’, while discussing the life of Theophrastus, inserted his will. After making many arrangements concerning his properties, Theophrastus says: ‘ἐπιµεληταὶ δὲ ἔστωσαν τῶν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ γεγραµµένων Ἵππαρχος, Νηλεύς, Στράτων, Καλλῖνος, Δηµότιµος, Καλλισθένης, Κτήσαρχος’ (let Hipparchus, Neleus, Strato, Callinus, Demotimus, Callisthenes and Ctesarchus be executors to carry out the terms of the will)5. The will of Strato was also inserted in his biography in Diogenes Laertius’s work. Strato, like Theophrastus, named persons as epimeletai responsible for carrying out his will6. Liddel & Scott Jones, ἐπιµελητής. McGing, 2002, 51. 3 For the date of the establishment of the office in the Ptolemaic administration, see section 3.2. 4 The functions of the Ptolemaic epimeletes will be discussed in detail in chapters three and five of this study. 5 Diog. Laert. 5.2. 6 Diog. Laert. 5.3. 1 2

6

The Office of the Epimeletes

The epimeletai (overseers) of certain animals are also mentioned in our sources. In the context of the wars of the diadochi1, Eumenes, after defeating Craterus, came across the royal herds of horses that were pasturing near Mount Ida, he took as many horses as he wanted and sent a written statement of the number to the epimeletai of the royal horses2. Such overseers of animals are also found in Strabo in the context of his description of India. The geographer divided the Indians into seven castes3; the third caste consisted of shepherds and hunters, who alone were permitted to hunt, breed cattle, sell and let out for hire beasts of burden. No private person could keep a horse or an elephant. Strabo adds that εἰσὶν αὐτῶν ἐπιµεληταί (there are epimeletai) responsible for those shepherds and hunters4. Most likely, Strabo used the term with its general meaning which is ‘the person who is in charge of something’. The term was also used in mythological contexts. When Odysseus reached Aeolia on his long return journey to Ithaka, he met king Aeolus who had been appointed epimeletes of the winds by Zeus (ἐπιµελητὴς ὑπὸ Διὸς τῶν ἀνέµων καθεστήκει)5. Moreover, in the Platonic dialogue Gorgias, Socrates referred to a mythological story from the Iliad. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades divided the sovereignty between them when they took it over from Cronos. They maintained the law that every man who had passed a just and holy life would depart after his decease εἰς µακάρων νήσους (to the Islands of the Blest), but whoever had lived unjustly and impiously would go to Tartarus. Socrates, or rather Plato, calls the overseers of these islands ἐπιµεληταὶ οἱ ἐκ µακάρων νήσων (the epimeletai of the Islands of the Blest)6. 1.2 The usage of the term epimeletes as a job title: Demosthenes informs us that in Athens there were οἱ τῶν νεωρίων ἐπιµεληταί (the overseers of the dockyards)7. The duties of those epimeletai Still fundamental is Rostovtzeff, 1941, esp. 1-23; see also Walbank, 1981, 46-59. Plut. Eum. 8.3. 3 These seven castes are priests, peasants, shepherds, merchants, warriors, ephoroi (inspectors), and counsellors and assessors of the king. See Strab. 15.1.39-49. 4 Strab. 15.1.41. 5 Apollod. Epit. e.7.10. 6 Plat. Gorg. 523a and b. Other examples of the general use of the term epimeletes can be found in, e.g., Xen. Apol. 30; Plat. Alcib. 1.128a; Plat. Laws 1.640d. 7 Dem. 47.21. 1 2

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

7

were either to provide the navy with equipment1 or to collect money for these purposes2. The epimeletes of the dockyards also appears in an Attic inscription3, which is a list of payments of debts. Demosthenes also mentions an ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς συµµορίας4. A συµµορία is a taxation group of citizens at Athens, formed for the levy of the εἰσφορά, which is a property tax levied for the purposes of war. Later, the συµµορία was responsible for discharging the τριηραρχία, the fitting out of a trireme for the public service5. This term, συµµορία, was also used by Xenophon as a division of the Athenian fleet6. So, whether it was a group of people responsible for the discharge of the τριηραρχία or a division of the Athenian fleet, we have here an epimeletes or a group of them responsible for affairs related to the Athenian fleet7. Other epimeletai mentioned in Demosthenes’ oration against Theocrines are οἱ τοῦ ἐµπορίου ἐπιµεληταί (the overseers of the emporion)8. This official is also attested in Dinarchos in singular as ἐµπορίου ἐπιµελητής9, and in Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution in the plural as ἐµπορίου ἐπιµεληταί10. Other attestations can be found in Greek inscriptions either from Attica or other regions of the Greek world11. Aristotle informs us that 1 Dem. 47.21. Demosthenes tells that when the navy had to be dispatched in haste, but there was insufficient equipment in the dockyard, the Athenian assembly, ἡ δῆµος, and the council, ἡ βουλή, issued a decree that this equipment was to be collected from citizens chosen by lot. The names of those citizens were handed over to the epimeletai of the dockyards to superintend the implementation of the decree. 2 Dem. 22.63 in which a certain Satyrus, as epimeletes of the dockyards, collected 34 talents, and used the money to equip the ships. 3 IG II² 1622 (341/340 B.C.). 4 Dem. 47.21; 22; 30. 5 For the Athenian fleet, see Casson, 1971, 350-354. 6 Xen. Hell. 1.7.30 7 It is noteworthy that Demosthenes, in his speech no. 47 against Evergus and Mnesibulus, mentions the ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς συµµορίας and the τριήραρχος (the captain of a trireme) as two positions for one person (Dem.47. 22; 24; 30). Furthermore, he describes a certain Demochares as ἐν τῇ συµµορίᾳ ὤν (Dem.74. 22); this person was said to be liable to the state for the equipment of a ship. In section 24, Demosthenes says that the members of the συµµoρία are under the leadership of an epimeletes and trierarch. This may suggest that the συµµορία was a group of people responsible for equipping the triremes rather than being a division of the Athenian fleet. 8 Dem. 58. 8 and 58. 26. 9 Din. 2. 10. 10 Aristot. Const. Ath. 51.4 11 From Attica we have SEG 23:98 (196/195 B.C.) and IG II² 2336 (102/101 or 95/94 B.C). From Delos: ID 1439 (166 or 144/143 B.C); ID 1421 (156/155 B.C.); ID 1441 (150 B.C.);

8

The Office of the Epimeletes

the duties of those epimeletai – there were 10 of them, chosen by lot – were to superintend the harbour-markets and to compel traders to bring to the city (Athens) two-thirds of the grain that reaches the harbour1. In 337 B.C., Demosthenes was appointed ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς τῶν τειχῶν ἐπισκευῆς (overseer of the repair of fortifications)2. The Athenian walls had suffered severe damage in the wake of the Peloponnesian War3. In late summer of 395 B.C., the Athenians began to rebuild their walls, and this process continued throughout the following years4. In the panic at Athens following the battle of Chaeronea (summer 338 B.C.), the Athenians hurriedly shored up their defences5. It is at this point that an office of the epimeletes of the repair of fortifications emerges on the scene. The office was a suggestion of Demosthenes himself6. Conwell assumes that there were ten epimeletai or teichopoioi; Demosthenes was assigned to the Piraeus, and each of his nine colleagues had to supervise work at a particular sector of the fortifications7. Furthermore, we can infer from ID 1830 (150-100 B.C.); ID 1507 (146/145 or 135/134 B.C.); ID 1450 (140/139 B.C.); ID 2616 (125-75 B.C.); ID 1645 (124/123 B.C.); ID 1827; 1828; 1829 (end of the second, beginning of the first century B.C.). From Macedonia: Hatzopoulos, Mac. Inst. II 65 (200166 B.C.). From Crete: IC I viii 6 (after 260 B.C.); IC I xxiii 1 (after 260 B.C.); IC IV 161 (mid-third century B.C.). From Ionia, we have from Miletos: Miletos 18; 58; 59 (the three inscriptions dated to 259–233 B.C.), and from Priene: Priene 130 (200-170 B.C.). It is to be noticed that most of the epigraphical evidence of the epimeletes of the emporion is dated to the second and first centuries B.C. 1 Aristot. Const. Ath. 51. 4. The grain trade in classical Athens was one of the most vital concerns. Athens and its territories in Attica were relatively small, with poor soil conditions for growing grain. For this reason, Athens was very much dependent on importing grain from different regions such as Sicily and Rhodes. It was a capital offence for every resident of Athens to ship grain to any harbour other than the Piraeus. Furthermore, except for olive oil, exporting agricultural products was not allowed. For these reasons, the Athenians enacted laws to control grain trade and increase its supply to Athens. Of these laws was one which obliged the traders who brought grain to the Piraeus to transport two-thirds of their grain up to the city of Athens, a law whose implementation the epimeletai of the port superintended. This regulation was probably intended to ensure that city residents were not disadvantaged against port residents when there was a shortage in grain. Cf. Garnsey, 1988, 140–141; Dunham, 2007, 1–23, esp. 1–3; Pébarthe, 2007, 174–175. 2 Dem. 18.118; Aeschin. 3 27. 3 The extent of the demolition is controversial among modern scholars. Cf. Conwell, 2002, 321–338. 4 Conwell, 2008, 130–131. 5 Conwell, 2008, 133. 6 Aeschin. 3. 27 calls this official τειχοποιός (teichopoios) and mentions the office in 3.14; 3.17; 3.24; 3.27; 3.28. 7 Conwell, 2008, 135.

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

9

Aeschines that Demosthenes had a superior position over the other epimeletai of the same board because he had the right to handle public funds and impose fines for the purposes of repairing the walls1. It can be also concluded that the position of the epimeletes of the repair of fortifications was an expensive office since we know from Demosthenes himself that he spent three of his own talents on the work2. The water supply in Athens held paramount importance, and naturally, the Athenians accorded it significant consideration. So, it is not surprising that one of Solon’s laws concerned it3, and it is also not surprising to find in Athens a τῶν κρηνῶν ἐπιµελητής (overseer of the water sources). Aristotle tells us that the person who holds this position was elected by show of hands, and states that ‘all the officials concerned with the regular administration are appointed by lot, except the treasurer of military funds, the controllers of the spectacle fund, and the epimeletes of the water sources; these officers were elected by show of hands, and their term of office ran from one Panathenaic Festival to the next. All military officers also were elected by show of hands’4. Putting him in the same context with those significant officials shows that the epimeletes of the water sources was a high ranking official5 and demonstrates the importance of the water supply for the Athenians.

Aeschin. 3. 27. Dem. 18.118. The amount of money that had been spent by Demosthenes is controversial. Cf. Fields, 2006, 9; Conwell, 2008, 134, n. 10. 3 Plut. Sol. 23.5. Plutarch says that since the country (Athens) was not supplied with water by ever-flowing rivers, lakes, or copious springs, but most of the inhabitants used wells which had to be dug, he (Solon) made a law that ‘where there was a public well within a ‘hippikon’, a distance of four furlongs, that should be used, but where the distance was greater than this, people must try to get water of their own; if, however, after digging to a depth of ten fathoms on their own land, they could not get water, then they might take it from a neighbour'’s well, filling a five-gallon jar twice a day; for he thought it his duty to aid the needy, not to provision the idle’. For more information about water supply in ancient Athens, see Crouch, 1993, 255–277; Chiotis, 2011, 165–180; Chiotis and Chiotis, 2012, 407–442; Chiotis and Chiotis, 2014, 315–333; Stroszeck, 2014, 499–507; Koutsoyiannis and Mamassis, 2017, 31–42. 4 Aristot. Const. Ath. 43.1. τὰ µὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν ἐγγραφὴν καὶ τοὺς ἐφήβους τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. τὰς δ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὰς περὶ τὴν ἐγκύκλιον διοίκησιν ἁπάσας ποιοῦσι κληρωτάς, πλὴν ταµίου στρατιωτικῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικὸν καὶ τοῦ τῶν κρηνῶν ἐπιµελητοῦ. ταύτας δὲ χειροτονοῦσιν, καὶ οἱ χειροτονηθέντες ἄρχουσιν ἐκ Παναθηναίων εἰς Παναθήναια. χειροτονοῦσι δὲ καὶ τὰς πρὸς τὸν πόλεµον ἁπάσας. 5 Dillon, 1996, 192. 1 2

10

The Office of the Epimeletes

Regrettably, we are bereft of any other corroboration of this particular post in literary works. Nonetheless, the elucidation garnered from inscriptions, albeit scarce, serves to augment our understanding. In 346/345 B.C., a certain Kephisodoros was honoured by being put in charge of water sources (ἐπιµέλεσθαι τῶν κρηνῶν)1. IG II2 3382 is an important inscription that sheds more light on this official and his duties. A certain Pytheas was honoured for fulfilling his duties when he was chosen to superintend the water sources (ἐπὶ τὰς κρήνας ἐπιµελεῖται). He constructed a new fountain at the sanctuary of Ammon and built a fountain in the Amphiaraion3, as well as taking care of the water channel and its underground conduits4. It was decided in that inscription that Pytheas was to be crowned with a gold crown worth 1,000 drachmas for his excellence and justice in his management of the water supply5. The facts that this inscription was found in Oropus and that Pytheas, as epimeletes of water sources, gave such consideration to the water supply of the Amphiaraion for purification rituals, it seems, suggest that his sphere of action was not limited to the city of Athens, but it included the whole region of Attica. One of the epimeletai most relevant to our Ptolemaic office is ὁ τῶν δηµοσίων προσόδων ἐπιµελητής (the overseer of public revenues). Plutarch says that Aristeides6 was appointed epimeletes of the public revenues in Athens7, which must have taken place between the eighties of the fifth IG II² 215 (Attica). Epigr. tou Oropou 295 (Attica, Oropus, 333/332 B.C.) 3 According to Pausanias, the sanctuary of Amphiaraus, the Amphiaraion, was located 12 stades (2.22 kilometers, Attic standard) from the city of Oropus. Pausanias says that Oropus originally belonged to Boeotia but had been given to the Athenians after Philip II took Thebes. Amphiaraus was a legendary Greek hero. His cult was first established by the Oropians, from whom afterwards all the Greeks received it. Amphiaraus was a god of oracles and healing. Worshippers had to undergo certain rituals before entering the temple including purification rituals, which took place by using the water of a spring that was located near the temple. Cf. Pausanias 1.34.1–4, Lupu, 2003, 321–340. 4 IG II² 338, l. 12–17. 5 IG II² 338, l. 20–22. 6 For Aristeides’ career, see Plut. Arist.; Davies, 1971, 48–52. 7 Plut. Arist. 4.2. Apart from other sources the Athenian revenues comprised taxes and rents. Taxes were divided into (1) Direct taxes, in particular (a) The metoikion (a poll tax) levied on non-native residents in Athens (metoikoi), residing for a longer period. (b) The eisphora, a property tax used mainly to finance military activities. (2) Indirect taxes as tolls and harbour taxes, e.g., the two percent tax on imports and exports from the Athenian port of the Piraeus. Besides taxes in a strict sense, there were liturgies, as a means by which the rich were obliged to spend their money directly for public purposes. Leases of mines were a 1 2

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

11

century and 467 B.C1. Plutarch refers to certain acts of fraud that had been committed by Aristeides’ fellow officials as well as by the epimeletai of the former years2. Aristeides revealed these actions; his rivals banded together against him and prosecuted him for theft at the auditing of his accounts, but the Athenian people were incensed by this, and Aristeides was not only exempted from his fine, but even appointed epimeletes of the public revenues again3. Plutarch does not give further information that can be used to elucidate any of this official’s duties, nor does the epigraphic evidence help at all4. For this reason, probably, Develin states that the nature of this office remains unclear5. However, a passage in the Οἰκονοµικά of [Aristotle] discussing financial affairs in Egypt under Alexander’s rule is related to the context of the epimeletes of revenues. Aristotle says: ‘Ophellas of Olynthus6 appointed an epimeletes to superintend the revenues of the province of Athribis. The local governors came to him (Ophellas) and major source of revenue. Southern Attica had rich silver mines which provided the silver for Athenian and probably much non-Athenian coinage. Each year the state leased mineral rights to private individuals. Further income would be derived from law court fees, fines, and sales of confiscated properties. For more information, see Rhodes, 2013, 203–231, esp. 204–205; Ober, 2014, 492–522. 1 Davies,1971, 49–50 2 Plut. Arist. 4.2. The influence of the Athenian administration on the Ptolemaic administration is beyond doubt. Aristotle discussed, in many sections of his Athenian Constitution, the financial officials in Athens from the time of Solon to his time. Solon’s constitution envisaged as financial officials: treasurers, poletai, and kolakretai. The poletai farmed out taxes and other revenues, sold confiscated property and made public contracts of all kinds. The kolakretai were responsible for the expenditures. In the fifth century, Athens had its sacred treasuries and their treasurers. The apodektai appear as receivers of revenues. The treasury of the Delian League, which was moved to Athens in 454 B.C., was administered by the hellenotamiai. Also, in the fifth century there was a council of logistai, to keep the accounts of the officials. The Athenian administration also had its antigrapheis. We know of one who was concerned with financial administration, and of another who was an official of the boule. There were also grammateis, epistatai, and cleroucharchoi. About the Athenian administration, see Rhodes, 2013, 203–231. 3 Plut. Arist. 4.3. 4 Two inscriptions mention the epimeletes of revenues: IG II² 1330 and SEG 3:129 (both from Attica and dated to 163–130 B.C.). But these inscriptions attest – under the name of an epimeletes – only stewards of an association named τὸ κοινὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν. This kind of epimeletai (stewards of certain associations) was also present in Ptolemaic Egypt (see SB III 7182, 2nd/1st century B.C., below p.110) 5 Develin, 1989, 11. 6 Ophellas was one of the major officials who were left by Alexander to rule Egypt, and he played a prominent role afterwards during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. Cf. O’Neil, 2006, 16–17.

12

The Office of the Epimeletes

told him that they were willing to pay a much larger amount in taxes but asked him to remove the present epimeletes. Ophellas inquired if they were really able to pay what they promised; and on their assuring him that they were, left the epimeletes in office and instructed him to demand from them the amount of tax which they themselves had assessed. And so, without being chargeable either with discountenancing the epimeletes he had appointed, or with taxing the governors beyond their own estimate, he obtained from the latter many times his previous revenue’1 (trans. G. C. Armstrong). It can be inferred from the words of [Aristotle] that we have an epimeletes responsible just for collecting taxes as it must have been in the case of Aristides who was a τῶν δηµοσίων προσόδων ἐπιµελητής. Therefore, his duties could not have been as numerous as those of the Ptolemaic epimeletes as I will discuss later (see chapters three and five). Do we have here the first indication of the origin of the Ptolemaic epimeletes? Did the Ptolemies develop an already existing position in Egypt, at least one introduced under Alexander? This is possible, although we do not have further evidence. Οἱ τῶν µορίων ἐλαῶν ἐπιµεληταί (the overseers of the sacred olive trees) are another type of epimeletes attested in our sources. The Athenians differentiated between two types of olive trees: private and sacred olive trees. The latter type was named moriai2. For the state control of these sacred trees, our sources are Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution and a speech by Lysias3. Aristotle relates that the control over the moriai was the responsibility of the archontes4, while in Lysias’ speech, the speaker, who

[Aristot.] Econ. 2.1353a, Ὀφέλας Ὀλύνθιος καταστήσας ἐπιµελητὴν ἐπὶ τὸν νοµὸν τὸν Ἀθριβίτην, ἐπεὶ προσελθόντες αὐτῷ οἱ νοµάρχαι οἱ ἐκ τοῦ τόπου τούτου ἔφασαν βούλεσθαι πλείω αὐτοὶ πολὺ φέρειν, τὸν δ᾽ ἐπιµελητὴν τὸν νῦν καθεστηκότα ἀπαλλάξαι αὐτὸν ἠξίουν, ἐπερωτήσας αὐτοὺς εἰ δυνήσονται συντελεῖν ἅπερ ἐπαγγέλλονται, φησάντων αὐτῶν, τὸν µὲν ἐπιµελητὴν κατὰ χώραν εἴα, τοὺς δὲ φόρους πράσσεσθαι ἐκέλευεν ὅσους αὐτοὶ ὑπετιµήσαντο. οὔτε οὖν ὃν κατέστησεν ἀτιµάσαι ἐδόκει οὔτ᾽ ἐκείνοις πλείους φόρους ἐπιβαλεῖν ἢ αὐτοὶ ἔταξαν, χρήµατα δὲ πολλαπλάσια αὐτὸς ἐλάµβανεν. 2 We know very little about moriai which were located mostly on private land but subjected to the state’s control and sacred to Athena, to whom a proportion of the produce was paid as rewards for competitors in the Panathenaic Festival; see Aristot. Const. Ath. 60.1; Foxhall, 2007, 117. 3 Lys. 7. 25. 4 Aristot. Const. Ath. 60.2. 1

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

13

was accused of cutting down a sacred olive stump1, said in the context of his defence that caring for the sacred olive trees was the responsibility of the Areiopagos2. Foxhall wonders if there were some radical changes in the administration of the sacred olive trees during the fourth century or whether Aristotle may have simply been confused3. We cannot give a clear answer to this question due to lack of further evidence. Οἱ τῶν µυστηρίων ἐπιµεληταί (the overseers of the Mysteries) are attested in our sources, both literary and epigraphic4. All our attestations come from Athenian sources which show that the position was related to the Eleusinian Mysteries5. Demosthenes gives us a glimpse of this epimeletes’ duties. He mentions in his speech against Midias that the latter was elected as µυστηρίων ἐπιµελητὴς καὶ ἱεροποιός ποτε καὶ βοώνης, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα δή (overseer of the Mysteries and sacrificer and buyer of the victims and other such things)6. It seems therefore that the epimeletes or the epimeletai of the Eleusinian Mysteries, besides their religious or ritual functions, also had 1 Cutting an olive tree in Ancient Athens was a crime that could entail the death of the culprit. See Aristot. Const. Ath. 60.2. 2 Lys. 7. 25. The council of the Areiopagos existed a long time before the legislation of Dracon. The functions of this council were to guard the laws and inflict penalties and fines upon offenders against public order. The habit of choosing the members of the Areiopagos from former archontes remained till the time of Aristotle. See Aristot. Const. Ath. 3.1 and 3.6. 3 Foxhall, 2007, 117. The date of Lysias’s speech Ἀρεοπαγιτικὸς περὶ τοῦ σηκοῦ ἀπολογία (defence speech on the matter of the olive stump) is 397 B.C., while the date of Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution is no earlier than 328 B.C. and no later than 322 B.C. 4 Dem. 21.171; For epigraphic sources, we have inscriptions from Attica: IG II² 1191 (331/330 B.C.); IG II² 1672 (329/328 B.C.); IG II² 2840 (321/320 B.C.); IG II² 2841 (321/320 B.C.); IG II² 749 (beginning of the 3rd century B.C.); IG II² 3463 (3rd century B.C.); IG II² 661 (283/282 B.C.); IG II² 683 (274/273 B.C.); IG II³, 1 915 (267/266 B.C.); SEG 29:104 (258/257 B.C.); IG II³, 1 986 (257/256 B.C.); IG II² 3460 (257/256 B.C.); IG II² 807 (mid-3rd century B.C.); IG II³, 1 1035 (ca. 245 B.C.); IG II³, 1 1188 (ca. 215 B.C.); IG II² 847 (215/214 B.C.); IG II³, 1 1164 (214/213 B.C.); IG II³, 1 1166 (213/212 B.C.); SEG 16:162 (196/195 or 169/168 B.C.); Agora XVI 284[2] (173/172 B.C.); IG II³, 1 1329 (173/172 B.C.); SEG 40:186 (169-134 B.C.); SEG 21:494 (1st century B.C.), and from Eleusis: I. Eleusis 177 (329/328 B.C.); I. Eleusis 95; 98 (321/320 B.C.); I. Eleusis 216 (3rd century B.C.); I. Eleusis 181 (267/266); I. Eleusis 186 (255 B.C. or shortly after); I. Eleusis 192 (249/248); I. Eleusis 202 (225–220 B.C.); I. Eleusis 208 (214/213 B.C.); I. Eleusis 250 (2nd or 1st century B.C.); I. Eleusis 226 (169–135 B.C.); I. Eleusis 236 (ca. 140 B.C.); I. Eleusis 248 (late 1st century B.C.). 5 For the Eleusinian Mysteries, see Mylonas, 1947, 130–146; Clinton, 1974, esp. 8–10; Dowden, 1980, 409–427; Evans, 2002, 227–254, esp. 230, n. 4 with an extensive bibliography. 6 Dem. 21.171.

14

The Office of the Epimeletes

financial functions in delivering the supplies needed for the cult such as the sacrificial animals. Moreover, Aristotle, describing the duties of the archon basileus, adds that supervising the Mysteries was a cooperative effort shared by the archon and the epimeletai of the Mysteries1. Similar to the epimeletes of the Eleusinian Mysteries is the Διονυσίων ἐπιµελητής (overseer of the festival of Dionysos)2. Once more, it is Demosthenes who provides the key to comprehend the responsibilities of these epimeletai. Demosthenes states that, during the preparation for the festival of Dionysos, there was a heated discussion between the archon basileus and what he calls οἱ ἐπιµεληταὶ τῆς φυλῆς concerning the appointment of a chorus-master, which resulted in Demosthenes himself volunteering to be the chorus-master3. He added in a different place that Midias asked ἑαυτὸν εἰς Διονύσια χειροτονεῖν ἐπιµελητήν (to be elected an overseer of the Dionysia) and that he intervened in the work of the chorus and put obstacles in their way so that the chorus would not perform well4. It can be concluded from the account of Demosthenes that those epimeletai were elected to assist the archon in directing the procession of the Dionysia. Aristotle informs us that previously the epimeletai of the Dionysia were ten men elected by show of hands by the Athenian people, and they used to pay the expenses of the procession out of their own pockets, but in his time, they were elected by lot, one from each tribe, and were given 100 minae for equipment5. It could be added that, although we have numerous inscriptions that deal with the Dionysia, attestations of the epimeletai of the festival are very rare. We have just two inscriptions, both from Attica: SEG 43:26 (315/314 B.C.) and IG II² 551 (309/308 B.C.). The latter is an honorific inscription for a certain Nikostratos who was honoured because of ‘his continuing solicitude for the competition at the Dionysia’ and περὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπιµέλειαν (concerning his responsibilities at it) 6. The inscription 1 Aristot. Const. Ath. 57.1. The archon basileus was responsible for the sacred rites. For more information about the system of archonship in Athens, see Aristot. Const. Ath. 56f.; Asmonti, 2015, 45f. 2 For the Dionysia see Goldhill, 1987, 58–76; Spineto, 2001, 299–314; Finkelberg, 2006, 17–26. 3 Dem. 21. 13. For the chorus-masters of tragedies and comedies, see Aristot. Const. Ath. 56.3. 4 Dem. 21.15. 5 Aristot. Const. Ath. 56.4. 6 IG II² 551, l. 5–7.

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

15

does not describe his responsibilities. SEG 43:26 is more detailed; ὁ ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν Διονυσίων and others are honoured, for their deeds in the Dionysia. They ‘have taken care of the sacrifice to Dionysos well and honourably, and also of the procession and the contest, and administered everything else on behalf of the demesmen according to the laws’1. In the sixth book of his Politics, Aristotle gives a description of the proper way to set up the various magistracies in his model of state. Among them he mentions the ἐπιµεληταὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ ἱερά (the overseers of the matters connected with the temples). Their duties were, among others, the maintenance of the temples and the restoration of those that are in ruins2. Ὁ τῆς παιδείας ἐπιµελητής (the overseer of education)3 appears in the Laws of Plato4. A participant in the dialogue, the Athenian stranger, suggests, among other suggestions for an educational reform5, the appointment of a τῆς παιδείας ἐπιµελητὴς πάσης θηλειῶν τε καὶ ἀρρένων (epimeletes of the whole range of education of both boys and girls.)6. This official ought to be no more than half a century in age and possess the status of a parent to offspring who are lawfully recognized, ideally encompassing progeny of both genders7. As per Plato’s notion, the epimeletes ought to be endowed with the prerogative to elect individuals of either gender to aid him in his duty of oversight. The epimeletes must exhibit a deep concern for the avoidance of any error in educational affairs and be fully cognizant of the

SEG 43:26 l. B 1–7. Aristotle differentiates between two stages of the Dionysia: the procession and the competition. According to him, the procession was conducted by the archon and the epimeletai of the Dionysia jointly, while the competition was organised by the archon only (Aristot. Const. Ath. 57.1). Otherwise, SEG 43:26 (315/314 B.C.) shows that those epimeletai were involved in administering the whole festival. So, it is that either the account of Aristotle is inaccurate on this point, or a change in the duties of the epimeletai of the Dionysia took place between the years 322 B.C. and 315/314 B.C., the date of SEG 43:26. 2 Aristot. Pol. 6.1322b. 3 For the educational system in Athens, cf. Freeman, 1907, 49f., and see also Griffith, 2001, 23–84. 4 Cf. Stalley, 1982, 4f. 5 Plato devoted the 7th book of his Laws to talking about his vision of educational reform (although a reference to the creation of the office of an epimeletes responsible for education is already in the 6th book). Cf. Jaeger, 1971, 245–259. 6 Plat. Laws 6.765d. 7 Plat. Laws 6.765d. 1

16

The Office of the Epimeletes

magnitude of his role. The epimeletes of education must also hold the office wisely and in great respect1. In another part of this dialogue, the Athenian argues that prayers are requests addressed to gods, and poets may request a bad thing as if it were a good thing, with the consequence that the citizens may contradict themselves in their prayers. So, he suggests a law that the poet shall compose nothing which goes beyond the limits of what the state holds to be legal and right, fair and good, nor shall the poet show his compositions to any private person until they have first been shown to the judges appointed to deal with these matters. The Athenian named among those judges the legislators of the music and the epimeletes of education2. The Athenian discussed the question of travelling abroad in another part of the Laws. He suggests that no man under forty years of age should be permitted to go abroad at all, and that no man shall be permitted to go abroad on a private business, but only on a public business3. If any of the citizens desire to survey the doings of the outside world, no law shall prevent them4, but they shall be allowed to do so provided that they are more than fifty years old and they have proven themselves men of high repute both in the military and other affairs5. Those people are allowed to inspect the laws of other nations for ten years until they reach sixty, after which they have to return home and relate to a council anything important they may have learned elsewhere. This council is composed of the priests who won the award of merit of the ten senior Law-wardens, the epimeletes of education who was most recently appointed, and his predecessors in office as well6. The last passage in which the epimeletes of education is mentioned in Plato’s Laws is very much connected to the context of visiting foreign countries. The Athenian expresses his opinion about the reception of visitors from abroad. He holds that visitors can come at any time from another country as inspectors similar to those that are sent abroad, but under the condition that they shall not be under fifty years, and their purpose of Plat. Laws 7.813c and d. Plat. Laws 7.801. 3 Plat. Laws 12.950d. 4 Plat. Laws 12.951a. 5 Plat. Laws 12.951c. 6 Plat. Laws 12.951e; 12.952a. 1 2

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

17

coming must be the viewing of noble objects that are superior in beauty to those found in other states. He adds that the proper host for such a guest is the epimeletes of education1. This fictive epimeletes of education can be compared with the τῶν ἐφήβων ἐπιµελητής (the overseer of the ephebes) who really existed. In his speech against Philocles, Dinarchus itemises the transgressions perpetrated by Philocles against Athens. Dinarchus contends that there existed a prevalent sentiment that it would be unsafe and improper to confide one’s children to the care of Philocles. Consequently, he was deemed ineligible to hold the position of epimeletes of the ephebes2. 1.3 The usage of the term epimeletes with the meaning of ‘governor’ is attested in both literary and epigraphic sources from the Classical and Hellenistic worlds. We are informed by Xenophon that Dercylidas had entrusted the city of Atarneus to a certain Dracon, καταστήσας ἐν αὐτῷ Δράκοντα Πελληνέα ἐπιµελητήν (he appointed Dracon of Pellene as epimeletes of the city)3. In Arrian’s Anabasis, Alexander left a certain Plat. Laws 12.953d. Din. 3. 15. Aristotle gives us a complete picture of the organisation of the ephebes (Aristot. Const. Ath. 42). Youth of citizen parentage on both sides are registered on the rolls of their demes at the age of eighteen. The procedures included checking their legitimacy and age. Three men from each tribe over the age of 40 were chosen and among them the demos elected one from each tribe to be a sophronistes. A kosmetes over all the ephebes was also elected. Two paidotribai and didaskaloi were elected to teach the cadets. The ephebes were taught the use of the bow, the javelin, and the sling. They went on with this way of life for the first year. In the following year, an assembly is held in the theatre, and the cadets gave a display of drill before the people and receive a shield and a spear from the state. They then served on patrols in the country. Their service on patrol continued for two years. When the two years were over, the ephebes became members of the general body of citizens. Apart from this account, Aristotle does not give any information about the epimeletes of the ephebes nor do other sources, except the above-mentioned passage in Dinarchus. However, in some inscriptions, the verb ἐπιµελέοµαι is mentioned in relation to the ephebes; for example, in IG II² 1156 (Attica 334/333 B.C.), a certain Adeistos son of Antimachos of Athmonon was honoured and crowned with a gold crown of 500 drachmas ὅτι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίµως ἐπεµελήθη τῶν ἐφήβων τῆς Κεκροπίδος φυλῆς (as he well and honourably supervised the ephebes of the Kekropid tribe). 3 Xen. Hell. 3.2.11. That took place during what is called the Persian-Spartan war (at the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th centuries B.C.). Cyrus, the younger son of Darius II, had quarrelled with his brother Artaxerxes II, who succeeded his father as king of Persia. Cyrus, who had previously supported Sparta during the Peloponnesian war, was in turn supported by the Greek cities in Asia Minor, but he was defeated and killed in 400 B.C. The Greek cities in Asia Minor suffered Artaxerxes’ revenge, so they asked Sparta for help. 1 2

18

The Office of the Epimeletes

Pausanias as epimeletes of the fortress of Sardis, ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς ἄκρας τῆς Σάρδεων1. The term appears twice in the writings of Plutarch with the meaning of ‘governor’. In his biography of Alexander, Plutarch says that Alexander had left Harpalus as epimeletes of Babylon before he proceeded further to the east2. The title occurs also in his ‘Life of Demetrios’. Demetrios and his father, Antigonus Monophthalmos, were defeated in the Battle of the Kings in 301 B.C., where Antigonus was killed and Demetrios succeeded in gathering the remnants of his troops and returning to Europe, where he could impose his sovereignty over Macedonia and the mainland of Greece. The Boeotians revolted against him, but Demetrios defeated them and put garrisons in their cities, καταλιπὼν αὐτοῖς ἐπιµελητὴν καὶ ἁρµοστὴν Ἱερώνυµον τὸν ἱστορικόν (and left for them Hieronymus the historian as epimeletes and governor)3. The usage of the term epimeletes as ‘governor’ occurs also in inscriptions. The most famous example is IG II2 1201 (Attica, 317 B.C.). Demetrios of Phaleron was honoured because he had rendered excellent services to the Athenians. When he was chosen epimeletes by the Athenians (ἐπιµελητὴς αἱρεθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων) he erected magnificent monuments4. Besides the previous example from Athens, we have several epigraphic attestations for the epimeletai of Delos, but all these attestations are dated to the second and first centuries B.C.5

The above-mentioned Dercylidas was one of the Spartan generals who shared in the Spartan expeditions to support the Greeks in Asia Minor. Cf. Westlake, 1986, 405–426; Hau, 2016, 217–244. 1 Arr. An. 1.17.7. 2 Plut. Alex. 35.8. Harpalus was one of the companions of Alexander. He could not join Alexander’s military expedition against India as he was injured in one of the battles with the Persians. As his treasurer, he betrayed him and fled to Athens with a large sum of money, and then escaped to Crete. Cf. Badian, 1961, 16–43; Worthington, 1994, 45–51, and for his fate in Crete, see Paus. 2.33.4. 3 Plut. Demetr. 39.2. 4 IG II² 1201, l. 11–13. Demetrios of Phaleron’s rule over Athens from 317 to 307 B.C. is considered a period of tyranny. Demetrios was installed in Athens by Cassander, a severe opponent of the autonomia and the eleutheria of the Greek cities. Demetrios went into exile in 307 B.C. to Thebes, then he joined the Ptolemaic court, where he played a prominent role in creating the Mouseion and the Library. Cf. Diog. Laert. 5.5. 5 ID 1805 (160 B.C.); ID 1806 (126/125 B.C.); ID 1807 (125/124 B.C.); ID 1808 (120/119 B.C.); ID 1809 (120/119 B.C.); ID 1810 (110/109 B.C.); ID 1812 (110/109); ID 1813 (110/109 B.C); ID 1814 (110/109 B.C.); ID 1820 (100 B.C.); ID 1818 (40 B.C).

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

19

1.4 The usage of the term epimeletes in Diodorus: We have many attestations of the term epimeletes in Diodorus. He used the term to designate the governor of a city or a guardian of the two kings who followed Alexander and to describe the status of the diadochi. In the context of the wars of the diadochi, Diodorus says that Cassander made several changes in the Athenian political regime, which included the appointment of Demetrios of Phaleron as ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς πόλεως (epimeletes of the city)1 in Athens for 10 years, till 307 B.C. In this year, Demetrios Poliorcetes, obeying his father’s instructions, launched a military campaign to free the Greek cities, with the focus on Athens, which Demetrios could receive from Cassander’s garrisons after the defeat of Demetrios of Phaleron who is again called here ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς πόλεως2. Before Antigonus and his son’s campaign, in 309/308 B.C. another general used the program of setting free the Greek city-states as means of propaganda: Ptolemy I Soter. Ptolemy led his fleet into Greek waters and announced that he came to free the Greek city-states and restore their autonomia and eleutheria. Meanwhile, Cleopatra, Alexander’s sister, quarrelled with Antigonus Monophthalmos and, inclining to cast her lot with Ptolemy, rushed from Sardis to cross over to Ptolemy. The epimeletes of Sardis (ὁ ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν Σάρδεων) prevented her departure by order of Antigonus Monophthalmos3. The usage of the term epimeletes by Diodorus as ‘governor’ was not confined to his history of the wars of the diadochi. Diodorus informs us that Agathocles4, during one of his numerous campaigns in Sicily, took the city Cephaloedium and left Leptines as an epimeletes of the city (Λεπτίνην ταύτης ἐπιµελητὴν ἀπέλιπεν)5. In 310/309 B.C., Agathocles was defeated by the Carthaginians and lost most of his land and army. Deciding to attack the Libyans, the allies of the Carthaginians, he left a garrison in Syracuse and set his brother Antander up as epimeletes of the city (τῆς πόλεως ἐπιµελητὴν Ἄντανδρον τὸν ἀδελφὸν κατέστησε)6.

Diod. 18.74.3; see p.18, n. 4. Diod. 20.45.2. 3 Diod. 20.37.5. 4 For Agathocles, cf. Meister, 1984, 384–441. 5 Diod. 20.56.3. 6 Diod. 20.3.1–3; 4.1. 1 2

20

The Office of the Epimeletes

Diodorus used the term epimeletes also as a title for the regent of the kingdom of Alexander, as well as a title for the guardian of the two kings, Alexander IV and Philip Arrhidaeus. The conflict about the succession of Alexander started immediately after his death between his infantry and cavalry. They reached the settlement that Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s halfbrother, would be king, but that Roxana’s child, if she gave birth to a boy, would have the right of sharing the throne with his uncle. One of the decisions reached in this settlement was the appointment of Perdiccas as ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς βασιλείας (epimeletes (regent) of the kingdom)1. Two years later, in 321 B.C., Perdiccas was killed in his campaign against Ptolemy Soter in Egypt. Arrhidaeus and Pithon, generals of Alexander the Great, were named οἱ τῶν βασιλέων ἐπιµεληταί (the epimeletai (guardians) of the kings)2. As guardians of the two kings, they are again called epimeletai in the context of their dispute with Eurydice, the ambitious wife of Philip Arrhidaeus. They resigned from the guardianship, and the Macedonians assembled and elected Antipater to undertake the ἐπιµέλεια (the guardianship)3. With the title epimeletes of the two kings, Antipater arrived at Triparadeisus to settle the question about the rule of the kingdom after the death of Perdiccas4. Antipater died in 319 B.C. Immediately before his death, he appointed Polyperchon, who was the oldest of Alexander’s generals, to be epimeletes of the kings5. But Cassander did not accept his father’s choice and challenged Polyperchon, as he considered himself the worthiest to undertake the ἐπιµέλεια6. The last attestation of epimeletes of the kings in Diodorus is also to be found in the context of the enmity between Polyperchon and Cassander. The first, wishing to weaken the alliance between Cassander and Antigonus Monophthalmos, contacted Eumenes and asked him not to stop his war against Antigonus in Asia Minor. Polyperchon offered Eumenes the

Diod. 18.2.4. See also Hammond, 1985, 157. Diod. 18.39.1. 3 Diod. 18.39.2. 4 Diod. 18.39.3. For the previous appointment of Antipater and Perdiccas as epimeletai, see Harzopoulos, 1996, 282–283. 5 Diod. 18.48.4. 6 Diod. 18.55.1. 1 2

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

21

epimeleia of the kings in cooperation with him (µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ κοινοπραγῶν

ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν βασιλέων)1.

In the following table, the different duties of epimeletai are summarised as they are found in the sources: Job title 1.

The

epimeletes

The duties of

the

dockyard

To provide navy with equipment and to collect money for this purpose.

epimeletes symmoria

of

the

The levy of the eisphoria for the purposes of war.

epimeletes

of

the

To superintend the grain trade in the harbour

2.

The

3.

The

emporion The epimeletes of the repair of

market

4.

the fortifications

fortifications,

To supervise the repair of the Athenian handling

public

funds,

and

imposing fines for the purposes of repairing the walls 5.

The epimeletes of the water

To manage all water sources in Attica.

supply 6.

The epimeletes of the public

To administer, with other officials, the revenues

revenues

of Athens.

7.

The epimeletes of the moriai

8.

The

epimeletes

of

the

Mysteries 9.

The

epimeletes

To take care of the sacred olive trees. To administer the religious and financial aspects of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

of

the

Dionysia 10. The epimeletes of the matters

To organise the festival of the Dionysia together with the archon basileus. Preservation and restoration of the temples.

of the temples 11. The epimeletes of education

To supervise the whole process of education, investigate the content of new poems and plays, and receive foreign visits.

12. The epimeletes of the ephebes

To control, with others, the affairs of the youth

13. The epimeletes as a governor

of certain cities

14. The epimeletes as regent

of the kingdom after the death of Alexander the Great

1

Diod. 18.57.3.

22

The Office of the Epimeletes

15. The epimeletes of the two kings

as guardian of Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV after the death of Alexander the Great.

Table 1.1 The different types of non-Ptolemaic epimeletai and their functions

According to this table, we have fifteen types of epimeletai. They had financial and administrative functions (nos. 1–7), religious functions (nos. 8–10), social functions (Nos. 11–12), and political functions (nos. 13 to 15). The category of the epimeletai who carried out financial and administrative functions is predominant. The most prominent feature of the epimeletai of this category is that they were responsible for collecting taxes or directing public money. Other epimeletai of other categories, such as the epimeletes of the Mysteries, were also involved in financial affairs. The epimeletes of the moriai was involved in agricultural affairs. The epimeletes of the emporion was responsible for the transport of grain from the Piraeus to Athens. An epimeletes responsible for the revenues, i.e., collecting taxes, was present in Classical Greece as well as Egypt under the rule of Alexander. Such functions as the above-mentioned are attested for the Ptolemaic epimeletes, as will be shown below (chapters three and five). Most of the epimeletai mentioned above enjoyed a high-ranking position, e.g., the epimeletes of the water sources, the epimeletes of education, the epimeletes (governor) of a city as Demetrius of Phaleron, the epimeletes (regent) of Alexander’s kingdom, and the epimeletes (guardian) of the two kings. The high rank is also a characteristic of the Ptolemaic epimeletes (see chapter six). The Ptolemaic administrative and financial system was developed out of earlier practices that are known to us mainly from Athens1. What seems to be new with the Ptolemaic epimeletes is his broad area of responsibility. By designing the office of the epimeletes at the end of the 3rd century, the Ptolemies could certainly use traditions and knowledge accumulated in the already long history of Greek administration, even if we are not in the position to underpin this assumption with concrete indications2.

See p.11, n. 2. In reaching this conclusion, I disagree somewhat with McGing’s conclusion. He assumes that the Ptolemaic administration created this office without any clear parallel in mind; see McGing, 2002, 51. 1 2

Chapter One: The Non-Ptolemaic Epimeletes

23

However, the epimeletes in the Greek world was always named with a genitive which described his duty, e.g., the epimeletes of the emporion, the epimeletes of the water sources, the epimeletes of education, etc. It will be seen in the following pages that such a description was never used for the Ptolemaic epimeletes and was even impossible because of his central position within the framework of financial management.

CHAPTER TWO DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. We have 31 documents from the third century that mention the The following table contains these documents chronologically arranged, followed by a summary of the content of each document.

epimeletes.

1.

Document P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800

Date 221–203 B.C.?

2.

P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280

221–203 B.C.

Ankyropolis (El-Hiba) Unknown

P. Petr. II 20 R = P.

After 2 Dec. 218 B.C.

Arsinoites

17 Oct. 218 B.C. – 15 Oct. 217 B.C. Ca. 218 B.C.

Herakleopolites

30 June 217 B.C.

Ptolemais Hormou (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

3.

Place

Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr.

4. 5. 6.

166 P. Petr. III 36 (a) R P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr.

7.

336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b P. Heid. VII 387

8. 9. 10. 11.

P. Heid. VII 388 P. Heid. VII 389 P. Strasb. II 105 P. Strasb. II 103

Before 23. Aug. 212 B.C. 212 B.C. April/May 212 B.C. Dec. 211 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C.

12.

P. Strasb. II 104

Jan. 210 B.C.

13. 14. 15. 16.

P. Strasb. II 106 P. Strasb. II 107 P. Strasb. II 108 P. Köln XI 448

210 B.C. 210 B.C. 10 Feb. 210 B.C.

17.

W. Chr. 224 c

Ca. 13. Apr. – 12. May 210 B.C. After 9 Dec. 209 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites Arsinoites Herakleopolites Techtho (Herakleopolites) Techtho (Herakleopolites) Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Mouchis (Arsinoites)

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 25

18.

P. Cair. Inv. 103071

19.

W. Chr. 224 a

On or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C.

20.

W. Chr. 224 b

12 Dec. 209 B.C.

21. 22.

SB XXIV 16063 P. Heid. VII 392

12 Dec. 209 B.C.

23.

24.

W. Chr. 221 = UPZ I 116 = P. Lond. I 50 = C. Pap. Hengstl 2 P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto SB XX 14069

25.

UPZ I 112

26.

P. Heid. VI 379

27.

Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 P. Petr. II 1 P. Alex. Inv. Nr. 560 P. Bingen 34

23a

28. 29. 30.

Probably shortly after 12 Dec. 209. 14 Oct. 209 – 13 Oct. 208 B.C.? 209 B.C.? or before 22 July 204 B.C.?2 22 Jul. 204 B.C. 22 Jul. - 8 Sep. 204 B.C. 11 –12 Dec. 204 B.C.? 27 Aug. 202 B.C. 3rd century B.C. 3rd century B.C. End of the 3rd/ beginning of the 2nd century B.C.

Arsinoites Mouchis (Arsinoites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Memphis Arsinoites? Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Oxyrhynchites Bubastos (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Arsinoites Unknown Herakleopolites (?)

Table 2.1 The documents of the 3rd century B.C. Ptolemaic epimeletes

1. P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 (221–203 B.C.?): A letter from a certain Theodotos to Phoinix the dioiketes3. The sender asked the dioiketes to

The document does not explicitly mention an epimeletes, since the preamble is lost, but we can infer from the context and by comparison with parallels that the addressee was the epimeletes; see below p.40. 2 For the date, see below p.41, n. 3. 3 The dioiketes Phoinix (TM 14776, PP 51) appears in two other documents: P. Köln XI 438, dated to 6 Nov. 214 B.C. (see P. Köln XI intr. 438–451, p. 82f.) and P. Hib. II 244, dated by Turner palaeographically to late in the reign of Ptolemy II or early in the reign of Ptolemy III (Turner, 1955, 155). Following the editors of P. Köln XI 438, I adopt a later date for P. Bad. II 13 (221–203 B.C.?). Differently, Seider assumed that Phoinix came after the famous Apollonios and held his position before 242 B.C. (Seider, 1938, 73 and 80). This date is challenged by some scholars and will be discussed in detail later. Cf. section 3.2. 1

26

The Office of the Epimeletes

write to the epimeletes of the Saites so that the latter would provide ships for the transport of ‘χορτίνου’ (probably hay or like)1 to Herakleopolis. 2. P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 (221–203 B.C.)2: A receipt for seeds that were measured out by the agent of the sitologos in the presence of the agent of the oikonomos and the agent of the epimeletes to several people whose title is not specified3. 3. P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 1664 (after 2 Dec. 218 B.C.): The document is a letter of a certain Theophilos, agent of This is the reading of Bilabel (1923, 18). However, the word χόρτινος does not exist in the papyri, nor is there any attestation in LSJ. The editor probably read the letter after χορτι as a ν because this letter was frequently written with a final upright stroke carried up far above the line in the documents of the 3rd cent. B.C. (see Kenyon, 1899, 38). However, an image of the document (accessible via HGV) shows that in lines 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, the scribe did not write the ν in this shape but like an English N. So, I think that the reading χορτίνου may be wrong. Additionally, Armoni and Maresch suggested the reading ]θ (ἔτους) instead of ]ο (ἔτους), i.e., the ninth year of unknown Ptolemy; however, an iota could also be added before the θ (see P. Köln XI, intr. 438–451, p.82, n. 2). Maresch now proposes reading Ἁ.ρπν[ουτ- instead of χορτιν[. 2 BL 7, 62; 10, 79; 13, 103. Plaumann dated this papyrus to the reign of Euergetes (246– 221 B.C.) (Plaumann, 1917, 47). In SB, the date is said to be the third century B.C. without specifying any reign. Cf. section 3.2. 3 Plaumann, the editor of the papyrus, thinks that the people who acknowledged the receipt of the seeds at the bottom of the document could hardly be identified as cleruchs as is the case in P. Hib. 87, but they could have been basilikoi georgoi (royal farmers) like in P. Hib. 85 (22 Sep.–21 Oct. 261 B.C.), since among the recipients was a komarches, an official who could hardly have been a cleruchos in the 3rd century. Cf. Plaumann, 1914, 47. 4 BL 6, 113; 8, 278; 9, 207; 11, 177; 12, 159 and 289. This papyrus was first dated by Mahaffy, the editor, to 252 B.C. (Mahaffy, 1893, 61–65). No correction of the date can be found either in P. Petrie III (Mahaffy, 1905, 76-77) or in Wilcken’s Grundzüge who dated the document to the third century (Wilcken, 1912, 197). This date was later corrected to after 2 Dec. 218 B.C. because of the date in Col. 4, which was year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. year 5 of the reign of a king who should have been Ptolemy IV Philopator because the papyrus mentioned the transport of hay for the feeding of elephants in Memphis. Armoni argued that this must have been before 217 B.C., i.e., the date of the battle of Raphia (Armoni, 2012, 44). She agreed with Casson who stated that the two names Theophilos (PP 1473, TM 8972) and Herakleides appeared in an archive dating to 224–217 B.C., which seems to have been the archive of Tesenouphis, the toparches (P. Sorb. I 38–55, TM Arch 238), and therefore the date in Col. 4 must have been 2 Dec. 218 B.C. (Casson, 1993, 87). Casson in turn agreed with Bagnall who put 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 27

Antikles, who is said to be the πρὸς τῆι ἐξαγωγῆι τοῦ σίτου ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι (in charge of grain transport in the Arsinoite nome) to Ptolemaios the epimeletes. Two shipbuilders, Pinuris and Erianoupis, who had to repair some ships needed for grain transport in the Arsinoites, went for an unspecified reason to Herakleopolis. They received something which is missing in the papyrus from a certain Ptolemaios, son of Asklepiades, whose title we do not know, for the purpose of repairing the ships. At Herakleopolis, the two shipbuilders got arrested by Herakleides, the archiphylakites, for reasons the papyrus does not give. Ptolemaios, son of Asklepiades, appealed to Herakleides, the oikonomos, and asked him to write to Herakleides, the archiphylakites, to set them free. The latter refused the oikonomos’ request and said that he would not release the two shipbuilders unless he got a letter from either the epimeletes or the dioiketes. In the remaining part of the papyrus, Theophilos explained the consequences of their detention for grain transport since a tremendous amount of grain had accumulated. He begged the epimeletes to write to Herakleides, the archiphylakites in the Herakleopolite nome, to release them so that they be available for work and the ships not be left unrepaired. Finally, he returned to the consequences of the delay of their release: if the grain were transported by donkeys, the transport costs would increase by 5 drachmas per 100 artabas. 4. P. Petr. III 36 (a) R (17 Oct. 218– 15 Oct. 217 B.C.)1: A petition from a certain Poseidonios who asked Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, to release him from prison since he was in dire need of funds and was facing death. Poseidonios alluded to the reason for his detention which was well known to the epimeletes but remains unclear to us. 5. P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 52 (ca. 218 B.C.): The verso of number 4 cited above pertains to another petition, in the current case addressed to Nikanor, the epimeletes. On more than one occasion the petitioner had the papyrus under Philopator (Bagnall, 1972, 118) in accord with a dating of the Sorbonne papyri to the last year of Euergetes and the first four years of Philopator. Cf. also appendix I. 1 BL 8, 279. 2 BL 1, 381; 3, 117 and 145; 8, 279. Cf. also appendix I.

28

The Office of the Epimeletes

written to the epimeletes about his case which concerned debts owed to the fiscus. He complained that he was harshly treated in prison and had been perishing from hunger for ten months. He asserted that he was unjustly confined. The course of events was the following: there was apparently a dispute between the petitioner on the one side and a certain Demetrius and Apollonius on the other. Unfortunately, the lines about the dispute are difficult to understand (l. 20–27). Dionysodoros, the former epimeletes, was engaged. The case was also submitted to the court of the chrematistai, where a certain Diophanes1 is mentioned as responsible for the confinement of the petitioner, as he claimed. Therefore, he asked the epimeletes not to let him perish of hunger, but to send him and present his case before the dioiketes to whom complaints about decisions of the fiscal administration according to the diagramma should be directed. 6. P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b (30 June 217 B.C.; with BL I; III; VI–IX; cf. esp. Armoni, 2012, 201–203; Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 249–151): This papyrus is part of a collection of litterae missae et adlatae, a diary of correspondence of the office of Stratokles, probably γραµµατεύς of the cleruchs’ administration2, and Lamiskos, the ἐπὶ συντάξεως,3 both officials in the military administration concerned with cleruchic affairs4. Most likely, Diophanes is not the famous strategos of the Arsinoites (PP 247, TM Per 7452) as Swarney suggested (cf. appendix I). See section 3.1.8 for Diophanes being an εἰσαγωγεύς instead. 2 According to l. 36 Στρατοκλῆς ὁ γρ̣α̣[µµ]α̣τ̣εύς (BL 3, p.91) is apparently a γραµµατεὺς κληρούχων. Armoni, 2012, 201, n. 95 assumes that Stratokles can be identified with the γραµµατεὺς τῶν κατοίκων ἱππέων of the same name in SB IV 7453, 5 = SEG VIII 356 (cf. Uebel, 1968, no. 1465; 222–205 B.C.). 3 The papyrus has Λαµίσκου τοῦ ἐπὶ συντάξεως, ὑπηρέτου τῶν ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι (l. 24–25). Here, some text must be lost, as Wilcken noted, following Crönert, writing τοῦ ἐπὶ συντάξεως ὑπηρέτου, as ὑπηρέτου must already refer to the deceased cleruchos. If this is accepted, the papyrus has the earliest attestation of the office of the ἐπὶ συντάξεως. 4 For the administration of cleruchic land, see Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 206–234; FischerBovet, 2014, 210f., esp. p.211 for the ἐπὶ συντάξεως and the γραµµατεύς of the cleruchs’ administration. Fischer-Bovet assumes that the ἐπὶ συντάξεως is an innovation of Ptolemy V: ‘The grammateis checked the individuals who were becoming cleruchs, assigned land, controlled the quality of the cleros, and handled disputes. From the time of Ptolemy V on, they were subordinate to a new high official, the pros tē syntaxē or epi syntaxeōs.’ (Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 211). Nonetheless, the establishment of this position can be attributed to the reign of Philopator or possibly even an earlier period because P. 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 29

Entries for three days are preserved, and each belongs to a different affair. The first entry is of special interest because an epimeletes is mentioned. Still, the third entry cannot be neglected since it deals with a similar case and shows a similar procedure. The understanding of both cases can be furthered by comparing each to the other. A letter that was registered on the 18th of [Pachon] of the fifth year (l. 20–36) deals with the third affair. This incoming letter is from a certain Straton who informs Stratokles and Lamiskos through the attached correspondence that he had asked the [dioiketes] Theogenes1 to take the appropriate steps that the cleros of a hyperetes2, a Macedonian who owned 30 arouras in the Arsinoites, would be seized (κατέχειν τὸν κλῆρον ἐν τῶι βασιλικῶι σὺν τοῖς ἐκφορίοις). The death of this hyperetes was initially reported by Lamiskos to Straton3. The first letter, registered between the 7th and the 16th of [Pachon] (l. 1–12), is an outgoing letter informing an official whose name is lost that the senders (Stratokles and Lamiskos) had received a letter of a certain Marsyas who had announced, attaching pertinent letters, that he had informed the [dioiketes?] Theogenes that there are cleroi to be Lille 1 4 seems to furnish the earliest attestation of this office (see the previous note). Fischer-Bovet also contradicts Edgar who suggested that the ἐπὶ συντάξεως was a subordinate of the γραµµατεύς (Edgar, 1937, 261). 1 Uebel thought that we have here (l. 8) another Theogenes who is to be distinguished from the Theogenes mentioned elsewhere in the papyrus (l. 16, 21, and 24). This is supported, in his view, by the fact that Theogenes in l. 8 received orders – σύντ̣αξ̣ ο̣ ̣ν̣ ἀναλαβ[εῖν] – from Marsyas, one of the local officials, and this could not have happened if the Theogenes in line 8 is the person mentioned in the other lines, because the latter was the famous dioiketes (Uebel, 1968, 250). Armoni disagrees and thinks that σύνταξον ἀναλαβεῖν should not be considered as an order; rather, it should be understood in the context of a letter to the dioiketes, where the request to order the confiscation of the cleros, was presumably politely formulated with ἐάν σοι φαίνηται or similar (Armoni, 2012, 202). We do not know the status of Marsyas, but of course, he could not have been superior to the dioiketes. Both Marsyas and Straton wrote to a certain Theogenes because of a very similar affair: the seizure of a cleros (κατέχειν τὸν κλῆρον) and the confiscation of cleroi (ἀναλαβεῖν τοὺς κλήρους). This parallelism is very strong and if both Theogeneis were really two different people, it would be peculiar that this was not expressed by the writer because the danger of confusion caused by this brevity was very great. On the other hand, σύνταξον cannot be considered a real order if politely connected with ἐάν σοι φαίνηται as Armoni pointed out. 2 For hyperetai, see Kupiszewski and Modrzejewski, 1957/1958,141–166; Strassi, 1997. 3 For lines 24–36 see Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 149–152. For the prostagma mentioned in l. 33, see Käppel, 2021, 57, n. 147.

30

The Office of the Epimeletes

confiscated together with their rent1. This procedure was initiated by a former epimeletes. Stratokles and Lamistkos were asked to undertake the appropriate steps. We do not know the function of Straton and Marsyas. But they had the same position in the procedures. Both informed the dioiketes and reported their efforts’ outcome to Stratokles and Lamiskos. Unfortunately, the letter that Marsyas wrote to Theogenes, quoted in l. 8–10 and containing the mention of the epimeletes, is poorly preserved (with BL 7, p. 77): Θεογένει. ὑπογέγ[ραφα? ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]η̣ιG σ̣ο̣ιG α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ν̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] τοῦ γενοµένου ἐπιµελ[ητοῦ (ἔτους)] ε Γορπι[α]ίου Μεχείρ. σύντ̣α̣ξ̣ο̣ν̣ ἀναλαβ[εῖν] τοὺς κλ(ήρους) ἅ̣π̣α̣ντας σ[ὺ]ν τοῖς ἐνεστηκόσιν ἐκφορίοις. (To Theogenes. [I have (?)] attached […..] to you (?) [….] from/of [….] the former epimeletes (year) 5 Gorpaios / Mechir2. Arrange to confiscate the cleroi together with the pertinent rent of the year).

For the confiscation of cleroi (ἀνάληψις) see Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 180–185. The double Macedonian-Egyptian dating is attested several times in this papyrus (lines 3, 7, 9, 10–11, 23, and 33–34). Documents from Ptolemaic Egypt show the use of three calendars: the Egyptian civil calendar which employed years that comprised 365 days (12 months of exactly 30 days + 5 epagomenal days), the Egyptian cult calendar that employed some sort of lunar months, and the Macedonian calendar in which the months were again lunar (Jones, 1997, 157). According to Maresch in the introduction to P. Köln VI, 258-271, by the end of the 3rd century B.C. there were two types of assimilation between Macedonian and Egyptian months: the first was used under Philopator and the second under Epiphanes (Maresch cited here an article by L. Koenen as forthcoming in the proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Papyrology, but this article never appeared). The first assimilation is attested in SB XX 15000 (year 5, 4 Audnaios/ 4 Pauni = 16 July 217 B.C.); SEG 8, 504 (year 6, 1 Artemisios/1 Phaophi = 30 Nov. 217 B.C.); and our P. Lille 1 4. Maresch had added a fourth, uncertain attestation that now must be eliminated: P. Sorb. Inv. 2407 = SB XVIII 13841 (year 1, [..] Apellaios/ [..] Pachon = 221 B.C.). In the meantime, the papyrus has been re-edited as P. Sorb III 111 in which the date is read as ἔτους α Αὐδναίου κδ Παχὼν ε. The 1st assimilation must have taken place during the reign of Philopator; this is clear from the other three documents mentioned above. This assimilation was followed by the second one, for which the earliest evidence comes from the reign of Ptolemy V. In this second assimilation, the Macedonian months are put back by one compared with the former equivalents; the shift was necessary as the average length of the Macedonian year was longer than the Egyptian year. For the Ptolemaic calendars and chronology, see Samuel, 1962; Samuel, 1972, 145–152; Pestman, 1981, 195–268 (Chronological Survey); Stern, 2012, 167–229. 1 2

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 31

Swarney, 1985, 161, suggested the supplement [Νικάνορος] τοῦ γενοµένου ἐπιµελητοῦ because a Nikanor is attested in P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 (PP I 948, TM 10754) as an epimeletes (Cf. appendix I). 7–8. P. Heid. VII 387 (before 23 Aug. 212 B.C.) and P. Heid. VII 388 (212 B.C.): The two documents were written to Automedon, a sitologos in the Arsinoites, and form, together with P. Heid. VII 389, the Archive of Automedon (TM Arch 40)1. P. Heid. VII 387 and 388 are orders of delivery. In P. Heid. VII 387, Automedon was ordered by Zephyros2, the oikonomos, to measure an unknown quantity of wheat (?) to Eirenaios, the grammateus, represented by Protogenos, son of …, according to a letter of Nikanor, the epimeletes3. Here the document is cut off. On the verso, there is a remark, most likely written by Automedon, which could pertain to this or a different affair: ‘Year 10, on the 13th of Epeiph, I measured to the clerk of Apollonius 1075 artabas for Pauni’. For this archive, see Papathomas, intr. to P. Heid. VII 387–389, p.3–4. For more information about Zephyros, see P. Heid VI 379, comm. l. 1. 3 The identification of Nikanor, the epimeletes in this archive, with Nikanor of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 (218 B.C.) is problematic. Papathomas thinks this is not inconceivable, although a term of office of about 6 years would have to be explained (Papthomas, intr. to P. Heid VII 387, p.8). Such a long tenure of the office of the epimeletes is not attested in the 3rd-century documents. However, in the 2nd century, we have the epimeletes Argeios (PP 936, TM Per 5670) who is attested from 185 to 177 B.C. (Spartakos is also attested in the late nineties and seventies of the 2nd century B.C. in both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites, cf. Appendix II). So, an epimeletes’ long tenure of office is not to be ruled out, especially if we consider that we are relying on relatively few documents from the 3rd century compared to those from the 2nd century. Despite the poor number of attestations, arguments for a supposed tenure of an epimeletes can be drawn from the political situation. The long tenure of Argeios – and probably Spartakos – can be explained by the fact that they held their offices in the period that followed the great rebellion of 206–186 B.C., and of course, the administrative system needed stability after this period of disorder. Not less unstable was the period before and after the battle of Raphia, when Nikanor was supposed to be active. In any case, the possibility that Nikanor of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V was the same person mentioned in the archive of Automedon cannot be asserted definitively but also cannot ruled out. Surely Nikanor was no longer epimeletes after year 5, Mechir = 15 Mar.–13 Apr. 217 B.C. because he is described in P. Lille I 4 as τοῦ γενοµένου ἐπιµελητοῦ, but this does not mean that he could not have been appointed in another nome and later reappointed as an epimeletes in the Arsinoites. This shift probably occurred once again because we encounter the name Nikanor in P. Heid. VI 379 (Arsinoite 204 B.C.). Cf. also appendix I for the possibility that Nikanor was an epimeletes responsible for two nomes (the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites). 1 2

32

The Office of the Epimeletes

P. Heid. VII 3881 is very fragmentary. Automedon is ordered by someone, whose name and title are missing, to measure grain, according to a letter from Theon [the epimeletes]2. The grain to be delivered was either part of 396 artabas or was the whole amount. 9. P. Heid. VII 389 (Apr./May 212 B.C.): This document is a letter from Nikanor, most likely the same epimeletes as in P. Heid. VII 387, to Automedon the sitologos. Again, the document could be an order of payment as P. Heid VII 387 and P. Heid VII 388. But as Papathomas states, this papyrus is different from the other two in two points: first, the epimeletes in this papyrus wrote directly to the sitologos, while in 387 and 388, his instructions were forwarded by someone else who was the oikonomos in the first and someone, who is not known to us, in the second. Second, the role of the epimeletes in P. Heid VII 389 is limited to forwarding the instructions of a higher official. The reasons for the different procedures remain unknown due to lack of further information3. It is noteworthy that P. Heid VII 388 has no reference to any date. However, Papathomas, the editor of the archive, dated this document by relying on the dates mentioned in P. Heid VII 387 and P. Heid VII 389. He puts the three documents in the reign of Philopator because of the presence of Zephyros in P. Heid VII 387 (intr. to P. Heid. VII 387–389, p.4; intr. to P. Heid. VII 389, p. 12). The formula of P. Heid VII 388 is very similar to P. Heid VII 387, and since P. Heid VII 387 is dated shortly before 23 Aug. 212 B.C., and 389 is dated to around Apr./May 212 B.C, so he assumes that also a date in 212 B.C. should be expected for 388 (intr. P. Heid. VII 389, p.12). 2 Theon’s title is missing in the papyrus. By comparing this papyrus to P. Heid. VII 387, Papathomas supplemented the lines 3–4 as follows: [κατὰ τὴν π]α̣ρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ [ἐπιµελητοῦ(?)] ἐπιστολήν (P. Heid. VII 388 comm. l. 4, p.13). However, by filling the lacuna in line 4, after Θέωνος τοῦ, with ἐπιµελητοῦ, as the editor suggested, P. Heid VII 388 must be dated before Apr./May 212 B.C. or after 23 Aug. 212 B.C. since Nikanor was active during that period between the dates mentioned in P. Heid VII 387 and P. Heid VII 389. 3 Papathomas, intr. P. Heid. VII 389, p.15. This papyrus is broken off on the right and lower margins (Papathomas, intr. P. Heid. VII 389, p.15; cf. also http://www.rzuser.uniheidelberg.de/~gv0/Papyri/P.Heid._VII/389/P.Heid._VII_389_R_(72).html. for an image). However, Papathomas tried to reconstruct the missing part with the help of parallels (see P. Heid. VII 389, comm. 2–3, p.17). He supposed that all parallels are structured as follows: at the beginning, there is the name of the sender in the nominative, then the name of the recipient in the dative, and the greeting word χαίρειν. This is followed by the expression τῆς or τοῦ --- ἐπιστολῆς (χρηµατισµοῦ e.g.) ὑπόκειταί σοι τὸ ἀντίγραφον, then the sender’s command to the subordinate to deal with the matter in question. Accordingly, Papathomas suggested the following reading for lines 2–3: Νικάνωρ Αὐτοµέδοντι χ̣[αίρειν. τῆς (τοῦ) παρὰ N. in genitive τοῦ title in 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 33

10–16. P. Strasb. II 103–1081; P. Köln XI 4482: These documents represent payment orders. In P. Köln XI 448, a certain Archedemos, probably a military grammateus3, wrote to Agathokles, the epimeletes, to give his orders for the payment of the ration owed to the cavalrymen (ἱππεῖς µισθοφόροι)4 who serve in the Herakleopolites: 287 artabas of wheat and 367½ artabas of barley for Phamenoth of the 12th year. Having verified the amount, Agathokles wrote his order to Theophilos, the sitologos (of the nome), to measure the mentioned amount, who in turn passed the order to Theomnestos5, together with the supplementary order from Theon, the oikonomos, undersigned by the basilikos grammateus (συνυπογράφων), concerning the same payment. P. Strasb. II 103 and P. Strasb. II 1046 are apparently of the same year and very similar to P. Köln XI 448. The officials mentioned are partly the same. In P. Strasb. II 103, Dion, the military grammateus, contacted genitive ἐπιστολῆς (χρηµατισµοῦ, ἐκλογήµατος, προσαγγέλµατος)] ὑπ̣όκ ̣ ε̣ιτ̣αί̣ σ̣οι τὸ ἀντ[ίγραφον…. ], or a shorter reading: Νικάνωρ Αὐτοµέδοντι χ̣[αίρειν. τῆς (τοῦ) πρὸς N. in accusative (perhaps τὸν title in accusative) ἐπιστολῆς (χρηµατισµοῦ, ἐκλογήµατος, προσαγγέλµατος)] ὑπ̣ό̣κε̣ιτ̣αί̣ σ̣οι τὸ ἀντ[ίγραφον…. ]. 1 BL 2,2, 155–156; 3, 232; 7, 245; 9, 324–325; 11, 255. P. Strasb. 104 = P. Hengstl 14. For the dates of this group of documents, see table 2.1. 2 The document is dated by the editors to 13 Apr.–12 May 211 or 210 B.C. (Phamenoth of year 12 of a king thought to be Philopator by the editors). Differently, Falivene suggests Phamenoth of year 12 of Euergetes =19 April–18 May 235 B.C. (Falivene, 2012, 221–227). I will discuss these dates below; see section 3.2. 3 See above page 28 with n. 4. 4 Misthophoros was the common term for a mercenary soldier in Ptolemaic Egypt. The term literally means ‘one who draws regular pay’ (Fisher-Bovet, 2014, 119). According to Fisher-Bovet, in the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C., misthophoroi generally came from the Greek world, while in the final decades of the 3rd century, fewer soldiers immigrated to Egypt. She concludes that at that time many cavalry and infantry mercenaries garrisoned in Egypt were the descendants of previous generations of mercenaries and cleruchs who had been born in the country (Fisher-Bovet, 2014, 119). This being the case, the translation ‘mercenaries’ does not apply very well because a mercenary is normally understood to be ‘a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army’. 5 Theomnestos appears in 14 Cologne papyri which form his archive (TM Arch 437). As we encounter him in this archive, his function is that of an archiphylakites, whereas in our document, which is chronologically the last document of the archive, he works as a local sitologos. Maresch and Armoni, the editors of the archive, suggested that the man had a career shift at that time. They asserted their argument by the fact that Theomnestos was addressed as a sitologos on the verso of P. Köln XI 448: σιτολό(γωι) Θεοφb[ίλου] traces ΘΕΟΜΝΗΣΤΩΙ (P. Köln XI 448 intr., p.156–157). 6 For a discussion of the date, see section 3.2.

34

The Office of the Epimeletes

Agathokles1 to give his order for the payment of the salaries of the soldiers serving in the phrourion2 of Techtho (TM Geo 2288) in the Herakleopolites for the month Hathyr of the 12th year. And again, the demand was passed to the office of the epimeletes, but this time the grammateus’ claim was not accepted unchanged, but Agathokles ordered the payment of only 2519 drachmas instead of the 2751 drachmas requested by Dion3. Finally, Agathokles passed his order to Hermias, the trapezites4. P. Strasb. II 104 represents an order of payment made by Theon, the oikonomos, according to the instructions of Agathokles, signed in Demotic by the basilikos grammateus5, of the same amount of money as wages due to the soldiers in the mentioned phrourion1. It is noteworthy that Agathokles in P. Strasb. II 104, 4–5 (29 Hathyr of the 12th year of Philopator) appears as Ἀγαθοκλῆς ὁ τοῦ παρὰ Πρωτάρχου τοῦ ἐπιµελητοῦ (Agathokles the agent of Protarchos the epimeletes), while in P. Köln XI 448 (Phamenoth of the 12th year of Philopator), he is mentioned as the epimeletes. Therefore, Falivene suggests that Agathokles was promoted to be an epimeletes within the approximately three-month period between Hathyr and Phamenoth of the regnal year 12, i.e., presumably at the beginning of the new financial year in the month Mecheir (or Tybi) of the regnal year 12. Cf. Faliviene, 2012, 221, n. 1; cf. also appendix III. 2 For the phrourion, see Cowey et al., 2003 (edition of texts regarding Dioskurides the phrourarchos in Herakleopolis around the mid-second century B.C.); Fisher-Bovet, 2014, 269f.; for the phrouria outside Egypt, see Scheuble, 2010, 35–53; Horne, 2015, 21. 3 That not the entire claim was accepted must not have been the consequence of an attempted fraud, but actually P. Phrur. Diosk. 4 (Herakleopolites, before 12 May 153 B.C.?) is an example of a fraud by a military grammateus from the 2nd cent. B.C. The grammateus of the ship of Nikadas at the harbour of Herakleopolis requested more than what was due for the ship’s crew. The authorities in Alexandria discovered this act of defrauding, and the dioiketes ordered the summoning of the grammateus of the ship to appear before him in Alexandria. The wrong calculations in P. Strasb. II 103 and P. Strasb. II 104 were corrected immediately at the office of the epimeletes, but in P. Diosk. Phrur. 4, the grammateus’ defrauding was only discovered by the authorities in Alexandria. 4 In P. Köln XI 448, the order needed a further stage: the orders of the epimeletes, and the oikonomos (signed by the the basilikos grammateus) were passed to Theophilos, the sitologos of the nome, and thereafter, from the latter to the local sitologos. 5 For the line in Demotic, see P. Köln XI 448 intr., p. 156, citing Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 132. The payment process could not have taken place unless two authorities authorised it: on the one hand, the epimeletes, and on the other hand, the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. This is asserted by P. Strasb. II 103 (the order of payment from the epimeletes), and P. Strasb. II 104 (the order of payment from the oikonomos, which was undersigned by the basilikos grammateus). This fact is also asserted by lines 2–3 of P. Köln XI 448. It can be concluded safely that another lost document, supplementing P. Köln XI 448, should represent the order of payment from the 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 35

P. Strasb. II 105 is an order of payment issued by Protarchos, the epimeletes, to Hermias, the trapezites, to pay out the wages of the epimeletes’ officials under the account of his office, εἰς τὴν γινοµένην ἡµῖν σύντ[α]ξ[ιν] (l. 1–2).2 The payments should be made: First, to a certain Diskos for the scribes of the epistolographion, ὥστε τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἐπ̣ι[G σ]τ̣ο̣λ̣ο̣[γ]ραφί[ο]υ γραµµατεῦσιν (l. 2–3 with BL I, p.155). Second, to Herakleides, τῶι πρὸς τοῖς [ὑποµνήµ]ασιν (l. 5, according to BL I, p. 155), for himself and the hypographeus. Third, to a certain Sarapion for officials whose function can no longer be read. The wages are due for the month Hathyr of year 12. P. Strasb. II 1063 is a small fragment of a money order. The extent lines can be compared with P. Strasb. II 103, 19–22 and P. Köln 448, 19– 20. As in the Cologne papyrus and P. Strasb. 103, the order was issued

oikonomos undersigned, maybe in Demotic, by the basilikos grammateus. For the delivery of these letters, Wilcken thought – and agreed by Maresch and Armoni – that P. Strasb. II 104 was an ἐπιστολὴ συνεφραγισµένη, i.e., the instructions of Agathokles (P. Strasb. II 103) had been openly handed over to Theon, who then wrote his instructions (P. Strasb. II 104), then sealed both together and sent it to Hermias, and that might also have been the case with P. Köln XI 448 (Wilcken, 1924, 90–91; P. Köln XI 448 intr., p.157). The letters (P. Strasb. II 104 and the lost document supplementing P. Köln XI 448) must have been sent first from the office of the oikonomos to the office of the basilikos grammateus to be undersigned before they reached the trapezites and the sitologos respectively. 1 Preisigke, the editor of P. Strasb. II 103 and 104, thought that the Protarchos mentioned above was a military commander and that Agathokles was an epimeletes – also military official – subordinate to him, i.e., accounting officer. Wilcken, by differentiating between the military and administrative officials, concluded that, except for Dion, the other officials mentioned in P. Strasb. II 103 and 104 were civil officials, and he could rightly determine their positions except for Theon, whom he considered an antigrapheus, not an oikonomos, as P. Köln XI 448 proved later (cf. Wilcken, 1924, 89– 90). It may also be remarked that Dion was taken to be a basilikos grammateus by Reekmans and Van’t Dack, 1952, 151. 2 Cf. Armoni, 2012, 64–65. 3 The document is dated to the 12th year of Philopator, which means 211/210 B.C. We do not know if Agathokles is mentioned here as the main epimeletes himself or an agent of Protarchos. If he himself was the epimeletes of the nome, the document should be dated to after Phamenoth of year 12, but perhaps three months earlier. Otherwise, if he acted as the agent of the epimeletes Protarchos, the document should be dated to before or in Hathyr of year 12 or 3 months later as a terminus ante quem. Cf. page 34, n. 1.

36

The Office of the Epimeletes

by Agathokles who ordered: ‘pay one thousand six hundred and ninety drachmas as written above, being 1690 drachmas’. In P. Strasb. II 1071 Protarchos, the epimeletes, ordered Hermias, the trapezites, to pay out, according to (a letter from?) a certain Poseidonios, an unknown amount of money. The document is badly mutilated, but most likely, lines 11–26 contained a copy of the letter of Poseidonios that Protarchos referred to. P. Strasb. II 108 is the last in this series of payment orders. All we can read is ‘Agathokles to Hermias, greetings. According to the calculation of Dion …’, here the document is cut. The mention of an ἐγλόγισµα of the military γραµµατεύς Dion shows that this papyrus was part of a money order for payments of soldiers’ allowances, as Wilcken already observed.2 17–22. W. Chr. 224 a; W. Chr. 224 b; W. Chr. 224 c3; SB XXIV 16063; P. Heid. VII 3924; P. Cair. Inv. 10307 (all 209 B.C.): These documents belong to the Egyptian Museum collection in Cairo. They are reports addressed to the epimeletes stating that the sender of the document had previously submitted a declaration of his immovable property to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. The first three documents were first published by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, who reported that ‘examples of property-returns (ἀπογραφαί) dating from the Ptolemaic period are rare’ and ‘the only complete specimen of such a declaration of house property hitherto published being Brit. Mus. Pap. 50’5. They added This papyrus was dated by Clarysse and Lanciers to 22 Phamenoth of year 12 of Philopator = 4 May 210 B.C. with reference to P. Strasb. VII 622, addendum. (Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 132). There must be a mistake. The month Phamenoth seems to be attested in l. 10: Φαµ̣[ενώθ, but the day of the month is lost. In P. Köln XI 448 (dated to Phamenoth of year 12 = 13 April–12 May 210 B.C.), Agathokles acts himself as the epimeletes. So, it could have been that the promotion of Agathokles to the position of the epimeletes of the nome took place on a certain day in Phamenoth (13 April–12 May 210 B.C). This would mean after the beginning of the financial year in Mechir (14 Mar.–12 Apr. 210 B.C.) or Tybi (12 Feb.–3 Mar. 210 B.C.). 2 Wilcken, 1924, 92. 3 BL 4, 104; 11, 290. 4 BL 11, 93–94. 5 See no. 23 below. 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 37

that ‘the Gizeh Museum possesses five papyri of the same class, and of a similar early period’1. Then these three documents were reprinted in Wilcken’s Chrestomathie under numbers 224 a, b, and c. Papathomas edited the fourth papyrus in P. Heid. VII 392, and he reported that he had not been able to examine the other pieces of this group of documents2. A. Martin and G. Nachtergael published the fifth papyrus3 which became SB XXIV 16063. A sixth piece, belonging to this group of reports of property declarations, is P. Cair. Inv. 10307, which had been published by S. Soliman as part of her MA thesis4. This is summarised in chronological order in the following table: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Inv. number P. Cair. Inv. 10274 P. Cair. Inv. 10307 P. Cair. Inv. 10277 P. Cair. Inv. 10323 P. Cair. Inv. 10325 P. Cair. Inv. 10295

Document W. Chr. 224 c Qandeil, forthcoming. W. Chr. 224 a W. Chr. 224 b SB XXIV 16063 P. Heid. VII 392

Date After 9 Dec. 209 B.C. On or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. Probably shortly after 12 Dec. 209.

Place Mouchis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Mouchis (Arsinoites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Mouchis? (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Table 2.2 Reports of real estate declarations

As already stated, the six documents housed in Cairo are not ἀπογραφαί (declarations) but reports of ἀπογραφαί. The declarations themselves had been sent previously to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus5. All these reports are addressed to the epimeletes Apollonios. They reflect a step in an administrative procedure leading to the payment of the tax on

Grenfell and Hunt, 1903, 82. P. Heid. VII, intr. to 390–392, p.20. 3 Martin and Nachtergael, 1997, 295–306. 4 Soliman, 2019, 1–9, see Qandeil, forthcoming, re-editing this piece. 5 W. Chr. 224, intr.; P. Heid VII, intr. to 390–392, 20–22. 1 2

38

The Office of the Epimeletes

the declared house property (called ἐγκύκλιον in this context) by the declarant1. In W. Chr. 224 a, a certain Sebthos daughter of Horos reported to Apollonios, the epimeletes, that she had deposited the declaration of a house and a courtyard that belonged to them in the village of Mouchis (TM Geo 1396) in the division of Polemon in the Arsinoites, and asked him to order the report of declaration to be sent to him, so that she might be able to pay the relevant tax (τὰ καθήκοντα τέλη). The value of the house is given by the declarant as 100 drachmas using the participle τιµησαµένη. W. Chr. 224 b is very similar: two siblings, Pahopis and Pahopis, sons of Saliotis, inform the epimeletes that they declared to Kallikrates, the oikonomos, and Imouthes, the basilikos grammateus2, a house, a courtyard, and a storeroom which belonged to them in the village of Mouchis. The document is then cut off, but the valuation of the possessions using the verb τιµάοµαι and a request to the epimeletes in the form of ἀξιῶ οὖν σοι δοθῆναι τὰ γραφέντα or similar are expected in the missing part. The addressee in W. Chr. 224 c is missing, but we can easily figure out that he was Apollonios, the epimeletes, by comparing this papyrus to W. Chr. 224 a and b. In the present papyrus, a certain person, whose name is also missing, and Tagesis, his daughter, reported that they declared to Kallikrates, the oikonomos, and Imouthes, the basilikos grammateus, a house and a courtyard that belong to the person, whose name is lost, in the village Mouchis, with the value of 50 drachmas, and a half of a house that belongs to Tagesis which is valued at 35 drachmas. They also report that the declaration was made on 27 Phaophi (9 Dec. 209 B.C.)3. A receipt of such a payment (ἐγκύκλιον) is P. Lond. VII 2189 = SB VI 9599 (10 (?) Dec. 209 B.C.) which is issued by a banker whose name is lost to a payer whose name began with Α.ρ̣-. The payer had made his declaration to Kallikrates the oikonomos, and Imouthes the basilikos grammateus; cf. Armoni, 2012, 214–218. 2 For the two officials, see Oates, 1995, 56f.; Armoni, 2012, 214f. 3 The date of the report is missing, but it can be conjectured using the other papyri of the same group. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. is the date of three papyri: W. Chr. 224 a and b as well as SB XXIV 16063. The declarations to which these reports refer must have been 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 39

P. Heid. VII 392, similar in form to the three documents mentioned above, was perhaps submitted somewhat later. The report was submitted to the same epimeletes by Teres, son of Lysimachos. He reports the ownership of a house that had been declared to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus on the 30th of [Phaophi]. If the month is correctly supplemented, the report of the declaration was made in Hathyr, likely, within the first 3 days of this month, if we assume a procedure similar to that of W. Chr. 224 a, b, c, and SB XXIV 16063. The document ends with the verb ἀξιῶ, where the rest is lost. In the missing part, the sentence ἀξιῶ οὖν σοι δοθῆναι τὰ γραφέντα or similar is to be expected. The value of the house should have been mentioned too. SB XXIV 16063 suffered considerable damage. It contains the date, the 30th of Phaophi (=12 Dec.) 209 B.C. The addressee was Apollonios, the epimeletes, and the declarant was a certain Nepheros son of […]. Only the verb ἀπεγραψάµ[ην] survives at the end of line 5, which is enough to say that the document, like the others of this series, is a report of a property declaration. After ἀπεγραψάµ[ην], the following data are expected: the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus as the officials to whom the declaration was made, the possession declared and its value,

submitted earlier, probably on the 9th of Dec. 209 B.C. as W. Chr. 224 c. If that was the case, we should expect the same date of the report in W. Chr. 224 c as the other reports, which means 12 Dec. 209 B.C. So, the procedures of submitting these declarations and reports are as follows: first, a declaration (ἀπογραφή) is submitted to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. Second, three days later – maybe a period for checking and sending a report to the office of the epimeletes – a report is made in the office of epimeletes. It is not excluded that the declarants of our documents went together on the same days from their village Mouchis (TM Geo 1396) to Krokodilopolis where the offices of the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, and the epimeletes were situated. There, they submitted first the declarations and either stayed the three days together in the metropolis or returned to their village. Then after the three days, they also went together to the office of the epimeletes where the reports of the declarations were submitted. Or they simply chose a representative to do the whole procedure on their behalf. Martin and Nachtergael noticed that a trace of ink could be seen on the top margin of SB XXIV 16063, which may refer to a serial number, and the same also occurs in W. Chr. 224 a (Martin and Nachtergael, 1997, 302). They cited Avogadro who assumed that this series of documents was archived and preserved in the office of the epimeletes in the form of a τόµος συγκολλήσιµος (Avogdro, 1935, 141–142). The date and the origin of these reports most likely formed the base of this classification, cf. Qandeil, forthcoming.

40

The Office of the Epimeletes

and the ἀξιῶ sentence with a request to order the report to be sent so that the declarant would be able to pay the tax. The surviving part of P. Cair. Inv. 10307 contains the words Καλ]λ̣ιGκ̣ρ̣άτ̣η̣ν̣ | τ̣ὸν̣ ̣ οἰκονόµον καὶ | Ἰµούθην βασιλικὸν | γραµµατέα τῆι | κη τοῦ Φαῶφι. For reasons stated in the edition1, I supplemented the first lines of the papyrus as follows: [(ἔτους) ιδ (?) | Ἀπολλωνίωι ἐπι|µελητῆι παρὰ | N. τοῦ | N. ἀπεγραψ|άµην πρὸς Καλ]λ̣ιGκ̣ρ̣άτ̣η̣ν̣. So, the missing declarant(s) reported to the epimeletes that he (they) had deposited the declaration of property whose items are not preserved to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. 23. W. Chr. 221 = UPZ I 116 = P. Lond. I 50 = C. Pap. Hengstl 20 (209/8 B.C.?)2: This papyrus is a real estate declaration (ἀπογραφή) which apparently belongs to the same year (209/208 B.C.) as the abovementioned Cairo papyri. Whereas these papyri, coming from the Arsinoites, only report the submission of such declarations to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus, this is an actual ἀπογραφή of house property, submitted to the epimeletes, and has a Memphite origin. The ἀπογραφή, completely preserved, was submitted by Apynchis, son of Inaroys, Hellenomemphites3, to Metrodoros, the epimeletes, in Qandeil, forthcoming. This papyrus was first dated to the 1st century B.C. by Kenyon (1893,48). Grenfell and Hunt dated it to ‘the third century or at any rate the beginning of the second century B.C.’ (P. Tebt. I, p.584, n. 1). Wilcken preferred a date in the 3rd century B.C. His argument is based on the handwriting typical for the 3rd century (UPZ I 116, intr.). Wilcken was right to argue that the copper standard used in this papyrus cannot be used as an argument against dating it to the 3rd century B.C. (UPZ I 116, comm. l. 21). Skeat gives a date under Philopator (221–204 B.C.) (Skeat, 1959, 78). Hengstl dated it to 210– 183 B.C. without giving any further arguments (C. Pap. Hengstl 20, p.69), but I believe that his dating is based on the use of the copper standard. Citing Skeat, Bagnall and Derow adopted the same date as Hengstl (Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 156–157). A date in the 14th year of Philopator (209/208 B.C.) can be adopted since the papyrus refers to a royal decree in that year that led to a series of these property declarations; cf. Qandeil, forthcoming. 3 As some scholars have pointed out (UPZ I 116, intr.; C. Pap. Hengstl 20, p.71; Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 157), this document is peculiar in referring to the declarant as Ἑλληνοµεµφίτης (l. 3), and to the quarter where he lived as Ἑλλήνιον. Herodotus informs us that Psammetichus I (664–610 B.C.) settled Ionians and Carians near Bubastis. Afterward, king Amasis II (570–526 B.C.) moved them to Memphis to form his guards against the Egyptians (Hdt. 2.154). Wilcken assumed that those 1 2

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 41

accordance with the royal decree (πρόσταγµα)1. Apynchis declared his ownership of a house and a courtyard in the Hellenion ἐν τόπωι Ἰµενσθωτιείωι, giving the dimensions and the boundaries of it. He valued the house and the courtyard at 4000 drachmas. He also declared another house with a courtyard which he described as ἐν ὧι σιτοποιοῦσιν (in which they make bread). It is, therefore, a bakery2 whose dimensions and boundaries were also given and is valued at 2000 drachmas. So, the possessions were valued at one talent. 23a. P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto (209 B.C.? or before 22 July 204 B.C.?3): A fragmentary papyrus which does not allow us to establish any Ἑλληνοµεµφῖται together with the Καροµεµφῖται were the descendants of those soldiers whom Amasis II had settled in Memphis, and this would explain the Egyptian name Ἀπύγχις Ἰναρώυτος that our declarant bears; as he assumes that those settlers – unlike the citizens of Naukratis, whose law prevented marriage outside its framework – could marry Egyptians (UPZ I 116, intr.). For more information about the Hellenomemphites, see Thompson, 1988, 95–97. 1 Cf. Qandeil, forthcoming. Cf. also Käppel, 2021, 126. 2 This distinction between the house where he dwelt and the bakery is relevant for the rate of taxation. Bouché-Leclercq rightly noticed that the declarant would not have had to distinguish between the two buildings if both had to be taxed at the same rate (Bouché-Leclercq, 1906, 293). Wilcken assumed that the tax that should have been paid for the house was higher than that for the bakery, and added: ‘wahrscheinlich wurden sie niedriger belastet, da sie ja nicht selbstständig, wie die Mietshäuser, ertraggebend sind, wie auch heute bei uns Wohnhäuser 4%, von gewerblichen Gebäuden 2% des Nutzungswertes erhoben wird’ (Wilcken, 1899, 457). This argument is based upon the concept that the owners of rented houses had to pay a tax levied on the income from rental, ὑπὲρ ἐνοικίου (Wilcken, 1899, 192). 3 W. Clarysse – Chr. Fischer-Bovet, JJP 50, 2020, 95–97. The document is dated by the editors to the second half of the 3rd century B.C. They argue that Chrysippos, mentioned in l. 10, could have been the well-known dioiketes (PP I+VIII 52), and therefore, the text could be dated to 229–225 B.C. As a consequence, the name of the epimeletes, occurring in l. 4–5, could be supplemented to Ἀ[πολλώ]|νιος (Clarysse and FischerBovet, 2020, 96, comm. 4). But now, the name of the epimeletes Apollonios (PP I +VIII 933) is firmly connected with the above-mentioned property declarations, which were undoubtedly a response to a royal decree of Philopator in 209 B.C. (cf. Qandeil, forthcoming). An epimeletes Apollonios is attested throughout these declarations, and he is also mentioned in SB XX 14069 (22 Jul. 204 B.C., see no. 24 below) as a former epimeletes. No other epimeletes Apollonios is attested, so far, in the 3rd century B.C. (cf. appendix VI). So, I propose to identify A[pollo]nios of P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto with that of the property declarations’ documents, and therefore, the date of P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto should be around 209 B.C. Moreover, I also exclude 234/233 B.C., the date suggested by Clarysse and Fischer-Bovet for Apollonios, since I argue below in section 3.2. that the office of the epimeletes was introduced by Philopator. The present

42

The Office of the Epimeletes

solid meaning. We come to know only that A[pollo]nios, the epimeletes, had arrived somewhere on the thalamegos1 and seems to have summoned the writer of the document. There is also a reference to [instructions] to arrest someone. But then, the document is cut, so we have no further information. 24. SB XX 14069 (22 Jul. 204 B.C.)2: This document is a copy of a bank receipt3. A ἑκατοντάρουρος (holder of 100 arouras) and another person paid the price of a confiscated vineyard (ἀµπελών) to the royal bank of Krokodilopolis. This vineyard was in possession of a certain Nikanor son of Menoitas, a τριακοντάρουρος (holder of 30 arouras). The auction itself took place according to the instructions of the former dioiketes, in the presence of the former epimeletes and the usual authorities. 25. UPZ I 112 = P. Paris 62 (22 Jul. - 8 Sep. 204 B.C.)4: This papyrus is one of the most important documents (indeed, the most important after P. Rev. Laws) that deal with the tax collection in Ptolemaic Egypt. The papyrus, issued by Ptolemy V Epiphanes, is a call for tenders for all the taxes farmed in money or kind to contractors in the Oxyrhynchites, and it contains detailed regulations of the relevant procedures. Most of the regulations were to be carried out by the oikonomos and the basilikos papyrus cannot be considered as evidence that could falsify this hypothesis. Therefore, Chrysippos, mentioned in l. 10 without any context, can not be identified. 1 Cf. p.106–107 for the journey of Boethos, the epistrategos, with the thalamegos. Cf. also Lanciers, 2020a, 283–309 for the visits of high-ranking officials to the chora. 2 The document was first published by Casanova, 1988, 13–18. Later, Clarysse contributed some corrections, mainly in lines 5–8 (Clarysse, 1989, 300). These corrections were only partially accepted by Casanova (1990, 30). Cf. also BL 10, 225; BL 12, 223. 3 Perhaps, line 1 is to be supplemented: ἀντίγραφον συµβόλο̣[υ διαγραφῆς] (BL 12, 223). 4 BL 2, 2, p.173; 5, 150; 9, 363. This important text was first published as P. Paris 62, p.353–360. Later, B. P. Grenfell republished it as appendix I to his famous edition of P. Rev. Laws, where he reported that ‘several corrections of the numerous inaccuracies found in the Paris editors’ text have already been published by Lumbroso, Revillout, and Wilcken in various books and articles’ (Grenfell, 1896, 181). Wilcken republished the text once again in his Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (UPZ) under number 112 with an elaborate commentary. Since then, the text has been repeatedly a subject of studies concerning tax farming in Ptolemaic Egypt; see for ex. Harper, 1934a, 49–64; Harper, 1934b, 269–285; Préaux, 1939a, 335–336,450f.; Bingen, 1942, 291–298; Lewis, 1986, 18f.; Oates, 1995, 65–66; Geraci, 2003, 45–66; Armoni, 2012, 117–119.

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 43

grammateus. However, the epimeletes is mentioned once1: he had to

forward, together with the said officials, the contracts of the sureties to the bankers. Otherwise, these officials, including the epimeletes, would have been subject to a heavy fine.

26. P. Heid. VI 3792 (11/12 Dec. 204 B.C.?): While UPZ I 112, mentioned above, deals with the regulations of tax farming, P. Heid. VI 379 deals with a practical application. The document is a letter to Zephyros, the oikonomos3, from a certain Marres, son of Peteharmotnis, a fuller (στιβεύς)4 from Boubastos in the Arsinoite nome (TM Geo 463). He informed the oikonomos that he had contracted the στιβική5 tax for many years, and during these years, he fulfilled all his duties to the king, but for a reason which he does not explain, he missed the auction, and another person, Mithres who was the brewer (ζυτοποιός) of Boubastos, took over the farm of the tax under the same amount. The new contractor did not provide the guarantors up to the date of the letter. Therefore, Marres asked the oikonomos to write to the epimeletes to transfer the farm to him. 27. Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 (27 Aug. 202 B.C.)6: The fragmentary text represents a petition from the village scribe of Tanis who was responsible for grain shipment in year 16 (= 207/206 B.C.) and faced problems that are not clear due to the fragmentary condition of the papyrus. As a consequence, the shipment of wheat was blocked, and he asked the epimeletes to write to an archiphylakites to release the grain. 28. P. Petr. II 1 = P. Petr. III 36 (c) = P. Lond. III 504 descr.7 (third century B.C.): The left side of this document is missing, and the amount of the loss cannot be determined. It is very difficult to make conjectures UPZ I 112, Col. 2, l. 15. BL 11, 93; 12, 87. 3 See above p.31, n. 2. 4 See P. Heid VI 379 comm. to 2–3 for a complete list of documents which mention this profession. 5 So far, we do not know exactly which commercial activities this tax was to be paid for. For a discussion of this subject, see P. Heid VI 379 comm. 4–6. 6 Published by Baetens, 2014, 91–104. 7 BL 1, 348. 1 2

44

The Office of the Epimeletes

about the content of the text. Anyhow, the document seems to be a petition to an epimeletes (l. 2 ἐπιµελη]τῆι?) from a certain Athenodoros who worked as a land surveyor (γεωµέτρης). As far as can be determined, he had a dispute, perhaps with someone named Horos and a certain Matron, which probably made him (and his children?) seek refuge in the fort in Pastophorion (ἐν Παστοφορίωι ἐν τῶι φρουρίωι, l. 15) rather than being imprisoned there1. He asked the epimeletes (?), because some persons were in the latter’s service before (διὰ τὸ ὑπηρετηκότας σοι [πρότερον (?): l. 19–20), to write an order to Amyntas whose title is missing and Eueris, the archiphylakites, to provide him protection. 29. P. Alex. Inv. Nr. 560, p. 20 (third century B.C.): The fragment contains only the date (the second of Hathyr of year 14 of an unidentified Ptolemaic king) and the title epimeletes as addressee, then the document is cut off. 30. P. Bingen 34 (end of the 3rd, beginning of the 2nd century B.C.)2: The letter is incomplete in several places. The beginning with the names of the sender and the addressee is lost. Somebody, perhaps not the sender of the document as the editor assumed, had written to the epimeletes Ptolemaios and requested that he summon a certain Aunes and send him under guard to the court: ἀνα[καλέσα]σ̣θ̣αι (with BL 12, 33) Αὐ̣[ν]ὴν καὶ Mahaffy, the editor of the text, wrote Παστοφορίωι with a capital letter, taking it as a place name. In fact, it is hard to conceive that there should have been a pastophorion in a phrourion, and, above all, in this case, the phrasing would be odd. But as a place name, this apparently is the only attestation till now. There was, however, a place called Παστοφόρων, probably in the Herakleopolites (Calderini-Daris, Diz. IV, 61–62; TM Geo 6353). 2 Montevecchi, the editor of this papyrus, hesitantly, assigned its origin to Herakleopolis. Her argument is based upon the identification of Ptolemaios, the epimeletes mentioned in P. Bingen 34, with Ptolemaios of W. Chr. 166 (see above p. 26–27 and appendix I). Having examined the other P. Med. that belong to the same lot as P. Bingen 34, Balconi doubted this assumption (this lot, coming from cartonnage, was incorporated into the collection of the Università Cattolica di Milano in 1983 and contains 33 inventory numbers). After giving a list of these documents, Balconi reported that the few geographical indications in these documents refer only to the Arsinoites. She adds that we must not forget that cartonnage documents from different nomoi could come together, and therefore among the documents of this lot, at least partly of Arsinoite origin, could also be documents from other nomoi. So, she concluded that the question of the origin of P. Bingen 34 remains open. See Balconi, 2019, 431–436. 1

Chapter Two: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 3rd Cent. B.C. 45

καταστῆσαι ἐπὶ τὸ κριτήριον µετὰ φ[υλ]ακῆς (l. 4–5). What charge had been brought against him was perhaps stated in the lost part of the papyrus. Subsequently, the sender of the document got a letter with information pertaining to the affair, with the result that he now asks the addressee to cooperate in conveying Aunes to the author of the present letter so that he can be sent [to the court]: [ἀξιῶ] ο̣ὖν σε συναποστεῖλαί µοι τὸ[ν Αὐνὴν] ὅπως ἀναχθῇ ε̣ν̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣η̣σ̣χ̣( ) µετὰ φυλακῆς. In what follows, the chrematistai and property of Aunes (?) and his mother, especially the house of the mother, are mentioned. Perhaps Aunes was a fiscal debtor, and the property of his mother was involved as surety. In l. 3 ἀν]α̣χωρήσας can be read which perhaps corroborates this assumption1.

Anachoresis, the flight and withdrawing from labour, is the remedy to which the basilikoi georgoi traditionally resorted when they were no longer willing to bear their 1

miserable status. Based on the traditional view that Rostovtzeff set up, the royal tenants were theoretically freemen, but practically their status was similar to the serfs of the Middle Ages. They faced this status by fleeing and withdrawing from their labour, a phenomenon named ‘anachoresis’. Of course, such an incident had to be handled by the authorities. See Rowlandson, 1985, 327–347, esp. 338; Modrzejewski, 1994, 1–20; see also Keenan and Shelton, 1976, 17 and 118f. for a view of the status of the royal farmers that differs from the traditional one. It can be added that the anachoresis became more frequent in the Roman period; see Cowey, 1995, 195, n. 4 for a bibliography, and also Lewis, 1996, 64–65; McGing, 1998, 159–183.

CHAPTER THREE ANALYSING THE DOCUMENTS OF THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. As I mentioned in the first chapter, the Ptolemies incorporated the office of the epimeletes into their administrative system at a certain time within the course of the third century B.C. In this chapter, I will try to answer the following two questions: what were the functions of the third-century Ptolemaic epimeletes? And is it possible to determine the date in the third century when the Ptolemies incorporated this office into their system? 3.1 The functions of the Ptolemaic epimeletes in the 3rd century B.C. 3.1.1 The function of the epimeletes in supplying the royal farmers with seed loans: The basis of the royal economy was the control of agricultural production. This monitoring was mostly directed towards royal land, which was cultivated by the βασιλικοὶ γεωργοί (royal farmers). The relation between the state and the royal farmers was based on contracts, which were either short-term or long-term1. The ruler dictated the type of crops to be grown on this land through the διαγραφὴ τοῦ σπόρου (sowing schedule) and provided seed loans each year2. The distribution of seed-corn to farmers was the duty of several officials. P. Rev. Laws Col. 41 (263–259 B.C.) shows the responsibility of the oikonomos, the nomarches, the toparches, and the antigrapheus for this process. The nomarches alone is mentioned in P. Mich. I 43 (26 Oct. 253 B.C.) as the responsible official for the delay in measuring seed. Also, in P. Hib. I 85 = W. Chr. 103 (261 B.C.), a certain Pasis had received the seed-corn for a κλῆρος βασιλικός through the agent of the nomarches3. In P. Petr. III 89 (26 Dec. 261 B.C. or 17 Dec. 223 B.C.?), we have an order of payment from a 1 See Rostovtzeff, 1941, 278. For the relation between the state and the royal farmers and for the duration of the contracts, see Rostovtzeff, 1910, 47f.; Taubenschlag, 1955, 658–660; Keenan and Shelton, 1976, 118f.; Rowlandson, 1985, 327–347. For the village Kerkeosiris as an example of this relationship and for the contracts of its royal farmers with the state, see Thompson–Crawford, 1971, 103f. 2 See Manning, 2003, 144; cf. also Turner, 1984, 149. 3 For this kind of land, see intr. P. Hib. I 85, 39 and 52; Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 49 and 185.

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

47

certain Herakleides, whose position is not named, to a person whose name is missing, probably the antigrapheus, to measure seed loans to specified farmers through the komarchai and the komogrammateis. The antigrapheus was also functioning in P. Hib. 87 (256/255 B.C.), in which a group of cleruchs acknowledged receipt of the seed-corn for their plots of land to him. P. Tebt. III 703 (ca. 210 B.C.)1 shows the involvement of an official, most likely the oikonomos, in almost everything that concerned the royal farmers. The instructions which had reached this official, most likely from the dioiketes, regarding the sowing of crops were as follows: ‘you must regard it as one of your most indispensable duties to see that the nome be sown with the kinds of crops prescribed by the sowing schedule (κατ̣ὰ̣ τ̣ὴν διαγραφὴν τοῦ σπόρου)’2. Although there is no clear indication that the oikonomos was responsible for distributing seed-corn, the document at least shows his involvement in this process. This can also be shown by the oikonomos’ order to measure out seeds to the farmers of the village of Syron (meris of Herakleides, the Arsinoites, TM Geo 2216) for their land infested with worms (εἰς τὴν σκωληκόβρωτον γῆν; P. Tebt. III 701, l. 80a– 85)3. We have in P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 (221–203 B.C., no. 2) the only attestation that may refer to the participation of the epimeletes in distributing seeds in the 3rd century B.C. An agent of the epimeletes was present with the agent of the oikonomos in measuring out seeds to a group of peasants. The absence of any mention of the epimeletes’ function in the process of distributing seed-corn in P. Rev. Laws can be easily understood: the revenue laws were promulgated before the office of the epimeletes was constituted4. The scarcity of evidence for the involvement of the epimeletes in this process can be attributed to the short time in which the epimeletes was active at the end of the 3rd century B.C.

For the date after 209 B.C., see Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 168, who cite P. Köln VI, p.161–162. 2 P. Tebt. III 703, l. 57–60, trans. by Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 166. 3 For the functions of the Ptolemaic oikonomos, see Farah, 1987, 90–105. 4 See below section 3.2. 1

48

The Office of the Epimeletes

3.1.2 The function of the epimeletes in grain transport: After the crops were harvested, the tenants were not permitted to take mowed grain home, but they had to bring it to public threshing floors, which were located outside the village and covered a considerable area. After threshing, nothing could be removed from the threshing floor before the settlement with the state was finalized (εἰκασία)1. The state dues in kind were to be transported by canals or by animals to central collecting points (thesauroi) in the villages, and to the main river, then to Alexandria by barges2. Not only the state dues but also corn purchased by the state (sitos agorastos) underwent this process of transport3. The officials involved in grain shipping to Alexandria are, as attested, the agent of the antigrapheus of the basilikos grammateus or the antigrapheus of the basilikos grammateus, the agent of the sitologos or the sitologos himself, and the agent of the oikonomos4. For the 3rd century, we have only one piece of indirect evidence for some involvement on the part of the epimeletes in grain shipping: P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 (after 2 Dec. 218 B.C., no. 3). The matter in which the epimeletes was asked to intervene preceded the stage of loading, which was the responsibility of the officials mentioned Rostovtzeff, 1906, 204. This settlement includes, for grain-bearing land, the payment of several taxes, which differ substantially by region and by class of land; for example, on royal land, in addition to a harvest tax, the tenants had to pay a fixed rent (ekphorion) on the entire plot according to its assessed value, unless it was classed as hypologos. An additional charge of one-half artaba per aroura, called ‘the crown tax’, was also assessed on royal land. For a full discussion of the taxes assessed on different land classes in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Manning, 2003, 56f. 2 For the different kinds of ships used in grain transport, see Casson, 1971, 161f. It is noteworthy that these ships that transported grain on the Nile in Ptolemaic Egypt were managed cooperatively. On the level of operational implementation, there were three groups of participants: the naukleroi (the ship contractors), the kubernetai (the captains), and the kurioi (the ship owners). This business attracted even Ptolemaic queens and men and women of the royal court. See Hauben, 1971, 259–275; Hauben, 1975, 289–291. 3 Thompson, 1983, 65. For more information about grain transport in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Rostovtzeff, 1906, 201–224; Reekmans and Van’t Dack, 1952, 149–195; Clarysse, 1976, 185–207; Clarysse and Hauben, 1976, 168–187; Sijpesteijn, 1978b, 107–116. 4 Clarysse, 1976, 188; Sijpesteijn, 1978b, 108; Armoni, 2012, 33–60. For the agent or the antigrapheus of the basilikos grammateus, Clarysse gives the following examples: W. Chr. 441 (252 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 825a (176 B.C.); P. Lille I 22 (155 B.C.); P. Lille I 23 (155 B.C.); P. Lille I 21 (155 B.C. or 144 B.C.). For the sitologos: P. Lille I 24 (223 B.C.); P. Petr. II 48 (after 187 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 1, 823 (185 B.C.); 825c (176 B.C.); 824 (171 B.C.). For the agent of the oikonomos: P. Strasb. II 113 (215 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 825b (176 B.C.). 1

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

49

above. I conclude from this papyrus that the epimeletes at that time was at least responsible for providing the means of transport. We learn from this petition that the archiphylakites, who declined the request of the oikonomos to free two shipbuilders whose work was needed to secure the transport of grain by ship, would only comply if the order were given by the epimeletes or the dioiketes. In consequence, the epimeletes was asked to order the release of the two prisoners. In explaining this papyrus, McGing quoted Handrock, who in his dissertation on Dienstliche Weisungen in den Papyri der Ptolemäerzeit tried to distinguish between hierarchy and chains of command1. Therefore, it might be that in our case, there was a concern for different chains of command, i.e., the oikonomos might have been competent only to formulate a request and not to give an order. But McGing also pointed out that considerations of hierarchical order should also have played a role, even if it is not easy for us to determine the hierarchical order of the epimeletes, oikonomos and archiphylakites2. Antikles, who was the superior of the petitioner of no. 3, is called ὁ πρὸς τῆι ἐξαγωγῆι τοῦ σίτου ἐν τῶι Ἀρσινοίτηι. That he was an official is controversial because his title is difficult to assess3. Likely, he had held no regular post, but contracted for the transport of grain in the Arsinoites in that year, and probably he was a naukleros or kurios of one or more ships4, as suggested by Col. IV of P. Petr. II 20 R, in which a ship of his was requisitioned by the oikonomos to transport hay. On this assumption, it is easier to understand that different departments of the Ptolemaic administration intervened in his work as the papyrus shows. That the epimeletes had to ensure the provision of the appropriate means of transport can also be seen by P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 (221–203 B.C.?, no. 1). In this document the epimeletes was ordered by the dioiketes to provide ships for the transport of hay. Another piece of evidence can be found in the recently published Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 (27 Aug. 202 B.C., no. 27), in which it seems that – despite the very fragmentary condition of the document – the problem of the shipment of McGing, 2002, 53; Handrock, 1967, esp. p.86, n. 1, and 118–119. McGing, 2002, 53–54. 3 For a discussion of this matter, see Casson, 1993, 89, n. 8, where he reports the different views of Rostovtzeff, Wilcken, Oertel and Verdult. 4 See p.48, n. 2. 1 2

50

The Office of the Epimeletes

grain was caused by the κοντωτῖται1; so, the epimeletes was contacted by the komogrammateus to write to the archiphylakites for the release of the shipment. 3.1.3 The function of the epimeletes in the administration of the cleruchic land: Cleruchs received the use of their plots for life in exchange for the fulfilment of military duties and the payment of some taxes. For fiscal purposes, allotted land was considered cleruchic land, but it could return to its initial status of royal land if confiscated or abandoned2. When a cleruchos died, his cleruchic land was to be returned to the state and redistributed to his son if he was able to join the military3. The procedures of returning the cleros to the state after the death of the cleruchos and passing it over to his son can be seen to some extent in P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b (30 June 217 B.C., no. 6). The administrators of the cleruchic system, mainly the γραµµατεὺς κληρούχων and the ἐπὶ συντάξεως, were to inform the other officials designated in this case about the death of a cleruchos. The oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus were involved in seizing the cleros and its crops. The bureaucracy of the Ptolemaic administration appears very clearly in this process, as the cleros confiscation directives were issued at various tiers and the officials concerned conveyed their actions to one another via written correspondence. The epimeletes is mentioned in P. Lille I 4 because he was involved in returning the cleros. Unfortunately, this part of the papyrus that mentions the orders of the epimeletes is heavily mutilated. An agent of the epimeletes probably had to be present because of the crops since these crops were part of the revenues of the basilikon (royal treasury). We have two other papyri of the 2nd century which show the involvement of the epimeletes in the The κοντωτόν literally means a ‘poled boat’. See Casson, 1971, 334, and p.305, n. 23 for κοντωτῖται. 2 Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 225. 3 The questions of the cleruchic land and its possession (through usufruct or ownership), its inheritance, and the changes in practices over the three centuries of the Ptolemies, are controversial; for a comprehensive discussion about the possession of cleruchic land and the chronological changes in practice, see Scheuble-Reiter, 2012, 142–194; Armoni, 2012, 203; Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 227f. For earlier views see, intr. P. Lille I 4, p.39; intr. W. Chr. 336; Wilcken, 1912, 282f.; Rostovtzeff, 1941, 284f. 1

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

51

administration of cleruchic land as part of his general competence in agricultural questions (cf. section 5.3). 3.1.4 The function of the epimeletes in land auctions: The Ptolemaic state auction was an institutional instrument used by the Ptolemies as an integral part of their administration from the beginning of their reign, as far as we can see. It served to allocate tax farming (see below), state monopolies, certain priestly offices, and land or property that was abandoned or confiscated by the state1. The epimeletes is attested to play a role in auctioning a vineyard (ἀµπελών) in SB XX 14069 (22 Jul. 204 B.C., no. 24). The vineyard was owned by a τριακοντάρουρος (a holder of 30 arouras) and was auctioned to a ἑκατοντάρουροι (holder of 100 arouras) and another person. We do not have any information about the circumstances under which the vineyard was confiscated by the state2. Frequent causes for auctions are debts to the state or the death of the owner without heirs. But the participation of the epimeletes in a state auction was needed anyway, as documents of the 2nd century show (see below section 5.6). The only other evidence for the 3rd century concerning a confiscation seems to be the above-mentioned P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b (30 June 217 B.C., section 3.1.3). 3.1.5 The function of the epimeletes in tax farming: Most Ptolemaic taxes were paid, as they were before, in kind to the local granary under the supervision of a sitologos. Money taxes were newly introduced and were farmed out3. The actual farming out of taxes was the duty of state officials. By farming taxes, the Ptolemies introduced a third group between the tax officials and the taxpayers, the τελῶναι. They had

Hogan, 2019, 107. For sale by auction in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Manning, 1999, 277–284; Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 148–149; Armoni, 2007, 227–231; Armoni, 2009, 185–191; Jakab, 2013, 221–242; Jakab, 2014, 296–297. 2 As usual, we do not know under which conditions the vineyard was owned. Garden land is often attested as privately owned or at least owned on the basis of a hereditary lease. Cf. Maresch, 2009, 124–133. 3 Manning, 2019, 113. 1

52

The Office of the Epimeletes

very little to do with the actual collection but had a keen interest in efficient functioning and actively watched the taxpayers and the tax collectors1. Every year the principal taxes of a prescribed area were auctioned off separately to the highest bidder, from whom the state received the proffered sum in advance2. A detailed account of this process is mentioned in UPZ I 112 = P. Paris 62 (22 Jul.-8 Sep. 204 B.C., no. 25), in which the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus played the leading role. However, the epimeletes was also part of the monitoring authority according to this document: he had to deliver the contracts of sureties to the bankers in cooperation with the other two officials. This is in accordance with his duties if the tax farmer could not fulfil his contract. The other evidence in this respect, the supervision of tax collecting, is furnished by the petition P. Heid. VI 379 (11/12 Dec. 204 B.C.?, no. 26). The petitioner accused a tax contractor of not providing the required sureties within a specified period. Therefore, he asked the oikonomos, to whom he addressed his petition, to write to the epimeletes to transfer the contract to him: ἀξιῶ οὖν σε, ἐάν σοι φαίνηται, γράψαι Πτολεµαίωι τ[ῶι ἐπιµελητ]ῆ̣ι [λα]β̣ό̣ν̣τ̣α̣ [π]α̣[ρʼ] ἐ̣µ̣ο̣ῦ τοὺς ἐγγύους κατατ̣ά[ξ]αι ἐν ἐµοὶ τὰ στιβικά, ‘therefore I ask, if it seems good to you, to write to Ptolemaios the epimeletes to take the sureties from me and to allocate the stibika to me’. It can be inferred from the words [λα]β̣ό̣ν̣τ̣α̣ [π]α̣[ρʼ] ἐ̣µ̣ο̣ῦ τοὺς ἐγγύους that the epimeletes was responsible for checking the sureties that the contractor provided as is also attested in documents of the 2nd century (below section 5.4). On the other hand, from UPZ I 112, we know that if those contractors failed to provide the required sureties within a fixed time, their contracts were not valid. This means that a new auction was to be held. The petitioner’s request in P. Heid. VI 379 that the epimeletes allocate the tax farming contract to him, κατατ̣ά[ξ]αι ἐν ἐµοὶ τὰ στιβικά, may refer to the last stage of the auction where the epimeletes was present. The epimeletes’ role in this process is better documented by papyri of the second century B.C.3 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 328. For more information about tax collecting in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Harper, 1934a, 49–64; Harper, 1934b, 269–285; Préaux, 1939a, 450f.; Monson, 2019, 147– 162. 2 Lewis, 1986, 18. 3 Cf. section 5.6. 1

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

53

3.1.6 The function of the epimeletes in the state expenditures: 3.1.6.1 Payment orders of grain: This function of the epimeletes can be seen by the following three documents: P. Heid. VII 387 (before 23 Aug. 212 B.C., no. 7), P. Heid. VII 388 (212 B.C., no. 8), and P. Heid. VII 389 (April/May 212 B.C., no. 9). Automedon, the sitologos, is ordered by the epimeletes to pay large amounts of grain. The sitologos was subordinate to the oikonomos: the former had to obtain authorisation from the latter to deliver any quantity of grain1. We can see that the orders of the epimeletes, cited in P. Heid. VII 387 and P. Heid. VII 388, were forwarded to the sitologos through the oikonomos according to this hierarchy. But in P. Heid. VII 389, the epimeletes forwarded an order of payment from another official, who might have been higher in rank, probably the dioiketes, directly to the sitologos. Possibly for this reason, there was no need for the intervention of the oikonomos, or else, the oikonomos’ additional authorisation could have been obtained by the sitologos in a separate letter (cf. below P. Strasb. II 103 and 104; section 3.1.6.3). At any rate, the three Heidelberg documents provide evidence that the epimeletes took part in the pay-out process of state expenditures in kind. 3.1.6.2 payment orders in money: The authority of the epimeletes to issue orders of payment was not confined just to payments in grain. The epimeletes, as the documents show, was also authorised to order payments in money. This function is evidenced – apart from the documents cited in 3.1.6.3 – in P. Strasb. II 106 and P. Strasb. II 107 (both dated to 210 B.C., no. 13 and 14). It remains unknown if these orders passed directly from the epimeletes to the trapezites without needing additional authorisation from the oikonomos. The main part of the order in P. Strasb. 106 is lost, and also P. Strasb. 107 is only partly preserved. In what remains, however, there is no reference to the oikonomos. But it is possible that P. Strasb. 106 referred Farah, 1987, 97. During the third century B.C., the sitologoi oversaw the royal granaries, and they were placed under the authority of the oikonomoi. In the second century, a modification took place with respect to the oikonomos position, as it was then occupied by two officials simultaneously: the οἰκονόµος τῶν σιτικῶν supervised the revenues in kind as well as the royal granaries and their directors, the sitologoi, and the wine stores and their directors, the οἰνολόγοι. The second is the οἰκονόµος τῶν ἀργυρικῶν, who was responsible for revenues in money. 1

54

The Office of the Epimeletes

to him in the lost part. And in the case of P. Strasb. 107, there could at least have been an authorisation by the oikonomos on a separate sheet of paper. The purpose of the payments remains unknown in P. Strasb. 106, and in the case of P. Strasb. 107 the money could have been for soldiers or state officials who went to the Thebaid (l. 7 ὥστ᾿ εἰς τὴν Θηβαίδα). In these two documents, we do not know the purpose of the issued payment order. Differently, in P. Strasb. II 105 (Dec. 211 B.C., no. 10), we know the purpose and, moreover, the document even gives us a hint about the composition of the office of the epimeletes – so far, the only one we have. The purpose was the payment of the wages of the officials working in the epimeletes’ office. So, the document permits a glance into the office of the epimeletes, its departments1, and the wages of its officials. 3800 drachmas were ordered to be paid for the grammateis of the epistolographion, 850 drachmas for a certain Herakleides who worked as ὁ πρὸς τοῖς ὑποµνήµασι and for the hypographeus, and 1000 drachmas for officials whose function can no longer be read (οἱ πρὸς τοῖς ̣ ̣ ̣ροις̣), a total of 5650 drachmas2. 3.1.6.3 The function of the epimeletes in remunerating the soldiers: Soldiers were paid in cash (opsonion or misthos) and grain3. Our documents attest that the epimeletes played a prominent role in the process of remunerating soldiers. P. Köln XI 448 (ca. 13. Apr. – 12. May 210 B.C., no. 16) together with P. Strasb. II 103 and 104 (both Jan. 210 B.C., no. 11 and 12) give us the details of the procedures and the officials involved in this process. Wilcken noted that the office of the epimeletes contained different departments. As in that of the dioiketes, the epimeletes’ office had a department for ἐπιστολαί with its officials called ἐπιστολογράφοι, and a department for ὑποµνήµατα with officials called ὑποµνηµατογράφοι. This system, according to Wilcken, was applied in general to all higher officials’ offices; see Wilcken, 1924, 91. Unfortunately, the third position, οἱ πρὸς τοῖς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ροις̣, still cannot be read. 2 Reekmans considered this sum of money too high if it was counted in silver (Reekmans, 1945, 28), but Clarysse and Lanciers showed that the data on this papyrus are consistent with the monetary situation at the end of the 3rd century. They considered two payments recorded among others on the papyrus. In ll. 5–6, Herakleides and his hypographeus get 850 dr./month, and in ll. 6–7, two other officials get 1000 dr./month. Relying on these data, they estimated 500 dr. = 3000 obols an average payment for one official per month or 100 obols per day that with an Ar : Cu ratio of 1: 60 would be a mere 1.66 (2.05) silver obols, which corresponds to the average of wages in the late 3rd century B.C. (Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 131). 3 Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 118. 1

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

55

Three officials from the civil administration, the epimeletes on one hand and the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus on the other, and one from the military administration, the military grammateus, are attested as responsible for this process. The last stage, the payment stage, is carried out by the sitologos in case of payment in kind, and the trapezites in case of payment in money. A request for payment of monthly dues was submitted by the military grammateus to the office of the epimeletes. The exact amount of payment, either of grain or money, was determined in the request. In the office of the epimeletes, the calculations of the grammateus – the military official – were checked and corrected if needed, as in P. Strasb. II 103, then an order of payment was written to the sitologos or the trapezites. The revised account, containing an order of payment from the epimeletes, was sent to the office of the oikonomos. There, another revision of the account was done, and a second order of payment was written by the oikonomos, undersigned by the basilikos grammateus, in a different letter from that of the epimeletes (P. Strasb. II 104). Only after these procedures the sitologos or the trapezites could pay the soldiers’ dues. 3.1.7 The epimeletes as a responsible official for receiving reports of real estate declarations: This function is clear from a series of documents (see above table 2.2). Two types of procedures are attested. In documents from the Arsinoites, we can see that real estate declarations were submitted to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus1. Documents addressed to these officials have not survived, but the declarant also wrote to the epimeletes stating that he had previously submitted his declaration to those officials. We have such letters. The purpose of the second letter can be seen from W. Chr. 224 a (12 Dec. 209 B.C.), in which the declarant states the reason for his report: ἵνα τάξ[ωµαι] τὰ καθήκοντα τέλη τού[των] ‘so that I will be able to pay the taxes owed for the declared property’. However, W. Chr. 221 = UPZ I 116 = P. Lond. I 50 (14 Oct. 209 – 13 Oct. 208 B.C.?, no. 23), of Memphite origin, shows that the procedure was different in this case. The document is not a simple communication to the 1

See Qandeil, forthcoming.

56

The Office of the Epimeletes

epimeletes as the documents of the Arsinoites are. In this case, the actual declaration (ἀπογραφή) was addressed to the epimeletes, but the other Arsinoite declarations had to be submitted to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. The dimensions, the size, and the value of two

houses are given in detail, different from the brief summaries of an already submitted declaration in the Arsinoite documents. Do we have here a basic difference between nomes in practice, i.e., was the practice in Memphis different from that in the Arsinoites? Or can it be that the process of declaring real estate properties differed in towns and villages, considering that the reports that we have from the Arsinoites are all from villages? Or did the description of the declarant as a Hellenomemphite have anything to do with the practice, i.e., did the practice differ if the person was, for example, a Hellenomemphite, in which case the declarants had to declare directly to the epimeletes? Unfortunately, these questions must remain unanswered due to the lack of evidence. 3.1.8 The judicial function of the epimeletes1: The involvement of the epimeletes in judicial matters is attested in P. Petr. III 36 (a) R (17 Oct. 218 B.C. – 15 Oct. 217 B.C., no. 4) and P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 (ca. 218 B.C., no. 5). We are not privy to the circumstances of the petitioners’ confinement, but they lodged appeals seeking their release from prison. Bouché-Leclercq suggests that the petitioner in P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 had a complaint against tax officials. The case in question had been resolved earlier by the former epimeletes. However, the officials involved had a change of heart and subsequently referred the matter once again to the chrematistai, at which point a certain Diophanes, who Bouché-Leclercq

For more information about the judicial system in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Taubenschlag, 1955, 479f.; Modrzejewski, 1975, 699–708; Allam, 1991, 109–127; Aly, 1995, 9–34; Manning, 2014a, 17–19; Modrzejewski, 2014, 471–476. Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II made amendments to the competencies of the courts of the chrematistai and laokritai in the famous amnesty decree of 118 B.C. (P. Tebt. I 5), in which the language of the contract became the decisive factor in determining the court involved; disputes resulting from Greek contracts were to be decided by the court of the chrematistai, and those resulting from Egyptian contracts were to be decided by the laokritai without regard to the identity of the contracting parties. For the amnesty decree of 118 B.C., see Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 95f.; Käppel, 2021, esp. 190–192 and 342f. 1

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

57

supposes was an εἰσαγωγεύς1, ordered the imprisonment of our petitioner. According to Bouché-Leclercq, this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the petitioner quoted the royal diagramma according to which complaints against the administration had to be decided before the dioiketes, and for this reason the petitioner asked the epimeletes to arrange his transfer to the dioiketes2. It is also plausible that the petitioner in the document was an official against whom a complaint was lodged to the former epimeletes. The epimeletes had resolved the matter with the complainants, Demetrius and Apollonius. However, it appears that they were dissatisfied with the settlement and thus brought the case before the chrematistai by lodging another complaint. Then a meeting of the court was held, probably in the presence of the former epimeletes himself. During the proceedings, Diophanes, the plaintiff, provided evidence of the petitioner’s guilt, which led to his imprisonment. Therefore, the petitioner quoted the abovementioned diagramma because there was a procedural mistake: his case should be examined by the dioiketes, and the complainants should be obliged to provide strong proof to him in Alexandria. It is noteworthy that the petitioner appealed expressis verbis to the authority of the epimeletes in controversial matters of this kind when he wrote: οὗ ἕ̣νεκεν ἐπιµελητὴς ἦι] [φροντίσας] ὅπως ἂν τὸ δίκαιον π̣ᾶ̣σ̣ι] [γένη]ται ⟦διὰ σοῦ⟧ τοῖς ἐν [τῆι χώραι(?)] διὰ σοῦ3. The profession of the petitioner and the details surrounding his confinement remain unclear in P. Petr. III 36 (a) R (no. 4) because, as he notes, the epimeletes would already be aware of his situation and the relevant particulars. The petitioner could have been indebted to the state or a For this official see Allam, 2008, 3–19. Bouché-Leclercq, 1906, 237–238; Käppel, 2021, 169–170. The diagramma is quoted in the lines 10–19 as follows (with BL III 145): ὑπάρχοντος γ@ὰρ̣ ̣ ἐν τ[ῶ]ι διαγράµµατι· ἐὰν δέ τινες τ̣οῖ[ς] ἐν̣ [Ἀλ]εξανδρείαι \ἢ̣ ἐ̣ν̣ τῆ̣ι/@ χ̣ώKρα̣ι@ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ἀρχ[είοις] ἢ τοῖς τούτων ὑπηρέταις ἢ [τ]οῖς ἄ̣λ̣λοις τοῖς πραγµατευοµένοις \τι/ ⟦ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣α⟧ τ̣[ῶν] βασιλικῶν ἐνκαλέσωσιν, τ[ὸ] δίκαιο[ν] δώσουσιν καὶ λήµψοντα̣ι@ ἐπ[ὶ] τῶν ἀποδεδειγµένων ἐπισκόπων, [οἷ]ς (1. [οὓ]ς) ἂ[ν] ὁ διοικητὴς συντάσσηι ἢ δ̣ε̣ήσ ̣ ει συντελεῖσθαι τὰ κατὰ τὸ [κρίµα] (For, in the diagramma the following is determined: If people file a complaint against (the administrators?) residing in Alexandria or in the chora or their subordinates or any other persons managing any part of the royal funds, they must submit to trial and receive their due, in the presence of the designated judges, appointed by the dioiketes, or else the already passed judgment is to be accepted [translation according to Käppel, 2021, 169–170]). 3 P. Petr. III 36 (a) V, l. 6–10= M. Chr. 5, l. 6–10 (with BL 3, 117). 1 2

58

The Office of the Epimeletes

guilty official or anybody else who might have been tried before the chrematistai in the presence of the epimeletes. There are no further indications. But the petitioner of P. Petr. III 36 (a) R and V could also have been the same person (cf. appendix I). Moreover, the competence of the epimeletes to make decisions in disputes in which officials are involved becomes visible in P. Petr. II 1 = P. Petr. III 36 (c) = P. Lond. III 504 descr. (3rd century B.C., no. 28). The petitioner is a land surveyor (γεωµέτρης) who wrote to the epimeletes about persecutions he suffered. The left half of the papyrus is lost, and from what remains, it appears that comprehending the case remains elusive. The petitioner felt threatened, which led him together with his children to take refuge in the fort in Pastophorion. Therefore, he asks the epimeletes for protection. Tending to the needs of a γεωµέτρης is in line with the competence the epimeletes had in matters of land survey, as documents of the 2nd century show (see below 5.1.3). The competence of the epimeletes extended also to arresting people who caused losses to the revenues of the king and to sending them to court under guard. So, the epimeletes in P. Bingen 34 (end of the 3rd or beginning of the 2nd century B.C., no. 30) was asked to send a certain person under guard to appear before the court. This accused person committed the act of anachoresis, which caused a loss to the royal treasury, whether he was a royal farmer or someone else. 3.2 The date of the introduction of the office of the epimeletes: In the following pages, I will try to answer the second question that I posed at the beginning of this chapter: when did the Ptolemies incorporate the office of the epimeletes into their administrative system? The results that can be reached are only preliminary. They can become obsolete by new evidence, and even now, they can be challenged because the dates of the documents which contain the earliest attestations of the epimeletes are controversial. The question of when the office of the epimeletes was established thus cannot be definitely resolved. The views of scholars can be divided into two groups: the first held that the office was instituted in Philopator’s reign (221–204 B.C.), and the second assumed that the office existed earlier. In the following, arguments and opinions will be cited in chronological order.

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

59

Clarysse and Hauben re-dated P. Lille I 19 (= SB XX 15150) to 156 or 145 B.C. instead of 232/231 B.C. They were aware of the fact that Apollonios the epimeletes in this papyrus (PP I 932), would be the earliest attested epimeletes if the document were dated to the reign of Euergetes, but in consequence of the new date assigned to P. Lille 19, we do not have any epimeletai until the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (i.e., Ptolemaios: PP I + VIII 951)1. Papathomas, citing Clarysse and Hauben, followed their view without presenting further arguments2. McGing discussed the problematic dates of P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 and P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280. He inspected P. Bad. II 13 in Heidelberg and concluded that it could be of a mid-third-century hand, but a late thirdcentury hand cannot be ruled out. About P. Grad. 7, he stated that the document is dated to the reign of Euergetes. He adds: ‘If dated correctly, these texts would, of course, put the office back earlier than Clarysse and Hauben propose’, i.e., before the reign of Philopator3. Armoni, dating P. Grad 7, believed that the office was an innovation of Ptolemy IV Philopator, so she dated the document to 221-203 B.C4. Armoni asserts her view again in her study of the basilikos grammateus5. She and Maresch reached the same conclusion in the introduction to P. Köln XI 438–451, in which they stated that ‘es sichere Bezeugungen von Epimeleten erst ab Ptolemaios IV gibt6’. They cite the above-mentioned Clarysse and Hauben, Papathomas and McGing. Falivene challenged the dating of P. Köln XI 438–451 as well as P. Köln XI 448 by Armoni and Maresch to the reign of Philopator on the following basis: first, the dioiketes Phoinix, mentioned in P. Köln XI 438, is mentioned in two other pieces: SB VIII 9800 = P. Bad. II 13 and P. Hib. II 244, dated palaeographically by Turner to the end of the reign of Philadelphos or the early reign of Euergetes7. The reading ]ο (ἔτους) instead of ]θ (ἔτους) that was suggested by Armoni and Maresch8 would put the Clarysse and Hauben, 1991, 52–53. P. Heid VII 387, intr. 3 McGing, 2002, 52. 4 Armoni, 2006, 195. 5 Armoni, 2012, 94. 6 P. Köln XI, p.83. 7 See above page 25, n. 3. 8 See above page 26, n. 1. 1 2

60

The Office of the Epimeletes

document in the ninth year of Euergetes, i.e., 239/238 B.C. Falivene excludes the ninth year of Philopator as another dioiketes, Theogenes, is attested in this position in that year1. Armoni and Maresch lowered the rank of Phoinix to a hypodioiketes or a regionally active dioiketes to avoid the fact that Theogenes was attested as the dioiketes in year 9 of Philopator2. Falivene did not accept this argument because in SB VIII 9800 = P. Bad. II 13, Phoinix is expected to act between two different and distant regions, which is characteristic of the dioiketes3. Second, Falivene also argued that it is false to claim that, because no epimeletes is mentioned before the reign of Philopator, Phoinix cannot be dated earlier. She thinks this is an argument for the same point in opposite directions4, i.e., a circular argument. Third, Falivene thought that one of the causes of the reluctance of the editors of P. Köln XI 438-451 to suppose a date under Euergetes is the connection of this archive with the archive of Hermias (TM Arch. 372), which is derived from the same cartonnage as the archive of Harmachis (TM Arch. 96)5, which is dated to the reign of Philopator by Clarysse. He dated both P. Strasb. VI 562 and 563 to the 8th year of Philopator (215/214 B.C.), reading in P. Strasb. VI 562, 8 τοῦ η (ἔτους) instead of τοῦ κ (ἔτους), read by Schwartz6. Falivene accepted Clarysse’s new reading7, but she held that the year 8 is rather that of Euergetes than Philopator; this means 240/239 B.C. And she denied that this early date would conflict with the

Falivene, 2012, 222. Dating the dioiketes Theogenes was a controversial topic. Jouguet et al., who edited P. Lille I 3, in which the dioiketes Theogenes was first mentioned, dated the

1

document to 241/240 B.C. Wilcken did not touch this question when he republished the document as W. Chr. 301. Edgar was the first to suppose a date under Philopator (Edgar, 1920, 198). Préaux investigated the topic and concluded that Theogenes was a dioiketes in the reign of Philopator (Préaux, 1939b, 376–382). Bagnall returned to the earlier date under Euergetes (Bagnall, 1972, 111–119). The arguments of Bagnall were not widely accepted (see, for example, Skeat, 1979, 159–165). But papyri published later made it certain that the dioiketes Theogenes is to be dated to the reign of Philopator (cf. P. Köln VI, p.158–159; Kraut, 1990, 273–276). 2 See P. Köln XI, p.84; Falivene, 2012, 222. 3 Falivene, 2012, 222. 4 Falivene, 2012, 223. 5 See Clarysse, 1976, 185–207. 6 Clarysse, 1976, 186–187. 7 Falivene, 2012, 223–224.

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

61

mention of Agathokleia1: ‘Agathokleia’s (and her mother’s) empowerment, following immediately upon Ptolemy Euergetes’ death, does suggest that she was by then old enough to be in control of her lover, and of his kingdom2’. So, Falivene concluded that the re-dating of the archive of Harmachis to Euergetes would have implications on the dating of the archive of Hermias and on the dating of the archive of Theomnestos which has two officials in common with the archive of Hermias, namely Theon the oikonomos and Agathokles the epimeletes. So, P. Köln XI 438 and P. Köln XI 448 should be dated to, respectively, years 9 and 12 of Euergetes, and P. Strasb. II 103 and 104 should also be dated to year 12 of Euergetes3. This new dating, which has the consequence that the office of the epimeletes existed already under Euergetes, was challenged by Baetens. He agrees with Armoni and Maresch in supposing that Phoinix in SB VIII 9800 = P. Bad. II 13 was a hypodioiketes, and this seems possible because not all business involving different nomes had to be conducted through the central dioiketes4. It can be added that Phoinix, being a regional dioiketes in the Herakleopolites, when asked in SB VIII 9800 by someone, whom we do not know, to contact the epimeletes in Sais to provide the ships for transporting hay to the Herakleopolites, was dealing with business of his nome, and not acting in different nomes. According to Baetens, Agathokleia’s ability to command ships in the eighth year of Euergetes (240/239 B.C.) was questionable, as he had doubts about whether she was old enough to have such authority. Falivene’s argument rested primarily on a passage in Strabo, in which Philopator is referred to as ‘ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ ὁ τῆς Ἀγαθοκλείας’. She held that this expression ‘may even hint at an age difference nearer to that normally occurring between mother and son’5. Baetens noticed that this would be a Agathokleia is mentioned in the two texts, P. Strasb. VI 562 and 563, as a shipowner, συνεµβάλου.... ἐν ⟦ ̣ ̣⟧\/ Ἀγαθοκλείας ἀγ(ωγῆς) Β and ὁµολογεῖ .... τοῦ Ἀγαθοκλείας ἀγ(ωγῆς) ΒKφ, respectively. Hauben, 1975, 289–291, pointed out that Agathokleia is the famous mistress of Philopator. 2 Falivene, 2012, 224. 3 Falivene, 2012, 224. 4 Baetens, 2014, 93. 5 Falivene, 2012, 224; see also Strabo 17.1.11. Falivene, in note 23, adds that H. L. Jones, in his translation of the Geography of Strabo, translated ‘Philopator the son of Agathocleia’. 1

62

The Office of the Epimeletes

farfetched interpretation and the wording could be understood as a designation of Philopator as ‘lover of Agathokleia’ or as ‘one of Agathokleia’1. Baetens’ view had already been held by Hamilton and Falconer, who commented that in this formulation ἐραστής is implied and not υἱός2. So, it seems too early for Agathokleia to own ships in 240/239 B.C., although, of course, she was old enough to be able to control Philopator after the death of Euergetes. Another argument I want to raise against Falivene’s supposition concerns the payments in P. Strasb. II 103–108. The discussion concerning the date of these documents was summarised by Clarysse and Lanciers3. A date in the 3rd century B.C. was supposed by Preisigke, the editor, and accepted by Wilcken4. Heichelheim suggested the 12th year of Euergetes which means 236/235 B.C.5 This date matches the one now suggested by Falivene. Reekmans challenged the dating of these documents to the 3rd century. His argument is based upon the monetary standard that he supposed was used in the process of payment: the 2519 drachmas that are mentioned in P. Strasb. II 103 would have been impossibly high if the payment was made according to the silver standard. He therefore assumed that the copper standard was used and suggested the reign of Epiphanes as a possible date6. This date was first accepted by Clarysse on the basis of monetary standard7. Later, Clarysse, with Lanciers this time, suggested a date under Philopator. For when they tried to calculate the number of the soldiers in the Phrourion and the daily payment of each soldier, they reached the result that the minimum number of troops should have been 54 in Agathokles’ account and 59 in Dion’s (concerning the content of P. Strasb. II 103, see above section 3.1.6.3) with a maximum daily payment for each individual of 9 obols. This daily payment, when reckoned in the copper standard according to Reekmans’ theory, is quite insufficient: we have evidence that the minimum wage in the period from 210 to 183 B.C. was rather 5 drachmas, i.e, 30 Baetens, 2014, 93. Hamilton and Falconer, 1903, 231, and n. 809. 3 Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 127f. 4 Wilcken, 1924, 89. 5 Heichelheim, 1930, 26. 6 Reekmans, 1945, 28. A change from the silver standard to the copper standard took place about 211/210 B.C. For more information see Reekmans, 1945, 15–43; Reekmans, 1951, 61–119; Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 117–132; Maresch, 1996. 7 Clarysse, 1976, 191. 1 2

Chapter Three: Analysing the Documents of the 3rd Cent. B.C.

63

obols. So, they stated that there can hardly be any doubt that the payment in our documents was counted in silver; therefore, the payments had to be dated to 210 B.C. (Clarysse and Lanciers, 1989, 128–129). Though convincing, Clarysse and Lanciers’ conclusion seems to be inconsistent with Reekmans’ argument that the sum of money is impossibly high if it was counted in silver. But we have to keep in mind that Reekmans meant the silver standard and the monetary system of the 3rd century. We encounter this confusing situation in other documents of the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 2nd century as well; it was a time of changes concerning bronze money. How this phenomenon is to be interpreted in detail is still an open question which cannot be treated at full length here1. In any case, payments in the copper standard, as it is attested later, would be an anachronism in the year 12 of Euergetes, so far we know. So, the dating of these and related documents to the reign of Euergetes, as Falivene suggested, seems to be impossible. Year 12 under Philopator (211/210 B.C.) is more plausible as this is the year of general turning from a silver to a copper standard in a period of inflation, as far we can tell. To conclude, nothing, so far, stands against the supposition that the office of the epimeletes was an innovation of Philopator. All certainly dated documents which mention an epimeletes are not dated before Philopator’s reign. The possibility that P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 and P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 could be dated earlier for palaeographical reasons is not sufficient to date the creation of the office of the epimeletes earlier. Maybe, someday the sands of Egypt will be generous and give us new documents pertaining to the epimeletes that either prove this conclusion or contradict it. There is still a concluding remark to be made at the end of this chapter. As demonstrated in chapter one, the non-Ptolemaic epimeletes, as cited in both epigraphic and literary sources, was consistently referred to with a genitive to provide a comprehensive job description. The Ptolemaic epimeletes was never mentioned with such a determination either in the documents of the 3rd century or the documents of the 2nd century, as will be seen in the chapters four and five. This proves that the term epimeletes in Ptolemaic Egypt was in itself a sufficient description of an official who had For a recent summary, see Huss, 2019, esp. p.25–45 (Die Nominale), 89–94 (Die Wertrelationen), and 101–108 (Die Aufhebung der Silber–Bronze-Relation und die Kaufkraft).

1

64

The Office of the Epimeletes

many duties. When the epimeletes was mentioned in Ptolemaic Egypt, this designation, without any further determinations, was precise enough to indicate a financial official at the nome level.

CHAPTER FOUR DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. We have 1121 documents from the second century arranged chronologically in the following table:

1.

Document

Date

Place

P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr.

22 Sep. 197 B.C.

Krokodilopolis

III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III

(Arsinoites)

569 descr. 1a.

P. Duk. Inv. 676 r.

196/195 B.C.?

Arsinoites

2.

P. Mich. XVIII 776

22 June 194 B.C.

Mouchis (Arsinoites)

3.

P. Mich. XVIII 774

11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

B.C. 3a.

P. Duk. Inv. 690

25 June 192 B.C.

Arsinoites

4.

P. Köln V 221 C

Ca. 190 B.C.

Arsinoites

5.

P. Vindob. Inv. G56637

190 B.C.

Herakleopolites

6.

P. Tarich. 5

Ca. 189 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites)

7.

P. Tebt. III 1, 741

187/186 B.C

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

8.

P. Tarich. 6 a and b

After 9 Oct. 186 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites)

9.

P. Köln VII 313

After 9. Oct. 186 B.C.

Oxyrhynchos (?)

10. P. Tarich. 7

185 B.C?

Tanis (Arsinoites)

11. P. Tebt. III 1, 754

185/184–179/178 B.C

Arsinoites

12. P. Erasm. I 5

6 Feb. 184 B.C. or 31 Jan.

Arsinoites

160 B.C.? 13. P. Tarich. 10

Before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites)

14. P. Tarich. 11

Before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites)

15. P. Tarich. 12

After 4 May 184 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites)

16. P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II

6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.

Berenikis Thesmophorou

(Frag. I, recto II)

1

(Arsinoites)

17. SB XVI 12375

180 B.C.

Arsinoites (?)

18. P. Tebt. III 1, 776

179–177 B.C.

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

19. P. Tebt. III 2, 905 descr.

179–177 B.C.

Boubastos (Arsinoites)

20. P. Tebt. III 2, 941

179–177 B.C.

Arsinoites

SB III 7182 is not included in the number of 112 documents (see below no. 111).

66

The Office of the Epimeletes

21. P. Hels. I 4

After 179 B.C.

Herakleopolites

22. P. Coll. Youtie I 12

177 B.C.

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

23. BGU XX 2840

176 B.C.

Herakleopolites

24. BGU XX 2841

176 B.C.

Herakleopolites

25. P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P.

Ca. 175 B.C.

Berenikis Thesmophorou

Tebt. III 2, 895

(Arsinoites)

26. P. Tebt. III 2, 853

Ca. 173 B.C.

Arsinoites

27. P. Tebt. III 2, 856

171 B.C.

Arsinoites

28. PUG III 92 = SB XVI

29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165

Arsinoites

12821 29. UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 =

B.C. 164 B.C.

Memphis (?)

30. P. Ryl. IV 672 descr.

After 15 Nov. 164 B.C?

Unknown

31. UPZ I 19

1 Apr. – 8 Oct. 163 B.C.?

Memphis

32. P. Tebt. III 2, 857

After 31 Jan. 162 B.C.

Herakleopolites

P. Petr. III, p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132

33. UPZ I 21

4 Oct. 162 B.C.

Memphis

34. UPZ I 42

3 Oct. – 4 Nov. 162 B.C

Memphis

35. UPZ I 22

Before 3 Dec. 162 B.C.

Memphis

36. UPZ I 23

14 Dec. 162 B.C.

Memphis

37. UPZ I 24

After 27 Sep. 162 B.C.

Memphis

38. UPZ I 25

162 B.C.

Memphis

39. UPZ I 26

18 Dec. 162 B.C.

Memphis

40. UPZ I 27

162 B.C.

Memphis

41. UPZ I 32

After 26 Dec. 162 B.C.

Memphis

42. UPZ I 34

Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.

Memphis

43. UPZ I 35

Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.

Memphis

44. UPZ I 36

Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.

Memphis

45. UPZ I 39

161 B.C.

Memphis

46. UPZ I 40

161 B.C.

Memphis

47. UPZ I 41

161/160 B.C.

Memphis

48. UPZ I 43

161 B.C.

Memphis

49. UPZ I 46

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

50. UPZ I 47

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

51. UPZ I 48

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 67 52. UPZ I 50

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

53. UPZ I 51

After 10 Jan. 161 B.C.

Memphis

54. P. Köln XVII 657

Aug.– Sep. 161 B.C.?

Herakleopolites

55. P. Heid. IX 424

161 – 155 B.C.

Herakleopolites

56. P. Heid. IX 433

161 – 155 B.C.

Herakleopolites

57. P. Heid. IX 435

161 – 155 B.C.

Herakleopolites

58. P. Heid. IX 440 descr.

161 – 155 B.C.

Herakleopolites

59. SB XIV 11893

13 Aug. 159 B.C.

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

60. P. Tebt. III 1, 709

27 Oct. 159 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

61. P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap.

159/158 B.C.

Arsinoites

62. P. Heid. IX 441 descr.

10 Jun. 158 B.C.

Herakleopolites

63. P. Heid. VI 382

After 158/157 B.C.

Samaria (Arsinoites)

64. UPZ I 14

After 23 Feb. 157 B.C.

Memphis

65. P. Amh. II 33

Ca. 157 B.C.

Soknopaiou Nesos

Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43

(Arsinoites) 66. P. Amh. II 34 a + b

Ca. 157 B.C.

Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites)

67. P. Amh. II 34 c

Ca. 157 B.C.

Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites)

68. P. Tebt. III 2, 934 descr.

Ca. 156 B.C.

Arsinoites

69. SB XX 15150 = P. Lille I

31 Oct. – 29 Nov. 156

Pyrrhia (Arsinoites)

19 = W. Chr. 164

B.C. or 28 Oct. – 26 Nov. 145 B.C.

70. P. Tebt. III 2, 936 descr.

Ca. 155 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

71. SB XXVIII 16851

23 Dec. 154 or 20 Dec.

Lycopolites

143 B.C.? 72. P. Tebt. III 1, 782

Ca. 153 B.C.

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

73. P. Tebt. III 1, 731

153/152 B.C. or 142/141

74. P. Tebt. III 2, 843

28 Jan. – 26. Feb. 152 B.C.

Arsinoites

B.C.? Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) 75. P. Erasm. II 31

30 Sep.151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C.

Arsinoites

68

The Office of the Epimeletes

76. P. Erasm. II 32

30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149

Arsinoites

B.C. 77. P. Erasm. II 33

Mid-second century B.C.

Arsinoites

78. P. Erasm. II 34

Mid-second century B.C.

Arsinoites

79. SB XXIV 15912 = P.

Mid-second century B.C.

Theadelpheia

Turku 36

(Arsinoites)

80. UPZ I 114 I

3 May 150 B.C.

Memphis

81. P. Oxyrhyncha 17

After 150/149 B.C.

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

82. UPZ I 114 II

21 May 148 B.C.

Memphis

83. SB XXII 15545+15546 =

18 Apr. 146 B.C.

Theadelpheia

P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3

(Arsinoites)

Ro 84. P. Köln XIV 564

Aug./Sep. 145 B.C.

Arsinoites

85. P. Köln XIV 565

Ca. 145 B.C.?

Arsinoites?

86. BGU VI 1219

2 century B.C.

Hermopolites

87. BGU VI 1221

15 – 24 May 144 B.C.

Hermopolites

88. BGU VI 1222

After 7 May 144 B.C.

Hermopolites

nd

1

89. P. Tebt. III 1, 732

Ca. 142 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

90. P. Tebt. III 1, 733

28 Sep. 143 – 27 Sep. 142

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

B.C. 91. P. Ryl. II 253 descr.

Before 20 Sep. 142

Hermopolites

92. P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 1

141 – 139 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

93. P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 2

141 – 139 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

94. P. Tebt. III 2, 927 descr.

140 B.C.?

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

95. P. Tebt. III 1, 735

Ca. 140 B.C.

Arsinoites

96. P. Dryton 31 = P. Ryl. II

140–126 B.C.

Pathyris (Gebelein)

After 3 – 12 Feb. 139 B.C.

Kerkeosiris(?)

67 = P. Lond. III 686 f = P. Lond. III 687 b 97. P. Tebt. I 6 = W. Chr. 332 = C. Ord. Ptol. 47

1

(Arsinoites)

98. SB XXVI 16524

19 Feb. 137 B.C.

Herakleopolites

99. P. Poethke 18

12 Jul. 137 B.C.

Herakleopolites

100. P. Tebt. III 1, 737

Ca. 136 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

101. P. Tebt. III 1, 810

29 Jul. 134 B.C.

Herakleopolites

For the date, see below p. 102, n. 2.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 69 102. P. Tebt. I 214 descr. = P.

Ca. 119-110 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

103. P. Tebt. I 61 b

Mar. – Apr. 117 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

104. P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr.

28 Jun. 114 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

105. P. Tebt. I 72

Mar.– Apr. 113 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

106. P. Tebt. III 2, 930 descr.

2 century B.C.

Herakleopolites

107. P. Strasb. VII 645

2nd century B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

108. SB XIV 11299

2nd century B.C.

Oxyrhynchos

109. P. Tebt. III 1, 713

Late 2 century B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

110. P. Ryl. II 66 a

Late 2 century B.C.

Thebais

111. SB III 7182

2nd / 1st century B.C.

Philadelphia?

Tebt. IV 1137

165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 nd

nd nd

(Arsinoites)

Table 4.1 Documents of the 2nd Century B.C. Ptolemaic epimeletes

1. P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III 569 descr. (22 Sep. 197 B.C.1): A petition from Petosiris, a tanner (βυρσοδέψης), to Dorotheos, the epimeletes. Petosiris, who worked in a royal repository of skins (ἐν τῶι βασιλικῶι ταµιείωι τῶν δερ[µά]των), complained that the established procedure had not been maintained by Philippos, the new tax farmer (τελώνης, l. 8). The latter apparently had given some raw material to workers in the ταµιεῖον. There must have been some dispute, and in consequence, Dionysios, an agent of Philippos and not himself a tax farmer as the petitioner emphasised (l. 15–17), broke into Petosiris’ house and took off several items. On the verso, there is a note of the epimeletes, ordering a further processing: ἀνακαλέσασθαι τὸν πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶ[ι] (The person responsible for the dermatera is to be summoned!). Wilcken thought it unlikely that Philippos, who was styled τελώνης by the petitioner on the recto, is now called ὁ πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι by the epimeletes2. Supposing that there are two different persons to be distinguished, as Wilcken did, the epimeletes’ order meant that the person responsible for the dermatera had to clarify the procedure which was the cause of the difficulties between the tanner Petosiris and the tax farmer Philippos, and which finally led to the act of violence. But we cannot 1 2

For the date, see Cadell and Le Rider, 1997, 45–46. Cf. also BL 1, 368; 3, 143; 12, 159. Wilcken, 1899, 294, n. 1

70

The Office of the Epimeletes

rule out the possibility that Philippos was called πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι on the verso1. In the docket on the verso, the tanner (βυρσοδέψης) is designated as a shoemaker (σκυτεύς): τὰ πρὸς τὸν σκυτέα2. 1a. P. Duk. Inv. 676 r (196/195 B.C.?)3: A petition to Theodoros, the epimeletes, from Apollodotos and Dionysios, two epergoi4, who had contracted for the collection of the tax on flowers (τὴν ἕκτην τοῦ ῥόδου καὶ λευκοΐου καὶ τῶν ἑ̣τ̣έρω[ν] σ̣τεφανωµάτων) for the tenth year. The two tax collectors reported that they had been wronged by Philon, the archiphylakites of the meris of Polemon in the Arsinoites, who had not paid the requisite amount of tax on a rose garden he owned in the village of Arsinoe in the meris of Themistes (TM Geo 325)5. The petitioners asked the epimeletes to summon Philon and to investigate the matter, and that Philon, if their complaints proved true, should pay a penalty of 6000 drachmas in accord with a royal prostagma. 2. P. Mich. XVIII 7766 (22 June 194 B.C.): A report to Protarchos, the epimeletes7, from Peteminis, who was probably a topogrammateus. Peteminis reports that, while patrolling the village of Mouchis (TM Geo 1396) at night, he found two injured men and lists the names of four persons who were accused of attacking them. He also writes that he will send them to the epimeletes as soon as they are found. 3. P. Mich. XVIII 774 (11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193 B.C.): Having already sent a petition to an agent of the epimeletes8, Menches, who was working as a goldsmith in Oxyrhyncha (TM Geo 1523), wrote the present petition to Protarchos the epimeletes. Menches was wronged by a tax farmer of the Armoni, 2012, 141–142. Cf. Wilcken, 1899, 294, n. 1, for this peculiarity (BL 1, 368). 3 Edited by Bauschatz, 2005, 189-193. 4 The term ἔπεργος is not yet completely understood. The members of this group were involved in ensuring the royal revenues; see Kaltsas, 2003a, 215–217; Bauschatz, 2005, 192, comm. 3. 5 Also called Ἀρσινόη ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ ζεύγµατος / Ἀρσινόη ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ χώµατος. Cf. Römer, 2019, 31–33. 6 BL 11, 134. 7 The letter was addressed to Protarchos without mentioning his title, but most likely, he was the epimeletes mentioned in P. Mich. XVIII 774. 8 P. Mich. XVIII 773 (194 B.C.). 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 71

goldsmithery tax (χρυσοχοϊκή) named Ptolemaios. When Ptolemaios found Menches in Krokodilopolis, he made accusations against the latter, although Menches, he claims, owed nothing to the king. Menches was treated violently1 by Menelaos2 who was instigated by Ptolemaios. Thereupon they took from him a lump of silver (βῶλος) and a necklace. Menches appealed against them before Asklepiades, the agent of the epimeletes, and they agreed to give him back his possessions but did not keep their promise. It seems that the result was that he could not leave Krokodilopolis as the owner of the silver prevented him. Therefore, he raised a petition to the epimeletes to get back the lump of silver and the necklace so that he could return to his village and resume his work in order to be able to pay the taxes he owes to the royal bank in full. At the end of his petition, Menches designated himself as ὑποτελής, which in his case should designate a person participating in the tax farming operations3. 3a. P. Duk. Inv. 690 (25 June 192 B.C.)4: The document is an order of a certain Apollonios, probably a tax farmer, to Poseidonios who was presumably a trapezites, to receive 172 copper drachmas and 3 obols from Psenesis son of Pasis, holder of a vineyard located near Psinachis in the meris of Themistes (TM Geo 1984). The order was issued according to a diagraphe of Spartakos5, the epimeletes. The reason for this payment is not mentioned. The sum is to be paid instead of 1/8 1/16 of a keramion (of wine). 4. P. Köln V 221 C (ca. 190 B.C.): This document together with P. Köln V 221 Col. I–IV and P. Köln V 221 A–H are accounts of the apomoira tax6, in whose collection the epimeletes is involved: ]τὰ γενή[µατ]α̣ µετὰ

The violence against Menches is known to us from P. Mich. XVIII 773. He was whipped and taken to prison, where he spent one night. 2 Menelaos is described in both P. Mich. XVIII 773 and P. Mich. XVIII 774 as ὁ κατὰ πόλιν, which the editor translated as ‘police officer’. Besides the two documents mentioned above, this position is mentioned in P. Mrab. Inv. I (230 or 188 B.C.). Bauschatz argued that this official was more than a rhabdophoros (club bearer). Cf. P. Mich. XVIII 773, comm. 11–12; Bauschatz, 2013, 154, n. 132. 3 Menches appears as a tax collector in P. Mich. XVIII 771 (29 Oct. 195 B.C.). For the term ὑποτελής, see Wilcken, 1912, 246–248; UPZ I 110, comm. to l. 97. 4 Edited by Qandeil, 2022b, 208–212. 5 For Spartakos the epimeletes, see appendix II. 6 See P. Köln V 221, intr. p.163, and P. Köln V 221 A–H intr. p.181. 1

72

The Office of the Epimeletes

χειρογραφίας ὅρ̣κου βασιλι[κοῦ] εἰς τὸ Σπα[ρτ]ά̣κου τοῦ ἐπιµελητοῦ λογιστήρι[ον] (C 2–3). 5. P. Vindob. Inv. G56637 (190 B.C.)1: This petition was sent to Demetrios, a subordinate of Athenodoros, the dioiketes, from Amenneus, a potter from Machor (Herakleopolites, TM Geo 1280). While the petitioner was irrigating the cleros of a certain Polianthes, Heraeus, the komophylakites, came, arrested Amenneus, and threw him into prison. Moreover, Heraeus chased away those who did the irrigation work together with Amenneus. Heraeus did not set the petitioner free until he had paid 1400 drachmas. Thereupon, Amenneus sent a petition to the dioiketes who wrote to Spartakos, the epimeletes, who in turn wrote to Ammonios, the epistates of the village, to hand over Heraeus. But Ammonios was bribed and did not carry out the command to bring Heraeus before the epimeletes. Therefore, in this petition, Amenneus asked Demetrios, the subordinate of the dioiketes, to compel the epistates to hand over Heraeus to him so that an investigation could be made. 6, 8, 10, 13–15. P. Tarich. 5 (ca. 189 B.C.), P. Tarich. 6 a and b (after 9 Oct. 186 B.C.), P. Tarich. 7 (185 B.C?), P. Tarich. 10 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.), P. Tarich. 11 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.), P. Tarich. 12 (after 4 May 184 B.C.): These documents are part of the archive of Amenneus son of Horos, and Onnophris son of Teos (TM Arch 551), two ταριχευταί (embalmers) from Tanis (TM Geo 2251) in the Arsinoites2. The majority of the documents in the archive address the following matter: Psenephmous, an embalmer hailing from Philadelphia (TM Geo 1760), took part in the revolt of 206–186 B.C.3 and passed away without leaving behind an heir. His possessions were confiscated. Psenephmous possessed a house, land, and a γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν, an embalmer’s benefice. The house was auctioned and ultimately purchased by Hakoris, son of Paches, a royal farmer from Philadelphia, while other possessions, according to Amenneus and The text was published by Stern, 2016, 34–46. The archive consists of 18 documents, but three of them appear in two versions (4, 6, and 9), so the actual number of the documents is 15: 14 Greek and one (P. Tarich. 15) Demotic. Cf. Armoni, 2013, and see also the review by van Minnen, 2014, 245–248. 3 For the great revolt of 206 –186 B.C., see Clarysse, 2004; see also Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 92, n. 143 for a bibliography of both ancient literary sources and modern literature. A more comprehensive bibliography is given by García and Tavor, 2017, 45, n. 2. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 73

Onnophris’s statement, were not put up for auction. The γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν came into the possession of Abykis son of Horos, Kelechon son of Pasis, and Pasis son of Psenophmoutes, three other embalmers from Philadelphia, and was thenceforth collectively used by them. Nevertheless, as the documents of this archive show, Amenneus and Onnophris tried for years to acquire this benefice. In the course of time (189–184 B.C.), Amenneus and Onnophris addressed petitions to several officials including Protarchos, the πρὸς τῆι ἐπιµελείαι τῶν χρηµατιστῶν, the dioiketes Bakchon, the chrematistai and their εἰσαγωγεύς, the strategos, and the basilikos grammateus. Two epimeletai, Alexandros and Argeios, were involved as responsible for auctions (P. Tarich. 5 II 19; 7, 26; 10, 1; 11, 6; 12, 8). In P. Tarich. 5 (frg. g II 19; ca. 189 B.C.?), Alexandros, the epimeletes, was addressed and apparently asked by the petitioners to concur in a lawsuit before the chrematistai. We know by P. Tarich. 6 a and b, two versions of a petition addressed by Amenneus and Onnophris to Bakchon the dioiketes, that, according to the petitioners, the royal treasury had suffered a loss of 4000 drachmas annually because their opponents were holding the γέρας unlawfully, a loss that amounted to a total of 12 copper talents and 4000 drachmas, calculated from the 2nd year to year 20, i.e., over 19 years. Therefore, Amenneus and Onnophris asked the dioiketes to write to Hephaistion, the epimeletes, so that the latter would examine the case and confirm their assertion. In P. Tarich. 7, Amenneus and Onnophris contacted the chrematistai represented by Dositheus, the εἰσαγωγεύς. They made reference to previous petitions that they had sent to the chrematistai and procedures taken against their opponents. These procedures were, as it seems, hindered by the influence that the three opponents exercised upon the policemen. They also mentioned the previous petition to Bakchon, the dioiketes, who is described now in P. Tarich. 7 as a former dioiketes. We know from P. Tarich. 7 that Bakchon the dioiketes, in response to their petition found in P. Tarich. 6, had written to the epimeletes1, who in turn wrote to Petosiris, the basilikos l. 24–26 ἔγραψεν {Ἡφαιστ̣[ί]ωDνι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆι} ἈGρ̣γεH ίωι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆ̣ι.H On the papyrus, neither name is crossed out. However, the editor deleted the first name and commented that it seems that the two petitioners were uncertain about which of the two, Argeios or Hephaistion, the dioiketes’ instructions were intended for. This could suggest that, at the time the document was written, Argeios might have assumed Hephaistion’s position as the 1

74

The Office of the Epimeletes

grammateus to investigate the matter and report on it. The petitioners then asked the εἰσαγωγεύς to get the reports from the basilikos grammateus. The question of the disputed geras was still unsolved when in P. Tarich.

10 the petitioners themselves suggested a solution, which must have been their aim from the beginning. They contacted Argeios the epimeletes and set before him a bid of one talent for the royal treasury for the γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν and asked him to grant it to them. The procedures that followed this offer are known to us from P. Tarich. 11 which was addressed to the basilikos grammateus. Argeios, the epimeletes, had written to the basilikos grammateus, who wrote to the topogrammateus, who in turn wrote to the komogrammateus of Philadelphia. A report (ἀναφορά) was written by the komogrammateus and reached the hands of the basilikos grammateus. Therefore, the petitioners asked the latter to act according to the royal edicts so that nothing would escape the king, i.e., putting the γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν up for auction. P. Tarich. 12 contained the petition of Amenneus and Onnophris to the basilikos grammateus (12, 1–5 = 11, 17–37), followed by the written report of the komogrammateus (12, 8– 16), referring to the bid made to Argeios, the epimeletes (12, 9f.). 7. P. Tebt. III 1, 7411 (187/186 B.C.): The document is a letter of Alexandros, the epimeletes, to Philon, an archiphylakites. Ammonios, the sitologos of Boubastos in the meris of Herakleides (TM Geo 463), had sent Alexandros a petition which was attached to Alexandros’s letter, but which is now only partly preserved. What remains shows that the subject of the petition was an amount of grain owed by someone or some people. Alexandros had forwarded this letter of Ammonios to a certain Aniketos, an agent of the epimeletes, with the instruction to give letters of safe-conduct (πίστεις) to specified persons to protect them from being molested in their duty until he could arrive on the spot. Finally, in the present letter, the instructions to Aniketos were sent to Philon, the archiphylakites. 8.: see above under no. 6

epimeletes. See appendix II and IV for the tenure of the epimeletai of the Arsinoites in the 190s–170s B.C. 1 BL 2,2, 171.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 75

9. P. Köln VII 3131 (after 9. Oct. 186 B.C.)2: This is the amnesty decree issued by Ptolemy V Epiphanes after the suppression of the great revolt of 206–186 B.C. The decree contained several regulations issued to settle the troubled conditions after the revolution, such as the situation of the fugitives, the royal peasants, the cancellation of certain debts, etc. The epimeletai are instructed, together with the strategoi, the epistatai, the praktores, the chrematistai, the oikonomoi, and other officials in charge of royal, civic, or priestly matters, to abstain from ‘arresting anyone for a private debt or [(private) wrongdoing], and from [detaining] him either in their houses or other [places] because of a private hatred, being a free man; but they are to bring them up …’ (B 10–20). The meaning of the lost end of the sentence must have been: ‘but they are to bring them up [to the proper officials, designated by the law]’. 10.: see above under no. 6 11. P. Tebt. III 1, 754 (185/184–179/178 B.C.)3: The document is a private letter from a certain Heliodoros to his brother Adamas, informing him that a brother of theirs, who was arrested, was set free after an investigation made by Argeios, the epimeletes.

This document is divided between the collections of Cologne, the abbey Santa Maria de Montserrat, and the Fondo Palau Ribes (Barcelona). The Cologne Papyrus Collection has two fragments that were first published with a detailed commentary by Koenen as P. Kroll (Koenen, 1957), then as SB VI 9316, and finally re-edited as C. Ord. Ptol. 34. Two other fragments, belonging to the Palau Ribes collection, were published by Daris, 1982, 73–82. The whole set was republished as P. Köln VII 313. Three other fragments, P. Monts. Roca Inv. 908 and P. Palau Rib. Inv. 172 c-d were recently published by García and Tavor, 2017, 45–57. 2 The document was first dated by Koenen to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (Koenen, 1957, 1f.). In C. Ord. Ptol. 34, p.83, the question was raised, but not decided, whether the document should be dated to 9 October 186 B.C. or to 17 August 163 B.C., and Braunert’s argument was cited that the verbs used with reference to the sovereign are in the singular, while in the case of a date in 163 B.C., the verbs should be in the plural to refer to the three sovereigns at that time (Braunert, 1960, 531–533). However, it is now agreed that the document contains the amnesty decree that was issued by Ptolemy V Epiphanes after the suppression of the great revolt of 206–186 B.C. See Skeat, 1973, 173; Daris, 1982, 73–82; C. Ord. Ptol.* (Pap. Brux. 24), p.14; P. Köln VII 313, intr. p.64; García and Tavor, 2017, 45; Käppel, 2021, 337 and 344. 3 The document was dated by the editors to the early second century B.C. More precisely, this document should be dated to the tenure of Argeios, i.e., 185/184–179/178 B.C., as I suggest (cf. appendix II). 1

76

The Office of the Epimeletes

12. P. Erasm. I 5 (6 Feb. 184 B.C. or 31 Jan. 160 B.C.? 1): A severely damaged papyrus, where the identities of both the sender and the recipient have been lost. The sender and his colleagues were contractors for the tax on cloths, τ̣ῶXν̣ ἐξειληφότων τὴν ἱµ(ατιοπωλικήν) (l. 1). Based on the remaining content of the papyrus, it can be inferred that the petitioners accused a certain Hergeus (whether male or female is unclear) of engaging in the unauthorised sale of textiles lacking the required seal (?), which would show that the established tax was paid. The petitioner apparently asked the addressee [to seize] the warp (δίασµα, l. 11) of the incriminated person and [to send him] to the epimeletes so that he could investigate the case. 13–15.: see above under no. 6 16. P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II = C. Pap. Jud. I 130) (6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.)2: P. Tebt. III 1, 793 is a register of official correspondence. Most of it concerns προσαγγελίαι (προσαγγέλµατα), reports submitted to officials which deal with theft, injury, and the like3. The register was apparently compiled in the bureau of the komogrammateus of Berenikis Thesmophorou (TM Geo 430). Col. II of frag. I is poorly preserved. About 13 lines are lost, but the remaining part informs us that 12 artabas of grain were handed over to Asklepiades, the former komogrammateus of Ibion Argaiou (TM Geo 882). Following the resignation or death of Asklepiades, it appears that the 12 artabas were concealed or misplaced. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the newly appointed komogrammateus in order to bring this issue to his attention and seek its resolution. The petitioners closed their letter with the following request: καλῶς οὖν ποήσεις σ̣υ̣ν̣τ̣ά̣ξ̣ας περὶ τούτων ἵνα τῶι] βασι{λι}λεῖ µηθὲν διαπ̣έ̣σ̣η̣ι]. κατὰ τοῦτο γὰρ δοθήσεται τῶι βασιλικῶι γραµµατεῖ καὶ τῶι οἰκονόµωι καὶ Ἀργείωι τῷ ἐπιµελητῇ (you will, therefore, do right if you give your orders in this affair so that the king may not suffer any loss. For according to it, it (i.e., the result to be reached) will The mentioned date in the papyrus is (ἔτους) κ̣α Τῦβι β (year 21, Tybi 2). This date fits either the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes or that of Ptolemy VI Philometor, i.e., 6 Feb. 184 B.C. and 31 Jan. 160 B.C. respectively. Cf. P. Erasm. I 5, intr. p.20; Sijpesteijn, 1980, 123– 124. 2 BL 4, 98 and 25 (C. Pap. Jud. 130) and BL 8, 95. 3 See P. Tebt. III 1, 793, intr. p.234–235; C. Pap. Jud. 130, intr. p.241. For the reports called προσάγγελµα (προσαγγελία), see most recently Skarsouli, 2020, 16–19. 1

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 77

be given to the basilikos grammateus and the oikonomos and Argeios the epimeletes). This indicates that evidently, ensuring the accurate accounting of the grain must have been a matter of considerable attention for the three officials. 17. SB XVI 12375 (180 B.C.): This is a lengthy account of disbursements and receipts to and from several people. Among those people are οἱ παρʼ Ἀργείου ἐπιµελητοῦ ὑπηρέται1, who appear twice in the document, in l. 20–21 and l. 105, and were paid 300 drachmas each time. The reading in l. 21, however, is not sure. Sijpesteijn, the editor, mentions that Clarysse suggested reading τοῖς παρʼ Ἀρ̣γ]είου ἐπι(µελητοῦ) ὀνηλάταις instead of τοῖς παρʼ Ἀρ̣γ]είου ἐπι(µελητοῦ) ὑ̣π̣η̣ρ̣έ̣ταις2. If Clarysse’s suggestion is correct, this payment was made to donkey drivers employed by the epimeletes. 18. P. Tebt. III 1, 7763 = Sel. Pap. II 271 (179–177 B.C.): A petition from Senesis daughter of Menelaos from Oxyrhyncha to Ptolemaios the oikonomos. Senesis lived with Didymos son of Peteimouthes on the terms of an Egyptian alimentary contract [κα]τ̣ὰ̣ συγγραφὴν Αἰγυπτίαν τ[ροφ]ῖ]τιν (l. 7–8)4. All the man’s property, including a house, was given as surety for the contract. In disregard of the rights of the woman, later, the man gave the house to the royal treasury as a surety for a certain Herakleides, a tax farmer. Therefore, the woman asked the oikonomos to write to Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, not to accept the house as a surety for the contract of the tax farmer5. 19. P. Tebt. III 2, 905 descr. (179–177 B.C.): Part of a letter concerning a meeting between Argeios, the epimeletes, and the donkey drivers of For the ὑπηρέται, see p. 29, n. 2. Sijpesteijn, 1979, 280. 3 BL 8, 495. 4 For marriage contracts in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Yiftach, 2003; Manning, 2014b, 149f. 5 According to the woman’s statement, it seems possible that the man wanted to achieve two goals by giving the house as a surety: on the one hand, he wanted to postpone the delivery of the house to the woman because if the tax contract was made, she would not be able to seize it. Furthermore, if the tax farmer could not fulfil his obligations, the house would be seized by the basilikon. I believe that the man preferred that his house be confiscated by the state than occupied by his ex-wife, as this is human nature then and now. Alternatively, it is possible that the man received money from the tax farmer as a form of collateral and pledged his house as surety. 1 2

78

The Office of the Epimeletes

Boubastos, near Neiloupolis (TM Geo 1433). We do not have further information about the agenda of the meeting because most of the text is lost, but there may have been a dispute about the sizes of the loads delivered. 20. P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (179–177 B.C.): A letter from Ptolemaios, whose official title is not mentioned, but who could have been the epimeletes previously mentioned in P. Tebt. III 1, 776 (above no. 18) and P. Tebt. III 2, 905 (above no. 19)1. Ptolemaios wrote to Adamas, a sitologos2. The content is not clear because there is a lacuna of 8 lines (l. 4–11), but it can be concluded from the surviving part of the document that it contained instructions about delivery of grain. At least, the sitologos was asked to report the amount of wheat in his θησαυρός. 21. P. Hels. I 4 (after 179 B.C.3): The document is very fragmentary. The editor suggested that it is part of official correspondence of sitologoi concerning grain transport. A better-preserved passage refers to technical difficulties with ship(s), which resulted in longer storage of their grain freight in the harbour, so the transporters had to pay extra port fees (enormia)4. To avoid additional loading costs, the writers, apparently the transporters5, engaged labourers to carry the grain on their shoulders (ἀπ᾿ ὤµων ἐµβαλλ[ό]µενοι, D II 10–11). The payment of the φόρετρα (expenses of transport) caused the involvement of the basilikos grammateus and the epimeletes (D II 12–14). A Spartakos was mentioned (C 7) who might have been the epimeletes known from other documents6. The editor also thought that Apollonios, mentioned in C 2, could have been an epimeletes.

1 It is also possible that Ptolemaios was an oikonomos since P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (no. 20) is the verso of P. Tebt. III, 1 776 (no. 18), and in the latter document, both Ptolemaios the epimeletes and Ptolemaios the oikonomos are mentioned. If Ptolemaios was an oikonomos in P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (no. 20), this document should not be included in our list of documents. 2 For Adamas, see Lanciers, 2018, 119f. 3 For this date, see appendix II; BL 9, 105. 4 See Armoni, 2012, 58, n. 87. This tax is rarely attested, and the only other document of Ptolemaic date that mentions it is BGU VIII 1834, 11–12; see also Wilcken, 1899, 273 and Wallace, 1938, 275. A new testimonium from the early Roman period is P. Köln XV 612 r I 6. 5 Armoni, 2012, 58f., n. 87. 6 Cf. appendix II.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 79

22. P. Coll. Youtie I 12 (177 B.C.): The document is a draft of a petition1 in which the petitioner reported that some tax collectors could not fulfil their contracts. As a result, the tax collectors and their guarantors were imprisoned. In a later stage, all of them were released. Afterwards, a complaint against our petitioner, who had been imprisoned, was lodged with Argeios, the epimeletes, by a certain Alexandros, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν τελωνῶν (the official in charge of the tax farmers)2. The epimeletes sent the petitioner to the large jail in Krokodilopolis where he spent three years, although, as our petitioner alleged, he was acquitted (ἀπελύ[θηµεν, l. 13) by Apollonios the dioiketes and later by Cleopatra I and King Ptolemy VI Philometor3 of the charges. All this information comes from the recto of the document. Keenan, the editor, suggested that on the verso there are remains of a second draft of the same petition rather than a continuation of the recto, and the abrupt break in l. 21, the last line on the recto, would be because the draft text was simply abandoned at this point4. But E. Käppel, who re-examined the document again, was able to restore the mutilated text on the verso as a continuation of the recto5. The verso, therefore, includes an appeal from the petitioner to an unidentified addressee, requesting him to correspond with the chrematistai regarding his case. He requested the summoning of Alexandros, who convinced Argeios, the epimeletes, to apprehend the petitioner and conduct an inquiry. After another reference to the royal philanthropy decree, the petitioner announced that, once he had received justice and was set free, he

For the document status as draft rather than final copy, see Keenan, 1976, 93. As Keenan noted, there is no other attestation of this official in the papyri. Only one similar attestation appears in PSI IV 383 (ca. 248/247 B.C.): οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ τελωνίου πραγµατευόµενοι, but no further attestation of the ἐπὶ τῶν τελωνῶν has appeared since 1976. See Keenan, 1976, 98; Käppel, 2017, 213, and Käppel, 2021, 369f. 3 His acquittal was a result of the amnesty decrees, προστάγµατα φιλανθρώπων, that had been issued on Philometor’s accession. The amnesty decrees, which excluded murder and the violation of temples, granted pardon for all crimes committed prior to a specified date in year 25 of the reign of the deceased Epiphanes. See Keenan, 1976, 94; Käppel, 2016, 280–281; Käppel, 2017, 213. For more information about Ptolemaic amnesty decrees, see La’da, 2013, 163–209; Käppel, 2021, 336f. 4 Keenan, 1976, 96. 5 See Käppel, 2017, 213–222 for the new edition of the verso. Cf. also Käppel, 2021, 347; 365f.; 434f. 1 2

80

The Office of the Epimeletes

would sue Alexandros, who violated the royal decree, in the court of the chrematistai because of his asebeia1. 23. BGU XX 2840 (176 B.C.2): The letter is an order to measure wheat to 193 Macedonian infantry soldiers stationed in the Herakleopolites as their payment in kind (σιτώνιον) for two months. The order was issued by Spartakos, the epimeletes, to a certain […]kles, who must have been a sitologos. The assignment was based on a demand (αἴτησις) of Lysis, a subordinate of Apollodoros, the military γραµµατεύς3 (l. 19–29). The addressee of the demand was not Spartakos, the epimeletes, as one could expect, but Hermokles, the strategos of the Herakleopolites. The latter passed the demand, having accepted it, on to Spartakos (l. 11–18), who accordingly issued the present order (l. 1–10). That the demand, unlike other comparable ones, was not directly addressed to the epimeletes is probably due to special circumstances4. 24. BGU XX 2841 (176 B.C.): The letter is a loading order for grain, issued by Spartakos, the epimeletes, and addressed to a certain Semtheus, with detailed provisions, now partly lost, among others mentioning the δειγµατισµός, the prescription to take under seal a sample of the loaded grain for verification purposes5. 25. P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2, 8956 (ca. 175 B.C.): A letter from Horos, the komogrammateus of Berenikis Thesmophorou (TM Geo 430) to Hippalos, the epistrategos7. Horos received instructions from the strategos via For asebeia, see Käppel, 2017, intr. p.214–215; Käppel, 2021, 365f. Salmenkivi suggested either 200 or 176 B.C. as a date for this document (see BGU XX 2840, intr. p.6f.). However, the procedures described in this document differ from those in P. Strasb. II 103, 104 and P. Köln XI 448 (all dated to 210 B.C., see chapter 2, p.33–34). For this reason, and because of the arguments I present in appendix II about the career of Spartakos, the year 176 B.C. seems to be the more probable date. 3 For the position of the military grammateus, see chapter 2, p.28, n. 4. For the calculation of wages mentioned in the document, see BGU XX 2840, intr. p.5–6. 4 For the procedure adopted in ordinary and extraordinary cases, see Armoni, 2012, 70–79. 5 For grain transport, see Thompson, 1983, 64–75; Armoni, 2012, 33–60, esp. p.47. 6 Part of the document was first published as P. Tebt. III 1, 778. But the editors of P. Tebt. III 2 discovered that other fragments belonged to the same papyrus and republished the whole set as P. Tebt. III 2, 895. 7 For Hippalos, see Skeat, 1937, 40–43; Thomas, 1975, 27–28 and 87–91. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 81

the epistates of the village to appear before the epistrategos concerning removal of wheat from the royal granaries by a certain Dionysios who was, perhaps, a local sitologos. Horos’ letters in lines 1–60 are very fragmentary, but it can be concluded from the surviving parts that the case was investigated in the koinon synedrion1 before the strategos when the basilikos grammateus, and other officials, missing in the lacuna, participated (l. 32–33). The case was adjourned, and the adjournment was protracted by Dionysios’ evasiveness. What comes next in lines 60–119 is a letter from Spartakos, the epimeletes, addressed to the strategos containing a report of Dionysios’ written statements followed by a report of the legal proceedings. Subsequently, the letter of the epimeletes was forwarded by the strategos to Hippalos, the epistrategos. 26. P. Tebt. III 2, 8532 (ca. 173 B.C.): An account of receipts of grain with two entries of interest in our context. They refer to payments of grain in which the office of the epimeletes was involved according to what is written in l. 14–15: κατὰ δια]γραφὰ̣ς̣ Ἀνικήτου τοῦ π[αρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ ἐ]πιµελητοῦ and l. 48–49: κατὰ διαγραφὴν Ἀνικήτου τοῦ παρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ ἐπ(ιµελητοῦ) (according to orders of payment of Aniketos, the agent of Theon, the epimeletes). 27. P. Tebt. III 2, 8563 (171 B.C.): A long account of transactions of royal granaries. Theon, the epimeletes previously mentioned in P. Tebt. III 2, 853 (no. 26), appears here in l. 58, where an order of one of his agents is mentioned4. 28. PUG III 92 = SB XVI 128215 (29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C.): To get a grip on the deteriorating internal situation that followed the invasion of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, of Egypt in 168 B.C.6 and the revolution of 1

The common council was evidently a tribunal of sorts over which the strategos, the basilikos

grammateus, and other officials presided. See Bauschatz, 2013, 344.

BL 11, 280. BL 8, 496. 4 The editors of P. Tebt. 856 read the addition in small letters above l. 58 as follows: [ -ca.?]ρ ̣ ̣εν̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοῦ παρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ ἐπιµελη(τεύσαντος). 5 BL 10, 279; 12, 285. 6 Antiochus IV invaded Egypt twice, first in 169 B.C. when Rome was involved in the 3rd Macedonian War with Perseus. He reached Memphis and there was able to put Ptolemy VI 2 3

82

The Office of the Epimeletes

Dionysios Petosarapis1, Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, and Cleopatra II promulgated a πρόσταγµα περὶ τῆς γεωργίας. This royal decree is known to us from PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 which consists of two large fragments (A and B), together with some smaller fragments2. In fragment A, an official (his position is missing) forwarded to the komogrammateis the orders of the basilikos grammateus to publish the text of the prostagma in Greek and Demotic. The royal decree starts in fragment A and continues in fragment B. The decree mainly concerned land that had been deserted due to the circumstances and aimed at imposing this land on Egyptian peasants (laoi) for farming at a reduced leasing rate. This procedure was to be carried out by the strategos, the oikonomos, the basilikos grammateus, and the epimeletes3. 29. UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III, p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 1324 (164 B.C.): The instructions imposing the farming of unproductive land on peasants, as formulated in the prostagma known to us by the above-mentioned Geneva papyrus PUG III 92 (no. 28), were executed too harshly by the local officials. This we learn by three letters, preserved in UPZ I 110, in which the Philometor under his control. As a result, the Alexandrians installed Philometor’s younger brother as king, who was later known as Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. Antiochus marched to Alexandria, allegedly supporting Philometor’s legitimate rights, and besieged the city. But due to the difficulties of the siege and unrest in Palestine, he had to withdraw. Philometor, Euergetes II, and Cleopatra II – first the wife of the first, later of the latter, and the sister of both – agreed to rule Egypt jointly. Antiochus soon invaded Egypt again in 168 B.C., but this time was forced to withdraw by the Romans. See Plb. 29. 23f.; Hölbl, 2001, 145f.; Huss, 2001, 544–561. 1 For Dionysios Petosarapis’ revolution, see Veisse, 2004, 99f. 2 See PUG III 92, intr. p. 13. See now Käppel, 2021, esp. 150 and 164. 3 For the legal status of the royal farmers, see chapter 2, p.45, n. 1. These farmers’ freedom – they were theoretically free – was limited in several ways: they were not free in choosing the crops that they cultivated; they had to follow the διαγραφὴ τοῦ σπόρου (the sowing schedule). Their freedom was also limited by a commitment not to leave the land they were cultivating until their duties towards the king were fulfilled. But despite this limited freedom, the farmers had free choice about the contracting to cultivate royal land. The situation got worse in 165 B.C.: the deserted land was then imposed on the peasants according to the abovementioned decree. For a full treatment of the decree, see Modrzejewski, 1994a, 1–20; Modrzejewski, 1994b, 199–225; Manning, 2003, 158f. 4 The document was first published as P. Par. 63. Mahaffy and Smyly re-edited the three letters of the dioiketes in P. Petr. III, p.15. They were republished by Wilcken as UPZ I 110. C. Pap. Jud. I 132 contains only the first letter addressed to Onias. Cf. now Käppel, 2021, 161f. Cf. also BL 2.2, 173; 3, 251; 4, 67; 6, 202; 8, 500; 9, 363; 10, 281.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 83

dioiketes Herodes criticised and scolded local officials. They understood phrases, e.g., γεωργεῖν καθʼ ἕ[καστο]ν ἄνδρα (l. 17–18) as meaning that

literally every inhabitant had the obligation to farm. The result was that the measures taken by the officials caused much irritation, and many petitions were sent to the dioiketes from the machimoi, who settled in Alexandria, and others, whose families dwelt in the chora, complaining that they could not carry out the assignments of the decree. The unstable political situation urged Heroides, the dioiketes, to send the three letters – published by Wilcken as UPZ I 1101 – as an ‘authentic interpretation’, in the words of Modrzejewski2, of the former prostagma3. The first letter (l. 1–19, 21 Sep. 164 B.C.) was sent to Onias, whose position is not mentioned, but the very polite language of the letter implies that he was highly ranked4. The second (l. 20–192) and the third (l. 193–213, The papyrus with the three letters of Heroides also contains two other letters (UPZ I 144 and 145), a letter of Philometor from 163 B.C. (UPZ I 111), and notes on astronomy based on Eudoxos (P. Par. 1). On palaeographical grounds, Wilcken suggested that these texts were written by a student and served as model letters (Musterbriefe) in the training of candidates for a position in the administration (UPZ I 110, intr. p.474). Therefore, the date that these texts were copied could have been considerably later than the date of their composition, but, if Wilcken’s reasoning is right, the copy cannot be much later than the events mentioned in it. Wilcken suggested a Memphite origin for the papyrus because the king’s letter (UPZ I 111) was addressed to Dionysios, the strategos of Memphis (UPZ I 110, intr. p.475), and he supposed that the papyrus once belonged to the Serapieion. On palaeographical grounds, he attributed a note written before Col. I of the verso to Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, the katochos in the Serapieion. See UPZ I 110, intr. p.475. 2 Modrzejewski, 1994a, 1 and 6. 3 Wilcken was uncertain whether the prostagma was issued by the royal authority or by the dioiketes, but considered the first more probable (UPZ I, p.475). After the publication of PUG III 92, we are certain that it is a royal decree. See UPZ I 110, intr. p.475, and now Käppel, 2021, esp. 150; 161f.; 199f. 4 Determining Onias’ position is a difficult matter. Wilcken suggested that he was a state official of high rank, probably serving as the strategos of the Heliopolite nome (the nome next to Memphis) since Dionysios was the strategos of the Memphite nome (see note 1 above). Differently, Tcherikover did not see Onias as a mere strategos; he argued that the language of the letter was not only polite, but also noted that the prescript of the letter, which mentions the health of the king, the king’s brother, the queen, and the royal children, stood out as exceptional in the context of known official correspondence. It would be unlikely that the dioiketes would address a letter with such a prescript to a man who was a mere strategos (C. Pap. Jud. I 132, intr. p.245). Modrzejewski suggested that this Onias is Onias IV, the Judean high priest, who came to Egypt after the assassination of his father, Onias III (Modrzejewski, 1994a, 8, for Onias III and VI, see J. AJ. 1. 33, 7. 423; J. AJ. 12.387–388; Tcherikover, 1959, 277f.). But Tcherikover opposed this suggestion: he stated that Onias IV cannot be identified with Onias mentioned in our papyrus because, according to Josephus, 1

84

The Office of the Epimeletes

23 Oct. 164 B.C.) letters were sent to Dorion, the hypodioiketes, and Theon, the epimeletes of the Saites, respectively. The letter to Dorion is attached to the letter to Onias, and contrary to the language used in the first letter, the language of the two letters to Dorion and Theon is harsh. The main theme of the three letters is that the dioiketes wanted to clarify that not everyone was meant to carry out the compulsory γεωργία, but only those who have the ability but are not doing so1. 30. P. Ryl. IV 672 descr. (after 15 Nov. 164 B.C?): This fragment of unknown origin is a copy of an order of payment issued by the epimeletes to measure (µέτρησον) a certain amount of barley (κριων à κρι(θῶν) ὧν or κριῶν?), and probably other products that cannot be ascertained due to the fragmentary condition of the document. The payment order is dated on the 14th of Phaophi and refers to year 182. It is difficult to determine to whom this order was given or for what purpose it was issued3. 31, 33–53. Documents of the twins of the Serapieion in which an involvement of the epimeletes is indicated4: These documents represent a part of the Onias IV left Palestine for Egypt only after 162 B.C., whereas our document was written in 164 B.C (C. Pap. Jud. I 132, intr. p.245). So, the question of Onias’ position remains open. See now Käppel, 2021, 162, n. 396. 1 ἀλλὰ τοῖς δυναµένοις (l. 119–120); this is repeated several times by the dioiketes, being the tenor of the letter, e.g., l. 13–14 and l. 140. 2 Roberts and Turner assigned this date hesitantly to the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (= 21 Nov. 188 B.C.) commenting that ‘The hand seems rather to belong to the middle of the century’ (P. Ryl. IV 672, p.175). Based on this palaeographical observation, I believe, an alternative dating was added in the databases (DDbDP, Trismegistos, and HGV): ‘after 15 Nov. 164 B.C.’. But the year 164 is probably wrong. On 15 Nov. 164 B.C., the year should rather have been year 7 (= of Euergetes II) and not year 18 (= of Philometor), the year mentioned in the document. Cf. year 7 in UPZ I 110 (21 Sep. 164 B.C.) and year 7 in P. Hels. I 7 (27 Feb. 163 B.C.). Besides, on 15 Nov. 164, there was only one king: Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. According to Skeat, 1954, 14, Euergetes reigned alone: ‘soon after Oct. 164’ and Ptolemy VI Philometor was restored (with Cleopatra II) ‘between 1 Apr. (?) and 29 (or 24) May 163’. 3 For a suggestion, see p. 138. 4 UPZ I 19 (1 Apr. – 8 Oct. 163 B.C.?); UPZ I 21 (4 Oct. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 42 (3 Oct. – 1 Nov. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 22 (before 3 Dec. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 23 (14 Dec. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 24 (after 27 Sep. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 25 (162 B.C.); UPZ I 26 (18 Dec.162 B.C.); UPZ I 27 (162 B.C.); UPZ I 32 (after 26 Dec. 162 B.C.); UPZ I 46 (162/161 B.C.); UPZ I 47 (162/161 B.C.); UPZ I 48 (162/161 B.C.); UPZ I 50 (162/161 B.C.); UPZ I 51 (after 10 Jan. 161 B.C.); UPZ I 34 (before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.); UPZ I 35 (before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.); UPZ I 36 (before 23 Jan.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 85

archive of Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, the enkatochos in the Great Serapieion1. Two twin sisters, Taous and Taues, were wronged by their mother, Nephoris, and their half-brother, Pachrates. The story started before 164 B.C. when Nephoris deserted the twins’ father and went to live with a certain Philippos, a Greek soldier2. The mother conspired with her lover to kill her husband. Philippos ambushed him at his door. The husband noticed a trap, jumped into the river, and swam to an island where he was picked up by a boat and sailed to the nearby Herakleopolis3, where he died of grief. The mother not only seized the possessions of her deceased husband but also cast out her daughters4. The girls went up to the Serapieion, to the aforementioned Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, who was a friend of their father, and he became their guardian. The miserable twins found themselves fortunate when, upon reaching the Serapieion, the Apis bull had passed away. As a result, they were appointed to mourn the god5. Following the burial of the Apis bull, the twins, now living in the Serapieion, carried on the rituals on behalf of the royal family in honour of the deceased bull, who was now regarded as Osiris-Apis6. In addition to this duty, the twins also assumed the task of performing a daily libation for Asklepios/Imhotep7.

161 B.C.); UPZ I 38 (21 Feb. 161 B.C.); UPZ I 39 (161 B.C.); UPZ I 40 (161 B.C.); UPZ I 41 (161/160 B.C.); UPZ I 43 (161 B.C.); UPZ I 14 (after 23 Feb. 157 B.C.). 1 For the documents of the archive, see Wilcken, 1927. For Ptolemaios son of Glaukias and the katoche, see Delekat, 1964; Lewis, 1986, 69–87; Thompson, 1988, 215–231. 2 UPZ I 18 (1 Apr.– 8 Oct. 163 B.C., l. 2–5); UPZ I 19, l. 4–7. 3 UPZ I 18, l. 5–12; UPZ I 19, l. 9–13. 4 UPZ I 18, l. 15-17; UPZ I 19, l. 18-21. 5 UPZ I 18, l. 20-21; UPZ I 19, l. 24. The Apis bull was the living image of Osiris and spent a pampered life within the southern court of the central valley temple of Ptah in Memphis (Thompson, 1988, 197). As he died, he combined with Osiris to become Osiris-Apis. The preparations for the burial took seventy days. Afterward, the bull was taken to the Serapieion to be buried in the granite vaults (cf. Thompson, 1988, 198f. for a detailed account of the burial preparations). A number of individuals were involved in the rituals during these seventy days; among them were two sisters who needed to be twins. The twins were hired at the bull’s death and taken down to Memphis where the mummification took place close to the temple of Ptah. As the two sister-goddesses, Isis and Nephthys, played their part in bringing Osiris back to life, so their human counterparts had a central role in ceremonies concerned with the afterlife of the bull (Thompson, 1988, 235). 6 UPZ I 17, l. 5–6 (shortly after 8 Mar. 163 B.C.); UPZ I 19, l. 3–4. 7 This had been earlier the responsibility of their predecessors, who neglected it, and the duty was assigned to a certain priest. When our twins emerged onto the scene, the task of a daily

86

The Office of the Epimeletes

The twins were paid regular allowances of bread and oil. The annual allowance of oil was one metretes (of 12 chous)1 of sesame oil and another one of kiki (castor oil) to each of the twins2. In addition to the oil, there was also a daily contribution of six loaves of bread during the seventy-day mourning, but the number of the loaves was reduced to four when they moved to the Serapieion. Their libation duties provided them with a daily extra 3–4 loaves paid by the Asklepieion3. But the evidence concerning the bread, as provided by the surviving documents, is inconsistent.4 The epimeletes is involved in 23 documents of the papers of the twins (some are just drafts). The twins’ petitions and the responses to them revolved around two main topics: the injustice that they suffered at the hands of their mother and brother and the arrears of their allowances. In UPZ I 20 and its drafts UPZ I 18 and UPZ I 195, the twins appealed to king Ptolemy VI and queen Cleopatra II. The documents narrate the tale of the adversities that befell the family of the twins. The twins found no respite from these misfortunes even after their admission into the Serapieion. A few acquaintances of their mother convinced them to accept Pachrates, their halfbrother, as a companion or attendant6. He colluded with their mother in a plot to pilfer the twins’ oil token (σύµβολον, UPZ I 19, 27). In UPZ I 19, the twins asked the kings to forward their petition to Dionysios, the strategos, so that libation for Asklepios/Imhotep was assigned to them; see UPZ I 57 (164–161 B.C.); see also Thompson, 1988, 236. 1 Wilcken states that 1 κεράµιον = 1 µετρητὴς ὀκτάχους = 2/3 µετρητὴς δωδεκάχους = 36.47 litres (Wilcken, 1899, 762). Otherwise, Sandy differentiates between a µετρητής of 12 χοίνικες and a µετρητής of 6 χοίνικες, where the first equals 39.39 litres and the latter equals 29.55 litres (Sandy, 1989, 10). The calculations of Sandy seem unreasonable because the µετρητής of 6 χοίνικες should be half the value of the µετρητής of 12 χοίνικες, but there might have been different sizes of khoinices. It is noteworthy that one χοῦς = 12 κοτύλαι, and the κοτύλη is a liquid measure that equals, according to Wilcken’s calculations, 0.379 litre. 2 Thompson, 1988, 237. 3 Thompson, 1988, 238. 4 See Wilcken, 1927, 179. 5 BL 8, 500. 6 UPZ I 18, l. 21–23; UPZ I 19, l. 24–26. It is worth noting that the twins had a younger sister named Tathemis, who served as a handmaiden to Harmais; this Harmais was another katochos in the shrine of Astarte in the Serapieion and was the roommate of Ptolemaios son of Glaukias. Tathemis was also wronged by her mother who cheated Harmais and got the savings of Tathemis. She, Tathemis, collected these savings either by begging or prostitution and they were kept with Harmais; see UPZ I 2 (1 Apr. – 3 Oct. 163 B.C.); Thompson, 1988, 232–233.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 87

he might write to the epimeletes and the antigrapheus that they not pay out to their mother either the sesame oil or the kiki (castor oil) that belonged to them, nor anything else that belonged to them, and that the strategos compels the mother to give the twins back their father’s possessions which she had seized illegally. The problem of the stolen token was solved. We know that a certain Demetrios son of Sosos, a friend of Ptolemaios and the authorised representative of the twins, now received their ration of oil1. The problem of the arrears had less success. Seeking to solve the problem of the arrears of oil due to them, the twins contacted the hypodioiketes2. UPZ I 21, a report of the antigrapheus Dorion ordered by the hypodioiketes3, shows that Mennides, the epimeletes, issued an order to give out the oil. Still, nothing had been given of the quantities due to them for the years 18 and 19 (l. 10–14). UPZ I 42 (3 Oct. – 1 Nov. 162 B.C.) shows that the problem had not yet been settled. The twins appealed again to the king, reminding him of a previous petition they had raised when he was in Memphis (probably UPZ 18, 19, and 20). They described in detail the procedures that had been taken afterwards; they had sent petitions to the ‘epimeletai’4 (the order of payment that Mennides issued in UPZ I 21 might have been a response to these petitions). But the temple authorities were obstinate, so the twins sent other petitions to the epistates of the temple as well as the epistates of the priests, but all their efforts were in vain. Therefore, they raised their petition to the king to ask him to order the strategos to write to Apollonios, the epimeletes, to get a list of what was due to the twins, and to determine who the officials responsible for the arrears were and to compel them to give the girls their allowances. UPZ I 22 is a joint petition by Ptolemaios and the twins to the hypodioiketes, in which they referred to the petition that they had sent to the king. As the subscriptions show, the hypodioiketes gave his orders to Mennides, the epimeletes, to inspect the case. Mennides, in turn, forwarded the order of inspection to the scribes (l. 28). UPZ I 27 (162 B.C., l. 2–4). UPZ I 17 (163 B.C.), a draft of a hypomnema addressed to the hypodioiketes Sarapion. 3 UPZ I 20, 76 (subscription of 21 Nov. 162 B.C.). 4 I will discuss the question of the presence of two epimeletai, Apollonios and Mennides, in the papers of the twins later; see appendix III. 1 2

88

The Office of the Epimeletes

Ptolemaios, this time alone, contacted the hypodioiketes again in UPZ I 24 for the twin’s oil arrears up to year 19 (162 B.C.). On 14 Dec. 162 B.C. and according to the subscription in UPZ I 22, 28, Apollonios, one of the scribes of Mennides, made a report about the delay of the oil payment: UPZ I 23. As a new piece of evidence, here we learn that the dioiketes had issued a general order that only half of the supplies should be delivered to the temples, but the king had maintained that in the current case of the twins the whole amount should be paid (l. 20–23). The decision of the hypodioiketes was an agreement to pay out the oil. After this report, there should not have been any impediment to ordering the delivery of the oil according to the statement of the twins, but strangely enough, Mennides decided to ask the hypodioiketes once again about this matter (UPZ I 24, 19). Perhaps the reason was, as Wilcken suspected, the general decision of the dioiketes that only half of the allowances granted to the temples should be given out (UPZ I 23, 21). When Ptolemaios, the patron of the twins, heard about the hesitation of the epimeletes, he urged – writing the hypomnema UPZ I 24 – the hypodioiketes to order the delivery of the oil to the twins. UPZ I 25 and 26 are copies of one order of Mennides to pay out two metretai of sesame oil and two metretai of kiki for the years 18 and 19. The order was given to Theon who must have been the representative of the oil department. The oil had to be handed over to Demetrios son of Sosos, the twins’ representative. The payment was justified by a repetition of the case history, already known to us, mentioning the role of Sarapion the hypodioiketes and Dorion the antigrapheus. And finally, UPZ I 27 shows the last step in the bureaucratic procedure: Theon, the representative of the oil department, transmitted the order to the local official of the thesauros to measure the oil – according to the orders of Mennides, the epimeletes – to Demetrios, the representative of the twins. The order included the measurement of two metretai of sesame oil and one metretes of sesame oil instead of two metretai of kiki for the years 18 and 19. But contrary to that order, Demetrios was given only two metretai of sesame oil, as the receipt issued by Demetrios shows (UPZ I 29, 1–5). The reason for this reduction is unknown. 1

1

BL 2.2, 172; 9, 362.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 89

So, the problem was not yet settled. We know from UPZ I 32, a petition of Ptolemaios and the twins to Mennides, that they complained that only two metretai of sesame oil had been delivered. Therefore, Ptolemaios and the twins again turned to Mennides and asked him to order the delivery of the third metretes. We do not have further evidence about the delivery of this third metretes, but the silence of the twins and their patron, Ptolemaios, an expert in the art of complaint, in the course of the following events may imply that the question had finally been resolved. Besides the question of the oil arrears for the years 18 and 19, Ptolemaios and the twins raised another problem: the oil delivery for the year 20. In UPZ I 33–36, they addressed Sarapion, the hypodioiketes, and told him that they were afraid that when he sailed south, they would face a situation, similar to the previous one, concerning their allowances for the year 20. So, they asked him to write to Mennides, the epimeletes, to deliver the metretes of sesame oil and the metretes of kiki for year 20 to them. Sarapion forwarded the petition to the scribes and Dorion, the antigrapheus. Ptolemaios, one of the scribes of Sarapion, reported that Dorion had stated that the twins had not received anything of their oil allowance for year 20. The report of Dorion and Ptolemaios was raised to the hypodioiketes together with another report of a certain Ares who had remarked that nothing was delivered in the 19th year, but that the twins had received in the 20th year what was due for the 18th and the 19th years, specifically two metretai of sesame oil1. These are the facts as we gather them from the cited sources. But the situation was even more complicated because the scribes had caused some confusion concerning the dates of delivery in their report to Sarapion. This can already be guessed from the copy UPZ I 37 which we have from the hand of Ptolemaios. And it finally becomes evident by the existence of a letter (ἐπιστολή) of Mennides, which he wrote upon the request of Sarapion (UPZ I 38). In this letter, Mennides clarifies the facts. We know from Sarapion’s subscription to this letter (l. 15–18) that the scribes who had mixed up the dates were ordered to appear before the hypodioiketes, and that this order had become known to Ptolemaios and the twins, which is evidenced by UPZ I 39– 40. These latter two documents are copies of a further petition to Sarapion, in

1

UPZ I 37 (6 Feb. 161 B.C.)

90

The Office of the Epimeletes

which the twins, again, asked the hypodioiketes for their allowances of oil for the year 20. But, as the officials again had turned a deaf ear to their appeals, the twins and their patron decided to address the king again for this matter. In UPZ 411, they asked the king to forward their petition to Dionysios, the strategos, so that he could write to Apollonios, the epimeletes, to deliver what was due to them and pay them regularly in the future. On the other hand, another account was still unsettled: the twins’ allowances of bread2. UPZ I 43–45 are versions of a hypomnema, written by Ptolemaios and the twins to Sarapion concerning this problem, the arrears of the allowances of bread for years 18, 19 and 20. In consequence, instructions were issued to Mennides and the scribes to check. The twins in UPZ I 46–50 and 513 referred to the orders that the hypodioiketes had given to Mennides to deliver their arrears of olyra. Mennides, in turn, gave his orders to the epistates of the temple to carry out the delivery. But the latter again turned a deaf ear, so Ptolemaios asked the hypodioiketes to summon the epistates of the temple and to compel him to give the twins their allowances: 160 artabas of olyra for years 18 and 19, as well as the ration from the Asklepieion (UPZ I 53). 32. P. Tebt. III 2, 8574 (after 31 Jan. 162 B.C.): Included in this fragmentary granary account is a report of the burglary of the granary of Pois, a village in the Herakleopolites (TM Geo 2650). The komogrammateus reported this incident to the basilikos grammateus. A committee was formed of the basilikos grammateus, the agent of Herakleides the epimeletes, and the epistates τῶν φυ(λακιτῶν), who came to the place, investigated, and found that there had been a robbery of 970 artabas of olyra out of a stock of 1850 artabas.

BL 8, 500; 9, 362. As mentioned above, the twins were supposed to get a daily ration of four loaves. Their libation duties entitled them to extra daily allowance of three to four loaves issued from the Asklepieion. The loaves meant here were of native bread, the kyllestis. Thirty loaves (fifteen pairs) equalled one artaba of olyra. So, the annual allowance of olyra for the twins from the Serapieion is 48.8 artabas, and they got the same amount or a little bit less from the Asklepieion. Cf. Thompson, 1988, 237–238. 3 For UPZ I 46, see BL 2.2, 172 and for UPZ I 51, see BL 7, 276; 9, 362. 4 BL 3, 246; 11, 280. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 91

33.–53.: see above no. 31. 54. P. Köln XVII 657 (Aug.-Sep. 161 B.C.?): A certain Nikias, a member of a unit of infantry (τ̣ῶX[ν - - -] ̣ίου πε̣ζῶ ̣ ν, l. 2–3), had made an offer to Herakleides, the epimeletes, to buy a piece of land that had been confiscated. The document is stylised in the form of a hypomnema to the epimeletes as the official responsible for auctioning confiscated properties. 55. P. Heid. IX 424 (161–155 B.C.): A report from an official who must have been the basilikos grammateus of the Herakleopolites, Dionysios, to the sovereigns about a petition that was raised by the royal farmers of the village of Thelbonthis (TM Geo 4430) of the Herakleopolites, concerning their fleeing (τὸ ἀνακεχωρηκέναι) to Kerkeuris (TM Geo 10330) of the Aphroditopolites, alleging that they had been wronged and intimidated by Ameinias, the epistates, and Horos, the komogrammateus of Thelbonthis. The reporter stated that he had written to Kydias, the strategos, and Isidoros, the epimeletes, to consider the matter. 56. P. Heid. IX 433 (161–155 B.C.): The fragmentary condition of the document does not reveal much of its content. What can be inferred is that it is a petition of a royal farmer concerning the rent, ἐκφόριον, of his land. The petitioner stated that he had also written concerning this matter to the komogrammateus and the archiphylakites of the village, and Isidoros, the epimeletes. 57. P. Heid. IX 435 (161–155 B.C.): Isidoros, the epimeletes, is mentioned in this document (l. 3), but unfortunately, no reliable information can be gained because the document is too fragmentary1. 58. P. Heid. IX 440 descr. (161–155 B.C.): This document is too fragmentary to draw any conclusions; there is a mention of an epimeletes in l. 2.

Isidoros is also mentioned in P. Heid. IX 441 descr. (below no. 62). Cf. also τῶDι ἐπ̣ι ̣( ) in P. Heid. IX 444, 5. (161–155 B.C.?).

1

92

The Office of the Epimeletes

59. SB XIV 11893 (13 Aug. 159 B.C.): A declaration concerning the apomoira 1 of a certain Demetrios son of Ptolemaios, one of the holders of 100 arouras, to Zopyros, the epimeletes. Demetrios declared that the fruits of three orchards that belonged2 to him in Oxyrhyncha are estimated at 1200 copper drachmas. Thereupon he assured that he would pay 10% as apomoira tax, i.e., 120 drachmas, into the royal bank at the right time3. 60. P. Tebt. III 1, 7094 = P. Hengstl 31 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.): A letter of a certain Sokonopis, supervisor of the distribution of state papyrus (ὁ πρὸς τῆι διαθέσει τῶν βασιλικῶν χαρ[τῶν]5, l. 1) at a place, most likely in the Arsinoites, to some village officials (the epistates, the archiphylakites, the phylakitai, the desert-guards (eremophylakes), the ko[marches] and the komogrammateus) of Tali (Kom Talit TM Geo 2236). Sokonopis stated that a certain Petoos had contracted for the distribution of the state papyrus at that village for the year 23 (159 B.C.), and that it was within his competence to take declarations on oath by the king from the notaries to use writing material only from the royal shops and not to purchase from smugglers. Clandestine sellers or smugglers were to be handed over by the new contractor to any of the above-mentioned See Qandeil, 2022a, 7-8. BL 8, 376. l. 4. ὑ̣π̣αρχόντων µοι: Sijpesteijn commented that this expression is vague and could imply either that Demetrios was a tenant or a proprietor. He added that it could mean nothing more than rent, or Demetrios may have meant to express the king’s theoretical right to return the cleroi to the state (Sijpesteijn, 1978a, 311). However, the verb ὑπάρχω (and its derivatives) was typical for such declarations. Cf. Qandeil, 2022a, 1-14. 3 The crops of the three orchards are divided as follows: µετέωροι καρποί from the first orchard valued at 500 copper drachmas, νέοι φοινίκινοι καρποί (the harvest of new datepalms) from the second orchard valued at 500 copper drachmas, and νεόφυτοι φοίνικες (recently planted palm trees) from the third with an estimated value of 200 copper drachmas. Sijpesteijn, the editor, stated that the µετέωροι καρποί were ‘the not yet harvested crops’ (Sijpesteijn, 1978a, 310). This term appears in two other documents: P. Erasm. I 7 (159/158 B.C.), also edited by Sijpesteijn, in which he also interpreted the µετεώροι καρποί as ‘the not harvested crops’ (l. 1–3: Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ ἐ̣ξ̣ειληφὼς τὴν ἀπόµοιραν τῶν ἀκροδ̣ρύ(ων) καὶ τῶν µετεώρων καρπῶν, ‘Apollonios, the contractor for the apomoira on fruit-trees and on unharvested fruits’; see Sijpesteijn, 1980, 125). Otherwise, the 3rd attestation of the term appears in P. Köln V 221 C (190 B.C.), an apomoira account. The editor of P. Köln V 221 C doubted Sijpesteijn’s translation on the grounds that the term was used in the three contexts in contrast to other agricultural products. He suggested that the µετέωρος refers to a ‘hanged’ or ‘raised from off the ground’ fruit whose kind cannot be determined (P. Köln V 221 intr., p.167). 4 BL 3, 244; 7, 272; 12, 282. 5 Cf. Armoni, 2012, 141, n. 90; 232, n. 10. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 93

officials, whose duty would be to take them together with any supplies they might have, and bring them before Zopyros, the epimeletes, so that they might be duly punished. 61. P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap. Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43 (159/158 B.C.1): A petition from a certain Judas, son of Dositheos, a Jew, to Zopyros, the epimeletes. The petitioner is a farmer of three arouras of dry land, χέρσος2, near Philadelpheia, who, so far, had paid an annual rent of four artabas per aroura. But now, he is forced by the komogrammateus to pay an additional amount of 5 1/2 artabas per aroura3. Therefore, Judas appealed to the epimeletes to write to the proper authority to investigate the question so that he may not have to pay an improper tax. 62. P. Heid. IX 441 desc. (10 Jun. 158 B.C.): A letter to Isidoros, the epimeletes now containing no more than the date due to its fragmentary condition.

1 Initially, Turner, the editor, dated the document to the first century B.C. Consequently, the 23rd year mentioned in the papyrus was attributed to either 92/91 B.C. or 59/58 B.C., with Turner favouring the latter date based on palaeographical ground (P. Ryl. IV 578, intr. p.29). This date was adopted by H. C. Youtie (Youtie, 1952, 100, but cf. also the correction in Youtie, 1973, 254) and Reekmans, 1952, 412. However, according to Tcherikover, Turner re-dated the document to the mid-2nd century B.C. This correction was discussed in a private letter sent by Turner to A. Fuks (C. Pap. Jud. I 43, intr. p.188). The new date fits the tenure of Zopyros, the epimeletes, mentioned in other documents from around the mid-2nd century B.C., e.g., P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C., no. 60), P. Amh. II 33 (ca. 157 B.C., no. 65), P. Amh. II 34 a + b (ca. 157 B.C., no. 66), P. Amh. II 34 c (ca. 157 B.C., no. 67), and P. Tebt. III 2, 936 descr. (ca. 155 B.C., no. 70). Moreover, a date in the first century is improbable as the responsibilities of the epimeletes were assumed by the office of the ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων during the late second century. BL 3, 162; 4, 73 and 25. 2 Χέρσος was a term used to refer to dry, barren land either because it had not received the annual flood water for some time and consequently had been abandoned or because it had been left unsown for one reason or another even though it was within reach of the flood. Cf. Youtie, 1952, 101. 3 In the papyrus, there is no mention of a fee called ἐκλογή, as it was supposed in the editio princeps. The reading of line 5 of the ed., τὴν (ἀρουρῶν) ἐκλογήν, was corrected by H. C. Youtie, 1952, 102, to τὴν (ἄρουραν) ἑκάστην. Therefore, four artabas was the previous amount of rent, subsequently, 5 ½ artabas were added to account for the improved status of the land, which had changed from chersos to productive. As a result, the total rent reached 9 ½ artabas.

94

The Office of the Epimeletes

63. P. Heid. VI 382 (after 158/157 B.C.): In this petition, a certain Dositheos, a police officer, φυλακίτης, one of the holders of 10 arouras of cleruchic land1 in Samareia (TM Geo 2077), wrote to Zopyros, the epimeletes, that his cleros was subjected to a land survey, γεωµετρία, made by the officials responsible: the topogrammateus, the komogrammateus, and others, with the result that its size was found to be smaller than noted. He complained that nevertheless, Diophantos, the scribe of the peasants, ὁ γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν2, intended to defraud him and altered his obligation in the rent list, adding a whole aroura whose rent now he was responsible for, although neither had the komogrammateus reported it nor was that size registered in the reports of the logisterion. So, in consequence, Dositheos asked the epimeletes to write to the topogrammateus to verify the results of the inspection (episkepsis) so that he would not have to pay the extra amount for the one aroura. 64. UPZ I 143 = Sel. Pap. II 272 (after 23. Feb. 157 B.C.): This document takes us back to the archive of Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, the katochos in the shrine of Astarte within the great Serapieion. The document shows the Ptolemaic bureaucracy at its height. Ptolemaios wanted to ensure a lasting position for his younger brother Apollonios4, so he composed a memorandum addressed to the king and the queen asking for Apollonios’ enrolment in a military unit garrisoned in Memphis5 (l. 23–24: εἰς τὴν Δεξειλάου σηµέαν (l. During the second century B.C., significant changes that affected the position of various groups of police occurred; the system of cleruchic allotments, which was earlier used for members of the Ptolemaic army, was extended to various groups as the phylakitai, the potamophylakes (river-guards), the eremophylakes (desert-guards with 10 arouras) and the ephodoi (with 24 arouras). Cf. Clarysse and Thompson, 2006, 176–177; Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 219–220. 2 A position which rarely appears in the Greek documents; see P. Heid. VI 382, comm. on l. 16–17, p.151. 3 Cf. C. Ord. Ptol. 37 and 38; BL 2.2, 171–172; 7, 276 4 Apollonios lived as a katochos in the same Astarte shrine as his elder brother Ptolemaios son of Glaukias for some months, obviously an experiment that was given up later (see Lewis, 1986, 76; Thompson, 1988, 264). It is noteworthy that Ptolemaios had a ration from the temple, in addition to his income from other economic activities, such as selling clothes and porridge, but it seems that this income was insufficient to meet his needs, so he hoped that the enrolment of his younger brother, Apollonios, in the army would help in improving his financial situation. For Ptolemaios’ economic activities in the Serapieion, see Thompson, 1988, 220f. 5 For Apollonios’ military career, see Legras, 2011, 203–211; Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 271– 273. 1

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 95

σηµείαν), ἣ τὸ τεταγµένον ἔχει ἐν Μέµφει). The king issued an order to Demetrios, the forces’ scribe, γραµµατεὺς τῶν δυνάµεων (cf. l. 106f.): ‘let it be done, but report how much it will cost’ (l. 35). For what follows on the papyrus, it is important to know that these entries were not part of an official document but only notes, taken by Apollonios, documenting for his private use the steps taken by the bureaucracy concerning his case. From these memoranda, we learn the following: Demetrios ordered his subordinate Sostratos to write a report of what the soldiers in the unit were due. The scribes made a report. It was raised to Demetrios, who in turn raised it to the royal court: each of these soldiers in Memphis of legal status as Apollonios received 150 drachmas and 3 artabas of wheat, one artaba in kind, and 200 drachmas for the other two artabas (see l. 59–78 for the calculations of payments). The royal court issued the decision about Apollonios’ enrolment to both Demetrios and Dioskourides, the dioiketes. After contacting the dioiketes by a letter, Demetrios also sent letters concerning this case to Poseidonios, the strategos, Ammonios, the chief paymaster (ἀρχυπηρέτης), and Kallistratos, the (military) scribe. Finally, from the office of the dioiketes, two decisive letters were issued: one to Poseidonios, the strategos, and the other to Dorion, the epimeletes, which were delivered by Apollonios to the addressees (l. 94–104)1. 65–67. P. Amh. II 332 = Sel. Pap. II 273 = C. Ord. Ptol. 23 (l. 28–37) = C. Pap. Hengstl 27 (l. 28–37), P. Amh. II 34 a + b, P. Amh. II 34 c3 (all ca. 157 B.C.): These documents pertain to the same case: the accusation of the former komarches of Soknopaiou Nesos by five royal farmers from the same village of purportedly engaging in malevolent acts and misappropriations of both grain and money4. According to P. Amh. II 34, the five royal farmers jointly dispatched two petitions concerning addressing this matter to the epimeletes and the basilikos grammateus, as well as to the royal court (P. Amh. II 34 a + b, P. Amh. II 34 c respectively). A trial was arranged before Zopyrus, the Above, I give only the outlines of the official correspondence, but the process was far more intricate than the brief description suggests. Apollonios himself was responsible for circulating these letters, and he had to go to other lower-in-rank officials to have these letters copied and drafted. See UPZ I 14, l. 105f.; Wilcken, 1927, 151f.; Lewis, 1986, 76–79; Thompson, 1988, 249–250. 2 BL 1, 1; 2.2, 12; 9, 5. 3 P. Amh. II 34; BL 1, 1; 9, 5. 4 Cf. Armoni, 2012, 233f.; Käppel, 2021, 137–142. 1

96

The Office of the Epimeletes

epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, and the chrematistai. When the

claimants reached the trial court, they found that the defendant had hired advocates. The claimants raised an objection to the presence of these advocates on the ground that a former royal decree, most likely promulgated by Philadelphos1, prevents those who are accused of crimes related to royal revenues from hiring advocates. Therefore, the five royal farmers sent another petition to the king (P. Amh. II 33) asking him to send a letter to the trial court to prevent the former komarches from appearing with his advocates. 68. P. Tebt. III 2, 934 descr. (ca.156 B.C.): Part of a letter to Zopyrus, the epimeletes, from the chrematistai containing a decision that they had reached concerning a case in which the epimeletes was taking part. 69. SB XX 151502 = P. Lille I 19 = W. Chr. 164 (31 Oct. – 29 Nov. 156 B.C. or 28 Oct. – 26 Nov. 145 B.C.3): A receipt of wheat delivered to the granary of Pyrrheia (TM Geo 2036) and issued by (παρά) Petobastis, acting as sitologos. The wheat was delivered by (παρά) the director of the estate (δωρεά) of Kallixeinos4 through (διά5) the representative of Apollonios, the epimeletes ἐν Κερκ ̣[. 1 A copy of the royal decree is attached to P. Amh. II 33: ‘King Ptolemy to Apollonius, greetings. Since certain of the hereinafter mentioned advocates are taking up revenue cases to the injury of the revenues, see that those who have been advocates are made to pay the Crown twice the sum (of the damage) increased by one-tenth, and forbid them to be advocates in any case whatever. If any one of those who are injuring the revenues is in the future convicted of having acted as an advocate in any case, send him to us under arrest and confiscate his property to the Crown. The 27th year, Gorpiaeus 15’ (translation according to the ed. pr.). Based on the mentioned date, Grenfell and Hunt reached the conclusion that the author of this decree was either Ptolemy I Soter or Ptolemy II Philadelphos. The mention of Apollonios as the addressee makes them prefer Philadelphos, as Apollonios is likely the famous dioiketes of Philadelphos; see P. Amh. II 33, comm. l. 28, p.40, and C. Ord. Ptol. 23, intr. p.45, and p.46 for the earlier literature; C. Pap. Hengstl 27, p.82–83. Cf. also Käppel, 2021, 137f. 2 BL 12, 229. 3 Wilcken dated the document to the mid-third century B.C. (W. Chr. 164, p.196–197), which was suggested by the editors of P. Lille 19, p.90. However, Clarysse and Hauben challenged this date (Clarysse and Hauben, 1991, 51, and comm. l. 1, p.52). I adopt the date given by Clarysse and Hauben as I assume that the office of the epimeletes was an innovation of Ptolemy IV Philopator (cf. section 3.2; appendix IV, p.204, n.1). 4 See Clarysse and Hauben, 1991, 54, comm. l. 7–9. 5 For the use of παρά and διά in this receipt and other similar receipts from the granary of Pyrrheia, see Clarysse and Hauben, 1991, 48.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 97

70. P. Tebt. III 2, 936 descr. (ca. 155 B.C.): The document was written by a certain Peteharpsenesis1 and was addressed to Zopyros, the epimeletes. Peteharpsenesis appended an irrigation report to his letter to Zopyros, which he had received from Harmais, the komogrammateus. Unfortunately, the report of Harmais has suffered substantial loss, with only scant remnants remaining. 71. SB XXVIII 16851 (23 Dec. 154 B.C. or 20 Dec. 143 B.C.?): As of the present time, this document, along with P. Tebt. III 1, 782 (no. 72), stands as one of the earliest pieces of evidence verifying an epimeletes holding one of the Ptolemaic aulic titles2. It is an official letter addressed to Ptolemaios, who holds the rank of the friends and epimeletes (ΠXτο[λε]µ̣αίωι τῶν φί]λ̣ωXν̣ κ̣αὶ ἐπιµελητ̣[ῇ]: l. 1), from Demetrios, the checking officer of the salt tax (or salt affairs) in the Lycopolite nome: π[αρὰ] ΔXηµητρίου τοῦ ἀντιγραφοµένου τ̣ὴν ἁλικὴ̣[ν τοῦ] Λυκοπολί]τ̣ο̣υ̣ (l. 2–3)3. Demetrios reported to Ptolemaios that he had submitted a petition (ἔντευξις) to the chrematistai (ἐ̣µ̣βέβληκα ἔντε̣υ̣ξ[ιν εἰς τὸ προ]κείµενον ἀγγεῖο̣ν̣ τῶν ἐν Λύκων̣ πόλε̣ι] δικ[αστ]ῶXν̣, l. 3– 4) against certain workers in Arabon village (TM Geo 9526), and upon delivering the summonses alongside with the clerk of the court ([µετὰ τοῦ] ἀ̣πὸ τοῦ κριτηρίου ὑ[π]ηρέτου, l. 8–9), they discovered that one of the workers was grinding rock salt and secretly stockpiling a quantity of it4. Demetrios and the clerk of the court sought out a certain Ptolemaios, a guard, Most likely, the basilikos grammateus mentioned in the previously discussed P. Amh. II 33, P. Amh. II 34 a + b, and P. Amh. II 34 c (all ca. 157 B.C.). Cf. P. Heid. IX, p.7, n. 14. 2 See Mooren, 1975, 1–2; see also p.144 for a list of epimeletai who carried these honorific titles. 3 As is well-known, scholars differentiate between the actual use of salt and the salt tax (ἁλική), which was the poll-tax in Ptolemaic Egypt. Therefore, the translation of τοῦ ἀντιγραφοµένου τ̣ὴν ἁλικήν should be ‘the checking officer of the salt tax’. However, as McGing, the editor, observed, the text does not address matters related to the salt tax but rather with actual salt production; he, therefore, suggested that the responsibilities of this officer encompassed salt production alongside his other duties concerning the salt tax. See McGing, 2002, 43 and comm. on l. 2, p.46. For the salt tax, see Clarysse and Thompson, 2006, 36–89. 4 The reason for sending a petition to the chrematistai is not clear. It seems that the workers, against whom the petition was submitted, were working in salt production in the Lycopolite nome, and there was a shortage due to a suspected theft of raw material, which was a state monopoly (see section 5.5.3). Therefore, Demetrios submitted a petition about that issue to the local court. It is highly probable that this theft was eventually uncovered at the residence of the accused when Demetrios went there to deliver the summons. See McGing, 2002, 44. 1

98

The Office of the Epimeletes

as well as the representatives of the oikonomos, the topogrammateus, and the epistates. They handed over the accused together with the salt into the custody of these officials and sealed his house. The accused had to appear before the epistates. At this point, the papyrus breaks off, so we do not know the procedures taken afterwards. 72. P. Tebt. III 1, 7821 (ca. 153 B.C.): Despite being from a different origin, P. Tebt. III 1, 782 (Arsinoites) is similar to SB XXVIII 16851 (Lycopolites, above no. 71) because the epimeletai mentioned in them both carry aulic titles. P. Tebt. III 1, 782 is a petition addressed to Chairemon, of the rank of the diadochoi and epimeletes (Χαιρήµονι τῶν διαδόχων καὶ ἐπιµελητῆι: l. 1), from a certain Heliodoros son of Apollonios, from Krokodilopolis, who was a cultivator of 55 ¾ arouras of crown land at Boubastos (TM Geo 463). Heliodoros complained against a certain Zenon who also lived in Krokodilopolis. The latter had submitted a petition to the local judges of crown and private cases (τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων κρίνουσιν τ[ά τε βασιλικὰ] καὶ ἰδιω[τικά], l. 12–13) against the first2. Unfortunately, the document breaks off at the point where the cause of the dispute was explained. Apparently, to justify his petition, the petitioner declared that the quarrel hindered the necessary irrigation, which threatened to cause a loss to the king’s revenues. 73. P. Tebt. III 1, 731 (153/152 B.C. or 142/141 B.C.?): An official letter from Apollonios, the chief of the phylakitai (ὁ ἡγούµενος τῶν φυλακιτῶν)3 in Ibion Eikosipentarouron (TM Geo 885) to a certain Mestasutmis. Four guards had been chosen by the archiphylakites and, in a written form, had sworn by the king4 that they would dedicate themselves to safeguarding the crops (γενηµατοφυλακία) of both the mentioned village and of Xylitidos Epoikion (TM Geo 2508) for the year 29. However, one of these guards did not present himself. In apprehension that the other guards might also abandon their duty, Apollonios wrote this letter asking that N.N., of the diadochoi and

BL 9, 358. δόν[τος] κατʼ ἐµοῦ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων κρίνουσιν τ[ά τε βασιλικὰ] καὶ ἰδιω[τικὰ (‘he submitted (a petition) against me to the local judges of crown and private cases’: l. 11–13) 3 For this official, see Bauschatz, 2013, 93. 4 For the oath in Ptolemaic Egypt, Seidl, 1929, is still essential. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 99

epimeletes1, be informed about the matter so that he might act in consequence of the absence of the guard.

74. P. Tebt. III 2, 8432 (28. Jan. – 26. Feb. 152 B.C.): The document is part of an official account. The first entry (l. 1–9) deals with 390 3/32 arouras of royal land, which were leased out by Chairemon, of the diadochoi and epimeletes. With the exception of 30 arouras, the holder of this land was a certain Dionysios3, who took it at a rent determined in copper money (πρὸς χαλκόν). 75–78. P. Erasm. II 31 (30 Sep. 151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 32 (30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 334 (mid-second century B.C.), P. Erasm. II 34 (mid-second century B.C.): These are four loading orders from Theodoros to Dionysios5. The loading place was the harbour of Kaine (TM Geo 950). The cargoes came from the ergasterion at Oxyrhyncha6, and the destination was the royal granary at Alexandria. The four orders differed in the amount of grain to be loaded, the ships, and their capacity, but all were issued according to the instructions of Chairemon, the epimeletes7.

The name is missing, but the honorific title, τῶν διαδόχων, l. 9, makes it almost certain that this epimeletes is Chairemon of P. Tebt. III 1, 782 (ca. 153 B.C.); therefore, I prefer 153/152 B.C. as a date for P. Tebt. III 1, 731 to 142/141 B.C. In P. Köln XIV 565, 6–7 (ca. 145 B.C.?), Chairemon is already mentioned as a former epimeletes. If the date of the papyrus was 142/141, the epimeletes would be Apollonios (PP I 935; cf. Mooren, 1975, 144). 2 BL 3, 246. 3 The document contains, besides the above-mentioned entry, two receipts of hay for the royal horses in Krokodilopolis; these two receipts are not related to our topic (l. 12–20). 4 BL 10, 66; 11, 77. 5 Although his profession is not given in the four documents mentioned above; it is not difficult to assume that Dionysios was the sitologos of the ergasterion at Oxyrhyncha. Dionysios is mentioned in other documents as a sitologos: P. Erasm. II 47 (mid-2nd century B.C.); I 12 (152 B.C.); I 13 (152 B.C.?); II 36 (22 Jul. 152 B.C.); II 39 (7 Sep. 152 B.C); II 40 (7 Sep. 152 B.C); II 41 (22 Sep.152 B.C.); II 43 (16 Jul. 151 B.C.); II 44 (17 Jul. 151 B.C.); II 45 (25 Jul. 151 B.C.); II 46 (7 Aug. 151 B.C.). 6 For the location of the two places, Oxyrhyncha and Kaine, see Römer, 2022, 33-45. For the location of Oxyryncha, see Clarysse, 2008, 57f. The Fayum Project Map may also be helpful: https://www.trismegistos.org/fayum/fayum2/map.php?geo_id=1523. 7 For these papyri, see Armoni, 2012, 46–48, who identifies Theodoros with a Theodoros who was in charge of some of the queen’s ships. Cf. P. Erasm. II 23, 1–4 [παρεσταµένον (sc. τὸ πλοῖον) δὲ διὰ Σαραπίωνος] τοῦ παρὰ Θεοδώρου τοῦ πρ̣οε̣ στηκότος τινῶν πλοίων τῶν τῆς βασιHσης and 36, 12–16 [παρεσταµένον (sc. τὸ πλοῖον] δὲ διὰ Σαραπίωνος τοῦ παρὰ Θεοδώρου µ̣ιHσθ̣ ωDτοῦ τινων πλοίων τῆς βασιλίσσης. Cf. 33, 9–10. 1

100

The Office of the Epimeletes

79. SB XXIV 159121 = P. Turku 36 (mid-second century B.C.): The document is very fragmentary. Still, it can be concluded that it was a hypomnema of a group of oil manufacturers from Krokodilopolis (παρὰ τ]ῶXν ἐκ Κροκοδίλ̣ωXν̣ π̣ό̣λεως τοῦ [Ἀρσινοίτο]υ νοµοῦ ἐλαιουργῶν: l. 3–4) to [Chairemon], of the rank of the diadochoi and epimeletes2. It is still discernible that this hypomnema was not the first but was preceded by an earlier one (l. 5), and that earlier one was followed by two more (l. 8–9). It appears that the subject matter of these petitions was sesame seed (l. 7). There is a reference to the poor quality, at least, of some of the seeds (δ]ευτερίου, l. 10)3. 80, 82. UPZ I 114 I4 (3 May 150 B.C.), UPZ I 114 II (21 May 148 B.C.): The two documents are receipts of payments to the royal bank at Memphis. The story behind these payments can be summarised as follows: a certain Dorion and others had become farmers of the natron tax for the year 29 (153/152 B.C.) for 11 talents 4000 dr. Tanoupis, daughter of Ithoroys, gave her garden of 6 5/8 arouras as a surety for the contract. In the following year (152/151 B.C.), the contractors could not fulfil their contract, and Tanoupis could only pay 4000 drachmas. Therefore, the garden was auctioned by Dorion, the epimeletes in Mar./Apr. 151 B.C. in the presence of the antigrapheus, the topogrammateis, and others. There was only one bid, that of the daughter of Tanoupis, Zois, who purchased the garden at the price of 10 talents and 4000 drachmas, while the mother paid the remaining 2000 drachmas. They agreed to pay in four instalments 2 talents and 4000 drachmas each. The first instalment was paid immediately in year 30 (151 B.C.). UPZ I 114 I and UPZ I 114 II represent the receipts of the second and fourth instalments of years 31 and 33 respectively (150 and 148 B.C.).5

BL 13, 227. The name of the epimeletes is missing, but as in the above-mentioned P. Tebt. III 1, 731, it can be suggested from the date and the honorific title, τῶν διαδόχων, that the missing name is Chairemon. 3 Cf. Koskenniemi, 1997, 546, comm. 10 for the translation of δευτέριος as ῾von schlechterer Qualität᾽. 4 BL 9, 363; 11, 287. 5 For the whole procedure, see Armoni, 2012, 129–130. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 101

81. P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150/149 B.C.1): A denunciation against two men to the komogrammateus of Oxyrhyncha. The two men had violated royal decrees and illegally collected money from the village’s royal farmers. Apollonios the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, and the archiphylakites seem to have come to the village and investigated the matter. The misdoings of the two men had provoked the farmers to flee from the village (ἀνεχώρησαν, l. 16). 82.: see no. 80. 83. SB XXII 15545 + 155462 = P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro (18 Apr. 146 B.C.): A petition to N.N3, the epimeletes, from two priests of the god Haresis4, feeders of the sacred Ibis (ibioboskoi), and feeders of the sacred hawk (hierakoboskoi)5, all from [Arch]elais (TM Geo 290). For a long time, the temple had cultivated royal land near the said village at a lease (ekphorion) of three artabas per aroura; the crop was being used for the nourishment, burial, and other necessities of the sacred animals. The village was held by a certain Agalos who had received it en dorea6. In year 30 (152/151 B.C.), Sarapion, the new director of the grant, forced the priests to pay higher rents. This was reported to Dioskourides, the dioiketes, Herakleides, the former epimeletes, the topogrammateus, and the komogrammateus. At the date of the present petition, the dispute had already lasted five years (year 30–35 =

Due to the mention of Apollonios, the epimeletes. BL 11, 238; 12, 234. 3 l. 3 [15–20 letters] καὶ ἐπιµ[(ελητῆι)]: In the lacuna there is enough space to supplement a name and an honorific title, although Koskenniemi, the editor, doubted it. So, it seems possible to supplement [Χαιρήµονι τῶν διαδόχων] καὶ ἐπιµ[(ελητῆι). Koskenniemi, instead, proposed Σιτάλ]και as one possibility among others. Chairemon is attested until 150/149 (P. Erasm. II 32). The next dated evidence of an epimeletes in the Arsinoites is P. Tebt. III 1, 733 (143/142 B.C.), in which the epimeletes Apollonios is mentioned. For a photo of the papyrus, see P. Turku and PapCongr. XX, Plate 14; Cavallo/Maehler, 2008, 81, no. 47. 4 The name Ἁρῆσις, here attested for the first time in this form, stands for Ἁρεσιῆς/ Ἑρεσιῆς. For the name, see Koskenniemi, 1994, 248; Clarysse and Blasco Torres, 2019, 274f. (= Quaegebeur, 1977, 250). 5 See Otto, 1905, 111, also cited by Koskenniemi, 1994, 248. 6 Γῆ ἐν δωρεᾷ means land given by the king to high officials to be exploited for life. The most famous of these estates granted by the king is that of Apollonios, the dioiketes of Ptolemy II Philadelphos; see Rostovtzeff, 1922; Rostovtzeff, 1941, 277; Manning, 2003, 110f. 1 2

102

The Office of the Epimeletes

152/151–146 B.C.), but, unfortunately, we do not know when or how it ended. 84. P. Köln XIV 564 (Aug./Sep. 145 B.C.): A draft of a report made in the office of Haronnophris, acting as basilikos grammateus in the Arsinoites. It concerns objects put to auction but not yet sold. The addressee is unknown. Attached to this report is a letter of Ptolemaios, the former basilikos grammateus of the Arsinoites, about the same subject. At the beginning of this letter, there is an addendum between the lines in which an epimeletes was mentioned: ] τῶν διαδόχων καὶ ἐπιµ̣ελη[τ- (l. 12a). Perhaps Chairemon is meant, but no context can be recognised. 85. P. Köln XIV 565 (ca. 145 B.C.?): A fragment about auctions, apparently related to P. Köln XIV 564 (no. 84). Chairemon is mentioned as a former epimeletes: γραφέντος παρὰ Χαιρ̣ή̣µ̣ο̣[νος] τοῦ ἐπιµελητεύσαντος (l. 6–7). 86–88. BGU VI 12191 (second century B.C.2), BGU VI 1221 (15 – 24 May 144 B.C.), BGU VI 12223 (after 7 May 144 B.C.): The three documents constitute reports detailing auctions of land and houses. Chairemon4, the epimeletes, and other officials we regularly encounter in the auctioning procedures, were involved.5 89. P. Tebt. III 1, 732 (ca. 142 B.C.): P. Tebt. III, 1 732–734 are drafts of reports written by the same hand on the back of different papyri. The sender BL 3, 19. This document has no reference to any date, but the mention of Chairemon, the epimeletes (l. 32 and 49), who is also attested in BGU VI 1222 (after 7 May 144 B.C.) and P. Ryl. II 253 V (before 20 Sep. 142 B.C.), all from the Hermopolites, suggests a date around 144–142 B.C. for BGU VI 1219. 3 BL 3, 19; 7, 20; 8, 43; 10, 20. 4 Most likely, this Chairemon is not the epimeletes of the Arsinoites mentioned above in P. Tebt. III 1, 731 (153/152 B.C. or 142/141 B.C.?), P. Tebt. III 1, 782 (ca. 153 B.C.), P. Tebt. III 2, 843 (28 Jan. – 26 Feb. 152 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 31 (151/150 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 32 (150/149 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 33 (mid-second century B.C.), P. Erasm. II 34 (mid-second century B.C.), and SB XXIV 15912 = P. Turku 36 (mid-second century B.C.), unless he was transferred from the Arsinoites to the Hermopolites after the mid-second century. There is an interval of about ten years between the attestations of the Arsinoitan epimeletes and the attestation of the Hermopolitan epimeletes in the BGU document. 5 Probably auctions because of private debts; cf. Armoni, 2012, 126, n. 55. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 103

was possibly the basilikos grammateus1 (cf. below no. 90 and 92). P. Tebt. 732 is a report to Sarapion, the dioiketes. The sender reported that for the Arsinoites, the retailing of the salt was put up for auction by Apollonios, the epimeletes, which happened in accordance with the orders sent by the dioiketes. 90. P. Tebt. III 1, 733 (28 Sep. 143 – 27 Sep. 142 B.C.): An official letter (apparently a draft) to Apollonios, the epimeletes, from an unknown official, possibly the basilikos grammateus (cf. above no. 89 and below no. 92). The letter is a report of a theft that was detected by a contractor of an unknown commodity in an unknown village. When the contractor’s stepson (?) was visiting the receptacles (ὑποδοχεῖα) at the village, he found together with Eudaimon, a guard, that a certain Demetrios, ‘being of those who came from the Herakleopolites’, had stolen two cloaks and a tunic. The letter, as preserved, ends with the statement that the contractors were in arrears. The cause of it remains unknown. 91. P. Ryl. II 253 descr.2 (before 20 Sep. 142): On the verso, there is a reference to a sale of a property without an owner (ἀδέσποτον) by Chairemon, the epimeletes of the Hermopolites, in the presence of the epistates. 92. P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 1 (141–139 B.C.): Once more, the papyrus shows the epimeletes’ engagement in farming out unproductive land, as attested by the royal decree in PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 (29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C., above no. 28) and the accompanying instructions of the dioiketes, UPZ I 110 (164 B.C., above no. 29), about 25 years earlier. The document in the form of a draft is a report submitted to Apollonios, the epimeletes, by an unknown official, potentially the basilikos grammateus3 (cf. above no. 89), who informs the epimeletes that Phanesis, the komogrammateus of Koitai (Onniton Koitai?, TM Geo 1503), had persuaded the royal farmers of Dinnys (Dinneos Koitai, TM Geo 559) to give up their resistance and to cultivate extra land.

See P. Tebt. III 1, 732 intr. BL 3, 161. 3 See P. Tebt. III 1, 732, intr. 1 2

104

The Office of the Epimeletes

93. P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 2 (141–139 B.C.): Draft of a letter of an unknown official, possibly the basilikos grammateus (cf. above no. 92), who transferred the report of the komogrammateus of Koitai to Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, concerning some cultivators of catoecic (?) land. 94. P. Tebt. III 2, 927 descr. (140 B.C.?): A statement from the scribe of the farmers (γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν) that an inspection of the land of some farmers was made in the presence of the agent of the basilikos grammateus and the agent of Ptolemaios, the epimeletes (l. 9). 95. P. Tebt. III 1, 735 (ca. 140 B.C.): A report to Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, concerning arrears owed by residents of the village Areos Kome (TM Geo 295). 96. P. Dryton 311 = P. Ryl. II 67 = P. Lond. III 686 f = P. Lond. III 687 b (140–126 B.C.2): This document from the archive of Dryton (TM Arch 74)3 contains a draft of a petition written by Dryton and addressed to Hermias, of the diadochoi and epimeletes. Dryton was wronged by Patseous, the komogrammateus of Pathyris, who registered Dryton among those who are able to pay 5 (?) talents and 1000 drachmas whose purpose can no longer be determined4. It appears that Dryton aimed to circumvent this payment obligation and, in an effort to evade it, transferred ownership of his land parcels to his son, Esthladas. Dryton asked the epimeletes to hand over to his son the proper diagraphe for the plots of land that he bought5. 97. P. Tebt. I 66 = W. Chr. 332 = C. Ord. Ptol. 47 (after 3–12 Feb. 139 B.C.7): This royal decree is annexed to an official letter (l. 1–11); it is cited in full. BL 12, 65. As a terminus ante quem, Vandorpe suggested 130 B.C. because of Hermias’ aulic title (Vandorpe, 2002, 222). The document was written, at the latest, before 126 B.C., the presumable year of Dryton’s death. 3 For more information about the Archive of Dryton and his family, see Vandorpe, 2002; Vandorpe and Waebens, 2009, section 36; see also Lewis, 1986, 88–103; Vandorpe, 2014, 105–135; Broux, 2019, 397f. 4 For the expected purposes of this payment, see Vandorpe, 2002, 223f. 5 For the meaning of diagraphe, see section 5.8. 6 BL 2.2, 169; 8, 489; 10, 275. 7 For discussions of the date, see C. Ord. Ptol. 47, intr. p.112; Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 274. 1 2

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 105

Issued between Panemos (= Tybi) 10 and 19 of the 31st year, the ordinance was directed to all nome officials, among others, the epimeletai (l. 14). It responded to a set of demands presented to the royal sovereigns (Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, Cleopatra II, and Cleopatra III) by the priests of a temple, dedicated to the worship of a deified queen who was either Berenice or Arsinoe1. The priests complained that the income of the temple had been affected by fraudulent practices, namely by people who leased land and other property of the temple for a long period or took land by force without any contract at all and failed to pay the rents, and by others who set up aphrodisia2 without the authorisation of the priests. The orders were promulgated to the strategoi, phrourarchoi, [epistatai, phylakitai], archiphylakitai, epimeletai, [oikonomoi, basilikoi] grammateis and everybody in the service of the crown to secure the proper revenues. 98. SB XXVI 16524 (19 Feb. 137 B.C.3): The document includes two letters: (A) a letter of the basilikos grammateus Pesouris to the topogrammateus (?) Herakleides and, attached to it, (B) a letter of Antipatros, the official responsible for the administration of the katoikoi, to the already mentioned 1 The document lacks information regarding both the temple’s location and the name of the goddess venerated. The editors propose that the temple could possibly be dedicated to Berenice or Arsinoe (P. Tebt. I 6, intr. p.59). Lenger said only that the priests are ‘d'un temple consacré au culte d'une déesse associé à celui de la dynastie’ (C. Ord. Ptol. 47, intr. p.112). Both the editors of P. Tebt. I 6 and Lenger suggested that the lacuna in l. 17 contained the name of a location. Differently, Bagnall and Derow argued that the wide distribution and application of this decree suggest that the editors and Lenger’s conclusion is incorrect. However, they admit that so far, no satisfactory restoration has been proposed (Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 274). Käppel (2021, 290–292) argues that the unknown goddess was Aphrodite/Isis, and that the ἀφροδίσια were objects (statuettes?) of Aphrodite which were sold by the temples or income resulting from festivals but not brothels as they have been interpreted. In maintaining this, she refers to remarks by Scholl, 2009, 186–190. She also does not take it for granted that the royal order was an answer to a single temple’s petition. It is also possible that the complaints were brought forward by several temples of Aphrodite/Isis which cooperatively combined their charges. It can also be added to Käppel’s argument that even if this decree was a response to a particular case, the sovereigns could have taken the chance to issue a set of general instructions concerning the temples, so the general application of the decree does not contradict the notion that a local problem was the original cause. 2 Bagnall and Derow suggested that these are brothels run by the temples (Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 274), a suggestion that was opposed by Käppel, 2021, 292. Cf. the previous note. 3 For the date, see Quenouille and Willms, 2001, 58f.

106

The Office of the Epimeletes

basilikos grammateus. The attached letter B was written two months before

letter A1. The correspondence concerned the assignment of a lot of land to a certain Herakleios son of Dionysios, newly admitted to the class of the katoikoi. Document A is mutilated, but, nevertheless, the story behind the two documents can be reconstructed as follows: the dioiketes wrote to Antipatros the πρὸς τῆι συντάξει2, Pesuris the basilikos grammateus, Dorion the banker, and others for the assignment of 30 arouras to the above-mentioned Herakleios. For the allotment of land, Herakleios had to pay one copper talent and 2000 drachmas per aroura (8000 drachmas), amounting to a total of 40 talents. Antipatros, in turn, wrote to the basilikos grammateus (letter B) for the allocation of the land after the latter received a confirmation from Dorion, the banker, that Herakleios had paid the money into the royal bank. The basilikos grammateus was expected to instruct the topogrammateus (who is likely the addressee in document A), who in turn was expected to instruct the komogrammateus for the execution of the allotment. An agent of the epimeletes emerged onto the scene in document A among the instructions of the basilikos grammateus to his subordinate, but, unfortunately, this part is very mutilated. 99. P. Poethke 18 (12 Jul. 137 B.C.): This document is an order of the basilikos grammateus to a local3 antigrapheus with the name Phanes to control the measurement of grain to the crew of the θαλαµηγός4 of Boethos, the epistrategos5, 80 artabas of grain for each of two 20 day periods, for a total of 160 artabas, for a long trip that Boethos and his team intended to make

1

See Quenouille and Willms, 2001, 55, and p.56 for the probable addressee of document A. Cf. also Armoni, 2012, 187–189. 2 See p.28, n. 3 and 4. 3 Armoni, 2012, 29, n. 76. 4 The thalamegos, literally ‘cabin-carrier’, was the dahabiyeh of the ancient world; these Nile yachts carried government officials up and down the river. Strabo reports that ‘the marina for the thalamegoi which officials use for sailing to Upper Egypt was on a canal near Alexandria. Ptolemy II’s fleet included 800 thalamegoi’. See Casson, 1971, 341 and n. 66; cf. also Lanciers, 2020a, 294. 5 Boethos held the position of συγγενὴς καὶ ἐπιστράτηγος καὶ στρατηγὸς τῆς Θηβαίδος at least since 137 B.C. Before, he was the στρατηγὸς τῆς Θηβαίδος for several years, at least since 149 B.C. For more information about Boethos’ career, see Thomas, 1975, 91–94; Kramer, 1997, 316–317 and Heinen, 1997, 340–349; P. Yale IV 138–152 (= Duttenhöfer, 2021, 1–92).

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 107

on the Nile1. The instructions (χρηµατισµός) came from Sarapion, the epimeletes2, to the strategos of the Herakleopolites who in turn forwarded these instructions to the sitologoi and to the basilikos grammateus to be executed. The basilikos grammateus, in turn, instructed the antigrapheus, to take part in the procedure3. 100. P. Tebt. III 1, 7374 (ca. 136 B.C.): A fragment of a proposal presented by members of a local priesthood to cultivate infertile land. They wrote to an unidentified official asking him to deliver their proposal to the epimeletes (l. 11). 101. P. Tebt. III 1, 8105 (29 Jul. 134 B.C.): An oath by a ship’s captain. The epimeletes is mentioned in l. 22, but the document is too mutilated to allow further conclusions. 102. P. Tebt. I 214 descr. = P. Tebt. IV 11376 (ca. 119–110 B.C.7): In this document, the epimeletes appears in l. 1 of the first preserved column, in

Nothing is known about the purpose of the epistrategos’ journey. Kramer, the editor, suggests that the division of the supplies in the way mentioned above – two instalments, each for 20 days – makes it clear that the barge had to return to the Herakleopolites after 20 days. Kramer further proposes that the destination of the epistrategos’ journey was the Thebais (Kramer, 2009, 317, n. 5.). Differently, Armoni suggests – the other way around – that the epistrategos rushed from the Thebais to the Herakleopolites and his mission was in the area where his barge was supplied with provisions (Armoni, 2012, 78). Armoni’s suggestion aligns with the fact that Boethos held the position of epistrategos of the Thebais. Another itinerary should be considered: the epistrategos was on the way from the Thebais to Alexandria, and his barge was provisioned partway through his journey at the Herakleopolites; on his way back to the Thebais, he stopped again for the second part of the provisions in the Herakleopolites. 2 Kramer suspects that Sarapion was a high official in the salaries and supplies department of the military administration, possibly residing in Alexandria (Kramer, 2009, 320). Otherwise, I agree with Armoni that, most likely, Sarapion was none other than the epimeletes of the Herakleopolites; see Armoni, 2012, 79. 3 For a discussion of the procedure, adopted in extraordinary payments of the government, see Armoni, 2012, 74–79, esp. p.78 on the present papyrus, and P. Poethke 18 = APF 55 (2009), p.316–329. 4 BL 3, 244; 7, 272; 13, 257. 5 BL 3, 245; 7, 273; 8, 495. 6 BL 1, 426; 10, 278; 11, 284. 7 The document was first dated to the late second century B.C. (P. Tebt. I 214 descr. p.531). The editors of P. Tebt. IV 1137 adopted the same dating. Verhoogt placed the document 1

108

The Office of the Epimeletes

which he seems to have been responsible for the distribution of parcels of land to be cultivated by royal farmers (l. 1–7). Possibly the same is true for the lines 8–31. 103. P. Tebt. I 61 b1 (Mar. – Apr. 117 B.C.): An agricultural report in which again epimeletai were responsible for leasing land: l. 22, concerning land leased until year 48 (123/122 B.C.), together with the oikonomoi. l. 45–47, concerning land leased until year 39 (132/131 B.C.), including land which was leased by a former στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων in year 34 (137/136 B.C.). l. 51, concerning land leased in year 29 (142/141 B.C.) ὑπὸ Ἀπολλω[νίου τοῦ ἐπιµε]λητε[ύσ]αντος (cf. P. Tebt. I 72, 211). l. 70f., concerning land leased in year 29 (142/141 B.C.) ὑπὸ Χαιρήµ[ο]νος τοῦ ἐπιµελητεύσαντος (cf. P. Tebt. I 72, 48). Cf. also l. 35 where γεωργοί are mentioned who do not pay their rents and are threatened by a new lease: µεταµισθωθή[τ]ωι δι᾿ Εὐβίου τοῦ ἐπιµελητοῦ καὶ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γραµµατέως2. 104. P. Tebt. I 173 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 (28 Jun. 114 B.C.): A letter from a certain Polemon to Menches, the komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris. Polemon informed Menches that the epimeletes was intending to visit the village Berenikis (Berenikis Thesmophorou, TM Geo 430), and that he would visit the village Theogonis (TM Geo 2376) on the following day. On his way to the latter village, he would pass by Kerkeosiris; therefore, Polemon warned Menches to have the account of the outstanding payments of the village ready so that the epimeletes does not have to stay a long time in the village, which might get Menches into trouble. 105. P. Tebt. Ι 724 (Mar.–Apr. 113 B.C.): Like P. Tebt. I 214 descr. = P. Tebt. IV 1137 (no. 102) and P. Tebt. I 61 b (no. 103), this document is another long among those written when Menches was the komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris for the second time, i.e., 20 Aug. 119–111/110 B.C. (Verhoogt, 1998, 184). 1 BL 1, 432; 3, 240; 8, 489; 9, 354; 11, 271; 12, 279. 2 Cf. Cuvigny, 1985, 56–57. 3 BL 11, 269. 4 Part of this papyrus is P. Tebt. IV 1113. BL 8, 489; 11, 273; 12, 280.

Chapter Four: Documents Relating to the Ptolemaic Epimeletes in the 2nd Cent. B.C. 109

report about land and crops from Kerkeosiris. Chairemon, Ptolemaios and Apollonios, former epimeletai, appear responsible for leasing royal land: l. 48 (cf. P. Tebt 61 b, 70f.), l. 208 and 211. The lines 205–229 correspond to P. Teb. I 61 b, 45–65. 106. P. Tebt. III 2, 930 descr. (2nd century B.C.): This fragment belonged to an order of payment, probably of the epimeletes of the Herakleopolites. For a tentative reconstruction of the text, see chapter five, p.137. 107. P. Strasb. VII 645 (2nd century B.C., ca. 115 B.C. according to the ed. pr.): Another very mutilated papyrus. No conclusive meaning can be obtained from what remains of this document. It was a petition, perhaps against a certain Eubios with reference to an oath. The epimeletes was involved in some way (l. 3). 108. SB XIV 11299 (2nd century B.C.): A small fragment with parts of four lines that mention rents, ἐκφόρια, in l. 3. Former epimeletai seem to be mentioned in l. 2–3, but nothing more can be concluded1. 109. P. Tebt. III 1, 713 (late 2nd century B.C.): A letter to a person whose name is lost and the elders of the farmers, οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν γεωργῶν2, of the village Areos Kome (TM Geo 295) from Harsiesis, the agent of the epimeletes commissioned to oversee the estimation of the sesame crop: ὁ ἀπεσ[τ]αλµένος παρὰ ἐπιµελητοῦ πρὸς τῆι ε[ἰ]κασίαι τοῦ σησάµου (l. 1–2). Harsiesis asked the elders to meet him in Oxyrhyncha for a reason we do not know as the document is broken off, but most likely the cause is related to the sesame crop. 1 The first edition of this fragment does not show an epimeletes (Geraci, 1974, 113, in which C. Balconi edited the document). However, in SB XIV, the lacuna in the 3rd line was supplemented as follows: [-ca.?- ἐπιµ]ε̣λητῶν. This can be a reference to procedures that were taken by former epimeletai, cf. γεγενηµένων̣ occurring in line 2. Otherwise, addressing the epimeletai in the plural occurs when instructions come from a higher authority, mainly the king or the dioiketes. Cf. P. Köln VII 313 (after 9. Oct. 186 B.C.); P. Tebt. I 6 = W. Chr. 332 = C. Ord. Ptol. 47 (after 3 – 12 Feb. 139 B.C.); UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III, p.15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 (164 B.C.). 2 The royal farmers as a community were represented by village elders with semi-official duties such as resolving disputes and assisting the komogrammateus with the survey of land. See Allam, 2002, 1–26; Monson, 2007, 370; Monson, 2012, 144.

110

The Office of the Epimeletes

110. P. Ryl. II 66 a (late 2nd century B.C.): A petition sent by a tax farmer to a higher official1 asking him to write to the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, and the oikonomos τῶν ἀργυρικῶν to obtain an enforcement action against certain people concerning outstanding payments2. 111. SB III 7182 (2nd/1st century B.C.): I refer to this document although it does not concern the official who is the subject of this list. The document contains records of meetings of a certain association in the Arsinoite nome3.

Probably the epistrategos of the Thebais; see P. Ryl. II 66 a, intr. p.8, and Thomas, 1975, 144. 2 P. Ryl. 66 can be dated to the thirties of the 2nd cent. Cf. Thomas, 1975, 94, n. 65. 3 The association had eleven members and was headed by Hermias, who had the title ‘epimeletes’. The members had regularly social meetings, such as drinking parties with musical entertainment funded by the members’ donations. For more information about these associations, see San Nicolò, 1972, and p.61 for the association mentioned above. Cf. also Giannakopoulos, 2021, 39–62, esp. p.50, n. 33. 1

CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSING THE DOCUMENTS THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETES IN THE SECOND CENTURY B.C. The documents of the 2nd century B.C. show that the functions of the epimeletes, which are already attested in the 3rd century B.C. (see chapter three), were carried on, i.e., his functions in grain transport, administration of cleruchic land, auctions, tax farming, state expenditures, receiving declarations, and jurisdiction. Moreover, our documents now attest further spheres of competence in agricultural affairs, controlling royal monopolies, issuing diagraphai, collecting outstanding debts to the state, and the financial administration of temples. This increase in the number of the epimeletes’ functions does not necessarily indicate that the office was more important in the 2nd century, but the lack of relevant documents may be simply attributed to the fact that we have fewer papyri from the short period at the end of the 3rd century when the epimeletes became active. The functions of the epimeletes in the 2nd century B.C., as I found them in the documents, are as follows: 5.1 The function of the epimeletes in agriculture: We have a quite large number of documents that prove the involvement of the epimeletes in the following agricultural activities: 5.1.1 Leasing royal land: After the Seleucid invasion of Egypt and the subsequent revolt of Dionysios Petosarapis in the 160s, many royal farmers deserted their lands. In response to this, the royal court promulgated a royal decree1 to remedy this situation. This decree, and its interpretation by the dioiketes, which by chance we also have2, show that the government tried to solve the problem by imposing the deserted parcels of land on farmers at a PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 (29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C., no. 28). Cf. Käppel, 2021, esp. 150 and 164. 2 UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63= P. Petr. III, p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 (164 B.C., no. 29). Cf. Käppel, 2021, 161f. 1

112

The Office of the Epimeletes

reduced rent. The epimeletes was one of the officials named by the royal decree to carry out this duty. Furthermore, a part of the dioiketes’ document is an explicit letter to the epimeletes of the Saites with reference to letters to epimeletai in other nomes. This may suggest that the epimeletes had considerable responsibility in carrying out these instructions, perhaps not only in this particular case but quite generally in similar cases. This assumption can be evidenced by P. Tebt. III 1, 734 (141–139 B.C., no. 92), a papyrus, about 25 years later than the previously mentioned decree, which shows the engagement of the epimeletes in farming out unproductive land. The papyrus is a report sent to the epimeletes to notify him that royal farmers of a certain village were persuaded to accept the land that was imposed on them. So, this document speaks in favour of the epimeletes’ general responsibility for carrying out such instructions as formulated in the decree referred to above. There are also other documents in which we find the epimeletes as the official responsible for leasing out large or small areas of land. In P. Tebt. III 2, 843 (28 Jan. – 26 Feb. 152 B.C., no. 74), he leased an area of 390 3/32 arouras of royal land. Moreover, P. Tebt. III 1, 737 (ca. 136 B.C., no. 100) shows that the priests who wrote this letter, because they wished to rent unproductive land (χέρσος and ὑπόλογος)1, were aware of the decisive role of the epimeletes in leasing such land and therefore asked for the delivery of their proposal to cultivate infertile land to the epimeletes. Likewise, the epimeletes appears in the accounts of Kerkeosiris with this function till the late second century2. It seems that the responsibility of the epimeletes was not confined to the leasing stage but was also extended to intervening in disputes that might have resulted from contracting. We have seen that the petitioner in P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap. Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43 (159/158 B.C., no. 61), a farmer of three arouras of dry land (chersos), appealed to the epimeletes because the komogrammateus of his village forced him to pay an increased rent. Despite its very fragmentary condition, the remaining parts of P. Heid. For leasing hypologos-land, cf. Armoni, 2012, 183–187. P. Tebt. I 214 descr. = P. Tebt. IV 1137 (ca. 119–110 B.C., no. 102); P. Tebt. I 61 b (Mar. – Apr.117 B.C., no. 103); P. Tebt. Ι 72 (Mar. – Apr. 113 B.C., no. 105). Cf. also SB XIV 11299 (2nd century B.C., no. 108); a very fragmentary papyrus that mentions rents (ἐκφόρια) which could have been rents of royal land, together with a reference to former epimeletai. 1 2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

113

IX 4331 (161–155 B.C., no. 56) show a similar situation: again, a farmer appealed to the epimeletes and other officials concerning the rent (ἐκφόριον) of his land. Perhaps this petitioner was also forced to pay extra rent, like the petitioner in P. Ryl. IV 578, but, most likely, in this case the accused official – if there was any in P. Heid. IX 433 – was not the komogrammateus because a petition concerning the problem was also sent to this official, and it seems unreasonable to send a complaint to the incriminated official. People of several social milieus took on leases of royal land in Ptolemaic Egypt, among those the Egyptian priests2. SB XXII 15545 = P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro (18 Apr. 146 B.C., no. 83) asserts this practice and emphasises the function of the epimeletes in solving disputes that may result from the contracting for cultivating royal land. When a certain person was given a whole village including an unknown number of arouras of royal land that were cultivated by the temple, as a dorea, he wanted to raise the rent. The priests refused, and the result was acts of violence to force the priests to accept the new rent. The priests resorted to the epimeletes, certainly because of his responsibility for land leasing. They mentioned that they had sent previous petitions to the topogrammateus, the komogrammateus, and the former epimeletes. All these officials were responsible for agricultural affairs. It also seems that one of the duties of the epimeletes was to act in cases of the so-called anachoresis, the fleeing of royal farmers. The incident announced in P. Heid. IX 4243 (161–155 B.C., no. 55) that royal farmers fled because they felt they were wronged by their komogrammateus was even made known to the court. The basilikos grammateus reported to the kings that he had written to the strategos and the epimeletes to look after the affair. P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150/149 B.C., no. 81) also proves that the epimeletes had to act in such circumstances. In the present case, some royal farmers fled because they were wronged by two men, who collected money illegally from them.

Armoni, 2012, 240. Manning, 2003, 124. 3 Armoni, 2012, 239. 1

2

114

The Office of the Epimeletes

5.1.2 Irrigation: Irrigation was of primary concern to any government aiming to maintain or increase its revenue. Over the Greco-Roman Period, fluctuations in agricultural production are clearly linked to the failure of the government to control irrigation and regulate agriculture1. Therefore, among the instructions of the dioiketes to the oikonomos (?) in P. Tebt. III 1, 703, we find a set of instructions concerned with maintaining the good condition of the canals and waterways2. According to our documents, it is evident that the epimeletes played an active role in irrigation activities. In P. Tebt. III 2, 936 descr. (ca. 155 B.C., no. 70), we have clear evidence for the epimeletes receiving irrigation reports. In P. Vindob. Inv. G56637 (190 B.C., no. 5), the petitioner who addressed Demetrios, a subordinate of the dioiketes, sought to bring to his attention an incident where a komophylakites had attacked him and his companions during their irrigation work and chased them away. It appears that the petitioner had fallen behind on state taxes, as the komophylakites released him only after he paid a sum of 1400 drachmas. The petitioner did not provide a specific reason for the komophylakites’ assault but emphasised the significant detail that the incident occurred while he and others were engaged in irrigation work. He specifically highlighted that the komophylakites not only arrested him during this activity but also assaulted others who were performing similar work at the time. Certainly, the petitioner emphasised this point so that the subordinate of the dioiketes, who was the receiver of the petition, would ask the epimeletes to intervene because of his function in irrigation affairs. The papyrus shows that the epimeletes had already been involved in this affair. Although the epimeletes, as far as we know, never intervenes in private disputes3, P. Tebt. III 1, 782 (ca. 153 B.C., no. 72), at first glance, appears to be a personal dispute in which the epimeletes was asked to intervene. If so, this papyrus would be the first evidence of the epimeletes’ interference in such disputes. However, the real reason that the epimeletes was addressed can be seen in lines 6–9: the petitioner had worked night and day on the 1 Adams, 2019, 234. For more information about irrigation in Greco-Roman Egypt, see Bonneau, 1993; Manning, 2003, 27–30 and 183–184; Römer, 2017, 171–191; Adams, 2019, 233–250. 2 See Farah, 1987, 90. 3 So far, we have no evidence for such interference in personal disputes. Cf. McGing, 2002, 56.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

115

irrigation of his land because of a dyke breach at Boubastos. Apparently, there was a dispute between neighbours concerning irrigation matters. In any case, we do not have merely a private quarrel; the issue interested the administration because of the danger to the irrigation system, and therefore the petition was addressed to the epimeletes. I agree with McGing that P. Mich. XVIII 776 (22 June 194 B.C., no. 2) can also be considered evidence for the epimeletes’ function in irrigation works. As McGing stated, there is no obvious reason why the epimeletes should have had any interest in a matter of two men who had been found injured. The only thing that catches the eye, as McGing noted, is that the attack happened at the Stone canal (τὴν Λιθίνην διώρυγα, 1. 3). Therefore, he wonders if the reporter thought that it would interest the epimeletes because the attack was on people working on the irrigation system1. I believe the document’s date, 22 June, can also give us a clue. It is wellknown that the Egyptian agricultural year was divided by the Nile flood into clear segments: the inundation season (June- September), the sowing season (October–February), and the harvest season (March–June)2. The flood was first seen at the southern border, Aswan, in June and reached Memphis a month later. Throughout July, August, September and into October, most fields were flooded, and little agricultural work was possible3. Therefore, on 22 June, the flood may have reached the Arsinoites or was still on its way to the nome. In both cases, no direct irrigation work can be conducted. But we can think of indirect irrigation works, such as dyke maintenance or like, in this time. This can be evidenced by the fact that most of the five-day certificates that reached us from the Arsinoites date to May and June4. This is, in my view, why the epimeletes was informed about the question: two workers on the dykes were attacked while doing their work, and the epimeletes was notified because of his role in controlling irrigation works. 5.1.3 Land survey (geometria), inspection (episkepsis), and guarding the crops (genematophylakia): There is evidence that the epimeletes was also involved in land inspection. We know from a report of the scribe of the 1

McGing, 2002, 56. See Verhoogt, 2019, 10. 3 Manning, 2003, 29. 4 For penthemeros certificates in Greco–Roman Egypt, see Sijpesteijn, 1964. 2

116

The Office of the Epimeletes

farmers (γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν)1 that the agent of the epimeletes was present during the inspection of land of royal farmers. This can be connected with the function of the epimeletes in leasing royal land and his concern for the irrigation system. We have two pieces of evidence that the epimeletes was involved in surveying and inspecting cleruchic land. In P. Heid. VI 382 (after 158/157 B.C., no. 63), a phylakites, who was one of the holders of 10 arouras, and whose land was subjected to a survey by the responsible officials, was wronged by the scribe of the farmers (γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν), who added the rent of a whole aroura2 which neither the komogrammateus had reported nor had it been registered in the reports of the logisterion. The phylakites asked the epimeletes to check the accounts and to correct the injustice. The second piece of evidence comes from SB XXVI 16524 (19 Feb. 137 B.C., no. 98). The part of the papyrus where an agent of the epimeletes is mentioned is very mutilated, but it can be inferred that the instructions of the basilikos grammateus given to his subordinates, the topogrammateus and the komogrammateus, were to execute the order of the dioiketes to assign 30 arouras to a newly admitted katoikos3. The execution of the order must have included a survey and inspection of the allotted land. It is in this context that we see an agent of the epimeletes mentioned, so it is probable that in a lacuna of the papyrus, the expectation was expressed that the basilikos grammateus and the agent of the epimeletes would be present during the survey and inspection. This assumption can be reinforced by the evidence of the above-mentioned P. Tebt. III 2, 927 (no. 94), which explicitly shows that an agent of the epimeletes was present during the inspection. P. Tebt. III 1, 731 (153/152 B.C. or 142/141 B.C.?, no. 73) shows that the epimeletes also controlled the guarding of the crops on the fields (γενηµατοφυλακία)4 before their transport to the thesauroi. In the present case, the chief of the phylakitai (ὁ ἡγούµενος τῶν φυλακιτῶν) had to inform

P. Tebt. III 2, 927 descr. (140 B.C.?, no. 94) The cleruchic land was normally taxed at a fixed rate of one artaba per aroura, called the artabieia. Cf. Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 221. 3 For the assignment of catoecic land, cf. Armoni, 2012, 187–198. 4 Cuvigny, 1984, 123–135. 1 2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

117

the epimeletes about the absence of one of the four guards whom he had appointed to guard the crops of two villages. 5.1.4 Collecting arrears due to the Crown, auditing the bookkeeping of local officials, and issuing orders for payment (διαγραφαί): P. Tebt. III 2, 853 (ca. 173 B.C., no. 26) is an account listing payments in kind due to the state. There are two references to payment orders issued by an agent of the epimeletes: l. 14–15: κατὰ δια]γραφὰ̣ς̣ Ἀνικήτου τοῦ π[αρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ ἐ]πιµελητοῦ and l. 48–49: κατὰ διαγραφὴν Ἀνικήτου τοῦ παρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ ἐπ(ιµελητοῦ). The διαγραφή of an epimeletes is mentioned in the order to receive money P. Duk. 690 (25 June 192 B.C., no. 3a), apparently addressed to a banker. The payment is to be made κατὰ τὴν παρὰ Σπαρτάκου τοῦ ἐπιµελητοῦ δ̣ιN(αγραφήν), l. 6-8. The reason of the payment is not stated. It was linked to a vineyard. P. Tebt. III 2, 856 (171 B.C., no. 27) is a lengthy granary account in which we have a reference to a former epimeletes. After a lacuna, one reads the following entry: ]ρ ̣ ̣ε̣ν ̣ ̣ ̣ τοῦ παρὰ Θέωνος \τοῦ ἐπιµελη(τεύσαντος) τὸν Ἀρσινο(ΐτην)/ Θωὺθ πυ(ροῦ) σ (l. 58–59). Apart from the fact that a certain amount of grain is linked with a bureaucratic procedure in which the epimeletes was involved, nothing else can be concluded. Another piece of evidence for the epimeletes’ involvement in this kind of activity is P. Tebt. III 1, 735 (ca. 140 B.C., no. 95), in which the epimeletes receives a report concerning arrears that residents of a certain village owed. In P. Vindob. Inv. G56637 (190 B.C., no. 5), although it seems convincing that the petitioner contacted the epimeletes because of the latter’s competence in matters of irrigation (see 5.1.2), it is not excluded that, in addition, the epimeletes was contacted because of his duties in collecting arrears, since the petitioner apparently was arrested for owing arrears. P. Ryl. II 66 a (late 2nd century B.C., no. 110) also can be cited in this context; a tax farmer asked the epimeletes to use enforcement in collecting some arrears. But the clearest evidence in this context comes from P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 (28 Jun. 114 B.C., no. 104). The official who warned Menches of the imminent visit of the epimeletes to Kerkeosiris focused on his urgent recommendation that Menches should make sure that

118

The Office of the Epimeletes

the accounts of pending payments were in order1 so that the epimeletes would not have to stay long at the village. So, this letter implies that auditing the accounts was one of the duties of the epimeletes. The following document also may contain information pertaining to this section. P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (179–177 B.C., no. 20) is a letter of Ptolemaios, who might have been the epimeletes, to Adamas, a sitologos. Most of what is preserved remains unclear. Apparently there have been instructions about delivery of grain, and the sitologos was asked to report the amount of wheat in his thesauros. And SB XX 15150 = P. Lille I 19 = W. Chr. 164 (31 Oct. – 29 Nov. 156 B.C. or 28 Oct. – 26 Nov. 145 B.C., no. 69) shows the involvement of an epimeletes in collecting wheat in a dorea. Although the context cannot be elucidated, one can at least recognise that the wheat was handed over to the sitologos by the director of the estate through an agent of the epimeletes 2. 5.2 The function of the epimeletes in grain transport: As I discussed in chapter three3, in the 3rd century, the epimeletes was already involved in supplying ships for the transport of grain to Alexandria. P. Hels. I 4 (after 179 B.C., no. 21) shows that the epimeletes continued to have this duty in the second century. The grain transporters who were trapped for technical reasons in one of the harbours had to appeal to the epimeletes because they had to pay extra port fees and increased transport expenses (φόρετρα)4. A hint about the involvement of the epimeletes in gain transport is also given by P. Tebt. III 1, 810 (29 Jul. 134 B.C., no. 101), in which in connection with an oath of a ship captain, the epimeletes is mentioned. Unfortunately, the papyrus is so mutilated that no tangible information can be gained. The involvement of the epimeletes in these matters is also documented by some loading orders discussed below (p.120–121). The transport of grain to Alexandria was a thoroughly organised process. The Ptolemies made several rules to ensure safe transport of grain5. One of l. 5–7 στοίχασαι ὡς πάντα τὰ ἐνοφειλόµενα περὶ τὴν κώµην ἐν µέτρῳ ἔσται. This epimeletes could have been a special official responsible only for the affairs of this dorea, not the official who is the subject of this study. 3 See section 3.1.2. 4 For the increased transport expenses payment, see Armoni, 2012, 57–60, esp. 58f., n. 87. 5 See Préaux, 1939a, 143f.; Armoni, 2012, 33–60. 1 2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

119

these rules was that the ships were obliged to have samples of the grains transported to ensure that the ships’ crews did not replace their cargos with lower quality grain during the journey to Alexandria1. BGU XX 2841 (176 B.C., no. 24) shows the epimeletes being involved in this process of taking grain samples. In this document, we do not know precisely why the taking of these samples was mentioned because of its fragmentary condition, but here again, these samples were likely taken to ensure that the cargo was not replaced during the grain transport. The second-century epimeletes was not only involved in Nile transport but also in the transport of grain by land2. From the thesauroi of the villages, the grain was transported by animals to the nearest harbour. The κτηνοτρόφοι (cattle-keepers) and the ὀνηλάται (donkey drivers) formed associations or guilds which mainly performed this labour3. The involvement of the epimeletes in this stage of grain transport can be seen in P. Tebt. III 2, 905 descr. (179–177 B.C., no. 19). The epimeletes asked the ὀνηλάται of Boubastos to meet him near Neiloupolis, most likely to discuss the arrangements for the grain transport. If this assumption is accepted, this meeting should have taken place shortly before or during the harvest season to finalise arrangements for the grain transport of the season. The reading of l. 20–21 of SB XVI 12375 (180 B.C., no. 17) suggested by Clarysse as τοῖς παρʼ Ἀρ̣γNείου ἐπι(µελητοῦ) ὀνηλάταις instead of τοῖς παρʼ Ἀρ̣γNείου ἐπι(µελητοῦ) ὑ̣π̣η̣ρ̣έ̣ταις read by Sijpesteijn in his edition, if correct, would shed further light on the responsibility of the epimeletes for the land transport of grain. The passage read as τοῖς παρʼ Ἀρ̣γNείου ἐπι(µελητοῦ) ὀνηλάταις would mean that the donkey drivers were hired by the epimeletes. SB XVI 12375 is a list of official payments, and as the ὀνηλάται are mentioned often in the papyri to work in grain transport, so

1 P. Hib. I 98 (252 B.C.), a receipt for the loading of a ship, in which the shipmaster acknowledges that the ship was loaded with 4800 artabas of barley with sample (l. 17: σ̣ὺν δείγµατιB); see also BGU VIII 1742 = SB IV 7406, l. 14 (64/63 B.C.) 2 It is possible that the epimeletes had such a function in land transport of grain in the 3rd century B.C. as well, but we do not have evidence for that so far. 3 Rostovtzeff, 1906, 210; see also Adams, 2007, 162–163 for the opposite view to Rostovtzeff’s concerning the above-mentioned guilds. It is noteworthy that the king had his animals used in grain transport and agricultural work. Furthermore, privately owned animals could have done the work of transport or any other works such as that on the dykes and canals for the state as liturgical work. Cf. Qandeil, 2022a, 6, n. 1.

120

The Office of the Epimeletes

most likely, the 300 drachmas assigned to them in the document were for this purpose. The papyri also suggest that the epimeletes’ responsibility for the grain transport included – at least sometimes – care for the grain’s transport from the granaries to the harbours. We know this from four documents, edited in P. Erasm. II. In the 3rd century, the officials - mentioned in chapter three (see 3.1.2) - mainly responsible for the grain shipments to Alexandria were the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, and the sitologos. For the 2nd century, we must add the epimeletes as the four Erasmus documents show, which are loading orders of grain in the harbour of Kaine for shipment to Alexandria. The orders, issued by a certain Theodoros whose function cannot be determined exactly, and in one case by Sarapion who was unquestionably subordinate to Theodoros (both must have been among those who organised the shipment), follow the instructions of the epimeletes1: ἐµβαλοῦ µετὰ τοῦ ἐπακολουθοῦντος κατὰ τὸν παρὰ Χαιρήµονος τοῦ ἐπιµε̣λ̣ητοῦ̣ χρη(µατισµὸν) ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Καινὴ[ν ὅ]ρµο̣υ̣ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Ὀξύρυγχα ἐργα̣σ̣τηρίο̣υ̣ ὥ^σ̣τʼ εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν εἰς τὸ̣ β̣α̣σ̣ιNλ̣ιNκ̣ὸν̣ ̣ εἰς̣ κέρ̣(κουρον) Νικασίωνος καὶ Θερµο̣ύ̣θ̣ε̣ω^ς̣ κτλ. (P. Erasm. II 33, 2–8). We do not know the content of this chrematismos, but we have chrematismoi issued by the epimeletes when he took part in the procedure which enabled the payout from public funds (e.g., P. Poethke 18, 12 Jul. 137 B.C., no. 992). These documents can be used to make certain inferences. In analogy to them, in the present case, the chrematismos probably served as a document which authorised both the transport and the loading of the grain by an official whose name was specified in the document (in our case Theodoros or Sarapion) and was probably directed to the local sitologos3. By these chrematismoi, the epimeletes may have ordered and administrated the shipment of grain, which he probably did only in certain cases, because the responsibility of the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, and the sitologos for shipping grain to Alexandria is very well documented in other

P. Erasm. II 31 (30 Sep.151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C., no. 75), P. Erasm. II 32 (30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149 B.C., no. 76), P. Erasm. II 33 (mid-second century B.C., no.77), P. Erasm. II 34 (mid-second century B.C., no. 78). Cf. P. Erasm. II, p. 107–108; cf. also Armoni, 2012, 46– 48. 2 See below section 5.7. 3 Armoni, 2012, 48. 1

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

121

papyri1, and none of these documents mentions any direct involvement on the part of the epimeletes in the process of grain shipment. So far, we do not have any other documents beyond the four Erasmus documents ascribing direct participation in the management of transporting grain to Alexandria to the epimeletes. So, in these cases, the loading of the grain probably was not part of the normal loading procedure but was connected with certain circumstances which we do not know. Evidence supporting this assumption is the loading orders in the documents in P. Erasm. II, which do not mention any involvement on the part of the epimeletes2. These orders may have pertained to more ordinary business. Apart from this, we have much evidence pointing to the participation of the offices of the basilikos grammateus and the oikonomos in the loading of grain for Alexandria. From the third century, for example, we have P. Hib. I 98 = W. Chr. 441 (252 B.C.), which is a ship captain’s receipt for grain loaded διὰ Νεχ]θ̣ε[µ]βέους τοῦ παρὰ τῶν βα[σιλικῶν γραµ]µ̣[α]τέων (by Nechtembes the agent of the basilikoi grammateis, l. 3–4) and P. Strasb. II 113 (215 B.C.) about grain loaded παρὰ Ἁρµ̣ά̣χ̣ιος τοῦ παρὰ Ὥρου οἰκονόµου (by Harmachis the agent of Horos, the oikonomos, l. 6–7). From the second century we have, for example, P. Tebt. III 1, 825 (176 B.C.), in which the cargo of the ship was loaded διὰ Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ ἀντιγραφοµένου παρὰ βασιλικοῦ γραµατέως (by Apollonios the antigrapheus of the basilikos grammateus: frag. A, l. 9), and διὰ ἩρακλίNτ̣ου (l. Ἡρακλείτου) τοῦ παρὰ οἰκονόµου (by Herakleitos, the agent of the oikonomos) in fragment B of the same papyrus (frag. B, 7–8). In fragment C, l. 6–10, the loading is made διὰ Λυσιµάχου τοῦ σιτολογοῦτος τὸ περὶ Βουβάστον ἐργαστήριον κ̣α̣ὶN τ̣ο̣ῦ π̣α[̣ ρὰ] ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣υ̣ βασιλικοῦ γραµατέως (by Lysimachos the sitologos of the granary at Boubastos, and the agent of … the basilikos grammateus). The use of παρά with a genitive or διά with a genitive means a direct involvement of the officials mentioned in the process of loading the ships.

See chapter 3, p.48, with n. 4. e.g., P. Erasm. II 23 (18 Jul. 152 B.C.); P. Erasm. II 24 (19 Jul. 152 B.C.); P. Erasm. II 25 (13 Aug. 152 B.C.); P. Erasm. II 28 (152/151 B.C.); P. Erasm. II 30 (20 Jul. 151 B.C.); P. Erasm. II 35 (mid-2nd century B.C.).

1

2

122

The Office of the Epimeletes

5.3 The function of the epimeletes in the administration of the cleruchic land: During the second century B.C., the epimeletes remained actively involved in the administration of cleruchic land. We have two pieces of evidence: first, the already mentioned (section 5.1.3) SB XXVI 16524 (19 Feb. 137 B.C., no. 98), in which an agent of the epimeletes is involved in the process of assigning thirty arouras to a newly admitted katoikos1. The second is the above-mentioned (again section 5.1.3) P. Heid. VI 382 (after 158 B.C., no. 63). However, in this case, it is not clear whether the petitioner, who was a holder of ten arouras of cleruchic land, contacted the epimeletes because of the latter’s general involvement in agricultural questions (as discussed above in section 5.1) or because of his function in the administration of cleruchic land. 5.4 The function of the epimeletes in tax farming: This function is attested by a set of documents, most of which show that the epimeletes had a certain authority over tax collectors. Petitioners often resorted to the epimeletes to protect them from the unfair treatment they suffered from tax farmers. The tanner of P. Petr. II 32 (1) = P. Petr. III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III 569 descr. (22 Sep. 197 B.C., no. 1) appealed to the epimeletes because he was wronged by a tax farmer who let his agent break into the tanner’s house and seize hides and other possessions of the petitioner. P. Mich. XVIII 774 (11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193 B.C., no. 3) is a petition from a goldsmith against the wrongdoings of a tax farmer of the goldsmithery tax (χρυσοχοϊκή). The question was settled before an agent of the epimeletes: the tax farmer promised to return what he had taken of the goldsmith’s possessions, but he did not keep his promise, so the goldsmith turned to the epimeletes. P. Coll. Youtie I 12 (177 B.C., no. 22) shows that the authority of the epimeletes over tax collectors may have extended to sending them to jail if they could not fulfil their contracts. The fact that other tax collectors mentioned in the document who were also unable to fulfil their contracts were discharged, while our petitioner remained in prison from 180 B.C. to 177 B.C., the date of the document, although he was thought to be pardoned 1

Armoni, 2012, 187–192.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

123

by the dioiketes, and later by the king and queen by the royal philanthropia decree, might indicate a conspiracy against the man by the epimeletes and the ἐπὶ τῶν τελωνῶν (the official in charge of the tax farmers), or be due to the fact that the man caused a heavy loss to the royal treasury. The function of the epimeletes in checking and accepting sureties for tax contracts in the 3rd century B.C. was previously discussed1. This was also one of his duties in the 2nd century B.C. In P. Tebt. III 1, 776 = Sel. Pap. II 271 (179–177 B.C., no. 18), a husband wished to deprive his wife – with whom he had lived according to an Egyptian alimentary contract before apparently separating from her 2 – of a house that he had given as a surety for the marriage contract. The husband gave this house as a surety for a contract of a certain tax farmer. Knowing that the epimeletes was the authority responsible for checking and accepting or refusing sureties of tax contracts, the poor woman sent her petition to the oikonomos so that he might write to the epimeletes to prevent him from accepting the house as a surety for the tax contract 3. But the authority of the epimeletes was not always a sword hanging over the neck of tax collectors; they also could use his authority against taxpayers. In P. Ryl. II 66 a (late 2nd century B.C., no. 110), a tax collector asked the epistrategos (?) to write to the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, and the oikonomos τῶν ἀργυρικῶν to compel some taxpayers to pay their debts. The authority of the epimeletes on tax farmers is also suggested by P. Erasm. I 5 (6 Feb. 184 B.C. or 31 Jan. 160 B.C.?, no. 12). When a group of collectors of the tax on cloth, ἱµ(ατιοπωλική), discovered the fraud of a cloth-seller who sold unsealed textiles, they notified the epimeletes. Similar to this case is that of P. Duk. Inv. 676 r. (196/195 B.C., no. 1a), in which an archiphylakites, who was the owner of a rose garden, refused to pay the due See section 3.1.5. It is widely agreed that the effective termination of marriage in Greco-Roman Egypt required no formal procedures other than the actual interruption of the joint life by one of the spouses. Cf. Yiftach, 2003, 197, and n.1 for additional bibliography on this subject. 3 Cf. Armoni, 2012, 165, n. 165. The wife in the above-mentioned document probably relied on the so-called protopraxia, which was the legal priority of wives over their doweries when their husbands were involved in state debts. Protopraxia is known to be a Roman legal practice. However, it is not excluded that it was also practised in the Ptolemaic period. For protopraxia, see Yiftach, 2003, 251–253 and 256–257; Ellart, 2006, 190, n. 36 for additional bibliography. 1 2

124

The Office of the Epimeletes

tax. The tax collectors resorted to the epimeletes, who was to summon him, investigate the matter, and fine him according to the royal prostagma. The two tax collectors’ recourse to the epimeletes could be attributed to his function in tax farming or his involvement in administering cleruchic land (see above 5.3) since the garden of the archiphylakites might have been that kind of land1. Another document attesting the epimeletes’ function in tax collecting is P. Köln V 221 C (ca. 190 B.C., no. 4), which shows the involvement of the epimeletes in collecting the apomoira tax. P. Dryton 31 (140–126 B.C., no. 96) indicates at least the epimeletes’ indirect involvement in tax collecting: the sales tax (ἐγκύκλιον) could not be paid unless there was a diagraphe issued by the epimeletes (see below section 5.8). And in P. Duk. Inv. 690 (25 June 192 B.C., no. 3a), a diagraphe of the epimeletes is mentioned under whose conditions a banker was ordered to receive an unspecified payment which was due for a vineyard. 5.5 The function of the epimeletes in controlling the royal monopolies2: Monopolies and tax farming are not clearly distinguishable, because the tax farming often entailed collection of taxes associated with monopolised commodities, and because both were allocated by the same procedure: a public auction3 (see below section 5.6). Moreover, the use of the modern term ‘state monopoly’ is still controversial. It is difficult to distinguish between concessions and taxes related to the commodities involved4. No comprehensive study, as far as I know, of the Ptolemaic monopolies has been published since the early studies of the subject in the first half of the 20th century5. In the current section, I am not going to deal with the The system of cleruchic allotments, which was first used for members of the army, was later extended to various groups including the archiphylakitai. Cf. Chapter four, p.94, n. 1. 2 Armoni, 2012, 218f. 3 Armoni, 2012, 139; Monson, 2019, 150. 4 Dogaer, 2019, 151. 5 See Dogaer, 2019, 151; Monson, 2019, 150. The studies referred to above are Wilcken, 1912; Heichelheim, 1933, 147–199; Préaux, 1939a; Rostovtzeff, 1941. The topic was also treated in other studies which dealt with different aspects, or one commodity only, either fully or partially monopolised, such as oil: Sandy, 1989; papyrus: Lewis, 1934 and Lewis, 1974; incense: Depau, 2009, 201–208; beer: P. Lille I 59, intr. p.243f. Cf. also Bingen, 1978; Bingen, 2007, 157–188; Armoni, 2012, 139–145. The ‘monopolies in Ptolemaic 1

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

125

many unsolved questions of the state monopolies, but I will rather deal with the function of the epimeletes in this sector of the Ptolemaic economy, relying on the classical point of view. We have nine documents – besides the papers of the twins of the Serapieion in which oil was to be given out in the framework of the oil monopoly (ἐλαϊκή) – that attest that the epimeletes had a function in some kinds of royal monopolies in the second century B.C. These monopolies can be classified as follows: 5.5.1 The Oil Monopoly (ἐλαϊκή): The Revenue Laws Papyrus is the most informative text about oil in Ptolemaic Egypt. It gives information about all stages of oil production, including planting and harvesting of oil-bearing crops, manufacturing, and provisioning. All these stages were under the strong control of the state1. The two types of oil which we often encounter in the documents are sesame2 and castor oil3. The latter was used mainly for lighting, while the first was used both in lighting and food. Olive oil and safflower oil were also used, but there is only slight evidence for other kinds of oil in Ptolemaic Egypt4. Documents of the 2nd century attest the epimeletes’ function in all the stages of oil production. Planting oil-bearing crops was a process carefully Egypt’ were recently the subject of a PhD project by Nico Dogaer in KU Leuven, whose results have not yet been published. 1 See Sandy, 1989, 2f.; Bingen, 2007, 170f. 2 For sesame oil, cf. for example P. Tebt. III 2, 844 (256 B.C.); P. Cair. Zen. II 59268 (252– 251 B.C.); P. Cair. Zen. III 59314 (250 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 2, 983 (247 B.C.); P. Petr. III 84 (3rd century B.C.); P. Tebt. III 2, 997 (210–183 B.C.); UPZ I 20 (163 B.C.); UPZ I 21; 23; 25; 26; 27; 29; 30; 32 (162 B.C.); UPZ I 33; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41 (161 B.C.); UPZ I 89 (159 B.C.); UPZ II 186 (133 B.C.). 3 For castor oil, cf. for example P. Corn. 1 = SB III 6796 = C. Ptol. Sklav. I 46 = C. Zen. Palestine 54 = C. Pap. Jud. I 7 (257 B.C.); P. Cair. Zen. II 59187 (255 B.C.); SB XVI 12810 (252 B.C.); SB XXIV 16067 (mid-third century B.C.); P. Lille I 3 (216/ 215 B.C.); P. Köln VI 261 (213 B.C.); BGU VII 1519 (210–204 or 193–187 B.C.?); O. Wilck. 1236 (3rd century B.C.); UPZ I 20 (163 B.C.), UPZ I 21; 23; 25; 26; 27; 30; 32 (162 B.C.); P. Med. 1 27 = SB V 7617 (158 B.C.); O. Theb. 6 (after 130 B.C.); P. Tebt. IV 1094 (114/113 B.C.); P. Tebt. I 38 = W. Chr. 303 (113 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 2, 891 (2nd century B.C.); SB XVI 12830 (end of the 2nd century B.C.). 4 Sandy, 1989, 3. Mahaffy noticed the absence of any regulations concerning the olive oil in the Revenue Laws Papyrus, although Strabo mentioned that the olive was quite well known in the Fayum. This may mean that olive oil was not part of the oil monopoly at the beginning, but was included later, cf. P. Stan. Class. 33 (Clarysse and Fischer-Bovet, 2020, 70–75). For the cultivation of olive trees in Egypt before the Ptolemaic period, see Gómez, 2016.

126

The Office of the Epimeletes

overseen by the government. The διαγραφὴ τοῦ σπόρου (sowing schedule) determined the amount of land which would be planted with these crops every year. The farmers received the seeds from the government, which they paid back after the harvest. One-fourth of the harvested crop was paid as tax, and the contractor took over the rest at a price fixed by a tariff, διάγραµµα, published by the king1. The epimeletes’ function in planting and harvesting oil-bearing crops can be concluded from P. Tebt. III 1, 713 (late 2nd century B.C., no. 109). A subordinate of the epimeletes is described as ὁ ἀπεσ[τ]αλµένος παρὰ ἐπιµελητοῦ πρὸς τῆι ε[ἰ]κασίαι τοῦ σησάµου. The εἰκασία, ‘estimation’, is the term applied to the official inspection and calculation of the crop to be gathered when the settlement between the government and cultivators took place2. So, the title of this agent of the epimeletes is to be understood as ‘the representative of the epimeletes for the inspection and calculation of the sesame crop’. Manufacturing occurring in the following stages: the oil-bearing crops were transported under close observation of the contractors and the responsible officials. This stage is well documented for the 3rd century in P. Rev. Laws3 and P. Tebt. III 1, 703 (ca. 210 B.C., l. 34f.). Each factory or oil mill was registered with the government. When the pressing season was over, the mills and factories were locked up and sealed. Moreover, during the pressing season, the oil workers, ἐλαιουργοί4, were bound to their work and to the place where the mills were located5. A hypomnema from a group of oil workers to the epimeletes, SB XXIV 15912 = P. Turku 36 (mid-second century B.C., no. 79), shows that he was also involved in this stage of oil manufacturing. Although the document is very fragmentary, the oil workers’ petition, which was preceded by other petitions, shows that there was probably a problem with the quality of the sesame seeds provided to the workers for pressing. The low quality of the Rostovtzeff, 1941, 302–303. P. Tebt. III 1, 713 intr., p.117. 3 Col. 44–47 4 For the ἐλαιουργοί (oil manufacturers/millers/workers), see Koskenniemi, 1997, 545, who referred to a list of attestations in CPR XIII, p.72–79. See also Rostovtzeff, 1941, 303–304, who states that the exact status of those oil workers is unclear. Their free movement may have been somehow restricted, being closely controlled by state officials and contractors, designated as their κύριοι (masters). 5 For more information about oil manufacturing, see Rostovtzeff, 1941, 303–304; Sandy, 1989, 11f.; Bingen, 2007, 175–176. 1 2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

127

seeds would have affected oil production, so the workers may have resorted to the epimeletes to notify him of the problem. This also has to do with his responsibility for inspecting the sesame crops, which we know from the above-mentioned P. Tebt. III 1, 713 (no. 109). The evidence for the involvement of the epimeletes in the provisioning of oil comes from the documents of the twins of the Serapieion. The twins and their patron, Ptolemaios, knew very well that oil, as a state monopoly carefully watched, could not be supplied to them unless there were instructions from the appropriate authority; therefore, we find the twins in their petitions to the hypodioiketes – or even to the royal court – always asking their recipients to write to the epimeletes, so that he may send instructions to the official responsible for oil1. The epimeletes was also the only authority that could nullify the oil token that was stolen by the twins’ half-brother2. 5.5.2 Papyrus: The manufacture and distribution of papyrus was subjected to a partial monopoly of the state3. For the 3rd century B.C., our knowledge about the papyrus manufacture and its distribution, especially concerning the involvement of the state in these two stages, is limited4. Nevertheless, Zenon’s papers seem to show a free trade in papyrus at that point in the 3rd century B.C.5 We know more about papyrus distribution in the 2nd century thanks to P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C., no. 60), which is important not only because of the valuable information that it presents concerning the papyrus trade, but also because it shows the role of the epimeletes in controlling this trade6. The document shows the involvement of the state in

UPZ I 21 (no. 33); UPZ I 25–26 (no. 38–39); UPZ I 27 (no. 40); UPZ I 32 (no. 41); UPZ I 34–36 (no. 42–44); UPZ I 41 (no. 47) (cf. table 4.1 for the dates). 2 UPZ I 19. 3 Dogaer, 2019, 151. 4 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 311. The situation has not changed since Rostovtzeffs’ work. 5 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 311. Cf. P. Cair. Zen. I 59054 = SB III 6715 (257 B.C.): a list of articles required, including a hundred and fifty papyrus rolls for accounts and correspondence; PSI V 519 (250 B.C.): a letter from a certain Pasis that he received from Zenon through the latter’s agent the price of paper (Πᾶσις Ζήνωνι χαίρειν. ἐκοµισάµην παρὰ Πετεµίνιος τοῦ Ἄραβος τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐπιστολὴν καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον τὴν τιµὴν τῶν χαρτῶν). See Noshy, 1976, 321. 6 So far, no other document attests the epimeletes’ function in connection with ῾royal papyrus᾽. 1

128

The Office of the Epimeletes

the distribution of the so-called ‘royal papyrus’ (οἱ βασιλικοὶ χάρται, l. 1)1. There was an official called ‘the supervisor of the distribution of the state papyrus’ (ὁ πρὸς τῆι διαθέσει τῶν βασιλικῶν χαρτῶν) at the level of the nome. The responsibility for distributing papyrus at the village level was given to retailers, who contracted with the state for this duty, most likely through an auction. The process of auctioning the contracts to distribute papyrus might have taken place under the supervision of the abovementioned official and the epimeletes, as the latter was involved in auctioning several tax contracts and other state possessions (see below 5.6). It had been the duty of the royal papyrus retailers to take declarations on oath by the king from the notaries not to use private material nor to purchase from smugglers but to use only royal papyrus. The epimeletes was the authority responsible for punishing everyone who broke these instructions; smugglers, and those who violated the previous instructions, were to be brought before the epimeletes, together with the material seized, so that he could punish them. 5.5.3 Salt (ἁλική): As I mentioned before, we have to differentiate between the production and distribution of salt as a commodity used almost by everyone, mainly in food, and the salt tax (ἁλική)2. Salt, the most extensively used commodity in ancient times, was completely monopolised by the Ptolemaic state concerning its production and distribution. It was sold to the public by the government through special licensed retailers all over the country3. We have evidence for the involvement of the epimeletes in both the production and the distribution of salt in Ptolemaic Egypt. SB XXVIII 1

The term βασιλικὸς χάρτης usually referred to that finest type of papyrus which was known before the Ptolemies as charta hieratica and in the Roman time as charta Augusta (Lewis, 1934, 75). Was the responsibility of the supervisor of the distribution of state papyrus, the official mentioned in P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (no. 60), confined only to this type of papyrus? Or was the term βασιλικὸς χάρτης used to indicate all the kinds of papyrus produced and distributed by the state? We do not have the evidence to decide the question. However, Noshy argued that the state did not confine its monopoly of papyrus to just this finest type, which represented only a small part of the trade: this would not produce satisfactory revenue for the king. So, he suggested that the βασιλικὸς χάρτης in the context of P. Tebt. III 1, 709 refers to all kinds of papyrus whose manufacturing and distribution were controlled by the state. See Noshy, 1976, 320. 2 See p.97, with n. 3 and 4. 3 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 309.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

129

16851 (23 Dec. 154 BC or 20 Dec. 143 B.C.?, no. 71) shows an officer titled ‘checking officer of the salt tax (or salt affairs) of the Lycopolites’, ἀντιγραφόµενος τὴν ἁλικὴ[ν τοῦ] Λυκοπολίτου (l. 2–3), who detected the loss of a certain amount of salt from, it seems, a royal workshop. The salt was found being milled at one of the workers’ houses. It seems that the production of salt was under the authority of the epimeletes because he was notified by the checking officer of all the stages of the case, starting from the discovery of the loss of the rock salt and the raising of a petition because of this loss against the salt workers to the chrematistai until the discovery of the salt at the worker’s house. It is also possible that the punishment of salt smugglers was the task of the epimeletes, just as it was with papyrus smugglers. The function of the epimeletes in the distribution of salt can be illustrated by P. Tebt. III 1, 7321 (ca. 142 B.C., no. 89). In this document, the epimeletes appears as the official responsible for auctioning the retail rights of salt in the Arsinoites. It is made explicit that the auction concerned salt as a commodity and not the salt tax by using the words δαπανώµενος ἅλς (l. 3). 5.5.4 Tanning (δερµατηρά)2: The term δερµατηρά refers to the hides trade and its taxation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The source of this trade was carcasses of animals commercially slaughtered or sacrificed for religious purposes, whether privately owned or owned by the king3. To what extent the trade in hides constituted a royal monopoly in Ptolemaic Egypt is an open question. But this topic is also an example how the slow but steady increase in published papyri contributes to enhancing gradually our understanding. Wilcken, only briefly, addressed the δερµατηρά without touching on the question of state control over the hides business4. Heichelheim and Rostovtzeff held that this trade was partially monopolised: the state had its own factories and trade while the rest of the production was left to be freely produced by individuals who paid, of

Armoni, 2012, 165, n. 165. Cf. Armoni, 2012, 140–142. 3 Préaux, 1939a, 230. 4 Wilcken, 1899, 294, n. 1; 354; Wilcken, 1912, 250. 1 2

130

The Office of the Epimeletes

course, the due taxes1. Préaux, cautiously, did not determine whether the hides trade was entirely or partially monopolised or was only a strictly regulated and controlled branch of the Ptolemaic economy2. In their description of P. Tebt. III 1, 801, the editors just stated that the document ‘adds something to the scanty evidence that the tanning of hides was a government monopoly’3. Cowey examined the question again and concluded that a decision concerning the status of this trade in the Ptolemaic economy could not be reached4. We have four documents which mention an official called ὁ πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι5. One of these papyri also shows the involvement of the epimeletes in the affairs of the hides trade. P. Petr. III 32 (d) (216–213 B.C.) is a letter from the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι to the oikonomos about something we do not know because only the beginning of the letter is preserved. We just learn that the sender was transferred to a new place of activity: ἐπειδὴ ἀφειλκύσθηµεν [ἐν]ταῦθα δ[ι]ὰ τὴν̣ ὠν̣[ή]ν; what follows is not transcribed in the edition. P. Tebt. III 1, 801 (142/141 B.C.?) is about the disappearance of a number of hides from a warehouse ([ἀπὸ τ]ῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐν τῷ ἀποδοχίωι, l. 6–7), and the writer, whose name is missing in the document, asked for investigations and for the persons involved to be summoned to appear before the strategos. In P. Phrur. Diosk. 5 (146 B.C.), two persons, describing themselves as οἱ πραγµατευόµενοι τὴν δερµατηρὰν τοῦ Ἡρακλεοπολίτου εἰς τὸ λε (ἔτος)6, delivered a smuggler of donkey skins together with the smuggled skins to the phrourarchos. As I have previously mentioned7, P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III 569 descr. 1 Heichelheim, 1933, col. 164–165; Rostovtzeff, 1941, 310. Rostovtzeff argued that the government organised the leather trade in a manner similar to the linen trade which he considered a partial monopoly of the state; see Rostovtzeff, 1941, 306. 2 Préaux, 1939a, 230–233. 3 P. Tebt. III 1, 801, intr. p.255. 4 Cowey, 2003, 130–134. 5 P. Petr. III 32 (d) (216–213 B.C.); P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III 569 descr. (22 Sep. 197 B.C., no. 1); P. Phrur. Diosk. 5 (146 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 1, 801 (142/141 B.C.?). 6 The editor of P. Phrur. Diosk. 5, J. Cowey, held it possible that there was no difference between the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι and the πραγµατευόµενοι τὴν δερµατηράν, without ruling out that the πραγµατευόµενοι τὴν δερµατηράν were subordinates to the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι; see Cowey, 2003, 132. Cf. now Armoni, 2012, 141, who assumes that both terms designate the same function. 7 See chapter 4, p.69-70.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

131

(22 Sep. 197 B.C, no. 1) is a petition from a tanner working in a royal repository of skins ἐν τῶι βασιλικῶι ταµιείωι τῶν δερ[µά]των (l. 5–6), who was wronged by an agent of the τελώνης of the dermatera who probably was styled πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι on the verso of this papyrus1. The agent broke into the petitioner’s house and seized different items. What can we conclude from these documents regarding the treatment of the hides and their trade in Ptolemaic Egypt and the role of the epimeletes in this economic area? There are two stages to be distinguished: the first stage is collecting the raw material and providing it to the tanners to be tanned in royal factories or workshops (P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d), l. 4–6: ἐργαζ[οµένου] µου ἐν τῶι βασιλικῶι ταµιείωι τῶν δερ[µά]των). This stage was under the authority of the epimeletes and the direct control of the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι. The tanner in P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) was certainly aware of this fact, and therefore, when raw skin was seized, he petitioned the epimeletes, the official who was authorised to control the royal tanning workshops. The πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι was under the authority of the epimeletes at this stage of work; this can be concluded from the order that the epimeletes issued on the back of this document that the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι had to present himself. The second stage was administrating the tanned skins stored in royal warehouses, ἐν τῷ ἀποδοχίωι (P. Tebt. III 1, 801, 7), and distributing them to, e.g., shoemakers (skyteis). So far, the documents do not show that the epimeletes had any role in this stage. But it seems that this stage was also under the direct control of the πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι, who in his duties was answerable to the epimeletes as P. Petr. II 32 (1) verso shows. Furthermore, cases of smuggling and interception were the responsibility of officials with police duties such as the strategos and the phrourarchos (P. Tebt. III 1, 801 and P. Phrur. Diosk. 5). The above-mentioned documents show the involvement of the state in the tanning and the trade of hides in Ptolemaic Egypt. This is not surprising, because the Ptolemies had to pay careful attention to the army, and leather was of great importance for military equipment. So, it seems plausible that the Ptolemies put this trade under, at least, a partial monopoly. This was the state of knowledge until in 2004 an instructive papyrus was published, P. Paramone 6 (185/184 B.C.), which seems to prove that the 1

Armoni, 2012, 142.

132

The Office of the Epimeletes

term δερµατηρά included both the leather industry and the connected taxes. The papyrus informs us that the auction of the dermatera of the 21st year had not taken place, because the dioiketes had already made an arrangement with certain contractors (l. 1–2 τῆς δὲ δερµατηρᾶς πρᾶσις εἰς \µὲν/ τὸ κα (ἔτος) οὐ γέγονεν). We learn that the range of action of the contractors comprised enterprises which got the raw material from the state (as σύνταξις) and the artisans who did not (ἀσύντακτον ἔθνος). This indicates a set-up as it is documented for the oil-monopoly by P. Rev. Laws1. 5.5.5 Textiles and Garments (ὀθονιηρά): Information about the administration’s involvement in the textile and garment industry during the 3rd century B.C. can be found in P. Rev. Laws. However, the most informative document regarding this matter is P. Tebt. III 1, 703 (ca. 210 B.C.), which contains instructions from the dioiketes (?) to the oikonomos (?) about several economic aspects, including the weaving of linen2. Besides linen, wool and hemp were used by the Egyptians before the time of the Ptolemies in the textile industry, whether in private households or the temples3. P. Tebt. III 1, 703 informs us that the state had its own looms and controlled the use of all looms in a nome. The state controlled this industry by assigning a certain quantity of textiles and garments to each nome. The local administration contracted with individual weavers, who had to deliver the amounts of textiles and garments which they contracted to produce. The state was responsible for providing those weavers with the logistics needed for their work4. As I mentioned, the regulations concerning weaving in P. Tebt. III 1, 703 are about linen production. It seems that linen was under a partial monopoly of the Ptolemaic state, and under the direct control of the oikonomos5, while wool production was free6. The evidence for the rules controlling the distribution of manufactured textiles and garments is scanty. However, two documents show the For a detailed discussion of this papyrus, see Armoni, 2012, 140–142. P. Tebt. III. 1, 703, l. 87–117. For a translation, see Bagnall and Derow, 2004, 166. 3 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 305. Hemp was mainly used in manufacturing ships’ rigging. 4 Rostovtzeff, 1941, 306. 5 Farah, 1987, 94–95 6 See Sijpesteijn, 1985, 67–71; Dogaer, 2019, 151. 1 2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

133

epimeletes’ involvement in this stage: it can be inferred from P. Erasm. I 5

(6 Feb. 184 B.C.? or 31 Jan. 160 B.C., no. 12) that weavers had to get a kind of seal on their finished products which proved that they paid their duties. Whoever sold unsealed textiles seems to have been forced to pay a fine of 6,000 drachmas according to this papyrus (l. 10). The contractors in the document had discovered that a weaver had not adhered to the rules; therefore, they notified the epimeletes about the issue, so that he might inquire into it. P. Tebt. III 1, 733 (28 Sep. 143 – 27 Sep. 142 B.C., no. 90) shows that garments were kept in storehouses (ὑποδοχεῖα), probably under the supervision and guard of the state because the contractor’s stepson (?) discovered the theft of two cloaks and a tunic while a guard (φυλακίτης) was present. The epimeletes was informed of this theft and of the fact that the contractors were in arrears. Many details remain unknown to us. The main topic of the report was the theft, but other circumstances may have been the reason for the case being reported to the epimeletes. 5.5.6 Goldsmithery (χρυσοχοϊκή): The goldsmiths paid the state a tax called χρυσοχοϊκή1. One of our documents, P. Mich. XVIII 774 (11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193 B.C., no. 3), shows that the epimeletes might have had a function in controlling this craft. A goldsmith, wronged by a farmer of the tax on goldsmithery, resorted first to the agent of the epimeletes, then to the epimeletes himself, to get justice against the tax contractor and to have returned to him what the contractor had seized (a lump of silver and a necklace). Once again, we have no evidence to judge whether the epimeletes is contacted here because of his responsibility for the tax or controlling the trade. 5.6 The function of the epimeletes in state auctions2: Related to the functions of the epimeletes in tax farming and controlling the royal monopolies is his function in state auctions because tax farming and royal monopolies were both allocated by public auction. We have only one piece of evidence indicating the epimeletes’ participation in auctioning a monopolised commodity: the previously 1 2

Noshy, 1976, 276. About the auction of royal property, see Armoni, 2012, 106–171.

134

The Office of the Epimeletes

mentioned P. Tebt. III 1, 732 (ca. 142 B.C., no. 89), in which the commodity auctioned was salt. However, although we have no other evidence for the epimeletes’ involvement in auctioning monopolised commodities, his involvement in controlling royal monopolies and his authority over tax collectors may suggest that he was involved in them anyway, especially when we take into consideration the documents that show his involvement in selling other state properties by auction, as will be shown. As I discussed above, the epimeletes was responsible for checking and accepting sureties of tax-farming contracts (see 5.4). Documents show that this task entailed other tasks. UPZ I 114 I (3 May 150 B.C., no. 80) and UPZ 1 114 II (21 May 148 B.C., no. 82) show that when tax contractors failed to fulfil their contractions, the pledged sureties were sold by auction by the epimeletes. The epimeletes was also responsible for auctioning properties with no owner or properties of which the ownership was transferred to the state for any reason. We find him selling parcels of land and houses in BGU VI 1219 (2nd century B.C., no. 86), BGU VI 1221 (15–24 May 144 B.C., no. 87), and BGU VI 1222 (after 7 May 144 B.C., no. 88)1. In P. Ryl. II 253 V descr. (before 20 Sep. 142, no. 91) the epimeletes also auctioned a certain property which was ἀδέσποτον – the object is lost in a lacuna – and its owner is unknown. Another piece of evidence for the epimeletes’ responsibility for auctioning confiscated properties is P. Köln XVII 657 (Aug.–Sep. 161 B.C., no. 54). The confiscated property was a piece of land, but the reasons behind its confiscation are unknown. It is evident from the archive of the ταριχευταί (P. Tarich.) that after the great revolt of 206–186 B.C., a royal decree was promulgated to regulate the property of those who had taken part in the rebellion. According to this decree, the insurgents’ property was confiscated. Among the insurgents was an embalmer who had possessed a house and a γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν, an embalmer’s benefice. Three embalmers took possession of the geras and exploited it for a long time. The two petitioners in the archive, who were also embalmers, reported this infringement, which undoubtedly had a negative impact on the royal treasury’s income. Their petitions clearly show 1

Cf. Armoni, 2012, 152–162.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

135

that putting this geras up for auction was the responsibility of the epimeletes. They explicitly asked the epimeletes in P. Tarich. 10 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C., no. 13) to grant them the geras after setting a bid of one talent. The house of the deceased insurgent1 was probably also sold by auction by the epimeletes. 5.7 The function of the epimeletes in the state expenditures. Remunerating soldiers, government officials, and priests: We have quite a number of documents that attest the involvement of the epimeletes in the payout procedures of public funds. At the end of the 3rd century B.C., the payment of soldiers necessitated the combined approval of the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus on one side, and the epimeletes on the other side. This was in accordance with a request from the military grammateus. The approval was forwarded to the sitologos for payments in kind or to the trapezites for payments in money (see 3.1.6.3). This was at least the usual procedure when we have regular payments that were made on the basis of payment schedules predetermined for a whole year. In this case, no higher officials were needed to authorise the expenditures. The situation is different for extraordinary payments whose authorisation had to be given at a higher level2. The procedure apparently remained unchanged when the function of the epimeletes was taken over by the ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων by or after the middle of the 2nd century. But the procedure as described is meant to be only a framework from which deviations are possible. In the case of BGU XX 2840 (176 B.C., no. 23), payment, both in kind and money, was requested by the military grammateus, but we do not see the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus acting as we would expect. Instead, they are replaced by the strategos, while the epimeletes continued to fulfil his function of calculating the wages and giving orders of payment. The beneficiaries are οἱ ἐ̣ν̣ τ̣ῶ^ιN νοµῶι [ὕπ]αιθροι and the amounts are elevated. The reason for the deviation of the generally applied practice remains unknown. Perhaps an irregular situation required the strategos’ involvement.

1

2

P. Tarich. 6 a and b (after 9 Oct. 186 B.C., no. 8). Armoni, 2012, 70–82.

136

The Office of the Epimeletes

The following is also not a regular case: P. Poethke 18 (12 Jul. 137 B.C., no. 99) is an order to the antigrapheus to take part in a payout procedure of grain. The supply was needed because of a journey made by the epistrategos. The administrations of the districts on his way had to provide provisions for the accompanying officials, and such provisions were supplied on the basis of the permission of a supra-regional authority, usually the dioiketes, because these supplies were not part of the regular government expenditures at nome level and were not included in the payment plans available to the district administration1. The function of the epimeletes in controlling these extraordinary expenditures is clear from P. Poethke 18. The epistrategos’ barge needed to be supplied with grain. An order came from a higher authority to the epimeletes to provide the ship with the required commodities. As usual, the epimeletes did not act alone. The approval of another branch of the administration, represented by the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos or even the strategos, was needed. In this papyrus, this branch is represented by the antigrapheus, who was instructed by the basilikos grammateus to attend to the measurement and control of the grain2. A payout procedure must also have been the subject of a document of which only a small fragment survives, P. Tebt. III 2, 930 descr. (2nd century B.C., no. 106). It seems to belong to a payout order or to an order to the antigrapheus to take part in the payout procedure, like P. Poethke 18. Only the beginning of the document is preserved. This means that Antipatros who is the addressee of the order was probably an antigrapheus, a sitologos, or a banker, depending on the type of the document. Below, the text is given as described in P. Tebt. III 2, but with tentative supplements.

Armoni, 2012, 79. Armoni pointed out that representatives of the two branches were the oikonomos and the epimeletes until – at least – about the middle of the 2nd century. This role was taken over by the ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων in the course of the second half of the 2nd century (Armoni, 2012, 79.). P. Poethke 18 proves that the epimeletes continued to play this function until at least 137 B.C., the date of our document. A close parallel to P. Poethke 18 is P. Köln XI 454 (157 B.C.), an order to Asychis, the antigrapheus, to take part in the measurement of grain issued by Dionysios, the basilikos grammateus. But the measurement of grain is not authorised by an epimeletes, as in P. Poethke 18, but by Sarapion, who was the hypodioiketes: κα̣τὰ τὸν̣ παρὰ Σαραπίων[ος χρηµατισµόν] (l. 8). 1

2

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

137

margin

4

̣ Ἐπεὶφ ε η ἐπ(ιµελητ- ) Ἡρακλεοπολίτου [ ]ώνιος Ἀντιπάτρωι χαίρειν. [ἐχρ]ηµατίσθη το̣ῖNς̣ ἐκ τοῦ Ἡρακλεοπολίτου· [?Χαιρ]ήµονι τῶι πρὸς τοῖς διοικητικοῖς [πλοί]οις ὥστε τοῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ [λ]ε̣ιNτ̣ουργNοῦ[

traces traces

4–7 It has been allotted to the (effective force) coming from the Herakleopolites: To [?Chair]emon, the responsible for the [ships] of the dioiketes, for the crew of the [ship] that is serving [ 1–2 The entries in these lines are probably later notes written by a second hand. Cf. P. Köln XI 454, 1–5. At the beginning perhaps [ἐλ]ή(φθη) as in P. Köln XI 454, 1 (with note), or the η is part of the number of the year. 2 ἐπ(ιστάτ-) is not ruled out; the ἐπιστάτης τοῦ νοµοῦ is attested in P. Giss. 1 108, 11 (Pathyris, 145 - 116 B.C.) 4 If the payment was regular, then the relevant chrematismos should have been written by an official at the nome level. The verb [ἐχρ]ηµατίσθη perhaps refers to the chrematismos of the epimeletes. Perhaps το̣ῖςB ̣ ἐκ τοῦ Ἡρακλεοπολίτου sc. µαχίµοις or µαχαιροφόροις or ἐπιστάταις (cf. Kaltsas, 2003b, 9–10). 5 [?Χαιρ]ήµονι only ex. gr. 5–6 [πλοί]οις proposed by H. Maehler (see P. Berl. Salmen. 1, 17 n.). A close parallel to l. 5–6 is provided by P. Berl. Salmen. 1, 16–19 (= BGU XVIII 1, 2748; Herakleopolis, 86 B.C.; cf. Kaltsas, 2003b, 9) χρηµάτισον Π[[τολε|µα]ίου τ̣οῦ̣ π̣ρὸς τῶι διοικητικῶι στόλωι τοῖς ἐ̣πὶ̣ B [τῆς θαλα|µ]ηγοῦ τῆς συµπλεούσης Ἀλεξάνδρωι τῶι ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπη|ρεσίας προ̣κεχειρισµένωι. Kaltsas (2003b, 9) suggested reading χρηµάτισον δ̣[ιὰ Πτολε|µα]ίου. But perhaps, as in P. Tebt. III 2, 856, 11, one should consider: χρηµάτισον τ̣[ῶι παρὰ - - ]ίου. Cf. P. Tebt. III 2, 856, 11–14 (with BL 8, 496) [Ἀν]δρονίκωι τῶι παρ̣ὰ̣ Μa ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν | [θα]λασσίων πλοίων ὥστε τ̣οῖ̣ ς ἐπ̣[ιστάταις (?)] | [τῶν τ]ε̣[ταγµένων Μνασέαι πλ̣[ηρωµάτων | λειτουργῶν]. BGU VIII 1744, 4–5 [- - - τῶν λειτουργῶν τῶν τεταγµένων]| τῶι διοικητῆι ἐκ τοῦ θαλασσίου [στόλου πληρωµάτων] (cf. l. 8–9), BGU VIII 1743, 11–12. 6–7 After [λ]ε̣ιτB ̣ουργBοῦ the designation of a ship should have followed, as the parallels show.

138

The Office of the Epimeletes

P. Ryl. IV 672 descr. (after 15 Nov. 164 B.C.?, no. 30) is the copy of an order, probably issued by the epimeletes, to measure certain commodities, among them probably barley: κριων à perhaps κρι(θῶν) ὧν rather than κριῶν; cf. κρι in l. 21. The large quantities of barley that, as it seems, had to be measured could indicate that allowances were made for a cavalry unit because, above all, horses need barley (cf. P. Köln XI 448 with measurements of barley, probably intended for the horses of ἱππεῖς µισθοφόροι in the Herakleopolites). UPZ I 14 (after 23. Feb. 157 B.C., no. 64) also attests the epimeletes’ function of paying the soldiers in the second century. The court ordered the enrolment of Apollonios, the younger brother of the enkatochos Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, as a soldier in Memphis. The orders of enrolment were issued to two branches of the administration: first, to the military administration represented by the forces’ scribe (γραµµατεὺς τῶν δυνάµεων), who forwarded the orders to the strategos2, to the chief paymaster, the ἀρχυπηρέτης, and to the military scribe. Second, to the civic administration represented by the dioiketes, who forwarded the order to the strategos and the epimeletes. Forwarding the orders to the latter two officials meant, most likely, that they were responsible for issuing payment orders of the soldiers’ wages as I discussed above regarding BGU XX 2840 (no. 23, bearing in mind that an irregular situation required the involvement of the strategos). The Twins The function of the epimeletes in state expenditures is amply documented in the papers of the twins of the Serapieion. We have to differentiate The beginning of line 1 perhaps should be supplemented [ἐχρηµάτισ]ε̣ν ὁ ἐπιµελητής. If this is right, the length of the lacuna at the beginning of this and the following lines could be assessed. 2 It seems that the strategos is addressed here because of his military jurisdiction. In the 3rd century B.C., the military character of the strategos was predominant. This office lost its military character in the 2nd century B.C. in favour of its civil and administrative functions. But despite that, the strategos never lost his military jurisdiction during the whole period of the Ptolemaic rule. It was only under the Romans that the strategos became an entirely civil official. See Bengtson, 1952, 24f.; for the Roman strategos, see Henne, 1935; Hohlwein, 1969; Kruse, 2006, 83–115. 1

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

139

between two kinds of payments to the twins, each called σύνταξις: oil and bread (made of olyra). For each of the two syntaxeis, different departments were involved, but the epimeletes took part in the procedures for granting both. In the oil allowances, the epimeletes was directly involved because the institution that gave them the oil was not the temple but the ἐλαική. This means that the oil had to be delivered within the framework of the oil monopoly. Therefore, the official responsible for the twins’ oil syntaxis was called πρὸς τῇ ἐλαικῇ1. However, the bread was given by the temple itself to which the government gave an allowance of olyra2, which was distributed among the priests in the form of bread made by the temple bakery. It is clear from UPZ I 19 that the epimeletes was the authority responsible for invalidating the oil token that the twins’ mother had stolen with the help of their half-brother. When the twins asked the hypodioiketes to write to the strategos in order that he write to the epimeletes and the antigrapheus3, they differentiated between the oil allowances and the other allowances (mainly bread) that were due to them. I believe that their patron Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, an expert in the art of complaint, was aware that the payment of oil was under the direct authority of the epimeletes, while the antigrapheus, the epistates of the temple, and other officials in the temple were responsible for the allowance of bread, although the epimeletes controlled those payments as well4. The echo of the payment orders of oil can be traced in UPZ I 21 and UPZ I 27. The latter document shows that the payment could not have been made unless there were instructions from the epimeletes. In UPZ I 39–40 and UPZ 41, the epimeletes was asked to give 1

For the payout of oil to the twins, cf. also Armoni, 2012, 66. Cf. P. Köln XI 454 intr. 3 δεόµεθα οὖν ὑµῶν ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον τῶν φίλων καὶ στρατηγόν, ὅπως γράψῃ \(hand 2) Ἀπολλωνίωι/ (hand 1) ⟦Μεννίδει⟧ τῶι ἐπιµελητεῖ (l. ἐπιµελητῇ) καὶ Δωρίωνι τῶι ἀντιγραφεῖ µήτε τὸ γινόµενον ἡµῖν ἔλαιον καὶ κῖκι µηδʼ ἄλλο µηθὲν χρηµατίζειν αὐτῆι τῶν ἡµετέρων (UPZ I 19, 30–33: We, therefore, beg you to send our petition to Dionysios, of the friends (of the King) and strategos, so that he may write to [[Mennides]] (2nd hand) Apollonios, the epimeletes, and Dorion, the antigrapheus, so that they neither pay her (i.e. Nephoris, the mother of the twins) the oil nor the kiki that belong to us nor anything else of us). 4 The general rule seems to have been that allowances had to be made and simultaneously controlled by two branches of the administration: on the one side the epimeletes, and on the other the basilikos grammateus and his subordinates together with his antigrapheus. So, it is not surprising that the epimeletes was somehow involved in the syntaxis of olyra, as he was, for example, involved in the payout procedure of barley to soldiers as shown above. 2

140

The Office of the Epimeletes

orders for the payment of the twins’ arrears of oil. The involvement of the epimeletes in these oil payments was related to his function in controlling royal monopolies (see above 5.5.1) Otherwise, the office of the epimeletes was not the only department responsible for the syntaxis of olyra (see n. 4 above). The epimeletes had the authority to urge other officials to give the twins their bread ratio, which can be seen by UPZ I 46–50 and UPZ I 51. The twins reported to the hypodioiketes that the epimeletes wrote to the epistates of the temple to give them their due bread ratio. Since the epistates and the other officials responsible for these bread allowances did not respond and turned a deaf ear to both the appeals of the twins and the letter of the epimeletes, this indicates that granting the bread ration and giving it out were controlled by more than one department, including that of the epimeletes. 5.8 The term διαγραφή in P. Dryton 31: The term διαγραφή was used for orders of payment issued by the epimeletes1. The term occurs again in P. Dryton 31 = P. Ryl. II 67 = P. Lond. III 686 f = P. Lond. III 687 b (140–126 B.C., no. 96)2. Lines 2 to 8 (l. 8 is the end of the document) contain a copy of a petition probably made by Dryton to the epimeletes Hermias that cannot be fully understood because of damage to the text. The reconstruction of the content proposed by K. Vandorpe is given above in chapter four (no. 96). Dryton seems to have been forced to sell plots of his land to his son Esthladas. But apparently the correct procedure was not yet completed when the petition was written. Therefore, Dryton asked the epimeletes, to order the proper diagraphe to be handed over to his son: διὸ ἀξιῶ, ἐὰν φαίνηται, συντάξαι ἐγδοθῆναι αὐτῶι τὴν καθήκουσαν διαγρα[φή]ν̣. οὗ καὶ γενοµένου, ἔσ̣[οµαι] πεφιλανθρωπηµ̣[ένος] (l. 8). Even though the situation described in the papyrus cannot be fully understood, one can assume that the necessary diagraphe was an order of payment to be issued by the office of the epimeletes (cf. UPZ I 114 II, 6–9). Before line 2 there are small remnants of a preceding document. Vandorpe assumed that this l. 1 could have been the end of the necessary diagraphe. There is, however, no more left than a part of the closing 1 2

Cf. P. Tebt. III 2, 853 (ca. 173 B.C., no. 26); P. Duk. Inv. 690 (25 June 192 B.C., no. 3a). Vandorpe, 2002, 223.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

141

formula: ἵνα µηθὲν] ἐ̣ν̣ τ̣ο̣ύτοις ἀ̣γν[ο]ηθῆι vac. [ . These small remnants do not seem to preclude the possibility that we have here a diagraphe in the sense of a payment order to a banker to accept and receive the Esthladas’ payment. We know that diagraphai could have such a formula at the end, as P. Köln XI 448, 9 (ca. 13. Apr. – 12. May 210 B.C., chapters two and three no. 16) and UPZ II 208, 8 (31 May 130 B.C.) show, but these documents are payout orders of public funds. As Vandorpe stated, the sale of Dryton’s property to his son would not have been legally valid unless the ἐγκύκλιον, the sales tax1, was paid, whose payment should have been part of the payment order of the epimeletes. It appears reasonable to infer that Dryton’s property might have been sold by auction. 5.9 The function of the epimeletes in receiving declarations concerning apomoira: In chapter three, I have discussed the epimeletes’ responsibility for receiving reports of real estate declarations in the 3rd century B.C.2 There is no evidence for such real estate declarations in the 2nd century3 and in This tax was initially levied at a rate of 8 drachmas 2 ¼ obols per 100 drachmas at a ratio of 8.375%. Afterwards, in the second century B.C., it varied from 5% to 10%; see Muhs, 2005, 71–72. 2 See section 3.1.7. 3 We have in P. Hels. 10–20 declarations of, e.g., a βαλανεῖον (P. Hels. I 13, 21 Oct. 163 B.C.), a περιστερεών (P. Hels. I 10, 21 Oct. 163 B.C.), a λουτρωνίδιον (P. Hels. I 12, 163 B.C.). Although it is true that the objects of the declarations P. Hels. 10–20 are real estates; the definition of these declarations as real estate declarations is insufficient because these are declarations of objects for tax purposes (called ‘Steuerobjektsdeklarationen’ in the edition). This means that their aim is to get the necessary information for the assessment of a tax. So, in P. Hels. 10, the declarant declared that his dovecote is empty without mentioning its dimensions. This certainly means that he would not have to pay the tax. In P. Hels. 11 (163 B.C.), the declarant does not give any information about the size of his vineyard. He mentioned that he had a rose bush, fig trees, pomegranate trees, and apple trees, but apparently no vines, and he promised that he would pay the tax of the ἕκτη in the due time. So, he gave information about his property, but only as far as tax obligations are entailed. The same is true for the other declarations in P. Hels. 10–20 and for the apomoiradeclarations. This is different from the declarations mentioned above of the year 209 B.C. which are real estate declarations prompted by a prostagma (note that the declarations of the dovecotes and bathing establishments in the Helsinki documents were submitted without any reference to a royal decree, cf. P. Hels. I, intr. 10–20, p.67). So far, these declarations of 209 B.C. are the only real estate declarations from the Ptolemaic period we know of. For more information about property declarations in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Qandeil, 2022a, 1–14; Qandeil, forthcoming. 1

142

The Office of the Epimeletes

consequence no evidence that this function continued. But the ownership and control issue are touched in the declarations concerning apomoira. SB XIV 11893 (13 Aug. 159 B.C., no. 59) is such a declaration addressed to the epimeletes about the fruits of three orchards, the estimation of their value, and the estimation of the apomoira tax due1. 5.10 The judicial function of the epimeletes: The documents of the second century B.C. show that the epimeletes’ judicial function continued in matters affecting the income of the royal treasury. When the royal treasury’s income suffered any shortfall, the epimeletes had the authority to investigate or even detain people who might have caused it. The royal decree in P. Köln VII 313 (after 9 Oct. 186 B.C., no. 9) was issued to address and alleviate the distressing circumstances that arose in the aftermath of the great revolt of 206–186 B.C. The decree’s instructions dealt with two spheres: first, instructions concerning civil crimes, and second, instructions concerning financial matters that were affected by the revolt. The epimeletes and the oikonomos were among the officials meant to carry out the sovereigns’ enactments regarding the second sphere. They were instructed not to arrest and detain anyone for a private debt, injustice, or quarrel. These instructions show that such procedures of arrest and detainment were practised on a wide scale by the two officials mentioned, but one must emphasise that until now, we do not have clear evidence that the epimeletes really intervened in private affairs (cf. section 5.1.2; P. Tebt. III 1, 782). This amnesty concerned misdeeds of the past, but the epimeletes continued to arrest and detain at least those people who were suspected of committing financial crimes, even though other royal amnesty decrees were issued later on special occasions, such as the royal amnesty decree issued in 180 B.C. after Philometor’s accession, which granted amnesty for all crimes – except for murders and violating the temples – committed before a specific date during the 25th year of the reign of the deceased Ptolemy V Epiphanes2.

1

2

About ἀπόµοιρα declarations, cf. Amoni, 2012, 212–214; Qandeil, 2022a, 7-8. See p.79, n. 3.

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

143

Among our papyri, P. Coll. Youtie I 12 (177 B.C., no. 22) refers to the case of a tax collector who failed to fulfil his contract and was, as he argued, to be forgiven according to this amnesty decree, but instead was sent to jail by the epimeletes after a complaint of an ἐπὶ τῶν τελωνῶν, where he stayed for three years1. It seems that his imprisonment took place after he was tried before the chrematistai. In cases of προσοδικαὶ κρίσεις (trials concerning the royal revenues), the court might have been held in the presence of a high administrative official2. This might have happened in the case of the above-mentioned P. Coll. Youtie I 12. And it is almost certain that these were the procedures used in P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2 8953 (ca. 175 B.C., no. 25). We are informed by this document that, when a certain person, perhaps the local sitologos, removed a certain amount of wheat from the royal granary, a trial was held at which the strategos, the basilikos grammateus, and other officials were present. Although there is no mention of the epimeletes among those officials, he was, in all likelihood, expected to have been present and was mentioned in the lacuna of l. 32–33. This assumption can be supported by the fact that the epimeletes sent a report containing the legal proceedings of the trial to the strategos which was forwarded to the epistrategos. We have two other clear pieces of evidence that the epimeletes shared trials of financial cases with the chrematistai. In the first case4, the epimeletes attended, together with the basilikos grammateus5, the investigations against a komarches, whom some royal farmers had accused of committing misdeeds and peculations of both corn and money. The second6 is a report from the chrematistai to the epimeletes containing the decision they reached concerning a trial in which the epimeletes was taking part. This shows that judicial decisions in such cases were the responsibility of the board of the chrematistai. The presence of the epimeletes and other 1

For possible reasons for his imprisonment, see section 5.4 above. See 3.1.8. 3 Armoni, 2012, 231–232. 4 P. Amh. II 33 = Sel. Pap. II 273 = C. Ord. Ptol. 23 (l. 28–37) = C. Pap. Hengstl 27 (l. 28– 37) (no. 65); P. Amh. II 34 a + b (no. 66); P. Amh. II 34 c (no. 67), all ca. 157 B.C. Cf. Armoni, 2012, 233. 5 See Armoni, 2012, 233. 6 P. Tebt. III 2, 934 descr. with Armoni, 2012, 233 (ca. 156 B.C., no. 68). 2

144

The Office of the Epimeletes

financial officials, may refer to those officials’ technical function, i.e., clarifying the government’s allegations against the accused. The function of the epimeletes was not only confined to participating in trials, but he was also responsible for conducting investigations in cases affecting the royal income, either in person or via his agents or by joint action. In P. Tebt. III 1, 741 (187/186 B.C., no. 7), the epimeletes instructed his agent to investigate a case concerning a certain amount of corn, and he informed his agent that he would arrive in person. Investigations could have been conducted jointly with other officials; this is clear from P. Tebt. III 2, 857 (after 31 Jan. 162 B.C., no. 32). This document shows that investigations about a break-in to the granary of the village Pios in the Herakleopolites were conducted by a joint committee formed by the agent of the epimeletes, the agent of the basilikos grammateus, and the epistates. In P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150–149 B.C., no. 81), the epimeletes investigated misdoings of two men who collected money illegally from royal farmers and caused them to flee. The investigations in this case were done jointly by the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, and the archiphylakites. Appeals to the epimeletes could be made by everybody who felt wronged in a matter that concerned this official. When the petitioner of P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap. Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43 (2 Oct. 159 – 1 Oct. 158 B.C., no. 61) was wronged by the komogrammateus of his village, who forced the petitioner to pay additional rent for his land, he appealed to the epimeletes to order investigations. Similar is P. Heid. VI 382 (after 158 B.C., no. 63): the petitioner complained that the γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν wronged him by adding a whole aroura’s worth of additional rent to his land, so he asked the epimeletes to write to the topogrammateus to conduct investigations to check that the petitioner did not have any increase in income. The epimeletes had the authority to free people from detainment when investigations proved that they were innocent. This can be concluded from P. Tebt. III 1, 754 (185/184–179/178 B.C., no. 11), a private letter, in which the sender informed the addressee (they are brothers) that another brother of theirs was set free by the epimeletes after he had investigated the matter. The accused brother was in prison for some unknown reason, most likely a matter affecting the royal treasury. Our documents also provide evidence that the epimeletes’ function in controlling the royal monopolies (see 5.5 above) included a judicial

Chapter Five: Analysing the Documents of the 2nd Cent. B.C.

145

competence. Papyrus smugglers were brought before the epimeletes by the responsible officials so that they might be punished (ὅπως εἰσπραχθῶσιν τὰ κα[θήκοντα] ἐπίτιµα)1. 5.11 The function of the epimeletes in the financial administration of the temples: The Ptolemies integrated temples more tightly into the administrative and fiscal system than they had been before2. The most prominent feature of the temples’ increasing dependence on the state is the modification that was introduced by the Ptolemies concerning the levy of the apomoira. The income from this tax was intended for the temples until 263/262 B.C. After this date, it became a levy for the cult of Arsinoe II and was now levied by the state3. Because the tax had been one of the basic sources of income for the temples, the Ptolemies, to compensate the temples for this loss, granted them, from the late third century B.C. onwards, a yearly allowance in money and kind, the so-called syntaxis4. The crown clearly had an interest in the proper use of this syntaxis and secured its control and thereby the possibility of direct intervention in the affairs of Egyptian temples by Greek financial officials5. For these purposes, the state introduced the office of the ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἱερῶν (the superintendent of the temples) as an official at the nome level with subordinate superintendents (epistatai) in each temple6. I suggest that, like the ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἱερῶν and his subordinates, the epimeletes had subordinates, at least, in the prominent temples such as the Serapieion, who were also concerned with the administration of the syntaxis. Some evidence can be traced in the papers of the twins and will be discussed in detail in appendix III. Another piece of evidence for the involvement of the epimeletes in temple administration is P. Tebt. I 6 = W. Chr. 332 = C. Ord. Ptol. 47 (after 3–12 Feb. 139 B.C., no. 97). When the income of the temples suffered negative consequences due to certain fraudulent practices, the sovereigns 1

P. Tebt. III. 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C., no. 60; section 5.5.2) Monson, 2019, 153. 3 See Clarysse and Vandorpe, 1998, 7f. 4 Clarysse, 2010, 282–283; Monson, 2019, 153. 5 Thompson, 1988, 110; for more information about the administration of temples in the Ptolemaic period, see also Otto, 1905; Clarysse, 2010, 283–285; Armoni, 2012, 65–69. 6 Monson, 2019, 154. We already encountered the epistates of the Serapieion of Memphis in the papyri of the twins cited above; see p.87 and 90. 2

146

The Office of the Epimeletes

promulgated a royal decree ordering many officials, including the epimeletes, to secure the proper revenues for the temples. Although it is more probable that the priests of P. Tebt. III 1, 737 (ca.136 B.C., no. 100) asked for permission from the epimeletes to cultivate a parcel of infertile land because of the epimeletes’ responsibility for leasing royal land (see 5.1.1 above), we cannot rule out that they asked him because of his responsibility for temple affairs. The same can be said about the dispute in SB XXII 15545 = P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 R (18 Apr. 146 B.C., no. 83), in which the epimeletes was contacted by the priests to intervene in the question of the assault that they and the temple had suffered.

CHAPTER SIX

THE RELATION OF THE EPIMELETES TO OTHER OFFICIALS In the documents discussed in the previous chapters of this study, the epimeletes appeared to either give or receive orders and instructions or cooperate with other officials. In the following pages, I will try to assess the relation of the epimeletes to other officials using the documents in which the epimeletes appears in ‘direct’ relation to other Ptolemaic officials. I arrange the officials who have a direct relation with the epimeletes in our documents in a descending order from highest to lowest, concluding with military, police, and judicial officials1. 6.1 The relation of the epimeletes to the central administration officials: 6.1.1 The dioiketes: Document 1. P. Bad. II 13= SB VIII 9800 2. SB XX 14069

Date (221 – 203 B.C.?) 22 Jul. 204 B.C.

3. 4. 5. 6.

190 B.C. After 9 Oct. 186 B.C. 185 B.C? 164 B.C.

Origin Ankyropolis (El-Hiba) Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Herakleopolites Tanis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Memphis (?)

14 Dec. 162 B.C. After 23 Feb. 157 B.C. Ca. 142 B.C.

Memphis Memphis Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

P. Vindob. G56637 P. Tarich. 6 a and b P. Tarich. 7 UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III, p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 7. UPZ I 23 8. UPZ I 14 9. P. Tebt. III 1, 732

Table 6.1 The relation of the epimeletes to the dioiketes 1

There are two ways of presenting a classification of the Ptolemaic administration: first, according to the departments of the administration in which the officials functioned; officials may be classified into three main groups: military, civil and religious. Second is to regard the Ptolemaic administration as composed of various stratifications, the different levels being marked by the geographical area, which was the extent of any official’s competence; at the top, we have a handful of officials who had authority throughout the whole of Egypt, next to them come a few with a competence extending over several nomes, and below them a much larger number whose sphere of control was a single nome. At the lowest level, we find officials in every department whose competence did not extend beyond a single village or group of villages; see Thomas, 1978, 9–10. In the following pages, I use a mixed way of presenting the officials who have a direct relation to the epimeletes.

148

The Office of the Epimeletes

The dioiketes was one of the most important officials in the central Ptolemaic administration1. Hence, we expect to find the epimeletes working under his authority. UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 (164 B.C.) and its bitter language in addressing both the hypodioiketes and the epimeletes concerning their imposition of cultivation of deserted royal land on peasants demonstrate this superiority and authority over the epimeletes. Our documents show the epimeletes receiving orders from the dioiketes concerning several matters: providing ships for the transport of hay (?)2, holding auctions3, intervening in disputes about irrigation matters or cases of arrears4, sending reports about disputes that affect the royal treasury5, receiving orders of payment6, and implementing the pay schedule of a new soldier7. The question of the presence of only one central dioiketes or of several dioiketai simultaneously in the Ptolemaic administration is controversial. The debate concerning this matter is summarised by Mooren8. Wilcken originally suggested the presence of ‘Lokaldioiketen’, each with a competence confined to just one nome9. Later, he modified this hypothesis and suggested the presence of ‘Provinzial-dioiketai’ whose competence extended to several nomes10. The existence of provincial dioiketai was denied by Maspero and Bouché-Leclercq11. According to Mooren, the question was decided in 1920, when E. von Druffel published a fragment of a papyrus which explicitly mentions provincial dioiketai, SB IV 737712: ὁ 1

There were, besides the dioiketes, two other officials at the top of the administration, the hypomnematographos and the epistolographos. There is no evidence to prove that there was

ever a fixed hierarchy among those three officials, and we do not know if any of them ranked higher than the others; see Thomas, 1978, 188. 2 P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 (221–203 B.C.?). 3 SB XX 14069 (22 Jul. 204 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 1, 732 (ca. 142 B.C.). 4 P. Vindob. G56637 (190 B.C.). 5 P. Tarich. 6 a and b (after 9 Oct. 186 B.C.); P. Tarich. 7 (185 B.C?). 6 UPZ I 23 (14 Dec. 162 B.C.). 7 UPZ I 14 (after 23 Feb. 157 B.C.). 8 Mooren, 1977, 137f. See also Thomas, 1978, 189–191; McGing, 2004, 134; Huss, 2011, 34–35. 9 Wilcken, 1899, 492–493. 10 Wilcken, 1912, 148. 11 Maspero, 1905, 204–205; 238–241; Bouché-Leclercq, 1906, 381–383. 12 Von Druffel, 1920, 30–33; Mooren, 1977, 141.

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

149

διοικ]ητη (l. [διοικ]ητὴ) τοῖς ἄλλοις διοικηταῖς (l. 5), and τὸν διοικητὴν τῆς Θηβαίδος (l. 7). However, there was the opinion, widely accepted by scholars, including Wilcken, that these ‘other dioiketai’, mentioned in SB IV 7377, were hypodioiketai, relying on the case of a certain Diotimos who in the third century is mentioned once as dioiketes and once as hypodioiketes: P. Cair. Zen. III 59403 (263–229 B.C.), Διοτίµωι τῶι ὑποδιοικητῆι (l. 11); P. Cair. Zen. II 59236 (253/252 B.C.), Διοτίµωι διοικητῆι (l. 1)1. Edgar, the editor of the two documents, concluded that a hypodioiketes could be called dioiketes for reasons of brevity or courtesy2. The Thebaid dioiketes and the ‘other dioiketai’, who appear in SB IV 7377, would therefore be hypodioiketai rather than provincial dioiketai. Mooren refused this hypothesis and tried to invalidate the argument drawn from the two Cairo papyri. In P. Cair. Zen. III 59403, the name Diotimos is written in bigger letters than the rest of the text, and the editor correctly thought that this is an amendment and that the addressee was originally the dioiketes Apollonios. In the consequence, according to Mooren, there would not have been enough space to add the prefix ‘υπο᾽ after the large letters of the name Diotimos and before the title dioiketes. So, the scribe, who would not have wanted to send a text that was not well-shaped, kept the title dioiketes without change3. Therefore, Mooren refused the hypothesis, based on this only case, that hypodioiketai could be addressed as dioiketai, and assumed that the dioiketes of the Thebaid and the ‘other dioiketai’, mentioned in SB IV 7377, were local dioiketai. Later, Thomas suggested supplementing l. 5 of SB IV 7377 as follows: ἐπιστολὴ ἡ α]ὐ̣τή instead of ὁ διοικ]ητη (l. [διοικ]ητή). So, the remnants of the text may be understood as follows: the first four lines would contain a royal decree to a dioiketes. Then, to save himself copying this decree several times, the scribe of SB IV 7377 annotated in line 5 ‘the same letter to the other dioiketai’. As Thomas stated, this new restoration of the text no longer proves that there existed, at the time when SB IV 7377 was written, a 1

Cf. Mooren, 1977, 142, and n. 1, 2. It is noteworthy that Wilcken suggested that at the time of UPZ I 110 (164 B.C.), there were no provincial dioiketai but rather one central dioiketes; cf. UPZ I 110, comm. l. 1, p.487. 2 This conclusion was reached before by Bouché-Leclercq, who stated ‘Je suis tenté de croire que les hypodioecètes étaient appelés «diocètes» par leurs inférieurs’. Cf. BouchéLeclercq, 1906, 387, n. 2. 3 Mooren, 1977, 142–143. See also Thomas, 1978, 189.

150

The Office of the Epimeletes

central dioiketes and several subordinate dioiketai1. Instead, he proposed the following hypothesis to solve the problem: ‘In the third century under Philadelphus there was but one dioiketes, an official of considerable powers, and similarly in the first century only one dioiketes existed, with similar if not greater powers, but when SB 7377 was written2 this single central official had perhaps been abolished and replaced by a number of dioiketai competent for sections of the country only, i.e., the office had been decentralised. In favour of this, it is worth noting that the date of SB 7377 probably falls at precisely the period when the nome strategos was created, a creation which marks a considerable move towards decentralisation. In this case, we must believe that some time during the second century the government reverted to the former situation with one central dioiketes and abolished those competent for sections of the country, my guess would be that such decentralisation, if it ever took place, quickly proved unworkable’3. Thomas’ hypothesis can be supported by the conspicuously humble aulic titles that the dioiketai had in the first half of the 2nd century4. On the other hand, in a recently published article, Lanciers examined the documents of the dioiketes in the period from 200 to 120 B.C. and concluded that he had not found any evidence for the existence of local dioiketai who reported to the central dioiketes in Alexandria5. In his attempt to refute Stern’s hypothesis that the Athenodoros of SB XXII 15536 (197– 190 B.C.) and P. Mich. XVIII 778 (after 193–192 B.C.) was an official with authority only over a small part of the chora6, Lanciers held that the presence of the daughters of Athenodoros as athlophoros and kanephoros in the years 194–192 and 192–190 B.C. indicates a strong, direct connection 1

Thomas, 1978, 190. Von Druffel’s edition of the document contains no date. However, in the introduction, he argued that handwriting points to the end of the 3rd century B.C. following Wilcken who had suggested this date to him, although he – von Druffel – at first, had rather supposed a date in the first half of the 2nd century B.C. (Cf. von Druffel, 1920, 30, and n. 4). Thomas examined a photo of the document with Clarysse and Bingen, and they reached the same conclusion as Wilcken that the document should be dated to the end of the 3rd century B.C. on palaeographic grounds (cf. Thomas, 1978, 189). Lanciers, 2020b, 121 with n. 139, also supposes that the papyrus can be dated to the second half of the 3rd century. 3 Thomas, 1978, 191. Cf. also Thomas, 1975, 28. 4 Mooren, 1977, 137. 5 Lanciers, 2020b, 99–128. 6 Stern, 2016, 19, n. 6. 2

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

151

between Athenodoros and the Alexandrian court. This would mean, in his view, that he was based in Alexandria1. It seems that Lanciers’ argument is not strong enough to prove that Athenodoros was really a central dioiketes because we cannot rule out that he was a high official in the chora, as Stern suggested, whose family resided in Alexandria, and, in this position, he and his family could have been highly esteemed at the Alexandrian court. Likewise, the fact that Bakchon, the dioiketes of P. Paramone 6 (185/184 B.C.)2, had the authority to award a monopoly for leather production need not mean that Bakchon was a central dioiketes. Lanciers was aware of the uncertainty of this suggestion3. As concerns the next attested dioiketes, Apollonios, who appears in two inscriptions from Boubastos (Tell Basta, TM Geo 462): SB I 2637 and SB V 8874 (= OGIS I 100) dated to 185–180 B.C., and also appears in P. Tarich. 7 (Arsinoites, 185 B.C.?)4 and in P. Coll. Youtie I 12 (Arsinoites, 177 B.C.)5, Lanciers concluded that ‘the fact that Apollonios operated both in the Delta and in the Arsinoite nome shows that he was the dioiketes in Alexandria’6. Again, this argument is not decisive because one could argue that first, Apollonios was a regional dioiketes in the Delta, and then, in or after 185 B.C., became dioiketes in the Arsinoites. Furthermore, the inscriptions cannot really prove that Apollonios was dioiketes in the Delta. OGIS I 100 shows that the monument in the temple of the goddess Bastet at Boubastos was set up by Apollonios’ brother Ptolemaios (OGIS I 100, 1–4: Ἀπολλώνιον Θέωνος, τῶν φίλ[ων] τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ διοικητήν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφόν, Πτολεµαῖος Ἀπολλωνίου, τῶν διαδόχων, Apollonios son of Theon, one of (the king’s) friends and the dioiketes, (set up, i.e, the monument) by his brother Ptolemaios son of Apollonios, one of the diadochoi). Therefore, it could be suggested that Boubastos was the hometown of Apollonios where his brother wanted to honour him. In such a case, we could also assume that he never functioned as a dioiketes there.

1

Lanciers, 2020b, 101–102. See chapter five, p.131–132. 3 Lanciers, 2020b, 102–103. 4 See Chapter four, p.73. 5 The reference to the dioiketes comes in the context of a decision that was taken by him in 180 B.C. 6 Lanciers, 2020b, 103. 2

152

The Office of the Epimeletes

So, in my view, for the first half of the 2nd century Thomas’ hypothesis is more plausible1. No strong evidence, so far, indicates the presence of a central dioiketes until the emergence of Herodes of UPZ I 110 (164 B.C.) onto the scene. Moreover, our documents, which show a direct relation of the epimeletes to the dioiketes, do not contradict Thomas’ conclusion. I have mentioned the supposition made by Armoni and Maresch and by Baetens that the Phoinix mentioned in P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 (221–203 B.C.?) was a regional dioiketes or a hypodioiketes2. I exclude the latter title for the reasons discussed above, but the supposition that Phoinix was a regional dioiketes matches Thomas’ hypothesis. Moreover, the humble topics of SB XX 14069 (22 Jul. 204 B.C.), P. Vindob. G56637 (190 B.C.), and the question of the geras in the taricheutai archive (P. Tarich., 189–184 B.C.) may indicate a regional dioiketes, rather than a central authority. Otherwise, it is almost certain that the dioiketes of both UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III, p. 15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 (164 B.C.) and of UPZ I 14 (after 23 Feb. 157 B.C.) was a central dioiketes. No less certain is the status of the dioiketes in UPZ I 23 (14 Dec. 162 B.C.); the general order of the dioiketes that only half of the supplies should be delivered to the temples indicates a central authority. This is also, likely, the case in P. Tebt. III 1, 732 (ca. 142 B.C.), though not decisive as the case of P. Paramone 6 mentioned above: the orders to auction the retail trade in salt for the whole Arsinoite nome may indicate a higher central authority. If this argument is accepted, the epimeletes was answerable to the dioiketes when there was only one central one. He was also answerable to the regional dioiketes after the decentralisation of that office was initiated. It is to be expected that the epimeletes was again answerable to the central dioiketes when the Ptolemies abolished this reform in the 2nd century B.C. and returned to a central office with only one dioiketes.

1

Lanciers referred to Thomas’ hypothesis which he partially accepted as stated: ‘While Thomas places this third phase [i.e., the return to the situation with one central dioiketes in the capital] some time during the second century, it must, in my opinion, be situated before the start of that century’. Cf. Lanciers, 2020b, 121. 2 See chapter three, p.61.

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

153

6.1.2 The hypodioiketes 1: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Document UPZ I 21 UPZ I 22 UPZ I 23 UPZ I 24 UPZ I 25 UPZ I 26 UPZ I 33 UPZ I 34 UPZ I 35 UPZ I 36 UPZ I 38 UPZ I 46 UPZ I 47 UPZ I 48 UPZ I 50 UPZ I 51

Date 4 Oct .162 B.C. Before 3 Dec. 162 B.C. 14 Dec. 162 B.C. After 27 Sep. 162 B.C. 162 B.C. 18 Dec. 162 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. 21 Feb. 161 B.C. 162/161 B.C. 162/161 B.C. 162/161 B.C. 162/161 B.C. After 10 Jan. 161 B.C.

Origin Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis

Table 6.2 The relation of the epimeletes to the hypodioiketes

The number of hypodioiketai active at the same time can hardly be estimated due to the limited amount of evidence2. Some scholars touched on the problem at the beginning of the last century. Maspero thought there were three hypodioiketai for Lower, Middle, and Upper Egypt3. BouchéLeclercq supposed that the hypodioiketes had competence over several nomes4. Wilcken, in his commentary on UPZ I 113, supposed that it is not improbable that the hypodioiketes Dorion of UPZ I 110 is also attested in UPZ I 113 and acted as the hypodioiketes of the western delta. If Wilcken’s supposition is accepted, then we have a hypodioiketes of the western delta who may have resided in Alexandria or a place nearby, probably in the Saitic nome, so he was the first among the hypodioiketai to get the harsh rebuke from the dioiketes in UPZ 110. This is implied in the last three lines of UPZ 110 (l. 211–213), in which the dioiketes ordered the circulation of 1 For the hypodioiketes, see Maspero, 1905, 204f.; Berneker, 1935, 89–90; Huss, 2011, 35, and note 120 for a detailed bibliography. 2 According to TM records, the hypodioiketes is mentioned in 37 documents from the Ptolemaic period. A few other persons, attested only by name and without any clear indication of their function, can be identified as hypodioiketai with less certainty. 3 Maspero, 1905, 204. 4 Bouché-Leclercq, 1906, 387.

154

The Office of the Epimeletes

his decree to the other epimeletai and hypodioiketai: διεστάλµεθα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιµεληταῖς καὶ ὑποδιοικηταῖς τὰ ταυται (l. αὐτά). By the same token, there would have been a hypodioiketes for the eastern delta, and it is not improbable that Upper Egypt had at least one. Moreover, Ptolemaios son of Glaukias in UPZ I 36 was afraid that when the hypodioiketes sailed up εἰς τοὺς ἄνω τόπους (l. 15–16), the problem of the allowances of oil for year 20 would recur. This may imply that the sphere of action of Sarapion, the hypodioiketes in the twin’s papers, might have been the Memphites and Middle Egypt. So, it can be supposed that there were hypodioiketai for the eastern delta, western delta, Middle Egypt, and Upper Egypt. The relation of the epimeletes to the hypodioiketes is mainly attested in the documents of the twins of the Serapieion. As I suggested1, the Serapieion, and probably other important temples, might have had a subordinate to the epimeletes who also had the title epimeletes. This subordinate epimeletes appears in the documents of the twins as answerable to the hypodioiketes. The twins and their patron, Ptolemaios, often asked the hypodioiketes to write to the subordinate epimeletes to order the payment of their allowances. Otherwise, when we come to the main epimeletes, the twins always ask for the strategos to give written instructions to this epimeletes2. Irrespective of the conclusion reached above regarding the competence of the hypodioiketes, the ‘main’ epimeletes is not, as it seems, lower in rank than the hypodioiketes, as is indicated by UPZ I 110, l. 212 in which the officials are named in the following order: τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιµεληταῖς καὶ ὑποδιοικηταῖς3. So, it is necessary to keep in mind that, when hypodioiketai are attested, we normally do not know to which area their jurisdictions extended. But logically, the hypodioiketes with a competence extending, perhaps, over more than one nome should have preceded the epimeletes who was an official at nome-level.

1

See section 5.11 and appendix III. UPZ I 19 (1 Apr. – 8 Oct. 163 B.C.?); UPZ I 41 (161/160 B.C.). 3 Listing officials in documents usually follows the order of seniority in hierarchy. Cf. McGing, 2003, 54. 2

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

155

6.1.3 The epistrategos: 1.

Document P. Tebt. III 1, 778= P. Tebt. III 2, 895

Date Ca. 175 B.C.

2.

P. Ryl. II 66 a

Late 2nd century B.C.

Origin Berenikis Thesmophorou (Arsinoites) Thebais

Table 6.3 The relation of the epimeletes to the epistrategos

The relation of the epimeletes to the epistrategos1 is attested, so far, in only two documents2. P. Ryl. II 66 a (late 2nd century B.C.) shows that the epimeletes answered to the epistrategos; the petitioner, apparently a tax collector, asked the epistrategos to order a letter to be sent to the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, and the oikonomos in charge of money revenues (συν[τάξαι] γράψαι [τ]ῶι ἐπιµελητῆι καὶ τῶι βασιλικῶι γραµµατ[εῖ] καὶ τῶι οἰκονόµωι τῶν ἀργυρικῶν: l. 3–5) so that those officials compel certain taxpayers to pay what they owe. In P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2, 895 (ca. 175 B.C.), the epimeletes’ contact with the epistrategos occurred indirectly; the report of the legal proceedings of a trial of a local sitologos was forwarded from the epimeletes to the epistrategos through the strategos. These two pieces of evidence show the epimeletes lower in rank, as expected, to the epistrategos. 6.2 The relation of the epimeletes to the nome officials: When we come to the relation of the epimeletes to the nome officials, our documents attest a relationship with the strategos, the oikonomos, the basilikos grammateus, the nome sitologos, and the trapezites. 6.2.1 The strategos: 1. 2. 3. 1

Document BGU XX 2840 P. Tebt. III 1, 778= P. Tebt. III 2, 895 UPZ I 19

Date 176 B.C. Ca. 175 B.C. 1 Apr. – 8 Oct. 163

Origin Herakleopolites Berenikis Thesmophorou (Arsinoites) Memphis

The fundamental study of this office is still Thomas, 1975. The epimeletes appears together with the epistrategos in another document: P. Poethke 18 (12 July 137 B.C.), from which we can draw no conclusion about either a direct or indirect relation between the two officials.

2

156

The Office of the Epimeletes 4.

UPZ I 42

5. 6. 7. 8.

UPZ I 41 P. Heid. IX 424 UPZ I 14 P. Poethke 18

B.C.? 3 Oct.- 1 Nov. 162 B.C. 161/160 B.C. 161–155 B.C. After 23 Feb. 157 B.C. 12 Jul. 137 B.C.

Memphis Memphis Herakleopolites Memphis Herakleopolites

Table 6.4 The relation of the epimeletes to the strategos

The strategos was initially a military officer in the Macedonian and Greek army garrisoned in various parts of the country by Alexander the Great. The duties of this official changed in the second half of the 3rd century B.C. when the competence of the nomarches was taken over by the strategos, who now became a civil official superior to all other nome officials1. According to this description, it is expected that the epimeletes should have been lower in rank to the strategos. However, the general picture that can be drawn from the documents concerning the relation of the two officials to each other is blurry. We have eight documents showing a direct relationship between the two officials. In UPZ I 19, UPZ I 41, and UPZ I 42, the twins and Ptolemaios son of Glaukias asked the sovereigns to send the twins’ petitions to the strategos so that he could write to the epimeletes concerning the allowances of the twins2. This may imply the strategos’ superiority.

1

Manning, 2019, 111–112. It is important to emphasise that the Thebais had its special administrative system. All Upper Egypt was administered from Ptolemais, the Greek city, where a strategos was based, who controlled the whole area of the south and whose office was often combined with the office of the epistrategos; see Thomas, 1975, 32f. For more information about the administration of the Thebaid in the Ptolemaic period, see Muhs, 1996. 2 UPZ I 19, 30–31: δεόµεθα οὖν ὑµῶν ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον τῶν φίλων καὶ στρατηγόν, ὅπως γράψῃ \(hand 2) Ἀπολλωνίωι/ (hand 1) ⟦Μεννίδει⟧ τῶι ἐπιµελητεῖ (l. ἐπιµελητῇ) (therefore, we ask you to send our petition to Dionysios, of the friends and strategos, so that he may write to \Apollonios/ ⟦Mennides⟧, the epimeletes); UPZ I 42, 40– 43: ἀποστεῖλαι ἡµῶν τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον τῶν φίλων καὶ στρατηγόν, ὅπως γράψηι Ἀπολλωνίωι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆι (to send our petition to Dionysios, of the friends and strategos, so that he may write to Apollonios, the epimeletes); UPZ I 41, 18–20: δεόµεθα ὑµῶν, τῶν µεγίστων θεῶν, ἀποστεῖλαι ἡµῶν τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον τῶν φίλων καὶ στρατηγόν, ὅπως γράψηι Ἀπολλωνίωι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆι (we ask you, the great gods, to send our petition to Dionysios, of the friends and strategos, so that he may write to Apollonios, the epimeletes).

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

157

Similar is the situation in P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2, 895. The epimeletes’ report concerning the trial of a local sitologos was forwarded to the epistrategos through the strategos, which also may imply the latter’s superiority over the epimeletes. However, when we come to P. Heid. IX 424 col. I and UPZ I 14, the two papyri only show that the two officials had to cooperate without any apparent hierarchical difference. In P. Heid. IX 424 col. I, the basilikos grammateus reported to the kings that he had written to the strategos and the epimeletes to act concerning the fleeing of some royal farmers and in UPZ I 14, the private records that Apollonios, the brother of Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, kept concerning his enrolment in a military unit show only that both the strategos and the epimeletes had finally been informed about his appointment. The language of the two documents does not show the epimeletes as lower ranked official; instead, it seems that we have two independent departments which both had to be informed about the enrolment. Additionally, the order in which the two officials are named differs in the two documents. In P. Heid. IX 424, we have the following phrasing: ἔγραψα { ̣} Κυδίαι τῶ[ι στρατ̣ηγ\ῶι\ καὶ Ἰσιδώρωι τῶι ἐπιµ̣(ελητῆι), l. 7–8. In UPZ I 14, the order is the reverse: ἔγψε {δύο} ἐπιστολὰς δύο µίαν Δωρίωνι τῷ ἐπιµελητῆι καὶ µίαν τῷ Ποσιδωνίῳ ⟦τῷ στρ̣ατ⟧ τῶι στρατηγῷ τοῦ Μεµφείτου, l. 142–145. The picture gets somewhat clearer in BGU XX 2840. The two officials are involved in remunerating soldiers in the Herakleopolites. The military grammateus sent a request to the strategos for the soldiers’ wages. The strategos forwarded the request to the epimeletes using this form: καλῶς οὖν ποήσεις (l. ποίησαι) συντάξας…, l. 13 (kindly, arrange …). This polite language of addressing the epimeletes may indicate that we have two independent departments on an equal footing, at least in financial matters1. According to Kramer’s reconstruction of the events that preceded the order of the basilikos grammateus to his deputy antigrapheus in P. Poethke 182, the picture turns upside down. The epimeletes gave instructions to the strategos regarding the provisioning of the barge of the epistrategos. Kramer, probably seeking to avoid this ambiguous situation, suggested that 1 However, the administrative procedure adopted in this case is not the normal one. For both ordinary and extraordinary cases, see Armoni 2012, 70–79. 2 See Kramer, 2009, 318, and also p.106–107 with n. 1; p.136.

158

The Office of the Epimeletes

the epimeletes in P. Poethke 18 is a high-ranked official in the military administration who resided in Alexandria1. However, in line with Armoni’s perspective, I am reluctant to accept this supposition2; there is no evidence for such an epimeletes in the military administration, nor did Kramer provide any convincing proof. But I must confess that I have no plausible explanation of this situation of the apparent superiority of the epimeletes over the strategos. So, our documents are somewhat perplexing concerning the relation of the epimeletes to the strategos. Apparently, the strategos and the epimeletes were not at different, at least not clearly distinguishable, levels, but rather stood side by side, representing two branches of the administration, the strategos, on the one hand, as the head of the nome, and the epimeletes, on the other, as the official with the decisive and broadest competences to control the bureaucracy of the nome as far as the revenues of the king were concerned. 6.2.2 The oikonomos:

3.

Document P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 P. Heid. VII 387

4. 5.

P. Heid. VII 388 P. Strasb. II 104

6. 7. 8.

W. Chr. 224 b W. Chr. 224 c P. Heid. VII 392

9.

P. Cair. Inv. 10307

10.

P. Lond. VII 2189= SB VI 9599 UPZ I 112= P. Paris 62

1. 2.

11. 12. 13.

1 2

P. Heid. VI 379 P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II)

Kramer, 2009, 320. See p.107, n. 2.

Date 221–203 B.C. After 2 Dec. 218 B.C.

Origin Unknown Arsinoites

Before 23 Aug. 212 B.C. 212 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C.

Arsinoites

12 Dec. 209 B.C. After 9 Dec. 209 B.C. Probably shortly after 12 Dec. 209. On or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C. 10 Dec. 209 B.C. 22 Jul. – 8 Sep. 204 B.C. 11–12 Dec. 204 B.C.? 6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.

Arsinoites Techtho (Herakleopolites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Oxyrhynchites Boubastos (Arsinoites) Berenikis Thesmophorou

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

P. Tebt. III 1, 776= Sel. Pap. II 271 PUG III 92= SB XVI 12821 P. Oxyrhyncha 17 P. Tebt. I 6= W. Chr. 332= C. Ord. Ptol. 47 P. Ryl. II 66 a

179–177 B.C. 29 Aug.–27 Sep. 165 B.C. After 150–149 B.C. After 3–12 Feb. 139 B.C. Late 2nd century B.C.

159

(Arsinoites) Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Kerkeosiris (?) (Arsinoites) Thebais

Table 6.5 The relation of the epimeletes to the oikonomos

We have 18 documents that attest a direct relationship between the epimeletes and the oikonomos1. Regarding P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 1 and 2 = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 (after 2 Dec. 218 B.C.), discussed above, I have tried to explain why the archiphylakites requested explicit permission from the epimeletes (or alternatively from the dioiketes) to release the two shipbuilders (p.49). At the end, we cannot know why he held this view, but at least three aspects can be considered. The epimeletes’ explicit responsibility for providing the ships for grain transport might have required this step in this case. It is probable that the archiphylakites just wanted to err on the side of caution by asking for permission from a higher authority. It is also possible that it was only a question of the chain of command, i.e., the archiphylakites was not answerable to the oikonomos in this case but rather to the epimeletes. Hence, the archiphylakites refused the oikonomos’ request and asked for permission from the epimeletes2. However, it would be expected that both the petitioner and the oikonomos should have been aware of the chain of command in this situation; so why did the petitioner ask the oikonomos to send a letter to the archiphylakites to release the two shipbuilders, and why did the oikonomos respond to this request, if both knew that the request would be refused because the archiphylakites was not answerable to the oikonomos? The specific reason for declining the request of the oikonomos escapes us, but the epimeletes had surely a broader competence than the oikonomos in this case, probably because of his responsibility for providing means of grain transport. And this was perhaps

1 For the functions of the oikonomos in the Ptolemaic administration, see Farah, 1987, 98– 105. 2 See p.49.

160

The Office of the Epimeletes

the essential aspect when the archiphylakites asked for a decision from either the epimeletes or the dioiketes1. The payment procedures by the state required distinct roles for both the epimeletes and the oikonomos. These two departments of the administration collaborated and cross-verified each other to facilitate the final payment. On one side were the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus, while the epimeletes stood on the other. Apart from this essential aspect, considerations of rank and dignity were of lesser importance. So, when in three documents, described in chapter two2, the oikonomos gave instructions concerning different payments according to letters of the epimeletes, this should not be interpreted in terms of command and fulfilment but rather in terms of the interaction between two different departments which was required in such cases. Therefore, if we rely only on such cases, we can draw no conclusions about superiority and rank. The reports of the real estate declarations that had to be submitted to the epimeletes after submitting the declarations themselves to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus3 may imply the epimeletes’ superiority. The declarant could not pay the tax unless a report of his declaration was submitted to the epimeletes4. This indicates that the epimeletes had the final 1

In P. Petr. II 20 R Col. 2, l. 3, the petitioner informed the epimeletes that the archiphylakites refused to release the shipbuilders ἐὰν µὴ ἢ σὺ ἢ ὁ διοικητὴς αὐτῶι γράψηι (unless either you (i.e., the epimeletes) or the dioiketes write to him. 2 P. Heid. VII 387 (before 23. Aug. 212 B.C.) is an order of payment to the sitologos to

measure a certain amount of grain κατὰ τὴν παρὰ Νικάνορος τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ ἐπιµελητοῦ ἐπιστολήν (according to the letter from Nikanor, the epimeletes, l. 4–6). Although the name of the sender in P. Heid. VII 388 (212 B.C.) is missing, it can be concluded that the sender was, as in P. Heid. VII 387, the oikonomos, who gave here orders of payment to the sitologos [κατὰ τὴν π]α̣ρὰ Θέωνος τοῦ [ἐπιµελητοῦ (?)] ἐπιστολήν (according to the letter from Theon, the epimeletes, l. 3–4). P. Strasb. II 104 (Jan. 210 B.C.) is another payment order of wages for some soldiers from the oikonomos to the trapezites κατακολουθήσας τοῖς ἐπεσταλµένοι[ς] ὑπὸ Ἀγαθ[οκλέους] τ[οῦ] παρὰ Πρωτάρχωι (l. Πρωτάρχου) τ̣ο[ῦ (?)] (?) ἐπιµελητοῦ (following the correspondence that had been sent by Agathokles the agent of Protarchos, the epimeletes, l. 2–6). See chapter two, nos. 7, 8, and 12. 3 See section 3.1.7. The reports to the epimeletes following the submission of declarations to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus come in the following documents: W. Chr. 224 c (after 9 Dec. 209 B.C.); P. Cair. Inv. 10307 (on or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C.); W. Chr. 224 a (12 Dec. 209 B.C.); W. Chr. 224 b (12 Dec. 209 B.C.); SB XXIV 16063 (12 Dec. 209 B.C.); P. Heid. VII 392 (probably shortly after 12 Dec. 209 B.C.); cf. table 2.2. A reference to such a report comes in P. Lond. VII 2189= SB VI 9599 (10 (?) Dec. 209 B.C.). 4 W. Chr. 224 a, l. 10–11: ἵνα τάξ[ωµαι] τὰ καθήκοντα τέλη τού[των] (so that I may be able to pay the tax due for them).

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

161

authority to act in this process, superior to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. But here again, we have an interplay of two departments, i.e., the epimeletes on one side and the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus on the other side, and the declarations would not have been enforceable unless they were authorised by both departments. If the procedure is interpreted in this way, we cannot conclude that either of the abovementioned was superior to the other. The absence of any reference to the epimeletes in the Rev. Laws Papyrus has only one reason: in 263–259 B.C., the office of the epimeletes did not exist1. Auctioning of taxes and taking sureties were, according to P. Rev. Laws and other documents2, in the responsibility of the oikonomos3. From UPZ I 112 (ca. 204 B.C), we know that finally two modifications had been made: the basilikos grammateus became responsible, together with the oikonomos, for auctioning taxes4, and the epimeletes became responsible, together with these two officials, for concluding the contracts of sureties and for surveying and administrating the payments into the royal bank5. P. Heid. VI 379 (11–12 Dec. 204 B.C.?) and P. Tebt. III 1, 776 = Sel. Pap. II 271 (179–177 B.C.) attest that the acceptance or refusal of sureties for the tax contracts was, at least from the late third century, the responsibility of the epimeletes. In the first of these documents, the oikonomos was asked by a petitioner to write to the epimeletes so that the latter might accept the sureties offered by him and transfer the contract to him (ἀξιῶ οὖν σε, ἐάν σοι φαίνηται, γράψαι Πτολεµαίωι τ[ῶι ἐπιµελητ]ῆ̣ι [λα]β̣ό̣ν̣τ̣α̣ [π]α̣[ρʼ] ἐ̣µ̣ο̣ῦ τοὺς ἐγγύους κατατ̣ά[ξ]αι ἐν ἐµοὶ τὰ στιβικά, ‘therefore I ask, if it seems good to you, to write to Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, to take the sureties proposed by me, and to allocate the stibika to me’, l. 17–22). In the second, the oikonomos is asked by a woman whose house was proposed as surety against her will, to write to the epimeletes so that he should refuse to accept it (ἐάν σοι φαίνηται, συντάξαι γράψαι Πτ[ολε]µαίωι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆι µὴ π[ροσ]δέχεσθαι τὴν Διδύµου τοῦ [δη]λ̣ο̣υ̣µένου οἰκ̣ίαν ἐ̣ν̣ διεγγυή[µατι], ‘if it seems good to you, to order to write to Ptolemaios, the epimeletes, not to accept the mentioned house as a surety’, l. 32–35). I rule out that asking the 1

See section 3.2. e.g., P. Hib. I 95 (257 B.C.). 3 See Harper, 1934a, 50–51. 4 See Harper, 1934a, 51; Oates, 1995, 62f.; Armoni, 2012, 117f. 5 UPZ I 112 Col. 2, l. 15. 2

162

The Office of the Epimeletes

oikonomos to write (γράψαι) to the epimeletes has a meaning of an order,

but rather it seems that, regarding the sureties of tax contracting, the epimeletes became an authority higher than that of the oikonomos; checking the sureties may have been the responsibility of the latter, but the final decision either to accept or refuse them was the responsibility of the epimeletes. So, I suggest that P. Heid. VI 379 and P. Tebt. III 1, 776 = Sel. Pap. II 271 imply the epimeletes’ superiority regarding accepting tax sureties. Still to be examined is in which order the two officials are named when they are mentioned together. As I said, listing officials in documents usually follows seniority in the hierarchy1. In both P. Ryl. II 66 a (late 2nd century B.C.) and P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150–149 B.C.), we have the following sequence: the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos. This seems to imply the epimeletes’ superiority to the other two officials2. However, in two other documents, P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II) (6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.) and PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 (29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C.), the order is as follows: in the first: the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos, the epimeletes, while in the second: the strategos, the oikonomos, the basilikos grammateus, the epimeletes. This order would imply that the epimeletes was inferior to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. It is difficult to give an explanation of this order. However, McGing suggested that scribes did not always get the right order of seniority or that petitioners did not necessarily understand it3. Indeed, I do not have any other explanation, especially in view of the lack of further evidence. In any case, if we disregard the aberrant order of officials mentioned above, our documents suggest a hierarchy where the epimeletes held a higher position than the oikonomos. But again, it has to be emphasised that

1

See above p.154, n. 3. To be added to this group is P. Tebt. I 6 = W. Chr. 332 = C. Ord. Ptol. 47 (after 3 – 12 Feb. 139 B.C.), in which we have the following sequence: the strategoi, phrourarchoi, epistatai, archiphylakitai, epimeletai, oikonomoi, basilikoi grammateis. This sequence reflects the epimeletes’ superiority to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus, but apart from that, police officials are named first, without taking into account further aspects of hierarchy. The epimeletes is mentioned after the epistates and the archiphylakitai, but he was certainly not inferior to them (see below section 6.6). 3 McGing, 2003, 54–55. 2

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

163

we have two branches which stand side by side and had to cooperate and did control each other. 6.2.3 The basilikos grammateus: 1.

Document P. Köln XI 448

2.

P. Strasb. II 104

3. 4. 5.

W. Chr. 224 c P. Lond VII 2189= SB VI 9599 P. Cair. Inv. 10307

6. 7.

W. Chr. 224 b P. Heid. VII 392

8. 9.

P. Tarich. 7 P. Tarich. 11

10.

P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II)

11.

29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C.) After 31 Jan. 162 B.C. Ca. 157 B.C.

14.

PUG III 92= SB XVI 12821 P. Tebt. III 2, 857 P. Amh. II 33= Sel. Pap. II 273= C. Ord. Ptol. 23 (l. 28-37) P. Amh. II 34 a + b

15.

P. Amh. II 34 c

Ca. 157 B.C.

16. 17. 18. 19.

P. Oxyrhyncha 17 P. Tebt. III 2, 927 P. Poethke 18 P. Ryl. II 66 a

After 150-149 B.C. 140 B.C.? 12 Jul. 137 B.C. Late 2nd century B.C.

12. 13.

Date Ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. After 9 Dec. 209 B.C. 10 Dec. 209 B.C. On or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. Probably shortly after 12 Dec. 209. 185 B.C? Before 29 Apr. 184 B.C. 6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.

Ca. 157 B.C.

Origin Herakleopolites Techtho (Herakleopolites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Krokodilopolis Arsinoites Mouchis (Arsinoites) Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Berenikis Thesmophorou (Arsinoites) Arsinoites Herakleopolites Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Herakleopolites Thebaid

Table 6.6 The relation of the epimeletes to the basilikos grammateus

The earliest reference to the basilikos grammateus in P. Rev. Laws sets out among his duties the measurement and recording of land1. Papyrological evidence attests numerous other functions attributed to the basilikos 1

Oates, 1995, 31.

164

The Office of the Epimeletes

grammateus, such as his functions in tax farming and grain transport1. The oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus were closely connected

departments which appear together in the documents over and over2. So, do our documents show the epimeletes’ seniority over the basilikos grammateus, as they tend to imply concerning the relation of the epimeletes to the oikonomos? As I discussed above in the context of the relation of the epimeletes to the oikonomos (6.2.2), the epimeletes’ receipt of reports of real estate declarations after the submission of the declarations themselves to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus may indicate the epimeletes’ superiority to the other two officials, but an interplay of departments cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the payment orders in P. Köln XI 448 (ca. 13 Apr. – 12. May 210 B.C.) and P. Strasb. II 104 (Jan. 210 B.C.) may also imply this superiority. But above all, as already said, these matters should rather be regarded from the angle of cooperation and checking which were the predominant features of the Ptolemaic administration and less as matters of rank or seniority. In the archive of the ταριχευταί (P. Tarich.), the two petitioners, in their petition to the chrematistai3, stated that the dioiketes wrote to/ordered the epimeletes to write to/order the basilikos grammateus to examine their complaint and to report on it (l. 24–30 ἔγραψεν {Ἡφαιστ̣[ί]ω[νι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆι} Ἀiρ̣γ\είωι τῶι ἐπιµελητῆ̣ι\, | ἵ\ν̣α̣ σ̣υ̣ντάξη̣ι\ γ\ρ[̣ ά]|[ψαι Πε]τ̣ο̣σ̣ί\ρ̣ε̣ι\ τ̣ῶ[ι4\ | βασιλικῶι γραµµατεῖ \ἐ̣π[̣ ισ]κ̣ε̣ψάµ̣ε̣ν̣ο̣ν̣/ ἀ̣ν̣ενέγκα̣ι)\ . Ἔγραψεν indeed refers to an order of the dioiketes to the epimeletes according to the seniority of the first. The supplemented σ̣υ̣ντάξη̣ι γ\̣ρ[̣ άψαι in l. 27 may also indicate an order from the epimeletes to the basilikos grammateus. The chain of command seems to be as follows: the dioiketes, the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus. This supposition can be evidenced by another document of the archive. From P. Tarich. 11 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.), we know that the epimeletes had already written to the basilikos grammateus, who wrote to the topogrammateus, who in turn wrote to the 1 The fundamental two studies about the basilikos grammateus are Oates, 1995, and now Armoni, 2012. 2 See Oates, 1995, 35, and Armoni, 2012, 37f. for the relation of the basilikos grammateus to the oikonomos. 3 P. Tarich. 7 (185 B.C?). 4 Reading as proposed by the editor in the commentary to l. 27–29.

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

165

komogrammateus to investigate the matter. It goes without saying that the komogrammateus was junior to the topogrammateus, and the latter was, in turn, junior to the basilikos grammateus, so the chain of order could have been as follows: the dioiketes, the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, the topogrammateus, the komogrammateus. The seniority of the epimeletes can also be traced in P. Poethke 18 (12 Jul. 137 B.C.); the basilikos grammateus gave his orders for the provisioning of the thalamegos of the epistrategos according to the instructions of the epimeletes (l. 3–4 κατὰ τὸν παρὰ Σαραπίωνος τοῦ ἐπιµελητο̣[ῦ] χρηµατισµόν). This shows, at least, that the epimeletes had authority over the basilikos grammateus in this matter1.

Otherwise, the order of the two officials when they are mentioned together in the documents is not consistent, as was already the case with the oikonomos. The following two documents show an ‘aberrant’ sequence: In P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II) (6 Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.), a letter concerning twelve missing artabas was sent to the komogrammateus and the latter was asked to take the appropriate measures so that the king does not suffer any loss (καλῶς οὖν ποήσεις σ̣υ̣ν̣τ̣ά̣ξ̣ας περὶ τούτων ἵνα τῶι\ βασι{λι}λεῖ µηθὲν διαπ̣έ̣σ̣η̣ι\, l. 29–31). Then the writer declares that, in consequence, [an account concerning this amount of grain] would be given to the basilikos grammateus and the oikonomos and Argeios the epimeletes, l. 31–32. I discussed above (p.81–82) how the royal decree in PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 (29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C.) assigned the duty of imposing deserted land on farmers to officials who are enumerated as follows: the strategos, the oikonomos, the basilikos grammateus, the epimeletes. Moreover, the agent of the basilikos grammateus is mentioned before the

1

The case of P. Poethke 18 should be treated with caution. Although I tend to refuse Kramer’s hypothesis that the epimeletes mentioned in this document is a high-ranked official in the military administration who resided in Alexandria (Kramer, 2009, 320; cf. above p.107, n. 2), because we do not have any evidence to support it, there is, on the other hand, admittedly no other attestation of an epimeletes giving instructions to the strategos. Therefore, any conclusions that could be extracted from this document regarding the relationship between the officials are doubtful. Although this papyrus shows no direct cooperation between the epimeletes and the basilikos grammateus, it still attests the fact that the basilikos grammateus would have acted in the light of the chrematismos of the epimeletes which reached him through the strategos (cf. Kramer, 2009, 318).

166

The Office of the Epimeletes

agent of the epimeletes in P. Tebt. III 2, 927 (140 B.C.?)1. In both cases, the ‘abnormal’ order can be explained by the fact that in these matters it was not the epimeletes who was primarily concerned. On the other hand, in P. Amh. II 33 = Sel. Pap. II 273 = C. Ord. Ptol. 23 (l. 28–37) = C. Pap. Hengstl 27 (l. 28–37), P. Amh. II 34 a + b, and P. Amh. II 34 c (all ca. 157 B.C.), the epimeletes precedes the basilikos grammateus2. Accordingly, concerning the violation committed by two men and reported in P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150–149 B.C.), the investigations had to be done, according to this document, by the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, the oikonomos of the meris, the archiphylakites of the meris, and others3. Here again as in the case of the oikonomos, there is the attestation of an ‘aberrant’ order of the officials, but the precedence of the basilikos grammateus and the oikonomos can be explained by the assumption that these officials were the primarily concerned in the matter in question. When we exclude the cases of abnormal order of officials, the rest of our documents that attest a relation of the epimeletes to the basilikos grammateus imply the first’s superiority over the latter. However, as said before concerning the epimeletes’ relationship to the oikonomos, it has to be emphasised that the epimeletes and the basilikos grammateus were two fiscal officials who worked side by side cooperating and checking each other.

1

In P. Tebt. III 2, 857 (after 31 Jan. 162 B.C.) a committee was formed of the basilikos grammateus, the agent of the epimeletes, and the epistates, to investigate the burglary of a

granary in a certain village. I do not consider this document evidence of an order because the comparison here is between the basilikos grammateus and an agent of the epimeletes. Hence, it is reasonable that this agent comes next to the basilikos grammateus. 2 In P. Amh. II 33, the petitioners stated that a trial was arranged ἐπὶ [Ζω]πύρου τοῦ ἐπι[µ]ελητοῦ καὶ Πετεαρψενήσιος τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γ[ρα]µµατέως (before Zopyros, the epimeletes, and Peteharpsenesis, the basilikos grammateus, l. 7–8). In P. Amh. II 34 a + b, the petitioners sent a joint petition to [Ζωπύρωι ἐπι]µελητῆι [καὶ Πετεαρψενήσει βασιλικῶι γραµµατεῖ] (Zopyros, the epimeletes, and Peteharpsenesis, the basilikos grammateus, l. 2). In P. Amh. II 34 c, the petitioners, in their petition to the royal court, stated that they could prove their question before Ζωπύρωι τῶι [ἐπιµελητῆι καὶ Πετεαρψενήσει τῶι βασιλικ]ῶι γραµµατεῖ (Zopyros, the epimeletes, and Peteharpsenesis, the basilikos grammateus, l. 8– 9). 3 P. Oxyrhyncha 17, 16–21: παραγ^ε[̣ νοµέ]ν̣ο̣υ̣ δὲ Ἀπολ̣λ̣ωbνί̣ ο ^ ̣υ̣ τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ ἐ̣πι̣ ^µε̣ λ̣ ̣η̣[τοῦ] καὶ Πτολεµαί^ου̣ ̣ τ̣οῦ β̣αc̣ ̣[ιλικοῦ] γ^ρ̣αµ ̣ ̣[µατέ]ωc καὶ Δηµ̣η̣τ̣ρ̣ίο ^ ̣υ̣ τ̣οῦ̣ ̣ τ̣ῆ̣c̣ µ̣ερ̣ ̣ί[^ δοc] οἰκονόµου καὶ^ Πbετ̣ ε̣ ̣νο ̣ ̣ύβ ̣ εωbc τοῦ [τῆc] µερίδοc ἀρχιφ^υ̣λ̣ακ ̣ ̣ί^το ̣ ̣υ̣ καὶ τούτ̣ωb[ν]…

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

167

6.2.4 The nome sitologos: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Document P. Heid. VII 387 P. Heid. VII 388 P. Heid. VII 389 P. Köln XI 448

5.

BGU XX 2840

Date Before 23 Aug. 212 B.C. 212 B.C. April/May 212 B.C. Ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C. 176 B.C.

Origin Arsinoites Arsinoites Arsinoites Herakleopolites Herakleopolites

Table 6.7 The relation of the epimeletes to the nome sitologos

The Ptolemaic state collected its dues either in kind or in money. The dues in kind were paid into the royal granaries (basilikoi thesauroi), directed by the sitologoi. Above these officials is the sitologos of the nome, then, in the Arsinoites, come the sitologoi of the merides1, the sitologoi of the various districts (toparchies), and finally, the sitologoi at the village level2. P. Heid. VII 387 (before 23 Aug. 212 B.C.) and P. Heid. VII 388 (212 B.C.) show the epimeletes’ superiority over the nome sitologos. The oikonomos ordered the nome sitologos to measure certain amounts of grain according to a letter/order from the epimeletes. However, in P. Heid. VII 389 (Apr./May 212 B.C.), the sitologos was directly ordered by the epimeletes to measure grain according to a letter from an official whose name is missing. A direct order from the epimeletes to the nome sitologos can also be found in P. Köln XI 448 and BGU XX 2840. 6.2.5 The trapezites: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Document P. Strasb. II 105 P. Strasb. II 103 P. Strasb. II 104 P. Strasb. II 106 P. Strasb. II 107 P. Strasb. II 108

Date Dec. 211 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. 210 B.C. 210 B.C. 10 Feb. 210 B.C.

Origin Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Techtho (Herakleopolites) Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Herakleopolites

Table 6.8 The relation of the epimeletes to the trapezites 1 For the divisions of the Arsinoites, see Derda, 2006, 70f.; for the meris of Themistes, see Römer, 2019. 2 Noshy, 1976, 104; Manning, 2019, 108 and 113.

168

The Office of the Epimeletes

Banking was introduced in Egypt by the Greeks; it was about 265 B.C. that Ptolemy II Philadelphos introduced state banks1. Royal/public bankers are found at the nome level and down to the village level. Among their tasks were receiving the taxes in money, paying salaries for soldiers and civil officials, and administering private accounts2. The relation of the epimeletes to the bankers (trapezitai) is attested in six Strasbourg documents (table 6.8). P. Strasb. II 105 implies that the Hermias mentioned in these documents was a trapezites at nome level; the document is a payment order from the epimeletes to Hermias, the trapezites, to pay out a certain sum of money intended for wages of some officials at the office of the epimeletes. It seems unlikely that those officials of the office of the epimeletes, who must have been residing in the metropolis of the nome, got their salaries from a district or a village bank, but rather from a bank in the metropolis. These six Strasburg documents show that the trapezites was answerable to the epimeletes3. As I mentioned in chapter three4, the 2nd century B.C. witnessed a change regarding the office of the oikonomos when two officials began to hold this position. The first was called οἰκονόµος τῶν σιτικῶν, who supervised the revenues in kind, which also meant supervision of the royal granaries and their directors, the sitologoi, and of the wineries and their directors, the οἰνολόγοι. The second was the οἰκονόµος τῶν ἀργυρικῶν, who was responsible for revenues in money and supervised the trapezitai. It goes without saying that the epimeletes’ superiority to the oikonomos, if he really was so, would also include superiority of the epimeletes over the sitologoi and the trapezitai. 6.3 The relation of the epimeletes to the district officials: The above-discussed evidence shows that the epimeletes was probably the head of the financial administration at the nome level, probably just below

See P. Hib. I 29 (265 B.C.); Clarysse and Vandorpe, 2008, 154. Vandorpe, 2019, 278. For more information about banking in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bogaert, 1981, 86–99; Bogaert, 1994; Bogaert, 2001, 173–288. See also the earlier views of Heichelheim, 1933, col. 181–183; Préaux, 1939a, 281–288; Rostovtzeff, 1941, 404–406. 3 P. Strasb. II 103, l. 1–6; P. Strasb. II 105, l. 1–2; P. Strasb. II 107, l. 1–4; P. Strasb. II 108, l. 1, 5. 4 See p.53, n. 1. 1 2

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

169

the strategos, and senior to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus (but the point that different departments complemented and checked each other should not be neglected). The position of the epimeletes undoubtedly placed him in a higher rank than the district (toparchia and meris) and village officials. 6.3.1 The topogrammateus1: 1. 2.

Document P. Mich. XVIII 776 P. Heid. VI 382

Date 22 June 194 B.C. After 158 B.C.

Origin Mouchis (Arsinoites) Samaria (Arsinoites)

Table 6.9 The relation of the epimeletes to the topogrammateus

A direct relationship between the epimeletes and the topogrammateus is attested in only two documents (table 6.9). In P. Mich. XVIII 776 (22 June 194 B.C.) the epimeletes is informed by the topogrammateus about an attack on men who were probably doing irrigation work. In the second document, P. Heid. VI 382 (after 158 B.C.), the petitioner asked the epimeletes to write to the topogrammateus to investigate an injustice that the petitioner suffered at the hands of the scribe of the peasants (ὁ γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν) who added an extra aroura’s worth of rent to his regular rent. The topogrammateus was the official responsible for land records in his toparchia2, so it is clear, especially from P. Heid. VI 382 that the topogrammateus was subordinate to the epimeletes in these agricultural affairs, because of the epimeletes’ responsibility for them, which I have discussed earlier3. It is clear that the petitioner in P. Heid. VI 382 was aware of this subordination. Moreover, the probable superiority of the epimeletes over the basilikos grammateus must have also included superiority of the epimeletes over the topogrammateus since the latter was a direct subordinate to the basilikos grammateus. 6.3.2 The district sitologos: 1.

Document P. Tebt. III 2, 941

Date 179–177 B.C.

Origin Arsinoites

See Huss, 2011, 68f, and see note 316 for a detailed bibliography. Manning, 2003, 52. 3 See section 5.1. 1

2

170

The Office of the Epimeletes 2.

P. Erasm. II 31

3.

P. Erasm. II 32

4.

P. Erasm. II 33

5.

P. Erasm. II 34

30 Sep.151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C. 30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149 B.C. Mid-second century B.C. Mid-second century B.C.

Arsinoites Arsinoites Arsinoites Arsinoites

Table 6.10 The relation of the epimeletes to the district sitologos

The epimeletes is attested in five documents giving – without any intermediate stage – payment orders to the district sitologoi. Adamas, the sitologos mentioned in P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (179–177 B.C.), was not a district sitologos, but rather he seems to have been a sitologos of the meris of Polemon, in which the royal granary of Oxyrhyncha was the main one1. The same can be said about Dionysios, the sitologos mentioned in P. Erasm. II 31 (30 Sep.151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 32 (30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149 B.C.), P. Erasm. II 33 (mid-second century B.C.), and P. Erasm. II 34 (mid-second century B.C.). The cargoes which would have been shipped from the harbour of Kaine came from the ergasterion of Oxyrhyncha. The sitologoi mentioned in these documents, whether district sitologoi or sitologoi of the meris of Polemon, were answerable to the epimeletes, as expected. 6.4 The relation of the epimeletes to the village officials: 6.4.1 The komarches: 1.

Document P. Tebt. III 1, 709

Date 27 Oct. 159 B.C.

Origin Arsinoites

Table 6.11 The relation of the epimeletes to the komarches

The komarches was subordinate to the toparches, and both were subordinate to the nomarches2. 1

See the description of the archive of Adamas on Trismegistos (TM Arch 2), and see also Clarysse, 2008, 60f. 2 Manning, 2019, 111. For more information and an extensive bibliography concerning the komarches, see Huss, 211, 116–117, and note 624. It is noteworthy that the offices of the

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

171

Huss stated that the komarches was responsible only for the affairs of the royal farmers and royal land1. However, the only attestation of a relationship between the epimeletes and the komarches is P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.). In this document, the komarches is not involved in any agricultural affairs, but rather in those of the papyrus monopoly. The komarches is one of the officials responsible for handing any illegal papyrus dealer or smuggler of papyrus over to the epimeletes. 6.4.2 The komogrammateus: Document 1. Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 2. P. Tebt. III 1, 709 3. P. Ryl. IV 578= C. Pap. Hengstl 151= C. Pap. Jud. I 43 4. P. Tebt. III 2, 936 5. P. Oxyrhyncha 17 6. P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15

Date 27 Aug. 202 B.C.

Origin Arsinoites

27 Oct. 159 B.C. 2 Oct. 159 – 1 Oct. 158 B.C.

Arsinoites Arsinoites

Ca. 155 B.C. After 150–149 B.C. 28 Jun. 114 B.C.

Arsinoites Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Table 6.12 The relation of the epimeletes to the komogrammateus

The komogrammateus, under the supervision of the basilikos grammateus, was the backbone in the Ptolemaic administration of the royal resources2. The functions of the komogrammateus included land administration, taxation, distribution of seed loans, irrigation, counting of livestock, controlling monopolies, as well as judicial duties and other functions3. In this respect, these functions of the komogrammateus at the village level resemble those of the epimeletes at the nome level, which I have discussed in chapters three and five. Therefore, it is not surprising that our documents attest a relationship between the two officials, in which the epimeletes was certainly superior to the komogrammateus. basilikos grammateus, the topogrammateus, and the komogrammateus became more prominent at the expense of the offices of the nomarches and the komarches. 1 Huss, 211, 116–117. 2 Manning, 2019, 111. 3 The study of the komogrammateus in Ptolemaic Egypt by Criscuolo, 1978, 3–101, is still fundamental, esp. p.53–90 for the functions of the komogrammateus. See also Lewis, 1986, 104–123, and Verhoogt, 1998 for Menches, the komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris.

172

The Office of the Epimeletes

The komogrammateus appealed to the epimeletes in Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 (27 Aug. 202 B.C.) when he faced certain problems with grain transport. The responsibility of the two officials for irrigation affairs was the subject of the correspondence in P. Tebt. III 2, 936 (ca. 155 B.C.); this document shows the epimeletes receiving a report about irrigation from the komogrammateus through a third party, who might have been the topogrammateus. State monopolies were also a common interest of the epimeletes and the komogrammateus, so in P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.), the komogrammateus was one of the officials responsible for handing any illegal papyrus dealer or smuggler over to the epimeletes (see above 5.5.2). In the case of infringements committed by persons acting under governmental authority, the komogrammateus could be addressed as he was in P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150–149 B.C.), in which he was the authority charged with carrying out the instructions of the epimeletes, the basilikos grammateus, and the oikonomos concerning two men who violated the royal decrees and collected money illegally from the royal farmers. In P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap. Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43 (2 Oct. 159 – 1 Oct. 158 B.C.), a farmer, who felt wronged by the komogrammateus demanding unjustified rents (ἐκφόρια), wrote to the epimeletes to examine the case and to re-establish the correct rent. The komogrammateus’ subordination to the epimeletes is most vividly demonstrated by P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 (28 Jun. 114 B.C.). Menches, the komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris, was warned that the epimeletes would visit the village. The komogrammateus should have all the accounts of the village in order, so that the epimeletes would not stay too long in the village, which might get Menches in trouble. This document clearly indicates that the komogrammateus had the responsibility, ahead of the epimeletes, to maintain precise records of the village, especially accounts of arrears, and that the epimeletes inspected and checked these accounts from time to time. 6.4.3 The village sitologos: Document 1. P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280

Date 221–203 B.C.

Origin Unknown

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials 2. P. Köln XI 448 3. P. Tebt. III 1, 741

Ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C. 187/186 B.C

173

Herakleopolites Arsinoites

Table 6.13 The relation of the epimeletes to the village sitologos

So far, the documents that attest a relationship between the epimeletes and the local sitologoi show that the epimeletes’ communication with those officials took place through his agents. In P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 (221– 203 B.C.), an amount of loaned seed was measured by the sitologos in the presence of the agent of the epimeletes and the agent of the oikonomos. In P. Köln XI 448, the payment orders of the epimeletes reached the local sitologos through the nome sitologos. In P. Tebt. III 1, 741 (187/186 B.C.), the sitologos of Boubastos faced a problem concerning an amount of grain owed by someone or some people, and the sitologos wrote to the epimeletes to inform him of the situation; the epimeletes then charged his agent to visit the village and take certain preliminary measures until he could arrive in person. 6.5 The relation of the epimeletes to the military officials1:

2.

Document P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336= Jur. Pap. 56 b P. Köln XI 448

3. 4. 5.

P. Strasb. II 103 P. Strasb. II 104 BGU XX 2840

1.

Date 30 June 217 B.C. Ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. 176 B.C.

Origin Ptolemais Hormou (Arsinoites) Herakleopolites Techtho (Herakleopolites) Techtho (Herakleopolites) Herakleopolites

Table 6.14 The relation of the epimeletes to the military officials

Five documents (table 6.14) provide evidence for a direct relationship between the epimeletes and the military administration. Within these documents, the military grammateus serves as the common denominator. The epimeletes appears to have a common interest with the military administration – the military grammateus in particular – in (1) getting the 1 For detailed descriptions of the Ptolemaic military administration, see Fischer-Bovet, 2014, 116f.; Fischer-Bovet and Sänger, 2019, 163–170.

174

The Office of the Epimeletes

cleroi back to the state when the holder of the cleros died (P. Lille I 4 = W.

Chr. 336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b (30 Jun. 217 B.C.). (2) paying the soldiers’ wages either in kind or in money (P. Köln XI 448 (ca. 13 April – 12 May 210 B.C.), P. Strasb. II 103 (Jan. 210 B.C.), P. Strasb. II 104 (Jan. 210 B.C.), and BGU XX 2840 (176 B.C.)). Our documents do not show the epimeletes’ seniority to the military officials, nor do they show the military officials’ seniority to the epimeletes, but rather a relationship between independent departments. 6.6 The relation of the epimeletes to the police officials: Police officers and guards helped soldiers maintain order and ensure good conditions for the daily tasks of the administration. The heads of the police at the nome level were the epistatai phylakiton (police commissioners), then came the archiphylakitai (police chiefs), and finally, there were the phylakitai (police officers) in the villages1. Our documents attest direct relationships between the epimeletes and other police officials as follows: 6.6.1 The epistates: 1. 2.

Document P. Vindob. G56637 P. Tebt. III 2, 857

3.

P. Tebt. III 1, 709

Date 190 B.C. After 31 Jan. 162 B.C. 27 Oct. 159 B.C.

Origin Herakleopolites Arsinoites Arsinoites

Table 6.15 The relation of the epimeletes to the epistates

The epistates is a police official who had regular, close supervision over the phylakitai. The epistates had many functions in the realm of policing: among others, he visited crime scenes, made investigations, sealed off homes and businesses, arrested malefactors, and transported them to trials2. The epistates seems to be answerable to the epimeletes, as evidenced by P. Vindob. G56637 (190 B.C.). When a certain potter was wronged by the komophylakites, he sent his petition to the dioiketes who referred the matter 1 Fischer-Bovet and Sänger, 2019, 169–170. For police in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Bauschatz, 2013. 2 See Bauschatz, 2013, 101–102f.

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

175

to the epimeletes, who ordered the epistates of the village to hand over the komophylakites to him (the epimeletes). Afterwards, a certain Ammonios, who received this order (l. 19 ὁ [Ἀµ]µ̣ώνιος ὁ [µετ]αλαβών), was persuaded by the komophylakites not to hand him over to the epimeletes, so that the petitioner contacted the dioiketes again. I do not think that his procrastination can be explained by denying the epimeletes’ superiority over the police officials. Instead, it appears that local corruption may be the reason, possibly due to the connections between the accused phylakites and Ammonios. The epimeletes and the epistates had a common task in conducting investigations. P. Tebt. III 2, 857 (after 31 Jan. 162 B.C.) shows an epistates accompanying the agent of the epimeletes in investigating a burglary from a royal granary. Arresting smugglers and those who broke royal monopolies seems to have been a task frequently required of the epistates, and we have seen in chapter five that controlling royal monopolies was of the main duties of the epimeletes (see 5.5). So, in P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.), the epistates ranks higher than the officials who were responsible for delivering the smugglers of state papyrus to him (see above 6.4.1, 6.4.2). 6.6.2 The archiphylakites1: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Document P. Petr. II 20 1 R = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 P. Petr. II 1 P. Duk. Inv. 676 r. P. Tarich. 5 P. Tebt. III 1, 741 P. Tebt. III 1, 709 P. Oxyrhyncha 17

Date After 2 Dec. 218 B.C.

Origin Arsinoites

27 Aug. 202 B.C.

Arsinoites

3rd century B.C. 196/195 B.C.? Ca. 189 B.C. 187/186 B.C 27 Oct. 159 B.C. After 150–149 B.C.

Arsinoites Arsinoites Tanis (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

Table 6.16 The relation of the epimeletes to the archiphylakites

The archiphylakites was answerable to the epimeletes; this is evident in P. Petr. II 20 1 R = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 (after 2 Dec. 218 B.C.), in 1

For the functions of the archiphylakites, see Bauschatz, 2013, 68f.

176

The Office of the Epimeletes

which the archiphylakites refused the order of the oikonomos to set free the two shipbuilders and asked for an order from either the epimeletes or the dioiketes. Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 (27 Aug. 202 B.C.) contains a similar situation: the komogrammateus, who was responsible for the transport of a certain quantity of gain, faced a problem because the archiphylakites had blocked it, and therefore he wrote to the epimeletes to write to the archiphylakites to set free the cargo. In P. Tebt. III 1, 741 (187/186 B.C.), the epimeletes gave instructions to the archiphylakites without any intermediate official. The epimeletes was also asked in P. Petr. II 1 (3rd century B.C.) to write to the archiphylakites to provide protection for a land surveyor who took refuge in the fort in Pastophorion because he was wronged by certain officials who were in the epimeletes’ service. Very similar to this situation is the appeal of the two taricheutai in P. Tarich. 5 (ca. 189 B.C.); the two petitioners in this document seem to be annoyed by their rivals who were on good terms with the local phylakitai, and so, the two taricheutai asked the epimeletes to write to the archiphylakites to write to his phylakitai to stop their wrongdoings against the two petitioners. In P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.), the archiphylakites was one of the officials responsible for handing any illegal papyrus dealer or smuggler over to the epimeletes (see above 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.1). And in P. Oxyrhyncha 17 (after 150–149 B.C.), the archiphylakites shared the investigation of two men who had violated the royal decrees and collected money illegally from royal farmers with the epimeletes and the basilikos grammateus. Although not showing direct contact between the epimeletes and the archiphylakites, P. Duk. Inv. 676 r. can be interpreted (among other possibilities1) to show that the tax collectors who petitioned the epimeletes were aware that the archiphylakites was subordinate to him. Hence, they resorted to the epimeletes to summon the guilty archiphylakites and to investigate the matter. So, it is clear from the above-displayed documents that the archiphylakites was answerable to the epimeletes, and this relation of subordination was known to the petitioners in the above-mentioned documents.

1

See above p.123–124.

Chapter Six: The Relation of the Epimeletes to Other Officials

177

6.6.3 The phylakitai: 1. 2. 3.

Document P. Vindob. G56637 P. Tebt. III 1, 709 P. Tebt. III 1, 731

Date 190 B.C. 27 Oct. 159 B.C. 153/152 B.C. (?) or 142 /141 B.C. (?)

Origin Herakleopolites Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Table 6.17 The relation of the epimeletes to the phylakitai

It goes without saying that the epimeletes’ superiority over the epistates and the archiphylakites means that he is superior to the phylakitai. This relationship is also attested in our documents. In the above-mentioned P. Vindob. G56637 (190 B.C.), when a phylakites committed a wrongdoing against a certain potter who was doing irrigation work, the epimeletes asked the epistates to hand this phylakites over to him. In P. Tebt. III 1, 709 (27 Oct. 159 B.C.), the phylakitai were responsible for handing any illegal papyrus dealer or smuggler over to the epimeletes (see above 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.1, 6.6.2)1. 6.7 The relation of the epimeletes to the judicial officials (the chrematistai): Date Ca. 189 B.C. Ca. 157 B.C.

Origin Tanis (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites)

3.

Document P. Tarich. 5 P. Amh. II 33= Sel. Pap. II 273= C. Ord. Ptol. 23 (l. 28– 37) = C. Pap. Hengstl 27 (l. 28–37) P. Amh. II 34 a + b

Ca. 157 B.C.

4.

P. Amh. II 34 c

Ca. 157 B.C.

5.

P. Tebt. III 2, 934

Ca. 157 B.C.

Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites)

1. 2.

Table 6.18 The relation of the epimeletes to the chrematistai

1

The guards in Tebt. III 1, 731 (153–152 B.C. (?) or 142–141 B.C.?) were appointed for guarding crops (γενηµατοφυλακία), and probably not police guards (phylakitai). Therefore, even though it is listed in table 6.17 above, drawing conclusions about the relationship between the epimeletes and the phylakitai from it is difficult.

178

The Office of the Epimeletes

The epimeletes shared the duties of the chrematistai in trials that affected the royal treasury. The disputed geras in the taricheutai archive was undoubtedly of interest to the basilikon, so the petitioners in P. Tarich. 5, who were probably aware of the epimeletes’ relation to the chrematistai in matters that affect the basilikon, asked him to write to the court of the chrematistai concerning the geras. The case of the corrupt komarches in P. Amh. II 33 (ca. 157 B.C.), P. Amh. II 34 a + b (ca. 157 B.C.), and P. Amh. II 34 c (ca. 157 B.C.) shows explicitly that the epimeletes took part in the proceedings of the court of the chrematistai regarding the trial of the aforesaid komarches. In P. Tebt. III 2, 934 (ca. 157 B.C.), the epimeletes received a report of a decision by the chrematistai concerning a trial in which the epimeletes had taken part.

CONCLUSION This study of the epimeletes in Ptolemaic Egypt proves that the Ptolemies followed Greek traditions when they wanted to create an additional position within the administration’s pre-existing framework, a position whose holder carried out several duties with the primary objective of monitoring the finances and intensifying control of the royal revenues and expenditures. What they wanted they could find in the administrative systems of Classical and Hellenistic Greece, especially Athens, which is for us the bestknown example. There, however, the duties of the epimeletai were always specialised; every epimeletes carried out but one single duty. There were, e.g., the epimeletes of the water sources, the epimeletes of the emporion, the epimeletes of the dockyards, etc. Our epigraphic and literary sources show that the designations of these epimeletai were always associated with a genitive to express their special task. Later, in the Hellenistic period, there were, as historiographical and epigraphical sources show, epimeletai with general and extensive powers over a defined administrative unit, a city or a fortress for example. They acted as the king’s delegates and had a position of special trust. To some extent, the use of the term epimeletes for these representatives of the king, who acted as governors, already points to the Ptolemaic epimeletes with his far-reaching competencies executed in a special relationship to the king. The Ptolemies took over this model, but they modified it according to their needs by assigning extensive competencies to the epimeletes. So of course, this increased number of functions could no longer be specified by the use of a defining genitive. The date of the incorporation of the office of the epimeletes into the Ptolemaic administration is controversial. The office of the epimeletes was an innovation of either Ptolemy III Euergetes or Ptolemy IV Philopator. For the reasons I stated in section 3.2, I prefer a date under Philopator for the introduction of the office to the Ptolemaic administration. The epimeletes had many duties within the Ptolemaic administration. Already in the 3rd century B.C., the epimeletes was involved in grain transport. The papyrological evidence shows that he was (among others) responsible for providing ships as the means of grain transport. We also encounter him engaged in the administration of the cleruchic land: he was

180

The office of the Epimeletes

one of the officials responsible for returning cleroi to the state after the death of their holders (the cleruchoi). The epimeletes is also attested as playing a role in land auctions. The function of the epimeletes in tax farming is also attested in the 3rd century B.C.; accepting or refusing the sureties that a contractor provided was one of the responsibilities of the epimeletes, as well as handing over the contracts of sureties to the royal banks. In the 3rd century B.C., the epimeletes also played an important role in controlling state expenditures. He issued payment orders either in kind or in money both to the sitologos (payments in kind) and to the trapezites (payments in money). Our documents also show that the epimeletes, along with the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus, played a prominent role in remunerating the soldiers. One of the well-documented functions of the epimeletes in the 3rd century B.C. is that he received reports of real estate declarations. A declarant could only pay his tax, assessed by means of his declaration, when he was enabled to do so by the epimeletes, after the latter had received the report of the declaration submitted to the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. The epimeletes also practised a judicial function in matters affecting the royal treasury (the basilikon). When we get on to the functions of the epimeletes attested in the 2nd century B.C., we find a continuation of almost all his functions that are known to be carried out in the 3rd century B.C. But the documents of the 2nd century B.C. attest additional tasks as well. This is certainly a consequence of the fact that we have many more relevant documents from the 2nd century B.C. than the 3rd since the office had been instituted only in the late 3rd century B.C. Some of the functions of the epimeletes already known for the 3rd century B.C. are now much better documented, e.g., his function in grain transport. The papyri show that he was not only involved in the Nile transport of grain but also in its land transport. On the other hand, some other functions are, so far, no longer attested, e.g., receiving real estate declarations. Nevertheless, the epimeletes is still attested receiving apomoira declarations. The documents of the 2nd century continue to attest the epimeletes’ prominent role in surveying agricultural matters. The epimeletes was involved in leasing royal land and surveying irrigation works. He was

Conclusion

181

concerned with irregularities in land survey and inspection and with guarding crops. All this is based in his duty to prevent losses to the revenues of the king. One of the prominent functions of the epimeletes that emerges in our documents from the 2nd century B.C. is his role in controlling state monopolies. It is well known that oil was one of the most important monopolised commodities in Ptolemaic Egypt, and the state was keen to keep all stages of its production under close control. The epimeletes was involved in all phases of its production, from planting and harvesting oilbearing crops to the retail stage. Besides oil, the epimeletes also had a role in controlling the state monopolies on papyrus, salt, tanning, textiles and garments, and goldsmithery, whether these commodities were fully or partially monopolised. One of the principal responsibilities of the epimeletes is the collection state arrears. Our records reveal instances of him conducting visits to villages to verify the village scribes’ accounts and to collect debts owed to the state. The 2nd century Ptolemaic epimeletes was one of the officials responsible for controlling the so-called syntaxis (the annual grant to the temples to compensate for the temples’ loss of the apomoira). I suggested that the epimeletes carried out this function through a subordinate who resided in the temple and had the same title. We do not know whether this practice took place in all temples or just in the prominent ones or whether it was a practice confined to the Serapieion in Memphis. The epimeletes appears in the documents to have direct relationships with officials of all levels of the Ptolemaic administration: the central administration in Alexandria as well as the regional administration in the nome and the local one in the districts and the villages. For his relationship to the officials of the central administration, the epimeletes was lower in rank than the dioiketes and the epistrategos. The hypodioiketes was senior to what I suppose to be a subordinate epimeletes in the temples. We do not have evidence for the hypodioiketes’ seniority over the main epimeletes although this seniority is expected. At the nome level, it is difficult to determine precisely the relation of the epimeletes to the strategos, the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. Apparently, the strategos and the epimeletes were not officials at different levels, but rather stood side by side, representing different branches of the

182

The office of the Epimeletes

administration: the strategos, on the one hand was the head of the nome, and the epimeletes, on the other was the official with the broadest competence in the bureaucracy of the nome as far as the revenues of the king were concerned. Some documents tend to show the epimeletes’ seniority over the oikonomos and the basilikos grammateus. Nevertheless, it has to be emphasised that we may have different branches which stand side by side and had to cooperate and check each other. This leads to the conclusion that the epimeletes represented a department of the administration on its own. Regarding the nome sitologos and trapezites, the documents explicitly show the seniority of the epimeletes to these two officials. At the levels of the district and village administration, the epimeletes is attested to have direct relationships with various officials, including the topogrammateus, the district sitologos, the komarches, the komogrammateus, and the village sitologos. Our documents show the epimeletes’ seniority to all these officials. In addition to the epimeletes’ relationship to financial and administrative officials, he also had direct relationships with military officials, police officials, and the chrematistai. The documents do not show the epimeletes’ seniority to the military officials, nor do they show the reverse, but rather a relationship between independent departments. The same can be said about the relationship between the epimeletes and the chrematistai; the epimeletes shared the work of the chrematistai in the matters affecting the basilikon. On the other hand, the documents show the epimeletes’ seniority to the police officials; the epistates, the archiphylakites, and the phylakitai appear to have been answerable to him. It is well known that names are no longer indicators of their bearers’ ethnos after the 3rd century B.C. Documents show that the holders of the position of the epimeletes in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. bore Greek names (appendix IV). It can be concluded that this position, at least in the 3rd century B.C., was confined to Greeks. This matches the general practice of the Ptolemies of assigning important positions to Greeks. The evidence we have so far does not provide any insights into the qualifications needed for holding the position of the epimeletes, nor do we know anything about his salary. It is only P. Stras. II 105 that gives us information about the wages of some subordinates working in his office. With these many and important functions, this official could be expected to be promoted to higher positions within the Ptolemaic administration after

Conclusion

183

fulfilling his duties as an epimeletes. I tried to trace the people who held this position to figure out whether any of them was promoted to a higher position. Unfortunately, nothing could be concluded. So far, our documents only show that some epimeletai moved between different nomes with the same job description or that one epimeletes could have extended competence over more than one nome under exceptional circumstances. So far, the last precisely dated attestation of the epimeletes in Ptolemaic papyri is in P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 (28 Jun. 114 B.C.) or in P. Tebt. Ι 72 (Mar.–Apr. 113 B.C.). The second half of the 2nd century B.C. seems to show that the importance of the epimeletes declined in favour of that of the ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων. So far, there is no attestation of the epimeletes in the documents of the 1st century B.C. It is possible that the Ptolemies abolished this position during their last century. We know that the office of the epimeletes reappears in the Roman period when an epimeletes is mentioned in P. Mich. V 244 (AD 43), but this Roman epimeletes is a different story.

APPENDIX I THE DATE AND PROVENANCE OF P. PETR. II 20 R COL. 1 AND 2 = P. PETR. III 36 B = W. CHR. 166, P. PETR. III 36 (A) R, AND P. PETR. III 36 (A) V = M. CHR. 5 These three documents present problems regarding their dates and provenances and raise questions that have a bearing on the epimeletai who are mentioned in them. The problems were discussed by Swarney who described the situation as follows: the four epimeletai mentioned in these documents, together with P. Lille 4 (Dionysodoros PP I 937, Ptolemaios PP I+VIII 951, Nikanor PP I 948, and another epimeletes whose name does not survive PP VIII 936a), must be dated to the reign of Philopator1. Dionysodoros had preceded Nikanor ten months or fewer before the date of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V. Dionysodoros was linked in the same papyrus to Diophanes (l. 26) who may have been the strategos of the Arsinoites (PP I 247). Since both Nikanor and Dionysodoros appear on the verso of a papyrus sent to Ptolemaios (P. Petr. III 36 (a) R), who in turn was in the correspondence of Theophilos (in which a date early in year 5 was mentioned), a sequence Dionysodoros – Nikanor prior to year 5 followed by Ptolemaios and the unnamed epimeletes (in P. Lille I 4)2 who in turn was followed by a second unknown epimeletes around Phamenoth. Although this seemed to be a reasonable reconstruction, the rapid changes of the epimeletai are disturbing. We would have to account for a minimum of five Arsinoite epimeletai in a relatively short period of time3. In order to avoid this conclusion, Swarney suggested the insertion of Nikanor into the lacuna in l. 8 of P. Lille I 44 to reduce the number of the active epimeletai in this short period, but there, nevertheless, remained too rapid a succession of Arsinoite epimeletai5. Therefore, Swarney in a further step, suggested considering Ptolemaios to be an epimeletes of the Herakleopolites, because 1

Swarney, 1985, 161. See p.28–31 for the content of P. Lille I 4. 3 Swarney, 1985, 161. 4 For this reading, see p.31. 5 Swarney, 1985, 161. 2

Appendix I

185

it is not apparent why an epimeletes of the Arsinoites should give instructions to an archiphylakites in the Herakleopolites. So, he proposed as a modified sequence for the Arsinoites Dionysodoros, Nikanor, and the unnamed epimeletes, and in the Herakleopolites Ptolemaios1. But this hypothesis raised another problem: now we must explain how a petition addressed to Ptolemaios the presumable epimeletes in the Herakleopolites2 contains on the verso a petition addressed to Nikanor, the epimeletes in the Arsinoites3. Swarney proposed two possible solutions for this problem: 1. Shifting the three epimeletai to the Herakleopolites. In this case Diophanes, the supposed strategos of the Arsinoites, must return to the realm of unknown, and the lacuna in P. Lille I 4 would remain an unsolved problem. 2. Keeping Ptolemaios and Nikanor in two different nomes by suggesting that the two petitions in P. Petr. III 36 a, the one on the recto, addressed to Ptolemaios, and the second on the verso, addressed to Nikanor, did not refer to a single case4. The second suggestion seemed preferable to Swarney although, as he admitted, it has no strong support. Previously, Berneker had thought that the two petitions in P. Petr. III 36 (a), written on the recto and verso, are both submitted by the same person, Poseidonios, whom Berneker thought was an oikonomos5. That Poseidonios really was oikonomos is not based on any compelling argument, but at least it is reasonable to assume that both petitions were written by the same person, an assumption that can explain their presence on recto and verso of the same papyrus. However, this brings us again to the question of the origin of the documents. The first solution that Swarney suggested is easier: shifting the three epimeletai to the

1

Swarney, 1985, 162. P. Petr. III 36 (a) R. 3 P. Petr. III 36 (a) V. 4 Swarney, 1985, 162. 5 Berneker, 1935, 92. Berneker apparently identified Poseidonios with Poseidonios, the oikonomos of PP I 1079, whose name was written in P. Lille I 4, 14 and 15 at first, but subsequently scratched out and corrected to Herakleides. This Poseidonios is further attested as the recipient of the petition P. Petr. III 32 R (g) R (b), l. 1, p.70 = P. Lond. III 579 descr. = P. Petr. II 32 (2 b), p.111 (Arsinoites, 217/216 B.C.), and for the following year (216/215 B.C.) in P. Petr. III 32 (g) V, l. 16–17, p.71 = P. Petr. II 32 [3], p.111. Cf. also PP VIII 1079. 2

186

The Office of the Epimeletes

Herakleopolites. But I would prefer to keep the Arsinoites as the origin of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V and to restore the name of Nikanor in line 8 in P. Lille I 4. I, therefore, suggest the following: a certain Poseidonios (not necessarily the oikonomos of the Arsinoites) was, for some reason, arrested in the Herakleopolites. He petitioned Nikanor, the epimeletes of the Herakleopolites at that time, repeatedly. These petitions do not survive, but Poseidonios refers to them in P. Petr. III 36 (a) V, l. 1–2. At some time before year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. 218 B.C., the date of P. Petr. II 20 IV, 1, some officials were transferred, so Nikanor became epimeletes in the Arsinoites and was succeeded by Ptolemaios in the Herakleopolites. Thereafter, Poseidonios petitioned Ptolemaios, the new epimeletes of the Herakleopolites (P. Petr. III (a) 36 R). But peculiarly enough, on the verso of this petition we have also a petition to the epimeletes Nikanor, probably written by the same Poseidonios (P. Petr. III 36 (a) V). This petition should have been written after the petition to Ptolemaios as it is a rule, rarely infringed, that texts on the recto are prior to texts on the verso. Therefore, at the time when the petition on the verso was written, Nikanor should already have been the epimeletes of the Arsinoites and Poseidonios would have just written to him, because he knew his case, having been repeatedly involved in the past. From the same period of time must also be P. Petr. II 20 when Ptolemaios, as epimeletes of the Herakleopolites, was petitioned to set free the two shipbuilders (P. Petr. II 20 col. I–II). That the origin of this papyrus is the Arsinoites can be explained by the fact that the papyrus is only a draft that remained in the Arsinoites and the fair copy, which is lost, would have been sent to the Herakleopolites. Adopting this reconstruction, one could arrange the four epimeletai as follows: In the Herakleopolites: 1. Dionysodoros (PP I 937), whose date is unknown and mentioned only as a predecessor of Nikanor (P. Petr. III 36 (a) V, ll. 22–23) 2. Nikanor (PP I 948), after Dionysodoros, 10 months or less before the date of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V as can be shown from ll. 4–5, and 22–23. 3. Ptolemaios (PP I+VIII 951), as the successor of Nikanor (P. Petr. III 36 (a) R) [probably some time before year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. 218 B.C., see below].

Appendix I

187

In the Arsinoites: 1. Nikanor (PP I 948), probably some time before year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. 218 B.C. (one should be cautious concerning this date because P. Petr. II 20 R is dated by the date mentioned in Col. IV, l. 1 which is connected with a different affair, cf. p.26, n. 4) until an unknown date before year 5, Mechir (= 15 March–13 April 217 B.C.; P. Lille I 4, 9) [but only if the name of Nikanor may be supplemented in P. Lille I 4, 8]. 2. Unnamed successor to Nikanor (PP VIII 936a) or Nikanor, before year 5, Mechir (= 15 March–13 April 217 B.C. (P. Lille I 4, 9). But apart from this suggestion, there is perhaps another way to solve the problem. The difficulty concerning Nikanor could also be avoided by assuming that, for some time, the competence of Nikanor extended to more than one nome and included both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites. Then he would have been a precursor of Spartakos (PP I 956, see appendix II below) who was epimeletes of both nomes in a difficult period in the kingdom towards the end of the Egyptian revolt. The year 218/217 B.C., when Nikanor was perhaps epimeletes of the two nomes, was also a time of crises. In 217 B.C., the Fourth Syrian War ended with the battle of Raphia and the peace of Naupaktos. At this time, the appointment of one epimeletes for both nomes could have made sense as an effort towards making the administration more efficient. That from time to time the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites had been under only one epimeletes would certainly not be a surprise in view of the economic and strategic importance of the two nomes.

APPENDIX II THE EPIMELETES SPARTAKOS (PP 956) The name Spartakos does not appear frequently in papyri1. An epimeletes Spartakos is mentioned in the following documents: P. Duk. Inv. 690 (Arsinoites, 15 jun. 192 B.C.)2, P. Hels I 23 (Herakleopolites, 190 B.C.), P. Köln V 221C (Arsinoites, 190 B.C.), P. Vindob. G56637 (Herakleopolites, 190 B.C.), and P. Tebt. III 2, 895 (Arsinoites, 175 B.C.) A Spartakos without a job title, but most likely our epimeletes, is attested in P. Hels I 4 (Herakleopolis, 168/167 B.C.?, see below for another dating), BGU XX 2840 (Herakleopolites, 200 or 176 B.C.), and BGU XX 2841 (Herakleopolites, 200 or 176 B.C.). He is also attested in the unpublished P. Duk. Inv. 688 (ca. 192 B.C.)3. This set of documents poses questions regarding the time and range of activity of Spartakos. Do we have here one epimeletes who held this office between 192 and 168 B.C. (or at least until 175 B.C., since P. Hels. I 4 could be dated earlier)? And how can the different origins of these documents be explained? Of the above-mentioned documents, only P. Köln V 221 C and P. Tebt. III 2, 895 have certain dates (190 B.C. and 175 B.C. respectively). P. Tebt. III 2, 895 mentions year 6 of an unnamed Ptolemaic king, who must be Ptolemy VI Philometor, because of the mention of Hippalos, the epistrategos, whose tenure was during his reign4. P. Köln V 221C is dated to 190 B.C because of the mention of Athenodoros, the dioiketes5. In the edito 1 As of the present, the name has been recorded 45 times in the Trismegistos Ptolemaic records. It is important to note that among these instances, 14 occurrences are repetitions of the name within the same document. Consequently, the actual number of attestations for the name stands at 31. 2 Cf. Qandeil, 2022b, 208–212. 3 See Stern 2016, 42. 4 See Thomas, 1975, 87–91. 5 The first appearance of Athenodoros, the dioiketes, was in P. Yale I 36, which was dated palaeographically to 232 B.C (P. Yale I, intr. 36–44, p.98). This date was challenged by the editor of P. Köln V 221 C; he argued that P. Köln V 221 C should be dated palaeographically to the end or the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., and as there is an undoubted date for P. Tebt. III 2, 895 (175 B.C.), and as Spartakos is mentioned in both P. Köln V 221 C and P. Tebt. III 2, 895, he ruled out a date under Philopator, and adopted a year under Epiphanes (190 B.C.) because of its temporal proximity (P. Köln V 221, intr.

Appendix II

189

princeps of P. Hels. I 23, a date in the 160s was proposed on the basis that

all texts published as P. Hels I 4 – 471 originate from the same mummy cartonnage, but a new date of 191/190 B.C. is now accepted due to the mention of Ornymenes, a subordinate of Athenodoros, the dioiketes2. Moreover, Salmenkivi, followed by Stern, suggested that both P. Hels I 4 and P. Hels I 23 belong to different cartonnage from the other documents of this archive of oikonomoi of the Herakleopolites3. Salmenkivi suggested that P. Hels I 4 should also be dated to the end of the third century or the beginning of the second century B.C.4 However, the 3rd year which is attested in the document could have been the 3rd year of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (= 203/202 B.C.), but also the 3rd year of Ptolemy VI Philometor (= 179/178 B.C.) is not excluded. A date under Epiphanes would be very early as it would imply that Spartakos held his office of an epimeletes already in 203/202 B.C. and continued to be an epimeletes, at least, up to 175 B.C. Therefore, I tend to believe that a date under Philometor is more likely, i.e., 179/178 B.C. BGU XX 2840 and BGU XX 2841 are dated to 200 or 176 B.C. By the same token, the latter date (176 B.C.) can be adopted for these two documents. Therefore, the documents of Sparakos can be arranged as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Document P. Duk. Inv. 690 P. Hels I 23 P. Köln V 221C P. Vindob. G56637 P. Hels I 4

Date 25 Jun. 192 B.C. 190 B.C. 190 B.C. 190 B.C. 179 B.C.?

origin Arsinoites Herakleopolites Arsinoites Herakleopolites Herakleopolis

p.156–166). As a consequence, P. Yale I 36 had to be dated to 190 B.C. instead of 232 B.C. Now, Athenodoros, the dioiketes, is mentioned in nine other documents: P. Vindob. G 56640 dated to 206 B.C. or 189 B.C. (Stern, 2016, 46–51; I believe that 189 B.C. is more plausible and more consistent with the previously discussed arguments); P. Sijp. 45 (197 B.C.); SB XXII 15536 (197/196 B.C.); P. Mich. XVIII 778 and 779 (both 193/192 B.C.); P. Vindob. G56639 (192 B.C., Stern, 2016, 22–32); P. Vindob. G56636 (191 B.C., Stern, 2016, 32–34); P. Hels. I 23 (191 B.C.); P. Vindob. G56637 (190 B.C., Stern, 2016, 34–46). Based on this evidence, Athenodoros’ tenure is documented to have spanned from 197 to 190 B.C. 1 These documents form the archive of the oikonomoi of the Herakleopolites (TM Arch 157). 2 P. Mich. XVIII 778, intr. p.95; BGU XX 2840, intr. p.6; Stern, 2016, 43. 3 BGU XX 2840, intr. p.6; Stern, 2016, 43. 4 BGU XX 2840, intr. p.6.

190

The Office of the Epimeletes 6. 7. 8.

BGU XX 2840 BGU XX 2841 P. Tebt. III 2, 895

176 B.C.? 176 B.C.? 175 B.C.

Herakleopolites Herakleopolites Arsinoites

Table A 2.1 The documents of the epimeletes Spartakos

Salmenkivi suggested two solutions for the different provenances of our documents: first, she proposed assuming that Spartakos was active first in the Herakleopolites and later in the Arsinoites. Second, she suggested that he could have been responsible for the two nomes at the same time. There could have been a change in the epimeletes’ jurisdiction in the period of these documents (cf. appendix I above for the political reasons that could have caused this change). Adopting the second solution, the career of Spartakos as epimeletes can be reconstructed, tentatively, as follows: at least from 25 Jun. 192 B.C., he was the epimeletes of the Arsinoites and probably the Herakleopolites (P. Duk. Inv. 690). In 190 B.C., in all likelihood, he was the epimeletes of both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites (P. Hels I 23; P. Köln V 221C; P. Vindob. G56637). Then in the Arsinoites, he was followed by the following epimeletai: Alexandros (189–187/186 B.C.)1. Hephaistion (186/185–185/184 B.C.)2. Argeios (185/184–179/178 B.C.)3. Ptolemaios (179/178–177 B.C.)4. Ph[…] about (177–176 B.C.)5.

1 2

3

P. Tarich. 5 (ca. 189 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 1,741 (187/186 B.C.). P. Tarich. 6 a and b (after 9 Oct. 186 B.C.); P. Tarich. 7 (185 B.C.?).

P. Tebt. III 1, 754 (185/184–179/178 B.C.); P. Tarich. 7 (185 B.C.?); P. Tarich. 10 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.); P. Tarich. 11 (before 29 Apr. 184 B.C.); P. Tarich. 12 (after 4 May 184 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 1, 793 (Col. II, Frag. I, recto II) (6 Feb.–9 Sep. 183 B.C.); SB XVI 12375 (180 B.C.); P. Köln X 412 (178 B.C.). Although P. Coll. Youtie I 12 (177 B.C.) mentions Argeios, it deals with events that already took place three years earlier (180 B.C.). 4 P. Tebt. III 1, 776 (179–177 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 2, 905 (179–177 B.C.); P. Tebt. III 2, 941 (179–177 B.C.). 5 P. Tebt. III 2, 895 (Arsinoites, 175 B.C.). Ph[…] is attested as a predecessor of Spartakos in the Arsinoites. For this list of epimeletai of the Arsinoites, see Lanciers, 2018, 124.

Appendix II

191

Certainly in 179 B.C. – maybe earlier – we know that the competence of one epimeletes for both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites was abolished since we have Argeios acting as epimeletes of the Arsinoites in 179 B.C. (P. Köln X 412; P. Coll. Youtie I 12) and Spartakos in the Herakleopolites in the same year (P. Hels. I 4). It seems that Spartakos continued to hold the position of the epimeletes of the Herakleopolites up to 176 B.C (BGU XX 2840 and BGU XX 2841). It is not ruled out that the Spartakos who emerged onto the scene in 179 B.C. in the Herakleopolites, is to be distinguished from his homonym in the years 192 to 190 B.C. despite the rarity of the name. The Spartakos of 179 B.C. and thereafter could have been a relative, perhaps a son, of that of 192 B.C. Regardless of whether we have the same person or two different ones, the Spartakos of 176 B.C. was transferred to the Arsinoites in 175 B.C. to occupy the office of the epimeletes. How long did he stay in this office after 175 B.C.? Or did his competence again include the Herakleopolites? Unfortunately, we do not have any evidence.

APPENDIX III EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF EPIMELETAI AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

Spartakos, as we have seen, was apparently epimeletes of both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites, and the same may be true for Nikanor in 218/217 B.C. Moreover, we also have evidence that points to the existence of epimeletai on different levels of the administration. The papers of the twins show the presence of two epimeletai active at the same time in the same nome, most clearly in UPZ I 42 where we have a reference to a petition to the ‘epimeletai’. UPZ I 19 and UPZ I 41 include the twins’ appeals to the strategos to write to Apollonios, the epimeletes. Moreover, in UPZ I 19, l. 31, the name of the epimeletes Mennides was cancelled, and the name of Apollonios was inserted above the line instead1. When an epimeletes is mentioned in the rest of the documents of the twins, it is Mennides alone. It is not possible to assume that the two epimeletai acted one after another. They acted at the same time. This becomes evident from the correction in UPZ I 19. The papyrus must have been corrected already in summer 163 B.C. (at the end of the 18th year), and it is after that date that we have evidence for both epimeletai2. Apollonios could be the main epimeletes, i.e., the highly ranked administrative and financial official at the nome level, as we encounter it in our documents. Mennides is probably a subordinate of Apollonios in the Serapieion who also carried the title epimeletes. He was responsible for overseeing temple expenditures such as oil. Was the presence of a subordinate of the epimeletes with the same title in the Serapieion – if accepted – a special case because of the special status of this temple? Or was it a general practice, i.e., was there a ‘subordinate epimeletes’ in every temple, or at least in the larger ones? Unfortunately, this remains an unanswerable question due to lack of evidence. So far, this is the only evidence for the presence of two active epimeletai in the same nome at the same time in affairs connected to temples. I do not think that 1

ὅπως γράψῃ \(hand 2) Ἀπολλωνίωι/ (hand 1) ⟦Μεννίδει⟧ τῶι ἐπιµελητεῖ (l. ἐπιµελητῇ) (so that he may write to ⟦Mennides⟧ Apollonios, the epimeletes).

2

Cf. UPZ I 19, l. 31 note.

Appendix III

193

this was a general practice, but rather a special case related to the Serapieion. The position of the epistates of the temples and of his subordinates may have been comparable with the competence of the two epimeletai mentioned in the documents of the twins, although we do not have direct evidence1. We have other papyri where traces of the existence of two epimeletai alongside one another can be found. There is the case of the payment orders in P. Strasb. II 103–106. In P. Strasb. II 104 (11 Jan. 210) the epimeletes Protarchos occurs as superior of Agathokles (Ἀγαθοκλῆς ὁ παρὰ Πρωτάρχου τοῦ ἐπιµελητοῦ, l. 4–6) who in turn is acting under the designation of epimeletes in P. Strasb. II 103 and 104 (both 11 Jan. 210), while shortly before this date, Protarchos was acting as epimeletes in P. Strasb. II 105 (20 Dec. 211 B.C.). In P. Strasb. II 106 it is again Agathokles who is acting as epimeletes, but this papyrus cannot be dated precisely. Also, in the payment order P. Köln XI 448 (April/May 210) we find Agathokles in the role of the epimeletes. So, P. Strasb. II 104 could indicate the existence of two epimeletai at different levels. On the other hand, it is a well-known phenomenon in the language of the Ptolemaic administration that bearers of an office and their subordinates can be named the same way, cf., for example, the use of the designation basilikos grammateus2. The situation in P. Poethke 18 (137 B.C.) is unclear. The editor of the papyrus supposed that the epimeletes who issued this order to measure grain

1

The Ptolemies integrated temples more tightly into the administrative and fiscal system than they had been before (Monson, 2019, 153). The most prominent feature of the temples’ increased dependence on the state is the change concerning the purpose of the apomoira tax. The tax was levied for the temples till 263/262 B.C. without restriction. After this date it was mainly assigned to the cult of Arsinoe II and was now levied by the state (cf. Clarysse and Vandorpe, 1998, 7f.). The tax had been one of the basic sources of income of the temples, so, to compensate the temples for this loss, the Ptolemies granted the temples a yearly allowance in money and in kind, the so called ‘syntaxis’ from the late third century B.C. onwards (Clarysse, 2010, 282–283; Monson, 2019, 153). By granting the syntaxis, the kings ensured their influence over the Egyptian temples (Thompson, 1988, 110; for more information about the administration of temples in the Ptolemaic period, cf. Otto, 1905; Clarysse, 2010, 283–285; Armoni 2012, 65–69). So, the ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἱερῶν (the superintendent of the temples) was a state official at the nome level with subordinate officials (epistatai) in each temple (Monson, 2019, 154). – Cf. also the considerations of Messerer, 2020, 263–265, concerning the lists of priests of the Herakleopolites in the time of Augustus, BGU IV 1196 and BGU XVI 2672. 2 Armoni, 2012, 15–20.

194

The Office of the Epimeletes

was a high official, perhaps residing in Alexandria, but this is not a necessary assumption and cannot be proved1. When an aulic title is used in connection with an epimeletes, it is τῶν διαδόχων, attested for Chairemon (cf. chapter 4 no. 72–74; 79) in the Arsinoites and for Hermias in the Pathyrites (P. Dryton 31; no. 96). An exception is SB XXVIII 16851 (Lycopolites; no. 71) where the epimeletes Ptolemaios was bearer of the higher rank τῶν φίλων. This seems to be an anomaly, but the case is isolated. There are no other attestations of an epimeletes of this nome.

1

Cf. Armoni, 2012, 79.

APPENDIX IV

PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETAI IN THE 3RD CENTURY B.C. A 4.1 THE EPIMELETAI OF THE 3RD CENTURY B.C. Name

Document

Date of the document

1.

Unknown

221–203 B.C.?

Ankyropolis (ElHiba)

Saites

2.

Unknown

221–203 B.C.

Unknown

Unknown

3.

Ptolemaios

After 2 Dec. 218 B.C.

Arsinoites1

Herakleopolites2

4.

Ptolemaios

P. Bad. II 13 = SB VIII 9800 P. Grad. 7 = SB III 6280 P. Petr. II 20 R = P. Petr. III 36 b = W. Chr. 166 P. Petr. III 36 (a) R

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

5.

Dionysodoros

17 Oct. 218 B.C. – 15 Oct. 217 B.C. Ca. 218 B.C.

Arsinoites3

Herakleopolites

6.

Nikanor

Ca. 218 B.C. and 30 June 217 B.C. respectively

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

7.

Unknown

30 June 217 B.C.

Ptolemais Hormou (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 P. Petr. III 36 (a) V = M. Chr. 5 and probably P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336 = Jur. Pap. 56 b P. Lille I 4 = W. Chr. 336 =

Origin

Sphere of action of the

epimeletes

See appendix I. As I suggested above (appendix I), the competence of one epimeletes could have extended to more than one single nome under exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the sphere of action of the epimeletai of 3–7 above could have been both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites. 3 See appendix I. 1 2

196

The Office of the Epimeletes

8.

Nikanor

9.

Nikanor

10. Theon 11. Protarchos 12. Protarchos 13. Protarchos 14. Protarchos 15. Protarchos or Agathokles1 16. Agathokles 17. Agathokles

P. Heid. VII 388 P. Strasb. II 105 P. Strasb. II 103 P. Strasb. II 104 P. Strasb. II 107 P. Strasb. II 106 P. Strasb. II 108 P. Köln XI 448

18. Apollonios

W. Chr. 224 c

19. Apollonios

P. Lond VII 2189 = SB VI 9599 P. Cair. Inv. 10307 W. Chr. 224 a W. Chr. 224 b SB XXIV 16063 P. Heid. VII 392

20. Apollonios 21. Apollonios 22. Apollonios 23. Apollonios 24. Apollonios

25. Metrodoros

1

Jur. Pap. 56 b P. Heid. VII 389 P. Heid. VII 387

W. Chr. 221 =UPZ I 116 = P. Lond. I 50

Apr./May 212 B.C. Before 23 Aug. 212 B.C. 212 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Dec. 211 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. Jan. 210 B.C. 210 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Techtho (Herakleopolites) Techtho (Herakleopolites) Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

210 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

10 Feb. 210 B.C. Ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C. After 9 Dec. 209 B.C. 10 Dec. 209 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Mouchis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

On or after 11 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. 12 Dec. 209 B.C. Prob. short. after 12 Dec. 209 B.C. 14 Oct. 209 – 13 Oct. 208 B.C.?

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Mouchis (Arsinoites) Mouchis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Memphis

Memphis

See p.34, n. 1; 35, n. 3.; see also appendix III.

Herakleopolites Herakleopolites

Arsinoites Arsinoites

Appendix IV

25a.

Apollonios

= C. pap. Hengstl 20 P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto

26. Apollonios (former epimeletes) 27. Unknown (General instructions) 28. Ptolemaios

SB XX 14069

29. Dorotheos

Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127 P. Petr. II 1 P. Alex. Inv. Nr. 560 P. Bingen 34

30. Unknown 31. Apoll[…]1 32. Ptolemaios

UPZ I 112 P. Heid. VI 379

197

209 B.C.? or before 22 July 204 B.C.? 22 Jul. 204 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

22 Jul. – 8 Sep. 204 B.C. 11 – 12 Dec. 204 B.C.? 27 Aug. 202 B.C.

Oxyrhynchites

Unknown

Boubastos (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

3rd cent. B.C. 3rd cent. B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Unknown

Unknown

End of the 3rd, beginning of the 2nd cent. B.C.

Herakleopolites (?)

Herakleopolites (?)

Table A 4.1 The epimeletai of the 3rd century B.C.

A 4.2 THE TENURE OF THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETAI IN THE 3RD CENTURY B.C. A 4.2.1 THE ARSINOITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.1 6–7

Name and PP number Nikanor (PP I 948)

7

Unknown successor to

Duration of office Probably some time before year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. 218 B.C. up to unknown date before 15 Mar. – 13 Apr. 217 B.C. Before year 5, Mechir (= 15 Mar. – 13

PP VIII 935a; since the origin of the document is unknown, he does not appear in the following tables of section A 4.2.

1

198

The Office of the Epimeletes 8–9

Nikanor (PP VIII 936a) Nikanor (PP I 948?1)

10

Theon

18–24; 25a–26

Apollonios (PP I+VIII 933)

28

Ptolemaios

29

Dorotheos (PP I+VIII 939)

Apr. 217 B.C. Active in April/May 212 B.C. to before 23 Aug. 212 B.C. Active in 212 B.C. either before or after Nikanor of 8–9. - Active at the end of 209 B.C. - Probably for a second tenure before 22 Jul. 204 B.C. - Or along duration of office from or before the end of 209 B.C. to before 22 Jul. 204 B.C.(?) Attested on 11–12 Dec. 204 B.C.?, probably a successor of Apollonios, to before 27 Aug. 202 B.C Active on 27 Aug. 202 B.C.

Table A 4.2 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Arsinoites in the 3rd century B.C. A 4.2.2 THE SAITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.1 1

Name and PP number Unknown

Duration of office Unknown

Table A 4.3 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Saites in the 3rd century B.C. A 4.2.3 THE HERAKLEOPOLITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.1 5 62

Name and PP number Dionysodoros (PP I 937) Nikanor (PP I 948)

3–4

Ptolemaios (PP I+VIII 951)3

11–15

Protarchos (PP I and VIII 950) Agathokles (PP I (as subordinate) and VIII (as

15–17

Duration of office Predecessor of Nikanor (appendix I) After Dionysodoros, 10 months or less before the date of P. Petr. III 36 (a) V (appendix I). Probably some time before year 5, Phaophi 17 = 2 Dec. 218 B.C. Active from 212/211B.C. to before 10 Feb. 210 B.C. Attested from 10 Feb. 210 B.C. to ca. 13 Apr. – 12 May 210 B.C.

The identification of Nikanor of no. 8–9 with that of no. 6 is uncertain. Cf. chapter two, p.31, n. 3. 2 According to my argument in appendix I, Nikanor, in no. 6, had already moved to the Arsinoites. 3 In PP I Ptolemaios is assigned to the Arsinoites. The same also can be said about Dionysodoros (no. 5). See appendix I for the possibility that both were epimeletai of the Herakleopolites or that their sphere of action extended to both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites. 1

Appendix IV

epimeletes) 9621)

32

Ptolemaios

199 Unknown

Table A 4.4 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Herakleopolites in the 3rd century B.C.

Number in Table A 4.1 25

A 4.2.4 THE MEMPHITE NOME Name and PP number Duration of office Metrodoros (PP 947) Attested in 209//208 B.C.

Table A 4.5 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Memphites in the 3rd century B.C. A 4.3 THE EPIMELETAI OF THE 2ND CENTURY B.C.

1

Name

Document

Date of the document

Origin

Sphere of action of the

1.

Dorotheos

22 Sep. 197 B.C.

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

1a.

Theodoros

196/195 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

2.

Protarchos Protarchos

22 June 194 B.C. 11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193 B.C. 25 June 192 B.C Ca. 190 B.C.

Mouchis (Arsinoites) Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

3.

P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) = P. Lond. III 569 descr. P. Duk. Inv. 676 r. P. Mich. XVIII 776 P. Mich. XVIII 774

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

190 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Ca. 189 B.C.

Tanis (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Oxyrhynchos (?)

Arsinoites

3a.

Spartakos

4.

Spartakos

5.

Spartakos

6.

Alexandros

7.

Alexandros

8.

Hephaistion

9.

Unknown

(general instructions)

Cf. appendix III.

P. Duk. Inv. 690 P. Köln V 221 C P. Vindob. G56637 P. Tarich. 5 P. Tebt. III 1, 741 P. Tarich. 6 a and b P. Köln VII 313

187/186 B.C After 9 Oct. 186 B.C. After 9 Oct. 186 B.C.

epimeletes

Arsinoites

Arsinoites Arsinoites Unknown

200

The Office of the Epimeletes 10. Hephaistion or Argeios1 11. Argeios 12. Unknown 13. Argeios 14. Argeios 15. Argeios 16. Argeios

17. Argeios 18. Argeios 19. Ptolemaios 20. Ptolemaios 21. Probably Spartakos 22. Argeios 3 23. Spartakos 24. Spartakos 25. Ph[…]

26. Spartakos

P. Tarich. 7 P. Tebt. III 1, 754 P. Erasm. I 5 P. Tarich. 10 P. Tarich. 11 P. Tarich. 12 P. Tebt. III 1, 793, Col. II (Frag. I, recto II) SB XVI 12375 P. Tebt. III 2, 905 descr. P. Tebt. III 1, 776 P. Tebt. III 2, 941 P. Hels. I 4 P. Coll. Youtie I 12 BGU XX 2840 BGU XX 2841 P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2, 895 P. Tebt. III 1, 778 = P. Tebt. III 2,

185 B.C?

Tanis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Tanis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Tanis (Arsinoites) Berenikis Thesmophorou (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

180 B.C.

Arsinoites (?)

Arsinoites

179–177 B.C.

Boubastos (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

179–177 B.C.

Arsinoites

179–177 B.C.

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

After 179 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

177 B.C.

Arsinoites

176 B.C.

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Herakleopolites

176 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Ca.175 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Ca. 175 B.C.

Berenikis Thesmophorou (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

185/184 – 179/178 B.C 6 Feb. 184 B.C.? or 31 Jan. 160 B.C.2 Before 29 Apr. 184 B.C. Before 29 Apr. 184 B.C. After 4 May 184 B.C. 6. Feb. – 9 Sep. 183 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites Arsinoites Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Herakleopolites

See p.73, n. 1. The date of the papyrus is (ἔτους) κ̣α Τῦβι β̅. The name of the epimeletes can be expected in the lacuna at the beginning of l. 12: ] ̣ ̣δα[ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐπιµελητήν. If the 21st year of Ptolemy V (185/184 B.C.) is meant, the epimeletes should have been Argeios. Since his name cannot be supplemented (cf. ZPE 40 (1980), pl. VIIa), a more plausible date is the 21st year of Ptolemy VI (161/160 B.C.). Therefore, the date of the document may rather be 31 Jan. 160 B.C. 3 Mentioned as an epimeletes three years prior to the date of the document; see p.79–80. 1 2

Appendix IV 27. Theon 28. Theon 29. Unknown (general instructions) 30. Theon

31. Unknown 32. Apollonios and Mennides1 33. Herakleides 34. Mennides

1

895 P. Tebt. III 2, 853 P. Tebt. III 2, 856 PUG III 92 = SB XVI 12821 UPZ I 110 = P. Par. 63 = P. Petr. III, p.15 = C. Pap. Jud. I 132 P. Ryl. IV 672

201

Ca. 173 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

171 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

29 Aug. – 27 Sep. 165 B.C.

Arsinoites

Unknown

164 B.C.

Memphis (?)

Saites

After 15 Nov. 164 B.C.

Unknown

Unknown

UPZ I 19

1 Apr. – 8 Oct. 163 B.C.?

Memphis

Memphites

P. Tebt. III 2, 857 UPZ I 21

After 31 Jan. 162 B.C. 4 Oct. 162 B.C. 3 Oct. – 4 Nov. 162 B.C

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

Memphites/the Serapieion

Before 3 Dec. 162 B.C. 14 Dec. 162 B.C. After 27 Sep. 162 B.C. 162 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

18 Dec. 162 B.C. 162 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

After 26 Dec. 162 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C. Before 23 Jan. 161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

Memphis

The Serapieion

35. Apollonios and Mennides 36. Mennides

UPZ I 42

37. Mennides

UPZ I 23

38. Mennides

UPZ I 24

39. Mennides

UPZ I 25

40. Mennides

UPZ I 26

41. Mennides

UPZ I 27

42. Mennides

UPZ I 32

43. Mennides

UPZ I 34

44. Mennides

UPZ I 35

45. Mennides

UPZ I 36

UPZ I 22

See section 5.11 and appendix III.

202

The Office of the Epimeletes 46. Mennides

UPZ I 39

161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

47. Mennides

UPZ I 40

161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

48. Apollonios

UPZ I 41

161/160 B.C.

Memphis

Memphites

49. Mennides

UPZ I 43

161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

50. Mennides

UPZ I 46

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

51. Mennides

UPZ I 47

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

52. Mennides

UPZ I 48

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

53. Mennides

UPZ I 50

162/161 B.C.

Memphis

The Serapieion

54. Mennides

UPZ I 51

Memphis

The Serapieion

55. Herakleides

P: Köln XVII 657 P. Heid. IX 424 P. Heid. IX 433 P. Heid. IX 435 P. Heid. IX 440 descr.

After 10 Jan. 161 B.C. Aug.–Sep. 161 B.C.? 161 – 155 B.C. 161 – 155 B.C. 161 – 155 B.C. 161 – 155 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

P. Heid. IX 441 SB XIV 11893 P. Tebt. III 1, 709 P. Ryl. IV 578 = C. Pap. Hengstl 151 = C. Pap. Jud. I 43 P. Heid. VI 382 P. Amh. II 33

10 Jun. 158 B.C. 13 Aug. 159 B.C. 27 Oct. 159 B.C. 2 Oct. 159 – 1 Oct. 158 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

After 158 B.C.

Arsinoites

P. Amh. II 34 a + b P. Amh. II 34 c

Ca. 157 B.C.

Samaria (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos (Arsinoites) Soknopaiou Nesos

56. Isidoros 57. Isidoros 58. Isidoros 59. Unknown (probably Isidoros) 60. Isidoros 61. Zopyros 62. Zopyros 63. Zopyros

64. Zopyros 65. Zopyros 66. Zopyros 67. Zopyros

Ca. 157 B.C.

Ca. 157 B.C.

Arsinoites Arsinoites

Arsinoites Arsinoites Arsinoites

Appendix IV

68. Zopyros 69. Zopyros 70. Dorion 71. Dorion1 72. Ptolemaios 73. Chairemon 74. Most likely Chairemon 75. Chairemon 76. Chairemon

P. Tebt. III 2, 934 P. Tebt. III 2, 936 descr. UPZ I 14 UPZ I 114 I SB XXVIII 16851 P. Tebt. III 1, 782 P. Tebt. III 1, 731 P. Tebt. III 2, 843 P. Erasm. II 31

77. Chairemon

P. Erasm. II 32

78. Chairemon

P. Erasm. II 33 P. Erasm. II 34 SB XXIV 15912 = P. Turku 36 P. Oxyrhynch a 17 UPZ I 114 II SB XXII 15545+155 46 = P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 Ro

79. Chairemon 80. Chairemon 81. Apollonios 82. Ptolemaios 83. Unknown (could be Apollonios)

Ca. 156 B.C.

203 (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Ca. 155 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

After 23 Feb. 157 B.C. 3 May 150 B.C. 23 Dec. 154 BC or 20 Dec. 143 BC (?) Ca. 153 B.C.

Memphis

Memphites

Memphis

Memphites

Lycopolites

Lycopolites

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Krokodilopolis (Arsinoites) Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Theadelpheia (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

After 150/149 B.C.2

Oxyrhyncha (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

21 May 148 B.C. 18 Apr. 146 B.C.

Memphis

Memphites

Theadelpheia (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

153 /152 B.C. (?) or 142/141 B.C. (?) 28 Jan. – 26 Feb. 152 B.C. 30 Sep.151 – 29 Sep. 150 B.C. 30 Sep. 150 – 28 Sep. 149 B.C. Mid-second century B.C. Mid-second century B.C. Mid-second century B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Dorion is mentioned in UPZ I 114 II as the former epimeletes who auctioned off the property mentioned in UPZ I 114 I. 2 According to the tenure of the epimeletes Apollonios (table A 4.7), this document could be dated to 145–141/140 B.C. 1

204

The Office of the Epimeletes 84. Apollonios

85. Probably Chairemon 86. Chairemon 87. Chairemon 88. Chairemon 89. Chairemon 90. Chairemon 91. Apollonios 92. Apollonios 93. Apollonios 94. Ptolemaios 95. Ptolemaios 96. Ptolemaios 97. Hermias

98. Unknown (general instructions)

SB XX 15150 = P. Lille Gr. I 19 = W. Chr. 164 P. Köln XIV 564 P. Köln XIV 565 BGU VI 1219 BGU VI 1221 BGU VI 1222 P. Ryl. II 253 desc. P. Tebt. III 1, 732 P. Tebt. III 1, 733 P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 1 P. Tebt. III 1, 734 frag. 2 P. Tebt. III 2, 927 descr. P. Tebt. III 1, 735 P. Dryton 31= P. Ryl. II 67= P. Lond. III 686 f = P. Lond. III 687 b P. Tebt. I 6 = W. Chr. 332 = C.

31 Oct. – 29 Nov. 156 B.C. or 28 Oct. – 26 Nov. 145 B.C.1

Pyrrhia (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Aug./Sep. 145 B.C.) Ca. 145 B.C.?

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

Arsinoites?

Arsinoites?

2nd century B.C. 15 – 24 May 144 B.C. After 7 May 144 B.C. Before 20 Sep. 142 Ca. 142 B.C.

Hermopolis

Hermopolites

Hermopolis

Hermopolites

Hermopolis

Hermopolites

Hermopolis

Hermopolites

Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

141 – 139 B.C

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

140 B.C.?

Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Ca. 140 B.C.

Arsinoites

Arsinoites

140–126 B.C.

Pathyris (Gebelein)

Pathyrites

After 3 – 12 Feb. 139 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (?) (Arsinoites)

Unknown

28 Sep. 143 – 27 Sep. 142 B.C. 141 – 139 B.C.2

Arsinoites

It is clear now that year 156 B.C. attested another epimeletes (Zopyros) in the Arsinoites. Accordingly, the date suggested by Clarysse and Hauben (see p. 96, n.3) can be confined to 26 Nov. 145 B.C. 2 As Ptolemaios is attested as epimeletes in 140 B.C. (see table A 4.7 below), the date of the document can be corrected to 141/140 B.C. 1

Appendix IV

99. Unknown (Probably Sarapion) 100. Sarapion

101. Unknown 102. Unknown 103. Unknown

104. Unknown 105. Unknown

106. Chairemon, Ptolemaios, Apollonios (former epimeletai) 107. Unknown 108. Unknown 109. Unknown 110. Unknown 111. Unknown

Ord. Ptol. 47 SB XXVI 16524

205

20 Feb. 137 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

P. Poethke 18 = APF 55 (2009) pp. 316– 329 P. Tebt. III 1, 737 P. Tebt. III 1, 810 P. Tebt. I 214 descr. = P. Tebt. IV 1137 P. Tebt. I 61 b P. Tebt. I 17 = W. Chr. 165 = C. Pap. Hengstl 15 P. Tebt. I 72

12 Jul. 137 B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

Ca. 136 B.C.

Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Herakleopolis

Arsinoites

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Mar. – Apr. 117 B.C. 28 Jun. 114 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites) Tebtynis (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

Mar.– Apr. 113 B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites)

Arsinoites

P. Tebt. III 2, 930 descr. P. Strasb. VII 645 SB XIV 11299 P. Tebt. III 1, 713 P. Ryl. II 66 a

2nd century B.C.

Herakleopolites

Herakleopolites

2nd century B.C. 2nd century B.C. Late 2nd century B.C. Late 2nd century B.C.

Kerkeosiris (Arsinoites) Oxyrhynchos

Unknown

Tebtynis (Arsinoites) Thebais

Arsinoites

29 Jul. 134 B.C. Ca. 119–110 B.C.

Table A 4.6 The epimeletai of the 2nd century B.C.

Unknown

Arsinoites

Unknown

Thebais

206

The Office of the Epimeletes

A 4.4 THE TENURE OF THE PTOLEMAIC EPIMELETAI IN THE 2ND CENTURY B.C. A 4.4.1 THE ARSINOITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 1 1a 2; 3

Name and PP number Dorotheos (PP I and VIII 939) Theodoros Protarchos1

3a-5

Spartakos (PP I 956)

6-7

Alexandros (PP I 930)

8; 10

Hephaistion

10–11; 13–18; 22

Argeios (PP I and VIII 936)

19–20

Ptolemaios (PP I and VIII 952)

25

Ph[…] (PP I 957)

26 27–28 61–69

Spartakos3 (PP 956) Theon (PP I 944) Zopyros (PP I and VIII 942)

73–80; 85–86

Chairemon (PP I and VIII 958) Apollonios (PP I and VIII 935) Ptolemaios (PP I 955) Unknown Unknown Ptolemaios

81; 83–84; 91–93 94–96 104 105 107 108 110

Unknown Unknown

Duration of office Attested in 197 B.C. Attested in 196/195 B.C. Attested from 22 June 194 B.C. to 11 Oct. 194 – 9 Oct. 193 B.C. Attested in 192 B.C. and 190 B.C. probably for both the Arsinoites and the Herakleopolites2 Attested from 189 B.C. to 187/186 B.C. Attested after 9 Oct. 186 B.C. to probably 185 B.C. Attested from 185/184 B.C. to 179/178 B.C. Attested in two documents dated to 179–177 B.C. and so, most likely, he came after Argeios. 177/176 B.C. (attested as a predecessor of Spartakos, see appendix II) Attested in 176/175 B.C. Attested from 173 to 171 B.C. Attested from 13 Aug. 159 B.C. to 155 B.C. Attested from 153 B.C. to 145 B.C.? Attested from 145 B.C. to 141/140 B.C. Attested in 140 B.C. 117 B.C. 114 B.C. Attested as former epimeletes in 113 B.C. 2nd century B.C. Late 2nd century B.C.

Table A 4.7 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Arsinoites in the 2nd century B.C.

It is most likely that this is not Protarchos (PP I and VIII 950) who is attested in the Herakleopolites between 212 and 10 Feb. 210 B.C. as a terminus ante quem, contrary to what is stated in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica I, p.91; see table A 4.4 above. 2 See appendix II. 3 Probably the same person as no. 4 and 5 above, who might have received a second tenure in the position; see appendix II. 1

Appendix IV

207

A 4.4.2 THE MEMPHITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 32; 35; 48 32; 34–47; 49–54

70-71 82

Name and PP number Apollonios (as a main epimeletes in the Memphites) (PP I 934) Mennides (as a subordinate epimeletes in the Serapieion of Memphis, appendix III) (PP I 946) Dorion (PP I 938) Ptolemaios (PP I 954)

Duration of office Attested from 163 B.C. to 161/160 B.C. Attested from 163 B.C to 161 B.C. Attested after 23 Feb. 157 B.C. to 150 B.C. (he was a former epimeletes in 148 B.C.) Attested in 148 B.C.

Table A 4.8 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Memphites in the 2nd century B.C. A 4.4.3 THE HERAKLEOPOLITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 5; 21; 23–24

Name and PP number Spartakos (PP 956)

33; 55 56–60

Herakleides (PP I 943) Isidoros

99–100 102 107

Sarapion Unknown Unknown

Duration of office Attested in 190 B.C. and 179– 176 B.C. 1 Attested after 31 Jan. 162 B.C. Attested in a period between 161–155 B.C. Attested in 137 B.C. Attested on 29 Jul. 134 B.C. 2nd century B.C.

Table A 4.9 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Herakleopolites in the 2nd century B.C.

Number in Table A 4.6 30

A 4.4.4 THE SAITE NOME Name and PP number Duration of office Theon (PP I 945)

Attested in 164 B.C.

Table A 4.10 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Saites in the 2nd century B.C. A 4.4.5 THE LYCOPOLITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 72

Name and PP number Ptolemaios (PP VIII 955a)

Duration of office Attested on 23 Dec. 154 B.C. or 20 Dec. 143 B.C.

Table A 4.11 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Lycopolites in the 2nd century B.C. 1

See appendix II.

208

The Office of the Epimeletes A 4.4.6 THE HERMOPOLITE NOME:

Number in Table A 4.6 87–90

Name and PP number Chairemon (PP I 959)

Duration of office Attested from 144 B.C. to 142 B.C.

Table A 4.12 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Hermopolites in the 2nd century B.C. A 4.4.7 THE PATHYRITE NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 97

Name and PP number Hermias (PP I and VIII 940)

Duration of office Attested in 140–126 B.C.

Table A 4.13 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Pathyrites in the 2nd century B.C. A 4.4.8 THE THEBAID NOME: Number in Table A 4.6 111

Name and PP number Unknown

Duration of office Attested in the late 2nd century B.C.

Table A 4.14 The tenure of the epimeletai of the Thebais in the 2nd century B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, C. 2007 Land Transport in Roman Egypt: A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province, Cambridge.

Adams, C. 2019 ‘Stimuli for Irrigation, Agriculture, and Quarrying’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 233–250. Allam, Sh. 1991 ‘Egyptian Law Courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic Times’, JEA 77, 109–127. Allam, Sh. 2002 ‘Elders (πρεσβύτεροι) – Notables – Great Men. rmt.w ‘3.yw – hl-‘3.yw’, in: Ryholt, K. (ed.) Acts of the Seventh international Conference of Demotic Studies. Copenhagen, 23-27 August 1999 (CNI Publications 27), Copenhagen, 1–26. Allam, Sh. 2008 ‘Regarding the εἰσαγωγεύς (Eisagogeus) at Ptolemaic law courts’, Journal of Egyptian History 1, 3–19. Aly, Z. 1995 Essays and Papers: A Miscellaneous Output of Greek Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt, Athens. Armoni, Ch. 2006 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XIX ’, Tyche 21, 194–198. Armoni, Ch. 2007 ‘Lesungs- und Interpretationsvorschläge zu dokumentarischen Papyri’, ZPE 160, 227–231. Armoni, Ch. 2009 ‘Bericht über einen Versteigerungskauf’, APF 55, 185– 191. Armoni, Ch. 2012 Studien zur Verwaltung des ptolemäischen Ägypten: Das Amt des Basilikos Grammateus (Papyrologica Coloniensia 34), Paderborn. Armoni, Ch. 2013 Das Archiv der Taricheuten Amenneus und Onnophris aus Tanis (P.Tarich) (Papyrologica Coloniensia 37), Paderborn. Asmonti, L. 2015 Athenian Democracy: A Sourcebook, London–New York. Avogadro, S. 1935 ‘Le ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΑΙ di proprietà nell' Egitto greco-romano’, Aegyptus 15, 131–206. Badian, E. 1961 ‘Harpalus’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 81, 16–43. Baetens, G. 2014 ‘A Petition to the "Epimeletes" Dorotheos in Trinity College Dublin’, Anc. Soc. 44, 91–104. Bagnall, R. 1972 ‘Theogenes the Dioiketes’, Anc. Soc. 3, 111–119. Bagnall, R./Derow, P. 2004 The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation, Malden–Oxford.

210

The Office of the Epimeletes

Balconi, C. 2019 ‘Due ordini di comparizione di età tolemaica nella collezione dell’Università Cattolica di Milano’, in: Nodar, A./Torallas Tovar, S. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Congress of Papyrology, Barcelona 16 August 2016, Barcelona, 431–436. Bauschatz, J. 2005 ‘Three Duke Petitions’, ZPE 152, 187–196. Bauschatz, J. 2013 Law and enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge– New York. Bengtson, H. 1952 Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, Dritter Band: Die Strategie im Ptolemäerreich, München. Berneker, E. 1935 Die Sondergerichtsbarkeit im griechischen Recht Ägyptens, mit Rechtsvergleichenden Ausblicken, München. Bilabel, F. 1923 Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen PapyrusSammlungen II: Griechische Papyri, Heidelberg. Bingen, J. 1942 ‘Note sur deux dispositions de P. Louvre 62 = U.P.Z. 112’, CdÉ 34, 291–298. Bingen, J. 1978 Le Papyrus Revenue Laws: Tradition grecque et adaptation hellénistique, Opladen. Bingen, J. 2007 Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture, Berkeley. Bogaert, R. 1981 ‘Le statut des banques en Egypte ptolémaïque’, L'antiquité classique 50, 86–99. Bogaert, R. 1994 Trapezitica Aegyptiaca. Recueil de recherches sur la banque en Égypte gréco-romaine (Papyrologica Florentina 24), Firenze. Bogaert, R. 2001 ‘Les documents bancaires de l’Égypte gréco romaine et byzantine’, Anc. Soc. 31,173–288. Bonneau, D. 1993 Le régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine et byzantine, Leiden. Bouché-Leclercq, A. 1906 Histoire des Lagides, Vol. III, Paris. Braunert, H. 1960 ‘Review: Eine ptolemäische Königsurkunde (P. Kroll) by Ludwig Koenen’, Gnomon 32, 531–533. Broux, Y. 2019 ‘Life Portraits: People of a Multicultural Generation’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 395–404. Cadell, H./Le Rider, G. 1997 Prix du blé et numéraire dans l'Egypte lagide de 305 à 173 (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 30), Brussels. Casanova, G. 1988 ‘Una datazione tardiva di Tolemeo IV e il banchiere Protos di Crocodilopolis’, Aegyptus 68, 13–18.

Bibliography

211

Casanova, G. 1990 ‘Ancora su P. Med. inv. 89.03: Aegyptus 68 (1988), pp. 13–18’, ZPE 84, 30. Casson, L. 1971 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton. Casson, L. 1993 ‘A Petrie Papyrus and the Battle of Raphia’, BASP 30, 87– 92. Cavallo, G./Maehler, H. 2008 Hellenistic Bookhands, Berlin–New York. Chiotis, E. 2011 ‘Water supply and drainage works in the agora of ancient Athens’, in: Yannikouri, A. (ed.) The Agora in the Mediterranean from

Homeric to Roman Times, International Conference, Kos, 14-17 April 2011,

Athens, 165–180. Chiotis, E./Chiotis, L. 2012 ‘Water supply of Athens in the antiquity’, in: Angelakis, A. et al. (eds.) Evolution of Water Supply through the Millennia, London, 407–442. Chiotis, E./Chiotis, L. 2014 ‘Drainage and Sewerage Systems at Ancient Athens, Greece’, in: Angelakis, A./Rose, J. (eds.) Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies through the Centuries, London, 315–333. Clarysse, W. 1976 ‘Harmachis, Agent of the Oikonomos: An Archive from the Time of Philopator’, Anc. Soc. 7, 185-207. Clarysse, W. 1989 ‘A Banking Receipt from Philopator’s Last Year’, ZPE 78, 300. Clarysse, W. 2004 ‘The Great Revolt of the Egyptians (205–186 BC)’, at https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/files/TheGreatRevoltoftheEg yptians.pdf. Clarysse, W. 2008 ‘Graeco-Roman Oxyrhyncha, a village in the Arsinoite nome’, in: Lippert, S./Schentuleit, M. (eds.) Graeco-Roman Fayum - Texts

and Archaeology: Proceedings of the Third International Fayum Symposion, Fredenstadt, May 29- June 1, 2007, Wiesbaden, 55–73.

Clarysse, W. 2010 ‘Egyptian Temples and Priests: Graeco-Roman’, in: Lloyd, A. (ed.) A Companion to Ancient Egypt, New Jersey. Clarysse W./Hauben, H. 1976 ‘New Remarks on the Skippers in P. Petrie III 107’, APF 24–25, 168–187. Clarysse, W./Lanciers, E. 1989 ‘Currency and the Dating of Demotic and Greek Papyri from the Ptolemaic Period’, Anc. Soc. 20, 117–132. Clarysse, W./Blasco Torres, A. (eds.) (2019) Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta Onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur, Leuven. Clarysse, W./Fischer-Bovet, C. 2020 ‘Greek Papyri of the Classics Department at Stanford (P. STAN. CLASS.) – PART II’, JJP 50, 67–107.

212

The Office of the Epimeletes

Clarysse, W./Hauben, H. 1991 ‘Ten Ptolemaic Granary Receipts from Pyrrheia’, ZPE 89, 47–68. Clarysse, W./Thompson, D. 2006 Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, Vol. 2, Cambridge. Clarysse, W./Thompson, D. 2009 ‘An early Ptolemaic bank register from the Arsinoite Nome’, APF 55, 230–260. Clarysse, W./Vandorpe, K. 1998 ‘The Ptolemaic Apomoira’, in: Melaerts, H. (ed.) Le culte du souverain dans l'Egypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère (Studia Hellenistica 34), Leuven, 5–42. Clarysse, W./Vandorpe, K. 2008 ‘Egyptian bankers and bank receipts in Hellenistic and early Roman Egypt’, in: Verboven, K./Vandorpe, K./Chankowski, V. (eds.) Pistoi dia tèn technèn. Bankers, loans and archives in the Ancient World (Studia Hellenistica 44), Leuven,153–168. Clinton, K. 1974 The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64, Part 3), Philadelphia. Conwell, D. H. 2002 ‘What Athenian Fortifications Were Destroyed in 404 BC?’, in: Gorman, V. B./Robinson, E. W (eds.) Oikistes, Studies in

Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World. Offered in Honor of A. J. Graham, Leiden–Boston–Köln, 321–337 Conwell, D. H. 2008 Connecting a City to the Sea. The History of the Athenian Long Walls, Leiden.

Cowey, J. 1995 ‘New Readings in an Edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (BGU II 372)’, ZPE 106,195–199. Cowey, J. 2003 ‘Zur ptolemäischen Dermatera’, in: Cowey, J. et al., Das

Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154-145 v.Chr.?) (P. Phrur. Diosk.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln–München–Wien. Cowey, J. et al. 2003 Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154-145 v.Chr.?) (P. Phrur. Diosk.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg,

Köln–München–Wien. Criscuolo, L. 1978 ‘Ricerche sul Komogrammateus nell'Egitto tolemaico’, Aegyptus 58, 3–101. Crouch, D. 1993 Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, Oxford. Cuvigny, H. 1985 L’arpentage par espèces dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque d’après les papyrus grecs, Bruxelles. Daris, S. 1982 ‘P. Palau Rib. 172 e 70’, Studia Papyrologica 21, 73–82. Davies, J. 1971 Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C., Oxford.

Bibliography

213

Delekat, L. 1964 Katoche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 47), München. Depauw, M. 2009 ‘Controlling the Perfume Monopoly. A Demotic letter in Macquarie referring to a proxy in Duke’, ZPE 171, 201–208. Derda, T. 2006 Ἀρσινοίτης νοµός: Administration of the Fayum under Roman Rule, Warsaw. Develin, R. 1989 Athenian Officials 684–321 B.C., Cambridge. Di Bitonto, A. 1968 ‘Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico: Studio sul formulario’, Aegyptus 48, 53–107. Dillon, M. 1996 ‘The Importance of the Water Supply at Athens: The Role of the ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν κρηνῶν’, Hermes 124, 192–204. Dogaer, N. 2019 ‘State Monopolies’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, Box. 10. 1, 151–152. Dowden, K. 1980 ‘Grades in the Eleusinian Mysteries’, Revue de l'histoire des religions 197, 409–427. Dunham, W. 2007 ‘Cold Case Files: The Athenian Grain Merchants 386 B.C.’, EAG 07–2, 1–23. Duttenhöfer, R. 2021 ‘Petitionen an den Epistrategen Boethos aus dem Strategenarchiv des Herakleopolites’, in: Cuvigny, H. et al. (eds.) Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library IV, Ann Arbor, 1–92. Edgar, C. C. 1920 ‘Selected papyri from the archive of Zenon (Nos. 55–64)’, ASAE 20, 181–206. Edgar, C. C. 1937 ‘On P. Lille I 4’, JEA 23, 261. Ellart, C. 2006 ‘"Pherne" and "parapherna" in the documents of Augustus’ reign: on the subject of P. Ryl. II 125 once again’, Aegyptus 86, 177–193. Evans, N. 2002 ‘Sanctuaries, Sacrifices, and the Eleusinian Mysteries’, Numen 49, 227–254. Falivene, M. 2012 ‘On Provenances: The Case of P. Köln XI 448’, in: Schubert, P. (ed.) Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie. Genève, 16-21 août 2010., Recherches et Rencontres (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de Genève 30), Genève, 221–227. Farah, A. 1987 ‘Οἱ παρὰ τοῦ οἰκονόµου in Ptolemaic Egypt’, ACPSI 4, 98– 105. Fields, N. 2006 Ancient Greek Fortifications 500-300 B.C., Oxford. Finkelberg, M. 2006 ‘The city Dionysia and the social space of Attic tragedy’ in: Greek Drama III: Essays in honour of Kevin Lee (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 87), 17–26.

214

The Office of the Epimeletes

Fischer-Bovet, C. 2014 Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge. Fischer‐Bovet, C./Sänger, P. 2019 ‘Security and Border Policy: Army and Police’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken,163–178. Foxhall, L. 2007 Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy, Oxford. Freeman, K. J. 1907 Schools of Hellas: an essay on the practice and theory of ancient Greek education from 600 to 300 B.C., New York. García, A./Tavor, S. 2017 ‘New Fragments of the Amnesty Decree of October 9, 186 BCE’, BASP 54, 45–57. Garnsey, P. 1988 Famine and Food Supply in the Greco-Roman World. Responses to Risk and Crisis, Cambridge. Geraci, G. 2003 ‘Documenti ellenistici e appalti di stato romani. Ancora su Polyb. VI, 17, 4 e UPZ I, 112, col. II, 5ss.’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 14, 45–66. Geraci, G. et al. 1974 ‘Papiri documentari dell'Università Cattolica di Milano’, Aegyptus 54, 3–140. Giannakopoulos, N. 2021 ‘Admission Procedures and Financial Contributions in Private Associations: Norms and Deviations’, in: Gabrielsen, V./Paganini, M. (eds.) Private Associations in the Ancient Greek World: Regulations and the Creation of Group Identity, Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 1987 ‘The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 58–76. Gómez, J. 2016 Olive Tree Cultivation and Oil Production in Ancient Egypt, PhD dissertation, Universidad de Jaén. Grenfell, B. P./Hunt, A. S. 1903 ‘Ptolemaic Papyri in the Gizeh Museum’, APF 2, 79–84. Grenfell, B. P./Mahaffy, J. P. 1896 The Revenue Laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Oxford. Griffith, M. 2001 ‘"Public" and "Private" in Early Greek Institutions of Education’, in: Too, Y. L. (ed.) Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden– Boston–Köln. Hamilton, H. C./Falconer, W. 1903 The Geography of Strabo, London. Hammond, N. G. L. 1985 ‘Some Macedonian Offices c. 336–309 BC’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 105, 156–160. Handrock, P. 1967 Dienstliche Weisungen in den Papyri der Ptolemäerzeit, PhD Dissertation, Köln.

Bibliography

215

Hard, R. 2004 The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, London– New York. Harper, G. M. 1934a ‘Tax contractors and their relation to tax collection in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Aegyptus 14, 49–64. Harper, G. M. 1934b ‘The Relation of Ἀρχώνης, Μέτοχοι, and Ἔγγυοι to each other, to the Government and to the Tax Contract in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Aegyptus 14, 269–285. Hau, L. 2016 Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus, Edinburgh. Hauben, H. 1971 ‘An annotated list of Ptolemaic naukleroi with discussion of BGU X 1933’, ZPE 8, 259–275. Hauben, H. 1975 ‘Agathokleia and Her Boats’, ZPE 16, 289–291. Hazopoulos, M. 1996 Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, Vol. I, Athens. Heichelheim, F. 1930 Wirtschaftliche Schwankungen der Zeit von Alexander bis Augustus, Jena. Heichelheim, F. 1933 ‘Monopole’, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften 16 (1), 147–199. Heinen, H. 1997 ‘Der κτίστης Boethos und die Errichtung einer neuen Stadt. Teil II’, APF 43, 340–363. Henne, M. H. 1935 Liste des Stratèges des Nomes Égyptiens à l'époque Gréco-Romaine, L'Institut français d'Archéologie orientale du Caire, Cairo. Hogan, A. 2019 ‘The Auction of Pharaoh Revisited’, in: Naether, F. (ed.)

New Approaches in Demotic Studies: Acts of the 13th International Conference of Demotic Studies (Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und

Altertumskunde 10), Berlin–Boston, 107–121. Hohlwein, N. 1969 Le Stratege du Nome (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 9), Brussels. Hölbl, G. 2001 A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, trans. by Saavedra, T., London–New York. Horne, R. 2015 Imperial Power and Local Autonomy in Greek Garrison Communities: The Phrourarchia and the Polis, PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina. Huss, W. 2001 Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v.Chr., München. Huss, W. 2011 Die Verwaltung des Ptolemaiischen Reichs, München. Huss, W. 2019 Das Geld der Ptolemäer, München. Jaeger, W. 1971 Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Highet, G., Vol. III, New York–Oxford.

216

The Office of the Epimeletes

Jakab, É 2013 ‘Versteigerung und Bodeneigentum im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 60, 221–242. Jakab, É. 2014 ‘The Greek Sale of Real Property’, in: Keenan, j./Manning, J./Yiftach, U. (eds.) Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the

Arab Conquest. A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary, Cambridge, 294–302.

Jones, A. 1997 ‘On the Reconstructed Macedonian and Egyptian Lunar Calendars’ ZPE 119, 157–166. Kaltsas, D. 2003a ‘Ein Streit zwischen Epergoi in P.Hels. 1’, ZPE 142, 215– 217. Kaltsas, D. 2003b ‘Aus den Archiven der Königlichen Schreiber Peteimuthes und Harchebis’, Tyche 18, 5–19. Käppel, E. 2016 ‘P. Coll. Youtie I 12 ’, Tyche 31, 280–281. Käppel, E. 2017 ‘Ein Asebieverfahren vor den Chrematisten? Eine Neuedition von P.Coll.Youtie I 12’, ZPE 203, 213–222. Käppel, E. 2021 Die Prostagmata der Ptolemäer (Papyrologica Coloniensia 45), Paderborn. Keenan, J. 1976 ‘Petition from a Prisoner: New Evidence on Ptolemy Philometor’s Accession’, in: Hanson, A. E. (ed.) Collectanea Papyrologica. Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. I, Bonn, 91–102. Keenan, J./Shelton, J. 1976 The Tebtunis Papyri: Volume IV (Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 64), London. Kenyon, F./Bell, H. 1893 Greek Papyri in the British Museum I, London. Koenen, L. 1957 Eine ptolemäische Königsurkunde (P. Kroll), Bonn. Koenen, L. 1989 ‘The Double Date of P. Sorb. Inv. 2407’, ZPE 76, 255–256. Koskenniemi, H. 1994 ‘Neue Texte zum Ibiskult aus dem 2. Jh. v.Chr.’, in: Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists. Copenhagen, 23-29 August 1992, Copenhagen, 245–257. Koskenniemi, H. 1997 ‘Zwei unveröffentlichte Papyri aus Turku’, in: Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (APF Beiheft 3), 541–546. Koutsoyiannis, D./Mamassis, N. 2017 ‘The Water Supply of Athens through the Centuries’, in: Wellbrock, K. (ed.) Cura Aquarum in Greece, Proceedings

of the 16th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Athens, Greece, 28 - 30 March 2015, Siegburg, 31–42. Kramer, B. 1997 ‘Der κτίστης Boethos und die Errichtung einer neuen Stadt. Teil I’, APF 43, 316–339.

Bibliography

217

Kramer, B. 2009 ‘Anweisung des Königlichen Schreibers an den Antigrapheus (P.UB Trier S 125-44)’, APF 55, 316–329. Kraut, B. 1990 ‘Hypomnema to Theogenes the Dioiketes’, ZPE 80, 273–276. Kruse, T. 2006 ‘Der Gaustratege im römischen Ägypten. Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Buch’, Tyche 21, 83–115. Kupiszewski, H./Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. 1957–1958 ‘Hyperetai. Étude sur les fonctions et le rôle des hyperètes dans l'administration civile et judiciaire de l'Égypte gréco-romaine’, JJurPap 11–12, 141–166. La’da, C. 2013 ‘Amnesty in Hellenistic Egypt. A Survey of the Sources’, in: Harter-Uibopuu, K./Mitthof, F. (eds.) Vergeben und Vergessen? Amnestie in

der Antike. Beiträge zum 1. Wiener Kolloquium zur Antiken Rechtsgeschichte 27.-28.10.2008, Vienna,163–209.

Lanciers, E. 2018 ‘The Career of Some Officials in the Arsinoite Nome in the Early Second Century BC’, Tyche 33, 119–129. Lanciers, E. 2020a ‘High-Ranking Ptolemaic Officials Visiting the Chora’, Historia 69, 283–309. Lanciers, E. 2020b ‘The Evolution of the Court Titles of the Ptolemaic Dioiketes in the Second Century’, Anc. Soc. 50, 99–128. Legras, B. 2011 ‘La carrière militaire d'Apollonios fils de Glaukias (UPZ I, 14-16)’, in: Couvenhes, J. C./Crouzet, S./Pere-Nogues, S. (eds.) Pratiques et identités culturelles des armées hellénistiques du monde méditerranéen: Hellenistic Warfare, Vol. 3, Pessac, 203–211. Lewis, N. 1934 L'Industrie du Papyrus dans l'Égypte Gréco Romaine, Paris. Lewis, N. 1974 Papyrus in Classical Antiquity, Oxford. Lewis, N. 1986 Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford. Lewis, N. 1996 ‘Notationes Legentis’, BASP 33, 61–66. Lupu, E. 2003 ‘Sacrifice at the Amphiareion and a Fragmentary Sacred Law from Oropos’, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 72, 321–340. Mahaffy, J. P. 1893 The Flinders Petrie Papyri II, Dublin. Mahaffy, J. P./Smyly, J. G. 1905 The Flinders Petrie Papyri III, Dublin. Manning, J. 1999 ‘The auction of pharaoh’, in: Teeter, E./Larson, J. A. (eds.) Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, Chicago, 277–284. Manning, J. 2003 Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt, The Structure of Land Tenure 332–30 BCE, Cambridge.

218

The Office of the Epimeletes

Manning, J. 2014a ‘Law under the Ptolemies’, in: Keenan, j./Manning, J./Yiftach, U. (eds.) Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the

Arab Conquest. A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary, Cambridge, 17–19. Manning, J. 2014b ‘Marriage’, in: Keenan, J./Manning, J./Yiftach, U. (eds.)

Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary, Cambridge, 149–154.

Manning, J. 2019 ‘The Ptolemaic Governmental Branches and the Role of Temples and Elite Groups’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to GrecoRoman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 103–119. Maresch, K. 1996 Bronze und Silber. Papyrologische Beiträge zur Geschichte

der Währung im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten bis zum 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (Papyrologica Coloniensia 25), Opladen.

Maresch, K. 2009 ‘Zur Frage der Erbpacht und des Privateigentums bei Wein- und Gartenland im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, in: Eberhard, R. et al. (eds.) "... vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!" Papyrologische Beiträge zu Ehren von Bärbel Kramer (P. Kramer) = APF Beiheft 27, Berlin–New York, 124–133. Martin, A./Nachtergael, G. 1997 ‘Papyrus du Musée du Caire. I’, CdÉ 72, 295–306. McGing, B. 1998 ‘Bandits, Real and Imagined, in Greco-Roman Egypt’, BASP 35, 159–183. McGing, B. 2002 ‘Illegal salt in the Lycopolite nome’, APF 48, 42–66. McGing, B. 2004 ‘Ptolemaic Thebarchs’, APF 50, 119–137. Meister, K. 1984 ‘Agathocles’, in: Walbank, F./Astin, A. (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History: The Hellenistic World, Vol. VII, Part 1, Cambridge. Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. 1975 ‘Chrématistes et laocrites’, in: Bingen, J. et al. (eds.) Le monde grec. Pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Hommages à Claire Préaux (Université libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de philosophie et lettres 62), Brussels, 699–708. Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. 1994a ‘L' « Ordonnance sur les cultures ». Droit grec et réalités égyptiennes en matière de bail forcé’, Revue historique de droit français et étranger 72, 1–20. Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. 1994b ‘Πρόσταγµα περὶ τῆς γεωργίας: droit grec et réalités égyptiennes en matière de bail forcé’, in: Allam, Sh. (ed.) Grund und

Bibliography

219

Boden in Altägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions, Tübingen 18.20. Juni 1990, Tübingen, 199–225.

Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. 2014 ‘Ptolemaic Justice’, in: Keenan, j./Manning, J./Yiftach, U. (eds.) Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the

Arab Conquest. A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary, Cambridge, 471–476. Messerer, C. 2020 Corpus des papyrus grecs sur les relations administratives entre le clergé égyptien et les autorités romaines (Papyrologica Coloniensia 41/3), Paderborn. Monson, A. 2007 ‘Royal Land in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Demographic Model’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 50, 363–397. Monson, A. 2012 From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and Economic Change in Egypt, Cambridge. Monson, A. 2019 ‘Taxation and Fiscal Reforms’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 147–162. Mooren, L. 1975 The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction and Prosopography, Brussel. Mooren, L. 1977 La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque: contribution à l'étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l'épogue hellénistique (Studia Hellenistica 23), Leuven. Muhs, B. 1996 The administration of Egyptian Thebes in the Early Ptolemaic period, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Muhs, B. 2005 Taxes, Taxpayers, And Tax Receipts in Early Ptolemaic Thebes, Chicago. Mylonas, G. 1947 ‘Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries’, The Classical Journal 43, 130–146 Noshy, I. 1976 The History of Egypt in the Reign of the Ptolemies, Vol. III, Cairo. (In Arabic). O'Neil, J. L. 2006 ‘Places and Origin of the Officials of Ptolemaic Egypt’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 55, 16–25. Oates, J. 1995 The Ptolemaic Basilikos Grammateus, BASP Supp. 8, Atlanta. Ober, J., 2014 ‘Fiscal Policy in Classical Athens’, in: Scheidel, W./Monson, A. (eds.), Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Early States, Cambridge, 492–522. Otto, W. 1905 Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Äegypten I, Leipzig. Papathomas, A. 1996 ‘Ein Brief des Ökonomen Zephyros über Synagorasmos von Weizen’, APF 42, 43–54.

220

The Office of the Epimeletes

Pébarthe, D. 2007 ‘Commerce et commerçants à Athènes à l'époque de Christophe’, Pallas 74, 161–178. Plaumann, G. 1914 Griechische Papyri der Sammlung Gradenwitz, Heidelberg. Préaux, C. 1939a L'économie royale des Lagides, Bruxelles. Préaux, C. 1939b ‘Le diœcète Théogénès’, CdÉ 14, 376-382. Qandeil, H. 2022a ‘Property Declarations in Ptolemaic Egypt’, IWNW 1, 1– 14. Qandeil, H. 2022b ‘Order to Receive Money’, ZPE 224, 208–212. Qandeil, H. forthcoming ‘A New Report of a Ptolemaic Real Estate Declaration’, ZPE 226. Quaegebeur, J. 1977 ‘Note sur l' Herêsieion d' Antinoé’, ZPE 24, 246–250. Quenouille, N./Willms, L. 2001 ‘Die Aufnahme des Herakleios in den Katökenstand (P. UB Trier S 125-21)’, APF 47, 55–70. Reekmans, T. 1948 ‘Monetary History and the Dating of Ptolemaic Papyri’, Studia Hellenistica 5, 15–43. Reekmans, T. 1951 ‘The Ptolemaic Copper Inflation’, Studia Hellenistica 7, 61–113. Reekmans, T. 1952 ‘Parerga Papyrologica’, CdÉ 27, 404–412. Reekmans T./Van’t Dack, E. 1952 ‘A Bodleian Archive on Corn Transport’, CdÉ 27, 149–195. Rhodes, P. 2013 ‘The Organization of Athenian Public Finance’, Greece & Rome, Second Series 60, 203–231. Römer, C. 2017 ‘The Nile in the Fayum. Strategies of dominating and using the water resources of the river in the oasis in the Middle Kingdom and the Graeco‐Roman period’, in: Willems, H./Dahms, J.‐M. (eds.) The Nile: Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt, (Mainz Historical Cultural Sciences 36), Bielefeld, 171–191. Römer, C. 2019 The Fayoum Survey Project: The Themistou Meris: Volume A: The Archaeological and Papyrological Survey (Collectanea Hellenistica 8), Brussels. Römer, C. 2022 ‘Do We Take the Donkey or Do We Take the Boat?: Case Studies in Water Levels and Transportation in and around the Fayoum Oasis in the Graeco-Roman Period’, in: Bußmann, R. et al. (eds.) Spuren der altägyptischen Gesellschaft: Festschrift für Stephan J. Seidlmayer, Berlin– Boston, 33–45.

Bibliography

221

Rostovtzeff, M. 1906 ‘Kornerhebung und -transport im griechisch-römischen Ägypten’, APF 3, 201–224. Rostovtzeff, M. 1910 Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates (APF Beiheft 1), Leipzig. Rostovtzeff, M. 1922 A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C., a Study in Economic History, Madison. Rostovtzeff, M. 1941 Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford. Samuel, A. 1962 Ptolemaic Chronology, München. Samuel, A. 1972 Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. 1. Abteilung, 7. Teil.), München. San Nicolò, M. 1972 Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer, München. Sandy, D. 1989 The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt, BASP Supp. 6, Atlanta. Scheuble-Reiter, S. 2010 ‘Loyalitätsbekundungen ptolemäischer Phrurarchen im Spiegel epigraphischer Quellen’, in: Coskun, A./Heinen, V./Pfeiffer, S. (eds.) Identität und Zugehörigkeit im Osten der griechischrömischen Welt.

Aspekte ihrer Repräsentation in Städten, Provinzen und Reichen= Inklusion/ Exklusion. Studien zu Fremdheit und Armut von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. 14, Frankfurt am Main, 35–53. Scheuble-Reiter S. 2012 Die Katökenreiter im ptolemäischen Ägypten

(Vestigia 64), München. Scholl, R. 2009 ‘Tempelprostitution im griechisch-römischen Ägypten? Hierodouloi als Tempelsklaven und Tempelprostituierte?’, in: Scheer, T. S. (ed.) Tempelprostitution im Altertum. Fakten und Fiktionen (Oikumene. Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 6), Berlin,186–190. Seider, R. 1938 Beiträge zur ptolemäischen Verwaltungsgeschichte: Der Nomarches. Der dioiketes Apollonios, Heidelberg. Seidl, E. 1929 Der Eid im ptolemäischen Recht, München. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1964 Penthemeros-Certificates in Greco-Roman Egypt, Leiden. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1978a ‘Ptolemaic Property-Return’, CdÉ 53, 307–312. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1978b ‘Three New Ptolemaic Documents on Transportation of Grain’, CdÉ 53, 107–116. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1979 ‘Two Ptolemaic Accounts’, CdÉ 54, 273–284.

222

The Office of the Epimeletes

Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1980 ‘Ptolemaic Papyri in the Collection of the Erasmus University’, ZPE 40, 119–129. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1985 ‘Receipts for wool and a woolen garment, 215–213 BC.’ Yale Classical Studies 28, 67–71. Skarsouli, E. 2020 P. Oxyrhyncha: Edition dokumentarischer Papyri aus der Kölner Sammlung (Papyrologica Coloniensia 42), Paderborn. Skeat, T. C. 1937 ‘The epistrategos Hippalos’, APF 12, 40–43. Skeat, T. C. 1954 The Reigns of the Ptolemies (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 39), München. Skeat, T. C. 1959 ‘A Receipt for ENKYKLION’, JEA 45, 75–78. Skeat, T. C. 1973 ‘Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology: IV. The 16th Year of Ptolemy Philopator as a Terminus ad quem’, JEA 59, 169–174. Skeat, T. C. 1979 ‘The Date of the Dioiketes Theogenes’, Anc. Soc. 10, 159– 166. Soliman, S. 2019 A Study and an Edition of some Unpublished Greek Papyri, MA Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo. Spineto, N. 2011 ‘Athenian Identity, Dionysiac Festivals and the Theatre’, in: Schlesier, A. (ed.) Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin– Boston, 299–314. Stalley, R. F. 1983 An Introduction to Plato’s Laws, Oxford. Stern, M. 2016 ‘Drei neue ptolemäische Papyri und das Amtsarchiv des Demetrios’, BASP 53, 17–51. Stern, S. 2012 Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies, Oxford. Strassi, S. 1997 Le funzioni degli ὑπηρέται nell'Egitto greco e romano, Heidelberg. Stroszeck, J. 2014 ‘Water Management in Classical Athens: Cisterns of the Classical Bathhouse on the Kerameikos Road in front of the Dipylon’, in: Kalavroutsiotis, I. /Angelakis, A. (eds.) International Water Association

(IWA) Regional Symposium on Water, Wastewater and Environment: Traditions and Culture, Patras (Greece), 22‐24 March 2014, Patras, 499–507.

Swarney, P. 1985 ‘Dating Some Fayum Officials in the Reign of Philopator’,

ZPE 61, 161–166.

Taubenschlag, R. 1955 The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.-640 A.D., 2nd edition, New York. Tcherikover, A. 1959 Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia. Thomas, D. 1975 The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Part 1: The Ptolemaic epistrategos (Papyrologica Coloniensia 6), Opladen.

Bibliography

223

Thomas, D. 1978 ‘Aspects of the Ptolemaic civil service: The dioiketes and the nomarch’, in: Maehler, H./Strocka, V. (eds.) Das ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions 27–29 September 1976 in Berlin, Mainz am Rhein, 187–194. Thompson-Crawford, D. 1971 Kerkeosiris. An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period, Cambridge. Thompson, D. 1983 ‘Nile grain transport under the Ptolemies’, in: Garnsey, P. et al. (eds.) Trade in the Ancient Economy, London, 64–75. Thompson, D. 1988 Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton. Thompson, D. 2009 ‘Economic Reforms in the Mid-Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus’, in: McKechnie, P./Guillaume, P. (eds.) Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (Mnemosyne Supp. 300), Leiden, 387–408. Uebel, F. 1968 Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern, Berlin. Van Minnen, P. 2014 ‘Review: Das Archiv der Taricheuten Amenneus und Onnophris aus Tanis (P.Tarich). Papyrologica Coloniensia 37 by Charikleia Armoni’, BASP 51, 245–248. Vandorpe, K. 2002 The Bilingual Family Archive of Dryton, His Wife Apollonia and Their Daughter Senmouthis (P. Dryton) (Collectanea Hellenistica 4), Brussel. Vandorpe, K. 2014 ‘The Ptolemaic Army in Upper Egypt (2nd–1st centuries BC)’, in: Veïsse, A.‐E./Wackenier, S. (eds.) L’armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, 105–135. Vandorpe, K. 2019 ‘Life Portraits: People at Work’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 269–280. Vandorpe, K./Waebens, S. 2009 Reconstructing Pathyris’ Archives. A Multicultural Community in Hellenistic Egypt (Collectanea Hellenistica 3), Brussels. Veisse, A. 2004 Les Révoltes égyptiennes: recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du Règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine (Studia Hellenistica 41), Leuven–Paris–Dudley. Verhoogt, A. 1998 Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris. The Doings

and Dealings of a Village Scribe in the late Ptolemaic Period (120-110 BC)

(Pap. Lugd. Bat. 29), Leiden. Verhoogt, A. 2019 ‘Unique Sources in an Unusual Setting’, in: Vandorpe, K. (ed.) A Companion to Greco‐Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 3– 14.

224

The Office of the Epimeletes

Von Druffel, E. 1920 ‘zum dioiketen-problem’, APF 6, 30–33. Walbank, F. 1981 The Hellenistic World, Oxford. Wallace, S. 1938 Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Princeton. Westlake, H. 1986 ‘Spartan Intervention in Asia, 400–397 B.C.’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 35, 405–426. Wilcken, U. 1899 Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien: ein Beitrag zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte I, Leipzig–Berlin. Wilcken, U. 1912 Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Erster Band. Historischer Teil. Erste Hälfte. Grundzüge, Leipzig–Berlin. Wilcken, U. 1924 ‘Referate’, APF 7, 67–114. Wilcken, U. 1927 Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit I, Leipzig–Berlin. Worthington, I. 1994 ‘Alexander and Athens in 324/3 BC: on the Greek Attitude to the Macedonian Hegemony’, Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 45– 51. Yiftach, U. 2003 Marriage and Marital Arrangements: A History of the Greek Marriage Documents in Egypt, 4th Century BCE - 4th Century CE, München. Youtie, H. C. 1952 ‘Critical Notes on Greek Papyri’, TAPA 83, 100–119. Youtie, H.C. 1973 Scriptiunculae I, Amsterdam.

INDICES I GENERAL INDEX advocates, 96 agent of the epimeletes, 26, 35, 47, 50, 70, 71, 74, 106, 109, 116, 117, 118, 122, 126, 133, 144, 166, 173, 175 amnesty decree(s), 56, 75, 79, 142, 143 Amphiaraion, 10 Amphiaraus, 10 anachoresis, 45, 58, 113 antigrapheis, 11 antigrapheus, 35, 46, 47, 48, 87, 88, 89, 100, 106, 107, 121, 136, 139, 157 aphrodisia, 105 Aphrodite, 105 apodektai, 11 apomoira, 71, 92, 124, 141, 142, 145, 180, 181, 193 archiphylakitai, 105, 124, 162, 174 archiphylakites, 27, 33, 43, 44, 49, 50, 70, 74, 91, 92, 98, 101, 123, 144, 159, 160, 166, 175, 176, 177, 182, 185 archive of Amenneus son of Horos, and Onnophris son of Teos, 72f. archive of Automedon, 31–32 archive of Dryton, 104, 140–141 archive of Hermias, 34f., 60, 61, 168 archive of Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, See twins archive of Tesenouphis, 26 archive of the taricheutai, 134, 152, 164. See also archive of Amenneus son of Horos, and Onnophris son of Teos. See also taricheutai archive of Theomnestos, 33, 61 archon basileus, 14, 21 archonship, 14 archontes, 12, 13 Areiopagos, 13 arrears, 3, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 103, 104, 117, 133, 140, 148, 172, 181 artabieia, 116 asebeia, 80 Asklepieion, 86, 90 Asklepios/Imhotep, 85, 86

Association(s), 11, 110, 119 Astarte, 86, 94 Auction(s), 3, 42, 43, 51, 52, 72, 73, 74, 102, 103, 111, 124, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 141, 148 auctioned, 51, 52, 100, 134, 203 auctioning, 51, 91, 102, 128, 129, 133, 152, 161 aulic title(s), 97, 98, 104, 150, 194 autonomia, 18, 19 bank receipt, 42 banker(s), 38, 43, 52, 106, 117, 124, 136, 141, 168 basilikoi georgoi, 26, 45 basilikoi grammateis, 162 basilikos grammateus, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56, 59, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 90, 91, 95, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 113, 116, 120, 121, 123, 135, 136, 139, 143, 144, 155, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163–166, 169, 171, 172, 176, 180, 181, 182, 193 basilikon, 50, 77, 178, 180, 182. See also royal treasury. See also fiscus battle of Raphia, 26, 31, 187 beer, 124 boule, 11 brothels, 105 bull Apis, 85. See also twins Carians, 40 castor oil, 86, 87, 125 catoecic, 104, 116 cattle-keepers, 119 cavalrymen, 33 charta Augusta, 128 charta hieratica, 128 chersos, 93, 112 chora, 42, 57, 83, 150 chrematismoi, 120 chrematismos, 120, 137, 165 chrematistai, 3, 28, 45, 56, 57, 58, 73, 75, 79, 80, 96, 97, 129, 143, 164, 177–178, 182 cleroi, 29, 30, 92, 174, 180 cleros, 28, 29, 50, 72, 94, 174 cleroucharchoi, 11

226

The Office of the Epimeletes

cleruchic land, 2, 3, 28, 50, 51, 94, 111, 116, 122, 124, 179 cleruchoi, 180 cleruchos, 26, 28, 50 cleruchs, 26, 28, 33, 47, 50 compulsory, 84 confiscate, 11, 30, 42, 50, 51, 72, 91, 96, 134 confiscation, 29, 30, 50, 51, 77, 134 copper standard, 40, 62, 63 crime(s), 13, 79, 96, 142, 174 crown tax, 48 declaration(s), 1, 3, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 55, 56, 92, 111, 128, 141, 142, 160, 161, 164, 180 dermatera, 69, 131, 132 desert-guards. See eremophylakes diadochi, 6, 19 diadochoi, 98, 99, 100, 104, 151 diagramma, 28, 57 diagraphai, 3, 111, 141 diagraphe, 71, 104, 124, 140 didaskaloi, 17 dioiketai, 148, 149, 150 dioiketes, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 41, 42, 47, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 72, 73, 79, 82, 83, 84, 88, 95, 96, 101, 103, 106, 109, 111, 112, 114, 116, 123, 132, 136, 137, 138, 147–152, 153, 159, 160, 164, 165, 174, 175, 176, 181, 188, 189 Dionysia, 14, 15, 21 dockyard, 6, 7, 21 donkey drivers, 77, 119 dorea, 101, 113, 118

eisphora, 10 ekphorion, 48, 101

elders of the farmers, 109 Eleusinian Mysteries, 13, 14, 21 eleutheria, 18, 19 embalmers, 72, 73, 134. See also

taricheutai enormia, 78

epagomenal days, 30

epergoi, 70 ephebes, 17, 21 ephodoi, 94 ephoroi, 6

epi syntaxeōs, 28

epimeletai of the Dionysia, 14, 15, 21 epimeletai of the Islands of the Blest, 6 epimeletai of the port, 8. See epimeletes of the emporion epimeletes (guardian) of the two kings,

19, 20–21, 22 (regent) of Alexander’s kingdom, 20, 21, 22 epimeletes as a governor (of a city), 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 epimeletes of education, 15–17, 21, 22, 23. epimeletes of revenues, 10, 11, 21, 22. epimeletes of the dockyards, 6–7, 21, 179 epimeletes of the Eleusinian Mysteries, 13–14, 21, 22 epimeletes of the emporion, 7, 8, 21, 22, 23, 179 epimeletes of the ephebes, 17, 21 epimeletes of the matters of the temples, 15, 21 epimeletes of the repair of fortifications, 8, 21 epimeletes of the symmoria, 7, 21 epimeletes of the water sources, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 179 epimeletes of the winds, 6 episkepsis, 94, 115 epistatai, 11, 75, 105, 145, 162, 174, 193 epistates, 72, 81, 87, 90, 91, 92, 98, 103, 139, 140, 144, 145, 162, 166, 174, 175, 177, 182, 193 epistolographion, 35, 54 epistolographos, 148 epistrategos, 42, 80, 82, 106, 107, 110, 123, 136, 143, 155, 156, 157, 165, 181, 188 eremophylakes, 92, 94 ergasterion, 99, 170 Eudoxos, 83

epimeletes

fiscus, 28. See also royal treasury. See also basilikon five-day certificates, 115. See also penthemeros certificates fuller, 43

genematophylakia, 115 geometria, 115

goldsmith, 70, 122, 133

227

Indices goldsmithery, 3, 71, 122, 133, 181 grain samples, 119 grain transport, 2, 3, 22, 27, 48, 49, 78, 80, 111, 118, 119, 120, 159, 164, 172, 179, 180 grammateis, 11, 28, 54, 105, 121 granary(s), 51, 53, 81, 90, 96, 97, 99, 117, 120, 121, 143, 144, 166, 167, 168, 170, 175 guarantors, 43, 79 guarding crops, 177, 181 guilds, 119 Hellenion, 41

Hellenomemphite(s), 40, 41, 56 hellenotamiai, 11 hierakoboskoi, 101 hippikon, 9

holders of 10 arouras, 94, 116, 122 holder of 30 arouras, 42, 51 holder of 100 arouras, 42, 51, 92 honorific title(s), 97, 99, 100, 101 hyperetes, 29 hypodioiketai, 149, 153, 154 hypodioiketes, 60, 61, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 127, 136, 139, 140, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 181 hypographeus, 35, 54 hypologos, 48, 112 hypomnema, 87, 88, 90, 91, 100, 126 hypomnematographos, 148

ibioboskoi, 101

immovable property, 36 incense, 124 infantry, 20, 33, 80, 91 Ionians, 40 irrigation, 1, 72, 97, 98, 114, 115, 116, 117, 148, 169, 171, 172, 177, 180 Isis, 85, 105

katoche, 85 katochos, 83, 85, 86, 94, 138 katoikoi, 105 katoikos, 116, 122 keramion, 71 kiki, 87, 88, 89, 139. See castor oil koinon synedrion, 81 kolakretai, 11 komarchai, 47

komarches, 26, 92, 95, 143, 170–171, 178, 182

komogrammateis, 47, 82 komogrammateus, 50, 74, 76, 80, 90, 91,

92, 93, 94, 97, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 112, 113, 116, 144, 165, 171– 172, 176, 182 komophylakites, 72, 114, 174 kosmetes, 17 kubernetai, 48 kurioi, 48 kurios, 49 kyllestis, 90 land auctions, 2, 51, 180 land survey, 115 land surveyor, 44, 58, 176 laoi, 82 laokritai, 56 liturgical work, 119 loading order(s), 80, 99, 118, 120 logistai, 11 logisterion, 94, 116 Lokaldioiketen, 148

machimoi, 83

marriage contract, 77, 123 mercenaries, 33 metoikion, 10 metropolis, 39, 168 military administration, 28, 55, 107, 138, 158, 165, 173 military grammateus, 33, 34, 55, 80, 135, 157, 173 misthophoros, 33 misthos, 54 monopoly(s), 1, 3, 51, 97, 111, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 139, 140, 144, 151, 171, 172, 175, 181 moriai, 12, 21, 22 Mouseion, 18 natron tax, 100 naukleroi, 48 naukleros, 49 nomarches, 46, 156, 170, 171 oath, 92, 98, 107, 109, 118, 128 oikonomoi, 53, 75, 105, 108, 162, 189

228

The Office of the Epimeletes

oikonomos, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,

36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 77, 78, 82, 98, 101, 110, 114, 120, 121, 123, 130, 132, 135, 136, 142, 144, 155, 158–162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186 oil, 3, 8, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 124, 125– 127, 132, 139, 154, 181, 192 oil manufacturers, 100, 126 oil workers, 126 opsonion, 54 orchards, 92, 142 orders of delivery, 31 Osiris, 85 Osiris-Apis, 85

paidotribai, 17 Panathenaic Festival, 9, 12 pastophorion, 44 payment orders, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 46, 53, 55, 81, 84, 87, 109, 117, 135, 138, 139, 140, 148, 160, 164, 170, 173, 180, 193 penthemeros certificates, 115 philanthropia, 123 philanthropy, 79 phrourarchoi, 105, 162 phrourarchos, 34, 130, 131 phrouria, 34 phrourion, 34, 44, 62 phylakitai, 92, 94, 98, 105, 116, 174, 176, 177, 182 phylakites, 116, 175, 177 poll tax, 10, 97 potamophylakes, 94 praktores, 75 priests, 6, 16, 87, 101, 105, 112, 113, 135, 139, 146, 193 property declarations, 36-41, 141. See also real estate declarations pros tē syntaxē, 28 prostagma, 29, 70, 82, 83, 124, 141 protopraxia, 123 Provinzial-dioiketai, 148 Ptah, 85 real estate declarations, 1, 3, 37, 55–56, 141, 160, 164, 180 rebellion, 31, 134. See also revolt

revolt, 72, 75, 111, 134, 142, 187 revolution of Dionysios Petosarapis, 82, 111 rhabdophoros, 71 river-guards. See potamophylakes royal bank, 42, 71, 92, 100, 106, 161 royal decree, 40, 41, 80, 82, 83, 96, 101, 103, 104, , 111, 112, 134, 141, 142, 146, 149, 165, 172, 176. See also

prostagma

royal farmer(s), 2, 26, 45, 46, 47, 58, 72, 82, 91, 95, 101, 103, 108, 109, 111, 113, 116, 143, 144, 157, 171, 172, 176 royal granaries, 53 royal land, 46, 48, 50, 82, 99, 101, 109, 111, 112, 113, 116, 146, 148, 171, 180 royal papyrus, 127, 128 royal treasury, 50, 58, 73, 74, 77, 123, 134, 142, 144, 148, 178, 180. See also fiscus. See also basilikon sale’s tax, 124 salt, 1, 3, 97, 98, 103, 128–129, 134, 152, 181 salt tax, 97, 128, 129 scribe of the farmers, 94, 104, 116, 169 seed loans, 2, 46, 47, 171 Serapieion, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 94, 125, 127, 138, 145, 154, 181, 192, 193, 201, 202, 207 sesame crop, 109, 126 sesame oil, 86, 87, 88, 89, 125 shipment of grain, 50, 120 ship(s), 7, 8, 21, 26, 27, 34, 48, 49, 61, 78, 99, 107, 118, 119, 121, 132, 136, 137, 148, 159, 179 silver standard, 62 sitologoi, 53, 78, 107, 167, 168, 170, 173 sitologos, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48, 51, 53, 55, 74, 78, 80, 81, 96, 99, 118, 120, 121, 135, 136, 143, 155, 157, 160, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 180, 182 sitos agorastos, 48 skins, 69, 131. See also dermatera smuggler(s), 92, 128, 129, 130, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177

229

Indices soldiers, 1, 33, 34, 36, 41, 54, 55, 62, 80, 95, 135, 138, 139, 157, 160, 168, 174, 180 sophronistes, 17 sowing, 46, 47, 82, 115, 126 sowing schedule, 46, 47, 82, 126 state expenditures, 3, 53, 111, 135, 138, 180 stewards of associations, 11 stibika, 52, 161 strategos, 28, 73, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 95, 107, 113, 130, 131, 135, 136, 138, 139, 143, 150, 154, 155– 158, 162, 165, 169, 181, 182, 184, 185, 192 supervisor of the distribution of the State papyrus, 128 sureties, 43, 52, 123, 134, 161, 180 surety, 45, 77, 100, 123, 161 syntaxis, 139, 140, 145, 181, 193 tanning, 3, 130, 131, 181. See also skins. See also dermatera taricheutai, 152, 176, 178. See also embalmers. See also archive of the

taricheutai

tax collector(s), 52, 70, 71, 79, 122, 123, 134, 143, 155, 176 tax contractor, 52, 133 tax farmer, 52, 69, 70, 71, 77, 110, 117, 122, 123 tax farming, 1, 2, 3, 42, 43, 51, 52, 71, 111, 122, 124, 133, 164, 180 tax officials, 51, 56 taxation, 7, 41, 129, 171 taxes, 10, 11, 12, 22, 42, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 71, 114, 124, 130, 132, 141, 161, 168 taxpayers, 51, 123, 155 teichopoios, 8 temple(s), 3, 10, 15, 21, 79, 85, 87, 88, 90, 94, 101, 105, 111, 113, 132, 139, 140, 142, 145, 146, 151, 152, 154, 181, 192, 193 thalamegos, 42, 106, 165 thesauroi, 48, 116, 119, 167 thesauros, 88, 118 threshing floors, 48 toparches, 26, 46, 170 toparchia, 1, 169 toparchies, 167

topogrammateus, 70, 74, 94, 98, 101,

105, 113, 116, 144, 164, 169, 171, 172, 182 trapezites, 34, 35, 36, 53, 55, 71, 135, 155, 160, 167, 168, 180, 182 trierarch, 7 triremes, 7 twins of the Serapieion, 84–90, 125, 127, 138–140, 145, 154, 156, 192, 193 tyranny, 18 village

scribe,

43,

komogrammateus

181.

See also

vineyard, 42, 51, 71, 117, 124, 141 wages, 34, 35, 54, 80, 135, 138, 157, 160, 168, 174, 182 wine stores, 53

230

The Office of the Epimeletes

II INDEX OF GREEK ἀδέσποτον, 103, 134 αἴτησις, 80 ἁλική, 97, 128 ἅλς, 129 ἀµπελών, 42, 51 ἀνακεχωρηκέναι, 91 ἀναλαβεῖν τοὺς κλήρους, 29 ἀνάληψις, 30 ἀναφορά, 74 ἀνεχώρησαν, 101 ἀπογραφαί, 36, 37 ἀπογραφή, 39, 40, 56 ἀπόµοιρα, 142 Ἁρῆσις, 101 ἀρχυπηρέτης, 95, 138 ἀφροδίσια, 105 βαλανεῖον, 141 βασιλικοὶ γεωργοί, 46 βασιλικοὶ χάρται, 128 βασιλικὸς χάρτης, 128 βουλή, 7 βυρσοδέψης, 69 βῶλος, 71 γενηµατοφυλακία, 98, 116, 177 γέρας ἐνταφιαστικόν, 72, 74, 134 γεωµέτρης, 44, 58 γεωµετρία, 94 γεωργοί, 108 γῆ ἐν δωρεᾷ, 101 γραµµατεὺς γεωργῶν, 104, 116 γραµµατεὺς κληρούχων, 28, 50 γραµµατεὺς τῶν γεωργῶν, 94, 116, 144, 169 γραµµατεὺς τῶν δυνάµεων, 95, 138 γραµµατεὺς τῶν κατοίκων ἱππέων, 28 δειγµατισµός, 80 δερµατηρά, 129, 132 δῆµος, 7 διάγραµµα, 126 διαγραφή, 117, 140 διαγραφὴ τοῦ σπόρου, 46, 47, 82, 126 δίασµα, 76 Διονυσίων ἐπιµελητής, 14

ἐγκύκλιον, 9, 38, 124, 141 ἐγλόγισµα, 36 εἰκασία, 48, 126 εἰσαγωγεύς, 28, 57, 73 εἰσφορά, 7 ἑκατοντάρουρος, 42 ἐκλογή, 93 ἕκτη, 141 ἐκφόρια, 109, 112, 172 ἐκφόριον, 91, 113 ἐλαϊκή, 125, 139 ἐλαιουργοί, 126 Ἑλλήνιον, 40 Ἑλληνοµεµφῖται, 41 Ἑλληνοµεµφίτης, 40 ἐµπορίου ἐπιµελητής, 7 ἔπεργος, 70 ἐπὶ συντάξεως, 28 ἐπὶ τὰς κρήνας ἐπιµελεῖται, 10 ἐπὶ τοῦ τελωνίου πραγµατευόµενοι, 79 ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων, 93, 108, 135, 136, 183 ἐπὶ τῶν τελωνῶν, 79, 123, 143 ἐπιµέλεια, 20 ἐπιµέλεσθαι τῶν κρηνῶν, 10 ἐπιµεληταὶ οἱ ἐκ µακάρων νήσων, 6 ἐπιµεληταὶ τῆς φυλῆς, 14 ἐπιµεληταὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ ἱερά, 15 ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς πόλεως, 19 ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς συµµορίας, 7 ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς τῶν τειχῶν ἐπισκευῆς, 8 ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν Διονυσίων, 15 ἐπιµελητὴς τῶν Σάρδεων, 18, 19 ἐπιστάταις, 137 ἐπιστάτης τοῦ νοµοῦ, 137 ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἱερῶν, 145, 193 ἐπιστολαί, 54 ἐπιστολή, 89 ἐπιστολὴ συνεφραγισµένη, 35 ἐπιστολογράφοι, 54 ἐπιστράτηγος, 106 ζυτοποιός, 43 ἡγούµενος τῶν φυλακιτῶν, 98, 116 θαλαµηγός, 106 θησαυρός, 78 ἱµατιοπωλική, 123

Indices ἱππεῖς µισθοφόροι, 33, 138 Καροµεµφῖται, 41 κεράµιον, 86 κλῆρος βασιλικός, 46 κοινὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν, 11 κοτύλη, 86 λουτρωνίδιον, 141 µαχαιροφόροις, 137 µαχίµοις, 137 µετέωροι καρποί, 92 µέτρησον, 84 µετρητὴς δωδεκάχους, 86 µετρητὴς ὀκτάχους, 86 µυστηρίων ἐπιµελητής, 13 νέοι φοινίκινοι καρποί, 92 νεόφυτοι φοίνικες, 92 ὁ κατὰ πόλιν, 71 ὀθονιηρά, 132 Οἰκονοµικά [Arist.], 11 οἰκονόµος τῶν ἀργυρικῶν, 53, 168 οἰκονόµος τῶν σιτικῶν, 53, 168 οἰνολόγοι, 53, 168 ὀνηλάται, 119 περιστερεών, 141 πραγµατευόµενοι τὴν δερµατηράν, 130 πρεσβύτεροι τῶν γεωργῶν, 109 πρὸς τῇ ἐλαικῇ, 139 πρὸς τῆι δερµατηρᾶι, 69, 130, 131 πρὸς τῆι διαθέσει τῶν βασιλικῶν χαρτῶν, 92, 128 πρὸς τῆι ἐξαγωγῆι τοῦ σίτου, 27, 49 πρὸς τῆι ἐπιµελείαι τῶν χρηµατιστῶν, 73 πρὸς τῆι συντάξει, 106 πρὸς τοῖς ὑποµνήµασι, 54 προσαγγελία, 76 προσαγγελίαι, 76 προσάγγελµα, 76 προσαγγέλµατα, 76 προσοδικαὶ κρίσεις, 143 πρόσταγµα, 41, 82 πρόσταγµα περὶ τῆς γεωργίας, 82 προστάγµατα φιλανθρώπων, 79 σιτώνιον, 80 σκυτεύς, 70

231 στιβεύς, 43 στιβική, 43 στρατηγός, 106, 108 στρατηγὸς τῆς Θηβαίδος, 106 συγγενής, 106 σύµβολον, 86 συµµορία, 7 σὺν δείγµατιk, 119 σύνταξις, 132, 139 συνυπογράφων, 33 τὰ καθήκοντα τέλη, 38 ταριχευταί, 72, 134, 164 τειχοποιός, 8 τελῶναι, 51 τελώνης, 69, 131 τῆς παιδείας ἐπιµελητής, 15 τιµησαµένη, 38 τόµος συγκολλήσιµος, 39 τοῦ ἐµπορίου ἐπιµεληταί, 7 τριακοντάρουρος, 42, 51 τριηραρχία, 7 τριήραρχος, 7 τῶν βασιλέων ἐπιµεληταί, 20 τῶν δηµοσίων προσόδων ἐπιµελητής, 10 τῶν διαδόχων, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 151, 194 τῶν ἐφήβων ἐπιµελητής, 17 τῶν κρηνῶν ἐπιµελητής, 9 τῶν µορίων ἐλαῶν ἐπιµεληταί, 12 τῶν µυστηρίων ἐπιµεληταί, 13 τῶν νεωρίων ἐπιµεληταί, 6 τῶν φίλων, 97, 194 ὑπὲρ ἐνοικίου, 41 ὑπηρέται, 77 ὑποδοχεῖα, 103, 133 ὑπόλογος, 112 ὑποµνήµατα, 54 ὑποµνηµατογράφοι, 54 ὑποτελής, 71 φόρετρα, 78, 118 φυλακίτης, 94, 133 χέρσος, 93, 112 χόρτινος, 26 χορτίνου, 26 χρηµατισµός, 107 χρυσοχοϊκή, 71, 122, 133

232

III PAPRY, INSCRIPTIONS

The Office of the Epimeletes

OSTRACA

AND

Agora XVI 284[2], 13 BGU IV 1196, 193 BGU VI 1219, 68, 102, 134, 204 BGU VI 1221, 68, 102, 134, 204 BGU VI 1222, 68, 102, 134, 204 BGU VII 1519, 125 BGU VIII 1743, 137 BGU VIII 1834, 78 BGU XVI 2672, 193 BGU XVIII 1, 2748, 137 BGU XX 2840, 66, 80, 135, 138, 155, 157, 167, 173, 174, 188, 189, 190, 191, 200 BGU XX 2841, 66, 80, 119, 188, 189, 190, 191, 200 C. Ord. Ptol. 23. See P. Amh. II 33 C. Ord. Ptol. 34, 75 C. Ord. Ptol. 37, 94 C. Ord. Ptol. 38, 94 C. Ord. Ptol. 47. See P. Tebt. I 6 C. Pap. Hengstl 15. See P. Tebt. I 17 C. pap. Hengstl 20. See W. Chr. 221 C. Pap. Hengstl 27. See P. Amh. II 33 C. Pap. Hengstl 151. See P. Ryl. IV 578 C. Pap. Jud. I 130. See P. Tebt. III 1, 793 C. Pap. Jud. I 132, 66, 82, 109, 147, 148, 152, 201, See UPZ Ι 110 C. Pap. Jud. I 43. See P. Ryl. IV 578 C. Pap. Jud. I 7. See P. Corn. 1 C. Ptol. Sklav. I 46. See P. Corn. 1 C. Zen. Palestine 54. See P. Corn. 1 Epigr. tou Oropou 295, 10 Hatzopoulos, Mac. Inst. II 65, 8 I. Eleusis 95, 13 I. Eleusis 98, 13 I. Eleusis 177, 13 I. Eleusis 181, 13 I. Eleusis 186, 13 I. Eleusis 192, 13 I. Eleusis 202, 13 I. Eleusis 208, 13

I. Eleusis 216, 13 I. Eleusis 226, 13 I. Eleusis 236, 13 I. Eleusis 248, 13 I. Eleusis 250, 13 IC I viii 6, 8 IC I xxiii 1, 8 IC IV 161, 8 ID 1421, 7 ID 1439, 7 ID 1441, 7 ID 1450, 8 ID 1507, 8 ID 1645, 8 ID 1805, 18 ID 1806, 18 ID 1807, 18 ID 1808, 18 ID 1809, 18 ID 1810, 18 ID 1812, 18 ID 1813, 18 ID 1814, 18 ID 1818, 18 ID 1820, 18 ID 1827, 8 ID 1828, 8 ID 1829, 8 ID 1830, 8 ID 2616, 8 IG II² 215, 10 IG II2 338, 10 IG II² 551, 14 IG II² 661, 13 IG II² 683, 13 IG II² 749, 13 IG II² 807, 13 IG II² 847, 13 IG II² 1156, 17 IG II² 1191, 13 IG II2 1201, 18 IG II² 1330, 11 IG II² 1622, 7 IG II² 1672, 13 IG II² 2336, 7 IG II² 2840, 13 IG II² 2841, 13 IG II² 3460, 13 IG II² 3463, 13 IG II³, 1 915, 13 IG II³, 1 986, 13

Indices IG II³, 1 1035, 13 IG II³, 1 1164, 13 IG II³, 1 1166, 13 IG II³, 1 1188, 13 IG II³, 1 1329, 13 Jur. Pap. 56 b. See P. Lille I 4 M. Chr. 5. See P. Petr. III 36 (a) V Miletos 18, 8 Miletos 58, 8 Miletos 59, 8 O. Theb. 6, 125 O. Wilck. 1236, 125 OGIS I 100, 151 P. Lille I 3, 60, 125 P. Alex. Inv. Nr. 560, 25, 44, 197 P. Amh. II 33, 67, 93, 95, 96, 97, 143, 163, 166, 177, 178, 202 P. Amh. II 34 a + b, 67, 93, 95, 97, 143, 163, 166, 177, 178, 202 P. Amh. II 34 c, 67, 93, 95, 97, 143, 163, 166, 177, 178, 202 P. Bad. II 13, 24, 25, 49, 59, 60, 61, 63, 147, 148, 152, 195 P. Berl. Salmen. 1, 137 P. Bingen 34, 25, 44, 58, 197 P. Cair. Inv. 10307, 25, 36, 37, 40, 158, 160, 163, 196 P. Cair. Zen. I 59054, 127 P. Cair. Zen. II 59187, 125 P. Cair. Zen. II 59236, 149 P. Cair. Zen. II 59268, 125 P. Cair. Zen. III 59314, 125 P. Cairo Zen. III 59403, 149 P. Coll. Youtie I 12, 66, 79, 122, 143, 151, 190, 191, 200 P. Corn. 1, 125 P. Dryton 31, 68, 104, 124, 140, 194, 204 P. Duk. Inv. 676 r., 65, 70, 123, 175, 176, 199 P. Duk. Inv. 688, 188 P. Duk. Inv. 690, 65, 71, 117, 124, 140, 188, 189, 190, 199 P. Erasm. I 5, 65, 76, 123, 133, 200 P. Erasm. I 12, 99 P. Erasm. I 13, 99 P. Erasm. II 23, 99, 121

233 P. Erasm. II 24, 121 P. Erasm. II 25, 121 P. Erasm. II 28, 121 P. Erasm. II 30, 121 P. Erasm. II 31, 67, 99, 102, 120, 170, 203 P. Erasm. II 32, 68, 99, 101, 102, 120, 170, 203 P. Erasm. II 33, 68, 99, 102, 120, 170, 203 P. Erasm. II 34, 68, 99, 102, 120, 170, 203 P. Erasm. II 35, 121 P. Erasm. II 36, 99 P. Erasm. II 39, 99 P. Erasm. II 40, 99 P. Erasm. II 41, 99 P. Erasm. II 43, 99 P. Erasm. II 44, 99 P. Erasm. II 45, 99 P. Erasm. II 46, 99 P. Erasm. II 47, 99 P. Giss. 1 108, 137 P. Grad. 7, 24, 26, 47, 59, 63, 158, 172, 173, 195 P. Heid. VI 379, 25, 31, 43, 52, 158, 161, 162, 197 P. Heid. VI 382, 67, 94, 116, 122, 144, 169, 202 P. Heid. VII 387, 24, 31, 32, 53, 158, 160, 167, 196 P. Heid. VII 388, 24, 31, 32, 53, 158, 160, 167, 196 P. Heid. VII 389, 24, 31, 32, 53, 167, 196 P. Heid. VII 392, 25, 36, 37, 39, 158, 160, 163, 196 P. Heid. IX 424, 67, 91, 113, 156, 157, 202 P. Heid. IX 433, 67, 91, 113, 202 P. Heid. IX 435, 67, 91, 202 P. Heid. IX 440 descr., 67, 91, 202 P. Heid. IX 441 descr., 67, 91, 93, 202 P. Hels. I 4, 66, 78, 118, 188, 189, 191, 200 P. Hels I 7, 84 P. Hels. I 10, 141 P. Hels. I 11, 141 P. Hels. I 12, 141 P. Hels. I 23, 188, 189, 190

234

The Office of the Epimeletes

P. Hengstl 31. See P. Tebt. III 1, 709 P. Hib. I 29, 168 P. Hib. I 85, 26, 46 P. Hib. I 87, 26, 47 P. Hib. I 95, 161 P. Hib. I 98, 119, 121 P. Hib. II 244, 25, 59 P. Köln V 221 A–H, 71 P. Köln V 221 C, 65, 71, 92, 124, 188, 189, 190, 199 P. Köln VI 261, 125 P. Köln VI 258–271, 30 P. Köln VII 313, 65, 75, 109, 142, 199 P. Köln X 412, 190, 191 P. Köln XI 438, 25, 59, 60, 61 P. Köln XI 438–451, 60 P. Köln XI 448, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 54, 59, 61, 80, 138, 141, 163, 164, 167, 173, 174, 193, 196 P. Köln XI 454, 136, 137 P. Köln XIV 564, 68, 102, 204 P. Köln XIV 565, 68, 99, 102, 204 P. Köln XV 612 r I 6, 78 P. Köln XVII 657, 67, 91, 134 P. Kroll, 75 P. Lille I 3, 125 P. Lille I 4, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 50, 51, 173, 174, 184, 185, 186, 187, 195 P. Lille I 19, 59, 67, 96. See SB XX 15150 P. Lille I 21, 48 P. Lille I 22, 48 P. Lille I 23, 48 P. Lille I 24, 48 P. Lond. I 50. See W. Chr. 221 P. Lond. III 504. See P. Petr. II 1 P. Lond. III 569. See P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d) P. Lond. III 579. See P. Petr. III 32 R (g) R (b) P. Lond. III 686 f. See P. Dryton 31 P. Lond. III 687 b. See P. Dryton 31 P. Lond VII 2189, 38, 158, 163, 196 P. Med. 1 27, 125 P. Mich. I 43, 46 P. Mich. V 244, 183 P. Mich. XVIII 771, 71 P. Mich. XVIII 773, 70, 71 P. Mich. XVIII 774, 65, 70, 71, 122, 133, 199

P. Mich. XVIII 776, 65, 70, 115, 169, 199 P. Mich. XVIII 778, 150, 189 P. Mich. XVIII 779, 189 P. Monts. Roca Inv. 908, 75 P. Mrab. Inv. I, 71 P. Oxyrhyncha 17, 68, 101, 113, 144, 159, 162, 163, 166, 171, 172, 175, 176, 203 P. Palau Rib. Inv. 172 c-d, 75 P. Par. 1, 83 P. Par. 62. See UPZ I 112 P. Par. 63, 82, 109, 147, 148, 152, 201, See UPZ 1 110 P. Paramone 6, 131, 151, 152 P. Petr. II 1, 25, 43, 58, 175, 176, 197 P. Petr. II 20, 3, 24, 26, 48, 49, 158, 159, 160, 175, 184, 186, 187, 195 P. Petr. II 32 (1), 65, 69, 122, 130, 131, 199 P. Petr. II 32 (1) + P. Petr. III 36 (d), 65, 69, 130, 131, 199 P. Petr. II 48, 48 P. Petr. III 32 (d), 130 P. Petr. III 32 (g), 185 P. Petr. III 36 (a), 3, 24, 27, 31, 56, 57, 58, 184, 185, 186, 195, 198 P. Petr. III 36 (b). See P. Petr. II 20 P. Petr. III 36 (c). See P. Petr. II 1 P. Petr. III 36 (d). See P. Petr. II 32 (1) P. Petr. III 84, 125 P. Petr. III 89, 46 P. Petr. III, p.15. See UPZ I 110 P. Phrur. Diosk. 4, 34 P. Phrur. Diosk. 5, 130, 131 P. Poethke 18, 68, 106, 107, 120, 136, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163, 165, 193, 205 P. Rev. Laws, 42, 46, 47, 125, 126, 132, 161, 163 P. Ryl. II 66 a, 69, 110, 117, 123, 155, 159, 162, 163, 205 P. Ryl. II 67. See P. Dryton 31 P. Ryl. II 253, 68, 102, 103, 134, 204 P. Ryl. IV 578, 67, 93, 112, 113, 144, 171, 172, 202 P. Ryl. IV 672, 66, 84, 138, 201 P. Sijp. 45, 189 P. Sorb III 111, 30 P. Stan. Class. Inv. 25 Recto, 25, 41, 197

Indices P. Strasb. II 103, 24, 33, 34, 35, 54, 55, 61, 62, 80, 167, 168, 173, 174, 193, 196 P. Strasb. II 103 and 104, 35, 53, 54, 61, 193 P. Strasb. II 103–108, 33, 62 P. Strasb. II 104, 24, 33, 34, 35, 55, 158, 160, 163, 164, 167, 173, 174, 193, 196 P. Strasb. II 105, 24, 35, 54, 167, 168, 193, 196 P. Strasb. II 106, 24, 35, 53, 167, 193, 196 P. Strasb. II 107, 24, 36, 53, 167, 168, 196 P. Strasb. II 108, 24, 36, 167, 168, 196 P. Strasb. II 113, 48, 121 P. Strasb. VI 562, 60, 61 P. Strasb. VI 563, 60, 61 P. Strasb. VII 622, 36 P. Strasb. VII 645, 69, 109 P. Tarich. 5, 65, 72, 73, 175, 176, 177, 178, 190, 199 P. Tarich. 6 a and b, 65, 72, 73, 135, 147, 148, 190, 199 P. Tarich. 7, 65, 72, 73, 147, 148, 151, 163, 164, 190, 200 P. Tarich. 10, 65, 72, 74, 135, 190, 200 P. Tarich. 11, 65, 72, 74, 163, 164, 190, 200 P. Tarich. 12, 65, 72, 74, 190, 200 P. Tarich. 15, 72 P. Tebt. I 5, 56 P. Tebt. I 6, 68, 104, 109, 145, 159, 162, 204 P. Tebt. I 17, 69, 108, 117, 171, 172, 183, 205 P. Tebt. I 38, 125 P. Tebt. I 61 b, 69, 108, 112, 205 P. Tebt. I 72, 69, 108, 112, 183, 205 P. Tebt. I 214, 69, 107, 108, 112 P. Tebt. III 1, 701, 47 P. Tebt. III 1, 703, 47, 114, 126, 132 P. Tebt. III 1, 709, 67, 92, 93, 127, 128, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 202 P. Tebt. III 1, 713, 69, 109, 126, 127, 205 P. Tebt. III 1, 731, 67, 98, 99, 100, 102, 116, 177, 203

235 P. Tebt. III 1, 732, 68, 102, 103, 129, 134, 147, 148, 152, 204 P. Tebt. III 1, 733, 68, 101, 102, 103, 133, 204 P. Tebt. III 1, 734, 68, 102, 103, 104, 112, 204 P. Tebt. III 1, 735, 68, 104, 117, 204 P. Tebt. III 1, 737, 68, 107, 112, 146, 205 P. Tebt. III 1, 741, 65, 74, 144, 173, 175, 176, 199 P. Tebt. III 1, 754, 65, 75, 144, 190, 200 P. Tebt. III 1, 776, 65, 77, 78, 123, 159, 161, 162, 190, 200 P. Tebt. III 1, 778, 66, 80, 143, 155, 157, 200 P. Tebt. III 1, 782, 67, 97, 98, 99, 102, 114, 142, 203 P. Tebt. III 1, 793, 65, 76, 158, 162, 163, 165, 190, 200 P. Tebt. III 1, 801, 130, 131 P. Tebt. III 1, 810, 68, 107, 118 P. Tebt. III 1, 823, 48 P. Tebt. III 1, 824, 48 P. Tebt. III 1, 825, 48, 121 P. Tebt. III 2, 843, 67, 99, 102, 112, 203 P. Tebt. III 2, 844, 125 P. Tebt. III 2, 853, 66, 81, 117, 140, 201 P. Tebt. III 2, 856, 66, 81, 117, 137 P. Tebt. III 2, 857, 66, 90, 144, 163, 166, 174, 175, 201 P. Tebt. III 2, 891, 125 P. Tebt. III 2, 895, 80, 155, 188, 190, 191, See P. Tebt. III 1, 778 P. Tebt. III 2, 905, 65, 77, 78, 119, 190, 200 P. Tebt. III 2, 927, 68, 104, 116, 163, 166, 204 P. Tebt. III 2, 930, 69, 109, 136 P. Tebt. III 2, 934, 67, 96, 143, 177, 178, 203 P. Tebt. III 2, 936, 67, 93, 97, 114, 171, 172, 203 P. Tebt. III 2, 941, 65, 78, 118, 169, 170, 190, 200 P. Tebt. III 2, 983, 125 P. Tebt. III, 2 997, 125 P. Tebt. IV 1094, 125 P. Tebt. IV 1113, 108 P. Tebt. IV 1137, 69, 107, 108, 112, 205, See P. Tebt. I 214

236

The Office of the Epimeletes

P. Turku 2 + P. Turku 3 R. See SB XXII 15545 P. Turku 36. See SB XXIV 15912 P. Vindob. Inv. G56637, 65, 72, 114, 117, 147, 148, 152, 174, 177, 188, 189, 190, 199 P. Yale I 36, 188, 189 Priene 130, 8 PSI IV 383, 79 PSI V 519, 127 PUG III 92, 66, 81, 82, 83, 103, 111, 159, 162, 163, 165, 201 SB I 2637, 151 SB III 6280. See P. Grad. 7 SB III 6715. See P. Cair. Zen. I 59054 SB III 6796. See P. Corn. 1 SB III 7182, 11, 65, 69, 110 SB IV 7377, 148, 149 SB IV 7453, 28 SB V 7617. See P. Med. 1 27 SB V 8874, 151 SB VI 9316, 75 SB VI 9599. See P. Lond VII 2189 SB VIII 9800, 59, 60, 61, 63, 147, 148, 152, See P. Bad. II 13 SB XIV 11299, 69, 109, 112, 205 SB XIV 11893, 67, 92, 142, 202 SB XVI 12375, 65, 77, 119, 190, 200 SB XVI 12810, 125 SB XVI 12821. See PUG III 92 SB XVI 12830, 125 SB XVIII 13841. See P. Sorb. III 111 SB XX 14069, 25, 41, 42, 51, 147, 148, 152, 197 SB XX 15000, 30 SB XX 15150, 67, 96, 118, 204, See P. Lille I 19 SB XXII 15536, 150, 189 SB XXII 15545, 68, 101, 113, 146, 203 SB XXII 15545 + 15546, 68, 101, 203 SB XXIV 15912, 68, 100, 102, 126, 203 SB XXIV 16063, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 196 SB XXVI 16524, 68, 105, 116, 122, 205 SB XXVIII 16851, 67, 97, 98, 129, 194, 203 SEG 3:129, 11 SEG 8:504, 30 SEG 16:162, 13 SEG 21:494, 13

SEG 23:98, 7 SEG 29:104, 13 SEG 40:186, 13 SEG 43:26, 14, 15 SEG VIII 356. See SB IV 7453 Sel. Pap. II 271. See P. Tebt. III 1, 776 Sel. Pap. II 273. See P. Amh. II 33 Trinity College Inv. Pap. Gr. folder 127, 25, 43, 49, 171, 172, 175, 176, 197 UPZ I 2, 86 UPZ I 14, 67, 85, 94, 95, 138, 147, 148, 152, 156, 157 UPZ I 17, 85, 87 UPZ I 18, 85, 86 UPZ I 19, 66, 84, 85, 86, 127, 139, 154, 155, 156, 192, 201 UPZ I 20, 86, 87, 125 UPZ I 21, 66, 84, 87, 125, 127, 139, 153, 201 UPZ I 22, 66, 84, 87, 88, 153, 201 UPZ I 23, 66, 84, 88, 125, 147, 148, 152, 153, 201 UPZ I 24, 66, 84, 88, 153, 201 UPZ I 25, 66, 84, 88, 125, 127, 153, 201 UPZ I 26, 66, 84, 125, 153, 201 UPZ I 27, 66, 84, 87, 88, 125, 127, 139, 201 UPZ I 29, 88, 125 UPZ I 30, 125 UPZ I 32, 66, 84, 89, 125, 127, 201 UPZ I 33, 89, 125, 153 UPZ I 33–36, 89 UPZ I 34, 66, 84, 127, 153, 201 UPZ I 34–36, 127 UPZ I 35, 66, 84, 153, 201 UPZ I 36, 66, 84, 125, 153, 154, 201 UPZ I 37, 89, 125 UPZ I 38, 85, 89, 125, 153 UPZ I 39, 66, 85, 89, 125, 139, 202 UPZ I 39–40, 89, 139 UPZ I 40, 66, 85, 125, 202 UPZ I 41, 66, 85, 125, 127, 139, 154, 156, 192, 202 UPZ I 42, 66, 84, 87, 156, 192, 201 UPZ I 43, 66, 85, 90, 202 UPZ I 46, 66, 84, 90, 140, 153, 202 UPZ I 47, 66, 84, 153, 202 UPZ I 48, 66, 84, 153, 202

Indices UPZ I 50, 67, 84, 153, 202 UPZ I 51, 67, 84, 90, 140, 153, 202 UPZ I 53, 90 UPZ I 57, 86 UPZ I 89, 125 UPZ I 110, 66, 71, 82, 83, 84, 103, 109, 111, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 201 UPZ I 111, 83 UPZ I 112, 25, 42, 43, 52, 158, 161, 197 UPZ I 113, 153 UPZ I 114 I, 68, 100, 134, 203 UPZ I 114 II, 68, 100, 134, 140, 203 UPZ I 116. See W. Chr. 221 UPZ I 144, 83 UPZ I 145, 83 UPZ II 186, 125 UPZ II 208, 141

237 W. Chr. 103. See P. Hib. I 85 W. Chr. 164, 96, 118, 204, See SB XX 15150 W. Chr. 165. See P. Tebt. I 17 W. Chr. 166. See P. Petr. II 20 W. Chr. 221, 25, 40, 55, 196 W. Chr. 224 a, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 55, 160, 196 W. Chr. 224 b, 25, 36, 37, 38, 158, 160, 163, 196 W. Chr. 224 c, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 158, 160, 163, 196 W. Chr. 301, 60 W. Chr. 303. See P. Tebt. I 38 W. Chr. 332. See P. Tebt. I 6 W. Chr. 336. See P. Lille I 4 W. Chr. 441, 48, 121