213 P. Worp 27 AND THE ConsuL ‘[uLIUS’ MAXIMUS. Among texts published recently in P.Worp is a bilingual (Greck-Latin) report of proceedings (no. 27)! that offers the first example from Egypt of a papyrus dated to 433, the consulship year of Theodosius TT and Petronius Maximus. The consular date does not survive in full but enough remains that it can be fully restored: D.N. Theodosio] Aug(usto) XH et lul{io) Maximo co(n)s(ulibus) vaeat [(2) ‘The formula, as it is printed in P-Worp, is surprising for the occurrence of Iul{io), which the editor explains as a hitherto unattested nomen of Petronius Maximus (p. 208): “Ifthe identification of Maxinmsy .. with Petronius Maximus is corect, ait must be, this poses a problem, because before the name Maximus ‘Julius’ can be read in abbreviated forma, This name does not conespond with the names for Petronius Maximus from other sources, where he is known as Flavius Petronius Maxims, Petonins Maximus, Flavius Maximus or jast Maximus. The other papyrus with the consular dating of 433, though heavily restored, seems to con ‘ain only the name Maximus. He is also mentioned in two Greek papyri from Egypt in a post-consular dating of 434, bat there his name is Flavius Maxims... The name Julius may simply be a scubal errr, for exemple for Flavin, but ‘here may also be another solution as to the question why the name does wo correspond with that of he other sources. For the year 330, a consul is known by the names Aurelius Valerius Tullius Symmachos. In the papyri, we encounter the following combinations: Vatecius Tullianus, Valeius Symmachus and Aurelivs Syramachus. Of these names ee sre known from other sources but Aurclus is only known from the papyri, Simidaly, it could well be that our man, Who vas also of noble descent, had four instead of three names and that be bore the names Flavius Jals Petronius ‘Maximus, If this explanation i tue, it would give important new information on a name of a eorsl that would ether wise have been lost. [n. 16: Other fifth-century papyri that contain names of consuls not otherwise attested are P. Rainer Cont, 94.1, which néds the name Hietax tothe consul known as Flavius Cys in the consular dating of 441, and SB 1 4821.1, which adds the name Nestorius to the consul known as Flavius Rustcivs inthe postconsular dating of 465,)" ‘The arguments for having to reckon with an unattested name may appear to be fairly strong, but the very notion of an unattested name for this particular consul is hard to accept on prosopographical grounds, Paleography too is anything but favourable, as we shall see. Petronius Maximus was « Roman nobleman with a glitering career (he had two stints as praefectus urbis Romae, praefectus praetorio and consi), which culminated in a brief reign in 455 after he mur- dered Valentinian II, As a result, he left numerous traces in the documentary record, especially inscrip- tions from the city of Rome. In those that refer to his terms of office as PVR and to his first consulship, he is called Petronius Maximus, and he is called Maximus cout court in datings by his second consulship and generally in all Greek inscriptions and papyti2 To find a name, especially 2 gemtificium and not a cognomen, attested solely in a document from an Easter province, would be truly astonishing In consular formulas preserved in papyri, as well as in most inscriptions from the Bast, of the fifth and sixth centuries, consuls are usually named Flavius’ + name; if they had two or more names, as was increasingly common at that time, only one, the commonest, was mentioned. ‘There ate of course two exceptions, those of FI, Cyrus Hierax and Fl. Rusticius Nestorius, mentioned above, but neither is ex- actly comparable to the putative lulius Maximus, The additional names follow the name by which these two consuls are usually referred to, as if they were secondary cognomina, Both Cyrus and Rusticius 1, A.1. Moogendijk & B. P. Muhs (eds.), Sisty-Rive Papyrotogical Texts Presented to Klaas A. Worp on the Occasion of is 65° Birthday (P.L-Bat. 33: Leiden 2008). 2 Soo PIKE 1 749-51, sv, Petronius Maximus 22; R. $. Bagnall et al, Consuls of the Later Rovnun Empire (Atlant 1987) 400-401 4 The nomen Flavius was not an integral part of someone's name but was associated with tenure of office in the army oF impesial administration. A look at the names of Roman senators, most of thera seione of old Femiles, in inscriptions from Rome, is revealing: ef. B. Salvay, *What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomstc Practice from c. 700 i. 10 A. 700", IRS 84 (1994) 139-40,214 R. Ast ~N. Gonis were from the East (in fact, Cyrus was an Egyptian), and one could allow that people in the East were better acquainted with the full nomenclature of these consuls than with the family name of a Roman aristocrat. Further, we have no inscriptional evidence on the consulship of Cyrus:4 we do possess sev- eral consular datings by Rusticius on stone, but they are all from Rome and only mention his main cog- nomen. We are left with the ease of Aurelius Valerius Tullianus Symmachus, the consul of 330, as a poten. tial parallel. The gentificium “Aurelius” is only attested by two papyri from Upper Egypt, which call him Aurelius Symmachus, That this was an integral part of his full name is not implausible; ‘Aurelius’ appears among the names of members of the family in Iater generations.S The names of the consul ‘posterior of 330 in the papyri display strong regional features,® so that one could think that scribal prac- tices and whim may have interfered with directions stemming from the central authorities. The consul prior of the year was Flavius Gallicanus, and ‘Aurelius’ may have been invented to give someone with- ‘out the nomen Flavius a balancing nomen of his own.” One would not wish to press this argument too hard, but nonetheless it seems useful to point out the range of possibilities at hand, ‘We move on to paleography. While at first glance the reading /ul( ) scems defensible, closer consid- eration reveals difficulties that deserve attention.® First of all, the putative # at the beginning of the name dips lower than one would expect and much lower than the i in Maximo, By itself, this is not significant enough to discount the reading, since the deep descending line could be said to fesult from the ligature, but the purported ul ligature is also awkward, with w lacking one of its sides. Nevertheless, these objections alone would perhaps still be insufficient if Fulfio) were the name that we expected to find in the dating clause. Tt is, however, not what we expect: Flavius is, and Fi( ) is in fact a more natural reading, although the execution of f leaves something to be desired. Yet, despite its unpolished appear- ance, Fi{) is perfectly justifiable, as parallels from other documents attesting the nomen Flavius demon- strate, ‘The type of f found in P.Worp 27 consists of two parts: a descending vertical stroke that represents the main shaft and a c-shaped, disjointed hasta. A schematic representation of the letter looks something like this? P.Abina. 2.11 (= P.Gen, I 45 = W.Chr. 464) preserves a good, albeit more elaborate, example of this kind of fin et Fifavio), where the vertical shaft is joined in ligature to the preceding t of et, and the top part of the letter flows directly into the following 1° 44-the only inscription to mention Cyeus i¢ AE 1961.190 = TK Bphesos 44, in which he figures as « prectorian prefect vith vo of his colleagues; this is the only txt to eal him Fl. Taurus Seleacus Cyrus, which aust have heen the name he bfticially sanctioned. One of the tyo other praetosian prefects is Petronius Maxims, called FL. Maximus: the omission of his nomen isnot surprising, given that this isa text produced in the Bast; contrast the ful et of names of the thtd colleague, the PPO lyric an area aot too Far from Constantinople: Fl. Valentinus Georgius Hippasias 5 See A, Cameron, “The Antiquity of the Symmocki’, Historta 48.4 (1999) 477-05, exp. 480-84, 6 See B, Salway, “Roman Consuls, Imperial Politics, and Egyptian Papyri: The Consulates of 325 and 346 cE, Journal of Late Antiquity 1.2 (2008) 283 p, 27: Atsinoe & Hermopolis (Valerius Tullianus) vs. Oxyshynchus (Valerius Symmachus) vs. Panopolis & Kellis (Aurelius Symmiaehts), In 330, Arsinoe and Oxyrhynchus were party ofthe province of Aegyptus, \hile Hermopolis, Panopolis aad Keltis belonged to die Thebai (note that Panopolis and Kells were geographically lose) 7 ce the references in Salway (above, n. 6) 294.109. A digital image of the papyrus is available on line at hup:beinecke libray.yale.edulpapyras!, under the inventory umber 437, 9 CF. the fourth-centary examples of the leter form printed in E. M. Thompson, Greek and Lat Palacography (Oxford 1912) 337, Table no. 3, 1 soe also ChLA XI 4728P. Worp 27 and the Consul ‘Tulius’ Maximus 215 ‘One finds an even more striking parallel in a papyrus from the years 465-480 recently published by J. Gascou.!" In column IT the nomen Flavius occurs in lines 1, 12, 1M, 17. Particularly in line 17 we observe a very similar, two-pat / Although the e-shaped part of the leter in P.Woxp 27 appears farther to the right and somewhat lower than in the preceding examples, the basic components are clearly there.!2 ‘Thus, prosopographical and paleographical consiterations lead us to beliove that the printed text of the dating clause should read Fi(avio) Maximo and that there is no reason to assign the nomen Tulius to the consul’s name, Rodney Ast Zentrum fiir Altertumswissenschaften, Institut ftir Papyrologie, Marstallstz. 6, D - 69117 Heidelberg ast@uni-heidelberg.de Nikolaos Gonis Department of Greek and Latin, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT. n.gonis@uel.ac.uk Procts- verbal audience du juge Ammonis’ ZPE 170 (2009) 149-55, '2 The thumbnail image of P.Wosp 27 illustrates et Fs. The crossbar belonging tothe eter e appears to have been Tost vo abeason 15 D, Hagedorn and J, Gascou have made us aware of additional, minor cortections to P.Worp 27 which we take the ‘opportunity to mention hee: Line 6: oi wbvot sh Rekapn{ve (9) —» oi ndvordmcReAayudlvor (B.A) Line 13: pb éxBou{ — apd éxdGafeas (se: fusRiy oF hipeA.Kov) (1.6), Line 16: ev8fovjeubuevov tabfre (2) > envSoveben Seay ve « [for &xaven wd [2)(D.H.) Line 17: | avaopitoy , tageav toi tev — fv &x yatéven rdErov, cobt0 jby [(D.H),