45.

A LATE BILINGUAL (GREEK-LATIN) DOCUMENT

MMA O.C. 3557 TAV. XXXIX

? cm 11,4 × 17 590/91p or 618/19p

Our initial transcription of this bilingual papyrus of unknown provenance

dates back more than ten years. From the time we first saw the piece we were baf-
fled by the initial line. After consulting a number of colleagues who confirmed for
us the difficulty of the script, we set the edition aside in the hope that time away
from it would inspire fresh ideas1. Sadly, this has not happened; the first line is as
impenetrable as before. Nevertheless, we have decided to publish the text in its
present state in order to give other papyrologists the chance to solve the outstand-
ing difficulties.
45 contains six incomplete lines written along the fibers in a single hand on the
front of the shorthand commentary 17. It is broken on the left, right, and bottom;
only the top margin survives. The ink in the first three lines is dark and well pre-
served, but it grows gradually fainter towards the bottom. Lines 5 and 6 are
slightly obscured by holes and stripped fibers. Only the tops of a handful of letters
are preserved in l. 7. No diacritical signs or marks of punctuation are visible, but
there are small raised circles in the first two lines that may signal abbreviations,
unless they represent the letter ‘o’. Horizontal strokes in the same lines (see, e.g.,
above the word die) are of unknown purpose but perhaps served as ruling lines;
interestingly, they do not appear above numerals.
The first four lines of 45 constitute the header of the document and are written
in both Latin and Greek. Line 1 presumably records the Latin invocation, and l.
2 the Latin dating clause; l. 3 contains the Greek invocation, and l. 4 the Greek
dating clause. The Latin letters of the opening two lines are in the so-called litterae
caelestes form, a highly stylized rendering of old Roman cursive that was com-
monly employed not only in imperial chanceries but also in provincial and mu-
nicipal offices (as evidenced by, e.g., bilingual legal proceedings from Egypt), de-
spite legislation forbidding its use outside imperial chanceries2. The script is re-

1
We thank Dieter Hagedorn, Klaas Worp, and, in particular, Dario Internullo for helpful comments
on various aspects of the text.
2
Much has been written about the litterae caelestes; see, e.g., J. Mallon, L’écriture de la chancellerie im-
périale romaine, Salamanca-Madrid 1948 (Acta Salamanticensia. Filosofia y Letras, T. IV, nr. 2), pp. 5-
 45. A Late Bilingual (Greek-Latin) Document 267

markable for its extreme character. It is unlike other examples found in papyri,
which makes it difficult to decipher. The late date of the text might partly ex-
plain its extraordinary appearance, but we cannot be sure given the absence of
comparanda.
There are two uncertainties surrounding 45 that prevent us from generalizing
much about it. The first concerns the type of text it is. It seems to be from a bilingual
protocol of legal proceedings, since it bears one of the hallmark features of these
texts: the Latin dating clause in chancery script3. If it is a protocol, then the proper
names in ll. 5 and 6, which are written in a typical koine script4, would probably
belong to the description of the participants and advocates involved in the case5.
There is, however, one feature that is inconsistent with typical bilingual protocols,
namely the Greek prescript in ll. 3 and 4. In the headers of extant protocols from
Egypt, Greek is normally employed only for the Egyptian month name and the
day6. Dario Internullo has indicated to us, however, that Nov. XLVII, 2 (537p) called
for dating clauses written in litterae caelestes to be translated into the main language

43 (repr. in Id., De l’écriture. Recueil d’études publiées de 1937 à 1981, Paris 1982, pp. 167-189); R. Marichal,
L’écriture latine de la chancellerie impériale, Aegyptus 32 (1952), pp. 336-350; J.-O. Tjäder, La misteriosa
‘scrittura grande’ di alcuni papiri ravennati e il suo posto nella storia della corsiva latina e nella diplomatica ro-
mana e bizantina dall’Egitto a Ravenna, Studi Romagnoli 3 (1952), pp. 173-221; and more recently L. Ian-
nacci - M. Modesti - A. Zuffrano, La misteriosa scrittura grande dei papiri ravennati, tra prassi documentaria
pubblica e legislazione, Legal Roots 1 (2012), pp. 89-119; F. Manservigi - M. Mezzetti, The Didyma Inscrip-
tion: Between Legislation and Palaeography, in M. Hilgert (ed.), Understanding Material Text Cultures: A
Multidisciplinary View, Berlin-Boston 2017, pp. 203-242, in part. pp. 203-210. The earliest extant law for-
bidding their use outside imperial offices is Cod.Theod. IX 19, 3 of 367p.
3
A general survey of such protocols, with further bibliography, can be found in R. Haensch, Die
Protokolle der Statthaltergerichte der spätantiken Provinzen Ägyptens, in Id. (ed.), Recht haben und Recht
bekommen im Imperium Romanum. Das Gerichtswesen der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine dokumentarische
Evidenz. Ausgewählte Beiträge einer Serie von drei Konferenzen an der Villa Vigoni in den Jahren 2010
bis 2012, Warsaw 2016 (JJP Suppl. XXIV), pp. 299-324.
4
G. Cavallo, La κοινή scrittoria greco-romana nella prassi documentale di età bizantina, JöByz 19 (1970),
pp. 1-31 (repr. in Id., Il calamo e il papiro. La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio,
Firenze 2005 [Pap.Flor. XXXVI], pp. 43-71).
5
J.D. Thomas, P.Ryl. IV 654: The Latin Heading, CdÉ 73 (1998), pp. 125-134, describes in detail the
individual parts of bilingual proceedings, albeit with a focus on the fourth century.
6
This is the rule in documents prior to the fifth century; see Thomas, P.Ryl. IV 654 cit. in nt. 5, p.
127. It appears to be true also of the later examples that preserve at least part of the header; cfr., from
the 5th c., P.Oxy. XVI 1876-1879. The only bilingual protocol securely dated to the sixth century of which
any part of the header survives is P.Cair.Masp. III 67329 = ChLA XLI 1194 (26.5.-24.6.524p; cfr. BL XIII
57), but of the date it preserves only the month name (Pauni) and part of the indiction, both in Greek.
Presumably the rest of the dating clause was in Latin.
268 Rodney Ast - Todd M. Hickey

of the text using litterae communes7. If he is correct, the fact that 45 includes a Greek
dating clause would not preclude identifying the text as a bilingual protocol;
moreover, it would indicate that most of the document was in Greek.
The second uncertainty pertains to the provenance of the papyrus. We assume
it comes from Egypt, just because most papyri do, including others in the collec-
tion of the Metropolitan Museum of Art that bear O.C. (Old Catalogue or Old Col-
lection) inventory numbers, but we cannot be sure8. If it is from Egypt and it is a
protocol of proceedings, it would be the latest bilingual protocol from there.
The date of 45 hinges on ll. 2-4. The invocation in l. 3 suggests a year no earlier
than the reign of Mauricius, who ordered the incorporation of the invocation to
Christ in all legal documents; the earliest known witnesses to the invocation are
dated to 591p9. Line 2 apparently refers to a year 8, followed by the 8th of the Ides
of some month (viii die viii Ιduṣ ), while l. 4 mentions a year 9, likewise followed by
the 8th of the Ides of some month (ἔτουϲ ἐνάτου τῇ πρὸ ὀκτὼ ε̣[ἰδῶν). If the Latin
year 8 refers to a consular or postconsular year and the Greek year 9 to a regnal
year, then there are two possible dates for the document, 13.8.590p-12.8.591p, in
the reign of Mauricius, or 5.10.618p-4.10.619p, in the reign of Heraclius10. The ear-
lier date would make 45 the earliest known attestation of the invocation formula.
The formula employed for the invocation was likely ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου καὶ
δεϲπότου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ϲωτῆροϲ ἡμῶν. It is the only one found in doc-
uments of Mauricius’ reign and is also attested under Heraclius in texts from Mid-
dle Egypt11. It suggests that the lost part on the left should have comprised not
more than ca. 50 characters, the exact number depending on whether some words
were abbreviated. How much is missing on the right is unclear, but the fact that
both ll. 2 and 4 record the days of the month suggests not much, perhaps only the
indiction and place of composition in each line. This accords also with the assess-
ment of the back (see intro to 17).
Most of the regnal date occupied the lacuna at the beginning of l. 4. There was
no (post)consular dating clause recorded in the Greek part; if it had been in-

7
[…], sed si quidem reliqua etiam post praescriptionem incertarum litterarum graecae sint vocis, graecis
litteris subdi tempus, [...] (“[…], but if indeed the rest of the document after the prescript in incertae lit-
terae [i.e., litterae caelestes] is in Greek, the date should be added in Greek, […]”).
8
See 17, nt. 8.
9
See CSBE2, pp. 99-109, in part. p. 102, which cites as the earliest witnesses P.Erl. 67 (Heracleopo-
lite, 17.9.591p), CPR XIX 33 (Arsinoe, 19-27.10.591p [cfr. BL XIII 80]); BGU I 295 (Arsinoe, 18-27.10.591p).
10
There is considerable confusion surrounding the consular and postconsular years of Heraclius;
see CSBE2, pp. 53-54, 95-98.
11
CSBE2, pp. 100-104.
 45. A Late Bilingual (Greek-Latin) Document 269

cluded, it would have appeared between the regnal formula and the day of the
month. Moreover, the regnal formula did not end with αὐτοκράτοροϲ before ἔτουϲ,
but probably with Αὐγούϲτου12, which limits our choices somewhat. The follow-
ing phrases, which range between a maximum of 51 and 77 letters in length, are
possibilities13:

Mauricius
βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ δεϲπότου ἡμῶν Φλ(αουίου) Μαυρικίου Τιβερίου τοῦ αἰωνίου
Αὐγούϲτου ἔτουϲ, e.g., BGU I 295, 3-4 (Arsinoe, 18-27.10.591p).

βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ εὐϲεβεϲτάτου ἡμῶν δεϲπότου Φλ(αουίου) Μαυρικίου Τιβερίου τοῦ

αἰωνίου Αὐγούϲτου ἔτουϲ, e.g., BGU II 397, 3-5 (Arsinoe, 7.9.597p).

βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ θειοτάτου ἡμῶν δεϲπότου Φλ(αουίου) Μαυρικίου Τιβερίου τοῦ

αἰωνίου Αὐγούϲτου ἔτουϲ, e.g., SB VI 9456, 2-3 (BL VII 209; Arsinoe, 20.9.594p).

Heraclius
βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ δεϲπότου ἡμῶν Φλ(αουίου) Ἡρακλείου τοῦ αἰωνίου Αὐγούϲτου
ἔτουϲ, e.g., P.Prag. I 48, 3-5 (Arsinoe, 24.2.615p).

βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ εὐϲεβεϲτάτου ἡμῶν δεϲπότου Φλ(αουίου) Ἡρακλείου τοῦ αἰωνίου

Αὐγούϲτου ἔτουϲ, e.g., BGU II 401, 2-4 (Arsinoe, 25.3.618p).

βαϲιλείαϲ τοῦ εὐϲεβεϲτάτου καὶ φιλανθρώπου ἡμῶν δεϲπότου Φλ(αουίου)

Ἡρακλείου τοῦ αἰωνίου Αὐγούϲτου ἔτουϲ, e.g., P.Rain.Cent. 120, 4-6 (Arsinoe,
11.9.612p).

recto →
[ ]ḍ ịe̣ ○ẹ[
[ ]○̣ viii die viii Iduṣ [

12
Cfr. comm. ad loc.
13
Again, it is difficult to know if and how the words were abbreviated, but if we assume that around
50 letters were missing from the beginning of l. 4 (cfr. the supplement provided for the invocation),
then any of these formulas could work. For further possibilities and additional references, see the cor-
responding entries for both emperors in CSBE2, App. F., pp. 223-271, in part. pp. 260-264 and pp. 267-
271. Interestingly, all but one of the formulas cited here occur in documents coming exclusively from
the Arsinoite, the exception being the third one listed under Mauricius (= CSBE2, App. F [7], p. 262),
which is attested also in other nomes (e.g., Hermopolite, Antinoopolite).