You are on page 1of 10

W.

GRAHAM CLAYTOR

P. FORDHAM I NV. 5: A PTOLEMAI C PETI TI ON TO THE ARCHI DI KASTES


aus: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 176 (2011) 213220

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

213


P. FORDHAM I NV. 5: A PTOLEMAI C PETI TI ON TO THE ARCHI DI KASTES
1


Mid II BCE. 8 cm 16.5 cm. Top margin (2.5 cm) and left margin (1.5-2.25 cm) preserved. Light brown. Text parallel to
the fibers. Roughly half of the original width of the papyrus is preserved (length unknown). There is a tear (1.5 4.5 cm) at
the top and a hole (2.5 1 cm), both of which correspond to a vertical fold ca. 3.5 cm from the left edge. The break of the
papyrus at the right is 3-4 cm from this fold line, indicating that the papyrus tore along another fold. Since roughly half of
the original width is preserved, this was the middle of three original fold lines, and the papyrus was thus folded lengthwise
twice. Verso is blank except for the remains of plaster, two traces of red ink and a trace of black ink. For high-quality
images of both the recto and verso, see http://papyri.info/apis/fordham.apis.5/.

1 ^q[o]evti opi[oixoot[i xo]
2 apo t[[i] rairiroi te[v pqotiotev]
3 xo te[v] oiiev xpitqp[ev vac.? ]
4 aopo 2rvupio t[ Ap[ ca. 8-10 tev r]
5 Oupuyev aoire[ tou Oupuytou]
6 voou. ooixouoi ua[o N.N. tou]
7 Ho yxpotou tev rx [t[ out[. ouvouoq]
8 y[op ou] outei xoto o[uyypoqv tpoitiv]
9 r ou xo aoioo [roov, rroir r]
10 xo ou tprri outr i[otri \o. xo]
11 apo ra toutoi ou[v\pootoi rtrpoi]
12 yuvoix. uarp ev [raoiqooqv tqv]
13 xot outou xoto[oqoiv toi ra tev]
14 toaev iooxpt[oi ca. 5 oio to q ?]
15 iouriv r p[
16 traces

To Demophon, chief judge and superintendent of the
chrematistai and the other courts, from Senyris,
daughter of Har[---], from the city of Oxyrhynchos in
the [Oxyrhynchite] nome. I am being wronged by
N.N., son of Pankrates, from [the same (city). For,
although I was living] with him under a [contract of
maintenance], by whom [Ive had] two children, [he
threw me out] and he doesnt even feed or [clothe us.
And] on top of that, he has [taken on another] woman.
For these reasons [I made the complaint] against him
to the local laokritai on account of my not being
able (?)

This papyrus originates from mummy cartonnage of unknown provenance and was part of a series of
purchases made by multiple universities from M. Fackelmann in the early 1980s.
2
It can be dated by

1
A condensed version of this article was presented at the 26th International Congress of Papyrology (August 21, 2010)
in Geneva and I benefitted immensely from comments and suggestions over the course of the week. I wish to thank
Charikleia Armoni, Andrea Jrdens, Demokritos Kaltsas, Dominic Rathbone, and Arthur Verhoogt for their advice in
preparing this edition. Jonathan McLaughlin, Ian Moyer, and David Ratzan read over drafts and offered constructive
criticism. I am especially grateful to Rodney Ast for giving me the opportunity to study this papyrus and for his assistance
along the way. The image is courtesy of Archives & Special Collections, Fordham University Library, Bronx, NY.
214 W. G. Claytor
hand to the middle of the second century BCE: P.Erasm. II 25 (152 BCE)
3
is a very close match and
some hands in the Pankrates archive (Trismegistos.org, archID 169) are also comparable.
4
The
suspected disappearance of the laokritai sometime in the the first century BCE
5
is a very rough
terminus ante quem. An almost certain terminus post quem is the apparent fusion of the office of the
archidikastes with that of the apo t[i rairiroi tev pqotiotev xo tev oiiev xpitqpev
sometime after 156 BCE (see discussion below).
P.Fordham inv. 5 is a petition from one Senyris, daughter of Har[---], from the polis of Oxyrhyn-
chos (but see commentary, ll. 5-6, for this identification) to the archidikastes Demophon. Senyris
claims that she is being wronged by N.N. son of Pankrates, undoubtedly her husband and the father of
their two children. While the precise interpretation of her plea is impeded by the loss of the right half
and bottom of the papyrus, certain aspects are clear enough.
After mentioning their two children (l. 9), Senyris claims that her husband is providing neither food
nor clothing (as I have restored it), presumably for Senyris and the children. An additional charge
involves something the son of Pankrates has done with a yuv\ (ll. 11-12): one can easily conclude that
he has taken on another woman as his wife or concubine.
6

The narrative then moves to the sphere of legal proceedings. It seems that Senyris is recounting the
legal steps that she had already taken against the son of Pankrates before the present petition to the
archidikastes himself, which involved a formal complaint (xotooqoi?) to the local laokritai (ll. 12-
14). The final legible line of the text might emphasize Senyris legal and/or social weakness compared
to her husband; the rest of the papyrus is lost.
An immediate point of interest in this text is the appearance of another Ptolemaic archidikastes:
Demophon joins Dionysios Timonaktos
7
(OGIS I 136, probably 175-145 BCE) and Ptolemaios
8

(P.Ashm. I 23 = SB XIV 11411, 84 BCE) as the only named archidikastai from the Ptolemaic period.
The office goes back to the 3
rd
century BCE,
9
but is much better known in the Roman period, with
significant attestations appearing already in the time of Augustus.
10


2
A museum archaeology investigation of the early 1980s acquisitions from M. Fackelmann would perhaps yield
interesting results. For information on Princetons 1982 purchases and good pictures of the cartonnage before dismantling,
see A. E. Hanson, Papyri in the Princeton University Collections: the New Acquisitions, Princeton University Library
Chronicle, vol. 44., no. 2 (Winter 1983), 159-68 (available online: http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/pulc/
index.html). See also the letters of L. Koenen regarding his purchases from Fackelmann for the University of Michigan made
in the same year: http://www.lib.umich.edu/MPC/Reports/.
3
See plate III in the edition.
4
E.g. P.Tebt. I 32 (145 BCE) and SB XVI 12720 (142 BCE). For images of the Tebtynis papyrus, see the Papyrological
Navigator (http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.tebt;1;32/); images of the latter papyrus, held in Milan, can be found at
O. Montevecchi, Papiri documentari dell'Universit Cattolica di Milano, Aegyptus 63, plate I (after p. 96) and O. Monte-
vecchi, Scripta Selecta (Milan 1998), plate III.
5
See H. J. Wolff, Das Justizwesen der Ptolemer (Mnch.Beitr. 44, 2nd ed. 1970), 86 and 89. But cf. S. Allam,
Egyptian Law Courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic Times, JEA 77 (1991), 126 n. 96 for possible evidence for the con-
tinuance of these courts into the early Roman period.
6
Rowlandsons comments on BGU VIII 1848 (discussed below) apply also to this document: it is unclear whether
Apollonios arrangement in Alexandria is to be construed as extra-marital concubinage or as a second marriage.
J. Rowlandson, Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook (Cambridge 1998), 170.
7
Pros.Ptol. 7916, add.
8
Pros.Ptol. 7919b, add.
9
P.Hal. 10.1 (III BCE) has x]pvevtoi opioix[oot.
10
For a list of attestations, see P. J. Sijpesteijn, The Family of the Tiberii Iulii Theones (Studia Amstelodamensia 5:
Amsterdam 1976), 129 ff and the supplemental list at P. J. Sijpesteijn - K. A. Worp, P. Lond. inv. 2175: A Full Edition,
ZPE 110 (1996), 181 ff.
P.Fordham inv. 5: A Ptolemaic Petition to the Archidikastes 215
Early on, scholars noted that the chrematistai of the archidikastes title became extinct in the
Roman period,
11
and rightly surmised the antecedence of a Ptolemaic official for whom this title would
have been meaningful.
12
Strabos muddled account of Egyptian administration,
13
however, led some to
suggest that the archidikastes was merely an Alexandrian municipal official,
14
an idea which P. Jouguet
and W. Schubart dismantled convincingly.
15

But the near absence of archidikastai from Ptolemaic documentation led to speculation that the
office was more limited prior to the Roman period. W. Schubart suggested that their Ttigkeit
erstreckte sich nur auf die Ernennung und Verteilung der Richter, sowie auf allgemeine Regulative.
16

No positive evidence emerged from published papyri until P.Ashm. 23 (= SB XIV 11411, 84 BCE)
showed that the archidikastes could be involved in the legal concerns of the chora. The present
document demonstrates that Egyptians of the chora could also appeal directly to the archidikastes and
provides another positive statement of the archidikastes extensive and important powers. There can
now be no doubt that he was the kings deputy charged with overseeing the work of the entire judicial
system, as Roger Bagnall maintained in Ptolemaic Possessions.
17

If my dating to the second century is accepted, this is the earliest attestation of the archidikastes
full title, reflecting his supervision of the chrematistai and other courts. This title clearly resulted from
an amalgamation of functions, but until recently nothing could be said about when or how this took
place. In 2005, Charikleia Armoni published an enteuxis,
18
dated to 156 BCE, or shortly thereafter, in
which we see apo t[i rairiroi tev pqotiotev without archidikastes preceding it. Armoni
comments: falls die Auslassung der Bezeichnung opioixoot\ nach dem Hoftitel in unserem
Dokument nicht auf einen Schreiberfehler zurckzufhren ist, scheint der apo t[i rairiroi tev
pqotiotev noch in der Mitte des 2. Jhs. v.Chr. einen separaten, mglicherweise dem Archidikastes
untergeordneten Posten innegehabt zu haben.
19

Further evidence has just now come to light: Armoni has alerted me to a series of unedited texts in
the Cologne collection from the 180s BCE that show a certain Protarchos as supervisor of the
chrematistai without the title of archidikastes.
20
It is now nearly certain that these posts were separate
before the middle of the second century BCE. If this is indeed the case, the present papyrus can be
securely dated to after 156 BCE and is the first reflection of this bureaucratic merger. Together these
texts offer an exciting new basis for future discussions of the Ptolemaic archidikastes and Ptolemaic
legal and administrative history more generally.
In the Roman period, the archidikastes heard complaints arising from private contracts (ouye
p\ori) and was in charge of the katalogeion in Alexandria, the record office where these contracts

11
On this process, see H. J Woolf, Organisation der Rechtspflege und Rechtskontrolle der Verwaltung im Ptole-
misch-Rmischen gypten bis Diokletian, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 34 (1966), 34-6.
12
See, e.g., P. Koschaker, Der Archidikastes, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische
Abteilung) 28 (1907), 257. A. Calabi, Lopioixoot\ nei primi tre secoli della dominazione romana, Aegyptus 32 (1952),
418-9, in an otherwise excellent article, rashly interpreted the supervision reflected in the title as a result of Augustan
reforms, as at the time of her writing the earliest attestation of the full title was BGU IV 1111 (= C.Pap.Gr. I 2, 15 BCE).
13
Strabo 17.12.16 ff. includes the archidikastes among four officials in Alexandria (xoto aoiiv) who were holdovers
from the Ptolemaic administration (raiepioi opovtr). Strabo seems to suggest that these were municipal officials, but cf.
P. Jouguet, La Vie Municipale dans lgypte Romaine (Paris 1911), 170, who points to the ambiguity of his terminology.
14
Koschaker 1907, 256-7.
15
Jouguet 1911, 170; W. Schubart, Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus, Archiv 5 (1913), 69-70.
H. J. Wolff 1970, 75, n. 45b rightly supports this interpretation.
16
Schubart 1913, 68.
17
R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Leiden 1976), 7.
18
C. Armoni, Archiv 51 (2005), 208-227 (P.Heid. inv. G 5017).
19
Ibid., 224. Similar remarks can be found in Armonis P.Heid. IX 429.
20
Personal communication, October 27, 2010.
216 W. G. Claytor
were catalogued.
21
There is far less evidence from the Ptolemaic period, but the chrematistai were
clearly connected to the katalogeion,
22
and it is safe to assume that the Ptolemaic archidikastes also
oversaw this record office in Alexandria. The present document shows that he was petitioned directly
concerning contract disputes, like his later Roman counterpart.
The contract in this case was almost certainly a ouyypoq tpoiti, an Egyptian marriage contract
that stipulated a regular maintenance of food and clothing for the wife. We have many such Demotic
contracts extent, as well as Greek abstracts of them.
23
Pestman analyzed these contracts, dividing them
into three categories.
24
His types B and C always include a clause of maintenance for the wife.
25
The
contract takes the form of a unilateral declaration from the man to the woman, acknowledging that he
has received a sum of silver from her, that all his property is security for this sum, and that he will
provide her with a monthly maintenance (literally, food and clothing, q bs). From the latter pro-
vision stem the Greek terms for these contracts.
26

If I am correct in identifying the underlying contractual arrangement as a ouyypoq tpoiti, this
text joins a short list of petitions from women concerning such contracts.
27
They appear in each century
of Ptolemaic rule, from different locations, and are addressed to different officials, all of which give the
impression that this type of petition was not altogether rare. They generally concern the womans
attempt to re-secure the property handed over to her husband as part of the marital contract, which we
should see as the ultimate purpose of Senyris complaint in the present case.
Since I will be referring to these petitions frequently, I have reproduced the key information about
them below in Table 1.


Text Date (BCE) Petitioners
Residence
Official Contract Notes
SB XVI 12687 End III Arsinoite nome King (enteuxis) ouyypoq ouvoixioou 420 dr. (= 21 deben)
dowry, monthly food
and clothing
allowance
P.Tebt. III.1 776 Early II Oxyrhyncha oixovoo ouyypoq Aiyuato tpoiti Husband trying to
sell house pledged as
security for wifes
payment and her
tpo\
P.Ford. inv. 5 Later II Oxyrhynchos opioixoot\ ouyypoq tpoiti ( ?)
SB XX 14592 76 Panopolis o ra tou voou ouyypoq Aiyuato
BGU VIII 1826 ca. 51 Herakleopolis otpotqyo xo
ra tev apooooev
tpoiti ouyypo\ / ouy-
ypoq Aiyuato tpoiti
In consequence of a
decision of the
chrematistai
BGU VIII 1827 ca. 51 Herakleopolis otpotqyo xo
ra tev apooooev
ouyypoq Aiyuato tpoiti In consequence of a
decision of the
chrematistai

21
For a succinct overview, see L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (Routledge 2005),
38-9. The last detailed treatment of the Roman archidikastes was A. Calabi 1952, cited above, n. 12.
22
Wolff 1970, 65.
23
For the Ptolemaic abstracts, see especially P.Aust.Herr.
24
P. W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt (Pap.Lugd.Bat IX, Leiden 1961), 21 ff.
25
Ibid., 145.
26
There are variations, but most emphasize the maintenance provision of the contract. See Table 1 above.
27
U. Yiftach-Firanko, Marriage and Marital Arrangements: A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt, 4th
Century BCE - 4th Century CE (Mnch.Beitr. 93 2003), 33 n. 28 gives a list of petitions concerning marriage contracts in
general.
P.Fordham inv. 5: A Ptolemaic Petition to the Archidikastes 217
Text Date (BCE) Petitioners
Residence
Official Contract Notes
SB VI 9065 ca. 50/49 Herakleopolis (?) Queen (enteuxis) ouyypoq Aiyuato tpoiti Seeking return of her
dowry after death of
husband, asks for
trial before
chrematistai
BGU VIII 1849 ca. 47 Herakleopolis otpotqyo xo
ra tev apooooev
Aiyuato tpoiti

Table 1. Ptolemaic petitions from women concerning a ouyypoq tpoiti

1 ^q[o]evti opi[oixoot[i This name is rare in Ptolemaic Egypt, so it is tempting to connect this figure to the
Demophon whose son Heroides
28
gained prominence as a military commander and administrator in Upper Egypt in the
period 152-142 BCE.
29
This identification, however, is far from certain. For the latest list of all known archidikastai,
see n. 10 above.
3 We might expect Demophon to carry an aulic title, but these usually appear after the name and before the office. It is
possible that the scribe forgot the aulic. In any case, if Demophons full title is restored correctly, there is a gap at the
end of the third line. Gaps after titulature are common enough in all periods (e.g. P.Tebt. I 51, ca. 113 BCE). For an
example in a document written to the well-known archidikastes under Augustus, Artemidoros, see BGU IV 1111
(= C.Pap.Gr. I 2, 15 BCE).
4 r] supplied in reference to l. 7.
1-4 ^q[e]evti aopo 2rvupio A common form of address for Ptolemaic petitions to all officials: see A. di Bitonto,
Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico, Aegyptus 48 (1968), 63-64.
4 2rvupio t[ Ap[ The upsilons in this hand are distinguishable from the taus by their slightly higher starting position,
as is apparent here. It is thus preferable to read the much more common name Senyris rather than Sentris, attested
only twice (P.Achm. 9.188 and P.Oxy. VI 984.378). (T)senyris is a common female name that means daughter of
Horos,
30
corresponding to the male Psenyris. Senyris is also attested in the Roman period as a village in the upper
toparchy of the Oxyrhynchite nome (Trismegistos.org, GEO ID 2894). As for the fathers name, the long descender of
the rho is clear. This writer has two rhos, one with a long descender and well-defined hook, which comes after alphas
(ll. 1 and 4) and once after a pi (l. 2), and one with a short descender, after other letters. The trace of ink before the rho
is faded, but it appears to be the thin loop of an alpha,
31
which would fit this pattern. It likely produces a name,
moreover, that is semantically related to the daughters:
32
Egyptian names
33
beginning op generally correspond to
Demotic r, Horos, which would give both father and daughter a Horos-derived theophoric name. I have not been
able to connect this Senyris to a known individual.
5-6 Oupuyev aoire[ tou Oupuytou] | voou This restoration of a redundant toponymic formula finds two secure
parallels, both 1
st
-century CE petitions: P.Oxy. XLIX 3466 (to the archidikastes, without voou) and 3468 (to the
prefect, probably with voou).
34
Many, but not all, Ptolemaic contracts refer to the city as Oupuyev aoii t[
Oqoioo (as early as the mid-third century: SB XII 11059). Since this document is the only petition that is certainly
from Ptolemaic Oxyrhynchos,
35
it is impossible to be certain that the Thebaid designation was the proper one for
petitions as well. If it was, the scribe made the understandable mistake of writing the superfluous nome name, knowing,
at least, that he needed additional specification after the city name itself.
It is significant, however, that the two certain Roman parallels were also petitions to Alexandria. There may not have
been anything odd in writing Oxyrhynchos of the Oxyrhynchite (nome) when petitioning the capital, though it

28
Pros.Ptol. 259a, add.
29
See esp. OGIS I 111 (152-145 BCE), where he describes himself as Tpeioq ^qoevto Hr p[yo]qvo | tev
oiooo[e]v xo \yrev r[a o]vopev | xo poupopo 2u\vq [xo yrpp]ouio | xo ra tev ove toaev [trtoy-
rvo] xo | apo\tq xti. (ll. 14-18).
30
Sen- (and Psen-) names seem to become much more common in the 2
nd
century BCE: W. Clarysse and D. J.
Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (Cambridge 2006), vol. II, 334 ff.
31
Cf. the alpha at the end of aoioo in l. 9, which also has a very thin loop. It also possible that this trace is stray ink,
but names beginning with rho are uncommon, especially when Roman names are excluded.
32
This phenomenon is common, at least for fathers and sons: Ibid., 330-1.
33
A Greek name is less likely, but cannot be ruled out. Ibid., 325 gives five instances of irregular filiations of a father
with a Greek name and a daughter with an Egyptian name.
34
The editors do not comment on this rare designation or refer to P.Mert. III 104.2, an early Roman draft of a petition
to a high official, which probably also has this formulation in abbreviated form (see below).
35
P.Hib. II 237 (246-221 BCE) is possibly from Oxyrhynchos.
218 W. G. Claytor
seemingly was not required.
36
The editor of another possible example, P.Mert. 104, doubted the possibility of his
reading in l. 2: tev o a O(upuyev) tou O up(uytou) (the parallels were not yet published). This petition,
however, was to some member of the central government, perhaps the prefect, and mentions a judgment of the
archidikastes. This clearly links it to the other two Roman petitions with this formulation and to the present, Ptolemaic,
petition, and makes the editors reading more probable.
A less likely solution is that the village of Oxyrhyncha is here being referred to as a polis, in imitation of its metropolis,
a phenomenon known from other Fayum villages.
37
One might expect the meris of Polemon to follow, but
occasionally the meris-designation is omitted (e.g. P.Bingen 35.4-5). While the town is given the masculine form
Oupuyo in a handful of documents,
38
there are no attestations of Oxyrhyncha being referred to as a polis.
With the support, then, of the early Roman parallels for Oxyrhynchos of the Oxyrchynchite, I prefer this solution to
positing a new designation for the Fayum village of Oxyrhyncha.
6 For the varying methods of employing ooixrioUoi to introduce the case, see A. di Bitonto, Le petizioni al re,
Aegyptus 47 (1967), 14-15 (rvtruri) and Le petizioni ai funzionari nel periodo tolemaico, Aegyptus 48 (1968), 68-9
(uaov\oto).
7 Ho yxpotou Since we are in the increasingly mixed ethnic milieu of the second-century,
39
it does not seem prudent to
simply take this Greek name at face value and assume that Pankrates and his son were of Greek origin, especially
without any context beyond this document. Given the Egyptian marriage contract, in fact, it seems much more likely
that this family was of Egyptian origin. The Demotisches Namenbuch does not list a Hoyxpotq, but there are two
similar Egyptian names, Hoxpotq and Hopotq, which correspond to Demotic pa-r (der des [gttlichen]
Kindes)
40
or p-r (das Kind).
41
It is very unlikely, however, that Hoyxpotq is a rendering of one of these
Egyptian names.
The possibility that Pankrates is the well-known o apo tp ouvtori (Trismegistos.org, archID 169) is remote if this
document is indeed from the Oxyrhynchite.
[t[ out[. Nearly assured because of the limited space.
ouvouoq] Cf. P.Tebt. III 776.5, an early II BCE petition concerning a ouyypoq tpoiti, the narrative portion of
which begins: ouvouoq [o]u ^iouei Hrtri[o]uUou tev rx t[ out[ xeq [xo]t o ouyypoqv Aiyuatov
t[po]itiv. The verb is standard for cohabitation between husband and wife, as in the Dryton wills (e.g., P.Dryton 4.4
etc.).
8 y[op ou] The traces fit either a gamma or a sigma.
o[uyypoqv tpoitiv] The restoration here is an abbreviated form (to fit the available space), found in four Ptolemaic
documents,
42
of the standard ouyypoq Aiyuato tpoiti, the most precise Greek term for this type of maintenance
contract. Another possible restoration is ouyypoqv Aiyuatov, a generic term for a contract in Demotic. In SB XVI
12687.5, a late third century BCE enteuxis, the petitioner Tenes refers to such a contract of maintenance as a ouyypoq
ouvoixioou, couching the arrangement in Greek terms.
9 r ou xti. The sense must be by whom also I have (or, have borne) two children, but there is some difficulty in
establishing the exact verb. It should be relatively short, however, because the xo beginning the next line implies a
finite verb at the end of this line, correlated to the ou outr phrase. BGU VIII 1849.12-14, another ouyypoq tpoiti
petition, offers a possible solution: ryporv oi Aiyuatov t po itiv, r ou xo roqxuio trxvo o. The substitution of
the participle for the indicative is known in the papyri and the New Testament,
43
but this relatively rare phenomenon
should not be imported into the reconstruction of the present text. I prefer instead an indicative form of re and, given

36
P.Oxy. I 38 (49-50 CE), for example, just has the city name.
37
The key difference, of course, is that these towns are regularly referred to as poleis. A search for polis in K.U.
Leuvens Fayum Project (http://www.trismegistos.org/fayum) returns eight such towns attested in the Ptolemaic period.
38
SB XXVI 16742 (ca. 140/39 BCE), P.Erasm. II 41, 46, 50, and 53-5 (152-148 BCE). Cf. W. Clarysse, Graeco-
Roman Oxyrhyncha, a Village in the Arsinoite Nome, in S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (edd.), Graeco-Roman Fayum
Texts and Archaeology: Proceedings of the Third International Fayum Symposion, Freudenstadt, May 29June 1, 2007
(Wiesbaden 2008), 56.
39
See W. Peremans, Noms de personne et nationalit dans lgypte ptolmaque, Le Muson 59 (1946), 241-52 and
Sur lidentification des gyptiens et des strangers dans lgypte des Lagides, Ancient Society 1 (1970), 25-37, among
much of his work on this problem.
40
E. Lddeckens et al., Demotisches Namenbuch (Wiesbaden 1980-2000), 411.
41
Ibid., 211.
42
SB XIV 16155 (= P.Haw.Dem. 14) [98 BCE], a Greek registration of a Demotic marriage contract and UPZ 118.9
(147, 136, or 83 BCE); BGU VIII 1826.13 (where it is restored) and 1827.31 have tpoitiv ouyypo\v.
43
B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens 1973), 372; J. H. Moulton et al., A Grammar
of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh 1908), 222 ff. E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemerzeit
(Berlin and Leipzig 1906-38), II, 1, 341 ff. recognizes the phenomenon, but interprets it as anacoluthon or indicates phonetic
or syntactic grounds for the use of the participle.
P.Fordham inv. 5: A Ptolemaic Petition to the Archidikastes 219
considerations of space, a past tense: either roov
44
or, less likely, roqxo.
45
Other reconstructions are conceivable,
but longer verbs, such as aoiooaoire or trxvoaoire, will not fit, despite good parallels.
46

[rroir
47
r] As mentioned above, the xo beginning the next line suggests a correlated charge against the son of
Pankrates at the end of this line. The throwing out (rxoiiriv) of a wife is a common charge against husbands: BGU
VIII 1820.7-10 (56/55 BCE) has rroir r [r]x t[[] oix o[ ouo` ra tout]qi \pxr ot oi ouor[v oi aopror te]v
orovtev xo iotioou. Another possible reconstruction is that the son of Pankrates had abandoned Senyris to live
with the other woman mentioned in l. 12.
48
Much would seem to depend on whether this marriage was virilocal or
uxorilocal. In P.Oxy. II 281 (20-50 CE), for example, the wife claims that she received her husband into the home of
her parents, but he abused and eventually abandoned her. As most marriages in Ptolemaic (and Roman) Egypt were
virilocal,
49
however, it is more likely that Senyris was thrown out, rather than abandoned.
10 xo ou outr Following the outr is the trace of a letter, a vertical line, after which the surface of the papyrus is
stripped (so the blank space is only apparent, not real). There is a dark horizontal line, partially obscured by plaster,
above the epsilon and traces of another line stretching from the ri of the verb to the beginning of outr; the significance
of these marks, if any, is unclear.
These negations can be taken in one of two ways: either as a correlation, indicating that a verb correlated to tprri
follows (i.e., he neither feeds nor );
50
or the outr could introduce the first of a pair of correlated, negated objects
(i.e., he feeds neither X nor Y).
The vertical line should be read as an iota, in which case one thinks of the common pairing of tprriv and iotriv in
marriage, wet-nursing, and apprenticeship contracts. A common clause in Greek marriage contracts spells out the duty
of the man to feed and cloth his wife: e.g., BGU IV 1050.12-13 (12-11 BCE): tprriv xo | iotriv tqv Toioepov e
yuvoixo yo[rtqv] xoto ouvoiv. Yet more important for the present text are the terms of a ouyypoq tpoiti,
which have a clause whereby the man guarantees to provide maintenance (literally, food and clothing, q bs) for his
wife (see discussion in introduction above). The exact terms of this maintenance are occasionally spelled out in the
petitions concerning ouyypoo tpotior.
51

11 apo ra The writer does not otherwise break up words between lines, so it is unlikely that apoo is a word ending. Nor
is this a mistake for the adverb apoorti (attested securely at P.Tebt. III.1 728.4), given the following toutoi.
This doubling of prepositions, the first of which should be taken adverbially, adds indignant emphasis to Senyris
complaint, reflected in my colloquial translation, on top of that.
52
This combination is not attested again in published
documentary papyri until the time of Diocletian, whereafter it becomes somewhat common.
53
The phrase is found,
however, as early as Aristophanes (Ploutos 1001) and in a fragment of the fourth-century comic poet Anaxilas (frag. 24
Kock), and then next in the Septuagint (Sir. 29:25),
54
indicating its advent and persistence in everyday speech. In all
these cases, and in many Byzantine examples, xo precedes the phrase, as restored here at the end of line 10.
This last-mentioned example from the book of Ben Sira in the Septuagint is even more significant because the trans-
lator, Ben Siras grandson, lived and worked in 2
nd
-century Egypt: in his prologue, he claims to have come to Egypt in

44
Cf. P.Oxy. LIV 3770.5 (334 CE): r [ xo uiov ror v opp[r]vo; SB XXII 15800 (323 CE): r [ roov aoioo
ouo. The LSJ cites Nic.Dam. (fl. late I BCE) 11J: aoioo rorv, she had, i.e. bore, a child.
45
Cf. P.Mich. III 203.32 (114-116 CE): xo ri trxvov roqxrv ypoov oi.
46
P.Tebt. II 334.8-9 (200-1 CE) has r ou xo <r>aoioo|[aoiqooqv ao]ioo ouo and, in the one Ptolemaic example
of this verb, a woman complains that her husband sailed off to Alexandria and rtrpoi r[xri ou]v\ p[oot]oi yuvoix, r [ |
xo araoiooaoqx[r (BGU VIII 1848.17-18 [48-46 BCE]). trxvoaoire is the standard verb in Greek marriage contracts,
going back to P.Eleph. 1, in the clause prohibiting the man from having a child by another woman: qor trxvoaoirioUoi
r oiiq yuvoixo. See Yiftach-Firanko 2003, 312 ff.
47
rreor would fit just as well, but the verb appears only once in Ptolemaic papyri (P.Hels. I 4 D,2.7) and not in this
type of context.
48
For documents related to spousal abandonment, see Yiftach-Firanko 2003, 187 n. 13.
49
The assumption in the marriage contracts is that the husband might throw out (rxoiiriv) his wife (Yiftach-
Firanko 2003, 199). Census evidence supports this assumption of the marriage contracts: see Clarysse and Thompson 2006,
II, 295; for the Roman period, see R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge 1994),
121-2.
50
The correlation of ou outr instead of outr outr appears already in Classical Greek and is somewhat frequent in
Ptolemaic papyri: Mayser, Grammatik II, 3, 170-1.
51
E.g., SB XVI 12687.6 ff.
52
We can compare this rhetorical strategy to BGU 1820.7-10, quoted above ad l. 9, where the petitioner follows her
claim of being thrown out of the house with nor did this satisfy him (ouo` ra tout]qi \p xro toi), before charging her
husband with not providing her with necessities and clothing.
53
A search (October 23, 2010) of the Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri (http://cpp.arts.kuleuven.be/index.php) retrieved
no parallels.
54
J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Gttingen 1965).
220 W. G. Claytor
the 38
th
year of King Euergetes (i.e. Ptolemy VIII, 132 BCE) and sometime later to have translated his grandfathers
book of wisdom into Greek (Sir.Prol. 27-36).
55
See below, ad 1.13, for another possible lexical connection to this
book.
ou[v\pootoi rtrpoi] This phrase is restored in reference to BGU VIII 1848.17 (Herakleopolite, 48-46 BCE, quoted
above ad l. 9), a petition to a strategos that shares some of the content and language of this text. ouvoporoUoi is the
regular verb in the clause of divorce contracts that gives permission to each party to marry another person (e.g. BGU IV
1103.23-4, 13 BCE, a synchoresis addressed to Protarchos o ra tou xpitqpou). This verb is supplied to fill the
available space; other verbs of marriage or cohabitation (e.g., ouvoixriv) are conceivable.
12 uarp ev The relative ought to refer to the above charges of 1) throwing Senyris out of the house 2) not caring for
Senyris and their children and 3) taking on another woman. The phrase introduces what I take to be a narrative of the
legal steps Senyris took leading up to this petition.
13 xoto[oqoiv Given the preceding phrase, against him (xot outou), and the reference to the laokritai below, the
more common word xotooi\, referring to payments of various kinds, does not fit. The word beginning xoto- in
line 13, then, ought to refer to a formal complaint, though whether as a verb or a noun is unclear.
Perhaps a helpful guide is an enteuxis from earlier in the century, in which the petitioner claims that his opponent
araoqtoi xotooqoiv ra tev iooxpitev xot` Auyio.
56
The noun occurs only here in published papyri, though its
first occurrence in Greek literature, interestingly enough, is in the book of Ben Sira (35:19),
57
referred to just above (ad
l. 11). Philo, Josephus, and Plutarch also employ it, occasionally as the object of the verb aoire,
58
as in the case of the
enteuxis. While the verb xotoooe is found in Klageschriften of the third century,
59
I have not been able to craft a
suitable verbal construction and thus prefer the parallel of the rare noun found in P.Hels. 1.1 and the Septuagint.
13-14 [toi ra tev] | toaev iooxpt[oi I doubt there is enough room for a more specific circumscription for the laokritai,
such as in P.Ryl. IV 572.43-5 (II BCE), where they are rv toi xotei toaoi (along with other officials). In any case,
topoi are often referred to without any further specification, especially when context makes the meaning clear.
60

Chrematistai are in fact given this circumscription in two Ptolemaic petitions concerning ouyypoo tpotior,
61
and
two other petitions besides.
62
The restoration here would mean local laokritai. Senyris is clearly referring to a
permanent board of laokritai, whose jurisdiction is geographically delimited, adding evidence outside the Fayum on the
functioning of these courts.
63

One might presume that the laokritai were involved because the contract of maintenance was written in Egyptian, yet
the other two petitions based upon such contracts before the suspected disappearance of the laokritai in the first century
BCE do not mention these native judges.
64

14-15 I read r with a poorly-formed mu (cf. the mu in l. 2), in which case I suggest that Senyris is stressing her own
incapability to proceed against the son of Pankrates. See Preisigke s.v. ioue, imstande sein, where P.Eleph. 17.22-7
is adduced: oio to or q riouriv (l. iouriv) outou xotooiriv to ioiao ovoopo. For p[ we might seek an
accusative noun (p\oto, pqotioov?) or a verb in the infinitive (pqotriv?). For the petitioning strategy of
self-deprecation, cf. P.Tebt. III.1 776.27-28 and more generally Di Bitonto 1968, 99.


W. Graham Claytor gclaytor@umich.edu
Department of Classical Studies
2160 Angell Hall 435 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003

55
See further J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville 1997), 23 ff.
56
P.Hels. 1.1.17-18 (194/3-180).
57
Note Ziegler 1965 re-arranges the Greek text to conform to the preserved Hebrew order and modern translations
generally follow this order. On the complicated textual tradition of this book, see Collins 1997, 42-44. The New English
Translation of the Septuagint, with excellent linguistic introductions to each book, is accessible at http://ccat.sas.upenn.
edu/nets/edition/.
58
E.g., Josephus Vit. 286.
59
PSI IV 440.19 (mid III BCE); VI 551r.2 (mid III BCE); P.Enteux. 83.5 (221 BCE).
60
E.g. SB I 5216.4 (39 BCE), in which the writer notes that the unfortunate Herakleides has died ra tev toaev, which
the editor translates as your district, as the next line makes clear: xo ro[t]iv rv toi aop` uriv vrxpoi.
61
SB XVI 12687.10 (end III BCE), where it is a super-linear insertion, and SB VI 9065.22 (after 50-49 BCE).
62
P.Fay. 11.25 (ca. 115 BCE) and P.Athen. 5.13 (I BCE).
63
See Wolff 1970, 52.
64
SB XVI 12687 (end III BCE) and P.Tebt. III.1 776 (early II).