Dokumentarische Texte der Berliner Papyrussammlung aus ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit (Zur Wiedereröffnung des Neuen Museums) || 2863. LETTER TO A PREFECT

2863.LETTERTOAPREFECT P.9579 18,319,1cm AD133orlaterPurchasedin1891 PlateXXVII Arsinoite(?) (SammlungBrugsch)

Thepapyrus iscompleteat the topandalmostcompleteatbothsides. It is,however, incomplete at the foot,where agooddealmusthavebeen lost.Theback isblank.Itiswritteninacompetentsemicursive,typicaloftheearlytomidsecondcentury. It was presented to the 14th International Congress of Papyrology atOxfordin1974byZbigniewBorkowski,buthispaperwasneverpublished.1Ihavehadthebenefitofbeingabletousehispreliminarytranscriptandcommentary.

Thetextisspecificallysaidtobeacopyofalettersenttotheprefect,PetroniusMamertinus,byanodoubtaskingforguidanceindeterminingacasewhichhadbeendelegatedtohimbytheprefect.Mamertinuswasinofficein133137(seeline2n.).Asthenumberofthepreviousyearinline18istoodamagedtoberead(and indeedmaynothavebeengiven, see thenote), the exact year towhich theletterbelongscannotbedetermined;but,tojudgefromthehandwriting,thiscopywasmadesoonafter itwaswritten.Theprovenanceof thepapyrus isnotstated,butitisprobablethatitoriginatedfromtheArsinoite(cf.line18n.).

Thecaseconcernedadisputeregardinganinheritance.Herakleides,describedas an , claims that he is entitled to the share of his deceasedmaternalgrandfathersinheritancewhichwaswilledtohismotherPtolemais.Histhreematernaluncles,however,contendthat,sincehismotherpredeceasedherfather,heisnotentitledtohersharebutthatthewholeofHerakleidesgrandfatherspropertybelongs to them. InresponseHerakleidesargues thathiscase issupportedbyanoftheemperor[i.e.Hadrian];buthisopponentsinsistthatthisisnotso.The text isdamagedat thispoint, so that thebasisof theirobjection isnot clear,thoughitcertainlyrelatestoEgyptianpracticeandtothefactthatHerakleideswasadaughtersson:seefurtherthenoteto lines1617.There is thenareference inlines 1821 to a comparable case, but these are too fragmentarily preserved toyieldconnectedsense;allthatwecanbesureofisthatalegalexpert,Dioskourides,wasinvolvedinacasewhichalsoconcerned.

We need to consider the papyrus along with another papyrus on the samesubject,BGU I19.Thispapyrus,whichrelates toacasewhichwascontemporarywiththepresentone,sinceitispreciselydatedtoAD135,arousedmuchdiscussionwhen itwas firstpublished. ItwasrepublishedasM.Chr.85(andelsewhere)andwasstudiedmostrecentlybyR.Katzoff, in:Pap.Kongr.XII,239242,whogivesa

1SeealsoA.Swiderek,Pap.Kongr.XIII,394395.

Brought to you by | provisional accountUnauthenticated | 193.140.109.10Download Date | 4/24/14 7:52 AM

2863.LettertoaPrefect 149

criticalaccountofearliercommentsonthepapyrusbyMommsenandothers.2 InBGUI19acertainChenalexas,describedasan(lineI13),claimstherighttoinheritherdeceasedfathersshareinthepropertyofherpaternalgrandmother.But her uncle and a cousin contend that she does not have this right, since herfatherpredeceasedhismother.Chenalexasinsiststhatherclaimissupportedbya of Hadrian (I 21). The refers the matter to Petronius Mamertinus,exactlyas in thepresent text,and theprefect instructshimto followthegrantofHadriananddecideinfavourofChenalexas.

InsomewaysBGUI19 isamirror imageof thepresent text: theplaintiff isawoman,seekingtorepresentherdeceasedfatherinrespectofhergrandmothersproperty. In our text the plaintiff is a man, seeking to represent his deceasedmother in respect of his grandfathers property. In both cases the parent of theplaintiffhaspredeceasedhisownparentandthisfactisconsideredcrucialbythedefendants.InbothtextswearedealingwithpeopledescribedasandareclearlyconcernedwithwhatwasEgyptianpractice,apracticewhichwasmodifiedbytheemperorHadrian.ThemoststrikingdifferenceisthatinBGUI19thegrandmother isdescribedashavingdied(II7),whilethegrandfather inourtextissaidtohavebequeathedashareinhispropertytotheplaintiffsmother(8).InBGUI19wehavetheprefectsdecision,whichisinfavouroftheplaintiff,whereasthedecisionislostinourtext.

WearesurelyjustifiedinsupposingthatHadriansgrant,calledainBGUI19,isthesameasthatreferredtointhepresenttext,whichwouldprovethatthegrantcameintheformofan.Katzoff,in:Pap.Kongr.XII,241,hasalreadyarguedthatthegrantwasunlikelytohavecomeinanimperialedict,asMitteishadsuggested.Hethought it likelytohavebeen inthe formofarescript,which is indeedpossible.InhisimportantarticleontheLibellusprocedure,WynneWilliamsremarksas follows: Emperorsaddressedepistles to thosewhohadwrittenepistles to them;private individuals of high social standingwrote epistles to and receivedepistlesfromemperors,aswellasofficialsandcities.3Theemperorisunlikelytohavewrittenaletterinresponsetoapetitionfroman.Thelettermay well have been written to the prefect himself, who perhaps sought theemperorsguidanceonhowtodealwithEgyptianpracticeinthissphere.WemaycompareBGU I 140=M.Chr. 373, an epistula fromHadrian to theprefect on therightsofsoldierschildren.Notetoothattheepistulainourtextissaidtohavebeenreportedinanedictoftheprefect(lines1415,ifthereadingisright).

QuitewhatHadriansgrantconsistedofhasbeendisputedinthediscussionsofBGUI19;butitclearlygavesomerightstoEgyptiansregardinginheritancewhichmaynothave existed inEgyptian law.Our textbrings the additional information

2NoteinparticularKreller,ErbrechtlicheUntersuchungen,158164,esp.163.3W.Williams,JRS64,1974,86103;thequotationisfrompp.8788.Inn.63onp.94helists

thesmallnumberofknownepistlesfromemperorstoprivateindividuals.


150 II.TexteausrmischerZeit

that therewas apparently different treatment in Egyptian practice for grandchildrenwhowerethechildren(orsonsonly?)ofdaughters.Wemaybesurethattheimplication of this is that daughters children were less favourably treated thansons children, or so at any rate Herakleides opponents claim. I am indebted toSven Vleeming and John Tait for advice, but neither has been able to quote anyDemoticsourceswhichthrowmuchlightontheproblem.Itwouldseemthatthereisnodirectevidenceinoursourcesforthesituationsrepresentedinthetwopapyri. P.Mattha4, col. ix, has variousprescriptions concerning inheritance, but on thewholeisnothelpful:seealsothenotetolines1617.

Themostlikelyscenario,Isuggest,isthattheunclesarguethatinEgyptianlaw(orsoIinterpretinline17)theoffspringofdaughterswerenotallowedtocoinheritwithsons.IncriticisingearlierviewsonBGUI19KatzoffmakestheinterestingpointthatthedistinctionwhichMitteisfindsbetweenmenandwomenseemsillogical.thesexoftheheirscouldconceivablyaffectthelawofrepresentation.Thelawshouldnotbeaffected,however,bythesexofthedecuius(Katzoff,in:Pap.Kongr.XII,240).Thiscould,Ibelieve,accountfortheinsistenceinthepresentpapyrusonthechildrenofadaughter:isitconceivablethattheuncleswere arguing that Hadrians grant concerned the sons (and daughters?) of sonsonly?IfHadrianreferredtochildrenandgrandchildrenbyusingthemasculine, itcouldbearguedthatheintendedhisgranttoapplytosonsonlyandnottodaughters.5ThismightaccountfortheprefectsdecisioninthecaseofChenalexas,whileleaving doubt in the case of Herakleides (but see the note to 1617). FurtherdiscussionoftheimplicationsofthesetextsforourknowledgeofEgyptianpracticemustbelefttospecialistsinEgyptianlaw.

1 . 2 [][][] 3 [] . 4 [] [][], ,[] 5 [] 6 [] []

4SeealsothemorerecenttranslationbyM.A.Stadler,RechtskodexvonHermupolis,in:TUATN.F.I,185207.

5ThissuggestionwasputforwardoverseventyyearsagobyA.M.Harmon,butseemstohaveattractedlittleattention.InYCS4,1934,135152HarmonpublishedtwoYalepapyri(inv.nos222and 225; now= SB VI 9317 A and B), referring to the registration by a son of property of hisdeceasedmotherwhodiedintestate.Thetextsdatefrom148andarethussubsequenttoHadriansgrant.Harmonstressesthatinthesetextsmustmeangrandchildrennotjustgrandsons,andwonderswhetherthismaythrowlightonBGUI19:if,however,theconstitutioofHadriansaidsimply,astheuncertaintyastoitsapplicationseems to indicate, the formula [in P.Yale]may be simply echoing thewording of the Emperor(YCS4,1934,146).



7 8 9 [] [][]10 [][]11 [][]12 [] 13 ,[]14 [] [][]15 [][][][][][][][c.23]16 [][][][][][c.23]17 [][][c.23]18 [][][][c.3]19 [][][c.34]20 [c.9][c.3][c.5]21 [c.10][c.12]22 [][

2PetroniusMamertinusisknownasprefectofEgyptfrom11Nov.133toAug./Sept.137:seeG.Bastianini,in:ANRWII10.1,1988,508,updatingG.Bastianini,ZPE17,1975,286288,andZPE38,1980,81.

3[]:thisseemstobethebestreadingofthenomen,astheupsilonlooksclear.]hasalsobeenconsidered,whichcouldpoint to ]oreven]. isnotaneasyreadingandthepapyrusisratherearlyforustoexpectthisnomen.NonamedHarpokrationisknown.

5:thesamewordisusedinBGUI19.14.8:thereisnomentionofawillinBGUI19,cf.theintrod.910|]:inthecontexttherestorationiscertain.11[]:possiblyatechnicalterminthecontext.InBGUIII896.6a

testator states [ ; cf.alsoP.Oxy.XLII3015.245, (also in connection with a case concerning Egyptianlaw).

1112ForusedwithseeP.Oxy.XLII3015quotedinthepreviousnote.

12]:thereistheendofahorizontalbeforethealpha,whichwellsuitstau; therestoration, therefore, ishardlyopen todoubt.LSJ recognisesan inscriptionaloccurrenceofthewordmeaning testamentarydisposition.Preisigke,WBIandKieling,WB IVdonot include thismeaning for thenounbutboth recordarelevantmeaningfortheverb(s.v.4).LSJalsorecordstheverbwith themeaning makeatestamentarydisposition,withpapyrologicalrefer


152 II.TexteausrmischerZeit

ences.InSBXX15147(referredtobelow,notetoline19)theverbmayhavethismeaning.

1314 Cf. BGU I 19 I 21,where the plaintiff .

1416 [] is a probable reading. For the construction cf., e.g., BGU I 194 =W.Chr. 84.1315, ` () ,andP.Oxy.VI899.3739,[sic][][].On thesignificanceof the fact thatHadriansgrantalmostcertainlytooktheformofanseetheintroduction.

15Afternodoubtor(wedonotwantareferencetoaatthispoint).

16ispresumablyHadriansletter.After[][][][thereadingisvery uncertain. I should be inclined to suspect , but hesitate toreadit.ThesensemaybethathisopponentsinsistedthatHadriansletterwasnotwrittenforthepurposewhichHerakleidesalleges,butwasinfactirrelevant.

1617itisveryunfortunatethatthepapyrusisincompleteatthispoint,whichwouldseemtobecrucial forunderstandingthenatureof theunclesobjectiontoHerakleides argument. I interpret asmeaning in Egyptian law., daughters sons (children?), would seem to imply that they weretreateddifferentlyinEgyptianlawfromsonssonsand,ifso,mayhavebeendisadvantagedinsomeway.Inwhichcasewewouldhavehereastatementbythedefendants.Attheendofline17theinfinitive][][isprobable.Isuggest,tentatively,thatwemightconsidersupplyinganexpressionsuchasor at theendof thepreceding line,with themeaning suggested in thetranslation.

I have been unable to find anything in Egyptian law directly relevant to thisproblem.InP.Matthacol.ixdealswithinheritancepractices,buthasnomentionofdaughterschildren.Inoneortwoplacesitindicatesthatadaughter,oraneldestdaughter,doesloseoutinthat(1)nodaughtercanhavetheroleofeldestdaughter if there is anymale child, however junior, to takeon the role; (2) the eldestdaughtercannotacquirethesharesofdeceasedchildren(hersiblings)inthewaythatan eldestsoncould;and(3)daughtersget topick theirshareafterall sons.Thusoveralldaughtersaredisadvantagedonlyinveryspecificways,noneofwhichisdirectlyrelevanttocasesofrepresentation.GenerallyP.Matthadoesnotdiscusssuchcases.Theonlyplacewhereitseemstorefertograndsonsrepresentingtheirdeceasedparentsinrespectoftheirgrandparentspropertyiscol.ix34,onwhichsee thenotebyHughes,whoadmits that theDemotic is ambiguous (P.Mattha, p.117,n.toline4).Ifhisinterpretationiscorrect,Katzoff(in:Pap.Kongr.XII,241;seethe introd. above), writing before P.Mattha had been published, is incorrect instatingthatinEgyptianlawthenotionofrepresentationwascompletelyabsent.ThisalsohasimplicationsforunderstandingBGUI19.



1718 therewouldhavebeen room for23 letters at the endof17.Possibly]|or]|?

18There ismorewrittenthan just thesymbol for,butthetracesaretooslighttopermitanyguessastotheactualyearnumber;andit ispossiblethatwehave just writtenout.Mamertinus is attestedasprefectduringpartor all ofHadriansyears1822(seenotetoline2).Afterwemayhaveareferencetotheconventus.

19[]:aofthisnamewiththenomenUlpiusisfoundinPSIV450(lines37and45),probablyintheminutesofatrialbeforetheprefect Sulpicius Similis (107112). Dioskourides alsooccurs in SBXX15147.8inconnectionwithacasewhichtookplaceinyear3ofthedeceasedHadrian (118/119). In theoriginalpublicationbyN.Lewis S.A. Stephens,ZPE88,1991,173175,heisidentifiedwiththemaninPSIV450andthenomen]issupplied.TheydonotrefertoP.Fouad25verso45,whichalsomentionsaof thisname, thoughthis timewithout thenomen;herehe isassociatedwiththestrategiaofNoumesianus,whichdatesfrom138142(seeWhitehorne,StrategiandRoyalScribes,3940).Asall fourcasesconcern lawsuitsdealingwith inheritance,itisverylikelythatthesameDioskouridesoccursinallfour.

1920Probablyor]|.Sincethiscasealsoinvolved,itcannothavebeenthecasereportedinBGUI19.

20 ispossible.21Probablynot[].

Translation Copyofaletter.

ToPetroniusMamertinus,viregregius,prefect,...iusHarpokration,judge,greetings.Resulting fromdelegation fromyou, lordprefect,Herakleides, a certainEgyp

tian,hada legal caseagainstHermiasandPtolemaiosandArtemidoros,his threematernal uncles, in pursuance of propertywhich hismother Ptolemais had beengrantedbyherfatherinawilltopossessafterhisdeath;andwhentheunclesasserted that their sisterhadpredeceasedher fatherandaccordingly affirmed thatthe right of testamentary disposition had reverted to him and that the fathersestatebelongedtothemalone,Herakleidesclaimedtobeaidedbytheepistulaofourlordemperorwhichwasincorporatedinanedictofyours.Withhisopponentsaffirming(?)thatit[i.e.theepistula]wasnotwrittenwiththatendinview(?)andthat it was not possible (?) among Egyptians for daughters sons to share in aninheritancewithsons inthepastx(?)yearheretoDioskouridesthe legaladviserhavingenquiredinasimilarcasedaughterssons.J.DavidThomas DurhamUniversity


Documents

Dokumentarische Texte der Berliner Papyrussammlung aus ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit (Zur Wiedereröffnung des Neuen Museums) || 2863. LETTER TO A PREFECT